1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,360
Speaker 1: And now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief,

2
00:00:02,480 --> 00:00:05,200
Speaker 1: exploring legal issues in the news. It's brought to you

3
00:00:05,280 --> 00:00:10,719
Speaker 1: by American Arbitration Association, International Trade or Business Dispute Resolved

4
00:00:10,760 --> 00:00:13,680
Speaker 1: Faster with the International Center for a Dispute Resolution, the

5
00:00:13,760 --> 00:00:17,000
Speaker 1: leader in alternative dispute resolution around the world i c

6
00:00:17,200 --> 00:00:20,560
Speaker 1: d R dot org. Today, Bloomberg Law hosting Grasso and

7
00:00:20,600 --> 00:00:23,720
Speaker 1: Greg Store discussed the U. S. Supreme Court's refusal to

8
00:00:23,800 --> 00:00:27,320
Speaker 1: revive North Carolina's voter I D. Law issic with Nate

9
00:00:27,360 --> 00:00:31,200
Speaker 1: per silly Or, professor at Stanford University Law School. The

10
00:00:31,280 --> 00:00:33,440
Speaker 1: Conservatives on the Court had the votes to take up

11
00:00:33,479 --> 00:00:35,920
Speaker 1: this case, and before the election for them actually tried

12
00:00:35,960 --> 00:00:38,920
Speaker 1: to reinstate the law but came up a vote short.

13
00:00:39,280 --> 00:00:42,839
Speaker 1: So what happened here, Well, Chief Justice Roberts is the

14
00:00:42,880 --> 00:00:45,879
Speaker 1: only one who actually spoke out in this case, and

15
00:00:45,880 --> 00:00:49,760
Speaker 1: he reminded everyone that um, the fact that the Court

16
00:00:49,880 --> 00:00:52,680
Speaker 1: was not going to intervene in this decision striking down

17
00:00:52,720 --> 00:00:56,320
Speaker 1: North Carolina's restrictive voting law is only indicative of the

18
00:00:56,360 --> 00:00:58,640
Speaker 1: fact that they don't want to take it up at

19
00:00:58,640 --> 00:01:01,600
Speaker 1: this point, in part because is um now there's a

20
00:01:01,600 --> 00:01:05,120
Speaker 1: new government in North Carolina that does not want to

21
00:01:05,120 --> 00:01:07,360
Speaker 1: defend this law. So there was a lot of confusion

22
00:01:07,760 --> 00:01:10,199
Speaker 1: as to whether the state was really willing to defend

23
00:01:10,240 --> 00:01:12,760
Speaker 1: this law. And so the court that in these circumstances

24
00:01:12,800 --> 00:01:15,560
Speaker 1: decided to take a pass. So then how do you

25
00:01:15,600 --> 00:01:20,360
Speaker 1: weigh this victory? Well, it's still uh, sort of going

26
00:01:20,400 --> 00:01:23,520
Speaker 1: to come up to the Supreme Court the constitutionality and

27
00:01:23,640 --> 00:01:26,600
Speaker 1: legality of voter I D laws, other types of laws

28
00:01:26,640 --> 00:01:29,280
Speaker 1: restricting voting hours and the like. Uh, And it's going

29
00:01:29,360 --> 00:01:30,959
Speaker 1: to come up to them on the question as to

30
00:01:31,040 --> 00:01:35,959
Speaker 1: whether it is motivated by discriminatory intent? Are these laws

31
00:01:36,080 --> 00:01:40,560
Speaker 1: passed with an intention to reduce turnout voter turnout among

32
00:01:40,600 --> 00:01:44,119
Speaker 1: African American voters in particular. And so while they've left

33
00:01:44,120 --> 00:01:46,640
Speaker 1: that question for another day, there's no shortage of these

34
00:01:46,680 --> 00:01:49,360
Speaker 1: laws that are being challenged in court. Um, both in

35
00:01:49,400 --> 00:01:53,040
Speaker 1: the South and elsewhere. What what case are you looking

36
00:01:53,080 --> 00:01:55,520
Speaker 1: at as the one since this one is not going

37
00:01:55,560 --> 00:01:58,840
Speaker 1: to get reviewed by the Supreme Court is perhaps most

38
00:01:58,920 --> 00:02:04,160
Speaker 1: likely to ultimately produce a Supreme Court argument and decision. Well,

39
00:02:04,400 --> 00:02:08,480
Speaker 1: it's complicated because there are different types of voting cases

40
00:02:08,480 --> 00:02:10,880
Speaker 1: that are winding their way to the Supreme Court. So

41
00:02:11,240 --> 00:02:13,960
Speaker 1: it looks like the redistricting cases are really the ones

42
00:02:14,000 --> 00:02:17,200
Speaker 1: that are next on the agenda. Both cases dealing with

43
00:02:17,400 --> 00:02:20,679
Speaker 1: partisan jerrymandering coming out of Wisconsin, and that could prove

44
00:02:20,760 --> 00:02:23,840
Speaker 1: to be a monumental case if the Supreme Court strikes

45
00:02:23,880 --> 00:02:28,239
Speaker 1: down the Republican jerryman or in Wisconsin is unconstitutional, as

46
00:02:28,280 --> 00:02:31,960
Speaker 1: well as cases dealing with race and the redistricting process

47
00:02:31,960 --> 00:02:35,160
Speaker 1: out of North Carolina, Virginia and elsewhere. And so those

48
00:02:35,160 --> 00:02:37,120
Speaker 1: would be the ones I would look at to sort

49
00:02:37,120 --> 00:02:39,800
Speaker 1: of give a sense as to whether the new justice

50
00:02:39,800 --> 00:02:42,799
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court Justice Courseitch, has different views than

51
00:02:42,800 --> 00:02:44,720
Speaker 1: his colleagues, and also what the trend is at the

52
00:02:44,720 --> 00:02:48,880
Speaker 1: Supreme Court that Snate per Sillier, professor at Stanford University

53
00:02:48,960 --> 00:02:52,360
Speaker 1: Law School, speaking with Bloomberg Lahoe student Grasso and Greg's store.

54
00:02:52,680 --> 00:02:54,959
Speaker 1: You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm

55
00:02:54,960 --> 00:02:58,400
Speaker 1: Wall Street Time here on Bloomberg Radio Now. Among the

56
00:02:58,440 --> 00:03:02,600
Speaker 1: top legal stories from Bloomberg Law, two former Walmart workers

57
00:03:02,639 --> 00:03:05,880
Speaker 1: are suing the world's largest retailer, claiming the company discriminates

58
00:03:05,919 --> 00:03:09,080
Speaker 1: against pregnant women. Suit seeks to represent as many as

59
00:03:09,160 --> 00:03:11,880
Speaker 1: forty eight thousand current and former Walmart workers in a

60
00:03:11,919 --> 00:03:15,120
Speaker 1: class action claiming at Walmart wouldn't accommodate them with lighter

61
00:03:15,200 --> 00:03:19,240
Speaker 1: duties while pregnant. The company denies the allegations. A former

62
00:03:19,280 --> 00:03:22,080
Speaker 1: Bank of America senior vice president and her husband have

63
00:03:22,200 --> 00:03:25,480
Speaker 1: been charged with embezzling more than two point seven million dollars.

64
00:03:25,720 --> 00:03:28,920
Speaker 1: Pam and Jonathan a Sir, accused of making charitable donations

65
00:03:28,960 --> 00:03:31,919
Speaker 1: on behalf of b of A and then using intimidation

66
00:03:32,040 --> 00:03:33,920
Speaker 1: and threats to get much of the money back for

67
00:03:33,960 --> 00:03:37,120
Speaker 1: their own use. Pam Ace's lawyer says she is pleaded

68
00:03:37,160 --> 00:03:40,280
Speaker 1: not guilty. A lawyer for her husband not immediately return

69
00:03:40,320 --> 00:03:43,240
Speaker 1: a call for comment. And that's this morning's Bloomberg Law BRAFE.

70
00:03:43,280 --> 00:03:45,520
Speaker 1: You can find more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot

71
00:03:45,600 --> 00:03:48,720
Speaker 1: com and Bloomberg b NA dot com. Attorneys will find

72
00:03:48,760 --> 00:03:52,040
Speaker 1: exceptional legal research and business development tools there as well.

73
00:03:52,640 --> 00:03:55,960
Speaker 1: Visits Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg BNA dot com

74
00:03:56,240 --> 00:03:57,160
Speaker 1: for more information