Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. There is an exceptionally important Supreme Court decision this morning, and we are so honored to bring you Nick Ackerman. I can't say enough about his public service to the nation. He's been around the block, like public service to the nation during Watergate, and of course is many years in prosecution and law with department from Harvard. I should say along the way, Nick,
we are honored you're with us today. The President must be upset at this Supreme Court decision where they reject President Trump on US aid foreign aid freeze. And what's important here in a close vote is John Roberts and Amy Cony Barrett joined the liberals against Alito, Thomas Gorsach and Kevanaugh. Did you expect this partition of Trump conservatives on the Court.
I'm kind of been expecting it. I mean, Amy Conan Barrett and John Roberts have gone off on their own on several items. I would have thought that Kavanaugh would
have gone along with this too. I mean, he does have an opinion from the days he was on the DC Circuit making it pretty clear that when you get down to Article I powers, that is the power of the purse that Congress has to disperse money separate from the executive branch, which is a section two of the Constitution, who has to carry out those orders from the Congress.
And this was a pretty significant decision because there are a lot of decisions court cases out there now contesting the idea that the Trump administration can simply not pay certain monies, doesn't have to disburse the funds. But keep in mind that this one really related to monies that were already owed on certain contracts that have already been performed. So the question is, how is this going to relate to other situations where the contracts have not yet been
performed and they're holding back money. I kind of think the principle is the same, but we'll have to see.
Greg Store at Bloomberg expert on this would go to the complexities with you, I'll keep it simple. There seems to be, whatever anybody's politics, a statement that the legislative branch of the United States of America.
Is missing an action.
Is this the kind of court case that could be a clarion call to Capitol Hill to get their act together?
Absolutely? I mean this ought to make them realize that they are just giving up their powers. They're seating their powers to Donald Trump. They might as well not even show up for work. What's the point if what they wind up appropriating and what they wind up passing can just be ignored by the president? Makes no sense? Yeah, I think this ought to get some people off their duffs.
Does this essentially clear the way for lower courts to continue proceedings in the dispute?
Sure? I mean this is the lower court will continue, They'll be looking at other situations like this. I think the litigans there will be bringing up other situations where money is being withheld. But I think this kind of gives the green light to the district courts all across the country that are considering other aspects of this same issue how to come out on this.
So what do you think next is in the timeline as all of this unfolds.
Well, I got to tell you, it's very hard to be able to predict that there are now over ninety five cases lawsuits that have been filed across the United States that relate to the firings of government employees that relate to monies being withheld. It is very hard without a giant scorecard and to know exactly where every case is at any particular time to know what's going to be next. All I can say is buckle your seat belts.
Things are going to be happening, and they're going to be happening more quickly over the next couple of weeks.
I brought Wizard White up the other day, the wonderful gentleman from Colorado, acclaimed athlete, and he was supposed to be this kind of judge and he wasn't. And then there's third grade Marshall, who I think we could all say was predicted to be a certain kind of judge and he was. And then Nick Eckermann. It gets a little confusing. John Paul Stevens, maybe there's a mystery there
as well. Certainly the great Moderate Anthony Kennedy. Can you identify the the complexities of this nine seat Supreme Court?
Can you?
Can you do that? Or is it as stark as the media makes it.
I don't think it's as stark as the media makes it. First of all, you've got John Roberts, who is a traditionalist, and I think if there's anybody who's going to stand up for the difference between Article one and Article two in the US Constitution. He's the guy to do it, Amy Conan Barrett. Turns out she is a very thoughtful independent justice. She is not going the way of the others on many issues. I thought on some things. For example, that issue that came up during the summer, well this
couple issues. One on on the immunity decision, she took a different tact in terms of holding she would have held that certain evidence would be admissible even if the president had immunity in certain situations, which would have contradicted on a good part of the Roberts opinion. She also came out on that obstruction charge that was used with the January sixth defendants, and was one of the few people on that court, including even the liberals, that recognize
that obstruction has been around for a long time. It started out with the courts, but this was something long in the coming able to actually broaden it to include Congress. So she's an independent thinker. I think she's one of those people that will stand up for the Constitution.
I think this needs to be said just meant because we lose track Chief Justice John Roberts nineteen and a half years and the Supreme Court Alito, the conservative nineteen years and the Supreme Court. I'd stunded at the statistic Soda Mayor and Kagan already fifteen years and fourteen years.
Time flies by right.
Alido and Robert's both appointed by former President George W. Bush. There, I was actually going through looking at this brief that was filed on Friday from the Supreme Court, and they were talking about it even if the government won. The brief said the administration would not be able to proceed with the funding freeze. Why would that be, Well.
There's no good reason for that. They can unfreeze that. Of course they can do that. It may take a couple of days more than may be some bureaucratic loopholes to jump through, but no, they can do that a couple of phone calls. I mean that is absolutely insane.
Yeah, I look, Nick, and to get one more questionnaire, we've got to go back to the markets as well. What's in store like every legal action that we report that Emery Harder and Joe Matthew and Katie Lanes talk about. Do you just assume they're all going to end up in the Supreme Court?
Well, I think the big items will this is this is a huge prince constitutional principle about who has the power of the purse and what the executive's job is is basically to faithfully execute the laws that Congress passes. So yes, I mean, I think you're going to find certain matters going to the Supreme Court like this that
will give some clarity and push back. But I think there's going to be a real tendency here with so many lawsuits out there and sit back, let the lower courts deal with these issues.
Nick Eckerman, thank you so much for giving us perspective today, Nick Eckerman, they're in a Supreme Court decision of five to four against the President of the United States.