This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.

This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.

It was an extremely rare victory for a death row prisoner at the Supreme Court, but then Richard Glossop's case was unusual in many respects. Glossip has been on Oklahoma's death row for twenty seven years. He's been scheduled to be executed nine times and has eaten his last meal three times, once avoiding execution only because of a mix up in the lethal drugs that were to be administered. Through decades of appeals, including to the Supreme Court, Glossop has maintained his innocence of the murder of his boss, But then in twenty twenty three, an unlikely ally joined his appeals to have his conviction overturned. The state's Republican Attorney General, Gettner Drummond, who's an advocate of the death penalty, after an investigation. In review of the trial record and the box of documents prosecutors had withheld from Glossop's attorney, Drummond said the conviction could no longer stand because the prosecution had withheld evidence favorable to the defense and failed to correct false testimony at trial. I do not believe that Richard Blossop is innocent.

It was an extremely rare victory for a death row prisoner at the Supreme Court, but then Richard Glossop's case was unusual in many respects. Glossip has been on Oklahoma's death row for twenty seven years. He's been scheduled to be executed nine times and has eaten his last meal three times, once avoiding execution only because of a mix up in the lethal drugs that were to be administered. Through decades of appeals, including to the Supreme Court, Glossop has maintained his innocence of the murder of his boss, But then in twenty twenty three, an unlikely ally joined his appeals to have his conviction overturned. The state's Republican Attorney General, Gettner Drummond, who's an advocate of the death penalty, after an investigation. In review of the trial record and the box of documents prosecutors had withheld from Glossop's attorney, Drummond said the conviction could no longer stand because the prosecution had withheld evidence favorable to the defense and failed to correct false testimony at trial. I do not believe that Richard Blossop is innocent.

I believe him to be guilty, but I believe him to not have been given a fair trial.

I believe him to be guilty, but I believe him to not have been given a fair trial.

This week, the Supreme Court agreed that misconduct by prosecutors had violated Glossop's constitutional rights, and the Court threw out his conviction, with the liberal justices joined by conservatives Brett Cavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts. My guest is Cliff Sloane, a professor of criminal justice at Georgetown Law. He's argued and won a death penalty case before the Supreme Court. A death penalty case before the Supreme Court. The Oklahoma ag said he wasn't surprised by the Supreme Court's decision, but, knowing how this court denies virtually all execution appeals, were you surprised, No.

This week, the Supreme Court agreed that misconduct by prosecutors had violated Glossop's constitutional rights, and the Court threw out his conviction, with the liberal justices joined by conservatives Brett Cavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts. My guest is Cliff Sloane, a professor of criminal justice at Georgetown Law. He's argued and won a death penalty case before the Supreme Court. A death penalty case before the Supreme Court. The Oklahoma ag said he wasn't surprised by the Supreme Court's decision, but, knowing how this court denies virtually all execution appeals, were you surprised, No.

I wasn't surprised by it, but I was heartened by it. I wasn't surprised by it because I thought on the merits, the case for Glossop and the Supreme Court was so strong, and it seemed in the oral argument that this is we're clearly favoring Golossop's claim. A couple of them is Thomas and Alito were clearly hostile, and then there were a few that we couldn't really tell exactly. But as you said, the Supreme Court has been extremely hostile to claims raised by death row defendants in recent years. I think unfortunately so, and I think unjustifiably so. And so it was far from a sure thing that the Supreme Court was going to reach this decision, even though as I mentioned, I think that the merits for Glossop were extremely strong. So it wasn't a total surprise, but it also was far from a foregone conclusion.

I wasn't surprised by it, but I was heartened by it. I wasn't surprised by it because I thought on the merits, the case for Glossop and the Supreme Court was so strong, and it seemed in the oral argument that this is we're clearly favoring Golossop's claim. A couple of them is Thomas and Alito were clearly hostile, and then there were a few that we couldn't really tell exactly. But as you said, the Supreme Court has been extremely hostile to claims raised by death row defendants in recent years. I think unfortunately so, and I think unjustifiably so. And so it was far from a sure thing that the Supreme Court was going to reach this decision, even though as I mentioned, I think that the merits for Glossop were extremely strong. So it wasn't a total surprise, but it also was far from a foregone conclusion.

Tell us about the unusual aspects of Glossop's case.

Tell us about the unusual aspects of Glossop's case.

One thing that's very unusual about Glossop's case is that you had the Republican Attorney General of Oklahoma, who generally is very much in favor of the death penalty, very strongly saying that he did not get a fair trial, and of course the death sentence that went with it was unfair and that he should have a new trial, and that Gossop was right that there had been prosecutorial misconduct, very important misconduct by the prosecutors that prevented him from having a fair trial, and that required setting aside this conviction and the death sentence and getting a new trial. So you had a unanimity, had a census by both Blossop and by the state, by the prosecutors that his conviction and death sentence were unfair and could not stand. And yet even with that consensus view, and even with the strength of their reasons for that, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest court in Oklahoma on criminal matters, rejected that position and said that the conviction is going to stand and he's going to be executed. And so it was this sort of remarkable situation where you had the state court rejecting the views even of the prosecutor, which was sharing the view of the defendant that under the constitution he was entitled to a new trial. Now, you know, one of the things, this is not the only time that this has happened in recent years, and one that got a lot of attention last year was the case of Marcellus Williams in Missouri, and who had a long innocence claim and the local prosecutor, the office that had prosecuted him and secured the death sentence, agreed that he should not be executed. And yet the Missouri courts rejected that, and the Supreme Court did not intervene, and that has happened in some other circumstances also, So it's very striking in the Glossop case, but it actually reflects the kind of pervasive problem that we have right now when state courts are rejecting the consensus view of prosecutors and defendants that the individual didn't get a fair trial or didn't get a death sentence fairly imposed, and the state courts just barrel ahead you upholding the conviction and ordering the execution. Now, sometimes what you have, and this happens with Marcellus Williams, sometimes you have a bit of a division on the state side where you have the local prosecut for example, saying that it should be set aside, and then you have the state attorney general trying to kind of intervene and say no, no, no, we think the execution should go forward. You didn't have that in the Glossop case, and there was nobody from the state who was saying that the conviction should be upheld and that the execution should go forward. But this is a problem that comes up, and it's kind of surprising and troubling. I think that state courts are rejecting the positions of the prosecutors when they're saying, yes, the defendant is right, and either the conviction shouldn't stand or the execution shouldn't go forward.

One thing that's very unusual about Glossop's case is that you had the Republican Attorney General of Oklahoma, who generally is very much in favor of the death penalty, very strongly saying that he did not get a fair trial, and of course the death sentence that went with it was unfair and that he should have a new trial, and that Gossop was right that there had been prosecutorial misconduct, very important misconduct by the prosecutors that prevented him from having a fair trial, and that required setting aside this conviction and the death sentence and getting a new trial. So you had a unanimity, had a census by both Blossop and by the state, by the prosecutors that his conviction and death sentence were unfair and could not stand. And yet even with that consensus view, and even with the strength of their reasons for that, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest court in Oklahoma on criminal matters, rejected that position and said that the conviction is going to stand and he's going to be executed. And so it was this sort of remarkable situation where you had the state court rejecting the views even of the prosecutor, which was sharing the view of the defendant that under the constitution he was entitled to a new trial. Now, you know, one of the things, this is not the only time that this has happened in recent years, and one that got a lot of attention last year was the case of Marcellus Williams in Missouri, and who had a long innocence claim and the local prosecutor, the office that had prosecuted him and secured the death sentence, agreed that he should not be executed. And yet the Missouri courts rejected that, and the Supreme Court did not intervene, and that has happened in some other circumstances also, So it's very striking in the Glossop case, but it actually reflects the kind of pervasive problem that we have right now when state courts are rejecting the consensus view of prosecutors and defendants that the individual didn't get a fair trial or didn't get a death sentence fairly imposed, and the state courts just barrel ahead you upholding the conviction and ordering the execution. Now, sometimes what you have, and this happens with Marcellus Williams, sometimes you have a bit of a division on the state side where you have the local prosecut for example, saying that it should be set aside, and then you have the state attorney general trying to kind of intervene and say no, no, no, we think the execution should go forward. You didn't have that in the Glossop case, and there was nobody from the state who was saying that the conviction should be upheld and that the execution should go forward. But this is a problem that comes up, and it's kind of surprising and troubling. I think that state courts are rejecting the positions of the prosecutors when they're saying, yes, the defendant is right, and either the conviction shouldn't stand or the execution shouldn't go forward.

Justice Sonia Sotomayua wrote the majority opinion. Will you explain her reasoning.

Justice Sonia Sotomayua wrote the majority opinion. Will you explain her reasoning.

Well, this case was a bit of an unusual case to begin with, because it involved mister Golossop's conviction for murder and death sentence, even though there's no question he wasn't involved in the actual physical commission of the murder, and the case against the Glossop depended entirely on the testimony of an individual who said that Glossop had recruited him to commit the murder, and there was no other direct evidence that gossip was involved in planning the murder in any way. And yet it came out later that the individual whose testimony was so critical in implicating Glossop, he lied on the stand, and that the prosecution knew that it was false testimony, and what it was about was that he had taken lithium, and what he testified to was that he had never been treated by a psychiatrist, and he had no mental health problems or issues, and that he had received the lithium as a mistake when he requested something for a cold. And one of the things that came out years later, and that was kind of the heart of the case in the Supreme Court, was that the prosecutor had in her notes of a conversation with him a reference to lithium and to the name of the psychiatrist at the facility where he was being incarcerated, and the medical records reflected that he had been prescribed lithium by a psychiatrist and had bipolar disorder, And this would have been very, very important for the jury to understand in terms of evaluating his testimony, both in terms of his credibility, and again, the entire case against Gossop depended on his credibility, and here he blatantly lied about the circumstances of his receiving lithium and whether he had ever been treated by a psychiatrist, and also possible patients that they might draw about whether he would have acted impulsively and whether it could have been connected to his psychological difficulty. So it is extremely important evidence. That was the view of the majority, and there's a Supreme Court case going back to the nineteen fifties called napoo, which says that the prosecution cannot knowingly put on false testimony and that if there is a false testimony that the prosecution knows about, it has to correct that before the jury, and if not, it's a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights, it's a violation of due process. And so Glossop's argument in the Oklahoma Attorney General agreed, this is a classic open and shut napoo violation. The only witness against him gave false testimony. We've got this evidence in the records that shows that the prosecutor she knew it was false testimony, and yet she didn't do anything to correct it. So that was the view of justice. So the mayor and the majority justices.

Well, this case was a bit of an unusual case to begin with, because it involved mister Golossop's conviction for murder and death sentence, even though there's no question he wasn't involved in the actual physical commission of the murder, and the case against the Glossop depended entirely on the testimony of an individual who said that Glossop had recruited him to commit the murder, and there was no other direct evidence that gossip was involved in planning the murder in any way. And yet it came out later that the individual whose testimony was so critical in implicating Glossop, he lied on the stand, and that the prosecution knew that it was false testimony, and what it was about was that he had taken lithium, and what he testified to was that he had never been treated by a psychiatrist, and he had no mental health problems or issues, and that he had received the lithium as a mistake when he requested something for a cold. And one of the things that came out years later, and that was kind of the heart of the case in the Supreme Court, was that the prosecutor had in her notes of a conversation with him a reference to lithium and to the name of the psychiatrist at the facility where he was being incarcerated, and the medical records reflected that he had been prescribed lithium by a psychiatrist and had bipolar disorder, And this would have been very, very important for the jury to understand in terms of evaluating his testimony, both in terms of his credibility, and again, the entire case against Gossop depended on his credibility, and here he blatantly lied about the circumstances of his receiving lithium and whether he had ever been treated by a psychiatrist, and also possible patients that they might draw about whether he would have acted impulsively and whether it could have been connected to his psychological difficulty. So it is extremely important evidence. That was the view of the majority, and there's a Supreme Court case going back to the nineteen fifties called napoo, which says that the prosecution cannot knowingly put on false testimony and that if there is a false testimony that the prosecution knows about, it has to correct that before the jury, and if not, it's a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights, it's a violation of due process. And so Glossop's argument in the Oklahoma Attorney General agreed, this is a classic open and shut napoo violation. The only witness against him gave false testimony. We've got this evidence in the records that shows that the prosecutor she knew it was false testimony, and yet she didn't do anything to correct it. So that was the view of justice. So the mayor and the majority justices.

Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, Amy Cony Barrett concurred in part, dissented in part. Thomas said that the High Court had no authority to override Oklahoma's state courts.

Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, Amy Cony Barrett concurred in part, dissented in part. Thomas said that the High Court had no authority to override Oklahoma's state courts.

Well, so there were two issues in the case. There was a procedural issue and a substantive issue. And we've been talking about the substantive issue about the merits of the napok claim. But it also is the case that if a state court decision rests entirely on a state ground, what they call an adequate and independent state ground, then that's a sufficient basis for it. So, for example, let's say the state says that a brief has to be filed within thirty days, and somebody filed it ninety days later, and the state says, we're not going to consider it because it violates did our state rule? Well, that's been held to be an adequate and independent state ground. And so here the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals said a lot of different things that the oral argument, Justice Stagan said they were basically thrown in the kitchen sink, but they made some reference to some of the state court rules. And so one of the arguments that was made by a lawyer whose Supreme Court appointed to defend the decision of the Oklahoma Court or Criminal Appeals, which is common for the Supreme Court to do if the parties are in agreement and nobody's defending the lower court decision. So that person who is appointed by the Supreme Court said, well, there's an adequate and independent state ground here, and so you don't even reach the federal constitutional issue. And all of the justices except for Justice Thomas and Alito rejected that view and said that no, their view even of the application of the state rules was based on their view that there wasn't a NAPOU violation, that it was quote unquote meritless, and that's a federal constitutional issue, so there's not an adequate and independent state procedural ground. But Justice Thomas and Justice Alito said no, they thought that there was an adequate and independent state ground. There was a sufficient reliance on that state rule, which included a provision that you can't raise an issue that could have been raised earlier, and in their view, it could have been raised earlier. So that was the arguments that he was making there. And you know, by the way, well, and we're talking about the lineup of the justices, we should just mention that it was eight justices who decided this. Justice Coursich didn't participate because when he was a Court of Appeals judge, he had been involved in an earlier stage of the Glossop proceeding. So the only two justices who thought there was a procedural bar to considering it were Justices Thomas and Alito.

Well, so there were two issues in the case. There was a procedural issue and a substantive issue. And we've been talking about the substantive issue about the merits of the napok claim. But it also is the case that if a state court decision rests entirely on a state ground, what they call an adequate and independent state ground, then that's a sufficient basis for it. So, for example, let's say the state says that a brief has to be filed within thirty days, and somebody filed it ninety days later, and the state says, we're not going to consider it because it violates did our state rule? Well, that's been held to be an adequate and independent state ground. And so here the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals said a lot of different things that the oral argument, Justice Stagan said they were basically thrown in the kitchen sink, but they made some reference to some of the state court rules. And so one of the arguments that was made by a lawyer whose Supreme Court appointed to defend the decision of the Oklahoma Court or Criminal Appeals, which is common for the Supreme Court to do if the parties are in agreement and nobody's defending the lower court decision. So that person who is appointed by the Supreme Court said, well, there's an adequate and independent state ground here, and so you don't even reach the federal constitutional issue. And all of the justices except for Justice Thomas and Alito rejected that view and said that no, their view even of the application of the state rules was based on their view that there wasn't a NAPOU violation, that it was quote unquote meritless, and that's a federal constitutional issue, so there's not an adequate and independent state procedural ground. But Justice Thomas and Justice Alito said no, they thought that there was an adequate and independent state ground. There was a sufficient reliance on that state rule, which included a provision that you can't raise an issue that could have been raised earlier, and in their view, it could have been raised earlier. So that was the arguments that he was making there. And you know, by the way, well, and we're talking about the lineup of the justices, we should just mention that it was eight justices who decided this. Justice Coursich didn't participate because when he was a Court of Appeals judge, he had been involved in an earlier stage of the Glossop proceeding. So the only two justices who thought there was a procedural bar to considering it were Justices Thomas and Alito.

Coming up next, will Glossop be tried again you're listening to Bloomberg. This week, the Supreme Court granted Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossop a new trial, finding that misconduct by prosecutors violated his constitutional rights at his trial. The Court threw out the conviction, agreeing with Oklahoma's Republican Attorney General that the prosecution withheld evidence favorable to the defense and failed to correct false testimony at trial. Two conservative justices dissented. I've been talking to Georgetown law professor Cliff Sloane. In his dissent, Clarence Thomas said, there's no reason to think that disclosing the bipolar disorder of the state's star witness would have affected the outcome of the trial. I'm not sure how he can come to that kind of conclusion, especially because you never know what's going to affect the credibility of a witness in the eyes of the jury. Is there any set of circumstances where Thomas and Alito would rule against the death penalty.

Coming up next, will Glossop be tried again you're listening to Bloomberg. This week, the Supreme Court granted Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossop a new trial, finding that misconduct by prosecutors violated his constitutional rights at his trial. The Court threw out the conviction, agreeing with Oklahoma's Republican Attorney General that the prosecution withheld evidence favorable to the defense and failed to correct false testimony at trial. Two conservative justices dissented. I've been talking to Georgetown law professor Cliff Sloane. In his dissent, Clarence Thomas said, there's no reason to think that disclosing the bipolar disorder of the state's star witness would have affected the outcome of the trial. I'm not sure how he can come to that kind of conclusion, especially because you never know what's going to affect the credibility of a witness in the eyes of the jury. Is there any set of circumstances where Thomas and Alito would rule against the death penalty.

Well, you know, they generally have been extremely hostile to capital defendants, and even in a case where Justice Alito did join almost all of the other members of the court in ruling for a capital defendants, but he wrote a very narrow concurrence in the judgment where he basically said, you know this case and this case only, but that you know brings up a very important point not just about Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, but about the Supreme Court as a whole that relates to Glossop and this overall picture with the death penalty, because since the modern era of the death penalty began in the mid nineteen seventies, there have been two two one hundred people who have been exonerated on death row. Two hundred people who were convicted and sentenced to death and had death penalties hanging over their heads and then were found to be innocent. That is a truly astonishing and deeply troubling fact. And it is a fact two hundred people since the nineteen seventies sentenced to death who were exonerated. And yet the Supreme Court very regularly is raising and constructing extremely complicated procedural obstacles that make it very difficult and in some cases impossible, for defendants to raige claims to have federal courts examine the merits of their constitutional claims, even when those claims relate to innocence and this very very strange dichotomy where on the one hand, you've got the Supreme Court majority creating these extremely difficult procedural obstacles that prevent people from having their claims heard, and on the other hand, we're seeing these very serious problems with two hundred exonerations in recent years. And that's not the only problem with the death penalty. I mean, there's a tremendous problem with ineffective assistance of console, with terrible lawyering. Almost invariably somebody who gets the death penalty, there's been terrible lawyering involved. The Supreme Court's making it extremely difficult for somebody to raise that claim. And in one case a couple of years ago, the Supreme Court majority said, well, the Senate, you're stuck with the record that you're completely inadequate lawyer created for you, and you can't add to that record instances of lawyers literally sleeping at times during capital trials where courts have left that in place. So you have this very strange dichotomy of the Supreme Court creating these enormous procedural obstacles on the one hand, and this record of abuses with the death penalty.

Well, you know, they generally have been extremely hostile to capital defendants, and even in a case where Justice Alito did join almost all of the other members of the court in ruling for a capital defendants, but he wrote a very narrow concurrence in the judgment where he basically said, you know this case and this case only, but that you know brings up a very important point not just about Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, but about the Supreme Court as a whole that relates to Glossop and this overall picture with the death penalty, because since the modern era of the death penalty began in the mid nineteen seventies, there have been two two one hundred people who have been exonerated on death row. Two hundred people who were convicted and sentenced to death and had death penalties hanging over their heads and then were found to be innocent. That is a truly astonishing and deeply troubling fact. And it is a fact two hundred people since the nineteen seventies sentenced to death who were exonerated. And yet the Supreme Court very regularly is raising and constructing extremely complicated procedural obstacles that make it very difficult and in some cases impossible, for defendants to raige claims to have federal courts examine the merits of their constitutional claims, even when those claims relate to innocence and this very very strange dichotomy where on the one hand, you've got the Supreme Court majority creating these extremely difficult procedural obstacles that prevent people from having their claims heard, and on the other hand, we're seeing these very serious problems with two hundred exonerations in recent years. And that's not the only problem with the death penalty. I mean, there's a tremendous problem with ineffective assistance of console, with terrible lawyering. Almost invariably somebody who gets the death penalty, there's been terrible lawyering involved. The Supreme Court's making it extremely difficult for somebody to raise that claim. And in one case a couple of years ago, the Supreme Court majority said, well, the Senate, you're stuck with the record that you're completely inadequate lawyer created for you, and you can't add to that record instances of lawyers literally sleeping at times during capital trials where courts have left that in place. So you have this very strange dichotomy of the Supreme Court creating these enormous procedural obstacles on the one hand, and this record of abuses with the death penalty.

On the other turn, oklahom Attorney General Gentner Drummond said at a news conference after this decision that I do not believe Richard Glossip is innocent, and he said that his office is going to review the ruling, visit the family members determine the most appropriate course of action because they have to decide now whether to try him again. How do you try a case twenty eight years later when there was never any physical evidence to begin with. Now there's new evidence that the state's star witness lied on the stand, wanted to recount his testimony so he can be impeached. I mean, how do you try a case like that.

On the other turn, oklahom Attorney General Gentner Drummond said at a news conference after this decision that I do not believe Richard Glossip is innocent, and he said that his office is going to review the ruling, visit the family members determine the most appropriate course of action because they have to decide now whether to try him again. How do you try a case twenty eight years later when there was never any physical evidence to begin with. Now there's new evidence that the state's star witness lied on the stand, wanted to recount his testimony so he can be impeached. I mean, how do you try a case like that.

Look, I I think it's going to be extremely difficult for them to try the case, and we'll see what charges they would bring. But for the reasons that you mentioned, of course, it's a long time ago, but also it's the very reason why this information was so important, because the fact that the only witness against him blatantly lies, you know, he is subject to impeachment on that basis, and so I would think there'll be enormous problems in trying the case. But I will say one thing about the Oklahoma Attorney General I think he deserves tremendous credits because, first of all, again he's somebody who very much supports the death penalty and yet took a very principled stand here that no, this man did not receive a fair trial and both his conviction and death should not remain in place. But in addition to that, this is all in the context where his official position is the gloss of his guilty, but that he should get a fair trial. You know, it's a Supreme Court argument. Representing the state of Oklahoma was Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General for the United States in the George W. Bush administration, in one of the preeminent and leading Supreme Court advocates of our time. And you know, Paul Clement said that in the oral argument, he said, we don't think mister Glossop is a poster boy for innocence, and we're going to try to retry him. And I think that if the Supreme Court does the right thing he said, which we urge you to do in terms of setting aside this conviction of death, sense, we're going to try and convict him again. And so I just think that really speaks to the principal stance that the Oklahoma Attorney General took here exactly what you want a public official to do, regardless of political affiliation, to say, I've looked at the facts, I've looked at the evidence. This man did not receive a fair trial. Yes, he's guilty in our view. Of course, Blossop very much disputes that, and we're going to try to go after him again with a fair trial. That's been there position throughout. I mean, the.

Look, I I think it's going to be extremely difficult for them to try the case, and we'll see what charges they would bring. But for the reasons that you mentioned, of course, it's a long time ago, but also it's the very reason why this information was so important, because the fact that the only witness against him blatantly lies, you know, he is subject to impeachment on that basis, and so I would think there'll be enormous problems in trying the case. But I will say one thing about the Oklahoma Attorney General I think he deserves tremendous credits because, first of all, again he's somebody who very much supports the death penalty and yet took a very principled stand here that no, this man did not receive a fair trial and both his conviction and death should not remain in place. But in addition to that, this is all in the context where his official position is the gloss of his guilty, but that he should get a fair trial. You know, it's a Supreme Court argument. Representing the state of Oklahoma was Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General for the United States in the George W. Bush administration, in one of the preeminent and leading Supreme Court advocates of our time. And you know, Paul Clement said that in the oral argument, he said, we don't think mister Glossop is a poster boy for innocence, and we're going to try to retry him. And I think that if the Supreme Court does the right thing he said, which we urge you to do in terms of setting aside this conviction of death, sense, we're going to try and convict him again. And so I just think that really speaks to the principal stance that the Oklahoma Attorney General took here exactly what you want a public official to do, regardless of political affiliation, to say, I've looked at the facts, I've looked at the evidence. This man did not receive a fair trial. Yes, he's guilty in our view. Of course, Blossop very much disputes that, and we're going to try to go after him again with a fair trial. That's been there position throughout. I mean, the.

Victim's family wants this tried it again as a death penalty case. Do you think there'll be pressure not only on the Oklahoma Attorney General, but on the Oklahoma County District attorney to try the case again.

Victim's family wants this tried it again as a death penalty case. Do you think there'll be pressure not only on the Oklahoma Attorney General, but on the Oklahoma County District attorney to try the case again.

Death penalty cases, by their nature, they are always very very high profile and with a lot of public pressure. It's one of the reasons it's very important for public officials, even in that kind of situation to act in principled ways. But they're always very very controversial situations with you know, horrible crimes that are at issue, you know, victims' families. There can be a wide variety. I mean, there's sometimes is a situation where victims' families are actually against the death penalty for a lot of reasons that they don't think the taking of life justifies the taking of life. They also think accurate lea it's going to lead to a much more prolonged and difficult process for them. And then you have some victims' families who are in favor of the death penalty and who you know, obviously have suffered extremely difficult anguish of losing a loved one, and the victim's family here is being very aggressive in supporting the death penalty for Glossop and in supporting their view that he is guilty. And in fact, they filed in the Supreme Court and amicus brief arguing very strongly against the Oklahoma Attorney General and Glossop in saying that the notes of the prosecutor were being misinterpreted. They actually attached new documents that hadn't been part of the record and made new arguments, and Justice Thomas's descent relies at times on that brief, and the majority took pains to say those documents were not in the record. So in this case, it certainly is true that you have a very very active victims family that's going to be pushing both for retrial and the death penalty.

Death penalty cases, by their nature, they are always very very high profile and with a lot of public pressure. It's one of the reasons it's very important for public officials, even in that kind of situation to act in principled ways. But they're always very very controversial situations with you know, horrible crimes that are at issue, you know, victims' families. There can be a wide variety. I mean, there's sometimes is a situation where victims' families are actually against the death penalty for a lot of reasons that they don't think the taking of life justifies the taking of life. They also think accurate lea it's going to lead to a much more prolonged and difficult process for them. And then you have some victims' families who are in favor of the death penalty and who you know, obviously have suffered extremely difficult anguish of losing a loved one, and the victim's family here is being very aggressive in supporting the death penalty for Glossop and in supporting their view that he is guilty. And in fact, they filed in the Supreme Court and amicus brief arguing very strongly against the Oklahoma Attorney General and Glossop in saying that the notes of the prosecutor were being misinterpreted. They actually attached new documents that hadn't been part of the record and made new arguments, and Justice Thomas's descent relies at times on that brief, and the majority took pains to say those documents were not in the record. So in this case, it certainly is true that you have a very very active victims family that's going to be pushing both for retrial and the death penalty.

Is this the strangest saga for a death row inmates case or are there others that are just as bad?

Is this the strangest saga for a death row inmates case or are there others that are just as bad?

Oh, there are many that are just as bad, and in a number of ways. I mean, first of all, as we were talking about the problem of people turning out to be innocent and also the problem of prosecutorial misconducts, both of those are rampant in death penalty cases, and there's actually a high correlation between the two. That's frequently when somebody has been wrongly convicted, it's because there's been prosecutorial misconduct. But those aren't the only kinds of claims. There are all sorts of other claims that turn out to be meritorious, including in effective assistance of console, including problems connected with race. And you know, some people who are in favor of the death penalty complain about the length of time that it takes, and that includes some of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court. You know, Glossop previously had a case in the Supreme Court where he was objecting to lethal injection as cruel and usual, that it was an untried procedure that was going to make it feel like somebody was being burned alive, and the Supreme Court majority rejected that claim, and both in the oral argument and in the opinion talked about this guerrilla campaign against the death penalty and expressed real frustration and impatience with efforts to impede the death penalty. Now, the other side of that is that the reason that these issues come up so much is because there are so many pervasive and fundamental problems with the death penalty, and frequently it takes a while to get them litigated, including because there's frequently such poor lawyering at the trial level. And yet frequently there is a kind of vindication in the end for the death row inmate. Obviously not always, And although we have fewer executions each year and fewer death sentences than we've had in the past, and lower public support, and the death sentences that are handed out and the executions that occur are in a relatively small handful of jurisdictions, but there are executions that are going forwards. And I'm certainly not suggesting by any means that in every case the defendant ultimately prevails, But in many of these circumstances where it takes a long time for the litigation, it turns out, as in this case, that the defendant has very strong territorious claims and that it would be completely unconstitutional either to uphold the convictions or to proceed with the death sentence. So, I mean, there are some unique twists and turns in mister Glossop's case, but the idea of this sort of prolonged saga and very very deep and troubling errors coming up along the way is far from unique to his case.

Oh, there are many that are just as bad, and in a number of ways. I mean, first of all, as we were talking about the problem of people turning out to be innocent and also the problem of prosecutorial misconducts, both of those are rampant in death penalty cases, and there's actually a high correlation between the two. That's frequently when somebody has been wrongly convicted, it's because there's been prosecutorial misconduct. But those aren't the only kinds of claims. There are all sorts of other claims that turn out to be meritorious, including in effective assistance of console, including problems connected with race. And you know, some people who are in favor of the death penalty complain about the length of time that it takes, and that includes some of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court. You know, Glossop previously had a case in the Supreme Court where he was objecting to lethal injection as cruel and usual, that it was an untried procedure that was going to make it feel like somebody was being burned alive, and the Supreme Court majority rejected that claim, and both in the oral argument and in the opinion talked about this guerrilla campaign against the death penalty and expressed real frustration and impatience with efforts to impede the death penalty. Now, the other side of that is that the reason that these issues come up so much is because there are so many pervasive and fundamental problems with the death penalty, and frequently it takes a while to get them litigated, including because there's frequently such poor lawyering at the trial level. And yet frequently there is a kind of vindication in the end for the death row inmate. Obviously not always, And although we have fewer executions each year and fewer death sentences than we've had in the past, and lower public support, and the death sentences that are handed out and the executions that occur are in a relatively small handful of jurisdictions, but there are executions that are going forwards. And I'm certainly not suggesting by any means that in every case the defendant ultimately prevails, But in many of these circumstances where it takes a long time for the litigation, it turns out, as in this case, that the defendant has very strong territorious claims and that it would be completely unconstitutional either to uphold the convictions or to proceed with the death sentence. So, I mean, there are some unique twists and turns in mister Glossop's case, but the idea of this sort of prolonged saga and very very deep and troubling errors coming up along the way is far from unique to his case.

Thanks so much for taking the time to talk with me. That's Professor Cliff Sloan of Georgetown Law. The Supreme Court dealt a set that to abortion opponents this week, refusing to reconsider a two thousand decision that let states and cities create protective zones to shield patients from being approached near clinic entrances. The justices turned away two appeals that argue the restrictions outside clinics violate the free speech rights of abortion opponents who want to talk to women as they enter the facilities. Two of the most conservative justices dissented. Joining me is an expert in abortion law, Mary Ziegler, a professor at UC Davis Law School. Mary tell us about that two thousand decision that allowed buffer zones outside abortion clinics.

Thanks so much for taking the time to talk with me. That's Professor Cliff Sloan of Georgetown Law. The Supreme Court dealt a set that to abortion opponents this week, refusing to reconsider a two thousand decision that let states and cities create protective zones to shield patients from being approached near clinic entrances. The justices turned away two appeals that argue the restrictions outside clinics violate the free speech rights of abortion opponents who want to talk to women as they enter the facilities. Two of the most conservative justices dissented. Joining me is an expert in abortion law, Mary Ziegler, a professor at UC Davis Law School. Mary tell us about that two thousand decision that allowed buffer zones outside abortion clinics.

So this is part of this series of rulings on this topic called Hill versus Colorado. Hill was about a Colorado law that was kind of prototypical of the era that made it unlawful for anyone who was within one hundred feet of a healthcare facilities entrance to knowingly come within eight feet of another person unless the person they were approaching consented. And you know, the idea was either to you know, show them a sign or talk to them or whatever. And a group of anti abortion protesters thought that this violated the First Amendment and they sued, and the US Supreme Court, in a sixty three ruling held that Colorado's restrictions on this kind of speech related conduct were constitutional. So this was a bid by the new generation of abortion opponents to get rid of this prior ruling.

So this is part of this series of rulings on this topic called Hill versus Colorado. Hill was about a Colorado law that was kind of prototypical of the era that made it unlawful for anyone who was within one hundred feet of a healthcare facilities entrance to knowingly come within eight feet of another person unless the person they were approaching consented. And you know, the idea was either to you know, show them a sign or talk to them or whatever. And a group of anti abortion protesters thought that this violated the First Amendment and they sued, and the US Supreme Court, in a sixty three ruling held that Colorado's restrictions on this kind of speech related conduct were constitutional. So this was a bid by the new generation of abortion opponents to get rid of this prior ruling.

I mean, I've wanted to get rid of it for a long time. This was the first time this has come up since the court overturned the right to abortion.

I mean, I've wanted to get rid of it for a long time. This was the first time this has come up since the court overturned the right to abortion.

Yeah, it was so the court had kind of narrowed the protections that it afforded medical facilities in a twenty fourteen decision out of Massachusetts called McCullen, but the issue hadn't really returned to the court in a meaningful way since then.

Yeah, it was so the court had kind of narrowed the protections that it afforded medical facilities in a twenty fourteen decision out of Massachusetts called McCullen, but the issue hadn't really returned to the court in a meaningful way since then.

As usual, the Court gave no explanation for why it wasn't taking the cases. But do you think it's they just want to avoid another abortion case.

As usual, the Court gave no explanation for why it wasn't taking the cases. But do you think it's they just want to avoid another abortion case.

It's hard to say it. Maybe that they didn't want to take another abortion case, and maybe that this was not the ideal case to take because Carbondale, which was the site of one of the ordinances that was being challenged, no longer was enforcing its ordinance, so there was an argument that this was no longer a real live If the justices do want to take up an abortion case, they may not want to take up a case that features protesters and potentially vigilantes right as opposed to abortion opponents who are claiming to interpret laws on the books rather than resist them. So it's hard to know how much to read into this. It may not be a sign that the Court's reluctant to get into the abortion debate at all. It may simply be something unique to this case.

It's hard to say it. Maybe that they didn't want to take another abortion case, and maybe that this was not the ideal case to take because Carbondale, which was the site of one of the ordinances that was being challenged, no longer was enforcing its ordinance, so there was an argument that this was no longer a real live If the justices do want to take up an abortion case, they may not want to take up a case that features protesters and potentially vigilantes right as opposed to abortion opponents who are claiming to interpret laws on the books rather than resist them. So it's hard to know how much to read into this. It may not be a sign that the Court's reluctant to get into the abortion debate at all. It may simply be something unique to this case.

So the conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have heard both cases, and Thomas said in a descending opinion that Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of of our judicial duty. What does he mean that it's been seriously undermined? Is it by the case that you were just talking about.

So the conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have heard both cases, and Thomas said in a descending opinion that Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of of our judicial duty. What does he mean that it's been seriously undermined? Is it by the case that you were just talking about.

Yeah, I think that on. Thomas's argument was that the court's subsequent decisions after Hill had afforded more protection for the speech of anti abortion protesters. And I think Thomas was also stressing what had happened in Dobbs, the decision overruling Row. So parts of Dobbs complained about what abortion opponents call abortion distortion, the idea that Roe had kind of deformed other areas of the law that weren't theoretically closely related to abortion. And one of the areas that Dobbs flagged was First Amendment doctrine and cited Hill as an example of this distortion. So Thomas pointed to this language in Dobbs and said, well, we already suggested that Hill was a distortion, so why don't we overrule it. That was the other I think inconsistency Justice Thomas was trying to flag.

Yeah, I think that on. Thomas's argument was that the court's subsequent decisions after Hill had afforded more protection for the speech of anti abortion protesters. And I think Thomas was also stressing what had happened in Dobbs, the decision overruling Row. So parts of Dobbs complained about what abortion opponents call abortion distortion, the idea that Roe had kind of deformed other areas of the law that weren't theoretically closely related to abortion. And one of the areas that Dobbs flagged was First Amendment doctrine and cited Hill as an example of this distortion. So Thomas pointed to this language in Dobbs and said, well, we already suggested that Hill was a distortion, so why don't we overrule it. That was the other I think inconsistency Justice Thomas was trying to flag.

It takes four votes to take the case, and you had two other conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Cony Barrett, who had previously joined Tomas in criticizing the Hill ruling, so that would have made four votes. It seems odd that they didn't take it.

It takes four votes to take the case, and you had two other conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Cony Barrett, who had previously joined Tomas in criticizing the Hill ruling, so that would have made four votes. It seems odd that they didn't take it.

Yeah, I mean, like I said, there are any number of reasons. We know historically that the justices have sometimes been more uncomfortable with clinic blockaders and protesters than they are with other anti abortion arguments, especially because there has been sort of a flavor sometimes from those protesters of answering to a higher law rather than to the Supreme Court. We also know again that this case had some sort of weird procedural issues that might have made some of the justices, who weren't eager to get into this arena again anyway, might have given them an excuse to wait. So we might not know for sure, But again I think it's much too early to say we won't see the Court get involved in another abortion case in the near term.

Yeah, I mean, like I said, there are any number of reasons. We know historically that the justices have sometimes been more uncomfortable with clinic blockaders and protesters than they are with other anti abortion arguments, especially because there has been sort of a flavor sometimes from those protesters of answering to a higher law rather than to the Supreme Court. We also know again that this case had some sort of weird procedural issues that might have made some of the justices, who weren't eager to get into this arena again anyway, might have given them an excuse to wait. So we might not know for sure, But again I think it's much too early to say we won't see the Court get involved in another abortion case in the near term.

How big a setback is this? Is it a setback for abortion opponents.

How big a setback is this? Is it a setback for abortion opponents.

It's certainly a setback. I think there was a feeling that abortion opponents had when the Court first decided Dabbs that it was kind of open season and that any precedent on abortion rights could be challenged and quickly done away with. And that's certainly not the impression that this gives. It seems that, you know, if, for example, plaintiffs don't have standing, or if a case has defects like this one does, that the justices may just pass on it. I think it is a setback. But how significant is setback? I think is challenging to determine.

It's certainly a setback. I think there was a feeling that abortion opponents had when the Court first decided Dabbs that it was kind of open season and that any precedent on abortion rights could be challenged and quickly done away with. And that's certainly not the impression that this gives. It seems that, you know, if, for example, plaintiffs don't have standing, or if a case has defects like this one does, that the justices may just pass on it. I think it is a setback. But how significant is setback? I think is challenging to determine.

Are there still at abortion clinics in a lot of states people coming up to people walking in and trying to dissuade them. Is that still going on?

Are there still at abortion clinics in a lot of states people coming up to people walking in and trying to dissuade them. Is that still going on?

It is to some degree. Yeah, I mean we know. One of the I think obviously features of this is that there were relatively few but there were some prosecutions under the Federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, and they're a relatively small percentage of prosecutions per protests, and of course, you know, we expect to see more of them because the Trump administration announced that they would not be enforcing the Face Act against abortion opponents during the Trump administration sort of regardless of what happens, so there already are protests, and we'd expect to see more to some degree. They're also more concentrated, of course, because there are fewer places where it's possible to get a legal abortion in the US, fewer clinics, so protesters can kind of concentrate on the remaining locations.

It is to some degree. Yeah, I mean we know. One of the I think obviously features of this is that there were relatively few but there were some prosecutions under the Federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, and they're a relatively small percentage of prosecutions per protests, and of course, you know, we expect to see more of them because the Trump administration announced that they would not be enforcing the Face Act against abortion opponents during the Trump administration sort of regardless of what happens, so there already are protests, and we'd expect to see more to some degree. They're also more concentrated, of course, because there are fewer places where it's possible to get a legal abortion in the US, fewer clinics, so protesters can kind of concentrate on the remaining locations.

Has the Trump administration made any other moves regarding abortion?

Has the Trump administration made any other moves regarding abortion?

Not a lot.

Not a lot.

So the Trump administration has made some of the kind of standard moves we'd expect to see from a Republican president on abortion, so for example, reinstituting limits on foreign aid to NGOs that do abortion advocacy or referrals. We've seen coded references to the idea of fetal personhood in the Gender Executive Order that the Trump administration handed down. As I mentioned that Trump and JD. Vance may clear that there would be no more prosecutions under the face AAC to protect access to abortion clinics or crisis pregnancy centers. Interestingly, so we've seen that we haven't seen a lot of the bigger moves that abortion opponents have been hoping for. That doesn't mean we won't in the future, but Trump has yet to take action on those fronts.

So the Trump administration has made some of the kind of standard moves we'd expect to see from a Republican president on abortion, so for example, reinstituting limits on foreign aid to NGOs that do abortion advocacy or referrals. We've seen coded references to the idea of fetal personhood in the Gender Executive Order that the Trump administration handed down. As I mentioned that Trump and JD. Vance may clear that there would be no more prosecutions under the face AAC to protect access to abortion clinics or crisis pregnancy centers. Interestingly, so we've seen that we haven't seen a lot of the bigger moves that abortion opponents have been hoping for. That doesn't mean we won't in the future, but Trump has yet to take action on those fronts.

What are abortion opponents targeting right now is the abortion film if a Pristone one of their targets.

What are abortion opponents targeting right now is the abortion film if a Pristone one of their targets.

The steps that they're primarily interested in are either imposing new limits on mithapristone through FDA or directly through AHHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, or potentially even removing mythapristone from the market altogether. There's also a potential push to have the Trump Justice Department treat the Comstock Act as a de facto ban on mailing abortion related items and to start prosecutions. Those are I think the two things that have captured the most attention. The other thing, of course, that will have a major impact but won't be as evident in the short term, is that Trump will continue to fill judicial vacancies with conservative judges like Matthew Tasmeric and James Hoe, who've issued pretty strongly conservative and sweeping rulings on abortion since Trump nominated them during his last administration. So I think the courts overall will probably be moving significantly to the right on these issues, but those are not impacts we'll see from the Trump administration in the coming weeks. That's a longer term change.

The steps that they're primarily interested in are either imposing new limits on mithapristone through FDA or directly through AHHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, or potentially even removing mythapristone from the market altogether. There's also a potential push to have the Trump Justice Department treat the Comstock Act as a de facto ban on mailing abortion related items and to start prosecutions. Those are I think the two things that have captured the most attention. The other thing, of course, that will have a major impact but won't be as evident in the short term, is that Trump will continue to fill judicial vacancies with conservative judges like Matthew Tasmeric and James Hoe, who've issued pretty strongly conservative and sweeping rulings on abortion since Trump nominated them during his last administration. So I think the courts overall will probably be moving significantly to the right on these issues, but those are not impacts we'll see from the Trump administration in the coming weeks. That's a longer term change.

As far as RFK Junior, what is his position on abortion. I mean, is he a threat to abortion rights?

As far as RFK Junior, what is his position on abortion. I mean, is he a threat to abortion rights?

It's difficult again to say so. RFK had telegraphed during and after his confirmation hearing that he would be investigating the safety of MIFFA pristone at Donald Trump's request. Now, abortion opponents, on the one hand, we're excited about this, because there's no real need to studying mif for pristone unless you're telegraphing a move to limit it. MIHA. Pristone's one of the most studied and really regulated drugs in the United States. On the other hand, of course, the Trump administration has been perfectly capable of taking very quick action to establish policies at wants, and the fact that it's sort of slow walking these policies may mean that the Trump administration is simply trying to buy time rather than building toward a sweeping new abortion policy. So I think just too early to say which of those we're seeing.

It's difficult again to say so. RFK had telegraphed during and after his confirmation hearing that he would be investigating the safety of MIFFA pristone at Donald Trump's request. Now, abortion opponents, on the one hand, we're excited about this, because there's no real need to studying mif for pristone unless you're telegraphing a move to limit it. MIHA. Pristone's one of the most studied and really regulated drugs in the United States. On the other hand, of course, the Trump administration has been perfectly capable of taking very quick action to establish policies at wants, and the fact that it's sort of slow walking these policies may mean that the Trump administration is simply trying to buy time rather than building toward a sweeping new abortion policy. So I think just too early to say which of those we're seeing.

Something that caught my eye is two states, Louisiana and Texas, criminally prosecuting a doctor in New York for sending out abortion pills.

Something that caught my eye is two states, Louisiana and Texas, criminally prosecuting a doctor in New York for sending out abortion pills.

There are two cross border disputes that have unfolded. Texas has already had a civil judgment, a default judgment against doctor Carpenter from New York that it's going to have to try to enforce in the New York courts. And meanwhile, Louisiana prosecutors are trying to extradite that same New York doctor to Louisiana to face criminal charges. And we know that New York Governor Kathy Hoko has made clear that she has no plans to extradite doctor Carpenter. So both of these cases seem likely to end up with disputes in federal court that will probably eventually make their way to the Supreme Court.

There are two cross border disputes that have unfolded. Texas has already had a civil judgment, a default judgment against doctor Carpenter from New York that it's going to have to try to enforce in the New York courts. And meanwhile, Louisiana prosecutors are trying to extradite that same New York doctor to Louisiana to face criminal charges. And we know that New York Governor Kathy Hoko has made clear that she has no plans to extradite doctor Carpenter. So both of these cases seem likely to end up with disputes in federal court that will probably eventually make their way to the Supreme Court.

There must be a lot of doctors sending abortion pills through the mail. Is there a reason why they went after that doctor in particular?

There must be a lot of doctors sending abortion pills through the mail. Is there a reason why they went after that doctor in particular?

I think it's largely just a function of what evidence they find. In the Texas case, a partner of an abortion patient who took her to the hospital when she thought she was experiencing complications went home found the pills which doctor Carpenter had prescribed. Remember at this point in time, New York wasn't allowing for anonymous prescriptions, and then reported this to local law enforcement, which led to the complaint filed against her In Louisiana, it seems to have been similarly coincidental. A woman ordered pills from doctor Carpenter for her daughter, and when the daughter took the pills when the mother wasn't home, she was worried about the bleeding she was experiencing and called nine to one one and law enforcement again found the pills with doctor Carpenter's name on them. So I think there will likely be a certain amount of randomness in terms of who's targeted in these kinds of cross border disputes, just depending on what law enforcement can actually uncover.

I think it's largely just a function of what evidence they find. In the Texas case, a partner of an abortion patient who took her to the hospital when she thought she was experiencing complications went home found the pills which doctor Carpenter had prescribed. Remember at this point in time, New York wasn't allowing for anonymous prescriptions, and then reported this to local law enforcement, which led to the complaint filed against her In Louisiana, it seems to have been similarly coincidental. A woman ordered pills from doctor Carpenter for her daughter, and when the daughter took the pills when the mother wasn't home, she was worried about the bleeding she was experiencing and called nine to one one and law enforcement again found the pills with doctor Carpenter's name on them. So I think there will likely be a certain amount of randomness in terms of who's targeted in these kinds of cross border disputes, just depending on what law enforcement can actually uncover.

And this month, Governor hokel signed a law that shields the identity of doctors in New York who prescribe abortion pills. Thanks so much for being on the show. Mary. That's Professor Mary Ziegler of UC Davis Law School. 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 Podcast. 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 Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg

And this month, Governor hokel signed a law that shields the identity of doctors in New York who prescribe abortion pills. Thanks so much for being on the show. Mary. That's Professor Mary Ziegler of UC Davis Law School. 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 Podcast. 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 Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg