1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,360
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The Trump administration

6
00:00:22,480 --> 00:00:26,920
Speaker 1: is calling a claim that a Republican redistricting consultant influenced

7
00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:30,360
Speaker 1: its decision to add a citizenship question to the census

8
00:00:30,800 --> 00:00:35,880
Speaker 1: pure speculation and an eleventh hour campaign to improperly derail

9
00:00:36,280 --> 00:00:40,120
Speaker 1: and impending Supreme Court decision. That decision, of course, is

10
00:00:40,159 --> 00:00:45,360
Speaker 1: whether the administration can add a citizenship question to the census,

11
00:00:45,360 --> 00:00:49,559
Speaker 1: and it's expected before the end of June. Joining us

12
00:00:49,560 --> 00:00:53,560
Speaker 1: as Bloomberg new Supreme Court reporter Greg's store. So, Greg,

13
00:00:53,640 --> 00:00:56,600
Speaker 1: let's go back a little bit and explain what was

14
00:00:56,640 --> 00:01:01,120
Speaker 1: found in the files of the Republican consultant, Thomas hoff Feller,

15
00:01:01,160 --> 00:01:05,640
Speaker 1: who died in August, right, uh June. Actually, let me

16
00:01:05,640 --> 00:01:08,480
Speaker 1: step back even further and just explain one bit of context,

17
00:01:08,520 --> 00:01:10,759
Speaker 1: which is one of the key issues before the Supreme Court,

18
00:01:10,800 --> 00:01:13,520
Speaker 1: and that is why does the administration want to add

19
00:01:13,560 --> 00:01:17,080
Speaker 1: this question to the census. The administration says its reason

20
00:01:17,200 --> 00:01:20,160
Speaker 1: is that the Justice Department asked for help in enforcing

21
00:01:20,200 --> 00:01:22,639
Speaker 1: the Voting Rights Act, which is generally designed to protect

22
00:01:22,720 --> 00:01:26,360
Speaker 1: minority rights. Uh and and the opponents of the question say,

23
00:01:26,400 --> 00:01:29,040
Speaker 1: that's just a pretext, that's not your real reason. So

24
00:01:29,319 --> 00:01:33,120
Speaker 1: in the files of this Republican consultant is what those

25
00:01:33,160 --> 00:01:36,360
Speaker 1: opponents say is evidence that the real reason was actually

26
00:01:36,680 --> 00:01:40,600
Speaker 1: to help Republicans and white voters at the polls. And

27
00:01:40,720 --> 00:01:43,040
Speaker 1: what they found were a couple of things. One was

28
00:01:43,640 --> 00:01:46,160
Speaker 1: a study that that Mr Hope Feller conducted back in

29
00:01:47,640 --> 00:01:51,560
Speaker 1: UH that essentially said that adding the question a citizenship

30
00:01:51,680 --> 00:01:55,000
Speaker 1: question to the census would indeed help Republicans and white

31
00:01:55,080 --> 00:01:57,520
Speaker 1: voters at the polls. And then they found some other

32
00:01:57,560 --> 00:02:02,120
Speaker 1: evidence of a connection between him and a man named

33
00:02:02,120 --> 00:02:07,919
Speaker 1: Mark Newman, who was an informal advisor to Commerce Secretary Ross.

34
00:02:08,480 --> 00:02:12,560
Speaker 1: And the suggestion from the opponents is that uh Dr

35
00:02:12,639 --> 00:02:17,680
Speaker 1: Hoefeller uh funneled information through Mr Newman and eventually influenced

36
00:02:18,240 --> 00:02:21,200
Speaker 1: the way this This Justice Department letter to the Commerce

37
00:02:21,240 --> 00:02:25,360
Speaker 1: Department read. So, now the Trump administration writes a letter

38
00:02:25,560 --> 00:02:29,799
Speaker 1: to federal Judge Jesse Furman, who heard the case already

39
00:02:30,200 --> 00:02:33,360
Speaker 1: and this is before him. What did the Trump administration

40
00:02:33,440 --> 00:02:38,560
Speaker 1: say besides denying that this was true. Yeah, they say,

41
00:02:38,680 --> 00:02:40,720
Speaker 1: I gave you a few, uh, you know, pieces of

42
00:02:40,720 --> 00:02:43,120
Speaker 1: information there a second ago. And they basically say, you

43
00:02:43,200 --> 00:02:46,040
Speaker 1: can't connect those dots in the way that the they

44
00:02:46,200 --> 00:02:49,600
Speaker 1: plaint us are are trying to do it. Uh. They say,

45
00:02:49,639 --> 00:02:54,120
Speaker 1: there's no evidence that the Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore,

46
00:02:54,200 --> 00:02:57,800
Speaker 1: who wrote that letter to the Commerce Department, that he

47
00:02:57,880 --> 00:03:01,600
Speaker 1: ever knew anything about the study by dot to whole Feller. Um.

48
00:03:01,760 --> 00:03:05,200
Speaker 1: And there's no evidence that the actual letter he put together,

49
00:03:05,880 --> 00:03:08,639
Speaker 1: uh to send to the Commerce Department was in any

50
00:03:08,680 --> 00:03:14,280
Speaker 1: way drawn on the work that Dr hoe Feller had done. Uh.

51
00:03:14,440 --> 00:03:18,960
Speaker 1: There were some similarities in language between some files on

52
00:03:19,080 --> 00:03:24,440
Speaker 1: the whole Feller computer and um a draft letter that

53
00:03:24,840 --> 00:03:29,680
Speaker 1: Mr Newman had sent to Acting Assistant Attorney General Gore.

54
00:03:30,560 --> 00:03:34,680
Speaker 1: But the Justice Department, the Trump administration is now saying, uh,

55
00:03:34,760 --> 00:03:37,360
Speaker 1: that language never made it into the final language, and

56
00:03:37,400 --> 00:03:41,680
Speaker 1: you're you're having to speculate to try to connect those dots.

57
00:03:42,400 --> 00:03:46,520
Speaker 1: The real question every time we get information on this

58
00:03:47,080 --> 00:03:51,000
Speaker 1: that that God insto the surfaces, what how will this

59
00:03:51,160 --> 00:03:56,280
Speaker 1: fit into the Supreme Court's upcoming decision when it's information

60
00:03:56,560 --> 00:03:59,560
Speaker 1: way after the fact. Yeah, it's really hard to know.

61
00:03:59,680 --> 00:04:02,280
Speaker 1: I can think of a good parallel where you have

62
00:04:02,480 --> 00:04:06,960
Speaker 1: new information like this coming in and where one side says, hey,

63
00:04:07,000 --> 00:04:09,560
Speaker 1: it proves that the other side was being dishonest this

64
00:04:09,600 --> 00:04:13,280
Speaker 1: whole time. You know, normally the Supreme Court likes to

65
00:04:13,520 --> 00:04:15,440
Speaker 1: you know, base its rulings on the evidence that was

66
00:04:15,480 --> 00:04:18,839
Speaker 1: before the trial judge at the time the trial judge

67
00:04:18,880 --> 00:04:22,600
Speaker 1: considered it. Uh. You know, the justices, based on their

68
00:04:22,680 --> 00:04:25,240
Speaker 1: usual schedules, should have already a voted on it and

69
00:04:25,279 --> 00:04:28,560
Speaker 1: be circulated a draft majority opinion. So it would be

70
00:04:28,720 --> 00:04:32,800
Speaker 1: quite striking for anything to to change their fundamentally. And

71
00:04:32,839 --> 00:04:35,640
Speaker 1: then you have this whole issue that, uh, all this

72
00:04:35,800 --> 00:04:39,880
Speaker 1: new evidence is being presented to the district judge, whom,

73
00:04:39,960 --> 00:04:42,599
Speaker 1: at least on the surface, no longer has jurisdiction and

74
00:04:42,680 --> 00:04:46,400
Speaker 1: doesn't clearly have anything to do with this evidence. If

75
00:04:46,440 --> 00:04:50,080
Speaker 1: it had come up before him, uh a year ago,

76
00:04:50,200 --> 00:04:51,520
Speaker 1: that would have been one thing, It could have been

77
00:04:51,560 --> 00:04:54,240
Speaker 1: a part of his ruling. But now it's after the fact,

78
00:04:54,240 --> 00:04:56,040
Speaker 1: and so it's not at all clear that this will

79
00:04:56,080 --> 00:04:59,320
Speaker 1: make any difference at the Supreme Court. And one wonders

80
00:04:59,400 --> 00:05:02,200
Speaker 1: even if the Court had it before it. I mean,

81
00:05:02,680 --> 00:05:08,120
Speaker 1: we we've talked several times about there being other evidence

82
00:05:08,360 --> 00:05:13,159
Speaker 1: of what Secretary Ross's real goal was in putting this

83
00:05:13,240 --> 00:05:18,560
Speaker 1: question on the census, and the Justices, at least the

84
00:05:18,600 --> 00:05:24,680
Speaker 1: Conservative Justices don't seem to consider that paramount and their decision. Yeah,

85
00:05:24,720 --> 00:05:27,400
Speaker 1: at least based on the argument. Nothing in the argument

86
00:05:27,440 --> 00:05:30,599
Speaker 1: suggested the Conservative Justices were bothered by any of this

87
00:05:30,760 --> 00:05:35,400
Speaker 1: sort of thing. Uh. They you know that there's a

88
00:05:35,560 --> 00:05:40,200
Speaker 1: statute that that gives the Commerce Department very broad discretion

89
00:05:40,440 --> 00:05:44,400
Speaker 1: over formulated formulating the census and deciding what questions to

90
00:05:44,440 --> 00:05:49,039
Speaker 1: put on there. The Commerce Department did put forth a

91
00:05:49,160 --> 00:05:51,760
Speaker 1: rationale for why it did it, and that may be

92
00:05:51,920 --> 00:05:54,760
Speaker 1: enough for the Conservative Justices. It may not matter that

93
00:05:54,800 --> 00:05:59,280
Speaker 1: there were uh, that there's some evidence of hidden motives.

94
00:05:59,320 --> 00:06:03,680
Speaker 1: All this may simply be atmospherics as far as they're concerned. So, Greg,

95
00:06:03,800 --> 00:06:08,360
Speaker 1: is there anything about this before the Supreme Court right now?

96
00:06:09,040 --> 00:06:12,760
Speaker 1: Not in any formal way. Both sides have filed something

97
00:06:12,800 --> 00:06:14,760
Speaker 1: at the Supreme Court saying, hey, look what we just

98
00:06:14,839 --> 00:06:17,400
Speaker 1: filed at the at the district court. And so the

99
00:06:17,440 --> 00:06:20,560
Speaker 1: Justices are certainly aware that this is going on. But

100
00:06:20,640 --> 00:06:23,400
Speaker 1: as a formal matter, there is nothing in front of them.

101
00:06:23,440 --> 00:06:25,960
Speaker 1: I would be surprised if we didn't see some mention

102
00:06:26,040 --> 00:06:28,920
Speaker 1: of it in somebody's opinion, no matter how the case

103
00:06:29,000 --> 00:06:32,599
Speaker 1: comes out. But it's at least at the moment, there's

104
00:06:32,680 --> 00:06:36,200
Speaker 1: nothing that the Court has to do uh with any

105
00:06:36,200 --> 00:06:38,960
Speaker 1: of this evidence. So now we are in the month

106
00:06:38,960 --> 00:06:42,640
Speaker 1: of June, which is your busiest time at the Supreme Court,

107
00:06:42,720 --> 00:06:46,560
Speaker 1: because the decisions for the term are coming out this month.

108
00:06:46,960 --> 00:06:50,279
Speaker 1: What are you looking for and uh, when do you

109
00:06:50,279 --> 00:06:53,160
Speaker 1: think they'll the big ones will be coming out? Well,

110
00:06:53,160 --> 00:06:54,880
Speaker 1: the big ones so often come out at the very

111
00:06:54,960 --> 00:06:56,839
Speaker 1: end of June. That wouldn't surprise me if that is

112
00:06:56,880 --> 00:07:01,159
Speaker 1: the case with the census case, certainly. Uh. The other

113
00:07:01,360 --> 00:07:04,080
Speaker 1: really big case we're watching for it's actually two cases

114
00:07:04,120 --> 00:07:09,359
Speaker 1: involving partisan jerrymandering. The Court um had considered the the

115
00:07:09,440 --> 00:07:12,160
Speaker 1: issue last term and sort of kick the can down

116
00:07:12,200 --> 00:07:16,480
Speaker 1: the road. It's possible now the conservative justices will say definitively,

117
00:07:16,640 --> 00:07:22,040
Speaker 1: you cannot challenge a jerrymander voting map as being so

118
00:07:22,160 --> 00:07:26,320
Speaker 1: partisan that it violates the Constitution. Uh, that would be

119
00:07:26,440 --> 00:07:29,520
Speaker 1: a huge decision. It's also at least on the table

120
00:07:29,520 --> 00:07:32,600
Speaker 1: that the Court could at least allow some challenges to

121
00:07:32,600 --> 00:07:35,960
Speaker 1: to partisan jerrymandering. UM. We're also gonna be looking a

122
00:07:35,960 --> 00:07:39,120
Speaker 1: lot at what cases the Court takes up for next term.

123
00:07:39,160 --> 00:07:42,000
Speaker 1: So there are issues involving abortion that are there. There's

124
00:07:42,200 --> 00:07:45,560
Speaker 1: another case involving a bakery that wouldn't make a cake

125
00:07:45,640 --> 00:07:48,760
Speaker 1: for a same sex wedding. UH. At some point in

126
00:07:48,760 --> 00:07:50,680
Speaker 1: the next few weeks, I expect to see the Court

127
00:07:50,760 --> 00:07:55,400
Speaker 1: act on President Trump's effort to kill the DOCCA program,

128
00:07:55,400 --> 00:07:59,640
Speaker 1: that deferred deportation program started under President Obama. UM. And

129
00:07:59,680 --> 00:08:04,320
Speaker 1: all these issues could crop up next year in the

130
00:08:04,320 --> 00:08:07,880
Speaker 1: middle of the presidential election campaign. It's going to be

131
00:08:08,000 --> 00:08:12,160
Speaker 1: very busy, and yet another wedding cake case. It's it's amazing,

132
00:08:12,480 --> 00:08:15,160
Speaker 1: all right, Greg, thank you so much as ow eight.

133
00:08:16,120 --> 00:08:21,640
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg News Supreme foot Recorder. Greg Store, Thanks for

134
00:08:21,680 --> 00:08:24,920
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and

135
00:08:25,000 --> 00:08:28,240
Speaker 1: listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud and on

136
00:08:28,320 --> 00:08:33,040
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is

137
00:08:33,080 --> 00:08:33,680
Speaker 1: Bloomberg