WEBVTT - Supreme Court Restricts Warrantless Home Searches 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:07.960 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:11.320 --> 0:00:17.120 There's no place like home. There's no place like home. 0:00:17.800 --> 0:00:21.360 Dorothy said it before, and the Supreme Court confirmed it 0:00:21.400 --> 0:00:24.360 in a decision on Monday, there is no place like 0:00:24.480 --> 0:00:27.760 the home, affirming the sanctity of the home from search 0:00:27.840 --> 0:00:31.400 by police without a warrant. During oral arguments, the Justice 0:00:31.440 --> 0:00:35.040 has had questioned whether the so called community caretaker exception 0:00:35.280 --> 0:00:37.839 should allow police to enter a home without a warrant, 0:00:38.040 --> 0:00:42.600 and Chief Justice John Roberts raised some interesting hypotheticals, ranging 0:00:42.600 --> 0:00:45.360 from an elderly woman who hasn't been heard from to 0:00:45.479 --> 0:00:50.040 a van go painting about to be damaged. The neighbors say, 0:00:50.120 --> 0:00:53.040 she hasn't I haven't seen her all day. She didn't 0:00:53.080 --> 0:00:58.200 come over for dinner. She's never late. Is that enough? Uh? 0:00:58.240 --> 0:01:01.640 And they've got this fence around their yard. It's it's locked, 0:01:02.080 --> 0:01:04.280 but there's a cat up in the tree. Can you 0:01:04.480 --> 0:01:06.880 can you come and help you get the cap down? 0:01:07.840 --> 0:01:14.560 Is that? Uh? Community caretaking? Okay? It's water dripping from above, 0:01:15.600 --> 0:01:17.680 you know, in in someone's home and they happen to 0:01:17.800 --> 0:01:19.400 own a van Gogh and the water is going to 0:01:19.520 --> 0:01:23.200 ruin the painting is that compelling. In an unanimous decision, 0:01:23.240 --> 0:01:26.240 the Justice is bolster the Fourth Amendment's protection of the 0:01:26.280 --> 0:01:30.240 home against warrantless searches in a rather odd case involving 0:01:30.280 --> 0:01:34.480 police seizing guns in a potentially suicidal man's home. Joining 0:01:34.520 --> 0:01:38.200 me as former federal prosecutor George Newhouse of Richard's Carrington, 0:01:38.560 --> 0:01:41.640 George tell us about the decision. So the decision that 0:01:41.760 --> 0:01:45.600 Knniglia versus Strong, that's a couple of things. It reaffirms 0:01:45.640 --> 0:01:49.160 that the home is a man's castle and has the 0:01:49.240 --> 0:01:53.080 highest protection in the Fourth Amendment, So the right of privacy, 0:01:53.160 --> 0:01:55.760 the Supreme Court has ruled nine zero, which is a 0:01:55.800 --> 0:01:59.880 remarkable union amity indicates that the police have to be 0:02:00.080 --> 0:02:02.840 very careful and cautious when entering the home for any 0:02:02.920 --> 0:02:05.680 really any purpose where they don't have consent or there 0:02:05.720 --> 0:02:09.239 isn't a clear what the law calls exigencies. And so 0:02:09.400 --> 0:02:12.560 this case really was designed to test to see whether 0:02:12.600 --> 0:02:17.120 another and earlier case called Katie versus Dombrowski would be extended. 0:02:17.120 --> 0:02:20.760 In seventy three Supreme Court case where an officer found 0:02:20.800 --> 0:02:23.560 a gun after he searched an impounded car that had 0:02:23.600 --> 0:02:26.320 been involved in a traffic accident TOAD. And so the 0:02:26.400 --> 0:02:30.200 court in that case in Katie articulated something that they 0:02:30.240 --> 0:02:34.200 call the community caretaking exception, and that's a reference to 0:02:34.440 --> 0:02:37.760 and it's true the police perform a remarkable number of 0:02:37.880 --> 0:02:41.680 public safety type tasks that are not law enforcement oriented. 0:02:41.720 --> 0:02:44.640 They're not searching for criminals. They're trying to protect people. 0:02:44.760 --> 0:02:47.160 They're helping people who may be injured in their homes. 0:02:47.200 --> 0:02:50.240 And of course, during the argument that justices were very 0:02:50.280 --> 0:02:54.280 concerned that the police have ample authority to undertake these 0:02:54.320 --> 0:02:57.480 public safety sort of exercises. But in this decision they 0:02:57.480 --> 0:03:00.760 made it very clear and Condigulia has sort of unusual 0:03:00.840 --> 0:03:03.360 facts that they can't just come into a house any 0:03:03.400 --> 0:03:05.480 time that the police would like to, and they need 0:03:05.560 --> 0:03:09.600 special circumstances and they need a high degree of articulable 0:03:09.720 --> 0:03:12.480 reasonable though, so they have to have an objectively reasonable 0:03:12.520 --> 0:03:15.320 basis for coming into the house, such as, for example, 0:03:15.360 --> 0:03:17.920 to say, the elderly person who may have fallen and 0:03:17.960 --> 0:03:20.720 injured themselves. So it's an important decision and interesting one, 0:03:21.040 --> 0:03:23.799 very short written by Justice Thomas, and there are a 0:03:23.840 --> 0:03:26.720 number of concurrences, but only by the conservative block. But 0:03:26.840 --> 0:03:28.840 we didn't hear from any of the liberal justices. So 0:03:29.080 --> 0:03:33.160 interesting decisions. Yeah for page opinion and then very short 0:03:33.240 --> 0:03:37.240 concurring opinions as well, one written by Chief Justice John 0:03:37.320 --> 0:03:40.520 Roberts with just a paragraph long. What were they trying 0:03:40.560 --> 0:03:44.240 to do with these concurrences? Remember, a concurrence is not 0:03:44.320 --> 0:03:47.320 the opinion of the court only to Justice Thomas wrote 0:03:47.360 --> 0:03:51.120 that the concurrences the justices want to say. As also 0:03:51.240 --> 0:03:54.920 Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, they're trying to say, 0:03:55.000 --> 0:03:57.760 this is what the opinion does not say. So we 0:03:57.800 --> 0:04:00.720 want to be very clear, Justice Roberts is very clear 0:04:01.080 --> 0:04:04.840 that this decision is not interfering or impinging on the 0:04:04.880 --> 0:04:09.240 ability of the police, acting as public safety personnel to 0:04:09.440 --> 0:04:12.280 enter a home when they have a reasonable basis to 0:04:12.320 --> 0:04:15.600 believe that someone requires their assistance or so of non 0:04:15.760 --> 0:04:19.320 law enforcement purposes. That, of course, we heard extensively during 0:04:19.320 --> 0:04:21.680 the argument and the facts of the case. Really there 0:04:21.760 --> 0:04:24.320 was no reason for the police to go into Conniglia's house. 0:04:24.360 --> 0:04:26.719 If you recall, he had an argument with his wife, 0:04:26.800 --> 0:04:29.479 brought out a revolver, put in the table in front 0:04:29.520 --> 0:04:31.479 of them, and then invited her to shoot him and 0:04:31.520 --> 0:04:34.559 get it over with, an invitation which she declined. Left 0:04:34.560 --> 0:04:36.880 the house and spent the night in the hotel. Then 0:04:36.920 --> 0:04:40.159 when she called the next day, he wasn't answering the phone. 0:04:40.520 --> 0:04:43.279 She was concerned had the police come with her, and 0:04:43.279 --> 0:04:45.080 they found him on the front port, so there was 0:04:45.120 --> 0:04:49.160 no longer any exigency or emergency. Conniglia said, you can 0:04:49.200 --> 0:04:52.120 take me to the hospital, but don't take my guns. 0:04:52.520 --> 0:04:54.440 There was no reason for the police to go into 0:04:54.480 --> 0:04:59.840 Conniglia's house. Justice Alito talked about the issue of red 0:05:00.000 --> 0:05:04.040 flag laws allowing gun seizures. Why did he bring that up? 0:05:04.040 --> 0:05:06.040 That really wasn't an issue in this case, was it, 0:05:06.520 --> 0:05:08.680 John is an excellent point. Now, it was not an 0:05:08.680 --> 0:05:10.920 issue in this case, and I noticed it as well. 0:05:11.360 --> 0:05:14.520 It's interesting that Justice Thomas, who wrote the opinion, is 0:05:14.520 --> 0:05:17.920 probably the most profound advocate for Second Amenment rights, second 0:05:17.960 --> 0:05:22.760 only to Justice Alito. Justice Alito was signaling in a concurrence. 0:05:22.760 --> 0:05:25.559 When they say something like that, the Justice is saying, 0:05:25.960 --> 0:05:28.640 this is something that we may come back to, and 0:05:28.680 --> 0:05:31.560 he was clearly signaling to the community some of these 0:05:31.600 --> 0:05:34.280 red flag laws, which are laws passed by the states 0:05:34.480 --> 0:05:36.680 that make it possible for the states to come in 0:05:36.960 --> 0:05:41.080 and seize firearms from persons, particularly persons who were experiencing 0:05:41.160 --> 0:05:45.440 psychiatric difficulties and these laws. Justice Alito basically said, well, 0:05:45.800 --> 0:05:48.800 this issue isn't before us today, but we may get 0:05:48.880 --> 0:05:52.839 a case at the Supreme Court. And indeed he seemed 0:05:52.880 --> 0:05:55.480 to be implying that he would welcome such a case. 0:05:55.520 --> 0:05:58.279 So it's really an invitation for a further litigation on 0:05:58.440 --> 0:06:01.839 Second Amendment rights and a court. Remember, this case involved 0:06:02.080 --> 0:06:04.480 a man who had not committed a crime and who 0:06:04.560 --> 0:06:06.680 the police went into his house and took his gun. 0:06:06.839 --> 0:06:09.360 So I think I've got the attention of the justices 0:06:09.400 --> 0:06:11.920 that are, shall we say, sensitive to the Second Amendment. 0:06:12.640 --> 0:06:16.640 So this comes at a time when the police and 0:06:16.680 --> 0:06:20.240 their powers have come under scrutiny, and this case had 0:06:20.320 --> 0:06:23.880 civil liberties groups on both sides of the aisle agreeing. 0:06:23.920 --> 0:06:26.839 The Americans of the Liberties Union, the Cato Institute in 0:06:26.839 --> 0:06:30.640 the American Conservative Union Foundation joined in a brief. You 0:06:30.680 --> 0:06:34.920 don't often see that very strange bedfellows indeed, and you're right, 0:06:35.080 --> 0:06:37.560 it's really because the facts of the case were unusual. 0:06:37.800 --> 0:06:41.240 The conservatives on those people that were concerned about gun 0:06:41.320 --> 0:06:43.360 rights did not like the fact that the police were 0:06:43.360 --> 0:06:45.880 coming in on their own without a court order. And 0:06:46.120 --> 0:06:48.919 seizing firearms. And at the same time, the a c 0:06:49.040 --> 0:06:53.000 ou was likewise concerned that anytime someone the police or 0:06:53.040 --> 0:06:56.200 the public authorities go into a private house without consent, 0:06:56.400 --> 0:06:59.880 they build their strong Fourth Amendment proponents. So it's interesting. 0:07:00.040 --> 0:07:02.400 Fourth Amendment is one of the more interesting amendments because 0:07:02.400 --> 0:07:06.239 it is one that sometimes particularly for example, Justice Scalia 0:07:06.400 --> 0:07:09.600 was a very strong advocate of the Fourth Amendment, which 0:07:09.640 --> 0:07:12.440 is to say, restricting the ability of the police or 0:07:12.520 --> 0:07:16.000 law enforcement to inner homes or do other things that 0:07:16.120 --> 0:07:18.840 might interfere with the Fourth Amendment. Right. So fourth Amendment 0:07:18.960 --> 0:07:21.400 is a cherished amendment, and of course the home is 0:07:21.440 --> 0:07:24.920 the epicenter of that amendment, so it gets the greatest protection. 0:07:25.000 --> 0:07:27.480 And everyone in this case agreed. Yeah. Did that come 0:07:27.480 --> 0:07:30.440 as a surprise to you that it was unanimous? Yes, 0:07:30.480 --> 0:07:32.560 Actually it was. I think it will surprise a lot 0:07:32.640 --> 0:07:36.160 of people whenever the Court in these stratified and divisive 0:07:36.240 --> 0:07:39.320 times where the Court agrees nine zero and they may 0:07:39.360 --> 0:07:42.600 be agreeing for slightly different reasons. Again that the justices 0:07:42.640 --> 0:07:45.440 who were concerned about the Second Amendment, I don't like that, 0:07:45.680 --> 0:07:49.360 and the other justices, of course are eager to or 0:07:49.480 --> 0:07:52.680 keen on seeing that police powers are checked by by 0:07:52.720 --> 0:07:55.680 the due process clause. Let me put a few scenarios 0:07:55.720 --> 0:07:57.680 to you, and you tell me if this has any 0:07:58.000 --> 0:08:01.840 relevance this decision. So, the next time a spouse called 0:08:02.000 --> 0:08:04.320 the police and says, my husband is trying to kill 0:08:04.400 --> 0:08:08.320 himself help, can police come in without a warrant? Yes, 0:08:08.880 --> 0:08:13.360 that probably will be sufficiently objective, reasonable facts that will 0:08:13.400 --> 0:08:18.000 justify the police, again acting in their public safety mode, 0:08:18.160 --> 0:08:21.240 to enter the house, particularly if after that call, if 0:08:21.240 --> 0:08:22.920 they go to the house and they knock and no 0:08:23.000 --> 0:08:25.120 one answers the door, and no one is there to 0:08:25.120 --> 0:08:28.280 give them consent, My belief is that would be sufficient 0:08:28.320 --> 0:08:30.720 to allow the police to come in and ensure that 0:08:30.760 --> 0:08:33.439 there has not been violence in the house. Again, one 0:08:33.480 --> 0:08:36.840 of their primary roles public protection. The l A p 0:08:36.920 --> 0:08:39.080 d S motto is to protect and serve. So this 0:08:39.240 --> 0:08:42.719 protection role is key and has been key for a 0:08:42.800 --> 0:08:44.880 number of years, which of course is one reason why 0:08:45.320 --> 0:08:48.920 despite the controversy, all reasonable people realize that we need 0:08:49.000 --> 0:08:52.200 the police. Indeed, we need them better trained, but we 0:08:52.240 --> 0:08:54.360 need them to be able to do their job and 0:08:54.520 --> 0:08:58.800 all capacities. So now another hypothetical, someone is running away 0:08:58.800 --> 0:09:02.439 from the police hut pursuit runs into his home, can 0:09:02.480 --> 0:09:06.400 the police follow him in? Absolutely? So that's the classic 0:09:06.520 --> 0:09:10.600 exception called hot pursuit. So if the police have probable 0:09:10.640 --> 0:09:12.720 cause to believe that if someone has robbed a bank 0:09:12.800 --> 0:09:15.440 or has committed a crime, and they are pursuing that 0:09:15.480 --> 0:09:18.559 person to apprehend him, they're doing that both to protect 0:09:18.559 --> 0:09:20.600 the public, but they're doing that in their law enforce 0:09:20.640 --> 0:09:24.360 of capacity. And that person goes into a house or 0:09:24.520 --> 0:09:26.840 an apartment or a business, the police may follow and 0:09:26.880 --> 0:09:28.560 they do not need a warrant, and they do not 0:09:28.679 --> 0:09:32.120 need and of course can't necessarily stop to ask for consent. 0:09:32.440 --> 0:09:34.560 So that hasn't changed, and that's one of the time 0:09:34.640 --> 0:09:38.840 honored exceptions called hot pursuit. So does this case really 0:09:39.160 --> 0:09:42.679 just leave the law as it was before the first 0:09:42.679 --> 0:09:45.120 circuit went out on a limb and said that the 0:09:45.200 --> 0:09:48.920 caretaker exception applies to the home. That's exactly right, and 0:09:48.920 --> 0:09:52.240 that's really what the justices we're writing to emphasize that 0:09:52.440 --> 0:09:56.880 this case does not engender any change in four am amateurisprudence. 0:09:57.320 --> 0:10:00.160 There are at the moment about ten exceptions to the 0:10:00.200 --> 0:10:02.920 warrant requirement, and one of them we really had called 0:10:02.920 --> 0:10:06.720 it the administrative search, but you could call it community caretaker. 0:10:07.000 --> 0:10:09.520 But the Court was really saying was there is no 0:10:09.720 --> 0:10:14.000 special community caretaker exception. We're not endorsing what the first 0:10:14.000 --> 0:10:18.880 Circuit did. That phrase is mentioned in Katie versus Dombrowski, 0:10:19.000 --> 0:10:21.880 but Justice Alito was very careful to point out that 0:10:21.960 --> 0:10:24.560 the Court did not endorse it. So they said, we're 0:10:24.559 --> 0:10:27.520 not creating any new law here today. And really what 0:10:27.559 --> 0:10:30.840 the Court was saying was, if you will, the exigency exception, 0:10:30.880 --> 0:10:34.320 which is extremely broad meeting exigencies being when the police 0:10:34.320 --> 0:10:37.840 are responding to emergencies, whether they're chasing a fleeing felon, 0:10:38.040 --> 0:10:41.000 or there's a fire in a residence, or there's reasonably 0:10:41.120 --> 0:10:44.319 that someone at a home or a business requires immediate 0:10:44.480 --> 0:10:47.840 medical care or assistance, they are in no way restricted 0:10:47.880 --> 0:10:51.920 from basically entering that an individual's home or residents to 0:10:52.040 --> 0:10:54.560 provide the aid. So no no law has been changed. 0:10:54.840 --> 0:10:58.160 A fourth and amateur students per this decision is the 0:10:58.200 --> 0:11:02.080 same as it was before. Thanks George. That's George Newhouse 0:11:02.160 --> 0:11:08.120 of Richard's Carrington. The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced five of 0:11:08.240 --> 0:11:12.360 President Joe Biden's first judicial nominees today, bringing them one 0:11:12.400 --> 0:11:17.080 step closer to confirmation. The list included Katangi Brown Jackson, 0:11:17.360 --> 0:11:21.040 who's considered a potential Supreme Court nominee for the powerful 0:11:21.120 --> 0:11:24.720 DC Appeals Court, joining me as Carl Tobias, a professor 0:11:24.720 --> 0:11:27.800 at the University of Richmond Law School, tell us what 0:11:27.880 --> 0:11:32.120 happened at the Senate Judiciary Committee. Well, it was better 0:11:32.240 --> 0:11:37.840 than I had expected in many observers thought because some 0:11:37.920 --> 0:11:45.520 Republicans voted for every nominee. The district nominees easily secured support. 0:11:46.280 --> 0:11:50.240 One had a nineteen three vote, but the two appellate 0:11:50.360 --> 0:11:53.800 nominees for the d C Circuit in the Seventh Circuit, 0:11:54.320 --> 0:11:58.640 we're closer. Katangi Brown Jackson for DC Circuit had a 0:11:58.720 --> 0:12:04.520 thirty nine vote and Candice Jackson Akawomi had a ten 0:12:04.640 --> 0:12:07.800 vote for the Seventh Circuit. But still, at least there 0:12:07.880 --> 0:12:10.679 was some body partisanship in all of the votes, so 0:12:10.800 --> 0:12:14.959 that's a promising sign. And all of the nominees were 0:12:15.080 --> 0:12:18.439 rated highly qualified by the A B A, the highest rating. 0:12:19.080 --> 0:12:22.240 Why more division on the circuit court nominees? Is it 0:12:22.320 --> 0:12:25.840 because their circuit court nominees or is it because of 0:12:25.880 --> 0:12:30.200 who they are? It's both, but especially for the d 0:12:30.280 --> 0:12:32.960 C Circuit which is the second most important court in 0:12:33.000 --> 0:12:36.680 the country. And it's not a very well kept secret 0:12:37.280 --> 0:12:42.840 that if President Biden has a Supreme Court vacancy, he 0:12:42.960 --> 0:12:47.199 has promised that he would appoint a black woman, and 0:12:47.360 --> 0:12:50.800 it certainly looks like Katangi Jackson would be that person. 0:12:51.320 --> 0:12:55.480 So that's especially important. And the Seventh Circuit, of course, 0:12:55.600 --> 0:12:57.840 is very important too. We know people of color on 0:12:57.880 --> 0:13:02.920 the court. It covers large states Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin in 0:13:02.960 --> 0:13:09.000 the Midwest and receives many difficult, complicated cases. And of course, 0:13:09.240 --> 0:13:12.960 you know that's basically your Supreme Court for the region, 0:13:13.160 --> 0:13:16.520 the Seventh Circuit, for example, in which the court sits 0:13:16.559 --> 0:13:20.520 because of Supreme Court grants so few petitions and so 0:13:20.559 --> 0:13:24.160 it's critically important. And you know, there's so many, many, 0:13:24.280 --> 0:13:27.920 many more district judges and they tend to make less 0:13:27.960 --> 0:13:30.560 policy because they can't even bind judges in their own 0:13:30.600 --> 0:13:35.040 courthouse with their rulings. Republican Center is Ted Cruz, Josh Holly, 0:13:35.160 --> 0:13:39.560 and Ben Sas voted no on each nominee. I think 0:13:39.559 --> 0:13:42.600 that's correct, and some of them aren't even there. They 0:13:42.640 --> 0:13:47.240 just voted proxies. I think Sas was not there, So 0:13:47.880 --> 0:13:52.400 we may expect that though, because certainly Cruise and Holly 0:13:52.640 --> 0:13:56.440 have made no bones about their own ambitions to be 0:13:56.520 --> 0:14:01.400 president in four and they are very local. I've spoken 0:14:01.679 --> 0:14:07.480 and vigorous critics of President Biden and his nominees, and 0:14:07.600 --> 0:14:11.560 so it's to be expected, and so it's not surprising 0:14:11.640 --> 0:14:15.160 that they voted no. Senator Dick Durbin, who is the 0:14:15.280 --> 0:14:18.760 chair of the committee, told Bloomberg he's fully prepared for 0:14:18.800 --> 0:14:22.880 opposition from the panel's Republicans, particularly those positioning themselves for 0:14:22.920 --> 0:14:26.080 a possible White House bid. As I look across the table, 0:14:26.120 --> 0:14:28.880 with the exception of two or three Republicans, I'm facing 0:14:28.920 --> 0:14:33.000 their most aggressive members. Has this become a high profile 0:14:33.320 --> 0:14:36.880 a very high profile position. Is there a reason why 0:14:37.000 --> 0:14:42.600 the most aggressive and possible presidential candidates from the GOP 0:14:42.840 --> 0:14:46.120 or on this committee. Well, they probably choose to be 0:14:46.200 --> 0:14:49.400 on that committee. And the issues that the committee takes 0:14:49.480 --> 0:14:53.840 up are critically important. And remember, we saw three justices 0:14:53.880 --> 0:14:58.680 appointed by the last administration, each of whom was controversial, 0:14:59.200 --> 0:15:02.440 and the American people seem to be focused, especially after 0:15:02.480 --> 0:15:05.800 the court granted certain the abortion case out of Mississippi 0:15:06.000 --> 0:15:10.160 on the Supreme Court, and so it's not surprising that 0:15:10.640 --> 0:15:16.040 presidential candidates gravitate to that committee, and they certainly have. 0:15:16.480 --> 0:15:19.720 You've got Tom Cotton, You've got Ted Cruz, you have 0:15:20.280 --> 0:15:23.720 Josh Holly and a number of others who are quite 0:15:24.000 --> 0:15:28.600 conservative ideologically. And the committee takes up a number of 0:15:28.640 --> 0:15:31.880 other issues. For example, all a number of the questions 0:15:31.920 --> 0:15:38.200 about policing and criminal justice reform go through that committee 0:15:38.280 --> 0:15:42.120 on the way to the floor. So it's an important 0:15:42.120 --> 0:15:46.080 committee in terms of its subject matter. And then all 0:15:46.120 --> 0:15:49.520 that it does, all the Justice Department political appointees have 0:15:49.720 --> 0:15:53.120 to be confirmed and they come before the committee. All 0:15:53.120 --> 0:15:56.840 the ninety four U s Attorneys, all of those important 0:15:56.880 --> 0:16:01.200 positions um have to have the blessed of the committee. 0:16:01.360 --> 0:16:05.320 And so there's a lot of hot button issues that 0:16:05.560 --> 0:16:10.360 are addressed in that committee. Do progressive seem to be 0:16:10.560 --> 0:16:16.240 more concerned about diversity of experience than racial diversity or 0:16:16.320 --> 0:16:18.680 is it just that they know that Biden is going 0:16:18.720 --> 0:16:23.000 to choose candidates who are racially diverse. Well, I think 0:16:23.040 --> 0:16:27.440 Biden has said and Democrats, I think are committed to 0:16:27.800 --> 0:16:30.720 having ethnic diversity on the courts. Because there was so 0:16:30.880 --> 0:16:36.880 little done in the Trump administration. As Durban repeated again today, 0:16:37.320 --> 0:16:41.520 President Trump couldn't manage to nominate a single black person 0:16:41.760 --> 0:16:48.800 for the fifty four appellate judges he nominated and confirmed UH, 0:16:48.840 --> 0:16:53.600 and Biden could manage to find three black women in 0:16:53.680 --> 0:16:57.560 his first batch, two of whom were sent to the 0:16:57.600 --> 0:17:02.520 floor today by the committee. And so I think that 0:17:02.560 --> 0:17:06.320 you can have and I think Biden reflects in his 0:17:06.400 --> 0:17:12.360 nominees UH and soon his appointees UM both ethnic, gender 0:17:12.440 --> 0:17:18.919 and experiential diversity. UM and UM both UH circuit nominees 0:17:18.920 --> 0:17:21.879 in dis batch, UH sent out a committee today. You 0:17:22.000 --> 0:17:25.919 reflect that. So in the new batch, if confirmed, the 0:17:25.960 --> 0:17:30.800 list includes Gustavo Guelpi, who would be the second Hispanic 0:17:30.880 --> 0:17:33.840 judge to serve on the first Circuit Court of Appeals. 0:17:34.520 --> 0:17:37.679 He's an interesting choice. He's the chief judge of the 0:17:37.720 --> 0:17:39.720 District of Puerto Rico and he was an appointee of 0:17:39.760 --> 0:17:46.280 George W. Bush. Do you often find presidents nominating judges 0:17:46.359 --> 0:17:50.760 who have been appointed by presidents of the other party, Well, 0:17:50.800 --> 0:17:55.560 not usually elevated to the appeals courts. But I assume 0:17:55.800 --> 0:18:00.360 that UM, the White House is comfortable with the UM 0:18:00.680 --> 0:18:06.000 wealth of experience fifteen years or more. Judge Gulpy has 0:18:06.040 --> 0:18:12.320 and so UM wants to continue the tradition one Torriola 0:18:12.800 --> 0:18:15.920 served with great distinction on the first Circuit and he 0:18:16.119 --> 0:18:20.359 was from Puerto Rico. Uh. And there was a for 0:18:20.400 --> 0:18:24.160 a brief moment a district judge from Puerto Rico whom 0:18:24.200 --> 0:18:27.159 Trumpet appointed was nominated, but it was too late in 0:18:27.200 --> 0:18:34.280 Trump's term to confirm that person. Um and UM. So 0:18:34.480 --> 0:18:38.679 I think that the White House is comfortable with this person. 0:18:39.000 --> 0:18:42.200 And uh he does have bring a wealth of experience. 0:18:42.520 --> 0:18:45.680 Uh and he grew up I think, went to UH 0:18:45.880 --> 0:18:48.640 college and law school in the US, but is from 0:18:48.680 --> 0:18:53.200 Puerto Rico. And so nominated him. So the list of 0:18:53.280 --> 0:18:56.520 the latest list of nominees bring Biden's total list of 0:18:56.680 --> 0:19:01.200 proposed nominees to lifetime federal judicial appointments to nine, plus 0:19:01.240 --> 0:19:04.359 one nominee to the DC Superior Court. But there are 0:19:04.400 --> 0:19:10.440 more than one hundred judicial vacancies. Is Biden moving too slowly? Well, 0:19:10.480 --> 0:19:16.000 I think he's moving methodically and systematically and just about 0:19:16.000 --> 0:19:20.560 as quickly as possible with his third package. And they're 0:19:20.560 --> 0:19:23.199 moving to the committee as we saw today. Hopefully we 0:19:23.400 --> 0:19:27.080 might be confirmed even before the recess next week, this 0:19:27.119 --> 0:19:30.280 group of five, but at least several of them would be. 0:19:30.840 --> 0:19:34.119 And then they've had another hearing, and another hearing is 0:19:34.200 --> 0:19:37.280 scheduled next week. So I think both the White House 0:19:37.359 --> 0:19:42.240 and the Senate are moving the nominees. But you do 0:19:42.320 --> 0:19:46.720 work against the calendar, as you're suggesting, Uh, and they 0:19:46.800 --> 0:19:50.600 may try to step that up over the summer and 0:19:50.800 --> 0:19:55.480 into the fall, UM, and I think they will. They're 0:19:55.800 --> 0:19:58.280 partly waiting on senators to make their recommendations to the 0:19:58.320 --> 0:20:01.160 White House, but those have been expedited it and so 0:20:01.200 --> 0:20:06.720 I think we're likely to see larger packages more quickly 0:20:07.119 --> 0:20:10.920 sent over to the Senate and hopefully quickly moved through 0:20:10.960 --> 0:20:14.760 the Senate. But Um, the tradition is to have hearings 0:20:14.800 --> 0:20:21.280 every two weeks, and with the various holidays and UM 0:20:21.480 --> 0:20:25.720 work weeks that the Senate takes outside of Washington, it's difficult. 0:20:25.880 --> 0:20:30.240 The calendar is tough, and so I think the White 0:20:30.240 --> 0:20:33.560 House and Erman are doing all they can. UM. But 0:20:34.040 --> 0:20:38.160 you're correct, Um, there are many vacancies right now. I 0:20:38.200 --> 0:20:41.560 think the current vacancies they're seventy on the district bench 0:20:41.640 --> 0:20:46.000 and seven I believe on the Appeals Court bench. UM. 0:20:46.000 --> 0:20:49.240 But some will be filled next week. So there have 0:20:49.320 --> 0:20:52.600 been two sets of hearings I believe of nominees in 0:20:52.680 --> 0:20:56.120 the second one, it seemed as if the nominee's got 0:20:56.160 --> 0:20:59.560 a few questions from the senators, there was little pushback. 0:21:00.119 --> 0:21:02.680 And in the first one, as we just discussed before, 0:21:02.720 --> 0:21:05.760 there was not very much pushed back from the senators, 0:21:05.760 --> 0:21:09.560 and they avoided a lot of the divisive questions that 0:21:09.640 --> 0:21:13.920 people had expected of the Republican senators. What's happening, Why 0:21:13.920 --> 0:21:17.399 aren't they taking more interest in these lower court nominees. Well, 0:21:17.440 --> 0:21:19.919 I that's a good point, especially you saw with the 0:21:19.960 --> 0:21:26.120 district nominee votes today, who were mostly you know, nominated 0:21:26.560 --> 0:21:29.480 recommended by senators because they can move the cases at 0:21:29.480 --> 0:21:34.439 the district level and so. And they all five today 0:21:34.480 --> 0:21:37.760 were rated highly qualified by the A, B, A, So 0:21:38.680 --> 0:21:41.880 it's hard to oppose them. But I agree with what 0:21:41.920 --> 0:21:44.760 you said about the two circuit nominees that were not 0:21:45.320 --> 0:21:49.200 very many sharp questions. But part of that may reflect UM, 0:21:49.400 --> 0:21:55.960 the Katangi Jackson's great skill and answering the questions, UM 0:21:56.080 --> 0:21:59.760 and her great experience on the DC district and so, 0:22:00.600 --> 0:22:02.679 UM and the fact she may well be a Supreme 0:22:02.720 --> 0:22:06.199 Court nominee in the future. UM. And the same with 0:22:06.280 --> 0:22:09.440 the seventh Circuit nominee. She was very skilled in answering 0:22:09.440 --> 0:22:14.280 the questions, and so um it doesn't help to um 0:22:14.520 --> 0:22:19.280 to ask sharp questions of nominees who have very responsive 0:22:19.320 --> 0:22:22.240 answers if you're trying to score points, and so you 0:22:22.320 --> 0:22:25.640 see some of that kind of dynamic. But by and large, 0:22:25.680 --> 0:22:27.959 I think the district nominees are not going to be 0:22:28.000 --> 0:22:32.520 controversial and the Republicans are going to vote for them 0:22:32.600 --> 0:22:36.639 as they did today. So it's really the pellet nominees, 0:22:36.920 --> 0:22:40.280 and there are fewer of those pellet vacancies right now, 0:22:40.800 --> 0:22:44.760 so it isn't expected that the nominees that were advanced 0:22:44.800 --> 0:22:51.600 will receive confirmation from the full Senate. Yes, yes, because um, 0:22:51.760 --> 0:22:57.720 the it'st and so I assume the people who voted 0:22:58.200 --> 0:23:02.760 yes on the GOP side Graham voted for both of 0:23:02.800 --> 0:23:05.399 the circuit nominees will vote for them on the floor, 0:23:06.119 --> 0:23:10.560 and that's all you need unless there is a Democratic defection, 0:23:10.600 --> 0:23:12.399 and I don't see any reason why that would be 0:23:12.400 --> 0:23:15.560 the case for either of these circuit nominees, so they'll 0:23:15.560 --> 0:23:18.600 certainly go through. In the district nominees, of course, had 0:23:18.680 --> 0:23:21.840 strong Republican support and committee, so they will have that 0:23:21.960 --> 0:23:25.480 on the floor as well. Thanks Carl, that's professor Carl 0:23:25.560 --> 0:23:29.120 Tobias at the University of Richmond Law School. And that's 0:23:29.119 --> 0:23:31.520 it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. I'm 0:23:31.600 --> 0:23:34.359 June Grass. Thanks so much for listening, and remember to 0:23:34.400 --> 0:23:37.360 tune to The Bloomberg Law Show weeknights at ten pm Eastern, 0:23:37.640 --> 0:23:39.080 right here on Bloomberg Radio.