Bloomberg Law (Bloomberg)

Bloomberg Law Reporter Madison Alder, discusses why some courts are pumping the brakes on reopening efforts as Covid-19 cases rise, while others face pushback from lawyers over resuming in-person operations. Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland & Knight, discusses President Trump's memorandum that seeks to bar undocumented immigrants from being included in the census court. June Grasso hosts. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bloomberg’s June Grasso speaks with Cornell University Law School professor Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell University Law School, who also clerked for Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy, and Christine Chabot, Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, about who President Trump will select to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Brad Moss, partner at Mark Zaid, discusses congressional testimony from President Trump’s 2016 campaign manager Corey Lewandowski who defiantly refused to answer most questions from House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler in a combative hearing focused on presidential obstruction of justice and abuse of power. He speaks with Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jeffrey Fagan, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses the Supreme Court’s refusal to allow the federal government to resume executions after a 16-year hiatus, rejecting a bid by President Donald Trump’s administration to lift a court-ordered hold. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Neil Kinkopf, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law, discusses the implications of the Supreme Court for the first time hearing arguments by telephone and allowing live audio broadcasts, bowing to the coronavirus outbreak. Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Law Supreme Court Reporter discusses a second break with tradition by the court in one week. They speak to host June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English, discusses the string of federal prosecutors who resigned rather than dismiss the corruption case against NYC Mayor Eric Adams. Constitutional law expert, David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, discusses the way courts have been keeping President Trump’s aggressive agenda in check. Immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland & Knight, discusses New York’s highest court deciding whether a law allowing noncitizens to vote in NYC elections is constitutional. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former federal prosecutor, Jeffrey Cramer, managing director at the Berkeley Research Group, discusses how President Trump’s legal troubles are hitting close to home in New York where law enforcement is ratcheting up civil and criminal investigations that are beyond the president’s federal control. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Joel Rosenblatt, Bloomberg Legal Reporter, discusses the trial of Elizabeth Holmes, who was found guilty of criminal fraud for her role in building the blood-testing startup Theranos, her testimony and her possible sentence.

Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond Law School, discusses the challenges ahead for judicial nominations in President Biden's second year in office

June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School and an expert in business law, discusses the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, approving Purdue Pharma’s $6 billion opioid settlement proposal, and protecting the company’s billionaire owners from future lawsuits. Madlin Mekelburg, Bloomberg News Texas legal reporter, discusses the impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

June Grasso talks with legal experts about the top stories of the week.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Carol Sanger, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses the Supreme Court allowing the most restrictive abortion law in the country to go into effect.

Anne Coughlin, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School who specializes in feminist jurisprudence, discusses the defenses Elizabeth Holmes is expected to raise in her trial for defrauding investors and patients with her defunct blood testing startup Theranos.

June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rick Garnett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, discusses a divided U.S. Supreme Court ordering California to let indoor church services resume. Jimmy Gurule, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, discusses the case for the second impeachment of former President Donald Trump. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Samuel Moyn, a professor of law and history at Yale, discusses a way to shield certain laws from Supreme Court review, jurisdiction stripping, an alternative to court packing and term limits. Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law, discusses Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Government-imposed lockdowns have shuttered stores across the country, leading chains like the Cheescake Factory to stop paying the rent. Andrew Rossman, a partner at Quinn Emanuel, discusses the threat of a ripple effect across the real estate sector. He speaks to host June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland & Knight, discusses the Supreme Court clearing the way for President Joe Biden’s administration to shift the government’s immigration enforcement priorities. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Intellectual property litigator Terence Ross, a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman, discusses why a bid to wrest the copyright for “The Game of Life” away from Hasbro, could affect rights to creations from old board games to comic characters in blockbuster movies.

Anthony Lin, Bloomberg Legal Editor, discusses Prince Andrew settling a sex-abuse lawsuit that linked him to Jeffrey Epstein.

Christopher Dolmetsch, Bloomberg Legal Reporter, discusses a jury verdict against Cantor Fitzgerald’s former global co-head of equities for helping to violate SEC rules on recording commissions on trades.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Richard Garnett, a Professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School, discusses some pastors opening their church doors in defiance of governor’s stay-at-home orders, and whether religious freedoms trump public safety concerns during the coronavirus pandemic. He speaks to host June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

June Grasso talks to the experts about the top legal stories of the week. Bloomberg legal reporter Patricia Hurtado discusses a jury ordering Donald Trump to pay $83.3 million to columnist E. Jean Carroll for defaming her. Labor law expert Kate Andrias, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses the Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case over Starbucks firing union workers. Joshua Kastenberg, a professor at the University of New Mexico Law School, discusses the new involuntary manslaughter charges against actor Alec Baldwin. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Joshua Kastenberg, a professor at the University of New Mexico Law School, discusses the first federal indictment of a former President in US history and the charges against Donald Trump. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School, discusses Raj Rajaratnam, the mastermind of one of the largest hedge-fund insider-trading rings in U.S. history, and why he’s out of prison two years early. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jordan Rubin, Bloomberg Law Editor, discusses the Supreme Court arguments in a hugely consequential case implicating the status of American Indian lands. Patricia Hurtado discusses the growing number of lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in compensation from China for its handling of the novel coronavirus outbreak. They speak to host June Grasso. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Carl Tobias, a Professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, discusses President Trump’s record pace in appointing conservative judges and how several circuit courts of appeals are in striking distance of having seats flipped to a majority of Republican appointees. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Harold Krent, a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, discusses Supreme Court oral arguments over liability protections for internet companies in a case concerning claims against Google for "aiding and abetting" terrorism.
Madison Alder, Bloomberg Law reporter, discusses how President Biden and Senate Republicans are at a crossroad over red-state judicial nominations.
June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Peter Jeffrey, Bloomberg News Legal Editor, discusses the lawsuits that have already been filed because of the coronavirus and those that may be filed due to disrupted supply chains, forced quarantines and other effects of the virus. He speaks to host June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Robert Hockett, a professor at Cornell University Law School, discusses new restrictions on Wells Fargo after the Federal Reserve banned the bank from growing until it convinces authorities it’s addressing shortcomings. Plus, William Banks, a professor at Syracuse University Law School, discusses the so-called Nunes memo, which president Trump said over the weekend “totally” vindicated him of any collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English, discusses the Special Counsel giving Mark Meadows, Donald Trump’s former Chief of Staff, immunity in the January 6th case. Bob Van Voris, Bloomberg legal reporter, discusses the testimony of Sam Bankman-Fried. June Grasso hosts.     

FULL TRANSCRIPT:     
This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. We had begun our jury selection process this morning, but I've been informed that there is a change of plea, and then there was another change of plea and another as the dominoes started falling in the Georgia racketeering case accusing Donald Trump and eighteen others of scheming to keep Trump in power after he lost the twenty twenty election. How do you plead to count fifteen conspiracy to commit filing false documents in indictment number two three SC one eight, eight, nine, four seven guilty. Four have now pleaded guilty, including three lawyers. Sidney Powell pleaded guilty to six misdemeanors last Thursday. Kenneth Chesborough pleaded to one felony the next day, and on Tuesday, Jenna Ellis pleaded to one felony. Tearfully, I believe in and I value election integrity. If I knew then what I know now, I would have declined to represent Donald Trump in these post selection challenges. I look back on this whole experience with deep remorse. Here to discuss how all this flipping affects the case against Trump is Michael Moore of Moore Hall, the former US Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia. So Michael, four down, fifteen to go. How significant are these please? I think it's significant anytime that you have a co defendive flip, and the lawyers flipping are a little bit of a different bird baby than we normally see. When I listened to miss Ellis and the charges against her, you heard a lot about the Trump campaign, You heard about her direction from others. She called the more senior, more experienced lawyers, and that seems to me probably where the biggest jeopardy lies, and that is with those lawyers who have instructed her to do something. So it sounded like that would be potentially mister Eastmann and mister Giuliani. And of course if they have pressure on them and they were then to cooperate, then they may get to the next level, which would be closer I think to the former president. These are all sweetheart deals, aren't they? The lawyer's deals they are. They are unusually liked. I mean, remember that this case had been tagged as essentially the largest election fraud case in history or something like that, and it's will be a massive reco case, and people are basically walking away with a slap on the wrist. They up with probation, no jail time, and a first offender plea, which means that at the end of a certain period of their probation and the completion of those requirements, the charges are since the dismissed, so that with no record, they can vote, they can have a gun, they can do all those things once they have completed the requirements that the court set out. So they're unusually light, and they are especially like when you compare them with the sentences received by people who were involved at the Capitol on January the sixth, many of whom had jail sentences, some of them very significant. So it's maybe a little bit like the architects of the building are not going to jail, the construction workers who worked on the building are. That's sort of how I see it. So I can see why Willis gave the deals at this point to Powell and Chesbro so that she wouldn't have to go to trial against them early and reveal evidence to Trump. But why give a deal such a good deal to Jenna Ellis? I think probably she has made some statements that the ba will find useful against other people in the indictment. I don't know necessarily that that's Trump, but I think she probably gave them enough information to at least move forward. And also too, I mean, she was essentially a mouthpiece for other folks involved with the campaign, and her culpability I think was probably less than other people who may have been more of a puppet master than she was. CNN I believe is reporting that Willis is talking to six more defendants who will be left to go to trial once it comes time for trial. I mean, does she have a number in mind besides Trump? I think maybe a half dozen people or a few left that will be left standing. And those may be Trump and Juliani, that may be one Eastman, maybe another, people who think they have different constitutional arguments to make. They may be stronger arguments. It will be interesting to see how Metas is involved. I mean, we've heard that he was offered some of me into your cut a deal with Jack Smith. That's very interesting to me given the statements that he has made in the Georgia case, especially during his motion to remove the case to federal court. And you know, essentially he came to Atlanta in federal court and said everything I was doing was lawful. This is part of my job and it's protected activity, and it should entitle me as a federal official to move my case to federal court. And it sounds like to the contrary. When he got to Washington, d C. He decided that he wanted to cut a deal with the special counsel and tell him that, well, I don't know that I was doing the right thing, and I tried to tell the former presence that he was telling lies or whatever. I'm not quoting again, but something to that effect. I don't think those are necessarily consistent positions, and it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. So I don't know if mss Willis at this point, given the objections that he made to have his case tried in Fulton County, will look a favorably on a potential plya offer from him. So he may be one of the few that remain. That's really interesting because he has a very experienced attorney representing him. Do you let your client testify in a federal case to something that's going to cause you jeopardy in a state case? Yeah, I don't think you do. And I think that's the problem. And I do think he has a very good lawyer. I just think some of the statements that he may have made in the federal court here in Atlanta may not be exactly consistent with positions that he has taken to the special counsel. And I don't know how you claim that what you were doing was part of your actual lawful role as a chief of staff then suggest somehow that what you were doing, you know you had objections to because you thought your boss was not tell the truth in this kind of thing. So those will be maybe inconsistencies, and what we have to see actually the substance of each statement side by side. We haven't seen those yet. But any inconsistencies certainly give room to attack credibility with a witness, and may give fodder to a defense attorney to raise objections, and certainly may give some interest at least to a prosecutor to the side when or not you know that witness needs to be put on, is a cooperating witness, or with that witness independent needs to simply move forward toward trial. So this scenario is what they think about when they say the dominoes are falling, Well, it is. You know, if you think about a line of dominoes, a circle of dominoes or whatever, you know, you can pick a domino in the middle of the line and push it to the right or the left, and only the ones in the direction that's falling are going to continue to fall. And so that's why prosecutors try to work from the bottom up. They want to push some that has information at the bottom to try to get to the top. And some people argue you should work your way down. That's not necessarily tear to those people who are much less culpable, but you push generally from the bottom of the top. Cut deals with the people who are less colpable to try to get people who are really the masterminds or the more guilty of the organization. Here, I think there has been some middle of the line pushing, if you will, and the dominoes have fallen, maybe in one direction, which is why I think you saw ultimately deal cut with Jenna Ellis. Now whether or not she then also can have information toward the top, I don't know. But when we saw Ms Powell, mister chesbro Ls, you know, in Er Please, I think that was a section maybe of this arrangement of dominoes and arrangement of dependence, and that sort of has now concluded itself. But for the other lawyers who remain in the case, the key will be in the bridge the prosecutor will have to make will be getting from those folks in fact, to the people at the top of the line, And the question is what information do they have that will get in there. I don't know if miss Powell has information about that or not. She was president of meeting. She may have information about who said what. At the same time, I don't think that she's gonna be able to put the former president's things with prints on Coffee County as we get there, I do think, and I thought this was sort of telling of the things to come. When Miss Ellis made the comment that she was simply doing what she had been advised to do, I think you're hearing a preview of the defense we're going to hear from the former president. That is, in fact, I was simply doing what my lawyers told me I should do, or what I had a right to do. I was simply following legal advice at the time. And then I think we open up the can of executive privilege whether or not he's allowed to rely out information from lawyers and advisors. We know that the president is not covered by the Hatch Act any president, and so this whole issue, well, was it a campaign or were you the president? That may not be a hurdle as we go forward, and so I do think you're going to hear a lot about Look, I was doing what my lawyers and advisers told me to do. I had taken advice from a number of different councils, some of them had different opinions. I had to make a choice. I felt like we had legitimate move forward on the alternate electric scheme as told to me by mister Chesbro. He cited to me the issue in the circumstances in the Hawaii case from the nineteen sixties or whatever it was. And so this is what you're going to hear and ultimate fly. I think many of the decisions and the ultimate outcome of this case is going to rest not on allegations made in a trial court, but ultimately what an appellate court and like the United States Supreme Court besides, is appropriate evidence and an appropriate charge. When we're talking about former president of the United States being charged in for conduct occurring while in fact he was president of the United States. And so whether or not the appellate courts look at that and say, well, he does have some privilege or some immunity, I think that that's still an open question. Yeah, a question that may be answered first in the DC federal case. Thanks so much, Michael. That's Michael Moore, the former US attorney for the Middle District of Georgia. Welcome back to real estate investing. Made simple grant cardone here in the Cardones On every Monday, I said, Steve, would I pay you last month? Steve was paid thirty one twenty dollars last month because he invested at Cardoncapital dot Com, Cardoncapital dot Com, Cardoncapital dot Com. The Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving a lawsuit against real estate management company Cardone Capital and its CEO for making misleading statements in YouTube and Instagram videos. The lawsuit was dismissed on other grounds, but the core issue remains. Does hyping investment projects or touting crypto tookens on social media make someone a seller who can be sued under federal law by investors who are defrauded or who bought an unregistered security. To put it another way, what happens when a ninety year old securities law meets social media. Joining me is Ann a business law professor at tu Lane University. So, and let's start with the basics. The very basics tell us about the securities laws and where this definition of seller becomes important. Okay, So Section twelve is from the nineteen thirty three Securities Act and it basically has two separate provisions. The first is that a purchaser of a security that was sold unregistered when it should have been registered has a right to sue the seller. Basically, it's a right of recision. They can give the security back and ask for their money back minus any income they've earned on it. So they can sue whoever sold it to them if it was sold in violation of the registration provisions. And then secondly, they can sue anyone who sold it to them or who solicited the purchase if the prospectus or sales documents contained false statements. Now, sometimes there's a bit of a debate about what counts as a perspectus, but what it comes down to is that this is sometimes a more attractive option than say, more traditional ways of suing for false statements like Section ten B, which is the anti fraud statute, because if you sue for false statements in connection with essentially these unregistered security sales under section twelve, you don't have to show that you relied on the false statement, and you don't have to show that there was any intent to make a false statement. And so how did the Supreme Court define a seller in nineteen eighty eight, So in the case of Pitter versus Doll, there was a question of who counts as a statutory seller. In other words, Section twelve speaks of people who sell securities. So the question was, do you have to be actually the person who transfer the title me to you or could it be other people who are somewhat involved with the sale? And the court first said it has to be either a direct transfer of title or it has to be someone who solicited the purchase. But they drew a distinction between someone who is somehow involved and had something to do with the buyer actively going out and purchasing the security, and instead they said they have to who have actually solicited and had some kind of relationship with the buyer. They rejected a test that would be somehow like people who are just substantially participate in the sale. So that was interpreted by courts to mean that you could only be liable under section twelve if you literally transferred title it was your security and you sold it to someone else, or if you had some kind of direct contact with a relationship with the buyer so that you induced the purchase that way. So in our world of social media, where venture capital firms and others are hyping investment projects online, are courts having a difficult time determining whether they're sellers or not. Yeah. So the issue here is that after pinter versus Doll, there were a bunch of cases involving what were basically registered offerings. They were registered offerings, they were IPOs, where people sued for false statements in the IPO documents. Now there's a cause of action specifically for that false statements in a register statement under section eleven, and they would also sue under section twelve because Section twelve has liability both for unregistered offerings, which these weren't, or for false statements and a perspective, and courts rejected the Section twelve liability looking at pinter in a lot of cases where there was no direct contact with the buyer. So for example, issuing companies, it was their security, but they sold in a firm commitment underwriting, meaning the underwriters bought the securities from the issuer. The underwriters then sold to the public. The purchaser would try to sue the issuers inter Section twelve because the issuer's name is all over the perspectives, it's like their company, it's their securities being sold, and the courts would say the issuer did not have enough direct involvement with this particular sale to this buyer to justify imposing Section twelve viability. Now, you could still have other forms of liability because these were registered offerings, but you couldn't have liability under section twelve. So the court reading Pinder vicious now very narrowly to mean you have to have had some kind of contact with a relationship with the buyer. So now we fast forward to crypto, and the problem is there isn't an alternative scheme because crypto, assuming it's a security, which is a whole everything. But let's assume it is a security. If crypto is a security, it's not registered. So the liability regime that was available in those IPO cases for registered offerings is not available to these shareholders. So for these shareholders, Section twelve is sort of the main potential avenue of liability other than the anti fraud laws, which are much harder. So they're suing under section twelve because that's it, and what we've seen now is too appellate. Court said direct contact. We never said that what are you talking about, known as it's talent is a solicitation. As long as you make these public statements in advertising urging people to buy, that's a solicitation, even if there's no personal relationship. Meanwhile, there are at least a couple of other decisions that say, no, we're sticking to the old interpretations of pinter that there have to be this kind of direct relationship. And then you have courts that are sort of like saying in a case against Coinbase that Coinbase with air drops and materials about particular securities, that wasn't a solicitation. But it's not exactly clear why, you know, the court just says that's not enough. So we don't know exactly what's enough or what exactly the regime is going to be the Supreme Court decided not to take a case involving cardone Capital. Well, that was the case that was Actually it wasn't a registered offering. I believe it was under Regulation A. So Regulation A is an exemption from a full on registered offerings, but it does require some degree of filing and disclosure with the SEC. So it wasn't an unregistered offering. But because it's not registered offerings, the standard protections available in registered offerings are not available to purchasers. Instead, the only liability available would be, you know, just straight up fraud, which is again very hard to prove, or Section twelve liability. That's what's available. And so this real estate company, they use social media to advertise the officering that was filed with the SEC, they had documents with the SEC and so forth, and shareholders claimed that these advertisements were solicitations. In the Ninth Circuit agreed and repudiated. I mean, you know, some of the case law that had held there must be direct contact hadn't come out of the Ninth Circuit, So at very least it was disagreeing with the other courts that had imposed something like a direct contact requirement. But the Supreme Court denied sort. I mean, there are any number of reasons why they could have denied CIRT. But one possibility is that the social media cases are new. They're you know, looking to this old precedent that was generated under IPO situations, and you know, it may take some time to work through the court. You know, if you ask an average person, it doesn't seem like the difficult question. They're online, they're soliciting, Yeah, they're selling. What makes more difficult, Well, because the interesting thing is that the word solicit it doesn't actually appear in the statute. Nothing in the statute says imposing liability for solicitation, but the statute says is imposing liability for selling. The Supreme Court's interpretation of selling in Printer versus Doll, this case from nineteen eighty eight is the one that imposed this concept of solicitation with this very specific kind of definition. And to be honest, Printer doesn't seem to really understand how security sales works. There are parts of it display a kind of lack of understanding. For instance, there's a line in it that says you can't have liability for a seller's seller. That if you sell to somebody and that person sells to someone else, the original seller isn't going to be liable. But that's a firm commitment underwriting, and courts have been struggling with that. The sec has been struggling with that ever since Pinter versus all held it. So, you know, this concept of solicitation and exactly how we're defining it is not in the statute. It comes from the Supreme Court case launch. So now we're all trying to figure out what the Supreme Court met and how you translate a case in nineteen eighty eight to today the Ninth and the Eleventh Circuits? Are they in sync their rulings, Yeah, they seem to be following the same path that you know, at the very least, these sort of widespread social media campaigns are sufficient. But what's really unclear is like what would be like, I mean, once you take away the requirement of direct contact, which is how courts seem to be reading it before, then there's the question of well, how much urging is enough? And that was exactly what happened with coinbase, where you know, Coinbase technically it did have direct contact. It was talking to its customers and it you know, it does whatever it does to say, you know, here's an airdrop of a new security or whatever, and a court said, well, that's just not enough. So now we have all kinds of questions, like if social media is permissible, if you don't have the restriction of direct contact, then how much urging is enough to qualify solicitation? Given that in Pinter, the Supreme Court's concern was, we don't want just substantial participation to be enough. And the reason we don't was because we want people to have certainty as to when they are potentially liable or not. It's important that we have certainty direct contact. At least that's a rule. It may not be the best rule, it may not be the most functional rule, but we know what it means. We know when we see in. Now we're in this space where it's not clear what's going to be enough. Why don't these quotes sellers want to register just to be safe. So first of all, the crypto people, I'll say that these aren't securities anyway, But the whole point is that if you register them, there's a terrific amount of disclosure you have to make, and there's very strict liability if those disclosures are false That's why courts could get away for so long saying well, we won't have Section twelve liability for these IPO situations because there were alternatives. There's some very strict liability for false statements. If you register, you have to do a terrific amount of disclosure. It's very expensive and you're risking this liability. And a lot of crypto people say that the registration requirements, like the disclosure requirements that attach, are simply not suitable for crypto, Like they ask for things that don't make sense in the crypto context, like principles of an organization when it's a decentralized autonomous organization, or addresses when there is no address. So the crypto people will say that, not only is disclosure expensive and opens us up to all this liability, but the SEC hasn't updated the registration requirements to really makes sense in a crypto world. So then will it be up to the Supreme Court to clarify this so that there is clearer guidance? Very possibly. I mean, you know, there's a lot that could happen in between now and then. I mean, first of all, if all the circuits come to settle on something I mean, the Supreme Court doesn't have the kind of passion for securities cases that say I do. So if the circuits coalesce around a principle that's coherent, then the Supreme Court may not step in at all. And you know, we can all argue about it. But you know, I'm not convinced that crypto is, you know, the wave of the future. So at some point, if crypto has becomes less popular, then we may just see less of these cases. I mean, Regulation A was how this came up in the Ninth Circuit, and that will still exist because that's sort of a formal disclosure space for securities that you don't want to do full registration for. But reggae isn't really that popular to begin with, So I mean, if crypto becomes less of a thing, it may simply be that the disdute kind of settles down by itself. Well, it's been great to talk to you, Anne. I love your enthusiasm about securities law. That's Anne Lipton, a business law professor at Tulane University. This is not about Donald Trump versus Michael Cohen or Michael Cohen versus Donald Trump. This is about accountability, plain and simple, but it did seem a lot like Michael Cohen versus Donald Trump, as Trump's former lawyer and fixer took the stand against him this week in New York State's two hundred and fifty million dollars civil front case against the former president, And it also seemed like Trump saw it that way. He's a lie trying to get a better deal himself, having word and what played out during Cohen's testimony at times seemed more like a TV legal drama than a real trial. Joining me, as someone who was there for I'm going to save the show, Pat Patricia hurtadd O, Bloomberg Legal reporter, Pat, this was the first time in five years that Trump and Cohen have come face to face. What was it like in the courtroom where there were just about twenty feet from each other? They had a stair doown match. When it came time for Cohen to take the stand, Trump his whole body was pivoted with his seat turned to look at the witness box. Did the prosecution start by having Coen testify about his past crimes? He described what he played guilty to. Of course, he's backtracked from what his actual crimes were, and you know, sort of said that he didn't commit some of the frauds that they assert that he committed. But the State Attorney General's office was asking him basically to describe what he was supposed to do for Donald Trump, and he said between twenty twelve until twenty fifteen, each year, Trump would ask him to come into his office along with Allen Weisseelbergen, you know, basically asked him to quote unquote re engineered the finances and ask him, you know, how much do you think I'm worth? And then Trump would say I'm actually not worth three point seven billion, it should be eight billion, And he and Weiseelberg would have to go back and go through the numbers and reevaluate all the properties and assets to come up with a figure that Donald Trump had decided was his networth. So Donald Trump was just getting this figure, you know, out of thin air. Yees. Basically, Donald Trump wanted something, and so they would go back and he and Weislberg would put their heads together and try to value assets, be it golf courses or whatever, so that they would achieve the number that Trump named. And Alan Weiselberg, who was the former Trump Organization CFO, has already testified at the trial. Did he confirm these meetings. This is the first time we've had an insider's book about what these meetings were about. Weiselberg was very cagy when he testified. Weiselberg is a descendant. He, along with Donald Trump, was sued by the State ag so he wasn't very forthcoming and helpful. And so this is the first time we're getting descriptions of the eating happening with Trump calling them in. He said, basically, his boss called him in and told him what he wanted. Were there any surprises in the documents that Coen testified about. Well, I mean, it's just kind of shocking to see these things because then we were shown the actual statements of financial condition and the statements about Trump's net worth, and they would say, like Trump is worth eight billion dollars or something like that, and they would say, oh, by the way, we're adding the thirty percent premium to the fact that this is a golf course that has been constructed in good condition. And so basically, you know, Trump is giving credit for the brand because the building's complete and the constructions is finished. You know, that's like saying my house is worth thirty percent more because I keep the upkeep nicely outside and I have a nice little window box outside, you know. He said, I was tasked by mister Trump chewing increased the total assets based upon a number he arbitrarily selected, and my responsibility, along with Alan Weisserberg, predominantly was to reverse engineer the various different asset classes and increase those assets in order to achieve the number mister Trump had tasked us to do. That's the heart of this case. I mean, Leticia James, the New York Attorney General, asserts that Trump has inflated his assets. Where the argument was and the Trump people as law. You know, there's all these disavowals and declarations that warn the reader of these documents to say, you know, we don't really stand by these documents. They're just the number, right. And we saw this document from twenty fourteen where Trump was trying to fly that Buffalo Bill's football team and he claimed to be worth eight billion dollars, and that was a big discussion. Trump's lawyers were saying that it's no fair, you can't bring this in. No evidence, this claim of trying to buy the Buffalo Bills was ever made to anybody, and he didn't buy the Buffalo bills, So what's the harm? No foul, right, And the judge allowed it finally into evidence because the AG's office says, well, you know what, he claimed that this was his network, and these are the documents that went to Morgan Stanley, which was accepting bids. So Trump claimed he wanted to put in a billion dollar bid to buy the Buffalo Bills in twenty fourteen, and he claimed to be worth eight billion dollars and he had Deutsche Bank bankers back him with, you know, in a testing letter from Deutsche Bank saying that he was valuable and they had seen his net worth. When Michael Cohen is saying, hey, it's all the house of cards built on nothing. And was it Michael Cohen's testimony that got the AG started investigating Trump. Cohen's claims have basically triggered all sorts of investigations. He testified about seven different congressional investigation. It prompted an investigation of the hush money case. It prompted all kinds of investigation of Trump and his assets. Now we stand here, and I'm not saying that he's the only whistleblower, but he was the insider that said this is what Trump was doing, and it started everybody looking at him. And certainly this case originated from Michael Cohen's complaint. And I understand that the cross examination got nasty pretty quick. Yeah, I mean, you know, Cohen's a lawyer, and he got very offended when Alena Haba, who is Trump's lawyer, started asking him questions about that he lied to a federal judge, just like he lied to his wife on his tax return. And Cowen got very angry, and there was a lot of back and forth, you know, asked an answer. It was like a movie watching people arguing and bickering on the stand. Was like, Cohen is a lawyer, and he objected, he goes objection, so he is a witness objected through Alena's question. You don't see that other day, No you don't. And you know, at one point Alena shot back, do not on me, Copa, You're not on your podcast, you're not on CNN. Answer my question. So you can see there's a little bit of drama planes on both sides. This is Cohen, I'm objecting to your question. And at one point, probably we've all heard, you know, when the judge will say that question was asked and answered, and that's an objection, and Cohen said, asked an answered because she kept repeating about four times, did you lie to Judge Pauli, who was the federal judge he pled guilty too, And then subsequently Cohen claimed that he was forced to play guilty by his lawyers and he hadn't really committed some of the crimes that he pled guilty to originally, and this is in front of a judge. So all of this is yeah, so this is like right, this is exactly right. There's almost like two divergent trials going on at the same time. There's the trial that's being held if you had a jury, and the lawyers are being very dramatic and even the witness to you know, oh a check. And you're watching some kind of like reality TV show someone playing a lawyer, and that's being played too, as if there were a jury, and that might be more effective if there were a jury, but there isn't a jury. And obviously it seems like some of the lawyers know they have a very important client in his name is Donald Trump, so they're asking questions to please him. And then again you have the one person who is the jury of one who is judge and Gaurance who's deciding this. So that's what I said. It's like a parallel universe. There's two parallel trials, the one that's being played out Bible parties in the well as well as the one that's actually going on before the judge. And he has to keep reminding the lawyers you know, actually there's no jury here. I'm the trier of fact. So did Trump react during Cohen's testimony that you could say, Oh, he had his arms crossed and he was really he muttered something under his breast. I could not hear someone else claiming they had heard him say something about Cohen's credibility. But he was obviously very annoyed, and like I said that, he literally turned his entire chair around so that his arms crossed to glare at Cohen. And more drama to come, as Ivanka Trump has been ordered to testify. That may be as soon as next week. Thanks so much, Pat. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. So today we're announcing a federal lawsuit against Meta met of course, is the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, for knowingly harming the mental health of young social media users. In short, Meta intentionally designed its social media platform to be more addictive to kids and young people. Forty one states are suing Meta platforms, claiming it exploits young people for profit by building an addictive features that basically hook kids on Instagram and Facebook, harming their mental health. At a press conference by the Attorney General of Washington State, two teenagers describe their struggles trying to cope with social media side like Instagram. The worst part was these pictures and videos were never ending. The addictive algorithm and the constant flood of new content kept me glued to my phone, and before I knew it, I began to hate myself and the way I looked. This all happened before I turned thirteen. So I would go on my phone and tending to do other things, and then instinctively start opening up Instagram, opening up different social media platforms without even meaning to, and then getting stuck in the cycle of scrolling seeing other people's lives and interactions. Joining me is Matthew Shettenhelm, Bloomberg intelligence analyst so Met. The federal lawsuit says Meta did not disclose that its algorithms were designed to capitalize on young users, dopamine responses, and create an addictive cycle of engagement. So the allegation is that Meta specifically designed an algorithm to teenagers. That's exactly right. So the lawsuit takes aim at a number of features that are sort of fundamental to how Meta designed its social media platforms. Using data about the teens to send them content that keeps them scrolling and keeps them reading, sending them notifications that keep them coming back to the service as soon as they look away from it. Using the like system that entices them and draws them in and pushes them to put more content out there. And the allegation is that Meta knew that its social media service was harmful to teens, but it withheld that knowledge and misled users and proceeded to deliver its product to teens. Anyway, there's a separate lawsuit actually in this same federal court that goes to the design of the product itself and whether that violates product liability law or whether face Book was negligent in designing it. This suit's a little bit different. It's not about the design itself. It's about did Meta lie, did it mislead users? And a lot of this is based on the whistleblower who released internal documents in twenty twenty one. Yeah, I think that's the real start of this, when Francis Hoggin came out with her release of the internal documents suggesting that Facebook knew more about the risk to children than it was letting on. So this has really been playing out ever since that moment. Now Facebook disputes her allegations and says that they're overblown, and that's the sort of allegation that would be tested in this case if it gets past a motion to dismiss. Meta said, we share the Attorney General's commitment to providing teens with safe, positive experiences online and have already introduced over thirty tools to support teens and their families. Do you know what kind of tools they're talking about. I think these are features like there are settings that teens can put on the product to turn off after so many minutes on the product. I think there are a handful of features like that that they have added. If you go into the settings, you can turn off the data that is used about you for ads. I think as a practical matter, these features may not be used all that frequently. I know my teenager doesn't jump to find those features, and I suspect that's true of many other teams as well. So I think the negotiation here before this lawsuit was filed with the States likely trying to push Meta to find more features and more effective features. And I think eventually, if you saw this lawsuit settle, you might see a push for even more in that direction. Thanks Matt. That's Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Matthew Shettenhelm, and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses the possibility that the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell will be overturned because of the revelations of a juror.

Immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland & Knight, discusses Supreme Court hearings on the detention of unauthorized immigrants seeking asylum.

June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Brandon Barnes, Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Litigation Analyst, discusses New York’s case against Exxon Mobile for misleading its shareholders on the risks of climate change to its business. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bloomberg News Reporter Neil Weinberg discusses a loophole in U.S. tax law that may be helping Americans hide money from the IRS offshore. 

Georgetown University Law Professor Josh Chafetz talks about Sen. Lindsey Graham’s fight to avoid testifying before a Georgia grand jury and whether the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution protects his calls to the Georgia Secretary of State. 

Law Professor at Georgia State University College of Law, Eric Segall discusses who could potentially challenge President Biden’s student loan forgiveness package.

Hosts: Lydia Wheeler and Greg Stohr   Producer: Sara Livezey

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown Law School and former Chief Counsel to then Vice President Joe Biden, discusses a judge ordering former Vice President Mike Pence to testify at the grand jury investigating former President Donald Trump’s role in the January 6th insurrection. Securities law expert Anthony Sabino of Sabino & Sabino, discusses the CFTC suing the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange Binance Holdings Ltd. for allegedly breaking trading and derivatives rules. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, Matthew Schneider, a partner at Honigman discusses the confirmation hearings for Attorney General nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. Erik Larson, Bloomberg Legal Reporter, discusses the $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit filed against MyPillow Inc. Chief Executive Officer Mike Lindell by Dominion Voting Systems. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bloomberg Law Editor, Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, discusses why Trump’s Solicitor General, Noel Francisco, has an almost perfect record this term on the recommendations he makes to the justices about what cases the Supreme Court should take up next term. She speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Intellectual property litigator Terence Ross, a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman, discusses a jury finding that Ed Sheeran did not copy Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On,” in his hit song “Thinking Out Loud,” and what it means for other songwriters. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Abbe Gluck, a professor at Yale Law School, discusses the Supreme Court oral arguments on the fate of the Affordable Care Act that provides health-insurance to 20 million people, and why it is likely that there are enough votes to uphold the law. June Grasso hosts. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Bissinger, a partner at Bissinger, Oshman & Williams LLP, discusses the European Union fining five banks a total of $1.2 billion for colluding on foreign-exchange trading strategies with traders running two cartels in online chatrooms with colorful names like "Essex Express n’ the Jimmy," "Three Way Banana Split" and "Semi Grumpy Old Men." He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Robert Mintz, former federal prosecutor and head of the white collar criminal investigations practice at McCarter & English discusses Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s remarks after almost a two-year vow of silence to say that he couldn’t reach a conclusion on whether President Donald Trump had obstructed justice. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Neil Kinkopf, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law, discusses the oral arguments in which the conservative Supreme Court justices seemed inclined to let President Trump cancel the DACA program that shields almost 700,000 young undocumented immigrants from deportation in a case with broad political and humanitarian ramifications. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bloomberg Supreme Court Reporter Greg Stohr discusses the justices signaling they are inclined to let Kentucky’s Republican attorney general take over the defense of a law that would sharply restrict abortion after the 15th week of pregnancy.

Robin Craig, a professor at USC Gould School of Law, discusses the fight between Mississippi and Tennessee over ground water.

June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Andrew Kent, a professor at Fordham Law School, discusses a decision by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reconsider a Maryland and D.C. lawsuit accusing President Trump of enriching himself in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clauses, in a rare en banc hearing before 15 judges. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Josh Eidelson, Bloomberg Businessweek reporter, discusses a new class action lawsuit that has been brought in relation to the U.S. Au Pair program, which is now under pressure by plaintiffs lawyers who argue that the program has been used by employers fix wages for caregivers. Plus, Jennifer Ann Drobac, a professor at Harvard University Law School, discusses a new lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein that was brought by New York attorney general Eric Schniederman over the sale of his company, Weinstein Co. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Intellectual property litigator Terence Ross, a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenmann, discusses lawsuits over the copyright in tattoos including the case where a tatto artist won against World Wrestling Entertainment and a video game maker over the depiction of wrestler Randy Orton’s tattoos in video games.
Divorce attorney Chris Melcher, a partner at Walzer Melcher & Yoda, discusses the divorce of Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen.
June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Litigator Dave Aronberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney, discusses the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump. Matthew Schettenhelm, Bloomberg Intelligence Litigation and Government Analyst, discusses the oral arguments at the Supreme Court on the TikTok ban. John Kabealo, a Washington DC attorney who specializes in cross-border transactions, discusses Nippon and US Steel suing the Biden Administration. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jeffrey Kahn, a professor at Southern Methodist University School of Law, discusses Russia detaining WNBA star Brittney Griner on drug trafficking charges and what she faces in the Russian legal system.

Laurel Calkins, Bloomberg Legal Reporter, discusses how Texas abortion clinics lost a major battle in the fight over the state's abortion ban.

June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Intellectual property litigator Fabio Marino of Womble Bond Dickinson, discusses Twitter’s threats to sue Meta Platforms over its Threads app. Jennifer Rie, Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Litigation Analyst discusses Microsoft winning a court fight with US regulators and being cleared to buy Activision. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pat Parenteau, a professor of environmental law at the Vermont Law School, discusses a landmark $1.6 billion climate change lawsuit in which New York claims that Exxon deceived shareholders about its climate change accounting, using the state’s powerful Martin Act. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Olatunde Johnson, a constitutional law professor at Columbia Law School, discusses the historic confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, the first black woman to sit on the court.

Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English, discusses a judge turning down Ghislaine Maxwell's request for a new trial.

Jennifer Rie, Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Litigation Analyst, discusses U.S. antitrust chiefs voicing support for an American crackdown on gatekeeper tech giants.

June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown Law School, discusses Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg suing US Representative Jim Jordan over his interference in the criminal case against former President Donald Trump. Steven Lubet, a professor at Northwestern School of Law, discusses Justice Clarence Thomas’ unreported luxury trips paid for by a Republican billionaire donor. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Intellectual property litigator Terence Ross, a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman, discusses Supreme Court oral arguments in a trademark clash over a chewable dog toy that mimics the iconic Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle, only with poop jokes. 
June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

South Texas College of Law Professor Josh Blackman discusses the Trump administration plan to limit the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. At a speech to the conservative Federalist society, Vice President Mike Pence said the administration will take the issue to the Supreme Court. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA Law School, discusses the 11th Circuit finding that one of Florida’s “anti-woke” bans, is unconstitutional. Business law expert Eric Talley, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses Elon Musk suing Open AI and an unprecedented $6 billion legal fee. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rodgers, a lecturer at Columbia Law School, discusses Harvey Weinstein’s sentence to 23 years in prison for sexual assault, a sentence so harsh it drew audible gasps in the courtroom when the judge announced it. She speaks to host June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Constitutional law expert Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School, discusses the Supreme Court decisions reversing the 40 year old Chevron doctrine and limiting the obstruction charges against Jan. 6 defendants, including former president Donald Trump. Reproductive rights expert Mary Ziegler, a professor at UC Davis Law School, discusses the court allowing emergency abortions in Idaho for the time being. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The top legal ethics headlines of 2021 and cybersecurity concerns as we head into 2022. Bloomberg Industry Group legal reporter Melissa Heelan and Veronica Glick, partner in Mayer Brown’s Washington DC office and a member of the firm’s National Security and Cybersecurity & Data Privacy practices, are guests. Hosted by Joe Shortsleeve.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English, discusses the Trump defense in the New York Attorney General’s civil fraud trial against the former president. First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA Law School, discusses the prosecution of two men accused of sending tens of thousands of robocalls containing false information to Black voters in Detroit prior to the 2020 election. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Professor Jimmy Gurulé of Notre Dame Law School, discusses Supreme Court oral arguments over state secrets in the torture of Abu Zubaydah, the first “War on Terror” detainee subjected to torture abroad by U.S. intelligence.

Professor Richard Garnett of Notre Dame Law School, discusses the Supreme Court deciding to hear a case over Boston refusing to fly a Christian group's flag at city hall.

June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Constitutional law expert Neil Kinkopf, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law, discusses the cases where new Justice Amy Coney Barrett could make a difference from abortion rights to gay rights. Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Law Supreme Court Reporter, discusses how Justice Barrett chose her law clerks. Laurel Calkins, Bloomberg Legal Reporter, discusses why a federal judge refused to throw out 127,000 drive-through votes cast in Texas. June Grasso hosts. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jennifer Rie, Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Analyst for Anti-trust Litigation, discusses why the DOJ is said to lean against approving a 

T-Mobile takeover of Sprint. She speaks with host June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, discusses President Trump's latest statements on an immigration issue that has consumed U.S. national politics. On Wednesday, President Trump said he would sign an executive order that will put an end to the separation of migrant families on the U.S. Mexico border. Plus, Jimmy Gurule, professor at Notre Dame Law School, discusses Congressional testimony by FBI director Christopher Wray and Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, where the two men answered roughly 5 hours of questioning about the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. They speak with Bloomberg’s Peter Barnes and June Grasso. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dave Aronberg, Palm Beach County State Attorney, discusses the obstacles the Menendez Brothers face in their bid to be released from prison. Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond Law School, discusses the deal Senate Democrats made with Republicans over judicial confirmations. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Intellectual property attorney Terence Ross, a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, discusses why Ariana Grande, Louis C.K. and other performers have taken steps recently to restrict concert photography rights and shield jokes and whether these moves are enforceable. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr, discusses the court’s decision, that appeared briefly on its website, that would allow emergency abortions in Idaho. Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and co-director of the High Tech Law Institute, discusses the court’s opinion on the removal of social media posts. Adam Hickey, a partner at Mayer Brown discusses Julian Assange’s plea deal. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Steve Sanders discusses the rift between the Justice Department and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over discrimination cases, which is a rare occurrence, but now increasingly common in the Trump era. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses the indictment of New York City Mayor Eric Adams on federal corruption charges. Ronald Mann, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses the government suing Visa in an antitrust case. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former federal prosecutor Michael Weinstein of Cole Schotz, discusses the conviction of Sam Bankman-Fried. Professor Eric Goldman of the Santa Clara University School of Law, discusses Supreme Court oral arguments over whether public officials can block citizens from their social media. Intellectual property litigator Terence Ross, a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman, discusses the Supreme Court considering the trademark “Trump Too Small.” Bloomberg Intelligence senior litigation analyst Jennifer Rie, discusses the government’s trial to block the merger of Jet Blue and Spirit Airlines. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bloomberg News investigative reporter Polly Mosendz discusses the Trump administration policy change affecting a small number of U.S. military personnel and government employees serving overseas who will no longer be automatically granted citizenship for children they’ve adopted while abroad. She speaks to Bloomberg’s Bob Moon.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Frank Bowman, a professor at the University of Missouri Law School, discusses the precedents for holding President Trump's second impeachment trial after he leaves office. Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas Law School, discusses the pressure on Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to resign. June Grasso hosts. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jeff Cramer, managing director at the Berkeley Research Group, discusses reports that former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has struck a deal with U.S. investigators looking into Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Plus, Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight, discusses new attempts by the Trump administration to shut down the DACA program, which now involves a petition to the Supreme Court to allow the administration to go ahead with its plans to dismantle the program, which would allow people brought into the country illegally as children to remain in the U.S. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Erik Gordon, a professor at the Ross School of Business, discusses how $50 billion in settlement offers by drugmakers and distributors has sparked a fight between state attorneys general and thousands of local governments over how much the pharmaceutical industry should pay for its role in creating the U.S. opioid epidemic. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English, discusses the upcoming impeachment trial and whether former National Security Advisor John Bolton, may testify. He speaks to host June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter and English, discusses the Justice Department's decision to retry New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, who was brought up on corruption charges last year in a case that ended in a mistrial. Plus, Martha Coakley, the former Attorney General of Massachusetts and current partner at Foley Hoag, discusses the wave of marijuana legalization that is sweeping across the United States, even an it is challenged by the Trump Administration and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Alan Trammell, a professor at Washington and Lee School of law, discusses the federal judiciary’s policy arm making recommendations to curtail judge shopping. Albert Soler, a partner at Scarinci Hollenbeck, discusses the federal raids at two of Sean “Diddy” Combs’ houses. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Constitutional law expert Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas Law School, discusses the legacy of Justice Stephen Breyer and how the court may change after his retirement.

Jordan Rubin, Bloomberg Law reporter, discusses the Supreme Court agreeing to decide how its landmark McGirt ruling applies to state prosecutions of non-Indians.

June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Steve Sanders, a professor at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law, discusses how the Supreme Court next term could wipe out lower-court rulings that shield LGBTQ people from getting fired for who they are. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Cyberattacks are set to continue into next year with ransomware threatening many businesses. Brandon Van Grack, partner and co-chair of Morrison & Foerster’s National Security and Global Risk + Crisis Management groups, talks about growing cybercrime threats. Andrew Schwartz, professor of law at University of Colorado, talks about the Denver Broncos and 'Rights of First Refusal.' Hosted by Joe Shortsleeve.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Terence Ross, a partner at Katten, Muchin, Rosenman discusses a judge throwing out a $2.8 million jury verdict against Katy Perry, ruling that Perry’s hit "Dark Horse" was not a rip off of a Christian rapper’s song, in a victory for Perry and the music industry. He speaks to host June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Gillian Metzger, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses why two high profile Supreme Court rulings are just the latest setbacks for the Trump administration in the area of federal agencies where it loses about 90% of its cases in court. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Brad Moss, a partner at Mark Zaid Plc., discusses the firing of veteran FBI agent Peter Strzok, and the latest in the trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort after his defense rested without calling any witnesses. Plus, Matt Robinson, Bloomberg News financial regulation reporter, discusses why Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk is facing SEC scrutiny over his tweet that he’s considering taking the company private.  They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show, Lydia Wheeler and Kimberly Robinson speak with Bloomberg News Reporter Emily Birnbaum on the latest SCOTUS-related subpoenas approved in Congress. Plus, Bloomberg Law's Meghan Tribe joins to talk about this year's big law salary wars.  

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, discusses the unprecedented indictment of former President Donald Trump. Immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland & Knight, discusses Supreme Court oral arguments on the constitutionality of a law used to punish those who encourage illegal immigration. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Intellectual property litigator Terence Ross, a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman, discusses Supreme Court oral arguments over trademarking the phrase “Trump Too Small.” Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Litigation Analyst Jennifer Rie discusses the US government trying to block Jet Blue from buying Spirit Airlines. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mary Ziegler, a Professor at UC Davis Law School, discusses how fetal personhood, the concept of granting legal rights to the unborn at conception or a couple of months after, is shaping into the next battleground in the fight over abortion rights in the US.
Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg Legal Reporter, discusses how even before the toppling of Roe v. Wade, the prosecution of women suspected of purposefully or accidentally ending a pregnancy was on the rise.
June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Robert Hockett, a professor at Cornell University Law School, discusses potential Federal Reserve legislation that would ease regulations on all but the biggest banks in America. Plus, Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter and English, discusses the 44 charges against Robert Bowers, the man currently in custody for killing eleven people and injuring others at a Pittsburgh synagogue over the weekend. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The US Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump has some immunity from criminal charges for trying to reverse the 2020 election results, all but ensuring that a trial won’t happen before the November election. The justices, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, said a federal appeals court was too categorical in rejecting Trump’s immunity arguments, ruling for the first time that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for some official acts taken while in office. Bloomberg's Paul Sweeney and Alix Steel get instant reaction.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Emily Birnbaum, Bloomberg lobbying and legal affairs reporter, discusses the focus of Vice-President Kamala Harris and Democrats on Project 2025, the conservative manifesto. Business law professor Eric Talley of Columbia Law School, discusses unique decisions by Delaware Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Peggy Collins, Bloomberg News U.S. investing team leader, discusses President Trump’s Friday tweet, where he said that he’s asked the SEC to investigate a switch from quarterly earnings from U.S. companies to reporting results every six months. Plus, Richard Ausness, a professor at the University Of Kentucky School Of Law, discusses President Trump’s Thursday request for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to initiate a federal lawsuit against opioid makers for their role in the historic opioid crisis in America. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Harold Krent, a Professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, discusses the court challenges to Trump’s actions. Alfred Yen, Professor of Law and Dean’s Distinguished Scholar at Boston College Law School, discusses the proposed deal that would require the NCAA to pay $2.8 billion in damages for its past restrictions on athlete compensation. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Josh Blackman, Professor of Law at South Texas College of Law, gives a Scotus recap. He speaks with Bloomberg Law host June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig discusses the possibility that former President Donald Trump could be charged with a crime as a result of the evidence being presented at the January 6th committee hearings.

Chris Opfer, Bloomberg Law Team Leader, discusses the spotlight on Greg Jacob, the former top counsel for former Vice-President Mike Pence, at the hearings.

Mark Rifkin, a partner at Wolf Haldenstein, discusses a Supreme Court ruling on arbitration that could have implications for Uber drivers and Amazon warehouse workers.
June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Thaw, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law School, discusses the first time the Supreme Court has considered a broad interpretation of the country's main anti-hacking law. Michael Carlinsky, the global head of complex litigation at Quinn Emanuel, discusses his client, Mirae Global Asset Investment Co.’s successful move to nix a $5.8 billion purchase of 15 luxury U.S. hotels from Dajia Insurance Co. after arguing the coronavirus outbreak drained value from the transaction. June Grasso hosts. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Second Amendment law expert Adam Winkler, a professor at UCLA Law School, discusses the Supreme Court's conservative justices signaling that they are ready to strike down New York's gun control law and rule that most people have a right to carry a handgun outside the home.

Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State University College of Law and author of "Abortion and the Law in America, A Legal History, Roe v. Wade to the Present," discusses key justices raising the prospect they might act to halt Texas’ far-reaching abortion ban.

June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pat Parenteau, a professor of environmental law at the Vermont Law School. dicusses the Supreme Court giving environmentalists a partial win on the scope of the Clean Water Act, ruling that the law applies to some pollution discharges that don’t go directly into a major body of water. He speaks to host June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Frank Bowman, a professor at the University of Missouri Law School, discusses the impeachment of the Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law School, discusses 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman’s failed efforts to get reinstated. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Taya Cohen, an associate professor of organizational behavior and business ethics at Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business, discusses her study published in "Negotiation Journal," based on her research into why some lawyers are more “honest” than others.
June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Professor John Blume of Cornell Law School, the Director of the Cornell Death Penalty Project, discusses why the California Supreme Court overturned Scott Peterson's 2005 death sentence for the murder of his wife and unborn child. June Grasso hosts. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Adam Winkler, a professor at UCLA Law School and a Second Amendment expert, discusses the Supreme Court dropping a clash over New York City handgun-transportation restrictions, saying the city had made the issues in the case moot by changing the law to give residents more freedom to travel with their weapons. He speaks to host June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rebecca Green, a professor at William & Mary Law School and co-director of the Election Law Program, discusses possible post-election litigation. Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland & Knight, discusses The Supreme Court agreeing to hear Trump administration appeals on three cases dealing with immigration policy. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Election law expert Derek Muller, a professor at the University of Iowa Law School, discusses the Electoral College confirming Joe Biden's win over President Trump and possible challenges by Trump and his allies. Joshua Mitts, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses his study illustrating how executives use prearranged stock sale plans to unload shares on days when their companies release good news. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bloomberg News Legal Editor Peter Blumberg discusses lawsuits and accusations against Uber and how under new CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, Uber has been driven to clean up its act making an IPO likely this year. He speaks with Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Constitutional law expert Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas Law School, discusses Supreme Court oral arguments over a far-reaching constitutional argument that would give state legislatures, near-exclusive authority over federal elections.
Bloomberg Legal Reporter Laurel Calkins discusses the trial of a former Harvard fencing coach and a telecom CEO over charges that they corrupted the admissions process in a case with echoes of the “Varsity Blues” scandal.
June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law, discusses the DC Circuit Court rejecting Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity from federal prosecution. Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, discusses a possible new path for reasserting abortion rights. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.