Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: Honorable the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court of the United States. Oh yay, oh yay,
Speaker 2: oh yay. All persons having business before the Honorable the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to give
Speaker 2: their attention for the Court is now sitting.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court's new term begins on Monday, as always,
Speaker 1: the first Monday in October, but unlike other terms, the
Speaker 1: justices are returning to the bench under a cloud of
Speaker 1: ethics controversies and with public opinion of the Court at
Speaker 1: a historic low. According to a Gallup pole released today,
Speaker 1: just forty one percent of Americans say they approve of
Speaker 1: how the Court is handling its job, while fifty eight
Speaker 1: percent disapprove. And the Justices will be diving back into
Speaker 1: the culture wars, tackling controversial issues involving gun rights, voting rights,
Speaker 1: agency power, and social media. My guest is Gregory gar
Speaker 1: former Solicitor General of the United States and now a
Speaker 1: partner at Latham and Watkins. It's great to have you here. Greg.
Speaker 1: Let's start our now annual review of the term with
Speaker 1: one of the most watched and perhaps consequential cases the
Speaker 1: first gun rights dispute the justices have taken up since
Speaker 1: the landmark decision last year establishing a constitutional right to
Speaker 1: carry a handgun in public. Tell Us about United States versus.
Speaker 3: Raheemi, another big Second Amendment case and an opportunity for
Speaker 3: the Court to revisit the historical approach to adopted a
Speaker 3: couple of years ago in the Bruin case involving a
Speaker 3: New York law that restricted the right to carry firearms
Speaker 3: outside of the home. And this case involves a challenge
Speaker 3: to a restraining order that prevents a domestic violence abuser
Speaker 3: from possessing handguns under federal law. And what's interesting about
Speaker 3: this case is beginning with the Heller decision ten years
Speaker 3: or so ago, where they recognized the individual right to
Speaker 3: pair of firearms in the home. The Court had always
Speaker 3: focused on the rights of what it called in Heller
Speaker 3: law abiding responsible citizens to possess and carry firearms. In
Speaker 3: this case, the challenger was convicted of domestic abuse after
Speaker 3: striking his girlfriend and doing other terrible things, and then
Speaker 3: was prohibited under federal law from possession of firearm. And
Speaker 3: he's bringing a second Amendment challenge to that, which, if
Speaker 3: he's successful, would un all likelihood call into question a
Speaker 3: number of other firearm restrictions that apply to dangerous people
Speaker 3: were potentially even mentally ill people.
Speaker 1: The Fifth Circuit said that while Rehimi was hardly a
Speaker 1: model citizen, he was entitled to Second Amendment protections.
Speaker 3: And he looked at it through the lens of the courts.
Speaker 3: His historical analysis established a couple of years ago, which
Speaker 3: requires the courts to go back and line up the
Speaker 3: firearms restriction against historical laws going back to the eighteenth century.
Speaker 3: And oftentimes in these cases there's really no perfect analog
Speaker 3: given the way in which guns and restrictions has evolved
Speaker 3: over time. And so, you know, one of the questions
Speaker 3: at the heart of the case is perhaps the court
Speaker 3: will give us some more guidance on how to apply
Speaker 3: that historical analysis. And in this case, the government has
Speaker 3: strenuously argued that this sort of restriction really is in
Speaker 3: line with historical restrictions prohibiting those who are deemed to
Speaker 3: be dangerous from possessing guns. But that's really the numb
Speaker 3: of its due before the court is a historical argument
Speaker 3: about whether this restriction is analogous to eighteenth century restrictions
Speaker 3: on gun possession or not.
Speaker 1: And here you have this listener general saying, well, there
Speaker 1: are some colonial and early state laws that allowed disarming
Speaker 1: dangerous individuals, and Raheemi's lawyers saying that none of those
Speaker 1: laws applied. They seem to want a law exactly on
Speaker 1: point this historical analysis. In this context, where weapons are
Speaker 1: so different and times are so different, the courts have
Speaker 1: really struggled with it, haven't they.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they have, And we've seen a lot of cases
Speaker 3: in the wake of the Brewin decision a couple of
Speaker 3: years ago, cases challenging all sorts of restrictions that seem
Speaker 3: to have survived the Heller decision ten years back, recognizing
Speaker 3: this individual right. And so I think as important as
Speaker 3: this specific issue is in this case, particularly for the
Speaker 3: victims of domestic abuse, I think the focus of the
Speaker 3: court's resolution is going to be to see if they
Speaker 3: can fine tune this historical analysis to give courts more
Speaker 3: guidance and considering.
Speaker 1: These challenges, and this case could affect state laws as well.
Speaker 1: An Illinois led group back in the administration, so that
Speaker 1: almost every state either requires permits courts to limit firearm
Speaker 1: access for people's subject to domestic restraining orders.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's exactly right. It would apply to state laws,
Speaker 3: local laws, and that's obviously one of the government's arguments.
Speaker 3: And the court took this case right up on the
Speaker 3: government's petition, I think, understanding the general importance of the
Speaker 3: issue and the need to sort of jump back in
Speaker 3: and clarify its law in this area. So this is
Speaker 3: definitely one that we would want to follow.
Speaker 1: Let's turn now to another high profile redistricting case to
Speaker 1: come before the court, Alexander versus South Carolina Conference of
Speaker 1: the NAACP.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So one of the surprises last term was the
Speaker 3: case out of Alabama involving a challenge to a registricting
Speaker 3: plan in which a majority of the court actually agree
Speaker 3: with the lower court that the state had improperly taken
Speaker 3: race into account and drawing the districts. And so here
Speaker 3: we go again. This is a challenge out of South
Speaker 3: Carolina in which our court had found that the state
Speaker 3: improperly used race to draw this district which in order
Speaker 3: to favor Republicans. And what's sort of interesting about this
Speaker 3: case is the interplay between race in politics. There's an
Speaker 3: argument that race was used as a proxy for political
Speaker 3: affiliation here, and that sort of brings into play two
Speaker 3: different doctrines in the Supreme Courts jurisprudence, one in which
Speaker 3: the Court recently held that challenges to redistricting on political grounds,
Speaker 3: so called partisan gerrymanders, actually not justiciable, and the second,
Speaker 3: in which the Court has always considered challenges that race
Speaker 3: was improperly taken into account and drawing district lines. And
Speaker 3: so this case presents an opportunity to quot the court
Speaker 3: to sort of balance those two different inquiries.
Speaker 1: So as you say, Republicans say they were motivated by politics,
Speaker 1: which is permissible, not race, and it seems like it's
Speaker 1: a difficult distinction to make, particularly in this case.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's exactly right, and that's why I'm sure it's
Speaker 3: one of the reasons that the case is before the
Speaker 3: court now. And again it'll be interesting to see if
Speaker 3: this is one of those cases where maybe the Court
Speaker 3: tacks back to the center, as it did in the
Speaker 3: Alabama case last term. But this will be a difficult one.
Speaker 3: This is obviously delicate issues in the intersection here between
Speaker 3: race and politics.
Speaker 1: That case last term you were talking about, the Alabama
Speaker 1: case came as something of a surprise to many that
Speaker 1: the Court rejected the Republican drawn congressional map in a
Speaker 1: boost to the Voting Rights Act, and some see that
Speaker 1: as a shift in the Court's approach, or at least
Speaker 1: in the two conservative justices who sided with the liberals.
Speaker 1: So will this case show whether that's true or not,
Speaker 1: whether there is a shift.
Speaker 3: It's definitely one to watch June, and I think the
Speaker 3: gun case we just talked about is one as well.
Speaker 3: These are two areas where the more centrist justices in
Speaker 3: the Court, for example, the Chief Justice and Justice cap
Speaker 3: and Awe, have not been as willing to go as
Speaker 3: far as some of the more conservative justices. And that's
Speaker 3: certainly one of the broader themes that we're looking at
Speaker 3: for this term. Is last year we had several decisions
Speaker 3: in which the Court seemed to tack a little bit
Speaker 3: back to the center, and so it'll be interesting to
Speaker 3: see whether that trend follows, or whether the Court will
Speaker 3: proceed on what is otherwise a sort of conservative orbit
Speaker 3: out to the right.
Speaker 1: Next, we have social media meeting the Supreme Court O'Connor,
Speaker 1: Ratcliffe versus. Garnier and Linky versus Freed. Both these cases
Speaker 1: involve public officials blocking constituents who left critical messages on
Speaker 1: their social media.
Speaker 3: Right, so you know, we're seeing more and more of
Speaker 3: these cases where social media intersects with the First Amendment.
Speaker 3: And these are two different cases, one involving two California
Speaker 3: school board members and one involving a city manager in Michigan.
Speaker 3: And all of them had social media accounts Twitter and
Speaker 3: Facebook and the like, which they used in some instances
Speaker 3: to tweet about their public jobs, and when they got
Speaker 3: some criticism from some constituents, they decided to block them
Speaker 3: on their accounts. And the question is whether or not
Speaker 3: that blocking is subject to scrutiny under the First Amendment,
Speaker 3: which boils down in this case to a question whether
Speaker 3: or not the blocking is actually state action subject to
Speaker 3: the First Amendment.
Speaker 1: And the Sixth and the Ninth Circuits came to different
Speaker 1: conclusions on that right.
Speaker 3: They split on that and the Ninth Circuit held that
Speaker 3: the blocking was state action and a violation of the
Speaker 3: First Amendment, and the Sixth Circuit came out the other way.
Speaker 3: And looks these cases may turn in part on the
Speaker 3: particular factual circumstances. For example, the extent to which the
Speaker 3: public officials used their accounts for public purposes. The officials
Speaker 3: in the cases are arguing that they actually were more
Speaker 3: private than public, and so they shouldn't be considered state action.
Speaker 3: But then you can see social media interacting with politics
Speaker 3: and public life and finance way into the courts, And
Speaker 3: there are other cases out there, and so this is
Speaker 3: something we're going to see more of, is the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court and other courts grapple with the intersection between social
Speaker 3: media and First Amendment.
Speaker 1: Right In twenty twenty one, when the Justice is turned
Speaker 1: down a petition from former President Donald Trump presenting a
Speaker 1: similar issue, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion saying that
Speaker 1: the case quote highlights the principle legal difficulty that surrounds
Speaker 1: digital platforms, namely that applying old doctrines to new digital
Speaker 1: platforms is rarely straightforward. That struck me coming from Justice Thomas,
Speaker 1: who wrote the decision in the New York gun case
Speaker 1: we were talking about.
Speaker 3: That's exactly right. This is the case where they're looking
Speaker 3: at the future instead of the past and struggling to
Speaker 3: apply these doctrines. And I'm sure that that'll be one
Speaker 3: of the issues at the forefront of this decision.
Speaker 1: Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with Gregory Garr
Speaker 1: of Latham and Watkins and we'll talk about the court's
Speaker 1: focus on the administrative state this term and some cases
Speaker 1: targeting regulatory agencies. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: Several cases on administrative law coming before the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: this term may seem a little wonky for most people,
Speaker 1: but they could transform the way the federal government operates
Speaker 1: and alter the power dynamics between the branches. The cases
Speaker 1: target the power of regulatory agencies before a conservative court
Speaker 1: whose recent decisions have overridden the authority of agencies and
Speaker 1: reined in the so called administrative state. I've been talking
Speaker 1: to Gregory gar a partner at Latham and Watkins and
Speaker 1: the former US Solicitor General. Greg Now we're onto the
Speaker 1: regulatory area. Let's discuss Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raymondo, where
Speaker 1: a thirty nine year old precedent, the Chevron Doctrine is
Speaker 1: on the line. Will you explain Chevron?
Speaker 3: Sure? So. Chevron doctrine is one of the most important
Speaker 3: doctrines of administrative law that has been around since nineteen
Speaker 3: eighty four, and basically what it says, is that where
Speaker 3: you have a statute that is ambiguous and doesn't speak
Speaker 3: directly to an issue, that the courts would give deference
Speaker 3: to the administrative agencies interpretation of the statute. So this
Speaker 3: case involves a law that requires fishing boats in the
Speaker 3: North Atlantic to have observers to collect data and the like.
Speaker 3: And the question is whether the fishing boats or the
Speaker 3: government has to pay for those observers. And the statute
Speaker 3: doesn't address that question, but the agency, the National Marine
Speaker 3: Fisheries Service, interpreted it to require the fishing boats to
Speaker 3: pay for these observers, and the lower court said that
Speaker 3: was a reasonable interpretation. So the courts would refer to
Speaker 3: it under Chevron. And the Chevron doctrine has come under
Speaker 3: assault by the Conservatives as being contrary to the longstanding
Speaker 3: central principle that it's the duty of the courts to
Speaker 3: say what the law is. And so there's a great
Speaker 3: concern that they've sort of dedicated that task to the
Speaker 3: administrative agencies. And there have been many justice maybe five
Speaker 3: in this case, who'd be willing to overturn the Chevron
Speaker 3: doctor and then give the courts the sort of frontline
Speaker 3: role in interpreting what statutes mean without administrative difference.
Speaker 1: So has the Supreme Court been chipping away at Chevron
Speaker 1: in recent years? So some say if they overturned Chevron,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't be that big a deal.
Speaker 3: It would be a big deal doc trintally, But you're
Speaker 3: exactly right. They've been chipping away at it, and then
Speaker 3: you know someone interestingly, they've actually just been ignoring it,
Speaker 3: giving the cold shoulder the last few years, where they
Speaker 3: won't even cite it in cases where it really is
Speaker 3: directly implicated. So, in that sense, doing away with the
Speaker 3: doctrine wouldn't make a big practical shift, but doctrinally it
Speaker 3: would be a big shift, and in line with one
Speaker 3: of the I think big things we see from this
Speaker 3: conservative court, which is reconsidering the relationship among the branches
Speaker 3: with respect to the administrative state and scaling back on
Speaker 3: different doctrines that has empowered the administrative state.
Speaker 1: I believe it's been four times since twenty nineteen that
Speaker 1: the Court has been asked to revisit Chevron and hasn't done.
Speaker 1: So do you think it will reverse Chevron in this case?
Speaker 1: You mentioned that there are perhaps five justices willing to
Speaker 1: do that, So this case feels different.
Speaker 3: The court granted curcherari and the question of whether or
Speaker 3: not Chevron should be overruled. If you connect the dots,
Speaker 3: over the last few years, it seems as though the
Speaker 3: Court has tilting towards the direction of actually overruling Chevron,
Speaker 3: but it remains to be seen whether or not they
Speaker 3: take that step. And that the broader question of stereodcisis
Speaker 3: is something that we've seen over the last several years,
Speaker 3: and the justices have very strongly held in different views
Speaker 3: about when or whether it's appropriate to overrule a case.
Speaker 3: But in this case, it does seem as the Chevron
Speaker 3: is on the shopping block.
Speaker 1: I wonder if they were struggling with that while they
Speaker 1: were deciding whether to take the case or not. Because
Speaker 1: it took a long time to decide how to handle
Speaker 1: the case. They scheduled it for potential discussion at five
Speaker 1: private conferences before announcing that they would take the case.
Speaker 3: So that's exactly right. You know. Obviously the decision to
Speaker 3: take the case was not a good one for the
Speaker 3: government ultimately, but the court does have the fallback option
Speaker 3: of just saying that the agency's interpretation is unreasonable. In
Speaker 3: this case, but really the focus is on the broader
Speaker 3: question of whether or not the Chevron doctrine is really
Speaker 3: consistent with our legal principles in practice.
Speaker 1: Do you agree with this that critics of big government
Speaker 1: have targeted the Chevron doctrine much as anti abortion groups
Speaker 1: targeted Roe v. Wade.
Speaker 3: I think that's a fair analogy, June. I mean, it's
Speaker 3: really on the short list of cases that you know
Speaker 3: would be on a wish list that this more conservative
Speaker 3: court would overrule. And it's in line again with a
Speaker 3: trend that we've seen in the last few years where
Speaker 3: the Court has been willing to reconsider doctrines to have
Speaker 3: balanced favored the administrative state. So this is one where
Speaker 3: the Court took this step that would be certainly in
Speaker 3: line with decisions we've seen in recent years.
Speaker 1: Another agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is before the
Speaker 1: Court again. The oral arguments in this case are actually
Speaker 1: next week. It's CFPB versus Community Financial Services Association, And.
Speaker 3: This is in line with our assault in the administrative state.
Speaker 3: So in this case, though it's a really interesting challenge,
Speaker 3: it's a challenge to the funding mechanism for this agency.
Speaker 3: So usually when Congress passes in appropriation it specifies a
Speaker 3: specific amount that goes to the agency, typically on an
Speaker 3: annual basis. And in this case, what Congress did in
Speaker 3: setting up the Consumer Finds Protection Bureau is it's said,
Speaker 3: we're not going to have annual appropriations of a specific amount.
Speaker 3: You're going to get your funding from services and fees
Speaker 3: generated by the Federal Reserve. There's no requirement to go
Speaker 3: back to Congress every year. This is sort of an
Speaker 3: indefinite appropriation, and it's up to an amount that you
Speaker 3: can just sort of dip into that the agency hasn't
Speaker 3: come close to dipping into. So as a practical matter,
Speaker 3: it's basically an unlimited funding mechanism for the agency, which
Speaker 3: gives it greater independence from the legislative branch.
Speaker 1: This is a Fifth Circuit decision that it's being appealed from.
Speaker 1: Is this a novel theory that they came up with.
Speaker 3: It's the first time in history that an appellate court
Speaker 3: has invoked the appropriations clause to invalidate a statute, So
Speaker 3: it is certainly novel in that respect. That said, the CFPB,
Speaker 3: the agency here is itself novel, and this is something
Speaker 3: that sort of haunted the agency a few years ago.
Speaker 3: In a different case, it involved a removal provision of
Speaker 3: the head of the agency, and Congress set this agency
Speaker 3: up to be different. But because it did so, it
Speaker 3: sort of made it vulnerable to these different lines of
Speaker 3: constitutional attacks that we're seeing.
Speaker 1: And this listener General said, the ruling of the Fifth
Speaker 1: Circuit threatens the validity of virtually all past CFPP actions,
Speaker 1: including numerous regulations that are critical to consumers in the
Speaker 1: financial industry. But the court refused to put it on
Speaker 1: an expedited schedule. Does that say anything to you?
Speaker 3: I don't think the decision not to expedite it. But
Speaker 3: the government is right in this sense that if the
Speaker 3: court were to hold that the funding mechanism is unconstitutional,
Speaker 3: then you know, a logical step might be to say, well,
Speaker 3: then that everything that it did with that funding should
Speaker 3: be set aside. And that really sort of tees up
Speaker 3: the second question in the case, which may be even
Speaker 3: more difficult, which is the court does adopt this novel
Speaker 3: appropriations theory, then what's the remedy. And the parties are
Speaker 3: very strenuously divided on that. I mean, the government says
Speaker 3: that the remedy should just be forward looking, or that
Speaker 3: you could go back and just sever a particular part
Speaker 3: of the law that you wouldn't say that everything that
Speaker 3: the agency has done in administrative actions or by rule
Speaker 3: is invalid.
Speaker 1: So there's been this momentum to reign in the administrative state.
Speaker 1: Will this case be a test of just how far
Speaker 1: the justices are willing to go in that direction?
Speaker 3: Yes, I think it will be, you know, in part
Speaker 3: just because this is a relatively novel theory, and in
Speaker 3: part because of the implications of this theory. And so
Speaker 3: the area that we're seeing sort of an insult on
Speaker 3: is power given to the administrative state. But in some sense,
Speaker 3: the branch that is, you know, at the heart of
Speaker 3: the dispute here is Congress, and adopting this theory would
Speaker 3: sort of place the restriction on the appropration power adopted
Speaker 3: by Congress that we haven't seen in our constitutional history.
Speaker 3: But again, the specific appropriations law here, if you think
Speaker 3: of that way, really is unprecedented, and that you've given
Speaker 3: an agency an indefinite amount of money or pool within
Speaker 3: which to dip in order to carry out its operations.
Speaker 3: And we just haven't seen anything like that in this
Speaker 3: forum in over two hundred years.
Speaker 1: So this case have implications for the Federal Reserve Board,
Speaker 1: the FDIC, and the Controller of the Currency.
Speaker 3: It's conceivable. I mean, those agencies do have different funding mechanisms.
Speaker 3: But what's different about this case is this is a
Speaker 3: more conventional executive agency that's involved in sort of classic
Speaker 3: executive enforcement powers, and the funding mechanism here, although it
Speaker 3: draws from the Federal Reserve Board, is really different. So
Speaker 3: I think that if the Court were to find this
Speaker 3: to be constitutionally problematic, it's ruling as a practical matter
Speaker 3: really would probably be limited to the unusual alignment of
Speaker 3: circumstances here.
Speaker 1: Finally, Securities and Exchange Commission versus Jarkasy, I could swear
Speaker 1: we had a case life before about the in house
Speaker 1: judges used by the Securities and Exchange Commissions, So tell
Speaker 1: us about this case.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is sort of dejev who all over again.
Speaker 3: Last year, the question was whether or not individuals sort
Speaker 3: of stock in these administrative enforcement proceedings could go to
Speaker 3: a federal core and bring constitutional challenges to the federal
Speaker 3: decision maker. In this case, which involves another individual who
Speaker 3: had gone through enforcement proceedings before the SEC the Securities
Speaker 3: and Exchange Commission, it's actually the merits of the constitutional challenge,
Speaker 3: and it's again another case which sort of puts the
Speaker 3: administrative state in the crosshairers. And here, you know, there
Speaker 3: are several different questions, but the one that seems have
Speaker 3: gotten more emphasis is the question of whether individuals who
Speaker 3: are brought before administrative agencies and and sorts of civil
Speaker 3: enforcement proceedings have a right to a jury trial in
Speaker 3: those proceedings.
Speaker 1: And his lawyer said that he was quote put to
Speaker 1: trial before a captive agency judge sitting unconstitutionally with no
Speaker 1: right to a jury and no way to escape to court.
Speaker 1: Does it seem as if the SEC has been a
Speaker 1: target for critics of federal agencies, the SEC in particular, Well,
Speaker 1: it's a.
Speaker 3: Little bit of a product of its own doing, in
Speaker 3: the sense that the SEC has the option of bringing
Speaker 3: these enforcement actions in federal court or before its own
Speaker 3: in house decision makers. And looking back, it's in most
Speaker 3: of the cases opted for in house proceedings, and in
Speaker 3: these proceedings is basically you know, home rule. It prevails
Speaker 3: in you know, more than ninety percent of the proceedings.
Speaker 3: The decisions are made by an administrative law judge who's basically,
Speaker 3: you know, within the administrative framework of the SEC. And
Speaker 3: so it's a fundamentally different dynamic, and for individuals stuck
Speaker 3: in that situation, it really can seem as though they've
Speaker 3: got no hope. You know, It's very different than being
Speaker 3: in a federal court before an independent decision maker. And
Speaker 3: one of those differences is that when the SEC brings
Speaker 3: the exact same action in a federal court, then the
Speaker 3: individual can elect for a jury trial and have the
Speaker 3: protections of a jury instead of just a judge as
Speaker 3: the sole decision maker.
Speaker 1: If the SEC loses here, would that change the way
Speaker 1: that they have been bringing cases or litigating cases.
Speaker 3: It would have dramatic consequences for administrative enforcement action, and
Speaker 3: you know, really require all of us to rethink that,
Speaker 3: and it would be a great boon to individuals who
Speaker 3: find themselves in that situation. To have the right to
Speaker 3: a jury trial in that context would be a game changer,
Speaker 3: I think in a lot of cases.
Speaker 1: So this was another Fifth Circuit decision. The Fifth Circuit
Speaker 1: has a lot of these noteworthy, controversial however you want
Speaker 1: to term them cases before the Supreme Court this term, So.
Speaker 3: You're quite right about that, and it's really you know,
Speaker 3: one of the broader themes that we're seeing this court,
Speaker 3: and some people have said of sort of the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court versus the Fifth Circuit, it's interesting, I mean, the
Speaker 3: Fifth Circuit is now the most conservative circuit among the many,
Speaker 3: and you know, the kind of question that all these
Speaker 3: cases present is whether the Fifth Circuit has got out
Speaker 3: ahead of even the US Supreme Court today in terms
Speaker 3: of how conservative it is, and whether or not the
Speaker 3: US Supreme Court feels as though it has to rein
Speaker 3: it in a little bit. And although you know, this
Speaker 3: Supreme Court is certainly one of the most conservative in history,
Speaker 3: as we saw last term, there's still a few justices
Speaker 3: in the center that are not necessarily as comfortable going
Speaker 3: as far as some of the justices at the far
Speaker 3: right want to go. The Chief Justice Justice Capital and
Speaker 3: so in each of these cases that we've been discussing,
Speaker 3: the spotlight is really going to be on those justices
Speaker 3: in the middle and whether or not they're comfortable adopting
Speaker 3: these broader series.
Speaker 1: It's been wonderful talking to you, greg and getting your
Speaker 1: insights on all these cases. Thanks so much. That's Gregory Garr,
Speaker 1: a partner at Lathaman Watkins and the former US Solicitor General.
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,
Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg