May 14, 2025 • 32 mins
Dave Aronberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney and Managing Director of Dave Aronberg Law, discusses the resentencing of the Menendez Brothers. Holly Froum, Bloomberg Intelligence Litigation Analyst, discusses a hearing over the legality of President Trump’s tariffs. June Grasso hosts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
I just know that on a day like today, that
redemption is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Thirty five years after they were sentenced to life in
prison without the possibility of parole for the cold blooded
murders of their parents, a remarkable turn for Eric and
Lyle Menendez. They now have a chance of getting out
of prison. Family members have supported the brothers throughout the years,
and they were in court yesterday at the re sentencing
(00:37):
hearing to testify that not only were Eric and Lyle rehabilitated,
but they helped other prisoners, including by starting support groups.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Ultimately, we are here today with this result because of
Eric and Lyle, because they had They chose to live
their lives with clarity and a purpose of service that
the judge was impressed by.
Speaker 4 (01:02):
This is something my grandmother, Joan, has fought for her
for thirty five years. I really wish she was here today,
but I'm really excited to give her the news.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
LA District Attorney Nathan Hoffman had attempted to block the
resentencying at every turn, arguing repeatedly that Eric and Lyle
had not admitted to lies told during their trial about
why they killed their parents, nor have they taken complete
responsibility for their crimes.
Speaker 5 (01:35):
Whether it's some Menenda's brothers or anyone who basically engaged
in a horrific, brutal killing of their parents, shotgunning their
parents over thirteen times when they were adults eighteen and
twenty one years old, I would have concern whether it's
the Menenda's brothers or anyone it fits that profile.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Both Eric and Lyle addressed the court and took responsibility
for the murders of their parents and the lies they
told in court. Eric said, I have profound sorrow for
the tragedy I created. I took the lives of my
mom and dad. My actions were criminal, cruel, and cowardly.
Lyle said, I killed my parents. I offer no excuse
(02:16):
and I don't blame my parents. Judge Michael Jessic resentenced
the brothers, reducing their sentences from life in prison without
parole to fifty years to life, making them immediately eligible
for parole. But there's still a long road ahead that
goes through the parole board and the governor. Joining me
is Dave Ahrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney and
(02:39):
managing partner of Dave Arenberg Law. Dave, let's talk about
what this resentencing hearing was and what it wasn't. It
wasn't about re litigating the murders, but it was about
whether the brothers have been rehabilitated.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
The hearing was surely for the judge, that is, whether
or not the Menendez brothers can be resentenced, and he
heard testimony from family members and decided that in the
interest of justice, that Menanda's brothers would be resentenced under
the rules of the time, which permitted someone who committed
(03:18):
such a horrific offense who's under the age of twenty
six to be eligible for parole. The thing is, at
the time they were sentenced to life in prison without parole,
but now they're changing it to with pearol, and now
the Menendez brothers can go before the parole board to
let him out early.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Nathan Hoffman, the LA District attorney, opposed to resentencing and
attempted to block it in every way he could. Why
was he so opposed to it?
Speaker 1 (03:47):
He ran on a law and ordered platform and he
got elected to be tougher on crime as opposed to
the predecessor Gassone, who was seen as one of those
Soros reform prosecute. So this is in line with Takman's
brand to be tough on crime, and he represented what
I considered like this press the silent majority, not the
(04:09):
celebrities who came out and masked to support the Menendez brothers,
but people who said, I remember this horrific crime and
they were sentenced a life in prison. To get life
in prison, and that didn't mean thirty five years in prison.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
The testimony was from family members of the Menendez brothers
and it was about how they have rehabilitated themselves in prison.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
The family members were the biggest supporters of an early release.
Now all the family members but seemingly one who passed away,
wanted them out early. But the district attorney does not
represent the victim, does not represent the family members. They
represent the people. That's why it's usually the people versus
Menendez or the state versus Menendez. And in this case,
(04:57):
the decision of the district attorney was that it is
in the interest of the people of California that the
Menenda's brothers stay behind bars.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
So they were model prisoners. Apparently, Lyle had absolutely no
you know, write ups for violence in the years they
were in prison. Apparently Eric had won. That was twenty
five years ago, So there really was no evidence that
they hadn't reformed themselves, was there.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
Well, there was a report that showed that they did
have contraband inside the prison, which was cell phone and
potential drugs. That's part of a report, and whether or
not that means they have not been reformed. Well, when
it comes to violence, they clearly did not commit anything
(05:50):
like that in prison. They were different people behind bars,
they helped others. But yet there are a lot of
people who find God behind bars and they help others,
and they don't get released early from a life sentence.
So it seems that the celebrity in this case, the
power of celebrity made a real difference.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
I wonder if this would have happened if you hadn't
had that Netflix documentary that sort of introduced a whole
new generation of people to the Menendez brothers in a
sympathetic way.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
I agree the power of streaming, the power of celebrity.
I think the Menendez brothers became a cause celeb and
as a result, they got some benefits from it. They
got all this worldwide attention they had the best lawyers
possible for them, and they were able to convince the
district attorney to side with them to get a resentencing.
And then that district attorney lost the election, but the
(06:47):
judge went ahead with it anyways, And now it's up
to the pro board and the governor, and I think
they will be let out early. I don't think there
are any risk of reoffending any violent crime. I think
they did get reform behind prison walls. But on the
other hand, how many other people in their situation get
this benefit, get sentence to life in prison and they
(07:07):
get out early because they were good prisoners. Not many.
But this case was treated differently because of the celebrity involved,
because of the notoriety, and that's the issue I have.
I just don't think they were treated like everyone else.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
But in their second trial, the judge limited the testimony
about the allegations of abuse, and it's possible the jury
would have come out with a verdict of manslaughter instead
of murder if the abuse allegations had gotten a full hearing.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
Well, that was a judge's determination at the time, and
the crimes were not overturned on appeal. I mean the
proper venue. If you think that the judge made a
bad decision is to appeal it. But the appellate courts
did not agree, thought that they got a fair trial.
And as far as being led out, the real reason
why they're being led out, apparently, at least according to
the previous DA, was because of their good behavior behind bars.
(08:00):
But there are a lot of people behind bars who
act with good behavior and they don't get let out early.
The difference here to me is the celebrity aspect of
it that doesn't exist in other cases.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
The DA Hawkman had complained over and over that they
hadn't taken responsibility for the crimes, but both brothers made
these remarkable statements accepting full responsibility for the murders. Lyle
said that all the choices he made were his own,
including quote the choice to reload, return to the den,
(08:33):
and run up to my mother and shoot her in
the head. And he apologized for making a mockery of
the criminal legal system by lying. Does that seem like
the kind of apology that the LADA was looking for.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
It does, and that's something that I thought has been underreported.
I'm glad you brought it up to gen because Hawkman
had asked for a real apology, said enough of this abuse,
excuse take responsibility for your actions. Stop saying that you
had to kill your parents because they would have killed
you first. That was a lie all along. And I
do believe with their statements that they went a long
(09:08):
way towards meeting Kachman's request, and that's why I think
that they will be released earlier. I do think that
this was as close to a full fledged apology acknowledgment
of guilt that we have ever seen from them. It
was something different than before, and I think that's going
to lead to their early release.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
The judge called the crime shocking. He said he was
also shocked by the number of corrections officials who wrote
letters on behalf of the brothers, and that seemed to
be an important part of his decision.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
It was something that corrections officials and family members all
sided with them, and I do think the celebrity part
of it has something to do with it. The Netflix
shows the movement behind them. Yeah, I think that did
persuade people. But I do think also there's really little
doubt that they are different people today than they were
back there. They were real spoiled, selfish kids. Who acted
(10:03):
in a brutal, horrific way. I mean the fact that
the mother who did not engage in sexual abuse but
may have helped cover it up. But she was crawling
away after being shot by a shotgun, and then the
brothers went outside to reload to continue to come in
and shoot her ten times, including in the face. There
(10:24):
was so much blood on the scene that the cops
thought this was a mafia hit, and yet they lied
about everything. They went on a spending spree. Only after
spending seven hundred thousand dollars in quick turn did they
attract the attention of law enforcement and then were eventually arrested.
But they got away with it for a while. They
(10:45):
got what they wanted, and I thought they deserved their sentence.
But you know, they are reformed, and if the system
lets them out early, I don't think they will reoffend.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Coming up next on the Boomberg Law Show, I'll continue
this conversation with Dave Arenberg. We'll talk about the three
paths to freedom the Menendez brothers have right now, and
an update on their racketeering and sex trafficking trial of
Seawan Combe's I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg,
Eric and Lyle Menendez have been given their first chance
(11:17):
at freedom in decades. A Los Angeles judge reduced the
brother's sentences from life in prison without parole to fifty
years to life, making them immediately eligible for parole. But
there's a long road ahead. The brothers now have three
potential paths to freedom, through the Parole Board, which could
(11:37):
grant them parole, through the governor, who could grant them
executive clemency, and through a petition for habeas corpus, where
a judge could grant them a new trial. I've been
talking to former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ahrenberg. Dave,
their clemency hearing is already set for June thirteenth, and
as part of the clemency hearing, the Parole Board already
(12:00):
conducted an evaluation to determine what dangers the brothers may
pose if released. It's called a comprehensive risk assessment. Here's
what la DA Nathan Hoffman said about the findings.
Speaker 6 (12:15):
We have this additional new information coming in from the
border Parole senior psychologists that have assessed that risk as
a moderate risk, not a high risk. Not a low risk,
but a moderate risk.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
So what do you think is the best path for
them to get released.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
I was actually surprised when I saw that moderate risk.
I don't think they will REAFFCD. I mean, there's so
many eyeballs on these guys. They're going to go on
the speaking circuit, they're gonna go through reality shows. I mean,
I think it's unfair because they're going to be treated
in a way that others are not. They're going to
get super celebrity and make a lot of money off this,
and no one should profit off their infamy. But I
(12:53):
do think that the two tracks will lead to their
early release, whether it's the Governor Newsom track of the
clements see board and then signed by the governor or
the parole board, which is what the judge just sanctioned.
So either way, I think they're headed towards the release.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
And if the parole board does deny parole, it has
to do so for a period of three, five, seven,
ten or fifteen years, so it could deny parole and
then say, well, come back in three years.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
I would think that would be probably the best case
scenario for those who want Meananda's brothers to stay behind bars.
I do not envision them remaining behind bars that much longer,
so three years may be the outer limit.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
They also filed the habeas corpus petition seeking a new trial.
Is that still in play?
Speaker 1 (13:42):
That was always the most unlikely thing to happen. Of
the three of the three choices, three real choices. They
had the resentate thing, they had the clemency, and then
they had the habeasts. But the Habeasts was sort of
a dead end. The other two, though, bore fruit, and
I think that that's going to lead to their early release.
But you know, I just wonder had there not been
Netflix documentaries, would they be in this situation, had Kim
(14:04):
Kardashian others not taken up their cause, would they be
in this situation? They committed a horrific, brutal murder and
lied about it for years, and now they're ready to
be released after thirty five years of serving a life sent.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
I mean, new evidence had emerged. Did that play any
part in this resentencing hearing?
Speaker 1 (14:22):
I think it did, because the judge took everything into account.
It was more than the good behavior. It was the
fact that there was evidence that the sexual abuse from
Jose did occur, not conclusive evidence, but we had a
letter that one of the Menanda's brothers wrote to a
cousin that mentioned it. There was also the Menudo boy
band member who said that Jose engaged in sexual abuse
(14:44):
with him. So yeah, there is evidence, and that's why
it could be a manslaughter case instead of a murder
case as it applies to Jose. And I'm okay if
they want to let him out early for the murder
of Jose because of this new evidence, because it been
good prisoners. The problem I had is the murder of
them mother Kitty, who did not engage in sexual abuse,
and they said, well, she enabled them, But here are
(15:06):
their parents sitting watching TV with their backs turn eating
ice cream, getting blown away with shotguns by these boys
who meticulously planned this brutal murder, and then they went
on a shopping spree after covering it all up. And
the way they murdered Kitty was so horrific and so
cold calculated and cruel that I don't think that's a
(15:27):
manslaughter case. I think that's a murder conviction and should
stay as a murder conviction. But as I said before,
this case was really never treated the same as other
cases from the beginning.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
We'll see what happens with the clemency hearing in about
a month. Let's turn for a moment to the Sean
Diddy Combe's trial. It's day three of Combe's trial. He's
charged with racketeering, conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage
in prostitution. His former girlfriend, Cassie Venture, is on the
(16:00):
stand for the second day, talking about her decade long
relationship with Colmbs that she says was plagued by jealousy, violence,
and humiliating sex. The prosecution seems to have a wealth
of evidence of violence of violent acts. Is that enough
in this case?
Speaker 1 (16:20):
Well, it's not enough just for there to be violent.
There needs to be more, and I think they have more.
They've got more because they have more than one witness
who's going to testify to These freak coughs and the
freak COFs are in themselves not necessarily illegal, but it
is illegal when it involves involuntary sexual conduct, when it
(16:43):
involves alleged human trafficking, when it involves a racketeering an
ongoing criminal enterprise to service ditty and committing various crimes
along the way, like arson and obstruction of justice, witness intimidation,
and all these other types of crimes that fit under
the racketeering ruber. So, you know, standing alone, maybe there
(17:08):
are not all times that would have been prosecuted. The
defense is that this is the domestic violence case, this
is not a racketeering case, this is not a human
trafficking case. But taken all together, it does look like
they have enough evidence to sustain the conviction. And Cassie
taking the stand yesterday and today has been devastating for
the defense because she is the one who connects all
(17:29):
the dots in this case, and she's been a very
compelling witness, not to mention she's also eight months pregnant,
so she's a very sympathetic witness as well.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
During the opening statements, the defense attorney claimed that Combe's
accusers were motivated by money, and she said that Cassie
Ventura demanded thirty million dollars when she sued him. Quote,
I want you to ask yourself, how many millions of
reasons does this witness have to lie? So we can
(17:57):
assume that that's going to be part of the cross
examination and why she didn't report it to police and
instead file the civil suit. Against him.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
She set this all emotion by suing him. It's something
that takes a lot of courage to be able to
file something. And it wasn't a money grab when you
have the other party selling it within a day like essentially,
they keep her quiet. So if he wants to bring
up that this is a civil case of money grabbed,
it's a look bad for him to say, yeah, I
settled with it a day. That's something you don't do
unless you know you've done it. So it cuts both ways. Yes,
(18:31):
you can say why didn't you report this to the
police and why did you just sue? Well, okay, but
look what happened. She sued and then the police got involved,
and so that led to the criminal charges. It's because
of Cassie that this whole trial is even a current.
And then he also lied about the fiscal violence all
of a sudden, he admitted to it only after that
(18:51):
horrific video came out. That video is very telling. They
played it already in front of the jury and the
jury must be appalled by it because that's the only
thing is it ever admitted to, it seems, is the
physical violence on that day at that moment, because that
was the act that was caught on video.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
I read that Diddy was offered a plea deal and
turned it down. I don't know what he was offered,
but it does seem like this defense is going to
be an uphill battled to say the least. So what's
the defense going to look like?
Speaker 1 (19:23):
The defense is consent, and consent is a legitimate defense
when you're dealing with adults who allegedly are victims of
human trafficking. If there were miners consent, it's not a defense.
But to get a human trafficking conviction, you need force,
fraud or coercion. Well that's where that video comes into play.
The force that was used. Her claims a physical violence
(19:44):
are buttressed by that video. So if they can prove force,
fraud a coorsion, then all you need is one victim
and he goes down. But they're trying to show a
pattern of activity to get that racketeering conviction. And then
there's the other charges of the man acts by relations,
which is when you take individuals across state lines or
purposes of the prostitution. So I think the prosecution has
(20:06):
enough to win a conviction and to keep Ditty behind
bars for the rest of his life. The defense is
going to try their best to poke holes in the
victims stories and to show that this was a consensual
activity of these freak coughs. But I don't know. I mean,
yesterday's and today's testimony, we're going to continue to hurt
the defense because Cassy comes across as very credible and
(20:26):
the stuff she's saying is so salacious that it has
to move the jury.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
So did he took videos of these so called freak
offs and today they showed the jury stills of them.
Do you think that just seeing these graphic images will
impact the jury's view of him.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
There's a rule of evidence that says that the evidence
is not going to be admitted if it's more prejudicial
than it is probative, if it's just used for salaciousness,
if it's just used to inflame the jury. But here
it's part of the charge, so it is relevant, and
it is very salacious, and it will have an effect
on the jury. How do you not when you hear
(21:08):
things that I can't even repeat on this program, it
would be believed. You can imagine how the jury feels
that this was real life. So that's why I think
that it will come back to haunt Diddy. Now, what's
ironic is that our culture now, our society, is that
if he gets acquitted, he'll go back to making records
and being the super celebrity he is, when in any
(21:30):
other time you would think that just these allegations, just
this kind of testimony, would destroy someone's reputation in the
court of public opinion. But nowadays it seems like even
being infamous can get them paid.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
I don't know, Dave, Even if he's acquitted, I'm not
sure he could make a comeback, but he certainly has
the huge hurdle of a jury verdict ahead of him. First,
thanks so much for being on the show, Dave. That's
Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County state attorney. Coming up
next on The Bloomberg Last Show, we'll look at whether
the US Trade Court might block Trump's Liberation Day global tariffs.
(22:07):
I'm June Grossel. When you're listening to Bloomberg. President Trump's
global tariffs are facing a key test in US Trade Court.
A group of small businesses is urging the court to
block the tariffs, arguing that Trump invoked a bogus national
emergency to justify them. The businesses claim that Trump's use
(22:31):
of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IEPA is
an unprecedented and unlawful expansion of presidential authority that would
allow him to impose tariffs without meaningful judicial review. The
Trump administration is arguing that the president's emergency declaration is justified,
(22:52):
saying the cumulative effects of annual trade deficits are a
threat to the US economy and supply chain, and further
that the courts don't have the authority to review Trump's
interpretation of what an extraordinary threat is. The fight could
impact trillions of dollars in global trade, and comes amid
(23:13):
a wave of legal challenges to Trump's executive orders, which
are testing the limits of presidential power on everything from
federal spending to restrictions on birthright citizenship. Joining me is
Bloomberg Intelligence litigation analyst Holly From. First of all, this
is a little known federal court. Tell us about this court.
Speaker 7 (23:36):
So it's the International Trade Court in downtown Manhattan, and
it handles to speaks arising from terroriffts. So any law
that provides for a terriff presumably goes to that court.
Although there is some dispute about whether these lawsuits are
jurisdiction is whether the International Trade Court has jurisdiction over these.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Cases the Trump administration. Eric Hamilton was the lawyer, and
he claimed that the question here is a political question
and that the Court doesn't have the right to decide it.
Speaker 7 (24:09):
That's right. So he's saying that because there's no standard
about how the court can determine whether there's an emergency
that meets the International Emergency Economic Powers Act standards, which
is AEPA. Because there's no standards, there's no discoverable standard,
that it's a nonussible question. So only the political branches,
(24:31):
Congress and the President have power to decide whether this
emergency is trade doesn't sit meet that emergency provision in AEPA.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
How did the judges react to that that they don't
have the power to decide this.
Speaker 7 (24:45):
I think they pretty much disagreed with that. I think
that's pretty clear. You know, they said that there is
this provision that says, you know that a declaration of
emergency is not reviewable. But because they put these two
magic words in the statue, which is there has been
declaration of emergency that presents an quote unusual an extraordinary
(25:05):
threat to national security or the economy. Because Congress put
those words in the statute, it was meant for the
judiciary to interpret that. Why else would they put those
words in the statue. And what the government argued was that, well,
that's for the presidents are determined. That's a limit on
the president his self discretion to determine that this emergency
(25:25):
falls within that meaning unusual and extraordinary threat. But it's
not for the court to decide that.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
So let's talk about IPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act,
and the arguments over those words unusual and extraordinary threat
tell us what the plaintiffs are claiming here.
Speaker 7 (25:46):
So they're saying that the trade deficit is a persistent problem.
It definitely doesn't arise to the level of an emergency
of that nature. It's been, you know, in insistence for decades.
In fact, this is not the largest trade deficit we've
ever seen. And so while the plaintiffs sort of had
a difficult time explaining to the court what standard they
would use to determine whether this is an emergency that
(26:08):
meets this threat, he said, this is so outside the
definition of those words that it cannot be possible that
this trade deficit falls within that definition. So the court
doesn't even need to set a standard. It could just
say this is so wildly outside the definition it doesn't
meet AIPA.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
And the Trump administration's attorney, what was the response, Well, he.
Speaker 7 (26:30):
Was pressed on this also and he says to political question,
the court shouldn't even review it. But when pressed further,
and when the Court said, assume that we think that
we have the power to decide this, he said, well,
look at the ordinary definitions of unusual extraordinary re for
them to dictionary definition. And he also said in prior cases,
the courts have of how those decorations.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
Yeah, and so I mean, could you tell which way
the judges were leaning on that?
Speaker 7 (26:57):
So I think it's hard to say. It's very hard
to say, but I think the court is skeptical. We've
come out and said we think that these will eventually
be upheld, but I think the court is skeptical. And
the court even said judges Sani even said one of
the judges of the three member panel said, what if
there's a shortage of peanut butter? Is that a national
emergency because it's unusual extraordinary? So could the president just
(27:19):
declare an emergency? They're like what is the limit? And
I think they're skeptical because if they bought the government's argument,
there would be no limit on the president's authority and
when he could declare a national emergency and what terrorists
he compose. And that's where what the plaintiffs are arguing, like,
you know, this is the quintessential unlimited exercise of power.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
I mean, did the court discuss Congress and that tariffs
are you know, within Congress's purview?
Speaker 7 (27:44):
They did, They said, this is you know, Congress's domain.
You know, the Constitution very clearly says Congress has the
power to regulate foreign commerce. Congress has the power to
impose tariffs, and there are two separate provisions and they're
both with you know, the domain of But the government
is saying, well, that's true, but they can delegate that
power to the president and they have here and they
(28:07):
have before in terms of other statutes that nobody's quibbling about.
So Section two thirty two, which allows the president to
impose terrors if imports threat national security, that was delegated
to the president. So even though Constitution says yes, this
is the power that Congress has, they can in certain
circumstances delegate that power to the president, and.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
How have they done that in this case?
Speaker 7 (28:27):
So with what the government is arguing is that with
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, they gave the Presidence
the authority to regulate imports, which includes imposing terrorists. If
the President declares the national emergency that it imposes an
unusual extraordinary threat to national security or the economy.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
Usually, if you're asking for an injunction, the planets have
to show irreparable harm. Did they discuss whether they would
suffer irreparable harm?
Speaker 7 (28:52):
They didn't even get into that. So that's why there's
this thinking that the court is going to rule on
the summary judgment each because there's a and in summary
judgment motion too. So for some re judgment you just
have to win. In the merits, you don't have to
show a reparable harm. So there's this thinking that they're
just going to rule in summary judgment motion one way
or the other.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
President Nixon used a similar emergency law to issue tariffs
during a currency devaluation crisis in the early seventies. Tell
us about that case and is it precedent here?
Speaker 3 (29:24):
So?
Speaker 7 (29:24):
Yes, that is by president. What happened there was President
Nixon imposed a ten percent tariff on all dutyabul goods
to address a balance of payments deficit in nineteen seventy one.
And so there was a court case that arose out
of that, and the appellate court at the time, which
is the predecessor to the Federal Circuit, which the International
Trade Court that's hearing this dispute is bound by the
(29:46):
predecessor court, found that under a predecessor statute that mirrors
the language in AIPA, the president had power to impose
those tariffs, that ten percent tariff on all dutiable goods.
And so that's case the court was talking about, and
Dave and said, you know, to the point if that's
identical language, the court there found that the president had
(30:07):
power to impose terror when the statute said you can
regulate imports. So they're bound by that. But the court,
even you know, is suggesting that there's many distinctions with
that case in terms of you know, what's happening now.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
So you gave this a sixty percent chance that the
tariffs will be upheld, explain you know what you base
that on?
Speaker 7 (30:27):
Sixties percent is more likely than than not, but it's
very very close. And the reason we think that it
will be upheld is because, you know, because there is
this US sheet of precedent which says that very clearly
that the president has power to regulate imports and that
includes tariff. And then the court is going to have
to get into whether there's trede deficit, is an emergency
and though they seemed inclined to review whether it's an
(30:49):
unusual extordinary threat, we think ultimately, if this goes up
to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will hold that
the president has the power to impose these tariffs and
that the court shouldn't be tucking guesting the president when
it comes to declaring emergencies.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
The plane Offs asked the court to rule on an
expedited basis. Are they going to rule on an expedited basis?
Speaker 7 (31:10):
I think that they're going to rule relatively quickly. So
this is a case that it's suscepting almost everyone and
it has national import, So I think they're going to rule.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
I've been two q There are other cases over the tariffs,
including a case by Democratic Attorneys General. Is that going
to go to the Trade Court as well?
Speaker 7 (31:28):
Yes, so they filed that in the Trade Court. There
is another case that California filed outside of the Trade Court,
which is in a federal court in California, because they're
contesting the International Trade Court's jurisdiction. But most of these
have been filed in the Trade Court and there are
pending motions to transfer all the cases outside to the
(31:49):
same court to the Trade Court.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Thanks so much, Holly. That's Bloomberg Intelligence Litigation Analyst Holly
from and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg
Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal
news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them
on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com,
slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into The
(32:12):
Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time.
I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
I just know that on a day like today, that
redemption is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Thirty five years after they were sentenced to life in
prison without the possibility of parole for the cold blooded
murders of their parents, a remarkable turn for Eric and
Lyle Menendez. They now have a chance of getting out
of prison. Family members have supported the brothers throughout the years,
and they were in court yesterday at the re sentencing
(00:37):
hearing to testify that not only were Eric and Lyle rehabilitated,
but they helped other prisoners, including by starting support groups.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Ultimately, we are here today with this result because of
Eric and Lyle, because they had They chose to live
their lives with clarity and a purpose of service that
the judge was impressed by.
Speaker 4 (01:02):
This is something my grandmother, Joan, has fought for her
for thirty five years. I really wish she was here today,
but I'm really excited to give her the news.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
LA District Attorney Nathan Hoffman had attempted to block the
resentencying at every turn, arguing repeatedly that Eric and Lyle
had not admitted to lies told during their trial about
why they killed their parents, nor have they taken complete
responsibility for their crimes.
Speaker 5 (01:35):
Whether it's some Menenda's brothers or anyone who basically engaged
in a horrific, brutal killing of their parents, shotgunning their
parents over thirteen times when they were adults eighteen and
twenty one years old, I would have concern whether it's
the Menenda's brothers or anyone it fits that profile.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Both Eric and Lyle addressed the court and took responsibility
for the murders of their parents and the lies they
told in court. Eric said, I have profound sorrow for
the tragedy I created. I took the lives of my
mom and dad. My actions were criminal, cruel, and cowardly.
Lyle said, I killed my parents. I offer no excuse
(02:16):
and I don't blame my parents. Judge Michael Jessic resentenced
the brothers, reducing their sentences from life in prison without
parole to fifty years to life, making them immediately eligible
for parole. But there's still a long road ahead that
goes through the parole board and the governor. Joining me
is Dave Ahrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney and
(02:39):
managing partner of Dave Arenberg Law. Dave, let's talk about
what this resentencing hearing was and what it wasn't. It
wasn't about re litigating the murders, but it was about
whether the brothers have been rehabilitated.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
The hearing was surely for the judge, that is, whether
or not the Menendez brothers can be resentenced, and he
heard testimony from family members and decided that in the
interest of justice, that Menanda's brothers would be resentenced under
the rules of the time, which permitted someone who committed
(03:18):
such a horrific offense who's under the age of twenty
six to be eligible for parole. The thing is, at
the time they were sentenced to life in prison without parole,
but now they're changing it to with pearol, and now
the Menendez brothers can go before the parole board to
let him out early.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Nathan Hoffman, the LA District attorney, opposed to resentencing and
attempted to block it in every way he could. Why
was he so opposed to it?
Speaker 1 (03:47):
He ran on a law and ordered platform and he
got elected to be tougher on crime as opposed to
the predecessor Gassone, who was seen as one of those
Soros reform prosecute. So this is in line with Takman's
brand to be tough on crime, and he represented what
I considered like this press the silent majority, not the
(04:09):
celebrities who came out and masked to support the Menendez brothers,
but people who said, I remember this horrific crime and
they were sentenced a life in prison. To get life
in prison, and that didn't mean thirty five years in prison.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
The testimony was from family members of the Menendez brothers
and it was about how they have rehabilitated themselves in prison.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
The family members were the biggest supporters of an early release.
Now all the family members but seemingly one who passed away,
wanted them out early. But the district attorney does not
represent the victim, does not represent the family members. They
represent the people. That's why it's usually the people versus
Menendez or the state versus Menendez. And in this case,
(04:57):
the decision of the district attorney was that it is
in the interest of the people of California that the
Menenda's brothers stay behind bars.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
So they were model prisoners. Apparently, Lyle had absolutely no
you know, write ups for violence in the years they
were in prison. Apparently Eric had won. That was twenty
five years ago, So there really was no evidence that
they hadn't reformed themselves, was there.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
Well, there was a report that showed that they did
have contraband inside the prison, which was cell phone and
potential drugs. That's part of a report, and whether or
not that means they have not been reformed. Well, when
it comes to violence, they clearly did not commit anything
(05:50):
like that in prison. They were different people behind bars,
they helped others. But yet there are a lot of
people who find God behind bars and they help others,
and they don't get released early from a life sentence.
So it seems that the celebrity in this case, the
power of celebrity made a real difference.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
I wonder if this would have happened if you hadn't
had that Netflix documentary that sort of introduced a whole
new generation of people to the Menendez brothers in a
sympathetic way.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
I agree the power of streaming, the power of celebrity.
I think the Menendez brothers became a cause celeb and
as a result, they got some benefits from it. They
got all this worldwide attention they had the best lawyers
possible for them, and they were able to convince the
district attorney to side with them to get a resentencing.
And then that district attorney lost the election, but the
(06:47):
judge went ahead with it anyways, And now it's up
to the pro board and the governor, and I think
they will be let out early. I don't think there
are any risk of reoffending any violent crime. I think
they did get reform behind prison walls. But on the
other hand, how many other people in their situation get
this benefit, get sentence to life in prison and they
(07:07):
get out early because they were good prisoners. Not many.
But this case was treated differently because of the celebrity involved,
because of the notoriety, and that's the issue I have.
I just don't think they were treated like everyone else.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
But in their second trial, the judge limited the testimony
about the allegations of abuse, and it's possible the jury
would have come out with a verdict of manslaughter instead
of murder if the abuse allegations had gotten a full hearing.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
Well, that was a judge's determination at the time, and
the crimes were not overturned on appeal. I mean the
proper venue. If you think that the judge made a
bad decision is to appeal it. But the appellate courts
did not agree, thought that they got a fair trial.
And as far as being led out, the real reason
why they're being led out, apparently, at least according to
the previous DA, was because of their good behavior behind bars.
(08:00):
But there are a lot of people behind bars who
act with good behavior and they don't get let out early.
The difference here to me is the celebrity aspect of
it that doesn't exist in other cases.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
The DA Hawkman had complained over and over that they
hadn't taken responsibility for the crimes, but both brothers made
these remarkable statements accepting full responsibility for the murders. Lyle
said that all the choices he made were his own,
including quote the choice to reload, return to the den,
(08:33):
and run up to my mother and shoot her in
the head. And he apologized for making a mockery of
the criminal legal system by lying. Does that seem like
the kind of apology that the LADA was looking for.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
It does, and that's something that I thought has been underreported.
I'm glad you brought it up to gen because Hawkman
had asked for a real apology, said enough of this abuse,
excuse take responsibility for your actions. Stop saying that you
had to kill your parents because they would have killed
you first. That was a lie all along. And I
do believe with their statements that they went a long
(09:08):
way towards meeting Kachman's request, and that's why I think
that they will be released earlier. I do think that
this was as close to a full fledged apology acknowledgment
of guilt that we have ever seen from them. It
was something different than before, and I think that's going
to lead to their early release.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
The judge called the crime shocking. He said he was
also shocked by the number of corrections officials who wrote
letters on behalf of the brothers, and that seemed to
be an important part of his decision.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
It was something that corrections officials and family members all
sided with them, and I do think the celebrity part
of it has something to do with it. The Netflix
shows the movement behind them. Yeah, I think that did
persuade people. But I do think also there's really little
doubt that they are different people today than they were
back there. They were real spoiled, selfish kids. Who acted
(10:03):
in a brutal, horrific way. I mean the fact that
the mother who did not engage in sexual abuse but
may have helped cover it up. But she was crawling
away after being shot by a shotgun, and then the
brothers went outside to reload to continue to come in
and shoot her ten times, including in the face. There
(10:24):
was so much blood on the scene that the cops
thought this was a mafia hit, and yet they lied
about everything. They went on a spending spree. Only after
spending seven hundred thousand dollars in quick turn did they
attract the attention of law enforcement and then were eventually arrested.
But they got away with it for a while. They
(10:45):
got what they wanted, and I thought they deserved their sentence.
But you know, they are reformed, and if the system
lets them out early, I don't think they will reoffend.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Coming up next on the Boomberg Law Show, I'll continue
this conversation with Dave Arenberg. We'll talk about the three
paths to freedom the Menendez brothers have right now, and
an update on their racketeering and sex trafficking trial of
Seawan Combe's I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg,
Eric and Lyle Menendez have been given their first chance
(11:17):
at freedom in decades. A Los Angeles judge reduced the
brother's sentences from life in prison without parole to fifty
years to life, making them immediately eligible for parole. But
there's a long road ahead. The brothers now have three
potential paths to freedom, through the Parole Board, which could
(11:37):
grant them parole, through the governor, who could grant them
executive clemency, and through a petition for habeas corpus, where
a judge could grant them a new trial. I've been
talking to former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ahrenberg. Dave,
their clemency hearing is already set for June thirteenth, and
as part of the clemency hearing, the Parole Board already
(12:00):
conducted an evaluation to determine what dangers the brothers may
pose if released. It's called a comprehensive risk assessment. Here's
what la DA Nathan Hoffman said about the findings.
Speaker 6 (12:15):
We have this additional new information coming in from the
border Parole senior psychologists that have assessed that risk as
a moderate risk, not a high risk. Not a low risk,
but a moderate risk.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
So what do you think is the best path for
them to get released.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
I was actually surprised when I saw that moderate risk.
I don't think they will REAFFCD. I mean, there's so
many eyeballs on these guys. They're going to go on
the speaking circuit, they're gonna go through reality shows. I mean,
I think it's unfair because they're going to be treated
in a way that others are not. They're going to
get super celebrity and make a lot of money off this,
and no one should profit off their infamy. But I
(12:53):
do think that the two tracks will lead to their
early release, whether it's the Governor Newsom track of the
clements see board and then signed by the governor or
the parole board, which is what the judge just sanctioned.
So either way, I think they're headed towards the release.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
And if the parole board does deny parole, it has
to do so for a period of three, five, seven,
ten or fifteen years, so it could deny parole and
then say, well, come back in three years.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
I would think that would be probably the best case
scenario for those who want Meananda's brothers to stay behind bars.
I do not envision them remaining behind bars that much longer,
so three years may be the outer limit.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
They also filed the habeas corpus petition seeking a new trial.
Is that still in play?
Speaker 1 (13:42):
That was always the most unlikely thing to happen. Of
the three of the three choices, three real choices. They
had the resentate thing, they had the clemency, and then
they had the habeasts. But the Habeasts was sort of
a dead end. The other two, though, bore fruit, and
I think that that's going to lead to their early release.
But you know, I just wonder had there not been
Netflix documentaries, would they be in this situation, had Kim
(14:04):
Kardashian others not taken up their cause, would they be
in this situation? They committed a horrific, brutal murder and
lied about it for years, and now they're ready to
be released after thirty five years of serving a life sent.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
I mean, new evidence had emerged. Did that play any
part in this resentencing hearing?
Speaker 1 (14:22):
I think it did, because the judge took everything into account.
It was more than the good behavior. It was the
fact that there was evidence that the sexual abuse from
Jose did occur, not conclusive evidence, but we had a
letter that one of the Menanda's brothers wrote to a
cousin that mentioned it. There was also the Menudo boy
band member who said that Jose engaged in sexual abuse
(14:44):
with him. So yeah, there is evidence, and that's why
it could be a manslaughter case instead of a murder
case as it applies to Jose. And I'm okay if
they want to let him out early for the murder
of Jose because of this new evidence, because it been
good prisoners. The problem I had is the murder of
them mother Kitty, who did not engage in sexual abuse,
and they said, well, she enabled them, But here are
(15:06):
their parents sitting watching TV with their backs turn eating
ice cream, getting blown away with shotguns by these boys
who meticulously planned this brutal murder, and then they went
on a shopping spree after covering it all up. And
the way they murdered Kitty was so horrific and so
cold calculated and cruel that I don't think that's a
(15:27):
manslaughter case. I think that's a murder conviction and should
stay as a murder conviction. But as I said before,
this case was really never treated the same as other
cases from the beginning.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
We'll see what happens with the clemency hearing in about
a month. Let's turn for a moment to the Sean
Diddy Combe's trial. It's day three of Combe's trial. He's
charged with racketeering, conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage
in prostitution. His former girlfriend, Cassie Venture, is on the
(16:00):
stand for the second day, talking about her decade long
relationship with Colmbs that she says was plagued by jealousy, violence,
and humiliating sex. The prosecution seems to have a wealth
of evidence of violence of violent acts. Is that enough
in this case?
Speaker 1 (16:20):
Well, it's not enough just for there to be violent.
There needs to be more, and I think they have more.
They've got more because they have more than one witness
who's going to testify to These freak coughs and the
freak COFs are in themselves not necessarily illegal, but it
is illegal when it involves involuntary sexual conduct, when it
(16:43):
involves alleged human trafficking, when it involves a racketeering an
ongoing criminal enterprise to service ditty and committing various crimes
along the way, like arson and obstruction of justice, witness intimidation,
and all these other types of crimes that fit under
the racketeering ruber. So, you know, standing alone, maybe there
(17:08):
are not all times that would have been prosecuted. The
defense is that this is the domestic violence case, this
is not a racketeering case, this is not a human
trafficking case. But taken all together, it does look like
they have enough evidence to sustain the conviction. And Cassie
taking the stand yesterday and today has been devastating for
the defense because she is the one who connects all
(17:29):
the dots in this case, and she's been a very
compelling witness, not to mention she's also eight months pregnant,
so she's a very sympathetic witness as well.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
During the opening statements, the defense attorney claimed that Combe's
accusers were motivated by money, and she said that Cassie
Ventura demanded thirty million dollars when she sued him. Quote,
I want you to ask yourself, how many millions of
reasons does this witness have to lie? So we can
(17:57):
assume that that's going to be part of the cross
examination and why she didn't report it to police and
instead file the civil suit. Against him.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
She set this all emotion by suing him. It's something
that takes a lot of courage to be able to
file something. And it wasn't a money grab when you
have the other party selling it within a day like essentially,
they keep her quiet. So if he wants to bring
up that this is a civil case of money grabbed,
it's a look bad for him to say, yeah, I
settled with it a day. That's something you don't do
unless you know you've done it. So it cuts both ways. Yes,
(18:31):
you can say why didn't you report this to the
police and why did you just sue? Well, okay, but
look what happened. She sued and then the police got involved,
and so that led to the criminal charges. It's because
of Cassie that this whole trial is even a current.
And then he also lied about the fiscal violence all
of a sudden, he admitted to it only after that
(18:51):
horrific video came out. That video is very telling. They
played it already in front of the jury and the
jury must be appalled by it because that's the only
thing is it ever admitted to, it seems, is the
physical violence on that day at that moment, because that
was the act that was caught on video.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
I read that Diddy was offered a plea deal and
turned it down. I don't know what he was offered,
but it does seem like this defense is going to
be an uphill battled to say the least. So what's
the defense going to look like?
Speaker 1 (19:23):
The defense is consent, and consent is a legitimate defense
when you're dealing with adults who allegedly are victims of
human trafficking. If there were miners consent, it's not a defense.
But to get a human trafficking conviction, you need force,
fraud or coercion. Well that's where that video comes into play.
The force that was used. Her claims a physical violence
(19:44):
are buttressed by that video. So if they can prove force,
fraud a coorsion, then all you need is one victim
and he goes down. But they're trying to show a
pattern of activity to get that racketeering conviction. And then
there's the other charges of the man acts by relations,
which is when you take individuals across state lines or
purposes of the prostitution. So I think the prosecution has
(20:06):
enough to win a conviction and to keep Ditty behind
bars for the rest of his life. The defense is
going to try their best to poke holes in the
victims stories and to show that this was a consensual
activity of these freak coughs. But I don't know. I mean,
yesterday's and today's testimony, we're going to continue to hurt
the defense because Cassy comes across as very credible and
(20:26):
the stuff she's saying is so salacious that it has
to move the jury.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
So did he took videos of these so called freak
offs and today they showed the jury stills of them.
Do you think that just seeing these graphic images will
impact the jury's view of him.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
There's a rule of evidence that says that the evidence
is not going to be admitted if it's more prejudicial
than it is probative, if it's just used for salaciousness,
if it's just used to inflame the jury. But here
it's part of the charge, so it is relevant, and
it is very salacious, and it will have an effect
on the jury. How do you not when you hear
(21:08):
things that I can't even repeat on this program, it
would be believed. You can imagine how the jury feels
that this was real life. So that's why I think
that it will come back to haunt Diddy. Now, what's
ironic is that our culture now, our society, is that
if he gets acquitted, he'll go back to making records
and being the super celebrity he is, when in any
(21:30):
other time you would think that just these allegations, just
this kind of testimony, would destroy someone's reputation in the
court of public opinion. But nowadays it seems like even
being infamous can get them paid.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
I don't know, Dave, Even if he's acquitted, I'm not
sure he could make a comeback, but he certainly has
the huge hurdle of a jury verdict ahead of him. First,
thanks so much for being on the show, Dave. That's
Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County state attorney. Coming up
next on The Bloomberg Last Show, we'll look at whether
the US Trade Court might block Trump's Liberation Day global tariffs.
(22:07):
I'm June Grossel. When you're listening to Bloomberg. President Trump's
global tariffs are facing a key test in US Trade Court.
A group of small businesses is urging the court to
block the tariffs, arguing that Trump invoked a bogus national
emergency to justify them. The businesses claim that Trump's use
(22:31):
of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IEPA is
an unprecedented and unlawful expansion of presidential authority that would
allow him to impose tariffs without meaningful judicial review. The
Trump administration is arguing that the president's emergency declaration is justified,
(22:52):
saying the cumulative effects of annual trade deficits are a
threat to the US economy and supply chain, and further
that the courts don't have the authority to review Trump's
interpretation of what an extraordinary threat is. The fight could
impact trillions of dollars in global trade, and comes amid
(23:13):
a wave of legal challenges to Trump's executive orders, which
are testing the limits of presidential power on everything from
federal spending to restrictions on birthright citizenship. Joining me is
Bloomberg Intelligence litigation analyst Holly From. First of all, this
is a little known federal court. Tell us about this court.
Speaker 7 (23:36):
So it's the International Trade Court in downtown Manhattan, and
it handles to speaks arising from terroriffts. So any law
that provides for a terriff presumably goes to that court.
Although there is some dispute about whether these lawsuits are
jurisdiction is whether the International Trade Court has jurisdiction over these.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Cases the Trump administration. Eric Hamilton was the lawyer, and
he claimed that the question here is a political question
and that the Court doesn't have the right to decide it.
Speaker 7 (24:09):
That's right. So he's saying that because there's no standard
about how the court can determine whether there's an emergency
that meets the International Emergency Economic Powers Act standards, which
is AEPA. Because there's no standards, there's no discoverable standard,
that it's a nonussible question. So only the political branches,
(24:31):
Congress and the President have power to decide whether this
emergency is trade doesn't sit meet that emergency provision in AEPA.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
How did the judges react to that that they don't
have the power to decide this.
Speaker 7 (24:45):
I think they pretty much disagreed with that. I think
that's pretty clear. You know, they said that there is
this provision that says, you know that a declaration of
emergency is not reviewable. But because they put these two
magic words in the statue, which is there has been
declaration of emergency that presents an quote unusual an extraordinary
(25:05):
threat to national security or the economy. Because Congress put
those words in the statute, it was meant for the
judiciary to interpret that. Why else would they put those
words in the statue. And what the government argued was that, well,
that's for the presidents are determined. That's a limit on
the president his self discretion to determine that this emergency
(25:25):
falls within that meaning unusual and extraordinary threat. But it's
not for the court to decide that.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
So let's talk about IPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act,
and the arguments over those words unusual and extraordinary threat
tell us what the plaintiffs are claiming here.
Speaker 7 (25:46):
So they're saying that the trade deficit is a persistent problem.
It definitely doesn't arise to the level of an emergency
of that nature. It's been, you know, in insistence for decades.
In fact, this is not the largest trade deficit we've
ever seen. And so while the plaintiffs sort of had
a difficult time explaining to the court what standard they
would use to determine whether this is an emergency that
(26:08):
meets this threat, he said, this is so outside the
definition of those words that it cannot be possible that
this trade deficit falls within that definition. So the court
doesn't even need to set a standard. It could just
say this is so wildly outside the definition it doesn't
meet AIPA.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
And the Trump administration's attorney, what was the response, Well, he.
Speaker 7 (26:30):
Was pressed on this also and he says to political question,
the court shouldn't even review it. But when pressed further,
and when the Court said, assume that we think that
we have the power to decide this, he said, well,
look at the ordinary definitions of unusual extraordinary re for
them to dictionary definition. And he also said in prior cases,
the courts have of how those decorations.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
Yeah, and so I mean, could you tell which way
the judges were leaning on that?
Speaker 7 (26:57):
So I think it's hard to say. It's very hard
to say, but I think the court is skeptical. We've
come out and said we think that these will eventually
be upheld, but I think the court is skeptical. And
the court even said judges Sani even said one of
the judges of the three member panel said, what if
there's a shortage of peanut butter? Is that a national
emergency because it's unusual extraordinary? So could the president just
(27:19):
declare an emergency? They're like what is the limit? And
I think they're skeptical because if they bought the government's argument,
there would be no limit on the president's authority and
when he could declare a national emergency and what terrorists
he compose. And that's where what the plaintiffs are arguing, like,
you know, this is the quintessential unlimited exercise of power.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
I mean, did the court discuss Congress and that tariffs
are you know, within Congress's purview?
Speaker 7 (27:44):
They did, They said, this is you know, Congress's domain.
You know, the Constitution very clearly says Congress has the
power to regulate foreign commerce. Congress has the power to
impose tariffs, and there are two separate provisions and they're
both with you know, the domain of But the government
is saying, well, that's true, but they can delegate that
power to the president and they have here and they
(28:07):
have before in terms of other statutes that nobody's quibbling about.
So Section two thirty two, which allows the president to
impose terrors if imports threat national security, that was delegated
to the president. So even though Constitution says yes, this
is the power that Congress has, they can in certain
circumstances delegate that power to the president, and.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
How have they done that in this case?
Speaker 7 (28:27):
So with what the government is arguing is that with
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, they gave the Presidence
the authority to regulate imports, which includes imposing terrorists. If
the President declares the national emergency that it imposes an
unusual extraordinary threat to national security or the economy.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
Usually, if you're asking for an injunction, the planets have
to show irreparable harm. Did they discuss whether they would
suffer irreparable harm?
Speaker 7 (28:52):
They didn't even get into that. So that's why there's
this thinking that the court is going to rule on
the summary judgment each because there's a and in summary
judgment motion too. So for some re judgment you just
have to win. In the merits, you don't have to
show a reparable harm. So there's this thinking that they're
just going to rule in summary judgment motion one way
or the other.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
President Nixon used a similar emergency law to issue tariffs
during a currency devaluation crisis in the early seventies. Tell
us about that case and is it precedent here?
Speaker 3 (29:24):
So?
Speaker 7 (29:24):
Yes, that is by president. What happened there was President
Nixon imposed a ten percent tariff on all dutyabul goods
to address a balance of payments deficit in nineteen seventy one.
And so there was a court case that arose out
of that, and the appellate court at the time, which
is the predecessor to the Federal Circuit, which the International
Trade Court that's hearing this dispute is bound by the
(29:46):
predecessor court, found that under a predecessor statute that mirrors
the language in AIPA, the president had power to impose
those tariffs, that ten percent tariff on all dutiable goods.
And so that's case the court was talking about, and
Dave and said, you know, to the point if that's
identical language, the court there found that the president had
(30:07):
power to impose terror when the statute said you can
regulate imports. So they're bound by that. But the court,
even you know, is suggesting that there's many distinctions with
that case in terms of you know, what's happening now.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
So you gave this a sixty percent chance that the
tariffs will be upheld, explain you know what you base
that on?
Speaker 7 (30:27):
Sixties percent is more likely than than not, but it's
very very close. And the reason we think that it
will be upheld is because, you know, because there is
this US sheet of precedent which says that very clearly
that the president has power to regulate imports and that
includes tariff. And then the court is going to have
to get into whether there's trede deficit, is an emergency
and though they seemed inclined to review whether it's an
(30:49):
unusual extordinary threat, we think ultimately, if this goes up
to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will hold that
the president has the power to impose these tariffs and
that the court shouldn't be tucking guesting the president when
it comes to declaring emergencies.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
The plane Offs asked the court to rule on an
expedited basis. Are they going to rule on an expedited basis?
Speaker 7 (31:10):
I think that they're going to rule relatively quickly. So
this is a case that it's suscepting almost everyone and
it has national import, So I think they're going to rule.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
I've been two q There are other cases over the tariffs,
including a case by Democratic Attorneys General. Is that going
to go to the Trade Court as well?
Speaker 7 (31:28):
Yes, so they filed that in the Trade Court. There
is another case that California filed outside of the Trade Court,
which is in a federal court in California, because they're
contesting the International Trade Court's jurisdiction. But most of these
have been filed in the Trade Court and there are
pending motions to transfer all the cases outside to the
(31:49):
same court to the Trade Court.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Thanks so much, Holly. That's Bloomberg Intelligence Litigation Analyst Holly
from and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg
Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal
news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them
on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com,
slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into The
(32:12):
Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time.
I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.