WEBVTT - Court Stops Wilbur Ross Deposition Over 2020 Census

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.400
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. In March, Commerce

0:00:22.400 --> 0:00:26.400
<v Speaker 1>Secretary Wilbur Ross testified before the House Weighs and Means Committee,

0:00:26.520 --> 0:00:30.600
<v Speaker 1>where he was asked about a potential question on the census,

0:00:30.920 --> 0:00:35.520
<v Speaker 1>asking whether residents are US citizens. Compartment of Justice, as

0:00:35.520 --> 0:00:40.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, initiated the request for inclusion of the sense

0:00:40.159 --> 0:00:44.920
<v Speaker 1>the citizenship question. We have been talking on the phone

0:00:45.360 --> 0:00:48.480
<v Speaker 1>and received written Carl spun and some quite a lot

0:00:48.520 --> 0:00:53.240
<v Speaker 1>of parties on both sides of that question. But despite

0:00:53.360 --> 0:00:57.240
<v Speaker 1>Ross's testimony, emails revealed that Ross was working to add

0:00:57.240 --> 0:01:00.280
<v Speaker 1>a citizenship question to the census months before or the

0:01:00.320 --> 0:01:06.160
<v Speaker 1>Justice Department's formal request in December of These contradictions are

0:01:06.200 --> 0:01:09.600
<v Speaker 1>at the center of several lawsuits challenging the addition of

0:01:09.600 --> 0:01:13.080
<v Speaker 1>a citizenship question, and now the Supreme Court has blocked

0:01:13.120 --> 0:01:16.680
<v Speaker 1>the plaintiffs from taking Ross's deposition. Joining me is Greg

0:01:16.720 --> 0:01:20.640
<v Speaker 1>Store Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg We've discussed the

0:01:20.720 --> 0:01:23.920
<v Speaker 1>question of whether the president can be disposed many times,

0:01:23.959 --> 0:01:27.640
<v Speaker 1>but what's the argument over whether a cabinet secretary can

0:01:27.680 --> 0:01:31.080
<v Speaker 1>be disposed deposed? When the trial judge and the Second

0:01:31.120 --> 0:01:36.720
<v Speaker 1>Circuit approved the deposition of Ross well June, cabinet secretaries

0:01:36.959 --> 0:01:40.640
<v Speaker 1>generally can't be deposed, not because they're not relevant to

0:01:40.680 --> 0:01:44.240
<v Speaker 1>a case, but because they are cabinet officials who are

0:01:44.319 --> 0:01:47.280
<v Speaker 1>very busy, and and courts generally only allow such a

0:01:47.280 --> 0:01:51.000
<v Speaker 1>deposition in an extraordinary case. The question here is really

0:01:51.000 --> 0:01:54.040
<v Speaker 1>whether this is an extraordinary case, given the testimony that

0:01:54.160 --> 0:01:58.480
<v Speaker 1>you played there and the strong suggestions that the reasons

0:01:58.520 --> 0:02:02.000
<v Speaker 1>for including this citizenship question we're not the ones that

0:02:02.120 --> 0:02:07.080
<v Speaker 1>Secretary Ross put forward during that congressional testimony. The order

0:02:07.200 --> 0:02:10.280
<v Speaker 1>from the court here was unsigned, and there's no explanation

0:02:10.360 --> 0:02:14.040
<v Speaker 1>of the reasoning. But it takes five justices. So could

0:02:14.120 --> 0:02:17.320
<v Speaker 1>this be an attempt by the court to avoid revealing

0:02:17.480 --> 0:02:22.679
<v Speaker 1>a five to four split in this first politically charged

0:02:22.919 --> 0:02:26.960
<v Speaker 1>decisions since the addition of new Justice Brett Kavanaugh. It

0:02:27.040 --> 0:02:30.440
<v Speaker 1>certainly has that feel to it um and that's in

0:02:30.520 --> 0:02:34.160
<v Speaker 1>part because this is kind of an awkward compromise that

0:02:34.200 --> 0:02:37.200
<v Speaker 1>they came out with Yes, they did say you can't

0:02:37.240 --> 0:02:42.200
<v Speaker 1>depose Wilbur Ross, but they didn't go further and say,

0:02:42.680 --> 0:02:45.480
<v Speaker 1>and oh, by the way, his testimony is not relevant

0:02:45.520 --> 0:02:48.440
<v Speaker 1>to your case at all. They didn't explicitly, for example,

0:02:48.520 --> 0:02:52.240
<v Speaker 1>say you can't calm as a trial witness. Um. And

0:02:52.320 --> 0:02:56.360
<v Speaker 1>in addition, the court refused to block the deposition of

0:02:56.400 --> 0:02:59.320
<v Speaker 1>the acting Assistant Attorney General who is in charge of

0:02:59.360 --> 0:03:03.680
<v Speaker 1>civil rights, a guy named John Gore. Um. The plaintiffs,

0:03:03.840 --> 0:03:06.440
<v Speaker 1>states and groups that are suing want to ask him

0:03:06.440 --> 0:03:10.320
<v Speaker 1>what he knows about the reasons behind the decision to

0:03:10.360 --> 0:03:14.880
<v Speaker 1>include the citizenship question. Uh. So we may well have

0:03:14.960 --> 0:03:18.200
<v Speaker 1>another fight that comes up to the Supreme Court that

0:03:18.200 --> 0:03:21.320
<v Speaker 1>that talks more specifically, are that deals more directly with

0:03:21.400 --> 0:03:25.200
<v Speaker 1>both whether Mr Gore's testimony is relevant and what is

0:03:25.200 --> 0:03:27.240
<v Speaker 1>that the plaintiffs are going to have to show ultimately

0:03:27.480 --> 0:03:30.600
<v Speaker 1>to win their case and get the question removed from

0:03:30.639 --> 0:03:35.440
<v Speaker 1>the From the the the Census justices Clarence Thomas and

0:03:35.520 --> 0:03:40.840
<v Speaker 1>Neil Gorshch would have gone further tell us about their descent. Yeah. Essentially,

0:03:40.880 --> 0:03:44.360
<v Speaker 1>what they said was there's no reason to make a

0:03:44.400 --> 0:03:49.040
<v Speaker 1>distinction between Wilburt Ross and John Gore. Uh. And Uh,

0:03:49.160 --> 0:03:51.600
<v Speaker 1>the thing that would have made sense, given that it

0:03:51.680 --> 0:03:55.480
<v Speaker 1>seems like the Court is likely to limit the scope

0:03:55.520 --> 0:03:59.160
<v Speaker 1>of this case, would have been to essentially stop everything.

0:03:59.520 --> 0:04:02.240
<v Speaker 1>So right now we're in a situation where the case

0:04:02.360 --> 0:04:04.120
<v Speaker 1>is still going forward and there may be a trial

0:04:04.120 --> 0:04:06.920
<v Speaker 1>in a couple of weeks, and Justice course it's writing

0:04:06.960 --> 0:04:09.600
<v Speaker 1>for the pair basically said, look, we should have gone

0:04:09.600 --> 0:04:12.240
<v Speaker 1>further and made it clear that we need to stop

0:04:12.280 --> 0:04:15.000
<v Speaker 1>this matter until the court can take up all these

0:04:15.000 --> 0:04:18.880
<v Speaker 1>issues and issue a definitive ruling. Greg the Justice Department

0:04:18.920 --> 0:04:22.400
<v Speaker 1>called this decision of the court a win for protecting

0:04:22.400 --> 0:04:26.880
<v Speaker 1>the rights of the executive branch. Does it augur rulings

0:04:26.920 --> 0:04:31.560
<v Speaker 1>to come perhaps regarding President Trump? You know, it might. Uh.

0:04:31.600 --> 0:04:34.120
<v Speaker 1>You know, this case has always felt to me a

0:04:34.200 --> 0:04:39.400
<v Speaker 1>lot like the case involving the travel ban, where the

0:04:39.520 --> 0:04:42.679
<v Speaker 1>question was where you're going to look behind the wording

0:04:42.720 --> 0:04:45.839
<v Speaker 1>of what what the the executive rent branch put out

0:04:46.160 --> 0:04:48.320
<v Speaker 1>and look at the motives of in that case, the

0:04:48.320 --> 0:04:52.640
<v Speaker 1>president and in this case the Commerce Secretary, and in

0:04:52.680 --> 0:04:55.839
<v Speaker 1>that case and and potentially in this case, the court

0:04:56.000 --> 0:04:57.920
<v Speaker 1>seems to be saying, you know, we're not going to

0:04:58.040 --> 0:05:01.920
<v Speaker 1>second guess this administry when they put forward reasons, even

0:05:01.960 --> 0:05:03.960
<v Speaker 1>if there's you know a lot of suggestions that those

0:05:03.960 --> 0:05:07.279
<v Speaker 1>aren't the real reasons. We're going to take the reasons

0:05:07.320 --> 0:05:10.320
<v Speaker 1>at face value and let them put put forward their

0:05:10.360 --> 0:05:14.960
<v Speaker 1>preferred policies. On a sad note, Greg retired Justice Sandra

0:05:15.000 --> 0:05:17.799
<v Speaker 1>Day O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court,

0:05:18.160 --> 0:05:23.000
<v Speaker 1>says she's been diagnosed with dementia. Tell us about her legacy,

0:05:23.080 --> 0:05:25.520
<v Speaker 1>remind us, Yeah, Well, she of course was the first

0:05:25.560 --> 0:05:29.800
<v Speaker 1>woman on the Supreme Court. Uh. She uh, you know,

0:05:29.920 --> 0:05:32.600
<v Speaker 1>carved out a niche for herself on the court as

0:05:33.320 --> 0:05:37.040
<v Speaker 1>the swing justice. She uh cast a huge vote in

0:05:38.080 --> 0:05:41.920
<v Speaker 1>to reaffirm abortion rights. That was a big disappointment to

0:05:41.960 --> 0:05:46.480
<v Speaker 1>the Conservatives who were behind her nomination by President Ronald Reagan. Uh.

0:05:46.520 --> 0:05:48.120
<v Speaker 1>And she's also just kind of been a, you know,

0:05:48.160 --> 0:05:51.480
<v Speaker 1>a symbol of women's rights and and the things that

0:05:51.920 --> 0:05:55.320
<v Speaker 1>women can do. She she has a very no nonsense,

0:05:55.680 --> 0:05:57.800
<v Speaker 1>uh nature to her, a very matter of fact nature

0:05:57.839 --> 0:05:59.400
<v Speaker 1>to her. She grew up on a on a ranch

0:05:59.440 --> 0:06:03.800
<v Speaker 1>in Arizona. Uh. She famously when she had breast cancer

0:06:03.880 --> 0:06:07.560
<v Speaker 1>in in the nineteen eighties, didn't miss any time on

0:06:07.800 --> 0:06:11.359
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court bench. And then she later advised Justice

0:06:11.400 --> 0:06:14.520
<v Speaker 1>Ruth Bader Ginsburg about how to handle chemotherapy and not

0:06:14.600 --> 0:06:17.520
<v Speaker 1>miss any time on the court. Uh So, she's certainly,

0:06:17.880 --> 0:06:20.720
<v Speaker 1>you know, a heroine and as Chief Justice John Roberts said,

0:06:20.800 --> 0:06:23.880
<v Speaker 1>a towering figure in American history. And has she been

0:06:23.960 --> 0:06:27.560
<v Speaker 1>very active in her retirement until now She had been

0:06:28.120 --> 0:06:30.880
<v Speaker 1>not in the last year or so so much, but

0:06:30.880 --> 0:06:33.640
<v Speaker 1>but uh in she retired in two thousand six, she's

0:06:33.680 --> 0:06:38.200
<v Speaker 1>been very active, and particularly in civic education. She uh

0:06:39.000 --> 0:06:42.440
<v Speaker 1>founded a program called ice Civics, which has some online

0:06:42.440 --> 0:06:45.960
<v Speaker 1>games and and materials that teach middle school and high

0:06:45.960 --> 0:06:48.600
<v Speaker 1>school students about civics. And that was in her letter.

0:06:49.040 --> 0:06:51.760
<v Speaker 1>That was what she stresses that that work of getting

0:06:51.800 --> 0:06:56.440
<v Speaker 1>getting Americans knowledgeable and active in civic affairs is crucial

0:06:56.480 --> 0:06:59.360
<v Speaker 1>and she very much hopes that will continue even though

0:06:59.400 --> 0:07:01.039
<v Speaker 1>she's no longer were able to take part in it.

0:07:01.279 --> 0:07:04.080
<v Speaker 1>And I understand I didn't know that Supreme retired Supreme

0:07:04.080 --> 0:07:07.480
<v Speaker 1>Court justice has still had offices and she gave her

0:07:07.520 --> 0:07:11.960
<v Speaker 1>office to retire Justice Anthony Kennedy. She did. She did.

0:07:12.000 --> 0:07:14.400
<v Speaker 1>That was the subject of an AP story earlier this week.

0:07:14.440 --> 0:07:17.120
<v Speaker 1>That was one of the symbols of one of the

0:07:17.160 --> 0:07:22.040
<v Speaker 1>signals that she was stepping stepping back. Um uh yeah,

0:07:22.080 --> 0:07:24.680
<v Speaker 1>So certainly an era has passed at the Supreme Court

0:07:24.760 --> 0:07:28.440
<v Speaker 1>without her having Chambers there. All right, thanks so much, Greg.

0:07:28.800 --> 0:07:37.720
<v Speaker 1>That's Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg's store. The trial

0:07:37.760 --> 0:07:41.480
<v Speaker 1>over whether Harvard discriminated against Asian American applicants is now

0:07:41.520 --> 0:07:45.120
<v Speaker 1>in its second week as District Judge Allison Burrows attempts

0:07:45.120 --> 0:07:47.560
<v Speaker 1>to create as full a record as possible for a

0:07:47.640 --> 0:07:50.200
<v Speaker 1>case that's likely to end up at the Supreme Court.

0:07:50.600 --> 0:07:53.080
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is Julie Parker, professor at the University of

0:07:53.120 --> 0:07:56.320
<v Speaker 1>Maryland College of Education and author of the book Race

0:07:56.480 --> 0:08:00.480
<v Speaker 1>on Campus. Julie, the plaintiffs lawyer, said in his opening

0:08:00.520 --> 0:08:04.720
<v Speaker 1>statement that affirmative action wasn't on trial, but the plaintiffs

0:08:04.760 --> 0:08:09.360
<v Speaker 1>want to eliminate all considerations of race in college admissions.

0:08:09.400 --> 0:08:14.720
<v Speaker 1>So how do you view this lawsuit? Yeah, given you

0:08:14.720 --> 0:08:17.240
<v Speaker 1>know the goal of the lawsuit, I would say, really,

0:08:17.280 --> 0:08:19.520
<v Speaker 1>at the heart of it, they are putting affirmative action

0:08:19.560 --> 0:08:23.400
<v Speaker 1>on trial. Very much so. Harvard says the percentage of

0:08:23.440 --> 0:08:26.360
<v Speaker 1>Asian Americans admitted to the college has grown by twent

0:08:27.400 --> 0:08:30.480
<v Speaker 1>in the last eight years. The Asian Americans make up

0:08:30.480 --> 0:08:35.199
<v Speaker 1>almost of the year's freshman class. What is the strongest

0:08:35.280 --> 0:08:41.720
<v Speaker 1>point you see Harvard presenting in its defense besides numbers? Yeah,

0:08:41.760 --> 0:08:44.920
<v Speaker 1>Before I continue, I said, give the disclosure that I

0:08:44.920 --> 0:08:47.440
<v Speaker 1>served as a consulting expert on this case on the

0:08:47.480 --> 0:08:50.600
<v Speaker 1>side of Harvard. UM. I think the strongest point that

0:08:50.679 --> 0:08:54.600
<v Speaker 1>they could make is that affirmative action helps Asian Americans

0:08:54.640 --> 0:08:58.079
<v Speaker 1>by opening the door to different types of Asian American

0:08:58.160 --> 0:09:01.880
<v Speaker 1>applicants UM, and also give institutions the ability to look

0:09:02.040 --> 0:09:06.400
<v Speaker 1>beyond just test scores and g p A s. The plaintiffs,

0:09:06.440 --> 0:09:09.760
<v Speaker 1>the applicants who say there were unfairly denied admission, are

0:09:09.800 --> 0:09:13.040
<v Speaker 1>not being called by their attorney to explain their position.

0:09:13.559 --> 0:09:17.079
<v Speaker 1>How unusual is that in a civil case? And might

0:09:17.160 --> 0:09:21.280
<v Speaker 1>the defense attorney call them? Yeah, I'm not exactly sure

0:09:21.400 --> 0:09:24.720
<v Speaker 1>whether the defense plans to call them. Um. You know,

0:09:24.760 --> 0:09:27.000
<v Speaker 1>I'm not a legal expert. I can't speak to how

0:09:27.040 --> 0:09:30.200
<v Speaker 1>common or uncommon that is. But it is interesting you

0:09:30.280 --> 0:09:35.040
<v Speaker 1>know that the plaintiffs themselves, UM wouldn't be called to testify.

0:09:35.600 --> 0:09:39.120
<v Speaker 1>Let's try to put the suit into context. The use

0:09:39.240 --> 0:09:42.520
<v Speaker 1>of race in college admissions has been under attack since

0:09:42.559 --> 0:09:47.560
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action without quatas embaki. Where

0:09:47.600 --> 0:09:50.360
<v Speaker 1>does it stand now as far as the Supreme Court

0:09:50.440 --> 0:09:55.160
<v Speaker 1>is concerned. Yeah, the Supreme Court has continued to affirm

0:09:55.280 --> 0:09:59.000
<v Speaker 1>the legality of race conscious admissions and all that means

0:09:59.040 --> 0:10:03.160
<v Speaker 1>in this context just being able to understand a student's race,

0:10:03.200 --> 0:10:08.560
<v Speaker 1>ethnicity UM in assessing their application and their potential contribution

0:10:08.640 --> 0:10:12.160
<v Speaker 1>to UM, to the student body in terms of UM

0:10:12.160 --> 0:10:15.000
<v Speaker 1>will they contribute to a sort of a diverse and

0:10:15.320 --> 0:10:20.040
<v Speaker 1>UM vital student body. And so it's absolutely nothing like quotas.

0:10:20.160 --> 0:10:23.240
<v Speaker 1>It's absolutely nothing like caps on any groups just because

0:10:23.280 --> 0:10:28.560
<v Speaker 1>those things are illegal. Now, there was testimony today about

0:10:28.679 --> 0:10:32.240
<v Speaker 1>Harvard also trying to maintain a souce from the from

0:10:32.280 --> 0:10:36.599
<v Speaker 1>the plaintiffs from trying to maintain a socio economic balance

0:10:37.080 --> 0:10:42.440
<v Speaker 1>as well, and the the concept of legacies getting an

0:10:42.520 --> 0:10:46.640
<v Speaker 1>extra step up and donors of you know, the children

0:10:46.679 --> 0:10:49.359
<v Speaker 1>of donors getting an extra step up in the admissions

0:10:49.360 --> 0:10:54.200
<v Speaker 1>process came up. How do you see that? Yeah, legacy

0:10:54.280 --> 0:10:57.640
<v Speaker 1>admissions are complicated. UM. Yeah, I think that they do

0:10:58.000 --> 0:11:03.160
<v Speaker 1>potentially undermine equity UM and within college admissions, and so

0:11:03.200 --> 0:11:06.680
<v Speaker 1>they should really be given a really hard look at UM. Yeah,

0:11:06.760 --> 0:11:10.120
<v Speaker 1>be really looked at UM with a critical eye, um

0:11:10.160 --> 0:11:14.280
<v Speaker 1>but very much um. Legacy admissions definitely is a different

0:11:14.320 --> 0:11:18.160
<v Speaker 1>thing from a fromat of action. If if the plaintiffs

0:11:18.160 --> 0:11:22.240
<v Speaker 1>got their way, would it would the admissions process only

0:11:22.280 --> 0:11:26.520
<v Speaker 1>be based on grades and you know, scores in the

0:11:26.640 --> 0:11:31.240
<v Speaker 1>essay t s UM they I believe Harvard would continue

0:11:31.280 --> 0:11:34.120
<v Speaker 1>to do an other institutions would be able to do

0:11:34.360 --> 0:11:36.959
<v Speaker 1>some level of a holistic review where they could look

0:11:36.960 --> 0:11:39.719
<v Speaker 1>at other contextual factors. They would very much still look

0:11:39.760 --> 0:11:42.760
<v Speaker 1>at the essay or things like that. Um, but very

0:11:42.840 --> 0:11:47.440
<v Speaker 1>much a student's racist A students race, ethnicity is you know,

0:11:47.559 --> 0:11:50.200
<v Speaker 1>potentially a very big part of their life story, and

0:11:50.200 --> 0:11:52.880
<v Speaker 1>they might not be able to access that information. So

0:11:53.280 --> 0:11:55.320
<v Speaker 1>I think one writer in the New York Times even

0:11:55.360 --> 0:11:58.600
<v Speaker 1>called it a potential threat of censorship, right if students

0:11:58.640 --> 0:12:01.920
<v Speaker 1>aren't able to showcase right their ethnicity and their culture

0:12:01.960 --> 0:12:06.120
<v Speaker 1>and how those experiences have potentially affected them. When I

0:12:06.200 --> 0:12:09.240
<v Speaker 1>was looking at the different kinds of evidence that have

0:12:09.360 --> 0:12:12.120
<v Speaker 1>come in at the trial, I noticed that they have

0:12:12.559 --> 0:12:15.760
<v Speaker 1>what they seem to be attacking is one part of

0:12:15.800 --> 0:12:20.400
<v Speaker 1>the analysis which focuses on the individual. So the interview,

0:12:20.640 --> 0:12:25.560
<v Speaker 1>the student activities report, and that is there any question

0:12:25.640 --> 0:12:28.200
<v Speaker 1>that that can be allowed in as part of the

0:12:28.240 --> 0:12:33.160
<v Speaker 1>determination of whether or not to accept a student. UM.

0:12:33.240 --> 0:12:35.400
<v Speaker 1>You know, I think it's just all sorts of the

0:12:35.559 --> 0:12:40.120
<v Speaker 1>entire application is very much weighed and assessed in um,

0:12:40.160 --> 0:12:44.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, informing the admissions offices, um assessment of a student.

0:12:45.080 --> 0:12:49.400
<v Speaker 1>So really I think anything is fair game. All right, Well,

0:12:49.880 --> 0:12:52.440
<v Speaker 1>this this trial is is still going on and it's

0:12:52.440 --> 0:12:55.240
<v Speaker 1>going to be probably into another week at least. Thanks

0:12:55.240 --> 0:12:57.679
<v Speaker 1>so much for joining us. That's Julie Park. She's a

0:12:57.679 --> 0:13:00.240
<v Speaker 1>professor at the University of Maryland College of Education. Aation

0:13:00.360 --> 0:13:03.320
<v Speaker 1>her book is called Race on Campus. Of those admitted

0:13:03.360 --> 0:13:06.400
<v Speaker 1>to Harvard's new freshman class, about twelve percent or Latino,

0:13:06.559 --> 0:13:10.160
<v Speaker 1>sixteen percent African Americans, and a record high twenty three

0:13:10.200 --> 0:13:14.400
<v Speaker 1>percent are Asian Americans. The plaintiff say that the Asian

0:13:14.440 --> 0:13:17.959
<v Speaker 1>percentage should be at least forty percent. Thanks for listening

0:13:18.000 --> 0:13:21.280
<v Speaker 1>to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen

0:13:21.320 --> 0:13:24.880
<v Speaker 1>to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg

0:13:24.960 --> 0:13:29.680
<v Speaker 1>dot com slash podcast. I'm June Rosso. This is Bloomberg