Latest / Bloomberg Law / Oregon & Illinois Sue Trump & Senior Leaders Exit DOJ

Transcript

Oregon & Illinois Sue Trump & Senior Leaders Exit DOJ · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
0:09
Speaker 2: The place is burning down, and they pretend like there's
0:11
Speaker 2: nothing happening.
0:13
Speaker 3: The facts on the ground and Oregon haven't changed. There's
0:16
Speaker 3: no need for military intervention in Oregon. There's no insurrection
0:19
Speaker 3: in Portland. There's no threat to national security. Oregon is
0:22
Speaker 3: our home. It is not a military target.
0:25
Speaker 4: President Trump still maintains that Portland is burning to the
0:29
Speaker 4: ground and is war ravaged, despite what the Governor of Oregon,
0:33
Speaker 4: Tina Kotek, has said, and despite the fact that a
0:36
Speaker 4: federal judge found over the weekend that there were no
0:40
Speaker 4: facts to support Trump's claims that anarchists and professional agitators
0:45
Speaker 4: were trying to burn the city down. Judge Karen Immergut,
0:49
Speaker 4: a Trump appointee, issued two orders in two days. The
0:53
Speaker 4: first block the Trump administration from deploying Oregon National Guard
0:58
Speaker 4: troops to Portland, but the judge said the administration directly
1:03
Speaker 4: contravened that order by calling up the California Guard, so
1:07
Speaker 4: she issued a second order, blocking the administration from sending
1:12
Speaker 4: any National Guard troops into Portland. Oregon's Attorney General, Dan
1:17
Speaker 4: Rayfield described the administration's actions as whack a mole trying
1:22
Speaker 4: to use guard units from different states to get around
1:25
Speaker 4: court orders and the rule of law. The judge's order
1:29
Speaker 4: was not some minor procedural point for the president to
1:33
Speaker 4: work around like my fourteen year old does when he
1:35
Speaker 4: doesn't like my answers. Judge Immergut's ruling found that the
1:39
Speaker 4: Constitution leaves policing powers to state and local governments, while
1:45
Speaker 4: granting Congress the power to call up state militias to
1:49
Speaker 4: execute federal laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. Quote. This
1:55
Speaker 4: is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law. My
2:00
Speaker 4: guest is constitutional law expert Harold Krent, a professor at
2:04
Speaker 4: the Chicago Kent College of Law. So, how quite an
2:08
Speaker 4: opinion from a Trump appoint de and she said the
2:11
Speaker 4: administration had violated her order. It seems like this is
2:15
Speaker 4: a direct contravention of the order this court issued yesterday.
2:20
Speaker 4: Tell us what the Trump administration was trying to do here.
2:24
Speaker 5: The Trump administration, somewhat parallel to Los Angeles and perhaps
2:28
Speaker 5: to Chicago as well, is trying to send National Guards
2:32
Speaker 5: troops into Portland in what they think is an effort
2:36
Speaker 5: to restore order, and principally, the judge in Oregon said
2:41
Speaker 5: that there's been no basis shown for federalizing the National Guard.
2:47
Speaker 5: In other words, that President Trump lacks the authority under
2:50
Speaker 5: the statutory scheme to send National Guards into Portland because
2:55
Speaker 5: there's no insurrection, there's no invasion, there's no showing that
2:59
Speaker 5: there's a failure general law enforcement. And so she then
3:03
Speaker 5: decided to ensure that not only was there no troops
3:08
Speaker 5: sent from Oregon, no troops sent from California, no troops
3:12
Speaker 5: sent from anywhere, in order to ensure that the administration
3:17
Speaker 5: did not try to serve invent her order. Whether or
3:20
Speaker 5: not the government will comply with her order remains to
3:25
Speaker 5: be seen, but we're watching carefully.
3:27
Speaker 4: She said it was a direct contravention. But what had
3:30
Speaker 4: happened was she ordered that they couldn't send the Oregon
3:34
Speaker 4: National Guard troops into Portland. So the Trump administration then
3:38
Speaker 4: moved to call up the Texas National Guard and the
3:42
Speaker 4: California National Guard. Is that a direct contravention or were
3:46
Speaker 4: they trying to use a loophole.
3:49
Speaker 5: I think they're trying to use a loophole, and so
3:51
Speaker 5: I don't think it was any kind of contemptuous behavior. Certainly,
3:55
Speaker 5: it violated the spirit of the Oregon Courts order, but
3:59
Speaker 5: not the letter. And indeed, I think that the Oregon
4:05
Speaker 5: Court's decision is iffy to put it that way. It's
4:10
Speaker 5: true that the prerequisites for federalized in the National Guard
4:14
Speaker 5: had not been met statutorily, but the Supreme Court has
4:18
Speaker 5: recognized a kind of inherent protective power of the president
4:23
Speaker 5: to protect federal facilities at least, and so to the
4:27
Speaker 5: extent that the National Guard were used not for general
4:31
Speaker 5: law enforcement, certainly, but just to protect federal buildings in Portland,
4:36
Speaker 5: I think the president would be on stronger ground. Now,
4:39
Speaker 5: of course there's no factual predicate for thinking that the
4:41
Speaker 5: federal buildings are in jeopardy in Portland or in Chicago,
4:46
Speaker 5: but that at least would be I think put the
4:48
Speaker 5: president on the strongest legal ground.
4:51
Speaker 4: I mean, the judge made a factual determination. She said
4:55
Speaker 4: the president's determination was simply unchathered to the facts. He
4:59
Speaker 4: has claimed that the city's overrun with agitators and insurrectionists
5:04
Speaker 4: who are responsible for burning the city to the ground,
5:09
Speaker 4: and that Portland was war ravaged. So she's found that
5:14
Speaker 4: that's not true. Those facts that he suggested are not true.
5:18
Speaker 4: So then he doesn't have the power, does he.
5:20
Speaker 5: Yeah, the President's overreached, right, and the President should have
5:23
Speaker 5: made a much more narrow cabin decision stating that there
5:28
Speaker 5: was a potential or a real threaten in his understanding
5:31
Speaker 5: to federal facilities in Portland and therefore needed to dispatch
5:36
Speaker 5: National Guards troops in order to protect those buildings. But
5:39
Speaker 5: instead he is granted about Portland and anarchists for years
5:45
Speaker 5: and years, and he's just refreshing those means. And of
5:50
Speaker 5: course the court in Oregon was much more familiar with
5:53
Speaker 5: what's going on in Oregon, said, you know, if that's
5:56
Speaker 5: a factual basis, you're out of court.
6:00
Speaker 4: Why do you think that Trump administration is making these
6:03
Speaker 4: overbroad arguments about cities burning down and violence on the
6:08
Speaker 4: streets everywhere when there's no factual basis for it, and
6:13
Speaker 4: there's video that shows there's no basis. Any violence, if
6:17
Speaker 4: there is any, seems to be limited to the areas
6:21
Speaker 4: around federal buildings with ice facilities. Why not limit it
6:26
Speaker 4: to what's provable.
6:27
Speaker 5: I mean, there is a political question in underlying your statement,
6:31
Speaker 5: and maybe a psychological one as well. Is President Trump
6:35
Speaker 5: doing this to inure the American to the site of
6:40
Speaker 5: federal troops on their streets. If so, incredibly frightening, because
6:44
Speaker 5: it may mean that he's planning to use federal troops
6:48
Speaker 5: for other purposes, such as, you know, during I move
6:52
Speaker 5: the day, but during the midterms, or alternatively, is this
6:56
Speaker 5: just something that he can help his base within by
7:00
Speaker 5: suggesting he's strong and he cares about people, and he's
7:04
Speaker 5: going to send troops wherever it's needed to protect against lawlessness.
7:08
Speaker 5: I don't know which it is, but certainly this has
7:12
Speaker 5: been a consistent team with his He wants to send
7:14
Speaker 5: troops to be tough, to be seen as the law
7:18
Speaker 5: and order president, even if troops aren't needed, and even
7:22
Speaker 5: if that violates statutes, and even if it undermines the
7:26
Speaker 5: tradition in our country of not having a standing army
7:30
Speaker 5: or even the National Guard being used for general law
7:33
Speaker 5: enforcement purposes.
7:35
Speaker 4: The Oregon Ag described this as a whack a mole,
7:39
Speaker 4: with different states Guard units being used to get around
7:43
Speaker 4: the court's order. The judge she expressed frustration with the
7:47
Speaker 4: Justice Department's lawyer, Eric Hamilton, saying he was missing the
7:50
Speaker 4: point of her earlier order, and she said, quote mister Hamilton,
7:55
Speaker 4: you're an officer of the court. Do you believe this
7:57
Speaker 4: is an appropriate way for you to deal with mind
8:00
Speaker 4: order or with an order you disagree with?
8:03
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, to be fair, I think that the
8:05
Speaker 5: Justice Department was reading the order narrowly, which it's entitled
8:08
Speaker 5: to do. And the order banned the Oregon National Guard
8:13
Speaker 5: from being federalized and didn't talk about the Texas National
8:17
Speaker 5: Guard or the California National Guard. And maybe that was
8:20
Speaker 5: just a failure of litigation, and that loophole has been
8:24
Speaker 5: closed forthwith. Certainly, again, it was against the spirit of
8:28
Speaker 5: the rulers, no question about it what the government did.
8:30
Speaker 5: But I don't think it's contemptuous.
8:32
Speaker 4: And explain the judge's ruling about why the deployment likely
8:38
Speaker 4: violated Oregon's Tenth Amendment rights.
8:41
Speaker 5: Well, the Oregon Governor isn't put in control of the
8:45
Speaker 5: National Guard of Oregon, and so here there is we
8:49
Speaker 5: have the president who's ordering the Oregon National Guard into
8:54
Speaker 5: active duty, despite the fact that the governor who's in
8:57
Speaker 5: charge of it, commander of it, has a client to
9:00
Speaker 5: do so. Therein lies the Tenth Amendment struggle, because seemingly
9:05
Speaker 5: the president has served the governor's authority to be, in
9:08
Speaker 5: effect the head of the troop's National Guard, at least
9:11
Speaker 5: within Oregon.
9:12
Speaker 4: On Sunday, California Governor Gavin Newsom filed a separate lawsuit
9:18
Speaker 4: to prevent Trump from sending his states National Guard to Oregon.
9:24
Speaker 4: So the national Guard is under the control of the
9:29
Speaker 4: governor of the state. So does the president have the
9:33
Speaker 4: authority to take that national Guard out of the control
9:37
Speaker 4: of the governor of the state and send them to
9:40
Speaker 4: another state.
9:41
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean I think that obviously we don't have
9:43
Speaker 5: precedents on that power, and certainly I would think in
9:47
Speaker 5: an emergency, perhaps the authority might exist in the president
9:51
Speaker 5: to order a state's National Guard into active duty, even
9:57
Speaker 5: if the governor didn't want to. And this seems like
9:59
Speaker 5: a a far stretch, And that's why the temp amendment
10:02
Speaker 5: issue arises, because here there is a claim that the
10:07
Speaker 5: California the National Guard is needed in a different state,
10:10
Speaker 5: and that seems to directly cut against unless there's a
10:13
Speaker 5: national emergency or an insurrection, the idea of ordering one
10:18
Speaker 5: state's guard to go into another state, particularly without the
10:22
Speaker 5: approval of the governor, seems to be directly contrary to
10:27
Speaker 5: the regime of militias, which has long been supervised by
10:31
Speaker 5: state governors from the revolutionary time onward.
10:34
Speaker 4: Representative Adam Smith, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee,
10:38
Speaker 4: has said that he couldn't remember another time when one
10:41
Speaker 4: state's national guard was deployed to another state over the
10:45
Speaker 4: objections of both governors involved. So no precedent, it's unprecedent.
10:51
Speaker 5: It's unprecedent here, and it seems to be directly an
10:55
Speaker 5: affront to the Tenth Amendments, which lodgist responsibility in states
11:00
Speaker 5: to their governors and to their elected representatives. But there's
11:03
Speaker 5: just hasn't been a lot of precedents on point, So
11:06
Speaker 5: obviously the court are going to have to weigh in.
11:08
Speaker 2: Donald Trump's deranged depiction of Chicago as a hellhole, a
11:14
Speaker 2: war zone and the worst and most dangerous city in
11:18
Speaker 2: the world was just complete bs. He clearly has decided
11:24
Speaker 2: to declare war on a great American city that has
11:27
Speaker 2: the lowest homicide rate in sixty years, in a state
11:31
Speaker 2: that has record employment and near record tourism.
11:36
Speaker 4: That's Governor JB. Pritzker. As Illinois becomes the latest state
11:41
Speaker 4: to sue the Trump administration over its plans to send
11:44
Speaker 4: National Guard troops into one of its cities against the
11:48
Speaker 4: wishes of state and local officials. I've been talking to
11:52
Speaker 4: Professor Harold Krant of the Chicago Kent College of Law,
11:56
Speaker 4: So how tell us what's happening in your city? Are there?
12:01
Speaker 5: I don't think they're there yet. The Attorney General has
12:03
Speaker 5: already filed suits. The Mayor of Chicago has made a
12:08
Speaker 5: vaguely worded statement like we must resist with all force,
12:12
Speaker 5: but no one knows what that means. So tensions are heightened,
12:17
Speaker 5: and we will expect to see National Guard troops from
12:21
Speaker 5: Texas evidently who will be coming to Chicago in nearboy
12:25
Speaker 5: And again, yet there has been problems with some kind
12:28
Speaker 5: of ICE enforcement. ICE has killed somebody in in Chicago,
12:32
Speaker 5: They've arrested other people and trying to make these raids,
12:36
Speaker 5: but there has been no complete falling apart of any
12:39
Speaker 5: kind of ordinary law enforcement. And indeed, there's been some
12:42
Speaker 5: evidence that ICE itself has instigated the protests by the
12:47
Speaker 5: manner in which they are trying to conduct raids. So again,
12:50
Speaker 5: this is I think for show. The President wants to
12:54
Speaker 5: be seen as tough in it if he wants to
12:57
Speaker 5: send troops into Chicago. He's, by god, he's going to
13:01
Speaker 5: do it, and Governor Abbott of Texas is willing to comply.
13:05
Speaker 5: So there's no Tenth Amendment violation there with using Texas
13:09
Speaker 5: National Guard troops.
13:10
Speaker 4: What's the basis of Illinois suit against the deployment, and.
13:15
Speaker 5: There's several bases, but they first would say that the
13:18
Speaker 5: statutory prerequisites are not met in terms of federalizing National Guard,
13:22
Speaker 5: in terms of there's no invasion, there's no absence of
13:25
Speaker 5: general law enforcement, there's no insurrection. And so then I
13:28
Speaker 5: think the issue will likely boil down to whether there
13:32
Speaker 5: is some kind of protective power inheriting the presidency that
13:35
Speaker 5: can allow the president to send troops, at least for
13:38
Speaker 5: the narrow purpose of defending federal facilities. This really gets
13:44
Speaker 5: us back to what Judge Bryer said in the California
13:48
Speaker 5: of litigation that if there is this protective power, it's
13:52
Speaker 5: very limited. It's limited to protecting federal facilities, and it
13:57
Speaker 5: cannot be used to justify a broad federal presence in
14:02
Speaker 5: terms of general law enforcement, in terms of accompanying ice
14:08
Speaker 5: officers on the along the way, et cetera, et cetera.
14:11
Speaker 5: So we may get involved in that, But that's that's
14:15
Speaker 5: down the road, because first there's a question of authorization.
14:19
Speaker 5: And you know, again President Trump is being too broad.
14:23
Speaker 5: He's saying there's lawlessness in Chicago, and that justifies him
14:27
Speaker 5: using the Texas National Guard. And that's if there's a
14:31
Speaker 5: factual predicate there to be decided. I'm sure the judges
14:35
Speaker 5: here will hear the evidence and they're very unlikely to
14:38
Speaker 5: back President Trump and his broad assertions.
14:41
Speaker 4: Did he also call up the Illinois National Guard?
14:45
Speaker 5: He has not done that yet to my knowledge, he
14:48
Speaker 5: has threatened to, and of course Governor Pritzker has has
14:51
Speaker 5: not only said that he would do over his objection,
14:55
Speaker 5: but at the same time he also said that the
14:58
Speaker 5: President Trump has not even called him to ask for permission,
15:02
Speaker 5: So that may happen down the line. Maybe it's already happened,
15:05
Speaker 5: but not to my knowledge, has.
15:07
Speaker 4: The Supreme Court even come close to resolving something similar
15:12
Speaker 4: in this sort of frame or not even close.
15:16
Speaker 5: And there are some vague similarities of what's happened under
15:19
Speaker 5: the Militia Acts back two hundred years ago, and there
15:23
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court has said that there is a protective
15:25
Speaker 5: power to some extent in the president to protect federal
15:28
Speaker 5: officials federal facilities, but nothing on this order, nothing on
15:32
Speaker 5: this extent. So this clash that President Trump was introduced
15:36
Speaker 5: in Oregon, Los Angeles and in Chicago is really unprecedented,
15:41
Speaker 5: and the course are going to have to make a
15:45
Speaker 5: very difficult decision in saying that. It's pretty clear that
15:48
Speaker 5: the statutory prerequisites have not been met. So I think
15:51
Speaker 5: they'll have to grapple with to what extent there's an
15:53
Speaker 5: implicit inherent authority at the president to protect federal officials
15:58
Speaker 5: and federal facilities and how far that extends. So very
16:03
Speaker 5: difficult issues for the courts to soar through, and obviously
16:05
Speaker 5: we've just had a beginning of that with the judges
16:08
Speaker 5: in California and Oregon.
16:11
Speaker 4: So last Tuesday, Trump said when he was addressing the
16:15
Speaker 4: military officers in Quantico that America is under invasion from
16:20
Speaker 4: within and he wants to use dangerous American cities run
16:24
Speaker 4: by Democrats as training grounds for the armed forces. Besides
16:29
Speaker 4: being frightening, does he have any authority.
16:32
Speaker 1: To do that?
16:33
Speaker 5: Well, what frightens me about that statement is is this
16:37
Speaker 5: is a training ground for what? Is this a dress
16:40
Speaker 5: rehearsal for a full scale attack on Democratic strongholds. Is
16:46
Speaker 5: this a rehearsal for getting us all prepared to see
16:51
Speaker 5: federal troops during the midterm elections. I mean, what is
16:55
Speaker 5: he actually preparing the military for. I don't know, but
17:00
Speaker 5: obviously this definitely cuts against our traditions, our norms about
17:05
Speaker 5: not having a standing army. And that's why we were
17:07
Speaker 5: afraid of having a standing army, because we've wanted to
17:10
Speaker 5: not see federal troops in the streets of all of
17:14
Speaker 5: our cities, both because of the respect given to states
17:19
Speaker 5: a state law enforcement and because of the dangers of
17:21
Speaker 5: having federal troops in civilian rules.
17:25
Speaker 4: There's a hearing date in the Illinois case on Thursday.
17:28
Speaker 4: We'll see what happens then. Thanks Hall. That's Professor Harold
17:32
Speaker 4: Krant of the Chicago Kent College of Law. At least
17:37
Speaker 4: a third of senior career leaders have left the Justice
17:41
Speaker 4: Department since the start of President Donald Trump's second term,
17:45
Speaker 4: taking with them centuries of combined expertise. That's according to
17:50
Speaker 4: a Bloomberg Law analysis. The departures, both voluntary and involuntary,
17:55
Speaker 4: represent an unprecedented level of departures in recent memory. With
18:00
Speaker 4: the divisions enforcing civil rights, immigration, and environmental laws among
18:05
Speaker 4: the hardest hit. They include at least one hundred and
18:08
Speaker 4: seven career Justice Department senior managers in the span of
18:12
Speaker 4: eight months. That's out of roughly three hundred and twenty
18:16
Speaker 4: career leadership positions immediately below presidential appointees included in a
18:21
Speaker 4: government directory. The loss of so many senior managers, many
18:26
Speaker 4: of whom have spent their entire careers rising through the
18:29
Speaker 4: department's ranks, could take generations to rebuild. The Justice Department
18:35
Speaker 4: is also losing many more trial attorneys and other career employees.
18:41
Speaker 4: Joining me is Bloomberg Law reporter Suzanne Monnak. Suzanne tell
18:45
Speaker 4: us about all these departures.
18:48
Speaker 6: We've seen this an unprecedented amount of attrition of the
18:51
Speaker 6: career workforce this year really across the government, but we've
18:54
Speaker 6: really seen it in a significant number as the Department
18:57
Speaker 6: of Justice. We used a federal director posted by the
19:01
Speaker 6: Office of Personnel Management that has, you know, hundreds and
19:04
Speaker 6: hundreds of career managers at the Justice Department. We focused
19:08
Speaker 6: on those who went through the career appointed process, and
19:11
Speaker 6: that's where we found that over a third of those
19:14
Speaker 6: who were in place in January and those career leadership
19:16
Speaker 6: positions are no longer there, and these include really broad
19:20
Speaker 6: types of positions whose include supervisors, you know, lead attorneys,
19:24
Speaker 6: managing attorneys, people in higher level positions. That's some senior
19:29
Speaker 6: executive service, but some other high level positions as well,
19:32
Speaker 6: who've been there for years and years, some of them
19:35
Speaker 6: who you know, keep work running at the Justice Department.
19:38
Speaker 4: Were these voluntary departures, were they fired?
19:42
Speaker 6: It's been a real mix. There have been examples of
19:44
Speaker 6: career managers at DJ who have been fully fired, some
19:47
Speaker 6: of whom are now contesting those terminations. A number of
19:51
Speaker 6: them chose to leave either. Some may have taken the
19:54
Speaker 6: deferred resignation policy that fork in the Road offer that
19:57
Speaker 6: was available across the government. Others may have just left
20:00
Speaker 6: for another job. And some were kind of left under
20:03
Speaker 6: what I might I was more dressed. Some people were
20:06
Speaker 6: forcibly reassigned or demoted, for example, to positions that they
20:09
Speaker 6: didn't want to be in, and so then felt kind
20:11
Speaker 6: of moved to leave the department. So, while technically not fired,
20:15
Speaker 6: were removed from their positions. One prominent example of that
20:18
Speaker 6: was the Sanctuary Cities Task Force that sort of became
20:21
Speaker 6: a place where we saw you know, some longtime career
20:24
Speaker 6: people get forcibly reassigned into and at this point, all
20:27
Speaker 6: of those people who were reassigned into that task force,
20:30
Speaker 6: which was you know, for the stated purpose of cracking
20:32
Speaker 6: down on so called sanctuary jurisdictions who don't want to
20:35
Speaker 6: cooperate with federal immigration authorities, all of the people in
20:38
Speaker 6: that task force have since left.
20:39
Speaker 4: These are the career officials who get a job at
20:42
Speaker 4: the Department of Justice, work their way up, and stay
20:45
Speaker 4: at the Department of Justice.
20:47
Speaker 6: Yes, it is very uncommon to see this amount of
20:49
Speaker 6: attrition when political administrations changed. I spoke to a number
20:53
Speaker 6: of former officials for this story, and you know, many
20:55
Speaker 6: described through people as the types of people who stay
20:58
Speaker 6: across political administration, which is kind of their very purpose.
21:01
Speaker 6: When a new administration comes in, they're going to appoint
21:03
Speaker 6: a lot of people who are their choices. There's going
21:05
Speaker 6: to be a lot of political appointees. But the real
21:08
Speaker 6: role of the career civil servants, you know, the career
21:11
Speaker 6: work force, the civil servants are to kind of, you know,
21:13
Speaker 6: help keep things moving. You know, there's going to be
21:15
Speaker 6: a bunch of new people who don't know what they're doing,
21:17
Speaker 6: but you'll have that career workforce in place always to
21:21
Speaker 6: you know, understand how how the department runs.
21:23
Speaker 4: Yeah, you talk to someone who was a political appointee
21:26
Speaker 4: who said, we took a lot of our direction from
21:29
Speaker 4: the career staff to do our jobs.
21:32
Speaker 6: Absolutely, I think that that's exactly the type of example,
21:35
Speaker 6: at least when a new political appointee comes in, you know,
21:37
Speaker 6: they may be very qualified, but they're just going to
21:39
Speaker 6: be new to that work potentially, and if they don't
21:42
Speaker 6: have that exact background themselves, and you know, political appointees
21:45
Speaker 6: I spoke to former political pointe is really said that
21:47
Speaker 6: they relied on that career workforce to have that expertise
21:50
Speaker 6: so that you know, they could go to someone and
21:52
Speaker 6: be you know, ask them, you know, how something works
21:54
Speaker 6: and how to do something, and just to kind of
21:55
Speaker 6: know that they have experienced people working for them.
21:58
Speaker 4: Tell us how many PEO people left or part of
22:02
Speaker 4: their reason was because of the executive order calling to
22:07
Speaker 4: prioritize accountability among the Senior Executive Service.
22:11
Speaker 6: Sure, so that was an executive order at the beginning
22:14
Speaker 6: of this administration that kind of gave us a little
22:17
Speaker 6: bit of a signal that the Trump administration was going
22:19
Speaker 6: to be taking a hard look at the senior executive
22:21
Speaker 6: service that maybe they you know, were distrustful of that
22:24
Speaker 6: group of people, even though you know, historically that's just
22:27
Speaker 6: been a group of people who've been here in high
22:30
Speaker 6: level career leadership potitions that are nonpartisan for many years.
22:34
Speaker 1: You know.
22:34
Speaker 6: Obviously, you can't say for sure how many you know,
22:37
Speaker 6: exactly how many people might have left because they read
22:39
Speaker 6: that order and you know, worried for their career trajectory,
22:43
Speaker 6: you know, But I think the Trump administration has done
22:45
Speaker 6: a lot, you know, very broadly that has made career
22:48
Speaker 6: managers you know, think twice about how long they might
22:51
Speaker 6: be able to stay in their roles, whether that's pivoting
22:54
Speaker 6: priorities of the department in terms of like litigating priorities,
22:58
Speaker 6: or just you know, generally making workers feel unstable and
23:01
Speaker 6: like they're going to be laid off. I mean, we've
23:03
Speaker 6: seen broad reductions and force throughout the government. This year.
23:06
Speaker 4: It was the Civil Rights Division that was hit the hardest.
23:09
Speaker 4: Seventy six percent of career managers departed.
23:13
Speaker 6: Yes, that's what we found them. Going through all of
23:15
Speaker 6: the career manager directory, we found that that division within
23:18
Speaker 6: the Justice Department had the highest share of career managers
23:21
Speaker 6: leaving this year that was similarly a mix. So many
23:24
Speaker 6: of those people had been demoted and left after that,
23:27
Speaker 6: some did leave on their own, and that was an
23:29
Speaker 6: example of a division that really did take a hard
23:31
Speaker 6: turn in a different direction ideologically this year. I mean,
23:35
Speaker 6: the Civil Rights Division has always somewhat been vulnerable to
23:38
Speaker 6: those types of changes as clinical administrations come and go,
23:42
Speaker 6: but we really saw quite a significant departure that former
23:45
Speaker 6: employees have told me was very different from the way
23:47
Speaker 6: it's been in the past in terms of changing ideological priorities.
23:51
Speaker 6: For example, instead of focusing on historically marginalized populations, which
23:55
Speaker 6: was along the focus of that division it was created
23:58
Speaker 6: during the Civil rights movement, we're now seeing a focus
24:00
Speaker 6: on gun rights and anti Christian bias. For example.
24:03
Speaker 4: What about the trial attorneys you know that are handling
24:07
Speaker 4: the cases.
24:08
Speaker 6: So the project that we put together does not include
24:11
Speaker 6: trial attorneys, and that's only because we don't have access
24:14
Speaker 6: to a perfect federal directory with a list of their
24:16
Speaker 6: names to draw a statistical and conclusion from that. But
24:19
Speaker 6: they that has been a huge source of attrition. I mean,
24:22
Speaker 6: certainly more so than at the manager level. We have
24:25
Speaker 6: seen trial attorneys basically hemorrhaged out of the Justice Department
24:29
Speaker 6: this year. And while this number includes both trial attorneys
24:32
Speaker 6: and managers just across the Justice Department, the department itself
24:35
Speaker 6: has disclosed and budget documents that around forty five hundred
24:38
Speaker 6: employees total have taken to Ford resignation offers this year.
24:42
Speaker 6: As a little bit of a look at the amount
24:44
Speaker 6: of people who have left.
24:46
Speaker 4: Sixty two percent of the managers in the Executive Office
24:49
Speaker 4: for Immigration Review left. I'm curious about why that particular
24:54
Speaker 4: office when there's so much emphasis now on immigration.
24:58
Speaker 6: That may be the very reason. I think that sometimes
25:02
Speaker 6: when we see it's the offices, at least in our analysis,
25:05
Speaker 6: that sometimes focused on some of those more hot button
25:08
Speaker 6: policy issues that this administration has really focused on and
25:11
Speaker 6: putting its own stamp on where we saw the most attrition. So,
25:14
Speaker 6: while you know, I can't speak for those who decided
25:18
Speaker 6: to leave, but we saw a lot of immigration judges
25:20
Speaker 6: being pushed out this year.
25:21
Speaker 4: How many people are challenging their firings.
25:25
Speaker 6: It's hard to get an exact number because challenges that
25:28
Speaker 6: the Merit Systems Protections Board, which would handle those types
25:31
Speaker 6: of cases, are not public. But we have found a
25:34
Speaker 6: number of examples of people doing that, and I think
25:37
Speaker 6: some of the challenges from people who were within the
25:39
Speaker 6: senior executive service might be, you know, tougher cases for
25:44
Speaker 6: the federal government to defend. And we've even seen at
25:47
Speaker 6: least one federal court litigation and filed against a number
25:50
Speaker 6: a handful of Justice Department employees to say that they
25:53
Speaker 6: were terminated unffair.
25:54
Speaker 4: I mean, now, let's say the next administration comes in
26:00
Speaker 4: is different. Can the Justice Department rebuild its staff and
26:03
Speaker 4: sort of pick up where it left off before Trump
26:06
Speaker 4: came into office.
26:08
Speaker 6: They can certainly try. Former officials I spoke to them
26:11
Speaker 6: said that it's going to be quite a challenge that
26:12
Speaker 6: they've to lose at least a third of the career
26:15
Speaker 6: staff in the span of I mean at this point
26:17
Speaker 6: eight or nine months, is a massive hit to a
26:20
Speaker 6: department's institutional memory, to their expertise. I think the Trump
26:25
Speaker 6: administration might say that they're looking to get those types
26:27
Speaker 6: of people out. They refer to certain government employees as
26:30
Speaker 6: you know deep state actors, and they talk about wanting
26:33
Speaker 6: to pivot the direction of the department, and I think
26:36
Speaker 6: that's something we've seen from senior political administration officials during
26:40
Speaker 6: the second administration, But certainly, I think indisputably, even if
26:44
Speaker 6: the goal is to pivot the direction, that's a lot
26:46
Speaker 6: of hiring for this current administration to do, a lot
26:49
Speaker 6: of spots to fill, and it's a lot of spots
26:51
Speaker 6: and advanced roles from people who maybe were supervising a
26:54
Speaker 6: section that they've previously been an attorney in for many years.
26:58
Speaker 6: Now trying to fill that spot going to be a
27:01
Speaker 6: challenge really for any administration.
27:03
Speaker 4: Are they having a hard time hiring new people to
27:05
Speaker 4: fill slots.
27:07
Speaker 6: It's a little too soon to say. So much of
27:09
Speaker 6: these departures have been in the last few months, and
27:13
Speaker 6: of course, you know, with the end of the fiscal
27:15
Speaker 6: year now those who took the different resignation offer will
27:18
Speaker 6: officially be removed from the payroll. So we you know,
27:22
Speaker 6: we're still seeing a lot of that hiring ongoing. You know,
27:25
Speaker 6: we certainly see that they are actively trying to hire.
27:27
Speaker 6: And the Civil Rights Division, for example, we've seen the
27:30
Speaker 6: lead political appointee leading the office, you know, posting on
27:32
Speaker 6: social media, we're hiring, We're hiring. So we are seeing
27:35
Speaker 6: an active effort, but I think it's just a little
27:38
Speaker 6: too soon to tell at what speed they're going to
27:41
Speaker 6: be able to do so. For career jobs, usually there's
27:44
Speaker 6: a bit of a merit based process that has to
27:46
Speaker 6: be involved to get these people put in place. It's
27:48
Speaker 6: not something that can be done in the day.
27:51
Speaker 4: It's a question I keep asking. Thanks so much, Suzanne.
27:54
Speaker 4: That's Bloomberg Law reporter Suzanne Monnac. A litigation funder, is
27:59
Speaker 4: filing law lawsuits against prediction market platform Calshee in six states,
28:05
Speaker 4: using an eighteenth century gambling law in an attempt to
28:09
Speaker 4: clawback losses from predictions gone wrong. The suits allege that
28:14
Speaker 4: Calshi is violating state and federal law by allowing residents
28:19
Speaker 4: to place illegal, unregulated wagers on events such as sports
28:24
Speaker 4: and elections. Veritis Management and its chief executive, Maximilian Amster,
28:30
Speaker 4: are behind entities that filed suits in Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois,
28:34
Speaker 4: South Carolina, Massachusetts, and Georgia. The suits referenced state versions
28:40
Speaker 4: of the anti illegal Gambling Statute of Anne, which lets
28:44
Speaker 4: losing third parties sue winners for the values of losses
28:48
Speaker 4: plus fees. Joining me is Professor M. Todd Henderson of
28:52
Speaker 4: the University of Chicago Law School tell us about this
28:56
Speaker 4: prediction market platform and these lawsuits.
29:00
Speaker 1: So cal She is a company that offers prediction markets
29:06
Speaker 1: on a variety of things. And these prediction markets have
29:11
Speaker 1: a pretty simple feature, which is they will write a
29:15
Speaker 1: contract that says something like, there's a state of the
29:19
Speaker 1: world in the future, Trump becomes president, the Chiefs win
29:22
Speaker 1: the super Bowl, the Fed lowers interest rates by a
29:25
Speaker 1: certain amount, and if that state of the world comes true,
29:28
Speaker 1: this contract will pay one dollar, and if this state
29:31
Speaker 1: of the world does not come true, they will pay zero.
29:34
Speaker 1: And then they will offer those contracts for sale, and
29:37
Speaker 1: those contracts will have a price. People will trade them,
29:40
Speaker 1: and the idea is that that price will reflect something
29:44
Speaker 1: like the market's probability sense of whether this thing is
29:47
Speaker 1: going to come true. So if a Trump is going
29:50
Speaker 1: to be elected president, contract is trading for fifty six cents.
29:54
Speaker 1: That implies a probability that Trump is going to be
29:57
Speaker 1: elected president with about a fifty six percent ability, And
30:00
Speaker 1: if you think it's much lower than that, you can
30:02
Speaker 1: sell that contract. You sort of short it like you
30:04
Speaker 1: would in the stock market. So they offer these contracts
30:06
Speaker 1: for sale and they're just a market like the New
30:09
Speaker 1: York Stock Exchange. That enables buyers and sellers to come
30:12
Speaker 1: together and write the particular contracts, just like the New
30:15
Speaker 1: York Stock Exchange list Companies for sale and so KALs.
30:18
Speaker 1: She's offering these prediction markets in a variety of different places,
30:22
Speaker 1: and people have the view and this goes back way
30:25
Speaker 1: before these lawsuits that these are gambling, and there's been
30:29
Speaker 1: some real hostility in the federal government towards these prediction markets.
30:34
Speaker 1: The regulators of these things, like the CFTC has been
30:38
Speaker 1: quite hostile to them. There were some limited carve outs
30:40
Speaker 1: which we could talk about, but the prediction markets have
30:44
Speaker 1: sort of blazed ahead and offered them in a variety
30:47
Speaker 1: of states, especially in places where gambling is not legal,
30:51
Speaker 1: like Ohio. And there is an Ohio statute that says,
30:57
Speaker 1: you know, not only is gambling not allowed here, but
31:00
Speaker 1: that people who are not parties to a particular wager
31:04
Speaker 1: can sue to enforce our anti gambling ban. And so
31:07
Speaker 1: that's what these that's what these suits are. They've got
31:09
Speaker 1: litigants which are trying to enforce Ohio's anti gambling ban
31:16
Speaker 1: through a meme set up by the Ohio legislature for
31:18
Speaker 1: third parties. Again, someone not betting whether Trump's going to
31:22
Speaker 1: win or the chiefs or whatever have you. But a
31:24
Speaker 1: third party is suing to enforce that ban. So that's
31:26
Speaker 1: what these suits are.
31:28
Speaker 4: So is it plaintiffs lawyers that are suing on behalf
31:31
Speaker 4: of clients who are the plaintiffs?
31:34
Speaker 1: Well, no, not, as I understand it. So as I
31:37
Speaker 1: understand the statute, it's quite clever, and they have an
31:42
Speaker 1: analog going back into our British ancestors. I think it's
31:46
Speaker 1: the Statute of ann from seventeen to something or other.
31:48
Speaker 1: But the general gist of this is that, you know,
31:51
Speaker 1: gambling is illegal in a lot of places, and so
31:53
Speaker 1: two people enter into a wager that is illegal under
31:57
Speaker 1: state law. So let's just say I've got a bookie.
32:00
Speaker 1: I live in Columbus, Ohio, and I say to my bookie,
32:02
Speaker 1: I'd really liked it bet on Ohio State to win
32:05
Speaker 1: this weekend. You know what's the odds. My bookie tells me,
32:08
Speaker 1: I make the bet. There's somebody on the other side
32:10
Speaker 1: of that transaction. And let's say that I lose the
32:14
Speaker 1: bet and my bookie wants to collect from me, and
32:17
Speaker 1: I say, sorry, you can't collect from me. Well, my
32:20
Speaker 1: bookie is not going to go into court because the
32:23
Speaker 1: contract underlying contract is illegal and courts are not going
32:27
Speaker 1: to enforce illegal contracts. So knowing that my booky's going
32:32
Speaker 1: to resort to well, let's just call them other means
32:35
Speaker 1: it could be you know, kicking me out of the pool.
32:39
Speaker 1: I can't use them as my booky again anymore. That'd
32:41
Speaker 1: be easy. Maybe uses intimidation or violence against me. That's
32:46
Speaker 1: a phenomenon that happens in any kind of black market.
32:49
Speaker 1: So in that world where people who are parties to
32:53
Speaker 1: illegal contracts will not sue to enforce them. It's a
32:56
Speaker 1: drug deal. My drug dealer gave me, you know, baking,
32:59
Speaker 1: so instead of the cocaine that I wanted, I'm not
33:02
Speaker 1: going to sue him in court because I would be
33:04
Speaker 1: revealing myself to be doing something illegal. So I think
33:08
Speaker 1: the premise of the statute is that that's also true
33:10
Speaker 1: for gambling and here prediction markets. And so the plaintiffs
33:14
Speaker 1: are not going to come forward and sue, or at
33:17
Speaker 1: least arguably so this plaintiff is a third party, they
33:21
Speaker 1: have nothing, they're total strangers to this case. But the
33:24
Speaker 1: statue gives them what's called standing, just the right to
33:28
Speaker 1: sue even though they haven't been harmed. Normally you have
33:32
Speaker 1: to be harmed to bring a lawsuit. But what their
33:34
Speaker 1: statue does is sort of set them up as a
33:36
Speaker 1: kind of private attorney general. You know, the attorney general
33:40
Speaker 1: could bring a suit to shut down the prediction market,
33:43
Speaker 1: but we could also outsource that to private plaintiffs lawyers
33:48
Speaker 1: to bring the suit on behalf of them. It's a
33:50
Speaker 1: little bit like a class action lawsuit in securities fraud
33:53
Speaker 1: or something like that, where the lawyers are basically the
33:55
Speaker 1: people bringing the case. In that case, you know, they
33:58
Speaker 1: do find a plaintiff who who suffered some damage. Here,
34:01
Speaker 1: it looks like the statue doesn't require that because of
34:04
Speaker 1: this problem about you know, outing yourself as being a criminal.
34:08
Speaker 4: It seems odd to me.
34:09
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's I should say. One thing that's a very
34:13
Speaker 1: cool historical kind of footnote. There was a case in
34:16
Speaker 1: England around the time the statue was passed called the
34:18
Speaker 1: Highwayman's case. And a highwayman was a sort of robber
34:21
Speaker 1: who would you know, hold you up on the on
34:24
Speaker 1: the road between you know, Stratford on Avon in London,
34:27
Speaker 1: and two criminals had a deal and one of them
34:32
Speaker 1: backed out on you know, maybe sharing the proceeds from
34:35
Speaker 1: this job that they did. And one sued the other
34:38
Speaker 1: and the judge in the court in London ordered both
34:41
Speaker 1: men to be hung. And so that was a kind
34:43
Speaker 1: of extreme example of you know, do not bring your
34:47
Speaker 1: we're both criminals, but we have a contract dispute to court.
34:50
Speaker 1: And in that world, something like the statute de Van
34:53
Speaker 1: makes a ton of sense because we do want to
34:55
Speaker 1: deter like the king or the US government wants to
34:58
Speaker 1: deter the bad, say whether it's robbing people in the
35:01
Speaker 1: highway or engaging in illegal gambling. But we can't rely
35:04
Speaker 1: on plaintips to bring those suits because they'll be complicit,
35:07
Speaker 1: and so we need to have a third party.
35:08
Speaker 4: And so the third party is the one who recovers
35:11
Speaker 4: what they call ill gotten gains.
35:13
Speaker 1: I believe. So I'm not an expert on this particular statute.
35:17
Speaker 1: I find it completely amazing as someone who teaches a
35:20
Speaker 1: law of economics, and you know, it's genius kind of
35:23
Speaker 1: statute to mobilize people. It is different than the normal
35:27
Speaker 1: kind of bounty that we pay. There are other examples.
35:31
Speaker 1: There's a doctrine called key tam qui tam and in
35:35
Speaker 1: federal government law that if you are someone who you know,
35:40
Speaker 1: let's see, Lockheed Martin is overcharging the federal government for
35:44
Speaker 1: the latest stealth fighter, and you work at Lockheed Martin,
35:47
Speaker 1: you know they're sending bills that are too high. You
35:50
Speaker 1: can tell the government, and the government will sue. And
35:54
Speaker 1: you know, let's say they collect one hundred million dollars,
35:56
Speaker 1: you get your Lion charity and it's some twenty five
35:58
Speaker 1: thirty percent of that. So we pay someone a bounty
36:02
Speaker 1: to kind of uncover what we think the government might
36:05
Speaker 1: not otherwise be able to uncover. So you can think
36:07
Speaker 1: of this statue in high It has been a little
36:09
Speaker 1: bit like a key tam suit, except instead of alerting
36:12
Speaker 1: the government, right, you could have a system where the
36:16
Speaker 1: people who know about the illegal betting go to the
36:18
Speaker 1: Attorney General of Ohio and say, I know this stuff's
36:20
Speaker 1: going on. Instead of that and taking some percentage like
36:24
Speaker 1: a plane of lawyer normally would, they can get the
36:27
Speaker 1: whole thing, and the whole thing is the incentive for
36:29
Speaker 1: them to bring the suit in the first place. Now,
36:30
Speaker 1: I should say, what's a little bit strange about this
36:33
Speaker 1: case is it's not exactly a surprise to the Attorney
36:37
Speaker 1: General of Ohio that CAW she is offering prediction markets
36:40
Speaker 1: in Ohio. So we really didn't need a third party
36:44
Speaker 1: to bring this case because everybody knows that CAW she's
36:48
Speaker 1: doing this, and so that makes it a little bit strange.
36:51
Speaker 4: Is it a litigation funder that's that's driving suits?
36:54
Speaker 1: That's my understanding is litigation finance, which you know, we're
36:59
Speaker 1: the world of the strange. Let's go even stranger that
37:03
Speaker 1: they're the sewer because litigation finance itself is quite controversial.
37:09
Speaker 1: They're using a stash van from the seventeen hundreds that's
37:11
Speaker 1: been put into a Hio law Well back in the
37:14
Speaker 1: seventeen hundreds through to about you know, ten years ago,
37:18
Speaker 1: every common law jurisdiction banned lawyers from engaging in the
37:23
Speaker 1: kind of practice that these lawyers are engaging, and that
37:25
Speaker 1: is a litigation finance arm who will kind of buy
37:29
Speaker 1: a claim from someone and bring it. And so this
37:32
Speaker 1: is very new. You know, when I was in law
37:34
Speaker 1: school so many years ago, lawyers weren't allowed to advertise,
37:38
Speaker 1: and of course we've crossed that line and now we've
37:40
Speaker 1: got lawyers who are raising money from investors to invest
37:43
Speaker 1: in lawsuits and in some jurisdictions. Now, you know, non
37:47
Speaker 1: lawyers can own law firms, so they can raise money
37:50
Speaker 1: again to sue people, and so that's another kind of
37:53
Speaker 1: complication that people might worry about.
37:56
Speaker 4: And so they're suing not only Ohio, but kentuckyise South Carolina, Massachusetts,
38:02
Speaker 4: and Georgia. If these suits are successful, then does that
38:07
Speaker 4: mean these prediction market platforms won't be able to operate
38:11
Speaker 4: in those states?
38:12
Speaker 1: Well, I'm not in the speculation. I mean, I have
38:15
Speaker 1: no idea. Damages are probably pretty substantial. And again I'm
38:19
Speaker 1: not an expert on the statute, so I don't know
38:21
Speaker 1: if there's limitations on the damages or what the damages
38:23
Speaker 1: would be, or their caps. And I should say, you know,
38:27
Speaker 1: I kind of have two views about this. On the
38:29
Speaker 1: one hand, the prediction markets who are offering things like
38:34
Speaker 1: sports betting, Okay, so now let's just stick with the
38:37
Speaker 1: Super Bowl. I'm a Steelers fan, so I want to
38:41
Speaker 1: bet that the Steelers are going to win the Super Bowl. Well,
38:44
Speaker 1: I can do that in some places through legal sports books.
38:48
Speaker 1: I can go to Las Vegas. If I'm in certain places,
38:51
Speaker 1: I can go on to DraftKings or bets Fair or
38:54
Speaker 1: ESPN BAT or whatever where those things are legal and
38:57
Speaker 1: I can place that bet. Presumably the states where I
39:01
Speaker 1: can't do that don't want me betting on whether the
39:04
Speaker 1: Steelers are going to win the Super Bowl. And now Kyle,
39:06
Speaker 1: she comes along and says, you know, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois
39:10
Speaker 1: in places, Oh, we're not gambling, We're predicting, And at
39:15
Speaker 1: some level you say, Okay, this is absurd. These prediction markets,
39:20
Speaker 1: which have a really very clever origin, and I've written
39:25
Speaker 1: papers about how cool they are and how useful they
39:27
Speaker 1: can be to the public and for businesses to predict
39:30
Speaker 1: things and scientists and defense and all sorts of areas.
39:34
Speaker 1: I think they should be much more widely used. But
39:37
Speaker 1: using them to bet on sports doesn't make a ton
39:39
Speaker 1: of sense, because we already have sports betting, and that's
39:42
Speaker 1: something that's easy to describe, and we could just, you know,
39:46
Speaker 1: recharacterizing it as prediction market is a kind of arbitrage
39:50
Speaker 1: around the law that is I think a bad one. So,
39:52
Speaker 1: for instance, imagine that a prediction market arose and said,
39:57
Speaker 1: we'll let you bet on whether or not Navidia profits
40:00
Speaker 1: will be higher next quarter than this quarter. Well, we
40:04
Speaker 1: already have that market that's called the stock exchange, and
40:07
Speaker 1: so we don't need a prediction market for that. So,
40:11
Speaker 1: you know, offering that prediction market would just be arbitrage
40:14
Speaker 1: around you know, a bunch of sec rules and things
40:16
Speaker 1: like that, and it's not adding something new. So I
40:20
Speaker 1: could imagine the prediction market kind of compromise being you
40:25
Speaker 1: can offer prediction markets in places where it's not gambling
40:28
Speaker 1: on things that are predictions that are valuable, predictions that
40:31
Speaker 1: are not sports, and maybe not the stock markets. Those
40:35
Speaker 1: are different markets. So if you're predicting on whether or
40:38
Speaker 1: not it's going to rain in Ohio, well, farmers might
40:44
Speaker 1: really want that information, and that market might be better
40:48
Speaker 1: than the weather people's forecasts, and so that would be
40:51
Speaker 1: a new thing. It's developing new information, and it's it's
40:53
Speaker 1: creating a market where there really isn't one that could
40:56
Speaker 1: be really useful, or predicting political outcomes or all kinds
40:59
Speaker 1: of you know, is ice going to come to this
41:01
Speaker 1: town or whatever? Those things could all be very valuable
41:04
Speaker 1: production of social information that isn't just a pure regulatory arbitrage.
41:09
Speaker 1: So I'm both quite bullish about the use of prediction markets.
41:13
Speaker 1: I've written about this. I think we should use them
41:15
Speaker 1: for a lot more stuff. Companies use them internally to
41:18
Speaker 1: great success, and I think the world is poorer for
41:22
Speaker 1: it that we don't engage markets to predict stuff. Instead,
41:26
Speaker 1: we rely on blowhard academics or people on TV or
41:29
Speaker 1: whatever to do that. So I want to deploy markets
41:32
Speaker 1: in new places. But I think the offering sports betting
41:36
Speaker 1: through a prediction market, just because you call it something
41:38
Speaker 1: else doesn't make it different.
41:41
Speaker 4: These suits have a long way to go, so we'll
41:43
Speaker 4: see what happens. Thanks so much for joining me. That's
41:46
Speaker 4: Professor M. Todd Henderson of the University of Chicago Law School,
41:51
Speaker 4: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
41:54
Speaker 4: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
41:56
Speaker 4: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple podcast, Spotify,
42:01
Speaker 4: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
42:06
Speaker 4: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
42:09
Speaker 4: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso,
42:13
Speaker 4: and you're listening to Bloomberg