This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Securities and Exchange Commissioned Chairman Paul Atkins promised changes at the agency when he took over in April.
So at the helm of the SEC, I can confidently say it is a new days signed for the SEC to end its waywardness and return to its core mission that Congress set for it, investor protection, fair, orderly and efficient markets, and capital formation. I will work to protect investors from fraud, keep politics out of how our securities laws and regulations are applied, and advance clear rules of the road that encourage investment in our economy to the benefit of Americans.
And the SEC has paired back enforcement. Indeed, new enforcement actions have dropped by about twenty eight percent through September, and the focus has changed to more traditionals to securities law violations and intentional misconduct. The agency has retreated from crypto related litigation and is focusing more on individual offenders than household name companies. Nearly thirty percent of enforcement actions brought under this administration so far focus on offering fraud
or insider trading. My guest is securities law expert James Park, a professor at UCLA Law School, Can you start by sort of broadly describing what Gary Gensler's era at the SEC looked like as far as enforcement actions, It was.
Very vigorous, I think in terms of enforcement, I think they brought significant cases that made an impact. I think there was a willingness to be entrepreneurial, to bring innovative theories in a number of areas, particularly with respec to
ESG to issues, environmental, social and governance issues. We had some very significant cases against companies like Volkswagen, for example, which had that emission scandal, and you know Boeing, you know cases arising out of misrepresentations relating to the accidents that they had before. You had some theories like shadow trading, where you're using inside information not to trade in your own company, but in another company that you don't owe for douciary duties to but you may have a duty
of confidentiality with respect to that information. And we saw record penalties and that's something that the prior enforcement director said is he believed that higher penalties are important to deterrence. Was a major theme during the Genstler enforcement era. I think that's the best way to describe it and.
How as Chairman Paul Atkins distinguished or tried to distinguish his tenure from gancellers, what are his focuses.
I think he's more focused on the straightforward cases, cases where you have clear evidence of intentional wrongdoing, whether that be theft by a broker, insider trading, really intentional misconduct. I think that's one area of emphasis. Another is that I think the SEC may be looking more at individuals as opposed to bringing cases against corporations. In that I
think is a development that we've seen before. Actually, during the nineteen seventies, we had a very aggressive enforcement division under Stanley Sporken that was bringing innovative cases against corporations for accounting fraud, paying bribes to foreign companies. I mean, there are questions about whether the SEC was exceeding its authority. With Chairman Shad coming in, one of these things he emphasized is that we're going to focus more on individuals
and insider trading. And that's kind of an interesting similarity with this era where we're moving from focusing on corporations as wrongdoers to individuals. And I think that, you know, may be based on sort of the idea that you know, most wrongdoing is done by rogue actors, people who are
just acting on their own. I think that's the approach I think that we see Atkins taking versus maybe the Gensler position that goes after corporations is more concerned about sort of bad corporate cultures, that it's not individuals who just decide to do bad things, but because they're in bad corporate cultures that they commit fraud.
According to a Bloomberg Law review, the SEC has brought about ninety one new enforcement suits since inauguration Day through the end of September. That's down from one hundred and twenty six actions filed during the same period in twenty twenty four. Is it because it's a new administration. Is it because they're focusing on different things? I mean, why do you think there's that drop.
I think it could be a combination of different things. It's very hard to pinpoint the cause, and I think certainly the fact that you're in a transition period may mean that there are fewer cases that are actually filed. You know, we only got a new enforcement director last month, Judge Ryan in September, and enforcement moves more slowly without clear guidance from the top, and you know, just having a leadership transition maybe a reason that you have a
decline in the number of cases. And you know, I took a look at a few numbers, and you know, even before this year, if you look at twenty twenty four, which was during the Gensler era, that'sa our decline compared to twenty twenty three. Five hundred and eighty three actions are filed in twenty twenty four. Seven hundred eighty four were in twenty twenty three. That's a twenty six percent
decline within the same administration. Now, the penalties did increase in twenty twenty four relative to twenty twenty three, and so I think in a few weeks or a few months will learn, you know, what the penalties collected are and that may tell something additional. And it is finally
possible that you know, the new administration's less aggressive. You know, we have some cases that were dropped that might have settled, and probably investigations that were started that could have resulted in actions may either be you know, just sort of delayed or languishing or maybe even formally closed. So I think I think it's a combination of a lot of different things.
And did they drop all the crypto related actions, even the ones that were ongoing. Basically they dropped.
Them, the major ones against exchanges in particular. I have seen a few crypto related cases involving outright thefts, and so they have not dropped all crypto cases, but the cases against you know, exchanges for example, or major developers where the argument is that you should have registered, you should have registered this as a security. I believe all or almost all of those have been withdrawn.
So there's not a big discussion anymore. I mean, the last couple of years, you and I we're discussing what is a security? Is this a security? And the judges in New York we are having conflicting decisions. So that's not happening anymore. They don't have to worry about that, well.
Not through the sec But there are cases that are private litigation that are percolating up, and I expect that the issue of whether or not certain digital assets our securities will be decided by courts in that context. And I've seen a few cases here and there that have gone both ways, so I think there still will be some litigation about that. For the time being, but it'll happen in the context of private litigation rather than SEC government enforcement.
The SEC is making it easier for companies going public to force securities fraud claims into arbitration. Why and what would be the result of that?
Well, I think the idea behind this is that shareholders should have a choice. Shareholders should be able to decide how the company is governed. And there's an argument that the way you resolve certain types of shareholder litigation should be up to the shareholders and if they accept it. You know, while they may not actually have a say in deciding whether or not such provisions are put into the charter of a company going public, they do have a say in that if they're unhappy with the provision,
they can choose not to buy the stock. They can choose to pay less for the stock. This is a well established academic idea now, is that that shareholders have a choice with respect to corporate governance, and this policy decision effectively is signaling a willingness to allow companies to try this out if they would like to. I think there are some questions about the legality of some of
these mandatory arbitration provisions. If they are adopted. So I think there is some risk that if somebody adopts them, this will be litigated. And for now, at least in Delaware, Delaware companies would not be able to put these visions in their charter because of a Delaware state law. But it's you know, it's something that academics have talked about for some time, and you know it's consistent with a
Republican SEC chair to try this out. Now, whether or not companies will will do this, how this will work, you know, that's still very much up in the air, and so I think it'll take a few years before it starts having an impact.
If it does, I'm going to go through just a couple of changes. The Division Director no longer has authority to issue formal orders of investigation, which allowed Division staff to issue to poenas, and so they're going back to something that they did prior to two thousand and nine, I think, where the commissioners have to approve the orders by majority vote.
It's a significant change. It's a significant change, a procedural change that very well will likely affect the pace of SEC enforcement. I think it'll be slower, and you know, to give a little little background. For a long time, this was the policy of the SEC where the five commissioners, these five pointees had to sign off on every enforcement subpoena, any decision to issue orders that open investigations, those five
commissioners had to decide this. And you know, I think the issue is that these five commissioners are very busy right there deciding all sorts of things, looking at new rules, and you know, all sorts of other matters, and so it will take a while for the subpoena to get on the agenda. And you know, I think that's what resulted in delays with the SEC and enforcement and even
opening up an investigation. I mean, so after the Madeoff scandal two thousand and nine, one of the reforms is we're going to delegate some of this to the staff and so investigations could open more quickly, move more quickly,
and in my view, it's a good change. But I think the argument on the other side is that, you know, if you want to control enforcement, you want the commissioners to get involved from the very beginning, because they're ultimately the ones you have to approve and enforcement action being brought being settled. And if they're involved at the very beginning, they can maybe cut off some investigations that may be inappropriate in their mind.
Jim, you mentioned the dollar amounts of fines. Does it matter how much money the SEC brings in through enforcement actions? I mean, is that considered a gauge of how well the commissioner is doing?
It's cited and it's something that I think the SEC chair in the past, both Republican and Democrat, have highlighted when they have a record amount of penalties. It's a way to show Congress, Hey, we're doing our job. We're vigorous on enforcement.
Now.
Is it a great measure? I think that there's some questions as to whether or not this might lead to artificial inflation of penalties, or even an incentive to settle cases more quickly for too little, just to get the penalty in your numbers. There's a Wall Street Journal article about a year ago that reported that a lot of these penalties are actually not collect that they're from bankrupt companies, and so that the SEC doesn't actually end up cofflecting
all the penalties that it imposes. They only announce the ones that they've imposed, not necessarily ones that they've collected, and so and so. It's an imperfect measure, but it's a significant one. And I suspect that if we see a consistent decline, then that may be used against this SEC. You know, if there's a big crash, that that would be oh, you know, look at the penalties they declined by you know, fifty percent under Atkins. That's why we
have a lots of confidence. So the SEC needs to be careful because if it's not vigorous and there's a market correction and a lot of scandals, everyone asks, you know, why was the SEC asleep at the switch?
Chairman Atkins has also expressed a commitment to notifying businesses of technical violations before jumping to enforcement.
I think that's fine in some cases. If it truly is a minor technical infraction that is a mistake, then may be faster. It may be faster to simply inform the company you know, you need to fix this now.
The problem is if this becomes an excuse to you know, avoid enforcement of more serious matters, more serious matters where there is repeated violations, where there's harmed investors and customers, whether you know, sometimes technical rule violations signal a more corrupt corporate culture, and that's something that I'd be worried if, you know, if the SEC is not looking into this and following up on some of these minor rule violations. Now on the other side is maybe it's a better
use of SEC enforcements which have become more limited. You know, there's a lot of staff decline. You know, SEC's always have limited enforcement resources. This may be a way of quickly resolving matters without fully investigating. But I would be concerned about over using this particular method. But I do think used properly, it could be a good thing.
You mentioned to focus sort of more on individuals. The powerhouse public companies then breathe a sigh of relief and maybe relax their compliance programs or not.
I hope not. I hope they don't see that as the message. A lot of the large companies have already invested in substantial amounts of compliance and so they have the infrastructure in place. I would be surprised if they abandoned that, because we could have a different SEC in the next you know, if there's a transition in a few years. And also it's good business to have strong compliance.
In my view that it's a way of controlling misconduct within your organization that you know, you would not want, the shareholders would not want as well, but it would you know, probably send a signal that on some issues we can maybe be a little bit less worried. And so the danger there is that you know, corporate manager has become a little bit too complacent, and so they may get the signal where we can take more risk with respect to misconduct, and they may not listen to
the lawyers who are telling them. If you do this, the sec could come knocking and they may see that as less credible if you have less vigorous enforcement on the on the corporate side, and you know, cases against individuals, I think the reality is they're very expensive, they're very hard to develop. You have to be very very thorough and sometimes the evidence to really establish liability against individuals may take years and years to develop, and so it
will provide some deterrence, I think. But I think that you know, sometimes if you have a substantial wrongdoing by a big corporation that gets a lot of publicity, that generates a lot of deterrence in the corporate world.
Finally, a noticeable decrease in the use of press releases in September, only one press release this is a Gorina routers. Only one press release announce an enforcement action compared to forty three in September of twenty twenty four.
What's a big decline actually, And you know, I watch those press releases very carefully. The blogs do as well. That's how we learn about the big cases. And I hope they will issue more press releases with notable cases because that's how we law professors and attorneys get a sense of what the SEC thinks is important. It keeps the SEC visible. But I think it's understandable. With the transition, I expect they will ramp up their press releases over the.
Next year, so I'm sure they'll put out at least more than one a month. Do you have any concerns about enforcement that we haven't addressed?
You know.
The other point I would make is that, you know, with AI technology becoming so important, I hope the SEC really keeps a close eye on fundraising by AI companies because it's a very opaque technology. I think there are a lot of opportunities for fraud in this space. It's an important part of our economic boom, and I think that if we lose some confidence in those valuations, investors will lose a lot of money. So I hope the SEC is continuing those initial efforts to look at AI companies.
That will certainly keep them busy. Thanks Jim. That's Professor James Park of UCLA Law School. The Supreme Court has agreed to rule on the constitutionality of the federal law that bans firearm possession by drug users and addicts. It will be the second test this term of the Second Amendment's gun rights protections. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a gun case testing the right to carry. My guest is Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke
Center for Firearms Law. Andrew tell us about the federal law at issue here in the Hamani case.
This section of federal law might sort of sound familiar to people who have been following the Court's Second Amendment jureisprudence over the past couple of years. This is eighteen US Code nine twenty two, and specifically nine twenty two G, which lists a number of prohibited statuses groups of people who, because of their status, are prohibited under federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition and one of those groups. One of those subsections under nine twenty two G was an
issue in the Rahimi case. That's individuals who are subject to a domestic violence restraining order that meets certain criteria. But there are other groups as well, felons for example, and then, as relevant to the Harmani case, individuals who are considered unlawful users of or addicted to a controlled substance. So that's the specific revision of criminal law that's at issue in this case is a ban on unlawful drug users possessing firearms.
The Fifth Circuit said that the blanket ban is unconstitutional, but the ban could be used against people accused of being high and armed at the same time. Explain the logic of that.
That's basically right. It is a little bit confusing because there are a number of different cases in the Fifth Circuit, and so if you look back at the Harmoni case, there really isn't a lengthy decision because the Circuit had decided in an earlier case called Connolly, and all the judges said in this specific case is that you know, we're applying our ruling in Connolly and therefore find that as applied to this individual HARMIONI the provision is also unconstitutional.
But basically the approach that the Fifth Circuit has taken in these drug cases is to say that, as a historical matter, that judges believe that their support for applying this provision when somebody is under the influence of drugs and at the same time in possession of guns or ammunition, but when there's no proof that those two things were contemporaneous, that they occurred at the same time, then the judges
have said that the provision cannot be applied. And that's what they decided in the Harmonic case.
And this is the same provision that a jury convicted Hunter Biden on.
That's correct, that is correct.
That's where its fame. So the Justice Department is arguing that the law is valid. So they're arguing then, for a law that restricts Second Amendment rights, that's right.
Yeah, it's a little bit of an interesting posture, as you know. But again, I think what this comes back to is the distinction between a facial challenge and it has applied challenge. So the Hamani case deals with an has applied challenge, and the government is saying, you know, we think the Fifth Circuit got it wrong, but on
these specific facts. So I think it's going to be a little bit of a delicate dance throughout this case as it works its way through the briefing and the oral argument before the Supreme Court, where I actually don't think that the current administration believes that nine twenty two G Three has the language has been interpreted, is constitutional
in all of its applications, right. I don't know that they would say that this is constitutional as applied to somebody who's just, you know, using marijuana on a regular basis. But they want to say in this case because there are maybe exacerbating factors not just marijuana. There's potentially other legal drugs at issue, and there's a connection to allegedly to foreign terrorism that's not really relevant to the Second Amendment.
But they're going to, I think, focus a lot on the as applied nature and on the specific facts of this case.
The Supreme Court in twenty twenty two, in the Bruin case, rule that any restrictions on firearms have to be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation. What is the history and tradition that the government is saying supports their position here?
The government at least below in these cases in the Fifth Circuit has basically rested on three categories of historical statutes or restrictions. So the first is the historical treatment of the mentally ill, and that's sort of an argument that maybe drug users are analogous in some way to those who are mentally ill, that this is this is some form of a temporary incapacitation. The second is more generally just laws that we're based on a legislative determination
that some group of people is dangerous. So that could be you know, political dissonance for example, it could be any group where the determination is that you know, this group is dangerous and we're not going to allow them to have guns. And then the third is and this
kind of you know, goes in sequential order. You know, the mental illness and the dangerousness laws are earlier, and then eventually you start you start to see laws that talk about alcohol and being intoxicated with alcohol, and those are also a category that the government has come forward
with in these cases. And again, I think for each one, you know, it's going to depend on this level of generality issue that that courts have really been wrestling with under Bruin, which is how close do the historical statutes really need to be in order to uphold the modern law?
And the historic statutes go back to the seventeenth and eighteenth century, do they go back to the nineteenth century? What does the court consider acceptable history?
Yeah, Well, that's one of the really interesting aspects of sort of both of these cases that the Court has granted now, which is that in some sense there are narrow questions, but I think they're in the background. You have this doctrinal uncertainty, and we're going to start to get some clues about questions like the one you raise, which is what's even the time period?
Right?
How far back do you go? You know, if something's enacted in the nineteenth century, is that too new? Like does that not really inform the original meaning of the Second Amendment? In the Bruin case, the Court seems to at least leave the door open to considering historical laws anywhere from around the time of the founding all the
way up through about nineteen hundred. But there's really been a divergence in the courts of appeal in terms of what courts have done with this later in time history and how much emphasis they're putting on Reconstruction era history, and that's going to come up. I think in both of these cases actually.
Tell us about the argument of the plaintiffs.
It's really an argument for this contemporaneousness requirement as to nine twenty two G. Three. So the argument is that the historically correct way to think about this type of prohibition is that legislatures had the power to say if you are if you're actively under the influence of some intoxicating substance and you're you know, you're not acting in your right mind at that point in time, you can
be prohibited from having guns. But otherwise just sort of evidence that you may have used drugs in the past isn't enough, And I think that's what they're going to say here. There probably also will be a lot of back and forth about how much work these other facts are doing. You know, the connection to the terrorist organization, you know, that shouldn't really be relevant. But I think
what's happened. You mentioned the Hunter Biden case. You know, the federal government doesn't charge this provision a lot, so they tend to charge it in sort of egregious cases. Do you know Hunter Biden, he's not just somebody who's using marijuana and happens to have a gun, he's going out and writing a memoir where he admits it to
this type of product. So I think, you know, there will be some discussion of the sort of how the provisions actually used, with the government maybe saying, look, we're not intending to really bring this type of charge, you know, if somebody's just without any aggravating circumstance occasionally using marijuana.
The court did uphold a federal law that bars guns for domestic abusers, even though there was no such domestic abuse law on the books at the nation's founding. Do you think that that's where they're going with this, That they took this case to reverse the Fifth Circuit and find the ban constitutional.
Yeah, so my best guess is that they did that. They took it tending to reverse the Fifth Circuit. I think actually the calculus might have been influenced by the earlier grand in Wolford, which we can maybe talk about. But yeah, I expect them to reverse and I think it could be close to unanimous decision again resting on this facial versus as applied issue, which was a similar issue in the Rahemi case. Right where they're sort of getting these cases with bad facts and saying, look has
applied here, this provision's okay. But we're not necessarily going to say that the unlawful user ban is okay if somebody is just a medical marijuana user and has a gun. So that would be my guest that Dell reverse here.
The joys of originalism, which is for another day, but anyway, coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this conversation with Andrew Willinger of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. The Supreme Court will also consider a Hawaii law over the right to carry. I'm June Grosso and
you're listening to Bloomberg. The Supreme Court's conservative super majority has expanded the right to bear arms starting in twenty twenty two, with the landmark Ruined case holding the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun in public. The test the Court established was that any restrictions of firearms must be consistent with the national history and tradition. The lower courts have been struggling with that test, and the Supreme Court is taking up two gun cases this
term that may help to clarify the test. I've been talking to Andrew Willinger, the executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. The court earlier this month also agreed to hear a challenge to Hawaii law that prohibits people from carrying guns onto another person's private property without that person's consent, And in this case, the Trump administration is backing the challengers to the law.
Yeah, so this law is part of a group of states, you know, the the year or two after that Bruined decision that we talked about in twenty twenty two, which set out this new test and also ruled that discretionary concealed carry permitting was unconstitutional. So, in other words, basically said that states that had these stricter laws for determining whether somebody can have a concealed carry permit had to
relax them. And so the group of you know, six or eight states that had those laws, I think most of those states reacted ultimately by enacting new statutes. They got rid of the discretionary language, but they also instituted new application requirements and they restricted as relevant here, they
restricted where permit holders can carry their guns. So it's kind of this idea of recognizing, you know, we're going to have more people who get these permits, but you know, as a result, we want to limit where those permit holders can can carry. And so typically what these laws look like and what they look like in New York, California and then Hawaii was that they would have a long list of what's called sensitive places, so locations where
guns are absolutely prohibited. You can't carry your firearm in a school, a government building, and a courthouse and so on. And then a few states also did as a y did what you can think of it as switching the default rule for private property. So the default has always been and I think every state that you are allowed to carry a firearm onto private property unless you are
told otherwise. And that's when you think about businesses posting a sign that says no guns allowed, right, That's why they do that, because they have to specify if they don't want people to carry. But what these states have done is to say, we're going to flip that and we're going to make the default that no carry is allowed.
And if a business, for example, would like to allow a permit holder to carry their gun, they need to post a sign or otherwise say yes, you're allowed to do that, but as a default that they do nothing, a permit holder is not allowed to carry there.
So the Administration in its papers told the High Court that people could bring bicycles, roller skates, protest banners, muddy shoes, dripping umbrellas, melting ice cream cones into private stores without permission. Only if someone wants to carry a gun must he obtain express authorization under the arbitrary presumption that all property owners would view guns differently. It seems absurd to me to compare bicycles, melting ice cream cones, and muddy shoes with a gun.
Right, And there is at least some pulling on this that suggests that people do prefer more than fifty percent prefer the no carry default that depends. I mean, that's different as you might imagine for these laws to reach private property generally. So people are very strongly in favor, as you can imagine a rule that says, as a default is someone can't carry a firearm into my home. They're less in favor when it comes to private property that's open to the public, and they still are, but
it's closer. And that's what this case deals with, is private property that's open to the public, as you mentioned. So yeah, I mean, I think it's certainly true that the articles that you mentioned are very different. But under the Second Amendment cases and Ruin, the question is really simply whether this type of innovation, this specifically, is a new legislative intervention.
Right.
We don't have laws exactly like this anywhere in American history, because, as I've said, the default was always as a general matter, to allow guns to be carried. The question is whether there's nevertheless a tradition of some kinds of restrictions that could support this innovation.
The Ninth Circuit had ruled that nothing in the text to the Second Amendment or otherwise suggests that a private property owner, even owners who open their private property to the public, must allow persons who bear arms to enter. There was a contrary opinion from the Second Circuit, was.
It, Yeah, that's right on this specific question of flipping the default approach. There is a direct circuit split between the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, and the Second con Circuit found that New York could not do this under the Second Amendment. The Ninth Circuit says Hawaii can't. And it really comes down to a handful of historical
laws that are being parsed in these cases. There's some suggestion that there may be sort of anti poaching laws's laws that governed, you know, farms or plantations that you can't bring guns onto somebody else's land. But they may have gone broader than that in some instances. And so that's going to be the debate is exactly what types of private property those historical laws covered.
And Andrew, are they just going to look at the history and tradition of the states on the mainland, or are they going to consider the history and tradition specifically of Hawaii. Wear It's attorney said, Hawai has a long history of reasonable gun regulation dating back to the eighteen fifties, well before it was even a state. Is it why going to get credit for that or not?
Yeah, what you raised a very interesting issue, which is that, you know, Hawaii I think has been at the forefront of pushing back against this history and tradition approach and by the Supreme Court, so that the Hawaii Supreme Court had a decision in a case called Wilson I think maybe a couple of years ago where they really took some shots at the Supreme Court and said you know, look, this is not how we do things in Hawaii. We're rejecting this history and tradition approach. You know, this is
not consistent with the spirit of aloha. And so I think that's that's kind of in the background here, a little bit of Hawaii, you know, really feeling like like they shouldn't be constrained by what the Supreme Court is saying and doing in the Second Amendment context. But as the Bruin test has been applied, I think the inquiry is is it's not Hawaii specific, right, and the courts that have dealt with these challenges haven't treated it that way.
They're looking generally at the national historical tradition and seeing if they can find any type of analogous restriction in this.
They're not challenging the parts of the law that banned firearms and so called sensitive locations like government buildings, public parks and beaches, etc. Why not challenge at all.
What we saw in this case below is that the court kind of split the difference with some of these sensitive place bands. They upheld some of them, they reversed some of them. I think this is a strategic choice by the plaintiffs that they think that this private property rule is their best shot. It's one where we've seen some more liberal judges at the circuit level have some suspicion about it, and so I think that's why they've
chosen to focus on it. But I do believe that the sensitive place question, it will be really important to sort of watch how it's influencing the justices thinking in this case, because you could imagine I think even some of the liberal wing of the Court being maybe okay with reversing the Ninth Circuit here if the sort of payoff of that, or the trade off is that you get a statement from the Supreme Court saying it's okay under the Sensitive Places doctrine to ban guns in a
lot of different locations, right, but you just can't do the private property switch. So there's kind of some hydraulics there where I wonder whether that's going to be going on behind the scenes. Frankly, you know, it may be that we get something, you know, in the opinion that says, you know, look, this is not casting doubt on sensitive place laws even outside of the limited categories the Court has already recognized.
I do think that the oral arguments in these cases are going to be interesting. Thanks for joining me, Andrew. That's Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. 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 podcas cast slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg