June 6, 2025 • 38 mins
Guest host Amy Morris fills in for June Grasso to cover some of the top legal stories of the week, including how some Biden-era Supreme Court rulings on climate change and student loans could derail President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs, and a recap of the high-profile trial of entertainment mogul Sean 'Diddy' Combs.
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 (00:00):
This is Bloomberg Law. Employers frequently exploit the weaknesses in
the law.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Of course, are going to be asking questions about separation
of powers.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
One by one, Google settled with all of these other plaintiffs.
Interviews with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Joining me is immigration law expertly on Fresco, First Amendment
law expert Caroline Malick.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Corbin, and analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
The trial judge may well want to hold a hearing.
Speaker 4 (00:26):
They have never said this case should never have been
brought in the first place.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Welcome to Bloomberg Law. I'm Ami Morris in for June Grosso. June.
We'll be back next week. Ahead. In this hour, we
look at a consolidation effort in the federal government that
might leave some disabled contractors at risk, Plus the trial
of Sean Diddy Coomb's We'll get into some of the
legal twists in the trial of the music mogul, But
first we look at how Supreme Court rulings on Biden
(01:01):
administration policy could end up threatening President Trump's sweeping global tariffs.
The Supreme Court ruled against a few key climate change
and student debt initiatives of then President Joe Biden using
what's called the Major Questions doctrine, and now that same
doctrine could be used to challenge the legal standing of
the Trump administration's tariff practices. Joining us now to discuss
(01:25):
how this could play out, Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. Greg,
always a pleasure, Thanks for taking the time with us. First,
let's look at the Major Questions doctrine. What does that say?
Speaker 4 (01:36):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Amy, The Major Questions doctrine is something the Supreme Court
had never mentioned explicitly until twenty twenty two, but in
this case involving climate change, the Court's conservative majority said,
when there is an issue that has major political and
economic significance, like climate change, if Congress is going to
(01:56):
tell a federal agency you have the power to do something,
we expect Congress to be very explicit in doing that.
Otherwise we're going to interpret the law as not giving
the agency that authority. And that is something the Supreme
Court has used again in restricting what the Biden deministration
could do.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Okay, so let's break this down. How was this used
against some of those Biden administration initiatives. I know it
was specifically environmental like climate change.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Yeah, so I mentioned the twenty twenty two case. It
actually stemmed from something Barack Obama had tried to do,
his so called Clean Power Plan, which would have the
EPA was going to put limits on greenhouse gas emissions
from power plants, trying to basically shift energy production away
from coal fired plants, and the Supreme Court in a
(02:52):
case the procedure is kind of complicated, but not really important.
The essence of it was the Supreme Court said, where
even though the Clean Power Plant hadn't gone into effect,
we're going to evaluate it and determine that the EPPA
did not have the authority to do this. Congress in
the Clean Iract wasn't specific enough and that ended up
limiting what Joe Biden could try to do going forward
(03:14):
on climate change, because, as with so many areas in
this day and age, climate change is an area where
Congress really hasn't said a whole lot. That the agencies
had been trying to use really old statutes, decades old
statutes like the Clean Air Act to do things, and
in that context, the Court said, no, you don't have
(03:35):
the authority. It meant that Congress would have to do something.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Okay, so this is a matter of authority. Then how
does this then apply to tariffs? It seems very different
from climate change in student debt.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
It's very different, But the concept is certainly at least
arguably applicable because Donald trum Trump's tariffs, of course, are
certainly of major economic and political importance. And the fight
that's been going on in the courts, primarily the Court
of International Trade here in Washington and now the Federal
(04:11):
Appeals Court the Federal Circuit, is over whether a statute
Congress passed dealing with emergency situations and things the president
could do in emergency situations, whether that statute gives him
the authority to do what he wants to do. So
it's similar to kind of how the Clean Air Act,
which was enacted without thinking about climate change at the time,
(04:36):
because it wasn't really a thing when Congress passed that.
It's the same sort of thing where Congress passes statute
statute and nothing in it specifically says the president would
have the power to enact worldwide sort of the indefinite
tariffs totaling billions or trillions of dollars, and so the
(04:57):
argument is somewhat similar.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
In a situation like this, did the Biden administration or
now the Trump administration, because the Court of International Trade
in vote the same doctrine against those tariffs? Did either
administration have a defense? Is this a case that can continue?
Speaker 2 (05:16):
So in both cases the administration said, Hey, if you
look at the words of the statute, it's actually it's
actually enough that the statute gives us the authority to.
Speaker 5 (05:28):
Do what we want to do.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
And they also, you know, the Biden administration was able
to argue at the time, Hey, this notion of the
major questions doctrine isn't really a thing, you know, don't
superimpose this. This thing that kind of puts your thumb
on the scale against us, puts your thumb on the
scale against an agency being able to do something that
(05:52):
ship has sort of sailed. The Supreme Court had said, yeah,
we're going to put our thumb on.
Speaker 5 (05:56):
The scale in these circumstances.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
The other thing that Donald Trump is able to our
u in this context is the clean Arac case involved
the APA. It involves a federal agency and the question
was whether Congress had delegated the authority.
Speaker 5 (06:09):
To this agency.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
In this case, the authority that Congress has delegated through
the statute known as IEPA was directly to the president,
not to an agency. And so they are arguing, among
other things, in this context, Hey, this Major Questions Doctrine
doesn't even apply. In fact, you should be very deferential
to the president because we're dealing with an area involving
(06:31):
foreign affairs where the president, everybody agrees, plays the leading
role under a constitutional structure.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Well, that kind of changes my next question. I wanted
to know if the Major Questions doctrine was sort of
a way to reign in the power of the executive branch.
But it sounds almost like it's a way to balance
the power among the different branches of government.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
That is certainly how the Court thinks about it. It
has had the effect, certainly has had the effect in
democratic administrations of reigning in those agencies. But the way
the Court has articulated it, and they haven't, you know,
said a whole lot.
Speaker 5 (07:09):
But basically the way the Court has.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Looked at it is to say, this is something that
enforces the constitutional separation of powers, ensures that Congress is
able to do what it is trying to do, and
that its words are not being taken to give the
president another branch of the government more power than or
an agency, at least more power than Congress intended. So
(07:36):
it is, you know, for those proponents of the Major
Questions doctrine, it is something that is designed to make
sure everybody stays in their constitutional lanes.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Is the Major Questions Doctrine something that is invoked frequently?
Is that an archaic rule that is being trodded out
as those as people feel like they need to rein
in other branches of government. How archaic or how new
is this?
Speaker 2 (08:01):
So the phrase itself is new. The Supreme Court hadn't
actually used it in an opinion until twenty twenty two,
and it's only used it one time since then, in
the case involving that you alluded to Joe Biden's effort
to slash student debt. The concepts have been there, and
(08:22):
when the Court used the phrase ites that we're just
taking the concepts and applying them. So you could look
back at a couple other Biden cases involving things like
his effort to require workers to either get a COVID
vaccine or take weekly tests. The Court sort of use
that notion that this is such a big thing that
(08:43):
we're expecting Congress to have been a little more explicit
if it was letting the federal agencies enact such a thing.
Speaker 5 (08:51):
In terms of going back beyond that, you know, there's.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
A real debate as to whether this is sort of
a creation of the Court's conservative majority, or if it
is actually some thing that is more steeped in decades
of Supreme Court tradition.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
Could this argument between the Court of International Trade and
the Trump administration over tariffs? Could that argument? Could that
case wind up before the Supreme Court?
Speaker 5 (09:17):
I would certainly expect it to in some form.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
So, as you and I talk, we are waiting, and
this probably won't happen until next week sometime. We're waiting
for this federal appeals court known as the Federal Circuit
here in Washington, to say whether it's going.
Speaker 5 (09:32):
To let the tariffs stay.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
In effect while the litigation goes forward potentially for several months.
If that court says no, we're not going to let
those tariffs be in effect, then I would expect the
administration to very quickly turn to the Supreme Court. Now,
this would just be an emergency application most likely where
they would say, hey, you know, let us put the
tariffs in effect while we fight over stuff like the
(09:57):
major Questions doctrine. But it certainly poss that it will
get escalated quickly, either by the administration or by the
court and sweeping questions about whether these tariffs are legal
at all.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
All right, we're going to shift gears now.
Speaker 5 (10:11):
Greg.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
We're talking with Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg's store. And
there have been some recent Supreme Court decisions just handed
down this past week. Let's get into them and we'll
do this kind of quickly. The gun makers that were
shielded from Mexico's lawsuit based on some US laws that
shield gun manufacturers. The Court ruled in favor of the
gun makers. Is this more of a technicality than maybe
(10:34):
on the merits?
Speaker 4 (10:35):
What say you?
Speaker 2 (10:37):
It's certainly a case. It's very definitive for this Mexico lawsuit.
The question about how much impact it's going to have
more broadly kind of remains to be seen. The Court
said that Mexico did not have They were alleging that
the gun industry aided an embedded drug cartel violence in Mexico,
and the Supreme Court essentially said this complaint is not
(10:59):
near specific enough for that sort of allegation to go forward.
That there's another legal argument that the gunmakers were making
that would have been even broader, would have thrown out
even more lawsuits.
Speaker 5 (11:14):
So the people on the gun safety side of this
argument are.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Breathing a little bit of a sigh of relief that
the court's ruling did not go farther than it did.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
And the Supreme Court also revived a straight woman's job
bias lawsuit, which appears to allow more reverse discrimination cases
to be brought.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Yeah some parts. In some parts of the country, some
federal appeals courts had said that when a straight person,
a white person, a man, tries to file a lawsuit
saying I was discriminated against them the job, that they
had to show a little something more to get their
case to the jury. They had to show something called
background circumstances to support support the suspicion that the defendant
(11:58):
is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority. And
the Supreme Court unanimously said, no, every plaintiff, whether they're whatever, race,
whatever gender, has to prove the same thing.
Speaker 5 (12:12):
Nobody has a special requirement like that.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
Interesting, and we're gonna have to leave it there, Greg,
thank you so much for taking the time with us.
Bloomberg Supreme Court Reporter Greg Store. Now coming up, we
turned to the Trump Administration's dismantling of federal agencies and
how those with disabilities might wind up caught in the crossfire.
I'm Amy Morris in for June Grosso, and this is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 3 (12:54):
I'm Amy Morris filling in for June Grosso. The Trump
administration is pushing a budget proposal that would put the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in charge of policing federal contractors
for bias against people with disabilities. As of right now, however,
the EEOC does not have the authority to audit companies.
This is a complicated situation. We welcome Bloomberg's Rebecca clar
(13:17):
to help clear all of this up. Rebecca, thank you
so much for taking the time with us.
Speaker 6 (13:22):
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Now, first let's get a little background. We're talking about
the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and we are
talking about the OFCCP, a completely different agency. What does
each one do?
Speaker 5 (13:36):
Right?
Speaker 6 (13:37):
So, you know, the EEOC is an agency that's very
charge driven. So if you're a worker and you want
to file a charge of alleging that your employer discriminated
you in some way, you can go to the EEOC
or to estate or local agency, and that's really where
their power lies. You know, they also have some sort
(13:57):
of guidance and policy role making abilities, but they're really
charged driven, so it's more of a reactive approach to discrimination.
The LOFCCP, which is or was a Department of Labor
sub agency that's the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
They oversaw similar you know, anti bias, anti discrimination work,
(14:20):
but for federal contractors. So if you were a company
doing business with the government with contracts of certain sizes,
you have this extra level of proactive work that you
had to do to ensure that you weren't discriminating against
your workers. And part of what they were able to
do is do these audits of companies so you know,
there doesn't have to be any sort of evidence of
(14:42):
discrimination happening. If you were a company that does business
with the government, you'd have these regular audits where you
could you know, they could come in look at sort
of your policies and what's happening there, and then you know,
take action based on that. The Trump administration, through an
executive order, sought to eliminate the OFCCP in terms of
(15:04):
most of the work that it had been doing on
race and sex based discrimination because that was all established
through an executive order. There were two other statutory obligations
that the Office saw that they can't undo through an
executive order, and one of those is Section five O
three of the Rehabilitation Act, which looks at anti discrimination
(15:25):
of disabled workers. And that's through this budget proposal. What
they're proposing to have the EEOC in force now is
sort of looking at this anti bias work against disabled
workers at federal contractors. But again, it sort of leaves
some of these potential gaps depending on how this goes through,
since the EEOC doesn't necessarily have that power already.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
All right, let's get into all of that now. You
mentioned what's left of the OFCCP. That's the Federal contractor
a group that they're the ones who watch out make
sure that there's no discrimination among the federal contractors. And
on the surface, it looks as though they're kind of
similar positions, but you talked with a former director there,
(16:12):
Larry Laber, who says they do not have the same function.
What is his take on all this.
Speaker 6 (16:19):
Yeah, you know, I think you know a lot of
these former officials and they you know, I think from
the outside, it seems like here are these two agencies
that are both handling anti discrimination work. I think the
core of the difference is that the work that the
OCCP was doing is more proactive approach to limiting discrimination,
(16:40):
So they're able to audit these companies without having any
sort of evidence of discrimination happening and do more of
that investigatory work versus the EEOC largely doesn't have the
power to investigate companies unless they already have evidence or
in most cases have a charge of a worker coming
forward saying I've been discriminated against. And that power really
(17:04):
allowed the CCP to look at large companies that do
business with the government and try to find these, you know,
spots where there might be discrimination happening, even without a
work or coming forward. I know, something that I've spoken
to about attorneys in this area as well as former officials,
is that it often, you know, found these gaps, especially
(17:26):
in terms of hiring or discrimination on that front, where
you might as an applicant not know that you are
being discriminated against. But if they're able to look at
all of this data and audit these companies, those were
some of the areas where they were able to find discrimination.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
As you mentioned, the EEOC doesn't have that authority. Do
they intend to get that authority? Is there a way
for the administration to grant them that authority to help
fill those gaps? Or is this a congressional issue?
Speaker 4 (17:57):
Right?
Speaker 6 (17:57):
So, I think, you know, some of the appear to
be some open questions where it's a little unclear exactly
how this is going to go down. It seems pretty
clear from most experts I spoke to you that this
is something that Congress is going to have to reauthorize
in order to give Section five oh three enforcement to
(18:18):
the EEOC, beyond just approving the budget. Since statutorially it
granted it to the Department of Labor and since they're
moving it to this outside agency, you know, most people
think this is going to take an Act of Congress
to do that. Another aspect of this, though, is that
the actual statute itself doesn't necessarily have that auditing power
(18:41):
within it. That's something that came from regulations and rolemaking
over time. So I think it's you know, remains to
be seen if in taking over that power, if the
EEOC would also intend to use the audits or not.
And I think, you know, some of what I was
hearing from experts and people who have worked in this
(19:02):
field before of OCCP compliance, it seems like either if
EEOC does do this, it could be a pretty significant
expansion into sort of their power and sort of the
scope of their enforcement, or if they choose to leave
the auditing to the wayside and non enforce that aspect,
then seemingly left in a similar situation where now nobody
(19:24):
is auditing for this the way that OCCP.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
Was clarify something for me, you had already mentioned that
hundreds of people at the OFCCP have already been laid
off except for those very few who would be helping
with these cases under Section five O three, and then
of course they would wind up working for the other agency,
the EEOC. Is this already underway? Has this already happened?
Speaker 6 (19:49):
So right at the same time as we're seeing this happening,
you know, what's left of the statutory obligation. So there's
section five O three, which is being proposed to go
to EEOC, as well as as a similar statutory obligation
for veterans for discrimination against veterans, which is proposed to
be rehoused somewhere else within the Department of Labor. Those
(20:11):
weren't as major of a focus of what the OCCP
was doing based on sex and race discrimination, which has
been rescinded through this executive order. So sort of as
part of that, the OCCP has already put many workers
sought to lay off, almost the entire workforce that's been
(20:31):
held up, you know, due to a pause on broader
federal layoffs. They're keeping only a small portion of staff
on now. I think it remains to be seeing, you know,
if they plan to move people around into these other
agencies and how they plan to do that, you know.
I think some of that could also be tied up
in how these court cases go about the federal worker layoffs.
(20:55):
I know that the EEOC did request in its budget
a little bit more enforcement and like more money from
Congress for you know, enforcing Section five O three and
sort of expanding that. So I think some of this
we'll come down to what budgets approved and how the
EOC goes about this, as well as still some of
those open questions on how these proposed layoffs are are
(21:18):
going to go.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
So then what is happening now to those cases that
we're already pending with the OFCCP, right.
Speaker 6 (21:26):
So that's another thing that I'm you know, hearing from
from workers that are there, that are you know, even
before the layoffs, there was a memo that went around
saying because of the President's executive order, all of this
work had been paused. So not just the work on
race and sex discrimination that they sort of overturned by
(21:49):
rescinding that executive order, but you know, work like the
cases under Section five O three as well as those
audience have all been held in a buiance. So you know,
if you're someone who had filed a complaint with the office,
you're basically left in this waiting period and in this
limbo where you're not exactly sure what's happening with your case.
(22:10):
You're not getting updates because you know, the workers there
have been told not to do anything, and now the
vast majority of them are also on administrative leave.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
So what recourse is there then for those workers impacted
and those whose cases are affected. And if you think
about it, just from the way you've described it, you
have the OFCCP workers they were laid off, the EEOC
workers who now have to take on an entirely new
workload with which they are not only not familiar, they'd
have to be retrained for plus those cases that are
(22:41):
pending or in limbo for those other workers who are
not part of either agency, but they are you know,
using those agencies to help them out in their cases.
So is there a way to untangle this? This seems
like it effects hundreds of people, if not thousands.
Speaker 6 (22:55):
Yeah, I mean, you know, all of these cases are
being held up now. I think you know, for for
some cases, there are you know, circumstances where things you know,
are considered dual filed between the OCCP and EEOC if
there's overlap in both of these. But you know, the
EEOC historically has been under resourced. They you know, have
(23:19):
a higher case load than I think they're they're managing.
So this would definitely you know, be adding to that
without sort of a clear distinction on if they're going
to be getting more resources in order to make up
that workload, especially sort of you know, with this period
in time, seemingly adding to some of that backlog.
Speaker 3 (23:39):
So are we bound to see some of this show
up in court cases challenging the president's authority to do
this or are we more likely to see this show
up on Capitol Hill asking Congress for help in the
president's authority to do this?
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Right?
Speaker 6 (23:52):
I mean, you know, I think it seems pretty clear
from experts I talked to that the aspects that he
overturned with the executive order, it was you know, made
through an executive order, so there was the power to
undo that. I think, you know, it remains to be
seen if potentially a future administration would would try to
bring that back, and if they would do that through
(24:14):
you know, totally restoring the o OFCCP or trying to
use some other agencies or elsewhere in the Department of
Labor to do that. I think, you know, the next
steps really are to see what Congress does in terms
of if they give this authorization to the EEOC or
and you know, what power they they get with that,
(24:35):
as well as sort of through the budget process, what
resources they're given for this.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
Okay, So at this point, Rebecca, what are you going
to be watching for as this progresses.
Speaker 6 (24:45):
Yeah, I think a big part on this is sort
of looking, you know, trying to hear from people and
see what's going on with these cases that you mentioned
are are sort of paused and trying to understand that
that impact on this on you know, our ends on
disabled workers. You know. I think another aspect to look
for will be sort of in this budget process, what
(25:07):
resources the agency is given and you know, if they're
able to really take on this this workload.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
All right, Rebecca Klar with Bloomberg Industry, thank you so
much for joining us and for trying to help clear
all of this up for us. It does sound like
a little bit of an alphabet soup because of all
the acronyms, but it is an important issue and we're
going to continue to follow it with you. Thank you,
Rebecca for joining us.
Speaker 1 (25:30):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
Up next on Bloomberg Law, we're going to turn to
the trial of Sean Diddy Colmbs. We're going to look
into some of the testimony that we've already heard and
what some of the defense is going to be for
the music mogul. I'm Amy Morris in for June Grosso.
This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
I'm Amy Morris in for June Grosso.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
June.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
We'll be back next week, and we're watching the ex
trial of entertainment industry mogul Sean Diddycomb's. Several people, including
his former girlfriend singer Cassie Ventura, have testified in this
high profile case with some disturbing testimony. Here to help
us break it down, as Dave Ehrenberg, managing partner of
Dave Ehrenberg Law and former Palm Beach County State Attorney
(26:19):
David is a pleasure. Thank you for joining us. Shawn
Combs faces five criminal counts, including racketeering, conspiracy, sex trafficking,
transportation to engage in prostitution. Some witnesses have testified under oath,
but they took the fifth so that they could be
granted immunity. Explain how that works. Why are these witnesses
(26:42):
looking for immunity in this case?
Speaker 4 (26:46):
Good to be with you, Amy, It's because they worry
about their own criminal liability, whether it's someone who did drugs,
sold drugs, or perhaps was a participant in the schemes themselves.
They want to make sure they're not going to step
on a land mine, and they all are represented by
lawyers themselves, because once the Feds start calling you, you
(27:08):
call a lawyer, and the lawyer probably told them, don't
say a word unless they give you immunity. And the
Feds are not interested, it seems like, in prosecuting anyone
else for these crimes except for Diddy, so they were
quick to give everyone immunity.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
That's interesting, I wondered, because one of the things he
is charged with is racketeering conspiracy. Conspiracy means more than
one person could culms also be taking other people down.
Are we looking at other possible defendants down the line?
Speaker 4 (27:37):
Perhaps, but they would have to be defendants who did
not get immunity, because once the Feds give you that immunity,
then that pretty much is it. I mean, there are
opportunities if the Feds develop a case independent of the testimony,
but it looks like the Feds are not interested in others.
They want to go to the top of the food
chain here. And yes, you're correct in that the racketeering
(27:59):
charge does require there to be a criminal enterprise. That
means did bad Boy Records become his henchmen to commit crimes?
So it's not just some legitimate record label, but rather
an enterprise to commit crimes to do his bidding. That
means there have to be others involved, other employees. That's
(28:20):
why you're saying so many employees called to the stand,
because that shows racketeering and it also shows that a
lot of people got immunity for their conduct.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
Now, drug use is factoring into some of this testimony.
We're hearing about everything from marijuana to cocaine, ecstasy, katamine,
and as you mentioned in your first answer, there a
lot of people who might have been involved in that
drug use are getting immunity because of that. Could that
drug use, though, be a defense for colms?
Speaker 4 (28:48):
Yes, it's being used right now to undermine the credibility
of witnesses saying you really don't remember this right because
you were under the influence of drugs, and you sold drugs,
and you were involved with so much drug use, and
that tarnishes the witness in front of the jury, because
you have jurors who probably are not involved in the
world of free coughs and rampant drug use, who are
(29:09):
seeing this outer world that they don't understand perhaps and
they may just throw up their hands and say a
plague on both your houses. That's a strategy of defence team.
Speaker 3 (29:19):
Is that usually an effective strategy.
Speaker 4 (29:22):
Well, it's a strategy because defensellers are stuck with the
facts that they're given, and here the facts are pretty
damning against Diddy. So they're going to try to mock
it up by saying that all these witnesses engaged in
drug use, they were all consensual partners in this weird
freak cough game, and it's all consensual. So that's the
(29:45):
kind of stuff they're saying. Now, you could have a
consensual free cough and then the consent gets revoked at
some point. For Cassie at the beginning, did seem like
she was interested in will a willing participant. She would
say it's because she loved at least she thought she
loved Diddy, and she wanted to please him, and she
was scared of him. And at some point she said
(30:07):
that she wanted to stop this, so you can revoke
your earlier consent, and then it would be human trafficking,
and then it could be racketeering where there are acts
predicate acts that Diddy allegedly committed, like arson and intimidation
of witnesses and extortion and others human trafficking that could
(30:27):
lead to a guilty verdict here. So you know, life
is complicated. This case is complicated because you have victims
who at some point did seem like they were willing
to go along. But doesn't mean that that consent lasts forever.
Speaker 3 (30:42):
Now, one thing that does keep coming out in testimony
is that so many people, mostly women, were victimized but
said nothing. Some women even described themselves as being brainwashed.
I wonder if the defense could also seize on that
and then downplay it because in some of this cross
examination it clear they're trying to make the witness less
(31:02):
credible and make them look like they're lying or just confused.
Speaker 4 (31:05):
Yeah, it's a good point because the defense is trying
to put the witnesses and the victim on trial as well. Now,
in a trial, it's only a defendant who's on trial,
but the jury will look to see if they like
the witnesses, if they believe the witnesses, if they believe
the victim, and if they don't believe part of their testimony,
(31:25):
they have the right to disregard their entire testimony. And
that's what the defense is trying to do. They're trying
to poke holes to say you don't remember this, you're
on drugs there, you were engaged in voluntary prostitution, or
you're a sex worker and that's your profession. And then
they look at the jury they say, you see what
we're dealing with here, and they're hoping that at least
(31:46):
one juror sympathizes with the defense or at least doesn't
like the witnesses or victim. And if that happens, then
that's a hung jury. And if everyone has a reasonable
doubt or like, well this is not yeah, it would
be reasonable doubt because it's a federal criminal case, then
it would be an acquittal.
Speaker 3 (32:06):
You've been following this so closely from the very beginning.
What is the most damning evidence that the prosecution has
against Sean Culmes? If it's not just his word against
their word, the.
Speaker 4 (32:18):
Most devastating evidence is that video from the Interconninal hotel.
That video has been shown multiple times at the trial,
and that video speaks volumes. It shows did he engage
in serious violence against Cassie? So when didty says that
there was no force, fraud or coersion here? Well, what
was on that video? What did we just watch? We
(32:39):
can see with our own eyes and essentially Ditty's defenses,
who you're gonna believe me are your lyon eyes. Well,
that video does tell that Diddy engaged in the force
or corrosion needed to establish human trafficking, and it also
can lead to racketeering in showing that he to force
(33:00):
himself to put others under his thumb to make others
comply with his will. And that's why they engage allegedly
in arson and witness intimidation and extortion and all these
other things like human trafficking. So that video is the
most powerful evidence.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
Now is that the summation of the defense strategy that
Comb's team has is that the witnesses may be lying,
they're confused, and that technically this really shouldn't be tried
in this court for this venue anyway.
Speaker 4 (33:32):
Yes, what did he is trying to say is that
he acted badly there, He was a jealous boyfriend. And
perhaps this is a domestic violence case which is prosecuted
in state court, non federal court. And this is not
a state court case. And so that's why he's saying
that this is not unlike any other basic domestic violence case.
(33:55):
It's based on jealousy. In fact, in that video, an
infamous video at the Innercana Hotel, see him grabbing for
her phone. So he's saying, you see, I was jealous.
I want to know what's on her phone. These are
a lover's quarrel, and I admit I acted badly, but
it's not human trafficking. Human trafficking is commercial sex acts
involving force, fraud, a coorsion. The sex acts involved here,
(34:18):
according to Diddy, were consensual. That fight was separate from
the freak coughs. She was consenting to the free cost.
But when it came to the fight, that was purely
domestic violence and should be seen as such. That is
a big load for the jury to have to separate
the two, to have to say, yeah, you're right, he
acted badly here with force and coercion, but had nothing
(34:41):
to do with the underlying freak offs.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
Ah.
Speaker 4 (34:44):
I don't buy it. I don't think the jury will
bite either.
Speaker 3 (34:46):
There is another witness also who testified that Comes dangled
her from a balcony and it wasn't his girlfriend, it
was a friend, and that she was dangled from the
seventeenth floor balcony. Does that testimony help the prosecution with
the weight of the video. I mean, did he can
make the argument or his team can make the argument
that the video shows a domestic case. But it seems
(35:11):
like dangling your aid or your your girlfriend's friend from
a balcony wouldn't necessarily be a domestic right.
Speaker 4 (35:19):
I'm sorry even that, because you're right. You see, this
is the amount of evidence that the prosecution has here.
And your racketeering was invented to go after the mafia,
but it's not just for the mafia anymore. We saw
it use in a variety of cases, including one against r. Kelly.
So you've got a fellow, a music mogul who was
taken down by racketeering. And if you don't want to
(35:42):
be charged like a mobster, then don't dangle someone over
a balcony. But that's what he's been alleged here of doing.
That's what this witness said that he did to her,
and they're desperately trying to poke holes in her story.
Speaker 3 (35:57):
Could Combs also face civil action once this criminal child's.
Speaker 4 (36:00):
Over oh one hundred percent, he's already facing civil action.
And when you're a wealthy guy, apparently he's worth a
quarter of a billion dollars. Yeah, he's going to be
tied up in civil lawsuits forever, and the question is
whether he'll face them from a prison cell or whether
he will be living the high life again. Either way,
he's not getting out of this entirely.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
And as we've established, you followed this case from the
very beginning. You've been watching the trial, You've been keeping
a close eye on all of it. Have you ever
seen anything like this?
Speaker 4 (36:33):
Well, I don't know. I've never seen anything like this.
I mean, there are Kelly allegations were somewhat similar, but
to have Arson in a whole team of people around
you who are trying to exert force to have you
comply with their will, I think the close thing I've
seen is the R. Kelly case, But this takes it
(36:56):
to another level. I mean, no matter what happens here,
the offended didty should be tard and feathered in the
court of public opinion. He has acted so badly that
he should not be accepted anymore in polite society where
he gets invited to the met gala or gets to
pretend that he didn't do all these things. And this
(37:17):
is absolutely despicable behavior. I mean, the baby oil and
the drugs and the steps that were taking to cover
everything up, and the extortion allegedly, and the arson allegedly,
and putting people over balconies allegedly, and just that videotape alone,
the video alone, which we didn't have a video on
the R. Kelly case. So the video of Ditty committing
(37:38):
terrible violence against Cassie manhandling her, that alone should just
get him canceled. And I'm not one who likes canceled culture,
but this is a guy deserves to be canceled.
Speaker 3 (37:47):
And just finally, one big difference between Ditty and R.
Kelly is R Kelly was a music artist, but Ditty
was a mogul in music industry, in the food industry,
in the fashion industry, and as you mentioned, worth the
quarter billion dollars and go back twenty thirty years. He
helped change how the music industry, the R and B
industry operated, And this trial is a pretty damning.
Speaker 4 (38:14):
It's terrible. You know, in today's society, it seems like
everyone can make a comeback and that nothing sticks to
people anymore, But this should stick to him. This guy's
a bad dude, and I'm hoping that they'll be just
as done in this case.
Speaker 3 (38:30):
Our thanks to former Palm Beach County State Attorney and
managing partner at Dave Arenberg Law, Dave Ehrenberg, thank you
so much for joining us. That does it. For this
edition of Bloomberg Law, I'm Amy Morris in for June Grasso.
This is Bloomberg. Stay with us today's top stories in
global business. Headlines are coming up right now
This is Bloomberg Law. Employers frequently exploit the weaknesses in
the law.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Of course, are going to be asking questions about separation
of powers.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
One by one, Google settled with all of these other plaintiffs.
Interviews with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Joining me is immigration law expertly on Fresco, First Amendment
law expert Caroline Malick.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Corbin, and analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
The trial judge may well want to hold a hearing.
Speaker 4 (00:26):
They have never said this case should never have been
brought in the first place.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Welcome to Bloomberg Law. I'm Ami Morris in for June Grosso. June.
We'll be back next week. Ahead. In this hour, we
look at a consolidation effort in the federal government that
might leave some disabled contractors at risk, Plus the trial
of Sean Diddy Coomb's We'll get into some of the
legal twists in the trial of the music mogul, But
first we look at how Supreme Court rulings on Biden
(01:01):
administration policy could end up threatening President Trump's sweeping global tariffs.
The Supreme Court ruled against a few key climate change
and student debt initiatives of then President Joe Biden using
what's called the Major Questions doctrine, and now that same
doctrine could be used to challenge the legal standing of
the Trump administration's tariff practices. Joining us now to discuss
(01:25):
how this could play out, Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. Greg,
always a pleasure, Thanks for taking the time with us. First,
let's look at the Major Questions doctrine. What does that say?
Speaker 4 (01:36):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Amy, The Major Questions doctrine is something the Supreme Court
had never mentioned explicitly until twenty twenty two, but in
this case involving climate change, the Court's conservative majority said,
when there is an issue that has major political and
economic significance, like climate change, if Congress is going to
(01:56):
tell a federal agency you have the power to do something,
we expect Congress to be very explicit in doing that.
Otherwise we're going to interpret the law as not giving
the agency that authority. And that is something the Supreme
Court has used again in restricting what the Biden deministration
could do.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Okay, so let's break this down. How was this used
against some of those Biden administration initiatives. I know it
was specifically environmental like climate change.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Yeah, so I mentioned the twenty twenty two case. It
actually stemmed from something Barack Obama had tried to do,
his so called Clean Power Plan, which would have the
EPA was going to put limits on greenhouse gas emissions
from power plants, trying to basically shift energy production away
from coal fired plants, and the Supreme Court in a
(02:52):
case the procedure is kind of complicated, but not really important.
The essence of it was the Supreme Court said, where
even though the Clean Power Plant hadn't gone into effect,
we're going to evaluate it and determine that the EPPA
did not have the authority to do this. Congress in
the Clean Iract wasn't specific enough and that ended up
limiting what Joe Biden could try to do going forward
(03:14):
on climate change, because, as with so many areas in
this day and age, climate change is an area where
Congress really hasn't said a whole lot. That the agencies
had been trying to use really old statutes, decades old
statutes like the Clean Air Act to do things, and
in that context, the Court said, no, you don't have
(03:35):
the authority. It meant that Congress would have to do something.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Okay, so this is a matter of authority. Then how
does this then apply to tariffs? It seems very different
from climate change in student debt.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
It's very different, But the concept is certainly at least
arguably applicable because Donald trum Trump's tariffs, of course, are
certainly of major economic and political importance. And the fight
that's been going on in the courts, primarily the Court
of International Trade here in Washington and now the Federal
(04:11):
Appeals Court the Federal Circuit, is over whether a statute
Congress passed dealing with emergency situations and things the president
could do in emergency situations, whether that statute gives him
the authority to do what he wants to do. So
it's similar to kind of how the Clean Air Act,
which was enacted without thinking about climate change at the time,
(04:36):
because it wasn't really a thing when Congress passed that.
It's the same sort of thing where Congress passes statute
statute and nothing in it specifically says the president would
have the power to enact worldwide sort of the indefinite
tariffs totaling billions or trillions of dollars, and so the
(04:57):
argument is somewhat similar.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
In a situation like this, did the Biden administration or
now the Trump administration, because the Court of International Trade
in vote the same doctrine against those tariffs? Did either
administration have a defense? Is this a case that can continue?
Speaker 2 (05:16):
So in both cases the administration said, Hey, if you
look at the words of the statute, it's actually it's
actually enough that the statute gives us the authority to.
Speaker 5 (05:28):
Do what we want to do.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
And they also, you know, the Biden administration was able
to argue at the time, Hey, this notion of the
major questions doctrine isn't really a thing, you know, don't
superimpose this. This thing that kind of puts your thumb
on the scale against us, puts your thumb on the
scale against an agency being able to do something that
(05:52):
ship has sort of sailed. The Supreme Court had said, yeah,
we're going to put our thumb on.
Speaker 5 (05:56):
The scale in these circumstances.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
The other thing that Donald Trump is able to our
u in this context is the clean Arac case involved
the APA. It involves a federal agency and the question
was whether Congress had delegated the authority.
Speaker 5 (06:09):
To this agency.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
In this case, the authority that Congress has delegated through
the statute known as IEPA was directly to the president,
not to an agency. And so they are arguing, among
other things, in this context, Hey, this Major Questions Doctrine
doesn't even apply. In fact, you should be very deferential
to the president because we're dealing with an area involving
(06:31):
foreign affairs where the president, everybody agrees, plays the leading
role under a constitutional structure.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Well, that kind of changes my next question. I wanted
to know if the Major Questions doctrine was sort of
a way to reign in the power of the executive branch.
But it sounds almost like it's a way to balance
the power among the different branches of government.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
That is certainly how the Court thinks about it. It
has had the effect, certainly has had the effect in
democratic administrations of reigning in those agencies. But the way
the Court has articulated it, and they haven't, you know,
said a whole lot.
Speaker 5 (07:09):
But basically the way the Court has.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Looked at it is to say, this is something that
enforces the constitutional separation of powers, ensures that Congress is
able to do what it is trying to do, and
that its words are not being taken to give the
president another branch of the government more power than or
an agency, at least more power than Congress intended. So
(07:36):
it is, you know, for those proponents of the Major
Questions doctrine, it is something that is designed to make
sure everybody stays in their constitutional lanes.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Is the Major Questions Doctrine something that is invoked frequently?
Is that an archaic rule that is being trodded out
as those as people feel like they need to rein
in other branches of government. How archaic or how new
is this?
Speaker 2 (08:01):
So the phrase itself is new. The Supreme Court hadn't
actually used it in an opinion until twenty twenty two,
and it's only used it one time since then, in
the case involving that you alluded to Joe Biden's effort
to slash student debt. The concepts have been there, and
(08:22):
when the Court used the phrase ites that we're just
taking the concepts and applying them. So you could look
back at a couple other Biden cases involving things like
his effort to require workers to either get a COVID
vaccine or take weekly tests. The Court sort of use
that notion that this is such a big thing that
(08:43):
we're expecting Congress to have been a little more explicit
if it was letting the federal agencies enact such a thing.
Speaker 5 (08:51):
In terms of going back beyond that, you know, there's.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
A real debate as to whether this is sort of
a creation of the Court's conservative majority, or if it
is actually some thing that is more steeped in decades
of Supreme Court tradition.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
Could this argument between the Court of International Trade and
the Trump administration over tariffs? Could that argument? Could that
case wind up before the Supreme Court?
Speaker 5 (09:17):
I would certainly expect it to in some form.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
So, as you and I talk, we are waiting, and
this probably won't happen until next week sometime. We're waiting
for this federal appeals court known as the Federal Circuit
here in Washington, to say whether it's going.
Speaker 5 (09:32):
To let the tariffs stay.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
In effect while the litigation goes forward potentially for several months.
If that court says no, we're not going to let
those tariffs be in effect, then I would expect the
administration to very quickly turn to the Supreme Court. Now,
this would just be an emergency application most likely where
they would say, hey, you know, let us put the
tariffs in effect while we fight over stuff like the
(09:57):
major Questions doctrine. But it certainly poss that it will
get escalated quickly, either by the administration or by the
court and sweeping questions about whether these tariffs are legal
at all.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
All right, we're going to shift gears now.
Speaker 5 (10:11):
Greg.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
We're talking with Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg's store. And
there have been some recent Supreme Court decisions just handed
down this past week. Let's get into them and we'll
do this kind of quickly. The gun makers that were
shielded from Mexico's lawsuit based on some US laws that
shield gun manufacturers. The Court ruled in favor of the
gun makers. Is this more of a technicality than maybe
(10:34):
on the merits?
Speaker 4 (10:35):
What say you?
Speaker 2 (10:37):
It's certainly a case. It's very definitive for this Mexico lawsuit.
The question about how much impact it's going to have
more broadly kind of remains to be seen. The Court
said that Mexico did not have They were alleging that
the gun industry aided an embedded drug cartel violence in Mexico,
and the Supreme Court essentially said this complaint is not
(10:59):
near specific enough for that sort of allegation to go forward.
That there's another legal argument that the gunmakers were making
that would have been even broader, would have thrown out
even more lawsuits.
Speaker 5 (11:14):
So the people on the gun safety side of this
argument are.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Breathing a little bit of a sigh of relief that
the court's ruling did not go farther than it did.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
And the Supreme Court also revived a straight woman's job
bias lawsuit, which appears to allow more reverse discrimination cases
to be brought.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Yeah some parts. In some parts of the country, some
federal appeals courts had said that when a straight person,
a white person, a man, tries to file a lawsuit
saying I was discriminated against them the job, that they
had to show a little something more to get their
case to the jury. They had to show something called
background circumstances to support support the suspicion that the defendant
(11:58):
is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority. And
the Supreme Court unanimously said, no, every plaintiff, whether they're whatever, race,
whatever gender, has to prove the same thing.
Speaker 5 (12:12):
Nobody has a special requirement like that.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
Interesting, and we're gonna have to leave it there, Greg,
thank you so much for taking the time with us.
Bloomberg Supreme Court Reporter Greg Store. Now coming up, we
turned to the Trump Administration's dismantling of federal agencies and
how those with disabilities might wind up caught in the crossfire.
I'm Amy Morris in for June Grosso, and this is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 3 (12:54):
I'm Amy Morris filling in for June Grosso. The Trump
administration is pushing a budget proposal that would put the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in charge of policing federal contractors
for bias against people with disabilities. As of right now, however,
the EEOC does not have the authority to audit companies.
This is a complicated situation. We welcome Bloomberg's Rebecca clar
(13:17):
to help clear all of this up. Rebecca, thank you
so much for taking the time with us.
Speaker 6 (13:22):
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Now, first let's get a little background. We're talking about
the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and we are
talking about the OFCCP, a completely different agency. What does
each one do?
Speaker 5 (13:36):
Right?
Speaker 6 (13:37):
So, you know, the EEOC is an agency that's very
charge driven. So if you're a worker and you want
to file a charge of alleging that your employer discriminated
you in some way, you can go to the EEOC
or to estate or local agency, and that's really where
their power lies. You know, they also have some sort
(13:57):
of guidance and policy role making abilities, but they're really
charged driven, so it's more of a reactive approach to discrimination.
The LOFCCP, which is or was a Department of Labor
sub agency that's the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
They oversaw similar you know, anti bias, anti discrimination work,
(14:20):
but for federal contractors. So if you were a company
doing business with the government with contracts of certain sizes,
you have this extra level of proactive work that you
had to do to ensure that you weren't discriminating against
your workers. And part of what they were able to
do is do these audits of companies so you know,
there doesn't have to be any sort of evidence of
(14:42):
discrimination happening. If you were a company that does business
with the government, you'd have these regular audits where you
could you know, they could come in look at sort
of your policies and what's happening there, and then you know,
take action based on that. The Trump administration, through an
executive order, sought to eliminate the OFCCP in terms of
(15:04):
most of the work that it had been doing on
race and sex based discrimination because that was all established
through an executive order. There were two other statutory obligations
that the Office saw that they can't undo through an
executive order, and one of those is Section five O
three of the Rehabilitation Act, which looks at anti discrimination
(15:25):
of disabled workers. And that's through this budget proposal. What
they're proposing to have the EEOC in force now is
sort of looking at this anti bias work against disabled
workers at federal contractors. But again, it sort of leaves
some of these potential gaps depending on how this goes through,
since the EEOC doesn't necessarily have that power already.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
All right, let's get into all of that now. You
mentioned what's left of the OFCCP. That's the Federal contractor
a group that they're the ones who watch out make
sure that there's no discrimination among the federal contractors. And
on the surface, it looks as though they're kind of
similar positions, but you talked with a former director there,
(16:12):
Larry Laber, who says they do not have the same function.
What is his take on all this.
Speaker 6 (16:19):
Yeah, you know, I think you know a lot of
these former officials and they you know, I think from
the outside, it seems like here are these two agencies
that are both handling anti discrimination work. I think the
core of the difference is that the work that the
OCCP was doing is more proactive approach to limiting discrimination,
(16:40):
So they're able to audit these companies without having any
sort of evidence of discrimination happening and do more of
that investigatory work versus the EEOC largely doesn't have the
power to investigate companies unless they already have evidence or
in most cases have a charge of a worker coming
forward saying I've been discriminated against. And that power really
(17:04):
allowed the CCP to look at large companies that do
business with the government and try to find these, you know,
spots where there might be discrimination happening, even without a
work or coming forward. I know, something that I've spoken
to about attorneys in this area as well as former officials,
is that it often, you know, found these gaps, especially
(17:26):
in terms of hiring or discrimination on that front, where
you might as an applicant not know that you are
being discriminated against. But if they're able to look at
all of this data and audit these companies, those were
some of the areas where they were able to find discrimination.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
As you mentioned, the EEOC doesn't have that authority. Do
they intend to get that authority? Is there a way
for the administration to grant them that authority to help
fill those gaps? Or is this a congressional issue?
Speaker 4 (17:57):
Right?
Speaker 6 (17:57):
So, I think, you know, some of the appear to
be some open questions where it's a little unclear exactly
how this is going to go down. It seems pretty
clear from most experts I spoke to you that this
is something that Congress is going to have to reauthorize
in order to give Section five oh three enforcement to
(18:18):
the EEOC, beyond just approving the budget. Since statutorially it
granted it to the Department of Labor and since they're
moving it to this outside agency, you know, most people
think this is going to take an Act of Congress
to do that. Another aspect of this, though, is that
the actual statute itself doesn't necessarily have that auditing power
(18:41):
within it. That's something that came from regulations and rolemaking
over time. So I think it's you know, remains to
be seen if in taking over that power, if the
EEOC would also intend to use the audits or not.
And I think, you know, some of what I was
hearing from experts and people who have worked in this
(19:02):
field before of OCCP compliance, it seems like either if
EEOC does do this, it could be a pretty significant
expansion into sort of their power and sort of the
scope of their enforcement, or if they choose to leave
the auditing to the wayside and non enforce that aspect,
then seemingly left in a similar situation where now nobody
(19:24):
is auditing for this the way that OCCP.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
Was clarify something for me, you had already mentioned that
hundreds of people at the OFCCP have already been laid
off except for those very few who would be helping
with these cases under Section five O three, and then
of course they would wind up working for the other agency,
the EEOC. Is this already underway? Has this already happened?
Speaker 6 (19:49):
So right at the same time as we're seeing this happening,
you know, what's left of the statutory obligation. So there's
section five O three, which is being proposed to go
to EEOC, as well as as a similar statutory obligation
for veterans for discrimination against veterans, which is proposed to
be rehoused somewhere else within the Department of Labor. Those
(20:11):
weren't as major of a focus of what the OCCP
was doing based on sex and race discrimination, which has
been rescinded through this executive order. So sort of as
part of that, the OCCP has already put many workers
sought to lay off, almost the entire workforce that's been
(20:31):
held up, you know, due to a pause on broader
federal layoffs. They're keeping only a small portion of staff
on now. I think it remains to be seeing, you know,
if they plan to move people around into these other
agencies and how they plan to do that, you know.
I think some of that could also be tied up
in how these court cases go about the federal worker layoffs.
(20:55):
I know that the EEOC did request in its budget
a little bit more enforcement and like more money from
Congress for you know, enforcing Section five O three and
sort of expanding that. So I think some of this
we'll come down to what budgets approved and how the
EOC goes about this, as well as still some of
those open questions on how these proposed layoffs are are
(21:18):
going to go.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
So then what is happening now to those cases that
we're already pending with the OFCCP, right.
Speaker 6 (21:26):
So that's another thing that I'm you know, hearing from
from workers that are there, that are you know, even
before the layoffs, there was a memo that went around
saying because of the President's executive order, all of this
work had been paused. So not just the work on
race and sex discrimination that they sort of overturned by
(21:49):
rescinding that executive order, but you know, work like the
cases under Section five O three as well as those
audience have all been held in a buiance. So you know,
if you're someone who had filed a complaint with the office,
you're basically left in this waiting period and in this
limbo where you're not exactly sure what's happening with your case.
(22:10):
You're not getting updates because you know, the workers there
have been told not to do anything, and now the
vast majority of them are also on administrative leave.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
So what recourse is there then for those workers impacted
and those whose cases are affected. And if you think
about it, just from the way you've described it, you
have the OFCCP workers they were laid off, the EEOC
workers who now have to take on an entirely new
workload with which they are not only not familiar, they'd
have to be retrained for plus those cases that are
(22:41):
pending or in limbo for those other workers who are
not part of either agency, but they are you know,
using those agencies to help them out in their cases.
So is there a way to untangle this? This seems
like it effects hundreds of people, if not thousands.
Speaker 6 (22:55):
Yeah, I mean, you know, all of these cases are
being held up now. I think you know, for for
some cases, there are you know, circumstances where things you know,
are considered dual filed between the OCCP and EEOC if
there's overlap in both of these. But you know, the
EEOC historically has been under resourced. They you know, have
(23:19):
a higher case load than I think they're they're managing.
So this would definitely you know, be adding to that
without sort of a clear distinction on if they're going
to be getting more resources in order to make up
that workload, especially sort of you know, with this period
in time, seemingly adding to some of that backlog.
Speaker 3 (23:39):
So are we bound to see some of this show
up in court cases challenging the president's authority to do
this or are we more likely to see this show
up on Capitol Hill asking Congress for help in the
president's authority to do this?
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Right?
Speaker 6 (23:52):
I mean, you know, I think it seems pretty clear
from experts I talked to that the aspects that he
overturned with the executive order, it was you know, made
through an executive order, so there was the power to
undo that. I think, you know, it remains to be
seen if potentially a future administration would would try to
bring that back, and if they would do that through
(24:14):
you know, totally restoring the o OFCCP or trying to
use some other agencies or elsewhere in the Department of
Labor to do that. I think, you know, the next
steps really are to see what Congress does in terms
of if they give this authorization to the EEOC or
and you know, what power they they get with that,
(24:35):
as well as sort of through the budget process, what
resources they're given for this.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
Okay, So at this point, Rebecca, what are you going
to be watching for as this progresses.
Speaker 6 (24:45):
Yeah, I think a big part on this is sort
of looking, you know, trying to hear from people and
see what's going on with these cases that you mentioned
are are sort of paused and trying to understand that
that impact on this on you know, our ends on
disabled workers. You know. I think another aspect to look
for will be sort of in this budget process, what
(25:07):
resources the agency is given and you know, if they're
able to really take on this this workload.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
All right, Rebecca Klar with Bloomberg Industry, thank you so
much for joining us and for trying to help clear
all of this up for us. It does sound like
a little bit of an alphabet soup because of all
the acronyms, but it is an important issue and we're
going to continue to follow it with you. Thank you,
Rebecca for joining us.
Speaker 1 (25:30):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
Up next on Bloomberg Law, we're going to turn to
the trial of Sean Diddy Colmbs. We're going to look
into some of the testimony that we've already heard and
what some of the defense is going to be for
the music mogul. I'm Amy Morris in for June Grosso.
This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
I'm Amy Morris in for June Grosso.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
June.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
We'll be back next week, and we're watching the ex
trial of entertainment industry mogul Sean Diddycomb's. Several people, including
his former girlfriend singer Cassie Ventura, have testified in this
high profile case with some disturbing testimony. Here to help
us break it down, as Dave Ehrenberg, managing partner of
Dave Ehrenberg Law and former Palm Beach County State Attorney
(26:19):
David is a pleasure. Thank you for joining us. Shawn
Combs faces five criminal counts, including racketeering, conspiracy, sex trafficking,
transportation to engage in prostitution. Some witnesses have testified under oath,
but they took the fifth so that they could be
granted immunity. Explain how that works. Why are these witnesses
(26:42):
looking for immunity in this case?
Speaker 4 (26:46):
Good to be with you, Amy, It's because they worry
about their own criminal liability, whether it's someone who did drugs,
sold drugs, or perhaps was a participant in the schemes themselves.
They want to make sure they're not going to step
on a land mine, and they all are represented by
lawyers themselves, because once the Feds start calling you, you
(27:08):
call a lawyer, and the lawyer probably told them, don't
say a word unless they give you immunity. And the
Feds are not interested, it seems like, in prosecuting anyone
else for these crimes except for Diddy, so they were
quick to give everyone immunity.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
That's interesting, I wondered, because one of the things he
is charged with is racketeering conspiracy. Conspiracy means more than
one person could culms also be taking other people down.
Are we looking at other possible defendants down the line?
Speaker 4 (27:37):
Perhaps, but they would have to be defendants who did
not get immunity, because once the Feds give you that immunity,
then that pretty much is it. I mean, there are
opportunities if the Feds develop a case independent of the testimony,
but it looks like the Feds are not interested in others.
They want to go to the top of the food
chain here. And yes, you're correct in that the racketeering
(27:59):
charge does require there to be a criminal enterprise. That
means did bad Boy Records become his henchmen to commit crimes?
So it's not just some legitimate record label, but rather
an enterprise to commit crimes to do his bidding. That
means there have to be others involved, other employees. That's
(28:20):
why you're saying so many employees called to the stand,
because that shows racketeering and it also shows that a
lot of people got immunity for their conduct.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
Now, drug use is factoring into some of this testimony.
We're hearing about everything from marijuana to cocaine, ecstasy, katamine,
and as you mentioned in your first answer, there a
lot of people who might have been involved in that
drug use are getting immunity because of that. Could that
drug use, though, be a defense for colms?
Speaker 4 (28:48):
Yes, it's being used right now to undermine the credibility
of witnesses saying you really don't remember this right because
you were under the influence of drugs, and you sold drugs,
and you were involved with so much drug use, and
that tarnishes the witness in front of the jury, because
you have jurors who probably are not involved in the
world of free coughs and rampant drug use, who are
(29:09):
seeing this outer world that they don't understand perhaps and
they may just throw up their hands and say a
plague on both your houses. That's a strategy of defence team.
Speaker 3 (29:19):
Is that usually an effective strategy.
Speaker 4 (29:22):
Well, it's a strategy because defensellers are stuck with the
facts that they're given, and here the facts are pretty
damning against Diddy. So they're going to try to mock
it up by saying that all these witnesses engaged in
drug use, they were all consensual partners in this weird
freak cough game, and it's all consensual. So that's the
(29:45):
kind of stuff they're saying. Now, you could have a
consensual free cough and then the consent gets revoked at
some point. For Cassie at the beginning, did seem like
she was interested in will a willing participant. She would
say it's because she loved at least she thought she
loved Diddy, and she wanted to please him, and she
was scared of him. And at some point she said
(30:07):
that she wanted to stop this, so you can revoke
your earlier consent, and then it would be human trafficking,
and then it could be racketeering where there are acts
predicate acts that Diddy allegedly committed, like arson and intimidation
of witnesses and extortion and others human trafficking that could
(30:27):
lead to a guilty verdict here. So you know, life
is complicated. This case is complicated because you have victims
who at some point did seem like they were willing
to go along. But doesn't mean that that consent lasts forever.
Speaker 3 (30:42):
Now, one thing that does keep coming out in testimony
is that so many people, mostly women, were victimized but
said nothing. Some women even described themselves as being brainwashed.
I wonder if the defense could also seize on that
and then downplay it because in some of this cross
examination it clear they're trying to make the witness less
(31:02):
credible and make them look like they're lying or just confused.
Speaker 4 (31:05):
Yeah, it's a good point because the defense is trying
to put the witnesses and the victim on trial as well. Now,
in a trial, it's only a defendant who's on trial,
but the jury will look to see if they like
the witnesses, if they believe the witnesses, if they believe
the victim, and if they don't believe part of their testimony,
(31:25):
they have the right to disregard their entire testimony. And
that's what the defense is trying to do. They're trying
to poke holes to say you don't remember this, you're
on drugs there, you were engaged in voluntary prostitution, or
you're a sex worker and that's your profession. And then
they look at the jury they say, you see what
we're dealing with here, and they're hoping that at least
(31:46):
one juror sympathizes with the defense or at least doesn't
like the witnesses or victim. And if that happens, then
that's a hung jury. And if everyone has a reasonable
doubt or like, well this is not yeah, it would
be reasonable doubt because it's a federal criminal case, then
it would be an acquittal.
Speaker 3 (32:06):
You've been following this so closely from the very beginning.
What is the most damning evidence that the prosecution has
against Sean Culmes? If it's not just his word against
their word, the.
Speaker 4 (32:18):
Most devastating evidence is that video from the Interconninal hotel.
That video has been shown multiple times at the trial,
and that video speaks volumes. It shows did he engage
in serious violence against Cassie? So when didty says that
there was no force, fraud or coersion here? Well, what
was on that video? What did we just watch? We
(32:39):
can see with our own eyes and essentially Ditty's defenses,
who you're gonna believe me are your lyon eyes. Well,
that video does tell that Diddy engaged in the force
or corrosion needed to establish human trafficking, and it also
can lead to racketeering in showing that he to force
(33:00):
himself to put others under his thumb to make others
comply with his will. And that's why they engage allegedly
in arson and witness intimidation and extortion and all these
other things like human trafficking. So that video is the
most powerful evidence.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
Now is that the summation of the defense strategy that
Comb's team has is that the witnesses may be lying,
they're confused, and that technically this really shouldn't be tried
in this court for this venue anyway.
Speaker 4 (33:32):
Yes, what did he is trying to say is that
he acted badly there, He was a jealous boyfriend. And
perhaps this is a domestic violence case which is prosecuted
in state court, non federal court. And this is not
a state court case. And so that's why he's saying
that this is not unlike any other basic domestic violence case.
(33:55):
It's based on jealousy. In fact, in that video, an
infamous video at the Innercana Hotel, see him grabbing for
her phone. So he's saying, you see, I was jealous.
I want to know what's on her phone. These are
a lover's quarrel, and I admit I acted badly, but
it's not human trafficking. Human trafficking is commercial sex acts
involving force, fraud, a coorsion. The sex acts involved here,
(34:18):
according to Diddy, were consensual. That fight was separate from
the freak coughs. She was consenting to the free cost.
But when it came to the fight, that was purely
domestic violence and should be seen as such. That is
a big load for the jury to have to separate
the two, to have to say, yeah, you're right, he
acted badly here with force and coercion, but had nothing
(34:41):
to do with the underlying freak offs.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
Ah.
Speaker 4 (34:44):
I don't buy it. I don't think the jury will
bite either.
Speaker 3 (34:46):
There is another witness also who testified that Comes dangled
her from a balcony and it wasn't his girlfriend, it
was a friend, and that she was dangled from the
seventeenth floor balcony. Does that testimony help the prosecution with
the weight of the video. I mean, did he can
make the argument or his team can make the argument
that the video shows a domestic case. But it seems
(35:11):
like dangling your aid or your your girlfriend's friend from
a balcony wouldn't necessarily be a domestic right.
Speaker 4 (35:19):
I'm sorry even that, because you're right. You see, this
is the amount of evidence that the prosecution has here.
And your racketeering was invented to go after the mafia,
but it's not just for the mafia anymore. We saw
it use in a variety of cases, including one against r. Kelly.
So you've got a fellow, a music mogul who was
taken down by racketeering. And if you don't want to
(35:42):
be charged like a mobster, then don't dangle someone over
a balcony. But that's what he's been alleged here of doing.
That's what this witness said that he did to her,
and they're desperately trying to poke holes in her story.
Speaker 3 (35:57):
Could Combs also face civil action once this criminal child's.
Speaker 4 (36:00):
Over oh one hundred percent, he's already facing civil action.
And when you're a wealthy guy, apparently he's worth a
quarter of a billion dollars. Yeah, he's going to be
tied up in civil lawsuits forever, and the question is
whether he'll face them from a prison cell or whether
he will be living the high life again. Either way,
he's not getting out of this entirely.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
And as we've established, you followed this case from the
very beginning. You've been watching the trial, You've been keeping
a close eye on all of it. Have you ever
seen anything like this?
Speaker 4 (36:33):
Well, I don't know. I've never seen anything like this.
I mean, there are Kelly allegations were somewhat similar, but
to have Arson in a whole team of people around
you who are trying to exert force to have you
comply with their will, I think the close thing I've
seen is the R. Kelly case, But this takes it
(36:56):
to another level. I mean, no matter what happens here,
the offended didty should be tard and feathered in the
court of public opinion. He has acted so badly that
he should not be accepted anymore in polite society where
he gets invited to the met gala or gets to
pretend that he didn't do all these things. And this
(37:17):
is absolutely despicable behavior. I mean, the baby oil and
the drugs and the steps that were taking to cover
everything up, and the extortion allegedly, and the arson allegedly,
and putting people over balconies allegedly, and just that videotape alone,
the video alone, which we didn't have a video on
the R. Kelly case. So the video of Ditty committing
(37:38):
terrible violence against Cassie manhandling her, that alone should just
get him canceled. And I'm not one who likes canceled culture,
but this is a guy deserves to be canceled.
Speaker 3 (37:47):
And just finally, one big difference between Ditty and R.
Kelly is R Kelly was a music artist, but Ditty
was a mogul in music industry, in the food industry,
in the fashion industry, and as you mentioned, worth the
quarter billion dollars and go back twenty thirty years. He
helped change how the music industry, the R and B
industry operated, And this trial is a pretty damning.
Speaker 4 (38:14):
It's terrible. You know, in today's society, it seems like
everyone can make a comeback and that nothing sticks to
people anymore, But this should stick to him. This guy's
a bad dude, and I'm hoping that they'll be just
as done in this case.
Speaker 3 (38:30):
Our thanks to former Palm Beach County State Attorney and
managing partner at Dave Arenberg Law, Dave Ehrenberg, thank you
so much for joining us. That does it. For this
edition of Bloomberg Law, I'm Amy Morris in for June Grasso.
This is Bloomberg. Stay with us today's top stories in
global business. Headlines are coming up right now
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!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.