WEBVTT - Hot Button Cases Disappear From Supreme Court Docket

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:20.079
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. In January, the

0:00:20.120 --> 0:00:23.480
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court appeared ready to act on President Trump's attempt

0:00:23.480 --> 0:00:27.560
<v Speaker 1>to end deportation protections for Dreamers. So what happened? The

0:00:27.640 --> 0:00:30.479
<v Speaker 1>case disappeared and not just one of many mysteries in

0:00:30.480 --> 0:00:33.600
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court term. Joining me is Bloomberg new Supreme

0:00:33.600 --> 0:00:35.559
<v Speaker 1>Court reporter of Greg's store has been sort of a

0:00:35.600 --> 0:00:39.960
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court detective. With his latest story, Greg explain what

0:00:40.040 --> 0:00:44.120
<v Speaker 1>other polarizing cases the Court has been putting off June.

0:00:44.120 --> 0:00:46.320
<v Speaker 1>There's quite a list of them, and there there's some

0:00:46.360 --> 0:00:48.919
<v Speaker 1>of the biggest issues in the country. Uh. There are

0:00:48.960 --> 0:00:52.240
<v Speaker 1>several abortion cases that the Court has been a deferring

0:00:52.320 --> 0:00:57.360
<v Speaker 1>action on. There's a big case involving uh, gay rights.

0:00:57.560 --> 0:01:01.120
<v Speaker 1>And it's another appeal by a baker who was penalized

0:01:01.160 --> 0:01:04.200
<v Speaker 1>for not making a cake for a same sex wedding.

0:01:04.720 --> 0:01:06.640
<v Speaker 1>Um very similar to the case the Court had a

0:01:06.680 --> 0:01:10.680
<v Speaker 1>couple of years ago. Uh, there's a case involving transgender

0:01:10.720 --> 0:01:13.760
<v Speaker 1>student bathroom rights. Uh. The list goes on and on,

0:01:14.040 --> 0:01:17.040
<v Speaker 1>and they're all in different situations, and in many cases

0:01:17.120 --> 0:01:19.360
<v Speaker 1>it's really not clear what the delay is all about.

0:01:20.040 --> 0:01:21.800
<v Speaker 1>Is there any way to tell if this is the

0:01:21.840 --> 0:01:27.199
<v Speaker 1>work of all the justices or specific justices. Well, there's

0:01:27.240 --> 0:01:29.720
<v Speaker 1>some reason to think that it's it's the justices who

0:01:29.800 --> 0:01:32.360
<v Speaker 1>are right now are most important on the court. John

0:01:32.440 --> 0:01:35.480
<v Speaker 1>Roberts the chief Justice, and Brett Cavanaugh, the newest Justice,

0:01:35.520 --> 0:01:39.240
<v Speaker 1>because they seem to be the ones who are putting

0:01:39.240 --> 0:01:42.520
<v Speaker 1>the brakes on some of the more ambitious agenda items

0:01:42.560 --> 0:01:45.880
<v Speaker 1>of the more conservative justices. Um, you know, both of

0:01:45.920 --> 0:01:49.120
<v Speaker 1>them have reasons why they want might want the Court

0:01:49.160 --> 0:01:51.680
<v Speaker 1>to move pretty slowly on these hot button issues. John

0:01:51.760 --> 0:01:55.440
<v Speaker 1>Roberts has talked a lot about the institutional standing of

0:01:55.480 --> 0:01:58.120
<v Speaker 1>the court as chief Justice. He seems to feel it's

0:01:58.200 --> 0:02:01.640
<v Speaker 1>his his duty to really protect that, and he's concerned

0:02:01.680 --> 0:02:06.040
<v Speaker 1>about the Court seeming too political too fast. And Brett Havanaugh,

0:02:06.480 --> 0:02:08.639
<v Speaker 1>you know, may well have a desire to just kind

0:02:08.639 --> 0:02:10.799
<v Speaker 1>of lay low a little bit after the very divisive

0:02:10.919 --> 0:02:14.679
<v Speaker 1>confirmation fight that he had last year. Now, abortion is

0:02:14.720 --> 0:02:18.799
<v Speaker 1>an area where conservative state legislatures are pushing the court.

0:02:18.919 --> 0:02:22.760
<v Speaker 1>Alabama just passed the strictest abortion law in the country

0:02:22.800 --> 0:02:25.839
<v Speaker 1>as a way to get the justices to reconsider and

0:02:26.040 --> 0:02:29.840
<v Speaker 1>overturn Roe v. Wade. Is the Court going to have

0:02:29.960 --> 0:02:36.040
<v Speaker 1>to take up an abortion case if these laws are passed, Yes, Um,

0:02:36.080 --> 0:02:38.160
<v Speaker 1>but it may not be the big cases that we're

0:02:38.200 --> 0:02:42.320
<v Speaker 1>talking about. UM. You know there are right now. There

0:02:42.360 --> 0:02:47.080
<v Speaker 1>are several significant abortion cases that are waiting for the

0:02:47.160 --> 0:02:50.280
<v Speaker 1>Court to act. There's one that the Court has repeatedly

0:02:50.320 --> 0:02:55.160
<v Speaker 1>deferred to action on involving in Indiana law that requires

0:02:55.639 --> 0:02:59.760
<v Speaker 1>abortion clinics to dispose of an aborted fetus either by

0:02:59.760 --> 0:03:03.280
<v Speaker 1>bear a real or through cremation. Uh. That is a

0:03:03.639 --> 0:03:05.800
<v Speaker 1>kind of smaller case that you could see the court

0:03:06.240 --> 0:03:09.600
<v Speaker 1>taking up first. Uh. There's another case that they've really

0:03:09.639 --> 0:03:12.640
<v Speaker 1>signaled that they're going to take up because they blocked

0:03:12.639 --> 0:03:15.880
<v Speaker 1>a lower court ruling, which generally means that they they

0:03:15.919 --> 0:03:18.799
<v Speaker 1>are going to take up the case. That one involves

0:03:18.880 --> 0:03:22.120
<v Speaker 1>hospital admitting privileges. And if that sounds familiar, the court

0:03:22.840 --> 0:03:26.600
<v Speaker 1>a couple of terms ago, Uh, yeah, struck down hospital

0:03:26.600 --> 0:03:31.240
<v Speaker 1>admitting privileges requirement Uh in the state of Texas. Uh.

0:03:31.280 --> 0:03:36.920
<v Speaker 1>This is a UM. Uh, Louisiana law that is very

0:03:36.960 --> 0:03:40.560
<v Speaker 1>similar to that, but the lower court came out differently

0:03:40.680 --> 0:03:44.720
<v Speaker 1>on it, UH and upheld the law. The Supreme Court

0:03:44.720 --> 0:03:46.880
<v Speaker 1>with John Roberts Jordan, the Liberals put that lower court

0:03:46.880 --> 0:03:49.320
<v Speaker 1>decision on hold so that the law is not currently

0:03:49.320 --> 0:03:51.880
<v Speaker 1>in effect. That could well be one that the Court

0:03:52.160 --> 0:03:54.040
<v Speaker 1>decides to take up next term, and that may be

0:03:54.160 --> 0:03:55.920
<v Speaker 1>the one and only case they take up before the

0:03:55.920 --> 0:04:00.120
<v Speaker 1>next election. So if that resurfaces, and if some of

0:04:00.160 --> 0:04:03.640
<v Speaker 1>the other cases or issues resurface and they decide to

0:04:03.680 --> 0:04:07.920
<v Speaker 1>take them, the timing would put them right before the

0:04:08.160 --> 0:04:12.440
<v Speaker 1>or in the heart of the presidential election campaign. And

0:04:12.520 --> 0:04:16.159
<v Speaker 1>isn't that something that Roberts would want to avoid at least? Yeah,

0:04:16.200 --> 0:04:18.960
<v Speaker 1>you might think he would want to. And you know,

0:04:19.000 --> 0:04:21.200
<v Speaker 1>one of the people I talked to for the story

0:04:21.240 --> 0:04:23.880
<v Speaker 1>I wrote wrote on this last last week was Don Vally,

0:04:23.920 --> 0:04:27.200
<v Speaker 1>the former Obama administration's solicitor general. And the way he

0:04:27.240 --> 0:04:30.800
<v Speaker 1>put it was essentially that it's it's um you know,

0:04:30.880 --> 0:04:33.320
<v Speaker 1>MA seem like the Lusser of two evils for for Roberts,

0:04:33.320 --> 0:04:36.520
<v Speaker 1>you you know, he has made the calculation, for whatever reason,

0:04:36.920 --> 0:04:39.880
<v Speaker 1>that it's better to have these issues come up. Uh.

0:04:40.080 --> 0:04:41.880
<v Speaker 1>Next year, so that he can have at least a

0:04:41.960 --> 0:04:46.480
<v Speaker 1>year of breathing room for everybody after the Kavanaugh confirmation,

0:04:46.880 --> 0:04:49.599
<v Speaker 1>even though everybody is well aware that the more issues

0:04:49.640 --> 0:04:52.159
<v Speaker 1>like this the Court is deciding next year, the more

0:04:52.200 --> 0:04:55.039
<v Speaker 1>it becomes a big political issue. Now, there are a

0:04:55.080 --> 0:04:59.240
<v Speaker 1>few political cases or questions they've taken up this term,

0:04:59.640 --> 0:05:05.120
<v Speaker 1>part of in gerrymandering and the citizenship question on the census. Yeah,

0:05:05.120 --> 0:05:08.000
<v Speaker 1>and both of those I think are fairly described as

0:05:08.040 --> 0:05:11.520
<v Speaker 1>cases the Court had to take UM. In the case

0:05:11.560 --> 0:05:14.000
<v Speaker 1>of the census, UH, in the issue of putting a

0:05:14.000 --> 0:05:17.440
<v Speaker 1>citizenship question on it, first of all, UH now three

0:05:17.680 --> 0:05:22.360
<v Speaker 1>UH federal trial judges have blocked the administration from doing

0:05:22.400 --> 0:05:27.679
<v Speaker 1>that UM and the Census Bureau essentially has a deadline

0:05:27.720 --> 0:05:30.719
<v Speaker 1>of this summer where they have to start printing the questionnaires.

0:05:30.880 --> 0:05:33.720
<v Speaker 1>And so you really needed an answer one way or another.

0:05:33.800 --> 0:05:36.000
<v Speaker 1>And this is the kind of issue you would expect

0:05:36.040 --> 0:05:38.359
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court would would feel, you know, we have

0:05:38.480 --> 0:05:41.240
<v Speaker 1>to decide this, whatever the right answer is. And then

0:05:41.240 --> 0:05:45.120
<v Speaker 1>the partisan gerrymandering cases, there's a kind of a procedural

0:05:45.480 --> 0:05:49.560
<v Speaker 1>issue there where under federal law, a lot of cases

0:05:49.600 --> 0:05:53.159
<v Speaker 1>that involve voting rights, UH get directly appealed to the

0:05:53.200 --> 0:05:56.599
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court from a three judge panel, and the Supreme

0:05:56.640 --> 0:05:59.000
<v Speaker 1>Court doesn't have discretion. For the most part, the Supreme

0:05:59.000 --> 0:06:01.000
<v Speaker 1>Court can decide what case as it wants, what cases

0:06:01.040 --> 0:06:05.200
<v Speaker 1>it doesn't want. With these sorts of cases, including political jurymandering,

0:06:05.480 --> 0:06:09.400
<v Speaker 1>the Court has what's known as mandatory jurisdiction. Now, sometimes

0:06:09.440 --> 0:06:14.080
<v Speaker 1>they can deal with those cases summarily without actually holding arguments.

0:06:14.600 --> 0:06:17.839
<v Speaker 1>But obviously the jurymandering cases a is a you know,

0:06:18.000 --> 0:06:20.080
<v Speaker 1>real serious issue, and it's the kind of thing that

0:06:20.120 --> 0:06:23.080
<v Speaker 1>the court, uh, you know, generally would want to hear

0:06:23.200 --> 0:06:25.880
<v Speaker 1>arguments in before making a decision. Now they are going

0:06:25.920 --> 0:06:30.520
<v Speaker 1>to take up a few cases next term involving employment

0:06:30.600 --> 0:06:34.919
<v Speaker 1>discrimination against gay and transgender people. Yeah, that that was

0:06:35.080 --> 0:06:37.680
<v Speaker 1>a set of big cases they just agreed, after you know,

0:06:37.800 --> 0:06:40.560
<v Speaker 1>months of delay, agreed to hear. And it could have

0:06:40.560 --> 0:06:42.719
<v Speaker 1>been a case that they heard this term, we could

0:06:42.760 --> 0:06:45.320
<v Speaker 1>be talking about the arguments that just happened. Instead, it

0:06:45.360 --> 0:06:47.840
<v Speaker 1>will be next fall, I think most likely in November.

0:06:48.320 --> 0:06:51.080
<v Speaker 1>The issue there is the interpretation of the main federal

0:06:51.160 --> 0:06:55.080
<v Speaker 1>job discrimination law known as Title seven, which bars discrimination

0:06:55.120 --> 0:06:58.400
<v Speaker 1>on the basis of sex, and so the question, uh,

0:06:58.440 --> 0:07:02.080
<v Speaker 1>there's actually three case is. Two of them involve sexual orientation,

0:07:02.120 --> 0:07:04.960
<v Speaker 1>one involves gender identity. And the question in all those

0:07:04.960 --> 0:07:08.560
<v Speaker 1>cases is is that form of discrimination discrimination on the

0:07:08.600 --> 0:07:11.400
<v Speaker 1>basis of sex? All Right, thank you so much. Greg.

0:07:11.440 --> 0:07:17.480
<v Speaker 1>That's Greg Store, Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter. Thanks for

0:07:17.560 --> 0:07:20.800
<v Speaker 1>listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and

0:07:20.880 --> 0:07:24.120
<v Speaker 1>listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on

0:07:24.200 --> 0:07:33.280
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brolso this is Bloomberg. Yeah,