7 Burst results for "Neil Devin"
Bloomberg Radio New York
"neil devin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg long. Some complicated international law issues here. What kind of docket is chief justice Roberts facing? Interviews with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts. Joining me is Bloomberg news Supreme Court reporter Greg store. Neil Devin's a professor at William and Mary law school. And analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines. Is this essentially the 5th circuit haunting? He has presided over a so called hot bench at the Supreme Court. Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio. Welcome to a special yearend edition of Bloomberg long. Looking back at some of the biggest legal issues over the past year. I'm June Grasso. In oral arguments on challenges to affirmative action programs at the university of North Carolina and Harvard college, several conservative justices suggested it had run its course, referring to the 2003 grutter decision in which justice Sandra Day O'Connor anticipated the use of racial preferences would no longer be necessary in 25 years. Here are chief justice John Roberts and justice Amy Coney Barrett. You don't think that university of North Carolina has to stop in 25 years at the 2028 mark. So what are you saying when you're up here in 2040? Are you still defending it? This is just indefinite. It's going to keep going on. I don't see how you can say that the program will ever end. Your position is that race matters because it's necessary for diversity, which is necessary for the sort of education you want. It's not going to stop mattering at some particular point. My guest is former United States solicitor general Gregory garr, a partner at Latham and Watkins. He won the landmark case of Fisher versus the University of Texas, which upheld the race conscious admissions program used by that university. Greg, looking at the legal analysis after the arguments, it seems that the almost universal conclusion was that the court is ready to throw out the consideration of race in college admissions. Did you come to that conclusion as well? I did. I mean, I think certainly based on the oral arguments adhered as the challengers had the upper hand. And that's not surprising going in, but having said that, there's a lot that remains to be seen about how the court gets that result in how broadly it might go in these cases. During the arguments, there seemed to be a great focus on whether educational diversity can be achieved without the consideration of race specifically with race neutral approaches. Does that indicate that justices are on to the next step? I think that it means that they're focused very carefully on the application of strict scrutiny in this context in particular looking for narrow tailoring and the existence of race neutral alternatives. For some conservative justices it may also mean simply illustrating that universities can achieve educational diversity in other ways without explicitly considering race as part of the admissions process. So I think different justices were looking at that issue through different lenses. It seemed like the justices were deeply divided right down ideological lines. Well, generally speaking, there's a stark divide in the court in terms of how the justices look at this question of diversity and the interest in achieving diversity on college campuses and otherwise. And I think you saw that by the questioning that the justices had for the advocates. The more liberal justices obviously came at this issue from the perspective of there being a compelling interest in achieving diversity on college campuses and elsewhere and whether or not they were able to persuade their more conservative colleagues. I'm not sure, but certainly that was one of the more interesting interplays going on throughout the oral arguments and reflects the sort of stark divide that the justices have on this issue. You argued the Fisher case, of course, and the three jaws to who dissented the chief justice and justices Thomas and Alito are still on the court where they as stark in their questions and comments about using race to achieve diversity. Yes. I think you know from the standpoint of the more conservative justices, their position on this issue has been clear for some time and I think that's true of justice Thomas, although as I recall he did not ask questions during the Fisher argument, but certainly justice Alito. And even the chief justice who is more moderate in a number of areas, but in this area has been very outspoken against the consideration of race and admissions. There was a lot of discussion about students using their admission essays to talk about their experiences, for example, overcoming racism. Did the lawyer representing the challengers, students were fair admissions seemed to come around to accepting that? Towards the second argument, I think they seem to be willing to acknowledge that it might be appropriate in the context of an essay, at least depending on how it was used in describing the person's experiences and what he or she might bring to a college campus. But I do think that that was one of the more interesting and important exchanges throughout the oral argument. Certainly that's something that the chief justice seemed to be interested in nailing down that school might be able to consider an applicant's race in the context of a personal essay. Will know by June, thanks so much, Greg. That's former U.S. solicitor general Gregory garr. I've heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don't have a clue what it means. It seems to mean everything for everyone. That was just as clarence Thomas, whose dissented in landmark affirmative action cases in oral arguments this week over the affirmative action programs at Harvard college and the university of North Carolina. Thomas was just one of the jaws to his who questioned the role that diversity plays in a college education. My guest is paulette cranberry Russell, president of the national association of diversity officers in higher education. Explain why diversity is important in colleges and universities. Diversity has previously been defined by the court as a compelling interest. Meaning there are benefits that can be derived by having a diverse campus community. Those of us who are practitioners who lead and influence the effort of colleges and universities and advancing diversity, understand the value of a heterogeneous campus community, meaning diversity of thought, diversity of perspective that are offered in and outside the classroom that diversity, particularly if you think about it in the context of race and ethnicity, can facilitate breaking down stereotypes. It can also provide individuals and opportunity to engage in what higher Ed has advocated the robust exchange of ideas, which is the basis upon which the higher education exists. I've heard holistic admissions and races of factor. How do they in general use race as a factor? There's no check box. There's no quota. Clearly those have been banned by earlier presidents of the court. Race. And this was enunciated by justice Powell in 1978 in the bakke case that in his view, racism only one and I'm quoting element in a range of factors, a university properly made consider in attaining the goal of a heterogeneous student body. So there's no hard and fast formula for using race as one of many factors that you consider. But it's not ignoring the
Bloomberg Radio New York
"neil devin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"And on Bloomberg quicktake powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in more than 120 countries. I'm Suzanne Palmer. This is Bloomberg This is Bloomberg long. Some complicated international law issues here. What kind of docket is chief justice Roberts facing? Interviews with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts. Joining me is Bloomberg news Supreme Court reporter Greg store. Neil Devin's a professor at William and Mary law school. And analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines. Is this essentially the 5th circuit haunting? He has presided over a so called hot bench at the Supreme Court. Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio. Welcome to a special yearend edition of Bloomberg law. Looking back at some of the biggest legal issues over the past year. I'm June Grasso. In oral arguments on challenges to affirmative action programs at the university of North Carolina and Harvard college, several conservative justices suggested it had run its course, referring to the 2003 grutter decision in which justice Sandra Day O'Connor anticipated the use of racial preferences would no longer be necessary in 25 years. Here are chief justice John Roberts and justice Amy Coney Barrett. You don't think that university of North Carolina has to stop in 25 years and at the 2028 mark. So what are you saying when you're up here in 2040? Are you still defending it? Like this is just indefinite. It's going to keep going on. I don't see how you can say that the program will ever end. Your position is that race matters because it's necessary for diversity, which is necessary for the sort of education you want. It's not going to stop mattering at some particular point. My guest is former United States solicitor general Gregory garr, a partner at Latham and Watkins. He won the landmark case of Fisher versus the University of Texas, which upheld the race conscious admissions program used by that university. Greg, looking at the legal analysis after the arguments, it seems that the almost universal conclusion was that the court is ready to throw out the consideration of race in college admissions. Did you come to that conclusion as well? I did. I mean, I think certainly based on the oral arguments, it appeared as though the challengers had the upper hand. And that's not surprising going in, but having said that, there's a lot that remains to be seen about how the court gets that result in how broadly it might go in these cases. During the arguments, there seemed to be a great focus on whether educational diversity can be achieved without the consideration of race specifically with race neutral approaches. Does that indicate that justices are on to the next step? I think that it means that they're focused very carefully on the application of strict scrutiny in this context in particular looking for narrow tailoring and the existence of race neutral alternatives. For some conservative justices it may also mean simply illustrating that universities can achieve educational diversity in other ways without explicitly considering race as part of the admissions process. So I think different justices were looking at that issue through different lenses. It seemed like the justices were deeply divided right down ideological lines. Well, generally speaking, there's a stark divide in the court in terms of how the justices look at this question of diversity and the interest in achieving diversity on college campuses and otherwise. And I think you saw that by the questioning that the justices had for the advocates. The more liberal justices obviously came at this issue from the perspective of there being a compelling interest in achieving diversity on college campuses and elsewhere and whether or not they were able to persuade their more conservative colleagues. I'm not sure, but certainly that was one of the more interesting interplays going on throughout the oral arguments and reflects the sort of stark divide that the justices have on this issue. You argued the Fisher case, of course, and the three jaws toes who dissented the chief justice and justices Thomas and Alito are still on the court where they as stark in their questions and comments about using race to achieve diversity. Yes. I thank you from the standpoint of the more conservative justices, their position on this issue has been clear for some time and I think that's true of justice Thomas, although as I recall he did not ask questions during the Fisher argument, but certainly justice Alito. And even the chief justice who is more moderate in a number of areas, but in this area has been very outspoken against the consideration of race and admissions. There was a lot of discussion about students using their admission essays to talk about their experiences, for example, overcoming racism. Did the lawyer representing the challengers, students for fair admissions seem to come around to accepting that? Towards the second argument, I think they seem to be willing to acknowledge that it might be appropriate in the context of an essay, at least depending on how it was used in describing the person's experiences and what he or she might bring to a college campus. But I do think that that was one of the more interesting and important exchanges throughout the oral argument. Certainly that's something that the chief justice seemed to be interested in nailing down that school might be able to consider an applicant's race in the context of a personal essay. Will know by June, thanks so much, Greg. That's former U.S. solicitor general Gregory garr. I've heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don't have a clue what it means. It seems to mean everything for everyone. That was just as clarence Thomas, whose dissented in landmark affirmative action cases in oral arguments this week over the affirmative action programs at Harvard college and the university of North Carolina. Thomas was just one of the justices who questioned the role that diversity plays in a college education. My guest is paulette cranberry Russell, president of the national association of
Bloomberg Radio New York
"neil devin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg long. Some complicated international law issues here. What kind of docket is chief justice Roberts facing? Interviews with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts. Joining me is Bloomberg new Supreme Court reporter, Greg store, Neil devins a professor at William and Mary law school. And analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines. Is this essentially the 5th circuit haunting? He has presided over a so called hot bench at the Supreme Court. Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio. Welcome to a special yearend edition of Bloomberg long. Looking back at some of the biggest legal issues over the past year. I'm June Grasso. In oral arguments on challenges to affirmative action programs at the university of North Carolina and Harvard college, several conservative justices suggested it had run its course, referring to the 2003 grutter decision in which justice Sandra Day O'Connor anticipated the use of racial preferences would no longer be necessary in 25 years. Here are chief justice John Roberts and justice Amy Coney Barrett. You don't think that university of North Carolina has to stop in 25 years and at the 2028 mark. So what are you saying when you're up here in 2040? Are you still defending it? This is just indefinite. It's going to keep going on. I don't see how you can say that the program will ever end. Your position is that race matters because it's necessary for diversity, which is necessary for the sort of education you want. It's not going to stop mattering at some particular point. My guest is former United States solicitor general Gregory garr, a partner at Latham and Watkins. He won the landmark case of Fisher versus the University of Texas, which upheld the race conscious admissions program used by that university. Greg, looking at the legal analysis after the arguments, it seems that the almost universal conclusion was that the court is ready to throw out the consideration of race in college admissions. Did you come to that conclusion as well? I did. I mean, I think certainly based on the oral arguments adhered as the challengers had the upper hand. And that's not surprising going in, but having said that, there's a lot that remains to be seen about how the court gets that result in how broadly it might go in these cases. During the arguments, there seemed to be a great focus on whether educational diversity can be achieved without the consideration of race specifically with race neutral approaches. Does that indicate that justices are on to the next step? I think that it means that they're focused very carefully on the application of strict scrutiny in this context in particular looking for narrow tailoring and the existence of race neutral alternatives. For some conservative justices it may also mean simply illustrating that universities can achieve educational diversity in other ways without explicitly considering race as part of the admissions process. So I think different justices were looking at that issue through different lenses. It seemed like the justices were deeply divided right down ideological lines. Well, generally speaking, there's a stark divide on the court in terms of how the justices look at this question of diversity and the interest in achieving diversity on college campuses and otherwise. And I think you saw that by the questioning that the justices had for the advocates. The more liberal justices obviously came at this issue from the perspective of there being a compelling interest in achieving diversity on college campuses and elsewhere and whether or not they were able to persuade their more conservative colleagues. I'm not sure, but certainly that was one of the more interesting interplays going on throughout the oral arguments and reflects this stark divide that the justices have on this issue. You argued the Fisher case, of course, and the three jaws toes who dissented the chief justice and justices Thomas and Alito are still on the court where they as stark in their questions and comments about using race to achieve diversity. Yes. Thank you from the standpoint of the more conservative justices, their position on this issue has been clear for some time and I think that's true of justice Thomas, although as I recall, he did not ask questions during the Fisher argument, but certainly justice Alito. And even the chief justice who is more moderate in a number of areas, but in this area has been very outspoken against the consideration of race and admissions. There was a lot of discussion about students using their admission essays to talk about their experiences, for example, overcoming racism. Did the lawyer representing the challengers, students for fair admissions seemed to come around to accepting that? Towards the second argument, I think they seem to be willing to acknowledge that it might be appropriate in the context of an essay, at least depending on how it was used in describing the person's experiences and what he or she might bring to a college campus. But I do think that that was one of the more interesting and important exchanges throughout the oral argument. Certainly that's something that the chief justice seemed to be interested in nailing down that school might be able to consider an applicant's race in the context of a personal essay. Will know by June, thanks so much, Greg. That's former U.S. solicitor general Gregory garr. I've heard the word diversity quite a few times. And I don't have a clue what it means. It seems to mean everything for everyone. That was just as clarence Thomas, whose dissented in landmark affirmative action cases in oral arguments this week over the affirmative action programs at Harvard college and the university of North Carolina. Thomas was just one of the justices
Bloomberg Radio New York
"neil devin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg long. Some complicated international law issues here. What kind of docket is chief justice Roberts facing Interviews with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts. Joining me is Bloomberg news Supreme Court reporter Greg store. Neil devins a professor at William and Mary law school. And analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines. Is this essentially the 5th circuit haunting? He has presided over a so called hot bench at the Supreme Court. Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio. Welcome to the Bloomberg law show. I'm Kimberly Robinson, and I'm Lydia Wheeler. We're in for June Grasso. Coming up in the show, we'll talk with legal reporter Holly Barker about what it takes to scrub old racist laws off the books. An attorney Wuhan will join us to discuss university's fight to block a LGBTQ club on campus. But first, we're joined by Chris strom, a reporter for Bloomberg news to discuss why the Justice Department is likely to wait until after the midterm elections to bring any charges against former president Donald Trump. Chris, thanks so much for being here. Thank you. So the Justice Department has two separate investigations ongoing into former president Trump that are happening at the same time, right? So can you start off by telling us what the government is after in each of these investigations? Yeah, so the most immediate investigation right now is the investigation into Trump having classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. The government has established that there were documents with classified markings at Trump's home and the Justice Department and the FBI are investigating whether the documents were mishandled and the classification levels of the documents. And they're also working in concert with the intelligence agencies to determine if any sources of methods were compromised. So that's the first one. The second investigation has been the ongoing investigation into the January 6th plot and to overturn the 2020 election. And in that investigation, one of the central elements being looked into is Trump's role in creating false selectors in swing states that would vote to certify for Trump as opposed to the winner of the election. It was Joe Biden. No, you reported that we're not likely to see any charges stemming from these investigations until after the midterm elections. Tell us why that is. There's two primary reasons that we're not likely to see charges anytime soon. The first one is that there's still an extensive amount of work that needs to be done. The government has said in court filings just recently that with regard to the investigations of the classified documents, they are in the early stages of their investigation. And new information continues to come forward. The government is still collecting evidence, reviewing evidence to determine the scope of any breaches. And there's just not there's still a lot of work for them to do in both the classified documents investigation in the January 6th investigation. The second reason is that the Justice Department also has a policy that no public actions should be taken in high profile cases right before an election that could be seen as influencing the outcome of that election. And the November elections are just around the corner. Traditionally, prosecutors have looked at that policy as taking place 60 days before an election, which in this case would be September 10th. Now, Trump isn't on the ballot, but Trump's candidates are on the ballot and Trump represents a very significant political force in this country under which people in the Justice Department believe that the policy applies to Trump in this case. So you mentioned this policy that the DoJ has haven't there been some pretty high profile times though in the past where the department has ignored. That policy. Yes. And department officials have come under criticism for doing so. The most one of the most notable ones was when James Comey, the former head of the FBI, revealed that the FBI was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton ten days before the 2016 election. And so Comey was criticized really from all corners or making that decision in doing it in a way that it became public. And then also in the 2020 election, the former attorney general Bill Barr came out right in the days right before that election and said that it would be okay for U.S. prosecutors to begin to talk publicly about investigations into election fraud and their finding. The Justice Department recently enacted a new policy for political appointees that you wrote about. Can you tell us about that and who it covers? Sure. So traditionally, government employees face restrictions when the elections when the elections arrive. In the weeks leading up to an election, government employees have to follow certain rules in terms of participating in political events or attending political events. And there's a difference between what a career government employee can do and what a political point you can do. Somebody who's directly appointed into a political position by the president, what the adjustment department did just the other day was put new restrictions on political appointees prior to the up until now they've been allowed to attend political events in their personal capacity during their time off. But attorney general Garland put a bar on that and said political point these can not attend any political events at all, heading right before an election. That's Bloomberg news reporter Chris strome. Thanks for being on with us. Thank you. You're listening to Bloomberg law up next. We talk with Holly Barker, a legal reporter
Bloomberg Radio New York
"neil devin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"About that. Iowa is a state that has gone back and forth between Democrat and Republican Party control. So the Iowa Supreme Court when there was a majority of democratic Supreme Court Justices found in the state constitution a constitutional right to abortion. The governor and legislature changed, they no longer were supportive of that decision. So the Republican political establishment would control the governor there so often in the state legislature, they changed this system by which state justices were selected and several justices terms were ending. The new Republican governor was able to appoint a majority of justices on the Iowa Supreme Court and Iowa Supreme Court followed the lead of the Iowa political establishment and overturned that earlier decision and said that there are no longer was a constitutional right to abortion under the Iowa state constitution. Did Florida's governor desantis do something similar in Florida? So in Florida, governor desantis also was able to transform the Supreme Court thanks to justices in terms of office ending. He was able to report three new justices and the state Supreme Court has already overturned a death penalty decision limiting constitutional protections for those subjects in the death penalty and it's expected that before to where earlier Supreme Court that was dominated by democratic appointees have found a constitutional right to abortion anticipated that the new Supreme Court is going to overturn that decision. MS Neil Devin is a
Bloomberg Radio New York
"neil devin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"From Bloomberg world Hank waters I'm Charlie how to fit Wednesday the Dow the S&P nez stack all advancing after a bullish forecast from tech giants traders scooping up some of the most battered shares during a sell off sparked by fears the Federal Reserve could accelerate the unwinding of pandemic era stimulus to combat inflation We will be getting that fed decision 43 minutes from now just over an hour we'll have the news conference for you live here on Bloomberg radio Here's where we stand S&P up 71 now that is a gain of 1.6% The Dow up 340 up by 1% as stack up 350 that is a gain of 2.6% Ten year yield 1.77% spot gold down $17 ounce down 9 tenths of 1% at 1830 ounce West Texas intermediate crude 87 28 a barrel up by 2% Brent crude trading above $90 a barrel today right now 89 89 a gain for Brent of 1.9% So again recapping fed Wednesday with the S&P up 70 up 1.6% I'm Charlie pellet That is a Bloomberg business flash Charlie thank you and thanks for being with us on balance of power Sometimes the mics just open June It's remarkable I know you have to watch that Bloomberg law host June Grasso staying with us here as we also add Neil devins to the picture on this breaking news day that's got all of us talking here Justice Steven breyer retiring Neil Devin's professor William and Mary law school and author of the company they keep how partisan divisions came to the Supreme Court Neil with that in mind the partisan division on this court will remain the same no matter what the president does right That's correct The appointment of a new justice is not going to change the ideological composition of the court in any significant way So what does that mean for the confirmation process Does that grease the skids a bit with everyone kind of understanding where we are in terms of numbers The democratic majority thing is it may be on Capitol Hill Does this get done easily It will depend a little bit on the nominee of course I think that it's an opportunity for Republicans to play nice so to speak with Democrats after Merrick Garland and all the bad blood that followed that experience So perhaps it will be a smooth confirmation process but again if the president appoints someone who the Republicans feel they can defeat and perhaps delay the process in a way that it might last until the midterm election Who knows It might be uglier than ever but I think chances are it will go more smoothly as a Republicans will want to have a reputation for playing nights as the ideological balance is not in doubt Well what levers do they have to delay at that long Is that even possible They don't have many levers of course the majority is going to run the show But at the same time there are potentially one or two Senate Democrats that depending on the nominee and what comes out of the president's mouth So to speak could slow things down but I think that's correct that chances are the leverage with the Democrats the Republicans who want to play nice not going to change physiological balance It's likely to be a fairly smooth process June grosso does this end the conversation not that we've heard a lot about it lately but it was big on the campaign a year ago The conversation about stacking the court Or does it renew it I don't think it ends the conversation at all because as you and Neil said this doesn't change the ideological balance And come June we're going to see a lot of decisions by this court I believe that come down 6 to three including an abortion rights decision Now whether that it's anticipated that the court from the questioning will cut back on abortion rights or even eliminate roe V wade So once that once that happens I think you're going to hear again a lot of talk about packing the court I don't think it's going to happen but I think you'll hear a lot of talk about it Well this motivate progressives to push for that Neil I think progressives will push as much as they can but it's a losing battle to pack the court It may be an opportunity for some of the Senate Democrats on the judiciary committee to use the confirmation processes of vehicle to air their grievances with the imbalance on the court or their grievances with what happened with Merrick Garland and try to create some forward momentum for reform but there seems to be no real energy to change the composition of the court You're not compelled by the personality side of all of this You know this is a justice known for having a sense of humor known for saying some outlandish things Some fun opinions to read Is that going to be kind of a Dave gone by on the court after this Well I think you know we saw one day gone by with the loss of justice Scalia And justice Scalia and justice breyer on the bench at time seemed like they were so much in sync and they were almost doing a comedy do or at different times They were like that bench has never been It's been a hot bench Since then but it's never been quite the same but just as briar has a profess attitude on the bench But he sometimes gives the zaniest hypotheticals I mean they're just so zany that I don't think you'll ever go to hear those again from him And I think that will be missing on the bench that and also he's been on the bench 30 years and he has such a weight of knowledge And I wonder how the change to justice Sotomayor will be leading the minority on the court the minority being the court's liberals when justice breyer retires and I wonder if there'll be any change and maybe Neal would know This better will there be any change in the dynamic with her as the leader of the minority Yeah what does this mean for justice Sotomayor Neal Well as June just noted it increases her power exponentially If it's a 6 three decision with the three progressives through Democrats on one side justice some of my or will determine who writes the dissenting opinion and that's a fairly significant power It's obviously better to be on the majority side to have power But if you're on the minority being able to figure out who expresses the views and how far to push things and try to change the discourse for future court in a future year it's an important We only have 30 seconds left just for both of you You expect a new justice in place before November yes I do but then what Neil said could happen there's always a possibility something Odds are in that favor though Neil Yes They're totally in that favor Thanks to both of you William and Mary law school professor Neil devons And of course Bloomberg law host June grosso helping us walk through the breaking news That's all for balance of power We have special coverage.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"neil devin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg Radio. Now a global news update. Multiple reports say the Taliban is refusing to allow planes meant to get US citizens and others from leaving Afghanistan. Planes, including 27 30 Sevens are sitting at an airport in northern Afghanistan, while some of the evacuees are waiting in nearby safety. Threat is not convinced the President Biden's plan to keep the Islamic state affiliated groups there and check using drone strikes. Grams worried the Taliban will allow Afghanistan to be a safe haven for Al Qaeda and Isis groups. I'm Lisa Taylor. The Washington Metropolitan Police Department is bracing for a right wing rally in D C and to protest the charges against those in the January 6th capital Riot. Capital Chief Tom Manger said they're closely monitoring the rally being planned for September 18th on Capitol grounds. The event is being planned by a former Trump campaign staffer who thinks the hundreds of defendants who have been charged were targeted for political reasons. Britney Spears contentious conservatorship could be over CNN reports on Tuesday Spears father Jamie filed paperwork in Los Angeles. To end the arrangement. After 13 years, Covid continues to put a spotlight on global supply chains and the dependence on Chinese manufacturing. Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn says that's why it's so important to boost domestic production of electronic equipment. Do you think about our national security? This is If not the most important, close to the most important issue that I've worked on it. The Senate has passed a bill that includes $3 billion in grants to incentivise production of computer chips. I'm Brian Shook doctors are once again being forced to make life or death decisions in the Covid 19 crisis. Sarah Bartlett has the story. Many say they're on the verge of choosing who gets an ICU bed. Hospitals in some states like Mississippi and Alabama have already hit capacity. Texas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Hawaii, Oregon and Idaho are almost out of ICU beds. Overall, the number of coronavirus patients is up 158% from last year. Daily cases are four times as high and daily deaths are nearly double. I'm Sarah Bartlett, the nation's top infectious disease expert, is concerned about college football stadiums being full once again. Dr. Anthony Fauci talked on CNN about the lack of mask wearing at those games and said, I don't think it's smart. Many stadiums returned to full capacity over Labor Day weekend for the first time since the 2019 season before the pandemic hit the country. Fauci shared his worries about so many fans being packed close together. But, he added, outdoors is always better than indoors. Much has changed in lower Manhattan since the 9 11 attacks 20 years ago, James Flipping has more. The defining feature of the site is, of course, the two reflecting pools that represent where the twin towers stood two decades ago. Alice Greenwald is president and CEO of the National September 11th Memorial and Museum, describing what it used to be like It was an open pit, the ruins of what had been the World Trade Center. But now, she says, it's vibrant and bustling. With life. New skyscrapers performing arts center coming soon the World Trade Center site is a symbol of our city's ability to Meet adversity. Head on James Flip in New York. One rapper says he had a $24 million Diamond ripped out of his forehead at a music festival in July. Little Uzi Vert told TMZ fans at the Rolling Loud festival in Miami snatched the diamond that was embedded in his forehead when he jumped into the crowd. I'm Brian shook And I'm Brian courtesy in Hong Kong. Let's check this hour's top business stories and the markets. Asian stocks are mixed after a dip in US shares on concern the economic recovery is slowing. We have Japanese shares edging up were higher in a few other markets, details coming up China Evergrande groups credit rating has been slashed three notches to double C by Fitch Ratings, Fitch sees a default of some kind as probable. Evergrande has become one of the biggest financial concerns in China. It has liabilities of some 305 billion U. S. Dollars to banks, shadow lenders, companies, investors, vendors and home buyers. The stock is trading down about 2.5% this morning to below its I P o price that was set way back in 2000 and nine Front page editorial in the People's Daily today, saying that China will push forward high level opening up and will protect legal interests of foreign investors. And in Japan, economic growth for last quarter was revised up to 1.9% economists had expected growth of 1.6%. Ford shares popped after Bloomberg reported the company had lured Apple's car chief Doug Field to Detroit. The company later confirmed the scoop, Bloomberg said Ludlow with more Doug Field will build Ford's prowess and you and cutting edge car technology is like software, digital services and autonomy. He's been given the title of chief Advanced Technology and embedded Systems officer. Reporting directly to CEO Jim Farley. This is actually the second time field has left Apple. He was at the company from 2000 and 3 2013 when he joined Tesla and eventually rose through the ranks to be senior vice president of engineering. Now he will help drive forwards electrification efforts, spending his time between Motown and Silicon Valley. In the market. The Nikkei is up 4/10 of 1%. The Hang Seng Index up 6/10 of 1%. Global news 24 hours a day live in a Bloomberg quick take in Hong Kong. I'm Brian Curtis. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg long, some complicated international law issues here. What kind of docket is Chief Justice Roberts facing interviews with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts. Joining me is Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg Store, Neil Devin's professor William and Mary Law, School and analysis of important legal issues cases in headlines..