This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
President elect Donald Trump is scheduled to be sentenced this Fronde for his conviction on criminal charges in the New York hush money case. A jury convicted him back in May of thirty four felony counts in a scheme to hide hush money payments to a porn star during his
twenty sixteen campaign, so clearly before he became president. The conviction made Trump the first US president, whether sitting or former, to be convicted of a crime, and now he's basically trying to erase the conviction so that he doesn't become the first felon to be sworn in as the president
of the United States. Both the New York trial judge and an appellate judge have refused to put off his sentencing based on his arguments that a president elect is entitled to the same sweeping immunity that a sitting gets. So now Trump is going to the Supreme Court, which
has been friendly to his claims of presidential immunity. He's asking the justices to intervene in the state hush money criminal case to prevent his sentencing from going forward quote, the Court should enter an immediate stay of further proceedings in the New York Trial Court to prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency and the
operations of the federal government. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson, who's been covering all the proceedings in New York and there have been many Eric tell us about Trump's latest filing with the Supreme Court.
So late last night, his lawyers filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking for a stay of the sentencing hearing that is scheduled for Friday morning here in Manhattan. So this was sort of a fast track, sort of unexpected that he was going to go this quickly to the Supreme Court. But earlier a New York appellate judge in Manhattan had agreed with the trial judge and that
the sense things should go forward. So with that ruling, he went ahead and went straight to the Supreme Court to request a stay while he continues to press his appeal in New York State Court.
So what are the grounds for him asking the Supreme Court to step in.
So they're the same arguments that he made with the New York Appellate Court, and with the judge who oversaw the hush money trial, it is all about his interpretation of presidential immunity. Of course, that the broad legal doctrine that was expanded by the Supreme Court last year or in a different criminal case against Trump, where they held for the first time that former presidents have brought immunity from criminal charges related to their official conduct in office.
So even though this hush money case relates to his actions before he was elected in twenty sixteen, and even though he was tried convicted last year while he was just a private citizen, I mean, before he was even elected in the November election, notwithstanding all that, he argues that he's protected from this guilty verdict by the concept
of presidential immunity. He argues that having this verdict the hanging over him would undermine his authorities and his credibility with world leaders and things like this, all of the reasons that the Supreme Court has previously granted this kind of immunity to presidents to begin with, to make sure that the office of the presidency is powerful and protected and whatnot. Clearly that is not how the Manhattan District Attorney sees it, and that's also not how the judge
thought or the appellate judge who ruled against him. Will see what the Supreme Court thinks. But for now, he's saying that even though he's just president elect, this immunity should be extended to him.
The judge in this case has already said that he's not going to sentence him to time or probation or anything. It's sort of like a formality, but it will put on the record that he's been convicted of felonies.
It's an unconditional discharge, is what Judge Murchon called it. It means that, you know, because of these unusual circumstances with a defendant being convicted but then winning a presidential election before being sentenced, the judge went ahead and said, look, I'm not actually going to sentence you to any time behind bars, or probation or a fine or anything. He's getting an unconditional discharge, which means zero penalty other than
having the conviction remain intact. But it's that that Trump wants to stop from happening. He doesn't even want that hanging over him, you know. His lawyer also made the argument that the appellate judge said was pretty weak. But his lawyer did argue that there's always the chance that Judge Mrchan could backtrack and sentence him to time in prison, even though he said he wouldn't. But the judge didn't
really buy that argument. You know, if this this thing goes ahead on Friday, clearly Trump is not at any.
Risk of going to jail, and he doesn't have to even be at the sentencing, right, that's right.
Jes Mareschawan told him that he had the option to appear virtually according to court papers, Trump is already indicated that that is what he would do.
What's unusual here.
One unusual thing is that normally you have to wait until a case is litigated in the state courts before you go to the Supreme Court.
And in this case, he's still appealing to the Court.
Of Appeals, right, right, He does plan to continue to press the appeal through the New York state court system. He did say in his filing with the Supreme Court last night that he was filing a similar petition for a state simultaneously with the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York. We couldn't verify that that had been filed. In fact, the court that it hadn't been, but it seems that Trump is at least planning to file something there to sort of connect the
dots to the Supreme Court, as it were. But clearly time is of the essence and Trump's view, that's what they've said all along here, So that might be one of the reasons why they just trumped straight to the Supreme Court. Of course, Trump is due to be inaugurated just ten days after this sentencing hearing exept for Friday.
Right now, since the Second Circuit is in the purview of Justice Sonya Soto Mayor, she's asked the Manhattan District attorney for papers.
That's right. She directed Alvin Bragg, the district's attorney, to respond to Trump's filing by tomorrow morning. So we would expect, or we hope, that we'll get some ruling from the Supreme Court by tomorrow night. Given that the sentencing hearing is happening Friday morning, it would.
Take five Supreme Court justices to grant to stay. In the case, of course, there were six justices who voted to give him that broad presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. And another point is that it's Trump that's been asking for these delays in sentencing.
It's been the.
Strategy of delay, delayed, delay, and now that he's been elected president, he doesn't want to just delay the sentencing.
He wants to eliminate the sentencing.
That's right. That's one of the points that the appellate judge made at the hearing yesterday. She said that, you know, this timing was so inconvenient for Trump that he should have gone ahead and went through with the sentencing earlier. It's been delayed at least a couple of times, and the most recent delay was as a result of the election, but it could have happened months before the election, so that that is a strong argument in favor of the prosecution.
But you know, Trump has had good luck with the Supreme Court in previous arguments around presidential immunity, so it's impossible to know how much weight they'll give that particular argument exactly.
And he has been using that controversial ruling on presidential immunity to try to get this New York hush money conviction thrown out, but the judge has denied his motions twice.
So there's really two separate orders from Judge Marschan that Trump is appealing that both relates to presidential immunity. The first decision was from December, when Judge Mrshan rejected Trump's argument that presidential immunity ruling from the Supreme Court undermines
the verdict. He claims that the trial itself had been painted by witness testimony and other evidence that would not have been allowed at trial if that Supreme Court standard on presidential meunity had been in place, which it wasn't.
It wasn't handed down until a few months later. So this is attorney argues that no, whatever evidence might have been disallowed under that standard wouldn't have effected the outcome of the verdict, that the remaining evidence was so strong, And then indeed that's what the judge agreed and ruled against Trump on that. The other argument was the sort of broader argument that the judge ruled earlier this month, you know, rejecting Trump's argument that the broad presidential immunity
extends to a president elect. That was the bigger argument, Trump, that I won the election. Therefore, this whole criminal case should be thrown out, including the jury's verdict.
This is the only case that went to trial.
And the only prosecution really that that has been successful against Trump.
He's he's managed to.
Get rid of the federal cases and the Atlantic case is also in doubt.
Right, So the Atlanta case is still hanging out there, although it's definitely in limbo. It's suffering its own problem. But the two big federal prosecutions of Trump, they were both dropped by the Justice Department after Trump won the election, simply because of the long standing policy of not prosecuting a sitting president. They knew that the cases wouldn't be able to proceed trial while Trump was in office, and
therefore they dropped those charges. But even before he won, that case over the twenty twenty election was significantly narrowed during that Supreme Court decision that we discussed, where they gave him broad immunity from criminal charges over anything related to his official conduct. But yeah, the presidential immunity doctrine is very broad, and that's why those two criminal cases
were dropped by the Justice Department. That's also while he'll argue to have that Georgia State case, which is also over the twenty twenty election, will argue to have that one tossed out as well. But like they said, that case is already suffering from it from his own problems because the prosecutor was thrown out of the case by an appealed court over an affair she was having with an investigator. So totally separate drama.
From a purely legal perspective.
It's going to be fascinating to see what the Supreme Court does here.
No one really knows what's going to happen, but it could be an interesting test to see how far the Supreme Court is going to go to help Trump out even before he takes office.
Well, at least this should be resolved quickly one way or the other. Thanks so much, Eric, That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. Net neutrality appears to be dead after a Court of Appeals ruling deals a blow to the FCC. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. After decades of fighting, it appears that the battle over net neutrality rules is over.
The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has acts the Federal Communications Commissions net neutrality rules, saying the agency didn't have the authority to issue the rules. The decision demonstrates the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling in June doing away with the Chevron doctrine and holding that
judges shouldn't yield to agency's readings of unclear laws. Joining me is Christopher You, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Carrie Law School who's written extensively on administrative and telecommunications law. Will you start by explaining just what net neutrality is.
Net neutrality is a political fight that's been going on since the early two thousands. On the one side are people who believe that ISPs provide Internet service to homes and businesses shouldn't exercise any editorial control over the content
that they provide access to. Opponents of network neutrality argue that in the modern Internet, it has become important for ISPs to filter certain content, sometimes for security reasons, sometimes to avoid spam and unwanted content, sometimes to enforce copyright laws, but it can also be to provide a more refined and tailored service to customers who want increasingly more diverse
offerings from the Internet. So, for example, online gamers are extremely sensitive to delay, and they may want content that's prioritized over other content. Another example is if you're on your cell phone and you're taking a voice call. If you're in a low bandwidth spot, you might want the system to hold your email and continue to give you your voice call to make sure that you get good quality voice communications, and the fact that you have to wait for your email is not a big deal.
So the Sixth Circuit rule that the FCC doesn't have the authority to issue the net neutrality rules?
What did they base their determination on?
The Sixth Circuit basis determination on a Supreme Court decision that change the rules that courts will use to determine the legality of an agency's interpretation of a statute. Before this decision Loperbrite, which the Supreme Court rendered in June twenty twenty four, courts tended to defer to the agency's interpretation of the statute. That is, as long as it was reasonable within the broad range of possibility, courts would
accept the agency interpretation. And on the basis of this principle, we've seen agencies flip flop and their interpretations of the legality of net neutrality rules, saying that initially that they should adopt a more deregulatory approach starting in two thousand and two, then changing in twenty ten to a more regulatory approach, then back to a more deregulatory approach in twenty eighteen, and back to a more regulatory approach in
twenty twenty four. And what the Supreme Court held is that this sort of flip flopping is inconsistent with the rule of law, inconsistent with the role of courts and agencies, and is actually hurting consumers and people who have to comply with law by creating a great deal of uncertainty. And after June twenty twenty four, instead of deferring to agency interpretations, courts are supposed to exercise their own judgment as to the best reading of the statute and apply that.
And that's what the Sixth Circuit did.
Is it the fault of.
The FCC for flip flopping on its.
Readings of the statute?
The Court said, applying low or bright means we can and the FCC's vacillations.
The fact that the FCC was vacillating on the right interpretation of the statute when deciding whether to apply that neutrality isn't really the fault of the FCC. In fact, that complied with the law that existed at the time. The decision that called for courts to defer to agency decisions that's called Chevron and has been in place since nineteen eighty six explicitly recognized that agencies are likely to
change their minds and in fact endorse that idea. So what the prior regime envisioned is that vrocations of statutes were policy decisions, and just like say, for example, foreign policy changes with the advent of a new administration, we would expect this degree of policy to change as well. The problem the Supreme Court had with that is statutes aren't policy. Statutes are law, and the change of administration does not involve the change in the statute or change
in the law. It's a change in the interpretation of the law. And that opens the door to the claim that interpreting law is policy, not lawmaking. And that's where the Supreme Court said, we don't do that anymore. If you want to change the statute, you need to actually amend it. It's not open for reinterpretation just because someone else occupies the White House.
Lober Bright said that prior decisions that relied on that doctor the Chevron doctrine still have binding power, starry decisives. How did the Sixth Circuit get around that?
The issue you're raising has been around owned with us since certainly the days of the war in court. I mean to give you a simple example. Gideon versus Wainwright announced that all criminal defendants must be provided with defense counsel provided by the government. And you know we had never as a country it provided that to indigence. And it raised a question, so does that mean every single conviction going back to the beginning of the Republic was
inherently suspect? And what the Supreme Court has developed is a doctrine which is, we will apply our best understanding of the law to all cases that are ongoing, but to cases that are final. We're not going to overturn
convictions going back hundreds of years. So the real question is, in a particular matter, if the courts have resolved the issue, the Supreme Court said, we will not disturb that decision, but for new matters involving cases that are still ongoing or cases that are newly submitted, they will apply a
new set of principles. Here, every prior decision about net neutrality regarded a different net neutrality order either the declaratory judgment in two thousand and two or orders in twenty ten, twenty fifteen, twenty eighteen, and all of those have been resolved under law, and all of those decisions are now final.
The decision in front of the Sixth Circuit involved a order that came out of twenty twenty four that had never been resolved or addressed by a court, and as a result, it was still a live issue, and under the Supreme Court's guidance, the Sixth Circuit applied the current rules that have been placed ince June twenty twenty four to address the legality of the twenty twenty four action.
So all they're saying really is that we're not going to upset the decisions regarding the twenty ten, twenty fifteen, twenty eighteen orders. We are going to look at the twenty twenty four order with new eyes under the Supreme Court's current rules for how courts should evaluate agency interpretations of the statue.
Does this decision end the legal battle over net neutrality rules? Brendan Carr, who Trump has named as an incoming FCC chair, has been a strong critic of net neutrality.
So is this the end the Sixth Circuit decision most likely ends the controversy over the legality of net neutrality. The parties who support the twenty twenty four order that the Sixth Circuit overturned could still appeal the issue to the Supreme Court, and so there remain some possibility that there will be further review of the Sixth Circuit decision.
But honestly, having clorked on the court myself and having some experience in how they operate, my guess is that this is not likely to be the kind of case that they take. It doesn't bear the kinds of conflicts between different courts and different parts of the country that has been the hallmark of the types of cases the Supreme Court takes.
Theseis as far as lowbribright.
In general, are the courts around the country interpreting the decision there differently, are their conflicting decisions out there?
There are no conflicting decisions on the net neutrality order, And in fact, the parties who litigated that case before the Sixth Circuit are now bound by that decision and are really obligated to follow it, so they're not really in a position to bring a new challenge to the
twenty twenty four order. From a broader perspective, the Sixth Circuit has taken the approach that gives it a great deal of latitude to deviate from prior judicial decisions that presented the same issue but arose from a different agency order. And that actually opens the door to a fairly broad scope of action for courts to revisit issues that had been adjusted by prior courts and hadn't been resolved now.
I don't think that's improper for the Sixth Circuit, and in fact, the Supreme Court, by changing the interpretive rules, expects there to be different outcomes. And in fact, if there was too little latitude for courts to apply their own judgment as to the best reading of the statute and instead to continue to defer to what agencies thought were the best reading, that would actually create a very little room for the kinds of changes in law that
the Supreme Court has called for. And it's during twenty twenty four decision. I think the Sixth Circuit's opinion, while one of the first to address this issue, is likely to be borne out by further decisions in the future.
And do you.
Think that we're going to see more federal regulations at the FCC and other agencies followed out or you know, disregarded agencies.
Like the FCC are certainly facing a more challenging environment in which courts are likely to be more skeptical of the actions they take. The previous regime gave them deference and so therefore they had a pretty wide latitude to follow the policies that they preferred. Now they're going to have to justify their actions a bit more specifically, and that's going to represent a clear challenge to them.
There have been fights over net neutrality for decades. Does it seem odd that now this one court is going to put the whole issue to rest.
Courts have to decide close cases all the time, and even if it's a very very narrow issue, they generally don't shy away from resolving those issues, and I think that sort of characterizes what's going on with net neutrality. I think there are good arguments on both sides. I personally agree with the way the Six Circuit resolve the issue, but I understand why other people feel differently. The bigger issue that the Supreme Court addressed is to eliminate the
possibility or in this case, the net neutrality. The reality that we saw what was the laws flip flop every time the White House changed party. And in fact, many people would say, if there's a close issue, we're better off having courts resolving it once on the best terms it can and then letting that interpretation stand until Congress
sees fit to amend it or not. The world in which we're in where we saw policy flip flop multiple times, is not one that's conducive to creating great Internet connectivity or to creating stable expectations for consumers and Internet users to understand what they're getting. And so, in fact, I think that the fact that there are tough cases is not a reason for courts to shy away from making
tough decisions. It doesn't justify allowing judicial decisions to change back and forth with the political wins.
Thanks so much for joining me on the show. That's Professor Christopher You of the University of Pennsylvania carry Law School. Coming up next, a new Jersey decision turns the tables on the move to kill DEI programs.
This is Bloomberg.
The First Amendment right of free association has led to court rulings allowing a gay softball league to strike straight guys from teams, lineups, student groups to bar their doors to members who disagree with their mission, and even some religiously affiliated employers to fire workers who support abortion rights, while a new Jersey Appeals Court ruling is turning the tables by saying that the reverse is true as well, and that private organizations can also deliberately include certain people
in their groups. It's the first decision of its kind in the country. A counter to the movement to kill diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Joining me is Alex Ebert Bloomberg Law Senior correspondent who's written about this. Tell us about this new Jersey decision that turned the tables on the movement to n DEI programs.
So this decision is groundbreaking and that it flips in away. The Supreme Court's ru is that groups can discriminate when they pick their leaders, and the new Jersey Court is saying, well, if you can discriminate when you pick your leaders exclude people, that means you can discriminate to include people as well.
If you're going to get to pick the leadership that will guide your group and enforce your values, like let's say the boy Scouts of America can when it excludes certain people, then that means that you can include specific people for specific leadership position that essentially is DEI.
And this had to do with a bar association.
It did. Yeah, so bar association litigation is popping up all over the country. You have conservative and libertarian groups in particular, bringing cases against DEI work that bar associations are doing. They're going to sue over leadership spots, over programs for particular attorney groups, and basically anything that sort of looks at race, gender orientation, things like that in order to elevate particular jorneyes that have maybe been disadvantaged
in the past. That's what happened here. New Jersey for many years has had a program where they reserve at large leadership positions on committee is for people that are certain disadvantaged groups. So you'll see black lawyer positions reserved. You'll see positions reserved for women, for people that are elderly, for people with disabilities, for people in the LGBTQ community.
And this lawsuit was saying, hey, what you're doing is violating this really powerful New Jersey loginst discrimination.
So now you're right.
It all comes back to one of the first amendments extremely undervalued benefits, the right to tell people to get lost, tell us about some cases in that arena.
Yeah, absolutely so. An undervalued part of the First Amendment is this power to associate with people that you want to right. This boils down to if you're starting a club, if you've got a group, you've got the right to association. You can't be forced to join up with people that
you don't want to hang out with. Now, courts have interpreted that as saying student groups can bar the doors to students that don't agree with their value system, or certain religious employers can exclude from job positions people that are for abortion rights. Or you can have a court say, hey, this case, softball league doesn't have to put into the
lineup straight players. And it boils down to this First Amendment right that if you want to exclude people because you want to create a community, you get to do that if you're a private organization.
To what does in perspective, where have we seen suits against DEI programs.
So we've seen lawsuits against DEI pop up across the country. We've seen them against the American Bar Association, We've seen them against the Wisconsin Bar. We've seen a lot of activity around the even places without lawsuits, including Florida, where the STAKEHOURT system has basically done a one to eighty on being very pro DEI for certain years, and then now they're removing THEI entirely, both from the way it communicates to its members and from the way it spends
money and organizes groups. So you've seen this issue pop up across the United States, from big states to even tiny ones like West Virginia, where there's a new lawsuit challenging an at large member of a leadership community for a.
Lawyer that is black bars from Wisconsin to Florida. Are they rolling back diversity programs and also you see corporations rolling back diversity programs. Are they doing that because they're afraid of a lawsuit or are they doing that because the law has changed.
I think it's a little bit of both. Jude. So if we think about it, sometimes they're under the gun of a lawsuit to alter programs, and sometimes they'll say that their changes of programs won't reduce the ability, you know, for groups to access certain benefits. But then there's some states like Florida which are proactively doing this. They have a more conservative judiciary that the Santus has put in place and they're rolling back things and they have been
for several years even without litigation in their state. So it really depends on whether or not the impetus is coming from the judiciary and the judges, or if it's coming from a conservative or libertarian oriented legal community that is set up with DEI and wants to see it gone.
This case is being appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Where does that court stand as far as being conservative or liberal.
So we've done big stories on the New Jersey Supreme Court recently, and I've even spoken with you in the past on this where the court is extremely tough to gauge. They have unwritten rules which require partisan balance for lack
of a better term on it. So it's unclear. But the Bar itself is a very pro DEI and it has been running this kind of program with a large seats for decades and only recently was their legal challenge brought against it, something that's kind of been in place for a long time, and the bar has been expanding.
So we see the appeals court here potentially keying up a broader fight before that New Jersey Supreme Court about whether or not their state judicial system, which is one of the largest by attorney number in the country, will allow this sort of minority participation.
Benefit and explain the difference between private organizations and DEI and public organizations.
Yeah, there's going to be nuanced differences between a lot of these, right. The key thing here is that bar associations are often private associations. They're the same thing is you know, if you have a club that supports your local river cleanup, or if you have, you know, a
big national organization like the NRA. You know, these people get to pick who's on their leadership board based on the value systems that they hold deer right, so that into a value system for the New Jersey State Bar Association, which is liberal and has had d programs for a
long time. It might be different than a bar association somewhere else, but that is different from a corporation right where you have federal accommodation and employment laws that prohibit outright quotas or discrimination in that way, or a government organization where you have the same thing. You know, the government can't discriminate, but if you're a private group. If you're just an association, then yeah, you can pick your leadership.
Hard to believe it's been twenty four years since the Supreme Court ruling the Boy Scouts case. Remind us what that ruling was about and the impact it's had.
The ruling was really, at its bottom about the power of the First Amendment for groups to tell other people to get lost. You know, if you want to pick the people that are at the top of your organization, they're going to be communicating to the public, they're going to be showing your values. You really get to choose who that is. And the Conservative Justices they laid down this line in a five to four decision that private groups like the Boy Scouts of America can exclude Scout
masters who are gay from their organization. That lawsuit was brought under the new Jersey log and discrimination. This very same anti discrimination suit that is being levied against the State bar right now, And the Justice has said, listen, you know the New Jersey logins discrimination. Sure it's broad, but you know it can't go this far when it
deals with private association. So in the twenty four years since then, you haven't seen this flipped in the same way as much, and it looks like it's an opportunity for progressive groups to use this conservative court's opinion to lean into di to do more to pick the leaders that they want in positions to communicate their values to the public, and that could mean adding more people of different gender identities or you know, people of color to
board positions and leadership positions. I think that it comes down to this general thing that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So the question with discrimination with private groups, right, is if you get to discriminate by telling people they can't come in, how far are you able to use that to say only certain
people can come in for this particular job. We're going to see an appeal of this case the New Jersey Supreme Court, and it's still an open question how far that First Amendment is going to protect this novel theory.
Let's turn to another interesting legal issue. The North Carolina Supreme Court has blocked the certification of reelection for one of its own sitting justices.
Tell us about this.
We had a big decision out of North Carolina yesterday and we also have the development today the North Carolina Supreme Court decided to pause the certification for votes given to Alison Riggs, who's a sitting member of that very court. A challenger of hers, the Republican, who's down roughly seven hundred votes, brought up claims to the state's election board that there should be about fifty six thousand voters excluded, and they're both not counted. Those voters were different groups.
Old voting requirements in the state didn't necessarily mandate that a voter would have the driver's license number or their Social Security number logged with the state to register. Since that sign things have changed and the state isn't going to hold you know, that against particular voters. They're not going to exclude them after the fact because of that. There's also issues dealing with overseas voters, where the Republican claims that, you know, these folks never actually came to
North Carolina, so they shouldn't be considered residents. You know, they might be army brats that were born at base or things like that, or just living abroad. And then there's a se with service members overseas sending in their ballots and his claims are that several hundred of these perhaps thousands didn't include photo copies of their ideas that are necessary under North Carolina law. The state election board said, no, we're not going to move forward with this. The vote
should be certified, and the Republican challenger sued. His name is Judge Griffin, and he sued first in state court and then state appeals Court and then the state Supreme Court. That was taken out to federal court by the Justice, and the North Carolina Supreme Court took it back yesterday they decided that they were going to put a pause
on certification for that election. And today Justice Riggs, who recused herself from the decision yesterday, she's now appealed that to the Fourth Circuit asking them to say, no, we're going to introject ourselves here. We're going to demand that the state certified.
That's crazy stuff.
It is in it. It raises a whole most of really interesting state and federal constitutional issues.
So if you were to.
Exclude these votes, does that mean that you now have treated voters desperately because all of the other races that were impacted by these votes weren't excluded. So does that mean local races have to get toss you know, county states other statewide races are impacted because the challenger here is only asking them to be tossed in this one case, and that raises federal constitution issues, you know, for equal treatment and equal protection.
You'll have to come back Alex to tell us what happens in this case. Thanks so much.
That's Alex Ebert, Bloomberg Law Senior Correspondent, 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