WEBVTT - Special Edition: San Francisco's EPA Battle; Ghost Gun Kits 0:00:02.400 --> 0:00:10.760 Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. This is Bloomberg Law. 0:00:10.920 --> 0:00:13.720 What does a prosecutor have to prove in order to 0:00:13.760 --> 0:00:16.920 get a Rico conviction? Tell us why this solicitor General 0:00:17.000 --> 0:00:19.279 is sometimes referred to as the tenth Justice. 0:00:19.320 --> 0:00:22.520 Interviews with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg Legal Experts. 0:00:22.560 --> 0:00:25.320 That's Jennifer k for Bloomberg Law. Joining me is former 0:00:25.440 --> 0:00:27.160 federal prosecutor Robert mint. 0:00:27.040 --> 0:00:30.200 And analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines. 0:00:30.240 --> 0:00:34.040 It's the toughest hurdle for prosecutors proving Trump's intent. Alito 0:00:34.120 --> 0:00:37.479 took on Congress, saying Congress has no power to regulate 0:00:37.520 --> 0:00:38.479 the Supreme Court. 0:00:38.520 --> 0:00:41.640 Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:44.800 --> 0:00:47.960 Welcome to a special Holiday edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. 0:00:48.320 --> 0:00:51.239 I'm June Grosso. Ahead in this hour, we'll take a 0:00:51.240 --> 0:00:55.120 look back at some crucial Supreme Court arguments this term. 0:00:55.240 --> 0:00:59.760 The justices considered regulations on ghost guns just months after 0:00:59.800 --> 0:01:03.560 all landmark decision on bump stocks. Will also look at 0:01:03.560 --> 0:01:07.400 a unique death penalty appeal where the state of Oklahoma 0:01:07.680 --> 0:01:11.399 is siding with the death row inmate. But first, the 0:01:11.520 --> 0:01:15.800 liberal city of San Francisco found itself in an unusual 0:01:15.840 --> 0:01:19.920 position at the Supreme Court, taking on the Environmental Protection 0:01:20.080 --> 0:01:24.480 Agency over sewage discharge into the Pacific Ocean. With a 0:01:24.560 --> 0:01:28.560 ten billion dollar fine on the line. The city's attorney, 0:01:28.680 --> 0:01:32.360 Tara Steely, argued that the regulations were too vague. 0:01:32.720 --> 0:01:34.800 They might as well have said, do not violate the 0:01:34.800 --> 0:01:37.200 Clean Water Act. It doesn't tell us anything. 0:01:37.440 --> 0:01:41.959 But the liberal justice is pushed back on San Francisco's arguments. 0:01:42.280 --> 0:01:46.000 Here are Justices Elena Kagan and Sonya So to Mayor. 0:01:46.160 --> 0:01:50.040 It's prescribing that you have to meet water quality standards, Like, 0:01:50.160 --> 0:01:54.480 how more clearly could you meet this statutory language than that? 0:01:55.800 --> 0:02:02.560 What they're asking you is to become responsible doing what's necessary. 0:02:03.040 --> 0:02:09.080 The ideological divide was apparent, with conservative justices expressing concerns 0:02:09.520 --> 0:02:13.160 about the fairness of the city facing billions in fines 0:02:13.440 --> 0:02:16.960 without knowing what its obligations are under a vague permit. 0:02:17.480 --> 0:02:22.120 Just as Brett Cavanaugh challenged the EPA's attorney, Frederick lew. 0:02:22.560 --> 0:02:26.000 You're suing San Francisco separately for a lot of money 0:02:26.880 --> 0:02:30.840 based on a standard that they had no idea. You know, 0:02:31.400 --> 0:02:34.520 that's the theory. That's the theory in your position, your 0:02:34.560 --> 0:02:37.800 position would allow that. I don't, yes, it will. I 0:02:37.800 --> 0:02:40.480 mean the base I complaint is exhibit A for what 0:02:41.160 --> 0:02:42.880 you said is not going to be true. 0:02:43.120 --> 0:02:46.680 And Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that Congress had 0:02:46.800 --> 0:02:50.000 updated the law to address the kind of concerns that 0:02:50.080 --> 0:02:53.440 San Francisco was raising about a lack of clarity. 0:02:53.880 --> 0:02:56.520 The battle days is when we had water quality standards, right, 0:02:56.560 --> 0:02:58.560 people didn't know what they were supposed to do, how 0:02:58.560 --> 0:03:00.519 it was going to be allocated, sort of a problem 0:03:00.919 --> 0:03:02.920 of the commons, and they put in the permit system. 0:03:03.200 --> 0:03:05.520 And I think the danger here is that you're going 0:03:05.560 --> 0:03:06.680 back to the other system. 0:03:07.200 --> 0:03:10.840 Joining me is former US Solicitor General Gregory garr, a 0:03:10.919 --> 0:03:13.880 partner at Latham and Watkins. Great tell us about the 0:03:13.919 --> 0:03:15.239 city's argument here. 0:03:15.560 --> 0:03:18.720 So, the City of San Francisco is concerned about the 0:03:18.840 --> 0:03:21.200 lack of fair notice that they have in terms of 0:03:21.320 --> 0:03:24.320 how to comply with the Clean Water Act as to 0:03:24.600 --> 0:03:28.079 the sewage discharge that's going into the Pacific Ocean. And 0:03:28.639 --> 0:03:32.360 their argument is that the Clean Water Act obligates the 0:03:32.400 --> 0:03:37.000 EPA to set specific effluent limitations on the amount of 0:03:37.120 --> 0:03:40.720 pollutants coming out of pink sources. Discharges like the pipes 0:03:40.760 --> 0:03:44.400 going into the ocean, and that instead, what the EPA 0:03:44.480 --> 0:03:48.960 has done here is just issued these vague water quality standards. 0:03:49.120 --> 0:03:50.800 You have to be sure that the water is a 0:03:50.840 --> 0:03:54.520 particular color where the sewage is coming out, or you know, 0:03:54.840 --> 0:03:58.400 NEETs other criteria. And the city's argument is that, well, 0:03:58.440 --> 0:04:01.400 they don't know how to meet those criteria, there's other 0:04:01.600 --> 0:04:05.200 sources coming in, who's responsible for what? And you know, 0:04:05.320 --> 0:04:08.080 all this is against the backtop of a suit brought 0:04:08.120 --> 0:04:11.120 by the EPA in which they're seeking, according to the city, 0:04:11.480 --> 0:04:15.760 literally ten billion dollars in penalties. So the city feels 0:04:15.760 --> 0:04:17.840 as though they lacked the fair notice that they were 0:04:18.000 --> 0:04:20.919 entitled to under the Act up front in terms of 0:04:20.920 --> 0:04:22.919 what discharges could go into the ocean. 0:04:23.400 --> 0:04:26.800 Did it seem like the three liberal justices were pushing 0:04:26.880 --> 0:04:28.520 back on the city's argument. 0:04:29.080 --> 0:04:34.400 Definitely. Justice Kagan, Justice Sodamor, and Justice Jackson all leaned 0:04:34.400 --> 0:04:38.040 in hard against the city on their arguments, and they 0:04:38.080 --> 0:04:41.600 took a number of different tacks. Most importantly, I think 0:04:41.640 --> 0:04:44.600 they really wanted to focus the city on the text 0:04:44.680 --> 0:04:47.440 of the Act and put the city on its heels 0:04:47.480 --> 0:04:50.400 in terms of identifying a provision of the Act that 0:04:50.640 --> 0:04:53.440 stripped EPA of the authority to issue these sorts of 0:04:53.600 --> 0:04:58.960 broader water quality standards and justice Jackson in particular went 0:04:59.000 --> 0:05:01.400 into the language in the Act which says that the 0:05:01.440 --> 0:05:06.520 EPA could adopt quote any more stringent limitations end quote, 0:05:06.560 --> 0:05:08.800 and argued that, you know, the city was wrong in 0:05:08.839 --> 0:05:13.760 saying that the limitations were limited to effluent limitations coming out. 0:05:14.040 --> 0:05:17.680 The justices also had hard questions for the cities about 0:05:17.720 --> 0:05:22.560 the environmental impact potential environmental impacts of the city's position, 0:05:22.839 --> 0:05:25.080 which at times got pretty gross in terms of talking 0:05:25.080 --> 0:05:28.440 about floating toilet paper and the like. But the city 0:05:28.560 --> 0:05:31.800 definitely based a tough crowd from the more liberal end. 0:05:31.720 --> 0:05:34.920 Of the court, and the EPA's attorney faced a tough 0:05:34.960 --> 0:05:39.160 crowd from the more conservative justices. Tell us about his argument. 0:05:39.720 --> 0:05:42.880 So his argument was that number one, that the statute 0:05:42.960 --> 0:05:46.560 did confer this more broader authority on EPA, and that 0:05:46.640 --> 0:05:51.119 it could be exercise in particular instances more limited circumstances, 0:05:51.600 --> 0:05:54.560 and that here he claimed that the problem really was 0:05:54.640 --> 0:05:58.200 one of San Francisco's own creation, and that he claimed 0:05:58.240 --> 0:06:02.599 that EPA had asked for specific data from the city 0:06:02.640 --> 0:06:04.960 about its discharges and the like, and the city never 0:06:05.040 --> 0:06:09.200 provided it, and so according to the EPA attorney, they 0:06:09.240 --> 0:06:12.440 had no choice but to issue these more general water 0:06:12.520 --> 0:06:15.440 quality standards. And you know, really one of the more 0:06:15.480 --> 0:06:18.840 interesting dynamics of this oral argument is this was the 0:06:18.839 --> 0:06:22.120 City of San Francisco, one of the more progressive jurisdictions 0:06:22.120 --> 0:06:26.200 in the country, facing off against the Biden administration EPA, 0:06:26.600 --> 0:06:28.520 and it was clear that there was no love loss 0:06:28.560 --> 0:06:31.480 between them, at least as to this particular issue. 0:06:31.600 --> 0:06:31.800 Yeah. 0:06:31.800 --> 0:06:33.680 Well, this is a case where the city's Board of 0:06:33.720 --> 0:06:37.320 supervisors voted eight to two to urge the city officials 0:06:37.360 --> 0:06:41.120 to resolve the suit quickly, there being a concern that 0:06:41.440 --> 0:06:45.159 a Supreme Court ruling in the city's favor could have 0:06:45.320 --> 0:06:50.560 sweeping implications for curtailing water pollution definitely. 0:06:50.200 --> 0:06:53.680 And it's unclear how far the court would go even 0:06:53.720 --> 0:06:56.600 if it ruled for the city in this case. You know, 0:06:56.640 --> 0:07:01.040 there were justices sort of probing more narrow rulings, and 0:07:01.080 --> 0:07:03.719 I think even if the court ruled in favor of 0:07:03.760 --> 0:07:06.479 the city, it probably would you try to limit the 0:07:06.520 --> 0:07:09.200 reach of its ruling. But you know, the basic question 0:07:09.400 --> 0:07:12.080 on the table is whether ETA has the authority to 0:07:12.120 --> 0:07:15.720 issue these broader water quality standards, which is something that 0:07:15.840 --> 0:07:18.680 is the Chief Justice pointed out during the oral argument 0:07:18.920 --> 0:07:21.600 that you know, this is what the prior regime did. 0:07:21.800 --> 0:07:24.880 It issued these general water quality standards instead of specific 0:07:25.240 --> 0:07:29.040 discharge limitations. And in his view, and this is what 0:07:29.160 --> 0:07:31.600 the city argued, that the Clean Water Act was actually 0:07:31.840 --> 0:07:35.200 enacted in part to replace that regime with one which 0:07:35.560 --> 0:07:39.160 gave the dischargers more notice upfront in terms of the 0:07:39.200 --> 0:07:42.040 specific limitations that were permissible. 0:07:42.520 --> 0:07:46.760 And did it seem just as the liberals were taking 0:07:46.880 --> 0:07:50.400 issue with the City, that the Conservatives were taking issue 0:07:50.440 --> 0:07:51.480 with the EPA. 0:07:52.080 --> 0:07:53.520 Well, there was a group of them. There was the 0:07:53.600 --> 0:07:57.880 Chief Justice, Justice Kavanaugh. Justice Gorsich pushed back the hardest, 0:07:58.000 --> 0:08:00.520 I think, and the main concern on that sort of 0:08:00.560 --> 0:08:03.360 unified them was the lack of fair notice to the 0:08:03.480 --> 0:08:06.880 city and other dischargers in this situation. Where As I 0:08:06.920 --> 0:08:10.440 mentioned earlier, you know, potentially these jurisdictions are on the 0:08:10.440 --> 0:08:13.880 hook for significant penalties in this case, you know, literally 0:08:13.960 --> 0:08:17.320 billions of dollars according to the city, and they don't 0:08:17.360 --> 0:08:20.840 know exactly, the city argues, and the Conservatives sort of 0:08:20.880 --> 0:08:24.040 picked up on how to comply with the Clean Water 0:08:24.120 --> 0:08:28.560 Act in this instance, particularly where there are multiple discharges 0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:31.680 going into the same place, and who's responsible for what 0:08:31.840 --> 0:08:34.440 in terms of figuring out whether or not the water 0:08:34.559 --> 0:08:38.600 quality standard is met. But there was some uncertainty, at 0:08:38.679 --> 0:08:42.280 least in terms of where the other justices were. Justice Barrett, 0:08:42.280 --> 0:08:45.280 who actually joined the more liberal justices in an environmental 0:08:45.360 --> 0:08:49.040 case last term, Ohio versus EPA, you know, didn't join 0:08:49.400 --> 0:08:52.880 the stronger attack by the other conservative justices and seemed 0:08:52.880 --> 0:08:56.760 to be probing a narrower angle and dealing with these 0:08:56.840 --> 0:09:02.320 challenges under the arbitrary and capricious doctrine. Justice Solito picked 0:09:02.400 --> 0:09:04.679 up a little bit on the government's argument that in 0:09:04.679 --> 0:09:07.920 this case, the problem was that San Francisco hadn't provided 0:09:08.040 --> 0:09:10.960 adequate data to the EPA, leaving it with the predicament 0:09:11.000 --> 0:09:13.240 that it had to issue these more general standards, and 0:09:13.440 --> 0:09:16.680 Justice Thomas definitely had some tough questions for the city, 0:09:17.040 --> 0:09:19.240 although his position was a little bit less clear. So, 0:09:19.440 --> 0:09:21.640 you know, San Francisco coming out of the argument, I 0:09:21.640 --> 0:09:25.120 think should feel good about its position, but it's not 0:09:25.240 --> 0:09:25.800 over yet. 0:09:26.080 --> 0:09:29.120 Are other cities in the same position as San Francisco 0:09:29.520 --> 0:09:30.640 have the same problems. 0:09:31.040 --> 0:09:34.040 So I think that the use of general Walader quality 0:09:34.080 --> 0:09:36.720 standards is definitely not the norm. But one thing that 0:09:36.800 --> 0:09:39.800 came up during the oral argument in response to questioning 0:09:39.840 --> 0:09:44.160 from Justice Kavanaugh was that there was many amikas brief 0:09:44.280 --> 0:09:48.559 file friends of the Court, from businesses, municipalities, and the 0:09:48.800 --> 0:09:53.600 like who had serious concerns and reservations and problems with 0:09:53.880 --> 0:09:57.080 the EPA's approach here, and you know, talked about the 0:09:57.160 --> 0:09:59.240 dangers and lack of fair notice with this sort of 0:09:59.360 --> 0:10:03.080 more general water quality standard regime, and that was something 0:10:03.080 --> 0:10:07.240 that resonated with Justice Kavanaugh at least and probably some 0:10:07.360 --> 0:10:08.800 of the other justices as well. 0:10:08.960 --> 0:10:13.199 This is the first case to grapple with federal agency 0:10:13.360 --> 0:10:19.080 power since lopeer Bright was decided last June. That's the 0:10:19.160 --> 0:10:23.319 case that overturned Chevron deference. So you didn't hear much 0:10:23.360 --> 0:10:26.920 about Chevron deference in these oral arguments. 0:10:27.080 --> 0:10:30.480 No, not a word. EPA certainly didn't ask for it, 0:10:30.600 --> 0:10:32.480 and you know, it was clear that this is going 0:10:32.520 --> 0:10:35.120 to come down to what Congress actually said in the 0:10:35.120 --> 0:10:39.160 statute and the Court's best interpretation of that, which, of 0:10:39.200 --> 0:10:42.600 course is the way it works after Wiperbright, and really 0:10:42.640 --> 0:10:45.480 the way has worked at the Supreme Court for many years, 0:10:45.480 --> 0:10:46.640 even before Loperbright. 0:10:47.000 --> 0:10:48.640 Do you think that we're just not going to hear 0:10:48.679 --> 0:10:52.360 about chevron defference in future arguments at all, or about 0:10:52.360 --> 0:10:53.079 that concept. 0:10:53.320 --> 0:10:55.640 We're definitely not going to hear about chevron difference. I 0:10:55.640 --> 0:10:59.440 think the more interesting question is will we hear about 0:10:59.480 --> 0:11:02.800 other time types of difference, so called get more difference? 0:11:03.000 --> 0:11:07.800 You know, how aggressive will the government be in trying 0:11:07.800 --> 0:11:11.760 to claim some type of difference in other cases and 0:11:12.120 --> 0:11:14.520 try to push back a little bit? And I think 0:11:14.520 --> 0:11:17.000 that that'll be an interesting trend to follow on the 0:11:17.040 --> 0:11:19.000 court this term and beyond. 0:11:19.520 --> 0:11:23.240 The EPA has faced a string of losses at the 0:11:23.320 --> 0:11:27.280 Supreme Court in recent years, for example, with the court 0:11:27.440 --> 0:11:33.000 curbing its ability to reduce greenhouse gases and to protect wetlands. 0:11:33.440 --> 0:11:36.360 Does it seem like in some respect it's going to 0:11:37.040 --> 0:11:41.240 lose in this case as well, whether it's broad or limited. 0:11:41.480 --> 0:11:44.199 I don't think that that's a certainty at this point. 0:11:44.280 --> 0:11:46.040 I mean, one of the other questions that came up 0:11:46.200 --> 0:11:48.600 during the oral argument was whether or not there were 0:11:48.640 --> 0:11:51.040 some flaws with this case, and maybe the court just 0:11:51.120 --> 0:11:54.440 not decided altogether. But you know, I think you're going 0:11:54.480 --> 0:11:56.920 to feel better about youural argument coming out of it 0:11:56.960 --> 0:12:00.120 if you're san Francisco an EPA, and I think you 0:12:00.160 --> 0:12:03.679 know EPA and the government more generally has been behind 0:12:03.679 --> 0:12:07.800 the eight ball and these administrative challenge cases, and you know, 0:12:07.960 --> 0:12:11.520 EPA sort of finds itself in a particularly difficult positions 0:12:11.600 --> 0:12:17.800 when you combined aggressive enforcement of its environmental priorities with 0:12:18.320 --> 0:12:22.280 broader statutory provisions, which is the area where the Supreme 0:12:22.280 --> 0:12:27.160 Court has been particularly adamant in demanding the the agency 0:12:27.160 --> 0:12:30.040 point to more specific authority in the statute for what 0:12:30.080 --> 0:12:30.560 it's doing. 0:12:30.880 --> 0:12:33.120 Thanks so much for coming on again, Greg and sharing 0:12:33.160 --> 0:12:37.199 those insights with us. That's former US Solicitor General Gregory 0:12:37.320 --> 0:12:40.280 Garr of Latham and Watkins. Coming up next on this 0:12:40.360 --> 0:12:44.480 special holiday edition of the Bloomberg Law Show, the justices 0:12:44.559 --> 0:12:48.240 grapple with whether ghost guns meet the federal definition of 0:12:48.280 --> 0:12:51.480 a firearm. I'm June Grasso. When you're listening to. 0:12:51.400 --> 0:13:05.160 Bloomberg, this is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:13:06.040 --> 0:13:08.679 Thanks for joining us for a special holiday edition of 0:13:08.720 --> 0:13:12.520 the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso. We're looking at 0:13:12.520 --> 0:13:17.120 some high profile Supreme Court arguments from this term. Still ahead, 0:13:17.160 --> 0:13:21.040 we'll dive into an unusual death penalty case that finds 0:13:21.040 --> 0:13:25.560 the State of Oklahoma siding with a defendant on death row. 0:13:25.600 --> 0:13:29.360 But first these guns were being purchased and used in crime. 0:13:29.800 --> 0:13:32.080 They were sold to be crime guns. There was a 0:13:32.120 --> 0:13:35.680 one thousand percent increase between twenty seventeen and twenty twenty 0:13:35.679 --> 0:13:37.800 one in the number of these guns that were recovered 0:13:37.840 --> 0:13:41.280 as part of criminal investigations. And it makes perfect sense 0:13:41.320 --> 0:13:43.160 because the whole reason why you would want to get 0:13:43.160 --> 0:13:47.200 your hands on one of these unseerialized, untraceable firearms is 0:13:47.240 --> 0:13:49.719 if you are a prohibited person or you want to 0:13:49.840 --> 0:13:51.000 use that gun in a crime. 0:13:51.360 --> 0:13:55.760 Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelager argued that the Supreme Court should 0:13:55.840 --> 0:14:01.280 uphold the Biden administration's regulation of ghost guns, nearly untraceable 0:14:01.440 --> 0:14:04.520 firearms that can be assembled at home in as little 0:14:04.559 --> 0:14:05.600 as twenty minutes. 0:14:06.040 --> 0:14:09.280 Those untraceable guns are attractive to people who can't lawfully 0:14:09.320 --> 0:14:11.840 purchase them or who plan to use them in crimes. 0:14:12.400 --> 0:14:15.040 As a result, our nation has seen an explosion in 0:14:15.080 --> 0:14:16.760 crimes committed with ghost guns. 0:14:17.320 --> 0:14:20.960 During oral arguments, the Justice is grappled with the question 0:14:21.120 --> 0:14:25.000 of whether ghost guns meet the definition of firearms under 0:14:25.000 --> 0:14:28.000 the Federal Gun Control Act that would allow the government 0:14:28.120 --> 0:14:33.160 to regulate them. The analogies were plentiful. Justice Samuel Alito, 0:14:33.240 --> 0:14:37.160 who seemed skeptical of the government's argument, compared the gun 0:14:37.280 --> 0:14:39.120 kits to cooking ingredients. 0:14:39.560 --> 0:14:42.720 There I show you I put out on a counter 0:14:43.600 --> 0:14:47.920 some eggs, some chopped up ham, some chopped up pepper, 0:14:48.320 --> 0:14:49.240 and onions. 0:14:50.960 --> 0:14:52.200 Is that a Western ovelet? 0:14:53.000 --> 0:14:56.360 No, because again those items have well known other uses 0:14:56.360 --> 0:14:59.200 to become something other than an omelet. The key difference 0:14:59.240 --> 0:15:02.000 here is that these up and parts kits are designed 0:15:02.040 --> 0:15:04.280 and intended to be used as instruments of combat, and 0:15:04.320 --> 0:15:06.320 they have no other conceivable use. 0:15:06.760 --> 0:15:10.800 But Justice Amy Coney Barrett jumped in comparing gun kits 0:15:11.080 --> 0:15:11.960 to meal kits. 0:15:12.440 --> 0:15:13.080 No pre lager. 0:15:13.320 --> 0:15:15.600 I just want to follow up on Justice Alito's question 0:15:15.640 --> 0:15:18.800 about the omelet. Would your answer change if you ordered 0:15:18.840 --> 0:15:21.600 it from Hello Fresh and you've got a kit and 0:15:21.680 --> 0:15:24.400 it was like turkey chili, but all of the ingredient 0:15:24.400 --> 0:15:25.400 answer in the kit. 0:15:25.920 --> 0:15:26.120 Yes. 0:15:26.440 --> 0:15:29.120 The best analogies seemed to be if you buy a 0:15:29.120 --> 0:15:31.920 bed from Ikea that you have to assemble, is it 0:15:32.000 --> 0:15:35.480 still a bed? Joining me? Is Kevin Tobia, a professor 0:15:35.520 --> 0:15:39.240 at Georgetown Law, Many people might expect that this is 0:15:39.280 --> 0:15:43.080 a second Amendment case since it concerns guns, but tell 0:15:43.160 --> 0:15:45.280 us what the question before the court was. 0:15:45.280 --> 0:15:47.320 Here, So it's not a second in the case. It's 0:15:47.360 --> 0:15:50.960 a statutory case. So it concerns the Gun Control Act 0:15:51.000 --> 0:15:54.360 of nine sixty eight. And there's two questions in the case, 0:15:54.400 --> 0:15:57.040 and so both of them involve the meaning of different 0:15:57.160 --> 0:15:59.840 language in this statute. So the question in some ways 0:15:59.840 --> 0:16:01.480 is kind of simple, right before you get to like 0:16:01.520 --> 0:16:03.280 all the kind of complexity that they were working through, 0:16:03.320 --> 0:16:05.720 which is what counts as a firearm for this law. 0:16:05.960 --> 0:16:08.960 And so these gun parts kits, they're marketed and sold 0:16:09.120 --> 0:16:12.760 as kits that you can buy and assemble and construct 0:16:12.920 --> 0:16:15.560 into a functional firearm. So, you know, a lot of 0:16:15.560 --> 0:16:18.840 the conversation was drawing analogies to different sorts of goods, 0:16:18.840 --> 0:16:21.800 playing kind of with language and trying to understand, you know, 0:16:21.840 --> 0:16:24.280 what counts as an omelet or what counts as a table. 0:16:24.360 --> 0:16:24.520 Right. 0:16:24.560 --> 0:16:27.280 So Justice A. Leado offered this example kind of possible 0:16:27.320 --> 0:16:29.560 to the government's position that if we just have you know, 0:16:29.640 --> 0:16:32.840 peppers and mushrooms and eggs, that's not an omelet yet. 0:16:32.920 --> 0:16:35.200 So in the same way, like a collection of gun 0:16:35.240 --> 0:16:37.800 parts is not a firearm yet, And just as Barrett 0:16:37.840 --> 0:16:39.840 actually sort of responded as said, well, what if those 0:16:39.840 --> 0:16:42.120 come in a Hello Fresh kit, we actually might understand 0:16:42.160 --> 0:16:44.760 that as an omelet, even though it's not completely assembled yet. 0:16:44.840 --> 0:16:46.880 And you know, the example of Nikia table came up 0:16:46.880 --> 0:16:48.960 as well. Some of the argument got into the technicalities 0:16:49.000 --> 0:16:51.200 of like what exactly is included in these parts kits? 0:16:51.240 --> 0:16:53.640 What's a frame and receiver? More broadly, a lot of 0:16:53.640 --> 0:16:56.520 the justices were drawing these analogies to other sorts of 0:16:56.600 --> 0:16:59.800 items that were pretty comfortable to call tables even though 0:16:59.800 --> 0:17:02.240 they're assembled or onless, even though they're unassembled. 0:17:02.680 --> 0:17:06.600 The ghost gun kits don't come with fully assembled frames 0:17:06.800 --> 0:17:10.359 or receivers the core component of a firearm, so a 0:17:10.440 --> 0:17:13.359 kit might require the purchaser to drill some hole so 0:17:13.400 --> 0:17:17.560 that pins can be inserted. The challengers, the gun manufacturers 0:17:17.680 --> 0:17:21.280 and gun right supporters, argue that's what puts the kits 0:17:21.400 --> 0:17:25.600 outside the law, But their attorney, Peter Patterson, faced a 0:17:25.680 --> 0:17:30.120 tough audience, especially from the Chief Justice, who didn't seem 0:17:30.160 --> 0:17:31.640 to be buying that argument. 0:17:32.240 --> 0:17:36.600 What is the purpose of selling a receiver without the 0:17:36.680 --> 0:17:37.919 holes drilled in it? 0:17:39.119 --> 0:17:42.960 Well, there are some individuals, and just like some individuals 0:17:43.040 --> 0:17:46.960 enjoy like working on their car every weekend. Some individuals 0:17:47.000 --> 0:17:50.399 want to construct their own firearms. So the purpose of 0:17:50.440 --> 0:17:52.639 selling it is to allow I'm trying to go his 0:17:52.760 --> 0:17:56.320 to assist and provide individuals with material which which they 0:17:56.320 --> 0:17:57.280 can do that. 0:17:58.440 --> 0:18:02.440 Well. I mean, drilling whole or two I would think 0:18:02.560 --> 0:18:05.480 doesn't give the same sort of reward that you get 0:18:05.520 --> 0:18:07.400 from working on your car on the weekends. 0:18:07.880 --> 0:18:10.680 Yeah, so I thought that line of questioning from Justice 0:18:10.760 --> 0:18:13.600 Roberts was really interesting. I think, especially if you're trying 0:18:13.640 --> 0:18:15.360 to read the tea leaves and sort of think about 0:18:15.359 --> 0:18:17.239 where some of these justices will vote, and I think 0:18:17.320 --> 0:18:19.440 Roberts is a kind of important one in this case. 0:18:19.600 --> 0:18:22.000 He asked straight up, like, what's the purpose of selling 0:18:22.000 --> 0:18:24.719 a receiver without the holes drilled in it? And you know, 0:18:24.880 --> 0:18:27.280 one answer from Patterson is, you know, people buy this 0:18:27.400 --> 0:18:29.240 as a hobbyist, right in the same way you might 0:18:29.280 --> 0:18:32.560 buy like a collection of unassembled parts to make it 0:18:32.600 --> 0:18:34.600 like a little toy ship or model or something, or 0:18:34.640 --> 0:18:37.040 working on a car and you enjoy it. And Justice 0:18:37.080 --> 0:18:39.040 Roberts really did not seem to be buying that answer, right. 0:18:39.119 --> 0:18:41.480 He said, you know, drilling a whole or two doesn't 0:18:41.520 --> 0:18:43.080 really give you the kind of reward you get from 0:18:43.119 --> 0:18:45.320 working on your car over the weekend. And I think 0:18:45.359 --> 0:18:47.479 he's exactly right there. Right, So, like when you look 0:18:47.520 --> 0:18:49.880 at how these guns are marketed as well, these parts 0:18:49.920 --> 0:18:52.320 kits are not marketed for hobbyists, Like they're not described 0:18:52.359 --> 0:18:57.080 by language like this is a really leisurely, enjoyable, difficult build, right, 0:18:57.080 --> 0:19:00.000 They're marketed in terms like this is extremely fast and easy, 0:19:00.080 --> 0:19:03.080 this is ridiculously easy, like this is dummy proof, like 0:19:03.160 --> 0:19:05.720 you can do this really fast with no expertise. And 0:19:05.800 --> 0:19:09.040 so I think that analogy that Patterson was trying to 0:19:09.119 --> 0:19:11.760 draw between buyers of these kids and cobbyists just really 0:19:11.760 --> 0:19:13.600 fell apart. And I think there's a great question from 0:19:13.680 --> 0:19:16.119 Justice Roberts and also give some insight into where he 0:19:16.200 --> 0:19:17.240 might stand on this case. 0:19:17.800 --> 0:19:21.000 Is anyone arguing that this isn't a kit to assemble 0:19:21.359 --> 0:19:23.960 a gun? What I'm getting at is, are they just 0:19:24.000 --> 0:19:25.440 looking for a loophole here? 0:19:26.000 --> 0:19:28.720 Yeah, So I think everyone agrees that these are kits 0:19:28.760 --> 0:19:31.760 to be assembled into a gun. Vanderstock's argument is just 0:19:31.760 --> 0:19:33.280 because of a kid that you could assemble into a 0:19:33.280 --> 0:19:35.600 gun does not in fact make it a firearm. Within 0:19:35.600 --> 0:19:37.560 the meaning of the statute, and the government sees the 0:19:37.600 --> 0:19:40.280 statutory meeting a firearm to include these kits. You know, 0:19:40.760 --> 0:19:42.359 interesting thing that came out to your question is there 0:19:42.400 --> 0:19:44.600 was some discussion, a lot of discussion actually about kind 0:19:44.600 --> 0:19:46.240 of where to draw the line. And I think even 0:19:46.240 --> 0:19:50.080 Patterson conceded that a firearm that's disassembled as a firearm, 0:19:50.320 --> 0:19:52.399 and so this question about like how close does it 0:19:52.440 --> 0:19:54.640 have to be? And so you know, the government's argument is, 0:19:54.760 --> 0:19:57.440 you know, once it's readily convertible, which these kids they 0:19:57.440 --> 0:19:59.920 think are, that's good enough. And so the term fire 0:20:00.040 --> 0:20:03.040 arms should encompass these kits which could be readily converted 0:20:03.160 --> 0:20:05.120 to function as firearms very quickly. 0:20:05.720 --> 0:20:10.000 Justice Gorsuch asked questions of a textualist nature. Where do 0:20:10.040 --> 0:20:13.480 you think a textualist analysis gets you here? 0:20:14.119 --> 0:20:16.680 So there's two questions in the case, right. So the 0:20:16.720 --> 0:20:19.120 first one is about whether a parts kit falls under 0:20:19.160 --> 0:20:21.720 the Part A of this statute. So any weapon which 0:20:21.760 --> 0:20:23.879 will is designed to or may readily be converted to 0:20:23.920 --> 0:20:26.800 expel a projectile by the action explosive. As a matter 0:20:26.840 --> 0:20:29.000 of textualism, I think that question in this case is 0:20:29.040 --> 0:20:32.520 extremely straightforward, that these parts kits fall under that language. 0:20:32.560 --> 0:20:34.879 Just as part of the ordinary meaning of firearm. And 0:20:34.920 --> 0:20:38.160 then you're underscored by the statutory language. The statute explicitly 0:20:38.200 --> 0:20:42.040 contemplates things that could be readily converted to expel a projectile, 0:20:42.080 --> 0:20:44.720 which just seems to be explicitly describing things like these 0:20:44.720 --> 0:20:47.399 parts kits. And in question, the second question in the 0:20:47.440 --> 0:20:50.040 case is about the meaning of the frame or receiver 0:20:50.160 --> 0:20:51.960 of any such weapon in the statue, and many of 0:20:52.040 --> 0:20:55.000 Justice Gorsuch's questions had to do with that second question. 0:20:55.280 --> 0:20:57.840 So there the question is, if these companies sell an 0:20:57.880 --> 0:21:00.520 eighty percent receiver, which, as the government says, you have 0:21:00.560 --> 0:21:02.639 to drill a few holes in to convert this to 0:21:02.680 --> 0:21:06.480 a one hundred percent functional receiver, does that count as 0:21:06.520 --> 0:21:09.040 a frame or receiver within the meaning of the statute? 0:21:09.119 --> 0:21:10.960 And so you know, Justice Gorsuch was asking a number 0:21:10.960 --> 0:21:13.760 of kind of interesting questions about that, and going in 0:21:13.920 --> 0:21:16.040 I would not have kind of, as a matter of politics, 0:21:16.280 --> 0:21:19.199 expected Justice Gorsage to be favorable to the government in 0:21:19.240 --> 0:21:21.800 this case, but his questions sort of suggested some openness 0:21:21.840 --> 0:21:24.000