This is Bloomberg Law, with June Brusso from Bloomberg.
Radio Cruiser undertaking the complicated work of removing mangled steel and concrete at the site of the deadly collapse of Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge after a container ship lost power and crashed into a supporting column, killing six workers and throwing the Eastern US transportation network into chaos. Officials say that in those murky waters, divers can't see a foot in front of them, and with all that mangled, intertwined steel above and below the water, the site is
a safety risk. Here's Marylyn, Governor Wes Moore.
You're looking at three four thousand tons of steel that's sitting on top of the ship, and so beginning to in sections be able to create that pathway, create open channels so we can actually get boats, get tugs inside the area.
And two channels have been opened near the side of the collapse bridge to make way for smaller vessels and as the crews continue to work. The owner of the ship filed a lawsuit on Monday, denying responsibility for the collapse and trying to limit its legal liability to forty three point seven million dollars the current value of the ship and its cargo, in a case that credit rating agency Morning Star DBRs predicts could become the most expensive
marine insured laws in history. Joining me is Michael Stirley, a maritime law expert at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law. Michael, who do you anticipate will be filing lawsuits here?
The short answer is, anybody who did something wrong is likely to be sued here, or anybody who can plausibly be claimed to have done something wrong is likely to be sued here.
So of course the victims and the families of the victims are going to sue. But what about the state or county or whoever for the cost of rebuilding the bridge, which could cost experts say four hundred million dollars or more.
Oh, I'd be surprised if get that small, but I read recently that the inflation adjusted value of the original construction was roughly twice that. I mean, broadly speaking, you'd see claims coming from three main points. You have the property damage claims. Anybody whose property was damaged as a
result of this accident. Most obviously that's going to be the owner of the bridge, which understands the state of Maryland, so they will certainly be doing The federal government has indicated that it's going to be paying the rebuilding costs, so they may have the subrogated claims, basically stepping into the shoes of the state of Maryland saying we paid reimburss Us for what we paid for your your damage.
They will probably be minor property damage claims. Whatever vehicles ended up in the water, you know their owners will have property damage claims and relatively mine on the scheme of things. Then the second brought category you have as
the personal injury claims. There were at least two workers who went into the water who survived, and then you had the six workers who went into the water tragically did not survive, So the be wrongful death claims from the families of the decedents and that it was only be personal injury claims from the two people who survived. There may be other people who claim negligent fiction of emotional distress who were in the zone of danger and
suffered mental harm. Broadcasts of personal jury claimants. Typically these disasters tend to attract what are called economic laws claimant, people whose claims they suffered economic loss as a result of this disaster. Typically, those claims do not succeed unless the person also suffered some physical injury property damage. So, for example, this stake to recover for the economic loss and not collecting bridge tolls for the next however many
years it takes to rebuild the bridge. Because they suffered property damage, they can also recover for their econom I'm across, but if you have businesses to say I'm getting less business because people can't cross the bridge to get to my business, you know they're going somewhere else because now they're going through the tunnel. But they didn't suffer any damage, any physical damage. Those claims are typically dismissed in the
maritime law. How many people will be in those three categories, I don't have enough information, but the ape workers and the bridge owner are certainly going to be obvious claims. It looks like those woill be the big money amounts.
So the owner of the ship is trying to limit liability to about forty two point seven million dollars and they claim that the collapse of the bridge was not due to any fault, neglect, or want of care of the companies, and they shouldn't be held liable first of all, and if they are held liable, then they shouldn't be for more than the current value of the ship and cargo. This is a common move by ship owners after catastrophic crashes.
Isn't it tell us about that skewer? I'd say obscure for most of US law from eighteen fifty one that involves the Titanic.
Well, I mean eighteen fifty one was obviously what sixty some years before the Titanic, although the law was famously invoked in the Titanic case. So Congress passed the statute in eighteen fifty one designed to encourage investment in shipping.
Middle of the nineteenth century was before the era when the corporate form became common, so it was designed for an era when individuals and partnerships generally owned vessels, and the idea was that if an individual risked all of their assets by investing in the ship, that made it
a less appealing investment. I mean, you could imagine today that if all of the shareholders of BP had to chip in to pay for the cost of the BP oil spill and the golf, that would make people less willing to invest in companies that base those kinds of risks. Now the corporate form obviously takes away that risk. You know, if you buy shares in BP, the value of your share is at risk. But worst case scenario is your share value goes down to nothing. You know, the company
goes into liquidation. But the rest of your assets are not subject to those cranes. And what the eighteen fifty one Limitation Act essentially does is treat every ship as though it were an individual corporation. So if you can imagine, you know, suppose that this shipowner, instead of owning this ship and other assets as well, owned nothing but the ship, and then the ship is in a terrible accident, takes
out a bridge, facing massive lawsuits. If the ship were in fact a single corporation, the corporation with clear bankruptcy say that our only asset is the ship. You know, total value, you know, forty million dollars. Liquidate the corporation, take our assets and distribute them pro rat among the claimants. Shareholders lose the value of their investment, but that's the extent of it. Essentially, what the Limitation Act does is the same thing. It says, even though the shipowner owns
other assets. It will be allowed to limit its liability under circumstances to the value of the asset involved in the accident. Now, as you say this is very common, I've previously predicted that the chances of a limitation action being filed here were somewhere north of ninety nine point nine nine percent. It didn't take long for that prediction to be to be justified. Chippotas routinely do this, and they routinely do it even in circumstances where they know
they don't qualify for limitation. You know, if you look at the look at the BP oil spill again, you know Transotion was the owner of the vessel there. They filed a limitation petition. The district court held they were not taught to limit their liability, but Transition still got a major benefit out of doing that. You look at the Alfarro disaster, the Bestlona there filed a limitation proceeding. Again, they were held not entitled limitation, but they still got
a benefit. What the limitation action does is centralize all the litigation in one court. Now Here, we've got the bridge owner a personally claimants that we've got at least nine obvious claimants, but for the limitation proceeding, they could possibly file in nine different courts, and very likely they might be filing in the state court. You know, the state of Maryland may well prefer to sue in its
own courts rather than going to federal court. Personal linjay lawyers often prefer state court over federal court, and depending on where the eight workers live, they may file in eight different state courts. So the vessel owner would be in the position of having to defend you nine different suits, but all arising out of the same incident, all involving the same facts in nine different forms, and having to go through everything nine different times, and having the risk
of inconsistent results. By filing this petition, all of the litigation is channeled into the federal District Court for the District of Maryland. If you read the petition that inevitably includes the boilet plate provision, asking the court to require all claims to be filed in that court and enjoining
litigation anywhere else. So even if they don't get limitations, the best of owner at least gets the benefit of, at least for the time being, having everything in this one court, and what's more, in one court sitting in admiralty, which generally means no jury.
What would plaintiffs have to do in order to overcome that liability limit? What do they have to show?
But they have to show basically that the owner was at fault. You know, the statutory language is the falter knowledge of the owner. I think there are several limitation provisions in maritime law that use somewhat different language falter privity, falter knowledge. I think falter knowledge is the language in this statue. So they have to show that the owner did something wrong. Now, what's a bit unusual. The counterintuitive there is that they have to show the personal fault
of the owner. And of course the owner is a corporation. The corporation acts only to its agents. But the way the law has been developed, they have to show the fault of basically se your management. They have to show that shore side management is at fault here, not simply that people onboard the vessel did something wrong.
What about mechanical failure.
Well, mechanical failure could be a late defect that the owner is not it fought for, or it could be the result of a failure to maintain the vessel properly, which the owner, is it fault? For often when a ship loses power, it's some problem with the bunker fuel. Now, if it's a problem with the bunker fuel, the owner is going to going to bring in the bunker fuel
supplier and say it's your fault that this happened. But the claimants are certainly going to say to the owner, you know, you should have taken better care to make sure you got good bunker fuel, and then there'll be a fight about whether or not the owner was responsible for that.
Is it a difficult hurdle for plaintiffs to overcome this liability limit.
Most limitation actions result in limitation not being granted. So most limitations and vessel owners know this, they still file the limitation claims to get the benefit of the concursis to get the benefit of having all of the claims filed in the same court. Even if they don't get limitation, they still get a major benefit from the concursives. In most cases, the court finds that the owner did something wrong,
they could have avoided the accident. The owner's management did something wrong and therefore they're not entoitled in the liability. Whether that happens here is going to depend on what the facts are. I certainly don't know enough of the facts, and I suspect nobody yet knows enough of the facts to know how that's going to play out. But the process will continue and the court will figure out whether or not the owner did something wrong here.
Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, I'll continue this conversation with Michael Stirley of the University of Texas at Austin's School of Law, and we'll talk about the insurance coverage. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Two channels with different damps have been opened near the side of the collapse Francis Scott Keybridge in Baltimore Harbor to make way for small vessels. During a briefing today,
authority said the weather was hindering the work. Brigadier General John Lloyd said the divers are working in low visibility and hazardous conditions on the bridge wreckage.
The same complexity and challenges, even more.
So, are below the water as well.
And I think that's what's going to make it such a challenge in removing this wreckage.
It's not only what you see above the water, but below the water.
As well. Transportation Secretary Pete Buddha Judge has said there's no timeline for reopening the busy port of Baltimore because of the complexity of the work.
It's not just that you have to remove the wreckage, it's that you have to do it in a way that doesn't cause portions of the bridge that are there across the water to shift. They've been under a lot of compression and tension. They could behave almost like a spring if they are not expertly managed.
As the recovery continues and parts of the ship remain stuck at the sign of the accident, the owner of the ship that rammed into the bridge is seeking to limit its liability for the accident. The company, Grace Ocean, filed a lawsuit in federal court on Monday, claiming the collapse of the bridge was not due to any fault, neglect, or want of care, and that it shouldn't be held
liable for any loss or damage from the disaster. But if it is held liable, it shouldn't be for more than the current value of the ship and its cargo. I've been talking to maritime law expert Michael Stirley of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law. So Bloomberg Intelligence reports that the ship alone has about three billion dollars of reinsurance coverage just generally, does reinsurance kick in? Does it cover the costs if the owner's suit for limited liability fails?
Well, there are two kinds of insurance that are relevant here. A number of news agencies have been reporting that the ship had only I think it was ninety million dollars of insurance. That's talking about its hullm machinery insurance, which they're kind of properly insurance. That's the insurance that the vessel owner has to reimburse it if the vessel is lost or damage, and the vessel owner is citing that in the limitation petition to show what the value of
the ship is, which is releatant limitation proceding. The insurance that you're talking about is liability insurance, which is probably the more important insurance here, and that's the insurance that the vessel owner has to cover its liabilities if it's not liable to a third party. And typically the case like this, the vessel will be entered in what's known as a P and I club, which is basically a kind of mutual insurance company where the vessel owners get
together and pull their risks. I've read the news reports that this vessel was entered with Britannia, one of the major P and I clubs, and typically the vessel owner will have a certain retention amount what most people would think of it as a deductible, So the vesselan will be responsible for the first some level I don't know what the individually negotiated for each case, say the first
ten million dollars be the vessel owner's responsibility. Then the P and I club will pick up the neck, you know, whatever the club is arranged, and then beyond that you go into reinsurance. There are about a dozen P and I clubs in the world, the International Group of P and I Clubs, and they pull the risk among themselves, and then beyond that they go into reinsurance in the
secondary market. If the vessel owner is allowed to limit its liability, then the vessel owner and it's P and I club will be able to avoid taking advantage of that. If they're not god of the limit liability, then you've got a big insurance fund that's going to cover a lot of the losses here one point to make those The limitation, by its terms, permits the vessel owner to limit its liability. That has been interpreted to allow both the vessel owner and what's known as a bareboat charterer
to limit liability. A bareboat charter is someone who doesn't actually own the vessel, but operates as though they were the owner. Sometimes throwing some Latin here called them the owner pro hot Beechey. I mean, if you think about it in a more familiar consumer context. You know, if you buy a car, obviously it's your car, you know you own it. But if you lease your car, so you get a three year lease, technically you don't own the car, but you act like you own the car.
It's for all intents and purposes, you are operating it as though you own the car. That's essentially what a bareboat charter is that you have leased the vessel for a fixed time period, but you operate it. You do all of the you know, you hire the crew, you arrange provisions, you make all the decisions, you run up like you own it. So the Limitation Act protects the owner and that bareboat charterer. This limitation petition claims limitations on behalf of both the owner and the vessel manager.
I will be very curious to see whether the court allows the vessel manager to lim a liability that's not an obvious obvious beneficiary is a limitation Act. It's interesting to see how that plays out.
Until I started doing research, I didn't realize how many maritime accidents there have been in recent years. A dive boat caught fire off the coast of southern California in twenty nineteen and killed the thirty four pus. So the litigation has not yet been resolved there. So are we anticipating this is going to take years and years and years.
I don't know how long it's going to take to resolve the Conception Fire case, but yes, there is a lot of litigation going on there. The Conception Fire actually prompted Congress to amend the Limitation Act for one of the very few times in its history. You know, the statute was amended after the Titanic. For the most part, it hasn't changed a whole lot since eighteen fifty one.
But in December twenty two, I think it was, Congress had a very minor amendment to exclude what it called covered small passenger vessels from the scope of the Limitation Act, basically to say that the next time that a disaster like the conception happens, the vessel owner can't claim the benefit of limitation. So every once in a while Congress does respond to very high profile accidents when the mandments of the Limitation Act.
And so the case is involving this bridge collapse will take years and years.
I would be surprised if this has resolved quickly, but you never know. I mean, most cases in fact settle so as we learn more about the accident, that the parties learned more about the accident, If it becomes obvious that the vessel owner did something wrong, and if it fault and won't be allowed to limit liability, then a
settlement may happen more quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if the personal injury claimant end up settling fairly quickly, even if the litigation overpaying for the replacement of the bridge goes on much longer. In the VP oil spill case, for example, there were I think it's there are eleven Transocean Workers employees who were killed in the accident. Those cases settled very quickly, Transocean took care of its employees
that didn't need to go into extended litigation. You know, the big fight was over who is going to pay for the clean up costs, not the personal injury claims.
I have to say, this is a whole different legal area for me. I appreciate your insights. That's Michael Sterley of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. This year's congressional elections in South Carolina will be held under a map that a panel of three judges head rule was unconstitutional and discriminatory against black voters. Why because the Supreme Court hasn't issued a decision in the case, despite the
fact that oral arguments took place back in October. In other legal news today, Donald Trump has sued two co founders of his newly public Trump Media and Technology Group, claiming they set the company up improperly and shouldn't get any stock in it. It's the latest legal skirmish over who gets how much of the hot but flailing meme stock. Trump alleges that the two violated an agreement about the setup and don't deserve their eight point six percent stake,
currently valued at six hundred and six million dollars. The lawsuit, which was filed on March twenty fourth in Florida State Court, comes after the pair brought their own suit against the former president in Delaware Chancery court over the they are promised stake in the social media company. The legal fight is playing out amid wild swings in shares of Trump Media, which began trading last week after it merged with a
special purpose acquisition company known as a SPACK. The stock dropped twenty one percent on Monday after Trump Media disclosed in a securities filing a fifty eight million dollar loss and a relative trickle of revenue for twenty twenty three, and reiterated a warning that it needed the money from the SPACK deal to keep operating. The judge in Delaware said he was gobsmacked to learn of Trump's Florida suit, which he filed instead of bringing counterclaims against the duo
in his Delaware courtroom. He also said he'd consider possible sanctions against the former president in the Delaware case. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. This year's congressional elections in South Carolina will be held under a map that a panel of federal judges found was unconstitutional and discriminatory against black voters. The case is in the hands of the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments last October.
With no decision from the High Court, the failure of Republican legislators to redraw the map, and time running out ahead of voter deadlines, a federal court ruled that the unconstitutional map will be used. Joining me is elections law expert Richard Brefald, a professor at Columbia Law School. Rich tell us about the history of this case.
Following the twenty twenty census, the Republican legislature of South
Carolina redistricted. It didn't need to change the number of seats, but they moved them around in order to improve the prospects for the Republican Actually its congress from Nancy Mace, who represents the District one near Charleston, and what they did is they basically made her district more Republican and an adjacent district more democratic, and so doing they moved a significant number of black voters from her district to
the adjacent district, District six. That led to a lawsuit that this was a form of racial jerryman, that the voters were being moved because of their race. That lawsuit was brought and the plaintiffs won that case before a free judge court in early twenty twenty three. The judge director of the legislature's redistrict legislature has been resisting that ever since and has taken appeals, and the case was actually argued before the Supreme Court in October, six months ago.
Now Supreme Court had yet to rule on South Carolina's appeal. Many thought that that would be decided much earlier, since they heard the case fairly early in the term, with the legislature not having redistricted in this case having been sitting in the Supreme Court now for quite some time. The three judge court basically decided it's too late. The period for people filing to become candidates in the primary had already opened. In fact, I think it's already closed
by now. There's soon going to be the deadline sometime in April for sending out military and overseas ballots. And the fort basically said, although the ideal would be to go forth, because they did hold the current lines unlawful, going back to the start of twenty twenty three, they said, given the fact that the litigation hasn't been resolved the Supreme Court, the legilature hasn't done anything yet, it's too
late for this year. So although we don't like it, we are going to allow the elections to go forward under the old rules that the Court had said we're in constitutionalize as a racial cherry mander.
So the Court said they're going to now use the maps that were declared unconstitutional. Is there anything else this court could have done to avoid that?
Well, I guess they could have appointed a special master and actually drawn the lines themselves. I think their feeling was, you know, we will know eventually from the Supreme Court whether these are good lines or not. And it is beginning to get close to the election. And I think the problem is the case began blending its way to the Supreme Court about a year ago. They actually had
that oral argument, as I said, six months ago. It's just taken a huge amount of time to move forward, and no one really quite understands why it's been delayed so long in the Supreme Court, especially since I think many observers felt that South Carolina actually did reasonably well, in the urga, it's hard to tell the Supreme Court is going to affirm the lower court or not, And in any event, the state has effectively won, at least
for this year. Even if the Supreme Court affirms, the Court agrees that the lines are un constitutional, those lines are going to be used for the twenty twenty four election.
Both the state and the civil rights groups who were challenging the map had asked the Supreme Court to issue a decision by January first, so they could prepare for the upcoming elections. Is this the first time or have there been other times when the Supreme Court has not been acting particularly fast and has allowed maps that have been declared unconstitutional to be used.
Well, I think that's what happened actually with the Alabama at agation, where the Supreme Court stayed a lower court decision holding a plan highlight Soavotian Rights Act. The Supreme Court stayed that and then more than a year later, finally actually decided the case and actually said that the lower court had been correct. At that point, the map was changed, but in the meantime an election had been held under the map, which the lower court had felt
was illegal. But the Supreme Court had stayed for consider period of time so that they could decide the case, so that effectly the twenty twenty two election.
It just boggles the mind that in a case like this they can't get a decision out. Although I mean, the Supreme Court has been handing out decisions more slowly as of late.
This does seem to have been one of the slowest years. The people who keep track of this and have said that they got off to the slowest start of any year in a very long time, and they've still issued relatively few opinions.
So we had the Alabama case where the Court came out with a ruling that was favorable to the challengers, but yet, as you say, in the oral arguments, it seemed like it was going against the challengers in South Carolina. Explain the difference between the two cases.
The issue in this case really has more to do with how do you disentangle racial jerry mandering from partisan jerrymandering. Kind of the central issue in this case is the publican legislature in South Carolina is happy to say that what they did was a partisan jerrymander because even the Supreme Court's decision a few years ago. Partisan jerrymandering cannot be challenged. It's non justiciable. It's not on constitutional, according to the Supreme Court. But racial jerry mannering is, and
all fund the two were closely connected. If you're moving a big block of black voters who happened to be Democrats, or Democratic voters who happened to be black, there's a debate as to what exactly the state is doing. The Low Court here concluded that, based on a variety of factors,
it was better characterized as a racial gerry mander. The issue in Alabama was differently complicated in that there the state was using a basic configuration of how to draw districts in the state that they've been using for some time. They may just minor changes from one the census to the next, but was not a conscious or an obvious
effort in the twenty twenty redistricting. But the plainters were able to show that the district things structure that the state had been using for several decades discriminated against black voters because of the way the districts were drawn, and although you couldn't show that the state intended to do this, they were able to present alternative maps which were just as straightforward, you know, no more convoluted, no more you know, odd shapes than the map being used. We should provide
fair representation for black voters. So that case was very much about what does fair representation require for minority voters? And this case was really about whether or not the discrimination going on here was racial or partisan.
So this ruling came a day after a different federal court upheld a congressional map in Florida that favors Republicans and raises a seat held by a black Democrat. Just explain what happened there.
Again, I think it was a similar question of whether or not this was race or party, and they concluded it was party, and when it's party, it's you know, this may sound really weird to people. First, the whole idea of race versus party, that they're different and that they can be disentangled, but that partisan gerry mandering can't be challenged and racial gerry mandering can be. And so much turns on how you're going to characterize what exactly happened.
And you know, those can be hard questions as to whether or not it's racer party, even that they're often connected.
Often it seems like they're inextricable, but so Also on Thursday, a federal appeals court issued a ruling that all but insures North Carolina will use state legislative maps this fall that have been challenged.
They basically again decided, following a lower court decision, that they would not block the maps. Those were maps that were adopted by the Republican legislature in the fall and a Voting Rights Act claim was brought. And I think in some ways what's happened is that they basically decided they wouldn't block it for now. You again, some of
these things come up on motions for conjunctions. In other words, given that the election is coming soon, flink just want to stop the new law from taking effect and then hold the trial. And the state is saying, well, no, the law. Ca'm going to think you can have a trial later. Then we can change it later if you find it's unlawful.
And voting rights advocates say that's too late, because you can't change the vote.
There is this thing known as the per Cell principle, the idea that you shouldn't be changing the rules governing an election too to the election. No one knows when is it too close to an election, But we're probably being to get there at least for primaries, even if some of the earlier action in a case they have taken place months ago. You know. I think in this case, in the North Carolina case, there was a decision going
back to January twenty three. It's just took you a long time for it to kind of prokly through the system.
Are states here basically trying to run out the clock?
I think they often do. I mean they often basically say, well, no preliminary injunction, no emergency motions please, And then as they continue to bring appeals that will delay things, there may eventually be a trial, and then there may eventually be an appeal to a trial, and the appeal may actually get decided. And that's kind of what happened in Alabama. But just sometimes they do seem to be stretching it all out in delay and delay and delay.
So these decisions, along with others in recent months, does that mean that the congressional maps for twenty twenty four are largely set?
I think that's right. I think that the litigate is now just about done. We are into April. Many states already had their primaries. I think there are probably no primaries later than June, or at least not many. I think we're getting very late in the season and we're probably done.
I want to get your reaction to a political article that said that Republicans came out ahead in the battle to control the House in twenty twenty four thanks to the redistricting aggression of North Carolina Republicans and the timidity of New York Democrats.
Yeah.
I think there's a lot to be said for that. Maybe a little defensive of the New York Democrats. They had a tough situation, but yes, North Carolina did a very sharp gerry mander and basically moved three seats from
the Democratic to the Republican column, which is huge. The problem in New York is that New York does have this independent redistricting Commission and this redistricting process that the state adopted in the twenty tens and which was used for the first time in twenty twenty two, and the state failed to do it right, according to the New York State's highest court, leading to the appointment of the Special Master, who came up with a plan that was
fairly favorable to Republicans. The Democrats got a second shot of this by persuading the quart of Appeals that they had a right to try again. But I think they were a kind of gun shy based on what happened the first time, and they did not want to make an aggressive move to seriously change what was done in twenty twenty two, so they tinkered. And my understanding from the more political people is probably mostly might have affected
the outcome in one district. Mostly it seems to me that they were kind of protecting Democrats who were in vulnerable districts, and they have recalculated one of the districts that which went narrowly Republican last time in a way that makes it even more truly even. But it seems as though it's, you know that based on redistricting, it's not clearly with the any Democratic pickups in New York or at most one. At one point Democrats were thinking
optimistically they could be three, four or five. So there was definitely a loss of three seats in North Carolina, not clear that there was any game in New York. The Alabama was probably a pickup because of the redistricting there. Again, so if we're just talking about maps, I think the remapping was marginally pro Republican.
Adam Kinkaid, the executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, toll Politico. It's a marginally more favorable map in twenty four than we even had in twenty two.
That sounds about right, That sounds about right now. Of course, twenty two was an election where many people thought the Republicans were going to do really well, and although they did take the House, they took it much more narrowly than had been predicted. Much will turn on, of course, the presidential election. You know, we're's still six months out from that or more so. No one knows how that's going to go. And turnout us often different in presidential
election years than in off years. So the Republicans, I think, were hoping for a lot in twenty two. They won, but they'd won more narrowly than people had expected. They may be slightly better off now, but the presidential election will matter for a lot, and maybe the kind of the messiness of the Republican Congress will matter for something too.
It's going to be a long seven months, that's for sure. Thanks so much, rich that's Professor Richard Ruffald of Columbia Law School. And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can always get the latest legal news by subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, slash Law. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg