Hello, and welcome to the Votes and Verdicts podcast, hosted by the Litigation and Policy team at Bloomberg Intelligence, the investment research platform of Bloomberg LP on the Bloomberg Terminal. Bloomberg Intelligence has five hundred analysts and strategists working across the globe and focused on all major markets. Our coverage includes over two thousand equities and credits, and we have outlooks on more than ninety industries and one hundred market industries,
currencies and commodities. This podcast series examines the intersection of business policy and law, and today's our weekly check in on the litigation and policy catalysts that we're watching and that we think will impact companies and markets and sectors and industries. My name is Elliot Stein. I'm in analysts
with Bloomberg Intelligence covering litigation in the financial sector. I'm delighted as always to be joined by a handful of my colleagues from the Litigation and policy team here at BI. As a reminder, you can find all of our research on the Bloomberg terminal at BI go, and you can find all of our litigation and policy research on our dashboard which is available at BI laws Go. Today is
June twelfth. It's about one pm. And we always timestamp things because inevitably things happen quickly, and sometimes they happen as we're talking on this podcast. All right, So Nathan Dean, let's bring you in. Nathan is our chief policy analyst down in Washington, DC. He's been following the stable coin bill that seems like it's about to pass the Senate and eventually get to the President's desk. I guess pretty soon. Why don't you tell us what the latest is and what happens next.
Yeah, So last night, so Thursday night, Senator John Thune filed cloture, which means that's the first vote of several votes that ultimately ends up with this bill passing the Senate. And that vote went sixty eight to thirty. And just as a reminder, you need sixty to get past the filibuster. There were significant number of Democrats who came on board to vote for this, and so when the bill does come up for vote on Monday, we do think this bill is going to pass. And just as a reminder,
this is called the Genius Act. This bill would require stable coin issuers like Circle that have a greater ten billion dollar the market capitalization to register with either the Federal Reserve or the Office of the Control or the Currency. If you're under ten billion, you have to register with a state regulator, and you're required to have one hundred percent high quality liquid assets backing up your stable coin,
and you're not allowed to pay yield. And so you know, there was a lot of discussion in the stable coin community about whether or not they could pay interest. Under this bill, you were prohibited from paying yield. Now, I do think this is going to pass the Senate on Monday night. Then it goes to the House, and while the House could tinker with it, I don't think they will. I think they more likely than not just want to get this over the line, and the question on whether or not passes the House.
It should pass the House fairly easily.
The biggest issue has always been to pass the Senate, and that's something that I think you know now that it's the culture votes, and this is the second culture vote for what it's worth that has attracted enough Democrats to get above that sixty vote threshold.
So I think this passes probably.
Late June, but more likely early July, and then it goes to the regulators to implement their proposals. That would then, you know, for those of you with Bloomberg terminals come back. You know, we'll be writing about how that rulemaking process plays out. But if you're a stable cooid issue or you should be feeling pretty good right now. But the regulatory clarity that's coming down the line.
Did the House pass its own version before the Senate worked on theirs?
Yeah, so the House has their own version and that had a lit a little bit more technical differences between that and the Senate version, and I think for the sake of speed, and one of the bigger questions is this idea to pay yield. You know, there are some folks in Congress that think stable coin issuers can pay yield. But the problem is is that you'll then if stable cooin issuers are paying yield, the banks aren't gonna like that, and then the banks all of a sudden start to
get upset. And you know, that's the other major hiccup that I should have said earlier is there is an amendment process that was playing out behind the scenes that potentially could.
Have derailed this bill.
And that comes to the form of this bill called the credit card Competition Act. So if you've flown through LaGuardia or Rayan or hair, keep your eyes out and I think over in the Guardia, it's over in the new Delta or not Delta. It's probably what's the new terminal the New Yorkers or Guardia.
I'd never find I title avoid LaGuardia. There's so many Jersey guy. I just got into work.
There's this new terminal, and I the New Yorkers listening to this podcast and to be like, yep, I know exactly what you're talking about. It's not the Delta terminal. Last time I was in the ne La Guardia, keep your eyes out, because I did see the advert there.
And this advertisement is because Senator Marshall of Kansas, Roger Marshall is teamed up with Senator Dick Durban of Illinois, a Republican and a Democrat, to come together and they want to put forth this bill that increases competition for Visa MasterCard. Now, without getting into the great details, what you need to know is is that the airlines think that's going to kill the credit card rewards programs for these airlines. So you've got an issue that has banks
versus retailers versus airlines. And when you have that, all the senators are just like, I can't vote for this. This is too dangerous. And had Senator Marshall gotten amendment's vote on this bill, it could have derailed the stablequin invote.
So why did he even try to put it in there? I mean, it seems sort of like so random.
It Well, it's the easiest way to get passage, and you avoid committee, and you avoid the ability of having tough votes, and you put it through at the final hour, and so you only need one vote to get it over across the line. And when you have something that has like luke warm bipartisan support but has a lot of detractors and not it's a way of jamming up the final bill.
And trying to force passage.
There's been other instances of where this has worked over the last fifteen twenty years that I've covered Washington. But the problem with this one is that everybody knows it's coming, and also Senator Thune had so the funny thing that happened here is that Senator Marshall put this amendment on. The next thing that happened Senator Holly Republican from Missouri said no, no, no, no, no, I'm gonna put my amendments that caps all credit card interest rates at ten percent.
That he's teamed up with Senator Bernie Sanders. He's like, no, no, no, I'm putting my amendment on there. And next thing, you know, everybody had amendments. So Senator John Thune on Monday night of earlier this week came said, no, we're done.
We tried it. I'm actually devoiding all the amendments. Called an amendment tree, he invoided all the amendments.
He brought forth a new amendment tree that only was really related to the stable coin bill and.
Said that's what we're going forward with.
So that process does it and could potentially play out in the House, but I don't think it will.
I think the House will just pass it and be done with it.
And so what happens to those credit card amendments. I mean, it's two different bills. I assume they're going to try to raise them later this time.
So I think watch out for the September Continuing Resolution period just because I think that's where they'll try and attach it next. Senator Durbin tried this with the NDAA last year, the National Defense Authorization Act. So between now and the end of the congressional term, if there's any must pass piece of legislation, watch out probably about three to four weeks in advance. Senator Marshall and Senator Durbin will try and attach it. I still think it's not
going to happen. I still think a forty percent chance.
Both of that, both bills. I mean, it sounds like the credit card competition maybe might be able to get more bipartisan support than capping credit card f viesa ten percent.
Yeah, our Holly's build the cap credit card fees that that we're at a twenty percent chance of that. But this, this Credit Card Competition Act, it's one of those things.
Where I think it's like, you know, I call it bipartisan warmth.
Because there was a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last December, it was like novembery December, and they had it was about Visa MasterCard, and I was surprised at the amount of Republicans who came out against Visa MasterCard. And what this bill does is it requires banks to issue their retailers so their merchants. Requires these banks to say, Okay, we're going to offer you Visa and somebody else or MasterCard and somebody else. And the way the bills written,
it can't be Visa and MasterCard. It either has to be Visa, an American Express or MasterCard. And Discover still Discover, even though it Discovers taken over by Capital One, it's still the Discovered network according to our greater according to our great equity animals, Benelliot, they're keeping the Discovered network as is right now, but until they change it, it's the Discover Net.
Okay, interesting and so, but you know this bill.
The reason why the banks hate it is because it lowers the fees that they get from the retailers.
The retailers love it.
So now you have Walmart and Target and Home Depot lobbying their folks saying we want this. And you've got Bank of America and JP Morgan in the United Airlines and American Airlines telling their folks, we hate this.
And from a senatorial perspective.
They're like, I got two of my kids fighting here, right, go and get out of the room.
So wow, yeah, that's like battle of a heavyweight lobbyists exactly. That's gonna be fascinating.
But that's why we can definitely do another podcast on this one. But yeah, that's what we will.
Yeah, that's why it didn't you know, that's why the Senators were like, no, no, no, you can't attach into the Genius Act.
Let's get the stable Coin Bill without the other.
So here's a stupid question. Why are they calling the stable Coin Bill the Genius Act and not the Stable Act? Or what there was a Stable Act? What did that refer to?
So the Stable Act was from the last Congressional I'm sorry, the Stable Act was taken by the House.
Oh, so you have this Stable Act and the Genius Act, the Stable Genius Acts.
So the Genius Acting, if you give me about two seconds to look up what the Genius stands for, it's the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US stable Coins of twenty twenty five or the Genius Act of twenty twenty five.
All right, good stuff, Nathan. Let's move over to antitrust and bring in one of our anti trust analysts, Justin Tesi. So, Justin, let's talk about this case brought by the State of Texas and a dozen other Red states against Black Rock, Vanguard and State Street accusing these companies of colluding to reduce coal output. You've been following this case since it was filed, and even before that when it was threatened
and discussed. I guess you know, why don't you come in tell us about the case, give us your thoughts on the strengths and the weaknesses of it.
Yeah, yeah, definitely, But really important before I jump into this, Nathan, the name of the new terminal quaritia is Terminal B. They really went for the stars, the stars in the moon on that one. That is it, Big Fountain, great food Cork, food court, terminal be that that's what they got there for you.
I was really impressed with the food court, Like, yeah, I mean I loved it.
Yeah, yeah, No, It's definitely a step in the right direction, I think. But all right, back back to business as usual here. But yeah, this case that we saw file last year right around Thanksgiving in Texas was brought by Attorney General Ken pax And representing Texas and a whole host of Red states, and it really was the first of I think what we're probably about to see a wave of new anti trust litigation kind of directing the anti trust laws at things like ESG initiatives or other
corners of anti trust worty. Maybe haven't seen these kinds of cases brought before, but in a nutshell, what's been a last year is that these really large asset managers, so think black Rock, Vanguard and State Street in this case many of times, who are holding index funds right and by virtue of holding funds in these kind of index you know, mutual funds have really large shareholder ownership in a wide array of companies, including in this case
coal companies, coal mining and core production companies. So what's the issue. The issue is that you know, these banks and several others have joined on to these climate change initiatives, in this case net zero and Climate Action one hundred plus. Those the two kinds of climate initiatives that are that are issue in this case, these ESG initiatives and further
participation in these initiatives. You know, what's alleged here is that those agreements that participate in these these kinds of accords basically are an anti trust violation and that these these managers have come together and agreed to kind of act in a way that limits coal production and turn raises coal prices for consumers and turned electricity process or whatever, and all these different things were coals coming into play.
That's the kind of novel theory behind this case, that the participation in those climate accords just.
A participation, not even like some yeah, agreement to morrow.
Right right, you know. And that's the interesting thing that was kind of a hanging chat, if you will, as as to whether or not they were they were hanging their hat on those kinds of agreements being the subject matter,
you know, that forms the anti trust violation itself. But if there was any question, really in Attorney General Paxton's case, there was a statement of interest file by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission that really said or it took the position that that participation in and of itself can be the foundation for an anti trust violation.
So whether or not, you know, the complaint itself actually made that allegation, the federal agencies that filed that statement of interest in the case and support really took it a step further and said, yes, that participation in and of itself can can really lay the found word for
liability from an anti trust perspective. So that's interesting, you know, I think our view is that look there's still really is that this whole aspect of an agreement here, a specific agreement to really step in and somehow limit coal production that at the end of the day, probably hampers this case from getting too much further than the motion to dismiss where it's at now. But there's that issue and also just one of causation.
Right.
Did these companies, you know, these independent companies like Peabody Coal and our Tree Sources, did they limit coal production because these asset managers were exerting their pressure, you know, via other participation in these accords? Were there real external factors involved in lowering coal production? Perhaps there was a decline in demand for coal, Perhaps there were countervailing kind of political realities, good decline and coal you know, coming
from Ukraine? Did that somehow affect the price of coal worldwide?
Right?
So those kinds of things seem to be missing from the complaint, and I think for that reason it runs into semantic trust issues, you know, in terms of liability down the road.
Here, although some of those things could be factual questions. Right, the judge sort of uses to let the case get pass this initial motion to dismiss.
I think that's right. And I think I think between the fact questions and the if quite frankly, the political the political players involved here. You know, the case is filed in federal just recording Tyler, Texas. We're talking about a conservative forum in the Fifth Circuit, you know, and I think, you know, with with the fact questions being what they are and with the political actors involved, I would imagine it's really hard press to shut this thing down at a motion to the Smiths phase.
Speaking of the Fifth Circuit, it was interesting that I think it was black Rocks. The lawyer representing black Rock, I think in this case was Greg Costa, who's a former Fifth Circuit judge the point of my democrat, I believe, so not not not the traditional conservative Fifth Circuit judge, but still you know, obviously know it's the Circuit.
I would imagine quite intentional on the part of black Rock.
Yes, exactly.
Also interesting to see Gibson Done you know, representing the companies in this case, because in so many cases that we follow, Gibson Gun represents you know, the trade groups challenging uh, you know, a government policy. So just going back to the statement of interest by DOJ and the FTC, you know, how how common is that and have you seen that in other cases?
Yeah, you know, we have. You know, the one that comes to mind, you know, most recently is that DJ stepped in in terms of these real page algorithm cases that where we're kind of saying, hey, you know, this kind of sharing through an independent AI algorithm by by landlords, you know, about what the rental prices or vacancy rates
might be. You know, there was a big question whether or not that itself could be this kind of anti trust you know, violation in terms that it's this hub and spoke agreement between the software provider and the landlords all working together to kind of you know, uh collude to price fixed rental prices and for apartments nationwide. Right, DOJ stepped into that case of file the statement of interest there, so that you know, these things are fairly common.
What wasn't you know, really common about this is that typically it's DOJ that steps in and does that on its own, to have the FDC and do o J kind of jointly filing this statement of interest here, especially at a time where the FDC is anti trust authority, you know, and of itself has been under attack by some Congressional Republicans. Well, that was a really interesting, uh you know wrinkle on all of this too, to see kind of a joint statement that both of those those agencies here.
What do you think that means?
Yeah, I think there's a probably a real effort here, no surprise by by FDC share Ferguson, to really cement the anti trust authority at the FTC that you know, that goes part and parcel with its actual consert protection authority.
You know, it's interesting from from that angle, I think we're we're we're seeing a very strong FTC in terms of anti trust enforcement here, and I think probably you know, a push to really maintain that authority, uh, you know, in the face of some questioning, you know, for folks on the hill whether or not there should be this dual enforcement regime between the two agencies.
And you know, I mean what another interesting rinkle in that case is that a lot of these companies have left these climate accords right sort of to avoid the anti trust issues. You know, does that matter in this case and does it matter for potential future cases?
Yeah? You know, I think in this case, you know, so you've seen folks like State Street and JP Morgan completely leave clevi At Action one hundred plus for example. As you know, I would say likely as a result of wanting to avoid litigation like this in the future, if not just you know, this case in and of itself, but Black Rocks still you know, it's cons curtailed, it's involvement. You know, there's still this tangential kind of involvement in
ESG agreements or coords like this. So I don't think it means the end of this case, you know, I think, by by and large, I think the goal of the case, if it was to get folks to leave these initiatives, that's been successful. But I think there's also this desire probably to scare of folks from joining them again in the future. You know, I think the creation of precedent around that is probably something that Paxson and the plaintiffs
here are are interested in doing. And we're kind of seeing the same thing in relation to this advertising book co question right with the the X case. And you know what, you know, can you this whole idea of a group of boycott by advertisers, you know, not placing adds on X. Yeah, the trust liability there is really dubious in my mind, that's a tough case.
To really prove.
I don't know that the facts line up with the with the with the assertions of the complaint in terms of what the counts that have been alleged. But you know, it's it's seemed to be getting folks to buy advertising on X right. So I think the goal of these cases, the goals of these cases, you know, they're kind of coming to fruition whell or not the case that kicks gritting across the finicial line.
Got it? All? Right, let's pivot slightly. We'll stick with anti trust, but we'll pivot to Visa and the Justice Environments monopolization case against Visa leging a series of anti competitive contracts with merchants and would be rivals that you know, allegedly would exclude competition from from the debit transaction processing market. I know you've been following this case. You went to the motion to dismiss hearing I think on May twenty nine.
Yes, that's right, right right after the royal It was a great time right after.
Yeah, so what's the latest in that case?
Yeah, So, you know, this case really zeros in on you know, Visa's behavior following the implementation of Dodd Frank and rolls around debit transactions that came out of that that bill when it was past twenty ten, right, And really what Don Frank did was create the situation where debit cards had to be able to be processed over more than one network.
Right.
So let's say you've got Visa on the front of the card. Sometimes you'll see a secondary network like Pulse or Plus on the back of your card, which is another network that those debit transactions can be processed over, typically at a lower fee than whatever Visa would charge
for that transaction to go over its network. Now, I think seeing the thread of competition here, what DOJ's alleging Visa did in response to this is they created all these kind of new fees, if you will, following Dodd Frank and then Visa said, hey, will either reduce or eliminate the fee that we charge you if you promise to send a certain percentage of your debit transactions over in our network instead of the cheaper networks that might appear on the back of a cart. Who loses in
that are the merchants, right? Do end up paying these fees, so that that's the central allegation of the case. There's that, and then there's also some other allegations, you know, claiming that Visa basically paid off Apple and others from developing their own kind of debit networks, you know, and by kind of you know, giving them fee concessions and things of that of that sort too, right, are saying, hey, we don't have to work with you in the future
if you develop your own network. Right, So, those are the two central themes of this this case. You know, I think the second the second set of allegations against Apple and you know, regarding Visa's behavior with Apple, PayPal, others, you know, to stop them from building a competitor's network, those seem a little bit more questionable. There's you know, there there have been heavily redacted but versions of contracts between Visa and those entities that were submitted to the court.
The argument seems to be that those contracts are what they are, and they don't really spell out the kind of antitrust violation in those documents that DJ is saying, you know, actually happened, so that one seems a little bit more shaky. But regardless of that, the judge certainly is saying these are all facts questions, and there's certainly not issues that I'm willing to set aside right now
in a motion to dismiss hearing. So I think we probably see that denied, you know, relatively soon, and then you know what rolls up through discovery does.
But yeah, right, right, yeah, so that's still pretty early stages. So is this similar to the interchange feed litigation that's been going on for twenty years now?
You know, it's not related to it, but in an interesting wrinkle, I think, you know, Visa is trying to say that the fees that are covered that were covered as part of its class settlement with merchants and the interser change fee litigation, that it also covers the debit fees that are at issue here in private suits that are brought kind of as a copycats the DJ case.
You know, whether or not that's going to be successful, I really question that because there's been of a different factual nexus here in terms of, you know, the case that is being brought here versus what was brought you know, twenty years ago now, right, things are a bit different, and the thing the behavior being alleged, the bad behavior being alleged on the part of VISA here wasn't even occurring right at the time that the interchange fee case
was brought originally in two thousand and five, allegedly, So I think that's a bit of a stretch, but certainly a different case, same kind of you know, network fees we're talking about in some ways, but different kind of set of allegations and facts altogether, and.
Trying to fold it into I guess the settlement with the merchants case that would have affected this DOJ case anyways.
No, No, I think absolutely not. You know, a DOJ. You know, the previous deals made between VISA and DUJ and merchants all really, you know, I think are kind of especially DJ.
It's just it's.
Separate factual predicates altogether. So I think we're separate apart from that, definitely don't affect the DOJ litigation, got it.
All right, So you're waiting for some emotion decisions. Emotions are dismissing this case and in the cultivation they come after.
Summer Relli'll absolutely that's the rule.
So all right, good stuff, justin thanks, all right, let's bring in Holly from Holly has been doing a ton of work on tariffs, both in terms of the lawsuits challenging them. She also spearheads our deep dive reports here at Bloomberg Intelligence related to tariffs, which are like huge collaborative efforts where she has to heard like fifty different analysts into one report. But it's really great content, which I highly recommend. If you have a terminal, you can
find it all at BI space. Tariffs Go. All right, Holly, let's bring you in for an update on where these lawsuits are. When we had you on last a couple of weeks ago, it was I think the day after the Court of International Trade ruled. Then the following morning we got a decision from a judge in Federal Court in Washington, d C. Both those courts essentially found the terriffs,
the AIPA tariffs to be unlawful. And then while we were recording the podcast two weeks ago, the Federal Circuit put an administrative stay on the Court of International Trades decision. Why don't you come in and tell us, you know what's happened since then and sort of what the latest is.
Yeah, So the ucit the Court of International Trade issue it's ruling. On May twenty eighth, the District Court's decision was me twenty ninth, and the District Court on its
own stated decision pending appeal. The May twenty decision by the International Trade Court was immediately stayed by the Federal well, not immediately, but the next day, on May twenty ninth, was stayed pending the appellate court's consideration of whether it would stay the the ruling pending appeal, so whether the terriffs would be kept in place while it considers the appeal,
and so. On June tenth, the Federal Circuit decided that it would keep the tariffs in place, it would grant the government a stay of that ruling until it issues a decision on the appeal. So I don't expect a decision from the Federal Circuit until three Q because they they said that be put in it at an order saying you know, we intend to hold or a argument on July thirty first, So I don't expect a decision until you know, earliest to August.
So in that same decision where they put the Court of International Trade decision on hold, that effectively let the tariffs stay in place while the appeal plays out. But at the same time they said they would expedite the proceedings on appeal, right, so, like you said, or an argument will be July thirty first out. That'll be fun.
Yeah, And it's also going to be bank caring. So the entire panel is going to be deciding this appeal.
Which is pretty unusual. Right, Usually in the initial instance it's three judges and then you know, whichever party loses can ask for the full and bank hearing. So obviously the Federal Circuit I guess has taken this very seriously.
Yeah, I mean they said in the order that due to like the importance of this decision, that the entire panel is going to be on it, and also truncates the process so they don't take to wait for, you know, a ruling from the three member panel and then on bank they could just go straight to on bank.
And so what do you make of them? I mean, how much would we read into them put in the lower courts decision on hold and allowing the tariffs to play out, because you know, I mean, one of the factors is likelihood of success on the merits, but then you know it's also a reparable harm and the equities and like public interest, you know, and I mean, their decision like did not give any details, right, it was like, oh, we just considered the factors, but what do you make of it?
Right?
Well, I mean they did say that, you know, we're considering the equities. This is not a ruling on the merits. So I think they're implying that they're you know, that that this is not based on the you know, the merits, not that factor of you know, because when when you do try to get a stay, you have to show these four different factors in one of them is, as you said, likelihood of success on the merits, and I don't think that was the you know, determining factor in
this case. I think they probably didn't want to be you know, they probably don't know how they're going to rule yet, even though it's sort of everybody knows about this case, but they haven't written any decisions and they have the full panel that they have to confer with, so they probably you know, to be on the more cautious side. They said, we're going to keep these terrors in place. We're going to preserve the status quo until we you know, render a final ruling with a written decision.
And so that's why I think they kept it in place and not not because they plan to. So I don't read anything into it. I don't think that that means that they're going to reverse.
Right, And and in some ways it might be easier to keep the teriffs in place, and if the government then loses, right, it's easier for the government to sort of pay a refund to the companies that have paid terriffs than if the government then if you like remove the tariffs for now and then the government wins, the government can't then go back and like collect terriffs from importers, right, So.
They can't the government can't go back and collect, but they can issue refunds. But I'm hearing that it's not as easy as you think, you know, so the people are people are going to have to file lawsuits to probably get the refa oh really.
Oh yeah, well full time ter Litigation Employment Act.
Right, right, But but it you know, you would if if the Trade Court is wrong, then you're right, the government would not be able to collect all those terraffs and in the meantime that they lost. So that's you know, probably one of the factors that the court considered.
Yeah, so what's your sort of base case as to you know, the ultimate outcome of these cases.
So I think it's close because I don't think that you know, any this is an emergency statute, and the President has declared emergencies, and I don't the courts have been very reluctant to you know, second guests the president when he's declaring an emergency. But I don't think that the trade deficit constitutes an emergency under APA. I don't know that the Supreme Court would rule on that specific issue.
But because of that, I think that they're going to reverse and so they may use other doctrines to try to get to the result that reciprocal tariffs are you know, unlawful, like people have been saying, they may use major questions and that was you know, something that the International Trade Court raised and it's it's decision, although it wasn't you know, they didn't really explain this in a lot of detail.
But commentators, I'm saying that the Supreme Court may use the major questions doctrine or the non delegation doctrine to get to the result the reciprocal terrifts are not lawful, but the sentinal trafficing tariffs are closer call because they're you know, the the sentinel emergency is emergency, and so no one's going to say that that's not an emergency. And in fact, the challenger has never even said that
that's not an emergency. But I think that the Supreme Court is going to be very reluctant to allow lower courts and even itself to say that the president is not addressing an emergency properly as a as an international Trade court did when it said that the tariffs weren't related to the emergency and that pressure on countries to address the crisis is not dealing with the emergency. I think that they're going to have a hard time with that reasoning. So I think that those may be affirmed.
I'm sorry, I think those they may be kept in place, and I think that they the court may say that the president has parachu impose those terriffts, but not with respect to reciprocal terrats. But again, the issue is very close on the reciprocal terrats as well.
Okay, great, so you so we so in the Federal circuit we have an argument. So I thirty first and you expect a decision what in August?
Yeah, I mean, I think that are well, obviously the earliest would be August, but yeah, I think because of the import of this, they're probably not going to wait too long. Remember that the International Trade Court rendered this decision within a week of its last rural argument, So that's how important this is.
Oh, there's more more judges here that we'll have to that is true, come to an agreement or right opinions. But that's true, and then from there, presumably whoever loses or if it's a split opinion, both sides may gout of the Supreme Court.
Yeah, I think this will go to the Supreme Court.
Yeah, yeah, And I mean they could take it up probably as soon as October yep, I think, yeah, yep, and then maybe maybe a decision by your end. I think, so it would have to be pretty quickly, but.
Yeah, I think I think that's possible. And you know, that's what I think is the likely out come. Then it will be four.
Q got it?
And what about the case in GDC the Federal District Court in Washington, So that one.
Was interesting because the judge stayed his own ruling pending appeal, So that one is sort of following what the Fed Circuit decides to do, so, they don't have a briefing schedule yet the court asked yesterday the court or the parties to within fourteen days, you know, tell them about the status of the case and how they should move forward.
So I think that the party and and the parties had previously said that they would, you know, follow the briefing schedule that set fourth that the Fed Circuit uses. So I think that those two are going to be on like, very similar tracks in terms of timing.
Got it. And I mean so in addition to sort of the substance of the case, we have this issue of like, which is the proper court for these cases to even.
These cases.
Yeah, and that's an issue that's making its way around various circuits. So it's an issue that's going to be presented on appeal at the DC Circuit. And it's also an issue that's being presented on appeal in the Ninth Circuit because the case is brought there that was dismissed because the court there said, the lower court said there was no jurisdiction, that only the Trade Court has exclusive jurisdiction. So so that's on appeal now.
Yeah, and it's an issue in the Federal Circuit case too.
That's right, right, Well, no, actually the Federal Circuit case, no, I mean, it's not an issue because no one can tested it there. But but they're going to decide whether i EVA authorize this tariffs at all, So it's a law. Well, there are various grounds on which the International Trade Court said they had jurisdiction. But one of the grounds is that they said AIPA must authorize some TIFFs. And if the if AIPA authorizes tariffs at all, then it would
go to the International Trade Court. They would have exclusive jurisdiction. But if the Fed Circuit says there's no that AIPA does not authorized tariffs at all, then then the the International Trade Court court did not have jurisdiction and and but that's a ruling, So the Fed Circuit will say there's no jurisdiction before the Trade Court, and then I guess you'd have a bunch of other courts saying, you know, in different circuits, saying whatever they determine, right, and because
now they have jurisdiction. But then ultimately LEA will go up to the Supreme Court. So I don't think you need a whole bunch of these decisions from the circuit courts in order for the Supreme Court to decide death.
Yeah, they're gonna take it regardless, and they're gonna have both the jurisdictional and substantive issue presumably to decide. All right, well, it should be a fun second half of the year. All right, I think we're gonna leave it there. Thanks, Holly, I think we'll wrap up this episode of Votes and Verdicts. As always, thank you to the listener for listening. If you have any questions about anything we've talked about today, please don't hesitate to reach out to us at your
convenience with questions. As a reminder, again, you can find all of our research on the Bloomberg terminal at BI go or on our litigation and policy dashboard at BI laws go. Thank you again for listening, and have a great day.