1
00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,320
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:05,720 --> 00:00:09,160
Speaker 1: Explosive is the way some court watchers describe the second

3
00:00:09,200 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 1: half of the Supreme Court's term. It will be chock

4
00:00:12,320 --> 00:00:17,120
Speaker 1: full of high profile, politically charged arguments and blockbuster opinions,

5
00:00:17,520 --> 00:00:22,120
Speaker 1: from abortion rights to President Trump's financial history. Some decisions

6
00:00:22,160 --> 00:00:26,880
Speaker 1: could change the legal landscape. Joining me is Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson,

7
00:00:27,080 --> 00:00:31,800
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law, Supreme Court Reporter. So let's start with abortion rights,

8
00:00:31,840 --> 00:00:35,680
Speaker 1: which has almost become a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees.

9
00:00:36,159 --> 00:00:40,640
Speaker 1: The Justices will get their first chance to ship away

10
00:00:40,680 --> 00:00:44,560
Speaker 1: at abortion rights since Trump's conservative nominees took the bench.

11
00:00:44,920 --> 00:00:47,199
Speaker 1: Tell us about the case the Court's going to be

12
00:00:47,240 --> 00:00:51,280
Speaker 1: considering next week, Well, sir, this case is June Medical

13
00:00:51,320 --> 00:00:54,920
Speaker 1: Services versus Russo. And what's our issue here is a

14
00:00:54,960 --> 00:00:59,880
Speaker 1: Louisiana law that requires abortion doctors to obtain admitting privileges

15
00:01:00,320 --> 00:01:03,640
Speaker 1: at local hospitals. And if this sounds familiar, that's because

16
00:01:03,800 --> 00:01:07,040
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court actually struck down a very similar Texas

17
00:01:07,120 --> 00:01:10,640
Speaker 1: law in so it brings up the issue here not

18
00:01:10,760 --> 00:01:14,680
Speaker 1: just abortion, but also a precedent and how closely the

19
00:01:14,720 --> 00:01:17,520
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is going to follow its own precedent, especially

20
00:01:17,520 --> 00:01:20,400
Speaker 1: recent precedent. So this will be a test for Chief

21
00:01:20,480 --> 00:01:24,360
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts, who was in the dissent in the Texas

22
00:01:24,520 --> 00:01:28,600
Speaker 1: case that you mentioned. That's precedent here, that's right. But

23
00:01:28,680 --> 00:01:32,000
Speaker 1: then when the Louisiana case came to the Court early

24
00:01:32,080 --> 00:01:35,559
Speaker 1: last year, Justice Roberts actually voted to put the law

25
00:01:35,640 --> 00:01:39,559
Speaker 1: on hold, that is, he voted against the Louisiana law here.

26
00:01:39,680 --> 00:01:41,840
Speaker 1: So you're right that really all eyes are going to

27
00:01:41,920 --> 00:01:44,600
Speaker 1: be on shape Justice Roberts in this case. But that's

28
00:01:44,600 --> 00:01:46,240
Speaker 1: really going to be the case for most of the

29
00:01:46,240 --> 00:01:49,240
Speaker 1: blockbusters that the Court is hearing this term. You mentioned

30
00:01:49,240 --> 00:01:53,559
Speaker 1: precedent here. Are there going to be several cases that

31
00:01:53,720 --> 00:01:57,360
Speaker 1: are going to deal with precedent which has been a

32
00:01:57,360 --> 00:02:01,400
Speaker 1: growing concern for some of the liberals the court. Well,

33
00:02:01,560 --> 00:02:04,160
Speaker 1: it really has. We have seen a lot of petitioners

34
00:02:04,200 --> 00:02:07,640
Speaker 1: bringing cases to the Court that specifically asked the newly

35
00:02:07,800 --> 00:02:11,320
Speaker 1: reconstituted Court to overturn its precedent, and we saw the

36
00:02:11,360 --> 00:02:13,920
Speaker 1: Court do that a couple of times last term. And

37
00:02:13,919 --> 00:02:17,080
Speaker 1: in one of those cases, which dealt with a decades

38
00:02:17,160 --> 00:02:19,680
Speaker 1: old precedent, we saw one of the liberals on the Court,

39
00:02:20,000 --> 00:02:23,560
Speaker 1: Justice Brier actually say that it makes you wonder what

40
00:02:23,720 --> 00:02:27,160
Speaker 1: precedents are next, and he not so subtly cited to

41
00:02:27,400 --> 00:02:30,880
Speaker 1: the Court's abortion dockets. So that's definitely been on the

42
00:02:30,919 --> 00:02:33,600
Speaker 1: minds of liberals and court watchers in general, how the

43
00:02:33,720 --> 00:02:37,440
Speaker 1: Court will treat its precedent in the abortion case. Have

44
00:02:37,680 --> 00:02:44,120
Speaker 1: any of the advocates asked the Court to reverse Roe v. Wade. No,

45
00:02:44,280 --> 00:02:48,040
Speaker 1: So this case doesn't directly implicate Roe v. Wade or

46
00:02:48,120 --> 00:02:51,840
Speaker 1: some of the other courts more foundational abortion precedent, But

47
00:02:51,960 --> 00:02:54,640
Speaker 1: as you mentioned at the top of our segment, it

48
00:02:54,720 --> 00:02:56,920
Speaker 1: does provide the justices with a chance to kind of

49
00:02:57,000 --> 00:03:00,560
Speaker 1: chip away at abortion rights. And that's something that actually

50
00:03:00,600 --> 00:03:03,960
Speaker 1: court watchers think may be more preferable to the Roberts Court,

51
00:03:04,280 --> 00:03:06,960
Speaker 1: which tends to do things more incrementally rather than in

52
00:03:07,000 --> 00:03:10,440
Speaker 1: these big broad strokes like overturning Row versus RDS. Now,

53
00:03:10,440 --> 00:03:14,360
Speaker 1: at the end of March, there'll be three cases concerning

54
00:03:14,560 --> 00:03:20,400
Speaker 1: access to Trump's financial records. Tell us about those, well, right,

55
00:03:20,440 --> 00:03:22,919
Speaker 1: so these are a trio of cases, but they really

56
00:03:22,919 --> 00:03:26,400
Speaker 1: deal with two separate issues. And so in one of

57
00:03:26,440 --> 00:03:30,160
Speaker 1: the cases, House committees are trying to get financial records

58
00:03:30,919 --> 00:03:33,480
Speaker 1: of the president, and then the other it's New York

59
00:03:33,520 --> 00:03:36,280
Speaker 1: who's trying to get these financial records. Now, in the

60
00:03:36,320 --> 00:03:40,480
Speaker 1: New York case, the private attorney for the president famously

61
00:03:40,520 --> 00:03:43,520
Speaker 1: said that the president could shoot someone UM on Fifth

62
00:03:43,560 --> 00:03:47,120
Speaker 1: Avenue and that New York couldn't even investigate the president

63
00:03:47,240 --> 00:03:49,800
Speaker 1: for criminal wrongdoing. Well, he was in office, and so

64
00:03:49,840 --> 00:03:52,240
Speaker 1: what the president is asking here UM in both of

65
00:03:52,240 --> 00:03:55,160
Speaker 1: these cases is really a very broad immunity from an

66
00:03:55,200 --> 00:03:59,240
Speaker 1: investigation while he's the sitting president. Let's turn to some

67
00:03:59,320 --> 00:04:03,800
Speaker 1: other decision. There'll be decisions on cases that could change

68
00:04:03,960 --> 00:04:08,440
Speaker 1: the landscape of federal protections for workplace discrimination. And the

69
00:04:08,600 --> 00:04:12,640
Speaker 1: Justices have already heard arguments in a trio of cases

70
00:04:12,680 --> 00:04:16,919
Speaker 1: concerning lgbt Q workers. Right so, at the beginning of

71
00:04:16,960 --> 00:04:20,720
Speaker 1: the term, the justices UM heard several cases that ask

72
00:04:20,839 --> 00:04:24,760
Speaker 1: whether or not federal antidiscrimination laws that are meant to

73
00:04:24,800 --> 00:04:29,880
Speaker 1: protect workers protect LGBT workers as well. And it's a

74
00:04:29,920 --> 00:04:33,279
Speaker 1: really interesting case in that kind of the legal theories

75
00:04:33,320 --> 00:04:36,680
Speaker 1: that most of the conservative justices UH say that they

76
00:04:36,720 --> 00:04:40,400
Speaker 1: rely on actually wagh in favor of finding that the

77
00:04:40,480 --> 00:04:43,920
Speaker 1: law does protect LGBT workers. So it'll be an interesting

78
00:04:44,279 --> 00:04:46,719
Speaker 1: UM case to see how they turn out. In particular,

79
00:04:46,800 --> 00:04:50,080
Speaker 1: Justice corsage Um, President Trump's first nominee is being really

80
00:04:50,120 --> 00:04:53,680
Speaker 1: torn at the argument about how to deal with those

81
00:04:53,800 --> 00:04:57,080
Speaker 1: um those legal theories and how they work in that case.

82
00:04:57,160 --> 00:05:00,360
Speaker 1: But there are other discrimination cases that are ring under

83
00:05:00,400 --> 00:05:02,279
Speaker 1: the radar, just because this term is filled with so

84
00:05:02,320 --> 00:05:04,680
Speaker 1: many blockbusters like the one we just talked about. I've

85
00:05:04,680 --> 00:05:08,400
Speaker 1: been talking to Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Strawbridge

86
00:05:08,480 --> 00:05:12,080
Speaker 1: Robinson about the second half of the Supreme Court's term.

87
00:05:12,120 --> 00:05:15,719
Speaker 1: It will be filled with high profile, politically charged arguments

88
00:05:15,760 --> 00:05:19,680
Speaker 1: and blockbuster opinions. In the coming months, the justices will

89
00:05:19,720 --> 00:05:23,520
Speaker 1: consider whether President Trump can avoid congressional inquiries into his

90
00:05:23,640 --> 00:05:27,360
Speaker 1: financial history. They'll also get their first chance to chip

91
00:05:27,400 --> 00:05:33,039
Speaker 1: away at abortion rights since Trump's conservative nominees took the bench. So, Kimberly,

92
00:05:33,080 --> 00:05:36,200
Speaker 1: we were talking about cases that could change the landscape

93
00:05:36,279 --> 00:05:39,440
Speaker 1: of workplace discrimination. Tell us about the cases that could

94
00:05:39,440 --> 00:05:43,040
Speaker 1: make it harder to even bring a discrimination case based

95
00:05:43,080 --> 00:05:46,800
Speaker 1: on race or age in federal court. Well, there are

96
00:05:46,839 --> 00:05:49,799
Speaker 1: two cases. One is Comcast and the other is BAB

97
00:05:49,880 --> 00:05:53,680
Speaker 1: And Comcast deals with racial discrimination and bad deals with

98
00:05:53,800 --> 00:05:57,159
Speaker 1: age discrimination. But the question in both cases is what

99
00:05:57,440 --> 00:06:01,080
Speaker 1: a plaintiffs must allege in or to even bring their

100
00:06:01,120 --> 00:06:05,360
Speaker 1: case in federal court. And in particular, it could make

101
00:06:05,400 --> 00:06:09,760
Speaker 1: it harder for plaintiffs to even bring these discrimination suits

102
00:06:09,800 --> 00:06:11,919
Speaker 1: if the Supreme Court says that they have to prove

103
00:06:12,400 --> 00:06:15,279
Speaker 1: that their race or their age was the only factor

104
00:06:15,640 --> 00:06:18,320
Speaker 1: in their adverse employment decision, rather than just one of

105
00:06:18,400 --> 00:06:20,920
Speaker 1: many factors. So those are two cases to watch, even

106
00:06:20,920 --> 00:06:22,960
Speaker 1: though it's hard to keep tabs on everything going on

107
00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:27,200
Speaker 1: this term. Really, the Court has taken several cases involving religion,

108
00:06:27,400 --> 00:06:31,279
Speaker 1: from the public funding of religious schools to religious exemptions

109
00:06:31,279 --> 00:06:35,840
Speaker 1: from Obamacare. Tell us about the religion cases, right, So,

110
00:06:35,960 --> 00:06:38,880
Speaker 1: religion has been a very popular topic um with the

111
00:06:38,960 --> 00:06:41,960
Speaker 1: Robbers Court, especially in recent years, and they've been dealing

112
00:06:42,040 --> 00:06:44,840
Speaker 1: with it on many fronts, um some of them on

113
00:06:45,279 --> 00:06:48,600
Speaker 1: you know, the lines between LGBT rights and religious freedom,

114
00:06:48,960 --> 00:06:51,880
Speaker 1: and also, as you mentioned, on public funding of schools.

115
00:06:51,960 --> 00:06:55,800
Speaker 1: And so the Justice has recently heard a case Espinosa

116
00:06:55,960 --> 00:07:00,279
Speaker 1: about whether or not ministers or Montana can ex food

117
00:07:00,360 --> 00:07:04,760
Speaker 1: religious schools uh from a scholarship program, or whether the

118
00:07:04,960 --> 00:07:10,040
Speaker 1: federal free exercise actually requires that Montana include religious schools

119
00:07:10,040 --> 00:07:13,640
Speaker 1: so as not to show hostility towards them, And there

120
00:07:13,720 --> 00:07:18,360
Speaker 1: is a case involving what's called the ministerial exception. Well,

121
00:07:18,360 --> 00:07:20,600
Speaker 1: that's right, and so as I mentioned, these religion cases

122
00:07:20,600 --> 00:07:23,240
Speaker 1: are really just all over the map and so on.

123
00:07:23,400 --> 00:07:29,080
Speaker 1: That is a long standing exception um for religious discrimination

124
00:07:29,120 --> 00:07:33,080
Speaker 1: claims against religious employers. The idea there being that you

125
00:07:33,120 --> 00:07:36,120
Speaker 1: don't want federal courts and the government to get involved

126
00:07:36,160 --> 00:07:39,320
Speaker 1: in all kinds of religious decisions. Do you want them

127
00:07:39,320 --> 00:07:41,680
Speaker 1: to kind of you know, separation of church and state

128
00:07:41,720 --> 00:07:44,520
Speaker 1: and keep their hands off. So this case will will

129
00:07:44,560 --> 00:07:47,560
Speaker 1: take a look at that ministerial exception and seeing if

130
00:07:47,560 --> 00:07:49,840
Speaker 1: it is still good law and how broadly it should

131
00:07:49,880 --> 00:07:53,960
Speaker 1: be applied. And the Court in recent terms, would you

132
00:07:54,000 --> 00:07:59,840
Speaker 1: say the court has been expanding religious rights? They certainly

133
00:08:00,160 --> 00:08:04,000
Speaker 1: seemed to expand certain religious rights. And so there's really

134
00:08:04,080 --> 00:08:06,440
Speaker 1: this tension that it seems that the justices have been

135
00:08:06,480 --> 00:08:09,840
Speaker 1: dealing with between the two religious clauses in the first Amendment,

136
00:08:10,240 --> 00:08:13,160
Speaker 1: one the free exercise, which says that the government you

137
00:08:13,320 --> 00:08:17,200
Speaker 1: can't inhibit religion or show hostility towards religion, and one

138
00:08:17,240 --> 00:08:19,920
Speaker 1: the establishment clauset, says that you know, government has to

139
00:08:19,960 --> 00:08:22,760
Speaker 1: keep its hands off of religion, and so the justice

140
00:08:22,840 --> 00:08:25,760
Speaker 1: have really been um broadening the reach of the free

141
00:08:25,800 --> 00:08:29,400
Speaker 1: exercise clause at the expense of the establishment clause. But yes,

142
00:08:29,440 --> 00:08:31,520
Speaker 1: they've been dealing in a lot of these religion cases that,

143
00:08:31,600 --> 00:08:33,439
Speaker 1: as I mentioned a couple of times, just reached on

144
00:08:33,800 --> 00:08:37,320
Speaker 1: touch on so many different issues. Now, administrative law is

145
00:08:37,360 --> 00:08:41,480
Speaker 1: something that people usually you know, yawn at and say, oh,

146
00:08:41,600 --> 00:08:44,520
Speaker 1: administrative law, but there are a number of cases that

147
00:08:44,679 --> 00:08:49,600
Speaker 1: could reshape the way agencies operate. Well, that's right, And

148
00:08:49,600 --> 00:08:52,800
Speaker 1: this is a particular area that court watchers have been

149
00:08:52,880 --> 00:08:56,000
Speaker 1: keeping their eye on UM since President Trump nominated both

150
00:08:56,040 --> 00:08:58,920
Speaker 1: Justice Corsets and Justice Kabinat to the bench, because they've

151
00:08:58,920 --> 00:09:01,480
Speaker 1: indicated that this is an area that they're interested in

152
00:09:01,520 --> 00:09:05,120
Speaker 1: reigning in, that is reigning in the administrative state. And

153
00:09:05,200 --> 00:09:08,120
Speaker 1: so there's been a number of cases I'm sprinkled over

154
00:09:08,160 --> 00:09:10,439
Speaker 1: the last three terms, and there are several this term.

155
00:09:10,520 --> 00:09:13,000
Speaker 1: I think the one that most people are watching are

156
00:09:13,040 --> 00:09:16,960
Speaker 1: one is one about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that

157
00:09:17,000 --> 00:09:20,320
Speaker 1: the Justices will here soon UM that asked whether or

158
00:09:20,360 --> 00:09:24,080
Speaker 1: not you know, putting a single person in charge of

159
00:09:24,120 --> 00:09:28,160
Speaker 1: the agency who can only be fired for cause actually

160
00:09:28,480 --> 00:09:32,040
Speaker 1: violates the separation of powers clause by taking away power

161
00:09:32,080 --> 00:09:35,520
Speaker 1: from the president to control the executives. It's sort of

162
00:09:35,520 --> 00:09:39,120
Speaker 1: an odd case for the Trump administration because right now

163
00:09:39,160 --> 00:09:44,240
Speaker 1: they have in there someone that Trump appointed, and presumably

164
00:09:44,280 --> 00:09:47,440
Speaker 1: they'd want that person to stay there even if a

165
00:09:47,520 --> 00:09:51,520
Speaker 1: Democrat becomes president. But with this case, if the justice

166
00:09:51,559 --> 00:09:53,800
Speaker 1: is a rule a certain way, the Democrats could remove

167
00:09:53,880 --> 00:09:57,320
Speaker 1: the person that Trump put in all right, So there

168
00:09:57,360 --> 00:10:00,520
Speaker 1: are in these administrative cases kind of some um, you know,

169
00:10:00,640 --> 00:10:04,479
Speaker 1: tough lines for any administration, but especially for the Trump administration,

170
00:10:04,520 --> 00:10:07,120
Speaker 1: who we see is generally wanting to rain in the

171
00:10:07,160 --> 00:10:11,240
Speaker 1: administrative state. UM. Here, the person who has now been

172
00:10:11,280 --> 00:10:14,280
Speaker 1: a Trump appointee has said, has agreed that she is

173
00:10:14,320 --> 00:10:17,839
Speaker 1: removable um at the will of the president. And one

174
00:10:17,840 --> 00:10:19,680
Speaker 1: of the big questions in the case is going to be,

175
00:10:20,200 --> 00:10:23,079
Speaker 1: so what happens now to the rest of the statute?

176
00:10:23,320 --> 00:10:25,760
Speaker 1: If one part of it is ben constitutional, does that

177
00:10:25,800 --> 00:10:28,040
Speaker 1: mean that the whole statute falls and there's no longer

178
00:10:28,080 --> 00:10:30,839
Speaker 1: a CFPD or can you kind of separate that from

179
00:10:30,840 --> 00:10:34,640
Speaker 1: the rest of the statute. Now, in light of all

180
00:10:34,720 --> 00:10:39,400
Speaker 1: these big blockbuster cases, a copyright case that should be

181
00:10:39,440 --> 00:10:43,240
Speaker 1: a blockbuster involves Google and Oracle is sort of lost

182
00:10:43,280 --> 00:10:47,480
Speaker 1: in the shadows. So tell us about that case. Well,

183
00:10:47,480 --> 00:10:49,440
Speaker 1: it really is. I mean, this is really one of

184
00:10:49,480 --> 00:10:53,800
Speaker 1: the biggest UM I P cases of our generation, and

185
00:10:54,120 --> 00:10:56,400
Speaker 1: you know, it's it has been really lost in the

186
00:10:56,400 --> 00:11:00,559
Speaker 1: shuffle here. But it's Google versus Oracle and deals with

187
00:11:00,920 --> 00:11:04,440
Speaker 1: you know, several billion dollars of code that is meant

188
00:11:04,480 --> 00:11:08,960
Speaker 1: to make it easier for UM developers to speak with

189
00:11:09,000 --> 00:11:11,880
Speaker 1: different kinds of technology. And the question is whether or

190
00:11:11,920 --> 00:11:16,719
Speaker 1: not firms can copyright that and how other firms can

191
00:11:16,840 --> 00:11:20,640
Speaker 1: utilize that if it can be copyrightable. Kimberly, have they

192
00:11:20,679 --> 00:11:24,960
Speaker 1: decided yet whether they're going to take the case on Obamacare, Well,

193
00:11:25,080 --> 00:11:28,280
Speaker 1: they haven't decided that, uh as far as we speak.

194
00:11:28,280 --> 00:11:31,160
Speaker 1: They are going to be considering it at another conference UM.

195
00:11:31,200 --> 00:11:33,800
Speaker 1: But there's really been some kind of conflicting indications on

196
00:11:33,840 --> 00:11:35,600
Speaker 1: whether or not the court will take up that case

197
00:11:35,920 --> 00:11:40,040
Speaker 1: right now. So the issue, uh is about the individual mandate,

198
00:11:40,120 --> 00:11:43,280
Speaker 1: which a lower court said UM is no longer legal.

199
00:11:43,800 --> 00:11:46,320
Speaker 1: But there's still a question hanging out there about, similar

200
00:11:46,360 --> 00:11:48,840
Speaker 1: to the CFBB case, what to do with the rest

201
00:11:48,840 --> 00:11:52,280
Speaker 1: of the statute is all of Obamacare and constitutional. So

202
00:11:52,920 --> 00:11:56,079
Speaker 1: the justices are weighing whether to take the case now, um,

203
00:11:56,080 --> 00:11:58,480
Speaker 1: when it's kind of halfway done, or whether to send

204
00:11:58,480 --> 00:12:00,199
Speaker 1: it back down to the lower courts and take it

205
00:12:00,280 --> 00:12:02,240
Speaker 1: back up when the whole case is ready for the

206
00:12:02,320 --> 00:12:06,840
Speaker 1: justices to hear. Which cases could show the trajectory of

207
00:12:06,920 --> 00:12:09,960
Speaker 1: the Roberts Court, whether the new Conservatives will take the

208
00:12:09,960 --> 00:12:13,560
Speaker 1: court sharply to the right, or whether the Chief will

209
00:12:13,640 --> 00:12:17,680
Speaker 1: keep that move gradual. Well, I think there's a temptation

210
00:12:17,720 --> 00:12:21,160
Speaker 1: to really look at these big blockbuster cases, these cases

211
00:12:21,160 --> 00:12:23,600
Speaker 1: like the LGBT case that we were talking about, the

212
00:12:23,679 --> 00:12:26,320
Speaker 1: case about DOCCA, to see how the court is going

213
00:12:26,400 --> 00:12:28,080
Speaker 1: to go. But I think some of these smaller cases

214
00:12:28,120 --> 00:12:31,440
Speaker 1: that we were talking about, the cases about um administrative

215
00:12:31,520 --> 00:12:33,800
Speaker 1: law about religion, is really going to show whether or

216
00:12:33,840 --> 00:12:36,640
Speaker 1: not the Court has any appetite to take really broad

217
00:12:37,080 --> 00:12:41,440
Speaker 1: moves that could overturn really longstanding doctrines that touch all

218
00:12:41,480 --> 00:12:43,600
Speaker 1: of our lives, or if they're going to go more

219
00:12:43,640 --> 00:12:46,880
Speaker 1: incrementally and take on things just kind of chip away

220
00:12:46,880 --> 00:12:49,520
Speaker 1: at them, as we suggested with the abortion cases. You know,

221
00:12:49,600 --> 00:12:52,600
Speaker 1: you just mentioned DOCCA, and I realized we hadn't spoken

222
00:12:52,600 --> 00:12:55,560
Speaker 1: about DOCA, And last year when they took doc everyone

223
00:12:55,559 --> 00:12:57,640
Speaker 1: said that's going to be the biggest case of the

224
00:12:57,760 --> 00:13:00,200
Speaker 1: term or one of the biggest and it's see to

225
00:13:00,200 --> 00:13:05,480
Speaker 1: have faded into the background and tell us what that's about. Yeah,

226
00:13:05,520 --> 00:13:08,360
Speaker 1: I mean, this term is really just seems like it's

227
00:13:08,360 --> 00:13:11,839
Speaker 1: on steroids as far as the number of blockbuster cases. Um.

228
00:13:11,920 --> 00:13:15,240
Speaker 1: But DOCCA is, of course a program that was put

229
00:13:15,280 --> 00:13:20,080
Speaker 1: in place by President Obama to defer deportation for individuals

230
00:13:20,120 --> 00:13:22,679
Speaker 1: who were brought to the country illegally when they were children,

231
00:13:23,000 --> 00:13:25,520
Speaker 1: and these so called dreamers. There's been a lot of

232
00:13:25,720 --> 00:13:29,800
Speaker 1: um question about how to handle uh, these young individuals.

233
00:13:29,920 --> 00:13:35,000
Speaker 1: And the Trump administration wants to unwind the policy, not because,

234
00:13:35,040 --> 00:13:37,840
Speaker 1: it says, not because it doesn't want to give some

235
00:13:37,960 --> 00:13:41,120
Speaker 1: relief to dreamers, but because it thinks that President Obama

236
00:13:41,120 --> 00:13:44,400
Speaker 1: didn't have the authority to issue the DOCTA program in

237
00:13:44,400 --> 00:13:47,200
Speaker 1: the first place. So the justices will and they have

238
00:13:47,280 --> 00:13:50,120
Speaker 1: agreed to decide whether or not the Trump administration can

239
00:13:50,160 --> 00:13:53,040
Speaker 1: actually begin winding that program down, and then of course

240
00:13:53,080 --> 00:13:54,720
Speaker 1: it will be up to Congress to decide what to

241
00:13:54,720 --> 00:13:59,480
Speaker 1: do with Dreamers. Liberals have been watching the health of

242
00:13:59,559 --> 00:14:04,000
Speaker 1: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg because of her brushes with the

243
00:14:04,080 --> 00:14:07,320
Speaker 1: medical problems. Tell us about those for those who don't know,

244
00:14:07,559 --> 00:14:11,360
Speaker 1: and how she's doing well. She has had UM several

245
00:14:11,480 --> 00:14:15,520
Speaker 1: recent brushes UM with cancer lately. UM she's actually had

246
00:14:15,559 --> 00:14:18,400
Speaker 1: four bouts of cancer, but she says she regularly goes

247
00:14:18,440 --> 00:14:20,600
Speaker 1: to the doctor and that she is cancer free right

248
00:14:20,600 --> 00:14:23,440
Speaker 1: now and feeling healthy, and all indications from her work

249
00:14:23,480 --> 00:14:26,640
Speaker 1: product seem to be that she's feeling pretty good. She's

250
00:14:26,800 --> 00:14:31,040
Speaker 1: already issued three opinions UH in cases in majority or

251
00:14:31,200 --> 00:14:34,120
Speaker 1: three majority opinions in cases so far this term, whereas

252
00:14:34,200 --> 00:14:36,800
Speaker 1: all the other justices have only gotten one UM. And

253
00:14:36,880 --> 00:14:41,160
Speaker 1: she's written a several very robust descents in cases, including

254
00:14:41,200 --> 00:14:44,720
Speaker 1: one simply for herself. So she's she's working hard and

255
00:14:44,800 --> 00:14:47,520
Speaker 1: seems to be doing well. Also, she seems to be

256
00:14:47,600 --> 00:14:50,040
Speaker 1: making a lot of appearances, at least when the court

257
00:14:50,200 --> 00:14:52,800
Speaker 1: was in a recess, so I saw her in time

258
00:14:52,800 --> 00:14:55,800
Speaker 1: and time again more than any of the other justices.

259
00:14:56,840 --> 00:15:00,000
Speaker 1: She is she famously, you know, is a frequent UH

260
00:15:00,280 --> 00:15:04,200
Speaker 1: on the opera circuit. But she has been around talking

261
00:15:04,200 --> 00:15:07,320
Speaker 1: with students, talking with a lot of groups around town.

262
00:15:07,600 --> 00:15:09,760
Speaker 1: It's actually funny. I was talking to my editor the

263
00:15:09,800 --> 00:15:12,360
Speaker 1: other day about covering another one of her events, and

264
00:15:12,400 --> 00:15:14,480
Speaker 1: we said Oh, we're kind of we've kind of had

265
00:15:14,560 --> 00:15:18,680
Speaker 1: enough of Justice Kinsburg lately. She's just everywhere. Thanks so

266
00:15:18,760 --> 00:15:22,760
Speaker 1: much for being on Bloomberg Law. Kimberly, that's Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson,

267
00:15:22,840 --> 00:15:26,080
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Supreme Court Reporter. And that's it for this

268
00:15:26,240 --> 00:15:28,880
Speaker 1: edition of Bloomberg Law. Remember you can listen to all

269
00:15:28,880 --> 00:15:31,760
Speaker 1: the latest legal topics in the news anytime on Bloomberg

270
00:15:31,800 --> 00:15:35,040
Speaker 1: Lawn Podcast. You can find them on iTunes, SoundCloud, or

271
00:15:35,120 --> 00:15:39,600
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com Slash podcast, Slash Law and Attorneys. You

272
00:15:39,640 --> 00:15:42,960
Speaker 1: can find exceptional legal research and business development tools at

273
00:15:42,960 --> 00:15:46,520
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law dot com. I'm June Grosso. Thanks so much

274
00:15:46,560 --> 00:15:49,160
Speaker 1: for a listening, and remember to tune into the Bloomberg

275
00:15:49,200 --> 00:15:52,280
Speaker 1: Law Show tomorrow night at ten pm Eastern right here

276
00:15:52,320 --> 00:15:53,360
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio