1
00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:07,040
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:09,680
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,160
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

5
00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:19,840
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. It's the last

6
00:00:19,920 --> 00:00:22,280
Speaker 1: day of decisions in the Supreme Court's term, and so

7
00:00:22,360 --> 00:00:26,080
Speaker 1: we have answers to those controversial cases we've been talking about.

8
00:00:26,520 --> 00:00:29,160
Speaker 1: Joining us as Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter of Greg's store.

9
00:00:29,520 --> 00:00:31,880
Speaker 1: So Greg, let's start with the decision over whether the

10
00:00:31,920 --> 00:00:37,959
Speaker 1: Trump administration can add a citizenship question to The justices

11
00:00:38,040 --> 00:00:40,760
Speaker 1: were split here in more ways than I can explain,

12
00:00:40,960 --> 00:00:44,640
Speaker 1: but the question is block for now. Tell us what happened. Yeah,

13
00:00:44,680 --> 00:00:46,800
Speaker 1: you say we have the answers. We have answers, but

14
00:00:46,840 --> 00:00:50,960
Speaker 1: they may not be final answers. So Chief Justice John

15
00:00:51,040 --> 00:00:55,160
Speaker 1: Roberts and the liberal justices said that the explanation that

16
00:00:55,240 --> 00:00:59,520
Speaker 1: Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross gave for putting the citizenship question

17
00:00:59,680 --> 00:01:03,720
Speaker 1: on the census was contrived, and they kicked it back

18
00:01:03,760 --> 00:01:06,880
Speaker 1: to the Census Bureau in the Commerce Department to come

19
00:01:06,959 --> 00:01:09,280
Speaker 1: up with a better explanation. What's not clear is whether

20
00:01:09,280 --> 00:01:11,480
Speaker 1: they're going to be able to do that and have time.

21
00:01:11,760 --> 00:01:14,639
Speaker 1: The explanation that Ross gave was that we were trying

22
00:01:14,680 --> 00:01:17,560
Speaker 1: to help the Justice Department enforce the Voting Rights Act,

23
00:01:17,600 --> 00:01:20,400
Speaker 1: which protects minorities at the polls. But Robert said the

24
00:01:20,440 --> 00:01:24,720
Speaker 1: evidence indicated that Ross came into office wanting to add

25
00:01:24,760 --> 00:01:27,800
Speaker 1: this question, that he solicited the Justice Department to to

26
00:01:27,959 --> 00:01:31,800
Speaker 1: formally ask for it. And it's not clear exactly how

27
00:01:31,800 --> 00:01:34,200
Speaker 1: Wilburt Ross will be able to get out from under that,

28
00:01:34,480 --> 00:01:36,840
Speaker 1: put together an explanation and get it all done in

29
00:01:36,880 --> 00:01:39,440
Speaker 1: time to have the census forms printed. This will go

30
00:01:39,520 --> 00:01:43,119
Speaker 1: back to the federal judge Jesse Ferman in New York

31
00:01:43,200 --> 00:01:47,120
Speaker 1: who wrote that book practically on why the citizenship question

32
00:01:47,240 --> 00:01:50,680
Speaker 1: shouldn't be allowed, and he'll have to judge whether or

33
00:01:50,720 --> 00:01:55,040
Speaker 1: not that is an adequate explanation. If he says it's not,

34
00:01:55,200 --> 00:01:58,200
Speaker 1: then it would go to the Supreme Court. Almost certainly,

35
00:01:58,200 --> 00:02:01,320
Speaker 1: assuming the administration goes for it, there will be another

36
00:02:01,400 --> 00:02:04,320
Speaker 1: court fight. This one may happen on an emergency basis.

37
00:02:04,680 --> 00:02:07,040
Speaker 1: You know, there are actually three challenges around the country.

38
00:02:07,120 --> 00:02:10,200
Speaker 1: I would imagine all those plaintiffs are thinking about their

39
00:02:10,200 --> 00:02:13,440
Speaker 1: next steps and there will be more court challenges and

40
00:02:13,480 --> 00:02:15,200
Speaker 1: it will come back up to the Supreme Court. And

41
00:02:15,280 --> 00:02:18,200
Speaker 1: John Roberts, who who cast the deciding vote in this case,

42
00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:20,560
Speaker 1: is very likely to be the one who will decide

43
00:02:20,560 --> 00:02:24,000
Speaker 1: whether that new explanation is good enough. All the while

44
00:02:24,080 --> 00:02:26,519
Speaker 1: the clock is ticking. We're just gonna have to see

45
00:02:26,520 --> 00:02:29,919
Speaker 1: what happens over the summer. So John Roberts was the

46
00:02:30,320 --> 00:02:33,480
Speaker 1: deciding vote, He was the swing vote here. Does that

47
00:02:33,520 --> 00:02:37,160
Speaker 1: hearken back to the Obamacare decision so many years ago,

48
00:02:37,360 --> 00:02:41,320
Speaker 1: a highly political case where he cast the deciding vote

49
00:02:41,400 --> 00:02:44,280
Speaker 1: by sort of splitting it down the middle. Yes, it does,

50
00:02:44,480 --> 00:02:47,320
Speaker 1: and this opinion resembles that a little bit. In it.

51
00:02:47,320 --> 00:02:49,760
Speaker 1: It was quite hard to figure out what exactly the

52
00:02:49,800 --> 00:02:52,840
Speaker 1: Court had done, just like can Obamacare. It was kind

53
00:02:52,840 --> 00:02:55,320
Speaker 1: of challenging because there was a little this and little

54
00:02:55,360 --> 00:02:59,120
Speaker 1: of that. Yes, John Roberts has said publicly he cares

55
00:02:59,160 --> 00:03:02,480
Speaker 1: a lot about the courts institutional standing. He is very

56
00:03:02,520 --> 00:03:05,440
Speaker 1: protective of that. This decision came down on the same

57
00:03:05,520 --> 00:03:08,080
Speaker 1: day as the partisan jerrymandering decision that I think we're

58
00:03:08,120 --> 00:03:10,160
Speaker 1: going to talk about in a second um, where the

59
00:03:10,240 --> 00:03:14,239
Speaker 1: Court sided with conservatives on that Robert sided with conservatives

60
00:03:14,639 --> 00:03:18,040
Speaker 1: here's an opinion where, you know, Roberts is making the

61
00:03:18,080 --> 00:03:20,040
Speaker 1: point that we are not, even though it's a pretty

62
00:03:20,040 --> 00:03:22,880
Speaker 1: conservative court, we are not reflexively going to side with

63
00:03:22,919 --> 00:03:26,960
Speaker 1: the Trump administration or political conservatives. So let's go on

64
00:03:27,080 --> 00:03:31,120
Speaker 1: to the partisan jerrymandering. In five to four votes along

65
00:03:31,240 --> 00:03:35,440
Speaker 1: ideological lines, the Court decided that voting maps cannot be

66
00:03:35,640 --> 00:03:39,600
Speaker 1: challenged for being too partisan. Tell us first about the

67
00:03:39,640 --> 00:03:43,080
Speaker 1: majority opinion. Yeah, so this this decision was as clean

68
00:03:43,120 --> 00:03:45,760
Speaker 1: as the other one was messy. This was the five

69
00:03:46,320 --> 00:03:50,160
Speaker 1: Conservatives again with John Roberts writing it, and essentially what

70
00:03:50,200 --> 00:03:53,000
Speaker 1: he said was courts do not have a role in

71
00:03:53,000 --> 00:03:56,400
Speaker 1: this thing. This is a political process. You know. This

72
00:03:56,480 --> 00:03:58,800
Speaker 1: is the same Chief Justice who a year ago, when

73
00:03:58,800 --> 00:04:01,440
Speaker 1: the Court heard arguments and a different case, said we

74
00:04:01,480 --> 00:04:03,600
Speaker 1: don't want to be in the position of in each

75
00:04:03,640 --> 00:04:06,800
Speaker 1: case deciding the Republicans win or the Democrats win. This

76
00:04:06,880 --> 00:04:10,760
Speaker 1: opinion says this is a political question, that courts are

77
00:04:10,760 --> 00:04:14,600
Speaker 1: not competent to decide whether a voting map is two partisans.

78
00:04:15,200 --> 00:04:19,240
Speaker 1: Justice Elena Kagan wrote a rather biting dissent, and she

79
00:04:19,400 --> 00:04:22,720
Speaker 1: started with, for the first time ever, this Court refuses

80
00:04:22,760 --> 00:04:26,520
Speaker 1: to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task

81
00:04:26,720 --> 00:04:31,400
Speaker 1: beyond judicial capabilities. Yeah, it was a very strongly worded

82
00:04:31,400 --> 00:04:34,160
Speaker 1: descent from Justice Kagan. She read a summary of it

83
00:04:34,200 --> 00:04:37,240
Speaker 1: from the bench. She actually broke up a little bit

84
00:04:37,279 --> 00:04:40,160
Speaker 1: at the end of her descent when she said, with

85
00:04:40,240 --> 00:04:43,839
Speaker 1: respect but great sadness, we descent, which is a really

86
00:04:43,880 --> 00:04:46,840
Speaker 1: remarkable thing to hear. You know, this was a hard

87
00:04:46,880 --> 00:04:50,560
Speaker 1: fraud case. Over the course of two terms, several justices

88
00:04:50,600 --> 00:04:54,240
Speaker 1: in arguments this year, several of the Conservative justices acknowledged

89
00:04:54,240 --> 00:04:56,599
Speaker 1: that this is a real big problem, you know, voting

90
00:04:56,640 --> 00:04:59,720
Speaker 1: maps that are designed primarily to help the party that's

91
00:04:59,800 --> 00:05:02,640
Speaker 1: in power. And up until now there has been at

92
00:05:02,680 --> 00:05:05,240
Speaker 1: least the possibility that the courts would step in and

93
00:05:05,279 --> 00:05:09,200
Speaker 1: police that. But now that possibility has gone. If Justice

94
00:05:09,279 --> 00:05:12,600
Speaker 1: Kennedy was on the court still whether the decision might

95
00:05:12,600 --> 00:05:16,240
Speaker 1: be different because he left the door open to the

96
00:05:16,320 --> 00:05:22,240
Speaker 1: possibility that some kinds of partisan gerrymandering might be too

97
00:05:22,279 --> 00:05:26,320
Speaker 1: extreme in a concurring opinion years ago he did, and

98
00:05:26,400 --> 00:05:29,520
Speaker 1: a lot of people last term thought that Justice Kennedy

99
00:05:29,760 --> 00:05:32,520
Speaker 1: might finally be ready to say, Okay, here's a test

100
00:05:32,600 --> 00:05:35,960
Speaker 1: that courts can use to decide whether partisanship has gone

101
00:05:36,000 --> 00:05:39,280
Speaker 1: too far that the challengers to these maps put a

102
00:05:39,279 --> 00:05:44,080
Speaker 1: lot of time and effort into sociological tests, statistical tests

103
00:05:44,120 --> 00:05:47,920
Speaker 1: that could distinguish the really bad maps that courts, they

104
00:05:47,920 --> 00:05:51,840
Speaker 1: say courts should strike dout. But Kennedy wasn't satisfied last term,

105
00:05:51,839 --> 00:05:54,520
Speaker 1: and he didn't really delve into it. The Court ended

106
00:05:54,600 --> 00:05:58,880
Speaker 1: up resolving that case on very narrow grounds by saying

107
00:05:58,880 --> 00:06:01,200
Speaker 1: these particular plaintiffs hadn't shown that they had the right

108
00:06:01,279 --> 00:06:03,960
Speaker 1: to sue in this case. So that takes the big

109
00:06:04,040 --> 00:06:06,920
Speaker 1: question over to this term when Kennedy's no longer on

110
00:06:07,000 --> 00:06:09,279
Speaker 1: the court and Brett Kavanaugh, who was one of those

111
00:06:09,320 --> 00:06:11,240
Speaker 1: justices who said this is a really big problem for

112
00:06:11,279 --> 00:06:14,640
Speaker 1: a democracy, but he joined the majority in saying there's

113
00:06:14,680 --> 00:06:16,960
Speaker 1: nothing that federal courts can do about it. Is it

114
00:06:17,080 --> 00:06:23,640
Speaker 1: just happenstance that you have two very political decisions on

115
00:06:23,720 --> 00:06:26,240
Speaker 1: the same day that both sort of cancel each other

116
00:06:26,279 --> 00:06:30,279
Speaker 1: out one in one the liberals one and the other

117
00:06:30,560 --> 00:06:33,839
Speaker 1: the conservatives one. Well, on one hand, it could be

118
00:06:34,000 --> 00:06:37,320
Speaker 1: these were obviously very big cases, hard fought, and they

119
00:06:37,360 --> 00:06:39,360
Speaker 1: were argued near the end of the term, so it's

120
00:06:39,400 --> 00:06:41,960
Speaker 1: not surprising they are among the last ones to come out.

121
00:06:42,440 --> 00:06:44,159
Speaker 1: But the fact that they both came out on the

122
00:06:44,200 --> 00:06:46,920
Speaker 1: same day and and the Chief Justice wrote them both,

123
00:06:47,040 --> 00:06:49,640
Speaker 1: it's hard not to think that he was very aware

124
00:06:50,080 --> 00:06:53,040
Speaker 1: of the message that this will send, which is that

125
00:06:53,080 --> 00:06:55,320
Speaker 1: this is not a reflective court that is always going

126
00:06:55,360 --> 00:06:58,799
Speaker 1: to side with conservatives, especially on these big political issues.

127
00:06:59,279 --> 00:07:02,159
Speaker 1: John Roberts saved himself from a day of news that

128
00:07:02,279 --> 00:07:05,240
Speaker 1: said he wrote the decision that barred any challenges the

129
00:07:05,240 --> 00:07:09,000
Speaker 1: partisan jerrymanders. Now that is, you know, just one of

130
00:07:09,080 --> 00:07:11,400
Speaker 1: two major decisions, and any other one. We have to

131
00:07:11,440 --> 00:07:13,680
Speaker 1: leave it there, Greg, but we'll be checking back with

132
00:07:13,720 --> 00:07:18,040
Speaker 1: you tomorrow and the court will discuss new orders. Thanks

133
00:07:18,040 --> 00:07:21,360
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe

134
00:07:21,360 --> 00:07:24,600
Speaker 1: and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and

135
00:07:24,680 --> 00:07:29,120
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. I'm June Brosso. This

136
00:07:29,480 --> 00:07:32,800
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. Yeah, yeah,