This is [music] Bloomberg Law with June

Graasso from Bloomberg Radio.

>> This is a major breakthrough, a

milestone moment, a watershed moment. Um

because when it comes to protecting our

children's mental health, there is no

time to lose. That's California Attorney

General Rob Bont describing the

settlement where Meta will pay up to $18

billion and put stronger child safety

guard rails on its platforms to end a

California social media addiction trial

and resolve the claims of 48 states that

Meta deliberately designed features to

hook teenagers. Under the deal, the

social media giant will implement a

series of design changes for users under

18, including limiting the time they can

spend on Instagram and Facebook to 2

hours a day, blocking the apps from

midnight to 6:00 a.m., and disabling

features such as like counts. But this

doesn't close the book on social media

addiction litigation for Meta. It still

faces thousands of similar lawsuits

brought by individuals, school

districts, and Native American tribes.

Joining me is an expert in internet law,

Eric Goldman, a professor at the Santa

Clara University School of Law and

co-director of the High-Tech Law

Institute. This is being called a

landmark settlement. AG Bont said they

got as much and perhaps more than they

could have in litigation. I mean, how do

you view it? The settlement amount is a

huge absolute number. There's no doubt

that this is a major financial landmark.

At the same time, this number is not a

number that materially changes Meta's

business. I don't want to say it's

pocket change for them, but it's a

quarter of their 2025 net income. In

other words, they can afford this. And

also I would point out that Meta was

subject to a judgment in New Mexico that

ordered cumulatively roughly a billion

dollars of damages against Meta. And New

Mexico's roughly6%

of the US population. If you were to

multiply that billion dollar judgment in

New Mexico by the 6 population, actually

the $17 billion number looks smaller

than we might expect.

>> Bont said that the money was secondary.

What was important was the changes that

Meta has agreed to make. Do you think

those changes are significant?

>> The changes are important in part

because Meta has resisted them for quite

some time and Meta's obviously flipped

internally and decided that they could

live with these particular changes. So

the state AGS were able to accomplish

something that regulators around the

globe have had difficulty forcing Meta

to do. What's less clear is if these

changes are in the best interest of the

constituents that the state attorneys

general seek to serve. We don't know if

any of these changes solve the quote

mental health crisis. We don't know if

any of these changes materially benefit

any population of users. Simply put, we

don't have science to back up that these

changes solve any problem. And we also

don't know if these changes will cause

other users to have new problems because

of the restrictions. In other words, the

state attorneys general are gambling

that these changes are beneficial to

users without having the science to back

it up. And we'll find out if they're

right or wrong. But if they're wrong,

then we're going to have a lot of people

who actually have been harmed by this

agreement. Will you explain how the

changes in the platforms are going to

work in practice? Because the

effectiveness hinges on knowing how old

users actually are.

>> I describe these categories of

restrictions as segregate and suppress.

The first step is to segregate the user

population between adults and minors.

And then the second step is to suppress

some resources for the minor population.

This agreement codifies that approach.

In order to do the segregation, Meta has

agreed to deploy age authentication on

its user base. And the agreement has

very detailed specific provisions about

how that age authentication is going to

work. Among other things, something that

really was interesting to me is that the

agreement contemplates that age

authentication will never be perfect.

And it actually provides error rates

where Meta can make mistakes and still

be in compliance of the agreement. This

is really central to the question

because it means that there will be some

minors who will not be protected by this

agreement because of those error rates.

And I don't see that as a flaw, but it's

actually a big concession by regulators

to even admit that that could happen.

>> This deal came in the second week of a

jury trial in California that posed

enormous risks for Meta. I mean, juries

ruled against them in two prior cases,

one in New Mexico and one in California.

What do you think pushed them to settle?

>> Well, obviously the settlement has been

in the works for many days if not for

weeks or even months because it's so

long and detailed and it required the

agreement of 51 different state ag. So,

this agreement didn't just happen

because this trial has been going

poorly. This conversation is much longer

standing than that. But I don't know

exactly what caused Meta to flip on this

particular issue, but this is a standard

practice for Meta that they will push

and fight against restrictions until

they decide it's somehow in their

interest and then they're all in and

they're like super excited about it and

as agreement reflects and they want

everyone else on the same program too.

Like they're like, "Okay, we've decided

here's what the industry should do.

We'll be the first, but make sure

everyone else goes on the program as

well." So, I don't know what caused META

to reach that point where they decided

enough is enough, but it isn't some new

thing. It's something that obviously has

been on their minds for a while.

>> The deal includes the appointment of an

independent auditor to oversee

compliance, someone who can issue their

own recommendations and report findings

to the states. Do you think that that's

sufficient to ensure compliance by META?

Because I remember some years ago when

Meta was still Facebook, it didn't

comply with agreements with the FTC over

users data privacy.

>> Yeah, Meta has a history of having

independent auditors that have had no

real impact on its business. And so I'm

guessing Meta thinks it had a little bit

of fast one here that the state ags are

going to think this independent auditor

is going to dictate things to Meta. And

I'm guessing Meta is thinking it will

dictate to the independent author.

>> Eric, so Meta said the framework will

only work if all our peers join us.

Because teens move fluidly across dozens

of apps, we need an industry-wide

solution. Is that what this is really

about?

>> This is a metapecific issue. Meta really

really does not like being obligated to

comply with laws that its competitors

don't also have to comply with. So Meta

is less resistant to legal compliance.

It's more willing to accept that the

regulators can tell it how to run its

business, but only if in Meta's mind

it's a level playing field. So it was

absolutely critical to Meta in this case

that if it settled, it was going to drag

along its competitors, whether they

really wanted to be dragged along or not

to the same deal so that teams can't

just check out a Meta, go to the

competitor down the information

superighway and get a better deal there

and Meta then is at a competitive

disadvantage. And it mattered so much to

Meta that they did two things of

interest. The first is that it agreed to

restrict miners usage of Meta even more

if other competitors agreed to the same

restrictions. So that's a carrot for the

state ages to go out and get even

greater alleged protection for miners if

they can get the competitors under that

program. The second thing is that Meta

conditioned a large chunk of the

payments on the state AGs going out and

getting the competitors under the same

program. In other words, essentially

Meta has now deputized the state AGs as

its police against its competitors and

is paying them to do its dirty work. So

the state ags might think that this is a

win, but Meta is also looking this as we

got the state AGs to go off and harass

our competitors and we're willing to pay

them to do that.

>> And the California AG did say they'll be

going after Meta's competitors next.

>> Meta is part of the industry, a major

player in the industry, but there's a

big bigger ecosystem that we will not be

satisfied until we address all of the

problems in the entire industry. So we

are going to focus on Tik Tok. But we

are going to focus on Snap.

>> So Tik Tok and Snap and probably YouTube

will be pressured to make similar deals.

>> The competitors may not like this deal

at all, but now Meta and the state ages

are collaborating together against these

other competitors. So I can assure you

that YouTube and Snap and Tik Tok

reading this agreement at each line you

could just see the anger bar rising in

their heads because this is an agreement

that's against their interest. They had

no say in the agreement and now Meta is

throwing hundreds of millions of dollars

at this problem to try to get the state

ag

>> and Meta is still facing thousands of

other lawsuits. This settlement doesn't

apply to any of the other pending

litigation that's been brought by the

school districts, the Native American

tribes, and by individual victims, of

which there are thousands of individual

victims who've already sued Meta, and

that's why there's a large overhang of

additional legal risk that it still

needs to resolve. This settlement

doesn't have any bearing on that.

>> Do you have any First Amendment concerns

about this settlement? The agreement

represents the concession of meta of

certain editorial decisions that it

traditionally had the prerogative to

make. And it's interesting and a little

uncomfortable that the state attorneys

general have bound meta to that. In a

sense, part of the bargain for price was

the state AG's getting remedies that

might very well have not been available

to it in court because of the

restrictions on free speech.

Essentially, the state AGs are

controlling how Meta talks with its

users. So there's something disquing

about the idea that Meta and the state

ages have agreed to what are

fundamentally restrictions on Meta's

freedom to publish especially when we

don't even know if that's

constitutionally permitted. One

possibility this agreement will look

really weird if that question gets

answered by the Supreme Court and the

Supreme Court says that states have no

power to dictate how online publishers

present content to users. The meadow has

agreed to that and it might very well be

that that agreement is based on an

unconstitutional premise.

>> It's more complicated than it initially

seems. Thanks so much, Eric. That's

Professor Eric Goldman of Santa Clara

University Law School. Coming up next,

President Trump keeps racing ahead and

the courts can't catch up. I'm June

Graasso and you're listening to

Bloomberg.

The people that are opposing the

ballroom are people that in my opinion

are very disloyal to our country. Very,

very disloyal to our country. Uh, and I

think we're doing very well. We're way

ahead of schedule.

>> And that's important because President

Trump is racing to construct the 90,000

square ft ballroom with a 250 person

crew working 20 hours a day, 7 days a

week to keep the project ahead of

schedule. Speed is essential because

Trump is racing against the courts and

so far he's outrunning them. The project

has moved ahead without any input from

Congress or the public and despite two

courts ruling that Trump was flouting

the law. And Chief Justice John Roberts

has given Trump the go-ahad to outrun

the Supreme Court as well. he can keep

building his ballroom while the justices

take more time to consider the issue.

This isn't a new scenario for Trump.

He's been acting first and then daring

the courts to catch up with him since he

took office for the second time. Joining

me is James Fander, a professor at

Northwestern Law School. James, does the

Chief Justice's interim order tell us

anything about how the full Supreme

Court is going to look at this issue? I

don't think we learned much from the

order that the chief issued. It seems to

me like just a request for some

additional time suggesting the court's

taking the issue seriously, but hasn't

yet found its way to a resolution.

>> So, you've had two lower courts ruling

that the ballroom project is probably

illegal. But work was allowed to

continue. I mean, why was work allowed

to continue when they're saying that

it's illegal? I think it was an attempt

to accommodate the national security

concerns that are associated with the

proposed construction below ground. The

government took the position both in the

district court and the appellet court

that the below ground construction was

separable from the ballroom construction

and that the below ground construction

had all sorts of security implications.

bunkers and emergency medical care

facilities and and that sort of thing.

Very difficult for a court to

secondguess those kinds of concerns,

especially when the government is

basically admitting down below anyway

that the ballroom part of the project is

separable from the belowground national

security or security part of the

project. So the government pitched the

matter to the lower courts, I believe,

as a situation where we can do this

below ground thing without prejudice to

the eventual construction of a ballroom

above ground and we can figure out what

the legality of that is down the road.

But in the meantime, we've already

gotten this far with the national

security below ground work. So let's

continue with that. And I think that's

why both courts agreed that the

belowground work could continue thinking

that they would retain some control over

the ultimate shape of the above ground

ballroom. Now the government's taking

the position of course that the above

ground ballroom is integral with the

below ground security concerns that led

to the continuation of the construction

in the first place. I mean, what we had

here was President Trump knocking down

the East Wing before anybody could blink

their eyes. I mean, it was there one

day, it seemed like it was down the next

day. So,

>> three days. Yeah.

>> He So, he took that action without any

authorization and it's done. So, what do

the courts do to catch up to him? You

know, it's over. So in terms of

restoring the east wing, I think you're

right that it is done. And the question

is now what is the proper response

architecturally and historically to the

scars that have been created in this

place that belongs to the public and

belongs to the government and is within

the control and stewardship of the

Congress of the United States. And

that's a question that is not easy to

answer. There's no way to unring the

bell or restore the east wing. And I

don't think anybody believes that what

we should do is return to the best

reconstruction or recreation of the east

wing we could find. I think the question

is the legality of ongoing construction.

And I think the lower courts at least

with some justification view that

ongoing construction project as unlawful

because not lawfully approved by

Congress and therefore subject to

limitation control injunction and so

forth. And then the question is once

that injunction takes hold, what will be

the shape of the project going forward

if President Trump is required to secure

the approvals and authorizations that he

said he was going to get when he started

making noise about the ballroom and

never got, you know, because he decided

he wanted to do it his own way without

anyone else playing a part in the

magnificent ballroom he was about to

create. Isn't this sending a message

that illegal behavior is being rewarded?

You get to complete your ballroom even

though what you've done is illegal

because you've gone this far already.

This is a pattern and it happens in

immigration cases. It happens in grant

cases. It happens over and over again.

When the courts finally get involved,

it's too late. It's all over.

>> No, it's true. And what I call the first

mover advantage that the president

enjoys as a you know executive or

commander-in-chief means that he can

take action and proceed on the

assumption that it's lawful until

somebody tells him otherwise. I think

that's been his basic mo. And in past

presidencies, not in every case

obviously, but president showed a great

deal more restraint in this shadow of

uncertain law. I think this president

prefers to move in the shadow of

uncertain law. And even when there's no

uncertainty at all, if he believes that

either the constitution or some other

grant of authority allows him to take

the action, then he will take it and

turn the rest of it over to the lawyers.

And we've seen it, as you say, time and

again in the immigration space, the

removal of aliens under the Alien

Enemies Act. We've seen it with the

dismantling of USID. We've seen it with

the discharge of employees from

positions in the executive branch

without due process of law. If there

were questions about the legality,

there's a way to have a legal proceeding

to determine whether a person properly

holds an office. But instead, President

Trump would rather fire now and litigate

later. And that has been, I think, quite

the pattern of his presidency.

>> Well, it continues to work well for him.

The Supreme Court seems to continue

expanding presidential power. Is there

any reason to think that it will limit

him in this case with the White House

ballroom?

>> There, I think is reason to think that

the Supreme Court will be concerned

about President Trump's violation of

appropriations limitations that Congress

has imposed upon him. I'm not sure that

his role as the unitary executive under

article 2 will be understood to override

appropriations restrictions. So that may

be a place where the Supreme Court is a

bit more protective of the traditional

allocation of responsibilities as

between the president and the Congress,

the United States. And so I think

there's some hope in this case given the

fact that there's a pretty strong case

to be made that Congress has previously

appropriated money and understood itself

to be the responsible party in making

decisions about the shape of White House

construction projects. There's some hope

that the Supreme Court will understand

the threat posed to congressional

appropriation power by the actions of

President Trump with respect to the

White House and perhaps that will have

some, you know, radiating effect on

other of the projects that he has in

mind. There's um a history, I think, of

some minor alterations and improvements

in the language of the relevant statute

to the White House that are what you

might call presidential vanity projects.

you know, the installation by FDR of a

swimming pool indoors, the use of that

pool by JFK, the decision to close the

pool by Richard Nixon and put, you know,

a onelane bowling alley in the White

House, the decision by Gerald Ford to

create an outdoor swimming pool. These

were all relatively modest changes that

don't really change the footprint of the

White House or the appearance of it.

Nothing to compare, obviously, to a $400

million ballroom project of the kind

that's currently underway. And so it's

hard for the current project to fit

within that tradition of alterations and

improvements that we've seen in the

past. And for that reason, it may be

that the Supreme Court pushes back a

bit.

>> Does it make a difference that Trump

says that private donations are paying

for the ballroom, although some

reporting shows that public funds are

covering more than half the cost?

>> Yeah, that's a good question. And I was

puzzled by that myself a bit because one

of the claims being made here is that

the National Park Service collects

appropriated funds for use in connection

with National Park Service projects. And

so this relevant statute characterizes

those donated funds as appropriated. And

so the government has kind of cobbled

together an argument that goes like

this. Once the money has been collected

and placed in the vault of the National

Park Service, it's now appropriated

funds and the authorization to use

appropriated funds that appears

elsewhere in federal law, can be

stitched together with those donations

and create the appearance that these

funds have been in fact appropriated for

the use that they have been put to. I

think that's a very difficult argument

to make in the end given the jealousy

with which the Congress of the United

States guards its appropriation powers

and it's uncertain I think whether that

kind of argument will be accepted by the

Supreme Court but that's the argument

you know there's been nothing on this

scale before in terms of donated funds

put to the uses that they are being put

to here and it's at least very hard for

me to see how this could be considered

the kind of congressional control that

we normally associate with the

appropriations process.

>> What would be the best outcome, the best

case scenario for those who want to see

supervision and independent oversight of

the construction of the ballroom? So if

you were concerned about construction of

a ballroom and you wanted the best

possible outcome you could get, then it

seems a remand to the district court is

going to be required and that's going

to, you know, require the district court

to continue to oversee the project. I

mean, one possibility is a hold on above

ground construction, and that's all

that's really on the table right now.

put a hold on above ground construction

while we conduct the necessary

assessments and run through the

necessary authorization and approval

processes. That could all be handled as

expeditiously as possible. I assume that

President Trump might want to try to get

all that done before the November

election cycle, but it's obviously up to

him to decide how he wants to secure

that approval. And then once approvals

have been granted, then the project

could continue. And I don't necessarily

see it as delaying the completion or

leaving a hole in the ground. It seems

to me like everybody's going to say at

the end of the day, let's do it. Let's

just not do exactly all of that or maybe

we can scale it back or in a sense maybe

it can refer to the pre-existing east

wing in some way that reminds us that it

used to be there. I don't know. Hard to

predict how it might shake out. But

without consultation, you're not going

to get anything but Trump's vision,

obviously.

>> And there is no indication as to when

the Supreme Court will rule. It's been

great getting your insights, James.

Thanks so much. That's Professor James

Fander of Northwestern Law School.

Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law

Show, an Air Force major is facing

criminal charges after calling for

Trump's impeachment. I'm June Graasso

and you're listening to Bloomberg.

On July 1st, at a protest on the steps

of the US Capitol, Air Force Major Jason

Watson, dressed in his uniform, call for

the impeachment of President Trump for

ordering military action against foreign

countries like Iran. When the president

of the United States orders military

action against foreign countries absent

an emergency scenario where American

interests are under imminent dire threat

as was done with Venezuela, Cuba, and

Iran, that's an unconstitutional

usurppation of Congress's authority and

a violation of the war powers clause.

These violations resulted in the deaths

of 13 service members and injuries of

hundreds more.

>> For this, the president and vice

president must be impeached, convicted,

and removed.

After Watson, who served in the Air

Force for 17 years, repeated his

criticism of Trump on CNN, he was

criminally charged under the Uniform

Code of Military Justice with violating

article 88 for contemptuous remarks

about Trump, violating article 92 for

disobeying orders, and violating article

133 for conduct on becoming an officer.

The article 88 contemptuous remarks

charges are exceedingly rare. So much so

that there have only been a few

instances since the modern code of

military justice was enacted 75 years

ago. Joining me is Joshua Castenberg, a

professor at the University of New

Mexico law school and a former judge and

lawyer in the US Air Force. Josh, let's

start with the charges under article 88

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,

which prohibits officers from using

contemptuous words against the

president, the vice president, Congress,

and other US representatives.

>> Well, those charges, first of all,

they're quite ancient. They go back to,

in a sense, Thomas Jefferson when the

first articles of war were being

rewritten from the British. And one of

the things that was changed from the

British article to what we now know as

article 88 is the US limited it to the

chain of command in the military. So

it's an old charge. It's a charge that

has been used in a very selective manner

over the years. You know, you can go

back to the Vietnam War. There was a

lieutenant calling Lynden Johnson a war

criminal. And then you can jump ahead to

the present and we've got this major

who's making disparaging words against

the president. But there have been

hundreds of others who've done it and

haven't been charged.

>> What's the standard used to determine

whether the remarks are contemptuous?

>> So remarks tend to be considered

contemptuous if they're made in a manner

that would undermine confidence and the

reliability of the chain of command. And

so you can go back for example to the

Vietnam War and there was this army

captain and he was a noted

dermatologist. He was training corman.

His name was Captain Levy. And he

started advising students who were, you

know, enlisted members in the United

States Army's medical corps not to go to

Vietnam by arguing that it was an

imperialistic, it was a white man's war.

It was making the rich richer. It was

immoral and unconstitutional. And you

know, he had a position of authority

over them. And so he was convicted in a

court marshal. It went all the way up to

the United States Supreme Court. and the

Supreme Court upheld the conviction in a

case we know as Parker versus Levy.

Today, I think one of the things the

defense council will raise is the idea

that this major would undermine the

chain of command and military discipline

is unprovable and that is a burden on

the government to have to prove.

>> Does the prosecution have to show that

what he said was contemptuous rather

than just critical? And what's the line?

Well, yeah. I mean, you're absolutely

right in asking that question. Words

have meaning and they particularly have

meaning in the law. The prosecution has

to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

the words were contemptuous. So what

might separate the major from say

Lieutenant How in 1967 who stood outside

of Fort Bliss with a sandwich board

calling Lynden Johnson a war criminal is

that it's unclear to me whether the

major engaged in any superfluous or

mean-spirited name calling and rather

just exercised what he believed his

prerogative to um warn Congress about

conditions in the military and how the

chain of command and might be acting in

an unconstitutional manner. That might

not clear the hurdle of contempt, but I

suspect it will.

>> People in the military don't have the

same First Amendment rights that the

rest of us do.

>> No, you're absolutely correct. I mean,

one of the things that you learn is that

you are surrendering to the federal

government some of your free speech

rights and that includes the right to be

politically engaged in a military

status. But you know, this

administration has done more to water

down the political military barrier and

they've instead politicized the military

to an unusual degree that they've set an

example that it's okay to cross the

line. And you see it in the speeches

that Secretary of Defense Hegsth has

made to uniform personnel, the speeches

the president makes at the academy

graduations, and just basically their

public comments and the overuse of the

military to promote the president's

ideology. There's no equal to that in my

lifetime. And so I suspect one of the

things that this major's attorneys are

going to argue is that it's the

president himself who's moved the

definitions of what political activity

and contemptuous language are and

therefore that is the standard by which

our client must be judged and therefore

they can't prove beyond a reasonable

doubt he's guilty of contempt.

>> There are 10 charges in all under three

articles. Tell us about the other

charges. So, article 92 is a failure to

obey lawful orders or regulations. And I

can tell you that demonstrating in a

military uniform for any cause without

permission, whether it's for wildlife

preservation, children's rights, or a

political rally that's partisan. If you

don't have permission to be in uniform

and you're part of it, you've crossed

the line. Now again, selective

prosecution is something that I'm sure

the defense council in this case will

raise because they'll point out the fact

that the president has used the military

at his partisan rallies. No one there

has been prosecuted. So, we'll see what

happens. As for article 133, that's the

easiest of all the charges to prove.

It's called conduct unbecoming an

officer and a gentleman. and it

basically throws it out to um the court

marshal whether or not this major

crossed the line. The prosecution

doesn't really have to prove that

there's a threat to good order and

discipline. It's just rather whether or

not this major has crossed the line

against the norms and become something

of a of a criminal embarrassment to the

military. I mean, the classic line of

that is an officer who goes and does

something legal like gambling, but falls

into debt and can't pay the debt back.

But you do see examples of conduct, I'm

becoming an officer and a gentleman for

lots of different things that are

ordinarily legal. I think of all the

charges, this is the easiest to prove,

but this major's attorneys are going to

argue that their client is selectively

prosecuted in violation of his

constitutional rights. It hasn't

actually been decided yet whether Major

Watson will have to face trial.

>> Yeah. Well, the thing is that he's held

in pre-trial confinement, which is very

unusual for an officer. I mean, even

officers who are accused of violent

crimes like rape generally don't end up

being placed in pre-trial confinement.

So, first we have to wait and see

whether a military judge or if they go

and try to file in US District Court,

whether a US District Court judge would

order him released from pre-trial

confinement under the argument that

look, he's not a threat to good order

and discipline. He hasn't committed a

violent crime. He's not charged with

espionage. This is just something that

normal human beings can do in the United

States. So even before we were to get to

a trial, that could become an issue.

Then this has to go through the

military's equivalent of a grand jury.

That's done by one individual. It's not

really a grand jury, but it's the

equivalent of a grand jury. It's a

pre-trial investigation. And then and

only then would a senior military

officer known as a general court marshal

convening authority. And usually those

are major generals or you know rear

admirals upper half or higher lieutenant

generals fourstar generals and the like

able to convene a general court marshal

against this major. So, it's a process

and one of the things that makes this

process different is that I think the

government has opened the door to the

possibility of the defense council being

able to stop this process in its tracks

through some sort of appeal to the

United States District Court.

>> I thought that when you're in the

military, you're subject to the

jurisdiction of the military courts. How

would he get this into federal district

court? Well, when you can prove to the

federal courts that the government is

either incompetent, has violated your

client's rights to a constitutional

degree, or has committed a a major

infraction of the law, you can get it

into the US District Court, it's a very

high bar, but if you remember the case

of Lieutenant Aaron Wata, Aaron Wata did

not want to go and comply with his

orders to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.

and the prosecution was getting ready to

prosecute him in a court marshal for

failure to go. There was some problem

with the handling of evidence of the

discovery requirement to give Wata's

attorneys all of the government's

evidence. The defense council shrewdely

went to US District Court and the US

District Court shut that case down and

the military was never able to go

forward and prosecute Lieutenant Aaron

Wata for something that at least

facially Aaron Wata did which was refuse

to comply with orders. But for every

Lieutenant Wata, there are hundreds of

people who the military more or less

functions as it's supposed to do and

they can't get into US District Court.

What makes this case different is its

uniqueness.

>> It seems like they're charging him in

many different ways for the same act.

>> Yeah. Well, that's one area where the

military justice system can misfire

because a military trial judge, just

like a state criminal trial judge or a

US district court judge, has to make

sure that the charges do not overlap to

such a degree as to violate the

Constitution's prohibition against

double jeopardy. And I've taken a look

at the way this case has been charged.

And one of the features of it to me is

that there is enough of an overlap to

create a constitutional issue in this

case. A military trial judge could say

to the government, you're going to have

to decide which of these charges you're

going forward on and which you're not

because there's significant overlap or

I'll throw it out to the court marshal

to do that. The other possibility I

could see a military judge doing is

saying, "I'm just going to consolidate a

bunch of these charges if he's found

guilty of them for the purpose of

sentencing into a singular charge."

>> And Watson, who's about 3 years from

retirement, could be dismissed from the

service and lose his pay and benefits if

he's convicted. And there's also the

possibility of jail time. Thanks for

joining me, Josh. That's Professor

Joshua Castenberg of the University of

New Mexico 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 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. [music]

I'm June Graasso and you're listening to

Bloomberg.