1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,039 --> 00:00:13,440
Speaker 2: The opinion issue today by the United States Supreme Court

3
00:00:14,640 --> 00:00:20,160
Speaker 2: marks the beginning of the restoration of the color blind

4
00:00:20,600 --> 00:00:27,360
Speaker 2: legal covenant that binds together our multi racial, multi ethnic nation.

5
00:00:28,240 --> 00:00:32,600
Speaker 1: Conservative activist Edward Blum won his decades long fight against

6
00:00:32,640 --> 00:00:36,640
Speaker 1: affirmative action in college admissions in June. Now Blum is

7
00:00:36,640 --> 00:00:41,000
Speaker 1: turning his attention to the corporate world. He's suing Fearless Fund,

8
00:00:41,080 --> 00:00:45,000
Speaker 1: an Atlanta based venture capital firm that supports black women

9
00:00:45,040 --> 00:00:49,760
Speaker 1: who own small businesses, accusing it of unlawful racial discrimination

10
00:00:50,360 --> 00:00:53,199
Speaker 1: and using the same playbook he used to get rid

11
00:00:53,240 --> 00:00:57,520
Speaker 1: of affirmative action in colleges. Joining me is Anthony Michael Christ,

12
00:00:57,560 --> 00:01:00,760
Speaker 1: a professor at the Georgia State University Knowledge of Law

13
00:01:01,280 --> 00:01:05,200
Speaker 1: tell us about Blum and his anti affirmative action efforts.

14
00:01:06,120 --> 00:01:10,000
Speaker 3: Yeah, so, Blum is part of the group individuals who

15
00:01:10,080 --> 00:01:12,920
Speaker 3: have been kind of on a wor path for lack

16
00:01:12,959 --> 00:01:17,120
Speaker 3: of a better term, against all kinds of race conscious programming,

17
00:01:17,400 --> 00:01:20,200
Speaker 3: and namely, what most people might be familiar with is

18
00:01:20,240 --> 00:01:23,800
Speaker 3: the recent Supreme Court ruling about race conscious student admissions

19
00:01:23,880 --> 00:01:26,960
Speaker 3: policies at Harvard and UNC Chapel Hill. There was a

20
00:01:27,040 --> 00:01:30,240
Speaker 3: challenge under the fourteenth Amendment and under the Civil Rights

21
00:01:30,280 --> 00:01:32,680
Speaker 3: Act in nineteen sixty four, which was successful. And so

22
00:01:32,840 --> 00:01:36,199
Speaker 3: now you know, Blum and associated groups are certainly moving

23
00:01:36,480 --> 00:01:39,679
Speaker 3: a pace and trying to take that with victory and

24
00:01:39,800 --> 00:01:42,040
Speaker 3: expand its footprints into other spaces.

25
00:01:42,120 --> 00:01:42,320
Speaker 4: Yeah.

26
00:01:42,360 --> 00:01:45,360
Speaker 1: So the space he try and expand into is an

27
00:01:45,360 --> 00:01:50,440
Speaker 1: Atlanta based venture capital fund and the lawsuit specifically targets

28
00:01:50,840 --> 00:01:54,360
Speaker 1: a grand program that awards twenty thousand dollars to black

29
00:01:54,440 --> 00:01:55,560
Speaker 1: women entrepreneurs.

30
00:01:55,840 --> 00:01:58,520
Speaker 3: So this is a group that was founded in twenty

31
00:01:58,640 --> 00:02:02,760
Speaker 3: nineteen and it was three black women who decided that

32
00:02:02,800 --> 00:02:06,720
Speaker 3: there needed to be more investment in black owned businesses,

33
00:02:06,760 --> 00:02:10,639
Speaker 3: and so this entity was created in order to fundraise

34
00:02:10,720 --> 00:02:13,360
Speaker 3: from a variety of investors. And so they were very

35
00:02:13,400 --> 00:02:17,079
Speaker 3: successful in getting big investors like Bank of America in General,

36
00:02:17,120 --> 00:02:19,919
Speaker 3: Mills and JP Mortgage Chase and the Lights. And what

37
00:02:19,960 --> 00:02:22,800
Speaker 3: they were going to do would be to provide grants

38
00:02:22,800 --> 00:02:26,400
Speaker 3: to help entrepreneurs get a good start and invest in

39
00:02:26,440 --> 00:02:30,200
Speaker 3: their businesses and their future endeavors with their small businesses.

40
00:02:30,280 --> 00:02:34,480
Speaker 3: And so there is this backlash from Blum and other

41
00:02:34,560 --> 00:02:38,400
Speaker 3: folks who believe that that kind of targeted investment in

42
00:02:38,760 --> 00:02:43,400
Speaker 3: certain minority owned businesses is unlawful and should not be

43
00:02:43,560 --> 00:02:45,919
Speaker 3: permissible under federal law.

44
00:02:45,960 --> 00:02:48,959
Speaker 1: With the affirmative action suits, he formed a group called

45
00:02:49,000 --> 00:02:52,280
Speaker 1: Students for Fair Admissions and he sued on behalf of

46
00:02:52,400 --> 00:02:56,280
Speaker 1: Asian American students. Here, he's formed a group called American

47
00:02:56,360 --> 00:03:00,400
Speaker 1: Alliance for Equal Rights and it purports to represent and

48
00:03:00,440 --> 00:03:04,280
Speaker 1: sixty white and Asian business owners who are ineligible for

49
00:03:04,320 --> 00:03:07,040
Speaker 1: these grants based on their race. Is he using the

50
00:03:07,040 --> 00:03:07,800
Speaker 1: same playbook?

51
00:03:08,000 --> 00:03:08,120
Speaker 4: So?

52
00:03:08,160 --> 00:03:10,359
Speaker 3: I think that's a really interesting tactic. I think part

53
00:03:10,400 --> 00:03:12,600
Speaker 3: of it is, perhaps, you know, to be able to

54
00:03:12,680 --> 00:03:15,320
Speaker 3: identify the group and fundraise off of that, and to

55
00:03:15,480 --> 00:03:18,600
Speaker 3: kind of give the litigations greater public exposure. You know,

56
00:03:18,880 --> 00:03:21,200
Speaker 3: that is certainly something that I think folks have tried

57
00:03:21,240 --> 00:03:23,680
Speaker 3: before in a variety of ways, right to get the

58
00:03:23,720 --> 00:03:27,359
Speaker 3: most sympathetic kinds of clients when you go before federal

59
00:03:27,400 --> 00:03:30,560
Speaker 3: judiciary and impact litigation. I think it's really kind of

60
00:03:30,600 --> 00:03:33,680
Speaker 3: consistent with that trend and that trajectory and that history.

61
00:03:33,919 --> 00:03:37,040
Speaker 3: And here the people that they have organized, and I

62
00:03:37,080 --> 00:03:39,440
Speaker 3: think this is particularly true in the Harbord case, right

63
00:03:39,440 --> 00:03:42,480
Speaker 3: that they're looking for individuals who are you know, perhaps

64
00:03:42,560 --> 00:03:45,240
Speaker 3: the most sympathetic and I think that that's part of

65
00:03:45,240 --> 00:03:47,680
Speaker 3: the strategy here, and part of the strategy is the

66
00:03:47,680 --> 00:03:51,040
Speaker 3: fundraise and to kind of build on all these victories

67
00:03:51,080 --> 00:03:53,920
Speaker 3: that they're starting to aggregate in the federal judiciary and

68
00:03:54,000 --> 00:03:57,600
Speaker 3: really make a litigation based movement out of that. And

69
00:03:57,680 --> 00:04:00,960
Speaker 3: so I think we need to understand what Blum is

70
00:04:01,040 --> 00:04:04,240
Speaker 3: doing here, both in terms of traditional strategy right to

71
00:04:04,440 --> 00:04:08,240
Speaker 3: get the most sympathetic kinds of plaintiffs, but also there's

72
00:04:08,280 --> 00:04:10,960
Speaker 3: an aim here to build an infrastructure here to support

73
00:04:11,240 --> 00:04:12,960
Speaker 3: long term litigation strategies.

74
00:04:13,240 --> 00:04:15,600
Speaker 1: I know that you know, with the Harvard case, a

75
00:04:15,600 --> 00:04:19,200
Speaker 1: lot of Asian Americans and Asian American students at Harvard

76
00:04:19,760 --> 00:04:22,560
Speaker 1: disagreed with that lawsuit, oh absolutely.

77
00:04:22,600 --> 00:04:25,200
Speaker 3: And I think part of the strategy here and was

78
00:04:25,320 --> 00:04:28,000
Speaker 3: shoot in the Harvard case, is that you know, very

79
00:04:28,040 --> 00:04:32,039
Speaker 3: oftentimes there are segments of people who you know, recoil

80
00:04:32,160 --> 00:04:36,200
Speaker 3: at this idea of reverse discrimination, right, This idea that

81
00:04:36,480 --> 00:04:40,400
Speaker 3: white Americans are somehow a beliegued group of people doesn't

82
00:04:40,400 --> 00:04:43,120
Speaker 3: really sit well with a good chunk of Americans. And

83
00:04:43,160 --> 00:04:45,880
Speaker 3: so I think there was a really calculated strategy there

84
00:04:46,000 --> 00:04:48,960
Speaker 3: to use a non white group in order to lodge

85
00:04:49,000 --> 00:04:51,880
Speaker 3: this complaint against Harvard, and we're seeing that kind of

86
00:04:51,880 --> 00:04:55,080
Speaker 3: tactic repeated here. So again, I think it's this idea of,

87
00:04:55,440 --> 00:04:58,480
Speaker 3: you know, you want to bring your most sympathetic potential plaintiffs,

88
00:04:58,560 --> 00:05:01,400
Speaker 3: but they're certainly not to be a uniformity in any

89
00:05:01,400 --> 00:05:03,760
Speaker 3: group in terms of how they respond to being kind

90
00:05:03,760 --> 00:05:06,920
Speaker 3: of put front and center or being used to justify

91
00:05:07,120 --> 00:05:08,560
Speaker 3: and that litigation strategy.

92
00:05:09,120 --> 00:05:12,599
Speaker 1: He claims that there's a violation of section nineteen eighty

93
00:05:12,640 --> 00:05:14,119
Speaker 1: one of the Civil Rights Act.

94
00:05:14,560 --> 00:05:17,919
Speaker 3: Yeah. So Section nineteen eighty one is an old law

95
00:05:18,080 --> 00:05:21,760
Speaker 3: from the reconstruction era. Its origins date back to the

96
00:05:21,800 --> 00:05:26,320
Speaker 3: thirteenth Amendment, and it was passed in eighteen sixty six

97
00:05:26,560 --> 00:05:28,960
Speaker 3: really in response to the Black Codes in the South,

98
00:05:29,520 --> 00:05:33,200
Speaker 3: where say, the first post Civil War governments that were

99
00:05:33,240 --> 00:05:36,920
Speaker 3: coming up back in former Confederate states were passing laws

100
00:05:36,920 --> 00:05:41,160
Speaker 3: that were incredibly restrictive of recently freed persons and their

101
00:05:41,200 --> 00:05:45,120
Speaker 3: ability to contract and their ability to buy and rent

102
00:05:45,120 --> 00:05:48,160
Speaker 3: and access property. And so the The Rights Act of

103
00:05:48,240 --> 00:05:51,360
Speaker 3: eighteen sixty six was passed in order to ensure that

104
00:05:51,440 --> 00:05:56,120
Speaker 3: all recently freed persons, all non white persons, enjoyed and

105
00:05:56,200 --> 00:05:59,600
Speaker 3: this is basically the verbiage that the law uses enjoyed

106
00:05:59,800 --> 00:06:03,359
Speaker 3: this same right as white persons. And so this particular

107
00:06:03,400 --> 00:06:05,800
Speaker 3: part of that Civil Rights Act is now codified in

108
00:06:05,839 --> 00:06:09,240
Speaker 3: section nineteen eighty one. And what's important about this is,

109
00:06:09,720 --> 00:06:12,440
Speaker 3: unlike say the Civil Rights Act in nineteen sixty four

110
00:06:12,560 --> 00:06:15,800
Speaker 3: and Title seven, section nineteen eighty one applies to all

111
00:06:15,880 --> 00:06:20,040
Speaker 3: contractual relationships, so it's not just employment. So it covers

112
00:06:20,200 --> 00:06:23,239
Speaker 3: a large number of entities, you know, it's not limited

113
00:06:23,240 --> 00:06:26,320
Speaker 3: to just employment relationships. And so that's really a big

114
00:06:26,400 --> 00:06:29,080
Speaker 3: question here because at the end of the day, you know,

115
00:06:29,120 --> 00:06:31,719
Speaker 3: I think there's those serious debates to be had whether

116
00:06:32,200 --> 00:06:36,400
Speaker 3: a small grant funding program is really a contractual relationship. Now,

117
00:06:36,520 --> 00:06:39,719
Speaker 3: the terms under which these grants are given, you know,

118
00:06:39,839 --> 00:06:42,360
Speaker 3: the Fearless Fund does basically say that it creates a

119
00:06:42,400 --> 00:06:45,960
Speaker 3: contractual relationship for the grant recipient to do the work

120
00:06:46,080 --> 00:06:48,719
Speaker 3: consistent with what the grant's purpose is for. And so

121
00:06:48,920 --> 00:06:51,359
Speaker 3: there's a real interesting question there about what kind of

122
00:06:51,400 --> 00:06:55,760
Speaker 3: relationship exists between these entrepreneurs who are receiving these grants

123
00:06:55,800 --> 00:06:58,279
Speaker 3: and the Fearless Fund. So I think it's a really

124
00:06:58,320 --> 00:07:00,800
Speaker 3: novel question in some ways. It will be interesting to

125
00:07:00,800 --> 00:07:03,479
Speaker 3: see how the federal court here in Atlanta deals with that.

126
00:07:04,000 --> 00:07:07,760
Speaker 1: Let's say this is successful, does that open up a

127
00:07:07,800 --> 00:07:12,160
Speaker 1: lot of corporations to lawsuits if they have contracts, you know,

128
00:07:12,200 --> 00:07:14,240
Speaker 1: which preference minorities in some way?

129
00:07:14,600 --> 00:07:18,080
Speaker 3: Certainly, I think it opens up the doors to challenging

130
00:07:18,280 --> 00:07:23,160
Speaker 3: preferences for you know, minority owned businesses and subcontracts. It

131
00:07:23,200 --> 00:07:26,720
Speaker 3: opens up the door to attacking other programs like the

132
00:07:26,760 --> 00:07:30,240
Speaker 3: Fearless fun It also potentially opens up the door to

133
00:07:30,840 --> 00:07:35,920
Speaker 3: maybe attacking scholarship programs that are targeted towards certain affinity

134
00:07:35,960 --> 00:07:39,040
Speaker 3: groups or certain racial groups. So for Sec. Nineteen eighty

135
00:07:39,040 --> 00:07:41,520
Speaker 3: one to apply, though, it really would have to be

136
00:07:41,560 --> 00:07:44,560
Speaker 3: a contractual relationship. So if a case like this was successful,

137
00:07:44,760 --> 00:07:48,240
Speaker 3: there would be certainly some if not many, programs in

138
00:07:48,280 --> 00:07:51,960
Speaker 3: the corporate world which would be subject to litigation and attack.

139
00:07:52,360 --> 00:07:54,400
Speaker 3: And there might be some other areas that you know,

140
00:07:54,520 --> 00:07:59,120
Speaker 3: advocates like Blum might well try to target for future litigation.

141
00:07:59,200 --> 00:08:01,000
Speaker 3: If I think at the end of the day, there

142
00:08:01,000 --> 00:08:05,560
Speaker 3: would be some significant change in how multiple businesses conduct

143
00:08:05,760 --> 00:08:09,880
Speaker 3: their practices and the kinds of opportunities that they affirmatively

144
00:08:09,920 --> 00:08:13,360
Speaker 3: provide and they consciously consider race in their process.

145
00:08:13,760 --> 00:08:16,240
Speaker 1: And Blum said, this lawsuit is the first of many

146
00:08:16,280 --> 00:08:19,240
Speaker 1: that he intends to file through this group to contest

147
00:08:19,360 --> 00:08:23,320
Speaker 1: race based corporate practices. How important is this lawsuit as

148
00:08:23,360 --> 00:08:24,480
Speaker 1: an opening salvo.

149
00:08:25,480 --> 00:08:28,440
Speaker 3: I think it's a huge risk in terms of the

150
00:08:28,560 --> 00:08:32,400
Speaker 3: kinds of programs that have existed throughout corporate America. There

151
00:08:32,400 --> 00:08:35,840
Speaker 3: are two main avenues of attack that the business community

152
00:08:35,880 --> 00:08:38,719
Speaker 3: will see in this space. There will be and there

153
00:08:38,760 --> 00:08:42,560
Speaker 3: are questions about affirmative action programs under Title seven in

154
00:08:42,600 --> 00:08:45,640
Speaker 3: the employment setting. And then there are these kinds of

155
00:08:45,800 --> 00:08:50,320
Speaker 3: contractual quosi contractual relationships that are removed from the employment

156
00:08:50,320 --> 00:08:53,160
Speaker 3: space but which are very important in the business community

157
00:08:53,480 --> 00:08:56,480
Speaker 3: as well. And we see both of those things simultaneously

158
00:08:56,520 --> 00:08:59,520
Speaker 3: being undertaken by Blum and folks like him. So it's

159
00:08:59,760 --> 00:09:03,439
Speaker 3: really a very perilous time for any business or any

160
00:09:03,559 --> 00:09:07,199
Speaker 3: corporation that has race conscious programming of any kind. And

161
00:09:07,400 --> 00:09:09,280
Speaker 3: I think we'll really have to see what the federal

162
00:09:09,360 --> 00:09:12,000
Speaker 3: courts do with it going forward, but certainly, you know,

163
00:09:12,200 --> 00:09:15,560
Speaker 3: it's a space that people should watch if they're particularly

164
00:09:15,559 --> 00:09:19,840
Speaker 3: concerned about issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the

165
00:09:19,880 --> 00:09:20,680
Speaker 3: corporate space.

166
00:09:21,160 --> 00:09:24,239
Speaker 1: So he's also launched a new campaign with a website

167
00:09:24,280 --> 00:09:27,800
Speaker 1: called West Point not fair. It asks were you rejected

168
00:09:27,800 --> 00:09:30,120
Speaker 1: from West Point or the Naval Academy or the Air

169
00:09:30,160 --> 00:09:33,640
Speaker 1: Force Academy, It maybe because you're the wrong race. So

170
00:09:34,040 --> 00:09:37,040
Speaker 1: would you just explain how there was a footnote in

171
00:09:37,120 --> 00:09:43,200
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court affirmative action cases that exempted military academies

172
00:09:43,240 --> 00:09:45,600
Speaker 1: and now it appears he's going to try to go

173
00:09:45,640 --> 00:09:46,840
Speaker 1: after that footnote.

174
00:09:47,040 --> 00:09:50,760
Speaker 3: Yeah. So an important part of the Grass and Grutterer

175
00:09:50,800 --> 00:09:54,840
Speaker 3: decisions which upheld affirmive action in certain contexts in the

176
00:09:54,880 --> 00:09:57,960
Speaker 3: early two thousands out of the University of Michigan, was

177
00:09:58,000 --> 00:10:02,680
Speaker 3: that there were impa is articulated by former military braath

178
00:10:02,880 --> 00:10:07,040
Speaker 3: about how affirmative action and how race conscious programming was

179
00:10:07,080 --> 00:10:10,400
Speaker 3: important in order to ensure a diverse military, and that

180
00:10:10,480 --> 00:10:14,080
Speaker 3: a diverse military was essential for national security, and that

181
00:10:14,200 --> 00:10:18,079
Speaker 3: diversity was a real important strength in order to preserve

182
00:10:18,200 --> 00:10:21,080
Speaker 3: better decision making and better unit cohesion and things of

183
00:10:21,120 --> 00:10:23,920
Speaker 3: that nature. And so that the Supreme Court, I think,

184
00:10:24,120 --> 00:10:28,680
Speaker 3: in the recent UNC Harvard case acknowledged that there might

185
00:10:28,800 --> 00:10:34,480
Speaker 3: be a significantly different and perhaps constitutionally justifiable reason to

186
00:10:34,520 --> 00:10:38,760
Speaker 3: have race conscious programs or race conscious admissions in the

187
00:10:38,760 --> 00:10:43,320
Speaker 3: military academy is given that line of history that goes

188
00:10:43,360 --> 00:10:46,320
Speaker 3: back to those cases from the early two thousands, and

189
00:10:46,360 --> 00:10:50,840
Speaker 3: so they were essentially exempted from the decision that came

190
00:10:50,840 --> 00:10:54,200
Speaker 3: out this past June. And so now that's where we're

191
00:10:54,240 --> 00:10:59,000
Speaker 3: at where it'll take an additional challenge that specifically targets

192
00:10:59,040 --> 00:11:02,480
Speaker 3: the military academy for the federal courts to weigh. And

193
00:11:02,520 --> 00:11:06,360
Speaker 3: so BLOB is now using the UNC Harvard decision to

194
00:11:06,720 --> 00:11:10,960
Speaker 3: kind of go the next step and challenge any kind

195
00:11:10,960 --> 00:11:14,000
Speaker 3: of race conscious programming in the military academy.

196
00:11:13,840 --> 00:11:16,440
Speaker 1: Although that might not be an area the Supreme Court

197
00:11:16,600 --> 00:11:19,360
Speaker 1: wants to wade into. We'll have to wait and see.

198
00:11:19,400 --> 00:11:23,400
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. That's Anthony Michael Christ, Professor at

199
00:11:23,440 --> 00:11:25,600
Speaker 1: Georgia State University College of Law.

200
00:11:28,240 --> 00:11:32,200
Speaker 4: Honorable the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the

201
00:11:32,240 --> 00:11:36,480
Speaker 4: Supreme Court of the United States. Oh yay, oh yay,

202
00:11:37,000 --> 00:11:40,800
Speaker 4: oh yay. All persons having business before the Honorable the

203
00:11:40,880 --> 00:11:44,079
Speaker 4: Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to give

204
00:11:44,120 --> 00:11:46,280
Speaker 4: their attention. So the court is now sitting.

205
00:11:46,520 --> 00:11:49,400
Speaker 1: When the Supreme Court kicks off its next term on

206
00:11:49,440 --> 00:11:52,320
Speaker 1: the first Monday in October, it will be off to

207
00:11:52,400 --> 00:11:56,440
Speaker 1: a slow start. The justices will hear just six cases

208
00:11:56,480 --> 00:12:00,400
Speaker 1: in October, even though they have ten slots available. In addition,

209
00:12:00,480 --> 00:12:03,000
Speaker 1: they have just over half the number of cases they

210
00:12:03,120 --> 00:12:05,839
Speaker 1: normally hear for the first three months of the term.

211
00:12:06,320 --> 00:12:09,240
Speaker 1: Joining me is someone who's looked into this all the numbers,

212
00:12:09,440 --> 00:12:14,360
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Laws, Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson. So it

213
00:12:14,400 --> 00:12:17,400
Speaker 1: appears that the Court will be off to a slow

214
00:12:17,520 --> 00:12:18,640
Speaker 1: start in October.

215
00:12:19,040 --> 00:12:21,960
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, it actually may be surprising to some listeners,

216
00:12:22,000 --> 00:12:23,960
Speaker 5: but that's been a recent trend of the Supreme Court.

217
00:12:24,000 --> 00:12:26,280
Speaker 5: And we hear so much about these huge, big cases

218
00:12:26,400 --> 00:12:29,000
Speaker 5: that the justices are deciding, but on the whole, they've

219
00:12:29,040 --> 00:12:31,720
Speaker 5: actually been deciding a lot less and it looks like

220
00:12:31,800 --> 00:12:33,679
Speaker 5: this next term is going to follow that. At least

221
00:12:33,720 --> 00:12:37,000
Speaker 5: at the start. The justices released to their first sitting

222
00:12:37,000 --> 00:12:40,400
Speaker 5: of arguments for October and there's just six cases on

223
00:12:40,440 --> 00:12:42,679
Speaker 5: the docket, which is you know, as E've been saying

224
00:12:42,720 --> 00:12:44,000
Speaker 5: something that's a trend.

225
00:12:44,320 --> 00:12:47,480
Speaker 1: Why is this? Why have they been cutting back on

226
00:12:47,679 --> 00:12:49,720
Speaker 1: cases year after year?

227
00:12:50,080 --> 00:12:52,840
Speaker 5: Well, it's been at its highest in the nineteen eighties,

228
00:12:52,880 --> 00:12:56,280
Speaker 5: they were deciding some one hundred and fifty cases. Now

229
00:12:56,360 --> 00:13:00,680
Speaker 5: we're around sixty at best. So it's slowly happening, and

230
00:13:00,720 --> 00:13:03,520
Speaker 5: there's not a real reason that anybody's been able to

231
00:13:03,720 --> 00:13:06,360
Speaker 5: put their thumb on. You know, the Supreme Court justices

232
00:13:06,440 --> 00:13:09,240
Speaker 5: themselves have said that they are aware that the case

233
00:13:09,320 --> 00:13:12,200
Speaker 5: flowed is getting lighter, and they're looking for cases, but

234
00:13:12,240 --> 00:13:14,480
Speaker 5: that they're just not there for them. You know. Other

235
00:13:14,480 --> 00:13:16,480
Speaker 5: people say, you know, there are plenty of cases for

236
00:13:16,559 --> 00:13:19,760
Speaker 5: the justices here, but there's really no one reason that

237
00:13:19,840 --> 00:13:21,760
Speaker 5: I can think of for why this keeps happening.

238
00:13:22,160 --> 00:13:25,679
Speaker 1: And in contrast, is the shadow docket, which are the

239
00:13:25,679 --> 00:13:29,079
Speaker 1: cases that are not argued or fully briefed. Is that

240
00:13:29,120 --> 00:13:30,520
Speaker 1: getting larger.

241
00:13:30,960 --> 00:13:33,240
Speaker 5: It is getting larger, and we're seeing you know, the

242
00:13:33,280 --> 00:13:37,199
Speaker 5: emergency doctor used to be mostly about death penalty cases,

243
00:13:37,520 --> 00:13:40,760
Speaker 5: you know, trying to stop executions that are getting ready

244
00:13:40,800 --> 00:13:44,200
Speaker 5: to happen imminently. But during the Obama administration, during the

245
00:13:44,200 --> 00:13:47,360
Speaker 5: Trump administration, and now continuing on into the Biden administration,

246
00:13:47,760 --> 00:13:50,679
Speaker 5: we're seeing so many of these culture war cases coming

247
00:13:50,760 --> 00:13:53,720
Speaker 5: up to the justices, and they've been more willing to

248
00:13:53,920 --> 00:13:56,360
Speaker 5: jump in at early stages rather than sort of let

249
00:13:56,360 --> 00:13:58,760
Speaker 5: them play out in the lower courts. And so not

250
00:13:58,840 --> 00:14:01,880
Speaker 5: only are those things to be happening without breathing an argument.

251
00:14:01,960 --> 00:14:04,280
Speaker 5: But there have been some cases you think about the

252
00:14:04,360 --> 00:14:07,120
Speaker 5: vaccine mandate, the abortion a lot of Texas where they've

253
00:14:07,120 --> 00:14:09,440
Speaker 5: actually said, you know, we do need briefing an argument

254
00:14:09,480 --> 00:14:12,240
Speaker 5: on this, and they've set a really expedited process for those.

255
00:14:12,360 --> 00:14:15,440
Speaker 5: And even still with those added cases, the case flowed

256
00:14:15,480 --> 00:14:17,040
Speaker 5: overall is really low.

257
00:14:17,400 --> 00:14:20,640
Speaker 1: So how many cases were decided last term and how

258
00:14:20,640 --> 00:14:22,880
Speaker 1: does that compare to prior terms.

259
00:14:23,520 --> 00:14:27,600
Speaker 5: Well, last term they decided just under sixty cases. If

260
00:14:27,640 --> 00:14:29,760
Speaker 5: you look at the Supreme Court's website, it will say

261
00:14:29,880 --> 00:14:33,080
Speaker 5: the justices here about seventy cases each term. So the

262
00:14:33,120 --> 00:14:35,760
Speaker 5: little out of dates, but you know, as I've been

263
00:14:35,800 --> 00:14:38,200
Speaker 5: saying each year, it's sort of been ticking down. We

264
00:14:38,360 --> 00:14:42,120
Speaker 5: had a historical load during twenty twenty or twenty twenty one,

265
00:14:42,160 --> 00:14:44,920
Speaker 5: whenever the court was disrupted for the pandemic.

266
00:14:45,000 --> 00:14:45,800
Speaker 3: But without that.

267
00:14:45,760 --> 00:14:48,040
Speaker 5: Blip, we're still seeing this kind of flowed to decline.

268
00:14:48,080 --> 00:14:50,520
Speaker 5: And so the six cases that they have kicking off

269
00:14:50,600 --> 00:14:53,560
Speaker 5: their first sitting is something I haven't seen in a

270
00:14:53,560 --> 00:14:54,280
Speaker 5: really long time.

271
00:14:54,760 --> 00:14:58,680
Speaker 1: The Justices did just take the case over Purdue Pharma's

272
00:14:59,080 --> 00:15:03,760
Speaker 1: six billion dollars opioid settlement off the shadow docket and

273
00:15:03,840 --> 00:15:07,440
Speaker 1: scheduled it for arguments in the December sitting, So are

274
00:15:07,440 --> 00:15:08,960
Speaker 1: they likely to add more cases.

275
00:15:09,200 --> 00:15:11,840
Speaker 5: What happens is that why the justices are taking their

276
00:15:11,840 --> 00:15:15,000
Speaker 5: summer breaks and doing teaching gigs. All these cases will

277
00:15:15,040 --> 00:15:17,200
Speaker 5: sort of build up over the summertime, and then the

278
00:15:17,360 --> 00:15:19,960
Speaker 5: justices come back in September to what we call the

279
00:15:20,000 --> 00:15:23,200
Speaker 5: Long Conference and they'll grant a handful of cases.

280
00:15:22,880 --> 00:15:23,320
Speaker 3: Off of that.

281
00:15:23,480 --> 00:15:26,800
Speaker 5: But those cases, because there has to be briefing before

282
00:15:26,800 --> 00:15:29,760
Speaker 5: they can be argument, those cases probably won't get hurt

283
00:15:29,880 --> 00:15:32,640
Speaker 5: until twenty twenty four, so still in this term. But

284
00:15:32,920 --> 00:15:35,000
Speaker 5: the cases that the justices have now are the ones

285
00:15:35,040 --> 00:15:36,680
Speaker 5: that sort of stuck with through.

286
00:15:36,480 --> 00:15:37,120
Speaker 3: The end of the year.

287
00:15:37,320 --> 00:15:39,240
Speaker 1: And I take it there hasn't been a slowed down

288
00:15:39,400 --> 00:15:42,920
Speaker 1: in surf petitions, which the parties file to ask the

289
00:15:42,920 --> 00:15:44,080
Speaker 1: court to take their case.

290
00:15:44,720 --> 00:15:46,600
Speaker 5: No, there's not been a slowdown in the number of

291
00:15:46,640 --> 00:15:48,840
Speaker 5: filings that they get. You know, we see a lot

292
00:15:48,880 --> 00:15:52,120
Speaker 5: of cases dealing with everything from guns to abortion to

293
00:15:52,440 --> 00:15:55,840
Speaker 5: admin law, and for some reason or another, the justices

294
00:15:55,920 --> 00:15:58,400
Speaker 5: just can't get for to agree that it's cases they

295
00:15:58,400 --> 00:15:59,040
Speaker 5: need to take up.

296
00:15:59,360 --> 00:16:01,920
Speaker 1: So let's talk about a couple of the cases that

297
00:16:02,000 --> 00:16:05,280
Speaker 1: are coming up in October, and in one the Consumer

298
00:16:05,360 --> 00:16:09,400
Speaker 1: Financial Protection Board will be under fire again at the court.

299
00:16:09,600 --> 00:16:13,840
Speaker 1: We already saw in twenty twenty where the court rule

300
00:16:13,960 --> 00:16:17,600
Speaker 1: that the president can fire the director for any reason.

301
00:16:18,120 --> 00:16:18,320
Speaker 3: Right.

302
00:16:18,400 --> 00:16:21,440
Speaker 5: So, as you mentioned, this is the latest challenge to

303
00:16:21,480 --> 00:16:24,200
Speaker 5: the CFPD, which of course came up in the wake

304
00:16:24,320 --> 00:16:27,760
Speaker 5: of the two thousand and eight financial crisis. You mentioned

305
00:16:27,880 --> 00:16:30,680
Speaker 5: that twenty twenty case. The more the Supreme Court, you know,

306
00:16:30,760 --> 00:16:33,480
Speaker 5: did rule against the CSPV, but they were able to

307
00:16:33,560 --> 00:16:35,960
Speaker 5: sort of lighten the blow a little bit and they

308
00:16:36,000 --> 00:16:38,600
Speaker 5: just sort of struck that provision, but less the CFPB

309
00:16:38,720 --> 00:16:41,080
Speaker 5: as a whole in place and it was able to

310
00:16:41,120 --> 00:16:45,400
Speaker 5: go on mostly businesses normal. This case presents a much

311
00:16:45,520 --> 00:16:49,240
Speaker 5: bigger challenge to the Supreme Court and the CFPB if

312
00:16:49,280 --> 00:16:52,560
Speaker 5: they do find if they agree with the challengers here,

313
00:16:52,600 --> 00:16:55,880
Speaker 5: who are saying that the funding mechanism that funds the

314
00:16:55,960 --> 00:17:00,280
Speaker 5: agency is unconstitutional. And you know, the cfpv's funding mechanism

315
00:17:00,680 --> 00:17:03,200
Speaker 5: is a little complex, but basically, you know, the argument

316
00:17:03,240 --> 00:17:06,440
Speaker 5: is that it bypasses Congress, that really takes Congress's role

317
00:17:06,480 --> 00:17:09,720
Speaker 5: over the purse out of the CSPB, and that that

318
00:17:09,920 --> 00:17:12,160
Speaker 5: in and of itself is unconstitutional.

319
00:17:12,600 --> 00:17:15,280
Speaker 1: The Biden administration is saying that it could cast out

320
00:17:15,320 --> 00:17:18,680
Speaker 1: on every action the agency has taken for twelve years,

321
00:17:18,760 --> 00:17:22,440
Speaker 1: and it could have implications for the Federal Reserve Board,

322
00:17:22,480 --> 00:17:25,399
Speaker 1: the FDIC, and the Controller of the Currency.

323
00:17:26,680 --> 00:17:29,840
Speaker 5: That's right. So you know, there are other agencies, very

324
00:17:29,840 --> 00:17:32,480
Speaker 5: important agencies like the ones you mentioned, who are funded

325
00:17:32,520 --> 00:17:35,879
Speaker 5: in a similar way, and so you know, the implications

326
00:17:36,080 --> 00:17:40,440
Speaker 5: beyond the cfpbre are pretty enormous. But even within the CSPP,

327
00:17:40,600 --> 00:17:43,120
Speaker 5: you know, these are really a string of cases that

328
00:17:43,160 --> 00:17:46,520
Speaker 5: the justices have been very closely trying to police the

329
00:17:46,640 --> 00:17:50,280
Speaker 5: power between the judiciary, the executive and Congress. And they've

330
00:17:50,280 --> 00:17:52,280
Speaker 5: been tinkering a lot of these cases. And what we've

331
00:17:52,280 --> 00:17:55,560
Speaker 5: seen is why they've made pretty sweeping constitutional rulings sort

332
00:17:55,560 --> 00:17:58,280
Speaker 5: of digging out that power. They've really tried to limit

333
00:17:58,320 --> 00:18:00,600
Speaker 5: the effect it has. So, you know, so they do

334
00:18:00,640 --> 00:18:03,159
Speaker 5: what they've done in the past, and the actions the

335
00:18:03,200 --> 00:18:06,800
Speaker 5: CFPP had taken will probably be okay. What will be

336
00:18:06,880 --> 00:18:09,639
Speaker 5: the big question is how they move forward without that

337
00:18:09,760 --> 00:18:12,119
Speaker 5: funding mechanism. That really seems like they'll have to go

338
00:18:12,119 --> 00:18:13,440
Speaker 5: to Congress for something.

339
00:18:13,160 --> 00:18:16,600
Speaker 1: Like that, And the Court is going to hear an

340
00:18:16,760 --> 00:18:21,680
Speaker 1: argument in a challenge to Congressional redistricting in South Carolina.

341
00:18:22,080 --> 00:18:24,080
Speaker 1: Tell us about that.

342
00:18:24,080 --> 00:18:28,800
Speaker 5: That's right. I mean this may sound familiar or because well,

343
00:18:28,840 --> 00:18:31,240
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court, you know, at the end of its term,

344
00:18:31,320 --> 00:18:35,040
Speaker 5: we've decided a similar case out of Alabama. These redistricting

345
00:18:35,080 --> 00:18:37,000
Speaker 5: cases kind of have a fast track up to the

346
00:18:37,000 --> 00:18:39,040
Speaker 5: Supreme Court, so we talk about them a lot. We have,

347
00:18:39,400 --> 00:18:41,720
Speaker 5: you know, one or two or three every year. This

348
00:18:41,760 --> 00:18:44,080
Speaker 5: one comes out of South Carolina, but it's very similar

349
00:18:44,080 --> 00:18:48,000
Speaker 5: to that Alabama case. In it, black and minority voters

350
00:18:48,040 --> 00:18:52,600
Speaker 5: say that a Republican led redistricting process to draw maps

351
00:18:52,800 --> 00:18:56,600
Speaker 5: unconstitutionally used race. So that's you know, this time it's

352
00:18:56,680 --> 00:19:00,200
Speaker 5: involving South Carolina. You know, all of these cases when

353
00:19:00,200 --> 00:19:01,800
Speaker 5: we look at the House and how close it is,

354
00:19:02,080 --> 00:19:05,520
Speaker 5: have major implications for the balance of power between Republicans

355
00:19:05,560 --> 00:19:07,440
Speaker 5: and Democrats. So it's going to be another big one.

356
00:19:07,600 --> 00:19:11,200
Speaker 1: Yeah, And Republicans say they were motivated by politics, which

357
00:19:11,240 --> 00:19:14,240
Speaker 1: is permissible, not race, which is not. Well, that's due

358
00:19:14,280 --> 00:19:16,960
Speaker 1: to a Supreme Court opinion from a couple of years ago.

359
00:19:18,080 --> 00:19:20,360
Speaker 5: That is, you know, the Supreme Court really had been

360
00:19:20,480 --> 00:19:23,199
Speaker 5: for a long time really not sure whether or not

361
00:19:23,320 --> 00:19:27,679
Speaker 5: federal courts could police sort of challenges to partisanship in

362
00:19:27,720 --> 00:19:31,399
Speaker 5: the redistricting process. Ultimately, you know, a few years ago

363
00:19:31,800 --> 00:19:34,480
Speaker 5: they decided no, there's no real way for federal courts

364
00:19:34,520 --> 00:19:37,480
Speaker 5: to wag through this. They left the possibility for state

365
00:19:37,520 --> 00:19:39,840
Speaker 5: courts to do it. But as we saw in the last term,

366
00:19:39,920 --> 00:19:42,280
Speaker 5: that can get even messy as well. You know, it's

367
00:19:42,280 --> 00:19:44,960
Speaker 5: not really clear sort of who has the authority within

368
00:19:45,000 --> 00:19:48,439
Speaker 5: the states to make that determination. So as long as

369
00:19:48,520 --> 00:19:51,639
Speaker 5: you know there's sort of this loocal for partisanship, I

370
00:19:51,640 --> 00:19:54,600
Speaker 5: think it's going to be hard for mostly Democrats to

371
00:19:54,640 --> 00:19:58,320
Speaker 5: be making these claims of racial German. But that said,

372
00:19:58,400 --> 00:19:59,760
Speaker 5: I think, you know, we all we have to do

373
00:19:59,800 --> 00:20:02,320
Speaker 5: is to that Alabama case where it was pretty surprising

374
00:20:02,400 --> 00:20:05,040
Speaker 5: ruling out of the court, but they decide with the

375
00:20:05,040 --> 00:20:06,680
Speaker 5: Democrats in that case.

376
00:20:07,280 --> 00:20:09,960
Speaker 1: So, Kimberly, last term there were some blockbuster cases on

377
00:20:10,000 --> 00:20:15,080
Speaker 1: affirmative action, voting rights, President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan,

378
00:20:16,000 --> 00:20:19,600
Speaker 1: gay rights versus religious rights. Do you see any blockbusters

379
00:20:19,640 --> 00:20:21,000
Speaker 1: coming up next term?

380
00:20:22,080 --> 00:20:24,560
Speaker 5: Well, two that are on the court docket right now

381
00:20:24,600 --> 00:20:27,760
Speaker 5: really stand out to me. One of them is similar

382
00:20:27,960 --> 00:20:30,879
Speaker 5: to the CFAD case we talked about. It has to

383
00:20:30,920 --> 00:20:33,600
Speaker 5: deal with administrative law and sort of the balance of

384
00:20:33,680 --> 00:20:37,600
Speaker 5: power between administrative agencies and courts. And this is really

385
00:20:37,600 --> 00:20:41,600
Speaker 5: taking aim as a foundational principle an administrative law called

386
00:20:41,600 --> 00:20:45,399
Speaker 5: the Chevron doctrine. The Court is considering just mixing that

387
00:20:45,480 --> 00:20:48,360
Speaker 5: all together. So that's going to be a really big one.

388
00:20:48,480 --> 00:20:51,680
Speaker 5: I'm not exaggerating when I say that it has implications

389
00:20:51,680 --> 00:20:55,000
Speaker 5: that could potentially reach to every aspect of American lives.

390
00:20:55,119 --> 00:20:57,879
Speaker 5: You just think about how big the administrative state is

391
00:20:57,960 --> 00:21:00,919
Speaker 5: and how much agencies do in this country. You know,

392
00:21:00,960 --> 00:21:05,040
Speaker 5: the impact is really hard to state. And then the

393
00:21:05,080 --> 00:21:08,280
Speaker 5: other one that has already been granted by the Justices

394
00:21:08,440 --> 00:21:11,600
Speaker 5: is another gun case from the court. I'm not entirely

395
00:21:11,640 --> 00:21:14,320
Speaker 5: sure that the justices were super excited to take a

396
00:21:14,359 --> 00:21:16,879
Speaker 5: second amendment so quickly on the heels of, you know,

397
00:21:16,920 --> 00:21:19,920
Speaker 5: their big decisions a couple of terms ago. But this one,

398
00:21:20,200 --> 00:21:24,280
Speaker 5: the lower court had ruled on constitution a federal law

399
00:21:24,320 --> 00:21:28,280
Speaker 5: that prohibited individuals with a domestic violence restraining order against

400
00:21:28,280 --> 00:21:30,919
Speaker 5: them from having guns. And it sort of really feels

401
00:21:30,960 --> 00:21:34,119
Speaker 5: like that's the case that the justices have to decide

402
00:21:34,359 --> 00:21:36,000
Speaker 5: since it's striking down a federal law.

403
00:21:36,280 --> 00:21:38,760
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for being on the Bloomberg Law Show. Kimberly,

404
00:21:39,160 --> 00:21:43,719
Speaker 1: that's Bloomberg Law, Supreme Court Reporter Kimberly, Strawbridge Robinson and

405
00:21:43,760 --> 00:21:45,920
Speaker 1: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

406
00:21:46,280 --> 00:21:48,600
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

407
00:21:48,680 --> 00:21:52,960
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

408
00:21:53,119 --> 00:21:58,200
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,

409
00:21:58,560 --> 00:22:01,159
Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Gloss Show every

410
00:22:01,200 --> 00:22:05,120
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

411
00:22:05,240 --> 00:22:06,840
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg