Speaker 1: Neil Gorsitch's nomination to the Supreme Court change the United
Speaker 1: States Senate with Republicans eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court
Speaker 1: nominations in order to put him on the court, and
Speaker 1: following that Senate fight, Gorsitch was confirmed last week and
Speaker 1: had very little time to prepare for his first day
Speaker 1: on the bench, which was today. Today, he took the
Speaker 1: seat as signed for the most junior justice and heard
Speaker 1: and heard arguments in several cases. We're going to talk
Speaker 1: about Gorsage's first day with Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store,
Speaker 1: who's also our co host on Bloomberg Law. Greg, how
Speaker 1: did Gorsige do today? Did he dive right in? Oh,
Speaker 1: he definitely dove right in, Michael. He was in the
Speaker 1: first argument, probably the most active questionnaire. Uh he uh
Speaker 1: waited about ten minutes and then he dove in, and
Speaker 1: essentially what he said was and this is a question
Speaker 1: involving the rights of federal employees. When he basically said was,
Speaker 1: as I read the statute, actually both of you, you
Speaker 1: lawyers are wrong, and and it suggested that maybe some
Speaker 1: previous Supreme Court cases were wrong as well. Well, that's
Speaker 1: a bowl way to start on your first day, Greg.
Speaker 1: That prompted, according to your story, Justice Elena Kagan to
Speaker 1: say he was proposing revolutionary changes in the federal law. Yes,
Speaker 1: although she quickly filed it up by saying, in this
Speaker 1: very obscure technical area of the law, Um, this was
Speaker 1: the case. I'll try to explain it very explain it
Speaker 1: very briefly. But Justice, as we're joking about how complicated
Speaker 1: the statute was and how little seemed to be at stake.
Speaker 1: It's basically a question of of if an employee, uh
Speaker 1: federal employee has both a claim that he was fired
Speaker 1: in violation of the federal civil service laws and in
Speaker 1: violation of federal discrimination laws, where that claim can go
Speaker 1: forward federal district court, federal appeals court. So highly technical,
Speaker 1: but he did seem to be suggesting, and Justice Kagan
Speaker 1: called him on it that he thought that some earlier
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decisions might might be wrong. Is it unusual
Speaker 1: for a justice on his or her first day to
Speaker 1: jump in with the her He seems to have jumped
Speaker 1: in with No. I looked back a little bit, and
Speaker 1: both Justice Kagan and Justice so to Mayor, who are
Speaker 1: the next most junior justices on the Court on their
Speaker 1: first days, which were at the beginning of Supreme Court terms,
Speaker 1: they were very active as well, so it's not that unusual.
Speaker 1: But it was really striking that he was proposing a
Speaker 1: way of reading the statute that seemed to go beyond
Speaker 1: what either of the lawyers were advocating for. What was
Speaker 1: the tone of his questioning When I read part of
Speaker 1: your story that described his questioning, some of it sounded
Speaker 1: a little bit sarcastic. There was a little bit of that, yes,
Speaker 1: so it was um. There were a lot of questions
Speaker 1: and there there were different tones. At one point he
Speaker 1: apologized for taking up so much time, but there was
Speaker 1: a point in the argument where the lawyer for the
Speaker 1: the employee, Chris Landau, said, we're not trying to break
Speaker 1: any new ground here, and Justice Course it's shot back
Speaker 1: by saying, uh that, no, you're just you wanna quote
Speaker 1: just continue to make it up again, suggesting that that
Speaker 1: is following some of these earlier Supreme Court decisions that
Speaker 1: Justice Course has thought might have been wrongly decided on
Speaker 1: the statute. Well, Greg, now that we know that he's
Speaker 1: not going to be a shy justice, it it appears
Speaker 1: what what are the cases you know earlier on in
Speaker 1: his tenure this week that um, he's going to get
Speaker 1: a chance to weigh in on Well, the one that
Speaker 1: is getting the most attention may actually go away. It's
Speaker 1: a church state case involving UH Missouri. These things called
Speaker 1: blame amendments that a number of states have in their
Speaker 1: state constitutions, and Missouri UH interpreted its blame amendment as
Speaker 1: as meaning that a funding program for school playgrounds, the
Speaker 1: funding couldn't go to a church which had had a
Speaker 1: school playground. And that case was supposed to come up
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court it's going to be argued on Wednesday,
Speaker 1: But the governor there has just changed the way he's
Speaker 1: implementing that funding program, so that case may actually go away.
Speaker 1: So we may not see any of the or at
Speaker 1: least not many of the big ideological classes this term.
Speaker 1: But uh, the Court could agree soon to take up
Speaker 1: a voter I D case, could agree to take up
Speaker 1: a gun case. Uh. There are certainly many big issues
Speaker 1: that are not for in Donald Trump's travel band could
Speaker 1: come to the Supreme Court. Certainly some big issues that
Speaker 1: are sort of on the threshold of being considered by
Speaker 1: the court. Great he did not take part in Friday's
Speaker 1: last Friday's conference, but he will be taking part in
Speaker 1: this Friday's conference. And do we have any idea what's
Speaker 1: going on at the conference. So a couple of those
Speaker 1: cases I just mentioned, You're right, he didn't take part
Speaker 1: in the conference. UH, and and the Spring Court spokeswoman
Speaker 1: said he decided he was going to focus on preparing
Speaker 1: for the arguments this the court issued an orders list
Speaker 1: that sort of deferred consideration of a lot of those
Speaker 1: cases that they were talking about at that conference. So
Speaker 1: at the next conference at the end of this week,
Speaker 1: there will be the voter id case I alluded to
Speaker 1: coming out of North Carolina. Very good chance the Court
Speaker 1: in the next couple of weeks could say we're going
Speaker 1: to take that case up. There's also a gun case
Speaker 1: out of California that UH concerns the right to carry
Speaker 1: a weapon outside the home. UH. Some some California residents
Speaker 1: say the state is being too strict in is limiting
Speaker 1: too many is preventing people from having a realistic chance
Speaker 1: to get a permit to carry a weapon outside the home.
Speaker 1: Both of those are cases that court could take up,
Speaker 1: and they would consider those UH next term starting in
Speaker 1: October Greig, thank you. It's always great to talk with
Speaker 1: you about what's going on in the Supreme Court. And uh,
Speaker 1: I know you're gonna be busy following Justice Corsets as
Speaker 1: he blazes his path as the ninth justice on the Court.