This is [music] Bloomberg Law with June

Graasso from Bloomberg Radio.

Canada's wildfire crisis remains

critical. About 900 wildfires are

currently burning in Canada and more

than 9 million acres of land have been

burned. The crisis has spilled across

the border, sending dangerous smoke that

has turned the skies over cities like

New York, Chicago, and DC into a toxic

haze. Smoke from wildfires carries

noxious gases and particulate matter

that can trigger severe respiratory and

heart problems in people living

thousands of miles away. Last week, more

than a 100 million Americans were under

air quality alerts. It's just gotten so

so so bad.

>> It's affecting everybody's physical

activity. No doubt.

>> It's terrible. And I feel like you go

inside, you could still smell it.

>> In post this weekend, President Trump

called Canada's handling of the

wildfires willful negligence and said

the cost of the pollution should be

added to tariffs on that country. My

guest is Columbia Law School professor

Michael Gerard, an expert in

environmental law and director of the

Sabbin Center for Climate Change Law.

How much of a danger do the Canadian

wildfires pose?

>> These Canadian wildfires are enormous.

They're spreading unhealthy air

throughout North America. And we know

that this wildfire smoke causes all

kinds of negative health effects. So,

this is a very serious event. The number

of wildfires in both Canada and the

United States seems to be growing every

year. Is that because of climate change?

>> Yes, they're sparked mostly by

lightning, but climate change is making

them much worse. When you have extreme

heat conditions, which is what we've

been having, it dries out the trees and

the other vegetation. And when the

lightning hits, it causes a major fire.

So, we've always had wildfires, but

they're much worse. And the smoke

conditions are now much worse than they

had been in the past.

>> This situation with smoke crossing

borders, that's not just limited to

Canada and the US is it's a global

thing.

>> That's right. This has happened for a

long time all over the world. There have

been efforts to address it legally, but

there really isn't anything effective

that the law can do in terms of imposing

liability over this kind of smoke. If it

were coming from a discrete factory or

something, that could be a different

story. But these wildfires coming from

immense areas, there's not really a

legal remedy.

>> Would the wildfires be considered a

natural disaster like an earthquake?

>> Yes, like an earthquake or a volcano or

something like that. a country is not

liable for a natural disaster that

happens within its borders that causes

harm in other countries. There are other

things that countries are doing that is

increasing these wildfires, most notably

greenhouse gas emissions, but we don't

have an effective legal remedy for this

kind of thing.

>> Over the weekend, President Trump

expressed criticism of Canada's handling

of the wildfires, calling it willful

negligence. We're holding Canada

responsible for the fact that they're

not properly maintaining their forests

and brushed therein. And the United

States is being unnecessarily invaded by

filthy, polluted, and unhealthy air.

>> Well, it's true that a lot of bad air is

coming down from Canada, but that's the

only part of it that's true. The

Canadian northern forest, the boreal

forests are about seven times the size

of Texas. So, what do you do? How do you

control that? It's naturally occurring.

As I say, it's lightning that sparks the

wildfires. If anybody wants to complain

about the causes of the wildfires, it's

mostly climate change. And the US is

responsible for something like 10 times

the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

than Canada. So if anybody could sue

anybody, it would be Canada suing the

US. But of course, they can't either.

>> Is that because there's no jurisdiction?

>> That's right. The international court of

justice in the HEG can adjudicate

disputes between countries that have

consented to that kind of jurisdiction.

Uh the US has not consented to the

jurisdiction of the ICJ for this kind of

case. Even if it had, what would the

remedy be? It's not as if Canada can go

in with 10 million airplanes and put out

the the wildfires. There really isn't an

effective remedy for that.

>> Trump says he's going to increase the

tariffs. I mean, that is something I

guess he can do, right?

>> Well, there's actually a legal dispute

about that, whether he has the authority

to increase the tariffs, but he he can

try and it may not succeed in courts.

But what does it do to help the wildfire

situation? It does nothing.

>> I guess it's like a tit for tat. We'll

get some money from you, you know, just

recompense, I guess.

>> But, you know, the wind goes in both

directions. Uh, sometimes the smoke from

the US goes north, and so it is tit for

tat and it could start going in the

other direction. Singapore has a law on

the books,

>> right? In in Southeast Asia, there's a

great deal of wildfire smoke coming

primarily from agricultural burning in

Indonesia and Malaysia. So, Singapore is

one of the places that especially badly

hurt by that. Sometimes they have to

shut down their airports, close their

schools. There's a regional agreement in

Southeast Asia to try to deal with this,

but it hasn't accomplished much. The one

thing that has happened is that

Singapore passed a law saying that any

Singaporean companies that engage in

this kind of burning uh in other

countries can be liable. So there's a

big pulp and paper company based in

Singapore that has engaged in this kind

of burning in Indonesia and Singapore

has taken some actions against that

company but it's it's a very very small

and limited kind of action. Let's say

there's a business that's been damaged

in some way because of the wildfire

smoke. For example, some camps have

experienced declining numbers. Can they

sue Canada in a Canadian court?

>> Canada and other countries have

sovereign immunity for most kinds of

liability unless they have specifically

waved their immunity for this kind of

case. And I don't believe that Canada

has waved its immunity here. Uh when you

do have a waiver of sovereign immunity,

it's usually because the country has

been negligent or you know like a

somebody gets hit by a postal truck,

they can sue the postal service. But

this is not the kind of thing that

results from negligence of the kind that

typically invokes the waiver of

sovereign immunity.

>> So we have an agreement with Canada, the

Canadian United States Air Quality

Agreement of 1991.

What's that about? Does it have anything

to do with what's happening now?

>> Well, it provides that the two countries

can reach agreements on specific kinds

of air pollutants and what they're going

to do about it. So, there's now a

specific agreement on sulfur dioxide,

which causes acid rain. There's an

agreement on mercury. Uh so, when there

is an agreement on specific substances,

then the country can be legally

obligated to take certain actions to

reduce those kinds of pollutants. But

there's no such agreement between the

United States and Canada covering

wildfire smoke. Someday theoretically

they could do that. They could negotiate

that. But that hasn't happened.

>> Most countries with this crossborder

pollution, how do they handle it? I

mean, do they work together? Do they

make agreements?

>> If it's a controllable kind of

pollutant, they can reach agreements on

how to handle it. So with with acid

rain, the United States now has a law to

reduce the use of high sulfur coal to

generate electricity. with mercury there

are other specific things that could be

done but with wildfires particularly the

kind of wildfires that are coming down

from Canada there isn't there are

certain forest management things that

could be done in different kinds of

forests to try to reduce the wildfires

on that neither the United States nor

Canada have done a terrific job but

these wildfires are of such a magnitude

that international agreements can have

only a very very limited impact

>> in the US is that because the

administration has dismantled key

agencies in fields such as climate and

conservation work through mass firings

of federal workers.

>> One of the things that can be done in

certain kinds of forests is called

prescribed burning. Uh you go in and you

start small fires that clear away the

underbrush and so forth so that other

fires can't get so large. The United

States for many years had a policy that

largely inhibited prescribed burning.

And that's one of the reasons some of

the fires in the Pacific Northwest had

been so bad. Very recently, there were

some prescribed fires planned for

Minnesota that would have reduced fires

there, but under Elon Musk's Doge, they

greatly cut back on that. They did not

engage in the prescribed burning, and so

the fires in Minnesota seemed to be much

worse than they might have been

otherwise. Looking toward the future, it

does it seem as if the wildfire

situation may get worse in both Canada

and the US?

>> Yes, it'll clearly get worse as the

planet gets hotter and you have worse

fires. There's no question that the

wildfire situation and the smoke

situation will get worse. Clearly, the

governments can act to help protect

their citizens, have better early

warning systems, have clean air rooms

that are provided for people who don't

have air conditioning and so forth, or

provide masks. There are a number of

things that can be done to help protect

people from the wildfire smoke, but only

a very limited amount can be done to

reduce the smoke itself over the short

and medium term. Over the long term, we

need massive reductions in greenhouse

gas emissions, which is mostly involving

massive reductions in the use of fossil

fuels, but it takes a very long time for

that to have a positive impact on

wildfires.

>> I mean, the Trump administration is

trying to advance fossil fuel

development, right?

>> Of course, they're moving in exactly the

opposite direction of where we need to

be. Oh, they're all about trying to

maximize both the demand for and the

supply of fossil fuels. They're denying

that climate change is a serious

problem. They're trying to wipe out all

US policies to address climate change.

>> Can you get insurance for smoke damage?

>> There's actually some dispute about

that, about whether conventional

insurance policies cover smoke damage.

You can certainly buy a policy that has

a smoke rider, but that's an exception

rather than the rule.

>> Biden tried to leave an environmental

legacy. And has Trump undone it already?

You know, there have been a lot of areas

that he's tried to roll back what Biden

did.

>> Trump is certainly working hard to undo

Biden's environmental legislation and

his other legacy. Now, sometimes the

courts have stood in the way. There are

lots of litigation pending. In some

cases, what Trump has tried to do has

been halted, but in other cases, it's

gone forward. I would say the the action

that has had the most serious effect is

the roll back on the motor vehicle

standards. Transportation is the largest

source of greenhouse gas emissions in

the United States. The Biden

administration worked very hard to clean

up both the passenger cars and the heavy

duty vehicles like trucks and buses and

to move toward electric vehicles which

are ultimately this the way we need to

go. And Trump has greatly cut back on

that has damaged the US electric vehicle

industry. greatly helped the Chinese

electric vehicle industry since they're

making terrific EVs that are very

inexpensive but you can't buy in the US.

Trump has also slowed down or stopped

the closure of a lot of coal fired power

plants which another major source of

greenhouse gas emissions in the United

States. So, he's done a lot of damage.

>> And he speaks out against wind and solar

power every chance he gets.

>> At a time when he's encouraging data

centers, which are greatly increasing

the demand for electricity, he's trying

to wipe out the principal new source of

electricity, which is wind and solar.

It's completely irrational.

>> Thanks so much for joining me. That's

Colombia Law School Professor Michael

Gerard. Coming up next, Trump's lawsuits

against the media and banks. This is

Bloomberg.

President Donald Trump is suing the Wall

Street Journal, the New York Times, the

BBC, JP Morgan Chase, and Capital One,

each for between 5 and $15 billion. And

there have been some highstakes hearings

in Florida after major setbacks in a few

of the cases. Joining me is Bloomberg

legal reporter Eric Larson, who has been

following all these cases. Eric, before

we get to the cases where Trump is

suing, let's talk about the civil cases

where he lost and verdicts were returned

against him and those involve writer

Eugene Carol. Tell us about the huge

verdict in her defamation case against

Trump.

>> A big verdict uh that she won against

Trump. $83.3 million is what the jury uh

put the damages at. Of course, Trump

appealed. it was upheld on appeal and

he's expected to very soon uh ask the

Supreme Court to hear the case. Of

course, unclear if the justices will

take it, but he is going to ask. And of

course his other case with Egene Carol,

the $5 million sexual abuse civil case

that uh she also won against Trump.

Trump also appealed that and the Supreme

Court uh declined to hear his appeal and

uh the president has asked the justices

to reconsider that decision. A pretty

remarkable request that they have not

responded to yet.

>> What is his claim in the defamation

case? What might the issue be that he

takes to the Supreme Court? So Trump

argues that at the trial, the jury heard

improper evidence uh that should not

have been in the trial. Uh specifically

the testimony and allegations of two

other women who had accused Trump of

sexual assault years ago and the

so-called Access Hollywood tape um in

which Trump is on a hot mic speaking

crudely about uh women and being able to

grab the genitals of women without

consent. if you're a star, that sort of

thing. Trump argues that that was

inappropriate to have in in the case.

>> So, let's turn now to the cases where

Trump is suing over defamation, the $10

billion lawsuit against the Wall Street

Journal.

>> He's alleging that the Wall Street

Journal defamed him with an article

related to Jeffrey Epstein. specifically

this article about Trump allegedly uh

sending a birthday note to Epstein for

his 50th birthday years ago that uh

contained, you know, a personal note to

to Epstein that was sort of typed out

within a a handdrawn uh shape of a woman

and with Trump's signature forming the

pubic region of the drawing. So, this

was a Wall Street Journal story that

said that this was from Trump. Trump

denied that and filed this lawsuit. I

>> mean, there was a dismissal of the suit.

Why did the judge dismiss the complaint?

>> Right. So, the first version of the

complaint was dismissed because it did

not have enough details in the complaint

backing so-called actual malice, which

is a higher standard for public figures

like Trump to file defamation lawsuits.

They have to show they have to show that

the Wall Street Journal in this case

knew that what it was reporting was

false or had reckless disregard for the

truth and that's actual malice. The

judge dismissed the the suit, granted

the journal's motion to dismiss it,

saying that there wasn't enough detail

in there to prove actual malice. But the

judge dismissed it without prejudice and

said that Trump could refile a new

version if he wanted to try again, which

he did. The journal has moved to dismiss

that version as well. And there's

actually a hearing on that motion to

dismiss on August 5th in Miami.

>> As we said, it's a very high bar to

prove actual malice. Did Trump in the

complaint in the new complaint make a

case for actual malice?

>> I mean, that's really what the what the

hearing is going to be about, what the

the judge is going to have to decide. I

all I can say is that in the motion to

dismiss the second complaint, the

amended complaint, the journal said that

there was no new detail backing up

actual malice and and said the new

complaint suffered from all the same

problems that what uh Trump was saying

in it was not really factual, that it

was just including more details about

how the journal purportedly uh did not

support its story sufficiently, did not

give enough weight to Trump's denial

that he wrote that note that he had

signed it um and that you know the

headline and other parts of the story

you know explicitly said that you know

it was Trump's note to Epstein when they

allegedly did not back that up in the

story.

>> We should say that truth is a defense

and didn't a lot of media outlets

describe that note as being from Trump.

>> Well, I think the key here on the

falsity angle is that the House

Democrats, you know, released the this

actual letter. uh came in as part of

their Epstein investigation. The Epstein

estate handed over a lot of, you know,

stuff of of Epstein's and including um a

big book that compiled all of these uh

birthday notes from other people for

Epstein's 50th birthday. So that's part

of the record that was handed over to

Congress and the Journal argues that,

you know, that proves that it was true.

And Trump doesn't see it that way. We'll

see if the journal gets a dismissal and

if the dismissal is with prejudice. So

now he's also suing, surprise surprise,

the New York Times for 15 billion,

>> right? And that this complaint alleges

defamation from several articles and

also a book uh written by a Times

reporter called Lucky Loser. Um, and

generally the complaint alleges that uh

the New York Times just had a a policy

of treating him unfairly in their

stories that the the articles and book

demeaned his success as a businessman

and uh in various ways suggested that he

hadn't earned his fortune um or fame

that it was just sort of handed to him.

This case, you might recall it was not

dismissed. was basically thrown out of

court a few days after it was filed by a

judge who said that it it violated court

rules by containing way too much detail

about Trump's fame and fortune and his

rise in politics and and and other

details that the judge said was

completely irrelevant to the lawsuit

such that it violated court rules and

Trump's lawyer had to uh refile a

version uh that was half as long. He was

given a page limit and the Times has

moved to dismiss it and it's the same

general arguments as the Wall Street

Journal cases. They say that that their

reporting is accurate. They stand by it

and that Trump hasn't properly alleged

actual malice. And so this was a a case

that they just had a hearing on the

motion to dismiss uh last week in Tampa,

Florida uh before a federal judge who um

did not give any hint one way or the

other how he was thinking during that

hearing. um and reserve judgment and

we're expecting a decision on that at

any time.

>> That's unusual. Usually there's a little

bit of a hint. Okay. And he's also suing

the BBC for $10 billion.

>> Yes. This is over that edit of Trump's

uh so-called stop the steel speech at

that stop the steel speech rally before

the January 6th attack on the capital in

late 2024. the BBC did a a panorama

documentary about uh Trump's supporters

uh and how he you know continues to keep

support um despite his various legal

issues and controversial incidents like

January 6th. Um and in that documentary

they spliced together two different

parts of his speech into a 12-second

clip uh that made it seem like he had

made a direct call for violence. And

that's actually something that the BBC

chairman apologized for. or he issued an

apology trying to I think avoid this

lawsuit being filed cuz Trump had

threatened to sue. Uh the apology was

issued but they stood by their argument

that they hadn't defamed him. So Trump

did file the suit and it's a really

unusual case. Uh frankly it's it's going

in some different directions uh than the

typical defamation case would at this at

this point. And namely because uh the

BBC has decided to issue dozens of

subpoenas uh to members of Trump's inner

circle, former cabinet members, federal

agencies, trying to uh build a picture

of Trump's communications

um before leading leading up to that

speech. Essentially, they're arguing on

the on the matter of falsity, you know,

whether or not the implication of the 12

second edited clip, notwithstanding the

apology, whether it might have actually

been accurate regardless that Trump

really was calling for or inciting

violence that day. What? And so, they

are arguing that the case really Trump

has to prove that he did not incite the

January 6th riot in order to win this

defamation case. That's what the BBC has

said in court and in court filings. Um,

so that's the point of all of these

subpoenas. There was a hearing on those

subpoenas last week in Miami. and Trump,

his lawyer, fought very hard over a

couple of hours to get those subpoenas

thrown out uh not only to members of the

inner circle, but another subpoena to

the Trump Organization for all kinds of

financial documents because uh the BBC

wants to see evidence that Trump really

has suffered billions of dollars in

damage to his business and his brand and

his future financial prospects as his

complaint claims. So, the judge upheld

those subpoenas. Um, but she did

indicate that she might be narrowing

those subpoenas to the Trump inner

circle because she said she doesn't want

this case to become a new, you know,

trial over January 6th. So, she's going

to issue a written order later where

we'll see what the subpoenas might be

narrowed down to. But, I feel like it

could be a long fight over these

subpoenas is what I'll say. I don't

think this is the last ruling that we'll

we'll get on those, but it is an

interesting angle for the BBC's defense.

Yeah. And also I mean Trump's wealth

increased by almost $2 billion about

since he's been president. So

>> BBC's lawyer did raise that fact in the

court hearing saying that uh you know

Trump he had put the figure at 1.4

billion or so. Um and also the fact that

Trump won the election shortly after

that that documentary went out. So they

argue it didn't harm him anyway. But it

was interesting to see Trump's lawyer

arguing this particular point in court

because especially on the Trump

Organization financial documents

subpoena, the judge made it clear that

it seemed reasonable to subpoena those

those records if Trump was claiming so

much harm. And Trump's lawyer

essentially said that he would be

willing to correct the record and amend

the lawsuit. to basically file a new

complaint in order to uh focus the

alleged financial damages only on

Trump's reputation. The BBC argues that

the Trump or Trump's reputation are one

and the same. But at any rate, it was a

magistrate judge who isn't the official

judge overseeing this case, and she said

that she wouldn't allow Trump to amend

the complaint at this point. He'd have

to go back to the the main judge

overseeing the case and request

permission to do that, which would be

remarkable to have to walk back a

complaint like that. That request hasn't

been made yet.

>> That is an interesting lawsuit. To me,

the most interesting of the three so

far. And Eric, there have been some

defamation lawsuits where the defendants

have settled with Trump,

>> right, with ABC and CBS, you know, after

the election or after he took office.

Each of those settled for about 156

million. So, I mean, a lot less money

than we're talking about in these other

cases. But, you know, there were a lot

of companies that settled with Trump

around that time. And you know, there

there's long-running cases involving

Twitter, now X, Facebook, Meta,

Facebook, Google's YouTube, you know,

that he had sued over his accounts being

frozen or cancelled after January 6th,

that sort of thing. And all all of those

settled.

>> We should just take note of the timing

of those settlements. Stay with me,

Eric. Coming up next on the Bloomberg

Law Show, we'll take a look at Trump's

suits against two banks for debanking.

I'm June Grao and this is Bloomberg.

We're taking a look at the status of

President Donald Trump's lawsuits

against three media companies and two

banks, each for between five and 15

billion dollars. I've been talking to

Bloomberg legal reporter Eric Larson.

Eric, let's turn to the suit that's

gotten the most attention, I think, and

that's Trump versus the IRS.

That $ 1.8 billion dollar so-called

anti-weaponization

fund was the subject of much questioning

during the confirmation hearings of Todd

Blanch for attorney general. He

testified the fund is not going forward,

but Trump talks about it positively

nonetheless.

>> It was settled. It's worth noting that

Trump filed this $10 billion lawsuit to

get $10 billion for the leak of his tax

information, unauthorized leak of his

tax information to the press uh by an

IRS contractor in 2019. The contractor

who by the way pleaded guilty and was

sentenced to 5 years in prison. So the

case didn't really achieve what the

stated purpose of the case was to

achieve, which is to get $10 billion.

Instead, they settled it, as you as you

said, for a $1.8 billion

anti-weaponization fund, which uh

everyone was complaining about because

it appeared likely to benefit Trump

supporters. And even January 6th

writers. Uh so, as you said, that got

scrapped. There was a bipartisan outcry.

But a day after that settlement, there

was a new settlement was also announced

that gave Trump and his family and

business entities a broad release from

audits over past tax information. So, so

that there wouldn't be any future

actions brought over past tax audits.

So, it was pretty remarkable and they've

kept that in place for now. So, so that

is still an active part of the

settlement. But the judge who oversaw

the IRS case at the urging of a group of

uh dozens of former federal judges

looked back into the case and how her

court was used to achieve this

settlement and decided that Trump had

attempted to manipulate the court by

filing a lawsuit in which he controlled

not only his side but the other side as

the president overseeing the IRS and the

US Treasury which was also a defendant.

So, uh, she said that that was wholly

inappropriate and she issued an order

barring Trump or the administration from

ever citing that settlement, that audit

immunity settlement in any sort of

proceeding, effectively making it

useless. So, we don't know if the

government or Trump are going to appeal

that. Um, it's just been sitting there

since it was issued. Obviously, uh,

Trump, you know, that's something that

he would be likely to appeal, but we

don't know that for for sure yet. Yeah,

maybe he's waiting until the Blanch

nomination gets out of committee. So now

he's suing JP Morgan for only $5

billion,

the lowest sum he's suing for, I think.

>> Yes. Yes. This is a debanking lawsuit.

Uh he's saying that JP Morgan closed his

personal accounts out of political

animus uh toward him as an

anti-onservative

discrimination. So, it wasn't long after

January 6, you know, after Trump left

office that that this occurred. So,

we're at a pretty early stage in that

case, honestly. They're they're still

waiting for a ruling on the bank's

request to move the case from federal

court in Florida to federal court in

Manhattan where they say it should be uh

the case has to go under their customer

agreements. But Trump is arguing against

that. wants to keep it in Florida and

also wants to move it back to state

court from federal court where where

where Chase moved it right after it was

filed. So, we've got this whole argument

going over venue. Part of it has to do

with whether Jamie Diamond, the CEO,

who's also a defendant, would be part of

the case. So, it's still very early days

on on that one and we're just waiting

for this ruling on on the venue.

>> The Trump Organization is suing Capital

One. Is that also debanking?

that is it's the same type of lawsuit

that we just discussed except it's uh

filed by Trump or instead of Trump.

Capital One canceled hundreds of of

Trump Organization uh accounts uh I

think around March 2021. Uh so it's very

similar very similar allegations. That's

a lawsuit that was also dismissed uh by

actually a Trump appointed judge. But

then he allowed Trump to actually do

discovery into Capital 1 and then file

an amended complaint uh which Capital

One was not too pleased about, but they

they went along with that and and have

been engaging in in discovery for months

now. And uh that allowed Trump to file

an amended complaint. I wish I could

tell you what was different about it or

what they found in their discovery, but

it's just pages and pages and pages of

redactions in the amended complaint.

Some pages don't have anything viewable

on them

>> really.

>> So, I think that those redactions might

get lifted after some negotiations, but

I don't think I've ever seen that quite

before. But, uh, and you've seen a lot

of redactions.

>> Yeah. It does suggest though that maybe

uh Trump found uh something interesting

to put in their complaint to to back

their um assertion that Capital One

closed the accounts for improper

political reasons. Uh so we'll have to

wait and see cuz that was the reason

that the judge dismissed it. He said

that there just wasn't enough in the

complaint to back this assertion that

they were clo the accounts were closed

for out of political bias.

So, one of Trump's lawyers has actually

been referred to the Florida Bar. Tell

us about

>> Alejandro Breurto is Trump's main

personal lawyer in all of these cases

and also in the Capital One case uh by

Trump or in the IRS case that that

ruling that said that the IRS case uh

was an abuse of the court. That is the

ruling in which Breurto was referred to

the Florida Bar for potential

disciplinary action. Um, nothing's

happened on that yet and Breurto hasn't

commented on it either.

>> Have we gone through all the current

suits? Oh, no, no, no, we haven't, Eric,

because coming back to New York from

Florida. So, Trump is appealing the hush

money conviction.

>> Yes, that has been going on for a while.

We're expecting soon that the New York

uh district attorney Alvin Brag will

file his brief in that appeal arguing

why the verdict um should be upheld.

That's in the New York state court

appeal track. Uh but they're also trying

to get the federal court to to throw it

out, arguing again that that the case

should have been in in federal court and

that the the evidence at trial was not

appropriate because the judge uh

allegedly did not fully consider the

implications of the Supreme Court's

immunity ruling for Trump. that some of

the things that came up in the hush

money trial should not have been

presented to the jurors because it was

um related to Trump's presidential

activities uh or conversations. So that

is something that we're also waiting

waiting on a decision for.

>> And these cases are going to be around

for a long long time because I mean is

there ever a case where he doesn't take

an appeal? He seems to always appeal to

the state appellet courts or the federal

appellet courts and then as we've

discussed he's gone to the Supreme Court

as well.

>> I think Trump's legal team has strongly

indicated that they don't consider any

verdict or ruling in any case to be

final until every possible appeal route

has been exhausted. So I think even all

these defamation cases, you know, if

these complaints are dismissed, we can

expect pretty drawn out appeals on that.

And actually, as we were discussing

actual malice, that's standard that was

set, you know, in the landmark New York

Times versus Sullivan. It's a big free

speech case as I said that that set a

higher standard for public figures to

file uh defamation lawsuits with the

idea being that you know the press needs

to be free to look into these public

figures to do their jobs and not be

afraid of being bogged down by

defamation lawsuits you know to be

chilled by the the prospect of that. So

that's a standard that uh I think you

know Trump's side and plenty of others

are hoping maybe the Supreme Court will

do away with and I suppose one of these

cases would be a way for them to try to

make that happen.

>> I think Justice Clarence Thomas is

someone who has advocated for that as

well. Thanks so much Eric for going

through all these suits with us. That's

Bloomberg legal reporter Eric Larson.

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 night at 1000 p.m.

Wall Street time. I'm June Graasso and

you're listening to [music] Bloomberg.