WEBVTT - Supreme Court Chief Justice Withdraws From Case  (Audio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:04.080
<v Speaker 1>Chief Justice John Roberts admitted a mistake yesterday. In December,

0:00:04.160 --> 0:00:06.320
<v Speaker 1>Roberts took part in an argument in a patent case

0:00:06.680 --> 0:00:09.560
<v Speaker 1>asking questions unaware that a company he owned stock in

0:00:09.960 --> 0:00:12.880
<v Speaker 1>Thermo Fisher Scientific was the parent of a party to

0:00:12.920 --> 0:00:16.080
<v Speaker 1>the case. In a letter released yesterday, the Court said

0:00:16.160 --> 0:00:19.000
<v Speaker 1>Roberts had discovered the conflict and was withdrawing from the case.

0:00:19.760 --> 0:00:22.400
<v Speaker 1>It's the third time in fifteen months that a justice

0:00:22.640 --> 0:00:25.600
<v Speaker 1>has participated in a case while overlooking a stockholding that

0:00:25.680 --> 0:00:30.800
<v Speaker 1>by law required recusal. Three Justices, Roberts, Stephen Bryer, and

0:00:30.840 --> 0:00:33.839
<v Speaker 1>Sam Alito own a significant number of individual stocks, and

0:00:33.920 --> 0:00:38.159
<v Speaker 1>each has now inadvertently participated in an argument. Some judicial

0:00:38.159 --> 0:00:40.479
<v Speaker 1>ethesis say it's time for the justices to sell those

0:00:40.520 --> 0:00:44.320
<v Speaker 1>individual shares, both to avoid mistakes and to help ensure

0:00:44.360 --> 0:00:46.879
<v Speaker 1>the Court has a full bench in important business cases.

0:00:47.680 --> 0:00:50.239
<v Speaker 1>With us to discuss the issue is Gabe Roth, the

0:00:50.280 --> 0:00:53.400
<v Speaker 1>executive director of Fixed the Court. That's an advocacy group

0:00:53.520 --> 0:00:57.160
<v Speaker 1>that favors more transparency from the nation's highest court. Gabe,

0:00:57.160 --> 0:01:01.400
<v Speaker 1>thanks for joining us. Um. Just start with explaining what

0:01:01.640 --> 0:01:04.440
<v Speaker 1>happened here, walk us through the process, and explain in

0:01:04.480 --> 0:01:07.959
<v Speaker 1>particular how John Roberts and his chambers might have missed

0:01:07.959 --> 0:01:12.360
<v Speaker 1>this conflict of interest. Sure, so there was a case,

0:01:12.440 --> 0:01:16.360
<v Speaker 1>as you mentioned, Life Technologies versus Promeka patent case not

0:01:16.640 --> 0:01:20.840
<v Speaker 1>so different from the Samsung and Apple case that that

0:01:20.959 --> 0:01:24.440
<v Speaker 1>took place earlier in the term as well, and the

0:01:24.480 --> 0:01:30.720
<v Speaker 1>case was argued in December. Um in the h filings

0:01:31.120 --> 0:01:35.080
<v Speaker 1>that mentioned how a number of these companies have subsidiaries

0:01:35.160 --> 0:01:38.840
<v Speaker 1>or are parts of other companies. But um, you know

0:01:38.959 --> 0:01:40.839
<v Speaker 1>that was that was buried in the fifty one page

0:01:40.880 --> 0:01:46.280
<v Speaker 1>brief by the petitioners, and it didn't It didn't happen

0:01:46.400 --> 0:01:50.480
<v Speaker 1>until yesterday that that the Court and Chief Justice Roberts

0:01:50.480 --> 0:01:53.400
<v Speaker 1>realized that he shouldn't have that, he shouldn't have heard

0:01:53.720 --> 0:01:57.080
<v Speaker 1>that case that one of his holdings actually a company

0:01:57.080 --> 0:02:00.040
<v Speaker 1>that he owns about hundred dollars worth of stocking. And

0:02:01.080 --> 0:02:04.080
<v Speaker 1>um was it was a party to the case. And

0:02:04.440 --> 0:02:08.760
<v Speaker 1>under federal law, if you have a potential financial outcome

0:02:08.840 --> 0:02:10.680
<v Speaker 1>in a case and you're a judge or a justice,

0:02:10.880 --> 0:02:14.639
<v Speaker 1>you shouldn't participate. So, you know, a little bit related.

0:02:14.800 --> 0:02:18.520
<v Speaker 1>But I'm glad to say that they noticed the mistake

0:02:18.600 --> 0:02:22.840
<v Speaker 1>and corrected it. Tell me something in the case of

0:02:22.960 --> 0:02:28.160
<v Speaker 1>Justice Alito in the Walt Disney case, he actually cast

0:02:28.320 --> 0:02:31.640
<v Speaker 1>vote in that case and he didn't catch it in time.

0:02:33.240 --> 0:02:35.160
<v Speaker 1>He did, I mean, his his stock holdings were out

0:02:35.200 --> 0:02:37.360
<v Speaker 1>were somewhat smaller and is actually one of his his

0:02:37.480 --> 0:02:42.000
<v Speaker 1>children owned about two thousand dollars and a Disney stock

0:02:42.040 --> 0:02:44.960
<v Speaker 1>And there was a case where ABC le a win

0:02:45.040 --> 0:02:48.639
<v Speaker 1>against UM and you know, took about three years for

0:02:48.639 --> 0:02:51.480
<v Speaker 1>for folks to figure that out. But but yeah, I mean,

0:02:51.520 --> 0:02:53.160
<v Speaker 1>I think the thing is with the Supreme Court is

0:02:53.160 --> 0:02:56.600
<v Speaker 1>that there's no real outside or even internal within the

0:02:56.680 --> 0:03:00.160
<v Speaker 1>judiciary ethics group that can really it's really looking their

0:03:00.200 --> 0:03:03.400
<v Speaker 1>stock holding and that's saying that, you know, if you

0:03:03.440 --> 0:03:05.959
<v Speaker 1>make a mistake, there are consequences. I mean, there's there's

0:03:05.960 --> 0:03:09.320
<v Speaker 1>no consequences for for Supreme Court justices. The Scibe impeachment

0:03:09.440 --> 0:03:12.320
<v Speaker 1>and you know, I don't think anyone's calling for anyone's

0:03:12.320 --> 0:03:14.519
<v Speaker 1>impeachment over these issues, but I think he just raises

0:03:14.560 --> 0:03:17.240
<v Speaker 1>the point that there should be some sort of internal

0:03:17.280 --> 0:03:20.680
<v Speaker 1>ethics check that looks over these issues and be that

0:03:21.080 --> 0:03:25.040
<v Speaker 1>the three justices that's uh, Briar, Roberts and Alito who

0:03:25.080 --> 0:03:28.160
<v Speaker 1>owned individual stocks should divest from them and invest in

0:03:28.240 --> 0:03:31.120
<v Speaker 1>the type of blended funds that are not likely to

0:03:31.200 --> 0:03:34.360
<v Speaker 1>yield these types of conflicts we'll give. I mean, this

0:03:34.440 --> 0:03:37.839
<v Speaker 1>is clearly embarrassing to the Court. No doubt that Chief

0:03:37.880 --> 0:03:41.000
<v Speaker 1>Justice Whish wishes this hadn't happened, and that that he

0:03:41.040 --> 0:03:44.400
<v Speaker 1>would have spotted the conflict earlier. But it tell us

0:03:44.440 --> 0:03:48.400
<v Speaker 1>why it matters beyond that. I mean, in this case,

0:03:48.440 --> 0:03:50.600
<v Speaker 1>he is now out of the case and it's not

0:03:50.640 --> 0:03:54.000
<v Speaker 1>going to um. I don't know that there's a particular

0:03:54.040 --> 0:03:56.160
<v Speaker 1>reason to think it's going to affect the outcome of

0:03:56.760 --> 0:03:59.520
<v Speaker 1>the case. You know, these things happen, you know, once

0:03:59.560 --> 0:04:02.840
<v Speaker 1>every so often, but given the volume of the cases

0:04:02.840 --> 0:04:05.200
<v Speaker 1>that the Court here is, you know, a very small percentage.

0:04:05.200 --> 0:04:08.600
<v Speaker 1>Why why does this matter? I think I think it

0:04:08.640 --> 0:04:11.560
<v Speaker 1>matters because there is just a general sense of a

0:04:11.680 --> 0:04:15.880
<v Speaker 1>lack of trust in government institutions nationwide. I think that's

0:04:15.920 --> 0:04:18.640
<v Speaker 1>something that you know, we see that Congress has an

0:04:18.640 --> 0:04:21.040
<v Speaker 1>approval rating in the teams in the Supreme Court is

0:04:21.080 --> 0:04:24.039
<v Speaker 1>a little higher, but not much higher. And you know,

0:04:24.080 --> 0:04:27.400
<v Speaker 1>at a time where the incoming president doesn't help a

0:04:27.480 --> 0:04:30.599
<v Speaker 1>lot of support nationwide despite his his his victory, and

0:04:30.640 --> 0:04:33.960
<v Speaker 1>when when numbers of Congress will maybe individual districts are

0:04:33.960 --> 0:04:36.600
<v Speaker 1>popular and incumbency as high as a body. It's it's

0:04:36.640 --> 0:04:39.720
<v Speaker 1>not a very well respected the Supreme Court that sort

0:04:39.720 --> 0:04:41.320
<v Speaker 1>of needs to be avolt in the room in DC

0:04:41.520 --> 0:04:45.320
<v Speaker 1>needs to have this sense of, you know that it's

0:04:45.360 --> 0:04:48.400
<v Speaker 1>a political um, which I think it's failed in doing

0:04:48.440 --> 0:04:50.400
<v Speaker 1>so in recent years given some of the decisions that

0:04:50.400 --> 0:04:52.919
<v Speaker 1>have come down, and also that it's involved board that

0:04:52.960 --> 0:04:56.599
<v Speaker 1>there's no reason to question the partiality. I mean, so

0:04:56.680 --> 0:04:59.200
<v Speaker 1>many of our institutions have broken down for for better

0:04:59.240 --> 0:05:02.279
<v Speaker 1>or worse than the last few years. And the idea

0:05:02.360 --> 0:05:04.240
<v Speaker 1>that that the Court, which is supposed to be this

0:05:04.360 --> 0:05:12.040
<v Speaker 1>beacon of a neutrality potentially isn't um. You know that

0:05:12.040 --> 0:05:15.360
<v Speaker 1>that that I think just hurts our democracy overall, and

0:05:15.640 --> 0:05:18.920
<v Speaker 1>specifically the the tenure of the Chief Justice it gave.

0:05:18.960 --> 0:05:20.680
<v Speaker 1>We've got about thirty seconds left, but let me just

0:05:20.800 --> 0:05:23.640
<v Speaker 1>ask you. Have you seen are the justices starting to

0:05:23.720 --> 0:05:27.760
<v Speaker 1>actually divest themselves of these individual stocks? I think they are.

0:05:27.839 --> 0:05:29.440
<v Speaker 1>I think yeah, I think you know, Leado sold his

0:05:29.520 --> 0:05:32.680
<v Speaker 1>Excen stock, Robert sold his Microsoft stock. I think that

0:05:33.160 --> 0:05:35.839
<v Speaker 1>over time, while i'd rather than doing in one false loop,

0:05:35.839 --> 0:05:38.560
<v Speaker 1>I think that in the last few years they picked

0:05:38.600 --> 0:05:41.279
<v Speaker 1>up the pace in terms of um you know the

0:05:41.400 --> 0:05:46.440
<v Speaker 1>best things from stocks that are likely to induce these conflicts. Okay,

0:05:46.440 --> 0:05:49.120
<v Speaker 1>I want to thank our guest Gave Broth, executive director,

0:05:49.360 --> 0:05:53.479
<v Speaker 1>Fixed the Court, a transparency group, talking about the Chief

0:05:53.520 --> 0:05:57.039
<v Speaker 1>justices belated decision, our realization that he had a conflict

0:05:57.040 --> 0:05:58.839
<v Speaker 1>in a in a patent case that he heard arguments

0:05:58.880 --> 0:06:02.400
<v Speaker 1>in into some That's it for this edition of Bloomberg Law.

0:06:02.480 --> 0:06:05.400
<v Speaker 1>We'll be back tomorrow thanks to our technical director Chris

0:06:05.440 --> 0:06:08.640
<v Speaker 1>tray Comey and our producer David Sutterman. You can find

0:06:08.680 --> 0:06:11.520
<v Speaker 1>more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg

0:06:11.600 --> 0:06:14.520
<v Speaker 1>BNA dot com, plus an invaluable website for the legal

0:06:14.520 --> 0:06:17.360
<v Speaker 1>community at Big Law Business dot com. Coming up on

0:06:17.400 --> 0:06:20.599
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Radio Bloomberg Markets with Carol Master and Corey Johnson.

0:06:20.800 --> 0:06:22.760
<v Speaker 1>Stay tuned for that. This is Bloomberg