1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,600 --> 00:00:14,600
Speaker 2: Honorable the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the

3
00:00:14,600 --> 00:00:18,800
Speaker 2: Supreme Court of the United States. Oh yay, oh yay,

4
00:00:19,360 --> 00:00:22,959
Speaker 2: oh yay. All persons having business before the Honorable the

5
00:00:23,040 --> 00:00:26,280
Speaker 2: Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to give

6
00:00:26,320 --> 00:00:28,440
Speaker 2: their attention for the Court is now sitting.

7
00:00:28,720 --> 00:00:32,400
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court's new term begins on Monday, as always,

8
00:00:32,440 --> 00:00:35,960
Speaker 1: the first Monday in October, but unlike other terms, the

9
00:00:36,240 --> 00:00:38,960
Speaker 1: justices are returning to the bench under a cloud of

10
00:00:39,040 --> 00:00:42,599
Speaker 1: ethics controversies and with public opinion of the Court at

11
00:00:42,600 --> 00:00:46,479
Speaker 1: a historic low. According to a Gallup pole released today,

12
00:00:47,040 --> 00:00:49,879
Speaker 1: just forty one percent of Americans say they approve of

13
00:00:49,920 --> 00:00:52,680
Speaker 1: how the Court is handling its job, while fifty eight

14
00:00:52,720 --> 00:00:56,800
Speaker 1: percent disapprove. And the Justices will be diving back into

15
00:00:56,800 --> 00:01:02,480
Speaker 1: the culture wars, tackling controversial issues involving gun rights, voting rights,

16
00:01:02,560 --> 00:01:06,399
Speaker 1: agency power, and social media. My guest is Gregory gar

17
00:01:06,600 --> 00:01:09,560
Speaker 1: former Solicitor General of the United States and now a

18
00:01:09,560 --> 00:01:13,000
Speaker 1: partner at Latham and Watkins. It's great to have you here. Greg.

19
00:01:13,120 --> 00:01:17,160
Speaker 1: Let's start our now annual review of the term with

20
00:01:17,520 --> 00:01:21,680
Speaker 1: one of the most watched and perhaps consequential cases the

21
00:01:21,680 --> 00:01:25,200
Speaker 1: first gun rights dispute the justices have taken up since

22
00:01:25,319 --> 00:01:29,640
Speaker 1: the landmark decision last year establishing a constitutional right to

23
00:01:29,720 --> 00:01:34,080
Speaker 1: carry a handgun in public. Tell Us about United States versus.

24
00:01:33,760 --> 00:01:37,520
Speaker 3: Raheemi, another big Second Amendment case and an opportunity for

25
00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:41,280
Speaker 3: the Court to revisit the historical approach to adopted a

26
00:01:41,280 --> 00:01:44,440
Speaker 3: couple of years ago in the Bruin case involving a

27
00:01:44,560 --> 00:01:47,400
Speaker 3: New York law that restricted the right to carry firearms

28
00:01:47,440 --> 00:01:51,559
Speaker 3: outside of the home. And this case involves a challenge

29
00:01:51,600 --> 00:01:56,640
Speaker 3: to a restraining order that prevents a domestic violence abuser

30
00:01:56,800 --> 00:02:01,880
Speaker 3: from possessing handguns under federal law. And what's interesting about

31
00:02:01,880 --> 00:02:05,400
Speaker 3: this case is beginning with the Heller decision ten years

32
00:02:05,520 --> 00:02:08,520
Speaker 3: or so ago, where they recognized the individual right to

33
00:02:08,680 --> 00:02:11,200
Speaker 3: pair of firearms in the home. The Court had always

34
00:02:11,320 --> 00:02:15,079
Speaker 3: focused on the rights of what it called in Heller

35
00:02:15,320 --> 00:02:21,520
Speaker 3: law abiding responsible citizens to possess and carry firearms. In

36
00:02:21,560 --> 00:02:26,880
Speaker 3: this case, the challenger was convicted of domestic abuse after

37
00:02:27,360 --> 00:02:30,560
Speaker 3: striking his girlfriend and doing other terrible things, and then

38
00:02:30,840 --> 00:02:34,000
Speaker 3: was prohibited under federal law from possession of firearm. And

39
00:02:34,040 --> 00:02:38,120
Speaker 3: he's bringing a second Amendment challenge to that, which, if

40
00:02:38,160 --> 00:02:41,799
Speaker 3: he's successful, would un all likelihood call into question a

41
00:02:41,880 --> 00:02:45,960
Speaker 3: number of other firearm restrictions that apply to dangerous people

42
00:02:46,160 --> 00:02:49,120
Speaker 3: were potentially even mentally ill people.

43
00:02:49,440 --> 00:02:52,840
Speaker 1: The Fifth Circuit said that while Rehimi was hardly a

44
00:02:52,880 --> 00:02:57,480
Speaker 1: model citizen, he was entitled to Second Amendment protections.

45
00:02:57,160 --> 00:02:59,280
Speaker 3: And he looked at it through the lens of the courts.

46
00:02:59,760 --> 00:03:03,040
Speaker 3: His historical analysis established a couple of years ago, which

47
00:03:03,120 --> 00:03:06,760
Speaker 3: requires the courts to go back and line up the

48
00:03:06,800 --> 00:03:13,000
Speaker 3: firearms restriction against historical laws going back to the eighteenth century.

49
00:03:13,040 --> 00:03:16,639
Speaker 3: And oftentimes in these cases there's really no perfect analog

50
00:03:17,320 --> 00:03:21,280
Speaker 3: given the way in which guns and restrictions has evolved

51
00:03:21,360 --> 00:03:23,920
Speaker 3: over time. And so, you know, one of the questions

52
00:03:23,919 --> 00:03:26,079
Speaker 3: at the heart of the case is perhaps the court

53
00:03:26,120 --> 00:03:28,400
Speaker 3: will give us some more guidance on how to apply

54
00:03:28,440 --> 00:03:31,760
Speaker 3: that historical analysis. And in this case, the government has

55
00:03:31,919 --> 00:03:35,320
Speaker 3: strenuously argued that this sort of restriction really is in

56
00:03:35,360 --> 00:03:39,800
Speaker 3: line with historical restrictions prohibiting those who are deemed to

57
00:03:39,840 --> 00:03:43,160
Speaker 3: be dangerous from possessing guns. But that's really the numb

58
00:03:43,160 --> 00:03:46,680
Speaker 3: of its due before the court is a historical argument

59
00:03:46,720 --> 00:03:52,120
Speaker 3: about whether this restriction is analogous to eighteenth century restrictions

60
00:03:52,200 --> 00:03:54,520
Speaker 3: on gun possession or not.

61
00:03:55,120 --> 00:03:57,480
Speaker 1: And here you have this listener general saying, well, there

62
00:03:57,480 --> 00:04:01,279
Speaker 1: are some colonial and early state laws that allowed disarming

63
00:04:01,520 --> 00:04:05,600
Speaker 1: dangerous individuals, and Raheemi's lawyers saying that none of those

64
00:04:05,680 --> 00:04:08,320
Speaker 1: laws applied. They seem to want a law exactly on

65
00:04:08,520 --> 00:04:13,640
Speaker 1: point this historical analysis. In this context, where weapons are

66
00:04:13,680 --> 00:04:16,560
Speaker 1: so different and times are so different, the courts have

67
00:04:16,680 --> 00:04:18,240
Speaker 1: really struggled with it, haven't they.

68
00:04:18,760 --> 00:04:21,320
Speaker 3: Yeah, they have, And we've seen a lot of cases

69
00:04:21,440 --> 00:04:23,520
Speaker 3: in the wake of the Brewin decision a couple of

70
00:04:23,600 --> 00:04:28,080
Speaker 3: years ago, cases challenging all sorts of restrictions that seem

71
00:04:28,120 --> 00:04:31,720
Speaker 3: to have survived the Heller decision ten years back, recognizing

72
00:04:31,760 --> 00:04:35,400
Speaker 3: this individual right. And so I think as important as

73
00:04:35,400 --> 00:04:38,440
Speaker 3: this specific issue is in this case, particularly for the

74
00:04:38,520 --> 00:04:42,239
Speaker 3: victims of domestic abuse, I think the focus of the

75
00:04:42,320 --> 00:04:44,320
Speaker 3: court's resolution is going to be to see if they

76
00:04:44,320 --> 00:04:47,800
Speaker 3: can fine tune this historical analysis to give courts more

77
00:04:47,800 --> 00:04:50,040
Speaker 3: guidance and considering.

78
00:04:49,560 --> 00:04:54,200
Speaker 1: These challenges, and this case could affect state laws as well.

79
00:04:54,480 --> 00:04:57,280
Speaker 1: An Illinois led group back in the administration, so that

80
00:04:57,360 --> 00:05:02,000
Speaker 1: almost every state either requires permits courts to limit firearm

81
00:05:02,080 --> 00:05:05,360
Speaker 1: access for people's subject to domestic restraining orders.

82
00:05:05,880 --> 00:05:08,640
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's exactly right. It would apply to state laws,

83
00:05:08,920 --> 00:05:12,640
Speaker 3: local laws, and that's obviously one of the government's arguments.

84
00:05:12,880 --> 00:05:15,279
Speaker 3: And the court took this case right up on the

85
00:05:15,320 --> 00:05:20,919
Speaker 3: government's petition, I think, understanding the general importance of the

86
00:05:20,960 --> 00:05:23,720
Speaker 3: issue and the need to sort of jump back in

87
00:05:23,760 --> 00:05:26,600
Speaker 3: and clarify its law in this area. So this is

88
00:05:26,720 --> 00:05:29,000
Speaker 3: definitely one that we would want to follow.

89
00:05:29,480 --> 00:05:33,080
Speaker 1: Let's turn now to another high profile redistricting case to

90
00:05:33,120 --> 00:05:37,159
Speaker 1: come before the court, Alexander versus South Carolina Conference of

91
00:05:37,200 --> 00:05:38,360
Speaker 1: the NAACP.

92
00:05:39,200 --> 00:05:42,920
Speaker 3: Yeah. So one of the surprises last term was the

93
00:05:42,920 --> 00:05:46,480
Speaker 3: case out of Alabama involving a challenge to a registricting

94
00:05:46,600 --> 00:05:50,440
Speaker 3: plan in which a majority of the court actually agree

95
00:05:50,480 --> 00:05:53,559
Speaker 3: with the lower court that the state had improperly taken

96
00:05:53,680 --> 00:05:56,440
Speaker 3: race into account and drawing the districts. And so here

97
00:05:56,480 --> 00:05:58,680
Speaker 3: we go again. This is a challenge out of South

98
00:05:58,720 --> 00:06:02,480
Speaker 3: Carolina in which our court had found that the state

99
00:06:02,560 --> 00:06:07,839
Speaker 3: improperly used race to draw this district which in order

100
00:06:07,880 --> 00:06:11,159
Speaker 3: to favor Republicans. And what's sort of interesting about this

101
00:06:11,320 --> 00:06:16,080
Speaker 3: case is the interplay between race in politics. There's an

102
00:06:16,160 --> 00:06:20,640
Speaker 3: argument that race was used as a proxy for political

103
00:06:20,680 --> 00:06:24,560
Speaker 3: affiliation here, and that sort of brings into play two

104
00:06:24,560 --> 00:06:28,640
Speaker 3: different doctrines in the Supreme Courts jurisprudence, one in which

105
00:06:28,680 --> 00:06:33,120
Speaker 3: the Court recently held that challenges to redistricting on political grounds,

106
00:06:33,200 --> 00:06:37,919
Speaker 3: so called partisan gerrymanders, actually not justiciable, and the second,

107
00:06:37,960 --> 00:06:41,520
Speaker 3: in which the Court has always considered challenges that race

108
00:06:41,839 --> 00:06:45,240
Speaker 3: was improperly taken into account and drawing district lines. And

109
00:06:45,279 --> 00:06:48,159
Speaker 3: so this case presents an opportunity to quot the court

110
00:06:48,160 --> 00:06:50,400
Speaker 3: to sort of balance those two different inquiries.

111
00:06:50,920 --> 00:06:54,280
Speaker 1: So as you say, Republicans say they were motivated by politics,

112
00:06:54,279 --> 00:06:57,360
Speaker 1: which is permissible, not race, and it seems like it's

113
00:06:57,400 --> 00:07:01,200
Speaker 1: a difficult distinction to make, particularly in this case.

114
00:07:01,800 --> 00:07:04,400
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's exactly right, and that's why I'm sure it's

115
00:07:04,400 --> 00:07:06,479
Speaker 3: one of the reasons that the case is before the

116
00:07:06,520 --> 00:07:09,280
Speaker 3: court now. And again it'll be interesting to see if

117
00:07:09,279 --> 00:07:11,560
Speaker 3: this is one of those cases where maybe the Court

118
00:07:11,600 --> 00:07:13,680
Speaker 3: tacks back to the center, as it did in the

119
00:07:13,720 --> 00:07:17,120
Speaker 3: Alabama case last term. But this will be a difficult one.

120
00:07:17,200 --> 00:07:20,880
Speaker 3: This is obviously delicate issues in the intersection here between

121
00:07:20,960 --> 00:07:22,320
Speaker 3: race and politics.

122
00:07:23,400 --> 00:07:26,400
Speaker 1: That case last term you were talking about, the Alabama

123
00:07:26,480 --> 00:07:29,960
Speaker 1: case came as something of a surprise to many that

124
00:07:30,080 --> 00:07:33,760
Speaker 1: the Court rejected the Republican drawn congressional map in a

125
00:07:33,960 --> 00:07:37,360
Speaker 1: boost to the Voting Rights Act, and some see that

126
00:07:37,440 --> 00:07:39,720
Speaker 1: as a shift in the Court's approach, or at least

127
00:07:39,760 --> 00:07:42,920
Speaker 1: in the two conservative justices who sided with the liberals.

128
00:07:43,160 --> 00:07:46,880
Speaker 1: So will this case show whether that's true or not,

129
00:07:47,040 --> 00:07:48,120
Speaker 1: whether there is a shift.

130
00:07:48,360 --> 00:07:50,920
Speaker 3: It's definitely one to watch June, and I think the

131
00:07:50,960 --> 00:07:53,320
Speaker 3: gun case we just talked about is one as well.

132
00:07:53,880 --> 00:07:56,960
Speaker 3: These are two areas where the more centrist justices in

133
00:07:57,000 --> 00:07:59,920
Speaker 3: the Court, for example, the Chief Justice and Justice cap

134
00:08:00,040 --> 00:08:02,680
Speaker 3: and Awe, have not been as willing to go as

135
00:08:02,680 --> 00:08:05,600
Speaker 3: far as some of the more conservative justices. And that's

136
00:08:05,600 --> 00:08:08,640
Speaker 3: certainly one of the broader themes that we're looking at

137
00:08:08,680 --> 00:08:12,000
Speaker 3: for this term. Is last year we had several decisions

138
00:08:12,000 --> 00:08:14,320
Speaker 3: in which the Court seemed to tack a little bit

139
00:08:14,680 --> 00:08:17,320
Speaker 3: back to the center, and so it'll be interesting to

140
00:08:17,320 --> 00:08:20,000
Speaker 3: see whether that trend follows, or whether the Court will

141
00:08:20,280 --> 00:08:23,679
Speaker 3: proceed on what is otherwise a sort of conservative orbit

142
00:08:23,800 --> 00:08:24,560
Speaker 3: out to the right.

143
00:08:25,280 --> 00:08:29,040
Speaker 1: Next, we have social media meeting the Supreme Court O'Connor,

144
00:08:29,160 --> 00:08:34,199
Speaker 1: Ratcliffe versus. Garnier and Linky versus Freed. Both these cases

145
00:08:34,240 --> 00:08:40,000
Speaker 1: involve public officials blocking constituents who left critical messages on

146
00:08:40,040 --> 00:08:40,920
Speaker 1: their social media.

147
00:08:41,559 --> 00:08:43,360
Speaker 3: Right, so you know, we're seeing more and more of

148
00:08:43,400 --> 00:08:47,400
Speaker 3: these cases where social media intersects with the First Amendment.

149
00:08:47,960 --> 00:08:51,640
Speaker 3: And these are two different cases, one involving two California

150
00:08:51,679 --> 00:08:55,920
Speaker 3: school board members and one involving a city manager in Michigan.

151
00:08:56,440 --> 00:09:00,000
Speaker 3: And all of them had social media accounts Twitter and

152
00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:03,319
Speaker 3: Facebook and the like, which they used in some instances

153
00:09:03,440 --> 00:09:06,760
Speaker 3: to tweet about their public jobs, and when they got

154
00:09:06,760 --> 00:09:10,800
Speaker 3: some criticism from some constituents, they decided to block them

155
00:09:10,880 --> 00:09:13,360
Speaker 3: on their accounts. And the question is whether or not

156
00:09:13,440 --> 00:09:17,440
Speaker 3: that blocking is subject to scrutiny under the First Amendment,

157
00:09:17,920 --> 00:09:20,560
Speaker 3: which boils down in this case to a question whether

158
00:09:20,640 --> 00:09:24,360
Speaker 3: or not the blocking is actually state action subject to

159
00:09:24,400 --> 00:09:25,160
Speaker 3: the First Amendment.

160
00:09:25,720 --> 00:09:28,720
Speaker 1: And the Sixth and the Ninth Circuits came to different

161
00:09:28,800 --> 00:09:30,760
Speaker 1: conclusions on that right.

162
00:09:31,080 --> 00:09:34,080
Speaker 3: They split on that and the Ninth Circuit held that

163
00:09:34,120 --> 00:09:37,040
Speaker 3: the blocking was state action and a violation of the

164
00:09:37,040 --> 00:09:40,480
Speaker 3: First Amendment, and the Sixth Circuit came out the other way.

165
00:09:40,559 --> 00:09:43,400
Speaker 3: And looks these cases may turn in part on the

166
00:09:43,440 --> 00:09:47,520
Speaker 3: particular factual circumstances. For example, the extent to which the

167
00:09:47,559 --> 00:09:53,000
Speaker 3: public officials used their accounts for public purposes. The officials

168
00:09:53,080 --> 00:09:55,520
Speaker 3: in the cases are arguing that they actually were more

169
00:09:55,559 --> 00:09:58,760
Speaker 3: private than public, and so they shouldn't be considered state action.

170
00:09:58,960 --> 00:10:03,920
Speaker 3: But then you can see social media interacting with politics

171
00:10:04,040 --> 00:10:07,200
Speaker 3: and public life and finance way into the courts, And

172
00:10:07,240 --> 00:10:09,199
Speaker 3: there are other cases out there, and so this is

173
00:10:09,240 --> 00:10:12,240
Speaker 3: something we're going to see more of, is the Supreme

174
00:10:12,280 --> 00:10:16,400
Speaker 3: Court and other courts grapple with the intersection between social

175
00:10:16,440 --> 00:10:17,480
Speaker 3: media and First Amendment.

176
00:10:17,520 --> 00:10:20,520
Speaker 1: Right In twenty twenty one, when the Justice is turned

177
00:10:20,520 --> 00:10:24,720
Speaker 1: down a petition from former President Donald Trump presenting a

178
00:10:24,760 --> 00:10:28,880
Speaker 1: similar issue, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion saying that

179
00:10:28,920 --> 00:10:33,319
Speaker 1: the case quote highlights the principle legal difficulty that surrounds

180
00:10:33,400 --> 00:10:38,320
Speaker 1: digital platforms, namely that applying old doctrines to new digital

181
00:10:38,360 --> 00:10:43,640
Speaker 1: platforms is rarely straightforward. That struck me coming from Justice Thomas,

182
00:10:43,640 --> 00:10:46,240
Speaker 1: who wrote the decision in the New York gun case

183
00:10:46,280 --> 00:10:47,760
Speaker 1: we were talking about.

184
00:10:47,760 --> 00:10:50,200
Speaker 3: That's exactly right. This is the case where they're looking

185
00:10:50,280 --> 00:10:53,280
Speaker 3: at the future instead of the past and struggling to

186
00:10:53,320 --> 00:10:56,959
Speaker 3: apply these doctrines. And I'm sure that that'll be one

187
00:10:57,000 --> 00:10:59,360
Speaker 3: of the issues at the forefront of this decision.

188
00:10:59,559 --> 00:11:02,920
Speaker 1: Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with Gregory Garr

189
00:11:03,080 --> 00:11:06,199
Speaker 1: of Latham and Watkins and we'll talk about the court's

190
00:11:06,200 --> 00:11:09,960
Speaker 1: focus on the administrative state this term and some cases

191
00:11:10,360 --> 00:11:15,120
Speaker 1: targeting regulatory agencies. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.

192
00:11:15,679 --> 00:11:19,199
Speaker 1: Several cases on administrative law coming before the Supreme Court

193
00:11:19,280 --> 00:11:22,320
Speaker 1: this term may seem a little wonky for most people,

194
00:11:22,600 --> 00:11:26,000
Speaker 1: but they could transform the way the federal government operates

195
00:11:26,040 --> 00:11:30,120
Speaker 1: and alter the power dynamics between the branches. The cases

196
00:11:30,240 --> 00:11:34,360
Speaker 1: target the power of regulatory agencies before a conservative court

197
00:11:34,400 --> 00:11:38,480
Speaker 1: whose recent decisions have overridden the authority of agencies and

198
00:11:38,600 --> 00:11:42,160
Speaker 1: reined in the so called administrative state. I've been talking

199
00:11:42,160 --> 00:11:45,000
Speaker 1: to Gregory gar a partner at Latham and Watkins and

200
00:11:45,040 --> 00:11:48,360
Speaker 1: the former US Solicitor General. Greg Now we're onto the

201
00:11:48,400 --> 00:11:54,320
Speaker 1: regulatory area. Let's discuss Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raymondo, where

202
00:11:54,320 --> 00:11:58,000
Speaker 1: a thirty nine year old precedent, the Chevron Doctrine is

203
00:11:58,120 --> 00:12:00,480
Speaker 1: on the line. Will you explain Chevron?

204
00:12:00,960 --> 00:12:04,120
Speaker 3: Sure? So. Chevron doctrine is one of the most important

205
00:12:04,360 --> 00:12:08,240
Speaker 3: doctrines of administrative law that has been around since nineteen

206
00:12:08,320 --> 00:12:11,760
Speaker 3: eighty four, and basically what it says, is that where

207
00:12:11,800 --> 00:12:14,880
Speaker 3: you have a statute that is ambiguous and doesn't speak

208
00:12:14,920 --> 00:12:19,839
Speaker 3: directly to an issue, that the courts would give deference

209
00:12:20,000 --> 00:12:24,720
Speaker 3: to the administrative agencies interpretation of the statute. So this

210
00:12:24,880 --> 00:12:28,960
Speaker 3: case involves a law that requires fishing boats in the

211
00:12:29,000 --> 00:12:33,400
Speaker 3: North Atlantic to have observers to collect data and the like.

212
00:12:33,880 --> 00:12:36,360
Speaker 3: And the question is whether the fishing boats or the

213
00:12:36,360 --> 00:12:39,679
Speaker 3: government has to pay for those observers. And the statute

214
00:12:39,720 --> 00:12:44,000
Speaker 3: doesn't address that question, but the agency, the National Marine

215
00:12:44,000 --> 00:12:48,320
Speaker 3: Fisheries Service, interpreted it to require the fishing boats to

216
00:12:48,800 --> 00:12:52,080
Speaker 3: pay for these observers, and the lower court said that

217
00:12:52,280 --> 00:12:54,920
Speaker 3: was a reasonable interpretation. So the courts would refer to

218
00:12:54,960 --> 00:12:58,520
Speaker 3: it under Chevron. And the Chevron doctrine has come under

219
00:12:58,559 --> 00:13:03,080
Speaker 3: assault by the Conservatives as being contrary to the longstanding

220
00:13:03,240 --> 00:13:06,160
Speaker 3: central principle that it's the duty of the courts to

221
00:13:06,240 --> 00:13:08,720
Speaker 3: say what the law is. And so there's a great

222
00:13:08,760 --> 00:13:11,520
Speaker 3: concern that they've sort of dedicated that task to the

223
00:13:11,559 --> 00:13:15,360
Speaker 3: administrative agencies. And there have been many justice maybe five

224
00:13:15,400 --> 00:13:18,520
Speaker 3: in this case, who'd be willing to overturn the Chevron

225
00:13:18,600 --> 00:13:21,679
Speaker 3: doctor and then give the courts the sort of frontline

226
00:13:21,760 --> 00:13:25,559
Speaker 3: role in interpreting what statutes mean without administrative difference.

227
00:13:26,000 --> 00:13:29,439
Speaker 1: So has the Supreme Court been chipping away at Chevron

228
00:13:29,520 --> 00:13:33,600
Speaker 1: in recent years? So some say if they overturned Chevron,

229
00:13:33,640 --> 00:13:34,960
Speaker 1: it wouldn't be that big a deal.

230
00:13:35,559 --> 00:13:38,320
Speaker 3: It would be a big deal doc trintally, But you're

231
00:13:38,360 --> 00:13:41,280
Speaker 3: exactly right. They've been chipping away at it, and then

232
00:13:41,400 --> 00:13:44,640
Speaker 3: you know someone interestingly, they've actually just been ignoring it,

233
00:13:44,800 --> 00:13:47,400
Speaker 3: giving the cold shoulder the last few years, where they

234
00:13:47,440 --> 00:13:49,760
Speaker 3: won't even cite it in cases where it really is

235
00:13:49,800 --> 00:13:53,240
Speaker 3: directly implicated. So, in that sense, doing away with the

236
00:13:53,280 --> 00:13:56,640
Speaker 3: doctrine wouldn't make a big practical shift, but doctrinally it

237
00:13:56,679 --> 00:13:59,360
Speaker 3: would be a big shift, and in line with one

238
00:13:59,400 --> 00:14:02,200
Speaker 3: of the I think big things we see from this

239
00:14:02,280 --> 00:14:06,840
Speaker 3: conservative court, which is reconsidering the relationship among the branches

240
00:14:06,880 --> 00:14:10,280
Speaker 3: with respect to the administrative state and scaling back on

241
00:14:10,559 --> 00:14:13,960
Speaker 3: different doctrines that has empowered the administrative state.

242
00:14:14,679 --> 00:14:18,200
Speaker 1: I believe it's been four times since twenty nineteen that

243
00:14:18,280 --> 00:14:23,520
Speaker 1: the Court has been asked to revisit Chevron and hasn't done.

244
00:14:23,560 --> 00:14:26,280
Speaker 1: So do you think it will reverse Chevron in this case?

245
00:14:26,360 --> 00:14:29,720
Speaker 1: You mentioned that there are perhaps five justices willing to

246
00:14:29,760 --> 00:14:32,320
Speaker 1: do that, So this case feels different.

247
00:14:32,560 --> 00:14:35,440
Speaker 3: The court granted curcherari and the question of whether or

248
00:14:35,480 --> 00:14:38,880
Speaker 3: not Chevron should be overruled. If you connect the dots,

249
00:14:38,920 --> 00:14:41,240
Speaker 3: over the last few years, it seems as though the

250
00:14:41,240 --> 00:14:46,320
Speaker 3: Court has tilting towards the direction of actually overruling Chevron,

251
00:14:46,720 --> 00:14:48,800
Speaker 3: but it remains to be seen whether or not they

252
00:14:48,840 --> 00:14:52,360
Speaker 3: take that step. And that the broader question of stereodcisis

253
00:14:52,400 --> 00:14:55,440
Speaker 3: is something that we've seen over the last several years,

254
00:14:55,520 --> 00:14:59,320
Speaker 3: and the justices have very strongly held in different views

255
00:14:59,360 --> 00:15:02,720
Speaker 3: about when or whether it's appropriate to overrule a case.

256
00:15:03,000 --> 00:15:05,280
Speaker 3: But in this case, it does seem as the Chevron

257
00:15:05,400 --> 00:15:06,480
Speaker 3: is on the shopping block.

258
00:15:06,720 --> 00:15:09,120
Speaker 1: I wonder if they were struggling with that while they

259
00:15:09,160 --> 00:15:11,960
Speaker 1: were deciding whether to take the case or not. Because

260
00:15:12,360 --> 00:15:14,640
Speaker 1: it took a long time to decide how to handle

261
00:15:14,680 --> 00:15:17,520
Speaker 1: the case. They scheduled it for potential discussion at five

262
00:15:17,600 --> 00:15:21,880
Speaker 1: private conferences before announcing that they would take the case.

263
00:15:22,080 --> 00:15:25,520
Speaker 3: So that's exactly right. You know. Obviously the decision to

264
00:15:25,920 --> 00:15:28,040
Speaker 3: take the case was not a good one for the

265
00:15:28,040 --> 00:15:31,200
Speaker 3: government ultimately, but the court does have the fallback option

266
00:15:31,320 --> 00:15:34,520
Speaker 3: of just saying that the agency's interpretation is unreasonable. In

267
00:15:34,520 --> 00:15:37,120
Speaker 3: this case, but really the focus is on the broader

268
00:15:37,240 --> 00:15:39,680
Speaker 3: question of whether or not the Chevron doctrine is really

269
00:15:39,720 --> 00:15:42,520
Speaker 3: consistent with our legal principles in practice.

270
00:15:42,760 --> 00:15:45,960
Speaker 1: Do you agree with this that critics of big government

271
00:15:46,000 --> 00:15:50,200
Speaker 1: have targeted the Chevron doctrine much as anti abortion groups

272
00:15:50,600 --> 00:15:52,040
Speaker 1: targeted Roe v. Wade.

273
00:15:52,280 --> 00:15:55,080
Speaker 3: I think that's a fair analogy, June. I mean, it's

274
00:15:55,120 --> 00:15:57,840
Speaker 3: really on the short list of cases that you know

275
00:15:57,880 --> 00:16:01,120
Speaker 3: would be on a wish list that this more conservative

276
00:16:01,160 --> 00:16:04,880
Speaker 3: court would overrule. And it's in line again with a

277
00:16:04,960 --> 00:16:08,000
Speaker 3: trend that we've seen in the last few years where

278
00:16:08,000 --> 00:16:11,520
Speaker 3: the Court has been willing to reconsider doctrines to have

279
00:16:12,360 --> 00:16:16,560
Speaker 3: balanced favored the administrative state. So this is one where

280
00:16:16,720 --> 00:16:19,000
Speaker 3: the Court took this step that would be certainly in

281
00:16:19,000 --> 00:16:21,520
Speaker 3: line with decisions we've seen in recent years.

282
00:16:21,720 --> 00:16:25,920
Speaker 1: Another agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is before the

283
00:16:25,960 --> 00:16:29,520
Speaker 1: Court again. The oral arguments in this case are actually

284
00:16:29,600 --> 00:16:36,480
Speaker 1: next week. It's CFPB versus Community Financial Services Association, And.

285
00:16:36,400 --> 00:16:39,320
Speaker 3: This is in line with our assault in the administrative state.

286
00:16:39,400 --> 00:16:41,880
Speaker 3: So in this case, though it's a really interesting challenge,

287
00:16:42,040 --> 00:16:45,680
Speaker 3: it's a challenge to the funding mechanism for this agency.

288
00:16:45,800 --> 00:16:50,160
Speaker 3: So usually when Congress passes in appropriation it specifies a

289
00:16:50,200 --> 00:16:54,240
Speaker 3: specific amount that goes to the agency, typically on an

290
00:16:54,280 --> 00:16:58,120
Speaker 3: annual basis. And in this case, what Congress did in

291
00:16:58,160 --> 00:17:02,120
Speaker 3: setting up the Consumer Finds Protection Bureau is it's said,

292
00:17:02,120 --> 00:17:05,040
Speaker 3: we're not going to have annual appropriations of a specific amount.

293
00:17:05,520 --> 00:17:08,720
Speaker 3: You're going to get your funding from services and fees

294
00:17:08,920 --> 00:17:13,360
Speaker 3: generated by the Federal Reserve. There's no requirement to go

295
00:17:13,480 --> 00:17:15,560
Speaker 3: back to Congress every year. This is sort of an

296
00:17:15,560 --> 00:17:20,840
Speaker 3: indefinite appropriation, and it's up to an amount that you

297
00:17:20,880 --> 00:17:24,359
Speaker 3: can just sort of dip into that the agency hasn't

298
00:17:24,400 --> 00:17:27,600
Speaker 3: come close to dipping into. So as a practical matter,

299
00:17:27,840 --> 00:17:32,480
Speaker 3: it's basically an unlimited funding mechanism for the agency, which

300
00:17:32,520 --> 00:17:36,040
Speaker 3: gives it greater independence from the legislative branch.

301
00:17:36,880 --> 00:17:41,000
Speaker 1: This is a Fifth Circuit decision that it's being appealed from.

302
00:17:41,640 --> 00:17:44,080
Speaker 1: Is this a novel theory that they came up with.

303
00:17:44,880 --> 00:17:48,720
Speaker 3: It's the first time in history that an appellate court

304
00:17:48,840 --> 00:17:54,520
Speaker 3: has invoked the appropriations clause to invalidate a statute, So

305
00:17:54,760 --> 00:17:58,720
Speaker 3: it is certainly novel in that respect. That said, the CFPB,

306
00:17:58,920 --> 00:18:02,520
Speaker 3: the agency here is itself novel, and this is something

307
00:18:02,560 --> 00:18:05,440
Speaker 3: that sort of haunted the agency a few years ago.

308
00:18:05,480 --> 00:18:08,439
Speaker 3: In a different case, it involved a removal provision of

309
00:18:08,520 --> 00:18:12,000
Speaker 3: the head of the agency, and Congress set this agency

310
00:18:12,080 --> 00:18:15,000
Speaker 3: up to be different. But because it did so, it

311
00:18:15,119 --> 00:18:18,000
Speaker 3: sort of made it vulnerable to these different lines of

312
00:18:18,080 --> 00:18:19,800
Speaker 3: constitutional attacks that we're seeing.

313
00:18:20,080 --> 00:18:22,600
Speaker 1: And this listener General said, the ruling of the Fifth

314
00:18:22,600 --> 00:18:26,960
Speaker 1: Circuit threatens the validity of virtually all past CFPP actions,

315
00:18:27,400 --> 00:18:30,560
Speaker 1: including numerous regulations that are critical to consumers in the

316
00:18:30,560 --> 00:18:33,439
Speaker 1: financial industry. But the court refused to put it on

317
00:18:33,480 --> 00:18:36,879
Speaker 1: an expedited schedule. Does that say anything to you?

318
00:18:37,200 --> 00:18:39,560
Speaker 3: I don't think the decision not to expedite it. But

319
00:18:39,840 --> 00:18:42,240
Speaker 3: the government is right in this sense that if the

320
00:18:42,320 --> 00:18:46,320
Speaker 3: court were to hold that the funding mechanism is unconstitutional,

321
00:18:47,040 --> 00:18:49,800
Speaker 3: then you know, a logical step might be to say, well,

322
00:18:49,840 --> 00:18:52,520
Speaker 3: then that everything that it did with that funding should

323
00:18:52,600 --> 00:18:55,320
Speaker 3: be set aside. And that really sort of tees up

324
00:18:55,640 --> 00:18:58,400
Speaker 3: the second question in the case, which may be even

325
00:18:58,440 --> 00:19:02,320
Speaker 3: more difficult, which is the court does adopt this novel

326
00:19:02,359 --> 00:19:06,320
Speaker 3: appropriations theory, then what's the remedy. And the parties are

327
00:19:06,800 --> 00:19:09,240
Speaker 3: very strenuously divided on that. I mean, the government says

328
00:19:09,280 --> 00:19:12,840
Speaker 3: that the remedy should just be forward looking, or that

329
00:19:12,880 --> 00:19:15,120
Speaker 3: you could go back and just sever a particular part

330
00:19:15,119 --> 00:19:17,959
Speaker 3: of the law that you wouldn't say that everything that

331
00:19:18,000 --> 00:19:21,720
Speaker 3: the agency has done in administrative actions or by rule

332
00:19:22,359 --> 00:19:23,119
Speaker 3: is invalid.

333
00:19:23,600 --> 00:19:27,320
Speaker 1: So there's been this momentum to reign in the administrative state.

334
00:19:27,960 --> 00:19:30,280
Speaker 1: Will this case be a test of just how far

335
00:19:30,400 --> 00:19:33,080
Speaker 1: the justices are willing to go in that direction?

336
00:19:34,080 --> 00:19:36,200
Speaker 3: Yes, I think it will be, you know, in part

337
00:19:36,320 --> 00:19:39,720
Speaker 3: just because this is a relatively novel theory, and in

338
00:19:39,800 --> 00:19:43,560
Speaker 3: part because of the implications of this theory. And so

339
00:19:43,720 --> 00:19:45,800
Speaker 3: the area that we're seeing sort of an insult on

340
00:19:46,320 --> 00:19:49,919
Speaker 3: is power given to the administrative state. But in some sense,

341
00:19:50,200 --> 00:19:52,399
Speaker 3: the branch that is, you know, at the heart of

342
00:19:52,440 --> 00:19:57,080
Speaker 3: the dispute here is Congress, and adopting this theory would

343
00:19:57,119 --> 00:20:01,240
Speaker 3: sort of place the restriction on the appropration power adopted

344
00:20:01,280 --> 00:20:04,200
Speaker 3: by Congress that we haven't seen in our constitutional history.

345
00:20:04,400 --> 00:20:07,760
Speaker 3: But again, the specific appropriations law here, if you think

346
00:20:07,760 --> 00:20:11,040
Speaker 3: of that way, really is unprecedented, and that you've given

347
00:20:11,080 --> 00:20:16,080
Speaker 3: an agency an indefinite amount of money or pool within

348
00:20:16,160 --> 00:20:18,560
Speaker 3: which to dip in order to carry out its operations.

349
00:20:18,760 --> 00:20:20,919
Speaker 3: And we just haven't seen anything like that in this

350
00:20:21,080 --> 00:20:22,720
Speaker 3: forum in over two hundred years.

351
00:20:22,840 --> 00:20:26,080
Speaker 1: So this case have implications for the Federal Reserve Board,

352
00:20:26,400 --> 00:20:29,399
Speaker 1: the FDIC, and the Controller of the Currency.

353
00:20:29,840 --> 00:20:34,560
Speaker 3: It's conceivable. I mean, those agencies do have different funding mechanisms.

354
00:20:34,920 --> 00:20:38,240
Speaker 3: But what's different about this case is this is a

355
00:20:38,240 --> 00:20:42,960
Speaker 3: more conventional executive agency that's involved in sort of classic

356
00:20:43,119 --> 00:20:48,280
Speaker 3: executive enforcement powers, and the funding mechanism here, although it

357
00:20:48,400 --> 00:20:51,679
Speaker 3: draws from the Federal Reserve Board, is really different. So

358
00:20:51,960 --> 00:20:55,400
Speaker 3: I think that if the Court were to find this

359
00:20:55,480 --> 00:20:59,560
Speaker 3: to be constitutionally problematic, it's ruling as a practical matter

360
00:20:59,680 --> 00:21:02,639
Speaker 3: really would probably be limited to the unusual alignment of

361
00:21:02,680 --> 00:21:03,720
Speaker 3: circumstances here.

362
00:21:04,520 --> 00:21:09,879
Speaker 1: Finally, Securities and Exchange Commission versus Jarkasy, I could swear

363
00:21:09,920 --> 00:21:13,240
Speaker 1: we had a case life before about the in house

364
00:21:13,320 --> 00:21:17,080
Speaker 1: judges used by the Securities and Exchange Commissions, So tell

365
00:21:17,119 --> 00:21:18,439
Speaker 1: us about this case.

366
00:21:18,880 --> 00:21:21,160
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is sort of dejev who all over again.

367
00:21:21,359 --> 00:21:24,440
Speaker 3: Last year, the question was whether or not individuals sort

368
00:21:24,440 --> 00:21:27,480
Speaker 3: of stock in these administrative enforcement proceedings could go to

369
00:21:27,520 --> 00:21:31,040
Speaker 3: a federal core and bring constitutional challenges to the federal

370
00:21:31,040 --> 00:21:34,639
Speaker 3: decision maker. In this case, which involves another individual who

371
00:21:34,680 --> 00:21:38,760
Speaker 3: had gone through enforcement proceedings before the SEC the Securities

372
00:21:38,760 --> 00:21:42,960
Speaker 3: and Exchange Commission, it's actually the merits of the constitutional challenge,

373
00:21:43,080 --> 00:21:46,040
Speaker 3: and it's again another case which sort of puts the

374
00:21:46,119 --> 00:21:50,600
Speaker 3: administrative state in the crosshairers. And here, you know, there

375
00:21:50,600 --> 00:21:53,399
Speaker 3: are several different questions, but the one that seems have

376
00:21:53,400 --> 00:21:56,800
Speaker 3: gotten more emphasis is the question of whether individuals who

377
00:21:56,840 --> 00:22:01,080
Speaker 3: are brought before administrative agencies and and sorts of civil

378
00:22:01,240 --> 00:22:04,119
Speaker 3: enforcement proceedings have a right to a jury trial in

379
00:22:04,160 --> 00:22:05,120
Speaker 3: those proceedings.

380
00:22:05,400 --> 00:22:08,000
Speaker 1: And his lawyer said that he was quote put to

381
00:22:08,080 --> 00:22:12,199
Speaker 1: trial before a captive agency judge sitting unconstitutionally with no

382
00:22:12,359 --> 00:22:14,960
Speaker 1: right to a jury and no way to escape to court.

383
00:22:15,240 --> 00:22:17,159
Speaker 1: Does it seem as if the SEC has been a

384
00:22:17,240 --> 00:22:22,080
Speaker 1: target for critics of federal agencies, the SEC in particular, Well,

385
00:22:22,080 --> 00:22:22,320
Speaker 1: it's a.

386
00:22:22,320 --> 00:22:24,600
Speaker 3: Little bit of a product of its own doing, in

387
00:22:24,600 --> 00:22:28,280
Speaker 3: the sense that the SEC has the option of bringing

388
00:22:28,400 --> 00:22:32,640
Speaker 3: these enforcement actions in federal court or before its own

389
00:22:32,720 --> 00:22:36,960
Speaker 3: in house decision makers. And looking back, it's in most

390
00:22:36,960 --> 00:22:39,280
Speaker 3: of the cases opted for in house proceedings, and in

391
00:22:39,359 --> 00:22:43,280
Speaker 3: these proceedings is basically you know, home rule. It prevails

392
00:22:43,280 --> 00:22:45,760
Speaker 3: in you know, more than ninety percent of the proceedings.

393
00:22:46,119 --> 00:22:50,160
Speaker 3: The decisions are made by an administrative law judge who's basically,

394
00:22:50,480 --> 00:22:53,639
Speaker 3: you know, within the administrative framework of the SEC. And

395
00:22:53,680 --> 00:22:57,760
Speaker 3: so it's a fundamentally different dynamic, and for individuals stuck

396
00:22:57,800 --> 00:23:01,240
Speaker 3: in that situation, it really can seem as though they've

397
00:23:01,240 --> 00:23:03,960
Speaker 3: got no hope. You know, It's very different than being

398
00:23:04,080 --> 00:23:07,320
Speaker 3: in a federal court before an independent decision maker. And

399
00:23:07,400 --> 00:23:10,440
Speaker 3: one of those differences is that when the SEC brings

400
00:23:10,480 --> 00:23:13,920
Speaker 3: the exact same action in a federal court, then the

401
00:23:13,920 --> 00:23:17,480
Speaker 3: individual can elect for a jury trial and have the

402
00:23:17,560 --> 00:23:21,080
Speaker 3: protections of a jury instead of just a judge as

403
00:23:21,160 --> 00:23:22,840
Speaker 3: the sole decision maker.

404
00:23:23,080 --> 00:23:27,160
Speaker 1: If the SEC loses here, would that change the way

405
00:23:27,200 --> 00:23:31,440
Speaker 1: that they have been bringing cases or litigating cases.

406
00:23:31,920 --> 00:23:37,199
Speaker 3: It would have dramatic consequences for administrative enforcement action, and

407
00:23:37,240 --> 00:23:40,040
Speaker 3: you know, really require all of us to rethink that,

408
00:23:40,400 --> 00:23:42,880
Speaker 3: and it would be a great boon to individuals who

409
00:23:42,880 --> 00:23:45,600
Speaker 3: find themselves in that situation. To have the right to

410
00:23:46,359 --> 00:23:49,640
Speaker 3: a jury trial in that context would be a game changer,

411
00:23:49,840 --> 00:23:51,080
Speaker 3: I think in a lot of cases.

412
00:23:51,440 --> 00:23:55,000
Speaker 1: So this was another Fifth Circuit decision. The Fifth Circuit

413
00:23:55,200 --> 00:24:00,600
Speaker 1: has a lot of these noteworthy, controversial however you want

414
00:24:00,600 --> 00:24:05,200
Speaker 1: to term them cases before the Supreme Court this term, So.

415
00:24:05,359 --> 00:24:07,320
Speaker 3: You're quite right about that, and it's really you know,

416
00:24:07,359 --> 00:24:09,560
Speaker 3: one of the broader themes that we're seeing this court,

417
00:24:09,640 --> 00:24:11,439
Speaker 3: and some people have said of sort of the Supreme

418
00:24:11,480 --> 00:24:14,320
Speaker 3: Court versus the Fifth Circuit, it's interesting, I mean, the

419
00:24:14,359 --> 00:24:18,560
Speaker 3: Fifth Circuit is now the most conservative circuit among the many,

420
00:24:19,160 --> 00:24:21,800
Speaker 3: and you know, the kind of question that all these

421
00:24:21,840 --> 00:24:24,600
Speaker 3: cases present is whether the Fifth Circuit has got out

422
00:24:24,960 --> 00:24:28,240
Speaker 3: ahead of even the US Supreme Court today in terms

423
00:24:28,280 --> 00:24:31,160
Speaker 3: of how conservative it is, and whether or not the

424
00:24:31,280 --> 00:24:34,080
Speaker 3: US Supreme Court feels as though it has to rein

425
00:24:34,160 --> 00:24:36,840
Speaker 3: it in a little bit. And although you know, this

426
00:24:36,960 --> 00:24:40,600
Speaker 3: Supreme Court is certainly one of the most conservative in history,

427
00:24:41,000 --> 00:24:44,720
Speaker 3: as we saw last term, there's still a few justices

428
00:24:44,720 --> 00:24:47,920
Speaker 3: in the center that are not necessarily as comfortable going

429
00:24:48,080 --> 00:24:50,320
Speaker 3: as far as some of the justices at the far

430
00:24:50,400 --> 00:24:52,919
Speaker 3: right want to go. The Chief Justice Justice Capital and

431
00:24:53,040 --> 00:24:55,680
Speaker 3: so in each of these cases that we've been discussing,

432
00:24:55,880 --> 00:24:57,960
Speaker 3: the spotlight is really going to be on those justices

433
00:24:57,960 --> 00:25:00,600
Speaker 3: in the middle and whether or not they're comfortable adopting

434
00:25:00,640 --> 00:25:01,680
Speaker 3: these broader series.

435
00:25:01,760 --> 00:25:04,360
Speaker 1: It's been wonderful talking to you, greg and getting your

436
00:25:04,440 --> 00:25:08,719
Speaker 1: insights on all these cases. Thanks so much. That's Gregory Garr,

437
00:25:08,840 --> 00:25:12,520
Speaker 1: a partner at Lathaman Watkins and the former US Solicitor General.

438
00:25:12,720 --> 00:25:15,040
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

439
00:25:15,400 --> 00:25:17,720
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

440
00:25:17,800 --> 00:25:22,080
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

441
00:25:22,240 --> 00:25:27,280
Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,

442
00:25:27,520 --> 00:25:30,080
Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

443
00:25:30,119 --> 00:25:33,840
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

444
00:25:34,000 --> 00:25:35,600
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg