1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,640 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: I don't think we can assume that just because race

3
00:00:13,520 --> 00:00:17,080
Speaker 1: is taken into account, that that necessarily creates an equal

4
00:00:17,079 --> 00:00:21,640
Speaker 1: protection problem. At issue is whether Alabama violated the Voting

5
00:00:21,720 --> 00:00:24,919
Speaker 1: Rights Act by drawing its congressional map in a way

6
00:00:24,960 --> 00:00:28,600
Speaker 1: that ensures the state will have just one black representative

7
00:00:28,800 --> 00:00:32,640
Speaker 1: for the next decade. And Justice Katangi Brown Jackson pushed

8
00:00:32,680 --> 00:00:36,200
Speaker 1: back on the suggestion that redistricting needs to be done

9
00:00:36,200 --> 00:00:39,360
Speaker 1: in a race neutral way, pointing out that the Framers

10
00:00:39,400 --> 00:00:43,239
Speaker 1: adopted the post Civil War amendments to the Constitution in

11
00:00:43,280 --> 00:00:48,159
Speaker 1: a race conscious way. They were, in fact, trying to

12
00:00:48,400 --> 00:00:53,440
Speaker 1: ensure that people who had been discriminated against the freedmen

13
00:00:54,080 --> 00:01:00,680
Speaker 1: um in during the reconstructed construction period were actually uh

14
00:01:00,840 --> 00:01:04,040
Speaker 1: brought equal to everyone else in the society. Joining me

15
00:01:04,160 --> 00:01:07,200
Speaker 1: is elections law expert Richard Hassan, a professor at u

16
00:01:07,240 --> 00:01:11,520
Speaker 1: c l A Law School. So, Rick, Alabama is black,

17
00:01:11,600 --> 00:01:15,880
Speaker 1: but the Republican legislature drew only one majority black voting

18
00:01:15,920 --> 00:01:19,280
Speaker 1: district out of seven, and a three judge panel said

19
00:01:19,319 --> 00:01:23,360
Speaker 1: Alabama was probably violating the Voting Rights Act. So what's

20
00:01:23,400 --> 00:01:26,720
Speaker 1: the issue here. So the Voting Rights Act requires that

21
00:01:26,840 --> 00:01:30,840
Speaker 1: under certain conditions. Basically, when there are large populations of

22
00:01:30,920 --> 00:01:34,600
Speaker 1: minority voters and white voters, minority voters tend to vote

23
00:01:34,640 --> 00:01:37,480
Speaker 1: for different candidates, it's possible that the Voting Rights Act

24
00:01:37,560 --> 00:01:41,040
Speaker 1: requires the drawing of a district to give those minority

25
00:01:41,080 --> 00:01:44,000
Speaker 1: voters a chance to get representation. In the Alabama case,

26
00:01:44,160 --> 00:01:47,520
Speaker 1: a three judge court held that although Alabama had one

27
00:01:47,840 --> 00:01:51,400
Speaker 1: congressional district where minority voters could elect a candidate of choice,

28
00:01:51,520 --> 00:01:53,880
Speaker 1: they were entitled to a second one given the size

29
00:01:53,880 --> 00:01:57,200
Speaker 1: of their population. Where the population was and the continued

30
00:01:57,520 --> 00:02:00,440
Speaker 1: racially polarized voting in the state of Alabama. The fact

31
00:02:00,480 --> 00:02:04,800
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court stepped in and a lot Alabama

32
00:02:04,800 --> 00:02:08,239
Speaker 1: to keep its map for the primaries, Justice Kagan called

33
00:02:08,240 --> 00:02:10,720
Speaker 1: it clear vote delution. Do you see that as the

34
00:02:10,760 --> 00:02:14,200
Speaker 1: Court tipping its hand here? Well, back when the Court

35
00:02:14,240 --> 00:02:16,519
Speaker 1: decided to put this ruling on hold, that was a

36
00:02:16,520 --> 00:02:19,840
Speaker 1: pretty good indication that a majority of the Court's justices

37
00:02:20,080 --> 00:02:23,360
Speaker 1: thought that Alabama was likely to win. In fact, Chief

38
00:02:23,400 --> 00:02:26,959
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts, who is not always the most friendly to

39
00:02:27,040 --> 00:02:30,560
Speaker 1: voting rights plaintiffs, dissented from that order. Back last spring

40
00:02:30,639 --> 00:02:33,119
Speaker 1: because he said it under existing lot looks like Alabama

41
00:02:33,120 --> 00:02:35,520
Speaker 1: should win. So the question really is whether or not

42
00:02:35,880 --> 00:02:39,720
Speaker 1: the Court is ready to tweak or more radically change

43
00:02:40,080 --> 00:02:42,680
Speaker 1: understanding of how the Voting Rights Act works if it

44
00:02:42,720 --> 00:02:44,840
Speaker 1: does so in this case. Depending on how it does so,

45
00:02:44,960 --> 00:02:48,400
Speaker 1: we could have small implications or very large applications for

46
00:02:48,560 --> 00:02:52,000
Speaker 1: minority representation in the Congress as well as in state

47
00:02:52,080 --> 00:02:57,519
Speaker 1: local legislatures. What was the main focus of the oral arguments, Well,

48
00:02:57,560 --> 00:03:01,120
Speaker 1: Alabama advanced a number of different arguments. Their most radical

49
00:03:01,240 --> 00:03:05,519
Speaker 1: argument would essentially rework section to the Voting Rights Act,

50
00:03:05,680 --> 00:03:08,280
Speaker 1: and there was little appetite on the Court for issuing

51
00:03:08,280 --> 00:03:11,480
Speaker 1: an opinion that would overturn decades of precedent and have

52
00:03:11,600 --> 00:03:13,800
Speaker 1: a whole new approach to the Voting Rights Act. But

53
00:03:13,840 --> 00:03:16,400
Speaker 1: there was much more interest, at least among some of

54
00:03:16,400 --> 00:03:21,040
Speaker 1: the conservative justices, especially Justice Alito, in tweaking the existing

55
00:03:21,080 --> 00:03:23,680
Speaker 1: standards in a way that would make it look like

56
00:03:24,240 --> 00:03:27,480
Speaker 1: the Court is continuing with its application of existing law,

57
00:03:27,520 --> 00:03:30,680
Speaker 1: but actually changes the standards enough to make it easier

58
00:03:30,680 --> 00:03:33,240
Speaker 1: for states to win and harder for minority voters to win.

59
00:03:33,440 --> 00:03:36,520
Speaker 1: The real question is whether or not the other justices

60
00:03:36,520 --> 00:03:39,560
Speaker 1: would be willing to go along with Justice Alito, Justice

61
00:03:39,680 --> 00:03:45,119
Speaker 1: Jackson seemed to dominate the arguments well. Justice Jackson, even

62
00:03:45,160 --> 00:03:47,760
Speaker 1: though this was only her second day of oral arguments

63
00:03:47,760 --> 00:03:51,520
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court, came out of the box very

64
00:03:51,560 --> 00:03:56,400
Speaker 1: well prepared and extremely aggressive encountering with Justice Alito was

65
00:03:56,440 --> 00:03:58,680
Speaker 1: trying to do so. Justice Dealto was trying to find

66
00:03:58,720 --> 00:04:02,640
Speaker 1: a way to re interpret the standards that apply to

67
00:04:02,720 --> 00:04:06,360
Speaker 1: Section two, and Justice Jackson's main point was that Justice

68
00:04:06,360 --> 00:04:09,680
Speaker 1: the Leader's approach is inconsistent with the text of Section two,

69
00:04:09,680 --> 00:04:12,600
Speaker 1: it's inconsistent with the precedent that's applied section two, and

70
00:04:12,680 --> 00:04:15,880
Speaker 1: there's no constitutional reasons. I thought it was particularly notable

71
00:04:16,040 --> 00:04:19,400
Speaker 1: that on the constitutional point, Justice Jackson went back to

72
00:04:19,520 --> 00:04:23,719
Speaker 1: the original understanding of the Reconstruction Amendments, the thirteen sporteen,

73
00:04:23,720 --> 00:04:26,240
Speaker 1: the fifteen Monuments, which provide the basis for Congress to

74
00:04:26,279 --> 00:04:28,599
Speaker 1: act to pass the Voting Rights Accident. I saw that

75
00:04:28,680 --> 00:04:30,839
Speaker 1: as an appeal to some of the justices who are

76
00:04:30,920 --> 00:04:33,839
Speaker 1: originalists on the Court care about the original meaning, and

77
00:04:33,839 --> 00:04:35,840
Speaker 1: what she was trying to argue is that the Voting

78
00:04:35,920 --> 00:04:38,880
Speaker 1: Rights Act as it's been understood, it's very much in

79
00:04:38,960 --> 00:04:42,799
Speaker 1: line with what those who passed the Fourteenth Amendment thought

80
00:04:43,080 --> 00:04:45,799
Speaker 1: could happen, which is that there could be race conscious

81
00:04:45,880 --> 00:04:50,200
Speaker 1: laws that could be passed to provide protection for members

82
00:04:50,240 --> 00:04:53,720
Speaker 1: of our society who faced past discrimination. What about some

83
00:04:53,800 --> 00:04:56,880
Speaker 1: of the conservatives that might be closer to the middle

84
00:04:56,920 --> 00:05:01,720
Speaker 1: of the court. Did they propose anything afferent a different solution?

85
00:05:01,839 --> 00:05:06,839
Speaker 1: Did they seem to agree with Justice Alito or Justice Jackson. So,

86
00:05:07,960 --> 00:05:12,960
Speaker 1: both Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett mostly asked clarifying questions

87
00:05:13,480 --> 00:05:16,320
Speaker 1: in order to understand what it was exactly that Alabama

88
00:05:16,400 --> 00:05:19,080
Speaker 1: was arguing. What was the plaintiffs were contending has to

89
00:05:19,120 --> 00:05:23,120
Speaker 1: be done under the existing law. They didn't really tip

90
00:05:23,200 --> 00:05:26,839
Speaker 1: their hand very much. But I'm reminded of the oral

91
00:05:26,960 --> 00:05:30,280
Speaker 1: argument in a case called Bernovich, which the Supreme Court

92
00:05:30,279 --> 00:05:33,520
Speaker 1: decided a year ago last July. During ther arguments of

93
00:05:33,560 --> 00:05:36,160
Speaker 1: that case, which also involved the same statute section to

94
00:05:36,200 --> 00:05:38,919
Speaker 1: the Voting Rights Act, but not in the redictioning context

95
00:05:39,480 --> 00:05:42,120
Speaker 1: at our argument, both of those justices seem kind of

96
00:05:42,160 --> 00:05:45,400
Speaker 1: open to arguments on both sides, but in the end

97
00:05:45,600 --> 00:05:48,839
Speaker 1: they colalesced behind Justice Alito's opinion, which was a very

98
00:05:48,920 --> 00:05:52,400
Speaker 1: hostile opinions to voting rights litis. And so if that

99
00:05:52,520 --> 00:05:57,040
Speaker 1: pattern holes. This time, we're likely to see a significant

100
00:05:57,080 --> 00:05:59,320
Speaker 1: weakening of the Voting Rights Act. Now nothing is set

101
00:05:59,320 --> 00:06:04,680
Speaker 1: in stone. You really can't predict anything from oral argument

102
00:06:04,760 --> 00:06:08,120
Speaker 1: questions with any kind of certainty. They seem to open minded,

103
00:06:08,279 --> 00:06:11,000
Speaker 1: but it's not clear that that open mindness will prevail

104
00:06:11,080 --> 00:06:14,960
Speaker 1: by the time the case gets decided sometime later this

105
00:06:15,040 --> 00:06:20,240
Speaker 1: year or more likely next year. Did Justice Thomas say

106
00:06:20,279 --> 00:06:24,520
Speaker 1: anything of noteworthy? Justice Thomas asked a few questions. Justice course,

107
00:06:24,560 --> 00:06:27,120
Speaker 1: that didn't. They've both taken the point of view that

108
00:06:27,920 --> 00:06:29,960
Speaker 1: the Voting Rights Act Section two, as a matter of

109
00:06:29,960 --> 00:06:34,080
Speaker 1: statutory interpretations, does not even apply to redistricting, and so

110
00:06:34,320 --> 00:06:38,320
Speaker 1: they are not likely to be vote to uh side

111
00:06:38,320 --> 00:06:40,279
Speaker 1: with the plaintiffs, and saying that this a voting rights

112
00:06:40,520 --> 00:06:45,000
Speaker 1: relations here and the chief the fact that he joined

113
00:06:45,000 --> 00:06:48,920
Speaker 1: the liberals in dissent on the shadow docket case, does

114
00:06:48,960 --> 00:06:53,120
Speaker 1: that indicate he might side with the liberals again here? Well,

115
00:06:53,160 --> 00:06:57,520
Speaker 1: what he said was I think that under existing law

116
00:06:57,600 --> 00:07:01,240
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs should win, but I'm open to rethinking existing law.

117
00:07:01,400 --> 00:07:03,200
Speaker 1: So I don't think we can read all that much

118
00:07:03,240 --> 00:07:08,039
Speaker 1: into it from his vote in the stay question earlier

119
00:07:08,240 --> 00:07:12,080
Speaker 1: this year. You refer to it over the last decade,

120
00:07:12,480 --> 00:07:16,119
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has already weakened the Voting Rights Act.

121
00:07:16,680 --> 00:07:19,200
Speaker 1: So is there any chance that this case will be

122
00:07:19,240 --> 00:07:22,840
Speaker 1: different or will they just continue on the road they've

123
00:07:22,840 --> 00:07:26,120
Speaker 1: been on. So there is certainly a history of the

124
00:07:26,200 --> 00:07:28,680
Speaker 1: Court being hostile to the Voting Rights Act. There was

125
00:07:28,680 --> 00:07:31,760
Speaker 1: the two thousand and thirteen case Shelby County versus Holder

126
00:07:31,800 --> 00:07:34,440
Speaker 1: that essentially killed off a major provision of Voting Rights

127
00:07:34,440 --> 00:07:37,120
Speaker 1: Act known as Section five. There was the Burnovitch case

128
00:07:37,360 --> 00:07:40,200
Speaker 1: that held the Section two doesn't have a lot of

129
00:07:40,240 --> 00:07:43,800
Speaker 1: teeth outside of the resisting context. Also some other decisions,

130
00:07:43,840 --> 00:07:47,000
Speaker 1: including the decision a few years ago written by Justice

131
00:07:47,040 --> 00:07:51,680
Speaker 1: Alito called Abbott first Paris Case out of Texas, which

132
00:07:51,760 --> 00:07:54,800
Speaker 1: also weakened the understanding the Voting Rights Act. So if

133
00:07:54,840 --> 00:07:57,320
Speaker 1: that pattern holds up, I don't think it's going to

134
00:07:57,360 --> 00:08:00,800
Speaker 1: be good news for minority voters. I think the real

135
00:08:00,880 --> 00:08:04,119
Speaker 1: question is not there's a good chance that planeiffs lose.

136
00:08:04,440 --> 00:08:07,440
Speaker 1: We already know from them taking the case and issuing

137
00:08:07,440 --> 00:08:10,040
Speaker 1: a stay that that's likely to happen. It's how they

138
00:08:10,080 --> 00:08:12,520
Speaker 1: lose and how bad it's going to be. The three

139
00:08:12,600 --> 00:08:17,200
Speaker 1: judge District Court ruling that agreed that Alabama's mapped likely

140
00:08:17,320 --> 00:08:21,400
Speaker 1: violated the Voting Rights Act? Did that court follow precedent?

141
00:08:21,640 --> 00:08:25,520
Speaker 1: And you know, was its decision in line with prior cases?

142
00:08:26,400 --> 00:08:29,040
Speaker 1: I think that decision very much followed precedent. In fact,

143
00:08:29,600 --> 00:08:33,360
Speaker 1: Chief Justice Roberts, in dissenting from the courts issuing of

144
00:08:33,400 --> 00:08:37,360
Speaker 1: a stay less spring, said that much. I think it's

145
00:08:37,400 --> 00:08:40,480
Speaker 1: notable that the panel, the three judge courts. Two of

146
00:08:40,480 --> 00:08:43,920
Speaker 1: the judges on that court were appointed by President Trump.

147
00:08:44,559 --> 00:08:46,280
Speaker 1: So this is not, you know, a panel made up

148
00:08:46,440 --> 00:08:50,040
Speaker 1: of Democratic appointed judges who might have a different viewpoint

149
00:08:50,080 --> 00:08:52,560
Speaker 1: on the reading of the Act than say, the conservaive

150
00:08:52,600 --> 00:08:55,840
Speaker 1: justices on the Supreme Court. Really, the question is not

151
00:08:56,040 --> 00:08:59,160
Speaker 1: whether or not the planeffs win under existing precedent. I

152
00:08:59,200 --> 00:09:01,680
Speaker 1: think that's an easy that they do. The question is

153
00:09:01,679 --> 00:09:04,880
Speaker 1: whether the Court's going to change the standard. I want

154
00:09:04,880 --> 00:09:09,480
Speaker 1: to get your take on another redistricting case the Court

155
00:09:09,600 --> 00:09:12,360
Speaker 1: is going to be hearing later in the term. It

156
00:09:12,440 --> 00:09:16,800
Speaker 1: involves the North Carolina map, and it will test the

157
00:09:16,840 --> 00:09:21,160
Speaker 1: power of state courts to invalidate congressional maps as two

158
00:09:21,240 --> 00:09:27,479
Speaker 1: partisan with this controversial doctrine called the independent state legislature doctrine,

159
00:09:28,280 --> 00:09:32,400
Speaker 1: and some elections law experts say that if the Court

160
00:09:32,440 --> 00:09:37,800
Speaker 1: adopts that doctrine, it could rerea havoc on elections across

161
00:09:37,800 --> 00:09:41,160
Speaker 1: the country. I'm actually filing an AMIKS brief in the case,

162
00:09:41,320 --> 00:09:44,480
Speaker 1: so I think that if the Court adopts the kind

163
00:09:44,520 --> 00:09:48,640
Speaker 1: of expansive arguments that the planeffs have made in that case,

164
00:09:49,440 --> 00:09:53,360
Speaker 1: it is going to vastly increase the amount of election

165
00:09:53,400 --> 00:09:58,720
Speaker 1: litigation in courts. It's going to give every state court

166
00:09:58,760 --> 00:10:03,199
Speaker 1: decision interpreting a state election law that supplies in the

167
00:10:03,240 --> 00:10:08,080
Speaker 1: federal election, and every state and local agency decision applied

168
00:10:08,080 --> 00:10:10,680
Speaker 1: to a federal election a chance to become a federal

169
00:10:10,720 --> 00:10:14,839
Speaker 1: lawsuit that could potentially pitch federal courts against state courts.

170
00:10:15,080 --> 00:10:17,600
Speaker 1: And I think ultimately, if the Court rules the way

171
00:10:17,640 --> 00:10:23,760
Speaker 1: that the Republican legislators want in the North Carolina case,

172
00:10:24,720 --> 00:10:28,960
Speaker 1: that it's going to undermine voter confidence in both the

173
00:10:29,000 --> 00:10:32,360
Speaker 1: electoral process and in the courts. Thanks so much for

174
00:10:32,360 --> 00:10:36,040
Speaker 1: your insights, Rick, that's Professor Richard Hassan of u c

175
00:10:36,200 --> 00:10:40,480
Speaker 1: l A Law School. Will your argument next in case

176
00:10:42,920 --> 00:10:47,720
Speaker 1: Oriyano versus McDonough, Mr Barney, Thank you, missr Chief Justice,

177
00:10:47,720 --> 00:10:50,240
Speaker 1: and man it please the Court. And with that James

178
00:10:50,240 --> 00:10:53,480
Speaker 1: Barney made his debut at the Supreme Court, a former

179
00:10:53,640 --> 00:10:58,359
Speaker 1: Naval officer, arguing on behalf of fellow veteran Adolpho Ariano,

180
00:10:58,640 --> 00:11:03,880
Speaker 1: who suffers from severe mental health conditions, including PTSD, following

181
00:11:03,920 --> 00:11:08,160
Speaker 1: an aircraft carrier collision. They're challenging an appellate court ruling

182
00:11:08,440 --> 00:11:11,160
Speaker 1: that said the veteran can't get around the one year

183
00:11:11,240 --> 00:11:17,160
Speaker 1: deadline for filing for retroactive benefits, and James Barney joins me, Now, James,

184
00:11:17,160 --> 00:11:21,840
Speaker 1: tell us about your client. Sure, My client is Adolfo Ariano.

185
00:11:22,040 --> 00:11:24,920
Speaker 1: He was a Navy veteran who served aboard an aircraft

186
00:11:24,960 --> 00:11:28,920
Speaker 1: carrier back in the late seventies and suffered very traumatic

187
00:11:29,000 --> 00:11:32,240
Speaker 1: event when that aircraft carrier collided with a freighter. He

188
00:11:32,360 --> 00:11:35,280
Speaker 1: was nearly swept overboard. He was working on the flight deck,

189
00:11:35,520 --> 00:11:39,080
Speaker 1: observed several of his shipmates being injured and killed, and

190
00:11:39,200 --> 00:11:41,720
Speaker 1: when he was discharged from the Navy a year or

191
00:11:41,760 --> 00:11:46,040
Speaker 1: so later, he really had some traumatic disabilities because of that,

192
00:11:46,280 --> 00:11:49,559
Speaker 1: and that really is the focus of our case. He

193
00:11:49,760 --> 00:11:52,640
Speaker 1: was lucky in the sense that his brother was able

194
00:11:52,679 --> 00:11:56,480
Speaker 1: to eventually take over his affairs, in other words, become

195
00:11:56,559 --> 00:11:59,160
Speaker 1: his guardian, and it really was his brother that was

196
00:11:59,200 --> 00:12:02,560
Speaker 1: able to get Mr. Ariana to file a claim for

197
00:12:02,679 --> 00:12:05,520
Speaker 1: his disabilities with the v A. But unfortunately, by the

198
00:12:05,559 --> 00:12:08,600
Speaker 1: time he did so, many years had passed and Mr.

199
00:12:08,640 --> 00:12:13,600
Speaker 1: Ariana had already been suffering from these very severe mental disabilities.

200
00:12:13,920 --> 00:12:16,920
Speaker 1: And does this happen often that a veteran, you know,

201
00:12:17,040 --> 00:12:20,160
Speaker 1: misses the time when he or she can file. Don't

202
00:12:20,200 --> 00:12:22,599
Speaker 1: the services tell you what you have to do is

203
00:12:22,640 --> 00:12:26,840
Speaker 1: you leave? Yes, But unfortunately that doesn't always happen. When

204
00:12:26,960 --> 00:12:30,079
Speaker 1: veterans leave the service, it's a very tumultuous time in

205
00:12:30,120 --> 00:12:33,560
Speaker 1: their lives. Some of these veterans have really known nothing

206
00:12:33,600 --> 00:12:36,160
Speaker 1: else in their adult lives other than the military, and

207
00:12:36,200 --> 00:12:39,120
Speaker 1: so it becomes their community, it becomes their life, and

208
00:12:39,280 --> 00:12:42,720
Speaker 1: leaving the military, even if you don't have disabilities, leaving

209
00:12:42,720 --> 00:12:46,680
Speaker 1: the military is a very tumultuous and sometimes somewhat traumatic

210
00:12:46,920 --> 00:12:49,880
Speaker 1: process as you're trying to make that transition to civilian life.

211
00:12:50,000 --> 00:12:53,160
Speaker 1: If you add into that a veteran who's suffering from

212
00:12:53,320 --> 00:12:57,240
Speaker 1: very significant injuries, so we're talking about traumatic brain injuries,

213
00:12:57,360 --> 00:13:01,400
Speaker 1: we're talking about PTSD. Unfortunately, only there's a number of

214
00:13:01,480 --> 00:13:04,560
Speaker 1: veterans who suffer from the effects of what they call

215
00:13:04,640 --> 00:13:08,200
Speaker 1: military sexual trauma, and these can be debilitating and so

216
00:13:08,240 --> 00:13:11,520
Speaker 1: on top of this tumultuous life change that's taking place,

217
00:13:11,640 --> 00:13:15,240
Speaker 1: they're suffering from these disabilities. And does the v A

218
00:13:15,240 --> 00:13:17,719
Speaker 1: always tell the veteran all of the things they need

219
00:13:17,760 --> 00:13:20,320
Speaker 1: to do to file for benefits they're supposed to, But

220
00:13:20,400 --> 00:13:22,480
Speaker 1: I don't think it happens all the time, or if

221
00:13:22,480 --> 00:13:25,040
Speaker 1: it does happen, it happens in such a flurry of

222
00:13:25,120 --> 00:13:28,760
Speaker 1: other activity that the veteran doesn't really understand what's happening.

223
00:13:29,000 --> 00:13:31,480
Speaker 1: The veterans are not represented by counsel at this point,

224
00:13:31,559 --> 00:13:34,280
Speaker 1: so they're religious on their own, and unfortunately many of

225
00:13:34,320 --> 00:13:36,840
Speaker 1: them do miss this one year filing deadline. That's an

226
00:13:36,840 --> 00:13:40,640
Speaker 1: issue in this case. The Circuit court ruled against your client.

227
00:13:41,320 --> 00:13:43,720
Speaker 1: Why do you think the Supreme Court took your case?

228
00:13:43,960 --> 00:13:45,960
Speaker 1: Is it a good sign that perhaps they want to

229
00:13:46,000 --> 00:13:49,880
Speaker 1: reverse the Circuit Court? Well, I think so. I think

230
00:13:49,880 --> 00:13:52,400
Speaker 1: they took the case because it's an important issue. It

231
00:13:52,480 --> 00:13:54,880
Speaker 1: really has to do with fairness. There was a case

232
00:13:55,120 --> 00:13:57,920
Speaker 1: about thirty years ago called Irwin, and what the Irwin

233
00:13:58,240 --> 00:14:00,959
Speaker 1: case held, this is a Supreme Court case, was that

234
00:14:01,120 --> 00:14:04,600
Speaker 1: people who have claims against the government, like benefits claims,

235
00:14:04,640 --> 00:14:07,920
Speaker 1: should be treated the same way as litigants in private

236
00:14:07,960 --> 00:14:10,959
Speaker 1: litigation with respect to this issue of whether you can

237
00:14:11,000 --> 00:14:14,160
Speaker 1: equitably toll or, in other words, forgive a missed deadline.

238
00:14:14,440 --> 00:14:17,440
Speaker 1: Most people in civil litigation who have a claim against

239
00:14:17,440 --> 00:14:19,960
Speaker 1: the private party, if they miss a deadline, they can

240
00:14:20,000 --> 00:14:22,200
Speaker 1: actually request it to be told. And what the Supreme

241
00:14:22,240 --> 00:14:24,760
Speaker 1: Court said in Irwin was there should be no difference

242
00:14:24,800 --> 00:14:28,000
Speaker 1: between that and when a person is suing the government

243
00:14:28,080 --> 00:14:31,200
Speaker 1: or seeking a claim against the government. And yet despite that,

244
00:14:31,360 --> 00:14:35,680
Speaker 1: the Federal Circuit had for many years ruled that veterans

245
00:14:35,720 --> 00:14:38,120
Speaker 1: simply are not able to take advantage of that. They

246
00:14:38,160 --> 00:14:41,080
Speaker 1: basically said, veterans are somehow different, and we did not

247
00:14:41,160 --> 00:14:44,440
Speaker 1: think that was fair. At the Supreme Court Oral arguments,

248
00:14:44,480 --> 00:14:48,480
Speaker 1: What was the toughest question you've got, uh, The one

249
00:14:48,560 --> 00:14:52,080
Speaker 1: that I wasn't quite prepared for. Was Justice Jackson asked

250
00:14:52,080 --> 00:14:55,200
Speaker 1: me a question about statutes of limitations and to use

251
00:14:55,240 --> 00:14:58,800
Speaker 1: an analogy. In her view that status of limitations were

252
00:14:59,120 --> 00:15:01,600
Speaker 1: sort of like funnel And I was struggling a little

253
00:15:01,600 --> 00:15:04,200
Speaker 1: bit with that analogy, but I got through it, and

254
00:15:04,240 --> 00:15:06,400
Speaker 1: I think I answered her question in a way that

255
00:15:06,560 --> 00:15:09,480
Speaker 1: satisfied her. Other than that, most of the questions we

256
00:15:09,640 --> 00:15:13,440
Speaker 1: expected there are difficult legal issues here, and so some

257
00:15:13,520 --> 00:15:17,320
Speaker 1: of these questions got far into the weeds of doctrines

258
00:15:17,400 --> 00:15:20,120
Speaker 1: like equitable tolling and so forth. But most of them

259
00:15:20,240 --> 00:15:23,000
Speaker 1: I felt were expected, and I thought I was able

260
00:15:23,000 --> 00:15:27,280
Speaker 1: to answer them satisfactorily. So the government isn't even conceding

261
00:15:27,320 --> 00:15:30,520
Speaker 1: that this is a statute of limitations. Uh. The Solicitor

262
00:15:30,600 --> 00:15:34,400
Speaker 1: General argued, this statute it doesn't walk or quack like

263
00:15:34,480 --> 00:15:37,600
Speaker 1: a statute of limitations, and it doesn't function as one either.

264
00:15:38,120 --> 00:15:41,280
Speaker 1: Is that the toughest part of your argument? Well, I

265
00:15:41,320 --> 00:15:43,760
Speaker 1: don't think so. Um. I thought that was the easiest

266
00:15:43,800 --> 00:15:46,000
Speaker 1: part of our argument. I think this is very clearly

267
00:15:46,040 --> 00:15:48,560
Speaker 1: a statute of limitations. And I don't think that Justice

268
00:15:48,640 --> 00:15:52,600
Speaker 1: Kagan really appreciated that particular answer, because she pushed back

269
00:15:52,600 --> 00:15:55,400
Speaker 1: on the government on that point. The issue here is

270
00:15:55,840 --> 00:15:59,160
Speaker 1: Congress has stepped forth a one year's time limit in

271
00:15:59,320 --> 00:16:03,239
Speaker 1: order to qual A five for these retroactive disability benefits,

272
00:16:03,280 --> 00:16:06,160
Speaker 1: and I don't think it's a stretch to say that

273
00:16:06,160 --> 00:16:10,120
Speaker 1: that operates like a statued limitations. The Chief Justice pointed

274
00:16:10,120 --> 00:16:13,000
Speaker 1: out that this is an agency, the v A, that

275
00:16:13,160 --> 00:16:17,560
Speaker 1: supports disabled veterans and not an agency with rigid rules

276
00:16:17,600 --> 00:16:19,960
Speaker 1: like the I R S. Does that give you hope?

277
00:16:20,200 --> 00:16:22,320
Speaker 1: It does give me hope. And the Chief Justice was

278
00:16:22,360 --> 00:16:26,000
Speaker 1: exactly correct there. This doctrine of equitable tolling, believe it

279
00:16:26,080 --> 00:16:29,800
Speaker 1: or not, has actually been applied to allow the I

280
00:16:30,040 --> 00:16:33,520
Speaker 1: R S to benefit from this doctrine of equitable tolling

281
00:16:33,520 --> 00:16:36,680
Speaker 1: in order to extend or to forgive deadlines that they missed.

282
00:16:36,800 --> 00:16:38,840
Speaker 1: And it would be an odd result to think that

283
00:16:38,880 --> 00:16:41,840
Speaker 1: the I R S can benefit from this equitable principle,

284
00:16:41,920 --> 00:16:44,840
Speaker 1: and yet service disabled veterans cannot. And I think that

285
00:16:45,080 --> 00:16:48,360
Speaker 1: was the point that Justice Robertson was getting to. You've

286
00:16:48,400 --> 00:16:52,080
Speaker 1: done many appellate arguments before, never before the Supreme Court.

287
00:16:52,160 --> 00:16:56,320
Speaker 1: How different was it? Was it different? Well, it was

288
00:16:56,360 --> 00:16:59,920
Speaker 1: certainly a new experience and humbling experience, I must say,

289
00:17:00,200 --> 00:17:03,560
Speaker 1: to some extent, it's not different. I've done arguments in

290
00:17:03,600 --> 00:17:05,840
Speaker 1: front of the Federal Circuit, which is also a very

291
00:17:05,880 --> 00:17:09,680
Speaker 1: impressive group of judges who asked very tough questions. I've

292
00:17:09,720 --> 00:17:12,399
Speaker 1: even done on bank arguments in front of the Federal Circuit,

293
00:17:12,720 --> 00:17:17,080
Speaker 1: including the one that preceded this Supreme Court petition. And

294
00:17:17,320 --> 00:17:19,960
Speaker 1: there you're dealing with twelve judges and so in one sense,

295
00:17:20,080 --> 00:17:22,520
Speaker 1: going from twelve to nine is a little a little

296
00:17:22,560 --> 00:17:25,840
Speaker 1: bit easier. But the Supreme Court is is really just special,

297
00:17:25,960 --> 00:17:29,160
Speaker 1: and uh, it's just hard not to feel awed by

298
00:17:29,200 --> 00:17:32,960
Speaker 1: the experience. Did you get a feel for how the

299
00:17:33,000 --> 00:17:36,920
Speaker 1: court might rule? Which justices were clearly for you, which

300
00:17:36,960 --> 00:17:39,800
Speaker 1: against I've learned over the years never to try to

301
00:17:39,840 --> 00:17:41,880
Speaker 1: predict how the how a court is going to rule.

302
00:17:42,560 --> 00:17:45,480
Speaker 1: I thought the questions that that I received were fair.

303
00:17:45,560 --> 00:17:47,600
Speaker 1: They were the types of questions that I was expecting

304
00:17:47,640 --> 00:17:49,639
Speaker 1: to get. Some of them were tough questions, but I

305
00:17:49,640 --> 00:17:52,439
Speaker 1: think we had answers to all of them. I felt

306
00:17:52,480 --> 00:17:55,080
Speaker 1: that they were also tough on the government, and I

307
00:17:55,119 --> 00:17:58,600
Speaker 1: didn't think that all of the Secretary's answers to their

308
00:17:58,720 --> 00:18:01,720
Speaker 1: questions were sat a factory. He didn't have a good

309
00:18:01,760 --> 00:18:06,399
Speaker 1: answer for Justice Robert's question about why we should be

310
00:18:06,440 --> 00:18:08,760
Speaker 1: so strict in interpreting these rules in a in a

311
00:18:08,840 --> 00:18:12,760
Speaker 1: statute that is there to benefit disabled veterans, and also

312
00:18:12,840 --> 00:18:16,280
Speaker 1: did not have a good answer when Justice Alito asked

313
00:18:16,320 --> 00:18:19,320
Speaker 1: about this group called the Edgewood Veterans, and that's a

314
00:18:19,359 --> 00:18:22,720
Speaker 1: group of veterans that has a very, very compelling claim

315
00:18:22,840 --> 00:18:26,160
Speaker 1: that their misdeadlines should be forgiven. And I don't think

316
00:18:26,160 --> 00:18:29,600
Speaker 1: the government's answer there was very satisfactory. Does it seem

317
00:18:29,640 --> 00:18:31,920
Speaker 1: strange to you that the government, you know, in this

318
00:18:32,080 --> 00:18:35,919
Speaker 1: age where veterans are so much at the forefront and

319
00:18:36,000 --> 00:18:39,240
Speaker 1: concerns about veterans, that the government would take this stance,

320
00:18:39,320 --> 00:18:43,240
Speaker 1: even I'm not surprised, you know, to be fair, the

321
00:18:43,280 --> 00:18:45,639
Speaker 1: government and one of the things the government is looking

322
00:18:45,880 --> 00:18:49,719
Speaker 1: out for is that there is not a floodgate problem.

323
00:18:49,720 --> 00:18:51,800
Speaker 1: In other words, that if we if we allow this

324
00:18:51,920 --> 00:18:57,560
Speaker 1: type of tolling of these deadlines, these statutes, limitations they

325
00:18:57,600 --> 00:19:00,400
Speaker 1: have to be concerned with, are we going to create

326
00:19:00,400 --> 00:19:03,399
Speaker 1: a situation where the amount of payments that we have

327
00:19:03,440 --> 00:19:05,840
Speaker 1: to pay out to these veterans really exceeds the amount

328
00:19:05,840 --> 00:19:08,679
Speaker 1: that Congress is authorized. And that actually did come up

329
00:19:08,720 --> 00:19:11,879
Speaker 1: at the argument, and I was able to explain, I

330
00:19:11,920 --> 00:19:14,680
Speaker 1: think to their satisfaction that we don't think this will

331
00:19:14,720 --> 00:19:17,720
Speaker 1: cause a floodgate problem. The type of tolling that we're

332
00:19:17,760 --> 00:19:21,160
Speaker 1: asking for here, which is called equitable tolling, is only

333
00:19:21,600 --> 00:19:24,560
Speaker 1: used sparingly. It's not something that's going to apply to

334
00:19:24,680 --> 00:19:28,840
Speaker 1: every single case. But when it does apply, in other words,

335
00:19:28,840 --> 00:19:31,320
Speaker 1: when you have a veteran or really any individual who

336
00:19:31,400 --> 00:19:35,040
Speaker 1: truly does have a good reason why they missed the deadline, well,

337
00:19:35,040 --> 00:19:36,800
Speaker 1: then it ought to be available, and it should be

338
00:19:36,840 --> 00:19:39,560
Speaker 1: available to veterans in exactly the same way that it's

339
00:19:39,560 --> 00:19:43,640
Speaker 1: available to private litigans in private litigation. So basically, what

340
00:19:43,720 --> 00:19:47,359
Speaker 1: you want is for veterans to have the same advantages

341
00:19:47,520 --> 00:19:52,280
Speaker 1: that civil litigans have exactly. Let's say the Supreme Court

342
00:19:52,680 --> 00:19:57,120
Speaker 1: turns you down, is going to Congress and alternative, Yes,

343
00:19:57,240 --> 00:20:02,119
Speaker 1: that's always an alternative. Obviously that is a difficult path, um,

344
00:20:02,160 --> 00:20:05,520
Speaker 1: but certainly, um, it would be an alternative to lobby

345
00:20:05,560 --> 00:20:08,399
Speaker 1: Congress to make an explicit change in the law to

346
00:20:08,520 --> 00:20:11,879
Speaker 1: reflect this equitable tolling doctrine. But we really don't think

347
00:20:11,920 --> 00:20:15,280
Speaker 1: that should be necessary because the decision in Irwin again,

348
00:20:15,320 --> 00:20:18,600
Speaker 1: which is going back to all the way back, really

349
00:20:18,640 --> 00:20:22,120
Speaker 1: answers the question and the answer is that these sorts

350
00:20:22,160 --> 00:20:27,240
Speaker 1: of ordinary claims processing deadlines should be deemed tollable in

351
00:20:27,320 --> 00:20:31,800
Speaker 1: extenuating you know, in special circumstances. Are there implications for

352
00:20:31,960 --> 00:20:36,920
Speaker 1: veterans beyond this issue if you win this case, well,

353
00:20:36,960 --> 00:20:39,640
Speaker 1: certainly there's going to be a group of veterans who

354
00:20:39,720 --> 00:20:43,080
Speaker 1: have current claims where they have asked for the equitable tolling.

355
00:20:43,080 --> 00:20:46,840
Speaker 1: I mentioned the Edgewood Veterans are are one group of veterans,

356
00:20:46,920 --> 00:20:50,080
Speaker 1: and so one immediate impact would be that they would

357
00:20:50,200 --> 00:20:53,080
Speaker 1: now be able to go back and argue for equitable tolling,

358
00:20:53,119 --> 00:20:55,240
Speaker 1: which right now they're not allowed to do because of

359
00:20:55,280 --> 00:20:58,400
Speaker 1: these previous federal circuit rulings. The other effect that will

360
00:20:58,440 --> 00:21:00,880
Speaker 1: have is for future of terans, you know, in other words,

361
00:21:00,960 --> 00:21:04,120
Speaker 1: veterans who maybe are still in the military and we'll

362
00:21:04,160 --> 00:21:07,000
Speaker 1: be getting out in the future, and those veterans will

363
00:21:07,000 --> 00:21:09,919
Speaker 1: be able to benefit from equitable tolling if they have

364
00:21:10,600 --> 00:21:13,960
Speaker 1: some of these extenuating circumstances and they have really good

365
00:21:13,960 --> 00:21:17,000
Speaker 1: cause to extend that deadline. I just want to say

366
00:21:17,000 --> 00:21:18,680
Speaker 1: that we had a lot of help along the way,

367
00:21:18,720 --> 00:21:21,840
Speaker 1: and we were very grateful to receive amicist supports from

368
00:21:21,880 --> 00:21:24,440
Speaker 1: a lot of veterans groups as well as a A

369
00:21:24,720 --> 00:21:28,840
Speaker 1: r P and and many other organizations that really did

370
00:21:28,880 --> 00:21:32,440
Speaker 1: a fantastic job supporting us as we moved this case

371
00:21:32,480 --> 00:21:35,280
Speaker 1: along to the Supreme Court. Was your client at the

372
00:21:35,359 --> 00:21:38,080
Speaker 1: oral arguments? He was not, but I had a call

373
00:21:38,160 --> 00:21:41,400
Speaker 1: with his brother immediately afterwards, and his brother was very

374
00:21:41,400 --> 00:21:43,399
Speaker 1: pleased with how it went and we all have our

375
00:21:43,440 --> 00:21:47,000
Speaker 1: fingers crossed. Thanks so much for sharing your experience with us.

376
00:21:47,320 --> 00:21:50,560
Speaker 1: That's James Barney, a partner at Fitnigain. And that's it

377
00:21:50,600 --> 00:21:53,199
Speaker 1: for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

378
00:21:53,200 --> 00:21:55,680
Speaker 1: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg

379
00:21:55,800 --> 00:21:59,360
Speaker 1: Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

380
00:21:59,560 --> 00:22:04,600
Speaker 1: and it www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law,

381
00:22:05,000 --> 00:22:07,639
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

382
00:22:07,640 --> 00:22:11,080
Speaker 1: week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June

383
00:22:11,119 --> 00:22:13,320
Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg