WEBVTT - Mistrust at the Supreme Court Amid Historic Backlog 0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:07.960 This is Bloomberg Long with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:09.039 --> 0:00:12.360 Another repercussion from the leak of a draft Supreme Court 0:00:12.360 --> 0:00:17.040 opinion overturning Roe v. Wade last month, Justice Clarence Thomas 0:00:17.040 --> 0:00:20.639 said the leak has undermined trust among the justices and 0:00:20.760 --> 0:00:24.680 deeply damaged the court. And look where we are where 0:00:24.760 --> 0:00:29.600 now that trust or that belief is gone forever um 0:00:29.720 --> 0:00:33.479 the And when you lose that trust, especially in the 0:00:33.600 --> 0:00:38.800 institution that I'm in, Uh, it changes the institution fundamentally. 0:00:39.680 --> 0:00:42.240 You begin to look over your shoulder. It's like kind 0:00:42.280 --> 0:00:46.280 of an infidelity on that you can explain it, but 0:00:46.360 --> 0:00:50.760 you can't undo it. Is that mistrust and internal discord 0:00:51.000 --> 0:00:54.120 behind the Justice is waiting until the bitter end of 0:00:54.160 --> 0:00:57.000 the term to issue decisions in more than half of 0:00:57.040 --> 0:01:01.920 their cases, including blockbuster rulings could make abortion illegal and 0:01:02.040 --> 0:01:05.360 half the country and mean more handguns on the streets. 0:01:05.800 --> 0:01:08.400 Here to help us sort out why and what's coming 0:01:08.520 --> 0:01:13.840 up is Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter Kimberly. 0:01:14.280 --> 0:01:18.800 At this point, the justices have thirty three decisions outstanding. 0:01:19.120 --> 0:01:23.240 That's more than they've issued this whole term. Is this unusual, Well, 0:01:23.280 --> 0:01:26.399 it is and it isn't. So it's not unusual for 0:01:26.480 --> 0:01:30.080 the Court to kind of backload. It's worked with opinions. 0:01:30.200 --> 0:01:32.120 But you know, that makes a lot of sense. In 0:01:32.160 --> 0:01:34.679 the beginning of the term, the justices are also hearing 0:01:34.800 --> 0:01:37.280 oral arguments in cases. There's a lot of prep for 0:01:37.840 --> 0:01:41.080 those arguments to happen, and then they stopped doing that 0:01:41.120 --> 0:01:44.039 around April and focused totally on opinions. So we do 0:01:44.240 --> 0:01:46.559 tend to get a lot of the opinions in June, 0:01:46.680 --> 0:01:49.040 specifically as the Court tries to hit this kind of 0:01:49.120 --> 0:01:52.600 informal deadline at the end of June to knock out 0:01:52.640 --> 0:01:55.200 all of its opinions. But it's unusual in the sense 0:01:55.280 --> 0:01:58.200 to have so many. We could see the Suspreme Court 0:01:58.240 --> 0:02:02.320 was already working pretty slowly before we got that unprecedented 0:02:02.400 --> 0:02:05.320 leak of an abortion ruling, but since then it's been 0:02:05.360 --> 0:02:07.840 going even more slowly. So it is unusual to have 0:02:08.040 --> 0:02:10.600 thirty three cases left for the justices to get out, 0:02:10.720 --> 0:02:12.880 and it is a pretty heavy list. Maybe we won't 0:02:12.919 --> 0:02:16.320 be hitting that informal deadline this here. We've been expecting 0:02:16.520 --> 0:02:20.120 the decision in the New York gun case for some time. 0:02:20.360 --> 0:02:25.440 Explain why, you know how reporters time out when cases 0:02:25.480 --> 0:02:28.120 are argued and when they should be coming down. Well, 0:02:28.160 --> 0:02:31.160 you know, it takes the justices a long time to 0:02:31.360 --> 0:02:34.720 really issue any opinion. It's not as if they usually 0:02:34.840 --> 0:02:37.360 just pure case and then the next day we get 0:02:37.400 --> 0:02:41.160 this long, ridden, reasoned out opinion. That takes time, But 0:02:41.360 --> 0:02:44.560 as cases are more divisive, it's going to take even 0:02:44.560 --> 0:02:47.760 more time, not only because you're working with the majority opinion, 0:02:47.919 --> 0:02:50.080 but also with any descents that might be coming in 0:02:50.160 --> 0:02:53.120 and those kind of go back and forth sometime for editing. 0:02:53.360 --> 0:02:55.160 So you know, we can kind of gain out the 0:02:55.240 --> 0:02:58.560 system based on when arguments happened. Did they happen right 0:02:58.600 --> 0:03:00.440 at the beginning of term in October or you might 0:03:00.560 --> 0:03:03.640 expect to see those happen before cases that you know, 0:03:03.720 --> 0:03:06.640 we don't hear until the middle of April. That makes 0:03:06.680 --> 0:03:09.560 a lot of sense with regard to this gun case, 0:03:09.639 --> 0:03:12.679 though it is right now the oldest outstanding case that 0:03:12.800 --> 0:03:16.360 the Supreme Court still has pending, and why we could 0:03:16.560 --> 0:03:18.280 see it at the end of June, it is also 0:03:18.360 --> 0:03:21.600 one that the Justices might have ready, but we haven't 0:03:21.639 --> 0:03:23.880 seen it in the last couple of weeks and some 0:03:24.000 --> 0:03:27.080 people are speculating that it has to do with the 0:03:27.120 --> 0:03:29.800 recent news out of Texas and that shooting there, that 0:03:29.880 --> 0:03:33.960 the justices seem prime and oral argument to expand gun rights, 0:03:34.000 --> 0:03:36.120 and that now just really isn't the time for the 0:03:36.120 --> 0:03:39.160 Supreme Court to issue that ruling. I confess that I've 0:03:39.160 --> 0:03:42.160 been one of those speculating. So that case and of 0:03:42.200 --> 0:03:45.600 course the abortion case are the blockbuster decisions that people 0:03:45.600 --> 0:03:48.880 have been focusing on. But there are other cases which 0:03:49.080 --> 0:03:52.000 should make headlines. Let's just go through some of them quickly. 0:03:52.320 --> 0:03:55.880 There's a pending environmental dispute there is. This is a 0:03:55.920 --> 0:03:58.760 big dispute out of West Virginia, but it really goes 0:03:58.800 --> 0:04:01.040 to the heart of whether it's e p A can 0:04:01.080 --> 0:04:05.160 tackle climate change and how robustly they can tackle climate change, 0:04:05.240 --> 0:04:08.880 which of itself is a really important issue for the country, 0:04:09.000 --> 0:04:11.760 but it's also really important in what it means for 0:04:12.240 --> 0:04:15.920 administrative law. Now, people might have fallen asleep while an 0:04:15.960 --> 0:04:19.680 administrative law, but the administrative law touches on almost every 0:04:19.720 --> 0:04:22.640 aspect of American life, and you know, when the Court 0:04:22.720 --> 0:04:25.640 makes even small changes to administrative law, I can really 0:04:25.680 --> 0:04:28.600 have big effects. And this is one of those cases 0:04:28.760 --> 0:04:31.760 where what the Supreme Court says, could make the ruling 0:04:31.880 --> 0:04:36.040 mean even more beyond environmental law, beyond climate change. There's 0:04:36.040 --> 0:04:39.680 the immigration case over Trump's Remain in Mexico policy, which 0:04:39.680 --> 0:04:43.000 would force immigrants to stay in Mexico while their cases 0:04:43.000 --> 0:04:46.440 are being reviewed. And are there two religious rights cases? 0:04:46.800 --> 0:04:50.200 There are two religious rights cases still pending. The Court 0:04:50.320 --> 0:04:54.400 recently issued religious rights case fighting with a group who 0:04:54.480 --> 0:04:57.120 wanted to fly their flag over Boston. But both of 0:04:57.160 --> 0:04:59.800 these other cases are a little bit more robust, kind 0:04:59.800 --> 0:05:02.240 of to more of the heart of some of our 0:05:02.279 --> 0:05:05.480 religious freedom and what states can do to kind of 0:05:05.520 --> 0:05:09.440 stay out of religion. You know, those cases are really interesting, 0:05:09.480 --> 0:05:12.200 and that if we looked at the Robert's Court when 0:05:12.240 --> 0:05:14.760 it first got started in two thousand and five, when 0:05:14.800 --> 0:05:18.040 Chief Justice Robert took over, the Court's really been making 0:05:18.080 --> 0:05:21.320 these very small moves and the religious space to where 0:05:21.320 --> 0:05:23.400 we get to where we are now and the questions 0:05:23.440 --> 0:05:26.680 we're considering are kind of astonishing how far we come 0:05:26.760 --> 0:05:29.480 just taking these little baby steps. And so I expect 0:05:29.560 --> 0:05:31.960 the Court to continue kind of taking those baby steps 0:05:31.960 --> 0:05:35.240 and of walking towards protecting religious freedom and protecting the 0:05:35.320 --> 0:05:37.760 right to practice. But again, those are ones that we're 0:05:37.760 --> 0:05:40.400 going to see in the deluge of cases that I'm 0:05:40.480 --> 0:05:43.440 expecting in the next couple of weeks. Since the majority 0:05:43.480 --> 0:05:46.960 opinions are sort of spread out evenly among the justices, 0:05:47.400 --> 0:05:52.200 Supreme Court watchers watch which justice has written opinions and 0:05:52.240 --> 0:05:55.359 how many to determine who's left. So what have you 0:05:55.400 --> 0:05:57.680 found out? Right? This is one of those things that 0:05:57.720 --> 0:05:59.839 we're forced to do because the Court is, you know, 0:06:00.080 --> 0:06:04.320 such a secretive institutions, the League notwithstanding, but yeah, so 0:06:04.520 --> 0:06:07.720 typically we see justices trying to even out the opinions, 0:06:07.800 --> 0:06:10.320 bread them across each of the argument sittings, and so 0:06:10.440 --> 0:06:12.800 we can kind of get an idea of who we're 0:06:12.839 --> 0:06:16.240 expecting the most opinions from. Right now to Justice Roberts 0:06:16.279 --> 0:06:18.840 and Kagan have written the most opinions. They've written the 0:06:18.920 --> 0:06:21.560 four of the six or seven that we expect to see. 0:06:21.839 --> 0:06:23.560 But some of the other justices have a lot more 0:06:23.600 --> 0:06:27.040 work to do. Thomas Alito, Kavanaugh, you know, they've only 0:06:27.080 --> 0:06:29.640 written too so they're not even halfway done with their work. 0:06:29.800 --> 0:06:31.960 Of course, we know Justice Alito from that league is 0:06:32.000 --> 0:06:35.559 probably writing scheme majority opinion in that big abortion case. 0:06:35.800 --> 0:06:38.080 But who's writing what else? We'll get a better clue 0:06:38.080 --> 0:06:39.800 as more opinions kind of trickle in and we can 0:06:39.800 --> 0:06:43.200 play this process of elimination. The fact that three of 0:06:43.200 --> 0:06:48.000 the conservative justices have more majority opinions to come may 0:06:48.160 --> 0:06:51.719 give some liberals pause. Now, when you hear Supreme Court 0:06:51.760 --> 0:06:55.279 justice talk, they usually point out how many of their 0:06:55.279 --> 0:06:58.400 opinions are unanimous to try to show it's not a 0:06:58.400 --> 0:07:01.720 political body. I fun that those are usually in cases 0:07:01.839 --> 0:07:05.880 that people don't care that much about attention to. What 0:07:05.960 --> 0:07:09.040 are the numbers so far this term, Well, you're right, 0:07:09.160 --> 0:07:11.720 you know, unanimous cases typically make up about half of 0:07:11.760 --> 0:07:14.400 the cases. And it's the stat that all of justices 0:07:14.480 --> 0:07:16.080 on the right and the left point you just say, 0:07:16.200 --> 0:07:19.200 we agree on over half of these really tough legal 0:07:19.320 --> 0:07:22.160 questions that have divided lower court judges. But this year 0:07:22.240 --> 0:07:25.480 they're actually going to struggle to get to that fifty percent. 0:07:25.760 --> 0:07:28.520 And you know, if you think about the timing considerations 0:07:28.560 --> 0:07:31.640 that we've talked about, divided opinions take a lot longer 0:07:31.680 --> 0:07:34.440 to than unanimous opinions. So we tend to have a 0:07:34.560 --> 0:07:38.680 frontload of these unanimous rulings. But so far and really 0:07:38.680 --> 0:07:40.920 haven't been that many. There have been about as many 0:07:41.000 --> 0:07:44.880 unanimous opinions as we've seen six three opinions, which of 0:07:44.920 --> 0:07:49.160 course is the ideological lineup of this conservative majority court now, 0:07:49.240 --> 0:07:53.240 so that doesn't bode well for these really high profile 0:07:53.360 --> 0:07:55.840 and very divisive cases that we still have yet to 0:07:55.880 --> 0:07:58.480 get out, and they don't really have those base of 0:07:58.600 --> 0:08:02.240 unanimous rulings to build upon. I will say though, that 0:08:02.360 --> 0:08:05.320 one problem with kind of keeping stats with regard to 0:08:05.440 --> 0:08:08.480 unanimous opinions or five four six three rulings is that 0:08:08.760 --> 0:08:11.720 they often don't tell you a lot about the underlying reasoning. 0:08:11.920 --> 0:08:14.560 So one case that I consider to be an eight 0:08:14.600 --> 0:08:18.040 to one ruling is that Texas abortion case. But you know, 0:08:18.120 --> 0:08:19.760 I think if you talk to a lot of the people, 0:08:19.800 --> 0:08:21.360 they would tend to think of it as a five 0:08:21.440 --> 0:08:24.880 four ruling just because of the political implications of it. So, 0:08:25.240 --> 0:08:27.440 you know, we should look to this data. It does 0:08:27.480 --> 0:08:30.320 tell us something, but it certainly can't tell everything about 0:08:30.320 --> 0:08:32.760 what's going on at the court. It seems like an 0:08:32.800 --> 0:08:36.880 age ago that Chief Justice Roberts was the justice in 0:08:36.920 --> 0:08:39.800 the center of the court, the swing vote. Who's at 0:08:39.800 --> 0:08:43.040 the center now? Well, actually, right now, both Roberts and 0:08:43.160 --> 0:08:46.640 Justice Brett Kavanaugh are the only justices to be in 0:08:46.720 --> 0:08:50.600 the majority in all one cases. Again though, and you know, 0:08:50.720 --> 0:08:53.360 people who are forfalling that Texas abortion case may be 0:08:53.440 --> 0:08:56.200 scratching their heads because I think many people would see 0:08:56.280 --> 0:08:59.760 Chief Justice Roberts concurrence in that opinion as really a dissent. 0:09:00.160 --> 0:09:02.880 And so you know, again that highlights the information that 0:09:02.960 --> 0:09:05.559 we can glean from this. But I think that these 0:09:05.640 --> 0:09:07.480 kind of numbers that we're looking at now are going 0:09:07.520 --> 0:09:09.760 to radically change by the end of the term and 0:09:09.920 --> 0:09:13.000 just this couple of months span, because we are getting 0:09:13.040 --> 0:09:16.200 so many divisive cases, and I suspect that the numbers 0:09:16.200 --> 0:09:19.120 will probably prove you right June to show that Chief 0:09:19.160 --> 0:09:21.520 Justice Roberts is no longer in the middle of the 0:09:21.520 --> 0:09:24.320 court and that the Court has really tilted towards his 0:09:24.400 --> 0:09:28.240 more conservative colleagues. There isn't really a swing vote anymore 0:09:28.320 --> 0:09:32.280 like Justice Kennedy was, is there. I think it depends 0:09:32.280 --> 0:09:34.920 on the issue. With Justice Kennedy, you know, you really 0:09:34.920 --> 0:09:37.680 didn't know all the time which side of the issue 0:09:37.720 --> 0:09:39.719 in any particular case he was going to be on. 0:09:40.040 --> 0:09:41.720 With this court, I think that there are a few 0:09:41.840 --> 0:09:45.600 really precise issues that you can see a swing justice. 0:09:45.760 --> 0:09:49.040 And so it may surprise listeners that Justice course such 0:09:49.080 --> 0:09:51.960 is often a vote with his more liberal colleagues on 0:09:52.040 --> 0:09:54.880 things like tribal rights or even right for you know, 0:09:54.920 --> 0:09:58.120 Puerto Ricans and other U. S territories. But we're not 0:09:58.160 --> 0:10:00.920 going to see Justice course such a the swing vote 0:10:01.080 --> 0:10:04.280 in these big divisive cases like guns and abortions. I 0:10:04.280 --> 0:10:06.520 think you're right, June, that that just doesn't really exist 0:10:06.600 --> 0:10:10.480 on the current Supreme Court anymore. Kimberly, Justice Stephen Briar's 0:10:10.559 --> 0:10:14.240 retiring after nearly thirty years on the bench. Did you 0:10:14.280 --> 0:10:17.000 see anything different from him this term? And are you 0:10:17.080 --> 0:10:20.640 expecting any last minute fireworks from him? That is a 0:10:20.720 --> 0:10:23.360 really good question, June. I don't think we saw anything 0:10:23.800 --> 0:10:27.120 really different from Justice brier this term. I think, you know, 0:10:27.200 --> 0:10:30.720 just listening to him talk before he had announced his retirement, 0:10:31.040 --> 0:10:33.439 it seemed like he had really hoped to kind of 0:10:33.559 --> 0:10:37.240 use his long time and relationship on the bench to 0:10:37.320 --> 0:10:40.120 be able to sway the Court away from some of 0:10:40.120 --> 0:10:43.559 these bigger, more divisive rulings. But you know, if the 0:10:43.640 --> 0:10:45.960 draft opinion tells us anything, it doesn't seem like he 0:10:46.000 --> 0:10:48.839 was successful, at least with regard to abortion, which is 0:10:48.920 --> 0:10:51.760 kind of the marquee issue this term. So as far 0:10:51.840 --> 0:10:53.800 as the fireworks we can get from him, I think 0:10:53.800 --> 0:10:55.560 it will be more along the lines of kind of 0:10:55.559 --> 0:10:59.120 a sharp descent or pointing out long term projects, kind 0:10:59.160 --> 0:11:01.559 of making a last effort for it. You know, we 0:11:01.600 --> 0:11:04.280 saw him recently do this with the death penalty, calling 0:11:04.280 --> 0:11:07.320 on the justices to reconsider the constitutionality of that. But 0:11:07.679 --> 0:11:09.680 there's just not some votes on the Court, so there's 0:11:09.840 --> 0:11:12.320 very limited amounts that Justice Briar can do. As he's 0:11:12.360 --> 0:11:14.480 kind of making his farewell to her, It's going to 0:11:14.520 --> 0:11:16.920 be a very busy month, that's for sure. Before I 0:11:17.000 --> 0:11:18.880 let you go, I want to talk a little about 0:11:18.880 --> 0:11:22.240 the leak. What's the latest on the investigation by the 0:11:22.280 --> 0:11:26.520 Supreme Court Marshall's Office. Well, you know, we have heard 0:11:26.600 --> 0:11:30.000 some more leaking from the leak that the Marshall's Office 0:11:30.480 --> 0:11:34.640 is taking particular steps to get personal phone records from 0:11:34.720 --> 0:11:36.880 the clerks, and we have Bloomberg haven't been able to 0:11:37.040 --> 0:11:41.160 independently verify that, but that's definitely something that signals kind 0:11:41.200 --> 0:11:44.880 of a unique and start change from the atmosphere at 0:11:44.880 --> 0:11:47.199 the Court before. You know, typically this is a very 0:11:47.240 --> 0:11:51.440 friendly institution and to see the Marshall's Office requesting the 0:11:51.480 --> 0:11:54.839 personal information of their clerk is something pretty jarring for 0:11:54.920 --> 0:11:58.440 someone like me, it's been watching the court for ten years. Um. 0:11:58.480 --> 0:12:00.800 You know, I do question, though, I've seen a lot 0:12:00.800 --> 0:12:03.960 of criticism that the Marshal's Office is an equipped to 0:12:04.080 --> 0:12:07.360 handle this kind of investigation to really fair at out 0:12:07.520 --> 0:12:10.680 the person who leaked and to punish them. But you know, 0:12:10.800 --> 0:12:13.160 I've been wondering if that's really the goal of the 0:12:13.240 --> 0:12:16.640 justices within the courthouse. Of course they want to find 0:12:16.679 --> 0:12:19.960 out who did this and why, um, but punishing, you know, 0:12:20.040 --> 0:12:23.040 their their law clerks, these young reason law school graduates. 0:12:23.080 --> 0:12:25.760 I'm not sure is their top priority. But we'll just 0:12:25.800 --> 0:12:28.679 have to wait and see where this investigation leads and 0:12:28.840 --> 0:12:31.880 see if they the court actually tells us how how 0:12:31.880 --> 0:12:34.240 it's going or how it's concluded. I still don't even 0:12:34.559 --> 0:12:36.480 know if that's going to happen. Do you know how 0:12:36.480 --> 0:12:39.320 many people have access to these draft rulings? Is it 0:12:39.440 --> 0:12:42.560 more than the justices and their clerks. It is a 0:12:42.559 --> 0:12:44.880 little bit more than the justices and their clerks, you know. 0:12:44.960 --> 0:12:47.040 I think the best guests that I that I have 0:12:47.160 --> 0:12:50.960 now is somewhere around eight people, because they're just some 0:12:51.120 --> 0:12:53.920 people around the buildings who have to you know, have 0:12:54.000 --> 0:12:57.960 access to emails, have access to printing, um, you know, 0:12:58.120 --> 0:13:00.640 and there there of course will be of some people 0:13:01.160 --> 0:13:05.160 um doing some administrative things with the opinion. So it 0:13:05.320 --> 0:13:08.760 is a bit broader than the clerks and the justices. 0:13:09.320 --> 0:13:11.560 But if the news that we're hearing out of the 0:13:11.600 --> 0:13:14.400 investigation is true, it really does seem like the Marshall's 0:13:14.400 --> 0:13:17.000 office is focused on the clerks, so maybe they know 0:13:17.120 --> 0:13:20.600 something we don't. It seems odd because most people, most 0:13:20.679 --> 0:13:24.000 legal experts say, well, you know, it wouldn't be the clerks, 0:13:24.120 --> 0:13:27.760 because if it were revealed that a clerk was the leak, 0:13:28.440 --> 0:13:32.080 that would ruin the clerk's career, Well, that certainly is 0:13:32.080 --> 0:13:34.280 a good argument for why it wouldn't be a clerk. 0:13:34.360 --> 0:13:37.560 And we don't have leaks very often. We do have, 0:13:37.720 --> 0:13:40.400 you know, one situation that we can look back to, 0:13:40.720 --> 0:13:44.960 after the plan Parenthood versus casey abortion rulling, one of 0:13:44.960 --> 0:13:48.040 the clerks at that time, after the opinion had been announced, 0:13:48.160 --> 0:13:51.240 then wrote sort of a telltale book and was sort 0:13:51.240 --> 0:13:55.839 of shunned from at least the litigation aspect of um, 0:13:55.880 --> 0:13:59.600 you know, the legal field. But beyond that, this is 0:13:59.640 --> 0:14:02.960 really unprecedented situation that we're in and so you know, 0:14:03.160 --> 0:14:05.880 really no telling where this is going to lead us. 0:14:05.960 --> 0:14:10.040 And just finally a new House Republican bill is appropriately 0:14:10.120 --> 0:14:14.720 called the Leaker Accountability Act of two. Just tell us 0:14:14.760 --> 0:14:19.640 what that it's. You know, it's obviously designed around this league, 0:14:19.720 --> 0:14:22.760 but tell us what that would do. Right. It certainly 0:14:22.880 --> 0:14:25.400 is promptly by this league, but it's not retroactive. It 0:14:25.440 --> 0:14:28.120 would not apply to this leaker. What it does is, 0:14:28.360 --> 0:14:31.200 you know, it says that if any person you know, 0:14:31.320 --> 0:14:35.240 clerk or personnel at the staff leaks what the Chief 0:14:35.280 --> 0:14:39.280 Justice considers to be confidential information, then there it makes 0:14:39.320 --> 0:14:42.720 it a criminal violation subject up to five years in jail. 0:14:43.080 --> 0:14:45.160 I think, you know, the most interesting thing about that 0:14:45.240 --> 0:14:49.360 laws really highlights that there is no criminal provision and 0:14:49.560 --> 0:14:52.280 here that I think most people can see at least 0:14:52.280 --> 0:14:55.240 not obviously that the leaker would have violated. And so 0:14:55.320 --> 0:14:58.200 it's really looking forward to if these leaks are going 0:14:58.240 --> 0:15:00.840 to happen, how are we going to try to dissuade 0:15:00.840 --> 0:15:03.920 people from doing it? What you know possible federal resources 0:15:03.920 --> 0:15:05.720 can we bring to bear. But you know, it was 0:15:05.760 --> 0:15:09.080 just to introduce recently hasn't gotten a hearing. We don't 0:15:09.080 --> 0:15:12.960 know where people stand and Congress's efforts to legislate for 0:15:13.040 --> 0:15:15.880 the Supreme Court have not been very successful lately, so 0:15:16.280 --> 0:15:18.840 I don't have high hopes for the still But again, 0:15:18.880 --> 0:15:21.280 I think the important thing is that highlights kind of 0:15:21.320 --> 0:15:25.000 the limitations UM with dealing with this current laker. Thanks 0:15:25.000 --> 0:15:28.800 so much, Kimberly. That's Bloomberg Law. Supreme Court reporter Kimberly 0:15:28.880 --> 0:15:34.960 Strawbridge Robinson. The mass shooting in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on Wednesday 0:15:35.400 --> 0:15:39.320 left four people dead. That follows a massacre of nineteen 0:15:39.440 --> 0:15:44.360 elementary school students and two teachers at a school in Uvaldi, Texas, 0:15:44.720 --> 0:15:47.760 and a mass shooting at a grocery store in Buffalo, 0:15:47.840 --> 0:15:51.440 New York that left ten people dead. President Biden has 0:15:51.480 --> 0:15:55.960 asked Congress to pass gun control legislation as a bipartisan 0:15:55.960 --> 0:16:00.280 group of lawmakers negotiates a possible agreement. But we been 0:16:00.320 --> 0:16:03.880 here before. Joining me a second amendment expert Adam Winkler, 0:16:04.160 --> 0:16:06.920 a professor at u c l A Law School, The 0:16:07.040 --> 0:16:10.640 last time Congress came close to passing substantial gun reform 0:16:10.800 --> 0:16:13.880 was in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. Se in, 0:16:15.240 --> 0:16:18.080 is there a feeling that this might be it, that 0:16:18.600 --> 0:16:21.800 maybe Congress will do it this time. There does seem 0:16:21.840 --> 0:16:26.120 to be some momentum for reform, perhaps more than we've 0:16:26.120 --> 0:16:29.080 seen in some of the other mass shooting wake, but 0:16:29.360 --> 0:16:31.560 I think it really remains to be seen. We see 0:16:31.600 --> 0:16:35.840 that the Democrats are very eager to get gun reform passed, 0:16:35.960 --> 0:16:39.400 and the House seems certain to pass legislation. Whether there's 0:16:39.520 --> 0:16:43.040 enough Republican support to overcome the hurdles of the Senate 0:16:43.080 --> 0:16:45.760 and the filibuster, I think just remains to be seen. 0:16:46.080 --> 0:16:48.000 In some ways, it's hard to imagine there'll be enough 0:16:48.040 --> 0:16:51.040 Republican support, but I don't want to let pessimism get 0:16:51.040 --> 0:16:54.080 in the way of possibility. Members of the House Judiciary 0:16:54.120 --> 0:16:58.400 Committee held a special hearing today on legislation that would 0:16:58.480 --> 0:17:01.240 raise the age limit for pro just saying semi automatic 0:17:01.320 --> 0:17:04.640 rifles from eighteen to twenty one, and they get illegal 0:17:04.640 --> 0:17:08.920 to manufacturer possess large capacity magazines. It said that it 0:17:08.960 --> 0:17:13.800 will never pass the Senate because there's nearly unanimous Republican opposition. 0:17:14.000 --> 0:17:15.439 If they're not going to pass that, I don't know 0:17:15.480 --> 0:17:18.359 what they're going to pass. Yeah, it's not really clear. 0:17:18.800 --> 0:17:22.760 One possibility is there could be a federal red flag law. 0:17:23.119 --> 0:17:27.280 Red flag law also known as an Extreme Risk Protection 0:17:27.440 --> 0:17:32.320 Order law that provides families and law enforcement the ability 0:17:32.359 --> 0:17:35.040 to go to court if someone is going through some 0:17:35.160 --> 0:17:39.600 kind of crisis and temporarily take away their guns. There 0:17:39.840 --> 0:17:42.720 is at least some Republican support in the Senate for 0:17:42.800 --> 0:17:45.960 a bill that would provide funding for states to adopt 0:17:46.040 --> 0:17:49.840 red flag laws. Lindsey Graham is one of the co sponsors. 0:17:49.880 --> 0:17:51.840 That might be the kind of thing that would appeal 0:17:52.080 --> 0:17:55.639 to even strong pro gun advocates in line of the 0:17:55.680 --> 0:18:01.399 fact that it targets dangerous individuals and doesn't target firearms 0:18:01.440 --> 0:18:05.320 that would be owned by ordinary law abiding people. What 0:18:05.400 --> 0:18:09.720 about an assault weapons ban which was passed before and 0:18:09.760 --> 0:18:13.800 then expired. Is that a possibility. I think there's very 0:18:13.800 --> 0:18:17.840 little chance that we could see a military style assault 0:18:17.840 --> 0:18:21.959 weapons ban adopted by Congress, especially getting through the Senate. 0:18:22.280 --> 0:18:25.920 These guns are the most favorite guns of many many 0:18:25.960 --> 0:18:30.240 gun enthusiasts. They are viewed by gun enthusiasts as weapons 0:18:30.280 --> 0:18:34.960 that are improperly targeted by gun reform advocates. Although these 0:18:34.960 --> 0:18:38.000 firearms have been used in some high profile mass shootings, 0:18:38.440 --> 0:18:41.679 they certainly aren't necessary to commit a mass shooting, and 0:18:41.720 --> 0:18:45.720 many mass shootings are committed with handguns. And the overall 0:18:45.880 --> 0:18:48.840 number of people who die as a result of rifle 0:18:48.920 --> 0:18:53.720 wounds is actually relatively small compared to handguns, are or 0:18:53.760 --> 0:18:57.120 other types of firearms. So I think that a ban 0:18:57.240 --> 0:19:01.080 on military style assault rifles would be tough to through Congress, 0:19:01.160 --> 0:19:03.720 and even if it did get through Congress, might be 0:19:03.800 --> 0:19:06.600 even tougher to get through the United States Supreme Court. 0:19:07.320 --> 0:19:09.960 I don't know much about guns, as I've told you before, 0:19:10.280 --> 0:19:14.720 assault weapons. Are those the ones that were used in Uvaldi? Yes, 0:19:14.960 --> 0:19:18.400 the shooter and Nuvaldi went out and purchased a military 0:19:18.440 --> 0:19:21.800 style assault rifle. I think two of them in fact, Yeah, so, 0:19:22.240 --> 0:19:26.479 and some of the children were unrecognizable because of the 0:19:26.560 --> 0:19:30.160 damage that does. And it's also been said that perhaps 0:19:30.760 --> 0:19:34.440 that's one of the reasons why the police didn't enter 0:19:34.760 --> 0:19:38.000 and waited in the hallway for forty minutes or fifty minutes, 0:19:38.040 --> 0:19:40.920 whatever it was. Yeah, that is possible. And certainly these 0:19:40.920 --> 0:19:45.119 firearms are powerful firearms. And if you shoot someone at 0:19:45.119 --> 0:19:48.080 close range with a rifle, really any kind of rifle, 0:19:48.119 --> 0:19:51.919 whether it's a military style rifle or a rifle that 0:19:51.920 --> 0:19:54.320 would not be banned by the assault weapons ban, it 0:19:54.359 --> 0:19:57.840 will be pretty horrific. But I do think that it's 0:19:57.920 --> 0:20:03.200 unlikely that metalities would diminish if the shooters only had 0:20:03.240 --> 0:20:07.280 access to handgun. Now, high capacity magazines present an interesting 0:20:07.280 --> 0:20:10.120 issue because high capacity magazines, that is the same magazines 0:20:10.160 --> 0:20:13.639 that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. That 0:20:13.840 --> 0:20:15.960 is a feature of a firearm that very much is 0:20:16.000 --> 0:20:19.520 associated with lethality. If you can fire off more than 0:20:19.600 --> 0:20:23.479 ten rounds of ammunition in rapid succession, you can do 0:20:23.520 --> 0:20:26.080 a lot of damage, much more damage then if you 0:20:26.200 --> 0:20:30.720 have a firearm that can only hold many fewer rounds 0:20:30.720 --> 0:20:33.719 of ammunition. I think it would be very difficult to 0:20:33.800 --> 0:20:38.359 get a ban on high capacity magazines through Congress, but 0:20:38.440 --> 0:20:41.359 it might also be a problem getting such a band 0:20:41.400 --> 0:20:45.760 through the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court it seems prepared 0:20:45.840 --> 0:20:49.120 to expand Second Amendment right this term, and I think 0:20:49.200 --> 0:20:51.399 one of the kinds of laws that the Court is 0:20:51.440 --> 0:20:54.199 going to call in the question in coming years is 0:20:54.600 --> 0:20:58.520 bans on high capacity magazines. We have such laws in 0:20:58.960 --> 0:21:02.320 California and a full other states. They've already been challenged, 0:21:02.400 --> 0:21:04.240 and those challenges are working their way up to the 0:21:04.280 --> 0:21:06.840 Supreme Court as we speak. Adam, what do you think 0:21:06.880 --> 0:21:10.960 the outer limit is of what the Supreme Court will 0:21:11.040 --> 0:21:14.000 rule about Second Amendment rights. Well, I think it really 0:21:14.000 --> 0:21:16.520 depends on what the Court says in this coming case. 0:21:16.760 --> 0:21:19.000 Most people suspect that the Supreme Court is going to 0:21:19.040 --> 0:21:21.760 strike down New York's can feel carry law in the 0:21:21.760 --> 0:21:24.480 Bruin case that's going to be decided any day now. 0:21:24.960 --> 0:21:27.600 But many Supreme Court watchers are going to be looking 0:21:27.600 --> 0:21:30.000 to see what the Court says about other types of 0:21:30.040 --> 0:21:33.760 gun control laws and other kinds of challenges under the 0:21:33.760 --> 0:21:37.280 Second Amendment. And it does seem like the Court is 0:21:37.320 --> 0:21:41.040 likely to insist that firearms that are in common use, 0:21:41.200 --> 0:21:44.800 that are commonplace firearms, cannot be banned, that they are 0:21:44.840 --> 0:21:48.280 protected by the Second Amendment. High capacity magazines are found 0:21:48.400 --> 0:21:51.920 in upwards of forty to fifty million guns in America, 0:21:52.080 --> 0:21:55.000 maybe more. We don't have precise data, but they would 0:21:55.000 --> 0:21:58.440 seem to qualify as being in common use. What about 0:21:58.480 --> 0:22:03.680 the possibility of expanding background checks? There is a possibility 0:22:03.720 --> 0:22:07.120 that we can expand the background checks. There is some 0:22:07.160 --> 0:22:11.360