Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Explosive is the way some court watchers describe the second
Speaker 1: half of the Supreme Court's term. It will be chock
Speaker 1: full of high profile, politically charged arguments and blockbuster opinions,
Speaker 1: from abortion rights to President Trump's financial history. Some decisions
Speaker 1: could change the legal landscape. Joining me is Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law, Supreme Court Reporter. So let's start with abortion rights,
Speaker 1: which has almost become a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees.
Speaker 1: The Justices will get their first chance to ship away
Speaker 1: at abortion rights since Trump's conservative nominees took the bench.
Speaker 1: Tell us about the case the Court's going to be
Speaker 1: considering next week, Well, sir, this case is June Medical
Speaker 1: Services versus Russo. And what's our issue here is a
Speaker 1: Louisiana law that requires abortion doctors to obtain admitting privileges
Speaker 1: at local hospitals. And if this sounds familiar, that's because
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court actually struck down a very similar Texas
Speaker 1: law in so it brings up the issue here not
Speaker 1: just abortion, but also a precedent and how closely the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is going to follow its own precedent, especially
Speaker 1: recent precedent. So this will be a test for Chief
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts, who was in the dissent in the Texas
Speaker 1: case that you mentioned. That's precedent here, that's right. But
Speaker 1: then when the Louisiana case came to the Court early
Speaker 1: last year, Justice Roberts actually voted to put the law
Speaker 1: on hold, that is, he voted against the Louisiana law here.
Speaker 1: So you're right that really all eyes are going to
Speaker 1: be on shape Justice Roberts in this case. But that's
Speaker 1: really going to be the case for most of the
Speaker 1: blockbusters that the Court is hearing this term. You mentioned
Speaker 1: precedent here. Are there going to be several cases that
Speaker 1: are going to deal with precedent which has been a
Speaker 1: growing concern for some of the liberals the court. Well,
Speaker 1: it really has. We have seen a lot of petitioners
Speaker 1: bringing cases to the Court that specifically asked the newly
Speaker 1: reconstituted Court to overturn its precedent, and we saw the
Speaker 1: Court do that a couple of times last term. And
Speaker 1: in one of those cases, which dealt with a decades
Speaker 1: old precedent, we saw one of the liberals on the Court,
Speaker 1: Justice Brier actually say that it makes you wonder what
Speaker 1: precedents are next, and he not so subtly cited to
Speaker 1: the Court's abortion dockets. So that's definitely been on the
Speaker 1: minds of liberals and court watchers in general, how the
Speaker 1: Court will treat its precedent in the abortion case. Have
Speaker 1: any of the advocates asked the Court to reverse Roe v. Wade. No,
Speaker 1: So this case doesn't directly implicate Roe v. Wade or
Speaker 1: some of the other courts more foundational abortion precedent, But
Speaker 1: as you mentioned at the top of our segment, it
Speaker 1: does provide the justices with a chance to kind of
Speaker 1: chip away at abortion rights. And that's something that actually
Speaker 1: court watchers think may be more preferable to the Roberts Court,
Speaker 1: which tends to do things more incrementally rather than in
Speaker 1: these big broad strokes like overturning Row versus RDS. Now,
Speaker 1: at the end of March, there'll be three cases concerning
Speaker 1: access to Trump's financial records. Tell us about those, well, right,
Speaker 1: so these are a trio of cases, but they really
Speaker 1: deal with two separate issues. And so in one of
Speaker 1: the cases, House committees are trying to get financial records
Speaker 1: of the president, and then the other it's New York
Speaker 1: who's trying to get these financial records. Now, in the
Speaker 1: New York case, the private attorney for the president famously
Speaker 1: said that the president could shoot someone UM on Fifth
Speaker 1: Avenue and that New York couldn't even investigate the president
Speaker 1: for criminal wrongdoing. Well, he was in office, and so
Speaker 1: what the president is asking here UM in both of
Speaker 1: these cases is really a very broad immunity from an
Speaker 1: investigation while he's the sitting president. Let's turn to some
Speaker 1: other decision. There'll be decisions on cases that could change
Speaker 1: the landscape of federal protections for workplace discrimination. And the
Speaker 1: Justices have already heard arguments in a trio of cases
Speaker 1: concerning lgbt Q workers. Right so, at the beginning of
Speaker 1: the term, the justices UM heard several cases that ask
Speaker 1: whether or not federal antidiscrimination laws that are meant to
Speaker 1: protect workers protect LGBT workers as well. And it's a
Speaker 1: really interesting case in that kind of the legal theories
Speaker 1: that most of the conservative justices UH say that they
Speaker 1: rely on actually wagh in favor of finding that the
Speaker 1: law does protect LGBT workers. So it'll be an interesting
Speaker 1: UM case to see how they turn out. In particular,
Speaker 1: Justice corsage Um, President Trump's first nominee is being really
Speaker 1: torn at the argument about how to deal with those
Speaker 1: um those legal theories and how they work in that case.
Speaker 1: But there are other discrimination cases that are ring under
Speaker 1: the radar, just because this term is filled with so
Speaker 1: many blockbusters like the one we just talked about. I've
Speaker 1: been talking to Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Strawbridge
Speaker 1: Robinson about the second half of the Supreme Court's term.
Speaker 1: It will be filled with high profile, politically charged arguments
Speaker 1: and blockbuster opinions. In the coming months, the justices will
Speaker 1: consider whether President Trump can avoid congressional inquiries into his
Speaker 1: financial history. They'll also get their first chance to chip
Speaker 1: away at abortion rights since Trump's conservative nominees took the bench. So, Kimberly,
Speaker 1: we were talking about cases that could change the landscape
Speaker 1: of workplace discrimination. Tell us about the cases that could
Speaker 1: make it harder to even bring a discrimination case based
Speaker 1: on race or age in federal court. Well, there are
Speaker 1: two cases. One is Comcast and the other is BAB
Speaker 1: And Comcast deals with racial discrimination and bad deals with
Speaker 1: age discrimination. But the question in both cases is what
Speaker 1: a plaintiffs must allege in or to even bring their
Speaker 1: case in federal court. And in particular, it could make
Speaker 1: it harder for plaintiffs to even bring these discrimination suits
Speaker 1: if the Supreme Court says that they have to prove
Speaker 1: that their race or their age was the only factor
Speaker 1: in their adverse employment decision, rather than just one of
Speaker 1: many factors. So those are two cases to watch, even
Speaker 1: though it's hard to keep tabs on everything going on
Speaker 1: this term. Really, the Court has taken several cases involving religion,
Speaker 1: from the public funding of religious schools to religious exemptions
Speaker 1: from Obamacare. Tell us about the religion cases, right, So,
Speaker 1: religion has been a very popular topic um with the
Speaker 1: Robbers Court, especially in recent years, and they've been dealing
Speaker 1: with it on many fronts, um some of them on
Speaker 1: you know, the lines between LGBT rights and religious freedom,
Speaker 1: and also, as you mentioned, on public funding of schools.
Speaker 1: And so the Justice has recently heard a case Espinosa
Speaker 1: about whether or not ministers or Montana can ex food
Speaker 1: religious schools uh from a scholarship program, or whether the
Speaker 1: federal free exercise actually requires that Montana include religious schools
Speaker 1: so as not to show hostility towards them, And there
Speaker 1: is a case involving what's called the ministerial exception. Well,
Speaker 1: that's right, and so as I mentioned, these religion cases
Speaker 1: are really just all over the map and so on.
Speaker 1: That is a long standing exception um for religious discrimination
Speaker 1: claims against religious employers. The idea there being that you
Speaker 1: don't want federal courts and the government to get involved
Speaker 1: in all kinds of religious decisions. Do you want them
Speaker 1: to kind of you know, separation of church and state
Speaker 1: and keep their hands off. So this case will will
Speaker 1: take a look at that ministerial exception and seeing if
Speaker 1: it is still good law and how broadly it should
Speaker 1: be applied. And the Court in recent terms, would you
Speaker 1: say the court has been expanding religious rights? They certainly
Speaker 1: seemed to expand certain religious rights. And so there's really
Speaker 1: this tension that it seems that the justices have been
Speaker 1: dealing with between the two religious clauses in the first Amendment,
Speaker 1: one the free exercise, which says that the government you
Speaker 1: can't inhibit religion or show hostility towards religion, and one
Speaker 1: the establishment clauset, says that you know, government has to
Speaker 1: keep its hands off of religion, and so the justice
Speaker 1: have really been um broadening the reach of the free
Speaker 1: exercise clause at the expense of the establishment clause. But yes,
Speaker 1: they've been dealing in a lot of these religion cases that,
Speaker 1: as I mentioned a couple of times, just reached on
Speaker 1: touch on so many different issues. Now, administrative law is
Speaker 1: something that people usually you know, yawn at and say, oh,
Speaker 1: administrative law, but there are a number of cases that
Speaker 1: could reshape the way agencies operate. Well, that's right, And
Speaker 1: this is a particular area that court watchers have been
Speaker 1: keeping their eye on UM since President Trump nominated both
Speaker 1: Justice Corsets and Justice Kabinat to the bench, because they've
Speaker 1: indicated that this is an area that they're interested in
Speaker 1: reigning in, that is reigning in the administrative state. And
Speaker 1: so there's been a number of cases I'm sprinkled over
Speaker 1: the last three terms, and there are several this term.
Speaker 1: I think the one that most people are watching are
Speaker 1: one is one about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that
Speaker 1: the Justices will here soon UM that asked whether or
Speaker 1: not you know, putting a single person in charge of
Speaker 1: the agency who can only be fired for cause actually
Speaker 1: violates the separation of powers clause by taking away power
Speaker 1: from the president to control the executives. It's sort of
Speaker 1: an odd case for the Trump administration because right now
Speaker 1: they have in there someone that Trump appointed, and presumably
Speaker 1: they'd want that person to stay there even if a
Speaker 1: Democrat becomes president. But with this case, if the justice
Speaker 1: is a rule a certain way, the Democrats could remove
Speaker 1: the person that Trump put in all right, So there
Speaker 1: are in these administrative cases kind of some um, you know,
Speaker 1: tough lines for any administration, but especially for the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: who we see is generally wanting to rain in the
Speaker 1: administrative state. UM. Here, the person who has now been
Speaker 1: a Trump appointee has said, has agreed that she is
Speaker 1: removable um at the will of the president. And one
Speaker 1: of the big questions in the case is going to be,
Speaker 1: so what happens now to the rest of the statute?
Speaker 1: If one part of it is ben constitutional, does that
Speaker 1: mean that the whole statute falls and there's no longer
Speaker 1: a CFPD or can you kind of separate that from
Speaker 1: the rest of the statute. Now, in light of all
Speaker 1: these big blockbuster cases, a copyright case that should be
Speaker 1: a blockbuster involves Google and Oracle is sort of lost
Speaker 1: in the shadows. So tell us about that case. Well,
Speaker 1: it really is. I mean, this is really one of
Speaker 1: the biggest UM I P cases of our generation, and
Speaker 1: you know, it's it has been really lost in the
Speaker 1: shuffle here. But it's Google versus Oracle and deals with
Speaker 1: you know, several billion dollars of code that is meant
Speaker 1: to make it easier for UM developers to speak with
Speaker 1: different kinds of technology. And the question is whether or
Speaker 1: not firms can copyright that and how other firms can
Speaker 1: utilize that if it can be copyrightable. Kimberly, have they
Speaker 1: decided yet whether they're going to take the case on Obamacare, Well,
Speaker 1: they haven't decided that, uh as far as we speak.
Speaker 1: They are going to be considering it at another conference UM.
Speaker 1: But there's really been some kind of conflicting indications on
Speaker 1: whether or not the court will take up that case
Speaker 1: right now. So the issue, uh is about the individual mandate,
Speaker 1: which a lower court said UM is no longer legal.
Speaker 1: But there's still a question hanging out there about, similar
Speaker 1: to the CFBB case, what to do with the rest
Speaker 1: of the statute is all of Obamacare and constitutional. So
Speaker 1: the justices are weighing whether to take the case now, um,
Speaker 1: when it's kind of halfway done, or whether to send
Speaker 1: it back down to the lower courts and take it
Speaker 1: back up when the whole case is ready for the
Speaker 1: justices to hear. Which cases could show the trajectory of
Speaker 1: the Roberts Court, whether the new Conservatives will take the
Speaker 1: court sharply to the right, or whether the Chief will
Speaker 1: keep that move gradual. Well, I think there's a temptation
Speaker 1: to really look at these big blockbuster cases, these cases
Speaker 1: like the LGBT case that we were talking about, the
Speaker 1: case about DOCCA, to see how the court is going
Speaker 1: to go. But I think some of these smaller cases
Speaker 1: that we were talking about, the cases about um administrative
Speaker 1: law about religion, is really going to show whether or
Speaker 1: not the Court has any appetite to take really broad
Speaker 1: moves that could overturn really longstanding doctrines that touch all
Speaker 1: of our lives, or if they're going to go more
Speaker 1: incrementally and take on things just kind of chip away
Speaker 1: at them, as we suggested with the abortion cases. You know,
Speaker 1: you just mentioned DOCCA, and I realized we hadn't spoken
Speaker 1: about DOCA, And last year when they took doc everyone
Speaker 1: said that's going to be the biggest case of the
Speaker 1: term or one of the biggest and it's see to
Speaker 1: have faded into the background and tell us what that's about. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, this term is really just seems like it's
Speaker 1: on steroids as far as the number of blockbuster cases. Um.
Speaker 1: But DOCCA is, of course a program that was put
Speaker 1: in place by President Obama to defer deportation for individuals
Speaker 1: who were brought to the country illegally when they were children,
Speaker 1: and these so called dreamers. There's been a lot of
Speaker 1: um question about how to handle uh, these young individuals.
Speaker 1: And the Trump administration wants to unwind the policy, not because,
Speaker 1: it says, not because it doesn't want to give some
Speaker 1: relief to dreamers, but because it thinks that President Obama
Speaker 1: didn't have the authority to issue the DOCTA program in
Speaker 1: the first place. So the justices will and they have
Speaker 1: agreed to decide whether or not the Trump administration can
Speaker 1: actually begin winding that program down, and then of course
Speaker 1: it will be up to Congress to decide what to
Speaker 1: do with Dreamers. Liberals have been watching the health of
Speaker 1: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg because of her brushes with the
Speaker 1: medical problems. Tell us about those for those who don't know,
Speaker 1: and how she's doing well. She has had UM several
Speaker 1: recent brushes UM with cancer lately. UM she's actually had
Speaker 1: four bouts of cancer, but she says she regularly goes
Speaker 1: to the doctor and that she is cancer free right
Speaker 1: now and feeling healthy, and all indications from her work
Speaker 1: product seem to be that she's feeling pretty good. She's
Speaker 1: already issued three opinions UH in cases in majority or
Speaker 1: three majority opinions in cases so far this term, whereas
Speaker 1: all the other justices have only gotten one UM. And
Speaker 1: she's written a several very robust descents in cases, including
Speaker 1: one simply for herself. So she's she's working hard and
Speaker 1: seems to be doing well. Also, she seems to be
Speaker 1: making a lot of appearances, at least when the court
Speaker 1: was in a recess, so I saw her in time
Speaker 1: and time again more than any of the other justices.
Speaker 1: She is she famously, you know, is a frequent UH
Speaker 1: on the opera circuit. But she has been around talking
Speaker 1: with students, talking with a lot of groups around town.
Speaker 1: It's actually funny. I was talking to my editor the
Speaker 1: other day about covering another one of her events, and
Speaker 1: we said Oh, we're kind of we've kind of had
Speaker 1: enough of Justice Kinsburg lately. She's just everywhere. Thanks so
Speaker 1: much for being on Bloomberg Law. Kimberly, that's Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Supreme Court Reporter. And that's it for this
Speaker 1: edition of Bloomberg Law. Remember you can listen to all
Speaker 1: the latest legal topics in the news anytime on Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Lawn Podcast. You can find them on iTunes, SoundCloud, or
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com Slash podcast, Slash Law and Attorneys. You
Speaker 1: can find exceptional legal research and business development tools at
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law dot com. I'm June Grosso. Thanks so much
Speaker 1: for a listening, and remember to tune into the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law Show tomorrow night at ten pm Eastern right here
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio