Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Abortion rights one in every state where it was on
Speaker 1: the ballot in the mid term elections, Kansas, Kentucky, and
Speaker 1: Montana voted against anti abortion ballot initiatives, while California, Michigan,
Speaker 1: and Vermont voted for ballot measures to protect abortion. Former
Speaker 1: President Trump blamed losses in many high profile races on
Speaker 1: voters coming out to preserve abortion rights. Who would have
Speaker 1: been nice to do more, But there was a specific
Speaker 1: reason why it was going to be tough. You know
Speaker 1: what that reason was. It was a tough issue and
Speaker 1: energized the other side. And uh, people came out on
Speaker 1: the other side for a specific purpose. But the attack
Speaker 1: on abortion continues, and the fight over abortion pills is
Speaker 1: heating up. Medication abortions accounted for more than half of
Speaker 1: all abortions even before the Dobbs decision took away the
Speaker 1: constitutional right to abortion. Joining me as an expert on
Speaker 1: reproductive rights, Mary Ziegler, a professor at u C. Davis
Speaker 1: School of Law. So, Mary, abortion was on the ballot
Speaker 1: in the mid terms in six states, and it won
Speaker 1: in all those states. Well. This affirmation of abortion rights
Speaker 1: have an effect outside those states, well, I think it
Speaker 1: could help in other states if we have ballot initiatives
Speaker 1: in those states, I don't expect to see Republican lawmakers
Speaker 1: who were otherwise planning on passing new bands or kind
Speaker 1: of exotic enforcement mechanisms reconsidering Because in a state like Kentucky,
Speaker 1: for example, where voters decided not to vote for a
Speaker 1: state constitutional amendments saying there were no abortion rights, voters
Speaker 1: also still returned Republicans to the state legislature. So I
Speaker 1: think people in those states, states like Texas, you know,
Speaker 1: South Dakota, are are not going to see the mid
Speaker 1: term as a reason to kind of pump the brakes
Speaker 1: when it comes to pretty sweeping laws. So I would
Speaker 1: expect to see more valid initiatives in the coming years.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, I think after the new year,
Speaker 1: when states to go back into session, I think we
Speaker 1: should also expect to see even more far reaching bands.
Speaker 1: Medication abortion counted for more than half of all abortions
Speaker 1: even before the Dabbs decision overturned the constitutional right to
Speaker 1: an abortion. Now the fight over abortion pills is ramping up,
Speaker 1: and one anti abortion group is focusing on wastewater in
Speaker 1: a petition to the Food and Drug Administration, tell us
Speaker 1: what that's about. So this organization, Students for Life, is
Speaker 1: trying a new technique because for a really long time,
Speaker 1: the plan, I think to challenge abortion pills had been
Speaker 1: to focus on the alleged safety concerns for pregnant women, right,
Speaker 1: and that hadn't really been working for a long time.
Speaker 1: The pills remained on the market, and as you mentioned,
Speaker 1: people weren't I guess, buying that argument when it came
Speaker 1: to their own safety. So the new strategy focuses on
Speaker 1: almost environmental concerns. Students for Life has a petition now
Speaker 1: asking the Food and Drug Administration to require doctors who
Speaker 1: prescribe the pills to take steps to dispose of fetal tissue. Um.
Speaker 1: They say it should be bagged, it should be treated
Speaker 1: as medical waste, and they argue that if that isn't true,
Speaker 1: it's going to create pollution that will negatively affect the environment,
Speaker 1: negatively affect you know, the water supply, various species that
Speaker 1: will be exposed to these drugs, and you know, I
Speaker 1: think this is a little bit of a hill, Mary,
Speaker 1: but it's likely if the petition doesn't work at the FDA,
Speaker 1: which we expect to be the case, then there may
Speaker 1: be a litigation that ensues. Another conservative group is already
Speaker 1: suing the f d A over its approval of the
Speaker 1: medication abortion drug decades ago. Okay, so this was a
Speaker 1: suit UM filed in Texas by Alliance Defending Freedom and
Speaker 1: a group of other anti worship groups, including the American
Speaker 1: Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and is arguing
Speaker 1: that the FDA didn't have the authority to approve mythopristone
Speaker 1: twenty two years ago when it actually did, you know.
Speaker 1: For a variety of reasons, but often centering on kind
Speaker 1: of the original basis for the FDA's decision to approve
Speaker 1: mythopris stone um twenty two years ago. Democratic senators are
Speaker 1: urging the FDA to finish up its work to permanently
Speaker 1: make two pills more accessible. I mean, what else does
Speaker 1: the FDA have to do? I thought that in two
Speaker 1: thousand that they approved this. Well, the pills have always
Speaker 1: been approved, but they've been um covered by what's called
Speaker 1: the black box morning and an r e MS. So
Speaker 1: these drugs are essentially these are kind of limitations and
Speaker 1: protocols that apply to drugs that are likely to have
Speaker 1: the most serious side effects, would be the most dangerous
Speaker 1: for patients. And so the pills have a it's been available,
Speaker 1: but they've been available on a much more limited basis
Speaker 1: in the way that you know, you would imagine a
Speaker 1: drug that could have a serious possibility for abuse or
Speaker 1: addictive properties or danger. And so I think Democrats believe
Speaker 1: that those special limits are an outgrowth of politics rather
Speaker 1: than science, and they they believed that the FDA should
Speaker 1: eliminate some of those limits, especially while there's a Democrat
Speaker 1: in the White House and the FDA isn't potentially going
Speaker 1: to be transformed by you know, a future administration. Mary
Speaker 1: about eighteen states banned the use of telehealth for medication abortion,
Speaker 1: meaning that in person medical screenings are required to get
Speaker 1: the abortion pills. So how does that affect the ability
Speaker 1: to get abortion pills. Well, there's what's legally possible and
Speaker 1: what's not legally possible. So I think, first of all,
Speaker 1: you know, there's the possibility of travel to get aborsition pills.
Speaker 1: There are mobile abortion clinics. There are states that have
Speaker 1: identified by themselves as sanctuaries for people seeking abortions, and
Speaker 1: so you know, preventing telehealth abortions doesn't mean people can't
Speaker 1: travel to an adjacent state to get aworshion pills, and
Speaker 1: there are organizations like aid Access that send pills from abroad. Um,
Speaker 1: of course this is kind of an underground their networks
Speaker 1: of activists from Mexico who are supplying pills to people
Speaker 1: in nearby states like Texas. None of that, of course,
Speaker 1: is explicitly contemplated by laws that banned telehealth abortion. But
Speaker 1: it's very hard to shut down the supply of aborshion
Speaker 1: pills regardless of what the letter of the law says.
Speaker 1: Do you think that abortion pills will be the target
Speaker 1: when Republican state legislatures start up in January? Or are
Speaker 1: there other abortion practices they might try to target next?
Speaker 1: I think we're going to see a combination of laws
Speaker 1: targeting abortion pills but also to travel. Um. I think
Speaker 1: what states are are likely realizing now is that there
Speaker 1: are a lot of steps. It's it's kind of a
Speaker 1: like a chess match, right where states a lot of
Speaker 1: states are banning abortion, and then people seeking procedures are
Speaker 1: finding ways around those bands. And so I think you're
Speaker 1: going to see the next kind of countermeasure from states
Speaker 1: that's going to both look at ways of shutting down
Speaker 1: access to these pills and stopping travel. So some legislators
Speaker 1: are considering, for example, measures that would criminalize, you know,
Speaker 1: companies and ceo s who reimburse travel out of state
Speaker 1: for abortion, looking at ways to prohibit travel for abortion
Speaker 1: or prohibit people from aiding others who travel for abortion,
Speaker 1: whether that's transporting them came for the travel laws extra territorially,
Speaker 1: applying criminal or civil prohibitions, right, so saying if you
Speaker 1: perform an abortion in California on someone from Texas, you
Speaker 1: could be legally liable. Essentially, ways to close what I
Speaker 1: think states are seeing as loopholes in existing bands. It's
Speaker 1: worth emphasizing that's not likely to be the end of
Speaker 1: this story there. I think that's just likely what we're
Speaker 1: going to see next. Along those lines of traveling to
Speaker 1: get an abortion. There's been this concern about now that
Speaker 1: in some states, prosecutors may request information from Google and
Speaker 1: try to track if women have been to abortion clinic, etcetera.
Speaker 1: And Google said that it would delete entries for locations
Speaker 1: deemed personal, including medical facilities like counseling centers, domestic violence shelters,
Speaker 1: abortion clinics. But a tech advocacy group, Accountable Tech, conducted
Speaker 1: an experiment in August and October to test Google's pledge,
Speaker 1: and it was reported in The Guardian. The group found
Speaker 1: that searches for directions to abortion clinics on Google Maps,
Speaker 1: as well as the routes taken to two planned parenthood locations,
Speaker 1: were stored for weeks after they occurred. So I mean,
Speaker 1: is that something that people can trust or or should
Speaker 1: they just start not using Google you're using old fashioned
Speaker 1: maps or whatever. I think in general, in the world
Speaker 1: of kind of digital privacy, taking additional precautions is always wise.
Speaker 1: Even if tech companies say they're concerned about this and
Speaker 1: they're going to try to take steps to safeguard data,
Speaker 1: I think there's there's a concern either one that those
Speaker 1: safeguards are not going to be as far reaching as
Speaker 1: we believe, or two that they may not even be
Speaker 1: put in place in the first place. So I think
Speaker 1: people should you know, if someone is thinking of getting
Speaker 1: into wortion or really doing anything that they wouldn't want
Speaker 1: to be tracked online before they go online or before
Speaker 1: they go on their phones. They should look up steps
Speaker 1: to protect digital privacy, whether that's using another browser, not
Speaker 1: using a browser at all, not using certain acts. There
Speaker 1: are a number of steps, I mean, more than we
Speaker 1: would want to address in this conversation, but that should
Speaker 1: be the first step anyone takes before taking any of
Speaker 1: these kinds of decisions online. Besides medication and abortions. Is
Speaker 1: there another area that the anti abortion groups you know,
Speaker 1: beyond abortion are targeting now? Well, I think there's been
Speaker 1: some conversation about chemical contraceptives. There hasn't, an, into my
Speaker 1: knowledge yet, been much movement in the States to prohibit
Speaker 1: these procedures, but groups like Students for Life have been
Speaker 1: active on social media, on TikTok and elsewhere, essentially suggesting
Speaker 1: that these drugs are in fact a word of stations.
Speaker 1: At the moment, I don't think states have adopted that definition,
Speaker 1: at least explicitly, although some states have definitions of abortion
Speaker 1: that are open ended enough that they theoretically could encompass
Speaker 1: those drugs. You've also started to see some prominent anti
Speaker 1: abortion or pro life commentators, like Alexander de Stantis at
Speaker 1: the National Review, arguing that you know, birth control as
Speaker 1: birth control is still unsafe for women. So I think
Speaker 1: you're beginning to see conversations that point in the direction
Speaker 1: of potentially an attack on chemical contraceptives. But I haven't
Speaker 1: seen state legis ter is doing that yet. I've just
Speaker 1: begun to see those conversations happening in the movement. Coming
Speaker 1: up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this
Speaker 1: conversation with Professor Mary Ziegler of the u C. Davis
Speaker 1: Law School. The Supreme Court is still investigating the leak
Speaker 1: in May of the controversial decision written by Justice Samuel
Speaker 1: Alito overturning Roe versus Wade, and now The Times is
Speaker 1: reporting another alleged breach at the Court. According to allegations
Speaker 1: in a Time story published on November nine, Justice Alito
Speaker 1: leaked the outcome of a landmark case over religious liberties
Speaker 1: at a dinner party at his home. In that decision,
Speaker 1: written by Aldo Burwell v. Hobby, Lobby allowed closely held
Speaker 1: corporations to claim a religious exemption from the requirement under
Speaker 1: the Affordable Care Act that employers provide birth control coverage
Speaker 1: as part of their employee healthcare plans. Justice Alito has
Speaker 1: denied the allegations, saying that any sugges estion that he
Speaker 1: or his wife disclosed the ruling early to anyone was false.
Speaker 1: Alito was also the author of this year's controversial ruling
Speaker 1: overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, an opinion that
Speaker 1: leaked into the public more than a month before it
Speaker 1: was issued. The Court has yet to release the results
Speaker 1: of an internal investigation into that league. My guest is
Speaker 1: Mary Ziegler, a professor at u C. Davis Law School,
Speaker 1: who has written a op ed about this latest alleged breach. Mary,
Speaker 1: for those who did not read the New York Times story,
Speaker 1: tell us about the allegations there. So. Rob Shank, who
Speaker 1: was a long time UM member of the anti aborsion
Speaker 1: movement UM and the kind of broader religious right, alleged
Speaker 1: that he had been working for years through his nonprofits
Speaker 1: to cultivate a kind of network of insiders at the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, particularly wealthy donors. And you know he was
Speaker 1: doing this, he alleged both to gain access to an
Speaker 1: influence within the Court, but also you know, of course,
Speaker 1: to raise money for his own organization. That there this
Speaker 1: this kind of access and information he alleged kind of
Speaker 1: had a value to donors who might in turn give
Speaker 1: to his nonprofit, and he alleged that he successfully cultivated
Speaker 1: donors who created relationship with with Justices Thomas Alito and Scalia,
Speaker 1: and that in particular, through these relationships, he gained a
Speaker 1: tip through Justice Alito about the Hobby Lobby case, in
Speaker 1: which listeners may remember, dealt with the contraceptive mandate of
Speaker 1: the Affordable Care Act. Justice Alito, according to Shank, told
Speaker 1: one of these donors ahead of time how the case
Speaker 1: would be decided, essentially that the Court would side with
Speaker 1: religious employers in the case and invalidate the contraceptive mandate um,
Speaker 1: and that Justice Alito would be the one to write
Speaker 1: that opinion. Following the story, um, Justice Alito, you know
Speaker 1: categorically denied having leaked any information, So did the donors
Speaker 1: who um, you know, dined with Justice Alito. Both the
Speaker 1: donors and the leado confirmed the relationship. It's worth emphasizing
Speaker 1: that denied the leak, But Shank you know, replied essentially
Speaker 1: that he had contemporaneous evidence like emails and statements from colleagues,
Speaker 1: suggesting both that you know, he knew something confidential and
Speaker 1: that he expected to in the hobby Lobby case. So
Speaker 1: it was you know, kind of yet another blow to
Speaker 1: a court that you know, had record low popularity and
Speaker 1: questions raised about its legitimacy. Do the conservative justices really
Speaker 1: care about the public's opinion of the court? I mean
Speaker 1: it's hard to say, right, I think, not in the
Speaker 1: way that historically we've grown accustomed to. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts, for example, would not have behaved. I think
Speaker 1: would not have decided several of the case's last turn
Speaker 1: the way the Court did in part because of his
Speaker 1: concern for the public's perception of the court. So it's
Speaker 1: fair to say that the court's new conservative majority doesn't
Speaker 1: care about legitimacy or public perception um in a way
Speaker 1: we've we've grown accustomed to. Even for the conservative justices,
Speaker 1: I think the interesting question is do they have any
Speaker 1: concern at all? Right? Is there a point at which
Speaker 1: someone like Justice Leto does become anxious about how the
Speaker 1: public is perceiving their actions? And I think this this
Speaker 1: story is an interesting litmus test. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: interesting at least that Justice Leado, I think, has been
Speaker 1: trying to say, you know, this story isn't true, and
Speaker 1: I would never do that. I mean, I think that
Speaker 1: those are the kinds of things you do when you
Speaker 1: worry about how people would perceive, you know, your actions.
Speaker 1: He he didn't, for example, say, you know, so what
Speaker 1: if I did that, Like, what difference does it make? Right?
Speaker 1: I mean, it was pretty clearly, um, an effort to
Speaker 1: say this kind of behavior wouldn't have been acceptable, and
Speaker 1: I didn't engage in it. Um. You know, whether or
Speaker 1: not one believes that, I think that's that's still been
Speaker 1: Justice leado strategy over the summer. At a speech in
Speaker 1: Rome and at a recent Federalist Society dinner, Leado seemed
Speaker 1: to be taking bows for that decision overturning abortion. I
Speaker 1: think in general, um, Justice Alito and uh and several
Speaker 1: of the conservative justices are are kind of evidence of
Speaker 1: how polarized, you know, not just the country is, but
Speaker 1: the legal community is. Because I think, you know, we
Speaker 1: would have expected the justices to be plugged into the
Speaker 1: fact that the Dob's ruling was unpopular and that it's
Speaker 1: sent shockwaves through much of the legal community. But of
Speaker 1: course Justice Alito has his own legal community. The conservative
Speaker 1: legal movement is um, you know, broad and deep and
Speaker 1: has support across you know, a number of law school campuses,
Speaker 1: and a number of law firms, a number of lots
Speaker 1: of parts of the legal world. And I think in
Speaker 1: those communities, Justice Alito is getting all the approval and
Speaker 1: support he wants. And I think also from the standpoint of,
Speaker 1: you know, the kind of jurist he is, I think
Speaker 1: he sees his commitment to his own interpretation of the law.
Speaker 1: A skeptic might take his own ideological commitments, however you
Speaker 1: want to look at it, his idea of what the
Speaker 1: right answer is, his fidelity to that is so important
Speaker 1: to these ot is worried about these the damage, I
Speaker 1: would say, to the institution of the court. And in
Speaker 1: some ways, I think to your point kind of relishes
Speaker 1: confrontations and criticism, doesn't just you know, display indifference, right,
Speaker 1: that actually sort of enjoys the criticism. Again, it's sort
Speaker 1: of interesting to see if stories like this are still
Speaker 1: a bridge too far for some unlike the leader, right
Speaker 1: that even that there's some kind of trolling and some
Speaker 1: kind of enjoyment of criticism, and then there's this kind
Speaker 1: of allegation that might be a different, a different kind
Speaker 1: of story. Democratic Senator Sheldon white House and Democratic Representative
Speaker 1: Hank Johnson wrote to the Court about the Times story
Speaker 1: and Ethan Tory, legal counsel for the Supreme Court wrote,
Speaker 1: there's nothing to suggest that just as a leader's actions
Speaker 1: violated ethics standards, relevant rules balance preventing gifts that might
Speaker 1: undermine public confidence in the judiciary and allowing judges to
Speaker 1: maintain normal personal friendships. From that letter, it doesn't seem
Speaker 1: as if the Court is doing any investigation beyond asking
Speaker 1: Aldo right. I mean, I think that this is designed
Speaker 1: to help the Court's reputation or to diffuse questions about this.
Speaker 1: I don't think it will help. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: that it would have been possible to do something that
Speaker 1: would achieve that. But I think that the essentially the
Speaker 1: letters suggests, and I don't. I am obviously not privy
Speaker 1: to what investigations went on within the Court, but the
Speaker 1: letters suggests simply that there's no evidence that was available
Speaker 1: to Supreme Courts Council to suggest that such a leak
Speaker 1: took place. The letter mostly restated Alito's denials and then
Speaker 1: suggested that the allegations made in the New York Times
Speaker 1: piece were uncorroborated. Uh and then um further, I think
Speaker 1: interestingly suggested that there wasn't the kind of corruption that
Speaker 1: would be concerning to council because the donors in the
Speaker 1: case had no financial interest in any kind of case
Speaker 1: before the court, which of course wasn't really what Mr
Speaker 1: shank was talking about. Allegedly, he was saying there was
Speaker 1: kind of an ideological interest in the outcome of cases.
Speaker 1: No one was interested in profiting financially, but they wanted
Speaker 1: to dictate the course of policy because of their their
Speaker 1: beliefs and their ideological commitments, not because of any kind
Speaker 1: of financial state. So that that also seemed kind of
Speaker 1: interestingly non responsive. Um again, I don't know if there
Speaker 1: was more of an investigation then we are aware of
Speaker 1: from the outside looking in. But the letter didn't really
Speaker 1: provide a lot of new information or really explain beyond
Speaker 1: what Justice Alito and in the donors, who have been
Speaker 1: quite clear in their denials have have already been seeing.
Speaker 1: And as far as the leak of yet another Aledo opinion,
Speaker 1: the Dobbs opinion, supposedly there's an investigation ongoing, but it's
Speaker 1: been months and months and months and no one has
Speaker 1: heard anything about that investigation either, right, I mean, we
Speaker 1: we just don't know. I mean, one of the things
Speaker 1: I think that that I think, unfortunately is is happening
Speaker 1: from the standpoint of faith and the Court is that
Speaker 1: the Court is an institution that often operates without a
Speaker 1: lot of transparency, and so when these leaks occur and
Speaker 1: then the public has no insight into what led to
Speaker 1: them or what was going to follow them, um, it
Speaker 1: doesn't really do the Court's reputation any favors. And that's
Speaker 1: certainly true of the Dobbs weak as well. UM. I
Speaker 1: think the kind of some total of this is that
Speaker 1: more people in the public are losing faith in the
Speaker 1: Court is an institution, and I don't think that's something
Speaker 1: we should be excited about. Even even people who are
Speaker 1: skeptics of the quart are unhappy with the Court. I
Speaker 1: think it's not good for the country when when voters
Speaker 1: are losing faith and yet another democratic institution. In your
Speaker 1: op ed, you say that the justices feel insulated, and
Speaker 1: you know they are insulated. They have these lifetime appointments
Speaker 1: and let's face it, impeachment. They tried to impeach former
Speaker 1: President Trump twice. It didn't work, and impeachment seems like
Speaker 1: not even a possibility really, So what can be done
Speaker 1: to at least keep them in check a little. Is
Speaker 1: there anything that can be done? Well? I mean, we
Speaker 1: know historically that UM Congress has done things to check
Speaker 1: the power of the courts. Congress is allowed to strip
Speaker 1: the Court of jurisdiction and certain matters in theory. Other
Speaker 1: kind of court reform measures like adding justices or changing
Speaker 1: the number of justices UM could also be on the table.
Speaker 1: I don't have any reason to think there's any political
Speaker 1: will for doing any of that right now. UM. So
Speaker 1: I think we're in this kind of interesting cat and
Speaker 1: mouse moment where members of the Court seem to believe
Speaker 1: that there's no consequences for really anything. I think with
Speaker 1: reason right because there don't really seem to be the consequences,
Speaker 1: and yet the public is becoming more and more disillusioned,
Speaker 1: I think to a point that's potentially dangerous for the court.
Speaker 1: So I think that the question becomes, is there any
Speaker 1: step the Court can take that that goes so far
Speaker 1: that either politicians or voters reconsider UM their ideas that
Speaker 1: you know both that they are very unhappy with the Court,
Speaker 1: that they're not necessarily supportive of any kind of measure
Speaker 1: to change how much power the Court has or how
Speaker 1: it operates. Thanks so much for your insights. Mary. That's
Speaker 1: Mary Ziegler, a professor at u C. Davis Law School.
Speaker 1: The tide has turned for Donald Trump at the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: As President Trump had a good record at the court.
Speaker 1: The Justice has upheld his travel band, which restricted entry
Speaker 1: into the US from several heavily Muslim countries, while blocking
Speaker 1: him from ending a deferred deportation program. There were mixed
Speaker 1: decisions on subpoenas for his financial records, with one ruling
Speaker 1: blocking the House from getting access. But now as a
Speaker 1: private citizen, Trump has had nothing but defeats at the Court,
Speaker 1: whether it's over the House getting his tax returns, the
Speaker 1: documents search at maral Lago, or records to the January
Speaker 1: six Committee. Trump has lost at the Supreme Court, and
Speaker 1: without much fanfare and only one dissent joining me is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg store So. Greg. The
Speaker 1: latest case that Trump has had at the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: concerned his tax returns, which I thought had already been decided.
Speaker 1: But tell us about that well. Donald Trump was asking
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court to block the Internal Revenue Service from
Speaker 1: turning over his tax returns to a House Committee that
Speaker 1: says it needs them because it's considering legislation regarding to
Speaker 1: the disclosure obligations of presidents, and the Supreme Court, in
Speaker 1: a very performed two sentence orders, said no, we're not
Speaker 1: going to block that from happening at this point. The
Speaker 1: I R. S can turn over those documents at any point. Uh,
Speaker 1: and it's possible we'll we'll see them publicly before the
Speaker 1: end of the year. I'm a little confused. I thought
Speaker 1: this had been litigated already. His tax returns. There has
Speaker 1: been litigation, including about whether his accounting firm had to
Speaker 1: turn them over to a different House committee and to
Speaker 1: federal prosecutors in New York, and those returns and other
Speaker 1: financial information had been turned over to the prosecutors, but
Speaker 1: that they have not yet made it to any House
Speaker 1: committee and had not yet become public. Now that was
Speaker 1: last week. A month ago, the Justices considered a dispute
Speaker 1: over that seizure of classified and other presidential records at
Speaker 1: Moral Lago. What happened there, Yeah, that that was an
Speaker 1: issue where um it was in some ways kind of
Speaker 1: a side show in that Donald Trump was trying to
Speaker 1: say that the Special Master who's reviewing the materials in
Speaker 1: the case should also be reviewing those those materials that
Speaker 1: were marked as being a top secret. And uh. He
Speaker 1: asked the Supreme Court to intervene to say that those
Speaker 1: document should go before the Special Master as well, and
Speaker 1: again the Supreme Court said, no, without any public dissent,
Speaker 1: we're not going to do that. And in February, again
Speaker 1: it's his financial records. Who got them? In February. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is a case that we that I alluded to earlier.
Speaker 1: This is the DA in Manhattan has been trying for
Speaker 1: quite some time to get Donald Trump's financial records and
Speaker 1: that of his business as part of a criminal investigation.
Speaker 1: That was the case that the Supreme Court actually considered
Speaker 1: a while back. And in this case that the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court rejected, Donald Trump let the prosecutor get those financial
Speaker 1: records and so those are now part of that criminal investigation.
Speaker 1: And the January six committee also what papers were they
Speaker 1: looking for? I mean, it's just so hard to keep
Speaker 1: track of all these disputes about records and papers. It
Speaker 1: seems like we've been litigating the financial record almost since
Speaker 1: the beginning of his presidency. Yeah, we certainly have the
Speaker 1: the case ofoving the January six attack. Are not his
Speaker 1: financial records, there are. These are other records. These are
Speaker 1: records from the White House that Donald Trump was trying
Speaker 1: to block the January six Committee from getting access to.
Speaker 1: They included things material from his chief of staff, Mark Meadows. Um,
Speaker 1: this is a case that we're Justice Clarence Thomas got
Speaker 1: a lot of criticism because he didn't refuse himself from
Speaker 1: this case even though his wife, who was involved in
Speaker 1: the efforts to return the election, had been in contact
Speaker 1: with Chief staff Mark Meadows. And Uh. Not only did
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas not refuse himself from the case, he was
Speaker 1: the one Justice who publicly said I would have stopped
Speaker 1: the records from being turned over to the January six committee. So, Greg,
Speaker 1: through these last four cases, is there a similar thread
Speaker 1: or argument that runs through these cases. Well, you could
Speaker 1: say this. Look, these are when Donald Trump was president
Speaker 1: and he was arguing for things like a deference to
Speaker 1: my immigration policies and you know, protection of my time
Speaker 1: while I'm in office so that I'm not besieged with
Speaker 1: all these investigatory requests. The court was somewhat deferential to them,
Speaker 1: and he did fairly well. Uh, now that he's a
Speaker 1: private citizen. Uh. You know, his claims for deference are
Speaker 1: experts on both sides of the issues say a lot weaker,
Speaker 1: and so the Court is doing a lot less willingness
Speaker 1: to intervene on his behalf. And in some cases they
Speaker 1: apparently think his arguments are are rather weak ones. And
Speaker 1: that's why we're not seeing any public disagreement when the
Speaker 1: court rejects them. Are these four most recent cases and
Speaker 1: Trump losses all shadow docket cases, meaning cases that are
Speaker 1: not on the regular docket, that do not have full
Speaker 1: briefing or oral arguments. Everything we've been talking about here
Speaker 1: are indeed shadow doctor cases. Yes. Trump's reaction was to
Speaker 1: criticize the Court in a truth social post, saying, quote,
Speaker 1: it has lost its honor, prestige, and standing and has
Speaker 1: become nothing more than a political body. Odd since he
Speaker 1: appointed three out of the nine justices. Yeah, that's a criticism.
Speaker 1: A lot of people on the other side of the
Speaker 1: political divide are lodging at the Supreme Court that it's
Speaker 1: become too political. Uh yeah. And of course, for Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: so much always comes back to election and the court
Speaker 1: on several occasions they refused to intervene in his behalf,
Speaker 1: refused to overturn the election defeat, refused to even entertain
Speaker 1: arguments that the results were fraudulent. And you know that's
Speaker 1: what Donald Trump pointed to in the statement when even
Speaker 1: why would he even may be surprised and suppers ruled
Speaker 1: against you. They always do. So are there any other
Speaker 1: Trump cases pending at the court. There's not any Trump cases.
Speaker 1: There's there's a pretty good biding cage that I'm happy
Speaker 1: to tell you about. Side just trying to revive his
Speaker 1: student loan debt release program that is currently on hold,
Speaker 1: and the sub administrations ask from the Supreme Court to
Speaker 1: lift that hold. And we could get action from them
Speaker 1: at any point. And we also could could get them
Speaker 1: saying we're going to hear arguments in the case. Really
Speaker 1: they might take it up as a regular case, put
Speaker 1: it on the regular docket. Yeah, that's so what the
Speaker 1: Biden administration is saying is, Hey, if you're not willing
Speaker 1: to just let the program go into effect, at least
Speaker 1: consider what we just filed here as a as a
Speaker 1: so called certain petition. UH, agree to hear the case,
Speaker 1: schedule arguments, Maybe do it in February. Put it on
Speaker 1: a fast track. So we can get a final determination
Speaker 1: one way or another. So the justices are considering overturning
Speaker 1: the conviction for so called honest services fraud of a
Speaker 1: one time top aide to former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
Speaker 1: Tell us about the arguments. Yeah, this is a guy
Speaker 1: named Joseph Cococo. He was a top aide to Andrew Cuomo,
Speaker 1: and he was accused of accepting bribes on behalf of
Speaker 1: a couple of companies with contracts. And there question in
Speaker 1: the case is there's this crucial eight month period in
Speaker 1: which he wasn't a government employee. He had gone to
Speaker 1: work for the Cormal campaign. And the question is whether
Speaker 1: this federal law that bars the deprivation of honest services
Speaker 1: from the public, whether that can apply to somebody who,
Speaker 1: during a crucial period was not actually a government employee.
Speaker 1: And based on the arguments of the supremem word seems
Speaker 1: to think the answer to that is, yeah, probably not.
Speaker 1: That we are worried that if we allow this law
Speaker 1: to be used against somebody over conduct that happened when
Speaker 1: they weren't a government employee, that that might mean that
Speaker 1: we are criminalizing lobby criminalizing somebody who is on the
Speaker 1: outside of the government who is just trying to pull
Speaker 1: the strings that they have that the advanced policies and
Speaker 1: are getting paid for doing that work. And they've been
Speaker 1: cutting back on these public corruption prosecution ends for quite
Speaker 1: a while. Yeah, there's been a couple of recent cases.
Speaker 1: One the most recent one involved to allies as former
Speaker 1: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie involving the remember the George
Speaker 1: Washington Bridge Lane closing scandal. The court tossed out a
Speaker 1: couple of convictions there. Then back in sixteen they set
Speaker 1: aside the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonald. In
Speaker 1: that case, the court said the things he did didn't
Speaker 1: rise to the level of official actions. The court in
Speaker 1: the McDonald case said that the governor could only be
Speaker 1: prosecuted for honor services bought if you did something that
Speaker 1: rose to the level of an official action. That it
Speaker 1: wasn't enough if you just arranged a meeting for somebody,
Speaker 1: that that couldn't be the kind of action that would
Speaker 1: let you be criminally prosecuted. What's the status of the
Speaker 1: investigation into the leak of the Dobbs opinion. The status
Speaker 1: is we have received no word since that the day
Speaker 1: following the leak, when the Chief Justice said I'm going
Speaker 1: to direct the Marshal of the Court to start an investigation.
Speaker 1: He's not given the public any update. Has I even
Speaker 1: said whether the results will become public. No indication that
Speaker 1: the court has figured out what happened there For all
Speaker 1: we know that maybe the status for the foreseeable future.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Greg, I know it's a busy week
Speaker 1: at the Court. That's Bloomberg News Supreme Court Reporter Greg's store.
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
Speaker 1: and remember to tune in to The Bloomberg Law Show
Speaker 1: every week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm
Speaker 1: June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg