1
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,160 --> 00:00:12,840
Speaker 1: In a death penalty case, Arizona did end runs around

3
00:00:12,880 --> 00:00:17,319
Speaker 1: Supreme Court precedent, creating a procedural maze that blocked a

4
00:00:17,400 --> 00:00:21,840
Speaker 1: death row inmates relief at every turn, reminding Justice Elana

5
00:00:22,000 --> 00:00:25,400
Speaker 1: Kagan of the works of Kafka. I think Kafka would

6
00:00:25,440 --> 00:00:29,960
Speaker 1: have loved this um. Cruiz loses to Simmons claims on

7
00:00:30,040 --> 00:00:34,400
Speaker 1: direct appeal because the Arizona courts save point blank, Simmons

8
00:00:34,440 --> 00:00:37,920
Speaker 1: has never applied in Arizona. And then he loses the

9
00:00:37,960 --> 00:00:41,640
Speaker 1: next time around because the Arizona's courts say Simmons always

10
00:00:41,640 --> 00:00:45,240
Speaker 1: applied in California. I mean, tails you win as I lose.

11
00:00:45,280 --> 00:00:49,479
Speaker 1: Whatever that expressionists, I mean, how how can you run

12
00:00:50,120 --> 00:00:54,000
Speaker 1: a railroad that way? For decades, Arizona refused to follow

13
00:00:54,040 --> 00:00:59,160
Speaker 1: Supreme Court precedent established in the Simmons case, which gave

14
00:00:59,240 --> 00:01:02,080
Speaker 1: defendants face seeing the death penalty the right to tell

15
00:01:02,160 --> 00:01:05,200
Speaker 1: juries that if they spared them from the death penalty,

16
00:01:05,240 --> 00:01:09,080
Speaker 1: they would never be eligible for parole. So in sixteen,

17
00:01:09,240 --> 00:01:14,000
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court specifically instructed Arizona to follow that law,

18
00:01:14,400 --> 00:01:18,360
Speaker 1: but Arizona denied John Cruz that instruction at his trial,

19
00:01:18,680 --> 00:01:21,760
Speaker 1: and then used a state procedural law to stop him

20
00:01:21,800 --> 00:01:25,080
Speaker 1: from seeking reversal of his death sentence. Many of the

21
00:01:25,240 --> 00:01:29,840
Speaker 1: justices seemed troubled by Arizona flouting the Supreme Court. Here's

22
00:01:29,920 --> 00:01:33,640
Speaker 1: Justice Katangi Brown Jackson Simmons made clear that this is

23
00:01:33,680 --> 00:01:36,880
Speaker 1: what the law was. So many times Arizona said, we're

24
00:01:36,880 --> 00:01:39,160
Speaker 1: not following it, and we had to have lynch in

25
00:01:39,280 --> 00:01:42,440
Speaker 1: order to really sinch the deal. One thing I'm a

26
00:01:42,440 --> 00:01:45,160
Speaker 1: little worried about is that if we rule in your

27
00:01:45,160 --> 00:01:48,240
Speaker 1: favor in this case, that it will be giving other

28
00:01:48,320 --> 00:01:53,880
Speaker 1: states essentially a roadmap um for defying this Court's criminal

29
00:01:53,960 --> 00:01:58,160
Speaker 1: law decisions. Joining me, as Jordan Reuben Bloomberg law reporter,

30
00:01:58,800 --> 00:02:03,280
Speaker 1: this appeal not about the defendants guilt, but about his sentence.

31
00:02:03,400 --> 00:02:05,960
Speaker 1: Tell us a little about the case and what happened

32
00:02:06,040 --> 00:02:09,680
Speaker 1: during the penalty phase. Sure so, John Cruz was convicted

33
00:02:09,680 --> 00:02:13,480
Speaker 1: in Arizona State Court a first degree murder for shooting

34
00:02:13,480 --> 00:02:17,280
Speaker 1: Tucson police officer Patrick Hardisty in two thousand three. But

35
00:02:17,320 --> 00:02:20,360
Speaker 1: it wasn't cruizes guilt but his sentence that prompted the

36
00:02:20,440 --> 00:02:23,440
Speaker 1: issue at the Supreme Court. So at the sentencing phase.

37
00:02:23,800 --> 00:02:26,520
Speaker 1: Crews wanted the jury to know that he would have

38
00:02:26,560 --> 00:02:29,200
Speaker 1: been ineligible for parole if he was sentenced to life

39
00:02:29,240 --> 00:02:31,600
Speaker 1: instead of death, and that actually wounds up being a

40
00:02:31,639 --> 00:02:35,000
Speaker 1: really important issue because we know that the jury foreman

41
00:02:35,080 --> 00:02:37,400
Speaker 1: actually later said that they were looking for a reason

42
00:02:37,440 --> 00:02:41,080
Speaker 1: to be lenient, but Arizona didn't allow that at the time.

43
00:02:41,520 --> 00:02:44,840
Speaker 1: And that was despite an earlier U. S. Supreme Court

44
00:02:44,840 --> 00:02:49,320
Speaker 1: precedent from called Simmons, which said that defendants have the

45
00:02:49,440 --> 00:02:53,240
Speaker 1: right to inform juries of their parole ineligibility in that

46
00:02:53,320 --> 00:02:57,120
Speaker 1: situation when their future danger is an issue. So for decades,

47
00:02:57,200 --> 00:03:00,840
Speaker 1: Arizona refuses to follow that Supreme Court rule. So then

48
00:03:00,880 --> 00:03:05,240
Speaker 1: the court basically tells Arizona directly, this is the rule.

49
00:03:05,440 --> 00:03:09,079
Speaker 1: You have to follow it. That's right. So the Simmons

50
00:03:09,080 --> 00:03:12,920
Speaker 1: case happened at the Supreme Court in nine. Cruz was

51
00:03:12,960 --> 00:03:16,800
Speaker 1: prosecuted in Arizona after that, But then there was an

52
00:03:16,840 --> 00:03:19,880
Speaker 1: Arizona case that went to the Supreme Court after Cruz

53
00:03:19,960 --> 00:03:23,480
Speaker 1: was sentenced, called Lynch against Arizona, in where the U. S.

54
00:03:23,480 --> 00:03:26,320
Speaker 1: Supreme Court basically told Arizona you have to apply this

55
00:03:26,400 --> 00:03:30,799
Speaker 1: precedent Simmons, And so Cruz had previously raised a challenge

56
00:03:30,919 --> 00:03:33,800
Speaker 1: before the Lynch case, trying to argue that he should

57
00:03:33,800 --> 00:03:35,920
Speaker 1: have been able to tell the jury about his parole

58
00:03:36,280 --> 00:03:40,360
Speaker 1: in eligibility status based on Simmons. Then after Lynch, after

59
00:03:40,400 --> 00:03:43,520
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court told Arizona, you have to apply our precedent,

60
00:03:43,720 --> 00:03:46,880
Speaker 1: Cruz tried again, but he was rejected again in state court.

61
00:03:46,960 --> 00:03:49,920
Speaker 1: And that's what prompted this U. S. Supreme Court appeal,

62
00:03:49,960 --> 00:03:52,680
Speaker 1: This kind of ping ponging back and forth and Cruises

63
00:03:52,720 --> 00:03:56,200
Speaker 1: repeated attempts and repeated rejections to try and get the

64
00:03:56,200 --> 00:03:58,960
Speaker 1: benefit of this U. S. Supreme Court precedent in the

65
00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:02,480
Speaker 1: Simmons case. So that's why Justice Elena Kagan said Cosco

66
00:04:02,520 --> 00:04:06,000
Speaker 1: would have loved this case exactly. So the way she

67
00:04:06,120 --> 00:04:09,160
Speaker 1: put it, she says Cosco would have loved this because

68
00:04:09,240 --> 00:04:12,840
Speaker 1: Cruz loses his Simmons claim undirect appeal in the first

69
00:04:12,880 --> 00:04:15,760
Speaker 1: instance before the Lynch case, and then he tries again.

70
00:04:16,080 --> 00:04:18,359
Speaker 1: And the reason he loses, according to the state, is

71
00:04:18,400 --> 00:04:21,360
Speaker 1: because no Simmons has actually always applied. It was just

72
00:04:21,440 --> 00:04:24,840
Speaker 1: that Lynch told Arizona that it had to then apply

73
00:04:25,040 --> 00:04:28,159
Speaker 1: the law, so it wasn't what's called a significant change

74
00:04:28,240 --> 00:04:31,560
Speaker 1: in the law according to Arizona, and that's super important

75
00:04:31,600 --> 00:04:33,680
Speaker 1: for this case because it all comes down to this

76
00:04:34,160 --> 00:04:37,839
Speaker 1: state procedural rule which says that on post conviction like

77
00:04:37,920 --> 00:04:40,640
Speaker 1: what Cruz was trying to raise, he can only get

78
00:04:40,680 --> 00:04:43,640
Speaker 1: the benefit if there was a significant change in law,

79
00:04:44,000 --> 00:04:47,920
Speaker 1: and according to Arizona, the Lynch holding wasn't a significant change.

80
00:04:48,480 --> 00:04:50,520
Speaker 1: I thought it was odd that the state was still

81
00:04:50,640 --> 00:04:54,600
Speaker 1: arguing in its briefs that Simmons and Lynch were wrongly

82
00:04:54,720 --> 00:04:59,400
Speaker 1: decided by the court, and Justice Kagan told Arizona's attorney,

83
00:04:59,720 --> 00:05:03,640
Speaker 1: Joe so Kane Field that she found that shocking and

84
00:05:03,680 --> 00:05:07,040
Speaker 1: perhaps a bit insulting. In this case, you're still saying

85
00:05:07,839 --> 00:05:11,039
Speaker 1: like Lynch has wrongly decided, Simmons is wrongly decided. We

86
00:05:11,120 --> 00:05:14,440
Speaker 1: can't really we just really hate all this stuff. It

87
00:05:14,520 --> 00:05:18,279
Speaker 1: sounds like you're thumbing your nose at us. Justice Kegan.

88
00:05:18,279 --> 00:05:21,599
Speaker 1: There is absolutely no disrespect was intended by that footnote

89
00:05:21,600 --> 00:05:23,599
Speaker 1: to the court, and I apologize that that that's the

90
00:05:23,600 --> 00:05:27,719
Speaker 1: way it came across tell us about Arizona's arguments. So

91
00:05:27,920 --> 00:05:31,720
Speaker 1: Arizona takes this sort of hyper technical reading. They're saying

92
00:05:31,720 --> 00:05:34,080
Speaker 1: it's just a state issue that in the first instance,

93
00:05:34,160 --> 00:05:36,479
Speaker 1: it shouldn't even get to the U. S. Supreme Court

94
00:05:36,560 --> 00:05:40,360
Speaker 1: because it's a state court dealing with the state procedural rule.

95
00:05:40,720 --> 00:05:43,120
Speaker 1: And so there is this kind of threshold issue at

96
00:05:43,120 --> 00:05:46,440
Speaker 1: the U. S. Supreme Court of whether the justices can

97
00:05:46,480 --> 00:05:48,440
Speaker 1: even really take a look at this because it's a

98
00:05:48,480 --> 00:05:51,559
Speaker 1: state issue. And so there's this initial argument of whether

99
00:05:51,600 --> 00:05:54,719
Speaker 1: we're even getting into the territory of dealing with the

100
00:05:54,760 --> 00:05:56,880
Speaker 1: type of federal issue that the U. S. Supreme Court

101
00:05:56,920 --> 00:06:00,120
Speaker 1: can grapple with. And so that's one of Arizona's arguments

102
00:06:00,160 --> 00:06:02,680
Speaker 1: that the U. S. Supreme Court really shouldn't even be

103
00:06:02,800 --> 00:06:06,760
Speaker 1: getting involved. That's part of it. Another part is, according

104
00:06:06,800 --> 00:06:09,479
Speaker 1: to this state procedural rule, they're saying it wasn't a

105
00:06:09,520 --> 00:06:13,679
Speaker 1: significant change in law, despite how much that might seem

106
00:06:13,760 --> 00:06:16,680
Speaker 1: to fly in the face of common sense. As Justice

107
00:06:16,760 --> 00:06:19,680
Speaker 1: Kegan was pointing out during the argument, they're saying, it's

108
00:06:19,720 --> 00:06:22,960
Speaker 1: not a significant change, it's just now an application of

109
00:06:23,000 --> 00:06:25,479
Speaker 1: the law. And so that's what brings up this situation

110
00:06:25,480 --> 00:06:28,240
Speaker 1: where Kegan is pointing out the cruises blocked in this

111
00:06:28,360 --> 00:06:32,120
Speaker 1: procedural maze, no matter in which direction he turns. It

112
00:06:32,200 --> 00:06:35,840
Speaker 1: seemed like several of the Conservative justices were hanging on

113
00:06:35,920 --> 00:06:40,600
Speaker 1: that threshold procedural issue for sure. And so Justice Thomas's

114
00:06:40,680 --> 00:06:44,200
Speaker 1: first question to Neil cat y'all, who is representing Cruz,

115
00:06:44,279 --> 00:06:46,599
Speaker 1: was how do we get to this federal issue? So

116
00:06:46,640 --> 00:06:50,799
Speaker 1: it's that threshold matter where if you buy what Justice

117
00:06:50,800 --> 00:06:53,359
Speaker 1: Thomas was alluding to, if he has a majority that

118
00:06:53,440 --> 00:06:56,000
Speaker 1: agrees with him, then it could be that the Court

119
00:06:56,120 --> 00:06:59,360
Speaker 1: isn't even going to delve into some of the more

120
00:06:59,400 --> 00:07:03,239
Speaker 1: detail of out how this procedural rule works. And so

121
00:07:03,440 --> 00:07:06,400
Speaker 1: that's one issue that could be bad news her Cruise

122
00:07:06,440 --> 00:07:10,040
Speaker 1: if there is a majority that agrees with Justice Thomas,

123
00:07:10,080 --> 00:07:12,600
Speaker 1: if his question did in fact indicate that that's where

124
00:07:12,880 --> 00:07:15,760
Speaker 1: the Justice is heading. During the arguments, it seemed like

125
00:07:15,920 --> 00:07:18,840
Speaker 1: you had the justices on the far left and the

126
00:07:18,880 --> 00:07:22,440
Speaker 1: far right. What about the justices that might turn out

127
00:07:22,480 --> 00:07:26,440
Speaker 1: to be key here, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh.

128
00:07:26,960 --> 00:07:29,480
Speaker 1: So they each made a couple of interesting comments that

129
00:07:29,680 --> 00:07:33,240
Speaker 1: might suggest that they might be inclined to vote with Cruise,

130
00:07:33,280 --> 00:07:37,480
Speaker 1: although I'm not entirely sure. Justice Barrett, she raised the

131
00:07:37,640 --> 00:07:40,440
Speaker 1: point of question that was almost similar to what Justice

132
00:07:40,480 --> 00:07:42,520
Speaker 1: Kagan was saying. Barrett didn't go so far as to

133
00:07:42,600 --> 00:07:45,320
Speaker 1: call it coska esque, but she called the state's position

134
00:07:45,480 --> 00:07:48,880
Speaker 1: kind of artificial. She said it was hair splitting. So Barrett,

135
00:07:48,920 --> 00:07:51,080
Speaker 1: even if she wasn't going as far as Kagan, she

136
00:07:51,240 --> 00:07:54,160
Speaker 1: was in that similar type of mold and that she

137
00:07:54,280 --> 00:07:57,440
Speaker 1: was questioning at a very basic level the position that

138
00:07:57,520 --> 00:08:01,240
Speaker 1: Arizona took. So that could be a potential fourth vote

139
00:08:01,240 --> 00:08:04,720
Speaker 1: if you're counting the three Democratic appointees plus Barrett. I'm

140
00:08:04,760 --> 00:08:07,560
Speaker 1: not totally convinced, but that could be. And then you

141
00:08:07,680 --> 00:08:10,640
Speaker 1: have Justice Kavanaugh. He made a comment later in the

142
00:08:10,720 --> 00:08:13,320
Speaker 1: argument which I don't think was really as strong as

143
00:08:13,400 --> 00:08:16,400
Speaker 1: Barretts against the state. The Kavanaugh noted that there wasn't

144
00:08:16,440 --> 00:08:19,600
Speaker 1: other states supporting Arizona like you might see in some

145
00:08:19,720 --> 00:08:22,600
Speaker 1: of these state cases where even if a state isn't

146
00:08:22,640 --> 00:08:25,440
Speaker 1: directly at issue, it'll file a friend of the Court

147
00:08:25,440 --> 00:08:27,920
Speaker 1: brief at the Supreme Court. We sometimes see these huge

148
00:08:28,080 --> 00:08:31,960
Speaker 1: coalitions of states that are supporting another state because they're

149
00:08:32,000 --> 00:08:34,280
Speaker 1: worried about how this is going to impact their criminal

150
00:08:34,320 --> 00:08:36,440
Speaker 1: justice system. And so there wasn't any of that in

151
00:08:36,480 --> 00:08:39,520
Speaker 1: this case, and Kavanaugh sort of casually brought that up.

152
00:08:39,520 --> 00:08:42,680
Speaker 1: So I didn't hear Kavanaugh as strongly against the state

153
00:08:42,679 --> 00:08:46,480
Speaker 1: as Barrett and Kavana Also, I have found plays Devil's

154
00:08:46,480 --> 00:08:49,360
Speaker 1: advocate more than any other justice, so I haven't found

155
00:08:49,600 --> 00:08:52,440
Speaker 1: his comments at oral argument to be super helpful in

156
00:08:52,520 --> 00:08:54,640
Speaker 1: terms of finding where he'll land. And so I do

157
00:08:54,760 --> 00:08:57,760
Speaker 1: think it's possible that Crews could still win this given

158
00:08:57,840 --> 00:09:00,760
Speaker 1: what Kagan is putting at the Kaska esque nature of it.

159
00:09:00,840 --> 00:09:03,360
Speaker 1: But still at this court, I think you're facing an

160
00:09:03,400 --> 00:09:05,920
Speaker 1: uphill battle when you're bringing a claim from death row.

161
00:09:06,240 --> 00:09:09,319
Speaker 1: No matter what the particulars are of the case. How

162
00:09:09,320 --> 00:09:13,000
Speaker 1: many of the justices were concerned that Arizona just didn't

163
00:09:13,000 --> 00:09:15,000
Speaker 1: follow the rules they set out. So I think you

164
00:09:15,000 --> 00:09:18,240
Speaker 1: could definitely read that concern into at least Kagan, and

165
00:09:18,400 --> 00:09:20,600
Speaker 1: so do my oors questioning. I do think the Chief

166
00:09:20,640 --> 00:09:24,440
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts also over the years has displayed that type

167
00:09:24,440 --> 00:09:27,280
Speaker 1: of concern when states are in the extreme sort of

168
00:09:27,320 --> 00:09:30,600
Speaker 1: thumbing its nose to use Kagan's word in this case

169
00:09:30,800 --> 00:09:33,240
Speaker 1: at the court, So I do think there is that

170
00:09:33,440 --> 00:09:36,680
Speaker 1: concern that's president. Again, the Supreme Court took the rare

171
00:09:36,760 --> 00:09:40,679
Speaker 1: step of reversing in that Lynch case in and so

172
00:09:40,760 --> 00:09:45,400
Speaker 1: obviously the Court knows that Arizona is sort of troublemaker

173
00:09:45,400 --> 00:09:47,680
Speaker 1: in this regard, sort of like Texas has been in

174
00:09:47,720 --> 00:09:50,880
Speaker 1: some other death penalty cases where Texas has been reversed

175
00:09:50,880 --> 00:09:53,480
Speaker 1: its state top court. So I see a similarity there

176
00:09:53,520 --> 00:09:56,560
Speaker 1: between what's going on. No one has came out and

177
00:09:56,960 --> 00:10:00,199
Speaker 1: as strongly said that as Jackson did, but I think

178
00:10:00,240 --> 00:10:03,240
Speaker 1: that concern was working in the background. I just don't

179
00:10:03,240 --> 00:10:04,920
Speaker 1: know at the end of the day whether that's going

180
00:10:04,960 --> 00:10:07,599
Speaker 1: to carry the day for cruise by a majority of

181
00:10:07,640 --> 00:10:10,880
Speaker 1: the court. And did it seem as if Thomas, Alito,

182
00:10:11,040 --> 00:10:15,920
Speaker 1: Gorsage and the chief were against the defendant getting a

183
00:10:15,960 --> 00:10:19,079
Speaker 1: new trial. I think that's fair to say. Roberts might

184
00:10:19,080 --> 00:10:21,960
Speaker 1: have gone both ways a little bit, But I think

185
00:10:22,000 --> 00:10:24,400
Speaker 1: that's true. As to the first three, this could be

186
00:10:24,520 --> 00:10:27,640
Speaker 1: again because Arizona has been kind of smacked down by

187
00:10:27,640 --> 00:10:29,640
Speaker 1: the court before. And I should point out that in

188
00:10:29,679 --> 00:10:33,079
Speaker 1: that Lynch case fromen this is over des sent by

189
00:10:33,120 --> 00:10:37,360
Speaker 1: Thomas and Alito, and so that was before Gorstch was

190
00:10:37,559 --> 00:10:40,440
Speaker 1: on the court. So still it's not a majority of

191
00:10:40,480 --> 00:10:44,160
Speaker 1: the current court that might agree with Thomas and Alito there,

192
00:10:44,240 --> 00:10:46,679
Speaker 1: but they might have more of a coalition than they

193
00:10:46,720 --> 00:10:51,040
Speaker 1: did in and so I do think that it's possible

194
00:10:51,040 --> 00:10:52,960
Speaker 1: for Cruise to win, and I don't always say that

195
00:10:53,040 --> 00:10:56,160
Speaker 1: coming out of every death penalty type argument, so that

196
00:10:56,240 --> 00:10:58,400
Speaker 1: bodes well for him. But still I'm not going to

197
00:10:58,480 --> 00:11:02,280
Speaker 1: be comfortable staying until I see that opinion actually cementing

198
00:11:02,320 --> 00:11:04,559
Speaker 1: the type of view that Kagan raised, until I can

199
00:11:04,600 --> 00:11:07,800
Speaker 1: believe it. Yeah, with this court, you have to see

200
00:11:07,800 --> 00:11:12,480
Speaker 1: it to believe it. And this case is important to

201
00:11:12,520 --> 00:11:15,479
Speaker 1: some of the other inmates on death row in Arizona

202
00:11:15,760 --> 00:11:19,320
Speaker 1: who are in the same situation. Neil Caccio, who, as

203
00:11:19,320 --> 00:11:23,240
Speaker 1: you said, represented Crews, said at least twelve inmates on

204
00:11:23,360 --> 00:11:28,440
Speaker 1: death row had their appeals under Simmons rejected like Cruise,

205
00:11:28,960 --> 00:11:33,120
Speaker 1: So this could open up a can of worms, oh

206
00:11:33,120 --> 00:11:35,079
Speaker 1: for sure. And I've seen the number put it as

207
00:11:35,120 --> 00:11:38,080
Speaker 1: high as thirty inmates in Arizona who could be affected

208
00:11:38,080 --> 00:11:40,000
Speaker 1: by this issue. So even if it does wind up

209
00:11:40,040 --> 00:11:44,160
Speaker 1: being just an Arizona specific issue, it's hugely important even

210
00:11:44,200 --> 00:11:46,560
Speaker 1: on just the state level. Thanks so much for being

211
00:11:46,600 --> 00:11:50,319
Speaker 1: on the show. Jordan's that's Jordan Reuben Bloomberg Law Reporter,

212
00:11:50,679 --> 00:11:53,000
Speaker 1: And that's it for the edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

213
00:11:53,400 --> 00:11:55,719
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news by

214
00:11:55,760 --> 00:11:58,760
Speaker 1: listening to our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them

215
00:11:58,760 --> 00:12:03,320
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and at www dot Bloomberg dot

216
00:12:03,360 --> 00:12:07,160
Speaker 1: com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grosso, and you're

217
00:12:07,200 --> 00:12:12,080
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg. For almost as long as affirmative action

218
00:12:12,200 --> 00:12:15,360
Speaker 1: policies have been used in college admissions, there have been

219
00:12:15,440 --> 00:12:18,800
Speaker 1: legal battles over whether they should be allowed. Now, more

220
00:12:18,840 --> 00:12:22,199
Speaker 1: than forty years after the Supreme Court first considered the matter,

221
00:12:22,360 --> 00:12:26,040
Speaker 1: the conservative justices appeared to be ready to eliminate racial

222
00:12:26,040 --> 00:12:30,400
Speaker 1: considerations in shaping a student body. Joining me is Audrey Anderson,

223
00:12:30,440 --> 00:12:34,800
Speaker 1: who heads the higher education practice at Bassbarian SIMS. So

224
00:12:34,880 --> 00:12:38,079
Speaker 1: let me ask you the big question first coming into

225
00:12:38,120 --> 00:12:44,320
Speaker 1: this argument, most legal experts thought that affirmative action was

226
00:12:44,480 --> 00:12:48,600
Speaker 1: on the cutting block. Did anything in the oral arguments

227
00:12:48,800 --> 00:12:55,080
Speaker 1: indicate otherwise? No? Not really. The only little asterisk I

228
00:12:55,200 --> 00:12:57,520
Speaker 1: put on that, if you know, there were a lot

229
00:12:57,559 --> 00:13:03,120
Speaker 1: of questions June about this twenty five year deadline of

230
00:13:03,200 --> 00:13:08,600
Speaker 1: sorts language in the Grutter case, where Justice O'Connor, who

231
00:13:08,600 --> 00:13:12,160
Speaker 1: wrote the majority opinion, said that it was the court's

232
00:13:12,320 --> 00:13:17,480
Speaker 1: expectation that affirmative action would not be necessary in twenty

233
00:13:17,559 --> 00:13:20,280
Speaker 1: five years, and there were a lot of questions to

234
00:13:20,679 --> 00:13:23,120
Speaker 1: both sides about what does that mean, what should we

235
00:13:23,160 --> 00:13:27,240
Speaker 1: make of that? And at one point Justice Barrett said, well,

236
00:13:27,800 --> 00:13:30,679
Speaker 1: you know it's not twenty five years yet. That was

237
00:13:30,720 --> 00:13:33,920
Speaker 1: a kind of only ray of sunshine. I thought if

238
00:13:34,000 --> 00:13:37,400
Speaker 1: you were a supporter of affirmative action that maybe she

239
00:13:37,600 --> 00:13:40,040
Speaker 1: would think about, well, we should let it hang in

240
00:13:40,080 --> 00:13:42,600
Speaker 1: there for a few more years. The Grutter decision with

241
00:13:42,679 --> 00:13:45,400
Speaker 1: two thousand three, so that would get you till two

242
00:13:45,400 --> 00:13:49,520
Speaker 1: thousand eight. But I just say that mostly as a

243
00:13:49,720 --> 00:13:52,679
Speaker 1: you never know. Other than that, I didn't hear anything

244
00:13:52,880 --> 00:13:55,920
Speaker 1: made me think that will get any decision other than

245
00:13:55,960 --> 00:13:58,560
Speaker 1: an overruling of Grutter. I mean, there was a lot

246
00:13:58,600 --> 00:14:02,200
Speaker 1: of discussion about, you know, how important is diversity. Justice

247
00:14:02,280 --> 00:14:07,439
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas said he didn't have a clue what diversity means. Well,

248
00:14:07,480 --> 00:14:09,360
Speaker 1: I think what you heard June was, you know, Justice

249
00:14:09,360 --> 00:14:13,040
Speaker 1: Thomas has never read he didn't agree with Grutter, and

250
00:14:13,040 --> 00:14:16,080
Speaker 1: he hasn't. He's made a point of dissenting from all

251
00:14:16,120 --> 00:14:19,160
Speaker 1: of the affirmative action cases. So I think he was

252
00:14:19,200 --> 00:14:22,360
Speaker 1: just trying to make his point again that he doesn't

253
00:14:22,400 --> 00:14:27,920
Speaker 1: believe in this diversity nonsense um from his perspective, and

254
00:14:28,000 --> 00:14:31,240
Speaker 1: so he was just giving every advocate of uh AN

255
00:14:31,240 --> 00:14:34,840
Speaker 1: ability to change his mind, which I don't think was changed.

256
00:14:35,360 --> 00:14:37,320
Speaker 1: Um in the least. You got the same kind of

257
00:14:37,440 --> 00:14:42,160
Speaker 1: questions out of Justice Courseuch. This is his first chance

258
00:14:42,280 --> 00:14:45,000
Speaker 1: to think about this kind of thing. But his questioning

259
00:14:45,240 --> 00:14:49,360
Speaker 1: was about how can we really do diversity without taking

260
00:14:49,440 --> 00:14:53,040
Speaker 1: numbers into account? And that's been kind of the rock

261
00:14:53,120 --> 00:14:55,240
Speaker 1: and a hard place you're in that the Court has

262
00:14:55,240 --> 00:14:58,440
Speaker 1: said you can't have a quota, but you have to

263
00:14:58,480 --> 00:15:01,320
Speaker 1: have some kind of a goal you have that you're

264
00:15:01,320 --> 00:15:04,440
Speaker 1: trying to get. So how do you have a diversity

265
00:15:04,720 --> 00:15:09,760
Speaker 1: goal that you can narrowly tailor too without having a

266
00:15:09,920 --> 00:15:12,760
Speaker 1: number that looks like a quota? So we got that

267
00:15:12,840 --> 00:15:15,560
Speaker 1: kind of questioning from Justice course which and then you

268
00:15:15,640 --> 00:15:19,600
Speaker 1: had questioning from Justice Alito, who's been against these kind

269
00:15:19,640 --> 00:15:23,320
Speaker 1: of programs and has dissented from them, on the lines

270
00:15:23,680 --> 00:15:26,960
Speaker 1: of how can you put together all the kinds of

271
00:15:27,000 --> 00:15:29,960
Speaker 1: people you're putting together in the category of Asian American?

272
00:15:30,280 --> 00:15:33,240
Speaker 1: How can you put together people from Afghanistan and people

273
00:15:33,320 --> 00:15:36,400
Speaker 1: from China or Japan all in the same category, And

274
00:15:36,440 --> 00:15:41,080
Speaker 1: doesn't that make this just all suspect and unconstitutional? So

275
00:15:41,200 --> 00:15:43,680
Speaker 1: you had those kinds of questions from people on the

276
00:15:43,840 --> 00:15:47,320
Speaker 1: right who you would expect to say that this is

277
00:15:48,040 --> 00:15:53,360
Speaker 1: against the constitution. Justice Jackson spoke a great deal. What

278
00:15:53,440 --> 00:15:56,360
Speaker 1: did you get from her comments? Any of the Justice

279
00:15:56,400 --> 00:16:01,160
Speaker 1: Jackson had some really very very interesting ments. You know,

280
00:16:01,320 --> 00:16:04,120
Speaker 1: a lot of what the court talked about was not

281
00:16:04,520 --> 00:16:09,480
Speaker 1: whether we should overturn Gruttter, but what will happen when

282
00:16:10,000 --> 00:16:13,800
Speaker 1: so if we overturned Gruttter, what will universities be able

283
00:16:13,840 --> 00:16:16,520
Speaker 1: to do? How at all will they be able to

284
00:16:16,560 --> 00:16:19,400
Speaker 1: consider race? And so in that line up, we got

285
00:16:19,440 --> 00:16:22,359
Speaker 1: some of the other justices saying, well, if an applicant

286
00:16:22,440 --> 00:16:26,320
Speaker 1: wrote about race on her application and wrote about how

287
00:16:26,440 --> 00:16:31,440
Speaker 1: she was Hispanic and she had overcome some discrimination, of

288
00:16:31,480 --> 00:16:34,560
Speaker 1: course the university could consider that. And it seemed like

289
00:16:34,680 --> 00:16:37,160
Speaker 1: everybody was kind of on board with that. And I

290
00:16:37,200 --> 00:16:41,160
Speaker 1: think that Justice Jackson came forwards the very interesting hypothetical

291
00:16:41,240 --> 00:16:44,280
Speaker 1: to say, well, you're all saying that the minority applicant

292
00:16:44,320 --> 00:16:48,960
Speaker 1: can have overcoming discrimination taking account of but what if

293
00:16:49,000 --> 00:16:53,040
Speaker 1: you have an applicant who's just saying, look, I'm a

294
00:16:53,120 --> 00:16:56,760
Speaker 1: black applicant. I've lived in North Carolina all my life,

295
00:16:57,000 --> 00:16:59,280
Speaker 1: and none of my family has ever been able to

296
00:16:59,320 --> 00:17:02,320
Speaker 1: go to the unit earcity in North Carolina, partly because

297
00:17:02,360 --> 00:17:06,360
Speaker 1: I come from slaves and my people have not been

298
00:17:06,359 --> 00:17:09,879
Speaker 1: allowed into your university. And it's really important for me

299
00:17:09,960 --> 00:17:11,919
Speaker 1: to be able to get in because to show that

300
00:17:12,000 --> 00:17:14,280
Speaker 1: I finally have this kind of an opportunity, I want

301
00:17:14,280 --> 00:17:17,959
Speaker 1: to honor my family's legacy. Could you consider that in

302
00:17:18,000 --> 00:17:20,280
Speaker 1: the same way that if a white student wrote in

303
00:17:20,400 --> 00:17:23,399
Speaker 1: and said, my family has lived in North Carolina for

304
00:17:23,520 --> 00:17:26,679
Speaker 1: hundreds of years and I've have this long legacy of

305
00:17:27,119 --> 00:17:30,080
Speaker 1: family members of all attendant un seen, It's really important

306
00:17:30,119 --> 00:17:34,080
Speaker 1: for me to honor that legacy. University would be able

307
00:17:34,119 --> 00:17:38,399
Speaker 1: to consider that in terms of admissions, But they wouldn't

308
00:17:38,440 --> 00:17:42,200
Speaker 1: be able to consider the black student family history because

309
00:17:42,240 --> 00:17:46,240
Speaker 1: it would be considering something based on race, And the

310
00:17:46,320 --> 00:17:48,760
Speaker 1: advocate said, yeah, you're right, they wouldn't be able to.

311
00:17:49,480 --> 00:17:54,760
Speaker 1: At one point, Justice Neil Gorsage suggested that universities might

312
00:17:54,800 --> 00:17:59,879
Speaker 1: be able to improve diversity by eliminating preferences given to athletes.

313
00:18:00,040 --> 00:18:03,680
Speaker 1: You mentioned squash and the children of alumni and big

314
00:18:03,720 --> 00:18:08,080
Speaker 1: money donors if they come out against affirmative action here,

315
00:18:08,640 --> 00:18:12,920
Speaker 1: Does that mean that universities can consider all those other things,

316
00:18:13,600 --> 00:18:16,520
Speaker 1: but not race. And of course you have to look

317
00:18:16,560 --> 00:18:19,720
Speaker 1: at race differently because there is something in the Constitution

318
00:18:19,960 --> 00:18:23,600
Speaker 1: about it. And regardless of what the Court decides out

319
00:18:23,600 --> 00:18:26,879
Speaker 1: of the arguments today, universities will still be able to

320
00:18:26,920 --> 00:18:31,040
Speaker 1: consider whether somebody play squash or the tuba when they're

321
00:18:32,080 --> 00:18:35,080
Speaker 1: allowing people into their entering class. And there's always going

322
00:18:35,119 --> 00:18:39,720
Speaker 1: to be on particular needs that universities have that they're

323
00:18:39,760 --> 00:18:42,480
Speaker 1: going to pick people for, and race does have to

324
00:18:42,520 --> 00:18:45,119
Speaker 1: be different. But then you do get kind of to

325
00:18:45,160 --> 00:18:48,560
Speaker 1: the question. And I think that Justice Kagan said, you

326
00:18:48,600 --> 00:18:50,720
Speaker 1: know what, if there is a point in time where

327
00:18:50,880 --> 00:18:55,840
Speaker 1: university found that it was only getting men in its

328
00:18:55,920 --> 00:19:01,240
Speaker 1: class using gender neutral criteria, so it decided it needed

329
00:19:01,280 --> 00:19:04,000
Speaker 1: to be more aware of gender so that it got

330
00:19:04,000 --> 00:19:07,800
Speaker 1: closer to fifty, you could then have a situation where

331
00:19:07,840 --> 00:19:10,560
Speaker 1: white men were getting a thumb on the scale and

332
00:19:10,800 --> 00:19:14,160
Speaker 1: people of color were not. Now, of course, the advocate said, well,

333
00:19:14,480 --> 00:19:16,560
Speaker 1: it wouldn't be white men, it would be all men.

334
00:19:16,680 --> 00:19:19,520
Speaker 1: And she's like, well, yeah, but white men too, you

335
00:19:20,359 --> 00:19:23,000
Speaker 1: would be getting a thumb on the scale. And you

336
00:19:23,080 --> 00:19:25,480
Speaker 1: know that's true. And I think that what I was

337
00:19:25,520 --> 00:19:29,160
Speaker 1: actually a little bit encouraged frankly to hear so many

338
00:19:29,200 --> 00:19:34,840
Speaker 1: members of the court agreen that if Barter's overruled, universities

339
00:19:34,880 --> 00:19:38,879
Speaker 1: could take into account race if an applicant brought it

340
00:19:38,960 --> 00:19:42,280
Speaker 1: up in their essay. I've been very afraid that the

341
00:19:42,359 --> 00:19:45,520
Speaker 1: next step that students for Fair Admissions and others like

342
00:19:45,680 --> 00:19:49,320
Speaker 1: them would take would be to say that color blind

343
00:19:49,520 --> 00:19:53,760
Speaker 1: means color blind. If somebody talks about rape, the university

344
00:19:53,840 --> 00:19:57,919
Speaker 1: really cannot consider it at all. Almost like you'd have

345
00:19:58,000 --> 00:20:00,959
Speaker 1: to first have a clean team goes through the applications

346
00:20:01,200 --> 00:20:05,080
Speaker 1: and redact anything that had race in it. And I'm

347
00:20:05,080 --> 00:20:08,080
Speaker 1: so not sure we won't see that if Grutter's overturned.

348
00:20:08,119 --> 00:20:10,520
Speaker 1: But you know, the court here was saying, well, no,

349
00:20:10,640 --> 00:20:13,440
Speaker 1: it's not going to be that crazy. What we're saying

350
00:20:13,560 --> 00:20:16,399
Speaker 1: is not that crazy, everybody. I think that's where they

351
00:20:16,400 --> 00:20:19,680
Speaker 1: were going with these questions. There was a lot of

352
00:20:19,720 --> 00:20:24,879
Speaker 1: talk about the box on the Common Application where you

353
00:20:24,920 --> 00:20:28,000
Speaker 1: can check and disclose your race. Do you think that

354
00:20:28,000 --> 00:20:31,439
Speaker 1: that will be gone after this decision? And when it

355
00:20:31,520 --> 00:20:34,040
Speaker 1: wasn't even the university that requires it's on the darned

356
00:20:34,119 --> 00:20:36,720
Speaker 1: Common Application. I don't know that they'll take it off

357
00:20:36,720 --> 00:20:40,560
Speaker 1: the Common Application because the federal government also asked universities

358
00:20:40,600 --> 00:20:45,080
Speaker 1: to report on the racial composition of their classes. Now

359
00:20:45,119 --> 00:20:48,160
Speaker 1: that's not information that they get off the Common Application.

360
00:20:48,720 --> 00:20:50,800
Speaker 1: I think they get that in another way from their

361
00:20:50,800 --> 00:20:54,439
Speaker 1: students when they actually enroll. But you know that that

362
00:20:54,560 --> 00:20:59,320
Speaker 1: they're so worked up about checking a box on forms,

363
00:20:59,560 --> 00:21:03,560
Speaker 1: Well that eo C tells employers that you're supposed to

364
00:21:03,640 --> 00:21:07,639
Speaker 1: ask your employees to check that same set of boxes.

365
00:21:07,920 --> 00:21:11,040
Speaker 1: Now you don't have to, but they ask you to

366
00:21:11,240 --> 00:21:13,879
Speaker 1: check those same set of boxes. The same set of

367
00:21:13,920 --> 00:21:17,320
Speaker 1: boxes were asked to check when we fill out the census.

368
00:21:17,359 --> 00:21:22,919
Speaker 1: So the obsession with it's some horrible thing to be

369
00:21:23,080 --> 00:21:27,760
Speaker 1: asked to check those categories kind of ignores a whole

370
00:21:27,760 --> 00:21:30,359
Speaker 1: lot of their places where we're asked to check the categories.

371
00:21:30,359 --> 00:21:32,720
Speaker 1: Whether they'll get rid of in the Common Application or not,

372
00:21:32,960 --> 00:21:37,000
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know right now. Universities are allowed

373
00:21:37,040 --> 00:21:41,840
Speaker 1: to consider race as a factor correct and as long

374
00:21:41,880 --> 00:21:46,040
Speaker 1: as as part of a holistic application process where race

375
00:21:46,160 --> 00:21:48,800
Speaker 1: is only one factor and the use of race is

376
00:21:48,920 --> 00:21:54,320
Speaker 1: narrowly tailored, that they're compelling interest in educational diversity. Is

377
00:21:54,320 --> 00:21:57,600
Speaker 1: this the first affirmative action case where the challengers are

378
00:21:57,920 --> 00:22:02,200
Speaker 1: swinging for the fences. They want no reference to race

379
00:22:02,240 --> 00:22:06,040
Speaker 1: at all in college admissions. Well, that's where it's interesting.

380
00:22:06,080 --> 00:22:11,000
Speaker 1: They want they want college admission systems to be color blind,

381
00:22:11,280 --> 00:22:14,240
Speaker 1: not race conscious. What you just said is what I

382
00:22:14,359 --> 00:22:17,320
Speaker 1: thought they might be doing. But the questions today were

383
00:22:18,080 --> 00:22:22,119
Speaker 1: applicants still can reference their race. If they want to

384
00:22:22,160 --> 00:22:25,480
Speaker 1: talk about their race being an important part of who

385
00:22:25,520 --> 00:22:28,920
Speaker 1: they are, they could still do that in their application,

386
00:22:29,680 --> 00:22:32,760
Speaker 1: and the college could consider how they talk about that

387
00:22:32,840 --> 00:22:36,960
Speaker 1: in context. They just can't have a system that says,

388
00:22:37,000 --> 00:22:40,960
Speaker 1: and you get a plus for your racial identity, which

389
00:22:41,000 --> 00:22:43,080
Speaker 1: is what it is now. Now you can get a

390
00:22:43,200 --> 00:22:47,040
Speaker 1: plus for your racial identity. It seems like the trials

391
00:22:47,040 --> 00:22:49,240
Speaker 1: in these cases were a waste of time. If they're

392
00:22:49,240 --> 00:22:53,880
Speaker 1: now going to change up the system and eliminate race

393
00:22:54,040 --> 00:22:57,800
Speaker 1: as a factor, yes, yes, And that's it's really pretty

394
00:22:57,800 --> 00:23:00,680
Speaker 1: studying at you. At one point this lest, the General

395
00:23:01,400 --> 00:23:05,240
Speaker 1: mentioned that the courts their usual rule that where a

396
00:23:05,280 --> 00:23:08,919
Speaker 1: district court finds facts at a trial and then they

397
00:23:08,960 --> 00:23:12,399
Speaker 1: are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court

398
00:23:12,520 --> 00:23:17,080
Speaker 1: really doesn't review those facts. Again. For them to then

399
00:23:17,320 --> 00:23:19,919
Speaker 1: look at those facts and say, oh, there's something wrong

400
00:23:20,160 --> 00:23:23,400
Speaker 1: is really really extraordinary. But a lot of the questions

401
00:23:23,440 --> 00:23:27,320
Speaker 1: that were being asked today. Justice Thomas's questions in particular,

402
00:23:27,400 --> 00:23:31,159
Speaker 1: and some of the other questions as well of the

403
00:23:31,359 --> 00:23:35,119
Speaker 1: advocates in both cases showed that the conservative members of

404
00:23:35,200 --> 00:23:39,280
Speaker 1: the Court were very willing to ignore that usual practice

405
00:23:39,320 --> 00:23:42,439
Speaker 1: they have and to second guess the fact finding by

406
00:23:42,480 --> 00:23:45,879
Speaker 1: these judges who each wrote, you know, very lengthy opinions

407
00:23:45,960 --> 00:23:50,119
Speaker 1: based on voluminous records at trial, and they're they're willing

408
00:23:50,160 --> 00:23:52,719
Speaker 1: to say, no, I don't agree with your facts. I

409
00:23:52,760 --> 00:23:56,920
Speaker 1: think that the tables that are in this these two

410
00:23:56,920 --> 00:24:00,240
Speaker 1: pages of the brief show that there's discrimination with don't

411
00:24:00,240 --> 00:24:03,199
Speaker 1: need to know anything else other than the tables on

412
00:24:03,240 --> 00:24:06,240
Speaker 1: these pages of the brief of my pellate brief. Is

413
00:24:06,240 --> 00:24:08,639
Speaker 1: there any difference in the Harvard case as opposed to

414
00:24:08,640 --> 00:24:13,320
Speaker 1: the u n C case. You know that the wild card, right,

415
00:24:13,440 --> 00:24:17,760
Speaker 1: is that Justice Jackson as part of the court for

416
00:24:18,000 --> 00:24:20,840
Speaker 1: the u n C case, and she has recused herself

417
00:24:20,840 --> 00:24:24,359
Speaker 1: from the Harvard case, so she won't be writing anything

418
00:24:24,359 --> 00:24:26,199
Speaker 1: in the Harvard case. I don't think that that's going

419
00:24:26,200 --> 00:24:29,480
Speaker 1: to make a difference to the outcome. And if either

420
00:24:29,600 --> 00:24:32,760
Speaker 1: the cases they have enough votes to over re grutter,

421
00:24:33,160 --> 00:24:36,359
Speaker 1: it's done, so that's why I think it won't really matter,

422
00:24:36,800 --> 00:24:39,320
Speaker 1: but you could get some differences in the opinions. The

423
00:24:39,359 --> 00:24:42,960
Speaker 1: other thing that Justice Jackson seemed a little bit interested

424
00:24:43,000 --> 00:24:46,840
Speaker 1: in was whether the plaintiffs in the UNC case have standing.

425
00:24:47,200 --> 00:24:49,400
Speaker 1: She brought that up more than once, so we may

426
00:24:49,400 --> 00:24:52,240
Speaker 1: get something from her on standing in U n C.

427
00:24:52,640 --> 00:24:54,560
Speaker 1: And I think we'll get a lot of different opinions

428
00:24:54,560 --> 00:24:58,119
Speaker 1: in these cases. I think it will be complicated. We

429
00:24:58,200 --> 00:25:01,160
Speaker 1: will find out in June. Thanks so much, Audrey. That's

430
00:25:01,200 --> 00:25:04,560
Speaker 1: Audrey Anderson. She's head of the higher education practice at

431
00:25:04,600 --> 00:25:07,560
Speaker 1: Bass Variant SIMS. And that's it for this edition of

432
00:25:07,600 --> 00:25:10,280
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the

433
00:25:10,359 --> 00:25:13,560
Speaker 1: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can

434
00:25:13,600 --> 00:25:17,840
Speaker 1: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot

435
00:25:17,840 --> 00:25:21,960
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, and remember to

436
00:25:22,040 --> 00:25:24,880
Speaker 1: tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every week night at

437
00:25:24,920 --> 00:25:28,400
Speaker 1: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're

438
00:25:28,480 --> 00:25:29,719
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg