Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Well, we're in
Speaker 1: the home stretch of the Supreme Courts term. We're still
Speaker 1: waiting for major rulings on the intensely political issues of
Speaker 1: the census and parties in jerrymandering, among many other cases.
Speaker 1: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg hinted that sharp divisions will mark
Speaker 1: the final weeks of the term. Joining me is Bloomberg
Speaker 1: new Supreme Court reporter of Greg store So Greg. Justice
Speaker 1: Ginsberg indicated in a speech that we'll be seeing a
Speaker 1: lot of decisions go down narrow partisan lines. She did,
Speaker 1: this is an annual speech she gives at the Second
Speaker 1: Circuit UH she's the Circuit Justice for for that that
Speaker 1: covers New York and some other states. Um And occasionally
Speaker 1: she said some things that at least seem like their
Speaker 1: hints as to what's going to come. And she mentioned
Speaker 1: that about a quarter of the cases decided so far,
Speaker 1: I've been either five to four or five to three,
Speaker 1: and she said, I'm not sure I can predict that
Speaker 1: that low percentage will hold as we decide the last
Speaker 1: couple dozen cases. So maybe even more than might that
Speaker 1: account for why we're seeing the decisions which always happens,
Speaker 1: but the decisions that we've really been waiting for, not
Speaker 1: only partis in Jerryman during the Senses, but many others
Speaker 1: in the last weeks here. Yeah, you're right that it
Speaker 1: does often happen. If the cases were easy, they would
Speaker 1: decide them more quickly, and that's why sometimes we get
Speaker 1: a lot of nine nothing decisions earlier in the term,
Speaker 1: and at the end it's often the cases they've really
Speaker 1: been struggling with. Uh, we do have a number of
Speaker 1: cases that look like they could be ideologically divisive. You've
Speaker 1: you mentioned the Gerryman during cases, the Census citizenship question case. Uh,
Speaker 1: there's a case over whether a cross a Fort cross
Speaker 1: in the Maryland intersection is a violation of the Constitution's
Speaker 1: Religion Clause. All those cases could be pretty divisive. So
Speaker 1: the Court did announce some decisions today about what cases
Speaker 1: to add for the term that starts in October. Let's
Speaker 1: start with the Supreme Court agreeing to use a Montana
Speaker 1: case to consider shielding companies from pollution cleanup suits. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is a case involving VPS Atlantic rich Field. Uh
Speaker 1: the uh it's a lawsuit about a super fun site
Speaker 1: up there. The e p A years ago set up
Speaker 1: a plan to clean it up, and there are some
Speaker 1: property owners who uh say that they want more than
Speaker 1: what might be coming to them under the p A plan.
Speaker 1: They want Uh there's arsenic that's in the soil. They
Speaker 1: want to have more soil removed. They want to have
Speaker 1: it shipped further away. And so the question for the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is whether that kind of lawsuit can go
Speaker 1: forward even in the face of an ep A plan
Speaker 1: to do a little bit less remediation. And what did
Speaker 1: the lower court rule? The lower court said the lawsuit
Speaker 1: could go forward. Atlantic Richfield asked the Supreme Court to
Speaker 1: hear the case. So we're now in the position where
Speaker 1: the company could limit the type of lawsuits that a
Speaker 1: federal appeals court allowed. Another one that may limit lawsuits
Speaker 1: is a consideration of making it harder to press some
Speaker 1: types of civil rights suits. Yeah, this is a case
Speaker 1: involving Comcast. It's being sued by a black owned media
Speaker 1: company called Entertainment Studios Network owned by Byron Allen, and
Speaker 1: his allegation is that Comcast, like some other cable companies,
Speaker 1: refused to carry his his programming, so he Mr. Allen
Speaker 1: is black. His company has a number of shows that
Speaker 1: he's been trying to get on on cable systems. UH
Speaker 1: Comcast refused it says it has legitimate reasons why it
Speaker 1: didn't want to add those programs his company says. Allen's
Speaker 1: company says no, it was racial discrimination. And he's suing
Speaker 1: under a law that was passed in the reconstruction era
Speaker 1: known as Night one that bars racial discrimination in contracting.
Speaker 1: And the question for the Supreme Court is a somewhat
Speaker 1: technical one, but it's basically, how much does he have
Speaker 1: to allege in the lawsuit. Does he have to allege
Speaker 1: that racial discrimination was the reason he didn't get the
Speaker 1: contract that he wanted, or is it enough that racial
Speaker 1: discrimination was one of many factors that went into uh
Speaker 1: Comcast decision not to carry his channels. The Court has
Speaker 1: dealt with this issue with other civil rights statutes, and
Speaker 1: now it's going to resolve with regard to Section and
Speaker 1: to finish off the trifecta. Let's talk about the Intel suit. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so there is there's a theme here to at least today. Yeah,
Speaker 1: where the three Records is agreeing to hear a bunch
Speaker 1: of the kind of meat and potatoes cases that that
Speaker 1: Corporate America likes them to take to limit lawsuits. Uh.
Speaker 1: The Intel one has to do with worker retirement plans
Speaker 1: and the deadlines for workers to sue. And so basically,
Speaker 1: an ex employee says Intel was making overly risky investments,
Speaker 1: too much money and hedge funds, too much money in
Speaker 1: private equity, and he sued. And there's a three year
Speaker 1: statute of limitations in federal law. And he says that
Speaker 1: three year period doesn't start running until I have actual
Speaker 1: knowledge about what the investments are. Uh. Intel says, no,
Speaker 1: it's not actual knowledge. Look, we sent you the documents, uh,
Speaker 1: well more than three years ago, and you didn't look
Speaker 1: at them. And uh so that's when the three years
Speaker 1: ought to start running. When we sent you these documents
Speaker 1: that you had access to electronically. Uh. It is one
Speaker 1: of now two cases involving retirement plans that the court
Speaker 1: has got to hear. It also, just a week or
Speaker 1: two ago agreed to hear a case involving IBM having
Speaker 1: to do again with how specific the allegations have to
Speaker 1: have to be in a lawsuit. And together these two
Speaker 1: cases could make it more difficult for employees to press
Speaker 1: suits over the investments in the retirement plan. And Greg,
Speaker 1: this is known as a pro business court. So does
Speaker 1: it seem as if they're taking these cases in order
Speaker 1: to limit lawsuits? And at least some cases it does. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, in some cases there is some lower court disagreement,
Speaker 1: and that that's always a reason the Supreme Court might
Speaker 1: want to get involved. But um, it's also fair to
Speaker 1: say that it's this court is quicker to and and
Speaker 1: and what happened today shows this a little quicker to
Speaker 1: hear appeals that are pressed by businesses trying to clear
Speaker 1: up some lower court disagree mint. Uh, So I think
Speaker 1: if I were the companies in these cases, I might
Speaker 1: think that I'm at least starting with a bit of
Speaker 1: a lead. Now, the Court decided not to take up
Speaker 1: a case in violent involving guns, silence or registration. Tell
Speaker 1: us about that. Yes, And there's a federal law that
Speaker 1: requires if you if you're buying or or selling a gun,
Speaker 1: silence or they there's a federal law that imposes a
Speaker 1: two tax and requires registration of it. And there are
Speaker 1: two appeals filed by two men from Kansas, one who
Speaker 1: bought a silence or one who sold the silence, or saying,
Speaker 1: among other things, that's a violation of the Second Amendment, Uh,
Speaker 1: that I have a right to own a silence or
Speaker 1: to sell a silence or without the kind of restrictions
Speaker 1: that are being put on me by the federal registration requirement.
Speaker 1: And the Supreme Court simply refused to hear those appeals,
Speaker 1: didn't make any comment. Uh. And so for now, at least,
Speaker 1: the registration requirement stands. All right. Thanks so much, Greg.
Speaker 1: We'll probably be checking back with you later this week
Speaker 1: because we still could get some opinions this week. That's
Speaker 1: Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter of Greg Store. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brasso. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg