# SCOTUS Eliminates Political Party Spending Caps

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 2 Jul 2026, 42 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/4de53cd2-6a7d-4bf7-99ba-b47b003a7b31/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Andrew Schapiro, a partner in the appellate law practice at Quinn Emanuel and the former US Ambassador to the Czech Republic, discusses the Supreme Court doing away with political party spending caps. Zane McNeill, an attorney in Lawyers for Good Government’s gender justice and health equity practice, discusses the Supreme Court upholding state laws that ban transgender women and girls from playing on female sports teams. Marisa Darden, chair of the white collar and government investigations practice group at Benesch Law, discusses the indictment of two former NBA players in the sports gambling probe. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:08] Speaker 2: In a six to three decision down ideological lines, the
[0:12] Speaker 2: Supreme Court on Tuesday throughout long standing federal limits on
[0:17] Speaker 2: spending by political parties, saying they violate First Amendment rights.
[0:22] Speaker 2: In doing so, the Court's conservatives reversed a twenty five
[0:26] Speaker 2: year old precedent that upheld the caps as a means
[0:29] Speaker 2: of tackling corruption. Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh
[0:34] Speaker 2: said the ruling will allow all political parties to participate
[0:38] Speaker 2: more freely and compete more fully in the political process,
[0:43] Speaker 2: and to coordinate more closely with their candidates. That echoed
[0:47] Speaker 2: his comments during the oral arguments.
[0:49] Speaker 1: That's the real source of the disadvantage.
[0:51] Speaker 3: Right.
[0:52] Speaker 1: You can give huge money to the outside group, but
[0:55] Speaker 1: you can't give huge money of the party.
[0:57] Speaker 4: So the parties are very much weakened compared to the
[0:59] Speaker 4: outside group.
[1:00] Speaker 2: But writing for the dissenters, Justice Elena Kagan warned the
[1:04] Speaker 2: decision could bring back quid pro quo corruption by allowing
[1:09] Speaker 2: a political party to serve as an alternative checking account
[1:12] Speaker 2: for campaign and donors to give as much as half
[1:16] Speaker 2: a million dollars to cover a candidate's bills. It's a
[1:20] Speaker 2: ruling likely to help Republicans in the November midterms, and
[1:24] Speaker 2: just the latest case in a string of cases in
[1:27] Speaker 2: which the conservative majority has rolled back campaign finance regulations
[1:32] Speaker 2: in the name of the First Amendment, something liberal Justice
[1:36] Speaker 2: Sonya Soto Mayor bemoaned during the oral arguments.
[1:40] Speaker 5: You're telling us that Citizens United and McCutcheon ended up
[1:45] Speaker 5: yes in amplifying the voice of corporations, but Diminian shoeing
[1:50] Speaker 5: another voice, that of the party. Now you want to
[1:54] Speaker 5: now sinker some more and try to raise the voice
[1:59] Speaker 5: of one Our tin cream causes more harm than it
[2:03] Speaker 5: does good.
[2:04] Speaker 2: My guest is Andrew Shapiro, a partner in Quinn Emmanuel's
[2:07] Speaker 2: appellate practice group. He was the former US Ambassador to
[2:11] Speaker 2: the Czech Republic. Andy, let's start with the big question,
[2:15] Speaker 2: how important is this decision? How much will it change
[2:19] Speaker 2: how money is spent in congressional elections.
[2:22] Speaker 1: I think it's important for two reasons.
[2:25] Speaker 3: So at a general level, it's important because it's the next,
[2:29] Speaker 3: maybe almost inevitable step in the evolution of the way
[2:33] Speaker 3: the Roberts Court looks at campaign finance cases, and so
[2:38] Speaker 3: maybe by itself it's not an earthquake, but as part
[2:42] Speaker 3: of a pattern over the last fifteen or twenty years,
[2:46] Speaker 3: it says a lot.
[2:47] Speaker 1: But then even as a practical matter.
[2:49] Speaker 3: It is going to allow individuals to give half a
[2:55] Speaker 3: million dollars or more to a party, and the party
[2:59] Speaker 3: is essentially free to spend it in support of a candidate,
[3:02] Speaker 3: to pay a candidate's bills. Obviously, that's a much bigger
[3:06] Speaker 3: bang for the buck that a donor might get than
[3:09] Speaker 3: just a seven thousand dollars which is currently kept.
[3:12] Speaker 2: So the majority decision was written by Brett Cavanaugh. Tell
[3:16] Speaker 2: us about his argument and whether it mirrors the First
[3:20] Speaker 2: Amendment kind of arguments that we seem to see in
[3:22] Speaker 2: all these campaign finance cases.
[3:25] Speaker 3: So Justice Kavanaugh, writing for six members of the Court,
[3:30] Speaker 3: set this up as essentially just an exercise in a
[3:33] Speaker 3: balancing test. Try to frame it as a fairly narrow ruling.
[3:37] Speaker 3: So you have competing interests here. You have the interest
[3:41] Speaker 3: that Congress and in some prior decisions the Supreme Court
[3:45] Speaker 3: had identified of trying to keep not just corruption, but
[3:49] Speaker 3: the appearance of corruption or of a quid pro quo
[3:52] Speaker 3: out of our politics. That's on one side of the scale.
[3:55] Speaker 3: On the other side of the scale is the First
[3:57] Speaker 3: Amendment and the right of individuals or or in some
[4:00] Speaker 3: of these cases organizations to use their money to get
[4:04] Speaker 3: their views across or support candidates as they wish. And
[4:08] Speaker 3: so when you're balancing that, the test that the Court
[4:11] Speaker 3: has ultimately developed is it has to be closely and
[4:15] Speaker 3: narrowly tailored.
[4:16] Speaker 1: I'm paraphrasing here, but essentially you.
[4:19] Speaker 3: Have to say this specific restriction on speech is closely
[4:23] Speaker 3: tailored to accomplishing the goal that we want to accomplish.
[4:26] Speaker 3: And just as Kevinaugh walked through the stated goals, which
[4:31] Speaker 3: are avoiding corruption and avoiding quid pro quos, maybe one
[4:35] Speaker 3: might say quids pro quote, and decided that existing mechanisms
[4:41] Speaker 3: are sufficient. So he pointed to the fact that there
[4:44] Speaker 3: is still a cap on how much one can give
[4:47] Speaker 3: to an individual or to a party. He pointed to
[4:51] Speaker 3: prohibitions against what is called earmarking. That is, I can't
[4:56] Speaker 3: specifically and expressly give five hundred thousand dollars do to
[5:00] Speaker 3: the Democratic Party or the Republican Party and say spend
[5:03] Speaker 3: it in support of this candidate. That's still forbidden. And
[5:07] Speaker 3: so Justice Kavanaugh said that's a guardrail and he said
[5:10] Speaker 3: that the disclosure laws are a guardrail. Right, the campaigns
[5:14] Speaker 3: still have to disclose in most instances, the donors and
[5:18] Speaker 3: the parties have to do the same thing. And so
[5:20] Speaker 3: the idea that having these things out in the sunlight
[5:23] Speaker 3: will deter corruption, he felt was sufficient, and therefore, just
[5:26] Speaker 3: when doing this balancing test, said those are enough. It's
[5:30] Speaker 3: not narrowly tailored, and so we do not need and
[5:33] Speaker 3: cannot justify under the First Amendment having a further restriction
[5:37] Speaker 3: saying that parties cannot coordinate their expenditures with individual candidates.
[5:43] Speaker 2: You mentioned quid pro quote. Writing for the dissenters, the
[5:46] Speaker 2: three Liberals, just as Elena Kagan said, the ruling opens
[5:50] Speaker 2: up the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that
[5:55] Speaker 2: the limits were meant to check, allowing wealthy donors to
[5:59] Speaker 2: dodge in individual contribution limits by donating through parties instead.
[6:04] Speaker 2: And she did the math sort of about what that means,
[6:07] Speaker 2: which you had mentioned before. Explain the concerns that the
[6:11] Speaker 2: Liberals have about ever expanding Supreme Court decisions knocking down
[6:17] Speaker 2: campaign finance limits.
[6:19] Speaker 3: Sure, I think a lot of this has to do
[6:21] Speaker 3: with the different views that the majority and the dissenters
[6:26] Speaker 3: have about corruption, what does it really mean a quid
[6:29] Speaker 3: pro quo? So the majority is taking a very narrow view. Essentially,
[6:34] Speaker 3: they say, well, these laws are meant to prevent quid
[6:37] Speaker 3: pro quo and corruption, and by that we mean somebody
[6:41] Speaker 3: very specifically saying I'm giving five hundred thousand dollars to
[6:45] Speaker 3: the party in support of this candidate, and in exchange,
[6:49] Speaker 3: I am expecting that I will get some relief from
[6:54] Speaker 3: a government investigation, or that subsidies for my industry will
[6:58] Speaker 3: be approved, etc.
[7:00] Speaker 1: And the justices in.
[7:02] Speaker 3: The minority, Justice Kagan and Justices Soda Mayor and Tanji
[7:07] Speaker 3: Brown Jackson take a somewhat broader view and say that's
[7:12] Speaker 3: overly technical, and everybody knows what's going on, even if
[7:16] Speaker 3: I'm not specifically saying, hey, you know, I'm trying to
[7:20] Speaker 3: develop a nuclear power plant here and I need approval,
[7:23] Speaker 3: and by the way, I'd like to give.
[7:25] Speaker 1: Five hundred thousand dollars to the party. That's enough. It's
[7:29] Speaker 1: enough to do a nudge nudge, wink wink.
[7:30] Speaker 3: You don't have to have someone expressly saying I'm happy
[7:33] Speaker 3: to give you five hundred thousand dollars if you approve
[7:35] Speaker 3: my nuclear power plant. And there's a lot of force
[7:38] Speaker 3: to some of the examples that Justice Kagan gives in
[7:41] Speaker 3: that dissent. She points out that the parties can essentially
[7:45] Speaker 3: be paying the candidate's bills. And you know, the functional
[7:48] Speaker 3: difference between someone donating to the candidate to pay the
[7:52] Speaker 3: candidate's bills or donating to the party to pay the
[7:55] Speaker 3: candidate's bills.
[7:56] Speaker 1: Can be hard to discern.
[7:58] Speaker 3: So essentially, now, even though in in name there's a
[8:01] Speaker 3: seven thousand dollars limit on what an individual can give
[8:04] Speaker 3: to a particular candidate, the party can simply say, we're
[8:09] Speaker 3: going to take the money that this individual gave us,
[8:11] Speaker 3: and we'll pay your electricity or your rent, will pay
[8:15] Speaker 3: for your ads. So she's taking, I think of a
[8:17] Speaker 3: more practical.
[8:18] Speaker 2: View from what I've been reading. In the short term,
[8:21] Speaker 2: at least, this is a win for Republicans. President Trump
[8:25] Speaker 2: actually said it's a big win for Republicans. Explain why
[8:28] Speaker 2: Republicans might benefit more than Democrats.
[8:31] Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. In the short term.
[8:33] Speaker 3: I mean, of course, parties and donors and candidates are
[8:36] Speaker 3: pretty good at figuring out how to play by whatever
[8:39] Speaker 3: the rules are. As the rules adapt to adapt their
[8:41] Speaker 3: own strategies. But right now, the Republican Party itself has
[8:45] Speaker 3: been better at fundraising than the Democratic Party. If you're
[8:49] Speaker 3: looking in the national committees, they have greater number of
[8:53] Speaker 3: donors who are ready willing and able to write.
[8:57] Speaker 1: The checks in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
[9:00] Speaker 3: And that's why this case was originally brought by Republicans.
[9:04] Speaker 3: It's the National Publican Senatorial Committee.
[9:06] Speaker 1: It was originally. JD.
[9:08] Speaker 3: Vance when he was a candidate in Ohio, challenged some
[9:11] Speaker 3: restrictions against the coordinating. That being said, at least on
[9:15] Speaker 3: its face, the ruling frees the Democratic Party or and
[9:19] Speaker 3: in some future party freese that party up to spend
[9:23] Speaker 3: as much money as it wants as well in coordination
[9:25] Speaker 3: with other candidates. Big question for the longer term, though,
[9:29] Speaker 3: is whether benefits one party or not. It certainly benefits
[9:32] Speaker 3: people who have the ability to write really big checks.
[9:36] Speaker 3: Back in the nineteen seventies, after Watergate, when Congress passed
[9:40] Speaker 3: the federal Election campaign at the idea was to try
[9:45] Speaker 3: to limit the ability of large donors and large interests
[9:50] Speaker 3: to impact government policy just by writing big checks. It's
[9:54] Speaker 3: difficult to see how that is not undermined somewhat by
[9:59] Speaker 3: this ruling. Maybe it's correct ruling, correct application of the
[10:02] Speaker 3: First Amendment. I'm not stating a position on that, but
[10:05] Speaker 3: I think it's hard to deny that this really will
[10:08] Speaker 3: amplify the voices of individuals and industries with the deepest pockets.
[10:13] Speaker 2: Are we going to see more TV ads now, and
[10:16] Speaker 2: even more political TV ads because of the candidates getting
[10:20] Speaker 2: lower rates for TV ads?
[10:22] Speaker 3: Well, you know, June, it's hard to imagine seeing more
[10:25] Speaker 3: ads than we sometimes see during the political campaign season,
[10:30] Speaker 3: but it does seem likely that you will have more
[10:33] Speaker 3: money going into television ads now because as you adverted
[10:38] Speaker 3: to their typically A party and pats and other organizations
[10:42] Speaker 3: did not get the same favorable rates that candidates campaigns did,
[10:46] Speaker 3: and now that's essentially out the window because the campaigns
[10:50] Speaker 3: can just pay the bills. So we may yet see
[10:53] Speaker 3: even more ads, not just on TV, but they're going
[10:56] Speaker 3: to be popping up on your computer as well. It's
[10:59] Speaker 3: going to be very good for political consultants, I'm sure,
[11:01] Speaker 3: and for TV stations as more money flows in. There
[11:04] Speaker 3: are a whole bunch of other folks in the ecosystem
[11:07] Speaker 3: who will benefit as well.
[11:09] Speaker 2: So tell us about this long line of decisions where
[11:13] Speaker 2: the Supreme Court has been cutting back on campaign finance regulations.
[11:18] Speaker 2: The one that stands out to me is the Citizens
[11:22] Speaker 2: United case, which I think during the oral arguments in
[11:26] Speaker 2: this case, Justice Alito mentioned that Citizens United was still
[11:32] Speaker 2: a much maligned case.
[11:34] Speaker 3: He's still fairly maligned, yes, much and unfairly maligned.
[11:38] Speaker 2: And no one can forget the video of Justice Alito
[11:41] Speaker 2: shaking his head when Barack Obama criticized Citizens United during
[11:47] Speaker 2: a State of the Union address. So tell us about
[11:50] Speaker 2: this string of cases.
[11:52] Speaker 3: If there's been an evolution over an even longer period,
[11:55] Speaker 3: going about back about fifty years. So the first case,
[11:59] Speaker 3: and the landmark case, was in the nineteen seventies and
[12:02] Speaker 3: it was called Buckley versus Valea. And they're the candidate
[12:08] Speaker 3: had it was either a candidate or a donor, it's
[12:10] Speaker 3: escape ingamy right now. Had challenged the federal campaign laws
[12:16] Speaker 3: contribution limits and disclosure requirements, and the Court upheld though
[12:22] Speaker 3: saying it's entirely proper for these anti corruption reasons to
[12:27] Speaker 3: place limits dollar limits on how much can be contributed
[12:30] Speaker 3: to a campaign and to require disclosure. And it articulated
[12:35] Speaker 3: this anti corruption rationale, and I think in somewhat broader
[12:39] Speaker 3: terms than the court today does.
[12:41] Speaker 1: And then, if you remember, there was a law.
[12:43] Speaker 3: Passed in the early two thousands, sometimes known as McCain
[12:46] Speaker 3: fine Gold. Formal name was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform at
[12:51] Speaker 3: and the McCain fine Gold Act said that national party
[12:55] Speaker 3: committees couldn't raise or spend funds that mentioned federal candidates
[12:59] Speaker 3: with in a certain I think it was thirty days
[13:03] Speaker 3: of an election if they were financed with corporate or
[13:06] Speaker 3: union funds. And there was a case in two thousand
[13:08] Speaker 3: and three called McConnell versus the FEC, which largely upheld
[13:11] Speaker 3: McCain fine Gold, and it upheld the soft money ban
[13:15] Speaker 3: and disclosure rules and had a fairly broad conception again
[13:19] Speaker 3: of corruption and this possibility of circumventing the donor rules
[13:24] Speaker 3: by party and outside groups. Now, there was another decision
[13:27] Speaker 3: in two thousand and seven Wisconsin Rights to Life, which
[13:31] Speaker 3: coughed out an exemption that we're probably all familiar with,
[13:33] Speaker 3: and it said that corporations or other organizations could still
[13:38] Speaker 3: have electioneering communications.
[13:41] Speaker 1: That are issue ads.
[13:43] Speaker 3: So that's why you'll sometimes see these ads that say
[13:46] Speaker 3: call your representative now, or call Senator Sell and So
[13:49] Speaker 3: and say that you disagree with having people pouring over
[13:53] Speaker 3: our border with no restrictions. It's obvious that their campaigning
[13:57] Speaker 3: against Senator Sell and So. But if it's framed as
[14:00] Speaker 3: issues at it was permissible under that rule.
[14:03] Speaker 1: Citizens United, of.
[14:04] Speaker 3: Course came next, and that was the real earthquake Citizens
[14:09] Speaker 3: United in twenty ten.
[14:10] Speaker 1: It was a transformative shift.
[14:13] Speaker 3: It overruled some parts of the McConnell decision and some
[14:15] Speaker 3: prior decisions, and it really narrowed It said that, of
[14:19] Speaker 3: course political speech is protected by the First Amendment, regardless
[14:24] Speaker 3: of whether the sources of corporation, and it narrowed campaign
[14:28] Speaker 3: finance regulation really to preventing these quid pro quo scenarios
[14:32] Speaker 3: or its appearance, and it opened the door to unlimited
[14:35] Speaker 3: corporate spending.
[14:36] Speaker 1: There's one other recent case that came up a lot
[14:38] Speaker 1: in the oral argument here.
[14:39] Speaker 3: It's called McCutcheon versus the FEC from twenty fourteen, and
[14:43] Speaker 3: that struck down aggregate limits on how much any individual
[14:46] Speaker 3: could give to all federal candidates. There used to be
[14:50] Speaker 3: a rule that said, in addition to a limit on
[14:52] Speaker 3: how much I can give to candidate A, I can
[14:55] Speaker 3: only give a certain amount to all federal candidates in
[14:58] Speaker 3: a particular election cycle. That was struck down on the
[15:02] Speaker 3: same rationale that we already have limits on how much
[15:07] Speaker 3: you can give an individual candidate. We have disclosure and
[15:09] Speaker 3: that's enough. You can see how each new challenge to
[15:13] Speaker 3: the remaining restrictions has resulted in, I think, a more
[15:17] Speaker 3: and more narrow view of what type of corruption or
[15:20] Speaker 3: quid pro quo these laws are aimed at, and it
[15:24] Speaker 3: becomes harder and harder to justify these restrictions against the
[15:29] Speaker 3: First Amendment interest that here Justice Kavana talks about.
[15:32] Speaker 2: In the majority, The majority here overruled two thousand and
[15:37] Speaker 2: one decision. That was the second time in two days
[15:40] Speaker 2: that the Court overturned a precedent. On Monday, it reversed
[15:44] Speaker 2: the ninety year old Humphrey's Executor decision, and Justice Kagan,
[15:48] Speaker 2: in her dissent said, the majority must overrule Colorado two
[15:53] Speaker 2: to arrive at its outcome. So once again disregards and
[15:57] Speaker 2: disrespects the core legal principle of starry decisives. So what's
[16:02] Speaker 2: your take on the conservative majority and their respect for president?
[16:08] Speaker 3: There are certainly a pattern, right, So the decision that
[16:13] Speaker 3: was overturned here that you're referring to was from the
[16:16] Speaker 3: early two thousands called Colorado two, and traditionally, obviously this
[16:22] Speaker 3: was something that was discussed a lot in the Dobbs
[16:24] Speaker 3: decision as well. But the standard has been over the
[16:27] Speaker 3: years that the court should or can overturn a precedent
[16:34] Speaker 3: only in unusual circumstances, and that there has to be
[16:38] Speaker 3: a very high bar, something other than just that the
[16:43] Speaker 3: court thinks the prior decision was wrong. And here Justice Kevanaugh,
[16:49] Speaker 3: writing for the majority, said, well, subsequent developments in the
[16:54] Speaker 3: case law suggests that in this Colorado two decision, which
[16:58] Speaker 3: had upheld the restrictions that were struck down in this case,
[17:02] Speaker 3: Justice Kavin I said, well, since that time, the standard
[17:06] Speaker 3: that we use for balancing has changed, and we apply
[17:09] Speaker 3: a closer type of scrutiny to restrictions on the First Amendment.
[17:13] Speaker 3: But as Justice Kagan points out, essentially in this decision,
[17:16] Speaker 3: they applied the same level of scrutiny, and she calls
[17:20] Speaker 3: them out, saying that what seems to be happening here
[17:24] Speaker 3: and I think you're right, June, it's happened in some
[17:27] Speaker 3: other cases. The Court is becoming more comfortable overturning a
[17:30] Speaker 3: precedent simply because a majority of justices on the current
[17:36] Speaker 3: court think that the prior decision was wrong, rather than
[17:40] Speaker 3: that there is some unusual and identifiable need to overturn
[17:48] Speaker 3: people settles expectations.
[17:50] Speaker 2: Justice Kegan quoted from a dissent by Justice Stephen Bryer
[17:54] Speaker 2: in the McCutcheon case, where he said that the decision
[17:57] Speaker 2: eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant. And
[18:03] Speaker 2: at the end of her descent, she said, I'm not
[18:06] Speaker 2: sure what to call a remnant of a remnant, but
[18:10] Speaker 2: that is what the Court has left today.
[18:12] Speaker 6: Is this the end?
[18:13] Speaker 2: Or do you think there'll be more attacks on what's
[18:16] Speaker 2: left of campaign finance laws?
[18:19] Speaker 3: There still are limits that was uphelden Bucklet and versus
[18:22] Speaker 3: Philia in the nineteen seventies. So there's seven thousand dollars
[18:26] Speaker 3: limit to an individual candidate, and these limits which the
[18:29] Speaker 3: majority in descent debate, or they debated at least at
[18:31] Speaker 3: the oral argument about is it technically forty four thousand
[18:34] Speaker 3: or is it five hundred thousand. It depends how you
[18:37] Speaker 3: characterize it. But there still are some limits. So is
[18:40] Speaker 3: the next challenge going to say you know, limits should
[18:44] Speaker 3: be out the window as well, or disclosure. Disclosure is
[18:48] Speaker 3: still one of the guardrails against corruption that both the
[18:54] Speaker 3: Majority and the Descent pointed to here. You can imagine
[18:58] Speaker 3: a challenge sometime in future in which a candidate or
[19:03] Speaker 3: a party or an organization says that too is not
[19:06] Speaker 3: justified by the as certain need to protect the system.
[19:10] Speaker 1: It'll be interesting to see.
[19:12] Speaker 2: It's been great having you on. Thanks so much for
[19:14] Speaker 2: your insights.
[19:15] Speaker 6: Andy.
[19:16] Speaker 2: That's Andrew Shapiro, a partner in Quinn Emmanuel's appellate practice group.
[19:21] Speaker 2: Transgender Rights lost again at the Supreme Court. A divided
[19:25] Speaker 2: court upheld state laws that banned transgender girls and women
[19:30] Speaker 2: from competing for their schools on female athletic teams, Siding
[19:34] Speaker 2: with conservatives and President Donald Trump on a divisive culture
[19:38] Speaker 2: war issue. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, finding
[19:43] Speaker 2: that states can separate teams based on biological sex without
[19:48] Speaker 2: violating the Constitution or Title nine, a law that bars
[19:52] Speaker 2: gender discrimination in schools receiving federal money. Kavanaugh wrote that
[19:57] Speaker 2: given the inherent physical differences between the sex is, allowing
[20:01] Speaker 2: only biological females to play on women's and girls teams
[20:05] Speaker 2: can reduce the risk of physical injury, and ensure fair competition.
[20:10] Speaker 2: My guest is Zane McNeil, an attorney from Lawyers for
[20:13] Speaker 2: Good Government's Gender Justice and Health Equity team. So will
[20:17] Speaker 2: you explain how the court decided that they don't violate
[20:22] Speaker 2: the Constitution in Title nine?
[20:25] Speaker 7: Yeah, and let me just do some level setting. I
[20:27] Speaker 7: guess okay.
[20:28] Speaker 8: First, So, for those who don't know about Title nine,
[20:30] Speaker 8: it was a federal law passed in nineteen seventy two
[20:33] Speaker 8: for hoping sex discrimination schools and education programs or see
[20:36] Speaker 8: federal funding. The Buien administration had interpreted it to protect
[20:42] Speaker 8: against discrimination of trans folks, and so what the court
[20:47] Speaker 8: held was that Title nine allows schools to pretty much
[20:53] Speaker 8: say that female sports teams can exclude may exclude trans women,
[20:58] Speaker 8: and that West Virginia had permisely maintained the female sports
[21:03] Speaker 8: for what they call biological females, which is sort of
[21:06] Speaker 8: like a far right talking point. And so their interpretation
[21:10] Speaker 8: of Title nine was that when it was drafted, sex
[21:16] Speaker 8: could only mean one thing, and that's what they perceive
[21:20] Speaker 8: as the anti trans term biological sex or sex assign
[21:24] Speaker 8: at birth. For equal protection. You know, we've had a
[21:27] Speaker 8: hard time since SCRIMMETI with it. I mean, the nice
[21:31] Speaker 8: thing with the decision is it didn't go as horribly
[21:35] Speaker 8: as they possibly could have gone. The court held that
[21:38] Speaker 8: West Virginia and Idaho did not violate equal Protection Clause
[21:41] Speaker 8: or the Porte by maintaining these, you know, quote unquote
[21:44] Speaker 8: female sports teams for quote unquote biological females. They used
[21:48] Speaker 8: intermediate scrutiny, so they looked at it as it being
[21:52] Speaker 8: sex discrimination or aligning based on sex, and they held,
[21:57] Speaker 8: even though it had this sort of heightened scrutiny, that
[22:01] Speaker 8: the states didn't actually violate that or really they were
[22:05] Speaker 8: able to show that it was at least connected to
[22:09] Speaker 8: the purpose of the specific language here. The Eagle Production
[22:13] Speaker 8: clause allowed schools to maintain separate teams for female and
[22:15] Speaker 8: male athletes. Schools can determine eligibility based on the quote
[22:19] Speaker 8: biological sex constitutionally justified by the what they consider vitally
[22:23] Speaker 8: important interests of safety and competitive fairness, and so the
[22:26] Speaker 8: sex based classification is justified. States don't need to make
[22:30] Speaker 8: case by case exceptions. So they found that it was
[22:32] Speaker 8: substantially related to the important government objective, But that was
[22:35] Speaker 8: challenged in one of the concurrences sodemo Or, Kegan and
[22:41] Speaker 8: Jackson concurred and dissented in part. Soina Mayor was arguing
[22:45] Speaker 8: that there could still be fact finding about whether that
[22:48] Speaker 8: was connected enough based on bpj's specific facts.
[22:52] Speaker 2: Has it been proven, has it been shown that there
[22:55] Speaker 2: are more injuries when there are transgender athletes in female sports?
[23:02] Speaker 7: That's what the states say, right.
[23:04] Speaker 8: Twenty seven states do restrict sports and athletics based on
[23:09] Speaker 8: your sex assign of birth.
[23:11] Speaker 7: The facts are really up in the air. It's not
[23:14] Speaker 7: known for sure, you know.
[23:15] Speaker 8: And one of the things we've seen with far right
[23:16] Speaker 8: talking points too, is that maybe trans girls are trying
[23:18] Speaker 8: to cheat their way into women's sports, right or take
[23:21] Speaker 8: away opportunities from girls.
[23:22] Speaker 7: And that's not the truth.
[23:23] Speaker 8: Transgender girls are not biological males, even though the court
[23:26] Speaker 8: might have used that term throughout.
[23:29] Speaker 7: And what the.
[23:30] Speaker 8: Concurrence in Part Descent in Part says is that BBJ,
[23:34] Speaker 8: specifically because she was put on puberty blockers, had never
[23:38] Speaker 8: gone through what is seen as like male puberty. Even
[23:42] Speaker 8: if there were certain facts or studies saying that some
[23:47] Speaker 8: trans girls have this quote unquote advantage, that wouldn't be
[23:50] Speaker 8: the case for BBJ and so the concurrence and dissent
[23:53] Speaker 8: had argued that there need be additional facts about whether
[23:57] Speaker 8: the stated necessarily used her an exception to the law.
[24:00] Speaker 2: How did the majority distinguish boss Stock from twenty twenty,
[24:05] Speaker 2: which is based on Title seven's ban on sex discrimination
[24:08] Speaker 2: in employment and saying that that protects gay and transgender workers.
[24:13] Speaker 2: Was that distinguished from this case?
[24:16] Speaker 8: Yeah, so they said that Title seven and boss Stock
[24:19] Speaker 8: weren't just not relevant because of the different statutory and
[24:21] Speaker 8: factual context. So Title seven, you know, would be employment
[24:25] Speaker 8: while Title nine was on sports, and then yeah, boss
[24:29] Speaker 8: Stock was not connected because the question was different there.
[24:34] Speaker 8: I do want to just highlight that, you know, it
[24:37] Speaker 8: is concerning you know, Gorset in his concurrence seems to
[24:41] Speaker 8: really want to expand this decision, right it despite Boss Stock.
[24:46] Speaker 8: You know, the Biden administration had perceived Boss Stock as
[24:49] Speaker 8: being this broad protection that the Trump administration immediately when
[24:53] Speaker 8: they came into office started to try to undermine. Right,
[24:56] Speaker 8: and the Court, especially in concurrence, seems interesting, did in
[25:01] Speaker 8: really limiting Boss Stock to the specific facts of that
[25:04] Speaker 8: case and unemployment. And I think that shows that we
[25:09] Speaker 8: might have really troubling times ahead.
[25:11] Speaker 6: Tell us more about that.
[25:13] Speaker 8: Yeah, So, as we know, the Trump administration, right when
[25:16] Speaker 8: he came into office started signing anti trans executive orders,
[25:20] Speaker 8: made it the policy of the United States, you know,
[25:22] Speaker 8: to keep trans folks from participating in sports that align
[25:25] Speaker 8: with their gender identities, implemented anti trans definitions of sex.
[25:28] Speaker 8: Attacid Secretary of Education to prioritize these Title nine enforcement
[25:31] Speaker 8: actions against educational institutions were sent in guidance documents on
[25:35] Speaker 8: transgender quality, inclusive and non discriminary school environments for LGBTQ students,
[25:40] Speaker 8: supporting transgender youth in sports, and we've seen the Department
[25:43] Speaker 8: of Education arguing the Title nine is not only permissive
[25:45] Speaker 8: of sport bands, but also require them, and have been
[25:48] Speaker 8: investigating schools who have such gender ferring policies relating to
[25:51] Speaker 8: even bathrooms and locker rooms in addition to sports.
[25:54] Speaker 7: There's dozens of.
[25:54] Speaker 8: These cases that I imagine the Trump administration will take this
[25:59] Speaker 8: case and really run with it. We've also seen the
[26:01] Speaker 8: Alliance Defending Freedom, which is designated a hate group by
[26:04] Speaker 8: the Southern Poverty Law Center, already signaling that they're going
[26:07] Speaker 8: to use this case of file increasing lawsuits against schools
[26:09] Speaker 8: with gender perming care policies.
[26:11] Speaker 2: Kavanaugh said that the law can't plausibly be interpreted to
[26:16] Speaker 2: refer to anything other than biological sex and not gender identity.
[26:21] Speaker 6: Explain why that makes a difference.
[26:24] Speaker 7: Specifically around Title nine.
[26:26] Speaker 8: Right, it protects against sex discrimination, and so what Kavanaugh
[26:30] Speaker 8: is saying there and what every other justice says there
[26:34] Speaker 8: is that cannot be interpreted as including sex discrimination broadly, right,
[26:40] Speaker 8: so including discrimination on gender identity or like transgender status.
[26:44] Speaker 8: And therefore the s West Virginia is not in violation
[26:47] Speaker 8: of Title nine by having this band that affects PPJ
[26:51] Speaker 8: because it's specific to sex aside at birth. You know,
[26:54] Speaker 8: the decision and the Trump administration, they're really using terms
[26:59] Speaker 8: that have been employed to go after an increased discrimination
[27:04] Speaker 8: against trans people.
[27:06] Speaker 2: What parts of the opinion did the liberals dissent from
[27:11] Speaker 2: and what parts did they concur in?
[27:14] Speaker 7: They concurred in Title nine.
[27:15] Speaker 8: So they agreed with the majority that Title nine is
[27:20] Speaker 8: not a violation for these states to have these sports bands. Again,
[27:23] Speaker 8: it's may not have to So states may create these
[27:27] Speaker 8: sports bands, but it's not mandated under Title Knights. It's
[27:30] Speaker 8: not in violation of Title nine. The difference was around
[27:34] Speaker 8: equal protection. The majorities were mandated down to the courts,
[27:38] Speaker 8: you know, for the preceising since system of the opinion.
[27:40] Speaker 8: But the question that the liberals had was that there
[27:45] Speaker 8: should be more fact finding. You know, like I said before,
[27:48] Speaker 8: BPJ is is a specific case. She did not go
[27:53] Speaker 8: through what is seen as like male puberty, you know,
[27:56] Speaker 8: and they she didn't get to have those.
[27:59] Speaker 7: Facts in those considerations.
[28:01] Speaker 8: And you know, the liberals said that the Court's equal
[28:04] Speaker 8: protection precedents and majority neither required nor support what they
[28:07] Speaker 8: considered contorted logic, and really said that there was a
[28:11] Speaker 8: outstanding factual dispute that should have prevented the court's resolution
[28:15] Speaker 8: of her claim.
[28:17] Speaker 2: One of the plaintiffs here wanted to drop the case.
[28:20] Speaker 2: She was no longer participating in sports, and she was
[28:25] Speaker 2: approaching graduation. That was in the Idaho case, and I'm
[28:29] Speaker 2: wondering why the Supreme Court didn't allow her to drop out.
[28:33] Speaker 8: So in kee Cox had brought the equal protection claim.
[28:36] Speaker 8: BPJ is the one who brought the Title nine claim.
[28:39] Speaker 8: And so you know, in my opinion, it's it seems
[28:43] Speaker 8: really harmful, right that they didn't let her drop the case,
[28:47] Speaker 8: right because she was facing such amounts of harassment and discrimination.
[28:51] Speaker 8: You know, having her name on these cases really increased
[28:55] Speaker 8: rates of discrimination. I'm very proud, you know, of BPJ
[28:59] Speaker 8: and he Cox for fighting for themselves and fighting for
[29:02] Speaker 8: trans youth because they.
[29:03] Speaker 7: Just wanted to, you know, play on sports teams.
[29:06] Speaker 8: They wanted to be there with their friends, and they
[29:07] Speaker 8: fought for themselves in their community.
[29:10] Speaker 7: I don't know why the court didn't let Heacock drop
[29:13] Speaker 7: the case.
[29:13] Speaker 8: I think they are said that there was already so
[29:16] Speaker 8: much in here, so much fact finding, you know, there's
[29:18] Speaker 8: so much briefing on it, so why not.
[29:21] Speaker 7: But from the actual claims.
[29:23] Speaker 8: Brought, I don't see how they could be different, like
[29:25] Speaker 8: if it was just BPJ.
[29:27] Speaker 2: Well, thanks so much for joining me today, that's saying McNeil,
[29:31] Speaker 2: an attorney for Lawyers for Good Government's Gender Justice and
[29:35] Speaker 2: Health Equity Team. Former NBA players Malik Beasley and Edward Davis,
[29:42] Speaker 2: as well as sports agent Paulo Zamorano, and three others,
[29:46] Speaker 2: have been charged by federal prosecutors in an expanding illegal
[29:50] Speaker 2: sports betting probe. According to the unsealed indictment, Beasley agreed
[29:55] Speaker 2: with his former teammate Davis to underperform or overperform in
[29:59] Speaker 2: games leading insiders to make bets on how many points
[30:03] Speaker 2: or rebounds he would collect in a game. His attorneys said,
[30:07] Speaker 2: we look forward to vigorously defending Malik against any of
[30:10] Speaker 2: these charges. The case is the latest to emerge from
[30:14] Speaker 2: a long running federal investigation into the sports industry that's
[30:18] Speaker 2: already led to charges against NBA player Terry Roser and
[30:22] Speaker 2: two MLB pictures on the Cleveland Guardians, My guest is
[30:26] Speaker 2: Marissa Darden, chair of the Government Investigations and white collar
[30:29] Speaker 2: practice at Benish Law. Marissa tell us about the charges here.
[30:34] Speaker 9: So two days ago, the US Attorney's Office for the
[30:37] Speaker 9: Eastern District of New York unsealed an indictment charging in
[30:41] Speaker 9: another six individuals with a conspiracy to commit money laundering
[30:47] Speaker 9: on a services product and violating anti petty statutes. And
[30:50] Speaker 9: this seems like this investigation had been going on for
[30:53] Speaker 9: over a year. At least one of the defendants in
[30:56] Speaker 9: the case knew about it. That was Milink Beasley, one
[30:59] Speaker 9: of the former and NBA players, and it had been
[31:02] Speaker 9: publicly reported over a year ago that he was under
[31:04] Speaker 9: investigation for gambling illegal gambling. And this is another indictment
[31:09] Speaker 9: coming from the same US Attorney's Office that previously had
[31:13] Speaker 9: indicted some other NBA players late last year for a
[31:17] Speaker 9: similar crime. So it seems like this is something that
[31:19] Speaker 9: they've been looking into for a while.
[31:21] Speaker 2: Explain exactly what they're accused of, you know, the tweaking
[31:25] Speaker 2: their performance on these so called prop bits.
[31:28] Speaker 9: So two of the defendants in this sixth defendant conspiracy
[31:33] Speaker 9: are former NBA players, one is an agent one of
[31:38] Speaker 9: the agents of the former NBA players, that's Malik Beasley
[31:41] Speaker 9: and Edward Davis. And the other individuals would have been,
[31:45] Speaker 9: you know, sort of friends, hangers on, keep parts of
[31:47] Speaker 9: their entourage that were assisting in creating these prop bets.
[31:51] Speaker 9: And there were several games that the US Attorney's Office
[31:54] Speaker 9: actually lists right in the conspiracy as part of the
[31:58] Speaker 9: online gambling during scheme where the players were actually making
[32:04] Speaker 9: decisions early on and discussing with each other that they
[32:06] Speaker 9: were going to either shave points or score less rebounds
[32:10] Speaker 9: or do any kind of manipulation for purposes of hitting
[32:14] Speaker 9: side parlay bets in certain games, which includes a twenty
[32:18] Speaker 9: twenty four Milwaukee Bucks Cleveland Cavaliers game, a Charlotte Hornet's
[32:23] Speaker 9: game against the Bucks, and this was when again, Beasley
[32:27] Speaker 9: and Davis were both playing in the NBA, so I
[32:31] Speaker 9: can imagine that the NBA is very concerned about these
[32:35] Speaker 9: allegations and has publicly stated that they're cooperating in the
[32:38] Speaker 9: government's investigation.
[32:40] Speaker 2: How much did Beasley make in this alleged scheme, because
[32:45] Speaker 2: he made about sixty million dollars during his NBA career.
[32:49] Speaker 9: They don't give a total amount in the conspiracy, but
[32:53] Speaker 9: you can imagine it's in the hundreds of thousands of
[32:55] Speaker 9: dollars or more. I mean, as you noted, both these
[32:58] Speaker 9: individuals were making millions of dollars, although it's been publicly
[33:02] Speaker 9: reported that Beasley and Davis were in financial trouble, particularly
[33:05] Speaker 9: after they left the league. And I think it was
[33:08] Speaker 9: mister Beasley who was in the midst of securing a
[33:10] Speaker 9: forty two million dollar multi year contract with the Detroit
[33:15] Speaker 9: Pistons when the news.
[33:16] Speaker 4: Of this investigation in summer of twenty twenty five came out.
[33:20] Speaker 9: So the money, the actual total amount, is really less
[33:24] Speaker 9: of an issue here June, mostly because the statutes don't
[33:28] Speaker 9: require a threshold dollar amount in order to violate the law.
[33:33] Speaker 2: I think it was in October of last year there
[33:36] Speaker 2: were the arrests of Terry Rosier and Chauncey Billups. Is
[33:40] Speaker 2: it the same investigation that's ongoing or is it look
[33:44] Speaker 2: like a different investigation?
[33:46] Speaker 9: Again, the US Attorney's Office doesn't say, and so we
[33:51] Speaker 9: really don't know whether this all stems from the same
[33:53] Speaker 9: investigation or is part of something different. But you can
[33:57] Speaker 9: expect that this is something that the NBA and the
[34:02] Speaker 9: US Attorney's Office has been looking at for a long time,
[34:06] Speaker 9: and if they believe that there are more than one
[34:09] Speaker 9: or more than just a handful of players, that the
[34:11] Speaker 9: FBI would have established a task force or some other
[34:14] Speaker 9: sort of designated team of investigators to look into these
[34:19] Speaker 9: allegations and to try to figure out whether this is
[34:22] Speaker 9: a systemic problem.
[34:24] Speaker 2: In the other indictment, the three defendants in the similar
[34:27] Speaker 2: gambling case, an assistant coach Damon Jones has pleaded guilty,
[34:32] Speaker 2: so he'll be testifying and I guess that's where a
[34:35] Speaker 2: lot of the information will come at trial.
[34:37] Speaker 6: Do we know if he's involved in this case as well?
[34:40] Speaker 9: Not currently, although the indictment does list several unindicted co
[34:45] Speaker 9: conspirators in this case, that are they're just named as
[34:49] Speaker 9: sort of co conspirator one or co conspirator two, some
[34:51] Speaker 9: of whom were residents of Arizona and in Brooklyn, and
[34:54] Speaker 9: there may be some overlap there, and those individuals who
[34:58] Speaker 9: are named in the indictment and who are known.
[34:59] Speaker 4: To the granjury would be likely to testify a trial.
[35:02] Speaker 2: And also there were similar indictments against MLB players.
[35:08] Speaker 9: Yes, there's a pending case of former Cleveland Guardians players
[35:13] Speaker 9: in my hometown of Cleveland, Ohio that is pending in
[35:17] Speaker 9: the Southern District of New York for similar allegations. And
[35:21] Speaker 9: fans of the MLB may also know that famous La
[35:25] Speaker 9: Dodger Shani otanis his translator and confidant, has been accused
[35:30] Speaker 9: of illegal gambling. So it's become pretty rampant, you know,
[35:34] Speaker 9: since twenty eighteen twenty nineteen, when sports gambling was made
[35:38] Speaker 9: legal and a lot of these online prop bet companies
[35:41] Speaker 9: have come up, it's getting harder and harder for the
[35:44] Speaker 9: major sports leagues to clamp down on this. I think
[35:47] Speaker 9: the NFL has probably done the best at it, but
[35:51] Speaker 9: NBA and MLB certainly have had their public share of issue.
[35:57] Speaker 2: According to let's see the American Association the American Sports
[36:03] Speaker 2: Betting Industry wagered nearly one hundred and fifty billion dollars
[36:06] Speaker 2: on sports in twenty twenty four, up more than twenty
[36:10] Speaker 2: three percent from a year earlier. Those numbers are astonishing.
[36:14] Speaker 2: What is the NFL done that the NBA and the
[36:19] Speaker 2: MLB haven't done.
[36:22] Speaker 4: I think it's a couple of things.
[36:24] Speaker 9: Number One, the NFL ownership structure and group is very
[36:30] Speaker 9: heavy handed, and the players understand that they have to
[36:35] Speaker 9: abide by the rules. Their player association is not as
[36:38] Speaker 9: strong as the MLB or the NBA by any stretch
[36:42] Speaker 9: of the imagination. The owners have a ton of control,
[36:45] Speaker 9: and so as a general rule, I think when edicts
[36:48] Speaker 9: are made by the NFL, by Roger Goodell and the ownership,
[36:53] Speaker 9: they are followed because there just aren't a lot of
[36:55] Speaker 9: other options. Right if you play football, persue, the odds
[36:58] Speaker 9: of you getting into the NFL so low the numbers
[37:01] Speaker 9: are really against your favorite, and so people follow the rules.
[37:04] Speaker 9: The second thing is, I think it's been a lot
[37:07] Speaker 9: harder to create side and parlay bets side.
[37:10] Speaker 4: Bets rather than just on major games.
[37:12] Speaker 9: So it's easier in the NBA or the MLB to
[37:15] Speaker 9: break down statistics in very easy ways that players can control,
[37:20] Speaker 9: as opposed to the NFL, where there's a whole lot
[37:22] Speaker 9: of other factors involved that make it a lot harder.
[37:25] Speaker 4: To create parlay bets.
[37:27] Speaker 9: Third, I think most importantly is the culture of sports
[37:32] Speaker 9: betting has been more embedded from a fan perspective, I
[37:36] Speaker 9: think in the NBA than either of the other professional sports.
[37:39] Speaker 9: I can't speak to hockey, but certainly in the NFL
[37:42] Speaker 9: and in MLB. You go to any sports stadium right
[37:47] Speaker 9: now that has NBA games that play in it, there
[37:49] Speaker 9: are several locations where there are betting facilities on the premises.
[37:55] Speaker 9: And so there's been a real integration of sports betting
[37:58] Speaker 9: into the fandom in a way, particularly in basketball, that
[38:02] Speaker 9: there hasn't been in some of the other sports.
[38:04] Speaker 4: And I think you're seeing the consequence of that.
[38:07] Speaker 2: I mean, the things that they're accused of don't affect
[38:10] Speaker 2: the final score, do they? So does that make it
[38:13] Speaker 2: hard to find the violation the gambling?
[38:15] Speaker 9: I don't think we can say that. I mean, if
[38:17] Speaker 9: you have individuals who are accused of, you know, not
[38:21] Speaker 9: getting as many rebounds as they would normally go after,
[38:24] Speaker 9: or you know, faking an injury like in the in
[38:27] Speaker 9: the chouncy Billups indictment. There was one player who you
[38:31] Speaker 9: know went out in the second quarter of a game
[38:33] Speaker 9: as part of his side bet, you know, sort of conspiracy,
[38:37] Speaker 9: and so I think there is a bottom line effect
[38:40] Speaker 9: on the outcome of the game. But to your point, Dune,
[38:45] Speaker 9: the breakdown of each individual statistic or each individual player's
[38:50] Speaker 9: responsibility or role makes it harder to you know, look
[38:55] Speaker 9: at this sort of plainly and say they shaved points, right.
[38:58] Speaker 9: This is sort of like not your or grandpa's sports
[39:01] Speaker 9: betting conspiracy of thirty years ago, where people were much
[39:05] Speaker 9: more blatantly obvious about how they would shave points or how.
[39:08] Speaker 4: You know, they would go about this. So it's much
[39:10] Speaker 4: harder to detect.
[39:11] Speaker 9: And that's part of the reason why the NBA, I think,
[39:13] Speaker 9: hasn't rooted it out from the beginning without government intervention,
[39:17] Speaker 9: is because they just don't have a way of seeing
[39:20] Speaker 9: what individual players are discussing outside of the locker room.
[39:23] Speaker 2: The NBA has said that they're cooperating with the government,
[39:28] Speaker 2: do you know if they're doing anything else on their
[39:30] Speaker 2: own to try to stem this.
[39:33] Speaker 9: I don't have any specific knowledge of the NBA, you know,
[39:37] Speaker 9: doing anything. My assumption based on my experience is that
[39:42] Speaker 9: the NBA would have hired a am Law fifty, you know,
[39:45] Speaker 9: top tier law firm, or an individual who's used to
[39:49] Speaker 9: doing high stakes internal investigations such as Loretta Lynch at
[39:53] Speaker 9: Paul Weiss or Mary Joe White at Debavoys and Plimpton
[39:57] Speaker 9: or other respectable individuals at the highest level of investigations
[40:02] Speaker 9: to come in and help do some internal reviews of players,
[40:06] Speaker 9: cell phones, player communications staffing, create interview opportunities to talk
[40:12] Speaker 9: to key personnel, and then make recommendations for how the
[40:16] Speaker 9: NBA can do a better job of ameliorating these problems upfront.
[40:22] Speaker 6: Any final thoughts here.
[40:23] Speaker 9: The whole industry I think is really due for reckoning.
[40:26] Speaker 9: And I'm just as a bystander, as a fan, as
[40:29] Speaker 9: a lawyer, I'm very interested to see how the leagues
[40:32] Speaker 9: continue to respond, either publicly or privately. You know, one
[40:36] Speaker 9: of the things that is a common denominator in all
[40:40] Speaker 9: white collar criminal defense cases is if they take the phone,
[40:43] Speaker 9: you know that there's a problem.
[40:45] Speaker 4: And in these cases they're often.
[40:47] Speaker 9: Made by the text messages between you know, co conspirators,
[40:50] Speaker 9: and so you have to wonder, like, is the NBA
[40:52] Speaker 9: going to start giving out phones Are there going to
[40:55] Speaker 9: be different cell phone usage policies?
[40:58] Speaker 4: What can they negotiate with the Players.
[40:59] Speaker 9: Association about the type of communications that are going to
[41:02] Speaker 9: be monitored?
[41:03] Speaker 4: Are you going to have to turn over your phone.
[41:05] Speaker 9: As an employee of the NBA or as an employee
[41:07] Speaker 9: of a franchise. That type of information, I think is
[41:10] Speaker 9: what will be interesting to see as we move forward.
[41:13] Speaker 2: Oh those text messages, Thanks so much, Marissa. That's Marissa
[41:17] Speaker 2: Darden of Benish Law. And that's it for this edition
[41:20] Speaker 2: of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get
[41:22] Speaker 2: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You
[41:26] Speaker 2: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www
[41:30] Speaker 2: dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and remember
[41:34] Speaker 2: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at
[41:37] Speaker 2: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm Junie Grosso and you're
[41:41] Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.