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

2
00:00:09,640 --> 00:00:12,720
Speaker 1: A divided Supreme Court has made it easier to sendence

3
00:00:12,800 --> 00:00:16,280
Speaker 1: minors convicted of murder to life in prison without parole.

4
00:00:16,920 --> 00:00:19,600
Speaker 1: It is six to three decision that split the jostices

5
00:00:19,640 --> 00:00:23,200
Speaker 1: along ideological lines. The courts that are judge does not

6
00:00:23,360 --> 00:00:26,920
Speaker 1: have to find a minor to be permanently incorrigible or

7
00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:30,880
Speaker 1: incapable of being rehabilitated before imposing a sentence of life

8
00:00:30,880 --> 00:00:34,520
Speaker 1: without parole. The ruling follows more than a decade where

9
00:00:34,560 --> 00:00:37,960
Speaker 1: the Court had moved toward more leniency from minors convicted

10
00:00:38,000 --> 00:00:41,440
Speaker 1: of murder, treating them differently from adults. Joining me as

11
00:00:41,479 --> 00:00:44,720
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law reported Jordan Reuben Jordan tell us about the

12
00:00:44,760 --> 00:00:50,160
Speaker 1: defendant in this case. Brett Jones was convicted of murder

13
00:00:50,560 --> 00:00:52,640
Speaker 1: for a crime that he committed when he was fifteen

14
00:00:52,720 --> 00:00:56,840
Speaker 1: years old. He fatally stabbed his grandfather during an argument

15
00:00:56,880 --> 00:01:01,080
Speaker 1: at home, and he was initially sentenced to life without

16
00:01:01,120 --> 00:01:04,360
Speaker 1: the possibility of parole, and his case called into question

17
00:01:04,400 --> 00:01:09,000
Speaker 1: this line of Supreme Court precedents going back years, and

18
00:01:09,120 --> 00:01:13,760
Speaker 1: the Court wound upholding in a previous decision that mandatory

19
00:01:13,880 --> 00:01:17,440
Speaker 1: life without parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional, and so

20
00:01:17,520 --> 00:01:21,120
Speaker 1: that raised further appeals in Jones's case, where the Supreme

21
00:01:21,120 --> 00:01:24,440
Speaker 1: Court had to sort out what exactly is required of

22
00:01:24,520 --> 00:01:27,880
Speaker 1: judges when they're handing down these life without parole sentences

23
00:01:27,880 --> 00:01:31,880
Speaker 1: to juveniles in these discretionary schemes. Did a judge review

24
00:01:31,959 --> 00:01:34,920
Speaker 1: his sentence after he was in prison? That's right, the

25
00:01:35,000 --> 00:01:37,959
Speaker 1: judge did do that. However, the judge did not make

26
00:01:38,080 --> 00:01:42,680
Speaker 1: a finding that Jones was quote permanently incorrigible end quote,

27
00:01:42,680 --> 00:01:44,600
Speaker 1: which is some language that had been in some of

28
00:01:44,600 --> 00:01:47,960
Speaker 1: these prior Supreme Court decisions. And he argued that that's

29
00:01:48,040 --> 00:01:52,440
Speaker 1: required before a judge makes a finding that a person

30
00:01:52,520 --> 00:01:54,640
Speaker 1: who was a minor when they committed the crime can

31
00:01:54,640 --> 00:01:57,840
Speaker 1: be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. So

32
00:01:57,960 --> 00:02:01,120
Speaker 1: what did the Supreme Court rule? The stream Court said

33
00:02:01,120 --> 00:02:04,400
Speaker 1: that that is actually not required by those precedents, and

34
00:02:04,480 --> 00:02:08,560
Speaker 1: that all these prior precedents require is that a statutory

35
00:02:08,680 --> 00:02:13,880
Speaker 1: scheme is that a state's scheme be discretionary, and so

36
00:02:13,880 --> 00:02:18,040
Speaker 1: so long as it's not a mandatory scheme, then that

37
00:02:18,280 --> 00:02:22,480
Speaker 1: is enough under the Constitution. And so this was a

38
00:02:22,600 --> 00:02:27,079
Speaker 1: six to three split tell us about the split right.

39
00:02:27,160 --> 00:02:30,240
Speaker 1: This one split right along party lines. That was a

40
00:02:30,280 --> 00:02:34,400
Speaker 1: decision written by Justice Kavanaugh, and he was joined by

41
00:02:34,440 --> 00:02:38,520
Speaker 1: the other five Republican appointees and the three remaining Democratic

42
00:02:38,520 --> 00:02:43,760
Speaker 1: appointees were in descent. And that's not super unusual in

43
00:02:43,800 --> 00:02:47,919
Speaker 1: these types of cases under the Eighth Amendment. We've seen

44
00:02:48,000 --> 00:02:51,600
Speaker 1: these types of divides before in these cases, and so

45
00:02:51,680 --> 00:02:56,040
Speaker 1: this is continuing that pattern. So Justice Soda Mayor wrote

46
00:02:56,040 --> 00:03:00,640
Speaker 1: the descent, and she said that the majority opinion guts precedent.

47
00:03:00,720 --> 00:03:04,520
Speaker 1: Explain what she meant. So Justice so dom Oral looks

48
00:03:04,520 --> 00:03:06,840
Speaker 1: back at those precedents and said that in order for

49
00:03:06,880 --> 00:03:09,960
Speaker 1: the majority to make this ruling, that a permanent and

50
00:03:09,960 --> 00:03:13,040
Speaker 1: corigibility finding is not required, that a factual finding is

51
00:03:13,080 --> 00:03:15,720
Speaker 1: not required. In order to reach that result, the majority

52
00:03:15,720 --> 00:03:18,640
Speaker 1: really had to contort precedent to a point where, in

53
00:03:18,639 --> 00:03:21,880
Speaker 1: her words, they were gutting precedent without admitting it and

54
00:03:21,919 --> 00:03:25,840
Speaker 1: rewriting those prior precedents in the process without admitting it.

55
00:03:25,919 --> 00:03:28,720
Speaker 1: That was the descents view. The Court in the past

56
00:03:28,840 --> 00:03:34,080
Speaker 1: has treated juveniles more leniently in violent crimes because of

57
00:03:34,120 --> 00:03:38,720
Speaker 1: their lack of maturity. Tell us about that history. So

58
00:03:39,520 --> 00:03:42,520
Speaker 1: there's been a series of decisions where one decision after

59
00:03:42,560 --> 00:03:47,040
Speaker 1: the other, the Court, in a progression, really kept handing

60
00:03:47,040 --> 00:03:50,680
Speaker 1: down rulings that were more and more favorable to people

61
00:03:50,680 --> 00:03:53,360
Speaker 1: who committed crimes when they were miners. Although that was

62
00:03:53,440 --> 00:03:56,720
Speaker 1: back when Justice Kennedy was still on the court before

63
00:03:56,720 --> 00:04:01,240
Speaker 1: he retired and was replaced by Justice Kavanaugh. So this

64
00:04:01,320 --> 00:04:04,480
Speaker 1: case really marked a halt to that progression, is one

65
00:04:04,480 --> 00:04:07,360
Speaker 1: way to look at it. And it's obvious why that happened.

66
00:04:07,360 --> 00:04:10,200
Speaker 1: It's because of the change in personnel on the court

67
00:04:10,360 --> 00:04:14,640
Speaker 1: since those prior rulings were handed down. Explain how this

68
00:04:14,720 --> 00:04:19,120
Speaker 1: case highlights the divide on the Court when it comes

69
00:04:19,160 --> 00:04:24,799
Speaker 1: to the Eighth Amendment and cruel and unusual punishment cases. So,

70
00:04:24,920 --> 00:04:26,720
Speaker 1: I think what we've seen in a lot of these

71
00:04:26,839 --> 00:04:30,279
Speaker 1: Eighth Amendment cases, which is the backdrop for this cruel

72
00:04:30,279 --> 00:04:33,960
Speaker 1: and unusual punishment, that's what the Eighth Amendment prohibits. However,

73
00:04:34,000 --> 00:04:36,960
Speaker 1: there are pretty stark disagreements over what exactly that means.

74
00:04:37,080 --> 00:04:39,479
Speaker 1: The same sort of divide that we've seen in death

75
00:04:39,480 --> 00:04:43,640
Speaker 1: penalty cases, which are also Eighth Amendment cases. Issues that

76
00:04:43,680 --> 00:04:47,039
Speaker 1: are implicated there, and so we see that same divide,

77
00:04:47,080 --> 00:04:50,840
Speaker 1: and so this case is an example of really what

78
00:04:51,040 --> 00:04:55,000
Speaker 1: the Republican appointees have seen as required under the Eighth

79
00:04:55,040 --> 00:04:58,760
Speaker 1: Amendment as opposed to what the Democratic appointees have seen

80
00:04:59,120 --> 00:05:01,960
Speaker 1: as required. And this case is really a perfect reflection

81
00:05:02,279 --> 00:05:05,159
Speaker 1: of that split. I was surprised the United States is

82
00:05:05,200 --> 00:05:10,719
Speaker 1: the only country that allows juveniles to be given life

83
00:05:10,720 --> 00:05:14,920
Speaker 1: without parole. That's right. We're an outlier in the world, again,

84
00:05:15,000 --> 00:05:18,000
Speaker 1: similar to the death penalty, where we're not the only one,

85
00:05:18,080 --> 00:05:21,240
Speaker 1: but certainly in the minority of countries, certainly in so

86
00:05:21,320 --> 00:05:24,360
Speaker 1: called developed nations that have it. And so this is

87
00:05:24,400 --> 00:05:29,280
Speaker 1: another criminal justice aspect of our country where we're an

88
00:05:29,279 --> 00:05:31,800
Speaker 1: outlier compared to the rest of the world, certainly the

89
00:05:31,880 --> 00:05:35,480
Speaker 1: so called developed world. And what about the States? Where

90
00:05:35,480 --> 00:05:39,080
Speaker 1: do the States stand on this issue? Right? So that's

91
00:05:39,080 --> 00:05:41,520
Speaker 1: a very good question, June. I'm glad you asked, because,

92
00:05:41,760 --> 00:05:44,839
Speaker 1: as in a lot of criminal justice spaces, we're seeing

93
00:05:44,839 --> 00:05:48,279
Speaker 1: more attention being put on the state, especially where reformers

94
00:05:48,320 --> 00:05:50,800
Speaker 1: are not seeing success at the Supreme Court, and so

95
00:05:51,160 --> 00:05:53,680
Speaker 1: they've been making a stride there in their view in

96
00:05:53,760 --> 00:05:56,960
Speaker 1: order to either curtail or ban the use of, for example,

97
00:05:57,600 --> 00:06:01,400
Speaker 1: life without parole for juvenile offenders. And so as it

98
00:06:01,440 --> 00:06:03,880
Speaker 1: stands down. More than half the state's either ban the

99
00:06:03,920 --> 00:06:07,320
Speaker 1: practice or don't have anyone serving these types of sentences,

100
00:06:07,360 --> 00:06:11,559
Speaker 1: And that's really where reformers are focusing their energy now

101
00:06:11,720 --> 00:06:15,520
Speaker 1: is on the states. Jordan. The Court often takes cases

102
00:06:15,720 --> 00:06:18,159
Speaker 1: when there's a split in the circuits. Was there a

103
00:06:18,160 --> 00:06:21,920
Speaker 1: split in the circuits here? So they definitely took it

104
00:06:21,960 --> 00:06:26,200
Speaker 1: in order to try and explain really these prior precedents,

105
00:06:26,279 --> 00:06:30,760
Speaker 1: because it was not clear what exactly they meant in

106
00:06:30,880 --> 00:06:34,560
Speaker 1: terms of what exactly was required. As Jones's case showed

107
00:06:34,600 --> 00:06:37,719
Speaker 1: so fair at least, it was an incredibly important issue

108
00:06:37,760 --> 00:06:40,280
Speaker 1: that the Court felt the need to explain, and there

109
00:06:40,279 --> 00:06:43,320
Speaker 1: really could be still more left to explain. Although in

110
00:06:43,320 --> 00:06:46,560
Speaker 1: this case the Court said judges don't need to make

111
00:06:46,680 --> 00:06:50,520
Speaker 1: this certain finding. Perhaps we could see future cases falling

112
00:06:50,560 --> 00:06:52,919
Speaker 1: somewhere in the middle between a judge saying nothing and

113
00:06:52,960 --> 00:06:56,480
Speaker 1: a judge making this permanent and corige ability finding. There

114
00:06:56,480 --> 00:06:59,479
Speaker 1: could still be a lingering question of what exactly do

115
00:06:59,839 --> 00:07:02,640
Speaker 1: or do not judges have to do. So there's no

116
00:07:02,800 --> 00:07:05,000
Speaker 1: rule right now, or does it depend on the states

117
00:07:05,080 --> 00:07:07,800
Speaker 1: as to what a judge has to find in order

118
00:07:07,839 --> 00:07:12,680
Speaker 1: to put a juvenile in prison for life. So it

119
00:07:12,840 --> 00:07:15,600
Speaker 1: is it is clear now under the Supreme Court's latest

120
00:07:15,600 --> 00:07:18,840
Speaker 1: decision in Jones's case, what's not required. A judge does

121
00:07:18,880 --> 00:07:22,880
Speaker 1: not specifically have to say, I find this person to

122
00:07:23,000 --> 00:07:27,480
Speaker 1: be permanently incorrigible. It's enough, according to this latest decision,

123
00:07:27,720 --> 00:07:30,680
Speaker 1: for there to have been discretion for the judge to

124
00:07:30,720 --> 00:07:36,560
Speaker 1: have considered youth as midgaining factor under those prior precedents.

125
00:07:37,040 --> 00:07:41,840
Speaker 1: There just could potentially be another case delving further into

126
00:07:42,000 --> 00:07:46,080
Speaker 1: perhaps there's an unclear situation of whether a judge made

127
00:07:46,080 --> 00:07:50,000
Speaker 1: this consideration or not, because we have this pretty bright

128
00:07:50,120 --> 00:07:52,600
Speaker 1: line rule from the Supreme Court now, So there could

129
00:07:52,600 --> 00:07:55,800
Speaker 1: still be further challenges. But as I said, I really

130
00:07:55,800 --> 00:07:59,200
Speaker 1: think the focus for people making these challenges is going

131
00:07:59,240 --> 00:08:02,200
Speaker 1: to be more so putting their energy into the state

132
00:08:02,280 --> 00:08:05,720
Speaker 1: level then necessarily hoping for success at the Supreme Court,

133
00:08:05,760 --> 00:08:09,040
Speaker 1: at least as it's constructed now. I was struck in

134
00:08:09,120 --> 00:08:13,280
Speaker 1: your story. You spoke to John Neeman, who had argued

135
00:08:13,280 --> 00:08:15,520
Speaker 1: for the state in the Miller case when he was

136
00:08:15,560 --> 00:08:19,920
Speaker 1: Alabama Solicitor General, and he said, we're all capable of redemption.

137
00:08:20,120 --> 00:08:22,080
Speaker 1: I thought that was interesting because as he was on

138
00:08:22,120 --> 00:08:24,200
Speaker 1: the other side of it, right and so I think

139
00:08:24,280 --> 00:08:28,560
Speaker 1: ultimately he agreed with this decision. In the Jones case,

140
00:08:28,600 --> 00:08:33,320
Speaker 1: he was raising an interesting point where this permanent incorrigibility standard,

141
00:08:33,400 --> 00:08:35,640
Speaker 1: and it wasn't taken out of tanair, it was taken

142
00:08:35,679 --> 00:08:40,240
Speaker 1: from prior precedence what Jones was arguing for. It raises

143
00:08:40,320 --> 00:08:43,240
Speaker 1: interesting questions of what exactly is a judge doing when

144
00:08:43,240 --> 00:08:46,959
Speaker 1: they're making this finding, Because the point that Mr Neeman

145
00:08:47,080 --> 00:08:50,280
Speaker 1: was raising was if you're a person who finds that

146
00:08:50,440 --> 00:08:53,559
Speaker 1: no one is beyond redemption, then it would be impossible

147
00:08:53,920 --> 00:08:57,640
Speaker 1: for a judge to make this finding against a defendant.

148
00:08:57,800 --> 00:09:00,760
Speaker 1: So that could be part of what was animating the

149
00:09:00,800 --> 00:09:04,800
Speaker 1: majority's concerned here in the Jones case that if that's

150
00:09:04,840 --> 00:09:08,679
Speaker 1: the rule, and then it ties the judge's hands. In effect,

151
00:09:08,720 --> 00:09:11,880
Speaker 1: they have to say, I believe this person is beyond

152
00:09:12,000 --> 00:09:16,920
Speaker 1: redemption and that's something that can cross different ideological and

153
00:09:17,240 --> 00:09:20,760
Speaker 1: religious lines, what have you. And so it could be

154
00:09:20,800 --> 00:09:22,880
Speaker 1: just a matter of the court saying we don't want

155
00:09:23,000 --> 00:09:26,959
Speaker 1: judges to get into that specific type of business. So, now,

156
00:09:27,000 --> 00:09:31,160
Speaker 1: as far as Jones is concerned, does he have any

157
00:09:31,320 --> 00:09:34,040
Speaker 1: avenues left? Does he get to go back to the

158
00:09:34,120 --> 00:09:36,120
Speaker 1: judge and say anything, or is this the end of

159
00:09:36,120 --> 00:09:38,200
Speaker 1: the road. So I think it is the end of

160
00:09:38,240 --> 00:09:41,480
Speaker 1: the road in Justice Kavanaugh's opinion. At the end, he

161
00:09:41,600 --> 00:09:46,040
Speaker 1: had an interesting paragraph where he noted, in his view,

162
00:09:46,160 --> 00:09:48,760
Speaker 1: in Justice Kavanaugh's view that it's not necessarily the end

163
00:09:48,800 --> 00:09:51,280
Speaker 1: of the road, because there could be a state reform

164
00:09:51,920 --> 00:09:56,640
Speaker 1: or Jones could ask for clemency. But that's true in

165
00:09:56,760 --> 00:10:00,400
Speaker 1: every case, whether the Supreme Court makes that or not.

166
00:10:00,559 --> 00:10:03,840
Speaker 1: And so I don't know of any particular reason why

167
00:10:04,040 --> 00:10:07,560
Speaker 1: Jones would be successful on that front. It's possible, but

168
00:10:08,760 --> 00:10:11,560
Speaker 1: the point is, if nothing else happened in his case,

169
00:10:11,679 --> 00:10:14,080
Speaker 1: there's no reason to think that he will not be

170
00:10:14,400 --> 00:10:17,880
Speaker 1: dying in prison. Has the Supreme Court taken up any

171
00:10:18,160 --> 00:10:23,520
Speaker 1: other juvenile justice cases recently? Not very recently. No. Before

172
00:10:23,559 --> 00:10:26,559
Speaker 1: this case, there was the same issue being raised in

173
00:10:26,600 --> 00:10:30,440
Speaker 1: the case of one of the DC snipers, one of

174
00:10:30,480 --> 00:10:33,760
Speaker 1: the two there, but that case wound up settling after

175
00:10:33,800 --> 00:10:36,520
Speaker 1: a change in state law, and so this case, Brett

176
00:10:36,600 --> 00:10:39,440
Speaker 1: Jones's case wound up being a replacement for that. But

177
00:10:39,480 --> 00:10:42,480
Speaker 1: we don't have anything on the horizon now. As I said,

178
00:10:42,520 --> 00:10:44,600
Speaker 1: I think we're going to be looking to the states

179
00:10:44,679 --> 00:10:48,240
Speaker 1: for upcoming action there. Thanks for being on the Bloomberg

180
00:10:48,280 --> 00:10:53,200
Speaker 1: Laws show Jordan's that's Bloomberg Law reporter Jordan Reuben. With

181
00:10:53,280 --> 00:10:56,320
Speaker 1: the nation reeling from a series of mass shootings, the

182
00:10:56,400 --> 00:10:59,160
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has decided to hear a major News Second

183
00:10:59,160 --> 00:11:02,120
Speaker 1: Amendment case involving the right to carry a handgun in

184
00:11:02,200 --> 00:11:05,400
Speaker 1: public for self defense. Joining me is Bloomberg News Supreme

185
00:11:05,400 --> 00:11:09,160
Speaker 1: Court reporter Greg Store explain what gun rights are an

186
00:11:09,200 --> 00:11:12,320
Speaker 1: issue in this case June. The Supreme Court has never

187
00:11:12,320 --> 00:11:15,520
Speaker 1: said whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home, and

188
00:11:15,960 --> 00:11:18,640
Speaker 1: in this case, that's really the core issue. New York

189
00:11:19,040 --> 00:11:22,160
Speaker 1: and about seven other states sharply restrict who can get

190
00:11:22,200 --> 00:11:26,360
Speaker 1: a license to carry a weapon handgun in public. New

191
00:11:26,400 --> 00:11:29,360
Speaker 1: York requires people to show some special need beyond that

192
00:11:29,480 --> 00:11:32,240
Speaker 1: of the average member of the public, and gun rights

193
00:11:32,240 --> 00:11:34,360
Speaker 1: groups have been trying for years to get the Supreme

194
00:11:34,360 --> 00:11:37,160
Speaker 1: Court to take up this issue and say that the

195
00:11:37,200 --> 00:11:40,520
Speaker 1: Second Amendment does apply outside the home and gives people

196
00:11:40,520 --> 00:11:44,160
Speaker 1: a right to carry handguns with them in public for

197
00:11:44,240 --> 00:11:46,360
Speaker 1: self defense purposes. And that's what the Court is going

198
00:11:46,360 --> 00:11:49,559
Speaker 1: to consider the next term. In June, the Supreme Court

199
00:11:49,600 --> 00:11:53,240
Speaker 1: refused to take up challenges to the New Jersey, Massachusetts,

200
00:11:53,240 --> 00:11:56,760
Speaker 1: and Maryland laws which are similar to New York's. So

201
00:11:56,960 --> 00:12:00,000
Speaker 1: is the difference here the fact that Justice Amy Coney

202
00:12:00,000 --> 00:12:02,760
Speaker 1: are it is now on the court. It would seem

203
00:12:02,800 --> 00:12:04,840
Speaker 1: that way certainly from the outside. Of course, we don't

204
00:12:04,840 --> 00:12:07,520
Speaker 1: know who which justice is voted to take up occasion

205
00:12:07,559 --> 00:12:10,360
Speaker 1: which justices didn't, And this is a case where lower

206
00:12:10,400 --> 00:12:13,520
Speaker 1: courts for quite a number of years have disagreed. So

207
00:12:13,760 --> 00:12:16,360
Speaker 1: a number of people, myself included, kind of expected the

208
00:12:16,360 --> 00:12:18,960
Speaker 1: Court to take up this issue a long time ago.

209
00:12:19,280 --> 00:12:21,120
Speaker 1: That said, the one thing that does seem to be

210
00:12:21,559 --> 00:12:23,960
Speaker 1: clearly different from the outside is that you do have

211
00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:28,400
Speaker 1: another conservative justice. Justice Ginsburg, of course was a dissenter

212
00:12:28,600 --> 00:12:31,720
Speaker 1: from the Court's previous gun rights decisions. Based on what

213
00:12:31,800 --> 00:12:34,720
Speaker 1: we know about Justice Barrett, there's a good chance she'll

214
00:12:34,760 --> 00:12:37,160
Speaker 1: be on the side of gun rights, so it's not

215
00:12:37,200 --> 00:12:39,880
Speaker 1: a big jump to say that she probably made the

216
00:12:39,880 --> 00:12:43,200
Speaker 1: difference here. Has there been a split among federal appeals

217
00:12:43,240 --> 00:12:46,480
Speaker 1: courts in handling this issue, There have been. Most federal

218
00:12:46,480 --> 00:12:51,360
Speaker 1: appeals courts have said that the Constitution does not protect

219
00:12:51,400 --> 00:12:53,560
Speaker 1: gun rights outside their home, or at least they've said

220
00:12:53,559 --> 00:12:56,240
Speaker 1: that these laws that restrict the ability of people to

221
00:12:56,360 --> 00:13:01,560
Speaker 1: get carry permits are constitutional. There's one federal appeals court

222
00:13:01,840 --> 00:13:04,080
Speaker 1: I believe that has gone the other way, so there

223
00:13:04,280 --> 00:13:08,160
Speaker 1: is a split on the issue. It's been the issue

224
00:13:08,240 --> 00:13:11,920
Speaker 1: that probably more than any other, gun rights advocates have

225
00:13:12,000 --> 00:13:15,199
Speaker 1: asked of Supreme Courts to take up and to really

226
00:13:15,200 --> 00:13:18,800
Speaker 1: expand the Second Amendment. In its last two gun rights

227
00:13:18,840 --> 00:13:21,920
Speaker 1: decisions in two thousand and eight and two thousand and ten,

228
00:13:22,520 --> 00:13:26,000
Speaker 1: the Court did expand gun rights. So is it likely

229
00:13:26,080 --> 00:13:29,120
Speaker 1: that the Court is taking up this case in order

230
00:13:29,160 --> 00:13:33,240
Speaker 1: to reverse New York's restrictions and expand gun rights again.

231
00:13:34,160 --> 00:13:36,840
Speaker 1: That would seem the most likely, especially given the makeup

232
00:13:36,960 --> 00:13:40,280
Speaker 1: of the court. Now that being said, there has been

233
00:13:40,320 --> 00:13:43,320
Speaker 1: something holding the court back over these last few years.

234
00:13:43,360 --> 00:13:46,280
Speaker 1: There's been some reporting that Chief Justice roberts is one

235
00:13:46,360 --> 00:13:50,400
Speaker 1: justice who is reluctant to expand the Second Amendment in

236
00:13:50,400 --> 00:13:53,880
Speaker 1: this sort of way. That said, the Conservatives don't need

237
00:13:54,000 --> 00:13:57,480
Speaker 1: him in the majority anymore. If the three Trump appointed

238
00:13:57,520 --> 00:14:02,560
Speaker 1: justices there, Kavanaugh, and gorst All agree that these people

239
00:14:02,600 --> 00:14:04,480
Speaker 1: in this case do have a right to get a

240
00:14:04,559 --> 00:14:09,359
Speaker 1: confield carry permit, then John Robertson's vote won't be necessary.

241
00:14:09,600 --> 00:14:13,520
Speaker 1: Do we know where those three justices stand on gun rights?

242
00:14:13,559 --> 00:14:16,520
Speaker 1: Have any of them dealt with gun rights issues when

243
00:14:16,520 --> 00:14:19,640
Speaker 1: they were on circuit courts. Well, we know first of

244
00:14:19,640 --> 00:14:24,320
Speaker 1: all that Kavanaugh and Corset have both expressed a desire

245
00:14:24,360 --> 00:14:27,560
Speaker 1: for the Court to take more Second Amendment cases, including

246
00:14:27,920 --> 00:14:30,920
Speaker 1: this very issue, So they had given us some indication

247
00:14:31,360 --> 00:14:34,120
Speaker 1: that they are eager to get involved, at least in

248
00:14:34,160 --> 00:14:37,880
Speaker 1: this particular issue. Justice bear It, as a lower court

249
00:14:38,120 --> 00:14:41,920
Speaker 1: judge didn't consider this precise issue, but she has handled

250
00:14:41,960 --> 00:14:46,600
Speaker 1: some other Second Amendment issues, including a case involving whether

251
00:14:46,720 --> 00:14:49,160
Speaker 1: a non violence fellone could be banned for life from

252
00:14:49,200 --> 00:14:52,960
Speaker 1: having a handgun, and she has indicated she is going

253
00:14:53,000 --> 00:14:56,320
Speaker 1: to be an advocate of Second Amendment rights. So certainly

254
00:14:56,600 --> 00:14:59,360
Speaker 1: New York has an uphill fight with this particular court.

255
00:15:00,040 --> 00:15:02,160
Speaker 1: This is going to put the justices in the middle

256
00:15:02,280 --> 00:15:06,400
Speaker 1: of one of the country's most divisive issues during a

257
00:15:06,520 --> 00:15:11,640
Speaker 1: national crisis in firearm violence. And we've talked before about

258
00:15:11,720 --> 00:15:15,280
Speaker 1: how the Court has been sort of reluctant to get

259
00:15:15,280 --> 00:15:19,040
Speaker 1: into these kinds of divisive issues at this point. So

260
00:15:19,400 --> 00:15:21,600
Speaker 1: does this look like a turning point for the court.

261
00:15:22,200 --> 00:15:24,480
Speaker 1: It might be, and of course it could also be

262
00:15:24,680 --> 00:15:26,560
Speaker 1: a one off of they felt like they just had

263
00:15:26,600 --> 00:15:29,640
Speaker 1: to take up this particular issue, but yeah, something has

264
00:15:29,640 --> 00:15:32,800
Speaker 1: been holding the court back. The court did, it's somewhat

265
00:15:32,840 --> 00:15:36,320
Speaker 1: interestingly to meet wait for several weeks to decide to

266
00:15:36,320 --> 00:15:39,200
Speaker 1: take this case up. It was relifted at their private

267
00:15:39,240 --> 00:15:42,880
Speaker 1: conference four straight times, so and then they kind of

268
00:15:42,920 --> 00:15:46,280
Speaker 1: modified the exact question about what exactly they're going to decide.

269
00:15:46,640 --> 00:15:49,600
Speaker 1: So there may have been some hesitation from within the

270
00:15:49,600 --> 00:15:52,360
Speaker 1: court about exactly how they wanted to jump in here,

271
00:15:53,000 --> 00:15:57,080
Speaker 1: but certainly given the uh, I think not exaggeration to

272
00:15:57,080 --> 00:15:59,520
Speaker 1: say dozens of cases over the years from gun Right

273
00:15:59,560 --> 00:16:01,880
Speaker 1: to Advocate that the Court has refused to take up,

274
00:16:02,160 --> 00:16:05,320
Speaker 1: this does seem like a turning point moment. So what

275
00:16:05,400 --> 00:16:08,640
Speaker 1: they're going to decide is whether a state has to

276
00:16:08,760 --> 00:16:13,840
Speaker 1: issue carry permits that's right to two typical people, people

277
00:16:13,840 --> 00:16:16,640
Speaker 1: who don't show some special need that sets them apart.

278
00:16:17,080 --> 00:16:20,920
Speaker 1: So New York does issue a very limited number of

279
00:16:21,160 --> 00:16:24,040
Speaker 1: carry permits to people who can show there is something

280
00:16:24,040 --> 00:16:27,840
Speaker 1: about their particular situation beyond just um, I live in

281
00:16:27,840 --> 00:16:31,160
Speaker 1: a dangerous neighborhood and I want to protect myself. So

282
00:16:31,440 --> 00:16:33,800
Speaker 1: it won't mean that every single person couldn't get a

283
00:16:33,840 --> 00:16:36,560
Speaker 1: carry permit states uh, No, doubt will still be able

284
00:16:36,600 --> 00:16:40,560
Speaker 1: to exclude, for example, convicted violent felons from from getting

285
00:16:40,600 --> 00:16:43,760
Speaker 1: a handgun license, and those people are actually barret under

286
00:16:43,800 --> 00:16:47,440
Speaker 1: federal law, but it would mean the average person, or

287
00:16:47,440 --> 00:16:49,960
Speaker 1: potentially could mean the average person would be able to

288
00:16:50,000 --> 00:16:52,680
Speaker 1: get a license to carry a handgun. Thanks Graig, that's

289
00:16:52,720 --> 00:16:57,560
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News. Supreme Court reporter Greg's store. A Supreme Court

290
00:16:57,600 --> 00:17:02,160
Speaker 1: case pits inventors against their former employers. The Supreme Court

291
00:17:02,200 --> 00:17:04,960
Speaker 1: is considering how to balance the rights of companies to

292
00:17:05,040 --> 00:17:08,960
Speaker 1: protect patent rights created with their resources against the ability

293
00:17:08,960 --> 00:17:12,440
Speaker 1: of inventors to move freely between employers. The Court is

294
00:17:12,480 --> 00:17:15,280
Speaker 1: reviewing a US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

295
00:17:15,359 --> 00:17:18,399
Speaker 1: decision that the inventor of a surgical device and his

296
00:17:18,560 --> 00:17:22,760
Speaker 1: current company, Minervous Surgical, can't argue two patents on the

297
00:17:22,800 --> 00:17:26,920
Speaker 1: device are invalid to defeat infringement claims by his former employer,

298
00:17:27,160 --> 00:17:29,959
Speaker 1: Whole Logic, which now owns the rights to the inventions.

299
00:17:30,359 --> 00:17:33,280
Speaker 1: Joining me is Joseph Ray, a partner Kenobi Martin and

300
00:17:33,359 --> 00:17:37,440
Speaker 1: president of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, which submitted

301
00:17:37,440 --> 00:17:40,800
Speaker 1: an amigas brief in the case. So start by explaining

302
00:17:40,840 --> 00:17:44,280
Speaker 1: the facts here. What the issue is well, the facts

303
00:17:44,280 --> 00:17:48,640
Speaker 1: here involve the application of an ancient UH patent law

304
00:17:48,720 --> 00:17:53,080
Speaker 1: doctrine called assin or a stople and this is when

305
00:17:53,480 --> 00:17:57,600
Speaker 1: somebody cannot challenge the validity of a patent that they

306
00:17:57,720 --> 00:18:03,119
Speaker 1: previously sold for value. So in this case, the inventor

307
00:18:03,760 --> 00:18:07,720
Speaker 1: sold the patent to a subsequent company and then later

308
00:18:07,880 --> 00:18:13,560
Speaker 1: began competing with that company, and then the inventor was sued,

309
00:18:13,680 --> 00:18:17,320
Speaker 1: his company was sued for patent infringement, and the appellate

310
00:18:17,320 --> 00:18:21,840
Speaker 1: court said that the inventor could not challenge the validity

311
00:18:21,880 --> 00:18:26,000
Speaker 1: of the patent that he had previously sold. This falls

312
00:18:26,000 --> 00:18:29,240
Speaker 1: in all the other a stopples we have in the law,

313
00:18:30,240 --> 00:18:32,560
Speaker 1: and you're you're familiar with lots of a stopples. We

314
00:18:32,640 --> 00:18:35,760
Speaker 1: have traditional a stopple, we have collateral a stopple, we

315
00:18:35,800 --> 00:18:39,360
Speaker 1: have equitable a stopple. Here we're dealing with asson or

316
00:18:39,359 --> 00:18:43,720
Speaker 1: a stopple, and asson or stopple should be less of

317
00:18:43,760 --> 00:18:46,320
Speaker 1: a legal ground and more of an equitable one, and

318
00:18:46,320 --> 00:18:49,399
Speaker 1: that's what we're fighting over. The appellate court treated it

319
00:18:49,480 --> 00:18:53,280
Speaker 1: as a legal a stopple, and really I think the

320
00:18:53,359 --> 00:18:57,120
Speaker 1: court thinks that should be treated more equitably, like equitable

321
00:18:57,119 --> 00:18:59,840
Speaker 1: as stopple, and that is, let's actually look at what

322
00:18:59,880 --> 00:19:03,879
Speaker 1: the representation was, to what extent was their reliance and

323
00:19:03,960 --> 00:19:06,439
Speaker 1: treat it more like a traditionalist stop rather than a

324
00:19:06,520 --> 00:19:09,560
Speaker 1: rigid legal as stop them. Tell us a little bit

325
00:19:09,600 --> 00:19:13,800
Speaker 1: more about the facts here. The employee sells the patent

326
00:19:14,240 --> 00:19:16,720
Speaker 1: or give the rights to the patents to his employer.

327
00:19:17,200 --> 00:19:20,240
Speaker 1: Then he leaves the company and he challenges that patent

328
00:19:20,640 --> 00:19:23,880
Speaker 1: or is it more more discreet than that? Well, that's

329
00:19:23,960 --> 00:19:27,440
Speaker 1: that's close enough. What happened was there was some transfers

330
00:19:27,480 --> 00:19:31,320
Speaker 1: to subsequent companies. So the company was sold, and he

331
00:19:31,359 --> 00:19:33,919
Speaker 1: was the founder of the original company, and he was

332
00:19:34,000 --> 00:19:38,919
Speaker 1: paid and he he did receive some money for the

333
00:19:38,960 --> 00:19:42,160
Speaker 1: sale of the company as a shareholder, and then there

334
00:19:42,160 --> 00:19:46,119
Speaker 1: were successor companies. And so this rule applies to anybody

335
00:19:46,200 --> 00:19:49,639
Speaker 1: in privaty. So he obviously was in privity with the

336
00:19:49,680 --> 00:19:53,480
Speaker 1: sale of the patent initially, and so he was precluded

337
00:19:53,480 --> 00:19:56,320
Speaker 1: by the appellate court, the United States Court of Appeals

338
00:19:56,320 --> 00:19:59,200
Speaker 1: for the Federal Circuit in Washington, d c. They held

339
00:19:59,520 --> 00:20:02,239
Speaker 1: that the but these really didn't matter that since he

340
00:20:02,840 --> 00:20:06,720
Speaker 1: was the seller of the patent initially or the patent application,

341
00:20:07,119 --> 00:20:11,160
Speaker 1: he has precluded no matter what happens in subsequent prosecution

342
00:20:11,520 --> 00:20:14,720
Speaker 1: of the patent application. I think I think the the

343
00:20:14,920 --> 00:20:17,760
Speaker 1: Supreme Court will think the Appellate Court was way too

344
00:20:17,880 --> 00:20:21,480
Speaker 1: rigid in its application of the rule. They should have

345
00:20:21,560 --> 00:20:27,040
Speaker 1: considered how the invention changed over time. So remember in

346
00:20:27,160 --> 00:20:31,960
Speaker 1: patent sometimes the prosecution takes ten fifteen years before the

347
00:20:31,960 --> 00:20:35,800
Speaker 1: patent office, and so I could sell you a disclosure

348
00:20:36,000 --> 00:20:40,240
Speaker 1: on an automobile, but the ultimate claim that issues from

349
00:20:40,240 --> 00:20:43,959
Speaker 1: the patent office may happen ten fifteen years later, and

350
00:20:44,080 --> 00:20:48,160
Speaker 1: the claim may be much broader then simply the disclosure

351
00:20:48,240 --> 00:20:50,560
Speaker 1: in the patent application. So if I sell you an

352
00:20:50,560 --> 00:20:55,639
Speaker 1: application to a car, you could effectively prosecuted to have

353
00:20:55,760 --> 00:20:59,920
Speaker 1: it covered any transport mechanism, something much broader than a car.

354
00:21:00,560 --> 00:21:03,880
Speaker 1: And so that's what makes this different than real property

355
00:21:03,960 --> 00:21:08,240
Speaker 1: where the boundaries are set. Those are the facts. So now,

356
00:21:08,320 --> 00:21:11,679
Speaker 1: during the Supreme Court oral arguments, what were some of

357
00:21:11,720 --> 00:21:16,800
Speaker 1: the main concerns the justices were expressing in their questioning, Well,

358
00:21:17,119 --> 00:21:19,359
Speaker 1: there were many, and this case could be decided on

359
00:21:19,400 --> 00:21:22,680
Speaker 1: many many grounds. First of all, is it settled doctrine?

360
00:21:22,880 --> 00:21:26,000
Speaker 1: That's the first question, and there's much debate about whether

361
00:21:26,119 --> 00:21:30,400
Speaker 1: or not this doctrine still survived much tortuous case law.

362
00:21:31,040 --> 00:21:33,840
Speaker 1: The second question is is this a job for Congress?

363
00:21:34,080 --> 00:21:38,080
Speaker 1: Should this be left alone? Did Congress ever adopt or

364
00:21:38,280 --> 00:21:42,000
Speaker 1: sanction such a doctrine, and so the justices were not

365
00:21:42,240 --> 00:21:46,080
Speaker 1: sure whose role it would be to cabineist doctrine in

366
00:21:47,080 --> 00:21:50,639
Speaker 1: The third thing is also should the doctrine be curtailed?

367
00:21:51,119 --> 00:21:53,920
Speaker 1: That was the main focus of the argument. It appears

368
00:21:53,960 --> 00:21:58,320
Speaker 1: the doctrine will survive, but in a very modified scale

369
00:21:58,359 --> 00:22:02,200
Speaker 1: down version. Did so of the justices expressing opinion that

370
00:22:02,400 --> 00:22:05,200
Speaker 1: you know, why disturb this doctrine? It's been in place

371
00:22:05,280 --> 00:22:08,920
Speaker 1: for so long. Yes, the best example of that would

372
00:22:08,960 --> 00:22:13,879
Speaker 1: be Justice Kavanaugh. He specifically asked the petitioner, why should

373
00:22:13,880 --> 00:22:17,000
Speaker 1: we upset a doctrine that has been around for so long?

374
00:22:17,080 --> 00:22:20,040
Speaker 1: That's exactly what his point was. So, where do you

375
00:22:20,080 --> 00:22:24,639
Speaker 1: think the Court is going to come out? I do

376
00:22:24,800 --> 00:22:28,880
Speaker 1: think the Court will preserve the doctrine, but scale it back.

377
00:22:29,680 --> 00:22:32,880
Speaker 1: Let the court's focus on some of the key equitable

378
00:22:32,920 --> 00:22:36,880
Speaker 1: facts to show that the doctrine makes sense. The doctrine

379
00:22:36,880 --> 00:22:39,680
Speaker 1: may not make sense under the facts of this case

380
00:22:40,160 --> 00:22:44,840
Speaker 1: because the patent changed form, it did not claim the

381
00:22:44,920 --> 00:22:47,960
Speaker 1: exact same invention that was transferred at the time of

382
00:22:48,000 --> 00:22:51,439
Speaker 1: the initial assignment. And that's what makes intellectual property cases

383
00:22:51,520 --> 00:22:56,440
Speaker 1: or patent cases so difficult. The legal rights change over

384
00:22:56,520 --> 00:23:00,639
Speaker 1: time because there's continuing prosecution before the at in office,

385
00:23:00,880 --> 00:23:05,399
Speaker 1: which changes the boundaries of the patent rights. So how

386
00:23:05,440 --> 00:23:09,160
Speaker 1: would the Supreme Court then frame the ruling in order

387
00:23:09,240 --> 00:23:12,480
Speaker 1: to reach some kind of middle ground? Is this going

388
00:23:12,520 --> 00:23:15,879
Speaker 1: to be on a case by case basis, well, case

389
00:23:15,920 --> 00:23:21,000
Speaker 1: by case basis by actually looking exactly what was assigned,

390
00:23:21,520 --> 00:23:25,960
Speaker 1: What did the action or actually believe he was transferring?

391
00:23:27,119 --> 00:23:29,640
Speaker 1: That's the key fact, and that's the position the government

392
00:23:29,680 --> 00:23:33,359
Speaker 1: has taken. The government did advance a middle ground, as

393
00:23:33,400 --> 00:23:36,000
Speaker 1: did we at the a I p l A, that

394
00:23:36,440 --> 00:23:38,879
Speaker 1: you should look to the facts and actually try to

395
00:23:39,000 --> 00:23:44,159
Speaker 1: determine what did the assonaur believe he was transferring and

396
00:23:44,320 --> 00:23:47,840
Speaker 1: warranting at the time of the assignment. What's the position

397
00:23:47,880 --> 00:23:51,760
Speaker 1: of tech companies? Are they afraid that this is going to,

398
00:23:52,560 --> 00:23:57,959
Speaker 1: you know, erode their rights and intellectual properties? No? And

399
00:23:58,000 --> 00:24:00,840
Speaker 1: it's it's funny how you label tech. These tech companies

400
00:24:00,880 --> 00:24:04,480
Speaker 1: fall all over the spectrum. Many of the large tech

401
00:24:04,520 --> 00:24:10,160
Speaker 1: companies normally are defendants in patent cases. So um, they

402
00:24:10,160 --> 00:24:13,919
Speaker 1: are not as dependent on patents as smaller companies. So

403
00:24:14,040 --> 00:24:18,159
Speaker 1: really we divide uh the markets and normally by the

404
00:24:18,280 --> 00:24:21,680
Speaker 1: size of the company. Smaller companies tend to be more

405
00:24:22,200 --> 00:24:25,919
Speaker 1: dependent on the patent system than larger tech companies. Does

406
00:24:25,960 --> 00:24:31,840
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court take patent cases very often? Well, no, um,

407
00:24:31,880 --> 00:24:35,080
Speaker 1: And depends what window of time you're looking at. I

408
00:24:35,119 --> 00:24:38,199
Speaker 1: do remember in the nineties or in the eighties and nineties,

409
00:24:38,200 --> 00:24:41,720
Speaker 1: they might take one or two a decade. Now they're

410
00:24:41,720 --> 00:24:46,399
Speaker 1: taking three, four a year um. And so there the

411
00:24:46,520 --> 00:24:49,800
Speaker 1: Court is showing much more interest in patent cases because

412
00:24:49,840 --> 00:24:52,760
Speaker 1: they recognize the importance of our patent system. Thanks for

413
00:24:52,800 --> 00:24:56,159
Speaker 1: being on the Bloomberg Laws Show. That's Joseph ray, a

414
00:24:56,240 --> 00:24:59,719
Speaker 1: partner Canoby Martin and President of the American Intellectual Property

415
00:24:59,800 --> 00:25:02,399
Speaker 1: Law Association. And that's it for the edition of the

416
00:25:02,440 --> 00:25:05,240
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest

417
00:25:05,280 --> 00:25:07,920
Speaker 1: legal news on our Bloomberg Lawn podcast. You can find

418
00:25:07,920 --> 00:25:12,080
Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and at www dot Bloomberg

419
00:25:12,119 --> 00:25:15,720
Speaker 1: dot com, slash podcast slash Law. I'm June Grosso and

420
00:25:15,720 --> 00:25:17,040
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg