1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:04,080
Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Roberts admitted a mistake yesterday. In December,

2
00:00:04,160 --> 00:00:06,320
Speaker 1: Roberts took part in an argument in a patent case

3
00:00:06,680 --> 00:00:09,560
Speaker 1: asking questions unaware that a company he owned stock in

4
00:00:09,960 --> 00:00:12,880
Speaker 1: Thermo Fisher Scientific was the parent of a party to

5
00:00:12,920 --> 00:00:16,080
Speaker 1: the case. In a letter released yesterday, the Court said

6
00:00:16,160 --> 00:00:19,000
Speaker 1: Roberts had discovered the conflict and was withdrawing from the case.

7
00:00:19,760 --> 00:00:22,400
Speaker 1: It's the third time in fifteen months that a justice

8
00:00:22,640 --> 00:00:25,600
Speaker 1: has participated in a case while overlooking a stockholding that

9
00:00:25,680 --> 00:00:30,800
Speaker 1: by law required recusal. Three Justices, Roberts, Stephen Bryer, and

10
00:00:30,840 --> 00:00:33,839
Speaker 1: Sam Alito own a significant number of individual stocks, and

11
00:00:33,920 --> 00:00:38,159
Speaker 1: each has now inadvertently participated in an argument. Some judicial

12
00:00:38,159 --> 00:00:40,479
Speaker 1: ethesis say it's time for the justices to sell those

13
00:00:40,520 --> 00:00:44,320
Speaker 1: individual shares, both to avoid mistakes and to help ensure

14
00:00:44,360 --> 00:00:46,879
Speaker 1: the Court has a full bench in important business cases.

15
00:00:47,680 --> 00:00:50,239
Speaker 1: With us to discuss the issue is Gabe Roth, the

16
00:00:50,280 --> 00:00:53,400
Speaker 1: executive director of Fixed the Court. That's an advocacy group

17
00:00:53,520 --> 00:00:57,160
Speaker 1: that favors more transparency from the nation's highest court. Gabe,

18
00:00:57,160 --> 00:01:01,400
Speaker 1: thanks for joining us. Um. Just start with explaining what

19
00:01:01,640 --> 00:01:04,440
Speaker 1: happened here, walk us through the process, and explain in

20
00:01:04,480 --> 00:01:07,959
Speaker 1: particular how John Roberts and his chambers might have missed

21
00:01:07,959 --> 00:01:12,360
Speaker 1: this conflict of interest. Sure, so there was a case,

22
00:01:12,440 --> 00:01:16,360
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, Life Technologies versus Promeka patent case not

23
00:01:16,640 --> 00:01:20,840
Speaker 1: so different from the Samsung and Apple case that that

24
00:01:20,959 --> 00:01:24,440
Speaker 1: took place earlier in the term as well, and the

25
00:01:24,480 --> 00:01:30,720
Speaker 1: case was argued in December. Um in the h filings

26
00:01:31,120 --> 00:01:35,080
Speaker 1: that mentioned how a number of these companies have subsidiaries

27
00:01:35,160 --> 00:01:38,840
Speaker 1: or are parts of other companies. But um, you know

28
00:01:38,959 --> 00:01:40,839
Speaker 1: that was that was buried in the fifty one page

29
00:01:40,880 --> 00:01:46,280
Speaker 1: brief by the petitioners, and it didn't It didn't happen

30
00:01:46,400 --> 00:01:50,480
Speaker 1: until yesterday that that the Court and Chief Justice Roberts

31
00:01:50,480 --> 00:01:53,400
Speaker 1: realized that he shouldn't have that, he shouldn't have heard

32
00:01:53,720 --> 00:01:57,080
Speaker 1: that case that one of his holdings actually a company

33
00:01:57,080 --> 00:02:00,040
Speaker 1: that he owns about hundred dollars worth of stocking. And

34
00:02:01,080 --> 00:02:04,080
Speaker 1: um was it was a party to the case. And

35
00:02:04,440 --> 00:02:08,760
Speaker 1: under federal law, if you have a potential financial outcome

36
00:02:08,840 --> 00:02:10,680
Speaker 1: in a case and you're a judge or a justice,

37
00:02:10,880 --> 00:02:14,639
Speaker 1: you shouldn't participate. So, you know, a little bit related.

38
00:02:14,800 --> 00:02:18,520
Speaker 1: But I'm glad to say that they noticed the mistake

39
00:02:18,600 --> 00:02:22,840
Speaker 1: and corrected it. Tell me something in the case of

40
00:02:22,960 --> 00:02:28,160
Speaker 1: Justice Alito in the Walt Disney case, he actually cast

41
00:02:28,320 --> 00:02:31,640
Speaker 1: vote in that case and he didn't catch it in time.

42
00:02:33,240 --> 00:02:35,160
Speaker 1: He did, I mean, his his stock holdings were out

43
00:02:35,200 --> 00:02:37,360
Speaker 1: were somewhat smaller and is actually one of his his

44
00:02:37,480 --> 00:02:42,000
Speaker 1: children owned about two thousand dollars and a Disney stock

45
00:02:42,040 --> 00:02:44,960
Speaker 1: And there was a case where ABC le a win

46
00:02:45,040 --> 00:02:48,639
Speaker 1: against UM and you know, took about three years for

47
00:02:48,639 --> 00:02:51,480
Speaker 1: for folks to figure that out. But but yeah, I mean,

48
00:02:51,520 --> 00:02:53,160
Speaker 1: I think the thing is with the Supreme Court is

49
00:02:53,160 --> 00:02:56,600
Speaker 1: that there's no real outside or even internal within the

50
00:02:56,680 --> 00:03:00,160
Speaker 1: judiciary ethics group that can really it's really looking their

51
00:03:00,200 --> 00:03:03,400
Speaker 1: stock holding and that's saying that, you know, if you

52
00:03:03,440 --> 00:03:05,959
Speaker 1: make a mistake, there are consequences. I mean, there's there's

53
00:03:05,960 --> 00:03:09,320
Speaker 1: no consequences for for Supreme Court justices. The Scibe impeachment

54
00:03:09,440 --> 00:03:12,320
Speaker 1: and you know, I don't think anyone's calling for anyone's

55
00:03:12,320 --> 00:03:14,519
Speaker 1: impeachment over these issues, but I think he just raises

56
00:03:14,560 --> 00:03:17,240
Speaker 1: the point that there should be some sort of internal

57
00:03:17,280 --> 00:03:20,680
Speaker 1: ethics check that looks over these issues and be that

58
00:03:21,080 --> 00:03:25,040
Speaker 1: the three justices that's uh, Briar, Roberts and Alito who

59
00:03:25,080 --> 00:03:28,160
Speaker 1: owned individual stocks should divest from them and invest in

60
00:03:28,240 --> 00:03:31,120
Speaker 1: the type of blended funds that are not likely to

61
00:03:31,200 --> 00:03:34,360
Speaker 1: yield these types of conflicts we'll give. I mean, this

62
00:03:34,440 --> 00:03:37,839
Speaker 1: is clearly embarrassing to the Court. No doubt that Chief

63
00:03:37,880 --> 00:03:41,000
Speaker 1: Justice Whish wishes this hadn't happened, and that that he

64
00:03:41,040 --> 00:03:44,400
Speaker 1: would have spotted the conflict earlier. But it tell us

65
00:03:44,440 --> 00:03:48,400
Speaker 1: why it matters beyond that. I mean, in this case,

66
00:03:48,440 --> 00:03:50,600
Speaker 1: he is now out of the case and it's not

67
00:03:50,640 --> 00:03:54,000
Speaker 1: going to um. I don't know that there's a particular

68
00:03:54,040 --> 00:03:56,160
Speaker 1: reason to think it's going to affect the outcome of

69
00:03:56,760 --> 00:03:59,520
Speaker 1: the case. You know, these things happen, you know, once

70
00:03:59,560 --> 00:04:02,840
Speaker 1: every so often, but given the volume of the cases

71
00:04:02,840 --> 00:04:05,200
Speaker 1: that the Court here is, you know, a very small percentage.

72
00:04:05,200 --> 00:04:08,600
Speaker 1: Why why does this matter? I think I think it

73
00:04:08,640 --> 00:04:11,560
Speaker 1: matters because there is just a general sense of a

74
00:04:11,680 --> 00:04:15,880
Speaker 1: lack of trust in government institutions nationwide. I think that's

75
00:04:15,920 --> 00:04:18,640
Speaker 1: something that you know, we see that Congress has an

76
00:04:18,640 --> 00:04:21,040
Speaker 1: approval rating in the teams in the Supreme Court is

77
00:04:21,080 --> 00:04:24,039
Speaker 1: a little higher, but not much higher. And you know,

78
00:04:24,080 --> 00:04:27,400
Speaker 1: at a time where the incoming president doesn't help a

79
00:04:27,480 --> 00:04:30,599
Speaker 1: lot of support nationwide despite his his his victory, and

80
00:04:30,640 --> 00:04:33,960
Speaker 1: when when numbers of Congress will maybe individual districts are

81
00:04:33,960 --> 00:04:36,600
Speaker 1: popular and incumbency as high as a body. It's it's

82
00:04:36,640 --> 00:04:39,720
Speaker 1: not a very well respected the Supreme Court that sort

83
00:04:39,720 --> 00:04:41,320
Speaker 1: of needs to be avolt in the room in DC

84
00:04:41,520 --> 00:04:45,320
Speaker 1: needs to have this sense of, you know that it's

85
00:04:45,360 --> 00:04:48,400
Speaker 1: a political um, which I think it's failed in doing

86
00:04:48,440 --> 00:04:50,400
Speaker 1: so in recent years given some of the decisions that

87
00:04:50,400 --> 00:04:52,919
Speaker 1: have come down, and also that it's involved board that

88
00:04:52,960 --> 00:04:56,599
Speaker 1: there's no reason to question the partiality. I mean, so

89
00:04:56,680 --> 00:04:59,200
Speaker 1: many of our institutions have broken down for for better

90
00:04:59,240 --> 00:05:02,279
Speaker 1: or worse than the last few years. And the idea

91
00:05:02,360 --> 00:05:04,240
Speaker 1: that that the Court, which is supposed to be this

92
00:05:04,360 --> 00:05:12,040
Speaker 1: beacon of a neutrality potentially isn't um. You know that

93
00:05:12,040 --> 00:05:15,360
Speaker 1: that that I think just hurts our democracy overall, and

94
00:05:15,640 --> 00:05:18,920
Speaker 1: specifically the the tenure of the Chief Justice it gave.

95
00:05:18,960 --> 00:05:20,680
Speaker 1: We've got about thirty seconds left, but let me just

96
00:05:20,800 --> 00:05:23,640
Speaker 1: ask you. Have you seen are the justices starting to

97
00:05:23,720 --> 00:05:27,760
Speaker 1: actually divest themselves of these individual stocks? I think they are.

98
00:05:27,839 --> 00:05:29,440
Speaker 1: I think yeah, I think you know, Leado sold his

99
00:05:29,520 --> 00:05:32,680
Speaker 1: Excen stock, Robert sold his Microsoft stock. I think that

100
00:05:33,160 --> 00:05:35,839
Speaker 1: over time, while i'd rather than doing in one false loop,

101
00:05:35,839 --> 00:05:38,560
Speaker 1: I think that in the last few years they picked

102
00:05:38,600 --> 00:05:41,279
Speaker 1: up the pace in terms of um you know the

103
00:05:41,400 --> 00:05:46,440
Speaker 1: best things from stocks that are likely to induce these conflicts. Okay,

104
00:05:46,440 --> 00:05:49,120
Speaker 1: I want to thank our guest Gave Broth, executive director,

105
00:05:49,360 --> 00:05:53,479
Speaker 1: Fixed the Court, a transparency group, talking about the Chief

106
00:05:53,520 --> 00:05:57,039
Speaker 1: justices belated decision, our realization that he had a conflict

107
00:05:57,040 --> 00:05:58,839
Speaker 1: in a in a patent case that he heard arguments

108
00:05:58,880 --> 00:06:02,400
Speaker 1: in into some That's it for this edition of Bloomberg Law.

109
00:06:02,480 --> 00:06:05,400
Speaker 1: We'll be back tomorrow thanks to our technical director Chris

110
00:06:05,440 --> 00:06:08,640
Speaker 1: tray Comey and our producer David Sutterman. You can find

111
00:06:08,680 --> 00:06:11,520
Speaker 1: more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg

112
00:06:11,600 --> 00:06:14,520
Speaker 1: BNA dot com, plus an invaluable website for the legal

113
00:06:14,520 --> 00:06:17,360
Speaker 1: community at Big Law Business dot com. Coming up on

114
00:06:17,400 --> 00:06:20,599
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio Bloomberg Markets with Carol Master and Corey Johnson.

115
00:06:20,800 --> 00:06:22,760
Speaker 1: Stay tuned for that. This is Bloomberg