# Weekend Law: The Chief's Warning, SCOTUS Pressured & Anthropic

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 20 Mar 2026, 38 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/1b20606f-4f24-45fd-903e-b41301739708/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Retired federal judge John E. Jones III, the president of Dickinson College, discusses recent remarks by Chief Justice John Roberts warning about personal attacks against judges. Then Dorothy Lund, a professor at Columbia Law School and co-director of the Ira M. Millstein Center for Global Markets and Corporate Ownership, discusses Anthropic challenging the Trump administration designating it a "supply chain risk." And Zoe Tillman, Bloomberg legal reporter, discusses the pressure on the Supreme Court over the overwhelming number of wins for the Trump administration in 'emergency' cases. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June grosseol from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:08] Speaker 2: With violent threats against federal judges rising, the Chief Justice
[0:13] Speaker 2: of the United States issued a warning this week.
[0:17] Speaker 3: Judges around the country worked very hard to get it right,
[0:22] Speaker 3: and if they don't, their opinions are subject to criticism.
[0:26] Speaker 3: But personally directed hostility is dangerous and it's got to stop.
[0:36] Speaker 2: It was Chief Justice John roberts first response to President
[0:40] Speaker 2: Trump's extraordinary verbal attacks on the justices who voted to
[0:45] Speaker 2: strike down his global tariffs a month ago. Trump called
[0:48] Speaker 2: them fools, lapdogs, unpatriotic, and disloyal to the Constitution. And
[0:55] Speaker 2: there's also the continued rhetoric from the administration calling out
[1:00] Speaker 2: is by name and sometimes ridiculing them.
[1:03] Speaker 3: The problem sometimes is that the criticism can move from
[1:08] Speaker 3: a focus on legal analysis to personalities, and you see
[1:16] Speaker 3: from all over, i mean, not just any one political
[1:19] Speaker 3: perspective on it, that it's more directed in a personal way,
[1:25] Speaker 3: and that frankly, can be actually quite dangerous.
[1:30] Speaker 2: It's not the first time the Chief has felt the
[1:32] Speaker 2: need to come to the defense of federal judges. My guests,
[1:37] Speaker 2: retired federal judge Johnny Jones third, he's the president of
[1:42] Speaker 2: Dickinson College, Judge Jones, what's your take on the Chief
[1:46] Speaker 2: Justice's warning.
[1:48] Speaker 4: Yeah, this is a big statement from the Chief And
[1:51] Speaker 4: I absolutely respect the Chief Justice. I think that he's
[1:54] Speaker 4: been a terrific leader of the federal courts. Agree or
[1:58] Speaker 4: disagree with his decisions. Became Chief Justice when I was
[2:01] Speaker 4: on the bench. You know, he's stood up historically for
[2:04] Speaker 4: his judges. But for him to go this far means
[2:07] Speaker 4: to me that he appreciates that this has reached critical mass.
[2:11] Speaker 4: I was privileged to be on sixty Minutes a couple
[2:14] Speaker 4: of weeks ago and a spot on threats against the judiciary,
[2:18] Speaker 4: and I said very straightforwardly that we're going to get
[2:20] Speaker 4: a judge killed if we're not careful. And I think
[2:23] Speaker 4: this is resonating now with the Supreme Court. And while
[2:27] Speaker 4: I know that the Chief was being cautious, although his
[2:32] Speaker 4: statements were pretty strong, pretty profound, that it has to stop. Look,
[2:37] Speaker 4: there's only one set of offenders right now. You could
[2:41] Speaker 4: go back and talk about Chuck Schumer, and you can
[2:44] Speaker 4: talk about other people who made comments about decisions by
[2:47] Speaker 4: Republican appointed judges, but they're completely different in their nature
[2:53] Speaker 4: than the constant drumbeat from this administration literally from January
[2:58] Speaker 4: twentieth of last year year. And you know, I think
[3:02] Speaker 4: the president's rhetoric, the Attorney General's rhetoric, Todd Blanche for example,
[3:05] Speaker 4: saying there's a war in the judiciary. I think this
[3:08] Speaker 4: is this is really really beyond the pale. And you know,
[3:12] Speaker 4: we're seeing judges docks, We're seeing judges having pizzas delivered
[3:15] Speaker 4: to them anonymously, and somebody's going to take up arms
[3:19] Speaker 4: and they're going to do harm to a judge or
[3:23] Speaker 4: a judge's family. And I think the chiefs had enough
[3:25] Speaker 4: of it, and that's why he picked a spot at
[3:28] Speaker 4: Rice University and decided to speak out. Good for him.
[3:31] Speaker 2: Do you have any confidence that this is going to
[3:34] Speaker 2: get the president or those in his administration to tame
[3:38] Speaker 2: their remarks.
[3:39] Speaker 4: Well, it won't stop, June. But I'll tell you what's happening.
[3:42] Speaker 4: You know, you're seeing for the first time now that
[3:45] Speaker 4: grand juries are not indicting people. They're issuing no bills
[3:49] Speaker 4: in cases. So this president would want to, I think,
[3:53] Speaker 4: use the apparatus of the criminal justice system of the
[3:56] Speaker 4: Justice Department to you know, bring punitive actions against his
[3:59] Speaker 4: end enemies. And what he's done is I think he's
[4:03] Speaker 4: poisoned the well and good citizens who are called to
[4:06] Speaker 4: serve on grand juries are not buying it. And judges too,
[4:09] Speaker 4: Judge Bozburg, for example, you know, who quashed a subpoena
[4:12] Speaker 4: almost never happens in the case of Jerome Powell. So
[4:15] Speaker 4: judges and grand jurors are wise to the ways of
[4:19] Speaker 4: this administration. I mean, these sort of consequences of this
[4:23] Speaker 4: are expanding. For example, you know, the duty of candrid
[4:26] Speaker 4: to the court is observed in the breach I think
[4:29] Speaker 4: by government attorneys daily. They have utterly lost their credibility
[4:33] Speaker 4: with the federal judiciary. You know, judges simply don't believe
[4:36] Speaker 4: what lawyers are saying to them. And that's really sad
[4:39] Speaker 4: because you know, I learned over my almost twenty years
[4:42] Speaker 4: in the bench that the Justice Department was extremely professional
[4:46] Speaker 4: and reliable, and you know, you typically could take them
[4:49] Speaker 4: at their word. That has been eviscerated by this administration.
[4:52] Speaker 4: So while I don't expect them to stop, they're reaping
[4:55] Speaker 4: what they're sewing. And you know, I've never seen so
[4:59] Speaker 4: many no bills issued from Grand jurius. It's remarkable.
[5:03] Speaker 2: Judge Let's turn out to a different topic, a very
[5:06] Speaker 2: different topic that's gotten a lot of attention. This past week.
[5:10] Speaker 2: For the first time, twenty seven Appellate Court judges on
[5:14] Speaker 2: the Ninth Circuit issued a harsh rebuke to one of
[5:17] Speaker 2: their colleagues for the crude language he used in a
[5:21] Speaker 2: dissenting opinion. The full court had decided not to review
[5:26] Speaker 2: on bank a three judge panels ruling against a Christian
[5:30] Speaker 2: known SPA that wanted to exclude transgender women on free
[5:35] Speaker 2: speech grounds, and judges from across the ideological spectrum condemned
[5:41] Speaker 2: Judge Lawrence Van Dyke for his use of vulgar language
[5:45] Speaker 2: to describe transgender women in his descent. They said, the
[5:49] Speaker 2: language used by Van Dyke, a Trump appoint d, makes
[5:53] Speaker 2: us sound like juveniles, not judges, and it undermines public
[5:57] Speaker 2: trust in the courts. What did you do you think
[6:00] Speaker 2: about his descent?
[6:01] Speaker 4: Well, I've never quite read a judicial opinion like what
[6:06] Speaker 4: Judge Van Dyke rendered, and you know, at the end
[6:09] Speaker 4: of the day, I think it's unfortunate and it's inappropriately word.
[6:14] Speaker 4: Did I agree with his colleague who opined that were
[6:17] Speaker 4: better than this? It's way too sensational, It's way too cavalier.
[6:24] Speaker 4: And you know, the other appellation that he used in
[6:27] Speaker 4: the opinion is referring to his colleagues as woke, and
[6:31] Speaker 4: it's just wholly intemperate, and I think it portends that
[6:36] Speaker 4: he's going to have a very difficult working relationship if
[6:39] Speaker 4: he didn't already with his colleagues on the circuit.
[6:41] Speaker 2: Have you ever heard of a rebuke like that from
[6:44] Speaker 2: colleagues on the bench?
[6:46] Speaker 4: No, I haven't, and I've read, you know, some really
[6:49] Speaker 4: vigorous descents. Justice Scalia could really sharpen his pen in
[6:54] Speaker 4: his dessense. They were kind of entertaining, in part because
[6:58] Speaker 4: he didn't do it with particularly animus. There was one
[7:02] Speaker 4: time in history that I've read about where he and
[7:06] Speaker 4: Justice Kennedy clashed and they both regretted it, but the
[7:09] Speaker 4: rhetoric wasn't anything close to what you see in this rendering.
[7:13] Speaker 4: You know, appell at courts like the Ninth Circuit have
[7:17] Speaker 4: to work together and they may have widely disparate views.
[7:21] Speaker 4: But the interesting thing about courts is that while people
[7:25] Speaker 4: come from all stripes, and I had a very diverse
[7:27] Speaker 4: court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the District Court.
[7:30] Speaker 4: You know, you tend to check your sort of sensational
[7:34] Speaker 4: activities and attitudes at the door and really work to
[7:37] Speaker 4: get along with your colleagues for the good of the
[7:40] Speaker 4: third branch. And this kind of I can only characterize
[7:44] Speaker 4: it as grandstanding, I think really casts Judge Van Dyke
[7:48] Speaker 4: in an unfortunately bad light. And this is not his
[7:51] Speaker 4: first rodeo. As they say, you know, having a dissent
[7:54] Speaker 4: by video is I would also say, probably too cute
[7:57] Speaker 4: by half.
[7:58] Speaker 2: Yeah, he recorded teen minute video in his judicial robes
[8:03] Speaker 2: handling several firearms as part of a descent from a
[8:06] Speaker 2: Ninth Circuit decision that upheld a California gun control law.
[8:11] Speaker 2: Sometimes when judges write these opinions with shock elements, they're
[8:15] Speaker 2: referred to as auditions for the Supreme Court. Judges trying
[8:20] Speaker 2: to get the attention of President Trump in order to
[8:24] Speaker 2: get nominated to the Court.
[8:26] Speaker 4: You know, I guess that you could say that he's
[8:29] Speaker 4: auditioning for something I don't know what, And I think
[8:32] Speaker 4: that he's going to have a hard time if his
[8:36] Speaker 4: quest is, you know, to be taken seriously as a
[8:39] Speaker 4: Supreme Court nominee. He's getting an F grade in that.
[8:42] Speaker 4: I don't think it's going to work for him. This
[8:45] Speaker 4: is the kind of stuff that would really get you
[8:47] Speaker 4: beaten up, perhaps in a bipartisan way in a Senate confirmation.
[8:51] Speaker 4: So good luck to him, But he doesn't look like
[8:53] Speaker 4: a Supreme Court nominee to me in any way, shape
[8:55] Speaker 4: or form.
[8:56] Speaker 2: Do you agree with the judges who said that this
[8:59] Speaker 2: undermine public trust in the courts.
[9:02] Speaker 4: It depends how widely disseminated the opinion is. To be
[9:05] Speaker 4: perfectly honest, but it could get viral. I guess it's
[9:07] Speaker 4: certainly been written about in a number of different places.
[9:10] Speaker 4: I don't know that the general public reads these things.
[9:13] Speaker 4: But you know, at a time when I think the
[9:15] Speaker 4: third branch has been under assault by the administration, and
[9:19] Speaker 4: you know, judge's integrity has been questioned, you know, every
[9:23] Speaker 4: time they rule in a way that displeases the President
[9:26] Speaker 4: and the Attorney General and so forth, you don't need this.
[9:29] Speaker 4: This is not helpful. Judges on appellate courts have disagreed
[9:34] Speaker 4: since the beginning of the Republic and the creation of
[9:36] Speaker 4: the circuit courts, which came along, of course, after the
[9:39] Speaker 4: Supreme Court was created, and they've done it with you know,
[9:42] Speaker 4: a modicum of civility, but sometimes very directly. This is
[9:46] Speaker 4: really beyond the pale. You know, it's hey, look notice me,
[9:50] Speaker 4: because I can say really sensational, inflammatory things, and I
[9:55] Speaker 4: don't believe that that's appropriate.
[9:57] Speaker 2: We mentioned that other instance. Is there a point where
[10:00] Speaker 2: there could be disciplinary proceedings?
[10:02] Speaker 4: You know, that's an interesting question, Jane. I don't know.
[10:05] Speaker 4: I don't think there's anything particularly actionable in the opinion
[10:09] Speaker 4: from a judicial discipline standpoint. Generally, something like this, you
[10:14] Speaker 4: may get a call from the chief judge of the
[10:17] Speaker 4: circuit and you know, kind of be taken to the
[10:20] Speaker 4: woodshed by the circuit and say, look, you know, this
[10:22] Speaker 4: isn't helpful. I read up on the good Judge Vandyk
[10:26] Speaker 4: and I don't think he's of a nature that that
[10:29] Speaker 4: would resonate with him. And I'm guessing that perhaps after
[10:33] Speaker 4: the video descent in which he was literally brandishing firearms,
[10:36] Speaker 4: that he's already had a brushback pitch thrown at him
[10:39] Speaker 4: by some colleagues in the circuit. He doesn't appear to
[10:42] Speaker 4: be of a mind to listen, so I don't think
[10:44] Speaker 4: that would be particularly efficacious in this case.
[10:47] Speaker 2: Also, I just want to point out that when he
[10:50] Speaker 2: was nominated the American Bar Association rated him not qualified,
[10:55] Speaker 2: with some lawyers and judges saying he was arrogant, lazy
[10:58] Speaker 2: in an ideologue who doesn't have an open mind.
[11:01] Speaker 4: Other than that he's perfectly qualified for the bench. Obviously
[11:04] Speaker 4: I read that, and you know, if you get ding
[11:07] Speaker 4: like that, and of course a lot of people don't
[11:09] Speaker 4: like the ABA process and so forth, but if you
[11:11] Speaker 4: get ding like that as you're going through your confirmation,
[11:13] Speaker 4: you would think that you'd want to sort of enhance
[11:16] Speaker 4: your reputation and proved everybody that you're qualified by doing
[11:21] Speaker 4: things like this. It's, you know, just the opposite to
[11:24] Speaker 4: my comment earlier jan about you know, working in close quarters.
[11:28] Speaker 4: Just imagine the next time this guy is sitting with
[11:31] Speaker 4: some of the colleagues who castigated him in this case,
[11:34] Speaker 4: it's going to be like he's radioactive, and you can't
[11:36] Speaker 4: trust a guy like that to kind of act as
[11:40] Speaker 4: according to what I would describe as judicial norms. And
[11:43] Speaker 4: this isn't like blazing new territory and deciding cases. This
[11:46] Speaker 4: is sensationalistic and I just don't think it as a place.
[11:50] Speaker 2: It's always a pleasure to talk with you, Judge Jones,
[11:53] Speaker 2: Thanks so much. That's Judge Johnny Jones. The third coming
[11:57] Speaker 2: up next, Anthropic showdown with the federal government. I'm June
[12:02] Speaker 2: Graso and you're listening to Bloomberg. It's the first time
[12:07] Speaker 2: the government has branded a US company a supply chain risk,
[12:12] Speaker 2: and Anthropic is fighting back in court to stop what
[12:16] Speaker 2: it calls an unlawful campaign of retaliation. Defense Secretary Pete
[12:21] Speaker 2: Hegseth made the designation following a dispute with the AI
[12:26] Speaker 2: company over guardrails. The company wants to prevent the use
[12:30] Speaker 2: of its technology for government surveillance or to power fully
[12:35] Speaker 2: autonomous weapons. Dario ama Day, co founder and CEO of Anthropic,
[12:40] Speaker 2: explained some of his concerns in an interview with The Economist.
[12:45] Speaker 1: There are norms about serving the military, supposed to follow orders,
[12:48] Speaker 1: but you know if something, if something crazy enough happened,
[12:52] Speaker 1: the soldiers would say, I'm not going to do that, right.
[12:54] Speaker 1: What if you have an army of ten million drones
[12:57] Speaker 1: instead of you know, ten million human soldiers. What are
[13:00] Speaker 1: the norms of the of the AI driven drones.
[13:03] Speaker 2: Anthropic is asking a California court to issue a preliminary
[13:08] Speaker 2: injunction to block the government's ban. Joining me is Dorothy
[13:12] Speaker 2: Lund a professor at Columbia Law School and co director
[13:16] Speaker 2: of the Ira M. Milstein Center for Global Markets and
[13:20] Speaker 2: Corporate Ownership. Dorothy Defense Secretary Pete Hesif designated Anthropic as
[13:26] Speaker 2: a National security supply chain risk. That's a designation that's
[13:31] Speaker 2: usually used to bar companies that are linked to foreign adversaries.
[13:36] Speaker 5: Yeah, this is quite unusual. I think this is the
[13:38] Speaker 5: first time in US history that an American company has
[13:42] Speaker 5: been given this designation. So if you look at the
[13:45] Speaker 5: companies typically on this list, it's companies with ties to China,
[13:50] Speaker 5: ties to Russia that you know, the government wants to
[13:53] Speaker 5: say there's particular risks. You know, we would be very
[13:56] Speaker 5: cautious about contracting you know, this Chinese company or this
[13:59] Speaker 5: Russian company. It's never happened before that a US company
[14:02] Speaker 5: has been given this designation.
[14:05] Speaker 2: What are the grounds for Anthropics suit against the government.
[14:08] Speaker 5: Essentially, Anthropic is saying this designation is not being given
[14:13] Speaker 5: for the right reasons. Instead, this is retaliation for our
[14:17] Speaker 5: refusal to accede to certain demands that you made that
[14:21] Speaker 5: we didn't want to accede to. So you have it
[14:24] Speaker 5: really identified a security threat that would cause us to
[14:28] Speaker 5: really deserve this label. Instead, you're just punishing us and
[14:33] Speaker 5: retaliating against us for not going along with what you've
[14:37] Speaker 5: demanded from us in a way that violates all rights.
[14:39] Speaker 2: Anthropic says, this is about the guardrails it wants around
[14:44] Speaker 2: the use of its technology for mass surveillance or to
[14:49] Speaker 2: power autonomous weapons. Is it unusual for a private company
[14:54] Speaker 2: to be setting limitations on how its tech is used
[14:58] Speaker 2: by the military.
[15:00] Speaker 5: You know, the typical sort of thinking here is that
[15:04] Speaker 5: it's a matter of corporate governance or corporate decision making
[15:08] Speaker 5: for a company that is providing a service to set
[15:12] Speaker 5: certain guardrails on that right. You know, this should only
[15:16] Speaker 5: be used in certain ways, and the client, even if
[15:19] Speaker 5: the client is the Pentagon, the client has the right
[15:22] Speaker 5: to say, well, I don't want to work with you.
[15:24] Speaker 5: I don't like this contractual limitation that you've given me.
[15:28] Speaker 5: But I can break my contract with you. I can
[15:30] Speaker 5: go with somebody else, and you know, we'll deal with
[15:32] Speaker 5: whatever repercussions the contract says about that. But this is
[15:36] Speaker 5: how things work in the free world, right, And sort
[15:39] Speaker 5: of another interesting moment where you know, historically the conservative
[15:43] Speaker 5: ideology has been very accepting of this idea that private
[15:47] Speaker 5: markets will lead to the right results. You wouldn't want
[15:50] Speaker 5: to have the government interfering with private markets. And if
[15:54] Speaker 5: a private entity doesn't want to do a deal on
[15:57] Speaker 5: certain terms, you know that's and the market will sort
[16:01] Speaker 5: it out there. Maybe there'll be somebody else that's willing
[16:03] Speaker 5: to provide that product at that price or that service
[16:05] Speaker 5: under those terms, but that the government wouldn't then try
[16:09] Speaker 5: to get into that space and influence it. And so
[16:11] Speaker 5: I think it's sort of this interesting moment of the
[16:14] Speaker 5: Trump administration doing something that historically conservative politicians have not
[16:18] Speaker 5: wanted to do, which is to interfere with markets and
[16:21] Speaker 5: sort of how markets set prices and terms and contracting
[16:24] Speaker 5: parties that don't like it can walk away, but there's
[16:26] Speaker 5: nobody forced to contract with anybody else.
[16:29] Speaker 2: The government filed papers in opposition to Anthropics motion for
[16:34] Speaker 2: a preliminary injunction, and it said that Anthropics showed hostility
[16:39] Speaker 2: in its negotiations with the Pentagon and that led the
[16:43] Speaker 2: government to question whether it could be trusted. But the
[16:46] Speaker 2: government didn't point to any real security justification for the designation,
[16:52] Speaker 2: so it sort of missed the point.
[16:54] Speaker 5: And just back to where we started in this conversation,
[16:57] Speaker 5: you know, the idea of somebody posed a supply chain risk.
[17:01] Speaker 5: Is this idea of like foreign infiltration, the idea that
[17:05] Speaker 5: some foreign government that is hostile to the United States
[17:09] Speaker 5: is going to get some information or some advantage by
[17:13] Speaker 5: virtue of this organization freely contacting in the United States.
[17:17] Speaker 5: So even under the terms that the government is bringing
[17:19] Speaker 5: up in it suit, the idea that there's hostility towards
[17:22] Speaker 5: the government, it doesn't really even speak to foreign infiltration.
[17:26] Speaker 5: It just sounds like negotiations didn't go so well. So
[17:30] Speaker 5: again I think the hook to the designation seems to
[17:33] Speaker 5: be quite tenuous.
[17:35] Speaker 2: Anthropic is asking the court for a preliminary injunction, as
[17:38] Speaker 2: I mentioned, saying it could damage the company's reputation and
[17:43] Speaker 2: cause multiple billions of dollars in losses this year. The
[17:47] Speaker 2: hurdles to get a preliminary injunction are high. Do you
[17:51] Speaker 2: think Anthropic might clear those hurdles?
[17:53] Speaker 5: Typically a preliminary injunction an order to win, you have
[17:57] Speaker 5: to show that without giving the junction there's going to
[18:01] Speaker 5: be irreparable harm, and there has to be a strong
[18:04] Speaker 5: likelihood of winning on the merits. And by the way,
[18:06] Speaker 5: this harm can't be something that can be fixed after
[18:09] Speaker 5: the fact using money damages, and so I think here
[18:13] Speaker 5: in this case, I guess this is a really a
[18:14] Speaker 5: good example of where a preliminary injunction would make a
[18:17] Speaker 5: lot of sense. You know, I think, Okay, so Anthropic
[18:20] Speaker 5: is going to lose this government contract, right, so that
[18:24] Speaker 5: is hundreds of millions of dollars. But I think the
[18:26] Speaker 5: bigger impact here is the government's demand that no federal
[18:31] Speaker 5: agency do work with Anthropic, and also that other third
[18:36] Speaker 5: party entities that contractor the government also stop doing business
[18:40] Speaker 5: of Enthropic. And that for a company that is in
[18:43] Speaker 5: an early stage of growth that is in a really
[18:46] Speaker 5: competitive race AI race not just in the United States
[18:50] Speaker 5: but also globally, for them to sort of be blacklisted
[18:54] Speaker 5: like this is really quite harmful. I mean, you know,
[18:57] Speaker 5: I think they're promontators who've looked at this and said,
[18:59] Speaker 5: this is the equivalent of giving Anthropic the death penalty,
[19:03] Speaker 5: And I don't think that's a real exaggeration. I think,
[19:06] Speaker 5: you know, in this moment, for Anthropic to lose the
[19:08] Speaker 5: ability to contract with a broad swath of entities would
[19:13] Speaker 5: really be damaging. It might not be able to recover
[19:16] Speaker 5: from that.
[19:16] Speaker 2: Forgetting the legalities for a moment. Even if Anthropic wins
[19:21] Speaker 2: and this is lifted this ban, is any agency in
[19:25] Speaker 2: the government then going to start doing business with Anthropic
[19:29] Speaker 2: knowing the administration's opposition. So won't there be serious consequences
[19:35] Speaker 2: for Anthropic even if it wins this lawsuit?
[19:38] Speaker 5: For sure, I think the Trump administration really believes in loyalty,
[19:43] Speaker 5: and now that they've sort of been given this scarlet
[19:47] Speaker 5: letter by President Trump and Pete Hegsas, I'm sure that
[19:52] Speaker 5: loyalists and individuals across the government will be wary to
[19:57] Speaker 5: work with Anthropic. You know, the government is directed all
[19:59] Speaker 5: federal agencies to stop using Anthropic, So I think your
[20:03] Speaker 5: intuition is right there. Although I think you know the
[20:06] Speaker 5: consequences for Anthropic, although that's not great, there's a much
[20:10] Speaker 5: broader market, right Anthropic is looking to a lot of
[20:14] Speaker 5: different places for clients, including other governments, you know, other
[20:17] Speaker 5: corporate clients. And by the way, there's been a little
[20:21] Speaker 5: bit of backlash already against open AI in the wake
[20:24] Speaker 5: of their signing up a deal with the government, So
[20:27] Speaker 5: I don't know quite how this would sort out. Would
[20:30] Speaker 5: Anthropic be rewarded by some swath of clients for sticking
[20:34] Speaker 5: to its guns and be able to make up that
[20:36] Speaker 5: loss in the future maybe, and will open Air I
[20:41] Speaker 5: suffer some backlash for its decision to kind of get
[20:44] Speaker 5: in there and essentially poach this client. Maybe. So I
[20:48] Speaker 5: think it's just not clear how this is all going
[20:49] Speaker 5: to shake out.
[20:51] Speaker 2: Other tech companies have filed legal briefs to support Anthropic.
[20:56] Speaker 2: Do you think that there is a concern that if
[21:00] Speaker 2: this punitive label on Anthropic sticks that it would establish
[21:05] Speaker 2: a precedent.
[21:07] Speaker 6: Oh?
[21:07] Speaker 5: Yeah, absolutely. I mean we're already in a moment is
[21:11] Speaker 5: sort of unprecedented moment in American history of executive branch
[21:16] Speaker 5: interference with private markets. And I don't want to say
[21:20] Speaker 5: this is only a feature of this administration. That's happened
[21:23] Speaker 5: during the Biden administration and prior administrations as well, but
[21:26] Speaker 5: I think we've really seen the Trump administration take this
[21:29] Speaker 5: to new heights. And so I'm sure tech executives all
[21:33] Speaker 5: over are looking at this and saying, we don't want
[21:35] Speaker 5: to be in a situation where we don't want to
[21:38] Speaker 5: agree to certain terms with the US government, whether it
[21:41] Speaker 5: be price or substance. And then the US government basically
[21:44] Speaker 5: puts us on a list that ensures that we can't survive.
[21:47] Speaker 5: You know, I think that's a scary thought. That's a
[21:49] Speaker 5: scary path to lock down. And I think even beyond
[21:51] Speaker 5: just sort of the typical tech company, AI companies should
[21:54] Speaker 5: be looking at this moment and be quite chilled, because,
[21:57] Speaker 5: you know, the AI industry is looked down the barrel
[22:01] Speaker 5: of a complex relationship with government. Some people say, well,
[22:05] Speaker 5: because this technology is so important, it should be nationalized.
[22:08] Speaker 5: Others say, you know, this is going to have to
[22:10] Speaker 5: be really carefully regulated, and so those regulations haven't come
[22:14] Speaker 5: and I think anthropics thought, well, let's get in with
[22:16] Speaker 5: the government and hopefully we'll have some ability to influence
[22:20] Speaker 5: the path and future direction of how this goes. And
[22:22] Speaker 5: it didn't work up so well for them. So for
[22:24] Speaker 5: the subset of tech executives that are also working in
[22:27] Speaker 5: artificial intelligence, this is sort of a chilling moment because
[22:30] Speaker 5: it's just showing you how the government is really willing
[22:35] Speaker 5: to go far and interfering with private markets and they're functioning.
[22:39] Speaker 5: And it suggests again the people that say well, artificial
[22:41] Speaker 5: intelligence should be subject to really burden some regulation and
[22:44] Speaker 5: a lot of government interference. It's suggests that yeah, the
[22:47] Speaker 5: Trump administration is on board for that.
[22:49] Speaker 2: Where does it fit in the picture that Anthropics technology
[22:53] Speaker 2: is being used right now in the Iran war?
[22:56] Speaker 5: So I think this is a way in which this
[22:59] Speaker 5: decision for the government to not just decide, you know, Okay, sure,
[23:05] Speaker 5: maybe Pete Hegsas doesn't like how the conversations are going
[23:08] Speaker 5: with Anthropic. Maybe Pete Hegsas says, we no longer want
[23:11] Speaker 5: to work with them going forward, and we'll figure out
[23:13] Speaker 5: a way to sort of disentangle this. You know, this
[23:15] Speaker 5: second step though, of trying to basically decapitate this company
[23:19] Speaker 5: that is really providing a valuable service for the US
[23:22] Speaker 5: military and it's ongoing operations that I think most sensible
[23:27] Speaker 5: people think there aren't great replacements available. So, you know,
[23:30] Speaker 5: this is sort of a moment where the government is
[23:32] Speaker 5: handcapping its own military. And if you have everything sort
[23:37] Speaker 5: of up and running on Anthropic, to then CAUSEMA military
[23:40] Speaker 5: to then pivot to a completely different platform that most
[23:43] Speaker 5: people think is not as well cut out for this task.
[23:46] Speaker 5: You know, that's a time consuming, distracting, burdens expensive endeavor.
[23:51] Speaker 5: So to sort of handicap yourself like that, and then
[23:53] Speaker 5: Panthropic is one of the most important and vital artificial
[23:57] Speaker 5: intelligence companies that's produced in America. So it's also handicapping
[24:01] Speaker 5: a home grown champion company in this race for AI dominance.
[24:07] Speaker 5: So again, it's sort of a funny strategy on multiple fronts.
[24:11] Speaker 5: And you know, if we want to be generous the
[24:13] Speaker 5: US government, sure, that's totally within their right if they
[24:16] Speaker 5: think that their contracting party has terms that they don't
[24:19] Speaker 5: want to bide by, that you have the right to
[24:21] Speaker 5: walk away, But then to take this extra step of
[24:24] Speaker 5: me capping them is just bizarre.
[24:27] Speaker 2: Well, we'll see what a judge thinks about all this
[24:29] Speaker 2: next Tuesday at the first hearing in the case. Thanks
[24:33] Speaker 2: so much, Dorothy. That's Columbia Law School professor Dorothy Lund.
[24:38] Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show is the
[24:41] Speaker 2: Supreme Court listening to criticism. I'm June Grosso and this
[24:46] Speaker 2: is Bloomberg. Since President Trump returned to office, his administration
[24:52] Speaker 2: has made twenty seven emergency request to the Supreme Court,
[24:56] Speaker 2: and the justices have granted those requests a remarkable twenty
[25:00] Speaker 2: three times. But Trump is ignoring that extraordinary win loss
[25:05] Speaker 2: record since the Court decided against his signature tariffs, and
[25:10] Speaker 2: on Monday, in the Oval office. Trump once again complained
[25:14] Speaker 2: about his Supreme Court nominees.
[25:16] Speaker 7: Republicans go the opposite way. If Donald Trump appointed me,
[25:21] Speaker 7: I'm going to show the world that I can be
[25:25] Speaker 7: totally just, that I can be independent of that of Trump.
[25:31] Speaker 4: He's not controlling me.
[25:33] Speaker 2: At the same time, pressure is growing on the Supreme
[25:36] Speaker 2: Court over all those Trump emergency wins, and it appears
[25:41] Speaker 2: the justices are making some changes in response. Joining me
[25:46] Speaker 2: is Bloomberg Legal reporter Zoe Tillman. Zoe tell us about
[25:49] Speaker 2: the criticism of the Supreme Court's handling of the emergency docket,
[25:55] Speaker 2: and you know President Trump's extraordinary record of wins.
[25:59] Speaker 6: So this option of pursuing emergency relief from the justices
[26:04] Speaker 6: has existed for a long time. In the past, there
[26:07] Speaker 6: were instances where on a you know, underscore emergency basis,
[26:12] Speaker 6: issues would go up while they were still pending in
[26:14] Speaker 6: lower courts because parties felt that there was this need
[26:17] Speaker 6: for a sort of immediate resolution of the status quo
[26:21] Speaker 6: by the justices. But it was it was rare, and
[26:24] Speaker 6: I think that seemed to reflect what the intent was
[26:28] Speaker 6: of calling something an emergency. So during the first Trump administration,
[26:32] Speaker 6: there was this uptick in instances when the government, after
[26:36] Speaker 6: losing repeatedly in lower courts, would turn to the justices
[26:40] Speaker 6: to say, you know, this case is still pending, but
[26:44] Speaker 6: there are reasons why we're going to be irreparably harmed
[26:47] Speaker 6: if you don't step in now, and you know, let
[26:50] Speaker 6: things continue as we want them to while this is
[26:52] Speaker 6: going forward. Under the Bid administration, it went down a
[26:56] Speaker 6: bit from Trump one, but we still sort of more
[27:00] Speaker 6: use of the docket. I think Trump one really opened
[27:03] Speaker 6: the door to this becoming a more commonplace part of
[27:07] Speaker 6: legal strategy. And then since Trump came back to office,
[27:11] Speaker 6: and you know, there's been a wave of unprecedented, novel,
[27:16] Speaker 6: expansive uses of executive power that have faced a wave
[27:20] Speaker 6: of flood of lawsuits. There's been then another flood wave
[27:25] Speaker 6: whatever metaphor you want to use to describe injunctions and
[27:29] Speaker 6: orders against the government, and they've been taking those up
[27:32] Speaker 6: at a much higher rate to the justices.
[27:34] Speaker 5: Now.
[27:34] Speaker 6: The criticism is that increasingly it's becoming a more commonplace
[27:39] Speaker 6: part of the legal process in a way that many
[27:42] Speaker 6: critics say it's not supposed to be. That you're sort
[27:46] Speaker 6: of skipping, leap frogging. What's supposed to happen in the
[27:49] Speaker 6: lower courts. There's supposed to be a full airing of
[27:51] Speaker 6: the facts. Judges are supposed to get some time to
[27:54] Speaker 6: really think about the full record, analyze the law, hand
[27:58] Speaker 6: down fully reasoned decisions, and then parties can ask the
[28:02] Speaker 6: Supreme Court to come in and do their own review
[28:05] Speaker 6: of this. But by going to the justices early, the
[28:09] Speaker 6: ideas that you're sort of short circuiting all of this
[28:11] Speaker 6: and there's no longer a full airing before the justices
[28:14] Speaker 6: put this sort of thumb on the scale and say, yes,
[28:17] Speaker 6: you can fire all these people even though the case
[28:19] Speaker 6: isn't over yet, or yes, you can refuse to pay
[28:22] Speaker 6: out all this money, or you can try to deport
[28:25] Speaker 6: a lot of people even though the case isn't over yet.
[28:28] Speaker 6: So that's how we got here.
[28:30] Speaker 2: One of the major criticisms is that in many of
[28:34] Speaker 2: these emergency orders, the justices have given little or no
[28:39] Speaker 2: explanation for their actions, and that's led district court judges
[28:44] Speaker 2: and even appellate court judges to reach different outcomes from
[28:48] Speaker 2: the Supreme courts, saying there's a lack of guidance from
[28:51] Speaker 2: the justices.
[28:52] Speaker 6: That's right, and there's been this sort of extraordinary dialogue
[28:56] Speaker 6: at times, disagreement, open disagreement unfolding between lower court judges
[29:02] Speaker 6: and the justices, with the Justice departments sort of serving
[29:05] Speaker 6: as the intermediary where district judges circuit judges will hand down,
[29:10] Speaker 6: you know, opinions, dozens of pages, fully analyzed, the Justice
[29:14] Speaker 6: Department gets an order from the Supreme Court. You know,
[29:17] Speaker 6: some of these are a couple sentences, a couple of paragraphs.
[29:20] Speaker 6: Sometimes they offer a reason in some summarized way, but
[29:24] Speaker 6: sometimes they don't. And then the Justice Department is taking
[29:27] Speaker 6: these and going back to lower courts and saying, see,
[29:30] Speaker 6: we one, this means the court is going to side
[29:32] Speaker 6: with us. Generally you need to back off. And lower
[29:35] Speaker 6: court judges are saying, that is not at all how
[29:37] Speaker 6: this works. It is not our job to read tea leaves.
[29:40] Speaker 6: That was a phrase one judge actually used. That it's
[29:43] Speaker 6: really not supposed to happen that way, and it's not appropriate.
[29:46] Speaker 6: Judges are saying for it to happen that way, we're
[29:48] Speaker 6: not supposed to infer what the Supreme Court wants. They're
[29:51] Speaker 6: supposed to give us precedent that we can clearly apply.
[29:54] Speaker 6: You know, last year there was sort of open disagreement
[29:57] Speaker 6: that broke out where in another round of cases, judges
[30:01] Speaker 6: were sort of not taking the approach the Justice Department wanted,
[30:05] Speaker 6: and Justice Neil Gorsich wrote openly that they're not doing
[30:08] Speaker 6: what they're supposed to do, and then lower court judges
[30:10] Speaker 6: pushed back and bristled at Justice Gorsuch's comments. I mean,
[30:15] Speaker 6: there's sort of this open disagreement, which is extraordinary to see,
[30:18] Speaker 6: and that kind of died down a bit, and now
[30:21] Speaker 6: again there's been this uptick in courts saying they just
[30:25] Speaker 6: haven't given us enough to work with.
[30:26] Speaker 2: Yeah, those exchanges were extraordinary. One area where the courts
[30:31] Speaker 2: are saying they don't have enough guidance from the Supreme
[30:34] Speaker 2: Court is in cases involving Temporary Protected Status, which allows
[30:39] Speaker 2: immigrants whose home countries are in crisis to temporarily live
[30:44] Speaker 2: and work in the US, and lawsuits challenging the administration's
[30:49] Speaker 2: efforts to revoke TPS status for migrants from several countries
[30:55] Speaker 2: has become sort of a flashpoint in this criticism of
[30:59] Speaker 2: the urgency docket. How do we get here?
[31:03] Speaker 4: So?
[31:03] Speaker 6: Last year, the Homeland Security Secretary Christine Nome began rolling
[31:08] Speaker 6: out announcements that they were terminating temporary protected status for
[31:13] Speaker 6: a number of countries. I think it's something like seventeen
[31:16] Speaker 6: at the start of twenty twenty five had tps, and
[31:20] Speaker 6: to date I think it's thirteen where Nome has announced
[31:24] Speaker 6: they're terminating the status. But the challengers say that there's
[31:28] Speaker 6: administrative steps that she's not following. The other argument and
[31:32] Speaker 6: allegation is that whatever reasons this administration is giving is
[31:36] Speaker 6: actually pretextual, and that it is because these are people
[31:40] Speaker 6: from parts of the world or people from ethnic backgrounds
[31:44] Speaker 6: that this administration does not want in the United States,
[31:47] Speaker 6: and that there is a discriminatory, a hostile purpose behind
[31:51] Speaker 6: these cancelations that violates the rights of these migrants. And
[31:55] Speaker 6: we've had some judges finding that they think the evidence
[31:58] Speaker 6: does support those allegations, as well as finding that just
[32:02] Speaker 6: process wise, they've gone about this in an unlawful way.
[32:06] Speaker 6: So as terminations were announced, lawsuits hit the docket. We've
[32:10] Speaker 6: had lower courts, mostly although not exclusively, siding with challengers,
[32:16] Speaker 6: granting preliminary injunctions stopping these terminations from taking effect. Going
[32:20] Speaker 6: up on appeal appeals courts often affirming what the lower
[32:24] Speaker 6: courts have done, but what's been sort of fascinating about
[32:27] Speaker 6: these cases is there's been two times the Supreme Court
[32:31] Speaker 6: has weighed in in a case involving Venezuelan's and both
[32:33] Speaker 6: times they sided with the government and said, yes, you
[32:36] Speaker 6: can go ahead with terminating their status. And after both
[32:40] Speaker 6: of those orders, lower courts in large parts said like,
[32:44] Speaker 6: this does not apply to me. There was no reasoning here.
[32:47] Speaker 6: Venezuela is a different country from the country that I'm
[32:50] Speaker 6: looking at, and without the justices telling me, you know,
[32:54] Speaker 6: here's the reasoning that should apply more broadly, we're not
[32:58] Speaker 6: going to back off. And so the issue is now
[33:01] Speaker 6: back before the Justices.
[33:03] Speaker 2: This time it's about the administration wanting to revoke temporary
[33:07] Speaker 2: protected status for about three hundred and fifty thousand Haitians
[33:11] Speaker 2: and Syrians, again on an emergency basis, and this time
[33:16] Speaker 2: they added a request for a full review of the cases.
[33:21] Speaker 2: So basically, we're doing this on the emergency docket, but
[33:24] Speaker 2: we want you to handle it as if it were
[33:27] Speaker 2: on the regular docket.
[33:29] Speaker 6: It's quite unusual. Everything about this is quite unusual. And
[33:33] Speaker 6: you know what we saw was the court this time
[33:36] Speaker 6: saying we are not going to immediately intervene here there
[33:40] Speaker 6: was an ask by the Justice Department to lift the
[33:44] Speaker 6: lower court rulings now while the case goes forward, which
[33:48] Speaker 6: would effectively put the Haitians and Syrians on the table
[33:53] Speaker 6: for potential detention and deportation. So Justice has said this time,
[33:57] Speaker 6: we're not going to take that approach. We're going to
[33:59] Speaker 6: hold up off here for now. But in a very
[34:02] Speaker 6: unusual move, they did say yes, we will skip the
[34:05] Speaker 6: rest of the proceedings in the Circuit court and we
[34:07] Speaker 6: will take this up on the merits. They are going
[34:10] Speaker 6: to have arguments in April. So the government got some
[34:13] Speaker 6: of what it wanted here. This is certainly fast tracking it.
[34:16] Speaker 6: This is not what the challengers wanted. They wanted to
[34:19] Speaker 6: let the circuit courts complete their process, you know, give
[34:23] Speaker 6: fully reasoned opinions, and then if the government wanted to
[34:26] Speaker 6: take this up they could. But at a minimum, it
[34:28] Speaker 6: does seem to be the court saying we are going
[34:31] Speaker 6: to give you reasons here that even if they do
[34:34] Speaker 6: end up siding with the government, they're going to do
[34:36] Speaker 6: it in some ways. At least that looks more like
[34:39] Speaker 6: normal process that lower courts can then turn to to say, okay,
[34:44] Speaker 6: this is the precedent this is what they're telling us
[34:46] Speaker 6: to do, Zoe.
[34:48] Speaker 2: There was an unusual amikus or friend of the court
[34:51] Speaker 2: brief signed by former state and federal judges, both Republican
[34:56] Speaker 2: appointees and Democratic appointees, urging and justice is to let
[35:01] Speaker 2: the full legal process play out before intervening. Do you
[35:05] Speaker 2: think that influenced the justices.
[35:08] Speaker 6: The order that they handed down doesn't explain sorting keeping
[35:13] Speaker 6: with the prize surprise. It didn't explain why they decided
[35:16] Speaker 6: to take the approach that they did this time. So
[35:19] Speaker 6: you know, they didn't say, we heard your complaints and
[35:21] Speaker 6: so we're going to go to the merits instead of
[35:24] Speaker 6: ruling on the emergency docket. They didn't say that, you know,
[35:26] Speaker 6: so we don't know what was in their heads that said.
[35:29] Speaker 6: What we know is what's happened, which is they have
[35:32] Speaker 6: a record of lower courts really talking to them through
[35:35] Speaker 6: opinions saying you need to give us more. You know,
[35:38] Speaker 6: if you want us to let the government terminate TPS,
[35:41] Speaker 6: you need to tell us why in a way that
[35:43] Speaker 6: we can apply. So there's a record of that, and
[35:45] Speaker 6: you have this friend of court brief signed by more
[35:48] Speaker 6: than one hundred and seventy five former federal and state
[35:52] Speaker 6: judges coming to the defense of lower courts here and saying,
[35:56] Speaker 6: you know, it's really not fair to accuse them of
[35:59] Speaker 6: doing something wrong. This is about the legitimacy of the
[36:02] Speaker 6: Supreme Court. More broadly, that if you want the public
[36:05] Speaker 6: and the rest of the courts to take seriously and
[36:09] Speaker 6: respect the work that the Supreme Court is doing, that
[36:11] Speaker 6: they need to slow down and show their work. And
[36:13] Speaker 6: this past year, I think because there's been this escalation
[36:17] Speaker 6: of attacks coming from the President directly, coming from other officials,
[36:22] Speaker 6: coming from conservative allies, really attacking sometimes judges by name
[36:27] Speaker 6: who have ruled against this administration, making comments that question
[36:31] Speaker 6: the integrity of what the lower courts do and the
[36:34] Speaker 6: work of judges. There's been this outpouring of support coming
[36:38] Speaker 6: from former judges. Occasionally we have sitting judges speaking up,
[36:42] Speaker 6: which is one of the most extraordinary if we're going
[36:45] Speaker 6: to make a list of extraordinary things, here, one of
[36:46] Speaker 6: the most extraordinary things that we've seen. You know, the
[36:49] Speaker 6: consequences for TPS holders, for them, the stakes are extremely high.
[36:54] Speaker 6: So there is on the one hand, you know, the
[36:56] Speaker 6: high human stakes for the people involved here. I think
[36:59] Speaker 6: also a lot of people see these types of cases
[37:02] Speaker 6: as high stakes for the role the judiciary plays and
[37:07] Speaker 6: the credibility and legitimacy of the work that the courts
[37:10] Speaker 6: do and whether they can function as a robust check
[37:14] Speaker 6: on the other branches.
[37:15] Speaker 2: And with the expedited schedule, we'll find out how the
[37:19] Speaker 2: justices think by July. Thanks so much, Zoe. That's Bloomberg
[37:23] Speaker 2: Legal Reporter Zoe Tillman, and that's it for this edition
[37:26] Speaker 2: of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get
[37:28] Speaker 2: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You
[37:32] Speaker 2: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www
[37:36] Speaker 2: dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and remember
[37:40] Speaker 2: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at
[37:43] Speaker 2: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're
[37:47] 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.