1
00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,360
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:06,200 --> 00:00:11,280
Speaker 1: Oh yea, oh yea, oh yea. All persons having business

3
00:00:11,400 --> 00:00:14,560
Speaker 1: before the Honorable the Supreme Court of the United States

4
00:00:14,920 --> 00:00:17,520
Speaker 1: are admonished to give their attention, for the court is

5
00:00:17,560 --> 00:00:21,640
Speaker 1: now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable Court.

6
00:00:23,200 --> 00:00:25,680
Speaker 1: The gavel will fall again on a new Supreme Court

7
00:00:25,800 --> 00:00:28,760
Speaker 1: term on the first Monday in October. The past term

8
00:00:28,880 --> 00:00:31,680
Speaker 1: was a momentous one for the Court, with major decisions

9
00:00:31,680 --> 00:00:37,000
Speaker 1: on lgbt Q rights, presidential powers, abortion rights, religious liberties,

10
00:00:37,120 --> 00:00:41,599
Speaker 1: data and federal agencies, and several controversial cases are already

11
00:00:41,640 --> 00:00:46,640
Speaker 1: on the docket for the term, cases involving Obamacare, religious liberties,

12
00:00:46,680 --> 00:00:51,000
Speaker 1: intellectual property, and challenges to the FTC Fannie Mae and

13
00:00:51,080 --> 00:00:55,440
Speaker 1: Freddie mac. Perhaps justice revealing is what's not on the docket.

14
00:00:55,840 --> 00:00:59,040
Speaker 1: There are no cases on the Second Amendment or abortion rights.

15
00:00:59,480 --> 00:01:01,720
Speaker 1: Joining me to take a look ahead is Bloomberg News

16
00:01:01,720 --> 00:01:05,760
Speaker 1: Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. The Court has posted the

17
00:01:05,800 --> 00:01:09,080
Speaker 1: cases it's going here in October, and some of them

18
00:01:09,080 --> 00:01:13,440
Speaker 1: look familiar, because there should we call them leftovers from

19
00:01:13,880 --> 00:01:17,959
Speaker 1: last term. What stands out to you in those cases? Yeah,

20
00:01:17,959 --> 00:01:19,720
Speaker 1: that's a good way of describing it. These are all

21
00:01:19,760 --> 00:01:22,600
Speaker 1: the cases that were scheduled for argument last term but

22
00:01:22,680 --> 00:01:25,959
Speaker 1: didn't actually get argued because of the coronavirus outbreak, and

23
00:01:26,000 --> 00:01:28,600
Speaker 1: said they got kicked over to this term. Probably the

24
00:01:28,600 --> 00:01:31,600
Speaker 1: biggest one, certainly the biggest one from a business standpoint,

25
00:01:31,760 --> 00:01:36,040
Speaker 1: is this copyright fight between Google and Oracle. Oracle says

26
00:01:36,120 --> 00:01:41,600
Speaker 1: that Google has systematically infringed on its copyrights in creating

27
00:01:41,680 --> 00:01:46,319
Speaker 1: the Android system for mobile phones. Oracle says it is

28
00:01:46,360 --> 00:01:50,320
Speaker 1: owed something like nine billion with a B dollars from Google.

29
00:01:50,480 --> 00:01:53,240
Speaker 1: Google says it has done nothing wrong. That's a real

30
00:01:53,320 --> 00:01:55,040
Speaker 1: fight over what the rules are going to be in

31
00:01:55,080 --> 00:01:58,720
Speaker 1: the tech industry going forward. Does this mean that a

32
00:01:58,880 --> 00:02:02,480
Speaker 1: case that promise is to be controversial on a topic

33
00:02:02,720 --> 00:02:06,920
Speaker 1: the Court is quite familiar with by now, the Obamacare

34
00:02:07,000 --> 00:02:11,720
Speaker 1: case will not be heard until November at the earliest. Yeah,

35
00:02:11,720 --> 00:02:15,040
Speaker 1: that's right. And the November sitting of the Court starts

36
00:02:15,080 --> 00:02:17,520
Speaker 1: the day before election day, so there's a very good

37
00:02:17,600 --> 00:02:21,080
Speaker 1: chance it won't happen until after election day. This is

38
00:02:21,120 --> 00:02:25,840
Speaker 1: the case where Republican leeds states sued trying to overturn

39
00:02:25,960 --> 00:02:30,239
Speaker 1: the entirety of Obamacare. The argument is that back when

40
00:02:30,240 --> 00:02:33,480
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court upheld it in twelve, they upheld the

41
00:02:33,960 --> 00:02:36,360
Speaker 1: individual mandate, which is the thing that says people have

42
00:02:36,480 --> 00:02:40,040
Speaker 1: to acquire insurance. The court upheld that as a tax

43
00:02:40,639 --> 00:02:44,760
Speaker 1: because Congress attached tax penalty to not have an insurance. Well,

44
00:02:44,960 --> 00:02:49,120
Speaker 1: Republican led Congress and the Trump administration eliminated that tax penalty,

45
00:02:49,120 --> 00:02:52,440
Speaker 1: and so the argument is now that the individual mandate

46
00:02:52,639 --> 00:02:57,240
Speaker 1: is unconstitutional, and the Republican led States, with the support

47
00:02:57,240 --> 00:03:00,959
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration, are also arguing that the entire

48
00:03:01,040 --> 00:03:03,799
Speaker 1: law have to be thrown out. The court has had

49
00:03:03,800 --> 00:03:09,080
Speaker 1: Obamacare before it twice before, so why take up Obamacare

50
00:03:09,440 --> 00:03:12,200
Speaker 1: for a third time. They're taking it up because there

51
00:03:12,280 --> 00:03:14,800
Speaker 1: is now uncertainty about the state of the law. It

52
00:03:14,880 --> 00:03:17,720
Speaker 1: was actually the Democratic led states or defending the law

53
00:03:17,960 --> 00:03:21,160
Speaker 1: who urged the court to take it up. Federal District

54
00:03:21,240 --> 00:03:25,320
Speaker 1: judge said the law was unconstitutional, and Federal Appeals Court said,

55
00:03:25,480 --> 00:03:28,160
Speaker 1: we're not deciding whether the whole thing is unconstitutional, but

56
00:03:28,200 --> 00:03:32,000
Speaker 1: at least this individual mandate is now unconstitutional, and maybe

57
00:03:32,000 --> 00:03:34,960
Speaker 1: the rest of it. So there is great uncertainty about

58
00:03:35,000 --> 00:03:38,080
Speaker 1: the state of it right now. And it seems as

59
00:03:38,080 --> 00:03:40,400
Speaker 1: though when you have states on both sides and an

60
00:03:40,440 --> 00:03:43,560
Speaker 1: issue that is clearly so important to get resolved. The

61
00:03:43,600 --> 00:03:46,280
Speaker 1: Supreme Court felt, life, we just need to make a decision.

62
00:03:46,800 --> 00:03:50,560
Speaker 1: If Trump does not win the election in November, and

63
00:03:50,600 --> 00:03:53,280
Speaker 1: if the case hasn't been heard by that time, is

64
00:03:53,280 --> 00:03:57,120
Speaker 1: there a possibility that it will go away. There's certainly

65
00:03:57,120 --> 00:04:00,440
Speaker 1: a possibility it will change very significantly. And yet I

66
00:04:00,480 --> 00:04:03,360
Speaker 1: could see a possibility it would go away. The Trump

67
00:04:03,400 --> 00:04:05,880
Speaker 1: administration is involved in the case, but they didn't bring

68
00:04:05,880 --> 00:04:08,080
Speaker 1: the lawsuits. There would still be a lawsuit filed by

69
00:04:08,120 --> 00:04:11,320
Speaker 1: these Republican led states trying to invalidate the law. But

70
00:04:11,400 --> 00:04:13,640
Speaker 1: the premise of the suit is that there is no

71
00:04:13,680 --> 00:04:17,120
Speaker 1: longer a tax penalty attached to the requirements that you

72
00:04:17,320 --> 00:04:20,599
Speaker 1: acquire insurance. One could imagine a world in which a

73
00:04:20,720 --> 00:04:24,960
Speaker 1: Democratic controlled Congress and a Democratic president decide we're going

74
00:04:25,000 --> 00:04:27,800
Speaker 1: to reinstate the tax penalty, maybe even just a nominal

75
00:04:27,839 --> 00:04:31,400
Speaker 1: tax penalty, and suddenly that legal argument goes away. Now,

76
00:04:31,400 --> 00:04:33,359
Speaker 1: whether that would make the case technically moot in the

77
00:04:33,360 --> 00:04:35,599
Speaker 1: Supreme Court would feel like they needed to drop it,

78
00:04:35,920 --> 00:04:39,719
Speaker 1: I'm not, but certainly there's a possibility that the complexion

79
00:04:39,720 --> 00:04:43,599
Speaker 1: of the case would change very, very dramatically. Religious liberties

80
00:04:43,600 --> 00:04:46,920
Speaker 1: were enhanced in three cases at the Court this term,

81
00:04:47,200 --> 00:04:50,320
Speaker 1: and a case next term which promises to be controversial,

82
00:04:50,480 --> 00:04:54,960
Speaker 1: involves religious liberties, gay rights, and foster care. This is

83
00:04:55,000 --> 00:04:58,200
Speaker 1: a very big religious liberties case, in part because it's

84
00:04:58,200 --> 00:05:01,640
Speaker 1: asking the Court to overturn important precedent from thirty years ago.

85
00:05:02,120 --> 00:05:06,320
Speaker 1: The case is about a Catholic social services agency in

86
00:05:06,440 --> 00:05:11,120
Speaker 1: Philadelphia that helps place foster kits. They screen out perspective

87
00:05:11,240 --> 00:05:15,080
Speaker 1: foster parents, and this organization says, we don't work with

88
00:05:15,200 --> 00:05:17,920
Speaker 1: same sex couples. We have a religious objection to that,

89
00:05:18,360 --> 00:05:21,240
Speaker 1: and the city of said, okay, then you can't take

90
00:05:21,320 --> 00:05:24,640
Speaker 1: part in this program. And the question is whether that

91
00:05:25,040 --> 00:05:28,760
Speaker 1: violates the Constitution In the free exercise cause of the

92
00:05:28,839 --> 00:05:33,680
Speaker 1: First Amendment. There is a decision from written by Justice

93
00:05:33,680 --> 00:05:37,239
Speaker 1: Scalia that is being challenged, and it's a decision that said,

94
00:05:37,400 --> 00:05:40,880
Speaker 1: if a state has a neutral, generally applicable law, and

95
00:05:40,920 --> 00:05:44,040
Speaker 1: if it happens to have an impact on a religious practice,

96
00:05:44,200 --> 00:05:46,480
Speaker 1: that is not a violation of the Constitution. In this

97
00:05:46,520 --> 00:05:51,000
Speaker 1: case takes direct game that and may significantly expand constitutional

98
00:05:51,040 --> 00:05:53,960
Speaker 1: religious liberties. Me next, why no case is on the

99
00:05:54,080 --> 00:05:59,279
Speaker 1: Second Amendment or abortion issues. This is Bloomberg. The first

100
00:05:59,360 --> 00:06:03,160
Speaker 1: case we all argue today is Case nineteen seven fifteen

101
00:06:03,600 --> 00:06:08,120
Speaker 1: Donald Trump versus Major's USA. There may not be a

102
00:06:08,160 --> 00:06:11,080
Speaker 1: case that draws as much attention as the Trump subpoena

103
00:06:11,160 --> 00:06:14,640
Speaker 1: cases in the upcoming Supreme Court term, but there will

104
00:06:14,680 --> 00:06:19,560
Speaker 1: certainly be defining cases and perhaps even decisions that overturned precedent.

105
00:06:20,120 --> 00:06:23,000
Speaker 1: I've been talking to Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store

106
00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:25,800
Speaker 1: about the new term, and Greg, we were discussing one

107
00:06:25,839 --> 00:06:29,840
Speaker 1: of those cases that challenges precedent, a case where religious

108
00:06:29,920 --> 00:06:32,800
Speaker 1: rights and gay rights seem to collide. And in all

109
00:06:32,839 --> 00:06:37,400
Speaker 1: three cases last term involving religion, the Court expanded religious

110
00:06:37,400 --> 00:06:41,560
Speaker 1: liberties with either seven to two or five to four votes. Yes,

111
00:06:41,600 --> 00:06:44,479
Speaker 1: they certainly have, and not all of those cases were

112
00:06:44,600 --> 00:06:47,719
Speaker 1: under the guise of the Constitution. There's also a federal

113
00:06:47,760 --> 00:06:50,359
Speaker 1: law known as a Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Some of

114
00:06:50,360 --> 00:06:53,120
Speaker 1: the cases have involved that. The case they got a

115
00:06:53,160 --> 00:06:57,160
Speaker 1: lot of attention this last term involving the Obamacare contraceptive

116
00:06:57,200 --> 00:07:00,840
Speaker 1: requirement that was actually primarily a case of about federal

117
00:07:00,880 --> 00:07:03,960
Speaker 1: administrative law and whether the Trump administration had checked all

118
00:07:03,960 --> 00:07:06,880
Speaker 1: the boxes in terms of giving a broad religious exemption

119
00:07:06,960 --> 00:07:10,840
Speaker 1: to employers and universities from that requirement. This will be

120
00:07:11,120 --> 00:07:14,400
Speaker 1: certainly one of the biggest case that directly deals with

121
00:07:14,640 --> 00:07:18,840
Speaker 1: the constitutional free exercise clause. So now is this Facebook's

122
00:07:18,880 --> 00:07:22,200
Speaker 1: first appearance at the Court in a case involving text

123
00:07:22,280 --> 00:07:26,800
Speaker 1: messages and robocalls? It is remember this last term, they

124
00:07:26,800 --> 00:07:30,320
Speaker 1: had a case that challenged the federal ban on robocalls

125
00:07:30,360 --> 00:07:33,800
Speaker 1: to mobile phones, and the Supreme Court upheld that law,

126
00:07:34,320 --> 00:07:37,280
Speaker 1: and the Facebook case was sort of waiting in the

127
00:07:37,280 --> 00:07:39,480
Speaker 1: wings for the Court to resolve that. And what it

128
00:07:39,600 --> 00:07:42,400
Speaker 1: sort of gets into is not the constitutional questions of

129
00:07:42,400 --> 00:07:44,880
Speaker 1: the earlier case, but kind of the nuts in both

130
00:07:44,960 --> 00:07:47,840
Speaker 1: questions of what really is a robot call the law.

131
00:07:48,480 --> 00:07:51,120
Speaker 1: This is a case about somebody who sued Facebook because

132
00:07:51,480 --> 00:07:55,400
Speaker 1: he got text messages he didn't want, and the question

133
00:07:55,560 --> 00:07:59,800
Speaker 1: is whether those text messages are covered under the statute,

134
00:08:00,160 --> 00:08:03,280
Speaker 1: whether therefore he can press a lassity against Facebook, essentially

135
00:08:03,280 --> 00:08:06,200
Speaker 1: a class action suit that would involve big money. A

136
00:08:06,240 --> 00:08:08,680
Speaker 1: little more of a granular case, but certainly something that

137
00:08:08,840 --> 00:08:11,520
Speaker 1: is of great interest to a lot of people in

138
00:08:11,560 --> 00:08:14,720
Speaker 1: the tech community. Can we tell where this is going

139
00:08:14,880 --> 00:08:17,920
Speaker 1: from the robot call case this term, where just about

140
00:08:17,920 --> 00:08:23,160
Speaker 1: everyone agreed that nobody likes robot calls. I'm not sure

141
00:08:23,200 --> 00:08:26,560
Speaker 1: we can you know robo calls for the Supreme Court justices,

142
00:08:26,600 --> 00:08:30,520
Speaker 1: they all understand what those are. This case involves a

143
00:08:30,600 --> 00:08:33,840
Speaker 1: little more of a question about the mechanism for sending

144
00:08:33,880 --> 00:08:37,319
Speaker 1: these text messages. It is, as I said, a question

145
00:08:37,360 --> 00:08:41,240
Speaker 1: of interpreting this federal statute and not so much the Constitution.

146
00:08:41,600 --> 00:08:44,680
Speaker 1: So I'm not ready to say that I have any

147
00:08:44,760 --> 00:08:47,280
Speaker 1: strong views on how this case is likely to come

148
00:08:47,280 --> 00:08:50,240
Speaker 1: out of based on what we saw in this last term. Now,

149
00:08:50,280 --> 00:08:53,880
Speaker 1: another case that seems a lot like a case this

150
00:08:54,080 --> 00:09:00,240
Speaker 1: term on the SEC involves the FTC. Right. In the

151
00:09:00,320 --> 00:09:03,080
Speaker 1: last term, we had a case involving the Securities and

152
00:09:03,120 --> 00:09:07,520
Speaker 1: Exchange Commissions so called disgorgement power, that is, its ability

153
00:09:07,600 --> 00:09:11,559
Speaker 1: to go to court and say, you, the wrongdoer, somebody

154
00:09:11,600 --> 00:09:14,200
Speaker 1: who violated securities wrong laws have to give back the

155
00:09:14,240 --> 00:09:18,400
Speaker 1: money you took. And the Supreme Court trim that power

156
00:09:18,640 --> 00:09:21,400
Speaker 1: from the SEC essentially said, you really have to make

157
00:09:21,440 --> 00:09:25,640
Speaker 1: sure you're sending the money back to investors who were defrauded,

158
00:09:25,760 --> 00:09:28,720
Speaker 1: and you have to focus on the net proceeds that

159
00:09:28,840 --> 00:09:33,239
Speaker 1: the wrongdoer got, but left the disgorgement power otherwise intact.

160
00:09:33,640 --> 00:09:35,440
Speaker 1: And so this is to some degree the same case

161
00:09:35,480 --> 00:09:37,680
Speaker 1: involving the Federal Trade Commission, which also tries to go

162
00:09:37,760 --> 00:09:41,319
Speaker 1: to court to get money from wrongdoers. The difference is

163
00:09:41,360 --> 00:09:44,680
Speaker 1: that it's the completely different statutes. It's a federal statute

164
00:09:44,720 --> 00:09:46,880
Speaker 1: that governs the FEC that says they have the power

165
00:09:46,920 --> 00:09:50,400
Speaker 1: to go to court get an injunction. And the question

166
00:09:50,480 --> 00:09:53,640
Speaker 1: is essentially whether it's an injunction includes an injunction that

167
00:09:53,679 --> 00:09:56,680
Speaker 1: says you the wrong door have to pay money back.

168
00:09:56,960 --> 00:09:59,960
Speaker 1: Most federal pills courts pep said yes, the FDC has

169
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:03,040
Speaker 1: has that power. There is one that recently said no,

170
00:10:03,160 --> 00:10:06,360
Speaker 1: it doesn't end that is very likely the Resistreme Court

171
00:10:06,400 --> 00:10:09,480
Speaker 1: decided to get involved. So then we can't draw any

172
00:10:09,559 --> 00:10:14,000
Speaker 1: conclusions from the case involving the SEC. We might be

173
00:10:14,080 --> 00:10:16,160
Speaker 1: able to get a general leaning that the Court is

174
00:10:16,160 --> 00:10:19,960
Speaker 1: not looking to do something radical in this area, though

175
00:10:20,000 --> 00:10:24,040
Speaker 1: it is a question of statutory interpretation. Both cases are

176
00:10:24,080 --> 00:10:27,400
Speaker 1: also at least to some degree about the traditional powers

177
00:10:27,480 --> 00:10:30,360
Speaker 1: of courts. So I will at least go into this

178
00:10:30,520 --> 00:10:33,760
Speaker 1: argument with the idea that the Court might not want

179
00:10:33,840 --> 00:10:38,280
Speaker 1: to radically cut back on what has been a long established,

180
00:10:38,480 --> 00:10:41,960
Speaker 1: a long understood power of the Federal Trade Commission. And

181
00:10:42,000 --> 00:10:45,199
Speaker 1: there's a case involving a challenge to another federal agency,

182
00:10:45,400 --> 00:10:49,439
Speaker 1: the Federal Housing Finance Agency and its regulation of Fannie

183
00:10:49,440 --> 00:10:52,280
Speaker 1: Mae and Freddie Mack and the more than three billion

184
00:10:52,320 --> 00:10:55,520
Speaker 1: dollars in dividends that have gone into the U. S. Treasury.

185
00:10:55,600 --> 00:11:00,120
Speaker 1: This has echoes of two cases from last term. Yeah know,

186
00:11:00,440 --> 00:11:02,400
Speaker 1: I think about it. Half the cases this term are

187
00:11:02,440 --> 00:11:05,640
Speaker 1: follow ups from from cases last term. Uh. This one

188
00:11:06,080 --> 00:11:08,760
Speaker 1: is somewhat connected to the fight over the Consumer Financial

189
00:11:08,760 --> 00:11:11,920
Speaker 1: Protection Bureau from the last term. The main issue in

190
00:11:11,960 --> 00:11:14,200
Speaker 1: this case, however, is something that is somewhat different. I'll

191
00:11:14,240 --> 00:11:17,079
Speaker 1: try to explain it. Under federal law, Fannie Mae and

192
00:11:17,240 --> 00:11:21,120
Speaker 1: Freddie Mack give the vast majority of their profits to

193
00:11:21,360 --> 00:11:23,880
Speaker 1: the treasury. They don't go to the shareholders. And this

194
00:11:24,040 --> 00:11:26,600
Speaker 1: all stems from the bail out of Fannie Main and

195
00:11:26,640 --> 00:11:31,760
Speaker 1: Freddie Mac after the financial crisis. And investors are challenging

196
00:11:31,800 --> 00:11:34,959
Speaker 1: that so called profit sweep, and they have a couple

197
00:11:34,960 --> 00:11:37,680
Speaker 1: of different arguments for why they think that profit sweep

198
00:11:37,920 --> 00:11:40,280
Speaker 1: is illegal. And what has seemed to be the main

199
00:11:40,320 --> 00:11:43,880
Speaker 1: event is the f a f A, the agency that

200
00:11:43,960 --> 00:11:48,000
Speaker 1: overseas Fanny and Freddy, arguing that under federal law, we

201
00:11:48,040 --> 00:11:51,319
Speaker 1: are the conservator of Fannie and Freddie, and under federal law,

202
00:11:51,400 --> 00:11:54,880
Speaker 1: you can't sue over something involving our conservatorship of those

203
00:11:54,920 --> 00:11:58,520
Speaker 1: two entities. There's also a second claim in the case

204
00:11:58,600 --> 00:12:01,280
Speaker 1: that is similar to the one in Consumer Financial Protection

205
00:12:01,320 --> 00:12:05,760
Speaker 1: Bureau case. The investors argue that the f h f

206
00:12:05,960 --> 00:12:10,720
Speaker 1: A is unconstitutionally structured because the director is too independent

207
00:12:10,760 --> 00:12:13,040
Speaker 1: from the president can't be fired by the president for

208
00:12:13,080 --> 00:12:18,160
Speaker 1: any reason. And they say that because of that unconstitutional structure,

209
00:12:18,720 --> 00:12:22,319
Speaker 1: that this profit suite must be thrown out. Back in

210
00:12:22,400 --> 00:12:25,800
Speaker 1: this last term, the Court entertained a similar claim about

211
00:12:25,840 --> 00:12:30,320
Speaker 1: the CFPB and said it's unconstitutionally structured, but the only

212
00:12:30,320 --> 00:12:32,240
Speaker 1: thing we have to do to fix it is to

213
00:12:32,400 --> 00:12:34,800
Speaker 1: say the president can fire the director for any reason.

214
00:12:35,040 --> 00:12:37,000
Speaker 1: So it would be a big leap for the Court

215
00:12:37,080 --> 00:12:40,760
Speaker 1: to say that the remedy for any unconstitutionality about the

216
00:12:40,840 --> 00:12:43,120
Speaker 1: f h f A is that we would throw out

217
00:12:43,200 --> 00:12:46,280
Speaker 1: this extremely important provision that lets them collect the profits

218
00:12:46,320 --> 00:12:49,840
Speaker 1: of Fannie and Freddie. Greg last term, there was a

219
00:12:49,960 --> 00:12:53,240
Speaker 1: gun case, a Second Amendment case that turned out to

220
00:12:53,280 --> 00:12:58,400
Speaker 1: be moot, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh mentioned other cases coming

221
00:12:58,440 --> 00:13:01,840
Speaker 1: down the pike. Have they taken up any gun cases.

222
00:13:02,400 --> 00:13:05,360
Speaker 1: They haven't, And it's a bit of a head scratcher,

223
00:13:05,440 --> 00:13:09,440
Speaker 1: to be honest. Justice Kavanaugh did indicate he's eager to

224
00:13:09,520 --> 00:13:12,760
Speaker 1: take up a Second Amendment case. Other conservative justices have

225
00:13:13,200 --> 00:13:15,719
Speaker 1: as well, including Justice Thomas, who has been very outspoken.

226
00:13:15,920 --> 00:13:17,760
Speaker 1: But the Court had a Second Amendment case of this

227
00:13:17,920 --> 00:13:21,920
Speaker 1: current term involving gun transportation restrictions in New York City.

228
00:13:22,040 --> 00:13:24,000
Speaker 1: But then the city changed its law and the Court

229
00:13:24,080 --> 00:13:27,400
Speaker 1: dismissed that case. And after that happened, there were all

230
00:13:27,440 --> 00:13:29,480
Speaker 1: these other cases that have been waiting in the wings,

231
00:13:29,480 --> 00:13:31,800
Speaker 1: waiting for the Court to resolve the New York case.

232
00:13:31,920 --> 00:13:35,280
Speaker 1: And they included an issue that federal pills courts are

233
00:13:35,400 --> 00:13:39,000
Speaker 1: divided on, which is is there a constitutional right to

234
00:13:39,240 --> 00:13:41,680
Speaker 1: carry a weapon in public or is it only a

235
00:13:41,800 --> 00:13:45,000
Speaker 1: right that applies in your home for self defense purposes.

236
00:13:45,080 --> 00:13:47,240
Speaker 1: Lower courts are split on that. They had a couple

237
00:13:47,280 --> 00:13:49,319
Speaker 1: of cases that look like really good candidates for them

238
00:13:49,360 --> 00:13:52,040
Speaker 1: to take up, and they chose not to. And I

239
00:13:52,080 --> 00:13:54,720
Speaker 1: think the clearest thing that one can say is there

240
00:13:54,840 --> 00:13:57,280
Speaker 1: is not a huge appetite on the Court at this

241
00:13:57,400 --> 00:14:00,880
Speaker 1: very moment for expanding the second amend a mint expanding

242
00:14:00,920 --> 00:14:03,000
Speaker 1: the rights that are covered by it. And for the

243
00:14:03,080 --> 00:14:05,760
Speaker 1: time being, no, we do not have a gun rights

244
00:14:05,760 --> 00:14:07,720
Speaker 1: case on the agenda for next term, and it's not

245
00:14:07,760 --> 00:14:09,960
Speaker 1: clear that we're going to. This term. There was an

246
00:14:09,960 --> 00:14:12,960
Speaker 1: abortion case, and of course there was a lot of

247
00:14:13,520 --> 00:14:18,480
Speaker 1: controversy surrounding it because of the issue itself and also

248
00:14:18,600 --> 00:14:21,840
Speaker 1: because of the newly conservative court, and people were wondering

249
00:14:21,920 --> 00:14:25,040
Speaker 1: whether they would start to cut back on abortion rights.

250
00:14:25,080 --> 00:14:29,360
Speaker 1: Are there any abortion rights cases on the docket coming up?

251
00:14:29,720 --> 00:14:31,680
Speaker 1: There are not be much like with gun rights, The

252
00:14:31,720 --> 00:14:34,120
Speaker 1: Court at the end of its term said it wasn't

253
00:14:34,160 --> 00:14:36,840
Speaker 1: going to hear several cases, so it's passed on the

254
00:14:36,920 --> 00:14:39,320
Speaker 1: chance now in the case of abortion, that may be

255
00:14:39,400 --> 00:14:42,640
Speaker 1: because it wants the lower courts to digest the ruling

256
00:14:42,640 --> 00:14:45,280
Speaker 1: that it issued this term. That was one where Chief

257
00:14:45,360 --> 00:14:48,720
Speaker 1: Justice John Roberts has the keyboat to strike down this

258
00:14:48,880 --> 00:14:52,000
Speaker 1: Louisian law that required doctors an abortion clinics to get

259
00:14:52,120 --> 00:14:55,040
Speaker 1: privileges at a local hospital. The chiefs pointed to the

260
00:14:55,120 --> 00:14:57,720
Speaker 1: decision four years earlier where the Court had struck down

261
00:14:57,800 --> 00:15:01,120
Speaker 1: an identical Texas law, and rob said, I disagreed with

262
00:15:01,160 --> 00:15:03,800
Speaker 1: that decision. But it's the law of the land, and

263
00:15:03,840 --> 00:15:07,080
Speaker 1: the Louisiana law is is identical. So I'm going to

264
00:15:07,480 --> 00:15:10,280
Speaker 1: both to strike that down as well. It's possible that

265
00:15:10,360 --> 00:15:12,560
Speaker 1: that the Chief Justice, because of the language in his opinion,

266
00:15:12,840 --> 00:15:16,720
Speaker 1: would be willing to uphold a lot of other abortion restrictions.

267
00:15:16,760 --> 00:15:18,440
Speaker 1: But at the end of the term, when the Court

268
00:15:18,520 --> 00:15:20,840
Speaker 1: decided we're not going to take these other cases, that

269
00:15:20,920 --> 00:15:22,560
Speaker 1: did sort of send a little bit of a message

270
00:15:22,600 --> 00:15:25,760
Speaker 1: that maybe he is not especially eager to take up

271
00:15:25,800 --> 00:15:29,080
Speaker 1: another abortion case every time. Soon, finally, the Court is

272
00:15:29,120 --> 00:15:33,080
Speaker 1: going to consider new curbs on human rights lawsuits in

273
00:15:33,080 --> 00:15:36,480
Speaker 1: a case involving child slavery on coco farms on the

274
00:15:36,520 --> 00:15:40,000
Speaker 1: Ivory Coast. Yeah, this is a type of issue the

275
00:15:40,000 --> 00:15:42,200
Speaker 1: Court has has dealt with before. The facts of this

276
00:15:42,280 --> 00:15:45,600
Speaker 1: case are that ness Lee's US unit and Cargill are

277
00:15:45,640 --> 00:15:49,440
Speaker 1: both fighting lawsuits that accuse them of complicity and child

278
00:15:49,560 --> 00:15:52,440
Speaker 1: labor in the Ivory Coast and producing cocoa. Both companies

279
00:15:52,560 --> 00:15:56,120
Speaker 1: deny the allegations. But the issue before the Court has

280
00:15:56,160 --> 00:15:58,080
Speaker 1: to do with this law known as the Alien Torch

281
00:15:58,160 --> 00:16:01,600
Speaker 1: statutes that they've had several old times before that has

282
00:16:01,680 --> 00:16:06,200
Speaker 1: been used to press human rights lawsuits over international atrocities,

283
00:16:06,240 --> 00:16:09,120
Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court, in a series of decisions, have

284
00:16:09,320 --> 00:16:13,000
Speaker 1: scaled that law back so that it's used less and less.

285
00:16:13,040 --> 00:16:16,240
Speaker 1: And one of the questions that was left open from

286
00:16:16,240 --> 00:16:19,720
Speaker 1: the previous decisions is whether it can be applied against

287
00:16:19,760 --> 00:16:23,600
Speaker 1: a US corporation as opposed to a foreign corporation that

288
00:16:23,800 --> 00:16:28,120
Speaker 1: was involved in these overseas atrocities. The Court seemingly is

289
00:16:28,120 --> 00:16:30,520
Speaker 1: going to answer that question in this case. There are

290
00:16:30,600 --> 00:16:33,640
Speaker 1: also arguments from the companies that even if the law

291
00:16:33,680 --> 00:16:37,760
Speaker 1: could be applied to domestic companies, our domestic units were

292
00:16:37,760 --> 00:16:41,280
Speaker 1: not involved enough to let the lawsuits go forward. It

293
00:16:41,400 --> 00:16:43,760
Speaker 1: is an area of law where we've seen the conservatives

294
00:16:43,760 --> 00:16:46,800
Speaker 1: on the Court slowly but surely chipping away at the

295
00:16:46,840 --> 00:16:49,240
Speaker 1: alien towards statutes so that it cannot be used because

296
00:16:49,240 --> 00:16:52,200
Speaker 1: these sorts of lawsuits. Thanks Graig, it sounds like an

297
00:16:52,240 --> 00:16:55,880
Speaker 1: exciting term to come. That's Bloomberg News Supreme Court Reporter

298
00:16:55,960 --> 00:16:58,320
Speaker 1: Greg Store and that's it for the sedition of the

299
00:16:58,320 --> 00:17:01,840
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. I'm to Grosso. Thanks so much for listening,

300
00:17:02,080 --> 00:17:04,440
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

301
00:17:04,440 --> 00:17:07,520
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Eastern right here on Bloomberg Radio,

302
00:17:09,880 --> 00:17:09,920
Speaker 1: h