Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio. Hi,
Speaker 1: I'm Naomi, and this is an introduction to the people
Speaker 1: that asked me what I do, so welcome to my brain.
Speaker 1: Naomi Osaka, the highest paid female athlete of all time
Speaker 1: at the age of twenty three. At press conferences, Osaka
Speaker 1: is charming and funny, even in response to tedious or
Speaker 1: sometimes ridiculous questions. How come that your last name is
Speaker 1: the same name everyone's who was born in Osaka, their
Speaker 1: last name is Osaka. No, not caught up in a
Speaker 1: lot of bad stuff? How do you know? I'm not
Speaker 1: caught off invested? When she's serving in boats and then
Speaker 1: I'm arguing with myself, don't do it? Do it? Don't
Speaker 1: do it? Do it? And then the ball comes and
Speaker 1: then I hit it down the line and it goes
Speaker 1: in the net, and then I'm like, why did I
Speaker 1: do it? But Osaka skipped a post match news conference
Speaker 1: after her first round victory at the French Open and
Speaker 1: was slapped with a fifteen thousand dollar fine. She then
Speaker 1: withdrew from the Open, tweeting that she experiences huge waves
Speaker 1: of anxiety before speaking to the media and has suffered
Speaker 1: long bouts of depression. There's no court case at this point,
Speaker 1: but in the court of public opinion, it's ignited a
Speaker 1: debate about whether sports organizations should provide their star athletes
Speaker 1: with modifications or reasonable accommodations for mental health reasons. Joining
Speaker 1: me is Ruth Kulker, a professor of constitutional law and
Speaker 1: disability discrimination at Ohio State University. Ruth, what's your first
Speaker 1: reaction to what happened to Osaka? Well, I think that
Speaker 1: we need to think about this through a disability frame,
Speaker 1: in that people for whom their disability is such that
Speaker 1: they would request accommodations entity should be reasonable and considering
Speaker 1: this requests, and I think in her case, her request
Speaker 1: to skip post match press conference should certainly be considered
Speaker 1: to be reasonable. Ruth, with the Americans with Disabilities Act
Speaker 1: cover a situation like this if it happened in this country.
Speaker 1: As you may know, the U. S t A has
Speaker 1: stated publicly that they would expect Naomi a SOCCA to
Speaker 1: attend press conferences if she participated in their tours, and
Speaker 1: so they went through with that rule without accommodating her disability.
Speaker 1: In my view, they would likely be in violation of
Speaker 1: the ADA. The ADA says that a disability is a
Speaker 1: physical or mental impairment that the stantcy limits one or
Speaker 1: more major life activities. And so it specifically says physical
Speaker 1: as well as mental and mental health issues are obviously
Speaker 1: something that can constitute an impairment. The tennis organizations require
Speaker 1: these press conferences, how would that requirement be viewed in
Speaker 1: the framework of the AD. So, what the A d
Speaker 1: A says is that employers can put down in writing
Speaker 1: what they considered to be the essential job trunkstens of
Speaker 1: our particular job. So I'm a law professor, so if
Speaker 1: my employer would put down what are the essential fences
Speaker 1: of my job, you would expect them to include things
Speaker 1: like teaching my classes, right, something of that sort. And
Speaker 1: if the employer puts down to something that's essential, then
Speaker 1: the courts tend to air on the side or tend
Speaker 1: to conclude that it probably is essential. But that doesn't
Speaker 1: preclude the employee from saying, you know, actually that was personal,
Speaker 1: not essential. And so if it's only a personal part
Speaker 1: of the job, then you can ask for an accommodation
Speaker 1: to be excused from engaging in that part of the activity. So,
Speaker 1: when we think about tennis, we think about the U
Speaker 1: s t A running a tennis tournament, we think that
Speaker 1: most of us would say, well, the essential thing is
Speaker 1: getting to the court, being there on time, using a
Speaker 1: racket that meets the guide that they have. Possibly we're
Speaker 1: in clothing that they they know is befitting of the
Speaker 1: match that's going to be held. And so that's when
Speaker 1: most of us, I think, would say is essential about tennis?
Speaker 1: And now the U s t A is adding onto
Speaker 1: that by saying what attendee press conferences is potential. That's
Speaker 1: something that an employee would be able to challenge and say,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, why are you saying that? Why is
Speaker 1: that so essential? How does that affect the game that's
Speaker 1: being played that I'm an employee of your entity and
Speaker 1: engaging in that kind of activity. So, Ruth, twenty years ago,
Speaker 1: Casey Martin sued the PGA to be able to use
Speaker 1: a golf card during competition and that turned out to
Speaker 1: be a victory for disability rights. How might that ruling
Speaker 1: apply here? Right, that's the perfect analogy. So what happened
Speaker 1: in the Casey Martin cases that Casey Martin has a
Speaker 1: genetic disorder in his leg, which makes it very difficult
Speaker 1: for him to stand for extended periods of time. He
Speaker 1: can stand enough to go to the tea and play
Speaker 1: golf um, but if he would walk from shot the shot,
Speaker 1: hole the whole um, it would so impair him that
Speaker 1: he had actually would be at risk of having his
Speaker 1: like amputated. That's that's how serious his physical impairment is.
Speaker 1: And so he could not literally play golf on in
Speaker 1: certain PGA tournaments if they were not going to allow
Speaker 1: him to use a golf card to advance from hole
Speaker 1: to hole. And there was a rule in writing that
Speaker 1: said that you had to walk on hole the whole
Speaker 1: you were not allowed to use a golf card. So
Speaker 1: that's a little bit like the Naomia Softwa situation. Right,
Speaker 1: there's a rule in writing it says you're expected to
Speaker 1: attend these press press conferences. Well, Casey Martin argued, was
Speaker 1: it was reasonable to modify the rules to accommodate his
Speaker 1: very serious physical impairment by allowing him to ride the
Speaker 1: golf card from whole the whole, and that that would
Speaker 1: not fundamentally alter the nature of the enterprise that the
Speaker 1: PGA was running, and in particular would not give him
Speaker 1: a competitive advantage by sitting in a golf cart rather
Speaker 1: than walking from hole the whole the p g E
Speaker 1: disagree with him. They felt that it gave him a
Speaker 1: competitive advantage, and that was a factual question. There was
Speaker 1: a hearing at which various renowned golfers testified in both directions,
Speaker 1: and at the end of the day, the court concluded that, um,
Speaker 1: writing a golf cart wasn't an essential aspect of the game.
Speaker 1: It wasn't like changing the club or the way to
Speaker 1: the balls, or the way you kept score. Um. And
Speaker 1: so it's I think it's very analogous talking on a
Speaker 1: Saki situation, because I think attending a press conference even
Speaker 1: more peripheral to the game of tennis than writing a
Speaker 1: golf cart when you play golf. So from that precedent,
Speaker 1: it sounds like Naomi Osaka would have a great case
Speaker 1: that she did decide to sue, right, and you know,
Speaker 1: I would hope that that the U. S t A
Speaker 1: got some lousy llegal advice and acted a little hastily,
Speaker 1: and then upon further reflection, um, they require this to
Speaker 1: become a legal case, that they'll they'll talk with Naomi
Speaker 1: Osaka and they'll have a conversation they'll figure out how
Speaker 1: they can recently accommodate her so that so that the
Speaker 1: world has an opportunity to see this great tennis player
Speaker 1: play tennis um and they have an opportunity to do
Speaker 1: the kind of publicity that that's necessary for them as
Speaker 1: a business to have these tournaments. When you compare the
Speaker 1: reaction of the French Tennis Federation to Roger Federer withdrawing
Speaker 1: to preserve his knee and his energy for Wimbledon, he said,
Speaker 1: it's important that I listened to my body and I
Speaker 1: don't push myself too quickly on my road to recovery.
Speaker 1: And the president of the French Tennis Federation didn't question
Speaker 1: his decision, said he had too much respect for Roger,
Speaker 1: and Federer was not fine for the withdrawal. It seems
Speaker 1: like a stark contrast to what happened to Osaka, wondering
Speaker 1: that the comparison between you know, a physical problem and
Speaker 1: a mental problem, or perhaps between a man and a woman.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Yeah, Well, as I said, the French
Speaker 1: Federation wouldn't be covered by the AD, they be covered
Speaker 1: by their own domestic law, and I'm not an expert
Speaker 1: in French domestic law. With regard to disability. But typically
Speaker 1: what laws said both the US and the international level
Speaker 1: says that both physical and mental impairments are equally considered
Speaker 1: to be disabilities, and therefore the rules about accommodation would
Speaker 1: be exactly the same um and if if someone is
Speaker 1: treated differently, then that sounds to me like a discrimination problem.
Speaker 1: But as I think you know in the United States
Speaker 1: that there's been a lot of attention in recent years
Speaker 1: that we should take mental health disabilities as seriously as
Speaker 1: we take physical health impairments. And so I think one
Speaker 1: of the things in Naomi Assaca case is raising for
Speaker 1: us as a as a community is to just remember
Speaker 1: that mental health impairments are everybody's real and physical impairments,
Speaker 1: and so hopefully people are treating Miami Assaca with respect
Speaker 1: that she entitled to as someone who's's claiming to have
Speaker 1: a mental health compairment. Thanks Ruth, that's law Professor Ruth
Speaker 1: Coulker of Ohio State University. This is Bloomberg Law with
Speaker 1: June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio. The Supreme Court is approaching
Speaker 1: the finished line of the term, with decisions in twenty
Speaker 1: two cases to be handed down before the Jostices take
Speaker 1: off for three months of vacation. Among those cases are
Speaker 1: the constitutionality of Obamacare, a case involving Foster Care that
Speaker 1: pits religious rights against gay rights, an election law case
Speaker 1: that could be consequential, a case on college athletes compensation,
Speaker 1: and on whether schools can regulate off campus speech. The
Speaker 1: Jostices are also deciding which case is to take for
Speaker 1: next term. Joining me is Kimberly, Strawbridge, Robinson, Bloomberg Law,
Speaker 1: Supreme Court Reporter Kimberly, Let's start with a disagreement between
Speaker 1: the White House and the Justice Department on a case
Speaker 1: for next term. There's a provision in federal law that
Speaker 1: the White House has expressed disagreement with, but the Justice
Speaker 1: Department plans to defend at the Supreme Court tell us
Speaker 1: about that right. So there's this case that the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court has agreed to hear at the request of the
Speaker 1: federal government, which is a lower court ruling that found
Speaker 1: that the federal law violated equal protection. And what this
Speaker 1: law does is it provides uh supplemental Social Security income
Speaker 1: to UH low income individuals who are either elderly, blind,
Speaker 1: or in another way disabled. The law, though applies in
Speaker 1: the fifty States and DC and some other charactories, but
Speaker 1: does not apply in Puerto Rico. And that's why the
Speaker 1: lower court said, uh, that this law was invalid. The
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is going to review that, and in doing so,
Speaker 1: the parties have filed their brief and the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice files there's earlier this week, and it was accompanied
Speaker 1: by kind of a strange statement by the White House
Speaker 1: which said, while the White House doesn't agree with this law,
Speaker 1: it is the duty of the Justice Department to defend
Speaker 1: federal laws, and that that's the approach that it's going
Speaker 1: to take here as well. The Justice Department hasn't defended
Speaker 1: every federal law. For example, recently, the Trump administration didn't
Speaker 1: defend Obamacare. That's right. And you know, we we've seen
Speaker 1: occasionally from not just the Trump administration but administrations before that,
Speaker 1: that this so called duty to defend isn't really iron clad. Uh,
Speaker 1: And so I think most famously, we saw the Obama
Speaker 1: administration refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which
Speaker 1: defines marriage as between a man and a woman for
Speaker 1: all federal purposes. And you know, this happens a handful
Speaker 1: of times. That's happened a few dozen times since the
Speaker 1: nineteen seventies, and it really depends on, you know, the
Speaker 1: administration and how far they're they're willing to go to
Speaker 1: defend a statute that they think is really not defensible.
Speaker 1: There have been Supreme Court arguments where the Justices asked
Speaker 1: the lawyers why they had changed positions in the case,
Speaker 1: especially during the Trump administration. There were sometimes two different agencies,
Speaker 1: the Justice Department and for example, the E O. C.
Speaker 1: We're arguing against each other, even that's right, and so
Speaker 1: that situation is a little bit different. Sometimes in those situations,
Speaker 1: the administration is defending law, but they're defending it in
Speaker 1: kind of a different way. Um, and so the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court will ask will appoint someone to argue uh that
Speaker 1: position as well. Uh. The Biden administration has done this
Speaker 1: quite a bit as well, shifting positions from uh previous
Speaker 1: positions taken by the Trump administration. And you know, I
Speaker 1: think that's just something that the Justices expect to see
Speaker 1: whenever they see administrations turnover, particularly when they turnover from
Speaker 1: a Republican to a Democrat or vice versa. So now
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court turn to way a case over the
Speaker 1: mail only draft, the Supreme Court ruled on this. Tell
Speaker 1: us about the ruling in one, Well, the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: back in nine eight one did have a challenge for
Speaker 1: the mail only draft, and they said at the time
Speaker 1: that that was okay. One of the things that they
Speaker 1: looked at was the fact that women at the time
Speaker 1: were actually barred from combat duty, and of course that
Speaker 1: has changed over the over the past decade. The reason
Speaker 1: I think that the Supreme Court decided not to take
Speaker 1: up this case wasn't because they think that that's still
Speaker 1: a good rule, but because this is something that Congress
Speaker 1: is actively considering. And so it seems, at least for now,
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court is going to let Congress take
Speaker 1: a whack at the first uh, and then maybe down
Speaker 1: the line if nothing happens, we'll see the Justice Stepan
Speaker 1: who brought this case, Well, this was brought by a
Speaker 1: group um who was in the A C. L U
Speaker 1: who is challenging, Um, you know this mail only draft.
Speaker 1: Who wants to see it really opened up? Uh? Two
Speaker 1: females as well, um, which is something interesting. It's not
Speaker 1: all the time that we see people asked to be
Speaker 1: part of registering for the draft, but you know, that's
Speaker 1: something I think that from a feminism or from equal
Speaker 1: protection is something that is important for this group. And
Speaker 1: what did the Fifth Circuits say about this? Well, the
Speaker 1: Circuits said, you know, it's really up to the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court to change the law, even though facts on the
Speaker 1: ground have changed, it's not the prerogative of the lower
Speaker 1: federal courts to you know, change or to ignore Supreme
Speaker 1: Court precedent. That really the challengers were stuck making their
Speaker 1: case to the Justice tell us about the comment that
Speaker 1: was written by Justice Sonia Soto Mayor, joined in by
Speaker 1: Justices Steven Bryan and Brett Kavanaugh. Right, so this is
Speaker 1: uh kind of an odd matchup here, um, you know,
Speaker 1: having two of the Court's liberals joined by Brett Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: But essentially they said, you know, this is something that
Speaker 1: Congress is trying to work out for itself. And they said,
Speaker 1: you know, at least now we're gonna go ahead and
Speaker 1: defer to Congress and let them take you know, this
Speaker 1: issue up and have the first shot at it. But
Speaker 1: they didn't leave out the possibility that, you know, if
Speaker 1: Congress fails to act, that the support will be there
Speaker 1: waiting to hear the case. I was trying to figure
Speaker 1: out why those three might want to make that kind
Speaker 1: of a statement in this case. Yeah, we don't really know.
Speaker 1: I mean, oftentimes we don't even have any statement from
Speaker 1: the justices telling us, you know, who voted to turn
Speaker 1: the case away, who voted to take it up. Uh.
Speaker 1: Here we do have this statement from these three justices
Speaker 1: again and an odd kind of mix. Um, we don't
Speaker 1: know why others didn't join. But you know, it is
Speaker 1: more information than we than we typically have. So let's
Speaker 1: turn now to And this isn't an area that I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people have heard about the Foreign
Speaker 1: Intelligence Surveillance Act FISA. So tell us the issue here. Sure,
Speaker 1: So this is the case that the Supreme Court agreed
Speaker 1: to take up for next term, and it deals with
Speaker 1: the vision that changes the way that courts are supposed
Speaker 1: to look at evidence that's claimed by the government to
Speaker 1: involve state secrets. So these are things that could threaten
Speaker 1: national security. And the challenge here, um is that the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit said that when Congress packed the Foreign Intelligence
Speaker 1: Surveillance Act, that it actually did away with what courts
Speaker 1: had been previously doing under judgments law UH and created
Speaker 1: this new process for courts to consider UH. The state secrets,
Speaker 1: and in this process, the government has to turn over
Speaker 1: the information to the court, whereas before they did not.
Speaker 1: The court kind of trusted that the government was was
Speaker 1: protecting state secrets and that these things would implicate uh,
Speaker 1: national security. Uh, that's not the case, at least not
Speaker 1: in the Ninth Circuit, which is where this case comes from.
Speaker 1: And so the Supreme Court has decided to take a
Speaker 1: look as well. What was the distinction the Ninth Circuit
Speaker 1: made to reject the government's argument. Yeah, they said that,
Speaker 1: you know, once Congress passed this act fight so that
Speaker 1: it actually did away with this kind of judgments rule.
Speaker 1: It said, you know, we made up this rule in
Speaker 1: the absence of their being a congressional statute. But now
Speaker 1: that there is a statute, we have to follow what
Speaker 1: the statute says. The government, for its part, says, you know,
Speaker 1: Congress didn't want to do away with the whole way
Speaker 1: that churts we're doing it. It was just really in
Speaker 1: this really small deliver of cases where the government wants
Speaker 1: to affirmatively use the evidence against someone else. Um, so
Speaker 1: they're urging the stream Court just rule that this process
Speaker 1: only applies in a really narrow circumstance and not in
Speaker 1: in case like this where individuals are trying to use
Speaker 1: the information against the government and explain who brought the case.
Speaker 1: These are three Muslim men who claimed that they were
Speaker 1: targets of what they call a dragnet surveillance program by
Speaker 1: the FBI. You know, this was alleged to have been
Speaker 1: a year long surveillance not just of these three people,
Speaker 1: but of just Muslim individuals in general that eventually ended
Speaker 1: up targeting these three. Um, so those are their claims.
Speaker 1: This is on a really early process that this case
Speaker 1: is in and so none of those facts have been
Speaker 1: proven yet, but at least for now, that's the way
Speaker 1: that the Court is operating, that what's been alleged it's true.
Speaker 1: So it's June and we're waiting for the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: decisions in cases that will argue this term, these really
Speaker 1: high profile cases. Lately, they've been handing down opinions in
Speaker 1: cases that didn't get a lot of notice, but the
Speaker 1: big cases have yet to come. Obamacare. It's sort of
Speaker 1: puzzling to me because it was argued in November. Most
Speaker 1: people assume from the argument that the justices wouldn't be
Speaker 1: doing away with Obamacare. Why do you think it's taking
Speaker 1: so long? Well, I do agree with that the justices
Speaker 1: didn't seem to want to go as far as the
Speaker 1: challengdars here were urging them to go and on is
Speaker 1: to find that the whole Act, all the provisions in
Speaker 1: Obama here were invalid. I do think one of the
Speaker 1: reasons that it's taking so long is that there are
Speaker 1: a lot of other issues in the case, so that
Speaker 1: you know, was just one part of kind of three
Speaker 1: parts to the case, and all these issues. There's a
Speaker 1: standing issue about who can bring a case. There's the
Speaker 1: merits issue about whether or not the certain provisions of
Speaker 1: the law is valid, and then there's this severance issue
Speaker 1: about whether or not, you know, if that provision is valid,
Speaker 1: if the whole Act must fall. And so there's a
Speaker 1: lot of ways for the nine justices to come out differently,
Speaker 1: and I think we're we're going to be expecting one
Speaker 1: of those decisions where we get, you know, one justice
Speaker 1: concurring and joining in part A one B two four,
Speaker 1: but not A one B two five or or whatever
Speaker 1: it might be looking forward to that um. And now
Speaker 1: a case that has drawn a lot of attention is
Speaker 1: the case where gay rights and religious rights seemed to
Speaker 1: be in conflict. Tell us about that case that's right,
Speaker 1: that was actually argued way back in November two. I
Speaker 1: think one of the reasons that this case is taking
Speaker 1: so long, it's just because it's genuinely a really difficult
Speaker 1: issue for the justices to sort out. So this is,
Speaker 1: as you hinted at, one in a long line of
Speaker 1: cases where the justices are trying to balance you know,
Speaker 1: these anti discrimination laws that are meant to protect LGBT
Speaker 1: citizens and you know, the rights of other individuals to
Speaker 1: practice their religion freely. And this case is made even
Speaker 1: more difficult because we're dealing with the Philadelphia foster care
Speaker 1: system and Catholic Social Services, which has actually been involved
Speaker 1: in Philadelphia's foster care system longer than the city itself.
Speaker 1: So these issues are really tough for the justices, and
Speaker 1: I suspect that they're trying to work through an opinion
Speaker 1: that really respects both sides. Often the most controversial cases
Speaker 1: seem to get decided in the last days of the term,
Speaker 1: and some people say it's because those are complicated decision
Speaker 1: ends and it takes a while to get all the
Speaker 1: opinions in etcetera, etcetera. But could the court be holding
Speaker 1: back these controversial decisions until the last minute before they
Speaker 1: scoot off for vacations. Well, they do say that as
Speaker 1: the opinions there are finished, that's when they send them out.
Speaker 1: It may be that the justices, you know, it does
Speaker 1: just take more time to write an opinion that has
Speaker 1: a majority and a descent than it does take to
Speaker 1: write a unanimous opinion. And that's what we've been getting
Speaker 1: most often so far up to the term. Are just
Speaker 1: these really short unanimous opinions, sometimes just a few pages long,
Speaker 1: where when you have one of these controversial cases that
Speaker 1: are gonna divide the justices maybe five four or six three,
Speaker 1: you have to put out a majority opinion, you have
Speaker 1: to get a dissent, They have to respond to the descent.
Speaker 1: The descent might change as well, and so you know,
Speaker 1: it does just take them longer to even write the decision,
Speaker 1: let alone come up with the right answer. Maybe I'm
Speaker 1: just too suspicious, Kimberly. So. Also, there are two cases
Speaker 1: from Arizona that involve election law that could have far
Speaker 1: reaching impacts. That's right, and this case is really flying
Speaker 1: under the radar. If so much has happened this term
Speaker 1: with the death of RBT and with the newest justice
Speaker 1: and trying to figure out how this court is going
Speaker 1: to shake out that this one has been flying under
Speaker 1: the radar. The issue in the case deals with two
Speaker 1: specific Arizona provisions. But the case is important because it
Speaker 1: could implicate really most voting rights challenges going forward. And
Speaker 1: so to understand this case, you have to understand the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County, which undid a really
Speaker 1: large protection for voting changes that required that dates with
Speaker 1: a history of discrimination get their voting changes pre cleared
Speaker 1: before those changes can go into effect. That's no longer
Speaker 1: the law, although there are some efforts in Congress change that,
Speaker 1: and now what's left is kind of an after the
Speaker 1: fact challenge. And because it's an after the fact challenge,
Speaker 1: most challenge just have happened under that preclearance formula. Now
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is kind of playing catchup and setting
Speaker 1: the rules or what it's going to look like when
Speaker 1: courts try to analyze those challenges under this other provision. Now,
Speaker 1: a case that did not fly under the radar was
Speaker 1: the case involving off campus speech and a cheerleader who
Speaker 1: said some things that the school found objectionable. That's right.
Speaker 1: This was, you know, an individual who was upset that
Speaker 1: she didn't make the varsity team when someone else did.
Speaker 1: I think we can all relate to how she was feeling.
Speaker 1: But she did use the F word on social media
Speaker 1: and was punished subsequently for using those terms. And this
Speaker 1: is a really hard case for the justices too, because
Speaker 1: they had decided a case long ago that says, when
Speaker 1: you're at school, you lose some free speech protection, but
Speaker 1: you do hold on to a lot of them. But
Speaker 1: that is you just get, you know, kind of muddied
Speaker 1: up whenever you're talking about social media, which maybe it
Speaker 1: doesn't happen on campus, but it affects campus in a
Speaker 1: way that those issues just weren't there when the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court has decided that school speech cases before. And so
Speaker 1: it's another one of these cases where the Justices are
Speaker 1: trying to kind of update their old case longs to
Speaker 1: incorporate new technology. Are there any other cases that you're
Speaker 1: looking for particularly? I think that really does capture most
Speaker 1: of the cases that we're watching really closely. There is
Speaker 1: another challenge from the n C double A, which looks
Speaker 1: at whether or not student athletes can be paid for
Speaker 1: playing their sport, given that so many schools do really
Speaker 1: benefit financially from things like football and basketball programs. So
Speaker 1: that's another one to watch. But I'm going to be
Speaker 1: watching to see too how this court, newly reconstituted with
Speaker 1: these three Trump appointees, comes out, if they're going to
Speaker 1: continue to be unanimous and a lot of these cases,
Speaker 1: or as we get closer to the end of the term,
Speaker 1: whether it's going to be more divided. And also all
Speaker 1: eyes are on Justice Stephen Bryer because people think that
Speaker 1: if he's going retire this year, he would do it
Speaker 1: on the last day of the term. He doesn't have
Speaker 1: to do it on the last day of the term,
Speaker 1: right right, He can do can do whatever they want,
Speaker 1: But that is a traditional time. You know, we saw
Speaker 1: Justice Kennedy announced after the screen Court had announced his
Speaker 1: last opinions for the term, say that he was going
Speaker 1: to be stepping away from the bench. And that makes
Speaker 1: a lot of sense because it gives the president time
Speaker 1: to nominate someone in Congress, time to hold hearings and
Speaker 1: to confirm someone. So I would suspect that if Justice
Speaker 1: by our plants to step away that he'll do it
Speaker 1: at the end of June, but as you mentioned, of
Speaker 1: course he can do it whenever he wants. Thanks Kimberly,
Speaker 1: that's Bloomberg Law. Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, this
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg