[music] This is Bloomberg Law with June

Graasso from Bloomberg Radio.

One thing I know how to do is build. And

so we put a brand new uh face on the

front of the White House on the ground,

the cars will pull up and this is what

should have as opposed to the asphalt

which was literally they had potholes in

it. President Trump has spent much of

his second presidential term trying to

leave his mark on the White House

complex and throughout DC. And the White

House ballroom has been the centerpiece

of that campaign.

>> I think it'll be the finest ballroom of

its kind anywhere in the world. On

Monday, in a 5 to4 vote, the Supreme

Court cleared the way for construction

to continue with a procedural ruling

over the dissents of the Chief Justice

and the court's three liberals. Will

that decision present a new higher

hurdle for the legal challenges to

Trump's other projects like the

construction of a 250 foot arch,

painting the granite exterior of the

19th century Eisenhower Executive Office

building, renovating the Kennedy Center,

and building a championship level golf

course near the Jefferson Memorial. My

guest is Tracy Fight Love, founder and

executive director of Lawyers for Good

Government. Tracy, so the majority on

the Supreme Court found that the

historic preservation group that sued

did not have standing. Tell us more

about that.

>> So basically the court did not rule that

President Trump has the authority to

build the ballroom. What they did rule

is that the particular plaintiffs that

initiated this lawsuit are not allowed

to challenge it. When you say someone

doesn't have the standing, it means they

don't have the legal right to challenge

a particular action. It does not mean

the action that they're challenging was

legal. Do you think that the Supreme

Court often uses standing as sort of an

offramp that allows it to avoid making a

decision on the merits until it's too

late?

>> Yes. Yes, I do think that. And the

reason I think that is because there

have been too many instances over the

years when the court seems to find that

someone does have standing if it relates

to an issue that they want to see

decided in a particular way and someone

else doesn't have standing because they

don't want to get to the merits of a

particular issue. That distinction

really really matters. I mean, when you

look at the decision, the only four

justices who addressed the legality of

the actual ballroom project all

concluded that it was likely unlawful.

That includes Chief Justice Roberts, who

emphasized that Congress has not

expressly authorized this construction.

So, it does seem in this instance that

possibly standing was an easy out for

them.

>> It's not a typical case where someone is

injured and obviously has standing. Do

you think it's a harder case to make

outstanding here than usual?

>> Yeah, this was not clear-cut in terms of

the standing question. The real issue is

when you look at the overarching pattern

of decisions about standing. For

example, in this case, when they

concluded that the National Trust lacked

standing, they said it was because the

aesthetic or historical injuries that

the plaintiffs were asserting were not

sufficiently concrete or particularized.

But there is other precedent, Supreme

Court precedent that has in some

instances recognized aesthetic injuries

as being sufficient for a standing. For

instance, in environmental and

conservation cases when plaintiffs

actually use or observe the place or

resource that's being affected. So, it

was a close question and I think because

it could be perceived as close, it gave

them the room to maneuver that they

wanted in order to not stop the ballroom

construction.

>> I mean, we don't often see the chief

justice in descent with the three

liberals. How surprising is that? Yeah,

I mean it's I'll admit I'm not often

surprised anymore at all about what

these Supreme Court justices do, but I

think it does speak to the fact that

this is not a partisan question. The

issue of standing was not decided along

the basis of who appointed which

justice. Right? That means that this

issue may have even been closer than the

court wants to admit. So, I think it's

interesting that Justice Roberts

actually agreed that the substantive

question, the actual question of whether

that ballroom was legally being

constructed was probably going to be

answered in the negative.

>> It was a pretty strong disscent and he

said that the majority's order is no

victory for the separation of powers.

The court's conservatives have given in

to Trump on so many issues, especially

on the emergency docket. Do you think

he's suddenly realizing that there's a

separation of powers problem arising

from these decisions?

>> I hope he's realizing it. I don't know

if it's sudden or if this is something

that he's been willing to accept up

until a certain point, but this is

fundamentally a story about separation

of powers and the rule of law. We can't

allow the rule of law to be act first,

ask permission later. Standing matters

obviously, but if these procedural

barriers are repeatedly preventing

anyone from challenging potentially

unlawful executive action, then the

question is who can actually hold the

president accountable? And are the

checks and balances that the

constitution meant to set out really in

existence now in a meaningful way? The

administration has been doing this over

and over again in different areas. You

know, deporting people before things can

get into court, cutting off funding

before things can get into court. And

you know, the Supreme Court except in a

couple of instances,

tariffs and birthright citizenship has

allowed the president to do this.

>> That's correct. This court has shown a

remarkable unwillingness to

hold the executive branch accountable to

the constitutional limits that it is

meant to operate within. I'm running out

of words to describe how dangerous it is

to be in a situation where the actions

of the executive branch are not being

effectively checked or challenged by

either of the other two branches. But

that is the situation we have found

ourselves in.

>> Obviously the the administration is

making an argument that the president

has the authority to build this. But I

mean is there any real substantive legal

authority that contradicts what the

courts below have said which is that a

project like the ballroom needs

congressional approval. Basically, do

the plaintiffs have a really strong

argument about Congress's role here?

>> Yes. I mean, the the circuit court that

ruled on this issue expressly said that

Congress has constitutional authority

over federal property and that it was a

problem that Congress had not authorized

this project. And the Supreme Court did

not find otherwise. All the Supreme

Court really said was that this

particular plaintiff couldn't challenge

it.

You know, I'm I'm a little um usually

you have an injunction that will

preserve the status quo as a lawsuit

goes on, but this is an injunction that

is allowing the ballroom to go forward.

It's already 65% built and by the time

this gets back, if it ever does, to the

Supreme Court, it'll likely be done. So,

it's not preserving the status quo.

>> No, it is not. And I personally,

although I cannot read the justice's

minds, um I can't obviously speak for

them, but it doesn't seem to me that the

court as a whole is really trying to

manage or maintain the status quo here.

It's pretty clear to me that they're

very willing to allow the construction

to proceed, understanding that that

means it will be nearly impossible to

undo and that effectively the president

has just been granted the authority to

do what he should not have the authority

to do.

>> This administration mentions national

security. It seems to me like in almost

every argument there's a national

security reason. I mean, did they

actually buy that this is required for

national security? National security

wasn't the initial focus. Trump has been

wanting to build this ballroom since

Barack Obama was in office. I mean, he's

always wanted to have a ballroom. Then

all of a sudden, they came up with

national security reasons.

>> National security is one of those

phrases that the administration likes to

throw out there because they believe

that it grants them almost unlimited

powers. It's an easy way for them to

make the argument that they should be

allowed to do whatever they want to do.

And because they are unilaterally making

these declarations of when there is or

isn't a national emergency, it's very

hard to put any checks on that. And

that's exactly why they use that phrase

so often. There is nothing inherently

national security related to a ballroom.

I understand that there is meant to be

something constructed underneath the new

ballroom that may be relevant to

national security, but that's a separate

question. Trump is trying to remake DC

in different ways. He keeps trying to

put his name up on the Kennedy Center. I

mean, we have the reflecting pool. He

wants to build this arch. Will this

decision by the Supreme Court lead him

to start building the arch? Is the arch

next?

>> It could be. [laughter] Like I said

about the justices, I can't understand

or predict what happens inside the mind

of this president or his colleagues. But

it does seem that the president here has

been set in a way that establishes for

practical purposes. If the president is

willing to move quickly enough, he will

be allowed to get away with it. And that

means we need Congress to step up and be

willing to do its job. If the Supreme

Court is unwilling to put any meaningful

checks on the authority of this

president, the only branch of government

left that is capable of doing that is

Congress.

>> Do you think that other groups can try

to sue over the ballroom or it's too

late for that?

>> I mean, it's theoretically possible that

another group could try. My hunch is

that the litigators, the lawyers who

brought this suit did their best to find

the plaintiff that they thought would be

most likely to have standing. But is it

possible that there's another group out

there that might be deemed to have

standing? It's possible. I think it's

unlikely that that will happen.

>> We'll see if this decision has any

impact on the many other cases

challenging Trump's projects. Thanks so

much, Tracy. That's Tracy Fight Love,

executive director and founder of

Lawyers for Good Government.

The Department of Justice has repeatedly

been trying to install loyalists to run

US attorneys offices around the country

without Senate approval. The first

well-known case was that of Trump's

personal attorney, Alina Haba, to head

the New Jersey US Attorney's Office. And

of course, there was Trump's personal

attorney, Lindseay Halligan, to head the

Eastern District of Virginia office.

Halagan's disqualification prompted the

dismissal of criminal cases against New

York Attorney General Leticia James and

former FBI Director James Comey, both on

Trump's enemies list. two circuit courts

of appeals, the second circuit and the

Ninth Circuit ruled against the Justice

Department's legal maneuvers to try to

get around federal vacancy laws, finding

that the acting heads of the US

attorney's offices in Nevada and the

Northern District of New York were

properly disqualified. Joining me is an

Joseph Okonnell, a professor at Stanford

Law School. Let's go back for a second

and explain what the Trump

administration has been trying to do

repeatedly to get the people they want

running US attorneys offices across the

country without going through the Senate

confirmation process.

>> They seem to have a specific pattern

though they have deviated from it in

particular districts and that specific

pattern went as follows. administration

comes in, they turn to a provision

called 28USC546,

which allows the attorney general to

pick anyone to serve as an acting US

attorney for 120 days. Usually what

would happen at the end of the 120 days,

the district court in that relevant

district would extend that person until

someone could be nominated and confirmed

for the spot. But that's where it went a

bit astray in this administration where

some of these district courts refused to

extend the service of the person who had

been put in for 120 days. So what the

administration did next is typically a

few days before the 120 days ran out,

they would name that person under a

different statute, the Federal Vacancies

Reform Act of 1998,

and they would give that person the

title the first assistant to the US

attorney of the relevant district. And

they argued that under the vacancies act

that first assistant automatically

became the acting US attorney. Or if

that was not permitted this idea of post

vacancy first assistance if that was not

permitted in the alternative the first

assistant could carry out all of the

duties of the job through what's known

as delegation.

And that all generated a lot of

litigation. Yeah. So, let's talk about

the the latest, which was the second

circuit ruling about the top federal

prosecutor in Albany. Explain their

decision.

>> Sure. So, John Cone followed this

pattern. He was the interim US attorney

of the Northern District of New York,

refused to extend him. He's slotted in

as the first assistant, uses the title

the acting US attorney, and litigation

follows. And what this case decided

which was titled the in ray of the grand

jury subpoenas to the office of the New

York State Attorney General decided two

issues. The first issue is whether the

federal vacancies reform act of 1998

allows a post vacancy first assistant to

use the acting title. And then second,

assuming that the answer to the first is

no, whether the alternative of then

delegating all of the functions of the

job to him as a special assistant or

first assistant, though not using the

acting title, could work as an

alternative.

And uh the second circuit in a split

decision there was a disscent held that

the answer to each of the questions was

no. That the vacancies act did not allow

a post vacancy first assistant to use

the acting title. And two in the

alternative he alone could not be

delegated all of the functions of the

job. leaving open the question whether

the administration could delegate the

functions of the US attorney for the

northern district of New York to two or

more people.

>> You're an expert in this area. Do you

agree with the finding of the second

circuit?

>> I do not. which puts me in a bit of a

strange position as someone who is not a

fan of the administration but is a fan

of the vacancies act uh and the need for

government to function. I do think the

first ruling is a is a is a harder one

for me. I I I do think uh this idea of a

post vacancy first assistant is

difficult and indeed the vacancies act

was enacted in 1998 and initially the

office of legal counsel which sits in

the justice department and gives legal

opinions uh and is seen to be pretty

pro-executive right because it's giving

legal opinions to the executive branch.

Its initial take was that you could not

have post vacancy first assistance which

is the decision that the second circuit

reached the ninth circuit a few days

before and then months before that the

third circuit but a few years later OLC

changed its mind and said no actually

post vacancy first assistance are okay

under the statute. The language is a bit

of a mess and the legislative history is

a bit of a mess. And definitely in terms

of the purpose of the statute, the idea

was not to have this strategic

maneuvering of putting people in to the

first assistance slot after the vacancy

to kind of then elevate them. The kind

of purpose was that the default would be

the person who was already there. So I

think that first question really could

go either way. It's the second question

which has larger ramifications and where

I feel a bit more strongly about my uh

disagreement. But we're going to have

some answers soon presumably because the

Ninth Circuit reached the same two

answers and the government has asked the

Ninth Circuit to stay its decision while

it files the CIR petition which it

promises to do by early October. So

since you have agreement among the

circuits so far, I mean do you think the

Supreme Court would take this case?

>> So you have agreement on the first

question but not the second question. So

until this administration, we didn't

actually have an appellet ruling about

post vacancy first assistance. It was

commonly done by uh administrations on

the left and administrations on the

right, but we actually didn't have an

appelllet decision either way. Now, we

do have three appellet decisions,

second, third, and ninth, that say no

post, vacancy, first assistance. If that

was the only question, no circus split.

Why would the court take it? Looks like

the administration has lost. Though, I

would say sometimes the court does take

cases where the government is the one

who's lost in a variety of circuits.

It's the second question where there is

a circuit split where the federal

circuit years ago uh after the Supreme

Court decided a case called Arthrex

which was about various uh

constitutional law principles with

regard to kind of who selects and who

removes the patent trademark and appeals

board judges. That case then kind of

still had other issues to resolve. Uh

once the court kind of said that the

head of the PTO had to have control over

these PTAB judges. And when it went back

down to the lower courts, there was an

acting head of the PTO exercising

through delegation all of these duties

of the vacant position. And uh this

second issue was raised then about

delegation under the vacancies act

whether you could delegate all the

non-exclusive functions to one person

and the federal circuit said yes relying

um on a different but related provision

of the vacancies act. So now you have

the federal circuit on one side saying

you can't delegate exclusive duties but

anything that's non-exclusive and

everyone thinks that almost everything

is non-exclusive is okay. So you have

the federal circuit and me and a few

others on one side and then you have the

second, third and ninth circuit in the

US attorney context, a different context

on the other side. So I think that does

tea up a nice circuit split for the

court to resolve and I think it also has

really large implications. So I think

it's important for the court to resolve.

So if the court thinks the vacancies act

does not allow this as the second,

third, and nth circuits have found, I

think Congress would want to legislate

at least some sort of solution to help

new administrations function. I mean,

doesn't that then enable an

administration to bypass the advice and

consent of of the Senate?

>> Yes. So nothing is ideal and we've had

actings since the start of the country

uh in the late 18th century. The idea is

we have to find the right balance. We

have to find a balance that of course

incentivizes the White House to

nominate, incentivizes the Senate to

confirm, but also allows the government

to function while those procedures

churn. So maybe a middle path might be,

okay, we're going to allow delegation

so long as a nomination is pending or

we're going to allow delegation for a

certain number of days at the start of

an administration because we know it

takes time to get those nominations in

and then you're going to have, you know,

less ability to do these things because

right now we're coming up on the 2-year

mark and we still have these US attorney

offices, you working kind of in

non-traditional ways. Now, part of that

problem I also have to say the

administration would say, and again, I'm

not a defender of the administration,

but the administration might say, well,

let's look at some of these districts

where we don't have confirmed US

attorneys. Part of the reason we don't

have confirmed US attorneys is we still

have a blue slip process that's in

place. And so if you have a district in

a state where the senators are not at

the same party of as the White House,

you're not going to get confirmed people

in. And so you could, as this

administration has pushed, try to remove

the blue slip process. I think the

senators, even Republican senators have

held fast even now to that tradition.

And to just look back one

administration, President Biden at the

end of his first year only had a third

of the US attorney spots filled by his

confirmed picks. That was actually a

Bloomberg law analysis uh that did that

at the end of his first year. So it's

trying to find a balance. I think you

also have to think about the level of

position. I mean, US attorneys are

reviewed by the attorney general, and so

maybe we should have more concern about

who is the attorney general and less

openness to having an acting attorney

general than maybe people who serve

below that higher position.

>> It seems like some courts are allowing

these prosecutors to remain in their

positions in the US Attorney's Office as

the litigation plays out. But then

doesn't that open up the office to

challenges of judgments or verdicts that

are reached if it's finally determined

that that prosecutor shouldn't have been

in charge? we are seeing. So I said, oh

the second, the third, the ninth

circuit, they've all agreed on post

vacancy first assistance. They've all

agreed delegation is not allowed to one

person. They've actually differed in

what to do in the immediate cases that

raised those challenges. So in the

second circuit case, uh that involves

subpoenas and the second circuit held

that those subpoenas should be quashed.

But in other cases they said well this

these issues have come up on collateral

review and only certain issues can be

raised on collateral review and so we're

not going to change say whether the

indictment can go forward and then that

then leaves the question if in fact

those rulings are upheld by the supremes

whether you know those indictments could

then be thrown out or was the person

just one of many you know who signed the

indictment. So the indictment, you know,

if it kind of goes all the way through

conviction, that conviction could still

stand. But no matter what, there's going

to be litigation on what the remedy

should be in all of these individual

cases. And you've got to know the second

circuit case was a bit unusual because

it involves subpoenas to the the

attorney general of the state. But in

these other cases involving kind of

individual criminal defendants, each of

them is like raising these claims. And

so you're going to get all of this mess

to untangle.

>> A lot more litigation ahead then. Thanks

so much, An. That's Professor Anne

Joseph O'Connell of Stanford Law School.

Are sports prediction markets closer to

casinos or to Wall Street? That question

is being teed up for Supreme Court

review. Khi in the prediction markets

took a hit as the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals is allowing Nevada gaming

officials to continue cracking down on

the sports prediction markets as if

they're unlicensed sports books. A three

judge panel composed of all Trump

appointees said that Congress didn't

mean to make the CFTC the gambling

police through an amendment to federal

commodity law. The opinion differed

starkly from an April one from the third

circuit, which opens up a circuit split

that's likely to be decided by the

Supreme Court. My guest is Bloomberg

Intelligence senior litigation analyst

Elliot Stein. Elliot, explain the issue

in these cases. The issue is whether

event contracts based on sporting events

are derivatives that should be regulated

by the CFTC which is what Cali and Poly

Market and the CFTC itself want as

opposed to the states and gambling

organizations which say that these event

contracts really are gambling and should

be regulated by the states and if states

want to ban them the states should be

allowed to do that.

>> Okay. So now we had the ninth circuit

and this was a panel of Trump appointees

>> and tell us what they ruled last week.

>> Right. So three Trump appointees

basically ruled for the state of Nevada.

They affirmed the lower court's decision

that would allow Nevada uh to

preliminarily enjoy from offering uh

sports event contracts and potentially

other event contracts like election

contracts in the state of Nevada. The

Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court

and said that these event contracts

don't meet the definition of swaps under

the Commodity Exchange Act. Commodity

Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive

jurisdiction over swaps that are traded

on DCM designated contract markets. And

since they're not swaps, they don't fall

under the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction.

And therefore, they fall to the states

to regulate as gambling. So, Judge Ryan

Nelson said that sports event contracts

are in reality sports bets is not just

an I know it when I see it. Rather,

everyone, including Cali, knows it when

they see it.

>> Part of the problem is that in the past,

Khi has sort of advertised this as a way

to bet or gamble across all 50 states

legally. You know, Ky's argument though,

however, is that the regulation should

follow the instrument, not necessarily

the underlying risk. And so the

underlying risk may be the same, but

when you have an event contract, you

know, you have an exchange that

essentially offers it and then you have

two sides that are trading that are

counterparties to each other, the

exchange makes money, you know,

regardless of the trade, just like in in

a normal financial contract. Um whereas

when you have a traditional sports book,

you have a bookie and they're selling

directly to the consumer. the consumer

can't get in and out of that bet like

you could with a with an event contract.

>> So now this contradicts the third

circuit. Tell us what the third circuit

had decided.

>> Right. So the third circuit decided back

in April in a 2-1 decision. Again, all

judges uh were appointed by Republicans.

This is one of those issues that I don't

think really fits neatly along

ideological lines. The third circuit

ruled for Kshi and said yes, these event

contracts do meet the definition of

swaps and uh the exclusive jurisdiction

language of the commodity exchange act

preempts any states from regulating

these products.

>> So splitting the circuits y

>> and is the DFTC going to ask for a

Supreme Court review? So actually more

likely what's going to happen

immediately is that in the third circuit

case you just mentioned the state of New

Jersey was the losing party there. They

have until September 3rd which is in two

days to ask the Supreme Court to

petition the Supreme Court for Cert.

That deadline's already been extended a

couple times. It was initially July,

then it was pushed to August, then it

was pushed to September. I haven't seen

them ask for another extension. So I'm

expecting a C petition from the state of

New Jersey by September 3rd. Yeah,

because they said they're going to. Now,

so we also have the fourth and the sixth

circuit also heard arguments. Might the

Supreme Court wait until those decisions

come in?

>> I don't think they need to. You already

have a split. By the way, we also have

we're waiting for a decision from the

Massachusetts Supreme Court um on the

same issue. We have numerous trial court

rulings um the majority of which have

gone in the favor of the states. Um I

think you know this is an issue that

begs for clarity at this point. So I

don't know why the Supreme Court would

wait any longer if the state of New

Jersey petitions for certain.

>> So what is the position of the Trump

CFTC? I mean what's the framework? How

would they regulate these prediction

markets?

>> Right. They've come out in favor of Kshi

and the prediction markets and they say

that the statute is clear. These event

contracts should be treated as swaps.

There should be one national regulator

because this is a national market and

the CFTC should regulate it. They have

proposed a rule as well to clarify some

issues that were a little unclear in the

current rule which goes back you know

more than a dozen years right after

DoddFrank. And so the CFTC has come out

in favor of the prediction markets and

it's likely to finalize its rule making

potentially by the end of the year as

well. Trump has family ties to this

industry, doesn't he?

>> Yes. The short answer is yes. I believe

his sons are either advisers andor

investors in I believe Cal and or Poly

Market. And I think there was news this

morning that one of Don Junior's uh

investment groups is taking an

additional stake in um I forget exactly

which company may have been Poly Market.

>> What has the CFTC been doing to

supervise or regulate the prediction

markets? Yeah, I mean we we have seen um

insider trading cases brought some by

KCI I believe some by the CFTC and they

have promulgated this rulem to clarify

what they think are some ambiguities um

in in the CFTC's previous rule.

>> I mean do you think there would be

tighter regulation under the states and

that's why Khi and the prediction

markets don't want to be regulated by

the states?

>> I don't think that's the issue. Their

position is, you know, we should be

regulated, but the proper regulator

should be the CFTC because these

products really are national products

just like other exchanges are and the

CFTC is the natural regulator for that

and it has all the mechanisms and

surveillance apparatus in order to

regulate these markets.

>> In your BI note, you think that if this

goes to the Supreme Court, the Supreme

Court would rule in favor of Kshi. Why?

It's definitely a close call, which is

evident from all the different rulings

we've seen so far and from the circuit

split that we now have. I just think Khi

and the CFTC have the better statutory

argument here. I think the Commodity

Exchange Act has a very broad definition

of swap. I think the distinction that

the Ninth Circuit made, for example,

between events and outcomes is a

strained reading and doesn't really make

sense and it conflicts with the DC

circuits ruling from a couple years ago

that allowed election contracts um to go

forward. And I think the statute is

clear on the exclusive jurisdiction

language as well. And even the Ninth

Circuit said that the CFTC would have

exclusive jurisdiction and preempt the

states from regulating this if these

were considered swaps. It just disagreed

on the swaps issue.

>> Cali has been in all these I don't know

how much it's spent on legal fees

already, but

>> sure. Quite a bit. Yeah.

>> So why is it so important to the

prediction markets that they be

regulated by the CFTC rather than the

states? I mean, bottom line, forget the

legal stuff,

>> right? They don't want to have 50

different regulators essentially, which

is what's happening now cuz they're

getting sued peace meal by different

states. And so these contracts that

they're offering are really designed to

be national products, right? It

shouldn't be that you can offer a

contract in one state like in New Jersey

where the courts have allowed it so far,

but in Nevada you can't. And so it

becomes imagine if you you know you

could buy certain stocks in one state

but not in in another for example right

it's it's a cleaner regulatory regime

for them to have one federal regulator

as opposed to 50 state regulators

>> I mean gambling is different in in

states isn't it

>> right but that's again it's more like a

consumer transaction where you have um a

bookkeeper who's selling a bet to a

consumer who's buying it and and you

can't trade in and out of it which you

could do with event contracts. These

prediction markets are growing and

growing. I mean, what what kind of money

are we talking about?

>> Well, BI did a deep dive just a couple

months ago and thought that the the

overall market for prediction markets

could grow to about a trillion dollars

by 2030.

>> And before I let you go, we have to

mention that Khi has barred former

Congressman George Santos for life.

They've come down on a few politicians

who essentially are betting on their own

races. And this goes again to the

proposed rulemaking, right? They don't

want to have contracts that are easily

susceptible to manipulation. And if you

are a politician or you're someone like

George Santos who is betting on a

contract as to whether he'll attend the

State of the Union, right? Those are too

easy to manipulate. And so, you know, I

think that is an issue that we'll see a

lot of going forward. What types of

contracts are too easy to manipulate? In

the sports context, the proposed rule

making addresses that saying that, you

know, whether a player will be injured,

can't be the subject of a contract

because it's too easy to manipulate.

Whether a referee makes a certain call

is the same problem.

>> Okay, thanks Elliot. And we'll watch to

see how those two other circuit courts

decide. That's Bloomberg Intelligence

senior litigation analyst Elliot Stein.

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 Podcast, Spotify, and at

www.bloomberg.com/mpodcast/law.

And remember to tune in to the Bloomberg

Law Show every week at 1000 p.m. Wall

Street [music] time. I'm June Graasso

and you're listening to Bloomberg.