0
0.0
Apr 19, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
mr. katyal? mr. katyal: thank you, mr. chief justice, and may please the court -- the key factor in this case is the conceded illegal conduct, as justice sotomayor or said, the three insurers of the nra broke the law selling intentional criminal act insurance, and all of the product they offered were unlawful because the nra refused to get a license. that is why bantam books is miles away from this case and it is why the court below found qualified immunity protects vullo. in this posture, between the invidious coercion asserted or the obvious explanation she was enforcing the law, is coercion possible? when a legal action is present, the plausibility burden is higher. to use mr. cole's frame, the government is more likely responding to conduct, not speech, and 4 separate doctrines explain why. plausibility rules are " especially important in suits were government asserts qualified immunity because they must not be deterred nor distracted from discovery." second, the presumption of regularity is at its height. third, absol
mr. katyal? mr. katyal: thank you, mr. chief justice, and may please the court -- the key factor in this case is the conceded illegal conduct, as justice sotomayor or said, the three insurers of the nra broke the law selling intentional criminal act insurance, and all of the product they offered were unlawful because the nra refused to get a license. that is why bantam books is miles away from this case and it is why the court below found qualified immunity protects vullo. in this posture,...
0
0.0
Apr 19, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
mr. katyal: correct. the one we have not talked about is this reputational risk, these industry guidance letters. we think the industry guidance letters are so far removed from bantam books, we would encourage you to look at footnote five in bantam books. in those letters it does not say anything like we are going to sue you or regulate, unlike what the threat was in bantam books bringing in the attorney general or the chief of police. they do not say she is investigating the companies for anything. there is no reference to an investigative body. it does not say there is any reputational risk with the banks and insurers maintaining their ties. it says if any reputational risk . i think the most important point, and this goes to something justice kagan said earlier, these are not the only industry letters they send. they send them all the time, including -- if you want a good example take a look at the one they cite about cryptocurrency. that says companies have legally uncertain practices and make inaccur
mr. katyal: correct. the one we have not talked about is this reputational risk, these industry guidance letters. we think the industry guidance letters are so far removed from bantam books, we would encourage you to look at footnote five in bantam books. in those letters it does not say anything like we are going to sue you or regulate, unlike what the threat was in bantam books bringing in the attorney general or the chief of police. they do not say she is investigating the companies for...
0
0.0
Apr 18, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> mr. katyal, it is a bit jarring, i guess, for me that the solicitor general on the other sidefr you in this case, gin the solicitor genel represents the united states, and as we know fr the last case, has a very stro interest in not expanding bantam books. sohow should we think about that? >> i think, i don't want to characterize their motivations or anything, i just think, ultimately, their test is not different than our test. we are all basically in agreement that, for example, the second circuit got it right. government officials cannot use their regular tory powers to coerce individuals or entities and to refrain from protected eech. >> are you okay with that test? >> absolutely. fine with that. i think the dierce is that we do have to insi on an objective reasonability when u are dealing with enforcement actions. the sendprong i started with. because otherwise, you're opening the door, as nieves points out, anyone would be incentivized if they are the taetof an investigation to say t
. >> mr. katyal, it is a bit jarring, i guess, for me that the solicitor general on the other sidefr you in this case, gin the solicitor genel represents the united states, and as we know fr the last case, has a very stro interest in not expanding bantam books. sohow should we think about that? >> i think, i don't want to characterize their motivations or anything, i just think, ultimately, their test is not different than our test. we are all basically in agreement that, for...
0
0.0
Apr 24, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 1
. >> and neal katyal, they are starting with mr.pparently to bring in someone who can give the whitest frame of a kind of shot at the shot of the size and scheme involved of protecting trump of which stormy daniels was one piece. >> i just wanted to return to andrew's point about the mob boss defense. it may work in some cases, but here i think the real problem with it is that donald trump, his lawyer, michael cohen, paid the $130,000, and took out a home equity loan on his house to do so. it's hard to say that is michael cohen's independent judgment to take out a home equity loan on his own house as opposed to what donald trump told him to do. the other problem is, they have michael cohen saying donald trump talking in which donald trump is ordering cohen to pay off mcdougal. with those respects to mr.- pecker i would say unfortunate for the defense it looks like one time that david-pecker isn't willing to make up stories to protect donald trump is when he is testifying under penalty of perjury, and that's what happened today is he
. >> and neal katyal, they are starting with mr.pparently to bring in someone who can give the whitest frame of a kind of shot at the shot of the size and scheme involved of protecting trump of which stormy daniels was one piece. >> i just wanted to return to andrew's point about the mob boss defense. it may work in some cases, but here i think the real problem with it is that donald trump, his lawyer, michael cohen, paid the $130,000, and took out a home equity loan on his house to...