1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,440
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,360 --> 00:00:12,600
Speaker 2: The Court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions,

3
00:00:13,240 --> 00:00:16,320
Speaker 2: and I strongly, strongly disagree with the course decision.

4
00:00:17,040 --> 00:00:20,520
Speaker 1: President Joe Biden offered some of his strongest criticism of

5
00:00:20,520 --> 00:00:25,600
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court after the Court's decision effectively barring universities

6
00:00:25,640 --> 00:00:29,040
Speaker 1: from using race as a factor in admissions, rolling back

7
00:00:29,120 --> 00:00:32,760
Speaker 1: decades of precedence, and removing a long standing method for

8
00:00:32,880 --> 00:00:36,440
Speaker 1: bolstering campus diversity in a six to three vote down

9
00:00:36,600 --> 00:00:40,840
Speaker 1: ideological lines. The Justice has found that the admissions programs

10
00:00:40,840 --> 00:00:44,880
Speaker 1: at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violated

11
00:00:44,920 --> 00:00:49,479
Speaker 1: the Constitution's equal Protection clause, and Biden ordered the Department

12
00:00:49,520 --> 00:00:52,879
Speaker 1: of Education to find ways to build more inclusive and

13
00:00:52,960 --> 00:00:54,400
Speaker 1: diverse student bodies.

14
00:00:54,760 --> 00:00:58,240
Speaker 2: Because the truth is, we all know it. Discrimination still

15
00:00:58,480 --> 00:01:04,800
Speaker 2: exists in America. Discrimination still exists in America. Discrimination still

16
00:01:04,800 --> 00:01:08,640
Speaker 2: exists in America. Today's decision does not change that.

17
00:01:09,200 --> 00:01:12,839
Speaker 1: My guest is former United States Solicitor General Gregory Garr,

18
00:01:13,040 --> 00:01:16,920
Speaker 1: a partner at Latham and Watkins. He successfully argued one

19
00:01:16,959 --> 00:01:20,800
Speaker 1: of the seminal Supreme Court cases on affirmative action, Fisher

20
00:01:20,880 --> 00:01:24,160
Speaker 1: versus the University of Texas greg Is this the end

21
00:01:24,160 --> 00:01:26,040
Speaker 1: of affirmative action as.

22
00:01:25,880 --> 00:01:26,440
Speaker 3: We know it?

23
00:01:27,080 --> 00:01:30,160
Speaker 4: I think it's largely the end of the consideration of

24
00:01:30,280 --> 00:01:34,120
Speaker 4: race as a standalone factor in college admissions. But the

25
00:01:34,200 --> 00:01:40,160
Speaker 4: decision today doesn't prohibit universities from using race neutral ways

26
00:01:40,200 --> 00:01:44,800
Speaker 4: of achieving a diverse class, and specifically doesn't prohibit universities

27
00:01:44,800 --> 00:01:48,480
Speaker 4: from considering race at all. I think an important qualification

28
00:01:48,800 --> 00:01:53,760
Speaker 4: in the decision is that applicants may discuss race insofar

29
00:01:53,880 --> 00:01:58,400
Speaker 4: as it affected their own individual experiences, So the decision

30
00:01:58,440 --> 00:02:01,760
Speaker 4: today does not require race blind admissions.

31
00:02:02,480 --> 00:02:05,760
Speaker 1: The reaction from a lot of different directions has been

32
00:02:05,840 --> 00:02:09,400
Speaker 1: that the sky is falling as far as affirmative action

33
00:02:09,560 --> 00:02:13,640
Speaker 1: and diversity at colleges and universities. So do you think

34
00:02:13,680 --> 00:02:16,200
Speaker 1: then that they're overreacting to the decision.

35
00:02:17,000 --> 00:02:20,120
Speaker 4: I don't know if they're overreacting. This is a clear

36
00:02:20,600 --> 00:02:25,680
Speaker 4: and strong repudiation of affirmative action as we know it,

37
00:02:25,880 --> 00:02:29,280
Speaker 4: and as the Court had previously embraced it in the

38
00:02:29,280 --> 00:02:31,680
Speaker 4: decisions leading up to this point. But I do think

39
00:02:31,720 --> 00:02:35,120
Speaker 4: that once the Dost settles, schools will see that there

40
00:02:35,160 --> 00:02:37,919
Speaker 4: are a number of different tools that remain in effect

41
00:02:38,000 --> 00:02:42,520
Speaker 4: to achieve diversity in the classroom and on campus that

42
00:02:42,600 --> 00:02:45,720
Speaker 4: simply don't take race as a standalone factor.

43
00:02:46,240 --> 00:02:50,079
Speaker 1: Tell us about Chief Justice John Roberts reasoning and how

44
00:02:50,120 --> 00:02:54,480
Speaker 1: he came to the conclusion that Harvard and UNC's policies

45
00:02:55,040 --> 00:02:56,280
Speaker 1: violated the Constitution.

46
00:02:56,840 --> 00:03:01,680
Speaker 4: The Chief Justice emphasize that race was unique under our constitution,

47
00:03:01,960 --> 00:03:04,200
Speaker 4: as we all know, and that race can only be

48
00:03:04,280 --> 00:03:09,400
Speaker 4: considered if it meets the strongest of constitutional analyzes strict scrutiny.

49
00:03:09,919 --> 00:03:13,280
Speaker 4: And then he proceeded to analyze the Harvard in North

50
00:03:13,320 --> 00:03:16,800
Speaker 4: Carolina plans here and found that they flunked that test

51
00:03:16,960 --> 00:03:21,120
Speaker 4: in numerous different respects, the most important of which was

52
00:03:21,160 --> 00:03:24,960
Speaker 4: a simply considered race as a standalone factor and not

53
00:03:25,200 --> 00:03:28,760
Speaker 4: in the context of who that person is treating. In

54
00:03:28,840 --> 00:03:32,960
Speaker 4: the Chief's view, race as essentially a stereotype, or considering

55
00:03:33,080 --> 00:03:36,160
Speaker 4: race for race's sake, as he put it, and not

56
00:03:36,320 --> 00:03:40,840
Speaker 4: in considering races it may have determined individual's own experience.

57
00:03:41,280 --> 00:03:44,360
Speaker 4: The Chief Justice also emphasized that the schools had failed

58
00:03:44,440 --> 00:03:49,520
Speaker 4: to identify any compelling and concrete interests that their plans

59
00:03:49,560 --> 00:03:53,880
Speaker 4: were designed to address, essentially rejecting the interests that the

60
00:03:53,880 --> 00:03:57,720
Speaker 4: Court had previously upheld in prior cases with respect to

61
00:03:58,040 --> 00:04:02,560
Speaker 4: achieving diversity and a pipe line for leadership in universities

62
00:04:02,760 --> 00:04:06,640
Speaker 4: across the country, and also emphasized that the schools had

63
00:04:06,640 --> 00:04:10,120
Speaker 4: failed to identify any endpoint, and that last point was

64
00:04:10,160 --> 00:04:13,920
Speaker 4: really an important consideration throughout the decision. Where in the

65
00:04:13,960 --> 00:04:17,760
Speaker 4: Court's prior decisions, including the Gruder case in particular, the

66
00:04:17,800 --> 00:04:20,400
Speaker 4: Court had said in the early two thousand that it

67
00:04:20,480 --> 00:04:24,240
Speaker 4: viewed essentially twenty five years as the endpoint for the

68
00:04:24,279 --> 00:04:27,800
Speaker 4: consideration of race in this way in university admissions, and

69
00:04:27,839 --> 00:04:30,440
Speaker 4: the Court emphasized in several places in its decision, and

70
00:04:30,600 --> 00:04:34,120
Speaker 4: Justice Kavanaugh emphasized in its concurrence that we had reached

71
00:04:34,240 --> 00:04:37,800
Speaker 4: the endpoint even under Rud's own analysis, and so I

72
00:04:37,839 --> 00:04:41,280
Speaker 4: think in their view the time for considering race had ended.

73
00:04:41,279 --> 00:04:45,120
Speaker 4: But really, under the Chief Justices consideration of the constitutional ana,

74
00:04:45,800 --> 00:04:49,080
Speaker 4: race as a standalone factor could not play a role.

75
00:04:49,960 --> 00:04:54,880
Speaker 1: Robert's opinion didn't specifically say that the previous rulings like

76
00:04:54,960 --> 00:04:59,159
Speaker 1: Gruder were overturned, but just as Clarence Thomas said in

77
00:04:59,200 --> 00:05:02,920
Speaker 1: his concur ends, that the effect is basically the same,

78
00:05:03,200 --> 00:05:05,960
Speaker 1: and that Grouter is for all intents and purpose.

79
00:05:05,720 --> 00:05:06,760
Speaker 3: Is overruled.

80
00:05:07,040 --> 00:05:10,840
Speaker 4: Do you agree with Thomas, Well, we typically don't give

81
00:05:11,200 --> 00:05:14,560
Speaker 4: faith value to statements in a concurrent opinion or dissent.

82
00:05:14,640 --> 00:05:17,040
Speaker 4: You'd look to the majority decision first, And it is

83
00:05:17,560 --> 00:05:21,880
Speaker 4: quite important that the majority decision does not explicitly overrule

84
00:05:21,920 --> 00:05:25,159
Speaker 4: the prior decisions Gruterer and Fisher and the like. And

85
00:05:25,200 --> 00:05:27,960
Speaker 4: as to how that shapes out, we'll see. There's no

86
00:05:28,080 --> 00:05:32,600
Speaker 4: question that the majority's analysis departs sharply from the prior decisions,

87
00:05:33,160 --> 00:05:35,520
Speaker 4: and I think it would be hard to square those

88
00:05:35,520 --> 00:05:39,719
Speaker 4: decisions with the majority's analysis. But the majority explicitly did

89
00:05:39,760 --> 00:05:43,000
Speaker 4: distinguish those cases, including the Fisher case, and found that

90
00:05:43,040 --> 00:05:46,760
Speaker 4: the plan in this case suffered from unique flaws.

91
00:05:47,720 --> 00:05:51,560
Speaker 1: The court was split down audiological lines and the descents

92
00:05:51,640 --> 00:05:55,800
Speaker 1: we're biting. Just as Katanji Brown Jackson wrote with let

93
00:05:55,839 --> 00:05:59,560
Speaker 1: Them Eat Cake obliviousness, today the Court's majority pulls the

94
00:05:59,640 --> 00:06:04,120
Speaker 1: rip and announces colorblindness for all by legal feat. But

95
00:06:04,200 --> 00:06:07,000
Speaker 1: deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so

96
00:06:07,160 --> 00:06:10,040
Speaker 1: in life and justice. Sonya so to Mayor, in reading

97
00:06:10,080 --> 00:06:13,039
Speaker 1: her descent from the bench, said, at one point, we

98
00:06:13,120 --> 00:06:14,040
Speaker 1: shall overcome.

99
00:06:14,720 --> 00:06:16,640
Speaker 3: How do you read the descents in this case?

100
00:06:17,120 --> 00:06:21,240
Speaker 4: They're very strongly worded powerful descents. There's no question about that.

101
00:06:21,440 --> 00:06:25,240
Speaker 4: And really the larger debate in this decision goes to

102
00:06:25,600 --> 00:06:29,599
Speaker 4: the more fundamental question of whether or to what extent

103
00:06:29,720 --> 00:06:33,320
Speaker 4: the Constitution is colorblind, going all the way back to

104
00:06:33,360 --> 00:06:37,520
Speaker 4: the Civil War and the Civil War amendments and fundamental

105
00:06:37,560 --> 00:06:41,839
Speaker 4: debates about how our society has considered race and could

106
00:06:42,000 --> 00:06:45,080
Speaker 4: consider race. And there's a fundamental divide on the court

107
00:06:45,279 --> 00:06:48,200
Speaker 4: and that respect, with the majority taking a position that

108
00:06:48,320 --> 00:06:51,560
Speaker 4: race cannot be considered on its own, whether that's for

109
00:06:51,880 --> 00:06:55,520
Speaker 4: benign or non benign purposes, and the descent taking a

110
00:06:55,640 --> 00:06:57,560
Speaker 4: view that if you look at a history in our

111
00:06:57,640 --> 00:07:00,360
Speaker 4: law that in fact we have allowed to consider of

112
00:07:00,480 --> 00:07:04,480
Speaker 4: race for certain benign purposes to viable societal lens.

113
00:07:04,760 --> 00:07:09,080
Speaker 1: As you mentioned before, Roberts said, universities can consider how

114
00:07:09,200 --> 00:07:13,280
Speaker 1: race has affected an applicant's life, be it through discrimination, inspiration,

115
00:07:13,400 --> 00:07:18,000
Speaker 1: or otherwise, but may not simply establish through application essays

116
00:07:18,120 --> 00:07:19,520
Speaker 1: or other means the regime we.

117
00:07:19,520 --> 00:07:21,080
Speaker 3: Hold unlawful today.

118
00:07:21,840 --> 00:07:24,400
Speaker 1: And he said students must be treated based on his

119
00:07:24,560 --> 00:07:27,560
Speaker 1: or her experiences as an individual, not on the basis

120
00:07:27,560 --> 00:07:28,000
Speaker 1: of race.

121
00:07:28,680 --> 00:07:30,320
Speaker 3: So what's the line here?

122
00:07:30,400 --> 00:07:34,000
Speaker 1: Is there a clear line that schools can look at

123
00:07:34,240 --> 00:07:36,640
Speaker 1: and figure out, you know, whether they're going to consider

124
00:07:36,680 --> 00:07:38,760
Speaker 1: an applicants essay I mean, or.

125
00:07:38,800 --> 00:07:39,760
Speaker 3: Is it fuzzy.

126
00:07:40,160 --> 00:07:42,480
Speaker 4: I think it's fuzzy. I think this is likely to

127
00:07:42,520 --> 00:07:45,600
Speaker 4: be the next battleground in this area. But I think

128
00:07:45,600 --> 00:07:48,440
Speaker 4: it's clear from the court's decision that nothing in the

129
00:07:48,480 --> 00:07:52,080
Speaker 4: court's decision in the court said this explicitly bars universities

130
00:07:52,080 --> 00:07:54,800
Speaker 4: from considering an applicant's discussion of how his or her

131
00:07:54,880 --> 00:07:58,680
Speaker 4: race affected his or her own life experiences or views.

132
00:07:59,360 --> 00:08:02,120
Speaker 4: And that was important to the majority, and the majority

133
00:08:02,120 --> 00:08:05,400
Speaker 4: would distinguish that from simply checking a box with your

134
00:08:05,520 --> 00:08:09,520
Speaker 4: race and listing race as a standalone factor that wasn't

135
00:08:09,560 --> 00:08:13,480
Speaker 4: tied to the individual's own experience. The majority was also

136
00:08:13,680 --> 00:08:16,680
Speaker 4: quick to point out, though in the passage your reference,

137
00:08:16,920 --> 00:08:20,560
Speaker 4: that it was not saying that universities could accomplish indirectly

138
00:08:20,640 --> 00:08:25,120
Speaker 4: what the opinion forbids them now from accomplishing directly. But

139
00:08:25,480 --> 00:08:28,440
Speaker 4: this is something that I'm sure universities will be carefully

140
00:08:28,560 --> 00:08:31,880
Speaker 4: studying and we'll have to see how it plays out

141
00:08:31,880 --> 00:08:33,120
Speaker 4: in their admissions practices.

142
00:08:33,480 --> 00:08:36,960
Speaker 1: So Roberts dropped the footnote saying this decision doesn't affect

143
00:08:37,160 --> 00:08:41,840
Speaker 1: military academies if there are lawsuits over that in the future,

144
00:08:42,160 --> 00:08:46,760
Speaker 1: how could that distinction be maintained between colleges and universities

145
00:08:46,760 --> 00:08:48,199
Speaker 1: and military academies.

146
00:08:48,760 --> 00:08:51,880
Speaker 4: I think the key point there would be the nature

147
00:08:51,920 --> 00:08:55,360
Speaker 4: of the interests that the military academies might assert in

148
00:08:55,440 --> 00:08:59,319
Speaker 4: those cases, and the Court might view an interest which

149
00:08:59,520 --> 00:09:04,160
Speaker 4: was framed in terms of developing the nation's military leaders

150
00:09:04,160 --> 00:09:07,400
Speaker 4: and the unique experience and importance of race in that context,

151
00:09:07,640 --> 00:09:10,640
Speaker 4: It's conceivable that the Court review that case differently. And

152
00:09:10,720 --> 00:09:13,960
Speaker 4: it is notable and important that the Court specifically said

153
00:09:14,000 --> 00:09:16,440
Speaker 4: today that it was not taking on that issue.

154
00:09:16,600 --> 00:09:19,360
Speaker 1: So President Biden said, we can't let this decision be

155
00:09:19,440 --> 00:09:22,360
Speaker 1: the last word, and he wants the Department of Education

156
00:09:22,559 --> 00:09:26,920
Speaker 1: to explore ways or practices to help schools build more

157
00:09:27,000 --> 00:09:29,280
Speaker 1: inclusive and diverse student bodies.

158
00:09:29,640 --> 00:09:30,600
Speaker 3: Is that realistic?

159
00:09:30,760 --> 00:09:34,080
Speaker 4: I mean sure, I think it is realistic. The decision

160
00:09:34,240 --> 00:09:39,400
Speaker 4: doesn't prohibit universities from seeking diverse classes through holistic admissions

161
00:09:39,400 --> 00:09:43,160
Speaker 4: that consider any number of other factors than race. It

162
00:09:43,200 --> 00:09:47,920
Speaker 4: doesn't prohibit universities from considering race neutral criteria like financial

163
00:09:48,000 --> 00:09:52,280
Speaker 4: means and applicants' first generation status, that language is spoken

164
00:09:52,320 --> 00:09:56,000
Speaker 4: at home. It doesn't purport to prohibit race neutral tools

165
00:09:56,040 --> 00:09:58,800
Speaker 4: like the top ten percent plan admitting students in the

166
00:09:58,800 --> 00:10:01,520
Speaker 4: top ten percent of each cool as the University of

167
00:10:01,559 --> 00:10:04,160
Speaker 4: Texas has so. There are a number of different means

168
00:10:04,200 --> 00:10:08,360
Speaker 4: that universities can and have used to seek diversity in

169
00:10:08,400 --> 00:10:11,280
Speaker 4: their classrooms and on campuses. The one thing that the

170
00:10:11,360 --> 00:10:14,959
Speaker 4: decision today forbids, though, is the consideration of race as

171
00:10:14,960 --> 00:10:16,880
Speaker 4: a standalone factor in that process.

172
00:10:17,240 --> 00:10:20,559
Speaker 1: Do you think this decision could lead employers to rethink

173
00:10:20,640 --> 00:10:22,800
Speaker 1: how they consider race in hiring.

174
00:10:23,160 --> 00:10:26,240
Speaker 4: I'm sure employers will be taking a careful look at this.

175
00:10:26,400 --> 00:10:29,840
Speaker 4: I mean, this decision obviously was focused on and by

176
00:10:29,880 --> 00:10:34,240
Speaker 4: its terms, limited to the university admissions context, but certainly

177
00:10:34,320 --> 00:10:37,520
Speaker 4: the court's discussion of the consideration of race and the

178
00:10:37,520 --> 00:10:40,640
Speaker 4: strict scrutiny analysis is something that employers will want to

179
00:10:40,640 --> 00:10:41,600
Speaker 4: take a close look at.

180
00:10:41,840 --> 00:10:42,920
Speaker 3: She Justice once said.

181
00:10:42,960 --> 00:10:45,640
Speaker 1: The famously said the way to stop race discrimination is

182
00:10:45,679 --> 00:10:48,959
Speaker 1: to stop discriminating on the basis of race. And tell

183
00:10:49,000 --> 00:10:51,200
Speaker 1: me if I'm reading too much into this. He wrote

184
00:10:51,200 --> 00:10:55,800
Speaker 1: here that eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it?

185
00:10:56,120 --> 00:10:57,960
Speaker 3: Am I reading too much to think that? You know?

186
00:10:58,000 --> 00:10:58,840
Speaker 3: There's more to come?

187
00:10:59,280 --> 00:11:02,080
Speaker 4: Well, I think we have to take each decision on

188
00:11:02,520 --> 00:11:05,480
Speaker 4: its own June, and you know, this case in a

189
00:11:05,520 --> 00:11:07,880
Speaker 4: way was a long time in the making in terms

190
00:11:07,880 --> 00:11:10,839
Speaker 4: of the Court's struggle in this area. But I think

191
00:11:10,840 --> 00:11:13,800
Speaker 4: you're right to pick up on the Chief's own jurisprudence,

192
00:11:13,840 --> 00:11:16,880
Speaker 4: which has been more of a straight line. And I

193
00:11:16,920 --> 00:11:20,000
Speaker 4: think that the tenor of today's decision is very much

194
00:11:20,160 --> 00:11:23,400
Speaker 4: in line with his previous remark that the way to

195
00:11:23,440 --> 00:11:27,000
Speaker 4: stop discriminating on the race was to stop discriminating thesis

196
00:11:27,080 --> 00:11:29,520
Speaker 4: of race, and that's the way that he and majority

197
00:11:29,559 --> 00:11:32,800
Speaker 4: of his colleagues viewed the admissions practices here.

198
00:11:33,920 --> 00:11:38,000
Speaker 1: So, Greg, on a personal note, when you argued Fisher

199
00:11:38,720 --> 00:11:42,080
Speaker 1: the University of Texas at Austin in twenty sixteen, in

200
00:11:42,120 --> 00:11:45,360
Speaker 1: which the Justice is upheld the admissions policy at the

201
00:11:45,480 --> 00:11:47,320
Speaker 1: University of Texas at Austin on.

202
00:11:47,320 --> 00:11:48,960
Speaker 3: A four to three vote.

203
00:11:48,800 --> 00:11:52,280
Speaker 1: Did you envision that it would be some would say, toppled,

204
00:11:52,480 --> 00:11:56,160
Speaker 1: or would be changed in such a way within just

205
00:11:56,200 --> 00:11:56,880
Speaker 1: seven years.

206
00:11:57,520 --> 00:11:59,679
Speaker 4: Well, that's a relatively short time. But this is an

207
00:11:59,720 --> 00:12:03,720
Speaker 4: area in which the Court has been struggling for, you know, decades,

208
00:12:04,080 --> 00:12:07,920
Speaker 4: and one in which they're very strongly held views, and

209
00:12:08,000 --> 00:12:11,079
Speaker 4: so we certainly were pleased with the decision and Fisher,

210
00:12:11,160 --> 00:12:15,040
Speaker 4: and you know, pleased that the Court's decision today distinguishes Fisher.

211
00:12:15,280 --> 00:12:18,240
Speaker 4: But this is an area where the justices have been

212
00:12:18,440 --> 00:12:22,000
Speaker 4: interested for some time, and you know, when they agreed

213
00:12:22,040 --> 00:12:24,840
Speaker 4: to take on these cases a year or so ago,

214
00:12:25,160 --> 00:12:26,920
Speaker 4: you know, it became clear that this was going to

215
00:12:27,160 --> 00:12:29,680
Speaker 4: likely be a defining moment for the court stirst prudence

216
00:12:29,720 --> 00:12:30,240
Speaker 4: in this area.

217
00:12:31,000 --> 00:12:33,840
Speaker 1: So this is the culmination of nearly a decade of

218
00:12:33,920 --> 00:12:39,440
Speaker 1: litigation initiated by Edward Blum and his anti affirmative action

219
00:12:39,640 --> 00:12:43,320
Speaker 1: nonprofit called Students for Fair and Missions. He was behind

220
00:12:43,400 --> 00:12:47,160
Speaker 1: the Fisher case too, I believe, so they switched strategy

221
00:12:47,200 --> 00:12:49,320
Speaker 1: in this and they focused.

222
00:12:48,880 --> 00:12:51,359
Speaker 3: On Asian Americans as plaintiffs.

223
00:12:51,840 --> 00:12:54,920
Speaker 1: It's sort of disheartening to me and that one group

224
00:12:55,360 --> 00:12:59,880
Speaker 1: can change the trajectory of the court with these strategic

225
00:13:00,160 --> 00:13:04,120
Speaker 1: lawsuits that he's brought in different places, or was it

226
00:13:04,160 --> 00:13:06,199
Speaker 1: just the right time for his litigation.

227
00:13:06,600 --> 00:13:09,679
Speaker 4: Well, it's certainly true that mister Blum and his organization

228
00:13:09,800 --> 00:13:12,920
Speaker 4: has taken on a unique role here, and it certainly

229
00:13:12,960 --> 00:13:15,040
Speaker 4: is not the first time in our history that particular

230
00:13:15,080 --> 00:13:18,120
Speaker 4: groups have sought to litigate particular issues. I mean one

231
00:13:18,120 --> 00:13:20,600
Speaker 4: thing that the Court did take a close look at

232
00:13:20,640 --> 00:13:24,000
Speaker 4: in this case was the standing of this particular group

233
00:13:24,040 --> 00:13:26,960
Speaker 4: to present this claim, and it found that adequate. But

234
00:13:27,120 --> 00:13:31,080
Speaker 4: having established standing, then this group, as much as any

235
00:13:31,120 --> 00:13:33,920
Speaker 4: with a concrete interest in the issue, was permitted to

236
00:13:33,960 --> 00:13:35,080
Speaker 4: bring the case forward.

237
00:13:35,520 --> 00:13:39,480
Speaker 1: After his press statement, President Biden was asked by a

238
00:13:39,480 --> 00:13:42,679
Speaker 1: reporter if this is a quote rogue court, and he said,

239
00:13:43,200 --> 00:13:44,880
Speaker 1: this is not a normal court.

240
00:13:45,160 --> 00:13:45,880
Speaker 3: Is that fair?

241
00:13:46,040 --> 00:13:48,600
Speaker 4: I think others would view it differently, And I think,

242
00:13:48,640 --> 00:13:50,280
Speaker 4: really he's got to look at the whole of the

243
00:13:50,320 --> 00:13:53,840
Speaker 4: Court's work and not just a single decision, as important

244
00:13:53,880 --> 00:13:56,240
Speaker 4: as that is. And really, if you take a step

245
00:13:56,280 --> 00:13:58,719
Speaker 4: back and look at the decisions this term, I think

246
00:13:58,760 --> 00:14:01,760
Speaker 4: you see a court of moving in all different directions

247
00:14:01,840 --> 00:14:04,840
Speaker 4: in any of the more important cases, has reached more

248
00:14:04,840 --> 00:14:08,559
Speaker 4: liberal results than conservative results. And so I think if

249
00:14:08,559 --> 00:14:10,959
Speaker 4: you looked at that, you might see a different court.

250
00:14:11,160 --> 00:14:14,360
Speaker 4: But I think in terms of one's views on where

251
00:14:14,400 --> 00:14:17,000
Speaker 4: the court is, you'd have to take a much broader

252
00:14:17,040 --> 00:14:18,079
Speaker 4: look at its caseload.

253
00:14:18,400 --> 00:14:20,640
Speaker 1: Thanks for being on the show, Greg, It was great

254
00:14:20,640 --> 00:14:23,960
Speaker 1: to have your insights in this area. That's former US

255
00:14:24,000 --> 00:14:28,360
Speaker 1: Listitor General Gregory gar a partner Latham and Watkins. And

256
00:14:28,400 --> 00:14:30,560
Speaker 1: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

257
00:14:30,920 --> 00:14:33,280
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

258
00:14:33,320 --> 00:14:37,600
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

259
00:14:37,760 --> 00:14:42,800
Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,

260
00:14:43,200 --> 00:14:45,800
Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

261
00:14:45,840 --> 00:14:49,760
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

262
00:14:49,880 --> 00:14:51,440
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg