This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. A jury of seven men and five women has been sworn in to hear Donald Trump's hush money case. One alternate juror has also been selected. That means five more alternates have to be selected to round out the panel that will decide the first ever criminal case against a
former US president. Jury selection got off to a slow start this morning after two previously sworn in jurors were dismissed, one because she expressed doubts about her ability to be fair and impartial after some of her personal information had been made public, the second because prosecutors told the judge they had information that the man was arrested in the
nineteen nineties for tearing down conservative political advertisements. Judge One Mreshan says he's hopeful the jury selection process will be wrapped up tomorrow and opening statements can take place on Monday. Turning down to legal news on the Supreme Court, the
facts are undisputed. James Snyder, the former mayor of a Northwest Indiana town, received thirteen thousand dollars from a trucking company one month after was awarded city contracts worth more than one point one million dollars in a bidding process he oversaw. Snyder was convicted by a jury of bribery, and then convicted by a second jury in a retrial.
But the Supreme Court, which has been having its own problems of late with unreported gifts to justices, seem to think that thirteen thousand dollars was like taking a teacher to the cheesecake factory as a thank you or buying a gift card to Starbucks. Here's Justice Neil gorsicch.
It can mean something more than that. It can mean a venal sin, It can mean a mortal sin. How does somebody who accepts the cheesecake factory no a trip to the cheesecake factory for nice treatment at the hospital, for treating my child well in school, for an arrest made? How does that person know whether that falls on the what you call the wrongfulness side of the equation or not.
For the Justices, the question was whether the bribery law covers gratuities paid after the fact or only covers bribes before the fact, meaning a tit for town agreement. Joining me to answer this question and others is business law professor Eric Tally of Columbia Law School Law School Eric. This case centers on the scope of eighteen USC. Six sixty six, a federal bribery law which has been in effect for a long time.
Oh yeah, this antibribery law has been around for a long time. There have been very many prosecutions under it and prior situations involving this that this has not been an issue. So it's no or at least it hasn't been thought to be at issue by the judges that are hearing these cases. So this is in some ways kind of a novel legal argument applied to a pretty old statue.
The law makes it a crime for certain state or local officials to corruptly accept anything of value over five thousand dollars. The word corruptly seemed to be a problem for the justices.
Yes, and the key issue on the question of corruptly seems to be, at least in part, circulating around a question of timing, and a lot of the Q and A during the oral argument was all about, you know, the timing of a payment that, let's just say, for argument's sake, exceeds five thousand dollars. But the hypotheticals that were being bandied about involved situations like taking someone out
to dinner at the cheesecake factory. I don't know if you've been to the cheesecake factory lately, but lately I've never run up anything like a five one hundred dollars bill of the cheesecake factory. So it wouldn't actually hit that status tarror threshold.
Well, Kavanaugh said, you don't know if the concert tickets, the game tickets, the gift card to Starbucks, whatever, where is the line? So there's that vagueness. I mean, are they really talking about a more than five thousand dollars gift card to Starbucks?
Super odd? I mean, just so of my or brought this up, but it ended up sort of, this question of corruptly ended up floating around in its own mist right, independent of the dollar amount. Look, a lot of times in these situations there will be either inside the statute or kind of a reasonable construction of statute, a judge will come in and say, listen, we're going to impose a you know, it's sometimes called a materiality threshold or a materiality test on some sort of suspect payment. And
the definition of materiality is itself. It's a little foggy. It usually circulates around and you know what a reasonable person think, this is a big payment that would change someone's judgment. But that has worked all over the place and all types of financial crimes and financial civil actions. Materiality is a very very common workhorse. That was oddly, it wasn't quite absent, but it seemed to be suppressed pretty far down the list in the oral argument.
Was there a division between the liberal and the conservatives, because, I know, Brett Kavanaugh at one point said that he was concerned about ensnaring the nineteen million state and local officials who are subject to the law, and then Alena Kagan chimed in that includes employees of public hospitals and universities. Was there a split ideological Well.
Yeah, maybe, or maybe not. Like usually you would think that Kagan is, you know, sort of coming down on plausibly different sides than Kavani is, though they're both a little bit more centrist in the approach that they have. You know, Atlanta Kagan put a hypothetical forward about providing some life saving you know, a university hospital deciding to provide some life saving operation or service to a billionaire in the hopes that they would later get a big
charitable donation to the university. Wouldn't that be a problem. So that much of the oral argument seems to devolve into like kind of a non stop set of hypotheticals, each somewhat more extraordinary than the others. And you know, that kind of is where the two lawyers had to go. Now, I think the lawyer for mister Snyder was quite happy to go there, because the entire theory on the case is it's just impossible to draw lines in this type
of a situation. And the government's attorneys pretty much had to say, now, line drawing is hard, but it's always hard, and the government's going to only, you know, bring these cases when it feels like it's a good case that's consistent with you know, public policy associated with the anti bribery Statute. But that itself, you know, at least to some judges and maybe to some observers, is a type
of assurance that's really hard to check later on. And so you know, I think, you know, the court is probably going to have to be forced into some sort of a line drawing exercise here. The big issue that was brought up in the case was in this particular scenario, and even Kavanaugh said the facts were really good for
the government prosecutors. In this case, a mister Snyder had had allegedly sort of rigged a contract bidding process when he was mayor of Portage, Indiana, and the company that won that bidding process he had been in consistent contact with, and then pretty shortly after the contract was awarded to them, they handed over a thirteen thousand dollars check, ostensibly for
consulting services to be provided in the future. And so the line drawing exercise between his administration of the bidding process and the thirteen thousand dollars check seems pretty direct. But the point that his attorneys were making, they were making quite vehemently at the court, is that, well, no, this would have to be payments that are made before the favor is granted and not after. And this came afterwards.
And there are too many hypothetical situations that would lead us on lawyers like to talk about slippery slopes to hell, and this was one, and that's what caused us to go into the dinner out of gratitude for your high school English teacher at the cheesecake factories. And is that a bribe.
So the government's attorney suggested that the government typically wouldn't prosecute fringe cases, but Chief Justice Roberts noted that in recent cases, the Court has been skeptical of prosecutors trust
us arguments. We've had several cases where we've made the very clear point that we don't rely on the good faith of the prosecutors in deciding cases like this, And that sort of came up in the argument for the January sixth obstruction charge, where the Solicitor General was arguing about how prosecutors would charge under that statute and they would require all these different elements. What are the justices afraid of here?
Well, I think there is a justified caution or skepticism about statutory authorizations that give prosecutors too much of a blank check and what they're going to go forward on and charge people with. If the check is too much of a blank check, then it's not inconceivable that political calculations may end up either entering or being perceived to have entered into a prosecutor's decision about whom to go
after and whom to leave alone. And so I think that that's part of what the Court has been trying to grapple with and you know, in fairness, there have been several high profile cases involving various types of applications of this and other anti bribery or anti corruption statutes
in which politics is pretty hard to ignore. There was a twenty twenty case that involved the infamous Bridgegate scenario in which Chris Christy was alleged to have had his subordinates closed down the GW Bridge in order to punish his political foes. And then the prosecution was brought at least allegedly for political reasons, sort of anti Chris Christy, anti Republican reasons, and the Supreme Court ended up actually reversing that conviction, but on kind of weird technical grounds
about what was motivating the these operatives. So they sort of found kind of maybe even unrelated fault reasons to reverse in some of these cases. And you know that maybe what is being put forward here this kind of idea that well, if the payment happens after the political
favor is given, then that can't possibly be corruption. That's a nice bright line rule, you know, as the government lawyers were bringing up, probably correctly, is that if if you established that as a bright line rule that will be kind of a gold embossed invitation for how you should structure corruption payments in the future. Right that, you know, you always have the political actor go first, wait some you know, requisite short amount of time, and then the
payment comes second. And you know, in some ways, the ease with which one could engineer around that type of a definition, I think it's going to make it difficult for a majority of the judges to ignore that as a kind of an obvious sort of response from the other side.
The Supreme Court over the years has made it harder and harder to prosecute politicians and other public officials for corruption, starting in twenty sixteen.
Right, Yeah, the skepticism goes at least back to a twenty sixteen case, and there have been several others, both at the federal level and the state level, and so there is on some level a little bit of a I guess it's sort of a trend here where the judges have become, i don't know, increasingly worried about the possibility that these antibribery or anti corruption statutes are being used for political reasons, and therefore, you know, they're trying
to carve back on them you know, I guess another factor of this is sort of almost a meta factor June, which is that one of the bodies of the federal government that has come under immense scrutiny recently is the Supreme Court itself for whether there are you know, friends of justices of the Supreme Court who bestow all kinds of valuable gifts on them out of friendship or for people they care about, and whether that itself is something
that should trigger at least suspicion, if not considerable hand ringing amongst people who are trying to regularly court. There's big separation of powers issues, and the Supreme Court itself basically decided to promulgate its own ethics guideline. But a
lot of people think it's somewhat toothless. It is not a subtle fact that Justice Thomas, who's been one of the people who's been at the center of this Maelstrom, decided not to even participate in the oral argument, but he is going to participate in the judgment through briefs and through reading the transcript. That was sort of an
odd decision that didn't really have much of an explanation. So, you know, I think all aspects of this are in some ways delicate, and I think the fact that the Supreme Court itself has gotten dragged a little bit into its own kerfuffles around when are expressions of gratitude that may have significant monetary value, when of the appropriate and when do they trigger considerations and concerns about corruption and bribery?
Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this conference as with Professor Eric Tally of Columbia Law School. How might the Justice's rule in this case? And Tesla's shareholders will be voting on that Elon Musk pay package that was thrown out by a Delaware court. This is Bloomberg. The Supreme Court seemed skeptical of another public corruption law.
The Justice has appeared likely to side with a former Indiana mayor convicted of receiving a thirteen thousand dollars bribe from a trucking company after it was awarded city contracts. I've been talking to Professor Eric Tally of Columbia Law School, and Eric, these public corruption cases are hard to prosecute, aren't they. You know, public officials and these kind of bribes, they don't leave notes or emails saying thanks so much for that. I was happy to.
Help you out. Yet typically they don't. There have been some cases in which, you know that have larga been overturned that sort of said, well, you have to have a written contract on bribery. I think everyone realizes that
that's an easy one to engineer your way around. So you have to demonstrate either a conversation or a set of conversations that establishes this understanding, or a set of patterns and practices of behavior whose only reasonable construction or interpretation would be Yeah, these folks are acting as though they are in a quid pro quo that they are recognizing through either their communicative acts or hard to misinterpret actions,
and that makes it tough. Right, everyone is on notice that this is an issue in involving any public official.
You know.
The possible irony about this case is if the court decides to go with this timing argument. I think it's unlikely,
but they might. Then in fact, it sort of sets up a formula in which the payment just gets made after the fact, and it's possible that people will just be much more upfront about it now that they know they've got a safe harbor, because they're not gonna We're gonna wait, you know, we're gonna set the alarm clock after the political favor and just wait for the payment until it's seemed to sit with it the Supreme Court process. That's one of the reasons why I doubt they're going
to go in that direction. It's it's not rocket science to predict that that would be a response to this kind of bright line rule that mister Snyder's lawyers were asking for.
What other way could they go considering their concerns about the Starbucks cards.
Yeah, I think that most of the absurd situations involved little perks that are kind of pocket change type perks, and that once things got large, including the five thousand dollars trigger in this situation, then that would be large enough to trigger not only the explicit trigger, but also a judicial interpretation that yes, this is large enough that
it could affect someone's judgment. And that's one of the reasons why I feel like the Court may well end up borrowing from a half dozen, if not more than a dozen other areas of you know, financial fraud and white collar crime that all sort of turns on materiality. So, for instance, if I decide I'm going to trade on inside information because I've gotten some kind of an insider tip that I'm not really authorized to trade on, but I trade one share and I make a buck seventy five,
that may not be prosecuted. Or if the nature of the information I've gotten is just not probabilistically as helpful as it might otherwise, be sure, it's inside information, but it's not material enough to matter, And that may end up being a helpful lever for the Supreme Court when they try to decide this case. If they don't go with the timing part, they're going to have to have some sort of a cutoff, and a materiality cutoff is
not a crazy place to put it. That's why you see it so many other areas of law.
Speaking of a buck seventy five, what's happening with Elon Musk and his Tesla pay package that was fifty six billion dollars.
Well, our friend mister Musk is definitely added again. It's not surprising that he has, you know, you know, basically been planning a formal response to his you know, pretty significant loss in the Delaware Chancery Court in January of twenty twenty four invalidating his at the time, fifty five fifty six billion dollar compensation contract. I think a lot of people were sort of betting on one of two
things to happen. One possibility is that he would, you know, wait for a final judgment and appeal, and there's every indication that he intends to do that. But another possibility is that, you know, having had his compensation contract thrown out by the judge because of a defective process by which it was approved both the board level and the shareholders, they've decided in a public filing they made the other day to go out to the shareholders and ask them
to quote ratify unquote his twenty eighteen package. And they've done so in kind of a clever way, but it effectively is trying to fix one of the infirmities in the in the that the package got approved. They're not really redoing anything at the board level, but they are going out to get a shareholder approval this time with full information because we've got a case out there and there's a long, copious disclosure about what the judge found
in that case. And I think that they are hoping that if they got a vote from their stockholders, they could either go back and try to use that on appeal or possibly say well, listen, we're just going to award once again a big options award to mister Musk because it's been authorized by the stockholders with their eyes wide open. And so that is going out to the to the stockholders of Tesla at the next annual meeting.
And they decided to include another thing, which is almost a direct channel from one of Elon Musk's tweets after the opinion saying, you know, we're going to reincorporate out
of Delaware and into Texas. Sure enough, that's another proposal is being put in front of the shareholders to reincorporate away from Delaware and into Texas with the thought, at least this is what's in the proxy materials, is that Texas is going to be a more friendly place and more predictable place to know what's going on in terms of corporate law and fiduciary duty lawsuits. Now, I will tell you June that you know this, this kind of
you know, possibility has been floating around for months. A lot of the you know, corporate law junkies that I run around with have been, you know, I've been sort of talking about this and these are folks that you know, they've been teaching corporate law for decades, and one of the things I always like to ask them is, quick, name your five favorite Texas corporate law cases. And usually people can get two, maybe three into that list, and
then they run out of it. The fact of the matter is Texas really doesn't have that much of an of a developed set of corporate law precedents, and the ones that they do have often a seek guy from guessware from Delaware. So it's kind of an odd situation
to make that statement to stockholders. Weirdly enough, there have been a whole spate of cases in Delaware that in which the judges seem to have been receptive to them, in which a shareholder says the very act of putting to the shareholders a vote to reincorporate itself can be a conflicted at a financially conflicted transaction, and therefore should be analyzed under exactly the same test that got used
to analyze Elon Musk's compensation contract. So there's a kind of an interesting meta story here, which is that both of these stockholder votes themselves might be thought of as independent new actions that each of each of which could be potentially challenged by stockholder litigation, and I have every reason to think at some point they will.
And this is pretty aggressive and nervy even for him, since he's laid off ten percent of Tesla's workforce.
Yeah, I mean, this is not the greatest time to be sort of selling the narrative that Tesla can do no wrong so long as Elon is at the helm, right, that was a pretty saleable story two or three years ago. And I think there were a lot more of the I don't know what to call them, the Elon stands that were basically going to, you know, back him under any circumstances. There are still many of those out there,
and many of them hold Tesla shares. But I think a lot of folks are looking at their portfolio and say, well, I went and really overweight in Tesla because I believed in Elon Musk and I guess I still do. But these these shares are not doing as well. And maybe I can tell myself a story that the whole reason they're not doing well is because, you know, Delaware is treating mister Musk, you know, poorly. But the fact of the matter is, if you're paying attention to the electronic
vehicle segment. You will realize that this is you know, this is definitely at least a correction within that segment. The you know, sales across the board have cooled, It's not just Tesla or sales cooled. And as a result, you know that you just can't expect this type of high velocity growth trajectory going forward, even under Elon Musk.
I think some people might might come to the really realization of and then at that point, if that's where you get in terms of thinking through this, well, then we've got a CEO who's you know, basically trying to claim a big chunk of stock of the company by basically resurrecting an options award that's been nullified, and wants to move the entire company to Texas, where we don't
really even know what's going to be going on. If you know, if if mister Musk, you know, decides to start using Tesla as more of a personal piggybag, so I could I could see some stockholders deciding that they've lost at least a little bit of faith in the Church of Elon Musk and and you know, deciding that they might want to at least play the field a little bit try to figure out, you know, whether they want to support one or both or neither of these
proposals that is going to be going before stockholders. One of the things that's interesting about this June is that a lot of times, you know, the stocks of companies are sometimes owned by big institutional investors and hedge funds, but then there are a lot of retail investors that you know, just own own stock because they're infatuated with the company, or it's part of some you know, other
sort of you know, highly highly tailored investment plan. Test had a lot of retail investors that people that just just individual rando people who just own the stock, and those are some of the hardest people to predict in terms of what their proclivities are going to do. So so you know that I can imagine that there may well be an activist who comes out and says, we got to vote against these things. I'm gonna you know,
I'm going to wage a contest against mister Musk. If that happens, it actually then then you know, if this becomes a contested vote, then it's not as easy for Musk and Tesla to collect votes from all these retail stockholders. You can't do it with an automated approach anymore. That you really kind of have to go through the formal
rules of engagement. So I think it might be it'll be really interesting to see if there is a stockholder out there who is willing to come forward and say, yeah, I don't think this is good, and I'm going to actually run a you know, a contested vote process to basically get this thing defeated or at least one of these two proposals defeated. You know, still early days and there's still some time to do that, but that could turn out to be a sort of an interesting.
Moment out of many interesting moments. Thanks so much, Eric. That's Professor Eric Talley of Columbia Law School. Four years ago, only the state of Arkansas had a ban on providing gender transition care for minors. Today, nearly half the states haven't acted such ban, and the Supreme Court has stepped into the culture war battle over transgender rights by allowing Idaho to enforce its ban on providing gender affirming care
for minors while litigation plays out. It was a six to three vote, with the conservative justices in the majority. And the liberal justices in the minority. Joining me is healthcare attorney Harry Nelson of Nelson Hardiman Harry. Four years ago, just one state had this kind of a ban on gender affirming care. Now twenty three states do. That seems remarkably fast.
I think this issue of gender affirming care has definitely been an activating issue, even say, an electrifying issue for voters for conservatives and you know, for voters on the right. I think that we've seen this issue as kind of an extension of this red blue divide and clearly something that is troubling a lot of people. And so yeah, it's definitely clearly gained them a more conservative approach.
Are there generally accepted or approved clinical guidelines for treating teenagers or youth with gender dysphoria.
So we've seen a significant shift going on around the world right originally to the whole you know, position in favor of gender firming care and essentially supporting you know, children and their parents at the year and younger ages to start receiving whether it's puberty blockers or other forms
of care. And we do see that the sort of research that's out there has raised questions we saw Just last month in England, the National Health Service said that it would stop prescribing puberty blockers to kids and that all gender firming care needs to be evidence based and
based on extra clinical opinions. So there definitely are two opposing camps, one sort of saying, wait, we don't have enough evidence to support this sort of transformative, radical care, and the other, you know, advancing civil liberty argument and an argument official harm to these children if they don't get gender or firming care right, that it tots them up for all kinds of mental health risks, for potential suicidality. So we have these really radically opposed camps and not
a great body of evidence. Frankly on either side.
Idaho's law seems pretty broad. It bars more than twenty treatments, including puberty blockers, and doctors and pharmacists who violate the law and face up to ten years in prison. Is that par for the course for these laws or is it broader than usual.
It's definitely in line with some of the other states of the stronger laws, I mean definitely. The approach of using criminal sanctions against physicians and pharmacists is in I believe most of the laws of these states that have banned this care.
This is a narrow question that's before the Supreme Court about temporary injunctions.
Right, Yeah, the Supreme Court essentially, you know, allowed this law to go into effect. It didn't decide anything with finale. It just said that Idaho was entitled to enforce this ban on gender firming care for minors except for the.
Two petitioners here. But the ACLU, which represents them, said that this won't protect the teenagers because medical providers won't risk triggering a law that could put them behind bars for a decade, and the teens would have to give up their anonymity, So it may not even help the two who are petitioning.
Right. By the way, I should say that the families here and the teens have an option of traveling out of state. Nobody, nobody can stop them from traveling to a jurisdiction that is allowing this kind of care. So what's at stake here is whether you can get this care in Idaho, which is a problem, but there still is an option to travel and get the care elsewhere.
Let's just say you have a family who can't afford to go outside Idaho for this kind of care. If the band goes into effect young people who are using the puberty blockers, let's say they have to stop, then puberty begins, So the question is sort of moot.
Then it certainly means that they're going to go through physical changes that are going to make them much more, you know, strongly appearing like males. Right Like, they're going to be bigger and thicker and have a male frame, male facial features. So it won't prevent them in the future from getting gender firming care, but it will make it harder for them to sort of have a transition
that's less noticeable. By the way, I think they're in addition to puberty blockets, I believe these two trans girls, who the stage is calling adolescent boys, were also receiving estrogen. So it's really both drugs in combination that we're at issue here.
So the Justice isn't the majority cast this less about the substance of the law than the reach of the district judges. Injunction Justice Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, there were two thirteen page opinions. They said that the High Court was trying to tackle what has become a nettlesome issue nationwide and statewide injunctions issued by a single judge on a major controversy. But they've been complaining about this
for years. Wow. Is it striking that they chose this case to, you know, draw a line in the sand.
It's a good question. I think what was striking about this case was it was a narrow jurisdictional question of, you know, what the power of Idaho was to put the law into effect, and what the power of the lower courts, the district court here is that, you know, found that these adolescents should continue receiving care to avoid
severe psychological distress. It's possible that it was practical in the sense that it was a narrow of jurisdictional issue of what the rights of the Idaho courts versus the Idaho legislature was, and not forcing the Supreme Court to go through the messy and controversial question of actually addressing the broader issue of the rights of parents, the rights of children, and this whole messy, sticky subject of how far we let children go what ages in receiving gender affirming care.
So Justice Katanji Brown Jackson running for herself, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor said this Court is not compelled to rise and respond every time an applicant rushes to us with an alleged emergency, and it's especially important for us to refrain from doing so in novel, highly charged and unsettled circumstances. I mean that the Supreme Court could have just ignored this, right, Yeah, you.
Really have two really profoundly different positions about what was protecting children and justice. Katangi Brown is definitely, you know, making a fair point that every time the Supreme Court takes one of these opportunities and weighs in, it is taking an aggressive position. It certainly would have been the more judicially conservative. It would have shown more restraints that just allow the lower court ruling to stand and not get involved here.
So this straightened me out on one thing. Is this I mean, is this before the Ninth Court of Appeals. Yet where does the case stand in the lower courts?
The lower court ruling was the ruling that basically had imposed a stay, meaning that the law wasn't going into a force because of the risk of your psychological distress, and the Ninth Circuit had affirmed. So this was essentially a reversal of the Ninth Circuit and the lower court in terms of allowing this slow to go into effect.
Praising the court's decision, Idaho's attorney general said the law ensurer's miners will not be subjected to life altering drugs and procedures. Quote. Denying the basic truth that boys and girls are biologically different hurts our kids.
You know, you're looking straight obviously, you know he's expressing the view that children are being exposed in American schools and just in our culture at this moment to a suggestiveness of the fact that they are born in the wrong body, or that they are a different gender than
the gender assigned to the biologically at perth. In a way, it mirrors the abortion issue, and that we have like deeply held fundamental beliefs about what it means to protect kids, right it is protecting kids preventing them from being at risk psychologically, or if tecting kids, preventing them from being exposed to the possibility of exploring whether this is something
that's appropriate for them. Clearly, you know, what we've seen is that on the right there's a growing body of people concerned that our schools and just all of the sort of messaging around kids is encouraging them to go down this path. But obviously his view is going to start representing half of the conversation.
Backing up your theory, there is the Christian nationalist legal organization Aligance Defending Freedom jumped into this to represent the state of Idaho, and they're the group that brought mif of Bristom to the Supreme Court.
Yeah, these issues have really become sort of really adjacent and related questions about, you know, the personal right of both the people who are experiencing and asking gender firming care and their parents versus these you know, traditional societal expectations and definitely with a certain religious quality to them. So I think this one personally is trigated because we have competing camps that in Europe, in the UK in particular, itching back on whether this is healthy and on the
fact that genderferming care can always be delivered earlier. What we're really fighting about is under eighteen, how young can we believe children and take their desire for gender ferming care and their parents support for it to be controlling of their decisions. I think these two questions are going to continue to be going hand in hand, reflecting this sort of way that the conversation is dominated by these fundamental views of personal rights, healthcare.
And the justices are deliberating behind the scenes on a set of a including one that's presented by the Biden administration in a Tennessee case. They don't seem unwilling to jump into culture war issues, but with the federal courts divided, the lower federal courts, it seems like it's something they should take up.
I would imagine that ultimately, you know, given the decision in the Dabbs case said we're leaving this to the state. We're not going to decide this issue at the federal level. It's logical to think that the Supreme Court would sort of align similarly and really leave this to the state. But I think we're going to find.
Out in the next year or two that timing seems just about right. Thanks so much, Harry. That's Harry Nelson of Nelson Hardiman, And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
to Bloomberg. Mhm