1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,320 --> 00:00:12,680
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has been largely silent on the subject

3
00:00:12,680 --> 00:00:15,520
Speaker 1: of gun rights for more than a decade, but now

4
00:00:15,560 --> 00:00:18,880
Speaker 1: it appears that the newly conservative Court will go where

5
00:00:18,920 --> 00:00:21,640
Speaker 1: the justices have been reluctant to go in the past.

6
00:00:22,079 --> 00:00:25,000
Speaker 1: The Court is poised to rule that there's a constitutional

7
00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:29,080
Speaker 1: right to carry handguns outside your home. During our arguments

8
00:00:29,120 --> 00:00:33,600
Speaker 1: on Wednesday, the conservative justices were uniformly critical of the

9
00:00:33,640 --> 00:00:37,320
Speaker 1: New York law that requires a special justification to get

10
00:00:37,360 --> 00:00:41,159
Speaker 1: a concealed carry license. Here are Chief Justice John Roberts

11
00:00:41,200 --> 00:00:44,000
Speaker 1: and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. You don't have to say when

12
00:00:44,040 --> 00:00:47,000
Speaker 1: you're looking for a permit uh to speak on a

13
00:00:47,159 --> 00:00:49,920
Speaker 1: street corner or whatever, that you know your speech is

14
00:00:49,920 --> 00:00:52,360
Speaker 1: particularly important. So why do you have to show in

15
00:00:52,360 --> 00:00:56,160
Speaker 1: this case convince somebody that you're entitled to exercise your

16
00:00:56,160 --> 00:00:59,640
Speaker 1: Second Amendment right? Why isn't it good enough to say

17
00:00:59,680 --> 00:01:04,560
Speaker 1: I live than a violent area and I want to

18
00:01:04,560 --> 00:01:07,119
Speaker 1: be able to defend myself. My guest is a leading

19
00:01:07,160 --> 00:01:10,440
Speaker 1: expert on the Second Amendment, Adam Winkler, a professor at

20
00:01:10,520 --> 00:01:12,960
Speaker 1: u c l A Law school. So Adam what's your

21
00:01:13,000 --> 00:01:16,679
Speaker 1: take on the oral arguments, Well, it did appear that

22
00:01:16,720 --> 00:01:20,160
Speaker 1: there were a majority of justices that were prepared to

23
00:01:20,280 --> 00:01:24,600
Speaker 1: strike down New York's restrictions on concealed carry. It's always

24
00:01:24,600 --> 00:01:27,679
Speaker 1: hard to figure out the tea leaves just from oral argument,

25
00:01:27,880 --> 00:01:31,920
Speaker 1: but there was considerable skepticism from all of the conservatives

26
00:01:31,920 --> 00:01:36,320
Speaker 1: on the court towards New York's restrictions. How restrictive is

27
00:01:36,400 --> 00:01:40,280
Speaker 1: the New York law? New York's law is pretty restrictive.

28
00:01:40,600 --> 00:01:43,800
Speaker 1: The laws of most states allow almost anyone to get

29
00:01:43,800 --> 00:01:46,240
Speaker 1: a permit so long as there are a law abiding person,

30
00:01:46,400 --> 00:01:48,960
Speaker 1: but New York, along with California and a handful of

31
00:01:48,960 --> 00:01:51,920
Speaker 1: other states, make it much more difficult and only give

32
00:01:52,120 --> 00:01:55,520
Speaker 1: permits to people who can show a special need or

33
00:01:55,600 --> 00:01:58,680
Speaker 1: good cause to carry a firearm. And what that means

34
00:01:58,720 --> 00:02:01,320
Speaker 1: is you need to have an individ dualized reason to

35
00:02:01,400 --> 00:02:04,280
Speaker 1: carry a firearm, not just I'm generally scared of crime,

36
00:02:04,520 --> 00:02:07,320
Speaker 1: but maybe I've been a victim of a stalker, or

37
00:02:07,360 --> 00:02:09,640
Speaker 1: I've had death threats, or I work in a very

38
00:02:09,760 --> 00:02:12,880
Speaker 1: high crime area. But difficult to get a permit in

39
00:02:13,040 --> 00:02:16,480
Speaker 1: New York and in some other states. So was that

40
00:02:16,560 --> 00:02:20,680
Speaker 1: the conservative justice concerned that it was difficult, or more

41
00:02:21,280 --> 00:02:23,640
Speaker 1: that it's a constitutional right in anyone should have the

42
00:02:23,720 --> 00:02:25,840
Speaker 1: right to carry a gun. Well, it remains to be

43
00:02:25,880 --> 00:02:29,080
Speaker 1: seen exactly how the Court goes with this decision. I

44
00:02:29,120 --> 00:02:32,400
Speaker 1: think that it's unlikely that the Court will say that

45
00:02:32,520 --> 00:02:36,040
Speaker 1: as many people in the gun enthusiast world say that

46
00:02:36,160 --> 00:02:39,000
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment is the only permit I need to

47
00:02:39,120 --> 00:02:41,560
Speaker 1: carry a gun on the street. I think the Supreme

48
00:02:41,600 --> 00:02:44,240
Speaker 1: Court is likely to say that states do have authority

49
00:02:44,320 --> 00:02:48,040
Speaker 1: to provide permits and to require permits for concealed carry,

50
00:02:48,080 --> 00:02:50,840
Speaker 1: but they're going to say that it must be readily

51
00:02:50,880 --> 00:02:54,239
Speaker 1: available to law abiding people. Some of the justices Pepper,

52
00:02:54,440 --> 00:02:57,040
Speaker 1: the lawyer for the n r A, with questions about

53
00:02:57,120 --> 00:03:01,079
Speaker 1: places where the state could bar guns. Subways, the n

54
00:03:01,200 --> 00:03:05,600
Speaker 1: y U Campus, Yankee Stadium. Here's Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

55
00:03:06,080 --> 00:03:08,560
Speaker 1: Can't we just say Times Square on New Year's Eve

56
00:03:09,040 --> 00:03:12,400
Speaker 1: is a sensitive place because now we've seen, you know,

57
00:03:12,480 --> 00:03:14,480
Speaker 1: people are on top of each other. We've we've had

58
00:03:14,520 --> 00:03:17,560
Speaker 1: experience with violence. So we're making a judgment it's a

59
00:03:17,560 --> 00:03:21,120
Speaker 1: sensitive place. Well, I thought that was really interesting. You know,

60
00:03:21,160 --> 00:03:23,880
Speaker 1: the court in the Heller case said that the government

61
00:03:23,919 --> 00:03:26,600
Speaker 1: has the authority under the Second Amendment to keep guns

62
00:03:26,639 --> 00:03:30,679
Speaker 1: out of sensitive places like government buildings and schools. The

63
00:03:30,800 --> 00:03:33,880
Speaker 1: question is how many different places does that cover? How

64
00:03:33,919 --> 00:03:37,960
Speaker 1: broadly do we define sensitive places? It did seem that

65
00:03:38,040 --> 00:03:40,480
Speaker 1: if you could say that the subway and Times Square

66
00:03:40,520 --> 00:03:43,720
Speaker 1: and Yankee Stadium we're all sensitive places, then that might

67
00:03:43,760 --> 00:03:47,080
Speaker 1: be a roadmap for New York to revise it law.

68
00:03:47,280 --> 00:03:51,120
Speaker 1: Should the Supreme Court strike the current restrictions down, New

69
00:03:51,200 --> 00:03:54,360
Speaker 1: York could allow more people to carry firearms, but broadly

70
00:03:54,400 --> 00:03:57,680
Speaker 1: defined sensitive places to make it very difficult to bring

71
00:03:57,680 --> 00:04:00,400
Speaker 1: your gun, for instance, on the subway or in the

72
00:04:00,440 --> 00:04:02,960
Speaker 1: Times Square or other areas of New York that are

73
00:04:02,960 --> 00:04:08,240
Speaker 1: heavily populated and busy. But private organizations can ban guns.

74
00:04:08,680 --> 00:04:12,280
Speaker 1: Oh that's right. I mean, anyone's constitutional rights generally stopped

75
00:04:12,360 --> 00:04:14,480
Speaker 1: at my property line. You don't have a right to

76
00:04:14,520 --> 00:04:17,080
Speaker 1: exercise your free speech on my property, and you don't

77
00:04:17,120 --> 00:04:19,680
Speaker 1: have the right to exercise your Second Amendment right to

78
00:04:19,760 --> 00:04:22,400
Speaker 1: keep in bear arms on my property. I don't think

79
00:04:22,440 --> 00:04:24,880
Speaker 1: this Court will go into, at least in this case,

80
00:04:25,160 --> 00:04:28,400
Speaker 1: the balance between Second Amendment rights and private property. What

81
00:04:28,560 --> 00:04:30,560
Speaker 1: we're really talking about in the New York case is

82
00:04:30,600 --> 00:04:34,320
Speaker 1: the ability to carry guns in public. Generally, the two

83
00:04:34,360 --> 00:04:37,080
Speaker 1: sides seem to be reading history and coming out with

84
00:04:37,120 --> 00:04:40,840
Speaker 1: a different conclusion. Here's Justice Sonia so to Mayor to

85
00:04:40,920 --> 00:04:44,080
Speaker 1: the attorney representing the n r A affiliate, I don't

86
00:04:44,080 --> 00:04:48,160
Speaker 1: know how I get pastil that history, well without you

87
00:04:48,960 --> 00:04:52,479
Speaker 1: sort of making it up and saying there's a right

88
00:04:52,800 --> 00:04:56,080
Speaker 1: to control states that has never been exercised in the

89
00:04:56,279 --> 00:04:58,919
Speaker 1: entire history of the United States. Well, it's one of

90
00:04:58,960 --> 00:05:01,160
Speaker 1: the interesting things about this area of law. It's one

91
00:05:01,200 --> 00:05:03,960
Speaker 1: in which the Court really does seem focused on history

92
00:05:04,000 --> 00:05:07,920
Speaker 1: and tradition. And if there's historical precedence for a particular

93
00:05:07,960 --> 00:05:12,039
Speaker 1: gun safety law, then that law might be constitutional permissible,

94
00:05:12,160 --> 00:05:14,880
Speaker 1: and if there are not historical precedents, then it's likely

95
00:05:15,120 --> 00:05:19,560
Speaker 1: questionable on constitutional grounds. But history really is complicated in

96
00:05:19,600 --> 00:05:22,320
Speaker 1: this area. There is a long history of restrictions on

97
00:05:22,400 --> 00:05:25,479
Speaker 1: concealed carry, and both parties were arguing in this case

98
00:05:25,680 --> 00:05:28,839
Speaker 1: about how broad and what the scope of those historical

99
00:05:28,880 --> 00:05:31,960
Speaker 1: bands were. What Justice Soto Mayor was referencing was the

100
00:05:32,000 --> 00:05:34,320
Speaker 1: fact that over the course of American history, there have

101
00:05:34,400 --> 00:05:37,279
Speaker 1: been a lot of different concealed carey regimes, and the

102
00:05:37,320 --> 00:05:41,400
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has never interfered with those judgment calls. And

103
00:05:41,480 --> 00:05:45,240
Speaker 1: what she's suggesting is that the conservative justices are going

104
00:05:45,279 --> 00:05:48,680
Speaker 1: to create this new edifice of the Supreme Court striking

105
00:05:48,720 --> 00:05:52,159
Speaker 1: down state gun laws on the grounds of history and tradition,

106
00:05:52,440 --> 00:05:56,200
Speaker 1: even though the Supreme Court doing that would be historically unprecedented.

107
00:05:56,560 --> 00:05:59,800
Speaker 1: And how much is this case about Trump's three appointees

108
00:06:00,320 --> 00:06:03,040
Speaker 1: who were supported by the n r A. Oh, this

109
00:06:03,120 --> 00:06:07,839
Speaker 1: case is no doubt directly attributable to President Trump's appointment

110
00:06:07,920 --> 00:06:11,440
Speaker 1: of three justices to the Supreme Court. After the Heller case,

111
00:06:11,480 --> 00:06:14,080
Speaker 1: the Court had for the most part stayed away from

112
00:06:14,080 --> 00:06:17,320
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment and had specifically refused to rule on

113
00:06:17,400 --> 00:06:20,120
Speaker 1: this exact question that was presented to in the oral

114
00:06:20,240 --> 00:06:22,640
Speaker 1: argument about whether there's a right to carry guns in

115
00:06:22,680 --> 00:06:26,359
Speaker 1: public and whether discretionary permitting that New York has and

116
00:06:26,400 --> 00:06:30,760
Speaker 1: other states have is constitutionally permissible. There weren't enough votes

117
00:06:30,800 --> 00:06:33,440
Speaker 1: on the Court to take that case either way. But

118
00:06:33,560 --> 00:06:37,320
Speaker 1: with the retirements of Justice Kennedy and the passing of

119
00:06:37,440 --> 00:06:41,560
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia and Ginsburg and their replacement by Trump justices

120
00:06:41,839 --> 00:06:45,120
Speaker 1: with strong pro gun records on the lower courts, that

121
00:06:45,200 --> 00:06:47,839
Speaker 1: has led to both the Supreme Court taking a new

122
00:06:47,880 --> 00:06:51,960
Speaker 1: case and likely providing a bold, aggressive new vision of

123
00:06:52,000 --> 00:06:55,359
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment that heretofore just didn't find much of

124
00:06:55,600 --> 00:06:59,200
Speaker 1: a voice in the Supreme Court. So some of Justice

125
00:06:59,240 --> 00:07:03,920
Speaker 1: Scalia's sort of disciples on this court may go even

126
00:07:03,920 --> 00:07:07,000
Speaker 1: further than he would have gone. That's right. The Heller

127
00:07:07,000 --> 00:07:11,320
Speaker 1: case had very specific language that suggested it was a

128
00:07:11,320 --> 00:07:15,520
Speaker 1: compromise that suggested that states do have regulatory authority over

129
00:07:15,560 --> 00:07:20,600
Speaker 1: things like bands on falons, possessing firearms, or restricting guns

130
00:07:20,680 --> 00:07:24,880
Speaker 1: from sensitive places. But the justices seemed very interested in

131
00:07:25,200 --> 00:07:28,720
Speaker 1: history and tradition, and Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of

132
00:07:28,720 --> 00:07:31,400
Speaker 1: the challengers to New York's law, said they really don't

133
00:07:31,400 --> 00:07:34,600
Speaker 1: need to look at history past eighteen seventy one. Well,

134
00:07:34,640 --> 00:07:37,200
Speaker 1: if we don't look at history past eighteen seventy one

135
00:07:37,280 --> 00:07:40,520
Speaker 1: after the adoption and ratification of the fourteenth Amendment, well

136
00:07:40,600 --> 00:07:44,600
Speaker 1: then bands on falons possessing firearms cannot be constitutionally permissible.

137
00:07:44,840 --> 00:07:48,320
Speaker 1: Bands on people with mental illness from having firearms cannot

138
00:07:48,360 --> 00:07:51,840
Speaker 1: be constitutionally permissible. We might even note that sensitive places,

139
00:07:51,880 --> 00:07:54,040
Speaker 1: which it did seem like a majority of justices were

140
00:07:54,080 --> 00:07:57,880
Speaker 1: willing to say states could keep guns out of also

141
00:07:58,000 --> 00:08:01,480
Speaker 1: have no historical precedent pre eighteen seventy one. So I

142
00:08:01,520 --> 00:08:04,040
Speaker 1: think this case is going to put the conservative justices

143
00:08:04,040 --> 00:08:06,840
Speaker 1: who believe in history and tradition in an awkward place,

144
00:08:07,160 --> 00:08:10,720
Speaker 1: trying to say that only history matters. But yet much

145
00:08:10,760 --> 00:08:15,120
Speaker 1: more modern forms of regulations seem very mainstream and unlikely

146
00:08:15,160 --> 00:08:20,560
Speaker 1: to be struck out. Have lower courts generally sustained gun

147
00:08:20,640 --> 00:08:25,520
Speaker 1: control regulations? Yeah? Since the Heller case, there have been

148
00:08:25,600 --> 00:08:28,960
Speaker 1: over a thousand federal court decisions on a wide variety

149
00:08:29,200 --> 00:08:32,920
Speaker 1: of gun safety laws, the vast majority of which have

150
00:08:33,080 --> 00:08:37,200
Speaker 1: been upheld um and this has led some of the justices,

151
00:08:37,280 --> 00:08:42,319
Speaker 1: including Justice Thomas, Justice Corsets, and Justice Elito, to complain

152
00:08:42,400 --> 00:08:44,960
Speaker 1: that the Second Amendment is being treated like a second

153
00:08:45,040 --> 00:08:49,280
Speaker 1: class right. They say, and what that seems to suggest

154
00:08:49,440 --> 00:08:52,240
Speaker 1: is that they think more gun laws should be struck

155
00:08:52,280 --> 00:08:54,560
Speaker 1: down and that the lower courts aren't doing a good

156
00:08:54,640 --> 00:08:57,080
Speaker 1: nut job on it. And I think that's why this

157
00:08:57,160 --> 00:09:00,240
Speaker 1: case is really so important. It's not just about New

158
00:09:00,320 --> 00:09:03,960
Speaker 1: York's concealed carry laws. It's a signal that the Court

159
00:09:04,080 --> 00:09:06,640
Speaker 1: is prepared to step back into the Second Amendment to

160
00:09:06,760 --> 00:09:10,280
Speaker 1: strength and Second Amendment protections and call into question gun

161
00:09:10,360 --> 00:09:12,840
Speaker 1: safety laws. I think we can expect to see the

162
00:09:12,880 --> 00:09:16,280
Speaker 1: Court take on bands on assault weapons and bands on

163
00:09:16,360 --> 00:09:20,040
Speaker 1: high capacity magazine before too long. Public approval of the

164
00:09:20,080 --> 00:09:23,120
Speaker 1: Court is at an all time low, and a majority

165
00:09:23,160 --> 00:09:27,040
Speaker 1: of Americans favor gun control laws. So how far do

166
00:09:27,080 --> 00:09:30,840
Speaker 1: you think the Justices are willing to go here stepping

167
00:09:30,840 --> 00:09:33,880
Speaker 1: out of line with the mainstream of the country. Well,

168
00:09:33,920 --> 00:09:37,400
Speaker 1: I do not think the justices, especially the conservative justices,

169
00:09:37,640 --> 00:09:41,080
Speaker 1: are really interested in what public opinion polls say, and

170
00:09:41,120 --> 00:09:42,920
Speaker 1: I don't think they're going to be guided in their

171
00:09:42,920 --> 00:09:47,120
Speaker 1: constitutional analysis at all by public opinion, at least in

172
00:09:47,160 --> 00:09:51,040
Speaker 1: any direct and straightforward way. And so I think if

173
00:09:51,040 --> 00:09:53,720
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has a low approval rating now, well

174
00:09:53,760 --> 00:09:56,400
Speaker 1: just wait until they require guns on the streets of

175
00:09:56,400 --> 00:09:59,560
Speaker 1: New York and California. Just wait until they overturn or

176
00:09:59,600 --> 00:10:02,440
Speaker 1: severe we cut back rovers's weight, as they seem almost

177
00:10:02,440 --> 00:10:05,240
Speaker 1: certain to do this term, and maybe even take on

178
00:10:05,440 --> 00:10:09,800
Speaker 1: and declare unconstitutional race based affirmative action. I think we'll

179
00:10:09,840 --> 00:10:13,240
Speaker 1: see the Court's approval rating plummet even further. So I

180
00:10:13,240 --> 00:10:16,120
Speaker 1: don't think we've found the depth of the Supreme Court's

181
00:10:16,400 --> 00:10:20,440
Speaker 1: approval ratings quite yet. In a ruling against New York

182
00:10:20,480 --> 00:10:24,200
Speaker 1: would have consequences for at least a half dozen other states.

183
00:10:24,360 --> 00:10:27,560
Speaker 1: Would that mean that they would have to rethink their laws?

184
00:10:28,440 --> 00:10:30,600
Speaker 1: I do think that's exactly what it's going to mean.

185
00:10:30,679 --> 00:10:32,520
Speaker 1: I think places like New York are going to have

186
00:10:32,640 --> 00:10:36,200
Speaker 1: to think of new ways to restrict gun caring or

187
00:10:36,240 --> 00:10:39,240
Speaker 1: to protect public safety on the public streets. And it's

188
00:10:39,240 --> 00:10:43,160
Speaker 1: not just New York. It's also California and Hawaii and Massachusetts,

189
00:10:43,160 --> 00:10:45,360
Speaker 1: a number of other states. And I think that there's

190
00:10:45,400 --> 00:10:47,360
Speaker 1: going to be a variety of gun laws that they're

191
00:10:47,400 --> 00:10:49,360
Speaker 1: going to have to reconsider in the wake of the

192
00:10:49,440 --> 00:10:52,920
Speaker 1: new invigorated Second Amendment on behalf of the Roberts Court

193
00:10:53,280 --> 00:10:57,120
Speaker 1: and Adam. Should gun control groups change their approach in

194
00:10:57,280 --> 00:11:02,280
Speaker 1: light of the Supreme Court and new Personally? As historian,

195
00:11:02,679 --> 00:11:05,600
Speaker 1: what's your take on where the gun laws should be

196
00:11:05,760 --> 00:11:09,280
Speaker 1: according to our history and the Constitution? Well, I think

197
00:11:09,320 --> 00:11:11,280
Speaker 1: one of the interesting things that I found in my

198
00:11:11,360 --> 00:11:15,000
Speaker 1: historical research is that there has been a wide variety

199
00:11:15,080 --> 00:11:18,520
Speaker 1: of gun regimes in the different states, and what we've

200
00:11:18,559 --> 00:11:21,280
Speaker 1: seen traditionally is that the courts have generally taken a

201
00:11:21,400 --> 00:11:25,400
Speaker 1: hands off approach, given plenty of leeway to lawmakers to

202
00:11:25,520 --> 00:11:29,920
Speaker 1: regulate firearms so long as they don't completely bar citizens

203
00:11:29,920 --> 00:11:33,560
Speaker 1: from having guns for personal protection. Um. And I think

204
00:11:33,600 --> 00:11:37,160
Speaker 1: that's what history and traditions suggests. That there is a

205
00:11:37,160 --> 00:11:42,960
Speaker 1: considerable leeway for legislators to experiment with gun regulation so

206
00:11:43,040 --> 00:11:46,800
Speaker 1: long as people have that basic core right to defend themselves. UM.

207
00:11:47,679 --> 00:11:50,319
Speaker 1: Whether that ends up being the history and tradition that

208
00:11:50,400 --> 00:11:53,600
Speaker 1: the Court accepts, or whether the Court instead views the

209
00:11:53,640 --> 00:11:57,840
Speaker 1: history and tradition is really just being about broad freedoms

210
00:11:58,000 --> 00:12:01,319
Speaker 1: for people to have firearm, I guess that remains to

211
00:12:01,360 --> 00:12:05,240
Speaker 1: be seen. And Adam should gun control groups change their

212
00:12:05,280 --> 00:12:09,040
Speaker 1: approach in light of the Supreme Court? Well, I do

213
00:12:09,160 --> 00:12:12,760
Speaker 1: think that the new Supreme Court, with its news Second

214
00:12:12,760 --> 00:12:17,560
Speaker 1: Amendment protections, does require the gun safety movement to change. Look,

215
00:12:17,600 --> 00:12:21,120
Speaker 1: the gun safety movement has arguably never been stronger than

216
00:12:21,160 --> 00:12:24,080
Speaker 1: it is right now. There's a huge grassroots mobilization in

217
00:12:24,120 --> 00:12:28,000
Speaker 1: favor of gun reform, their wealthy new organizations like every

218
00:12:28,040 --> 00:12:31,560
Speaker 1: Town and Gabrielle Geifford's organization, and we've even seen gun

219
00:12:31,640 --> 00:12:36,079
Speaker 1: safety organizations outspending the n r A on some recent elections.

220
00:12:36,520 --> 00:12:39,240
Speaker 1: And so that movement is strong, but it has put

221
00:12:39,240 --> 00:12:43,240
Speaker 1: perhaps too much weight into proposals like banning assault weapons

222
00:12:43,240 --> 00:12:46,120
Speaker 1: and high capacity magazines that are likely to run a

223
00:12:46,240 --> 00:12:48,720
Speaker 1: foul of this Supreme Court. So I think that the

224
00:12:48,720 --> 00:12:52,679
Speaker 1: gun safety movement should stop trying to regulate the types

225
00:12:52,720 --> 00:12:55,480
Speaker 1: of guns that we have and instead focus on things

226
00:12:55,520 --> 00:12:58,880
Speaker 1: like community intervention programs that have a proven track record

227
00:12:58,920 --> 00:13:02,240
Speaker 1: of reducing gun violence, of unshackling the A t F,

228
00:13:02,320 --> 00:13:05,480
Speaker 1: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the main

229
00:13:05,600 --> 00:13:09,839
Speaker 1: federal gun law enforcement agency that's been hobbled by artificial

230
00:13:09,880 --> 00:13:12,160
Speaker 1: restraints that have been imposed by the n r A

231
00:13:12,280 --> 00:13:15,360
Speaker 1: and its allies in Congress, and of course we need

232
00:13:15,440 --> 00:13:19,239
Speaker 1: better and universal background checks. I think we can continue

233
00:13:19,280 --> 00:13:21,800
Speaker 1: to try to reduce gun violence despite the fact that

234
00:13:21,840 --> 00:13:23,680
Speaker 1: the Court is going to make it hard to regulate

235
00:13:23,720 --> 00:13:26,280
Speaker 1: particular types of weapon. Thanks so much for being on

236
00:13:26,320 --> 00:13:29,240
Speaker 1: the show, Adam. That's Professor Adam Winkler of u c

237
00:13:29,400 --> 00:13:32,760
Speaker 1: l A Law School. A note. Michael Bloomberg, the founder

238
00:13:32,760 --> 00:13:36,280
Speaker 1: and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg Radio,

239
00:13:36,720 --> 00:13:40,079
Speaker 1: is a donator groups that support gun control, including every

240
00:13:40,120 --> 00:13:42,800
Speaker 1: Town for Gun Safety, which filed a brief at the

241
00:13:42,800 --> 00:13:48,079
Speaker 1: Supreme Court supporting the New York restrictions. The Supreme Court

242
00:13:48,120 --> 00:13:51,400
Speaker 1: heard arguments on Monday in a high stakes case over

243
00:13:51,440 --> 00:13:54,680
Speaker 1: the strictest abortion law in the country, the Texas law

244
00:13:54,720 --> 00:13:58,080
Speaker 1: that has stopped most abortions in the state. The focus

245
00:13:58,160 --> 00:14:01,559
Speaker 1: was on the unusual provision tech has included that makes

246
00:14:01,559 --> 00:14:05,480
Speaker 1: the law enforceable only through private lawsuits in order to

247
00:14:05,559 --> 00:14:09,760
Speaker 1: keep federal courts from getting involved and enforcing constitutional rights.

248
00:14:10,200 --> 00:14:13,760
Speaker 1: Liberal Justice Elana Kagan was the most vocal critic of

249
00:14:13,760 --> 00:14:18,000
Speaker 1: the law. Some geniuses came up with a way to

250
00:14:18,360 --> 00:14:24,320
Speaker 1: evade the commands of that decision, as well as the

251
00:14:24,360 --> 00:14:29,160
Speaker 1: command that the broader, even the even broader principle that

252
00:14:29,280 --> 00:14:34,480
Speaker 1: states are not to nullify federal constitutional rights. And it

253
00:14:34,600 --> 00:14:37,480
Speaker 1: came as a bit of a surprise when conservative Justice

254
00:14:37,520 --> 00:14:41,520
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh jumped in and signaled he agreed with Kagan.

255
00:14:41,960 --> 00:14:45,640
Speaker 1: Justice Kagan points out, there's a loophole that's been exploited

256
00:14:45,680 --> 00:14:50,880
Speaker 1: here uh or used here, which is the um private

257
00:14:50,880 --> 00:14:53,800
Speaker 1: suits are enforced by state court clerks or judges. So

258
00:14:53,840 --> 00:14:57,320
Speaker 1: the question becomes, should we extend the principle of ex

259
00:14:57,400 --> 00:15:02,200
Speaker 1: party young to in essence closed that loophole. Joining me

260
00:15:02,280 --> 00:15:05,800
Speaker 1: is Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State University College

261
00:15:05,800 --> 00:15:08,720
Speaker 1: of Law and author of the book Abortion in the

262
00:15:08,800 --> 00:15:12,600
Speaker 1: Law in America, A Legal History. The question before the

263
00:15:12,680 --> 00:15:17,320
Speaker 1: court is not whether sp eight is constitutional. What is

264
00:15:17,360 --> 00:15:21,240
Speaker 1: the question before the court? Well, there are really two questions.

265
00:15:21,400 --> 00:15:26,400
Speaker 1: One is whether sp A style laws are permissible, basically,

266
00:15:26,400 --> 00:15:30,320
Speaker 1: whether states like Texas can use this kind of exotic

267
00:15:30,680 --> 00:15:34,800
Speaker 1: strategy to prevent federal courts from hearing challenges. And then

268
00:15:34,840 --> 00:15:37,480
Speaker 1: there's a second question, which is whether the Justice Department

269
00:15:37,720 --> 00:15:41,440
Speaker 1: can bring a constitutional noal challenge against SPIATE in the

270
00:15:41,480 --> 00:15:43,880
Speaker 1: way that it has. So they're both kind of complicated

271
00:15:44,000 --> 00:15:47,760
Speaker 1: procedural questions. What kind of concerns did you hear from

272
00:15:47,800 --> 00:15:51,520
Speaker 1: the justices? There were obviously some justices that were sympathetic

273
00:15:51,920 --> 00:15:54,840
Speaker 1: to Texas Solicitor General, but I think there were real

274
00:15:54,920 --> 00:15:58,800
Speaker 1: concerns that if they sanctioned what was going on with SPA,

275
00:15:58,960 --> 00:16:01,520
Speaker 1: that that wouldn't be the of the matter. In other words,

276
00:16:01,520 --> 00:16:05,920
Speaker 1: that states could use similar strategies to circumvent other constitutional rights.

277
00:16:06,000 --> 00:16:08,600
Speaker 1: And so even though many of us think the Court

278
00:16:08,800 --> 00:16:12,840
Speaker 1: the skeptical about Rov. Wade and maybe poised to reconsider Rov. Wad,

279
00:16:13,120 --> 00:16:16,080
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean the justices are going to be happy

280
00:16:16,160 --> 00:16:19,360
Speaker 1: with allowing states to kind of take the power unto

281
00:16:19,400 --> 00:16:23,560
Speaker 1: themselves to avoid or nullify rights that the Court still recognizes.

282
00:16:23,800 --> 00:16:27,120
Speaker 1: We heard that concern from justices on both sides of

283
00:16:27,160 --> 00:16:31,920
Speaker 1: the ideological spectrum. Justice Kavanaugh used the example of a

284
00:16:32,080 --> 00:16:36,440
Speaker 1: law restricting Second Amendment rights. Well, I think Justice Kavanaugh

285
00:16:36,480 --> 00:16:39,360
Speaker 1: and Justice Sparrot seemed to hold similar concerns about whether

286
00:16:39,400 --> 00:16:41,600
Speaker 1: this was a model that could affect other areas of

287
00:16:41,640 --> 00:16:44,160
Speaker 1: the law. So Justice Sparret asked about the First Amendment.

288
00:16:44,400 --> 00:16:47,720
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh asked about the Second Amendment, which I think

289
00:16:47,920 --> 00:16:50,440
Speaker 1: raises real questions about whether either of them will be

290
00:16:50,520 --> 00:16:52,800
Speaker 1: voting with Texas in this case, at least in the

291
00:16:52,880 --> 00:16:55,680
Speaker 1: case involving the abortion providers. As I mentioned, there are

292
00:16:55,680 --> 00:16:58,400
Speaker 1: two cases before the court. Yes, there's a case by

293
00:16:58,400 --> 00:17:02,200
Speaker 1: the abortion providers and case by the Justice Department. Now,

294
00:17:02,240 --> 00:17:04,919
Speaker 1: several of the justices seemed to have problems with the

295
00:17:05,040 --> 00:17:09,560
Speaker 1: idea of suing judges. Here's Chief Justice John Roberts response

296
00:17:09,680 --> 00:17:14,119
Speaker 1: to Mark Karen, a lawyer representing the providers. It's the

297
00:17:14,240 --> 00:17:16,800
Speaker 1: rules that have been created by the Texas legislature that

298
00:17:16,880 --> 00:17:20,760
Speaker 1: turned courts into a weapon that can be used to

299
00:17:21,440 --> 00:17:24,840
Speaker 1: nullify constitutions. You might appreciate that the idea of suing

300
00:17:24,880 --> 00:17:29,000
Speaker 1: the judges sort of got our attention. Uh, but is

301
00:17:29,040 --> 00:17:32,639
Speaker 1: there even is there even a case or controversy? Obviously,

302
00:17:32,720 --> 00:17:35,840
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court justices are themselves judges, and so that

303
00:17:35,920 --> 00:17:39,280
Speaker 1: was a concern that came up. There were questions, I think,

304
00:17:39,280 --> 00:17:41,440
Speaker 1: to about if you were going to find a way

305
00:17:41,480 --> 00:17:44,359
Speaker 1: around the hurdles that Texas erected, who would be the

306
00:17:44,440 --> 00:17:46,800
Speaker 1: right people to sue, and whether judges would be the

307
00:17:46,800 --> 00:17:50,880
Speaker 1: ones to be sued. The Court mentioned several past cases

308
00:17:51,240 --> 00:17:54,720
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court had decided that treated judges as

309
00:17:55,040 --> 00:17:57,880
Speaker 1: the ones doing the enforcing. For example, of a racially

310
00:17:57,920 --> 00:18:01,160
Speaker 1: restricted covenant but limited were family leaves of color could live.

311
00:18:01,359 --> 00:18:04,320
Speaker 1: Courts were considered to be the ones enforcing the law

312
00:18:04,400 --> 00:18:07,879
Speaker 1: in that situation, but if interpreted the wrong way, that

313
00:18:07,920 --> 00:18:11,600
Speaker 1: could be an exception that swallows the rule. Justice Elena

314
00:18:11,720 --> 00:18:15,000
Speaker 1: kag And I think sarcastically called the state legislators who

315
00:18:15,040 --> 00:18:19,080
Speaker 1: wrote this some geniuses. But does it seem as if

316
00:18:19,119 --> 00:18:23,440
Speaker 1: they were very smart in the way they constructed this law. Yeah,

317
00:18:23,440 --> 00:18:25,360
Speaker 1: I think that's right. I mean, this was a ban

318
00:18:25,480 --> 00:18:27,960
Speaker 1: on abortion at six weeks and until the Supreme Court

319
00:18:28,000 --> 00:18:31,080
Speaker 1: says Robi Wade is gone. That's blatantly unconstitutional. So the

320
00:18:31,119 --> 00:18:34,280
Speaker 1: fact that we're even having a serious conversation about whether

321
00:18:34,359 --> 00:18:36,840
Speaker 1: Texas has the power to do this does suggest that

322
00:18:36,880 --> 00:18:39,720
Speaker 1: this was a clever law. Indeed, because there's no other way,

323
00:18:40,000 --> 00:18:43,480
Speaker 1: absent this kind of procedural intricacy, that we would even

324
00:18:43,480 --> 00:18:46,320
Speaker 1: be having a serious conversation about this right now. Did

325
00:18:46,359 --> 00:18:51,920
Speaker 1: it seem from questioning as if Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas,

326
00:18:52,160 --> 00:18:56,240
Speaker 1: and Neil Gorsuch didn't have a problem with the law. Yeah,

327
00:18:56,280 --> 00:18:59,840
Speaker 1: I think that Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito, I think

328
00:19:00,040 --> 00:19:02,840
Speaker 1: more or less seemed to believe that the hurdles that

329
00:19:02,920 --> 00:19:06,080
Speaker 1: Texas had erected were sound and that there was nothing

330
00:19:06,200 --> 00:19:10,359
Speaker 1: particularly disturbing about the strategies that Texas had used here.

331
00:19:10,600 --> 00:19:13,480
Speaker 1: But I think obviously that's only three justices, which means

332
00:19:13,480 --> 00:19:15,879
Speaker 1: that Texas could still find itself in some real trouble.

333
00:19:16,160 --> 00:19:19,119
Speaker 1: But there do seem to be enough votes to support

334
00:19:19,280 --> 00:19:23,320
Speaker 1: the abortion provider's challenge. Well, I think it's much less

335
00:19:23,359 --> 00:19:26,119
Speaker 1: clear that the Justice Department is going to farewell in

336
00:19:26,160 --> 00:19:30,000
Speaker 1: the court. Several of the justices, at various points asked basically,

337
00:19:30,000 --> 00:19:32,719
Speaker 1: if the Court were to side with the abortion providers

338
00:19:32,760 --> 00:19:35,440
Speaker 1: in that case, whether it would make it unnecessary to

339
00:19:35,600 --> 00:19:38,680
Speaker 1: resolve the Justice Department's case. There was also, I think

340
00:19:38,760 --> 00:19:42,560
Speaker 1: more skepticism of the Justice Department's position. So I don't

341
00:19:42,560 --> 00:19:45,000
Speaker 1: know if the Justice Department is going to fare as well,

342
00:19:45,119 --> 00:19:47,399
Speaker 1: but it does seem that there may not be five

343
00:19:47,480 --> 00:19:50,919
Speaker 1: votes for Texas and the abortion provider's case. Why was

344
00:19:50,960 --> 00:19:55,840
Speaker 1: there so much skepticism about the Justice Department's position. What

345
00:19:55,960 --> 00:19:59,439
Speaker 1: the Justice Department is doing is is quite unprecedented in

346
00:19:59,480 --> 00:20:03,960
Speaker 1: some ways, and I think the justices were um not

347
00:20:04,600 --> 00:20:09,920
Speaker 1: convinced that the United States could show enough of an injury,

348
00:20:10,080 --> 00:20:13,119
Speaker 1: could show that it had equity powers to bring this

349
00:20:13,200 --> 00:20:16,199
Speaker 1: sort of lawsuit, all of the kinds of even the

350
00:20:16,240 --> 00:20:19,320
Speaker 1: idea that the Justice Department had to, you know, break

351
00:20:19,359 --> 00:20:22,160
Speaker 1: its tradition of not bringing constitutional challenges of this kind

352
00:20:22,200 --> 00:20:25,359
Speaker 1: because of what was unusual about s P. Eight, that

353
00:20:25,440 --> 00:20:28,560
Speaker 1: the Justice Department had enough of an injury right that

354
00:20:28,600 --> 00:20:31,280
Speaker 1: it's sort of sovereign interest in ensuring that state's respect

355
00:20:31,280 --> 00:20:34,600
Speaker 1: the Constitution was tangible enough. I think the Court found

356
00:20:34,640 --> 00:20:38,200
Speaker 1: all of that um to be harder to credit. So

357
00:20:39,119 --> 00:20:41,880
Speaker 1: um and again I think the Justice Department suit is

358
00:20:41,880 --> 00:20:46,560
Speaker 1: is really procedurally complex, even compared to the abortion provider's suit,

359
00:20:47,000 --> 00:20:50,080
Speaker 1: and so I think there was some interest in maybe

360
00:20:50,320 --> 00:20:54,640
Speaker 1: avoiding that more ass altogether and resolving the abortion provider's

361
00:20:54,720 --> 00:20:56,399
Speaker 1: case and then maybe using that as a way to

362
00:20:56,480 --> 00:20:59,800
Speaker 1: dodge what the Justice Department had raised in terms of

363
00:21:01,560 --> 00:21:03,960
Speaker 1: you have the three Liberals and Justice Roberts, and it

364
00:21:04,040 --> 00:21:08,560
Speaker 1: seems as if Justices Amy Coney, Barrett, and Brett Kavanagh

365
00:21:09,400 --> 00:21:12,160
Speaker 1: may vote on the side of the abortion providers. From

366
00:21:12,160 --> 00:21:15,040
Speaker 1: their questions, not that we can tell everything from questions,

367
00:21:15,080 --> 00:21:17,760
Speaker 1: but from their questions that it seemed that way. I

368
00:21:17,800 --> 00:21:19,360
Speaker 1: think that's right. I mean, I think if you were

369
00:21:19,400 --> 00:21:21,440
Speaker 1: guessing now, you would guess that there are at least

370
00:21:21,480 --> 00:21:24,160
Speaker 1: five and maybe six votes against Texas in the abortion

371
00:21:24,160 --> 00:21:27,639
Speaker 1: provider's case. Let's assume that the justices side with the

372
00:21:27,680 --> 00:21:32,240
Speaker 1: abortion providers. What happens then the law is still in effect.

373
00:21:32,680 --> 00:21:35,360
Speaker 1: It's just a suit can go forward, right, So, I mean,

374
00:21:35,520 --> 00:21:38,040
Speaker 1: it depends. So they're they're different ways that the Court

375
00:21:38,040 --> 00:21:41,240
Speaker 1: could handle this. From a remedial standpoint, the Court could

376
00:21:41,240 --> 00:21:44,480
Speaker 1: issue some kind of emergency relief itself, essentially just block

377
00:21:44,680 --> 00:21:48,560
Speaker 1: espiate itself, or the Court could simply remand to the

378
00:21:48,560 --> 00:21:53,199
Speaker 1: district court, and that might take a little bit longer

379
00:21:53,320 --> 00:21:55,199
Speaker 1: in the sense of, you know, espiate might still be

380
00:21:55,240 --> 00:21:57,720
Speaker 1: in effect while that litigation continued. So if the Court

381
00:21:57,760 --> 00:22:00,560
Speaker 1: were issues some kind of remedy on a zone, that

382
00:22:00,680 --> 00:22:04,040
Speaker 1: might block ESPIATE immediately. By contrast, if the court issues

383
00:22:04,040 --> 00:22:06,720
Speaker 1: are remanded, then we may be you know, waiting a

384
00:22:06,720 --> 00:22:09,480
Speaker 1: while still well espiate is in effect. Sort Of in

385
00:22:09,520 --> 00:22:12,399
Speaker 1: the background here is that in just one month, the

386
00:22:12,440 --> 00:22:16,040
Speaker 1: Court is going to be considering a Mississippi abortion law.

387
00:22:16,240 --> 00:22:20,640
Speaker 1: On the merits. The Mississippi case does abandon aborsition at

388
00:22:20,720 --> 00:22:24,640
Speaker 1: fifteen weeks. What significant is that that's before a fetal viability,

389
00:22:24,720 --> 00:22:27,879
Speaker 1: which takes place that around the twenty fourth week of pregnancy.

390
00:22:28,080 --> 00:22:30,840
Speaker 1: So to uphold the Mississippi laws, many expect the Court

391
00:22:30,960 --> 00:22:33,000
Speaker 1: to do. The Court we either have to say Roe v.

392
00:22:33,119 --> 00:22:35,719
Speaker 1: Way was wrong in its entirety, or that the right

393
00:22:35,800 --> 00:22:39,320
Speaker 1: to choose abortion doesn't apply until viability. Either of those

394
00:22:39,400 --> 00:22:41,320
Speaker 1: would be a major decision that would put the Court

395
00:22:41,359 --> 00:22:44,240
Speaker 1: on the path to eliminating aborsion rights altogether. At some point,

396
00:22:44,800 --> 00:22:48,440
Speaker 1: you're feeling is that the Court will appalled the Mississippi law.

397
00:22:49,040 --> 00:22:50,600
Speaker 1: I think that's right. I don't think they would have

398
00:22:50,640 --> 00:22:53,600
Speaker 1: taken the case if that wasn't their intention. How would

399
00:22:53,600 --> 00:22:58,240
Speaker 1: they be able to uphold that and not overturn ROW. Well,

400
00:22:58,359 --> 00:23:01,720
Speaker 1: the they would have to finesse what ROW means us

401
00:23:01,800 --> 00:23:03,800
Speaker 1: much as they have in the past. Right. So the

402
00:23:03,920 --> 00:23:12,000
Speaker 1: Court in planned parented versus Casey has said, essentially, you know,

403
00:23:12,200 --> 00:23:15,480
Speaker 1: we're keeping the essential parts of ROW, and we're getting

404
00:23:15,600 --> 00:23:19,399
Speaker 1: rid of the unessential parts of ROW. Uh And at

405
00:23:19,440 --> 00:23:20,840
Speaker 1: the time they meant they were getting rid of the

406
00:23:20,880 --> 00:23:24,160
Speaker 1: trimester framework, which was actually the rule of law at

407
00:23:24,200 --> 00:23:26,800
Speaker 1: the time. And we're keeping the idea that there's a

408
00:23:26,880 --> 00:23:28,879
Speaker 1: right to choose a worshion before or viability. So the

409
00:23:28,960 --> 00:23:30,960
Speaker 1: Court has played this game before where what they mean

410
00:23:31,080 --> 00:23:33,440
Speaker 1: by ROW has changed, and it's possible that they could

411
00:23:33,440 --> 00:23:36,080
Speaker 1: do that again. Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Glass Show. Mary.

412
00:23:36,320 --> 00:23:40,000
Speaker 1: That's Professor Mary Ziegler of the Florida State University College

413
00:23:40,040 --> 00:23:42,320
Speaker 1: of Law. And that's it for this edition of the

414
00:23:42,359 --> 00:23:45,320
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest

415
00:23:45,400 --> 00:23:48,480
Speaker 1: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find

416
00:23:48,520 --> 00:23:53,080
Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www Dot Bloomberg

417
00:23:53,160 --> 00:23:56,960
Speaker 1: dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune

418
00:23:56,960 --> 00:23:59,760
Speaker 1: into the Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten

419
00:24:00,040 --> 00:24:03,600
Speaker 1: am Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening

420
00:24:03,720 --> 00:24:04,359
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg