1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:21,720
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Well, we're in

6
00:00:21,720 --> 00:00:24,439
Speaker 1: the home stretch of the Supreme Courts term. We're still

7
00:00:24,520 --> 00:00:27,920
Speaker 1: waiting for major rulings on the intensely political issues of

8
00:00:27,960 --> 00:00:31,600
Speaker 1: the census and parties in jerrymandering, among many other cases.

9
00:00:32,000 --> 00:00:35,680
Speaker 1: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg hinted that sharp divisions will mark

10
00:00:35,760 --> 00:00:38,800
Speaker 1: the final weeks of the term. Joining me is Bloomberg

11
00:00:38,800 --> 00:00:42,120
Speaker 1: new Supreme Court reporter of Greg store So Greg. Justice

12
00:00:42,159 --> 00:00:45,159
Speaker 1: Ginsberg indicated in a speech that we'll be seeing a

13
00:00:45,240 --> 00:00:49,600
Speaker 1: lot of decisions go down narrow partisan lines. She did,

14
00:00:49,720 --> 00:00:52,160
Speaker 1: this is an annual speech she gives at the Second

15
00:00:52,240 --> 00:00:55,720
Speaker 1: Circuit UH she's the Circuit Justice for for that that

16
00:00:55,800 --> 00:00:59,520
Speaker 1: covers New York and some other states. Um And occasionally

17
00:00:59,600 --> 00:01:01,800
Speaker 1: she said some things that at least seem like their

18
00:01:01,920 --> 00:01:04,880
Speaker 1: hints as to what's going to come. And she mentioned

19
00:01:04,880 --> 00:01:07,400
Speaker 1: that about a quarter of the cases decided so far,

20
00:01:07,440 --> 00:01:09,360
Speaker 1: I've been either five to four or five to three,

21
00:01:09,800 --> 00:01:12,720
Speaker 1: and she said, I'm not sure I can predict that

22
00:01:12,720 --> 00:01:16,280
Speaker 1: that low percentage will hold as we decide the last

23
00:01:16,560 --> 00:01:21,680
Speaker 1: couple dozen cases. So maybe even more than might that

24
00:01:21,920 --> 00:01:26,919
Speaker 1: account for why we're seeing the decisions which always happens,

25
00:01:26,920 --> 00:01:28,880
Speaker 1: but the decisions that we've really been waiting for, not

26
00:01:28,959 --> 00:01:32,240
Speaker 1: only partis in Jerryman during the Senses, but many others

27
00:01:32,720 --> 00:01:36,600
Speaker 1: in the last weeks here. Yeah, you're right that it

28
00:01:36,680 --> 00:01:39,559
Speaker 1: does often happen. If the cases were easy, they would

29
00:01:39,600 --> 00:01:42,360
Speaker 1: decide them more quickly, and that's why sometimes we get

30
00:01:42,520 --> 00:01:45,600
Speaker 1: a lot of nine nothing decisions earlier in the term,

31
00:01:45,720 --> 00:01:48,200
Speaker 1: and at the end it's often the cases they've really

32
00:01:48,240 --> 00:01:52,520
Speaker 1: been struggling with. Uh, we do have a number of

33
00:01:52,520 --> 00:01:55,440
Speaker 1: cases that look like they could be ideologically divisive. You've

34
00:01:55,520 --> 00:02:00,640
Speaker 1: you mentioned the Gerryman during cases, the Census citizenship question case. Uh,

35
00:02:00,680 --> 00:02:05,559
Speaker 1: there's a case over whether a cross a Fort cross

36
00:02:05,560 --> 00:02:09,000
Speaker 1: in the Maryland intersection is a violation of the Constitution's

37
00:02:09,040 --> 00:02:13,360
Speaker 1: Religion Clause. All those cases could be pretty divisive. So

38
00:02:13,440 --> 00:02:16,160
Speaker 1: the Court did announce some decisions today about what cases

39
00:02:16,240 --> 00:02:19,880
Speaker 1: to add for the term that starts in October. Let's

40
00:02:19,919 --> 00:02:23,519
Speaker 1: start with the Supreme Court agreeing to use a Montana

41
00:02:23,600 --> 00:02:28,800
Speaker 1: case to consider shielding companies from pollution cleanup suits. Yeah,

42
00:02:28,840 --> 00:02:33,200
Speaker 1: this is a case involving VPS Atlantic rich Field. Uh

43
00:02:33,240 --> 00:02:37,320
Speaker 1: the uh it's a lawsuit about a super fun site

44
00:02:37,440 --> 00:02:40,600
Speaker 1: up there. The e p A years ago set up

45
00:02:40,600 --> 00:02:44,000
Speaker 1: a plan to clean it up, and there are some

46
00:02:44,040 --> 00:02:48,720
Speaker 1: property owners who uh say that they want more than

47
00:02:48,840 --> 00:02:51,720
Speaker 1: what might be coming to them under the p A plan.

48
00:02:51,840 --> 00:02:55,760
Speaker 1: They want Uh there's arsenic that's in the soil. They

49
00:02:55,760 --> 00:02:58,320
Speaker 1: want to have more soil removed. They want to have

50
00:02:58,360 --> 00:03:01,120
Speaker 1: it shipped further away. And so the question for the

51
00:03:01,160 --> 00:03:04,280
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is whether that kind of lawsuit can go

52
00:03:04,440 --> 00:03:08,280
Speaker 1: forward even in the face of an ep A plan

53
00:03:09,080 --> 00:03:12,799
Speaker 1: to do a little bit less remediation. And what did

54
00:03:12,800 --> 00:03:16,519
Speaker 1: the lower court rule? The lower court said the lawsuit

55
00:03:16,600 --> 00:03:21,240
Speaker 1: could go forward. Atlantic Richfield asked the Supreme Court to

56
00:03:21,480 --> 00:03:24,480
Speaker 1: hear the case. So we're now in the position where

57
00:03:24,480 --> 00:03:27,600
Speaker 1: the company could limit the type of lawsuits that a

58
00:03:27,639 --> 00:03:31,760
Speaker 1: federal appeals court allowed. Another one that may limit lawsuits

59
00:03:31,880 --> 00:03:34,720
Speaker 1: is a consideration of making it harder to press some

60
00:03:34,800 --> 00:03:38,400
Speaker 1: types of civil rights suits. Yeah, this is a case

61
00:03:38,520 --> 00:03:42,520
Speaker 1: involving Comcast. It's being sued by a black owned media

62
00:03:42,560 --> 00:03:47,200
Speaker 1: company called Entertainment Studios Network owned by Byron Allen, and

63
00:03:47,520 --> 00:03:51,440
Speaker 1: his allegation is that Comcast, like some other cable companies,

64
00:03:52,080 --> 00:03:57,240
Speaker 1: refused to carry his his programming, so he Mr. Allen

65
00:03:57,320 --> 00:04:01,320
Speaker 1: is black. His company has a number of shows that

66
00:04:01,440 --> 00:04:04,320
Speaker 1: he's been trying to get on on cable systems. UH

67
00:04:04,480 --> 00:04:08,240
Speaker 1: Comcast refused it says it has legitimate reasons why it

68
00:04:08,320 --> 00:04:12,120
Speaker 1: didn't want to add those programs his company says. Allen's

69
00:04:12,120 --> 00:04:15,280
Speaker 1: company says no, it was racial discrimination. And he's suing

70
00:04:15,360 --> 00:04:18,640
Speaker 1: under a law that was passed in the reconstruction era

71
00:04:18,760 --> 00:04:23,159
Speaker 1: known as Night one that bars racial discrimination in contracting.

72
00:04:23,720 --> 00:04:27,880
Speaker 1: And the question for the Supreme Court is a somewhat

73
00:04:27,920 --> 00:04:31,359
Speaker 1: technical one, but it's basically, how much does he have

74
00:04:31,440 --> 00:04:35,560
Speaker 1: to allege in the lawsuit. Does he have to allege

75
00:04:35,600 --> 00:04:39,080
Speaker 1: that racial discrimination was the reason he didn't get the

76
00:04:39,640 --> 00:04:43,159
Speaker 1: contract that he wanted, or is it enough that racial

77
00:04:43,200 --> 00:04:46,880
Speaker 1: discrimination was one of many factors that went into uh

78
00:04:47,000 --> 00:04:51,680
Speaker 1: Comcast decision not to carry his channels. The Court has

79
00:04:51,720 --> 00:04:54,120
Speaker 1: dealt with this issue with other civil rights statutes, and

80
00:04:54,160 --> 00:04:57,719
Speaker 1: now it's going to resolve with regard to Section and

81
00:04:57,760 --> 00:05:03,719
Speaker 1: to finish off the trifecta. Let's talk about the Intel suit. Yeah,

82
00:05:03,760 --> 00:05:07,480
Speaker 1: so there is there's a theme here to at least today. Yeah,

83
00:05:07,560 --> 00:05:09,320
Speaker 1: where the three Records is agreeing to hear a bunch

84
00:05:09,360 --> 00:05:11,160
Speaker 1: of the kind of meat and potatoes cases that that

85
00:05:11,360 --> 00:05:14,680
Speaker 1: Corporate America likes them to take to limit lawsuits. Uh.

86
00:05:14,760 --> 00:05:18,600
Speaker 1: The Intel one has to do with worker retirement plans

87
00:05:18,720 --> 00:05:23,360
Speaker 1: and the deadlines for workers to sue. And so basically,

88
00:05:23,400 --> 00:05:28,440
Speaker 1: an ex employee says Intel was making overly risky investments,

89
00:05:28,640 --> 00:05:30,279
Speaker 1: too much money and hedge funds, too much money in

90
00:05:30,360 --> 00:05:34,600
Speaker 1: private equity, and he sued. And there's a three year

91
00:05:34,640 --> 00:05:39,040
Speaker 1: statute of limitations in federal law. And he says that

92
00:05:39,120 --> 00:05:42,240
Speaker 1: three year period doesn't start running until I have actual

93
00:05:42,360 --> 00:05:46,760
Speaker 1: knowledge about what the investments are. Uh. Intel says, no,

94
00:05:46,880 --> 00:05:50,840
Speaker 1: it's not actual knowledge. Look, we sent you the documents, uh,

95
00:05:51,400 --> 00:05:53,640
Speaker 1: well more than three years ago, and you didn't look

96
00:05:53,680 --> 00:05:57,000
Speaker 1: at them. And uh so that's when the three years

97
00:05:57,000 --> 00:05:58,920
Speaker 1: ought to start running. When we sent you these documents

98
00:05:58,920 --> 00:06:03,839
Speaker 1: that you had access to electronically. Uh. It is one

99
00:06:03,880 --> 00:06:07,719
Speaker 1: of now two cases involving retirement plans that the court

100
00:06:07,760 --> 00:06:09,880
Speaker 1: has got to hear. It also, just a week or

101
00:06:09,920 --> 00:06:14,560
Speaker 1: two ago agreed to hear a case involving IBM having

102
00:06:14,560 --> 00:06:17,400
Speaker 1: to do again with how specific the allegations have to

103
00:06:17,680 --> 00:06:19,880
Speaker 1: have to be in a lawsuit. And together these two

104
00:06:19,880 --> 00:06:24,279
Speaker 1: cases could make it more difficult for employees to press

105
00:06:24,320 --> 00:06:27,960
Speaker 1: suits over the investments in the retirement plan. And Greg,

106
00:06:28,200 --> 00:06:31,440
Speaker 1: this is known as a pro business court. So does

107
00:06:31,440 --> 00:06:34,279
Speaker 1: it seem as if they're taking these cases in order

108
00:06:34,320 --> 00:06:39,279
Speaker 1: to limit lawsuits? And at least some cases it does. Uh.

109
00:06:39,320 --> 00:06:41,840
Speaker 1: You know, in some cases there is some lower court disagreement,

110
00:06:41,920 --> 00:06:44,800
Speaker 1: and that that's always a reason the Supreme Court might

111
00:06:44,880 --> 00:06:48,599
Speaker 1: want to get involved. But um, it's also fair to

112
00:06:48,640 --> 00:06:51,640
Speaker 1: say that it's this court is quicker to and and

113
00:06:51,640 --> 00:06:54,680
Speaker 1: and what happened today shows this a little quicker to

114
00:06:54,720 --> 00:06:58,120
Speaker 1: hear appeals that are pressed by businesses trying to clear

115
00:06:58,200 --> 00:07:01,640
Speaker 1: up some lower court disagree mint. Uh, So I think

116
00:07:01,680 --> 00:07:03,720
Speaker 1: if I were the companies in these cases, I might

117
00:07:03,760 --> 00:07:05,960
Speaker 1: think that I'm at least starting with a bit of

118
00:07:06,000 --> 00:07:10,120
Speaker 1: a lead. Now, the Court decided not to take up

119
00:07:10,160 --> 00:07:15,120
Speaker 1: a case in violent involving guns, silence or registration. Tell

120
00:07:15,200 --> 00:07:18,160
Speaker 1: us about that. Yes, And there's a federal law that

121
00:07:18,520 --> 00:07:23,360
Speaker 1: requires if you if you're buying or or selling a gun,

122
00:07:23,440 --> 00:07:26,120
Speaker 1: silence or they there's a federal law that imposes a

123
00:07:26,120 --> 00:07:31,320
Speaker 1: two tax and requires registration of it. And there are

124
00:07:31,360 --> 00:07:34,480
Speaker 1: two appeals filed by two men from Kansas, one who

125
00:07:34,720 --> 00:07:38,280
Speaker 1: bought a silence or one who sold the silence, or saying,

126
00:07:38,600 --> 00:07:42,760
Speaker 1: among other things, that's a violation of the Second Amendment, Uh,

127
00:07:43,080 --> 00:07:45,400
Speaker 1: that I have a right to own a silence or

128
00:07:45,480 --> 00:07:47,960
Speaker 1: to sell a silence or without the kind of restrictions

129
00:07:47,960 --> 00:07:51,640
Speaker 1: that are being put on me by the federal registration requirement.

130
00:07:51,800 --> 00:07:55,360
Speaker 1: And the Supreme Court simply refused to hear those appeals,

131
00:07:55,400 --> 00:07:59,520
Speaker 1: didn't make any comment. Uh. And so for now, at least,

132
00:07:59,560 --> 00:08:03,280
Speaker 1: the registration requirement stands. All right. Thanks so much, Greg.

133
00:08:03,280 --> 00:08:05,880
Speaker 1: We'll probably be checking back with you later this week

134
00:08:05,920 --> 00:08:08,160
Speaker 1: because we still could get some opinions this week. That's

135
00:08:08,200 --> 00:08:12,920
Speaker 1: Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter of Greg Store. Thanks for

136
00:08:13,000 --> 00:08:16,240
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe and

137
00:08:16,320 --> 00:08:19,560
Speaker 1: listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on

138
00:08:19,640 --> 00:08:24,360
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brasso. This is

139
00:08:24,400 --> 00:08:25,000
Speaker 1: Bloomberg