This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
The Trump administration is once again appealing to the Supreme Court as it tests the boundaries of the government's power to deport migrants. The Department of Homeland Security is asking the court to block a judge's order that requires the government to give people ten days notice and an opportunity to object before they're deported to places other than their
home countries. Joining me is immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight and the former head of the Office of Immigration Litigation in the Obama administration. A Massachusetts federal judge ordered the government last month to give people ten days notice and an opportunity to object before they are sent to a country which is not their home country, and he said last week that the administration violated his earlier decisions.
Well, what happened was, this is a case where there are a number of foreign nationals who did commit sometimes very heinous crimes, and they're from Laos, Vietnam and some other places that don't really accept people that the US
is trying to deport back to those countries. And so the US tried to arrange a scenario whereby it could deport those people to South Sudan as part of a diplomatic arrangement it was having with South Sudan to free up some issues because earlier in the year South Sudanese people couldn't get visas to travel to the United States, and so this was part of a global arrangement where that would be thick and that also South Sudan would agree to accept people that the United States was trying
to deport to other countries, not South Sudan. The people who were going to be deported to South Sudan heard about this and said, well, wait a second, I can't be deported to South Sudan. I'm not from there. That's very dangerous. It's a country in the middle of a civil war. And so they tried to file convention against
torture claims. There was actually this case filed in the District of Massachusetts, which was a habeas claim saying I can't be deported without being given the opportunity to have an adjudication as to whether the conditions in South Sudan are tent amounts to torturing me, because if you just drop me off there what am I supposed to do. I'm going to start to that because you know, it's not a place where you could just go and get a job and start working. And so that was the claim.
And at that time the District Court, at the US government, we're arguing about, well, how do you do these claims? Can you do them where these people were, which is at the moment, they're being detained in Djibouti, a different African country where it's just sort of a military operation and there's not really this ability to long term have
these folks there. There was this debate about where do these conventions and against torture claims get decided, or do you have to bring the people back to the United States. The federal government didn't want to bring back the people to the United States. It asked that they'd be allowed to make these adjudications in Djibouti. The judge said, okay, fine, I will let you do that. And then after that the government said, no, wait a second, this is way
too complicated. We actually can't do it in Djibouti. And so now the government has gone to the Supreme Court and said, just let us do these deportations. The judge shouldn't be allowed to prevent us from doing this.
The Supreme Court has said that the government has to give people a reasonable amount of time in order to challenge their deportations, but it hasn't spelled out exactly what that means, how much time even. But is this situation different from the cases that the Supreme Court has dealt with because these migrants have already been through the immigration system and there are orders of deep against them.
Correct. The problem is here, these individuals have an order of deportation that can be executed at any point to their home country, whether it's Llows or Vietnam or whatever, and it can also be executed to any other country so long as in any of those other countries, there's
not a likelihood that these individuals will be tortured. And so the question is, well, can these individuals make that claim, where can they make that claim, When can they make that claim, how long do they have to make that claim? And does the district court have the ability to interrupt that when a person has already been moved outside of the United States. And I think that's what the debate is going to be, because I think where the federal government is concerned is what are we supposed to do
now that these individuals are in Africa? How do we deal with this? Are we going to be forced to bring them back to the United States or will be forced to actually adjudicate these cases inside of Djibouti, which is where the people are now, or can we finalize our intentions to deport them to South Sudan? And will there just be prophylactic language in the future about what is required in the future if they're going to do
one of these third country deportations. But really we're in uncharted territory here, and the Supreme Court is going to have to set some standards and some guidelines because if the federal government really is focused on these third country deportations, then they're going to need to be done in a manner that everybody's comfortable with. And the complication with South Sudan is just imagine any of us. I mean, if any of us get dropped off in South Sudan, what
do we do next? If there's no food, there's no job. You know, if you end up being deported to a place where you know that the solution is just the starvation, does that end up violating the Convention against torture.
So how do you think the Supreme Court will approach this and how it's handled the other deportation cases.
The Supreme Court is going to have to decide where can these individuals make these claims? Are they allowed to make these claims at all? What district court jurisdiction exists here? And I don't necessarily think that the Supreme Court, given what we've seen so far, is going to be too friendly toward this concept of not being able to give people an opportunity to make a claim that a deportation of sub Sudan is tent amount to torturing.
That this case is among a growing number of instances where judges are finding that the government isn't fully complying with court orders having to do with immigration. The Supreme Court sort of addressed that peripherally in a case blocking the administration from sending more Venezuelans to a Salvador in prison by referring to the case of kilmar Arbrigo Garcia, who was wrongfully deported as a cautionary tale. But it hasn't addressed that issue of not following court orders directly yet.
Right what the Supreme Court has said is at the moment, we're not going to let the Trump administration deport anyone else in the future under this Alien Enemies Act, which is the law that the Trump administration has wanted to use to deport Venezuelan from the trend A Ragua gang to El savad or into other places without due process, saying they're just members of this gang and that means they can be apprehended and deported without seeing a judge.
And so what the Supreme Court has said, we're putting an end to that for the moment, until the lower courts can percolate a series of decisions as to a what kind of notice is required be, what kind of factors can be reviewed by the courts, and see is this even constitutional, this usage of the Alien Enemies Act in this particular situation. And the Supreme Court will decide all of those questions, presumably in one global case, or
maybe it will break them up unclear. But there's that issue with the whole framework of the Alien Enemies Act. But now there's this new issue of well, what about if someone does have a deportation order already, so we've cleared that first step, but now what the issue is is you want to send them to a country where the country is potentially very dangerous to send that person to. You know, you are allowed to send people to a third country, but if that third country is dangerous, what
thoice do we put in this context? And does it end up being the exact same as in the context of the Alien Enemies Act? Are we going to do the same? Are we going to do differently? What are we going to do? And so I think again, the Supreme Court's going to have to grapple with those issues.
And I know I've asked you this question several times before, but what happened to the case of Ki or Brigo Garcia.
Well, I mean that case is still pending and the district judge is trying to work their way through content proceeding to try to figure out again what the government is able to do to facilitate mister Abrago Garcia's return to the United States. You had a congressman try to visit Abrago Garcia, and that Congressman, Glen Ivy, was not
permitted to see a Brago Garcia. And so now we're in the do or die situation where basically the District Court is going to have to make some decisions about doesn't want to hold the Trump administration in contempt unless and until it brings Flabrago Garcia back into the United States. And then, of course will the Fourth Circuit agree with whatever is decided, and then finally will the Supreme Court
agree with whatever is decided here. But we start from the understanding that the deportation was a mistake, and so the question is what happens then, because what the administration is saying is, look, if we bring him back, what's gonna end up happening is the reason he wasn't deported in the first place was because he feared gangs that no longer exist in Al Salvador. So we're going to
win this case anyway. So the question is will there be some dispensation given to having a hearing like this outside of the United States, or will there be a requirement that this individual will be brought back and given the same hearing and then presumably removed again outside of the United States.
Okay, stay with me. Leon coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show. I'll continue this conversation with immigration law expert Leon Fresco. Ice appears to be employing a new strategy that it used in arresting a high school student in New York City. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. In immigration courts from New York to Seattle, Homeland Security officials are ramping up enforcement actions in what appears to be an effort to test out a new
strategy to speed up deportations. Government attorneys are asking judges to dismiss cases against migrants who are there for scheduled hearings and then waiting ICE agents arrest the migrants and put them in expedited removal proceedings. That's what reportedly happened to a New York City high school student from Venezuela last week. New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who's allowed ICE agents on Rikers Island, said he couldn't get involved because New York is a sanctuary city.
Well, we have to be extremely careful because the New York City Council laws. I'm limited on what coination I can do, and so sometimes there's a blessing and it's a curse.
I've been talking to immigration law expert Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight. Leon, so this Venezuelan high school student was in immigration court for a regularly scheduled hearing, and after the case against him was dismissed, I say and arrested him. His lawyer says, he's here legally seeking asylum, but the Trump administration says he's here illegally. And apparently this is not an isolated scenario.
What's happening is this, So the Biden administration had this program called the CBP one app parole program, which what it said was don't just cross the border illegally. That's creating a lot of chaos on the southern border. We
can't have it. Go to a port of entry, get an appointment to go to a port of entry under the CBP one app and then if we think that you're a legitimate asylum seeker, will parole you into the country legally, so you have a legal status while you're here trying to get asylum, and you'll go through the asylum case. So what's happening now is that the Trump administration is saying, for all those people who have been led in legally to do an asylum case and immigration court,
we are going to cancel your legal admission. We're going to close that case, and we're going to pretend like none of that had happened, and we're going to put you in expedited removal, which says that if you are here for less than two years and you never had a legal basis for coming, you can be removed on
an expedited basis. But what that requires is for the person to be arrested and then they have to have a new adjudication as to whether they have a credible asylum case, and if they don't, they can immediately be removed. But if they do, then they're basically back at square one, which is the same immigration court hearing that they were
arrested at minutes ago. So this bronze student was exactly this situation where they were let in legally under the CBP one parole app but now they're arrested, placed in expedited removal proceedings, and.
This type of scenario is being played out in immigration courts across the country.
So there's basically three goals of this. Number one is maybe twenty twenty five percent of the people that they're going to do this too won't actually be able to show that they have a credible asylum claim. And so with that group, they can just remove them outside of the United States, and so that increases the removal number. So that's goal number one. Goal number two is to the extent people are now scared to go to immigration court.
When you don't show up the immigration court, you get what's called an in absentia of removal order, which is you basically lose by default. You get ordered deported and that's the end of it. And as long as the government can show that you had notice of the hearing, then that did you know, Unless there was some earthquake or some bridge collapsed or something and that prevented you from going to the hearing that day, you're pretty much
in a bad position there. But the government, and if they get these in absent to removal orders, can also try to execute those, and that also is easier than trying to win a removal order in a hearing. So that's the second reason to do this is people stop going to court, they get in upsent to removal orders, you can deport them more easily. And then the third is people will be so afraid about finishing this process they'll just take matters into their own hands and go home.
And so that's really the purpose of this is to create this level of fear that people either don't show up the court and they get ordered deported or they go home. But if they do go to court, they're going to get arrested. If you haven't been in this country for more than two years, what will happen is you will be arrested and put into these expedited removal proceedings. And what that will do is for some segment of
the people, they will be deported immediately. For a larger segment, let's say seventy to seventy five percent, they will be placed back into the same proceeding they were supposed to go to court for that day, but after having been arrested and detained and having to pay out a bond, and so all of this is very scary and unsettling, and that's part of the strategy is to impose those kinds of conditions to make it as onderous as possible for the people here without status to remain here.
So then will this student definitely get a hearing.
Well, so they will first have to show that they have a credible asylum playing and of course, because the student is from Venezuela, probably will not be that difficult, because Venezuela does crack down on political dissidents. If this person can show that they had some political oppression in the past or they have some political issue, they can clear that threshold, and then they'll actually have an asylum hearing, which was the whole purpose of why they went to court in the first place.
So now let's turn from high school to college and graduate school. There's going to be a hearing this week to determine whether a judge should extend a temporary block that's keeping the Trump administration from canceling the student visas of nearly seven thousand international students at Harvard. This being part of Trump's campaign against Harvard tell us about the issues here.
So basically what happened is the Trump administration has been trying to get information from Harvard with regard to a lot of its practices, but including also the nature of its students that are there as foreign students and the nature of their conduct. But the issue is that there's a normal process where that happens. That it's called the every two years recertification, and then there's an application, and then if you want to deny the ability for students
to come. You have to issue an order saying you intend to deny re certification, and then there's an opportunity to respond, and then there's an appeal and that essentially a court case and all of that. And what the Trump administration tried to do is to skip all of that. And what the court immediately said was you can't do that, and you'd a temporary restraining order saying you can't skip all of those steps and just take a school out
of the student an exchange visitor program. And the reason you can is because there's a lot of reliance interests involved. There's thousands of students. They can't just all go to Yale or Stanford or somewhere else because all those schools have admissions processes and so you can't just transfer. It's
not that easy. And if you are one of the students who's on a status called OPT, which is called optional practical Training, which is something that allows you as a student to work after you graduate in the field that you graduated from. It allows you to get practical experience, then there's nowhere you can transfer because you finished your degree.
So you could be working, for instance, right now at Microsoft or at Google wherever it may be, or even at a hospital or you know, doing something medical wherever you may be, and if your status gets canceled, then that's the end of it. Then you're here illegally. There's nothing you can do. You have to go home. And so this lawsuit actually, you know, for those people in that status, that saves them from falling out of legal status.
But if that temporary restraining order is lifted, all of those people who are in this optional practical training status will immediately have to go home. There's going to be no way for them to stay legally. They'll have ten days to just leave the United States and then from abroad to have to figure out if there's some other
visa program that can take advantage of. Similarly, for the students who actually are at Harvard, they're going to have to make some decisions regardless, which is do we keep having to worry about injunction, go injunction? Yes, injunction lifting it and do we want to live under that stress or do we want to just transfer to some other school or do we just want to leave the United
States period? Because this is way too stressful, and so for a lot of those individuals, I don't imagine they're going to want to stay at Harvard and see how this ends. And so that creates a very difficult issue for Harvard, which is that it's going to lose a lot of these students even if it wins its litigation.
Also, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has ordered US embassies worldwide to stop scheduling interviews for student visas because they're weighing stricter vetting of applicants social media profiles correct.
So USCIS had already said this for domestic visa cases, and now Secretary of State Rubio is trying to add more meat on these bones for foreign student cases to give people very specific guidance as to when a visa should be denied and when a visa should be approved. So at the moment, because that guidance doesn't exist, what the Secretary of State said is stop scheduling new appointments
until we can get this guidance out. Everything I'm told is that this will be shortly, so it should be a week or two for this guidance to come out. It's not going to be something that's going to ban all students from coming in forever, but it definitely is going to be yet one more very difficult obstacle because in a lot of these embassies there's already a backlog of appointments and some students never get in. So they all need to get their visa appointment and their visa
by August. If they either can't get an appointment or now they can get an appointment, but the problem is their case is now taking longer to decide because everybody's case now can't be decided at the window. It has to be decided after somebody goes and looks through all of their social media. Then that's going to be a different process which will lead to many more students not
being able to enter the United States. So what that leads to in practice is instead of the normal cycle where you get admitted into school in April or May, you apply for your visa and you are ready to come in in September, it may now be that you have to start school in January or maybe even one year later in September of the following year, which obviously then leads to making America less attractive for foreign students to come study, which either is the intent or is
it I don't know what the intent is here. It may also just be to really not have people who are putting some very terrible things on their social media study in the United States because they're dangerous to the country. So, well, that's the way. And see how this is implemented in reality. And if in reality what's happening is that the only people excluded are people you really wouldn't want to come, then you know, then it's a change that is defensible
and arguable. But if it's really a change that just leads to a gridlock so that no one can come in the country, even if you're a student from Sweden who's here to study electrical engineering or medicine, then that becomes a more difficult problem.
Are there other countries that are popular for students?
Absolutely so. Students from around the world study in all of these countries that you might expect. Canada, they study in Australia, they study in New Zealand, they study in the United Kingdom, and so every one of these countries. It is very interesting. They all go through ebbs and flows where they take more students and they take less students. They crack down, they loosen up. We've cracked down, We've loosened up. Now we're in a sort of crackdown stage again,
so other countries might loosen up their statuses again. And it's very interesting how sort of this happens. So no country is linearly they're throw these student visas or against them.
It's always seems to be an ebb and flow amongst all these countries that have universities that bring in foreign students, where at some times they're really trying to attract foreign students and they say, hey, this is a lot of money for our schools and a lot of money for our economy, and we're trying to bring in the best and brightest, and then at other times they decide, no, no, no, no, this is competition for our workers and competition for our slots in our schools. So no, in fact, we don't
want these people. And it's really a back and forth that no country has sort of reached the consensus on what it thinks of these foreign students.
Finally found this very interesting. So Scadden Arps was one of the law firms who cut a deal with Trump to avoid being targeted by him, and they cut one hundred million dollar deal to take on causes he supports, and what was listed was fighting anti semitism, promoting justice, and assisting veterans active military, law enforcement and government officials.
But now it appears that they're helping an immigrant try to avoid removal from the United States, which seems to be counter to what the deal was with Trump.
Well, so here's what's interesting. For many, many years, law firms have done these immigration cases for several reasons. Number one is that a lot of pro bono cases, big law firms can't do them because many times what happens is there's conflicts where if you're suing any sort of private entity, you'd probably be suing a private entity that is either a client or adjacent to a client, and
so that's very hard. So one of the things you can do very easily in a law firm is through the government, because the government has its own lawyers, and so immigration cases have traditionally been viewed as an area where law firms can do work because the other side is the government, so they have their own set of lawyers, there's no conflict, and also they're discreet enough cases that
the law firms can do then. But what happens is now, if you're in one of these situations where you're theoretically running a foul of what the Trump administration has already reached the settlement with your law firm to do. Then, if you have a pro bono department in your law firm, you're going to have to figure out what it is
you're doing with this kind of work. And if the Trump administration says we don't want you doing this work, then you're going to have to decide whether you want to go where the other law firms are going and litigate or what you want to do there. But yes, certainly that does create a very complicated issue there.
Thanks so much as always, Leon, that's Leon Fresco of Honda, Knight, Johnson and Johnson's failure to resolve mass toward talent litigation through the bankruptcy system was not only a setback for the pharmaceutical giant, but also a costly blow for plaintiff's
lawyers who got behind the effort. Jay and J is not appealing the dismissal of its third TALC unit bankruptcy and is instead returning to civil court to face about sixty thousand lawsuits alleging its baby powder and other consumer tel products were tainted with cancer causing asbestos joining me is Bloomberg Lawn correspondent Alex Woolf. Alex give us little of the flavor of the history of this litigation, so as.
Jay and Jay tells that they have been the victors in much of this calculated litigation over the past decade. I believe they won sixteen out of seventeen cases that have gone to trial. But in twenty twenty one they were hit with a multi billion dollar verdict. The case was appealed and the award was dropped slightly, but enough to make a large dent in the company at that point.
In twenty twenty one, the company then began looking at alternative ways to address just a mountain of litigations that was continuing to grow more and more, sort of as each month and year past. These are given with ovarian cancer who alleged that the company's baby powder and shower to shower products was the cause of their cancer, and so Jay and.
J decided to use this strategy, a bankruptcy strategy that's referred to as the Texas two Steps.
So, beginning of twenty twenty one, they hired a group of attorneys from the law firm of Jones Day who had sort of pioneered this strategy of taking a large corporation that's facing sort of a mountain of mass tort litigation and using a Texas state law to separate the healthy operating business from its mass tort life abilities and then put a new subsidiary housed with all of those
liabilities into bankruptcy. So Jy and J employed Jones Day and did this exact thing in twenty twenty one, starting a case first in the Western District of North Carolina that then got bumped up to New Jersey where the company is based. From there, there there were a number of trial and error cases where the courts just sort of kept saying, no, you cannot do this. The company went back to the group of plaintiffs again and came
up with another deal. This time it was to bring a case in the Southern District of Texas, where the law is a little bit different. So this was the third case was one in the Houston Bankruptcy Court last ball.
This was different because J and J approached it in a different way.
In this case, so Jane J's subsidiary, which you know is very much controlled by the parent corporation, it reached a deal and it conducted a vote sort of before the bankruptcy started and said, you know, we have eighty three percent I believe of the claimants in this case support a plan that we've already negotiated and put together neatly for the purpose of filing for bankruptcy, and at that point sort of asking the court just sort of blessed the work that it had already done outside of
the bankruptcy.
Forum and tell us what the judge decided.
There was a two.
Week trial this year where there are lots of attorneys and experts on caalcul litigation who spoke at the end of it all. The judge there said that there were problems with some of the voting procedures where you had a lot of plaints attorneys who used the power of attorneys to vote on behalf of several thousand people, and that judge said that that that does not pass muster
or under the bankruptcy Code. And he also found some issues with some of the additional relief that Johnson and Johnson wanted through this case, which was providing releases from litigation for dozens and dozens of third parties, including retailers that sold baby powder.
So the judge dismisses the bankruptcy and Jay and Jay is not going to appeal. It is that surprising, I think some people would say, as they were surprised that the company was very quick.
To react to the judges ruling at at the very very end of March. They immediately came out and said, we are going to return to the civil tourts system. We won't pursue this bankruptcy strategy anymore, and we're going to go back to the courtroom where we were doing a good job and winning cases sort of before we even launched the strategy to begin with.
How many cases are there that the plaintiff's firms now have to decide whether to go forward and litigate them?
Right?
So what I found interesting was that you know, these bankruptcies either and this third one in particular, when it started, it put on pause about sixty thousand lawsuits. But when it's all said and done, there were ninety three thousand I believe bankruptcy claims so port litigation claims against the company. So that means that there were another thirty thousand or so people that said, you know, I have what would
be a viable lawsuit against the company. But I just haven't filed it yet, but I can assert this claim to bankruptcy. So when the bankruptcy is thrown out, you then have this these thirty three thousand or so people that now must make a choice. You know, do I really have a lawsuit that I want to file and litigate and pursue and potentially you know, go to trial,
or or just sort of let it go. In this case, many of those claims are held or were represented by just a couple of large plaintiffs firms that sort of saw an opportunity to settle on mass in a bankruptcy setting as opposed to litigating cases or trying to reach some sort of settlement outside of the bankruptcy forum.
I assume most plaintiffs would want to go forward. Isn't this on a contingency fee basis?
I think that it comes down to sort of what the retainer agreement say for each law firm and then their clients. In this case, I know that there was some discussion during the trial over whether or not you know, at least one of the firms was only representing clients for the purpose of the bankruptcy case. But undoubtedly there are several thousand of these claimants that indeed do want to suicivil lawsuit, and yes, they are all on a contingency basis with these.
Firms and tell us about the costs of bringing these cases for the attorneys.
So you know, if you're just filing one individual suit, it might not seem like all that much. You know, a few hundred dollars for filing fees, maybe up to one thousand dollars to get all the medical records, you know, plus you know, just obviously standards, labor and expenses that go with getting a case on file and sort of getting getting it in motion to begin with. When you're talking about just one case, but it doesn't seem like
all that much. But when you're talking about thousands of cases that these plaintiffs firms didn't prepare to have to file in a civil court, that adds up to potentially millions of dollars.
Did the judge find any bad faith?
The judge did not find that these plaintiffs firms either filed claims or pursued on their clients behal in bad faith. He just said that they just went about the voting process incorrectly.
So some of these plaintiff's firms. Perhaps all of them had to get money from litigation financers to go forward with these cases.
In this case, I don't know exactly how much each of these firms involved has borrowed. It would be it would stretch the imagination to think that, you know, for instance, of one of the lawyers testified that he spent sixty eight million dollars marketing the law firm to acquire claimants with the purpose of bringing them through bankruptcy. It would stretch the imagination that he hasn't borrowed that money to begin with, that he could just pay that out of pocket.
But undoubtedly there are loans that these firms do have to pay back which are based on their docative cases that they have in in house.
Some of these were financed, the loans were structured in different ways than normally.
Yeah.
So so typically, you know, litigation funders that this industry that's existed now for you know, some two decades or so in the US. UH, they typically have had invested money into pursuing commercial cases. You know, maybe maybe you know some one large you know, det the company's sort of case and only in I believe, you know, the last decade or so, uh, did these same investment firms, these these litigation funders start looking towards mass torts plaintiff
sparts for these uh, for these investments as well. And it's structured a little bit differently because instead of investing in just sort of one single uh civil case, it would be a whole dock of cases related to a litigation. So you know, it would be like one loan that's based upon thousands and thousands of cases.
Is it possible that some of these firms go out of business because of this?
Or no?
Might taking it too far?
That is a good question. I I you know, I truthfully, I don't know the answer to that question. I I imagine that many of them look towards other funders to sort of help them out and refinance. But yeah, you're you are getting into the inner workings of an industry that is still sort of figuring out sort of just how all of this works.
Okay, this JAY and J case, is it unique as far as bankruptcy cases go?
I think that it is very unique. And the route that it's taken, you know, through the civil court and then so taking this bite at the apple three times in the bankruptcy court.
That that is.
That is a very unique pattern. However, it is not the first large company I will say, actually, it's not the first parent of large parents of a company to have its subsidiary thrown out of the bankruptcy while facing
mass tot litigation. The same thing happened to a a unit of three M that manufactured combat ear plug and in that case, when the I believe it was a court of bankrupcy court in Indiana through its case out, uh, it then reads a large settlement with the same group of claimants in a civil court.
Thanks so much Alex for joining me. That's Bloomberg Blog correspond Alex Wolf 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 podcasts. 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