Speaker 1: This is breaking new loose from Bloomberg.
Speaker 2: Here in Washington, we are all focused on the news
Speaker 2: that Bloomberg just exclusively broke the Supreme Court inadvertently today,
Speaker 2: posting a copy of an opinion on its website that
Speaker 2: would suggest the Court is poised to allow emergency abortions
Speaker 2: in the state of Idaho. Joe, this is a big deal,
Speaker 2: not final yet as this is not a formal issuing
Speaker 2: of an opinion, but still suggests that the Court in
Speaker 2: this case may be delivering a win for abortion rights.
Speaker 1: That's right, and for Joe Biden the day before the
Speaker 1: first presidential debate. The timing here is remarkable, Kaylee. We're
Speaker 1: in the midst of a three day tour here. When
Speaker 1: it comes to opinions, we did expect and still do
Speaker 1: to get more tomorrow, but we thought the Court was
Speaker 1: done for the day. We got to this morning and
Speaker 1: this dropped a short time ago. Thanks to our team
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg News and at Bloomberg Law bringing this to us. Now,
Speaker 1: the question remains, once again, will the Court do anything formal?
Speaker 1: We want to turn to June Grosso from Bloomberg Law,
Speaker 1: the host of Bloomberg Law here on Bloomberg radio and
Speaker 1: TV and June, it's great to see you here. I
Speaker 1: suspect you didn't think we'd be talking about this either
Speaker 1: after this morning's opinions were released. This is going to
Speaker 1: lead to a whole investigation. We have no idea how
Speaker 1: this was posted right right.
Speaker 3: You know, it could have just been some administrative assistant
Speaker 3: by mistake posted it and then took it back. I mean,
Speaker 3: I'm sure there'll be an investigation into this, and hopefully
Speaker 3: you'll get more information than you did on the political
Speaker 3: leak of the Dobbs decision. But if you know what
Speaker 3: we see is true, it's a huge decision and it
Speaker 3: means and it also affects other states like Texas that
Speaker 3: have similar laws. I mean, this case was so important
Speaker 3: that the trial judge had issued a ruling putting this
Speaker 3: law on hold and saying that, you know, the emergency
Speaker 3: procedures could go forward, and the Supreme Court said no,
Speaker 3: they they put a stop to that, and then they
Speaker 3: just ought to take the case without it going to
Speaker 3: an appellate court. So that's how important this is. And
Speaker 3: you know, it could show whether or not the federal
Speaker 3: law is going to take the place or supersede the
Speaker 3: state law, which is what the Biden administration argued in
Speaker 3: this case. They said, if you're taking, as Kelly said,
Speaker 3: you're taking Medicare funds, you have to follow the Atala law,
Speaker 3: and that provides for emergency room procedures of abortion if
Speaker 3: a woman's life is seriously at risk. And during the
Speaker 3: oral arguments, Justice Kagan was really sort of you know,
Speaker 3: I want to say, she was emphatic about saying that,
Speaker 3: you know, you don't have to wait until the woman's
Speaker 3: life is in jeopardy, is in threat, in order to
Speaker 3: have this procedure. And it was very the oral argument,
Speaker 3: you couldn't tell which way the court was going to go.
Speaker 3: I mean, you knew that the three liberals were going
Speaker 3: one way and the three very conservatives were going the
Speaker 3: other way. But then the three in the middle, Justice
Speaker 3: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Amy Tony Barrett, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh,
Speaker 3: where were they? They were all over the place.
Speaker 2: Well, of course, we'll await finding out for sure who
Speaker 2: the drafter of the final opinion is. But in what
Speaker 2: was briefly posted online, they indicated that the majority is
Speaker 2: going to dismiss this case as improvidently granted, which probably
Speaker 2: relates to what you were just speaking to June whether
Speaker 2: the Court should have taken this up in the first place.
Speaker 2: But this is a kind of a pattern I've noticed
Speaker 2: to merge with recent opinions where the court doesn't seem
Speaker 2: to necessarily be deciding the merits of the case, but
Speaker 2: rather standing, as was the case in the social media
Speaker 2: Biden administration relationship ruling they made earlier this morning, and
Speaker 2: in the other abortion related case, access to mif A Pristone,
Speaker 2: which they did rule in favor of, they did so
Speaker 2: on the grounds of standing. It doesn't seem that they're
Speaker 2: necessarily deciding the merits around these abortion rates.
Speaker 3: You're right, throwing this at is improvidently granted. Is another
Speaker 3: way to dispose of it, and it's because they're trying
Speaker 3: to get you know, they're trying to get five vote
Speaker 3: in order to decide the case. And in a lot
Speaker 3: of these cases, the easiest way is to say there
Speaker 3: was no standing. Now, the MYFI pristone case, that really
Speaker 3: there was no standing there. Everyone who saw that initially
Speaker 3: said why why do these doctors have the right to sue?
Speaker 3: And it's still going to go. States are still trying
Speaker 3: to sue over that. So in the mif of pristone
Speaker 3: case that was definitely no standing. But in the you know,
Speaker 3: in the case today they found no standing and that
Speaker 3: you know, they could have gone either way, so it's
Speaker 3: an easier way for them to deal with it. But
Speaker 3: what happens is the lower courts don't get guidance and
Speaker 3: we don't get information as far as the public to
Speaker 3: know where they stand on these issues. You know, how
Speaker 3: far can the Biden administration go in correcting misinformation online? Now?
Speaker 3: We don't know that because the decision is off on
Speaker 3: a procedural ground. And I had a professor I talked
Speaker 3: to recently say that, you know, lawyers can find a
Speaker 3: procedural reason for anything which is true. I can find
Speaker 3: a procedural reason if you're looking for it, and they're
Speaker 3: lo it seems.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all right. Jane Grosso, host of Bloomberg Law, thank
Speaker 2: you so much for your instant analysis on this breaking
Speaker 2: news story exclusive to Bloomberg. The Supreme Court poised to
Speaker 2: allow emergency abortions in Idaho. We want to get more
Speaker 2: reaction now with a special guest, I'm pleased to say
Speaker 2: who is joining us here in our Washington, d C studio.
Speaker 2: Dana Nessel the Attorney General of the state of Michigan
Speaker 2: is now joining us. Welcome to Balance the Power. Thank
Speaker 2: you so much for being here. While you're here in Washington,
Speaker 2: could I just ask you first about your reaction to
Speaker 2: the news Bloomberg has broken today, this opinion that seems
Speaker 2: inadvertently to have been posted on the website, but as
Speaker 2: a court ruling in favor of abortion rates, it seems
Speaker 2: are poised to.
Speaker 4: At least well, you know, fortunately in Michigan, in the
Speaker 4: wake of Dobbs. You know, we had very restrictive laws
Speaker 4: that were on the books that were unenforceable, but in
Speaker 4: twenty twenty two, we passed the Reproductive Freedom for All Ballots,
Speaker 4: which you know, enshrined reproductive freedoms into our state constitution.
Speaker 4: So we haven't been worried about this particular situation in
Speaker 4: my state. But I've met with women in states with
Speaker 4: very restrictive bands all over the country, and I can
Speaker 4: tell you that women of reproductive age and the people
Speaker 4: who love them all around the United States are probably
Speaker 4: collectively signing some you know, a breath of relief right
Speaker 4: now because of how incredibly scary it is to think
Speaker 4: that you could be in this situation where you need
Speaker 4: emergency medical care, you're facing the loss of an organ,
Speaker 4: your fertility is at stake, and you know you're literally
Speaker 4: looking at potentially dying and having physicians have to, you know,
Speaker 4: violate their hippocratic growth and say I can't treat you
Speaker 4: because I'm afraid of going to jail for it. So
Speaker 4: I think for women all across America, this is a victory.
Speaker 4: If that is in fact an accurate meant what was
Speaker 4: on the website. It does give me some pause that
Speaker 4: now this is the second time in a few years
Speaker 4: that we're seeing something accidentally posted or distributed, and it
Speaker 4: makes me wonder what's going on at the United States
Speaker 4: Supreme Court right now. But you know, we've seen this
Speaker 4: exponential rise in both maternal mortality as well as infant
Speaker 4: mortality ever since the Dab's decision came out, and hopefully,
Speaker 4: if this is a real ruling from the court, it
Speaker 4: will do something to curtail the number of deaths we've seen.
Speaker 1: So are you encouraged then to see what is apparently
Speaker 1: forthcoming from the court. And I wonder if you think
Speaker 1: they should just come out with it today following the
Speaker 1: ruling on mifipristoe maintaining access to the abortion pill, or
Speaker 1: you discourage that both, to Kaylee's point, earlier have been
Speaker 1: essentially rulings on standing.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I have a theory about that. Yeah. I think
Speaker 4: that these are not cases that the High Court wanted
Speaker 4: to hear. I think they were sort of forced upon
Speaker 4: them by incredibly conservative circuit courts of appeal that really
Speaker 4: have forced the hand now of the United States Supreme Court.
Speaker 4: And I've seen decision after decision where I don't think
Speaker 4: that the justices wanted to rule on this particular case
Speaker 4: at this particular time. I don't think that the majority
Speaker 4: of justices by that, I mean six of them on
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court have an interest in restricting Second Amendment
Speaker 4: related rights. They don't like in general the gun safety laws.
Speaker 4: They don't like the use of mifipristom. But these are
Speaker 4: poor vehicles that have come to them to allow them
Speaker 4: to further restrict abortion rights or gun safety measures or
Speaker 4: things of that nature. So what we're seeing is they
Speaker 4: are finding other ways to dispose of these cases without
Speaker 4: having a rule on the merits, and that allows them
Speaker 4: the freedom in the future to say, well, we're not
Speaker 4: contradicting a prime decision. We're not overturning any sort of precedent.
Speaker 4: We got rid of that case on standing, and that's
Speaker 4: what they're continuing to do.
Speaker 2: But should the Court not have expected these kind of
Speaker 2: challenges to ultimately reach them after they ruled and Dabbs
Speaker 2: to essentially overturn the constitutional right to an abortion. It
Speaker 2: was only inevitable that certain state laws or access to
Speaker 2: certain procedures or medications we're going to have to be
Speaker 2: called into question just because of the uncertainty that ruling created.
Speaker 4: Now, you would think so, and you would think that
Speaker 4: that would be their thought as well. But I think
Speaker 4: some of these cases are just so controversial and so
Speaker 4: anathetical to public opinion. And you already have the Supreme
Speaker 4: Court in a place where, you know, we've never had
Speaker 4: such low confidence or respect for this court, and they've
Speaker 4: been mired in ethical scandals, and every time they issue
Speaker 4: a ruling that is deeply unpopular with the public, they
Speaker 4: risk having their integrity impugned more and more. And so
Speaker 4: I think that might be part of the calculus with
Speaker 4: some of these rulings as well. And again, because these
Speaker 4: are cases that are being you know, essentially tossed on
Speaker 4: standing or improvidently granted or something of that nature. It
Speaker 4: does still leave room for future rulings where they can
Speaker 4: still continue to chip away at reproductive rights or the
Speaker 4: rights of people to have, you know, gun safety laws
Speaker 4: or other things that are frankly very popular in America.
Speaker 1: Is breaking new when he was from Bloomberg