WEBVTT - Gorsuch Builds Influence in Second Term on High Court

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.680
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com Slash Podcasts. At his confirmation

0:00:22.760 --> 0:00:25.479
<v Speaker 1>hearing last year, Neil Gorsch, the newest member of the

0:00:25.480 --> 0:00:28.760
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court, told lawmakers that he wouldn't let anything stand

0:00:28.800 --> 0:00:32.959
<v Speaker 1>between him and a just decision. Sitting here, I'm acutely

0:00:33.000 --> 0:00:36.680
<v Speaker 1>aware of my own imperfections, but I pledged to each

0:00:36.720 --> 0:00:39.800
<v Speaker 1>of you into the American people. If I am confirmed,

0:00:40.479 --> 0:00:43.080
<v Speaker 1>I will do all my powers permit to be a

0:00:43.080 --> 0:00:47.200
<v Speaker 1>faithful servant of the constitutional laws of this great nation.

0:00:47.880 --> 0:00:51.159
<v Speaker 1>In his second term serving the US Constitution as a

0:00:51.200 --> 0:00:54.360
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court justice, course which has become something of an

0:00:54.360 --> 0:00:57.840
<v Speaker 1>inside player in a closely divided court joining us. As

0:00:57.840 --> 0:01:01.520
<v Speaker 1>Greg Store Bloomberg new Supreme Court reporter, Gregg, you've written

0:01:01.520 --> 0:01:05.600
<v Speaker 1>about this inside player role, and Chief Justice John Roberts

0:01:05.640 --> 0:01:08.959
<v Speaker 1>has assigned Gorsage to write three opinions in five to

0:01:09.040 --> 0:01:12.119
<v Speaker 1>four decisions. Tell us about that. Yes, so the Chief

0:01:12.160 --> 0:01:14.560
<v Speaker 1>Justice gets to decide who writes the opinion when he's

0:01:14.560 --> 0:01:17.640
<v Speaker 1>in the majority, and oftentimes in a in a closely

0:01:17.680 --> 0:01:20.479
<v Speaker 1>divided decision like that, it might go to a more

0:01:20.520 --> 0:01:23.360
<v Speaker 1>experienced justice or the justice who holds the swing vote.

0:01:23.640 --> 0:01:27.080
<v Speaker 1>One case in particular, though that was argued early in

0:01:27.120 --> 0:01:30.080
<v Speaker 1>the in this this term involving the rights of workers

0:01:30.080 --> 0:01:32.760
<v Speaker 1>to to file class action suits instead of having to

0:01:32.800 --> 0:01:37.360
<v Speaker 1>go to individual arbitration, he assigned the opinion to Justice Gorcis,

0:01:37.560 --> 0:01:41.120
<v Speaker 1>and it was notable because, uh, he could have the

0:01:41.160 --> 0:01:43.440
<v Speaker 1>Chief could have very easily assigned it to Justice Thomas,

0:01:43.480 --> 0:01:47.520
<v Speaker 1>who instead got that that setting a unanimous opinion in

0:01:47.600 --> 0:01:50.640
<v Speaker 1>a criminal case. And some people I talked to said,

0:01:50.720 --> 0:01:52.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, it is starting to look like the Chief

0:01:53.000 --> 0:01:56.400
<v Speaker 1>Justice has some confidence that Justice Corsage can write an

0:01:56.400 --> 0:01:59.640
<v Speaker 1>opinion like this and not lose the five justice majority.

0:02:00.160 --> 0:02:03.559
<v Speaker 1>So is is he getting a different role than than

0:02:04.000 --> 0:02:08.360
<v Speaker 1>the man he replaced, Justice Scalia. Well, in some ways

0:02:08.480 --> 0:02:11.920
<v Speaker 1>he is almost a perfect replacement for Justice Scale in

0:02:12.000 --> 0:02:14.000
<v Speaker 1>terms of the way he looks at cases, or at

0:02:14.040 --> 0:02:17.040
<v Speaker 1>least it's starting to appear that way. Um, you know,

0:02:17.120 --> 0:02:19.520
<v Speaker 1>he he obviously doesn't have nearly the track record of

0:02:19.600 --> 0:02:23.600
<v Speaker 1>Justice Scalia. He's not the conservative icon that Justice Scalia was,

0:02:23.960 --> 0:02:26.800
<v Speaker 1>but in terms of how he's voting. H one case

0:02:26.840 --> 0:02:30.639
<v Speaker 1>in particular where Justice Course has decided with the courts liberals.

0:02:30.680 --> 0:02:34.160
<v Speaker 1>It was in a deportation case where he basically said,

0:02:34.200 --> 0:02:38.800
<v Speaker 1>this law is not clear enough, uh to subject somebody

0:02:38.840 --> 0:02:43.120
<v Speaker 1>to mandatory deportation. It echoed a lot of of Scalia,

0:02:43.840 --> 0:02:48.840
<v Speaker 1>a real skepticism of letting the government apply its power

0:02:48.919 --> 0:02:52.040
<v Speaker 1>to an individual without a very clear law that says

0:02:52.080 --> 0:02:55.680
<v Speaker 1>what the government can do. Scalia certainly someone that Gorsch

0:02:55.760 --> 0:02:59.080
<v Speaker 1>has said he looks up to. Well. Greg a little

0:02:59.200 --> 0:03:01.320
<v Speaker 1>over one mo until the end of the term. We're

0:03:01.360 --> 0:03:04.519
<v Speaker 1>still waiting for those high profile decisions. But we got

0:03:04.520 --> 0:03:07.840
<v Speaker 1>one decision on Tuesday. Wasn't high profile, but it was

0:03:07.919 --> 0:03:12.079
<v Speaker 1>significant in that it backed privacy rights against police power.

0:03:12.160 --> 0:03:15.000
<v Speaker 1>Tell us about that. Yeah, the bottom line of this

0:03:15.120 --> 0:03:17.720
<v Speaker 1>case is it was it involved a motorcycle that was

0:03:17.800 --> 0:03:21.400
<v Speaker 1>parked right out somebody's house in there in the driveway,

0:03:21.480 --> 0:03:26.040
<v Speaker 1>and the court said that, uh, the protection that we

0:03:26.080 --> 0:03:28.280
<v Speaker 1>give to a home into the area around the home

0:03:28.320 --> 0:03:33.120
<v Speaker 1>called a curtilage, UH, that applies even when uh it

0:03:33.280 --> 0:03:36.680
<v Speaker 1>is something like a motorcycle that might be easily moved.

0:03:37.040 --> 0:03:39.600
<v Speaker 1>So in this case, a police officer who went to

0:03:39.640 --> 0:03:42.520
<v Speaker 1>a house saw a motorcycle that he's suspected of being

0:03:42.520 --> 0:03:47.160
<v Speaker 1>stolen in the driveway, walked up the driveway, UH, lifted

0:03:47.200 --> 0:03:49.280
<v Speaker 1>up a tart that was covering the motorcycle and checked

0:03:49.280 --> 0:03:53.800
<v Speaker 1>out the the motorcycle and the vin the VN number

0:03:53.880 --> 0:03:58.560
<v Speaker 1>on it. UH that officer UH might have violated UH

0:03:58.600 --> 0:04:02.880
<v Speaker 1>the individual's Fourth Amendment rights by doing that without a warrant.

0:04:03.360 --> 0:04:06.960
<v Speaker 1>And the explanation is that even though that motorcycle is

0:04:07.040 --> 0:04:09.520
<v Speaker 1>something that could have been easily moved, and there's a

0:04:09.560 --> 0:04:12.480
<v Speaker 1>reason why the officer wanted to go quickly, the home

0:04:12.560 --> 0:04:16.040
<v Speaker 1>in the area around it is is so sacrosanct that

0:04:16.279 --> 0:04:19.000
<v Speaker 1>unless there's a really really good reason, a police officer

0:04:19.080 --> 0:04:21.160
<v Speaker 1>needs to get a warrant before going onto it to

0:04:21.480 --> 0:04:25.359
<v Speaker 1>look for something. I've actually learned what the word curtilage means.

0:04:25.440 --> 0:04:28.440
<v Speaker 1>After all the Supreme Court opinions on this, So the

0:04:28.440 --> 0:04:31.280
<v Speaker 1>Court has been really careful about the sanctity of the home.

0:04:31.640 --> 0:04:35.280
<v Speaker 1>But does his opinion expand privacy rights in any way.

0:04:35.760 --> 0:04:39.560
<v Speaker 1>It certainly reinforces it, and it it takes this doctrine

0:04:39.560 --> 0:04:42.520
<v Speaker 1>that was known as the automobile exception that basically said,

0:04:42.760 --> 0:04:47.440
<v Speaker 1>because an automobile is something that can be easily moved, UH,

0:04:47.600 --> 0:04:50.040
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be more easier for a police officer

0:04:50.080 --> 0:04:52.919
<v Speaker 1>to be allowed to to search it. It takes that

0:04:53.080 --> 0:04:56.120
<v Speaker 1>doctor and and it really limits it to the context

0:04:56.120 --> 0:04:59.760
<v Speaker 1>where the automobile or a motorcycle is out on the

0:05:00.000 --> 0:05:04.720
<v Speaker 1>out somewhere and not in somebody's uh, somebody's private property.

0:05:05.000 --> 0:05:10.400
<v Speaker 1>And that is a significant additional reinforcement of the protection

0:05:10.440 --> 0:05:13.680
<v Speaker 1>that people have UH for their their homes and the

0:05:13.720 --> 0:05:16.200
<v Speaker 1>area around their homes. And there was also this big

0:05:16.200 --> 0:05:21.599
<v Speaker 1>decision this week, I believe yesterday on the Arkansas on

0:05:21.760 --> 0:05:25.680
<v Speaker 1>Arkansas abortion law. Yeah, so Peter, this this was the

0:05:25.680 --> 0:05:27.240
<v Speaker 1>case where the court just said we're not going to

0:05:27.360 --> 0:05:30.400
<v Speaker 1>hear it, but it was it was pretty significant. This

0:05:30.480 --> 0:05:34.400
<v Speaker 1>is an Arkansas law that UH says that if you

0:05:34.400 --> 0:05:40.760
<v Speaker 1>are an abortion clinic and you provide medication abortions abortions

0:05:41.000 --> 0:05:44.840
<v Speaker 1>using pills UM, you have to have a contractual relationship

0:05:44.960 --> 0:05:48.240
<v Speaker 1>with a doctor who has admitting privileges to a hospital.

0:05:48.560 --> 0:05:51.560
<v Speaker 1>Arkansas says this is to protect the health of the

0:05:51.600 --> 0:05:56.719
<v Speaker 1>mother UM the UH if this law goes into effect,

0:05:56.760 --> 0:06:00.559
<v Speaker 1>which it now has because the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, UH,

0:06:01.000 --> 0:06:03.800
<v Speaker 1>two of the three abortion clinics in Arkansas will have

0:06:03.880 --> 0:06:09.239
<v Speaker 1>to stop providing abortions. A federal appeals court UH didn't

0:06:09.240 --> 0:06:13.760
<v Speaker 1>say the law is is definitely constitutional, but it did

0:06:14.760 --> 0:06:17.320
<v Speaker 1>kick it back down to a lower court for some

0:06:17.560 --> 0:06:21.040
<v Speaker 1>from more detailed, more detailed factual findings about the effect

0:06:21.080 --> 0:06:25.440
<v Speaker 1>of it. By rejecting the clinics appeals, UH, the Supreme

0:06:25.480 --> 0:06:28.279
<v Speaker 1>Court said that at least for now, the law can

0:06:28.400 --> 0:06:30.560
<v Speaker 1>go into effect, but it's eventually going to come back

0:06:30.600 --> 0:06:33.400
<v Speaker 1>to the Supreme Court. Greg alre surprising to me is

0:06:33.440 --> 0:06:36.159
<v Speaker 1>that there weren't four votes to take this case and

0:06:36.160 --> 0:06:40.120
<v Speaker 1>there were no published ascents. Were the liberals asleep? I

0:06:40.520 --> 0:06:42.960
<v Speaker 1>don't think they were asleep, June. Uh. It's it's a

0:06:42.960 --> 0:06:46.160
<v Speaker 1>good question, and it's probably a tactical decision that if

0:06:46.160 --> 0:06:51.280
<v Speaker 1>they didn't have the five votes to intervene and um

0:06:51.400 --> 0:06:55.560
<v Speaker 1>uh prevent this law from from taking effect. UH, knowing

0:06:55.600 --> 0:06:57.240
<v Speaker 1>that the case is going to come back up at

0:06:57.279 --> 0:07:01.520
<v Speaker 1>some point. UH, the decision apparently was made not to

0:07:02.440 --> 0:07:05.159
<v Speaker 1>UH draw line in the sand at this point, to

0:07:05.279 --> 0:07:09.120
<v Speaker 1>let it go. We'll have other chances to object about

0:07:09.120 --> 0:07:11.680
<v Speaker 1>thirty seconds for you here, Greg, But how did they

0:07:11.720 --> 0:07:14.360
<v Speaker 1>distinguish the case of the court below, how did they

0:07:14.400 --> 0:07:20.280
<v Speaker 1>distinguish the the Texas case from yes so, so they

0:07:20.400 --> 0:07:23.560
<v Speaker 1>essentially said, we don't have enough facts at our disposal

0:07:23.600 --> 0:07:26.680
<v Speaker 1>to make that decision right now, that a district judge

0:07:26.800 --> 0:07:30.640
<v Speaker 1>had blocked the law but hadn't made detailed factual findings

0:07:30.920 --> 0:07:33.240
<v Speaker 1>about the number of women that would not be able

0:07:33.240 --> 0:07:36.560
<v Speaker 1>to get abortions or that would have to postpone abortions

0:07:36.600 --> 0:07:41.520
<v Speaker 1>if the law took effect. Uh. Ultimately, this law may

0:07:41.520 --> 0:07:44.080
<v Speaker 1>be struck down for that same reason, but for the

0:07:44.200 --> 0:07:47.120
<v Speaker 1>time being, the Appeals Court is is saying we don't

0:07:47.120 --> 0:07:51.000
<v Speaker 1>have enough information. Thank you, Greg, It's always a revelation

0:07:51.080 --> 0:07:53.280
<v Speaker 1>when you talk to us. That's Bloomberg New Supreme Court

0:07:53.360 --> 0:07:57.400
<v Speaker 1>reporter Greg's store. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

0:07:57.760 --> 0:08:01.840
<v Speaker 1>You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

0:08:01.880 --> 0:08:05.800
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:08:06.280 --> 0:08:13.000
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg m