1
00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:02,200
Speaker 1: It's gonna be a big term at the Supreme Court

2
00:00:02,240 --> 00:00:04,840
Speaker 1: starting October two. But don't take my word for it.

3
00:00:05,040 --> 00:00:08,320
Speaker 1: Here's Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaking this week at Georgetown

4
00:00:08,360 --> 00:00:13,680
Speaker 1: Law School. There's only one prediction that's entirely safe about

5
00:00:13,720 --> 00:00:19,840
Speaker 1: the upcoming term, and that it will be momentous. In

6
00:00:19,840 --> 00:00:22,840
Speaker 1: addition the cases involving wedding cakes and voting maps, there

7
00:00:22,840 --> 00:00:26,200
Speaker 1: will be fights over worker class action lawsuits, cell phone privacy,

8
00:00:26,440 --> 00:00:29,360
Speaker 1: and of course Donald Trump's travel band with us to

9
00:00:29,400 --> 00:00:31,920
Speaker 1: talk more about this momentous term and perhaps makes some

10
00:00:32,040 --> 00:00:34,800
Speaker 1: not so safe predictions is Greg gar. He's a partner

11
00:00:34,840 --> 00:00:37,800
Speaker 1: at Latham and Watkins here in Washington and formally the U. S.

12
00:00:37,800 --> 00:00:41,560
Speaker 1: Solicitor General under President George W. Bush. Greg, thanks for

13
00:00:41,680 --> 00:00:44,080
Speaker 1: joining us. Let's see how many of these cases we

14
00:00:44,120 --> 00:00:46,320
Speaker 1: can get to. Uh, tell us a little bit about

15
00:00:46,360 --> 00:00:48,480
Speaker 1: the very first case case the Court's going to hear

16
00:00:49,040 --> 00:00:52,479
Speaker 1: involving the rights of workers depressed class action lawsuits even

17
00:00:52,520 --> 00:00:56,320
Speaker 1: though they've signed arbitration agreements. Thanks Greig, and thanks for

18
00:00:56,360 --> 00:00:59,440
Speaker 1: having me on. So the very first case of the term,

19
00:01:00,000 --> 00:01:02,640
Speaker 1: that's an opportunity for the Court to revisit an area

20
00:01:02,720 --> 00:01:05,200
Speaker 1: that has split the justices along five four lines, and

21
00:01:05,240 --> 00:01:10,759
Speaker 1: that's the enforceability of employee arbitration agreements. And in this case,

22
00:01:10,840 --> 00:01:15,560
Speaker 1: the question is whether or not employer employer employer employee

23
00:01:15,600 --> 00:01:20,400
Speaker 1: agreements to resolve work related disputes through individual arbitration violate

24
00:01:20,480 --> 00:01:24,039
Speaker 1: the federal labor laws. So in the in a specific case,

25
00:01:24,080 --> 00:01:28,280
Speaker 1: the employees suit their employer in court for wage and

26
00:01:28,360 --> 00:01:32,480
Speaker 1: overtime violations on a class basis. But they had one problem.

27
00:01:32,520 --> 00:01:35,920
Speaker 1: They had already agreed to resolve any employer related claims

28
00:01:36,080 --> 00:01:40,640
Speaker 1: through arbitration on an individual basis. UH. The the employers

29
00:01:40,680 --> 00:01:43,360
Speaker 1: then sought to enforce that agreement and kick the cases

30
00:01:43,400 --> 00:01:46,480
Speaker 1: out of court, at which point the employees argued that

31
00:01:46,520 --> 00:01:50,600
Speaker 1: they had a right under the National Labor Relations Act

32
00:01:50,800 --> 00:01:54,480
Speaker 1: to bring that sort of class litigation under provision that

33
00:01:54,640 --> 00:01:58,040
Speaker 1: grants to employees the right to engage in quote, concerted

34
00:01:58,120 --> 00:02:01,720
Speaker 1: activities for the purpose of to bargaining or other mutual

35
00:02:01,760 --> 00:02:05,600
Speaker 1: aid or protection. UH. They rely on that provision to

36
00:02:05,640 --> 00:02:09,919
Speaker 1: claim that the individual arbitration agreements that they assigned are

37
00:02:10,120 --> 00:02:14,120
Speaker 1: unenforceable under federal law. And so this case really presents

38
00:02:14,120 --> 00:02:18,320
Speaker 1: a clash between the National Labor Relations Act and the

39
00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:21,360
Speaker 1: Federal Arbitration Act, which the Court has recognized in a

40
00:02:21,480 --> 00:02:25,000
Speaker 1: series of cases, presents a strong presumption in favor of

41
00:02:25,240 --> 00:02:29,519
Speaker 1: enforcing arbitration agreements. The employees have tended to lose these

42
00:02:29,520 --> 00:02:32,840
Speaker 1: sorts of cases by five for majority, and with the

43
00:02:32,919 --> 00:02:36,520
Speaker 1: Justice Course selling Justice Lee a seat um. There's no

44
00:02:36,560 --> 00:02:39,840
Speaker 1: particular reason to think that the result in this case

45
00:02:39,880 --> 00:02:42,600
Speaker 1: will be any different. But either way, I think everybody

46
00:02:42,680 --> 00:02:46,959
Speaker 1: agrees that this case is of tremendous importance to employers

47
00:02:46,960 --> 00:02:50,320
Speaker 1: and employees alike given the prevalence of these sorts of

48
00:02:51,000 --> 00:02:55,280
Speaker 1: arbitration agreements greg there will be a major test of

49
00:02:55,360 --> 00:02:59,160
Speaker 1: digital privacy coming up with the case involving whether you

50
00:02:59,200 --> 00:03:03,359
Speaker 1: need a warrant to obtain mobile phone tower records. Tell

51
00:03:03,440 --> 00:03:07,600
Speaker 1: us about that absolutely so. Any time, any time you

52
00:03:07,600 --> 00:03:11,640
Speaker 1: have a smartphone in your pocket, your location is constantly

53
00:03:11,680 --> 00:03:16,800
Speaker 1: being tracked by your cellular service provider, which is pinging

54
00:03:17,280 --> 00:03:20,959
Speaker 1: cell towers nearby to send data to and from your phone.

55
00:03:21,560 --> 00:03:26,120
Speaker 1: Um The cellular provider collects this data, and in this case,

56
00:03:26,720 --> 00:03:30,160
Speaker 1: the government want to the service provider and asked for

57
00:03:30,560 --> 00:03:35,640
Speaker 1: four months of this so called cell site location information

58
00:03:35,800 --> 00:03:39,400
Speaker 1: in order to determine the defendants whereabouts in connection with

59
00:03:39,480 --> 00:03:43,560
Speaker 1: the criminal investigations and charges that are brought. And the

60
00:03:43,800 --> 00:03:46,400
Speaker 1: very important question present in this case is whether the

61
00:03:46,440 --> 00:03:51,600
Speaker 1: government's collection of that UH SELL site location information UM

62
00:03:51,720 --> 00:03:55,320
Speaker 1: is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment UH.

63
00:03:55,720 --> 00:03:58,400
Speaker 1: To you go back for a while, the government generally

64
00:03:58,400 --> 00:04:03,680
Speaker 1: has been allowed to collect phone records from UH from

65
00:04:03,680 --> 00:04:09,000
Speaker 1: your phone companies under the Communications Storage Act, and the

66
00:04:09,000 --> 00:04:12,880
Speaker 1: theory that it's just collecting data that everyone should realize

67
00:04:12,920 --> 00:04:15,160
Speaker 1: could be collected by the phone companies and the government

68
00:04:15,200 --> 00:04:18,719
Speaker 1: isn't invading your reasonable expectations of privacy. But this case

69
00:04:18,800 --> 00:04:23,560
Speaker 1: really presents the Court to reconsider reasonable expectations of privacy

70
00:04:23,600 --> 00:04:27,880
Speaker 1: and this smartphone age. And if there's one thing that's

71
00:04:27,880 --> 00:04:30,719
Speaker 1: where it comes to from the Court's recent Fourth AMDENDMIC cases,

72
00:04:30,960 --> 00:04:33,880
Speaker 1: is that the justices are generally wary of embracing force

73
00:04:34,279 --> 00:04:37,719
Speaker 1: Fourth Amendment principles that can limit their own privacy. And

74
00:04:37,760 --> 00:04:39,719
Speaker 1: I think it safe to say that probably all the

75
00:04:39,760 --> 00:04:43,200
Speaker 1: justices carry smartphones, so that may give a little bit

76
00:04:43,360 --> 00:04:45,919
Speaker 1: of a boost to the challengers in this case. We

77
00:04:46,000 --> 00:04:49,120
Speaker 1: know Justice Brier carries a phone because his inadvertently rang

78
00:04:49,320 --> 00:04:52,080
Speaker 1: during a couple of arguments last term. UM Greg, we

79
00:04:52,120 --> 00:04:54,880
Speaker 1: could spend an entire show talking about Donald Trump's travel bands.

80
00:04:54,960 --> 00:04:56,680
Speaker 1: Let me but let me just ask you one question

81
00:04:56,680 --> 00:05:00,080
Speaker 1: about it. So really big issues here, the president in

82
00:05:00,120 --> 00:05:04,760
Speaker 1: control of the borders, the allegations of bias against Muslims.

83
00:05:04,800 --> 00:05:07,760
Speaker 1: But there is this issue that the band that's in

84
00:05:07,800 --> 00:05:11,760
Speaker 1: place now is scheduled to expire on Sunday, and we're

85
00:05:11,800 --> 00:05:15,679
Speaker 1: anticipating the administration may issue something new, perhaps a longer

86
00:05:15,680 --> 00:05:19,479
Speaker 1: travel ban affecting more countries. What do you think the

87
00:05:19,560 --> 00:05:22,520
Speaker 1: chances are that the court will actually decide any of

88
00:05:22,560 --> 00:05:25,679
Speaker 1: those big issues or do you think it's more likely

89
00:05:25,720 --> 00:05:28,120
Speaker 1: that the travel ban case will will go away in

90
00:05:28,160 --> 00:05:30,800
Speaker 1: one way or another? Right? I mean, I think right

91
00:05:30,800 --> 00:05:33,000
Speaker 1: now it's a big if, and that's about all I

92
00:05:33,040 --> 00:05:36,479
Speaker 1: can say. And as as you mentioned, the order itself

93
00:05:36,640 --> 00:05:40,520
Speaker 1: is before the court is scheduled to expire on Sunday,

94
00:05:40,640 --> 00:05:45,039
Speaker 1: and if it expires, then presumably um there be a

95
00:05:45,080 --> 00:05:47,359
Speaker 1: big question of muteness over whether the case could go

96
00:05:47,440 --> 00:05:50,440
Speaker 1: for it at all. But even if the President renews

97
00:05:50,480 --> 00:05:53,240
Speaker 1: the order in some form, then that would present a

98
00:05:53,320 --> 00:05:55,920
Speaker 1: question of whether this is the right time for the

99
00:05:55,960 --> 00:05:58,119
Speaker 1: Supreme Court to decide the issue, or whether it should

100
00:05:58,120 --> 00:06:02,359
Speaker 1: go back for more briefing, more decisions from the lower court.

101
00:06:02,480 --> 00:06:04,600
Speaker 1: And so I think you're quite right that there's a

102
00:06:04,640 --> 00:06:07,359
Speaker 1: significant question as to whether the Supreme Court will issue

103
00:06:07,720 --> 00:06:10,200
Speaker 1: any decision in this case, and then even if it does,

104
00:06:10,279 --> 00:06:12,640
Speaker 1: there's a big question about how broad or narrow the

105
00:06:12,680 --> 00:06:15,719
Speaker 1: court would go um. Thus far in the litigation, the

106
00:06:15,760 --> 00:06:19,240
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has seemed to try to resolve issues that

107
00:06:19,279 --> 00:06:21,880
Speaker 1: have come up on a you know, something of a

108
00:06:21,920 --> 00:06:24,720
Speaker 1: consensus basis, or at least not a five four basis.

109
00:06:25,080 --> 00:06:29,520
Speaker 1: For example, in July, they held that grandparents and cousins

110
00:06:29,880 --> 00:06:33,040
Speaker 1: can't be excluded under the travel order, but that refugees

111
00:06:33,040 --> 00:06:35,679
Speaker 1: claiming a relationship with the resettlement Agency in the United

112
00:06:35,680 --> 00:06:39,320
Speaker 1: States could be UM. So I think if the case

113
00:06:39,360 --> 00:06:41,560
Speaker 1: does go forward, there'll be a big question about how

114
00:06:41,680 --> 00:06:45,120
Speaker 1: narrow or broadly the Court decides this case. And it's

115
00:06:45,160 --> 00:06:48,480
Speaker 1: hard to see the Court, especially out of the block um,

116
00:06:48,520 --> 00:06:51,560
Speaker 1: having much of an appetite as a whole for deciding

117
00:06:51,600 --> 00:06:55,919
Speaker 1: this case on very broad, momentous constitutional grounds. Speaking of

118
00:06:55,960 --> 00:07:02,039
Speaker 1: broad questions, is this going to be an ideologically divisive

119
00:07:02,200 --> 00:07:07,159
Speaker 1: term with Justice Kennedy generally in the middle, Yeah, I

120
00:07:07,200 --> 00:07:10,320
Speaker 1: think I think that's very likely. Um, we're coming off

121
00:07:10,360 --> 00:07:12,880
Speaker 1: of unique curier in which the Court with a h

122
00:07:12,880 --> 00:07:14,960
Speaker 1: justices has really sought to go out of its way

123
00:07:15,000 --> 00:07:17,840
Speaker 1: to find consensus. And you know, one of the big

124
00:07:17,880 --> 00:07:20,600
Speaker 1: pictures questions going into this term is whether or not

125
00:07:21,080 --> 00:07:24,280
Speaker 1: that will hold. But it looks right now, with all

126
00:07:24,280 --> 00:07:27,920
Speaker 1: these divisive issues on the court stocket, that Justice Kennedy

127
00:07:27,960 --> 00:07:31,120
Speaker 1: will be the pivotal justice again and that we're likely

128
00:07:31,160 --> 00:07:33,960
Speaker 1: to see more five four decisions and more of this

129
00:07:34,040 --> 00:07:37,440
Speaker 1: sort of contentious five four decisions that we've seen from

130
00:07:37,480 --> 00:07:41,640
Speaker 1: the Court going back before Justice Galia's passage. So it's

131
00:07:41,720 --> 00:07:44,360
Speaker 1: it's going to be a really fascinating term to follow.

132
00:07:44,840 --> 00:07:47,360
Speaker 1: I want to thank Greg gar from our solicitor general

133
00:07:47,400 --> 00:07:51,120
Speaker 1: now partner at Lathaman Watkins for foreshadowing some of the

134
00:07:51,240 --> 00:07:53,960
Speaker 1: many issues we'll be talking about on Bloomberg Law over

135
00:07:53,960 --> 00:07:56,760
Speaker 1: the next nine months. That's it for this edition of

136
00:07:56,760 --> 00:07:59,880
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law. We'll be back tomorrow thanks to our tech

137
00:08:00,000 --> 00:08:03,920
Speaker 1: old director Charlie Olmer and our producer David Suckerman. You

138
00:08:03,960 --> 00:08:07,440
Speaker 1: can find more legal news on at Bloomberg Law dot

139
00:08:07,440 --> 00:08:11,360
Speaker 1: com and Bloomberg BNA dot com, plus an invaluable website

140
00:08:11,400 --> 00:08:14,840
Speaker 1: for the legal community at Big Law business dot com.

141
00:08:14,840 --> 00:08:17,960
Speaker 1: Coming up on Bloomberg Radio, it'll be Bloomberg Markets with

142
00:08:18,080 --> 00:08:21,920
Speaker 1: Carol Masser and Corey Johnson. They have a full agenda

143
00:08:22,000 --> 00:08:25,680
Speaker 1: to talk about, so stay tuned for that. You've been

144
00:08:25,720 --> 00:08:28,960
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg Law. This is Bloomberg