WEBVTT - Next Line of Attack Is Against the Abortion Pill 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:07.960 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:09.640 --> 0:00:12.840 Abortion rights one in every state where it was on 0:00:12.880 --> 0:00:16.480 the ballot in the mid term elections, Kansas, Kentucky, and 0:00:16.520 --> 0:00:22.200 Montana voted against anti abortion ballot initiatives, while California, Michigan, 0:00:22.200 --> 0:00:26.160 and Vermont voted for ballot measures to protect abortion. Former 0:00:26.200 --> 0:00:30.400 President Trump blamed losses in many high profile races on 0:00:30.600 --> 0:00:34.280 voters coming out to preserve abortion rights. Who would have 0:00:34.320 --> 0:00:37.440 been nice to do more, But there was a specific 0:00:37.520 --> 0:00:39.640 reason why it was going to be tough. You know 0:00:39.680 --> 0:00:42.440 what that reason was. It was a tough issue and 0:00:42.800 --> 0:00:46.519 energized the other side. And uh, people came out on 0:00:46.560 --> 0:00:50.159 the other side for a specific purpose. But the attack 0:00:50.240 --> 0:00:54.680 on abortion continues, and the fight over abortion pills is 0:00:54.760 --> 0:00:58.600 heating up. Medication abortions accounted for more than half of 0:00:58.640 --> 0:01:02.760 all abortions even before the Dobbs decision took away the 0:01:02.840 --> 0:01:06.319 constitutional right to abortion. Joining me as an expert on 0:01:06.400 --> 0:01:10.280 reproductive rights, Mary Ziegler, a professor at u C. Davis 0:01:10.280 --> 0:01:13.640 School of Law. So, Mary, abortion was on the ballot 0:01:13.760 --> 0:01:16.960 in the mid terms in six states, and it won 0:01:17.080 --> 0:01:21.040 in all those states. Well. This affirmation of abortion rights 0:01:21.080 --> 0:01:24.920 have an effect outside those states, well, I think it 0:01:24.959 --> 0:01:27.559 could help in other states if we have ballot initiatives 0:01:27.560 --> 0:01:31.480 in those states, I don't expect to see Republican lawmakers 0:01:31.520 --> 0:01:34.280 who were otherwise planning on passing new bands or kind 0:01:34.280 --> 0:01:38.880 of exotic enforcement mechanisms reconsidering Because in a state like Kentucky, 0:01:38.959 --> 0:01:42.880 for example, where voters decided not to vote for a 0:01:42.920 --> 0:01:45.959 state constitutional amendments saying there were no abortion rights, voters 0:01:46.000 --> 0:01:50.240 also still returned Republicans to the state legislature. So I 0:01:50.280 --> 0:01:53.280 think people in those states, states like Texas, you know, 0:01:53.320 --> 0:01:55.520 South Dakota, are are not going to see the mid 0:01:55.640 --> 0:01:57.360 term as a reason to kind of pump the brakes 0:01:57.360 --> 0:02:01.280 when it comes to pretty sweeping laws. So I would 0:02:01.320 --> 0:02:03.800 expect to see more valid initiatives in the coming years. 0:02:03.800 --> 0:02:06.000 But at the same time, I think after the new year, 0:02:06.040 --> 0:02:07.920 when states to go back into session, I think we 0:02:07.960 --> 0:02:11.360 should also expect to see even more far reaching bands. 0:02:12.040 --> 0:02:16.000 Medication abortion counted for more than half of all abortions 0:02:16.000 --> 0:02:20.360 even before the Dabbs decision overturned the constitutional right to 0:02:20.360 --> 0:02:25.400 an abortion. Now the fight over abortion pills is ramping up, 0:02:25.800 --> 0:02:31.200 and one anti abortion group is focusing on wastewater in 0:02:31.200 --> 0:02:34.200 a petition to the Food and Drug Administration, tell us 0:02:34.280 --> 0:02:38.280 what that's about. So this organization, Students for Life, is 0:02:38.320 --> 0:02:42.800 trying a new technique because for a really long time, 0:02:43.280 --> 0:02:47.240 the plan, I think to challenge abortion pills had been 0:02:47.440 --> 0:02:53.200 to focus on the alleged safety concerns for pregnant women, right, 0:02:53.760 --> 0:02:58.359 and that hadn't really been working for a long time. 0:02:58.360 --> 0:03:00.520 The pills remained on the market, and as you mentioned, 0:03:00.520 --> 0:03:04.600 people weren't I guess, buying that argument when it came 0:03:04.720 --> 0:03:08.960 to their own safety. So the new strategy focuses on 0:03:09.600 --> 0:03:14.960 almost environmental concerns. Students for Life has a petition now 0:03:15.000 --> 0:03:17.720 asking the Food and Drug Administration to require doctors who 0:03:17.720 --> 0:03:22.639 prescribe the pills to take steps to dispose of fetal tissue. Um. 0:03:22.680 --> 0:03:24.520 They say it should be bagged, it should be treated 0:03:24.560 --> 0:03:27.000 as medical waste, and they argue that if that isn't true, 0:03:27.000 --> 0:03:32.520 it's going to create pollution that will negatively affect the environment, 0:03:33.120 --> 0:03:38.200 negatively affect you know, the water supply, various species that 0:03:38.240 --> 0:03:42.480 will be exposed to these drugs, and you know, I 0:03:42.480 --> 0:03:44.120 think this is a little bit of a hill, Mary, 0:03:44.240 --> 0:03:47.400 but it's likely if the petition doesn't work at the FDA, 0:03:47.480 --> 0:03:49.880 which we expect to be the case, then there may 0:03:49.920 --> 0:03:54.720 be a litigation that ensues. Another conservative group is already 0:03:54.760 --> 0:03:57.760 suing the f d A over its approval of the 0:03:57.800 --> 0:04:02.320 medication abortion drug decades ago. Okay, so this was a 0:04:02.400 --> 0:04:06.720 suit UM filed in Texas by Alliance Defending Freedom and 0:04:06.920 --> 0:04:09.680 a group of other anti worship groups, including the American 0:04:09.720 --> 0:04:13.800 Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and is arguing 0:04:13.840 --> 0:04:17.280 that the FDA didn't have the authority to approve mythopristone 0:04:17.480 --> 0:04:20.680 twenty two years ago when it actually did, you know. 0:04:20.760 --> 0:04:23.080 For a variety of reasons, but often centering on kind 0:04:23.080 --> 0:04:26.960 of the original basis for the FDA's decision to approve 0:04:27.400 --> 0:04:32.159 mythopris stone um twenty two years ago. Democratic senators are 0:04:32.360 --> 0:04:36.240 urging the FDA to finish up its work to permanently 0:04:36.279 --> 0:04:38.960 make two pills more accessible. I mean, what else does 0:04:39.000 --> 0:04:41.520 the FDA have to do? I thought that in two 0:04:41.560 --> 0:04:44.640 thousand that they approved this. Well, the pills have always 0:04:44.640 --> 0:04:47.400 been approved, but they've been um covered by what's called 0:04:47.400 --> 0:04:49.680 the black box morning and an r e MS. So 0:04:49.800 --> 0:04:53.000 these drugs are essentially these are kind of limitations and 0:04:53.080 --> 0:04:55.479 protocols that apply to drugs that are likely to have 0:04:55.520 --> 0:04:57.800 the most serious side effects, would be the most dangerous 0:04:57.839 --> 0:05:00.800 for patients. And so the pills have a it's been available, 0:05:00.800 --> 0:05:02.960 but they've been available on a much more limited basis 0:05:03.000 --> 0:05:04.560 in the way that you know, you would imagine a 0:05:04.640 --> 0:05:07.440 drug that could have a serious possibility for abuse or 0:05:07.480 --> 0:05:11.680 addictive properties or danger. And so I think Democrats believe 0:05:11.760 --> 0:05:16.080 that those special limits are an outgrowth of politics rather 0:05:16.160 --> 0:05:18.839 than science, and they they believed that the FDA should 0:05:18.839 --> 0:05:23.040 eliminate some of those limits, especially while there's a Democrat 0:05:23.080 --> 0:05:25.840 in the White House and the FDA isn't potentially going 0:05:25.880 --> 0:05:30.279 to be transformed by you know, a future administration. Mary 0:05:30.320 --> 0:05:35.720 about eighteen states banned the use of telehealth for medication abortion, 0:05:36.240 --> 0:05:40.440 meaning that in person medical screenings are required to get 0:05:40.440 --> 0:05:45.200 the abortion pills. So how does that affect the ability 0:05:45.279 --> 0:05:49.760 to get abortion pills. Well, there's what's legally possible and 0:05:49.839 --> 0:05:52.960 what's not legally possible. So I think, first of all, 0:05:53.000 --> 0:05:56.240 you know, there's the possibility of travel to get aborsition pills. 0:05:56.520 --> 0:05:59.479 There are mobile abortion clinics. There are states that have 0:05:59.600 --> 0:06:03.400 identified by themselves as sanctuaries for people seeking abortions, and 0:06:03.480 --> 0:06:07.680 so you know, preventing telehealth abortions doesn't mean people can't 0:06:07.720 --> 0:06:10.960 travel to an adjacent state to get aworshion pills, and 0:06:11.000 --> 0:06:16.480 there are organizations like aid Access that send pills from abroad. Um, 0:06:16.480 --> 0:06:19.039 of course this is kind of an underground their networks 0:06:19.080 --> 0:06:22.960 of activists from Mexico who are supplying pills to people 0:06:23.040 --> 0:06:26.280 in nearby states like Texas. None of that, of course, 0:06:26.360 --> 0:06:29.960 is explicitly contemplated by laws that banned telehealth abortion. But 0:06:30.000 --> 0:06:32.680 it's very hard to shut down the supply of aborshion 0:06:32.760 --> 0:06:35.320 pills regardless of what the letter of the law says. 0:06:35.520 --> 0:06:39.279 Do you think that abortion pills will be the target 0:06:39.520 --> 0:06:44.640 when Republican state legislatures start up in January? Or are 0:06:44.640 --> 0:06:48.520 there other abortion practices they might try to target next? 0:06:49.120 --> 0:06:51.719 I think we're going to see a combination of laws 0:06:51.800 --> 0:06:56.440 targeting abortion pills but also to travel. Um. I think 0:06:57.080 --> 0:07:01.440 what states are are likely realizing now is that there 0:07:01.480 --> 0:07:03.479 are a lot of steps. It's it's kind of a 0:07:04.320 --> 0:07:06.400 like a chess match, right where states a lot of 0:07:06.400 --> 0:07:11.360 states are banning abortion, and then people seeking procedures are 0:07:11.440 --> 0:07:14.520 finding ways around those bands. And so I think you're 0:07:14.520 --> 0:07:17.400 going to see the next kind of countermeasure from states 0:07:17.400 --> 0:07:20.000 that's going to both look at ways of shutting down 0:07:20.040 --> 0:07:23.800 access to these pills and stopping travel. So some legislators 0:07:23.800 --> 0:07:27.680 are considering, for example, measures that would criminalize, you know, 0:07:27.800 --> 0:07:31.280 companies and ceo s who reimburse travel out of state 0:07:31.360 --> 0:07:35.240 for abortion, looking at ways to prohibit travel for abortion 0:07:35.440 --> 0:07:39.840 or prohibit people from aiding others who travel for abortion, 0:07:39.880 --> 0:07:44.440 whether that's transporting them came for the travel laws extra territorially, 0:07:44.520 --> 0:07:47.440 applying criminal or civil prohibitions, right, so saying if you 0:07:47.480 --> 0:07:50.280 perform an abortion in California on someone from Texas, you 0:07:50.280 --> 0:07:53.440 could be legally liable. Essentially, ways to close what I 0:07:53.440 --> 0:07:57.280 think states are seeing as loopholes in existing bands. It's 0:07:57.280 --> 0:07:59.360 worth emphasizing that's not likely to be the end of 0:07:59.400 --> 0:08:01.480 this story there. I think that's just likely what we're 0:08:01.480 --> 0:08:04.960 going to see next. Along those lines of traveling to 0:08:05.000 --> 0:08:09.720 get an abortion. There's been this concern about now that 0:08:10.200 --> 0:08:15.560 in some states, prosecutors may request information from Google and 0:08:15.800 --> 0:08:19.400 try to track if women have been to abortion clinic, etcetera. 0:08:19.720 --> 0:08:23.960 And Google said that it would delete entries for locations 0:08:24.040 --> 0:08:29.560 deemed personal, including medical facilities like counseling centers, domestic violence shelters, 0:08:29.600 --> 0:08:34.960 abortion clinics. But a tech advocacy group, Accountable Tech, conducted 0:08:35.000 --> 0:08:39.760 an experiment in August and October to test Google's pledge, 0:08:40.360 --> 0:08:43.240 and it was reported in The Guardian. The group found 0:08:43.240 --> 0:08:47.319 that searches for directions to abortion clinics on Google Maps, 0:08:47.840 --> 0:08:52.239 as well as the routes taken to two planned parenthood locations, 0:08:52.640 --> 0:08:56.080 were stored for weeks after they occurred. So I mean, 0:08:56.600 --> 0:09:00.480 is that something that people can trust or or should 0:09:00.520 --> 0:09:04.000 they just start not using Google you're using old fashioned 0:09:04.040 --> 0:09:08.040 maps or whatever. I think in general, in the world 0:09:08.080 --> 0:09:12.720 of kind of digital privacy, taking additional precautions is always wise. 0:09:12.800 --> 0:09:15.040 Even if tech companies say they're concerned about this and 0:09:15.040 --> 0:09:17.240 they're going to try to take steps to safeguard data, 0:09:17.679 --> 0:09:20.600 I think there's there's a concern either one that those 0:09:20.640 --> 0:09:22.559 safeguards are not going to be as far reaching as 0:09:22.559 --> 0:09:24.880 we believe, or two that they may not even be 0:09:24.960 --> 0:09:28.720 put in place in the first place. So I think 0:09:28.800 --> 0:09:31.880 people should you know, if someone is thinking of getting 0:09:31.880 --> 0:09:34.720 into wortion or really doing anything that they wouldn't want 0:09:34.720 --> 0:09:37.199 to be tracked online before they go online or before 0:09:37.200 --> 0:09:39.600 they go on their phones. They should look up steps 0:09:39.640 --> 0:09:44.360 to protect digital privacy, whether that's using another browser, not 0:09:44.520 --> 0:09:49.440 using a browser at all, not using certain acts. There 0:09:49.440 --> 0:09:51.360 are a number of steps, I mean, more than we 0:09:51.400 --> 0:09:53.720 would want to address in this conversation, but that should 0:09:53.720 --> 0:09:57.040 be the first step anyone takes before taking any of 0:09:57.040 --> 0:10:01.079 these kinds of decisions online. Besides medication and abortions. Is 0:10:01.120 --> 0:10:04.760 there another area that the anti abortion groups you know, 0:10:04.920 --> 0:10:09.400 beyond abortion are targeting now? Well, I think there's been 0:10:09.760 --> 0:10:15.240 some conversation about chemical contraceptives. There hasn't, an, into my 0:10:15.320 --> 0:10:18.320 knowledge yet, been much movement in the States to prohibit 0:10:18.320 --> 0:10:20.920 these procedures, but groups like Students for Life have been 0:10:21.840 --> 0:10:25.439 active on social media, on TikTok and elsewhere, essentially suggesting 0:10:25.440 --> 0:10:28.160 that these drugs are in fact a word of stations. 0:10:28.360 --> 0:10:31.319 At the moment, I don't think states have adopted that definition, 0:10:31.360 --> 0:10:34.480 at least explicitly, although some states have definitions of abortion 0:10:34.520 --> 0:10:37.120 that are open ended enough that they theoretically could encompass 0:10:37.160 --> 0:10:40.920 those drugs. You've also started to see some prominent anti 0:10:40.960 --> 0:10:44.679 abortion or pro life commentators, like Alexander de Stantis at 0:10:44.679 --> 0:10:48.360 the National Review, arguing that you know, birth control as 0:10:48.400 --> 0:10:52.000 birth control is still unsafe for women. So I think 0:10:52.000 --> 0:10:54.640 you're beginning to see conversations that point in the direction 0:10:54.800 --> 0:10:58.760 of potentially an attack on chemical contraceptives. But I haven't 0:10:58.760 --> 0:11:01.080 seen state legis ter is doing that yet. I've just 0:11:01.240 --> 0:11:04.240 begun to see those conversations happening in the movement. Coming 0:11:04.320 --> 0:11:06.800 up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this 0:11:06.880 --> 0:11:10.240 conversation with Professor Mary Ziegler of the u C. Davis 0:11:10.320 --> 0:11:15.160 Law School. The Supreme Court is still investigating the leak 0:11:15.200 --> 0:11:19.560 in May of the controversial decision written by Justice Samuel 0:11:19.559 --> 0:11:23.920 Alito overturning Roe versus Wade, and now The Times is 0:11:24.000 --> 0:11:28.520 reporting another alleged breach at the Court. According to allegations 0:11:28.520 --> 0:11:33.000 in a Time story published on November nine, Justice Alito 0:11:33.240 --> 0:11:36.679 leaked the outcome of a landmark case over religious liberties 0:11:36.880 --> 0:11:40.520 at a dinner party at his home. In that decision, 0:11:40.559 --> 0:11:44.480 written by Aldo Burwell v. Hobby, Lobby allowed closely held 0:11:44.520 --> 0:11:49.080 corporations to claim a religious exemption from the requirement under 0:11:49.120 --> 0:11:53.120 the Affordable Care Act that employers provide birth control coverage 0:11:53.320 --> 0:11:57.240 as part of their employee healthcare plans. Justice Alito has 0:11:57.280 --> 0:12:01.280 denied the allegations, saying that any sugges estion that he 0:12:01.440 --> 0:12:05.280 or his wife disclosed the ruling early to anyone was false. 0:12:05.760 --> 0:12:09.480 Alito was also the author of this year's controversial ruling 0:12:09.559 --> 0:12:13.240 overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, an opinion that 0:12:13.320 --> 0:12:15.600 leaked into the public more than a month before it 0:12:15.720 --> 0:12:18.520 was issued. The Court has yet to release the results 0:12:18.559 --> 0:12:21.800 of an internal investigation into that league. My guest is 0:12:21.840 --> 0:12:25.120 Mary Ziegler, a professor at u C. Davis Law School, 0:12:25.320 --> 0:12:29.360 who has written a op ed about this latest alleged breach. Mary, 0:12:29.440 --> 0:12:31.880 for those who did not read the New York Times story, 0:12:32.000 --> 0:12:35.839 tell us about the allegations there. So. Rob Shank, who 0:12:35.880 --> 0:12:40.400 was a long time UM member of the anti aborsion 0:12:40.880 --> 0:12:44.440 movement UM and the kind of broader religious right, alleged 0:12:44.520 --> 0:12:48.400 that he had been working for years through his nonprofits 0:12:49.080 --> 0:12:51.800 to cultivate a kind of network of insiders at the 0:12:51.840 --> 0:12:55.720 Supreme Court, particularly wealthy donors. And you know he was 0:12:55.760 --> 0:12:59.480 doing this, he alleged both to gain access to an 0:12:59.559 --> 0:13:02.040 influence within the Court, but also you know, of course, 0:13:02.080 --> 0:13:04.800 to raise money for his own organization. That there this 0:13:04.800 --> 0:13:07.080 this kind of access and information he alleged kind of 0:13:07.080 --> 0:13:10.160 had a value to donors who might in turn give 0:13:10.240 --> 0:13:14.360 to his nonprofit, and he alleged that he successfully cultivated 0:13:14.400 --> 0:13:19.200 donors who created relationship with with Justices Thomas Alito and Scalia, 0:13:19.600 --> 0:13:23.160 and that in particular, through these relationships, he gained a 0:13:23.240 --> 0:13:26.760 tip through Justice Alito about the Hobby Lobby case, in 0:13:27.559 --> 0:13:30.839 which listeners may remember, dealt with the contraceptive mandate of 0:13:30.920 --> 0:13:35.800 the Affordable Care Act. Justice Alito, according to Shank, told 0:13:35.840 --> 0:13:38.240 one of these donors ahead of time how the case 0:13:38.280 --> 0:13:41.320 would be decided, essentially that the Court would side with 0:13:41.400 --> 0:13:45.800 religious employers in the case and invalidate the contraceptive mandate um, 0:13:45.840 --> 0:13:48.920 and that Justice Alito would be the one to write 0:13:48.960 --> 0:13:53.120 that opinion. Following the story, um, Justice Alito, you know 0:13:53.160 --> 0:13:57.679 categorically denied having leaked any information, So did the donors 0:13:57.679 --> 0:14:00.440 who um, you know, dined with Justice Alito. Both the 0:14:00.440 --> 0:14:03.520 donors and the leado confirmed the relationship. It's worth emphasizing 0:14:03.559 --> 0:14:07.520 that denied the leak, But Shank you know, replied essentially 0:14:07.600 --> 0:14:12.319 that he had contemporaneous evidence like emails and statements from colleagues, 0:14:13.240 --> 0:14:16.800 suggesting both that you know, he knew something confidential and 0:14:16.840 --> 0:14:19.800 that he expected to in the hobby Lobby case. So 0:14:19.960 --> 0:14:22.720 it was you know, kind of yet another blow to 0:14:22.840 --> 0:14:26.920 a court that you know, had record low popularity and 0:14:27.800 --> 0:14:33.520 questions raised about its legitimacy. Do the conservative justices really 0:14:33.880 --> 0:14:37.120 care about the public's opinion of the court? I mean 0:14:37.160 --> 0:14:39.200 it's hard to say, right, I think, not in the 0:14:39.200 --> 0:14:43.520 way that historically we've grown accustomed to. I think, you know, 0:14:43.640 --> 0:14:47.720 Justice Roberts, for example, would not have behaved. I think 0:14:47.760 --> 0:14:50.280 would not have decided several of the case's last turn 0:14:50.320 --> 0:14:52.120 the way the Court did in part because of his 0:14:52.160 --> 0:14:55.520 concern for the public's perception of the court. So it's 0:14:55.560 --> 0:14:58.360 fair to say that the court's new conservative majority doesn't 0:14:58.720 --> 0:15:02.760 care about legitimacy or public perception um in a way 0:15:02.760 --> 0:15:05.840 we've we've grown accustomed to. Even for the conservative justices, 0:15:05.880 --> 0:15:08.040 I think the interesting question is do they have any 0:15:08.080 --> 0:15:11.440 concern at all? Right? Is there a point at which 0:15:11.640 --> 0:15:14.520 someone like Justice Leto does become anxious about how the 0:15:14.560 --> 0:15:18.640 public is perceiving their actions? And I think this this 0:15:18.720 --> 0:15:20.920 story is an interesting litmus test. I mean, it's it's 0:15:20.960 --> 0:15:23.200 interesting at least that Justice Leado, I think, has been 0:15:23.760 --> 0:15:25.680 trying to say, you know, this story isn't true, and 0:15:25.720 --> 0:15:27.160 I would never do that. I mean, I think that 0:15:27.200 --> 0:15:29.080 those are the kinds of things you do when you 0:15:29.120 --> 0:15:32.120 worry about how people would perceive, you know, your actions. 0:15:32.160 --> 0:15:34.080 He he didn't, for example, say, you know, so what 0:15:34.160 --> 0:15:36.120 if I did that, Like, what difference does it make? Right? 0:15:36.120 --> 0:15:39.080 I mean, it was pretty clearly, um, an effort to 0:15:39.080 --> 0:15:42.360 say this kind of behavior wouldn't have been acceptable, and 0:15:42.400 --> 0:15:44.840 I didn't engage in it. Um. You know, whether or 0:15:44.840 --> 0:15:46.920 not one believes that, I think that's that's still been 0:15:46.960 --> 0:15:50.320 Justice leado strategy over the summer. At a speech in 0:15:50.480 --> 0:15:55.480 Rome and at a recent Federalist Society dinner, Leado seemed 0:15:55.480 --> 0:16:00.120 to be taking bows for that decision overturning abortion. I 0:16:00.160 --> 0:16:04.880 think in general, um, Justice Alito and uh and several 0:16:04.920 --> 0:16:07.920 of the conservative justices are are kind of evidence of 0:16:07.960 --> 0:16:11.760 how polarized, you know, not just the country is, but 0:16:11.880 --> 0:16:14.360 the legal community is. Because I think, you know, we 0:16:14.400 --> 0:16:18.000 would have expected the justices to be plugged into the 0:16:18.040 --> 0:16:22.000 fact that the Dob's ruling was unpopular and that it's 0:16:22.000 --> 0:16:24.320 sent shockwaves through much of the legal community. But of 0:16:24.320 --> 0:16:27.480 course Justice Alito has his own legal community. The conservative 0:16:27.560 --> 0:16:30.520 legal movement is um, you know, broad and deep and 0:16:30.600 --> 0:16:33.640 has support across you know, a number of law school campuses, 0:16:33.640 --> 0:16:36.440 and a number of law firms, a number of lots 0:16:36.480 --> 0:16:38.120 of parts of the legal world. And I think in 0:16:38.200 --> 0:16:42.200 those communities, Justice Alito is getting all the approval and 0:16:42.280 --> 0:16:45.640 support he wants. And I think also from the standpoint of, 0:16:46.160 --> 0:16:48.200 you know, the kind of jurist he is, I think 0:16:48.280 --> 0:16:52.440 he sees his commitment to his own interpretation of the law. 0:16:52.520 --> 0:16:55.120 A skeptic might take his own ideological commitments, however you 0:16:55.120 --> 0:16:57.080 want to look at it, his idea of what the 0:16:57.200 --> 0:16:59.680 right answer is, his fidelity to that is so important 0:16:59.680 --> 0:17:01.880 to these ot is worried about these the damage, I 0:17:01.880 --> 0:17:04.560 would say, to the institution of the court. And in 0:17:04.600 --> 0:17:06.520 some ways, I think to your point kind of relishes 0:17:07.000 --> 0:17:11.399 confrontations and criticism, doesn't just you know, display indifference, right, 0:17:11.480 --> 0:17:14.680 that actually sort of enjoys the criticism. Again, it's sort 0:17:14.720 --> 0:17:18.280 of interesting to see if stories like this are still 0:17:18.280 --> 0:17:20.359 a bridge too far for some unlike the leader, right 0:17:20.400 --> 0:17:23.720 that even that there's some kind of trolling and some 0:17:23.840 --> 0:17:27.679 kind of enjoyment of criticism, and then there's this kind 0:17:27.720 --> 0:17:29.880 of allegation that might be a different, a different kind 0:17:29.920 --> 0:17:35.359 of story. Democratic Senator Sheldon white House and Democratic Representative 0:17:35.400 --> 0:17:38.680 Hank Johnson wrote to the Court about the Times story 0:17:39.080 --> 0:17:42.800 and Ethan Tory, legal counsel for the Supreme Court wrote, 0:17:42.880 --> 0:17:45.960 there's nothing to suggest that just as a leader's actions 0:17:46.119 --> 0:17:51.080 violated ethics standards, relevant rules balance preventing gifts that might 0:17:51.240 --> 0:17:55.399 undermine public confidence in the judiciary and allowing judges to 0:17:55.480 --> 0:17:59.880 maintain normal personal friendships. From that letter, it doesn't seem 0:18:00.000 --> 0:18:03.440 as if the Court is doing any investigation beyond asking 0:18:03.520 --> 0:18:07.240 Aldo right. I mean, I think that this is designed 0:18:07.840 --> 0:18:12.399 to help the Court's reputation or to diffuse questions about this. 0:18:12.480 --> 0:18:14.160 I don't think it will help. I mean, I think 0:18:14.200 --> 0:18:17.600 that it would have been possible to do something that 0:18:17.720 --> 0:18:22.040 would achieve that. But I think that the essentially the 0:18:22.880 --> 0:18:25.160 letters suggests, and I don't. I am obviously not privy 0:18:25.200 --> 0:18:28.320 to what investigations went on within the Court, but the 0:18:28.760 --> 0:18:32.080 letters suggests simply that there's no evidence that was available 0:18:32.160 --> 0:18:35.359 to Supreme Courts Council to suggest that such a leak 0:18:36.200 --> 0:18:41.159 took place. The letter mostly restated Alito's denials and then 0:18:41.920 --> 0:18:45.639 suggested that the allegations made in the New York Times 0:18:45.640 --> 0:18:50.200 piece were uncorroborated. Uh and then um further, I think 0:18:50.240 --> 0:18:54.280 interestingly suggested that there wasn't the kind of corruption that 0:18:54.280 --> 0:18:58.720 would be concerning to council because the donors in the 0:18:58.720 --> 0:19:01.520 case had no financial interest in any kind of case 0:19:01.560 --> 0:19:04.000 before the court, which of course wasn't really what Mr 0:19:04.040 --> 0:19:06.600 shank was talking about. Allegedly, he was saying there was 0:19:07.200 --> 0:19:09.840 kind of an ideological interest in the outcome of cases. 0:19:09.880 --> 0:19:13.399 No one was interested in profiting financially, but they wanted 0:19:13.400 --> 0:19:16.800 to dictate the course of policy because of their their 0:19:16.840 --> 0:19:20.120 beliefs and their ideological commitments, not because of any kind 0:19:20.119 --> 0:19:22.600 of financial state. So that that also seemed kind of 0:19:22.640 --> 0:19:28.200 interestingly non responsive. Um again, I don't know if there 0:19:28.240 --> 0:19:32.320 was more of an investigation then we are aware of 0:19:32.560 --> 0:19:35.440 from the outside looking in. But the letter didn't really 0:19:35.440 --> 0:19:41.840 provide a lot of new information or really explain beyond 0:19:42.040 --> 0:19:44.960 what Justice Alito and in the donors, who have been 0:19:45.240 --> 0:19:48.440 quite clear in their denials have have already been seeing. 0:19:49.280 --> 0:19:53.679 And as far as the leak of yet another Aledo opinion, 0:19:53.800 --> 0:19:59.320 the Dobbs opinion, supposedly there's an investigation ongoing, but it's 0:19:59.320 --> 0:20:01.960 been months and months and months and no one has 0:20:02.000 --> 0:20:05.720 heard anything about that investigation either, right, I mean, we 0:20:05.720 --> 0:20:07.600 we just don't know. I mean, one of the things 0:20:07.720 --> 0:20:11.600 I think that that I think, unfortunately is is happening 0:20:11.920 --> 0:20:13.680 from the standpoint of faith and the Court is that 0:20:13.800 --> 0:20:17.359 the Court is an institution that often operates without a 0:20:17.359 --> 0:20:20.159 lot of transparency, and so when these leaks occur and 0:20:20.200 --> 0:20:23.000 then the public has no insight into what led to 0:20:23.040 --> 0:20:26.520 them or what was going to follow them, um, it 0:20:26.560 --> 0:20:29.320 doesn't really do the Court's reputation any favors. And that's 0:20:29.320 --> 0:20:33.800 certainly true of the Dobbs weak as well. UM. I 0:20:33.800 --> 0:20:35.800 think the kind of some total of this is that 0:20:35.880 --> 0:20:37.840 more people in the public are losing faith in the 0:20:37.840 --> 0:20:40.080 Court is an institution, and I don't think that's something 0:20:40.600 --> 0:20:43.040 we should be excited about. Even even people who are 0:20:43.119 --> 0:20:45.240 skeptics of the quart are unhappy with the Court. I 0:20:45.240 --> 0:20:48.200 think it's not good for the country when when voters 0:20:48.200 --> 0:20:51.400 are losing faith and yet another democratic institution. In your 0:20:51.400 --> 0:20:55.840 op ed, you say that the justices feel insulated, and 0:20:56.320 --> 0:21:00.359 you know they are insulated. They have these lifetime appointments 0:21:00.400 --> 0:21:04.280 and let's face it, impeachment. They tried to impeach former 0:21:04.320 --> 0:21:07.280 President Trump twice. It didn't work, and impeachment seems like 0:21:07.359 --> 0:21:10.240 not even a possibility really, So what can be done 0:21:10.960 --> 0:21:13.639 to at least keep them in check a little. Is 0:21:13.640 --> 0:21:15.720 there anything that can be done? Well? I mean, we 0:21:15.800 --> 0:21:19.440 know historically that UM Congress has done things to check 0:21:19.480 --> 0:21:21.520 the power of the courts. Congress is allowed to strip 0:21:21.560 --> 0:21:25.080 the Court of jurisdiction and certain matters in theory. Other 0:21:25.200 --> 0:21:28.200 kind of court reform measures like adding justices or changing 0:21:28.200 --> 0:21:31.119 the number of justices UM could also be on the table. 0:21:31.680 --> 0:21:34.000 I don't have any reason to think there's any political 0:21:34.040 --> 0:21:38.000 will for doing any of that right now. UM. So 0:21:38.040 --> 0:21:39.920 I think we're in this kind of interesting cat and 0:21:40.000 --> 0:21:43.280 mouse moment where members of the Court seem to believe 0:21:43.320 --> 0:21:46.040 that there's no consequences for really anything. I think with 0:21:46.160 --> 0:21:49.640 reason right because there don't really seem to be the consequences, 0:21:50.280 --> 0:21:54.280 and yet the public is becoming more and more disillusioned, 0:21:54.320 --> 0:21:56.920 I think to a point that's potentially dangerous for the court. 0:21:57.000 --> 0:21:59.200 So I think that the question becomes, is there any 0:21:59.200 --> 0:22:02.600 step the Court can take that that goes so far 0:22:02.760 --> 0:22:07.040 that either politicians or voters reconsider UM their ideas that 0:22:07.080 --> 0:22:08.960 you know both that they are very unhappy with the Court, 0:22:09.040 --> 0:22:12.240 that they're not necessarily supportive of any kind of measure 0:22:12.280 --> 0:22:14.159 to change how much power the Court has or how 0:22:14.160 --> 0:22:17.280 it operates. Thanks so much for your insights. Mary. That's 0:22:17.320 --> 0:22:20.400 Mary Ziegler, a professor at u C. Davis Law School. 0:22:23.560 --> 0:22:27.159 The tide has turned for Donald Trump at the Supreme Court. 0:22:27.560 --> 0:22:30.480 As President Trump had a good record at the court. 0:22:30.880 --> 0:22:34.600 The Justice has upheld his travel band, which restricted entry 0:22:34.600 --> 0:22:38.760 into the US from several heavily Muslim countries, while blocking 0:22:38.840 --> 0:22:42.680 him from ending a deferred deportation program. There were mixed 0:22:42.680 --> 0:22:46.520 decisions on subpoenas for his financial records, with one ruling 0:22:46.640 --> 0:22:50.159 blocking the House from getting access. But now as a 0:22:50.200 --> 0:22:54.240 private citizen, Trump has had nothing but defeats at the Court, 0:22:54.600 --> 0:22:57.760 whether it's over the House getting his tax returns, the 0:22:57.920 --> 0:23:01.760 documents search at maral Lago, or records to the January 0:23:01.880 --> 0:23:05.239 six Committee. Trump has lost at the Supreme Court, and 0:23:05.320 --> 0:23:09.200 without much fanfare and only one dissent joining me is 0:23:09.200 --> 0:23:13.000 Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg store So. Greg. The 0:23:13.119 --> 0:23:16.560 latest case that Trump has had at the Supreme Court 0:23:16.640 --> 0:23:21.000 concerned his tax returns, which I thought had already been decided. 0:23:21.200 --> 0:23:24.320 But tell us about that well. Donald Trump was asking 0:23:24.400 --> 0:23:27.200 the Supreme Court to block the Internal Revenue Service from 0:23:27.240 --> 0:23:30.040 turning over his tax returns to a House Committee that 0:23:30.080 --> 0:23:33.639 says it needs them because it's considering legislation regarding to 0:23:33.680 --> 0:23:38.480 the disclosure obligations of presidents, and the Supreme Court, in 0:23:38.560 --> 0:23:41.960 a very performed two sentence orders, said no, we're not 0:23:42.080 --> 0:23:45.520 going to block that from happening at this point. The 0:23:45.680 --> 0:23:49.320