This is Bloomberg Law.
Are plaintiff's leries involved in a kind of competition in Congress? Force a judicial code on the justices?
Interviews with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg Legal experts.
My guest is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz. Joining me is Bloomberg Law reporter Kyle Janner.
And analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines.
Is it unusual a grand jury like this to suspect people aren't telling the truth? One of the first times the Justice Department has called for the breakup of a major company.
Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.
Welcome to Bloomberg Law on Bloomberg Radio. I'm Madison Mills in for June Grasso. This week. Two big headlines today, both for the top contenders so far in the twenty twenty four election. We've got former President Trump. He has a new trial date. Meanwhile, President Biden's son reaching a deal on US tax crimes, just as the President himself heads to San Francisco for meeting with experts in the AI space. We're going to cover all of that, but
first let's start with the Hunter Biden news. Because the President's son will plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax crimes in an effort to avoid a separate gun charge. Joining us to discuss the news is Zoe Tellman, Bloomberg News legal reporter, and Bloomberg's Kaylee Lines on the phone with us from DC. Kaylee, I want to start off with you. Just walk me through what we know about this deal for Hunter Biden.
Well, it was revealed in a filing by the district attorney in Delaware earlier today that there is a deal that has been struck with prosecutors. The Hunter Biden, the President's son, is going to plead guilty, as you said, to these two misdemeanor tax charges basically related to charges that he didn't pay taxes on time, and in doing so, will likely avoid prosecution on a gun related charge because that is going to go to what they call a
diversion program. So as long as he complies with certain conditions for a period of time, that will be dismissed. In that charge in particular, is about lying about his drug use when purchasing a handgun several years ago. So that's what we know about the agreement. It seems likely that he would avoid prison time under this deal. And of course you aren't hearing much about the White House response to it, other than a statement that was put out by a spokesperson saying that the President and the
First Lady love their son and support him. You are hearing a lot though, on the other side of the aisle, with Republicans like House Speaker Kevin McCarthy calling it a sweetheart deal, as has the Oversight Committee chairman in the House, Congressman James Comer, talking about a sweetheart deal and saying that Congress is going to continue to pursue his own investigation into Hunter Biden and the Biden family's dealings.
And we'll talk a little bit more, Kayley, about the political ramifications here, but I want to go to you, Zoe, talk to me in terms of the legal context here. I guess, how weird is it for defendants who enter into these agreements to plead guilty. Did that seem abnormal to you?
No?
I mean, if a defend and is willing to accept responsibility for the crimes that they're under investigation for, the government is certainly open to entering into agreements, they have discretion to also you know, sign off on you know, these diversion programs, especially for first time offenders. There are certain types of crimes that aren't eligible, but the offense that Hunter Biden has been charged with, this gun offense,
doesn't fall under that category. So the idea is by admitting responsibility but not pleading guilty, if he can stay you know, drug free, not possess any guns, you know, not commit other crimes, comply with other conditions. After a period of time, the government agrees it's not going to
prosecute that particular offense. And we've been told, although it's not public yet, that the plea deal on the tax crimes will include a recommendation from prosecutors of twenty four months of probation, so he seems to be in a situation where he will not serve any jail time. Of course, it's up to the judge. Those tax crimes, although they're misdemeanors, they do carry up to a year in prison, so the judge could decide to not abide by that probation recommendation.
But they're going to give it a lot of weight. So, you know, it seems like legally he is coming out of this with not so much exposure, you know, publicly pr wise, politically it's a different story.
So Kaylee, come back in here. I'm curious what's next for Hunter Biden because there's also the laptop situation that you mentioned earlier as well. What would be next for him and what else is there for us to kind of learn and figure out still that we might get more information about in the coming weeks.
Well, of course, what's next for him in this case is he's going to have to go to the federal court in Delaware and actually enter this police so we will have to see him appear there, and then, as Zoe was alluding to, the judge is going to have to make some decisions about how all of this is going down. But I would say there also could potentially
be more coming down the pike for him. Here in Washington, I mentioned Congressman James Comer, who heads up the Oversight Committee, already had ongoing investigations into Hunter Biden, into the wider Biden family, and he really doubled down today, committed to continuing that effort despite what we're seeing come out of the Justice Department today, that those efforts are going to continue.
So this is not to say that by inking this deal with prosecutors Hunter Biden has now removed all of his potential legal or investigative woes that he was facing. If anything, this may just add more fuel to the fire for Republicans to really double down.
On those efforts.
And this is something that his father, President Joe Biden, is going to have to contend with on the campaign
trail you mentioned, Maddie. He's out in California trying to raise money for his campaign, meeting with donors, and this is definitely just a very difficult issue for him to navigate, as he doesn't want to appear that he has the thumb on the scale at the Justice Department in any way on his side case or of course, in the case the Justice Department has brought against his likely opponent in the twenty twenty four general election, former President Donald Trump.
We have to consider that factor here as well.
And Kelly's sticking with you on that for a second. Have we heard yet how the Biden camp is going to strategize to kind of distance themselves from the Republican narrative of Biden having his finger on the Justice Department.
Really by not commenting they will not engage in conversation around this, whether you're talking about, you know, the White House Press Secretary saying no comment, or the President himself saying he's not going to comment on it. They are really trying to stay at arm's length, likely to avoid that perception that this is in the case against former President Donald Trump politically motivated, or that you know, the president is trying to protect his son from the workings
of the Justice Department. So I think really the strategy is to not engage with it much at all, to let the prosecutors and the Department of Justice do its work, and for the president and the Biden campaign to stay far away from that.
Yeah, definitely a very different strategy from what we continue to see from former President Trump. Zoe, talk to me about this trial date August fourteenth, walk me through the timeline on that. Did that feel kind of speedy to you?
It's very speedy, and I should say not surprisingly so. The South Florida District Court has been known historically as a rocket docket. You know, cases that get brought there move to trial fast.
There.
That said, you know, our understanding is that this order is standard process for the court, but we haven't seen any motions from the defense yet and we're expecting some, if not, you know, quite a few from them, challenging the validity of the indictment, contesting evidence that the government wants to use, possible issues related to how classified information gets used in a future trial, and all of these are issues that are going to take weeks or months
to litigate. So it's unlikely that August fourteenth remains the trial date, but it is certainly the judge, you know, at least putting down an anchor and making clear that she would like to move this along as quickly as possible.
And what do we know, Zoe about the jury here is this This is going to be in Palm Beach County now correct.
We're still waiting to see where the trial will take place. The judge's order had said it would actually be in her home district of Fort Pierce, Florida, and not in West Palm Beach. There are some process quirks in that district where cases that are filed in West Palm Beach can actually go to judges who sit in adjacent districts. So, you know, but either way, whether it's in Fort Pierce or West Palm Beach, Florida, you know, is a state
that went for Trump in twenty twenty. You know, it is a red state, and the pool of potential jurors is likely going to include, you know, more people who voted for Donald Trump than say, if the trial were here in Washington. So you know, we don't know what that pool will look like. And you know, certainly jury's election is meant to screen people not necessarily have an opinion, but who feel that their minds are made up and
they can't look at the evidence objectively, you know. And that may mean that some of the former president's political supporters are on the jury, but that certainly doesn't mean it's a you know, stacked deck at this point either way.
Well, Kayleie, talk to me about the politics here. That August fourteenth date comes just ahead of a pretty important event when it comes to the twenty twenty four election. Talk to me about that.
Well, it does. This trial would last for two weeks, which would mean it would still be ongoing on August twenty third, when the first Republican primary debate is scheduled to happen in Milwaukee. Granted, former President Trump hasn't actually committed to be at that debate either way, but clearly that would put this front and center on the topic for discussion for his opponents in the primary to really
attack him on potentially, So there's that consideration. Also, we have to keep in mind that for months now we have expected August could the month where a potential indictment comes down in Georgia in Fulton County, where the district attorney there is looking into president former President Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the twenty twenty election in that state. So August could be a very politically legally
briefe month for the former president. Again, assuming that this trial actually happens two months from now, which Zoe was just outlining, there's a very real chance that it does not.
Kaylee, final thirty seconds here, what's going to be your big question heading into that debate? What do you think is going to be like the headline the next day?
Well, I want to know who's going to get on the stage first of all, because you need to have a certain number of donations and people signed on to support you. And now that we're over a dozen Republican primary candidates, is the stage going to be big enough? Are we going to have to have, you know, two debates at once, and then of course, how do they approach the Trump question, whether or not they would pardon him,
what they think about his actions. Those have been very difficult questions for these other candidates to navigate.
Well, we're going to have you here with us to cover all of it. Kaylee, thank you so much. That was Kelly Lions and Zoe Tilman down in DC with us. You're listening to Bloomberg Law. I'm Madison Mills and this is Bloomberg.
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.
I'm Madison Mills in for June Grasso, and this is Bloomberg Law. The AI craze it's not just hitting markets, it's also definitely been hitting Washington and President Joe Biden is scheduled to meet with business leaders and experts on artificial intelligence today. This is part of a broader shift from his administration and a move from his administration pushing
for news security and privacy safeguards surrounding AI. So joining us to discuss is Jackie Davilos, Bloomberg News technology reporter. We've also got Courtney Rosen, our White House reporter from Bloomberg Government on the line. From DC. Thank you both so much for being here at Courtney, I want to start with you, what do we know about this meeting and what can we expel back to the big headlines to come out of it?
To be President Biden is in California this week otherwise for political fundraisers, but on the way he's having a meeting today with AI experts and leaders. And what's a little different about this meeting compared to others he's done in the past is today he's talking to researchers, he's
talking to advocates. In the past, he's met with tech industry CEOs, so he's definitely getting a different perspective here on his trip to California that he got from a meeting at the White House several weeks ago on the topic. His Chief of Staff, Jeff Zience, is leading the White House's effort to respond to AI. And I would note that mister Science was on the board of META right before President Biden took office, so he definitely has experience in the tech sector.
Corney, I want to go back to you, because you're obviously in DC, you cover the White House. Do you get a sense that this has always been a priority for the Biden administration or is this kind of a newer move for them to look into AI.
It's definitely new. I didn't hear them up until a couple months ago talking about AI and press briefings or in speeches. When it really became a topic was when chat GPT became public where people could test it out, and Congress started talking about it, the White House started talking about it, and that's when we really started to see Washington zone in on AI.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I wonder too, what you think the regulators in Washington might be missing when it comes to AI, because there is always that kind of criticism that Washington doesn't necessarily keep up with all of the technology booms that we experience. Do you get a sense that that story is going to be a little bit different when it comes to AI.
Senator Schumer, who's the Senate majority leader, is definitely trying to create a different story here. He's scheduled tomorrow to release his proposal on how to regulate AI, and today he's having a meeting with senators to talk about what the technology is, how it works, so they're educated on what it is they're going to be writing a law about or writing a bill about I should say, and.
I imagine a lot of the big tech players are going to be key in that conversation. Jackie, I want to come back to you. You were talking to me earlier about how the big tech players and those big names are also the big names that we're seeing push into AI. Can you tell me a little more about that.
Absolutely, and you know, related to the wave of movement coming from Capitol Hill, these big players have a lot to do with the conversation that lawmakers are ultimately going to push forward when it comes to raining in some of this technology. We had spoken with representative from Virginia Don Bayer for our show, and there was a lot of excitement about the technology, but also an acknowledgment that
lawmakers don't really know where to begin. Today was interesting and that the first bipart is a bill aimed at, you know, creating some kind of guardrails around AI, was released today and what it was pretty telling and that you know, it wasn't that meaty when it came to
the specifics on how to create some guardrails. That's quite a bit of a contrast when you think about how far the European Union is in starting to enact pretty specific rules when it comes to reigning in AI, some of that being you know, banning facial recognition software for example, something that wasn't explicitly called out in the bipartisan bill proposed today. So just some differences there and just how
far ahead one region is from another. But here especially, you know, the big tech players are going to have a big say given lotmakers need some of that guidance.
Well, Jack, you asked such a great question to one of your guests on the show. You were like, what are the conversations at dinners in San Francisco about AI? Talk to me about the answer you got on that.
Yeah, you know, there's a lot of excitement, but when it comes to the dinner table of these venture capitalists and the kinds of things that excite them, it's not always you know, rooted in reality. Let's put it nicely. There is just so much potential and a lot of optimism. That's really I think the vibe that Silicon Valley always
has when introducing something new to the mainstream. But it was interesting because for the first time I think in a while, social media, for example, you know, the lawmakers and companies industry, we're never really on the same page when it comes to artificial intelligence. You're really seeing more of a common tenor with the acknowledgment that, look, we have something really exciting on our hands, but also, hey,
this also has so much more to go. But we really need to start putting in the rules now much more proactive, let's learn from our mistakes, and just hearing that tone coming from both sides, I think is a new shift for technology.
So Courtney, come back in here. I'm curious where things stand when it comes to AI regulation from the congressional perspective. Here, I guess what inning would you say that we're in. Are we in the first inning of that regulation? Are we down in the seventh?
Where are we at sports metaphors? Congress loves that. I definitely say we're still toward the beginning of the game. They beginning too. When open ais CEO was here a couple of weeks ago talking about chat DBT, that was definitely the beginning of Congress getting interested in this topic. We saw a lot of headlines, we saw a lot of questions come out of members, and now we're starting to see them actually get to the work of drafting a bill, and like Jackie was just saying, we're not
really sure what that'll look like. And it's the bill so far that has been out is not very meaty, so we'll see how that goes for sure. But Congress does love a sports analogy.
They love a sports analogy, that is for sure. Jackie, talk to me about what your sources are saying when it comes to financing and how regulation might impact that. Are you hearing anyone say, you know, I'm so worried about the DC regulation story that I'm gonna hold my money for a little while and wait and see.
Not so much. I think that, you know, the biggest players, Google, Microsoft, the chip makers, the cloud providers, they've all done a really good job at being proactive in engaging Capitol Hill and getting a sense of, you know, what is the sentiment, how can we shift that? And not in any nefarious way, but in a much more proactive manner in working with lawmakers.
So everyone's somewhat on a similar page when it comes But when it comes to you know, the more nimble startups that don't have this like lobbying, funding and power and political capital in Washington, they do rely a lot on their you know, their biggest backers, whether it's the big vcs or you know some of these companies Microsoft, like, you know, they're backing Opening Opening, I obviously taking their own presence on Capitol Hill, but there's many other AI
startups out there that have to rely on the vcs and the companies to kind of push the conversation forward for the industry on that front.
Yeah, Courtney, final thirty seconds here, what is the next big thing when it comes to AI regulation? What should we be looking.
Out for this summer? The White House Budget Office is set to set standards on how AI will be used in government. And we know that thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people interact with the US government every year, and how the US integrates AI into that experience is going to be really telling about how the Biden administration, how government sees AIM moving forward. So I would definitely be watching that.
All right, Really good to know. Thank you so much, Courtney Rosen, White House reporter for Bloomberg Government. And we also Jackie Davilos, our Bloomberg News technology reporter. You're listening to Bloomberg Law coming up on the show, How the Justice Department is looking at bank mergers in a new way. I'm Madison Mills. I'm in for June Grasso, and this is Bloomberg.
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.
I'm Madison Mills in for June Grasso this week. Remember those four banks they failed a few months ago. Some called it a banking crisis, others called a turmoil. There is a lot of turmoil over how to describe it, but either way, it led to some big questions at the Justice Department, with officials now weighing a revamp over how they scrutinize bank mergers. So joining us to discuss is Leah Nylan and Bloomberg News Andy Trust, reporter down in DC for us. Leah, thanks so much for being here.
What's up with the DJ here? So what's up with the Justice Department? What are they saying about what the new regulation could look like?
Yeah, So the Justice Department has a dual role with banking authorities to review any bank mergers, and they look at them just like they would any other deal, to sort of see how the merger of a bank would impact folks. But for the past thirty years, since about nineteen ninety five, they've sort of limited the way that they look at them to very specific things, focused on how it would impact the concentration of deposits in specific areas.
And at a speech this morning, the head of the Anti Trust Division, that's Assistant Attorney General for antitrust, Jonathan Kanter, said that that approach is really too narrow. You know, the banking economy. It's sorry. The banking industry is really very different today than it was in nineteen ninety five, and they need to be looking at a lot more
factors when they examine bank mergers. So they want to look at things like, how does this bank merger impact the sort of fees that consumers might end up paying, how does it impact small business lending? All sorts of things that really before they weren't actually paying that much attention to.
So talk to me about what triggered this. Is it the case that these most recent banking issues made the Justice Department raise their eyebrows a little bit more, move a little more quickly, or was this already kind of in the works.
So the Justice Department actually started looking at doing a revamp to the bank merger guidelines back in twenty twenty, and then President Biden put in place this Executive Order on Competition his first summer. This was around July of twenty twenty one. That really encouraged a lot of the agencies here in the federal government to consider how various rules and regulations they had on the books impact competition.
So the Justice Department sort of used that to prod some of the other banking agencies like the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the one that helps with failed banks, and the Office of the Control of the Currency and other banking regulator who has oversight over bank mergers to really sort of rethink the way that they do bank mergers, and some of that, you know, has
had some impact here in DC. You know, one of the things that the FED found when they were reviewing the failure of Silicon Valley Bank was that they had sort of waved through this merger in twenty twenty one with another bank called Boston Private Financial Holdings. It was actually a pretty big merger. It gave SVB another nine hundred million dollars, and they said, Okay, we think that this is fine. It's not going to impact the safety
of stability of the financial system. But they didn't actually like check whether SBB had plans in place for how it was going to like deal with becoming a much larger bank. And they never actually checked with the people at the FED whose job as bank supervision to make sure that they had a plan for how they were going to improve their supervision of this much larger bank.
So there has been a little bit of I guess, second guessing whether maybe some of these mergers that they approved recently they weren't really weren't ready for the big leagues, and maybe the FAD wasn't really ready to actively supervise them now that they're larger.
Right, sounds like they got to the end there and then just had a couple of a couple of question marks they were okay with leaving open. So so talk to me, then, Leah, about what this means for the regional banks. Like when we talk about an SVB, obviously that's a bigger player. Here is the Justice Department concerned about, you know, a merger or a partnership of a smaller regional banks as well, or is it more about the big guys chomping up the little er guys.
They were really emphasizing at the speech this morning that they're not trying to prejudge any of the mergers. You know, all merger investigations are very fact specific. They look at how you know, it's going to impact the specific geographic area and also you know, customers. But they did say, you know, like big banks, obviously it's it's much more of a problem for them, you know, to get bigger.
And they said that they are very cognizant of the fact that we do now have a certain segment of banks that are a little bit too big to fail. That's a quote market reality that they can't just ignore. But they also said that one of the things that they were hoping this bank merger revamp might do is actually, you know, maybe make it easier for the smaller guys.
You know, the focus on local deposit concentrations, which is which is what they have been looking at since nineteen ninety five, really does make it so that if you know, a small bank in one area tries to merge with another small bank, you know, it puts a lot of focus on that because you know, of this the geographic
nature of it. So maybe maybe these small bank mergers aren't that big a deal, and they need to be considering some other factors, Like you know, people might not always care as much now today about whether they have a local branch, given that you can use the internet to do.
A lot of your banking right right. And I wonder too, when you talk about those smaller regional banks, to what extent is the kind of layover impact of the Trump administration's rollbag of some of that regulation leading to some more partnership between these smaller banks. How big of a factor is that.
That's definitely a big factor they you know, when they rolled back some of those things, that made it easier for these smaller banks to get together because it the threshold for which they had greater supervision was higher. So you could maybe get together with another small bank because that's not going to push you over the limit. You might not, you know, want to get together with a medium sized bank, because I would. But so that really did lead to a lot of mergers twenty twenty one.
I think I had a statistic in my story about how twenty twenty one was like the biggest year on record for bank mergers and something like a couple decades in part because of this rollback on some of the Dodd Frank regulations, and they're sort of expecting a lot more bank mergers to come later this year. You know, earlier this year it was really slow, in part because
of the banking crisis. But then there were a lot of bank mergers announced in April, the month after sort of a lot of the rockiness that had already it started to shake out, So, you know, they there is still a lot of prediction that some of these smaller banks might want to merge, in part also because there
are a lot of modernization efforts underway at banks. You know, like maybe you don't have that great a web app and you sort of want to get one now that a lot of people are doing like more online banking.
It's so interesting because as I've been filling in for June, I've been talking with Jenry a lot about how hard it's been for companies to deal with and get mergers and acquisitions through with the current Justice Department. But it sounds like the opposite could be used to describe the situation for banks more recently.
That's probably true. Actually, for a really long time, bank mergers have sort of been waved through, and there was one big banking deal earlier this year that collapsed. This was the TD Bank First Horizon deal, and that one they ended up calling off. Because the regulatory review was just sort of going on for a very long time, they didn't have much clarity about when it would end.
But one thing you know that they were really emphasizing this morning is that you know, they are going to try and get through, you know, the regulatory review as quickly as possible, and you know, if there are problems,
they'll they'll make that clear. They have this thing the Justice Department does called a Competitive Factors Report, in which they will go through all of the ways in which the two companies that are proposing to merge in this case, banks compete, and you know, it'll make it clear, you know, to the regular whether there is you know, a proposal that might allow this to go through, or whether they
think it's something that should be blocked. But the Justice Department did say, you know, they do have an independent authority to block deals. The speech actually happened on the sixtieth anniversary of this very famous bank merger case Philadelphia National Bank, that really established that the Anti Trust Division at the Justice Department has the authority to please bank mergers just as the banking authorities do really interesting.
Leah, thank you so much for coming on to talk with us about this, and also for your reporting. That was Leah Nylan, Bloomberg News anti trust reporter. You can find Leah's story along with along with her colleague Katanga Johnson on the Terminal and on Bloomberg dot Com on bank mergers facing fresh anti trust heat at the Justice Department. You're listening to Bloomberg Law coming up on the show.
It's Pride month and the Supreme Court may decide on a case this month that could have big implications for the LGBTQ community. We're going to discuss that next. I'm Madison Mills in for June Grasso, and this is Bloomberg.
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.
This is Bloomberg Law. I'm Madison Mills in for June Grasso this week and this is Pride month, and this Pride Month of the US Supreme Court is set to decide on a First Amendment case that could have huge implications for the LGBTQ plus community. So joining us to discuss that case is Greg Store, our Supreme Court reporter and expert down in DC for us. Greg, thanks so much for hopping on the phone with us here. Talk me through the details. What is this case involving a Colorado web designer.
Sure, she is a web designer who says she wants to start making pages for weddings, but she says, because of her religious beliefs, she only wants to make them for opposite sex weddings. Now, Colorado is one of about two dozen states that has a law that explicitly says so called public accommodations cannot discriminate on the basis of
LGBTQ status. And so the question for the Supreme Court in this case is whether there's essentially a First Amendment carve out for that, whether her First Amendment rights her free speech rights to create the kind of web pages she wants to create and not though she doesn't want to create, whether that essentially trumps the anti discrimination law.
Greg, obviously you're the expert here and not me, But why do I feel like we've already done this before? This feels really familiar to me.
Yeah, there was a very similar case a couple of years ago involving a baker, also in Colorado who said he didn't want to make a wedding cake to celebrate a same sex marriage, and all these issues were front and center in that case, but then the court kind of sidestepped them. They decided it on very narrow ground, really didn't do anything with that big tension between anti discrimination principles on one hand and religious and speech rights on the other hand.
So in this case it sounds like it's a little bit more specifically about free speech. And if I'm writing that description, what would you say, is the case that feels like the biggest kind of precedent for informing the court about what they might need to do in this case.
Yeah, it is a case that is just about speech. The web designer Laurie Smith also had some religious rights arguments, but the Court said we don't want to hear those at least right now. You know, there are some precedents that the Court has dealt with, for example, having to do with a parade, whether a St. Patrick's Day parade
could be required to allow LGBTQ in the parade. There's another case involving whether the Defense Department, where the universities had to let the Defense Department come on the campus to recruit just like other employers would, and the court was grappling with some of those issues in during the arguments. But this is also a very different court from the ones that decided those cases. So you know, this may be a court that puts itstone spin on things.
And any chance that the historic twenty fifteen case that allows for same sex marriage to occur could be impacted based on this decision.
Or no, not directly that case Obergerfell versus Hodges, which says it is a constitutional right that same sex couples do have a right to get married. That's not being challenged here. Certainly, supporters of that decision would say it's being watered down if if suddenly a same sex couple, the married couple doesn't have the rights in a particular state or nationwide that an opposite sex couple has. But in terms of directly affecting that ruling, no, not in this case.
So what's the timeline then, in our final thirty seconds for this latest Colorado case in the Supreme Court.
Well, the court is scheduled to end its term by the end of next week, so we're talking we talk again a week from week from now, or a week and a half from now, we should know the answer.
And do they always do what they say? How often is the schedule right on time?
It is virtually always on time. The only exception really was during the pandemic year, where there was a lot of different different situations. So I would expect a ruling by the end of next week.
All right, Greg Store, thank you so much for joining on this joining us on this story. We're definitely going to be talking with you again next week to get more details on that case. For now, this is Bloomberg Law. I'm Madison Mills. I've been in for June Grasso this week. Stick with us. Subscribe to us at Bloomberg Law for more news that you need from the Supreme Court to everywhere else in the US. This is Bloomberg