Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com Slash Podcasts. At his confirmation
Speaker 1: hearing last year, Neil Gorsch, the newest member of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, told lawmakers that he wouldn't let anything stand
Speaker 1: between him and a just decision. Sitting here, I'm acutely
Speaker 1: aware of my own imperfections, but I pledged to each
Speaker 1: of you into the American people. If I am confirmed,
Speaker 1: I will do all my powers permit to be a
Speaker 1: faithful servant of the constitutional laws of this great nation.
Speaker 1: In his second term serving the US Constitution as a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice, course which has become something of an
Speaker 1: inside player in a closely divided court joining us. As
Speaker 1: Greg Store Bloomberg new Supreme Court reporter, Gregg, you've written
Speaker 1: about this inside player role, and Chief Justice John Roberts
Speaker 1: has assigned Gorsage to write three opinions in five to
Speaker 1: four decisions. Tell us about that. Yes, so the Chief
Speaker 1: Justice gets to decide who writes the opinion when he's
Speaker 1: in the majority, and oftentimes in a in a closely
Speaker 1: divided decision like that, it might go to a more
Speaker 1: experienced justice or the justice who holds the swing vote.
Speaker 1: One case in particular, though that was argued early in
Speaker 1: the in this this term involving the rights of workers
Speaker 1: to to file class action suits instead of having to
Speaker 1: go to individual arbitration, he assigned the opinion to Justice Gorcis,
Speaker 1: and it was notable because, uh, he could have the
Speaker 1: Chief could have very easily assigned it to Justice Thomas,
Speaker 1: who instead got that that setting a unanimous opinion in
Speaker 1: a criminal case. And some people I talked to said,
Speaker 1: you know, it is starting to look like the Chief
Speaker 1: Justice has some confidence that Justice Corsage can write an
Speaker 1: opinion like this and not lose the five justice majority.
Speaker 1: So is is he getting a different role than than
Speaker 1: the man he replaced, Justice Scalia. Well, in some ways
Speaker 1: he is almost a perfect replacement for Justice Scale in
Speaker 1: terms of the way he looks at cases, or at
Speaker 1: least it's starting to appear that way. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: he he obviously doesn't have nearly the track record of
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia. He's not the conservative icon that Justice Scalia was,
Speaker 1: but in terms of how he's voting. H one case
Speaker 1: in particular where Justice Course has decided with the courts liberals.
Speaker 1: It was in a deportation case where he basically said,
Speaker 1: this law is not clear enough, uh to subject somebody
Speaker 1: to mandatory deportation. It echoed a lot of of Scalia,
Speaker 1: a real skepticism of letting the government apply its power
Speaker 1: to an individual without a very clear law that says
Speaker 1: what the government can do. Scalia certainly someone that Gorsch
Speaker 1: has said he looks up to. Well. Greg a little
Speaker 1: over one mo until the end of the term. We're
Speaker 1: still waiting for those high profile decisions. But we got
Speaker 1: one decision on Tuesday. Wasn't high profile, but it was
Speaker 1: significant in that it backed privacy rights against police power.
Speaker 1: Tell us about that. Yeah, the bottom line of this
Speaker 1: case is it was it involved a motorcycle that was
Speaker 1: parked right out somebody's house in there in the driveway,
Speaker 1: and the court said that, uh, the protection that we
Speaker 1: give to a home into the area around the home
Speaker 1: called a curtilage, UH, that applies even when uh it
Speaker 1: is something like a motorcycle that might be easily moved.
Speaker 1: So in this case, a police officer who went to
Speaker 1: a house saw a motorcycle that he's suspected of being
Speaker 1: stolen in the driveway, walked up the driveway, UH, lifted
Speaker 1: up a tart that was covering the motorcycle and checked
Speaker 1: out the the motorcycle and the vin the VN number
Speaker 1: on it. UH that officer UH might have violated UH
Speaker 1: the individual's Fourth Amendment rights by doing that without a warrant.
Speaker 1: And the explanation is that even though that motorcycle is
Speaker 1: something that could have been easily moved, and there's a
Speaker 1: reason why the officer wanted to go quickly, the home
Speaker 1: in the area around it is is so sacrosanct that
Speaker 1: unless there's a really really good reason, a police officer
Speaker 1: needs to get a warrant before going onto it to
Speaker 1: look for something. I've actually learned what the word curtilage means.
Speaker 1: After all the Supreme Court opinions on this, So the
Speaker 1: Court has been really careful about the sanctity of the home.
Speaker 1: But does his opinion expand privacy rights in any way.
Speaker 1: It certainly reinforces it, and it it takes this doctrine
Speaker 1: that was known as the automobile exception that basically said,
Speaker 1: because an automobile is something that can be easily moved, UH,
Speaker 1: it's going to be more easier for a police officer
Speaker 1: to be allowed to to search it. It takes that
Speaker 1: doctor and and it really limits it to the context
Speaker 1: where the automobile or a motorcycle is out on the
Speaker 1: out somewhere and not in somebody's uh, somebody's private property.
Speaker 1: And that is a significant additional reinforcement of the protection
Speaker 1: that people have UH for their their homes and the
Speaker 1: area around their homes. And there was also this big
Speaker 1: decision this week, I believe yesterday on the Arkansas on
Speaker 1: Arkansas abortion law. Yeah, so Peter, this this was the
Speaker 1: case where the court just said we're not going to
Speaker 1: hear it, but it was it was pretty significant. This
Speaker 1: is an Arkansas law that UH says that if you
Speaker 1: are an abortion clinic and you provide medication abortions abortions
Speaker 1: using pills UM, you have to have a contractual relationship
Speaker 1: with a doctor who has admitting privileges to a hospital.
Speaker 1: Arkansas says this is to protect the health of the
Speaker 1: mother UM the UH if this law goes into effect,
Speaker 1: which it now has because the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, UH,
Speaker 1: two of the three abortion clinics in Arkansas will have
Speaker 1: to stop providing abortions. A federal appeals court UH didn't
Speaker 1: say the law is is definitely constitutional, but it did
Speaker 1: kick it back down to a lower court for some
Speaker 1: from more detailed, more detailed factual findings about the effect
Speaker 1: of it. By rejecting the clinics appeals, UH, the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court said that at least for now, the law can
Speaker 1: go into effect, but it's eventually going to come back
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court. Greg alre surprising to me is
Speaker 1: that there weren't four votes to take this case and
Speaker 1: there were no published ascents. Were the liberals asleep? I
Speaker 1: don't think they were asleep, June. Uh. It's it's a
Speaker 1: good question, and it's probably a tactical decision that if
Speaker 1: they didn't have the five votes to intervene and um
Speaker 1: uh prevent this law from from taking effect. UH, knowing
Speaker 1: that the case is going to come back up at
Speaker 1: some point. UH, the decision apparently was made not to
Speaker 1: UH draw line in the sand at this point, to
Speaker 1: let it go. We'll have other chances to object about
Speaker 1: thirty seconds for you here, Greg, But how did they
Speaker 1: distinguish the case of the court below, how did they
Speaker 1: distinguish the the Texas case from yes so, so they
Speaker 1: essentially said, we don't have enough facts at our disposal
Speaker 1: to make that decision right now, that a district judge
Speaker 1: had blocked the law but hadn't made detailed factual findings
Speaker 1: about the number of women that would not be able
Speaker 1: to get abortions or that would have to postpone abortions
Speaker 1: if the law took effect. Uh. Ultimately, this law may
Speaker 1: be struck down for that same reason, but for the
Speaker 1: time being, the Appeals Court is is saying we don't
Speaker 1: have enough information. Thank you, Greg, It's always a revelation
Speaker 1: when you talk to us. That's Bloomberg New Supreme Court
Speaker 1: reporter Greg's store. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg m