WEBVTT - Obamacare Saved at Supreme Court Again 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:07.960 This is Bloombird Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:08.840 --> 0:00:12.440 Obamacare is safe from a legal challenge at the Supreme 0:00:12.520 --> 0:00:15.840 Court once again. By a vote of seven to two, 0:00:16.000 --> 0:00:19.360 the Justice has rejected the third Republican attack on the 0:00:19.480 --> 0:00:23.200 landmark law that provides health insurance to twenty million people. 0:00:23.560 --> 0:00:26.000 The opinion did not deal with the merits of the case, 0:00:26.239 --> 0:00:29.040 but rather ruled the challengers didn't have the right to 0:00:29.120 --> 0:00:33.320 sue because they weren't injured by the now toothless individual mandate. 0:00:34.040 --> 0:00:37.280 This lack of standing was an issue Chief Justice John 0:00:37.400 --> 0:00:40.480 Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas brought up in the oral 0:00:40.600 --> 0:00:45.519 arguments by posing several hypotheticals. Let's say Congress passes a 0:00:45.600 --> 0:00:49.160 law saying everybody has to mow their lawn once a week, 0:00:49.760 --> 0:00:51.840 and they even make a lot of findings about why 0:00:51.880 --> 0:00:54.400 that's a good thing. You know, it makes the country 0:00:54.440 --> 0:00:56.360 look neater, you get fresh air if you have to 0:00:56.400 --> 0:01:01.080 do that, supports the lawnmower business. Um. And but the 0:01:01.160 --> 0:01:05.319 fine for violating it is zero zero dollars. Um. Do 0:01:05.400 --> 0:01:10.039 they have standing? I assume that in most places there 0:01:10.160 --> 0:01:14.480 is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a 0:01:14.560 --> 0:01:18.319 mask during covid um, but there is some degree of 0:01:18.360 --> 0:01:21.440 opprobrium if one does not wear it in certain settings. 0:01:21.959 --> 0:01:24.960 Joining me is Neil Kincaff, a professor of constitutional law 0:01:25.000 --> 0:01:28.400 at the Georgia State University College of Law. Why is 0:01:28.520 --> 0:01:32.200 seven month wait to hand down this decision which is 0:01:32.560 --> 0:01:36.120 seven to two and just sixteen pages long. That's a 0:01:36.200 --> 0:01:39.480 great question. I wish I knew the answer. Maybe someday 0:01:39.560 --> 0:01:42.800 the conference notes will tell us what was really going on, 0:01:43.080 --> 0:01:46.000 because you're right, it's seven to two decisions and it's 0:01:46.080 --> 0:01:49.880 on a technicality, really on standing, and so why did 0:01:49.920 --> 0:01:52.200 it take so long? And you can only imagine the 0:01:52.280 --> 0:01:55.520 justices were actually going back and forth about the merits 0:01:55.560 --> 0:02:00.320 and then decided to instead resolve it on this jurisdictional ground. Yeah, 0:02:00.360 --> 0:02:02.520 so tell us why the court decided as it did. 0:02:02.960 --> 0:02:05.360 So it ruled that the parties who brought the case 0:02:05.520 --> 0:02:08.840 didn't have the authority the jurisdiction to bring the case. 0:02:09.120 --> 0:02:11.320 So in order to bring a case, you have to 0:02:11.360 --> 0:02:14.640 be an actually injured party. So it can't be that 0:02:14.720 --> 0:02:18.400 you just think Obamacare is unconstitutional or you think the 0:02:18.440 --> 0:02:21.720 government is doing something that violates the law that doesn't 0:02:21.720 --> 0:02:24.040 allow you to bring a lawsuit, you have to be 0:02:24.120 --> 0:02:28.520 actually personally harmed by the government's action, and then if 0:02:28.560 --> 0:02:30.720 you are, you can say I'm harmed and the government 0:02:30.800 --> 0:02:34.480 is acting on constitutionally, Court, please order a remedy. And 0:02:34.560 --> 0:02:36.679 so what the court set in this case is that 0:02:36.760 --> 0:02:39.880 the plaintiffs there were two individuals and a set of 0:02:40.040 --> 0:02:43.560 twelve states. So the Supreme Court set, you haven't been 0:02:43.560 --> 0:02:47.360 directly harmed by anything the federal government has done. And 0:02:47.600 --> 0:02:50.400 if you pay attention to what the substance of the 0:02:50.400 --> 0:02:52.680 case was about, it's easy to see how that was 0:02:52.720 --> 0:02:56.359 the case. What they were complaining about is that Congress 0:02:56.400 --> 0:03:02.280 in seventeen amended Obamacare to move the provision imposing a 0:03:02.320 --> 0:03:06.400 penalty on anyone who didn't buy the required insurance. And 0:03:06.480 --> 0:03:09.160 so what you had was this odd situation of two 0:03:09.240 --> 0:03:13.480 individuals who are complaining that there's a requirement that they 0:03:13.560 --> 0:03:17.840 buy insurance, but there's no actual penalty or anything that 0:03:17.919 --> 0:03:20.360 happens to them if they don't go ahead and do it. 0:03:20.680 --> 0:03:23.760 So the court said, you're not actually harmed. And then 0:03:23.760 --> 0:03:27.720 the states made an even otter argument, saying that their 0:03:27.800 --> 0:03:32.480 costs of running their state would go up because they 0:03:32.520 --> 0:03:37.480 have to run these insurance programs that cover people under Obamacare. 0:03:37.800 --> 0:03:40.920 The problem is, once you eliminate the penalty for not 0:03:41.000 --> 0:03:43.680 signing up for it, it's hard to see how the 0:03:43.760 --> 0:03:46.440 state is being harmed. In fact, if that's their concern, 0:03:46.520 --> 0:03:49.600 you would think removing the penalty helps them because now 0:03:49.720 --> 0:03:52.000 people who don't want it aren't going to sign up 0:03:52.040 --> 0:03:54.680 for it to avoid a penalty. So, if anything, it 0:03:54.720 --> 0:03:57.920 would reduce the state's costs. So the Supreme Court said, 0:03:57.920 --> 0:04:01.520 as to both of these parties, you're not personally injured. 0:04:01.800 --> 0:04:04.800 You're like anybody else who's just out there complaining that 0:04:04.880 --> 0:04:07.880 they don't like Obamacare. Because you don't have a direct 0:04:07.960 --> 0:04:10.680 personal stake in this, you are not allowed to bring 0:04:10.720 --> 0:04:13.880 this lawsuit. The Chief wrote the opinions of the Court 0:04:14.000 --> 0:04:16.920 in the other Obamacare decisions and got a lot of 0:04:16.920 --> 0:04:20.680 criticism from conservatives. Is it surprising that he had it 0:04:20.760 --> 0:04:23.960 off this decision to Justice prior to write. So it 0:04:24.080 --> 0:04:26.719 may be that the Chief has decided that he's gotten 0:04:26.839 --> 0:04:29.839 enough blowback from Obamacare that may have something to do 0:04:29.920 --> 0:04:32.720 with it. The Chief, because he's in the majority, would 0:04:32.760 --> 0:04:35.400 be the one who assigned the writing of this opinion. 0:04:35.680 --> 0:04:38.840 I suspect that because the opinion has to do with 0:04:39.040 --> 0:04:41.800 standing and not with any of the merits. And it's 0:04:41.839 --> 0:04:45.159 an issue that even among the justices is considered kind 0:04:45.160 --> 0:04:48.240 of a boring technicality. So I don't think anyone was 0:04:48.279 --> 0:04:51.680 really lobbying hard to get to write this opinion. What 0:04:51.800 --> 0:04:55.560 did you think about Justice Alito's descent? He called it 0:04:55.640 --> 0:05:00.599 the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy. 0:05:00.920 --> 0:05:04.360 So I just think it shows how contentious the issue 0:05:04.480 --> 0:05:06.520 is on the Court. I mean, I think it also 0:05:06.760 --> 0:05:10.839 sort of betrays that Justice Alito isn't really viewing this 0:05:11.080 --> 0:05:14.440 as a law issue, That this is for some of 0:05:14.480 --> 0:05:18.520 the justices, the kind of policy issue that you might 0:05:18.640 --> 0:05:22.400 hear debated and argued about on the cable news shows, 0:05:22.720 --> 0:05:25.480 and that it plays on that level with the justices. 0:05:25.600 --> 0:05:29.640 And I certainly think Justice Alito's dissenting opinion reads that way. 0:05:30.040 --> 0:05:32.240 It reads like it's written for that kind of an 0:05:32.279 --> 0:05:36.560 audience rather than your standard Supreme Court opinion audience. Is 0:05:36.600 --> 0:05:40.440 the cloud over Obamacare gone? Now? Are the legal challenges 0:05:40.480 --> 0:05:43.360 behind us? Well, it's hard for me to say their 0:05:43.520 --> 0:05:46.960 entirely behind us, just because there is so much interest 0:05:47.040 --> 0:05:50.200 in it, and therefore there is so much money available 0:05:50.560 --> 0:05:53.800 for lawyers and groups that want to challenge it, so 0:05:53.960 --> 0:05:56.760 it's possible we'll hear more of it. I would say 0:05:56.800 --> 0:05:59.599 that I think this is the Supreme Court telling people, 0:05:59.720 --> 0:06:03.120 we've really don't want to hear about this anymore. Go away. 0:06:03.240 --> 0:06:06.000 We'll see if they take that advice. Neil. That's Neil 0:06:06.080 --> 0:06:10.760 Kinkoff of the Georgia State University College of Law. Cases 0:06:10.760 --> 0:06:13.520 on abortion and gun rights are already on the Supreme 0:06:13.600 --> 0:06:16.960 Court's docket for next term, and now the Jostices are 0:06:16.960 --> 0:06:20.880 considering adding a third blockbuster case over whether to ban 0:06:21.080 --> 0:06:25.119 colleges from considering race and admissions. The case over whether 0:06:25.160 --> 0:06:30.040 Harvard College intentionally discriminated against Asian American applicants has been 0:06:30.040 --> 0:06:33.800 the most high profile affirmative action case in years, drawing 0:06:33.839 --> 0:06:37.279 protests from both sides. It's an important time to be 0:06:37.320 --> 0:06:39.760 critical of Harvard and to look at how affirmative action 0:06:39.800 --> 0:06:45.680 policies have impacted or discriminated against Asian American communities. Chinese 0:06:45.720 --> 0:06:50.120 Americans support affirmative action. We see how important it is 0:06:50.160 --> 0:06:54.000 to recognize adversity. The Jostices are asking the Biden administration 0:06:54.160 --> 0:06:56.640 to weigh in on the Court of Appeals decision that 0:06:56.760 --> 0:06:59.560 upheld Harvard's policy of using race as a factor in 0:06:59.560 --> 0:07:03.200 admission as a legitimate way to diversify its student body. 0:07:03.600 --> 0:07:06.800 Joining me is Susan Sturm, a professor at Columbia Law School. 0:07:07.360 --> 0:07:10.160 Let's start with the big question, what do you read 0:07:10.240 --> 0:07:14.640 into the Supreme Court asking for the Biden administration's view 0:07:15.080 --> 0:07:18.320 on the Harvard case. You can't fully predict what the 0:07:18.400 --> 0:07:22.360 justices are about. My sense use that number one, they're 0:07:22.440 --> 0:07:26.240 trying to really be thorough about the consideration. So this 0:07:26.400 --> 0:07:30.360 is a step of considering the perspectives of the United States. 0:07:30.400 --> 0:07:33.560 When the administration has changed, they get the opportunity have 0:07:33.760 --> 0:07:37.840 the administration way in that has both the appearance of 0:07:38.000 --> 0:07:42.160 full consideration at every step. And also some justices may 0:07:42.160 --> 0:07:45.920 be really interested in learning something. This could be a formality, 0:07:46.200 --> 0:07:50.400 It could indicate more of a willingness to actually accept 0:07:50.440 --> 0:07:53.480 the case. It could be that there are some justices 0:07:53.520 --> 0:07:56.320 who feel they would get some information that would help 0:07:56.320 --> 0:08:00.280 in their informal deliberation. So let's go back. Tell us 0:08:00.360 --> 0:08:04.880 about the First Circuit's decision. First Circuits decision upheld the 0:08:05.400 --> 0:08:11.920 Harvard admissions approach, which considers diversity as part of a 0:08:11.960 --> 0:08:16.560 compelling interest, and the First Circuit found that Harvard did 0:08:16.600 --> 0:08:20.320 not take race into account in a way that ran 0:08:20.400 --> 0:08:24.160 a foul of the Equal Protection Clause, and that considering 0:08:24.280 --> 0:08:29.720 race as part of holistic review is consistent with the Constitution. 0:08:30.320 --> 0:08:34.120 That was rejecting the arguments of Stutes for Fair Admission, 0:08:34.440 --> 0:08:38.480 suggesting that as they are doing before the Supreme Court, 0:08:39.080 --> 0:08:43.880 number one, suggesting that any consideration of race would violate 0:08:44.000 --> 0:08:48.240 Equal Protection Clause, and number two that Harvard in this 0:08:48.400 --> 0:08:53.160 case considered the race of Asian American applicants in ways 0:08:53.240 --> 0:08:58.360 that demonstrated animal The Circuit rejected those arguments and really, 0:08:58.400 --> 0:09:03.120 in a heavily factual analysis found that had additions approach 0:09:03.440 --> 0:09:08.160 past constitutional muster. So the plaintiffs here, the students for 0:09:08.240 --> 0:09:13.120 Fair Admissions, are outright asking the Supreme Court to overturn 0:09:13.200 --> 0:09:17.400 the landmark two thousand three Grutter case. Yes, they are. 0:09:17.520 --> 0:09:20.840 And part of the reason that there's there's a concern 0:09:21.040 --> 0:09:24.160 about the decision to accept sort is that this is 0:09:24.200 --> 0:09:30.199 a case that relatively soon after that endorsement of Bruder, 0:09:30.679 --> 0:09:34.120 and the facts are fairly strong in this case and 0:09:34.240 --> 0:09:36.640 Harvards we happen and have been so found both by 0:09:36.679 --> 0:09:39.679 the Trial Court and by the First Circuit. So there 0:09:39.760 --> 0:09:43.160 is a concern that with the change in the composition 0:09:43.200 --> 0:09:46.079 of the Court that if the Court were to accept 0:09:46.120 --> 0:09:49.920 sort if, that might signal a willingness to either cut 0:09:49.960 --> 0:09:55.080 back dramatically the circumstances under which colleges and universities can 0:09:55.120 --> 0:10:00.360 explicitly consider race, or to eliminate that consideration completely. And 0:10:00.480 --> 0:10:04.480 this would be a deeply problematic decision on the part 0:10:04.520 --> 0:10:07.520 of the Court. Why I'm curious about the Court asking 0:10:07.720 --> 0:10:11.400 the Biden administration for its input is that it seems 0:10:11.440 --> 0:10:16.800 pretty clear that the Biden administration is going to disagree 0:10:17.120 --> 0:10:21.520 with the position the Trump administration took supporting this lawsuit, 0:10:21.920 --> 0:10:25.160 because the Biden administration has already dropped the Yale lawsuit 0:10:25.600 --> 0:10:29.720 that the Trump administration brought. It's a good question, and 0:10:30.160 --> 0:10:34.760 again it's difficult to know whether the request is to 0:10:34.920 --> 0:10:38.319 really get updated views on the part of the government 0:10:38.480 --> 0:10:43.000 that will then inform a reconsideration internally to the Court. 0:10:43.200 --> 0:10:46.920 That could be one signal. Another signal is just the 0:10:47.080 --> 0:10:51.080 interest of thoroughness, and I think Chief Justice Robert is 0:10:51.280 --> 0:10:55.760 one who is interested in conveying an idea of legitimacy 0:10:55.760 --> 0:10:57.760 on the part of the Court, even as it might 0:10:57.840 --> 0:11:01.320 be an activist court that's really cutting back on the 0:11:01.360 --> 0:11:04.440 court role in affording racial justice. So this could be 0:11:04.480 --> 0:11:08.000 a process e Z. We've offered every opportunity at every 0:11:08.000 --> 0:11:10.640 step of the way, and this is a circumstance under 0:11:10.640 --> 0:11:15.000 which we still find it appropriate to change, to step 0:11:15.000 --> 0:11:20.240 back on what's called starry decisive, which is upholding settled precedent. 0:11:20.600 --> 0:11:24.120 Or it could be an effort to really seriously think 0:11:24.120 --> 0:11:26.440 about whether this is a time kind of play to 0:11:26.679 --> 0:11:31.120 open up these questions about the propriety under the Constitution 0:11:31.320 --> 0:11:34.080 as the Court we said of taking race into account. 0:11:34.600 --> 0:11:38.240 So it was just in I believe that the Court 0:11:38.400 --> 0:11:43.679 reaffirmed the consideration of race in college admissions, but that 0:11:43.760 --> 0:11:46.520 was by a four to three vote, and it's a 0:11:46.559 --> 0:11:49.800 really different court. Now. Tell us what the court decide 0:11:49.840 --> 0:11:55.720 in and how it's different now. The Court decided in that, 0:11:56.600 --> 0:12:01.520 first of all, reaffirmed that diversity is a compelling interest, 0:12:02.080 --> 0:12:05.920 which is what's required to take race into account under 0:12:05.920 --> 0:12:11.600 the Equal Protection Clause. That holistic review is warranted and 0:12:11.840 --> 0:12:17.000 permitted under the Equal Protection Clause uh, and that higher 0:12:17.080 --> 0:12:21.760 education institutions continued to be entitled to deference given that 0:12:21.880 --> 0:12:24.360 they are the ones who the best judges of the 0:12:24.880 --> 0:12:29.480 academic requirements, but that courts will give a searching review 0:12:30.480 --> 0:12:35.959 to how that judgment is exercised, and that there needs 0:12:35.960 --> 0:12:42.360 to be an evidence based justification for taking race into account. 0:12:42.720 --> 0:12:47.040 So all of that was upheld and reaffirmed by the 0:12:47.120 --> 0:12:49.680 Court in twenty seen, as you said, in this four 0:12:49.800 --> 0:12:54.880 three decisions. So on that court, the three justice who 0:12:54.920 --> 0:12:57.920 were in dissent are still on the court, that's Chief 0:12:57.960 --> 0:13:02.640 Justice John Roberts and just this Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. 0:13:02.880 --> 0:13:07.240 But two of the justice who were in the majority 0:13:07.280 --> 0:13:10.280 are no longer on the court. That's, of course, the 0:13:10.400 --> 0:13:15.239 late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Anthony Kennedy who retired. 0:13:15.840 --> 0:13:19.719 So the court now is really different from what it 0:13:19.840 --> 0:13:24.680 was then. Do we know how the three new justices 0:13:25.280 --> 0:13:30.240 regards taking race into consideration and admissions? There are some 0:13:30.360 --> 0:13:36.200 indications from their prior decisions that these new justices have 0:13:36.400 --> 0:13:41.920 embraced this kind of color blindness approach, that looking at 0:13:42.200 --> 0:13:45.960 race as uh something that cannot be taken into account 0:13:46.080 --> 0:13:49.560 at all. Having said that, the configuration of the Court 0:13:49.840 --> 0:13:54.000 is different, and I think there also is the possibility 0:13:54.120 --> 0:13:57.080 that what this means for the center of the court 0:13:57.440 --> 0:14:01.200 is that there may be a concern learn about thinking 0:14:01.520 --> 0:14:06.000 about starry decisive, namely the upholding of precedent in a 0:14:06.120 --> 0:14:10.120 situation in which the world has not changed except for 0:14:10.160 --> 0:14:12.640 the composition of the Court. So even though we have 0:14:12.960 --> 0:14:16.400 new justices, it's not a foregone conclusion that that will 0:14:16.440 --> 0:14:19.600 mean that the justices that were in the dissent in 0:14:19.640 --> 0:14:24.320 the opinions will then view this as the time to 0:14:25.000 --> 0:14:29.760 really cut back on or retract from a well established precedent. 0:14:30.120 --> 0:14:33.200 And there are examples of the Chief Justice, for example, 0:14:33.680 --> 0:14:37.280 upholding a decision that he might personally disagree with, but 0:14:37.480 --> 0:14:40.920 that is clear precedent for which there is no established 0:14:40.920 --> 0:14:44.239 spaces for cutting back. So we do have three new justices, 0:14:44.520 --> 0:14:47.480 at least two of whom might be very willing to 0:14:47.520 --> 0:14:52.040 take a radical approach to constitutional interpretation and to a 0:14:52.080 --> 0:14:56.880 more activist approach that reflects their own views of the Constitution. 0:14:57.280 --> 0:15:00.280 I don't think that tells us how the Court would 0:15:00.320 --> 0:15:04.080 actually rule. I think there's some possibility that there would 0:15:04.120 --> 0:15:08.680 be cutting back, but not an overturning of president with 0:15:08.840 --> 0:15:12.240 this new majority. I want to talk a little bit 0:15:12.240 --> 0:15:17.200 about Edward Blum, who leads to students for fair admissions. 0:15:17.800 --> 0:15:21.320 He was also behind the lawsuit behind the Shelby County 0:15:21.400 --> 0:15:25.280 decision which curtailed voting rights. Is he a one man 0:15:25.400 --> 0:15:29.320 the activist or is this is a vast organization? We 0:15:29.400 --> 0:15:33.600 have to give him credit. He's been very effective, um 0:15:33.640 --> 0:15:39.960 as a small organization that has been able to in 0:15:40.520 --> 0:15:44.120 part because of the change in the politics of the 0:15:44.240 --> 0:15:50.600 nation and the election of Donald Trump and the shift 0:15:50.680 --> 0:15:55.520 in the judiciary uh that has followed because of the 0:15:55.600 --> 0:16:02.120 judges that uh that uh former president appointed. That that 0:16:02.320 --> 0:16:05.360 he has been able to really leverage a small amount 0:16:05.360 --> 0:16:08.360 of resources to have a big effect. And part of 0:16:08.400 --> 0:16:12.840 what he's done is really used the court system to 0:16:13.040 --> 0:16:16.120 compensate for the fact that he is a small organization. 0:16:16.960 --> 0:16:20.440 Uh that Uh there isn't a sense that that this 0:16:20.600 --> 0:16:25.320 is a h A large, you know, populous movement. There 0:16:25.320 --> 0:16:31.120 have been very wealthy people who have financed his organizations 0:16:31.480 --> 0:16:37.160 so that they can uh martial uh legal resources to 0:16:37.520 --> 0:16:42.360 fight this battle. Um And UH, so he's been he 0:16:42.480 --> 0:16:47.320 has been able to be quite effective marshaling the resources 0:16:47.520 --> 0:16:53.800 biggal resources heavily financed by wealthy uh contributors uh and 0:16:53.920 --> 0:16:58.520 then using the the shift in the in the composition 0:16:58.520 --> 0:17:04.480 of the court to have really outsized impact. So if 0:17:04.520 --> 0:17:07.480 you consider that there's no split in the circuits that 0:17:07.560 --> 0:17:10.760 the Supreme Court has to resolve, and the Court is 0:17:10.800 --> 0:17:15.400 already going to be considering next term the controversial issues 0:17:15.720 --> 0:17:19.560 of abortion and gun rights, what would be your guests 0:17:19.600 --> 0:17:22.480 as to whether or not the justices will take this case. 0:17:23.560 --> 0:17:27.199 I think it's really anybody's guests as to whether the 0:17:27.240 --> 0:17:31.040 Court will take this I think that this depends in 0:17:31.160 --> 0:17:36.720 part on the appetite of the four justices. Two, as 0:17:36.840 --> 0:17:40.639 you've indicated, placed the Court smack in the middle of 0:17:41.040 --> 0:17:45.560 the most polarizing and controversial issues of our time. And 0:17:45.640 --> 0:17:48.520 to do that in a situation when there would be 0:17:48.520 --> 0:17:52.960 no question that were the Court to dramatically cut back 0:17:53.160 --> 0:17:57.679 on or overturn the consideration of race in admissions, that 0:17:57.800 --> 0:18:02.040 the Court would be taking a radical activist stance that 0:18:02.359 --> 0:18:06.480 is contrary to start decisive. So the question is does 0:18:06.520 --> 0:18:09.359 the Court have an appetite for that with new justices 0:18:09.400 --> 0:18:11.960 on the bench and with these other issues that the 0:18:12.000 --> 0:18:15.240 Court will also be faced. And it's hard to say 0:18:15.280 --> 0:18:18.040 because we have this new composition of the court and 0:18:18.320 --> 0:18:22.439 that question about how the Court is going to construct 0:18:22.560 --> 0:18:27.040 its role and its legitimacy with the populace is up 0:18:27.040 --> 0:18:30.480 for grips. The law in this area is going to 0:18:30.640 --> 0:18:34.040 really get made on the ground. And the biggest concern 0:18:34.119 --> 0:18:37.240 that I have is that whatever the Supreme Court decides, 0:18:37.600 --> 0:18:41.760 that high right institutions and others will addicate responsibility for 0:18:42.040 --> 0:18:44.919 dealing with issues of race in a way that outside 0:18:44.920 --> 0:18:48.919 of the judiciary have really engulfed the nation. There's a 0:18:49.080 --> 0:18:53.520 risk of the court system becoming even more out of 0:18:53.600 --> 0:18:57.920 touch with the realities of our time and the demands 0:18:57.960 --> 0:19:01.320 of the national legional reckoning that we're basing. Uh. And 0:19:01.440 --> 0:19:04.320 so I really hope the Court does not take this 0:19:04.440 --> 0:19:07.479 case for all the reasons we discussed, and I really 0:19:07.680 --> 0:19:11.880 would urge higher education leaders and the lawyers counseling them 0:19:12.280 --> 0:19:15.719 to recognize that business an area where law will be 0:19:15.800 --> 0:19:19.280 made in the day to day decision of higher education 0:19:19.320 --> 0:19:22.720 institutions as much as posits the Frame Court. Thanks for 0:19:22.760 --> 0:19:26.040 being on the show, Susan. That's Susan Sturm, a professor 0:19:26.040 --> 0:19:28.880 at Columbia Law School. And that's it for this edition 0:19:28.880 --> 0:19:31.639 of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always at 0:19:31.640 --> 0:19:34.399 the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You 0:19:34.440 --> 0:19:38.199 can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www 0:19:38.480 --> 0:19:42.440 dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, slash Law. I'm jud 0:19:42.560 --> 0:19:44.359 Brasso and you're listening to Bloomberg