This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio. Mister Zuckerberg, you and the companies before us.
I know you don't mean it to be so, but you have blood on your hands. You have a product.
You have a product that's killing people.
That was Republican Senator Lindsay Graham during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing two years ago, a rare example of Democrats and Republicans coming together to attack social media CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg for not protecting kids online. Zuckerberg pushed back on some recent studies that suggested that social media use was detrimental to the mental health of teenagers.
Mental health is a complex issue, and the existing body of scientific work has not shown a cause a link between using social media and young people having worse mental health outcomes.
Well, now, Zuckerberg will have a chance to make his case to a jury in a landmark trial overclaims that the top social media companies have deliberately gotten teenagers addicted through design choices on trial or Meta, the owner of Instagram and Facebook, and Google, the owner of YouTube Snap settled the case last week, and TikTok settled on the eve of trial. Joining me is Colin Walkee, a cybersecurity
and data privacy partner at hall Estell. Colin. The plaintiff in this case is a California woman who is now twenty years old. Tell us about our allegations in this lawsuit.
This is really the first one that's going to trial.
There are dozens of not hundreds of similar lawsuits out there.
And the basic allegation in this case, in.
All the cases, is that the algorithms that have been put out there by the social media companies, as well as all the bells and whistles they put on their social media platforms, have made their products addictive. So this is very much akin to the tobacco litigation in the nineteen nineties. Are there harms that flow from that addiction?
One?
Is it addictive? And then two are there harms that flow from it? The jury is ultimately going to decide that in this case.
This is a novel theory that compares social media sites to defective products.
Yes, and in fact some of the claims even relate back to like a nuisance type claim. But long story short is is that the way these algorithms operate is they get you addicted through casino style techniques. So casinos know, for example, that every time that you put a quarter in you shouldn't get a reward because then you won't come back.
So it's the timing with which.
You see and the content that you see it in and then what are the consequences that flow from that, So, for example, mental health harms as a result of that. You can think about children in school and the distractions. That's some of the allegations that have come out in these cases is you know Instagram started using teenagers and they were sitting there going, how do we get back
more teenagers. Well, let's figure out a way to get our platforms in schools, right, And so the harms that flow from this are unique to each individual, but you can see how they compound.
So do they have to show or are they they're alleging that the social media companies deliberately made these design choices, correct that.
It is intentional that they have done this. And the thing is is I think that there's plenty of testimony out there that probably supports the goal of making individuals remain on.
Platforms as long as possible.
Keeping their attention there so that they can increase the number of viewers and thereby increase the number of advertisements. So I don't think there's really anything new about that. But the tech companies are coming in and saying, well, whoa, whoa. We already know based off of the Spring Courts ruling on Section two thirty that the algorithms themselves are protected speech.
And so the unique claim in this particular case is, yes, that may be speech, but the other bells and whistles that you're putting onto this and what you're doing within it is not speech, and rather it's conduct that it's getting us addicted to your platform.
Explain Section two thirty for those who are not familiar with it.
So Section two thirty is a law that was passed in the mid nineties at the infancy of the Internet, and.
The goal of Section two thirty was to say, hey.
Listen, all of these people are on America Online posting all sorts of things. Maybe some of them are child pornography, maybe some of them are pictures of elephants.
Who knows who cares, But we don't.
Want to hold aol America Online liable for what someone else posts. And so, in today's day and age, with regard to Facebook, TikTok, all of those sorts of companies. Whatever you post on there, the companies can't be held liable for. And that's the result of a now decades old law that needs to be updated pretty badly.
As far as this case has the judge ruled about the applicability of Section two.
Thirty, well, there were attempts to get the case dismissed under those claims, and thus far the case is going to trial, and so ultimately the judge denied those defenses. I have no doubt this is the type of case that will be brought up in front of the United States Supreme Court ultimately to make that decision. But I will tell you in many of the other copycat lawsuits,
it's the exact same sort of thing. They're making the argument that Section two thirty affords in this protection and that's why it's probably gonna go to.
The Supreme Court.
And so the tech companies are arguing they're not legally responsible for the effect of the content made by users. So explain what they're out is here what they're trying to get.
To, right, So, in short, the fact that you're being shown what you want to see is your own choice you could choose to see and view different things based off of the likes, and you're viewing habits and all of that. So they're essentially saying, all we're doing is giving you what you want. We're not doing anything to make it more enticing than it already is. And you know, part of the argument too is how much is your
cell phone self addictive versus the platforms themselves? Right, So every time you get an iPhone update, for example, it becomes a little bit brighter. Why the brighter the screen, the more dopamine in the brain. The more dopamine the brain, the more you want to look on in your screen. That's why it's hard for you to figure out without going to Google how to set your screen to black and white.
They don't want you to know that.
So part of their argument here too is is how do you distinguish which component of this is addictive?
I hadn't realized that I learned something new today about the screens. Here, the twenty year old woman says that more than a decade of social media you left her addicted and depressed. Google's challenged the narrative, saying that she experienced difficult family relationships, abuse, and bullying at school and
that played a role in her mental health struggles. I mean, how difficult is causation going to be here for her to prove that, you know, it was her addiction to the platform rather than all the other things happening in her life.
Well, well, it's one of the sayings that we have in personal injury cases, which is you find your planiffs as they are. And so in this particular case, yes, they have some pretty good arguments that the mental health harms are a result of her history. But the question then becomes were they exacerbated by virtue of the negligent conduct? And if that's the case, then the approximate cause is in fact the social media platform and not the historical
trauma that she experienced. And so that's what I was saying earlier about the mental health harms as part of the allegations in this case, because it is going to be an issue for the jury to determine what was the ultimate cause, what are those damages, and on top of that, are punitive damage is something that.
Could be afforded.
There is a debate within the mental health field about the connection between social media and increasing teenage rates of depression, anxiety suicide ideation. But there is a twenty twenty three report by the American Psychological Association that found that social media used is not inherently benefit official or harmful to young people. Is that debate going to enter the courtroom where we're going to see, you know, experts on both sides of the issue.
Absolutely, you will, just like you saw with the tobacco litigation. I mean, that's the reality is You're going to find experts on both sides of this issue. But at the end of the day, the reason why the jury trial system is so good here in the United States is because our jurors really are good at detecting bs, and so they'll be able to figure out pretty quickly not just from what the testimony is, but from their own
personal experiences. I don't think that anyone can ultimately hear the testimony of these executives and former executives and decide that they didn't at least try.
To make it more addictive.
Whether they accomplish that goal maybe a different story, but it's pretty clear they at least tried.
As you mentioned, there are more than sixteen hundred plaintiffs, including there were over three hundred and fifty families and two hundred and fifty school districts on the federal and state level. Why isn't this being true as a class action lawsuit.
Well, because the harms flow differently.
So for a class action you have to have similarity in damages and several other similar class items to make you a class. So, for example, if your dishwasher went out, all the other thousand people who bought that dishwasher, you're in the similar class.
You've got similar damages.
But in this particular case, the harm of this particular female plaintiff right is different than a mother bringing in a lawsuit on behalf of her child. And those damages are different because you're going to calculate a different lifespan based on age alone. And then not only that, but you look at the school district lawsuits, Well, what are the damages there. It's the disruption in the classroom, it's
the additional counselors that are needed. So each of these different damage components makes them difficult even for a litany of school districts to come together. You couldn't see that across the country because everybody is funded differently, So that's why you're not seeing it as a class action.
But I'm confident that if.
This case goes to trial and there is a judgment, you're going to see a lot more of these cases.
Sudden explain what a Bellweather trial is and is this a Bellweather trial?
This is absolutely a bell Weather trial. So it's very similar.
Recently, for example, you saw Tesla actually went to trial and won on one of the cases where they're automatic driving vehicle injured somebody, and so that is going to embolden Tesla into the future. So if you imagine a scenario in which the social media companies do win this case, they're going to feel embolden to continue to pursue it. On the flip side of that coin, if the plaintiffs win this case, then at the end of the day, you're going to start seeing a lot more settlements.
Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this conversation with Colin Walke of hall Estel. Jury's selection is underway in the case. So what kind of jurors are the lawyers from each side looking for and how much depends on the testimony of a CEO like Mark Zuckerberg. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
Would you'd like now to apologize to the victims who have been harmed by your product? Show them the pictures.
Would you like to apologize for what you've done to these good people?
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg was lectured by both Republican and Democratic senators when he testified at a hearing on the harm social media platforms posed to young people in January of twenty twenty four. Now, Zuckerberg will have to testify in a courtroom in a landmark social media addiction trial. Part of his testimony will most likely echo some of what he said before Congress when he elaborated on the safeguards Meta has added over the years.
Over the last eight years, we've built more than thirty different tools, resources, and features that parents can set time limits for their teens using our apps, see who they're following, or if they report someone for bullying. For teens, we've added nudges to remind them when they've been using Instagram for a while, or if it's getting late and they should go to sleep, as well as ways to hide words or people without those people finding out.
I've been talking to an expert in data privacy Colin Walkee, a partner at Halestel. Colin the fact that Snap settled last week and TikTok settled on the eve of trial, what does that tell you about how the social media companies are evaluating the risk of going to trial.
I think what most people don't realize is that lawyer's jobs are to manage risk.
We are risk managers, that is it. And so for the.
Plaintiffs in this case, if they settled, the reason why is because they know that this is going to be taken all the way to Supreme Court and that's going to take another five years, whereas they can get some.
Money today and avoid that risk, right.
So there's an incentive for the plaintiffs to settle from that regard, and there's an incentive for the defendant to settle because they don't want this information to get out there in the real world about how much you know your privacy is being pilfered for profit. They don't want to figure that out. They don't want their dirty laundry aired. And so this is why settlements happen, is because both sides are incentivized to not continue on with the case whether they're right or wrong, and.
I'm wondering how they evaluate the risks because even if they settle this case, there is the next case and the next case in the next case, whereas if they try this case and win, they'll have a better road ahead.
That's absolutely correct.
And one other thing is is that Meta has plenty of money for lobbying, So at the end of the day, if this does result in some sort of liability to them, I have no doubt that all of the tech companies are going to go to Congress to seek some form of a Section two thirty type amendment to further protect them in the future from this type of litigation.
It's most likely that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Musserri, who heads Instagram, are going to take the stand. Zuckerberg has testified before Congress explain how different it is to be in a courtroom and subject across examination and being in Congress.
Well, it's wildly different.
Because if you remember back in twenty fourteen, when Mark Zuckerberg came and testified in front of Congress, one of the congressmen actually thought the reference to a cookie was an edible item and not a pixel contained on your computer screen. Okay, So the difference is is that these attorneys in the courtroom know the technology, they know the facts, and they're going to be able to effectively cross examine someone about what a cookie is and how they're tracking
your data from one website to another. And then it begs the question, why are you tracking my information from my insurance carrier? Oh, well so we can show you more ads. Okay, why are you showing more ads? Well, so we can get your addicted. So that's how the cross examination is going to work that you would have never.
Seen in commerce.
I think that Zuckerberg has a tandency to seem sort of wooden when he talks. Suppose he comes across that way to a jury, I mean, how much depends on how they view him.
Well, it goes back to the old saying that you know a jury, if they like you, they like your cause. And so that's a hurdle that the tech companies are going to have to overcome at the start of this trial, because they've had enough black eyes already that the jury's not going to like them out out.
The gate, and the plaintiff here will have to take the stand.
Yes, the plan for lap take the stand, and I have no doubt that her mental health history will come up and the trauma that she has suffered, and all of that is fodder for cross examination.
As painful as.
It may be for someone to go through that process, it has to occur in order for the jury to have a full understanding and appreciation of whether or not the trauma in this case was related to addiction from social media or prior.
This is a civil trial, not a criminal trial. So people may have heard old defendants don't have to testify, etc. But explain how a civil trial is different.
Yeah, so there is no right against self incrimination in a civil trial. In fact, if you let's assume for half a second that Mark Zuckerberg had planned on doing something illegal.
In order to make this an addictive product.
If he asserted his Fifth Amendment right in a civil trial, the judge would instruct the jury that they are able to make an adverse inference as to his response. Otherwise, you don't have a Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination in a civil trial. Rather, because you're not going to jail. Rather, you face damage damages as a result.
Of your conduct.
Jerry selection is underway right now. Tell us the kind of jurors that the plaintiff's lawyer will be looking for, and the kind of jurors that the defendant's lawyer will be looking for.
Yeah.
So if I'm the planeff's lawyer, I am looking for individuals who are going to be used to using social media and find it problematic for themselves or their family members.
Right.
So we all have the uncle or the dad who spends all day long on Twitter and you're rolling your eyes like.
Sitting there, going do you not have anything else to do? That?
You want somebody who is frustrated about the system on there. From the Planetf's perspective and from the defendants perspective, you're looking for someone who is willing to say, you know what, we live in a capitalistic society in which individuals have freedom of choice, and these people are choosing to download this app and spend time on it. That is a choice that they are making. And so you're gonna want someone who is very libertarian in their perspectives on life.
What about parents?
Yeah, and that goes back to it.
I think that if I am on the plant side, I want as many parents on there as possible.
Again, you're gonna have some parents who don't care.
Right, we have created a situation in which the reason why our children are addicted is because we're sitting there throwing these in their hands at the age of five years of age. And so you know, some parents may not care, but it's the parents who do care that you want on that stand or in that jury box.
Do you know besides a testimony, are there internal documents that are going to be introduced.
Yes, there will be internal documents that will be utilized that were utilized in depositions. Many of them have been redacted for public use at this time. The judge will figure out how to handle that with the jury on any confidential information. But yes, there will be documentation as well that the jury can rely upon a side from the testimony itself.
These are state cases, but there are also federal cases that are going to trial in June. Is that also bell Weather or yes?
Yes, And you could also think about it this way, right, So we're talking about these bell Weather cases. What if the plantiff wins, what if the defendant wins? And earlier we talked about, well, well, the defendant feel in Bolden and they probably will as a social media company, feel in Bolden. But you have to remember, going back to the original point of why these aren't.
Class action cases.
Each case is different and unique, and so in this particular case, we have a plaintiff who doesn't have the best history, so to speak, Versus if you had a five year old child in there who's got mental health issues from being addicted.
They're not going to have the same traumatic history.
They're only five years old, right, So each case is going to turn on the facts uniquely. But I do certainly think that this is going to embolden whoever wins.
And also some states are enacting laws to protect against this.
Well, each state is doing something a little bit different.
So for example, you know, Oklahoma has passed a law that says you're not allowed to have cell phones during the school day, and so that keeps cell phones and social media away from.
Kids at least for nine hours of the day.
But you're also seeing other states require age verification for children and those sorts of things.
Whether that's actually effective is a different story.
You and I have had this conversation before about a lot of this is about personal responsibility on the parents. So for example, Oklahoma and many other states have past age verification laws for pornography. All a child has to do is download a VPN and bop. Now they're in Washington, d C. They're not in a state with an age verification law, and so, you know, trying to keep up with the technology is very hard from a legal perspective, and that's why personal responsibility is so important.
You talk about addictive I can start reading one news story and then go on to the next about the same subject, and then the next and the next, all on different sites. It seems pretty addictive to me, And I'm wondering if you have jurors who are like that, if it hurts the plaintiff's case, because there are so many addictive things on your phone. You have games that are addictive.
Well, but to your point, I mean what you just said, you can read news from us several different sites, right, So are you addicted to a social media platform or.
The internet itself? Because here you are spending eight hours a day.
You're not on social media platform, but you're going to Washington Post, You're going to Bloomberg News, You're going to New York Times. You go into all of these various websites and you're spending all day on there, and you forget about what you're supposed to actually be responsible for.
Let's just say plaintiffs win here, how will they look at the damages the jury?
So I'm not an expert in California law, but generally speaking, they're going to look at the actual damages.
So to the extent that this.
Woman had gone to the see of therapist and those sorts of things, that'll be a calculation included in there. How much did it cost? The amount of time taking off of work or the inability to obtain a job may be a component of for damages and then ultimately a request for punitive damages because if it can be shown that this was done with intentional and reckless condom, then there's an argument to be had that they should be punished for that behavior.
I heard one of the plaintiff's lawyers talk about, we want them to correct this conduct. I mean, could a judge actually order meta two?
Yes?
Yeah, there could be injunctive relief as a component of this. So for example, ultimately in some of these cases, if it's declared a nuisance, then the social media companies are going to have to abate that nuisance. And how are they going to do that? They're going to go in and fix their algorithms to make them less addictive, to show you things that you don't necessarily want to see, which might actually be a good thing for a few of us.
Would you say it's more or less likely that the trial is actually going to start after jury selection?
I mean so, first of all, ninety three percent of all cases settle before trial, so only some percent of cases actually go to trial. And in that regard, many.
Cases settle midway through trial.
You get through, you pick your jury, and you sit there and you go, I don't really like this, let's go talk.
There is still a chance for to settle.
Although again I was recently involved in the case where the other side made it clear this is a test case for them. And so if that's the position of either the social media company or the plaintiffs, and I've got to imagine the plaintiffs have invested enough money at this stage they don't have a choice but to keep going. Then you know, this is their bell Weather case and they're going to figure out the answer.
I guess we'll find out how the lawyers are weighing the risk. Thanks so much, Colin. That's Colin Walkee, A partner at Hall Estill. President Donald Trump has taken an expansive view of executive power during his second term, issuing orders upending immigration enforcement, higher education, and the federal workforce, and the Supreme Court has been greenlighting Trump's policies while cases are being litigated, citing overwhelmingly with Trump when challenges
arrive via the emergency docket. Joining me is Bloomberg Law reporter Suzanne Monnac. Suzanne, you did and analysis of the Supreme Court's emergency docket and found that the court overwhelmingly sided with President Trump. So tell us about the numbers.
Absolutely, it's a trend, of course that we saw anecdotally. But then when we took a look at all the emergency docket orders in these Trump related cases over the past year, the first year of his second administration, we
really saw that born out. It was just around the seventy seven percent of the time that when we saw challenges the Trump Administration's policies or actions reach the emergency docket and have an order, it was around seventy seven percent of the time that the justices ruled in favor of the administration, usually in the form of, say, allowing a policy that had been contested to move forward while litigation continued.
As you mentioned, it's on the emergency docket. But one of the professors you spoke to brought out the point that even though the decisions are temporary, in many cases they end up being final.
That's right. Of course, the emergency docket or inner docket as some people call it, our decisions that come during cases at earlier stages, so the justices haven't gotten full briefing, there hasn't been a full argument, but at the same time they can have more permanent ramifications. Immigration is a really good example of that. If an immigration policy, say granting humanitarian protections for a population, is put on hold while litigation continues, you could see people being deported in
the interim. And even if the justices were to ultimately say no this policy, these protections have to stay, it would certainly be too late for anyone who left the country while the case was pending. And so while yes, this is of course early stages, but they really can have significant on the ground impacts.
A lot of people have expressed concerns that the docket has grown so much, the emergency docket in recent years, because with the emergency docket, there are no full briefings. Oftentimes there's not even a decision written, so you don't know how the justices came to the result they did.
That's right. We really often see these very short orders that have little to know explanation as to the decisions, and sometimes not even as spelled out vote count to see how each justice came down. Occasionally we are seeing some dissenting opinions by the liberal wing of the court, which may provide some insight into, you know, how the decision was made, or at least how it wasn't made.
But that's correct on how the docket has grown because we've been seeing concerns raised by Supreme Court justices themselves really on both sides of the you know, ideological span here on the court that you know, they're concerned about how many but these petitions are coming in. They do feel, i think pressure to decide them without the benefit of as much briefing as they would like, and as we said earlier, they can these decisions really do have a lot of impact on people's lives.
You mentioned liberals in descent, and in a lot of these emergency decisions, you'll find the liberals in dissent. Is it because the issues that the Trump administration takes to the Supreme Court involve idgy and partisanship. What's the reason that the liberals are in descent?
Certainly it varies by case, but we have seen, you somewhat some common threads through their descents have been sort of exactly what the data showed, which are concerns that the High Court is just greenlighting the Trump administration too many times with some of these actions and policies that they're implementing that are drawing so much legal scrutiny. And so I think that that's kind of a common theme that we're seeing from the liberal justices. But of course
they're in the minority here. It's a six' three court conservative to, liberal and so we, are you, know somewhat makes some sense that we would be seeing The trump administration winning perhaps more.
Often you also found that during this first year of the second, term The court was more likely to grant requests for relief from lower court rulings in challenges to the administration's policies than it was in cases unrelated to the. Administration that's.
Correct we took a look at sort of the by circuit data just to kind of get a look at from which appeals courts are these cases on the emergency docket coming, from and are there any trends where The Supreme court is aligned more with some appeals courts and less aligned with. Others and what we, found which was pretty, interesting was that it really had less to do with where the case was coming from and a lot more to do than a lot more to do with what
the case was. About and so when we had cases that were totally unrelated To trump administration, actions criminal, cases business, disputes things like that that reached the emergency, docket we saw The High court generally aligned with the circuit and very rarely you, know deciding to you, know halt lower
court rulings while litigation. Continued they were leaving those in, place but when it came To trump administration, challenges they were a lot more likely to press pause on the lower court ruling against The trump, administration essentially allowing whatever the contested policy was to move.
Forward so which of the circuit courts was most let's call it reversed for simplicity's, sake.
Right so some of that was somewhat. Expected and of, course when we say. Reversed we don't mean reversed reverse since is not on the. Merits but when we see The Supreme, court you, know lift or pause a lower court. Ruling we saw that of the emergency docket orders most often at The First Circuit court Of, appeals which is based In. Boston that's not entirely surprising because that's a court that up until very recently had All democratic appointed
judges on its. Bench it houses a number of federal trial courts with Majority democratic appointee, benches and it's been a major hub For trump administration. Challenges AND i think that's what's really kind of key here to look, at is, well, yes we are seeing kind of this high rate of The Supreme, court you, know deciding otherwise deciding differently than The First circuit, Had so in a way it does show how out of step they. Are but it's also a lot to do with the volume of cases that
The First circuit is. Handling so you, know we're seeing this kind of narrative from The trump administration that you, know these courts are out of, control but you, know there's quite a bit of selection bias here when it comes to where these cases are being. Filed and then of course also which cases go up to The Supreme. Court to begin, with The trump administration gets to choose which appeals court orders they think they have a better chance, at you, know contesting at the high court.
Level and what other circuits come? In second and third let's, say.
Yes second was the and this is of course for all of the all the. Cases we looked, at Both trump and Non trump. Cases so overall we saw the first circuit had the highest rate of having The Supreme court you, know grant stays in legal, parlance where we saw The Supreme court press pause on underlying. Rulings next up was The Ninth, circuit and then behind that was The washington d. C circuit here in The.
Capitol how does this compare to the emergency docket during let's say The biden.
Administration, well it's more difficult to make a perfect apples to apples comparison from a year that, happened you, know multiple years. Ago we do know that there were far fewer emergency petitions even filed during The biden, administration and we saw cases where The Supreme court ruled for the administration and AGAINST.
I want to turn now to The Chief judge of The Minnesota Federal Trial court BECAUSE i know you did a profile of. Him Judge Patrick, schiltz A GEORGE. W bush, appointee criticized The trump administration for its approach to its sweeping immigration, operation and he wrote that the court has been extremely patient with the, government but the court's patience is at an.
End quite a lot of litigation has been filed In minnesota related TO ice and this immigration operation happening in that, state and we're seeing the Chief judge of the court start to sort of push back and really express quite a bit of frustration With trump administration officials about how
this is all being handled in. Court so we saw a pretty sharply worded order that was unsealed over this past weekend regarding arrest warrants that they administration had wanted to pursue against protesters at a, church and they took issue with the fact that the magistrate judge had not wanted to grant all of the warrants that they wanted
and had tried to seek review of. That and The Chief judge said that this was essentially like an unprecedented request from the, administration and he went so far as to call it. Frivolous we also saw another very sternly worded order from The Chief judge On, monday in which he essentially ordered the acting leader OF Us immigration And Customs enforcement to come to court and testify as to why he shouldn't be held in contempt for defying court.
Orders we're seeing a lot of these habeas petitions Brought, minnesota not just in The Chief Judge Patrick schultz's, courtroom but in other courtrooms as, well of immigrants who are detained by, ice of, course and then not given a bond hearing within the legally required number of. Days and so we were seeing the judge here in this instance expressing quite a bit of frustration about that and threatening to hold an administration official and, contempt which is a
very serious action that we don't see too. Often of, course we did see somewhat of a similar contempt threat in an immigration case by A washington d. C chief judge last. Year and so you, know this is you, know making out to be a bit of a trend of federal judges expressing some consternation at how The Justice department's attorneys are conducting themselves in.
Court and this judge is a conservative who's known as being even keeled and a down the middle.
Jurist, yes he is absolutely from a conservative. Background you really can't argue. Otherwise he he clerked twice for the Late justice Antonin. Scalia he's seen as an. Originalist he you, know has background at you, know Major catholic law schools Like Notre dame as a. Professor so, absolutely you, know he was a mentor to Current Justice Amy Coney. Barrett and so this is somebody who's not coming from some super liberal. Background this is a judge who's you, know
expressing frustration that his orders aren't being. Followed and we were also told when speaking with those who knew him in The minnesota legal, community that he's not really one to be you, know sharp in his orders at, least you, know not quick to jump to. That he's a measured. Person he's, tempered and so to kind of see, him you, know issue a rebuke like, this you, know maybe says you, know says a lot about how at least he's Perceiving ICE's approach to this enforcement action in the.
State thanks so much for joining me, Today. Suzanne That's Bloomberg law Reporter Suzanne monyac 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 weeknight at ten Pm Wall Street. Time I'm June grosso and you're listening To bloomberg