WEBVTT - Implications of Refusal of Planned Parenthood Cases

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 --> 0:00:22.200
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. As soon as

0:00:22.320 --> 0:00:26.960
<v Speaker 1>Justice Anthony Kennedy retired, women's rights advocates became concerned that

0:00:27.040 --> 0:00:29.960
<v Speaker 1>his successor would be the fifth vote to reverse the

0:00:30.080 --> 0:00:34.200
<v Speaker 1>landmark case of Roe v. Wade that made abortion legal nationwide.

0:00:34.640 --> 0:00:38.559
<v Speaker 1>At his confirmation hearings to succeed Kennedy, Brett Kavanaugh was

0:00:38.640 --> 0:00:41.519
<v Speaker 1>pressed over and over again about his views on the

0:00:41.640 --> 0:00:45.440
<v Speaker 1>landmark case. It's settled as a precedent of the Supreme

0:00:45.479 --> 0:00:49.720
<v Speaker 1>Court entitled the Respect under Principles of Starry Decisis, and

0:00:49.760 --> 0:00:51.920
<v Speaker 1>one of the important things to keep in mind about

0:00:52.080 --> 0:00:56.840
<v Speaker 1>Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many

0:00:56.920 --> 0:01:02.760
<v Speaker 1>times over the past years, but precedents are reversed at

0:01:02.800 --> 0:01:05.959
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court all the time. In fact, Justice year,

0:01:06.040 --> 0:01:09.200
<v Speaker 1>the Justice is overturned a forty year old landmark ruling

0:01:09.200 --> 0:01:13.360
<v Speaker 1>on union fees. So many pro choice advocates were encouraged

0:01:13.400 --> 0:01:17.319
<v Speaker 1>when now Justice Kavanaugh cast the deciding vote not to

0:01:17.400 --> 0:01:20.200
<v Speaker 1>hear the appeals of two cases from states that want

0:01:20.200 --> 0:01:24.080
<v Speaker 1>to cut off Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, effectively giving

0:01:24.120 --> 0:01:27.760
<v Speaker 1>Planned Parenthood a win. But were they too quick to

0:01:27.840 --> 0:01:32.000
<v Speaker 1>draw any conclusions? Joining me is Stephen Vladdock, a constitutional

0:01:32.040 --> 0:01:35.360
<v Speaker 1>law professor at the University of Texas Law School. So

0:01:35.440 --> 0:01:37.800
<v Speaker 1>it takes four justices for the Court to agree to

0:01:37.800 --> 0:01:41.119
<v Speaker 1>hear a case, and these cases got only three votes

0:01:41.440 --> 0:01:45.720
<v Speaker 1>from conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.

0:01:46.160 --> 0:01:49.800
<v Speaker 1>What does it tell you that the newest conservative Justice,

0:01:49.840 --> 0:01:54.040
<v Speaker 1>Brett Kavanaugh and the Chief Justice John Roberts voted not

0:01:54.120 --> 0:01:56.360
<v Speaker 1>to take the case. Well, I think it's important to

0:01:56.360 --> 0:01:58.760
<v Speaker 1>put this in the contest. I mean, the actual question

0:01:58.840 --> 0:02:02.880
<v Speaker 1>presented in these two cases, which come from really three

0:02:02.920 --> 0:02:09.000
<v Speaker 1>different states, from Missouri, Kansas, and Louisiana, is whether these

0:02:09.200 --> 0:02:14.120
<v Speaker 1>Medicaid providers Planned Parenthood and these other healthcare providers are

0:02:14.120 --> 0:02:16.720
<v Speaker 1>allowed to even bring a lawsuit in the first place,

0:02:17.160 --> 0:02:21.440
<v Speaker 1>challenging the fact that the states have withdrawn Medicaid funding

0:02:21.960 --> 0:02:25.840
<v Speaker 1>for non abortion related services solely on the ground that

0:02:25.880 --> 0:02:30.919
<v Speaker 1>these providers also performed non Medicaid funded abortion services. So

0:02:31.000 --> 0:02:33.480
<v Speaker 1>the actual legal issue is about whether there's a private

0:02:33.560 --> 0:02:35.760
<v Speaker 1>right of action, and the reason why that's important, June

0:02:35.840 --> 0:02:39.840
<v Speaker 1>is because both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh have

0:02:39.960 --> 0:02:43.200
<v Speaker 1>been on the record over and over again as being

0:02:43.360 --> 0:02:47.840
<v Speaker 1>pretty skeptical of private rights of action in any context

0:02:47.880 --> 0:02:52.000
<v Speaker 1>in which Congress has not expressly provided for one. That

0:02:52.120 --> 0:02:54.920
<v Speaker 1>is to say, they should have been pretty sympathetic to

0:02:55.280 --> 0:02:58.520
<v Speaker 1>the petitions in these cases, which claim that the lower

0:02:58.560 --> 0:03:02.079
<v Speaker 1>course had aired allowing planned Parenthood and the other plaintiffs

0:03:02.120 --> 0:03:04.400
<v Speaker 1>to sue. So the fact that they denied certain I

0:03:04.440 --> 0:03:07.280
<v Speaker 1>think in this case is not in any way a

0:03:07.320 --> 0:03:09.440
<v Speaker 1>reflection of how they feel about the merit. I don't

0:03:09.440 --> 0:03:11.320
<v Speaker 1>think that they've all of a sudden woken up and

0:03:11.400 --> 0:03:14.640
<v Speaker 1>changed their minds about private rights of action. I think

0:03:14.680 --> 0:03:16.720
<v Speaker 1>it's really much more interesting as a sign that they

0:03:16.760 --> 0:03:20.800
<v Speaker 1>just didn't want these cases, and that for really I

0:03:20.840 --> 0:03:25.120
<v Speaker 1>think political and optical reasons. Even though they probably thought

0:03:25.160 --> 0:03:28.440
<v Speaker 1>the lower court rulings in these cases were incorrect from

0:03:28.440 --> 0:03:31.160
<v Speaker 1>the perspective of what's good for the Supreme Court as

0:03:31.160 --> 0:03:33.840
<v Speaker 1>an institution, they both thought it was better for the

0:03:33.880 --> 0:03:37.119
<v Speaker 1>Court to sit this one out. So our Lettle analysts

0:03:37.160 --> 0:03:41.240
<v Speaker 1>mistaken when they take that extra step and say this

0:03:41.360 --> 0:03:44.880
<v Speaker 1>means that those two justices are not ready to confront

0:03:45.040 --> 0:03:49.680
<v Speaker 1>controversial abortion cases. Yeah, I think we have to be careful.

0:03:49.680 --> 0:03:53.040
<v Speaker 1>Like I do think we can read something important into

0:03:53.560 --> 0:03:56.360
<v Speaker 1>the fact that neither Chief Justice Roberts nor Justice Kavanaugh

0:03:56.400 --> 0:03:58.920
<v Speaker 1>voted to grant these cases. I'm not sure that's what

0:03:58.960 --> 0:04:01.360
<v Speaker 1>I would take away. That's say, I don't know that

0:04:01.440 --> 0:04:04.760
<v Speaker 1>this means that if the right kind of abortion related

0:04:04.840 --> 0:04:07.520
<v Speaker 1>case were to come to the Supreme Court, they wouldn't

0:04:07.560 --> 0:04:11.480
<v Speaker 1>grant review. I think it was that in this specific context,

0:04:12.000 --> 0:04:14.880
<v Speaker 1>they didn't see any need for the Court to jump

0:04:14.880 --> 0:04:16.719
<v Speaker 1>into this. And I think the reason why that's so

0:04:16.760 --> 0:04:21.279
<v Speaker 1>interesting to me is because they probably figured out that

0:04:21.360 --> 0:04:24.120
<v Speaker 1>if the Court had granted these cases, they were going

0:04:24.200 --> 0:04:26.320
<v Speaker 1>to divide five to four on the marriage and they

0:04:26.320 --> 0:04:29.840
<v Speaker 1>were probably gonna divide five to four along partisan lines.

0:04:30.000 --> 0:04:32.120
<v Speaker 1>And so I don't know that this is a statement

0:04:32.160 --> 0:04:35.880
<v Speaker 1>about abortion cases nearly as much as it's a statement

0:04:35.960 --> 0:04:40.440
<v Speaker 1>that for these two justices, at least for now, where

0:04:40.480 --> 0:04:46.200
<v Speaker 1>it's possible to avoid visible politically charged cases, they're likely

0:04:46.240 --> 0:04:50.320
<v Speaker 1>going to split the court along partisan ideological lines. They're

0:04:50.320 --> 0:04:53.279
<v Speaker 1>inclined to do so that basically, this is about keeping

0:04:53.400 --> 0:04:57.280
<v Speaker 1>their heads down and not about abortion, per se. Steve,

0:04:57.360 --> 0:05:00.600
<v Speaker 1>let's talk about the dissent Justice Thomas at the descent,

0:05:00.720 --> 0:05:03.880
<v Speaker 1>and he speculated about the motives of the six justices

0:05:03.880 --> 0:05:06.800
<v Speaker 1>who turned the cases down. He concluded that it was

0:05:06.880 --> 0:05:11.760
<v Speaker 1>because Planned Parenthood was involved. What's your take on his conclusion.

0:05:12.120 --> 0:05:15.360
<v Speaker 1>I think it's a little bit um how should I

0:05:15.440 --> 0:05:17.880
<v Speaker 1>put this? I think that's a little bit unfair on

0:05:18.040 --> 0:05:21.120
<v Speaker 1>Justice Thomas's part to level all of the blame for

0:05:21.200 --> 0:05:23.640
<v Speaker 1>that with the justices who voted to deny certain I mean,

0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:27.440
<v Speaker 1>these cases would not exist if these plaintiffs weren't named

0:05:27.440 --> 0:05:30.159
<v Speaker 1>Planned Parenthood. That is to say, this issue has only

0:05:30.200 --> 0:05:34.920
<v Speaker 1>arisen because you know, these states Missouri, Kansas, Louisiana and

0:05:34.920 --> 0:05:39.080
<v Speaker 1>a handful of others have singled out Planned Parenthood and

0:05:39.360 --> 0:05:45.200
<v Speaker 1>other providers of abortion related services for really discriminatory treatment

0:05:45.560 --> 0:05:49.520
<v Speaker 1>in their non abortion service capacities. And so I guess

0:05:49.560 --> 0:05:52.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, when the whole case starts because the planiffs

0:05:52.880 --> 0:05:56.120
<v Speaker 1>are Planned Parenthood. I'm not sure it's really fair for

0:05:56.200 --> 0:05:59.520
<v Speaker 1>Justice Thomas to point the finger at his colleagues for

0:05:59.640 --> 0:06:02.640
<v Speaker 1>basic keeping their heads down because the case about Planned Parenthood.

0:06:02.760 --> 0:06:05.600
<v Speaker 1>This case would never have happened if it weren't about

0:06:05.640 --> 0:06:09.800
<v Speaker 1>the very optics that Justice Thomas is suggesting his colleagues

0:06:09.839 --> 0:06:14.080
<v Speaker 1>are trying to avoid. Republican Senator Susan Collins, who of

0:06:14.160 --> 0:06:18.360
<v Speaker 1>course was criticized for voting for Kavanaugh, said she felt

0:06:18.480 --> 0:06:22.520
<v Speaker 1>vindicated by Kavanaugh's refusal to take these cases because it

0:06:22.600 --> 0:06:26.400
<v Speaker 1>shows that he's impartial and wasn't holding anything against planned

0:06:26.400 --> 0:06:33.000
<v Speaker 1>parenthood for opposing his confirmation. Is she right? No, I'm

0:06:33.040 --> 0:06:35.279
<v Speaker 1>not sure she's wrong, But you know, I certainly don't

0:06:35.279 --> 0:06:39.240
<v Speaker 1>think that this proves anything about that controversial series of

0:06:39.240 --> 0:06:43.039
<v Speaker 1>exchanges during the confirmation process. I think the real question

0:06:43.080 --> 0:06:47.360
<v Speaker 1>remains whether the new conservative majority on the Court, in

0:06:47.480 --> 0:06:50.280
<v Speaker 1>cases that properly presenting the question and this was not

0:06:50.400 --> 0:06:55.159
<v Speaker 1>one of them, um are going to uphold state laws

0:06:55.200 --> 0:06:58.520
<v Speaker 1>that increasingly chip away at the right to choose that

0:06:58.560 --> 0:07:01.240
<v Speaker 1>the Court recognized in oh And I just don't know

0:07:01.279 --> 0:07:04.880
<v Speaker 1>how anyone could stay with any degree of certainty based

0:07:04.960 --> 0:07:07.719
<v Speaker 1>upon the fact that Justice Havanan Justice Roberts voted to

0:07:07.720 --> 0:07:10.840
<v Speaker 1>deny certain in these two cases that even though they

0:07:10.840 --> 0:07:13.480
<v Speaker 1>have abortion in the background, are not actually about abortion,

0:07:14.040 --> 0:07:17.480
<v Speaker 1>that that vindicates any previously held notion about how they're

0:07:17.480 --> 0:07:20.640
<v Speaker 1>going to rule if and when cases that really are

0:07:20.680 --> 0:07:24.560
<v Speaker 1>a much more direct challenge to row into casey come

0:07:24.560 --> 0:07:28.120
<v Speaker 1>back before the court, Steve, Can you read anything into

0:07:28.160 --> 0:07:31.880
<v Speaker 1>the fact that the justices deferred acting on these appeals

0:07:32.080 --> 0:07:35.400
<v Speaker 1>for months, they kept on the Court's list through nine

0:07:35.400 --> 0:07:40.720
<v Speaker 1>weekly conferences. Were the conservative justices looking for a fourth vote? Yeah?

0:07:40.760 --> 0:07:43.120
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I think there's no question that any time

0:07:43.240 --> 0:07:46.360
<v Speaker 1>you have a transition at the Supreme Court and you

0:07:46.440 --> 0:07:49.640
<v Speaker 1>have a pending petition that has three votes in favor,

0:07:49.680 --> 0:07:52.400
<v Speaker 1>as these clearly did, you're going to see that kind

0:07:52.400 --> 0:07:56.520
<v Speaker 1>of awkward scheduling maneuver where the cases kept around for

0:07:56.560 --> 0:07:59.160
<v Speaker 1>a while to see if you know, the new justice

0:07:59.240 --> 0:08:01.760
<v Speaker 1>wants to become the fourth vote, or if someone else

0:08:01.760 --> 0:08:04.840
<v Speaker 1>wants to change their mind. This is not that unusual

0:08:04.920 --> 0:08:07.080
<v Speaker 1>in the you know, in the sort of weird context

0:08:07.160 --> 0:08:09.560
<v Speaker 1>of a new justice, because you know, when you know

0:08:09.600 --> 0:08:11.320
<v Speaker 1>there are three votes for certain, and you know that

0:08:11.320 --> 0:08:13.680
<v Speaker 1>there's a new justice coming along, I don't think it's

0:08:13.720 --> 0:08:16.240
<v Speaker 1>unrealistic on the part of those three justices to to

0:08:16.280 --> 0:08:17.880
<v Speaker 1>try to figure out if they can find a fourth

0:08:18.200 --> 0:08:22.360
<v Speaker 1>Can women's rights advocates take any comfort from this denial

0:08:22.400 --> 0:08:25.960
<v Speaker 1>of sert. Is it at least a signal that abortion rights,

0:08:26.320 --> 0:08:30.280
<v Speaker 1>as controversial as they are, are safe for now. I

0:08:30.360 --> 0:08:32.400
<v Speaker 1>don't think anyone should sort of think that this is

0:08:32.440 --> 0:08:34.400
<v Speaker 1>a sign that the Court is staying out of abortion

0:08:34.440 --> 0:08:39.199
<v Speaker 1>cases large I think it's a much more specific message

0:08:39.800 --> 0:08:43.600
<v Speaker 1>from the Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh that at least

0:08:43.640 --> 0:08:46.640
<v Speaker 1>where possible and at least in the short term, they're

0:08:46.640 --> 0:08:49.720
<v Speaker 1>going to try to keep the Court out of any

0:08:49.800 --> 0:08:52.160
<v Speaker 1>high profile dispute that looks like it's going to split

0:08:52.160 --> 0:08:54.880
<v Speaker 1>the Court along partisan lines, and that that's not necessarily

0:08:54.920 --> 0:08:57.520
<v Speaker 1>abortion specific. That maybe we'll see some of that in

0:08:57.559 --> 0:09:00.720
<v Speaker 1>the coming weeks and months as the Court starts ruling

0:09:00.760 --> 0:09:03.840
<v Speaker 1>on some of the government's applications with regard to Dhaka

0:09:03.960 --> 0:09:07.560
<v Speaker 1>and the transgender ban and the census case. I think

0:09:08.080 --> 0:09:11.679
<v Speaker 1>the real caveat here is that this is almost certainly

0:09:12.440 --> 0:09:16.000
<v Speaker 1>a temporary arrangement. That you know, this is largely at

0:09:16.040 --> 0:09:20.240
<v Speaker 1>least from the Chief's perspective, about diffusing some of the

0:09:20.320 --> 0:09:23.040
<v Speaker 1>bad feeling that was left in I think in many

0:09:23.080 --> 0:09:26.679
<v Speaker 1>folks minds after the Cavanat confirmation process, and I think

0:09:26.679 --> 0:09:29.680
<v Speaker 1>it's only a matter of time before we are far

0:09:29.800 --> 0:09:34.439
<v Speaker 1>enough removed from those headlines where the Court is gonna

0:09:34.640 --> 0:09:37.480
<v Speaker 1>retreat to it's it's normal self engine frankly, where they're

0:09:37.480 --> 0:09:40.680
<v Speaker 1>going to be cases that are screaming out for the

0:09:40.720 --> 0:09:45.360
<v Speaker 1>Court to intervene, either because there's an intractable division among

0:09:45.400 --> 0:09:48.839
<v Speaker 1>the lower courts, or because the lower courts have called

0:09:48.840 --> 0:09:51.800
<v Speaker 1>them to question a prior Supreme Court precedent, or because

0:09:51.800 --> 0:09:54.440
<v Speaker 1>the lower courts have invalidated some state or federal law

0:09:54.880 --> 0:09:57.839
<v Speaker 1>on grounds that are, you know, not really ones we

0:09:57.880 --> 0:10:01.200
<v Speaker 1>want to leave to the lower courts. Are people looking

0:10:01.480 --> 0:10:07.240
<v Speaker 1>at John Roberts incorrectly as the next Justice Anthony Kennedy

0:10:07.400 --> 0:10:11.480
<v Speaker 1>the swing vote on these issues, when in point of fact,

0:10:11.920 --> 0:10:15.920
<v Speaker 1>he is a conservative and he has shown a tendency to,

0:10:16.360 --> 0:10:20.640
<v Speaker 1>as you say, want to chip away at abortion rights. Yeah,

0:10:20.679 --> 0:10:22.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, I think that the reality is that we

0:10:22.360 --> 0:10:24.520
<v Speaker 1>ought to be able to distinguish between whether Chief Justice

0:10:24.600 --> 0:10:28.560
<v Speaker 1>Roberts is going to become an increasingly moderate vote and

0:10:28.600 --> 0:10:30.960
<v Speaker 1>whether he's going to become the median vote. Um. I

0:10:30.960 --> 0:10:34.760
<v Speaker 1>think there's no question that on the new Supreme Court,

0:10:34.880 --> 0:10:38.240
<v Speaker 1>with this new alignment, in the cases that tend to

0:10:38.280 --> 0:10:42.880
<v Speaker 1>divide the justices along partisan ideological lines, the Chief Justice

0:10:42.920 --> 0:10:45.839
<v Speaker 1>is now the median, and so the justice who is

0:10:45.880 --> 0:10:49.480
<v Speaker 1>most likely to crossover and join with the four progressives

0:10:49.559 --> 0:10:53.160
<v Speaker 1>in cases raising these kinds of issues is the Chief. Now,

0:10:53.400 --> 0:10:55.280
<v Speaker 1>I think that's not sossarily true in all contests. I

0:10:55.280 --> 0:10:58.720
<v Speaker 1>think there are some cases involving maybe libertarian interests where

0:10:58.760 --> 0:11:01.880
<v Speaker 1>Justice Gorstch might be the fifth vote. But I wouldn't

0:11:01.920 --> 0:11:04.400
<v Speaker 1>expect that that means that Chief Justice Roberts is going

0:11:04.440 --> 0:11:07.320
<v Speaker 1>to change, or that he's going to somehow moderate his

0:11:07.400 --> 0:11:09.920
<v Speaker 1>strongly held views. I just look, it means that the

0:11:10.000 --> 0:11:13.160
<v Speaker 1>Court's gonna move to the place where now it's the

0:11:13.240 --> 0:11:18.280
<v Speaker 1>chief whose views are really driving these alignments from these

0:11:18.280 --> 0:11:21.520
<v Speaker 1>coalitions as opposed to Justice Kennedy. That doesn't make the

0:11:21.559 --> 0:11:24.640
<v Speaker 1>Chief more moderate, It just makes him more important. Thanks Steve.

0:11:25.040 --> 0:11:27.800
<v Speaker 1>That's Steve Latti, a professor at the University of Texas

0:11:27.880 --> 0:11:31.400
<v Speaker 1>Law School. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

0:11:31.760 --> 0:11:35.840
<v Speaker 1>You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:11:35.920 --> 0:11:39.800
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:11:40.280 --> 0:11:44.240
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg. Yeah,