Latest / Bloomberg Law / SCOTUS Okays Quick Deportations & Heated Hearing for Emil Bove

Transcript

SCOTUS Okays Quick Deportations & Heated Hearing for Emil Bove · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
0:08
Speaker 1: This week, the Supreme Court, divided down ideological lines, gave
0:13
Speaker 1: the Trump administration the ok to resume quickly deporting migrants
0:18
Speaker 1: to countries other than their own, lifting a judge's order
0:22
Speaker 1: that gave them notice and a chance to argue that
0:24
Speaker 1: they would be at risk of torture. Over a scathing
0:28
Speaker 1: descent from the court's three liberals, the court's conservatives granted
0:32
Speaker 1: an emergency request from the administration, joining me is Alara Mukherjee,
0:37
Speaker 1: a professor at Columbia Law School who directs the school's
0:40
Speaker 1: immigrants rights clinic. I Laura tell us about the judge's
0:44
Speaker 1: order that the Trump administration was appealing on an emergency basis.
0:50
Speaker 2: A federal district court judged in Massachusetts was concerned that
0:54
Speaker 2: people would be deported to countries third countries where they
0:59
Speaker 2: would be tortured, where they would be persecuted, where they
1:02
Speaker 2: might die and be killed. And what the judge did
1:07
Speaker 2: is require that before non citizens if the United States
1:11
Speaker 2: be deported to countries that are not their home countries,
1:15
Speaker 2: countries that they are not nationals of, that the US
1:18
Speaker 2: government provides them an opportunity to contest and explain why
1:23
Speaker 2: they shouldn't be deported to that country. So that is
1:26
Speaker 2: called a credible fear interview process. And the judge held
1:31
Speaker 2: that people must get at least fifteen days to challenge
1:34
Speaker 2: their deportations to countries where they fear torture and persecution.
1:39
Speaker 1: Why are these non citizens not being sent to their
1:44
Speaker 1: home countries? Why is the government trying to send them
1:47
Speaker 1: to third countries?
1:49
Speaker 2: The Trump administration would like the ability, the power, the
1:53
Speaker 2: authorization to deport people to third countries when their home
1:57
Speaker 2: governments won't take them back. The men in these case
2:01
Speaker 2: hail from various countries including Me and mar Laos, Vietnam, Cuba,
2:06
Speaker 2: and Mexico, and some of these governments actually do take
2:10
Speaker 2: back their own nationals, but the Trump administration would like
2:14
Speaker 2: sweeping authority to deport people basically to anywhere in the world.
2:18
Speaker 1: The government made an emergency request to the Supreme Court.
2:23
Speaker 1: What did they argue?
2:25
Speaker 2: The Executive branch argued to the Supreme Court that the
2:28
Speaker 2: lower court order interfered with their ability to deport nationals
2:33
Speaker 2: to third countries. And the Supreme Court sided with the
2:39
Speaker 2: executive branch in that case and blocked the lower court
2:42
Speaker 2: order that required fifteen days notice before individuals could be
2:47
Speaker 2: deported to countries other than their own.
2:50
Speaker 1: So the six conservatives granted this without any opinion. Can
2:55
Speaker 1: we assume they bought the government's argument?
2:58
Speaker 2: Then I think that's affair reading of the unreasoned order
3:03
Speaker 2: issued by the Supreme Court. It's worth noting that three
3:08
Speaker 2: justices dissented from the opinion and accused the conservative majority
3:14
Speaker 2: of quote unquote, rewarding lawlessness.
3:17
Speaker 1: So Justice Sonya Sotomayor, who wrote that dissent, said that
3:22
Speaker 1: the administration had twice violated the Court's orders in this case.
3:28
Speaker 1: The Conservatives just ignored that. And does that send a
3:32
Speaker 1: message to the Trump administration that they can violate court orders?
3:37
Speaker 2: Yes, this sends a message to the Trump administration that
3:40
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court is willing to turn a blind eye
3:43
Speaker 2: to the executive branch's flouting of federal court orders. Justice
3:48
Speaker 2: Soto Mayor recognized in her opinion that the government had
3:51
Speaker 2: removed six people to South Sudan with less than sixteen
3:55
Speaker 2: hours notice, without any opportunity to contact their lawyers or
4:00
Speaker 2: be heard in court. And it is lawlessness. As Justice
4:05
Speaker 2: Sodomyor wrote, quote this is not the first time the
4:09
Speaker 2: Court closes its eyes to non compliance, nor I fear
4:13
Speaker 2: will it be the last? End quote.
4:15
Speaker 1: Doesn't this conflict with the decision in April, where the
4:19
Speaker 1: Court said that the government has to give people a
4:22
Speaker 1: reasonable time to challenge their deportations.
4:26
Speaker 2: The April case was in the context of a different
4:29
Speaker 2: set of laws. It was in the context of the
4:32
Speaker 2: President invoking the Alien Enemies Act, and in that case,
4:37
Speaker 2: the Court held that individuals who were subject to the
4:41
Speaker 2: Alien Enemies Act needed to first be given notice that
4:46
Speaker 2: they would be subject to the Alien Enemies Act and
4:49
Speaker 2: then a meaningful opportunity to file a habeas petition. But
4:54
Speaker 2: what that meaningful period of time is is not resolved
4:59
Speaker 2: by US Supreme Court. That issue is currently being litigated
5:04
Speaker 2: in lower courts across the country where the Executive branch
5:08
Speaker 2: has invoked the Alien Enemies Act against Venezuelan nationals who
5:13
Speaker 2: are accused of being members of STRA in the Aragua
5:16
Speaker 2: Criminal Gang.
5:17
Speaker 1: The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court yesterday in
5:22
Speaker 1: the case of those eight men and wants to deport
5:25
Speaker 1: to South Sudan. So tell us what's happening there?
5:29
Speaker 2: So, after the Supreme Court issued its ruling. On Monday,
5:34
Speaker 2: the Federal District judge issued another order saying that a
5:39
Speaker 2: previous order in his case protected a group of men
5:43
Speaker 2: from being deported to South Sudan. The Executive Branch then
5:47
Speaker 2: filed a motion to clarify the Court's June twenty third
5:51
Speaker 2: opinion on June twenty fourth, and that motion has now
5:56
Speaker 2: been fully briefed as of today, June twenty fifth, and
6:00
Speaker 2: we will see what the Court does next.
6:03
Speaker 1: Is it a problem because the Court is issuing these
6:07
Speaker 1: rulings this time without any opinion at all on the
6:10
Speaker 1: emergency docket, where they're not fully briefed, and so is
6:14
Speaker 1: it hard to interpret what they mean?
6:18
Speaker 2: Yes, the Supreme Court's shadow docket has exploded in recent
6:23
Speaker 2: years and especially in recent months, and the Supreme Court
6:27
Speaker 2: is taking sweeping actions on the shadow docket that have
6:33
Speaker 2: just in the last eight weeks deprived more than eight
6:36
Speaker 2: hundred thousand non citizens of their legal status in the
6:41
Speaker 2: United States. This current case that we're discussing now, DVD,
6:46
Speaker 2: is another example of the Supreme Court making extremely consequential
6:51
Speaker 2: decisions on the shadow docket without the benefit of full
6:55
Speaker 2: briefing and arguments.
6:57
Speaker 1: What does it mean on the ground. I mean, how
6:59
Speaker 1: many people might be affected by this order.
7:04
Speaker 2: That's a really good question. The Executive Branch wants to
7:09
Speaker 2: implement third country deportations on a sweeping basis. It's one
7:15
Speaker 2: of the pillars of their effort to deport one million
7:19
Speaker 2: people from the United States this year. I think it's
7:24
Speaker 2: fair to expect that thousands of people could be subject
7:29
Speaker 2: to third country deportations under the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday.
7:35
Speaker 1: This is a temporary order while the litigation continues. What's
7:39
Speaker 1: left of that litigation So.
7:42
Speaker 2: To date, the judge has only issued preliminary injunctions, that
7:47
Speaker 2: is a form of temporary relief. The full case hasn't
7:51
Speaker 2: been presented to the court. There hasn't been a trial
7:54
Speaker 2: before the court yet. The judge doesn't have all the
7:57
Speaker 2: evidence needed in the case to issue a final decision. Typically,
8:03
Speaker 2: a federal district court will rule on all the evidence
8:07
Speaker 2: in the case and then issue a final injunction. Then
8:10
Speaker 2: the case would be heard by a federal Court of Appeals,
8:14
Speaker 2: and then the Supreme Court would take up the matter.
8:17
Speaker 2: It's a process of litigation that can easily take years,
8:21
Speaker 2: so it's extremely unusual that the Supreme Court intervened in
8:25
Speaker 2: this case. At such an early stage.
8:29
Speaker 1: In the government's filing, the Solicitor General assured the court
8:35
Speaker 1: that under the Convention against Torture, the administration will not
8:39
Speaker 1: remove an alien to any country where he's likely to
8:43
Speaker 1: be tortured. Does that deserve any credence.
8:46
Speaker 2: When it's coming from the same government that is trying
8:49
Speaker 2: to deport people to South Dudan with less than sixteen
8:53
Speaker 2: hours notice, that claim seems meaningless.
8:58
Speaker 1: Is there a question of what what the Trump administration
9:02
Speaker 1: is doing violates the Convention against Torture.
9:05
Speaker 2: The US government is a signatory to the Convention against Torture.
9:10
Speaker 2: We as a nation will not support people to countries
9:13
Speaker 2: where they are more likely than not to face torture.
9:17
Speaker 2: Deporting people to South Sudan with less than sixteen hours
9:21
Speaker 2: notice raises a very high risk that the US government
9:26
Speaker 2: is deporting people to a country where they will face torture.
9:31
Speaker 1: Another escalation, the Trump administration has sued all the judges
9:36
Speaker 1: on the Maryland Federal Trial Court over a standing order
9:41
Speaker 1: that prevents the government from deporting a person for two
9:44
Speaker 1: business days after a Habeast challenge is filed. Two business
9:49
Speaker 1: days doesn't seem like a long time. What is the
9:51
Speaker 1: rush with all these cases?
9:54
Speaker 2: The executive branch seeks to extend its power well beyond
9:59
Speaker 2: the of checks and balances set up in the US Constitution,
10:04
Speaker 2: and it is breaking our constitutional democracy. This is most
10:09
Speaker 2: evident in the immigration space and the lawless actions the
10:13
Speaker 2: executive branch is taking there, and it is exemplified by
10:18
Speaker 2: this case that is pending now in the District of Maryland,
10:21
Speaker 2: where the executive branch is suing federal judges for simply
10:26
Speaker 2: trying to afford them due process before individuals can be
10:31
Speaker 2: deported out of this country.
10:33
Speaker 1: In the order from the Maryland court, it says that
10:36
Speaker 1: it's a response to an increase in habeas petitions filed
10:41
Speaker 1: outside of normal business hours from immigrants facing imminent deportation.
10:47
Speaker 2: People including children, are being picked up off the streets
10:53
Speaker 2: at courthouses outside of school and being swept into a
10:57
Speaker 2: process that could very rapidly lead to their deportation, and
11:02
Speaker 2: federal habeas petitions are among the last bulwarks to protect
11:07
Speaker 2: people's due process right and afford them an opportunity to
11:12
Speaker 2: prove why they should be allowed to stay in the
11:15
Speaker 2: United States, why it's unlawful to summarily deport them.
11:19
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining me a Laura. That's Professor Laura Mokerjee
11:22
Speaker 1: of Columbia Law School. Coming up next on the Bloomberg
11:26
Speaker 1: Law Show. President Trump's pick to sit on the Third
11:30
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of Appeals gets a heated confirmation hearing. I'm
11:35
Speaker 1: June Grasso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. President Trump's pick
11:41
Speaker 1: for a New Jersey based seat on the US Court
11:44
Speaker 1: of Appeals for the Third Circuit is his former criminal
11:47
Speaker 1: defense lawyer, Emil beauvet a former federal prosecutor in the
11:51
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York. He was on Trump's legal
11:55
Speaker 1: team during his New York hush money trial and defended
11:58
Speaker 1: Trump in the two federal criminal cases brought by the
12:02
Speaker 1: Justice Department. Beauveay now serves as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney
12:08
Speaker 1: in the Justice Department and has been at the forefront
12:11
Speaker 1: of some of the most contentious Justice Department actions since
12:15
Speaker 1: Trump's return to the White House, including the dismissal of
12:19
Speaker 1: the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams,
12:23
Speaker 1: ordering the firings of a group of prosecutors involved in
12:26
Speaker 1: the January sixth criminal cases, and accusing FBI officials of
12:31
Speaker 1: insubordination for refusing to hand over the names of agents
12:36
Speaker 1: who investigated the US Capital Riot. Democrats on the Senate
12:40
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee Grille Beauvet over those incidents, as well as
12:44
Speaker 1: a whistleblower's allegations that Beauvay had suggested at a March
12:49
Speaker 1: meeting that the government lawyers ignore court orders against the
12:53
Speaker 1: Trump administration's deportation policies. Here's Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of
12:59
Speaker 1: Californifornia questioning Beauvea.
13:02
Speaker 3: In the complaint, it says Beauvey stated that DOJ would
13:07
Speaker 3: need to consider telling the courts and ignoring any such
13:10
Speaker 3: court order. Did you say anything of that kind in the.
13:14
Speaker 4: Meeting, Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of
13:19
Speaker 4: that kind to the extent I should.
13:21
Speaker 3: Recall, mister bouve if you said or suggested during a
13:24
Speaker 3: meeting with Justice Department lawyers maybe they should consider telling
13:28
Speaker 3: the court to you. It seems to me that would
13:30
Speaker 3: be something you'd remember, unless that's the kind of thing
13:33
Speaker 3: you say frequently.
13:35
Speaker 4: Well, I've certainly said things encouraging litigators at the Department
13:39
Speaker 4: to fight hard for valid positions that we have to
13:42
Speaker 4: take into it and if you frequently, I did not
13:45
Speaker 4: suggest that there would be any need to consider ignoring
13:49
Speaker 4: court orders. At the point of that meeting, there were
13:51
Speaker 4: no court orders to discuss.
13:53
Speaker 3: Well, did you suggest telling the courts you in any manner?
13:58
Speaker 1: I don't recall joining me is Bloomberg Lawn Judiciary reporter
14:02
Speaker 1: Suzanne Mognac. Suzanne, it appears that this confirmation hearing got
14:08
Speaker 1: quite heated.
14:09
Speaker 5: It was heated in some respects. I certainly the Judiciary
14:11
Speaker 5: Committee gets heated pretty often, so I can't say it's
14:14
Speaker 5: the most heated hearing I've seen. I think a lot
14:16
Speaker 5: of the grilling was what we more or less expected
14:18
Speaker 5: it to be. I mean, Emil Bouvet, you know, really
14:21
Speaker 5: emerges a pretty controversial candidate for this seat and someone
14:24
Speaker 5: that we've really seen Democrats rally against. And in recent
14:27
Speaker 5: we've seen months, we've seen quite a bit of reporting
14:29
Speaker 5: in the news, and by recently just this week, a
14:31
Speaker 5: whistleblower making some pretty serious allegations against him, and so
14:35
Speaker 5: those were all things that we saw Democrats really pressed
14:37
Speaker 5: him on. But I generally did see that the nominee
14:40
Speaker 5: kind of kept his composure and and did answer the
14:42
Speaker 5: questions and in some insuses didn't answer the questions, but
14:45
Speaker 5: most of the fire was coming from the side of
14:47
Speaker 5: the senators.
14:48
Speaker 1: Tell us about the questions that related to the whistle
14:50
Speaker 1: blower and allegations that Beauvey suggested ignoring court orders.
14:56
Speaker 5: Earlier this week, just one day before the hearing, we
14:59
Speaker 5: had a blower complaint made public by a former Justice
15:02
Speaker 5: Department lawyer than the Department for over a decade, or Azravenni,
15:06
Speaker 5: who alleged that Emil Bovie had in a meeting in
15:09
Speaker 5: March suggested that Justice Department lawyers actually ignore a court
15:12
Speaker 5: ruling against the administration's deportation policy if they were to
15:16
Speaker 5: receive one. That's a charge that Bobe was asked about
15:19
Speaker 5: quite a few times during the hearings, and one that
15:21
Speaker 5: he pretty blatantly denied. He said that he has never
15:24
Speaker 5: advised the DOJ lawyer to violate a court order and
15:26
Speaker 5: that what was said about him should not disqualify him
15:29
Speaker 5: for the judgeship. That's also been the statement we've gotten
15:31
Speaker 5: from other Justice Department officials when the whistle blower complaint
15:34
Speaker 5: was first made public, to say absolutely not that didn't happen,
15:37
Speaker 5: but that was certainly a scene that we saw come
15:39
Speaker 5: up quite a few times during Democrats questioning both.
15:42
Speaker 1: A is probably most well known as the Justice Department
15:47
Speaker 1: official who moved to dismiss the corruption charges against New
15:52
Speaker 1: York City Mayor Eric Adams, leading to mass resignations at
15:56
Speaker 1: the Justice Department. I take it there was a lot
15:59
Speaker 1: of quests about that.
16:01
Speaker 5: Absolutely. That initially was maybe one of the ways that
16:03
Speaker 5: he was most infamous on the Hill was for his
16:05
Speaker 5: directive to dismiss coruption charges against the New York City
16:09
Speaker 5: mayor that led to resignations of high profile prosecutors in
16:12
Speaker 5: New York and Washington, including the US attorneys for the
16:15
Speaker 5: Southern District of New York, who resigned rather than carry
16:18
Speaker 5: out that directive. That was obviously something that we saw
16:21
Speaker 5: Democrats pressed Bovie about and he, you know, pretty much
16:24
Speaker 5: defended that decision, and you felt that that, you know,
16:27
Speaker 5: the dismissal was granted, so it must not have been,
16:30
Speaker 5: you know, an extreme position. He denied the idea that
16:32
Speaker 5: it was political or any type of quid pro quo
16:35
Speaker 5: in any way. Democrats didn't seem convinced that he did
16:38
Speaker 5: maintain that line of denial on that accusation.
16:41
Speaker 1: If I remember correctly, the judge in that case, Dale
16:45
Speaker 1: Hole was critical of the Justice Department, and, contrary to
16:50
Speaker 1: the Justice Department's contention that there was no quid pro quo,
16:55
Speaker 1: said that everything in the case smacked of a bargain
16:59
Speaker 1: dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.
17:05
Speaker 1: I mean, he's done a lot in the Justice Department
17:08
Speaker 1: in the short time he's been there. Was he the
17:10
Speaker 1: one who decided to fire the prosecutors who worked on
17:14
Speaker 1: the capital riot cases.
17:17
Speaker 5: Yes, that was yet another charge that we really saw
17:19
Speaker 5: brought up quite a bit by Democrats, was that he
17:22
Speaker 5: had really, at the beginning of his tenure, while he
17:24
Speaker 5: was still serving as the acting Deputy Attorney General for
17:27
Speaker 5: the Justice Department at the second in command, he directed
17:30
Speaker 5: then PC and a REMUS attorney Ed Martin, to fire
17:34
Speaker 5: a number of prosecutors who had worked on capital riot cases,
17:38
Speaker 5: the cases against participants in the January sixth, twenty twenty
17:41
Speaker 5: one at the US Capitol during certification of that presidential election.
17:45
Speaker 5: Those have been prosecutors who had not been in office
17:48
Speaker 5: as long, which meant that they didn't have the same
17:50
Speaker 5: level of protections and it was easier for them to
17:52
Speaker 5: be fired, but it was something that was really heavily
17:55
Speaker 5: criticized at the time by people who saw it as
17:58
Speaker 5: retribution against career lawyers who were doing what they had
18:01
Speaker 5: been asked to do. Again, Bovy denied that this was
18:04
Speaker 5: any type of political or retributive decision and really maintained
18:08
Speaker 5: that it was more of a personnel decision. He brought
18:11
Speaker 5: up that the prosecutors had been hired to be temporary
18:15
Speaker 5: and had been placed in a more permanent disposition by
18:18
Speaker 5: the Biden administration toward the end of their term, and
18:20
Speaker 5: that he didn't agree with that decision. So again just
18:23
Speaker 5: really like maintained his position that the decisions that he
18:26
Speaker 5: made that he was getting criticism for were not political.
18:29
Speaker 1: What kind of questions did the Republican senators ask him
18:33
Speaker 1: and did they try to sort of rehabilitate him?
18:37
Speaker 5: You know, I think as his typical during these hearings,
18:39
Speaker 5: you tend to get tougher questions from the opposing side
18:43
Speaker 5: than you do from the side that nominated him. We
18:46
Speaker 5: did get some interesting questions from as Senator Josh Howley
18:49
Speaker 5: just done sort of how Bovey would be as a
18:52
Speaker 5: judge and what his approach to judging would be kind
18:54
Speaker 5: of separate from his past actions at the Justice Department.
18:59
Speaker 5: Bove said that he was a textualist and that he
19:02
Speaker 5: would really like consult the statutory statue, look at usages,
19:05
Speaker 5: try to look at the legislation at the time, and
19:08
Speaker 5: also indicated that he would be one to exercise restraint
19:11
Speaker 5: and avoid inserting himself or declaring a definition of a
19:16
Speaker 5: law that was ambiguous, and would more prefer to defer
19:19
Speaker 5: back to Congress where language is ambiguous. So that kind
19:22
Speaker 5: of gave us a bit of a window on the
19:23
Speaker 5: more like technical judging side of things. How at least
19:26
Speaker 5: he would see his own philosophy as a judge if
19:28
Speaker 5: he were to be confirmed.
19:29
Speaker 1: I believe there's a two person Republican majority on this committee.
19:35
Speaker 1: Is there any indication that he won't get through this committee?
19:40
Speaker 5: Not that I have heard so far, though of course
19:42
Speaker 5: I always say with politics, never say never. We have
19:44
Speaker 5: seen the occasional Trump nominee taken down. I think of
19:49
Speaker 5: Martin from the DCUs Attorney's Office that I had mentioned
19:51
Speaker 5: earlier as an example, is he lost the support of
19:54
Speaker 5: one Republican member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and that
19:56
Speaker 5: was enough to tank his nomination. But of course in
19:59
Speaker 5: this inte and the blue split process whereby the majority
20:03
Speaker 5: party would consider the home state senator's consent and approval
20:06
Speaker 5: before moving forward to nominee, is no longer in effect
20:09
Speaker 5: for Circuit court picks and Emmelsove of course, is nominated
20:13
Speaker 5: for the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
20:15
Speaker 5: So the opposition from the two Democrats who are the
20:18
Speaker 5: two senators from New Jersey is not a problem for
20:20
Speaker 5: his nomination to move forward. I did not hear any
20:24
Speaker 5: opposition from Senate Republicans from what I observed during that hearing,
20:27
Speaker 5: but we will have to see. I think at this
20:30
Speaker 5: point it seems that there are no obstacles, but of
20:34
Speaker 5: course he's facing a lot of opposition from Democrats and
20:37
Speaker 5: some ethics complaints, So we'll have to see how he
20:39
Speaker 5: moves forward.
20:39
Speaker 1: And what can you tell us about those ethics complaints.
20:42
Speaker 5: He's been subject to some ethics complaints, various complaints by
20:46
Speaker 5: mostly Democrats and other critics, including to relate to his
20:49
Speaker 5: conducts during the Eric Adams litigation.
20:52
Speaker 1: Interesting that during his time as a federal prosecutor in
20:55
Speaker 1: New York, Bovet was involved in several high profile cases,
21:01
Speaker 1: but his actions apparently rankled some fellow prosecutors and defense attorneys.
21:07
Speaker 1: In twenty eighteen, the Federal Public Defender's Office compile complaints
21:11
Speaker 1: about his behavior from defense attorneys and sent them to
21:15
Speaker 1: two top officials in the US Attorney's Office. Yet, about
21:20
Speaker 1: eighteen months after the email was sent, Beauve was promoted
21:25
Speaker 1: to be co chief of the office's National Security and
21:29
Speaker 1: International Narcotics Unit. He certainly has an interesting history. Thanks
21:35
Speaker 1: so much, Suzanne. That's Suzanne Monnac, Bloomberg Law Judiciary Reporter,
21:41
Speaker 1: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
21:44
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
21:46
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
21:50
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
21:56
Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
21:58
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten Tim Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso,
22:03
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg