WEBVTT - Trump Administration Slams Push to Reopen Census Case

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 --> 0:00:22.360
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The Trump administration

0:00:22.480 --> 0:00:26.920
<v Speaker 1>is calling a claim that a Republican redistricting consultant influenced

0:00:26.960 --> 0:00:30.360
<v Speaker 1>its decision to add a citizenship question to the census

0:00:30.800 --> 0:00:35.880
<v Speaker 1>pure speculation and an eleventh hour campaign to improperly derail

0:00:36.280 --> 0:00:40.120
<v Speaker 1>and impending Supreme Court decision. That decision, of course, is

0:00:40.159 --> 0:00:45.360
<v Speaker 1>whether the administration can add a citizenship question to the census,

0:00:45.360 --> 0:00:49.559
<v Speaker 1>and it's expected before the end of June. Joining us

0:00:49.560 --> 0:00:53.560
<v Speaker 1>as Bloomberg new Supreme Court reporter Greg's store. So, Greg,

0:00:53.640 --> 0:00:56.600
<v Speaker 1>let's go back a little bit and explain what was

0:00:56.640 --> 0:01:01.120
<v Speaker 1>found in the files of the Republican consultant, Thomas hoff Feller,

0:01:01.160 --> 0:01:05.640
<v Speaker 1>who died in August, right, uh June. Actually, let me

0:01:05.640 --> 0:01:08.480
<v Speaker 1>step back even further and just explain one bit of context,

0:01:08.520 --> 0:01:10.759
<v Speaker 1>which is one of the key issues before the Supreme Court,

0:01:10.800 --> 0:01:13.520
<v Speaker 1>and that is why does the administration want to add

0:01:13.560 --> 0:01:17.080
<v Speaker 1>this question to the census. The administration says its reason

0:01:17.200 --> 0:01:20.160
<v Speaker 1>is that the Justice Department asked for help in enforcing

0:01:20.200 --> 0:01:22.639
<v Speaker 1>the Voting Rights Act, which is generally designed to protect

0:01:22.720 --> 0:01:26.360
<v Speaker 1>minority rights. Uh and and the opponents of the question say,

0:01:26.400 --> 0:01:29.040
<v Speaker 1>that's just a pretext, that's not your real reason. So

0:01:29.319 --> 0:01:33.120
<v Speaker 1>in the files of this Republican consultant is what those

0:01:33.160 --> 0:01:36.360
<v Speaker 1>opponents say is evidence that the real reason was actually

0:01:36.680 --> 0:01:40.600
<v Speaker 1>to help Republicans and white voters at the polls. And

0:01:40.720 --> 0:01:43.040
<v Speaker 1>what they found were a couple of things. One was

0:01:43.640 --> 0:01:46.160
<v Speaker 1>a study that that Mr Hope Feller conducted back in

0:01:47.640 --> 0:01:51.560
<v Speaker 1>UH that essentially said that adding the question a citizenship

0:01:51.680 --> 0:01:55.000
<v Speaker 1>question to the census would indeed help Republicans and white

0:01:55.080 --> 0:01:57.520
<v Speaker 1>voters at the polls. And then they found some other

0:01:57.560 --> 0:02:02.120
<v Speaker 1>evidence of a connection between him and a man named

0:02:02.120 --> 0:02:07.919
<v Speaker 1>Mark Newman, who was an informal advisor to Commerce Secretary Ross.

0:02:08.480 --> 0:02:12.560
<v Speaker 1>And the suggestion from the opponents is that uh Dr

0:02:12.639 --> 0:02:17.680
<v Speaker 1>Hoefeller uh funneled information through Mr Newman and eventually influenced

0:02:18.240 --> 0:02:21.200
<v Speaker 1>the way this This Justice Department letter to the Commerce

0:02:21.240 --> 0:02:25.360
<v Speaker 1>Department read. So, now the Trump administration writes a letter

0:02:25.560 --> 0:02:29.799
<v Speaker 1>to federal Judge Jesse Furman, who heard the case already

0:02:30.200 --> 0:02:33.360
<v Speaker 1>and this is before him. What did the Trump administration

0:02:33.440 --> 0:02:38.560
<v Speaker 1>say besides denying that this was true. Yeah, they say,

0:02:38.680 --> 0:02:40.720
<v Speaker 1>I gave you a few, uh, you know, pieces of

0:02:40.720 --> 0:02:43.120
<v Speaker 1>information there a second ago. And they basically say, you

0:02:43.200 --> 0:02:46.040
<v Speaker 1>can't connect those dots in the way that the they

0:02:46.200 --> 0:02:49.600
<v Speaker 1>plaint us are are trying to do it. Uh. They say,

0:02:49.639 --> 0:02:54.120
<v Speaker 1>there's no evidence that the Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore,

0:02:54.200 --> 0:02:57.800
<v Speaker 1>who wrote that letter to the Commerce Department, that he

0:02:57.880 --> 0:03:01.600
<v Speaker 1>ever knew anything about the study by dot to whole Feller. Um.

0:03:01.760 --> 0:03:05.200
<v Speaker 1>And there's no evidence that the actual letter he put together,

0:03:05.880 --> 0:03:08.639
<v Speaker 1>uh to send to the Commerce Department was in any

0:03:08.680 --> 0:03:14.280
<v Speaker 1>way drawn on the work that Dr hoe Feller had done. Uh.

0:03:14.440 --> 0:03:18.960
<v Speaker 1>There were some similarities in language between some files on

0:03:19.080 --> 0:03:24.440
<v Speaker 1>the whole Feller computer and um a draft letter that

0:03:24.840 --> 0:03:29.680
<v Speaker 1>Mr Newman had sent to Acting Assistant Attorney General Gore.

0:03:30.560 --> 0:03:34.680
<v Speaker 1>But the Justice Department, the Trump administration is now saying, uh,

0:03:34.760 --> 0:03:37.360
<v Speaker 1>that language never made it into the final language, and

0:03:37.400 --> 0:03:41.680
<v Speaker 1>you're you're having to speculate to try to connect those dots.

0:03:42.400 --> 0:03:46.520
<v Speaker 1>The real question every time we get information on this

0:03:47.080 --> 0:03:51.000
<v Speaker 1>that that God insto the surfaces, what how will this

0:03:51.160 --> 0:03:56.280
<v Speaker 1>fit into the Supreme Court's upcoming decision when it's information

0:03:56.560 --> 0:03:59.560
<v Speaker 1>way after the fact. Yeah, it's really hard to know.

0:03:59.680 --> 0:04:02.280
<v Speaker 1>I can think of a good parallel where you have

0:04:02.480 --> 0:04:06.960
<v Speaker 1>new information like this coming in and where one side says, hey,

0:04:07.000 --> 0:04:09.560
<v Speaker 1>it proves that the other side was being dishonest this

0:04:09.600 --> 0:04:13.280
<v Speaker 1>whole time. You know, normally the Supreme Court likes to

0:04:13.520 --> 0:04:15.440
<v Speaker 1>you know, base its rulings on the evidence that was

0:04:15.480 --> 0:04:18.839
<v Speaker 1>before the trial judge at the time the trial judge

0:04:18.880 --> 0:04:22.600
<v Speaker 1>considered it. Uh. You know, the justices, based on their

0:04:22.680 --> 0:04:25.240
<v Speaker 1>usual schedules, should have already a voted on it and

0:04:25.279 --> 0:04:28.560
<v Speaker 1>be circulated a draft majority opinion. So it would be

0:04:28.720 --> 0:04:32.800
<v Speaker 1>quite striking for anything to to change their fundamentally. And

0:04:32.839 --> 0:04:35.640
<v Speaker 1>then you have this whole issue that, uh, all this

0:04:35.800 --> 0:04:39.880
<v Speaker 1>new evidence is being presented to the district judge, whom,

0:04:39.960 --> 0:04:42.599
<v Speaker 1>at least on the surface, no longer has jurisdiction and

0:04:42.680 --> 0:04:46.400
<v Speaker 1>doesn't clearly have anything to do with this evidence. If

0:04:46.440 --> 0:04:50.080
<v Speaker 1>it had come up before him, uh a year ago,

0:04:50.200 --> 0:04:51.520
<v Speaker 1>that would have been one thing, It could have been

0:04:51.560 --> 0:04:54.240
<v Speaker 1>a part of his ruling. But now it's after the fact,

0:04:54.240 --> 0:04:56.040
<v Speaker 1>and so it's not at all clear that this will

0:04:56.080 --> 0:04:59.320
<v Speaker 1>make any difference at the Supreme Court. And one wonders

0:04:59.400 --> 0:05:02.200
<v Speaker 1>even if the Court had it before it. I mean,

0:05:02.680 --> 0:05:08.120
<v Speaker 1>we we've talked several times about there being other evidence

0:05:08.360 --> 0:05:13.159
<v Speaker 1>of what Secretary Ross's real goal was in putting this

0:05:13.240 --> 0:05:18.560
<v Speaker 1>question on the census, and the Justices, at least the

0:05:18.600 --> 0:05:24.680
<v Speaker 1>Conservative Justices don't seem to consider that paramount and their decision. Yeah,

0:05:24.720 --> 0:05:27.400
<v Speaker 1>at least based on the argument. Nothing in the argument

0:05:27.440 --> 0:05:30.599
<v Speaker 1>suggested the Conservative Justices were bothered by any of this

0:05:30.760 --> 0:05:35.400
<v Speaker 1>sort of thing. Uh. They you know that there's a

0:05:35.560 --> 0:05:40.200
<v Speaker 1>statute that that gives the Commerce Department very broad discretion

0:05:40.440 --> 0:05:44.400
<v Speaker 1>over formulated formulating the census and deciding what questions to

0:05:44.440 --> 0:05:49.039
<v Speaker 1>put on there. The Commerce Department did put forth a

0:05:49.160 --> 0:05:51.760
<v Speaker 1>rationale for why it did it, and that may be

0:05:51.920 --> 0:05:54.760
<v Speaker 1>enough for the Conservative Justices. It may not matter that

0:05:54.800 --> 0:05:59.280
<v Speaker 1>there were uh, that there's some evidence of hidden motives.

0:05:59.320 --> 0:06:03.680
<v Speaker 1>All this may simply be atmospherics as far as they're concerned. So, Greg,

0:06:03.800 --> 0:06:08.360
<v Speaker 1>is there anything about this before the Supreme Court right now?

0:06:09.040 --> 0:06:12.760
<v Speaker 1>Not in any formal way. Both sides have filed something

0:06:12.800 --> 0:06:14.760
<v Speaker 1>at the Supreme Court saying, hey, look what we just

0:06:14.839 --> 0:06:17.400
<v Speaker 1>filed at the at the district court. And so the

0:06:17.440 --> 0:06:20.560
<v Speaker 1>Justices are certainly aware that this is going on. But

0:06:20.640 --> 0:06:23.400
<v Speaker 1>as a formal matter, there is nothing in front of them.

0:06:23.440 --> 0:06:25.960
<v Speaker 1>I would be surprised if we didn't see some mention

0:06:26.040 --> 0:06:28.920
<v Speaker 1>of it in somebody's opinion, no matter how the case

0:06:29.000 --> 0:06:32.599
<v Speaker 1>comes out. But it's at least at the moment, there's

0:06:32.680 --> 0:06:36.200
<v Speaker 1>nothing that the Court has to do uh with any

0:06:36.200 --> 0:06:38.960
<v Speaker 1>of this evidence. So now we are in the month

0:06:38.960 --> 0:06:42.640
<v Speaker 1>of June, which is your busiest time at the Supreme Court,

0:06:42.720 --> 0:06:46.560
<v Speaker 1>because the decisions for the term are coming out this month.

0:06:46.960 --> 0:06:50.279
<v Speaker 1>What are you looking for and uh, when do you

0:06:50.279 --> 0:06:53.160
<v Speaker 1>think they'll the big ones will be coming out? Well,

0:06:53.160 --> 0:06:54.880
<v Speaker 1>the big ones so often come out at the very

0:06:54.960 --> 0:06:56.839
<v Speaker 1>end of June. That wouldn't surprise me if that is

0:06:56.880 --> 0:07:01.159
<v Speaker 1>the case with the census case, certainly. Uh. The other

0:07:01.360 --> 0:07:04.080
<v Speaker 1>really big case we're watching for it's actually two cases

0:07:04.120 --> 0:07:09.359
<v Speaker 1>involving partisan jerrymandering. The Court um had considered the the

0:07:09.440 --> 0:07:12.160
<v Speaker 1>issue last term and sort of kick the can down

0:07:12.200 --> 0:07:16.480
<v Speaker 1>the road. It's possible now the conservative justices will say definitively,

0:07:16.640 --> 0:07:22.040
<v Speaker 1>you cannot challenge a jerrymander voting map as being so

0:07:22.160 --> 0:07:26.320
<v Speaker 1>partisan that it violates the Constitution. Uh, that would be

0:07:26.440 --> 0:07:29.520
<v Speaker 1>a huge decision. It's also at least on the table

0:07:29.520 --> 0:07:32.600
<v Speaker 1>that the Court could at least allow some challenges to

0:07:32.600 --> 0:07:35.960
<v Speaker 1>to partisan jerrymandering. UM. We're also gonna be looking a

0:07:35.960 --> 0:07:39.120
<v Speaker 1>lot at what cases the Court takes up for next term.

0:07:39.160 --> 0:07:42.000
<v Speaker 1>So there are issues involving abortion that are there. There's

0:07:42.200 --> 0:07:45.560
<v Speaker 1>another case involving a bakery that wouldn't make a cake

0:07:45.640 --> 0:07:48.760
<v Speaker 1>for a same sex wedding. UH. At some point in

0:07:48.760 --> 0:07:50.680
<v Speaker 1>the next few weeks, I expect to see the Court

0:07:50.760 --> 0:07:55.400
<v Speaker 1>act on President Trump's effort to kill the DOCCA program,

0:07:55.400 --> 0:07:59.640
<v Speaker 1>that deferred deportation program started under President Obama. UM. And

0:07:59.680 --> 0:08:04.320
<v Speaker 1>all these issues could crop up next year in the

0:08:04.320 --> 0:08:07.880
<v Speaker 1>middle of the presidential election campaign. It's going to be

0:08:08.000 --> 0:08:12.160
<v Speaker 1>very busy, and yet another wedding cake case. It's it's amazing,

0:08:12.480 --> 0:08:15.160
<v Speaker 1>all right, Greg, thank you so much as ow eight.

0:08:16.120 --> 0:08:21.640
<v Speaker 1>That's Bloomberg News Supreme foot Recorder. Greg Store, Thanks for

0:08:21.680 --> 0:08:24.920
<v Speaker 1>listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and

0:08:25.000 --> 0:08:28.240
<v Speaker 1>listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud and on

0:08:28.320 --> 0:08:33.040
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is

0:08:33.080 --> 0:08:33.680
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg