1
00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,200 --> 00:00:12,480
Speaker 1: We've got the fattest piers and the fattest harbor in

3
00:00:12,520 --> 00:00:17,000
Speaker 1: the world. Everything moves in and out. We take our cut, duke,

4
00:00:17,040 --> 00:00:18,840
Speaker 1: And how about you? Are you one thing you got

5
00:00:18,840 --> 00:00:21,160
Speaker 1: to understand? Father? On the dock, we've always been D

6
00:00:21,280 --> 00:00:23,959
Speaker 1: and D, D and D. What's that? Deaf and dumb?

7
00:00:24,239 --> 00:00:26,800
Speaker 1: No matter how much we hate the torpedoes, we don't rat.

8
00:00:27,640 --> 00:00:30,000
Speaker 1: So what happens he gets the title shot out doors

9
00:00:30,000 --> 00:00:32,200
Speaker 1: in a ballpocket? Why don't I get one way ticket

10
00:00:32,280 --> 00:00:35,519
Speaker 1: the Pelucaville. It was my brother, Charlie. You should have

11
00:00:35,600 --> 00:00:38,560
Speaker 1: looked out for me a little bit. Violence and corruption

12
00:00:38,600 --> 00:00:41,800
Speaker 1: among union long shoreman with a stranglehold on the New

13
00:00:41,880 --> 00:00:45,519
Speaker 1: Jersey docks was the focus of the iconic nineteen fifty

14
00:00:45,520 --> 00:00:49,120
Speaker 1: four film On the Waterfront. New York and New Jersey

15
00:00:49,320 --> 00:00:52,720
Speaker 1: established the Waterfront Commission just a year before the film

16
00:00:52,920 --> 00:00:56,680
Speaker 1: to fight that union corruption and organized crime on the docks.

17
00:00:57,360 --> 00:01:01,160
Speaker 1: But now seventy years later, New Jersey wants to walk

18
00:01:01,200 --> 00:01:04,720
Speaker 1: away from the compact, and the Supreme Court justices seemed

19
00:01:04,720 --> 00:01:07,520
Speaker 1: to agree with New Jersey that even though the state's

20
00:01:07,560 --> 00:01:11,080
Speaker 1: compact is silent about ending the deal. They didn't intend

21
00:01:11,120 --> 00:01:14,759
Speaker 1: it to last forever. Heire Justice, says Katangi Brown Jackson

22
00:01:14,840 --> 00:01:19,520
Speaker 1: and Sonya Sotomayor, questioning New York's attorney if the reason

23
00:01:19,560 --> 00:01:22,399
Speaker 1: they were silent was not because they thought this was

24
00:01:23,360 --> 00:01:25,880
Speaker 1: an agreement for all times, but because they were worried

25
00:01:25,880 --> 00:01:29,440
Speaker 1: about signaling to the mob bosses that they would be leaving.

26
00:01:29,920 --> 00:01:31,920
Speaker 1: I don't know that we can draw the inference that

27
00:01:32,000 --> 00:01:35,720
Speaker 1: you want us to draw. Once you said they didn't

28
00:01:35,760 --> 00:01:38,200
Speaker 1: intend for it to be perpetual, I think that's the

29
00:01:38,319 --> 00:01:41,360
Speaker 1: end of the game. Joining me is Bloombergloss. Supreme Court

30
00:01:41,400 --> 00:01:45,680
Speaker 1: reporter Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson. Kimberly explained why New Jersey is

31
00:01:45,720 --> 00:01:48,880
Speaker 1: trying to give New York it's walking papers well. New

32
00:01:48,960 --> 00:01:51,800
Speaker 1: Jersey says that the whole point of the commission was

33
00:01:51,880 --> 00:01:55,960
Speaker 1: to tackle corruption at the ports between New Jersey and

34
00:01:56,080 --> 00:01:59,200
Speaker 1: New York. They say that it really hasn't worked as

35
00:01:59,200 --> 00:02:01,480
Speaker 1: effectively as they want, and there's been some of that

36
00:02:01,560 --> 00:02:05,840
Speaker 1: corruption that's sort of come into the commission, this bilateral commission.

37
00:02:06,080 --> 00:02:09,480
Speaker 1: But they also say that the Commission is over regulating

38
00:02:09,760 --> 00:02:13,440
Speaker 1: businesses within that port and it's really hurting New Jersey's economy,

39
00:02:13,480 --> 00:02:15,840
Speaker 1: and so they want to get out of the Commission

40
00:02:16,040 --> 00:02:18,520
Speaker 1: and take over the duties that they share now with

41
00:02:18,639 --> 00:02:21,560
Speaker 1: New York on their own. And why doesn't New York

42
00:02:21,639 --> 00:02:24,320
Speaker 1: want to let New Jersey out? Well, you know, New

43
00:02:24,360 --> 00:02:27,120
Speaker 1: York says, there's still a lot of work to do.

44
00:02:27,560 --> 00:02:30,280
Speaker 1: And one thing that they don't say really out loud

45
00:02:30,440 --> 00:02:33,480
Speaker 1: is that, you know, a lot of the business that

46
00:02:33,560 --> 00:02:36,520
Speaker 1: the Commission handles actually goes through New Jersey. Most of

47
00:02:36,560 --> 00:02:39,520
Speaker 1: it goes through New Jersey, and so there's kind of

48
00:02:39,520 --> 00:02:43,359
Speaker 1: this mismatch between who's regulating the parties and where the

49
00:02:43,440 --> 00:02:46,560
Speaker 1: regulation is happening. And so the New York upfront says,

50
00:02:46,639 --> 00:02:48,200
Speaker 1: we still have a lot of work to do, there's

51
00:02:48,240 --> 00:02:50,200
Speaker 1: good work to be done, and we want to stay in.

52
00:02:50,360 --> 00:02:52,560
Speaker 1: But sort of playing in the background here is this

53
00:02:52,639 --> 00:02:56,239
Speaker 1: mismatch between how businesses shared among the port It's sort

54
00:02:56,240 --> 00:02:59,320
Speaker 1: of wild to me that the compact doesn't address whether

55
00:02:59,400 --> 00:03:01,880
Speaker 1: a state and walk away from the deal and how

56
00:03:02,280 --> 00:03:04,960
Speaker 1: well that's right. And that's the whole problem that the

57
00:03:05,040 --> 00:03:08,600
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is addressing, is that both parties agree there's

58
00:03:08,760 --> 00:03:13,680
Speaker 1: nothing expressed in the compact that talks about termination. And

59
00:03:13,720 --> 00:03:16,000
Speaker 1: so the whole issue for the Supreme Court is to

60
00:03:16,040 --> 00:03:18,600
Speaker 1: try to figure out what it was that the parties

61
00:03:18,680 --> 00:03:22,960
Speaker 1: intended when they drafted the initial compact. And it was

62
00:03:23,040 --> 00:03:27,359
Speaker 1: really interesting during oral arguments that New York's attorney suggested

63
00:03:27,600 --> 00:03:32,240
Speaker 1: that neither party intended this compact to last forever, that

64
00:03:32,360 --> 00:03:34,400
Speaker 1: they sort of hoped that they would be able to

65
00:03:34,400 --> 00:03:37,000
Speaker 1: tackle this problem and that there would no longer be

66
00:03:37,080 --> 00:03:40,200
Speaker 1: a need for it. And that really was a significant

67
00:03:40,240 --> 00:03:44,880
Speaker 1: problem for justices across the ideological spectrum. And so we

68
00:03:44,920 --> 00:03:47,440
Speaker 1: saw Justice to to Mayor say that New York had

69
00:03:47,480 --> 00:03:50,800
Speaker 1: really given up the game by making that concession, because

70
00:03:51,040 --> 00:03:53,600
Speaker 1: that's effectively what New York is doing. It has a

71
00:03:53,720 --> 00:03:56,480
Speaker 1: video power that can forever buy in New Jersey, and

72
00:03:56,520 --> 00:03:58,960
Speaker 1: so it really seemed like that's where the Court is

73
00:03:58,960 --> 00:04:01,400
Speaker 1: potentially going to land in this case. Yeah, at least

74
00:04:01,400 --> 00:04:04,600
Speaker 1: two of the justices, Samuel Alito, who all notice from

75
00:04:04,680 --> 00:04:08,440
Speaker 1: New Jersey and Elena Kagan, who's from New York. We're

76
00:04:08,440 --> 00:04:12,880
Speaker 1: concerned about a state permanently giving up sovereignty to police

77
00:04:12,920 --> 00:04:17,520
Speaker 1: its borders, right, And so we saw Justice Alito during arguments,

78
00:04:17,560 --> 00:04:21,479
Speaker 1: as you suggested, he said, it's really an extraordinary thing

79
00:04:21,720 --> 00:04:24,520
Speaker 1: for a state to give up some of its policing

80
00:04:24,560 --> 00:04:28,240
Speaker 1: powers here, policing powers at support. And so when we're

81
00:04:28,240 --> 00:04:31,440
Speaker 1: coming up with this default rule of what's gonna govern

82
00:04:31,720 --> 00:04:35,520
Speaker 1: compacts that are silent on termination, doesn't it make more sense?

83
00:04:35,600 --> 00:04:38,320
Speaker 1: Isn't it more reasonable to assume that a state wouldn't

84
00:04:38,320 --> 00:04:42,800
Speaker 1: give away the sovereignty without saying something expressed? And I

85
00:04:42,839 --> 00:04:45,640
Speaker 1: think it was important to him to note that this

86
00:04:45,720 --> 00:04:49,320
Speaker 1: is just a default rule. Whenever the compact is silent,

87
00:04:49,600 --> 00:04:53,240
Speaker 1: parties can always change that rule if for some reason,

88
00:04:53,279 --> 00:04:56,520
Speaker 1: one state has to put more upfront costs and there's

89
00:04:56,560 --> 00:04:58,880
Speaker 1: this sort of incentive for the other state to wait

90
00:04:58,880 --> 00:05:01,719
Speaker 1: and then terminate before it has to do anything. Look,

91
00:05:01,760 --> 00:05:04,040
Speaker 1: the parties can anticipate that, and they can put into

92
00:05:04,040 --> 00:05:06,800
Speaker 1: the compact. But we're coming up with a default rule.

93
00:05:07,160 --> 00:05:08,839
Speaker 1: We need to go with the one that makes the

94
00:05:08,880 --> 00:05:13,039
Speaker 1: most sense. Chief Justice John Roberts dead question whether the

95
00:05:13,080 --> 00:05:16,400
Speaker 1: states can walk away from this pact so easily. This

96
00:05:16,440 --> 00:05:19,320
Speaker 1: has been going on for seventy years. Their buildings here,

97
00:05:19,440 --> 00:05:25,719
Speaker 1: buildings there, you know, bank accounts, ongoing investigations. It seems

98
00:05:25,760 --> 00:05:27,159
Speaker 1: to me it's going to take a long time and

99
00:05:27,240 --> 00:05:30,040
Speaker 1: hard work to kind of unravel all this that's right.

100
00:05:30,080 --> 00:05:33,720
Speaker 1: I mean that was the concern that Roberts did mention that,

101
00:05:33,960 --> 00:05:36,240
Speaker 1: you know, if New Jersey walks away, well there's still

102
00:05:36,279 --> 00:05:38,640
Speaker 1: all this other stuff that the two parties are going

103
00:05:38,680 --> 00:05:41,080
Speaker 1: to still jointly have to work on. I think one

104
00:05:41,080 --> 00:05:43,120
Speaker 1: thing that sort of cuts against that that came out

105
00:05:43,160 --> 00:05:47,080
Speaker 1: an oral argument is this is a relatively small compact.

106
00:05:47,279 --> 00:05:49,120
Speaker 1: And when you look at some of the other compacts,

107
00:05:49,160 --> 00:05:52,560
Speaker 1: including the port authority between New York and New Jersey,

108
00:05:52,640 --> 00:05:55,360
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just massive, and you can think if

109
00:05:55,440 --> 00:05:58,000
Speaker 1: one side were to walk away, there would be sort

110
00:05:58,000 --> 00:06:01,000
Speaker 1: of insurmountable problems for the other state to try to

111
00:06:01,000 --> 00:06:03,000
Speaker 1: figure out how to sort all that out. This one

112
00:06:03,080 --> 00:06:06,040
Speaker 1: isn't as big. The stakes are much much lower there,

113
00:06:06,279 --> 00:06:08,680
Speaker 1: and so I really wonder if that's going to have

114
00:06:08,920 --> 00:06:11,520
Speaker 1: an effect in the case or if Chief Justice Roberts

115
00:06:11,640 --> 00:06:12,919
Speaker 1: was sort of doing what he likes to do a

116
00:06:12,920 --> 00:06:15,560
Speaker 1: lot during oral argument, where to sort of play devil's advocate.

117
00:06:16,160 --> 00:06:20,680
Speaker 1: The reason for this pact was to rid the docs

118
00:06:20,760 --> 00:06:24,279
Speaker 1: it's of organized crime. Was there any discussion about whether

119
00:06:24,560 --> 00:06:27,720
Speaker 1: that's been done or how that plays in, Well, there

120
00:06:27,800 --> 00:06:29,680
Speaker 1: was not, And I thought that was a real missed

121
00:06:29,680 --> 00:06:32,360
Speaker 1: opportunity during oral arguments where they could have made it

122
00:06:32,400 --> 00:06:35,840
Speaker 1: a little livelier by talking about the soprano, But they

123
00:06:35,880 --> 00:06:38,480
Speaker 1: did not do that. And I think that's really because,

124
00:06:38,640 --> 00:06:41,600
Speaker 1: you know, the specific issue for the justices is not

125
00:06:41,640 --> 00:06:44,360
Speaker 1: whether the Commission is a good idea, whether or not

126
00:06:44,440 --> 00:06:46,800
Speaker 1: it's doing its job. It's just whether or not the

127
00:06:47,040 --> 00:06:50,880
Speaker 1: parties intended for this to be something that both parties

128
00:06:50,880 --> 00:06:53,160
Speaker 1: have to agree to terminate or if it's just on

129
00:06:53,160 --> 00:06:55,039
Speaker 1: the one side. So you know, in a sense, it

130
00:06:55,080 --> 00:06:58,560
Speaker 1: was sort of divorced from what the Commission was intended

131
00:06:58,600 --> 00:07:03,320
Speaker 1: to handle. Just years ago, FBI officials wrote about the

132
00:07:03,440 --> 00:07:07,720
Speaker 1: ongoing influence of organized crime and corruption at the Port

133
00:07:07,760 --> 00:07:10,600
Speaker 1: of New York, New Jersey. Did any of the briefs

134
00:07:10,600 --> 00:07:13,560
Speaker 1: discuss that, well, I mean, I think both parties agree

135
00:07:13,600 --> 00:07:17,760
Speaker 1: that there is corruption that's happening, and you know, New

136
00:07:17,840 --> 00:07:20,600
Speaker 1: York mentioned this. The whole point of the commission was

137
00:07:20,640 --> 00:07:23,240
Speaker 1: not that there's never going to be any corruption that's happening,

138
00:07:23,440 --> 00:07:26,840
Speaker 1: but that he sort of lower the risk of having

139
00:07:27,080 --> 00:07:31,040
Speaker 1: agency capture if that agency has spread across two states.

140
00:07:31,080 --> 00:07:34,240
Speaker 1: So there's really two sort of executive administrations that you're

141
00:07:34,280 --> 00:07:36,520
Speaker 1: going to have to corrupt, and so you know, that's

142
00:07:36,560 --> 00:07:40,440
Speaker 1: not the goal, I think to eliminate all of that corruption.

143
00:07:40,480 --> 00:07:43,200
Speaker 1: I don't think that's really something that the Commission is

144
00:07:43,200 --> 00:07:46,400
Speaker 1: shooting for. But here New Jersey is saying, well, you know,

145
00:07:46,440 --> 00:07:49,520
Speaker 1: it was intended to limit government capture, but we see

146
00:07:49,560 --> 00:07:52,840
Speaker 1: it happening now with the Commission anyway, And so there's

147
00:07:52,840 --> 00:07:55,640
Speaker 1: a real dispute about how effective it's been, how effective

148
00:07:55,640 --> 00:07:57,360
Speaker 1: it could be in the future. But you know, the

149
00:07:57,440 --> 00:07:59,440
Speaker 1: question again for the Supreme Court is just one of

150
00:07:59,560 --> 00:08:03,280
Speaker 1: sort of statutory interpretation, what did the parties mean? According

151
00:08:03,320 --> 00:08:05,200
Speaker 1: to a Friend of the Court brief, there are about

152
00:08:05,200 --> 00:08:09,120
Speaker 1: two hundred and sixty compacts, with every state a party

153
00:08:09,120 --> 00:08:13,560
Speaker 1: to at least twenty five. Does this have any repercussions

154
00:08:13,600 --> 00:08:16,440
Speaker 1: for those compacts. I think it really depends on how

155
00:08:16,520 --> 00:08:20,440
Speaker 1: broadly the Court rules. And you saw Justice Jackson really

156
00:08:20,480 --> 00:08:22,680
Speaker 1: concerns that, you know, they want to come up with

157
00:08:22,720 --> 00:08:24,720
Speaker 1: the right default rule, but they don't want to say

158
00:08:24,720 --> 00:08:27,200
Speaker 1: too much. And I think the Court was really worried

159
00:08:27,240 --> 00:08:30,920
Speaker 1: about compacts that deal with boundary lines that sort of

160
00:08:31,120 --> 00:08:34,840
Speaker 1: set up these permanent boundaries to resolve disputes between the

161
00:08:34,920 --> 00:08:38,760
Speaker 1: states over what territory is there. Those kind of compacts

162
00:08:38,840 --> 00:08:41,439
Speaker 1: are the kinds of compacts that you do not want

163
00:08:41,559 --> 00:08:43,840
Speaker 1: to ever expire, and you don't want a party to

164
00:08:43,840 --> 00:08:46,079
Speaker 1: be able to walk away with it, because then you

165
00:08:46,240 --> 00:08:48,960
Speaker 1: just be reopening the dispute. And so it seems like

166
00:08:49,000 --> 00:08:51,240
Speaker 1: the Justices are going to try to craft their way

167
00:08:51,360 --> 00:08:55,280
Speaker 1: around that. In conclusion, it appears that the Justices are

168
00:08:55,320 --> 00:08:58,079
Speaker 1: going to rule for New Jersey, but it's just a

169
00:08:58,160 --> 00:09:00,800
Speaker 1: question of how they rule. I think that's right. I

170
00:09:00,800 --> 00:09:03,000
Speaker 1: think they're going to try to come up with a

171
00:09:03,080 --> 00:09:07,319
Speaker 1: default rule that makes sense for these kinds of compacts

172
00:09:07,320 --> 00:09:10,480
Speaker 1: where there's sort of a regulatory function to them, and

173
00:09:10,559 --> 00:09:15,360
Speaker 1: really regulating the supports and try not to encroach on

174
00:09:15,960 --> 00:09:19,280
Speaker 1: other compacts that really deal with landboorders that you could

175
00:09:19,320 --> 00:09:22,840
Speaker 1: see bubbling up into really big issues if those are

176
00:09:22,840 --> 00:09:26,360
Speaker 1: ones where the parties can walk away from unilaterally. This

177
00:09:26,440 --> 00:09:29,079
Speaker 1: is a case that goes right to the Supreme Court.

178
00:09:29,160 --> 00:09:33,040
Speaker 1: They have original jurisdiction here, that's right. We see every

179
00:09:33,160 --> 00:09:37,040
Speaker 1: term there's one or two original jurisdiction cases, and that's

180
00:09:37,080 --> 00:09:40,360
Speaker 1: because the Constitution says that when the states are feuding

181
00:09:40,400 --> 00:09:42,520
Speaker 1: with one another, that's something that we just want to

182
00:09:42,559 --> 00:09:46,360
Speaker 1: go directly to the sport. There is another original jurisdiction

183
00:09:46,400 --> 00:09:49,680
Speaker 1: case that the Justice has just decided about money grams,

184
00:09:49,720 --> 00:09:52,120
Speaker 1: and that's all about which state gets to claim money

185
00:09:52,160 --> 00:09:55,559
Speaker 1: that nobody ever comes forward to get. And so they're

186
00:09:55,720 --> 00:09:59,640
Speaker 1: really fascinating because you know, you've got two independent sovereigns

187
00:09:59,640 --> 00:10:03,360
Speaker 1: coming to another sovereign, the federal government, and asking it

188
00:10:03,400 --> 00:10:06,000
Speaker 1: to resolve its dispute. And in the MoneyGram case, where

189
00:10:06,000 --> 00:10:10,040
Speaker 1: there are hundreds of millions of dollars in uncashed MoneyGram checks,

190
00:10:10,080 --> 00:10:12,840
Speaker 1: who gets to keep the money? Well, Delaware had tried

191
00:10:12,840 --> 00:10:14,520
Speaker 1: to say that it gets to keep the money, but

192
00:10:14,720 --> 00:10:17,560
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court fided and said with Pennsylvania and some

193
00:10:17,640 --> 00:10:19,920
Speaker 1: other states who said they want a piece of it too,

194
00:10:19,960 --> 00:10:22,600
Speaker 1: So that's going to be spread around among several states.

195
00:10:22,960 --> 00:10:25,800
Speaker 1: This was such an interesting case. Thanks so much, Kimberly.

196
00:10:26,200 --> 00:10:31,840
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg Las Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson. The

197
00:10:31,920 --> 00:10:35,439
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has requested a new round of briefings in

198
00:10:35,440 --> 00:10:38,280
Speaker 1: one of the biggest cases of the term in December.

199
00:10:38,320 --> 00:10:42,280
Speaker 1: The Justice has heard oral arguments in that case More v. Harper,

200
00:10:42,840 --> 00:10:47,200
Speaker 1: where Republican lawmakers were challenging a North Carolina State Supreme

201
00:10:47,240 --> 00:10:50,720
Speaker 1: Court decision that struck down a congressional map as being

202
00:10:50,800 --> 00:10:55,760
Speaker 1: so partisan it violated the state constitution. Justice Elena Kagan

203
00:10:55,840 --> 00:10:59,560
Speaker 1: warned about the consequences of adopting the novel and far

204
00:10:59,640 --> 00:11:03,840
Speaker 1: reach argument of the Republican challengers, known as the independent

205
00:11:03,920 --> 00:11:08,600
Speaker 1: state legislature theory. It would say that legislatures could enact

206
00:11:08,679 --> 00:11:12,320
Speaker 1: all manner of restrictions on voting, get rid of all

207
00:11:12,440 --> 00:11:18,040
Speaker 1: kinds of voter protections that the state constitution in fact prohibits.

208
00:11:18,800 --> 00:11:22,880
Speaker 1: It might allow the legislatures to insert themselves to give

209
00:11:22,920 --> 00:11:26,960
Speaker 1: themselves a role in the certification of election. But since

210
00:11:27,000 --> 00:11:30,839
Speaker 1: the oral arguments, Republicans have regained control of the North

211
00:11:30,840 --> 00:11:35,160
Speaker 1: Carolina Supreme Court and the new court has decided to

212
00:11:35,240 --> 00:11:38,600
Speaker 1: rehear the case over the congressional maps. So now the

213
00:11:38,720 --> 00:11:41,679
Speaker 1: US Supreme Court is asking the parties in more of

214
00:11:41,720 --> 00:11:45,160
Speaker 1: the Harper for new briefings that could lead them to

215
00:11:45,240 --> 00:11:48,600
Speaker 1: dismiss the case. Joining me as Richard Brafald, a professor

216
00:11:48,640 --> 00:11:52,520
Speaker 1: at Columbia Law School, let's talk about the importance of

217
00:11:52,520 --> 00:11:55,960
Speaker 1: this Supreme Court case and how it could upend elections

218
00:11:56,000 --> 00:11:59,560
Speaker 1: in this country. Yes, depending on what the Court does

219
00:12:00,080 --> 00:12:04,000
Speaker 1: could place a significant limit on the ability of federal

220
00:12:04,120 --> 00:12:10,400
Speaker 1: courts to review disputes involving federal elections, including both reapportionment issues,

221
00:12:10,440 --> 00:12:12,480
Speaker 1: which is what this case is technically about, but also

222
00:12:12,520 --> 00:12:16,520
Speaker 1: things relating to the presidential election or congressional elections. So

223
00:12:16,640 --> 00:12:19,880
Speaker 1: it can be quite significant in deciding the nature of

224
00:12:20,280 --> 00:12:23,800
Speaker 1: kind of federal judicial review of federal election disputes. Give

225
00:12:23,880 --> 00:12:28,120
Speaker 1: us the procedural history of this case in North Carolina,

226
00:12:28,160 --> 00:12:29,959
Speaker 1: you know how it got to the Supreme Court, and

227
00:12:30,000 --> 00:12:33,319
Speaker 1: then what happened recently, right, So this case comes out

228
00:12:33,320 --> 00:12:37,720
Speaker 1: of North Carolina and involves the redistricting the North Carolina's

229
00:12:37,720 --> 00:12:42,160
Speaker 1: congressional delegation and the legislature or Republican legislature passed a

230
00:12:42,200 --> 00:12:45,600
Speaker 1: plan which was very pro Republican, and the North Carolina

231
00:12:45,679 --> 00:12:49,840
Speaker 1: Supreme Court determined that it was an unconstitutional jerrymander in

232
00:12:49,960 --> 00:12:52,920
Speaker 1: violation of the state constitution. As you know, the US

233
00:12:52,960 --> 00:12:55,480
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has said that jerrymandering does non violate the

234
00:12:55,480 --> 00:12:58,880
Speaker 1: federal Constitution, but some state supreme courts have found at

235
00:12:58,880 --> 00:13:02,240
Speaker 1: their state constitution limit or prohibitary mandering. So that's what

236
00:13:02,280 --> 00:13:05,679
Speaker 1: the North Carolina Supreme Court did, and they sent it

237
00:13:05,800 --> 00:13:07,800
Speaker 1: back to a lower court to come up with a

238
00:13:07,880 --> 00:13:10,920
Speaker 1: new plan on Indeed, a plan was adopted and that's

239
00:13:10,920 --> 00:13:14,000
Speaker 1: what the twenty twenty two election was run on. In

240
00:13:14,040 --> 00:13:17,400
Speaker 1: the meantime, the state challenged the state Supreme Court decision

241
00:13:17,679 --> 00:13:20,360
Speaker 1: and brought that challenge to the US Supreme Court. The

242
00:13:20,440 --> 00:13:22,880
Speaker 1: US Supreme Court allowed the twenty twenty two election to

243
00:13:22,920 --> 00:13:25,400
Speaker 1: go forward under the lines done by the lower court

244
00:13:25,440 --> 00:13:28,320
Speaker 1: in North Carolina. But the US Supreme Court agreed to

245
00:13:28,360 --> 00:13:31,520
Speaker 1: hear this case, which raises the question about just how

246
00:13:31,559 --> 00:13:34,600
Speaker 1: far or what, if anything, a state court can do

247
00:13:35,080 --> 00:13:39,000
Speaker 1: in interpreting the state constitution to limit what state legislatures

248
00:13:39,040 --> 00:13:43,640
Speaker 1: can do in redistricting. And then after the November elections,

249
00:13:43,679 --> 00:13:48,000
Speaker 1: the majority on the North Carolina Supreme Court shifted from

250
00:13:48,120 --> 00:13:52,079
Speaker 1: Democrat to Republicans. That's correct, I think two judges were

251
00:13:52,120 --> 00:13:55,119
Speaker 1: replaced and the balance on the court went from Democratics

252
00:13:55,120 --> 00:13:59,240
Speaker 1: a Republican. Indeed, very soon after, they actually undid one

253
00:13:59,280 --> 00:14:02,319
Speaker 1: of their voting decisions, which had been pro voting rights.

254
00:14:02,360 --> 00:14:04,960
Speaker 1: And in the meantime, the state legislature now in North

255
00:14:04,960 --> 00:14:09,040
Speaker 1: Carolina has asked the court to reconsider the North Carolina

256
00:14:09,040 --> 00:14:12,240
Speaker 1: Supreme Court to reconsider it jerrymandering decision, and they're looking

257
00:14:12,240 --> 00:14:13,880
Speaker 1: at it, and I think they've asked for briefing and

258
00:14:14,000 --> 00:14:17,160
Speaker 1: they are likely to reconsider it. Before this time, the

259
00:14:17,240 --> 00:14:21,640
Speaker 1: state court had only decided to rehear cases twice since

260
00:14:21,760 --> 00:14:26,040
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety three. Right, this is a very rare step

261
00:14:26,200 --> 00:14:29,960
Speaker 1: and its smacks of partisanship. Does it underscores the political

262
00:14:30,000 --> 00:14:32,120
Speaker 1: context as they did? They redid it with a voting

263
00:14:32,200 --> 00:14:34,240
Speaker 1: rights decision just a couple of weeks ago, one that

264
00:14:34,320 --> 00:14:37,120
Speaker 1: was handed down by the old North Carolina Supreme Court

265
00:14:37,520 --> 00:14:40,480
Speaker 1: just days before the two Democratic justice has left office.

266
00:14:40,960 --> 00:14:43,480
Speaker 1: And now the new court has basically come back and

267
00:14:43,640 --> 00:14:46,800
Speaker 1: undid that and has agreed to rehear the jerrymandering decision.

268
00:14:47,040 --> 00:14:50,800
Speaker 1: It clearly entirely follows him the change in partisan composition.

269
00:14:50,840 --> 00:14:53,640
Speaker 1: So there's now a Republican legislature in North Carolina and

270
00:14:53,720 --> 00:14:57,120
Speaker 1: Republican Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has asked the parties

271
00:14:57,160 --> 00:15:02,760
Speaker 1: in Morvie Harbor for supplemental reefings. Right, what exactly are

272
00:15:02,760 --> 00:15:05,320
Speaker 1: they looking for? I guess the question has come up

273
00:15:05,360 --> 00:15:08,760
Speaker 1: as to whether or not the two possibilities. One is

274
00:15:08,800 --> 00:15:11,960
Speaker 1: whether the case might become moot if the North Carolina

275
00:15:12,040 --> 00:15:16,280
Speaker 1: Supreme Court and it reverses itself and basically reapproves the

276
00:15:16,320 --> 00:15:21,120
Speaker 1: old jerrymander. So one possibility is mootness. Another possibility is

277
00:15:21,160 --> 00:15:24,960
Speaker 1: that the US Supreme Court only takes cases after there's

278
00:15:25,000 --> 00:15:27,520
Speaker 1: been a final decision by a lower court, and in

279
00:15:27,560 --> 00:15:30,920
Speaker 1: this case, since the North Carolina Supreme Court is reopening

280
00:15:30,920 --> 00:15:33,640
Speaker 1: the case, it may be that the decision that the

281
00:15:33,720 --> 00:15:36,680
Speaker 1: US Supreme Court agreed to hear is no longer final,

282
00:15:37,080 --> 00:15:39,640
Speaker 1: so the US Supreme Court would no longer have jurisdiction

283
00:15:39,680 --> 00:15:42,280
Speaker 1: over it. The US Supreme courtinate asked for additional briefing

284
00:15:42,400 --> 00:15:44,440
Speaker 1: wasn't completely clear as to what it was looking for,

285
00:15:44,960 --> 00:15:48,080
Speaker 1: So there are different theories about why if they've done it,

286
00:15:48,320 --> 00:15:52,280
Speaker 1: But either way, it might lead them to decide not

287
00:15:52,360 --> 00:15:55,640
Speaker 1: to decide the sederal constitutional question that's been raised by

288
00:15:55,640 --> 00:15:58,840
Speaker 1: the case. Yeah, they did point to the legal provision

289
00:15:58,840 --> 00:16:03,080
Speaker 1: that gives them jurisdic to review final judgments or degrees,

290
00:16:03,200 --> 00:16:06,080
Speaker 1: and so now there's at least a plausible argument that

291
00:16:06,120 --> 00:16:08,360
Speaker 1: the judgment they're looking at is actually not final. Do

292
00:16:08,400 --> 00:16:10,960
Speaker 1: you think this is a case that, after the oral arguments,

293
00:16:11,040 --> 00:16:13,640
Speaker 1: the court would like to get rid of? It's not clear.

294
00:16:13,800 --> 00:16:16,040
Speaker 1: I mean I see two things about On the one hand,

295
00:16:16,040 --> 00:16:18,160
Speaker 1: it's a very tough case, and I think coming up

296
00:16:18,200 --> 00:16:21,320
Speaker 1: with a ruling that holds a majority might be difficult

297
00:16:21,760 --> 00:16:24,240
Speaker 1: because I do think on the one hand, they see

298
00:16:24,240 --> 00:16:26,680
Speaker 1: that the provision of the Constitution that gives the state

299
00:16:26,720 --> 00:16:30,120
Speaker 1: legislature to power to write rules for federal elections, for

300
00:16:30,160 --> 00:16:33,040
Speaker 1: congressional elections, and for the election of the presidential electors

301
00:16:33,320 --> 00:16:35,840
Speaker 1: is in the Constitution. On the other hand, I think

302
00:16:35,880 --> 00:16:39,560
Speaker 1: they're kind of reluctant to completely step on the traditional

303
00:16:39,640 --> 00:16:42,720
Speaker 1: role that state courts have had an interpreting state law.

304
00:16:43,000 --> 00:16:45,480
Speaker 1: So I think coming up with a ruling that respects

305
00:16:45,480 --> 00:16:47,200
Speaker 1: both sides of that was going to be tricky. On

306
00:16:47,240 --> 00:16:49,280
Speaker 1: the other hand, it's an issue that's been coming up

307
00:16:49,320 --> 00:16:51,800
Speaker 1: a lot, Lady. It came up in several cases of

308
00:16:51,880 --> 00:16:55,160
Speaker 1: Supreme Court heard in twenty twenty that involved issues in

309
00:16:55,160 --> 00:16:58,400
Speaker 1: connection with the twenty twenty presidential election, So they might

310
00:16:58,480 --> 00:17:02,120
Speaker 1: have an interest in resolving the dispute now when there

311
00:17:02,200 --> 00:17:05,479
Speaker 1: is no federal election pending, rather than having it come

312
00:17:05,560 --> 00:17:08,240
Speaker 1: up again next year. So I can see where they

313
00:17:08,320 --> 00:17:11,760
Speaker 1: might be cut into different directions and remind us of

314
00:17:11,800 --> 00:17:15,760
Speaker 1: the oral arguments and how they went it was a

315
00:17:15,880 --> 00:17:18,359
Speaker 1: very very long oral argument. I think we've went for

316
00:17:18,400 --> 00:17:21,400
Speaker 1: close to two and a half hours. It's always very

317
00:17:21,440 --> 00:17:24,440
Speaker 1: hard to read the comments of the justices, but there

318
00:17:24,480 --> 00:17:27,480
Speaker 1: seem to be, at least for some justices, some kind

319
00:17:27,520 --> 00:17:30,680
Speaker 1: of groping to some kind of middle ground where they

320
00:17:30,720 --> 00:17:34,840
Speaker 1: would sustain the ability of federal courts to review the

321
00:17:34,960 --> 00:17:38,119
Speaker 1: state court decision about the state constitution, which itself is

322
00:17:38,200 --> 00:17:41,840
Speaker 1: very unusual. Federal courts usually do not review state court

323
00:17:41,880 --> 00:17:46,239
Speaker 1: decisions of state law, but they'd be fairly deferential at

324
00:17:46,280 --> 00:17:48,840
Speaker 1: least that's where they seem to be groping that. Yes,

325
00:17:49,760 --> 00:17:53,000
Speaker 1: because the federal Constitution gives the power to write the

326
00:17:53,200 --> 00:17:57,800
Speaker 1: laws for federal elections to state legislatures, state courts can't

327
00:17:57,800 --> 00:18:02,760
Speaker 1: go too far in displacing the state legislatures primacy and

328
00:18:02,840 --> 00:18:05,960
Speaker 1: writing the rules. But nonetheless, they would want to still

329
00:18:06,000 --> 00:18:08,200
Speaker 1: respect the idea that state courts still have a role

330
00:18:08,840 --> 00:18:11,199
Speaker 1: and state constitutions have a role. So I think, you know,

331
00:18:11,280 --> 00:18:13,480
Speaker 1: it is hard to make any predictions about a Supreme

332
00:18:13,480 --> 00:18:15,920
Speaker 1: Court decision just based on the oral argument, but there

333
00:18:15,920 --> 00:18:19,440
Speaker 1: seemed to be enough justices like Chief Justice Roberts who

334
00:18:19,440 --> 00:18:22,240
Speaker 1: are kind of groping through some sort of middle position.

335
00:18:22,720 --> 00:18:25,640
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court is asking for the supplemental briefing by

336
00:18:25,760 --> 00:18:29,800
Speaker 1: March twentieth. The North Carolina Court is scheduled to hear

337
00:18:29,960 --> 00:18:33,320
Speaker 1: arguments on March fourteenth. I mean, might the Supreme Court

338
00:18:33,359 --> 00:18:36,400
Speaker 1: wait to see what happens in North Carolina? Yes, they

339
00:18:36,600 --> 00:18:38,560
Speaker 1: very well might. Though we could argue that even the

340
00:18:38,600 --> 00:18:41,080
Speaker 1: fact that they're hearing the case in North Carolina means

341
00:18:41,119 --> 00:18:43,960
Speaker 1: that it's not over. But yeah, and the two things

342
00:18:43,960 --> 00:18:46,640
Speaker 1: are proceeding on parallel tracks, but kind of paying attention

343
00:18:46,640 --> 00:18:50,080
Speaker 1: to each other. I suppose the North Carolina Court decides quickly,

344
00:18:50,440 --> 00:18:52,520
Speaker 1: then the Supreme Court will have all the information that

345
00:18:52,680 --> 00:18:56,000
Speaker 1: needs to decide whether it wants to resolve this case

346
00:18:56,280 --> 00:18:59,840
Speaker 1: or just drop it, as the phrase is improvidently granted,

347
00:19:00,359 --> 00:19:02,600
Speaker 1: and wait for another one that presents the same issues.

348
00:19:03,080 --> 00:19:06,920
Speaker 1: Let's say the North Carolina Court does what I suspect

349
00:19:07,000 --> 00:19:10,280
Speaker 1: and maybe you suspect they will do, which is put

350
00:19:10,280 --> 00:19:13,119
Speaker 1: the old map back. Would the Supreme Court be able

351
00:19:13,320 --> 00:19:16,600
Speaker 1: to continue with the case or would they have no

352
00:19:16,720 --> 00:19:19,640
Speaker 1: choice but to throw it out because the whole basis

353
00:19:19,680 --> 00:19:22,920
Speaker 1: has changed. Srebret has a lot of discretion in determining

354
00:19:22,960 --> 00:19:24,919
Speaker 1: what cases it can hear what cases it won't here.

355
00:19:25,040 --> 00:19:28,480
Speaker 1: They might decide that the issue is a significant importance that,

356
00:19:28,640 --> 00:19:30,480
Speaker 1: having already heard the briefing, they're going to go ahead

357
00:19:30,520 --> 00:19:32,879
Speaker 1: and resolve it or not. Or they might decide it.

358
00:19:32,920 --> 00:19:35,320
Speaker 1: In fact, since the issue has been resolved below, they

359
00:19:35,359 --> 00:19:37,280
Speaker 1: don't have to address it. I think they have a

360
00:19:37,280 --> 00:19:39,240
Speaker 1: lot of discretion here. I think it's very hard to

361
00:19:39,280 --> 00:19:42,320
Speaker 1: predict what they're going to do. The House Ethics Committee

362
00:19:42,320 --> 00:19:45,919
Speaker 1: has opened an investigation into a series of alleged unlawful

363
00:19:45,960 --> 00:19:51,240
Speaker 1: acts by freshman New York Republican Representative George Santos. Santos

364
00:19:51,280 --> 00:19:54,320
Speaker 1: has repeatedly said he will not resign, though he has

365
00:19:54,400 --> 00:20:00,000
Speaker 1: voluntarily suspended his participation in committees while multiple investigations are

366
00:20:00,280 --> 00:20:04,160
Speaker 1: way into his conduct. I've been talking to Columbia law professor,

367
00:20:04,200 --> 00:20:08,399
Speaker 1: which your default Rich tell us a little about this investigation.

368
00:20:08,880 --> 00:20:13,520
Speaker 1: They've appointed a subcommittee to conduct investigation. They've mentioned several things.

369
00:20:13,560 --> 00:20:18,119
Speaker 1: They've mentioned violations of the disclosures that he submitted to

370
00:20:18,240 --> 00:20:21,120
Speaker 1: the House in twenty twenty twenty. Normally, the House doesn't

371
00:20:21,119 --> 00:20:23,320
Speaker 1: have any authority for people who are not members of Congress,

372
00:20:23,359 --> 00:20:25,400
Speaker 1: but they do for people who are running for Congress

373
00:20:25,400 --> 00:20:27,560
Speaker 1: and they would then get elected. So there's some questions

374
00:20:27,560 --> 00:20:31,760
Speaker 1: about that he lie on his disclosure forms to Congress.

375
00:20:32,280 --> 00:20:35,439
Speaker 1: There's questions as to whether or not he violated campaign

376
00:20:35,480 --> 00:20:38,120
Speaker 1: financial laws, which would also be relevant to House Ethics.

377
00:20:38,560 --> 00:20:41,400
Speaker 1: There is a conflict of interest question involving his dealings

378
00:20:41,400 --> 00:20:44,159
Speaker 1: with his former firm. And then I think somebody, I

379
00:20:44,240 --> 00:20:46,840
Speaker 1: think his staff members raised an issue of sexual harassment.

380
00:20:46,880 --> 00:20:48,879
Speaker 1: I don't know much about that. Certainly, the things that

381
00:20:48,920 --> 00:20:50,840
Speaker 1: have caught the most public attention of the ones about

382
00:20:50,840 --> 00:20:54,400
Speaker 1: whether he has submitted false statements on the disclosure forms,

383
00:20:54,400 --> 00:20:56,960
Speaker 1: who was required to fire with Congress, and whether he

384
00:20:57,280 --> 00:21:01,160
Speaker 1: submitted false statements and otherwise violated that campaign finance laws.

385
00:21:01,160 --> 00:21:03,560
Speaker 1: And he is reporting to the said Election Commission about

386
00:21:03,720 --> 00:21:06,639
Speaker 1: the financing of his campaign. So what's the power of

387
00:21:06,680 --> 00:21:10,320
Speaker 1: the House Ethics Committee say they find that he is guilty.

388
00:21:10,680 --> 00:21:14,120
Speaker 1: Ultimately that not much the Ethics Committee itself can do,

389
00:21:14,560 --> 00:21:18,560
Speaker 1: but they can recommend sanctions which the full House could vote.

390
00:21:18,840 --> 00:21:24,439
Speaker 1: And these run anywhere from kind of reprimand fine, exclusion

391
00:21:24,520 --> 00:21:28,480
Speaker 1: from committee's censure all the way after expulsion. So there's

392
00:21:28,480 --> 00:21:30,960
Speaker 1: really like a long range of things. Is I think

393
00:21:31,200 --> 00:21:34,160
Speaker 1: maybe the committee itself can send some minor sanction to him,

394
00:21:34,160 --> 00:21:36,679
Speaker 1: but any significant penalty would have to come from the

395
00:21:36,720 --> 00:21:39,560
Speaker 1: full House. So the only way for him to be

396
00:21:39,600 --> 00:21:42,840
Speaker 1: expelled from Congresses for a majority of the House to

397
00:21:42,960 --> 00:21:45,080
Speaker 1: vote him. I think it's two thirds. Actually, do you

398
00:21:45,119 --> 00:21:48,160
Speaker 1: remember the last time that a member was expelled from Congress?

399
00:21:48,600 --> 00:21:50,920
Speaker 1: I think is somebody's convicted of felony. There was something

400
00:21:50,920 --> 00:21:52,800
Speaker 1: a few years ago where there was a member of

401
00:21:52,840 --> 00:21:56,880
Speaker 1: Congress who was convicted of pelonies involving corruption and was expelled.

402
00:21:57,520 --> 00:22:00,520
Speaker 1: It seems to me highly unlikely that he would be

403
00:22:00,560 --> 00:22:04,000
Speaker 1: expelled short of conviction for a felony, And I believe

404
00:22:04,040 --> 00:22:07,840
Speaker 1: that there is a Justice Partment investigation of him, and

405
00:22:08,160 --> 00:22:13,280
Speaker 1: there's nothing at all that his constituents can do. You not, really, no,

406
00:22:13,480 --> 00:22:16,560
Speaker 1: they can just ruin them out next time. And the

407
00:22:16,600 --> 00:22:21,680
Speaker 1: Ethics Committee is also going to investigate New York Democratic

408
00:22:21,680 --> 00:22:26,560
Speaker 1: Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. What's that about? She went to

409
00:22:26,600 --> 00:22:29,760
Speaker 1: the met gela and she got old, she got a dress,

410
00:22:29,840 --> 00:22:31,880
Speaker 1: and she got her pair done, she got the place

411
00:22:31,960 --> 00:22:34,640
Speaker 1: to have her changing done on all that stuff, and

412
00:22:34,760 --> 00:22:37,040
Speaker 1: she didn't pay for it. She subsequently is paid for it.

413
00:22:37,640 --> 00:22:39,919
Speaker 1: But I think there were some questions about whether or

414
00:22:39,960 --> 00:22:43,919
Speaker 1: not she was getting inappropriate gifts in connection with you know,

415
00:22:44,000 --> 00:22:46,359
Speaker 1: the met Gela. Are they actually going forward on that,

416
00:22:46,400 --> 00:22:48,720
Speaker 1: because it seems like the as of the investigation for

417
00:22:48,800 --> 00:22:51,040
Speaker 1: the same day she struck me as a kind of

418
00:22:51,119 --> 00:22:54,479
Speaker 1: nice parallelism for a Democrat and a Republican. But it

419
00:22:54,520 --> 00:22:56,800
Speaker 1: does seem as though that whatever she may or may

420
00:22:56,840 --> 00:22:59,400
Speaker 1: not have done, she has paid all the money. So

421
00:22:59,440 --> 00:23:02,320
Speaker 1: it just made the case of sloppiness on the part

422
00:23:02,359 --> 00:23:05,600
Speaker 1: of her or her staff. It seems like congress people

423
00:23:05,640 --> 00:23:09,199
Speaker 1: get all kinds of free gifts. Well they're not supposed to.

424
00:23:09,320 --> 00:23:10,919
Speaker 1: I mean, there are rules about what you can do

425
00:23:10,960 --> 00:23:13,160
Speaker 1: from if you're participating in a vent or something, that's

426
00:23:13,200 --> 00:23:16,080
Speaker 1: one thing, but you're really shouldn't be getting a free dress,

427
00:23:17,119 --> 00:23:19,639
Speaker 1: an expensive designer dress, or getting as you know, a

428
00:23:19,680 --> 00:23:22,720
Speaker 1: free fancy haircut, and there are rules against that, you know.

429
00:23:22,760 --> 00:23:24,920
Speaker 1: And whenever they involve open investigation, they say the fact

430
00:23:24,960 --> 00:23:27,000
Speaker 1: they're opening investigation doesn't say anything about what we're going

431
00:23:27,080 --> 00:23:29,880
Speaker 1: to do. And this issue for her has been kicking

432
00:23:29,920 --> 00:23:33,200
Speaker 1: around for a while. So she admitted that she took

433
00:23:33,240 --> 00:23:35,320
Speaker 1: these things, but I Baly says it was all a

434
00:23:35,359 --> 00:23:37,360
Speaker 1: mistake and I paid all the money back. It's where

435
00:23:37,400 --> 00:23:40,320
Speaker 1: she is now, so she'm not fighting anything. She has

436
00:23:40,359 --> 00:23:42,280
Speaker 1: paid for it, but at the time she had not.

437
00:23:42,520 --> 00:23:45,680
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, rich. That's Professor Richard Brofalt of Columbia

438
00:23:45,720 --> 00:23:48,000
Speaker 1: Law School, and that's it for this edition of The

439
00:23:48,040 --> 00:23:50,879
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest

440
00:23:50,920 --> 00:23:54,280
Speaker 1: legal news by listening to our Bloomberg Law podcasts on

441
00:23:54,320 --> 00:23:58,760
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or at www dot Bloomberg dot com

442
00:23:58,800 --> 00:24:02,479
Speaker 1: slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and you're listening

443
00:24:02,520 --> 00:24:03,040
Speaker 1: to Woolbo