WEBVTT - Supreme Court May Toss Gun-Rights Case

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.120
<v Speaker 1>episodes at the Bloomberg Law Podcast, on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:19.920
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. It's the first

0:00:19.960 --> 0:00:22.800
<v Speaker 1>gun rights case the Supreme Court has heard in almost

0:00:22.800 --> 0:00:26.160
<v Speaker 1>a decade, and gun rights advocates were hoping a new

0:00:26.239 --> 0:00:31.120
<v Speaker 1>conservative majority would expand Second Amendment protections. However, the Justice

0:00:31.120 --> 0:00:33.760
<v Speaker 1>has spent most of an hour long argument on Monday

0:00:33.920 --> 0:00:36.800
<v Speaker 1>debating whether to issue a ruling at all or to

0:00:36.800 --> 0:00:40.000
<v Speaker 1>toss out the New York City firearms case now that

0:00:40.040 --> 0:00:43.840
<v Speaker 1>the city has scrapped the restrictions on transporting licensed handguns

0:00:44.000 --> 0:00:46.320
<v Speaker 1>that were at the center of the case. Joining me

0:00:46.400 --> 0:00:49.360
<v Speaker 1>is a leading authority on the Second Amendment. Adam Winkler,

0:00:49.400 --> 0:00:52.400
<v Speaker 1>a professor at u c l A Law school. What's

0:00:52.400 --> 0:00:55.560
<v Speaker 1>at stake in this case? Well, there's a lot at

0:00:55.600 --> 0:00:57.680
<v Speaker 1>stake in this case. On one hand, it could be

0:00:57.680 --> 0:01:00.320
<v Speaker 1>a very minor case. New York City. You to have

0:01:00.440 --> 0:01:03.960
<v Speaker 1>these regulations in place that restricted where you could transport

0:01:04.000 --> 0:01:07.880
<v Speaker 1>your firearms, but they were very unusual and unique provisions.

0:01:07.920 --> 0:01:10.880
<v Speaker 1>No other city or state has similar restrictions on where

0:01:10.920 --> 0:01:13.880
<v Speaker 1>you can transport a firearm, So the Court could rule

0:01:13.920 --> 0:01:16.080
<v Speaker 1>in this case in a way that's very minor. But

0:01:16.280 --> 0:01:18.680
<v Speaker 1>the truth of the matter is there's been several justices

0:01:18.720 --> 0:01:21.000
<v Speaker 1>who really been pushing the Court to take a Second

0:01:21.000 --> 0:01:25.160
<v Speaker 1>Amendment case so that the Court can articulate broader principles

0:01:25.319 --> 0:01:28.479
<v Speaker 1>for the Second Amendment and expand the scope of gun

0:01:28.600 --> 0:01:32.399
<v Speaker 1>rights in America. Many legal experts were surprised when New

0:01:32.480 --> 0:01:36.200
<v Speaker 1>York City changed the law and the Justices didn't dismiss

0:01:36.240 --> 0:01:39.240
<v Speaker 1>the case, and people were reading into that. Did you

0:01:39.240 --> 0:01:42.720
<v Speaker 1>read into that? Well, it is always unusual for the

0:01:42.800 --> 0:01:46.800
<v Speaker 1>Court to eagerly seek out a case when the law

0:01:46.840 --> 0:01:50.560
<v Speaker 1>has been repealed. However, this was an unusual circumstance. It's

0:01:50.560 --> 0:01:53.600
<v Speaker 1>not often that lawmakers repeal a law at the moment

0:01:53.640 --> 0:01:57.200
<v Speaker 1>that the Supreme Court accepts um an appeal in a case.

0:01:57.480 --> 0:02:00.960
<v Speaker 1>So this was an unusual circumstance. So perhaps it wasn't

0:02:01.000 --> 0:02:04.160
<v Speaker 1>all that surprising that the Justice has decided to move forward,

0:02:04.360 --> 0:02:06.920
<v Speaker 1>But it did sound like from the oral argument that

0:02:07.040 --> 0:02:10.079
<v Speaker 1>was heard in the case, that the justices seemed likely

0:02:10.240 --> 0:02:12.840
<v Speaker 1>to determine in the end that this is a moot

0:02:12.919 --> 0:02:15.720
<v Speaker 1>case and not issue a final ruling on the merits

0:02:15.880 --> 0:02:19.160
<v Speaker 1>of the particular provisions that have been repealed. Chief Justice

0:02:19.280 --> 0:02:23.080
<v Speaker 1>John Roberts, who could be a swing vote here, asked

0:02:23.120 --> 0:02:26.480
<v Speaker 1>New York City's lawyer whether declaring the case moot would

0:02:26.520 --> 0:02:29.840
<v Speaker 1>harm gun owners in any way. How do you read

0:02:30.040 --> 0:02:34.480
<v Speaker 1>his question? It did seem that Chief Justice John Roberts

0:02:34.639 --> 0:02:38.160
<v Speaker 1>was hyper focused on this mutinous issue. It could be

0:02:38.200 --> 0:02:41.160
<v Speaker 1>that the Court has so many big, high profile cases

0:02:41.240 --> 0:02:44.880
<v Speaker 1>coming before it this term that the Chief Justice wouldn't

0:02:44.919 --> 0:02:48.360
<v Speaker 1>mind pushing off the Second Amendment case for a future date.

0:02:48.720 --> 0:02:51.680
<v Speaker 1>And that's all it really would be. Ruling on muteness

0:02:51.760 --> 0:02:55.400
<v Speaker 1>in this case does not save gun safety reform advocates

0:02:55.600 --> 0:02:58.680
<v Speaker 1>from a Supreme Court decision. It's only a matter of

0:02:58.720 --> 0:03:01.600
<v Speaker 1>time before the Court steps back into the Second Amendment anyway.

0:03:01.600 --> 0:03:04.720
<v Speaker 1>There's a bunch of cases that are awaiting the Supreme

0:03:04.760 --> 0:03:07.959
<v Speaker 1>Court action on the Second Amendment. During the oral arguments,

0:03:08.000 --> 0:03:11.320
<v Speaker 1>it appeared that the liberal justices thought nothing was left

0:03:11.360 --> 0:03:16.360
<v Speaker 1>of the case, while conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Neil

0:03:16.440 --> 0:03:21.360
<v Speaker 1>Gorsch thought the controversy was still alive. But Conservative Justice

0:03:21.400 --> 0:03:24.480
<v Speaker 1>Brett Kavanagh, who wrote a dissent when the d C.

0:03:24.639 --> 0:03:29.120
<v Speaker 1>Appeals Court upheld a ban on semi automatic rifles was silent,

0:03:29.480 --> 0:03:33.119
<v Speaker 1>which is unusual for him. That is unusual for him,

0:03:33.160 --> 0:03:35.880
<v Speaker 1>and it's hard to know exactly what to make of

0:03:36.040 --> 0:03:39.560
<v Speaker 1>his silence. It could be that he agrees that this

0:03:39.640 --> 0:03:43.000
<v Speaker 1>case is moot or believes that is a very strong argument.

0:03:43.480 --> 0:03:46.680
<v Speaker 1>Even many of the conservative justices, even if they're eager

0:03:46.720 --> 0:03:50.280
<v Speaker 1>to step back into the Second Amendment Fray, are maybe

0:03:50.520 --> 0:03:53.480
<v Speaker 1>reluctant to do so in a case where the provisions

0:03:53.520 --> 0:03:56.720
<v Speaker 1>themselves have really been repealed and in a decision would

0:03:56.720 --> 0:03:59.680
<v Speaker 1>come out in the middle of election, in flaming the

0:03:59.720 --> 0:04:03.680
<v Speaker 1>elect direct all the more. The Deputy Solicitor General said,

0:04:03.840 --> 0:04:08.320
<v Speaker 1>lower courts have basically given thumbs up to restrictions on

0:04:09.000 --> 0:04:12.480
<v Speaker 1>gun rights, but thumbs down to gun rights. Is that

0:04:12.520 --> 0:04:16.960
<v Speaker 1>basically true? Have the lower courts, even the appellate courts,

0:04:17.360 --> 0:04:21.520
<v Speaker 1>turned away challenges to gun regulations. Well, I wouldn't think

0:04:21.560 --> 0:04:24.240
<v Speaker 1>that that's highly accurate. I mean, there's certainly the case

0:04:24.279 --> 0:04:28.400
<v Speaker 1>that many forms of gun control law have survived judicial scrutiny,

0:04:28.440 --> 0:04:32.520
<v Speaker 1>but that's in part because America has pretty weak gun

0:04:32.640 --> 0:04:36.320
<v Speaker 1>laws relative to other nations. That the gun rights movement

0:04:36.400 --> 0:04:40.320
<v Speaker 1>is so strong politically that it prevents most states from

0:04:40.440 --> 0:04:44.520
<v Speaker 1>enacting very restrictive laws. So while it's no doubt that

0:04:44.600 --> 0:04:47.040
<v Speaker 1>courts have upheld many forms of gun control, I don't

0:04:47.040 --> 0:04:50.479
<v Speaker 1>think that's necessarily a sign of disrespect for the Second Amendment.

0:04:50.880 --> 0:04:54.080
<v Speaker 1>Do you expect that if the Court decides that this

0:04:54.160 --> 0:04:58.120
<v Speaker 1>case is moot, would they just dismiss the case or

0:04:58.320 --> 0:05:01.720
<v Speaker 1>might they also issue a ling that could give guidance

0:05:01.800 --> 0:05:05.880
<v Speaker 1>to this area. It seems unlikely that the Court will

0:05:06.000 --> 0:05:09.239
<v Speaker 1>articulate broad principles about the Second Amendment in a case

0:05:09.360 --> 0:05:12.320
<v Speaker 1>that the Court declares as moot. The whole point of

0:05:12.360 --> 0:05:15.040
<v Speaker 1>declaring the case moot would be that the Court doesn't

0:05:15.040 --> 0:05:18.320
<v Speaker 1>have to issue a decision on the merits. One never

0:05:18.360 --> 0:05:20.440
<v Speaker 1>knows what the Supreme Court will do, of course, and

0:05:20.480 --> 0:05:22.400
<v Speaker 1>we'll have to see how it goes. As you know,

0:05:22.839 --> 0:05:27.120
<v Speaker 1>Justice Clarence Thomas has basically said that the Second Amendment

0:05:27.360 --> 0:05:31.159
<v Speaker 1>is a disfavored amendment. Do you agree with that? I

0:05:31.240 --> 0:05:33.640
<v Speaker 1>don't think so. I think the Second Amendment is enjoying

0:05:33.640 --> 0:05:37.359
<v Speaker 1>a resurgence in popularity, and just ten years ago or

0:05:37.360 --> 0:05:40.119
<v Speaker 1>twelve years ago, the Supreme Court, for the first time

0:05:40.160 --> 0:05:42.599
<v Speaker 1>in history in the Heller case said that the Second

0:05:42.600 --> 0:05:45.440
<v Speaker 1>Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. Over the

0:05:45.560 --> 0:05:48.880
<v Speaker 1>last ten years, we've seen more cases challenging gun control

0:05:48.920 --> 0:05:52.280
<v Speaker 1>laws and more gun control laws struck down than ever

0:05:52.360 --> 0:05:55.080
<v Speaker 1>before in American history. So I know, I don't think

0:05:55.080 --> 0:05:57.680
<v Speaker 1>the Second Amendment is being treated as a second class right.

0:05:58.279 --> 0:06:02.400
<v Speaker 1>Some analysts say that or think that it was Justice

0:06:02.640 --> 0:06:06.680
<v Speaker 1>Anthony Kennedy who was holding back the other conservatives on

0:06:06.760 --> 0:06:10.920
<v Speaker 1>the Court from enhancing gun rights. Well, we don't know

0:06:11.040 --> 0:06:15.320
<v Speaker 1>exactly what happens behind closed doors in the private conferences

0:06:15.400 --> 0:06:17.760
<v Speaker 1>of the Supreme Court justices, so we can't say for

0:06:17.880 --> 0:06:22.040
<v Speaker 1>certain if anyone justice was creating a barrier to the

0:06:22.080 --> 0:06:25.560
<v Speaker 1>courts taking a new case. It is somewhat telling, however,

0:06:25.960 --> 0:06:30.040
<v Speaker 1>that within months of Justice Kavanaugh replacing Justice Kennedy, the

0:06:30.080 --> 0:06:33.080
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court decides to hear its first big Second Amendment

0:06:33.080 --> 0:06:37.680
<v Speaker 1>case in nearly a decade. Thanks for being on Bloomberg Law, Adam.

0:06:37.720 --> 0:06:40.760
<v Speaker 1>That's Adam Winkler, Professor at u c l A Law School.

0:06:41.480 --> 0:06:44.640
<v Speaker 1>A note. Michael Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of

0:06:44.640 --> 0:06:48.040
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg Radio, is a

0:06:48.120 --> 0:06:51.560
<v Speaker 1>donor to groups that support gun control, including every Town

0:06:51.560 --> 0:06:56.839
<v Speaker 1>for Gun Safety. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast.

0:06:57.200 --> 0:06:59.719
<v Speaker 1>You can subscribe and listen to the show on apple

0:06:59.720 --> 0:07:03.880
<v Speaker 1>Pie podcast, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast.

0:07:04.240 --> 0:07:12.440
<v Speaker 1>I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg m