Roe v. Wade on the Brink of Extinction

How dare they tell a woman what she can do and cannot do with her own body? How dare they? How dare they try to stop her from determining her

own future? How dare they? While abortion rights advocates are planning how to fight back against the decision, which has been called the most damaging setback to the rights of women in our history, and politicians are considering how it will affect the mid terms, where control of the narrowly divided House and Senator up for grabs, legal experts are speculating how the unprecedented leak at a court normally shrouded in secrecy will further decimate trust among the justices joining

me is Stephen Vladick, a professor at the University of Texas Law School. There have been leaks before in the modern history of the Supreme Court, leaks about internal deliberations, even leaks of the results of row hours before it was issued, but nothing like this, uh, leak of a draft months before the ruling will be issued. What does this say about this court at this time? Well, I mean, I think the leak is only sort of part of

the story compared to what the leak actually portend. But June, I think it's as something pretty dramatic about whoever the leaker is, their perception of the Court's role, and about the politicization of the court. I mean, whether the league came from the Court's left side or right side. Either way, it's a pretty stunning development to have a draft majority opinion like this out in public, presumably to either galvanized

public opposition or to lock in votes. And so I think to me, what is though telling about the leak is that we've come to a point in the Court's history at where it could even happen at all, and where we could get to a place where a decision this monumental in this momentous is being leased out for one reason or another in ways that are completely and unastailably political. Do you think that this is rattling the justices? Well, I mean, I can't speak to sort of how they're

reacting other than the note that we know. For example, Justice the Leado was supposed to speak on Friday at the Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference that he's canceled that appearance only since the league happened. You know, we have this remarkable statement from the Court and that came out on Tuesday, including the statement from Chief as Roberts himself. So I don't doubt that the leak has rattled at least some within the court. But again, I also think it's worth

keeping Sims in perspective. I mean, the leak is only part of the story here, part of why such a big deals because what's in the league. You know, if what has lead doubt June were a draft majority of the bankruptcy case, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. So true, the Chief Justice said that statement he issued the work of the Court will not be affected in

any way. Is that too optimistic? Yes, I mean, I think it's what he has to say, but I think everyone, the Chief Justice first of all, knows exactly how untrue that is. You know. I think it's impossible to imagine this having no impact either in how the Court resolves this case specifically dobbed, or in the courts business going forward.

And I think we are certain to, if not publicly see, at least come to be aware of changes behind the scenes and how the Court handles draft distributions, in whether the Court tries to actually formalize some kind of co with of secrecy, and whether the Court tries to actually create some kind of formal investigative mechanisms. So I think things are going to be irrevocably changed by this leak. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I think for me is to be seen. The Marshal of

the Supreme Court is investigating the leak. I just wonder whether the leaker will be found. Chief Justice Warren Burger threatened to call the FBI to administer lie detector tests with the leak of Row. Will it be really difficult to find out perhaps impossible to find out who leaked I took? It depends, you know, if it was a current law clerk and if they weren't very clever about covering their tracks, they might actually be pretty easy to

figure it out. But if it was either someone who's not currently in the building, or if it was someone who worked really hard to obscure their identity, I think it gets much harder, and so everyone has their own theory about who the leaker is. I think it's also possible that we the public will never find out, even if the Supreme Court does, because imagine a scenario where it turns out that the leaker is, you know, of the justices, or someone very close to one of the

justices and not a law clerk. You know, I could see reasons why if I'm John Roberts, I don't want that becoming public. So I think we will probably hear something about the leak investigation, but whether we'll ever find out publicly who leaked the opinion and why, I think remains to be seen. I mean, even some of the most famous leaks in Supreme Court history I think have never been publicly identified, including the leak of the Resultant Row.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is one of the Republicans calling for the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute the leaker, but what would they be prosecuted for? Wishful thinking? Uh? Leakend, as Junior and I have discussed before, is not by self a crime. In the national security space, there are criminal statutes that are specifically about leaking class sized information. Whatever else you might say about the draft opinion and Dobbs,

it wasn't classified, right, there are dastices. Don't make it a crime if the leaker used various mechanisms to obtain the draft. So if, for example, someone on the outside hacked into the court's computer system and obtained the draft that way, that might be a crime. But you know, if I just happened to hand a confidential government document to a reporter by itself, I am not committing a crime. And maybe there are folks who wish that that weren't true,

but that's the laws of them. Let's talk about the opinion itself. And a line that's been quoted a lot is that Alito said Rowe was egregiously wrong from the start. Critique is reasoning in the draft? Well, I mean I since the draft is it is top to bottom and exercise and motivated reason, I mean, Roe, you know, whatever else may be said about it, Justice Blackman did try

very hard to explain exactly what he was doing. He tried very hard to explain the baseline rights to privacy that we got from Chris Wald, and that the draft opinion in Dabbs does not purport to repudiate. How what complicates the matter when you get in an abortion case is that you have countervailing interests. You have the interests of the president woman, but you also have the state's

interest in protecting what Justice Blackman calls potential life. And so, you know, I think what's frustrating about the draft opinion June is that it really doesn't take Row seriously. It just sort of accepts as a default proposition Rose wrongness, and then I think goes into even more detail about the difficulties anytime the Supreme Court recognizes right that justice the Leader says are not deeply rooted in our historical tradition. But of course that would call him to question a

whole lot of stuff beyond Row. So, you know, I guess what is striking about the draft opinion is that it's not an effort really to persuade anyone who wasn't already persuaded that row is wrong, and it's not really even an effort to convince the reader that Rose wrong on its own term. Does Aldo just throw precedent out the window, as he's done before in for example, when he threw out a thirty year old precedent in saying that government employees have a constitutional right not to pay

union fees. No, I mean, I think Janet is a great comparison June, because yes, I mean I think you know, here we're seeing just how little regard and respect right that Justice the Lado seems to have. First story decisis for the principle that oftens being equal right, the court should follow his precedence. You know, Aldo's draft opinion does try to offer at least the argument for why rowan Casey shouldn't be followed as a matter of story decisis.

What's ironic about those arguments is that those were the very arguments that the joint opinion and Casey by Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Suitor had relied upon um And so he basically has to say, well, they were either they were wrong, or things have changed dramatically in the last thirty years. And I'm not sure either of those are are true, So you know, Jude, part of why since that's important again, I think folks who want to be persuaded will be persuaded.

But part of why that's important is because if this is the sort of casual and cavalier attitude that Justice Aldo and whoever else signs its opinion is going to have towards starry decisis, why shouldn't we be worried about other rights? Why shouldn't we be worried about Griswold and contraception, or about Lawrence versus Texas and same sex stotomy, or

even though Berto fell in same sex marriage. I mean, the question is, you know, when the draft's opinion says this is just about abortion, but it it takes an approach to storry decisive that calls into question all prior decisions recognize him unenumerated constitutional rights. There's a pretty jarring contrast. There is the reasoning so wrong or is the language so extreme that he may lose some of the five justices?

You know, we'll find out. I mean, I guess you know, one theory that I think is not implausible for why this opinion leaked out is that you know, perhaps there was a separate opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, who, according to the political story accompanied the leak, did not

vote to overrule Rowan Casey at conference. Perhaps there was a separate opinion that you know, was sufficiently compelling and or critical that someone was worried that at least one of the justices who had voted to over rule Rowan Casey at conference might be softening and might be wobbling.

And so I've I've always thought that one of the better theories here is that the leak was designed to actually lock in the five votes to overrule Rowan Casey, since now it would be very obvious to everyone if when the final decision comes down this is not where the court ends up, that someone flip flock. So we don't know if that's what's happening. We won't know, perhaps even when the final decision comes down, if that's what happened.

But it seems like at least a possibility. So is there a chance at least that row may not be reversed in the end. I mean, never say never, June, right, you know, Rowan Casey are themselves a good lessons here. I mean the original vote at conference in Casey when the case was argued during the October one term was to overrule Row. And we know what happened. We know the court didn't, So you know, I think it's possible that what we get when the Court hands down its

final ruling doesn't look like this. The problem is that because of the leak, and this is why I'm skeptical that the leak came from the dissenters. Because of the leak, I think that makes it a lot harder for Justice who might have been pushing the leader to moderate the opinion, or Justice who might even be turned off by the opinion to not now just line up behind it. What's startling to me is that it's been less than two years since Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court and they're

ready to overturn Row. So am I just being naive that this is awfully fast? I mean, we've talked before about how the Chief Justice likes to do change in moderation. This is just you know, wholesale reversal. Well, I mean, you know, June, I think this has been one of the themes that folks have been trying to point out since Justice by Justice Ginsborough, Like yes, when Kavanaugh replaced Kennedy.

That created a very solid Piper four majority. But with the Chief Justice as basically the speed break and with the Chief Justice, you know, and his preference for moderate and I would say moderation, but for sort of incrementalism. I think that's the right word, right, that that would

be what decided how fast the court moves. Well, it's been clear now, right for the better part of the year and a half that is no longer up to the Chief and we've seen sort of smaller and less significant examples of the Court moving much faster than the Chief might be inclined. You know, we've talked before June about some of these shadow doctor rulings where the Chief has joined the three liberals in descentive because he thinks that the Court is moving too quickly by you know,

changing the law through unsigned, unexplained orders. So, you know, I think if this is where this ends up, you know, with a five to four or five to one to three ruling getting rid of Rowan casey, that really is the day new maw of the pattern I think has been building since the day Justin Barrett joined the Court, and it's just for the proof of how this really is no longer the Roberts Court. How will that affect the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of the public.

I mean, I think we're going to see what we've already been seeing, which is just further polarization. And I think a further wise name of the devise between those Americans who view the Court is legitimate for no other reason than because they like what the Court is ding and those who be the Court is illegitimate, whether because they don't like what the Court is doing because they

think the Court is doing it inappropriately. And I guess one of the things that leaves me, you know, deeply word about the courts and institution is that I would think it would be in the Court's interest to care about that latter group, That it would be in the Court's interest to actually want to have at least some semblance of legitimacy, even among those not inclined to agree

with the results of its decisions. I mean, this was the theme of Justice barrett speech at the Ronald Reagan Library last month, when she said, you know, don't just call us hacks. Read our opinions deep for yourself, that there are principles in them. You may not agree with the principles, but at least you'll see that there are principles.

And so I think, you know, one of the things that I really loose leap over is the increasing appearance, if not reality, that there's a chunk of justice is perhaps the majority of justices for whom how the Court is perceived by those on the political left is increasingly less relevant, and I think that that's a very dangerous

road to go down. Alito attempts to distinguish abortion from other rights grounded in the constitutional right to privacy, But does his reasoning jeopardize other protections that are not quote, deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition. Yeah, this is the problem. Yes, the leader says, I'm only talking about abortion, But the grounds that he deploys for justifying the overruling the rowing casey are grounds that are not

limited to abortion. And this notion that you know, rights have to be deeply rooted in our history and tradition to be recognized by the Supreme Court would call into question a whole lot of things that the leader says he's not calling into question, things like bands on interracial marriage, bans on same sex marriage, bands on homosexual stodomy. I mean, there's a lot June here that if you take the reasoning seriously as opposed to the rhetoric, could be vulnerable.

Now that doesn't mean that, like overnight, you know, the Supreme Court is going to start overruling those cases too. You'd have to have first state tried to scale back these protections, that tried to sort of restore bands on certain kinds of intimate conduct or gay marriage. But you know, June, I live in Texas. Um, it's not hard to imagine elected a officials in states like mine, they are going

to be pretty aggressive. I mean, just the other day Governor Abbott, right, Texas As governor, talked about trying to push the Supreme Court to revisit the nine eight two decision recognizing the right of the children of undocumented immigrants to go to public school. So it's really hard to take seriously the protestations in the draft opinion and then by by some who are defending it that this is

only going to be about abortion. Once you've crossed the rubicon, once you've shown that you're willing to overrule cases like Rowan Casey simply because you don't believe those rights are deeply rooted in our country's history. I don't know what the stopping point is other June than politics. And you know, if the stopping point is politics, the stopping point is that overruling those other decisions would be deeply unpopular. I mean, one those politics could always change. But to what does

that say about the principle here? If the only reason why Rowan Casey are not safe that those other cases are is because of political support, then that suggests that this is politics all the way down and not constitutional laws. What's the next battle line? Some are saying that medication abortion would be the next battleground. Well, I mean, I think we're going to see multiple battlegrounds at once. Medication abortion is going to be one front in the war.

I think we're gonna see states try to make it unlawful for their residents to travel out of states to obtain abortion, so that we're going to have a fight over whether states can limit their own residents from leaving the state to go to states that will still have abortions after this decision, and so on the abortion front,

I think that's where the fight will be joined. But I also think, because you know, we talked about with regards to Governor Abbott, We're going to see efforts by other especially Red states, to push the envelope and to see what other rights the Court is willing to reconsider.

Because the one undeniable thing about a ruling like the draft opinion, if that becomes the law of the land, is it's basically an invitation to court and to state to be cynical and to be political and to push the Court to actually revisit these rights one at a time in a way that would not have been true without this kind of decision. You know, states banning people from leaving the state to get an abortion, it seems to me like that's just unworkable and even for conservatives,

hard to defend. I mean maybe maybe not. You know, I think it depends on, you know, what, how you set up the law, depends on you know, sort of if you impose as Texas has mandatory reporting requirements on medical providers when it comes to you know, individuals who are pregnant and then lose their presidency. Um. You know, I think it's ugly and I think it would incentivize

a very sort of dangerous and surveillance oriented regime. But you know, June, And I don't know if folks appreciate how close to that we already hard here in Texas um. And you know, one response might be, oh, well, the

Supreme Court would never countenance that. And I think this is the you know, in the final analysis, this is the central problem with the draft opinion in Jobs, which is arguments that the Supreme Court would quote never countenance you know, insert crazy things here really do go out the window once you have an opinion like this on the books. Thanks so much for your insights, Steve. That's Professor Stephen Vladdock of the University of Texas Law School.

At their confirmation hearings, the five Conservative justices who have signed onto a draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade acknowledged that Roe was a precedent of the Supreme Court. It is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By it, I mean Roe v. Wade and planned parenthood versus Casey

been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent. It has been reaffirmed, so a good judge will consider it as president of the United States Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other and scholars across the spectrum say that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled. I believe the Constitution protects the right to privacy. Versus Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in three so it's been on the books

for a long time. The last justice testifying in that clip was Samuel Alito, who authored the draft opinion reversing Roe v. Wade. My guest is Katherine Frankie, a professor at Columbia Law School and the director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law. If the Court does in fact reverse Roe v. Wade, how big of a setback would that be to the rights of women in this country. Well, this draft opinion threatens to turn back constitutional law for three generations back in time, to set us back to

really the early part of the twentieth century. The breadth of the opinion reaches not just the right to abortion and where it might be protected under the Constitution, but a wide range of other rights. So they're planting the

seeds for the next cases coming down the road. And in this sense, I think what this opinion threatens to do is to write women and pregnant people in particular out of the Constitution and Irey, let's talk about the reasoning in his draft opinion, Row was egregiously wrong from the start. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion. Give

me your opinion of the way he reasoned out this opinion. Well, Justice Alito articulates a view that is held by several other members of the Court, which is that if the right is not specifically listed or mentioned in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist. And we saw Justice Gorsets use very similar language in one of the COVID religious liberty cases in twenty and here the idea is that what the word abortion doesn't appear in the Constitution, but actually

neither does the word sex or sex equality. But we don't also see the word internet or electricity. I mean, there are all sorts of things that are legally relevant that have been invented or at least become socially important since the drafting of the Constitution. So to say that there's no right to privacy, no right to reproductive liberty in the Constitution because those words don't exist is a foolish way, a kind of immature and simple way to

interpret a constitution in a modern society. There's been a lot of criticism of Row, even by liberals like the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Why such criticism, Well, there's been a number of decisions from the Supreme Court since its founding that have not landed as successfully as perhaps some other decisions. So, for instance, the Brown versus Board of Education decision in the nineteen fifties also was responded

to with enormous resistance and backlash from the South. And what we see with these kinds of decisions where significant changes in the society are being taken up by the Supreme Court is that there's usually a conversation between the Court and the people that goes back and forth of will take one step, you take one step, will take

one step, you take one step. And with Row, the resistance to abortion rights was unrelenting, notwithstanding the fact that abortion rights always pulled as being something that people in the United States fully and robustly supported, but the megaphone of the Christian radical right drowned out what has been really a consensus among most people in this country that

the Supreme Court's decision and Row was correct. And so it's not unusual for the Court to take up issues that are that are still somewhat contested in society, But in fact that is the job of the Supreme Court is to say, even rights which aren't popular may actually have a ground in the Constitution. And I think the right to racial equality is exactly the right analogy. Those rights also weren't popular at the time in some parts of American society, but little by little they gained traction,

and we now take them as given. One of the focuses of Alitos ap Union is that there's no mention of abortion in the Constitution. Tell us about the implications of that kind of reasoning, well, Justice Alito articulates a view that is held by several other members of the Court, which is that if the right is not specifically listed

or mentioned in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist. And we saw Justice Gorsets use very similar language in one of the COVID religious liberty cases in twenty and here the idea is that what the word abortion doesn't appear in the Constitution, but actually neither does the word sex or sex equality. But we don't also see the words

internet or electricity. I mean, there are all sorts of things that are legally relevant that have been invented or at least become socially important since the drafting of the Constitution. So to say that there's no right to privacy, no right to reproductive liberty in the Constitution because those words don't exist is a foolish way. It kind of immature and simple way to inter for a constitution in a

modern society. Do you really think the ultimate aim is to erase women from the constitution For some members of the Supreme Court, yes, or at least some version of what women's rights are. And by saying that we instead should look to fifty individual state legislatures for what kinds of fundamental rights people enjoy, what kinds of protections they have based on their sex or gender in this society,

is to say that those are second class rights. Certain rights like religious liberty, for instance, and I think we'll see in the courts gun rights cases that are coming down later this term. Those rights deserve the robust protection of the federal Constitution. But other rights like women's rights or rights to abortion, well, those are actually less fundamental. And you can enjoy that right if you are lucky enough to live in a state where your state legislature

respects the right to reproductive rights. Do you think that other rights that are grounded in privacy might be also at risk here? Talking about interracial marriage, gay marriage, contraception. Well, Justice Alito's draft decision says, we're only deciding the abortion question now, we are not necessarily deciding these other hot button issues, like a right to contraception, like a right

to marriage for same sex couples, interracial marriage. But the way in which they kick the legs out from under roversus Wade makes any reasonable reader of constitutional law say that those other issues have no legs to stand on anymore.

So I think it's predictable and foreseeable that this Court will take those next steps, and certainly advocates will urge them to do so, to reverse the ol bergha Felt decision securing rights to marriage for same sex couples, and earlier cases that dealt with the right to contraception and cases that found that bands on interracial marriage also violated privacy and other fundamental rights secured under the Constitution. Explain how he explains away reversing precedent, which discourt seems a

little more willing to do than other courts. Well, he's inventing a new test that if there are certain prior decisions of the Court that are really wrong, then a later Supreme Court has the authority and indeed the duty, I think he would say, to overrule those decisions, and he uses the term egregiously wrongly decided. But we have no criteria for what it means to be really wrong.

So he points to some of the race discrimination cases, which I think today most people would agree, um the early cases in the nineteenth century that upheld separate but

equal based race discrimination, that those were egregiously wrong. But there's nothing in the Row versus Weight decision that would put it on the same level of wrongness as plusy versus Ferguson or some of the other early cases that Justice Alito also points to as examples of the Court issuing decisions that were so badly decided in the first

instance they deserve to be overruled later. After listening to the oral arguments in this case, was it sort of apparent that they were going to either affirm the Mississippi law or they were going to go further and overrule Roe v. Wade. So was this that much of a shock? Well, the Supreme Court watchers came down in a number of

different places. I think most people felt that the Court now had enough vote to at least radically limit Roll versus Wade and Chief Justice Roberts, I think, still believed deeply in the integrity of the Court and is worried about the reputation of the Court as being just a political body that you can pack with political conservatives and they will willy nilly over rule cases they don't agree with. He's very worried that that's how this kind of decision

will be read by the public. But it seems he's lost control of the Court and the much more radical wing of the Court, embodied most prominently by Justice the Leado, who on the bench manifest the kind of anger and in judicious behavior in his questioning of people who are

honorably presenting questions and arguments to the Court. That he has this opinion and is using such outrageous language in the opinion shows us that the kind of tempered, judicial like conduct and tone that we're used to from Chief Justice Roberts will no longer garner a majority of this Court, and that's quite troubling. This is only a draft. Is it likely that at least the language will be tempered, and is there a chance that perhaps one of the justices will sort of go for a middle ground as

Chief Justice Roberts would like to see. It's it's quite difficult to know how the Court will respond to this unauthorized leak of a draft opinion in one of the most awaited opinions in the Court's history. We don't have really much evidence from the past to go on of what they will do. One possibility is that some of the other justices will be so concerned about the Court's reputation that they will urge Justice the Leado or another

author to issue on a more temperate opinion. But one could also see that what was the motivation for releasing this draft is to prepare the American people for the bomb that's about to be dropped by the U. S. Supreme Court, so that the outrage we're having today will have dissipated a little bit by June when they issue their final opinion. So I think it's kind of impossible at this point to know how this leak will affect what the ultimate decision official decision is from this court.

Democratic lawmakers say they want to codify Row with the political divide in our country what are the chances that something like that could be successful? Zero. I think it's highly unlikely that we would be able to get a majority of Senators to vote for a codification of ROVERSUS Wade, never mind a filibuster proof sixty votes at this point, because there's some Democrats who were actually anti abortion in

the Senate. And perhaps even more importantly, if we're going to spend an enormous amount of capital in the Senate to try to get if a filibuster proof majority for some sort of codification of abortion rights, why fight for ROVERSUS way. It was a flawed decision from the beginning, and there is other legislation in Congress right now that would secure reproductive rights and justice in a much more

robust way. The other option is to finally ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which is only a couple of votes away from final ratification in the Senate, where they would lift the deadline that had been imposed by the Congress back in the nineteen seventies. So adding explicit sex equality protections to the Constitution for the first time would have the effect undermining the argument that Justice Alito relies on so heavily, which is the sex equality doesn't appear anywhere

in the Constitution. The group I work with here at Columbia, the Equal Rights Amendment Project, has issued talking points on how the r A may actually come safe the day when it comes to reproductive rights. What do you think the effect will be of this decision on the ground in states? Well, I think there's probably fifty different answers to that question. In New York City and if it

will be having a major rally downtown. It's kind of a sad commentary on the left and on the pro choice left in this country that it takes the entire house to be on fire before we show up in the streets to defend reproductive rights. The right wing, the opponents of abortion rights, and the opponents of ROW have been doing this every day or an izing since ninety three when the Supreme Court issued this opinion. And it may be that that organizing is happening too late to

defend ROW. But I certainly would imagine we'll see bills and state legislatures across the country to try to codify ROW. We've already done that New York State, California has as well, But there are numerous bills that have been passed or are pending in many state legislatures across the country that would criminalize abortion immediately upon Row being overruled. And that's much more where the trend is going in many states

in this country than the codification of Row. Unfortunately, Finally, Justice Sotomayor said during the oral argument, will this institution survive the stinch that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and it's reading are just political acts. I don't see how it is possible. What kind of impact do you think this has on the Court as an institution and on the public's perception and belief in the Court. This will have a profound and lasting destructive

effect on the reputation of the Supreme Court. The magic of having a Supreme Court is that their opinions, their decisions are abided by by the American people as a matter of voluntary consent. The Supreme Court doesn't have an army that can enforce their rules. They have to have the kind of legitimacy and authority that the American public respects because we live in a society governed by law,

not just by politics. And for the Court to issue this kind of radical decision so quickly after acquiring a majority that enables them legal you to do so, we'll have long lasting destructive effects and that stench that Justice Soda Mayora referred to certainly I think for the rest

of my lifetime. And it's a tragedy. It's an enormous attack and assault on the very idea of democracy that we have both elected officials and judges who interpret the Constitution in an enduring and a political way, and that that last principle I think will be severely undermined m by this opinion, this draft opinion from Justice Alito, if it ends up being the actual law of the land. Thanks Catherine. That's Professor Katherine Frankie of Columbia Law School.

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 to the Bloomberg Glass Show every week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg