WEBVTT - RBG Hints Sharp Divisions Will Mark SCOTUS Term

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:21.720
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Well, we're in

0:00:21.720 --> 0:00:24.439
<v Speaker 1>the home stretch of the Supreme Courts term. We're still

0:00:24.520 --> 0:00:27.920
<v Speaker 1>waiting for major rulings on the intensely political issues of

0:00:27.960 --> 0:00:31.600
<v Speaker 1>the census and parties in jerrymandering, among many other cases.

0:00:32.000 --> 0:00:35.680
<v Speaker 1>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg hinted that sharp divisions will mark

0:00:35.760 --> 0:00:38.800
<v Speaker 1>the final weeks of the term. Joining me is Bloomberg

0:00:38.800 --> 0:00:42.120
<v Speaker 1>new Supreme Court reporter of Greg store So Greg. Justice

0:00:42.159 --> 0:00:45.159
<v Speaker 1>Ginsberg indicated in a speech that we'll be seeing a

0:00:45.240 --> 0:00:49.600
<v Speaker 1>lot of decisions go down narrow partisan lines. She did,

0:00:49.720 --> 0:00:52.160
<v Speaker 1>this is an annual speech she gives at the Second

0:00:52.240 --> 0:00:55.720
<v Speaker 1>Circuit UH she's the Circuit Justice for for that that

0:00:55.800 --> 0:00:59.520
<v Speaker 1>covers New York and some other states. Um And occasionally

0:00:59.600 --> 0:01:01.800
<v Speaker 1>she said some things that at least seem like their

0:01:01.920 --> 0:01:04.880
<v Speaker 1>hints as to what's going to come. And she mentioned

0:01:04.880 --> 0:01:07.400
<v Speaker 1>that about a quarter of the cases decided so far,

0:01:07.440 --> 0:01:09.360
<v Speaker 1>I've been either five to four or five to three,

0:01:09.800 --> 0:01:12.720
<v Speaker 1>and she said, I'm not sure I can predict that

0:01:12.720 --> 0:01:16.280
<v Speaker 1>that low percentage will hold as we decide the last

0:01:16.560 --> 0:01:21.680
<v Speaker 1>couple dozen cases. So maybe even more than might that

0:01:21.920 --> 0:01:26.919
<v Speaker 1>account for why we're seeing the decisions which always happens,

0:01:26.920 --> 0:01:28.880
<v Speaker 1>but the decisions that we've really been waiting for, not

0:01:28.959 --> 0:01:32.240
<v Speaker 1>only partis in Jerryman during the Senses, but many others

0:01:32.720 --> 0:01:36.600
<v Speaker 1>in the last weeks here. Yeah, you're right that it

0:01:36.680 --> 0:01:39.559
<v Speaker 1>does often happen. If the cases were easy, they would

0:01:39.600 --> 0:01:42.360
<v Speaker 1>decide them more quickly, and that's why sometimes we get

0:01:42.520 --> 0:01:45.600
<v Speaker 1>a lot of nine nothing decisions earlier in the term,

0:01:45.720 --> 0:01:48.200
<v Speaker 1>and at the end it's often the cases they've really

0:01:48.240 --> 0:01:52.520
<v Speaker 1>been struggling with. Uh, we do have a number of

0:01:52.520 --> 0:01:55.440
<v Speaker 1>cases that look like they could be ideologically divisive. You've

0:01:55.520 --> 0:02:00.640
<v Speaker 1>you mentioned the Gerryman during cases, the Census citizenship question case. Uh,

0:02:00.680 --> 0:02:05.559
<v Speaker 1>there's a case over whether a cross a Fort cross

0:02:05.560 --> 0:02:09.000
<v Speaker 1>in the Maryland intersection is a violation of the Constitution's

0:02:09.040 --> 0:02:13.360
<v Speaker 1>Religion Clause. All those cases could be pretty divisive. So

0:02:13.440 --> 0:02:16.160
<v Speaker 1>the Court did announce some decisions today about what cases

0:02:16.240 --> 0:02:19.880
<v Speaker 1>to add for the term that starts in October. Let's

0:02:19.919 --> 0:02:23.519
<v Speaker 1>start with the Supreme Court agreeing to use a Montana

0:02:23.600 --> 0:02:28.800
<v Speaker 1>case to consider shielding companies from pollution cleanup suits. Yeah,

0:02:28.840 --> 0:02:33.200
<v Speaker 1>this is a case involving VPS Atlantic rich Field. Uh

0:02:33.240 --> 0:02:37.320
<v Speaker 1>the uh it's a lawsuit about a super fun site

0:02:37.440 --> 0:02:40.600
<v Speaker 1>up there. The e p A years ago set up

0:02:40.600 --> 0:02:44.000
<v Speaker 1>a plan to clean it up, and there are some

0:02:44.040 --> 0:02:48.720
<v Speaker 1>property owners who uh say that they want more than

0:02:48.840 --> 0:02:51.720
<v Speaker 1>what might be coming to them under the p A plan.

0:02:51.840 --> 0:02:55.760
<v Speaker 1>They want Uh there's arsenic that's in the soil. They

0:02:55.760 --> 0:02:58.320
<v Speaker 1>want to have more soil removed. They want to have

0:02:58.360 --> 0:03:01.120
<v Speaker 1>it shipped further away. And so the question for the

0:03:01.160 --> 0:03:04.280
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court is whether that kind of lawsuit can go

0:03:04.440 --> 0:03:08.280
<v Speaker 1>forward even in the face of an ep A plan

0:03:09.080 --> 0:03:12.799
<v Speaker 1>to do a little bit less remediation. And what did

0:03:12.800 --> 0:03:16.519
<v Speaker 1>the lower court rule? The lower court said the lawsuit

0:03:16.600 --> 0:03:21.240
<v Speaker 1>could go forward. Atlantic Richfield asked the Supreme Court to

0:03:21.480 --> 0:03:24.480
<v Speaker 1>hear the case. So we're now in the position where

0:03:24.480 --> 0:03:27.600
<v Speaker 1>the company could limit the type of lawsuits that a

0:03:27.639 --> 0:03:31.760
<v Speaker 1>federal appeals court allowed. Another one that may limit lawsuits

0:03:31.880 --> 0:03:34.720
<v Speaker 1>is a consideration of making it harder to press some

0:03:34.800 --> 0:03:38.400
<v Speaker 1>types of civil rights suits. Yeah, this is a case

0:03:38.520 --> 0:03:42.520
<v Speaker 1>involving Comcast. It's being sued by a black owned media

0:03:42.560 --> 0:03:47.200
<v Speaker 1>company called Entertainment Studios Network owned by Byron Allen, and

0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:51.440
<v Speaker 1>his allegation is that Comcast, like some other cable companies,

0:03:52.080 --> 0:03:57.240
<v Speaker 1>refused to carry his his programming, so he Mr. Allen

0:03:57.320 --> 0:04:01.320
<v Speaker 1>is black. His company has a number of shows that

0:04:01.440 --> 0:04:04.320
<v Speaker 1>he's been trying to get on on cable systems. UH

0:04:04.480 --> 0:04:08.240
<v Speaker 1>Comcast refused it says it has legitimate reasons why it

0:04:08.320 --> 0:04:12.120
<v Speaker 1>didn't want to add those programs his company says. Allen's

0:04:12.120 --> 0:04:15.280
<v Speaker 1>company says no, it was racial discrimination. And he's suing

0:04:15.360 --> 0:04:18.640
<v Speaker 1>under a law that was passed in the reconstruction era

0:04:18.760 --> 0:04:23.159
<v Speaker 1>known as Night one that bars racial discrimination in contracting.

0:04:23.720 --> 0:04:27.880
<v Speaker 1>And the question for the Supreme Court is a somewhat

0:04:27.920 --> 0:04:31.359
<v Speaker 1>technical one, but it's basically, how much does he have

0:04:31.440 --> 0:04:35.560
<v Speaker 1>to allege in the lawsuit. Does he have to allege

0:04:35.600 --> 0:04:39.080
<v Speaker 1>that racial discrimination was the reason he didn't get the

0:04:39.640 --> 0:04:43.159
<v Speaker 1>contract that he wanted, or is it enough that racial

0:04:43.200 --> 0:04:46.880
<v Speaker 1>discrimination was one of many factors that went into uh

0:04:47.000 --> 0:04:51.680
<v Speaker 1>Comcast decision not to carry his channels. The Court has

0:04:51.720 --> 0:04:54.120
<v Speaker 1>dealt with this issue with other civil rights statutes, and

0:04:54.160 --> 0:04:57.719
<v Speaker 1>now it's going to resolve with regard to Section and

0:04:57.760 --> 0:05:03.719
<v Speaker 1>to finish off the trifecta. Let's talk about the Intel suit. Yeah,

0:05:03.760 --> 0:05:07.480
<v Speaker 1>so there is there's a theme here to at least today. Yeah,

0:05:07.560 --> 0:05:09.320
<v Speaker 1>where the three Records is agreeing to hear a bunch

0:05:09.360 --> 0:05:11.160
<v Speaker 1>of the kind of meat and potatoes cases that that

0:05:11.360 --> 0:05:14.680
<v Speaker 1>Corporate America likes them to take to limit lawsuits. Uh.

0:05:14.760 --> 0:05:18.600
<v Speaker 1>The Intel one has to do with worker retirement plans

0:05:18.720 --> 0:05:23.360
<v Speaker 1>and the deadlines for workers to sue. And so basically,

0:05:23.400 --> 0:05:28.440
<v Speaker 1>an ex employee says Intel was making overly risky investments,

0:05:28.640 --> 0:05:30.279
<v Speaker 1>too much money and hedge funds, too much money in

0:05:30.360 --> 0:05:34.600
<v Speaker 1>private equity, and he sued. And there's a three year

0:05:34.640 --> 0:05:39.040
<v Speaker 1>statute of limitations in federal law. And he says that

0:05:39.120 --> 0:05:42.240
<v Speaker 1>three year period doesn't start running until I have actual

0:05:42.360 --> 0:05:46.760
<v Speaker 1>knowledge about what the investments are. Uh. Intel says, no,

0:05:46.880 --> 0:05:50.840
<v Speaker 1>it's not actual knowledge. Look, we sent you the documents, uh,

0:05:51.400 --> 0:05:53.640
<v Speaker 1>well more than three years ago, and you didn't look

0:05:53.680 --> 0:05:57.000
<v Speaker 1>at them. And uh so that's when the three years

0:05:57.000 --> 0:05:58.920
<v Speaker 1>ought to start running. When we sent you these documents

0:05:58.920 --> 0:06:03.839
<v Speaker 1>that you had access to electronically. Uh. It is one

0:06:03.880 --> 0:06:07.719
<v Speaker 1>of now two cases involving retirement plans that the court

0:06:07.760 --> 0:06:09.880
<v Speaker 1>has got to hear. It also, just a week or

0:06:09.920 --> 0:06:14.560
<v Speaker 1>two ago agreed to hear a case involving IBM having

0:06:14.560 --> 0:06:17.400
<v Speaker 1>to do again with how specific the allegations have to

0:06:17.680 --> 0:06:19.880
<v Speaker 1>have to be in a lawsuit. And together these two

0:06:19.880 --> 0:06:24.279
<v Speaker 1>cases could make it more difficult for employees to press

0:06:24.320 --> 0:06:27.960
<v Speaker 1>suits over the investments in the retirement plan. And Greg,

0:06:28.200 --> 0:06:31.440
<v Speaker 1>this is known as a pro business court. So does

0:06:31.440 --> 0:06:34.279
<v Speaker 1>it seem as if they're taking these cases in order

0:06:34.320 --> 0:06:39.279
<v Speaker 1>to limit lawsuits? And at least some cases it does. Uh.

0:06:39.320 --> 0:06:41.840
<v Speaker 1>You know, in some cases there is some lower court disagreement,

0:06:41.920 --> 0:06:44.800
<v Speaker 1>and that that's always a reason the Supreme Court might

0:06:44.880 --> 0:06:48.599
<v Speaker 1>want to get involved. But um, it's also fair to

0:06:48.640 --> 0:06:51.640
<v Speaker 1>say that it's this court is quicker to and and

0:06:51.640 --> 0:06:54.680
<v Speaker 1>and what happened today shows this a little quicker to

0:06:54.720 --> 0:06:58.120
<v Speaker 1>hear appeals that are pressed by businesses trying to clear

0:06:58.200 --> 0:07:01.640
<v Speaker 1>up some lower court disagree mint. Uh, So I think

0:07:01.680 --> 0:07:03.720
<v Speaker 1>if I were the companies in these cases, I might

0:07:03.760 --> 0:07:05.960
<v Speaker 1>think that I'm at least starting with a bit of

0:07:06.000 --> 0:07:10.120
<v Speaker 1>a lead. Now, the Court decided not to take up

0:07:10.160 --> 0:07:15.120
<v Speaker 1>a case in violent involving guns, silence or registration. Tell

0:07:15.200 --> 0:07:18.160
<v Speaker 1>us about that. Yes, And there's a federal law that

0:07:18.520 --> 0:07:23.360
<v Speaker 1>requires if you if you're buying or or selling a gun,

0:07:23.440 --> 0:07:26.120
<v Speaker 1>silence or they there's a federal law that imposes a

0:07:26.120 --> 0:07:31.320
<v Speaker 1>two tax and requires registration of it. And there are

0:07:31.360 --> 0:07:34.480
<v Speaker 1>two appeals filed by two men from Kansas, one who

0:07:34.720 --> 0:07:38.280
<v Speaker 1>bought a silence or one who sold the silence, or saying,

0:07:38.600 --> 0:07:42.760
<v Speaker 1>among other things, that's a violation of the Second Amendment, Uh,

0:07:43.080 --> 0:07:45.400
<v Speaker 1>that I have a right to own a silence or

0:07:45.480 --> 0:07:47.960
<v Speaker 1>to sell a silence or without the kind of restrictions

0:07:47.960 --> 0:07:51.640
<v Speaker 1>that are being put on me by the federal registration requirement.

0:07:51.800 --> 0:07:55.360
<v Speaker 1>And the Supreme Court simply refused to hear those appeals,

0:07:55.400 --> 0:07:59.520
<v Speaker 1>didn't make any comment. Uh. And so for now, at least,

0:07:59.560 --> 0:08:03.280
<v Speaker 1>the registration requirement stands. All right. Thanks so much, Greg.

0:08:03.280 --> 0:08:05.880
<v Speaker 1>We'll probably be checking back with you later this week

0:08:05.920 --> 0:08:08.160
<v Speaker 1>because we still could get some opinions this week. That's

0:08:08.200 --> 0:08:12.920
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter of Greg Store. Thanks for

0:08:13.000 --> 0:08:16.240
<v Speaker 1>listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe and

0:08:16.320 --> 0:08:19.560
<v Speaker 1>listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on

0:08:19.640 --> 0:08:24.360
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brasso. This is

0:08:24.400 --> 0:08:25.000
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg