Weekend Law: Redistricting Fights Ramp Up, OpenAI Trial Latest, Taylor Swift Combats AI Deepfakes

0:00Small businesses are the pulse of every community. They bring people together, create opportunities, and drive growth. Chase for Business helps business owners like you with personalized guidance and convenient digital tools all in one place. With that guidance and your determination, you can take your business farther and help build a brighter future for your community. Learn more at chase.com slash business. Chase for Business. Make more of what's yours. The Chase mobile app is available for select mobile devices. Message and data rates may apply. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., member FDIC. Copyright 2026, JPMorgan Chase and Company.

0:37Travel smarter, not harder, at America's Best Value In by Sinesta. With convenient locations from coast to coast and value-packed comfort at every turn. It's a practical choice for road trips, quick getaways, and everyday travel that keeps things simple without sacrificing comfort. And when you're a Sonesta Travel Pass member, staying at America's Best Value In means earning points toward free nights, upgrades, and more every time you stay. Go to Sonesta.com to book your stay and unlock the best rates with Sonesta Travel Pass. Here today, roam tomorrow. Join now at Sonesta.com. Terms and conditions apply.

1:10When you're running a business, the best days are the ones where priorities stay on track. For midsize and large companies, risk can affect multiple parts of the organization at once. from property and liability to cyber and regulatory challenges. At that level, managing risk becomes an ongoing discipline. At the Hartford, the focus is on helping businesses manage risk before it turns into something more disruptive. And when losses do happen, that work is paired with insurance coverage shaped by years of underwriting, risk engineering, and claims experience. Learn more at thehartford.com slash risk mitigation.

1:45Policies provided by Hartford Fire Insurance Company and its property and casualty affiliates, Hartford, Connecticut. This is Bloomberg Law. Employers frequently exploit the weaknesses in the law. Courts are going to be asking questions about separation of powers. One by one, Google settled with all of these other plaintiffs. Interviews with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts. Joining me is immigration law expert, Leon Fresco. First Amendment law expert, Caroline Malik-Corbin. And analysis of important legal issues, cases, and headlines. The trial judge may well want to hold a hearing.

2:17They have never said this case should never have been brought in the first place. Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

2:28Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso. Ahead in this hour, the redistricting wars heat up following the Supreme Court's decision eviscerating the Voting Rights Act. Elon Musk and Sam Altman face off in a high-stakes trial over OpenAI. and Taylor Swift makes a novel legal move to protect her voice and image.

2:54The Supreme Court's conservative majority handed Republicans their biggest victory yet in the battle to control the House. By gutting the Voting Rights Act, the consequences are already playing out as Republican-led states try to pass new maps to eliminate Democratic seats for the midterms. The challenge is the timing. Well, after filing deadlines for this year's primary elections, and in some cases after those primary elections have been held. In Louisiana, where the state's map was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Calais decision, primary elections had already started and the governor suspended House races so the legislature could draw a new map.

3:40But voters, voting groups, and candidates have filed multiple lawsuits in state and federal courts to try to stop that process. Here's Democratic Louisiana Congressman Cleo Fields. For the governor and the secretary of state to halt the election in the middle of voting, disenfranchised thousands of voters in Louisiana, and to me is un-American and unconstitutional in my view. My guest is Jonathan Diaz, Director of Voting Advocacy and Partnerships at the Campaign Legal Center. Are we already seeing the early results of that decision? So the Supreme Court's decision in Calais versus Louisiana has really fundamentally altered the scope of federal legal protections for voting rights.

4:28It is the latest in what has been a long series of decisions by the Roberts Court over the last 15 years, slowly chipping away at the Voting Rights Act, the crown jewel of the civil rights movement. And with this sort of final blow, it has really rendered the Voting Rights Act, as Justice Kagan said in her dissent, a dead letter. In this decision, in Brnovich, another decision from 2021, even in Shelby County back in 2013, the majority is very careful to say that they are not overturning the Voting Rights Act. They are not declaring the whole Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. It's still there.

5:04But they have functionally made it unenforceable. And what that has done now in May of an election year is turbocharged the already aggressive redistricting battles that we've been seeing play out over the last several months, leading states across the country, but primarily in the South, to aggressively try to redraw their congressional maps before this year's midterm elections to eliminate majority minority districts and functionally erase meaningful representation for primarily Black and Latino voters. across the American South, including in states that have already held primary elections or that are in the middle of primary elections right now.

5:44So it's really a sort of craven and opportunistic attempt to redraw these maps for partisan gain at the expense of minority voters. So where does the map stand right now? So the only state that has entirely enacted a new map since the Calais decision is Florida. They were ready. They passed their map within hours of that decision coming down. And since then, a number of other states, either governors have called special sessions of their legislatures to draw new maps or they've begun the process of redoing their maps. And that is complicated in a place like Alabama that already has had a primary in a place like Louisiana, where their primary is in just a little over a week and voting has already begun.

6:28Ballots have already been cast. But it's Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina have all announced plans to target the majority minority districts that were created as a result of successful litigation under the Voting Rights Act in their states and specifically targeting primarily black lawmakers elected in majority black districts. When they eliminate these majority minority black districts, is it a guarantee? Is it a lock that a Democrat can't get elected there? Are they able to gerrymander it in such a way? Not necessarily. It does depend a little bit on the state and on the state's particular geography.

7:08But the redistricting process has become so technical and so driven by computer programs. And map drawers have gotten increasingly sophisticated over recent years. And so it is very plausible to be able to draw a map where it would be nearly impossible for a Democrat to get elected because of just the way that the lines have been drawn, especially now that the Supreme Court has basically blessed this practice and has said that you can target voters of color so long as you claim that you're doing it for partisan reasons. So as long as the state says, well, we're not discriminating against them because they're black or Latino, we're discriminating against them because they're Democrats, the Supreme Court majority has said that's OK.

7:52Louisiana's Governor Jeff Landry, in delaying his state's House primary elections in order to redraw the state's map, quoted that famous quote from the Chief Justice John Roberts. The best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. And there have been lawsuits filed to stop the redistricting. But what are they based on now that they can no longer base it on discrimination on the basis of race? There's a lot to unpack there. Yeah, I apologize for the double question or maybe the triple question. But that quote from Chief Justice Roberts is pretty disingenuous because what the court has really functionally done is said that even if you can prove that discrimination has happened, you cannot consider race when remedying discrimination.

8:42And I'm not sure how you can fashion a legal remedy to address race discrimination while being blind to race. It just doesn't make sense. So setting that aside, you know, the governor of Louisiana, in my view, does not have the authority to just unilaterally postpone the primary because of a change in law. There is an emergency statute that does give the governor and the secretary of state some limited ability to change election dates. But that is reserved for actual unforeseen catastrophes, which in Louisiana usually means a hurricane. And so, you know, when it is functionally impossible to hold an election because, you know, a natural disaster has occurred.

9:25And what the governor is doing here is, I think, really cynically and opportunistically abusing that authority to cancel an election already in progress because he wants to redraw maps to get his party more congressional seats. And so the claims that are being brought by litigants in Louisiana are not about the maps themselves or not about discriminating against voters in this particular instance. These are due process claims. These are ultra-virus claims. They're arguing that the governor has exceeded his legal authority by calling it an emergency and rescheduling the election when there is no actual emergency.

10:01That's not what the statute and the emergency power were designed for. And he's functionally canceling the votes that have already been cast by, you know, Louisianans who have voted earlier, voted by mail, because this election period has been ongoing now for a couple of weeks. So the legal actions that have been brought are on behalf of individual voters who've already cast ballots. And they want those ballots counted because, you know, there are there are changes in law, there are changes in circumstance all the time. But what we don't do in a democracy is cancel an election midstream. You can't change the rules halfway through the election just because you want a different outcome.

10:36The Supreme Court has established the Purcell principle, the idea that courts shouldn't change voting or election rules too close to an election in order to avoid confusion. At this point, I'm not sure which principles or rules the court will still follow as precedent. But does that apply here? It's interesting that Purcell does not appear anywhere in the Supreme Court's decision in Calais. And the court has been very aggressive in citing Purcell to prevent district courts from issuing rulings about elections that might be disruptive to the election administration process or cause voter confusion.

11:15And I can't think of a more disruptive decision than, you know, gutting the Voting Rights Act in the middle of a midterm year while primaries are ongoing. And, you know, the court could have done all sorts of things to delay this decision taking effect to make clear to the states that, you know, this election cycle shouldn't be affected by it. They didn't do that. And so, you know, the court's use of Purcell, I think, has been quite cynical and pretty opportunistic. They use it when they want to block a lower court ruling, but they don't themselves seem very bound by it. And so the guidance that they've given to the district courts about being careful about not to disrupt elections with judicial decisions, about how courts shouldn't change things midstream, it does not seem to be guidance that they themselves have followed here.

11:59Let's talk about 2028, because some of the states that are saying, no, we can't do it now, like Georgia, the Georgia governor, Brian Kemp, said it's clear that Calais requires Georgia to adopt new electoral maps before the 2028 election cycle. Let's talk about Republican states first. Which Republican states do you think still have maps they're able to gerrymander to get rid of Democrats? There are plenty. I think it's states all across the South. But looking ahead to 2028, I don't think it's just Republican states that we have to think about. I think the same way that we saw Texas and California and Virginia and Ohio all going kind of tit for tat in the last year, the race to the bottom is only going to accelerate.

12:41Because if all of these states in the Deep South are successful in redrawing their maps to eliminate Democrats, I expect places like Maryland and Illinois and Colorado to retaliate. And nobody wins when the parties are engaged in this race to the bottom of just trying to manipulate the electorate for their own partisan gain. The loser here is not going to be the Republicans or the Democrats. It's going to be the American people who are going to be denied a meaningful opportunity to select representatives who actually represent them. You know, there's a kind of common saying that we we use a lot.

13:22Voters should choose their politicians, not the other way around. And what this decision from the Supreme Court has done is functionally given state legislatures the ability to decide for themselves what party is going to represent their states in Congress and taken the power to make that choice away from the voters. Thanks so much, Jonathan. That's Jonathan Diaz of the Campaign Legal Center. Democrats were dealt a blow to their efforts to minimize Republican redistricting gains when the Virginia Supreme Court blocked a voter-approved map that would have flipped as many as four Republican-held House seats in the midterms.

14:01In a 4-3 decision, the state's highest court ruled on Friday that the legislature's process for pursuing the new map violated Virginia's Constitution and ordered that an earlier version be used in the upcoming midterms.

14:19Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, Elon Musk and Sam Altman face off in a California courtroom with the future of open AI at stake. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.

14:39Bloomberg.

14:44Get the news you need in just 15 minutes. Start your day with Bloomberg Daybreak, the podcast with a global view on the stories that matter. I'm Nathan Hager. And I'm Karen Moscow. Join us each morning for curated stories on current events, politics, business and foreign relations. Plus one conversation on the day's biggest developments, all in just 15 minutes. Subscribe to Bloomberg Daybreak for a precise, thoughtful take on the stories that matter. Listen to Bloomberg Daybreak each morning on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere you listen. You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

15:22Elon Musk is facing off against Sam Altman at a high-stakes trial that could determine the future of OpenAI. The California trial is the culmination of years of animosity in public feuding over the startup they founded together more than a decade ago, before their relationship soured. Musk claims that Altman and other leaders at OpenAI enriched themselves by abandoning its altruistic principles and converting it from a full nonprofit research organization to a for-profit company. While Altman and OpenAI are accusing Musk of harassment and say the real goal of his lawsuit is to undercut competition with his own startup, XAI.

16:09The first witness was Musk himself. He tried to portray the stakes in the case as existential, saying he wanted to prevent a Terminator-like situation and basically repeating a warning he gave years ago. There is some chance that above zero that AI will kill us. I think it's low, but there's some chance. The stakes in the trial are incredibly high and maybe even existential for OpenAI because Musk is asking the court to unwind its for-profit conversion that was just completed in October. Joining me is Bloomberg legal reporter Madeline Meckleberg, who's covering the trial. So, Madeline, even before the opening statements in the trial, the judge took Musk and Altman to task for some social media posts.

16:57So just ahead of trial, if you were online on X, you saw a lot of posts coming from Musk and his account talking about, quote, Scam Altman, his nickname that he has for Sam Altman, and seemingly promoting social media posts that included a New Yorker article about Sam Altman and his conduct on the board of OpenAI. and OpenAI also was posting things on social media. They have a running blog post where they kind of provide updates on the status of the Elon Musk situation, I think is what they call it. And when they got to court first thing on Monday before they talked about anything else with the trial, the judge basically reprimanded both sides and said, you need to, I think she said the words, control your propensity to use social media.

17:46And she warned them that it may be making things worse outside the courtroom. And she had Elon Musk come up and stand in front of her as she gave this warning. And he agreed that he would not post anything or at least limit his posting about the case. The opening statements are the first chance for the parties to tell their story to the jury. Give us the high points of the openings. So we heard opening statements from the three main parties in this case being Elon Musk, OpenAI and then Microsoft. Elon Musk, I think we've heard his argument by now, but basically he's alleging that Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, essentially, he keeps saying the words, stole a charity.

18:28He says that they enriched themselves by converting this nonprofit entity into a for-profit company and in doing so abandoned the mission that they had at the beginning, which was creating AI for good. And during opening statements, we heard a lot from them about Sam Altman and Greg Brockman's removal from OpenAI's board in kind of the 2022-23 era and about how there was a lack of trust from them, from people at OpenAI. We saw some email exchanges talking about how much money Elon Musk contributed to the foundation, kind of showing that he was a major party in starting this from the beginning.

19:09And then OpenAI's attorneys got up and they tried to paint a different picture, of course, of the situation. They showed emails where Elon Musk was trying to get control of OpenAI when they were discussing forming a for-profit entity back in the day when he was still affiliated with the organization. And their attorney basically was trying to paint this case as a really simple one where Musk was a disgruntled former employee of OpenAI who was upset that they didn't want to go with his vision of the company. He left, formed a competitor, and now he's turning around trying to undercut OpenAI and harm one of his competitors in the AI space and his former company that he helped found.

19:50And then, of course, there's also the Microsoft element of this. They tend to come in after the fact that they are a key player in the lawsuit. And that's because Musk has accused them of essentially aiding and abetting this theft that he describes of a charity. And so we heard from Microsoft talking about their investments that they made in OpenAI, why they decided to make those investments. And everything we're hearing from them over and over is pretty consistent. Their actions were above board. They had no part in anything that they say may or may not have been happening. And Musk was the first witness?

20:23Yes, Musk was the first witness called to the stand. And he spent about three days testifying, answering questions from his own attorneys and then a little more heated questions from OpenAI's attorneys. So let's talk about the direct testimony first, the easy testimony when your lawyer questions you. What was the main point he was trying to get across on direct? So I think the main point that Elon Musk was trying to make is, and I keep saying this because he kept saying it on the stand, is it's not OK to steal a charity. We heard him say that over and over again in response to many questions. and it's really interesting across all the testimony that we've heard so far, everyone kind of describes these early days when Musk was still at OpenAI really similarly and they all kind of agree that there was discussion about the need for more funding to support their research and the need to maybe pursue some kind of for-profit component and Musk said during his testimony that he had no problem with creating a for-profit company to support a nonprofit, but he felt things crossed the line when they decided to convert the nonprofit to a for-profit.

21:29And he described this situation as three phases of disillusionment with OpenAI. And it kind of started with him being happy, pleased with the mission. Then he started to get concerned that they were moving in a direction that he didn't agree with. This was around 2017, 2018, when he did ultimately leave the board. And then he said phase three kind of started in around 22 when he was convinced that they did, in fact, steal a charity. And so we heard from him a lot about that, about his support of OpenAI. He says it wouldn't have existed without him in the beginning. He came up with the name. He brought his guidance, his leadership, his vision, and most importantly, his money.

22:09He was trying to portray the stakes of the case as existential, saying several times that AI could, quote, kill us all if it's not developed safely. And the judge eventually told him to stop repeating that phrase. That's right. So this idea of AI safety is a big one. That's another part of Musk's case and his argument for why he's so concerned about this decision to turn open AI into a for-profit company. And he said that we need somebody responsible, leading AI. There's all these private companies whose interests are motivated by profit and investors. And that's why he wanted a nonprofit in this space.

22:48And they had an expert that they called to testify for Musk's case, who was going to talk about the threats of AI. And that includes this existential threat that Musk describes of AI someday being smarter than humans and leading to our demise, essentially. And the judge did reprimand them and say, you know, this case is not about AI safety. I don't want to hear about this anymore because Musk kept saying he was trying to prevent a Terminator situation, talking about the movie franchise. She said, that's not what this case is about. It's not about AI safety. And so that expert's testimony was cut quite short, I think, as a result of that.

23:27And we have not heard that line from Musk since then. Musk has testified many times, but on Cross, it seems like he's not following the basic rules of being cross-examined, that he's always trying to take over and one-up the lawyer who's questioning him. For example, here. So he's on the stand and he accused OpenAI's attorney of asking a leading question. And the judge asked Musk to repeat four words after her. I'm not a lawyer. That's right. And that exchange actually went on. She said, you're not a lawyer, are you? And he says, no, I'm not a lawyer. And she says, you didn't take any classes on evidentiary law, did you?

24:06And he said, well, actually, I took law 101. And she said, okay, well, still, okay, you're not a lawyer. Stop. Definitely fair to characterize him that way. I think, obviously, on direct exam, he has a lot more freedom to tell his side of the story. But on cross, he became visibly irritated with the attorney. For OpenAI, he kept telling him his questions weren't fair. And, you know, lawyers love to say, answer the question that I'm asking you. You're not answering my question. It's a yes or no. It's a simple question. And Musk replied often that, you know, your questions aren't simple. They need context.

24:40They need explanation. And so it was a pretty interesting cross-exam where, you know, you have this lawyer trying to get something out of him and Musk is resisting kind of at every turn. So as we discussed on In cross-examination, Musk had several heated exchanges with William Savitt, the attorney who represents OpenAI. And at one point, Savitt questioned him, quote, At the end of it, you didn't contribute a billion dollars to OpenAI, did you? Savitt wanted a yes or no answer, which Musk would not give. Until the judge intervened and told Musk to answer the question, which he still didn't give a yes or no answer to.