WEBVTT - Supreme Court’s First Big Move on Abortion Regulation

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:21.960
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. In a ruling today,

0:00:22.000 --> 0:00:24.480
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court left in place a block on an

0:00:24.520 --> 0:00:28.520
<v Speaker 1>Indiana law that barred abortions based on race, sex, or disability,

0:00:28.800 --> 0:00:31.560
<v Speaker 1>but made the first move toward giving states more power

0:00:31.720 --> 0:00:35.040
<v Speaker 1>to regulate abortion. Joining me as Bloomberg New Supreme Court

0:00:35.120 --> 0:00:38.960
<v Speaker 1>reporter Greg store So, Greg, tell us about these Indiana

0:00:39.159 --> 0:00:42.800
<v Speaker 1>laws and what the court decided. Yeah, June, as you said,

0:00:42.840 --> 0:00:46.919
<v Speaker 1>the law had two different components to it. One, uh,

0:00:47.200 --> 0:00:50.640
<v Speaker 1>just said that clinics, when they perform an abortion, have

0:00:50.800 --> 0:00:55.200
<v Speaker 1>to dispose of the aborted feat us either by burying

0:00:55.280 --> 0:00:59.720
<v Speaker 1>it or by cremation. And then the second provision had

0:00:59.720 --> 0:01:03.200
<v Speaker 1>to do with um selective abortions, and it it said

0:01:03.240 --> 0:01:06.920
<v Speaker 1>that if your sole reason for having an abortion was

0:01:07.400 --> 0:01:10.279
<v Speaker 1>because of a risk of a genetic disorder or because

0:01:10.319 --> 0:01:17.160
<v Speaker 1>of the sex or or race of the fetus, that

0:01:17.160 --> 0:01:20.560
<v Speaker 1>that was that was illegal. Um. The Supreme Court came

0:01:20.560 --> 0:01:24.080
<v Speaker 1>out differently on those two questions, reinstated the first the

0:01:24.120 --> 0:01:29.360
<v Speaker 1>first provision, and allowed the other provision to the lower

0:01:29.360 --> 0:01:32.399
<v Speaker 1>court ruling that struck down the other provision to stand well.

0:01:32.600 --> 0:01:36.280
<v Speaker 1>Should the fact that the Supreme Court split the decisions

0:01:37.000 --> 0:01:41.080
<v Speaker 1>make some pro abortion rights activists feel a little better.

0:01:41.480 --> 0:01:44.680
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure I would say that's the case. Um.

0:01:44.720 --> 0:01:46.440
<v Speaker 1>The Supreme Court is going to have an awful lot

0:01:46.480 --> 0:01:50.600
<v Speaker 1>of abortion cases to choose from. Uh. It's still quite

0:01:50.640 --> 0:01:53.120
<v Speaker 1>likely the Court will take up a big and important

0:01:53.120 --> 0:01:56.600
<v Speaker 1>abortion case UH sometime in the next term. There are

0:01:57.080 --> 0:01:59.200
<v Speaker 1>a few penning ones, which we can talk about in

0:01:59.240 --> 0:02:03.360
<v Speaker 1>a minute. Perhaps the fact that the Court reached out

0:02:03.400 --> 0:02:07.920
<v Speaker 1>and summarily upheld this one provision involving fetal disposal, UM,

0:02:07.960 --> 0:02:12.200
<v Speaker 1>I think should be a sign of something that abortion

0:02:12.280 --> 0:02:14.800
<v Speaker 1>rights advocates should be concerned about. It is the Court's

0:02:14.840 --> 0:02:18.080
<v Speaker 1>new conservative majority flexing its muscles a little a little

0:02:18.120 --> 0:02:21.360
<v Speaker 1>bit on this controversial topic. Is it surprising, then, that

0:02:21.520 --> 0:02:25.960
<v Speaker 1>only two Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonya Soto Mayor,

0:02:26.160 --> 0:02:30.720
<v Speaker 1>indicated disagreement with the ruling. Yeah, that's I don't know

0:02:30.760 --> 0:02:33.880
<v Speaker 1>if I would say it's a surprise. It's certainly very noteworthy. UM.

0:02:33.960 --> 0:02:37.160
<v Speaker 1>Justice Brier and Justice Kegan, two other liberals, are certainly

0:02:37.320 --> 0:02:41.520
<v Speaker 1>abortion rights supporters. Uh. They are also the two justices

0:02:41.520 --> 0:02:43.680
<v Speaker 1>on the left who tend to be more willing to

0:02:43.760 --> 0:02:49.160
<v Speaker 1>compromise to perhaps join an opinion, um if they can

0:02:49.280 --> 0:02:51.640
<v Speaker 1>can improve some of the wording in it, some of

0:02:51.680 --> 0:02:55.480
<v Speaker 1>the language in it. Uh, And they try to work

0:02:55.520 --> 0:02:59.320
<v Speaker 1>together with Chief Justice John Roberts when they can. Uh.

0:02:59.360 --> 0:03:03.160
<v Speaker 1>They apparently made a tactical decision in this case, or

0:03:03.200 --> 0:03:06.240
<v Speaker 1>seemingly made a tactical decision in this case that there

0:03:06.240 --> 0:03:09.880
<v Speaker 1>wasn't anything to be gained from dissenting, and perhaps behind

0:03:09.919 --> 0:03:13.440
<v Speaker 1>the scenes, Uh, they did change some of the wording

0:03:13.480 --> 0:03:16.760
<v Speaker 1>in the opinion so that it was a bit narrower

0:03:16.760 --> 0:03:19.240
<v Speaker 1>than it might have been. Let's talk about some of

0:03:19.280 --> 0:03:22.480
<v Speaker 1>the other cases. We've been talking about. A case involving

0:03:22.600 --> 0:03:27.040
<v Speaker 1>transgender students access to bathrooms before the Court, and the

0:03:27.120 --> 0:03:31.679
<v Speaker 1>Justice has decided not to take that case. Any indication why, Yeah,

0:03:31.880 --> 0:03:34.520
<v Speaker 1>they didn't give any indication why on this one. Uh,

0:03:34.920 --> 0:03:39.360
<v Speaker 1>this was a case where uh, non transgender students said

0:03:39.520 --> 0:03:43.640
<v Speaker 1>their rights were being violated, their constitutional privacy rights were

0:03:43.640 --> 0:03:47.520
<v Speaker 1>being violated because the school was letting transgender students. The

0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:51.280
<v Speaker 1>school district was letting transgender students UH use the bathroom

0:03:51.920 --> 0:03:58.160
<v Speaker 1>that corresponded with UH their gender identity. UH. The Supreme

0:03:58.200 --> 0:04:01.080
<v Speaker 1>Court did not make any comments in ejecting this appeal.

0:04:01.360 --> 0:04:04.840
<v Speaker 1>They just turned it away. There was, on the surface

0:04:04.880 --> 0:04:06.640
<v Speaker 1>of it, there wasn't a compelling reason for them to

0:04:06.760 --> 0:04:09.000
<v Speaker 1>take it. There wasn't one of these cases where lower

0:04:09.000 --> 0:04:13.240
<v Speaker 1>courts are in disagreement about it. UH. And UH, it's

0:04:13.280 --> 0:04:16.440
<v Speaker 1>perhaps not too surprising that the Court wanted to deduct

0:04:16.440 --> 0:04:19.520
<v Speaker 1>this particular hot button issue. They are going to take

0:04:19.640 --> 0:04:25.160
<v Speaker 1>up transgender rights in another context in the upcoming term. Yeah,

0:04:25.160 --> 0:04:27.240
<v Speaker 1>that's that's a good point. They are going to hear

0:04:27.600 --> 0:04:31.800
<v Speaker 1>a couple of cases involving job discrimination and whether federal

0:04:31.920 --> 0:04:36.560
<v Speaker 1>job bias law UH protects gay and transgender workers. That

0:04:36.760 --> 0:04:40.440
<v Speaker 1>law says you can't discriminate on the basis of sex. UH.

0:04:40.440 --> 0:04:44.000
<v Speaker 1>And in both cases, UH, lower courts are in some

0:04:44.080 --> 0:04:48.359
<v Speaker 1>disagreement as to whether UH that covers discrimination on the

0:04:48.360 --> 0:04:52.320
<v Speaker 1>basis of sexual orientation and discrimination on the basis of

0:04:52.400 --> 0:04:55.440
<v Speaker 1>gender identity. That will be one of the biggest, if

0:04:55.440 --> 0:04:58.120
<v Speaker 1>not the biggest case case the court here is next term. Now,

0:04:58.160 --> 0:05:01.480
<v Speaker 1>tell us about this case. The Justice has decided to

0:05:01.520 --> 0:05:05.360
<v Speaker 1>take about whether the parents of a Mexican teenager can

0:05:05.520 --> 0:05:09.960
<v Speaker 1>sue the American law enforcement agent who shot the teenager

0:05:10.000 --> 0:05:13.200
<v Speaker 1>from across the border. Yeah, this case might sound familiar

0:05:13.200 --> 0:05:15.760
<v Speaker 1>to people. The Court has had it before. They kicked

0:05:15.760 --> 0:05:18.400
<v Speaker 1>it back to the lower court. Um, it's a it's

0:05:18.440 --> 0:05:21.240
<v Speaker 1>a as he said, a Mexican teenager. He was on

0:05:21.279 --> 0:05:24.960
<v Speaker 1>the Mexican side of the border. Uh, they were playing.

0:05:25.480 --> 0:05:28.039
<v Speaker 1>He was in a culvert where the middle of the

0:05:28.080 --> 0:05:30.599
<v Speaker 1>culvert is the actual border, but there's a fence on

0:05:30.640 --> 0:05:33.440
<v Speaker 1>the U s side. And he and his friends apparently

0:05:33.440 --> 0:05:35.360
<v Speaker 1>were playing a game where they would ramp to the

0:05:35.400 --> 0:05:38.039
<v Speaker 1>U side, touched the fence, and come back down. A

0:05:38.080 --> 0:05:43.400
<v Speaker 1>border patrol officer agent came upon them. Uh, there was

0:05:43.560 --> 0:05:48.480
<v Speaker 1>an incident, Um, and he ended up shooting the book boy,

0:05:48.560 --> 0:05:53.159
<v Speaker 1>Sergio Hernandez. Uh. The question for the Supreme Court is

0:05:53.200 --> 0:05:57.599
<v Speaker 1>basically whether his family can sue. There is a legal

0:05:57.640 --> 0:06:01.400
<v Speaker 1>doctrine known as Bibbins where the Supreme It has said, Um,

0:06:01.520 --> 0:06:04.160
<v Speaker 1>you can just sue directly under the Constitution for a

0:06:04.279 --> 0:06:07.440
<v Speaker 1>violation of your rights. In some context. That's not a

0:06:07.520 --> 0:06:10.760
<v Speaker 1>doctrine that the Supreme Court. This more conservative Supreme Court

0:06:11.080 --> 0:06:14.520
<v Speaker 1>has suggested it likes very much. Uh So, the question

0:06:14.560 --> 0:06:18.520
<v Speaker 1>is whether this this uh, this particular form of lawsuit

0:06:18.600 --> 0:06:21.680
<v Speaker 1>known as the biddin's lawsuit can apply in this case.

0:06:22.279 --> 0:06:25.080
<v Speaker 1>Just about forty five seconds here, it's approaching this busy

0:06:25.160 --> 0:06:28.440
<v Speaker 1>time of year for you. What Supreme Court decision are

0:06:28.480 --> 0:06:32.320
<v Speaker 1>you awaiting? Most? Let me give you two if I could.

0:06:32.400 --> 0:06:34.720
<v Speaker 1>The one that's certainly got a lot of attention is

0:06:34.720 --> 0:06:37.720
<v Speaker 1>the question of the case involving whether the Trump administration

0:06:37.720 --> 0:06:41.440
<v Speaker 1>can put a question about citizenship on the census. The

0:06:41.920 --> 0:06:44.640
<v Speaker 1>core question for the court is basically whether the administration

0:06:44.680 --> 0:06:47.280
<v Speaker 1>was upfront about its reasons for doing so. And then

0:06:47.320 --> 0:06:50.160
<v Speaker 1>the court has two cases, two very big cases involving

0:06:50.200 --> 0:06:53.120
<v Speaker 1>partisan jurymandering, and the Court could finally tell us whether

0:06:53.240 --> 0:06:56.240
<v Speaker 1>or not, uh it can ever be the case that

0:06:56.240 --> 0:07:00.360
<v Speaker 1>that there's too much partisanship in the voting district uh

0:07:00.680 --> 0:07:04.039
<v Speaker 1>map drawing process. The Supreme Court has never struck down

0:07:04.160 --> 0:07:06.279
<v Speaker 1>a district as being two partisan. And we'll see whether

0:07:06.360 --> 0:07:08.520
<v Speaker 1>or not they're ready to do that. All right, Thanks, Greg,

0:07:08.560 --> 0:07:10.840
<v Speaker 1>get some sleep, you'll need it. That's Supreme Court reporter

0:07:10.840 --> 0:07:16.240
<v Speaker 1>of Greg's Stewart. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

0:07:16.600 --> 0:07:20.640
<v Speaker 1>You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:07:20.720 --> 0:07:24.600
<v Speaker 1>and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brasso.

0:07:25.120 --> 0:07:28.920
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Ye.