1 00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:08,039 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. Welcome to 2 00:00:08,119 --> 00:00:11,799 Speaker 1: us special edition of Bloomberg Law. I'm June Grosso. Ahead 3 00:00:11,800 --> 00:00:16,840 Speaker 1: in this hour the Supreme Court, the decisions on Obamacare, 4 00:00:16,960 --> 00:00:21,000 Speaker 1: gay rights, voting rights, student athletes, and free speech, and 5 00:00:21,160 --> 00:00:24,040 Speaker 1: the decisions that are yet to come involving hot button 6 00:00:24,079 --> 00:00:28,720 Speaker 1: issues like abortion and guns, plus the shadow docket. It's 7 00:00:28,720 --> 00:00:32,640 Speaker 1: the most consequential reproductive rights case in a generation and 8 00:00:32,720 --> 00:00:35,479 Speaker 1: promises to be the most controversial case of the current 9 00:00:35,479 --> 00:00:39,199 Speaker 1: Supreme Court term. The Court is considering Mississippi's ban on 10 00:00:39,280 --> 00:00:43,080 Speaker 1: abortion after fifteen weeks of pregnancy and cutting back or 11 00:00:43,120 --> 00:00:46,840 Speaker 1: reversing Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that has guaranteed 12 00:00:46,880 --> 00:00:50,280 Speaker 1: abortion rights in this country for nearly fifty years. During 13 00:00:50,400 --> 00:00:54,320 Speaker 1: oral arguments, the conservative justices and the liberal justices were 14 00:00:54,320 --> 00:00:57,760 Speaker 1: on opposite sides of the question about the presidential value 15 00:00:57,760 --> 00:01:00,720 Speaker 1: of Row. Here are Justices Sonya so To Mayor and 16 00:01:00,760 --> 00:01:07,520 Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh. Will this institution survived this finch that this 17 00:01:07,680 --> 00:01:16,160 Speaker 1: creates in the public perception that the Constitution and it's 18 00:01:16,240 --> 00:01:22,080 Speaker 1: reading are just political acts. I don't see how it 19 00:01:22,280 --> 00:01:27,600 Speaker 1: is possible. Why should this court be the arbiter rather 20 00:01:27,720 --> 00:01:33,559 Speaker 1: than Congress, the state legislatures, state supreme courts, the people 21 00:01:34,400 --> 00:01:38,560 Speaker 1: being able to resolve this, and there'll be different answers 22 00:01:38,880 --> 00:01:41,960 Speaker 1: in Mississippi and New York joining me for this hour, 23 00:01:42,040 --> 00:01:45,720 Speaker 1: our Bloomberg New Supreme Court Reporter Greg Store and Bloomberg 24 00:01:45,840 --> 00:01:51,760 Speaker 1: Law Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson. Welcome both of you. Greg. 25 00:01:51,920 --> 00:01:55,720 Speaker 1: I was surprised during the oral arguments that the conservative 26 00:01:55,840 --> 00:02:00,440 Speaker 1: justices talked so openly about implying the possible ability of 27 00:02:00,520 --> 00:02:04,400 Speaker 1: reversing Row when just last June the Court struck down 28 00:02:04,400 --> 00:02:10,800 Speaker 1: a Louisiana law that restricted abortion rights. Yeah, June, you 29 00:02:10,840 --> 00:02:14,359 Speaker 1: weren't the only one who was surprised. Really, all the 30 00:02:14,480 --> 00:02:17,880 Speaker 1: questions from the conservative group, at least the non John 31 00:02:17,960 --> 00:02:21,560 Speaker 1: Roberts conservative side of the court, we're suggesting that the 32 00:02:21,560 --> 00:02:26,639 Speaker 1: Court was indeed seriously considering over ruling Robi Wade and 33 00:02:27,080 --> 00:02:30,960 Speaker 1: Planned Parenthood versus Casey decision. I think part of that 34 00:02:31,080 --> 00:02:34,200 Speaker 1: was because the abortion right side in this case in 35 00:02:34,240 --> 00:02:37,240 Speaker 1: a sense, is going for broke um. They they did 36 00:02:37,280 --> 00:02:40,880 Speaker 1: not try to offer the court any sort of so 37 00:02:41,000 --> 00:02:43,920 Speaker 1: called narrow way of deciding the case, anyway where the 38 00:02:43,960 --> 00:02:48,639 Speaker 1: Court might say uphold the Mississippi fifteen week band without 39 00:02:48,720 --> 00:02:53,160 Speaker 1: overturning Row. The abortion rights lawyers and and by the administration, 40 00:02:53,200 --> 00:02:56,440 Speaker 1: we're very upfront and saying, if you uphold this law, 41 00:02:56,520 --> 00:02:59,560 Speaker 1: you are effectively overturning Rope. And there's really no other 42 00:02:59,639 --> 00:03:02,560 Speaker 1: line you can create to replace the line that the 43 00:03:03,000 --> 00:03:07,160 Speaker 1: earlier decisions had set. Kimberly, did it seem as if 44 00:03:07,240 --> 00:03:10,600 Speaker 1: all the conservative justices were on board with that or 45 00:03:10,919 --> 00:03:15,720 Speaker 1: were there some that might be outliers. So for me, June, 46 00:03:15,800 --> 00:03:18,600 Speaker 1: the three justices that I were watching going into these 47 00:03:18,720 --> 00:03:22,240 Speaker 1: arguments for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh and Barrett 48 00:03:22,720 --> 00:03:26,320 Speaker 1: and great really suggested it really only seemed like cheap. 49 00:03:26,440 --> 00:03:30,480 Speaker 1: Justice Roberts was trying to find this middle ground. And 50 00:03:30,560 --> 00:03:33,520 Speaker 1: when I looked at really what Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett 51 00:03:33,560 --> 00:03:36,480 Speaker 1: were saying, it looked like they were arguments to outright 52 00:03:36,560 --> 00:03:39,480 Speaker 1: overturn Row. And so, you know the clip you played 53 00:03:39,560 --> 00:03:43,400 Speaker 1: talked about from Justice KAVANAUGHA talked about, you know, it's 54 00:03:43,440 --> 00:03:47,720 Speaker 1: the Constitution and his view doesn't speak precisely to whether 55 00:03:47,840 --> 00:03:51,680 Speaker 1: or not abortion is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Well, 56 00:03:51,680 --> 00:03:53,840 Speaker 1: then shouldn't the Court stay out of it? And leave 57 00:03:53,840 --> 00:03:56,520 Speaker 1: it up to the states and for Justice Barrett for 58 00:03:56,640 --> 00:03:59,240 Speaker 1: her part, you know, she was really looking at how 59 00:03:59,520 --> 00:04:03,480 Speaker 1: rovers is Wade and planned parenthood versus Casey really balanced 60 00:04:03,480 --> 00:04:08,280 Speaker 1: the interests between the state's interests in protecting potential life 61 00:04:08,360 --> 00:04:11,520 Speaker 1: with a woman's right to choose. And she suggested that, 62 00:04:11,640 --> 00:04:14,320 Speaker 1: you know, the burdens on women weren't as strong as 63 00:04:14,440 --> 00:04:17,160 Speaker 1: Rowan Casey had made them out to be, at least 64 00:04:17,160 --> 00:04:21,240 Speaker 1: not anymore. And she pointed uh specifically to the safe 65 00:04:21,279 --> 00:04:24,960 Speaker 1: harbor laws that allow women to turn over their children 66 00:04:25,000 --> 00:04:28,680 Speaker 1: after birth, and she suggested that that really alleviates um 67 00:04:28,800 --> 00:04:31,800 Speaker 1: some of the burdens of forced parenthood. And so I 68 00:04:31,839 --> 00:04:34,440 Speaker 1: think from my mind, coming out of those arguments, there 69 00:04:34,440 --> 00:04:36,680 Speaker 1: really only was one justice in the middle, and I 70 00:04:36,720 --> 00:04:39,560 Speaker 1: don't think that his view is really going to prevail here. 71 00:04:40,440 --> 00:04:42,520 Speaker 1: The Court has already ruled in the case over the 72 00:04:42,560 --> 00:04:46,080 Speaker 1: strictest abortion law in the country, sp A, the Texas 73 00:04:46,120 --> 00:04:50,120 Speaker 1: Abortion Law. It was a limited ruling where the Court 74 00:04:50,320 --> 00:04:54,200 Speaker 1: left that law in force. Greg is that bad news 75 00:04:54,279 --> 00:04:58,280 Speaker 1: for abortion rights advocates? It sure seems that way this 76 00:04:58,360 --> 00:05:02,120 Speaker 1: law cannot be squared with the row or Casey. Um 77 00:05:02,240 --> 00:05:05,640 Speaker 1: far stricter than anything the Supreme Court has allowed previously, 78 00:05:05,680 --> 00:05:07,280 Speaker 1: and the fact that the Court was willing to let 79 00:05:07,279 --> 00:05:09,719 Speaker 1: it stay in effect and in fact let it go 80 00:05:09,760 --> 00:05:13,760 Speaker 1: into effect back in September, uh surely says something important. 81 00:05:14,160 --> 00:05:16,840 Speaker 1: Uh This, the challenge to the law, by provided by 82 00:05:16,839 --> 00:05:19,320 Speaker 1: the providers can go forward, but only in a very 83 00:05:19,800 --> 00:05:23,960 Speaker 1: limited form. The problem with this law, which which delegates 84 00:05:24,040 --> 00:05:27,640 Speaker 1: enforcement power to private individuals, is that structure makes it 85 00:05:27,720 --> 00:05:30,960 Speaker 1: hard for a plaintiff or a court to know who 86 00:05:31,000 --> 00:05:33,080 Speaker 1: it is that can be enjoyed to block the law 87 00:05:33,160 --> 00:05:37,159 Speaker 1: from having an effect. And uh So the plaintiffs, with 88 00:05:37,240 --> 00:05:39,279 Speaker 1: the help of the Justice Department, basically tried to see 89 00:05:39,279 --> 00:05:41,839 Speaker 1: everybody they could to try to get that sort of 90 00:05:41,839 --> 00:05:44,760 Speaker 1: an injunction. And what the Supreme Court said was, Hey, 91 00:05:44,760 --> 00:05:47,840 Speaker 1: there's only a few state officials you can sue. And 92 00:05:48,480 --> 00:05:51,239 Speaker 1: after the ruling came out, the abortion right side had 93 00:05:51,279 --> 00:05:55,320 Speaker 1: a conference call with reporters where they said, basically, Um, 94 00:05:55,360 --> 00:05:57,080 Speaker 1: this is not a way we can block the law. 95 00:05:57,560 --> 00:05:59,919 Speaker 1: That those that narrow path the Court left open for 96 00:06:00,120 --> 00:06:02,960 Speaker 1: us is not good enough to give us the kind 97 00:06:02,960 --> 00:06:05,840 Speaker 1: of injunction that we need to actually block this law 98 00:06:05,920 --> 00:06:09,920 Speaker 1: and let abortions broadly resume in in Texas, and and 99 00:06:09,920 --> 00:06:13,320 Speaker 1: surely the Supreme Court was aware that this is only 100 00:06:13,320 --> 00:06:16,360 Speaker 1: a very narrow path and Uh, to get back to 101 00:06:16,400 --> 00:06:18,440 Speaker 1: your question, that cannot be a good sign for the 102 00:06:18,480 --> 00:06:21,960 Speaker 1: future of ruin Casey. Coming up next on Bloomberg Law, 103 00:06:21,960 --> 00:06:25,919 Speaker 1: I'll continue this conversation with Kimberly Strawbridge, Robinson and Greg 104 00:06:26,000 --> 00:06:29,400 Speaker 1: Store will discuss whether the Supreme Court will okay the 105 00:06:29,560 --> 00:06:33,120 Speaker 1: carrying up handguns in public. I'm June Grosso and you're 106 00:06:33,160 --> 00:06:36,839 Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg. For more than a decade, the Supreme 107 00:06:36,880 --> 00:06:40,080 Speaker 1: Court has been largely silent on gun rights. But will 108 00:06:40,080 --> 00:06:43,160 Speaker 1: the newly conservative court go where the justices have been 109 00:06:43,200 --> 00:06:46,680 Speaker 1: reluctant to go in the past. During oral arguments in November, 110 00:06:46,800 --> 00:06:50,479 Speaker 1: the conservative justices were uniformly critical of the New York 111 00:06:50,560 --> 00:06:54,440 Speaker 1: law that requires a special justification to get a concealed 112 00:06:54,480 --> 00:06:58,360 Speaker 1: carry license. Here's Chief Justice John Roberts, you don't have 113 00:06:58,440 --> 00:07:01,240 Speaker 1: to say when you're looking for a permit, uh to 114 00:07:01,320 --> 00:07:04,240 Speaker 1: speak on a street corner whatever, that you know your 115 00:07:04,240 --> 00:07:06,760 Speaker 1: speech is particularly important. So why do you have to 116 00:07:06,800 --> 00:07:10,000 Speaker 1: show in this case convince somebody that you're entitled to 117 00:07:10,080 --> 00:07:13,480 Speaker 1: exercise your Second Amendment right. I've been discussing this year 118 00:07:13,480 --> 00:07:16,280 Speaker 1: at the Court with Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter Kimberly, 119 00:07:16,320 --> 00:07:21,600 Speaker 1: Strawbridge Robinson and Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. Kimberly, 120 00:07:21,760 --> 00:07:27,760 Speaker 1: what's your reading of how the justices might rule here? Well, 121 00:07:27,800 --> 00:07:29,960 Speaker 1: coming out of the argument um, as you hint do 122 00:07:30,040 --> 00:07:32,760 Speaker 1: that June, it really does seem like the Court is 123 00:07:32,840 --> 00:07:36,760 Speaker 1: primed to say that the right to have a gun 124 00:07:36,960 --> 00:07:40,760 Speaker 1: really extends beyond the home. And the real question to 125 00:07:40,920 --> 00:07:44,760 Speaker 1: me for the justices wasn't whether states could prohibit guns 126 00:07:44,840 --> 00:07:49,960 Speaker 1: out right, but really when states could place restrictions um 127 00:07:50,120 --> 00:07:52,360 Speaker 1: on the right to carry a gun outside of the home, 128 00:07:52,640 --> 00:07:55,320 Speaker 1: because that place is very sensitive, so think of things 129 00:07:55,360 --> 00:07:58,600 Speaker 1: like schools. Of course, for the justices, they're thinking about 130 00:07:58,680 --> 00:08:01,520 Speaker 1: courts um and other place is where you wouldn't want 131 00:08:01,600 --> 00:08:05,080 Speaker 1: guns traditionally to be around. And that really seemed like 132 00:08:05,120 --> 00:08:08,920 Speaker 1: the real tension here among the justices. And so you know, 133 00:08:08,960 --> 00:08:12,640 Speaker 1: we saw Justice Sparit asked questions about, you know, could 134 00:08:12,760 --> 00:08:17,840 Speaker 1: states limit uh, you know, gun carrying whenever it's New 135 00:08:17,920 --> 00:08:20,960 Speaker 1: Year's Eve in Times Square? Why not in times where 136 00:08:21,000 --> 00:08:23,840 Speaker 1: all the time, considering that it's always crowded, or why 137 00:08:23,840 --> 00:08:26,160 Speaker 1: not even further in Manhattan, and so I think that's 138 00:08:26,200 --> 00:08:28,360 Speaker 1: really the line that the justices are going to have 139 00:08:28,400 --> 00:08:31,120 Speaker 1: to sort out where they're conferencing about this case, and 140 00:08:31,240 --> 00:08:34,200 Speaker 1: not whether or not the right actually extent. That seems 141 00:08:34,240 --> 00:08:37,480 Speaker 1: to be um pretty much what's going to happen, at 142 00:08:37,559 --> 00:08:41,720 Speaker 1: least from my reading, Greg. Unlike the arguments over abortion, 143 00:08:42,200 --> 00:08:45,400 Speaker 1: these arguments didn't surprise me. Have some of the conservative 144 00:08:45,440 --> 00:08:49,480 Speaker 1: justices been fairly open about the Second Amendment and we're 145 00:08:49,559 --> 00:08:53,400 Speaker 1: the Court's heading, They sure have been, and a number 146 00:08:53,400 --> 00:08:55,280 Speaker 1: of them have been urging the court to take up 147 00:08:55,600 --> 00:08:59,120 Speaker 1: more gun cases and keep a gun rights from being treated, 148 00:08:59,200 --> 00:09:01,400 Speaker 1: as they put it as as a second class right. 149 00:09:02,080 --> 00:09:05,000 Speaker 1: The as Kimberly suggested, the real question in this case 150 00:09:05,080 --> 00:09:07,800 Speaker 1: has always been how far the court would go. It's 151 00:09:07,840 --> 00:09:09,520 Speaker 1: not clear that they are going to have to get 152 00:09:09,559 --> 00:09:13,640 Speaker 1: to those questions about the sensitive areas that did come 153 00:09:13,679 --> 00:09:17,320 Speaker 1: up so much during the argument. As it is, the 154 00:09:17,360 --> 00:09:19,120 Speaker 1: case is set up for the court where it could 155 00:09:19,120 --> 00:09:21,160 Speaker 1: just say this restriction that they have in New York, 156 00:09:21,160 --> 00:09:24,200 Speaker 1: where they basically bar almost all people from having a 157 00:09:24,280 --> 00:09:27,959 Speaker 1: right to carry a hanggun in public, that that is unconstitutional, 158 00:09:28,000 --> 00:09:30,720 Speaker 1: and we'll sort out those other questions later. Note that 159 00:09:30,760 --> 00:09:34,120 Speaker 1: Michael Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, 160 00:09:34,320 --> 00:09:37,080 Speaker 1: the parent of Bloomberg Radio, is a donor to groups 161 00:09:37,080 --> 00:09:41,400 Speaker 1: that support gun control, including Every Town for Gun Safety. 162 00:09:41,679 --> 00:09:44,280 Speaker 1: Let's turn to another topic that, in contrast to the 163 00:09:44,320 --> 00:09:46,920 Speaker 1: Second Amendment, the Court has been very vocal on in 164 00:09:46,960 --> 00:09:51,120 Speaker 1: recent years, and that's religious rights. It seems that lately, 165 00:09:51,160 --> 00:09:54,480 Speaker 1: every time there's a case involving religion, it's a good 166 00:09:54,520 --> 00:09:56,920 Speaker 1: bet that the Court is going to end up expanding 167 00:09:57,160 --> 00:10:01,160 Speaker 1: religious rights. So Greg tell us about the case argued 168 00:10:01,240 --> 00:10:06,360 Speaker 1: this month about mains school tuition funding program. Sure, this 169 00:10:06,440 --> 00:10:09,880 Speaker 1: is the latest in a line of cases about government 170 00:10:10,000 --> 00:10:13,160 Speaker 1: funding and uh even the form of something like tax 171 00:10:13,200 --> 00:10:16,680 Speaker 1: credits or just a spending program, and whether the government 172 00:10:16,679 --> 00:10:19,600 Speaker 1: can say we don't want that taxpayer money going to 173 00:10:19,679 --> 00:10:22,559 Speaker 1: a church or a religious school. In this case is 174 00:10:22,600 --> 00:10:26,720 Speaker 1: about mains school program. There are parts of rural Maine 175 00:10:26,760 --> 00:10:29,040 Speaker 1: that don't have their own public schools, and so what 176 00:10:29,120 --> 00:10:31,679 Speaker 1: mean does is it says the people there, this will 177 00:10:31,720 --> 00:10:35,440 Speaker 1: called administrative units, can either set up a contract with 178 00:10:35,520 --> 00:10:39,560 Speaker 1: another public school or an approved private school, or it 179 00:10:39,559 --> 00:10:41,559 Speaker 1: can just pay the tuition at one of those schools 180 00:10:41,640 --> 00:10:44,600 Speaker 1: that a parent sends their child to um and the 181 00:10:44,640 --> 00:10:48,760 Speaker 1: state policy requires that if the unit takes that last option, 182 00:10:49,280 --> 00:10:52,199 Speaker 1: that the schools be non religious. In other words, parents 183 00:10:52,240 --> 00:10:54,640 Speaker 1: can't get the government to pay the tuition at a 184 00:10:54,679 --> 00:10:57,640 Speaker 1: religious school. So a group of parents and mains suit 185 00:10:57,679 --> 00:11:00,480 Speaker 1: over this and said this is discrimination. Are saying you're 186 00:11:00,480 --> 00:11:02,760 Speaker 1: going to find a secular school, but not the Christian 187 00:11:02,840 --> 00:11:06,880 Speaker 1: school we want our child to attend. Main argues that 188 00:11:06,960 --> 00:11:09,840 Speaker 1: this isn't the kind of school choice program where the 189 00:11:09,840 --> 00:11:13,000 Speaker 1: court has previously said you have to be nondiscriminatory. This 190 00:11:13,080 --> 00:11:15,920 Speaker 1: is just, they say, an alternative means of providing our 191 00:11:15,960 --> 00:11:19,240 Speaker 1: republic education. And part of a republic education is that 192 00:11:19,360 --> 00:11:22,959 Speaker 1: it's you know, it's not religious. Not surprisingly, there was 193 00:11:23,000 --> 00:11:26,080 Speaker 1: a lot of skepticism among the conservatives at the argument 194 00:11:26,080 --> 00:11:28,480 Speaker 1: from the state. They seem to think the policy will 195 00:11:28,520 --> 00:11:33,719 Speaker 1: not only involve discrimination against religion, but also describation among religions. 196 00:11:33,720 --> 00:11:36,679 Speaker 1: There were some suggestions that say, a school that run 197 00:11:36,760 --> 00:11:41,440 Speaker 1: on Unitarian universalist principles would get money, but not schools 198 00:11:41,440 --> 00:11:45,720 Speaker 1: that more rigorously try to instill religious doctrine. So, uh, 199 00:11:45,840 --> 00:11:48,840 Speaker 1: it seems like we're going to extend the winning streak 200 00:11:48,920 --> 00:11:52,680 Speaker 1: for religious rights at the Supreme Court, and Kimberly tell 201 00:11:52,760 --> 00:11:55,920 Speaker 1: us about a case last term, the Fulton County case 202 00:11:56,559 --> 00:12:00,760 Speaker 1: where religious rights want out over gay rights. Right. So, 203 00:12:00,840 --> 00:12:03,800 Speaker 1: this is a case out of Philadelphia where the Supreme 204 00:12:03,800 --> 00:12:08,360 Speaker 1: Court said that the city's refusal to contract with Catholic 205 00:12:08,440 --> 00:12:13,480 Speaker 1: Social Services to provide cost foster care for children because 206 00:12:13,520 --> 00:12:18,200 Speaker 1: they would not agree to certify children to same sex couples, 207 00:12:18,200 --> 00:12:21,920 Speaker 1: that that violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. 208 00:12:22,160 --> 00:12:24,000 Speaker 1: And I think it's really interesting to note that in 209 00:12:24,080 --> 00:12:26,880 Speaker 1: a lot of these cases, the Supreme Court is really 210 00:12:26,920 --> 00:12:30,439 Speaker 1: testing out the push and pull between the constitutions to 211 00:12:30,679 --> 00:12:34,840 Speaker 1: religious clause clauses. So we've talked about the free exercise clause, 212 00:12:34,920 --> 00:12:38,800 Speaker 1: which says governments can't burden religious practice, but there's also 213 00:12:38,880 --> 00:12:42,280 Speaker 1: the establishment clause that says that governments can't become too 214 00:12:42,480 --> 00:12:45,280 Speaker 1: entangled in religion. And you know, there used to be 215 00:12:45,600 --> 00:12:47,720 Speaker 1: some what the Supreme Court called this play in the 216 00:12:47,840 --> 00:12:51,000 Speaker 1: joints where there were things that weren't prohibited by either 217 00:12:51,080 --> 00:12:53,439 Speaker 1: one and there was some tension and states had a 218 00:12:53,480 --> 00:12:56,040 Speaker 1: little bit of wiggle room um to kind of experiment 219 00:12:56,120 --> 00:12:58,480 Speaker 1: in there. But as these cases keep coming up, we 220 00:12:58,679 --> 00:13:01,360 Speaker 1: we see the Roberts Court and particular um kind of 221 00:13:01,360 --> 00:13:03,479 Speaker 1: putting a sum on the scale of the free exercise 222 00:13:03,520 --> 00:13:06,640 Speaker 1: clause at the expense of the establishment clause. UM. And 223 00:13:06,679 --> 00:13:09,280 Speaker 1: I expect that that's not going to stop anytime soon 224 00:13:09,320 --> 00:13:11,520 Speaker 1: with the banking case. And there's already a case for 225 00:13:11,600 --> 00:13:13,400 Speaker 1: next year that the justices are going to hear that 226 00:13:13,440 --> 00:13:17,200 Speaker 1: are going to put this tension in the forefront once again. So, Greg, 227 00:13:17,360 --> 00:13:21,080 Speaker 1: it seems like the Court is blurring the line between 228 00:13:21,160 --> 00:13:24,480 Speaker 1: church and state, but doing it sort of inch by inch. 229 00:13:25,720 --> 00:13:28,760 Speaker 1: It has been inch by inchine a lot of these cases. 230 00:13:29,320 --> 00:13:34,160 Speaker 1: The Court has consistently sided with religious rights. I can't 231 00:13:34,200 --> 00:13:37,280 Speaker 1: honestly think of the last time it went the other direction. 232 00:13:37,920 --> 00:13:41,840 Speaker 1: It is an area where, UM, you frequently have all 233 00:13:41,920 --> 00:13:45,640 Speaker 1: six of the conservative justices on the side of religious rights, 234 00:13:45,640 --> 00:13:48,600 Speaker 1: and that gives them a certain amount of flexibility as 235 00:13:48,600 --> 00:13:53,200 Speaker 1: they come up with a majority opinion. And the court's 236 00:13:53,240 --> 00:13:56,160 Speaker 1: appetite seems seems rather grade. It has continued to take 237 00:13:56,240 --> 00:13:59,880 Speaker 1: up religious rights cases and there's every reason the thing 238 00:14:00,080 --> 00:14:03,920 Speaker 1: that they will push the law further. Okay, Greg and 239 00:14:04,000 --> 00:14:07,240 Speaker 1: Kimberly stay with me. Coming up on Bloomberg law. The 240 00:14:07,320 --> 00:14:11,480 Speaker 1: shadow docket, is it as mysterious as it sounds. I'm 241 00:14:11,559 --> 00:14:16,959 Speaker 1: June Grosso and this is Bloomberg. The shadow docket sounds 242 00:14:17,040 --> 00:14:21,040 Speaker 1: more ominous than it actually is. Basically emergency orders of 243 00:14:21,040 --> 00:14:24,840 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, short and unsigned, issued without oral arguments. 244 00:14:25,160 --> 00:14:28,280 Speaker 1: While the shadow docket certainly isn't new, it's grown in 245 00:14:28,400 --> 00:14:32,280 Speaker 1: size and significance. In fact, Justice Damy Coney Barrett was 246 00:14:32,320 --> 00:14:35,160 Speaker 1: asked about it in her confirmation hearings. You know, the 247 00:14:35,160 --> 00:14:38,520 Speaker 1: shadow docket has become a hot topic in the last 248 00:14:38,520 --> 00:14:40,600 Speaker 1: couple of years. But you know, even when I was 249 00:14:40,680 --> 00:14:44,720 Speaker 1: cooking on the court, it was not typical for the 250 00:14:44,800 --> 00:14:48,640 Speaker 1: Court to issue opinions explaining why Certavice denied. I've been 251 00:14:48,680 --> 00:14:52,480 Speaker 1: talking to Bloomberg Law, Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, 252 00:14:52,480 --> 00:14:57,000 Speaker 1: and Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg's store about at 253 00:14:57,000 --> 00:15:00,560 Speaker 1: the court. So, Greg, is the shadow dot get getting 254 00:15:00,600 --> 00:15:04,120 Speaker 1: attention because the Court has been handling a lot more 255 00:15:04,240 --> 00:15:07,840 Speaker 1: substantive issues on the shadow docket or is there another reason? 256 00:15:08,560 --> 00:15:11,600 Speaker 1: It's all the above. The Court is handling more cases, 257 00:15:11,680 --> 00:15:14,640 Speaker 1: more substantive cases, and the way it's handled some of 258 00:15:14,680 --> 00:15:18,040 Speaker 1: those cases has been controversial. Let me just start with 259 00:15:18,040 --> 00:15:20,760 Speaker 1: with a logistical thing. The timing of a lot of 260 00:15:20,760 --> 00:15:24,040 Speaker 1: these orders had come out oftentimes in the evening hour, 261 00:15:24,200 --> 00:15:27,440 Speaker 1: sometimes close to midnight. To take one example, when the 262 00:15:27,520 --> 00:15:31,040 Speaker 1: Court let that Texas abortion law go into effect on 263 00:15:31,120 --> 00:15:34,880 Speaker 1: September the one, it first of all took no action 264 00:15:35,160 --> 00:15:37,960 Speaker 1: on September one itself, so that the law and new 265 00:15:38,000 --> 00:15:41,320 Speaker 1: effect at midnight, and then almost exactly twenty four hours 266 00:15:41,440 --> 00:15:44,000 Speaker 1: later it issued an order saying, oh, and we're letting 267 00:15:44,000 --> 00:15:46,880 Speaker 1: the law take effect again. That was close to midnight. 268 00:15:47,240 --> 00:15:50,680 Speaker 1: So that sort of thing gets some criticism from the outside. 269 00:15:50,960 --> 00:15:54,120 Speaker 1: I guess those midnight decisions are not very popular with 270 00:15:54,240 --> 00:15:59,040 Speaker 1: Supreme Court reporters. So Kimberly vaccine mandates, which such a 271 00:15:59,080 --> 00:16:03,640 Speaker 1: divisive national issue. The Court allowed vaccine mandates without religious 272 00:16:03,640 --> 00:16:07,680 Speaker 1: exemptions in New York and Maine. In the main case, 273 00:16:08,280 --> 00:16:13,120 Speaker 1: Justices Barrett and Kavanagh suggested the Court shouldn't grant emergency 274 00:16:13,160 --> 00:16:16,880 Speaker 1: requests if the justices are unlikely to consider an appeal. 275 00:16:17,760 --> 00:16:19,400 Speaker 1: What do you make of that? Are they on the 276 00:16:19,480 --> 00:16:22,240 Speaker 1: side of the people who are saying too many cases, 277 00:16:22,280 --> 00:16:25,240 Speaker 1: too many substantive issues in the shadow docket. Well, I 278 00:16:25,280 --> 00:16:28,240 Speaker 1: think that we have seen some movement from the justices, 279 00:16:28,440 --> 00:16:31,440 Speaker 1: you know, in response to some of the criticism that 280 00:16:31,560 --> 00:16:34,520 Speaker 1: we've seen over the shadow docket. So we saw Justice 281 00:16:34,560 --> 00:16:37,640 Speaker 1: Alito really laid out some of those criticisms, just like 282 00:16:37,680 --> 00:16:41,560 Speaker 1: Greg mentioned the midnight orders and things like shortened debate 283 00:16:41,600 --> 00:16:44,080 Speaker 1: and the lack of reason opinion, and you know, to 284 00:16:44,160 --> 00:16:46,600 Speaker 1: some extent we've seen them respond to that. I can 285 00:16:46,640 --> 00:16:50,200 Speaker 1: think of two instances or the justices actually took the 286 00:16:50,280 --> 00:16:53,400 Speaker 1: unusual step this term of taking cases off of the 287 00:16:53,440 --> 00:16:56,600 Speaker 1: shadow docket on setting them for oral argument more in 288 00:16:56,640 --> 00:16:59,400 Speaker 1: line with kind of what they normally do. So that 289 00:16:59,440 --> 00:17:01,840 Speaker 1: includes the exist subbortion case that we already talked a 290 00:17:01,880 --> 00:17:04,800 Speaker 1: little bit about, but also a capital sentencing case that 291 00:17:04,880 --> 00:17:08,080 Speaker 1: touches on religion. But I don't think that they're really 292 00:17:08,080 --> 00:17:12,719 Speaker 1: grappling with the other criticism that Gregg suggested, which is 293 00:17:12,760 --> 00:17:16,400 Speaker 1: that the Court is really dealing inconsistently with these cases. 294 00:17:16,440 --> 00:17:19,600 Speaker 1: I do think it's the COVID restrictions, not just the 295 00:17:19,680 --> 00:17:23,320 Speaker 1: vaccine mandates, but all kinds of restrictions are an example 296 00:17:23,400 --> 00:17:26,399 Speaker 1: of how you know, these are all playing out on 297 00:17:26,440 --> 00:17:30,200 Speaker 1: the shadow docket um, and they're not always consistent with 298 00:17:30,280 --> 00:17:33,240 Speaker 1: how the Court comes out. And Greg, you know, one 299 00:17:33,280 --> 00:17:37,320 Speaker 1: paragraph order, the Court left in force a lower court 300 00:17:37,359 --> 00:17:41,600 Speaker 1: ruling that required the Biden administration to restart the remain 301 00:17:41,760 --> 00:17:45,840 Speaker 1: in Mexico policy. So these are not just you know, 302 00:17:45,920 --> 00:17:52,280 Speaker 1: cases involving Maine and New York. These are cases national implications. 303 00:17:52,320 --> 00:17:54,400 Speaker 1: They are and you know, part of what is leading 304 00:17:54,480 --> 00:17:57,159 Speaker 1: to this, in fairness to the court is, and this 305 00:17:57,320 --> 00:17:59,639 Speaker 1: happened under the Trump administration as well as under the 306 00:17:59,640 --> 00:18:02,479 Speaker 1: Biden administration, is that you have more and more federal 307 00:18:02,480 --> 00:18:07,800 Speaker 1: trial judges issuing nationwide injunctions that block an administration policy 308 00:18:07,840 --> 00:18:10,199 Speaker 1: across the country, and then it gets up to the 309 00:18:10,280 --> 00:18:13,680 Speaker 1: Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court is asked say by 310 00:18:13,720 --> 00:18:16,320 Speaker 1: an administration, hey, you need to let this policy go 311 00:18:16,400 --> 00:18:18,919 Speaker 1: back into effect rather than have it be blocked all 312 00:18:18,960 --> 00:18:22,399 Speaker 1: across the country. Uh, it does put the Court in 313 00:18:22,560 --> 00:18:26,240 Speaker 1: something of a bind every time that administration does something 314 00:18:26,880 --> 00:18:30,320 Speaker 1: that there's immediately a lawsuit and oftentimes there's an injunction 315 00:18:30,680 --> 00:18:33,280 Speaker 1: and the Court has to decide at least while the 316 00:18:33,320 --> 00:18:36,440 Speaker 1: litigation goes forward, does the policy go into a fact 317 00:18:36,480 --> 00:18:39,720 Speaker 1: or is it on hold? So, Kimberly a lot of 318 00:18:39,760 --> 00:18:43,400 Speaker 1: criticism about the shadow docket. How much do the Supreme 319 00:18:43,400 --> 00:18:49,040 Speaker 1: Court justices care about public outcry, because I'd say they don't. 320 00:18:49,160 --> 00:18:52,880 Speaker 1: But then you have several justices who came out, for example, 321 00:18:52,880 --> 00:18:55,199 Speaker 1: Emmy Coney Barrett and said, you know, we're not a 322 00:18:55,240 --> 00:18:59,480 Speaker 1: political institution. So is it hitting home? Well, I think 323 00:18:59,520 --> 00:19:02,440 Speaker 1: it hits in the sense that we see a lot 324 00:19:02,440 --> 00:19:05,240 Speaker 1: of calls now about the legitimacy of the Court, And 325 00:19:05,280 --> 00:19:08,679 Speaker 1: of course all of the justices are concerned with not 326 00:19:08,760 --> 00:19:11,960 Speaker 1: really how the public views its individual rulings per se, 327 00:19:12,240 --> 00:19:14,679 Speaker 1: but instead how the public views the court's rule in 328 00:19:14,720 --> 00:19:18,040 Speaker 1: our democracy. But I think that the abortion case shows 329 00:19:18,119 --> 00:19:21,040 Speaker 1: that the conservatives and the littles are really on different 330 00:19:21,160 --> 00:19:24,400 Speaker 1: ends of how they think that the Justice should respond 331 00:19:24,440 --> 00:19:28,240 Speaker 1: to those criticisms. And so we see the conservatives, you know, 332 00:19:28,320 --> 00:19:30,920 Speaker 1: we talked a lot about Brett Kavanaugh saying that this 333 00:19:31,040 --> 00:19:33,399 Speaker 1: is sort of a power grab by the Court to 334 00:19:33,480 --> 00:19:36,479 Speaker 1: get involved in abortion when the Constitution is silent, and 335 00:19:36,480 --> 00:19:38,560 Speaker 1: he says that really strikes as the heart of the 336 00:19:38,640 --> 00:19:42,080 Speaker 1: legitimacy of the institution. And on the flip side, you know, 337 00:19:42,119 --> 00:19:44,359 Speaker 1: we heard Justice so to Mayor say that you know, 338 00:19:44,400 --> 00:19:46,800 Speaker 1: all of this gives the Court the stench of a 339 00:19:46,840 --> 00:19:51,639 Speaker 1: political institution, and that's what's causing all these concerns over legitimacies. 340 00:19:51,800 --> 00:19:55,240 Speaker 1: Coming up, I'll continue this conversation with Supreme Court reporters 341 00:19:55,320 --> 00:19:58,600 Speaker 1: Kimberly Robinson and Greg Store, and we'll discuss the most 342 00:19:58,640 --> 00:20:02,919 Speaker 1: important Supreme Court to decisions of I'm June Grosso and 343 00:20:02,920 --> 00:20:08,400 Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg. I've been talking to the Supreme 344 00:20:08,400 --> 00:20:12,119 Speaker 1: Court reporters for Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Law, Greg Store 345 00:20:12,200 --> 00:20:16,800 Speaker 1: and Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson about this year at the Court. So, guys, 346 00:20:16,840 --> 00:20:19,240 Speaker 1: let's look back at some of the most important cases 347 00:20:19,440 --> 00:20:22,919 Speaker 1: of last term that came down in the last month 348 00:20:22,960 --> 00:20:26,160 Speaker 1: of the term. And I emphasized that because the most 349 00:20:26,200 --> 00:20:28,760 Speaker 1: watched cases always seemed to come down at the end 350 00:20:28,760 --> 00:20:32,239 Speaker 1: of the term. The Court took up Obamacare for the 351 00:20:32,359 --> 00:20:37,000 Speaker 1: third time, and Kimberly, the decision was kind of anticlimactic. 352 00:20:37,320 --> 00:20:39,359 Speaker 1: It was, but I do think that that's something that 353 00:20:39,400 --> 00:20:42,640 Speaker 1: makes it, you know, a significant ruling from the Roberts Court. 354 00:20:42,760 --> 00:20:46,399 Speaker 1: So this particular challenge was about an amendment to the 355 00:20:46,480 --> 00:20:49,480 Speaker 1: law that was passed under the geop led Congress. In 356 00:20:50,880 --> 00:20:53,560 Speaker 1: without going into the nitty gritty, you know, the question 357 00:20:53,680 --> 00:20:56,719 Speaker 1: was whether or not that amendment kind of undid the 358 00:20:56,760 --> 00:21:00,600 Speaker 1: whole of Obamacare, and the answer from the justice was, 359 00:21:00,920 --> 00:21:03,959 Speaker 1: we don't really know, and said they found a procedural 360 00:21:04,040 --> 00:21:07,120 Speaker 1: off ramp, as the justices are known to do when 361 00:21:07,160 --> 00:21:10,320 Speaker 1: they don't want to decide a particularly thorny issue, and 362 00:21:10,359 --> 00:21:12,440 Speaker 1: here they said that the individuals who had brought the 363 00:21:12,520 --> 00:21:15,480 Speaker 1: challenge didn't show that they had been harmed enough in 364 00:21:15,600 --> 00:21:17,879 Speaker 1: order to be able to sue in court. And I 365 00:21:17,920 --> 00:21:21,199 Speaker 1: think the significance is that, you know, the affordable character 366 00:21:21,200 --> 00:21:24,679 Speaker 1: once again survived just kind of existential challenge, and it 367 00:21:24,720 --> 00:21:27,240 Speaker 1: seems like critics of the affordable characters are going to 368 00:21:27,320 --> 00:21:30,280 Speaker 1: have to turn to Congress rather than courts if they 369 00:21:30,320 --> 00:21:33,520 Speaker 1: want to undo the law. Next case that didn't get 370 00:21:33,560 --> 00:21:36,280 Speaker 1: as much attention as Obamacare, but it did lead to 371 00:21:36,320 --> 00:21:40,359 Speaker 1: President Joe Biden outsting Fannie May and Freddie Max. Regulator 372 00:21:40,840 --> 00:21:44,880 Speaker 1: Gregg tell us about the investors challenge and how they fared. Yeah, 373 00:21:44,880 --> 00:21:47,600 Speaker 1: this is the case about Freddie Mac and Fannie May 374 00:21:47,720 --> 00:21:52,680 Speaker 1: UH and the government agreement back after the housing crisis, 375 00:21:52,680 --> 00:21:56,280 Speaker 1: where the government bailed those two entities out, and UH 376 00:21:56,320 --> 00:21:58,720 Speaker 1: in exchange basically took all the profits. And so you 377 00:21:58,760 --> 00:22:02,200 Speaker 1: had a bunch of investors who sued the government saying, hey, 378 00:22:02,280 --> 00:22:05,880 Speaker 1: you have cost us billions of dollars UH, that was illegal. 379 00:22:06,280 --> 00:22:09,080 Speaker 1: And the investors had two basic kinds of claims. One 380 00:22:09,160 --> 00:22:11,679 Speaker 1: they said that the federal government lacked the authority to 381 00:22:11,720 --> 00:22:15,000 Speaker 1: do this under federal statutes. And secondly, they said there 382 00:22:15,080 --> 00:22:18,960 Speaker 1: was a big constitutional problem with the agency that overseas 383 00:22:19,000 --> 00:22:21,960 Speaker 1: Fannie and Freddy, which is that UH, it was set 384 00:22:22,040 --> 00:22:24,720 Speaker 1: up in a way that the director of the agency 385 00:22:24,800 --> 00:22:28,160 Speaker 1: couldn't be fired by the president without cause. And they 386 00:22:28,200 --> 00:22:31,640 Speaker 1: said that that unconstitutional arrangement meant you had to throughout 387 00:22:31,680 --> 00:22:35,520 Speaker 1: this entire arrangement of taking the profits. And basically what 388 00:22:35,560 --> 00:22:37,840 Speaker 1: the court did is it sharply narrowed the scope of 389 00:22:37,880 --> 00:22:40,640 Speaker 1: this suit. So the investors lost in a big way 390 00:22:40,640 --> 00:22:42,800 Speaker 1: in terms of what they were seeking. They were allowed 391 00:22:42,840 --> 00:22:45,439 Speaker 1: to go forward only on a very narrow portion of 392 00:22:45,440 --> 00:22:48,639 Speaker 1: their claim. And more broadly, what the court said was, 393 00:22:49,119 --> 00:22:52,320 Speaker 1: we do actually think there's a constitutional problem here this 394 00:22:52,320 --> 00:22:54,159 Speaker 1: this official, the head of the f h f A 395 00:22:54,840 --> 00:22:59,800 Speaker 1: UH was insulated from being fired by the president unconstitutionally. 396 00:23:00,080 --> 00:23:03,280 Speaker 1: We're going to strip out the director's job protections, and 397 00:23:03,320 --> 00:23:06,480 Speaker 1: that means the president can fire the director for any reason. 398 00:23:06,680 --> 00:23:08,679 Speaker 1: That's not really what the investors wanted, but that's what 399 00:23:08,760 --> 00:23:12,000 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court held, and that's what gave Joe Biden 400 00:23:12,040 --> 00:23:15,280 Speaker 1: the authority to fire the holdover Trump Director, a guy 401 00:23:15,359 --> 00:23:19,440 Speaker 1: named Mark Calabria, which the President did almost immediately as 402 00:23:19,440 --> 00:23:22,439 Speaker 1: soon as the Supreme Court is issued his ruling. And 403 00:23:22,520 --> 00:23:26,120 Speaker 1: that's uh, the kind of ruling that extends a line 404 00:23:26,160 --> 00:23:29,159 Speaker 1: of decisions that can serve as conservatives tend to like, 405 00:23:29,640 --> 00:23:32,320 Speaker 1: that puts the executive branch of the government more firmly 406 00:23:32,440 --> 00:23:39,440 Speaker 1: under presidential control. Comprehensive answer to a complicated case. Kimberly, 407 00:23:39,520 --> 00:23:42,639 Speaker 1: the Court curbed voting rights by limiting the reach of 408 00:23:42,720 --> 00:23:45,439 Speaker 1: the Landmark Voting Rights Act, and this was one of 409 00:23:45,440 --> 00:23:50,560 Speaker 1: the sixteen decisions that went strictly down partisan lines. That's right. 410 00:23:50,600 --> 00:23:54,800 Speaker 1: So this was Bernavit Vitus Democratic National Committee, and it 411 00:23:54,840 --> 00:23:59,240 Speaker 1: involves a challenge to to Arizona voting regulations that the 412 00:23:59,320 --> 00:24:04,520 Speaker 1: challengers has said disproported proportionately affect voters of color. Now, 413 00:24:04,560 --> 00:24:07,840 Speaker 1: the Court ended up upholding those provisions, but that in 414 00:24:07,960 --> 00:24:11,399 Speaker 1: of itself wasn't all that earth earth shattering. Instead, it 415 00:24:11,400 --> 00:24:13,639 Speaker 1: seems like the significance of this case is going to 416 00:24:13,720 --> 00:24:17,080 Speaker 1: be the legal test that the justices used um to 417 00:24:17,280 --> 00:24:21,600 Speaker 1: uphold those rules. And that's because these claims were brought 418 00:24:21,720 --> 00:24:25,120 Speaker 1: under section two of the Voting Rights Act that you mentioned, 419 00:24:25,880 --> 00:24:29,000 Speaker 1: and that section has really taken on more important since 420 00:24:29,040 --> 00:24:33,280 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court effectively cut off challenges under another section 421 00:24:33,440 --> 00:24:36,600 Speaker 1: of the law UH in Shelby County that was deemed 422 00:24:36,600 --> 00:24:40,440 Speaker 1: to be more favorable to these claims. So in this 423 00:24:40,600 --> 00:24:42,960 Speaker 1: burn of Itch case out of Arizona, the Court really 424 00:24:42,960 --> 00:24:45,159 Speaker 1: seemed to set up a test that will make it 425 00:24:45,200 --> 00:24:49,240 Speaker 1: harder for groups to challenge states UH and their voting regulations. 426 00:24:49,640 --> 00:24:52,639 Speaker 1: But we may get a pretty early test. That's because 427 00:24:52,680 --> 00:24:55,600 Speaker 1: the d O J under Attorney General Merrick Garland, has 428 00:24:55,640 --> 00:25:00,600 Speaker 1: sued Georgia for its recent election changes under this section two. 429 00:25:00,840 --> 00:25:03,520 Speaker 1: So we'll see that one and how it plays out 430 00:25:03,520 --> 00:25:08,840 Speaker 1: pretty soon. It's a case with real immediate repercussions. Now, 431 00:25:08,880 --> 00:25:12,000 Speaker 1: a good news decision, good news for everyone perhaps, But 432 00:25:12,119 --> 00:25:15,640 Speaker 1: then double A. I suppose the court cleared the way 433 00:25:15,720 --> 00:25:20,760 Speaker 1: for greater compensation for student athletes. Greg Yeah, June, this 434 00:25:20,880 --> 00:25:24,000 Speaker 1: was an antitrust for the court upheld a district court's 435 00:25:24,080 --> 00:25:26,720 Speaker 1: order that said schools must be allowed to offer athletes 436 00:25:27,119 --> 00:25:32,000 Speaker 1: things like post graduation internships and academic achievement awards of 437 00:25:32,000 --> 00:25:35,840 Speaker 1: about six thousand dollars. Uh. The Double A had argued 438 00:25:36,040 --> 00:25:41,159 Speaker 1: that we get have broad antitrust immunity at least when 439 00:25:41,200 --> 00:25:45,520 Speaker 1: it comes to our eligibility rules, because those eligibility rules 440 00:25:45,600 --> 00:25:49,040 Speaker 1: let us offer this distinct product of amateur sports. And 441 00:25:49,119 --> 00:25:54,440 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court unanimously said, uh no, we don't quote reflective, 442 00:25:54,440 --> 00:25:57,440 Speaker 1: reflectively reject all challenges to the n C double as 443 00:25:57,480 --> 00:26:01,280 Speaker 1: compensation restrictions. Court. Instead that we look at them under 444 00:26:01,320 --> 00:26:04,040 Speaker 1: what's known as the rule of reason. Um. And that's 445 00:26:04,040 --> 00:26:06,520 Speaker 1: what the district court did in this case. It allowed 446 00:26:06,800 --> 00:26:12,439 Speaker 1: a pretty limited amount of additional compensation, uh, something that 447 00:26:12,480 --> 00:26:18,080 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court said wouldn't blur the amateur probe distinction. Uh. So, 448 00:26:18,280 --> 00:26:21,760 Speaker 1: relatively narrow in terms of the practical effect, but it's 449 00:26:21,800 --> 00:26:24,119 Speaker 1: a marker. And there was a concurring opinion by Justice 450 00:26:24,200 --> 00:26:26,840 Speaker 1: Kavanaugh that suggested he would be willing to go much 451 00:26:26,840 --> 00:26:31,199 Speaker 1: further in a future case. Uh and potentially let student 452 00:26:31,200 --> 00:26:34,360 Speaker 1: athletes get much more in the way of compensation. Now 453 00:26:34,400 --> 00:26:38,200 Speaker 1: we'll turn to something totally different, Google versus Oracle, which 454 00:26:38,280 --> 00:26:41,080 Speaker 1: overturned a victory for Oracle, which was seeking as much 455 00:26:41,119 --> 00:26:45,359 Speaker 1: as nine billion dollars. It involved programming code, which is 456 00:26:45,400 --> 00:26:47,840 Speaker 1: why it's close to the bottom of my list. Kimberly, 457 00:26:48,000 --> 00:26:50,840 Speaker 1: so Greg did, Frannie Mae and Freddie Max So you 458 00:26:50,880 --> 00:26:54,879 Speaker 1: get Google Oracle al right. So this is a copyright 459 00:26:54,880 --> 00:26:57,960 Speaker 1: case that was really closely watched by the tech industry. 460 00:26:58,080 --> 00:27:01,520 Speaker 1: It was dubbed by some as the copyright case of 461 00:27:01,560 --> 00:27:05,679 Speaker 1: the century. UM. So this is a dispute over Oracles 462 00:27:05,800 --> 00:27:10,720 Speaker 1: Java programming language UM known as application programming interfaces or 463 00:27:10,800 --> 00:27:13,159 Speaker 1: better known as a p I S and really, at 464 00:27:13,160 --> 00:27:17,040 Speaker 1: a thirty thou foot view, these are just software interfaces 465 00:27:17,080 --> 00:27:20,040 Speaker 1: that help you talk to your computer. Now. Oracle, as 466 00:27:20,040 --> 00:27:23,239 Speaker 1: you mentioned, thought billions of dollars from Google saying that 467 00:27:23,280 --> 00:27:27,320 Speaker 1: the tech giant had violated its copyrights by using that quote. 468 00:27:27,560 --> 00:27:31,040 Speaker 1: But ultimately the court sided with Google, and that's seen 469 00:27:31,119 --> 00:27:35,120 Speaker 1: as a good thing for software development because otherwise technic 470 00:27:35,160 --> 00:27:38,639 Speaker 1: companies UM said they wouldn't be able to piggyback on 471 00:27:38,760 --> 00:27:42,720 Speaker 1: the use of this API, which is really widely used UM. 472 00:27:42,760 --> 00:27:45,200 Speaker 1: Instead they'd have to develop their own, something they said 473 00:27:45,240 --> 00:27:49,119 Speaker 1: would really hamper the development of technology going forward. My 474 00:27:49,280 --> 00:27:54,159 Speaker 1: favorite case, the case of the cursing cheerleader. That's the 475 00:27:54,200 --> 00:27:57,040 Speaker 1: way it was called at least, But it didn't involve 476 00:27:57,040 --> 00:28:00,280 Speaker 1: a cursing cheerleader, so Greg tell us about that did. 477 00:28:00,320 --> 00:28:03,879 Speaker 1: It involved a fourteen year old cheerleader who used a 478 00:28:03,880 --> 00:28:07,840 Speaker 1: profane Snapchat rant to say what you thought about not 479 00:28:07,920 --> 00:28:13,000 Speaker 1: making the varsity cheerleading team. The school, or at least 480 00:28:13,040 --> 00:28:15,760 Speaker 1: the cheerleading team, punished her for this rant, which she 481 00:28:16,119 --> 00:28:21,080 Speaker 1: sent from off campus. And the question at the Supreme 482 00:28:21,119 --> 00:28:25,120 Speaker 1: Court was whether the school, under the First Amendment could 483 00:28:25,119 --> 00:28:28,400 Speaker 1: punish speech that took place off campus, but it had 484 00:28:28,440 --> 00:28:31,800 Speaker 1: to do with something that involved the school, and the 485 00:28:31,840 --> 00:28:34,800 Speaker 1: Supreme Court, in an eight to one ruling, said, at least, 486 00:28:34,840 --> 00:28:38,320 Speaker 1: in this case, the school went too far when this 487 00:28:38,400 --> 00:28:42,560 Speaker 1: cheerleader sent this this snap she uh, as I said, 488 00:28:42,760 --> 00:28:48,480 Speaker 1: was off campus. It was nothing disruptive towards the school. UM. 489 00:28:48,480 --> 00:28:52,440 Speaker 1: It didn't harass anybody, It didn't bully anybody. UM. But 490 00:28:52,640 --> 00:28:56,240 Speaker 1: the court said, UM, there's not a bright line here, 491 00:28:56,800 --> 00:29:00,360 Speaker 1: uh that school officials do have some authority to punished 492 00:29:00,400 --> 00:29:05,200 Speaker 1: speech that takes place off campus. UM, in particular if 493 00:29:05,200 --> 00:29:08,680 Speaker 1: it does involve something like bullying or harassment or is 494 00:29:08,680 --> 00:29:11,720 Speaker 1: threatening to somebody at the school there that's a place 495 00:29:11,720 --> 00:29:13,840 Speaker 1: where the school can intervene, but it's going to be 496 00:29:13,960 --> 00:29:17,080 Speaker 1: very much a case by case determination. Uh. And in 497 00:29:17,080 --> 00:29:21,320 Speaker 1: this particular case, the school district went too far. When 498 00:29:21,360 --> 00:29:24,440 Speaker 1: the after the decisions came in last year, the number 499 00:29:24,520 --> 00:29:30,080 Speaker 1: crunching started and it was discovered that with Justice Barrett 500 00:29:30,120 --> 00:29:35,440 Speaker 1: on the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh has supplanted the Chief 501 00:29:35,520 --> 00:29:41,000 Speaker 1: Justice John Roberts as the court's new ideological median um. 502 00:29:41,040 --> 00:29:43,200 Speaker 1: And I talked to an expert this week that said, 503 00:29:43,320 --> 00:29:46,320 Speaker 1: it's not the Roberts Court anymore. Maybe it's the Barrett Court, 504 00:29:46,480 --> 00:29:52,120 Speaker 1: maybe it's the Kavanaugh Court, maybe it's even the Gorsage Court. So, Kimberly, 505 00:29:52,760 --> 00:29:56,280 Speaker 1: is that the general feeling that Chief Justice John Roberts 506 00:29:56,280 --> 00:30:02,280 Speaker 1: has lost control of at least the decision make king. Well, 507 00:30:02,320 --> 00:30:04,680 Speaker 1: you know, I think it's it's different from kind of 508 00:30:04,720 --> 00:30:06,880 Speaker 1: some of the cases that we just talked about that 509 00:30:06,960 --> 00:30:10,040 Speaker 1: came down last year and what we're likely to see 510 00:30:10,280 --> 00:30:13,320 Speaker 1: um at the end of June this upcoming year. And 511 00:30:13,360 --> 00:30:15,080 Speaker 1: so at the end of last year, I think we 512 00:30:15,160 --> 00:30:18,840 Speaker 1: did very much get a lot of decisions that were 513 00:30:18,880 --> 00:30:21,760 Speaker 1: those kind of wishy washy no clear winners or at 514 00:30:21,800 --> 00:30:25,240 Speaker 1: least the Court didn't go as far as liberals UM 515 00:30:25,240 --> 00:30:28,880 Speaker 1: were concerned about. Our conservatives has had hoped um kind 516 00:30:28,880 --> 00:30:31,040 Speaker 1: of in the line of what we think of Justice 517 00:30:31,120 --> 00:30:33,920 Speaker 1: Roberts really hoping UM that the Supreme Court will do 518 00:30:34,040 --> 00:30:38,120 Speaker 1: and taking some small steps to change the law. This term, though, 519 00:30:38,560 --> 00:30:41,520 Speaker 1: is shaping up to be very different, UM. And as 520 00:30:41,560 --> 00:30:44,080 Speaker 1: we've talked about with abortion and gun rights, we could 521 00:30:44,160 --> 00:30:47,800 Speaker 1: really see these sweeping changes um that do really show 522 00:30:47,920 --> 00:30:51,720 Speaker 1: that either Justice is Kavanaugh or Barrett or Corsets or 523 00:30:51,880 --> 00:30:55,240 Speaker 1: any one of the other conservatives have really taken over 524 00:30:55,280 --> 00:30:58,800 Speaker 1: the Court's center. Thank you both for sharing your insights 525 00:30:58,800 --> 00:31:02,440 Speaker 1: into the court. That's Bloomberg Law Supreme Court Reporter Kimberly 526 00:31:02,520 --> 00:31:06,200 Speaker 1: Strawbridge Robinson and Bloomberg News Supreme Court Reporter Greg Store. 527 00:31:06,720 --> 00:31:09,080 Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. 528 00:31:09,480 --> 00:31:11,800 Speaker 1: Remember you can always listen to the latest legal news 529 00:31:12,320 --> 00:31:15,280 Speaker 1: anytime on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them 530 00:31:15,280 --> 00:31:18,800 Speaker 1: wherever you get your favorite podcasts. I'm June Grosso and 531 00:31:18,880 --> 00:31:19,840 Speaker 1: this is Bloomberg