1 00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:07,040 Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every 2 00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:09,680 Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most 3 00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,200 Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more 4 00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,160 Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud 5 00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:19,840 Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The Supreme Court 6 00:00:19,880 --> 00:00:23,000 Speaker 1: issued some decisions today as the clock counts down to 7 00:00:23,079 --> 00:00:25,880 Speaker 1: its recess at the end of next week. The Court 8 00:00:26,040 --> 00:00:30,320 Speaker 1: upheld an exception to the Constitution's protection against double jeopardy 9 00:00:30,640 --> 00:00:33,200 Speaker 1: in a case that drew a lot of attention because 10 00:00:33,240 --> 00:00:37,400 Speaker 1: of implications for President Trump's partnering powers. Joining me as 11 00:00:37,440 --> 00:00:41,120 Speaker 1: Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg's store. So Greg start 12 00:00:41,200 --> 00:00:44,360 Speaker 1: by telling us about that seven to two decisions in 13 00:00:44,600 --> 00:00:47,440 Speaker 1: Gamble the US. This is, as you said, sort of 14 00:00:47,479 --> 00:00:50,800 Speaker 1: an exception to the notion that the government can't prosecute 15 00:00:50,800 --> 00:00:54,600 Speaker 1: you twice for the same underlying conduct. The Supreme Court 16 00:00:54,680 --> 00:00:57,560 Speaker 1: has said for decades and really dating back to the 17 00:00:57,680 --> 00:01:02,880 Speaker 1: nineteenth century that okay to have multiple prosecutions if they're 18 00:01:02,880 --> 00:01:06,320 Speaker 1: coming from different sovereigns, namely the federal government and a 19 00:01:06,440 --> 00:01:10,080 Speaker 1: state government, that they both have the right to prosecute 20 00:01:10,120 --> 00:01:13,520 Speaker 1: somebody for the same conduct, and this case asked the 21 00:01:13,560 --> 00:01:17,840 Speaker 1: Supreme Court to overturn those rulings and overturn the separate 22 00:01:17,840 --> 00:01:21,080 Speaker 1: sovereign's doctrine. When the Court agreed to take up the case, 23 00:01:21,080 --> 00:01:23,240 Speaker 1: there was some thought that they were pretty serious about 24 00:01:23,400 --> 00:01:26,280 Speaker 1: thinking about doing that. As it turns out, it wasn't close. 25 00:01:26,360 --> 00:01:28,280 Speaker 1: As you said. It was a seven to two decision. 26 00:01:28,600 --> 00:01:31,320 Speaker 1: The Court reaffirmed the doctrine and essentially left the law 27 00:01:31,600 --> 00:01:34,160 Speaker 1: as it's been for decades. I read that there were 28 00:01:34,280 --> 00:01:37,360 Speaker 1: jokes that this case Gamble v. U s should have 29 00:01:37,480 --> 00:01:42,840 Speaker 1: been named renamed Manafort. Dean Mueller explained the connection. Yet 30 00:01:42,959 --> 00:01:46,559 Speaker 1: one big reason people were watching this case is if 31 00:01:46,600 --> 00:01:49,640 Speaker 1: the Court had had overturned the separate Sovereign's doctrine, that 32 00:01:49,760 --> 00:01:52,720 Speaker 1: might have meant that if Donald Trump were to pardon 33 00:01:52,720 --> 00:01:56,720 Speaker 1: Paul Manifort. He hasn't, but has left open the possibility 34 00:01:56,760 --> 00:02:00,720 Speaker 1: that that might have also precluded some state prosecute for 35 00:02:00,800 --> 00:02:04,120 Speaker 1: the same underlying conduct. There are a lot of kind 36 00:02:04,160 --> 00:02:07,200 Speaker 1: of qualifications to that. It wasn't totally clear that it 37 00:02:07,200 --> 00:02:10,040 Speaker 1: would have prevented the State of New York, for example, 38 00:02:10,120 --> 00:02:13,840 Speaker 1: from going after Paul Maniport for slightly different underlying conduct, 39 00:02:14,240 --> 00:02:17,960 Speaker 1: but that was a big potential implication had the Supreme 40 00:02:17,960 --> 00:02:21,000 Speaker 1: Court gone the other way. Now, in one case that 41 00:02:21,080 --> 00:02:24,320 Speaker 1: we've discussed several times because the Court has been considering 42 00:02:24,360 --> 00:02:27,519 Speaker 1: it for something like three months, the Supreme Court wiped 43 00:02:27,560 --> 00:02:30,880 Speaker 1: out a ruling against an Oregon bakery that refused to 44 00:02:30,919 --> 00:02:34,120 Speaker 1: make a wedding cake for a same sex couple. Sounds 45 00:02:34,160 --> 00:02:38,799 Speaker 1: awfully familiar. Yeah, this is a strange outcome. Try honest, June. 46 00:02:38,840 --> 00:02:41,680 Speaker 1: This case is very familiar because it's an awful like 47 00:02:41,800 --> 00:02:44,600 Speaker 1: the case the Court resolved last term in the case 48 00:02:44,680 --> 00:02:48,160 Speaker 1: called Masterpiece, that was a Colorado bakery that refused to 49 00:02:48,200 --> 00:02:51,240 Speaker 1: make a cake to celebrate the same sex wedding involving 50 00:02:51,280 --> 00:02:55,280 Speaker 1: two men, and the Supreme Court decided that case very narrowly. 51 00:02:55,680 --> 00:02:57,880 Speaker 1: They sided with the baker, but they said it was 52 00:02:57,960 --> 00:03:01,720 Speaker 1: because one of the commissioners on the Colorado Civil Rights 53 00:03:01,760 --> 00:03:07,160 Speaker 1: Commission had suggested that she bore animus towards religion. And 54 00:03:07,639 --> 00:03:11,400 Speaker 1: this case, who's out of Oregon, also very very similar. 55 00:03:11,400 --> 00:03:13,359 Speaker 1: It was a bakery that refused to make a cake 56 00:03:13,360 --> 00:03:16,000 Speaker 1: for a same sex wedding. In this case had to 57 00:03:16,000 --> 00:03:18,320 Speaker 1: pay a penalty of a hundred and thirty five dollars 58 00:03:18,919 --> 00:03:22,320 Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court for about three and a half 59 00:03:22,400 --> 00:03:25,120 Speaker 1: months differed over what they were going to do with 60 00:03:25,280 --> 00:03:27,720 Speaker 1: this case, and at the end of the day, the 61 00:03:27,760 --> 00:03:29,880 Speaker 1: Court said, we're just going to kick it back to 62 00:03:29,919 --> 00:03:32,880 Speaker 1: the lower court, to the Oregon courts to reconsider it 63 00:03:32,919 --> 00:03:35,960 Speaker 1: in light of our decision in the Masterpiece case. It's 64 00:03:36,000 --> 00:03:39,240 Speaker 1: really away kind of a sidestepping the underlying issues. Not 65 00:03:39,360 --> 00:03:42,320 Speaker 1: clear why the Court doesn't want to get back into this. 66 00:03:42,760 --> 00:03:45,400 Speaker 1: It certainly was a case they could have granted. Instead, 67 00:03:45,800 --> 00:03:48,440 Speaker 1: they set aside the fine, kick the case back down 68 00:03:48,480 --> 00:03:50,600 Speaker 1: of the lower court. I'm sure we'll be talking about 69 00:03:50,600 --> 00:03:52,880 Speaker 1: this issue again at some point, but we won't be 70 00:03:52,920 --> 00:03:55,520 Speaker 1: doing it at the beginning of next term. What this 71 00:03:55,680 --> 00:03:59,200 Speaker 1: seems to say is that they're putting a case off 72 00:03:59,440 --> 00:04:05,680 Speaker 1: which would very controversial religious beliefs, basically restricting lgbt Q rights, 73 00:04:05,720 --> 00:04:08,200 Speaker 1: so it won't come up in a year when there's 74 00:04:08,280 --> 00:04:11,440 Speaker 1: going to be presidential election. That's certainly one way of 75 00:04:11,520 --> 00:04:13,480 Speaker 1: looking at it. And keep in mind they're already going 76 00:04:13,520 --> 00:04:18,200 Speaker 1: to have one, actually three LGBT cases, all involving whether 77 00:04:18,600 --> 00:04:23,440 Speaker 1: employers can discriminate against workers because they are, into the 78 00:04:23,480 --> 00:04:27,240 Speaker 1: cases gay or in the other case transgender. And it 79 00:04:27,320 --> 00:04:29,440 Speaker 1: may have been, at least for some of the justices 80 00:04:29,880 --> 00:04:32,200 Speaker 1: that they don't want to have, you know, there being 81 00:04:32,520 --> 00:04:34,960 Speaker 1: an entire theme with the next term leading up to 82 00:04:34,960 --> 00:04:38,080 Speaker 1: the election or the court might be seen as rolling 83 00:04:38,120 --> 00:04:41,920 Speaker 1: back LGBT rights. Now, there was actually an interesting case 84 00:04:42,040 --> 00:04:48,279 Speaker 1: involved land once owned by Thomas Jefferson and Virginia uranium ban. 85 00:04:49,200 --> 00:04:53,880 Speaker 1: So this is actually the nation's largest known uranium deposits 86 00:04:53,920 --> 00:04:59,760 Speaker 1: in Virginia, and Virginia has banned mining uranium mining in 87 00:04:59,800 --> 00:05:03,480 Speaker 1: the state, and the landowners, with support from the Trump administration, 88 00:05:04,080 --> 00:05:07,600 Speaker 1: said that runs a file that is a violation of 89 00:05:07,640 --> 00:05:11,039 Speaker 1: this federal law that says only the federal government has 90 00:05:11,120 --> 00:05:15,560 Speaker 1: the power over nuclear safety. So this whole notion of 91 00:05:15,640 --> 00:05:17,440 Speaker 1: you know, it could be dangerous because we extract this 92 00:05:17,640 --> 00:05:21,120 Speaker 1: uranium from the ground. They claimed that is something only 93 00:05:21,120 --> 00:05:24,440 Speaker 1: the federal government can regulate. The Supreme Court said, no, 94 00:05:24,600 --> 00:05:29,000 Speaker 1: we disagree. The states have always had power over mining 95 00:05:29,200 --> 00:05:33,159 Speaker 1: and nothing in this federal law affects that power over mining. 96 00:05:33,240 --> 00:05:37,919 Speaker 1: This federal law gives the US government authority over what 97 00:05:38,080 --> 00:05:41,520 Speaker 1: happens to the uranium after it's extracted from from the ground, 98 00:05:41,920 --> 00:05:44,960 Speaker 1: but not before. And therefore we're going to uphold this 99 00:05:45,040 --> 00:05:49,200 Speaker 1: Virginia ban on uranium mining. Greg does this have implications 100 00:05:49,400 --> 00:05:52,920 Speaker 1: for the environmental litigation that we expect to see or 101 00:05:53,440 --> 00:05:56,560 Speaker 1: does it stand on its own terms? It probably stands 102 00:05:56,560 --> 00:05:58,680 Speaker 1: on its own terms. You know, there's a lot in 103 00:05:58,720 --> 00:06:02,880 Speaker 1: these opinions you spend some time scrutinizing. There was to 104 00:06:02,960 --> 00:06:06,400 Speaker 1: me a very interesting dispute between members of the majority 105 00:06:06,480 --> 00:06:11,000 Speaker 1: in this case, where the more conservative justices said, you know, 106 00:06:11,120 --> 00:06:14,120 Speaker 1: we don't want a second guess what the state's motives 107 00:06:14,160 --> 00:06:17,560 Speaker 1: were in enacting this this sort of legislation, and the 108 00:06:17,600 --> 00:06:20,359 Speaker 1: more liberal justices said, you know, we don't have to 109 00:06:20,360 --> 00:06:24,520 Speaker 1: talk about speaking such broad, sweeping principles about our power 110 00:06:24,520 --> 00:06:27,040 Speaker 1: to second guests the state based on on their motives. 111 00:06:27,320 --> 00:06:30,479 Speaker 1: It's pretty clear the justices had some other cases in mind, 112 00:06:30,520 --> 00:06:32,320 Speaker 1: and it may just take a while to figure out 113 00:06:32,560 --> 00:06:35,800 Speaker 1: exactly what they're thinking of. There was a case where 114 00:06:35,839 --> 00:06:40,120 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court dismissed challenges to findings of racial gerrymandering 115 00:06:40,200 --> 00:06:43,599 Speaker 1: in Virginia districts, and I will just ask you if 116 00:06:43,640 --> 00:06:48,400 Speaker 1: that has any implications for the partisan gerrymandering cases we're 117 00:06:48,400 --> 00:06:51,159 Speaker 1: still waiting for. It's a very different issue. This was 118 00:06:51,200 --> 00:06:54,720 Speaker 1: a racial discrimination case, and the ruling totally centered on 119 00:06:54,960 --> 00:06:59,719 Speaker 1: who could could appeal. The Virginia's Democratic Attorney general said 120 00:06:59,720 --> 00:07:03,640 Speaker 1: I didn't want to appeal, and the Republican legislature wanted 121 00:07:03,680 --> 00:07:06,760 Speaker 1: to appeal. The Supreme Court said, no, you don't have standing, 122 00:07:07,120 --> 00:07:09,560 Speaker 1: uh to defile an appeal. It's it's it's a very 123 00:07:09,600 --> 00:07:12,600 Speaker 1: separate issue from the partisan jurymandering cases that we're waiting for. 124 00:07:12,800 --> 00:07:15,000 Speaker 1: All right, and we'll be talking to you again. I 125 00:07:15,000 --> 00:07:17,760 Speaker 1: suspect on Thursday, Greg, because it's a Supreme Court is 126 00:07:17,800 --> 00:07:22,880 Speaker 1: having an extra day of decisions. Thanks for listening to 127 00:07:22,880 --> 00:07:26,200 Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to 128 00:07:26,240 --> 00:07:29,920 Speaker 1: the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot 129 00:07:30,000 --> 00:07:37,040 Speaker 1: com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg Ye.