1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:03,000
Speaker 1: Today, the Supreme Court agreed to wrestle with the question

2
00:00:03,080 --> 00:00:05,400
Speaker 1: of who can be held liabel in American courts for

3
00:00:05,440 --> 00:00:09,160
Speaker 1: acts of terrorism that take place in other countries. The

4
00:00:09,200 --> 00:00:12,440
Speaker 1: case involves an eighteenth century statute called the Alien Towards Statute,

5
00:00:12,560 --> 00:00:16,400
Speaker 1: which allows lawsuits by foreigners against foreigners for violations of

6
00:00:16,520 --> 00:00:18,880
Speaker 1: US law. And here to talk with us about what

7
00:00:18,920 --> 00:00:21,239
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court did today is our very own Greg Store,

8
00:00:21,239 --> 00:00:25,520
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law co host and Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter. Greg.

9
00:00:25,960 --> 00:00:28,520
Speaker 1: What what's the court doing in this in these international

10
00:00:28,600 --> 00:00:32,480
Speaker 1: terrorism cases? Well, Michael, it's a question that they thought

11
00:00:32,479 --> 00:00:35,600
Speaker 1: about the siding before they tried to decide before. Uh.

12
00:00:35,960 --> 00:00:39,200
Speaker 1: This is a statute that is more than two hundred

13
00:00:39,280 --> 00:00:44,040
Speaker 1: years old, and in the last few decades, human rights

14
00:00:44,080 --> 00:00:47,800
Speaker 1: activists have increasingly tried to use it to bring multinational

15
00:00:47,840 --> 00:00:51,159
Speaker 1: companies in the court in the US to answer answer

16
00:00:51,240 --> 00:00:57,800
Speaker 1: for atrocities uh environmental abuses that happened in other countries. Now,

17
00:00:57,800 --> 00:01:00,240
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court a few years ago took up a

18
00:01:00,280 --> 00:01:02,560
Speaker 1: case involving the Alien Toward Statute, and they were trying

19
00:01:02,600 --> 00:01:04,839
Speaker 1: to decide the question they have before them now, which

20
00:01:04,920 --> 00:01:09,120
Speaker 1: is whether corporations can be sued unto the Alien Towards Statute,

21
00:01:09,240 --> 00:01:11,319
Speaker 1: But instead the court went off in a different direction

22
00:01:12,280 --> 00:01:14,520
Speaker 1: got rid of that case on on different grounds. So

23
00:01:14,560 --> 00:01:17,640
Speaker 1: now it's back before them. They've agreed to decide can

24
00:01:17,680 --> 00:01:20,240
Speaker 1: you only sue an individual under the Alien Towards Statute

25
00:01:20,360 --> 00:01:25,200
Speaker 1: or can you sue a multinational company? And what what is? What?

26
00:01:25,680 --> 00:01:27,679
Speaker 1: Quickly are the facts in this case? What's it about?

27
00:01:27,920 --> 00:01:31,200
Speaker 1: So these are victims of terrorist attacks in Israel and

28
00:01:31,240 --> 00:01:36,039
Speaker 1: the Palestinian territories. They blame Arab Bank, which is a

29
00:01:36,120 --> 00:01:39,120
Speaker 1: Jordan based bank, but it has New York branches and

30
00:01:39,200 --> 00:01:41,600
Speaker 1: they say, because of those New York branches, we ought

31
00:01:41,640 --> 00:01:43,800
Speaker 1: to be able to sue them in U S courts

32
00:01:43,880 --> 00:01:48,400
Speaker 1: under the Alien Towards Statute. And Arab Bank argues that

33
00:01:48,400 --> 00:01:52,480
Speaker 1: that because it's a corporation, it cannot be sued. Well

34
00:01:52,520 --> 00:01:54,600
Speaker 1: it's gonna I wonder if the court will be able

35
00:01:54,640 --> 00:01:58,560
Speaker 1: to come up with a with a more simple decision

36
00:01:58,560 --> 00:02:00,440
Speaker 1: than they did the last time they took the thing up.

37
00:02:00,440 --> 00:02:03,840
Speaker 1: But one wonders about that. In any event, they also

38
00:02:04,280 --> 00:02:07,000
Speaker 1: refused to wait into something today that the question of

39
00:02:07,040 --> 00:02:10,480
Speaker 1: whether people can take selfies on when they vote. What

40
00:02:10,560 --> 00:02:13,480
Speaker 1: was that all about Yeah, there's a New Hampshire law

41
00:02:13,560 --> 00:02:16,800
Speaker 1: that that said, uh, you cannot take a picture of

42
00:02:16,840 --> 00:02:20,040
Speaker 1: yourself or a picture of your ballot uh and posted

43
00:02:20,080 --> 00:02:22,160
Speaker 1: on on social media, which is something that people have

44
00:02:22,240 --> 00:02:25,960
Speaker 1: been increasingly doing in the last few years. A lower court,

45
00:02:26,000 --> 00:02:29,560
Speaker 1: federal appeals court said that's a violation of the First Amendment.

46
00:02:30,120 --> 00:02:33,000
Speaker 1: The state try to get the Supreme Court to interviewing

47
00:02:33,040 --> 00:02:35,040
Speaker 1: today and the Supreme Court said, no, we're not going

48
00:02:35,080 --> 00:02:39,400
Speaker 1: to hear that case. So that law prohibiting the taking

49
00:02:39,440 --> 00:02:41,480
Speaker 1: of of selfies with your ballot and posting them on

50
00:02:41,560 --> 00:02:44,480
Speaker 1: social media, that law is now dead. And if you

51
00:02:44,520 --> 00:02:46,640
Speaker 1: live in New Hampshire, you're you're free to do that.

52
00:02:47,480 --> 00:02:50,320
Speaker 1: I guess we're gonna see a lot of uh smartphones

53
00:02:50,360 --> 00:02:52,080
Speaker 1: in the ballot booth now and a lot more on

54
00:02:52,120 --> 00:02:55,960
Speaker 1: Instagram about how people voted than we did before. Um.

55
00:02:56,080 --> 00:02:58,360
Speaker 1: So the court that you know, those are two things

56
00:02:58,360 --> 00:03:00,799
Speaker 1: the court did. They took a case that didn't take case. What.

57
00:03:01,040 --> 00:03:02,880
Speaker 1: There are a bunch of things that we're expecting them

58
00:03:02,880 --> 00:03:05,880
Speaker 1: to do that they really didn't touch today, aren't there. Yeah,

59
00:03:05,919 --> 00:03:07,959
Speaker 1: there were there were at least things that they could do.

60
00:03:08,160 --> 00:03:10,320
Speaker 1: So one of them, and this is something that they've

61
00:03:10,320 --> 00:03:12,799
Speaker 1: been putting off action on for quite a while. It's

62
00:03:12,840 --> 00:03:16,200
Speaker 1: it's a case involving religious rights and gay marriage. UH.

63
00:03:16,360 --> 00:03:19,040
Speaker 1: There's a Colorado baker who has been cited under that

64
00:03:19,160 --> 00:03:23,240
Speaker 1: state's UH civil rights laws for refusing to make cakes

65
00:03:23,480 --> 00:03:27,960
Speaker 1: for gay weddings, and he says that as a violation.

66
00:03:28,000 --> 00:03:29,919
Speaker 1: He says he says he doesn't make cakes for gay

67
00:03:29,960 --> 00:03:32,919
Speaker 1: weddings because he has a religious objection, and he is

68
00:03:32,960 --> 00:03:36,120
Speaker 1: claiming at the Supreme Court that that is a violation,

69
00:03:36,400 --> 00:03:41,640
Speaker 1: that citation against him is a violation of his religious rights. UH.

70
00:03:42,320 --> 00:03:46,400
Speaker 1: The Court has repeatedly UH deferred action on that. It

71
00:03:46,440 --> 00:03:48,800
Speaker 1: seems at least plausible. What's going on is they're not

72
00:03:48,800 --> 00:03:51,520
Speaker 1: going to hear the case. But somebody, maybe Justice Alito,

73
00:03:51,600 --> 00:03:55,920
Speaker 1: Justice Thomas is writing a rather vociferous dissent from that

74
00:03:55,960 --> 00:03:58,720
Speaker 1: decision not to hear the case. UM. One one other

75
00:03:58,720 --> 00:04:00,640
Speaker 1: case that that the Court didn't act on today, and

76
00:04:00,680 --> 00:04:02,800
Speaker 1: in fact that they sort of deferred even thinking about acting.

77
00:04:02,840 --> 00:04:05,760
Speaker 1: It has to do with gun rights. And that's the

78
00:04:05,800 --> 00:04:07,800
Speaker 1: case that Neil Gorcer may may get a chance to

79
00:04:07,840 --> 00:04:12,839
Speaker 1: weigh in on. UH. Lower courts are UH increasingly having

80
00:04:12,840 --> 00:04:16,000
Speaker 1: to grapple with whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home.

81
00:04:16,760 --> 00:04:20,960
Speaker 1: This is a case involving San Diego and San Diego

82
00:04:21,040 --> 00:04:25,000
Speaker 1: County where the sheriff has said that in order to

83
00:04:25,040 --> 00:04:28,039
Speaker 1: get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, you have

84
00:04:28,160 --> 00:04:31,880
Speaker 1: to show some special needs, some some something other than

85
00:04:31,920 --> 00:04:35,040
Speaker 1: just kind of a general need for self defense. Uh.

86
00:04:35,240 --> 00:04:38,239
Speaker 1: That's an issue the Supreme Court has has kept ducking,

87
00:04:38,320 --> 00:04:40,000
Speaker 1: and and now there's at least a chance that the

88
00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:42,280
Speaker 1: Court will take up that issue with Neil Gorcer on

89
00:04:42,320 --> 00:04:43,599
Speaker 1: the Court. Thanks Greg,