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

2
00:00:09,039 --> 00:00:12,360
Speaker 1: Another repercussion from the leak of a draft Supreme Court

3
00:00:12,360 --> 00:00:17,040
Speaker 1: opinion overturning Roe v. Wade last month, Justice Clarence Thomas

4
00:00:17,040 --> 00:00:20,639
Speaker 1: said the leak has undermined trust among the justices and

5
00:00:20,760 --> 00:00:24,680
Speaker 1: deeply damaged the court. And look where we are where

6
00:00:24,760 --> 00:00:29,600
Speaker 1: now that trust or that belief is gone forever um

7
00:00:29,720 --> 00:00:33,479
Speaker 1: the And when you lose that trust, especially in the

8
00:00:33,600 --> 00:00:38,800
Speaker 1: institution that I'm in, Uh, it changes the institution fundamentally.

9
00:00:39,680 --> 00:00:42,240
Speaker 1: You begin to look over your shoulder. It's like kind

10
00:00:42,280 --> 00:00:46,280
Speaker 1: of an infidelity on that you can explain it, but

11
00:00:46,360 --> 00:00:50,760
Speaker 1: you can't undo it. Is that mistrust and internal discord

12
00:00:51,000 --> 00:00:54,120
Speaker 1: behind the Justice is waiting until the bitter end of

13
00:00:54,160 --> 00:00:57,000
Speaker 1: the term to issue decisions in more than half of

14
00:00:57,040 --> 00:01:01,920
Speaker 1: their cases, including blockbuster rulings could make abortion illegal and

15
00:01:02,040 --> 00:01:05,360
Speaker 1: half the country and mean more handguns on the streets.

16
00:01:05,800 --> 00:01:08,400
Speaker 1: Here to help us sort out why and what's coming

17
00:01:08,520 --> 00:01:13,840
Speaker 1: up is Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter Kimberly.

18
00:01:14,280 --> 00:01:18,800
Speaker 1: At this point, the justices have thirty three decisions outstanding.

19
00:01:19,120 --> 00:01:23,240
Speaker 1: That's more than they've issued this whole term. Is this unusual, Well,

20
00:01:23,280 --> 00:01:26,399
Speaker 1: it is and it isn't. So it's not unusual for

21
00:01:26,480 --> 00:01:30,080
Speaker 1: the Court to kind of backload. It's worked with opinions.

22
00:01:30,200 --> 00:01:32,120
Speaker 1: But you know, that makes a lot of sense. In

23
00:01:32,160 --> 00:01:34,679
Speaker 1: the beginning of the term, the justices are also hearing

24
00:01:34,800 --> 00:01:37,280
Speaker 1: oral arguments in cases. There's a lot of prep for

25
00:01:37,840 --> 00:01:41,080
Speaker 1: those arguments to happen, and then they stopped doing that

26
00:01:41,120 --> 00:01:44,039
Speaker 1: around April and focused totally on opinions. So we do

27
00:01:44,240 --> 00:01:46,559
Speaker 1: tend to get a lot of the opinions in June,

28
00:01:46,680 --> 00:01:49,040
Speaker 1: specifically as the Court tries to hit this kind of

29
00:01:49,120 --> 00:01:52,600
Speaker 1: informal deadline at the end of June to knock out

30
00:01:52,640 --> 00:01:55,200
Speaker 1: all of its opinions. But it's unusual in the sense

31
00:01:55,280 --> 00:01:58,200
Speaker 1: to have so many. We could see the Suspreme Court

32
00:01:58,240 --> 00:02:02,320
Speaker 1: was already working pretty slowly before we got that unprecedented

33
00:02:02,400 --> 00:02:05,320
Speaker 1: leak of an abortion ruling, but since then it's been

34
00:02:05,360 --> 00:02:07,840
Speaker 1: going even more slowly. So it is unusual to have

35
00:02:08,040 --> 00:02:10,600
Speaker 1: thirty three cases left for the justices to get out,

36
00:02:10,720 --> 00:02:12,880
Speaker 1: and it is a pretty heavy list. Maybe we won't

37
00:02:12,919 --> 00:02:16,320
Speaker 1: be hitting that informal deadline this here. We've been expecting

38
00:02:16,520 --> 00:02:20,120
Speaker 1: the decision in the New York gun case for some time.

39
00:02:20,360 --> 00:02:25,440
Speaker 1: Explain why, you know how reporters time out when cases

40
00:02:25,480 --> 00:02:28,120
Speaker 1: are argued and when they should be coming down. Well,

41
00:02:28,160 --> 00:02:31,160
Speaker 1: you know, it takes the justices a long time to

42
00:02:31,360 --> 00:02:34,720
Speaker 1: really issue any opinion. It's not as if they usually

43
00:02:34,840 --> 00:02:37,360
Speaker 1: just pure case and then the next day we get

44
00:02:37,400 --> 00:02:41,160
Speaker 1: this long, ridden, reasoned out opinion. That takes time, But

45
00:02:41,360 --> 00:02:44,560
Speaker 1: as cases are more divisive, it's going to take even

46
00:02:44,560 --> 00:02:47,760
Speaker 1: more time, not only because you're working with the majority opinion,

47
00:02:47,919 --> 00:02:50,080
Speaker 1: but also with any descents that might be coming in

48
00:02:50,160 --> 00:02:53,120
Speaker 1: and those kind of go back and forth sometime for editing.

49
00:02:53,360 --> 00:02:55,160
Speaker 1: So you know, we can kind of gain out the

50
00:02:55,240 --> 00:02:58,560
Speaker 1: system based on when arguments happened. Did they happen right

51
00:02:58,600 --> 00:03:00,440
Speaker 1: at the beginning of term in October or you might

52
00:03:00,560 --> 00:03:03,640
Speaker 1: expect to see those happen before cases that you know,

53
00:03:03,720 --> 00:03:06,640
Speaker 1: we don't hear until the middle of April. That makes

54
00:03:06,680 --> 00:03:09,560
Speaker 1: a lot of sense with regard to this gun case,

55
00:03:09,639 --> 00:03:12,679
Speaker 1: though it is right now the oldest outstanding case that

56
00:03:12,800 --> 00:03:16,360
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court still has pending, and why we could

57
00:03:16,560 --> 00:03:18,280
Speaker 1: see it at the end of June, it is also

58
00:03:18,360 --> 00:03:21,600
Speaker 1: one that the Justices might have ready, but we haven't

59
00:03:21,639 --> 00:03:23,880
Speaker 1: seen it in the last couple of weeks and some

60
00:03:24,000 --> 00:03:27,080
Speaker 1: people are speculating that it has to do with the

61
00:03:27,120 --> 00:03:29,800
Speaker 1: recent news out of Texas and that shooting there, that

62
00:03:29,880 --> 00:03:33,960
Speaker 1: the justices seem prime and oral argument to expand gun rights,

63
00:03:34,000 --> 00:03:36,120
Speaker 1: and that now just really isn't the time for the

64
00:03:36,120 --> 00:03:39,160
Speaker 1: Supreme Court to issue that ruling. I confess that I've

65
00:03:39,160 --> 00:03:42,160
Speaker 1: been one of those speculating. So that case and of

66
00:03:42,200 --> 00:03:45,600
Speaker 1: course the abortion case are the blockbuster decisions that people

67
00:03:45,600 --> 00:03:48,880
Speaker 1: have been focusing on. But there are other cases which

68
00:03:49,080 --> 00:03:52,000
Speaker 1: should make headlines. Let's just go through some of them quickly.

69
00:03:52,320 --> 00:03:55,880
Speaker 1: There's a pending environmental dispute there is. This is a

70
00:03:55,920 --> 00:03:58,760
Speaker 1: big dispute out of West Virginia, but it really goes

71
00:03:58,800 --> 00:04:01,040
Speaker 1: to the heart of whether it's e p A can

72
00:04:01,080 --> 00:04:05,160
Speaker 1: tackle climate change and how robustly they can tackle climate change,

73
00:04:05,240 --> 00:04:08,880
Speaker 1: which of itself is a really important issue for the country,

74
00:04:09,000 --> 00:04:11,760
Speaker 1: but it's also really important in what it means for

75
00:04:12,240 --> 00:04:15,920
Speaker 1: administrative law. Now, people might have fallen asleep while an

76
00:04:15,960 --> 00:04:19,680
Speaker 1: administrative law, but the administrative law touches on almost every

77
00:04:19,720 --> 00:04:22,640
Speaker 1: aspect of American life, and you know, when the Court

78
00:04:22,720 --> 00:04:25,640
Speaker 1: makes even small changes to administrative law, I can really

79
00:04:25,680 --> 00:04:28,600
Speaker 1: have big effects. And this is one of those cases

80
00:04:28,760 --> 00:04:31,760
Speaker 1: where what the Supreme Court says, could make the ruling

81
00:04:31,880 --> 00:04:36,040
Speaker 1: mean even more beyond environmental law, beyond climate change. There's

82
00:04:36,040 --> 00:04:39,680
Speaker 1: the immigration case over Trump's Remain in Mexico policy, which

83
00:04:39,680 --> 00:04:43,000
Speaker 1: would force immigrants to stay in Mexico while their cases

84
00:04:43,000 --> 00:04:46,440
Speaker 1: are being reviewed. And are there two religious rights cases?

85
00:04:46,800 --> 00:04:50,200
Speaker 1: There are two religious rights cases still pending. The Court

86
00:04:50,320 --> 00:04:54,400
Speaker 1: recently issued religious rights case fighting with a group who

87
00:04:54,480 --> 00:04:57,120
Speaker 1: wanted to fly their flag over Boston. But both of

88
00:04:57,160 --> 00:04:59,800
Speaker 1: these other cases are a little bit more robust, kind

89
00:04:59,800 --> 00:05:02,240
Speaker 1: of to more of the heart of some of our

90
00:05:02,279 --> 00:05:05,480
Speaker 1: religious freedom and what states can do to kind of

91
00:05:05,520 --> 00:05:09,440
Speaker 1: stay out of religion. You know, those cases are really interesting,

92
00:05:09,480 --> 00:05:12,200
Speaker 1: and that if we looked at the Robert's Court when

93
00:05:12,240 --> 00:05:14,760
Speaker 1: it first got started in two thousand and five, when

94
00:05:14,800 --> 00:05:18,040
Speaker 1: Chief Justice Robert took over, the Court's really been making

95
00:05:18,080 --> 00:05:21,320
Speaker 1: these very small moves and the religious space to where

96
00:05:21,320 --> 00:05:23,400
Speaker 1: we get to where we are now and the questions

97
00:05:23,440 --> 00:05:26,680
Speaker 1: we're considering are kind of astonishing how far we come

98
00:05:26,760 --> 00:05:29,480
Speaker 1: just taking these little baby steps. And so I expect

99
00:05:29,560 --> 00:05:31,960
Speaker 1: the Court to continue kind of taking those baby steps

100
00:05:31,960 --> 00:05:35,240
Speaker 1: and of walking towards protecting religious freedom and protecting the

101
00:05:35,320 --> 00:05:37,760
Speaker 1: right to practice. But again, those are ones that we're

102
00:05:37,760 --> 00:05:40,400
Speaker 1: going to see in the deluge of cases that I'm

103
00:05:40,480 --> 00:05:43,440
Speaker 1: expecting in the next couple of weeks. Since the majority

104
00:05:43,480 --> 00:05:46,960
Speaker 1: opinions are sort of spread out evenly among the justices,

105
00:05:47,400 --> 00:05:52,200
Speaker 1: Supreme Court watchers watch which justice has written opinions and

106
00:05:52,240 --> 00:05:55,359
Speaker 1: how many to determine who's left. So what have you

107
00:05:55,400 --> 00:05:57,680
Speaker 1: found out? Right? This is one of those things that

108
00:05:57,720 --> 00:05:59,839
Speaker 1: we're forced to do because the Court is, you know,

109
00:06:00,080 --> 00:06:04,320
Speaker 1: such a secretive institutions, the League notwithstanding, but yeah, so

110
00:06:04,520 --> 00:06:07,720
Speaker 1: typically we see justices trying to even out the opinions,

111
00:06:07,800 --> 00:06:10,320
Speaker 1: bread them across each of the argument sittings, and so

112
00:06:10,440 --> 00:06:12,800
Speaker 1: we can kind of get an idea of who we're

113
00:06:12,839 --> 00:06:16,240
Speaker 1: expecting the most opinions from. Right now to Justice Roberts

114
00:06:16,279 --> 00:06:18,840
Speaker 1: and Kagan have written the most opinions. They've written the

115
00:06:18,920 --> 00:06:21,560
Speaker 1: four of the six or seven that we expect to see.

116
00:06:21,839 --> 00:06:23,560
Speaker 1: But some of the other justices have a lot more

117
00:06:23,600 --> 00:06:27,040
Speaker 1: work to do. Thomas Alito, Kavanaugh, you know, they've only

118
00:06:27,080 --> 00:06:29,640
Speaker 1: written too so they're not even halfway done with their work.

119
00:06:29,800 --> 00:06:31,960
Speaker 1: Of course, we know Justice Alito from that league is

120
00:06:32,000 --> 00:06:35,559
Speaker 1: probably writing scheme majority opinion in that big abortion case.

121
00:06:35,800 --> 00:06:38,080
Speaker 1: But who's writing what else? We'll get a better clue

122
00:06:38,080 --> 00:06:39,800
Speaker 1: as more opinions kind of trickle in and we can

123
00:06:39,800 --> 00:06:43,200
Speaker 1: play this process of elimination. The fact that three of

124
00:06:43,200 --> 00:06:48,000
Speaker 1: the conservative justices have more majority opinions to come may

125
00:06:48,160 --> 00:06:51,719
Speaker 1: give some liberals pause. Now, when you hear Supreme Court

126
00:06:51,760 --> 00:06:55,279
Speaker 1: justice talk, they usually point out how many of their

127
00:06:55,279 --> 00:06:58,400
Speaker 1: opinions are unanimous to try to show it's not a

128
00:06:58,400 --> 00:07:01,720
Speaker 1: political body. I fun that those are usually in cases

129
00:07:01,839 --> 00:07:05,880
Speaker 1: that people don't care that much about attention to. What

130
00:07:05,960 --> 00:07:09,040
Speaker 1: are the numbers so far this term, Well, you're right,

131
00:07:09,160 --> 00:07:11,720
Speaker 1: you know, unanimous cases typically make up about half of

132
00:07:11,760 --> 00:07:14,400
Speaker 1: the cases. And it's the stat that all of justices

133
00:07:14,480 --> 00:07:16,080
Speaker 1: on the right and the left point you just say,

134
00:07:16,200 --> 00:07:19,200
Speaker 1: we agree on over half of these really tough legal

135
00:07:19,320 --> 00:07:22,160
Speaker 1: questions that have divided lower court judges. But this year

136
00:07:22,240 --> 00:07:25,480
Speaker 1: they're actually going to struggle to get to that fifty percent.

137
00:07:25,760 --> 00:07:28,520
Speaker 1: And you know, if you think about the timing considerations

138
00:07:28,560 --> 00:07:31,640
Speaker 1: that we've talked about, divided opinions take a lot longer

139
00:07:31,680 --> 00:07:34,440
Speaker 1: to than unanimous opinions. So we tend to have a

140
00:07:34,560 --> 00:07:38,680
Speaker 1: frontload of these unanimous rulings. But so far and really

141
00:07:38,680 --> 00:07:40,920
Speaker 1: haven't been that many. There have been about as many

142
00:07:41,000 --> 00:07:44,880
Speaker 1: unanimous opinions as we've seen six three opinions, which of

143
00:07:44,920 --> 00:07:49,160
Speaker 1: course is the ideological lineup of this conservative majority court now,

144
00:07:49,240 --> 00:07:53,240
Speaker 1: so that doesn't bode well for these really high profile

145
00:07:53,360 --> 00:07:55,840
Speaker 1: and very divisive cases that we still have yet to

146
00:07:55,880 --> 00:07:58,480
Speaker 1: get out, and they don't really have those base of

147
00:07:58,600 --> 00:08:02,240
Speaker 1: unanimous rulings to build upon. I will say though, that

148
00:08:02,360 --> 00:08:05,320
Speaker 1: one problem with kind of keeping stats with regard to

149
00:08:05,440 --> 00:08:08,480
Speaker 1: unanimous opinions or five four six three rulings is that

150
00:08:08,760 --> 00:08:11,720
Speaker 1: they often don't tell you a lot about the underlying reasoning.

151
00:08:11,920 --> 00:08:14,560
Speaker 1: So one case that I consider to be an eight

152
00:08:14,600 --> 00:08:18,040
Speaker 1: to one ruling is that Texas abortion case. But you know,

153
00:08:18,120 --> 00:08:19,760
Speaker 1: I think if you talk to a lot of the people,

154
00:08:19,800 --> 00:08:21,360
Speaker 1: they would tend to think of it as a five

155
00:08:21,440 --> 00:08:24,880
Speaker 1: four ruling just because of the political implications of it. So,

156
00:08:25,240 --> 00:08:27,440
Speaker 1: you know, we should look to this data. It does

157
00:08:27,480 --> 00:08:30,320
Speaker 1: tell us something, but it certainly can't tell everything about

158
00:08:30,320 --> 00:08:32,760
Speaker 1: what's going on at the court. It seems like an

159
00:08:32,800 --> 00:08:36,880
Speaker 1: age ago that Chief Justice Roberts was the justice in

160
00:08:36,920 --> 00:08:39,800
Speaker 1: the center of the court, the swing vote. Who's at

161
00:08:39,800 --> 00:08:43,040
Speaker 1: the center now? Well, actually, right now, both Roberts and

162
00:08:43,160 --> 00:08:46,640
Speaker 1: Justice Brett Kavanaugh are the only justices to be in

163
00:08:46,720 --> 00:08:50,600
Speaker 1: the majority in all one cases. Again though, and you know,

164
00:08:50,720 --> 00:08:53,360
Speaker 1: people who are forfalling that Texas abortion case may be

165
00:08:53,440 --> 00:08:56,200
Speaker 1: scratching their heads because I think many people would see

166
00:08:56,280 --> 00:08:59,760
Speaker 1: Chief Justice Roberts concurrence in that opinion as really a dissent.

167
00:09:00,160 --> 00:09:02,880
Speaker 1: And so you know, again that highlights the information that

168
00:09:02,960 --> 00:09:05,559
Speaker 1: we can glean from this. But I think that these

169
00:09:05,640 --> 00:09:07,480
Speaker 1: kind of numbers that we're looking at now are going

170
00:09:07,520 --> 00:09:09,760
Speaker 1: to radically change by the end of the term and

171
00:09:09,920 --> 00:09:13,000
Speaker 1: just this couple of months span, because we are getting

172
00:09:13,040 --> 00:09:16,200
Speaker 1: so many divisive cases, and I suspect that the numbers

173
00:09:16,200 --> 00:09:19,120
Speaker 1: will probably prove you right June to show that Chief

174
00:09:19,160 --> 00:09:21,520
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts is no longer in the middle of the

175
00:09:21,520 --> 00:09:24,320
Speaker 1: court and that the Court has really tilted towards his

176
00:09:24,400 --> 00:09:28,240
Speaker 1: more conservative colleagues. There isn't really a swing vote anymore

177
00:09:28,320 --> 00:09:32,280
Speaker 1: like Justice Kennedy was, is there. I think it depends

178
00:09:32,280 --> 00:09:34,920
Speaker 1: on the issue. With Justice Kennedy, you know, you really

179
00:09:34,920 --> 00:09:37,680
Speaker 1: didn't know all the time which side of the issue

180
00:09:37,720 --> 00:09:39,719
Speaker 1: in any particular case he was going to be on.

181
00:09:40,040 --> 00:09:41,720
Speaker 1: With this court, I think that there are a few

182
00:09:41,840 --> 00:09:45,600
Speaker 1: really precise issues that you can see a swing justice.

183
00:09:45,760 --> 00:09:49,040
Speaker 1: And so it may surprise listeners that Justice course such

184
00:09:49,080 --> 00:09:51,960
Speaker 1: is often a vote with his more liberal colleagues on

185
00:09:52,040 --> 00:09:54,880
Speaker 1: things like tribal rights or even right for you know,

186
00:09:54,920 --> 00:09:58,120
Speaker 1: Puerto Ricans and other U. S territories. But we're not

187
00:09:58,160 --> 00:10:00,920
Speaker 1: going to see Justice course such a the swing vote

188
00:10:01,080 --> 00:10:04,280
Speaker 1: in these big divisive cases like guns and abortions. I

189
00:10:04,280 --> 00:10:06,520
Speaker 1: think you're right, June, that that just doesn't really exist

190
00:10:06,600 --> 00:10:10,480
Speaker 1: on the current Supreme Court anymore. Kimberly, Justice Stephen Briar's

191
00:10:10,559 --> 00:10:14,240
Speaker 1: retiring after nearly thirty years on the bench. Did you

192
00:10:14,280 --> 00:10:17,000
Speaker 1: see anything different from him this term? And are you

193
00:10:17,080 --> 00:10:20,640
Speaker 1: expecting any last minute fireworks from him? That is a

194
00:10:20,720 --> 00:10:23,360
Speaker 1: really good question, June. I don't think we saw anything

195
00:10:23,800 --> 00:10:27,120
Speaker 1: really different from Justice brier this term. I think, you know,

196
00:10:27,200 --> 00:10:30,720
Speaker 1: just listening to him talk before he had announced his retirement,

197
00:10:31,040 --> 00:10:33,439
Speaker 1: it seemed like he had really hoped to kind of

198
00:10:33,559 --> 00:10:37,240
Speaker 1: use his long time and relationship on the bench to

199
00:10:37,320 --> 00:10:40,120
Speaker 1: be able to sway the Court away from some of

200
00:10:40,120 --> 00:10:43,559
Speaker 1: these bigger, more divisive rulings. But you know, if the

201
00:10:43,640 --> 00:10:45,960
Speaker 1: draft opinion tells us anything, it doesn't seem like he

202
00:10:46,000 --> 00:10:48,839
Speaker 1: was successful, at least with regard to abortion, which is

203
00:10:48,920 --> 00:10:51,760
Speaker 1: kind of the marquee issue this term. So as far

204
00:10:51,840 --> 00:10:53,800
Speaker 1: as the fireworks we can get from him, I think

205
00:10:53,800 --> 00:10:55,560
Speaker 1: it will be more along the lines of kind of

206
00:10:55,559 --> 00:10:59,120
Speaker 1: a sharp descent or pointing out long term projects, kind

207
00:10:59,160 --> 00:11:01,559
Speaker 1: of making a last effort for it. You know, we

208
00:11:01,600 --> 00:11:04,280
Speaker 1: saw him recently do this with the death penalty, calling

209
00:11:04,280 --> 00:11:07,320
Speaker 1: on the justices to reconsider the constitutionality of that. But

210
00:11:07,679 --> 00:11:09,680
Speaker 1: there's just not some votes on the Court, so there's

211
00:11:09,840 --> 00:11:12,320
Speaker 1: very limited amounts that Justice Briar can do. As he's

212
00:11:12,360 --> 00:11:14,480
Speaker 1: kind of making his farewell to her, It's going to

213
00:11:14,520 --> 00:11:16,920
Speaker 1: be a very busy month, that's for sure. Before I

214
00:11:17,000 --> 00:11:18,880
Speaker 1: let you go, I want to talk a little about

215
00:11:18,880 --> 00:11:22,240
Speaker 1: the leak. What's the latest on the investigation by the

216
00:11:22,280 --> 00:11:26,520
Speaker 1: Supreme Court Marshall's Office. Well, you know, we have heard

217
00:11:26,600 --> 00:11:30,000
Speaker 1: some more leaking from the leak that the Marshall's Office

218
00:11:30,480 --> 00:11:34,640
Speaker 1: is taking particular steps to get personal phone records from

219
00:11:34,720 --> 00:11:36,880
Speaker 1: the clerks, and we have Bloomberg haven't been able to

220
00:11:37,040 --> 00:11:41,160
Speaker 1: independently verify that, but that's definitely something that signals kind

221
00:11:41,200 --> 00:11:44,880
Speaker 1: of a unique and start change from the atmosphere at

222
00:11:44,880 --> 00:11:47,199
Speaker 1: the Court before. You know, typically this is a very

223
00:11:47,240 --> 00:11:51,440
Speaker 1: friendly institution and to see the Marshall's Office requesting the

224
00:11:51,480 --> 00:11:54,839
Speaker 1: personal information of their clerk is something pretty jarring for

225
00:11:54,920 --> 00:11:58,440
Speaker 1: someone like me, it's been watching the court for ten years. Um.

226
00:11:58,480 --> 00:12:00,800
Speaker 1: You know, I do question, though, I've seen a lot

227
00:12:00,800 --> 00:12:03,960
Speaker 1: of criticism that the Marshal's Office is an equipped to

228
00:12:04,080 --> 00:12:07,360
Speaker 1: handle this kind of investigation to really fair at out

229
00:12:07,520 --> 00:12:10,680
Speaker 1: the person who leaked and to punish them. But you know,

230
00:12:10,800 --> 00:12:13,160
Speaker 1: I've been wondering if that's really the goal of the

231
00:12:13,240 --> 00:12:16,640
Speaker 1: justices within the courthouse. Of course they want to find

232
00:12:16,679 --> 00:12:19,960
Speaker 1: out who did this and why, um, but punishing, you know,

233
00:12:20,040 --> 00:12:23,040
Speaker 1: their their law clerks, these young reason law school graduates.

234
00:12:23,080 --> 00:12:25,760
Speaker 1: I'm not sure is their top priority. But we'll just

235
00:12:25,800 --> 00:12:28,679
Speaker 1: have to wait and see where this investigation leads and

236
00:12:28,840 --> 00:12:31,880
Speaker 1: see if they the court actually tells us how how

237
00:12:31,880 --> 00:12:34,240
Speaker 1: it's going or how it's concluded. I still don't even

238
00:12:34,559 --> 00:12:36,480
Speaker 1: know if that's going to happen. Do you know how

239
00:12:36,480 --> 00:12:39,320
Speaker 1: many people have access to these draft rulings? Is it

240
00:12:39,440 --> 00:12:42,560
Speaker 1: more than the justices and their clerks. It is a

241
00:12:42,559 --> 00:12:44,880
Speaker 1: little bit more than the justices and their clerks, you know.

242
00:12:44,960 --> 00:12:47,040
Speaker 1: I think the best guests that I that I have

243
00:12:47,160 --> 00:12:50,960
Speaker 1: now is somewhere around eight people, because they're just some

244
00:12:51,120 --> 00:12:53,920
Speaker 1: people around the buildings who have to you know, have

245
00:12:54,000 --> 00:12:57,960
Speaker 1: access to emails, have access to printing, um, you know,

246
00:12:58,120 --> 00:13:00,640
Speaker 1: and there there of course will be of some people

247
00:13:01,160 --> 00:13:05,160
Speaker 1: um doing some administrative things with the opinion. So it

248
00:13:05,320 --> 00:13:08,760
Speaker 1: is a bit broader than the clerks and the justices.

249
00:13:09,320 --> 00:13:11,560
Speaker 1: But if the news that we're hearing out of the

250
00:13:11,600 --> 00:13:14,400
Speaker 1: investigation is true, it really does seem like the Marshall's

251
00:13:14,400 --> 00:13:17,000
Speaker 1: office is focused on the clerks, so maybe they know

252
00:13:17,120 --> 00:13:20,600
Speaker 1: something we don't. It seems odd because most people, most

253
00:13:20,679 --> 00:13:24,000
Speaker 1: legal experts say, well, you know, it wouldn't be the clerks,

254
00:13:24,120 --> 00:13:27,760
Speaker 1: because if it were revealed that a clerk was the leak,

255
00:13:28,440 --> 00:13:32,080
Speaker 1: that would ruin the clerk's career, Well, that certainly is

256
00:13:32,080 --> 00:13:34,280
Speaker 1: a good argument for why it wouldn't be a clerk.

257
00:13:34,360 --> 00:13:37,560
Speaker 1: And we don't have leaks very often. We do have,

258
00:13:37,720 --> 00:13:40,400
Speaker 1: you know, one situation that we can look back to,

259
00:13:40,720 --> 00:13:44,960
Speaker 1: after the plan Parenthood versus casey abortion rulling, one of

260
00:13:44,960 --> 00:13:48,040
Speaker 1: the clerks at that time, after the opinion had been announced,

261
00:13:48,160 --> 00:13:51,240
Speaker 1: then wrote sort of a telltale book and was sort

262
00:13:51,240 --> 00:13:55,839
Speaker 1: of shunned from at least the litigation aspect of um,

263
00:13:55,880 --> 00:13:59,600
Speaker 1: you know, the legal field. But beyond that, this is

264
00:13:59,640 --> 00:14:02,960
Speaker 1: really unprecedented situation that we're in and so you know,

265
00:14:03,160 --> 00:14:05,880
Speaker 1: really no telling where this is going to lead us.

266
00:14:05,960 --> 00:14:10,040
Speaker 1: And just finally a new House Republican bill is appropriately

267
00:14:10,120 --> 00:14:14,720
Speaker 1: called the Leaker Accountability Act of two. Just tell us

268
00:14:14,760 --> 00:14:19,640
Speaker 1: what that it's. You know, it's obviously designed around this league,

269
00:14:19,720 --> 00:14:22,760
Speaker 1: but tell us what that would do. Right. It certainly

270
00:14:22,880 --> 00:14:25,400
Speaker 1: is promptly by this league, but it's not retroactive. It

271
00:14:25,440 --> 00:14:28,120
Speaker 1: would not apply to this leaker. What it does is,

272
00:14:28,360 --> 00:14:31,200
Speaker 1: you know, it says that if any person you know,

273
00:14:31,320 --> 00:14:35,240
Speaker 1: clerk or personnel at the staff leaks what the Chief

274
00:14:35,280 --> 00:14:39,280
Speaker 1: Justice considers to be confidential information, then there it makes

275
00:14:39,320 --> 00:14:42,720
Speaker 1: it a criminal violation subject up to five years in jail.

276
00:14:43,080 --> 00:14:45,160
Speaker 1: I think, you know, the most interesting thing about that

277
00:14:45,240 --> 00:14:49,360
Speaker 1: laws really highlights that there is no criminal provision and

278
00:14:49,560 --> 00:14:52,280
Speaker 1: here that I think most people can see at least

279
00:14:52,280 --> 00:14:55,240
Speaker 1: not obviously that the leaker would have violated. And so

280
00:14:55,320 --> 00:14:58,200
Speaker 1: it's really looking forward to if these leaks are going

281
00:14:58,240 --> 00:15:00,840
Speaker 1: to happen, how are we going to try to dissuade

282
00:15:00,840 --> 00:15:03,920
Speaker 1: people from doing it? What you know possible federal resources

283
00:15:03,920 --> 00:15:05,720
Speaker 1: can we bring to bear. But you know, it was

284
00:15:05,760 --> 00:15:09,080
Speaker 1: just to introduce recently hasn't gotten a hearing. We don't

285
00:15:09,080 --> 00:15:12,960
Speaker 1: know where people stand and Congress's efforts to legislate for

286
00:15:13,040 --> 00:15:15,880
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court have not been very successful lately, so

287
00:15:16,280 --> 00:15:18,840
Speaker 1: I don't have high hopes for the still But again,

288
00:15:18,880 --> 00:15:21,280
Speaker 1: I think the important thing is that highlights kind of

289
00:15:21,320 --> 00:15:25,000
Speaker 1: the limitations UM with dealing with this current laker. Thanks

290
00:15:25,000 --> 00:15:28,800
Speaker 1: so much, Kimberly. That's Bloomberg Law. Supreme Court reporter Kimberly

291
00:15:28,880 --> 00:15:34,960
Speaker 1: Strawbridge Robinson. The mass shooting in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on Wednesday

292
00:15:35,400 --> 00:15:39,320
Speaker 1: left four people dead. That follows a massacre of nineteen

293
00:15:39,440 --> 00:15:44,360
Speaker 1: elementary school students and two teachers at a school in Uvaldi, Texas,

294
00:15:44,720 --> 00:15:47,760
Speaker 1: and a mass shooting at a grocery store in Buffalo,

295
00:15:47,840 --> 00:15:51,440
Speaker 1: New York that left ten people dead. President Biden has

296
00:15:51,480 --> 00:15:55,960
Speaker 1: asked Congress to pass gun control legislation as a bipartisan

297
00:15:55,960 --> 00:16:00,280
Speaker 1: group of lawmakers negotiates a possible agreement. But we been

298
00:16:00,320 --> 00:16:03,880
Speaker 1: here before. Joining me a second amendment expert Adam Winkler,

299
00:16:04,160 --> 00:16:06,920
Speaker 1: a professor at u c l A Law School, The

300
00:16:07,040 --> 00:16:10,640
Speaker 1: last time Congress came close to passing substantial gun reform

301
00:16:10,800 --> 00:16:13,880
Speaker 1: was in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. Se in,

302
00:16:15,240 --> 00:16:18,080
Speaker 1: is there a feeling that this might be it, that

303
00:16:18,600 --> 00:16:21,800
Speaker 1: maybe Congress will do it this time. There does seem

304
00:16:21,840 --> 00:16:26,120
Speaker 1: to be some momentum for reform, perhaps more than we've

305
00:16:26,120 --> 00:16:29,080
Speaker 1: seen in some of the other mass shooting wake, but

306
00:16:29,360 --> 00:16:31,560
Speaker 1: I think it really remains to be seen. We see

307
00:16:31,600 --> 00:16:35,840
Speaker 1: that the Democrats are very eager to get gun reform passed,

308
00:16:35,960 --> 00:16:39,400
Speaker 1: and the House seems certain to pass legislation. Whether there's

309
00:16:39,520 --> 00:16:43,040
Speaker 1: enough Republican support to overcome the hurdles of the Senate

310
00:16:43,080 --> 00:16:45,760
Speaker 1: and the filibuster, I think just remains to be seen.

311
00:16:46,080 --> 00:16:48,000
Speaker 1: In some ways, it's hard to imagine there'll be enough

312
00:16:48,040 --> 00:16:51,040
Speaker 1: Republican support, but I don't want to let pessimism get

313
00:16:51,040 --> 00:16:54,080
Speaker 1: in the way of possibility. Members of the House Judiciary

314
00:16:54,120 --> 00:16:58,400
Speaker 1: Committee held a special hearing today on legislation that would

315
00:16:58,480 --> 00:17:01,240
Speaker 1: raise the age limit for pro just saying semi automatic

316
00:17:01,320 --> 00:17:04,640
Speaker 1: rifles from eighteen to twenty one, and they get illegal

317
00:17:04,640 --> 00:17:08,920
Speaker 1: to manufacturer possess large capacity magazines. It said that it

318
00:17:08,960 --> 00:17:13,800
Speaker 1: will never pass the Senate because there's nearly unanimous Republican opposition.

319
00:17:14,000 --> 00:17:15,439
Speaker 1: If they're not going to pass that, I don't know

320
00:17:15,480 --> 00:17:18,359
Speaker 1: what they're going to pass. Yeah, it's not really clear.

321
00:17:18,800 --> 00:17:22,760
Speaker 1: One possibility is there could be a federal red flag law.

322
00:17:23,119 --> 00:17:27,280
Speaker 1: Red flag law also known as an Extreme Risk Protection

323
00:17:27,440 --> 00:17:32,320
Speaker 1: Order law that provides families and law enforcement the ability

324
00:17:32,359 --> 00:17:35,040
Speaker 1: to go to court if someone is going through some

325
00:17:35,160 --> 00:17:39,600
Speaker 1: kind of crisis and temporarily take away their guns. There

326
00:17:39,840 --> 00:17:42,720
Speaker 1: is at least some Republican support in the Senate for

327
00:17:42,800 --> 00:17:45,960
Speaker 1: a bill that would provide funding for states to adopt

328
00:17:46,040 --> 00:17:49,840
Speaker 1: red flag laws. Lindsey Graham is one of the co sponsors.

329
00:17:49,880 --> 00:17:51,840
Speaker 1: That might be the kind of thing that would appeal

330
00:17:52,080 --> 00:17:55,639
Speaker 1: to even strong pro gun advocates in line of the

331
00:17:55,680 --> 00:18:01,399
Speaker 1: fact that it targets dangerous individuals and doesn't target firearms

332
00:18:01,440 --> 00:18:05,320
Speaker 1: that would be owned by ordinary law abiding people. What

333
00:18:05,400 --> 00:18:09,720
Speaker 1: about an assault weapons ban which was passed before and

334
00:18:09,760 --> 00:18:13,800
Speaker 1: then expired. Is that a possibility. I think there's very

335
00:18:13,800 --> 00:18:17,840
Speaker 1: little chance that we could see a military style assault

336
00:18:17,840 --> 00:18:21,959
Speaker 1: weapons ban adopted by Congress, especially getting through the Senate.

337
00:18:22,280 --> 00:18:25,920
Speaker 1: These guns are the most favorite guns of many many

338
00:18:25,960 --> 00:18:30,240
Speaker 1: gun enthusiasts. They are viewed by gun enthusiasts as weapons

339
00:18:30,280 --> 00:18:34,960
Speaker 1: that are improperly targeted by gun reform advocates. Although these

340
00:18:34,960 --> 00:18:38,000
Speaker 1: firearms have been used in some high profile mass shootings,

341
00:18:38,440 --> 00:18:41,679
Speaker 1: they certainly aren't necessary to commit a mass shooting, and

342
00:18:41,720 --> 00:18:45,720
Speaker 1: many mass shootings are committed with handguns. And the overall

343
00:18:45,880 --> 00:18:48,840
Speaker 1: number of people who die as a result of rifle

344
00:18:48,920 --> 00:18:53,720
Speaker 1: wounds is actually relatively small compared to handguns, are or

345
00:18:53,760 --> 00:18:57,120
Speaker 1: other types of firearms. So I think that a ban

346
00:18:57,240 --> 00:19:01,080
Speaker 1: on military style assault rifles would be tough to through Congress,

347
00:19:01,160 --> 00:19:03,720
Speaker 1: and even if it did get through Congress, might be

348
00:19:03,800 --> 00:19:06,600
Speaker 1: even tougher to get through the United States Supreme Court.

349
00:19:07,320 --> 00:19:09,960
Speaker 1: I don't know much about guns, as I've told you before,

350
00:19:10,280 --> 00:19:14,720
Speaker 1: assault weapons. Are those the ones that were used in Uvaldi? Yes,

351
00:19:14,960 --> 00:19:18,400
Speaker 1: the shooter and Nuvaldi went out and purchased a military

352
00:19:18,440 --> 00:19:21,800
Speaker 1: style assault rifle. I think two of them in fact, Yeah, so,

353
00:19:22,240 --> 00:19:26,479
Speaker 1: and some of the children were unrecognizable because of the

354
00:19:26,560 --> 00:19:30,160
Speaker 1: damage that does. And it's also been said that perhaps

355
00:19:30,760 --> 00:19:34,440
Speaker 1: that's one of the reasons why the police didn't enter

356
00:19:34,760 --> 00:19:38,000
Speaker 1: and waited in the hallway for forty minutes or fifty minutes,

357
00:19:38,040 --> 00:19:40,920
Speaker 1: whatever it was. Yeah, that is possible. And certainly these

358
00:19:40,920 --> 00:19:45,119
Speaker 1: firearms are powerful firearms. And if you shoot someone at

359
00:19:45,119 --> 00:19:48,080
Speaker 1: close range with a rifle, really any kind of rifle,

360
00:19:48,119 --> 00:19:51,919
Speaker 1: whether it's a military style rifle or a rifle that

361
00:19:51,920 --> 00:19:54,320
Speaker 1: would not be banned by the assault weapons ban, it

362
00:19:54,359 --> 00:19:57,840
Speaker 1: will be pretty horrific. But I do think that it's

363
00:19:57,920 --> 00:20:03,200
Speaker 1: unlikely that metalities would diminish if the shooters only had

364
00:20:03,240 --> 00:20:07,280
Speaker 1: access to handgun. Now, high capacity magazines present an interesting

365
00:20:07,280 --> 00:20:10,120
Speaker 1: issue because high capacity magazines, that is the same magazines

366
00:20:10,160 --> 00:20:13,639
Speaker 1: that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. That

367
00:20:13,840 --> 00:20:15,960
Speaker 1: is a feature of a firearm that very much is

368
00:20:16,000 --> 00:20:19,520
Speaker 1: associated with lethality. If you can fire off more than

369
00:20:19,600 --> 00:20:23,479
Speaker 1: ten rounds of ammunition in rapid succession, you can do

370
00:20:23,520 --> 00:20:26,080
Speaker 1: a lot of damage, much more damage then if you

371
00:20:26,200 --> 00:20:30,720
Speaker 1: have a firearm that can only hold many fewer rounds

372
00:20:30,720 --> 00:20:33,719
Speaker 1: of ammunition. I think it would be very difficult to

373
00:20:33,800 --> 00:20:38,359
Speaker 1: get a ban on high capacity magazines through Congress, but

374
00:20:38,440 --> 00:20:41,359
Speaker 1: it might also be a problem getting such a band

375
00:20:41,400 --> 00:20:45,760
Speaker 1: through the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court it seems prepared

376
00:20:45,840 --> 00:20:49,120
Speaker 1: to expand Second Amendment right this term, and I think

377
00:20:49,200 --> 00:20:51,399
Speaker 1: one of the kinds of laws that the Court is

378
00:20:51,440 --> 00:20:54,199
Speaker 1: going to call in the question in coming years is

379
00:20:54,600 --> 00:20:58,520
Speaker 1: bans on high capacity magazines. We have such laws in

380
00:20:58,960 --> 00:21:02,320
Speaker 1: California and a full other states. They've already been challenged,

381
00:21:02,400 --> 00:21:04,240
Speaker 1: and those challenges are working their way up to the

382
00:21:04,280 --> 00:21:06,840
Speaker 1: Supreme Court as we speak. Adam, what do you think

383
00:21:06,880 --> 00:21:10,960
Speaker 1: the outer limit is of what the Supreme Court will

384
00:21:11,040 --> 00:21:14,000
Speaker 1: rule about Second Amendment rights. Well, I think it really

385
00:21:14,000 --> 00:21:16,520
Speaker 1: depends on what the Court says in this coming case.

386
00:21:16,760 --> 00:21:19,000
Speaker 1: Most people suspect that the Supreme Court is going to

387
00:21:19,040 --> 00:21:21,760
Speaker 1: strike down New York's can feel carry law in the

388
00:21:21,760 --> 00:21:24,480
Speaker 1: Bruin case that's going to be decided any day now.

389
00:21:24,960 --> 00:21:27,600
Speaker 1: But many Supreme Court watchers are going to be looking

390
00:21:27,600 --> 00:21:30,000
Speaker 1: to see what the Court says about other types of

391
00:21:30,040 --> 00:21:33,760
Speaker 1: gun control laws and other kinds of challenges under the

392
00:21:33,760 --> 00:21:37,280
Speaker 1: Second Amendment. And it does seem like the Court is

393
00:21:37,320 --> 00:21:41,040
Speaker 1: likely to insist that firearms that are in common use,

394
00:21:41,200 --> 00:21:44,800
Speaker 1: that are commonplace firearms, cannot be banned, that they are

395
00:21:44,840 --> 00:21:48,280
Speaker 1: protected by the Second Amendment. High capacity magazines are found

396
00:21:48,400 --> 00:21:51,920
Speaker 1: in upwards of forty to fifty million guns in America,

397
00:21:52,080 --> 00:21:55,000
Speaker 1: maybe more. We don't have precise data, but they would

398
00:21:55,000 --> 00:21:58,440
Speaker 1: seem to qualify as being in common use. What about

399
00:21:58,480 --> 00:22:03,680
Speaker 1: the possibility of expanding background checks? There is a possibility

400
00:22:03,720 --> 00:22:07,120
Speaker 1: that we can expand the background checks. There is some

401
00:22:07,160 --> 00:22:11,360
Speaker 1: discussion currently in the Senate about expanding the current background

402
00:22:11,440 --> 00:22:15,320
Speaker 1: check system. Our current law only requires background checks on

403
00:22:15,480 --> 00:22:19,439
Speaker 1: sales by federally licensed gun dealers, but you don't have

404
00:22:19,520 --> 00:22:21,920
Speaker 1: to be a federally licensed gun dealer to sell a gun,

405
00:22:22,160 --> 00:22:24,920
Speaker 1: and if you're not a federally licensed dealer, you don't

406
00:22:24,960 --> 00:22:27,959
Speaker 1: have to conduct a background check under federal law. And

407
00:22:28,000 --> 00:22:31,439
Speaker 1: so closing that loophole and requiring every gun sale to

408
00:22:31,520 --> 00:22:34,600
Speaker 1: go through a background check would be an important step

409
00:22:34,680 --> 00:22:38,720
Speaker 1: forward in gun safety reform. Whether there's enough political will

410
00:22:38,800 --> 00:22:41,440
Speaker 1: to support it or not, we'll have to see. After

411
00:22:41,480 --> 00:22:44,720
Speaker 1: Newtown there was a push for universal background checks, but

412
00:22:44,880 --> 00:22:48,200
Speaker 1: Republicans came out against it, claiming that it would lead

413
00:22:48,240 --> 00:22:52,320
Speaker 1: inevitably to a national gun registry that in turn would

414
00:22:52,359 --> 00:22:56,000
Speaker 1: be eventually used to confiscate people's weapons. Is there anything

415
00:22:56,040 --> 00:23:01,120
Speaker 1: more the president can do as far as executive orders?

416
00:23:01,520 --> 00:23:05,840
Speaker 1: You know, there are some things that President Joe Biden

417
00:23:05,960 --> 00:23:09,800
Speaker 1: can do with regards to gun violence prevention, but not

418
00:23:09,920 --> 00:23:13,280
Speaker 1: a lot, and not a lot. That's very significant. Part

419
00:23:13,280 --> 00:23:16,600
Speaker 1: of the problem here is that the president's power only

420
00:23:16,840 --> 00:23:21,560
Speaker 1: is to offer new interpretations of existing laws that have

421
00:23:21,640 --> 00:23:25,600
Speaker 1: been passed by Congress. He can't, for instance, beside unilaterally

422
00:23:25,680 --> 00:23:29,359
Speaker 1: that he's going to ban military style assault rifles because

423
00:23:29,400 --> 00:23:33,240
Speaker 1: Congress hasn't provided any basis for the president to make

424
00:23:33,400 --> 00:23:37,840
Speaker 1: such a decision. The Biden administration has articulated a wish

425
00:23:37,880 --> 00:23:41,680
Speaker 1: list of gun reforms, but almost all of them require

426
00:23:42,040 --> 00:23:45,320
Speaker 1: Congress to pass legislation. But there are things that the

427
00:23:45,320 --> 00:23:48,959
Speaker 1: president can do through executive action. He can tighten import

428
00:23:49,080 --> 00:23:53,760
Speaker 1: restrictions on military style assault rifles. He can expand background

429
00:23:53,880 --> 00:23:57,800
Speaker 1: checks at the margins by redefining who is required to

430
00:23:57,840 --> 00:24:00,520
Speaker 1: have a license to sell gun. Congress has said you

431
00:24:00,600 --> 00:24:03,800
Speaker 1: have to get a federal license if you're regularly in

432
00:24:03,840 --> 00:24:07,120
Speaker 1: the business of selling guns, and the current rules require

433
00:24:07,359 --> 00:24:10,920
Speaker 1: someone who repetitively buys and sells guns with the principal

434
00:24:10,960 --> 00:24:14,159
Speaker 1: motive of making a profit to obtain a license. The

435
00:24:14,200 --> 00:24:18,800
Speaker 1: Biden administration could slightly change that definition of who counts

436
00:24:18,840 --> 00:24:21,280
Speaker 1: as being in the business of selling guns and thus

437
00:24:21,320 --> 00:24:25,680
Speaker 1: require more background checks. The administration has already pushed to

438
00:24:25,840 --> 00:24:29,720
Speaker 1: crack down on ghost guns, homemade weapons that typically lack

439
00:24:29,880 --> 00:24:34,520
Speaker 1: serial numbers, by requiring purchasers to undergo background check. So

440
00:24:34,560 --> 00:24:38,240
Speaker 1: there are some things that Biden administration can do, but

441
00:24:38,400 --> 00:24:41,520
Speaker 1: most of them are really at the margins. What about states,

442
00:24:41,560 --> 00:24:44,439
Speaker 1: Because there's been a flurry of gun legislation, and I

443
00:24:44,560 --> 00:24:48,400
Speaker 1: was surprised to read that in two thousand three, Vermont

444
00:24:48,760 --> 00:24:51,919
Speaker 1: was the only state that allowed residents to carry handguns

445
00:24:51,960 --> 00:24:55,760
Speaker 1: in public without a permit. Since then, legislatures in half

446
00:24:55,760 --> 00:25:01,879
Speaker 1: the states have removed permitting requirements, mostly in evolving concealed firearms.

447
00:25:01,960 --> 00:25:05,680
Speaker 1: So is the battleground in the states. Well, the battleground

448
00:25:05,920 --> 00:25:09,080
Speaker 1: over gun reform has been in the states for the

449
00:25:09,160 --> 00:25:12,240
Speaker 1: last ten years or so. Ever, since the federal government

450
00:25:12,359 --> 00:25:15,840
Speaker 1: failed to act after New Town gun safety reform, advocates

451
00:25:15,840 --> 00:25:18,560
Speaker 1: have turned their attention to the states to try to

452
00:25:18,600 --> 00:25:21,520
Speaker 1: get legislation to close up some of the loopholes in

453
00:25:21,600 --> 00:25:25,160
Speaker 1: federal law at the state level. So states like California

454
00:25:25,240 --> 00:25:28,280
Speaker 1: and New York, for instance, have passed legislation over the

455
00:25:28,359 --> 00:25:32,080
Speaker 1: last ten years, doing things like making universal background checks

456
00:25:32,320 --> 00:25:36,439
Speaker 1: the norm in those states, restricting high capacity magazines, or

457
00:25:36,440 --> 00:25:40,680
Speaker 1: restricting military style rifles. We have seen states take up

458
00:25:40,760 --> 00:25:44,600
Speaker 1: the mantle of gun reform, and I think we're likely

459
00:25:44,640 --> 00:25:48,320
Speaker 1: to see that continue. I know that California lawmakers are

460
00:25:48,840 --> 00:25:52,120
Speaker 1: pondering a set of new pieces of gun legislation, new

461
00:25:52,119 --> 00:25:56,000
Speaker 1: gun reforms that would make it easier, for instance, to

462
00:25:56,080 --> 00:26:00,600
Speaker 1: sue gunmakers when their firearms are used to commit now murder.

463
00:26:00,880 --> 00:26:03,600
Speaker 1: And we will see some states, I think, seek to

464
00:26:04,000 --> 00:26:06,840
Speaker 1: strengthen their gun laws in the wake of this mass shooting.

465
00:26:07,200 --> 00:26:09,679
Speaker 1: The difficult thing at the state level is that you

466
00:26:09,760 --> 00:26:12,919
Speaker 1: have a large number of states that are very strongly

467
00:26:13,000 --> 00:26:17,159
Speaker 1: pro gun and if anything, they're likely to loosen their laws,

468
00:26:17,560 --> 00:26:21,160
Speaker 1: as we've seen happen in state after state. I want

469
00:26:21,160 --> 00:26:23,520
Speaker 1: to go back for a moment to the idea of

470
00:26:23,640 --> 00:26:27,280
Speaker 1: raising the age to buy a gun from eighteen to

471
00:26:27,440 --> 00:26:33,520
Speaker 1: twenty one. Republican Congressman Jim Jordan's has said that that's unconstitutional.

472
00:26:33,960 --> 00:26:36,800
Speaker 1: It's not clear that it would be unconstitutional to raise

473
00:26:36,840 --> 00:26:39,040
Speaker 1: the gun age. Of course, the Supreme Court hasn't said

474
00:26:39,080 --> 00:26:42,280
Speaker 1: anything about that. There was recently a case out of

475
00:26:42,280 --> 00:26:45,840
Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit that did say that California's effort to

476
00:26:46,000 --> 00:26:50,119
Speaker 1: raise the gun age for purchasing various kinds of semi

477
00:26:50,160 --> 00:26:54,920
Speaker 1: automatic center fire rifles was unconstitutional, and the Ninth Circuit

478
00:26:55,000 --> 00:26:59,840
Speaker 1: judge argued that this was unconstitutional because the founders relied

479
00:27:00,000 --> 00:27:03,000
Speaker 1: on eighteen year olds to be members of the militia

480
00:27:03,119 --> 00:27:06,240
Speaker 1: and so trusted them with firearms. And nonetheless think there

481
00:27:06,240 --> 00:27:09,160
Speaker 1: are good reasons to raise the gun age, and I've

482
00:27:09,240 --> 00:27:12,639
Speaker 1: argued for doing so in the past. Part of the

483
00:27:12,720 --> 00:27:15,480
Speaker 1: problem with arming people who are between the ages of

484
00:27:15,520 --> 00:27:19,680
Speaker 1: eighteen and twenty is that brain development is not that

485
00:27:19,800 --> 00:27:24,000
Speaker 1: advance when it comes to issues like understanding long term

486
00:27:24,040 --> 00:27:28,199
Speaker 1: consequences of behavior, resisting impulsive behavior, and that part of

487
00:27:28,200 --> 00:27:31,280
Speaker 1: the brain, scientists of popos isn't fully developed until about

488
00:27:31,320 --> 00:27:33,280
Speaker 1: the age of twenty five. The mere fact that we

489
00:27:33,320 --> 00:27:36,120
Speaker 1: allow young people to have firearms in the military, which

490
00:27:36,160 --> 00:27:39,160
Speaker 1: is a very strict command and control structure in which

491
00:27:39,640 --> 00:27:43,320
Speaker 1: eighteen to twenty year olds have virtually no independent discretion

492
00:27:43,400 --> 00:27:46,280
Speaker 1: over whether to use firearms or not, is not a

493
00:27:46,320 --> 00:27:50,440
Speaker 1: particularly relevant example or analogy for how we should think

494
00:27:50,440 --> 00:27:54,200
Speaker 1: about public policy more generally. Finally, um, do you think

495
00:27:54,200 --> 00:27:57,240
Speaker 1: that this would be an easier road to, how you know,

496
00:27:57,280 --> 00:28:01,240
Speaker 1: getting any kind of gun control legislation if not for

497
00:28:01,320 --> 00:28:04,800
Speaker 1: the n r A. Certainly, the n r A is

498
00:28:05,320 --> 00:28:09,919
Speaker 1: an important voice in styming gun reform, but even without

499
00:28:10,040 --> 00:28:13,199
Speaker 1: the n r A, we would likely still have a

500
00:28:13,280 --> 00:28:17,600
Speaker 1: lot of single issue pro gun voters that would be

501
00:28:17,760 --> 00:28:22,159
Speaker 1: sure to vote against any elected official who votes in

502
00:28:22,200 --> 00:28:25,280
Speaker 1: favor of gun safety reform. We have to understand that

503
00:28:25,520 --> 00:28:28,600
Speaker 1: the problem with getting gun safety reform adopted is not

504
00:28:28,800 --> 00:28:32,359
Speaker 1: merely the n r A being a super powerful and

505
00:28:32,440 --> 00:28:36,040
Speaker 1: influential organization, but also that there's a lot of voters

506
00:28:36,040 --> 00:28:40,200
Speaker 1: out there who care about this issue, and elected officials,

507
00:28:40,280 --> 00:28:43,880
Speaker 1: especially among Republicans, have really come to be scared of

508
00:28:44,040 --> 00:28:47,440
Speaker 1: gun owners and the wrath they might take on any

509
00:28:47,560 --> 00:28:51,840
Speaker 1: public official who supports gun safety reform. Thanks as always, Adam.

510
00:28:51,840 --> 00:28:54,760
Speaker 1: That's Professor Adam Winkler of u c. L A Law School,

511
00:28:55,080 --> 00:28:57,360
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

512
00:28:57,720 --> 00:29:00,240
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news honor

513
00:29:00,280 --> 00:29:04,360
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

514
00:29:04,600 --> 00:29:09,600
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law,

515
00:29:10,040 --> 00:29:12,640
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

516
00:29:12,680 --> 00:29:16,080
Speaker 1: week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June

517
00:29:16,120 --> 00:29:18,320
Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg