1 00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:09,640 --> 00:00:12,840 Speaker 1: Abortion rights one in every state where it was on 3 00:00:12,880 --> 00:00:16,480 Speaker 1: the ballot in the mid term elections, Kansas, Kentucky, and 4 00:00:16,520 --> 00:00:22,200 Speaker 1: Montana voted against anti abortion ballot initiatives, while California, Michigan, 5 00:00:22,200 --> 00:00:26,160 Speaker 1: and Vermont voted for ballot measures to protect abortion. Former 6 00:00:26,200 --> 00:00:30,400 Speaker 1: President Trump blamed losses in many high profile races on 7 00:00:30,600 --> 00:00:34,280 Speaker 1: voters coming out to preserve abortion rights. Who would have 8 00:00:34,320 --> 00:00:37,440 Speaker 1: been nice to do more, But there was a specific 9 00:00:37,520 --> 00:00:39,640 Speaker 1: reason why it was going to be tough. You know 10 00:00:39,680 --> 00:00:42,440 Speaker 1: what that reason was. It was a tough issue and 11 00:00:42,800 --> 00:00:46,519 Speaker 1: energized the other side. And uh, people came out on 12 00:00:46,560 --> 00:00:50,159 Speaker 1: the other side for a specific purpose. But the attack 13 00:00:50,240 --> 00:00:54,680 Speaker 1: on abortion continues, and the fight over abortion pills is 14 00:00:54,760 --> 00:00:58,600 Speaker 1: heating up. Medication abortions accounted for more than half of 15 00:00:58,640 --> 00:01:02,760 Speaker 1: all abortions even before the Dobbs decision took away the 16 00:01:02,840 --> 00:01:06,319 Speaker 1: constitutional right to abortion. Joining me as an expert on 17 00:01:06,400 --> 00:01:10,280 Speaker 1: reproductive rights, Mary Ziegler, a professor at u C. Davis 18 00:01:10,280 --> 00:01:13,640 Speaker 1: School of Law. So, Mary, abortion was on the ballot 19 00:01:13,760 --> 00:01:16,960 Speaker 1: in the mid terms in six states, and it won 20 00:01:17,080 --> 00:01:21,040 Speaker 1: in all those states. Well. This affirmation of abortion rights 21 00:01:21,080 --> 00:01:24,920 Speaker 1: have an effect outside those states, well, I think it 22 00:01:24,959 --> 00:01:27,559 Speaker 1: could help in other states if we have ballot initiatives 23 00:01:27,560 --> 00:01:31,480 Speaker 1: in those states, I don't expect to see Republican lawmakers 24 00:01:31,520 --> 00:01:34,280 Speaker 1: who were otherwise planning on passing new bands or kind 25 00:01:34,280 --> 00:01:38,880 Speaker 1: of exotic enforcement mechanisms reconsidering Because in a state like Kentucky, 26 00:01:38,959 --> 00:01:42,880 Speaker 1: for example, where voters decided not to vote for a 27 00:01:42,920 --> 00:01:45,959 Speaker 1: state constitutional amendments saying there were no abortion rights, voters 28 00:01:46,000 --> 00:01:50,240 Speaker 1: also still returned Republicans to the state legislature. So I 29 00:01:50,280 --> 00:01:53,280 Speaker 1: think people in those states, states like Texas, you know, 30 00:01:53,320 --> 00:01:55,520 Speaker 1: South Dakota, are are not going to see the mid 31 00:01:55,640 --> 00:01:57,360 Speaker 1: term as a reason to kind of pump the brakes 32 00:01:57,360 --> 00:02:01,280 Speaker 1: when it comes to pretty sweeping laws. So I would 33 00:02:01,320 --> 00:02:03,800 Speaker 1: expect to see more valid initiatives in the coming years. 34 00:02:03,800 --> 00:02:06,000 Speaker 1: But at the same time, I think after the new year, 35 00:02:06,040 --> 00:02:07,920 Speaker 1: when states to go back into session, I think we 36 00:02:07,960 --> 00:02:11,360 Speaker 1: should also expect to see even more far reaching bands. 37 00:02:12,040 --> 00:02:16,000 Speaker 1: Medication abortion counted for more than half of all abortions 38 00:02:16,000 --> 00:02:20,360 Speaker 1: even before the Dabbs decision overturned the constitutional right to 39 00:02:20,360 --> 00:02:25,400 Speaker 1: an abortion. Now the fight over abortion pills is ramping up, 40 00:02:25,800 --> 00:02:31,200 Speaker 1: and one anti abortion group is focusing on wastewater in 41 00:02:31,200 --> 00:02:34,200 Speaker 1: a petition to the Food and Drug Administration, tell us 42 00:02:34,280 --> 00:02:38,280 Speaker 1: what that's about. So this organization, Students for Life, is 43 00:02:38,320 --> 00:02:42,800 Speaker 1: trying a new technique because for a really long time, 44 00:02:43,280 --> 00:02:47,240 Speaker 1: the plan, I think to challenge abortion pills had been 45 00:02:47,440 --> 00:02:53,200 Speaker 1: to focus on the alleged safety concerns for pregnant women, right, 46 00:02:53,760 --> 00:02:58,359 Speaker 1: and that hadn't really been working for a long time. 47 00:02:58,360 --> 00:03:00,520 Speaker 1: The pills remained on the market, and as you mentioned, 48 00:03:00,520 --> 00:03:04,600 Speaker 1: people weren't I guess, buying that argument when it came 49 00:03:04,720 --> 00:03:08,960 Speaker 1: to their own safety. So the new strategy focuses on 50 00:03:09,600 --> 00:03:14,960 Speaker 1: almost environmental concerns. Students for Life has a petition now 51 00:03:15,000 --> 00:03:17,720 Speaker 1: asking the Food and Drug Administration to require doctors who 52 00:03:17,720 --> 00:03:22,639 Speaker 1: prescribe the pills to take steps to dispose of fetal tissue. Um. 53 00:03:22,680 --> 00:03:24,520 Speaker 1: They say it should be bagged, it should be treated 54 00:03:24,560 --> 00:03:27,000 Speaker 1: as medical waste, and they argue that if that isn't true, 55 00:03:27,000 --> 00:03:32,520 Speaker 1: it's going to create pollution that will negatively affect the environment, 56 00:03:33,120 --> 00:03:38,200 Speaker 1: negatively affect you know, the water supply, various species that 57 00:03:38,240 --> 00:03:42,480 Speaker 1: will be exposed to these drugs, and you know, I 58 00:03:42,480 --> 00:03:44,120 Speaker 1: think this is a little bit of a hill, Mary, 59 00:03:44,240 --> 00:03:47,400 Speaker 1: but it's likely if the petition doesn't work at the FDA, 60 00:03:47,480 --> 00:03:49,880 Speaker 1: which we expect to be the case, then there may 61 00:03:49,920 --> 00:03:54,720 Speaker 1: be a litigation that ensues. Another conservative group is already 62 00:03:54,760 --> 00:03:57,760 Speaker 1: suing the f d A over its approval of the 63 00:03:57,800 --> 00:04:02,320 Speaker 1: medication abortion drug decades ago. Okay, so this was a 64 00:04:02,400 --> 00:04:06,720 Speaker 1: suit UM filed in Texas by Alliance Defending Freedom and 65 00:04:06,920 --> 00:04:09,680 Speaker 1: a group of other anti worship groups, including the American 66 00:04:09,720 --> 00:04:13,800 Speaker 1: Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and is arguing 67 00:04:13,840 --> 00:04:17,280 Speaker 1: that the FDA didn't have the authority to approve mythopristone 68 00:04:17,480 --> 00:04:20,680 Speaker 1: twenty two years ago when it actually did, you know. 69 00:04:20,760 --> 00:04:23,080 Speaker 1: For a variety of reasons, but often centering on kind 70 00:04:23,080 --> 00:04:26,960 Speaker 1: of the original basis for the FDA's decision to approve 71 00:04:27,400 --> 00:04:32,159 Speaker 1: mythopris stone um twenty two years ago. Democratic senators are 72 00:04:32,360 --> 00:04:36,240 Speaker 1: urging the FDA to finish up its work to permanently 73 00:04:36,279 --> 00:04:38,960 Speaker 1: make two pills more accessible. I mean, what else does 74 00:04:39,000 --> 00:04:41,520 Speaker 1: the FDA have to do? I thought that in two 75 00:04:41,560 --> 00:04:44,640 Speaker 1: thousand that they approved this. Well, the pills have always 76 00:04:44,640 --> 00:04:47,400 Speaker 1: been approved, but they've been um covered by what's called 77 00:04:47,400 --> 00:04:49,680 Speaker 1: the black box morning and an r e MS. So 78 00:04:49,800 --> 00:04:53,000 Speaker 1: these drugs are essentially these are kind of limitations and 79 00:04:53,080 --> 00:04:55,479 Speaker 1: protocols that apply to drugs that are likely to have 80 00:04:55,520 --> 00:04:57,800 Speaker 1: the most serious side effects, would be the most dangerous 81 00:04:57,839 --> 00:05:00,800 Speaker 1: for patients. And so the pills have a it's been available, 82 00:05:00,800 --> 00:05:02,960 Speaker 1: but they've been available on a much more limited basis 83 00:05:03,000 --> 00:05:04,560 Speaker 1: in the way that you know, you would imagine a 84 00:05:04,640 --> 00:05:07,440 Speaker 1: drug that could have a serious possibility for abuse or 85 00:05:07,480 --> 00:05:11,680 Speaker 1: addictive properties or danger. And so I think Democrats believe 86 00:05:11,760 --> 00:05:16,080 Speaker 1: that those special limits are an outgrowth of politics rather 87 00:05:16,160 --> 00:05:18,839 Speaker 1: than science, and they they believed that the FDA should 88 00:05:18,839 --> 00:05:23,040 Speaker 1: eliminate some of those limits, especially while there's a Democrat 89 00:05:23,080 --> 00:05:25,840 Speaker 1: in the White House and the FDA isn't potentially going 90 00:05:25,880 --> 00:05:30,279 Speaker 1: to be transformed by you know, a future administration. Mary 91 00:05:30,320 --> 00:05:35,720 Speaker 1: about eighteen states banned the use of telehealth for medication abortion, 92 00:05:36,240 --> 00:05:40,440 Speaker 1: meaning that in person medical screenings are required to get 93 00:05:40,440 --> 00:05:45,200 Speaker 1: the abortion pills. So how does that affect the ability 94 00:05:45,279 --> 00:05:49,760 Speaker 1: to get abortion pills. Well, there's what's legally possible and 95 00:05:49,839 --> 00:05:52,960 Speaker 1: what's not legally possible. So I think, first of all, 96 00:05:53,000 --> 00:05:56,240 Speaker 1: you know, there's the possibility of travel to get aborsition pills. 97 00:05:56,520 --> 00:05:59,479 Speaker 1: There are mobile abortion clinics. There are states that have 98 00:05:59,600 --> 00:06:03,400 Speaker 1: identified by themselves as sanctuaries for people seeking abortions, and 99 00:06:03,480 --> 00:06:07,680 Speaker 1: so you know, preventing telehealth abortions doesn't mean people can't 100 00:06:07,720 --> 00:06:10,960 Speaker 1: travel to an adjacent state to get aworshion pills, and 101 00:06:11,000 --> 00:06:16,480 Speaker 1: there are organizations like aid Access that send pills from abroad. Um, 102 00:06:16,480 --> 00:06:19,039 Speaker 1: of course this is kind of an underground their networks 103 00:06:19,080 --> 00:06:22,960 Speaker 1: of activists from Mexico who are supplying pills to people 104 00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:26,280 Speaker 1: in nearby states like Texas. None of that, of course, 105 00:06:26,360 --> 00:06:29,960 Speaker 1: is explicitly contemplated by laws that banned telehealth abortion. But 106 00:06:30,000 --> 00:06:32,680 Speaker 1: it's very hard to shut down the supply of aborshion 107 00:06:32,760 --> 00:06:35,320 Speaker 1: pills regardless of what the letter of the law says. 108 00:06:35,520 --> 00:06:39,279 Speaker 1: Do you think that abortion pills will be the target 109 00:06:39,520 --> 00:06:44,640 Speaker 1: when Republican state legislatures start up in January? Or are 110 00:06:44,640 --> 00:06:48,520 Speaker 1: there other abortion practices they might try to target next? 111 00:06:49,120 --> 00:06:51,719 Speaker 1: I think we're going to see a combination of laws 112 00:06:51,800 --> 00:06:56,440 Speaker 1: targeting abortion pills but also to travel. Um. I think 113 00:06:57,080 --> 00:07:01,440 Speaker 1: what states are are likely realizing now is that there 114 00:07:01,480 --> 00:07:03,479 Speaker 1: are a lot of steps. It's it's kind of a 115 00:07:04,320 --> 00:07:06,400 Speaker 1: like a chess match, right where states a lot of 116 00:07:06,400 --> 00:07:11,360 Speaker 1: states are banning abortion, and then people seeking procedures are 117 00:07:11,440 --> 00:07:14,520 Speaker 1: finding ways around those bands. And so I think you're 118 00:07:14,520 --> 00:07:17,400 Speaker 1: going to see the next kind of countermeasure from states 119 00:07:17,400 --> 00:07:20,000 Speaker 1: that's going to both look at ways of shutting down 120 00:07:20,040 --> 00:07:23,800 Speaker 1: access to these pills and stopping travel. So some legislators 121 00:07:23,800 --> 00:07:27,680 Speaker 1: are considering, for example, measures that would criminalize, you know, 122 00:07:27,800 --> 00:07:31,280 Speaker 1: companies and ceo s who reimburse travel out of state 123 00:07:31,360 --> 00:07:35,240 Speaker 1: for abortion, looking at ways to prohibit travel for abortion 124 00:07:35,440 --> 00:07:39,840 Speaker 1: or prohibit people from aiding others who travel for abortion, 125 00:07:39,880 --> 00:07:44,440 Speaker 1: whether that's transporting them came for the travel laws extra territorially, 126 00:07:44,520 --> 00:07:47,440 Speaker 1: applying criminal or civil prohibitions, right, so saying if you 127 00:07:47,480 --> 00:07:50,280 Speaker 1: perform an abortion in California on someone from Texas, you 128 00:07:50,280 --> 00:07:53,440 Speaker 1: could be legally liable. Essentially, ways to close what I 129 00:07:53,440 --> 00:07:57,280 Speaker 1: think states are seeing as loopholes in existing bands. It's 130 00:07:57,280 --> 00:07:59,360 Speaker 1: worth emphasizing that's not likely to be the end of 131 00:07:59,400 --> 00:08:01,480 Speaker 1: this story there. I think that's just likely what we're 132 00:08:01,480 --> 00:08:04,960 Speaker 1: going to see next. Along those lines of traveling to 133 00:08:05,000 --> 00:08:09,720 Speaker 1: get an abortion. There's been this concern about now that 134 00:08:10,200 --> 00:08:15,560 Speaker 1: in some states, prosecutors may request information from Google and 135 00:08:15,800 --> 00:08:19,400 Speaker 1: try to track if women have been to abortion clinic, etcetera. 136 00:08:19,720 --> 00:08:23,960 Speaker 1: And Google said that it would delete entries for locations 137 00:08:24,040 --> 00:08:29,560 Speaker 1: deemed personal, including medical facilities like counseling centers, domestic violence shelters, 138 00:08:29,600 --> 00:08:34,960 Speaker 1: abortion clinics. But a tech advocacy group, Accountable Tech, conducted 139 00:08:35,000 --> 00:08:39,760 Speaker 1: an experiment in August and October to test Google's pledge, 140 00:08:40,360 --> 00:08:43,240 Speaker 1: and it was reported in The Guardian. The group found 141 00:08:43,240 --> 00:08:47,319 Speaker 1: that searches for directions to abortion clinics on Google Maps, 142 00:08:47,840 --> 00:08:52,239 Speaker 1: as well as the routes taken to two planned parenthood locations, 143 00:08:52,640 --> 00:08:56,080 Speaker 1: were stored for weeks after they occurred. So I mean, 144 00:08:56,600 --> 00:09:00,480 Speaker 1: is that something that people can trust or or should 145 00:09:00,520 --> 00:09:04,000 Speaker 1: they just start not using Google you're using old fashioned 146 00:09:04,040 --> 00:09:08,040 Speaker 1: maps or whatever. I think in general, in the world 147 00:09:08,080 --> 00:09:12,720 Speaker 1: of kind of digital privacy, taking additional precautions is always wise. 148 00:09:12,800 --> 00:09:15,040 Speaker 1: Even if tech companies say they're concerned about this and 149 00:09:15,040 --> 00:09:17,240 Speaker 1: they're going to try to take steps to safeguard data, 150 00:09:17,679 --> 00:09:20,600 Speaker 1: I think there's there's a concern either one that those 151 00:09:20,640 --> 00:09:22,559 Speaker 1: safeguards are not going to be as far reaching as 152 00:09:22,559 --> 00:09:24,880 Speaker 1: we believe, or two that they may not even be 153 00:09:24,960 --> 00:09:28,720 Speaker 1: put in place in the first place. So I think 154 00:09:28,800 --> 00:09:31,880 Speaker 1: people should you know, if someone is thinking of getting 155 00:09:31,880 --> 00:09:34,720 Speaker 1: into wortion or really doing anything that they wouldn't want 156 00:09:34,720 --> 00:09:37,199 Speaker 1: to be tracked online before they go online or before 157 00:09:37,200 --> 00:09:39,600 Speaker 1: they go on their phones. They should look up steps 158 00:09:39,640 --> 00:09:44,360 Speaker 1: to protect digital privacy, whether that's using another browser, not 159 00:09:44,520 --> 00:09:49,440 Speaker 1: using a browser at all, not using certain acts. There 160 00:09:49,440 --> 00:09:51,360 Speaker 1: are a number of steps, I mean, more than we 161 00:09:51,400 --> 00:09:53,720 Speaker 1: would want to address in this conversation, but that should 162 00:09:53,720 --> 00:09:57,040 Speaker 1: be the first step anyone takes before taking any of 163 00:09:57,040 --> 00:10:01,079 Speaker 1: these kinds of decisions online. Besides medication and abortions. Is 164 00:10:01,120 --> 00:10:04,760 Speaker 1: there another area that the anti abortion groups you know, 165 00:10:04,920 --> 00:10:09,400 Speaker 1: beyond abortion are targeting now? Well, I think there's been 166 00:10:09,760 --> 00:10:15,240 Speaker 1: some conversation about chemical contraceptives. There hasn't, an, into my 167 00:10:15,320 --> 00:10:18,320 Speaker 1: knowledge yet, been much movement in the States to prohibit 168 00:10:18,320 --> 00:10:20,920 Speaker 1: these procedures, but groups like Students for Life have been 169 00:10:21,840 --> 00:10:25,439 Speaker 1: active on social media, on TikTok and elsewhere, essentially suggesting 170 00:10:25,440 --> 00:10:28,160 Speaker 1: that these drugs are in fact a word of stations. 171 00:10:28,360 --> 00:10:31,319 Speaker 1: At the moment, I don't think states have adopted that definition, 172 00:10:31,360 --> 00:10:34,480 Speaker 1: at least explicitly, although some states have definitions of abortion 173 00:10:34,520 --> 00:10:37,120 Speaker 1: that are open ended enough that they theoretically could encompass 174 00:10:37,160 --> 00:10:40,920 Speaker 1: those drugs. You've also started to see some prominent anti 175 00:10:40,960 --> 00:10:44,679 Speaker 1: abortion or pro life commentators, like Alexander de Stantis at 176 00:10:44,679 --> 00:10:48,360 Speaker 1: the National Review, arguing that you know, birth control as 177 00:10:48,400 --> 00:10:52,000 Speaker 1: birth control is still unsafe for women. So I think 178 00:10:52,000 --> 00:10:54,640 Speaker 1: you're beginning to see conversations that point in the direction 179 00:10:54,800 --> 00:10:58,760 Speaker 1: of potentially an attack on chemical contraceptives. But I haven't 180 00:10:58,760 --> 00:11:01,080 Speaker 1: seen state legis ter is doing that yet. I've just 181 00:11:01,240 --> 00:11:04,240 Speaker 1: begun to see those conversations happening in the movement. Coming 182 00:11:04,320 --> 00:11:06,800 Speaker 1: up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this 183 00:11:06,880 --> 00:11:10,240 Speaker 1: conversation with Professor Mary Ziegler of the u C. Davis 184 00:11:10,320 --> 00:11:15,160 Speaker 1: Law School. The Supreme Court is still investigating the leak 185 00:11:15,200 --> 00:11:19,560 Speaker 1: in May of the controversial decision written by Justice Samuel 186 00:11:19,559 --> 00:11:23,920 Speaker 1: Alito overturning Roe versus Wade, and now The Times is 187 00:11:24,000 --> 00:11:28,520 Speaker 1: reporting another alleged breach at the Court. According to allegations 188 00:11:28,520 --> 00:11:33,000 Speaker 1: in a Time story published on November nine, Justice Alito 189 00:11:33,240 --> 00:11:36,679 Speaker 1: leaked the outcome of a landmark case over religious liberties 190 00:11:36,880 --> 00:11:40,520 Speaker 1: at a dinner party at his home. In that decision, 191 00:11:40,559 --> 00:11:44,480 Speaker 1: written by Aldo Burwell v. Hobby, Lobby allowed closely held 192 00:11:44,520 --> 00:11:49,080 Speaker 1: corporations to claim a religious exemption from the requirement under 193 00:11:49,120 --> 00:11:53,120 Speaker 1: the Affordable Care Act that employers provide birth control coverage 194 00:11:53,320 --> 00:11:57,240 Speaker 1: as part of their employee healthcare plans. Justice Alito has 195 00:11:57,280 --> 00:12:01,280 Speaker 1: denied the allegations, saying that any sugges estion that he 196 00:12:01,440 --> 00:12:05,280 Speaker 1: or his wife disclosed the ruling early to anyone was false. 197 00:12:05,760 --> 00:12:09,480 Speaker 1: Alito was also the author of this year's controversial ruling 198 00:12:09,559 --> 00:12:13,240 Speaker 1: overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, an opinion that 199 00:12:13,320 --> 00:12:15,600 Speaker 1: leaked into the public more than a month before it 200 00:12:15,720 --> 00:12:18,520 Speaker 1: was issued. The Court has yet to release the results 201 00:12:18,559 --> 00:12:21,800 Speaker 1: of an internal investigation into that league. My guest is 202 00:12:21,840 --> 00:12:25,120 Speaker 1: Mary Ziegler, a professor at u C. Davis Law School, 203 00:12:25,320 --> 00:12:29,360 Speaker 1: who has written a op ed about this latest alleged breach. Mary, 204 00:12:29,440 --> 00:12:31,880 Speaker 1: for those who did not read the New York Times story, 205 00:12:32,000 --> 00:12:35,839 Speaker 1: tell us about the allegations there. So. Rob Shank, who 206 00:12:35,880 --> 00:12:40,400 Speaker 1: was a long time UM member of the anti aborsion 207 00:12:40,880 --> 00:12:44,440 Speaker 1: movement UM and the kind of broader religious right, alleged 208 00:12:44,520 --> 00:12:48,400 Speaker 1: that he had been working for years through his nonprofits 209 00:12:49,080 --> 00:12:51,800 Speaker 1: to cultivate a kind of network of insiders at the 210 00:12:51,840 --> 00:12:55,720 Speaker 1: Supreme Court, particularly wealthy donors. And you know he was 211 00:12:55,760 --> 00:12:59,480 Speaker 1: doing this, he alleged both to gain access to an 212 00:12:59,559 --> 00:13:02,040 Speaker 1: influence within the Court, but also you know, of course, 213 00:13:02,080 --> 00:13:04,800 Speaker 1: to raise money for his own organization. That there this 214 00:13:04,800 --> 00:13:07,080 Speaker 1: this kind of access and information he alleged kind of 215 00:13:07,080 --> 00:13:10,160 Speaker 1: had a value to donors who might in turn give 216 00:13:10,240 --> 00:13:14,360 Speaker 1: to his nonprofit, and he alleged that he successfully cultivated 217 00:13:14,400 --> 00:13:19,200 Speaker 1: donors who created relationship with with Justices Thomas Alito and Scalia, 218 00:13:19,600 --> 00:13:23,160 Speaker 1: and that in particular, through these relationships, he gained a 219 00:13:23,240 --> 00:13:26,760 Speaker 1: tip through Justice Alito about the Hobby Lobby case, in 220 00:13:27,559 --> 00:13:30,839 Speaker 1: which listeners may remember, dealt with the contraceptive mandate of 221 00:13:30,920 --> 00:13:35,800 Speaker 1: the Affordable Care Act. Justice Alito, according to Shank, told 222 00:13:35,840 --> 00:13:38,240 Speaker 1: one of these donors ahead of time how the case 223 00:13:38,280 --> 00:13:41,320 Speaker 1: would be decided, essentially that the Court would side with 224 00:13:41,400 --> 00:13:45,800 Speaker 1: religious employers in the case and invalidate the contraceptive mandate um, 225 00:13:45,840 --> 00:13:48,920 Speaker 1: and that Justice Alito would be the one to write 226 00:13:48,960 --> 00:13:53,120 Speaker 1: that opinion. Following the story, um, Justice Alito, you know 227 00:13:53,160 --> 00:13:57,679 Speaker 1: categorically denied having leaked any information, So did the donors 228 00:13:57,679 --> 00:14:00,440 Speaker 1: who um, you know, dined with Justice Alito. Both the 229 00:14:00,440 --> 00:14:03,520 Speaker 1: donors and the leado confirmed the relationship. It's worth emphasizing 230 00:14:03,559 --> 00:14:07,520 Speaker 1: that denied the leak, But Shank you know, replied essentially 231 00:14:07,600 --> 00:14:12,319 Speaker 1: that he had contemporaneous evidence like emails and statements from colleagues, 232 00:14:13,240 --> 00:14:16,800 Speaker 1: suggesting both that you know, he knew something confidential and 233 00:14:16,840 --> 00:14:19,800 Speaker 1: that he expected to in the hobby Lobby case. So 234 00:14:19,960 --> 00:14:22,720 Speaker 1: it was you know, kind of yet another blow to 235 00:14:22,840 --> 00:14:26,920 Speaker 1: a court that you know, had record low popularity and 236 00:14:27,800 --> 00:14:33,520 Speaker 1: questions raised about its legitimacy. Do the conservative justices really 237 00:14:33,880 --> 00:14:37,120 Speaker 1: care about the public's opinion of the court? I mean 238 00:14:37,160 --> 00:14:39,200 Speaker 1: it's hard to say, right, I think, not in the 239 00:14:39,200 --> 00:14:43,520 Speaker 1: way that historically we've grown accustomed to. I think, you know, 240 00:14:43,640 --> 00:14:47,720 Speaker 1: Justice Roberts, for example, would not have behaved. I think 241 00:14:47,760 --> 00:14:50,280 Speaker 1: would not have decided several of the case's last turn 242 00:14:50,320 --> 00:14:52,120 Speaker 1: the way the Court did in part because of his 243 00:14:52,160 --> 00:14:55,520 Speaker 1: concern for the public's perception of the court. So it's 244 00:14:55,560 --> 00:14:58,360 Speaker 1: fair to say that the court's new conservative majority doesn't 245 00:14:58,720 --> 00:15:02,760 Speaker 1: care about legitimacy or public perception um in a way 246 00:15:02,760 --> 00:15:05,840 Speaker 1: we've we've grown accustomed to. Even for the conservative justices, 247 00:15:05,880 --> 00:15:08,040 Speaker 1: I think the interesting question is do they have any 248 00:15:08,080 --> 00:15:11,440 Speaker 1: concern at all? Right? Is there a point at which 249 00:15:11,640 --> 00:15:14,520 Speaker 1: someone like Justice Leto does become anxious about how the 250 00:15:14,560 --> 00:15:18,640 Speaker 1: public is perceiving their actions? And I think this this 251 00:15:18,720 --> 00:15:20,920 Speaker 1: story is an interesting litmus test. I mean, it's it's 252 00:15:20,960 --> 00:15:23,200 Speaker 1: interesting at least that Justice Leado, I think, has been 253 00:15:23,760 --> 00:15:25,680 Speaker 1: trying to say, you know, this story isn't true, and 254 00:15:25,720 --> 00:15:27,160 Speaker 1: I would never do that. I mean, I think that 255 00:15:27,200 --> 00:15:29,080 Speaker 1: those are the kinds of things you do when you 256 00:15:29,120 --> 00:15:32,120 Speaker 1: worry about how people would perceive, you know, your actions. 257 00:15:32,160 --> 00:15:34,080 Speaker 1: He he didn't, for example, say, you know, so what 258 00:15:34,160 --> 00:15:36,120 Speaker 1: if I did that, Like, what difference does it make? Right? 259 00:15:36,120 --> 00:15:39,080 Speaker 1: I mean, it was pretty clearly, um, an effort to 260 00:15:39,080 --> 00:15:42,360 Speaker 1: say this kind of behavior wouldn't have been acceptable, and 261 00:15:42,400 --> 00:15:44,840 Speaker 1: I didn't engage in it. Um. You know, whether or 262 00:15:44,840 --> 00:15:46,920 Speaker 1: not one believes that, I think that's that's still been 263 00:15:46,960 --> 00:15:50,320 Speaker 1: Justice leado strategy over the summer. At a speech in 264 00:15:50,480 --> 00:15:55,480 Speaker 1: Rome and at a recent Federalist Society dinner, Leado seemed 265 00:15:55,480 --> 00:16:00,120 Speaker 1: to be taking bows for that decision overturning abortion. I 266 00:16:00,160 --> 00:16:04,880 Speaker 1: think in general, um, Justice Alito and uh and several 267 00:16:04,920 --> 00:16:07,920 Speaker 1: of the conservative justices are are kind of evidence of 268 00:16:07,960 --> 00:16:11,760 Speaker 1: how polarized, you know, not just the country is, but 269 00:16:11,880 --> 00:16:14,360 Speaker 1: the legal community is. Because I think, you know, we 270 00:16:14,400 --> 00:16:18,000 Speaker 1: would have expected the justices to be plugged into the 271 00:16:18,040 --> 00:16:22,000 Speaker 1: fact that the Dob's ruling was unpopular and that it's 272 00:16:22,000 --> 00:16:24,320 Speaker 1: sent shockwaves through much of the legal community. But of 273 00:16:24,320 --> 00:16:27,480 Speaker 1: course Justice Alito has his own legal community. The conservative 274 00:16:27,560 --> 00:16:30,520 Speaker 1: legal movement is um, you know, broad and deep and 275 00:16:30,600 --> 00:16:33,640 Speaker 1: has support across you know, a number of law school campuses, 276 00:16:33,640 --> 00:16:36,440 Speaker 1: and a number of law firms, a number of lots 277 00:16:36,480 --> 00:16:38,120 Speaker 1: of parts of the legal world. And I think in 278 00:16:38,200 --> 00:16:42,200 Speaker 1: those communities, Justice Alito is getting all the approval and 279 00:16:42,280 --> 00:16:45,640 Speaker 1: support he wants. And I think also from the standpoint of, 280 00:16:46,160 --> 00:16:48,200 Speaker 1: you know, the kind of jurist he is, I think 281 00:16:48,280 --> 00:16:52,440 Speaker 1: he sees his commitment to his own interpretation of the law. 282 00:16:52,520 --> 00:16:55,120 Speaker 1: A skeptic might take his own ideological commitments, however you 283 00:16:55,120 --> 00:16:57,080 Speaker 1: want to look at it, his idea of what the 284 00:16:57,200 --> 00:16:59,680 Speaker 1: right answer is, his fidelity to that is so important 285 00:16:59,680 --> 00:17:01,880 Speaker 1: to these ot is worried about these the damage, I 286 00:17:01,880 --> 00:17:04,560 Speaker 1: would say, to the institution of the court. And in 287 00:17:04,600 --> 00:17:06,520 Speaker 1: some ways, I think to your point kind of relishes 288 00:17:07,000 --> 00:17:11,399 Speaker 1: confrontations and criticism, doesn't just you know, display indifference, right, 289 00:17:11,480 --> 00:17:14,680 Speaker 1: that actually sort of enjoys the criticism. Again, it's sort 290 00:17:14,720 --> 00:17:18,280 Speaker 1: of interesting to see if stories like this are still 291 00:17:18,280 --> 00:17:20,359 Speaker 1: a bridge too far for some unlike the leader, right 292 00:17:20,400 --> 00:17:23,720 Speaker 1: that even that there's some kind of trolling and some 293 00:17:23,840 --> 00:17:27,679 Speaker 1: kind of enjoyment of criticism, and then there's this kind 294 00:17:27,720 --> 00:17:29,880 Speaker 1: of allegation that might be a different, a different kind 295 00:17:29,920 --> 00:17:35,359 Speaker 1: of story. Democratic Senator Sheldon white House and Democratic Representative 296 00:17:35,400 --> 00:17:38,680 Speaker 1: Hank Johnson wrote to the Court about the Times story 297 00:17:39,080 --> 00:17:42,800 Speaker 1: and Ethan Tory, legal counsel for the Supreme Court wrote, 298 00:17:42,880 --> 00:17:45,960 Speaker 1: there's nothing to suggest that just as a leader's actions 299 00:17:46,119 --> 00:17:51,080 Speaker 1: violated ethics standards, relevant rules balance preventing gifts that might 300 00:17:51,240 --> 00:17:55,399 Speaker 1: undermine public confidence in the judiciary and allowing judges to 301 00:17:55,480 --> 00:17:59,880 Speaker 1: maintain normal personal friendships. From that letter, it doesn't seem 302 00:18:00,000 --> 00:18:03,440 Speaker 1: as if the Court is doing any investigation beyond asking 303 00:18:03,520 --> 00:18:07,240 Speaker 1: Aldo right. I mean, I think that this is designed 304 00:18:07,840 --> 00:18:12,399 Speaker 1: to help the Court's reputation or to diffuse questions about this. 305 00:18:12,480 --> 00:18:14,160 Speaker 1: I don't think it will help. I mean, I think 306 00:18:14,200 --> 00:18:17,600 Speaker 1: that it would have been possible to do something that 307 00:18:17,720 --> 00:18:22,040 Speaker 1: would achieve that. But I think that the essentially the 308 00:18:22,880 --> 00:18:25,160 Speaker 1: letters suggests, and I don't. I am obviously not privy 309 00:18:25,200 --> 00:18:28,320 Speaker 1: to what investigations went on within the Court, but the 310 00:18:28,760 --> 00:18:32,080 Speaker 1: letters suggests simply that there's no evidence that was available 311 00:18:32,160 --> 00:18:35,359 Speaker 1: to Supreme Courts Council to suggest that such a leak 312 00:18:36,200 --> 00:18:41,159 Speaker 1: took place. The letter mostly restated Alito's denials and then 313 00:18:41,920 --> 00:18:45,639 Speaker 1: suggested that the allegations made in the New York Times 314 00:18:45,640 --> 00:18:50,200 Speaker 1: piece were uncorroborated. Uh and then um further, I think 315 00:18:50,240 --> 00:18:54,280 Speaker 1: interestingly suggested that there wasn't the kind of corruption that 316 00:18:54,280 --> 00:18:58,720 Speaker 1: would be concerning to council because the donors in the 317 00:18:58,720 --> 00:19:01,520 Speaker 1: case had no financial interest in any kind of case 318 00:19:01,560 --> 00:19:04,000 Speaker 1: before the court, which of course wasn't really what Mr 319 00:19:04,040 --> 00:19:06,600 Speaker 1: shank was talking about. Allegedly, he was saying there was 320 00:19:07,200 --> 00:19:09,840 Speaker 1: kind of an ideological interest in the outcome of cases. 321 00:19:09,880 --> 00:19:13,399 Speaker 1: No one was interested in profiting financially, but they wanted 322 00:19:13,400 --> 00:19:16,800 Speaker 1: to dictate the course of policy because of their their 323 00:19:16,840 --> 00:19:20,120 Speaker 1: beliefs and their ideological commitments, not because of any kind 324 00:19:20,119 --> 00:19:22,600 Speaker 1: of financial state. So that that also seemed kind of 325 00:19:22,640 --> 00:19:28,200 Speaker 1: interestingly non responsive. Um again, I don't know if there 326 00:19:28,240 --> 00:19:32,320 Speaker 1: was more of an investigation then we are aware of 327 00:19:32,560 --> 00:19:35,440 Speaker 1: from the outside looking in. But the letter didn't really 328 00:19:35,440 --> 00:19:41,840 Speaker 1: provide a lot of new information or really explain beyond 329 00:19:42,040 --> 00:19:44,960 Speaker 1: what Justice Alito and in the donors, who have been 330 00:19:45,240 --> 00:19:48,440 Speaker 1: quite clear in their denials have have already been seeing. 331 00:19:49,280 --> 00:19:53,679 Speaker 1: And as far as the leak of yet another Aledo opinion, 332 00:19:53,800 --> 00:19:59,320 Speaker 1: the Dobbs opinion, supposedly there's an investigation ongoing, but it's 333 00:19:59,320 --> 00:20:01,960 Speaker 1: been months and months and months and no one has 334 00:20:02,000 --> 00:20:05,720 Speaker 1: heard anything about that investigation either, right, I mean, we 335 00:20:05,720 --> 00:20:07,600 Speaker 1: we just don't know. I mean, one of the things 336 00:20:07,720 --> 00:20:11,600 Speaker 1: I think that that I think, unfortunately is is happening 337 00:20:11,920 --> 00:20:13,680 Speaker 1: from the standpoint of faith and the Court is that 338 00:20:13,800 --> 00:20:17,359 Speaker 1: the Court is an institution that often operates without a 339 00:20:17,359 --> 00:20:20,159 Speaker 1: lot of transparency, and so when these leaks occur and 340 00:20:20,200 --> 00:20:23,000 Speaker 1: then the public has no insight into what led to 341 00:20:23,040 --> 00:20:26,520 Speaker 1: them or what was going to follow them, um, it 342 00:20:26,560 --> 00:20:29,320 Speaker 1: doesn't really do the Court's reputation any favors. And that's 343 00:20:29,320 --> 00:20:33,800 Speaker 1: certainly true of the Dobbs weak as well. UM. I 344 00:20:33,800 --> 00:20:35,800 Speaker 1: think the kind of some total of this is that 345 00:20:35,880 --> 00:20:37,840 Speaker 1: more people in the public are losing faith in the 346 00:20:37,840 --> 00:20:40,080 Speaker 1: Court is an institution, and I don't think that's something 347 00:20:40,600 --> 00:20:43,040 Speaker 1: we should be excited about. Even even people who are 348 00:20:43,119 --> 00:20:45,240 Speaker 1: skeptics of the quart are unhappy with the Court. I 349 00:20:45,240 --> 00:20:48,200 Speaker 1: think it's not good for the country when when voters 350 00:20:48,200 --> 00:20:51,400 Speaker 1: are losing faith and yet another democratic institution. In your 351 00:20:51,400 --> 00:20:55,840 Speaker 1: op ed, you say that the justices feel insulated, and 352 00:20:56,320 --> 00:21:00,359 Speaker 1: you know they are insulated. They have these lifetime appointments 353 00:21:00,400 --> 00:21:04,280 Speaker 1: and let's face it, impeachment. They tried to impeach former 354 00:21:04,320 --> 00:21:07,280 Speaker 1: President Trump twice. It didn't work, and impeachment seems like 355 00:21:07,359 --> 00:21:10,240 Speaker 1: not even a possibility really, So what can be done 356 00:21:10,960 --> 00:21:13,639 Speaker 1: to at least keep them in check a little. Is 357 00:21:13,640 --> 00:21:15,720 Speaker 1: there anything that can be done? Well? I mean, we 358 00:21:15,800 --> 00:21:19,440 Speaker 1: know historically that UM Congress has done things to check 359 00:21:19,480 --> 00:21:21,520 Speaker 1: the power of the courts. Congress is allowed to strip 360 00:21:21,560 --> 00:21:25,080 Speaker 1: the Court of jurisdiction and certain matters in theory. Other 361 00:21:25,200 --> 00:21:28,200 Speaker 1: kind of court reform measures like adding justices or changing 362 00:21:28,200 --> 00:21:31,119 Speaker 1: the number of justices UM could also be on the table. 363 00:21:31,680 --> 00:21:34,000 Speaker 1: I don't have any reason to think there's any political 364 00:21:34,040 --> 00:21:38,000 Speaker 1: will for doing any of that right now. UM. So 365 00:21:38,040 --> 00:21:39,920 Speaker 1: I think we're in this kind of interesting cat and 366 00:21:40,000 --> 00:21:43,280 Speaker 1: mouse moment where members of the Court seem to believe 367 00:21:43,320 --> 00:21:46,040 Speaker 1: that there's no consequences for really anything. I think with 368 00:21:46,160 --> 00:21:49,640 Speaker 1: reason right because there don't really seem to be the consequences, 369 00:21:50,280 --> 00:21:54,280 Speaker 1: and yet the public is becoming more and more disillusioned, 370 00:21:54,320 --> 00:21:56,920 Speaker 1: I think to a point that's potentially dangerous for the court. 371 00:21:57,000 --> 00:21:59,200 Speaker 1: So I think that the question becomes, is there any 372 00:21:59,200 --> 00:22:02,600 Speaker 1: step the Court can take that that goes so far 373 00:22:02,760 --> 00:22:07,040 Speaker 1: that either politicians or voters reconsider UM their ideas that 374 00:22:07,080 --> 00:22:08,960 Speaker 1: you know both that they are very unhappy with the Court, 375 00:22:09,040 --> 00:22:12,240 Speaker 1: that they're not necessarily supportive of any kind of measure 376 00:22:12,280 --> 00:22:14,159 Speaker 1: to change how much power the Court has or how 377 00:22:14,160 --> 00:22:17,280 Speaker 1: it operates. Thanks so much for your insights. Mary. That's 378 00:22:17,320 --> 00:22:20,400 Speaker 1: Mary Ziegler, a professor at u C. Davis Law School. 379 00:22:23,560 --> 00:22:27,159 Speaker 1: The tide has turned for Donald Trump at the Supreme Court. 380 00:22:27,560 --> 00:22:30,480 Speaker 1: As President Trump had a good record at the court. 381 00:22:30,880 --> 00:22:34,600 Speaker 1: The Justice has upheld his travel band, which restricted entry 382 00:22:34,600 --> 00:22:38,760 Speaker 1: into the US from several heavily Muslim countries, while blocking 383 00:22:38,840 --> 00:22:42,680 Speaker 1: him from ending a deferred deportation program. There were mixed 384 00:22:42,680 --> 00:22:46,520 Speaker 1: decisions on subpoenas for his financial records, with one ruling 385 00:22:46,640 --> 00:22:50,159 Speaker 1: blocking the House from getting access. But now as a 386 00:22:50,200 --> 00:22:54,240 Speaker 1: private citizen, Trump has had nothing but defeats at the Court, 387 00:22:54,600 --> 00:22:57,760 Speaker 1: whether it's over the House getting his tax returns, the 388 00:22:57,920 --> 00:23:01,760 Speaker 1: documents search at maral Lago, or records to the January 389 00:23:01,880 --> 00:23:05,239 Speaker 1: six Committee. Trump has lost at the Supreme Court, and 390 00:23:05,320 --> 00:23:09,200 Speaker 1: without much fanfare and only one dissent joining me is 391 00:23:09,200 --> 00:23:13,000 Speaker 1: Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg store So. Greg. The 392 00:23:13,119 --> 00:23:16,560 Speaker 1: latest case that Trump has had at the Supreme Court 393 00:23:16,640 --> 00:23:21,000 Speaker 1: concerned his tax returns, which I thought had already been decided. 394 00:23:21,200 --> 00:23:24,320 Speaker 1: But tell us about that well. Donald Trump was asking 395 00:23:24,400 --> 00:23:27,200 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court to block the Internal Revenue Service from 396 00:23:27,240 --> 00:23:30,040 Speaker 1: turning over his tax returns to a House Committee that 397 00:23:30,080 --> 00:23:33,639 Speaker 1: says it needs them because it's considering legislation regarding to 398 00:23:33,680 --> 00:23:38,480 Speaker 1: the disclosure obligations of presidents, and the Supreme Court, in 399 00:23:38,560 --> 00:23:41,960 Speaker 1: a very performed two sentence orders, said no, we're not 400 00:23:42,080 --> 00:23:45,520 Speaker 1: going to block that from happening at this point. The 401 00:23:45,680 --> 00:23:49,320 Speaker 1: I R. S can turn over those documents at any point. Uh, 402 00:23:49,359 --> 00:23:52,040 Speaker 1: and it's possible we'll we'll see them publicly before the 403 00:23:52,119 --> 00:23:54,679 Speaker 1: end of the year. I'm a little confused. I thought 404 00:23:54,760 --> 00:23:58,680 Speaker 1: this had been litigated already. His tax returns. There has 405 00:23:58,720 --> 00:24:03,439 Speaker 1: been litigation, including about whether his accounting firm had to 406 00:24:03,520 --> 00:24:07,359 Speaker 1: turn them over to a different House committee and to 407 00:24:07,960 --> 00:24:12,840 Speaker 1: federal prosecutors in New York, and those returns and other 408 00:24:12,880 --> 00:24:16,240 Speaker 1: financial information had been turned over to the prosecutors, but 409 00:24:16,359 --> 00:24:18,840 Speaker 1: that they have not yet made it to any House 410 00:24:18,880 --> 00:24:22,639 Speaker 1: committee and had not yet become public. Now that was 411 00:24:22,760 --> 00:24:27,600 Speaker 1: last week. A month ago, the Justices considered a dispute 412 00:24:27,720 --> 00:24:32,640 Speaker 1: over that seizure of classified and other presidential records at 413 00:24:32,680 --> 00:24:36,720 Speaker 1: Moral Lago. What happened there, Yeah, that that was an 414 00:24:36,720 --> 00:24:39,919 Speaker 1: issue where um it was in some ways kind of 415 00:24:39,920 --> 00:24:43,080 Speaker 1: a side show in that Donald Trump was trying to 416 00:24:43,119 --> 00:24:47,199 Speaker 1: say that the Special Master who's reviewing the materials in 417 00:24:47,200 --> 00:24:51,240 Speaker 1: the case should also be reviewing those those materials that 418 00:24:51,359 --> 00:24:56,119 Speaker 1: were marked as being a top secret. And uh. He 419 00:24:56,200 --> 00:24:59,600 Speaker 1: asked the Supreme Court to intervene to say that those 420 00:24:59,640 --> 00:25:02,399 Speaker 1: document should go before the Special Master as well, and 421 00:25:02,440 --> 00:25:05,840 Speaker 1: again the Supreme Court said, no, without any public dissent, 422 00:25:06,119 --> 00:25:09,440 Speaker 1: we're not going to do that. And in February, again 423 00:25:09,480 --> 00:25:13,560 Speaker 1: it's his financial records. Who got them? In February. Yeah, 424 00:25:13,600 --> 00:25:16,480 Speaker 1: this is a case that we that I alluded to earlier. 425 00:25:16,680 --> 00:25:21,359 Speaker 1: This is the DA in Manhattan has been trying for 426 00:25:21,480 --> 00:25:24,840 Speaker 1: quite some time to get Donald Trump's financial records and 427 00:25:24,840 --> 00:25:28,520 Speaker 1: that of his business as part of a criminal investigation. 428 00:25:28,920 --> 00:25:31,439 Speaker 1: That was the case that the Supreme Court actually considered 429 00:25:31,760 --> 00:25:35,480 Speaker 1: a while back. And in this case that the Supreme 430 00:25:35,520 --> 00:25:39,919 Speaker 1: Court rejected, Donald Trump let the prosecutor get those financial 431 00:25:39,960 --> 00:25:43,840 Speaker 1: records and so those are now part of that criminal investigation. 432 00:25:44,760 --> 00:25:48,560 Speaker 1: And the January six committee also what papers were they 433 00:25:48,600 --> 00:25:51,920 Speaker 1: looking for? I mean, it's just so hard to keep 434 00:25:51,960 --> 00:25:56,439 Speaker 1: track of all these disputes about records and papers. It 435 00:25:56,520 --> 00:26:00,680 Speaker 1: seems like we've been litigating the financial record almost since 436 00:26:00,680 --> 00:26:04,159 Speaker 1: the beginning of his presidency. Yeah, we certainly have the 437 00:26:04,359 --> 00:26:06,760 Speaker 1: the case ofoving the January six attack. Are not his 438 00:26:06,800 --> 00:26:09,560 Speaker 1: financial records, there are. These are other records. These are 439 00:26:09,560 --> 00:26:13,280 Speaker 1: records from the White House that Donald Trump was trying 440 00:26:13,280 --> 00:26:18,199 Speaker 1: to block the January six Committee from getting access to. 441 00:26:18,920 --> 00:26:24,720 Speaker 1: They included things material from his chief of staff, Mark Meadows. Um, 442 00:26:24,800 --> 00:26:27,800 Speaker 1: this is a case that we're Justice Clarence Thomas got 443 00:26:27,800 --> 00:26:30,400 Speaker 1: a lot of criticism because he didn't refuse himself from 444 00:26:30,440 --> 00:26:34,359 Speaker 1: this case even though his wife, who was involved in 445 00:26:34,359 --> 00:26:37,520 Speaker 1: the efforts to return the election, had been in contact 446 00:26:37,600 --> 00:26:41,960 Speaker 1: with Chief staff Mark Meadows. And Uh. Not only did 447 00:26:42,200 --> 00:26:45,280 Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas not refuse himself from the case, he was 448 00:26:45,320 --> 00:26:47,760 Speaker 1: the one Justice who publicly said I would have stopped 449 00:26:47,760 --> 00:26:51,399 Speaker 1: the records from being turned over to the January six committee. So, Greg, 450 00:26:51,440 --> 00:26:55,880 Speaker 1: through these last four cases, is there a similar thread 451 00:26:56,160 --> 00:27:00,840 Speaker 1: or argument that runs through these cases. Well, you could 452 00:27:00,840 --> 00:27:03,919 Speaker 1: say this. Look, these are when Donald Trump was president 453 00:27:04,000 --> 00:27:06,840 Speaker 1: and he was arguing for things like a deference to 454 00:27:06,920 --> 00:27:11,159 Speaker 1: my immigration policies and you know, protection of my time 455 00:27:11,200 --> 00:27:14,400 Speaker 1: while I'm in office so that I'm not besieged with 456 00:27:15,240 --> 00:27:20,160 Speaker 1: all these investigatory requests. The court was somewhat deferential to them, 457 00:27:20,240 --> 00:27:23,600 Speaker 1: and he did fairly well. Uh, now that he's a 458 00:27:23,640 --> 00:27:27,760 Speaker 1: private citizen. Uh. You know, his claims for deference are 459 00:27:28,119 --> 00:27:31,040 Speaker 1: experts on both sides of the issues say a lot weaker, 460 00:27:31,440 --> 00:27:33,680 Speaker 1: and so the Court is doing a lot less willingness 461 00:27:33,800 --> 00:27:38,359 Speaker 1: to intervene on his behalf. And in some cases they 462 00:27:38,400 --> 00:27:41,399 Speaker 1: apparently think his arguments are are rather weak ones. And 463 00:27:41,440 --> 00:27:44,359 Speaker 1: that's why we're not seeing any public disagreement when the 464 00:27:44,359 --> 00:27:47,919 Speaker 1: court rejects them. Are these four most recent cases and 465 00:27:48,080 --> 00:27:52,080 Speaker 1: Trump losses all shadow docket cases, meaning cases that are 466 00:27:52,119 --> 00:27:55,280 Speaker 1: not on the regular docket, that do not have full 467 00:27:55,400 --> 00:27:59,400 Speaker 1: briefing or oral arguments. Everything we've been talking about here 468 00:27:59,440 --> 00:28:03,199 Speaker 1: are indeed shadow doctor cases. Yes. Trump's reaction was to 469 00:28:03,400 --> 00:28:06,800 Speaker 1: criticize the Court in a truth social post, saying, quote, 470 00:28:07,240 --> 00:28:11,000 Speaker 1: it has lost its honor, prestige, and standing and has 471 00:28:11,040 --> 00:28:14,879 Speaker 1: become nothing more than a political body. Odd since he 472 00:28:14,960 --> 00:28:19,359 Speaker 1: appointed three out of the nine justices. Yeah, that's a criticism. 473 00:28:19,440 --> 00:28:21,199 Speaker 1: A lot of people on the other side of the 474 00:28:21,200 --> 00:28:24,440 Speaker 1: political divide are lodging at the Supreme Court that it's 475 00:28:24,480 --> 00:28:28,320 Speaker 1: become too political. Uh yeah. And of course, for Donald Trump, 476 00:28:28,359 --> 00:28:32,399 Speaker 1: so much always comes back to election and the court 477 00:28:32,800 --> 00:28:35,760 Speaker 1: on several occasions they refused to intervene in his behalf, 478 00:28:35,800 --> 00:28:39,840 Speaker 1: refused to overturn the election defeat, refused to even entertain 479 00:28:40,440 --> 00:28:44,680 Speaker 1: arguments that the results were fraudulent. And you know that's 480 00:28:44,800 --> 00:28:46,800 Speaker 1: what Donald Trump pointed to in the statement when even 481 00:28:46,840 --> 00:28:48,960 Speaker 1: why would he even may be surprised and suppers ruled 482 00:28:48,960 --> 00:28:51,880 Speaker 1: against you. They always do. So are there any other 483 00:28:52,000 --> 00:28:55,720 Speaker 1: Trump cases pending at the court. There's not any Trump cases. 484 00:28:55,720 --> 00:28:57,920 Speaker 1: There's there's a pretty good biding cage that I'm happy 485 00:28:57,960 --> 00:29:00,600 Speaker 1: to tell you about. Side just trying to revive his 486 00:29:01,160 --> 00:29:06,440 Speaker 1: student loan debt release program that is currently on hold, 487 00:29:06,640 --> 00:29:09,200 Speaker 1: and the sub administrations ask from the Supreme Court to 488 00:29:09,360 --> 00:29:11,960 Speaker 1: lift that hold. And we could get action from them 489 00:29:12,000 --> 00:29:14,040 Speaker 1: at any point. And we also could could get them 490 00:29:14,080 --> 00:29:16,760 Speaker 1: saying we're going to hear arguments in the case. Really 491 00:29:16,760 --> 00:29:18,800 Speaker 1: they might take it up as a regular case, put 492 00:29:18,840 --> 00:29:21,640 Speaker 1: it on the regular docket. Yeah, that's so what the 493 00:29:21,640 --> 00:29:24,520 Speaker 1: Biden administration is saying is, Hey, if you're not willing 494 00:29:24,560 --> 00:29:26,960 Speaker 1: to just let the program go into effect, at least 495 00:29:27,640 --> 00:29:30,120 Speaker 1: consider what we just filed here as a as a 496 00:29:30,160 --> 00:29:33,440 Speaker 1: so called certain petition. UH, agree to hear the case, 497 00:29:33,520 --> 00:29:35,800 Speaker 1: schedule arguments, Maybe do it in February. Put it on 498 00:29:35,840 --> 00:29:38,800 Speaker 1: a fast track. So we can get a final determination 499 00:29:38,800 --> 00:29:42,960 Speaker 1: one way or another. So the justices are considering overturning 500 00:29:43,000 --> 00:29:47,400 Speaker 1: the conviction for so called honest services fraud of a 501 00:29:47,440 --> 00:29:51,800 Speaker 1: one time top aide to former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. 502 00:29:52,000 --> 00:29:54,480 Speaker 1: Tell us about the arguments. Yeah, this is a guy 503 00:29:54,560 --> 00:29:59,160 Speaker 1: named Joseph Cococo. He was a top aide to Andrew Cuomo, 504 00:29:59,440 --> 00:30:03,320 Speaker 1: and he was accused of accepting bribes on behalf of 505 00:30:03,320 --> 00:30:07,160 Speaker 1: a couple of companies with contracts. And there question in 506 00:30:07,200 --> 00:30:10,200 Speaker 1: the case is there's this crucial eight month period in 507 00:30:10,240 --> 00:30:12,880 Speaker 1: which he wasn't a government employee. He had gone to 508 00:30:12,920 --> 00:30:16,800 Speaker 1: work for the Cormal campaign. And the question is whether 509 00:30:17,240 --> 00:30:21,040 Speaker 1: this federal law that bars the deprivation of honest services 510 00:30:21,120 --> 00:30:24,960 Speaker 1: from the public, whether that can apply to somebody who, 511 00:30:25,280 --> 00:30:28,640 Speaker 1: during a crucial period was not actually a government employee. 512 00:30:29,200 --> 00:30:32,120 Speaker 1: And based on the arguments of the supremem word seems 513 00:30:32,160 --> 00:30:35,160 Speaker 1: to think the answer to that is, yeah, probably not. 514 00:30:35,480 --> 00:30:38,600 Speaker 1: That we are worried that if we allow this law 515 00:30:38,640 --> 00:30:41,120 Speaker 1: to be used against somebody over conduct that happened when 516 00:30:41,120 --> 00:30:44,200 Speaker 1: they weren't a government employee, that that might mean that 517 00:30:44,280 --> 00:30:48,080 Speaker 1: we are criminalizing lobby criminalizing somebody who is on the 518 00:30:48,120 --> 00:30:50,720 Speaker 1: outside of the government who is just trying to pull 519 00:30:50,760 --> 00:30:53,400 Speaker 1: the strings that they have that the advanced policies and 520 00:30:53,440 --> 00:30:56,320 Speaker 1: are getting paid for doing that work. And they've been 521 00:30:56,360 --> 00:31:01,280 Speaker 1: cutting back on these public corruption prosecution ends for quite 522 00:31:01,280 --> 00:31:04,800 Speaker 1: a while. Yeah, there's been a couple of recent cases. 523 00:31:05,360 --> 00:31:08,400 Speaker 1: One the most recent one involved to allies as former 524 00:31:08,520 --> 00:31:11,800 Speaker 1: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie involving the remember the George 525 00:31:11,840 --> 00:31:15,720 Speaker 1: Washington Bridge Lane closing scandal. The court tossed out a 526 00:31:15,760 --> 00:31:19,760 Speaker 1: couple of convictions there. Then back in sixteen they set 527 00:31:19,800 --> 00:31:23,760 Speaker 1: aside the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonald. In 528 00:31:23,800 --> 00:31:26,680 Speaker 1: that case, the court said the things he did didn't 529 00:31:26,800 --> 00:31:29,560 Speaker 1: rise to the level of official actions. The court in 530 00:31:29,600 --> 00:31:34,320 Speaker 1: the McDonald case said that the governor could only be 531 00:31:34,400 --> 00:31:37,719 Speaker 1: prosecuted for honor services bought if you did something that 532 00:31:37,840 --> 00:31:39,840 Speaker 1: rose to the level of an official action. That it 533 00:31:39,960 --> 00:31:43,240 Speaker 1: wasn't enough if you just arranged a meeting for somebody, 534 00:31:43,360 --> 00:31:45,760 Speaker 1: that that couldn't be the kind of action that would 535 00:31:45,840 --> 00:31:50,520 Speaker 1: let you be criminally prosecuted. What's the status of the 536 00:31:50,720 --> 00:31:55,360 Speaker 1: investigation into the leak of the Dobbs opinion. The status 537 00:31:55,440 --> 00:31:58,480 Speaker 1: is we have received no word since that the day 538 00:31:58,520 --> 00:32:02,320 Speaker 1: following the leak, when the Chief Justice said I'm going 539 00:32:02,320 --> 00:32:05,960 Speaker 1: to direct the Marshal of the Court to start an investigation. 540 00:32:07,120 --> 00:32:09,840 Speaker 1: He's not given the public any update. Has I even 541 00:32:09,840 --> 00:32:13,320 Speaker 1: said whether the results will become public. No indication that 542 00:32:13,400 --> 00:32:16,480 Speaker 1: the court has figured out what happened there For all 543 00:32:16,520 --> 00:32:19,360 Speaker 1: we know that maybe the status for the foreseeable future. 544 00:32:19,720 --> 00:32:21,600 Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Greg, I know it's a busy week 545 00:32:21,640 --> 00:32:25,640 Speaker 1: at the Court. That's Bloomberg News Supreme Court Reporter Greg's store. 546 00:32:26,200 --> 00:32:28,480 Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. 547 00:32:28,840 --> 00:32:31,120 Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on 548 00:32:31,200 --> 00:32:35,680 Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, 549 00:32:35,720 --> 00:32:40,720 Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, 550 00:32:41,160 --> 00:32:43,280 Speaker 1: and remember to tune in to The Bloomberg Law Show 551 00:32:43,400 --> 00:32:46,880 Speaker 1: every week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm 552 00:32:46,960 --> 00:32:49,400 Speaker 1: June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg