1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,840
Speaker 1: General Motors got bad news from the Supreme Court today.

2
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:05,880
Speaker 1: With a full complement of nine justices in place, the

3
00:00:05,920 --> 00:00:08,039
Speaker 1: court issued orders and herd or an argument a number

4
00:00:08,080 --> 00:00:11,400
Speaker 1: of cases this morning. UH, and it issued an order

5
00:00:11,440 --> 00:00:14,720
Speaker 1: rejecting GM's claims that it shouldn't have to face lawsuits

6
00:00:14,800 --> 00:00:18,720
Speaker 1: over an ignition switch defect that arose before GM went

7
00:00:18,760 --> 00:00:21,919
Speaker 1: into bankruptcy. With us to talk about what the Supreme

8
00:00:21,960 --> 00:00:25,480
Speaker 1: Court did today, including this GM case. UH is Greg's store.

9
00:00:25,680 --> 00:00:28,480
Speaker 1: Greg is our co host on Bloomberg Law and also

10
00:00:28,520 --> 00:00:32,280
Speaker 1: Bloomberg's Supreme Court reporter. So, Greg, you've had a busy

11
00:00:32,320 --> 00:00:35,840
Speaker 1: morning at the court. Um. This case with GM could

12
00:00:35,920 --> 00:00:39,120
Speaker 1: be billions of dollars in potential liability for them depending

13
00:00:39,120 --> 00:00:41,199
Speaker 1: on what the courts end up finding, and they were

14
00:00:41,200 --> 00:00:42,839
Speaker 1: pretty keen to get out from under it. What did

15
00:00:42,840 --> 00:00:46,360
Speaker 1: the Court do today? Yeah, the Court rejected GM's appeal.

16
00:00:46,640 --> 00:00:51,559
Speaker 1: GM why the court to hear arguments and overturned this

17
00:00:51,640 --> 00:00:54,560
Speaker 1: lower court order that said you have to face these

18
00:00:54,640 --> 00:00:59,440
Speaker 1: lawsuits potentially involving millions of of car purchasers and and

19
00:01:00,440 --> 00:01:03,920
Speaker 1: an estimate that GM highlighted potentially seven to ten billion

20
00:01:03,960 --> 00:01:07,480
Speaker 1: dollars in claims, much of that by people who were

21
00:01:07,560 --> 00:01:11,679
Speaker 1: involved in very serious accidents because of this ignition switched

22
00:01:11,760 --> 00:01:15,160
Speaker 1: defect or allegedly because of that. Greg there were two

23
00:01:15,400 --> 00:01:20,080
Speaker 1: art oral arguments today and both relating to capital punishment

24
00:01:20,160 --> 00:01:23,119
Speaker 1: or death penalty defendant. Tell us about the first one,

25
00:01:23,160 --> 00:01:27,440
Speaker 1: which involved help from a psychiatrist or mental health of

26
00:01:28,240 --> 00:01:32,480
Speaker 1: a capital punishment defendant. Yeah, this is a case involving

27
00:01:32,520 --> 00:01:37,480
Speaker 1: a guy who in Alabama was convicted of a four

28
00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:41,000
Speaker 1: murder and kind of the underlying question is whether he

29
00:01:41,280 --> 00:01:45,000
Speaker 1: had a mental illness that should be a mitigating factor

30
00:01:45,560 --> 00:01:50,720
Speaker 1: in his death sentencing proceeding. And the court there ordered

31
00:01:50,800 --> 00:01:56,080
Speaker 1: or appointed a state employed psychologist to produce a report

32
00:01:56,160 --> 00:01:59,480
Speaker 1: about his mental health. And that report actually found that

33
00:01:59,520 --> 00:02:02,880
Speaker 1: he had some as as the expert put an organic

34
00:02:02,920 --> 00:02:06,920
Speaker 1: brain dysfunction. And what Mr McWilliams argues is that that

35
00:02:06,920 --> 00:02:10,440
Speaker 1: that was not enough under an earlier Supreme Court decision.

36
00:02:10,480 --> 00:02:13,640
Speaker 1: He says, I am entitled to an independent expert, somebody

37
00:02:13,639 --> 00:02:17,280
Speaker 1: who's not state employed, and somebody who is essentially on

38
00:02:17,320 --> 00:02:19,960
Speaker 1: my side of the case, because this report, had I

39
00:02:20,000 --> 00:02:23,240
Speaker 1: been able to, you know, fully explore it and present

40
00:02:23,360 --> 00:02:26,240
Speaker 1: it to the court, might have been enough to give

41
00:02:26,280 --> 00:02:30,680
Speaker 1: me grounds to avoid the death penalty. So how did

42
00:02:30,680 --> 00:02:35,120
Speaker 1: the justices respond to the arguments today, Well, they seemed mixed.

43
00:02:35,280 --> 00:02:37,800
Speaker 1: It seemed to be kind of an ideological divide that

44
00:02:37,840 --> 00:02:40,760
Speaker 1: we've gotten used to. With Anthony Kennedy in the middle

45
00:02:40,800 --> 00:02:45,399
Speaker 1: of the court, he was somewhat sympathetic. Um, maybe not

46
00:02:45,560 --> 00:02:49,720
Speaker 1: giving the defense Mr McWilliams everything he was asking for,

47
00:02:49,919 --> 00:02:55,320
Speaker 1: but uh he he did suggest that, uh that. And

48
00:02:55,760 --> 00:02:57,400
Speaker 1: the part of this is that a lot of other

49
00:02:57,440 --> 00:03:00,160
Speaker 1: states now have already given these sorts of right that

50
00:03:00,200 --> 00:03:04,200
Speaker 1: he's asking for. Kennedy did seem to suggest that he

51
00:03:04,240 --> 00:03:07,360
Speaker 1: was inclined to give Mr McWilliams at least some of

52
00:03:07,360 --> 00:03:09,080
Speaker 1: what he was asking for, which could mean a new

53
00:03:09,120 --> 00:03:12,080
Speaker 1: sentencing hearing for him. So it seems as if Kennedy

54
00:03:12,160 --> 00:03:15,840
Speaker 1: is still the swing vote. He does, he does seem

55
00:03:15,880 --> 00:03:17,680
Speaker 1: that way. Let me just point out one other interesting

56
00:03:17,720 --> 00:03:19,920
Speaker 1: aspect of this argument today. I've now seen it twice

57
00:03:20,360 --> 00:03:23,320
Speaker 1: two justices to keep an eye on Justice Gorsuch and

58
00:03:23,400 --> 00:03:26,680
Speaker 1: Justice Kagan, the two news justices on the court twice

59
00:03:26,720 --> 00:03:30,040
Speaker 1: now since Justice Corser has been on the court. Justice

60
00:03:30,080 --> 00:03:33,200
Speaker 1: Kagan pushed back at him very hard on something that

61
00:03:33,200 --> 00:03:35,560
Speaker 1: that he said today. She used the word shocking to

62
00:03:35,640 --> 00:03:42,200
Speaker 1: describe a way he was proposing, uh, exploring this case

63
00:03:42,240 --> 00:03:47,080
Speaker 1: before them. What was it, greg What did he say this?

64
00:03:47,840 --> 00:03:50,240
Speaker 1: It's actually a pretty tactical point, but it had to

65
00:03:50,280 --> 00:03:54,520
Speaker 1: do with how the court interpreted this decision. From that

66
00:03:54,640 --> 00:03:58,280
Speaker 1: is really the underlying precedent. And essentially what what the

67
00:03:58,320 --> 00:04:01,119
Speaker 1: way Kagan described what Gorsuch was was saying is that

68
00:04:01,360 --> 00:04:03,760
Speaker 1: he wasn't content just to look at what the court said.

69
00:04:03,840 --> 00:04:07,120
Speaker 1: He wanted to go a little further back to look

70
00:04:07,120 --> 00:04:09,040
Speaker 1: at what the parties were asking the court to do

71
00:04:09,040 --> 00:04:12,520
Speaker 1: in and she said that would be a shocking way

72
00:04:12,600 --> 00:04:17,039
Speaker 1: of reading court precedents. We shall see what happens with that.

73
00:04:17,480 --> 00:04:20,760
Speaker 1: But now the court hasn't granted any new cases today,

74
00:04:20,800 --> 00:04:24,280
Speaker 1: but there are still some interesting possibilities out there and

75
00:04:24,560 --> 00:04:27,960
Speaker 1: some time left. Yeah, and it seems like maybe they

76
00:04:27,960 --> 00:04:29,640
Speaker 1: took it just a little bit of pause to let

77
00:04:29,839 --> 00:04:32,479
Speaker 1: Neil Gorst come up, get up to speed. There's a

78
00:04:32,520 --> 00:04:35,040
Speaker 1: case that seems highly likely to be granted would be

79
00:04:35,080 --> 00:04:38,360
Speaker 1: a blockbuster. That is the North Carolina Voter i. D. Case.

80
00:04:38,960 --> 00:04:41,640
Speaker 1: That's the one where a federal appeals court said the

81
00:04:41,720 --> 00:04:47,160
Speaker 1: state with quote almost surgical precision, targeted blacks with these restrictions. UH.

82
00:04:47,240 --> 00:04:50,400
Speaker 1: The court UH is already indicated that there are four

83
00:04:50,480 --> 00:04:53,239
Speaker 1: of them on the court. This was even before arrived.

84
00:04:54,000 --> 00:04:57,640
Speaker 1: Are are inclined to want to hear North Carolina is

85
00:04:57,640 --> 00:05:00,320
Speaker 1: appealing that this case that could be a really big one.

86
00:05:00,440 --> 00:05:02,880
Speaker 1: One other, if I have a second to describe to you,

87
00:05:03,400 --> 00:05:05,560
Speaker 1: there are a number of petitions that ask a really

88
00:05:05,600 --> 00:05:10,080
Speaker 1: interesting question about digital privacy. Whether police need a warrant

89
00:05:10,279 --> 00:05:14,360
Speaker 1: to get from a telecom company the location of your

90
00:05:14,400 --> 00:05:18,320
Speaker 1: mobile phone has arisen in a number of contexts. UH

91
00:05:18,400 --> 00:05:21,240
Speaker 1: lower course generally have said no, they don't need to

92
00:05:21,320 --> 00:05:24,040
Speaker 1: go to a judge and show probable cause and get

93
00:05:24,080 --> 00:05:26,320
Speaker 1: a warrant in order to get that sort of information

94
00:05:26,360 --> 00:05:29,080
Speaker 1: from a telecommunications company. Well, I'm sure we'll be talking

95
00:05:29,080 --> 00:05:31,000
Speaker 1: about that. We talked about that subject all the time.

96
00:05:31,040 --> 00:05:33,520
Speaker 1: It keeps coming up our thanks to Greg Store from

97
00:05:33,960 --> 00:05:36,919
Speaker 1: Bloomberg new Supreme Court reporter and our co host on

98
00:05:37,160 --> 00:05:40,279
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law. Coming up, we'll be talking about extensive litigation

99
00:05:40,279 --> 00:05:44,159
Speaker 1: against the agribusiness giant Syngenta over whether it misled people

100
00:05:44,240 --> 00:05:48,039
Speaker 1: about genetically modified corn getting approved