Judges Direct Sharp Barbs at Colleagues

the Ballot of Rickey Bobby, and it's a line. Fifth Circuit Judge James Hoe referenced in calling out the claims of a dissenting judge who said he was writing with all due respect, but then used a quote from Macbeth about the sound and fury of idiots. Both pretty mild put downs compared to a recent opinion of Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence Van Dyke, who wrote a concurrence to his own majority opinion dripping in sarcasm about his liberal colleague.

These are just the latest examples of the sniping and politics spilling into judicial opinions in the circuit courts. Joining me as Rosscoperman, a legal writing coach who has taught classes for new Federal judges for a decade. So Ross Judge Van Dyke wrote a majority opinion which found that a closure of gun shops due to COVID was a violation of the Second Amendment. Then he wrote a concurrence to his own majority opinion in anticipation that the full

circuit would reverse his decision. How unusual is that? So he did something I can't remember seeing before. So this is, as he said, a Second Amendment case. So it's a high profile case. So he was sort of assuming that the case was going to go on bonk, and his concurrence to himself basically tried to write what he thinks the majority will come up with. So he wrote an opinion, you know, going the opposite way from what he wanted.

But then what he did is he had all these footnotes and thought bubbles with a very kind of snarky, sarcastic tone, essentially claiming that anybody who supports this particular California gun regulation was just completely making things up and had ulterior motives, almost like to put them on the defensive before they've even had a chance to rehear the case, sort of show that you can have a lot of what he would probably say, kind of gobbled the standards

and quotations from case law and then picked a very strong suggestion that they were slimy for lack of a better word, and we're going to sort of make up the law in order to uphold the gun regulation. It was dripping in sarcasm. I'd say. In the past, he's accused his colleagues of engaging in mischief and jiu Jitsu compared them to a sullen kid who spits in the cookie jar after being caught red handed. What's the point

of this, do you think to get attention? One thing I'd say is he's absolutely not the only judge alive or path who's used any of that rhetoric. I mean, it's all a question of degree right and also contacts and substantive point in question as far as why he's doing it. I mean, obviously I can't speak for somebody else, but he's a very new judge on the Ninth Circuit. You know, his nomination was controversial. I think he's the A B. It's onto not qualified, although many people argued

with that conclusion. He's certainly very smart. I mean, he's got a great academic credentials, but he's a new judge. He's in that sort of federalist society group that most of the President Trump's judges came from. And he's sort of signaling, you know, we are onto what the liberals he probably called them are democrats are up to. He's signally that. But he's also, you know, here we are discussing his concurrence in the case that people probably wouldn't

be talking about at all. He's certainly wanting attention, maybe the attention of people who might one day nominate him for the Supreme Court. It might be that he wants the attention of other judges who are like minded and kind of tell them, you know what, I just didn't this, and I was really purposely snyde and sarcastic. Maybe you should too. So it's probably some combination all the above.

I mean, I guess we should also take him literally and seriously, and maybe that he's just in his mind of Paul, he thinks that judges are in a bad faith way upholding gun regulations that he would say violate at the Second Amendment. Maybe he is actually just genuinely, really really upset or distraught about it. Do you think it hurts the judges credibility to have opinions that are sarcastic, that perl insults at their colleagues on the bench. It's a great question. I don't think it has a really

really easy, obvious answer. So one thing is there's two different ways judges are sarcastic and opinions. The main way it tends to be towards the counsel or the argument, kind of implying that an argument was preposterous or ridiculous, So a shot at the lawyers themselves. It's certainly much rarer, although Justice Scalia was known to do this from time to time. It's rare to take potshots that your colleagues. So I would first say there might be different credibility

issues depending on which of those universities were in. Is it really just about the lawyers are the case or is it about judges? So in this case, who was certainly about judges, and it was like a preemptive strike. So at this point, and I think American legal history, a lot of judges are probably just hoping to have credibility with the like minded right there, not maybe so much as in the past. I'm worried about general credibility. I mean, there's a lot of tribalism going on in

our country, as you know. I don't think they're immune. So maybe for his purposes, it makes them more credible with people who see the law the way he does. And just because I know a lot of judges, I'm training them and I'm friendly with them. A lot of people loved it. I mean a lot of judges thought it was great. Other judges thought it was appalling, And they might not be the sarcasm the same way that I might. They might see it as warranted and effective.

Guess if the press who you want credibility with this circuit. Judge James Hose opinions have also gotten a lot of attention. In one opinion that I spoke about at the beginning of the segment, he and Judge Juck Weener were carping at each other. Doesn't that affect their relationship on the bench. And these judges have to work with each other for years, There's no doubt about it. You're absolutely right. I know you're right because I hear these things in my work.

Judge Hoe is on the fifth circuit. That fifth circuit is notoriously tense with different factions with judges not being overly fond of other factions. You know their stories. So I'll keeping the Preme Court justices have intentions. Traditionally there's been a line they won't cross, you know. I think Justice Scalia kind of famously made a crack about Justice Kennedy. Even Burger fell about putting a bag over my head. I think since then, not that I'm saying it's Justice

Lee as fault in any way, shape or form. I mean, it's just a lot of people try to copy him. Since then, it's been I think Judge has probably a good example as any It's been pretty common to have kind of name calling and a little bit of playground kind of kids fighting on the playground rhetoric one judge

to the other. I think that what you're describing from Judge how I mean, the Fifth Circuits had ale out literard of pensions where you have, you know, one of these like I'm concurring in part two be uh not the seventh word and now three A. So, one thing I know from getting to know a lot of judges is they really are just like the rest of us. You know, they don't like people taking shots at them. Yeah,

of course it causes pension. I suppose if you asked them, they would say, that's not the most important thing to me, you know, having like everybody get along for the Christmas party. It's not as important to me as you know, whatever my vision of the Constitution is. You mentioned Justice Scalia, who was known for his brilliant writing style, fiery descents. Do you see the kind of flare that Justice Scali ahead?

But I think people have forgotten is that of what Justice Scalia wrote, including in this excent, was not was not in the pot shot category, right, It wasn't in

the snarky, pure apple sauce quote unquote category. So I think what some of these newer judges are doing without realizing it is they're sort of copying those barbs that Justice Lee would use, but they don't really come across as well or as effectively because the rest of the opinion isn't quite a strong I mean, Justice Leo sounded genuine,

but do you liked it or not? It was like his voice and he seem a little bit more like a pastiche or like I want to have everybody talk about me the way people talked about Justice s Glea saying pure apple sauce. He also, of course had the stature, so Justice Slea even among his foes, he was just going to get more different when he was a justice for what he would do in writing than some of these judges who have only been on the bench for

with years. And sometimes you know, it's like anytime there's somebody new, you know, the new kid on the block. Sometimes they found I know just from what I hear so other judges who have been on the bench for a while, they sound a little boiled or cocky, right like, Okay, I've been doing this for two years and I now know everything, and I'm gonna just show the rest of the circuit where they've gone wrong. So you call it

performance art. In the circuits, house'll explain that they're not really in the moment operating as a normal federal judge. They're playing to win audience. And by the way, there's nothing wrong with that, and people tend to dislike it, mainly when it's with the judge they don't agree with ideologically. I mean a lot of justices and judges engage in you know, rhetoric or they have examples or metaphors or terms of races that are clever. Why police they think

they are. But in this case, it's not like a brief moment of performance art. It's like an entire concurrence to a concurrence of performance art. So again it's changed. They're now thinking about audiences. Maybe it's somebody in the White House, maybe it's somebody on Twitter. They're thinking about

audiences besides the official audience for a federal judge. That's supposed to be the party's, the council, the other lawyers in the jurisdiction, and perhaps if you're influential enough of the judge or on the influential court law students, you're supposed to be thinking about those groups. But now they're thinking about, Hey, what are they going to say about me? On Twitter? Are there judges on Twitter? Well, some judges. It's like Judge Dillard from Georgia, he's on Twitter. The

Chief Justice of the Michigan Court. I know she's on Twitter. I think they're quite careful and what they say. They're fun to follow, but they're not controversial. There actually are quite a few judges and justices I can tell you who are on Twitter. Under they absolutely follow. I can tell you for sure, they absolutely follow what people say about them. And I have to say, these attention getting opinions keep things interesting as opposed to those opinions, it's

just so hard to wade through. We the lawyers of America are hypocrites on this because if you ask people, they always say like, judges should be somber and serious. They have a lot of power. But again, if you go back to Justice Scalia and you say, what are some quotes you remember from Justice Scalia, everything you will hear will be some kind of snark, sarcasm, pop shot criticism. People secretly love this stuff. They say they hate it. They might intellectually hate it, but I hate to tell

you it works. And I think Justice Cagan is probably the greatest living legal writer, lawyer or judge. But the things that people associate with her are actually the very few things I don't think are that great. Like exciting, you know, making a making a reference to the TV show Beef. I know people think that's really clever and like populist. I love of every word she's ever written. That's the last thing how I would ever put on

the list. Right, So, if you're a judge and people are saying, oh, it's so inappropriate to use this snark, but then in real life what people seem to applaud of these little barbs or cute pop culture references, You're gonna You're gonna see the split and do what people actually things are like as opposed to what they say they like. Thanks Ross. That's legal writing coach, Ross Cooperman, and that's it for this edition of the bloom Our

Glass Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news by listening to our Bloomberg Law podcast wherever you get your favorite podcasts. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg Beef News. Laws may not require us to count how many jelly beans are in a jar, but modern day voter suppression is no less pernicious. Representative Terry Sewell is the only black person serving in Congress from Alabama.

The state is currently represented by one black Democrat, Sewell, elected from the state's only majority black district, and six white Republicans elected from the state's heavily white districts. That's even though about tent of Alabama's population is black. So a panel of three federal judges has ordered the state to draw new congressional districts including a second district with a substantial number of minority voters. Alabama is appealing that

decision to the Supreme Court. Joining me is Rebecca Green, professor and director of the Election Law Program at William and Mary Law School. Rebecca explain this decision by the panel of judges. The case comes up under the Voting Rights Act, something called Section two, which is designed to ensure that minorities have the ability to elect their candidates of choice, or put a different way, that state rules and laws don't styn me the ability of minorities to

elect their candidate of choice. One way that states have done this historically is by the way they draw their

lines and the resisting process. And so what they can do is they can pack minority voters into a single district, thereby take their voting power away and in surrounding districts, or if there are concentrations of minority voters that would be able to elect their candidate choice, the line drawer could draw a line like in the middle of that concentration of minority voters in order to diffuse or dilute

their ability to elect their connective choice. So redistricting has been a vehicle that states have used in the past to harm minority political strength. And if you look at the US congressional map in Alabama that plaintiff's challenged under

section two, they did exactly what I just described. At least that's the allegation that they packed minority voters into a single district in one part of the state, and across the way on the right hand side of the state, they cut a line down the concentration of minority voters, and the allegation is that violates Voting Rights Act Section too. And so this three judge panel of federal judges, which included two appointees of former President Trump, said voting in

the challenge districts is intensely racially polarized. This is not genuinely in dispute. Is that correct that it's not in dispute. Yes, So what they're referring to is an analysis that is required under section to vote dilution litigation. The first part of that analysis has to do with whether the minority community is sufficiently large and geographically compact to qualify for

protection under section two. And then the second two prongs of analysis require the presence of racially polarized voting, meaning that you can look at how minorities vote and you can first of all, decide that they're politically cohesive and that they would vote for the same candidate if given the chance. And the other piece of that is that the majority voters consistently vote to defeat the minority candidates of choice. And my understanding of the data is that

it is a racially polarized voting climate. What were the court's instructions to Alabama about redrawing the map? Basically, the state's map has only one majority minority district out of seven, despite the fact that there are almost thirty percent a black voting age population in the States. So it's skewed against minority voters for that reason, and so the command to comply with Section two is to draw a second

majority minority district. What was interesting to me is that the panel refused to put its decision on hold while Alabama appeals to the Supreme Court, so that gives the legislature until Monday to draw a new map. In the meantime, the panel is working on a backup plan. Yeah, so I think that the urgency here is that the Panel of judges here thinks that the plaintiffs have an incredibly strong case and that the arguments the state was making

two defendants maps were exceptionally weak. And one of the arguments that the defendants of the state made here was essentially that by prioritizing race for purposes of complying with Section two of the Voting Rights Act, that would be a racial gerrymanager. In other words, if you create the second majority minority district, it would effectively be prioritizing race

over everything else. And the reason why I think the Court found that to be such a weak argument is that if you couldn't comply with Section two without violating the Constitution, then Section two would be unconstitutional. And you know that lainly the lower court judges weren't willing to do. In other words, they were taking it on faith that Congress has the power to enact that into and that

plaintiff skins indicate those rights. So Alabama is appealing to the Supreme Court, as I said, and it argued that the injunction will throw state elections into chaos and require the state to draw districts based primarily on race instead of other factors. What do you think of that argument?

So that's sort of what I was just alluding to their reacting to this idea that they should be prioritizing race in their line drawing, when that's sort of a strange argument, given that since the Voting Rights Act was passed in and particularly since it was applied to line drawing vote allution cases, that's what states have been required to do all along, and in fact, you know, obviously Alabama has been a losing defendant on many registricting cases

since the Voting Rights Act was passed. So to complain that they are being forced to comply with the Voting Rights Act by taking race into account as it requires the sort of a strange argument because that's not anything new. So will the Supreme Court here that case. Yes, there's mandatory jurisdiction for the Supreme Court in statewide registricting cases.

So unlike other cases where the Court can decide or not decide, here the Court will take it for part of the reason that you're suggesting, which is that you know, redistricting cases are a unique type of case because elections happen, and you can't delay decisions because elections have to happen.

So I think you can expect that the Supreme Court will weigh in one way or the other here and how much will a decision by the Supreme Court enlighten us about how it's going to look at other similar challenges. And we're expecting other similar challenges, aren't we in the run up to the next election. Yeah, there's been a couple of instances where states are kind of being very assertive about wanting to draw lines from a color blind perspective.

And I think what's happening there is they are wondering whether there are a majority of defices on the Court who would be open to the idea that using race in redistricting violates the Constitution, And so I wonder whether they're sort of taking this path because they want to test that out. Is it correct to say that the Roberts Court has been cutting back on voting rights. I think it's correct to say that the Roberts Court has been putting pressure on Section two of the Voting Rights

Act for sure. I mean, you can look at redistricting cases in the last decade where the Court made clear that it would require states to comply with the Voting Rights Act. So it's not like they've been inching towards repudiating it wholesale In fact, Justice Thomas has been one of the only justices who've taken that line very firmly and consistently, that is that Section two is unconstitutional. So I don't think it's fair to say that there's been, you know, a drum beat by majority of justices of

the Court to do away with it. And if you look at the decisions over the last ten years, the Court has certainly recognized that plantiffs can vindicate rights under Voting Rights Act Section two. Let's turn to to Pennsylvania and pans Sylvania Appellate Court struck down a law that allows no excuse absentee voting. Explain why it's struck down that law, what its reasoning was. Yeah, So this this

is kind of a interesting set of circumstances. So in two thousand nineteen, the Pennsylvania legislature, on a bipartisan vote, past legislation to enable no youth absentee voting. And the legislation itself, I think it was a hundred and eighty days that you were that you could bring a challenge

to it, and no one brought that challenge. In fact, it wasn't until after election when all of a sudden you started hearing this argument um that you know that law was unconstitutional at least with respect to the state Constitution. And basically the argument is that the state constitution requires that voters vote in person um and that therefore the state legislature lacked the ability to pass it's absentee voting um legislation UM, because what it would have had to

do is essentially first amends the state Constitution. But the trick is that the state Constitution doesn't actually anywhere say that you have to vote in person. Rather, it says that it's the talking about how a qualified elector has to establish residencies days before an election, and the and the word in the constitution, the wards and the constitution are in the election district where he or she shall

offer to vote. And so the argument that the Republicans are making is that the offer to vote language suggests that you're offering in person to vote um, which is a little bit of a stretch. Doesn't actually say that um in the constitution. But the but the argument anyway is that the the legislature couldn't pass that law because it would first about absentee voting, because it would first pass to amend the constitution to make it clear that

could vote remotely. Judge Hannah Levitt wrote, no excuse. Mail in voting makes the exercise of the franchise more convenient and has been used four times in the history of Pennsylvania. Yet they went on to say you had to amend the constitution. Yep, it seems odd to say that. And then it is odd I think it is. It is odd, um, because they also said they also acknowledged that there was

a hundred in a period to challenge the law. Um. And yet you know, plaintiffs here weighted until after an election had passed, when voters relied on that law could challenge. And so so it's even odd to me that you would even accept this um, this case so so far into the future. But in any event, even aside from that, it is, you know, pretty incredible that the that the court, um, you know, so long after the legislature acted um, is kind of using this very vague language in the constitution

um to to say that the legislature overstepped. Some of the Republicans who voted for the law are part of the group filing this lawsuit against the law. And so the five judge Commonwealth courts split along party lines, with three Republican judges agreeing with the Republican petitioners and two Democrats dissenting. So the state is going to appeal to the state Supreme Court, where Democrats have a majority. Is the state Supreme Court likely to reverse the decision of

the five judge court. I'm not a betting person, but um, but if I were, I would probably think that that would that would be the outcome. You know, looking at all these cases in different states across the country where voting rights are being restricted or redistricting is eliminating minority constituencies, it seems like it's an assault on democracy. Well, you know, I believe very firmly that there's a huge amount of agreement in this country that all eligible voters should be

able to cast a vote. And I also think there's a lot of agreement that that vote should be free of fraud and should be secure. So I think at a very basic level, we all agree what the basic ingredients are um for our democracy. I mean, I also think that, you know, while it's certainly the case that states around the country are constricting access to the ballot in ways that make people upset and angry because they

see it as politically motivated. It's also the case that it remains very easy to cast a ballot, you know, relatively speaking, um today than ever has in the history of this country. For example, many states have lots of avenues for early voting, and many states have you know, more looser absentee voting policies and so forth. And so I think, you know, I think it's easy to sort of think that, you know, democracy is in a downward spiral.

But I think, um, if you if you kind of go back to the basics, Um, I think there's a lot of reason for people to have faith in the confidence in the process. Okay, Rebecca will and this segment on a hopeful note. That's Rebecca Green, a professor and co director of the Election Law Program at William and Mary Law School. The airs of a Holocaust survivor maybe on the winning end of a Supreme Court case over

Nazi looted art. In seven painting Ruce sent on Array afternoon rain effect by French impressionist Camille Pizarro is at the center of the case. It was stolen by the Nazis in nine. The painting is currently on display at a Spanish State museum in Madrid. Joining me is mcson Gaila, head of the appellate practice at buck Alter. In the Supreme cordoral arguments, there really wasn't that much discussion of the saga of this painting and what was the argument about, Well,

there were some observations. I believe it was just discorson who observed an argument that it might be time to bring this litigation to a close, given how long even the litigation has lasted, which has been uh ah, gosh,

you know, coming on twenty years. I think so um, And that's not unusual for Holocaust recovery case which which does tend to drag on for a long time with a lot of freshold legal questions like the ones here, even though this case uniquely actually already went through an appeal on summer judgment and went through actually a bench trial.

On certain points, we're back to threshold questions, which is choice of law, Which law do we use to choose the law that applies substantively in this case, and whether it's federal law, federal rules governing choice of law, or state law that is California law that determines which suddenly law applies in this case. You could matter very greatly because of how those substant of laws view UH adverse possession. So in California you can't get good title from a thief.

So there would be clearly some positive developments in that regard for the claimants for the family who is seeking the piece of art. In under Spanish law, however, there is open and obvious possession for a certain amount of

time can lead to an adverse possession claim. And so that is how the foundation want in the district court was Spanish law applies using UH federal laws and the the family said, no, we need to use California law to assess which choice of law to apply because we have California claims there, we have California state claims brought in federal courts UH, but still state law claims and

state choice of law should govern. So those are the pretty discrete question that the Supreme Court was considering, and based on the questions and the responses and the comments and oral argument from the justices, it does appear that the Court may be poised to provide, you know, yet another victory, a rare victory, two errors in a Holocaust

art case. Again in a case that's founded on the foreign Sovereign Communities Act in terms of being able to bring a foreign entity to court in the United States, but it's going to be on a very narrow, you know, very specific ground. California state law and not Spanish law should govern the threshold choice of which law to apply

to clarify. In California you cannot get good title if it's a stolen work of art, but in Spain you can, or do any other factors matter and stay well, there are other factors in terms of how long you've held it, whether it was available to be found out during that time frame. But that's definitely um an avenue that's possible under Spanish law that just doesn't exists under California law. Tell us about some of the issues the justices were

interested in, but there were a couple of things. First, you're really the intersection of the substantive state law and federal law in the case. So it's a unique beast this particular case. It's a case that's brought in federal court because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act allows of foreign entities and governments to be sued in US courts. That would be US federal court. But the claims that are an issue are state law plaims basic conversion and trust

paths under California state law. So it's just state law case, but it's brought in federal court because of the Federal Fabrin Immunities Act question, and so the court was asking questions around, well, Okay, this is really a state law case, So shouldn't we have a common approach to cases involving state law that applies to everyone, whether or not they're specially brought here because of the foreign soming to music

or some other acts. So there's struggling with that. Then we want to have a common ground of decisions under the Faven Immunities Act as we would if it were any other kind of state law claim that might be in federal court, and not treat the threshold questions of choice of law difference because of the type of defendant

we have in the case. On the other hand, the Foundation was arguing, well, it is a special kind of case because of the forum foing me that, and therefore we need to be treated as we would expect to be treated in federal court because that's what we expect when we're brought into court under the f s i A. So there were these two dueling questions. They appeared that the California Choice of Law will end up governing in

part because the court. Members of the court expressed concern about applying a different rule to a foreign Sovereign Community Act defendant as opposed to other kinds of defendant that that might be in federal court. We're going to apply state choice of law rules to state law claims that happened to be in federal court. That should be the same, no matter how they came to this court, whether it was diversity or the foreign sovereign New News that because

that's what the Foundation was arguing for. They needed to see some kind of special view of this case because of how it came there. But it really seemed to be a manageability question and a common thread question that the Supreme Court was looking at in terms of we want to treat We want to have a clear expectation and a clear way in which we treat state law claims in federal court, no matter how they got here.

So that seems to be the to the extent there was any tussle about, that was the one that was going on within the court. And it seems from the questioning at least that they seem to be leaning towards having a uniform, workable rule that just doesn't depend on the defended status for how they become a rich choice

of laws applies a lawyer for the foundation. So the Supreme Court should set out a fair and balanced way for federal courts to approach these kinds of cases because different states have different legal tests, and Justice Roberts said, welcome to the United States. That's how the courts work. And a private citizen of the United States who moves from New York to Ohio, the law that applies to

him is going to change as well. So how would it work if you go into a federal court, They're going to apply the law of the state that you're in according to you know what you think the court's going to do? Yes, so I think I'll say, Okay, Yes, they're California claims. The plaintiff is the Californians, and so it's California state law and California choice of law that

applies to California state lack claims. I think what Justice Roberts was talking about there was this sense that yes, okay, whether there's an expectation about whether and where you can be hailed into court as it as a foreign empty into the United States that may be governed by the Foreign Sovereign Communities Act, and it tells you you can be hailed into federal court. But then once you are in our court system, you are then governed by our

court system. And how our court system worked for every other kind of defendant is that, uh, when there are state law claims, when you're going to use the state choice of law analysis to assess this. So that's um, that's where keeps us as Robert's comments was coming from, Yes, welcome to our court. Was there any difference in the way the conservatives viewed it from the way the liberals

viewed it or were they all on the same basic page. Yeah, I mean it was a remarkable argument, and that there there were some quiet spots and it didn't seem to be questions came from too many different directions. There were a lot of questions getting getting to the same point

that that Justice Roberts was making. And also that clearly the the members of the court were concerned about making some kind of special rule for a certain kind of defendant or a special rule in this case, they wanted something that was workable and predictable for the courts themselves to implement and then not have some special card outs for sovereign unity defendants. But since that there were, the

questions were in alignment. They seemed to be coming from the same general perspective in terms of having a workable rule and uh maybe leaning in favor of the state's choice of law approach instead of federal common law. And in that regard, the questions might have come with slightly different, a politely different different flavor to them, but it did not appear to be a back divide between the different

justices depending on their, you know, perceived political leanings. Let me ask you this, Suppose the Supreme Court says, all right, the plaintiffs win here California law applies. Do the plaintiffs really win or is it go back to district court and there has to be a trial or more motions? Yeah,

it goes. It goes back to the district court. The question I think also that was very interesting was that a significant amount of the questioning towards the end was focused on figuring out what that would look like and what whether closure was possible in the short or longer term. I know that there were um and that's unusual. I mean, the court usually is saying, I'm just going to decide the case that's in front of me. I'm just going to decide the issue, and then we'll remand it with

directions and the case will carry on. But there seems to be a fair amount of questioning in addition to Justice Coursages saying, you know, can we perhaps from this disclosure what that might look like upon Reman, what would the scope see, what what more would there be to do in this case? Or would it truly be put

to bed in short order? And it was clear from that discussion that, you know, the Foundation is definitely planning to live to fite another day and was even arguing that under California choice of law that's still standish law should potentially apply to which there was you know, a fair amount of question thing about that from a couple of the justices. You said, well, you're fighting awfully hard

about this. We can't imagine that if you don't think it might make some difference depending on which choice of law is applied. Can't see exactly the same results, or we wouldn't be spending all this time on this question, so certainly you think there might be a difference or we wouldn't be here. And then there were also some discussions of potential other arguments that the Foundation might raise, including due process, and I believe it was just this

course that you mentioned. Well, at some point after a fifteen or twenty years, maybe you've waived any additional um procedural arguments that you might have, and perhaps we can get to the merits and get the closure on this case. So from from that discussion, it's clear the Court is curious about that, and also that to the extense there's ability to continue to to fight over issues, the Foundation certainly will do so. And we've talked before about these

Nazi looted art cases at the Supreme Court. Would this be the first one if things go as you anticipate, where the heirs of the first owners who had the art looted would actually win. Well, it's a rare it's a rare victory for sure. You know, Maria Altman's case will be the last one that I know of that had a similar win in the Foreign Sovereign Communities contact for a Holocaust art air. So it's definitely rare and it's following in the Altman case Footsteps, which was now

several years ago. Thanks EMC. That's mc sanila of Buck Alter. 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, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast, Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every week now at ten b m. Wall Street Time. I'm June Grossow, and you're listening to Bloomberg