WEBVTT - Affirmative Action in Corporate World Targeted 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:09.039 --> 0:00:13.440 The opinion issue today by the United States Supreme Court 0:00:14.640 --> 0:00:20.160 marks the beginning of the restoration of the color blind 0:00:20.600 --> 0:00:27.360 legal covenant that binds together our multi racial, multi ethnic nation. 0:00:28.240 --> 0:00:32.600 Conservative activist Edward Blum won his decades long fight against 0:00:32.640 --> 0:00:36.640 affirmative action in college admissions in June. Now Blum is 0:00:36.640 --> 0:00:41.000 turning his attention to the corporate world. He's suing Fearless Fund, 0:00:41.080 --> 0:00:45.000 an Atlanta based venture capital firm that supports black women 0:00:45.040 --> 0:00:49.760 who own small businesses, accusing it of unlawful racial discrimination 0:00:50.360 --> 0:00:53.199 and using the same playbook he used to get rid 0:00:53.240 --> 0:00:57.520 of affirmative action in colleges. Joining me is Anthony Michael Christ, 0:00:57.560 --> 0:01:00.760 a professor at the Georgia State University Knowledge of Law 0:01:01.280 --> 0:01:05.200 tell us about Blum and his anti affirmative action efforts. 0:01:06.120 --> 0:01:10.000 Yeah, so, Blum is part of the group individuals who 0:01:10.080 --> 0:01:12.920 have been kind of on a wor path for lack 0:01:12.959 --> 0:01:17.120 of a better term, against all kinds of race conscious programming, 0:01:17.400 --> 0:01:20.200 and namely, what most people might be familiar with is 0:01:20.240 --> 0:01:23.800 the recent Supreme Court ruling about race conscious student admissions 0:01:23.880 --> 0:01:26.960 policies at Harvard and UNC Chapel Hill. There was a 0:01:27.040 --> 0:01:30.240 challenge under the fourteenth Amendment and under the Civil Rights 0:01:30.280 --> 0:01:32.680 Act in nineteen sixty four, which was successful. And so 0:01:32.840 --> 0:01:36.199 now you know, Blum and associated groups are certainly moving 0:01:36.480 --> 0:01:39.679 a pace and trying to take that with victory and 0:01:39.800 --> 0:01:42.040 expand its footprints into other spaces. 0:01:42.120 --> 0:01:42.320 Yeah. 0:01:42.360 --> 0:01:45.360 So the space he try and expand into is an 0:01:45.360 --> 0:01:50.440 Atlanta based venture capital fund and the lawsuit specifically targets 0:01:50.840 --> 0:01:54.360 a grand program that awards twenty thousand dollars to black 0:01:54.440 --> 0:01:55.560 women entrepreneurs. 0:01:55.840 --> 0:01:58.520 So this is a group that was founded in twenty 0:01:58.640 --> 0:02:02.760 nineteen and it was three black women who decided that 0:02:02.800 --> 0:02:06.720 there needed to be more investment in black owned businesses, 0:02:06.760 --> 0:02:10.639 and so this entity was created in order to fundraise 0:02:10.720 --> 0:02:13.360 from a variety of investors. And so they were very 0:02:13.400 --> 0:02:17.079 successful in getting big investors like Bank of America in General, 0:02:17.120 --> 0:02:19.919 Mills and JP Mortgage Chase and the Lights. And what 0:02:19.960 --> 0:02:22.800 they were going to do would be to provide grants 0:02:22.800 --> 0:02:26.400 to help entrepreneurs get a good start and invest in 0:02:26.440 --> 0:02:30.200 their businesses and their future endeavors with their small businesses. 0:02:30.280 --> 0:02:34.480 And so there is this backlash from Blum and other 0:02:34.560 --> 0:02:38.400 folks who believe that that kind of targeted investment in 0:02:38.760 --> 0:02:43.400 certain minority owned businesses is unlawful and should not be 0:02:43.560 --> 0:02:45.919 permissible under federal law. 0:02:45.960 --> 0:02:48.959 With the affirmative action suits, he formed a group called 0:02:49.000 --> 0:02:52.280 Students for Fair Admissions and he sued on behalf of 0:02:52.400 --> 0:02:56.280 Asian American students. Here, he's formed a group called American 0:02:56.360 --> 0:03:00.400 Alliance for Equal Rights and it purports to represent and 0:03:00.440 --> 0:03:04.280 sixty white and Asian business owners who are ineligible for 0:03:04.320 --> 0:03:07.040 these grants based on their race. Is he using the 0:03:07.040 --> 0:03:07.800 same playbook? 0:03:08.000 --> 0:03:08.120 So? 0:03:08.160 --> 0:03:10.359 I think that's a really interesting tactic. I think part 0:03:10.400 --> 0:03:12.600 of it is, perhaps, you know, to be able to 0:03:12.680 --> 0:03:15.320 identify the group and fundraise off of that, and to 0:03:15.480 --> 0:03:18.600 kind of give the litigations greater public exposure. You know, 0:03:18.880 --> 0:03:21.200 that is certainly something that I think folks have tried 0:03:21.240 --> 0:03:23.680 before in a variety of ways, right to get the 0:03:23.720 --> 0:03:27.359 most sympathetic kinds of clients when you go before federal 0:03:27.400 --> 0:03:30.560 judiciary and impact litigation. I think it's really kind of 0:03:30.600 --> 0:03:33.680 consistent with that trend and that trajectory and that history. 0:03:33.919 --> 0:03:37.040 And here the people that they have organized, and I 0:03:37.080 --> 0:03:39.440 think this is particularly true in the Harbord case, right 0:03:39.440 --> 0:03:42.480 that they're looking for individuals who are you know, perhaps 0:03:42.560 --> 0:03:45.240 the most sympathetic and I think that that's part of 0:03:45.240 --> 0:03:47.680 the strategy here, and part of the strategy is the 0:03:47.680 --> 0:03:51.040 fundraise and to kind of build on all these victories 0:03:51.080 --> 0:03:53.920 that they're starting to aggregate in the federal judiciary and 0:03:54.000 --> 0:03:57.600 really make a litigation based movement out of that. And 0:03:57.680 --> 0:04:00.960 so I think we need to understand what Blum is 0:04:01.040 --> 0:04:04.240 doing here, both in terms of traditional strategy right to 0:04:04.440 --> 0:04:08.240 get the most sympathetic kinds of plaintiffs, but also there's 0:04:08.280 --> 0:04:10.960 an aim here to build an infrastructure here to support 0:04:11.240 --> 0:04:12.960 long term litigation strategies. 0:04:13.240 --> 0:04:15.600 I know that you know, with the Harvard case, a 0:04:15.600 --> 0:04:19.200 lot of Asian Americans and Asian American students at Harvard 0:04:19.760 --> 0:04:22.560 disagreed with that lawsuit, oh absolutely. 0:04:22.600 --> 0:04:25.200 And I think part of the strategy here and was 0:04:25.320 --> 0:04:28.000 shoot in the Harvard case, is that you know, very 0:04:28.040 --> 0:04:32.039 oftentimes there are segments of people who you know, recoil 0:04:32.160 --> 0:04:36.200 at this idea of reverse discrimination, right, This idea that 0:04:36.480 --> 0:04:40.400 white Americans are somehow a beliegued group of people doesn't 0:04:40.400 --> 0:04:43.120 really sit well with a good chunk of Americans. And 0:04:43.160 --> 0:04:45.880 so I think there was a really calculated strategy there 0:04:46.000 --> 0:04:48.960 to use a non white group in order to lodge 0:04:49.000 --> 0:04:51.880 this complaint against Harvard, and we're seeing that kind of 0:04:51.880 --> 0:04:55.080 tactic repeated here. So again, I think it's this idea of, 0:04:55.440 --> 0:04:58.480 you know, you want to bring your most sympathetic potential plaintiffs, 0:04:58.560 --> 0:05:01.400 but they're certainly not to be a uniformity in any 0:05:01.400 --> 0:05:03.760 group in terms of how they respond to being kind 0:05:03.760 --> 0:05:06.920 of put front and center or being used to justify 0:05:07.120 --> 0:05:08.560 and that litigation strategy. 0:05:09.120 --> 0:05:12.599 He claims that there's a violation of section nineteen eighty 0:05:12.640 --> 0:05:14.119 one of the Civil Rights Act. 0:05:14.560 --> 0:05:17.919 Yeah. So Section nineteen eighty one is an old law 0:05:18.080 --> 0:05:21.760 from the reconstruction era. Its origins date back to the 0:05:21.800 --> 0:05:26.320 thirteenth Amendment, and it was passed in eighteen sixty six 0:05:26.560 --> 0:05:28.960 really in response to the Black Codes in the South, 0:05:29.520 --> 0:05:33.200 where say, the first post Civil War governments that were 0:05:33.240 --> 0:05:36.920 coming up back in former Confederate states were passing laws 0:05:36.920 --> 0:05:41.160 that were incredibly restrictive of recently freed persons and their 0:05:41.200 --> 0:05:45.120 ability to contract and their ability to buy and rent 0:05:45.120 --> 0:05:48.160 and access property. And so the The Rights Act of 0:05:48.240 --> 0:05:51.360 eighteen sixty six was passed in order to ensure that 0:05:51.440 --> 0:05:56.120 all recently freed persons, all non white persons, enjoyed and 0:05:56.200 --> 0:05:59.600 this is basically the verbiage that the law uses enjoyed 0:05:59.800 --> 0:06:03.359 this same right as white persons. And so this particular 0:06:03.400 --> 0:06:05.800 part of that Civil Rights Act is now codified in 0:06:05.839 --> 0:06:09.240 section nineteen eighty one. And what's important about this is, 0:06:09.720 --> 0:06:12.440 unlike say the Civil Rights Act in nineteen sixty four 0:06:12.560 --> 0:06:15.800 and Title seven, section nineteen eighty one applies to all 0:06:15.880 --> 0:06:20.040 contractual relationships, so it's not just employment. So it covers 0:06:20.200 --> 0:06:23.239 a large number of entities, you know, it's not limited 0:06:23.240 --> 0:06:26.320 to just employment relationships. And so that's really a big 0:06:26.400 --> 0:06:29.080 question here because at the end of the day, you know, 0:06:29.120 --> 0:06:31.719 I think there's those serious debates to be had whether 0:06:32.200 --> 0:06:36.400 a small grant funding program is really a contractual relationship. Now, 0:06:36.520 --> 0:06:39.719 the terms under which these grants are given, you know, 0:06:39.839 --> 0:06:42.360 the Fearless Fund does basically say that it creates a 0:06:42.400 --> 0:06:45.960 contractual relationship for the grant recipient to do the work 0:06:46.080 --> 0:06:48.719 consistent with what the grant's purpose is for. And so 0:06:48.920 --> 0:06:51.359 there's a real interesting question there about what kind of 0:06:51.400 --> 0:06:55.760 relationship exists between these entrepreneurs who are receiving these grants 0:06:55.800 --> 0:06:58.279 and the Fearless Fund. So I think it's a really 0:06:58.320 --> 0:07:00.800 novel question in some ways. It will be interesting to 0:07:00.800 --> 0:07:03.479 see how the federal court here in Atlanta deals with that. 0:07:04.000 --> 0:07:07.760 Let's say this is successful, does that open up a 0:07:07.800 --> 0:07:12.160 lot of corporations to lawsuits if they have contracts, you know, 0:07:12.200 --> 0:07:14.240 which preference minorities in some way? 0:07:14.600 --> 0:07:18.080 Certainly, I think it opens up the doors to challenging 0:07:18.280 --> 0:07:23.160 preferences for you know, minority owned businesses and subcontracts. It 0:07:23.200 --> 0:07:26.720 opens up the door to attacking other programs like the 0:07:26.760 --> 0:07:30.240 Fearless fun It also potentially opens up the door to 0:07:30.840 --> 0:07:35.920 maybe attacking scholarship programs that are targeted towards certain affinity 0:07:35.960 --> 0:07:39.040 groups or certain racial groups. So for Sec. Nineteen eighty 0:07:39.040 --> 0:07:41.520 one to apply, though, it really would have to be 0:07:41.560 --> 0:07:44.560 a contractual relationship. So if a case like this was successful, 0:07:44.760 --> 0:07:48.240 there would be certainly some if not many, programs in 0:07:48.280 --> 0:07:51.960 the corporate world which would be subject to litigation and attack. 0:07:52.360 --> 0:07:54.400 And there might be some other areas that you know, 0:07:54.520 --> 0:07:59.120 advocates like Blum might well try to target for future litigation. 0:07:59.200 --> 0:08:01.000 If I think at the end of the day, there 0:08:01.000 --> 0:08:05.560 would be some significant change in how multiple businesses conduct 0:08:05.760 --> 0:08:09.880 their practices and the kinds of opportunities that they affirmatively 0:08:09.920 --> 0:08:13.360 provide and they consciously consider race in their process. 0:08:13.760 --> 0:08:16.240 And Blum said, this lawsuit is the first of many 0:08:16.280 --> 0:08:19.240 that he intends to file through this group to contest 0:08:19.360 --> 0:08:23.320 race based corporate practices. How important is this lawsuit as 0:08:23.360 --> 0:08:24.480 an opening salvo. 0:08:25.480 --> 0:08:28.440 I think it's a huge risk in terms of the 0:08:28.560 --> 0:08:32.400 kinds of programs that have existed throughout corporate America. There 0:08:32.400 --> 0:08:35.840 are two main avenues of attack that the business community 0:08:35.880 --> 0:08:38.719 will see in this space. There will be and there 0:08:38.760 --> 0:08:42.560 are questions about affirmative action programs under Title seven in 0:08:42.600 --> 0:08:45.640 the employment setting. And then there are these kinds of 0:08:45.800 --> 0:08:50.320 contractual quosi contractual relationships that are removed from the employment 0:08:50.320 --> 0:08:53.160 space but which are very important in the business community 0:08:53.480 --> 0:08:56.480 as well. And we see both of those things simultaneously 0:08:56.520 --> 0:08:59.520 being undertaken by Blum and folks like him. So it's 0:08:59.760 --> 0:09:03.439 really a very perilous time for any business or any 0:09:03.559 --> 0:09:07.199 corporation that has race conscious programming of any kind. And 0:09:07.400 --> 0:09:09.280 I think we'll really have to see what the federal 0:09:09.360 --> 0:09:12.000 courts do with it going forward, but certainly, you know, 0:09:12.200 --> 0:09:15.560 it's a space that people should watch if they're particularly 0:09:15.559 --> 0:09:19.840 concerned about issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the 0:09:19.880 --> 0:09:20.680 corporate space. 0:09:21.160 --> 0:09:24.239 So he's also launched a new campaign with a website 0:09:24.280 --> 0:09:27.800 called West Point not fair. It asks were you rejected 0:09:27.800 --> 0:09:30.120 from West Point or the Naval Academy or the Air 0:09:30.160 --> 0:09:33.640 Force Academy, It maybe because you're the wrong race. So 0:09:34.040 --> 0:09:37.040 would you just explain how there was a footnote in 0:09:37.120 --> 0:09:43.200 the Supreme Court affirmative action cases that exempted military academies 0:09:43.240 --> 0:09:45.600 and now it appears he's going to try to go 0:09:45.640 --> 0:09:46.840 after that footnote. 0:09:47.040 --> 0:09:50.760 Yeah. So an important part of the Grass and Grutterer 0:09:50.800 --> 0:09:54.840 decisions which upheld affirmive action in certain contexts in the 0:09:54.880 --> 0:09:57.960 early two thousands out of the University of Michigan, was 0:09:58.000 --> 0:10:02.680 that there were impa is articulated by former military braath 0:10:02.880 --> 0:10:07.040 about how affirmative action and how race conscious programming was 0:10:07.080 --> 0:10:10.400 important in order to ensure a diverse military, and that 0:10:10.480 --> 0:10:14.080 a diverse military was essential for national security, and that 0:10:14.200 --> 0:10:18.079 diversity was a real important strength in order to preserve 0:10:18.200 --> 0:10:21.080 better decision making and better unit cohesion and things of 0:10:21.120 --> 0:10:23.920 that nature. And so that the Supreme Court, I think, 0:10:24.120 --> 0:10:28.680 in the recent UNC Harvard case acknowledged that there might 0:10:28.800 --> 0:10:34.480 be a significantly different and perhaps constitutionally justifiable reason to 0:10:34.520 --> 0:10:38.760 have race conscious programs or race conscious admissions in the 0:10:38.760 --> 0:10:43.320 military academy is given that line of history that goes 0:10:43.360 --> 0:10:46.320 back to those cases from the early two thousands, and 0:10:46.360 --> 0:10:50.840 so they were essentially exempted from the decision that came 0:10:50.840 --> 0:10:54.200 out this past June. And so now that's where we're 0:10:54.240 --> 0:10:59.000 at where it'll take an additional challenge that specifically targets 0:10:59.040 --> 0:11:02.480 the military academy for the federal courts to weigh. And 0:11:02.520 --> 0:11:06.360 so BLOB is now using the UNC Harvard decision to 0:11:06.720 --> 0:11:10.960 kind of go the next step and challenge any kind 0:11:10.960 --> 0:11:14.000 of race conscious programming in the military academy. 0:11:13.840 --> 0:11:16.440 Although that might not be an area the Supreme Court 0:11:16.600 --> 0:11:19.360 wants to wade into. We'll have to wait and see. 0:11:19.400 --> 0:11:23.400 Thank you so much. That's Anthony Michael Christ, Professor at 0:11:23.440 --> 0:11:25.600 Georgia State University College of Law. 0:11:28.240 --> 0:11:32.200 Honorable the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the 0:11:32.240 --> 0:11:36.480 Supreme Court of the United States. Oh yay, oh yay, 0:11:37.000 --> 0:11:40.800 oh yay. All persons having business before the Honorable the 0:11:40.880 --> 0:11:44.079 Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to give 0:11:44.120 --> 0:11:46.280 their attention. So the court is now sitting. 0:11:46.520 --> 0:11:49.400 When the Supreme Court kicks off its next term on 0:11:49.440 --> 0:11:52.320 the first Monday in October, it will be off to 0:11:52.400 --> 0:11:56.440 a slow start. The justices will hear just six cases 0:11:56.480 --> 0:12:00.400 in October, even though they have ten slots available. In addition, 0:12:00.480 --> 0:12:03.000 they have just over half the number of cases they 0:12:03.120 --> 0:12:05.839 normally hear for the first three months of the term. 0:12:06.320 --> 0:12:09.240 Joining me is someone who's looked into this all the numbers, 0:12:09.440 --> 0:12:14.360 Bloomberg Laws, Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson. So it 0:12:14.400 --> 0:12:17.400 appears that the Court will be off to a slow 0:12:17.520 --> 0:12:18.640 start in October. 0:12:19.040 --> 0:12:21.960 Yeah, well, it actually may be surprising to some listeners, 0:12:22.000 --> 0:12:23.960 but that's been a recent trend of the Supreme Court. 0:12:24.000 --> 0:12:26.280 And we hear so much about these huge, big cases 0:12:26.400 --> 0:12:29.000 that the justices are deciding, but on the whole, they've 0:12:29.040 --> 0:12:31.720 actually been deciding a lot less and it looks like 0:12:31.800 --> 0:12:33.679 this next term is going to follow that. At least 0:12:33.720 --> 0:12:37.000 at the start. The justices released to their first sitting 0:12:37.000 --> 0:12:40.400 of arguments for October and there's just six cases on 0:12:40.440 --> 0:12:42.679 the docket, which is you know, as E've been saying 0:12:42.720 --> 0:12:44.000 something that's a trend. 0:12:44.320 --> 0:12:47.480 Why is this? Why have they been cutting back on 0:12:47.679 --> 0:12:49.720 cases year after year? 0:12:50.080 --> 0:12:52.840 Well, it's been at its highest in the nineteen eighties, 0:12:52.880 --> 0:12:56.280 they were deciding some one hundred and fifty cases. Now 0:12:56.360 --> 0:13:00.680 we're around sixty at best. So it's slowly happening, and 0:13:00.720 --> 0:13:03.520 there's not a real reason that anybody's been able to 0:13:03.720 --> 0:13:06.360 put their thumb on. You know, the Supreme Court justices 0:13:06.440 --> 0:13:09.240 themselves have said that they are aware that the case 0:13:09.320 --> 0:13:12.200 flowed is getting lighter, and they're looking for cases, but 0:13:12.240 --> 0:13:14.480 that they're just not there for them. You know. Other 0:13:14.480 --> 0:13:16.480 people say, you know, there are plenty of cases for 0:13:16.559 --> 0:13:19.760 the justices here, but there's really no one reason that 0:13:19.840 --> 0:13:21.760 I can think of for why this keeps happening. 0:13:22.160 --> 0:13:25.679 And in contrast, is the shadow docket, which are the 0:13:25.679 --> 0:13:29.079 cases that are not argued or fully briefed. Is that 0:13:29.120 --> 0:13:30.520 getting larger. 0:13:30.960 --> 0:13:33.240 It is getting larger, and we're seeing you know, the 0:13:33.280 --> 0:13:37.199 emergency doctor used to be mostly about death penalty cases, 0:13:37.520 --> 0:13:40.760 you know, trying to stop executions that are getting ready 0:13:40.800 --> 0:13:44.200 to happen imminently. But during the Obama administration, during the 0:13:44.200 --> 0:13:47.360 Trump administration, and now continuing on into the Biden administration, 0:13:47.760 --> 0:13:50.679 we're seeing so many of these culture war cases coming 0:13:50.760 --> 0:13:53.720 up to the justices, and they've been more willing to 0:13:53.920 --> 0:13:56.360 jump in at early stages rather than sort of let 0:13:56.360 --> 0:13:58.760 them play out in the lower courts. And so not 0:13:58.840 --> 0:14:01.880 only are those things to be happening without breathing an argument. 0:14:01.960 --> 0:14:04.280 But there have been some cases you think about the 0:14:04.360 --> 0:14:07.120 vaccine mandate, the abortion a lot of Texas where they've 0:14:07.120 --> 0:14:09.440 actually said, you know, we do need briefing an argument 0:14:09.480 --> 0:14:12.240 on this, and they've set a really expedited process for those. 0:14:12.360 --> 0:14:15.440 And even still with those added cases, the case flowed 0:14:15.480 --> 0:14:17.040 overall is really low. 0:14:17.400 --> 0:14:20.640 So how many cases were decided last term and how 0:14:20.640 --> 0:14:22.880 does that compare to prior terms. 0:14:23.520 --> 0:14:27.600 Well, last term they decided just under sixty cases. If 0:14:27.640 --> 0:14:29.760 you look at the Supreme Court's website, it will say 0:14:29.880 --> 0:14:33.080 the justices here about seventy cases each term. So the 0:14:33.120 --> 0:14:35.760 little out of dates, but you know, as I've been 0:14:35.800 --> 0:14:38.200 saying each year, it's sort of been ticking down. We 0:14:38.360 --> 0:14:42.120 had a historical load during twenty twenty or twenty twenty one, 0:14:42.160 --> 0:14:44.920 whenever the court was disrupted for the pandemic. 0:14:45.000 --> 0:14:45.800 But without that. 0:14:45.760 --> 0:14:48.040 Blip, we're still seeing this kind of flowed to decline. 0:14:48.080 --> 0:14:50.520 And so the six cases that they have kicking off 0:14:50.600 --> 0:14:53.560 their first sitting is something I haven't seen in a 0:14:53.560 --> 0:14:54.280 really long time. 0:14:54.760 --> 0:14:58.680 The Justices did just take the case over Purdue Pharma's 0:14:59.080 --> 0:15:03.760 six billion dollars opioid settlement off the shadow docket and 0:15:03.840 --> 0:15:07.440 scheduled it for arguments in the December sitting, So are 0:15:07.440 --> 0:15:08.960 they likely to add more cases. 0:15:09.200 --> 0:15:11.840 What happens is that why the justices are taking their 0:15:11.840 --> 0:15:15.000 summer breaks and doing teaching gigs. All these cases will 0:15:15.040 --> 0:15:17.200 sort of build up over the summertime, and then the 0:15:17.360 --> 0:15:19.960 justices come back in September to what we call the 0:15:20.000 --> 0:15:23.200 Long Conference and they'll grant a handful of cases. 0:15:22.880 --> 0:15:23.320 Off of that. 0:15:23.480 --> 0:15:26.800 But those cases, because there has to be briefing before 0:15:26.800 --> 0:15:29.760 they can be argument, those cases probably won't get hurt 0:15:29.880 --> 0:15:32.640 until twenty twenty four, so still in this term. But 0:15:32.920 --> 0:15:35.000 the cases that the justices have now are the ones 0:15:35.040 --> 0:15:36.680 that sort of stuck with through. 0:15:36.480 --> 0:15:37.120 The end of the year. 0:15:37.320 --> 0:15:39.240 And I take it there hasn't been a slowed down 0:15:39.400 --> 0:15:42.920 in surf petitions, which the parties file to ask the 0:15:42.920 --> 0:15:44.080 court to take their case. 0:15:44.720 --> 0:15:46.600 No, there's not been a slowdown in the number of 0:15:46.640 --> 0:15:48.840 filings that they get. You know, we see a lot 0:15:48.880 --> 0:15:52.120 of cases dealing with everything from guns to abortion to 0:15:52.440 --> 0:15:55.840 admin law, and for some reason or another, the justices 0:15:55.920 --> 0:15:58.400 just can't get for to agree that it's cases they 0:15:58.400 --> 0:15:59.040 need to take up. 0:15:59.360 --> 0:16:01.920 So let's talk about a couple of the cases that 0:16:02.000 --> 0:16:05.280 are coming up in October, and in one the Consumer 0:16:05.360 --> 0:16:09.400 Financial Protection Board will be under fire again at the court. 0:16:09.600 --> 0:16:13.840 We already saw in twenty twenty where the court rule 0:16:13.960 --> 0:16:17.600 that the president can fire the director for any reason. 0:16:18.120 --> 0:16:18.320 Right. 0:16:18.400 --> 0:16:21.440 So, as you mentioned, this is the latest challenge to 0:16:21.480 --> 0:16:24.200 the CFPD, which of course came up in the wake 0:16:24.320 --> 0:16:27.760 of the two thousand and eight financial crisis. You mentioned 0:16:27.880 --> 0:16:30.680 that twenty twenty case. The more the Supreme Court, you know, 0:16:30.760 --> 0:16:33.480 did rule against the CSPV, but they were able to 0:16:33.560 --> 0:16:35.960 sort of lighten the blow a little bit and they 0:16:36.000 --> 0:16:38.600 just sort of struck that provision, but less the CFPB 0:16:38.720 --> 0:16:41.080 as a whole in place and it was able to 0:16:41.120 --> 0:16:45.400 go on mostly businesses normal. This case presents a much 0:16:45.520 --> 0:16:49.240 bigger challenge to the Supreme Court and the CFPB if 0:16:49.280 --> 0:16:52.560 they do find if they agree with the challengers here, 0:16:52.600 --> 0:16:55.880 who are saying that the funding mechanism that funds the 0:16:55.960 --> 0:17:00.280 agency is unconstitutional. And you know, the cfpv's funding mechanism 0:17:00.680 --> 0:17:03.200 is a little complex, but basically, you know, the argument 0:17:03.240 --> 0:17:06.440 is that it bypasses Congress, that really takes Congress's role 0:17:06.480 --> 0:17:09.720 over the purse out of the CSPB, and that that 0:17:09.920 --> 0:17:12.160 in and of itself is unconstitutional. 0:17:12.600 --> 0:17:15.280 The Biden administration is saying that it could cast out 0:17:15.320 --> 0:17:18.680 on every action the agency has taken for twelve years, 0:17:18.760 --> 0:17:22.440 and it could have implications for the Federal Reserve Board, 0:17:22.480 --> 0:17:25.399 the FDIC, and the Controller of the Currency. 0:17:26.680 --> 0:17:29.840 That's right. So you know, there are other agencies, very 0:17:29.840 --> 0:17:32.480 important agencies like the ones you mentioned, who are funded 0:17:32.520 --> 0:17:35.879 in a similar way, and so you know, the implications 0:17:36.080 --> 0:17:40.440 beyond the cfpbre are pretty enormous. But even within the CSPP, 0:17:40.600 --> 0:17:43.120 you know, these are really a string of cases that 0:17:43.160 --> 0:17:46.520 the justices have been very closely trying to police the 0:17:46.640 --> 0:17:50.280 power between the judiciary, the executive and Congress. And they've 0:17:50.280 --> 0:17:52.280 been tinkering a lot of these cases. And what we've 0:17:52.280 --> 0:17:55.560 seen is why they've made pretty sweeping constitutional rulings sort 0:17:55.560 --> 0:17:58.280 of digging out that power. They've really tried to limit 0:17:58.320 --> 0:18:00.600 the effect it has. So, you know, so they do 0:18:00.640 --> 0:18:03.159 what they've done in the past, and the actions the 0:18:03.200 --> 0:18:06.800 CFPP had taken will probably be okay. What will be 0:18:06.880 --> 0:18:09.639 the big question is how they move forward without that 0:18:09.760 --> 0:18:12.119 funding mechanism. That really seems like they'll have to go 0:18:12.119 --> 0:18:13.440 to Congress for something. 0:18:13.160 --> 0:18:16.600 Like that, And the Court is going to hear an 0:18:16.760 --> 0:18:21.680 argument in a challenge to Congressional redistricting in South Carolina. 0:18:22.080 --> 0:18:24.080 Tell us about that. 0:18:24.080 --> 0:18:28.800 That's right. I mean this may sound familiar or because well, 0:18:28.840 --> 0:18:31.240 the Supreme Court, you know, at the end of its term, 0:18:31.320 --> 0:18:35.040 we've decided a similar case out of Alabama. These redistricting 0:18:35.080 --> 0:18:37.000 cases kind of have a fast track up to the 0:18:37.000 --> 0:18:39.040 Supreme Court, so we talk about them a lot. We have, 0:18:39.400 --> 0:18:41.720 you know, one or two or three every year. This 0:18:41.760 --> 0:18:44.080 one comes out of South Carolina, but it's very similar 0:18:44.080 --> 0:18:48.000 to that Alabama case. In it, black and minority voters 0:18:48.040 --> 0:18:52.600 say that a Republican led redistricting process to draw maps 0:18:52.800 --> 0:18:56.600 unconstitutionally used race. So that's you know, this time it's 0:18:56.680 --> 0:19:00.200 involving South Carolina. You know, all of these cases when 0:19:00.200 --> 0:19:01.800 we look at the House and how close it is, 0:19:02.080 --> 0:19:05.520 have major implications for the balance of power between Republicans 0:19:05.560 --> 0:19:07.440 and Democrats. So it's going to be another big one. 0:19:07.600 --> 0:19:11.200 Yeah, And Republicans say they were motivated by politics, which 0:19:11.240 --> 0:19:14.240 is permissible, not race, which is not. Well, that's due 0:19:14.280 --> 0:19:16.960 to a Supreme Court opinion from a couple of years ago. 0:19:18.080 --> 0:19:20.360 That is, you know, the Supreme Court really had been 0:19:20.480 --> 0:19:23.199 for a long time really not sure whether or not 0:19:23.320 --> 0:19:27.679 federal courts could police sort of challenges to partisanship in 0:19:27.720 --> 0:19:31.399 the redistricting process. Ultimately, you know, a few years ago 0:19:31.800 --> 0:19:34.480 they decided no, there's no real way for federal courts 0:19:34.520 --> 0:19:37.480 to wag through this. They left the possibility for state 0:19:37.520 --> 0:19:39.840 courts to do it. But as we saw in the last term, 0:19:39.920 --> 0:19:42.280 that can get even messy as well. You know, it's 0:19:42.280 --> 0:19:44.960 not really clear sort of who has the authority within 0:19:45.000 --> 0:19:48.439 the states to make that determination. So as long as 0:19:48.520 --> 0:19:51.639 you know there's sort of this loocal for partisanship, I 0:19:51.640 --> 0:19:54.600 think it's going to be hard for mostly Democrats to 0:19:54.640 --> 0:19:58.320 be making these claims of racial German. But that said, 0:19:58.400 --> 0:19:59.760 I think, you know, we all we have to do 0:19:59.800 --> 0:20:02.320 is to that Alabama case where it was pretty surprising 0:20:02.400 --> 0:20:05.040 ruling out of the court, but they decide with the 0:20:05.040 --> 0:20:06.680 Democrats in that case. 0:20:07.280 --> 0:20:09.960 So, Kimberly, last term there were some blockbuster cases on 0:20:10.000 --> 0:20:15.080 affirmative action, voting rights, President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, 0:20:16.000 --> 0:20:19.600 gay rights versus religious rights. Do you see any blockbusters 0:20:19.640 --> 0:20:21.000 coming up next term? 0:20:22.080 --> 0:20:24.560 Well, two that are on the court docket right now 0:20:24.600 --> 0:20:27.760 really stand out to me. One of them is similar 0:20:27.960 --> 0:20:30.879 to the CFAD case we talked about. It has to 0:20:30.920 --> 0:20:33.600 deal with administrative law and sort of the balance of 0:20:33.680 --> 0:20:37.600 power between administrative agencies and courts. And this is really 0:20:37.600 --> 0:20:41.600 taking aim as a foundational principle an administrative law called 0:20:41.600 --> 0:20:45.399 the Chevron doctrine. The Court is considering just mixing that 0:20:45.480 --> 0:20:48.360 all together. So that's going to be a really big one. 0:20:48.480 --> 0:20:51.680 I'm not exaggerating when I say that it has implications 0:20:51.680 --> 0:20:55.000 that could potentially reach to every aspect of American lives. 0:20:55.119 --> 0:20:57.879 You just think about how big the administrative state is 0:20:57.960 --> 0:21:00.919 and how much agencies do in this country. You know, 0:21:00.960 --> 0:21:05.040 the impact is really hard to state. And then the 0:21:05.080 --> 0:21:08.280 other one that has already been granted by the Justices 0:21:08.440 --> 0:21:11.600 is another gun case from the court. I'm not entirely 0:21:11.640 --> 0:21:14.320 sure that the justices were super excited to take a 0:21:14.359 --> 0:21:16.879 second amendment so quickly on the heels of, you know, 0:21:16.920 --> 0:21:19.920 their big decisions a couple of terms ago. But this one, 0:21:20.200 --> 0:21:24.280 the lower court had ruled on constitution a federal law 0:21:24.320 --> 0:21:28.280 that prohibited individuals with a domestic violence restraining order against 0:21:28.280 --> 0:21:30.919 them from having guns. And it sort of really feels 0:21:30.960 --> 0:21:34.119