Latest / Bloomberg Law / Cases at SCOTUS in 2025 & Trump's New York Cases

Transcript

Cases at SCOTUS in 2025 & Trump's New York Cases · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: Recent Supreme Court terms have been dominated by blockbuster case
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: after blockbuster case. In recent years. The court eliminated the
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: constitutional right to abortion, effectively ended the use of race
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: as a factor in college admission decisions, and expanded gun rights.
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: It also curtailed the power of federal regulators throughout a
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: federal ban on bump stocks, and granted Donald Trump broad
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: immunity from criminal prosecution. So far, this term appears to
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: be quieter. The highest profile cases argued involved challenges to
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: federal regulations for ghost guns and access to gender affirming
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: care for transgender miners. We're going to take a look
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: at the arguments coming up at the Supreme Court in
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: the new year. Joining me is constitutional law expert Harold Krent,
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: a profes Star at the Chicago Kent College of Law.
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: Let's start with the three First Amendment cases. The case
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: over the TikTok ban, the case challenging a Texas law
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: that requires porn sites to verify the ages of users,
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: And an attempt by a charitable arm of the Catholic
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: Church for an exemption from Wisconsin's unemployment tax. So the
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: first arguments of the year are the arguments over TikTok's
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: ban next Friday, which is a special argument day set
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: aside by the Court. Tell us about the First Amendment
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: argument in this case.
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: Well, Congress in early twenty twenty four passed the law
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: requiring TikTok basically to be divested from its Chinese parent
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: byte Dance by January nineteenth, twenty twenty five. So that
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: data is rapidly approaching, and the divestiture requirement has been
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: challenged under the First Amendment, and it is far from privolous,
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: and so the court did decide to take an emergency appeal,
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: So it's not exactly on the merits. It would be
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: an emergency peal about whether or not they're so convinced
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: that the First Amendment issues are substantial or not that
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: they would give a injunction against the statute to get
• 2:14
  Speaker 2: rid of the January nineteenth deadline. So obviously, TikTok is
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: incredibly popular in the United States, particularly amongst young people,
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: but also for adults as well, and the fear that
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: led Congress to order the divestiture is the fact that
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: there is not only a Chinese parent, but the Chinese
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: parent here can collect so much information about one hundred
• 2:37
  Speaker 2: million users or so on TikTok and then change the
• 2:41
  Speaker 2: algorithms by which people see information and through doing that,
• 2:45
  Speaker 2: influence America in a way that is more pro Chinese.
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: There's been no evidence that by Dance and TikTok has
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: done this, but it's certainly, i think well accepted that
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: they could if they wanted to sort of just disinformationation
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: all the incredible number of users of TikTok in a
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: way that would jeopardize our foreign policy. So that's what
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: led Congress to or the divestiture. But that raises huge
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: First Amendment questions because it is picking out one particular
• 3:16
  Speaker 2: social media platform and saying that there can no longer
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: be free expression in that venue because of the fear
• 3:25
  Speaker 2: of the Chinese influence. So it really raises a very
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: important but a very novel First Amendment claim, and that's
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: what will be heard in January tenth in order to
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: make sure there's enough time for the Court to act
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: before January nineteenth if they are so inclined.
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: So one thing that's interesting is that President elect Donald
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: Trump asked the court to stay the law without taking
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: a stance on whether the law is unconstitutional. And here
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: is what his lawyer, John Sower, the future Uslicitor General, wrote,
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: President Trump alone possesses the consummate deal making expertise, the
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: expressed by the government. It's unprecedented to have a future
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: president intervene in a case before the Court before he
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: takes office to try to counteract something that the current
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: president has done.
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: So what's even more amazing about that filing is that
• 4:27
  Speaker 2: it raises a presidential power issue under Article two that
• 4:31
  Speaker 2: has never been discussed in the court before, which is
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: what about the Article too interests of a president elect?
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: Because what President Trump has done, in a kind of
• 4:40
  Speaker 2: rambling filing is suggests that his progatives as a future
• 4:45
  Speaker 2: president should be preserved under Article two by deciding to
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: stay the divestiture date of January nineteenth. We've just never
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: had a case on the powers of a president elect,
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: and President Trump's filing does raise the issue. It's a
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: can of worms that has not been opened, but it
• 5:04
  Speaker 2: may be opened by the Supreme Court. We'll have to
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: see if the course, the Court doesn't have to reach
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: that issue in deciding whether to stay the case or not,
• 5:12
  Speaker 2: but it's a fascinating stub issue.
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: Well, we were all surprised when the Court expanded presidential
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: immunity from criminal prosecution. So I suppose anything is possible.
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: Anything is possible, And you know, as a political matter,
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: President trump'submission makes some sense because what the Court does
• 5:32
  Speaker 2: by delaying or not delaying the deadline on January nineteenth,
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: will have an impact on his presidency. And so there
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: is absolutely more than a kernel of truth in what
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: President Trump has stated.
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: And we're guaranteed to get a ruling quickly in one
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: week's time because the Court has to rule before that
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: January nineteenth deadline, and there.
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: Will be a number of options. TikTok, of course, can
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: sell itself to an American company, and there are some
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: American based companies that are suggesting that they're interested. So
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: there are ways that TikTok can continue on even with
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: the steadline looming.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: So on January fifteenth, the justices are going to hear
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: arguments in a case challenging a Texas law that requires
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: porn sites to verify the ages of users. This has
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: forced one of the biggest sites, porn Hub, to shut
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: down in Texas. Industry groups are fighting this, are suing
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: over this. What is their contention?
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: They have two general First Amendment claims that I think
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: they're quite substantial. The first is more of a doctrinal one.
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: The court below used a kind of rational basis test
• 6:39
  Speaker 2: in order to assess the legitimacy of this statute in
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: terms of protecting minors as opposed to a more demanding
• 6:49
  Speaker 2: scrutiny test. And if their strict scrutiny had been afforded
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: as it has been afforded to other similar kinds of
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: age restrictions in statutes on First Amendment grounds that then
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: the statute probably would be struck down. So the first
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: challenge is simply one did the court below use the
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: wrong standard of scrutiny, in which case the court might
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: then just remanded back for another go round with the
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: Fifth Circuit. But the second issue is more predictable, which is,
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: if you have an age verification on a statute and
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: you require adults to put in you know, whether it's
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: driver's licenses or other proof of age, you will deter
• 7:31
  Speaker 2: people from going to that site for fear of privacy
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: invasions for fear of manipulation, et cetera. So there will
• 7:40
  Speaker 2: be a diminution in free expression by having an age
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: verification on this kind of site. So that's sort of
• 7:47
  Speaker 2: one traditional First Amendment argument. And you know, the second
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: is probably the way the statute is crafted. It applies
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: to any site which has at least a third of
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: its material which may be distasteful or content which is
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: inappropriate for children. Well, how do you determine that if
• 8:04
  Speaker 2: you have artworks on display, or if you have some
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: kind of erotic poetry, And so there may be just
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: a deterrenceive speech by websites having to self edit for
• 8:17
  Speaker 2: fear of reaching this one third threshold, which is very
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: hard to ascertain. So there is a Supreme Court case
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: almost on point of about twenty years ago. It looked
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: at the Hilt Online Privacy Act and it had an
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: age verification it and it was struck down as unconstitutional
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: and never re enacted by Congress. And I would predict
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: that the Texas Statute would be held to be on
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: constitutional as well, particularly if the Heidens standard of scrutiny
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: is required by the court.
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: The Texas Attorney General is pointing to a nineteen sixty
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: eight Supreme Court decision that said states could bar the
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: dissemination of pornographic magazines to minors.
• 8:59
  Speaker 2: Is that, Well, the difference is the websites. Right, Once
• 9:02
  Speaker 2: we have a whole kind of different world that can't
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: be cordoned off into magazines delivered or magazines not delivered.
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: We have a new First Amendment dimension that has been
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: added to it. Now, what's interesting I think about this
• 9:18
  Speaker 2: is that the Biden administration has held that it's likely
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: to be unconstitutional, and so the question is what will
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: a Trump administration do? And that's something that's common in
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: all of these cases is when there has been a
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: not so much in the Texas case, which will go
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: on because it doesn't evolve an Act of Congress, but
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: once there has been a determination by the Soster General
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: of what position to take, you know, the Trump administration
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: may file something and say we no longer have that position,
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: or we're changing that position, we're changing regulation. So a
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: lot of the cases that are on the docket for
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: this first half of twenty twenty five may end up
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: in a very different procedural stance from when it started.
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: So the justices that are going to review a Wisconsin
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court decision that denied Catholic charities an exemption from
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: Wisconsin's unemployment tax.
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: The question here is whether you can deny a tax
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: rexemption to an arm of a religious institution, even though
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: you couldn't deny it to the religious institution itself. So
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: the states that have these exemptions in terms of applying
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: it to religious organizations, they say, religious organizations are exempt,
• 10:35
  Speaker 2: but how do you tell if it's really a religious organization?
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: And the language in the Wisconsin statute itself basically held
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: that has to be organizations that are operated primarily for
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: religious purposes, and they use a test to determine not
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: just the motivation underlying the arm of the religious entity,
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: but also their activities. In this case, they said, yes,
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: there can be great religious motivations for operating charities, and
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: they latted the efforts of the Catholic Church to help
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: out people with disabilities. But they said that the actions
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: of the religious group are secular. It's nothing about imbuing
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: people with religious sense or devotion or anything along those lines.
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: And the court therefore made a distinction between a motivation
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: to create a school, for instance, or a hospital as
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: opposed to trying to encourage religious doctrine. So that is
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: a difficult line drawing issue, and that's the argument here
• 11:39
  Speaker 2: of why it's unconstitutional. That will mesh the courts in
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: determining whether these activities are really religious or not. But
• 11:46
  Speaker 2: on the other hand, as the Coreme Court said more
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: than twenty years ago in the Walks case, sometimes this
• 11:52
  Speaker 2: line drawing for tax resumption is just inevitable. You can't
• 11:56
  Speaker 2: really get around it. You have to have some kind
• 11:58
  Speaker 2: of tests in this instance to try to suggest that
• 12:03
  Speaker 2: when you can have exemptions from you know, in this case,
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: taxes that help people who are unemployed citizens of Wisconsin
• 12:10
  Speaker 2: on the one hand, on the other hand, be respectful
• 12:13
  Speaker 2: of religious institutions. So that's where the test of motivations
• 12:17
  Speaker 2: and activities separations come from. And we'll see if the
• 12:21
  Speaker 2: court and stuff like that. It's really unclear.
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: So, but the Roberts Court has expanded religious rights over
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: and over again. Is this another chance for them to
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: expand religious rights?
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: It is a chance, and it certainly it wouldn't be
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: shocking for the court to do that. But it is
• 12:38
  Speaker 2: I think only fair to note that if the Court
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: decides that wisconunting cannot make a distinction between Catholic charities
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: and the Catholic Church. That this will give a huge
• 12:51
  Speaker 2: advantage to religious based organizations that are in health care
• 12:55
  Speaker 2: and education, who then don't have to pay the same
• 12:58
  Speaker 2: taxes that secular hospitals and secular universities.
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: Coming up next, will the powers of federal agencies take
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: another hit this term. This is Bloomberg. I've been talking
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: to Professor Harold Krant to the Chicago Kent College of
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: Law about the oral arguments coming up at the Supreme
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: Court in the new year. So let's turn out to
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: some cases involving agency authority, which the Supreme Court has
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: been rigorously, shall we say, cutting back on federal regulatory authority.
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: They're going to consider the constitutionality of the eight billion
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: dollars annual subsidies that help cover the cost of telecom
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: services for poor people and rural residents. So this is
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: about the power of the Federal Communications Commission.
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: Absolutely, this is a Federal Communications Commission rule, but it's
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: done by delegation from Congress, and so that there are
• 13:55
  Speaker 2: Congresses delegated to the sec the power to impose this
• 13:59
  Speaker 2: fear and the first claim against it is the fact
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: that the SEC shouldn't be imposing a fee that's a tax,
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: and only Congress can impose taxes. This would be a
• 14:10
  Speaker 2: wild argument if the Supreme Court buys it, because agencies
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: apply user fees all the time, and you can look
• 14:18
  Speaker 2: at user fees as a tax, you can look at
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: them as something else, a subsidy. How do you distinguish
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: one from the other. So one way that the Court
• 14:25
  Speaker 2: could just cut back again dramatically the power of agencies
• 14:29
  Speaker 2: is to begin to say that anything that looks like
• 14:32
  Speaker 2: a tax can only come from Congress as opposed to
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: the agencies. I don't think the Court will go there,
• 14:37
  Speaker 2: but that's at least one possibility. And there's another one
• 14:40
  Speaker 2: that is pretty clear, because the statue itself says that
• 14:44
  Speaker 2: the fee should be quote sufficient to preserve and advance
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: universal service. That admittedly is quite vague, and so this
• 14:53
  Speaker 2: is another vehicle potentially for the Court to revive the
• 14:57
  Speaker 2: non delegation doctrine, and that would say that Congress, if
• 15:01
  Speaker 2: it gives power to the SEC, has to be far
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: more nuanced and clear than this sort of broad understanding
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: that they set fees sufficient to preserve in advanced universal service,
• 15:13
  Speaker 2: just not giving enough direction to the administrative agency. And
• 15:18
  Speaker 2: there's a third side of this particular challenge which I
• 15:21
  Speaker 2: think is going to be very close on the Supreme Court,
• 15:24
  Speaker 2: which is that the agency has given too much power
• 15:27
  Speaker 2: to a private group. The SEC decided to use a
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: group in this case, which is called a Universal Service
• 15:36
  Speaker 2: Administration Company, which is a private group of mainly people
• 15:40
  Speaker 2: in the telecom industry. They gave that power to set
• 15:44
  Speaker 2: the fee and provided that if the agency took no
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: action within fourteen days, the fee recommended by this private
• 15:52
  Speaker 2: group would become binding. So the court may say that
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: the involvement in this private group makes the delegation even
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: more constitutionally problematic and strike down the structure on that ground.
• 16:06
  Speaker 2: And I think maybe it's a small point, but I
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: think the court might say, look, the agency at least
• 16:12
  Speaker 2: has to take some positive, concrete actions, such as accepting
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: a private recommendation from the group as to the fee
• 16:22
  Speaker 2: before it becomes binding in the name of the United States.
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: And as the statute is written, the private groups recommendation
• 16:30
  Speaker 2: becomes final if no action is taken on behalf of
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: the agency. And that might seem like a minor issue,
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: but it may be just one step too far for
• 16:39
  Speaker 2: the Court in order to signal the Congress to stop
• 16:43
  Speaker 2: giving too much authority to private parties who are not
• 16:46
  Speaker 2: subject to close oversight by the President or heads of agencies.
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: You mentioned wild arguments. This case is an appealed from
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: the Fifth Circuit, which is the most conservative circuit in
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: the country and often has novel arguments, shall we say,
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: And it's a split with two other appellate courts in
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: declaring the program invalid. So does it seem like the
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: Court took this case to overturn to reverse the Fifth Circuit.
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: It's unclear to me. I think that the case has
• 17:16
  Speaker 2: some merit to it, and I think that the Court
• 17:19
  Speaker 2: has been interested in non delegation issues, and particularly non
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: delegation issues involving power that's shared with private parties. So
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: I'm not surprised that the Court took this case. And
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: there is a split in the circuits, and I don't
• 17:31
  Speaker 2: think we can be confident that the Court's going to
• 17:33
  Speaker 2: rebuff the Fifth Circuit in this particular case. I think
• 17:36
  Speaker 2: there will in other cases, but not necessarily in this one,
• 17:39
  Speaker 2: because this is a somewhat of a standardless delegation involving
• 17:43
  Speaker 2: sharing power with private parties, something that is of interest
• 17:47
  Speaker 2: to a number of the justices.
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: There is a clash involving California's strict vehicle pollution laws,
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: but this is a preliminary question of standing and whether
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: the fuel producers have the legal right to sue over
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: the regulation.
• 18:03
  Speaker 2: That's right, I mean, the underlying this case is a
• 18:05
  Speaker 2: waiver that is very controversial that the EPA or Environmental
• 18:09
  Speaker 2: Protection Agency gave to California to exempt them from sort
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: of national requirements in terms of regulation of fuel emissions,
• 18:20
  Speaker 2: allowing California to go its own way. California has gone
• 18:23
  Speaker 2: its own way since twenty thirteen. It was cut back
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: a little bit during the tough administration the first one,
• 18:28
  Speaker 2: but not completely, and California is much more rigorous in
• 18:33
  Speaker 2: terms of requiring less fuel emissions than other states, and
• 18:38
  Speaker 2: of course the industry has chafed against that repeatedly, but
• 18:42
  Speaker 2: lost it politically to try to do anything about it.
• 18:45
  Speaker 2: So this involves some lawsuits by fuel producers saying because
• 18:50
  Speaker 2: of California's exemption, their ability then to regulate more stringently,
• 18:57
  Speaker 2: people are buying less fuel. At the one level, you
• 19:01
  Speaker 2: can say, yes, that's logical, and that these fuel producers
• 19:06
  Speaker 2: should have standing because they're injured, because people will likely
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: then pay less money for fuel if they have more
• 19:15
  Speaker 2: energy sufficient cars. But there are two problems with the argument,
• 19:20
  Speaker 2: and that's what led the Ninth Circuit to hold that
• 19:23
  Speaker 2: there is no standing in this case. The first is
• 19:26
  Speaker 2: that there is no showing that car manufacturers would make
• 19:31
  Speaker 2: different fleets of cars available but for California's rules. And
• 19:35
  Speaker 2: so the argument there that was given by California, it's saying,
• 19:39
  Speaker 2: you know, think about Tesla, if you think about even
• 19:43
  Speaker 2: Chevrolet and Honda and so forth, they're making more fuel
• 19:48
  Speaker 2: conscious cars all the time, the electric fleets, the hybrids,
• 19:53
  Speaker 2: and it's not clear that even if California changed its
• 19:57
  Speaker 2: regulations that they would decide to produce a different type
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: of car for the market. Now that's a serious argument
• 20:06
  Speaker 2: and it does undercut I think standing significantly. But then
• 20:10
  Speaker 2: the court relied on the second reason to suggest there
• 20:13
  Speaker 2: was no standing, namely no addressability, because the actual action
• 20:19
  Speaker 2: that the fuel producers was challenging was the Plan of
• 20:24
  Speaker 2: California that was to be implemented from twenty seventeen to
• 20:28
  Speaker 2: twenty twenty five. Well, guess what we're in twenty twenty
• 20:32
  Speaker 2: five now, So even if car manufacturers would produce different
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: cars if California lessened its regulation, they couldn't do it
• 20:41
  Speaker 2: in time for twenty twenty five because there's too much
• 20:45
  Speaker 2: lead time required to bring different cars to the market.
• 20:49
  Speaker 2: So the argument is pretty strong that there is no
• 20:52
  Speaker 2: addressability in this case, namely that even if the fuel
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: producers won and would say that this waiver for California
• 21:00
  Speaker 2: is against the spirit of the statute, that there still
• 21:03
  Speaker 2: would be no change because there isn't time for a change,
• 21:06
  Speaker 2: and that whether a change would happen is still so
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: speculative because it depends upon the actions of third parties
• 21:11
  Speaker 2: not before the court, namely the automobile manufacturers. So at
• 21:16
  Speaker 2: the bottom of the case is a very important issue
• 21:18
  Speaker 2: of power, and did the EPA violate somehow these statutory
• 21:24
  Speaker 2: instructions by giving this broad waiver to California. That's a
• 21:27
  Speaker 2: very important issue. But in this particular context, the core,
• 21:32
  Speaker 2: I think is probably on strong ground in saying no standing.
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: And California's waiver isn't it in danger already? Because Trump
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: campaigned on promises to end ev mandates, and his administration
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: is expected to try to withdraw the waiver.
• 21:50
  Speaker 2: So it's an interesting question, right because at the one hand,
• 21:53
  Speaker 2: during the first administration there was a restriction of the
• 21:57
  Speaker 2: waiver authority at the EPA, but it wasn't got to completely.
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: And Elon Muscow is a friend of the president so
• 22:04
  Speaker 2: far as we know, certainly benefits from the tighter restrictions
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: that are imposed by California. So what the Trump administration
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: will do is really an unknown. But yes, it may
• 22:15
  Speaker 2: change the face of this litigation substantially if the Trump
• 22:20
  Speaker 2: EPA decides to pull back the waiver.
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: So the court's going to consider reviving a plan to
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: store as much as forty thousand tons of highly radioactive
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: waste at a temporary West Texas site, and Texas is
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: opposing this. What is the basis for Texas's opposition?
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: So Originally, under the Atomic Energy Act, it was clear
• 22:45
  Speaker 2: that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had the power to license
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: both radioactive dump sites that are located at the nuclear
• 22:55
  Speaker 2: facility as well as radioactive storage sites off site, and
• 23:01
  Speaker 2: the Nuclear Record three Commission, and as predecessor, did this
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: for generations. Congress, however, recognized that there was a great
• 23:10
  Speaker 2: deal of difficulty and tried many times to encourage others
• 23:14
  Speaker 2: to build these radioactive sites because nobody wants them, and
• 23:19
  Speaker 2: so they wanted to create enough sort of incentive or
• 23:23
  Speaker 2: force to make sure that these sites existed, which are
• 23:26
  Speaker 2: critical because of the waste coming from nuclear facilities. And
• 23:30
  Speaker 2: there's been a series of litigations that have been spawned
• 23:34
  Speaker 2: by this effort. But the key issue here, according to
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: the Circuit, is when Congress later enacted the Nuclear Waste
• 23:43
  Speaker 2: Policy Act in nineteen eighty two, it was clear in
• 23:46
  Speaker 2: that act that it was encouraging the actual operators of
• 23:51
  Speaker 2: the nuclear sites to create their own storage facilities. So
• 23:56
  Speaker 2: the argument that was given by the State of Texas
• 23:59
  Speaker 2: was that this particular license violates the spirit of the
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: nineteen eighty two Act, which is subsequent to the original
• 24:08
  Speaker 2: authorization for the regulation. And if Congress is saying we
• 24:12
  Speaker 2: are encouraging all site owners to develop their own temporary
• 24:18
  Speaker 2: storage facilities, how can the agency go and license a
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: one that is off site. This is the question about
• 24:26
  Speaker 2: really interpreting the statute. Is it just a hortatory kind
• 24:30
  Speaker 2: of statement from the Congress saying we think this would
• 24:33
  Speaker 2: be a good idea, or can this really be interpreted
• 24:36
  Speaker 2: as the Fifth Circuit did to say you are no
• 24:39
  Speaker 2: longer allowed to license in a off facility place. I
• 24:43
  Speaker 2: think it's likely that the Court is going to turn
• 24:46
  Speaker 2: back the Fifth Circuit here because it would be such
• 24:48
  Speaker 2: a reversal of practice over the last twenty five years
• 24:53
  Speaker 2: and more that we'll.
• 24:53
  Speaker 3: Have to see.
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: And again, this is the Fifth Circuit in conflict with
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: other circuits, upending more than forty years of NRC practices.
• 25:03
  Speaker 2: Yeah, so I think that this is a long shot.
• 25:06
  Speaker 2: There's also another procedural issue involved in here, which is
• 25:09
  Speaker 2: say Texas was not involved directly in the licensing peering
• 25:14
  Speaker 2: at all, and jurisdictionally, under the jurisdictional provisions, only those
• 25:19
  Speaker 2: who were involved in this particular kind of rulemaking can
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: challenge the licensing decision in court. And what the Fifth
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: Circuit held here was, yes, Texas and others were just
• 25:30
  Speaker 2: tempted interveners and they were not parties to the case.
• 25:32
  Speaker 2: But they noted an exception for parties who were challenging
• 25:37
  Speaker 2: the administrative authority of the agency. So the Fifth Circuit
• 25:40
  Speaker 2: used an anti agency rationale to say that we ought
• 25:44
  Speaker 2: to ignore the jurisdictional provisions set by Congress to invite
• 25:49
  Speaker 2: more people in to challenge agency action if we think
• 25:52
  Speaker 2: the agency action is outside of Congress's directions. And so
• 25:57
  Speaker 2: this is again a clearly anti administrative agency tenor to
• 26:02
  Speaker 2: the decisions. So as possible, the Court could just say
• 26:05
  Speaker 2: you're wrong, Fifth Circuit and the interveneers cannot raise this
• 26:10
  Speaker 2: challenge to the licensing provision and therefore get rid of
• 26:15
  Speaker 2: the Fifth orcnscis on.
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: That round, the Court is also going to take up
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: another redistricting issue, a new clash over the use of
• 26:22
  Speaker 1: race in redistricting. This is arguments on a Louisiana congressional
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: map that creates an additional majority black voting district. And
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: this issue has come before the Court before. But is
• 26:35
  Speaker 1: it based more on facts than anything else.
• 26:39
  Speaker 2: Yeah, So in the case is before the court, before
• 26:40
  Speaker 2: the Court said, well, we're not going to get involved
• 26:43
  Speaker 2: in it. The election to twenty four can continue with
• 26:47
  Speaker 2: this new district intact. We're not going to say one
• 26:51
  Speaker 2: way or another whether it's a good idea or not.
• 26:54
  Speaker 2: And the Louisiana legislature had approved the new districting in
• 26:59
  Speaker 2: the wake of a determination on the Voting Rights Act
• 27:02
  Speaker 2: that the prior allocation of boundaries or setting boundaries violated
• 27:07
  Speaker 2: the principle of fairness in the Voting Rights Act itself,
• 27:11
  Speaker 2: So Louisiana was trying to remedy a statutory violation in
• 27:15
  Speaker 2: creating this act. Now, the Act is a little controversial
• 27:18
  Speaker 2: because it's clear that the Louisiana legislature discussed it making
• 27:23
  Speaker 2: safe seats for people like Steve Scalice. There would be
• 27:26
  Speaker 2: a Speaker of the House and chose to redistrict in
• 27:33
  Speaker 2: a way not only that insured two districts were majority black,
• 27:37
  Speaker 2: but also ensured that their favorite Republicans would stay in power.
• 27:42
  Speaker 2: So the three judge district court after the Supreme Court decision,
• 27:47
  Speaker 2: held that this was unconstitutional because the effort to redraw
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: the map not only was race based in terms of
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: creating a second majority black district, but also was done
• 28:00
  Speaker 2: not on neutral principles. So those issues are percolating here,
• 28:05
  Speaker 2: and it's unclear what the court could do. Because the
• 28:08
  Speaker 2: Court could use this as a way of limiting remedies
• 28:12
  Speaker 2: on their Voting Rights Act. They could knock out some
• 28:14
  Speaker 2: of the Voting Rights Act itself, or they could have
• 28:18
  Speaker 2: a very narrow decision. So this one's definitely worth watching.
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: So now there's also a case involving Title seven of
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: the Civil Rights Act, and it involves pleating requirements.
• 28:30
  Speaker 2: Yes, in order to advance in a Title seven case
• 28:34
  Speaker 2: or discrimination, if you have to show kind of a
• 28:36
  Speaker 2: prime officia case that you were treated differently than another
• 28:40
  Speaker 2: covered group and that because you were treated differently, it
• 28:44
  Speaker 2: resulted in some kind of adverse employment action. So to
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: you even get to the pleting stage, one has to
• 28:50
  Speaker 2: allege these particular type of harms, and that's been consistent
• 28:56
  Speaker 2: since Title SEVENE was enacted in sixty four. Well, what
• 29:00
  Speaker 2: happens if you're a member of a majority religion or
• 29:05
  Speaker 2: majority race, or if you're straight in terms of your sexuality,
• 29:10
  Speaker 2: and if you then make a claim that even though
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: you're straight, you were treated unfairly based on your straightness,
• 29:19
  Speaker 2: and therefore you are claiming some kind of discrimination that's
• 29:23
  Speaker 2: protected under the Act. And indeed, in the Ohio case,
• 29:27
  Speaker 2: there was an individual who is straight and she didn't
• 29:31
  Speaker 2: get a promotion, and instead the promotion went to someone
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: who is gay, and then was later demoted and someone
• 29:38
  Speaker 2: took her old position who was gay as well, And
• 29:41
  Speaker 2: even though someone who is straight made these employment decisions,
• 29:46
  Speaker 2: she claimed that the decision was in violation of her
• 29:51
  Speaker 2: statutory rights to be treated the same as anybody else
• 29:54
  Speaker 2: based upon her sexuality, and a number of courts have held,
• 29:58
  Speaker 2: but others have disagreed that there is an additional hurdle
• 30:03
  Speaker 2: that somebody who is of a majority religion, race, or
• 30:08
  Speaker 2: who are straight, as in this case, has to surmount
• 30:12
  Speaker 2: before they can get into court, and they have to
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: show background circumstances to give more of color or more
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: oomph to their argument that they were treated unfairly based
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: upon a covered characteristics. And in some ways that requirement
• 30:29
  Speaker 2: makes them sense because for a court they have to
• 30:32
  Speaker 2: go into any kind of analysis and waste resources to
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: determine if someone who is of a majority race, religion,
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: or sexual appearance. That just wastes time because it's so
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: unlikely that if you're a majority, you will be subject
• 30:47
  Speaker 2: to discrimination. And so those courts that then as a
• 30:50
  Speaker 2: way to conserve resources, we just want to make sure
• 30:54
  Speaker 2: that somebody who pleads the case will show a little
• 30:57
  Speaker 2: bit more of those background circumstances which suggest despite the
• 31:00
  Speaker 2: fact that their majority, they were subject to discrimination. And
• 31:04
  Speaker 2: you know, in this case, the decisions were made by
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: someone who was straight, just as was the planker. But
• 31:13
  Speaker 2: the Biden administration and a number of courts is said,
• 31:18
  Speaker 2: there's one standard under Title seven and it applies to
• 31:22
  Speaker 2: everybody the same, and so there is no basis for
• 31:26
  Speaker 2: this sort of judicial common lawmaking of adding this special
• 31:30
  Speaker 2: pleading requirement of background circumstances. So it's going to be
• 31:33
  Speaker 2: interesting to see what the Trump Sister General will say
• 31:36
  Speaker 2: about this. And it's really unknowable what the Court will say,
• 31:39
  Speaker 2: because I think, in my view is a rule of thumb, Yes,
• 31:43
  Speaker 2: it should be harder to show discrimination if you're a
• 31:45
  Speaker 2: member of the majority group, whether religion or race or
• 31:49
  Speaker 2: sexual practice. But there is only one central Title seven,
• 31:53
  Speaker 2: and so maybe the Court should just look at it
• 31:55
  Speaker 2: more skeptically without having any kind of formal requirement of
• 31:59
  Speaker 2: additional In his.
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: Annual report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: issued a defense of judicial independence, which he set is
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: under threat from intimidation, disinformation, and the prospect of public
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: officials defying court orders. With a string of alleged ethical
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: missteps by justices and controversial decisions, including a landmark presidential
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: immunity decision written by Roberts, Americans confidence in the country's
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: judicial system and courts has dropped to a record low
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: of thirty five percent, according to a Gallup poll. I've
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: been talking to Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago Kent
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: College of Law. The Chief's annual report typically ignores current
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: concerns surrounding the justices and the institution, but his focus
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: this year was on what he called illegitimate activity aimed
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: at undermining the independence of the judiciary. He had four
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: areas of concerns, violence directed at judges, efforts to intimidate them, disinformation,
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: and government officials threats to defy court judgments. What did
• 33:12
  Speaker 1: you take from his end of year report?
• 33:14
  Speaker 2: It can be empathetic to his wish and his hope
• 33:17
  Speaker 2: and his fervent desire that the Supreme Court retained its
• 33:22
  Speaker 2: independence and respect in our society. And I guess, on
• 33:24
  Speaker 2: one hand, you can be skeptical, given that a lot
• 33:27
  Speaker 2: of the loss of support and respect for the Court
• 33:30
  Speaker 2: has come because of Discourt's decisions, and as you mentioned before,
• 33:34
  Speaker 2: most notably Chief Justice Roberts's decision in the presidential communic case,
• 33:38
  Speaker 2: but you know, other decisions in the abortion case as well.
• 33:41
  Speaker 2: But I mean, I think he is right that we are,
• 33:45
  Speaker 2: in this politicized world, even more open to attacks upon
• 33:50
  Speaker 2: judges than we were before, and there's been picketing in
• 33:54
  Speaker 2: front of judges houses as we know justice houses, and
• 33:56
  Speaker 2: that's something to be I think, probably a little little
• 34:00
  Speaker 2: bit frightened up. But there's also been other kinds of defiance,
• 34:03
  Speaker 2: and Vice President Vance has suggested that certain times it's
• 34:09
  Speaker 2: totally appropriate for the administration to ignore what the Supreme
• 34:12
  Speaker 2: Court would hold. So there are challenges coming from various
• 34:16
  Speaker 2: different sectors, people that just disagree with the Court, as
• 34:19
  Speaker 2: well as what people think that they don't have to
• 34:22
  Speaker 2: listen to what the Court says. So there is reason
• 34:24
  Speaker 2: for Chief Justice Roberts to decry those kinds of challenges
• 34:28
  Speaker 2: to the Court's authority. But I think at the same time,
• 34:32
  Speaker 2: part of the problem is the courts.
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: Aren't doing I think everyone agrees that the violence against
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: judges should be stopped. But when he talked about intimidation
• 34:42
  Speaker 1: and he mentioned protesters quote intent on harassing judges and
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: public officials he said have tried to intimidate judges by
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: suggesting political bias is behind their decisions without a credible basis.
• 34:57
  Speaker 1: Both of those seem like First Amendment protest activities.
• 35:01
  Speaker 2: To me, it can be right, it's a fine line
• 35:04
  Speaker 2: to draw between when they are harassment as opposed to
• 35:08
  Speaker 2: when it's just criticism of the court. And the way
• 35:10
  Speaker 2: to I think see this clash most plainly is to
• 35:15
  Speaker 2: talk about and we'll look at the immunity decision, and
• 35:18
  Speaker 2: some people can criticize it as being badly crafted. Others
• 35:21
  Speaker 2: can say it's just illegitimate. And those are two ways
• 35:25
  Speaker 2: of criticizing the opinion. And it's hard to say what
• 35:29
  Speaker 2: is really the difference between saying it's poorly reasoned as
• 35:32
  Speaker 2: opposed to it's politically lawless. Those are just different perspectives
• 35:38
  Speaker 2: if people don't accept the opinion, and so I think
• 35:41
  Speaker 2: he's conflating one with the other to some extent. But
• 35:44
  Speaker 2: it is notoriously very difficult to try to figure out
• 35:48
  Speaker 2: what is legitimate dissent protests as opposed to one which
• 35:53
  Speaker 2: is saying that the Supreme Court is lawless and we
• 35:57
  Speaker 2: should have a quick overhaul of the entire judicial system.
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: And you mentioned it to a game that threats to
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: ignore federal court rulings by elected officials, which he said
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: had come from across the political spectrum. But Vice President,
• 36:11
  Speaker 1: like JD. Vance had said, and when the courts stop,
• 36:14
  Speaker 1: you stand behind the country like Andrew Jackson did and
• 36:19
  Speaker 1: say the Chief Justice has made his ruling, now let
• 36:22
  Speaker 1: him enforce it. I just want to mention that Vance's
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: wife clerked.
• 36:26
  Speaker 2: For the Chief Justice, which is an odd term for sure.
• 36:29
  Speaker 2: And the Jackson issue arose at least allegedly out of
• 36:33
  Speaker 2: protests from a Supreme Court decision saying that the removal
• 36:37
  Speaker 2: of Indigenous peoples from a particular reservation was illegal and
• 36:43
  Speaker 2: ordered the administration to comply with it and by all
• 36:47
  Speaker 2: historical measures. Andrew Jackson refused and continued to disband the
• 36:53
  Speaker 2: indigenous communities. And you know, with the Vice President articulating
• 36:59
  Speaker 2: that kind of issue is putting into play this notion
• 37:03
  Speaker 2: that the Court is just another political arm of the
• 37:05
  Speaker 2: country and that it should be subservient to the president
• 37:09
  Speaker 2: and Vice President who were elected and given a mandate
• 37:12
  Speaker 2: by the voters, unlike the Supreme Court itself. And that
• 37:17
  Speaker 2: is a dangerous notion and maybe some progressives have flirted
• 37:21
  Speaker 2: with it as well in frustration with what the Court
• 37:23
  Speaker 2: has done recently. But now the Court is being challenged
• 37:27
  Speaker 2: by the members of its party who appointed most of them,
• 37:32
  Speaker 2: which are the Republicans, so they have reasons to be
• 37:36
  Speaker 2: nervous because they're now potentially going to be challenged by
• 37:40
  Speaker 2: both sides of the political spectrum.
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: Hell, thanks so much for spending so much time with
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: me and taking us through what's coming up this year
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: at the Supreme Court. That's Professor Harrold Krant of the
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: Chicago Kent College of Law. Coming up next, we'll take
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: a look at the status of Trump's New York cases.
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg turning to the civil and criminal
• 38:01
  Speaker 1: cases against Donald Trump in New York. A federal appeals
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: court has denied his request for a new trial in
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: New York writer Ejing Carroll's sexual abuse lawsuit, dealing a
• 38:13
  Speaker 1: blow to the president elect as he seeks to put
• 38:16
  Speaker 1: his legal woes behind him before taking office. Joining me
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson. Eric the Second Circuit
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: handed down this decision on Monday. Eric the Second Circuit
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: handed down this decision on Monday. Remind us what the
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: trial was about.
• 38:32
  Speaker 3: So Trump was found libel by a Manhattan jury in
• 38:36
  Speaker 3: May twenty twenty three after a trial in Ejing Carroll's
• 38:40
  Speaker 3: lawsuit accusing him of sexually abusing her in the nineteen nineties,
• 38:45
  Speaker 3: and it also included a claim for defamation for some
• 38:49
  Speaker 3: things that Trump said about her after he left office
• 38:53
  Speaker 3: during his first administration, and the jury awarded five million
• 38:57
  Speaker 3: dollars in damages to Egan Carroll. Trump appealed and the
• 39:01
  Speaker 3: Second Circuit Federal Appeals Court in Manhattan rejected Trump's request
• 39:06
  Speaker 3: for a new trial.
• 39:08
  Speaker 1: And what were Trump's arguments supporting his request for a
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: new trial? So?
• 39:14
  Speaker 3: Trump argued that the trial judge made evidentiary errors by
• 39:19
  Speaker 3: allowing certain evidence and testimony into the trial. He argued
• 39:23
  Speaker 3: that the testimony from two other women who had made
• 39:26
  Speaker 3: allegations of sexual assault against him should not have been allowed.
• 39:31
  Speaker 3: Two women took the stand and gave testimony about Trump
• 39:35
  Speaker 3: allegedly assaulting them, and also the so called Access Hollywood
• 39:39
  Speaker 3: tape that two thousand and five Hot Nike recording of
• 39:43
  Speaker 3: Trump sort of bragging on the Access Hollywood bus about
• 39:48
  Speaker 3: kissing and groping women without their consent if he finds
• 39:52
  Speaker 3: them attractive and being able to get away with it
• 39:55
  Speaker 3: when you're a star, to use his words. So the
• 39:58
  Speaker 3: jury heard that tape, and they also heard the evidence
• 40:01
  Speaker 3: of these two other women, just the leads and Natasha
• 40:04
  Speaker 3: Stoinos and were able to use that evidence to show
• 40:09
  Speaker 3: a pattern of behavior that the jury agreed.
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: Trump had the testimony from the women. First of all,
• 40:15
  Speaker 1: what did the appellate court say about admitting that testimony
• 40:21
  Speaker 1: from two women not connected to the allegations in the case?
• 40:28
  Speaker 3: Right, So the appeals for it decided that the judge
• 40:32
  Speaker 3: did not make an error by allowing this testimony and
• 40:35
  Speaker 3: this evidence in. It's a type of evidence that it
• 40:38
  Speaker 3: can be limited and barred in some cases, particularly in
• 40:43
  Speaker 3: criminal cases, if you have someone come in and testify
• 40:46
  Speaker 3: about a defendant doing something that was alleged but never
• 40:51
  Speaker 3: criminally proven, just to show a pattern of behavior, that
• 40:55
  Speaker 3: kind of evidence is usually not allowed in if it's
• 40:57
  Speaker 3: a criminal case, just because you know there's or at stake,
• 41:00
  Speaker 3: someone's freedom is at stake. And again, these are testimony
• 41:04
  Speaker 3: about allegations that were never charged. These two other women
• 41:07
  Speaker 3: did not make these allegations at the time. They never
• 41:12
  Speaker 3: sued him. He wasn't criminally charged obviously with that conduct.
• 41:15
  Speaker 3: So he argued that it shouldn't have been allowed against him,
• 41:18
  Speaker 3: that it tainted the jury's perceptions of him when the
• 41:21
  Speaker 3: allegations had never been made previously. But the court determined
• 41:25
  Speaker 3: that because it was a civil case, and just because
• 41:28
  Speaker 3: of the nature of what said by both women and
• 41:32
  Speaker 3: what was said and asked this Hollywood tape, that it
• 41:35
  Speaker 3: was fair for the jury to use that evidence to show,
• 41:39
  Speaker 3: as they put it in the decision, a pattern of abrupt,
• 41:44
  Speaker 3: non consensual, and physical advances on the women he barely knew.
• 41:48
  Speaker 1: Has there been any talk about Trump appealing to the
• 41:51
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court?
• 41:53
  Speaker 3: I would say that that's almost a certainty. He's pretty
• 41:56
  Speaker 3: much appealed. Any time he's gotten a ruling against them
• 41:59
  Speaker 3: or or lost in the case like this, he does appeal.
• 42:03
  Speaker 3: So I think we can expect that petition to be filed.
• 42:07
  Speaker 1: He's separately appealing another verdict involving Carol that resulted in
• 42:13
  Speaker 1: an eighty three point three million dollar verdict. Do we
• 42:16
  Speaker 1: know what his appeal issues are there?
• 42:20
  Speaker 3: So that case is also in the case brought by
• 42:22
  Speaker 3: eging Carroll. The first one that we had just been
• 42:25
  Speaker 3: discussing was was filed under a New York state law
• 42:28
  Speaker 3: that allowed went in to file sex abuse civil claims
• 42:31
  Speaker 3: over alleged attasks that had happened even decades ago. It
• 42:35
  Speaker 3: was a temporary listing of the Statute of Limitations. Their
• 42:39
  Speaker 3: earlier case that the one that went to trial later
• 42:41
  Speaker 3: that that was a pure defamation claim over comments that
• 42:45
  Speaker 3: Trump made about Eging Carroll in twenty nineteen when he
• 42:49
  Speaker 3: was in the White House. That case was long delayed
• 42:51
  Speaker 3: because of his immunity at the time while he was
• 42:54
  Speaker 3: in office. But he again argues on details of the
• 42:59
  Speaker 3: alleged defamation about him being protected by immunity while he
• 43:04
  Speaker 3: was in the White House. Some of these statements were
• 43:06
  Speaker 3: actually issued sort of through comments on official White House statements,
• 43:10
  Speaker 3: and he argues that he's protected and that he is
• 43:13
  Speaker 3: allowed to defend himself when in this case Eagen Carroll
• 43:16
  Speaker 3: had gone public with her claim that Trump had raised
• 43:19
  Speaker 3: her in nineteen ninety six in the Bergdorf Goodman department store.
• 43:23
  Speaker 3: He issued statements and sometimes crude statements, denying the attack
• 43:28
  Speaker 3: and making remarks such as that it was a fabrication,
• 43:32
  Speaker 3: a hoax, that she had created to help Democrats, and
• 43:36
  Speaker 3: also at one point suggesting that she was not his type,
• 43:40
  Speaker 3: therefore somehow not attractive enough for him to assault at
• 43:44
  Speaker 3: any rate. These are things that he says he's allowed
• 43:46
  Speaker 3: to say in his defense after allegations were made against
• 43:50
  Speaker 3: him ad.
• 43:50
  Speaker 1: Office and we're still waiting for Judge Juan Verschon to
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: rule on the criminal case.
• 43:59
  Speaker 3: That's right, This is the big decision here that we've
• 44:02
  Speaker 3: been waiting for. Could come at any time. Of course,
• 44:06
  Speaker 3: Trump was found guilty in that case. I think this
• 44:10
  Speaker 3: is the one that everyone is just waiting to see
• 44:12
  Speaker 3: whether or not the judge is going to allow this
• 44:15
  Speaker 3: case to go away because Trump is going to take
• 44:18
  Speaker 3: office or put it on holds so that Trump can
• 44:22
  Speaker 3: be sentenced after he leaves office, which would be very
• 44:26
  Speaker 3: obviously unprecedented, rare situation where the judge has to decide
• 44:30
  Speaker 3: how far he's going to go wearing off against Trump
• 44:33
  Speaker 3: over this verdict. It's such an unusual situation because the
• 44:37
  Speaker 3: verdict was handed down before the election, but then Trump
• 44:41
  Speaker 3: was never a sentence and then he won. So it's
• 44:44
  Speaker 3: a tough spot for the judge to be in.
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: I would fall off my chair if the judge just
• 44:49
  Speaker 1: throws out the case after a jury has rendered a
• 44:54
  Speaker 1: verdict after a full trial.
• 44:56
  Speaker 3: Pretty surprising. I mean, as the Manhattan District's attorney Bragg
• 45:00
  Speaker 3: said in his brief, the jury has such an important
• 45:04
  Speaker 3: role in our judicial system. They listened to all the
• 45:08
  Speaker 3: evidence heard the testimony and made a very significant finding
• 45:12
  Speaker 3: about Trump's conduct and he was convicted and so as
• 45:16
  Speaker 3: we sit here today, he still faces potentially up to
• 45:19
  Speaker 3: four years in prison if this case doesn't go away.
• 45:22
  Speaker 1: And we could hear the judge's decision any day. Thanks
• 45:25
  Speaker 1: so much, Eric. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson, and
• 45:30
  Speaker 1: that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast.
• 45:32
  Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news by
• 45:35
  Speaker 1: subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: and at Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm
• 45:43
  Speaker 1: June Grosso and this is Bloomberg