WEBVTT - GM Left to Face Ignition Claims After High Court Ruling (Audio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:02.840
<v Speaker 1>General Motors got bad news from the Supreme Court today.

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:05.880
<v Speaker 1>With a full complement of nine justices in place, the

0:00:05.920 --> 0:00:08.039
<v Speaker 1>court issued orders and herd or an argument a number

0:00:08.080 --> 0:00:11.400
<v Speaker 1>of cases this morning. UH, and it issued an order

0:00:11.440 --> 0:00:14.720
<v Speaker 1>rejecting GM's claims that it shouldn't have to face lawsuits

0:00:14.800 --> 0:00:18.720
<v Speaker 1>over an ignition switch defect that arose before GM went

0:00:18.760 --> 0:00:21.919
<v Speaker 1>into bankruptcy. With us to talk about what the Supreme

0:00:21.960 --> 0:00:25.480
<v Speaker 1>Court did today, including this GM case. UH is Greg's store.

0:00:25.680 --> 0:00:28.480
<v Speaker 1>Greg is our co host on Bloomberg Law and also

0:00:28.520 --> 0:00:32.280
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg's Supreme Court reporter. So, Greg, you've had a busy

0:00:32.320 --> 0:00:35.840
<v Speaker 1>morning at the court. Um. This case with GM could

0:00:35.920 --> 0:00:39.120
<v Speaker 1>be billions of dollars in potential liability for them depending

0:00:39.120 --> 0:00:41.199
<v Speaker 1>on what the courts end up finding, and they were

0:00:41.200 --> 0:00:42.839
<v Speaker 1>pretty keen to get out from under it. What did

0:00:42.840 --> 0:00:46.360
<v Speaker 1>the Court do today? Yeah, the Court rejected GM's appeal.

0:00:46.640 --> 0:00:51.559
<v Speaker 1>GM why the court to hear arguments and overturned this

0:00:51.640 --> 0:00:54.560
<v Speaker 1>lower court order that said you have to face these

0:00:54.640 --> 0:00:59.440
<v Speaker 1>lawsuits potentially involving millions of of car purchasers and and

0:01:00.440 --> 0:01:03.920
<v Speaker 1>an estimate that GM highlighted potentially seven to ten billion

0:01:03.960 --> 0:01:07.480
<v Speaker 1>dollars in claims, much of that by people who were

0:01:07.560 --> 0:01:11.679
<v Speaker 1>involved in very serious accidents because of this ignition switched

0:01:11.760 --> 0:01:15.160
<v Speaker 1>defect or allegedly because of that. Greg there were two

0:01:15.400 --> 0:01:20.080
<v Speaker 1>art oral arguments today and both relating to capital punishment

0:01:20.160 --> 0:01:23.119
<v Speaker 1>or death penalty defendant. Tell us about the first one,

0:01:23.160 --> 0:01:27.440
<v Speaker 1>which involved help from a psychiatrist or mental health of

0:01:28.240 --> 0:01:32.480
<v Speaker 1>a capital punishment defendant. Yeah, this is a case involving

0:01:32.520 --> 0:01:37.480
<v Speaker 1>a guy who in Alabama was convicted of a four

0:01:37.600 --> 0:01:41.000
<v Speaker 1>murder and kind of the underlying question is whether he

0:01:41.280 --> 0:01:45.000
<v Speaker 1>had a mental illness that should be a mitigating factor

0:01:45.560 --> 0:01:50.720
<v Speaker 1>in his death sentencing proceeding. And the court there ordered

0:01:50.800 --> 0:01:56.080
<v Speaker 1>or appointed a state employed psychologist to produce a report

0:01:56.160 --> 0:01:59.480
<v Speaker 1>about his mental health. And that report actually found that

0:01:59.520 --> 0:02:02.880
<v Speaker 1>he had some as as the expert put an organic

0:02:02.920 --> 0:02:06.920
<v Speaker 1>brain dysfunction. And what Mr McWilliams argues is that that

0:02:06.920 --> 0:02:10.440
<v Speaker 1>that was not enough under an earlier Supreme Court decision.

0:02:10.480 --> 0:02:13.640
<v Speaker 1>He says, I am entitled to an independent expert, somebody

0:02:13.639 --> 0:02:17.280
<v Speaker 1>who's not state employed, and somebody who is essentially on

0:02:17.320 --> 0:02:19.960
<v Speaker 1>my side of the case, because this report, had I

0:02:20.000 --> 0:02:23.240
<v Speaker 1>been able to, you know, fully explore it and present

0:02:23.360 --> 0:02:26.240
<v Speaker 1>it to the court, might have been enough to give

0:02:26.280 --> 0:02:30.680
<v Speaker 1>me grounds to avoid the death penalty. So how did

0:02:30.680 --> 0:02:35.120
<v Speaker 1>the justices respond to the arguments today, Well, they seemed mixed.

0:02:35.280 --> 0:02:37.800
<v Speaker 1>It seemed to be kind of an ideological divide that

0:02:37.840 --> 0:02:40.760
<v Speaker 1>we've gotten used to. With Anthony Kennedy in the middle

0:02:40.800 --> 0:02:45.399
<v Speaker 1>of the court, he was somewhat sympathetic. Um, maybe not

0:02:45.560 --> 0:02:49.720
<v Speaker 1>giving the defense Mr McWilliams everything he was asking for,

0:02:49.919 --> 0:02:55.320
<v Speaker 1>but uh he he did suggest that, uh that. And

0:02:55.760 --> 0:02:57.400
<v Speaker 1>the part of this is that a lot of other

0:02:57.440 --> 0:03:00.160
<v Speaker 1>states now have already given these sorts of right that

0:03:00.200 --> 0:03:04.200
<v Speaker 1>he's asking for. Kennedy did seem to suggest that he

0:03:04.240 --> 0:03:07.360
<v Speaker 1>was inclined to give Mr McWilliams at least some of

0:03:07.360 --> 0:03:09.080
<v Speaker 1>what he was asking for, which could mean a new

0:03:09.120 --> 0:03:12.080
<v Speaker 1>sentencing hearing for him. So it seems as if Kennedy

0:03:12.160 --> 0:03:15.840
<v Speaker 1>is still the swing vote. He does, he does seem

0:03:15.880 --> 0:03:17.680
<v Speaker 1>that way. Let me just point out one other interesting

0:03:17.720 --> 0:03:19.920
<v Speaker 1>aspect of this argument today. I've now seen it twice

0:03:20.360 --> 0:03:23.320
<v Speaker 1>two justices to keep an eye on Justice Gorsuch and

0:03:23.400 --> 0:03:26.680
<v Speaker 1>Justice Kagan, the two news justices on the court twice

0:03:26.720 --> 0:03:30.040
<v Speaker 1>now since Justice Corser has been on the court. Justice

0:03:30.080 --> 0:03:33.200
<v Speaker 1>Kagan pushed back at him very hard on something that

0:03:33.200 --> 0:03:35.560
<v Speaker 1>that he said today. She used the word shocking to

0:03:35.640 --> 0:03:42.200
<v Speaker 1>describe a way he was proposing, uh, exploring this case

0:03:42.240 --> 0:03:47.080
<v Speaker 1>before them. What was it, greg What did he say this?

0:03:47.840 --> 0:03:50.240
<v Speaker 1>It's actually a pretty tactical point, but it had to

0:03:50.280 --> 0:03:54.520
<v Speaker 1>do with how the court interpreted this decision. From that

0:03:54.640 --> 0:03:58.280
<v Speaker 1>is really the underlying precedent. And essentially what what the

0:03:58.320 --> 0:04:01.119
<v Speaker 1>way Kagan described what Gorsuch was was saying is that

0:04:01.360 --> 0:04:03.760
<v Speaker 1>he wasn't content just to look at what the court said.

0:04:03.840 --> 0:04:07.120
<v Speaker 1>He wanted to go a little further back to look

0:04:07.120 --> 0:04:09.040
<v Speaker 1>at what the parties were asking the court to do

0:04:09.040 --> 0:04:12.520
<v Speaker 1>in and she said that would be a shocking way

0:04:12.600 --> 0:04:17.039
<v Speaker 1>of reading court precedents. We shall see what happens with that.

0:04:17.480 --> 0:04:20.760
<v Speaker 1>But now the court hasn't granted any new cases today,

0:04:20.800 --> 0:04:24.280
<v Speaker 1>but there are still some interesting possibilities out there and

0:04:24.560 --> 0:04:27.960
<v Speaker 1>some time left. Yeah, and it seems like maybe they

0:04:27.960 --> 0:04:29.640
<v Speaker 1>took it just a little bit of pause to let

0:04:29.839 --> 0:04:32.479
<v Speaker 1>Neil Gorst come up, get up to speed. There's a

0:04:32.520 --> 0:04:35.040
<v Speaker 1>case that seems highly likely to be granted would be

0:04:35.080 --> 0:04:38.360
<v Speaker 1>a blockbuster. That is the North Carolina Voter i. D. Case.

0:04:38.960 --> 0:04:41.640
<v Speaker 1>That's the one where a federal appeals court said the

0:04:41.720 --> 0:04:47.160
<v Speaker 1>state with quote almost surgical precision, targeted blacks with these restrictions. UH.

0:04:47.240 --> 0:04:50.400
<v Speaker 1>The court UH is already indicated that there are four

0:04:50.480 --> 0:04:53.239
<v Speaker 1>of them on the court. This was even before arrived.

0:04:54.000 --> 0:04:57.640
<v Speaker 1>Are are inclined to want to hear North Carolina is

0:04:57.640 --> 0:05:00.320
<v Speaker 1>appealing that this case that could be a really big one.

0:05:00.440 --> 0:05:02.880
<v Speaker 1>One other, if I have a second to describe to you,

0:05:03.400 --> 0:05:05.560
<v Speaker 1>there are a number of petitions that ask a really

0:05:05.600 --> 0:05:10.080
<v Speaker 1>interesting question about digital privacy. Whether police need a warrant

0:05:10.279 --> 0:05:14.360
<v Speaker 1>to get from a telecom company the location of your

0:05:14.400 --> 0:05:18.320
<v Speaker 1>mobile phone has arisen in a number of contexts. UH

0:05:18.400 --> 0:05:21.240
<v Speaker 1>lower course generally have said no, they don't need to

0:05:21.320 --> 0:05:24.040
<v Speaker 1>go to a judge and show probable cause and get

0:05:24.080 --> 0:05:26.320
<v Speaker 1>a warrant in order to get that sort of information

0:05:26.360 --> 0:05:29.080
<v Speaker 1>from a telecommunications company. Well, I'm sure we'll be talking

0:05:29.080 --> 0:05:31.000
<v Speaker 1>about that. We talked about that subject all the time.

0:05:31.040 --> 0:05:33.520
<v Speaker 1>It keeps coming up our thanks to Greg Store from

0:05:33.960 --> 0:05:36.919
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg new Supreme Court reporter and our co host on

0:05:37.160 --> 0:05:40.279
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law. Coming up, we'll be talking about extensive litigation

0:05:40.279 --> 0:05:44.159
<v Speaker 1>against the agribusiness giant Syngenta over whether it misled people

0:05:44.240 --> 0:05:48.039
<v Speaker 1>about genetically modified corn getting approved