1
00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:07,040
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:09,680
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,160
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

5
00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:19,880
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. It's the beginning

6
00:00:19,920 --> 00:00:22,160
Speaker 1: of a new Supreme Court term, and one that will

7
00:00:22,239 --> 00:00:27,080
Speaker 1: run the gamut of polarizing issues gay and transgender rights, abortion,

8
00:00:27,240 --> 00:00:30,880
Speaker 1: gun control, and DACA, which decisions that will affect millions

9
00:00:30,880 --> 00:00:33,800
Speaker 1: of Americans coming during the run up to next year's election.

10
00:00:34,200 --> 00:00:37,360
Speaker 1: Joining me as former United States Solicitor General Gregory gar

11
00:00:37,600 --> 00:00:40,159
Speaker 1: a partner at Latham and Watkins and global chair of

12
00:00:40,159 --> 00:00:43,519
Speaker 1: the firm Supreme Court and Appellate Practice. The Court is

13
00:00:43,560 --> 00:00:47,120
Speaker 1: obviously going to consider a lot of controversial issues. Is

14
00:00:47,159 --> 00:00:50,120
Speaker 1: there one that stands out in your mind? I think

15
00:00:50,200 --> 00:00:53,400
Speaker 1: what's unique about this term, at least compared to the

16
00:00:53,440 --> 00:00:56,240
Speaker 1: last couple of years, is just how many hot button

17
00:00:56,280 --> 00:00:59,000
Speaker 1: issues it's put on its played. I mean, it seems

18
00:00:59,040 --> 00:01:01,160
Speaker 1: as though it tried to a low the last couple

19
00:01:01,160 --> 00:01:03,400
Speaker 1: of terms to the extent possible, and now it's got

20
00:01:03,480 --> 00:01:07,880
Speaker 1: a whole menu of issues ranging from abortion, guns, religion

21
00:01:08,280 --> 00:01:11,840
Speaker 1: dot gay rights, and so it's it's hard to single

22
00:01:12,000 --> 00:01:14,720
Speaker 1: one out. I think what's unique is just the bevy

23
00:01:14,800 --> 00:01:19,040
Speaker 1: of controversial issues before it. Let's start then with gay rights,

24
00:01:19,040 --> 00:01:22,560
Speaker 1: which is going to be heard tomorrow. Justice Kenny was

25
00:01:22,600 --> 00:01:26,000
Speaker 1: the pivotal vote in all the Court's gay rights decisions.

26
00:01:26,000 --> 00:01:29,600
Speaker 1: So does this put the spotlight on Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

27
00:01:30,200 --> 00:01:32,759
Speaker 1: I think, you know, certainly it's significant, and that will

28
00:01:32,800 --> 00:01:35,320
Speaker 1: be the first time that we hear from Justice is

29
00:01:35,360 --> 00:01:39,280
Speaker 1: Gorsoch and Kavanaugh in this area. I mean, particularly given

30
00:01:39,400 --> 00:01:43,520
Speaker 1: Justice Kennedy's retirement. I do think that these cases are

31
00:01:43,600 --> 00:01:47,200
Speaker 1: different than the gay marriage cases and the like that

32
00:01:47,240 --> 00:01:49,880
Speaker 1: were decided several years ago, and that these are really

33
00:01:49,880 --> 00:01:52,360
Speaker 1: going to be focused on the text of the statute.

34
00:01:52,400 --> 00:01:57,400
Speaker 1: In some sense, are statutory interpretation cases, albeit ones that

35
00:01:57,480 --> 00:02:01,680
Speaker 1: have a obviously crucial impact in a particular segment. And

36
00:02:01,760 --> 00:02:04,320
Speaker 1: do you have an opinion as to which side has

37
00:02:04,360 --> 00:02:08,200
Speaker 1: a better case of statutory interpretation. I don't, at least

38
00:02:08,480 --> 00:02:10,239
Speaker 1: not one here today. I think what I would say

39
00:02:10,280 --> 00:02:13,440
Speaker 1: what's really interesting about this case though, is that you know,

40
00:02:13,600 --> 00:02:18,560
Speaker 1: both sides have approached it from an interpretation perspective and

41
00:02:18,760 --> 00:02:23,480
Speaker 1: have relied on various aspects of Justice Scalia's methodology and

42
00:02:23,520 --> 00:02:28,000
Speaker 1: are claiming to, you know, take the throne and statutory interpretation.

43
00:02:28,120 --> 00:02:31,800
Speaker 1: So I think it's a testament to how statutory interpretation

44
00:02:31,840 --> 00:02:35,240
Speaker 1: has changed over the last couple of decades. And it's

45
00:02:35,280 --> 00:02:38,640
Speaker 1: interesting to see both sides coming in with a Scalia

46
00:02:38,760 --> 00:02:41,480
Speaker 1: type approach to the issue. As if the Court didn't

47
00:02:41,480 --> 00:02:45,519
Speaker 1: have enough controversial cases on its docket last Friday, they

48
00:02:45,560 --> 00:02:49,080
Speaker 1: added an abortion case, right, and this is this is

49
00:02:49,120 --> 00:02:52,760
Speaker 1: one that, interestingly that the Court had issued a stay

50
00:02:52,840 --> 00:02:56,360
Speaker 1: in from the lower court's decisions stay in the effect

51
00:02:56,440 --> 00:03:01,920
Speaker 1: of the underlying Louisiana law, which which involves admittance privileges

52
00:03:02,200 --> 00:03:04,919
Speaker 1: to local hospitals and is sort of a follow onto

53
00:03:04,919 --> 00:03:08,079
Speaker 1: the Whole Women's Health case that the Court decided by

54
00:03:08,080 --> 00:03:10,240
Speaker 1: a five three vote a few years ago with Justice

55
00:03:10,320 --> 00:03:14,720
Speaker 1: Kennedy still in the court. So Chief Justice Roberts dissented

56
00:03:15,160 --> 00:03:17,920
Speaker 1: in the Texas case, does that put him in the

57
00:03:17,919 --> 00:03:22,120
Speaker 1: position here of overturning precedent? Well, I mean, I think

58
00:03:22,120 --> 00:03:25,000
Speaker 1: it's a different case today than it was at the

59
00:03:25,040 --> 00:03:27,080
Speaker 1: time of Whole Women's Health and that we now have

60
00:03:27,240 --> 00:03:30,720
Speaker 1: the Whole Women's Health decision, which is entitled to full

61
00:03:30,760 --> 00:03:33,320
Speaker 1: story the scisive effect, So I think, you know, the

62
00:03:33,400 --> 00:03:36,840
Speaker 1: Chief Justice will have to view the case through that lens.

63
00:03:37,160 --> 00:03:41,040
Speaker 1: And obviously the state is arguing that the Texas law

64
00:03:41,120 --> 00:03:43,960
Speaker 1: is different in some respects, and the challenges are arguing

65
00:03:44,000 --> 00:03:46,120
Speaker 1: that it's just like the Texas law, if not worse

66
00:03:46,160 --> 00:03:48,200
Speaker 1: in some respects. And that's the sort of thing that

67
00:03:48,200 --> 00:03:50,720
Speaker 1: the justices are going to have to work through in

68
00:03:50,760 --> 00:03:55,200
Speaker 1: deciding the applicability of the whole Women's health decision. Of course,

69
00:03:55,240 --> 00:04:00,240
Speaker 1: abortion is an area that draws more protests and more

70
00:04:00,320 --> 00:04:03,120
Speaker 1: concerned than a lot of other areas, certainly for women.

71
00:04:03,640 --> 00:04:07,000
Speaker 1: Are you of the opinion, as some legal scholars are,

72
00:04:07,240 --> 00:04:10,960
Speaker 1: that the Court is not going to make any wholesale changes,

73
00:04:10,960 --> 00:04:14,080
Speaker 1: that they're going to sort of go inch by inch

74
00:04:14,520 --> 00:04:17,400
Speaker 1: if they're going to change abortion rights. Well, I think

75
00:04:17,440 --> 00:04:20,480
Speaker 1: you know, this case is very much narrowly focused on

76
00:04:20,520 --> 00:04:23,720
Speaker 1: the same issue that was decided and whole women's health

77
00:04:23,760 --> 00:04:29,320
Speaker 1: in terms of the particular type of state law requiring

78
00:04:29,600 --> 00:04:33,159
Speaker 1: doctors to have admittance privileges at local hospitals. So it's

79
00:04:33,279 --> 00:04:35,680
Speaker 1: you know, it's hard to see the court going broader

80
00:04:35,720 --> 00:04:38,240
Speaker 1: than that in terms of the specific issues presented, and

81
00:04:38,320 --> 00:04:41,600
Speaker 1: certainly no side has suggested that this case involves a

82
00:04:41,720 --> 00:04:45,000
Speaker 1: challenge to Row versus Wade itself. So I think in

83
00:04:45,120 --> 00:04:48,320
Speaker 1: terms of the scope of this decision, all eyes will

84
00:04:48,360 --> 00:04:52,520
Speaker 1: be upon it, and obviously their first sign indication from

85
00:04:52,560 --> 00:04:55,280
Speaker 1: the current court as to where they are in these issues.

86
00:04:55,320 --> 00:04:57,560
Speaker 1: But I think there's only so far the Court could

87
00:04:57,560 --> 00:05:01,120
Speaker 1: go here. When the Chief makes speeches or does q

88
00:05:01,320 --> 00:05:03,719
Speaker 1: and as he often goes out of his way to

89
00:05:03,760 --> 00:05:06,760
Speaker 1: emphasize that the Court is not political. We did this

90
00:05:06,839 --> 00:05:09,839
Speaker 1: last month in a speech in New York, will he

91
00:05:09,920 --> 00:05:13,160
Speaker 1: be able to maintain that with the kinds of cases

92
00:05:13,279 --> 00:05:15,800
Speaker 1: that the Court is going to be deciding this term,

93
00:05:16,120 --> 00:05:19,200
Speaker 1: the kind of issues that divide the country. Oh sure,

94
00:05:19,240 --> 00:05:21,919
Speaker 1: And I think you know, that's a real challenge for

95
00:05:22,000 --> 00:05:25,200
Speaker 1: the Court. I think all the justices are sensitive to that,

96
00:05:25,279 --> 00:05:27,240
Speaker 1: and I think they al would agree with the Chief

97
00:05:27,279 --> 00:05:30,599
Speaker 1: Justice that they don't see themselves as coming from one

98
00:05:30,640 --> 00:05:33,039
Speaker 1: party or the other, but as judges involved in a

99
00:05:33,120 --> 00:05:35,919
Speaker 1: common endeavor. And I think, you know, I wouldn't be

100
00:05:35,960 --> 00:05:40,280
Speaker 1: surprised if we see some unusual lineup among these cases.

101
00:05:40,520 --> 00:05:42,520
Speaker 1: But you know, as to how it all sorts out,

102
00:05:42,520 --> 00:05:45,839
Speaker 1: and whether or not there's a consistent five for majority

103
00:05:45,839 --> 00:05:48,080
Speaker 1: in these cases. You know, that remains to be seen,

104
00:05:48,160 --> 00:05:50,120
Speaker 1: but it's it's certainly something that the court will be

105
00:05:50,120 --> 00:05:54,919
Speaker 1: sensitive to. Let's turn to DHAKA. President Trump's attempt to

106
00:05:55,120 --> 00:05:59,720
Speaker 1: end President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Does

107
00:05:59,760 --> 00:06:02,720
Speaker 1: even illustrations start with an advantage here because it has

108
00:06:03,200 --> 00:06:05,840
Speaker 1: many ways it can win the case, many different arguments.

109
00:06:06,320 --> 00:06:09,680
Speaker 1: I think it does generally speaking. You know, I think certainly,

110
00:06:09,880 --> 00:06:12,880
Speaker 1: as the Court indicated a few terms ago involving the

111
00:06:13,240 --> 00:06:16,320
Speaker 1: travel band case, you know, where the president is acting

112
00:06:16,360 --> 00:06:19,640
Speaker 1: in the field of immigration, he starts with a lot

113
00:06:19,680 --> 00:06:23,000
Speaker 1: of inherent authority, which which is helpful here. You know.

114
00:06:23,120 --> 00:06:25,880
Speaker 1: On the other hand, you know, this case ultimately involves

115
00:06:25,880 --> 00:06:28,400
Speaker 1: an A p A challenge and you know, as we

116
00:06:28,440 --> 00:06:31,240
Speaker 1: saw last term in the Census case, the president you

117
00:06:31,480 --> 00:06:35,240
Speaker 1: can't lose those challenges. So you know, from the challenges perspective,

118
00:06:35,279 --> 00:06:37,520
Speaker 1: I'm sure they'll be trying to take a page out

119
00:06:37,520 --> 00:06:39,920
Speaker 1: of the playbook of that case. You brought up the

120
00:06:40,080 --> 00:06:43,239
Speaker 1: census case, and and that's the case where the Chief

121
00:06:43,800 --> 00:06:47,719
Speaker 1: didn't believe the government's explanation and was the fifth vote

122
00:06:48,000 --> 00:06:51,920
Speaker 1: against the government. Could that happen here. Well, it's certainly possible.

123
00:06:51,960 --> 00:06:53,680
Speaker 1: I mean, I think, you know, you would look at

124
00:06:53,680 --> 00:06:56,440
Speaker 1: the Chief is one of the justices you'd want to

125
00:06:56,440 --> 00:06:59,400
Speaker 1: focus on during oral argument. But you know, I think

126
00:07:00,040 --> 00:07:04,159
Speaker 1: he would be looking at the justifications that the administration

127
00:07:04,240 --> 00:07:06,960
Speaker 1: gave here, you know, focusing on them in particular or

128
00:07:07,000 --> 00:07:10,520
Speaker 1: not necessarily feeling bound by anything in the census case

129
00:07:10,600 --> 00:07:14,360
Speaker 1: or the particular justifications that issue there. So now, the

130
00:07:14,400 --> 00:07:17,480
Speaker 1: Court hasn't heard a Second Amendment case in about a decade.

131
00:07:17,880 --> 00:07:21,440
Speaker 1: It had an opportunity to drop the case over New

132
00:07:21,520 --> 00:07:25,080
Speaker 1: York City strict limits on where licensed hand duds could

133
00:07:25,080 --> 00:07:28,720
Speaker 1: be taken because New York loosen the restrictions, but it's

134
00:07:28,720 --> 00:07:32,720
Speaker 1: going to keep it on the docket, another hot button

135
00:07:32,800 --> 00:07:37,920
Speaker 1: issue during election time. I mean, that's definitely true. It's

136
00:07:37,920 --> 00:07:39,840
Speaker 1: another big issue on the plate. I mean, the Court

137
00:07:39,880 --> 00:07:42,320
Speaker 1: has not gotten back involved in the area of the

138
00:07:42,320 --> 00:07:45,200
Speaker 1: Second Amendment for almost a decade, and a number of

139
00:07:45,360 --> 00:07:48,000
Speaker 1: issues have been piling up in the lower courts, and

140
00:07:48,040 --> 00:07:50,360
Speaker 1: I think it's been inevitable that sooner or later the

141
00:07:50,400 --> 00:07:52,840
Speaker 1: Court was going to have to get back involved here

142
00:07:52,880 --> 00:07:55,680
Speaker 1: to provide some guidance. And you know, here it is

143
00:07:55,680 --> 00:07:57,560
Speaker 1: in the New York case that they decided to do

144
00:07:57,640 --> 00:08:00,680
Speaker 1: that now that New York had filed US gestion of

145
00:08:00,760 --> 00:08:03,560
Speaker 1: muteness on the ground that they had changed the law issue.

146
00:08:04,120 --> 00:08:07,920
Speaker 1: The Court ultimately declined to cancel the argument on that basis,

147
00:08:07,960 --> 00:08:10,840
Speaker 1: but it did something that it not infrequently does, which

148
00:08:10,880 --> 00:08:13,960
Speaker 1: is to refer the motion and the question of muteness

149
00:08:14,040 --> 00:08:17,280
Speaker 1: to the oral argument itself and directed the parties to

150
00:08:17,320 --> 00:08:19,920
Speaker 1: be prepared to address that issue and oral argument. So

151
00:08:19,960 --> 00:08:22,600
Speaker 1: it's still possible that the case would go away on

152
00:08:22,640 --> 00:08:24,720
Speaker 1: that ground. It just means we're going to have an

153
00:08:24,800 --> 00:08:27,920
Speaker 1: argument in November to flesh things out a bit more. Well.

154
00:08:27,920 --> 00:08:31,760
Speaker 1: We might also be having other arguments. The Democrats demand

155
00:08:31,840 --> 00:08:34,640
Speaker 1: for documents and testimony from the President of the White

156
00:08:34,679 --> 00:08:38,520
Speaker 1: House are winding their way through the courts. We saw

157
00:08:38,559 --> 00:08:41,320
Speaker 1: there was a decision in New York and then put

158
00:08:41,360 --> 00:08:44,839
Speaker 1: on hold by the Second Circuit today, So impeachment is

159
00:08:44,880 --> 00:08:47,920
Speaker 1: on the horizon as well. Can the Court avoid getting

160
00:08:47,960 --> 00:08:50,120
Speaker 1: involved in these issues or is it going to have

161
00:08:50,240 --> 00:08:53,000
Speaker 1: to take up these issues? I think it probably would

162
00:08:53,000 --> 00:08:55,360
Speaker 1: like to avoid getting involved in those issues to the

163
00:08:55,400 --> 00:08:58,480
Speaker 1: extent possible, but you know, it can't always control the

164
00:08:58,760 --> 00:09:02,440
Speaker 1: circumstances that are bringing the cases to the court. And

165
00:09:02,480 --> 00:09:04,520
Speaker 1: that's the true with respect to a number of these

166
00:09:04,559 --> 00:09:06,400
Speaker 1: issues in terms of how they come up and in

167
00:09:06,440 --> 00:09:09,439
Speaker 1: what context. And here I think, you know, it'll matter

168
00:09:09,480 --> 00:09:12,079
Speaker 1: a lot who is asking the court to get involved,

169
00:09:12,480 --> 00:09:15,000
Speaker 1: the nature of the underlying ruling. I think it's going

170
00:09:15,080 --> 00:09:17,800
Speaker 1: to be harder for the Court to turn down or

171
00:09:17,880 --> 00:09:21,000
Speaker 1: crest by the listener general himself, if we're to come

172
00:09:21,040 --> 00:09:23,560
Speaker 1: to that. But you know, I think it remains to

173
00:09:23,600 --> 00:09:26,320
Speaker 1: be seen how the lower courts sort these issues out

174
00:09:26,360 --> 00:09:28,440
Speaker 1: and whether or not the Supreme Court's intervention is going

175
00:09:28,480 --> 00:09:32,839
Speaker 1: to be necessary or possible this year. I often count

176
00:09:32,880 --> 00:09:36,480
Speaker 1: how many seconds it takes before a lawyer is interrupted

177
00:09:36,480 --> 00:09:39,640
Speaker 1: in oral argument with a question. And now the court

178
00:09:39,760 --> 00:09:43,640
Speaker 1: says it's going to give lawyers two minutes uninterrupted. It

179
00:09:43,720 --> 00:09:47,440
Speaker 1: says the justices generally will not question lawyers for the

180
00:09:47,480 --> 00:09:50,600
Speaker 1: first two minutes of their arguments. So does this give

181
00:09:50,640 --> 00:09:54,920
Speaker 1: you comfort when you're going to be doing oral arguments. Well,

182
00:09:54,960 --> 00:09:57,400
Speaker 1: I think it's one of the biggest developments and Supreme

183
00:09:57,440 --> 00:10:00,000
Speaker 1: Court law arguments that we've we've seen in a long time,

184
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:02,720
Speaker 1: and I think practitioners are excited to see how it

185
00:10:03,200 --> 00:10:05,240
Speaker 1: plays out. You know, as a lawyer, it tells you

186
00:10:05,320 --> 00:10:07,520
Speaker 1: upfront about how much time you're going to have and

187
00:10:07,960 --> 00:10:10,600
Speaker 1: gives you an opportunity to try to frame the issues

188
00:10:10,720 --> 00:10:13,600
Speaker 1: before the court. And I think all that is terrific,

189
00:10:14,080 --> 00:10:16,200
Speaker 1: But I think, you know, at the same time, the

190
00:10:16,240 --> 00:10:19,880
Speaker 1: real argument doesn't start until the questions start flying. And

191
00:10:19,920 --> 00:10:21,880
Speaker 1: I think, you know, that's where the rubber hits the road,

192
00:10:21,920 --> 00:10:24,640
Speaker 1: and that's that's not going to change at all under

193
00:10:24,640 --> 00:10:27,360
Speaker 1: the new rule. As things play forward. Has it become

194
00:10:27,400 --> 00:10:30,800
Speaker 1: more of a hot bench in recent years, I think,

195
00:10:30,800 --> 00:10:34,079
Speaker 1: without doubt, I think it is the most active court

196
00:10:34,200 --> 00:10:36,960
Speaker 1: in history in terms of the number of questions during

197
00:10:36,960 --> 00:10:40,640
Speaker 1: the law argument. It's not surprising to have seventy questions

198
00:10:40,679 --> 00:10:43,640
Speaker 1: and interruptions during the course of a thirty minute oral argument.

199
00:10:43,800 --> 00:10:47,400
Speaker 1: And the justices are all eager to have their own

200
00:10:47,559 --> 00:10:51,200
Speaker 1: questions asked, and so are jumping in more more quickly

201
00:10:51,280 --> 00:10:53,400
Speaker 1: during the course of oral argument. And so, you know,

202
00:10:53,480 --> 00:10:55,680
Speaker 1: I think this this two minute rule, you know, hits

203
00:10:55,679 --> 00:10:58,240
Speaker 1: a bit of the pause, a pause button at the

204
00:10:58,240 --> 00:11:00,760
Speaker 1: beginning of oral arguments. But the meat of the oral

205
00:11:00,840 --> 00:11:03,040
Speaker 1: argument is still going to consist of the back and forth,

206
00:11:03,320 --> 00:11:06,000
Speaker 1: which is extremely important in getting to the bottom of

207
00:11:06,040 --> 00:11:09,480
Speaker 1: these diffical issues. Thanks so much, Greg. That's Gregory gar

208
00:11:09,679 --> 00:11:13,120
Speaker 1: former U slicitor General and a partner at Latham and Watkins.

209
00:11:15,400 --> 00:11:18,360
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can

210
00:11:18,400 --> 00:11:22,160
Speaker 1: subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

211
00:11:22,200 --> 00:11:26,120
Speaker 1: and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

212
00:11:26,600 --> 00:11:27,880
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg