1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,400
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The Supreme Court

6
00:00:22,480 --> 00:00:26,159
Speaker 1: issued two rulings on partisan jerrymandering today without resolving the

7
00:00:26,239 --> 00:00:28,960
Speaker 1: key issue in the cases whether a voting district can

8
00:00:29,000 --> 00:00:32,240
Speaker 1: be so partisan it violates the Constitution. Joining us a

9
00:00:32,320 --> 00:00:35,159
Speaker 1: Supreme Court reporter Greg's store, Greg tell us about the

10
00:00:35,200 --> 00:00:39,680
Speaker 1: partisan jerrymandering decisions, Hi, June. Yeah, two decisions, one in

11
00:00:39,680 --> 00:00:41,879
Speaker 1: the case from Wisconsin, one in the case from Maryland.

12
00:00:42,280 --> 00:00:45,120
Speaker 1: And as you said, the court punted on the biggest issue,

13
00:00:45,200 --> 00:00:47,479
Speaker 1: which is, can you ever challenge a district or or

14
00:00:47,520 --> 00:00:50,560
Speaker 1: a map as being so partisan and violates the Constitution?

15
00:00:50,920 --> 00:00:55,520
Speaker 1: Both cases were resolved on a procedural ground. Uh. The

16
00:00:55,560 --> 00:00:58,320
Speaker 1: Wisconsin one did it in a in a what could

17
00:00:58,320 --> 00:01:01,880
Speaker 1: be a significant way where they cast real doubt on

18
00:01:01,920 --> 00:01:05,680
Speaker 1: the ability of opponents of a jerrymander to challenge an

19
00:01:05,840 --> 00:01:08,760
Speaker 1: entire statewide map. They said, in this case, where you

20
00:01:08,840 --> 00:01:14,320
Speaker 1: only have plaintiffs from voters from certain from particular districts.

21
00:01:14,560 --> 00:01:17,000
Speaker 1: They don't have enough of it an interest in challenging

22
00:01:17,000 --> 00:01:19,720
Speaker 1: this whole map, at least under the legal theory they're using.

23
00:01:19,920 --> 00:01:22,160
Speaker 1: They don't have enough of an interest to try to

24
00:01:22,240 --> 00:01:26,080
Speaker 1: knock out the entire map. So where does this leave

25
00:01:26,160 --> 00:01:29,400
Speaker 1: the jerrymandering question? Well, that's a that's a great question,

26
00:01:29,400 --> 00:01:32,880
Speaker 1: that's a six or four question. UM. The Court does

27
00:01:32,959 --> 00:01:34,800
Speaker 1: have another case that it could act on the next

28
00:01:34,880 --> 00:01:38,720
Speaker 1: few days from North Carolina. It's probably the strongest challenge

29
00:01:38,720 --> 00:01:42,200
Speaker 1: to a jerrymander. This involves congressional districts that were designed

30
00:01:42,200 --> 00:01:45,400
Speaker 1: by Republicans. They do have a voter in every district

31
00:01:45,400 --> 00:01:48,040
Speaker 1: in that case. UH. They also have the Democratic Party

32
00:01:48,120 --> 00:01:50,600
Speaker 1: challenging in that case. It's possible. I don't know if

33
00:01:50,600 --> 00:01:54,080
Speaker 1: it's it's likely, but it's certainly possible. The Court could say, Okay,

34
00:01:54,240 --> 00:01:57,440
Speaker 1: we'll resolve all these big issues next term, UH, and

35
00:01:57,720 --> 00:02:00,440
Speaker 1: agree to take up that case in the next few days. Greg,

36
00:02:00,560 --> 00:02:03,680
Speaker 1: is it unwieldy to challenge a state map district by

37
00:02:03,760 --> 00:02:08,640
Speaker 1: district and show partisanship. It is unwieldy, and it also,

38
00:02:09,120 --> 00:02:13,120
Speaker 1: UH would seem to knock out kind of the theory

39
00:02:13,200 --> 00:02:15,360
Speaker 1: of why a map should be struck down. So in

40
00:02:15,400 --> 00:02:19,320
Speaker 1: the Wisconsin case, the basic argument was that these districts

41
00:02:19,360 --> 00:02:23,320
Speaker 1: were drawn in a way so that Republicans were highly

42
00:02:23,400 --> 00:02:26,519
Speaker 1: highly likely to maintain control of the state Assembly, even

43
00:02:26,600 --> 00:02:29,480
Speaker 1: if Democrats won a majority of the votes across the state,

44
00:02:29,480 --> 00:02:33,200
Speaker 1: and the fact that happened one year. If you're having

45
00:02:33,240 --> 00:02:37,000
Speaker 1: to challenge districts on a district by district basis, where

46
00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:40,440
Speaker 1: it's a voter saying, UM, my vote isn'tcounting for as

47
00:02:40,520 --> 00:02:43,920
Speaker 1: much as it should uh because of the way they

48
00:02:44,000 --> 00:02:46,960
Speaker 1: drew my particular district, it's a little harder to see

49
00:02:46,960 --> 00:02:49,960
Speaker 1: how a court would be able to step back and say,

50
00:02:50,040 --> 00:02:51,600
Speaker 1: I want to throw out We're gonna throw out the

51
00:02:51,800 --> 00:02:54,880
Speaker 1: entire map because it is too tilted towards one party

52
00:02:54,960 --> 00:03:00,240
Speaker 1: or another. Did Justice Elena Kagan's concurring opinion sound a

53
00:03:00,280 --> 00:03:04,079
Speaker 1: little like a dissent. I don't know if I would

54
00:03:04,080 --> 00:03:06,440
Speaker 1: say a descent, but it's certainly very important. What what

55
00:03:06,600 --> 00:03:10,320
Speaker 1: Justice Kagan said was, UM, I agree with the majority

56
00:03:10,440 --> 00:03:13,680
Speaker 1: that the plaintiffs here don't have standing to pursue a

57
00:03:13,760 --> 00:03:15,960
Speaker 1: particular type of claim, which is that their votes were

58
00:03:16,000 --> 00:03:18,920
Speaker 1: deluded so that they didn't mean as much, but there's

59
00:03:18,919 --> 00:03:22,959
Speaker 1: a whole different theory called under the First Amendment and

60
00:03:23,320 --> 00:03:26,200
Speaker 1: the right end of the First Amendment, the freedom of

61
00:03:26,240 --> 00:03:29,840
Speaker 1: association under the First Amendment. And she said that whole

62
00:03:29,919 --> 00:03:32,960
Speaker 1: theory is not really the focus of the Wisconsin case.

63
00:03:33,040 --> 00:03:35,520
Speaker 1: And in my view, she says, uh, and she had

64
00:03:35,560 --> 00:03:39,000
Speaker 1: the votes of four justices. Um uh, there's no reason

65
00:03:39,120 --> 00:03:42,680
Speaker 1: why a case like that couldn't go forward. So there's

66
00:03:42,720 --> 00:03:45,440
Speaker 1: at least an opening there. But the Court as a

67
00:03:45,480 --> 00:03:47,800
Speaker 1: whole said, we're not getting to that issue that Justice

68
00:03:47,840 --> 00:03:51,240
Speaker 1: Kagan was just talking about. So you talked about how

69
00:03:51,280 --> 00:03:54,520
Speaker 1: this is a narrower look, and this isn't the first

70
00:03:54,560 --> 00:03:57,760
Speaker 1: time this term that we've seen the justices side swept

71
00:03:57,880 --> 00:04:01,200
Speaker 1: side step. What was see by many is the major

72
00:04:01,320 --> 00:04:03,720
Speaker 1: issue in the case. Is this a pattern we might

73
00:04:03,760 --> 00:04:06,440
Speaker 1: see in some of the cases that are coming up. Yeah,

74
00:04:06,640 --> 00:04:09,280
Speaker 1: that's a good question, June Uh. You're you're no doubt

75
00:04:09,320 --> 00:04:12,440
Speaker 1: thinking about the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, where the Court

76
00:04:12,720 --> 00:04:16,400
Speaker 1: didn't decide this big issue of whether there's business has

77
00:04:16,400 --> 00:04:19,320
Speaker 1: a free speech or religious right to refuse to to

78
00:04:19,680 --> 00:04:23,960
Speaker 1: serve people for a same sex wedding. The court resolve

79
00:04:24,000 --> 00:04:27,159
Speaker 1: that case of narrow narrow grams too. UM. With the

80
00:04:27,200 --> 00:04:31,440
Speaker 1: cases going forward, things like the the Internet, whether the

81
00:04:31,440 --> 00:04:34,400
Speaker 1: Internet sales tax and whether Internet retailers can be required

82
00:04:34,440 --> 00:04:37,880
Speaker 1: to collect tax, the Trump travel ban, the issue of

83
00:04:37,960 --> 00:04:41,240
Speaker 1: mandatory union fees for public sector workers, it's a little

84
00:04:41,279 --> 00:04:43,279
Speaker 1: harder to see. I'm not going to say impossible, but

85
00:04:43,320 --> 00:04:47,880
Speaker 1: it's hard to see how those cases are amenable to

86
00:04:48,080 --> 00:04:52,080
Speaker 1: some sort of compromised ruling UH that that sidesteps the

87
00:04:52,160 --> 00:04:55,120
Speaker 1: big issues. It seems like from where I said that,

88
00:04:55,160 --> 00:04:57,440
Speaker 1: with those big cases, the court is going to have

89
00:04:57,600 --> 00:05:01,760
Speaker 1: to confront the core issues. We shall see, Greg, there

90
00:05:01,800 --> 00:05:04,680
Speaker 1: was another case today that was decided which didn't get

91
00:05:04,800 --> 00:05:07,960
Speaker 1: much play at all. So tell us about that. Oh

92
00:05:08,040 --> 00:05:11,160
Speaker 1: I had, I had three cases that were decided, see

93
00:05:11,200 --> 00:05:12,720
Speaker 1: that the third one didn't get into I'm going to

94
00:05:12,800 --> 00:05:15,919
Speaker 1: guess you're talking about Mr Lowesman, who is in a

95
00:05:16,040 --> 00:05:19,440
Speaker 1: man who has some issues with his local government and

96
00:05:19,760 --> 00:05:24,480
Speaker 1: Riviera Beach UH, Florida. He was arrested while while making

97
00:05:24,480 --> 00:05:27,720
Speaker 1: some remarks at a city council meeting and he um

98
00:05:27,920 --> 00:05:32,920
Speaker 1: UH sued for retaliatory UH First Amendment retaliation for retaliatory

99
00:05:33,000 --> 00:05:37,440
Speaker 1: arrest UM, and the court essentially revived his claim. It

100
00:05:37,440 --> 00:05:39,640
Speaker 1: didn't say for sure he's entitled to a new He

101
00:05:39,720 --> 00:05:42,000
Speaker 1: lost a trial, and it didn't say for sure that

102
00:05:42,040 --> 00:05:45,320
Speaker 1: he's entitled to a new trial. But uh, it did

103
00:05:45,520 --> 00:05:49,279
Speaker 1: suggest that he may have a claim for retaliation under

104
00:05:49,320 --> 00:05:53,920
Speaker 1: the first Amendment and the third decision that ire. But

105
00:05:55,560 --> 00:05:57,360
Speaker 1: there were two more, and I'm going to confess June

106
00:05:57,440 --> 00:06:00,479
Speaker 1: I have not gotten to those yet. Uh, well, we're

107
00:06:00,480 --> 00:06:03,080
Speaker 1: waiting for the big you know, this one, the jerrymandering

108
00:06:03,200 --> 00:06:04,560
Speaker 1: was one of the ones that we were waiting for.

109
00:06:05,160 --> 00:06:07,600
Speaker 1: So now we have how many sessions left to hear?

110
00:06:07,640 --> 00:06:10,640
Speaker 1: How many people probably have three or four sittings left.

111
00:06:10,680 --> 00:06:13,960
Speaker 1: We have fourteen more opinions. We've we've mentioned internet sales taxes,

112
00:06:13,960 --> 00:06:18,960
Speaker 1: travel band union fees. Uh, there's a cell phone privacy

113
00:06:19,000 --> 00:06:22,800
Speaker 1: case that is very important. Uh. There's a case that's

114
00:06:22,800 --> 00:06:26,680
Speaker 1: really important to American Express and involves there's called their

115
00:06:26,720 --> 00:06:31,039
Speaker 1: anti steering policy where they require they forbid merchants from

116
00:06:31,560 --> 00:06:36,920
Speaker 1: uh steering customers to cards that that charge lower fees. Uh.

117
00:06:36,960 --> 00:06:39,839
Speaker 1: That that's an anti trust case. The court could revive

118
00:06:40,080 --> 00:06:43,640
Speaker 1: a government claim against American Express. That's very important. And

119
00:06:43,680 --> 00:06:46,480
Speaker 1: then of course, after the court issues its last opinions

120
00:06:46,480 --> 00:06:48,719
Speaker 1: were all holder breath that we see whether or not

121
00:06:48,760 --> 00:06:51,440
Speaker 1: any justice as he or she's going to retire. Oh,

122
00:06:51,480 --> 00:06:54,839
Speaker 1: that would be Justice Kennedy we're thinking about. Thanks so much, Greg,

123
00:06:54,960 --> 00:07:02,040
Speaker 1: And that's Bloomberg, new Supreme Court reporter Greg's store. Let's

124
00:07:02,080 --> 00:07:05,440
Speaker 1: turn now to a new appointment by President Trump. Speaking

125
00:07:05,440 --> 00:07:08,920
Speaker 1: with Bloomberg earlier this year, OMB Director and Acting CFPB

126
00:07:09,080 --> 00:07:12,320
Speaker 1: chief McK mulveney explained his concerns about the structure of

127
00:07:12,360 --> 00:07:15,280
Speaker 1: the agency that was created under the Dodd Frank Act.

128
00:07:16,400 --> 00:07:21,400
Speaker 1: The structure is completely u It's irrational. I have way

129
00:07:21,400 --> 00:07:25,320
Speaker 1: too much authority as an individual. So who does President

130
00:07:25,320 --> 00:07:27,280
Speaker 1: Trump want to give that authority to run one of

131
00:07:27,280 --> 00:07:31,880
Speaker 1: the most politically divisive agencies in Washington? Kathy Crowninger. If

132
00:07:31,880 --> 00:07:34,200
Speaker 1: you don't recognize her name, you're not alone joining me

133
00:07:34,240 --> 00:07:37,000
Speaker 1: as Christopher Peterson, a professor at the University of Utah

134
00:07:37,040 --> 00:07:40,440
Speaker 1: Law School. Christopher, A lot of people were googling that

135
00:07:40,560 --> 00:07:44,040
Speaker 1: name when it was announced. Tell us about her, Well,

136
00:07:44,080 --> 00:07:46,960
Speaker 1: I had the googler too. Um, it's a new name

137
00:07:47,040 --> 00:07:50,240
Speaker 1: to me as well. Um. She she is currently a

138
00:07:51,440 --> 00:07:54,680
Speaker 1: lieutenant So to speak to Mick mulvaney, the Director of

139
00:07:54,680 --> 00:07:58,840
Speaker 1: Office and Management and Budget who is also simultaneously serving

140
00:07:58,880 --> 00:08:01,800
Speaker 1: as the director of the the fpb UM. She's got

141
00:08:02,760 --> 00:08:07,520
Speaker 1: a background um in in various federal regulatory agencies, but

142
00:08:07,560 --> 00:08:10,760
Speaker 1: she doesn't have any experience in consumer protection or banking.

143
00:08:10,840 --> 00:08:13,160
Speaker 1: She worked as a clerk in the UH in the

144
00:08:13,160 --> 00:08:16,800
Speaker 1: Senate Um, worked at the Partner Transportation for a little while,

145
00:08:16,960 --> 00:08:20,240
Speaker 1: but really doesn't have a track record to evaluate on

146
00:08:20,240 --> 00:08:23,640
Speaker 1: the consumer protection issues that the Consumer Bureau was focused on.

147
00:08:24,080 --> 00:08:28,240
Speaker 1: So progressive groups and consumer advocacy groups are calling this

148
00:08:28,560 --> 00:08:31,280
Speaker 1: a political stunt and a way to ensure that Mulvaney

149
00:08:31,400 --> 00:08:36,600
Speaker 1: stays in the job longer. How do you evaluate this, Well,

150
00:08:36,679 --> 00:08:40,120
Speaker 1: it's hard not to think that that's what's happening here,

151
00:08:41,400 --> 00:08:45,319
Speaker 1: given all of the concern that conservatives expressed over the

152
00:08:45,400 --> 00:08:49,880
Speaker 1: years about how much power this director has. To turn

153
00:08:49,920 --> 00:08:51,880
Speaker 1: it over to somebody that has never worked in a

154
00:08:51,880 --> 00:08:55,440
Speaker 1: bank or a credit union and has no experience whatsoever

155
00:08:55,559 --> 00:08:58,600
Speaker 1: that's discernible in doing any of the kinds of federal

156
00:08:58,600 --> 00:09:01,960
Speaker 1: regulatory work that this agency does, it seems like a

157
00:09:02,000 --> 00:09:05,720
Speaker 1: pretty big surprise. So I think that the I think

158
00:09:05,720 --> 00:09:07,599
Speaker 1: that the likely outcome is that this is going to

159
00:09:07,840 --> 00:09:11,400
Speaker 1: delay consideration of a of a permanent director and is

160
00:09:11,480 --> 00:09:15,880
Speaker 1: probably going to keep Director Mulvaney in control of the agency.

161
00:09:15,960 --> 00:09:18,760
Speaker 1: So from what you just said, do you think that

162
00:09:18,800 --> 00:09:22,240
Speaker 1: she will not be confirmed? Well, I think it's tough

163
00:09:22,280 --> 00:09:24,760
Speaker 1: to say. I can imagine that some Democrats will be

164
00:09:24,880 --> 00:09:28,120
Speaker 1: tempted to call the President's bluff and confirm her in

165
00:09:28,240 --> 00:09:32,480
Speaker 1: order to try and get something done. But I don't

166
00:09:32,480 --> 00:09:33,880
Speaker 1: know that I have a crystal ball on that. I

167
00:09:33,920 --> 00:09:37,240
Speaker 1: do think that it's a very controversial nomination. UH. And

168
00:09:37,280 --> 00:09:39,640
Speaker 1: what it does, at least immediately in the short term,

169
00:09:39,800 --> 00:09:43,880
Speaker 1: is it allows uh mc mulvaney to continue to operate

170
00:09:43,920 --> 00:09:46,280
Speaker 1: as the acting head of the agency under the Federal

171
00:09:46,320 --> 00:09:50,000
Speaker 1: Vacancies Reform Act. So that statute of the statute Congress

172
00:09:50,080 --> 00:09:52,840
Speaker 1: past that try that allows UM the President to have

173
00:09:53,000 --> 00:09:58,480
Speaker 1: temporary heads of agencies while UM for two ten days

174
00:09:58,520 --> 00:10:02,640
Speaker 1: after a vacancy it opens up or during a period

175
00:10:02,640 --> 00:10:06,600
Speaker 1: of time in which uh a nominee is pending before

176
00:10:06,640 --> 00:10:11,079
Speaker 1: the Senate. And so in a fact, Mulvaney's term was

177
00:10:11,200 --> 00:10:14,160
Speaker 1: coming up at the end of during this week, and

178
00:10:14,200 --> 00:10:16,480
Speaker 1: this allows him to continue to be in charge until

179
00:10:16,520 --> 00:10:20,480
Speaker 1: the Senate acts. Just about thirty seconds, Christopher, do we

180
00:10:20,760 --> 00:10:24,480
Speaker 1: are we ever going to get someone that that consumer

181
00:10:24,480 --> 00:10:27,000
Speaker 1: advocates wanting this job as long as President Trump is

182
00:10:27,000 --> 00:10:30,920
Speaker 1: in office, and he opposes it just about twenty seconds. Sorry, sure,

183
00:10:31,000 --> 00:10:34,040
Speaker 1: no problem. Well, I think it's I think it's something

184
00:10:34,040 --> 00:10:36,560
Speaker 1: that the public deserves. You know, the Trump administration has

185
00:10:36,600 --> 00:10:39,080
Speaker 1: had seven months to find someone to run this important

186
00:10:39,160 --> 00:10:41,800
Speaker 1: watchdog agency, and it's remarkable that somehow they still have

187
00:10:41,840 --> 00:10:44,439
Speaker 1: managed to pick a nominee with no discernible experience in

188
00:10:44,480 --> 00:10:47,040
Speaker 1: consumer protection or banking. All right, thanks so much, I

189
00:10:47,120 --> 00:10:49,880
Speaker 1: appreciate it. That's Christopher Peterson, a professor at the University

190
00:10:49,920 --> 00:10:52,880
Speaker 1: of Utah Law School. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg

191
00:10:52,960 --> 00:10:56,040
Speaker 1: Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show

192
00:10:56,080 --> 00:11:00,800
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slide podcast.

193
00:11:01,160 --> 00:11:09,800
Speaker 1: I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg. H m hm