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 --> 00:00:22,480
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. A Supreme Court

6
00:00:22,560 --> 00:00:25,680
Speaker 1: ruling on the Trump administration's plans to add a citizenship

7
00:00:25,760 --> 00:00:29,760
Speaker 1: question to was expected in June, but now there may

8
00:00:29,800 --> 00:00:33,120
Speaker 1: be something gumming up the courts well oil process, and

9
00:00:33,120 --> 00:00:36,000
Speaker 1: it comes from files that surfaced after the death of

10
00:00:36,000 --> 00:00:40,560
Speaker 1: a Republican redistricting consultant. Joining me is Bloomberg News Supreme

11
00:00:40,560 --> 00:00:44,600
Speaker 1: Court reporter Greg's store. So Greg start by explaining what

12
00:00:44,720 --> 00:00:48,120
Speaker 1: was found in the files of Thomas Huffeller and why

13
00:00:48,200 --> 00:00:53,519
Speaker 1: it's significant June. What was found? What was a draft

14
00:00:53,720 --> 00:00:58,720
Speaker 1: study that he performed that talked about how adding a

15
00:00:58,840 --> 00:01:04,680
Speaker 1: citizenship question to the census would actually help Republicans and

16
00:01:05,240 --> 00:01:08,880
Speaker 1: white voters because it would allow for districts to be

17
00:01:09,080 --> 00:01:13,920
Speaker 1: drawn in a different way, such that um a district

18
00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:19,280
Speaker 1: that might otherwise be say, heavily heavily Hispanic, heavily democratic,

19
00:01:19,640 --> 00:01:22,399
Speaker 1: would have to take on more territory. I have to

20
00:01:22,440 --> 00:01:28,120
Speaker 1: bring in more people and therefore, UM the voters in

21
00:01:28,160 --> 00:01:30,400
Speaker 1: the in those districts would have a bit less clout

22
00:01:31,000 --> 00:01:34,720
Speaker 1: UM and that those files seem to match up pretty

23
00:01:34,760 --> 00:01:38,840
Speaker 1: well with UH some of the documents in the census case.

24
00:01:39,080 --> 00:01:45,440
Speaker 1: And the allegation is that Mr Hoffeller's UH work actually

25
00:01:45,440 --> 00:01:49,040
Speaker 1: fed into the census, the Commerce Department's decision to include

26
00:01:49,040 --> 00:01:53,320
Speaker 1: the citizenship question on the census. So how would that

27
00:01:54,080 --> 00:01:59,840
Speaker 1: enter into the Supreme courts discussions of the case before them.

28
00:02:00,040 --> 00:02:02,200
Speaker 1: So one of the big issues at the Supreme Court

29
00:02:02,440 --> 00:02:06,840
Speaker 1: is the Trump administration says the reason we're adding this

30
00:02:06,920 --> 00:02:10,760
Speaker 1: question is because it will help us enforce the Voting

31
00:02:10,880 --> 00:02:13,280
Speaker 1: Rights Act. In other words, it will make it easier

32
00:02:13,320 --> 00:02:17,600
Speaker 1: for us to bring cases that say Hispanics are being

33
00:02:17,639 --> 00:02:20,679
Speaker 1: discriminated against, because we'll have a better sense of, you know,

34
00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:25,639
Speaker 1: of where there are citizens in the country. And UH

35
00:02:26,080 --> 00:02:30,400
Speaker 1: there has the argument. The finding of a federal trial

36
00:02:30,480 --> 00:02:33,959
Speaker 1: judge in the case was that that that rationale was

37
00:02:34,000 --> 00:02:36,720
Speaker 1: a pretext. That wasn't the real reason that the administration

38
00:02:36,760 --> 00:02:39,680
Speaker 1: is trying to add the question. Well, this evidence, if

39
00:02:39,720 --> 00:02:43,680
Speaker 1: you believe it, UH, could show what the actual reason was,

40
00:02:43,800 --> 00:02:45,680
Speaker 1: not that they were trying to help enforce the Voting

41
00:02:45,760 --> 00:02:47,920
Speaker 1: Rights Act, but actually that they were trying to help

42
00:02:48,000 --> 00:02:54,840
Speaker 1: elect more Republicans. Now, um, in the the evidence right now,

43
00:02:55,000 --> 00:02:58,720
Speaker 1: this new evidence is just before Manhattan Judge Jesse Furman,

44
00:02:58,760 --> 00:03:02,400
Speaker 1: who decided the government and couldn't add assist question question

45
00:03:02,480 --> 00:03:05,639
Speaker 1: after a trial. What's happening right now? Yeah, So the

46
00:03:05,720 --> 00:03:11,080
Speaker 1: procedurally this is is pretty much untried territory and certainly complicated.

47
00:03:11,400 --> 00:03:13,600
Speaker 1: The case supposedly is all at the Supreme Court, and

48
00:03:13,680 --> 00:03:17,360
Speaker 1: Judge Ferman shouldn't have anything to do. But uh, those

49
00:03:17,440 --> 00:03:20,840
Speaker 1: challenging the question have uh filed a letter with Judge

50
00:03:20,880 --> 00:03:23,440
Speaker 1: Furman saying, hey, look at all this new evidence and

51
00:03:23,440 --> 00:03:27,680
Speaker 1: it it suggests in fact shows they say that some

52
00:03:27,800 --> 00:03:32,000
Speaker 1: people on the government side were misleading in their testimony. Um.

53
00:03:32,120 --> 00:03:35,040
Speaker 1: And so they are essentially trying to get Ferman to

54
00:03:35,360 --> 00:03:37,800
Speaker 1: open up the case, reopen the case at least in

55
00:03:37,840 --> 00:03:42,360
Speaker 1: some sense to uh impose sanctions on the Trump administration.

56
00:03:42,440 --> 00:03:45,440
Speaker 1: And one possibility at least is that the sanctions would

57
00:03:45,440 --> 00:03:48,120
Speaker 1: be you have to submit to officials, have to submit

58
00:03:48,160 --> 00:03:51,400
Speaker 1: to a new deposition, and they may try to, uh,

59
00:03:51,440 --> 00:03:54,160
Speaker 1: you know, gather some more evidence and more findings from

60
00:03:54,240 --> 00:03:57,120
Speaker 1: Judge Furman. To present to the Supreme Court before it

61
00:03:57,120 --> 00:04:01,360
Speaker 1: makes its final decision. The Justice Department says that this

62
00:04:01,440 --> 00:04:04,960
Speaker 1: had the claims are false and it played no role

63
00:04:05,040 --> 00:04:08,160
Speaker 1: in the Department's request to put that citizenship question on

64
00:04:08,280 --> 00:04:11,760
Speaker 1: the census. Now, the Supreme Court, as you know, usually

65
00:04:11,800 --> 00:04:14,880
Speaker 1: bases its rulings on the evidence before the trial court,

66
00:04:15,120 --> 00:04:17,839
Speaker 1: the arguments filed in the in the briefs in the case.

67
00:04:18,279 --> 00:04:21,880
Speaker 1: Would the Justices even consider new evidence at this point?

68
00:04:22,640 --> 00:04:25,080
Speaker 1: If not at all clear? I asked a number of

69
00:04:25,279 --> 00:04:30,200
Speaker 1: Supreme Court lawyers yesterday if they knew of any real

70
00:04:30,240 --> 00:04:33,400
Speaker 1: precedent for this, and there wasn't a really good parallel um.

71
00:04:33,480 --> 00:04:36,320
Speaker 1: So it's hard to say, um, exactly what the Court

72
00:04:36,360 --> 00:04:40,520
Speaker 1: would do. Now. One possibility, depending on how the Conservatives

73
00:04:40,520 --> 00:04:42,640
Speaker 1: look at this case, is that they might say it

74
00:04:42,720 --> 00:04:47,440
Speaker 1: doesn't matter to us regardless. One one argument that the

75
00:04:47,480 --> 00:04:52,440
Speaker 1: administration has been making is, look, the Commerce Department has

76
00:04:52,480 --> 00:04:56,200
Speaker 1: put forth a rationale that that makes sense, and you

77
00:04:56,240 --> 00:04:59,560
Speaker 1: need to defer to that. Because the Commerce Department, which

78
00:04:59,560 --> 00:05:02,920
Speaker 1: oversees the Census Bureau, has very broad discretion and deciding

79
00:05:03,160 --> 00:05:07,200
Speaker 1: what questions go into the sensus. So it's possible that

80
00:05:07,920 --> 00:05:12,000
Speaker 1: all this evidence really wouldn't matter to the five conservative

81
00:05:12,040 --> 00:05:15,880
Speaker 1: justices on the Court in any event, Um, I would

82
00:05:15,960 --> 00:05:19,279
Speaker 1: expect that that all this new information will at least

83
00:05:19,320 --> 00:05:21,560
Speaker 1: in some way entering into the opinions in the case,

84
00:05:21,680 --> 00:05:25,520
Speaker 1: if only in a dissenting opinion. So when we spoke

85
00:05:25,920 --> 00:05:31,159
Speaker 1: last about the census question, after the oral arguments, you

86
00:05:31,200 --> 00:05:34,480
Speaker 1: seem to feel that they were basically going to ignore

87
00:05:34,560 --> 00:05:37,880
Speaker 1: the evidence about you know, Wilbur Ross and whether he

88
00:05:37,920 --> 00:05:41,760
Speaker 1: who he talked to before and and rule on sort

89
00:05:41,800 --> 00:05:45,360
Speaker 1: of the concept. Correct me if I'm wrong, because so

90
00:05:45,440 --> 00:05:47,800
Speaker 1: that would mean that this new evidence really wouldn't matter

91
00:05:47,800 --> 00:05:50,800
Speaker 1: to them exactly. That was That was what I was

92
00:05:50,839 --> 00:05:53,480
Speaker 1: suggesting earlier, that that was at least the sense that

93
00:05:53,480 --> 00:05:55,920
Speaker 1: that a lot of us got from the argument that

94
00:05:55,920 --> 00:05:58,720
Speaker 1: that was where it seemed like the Conservative justices were.

95
00:05:58,880 --> 00:06:02,680
Speaker 1: Now argument can be deceiving. I I don't think, you know,

96
00:06:03,120 --> 00:06:05,680
Speaker 1: based on what we know about this case in the

97
00:06:05,680 --> 00:06:09,279
Speaker 1: way the argument when that this is a slam dunk

98
00:06:09,560 --> 00:06:12,600
Speaker 1: at this point from the outside, Um, there's certainly a

99
00:06:12,920 --> 00:06:16,880
Speaker 1: possibility that Chief Justice Roberts is a lot more sympathetic

100
00:06:16,920 --> 00:06:19,800
Speaker 1: to the challengers to the census question than he led

101
00:06:19,800 --> 00:06:24,000
Speaker 1: on during the arguments. Uh, you know, at a minimum,

102
00:06:24,160 --> 00:06:26,760
Speaker 1: one would imagine that the Chief Justice, who cares a

103
00:06:26,800 --> 00:06:31,200
Speaker 1: lot about the Court's institutional standing, would be bothered by

104
00:06:31,320 --> 00:06:35,000
Speaker 1: the image of this court both in in this case

105
00:06:35,040 --> 00:06:39,359
Speaker 1: and potentially another pair of cases evolving partisan jurymandery, that

106
00:06:39,400 --> 00:06:41,720
Speaker 1: he would really be bothered by the perception that this

107
00:06:41,800 --> 00:06:45,680
Speaker 1: court is doing the bidding of the Republican Party. But

108
00:06:46,360 --> 00:06:49,200
Speaker 1: there's at least the potential, depending on how those cases

109
00:06:49,279 --> 00:06:50,800
Speaker 1: come out, that a lot of people are going to

110
00:06:50,880 --> 00:06:54,359
Speaker 1: think that's what's happening. And Greg, you spoke to Rick Hasson,

111
00:06:54,440 --> 00:06:57,480
Speaker 1: who's a voting rights expert at u C Irvine, and

112
00:06:57,600 --> 00:07:00,839
Speaker 1: it's interesting he thought that these revelations could make the

113
00:07:00,839 --> 00:07:05,239
Speaker 1: courts conservatives even more likely to back the administration. Yeah,

114
00:07:05,240 --> 00:07:07,719
Speaker 1: he had an interesting take. Um. So, there was a

115
00:07:07,760 --> 00:07:10,840
Speaker 1: case a few years ago called Evanwell and had to

116
00:07:10,880 --> 00:07:16,360
Speaker 1: do with, um, what how when when a state is

117
00:07:16,520 --> 00:07:19,720
Speaker 1: drawing districts in this case, it was state legislative districts. Um.

118
00:07:19,800 --> 00:07:21,400
Speaker 1: And it's trying to comply with the one person, one

119
00:07:21,480 --> 00:07:25,480
Speaker 1: vote principle, whether it should be using the total population

120
00:07:25,480 --> 00:07:29,080
Speaker 1: which is what states generally use, or citizen voting age

121
00:07:29,120 --> 00:07:33,360
Speaker 1: population and in this case the Supreme Court said, Um,

122
00:07:33,480 --> 00:07:36,000
Speaker 1: this is a fairly narrow ruling. It said, well, at

123
00:07:36,080 --> 00:07:39,960
Speaker 1: least states are not required to use the citizen voting

124
00:07:40,000 --> 00:07:45,600
Speaker 1: age population UM. But Justices Alito and Thomas in descent

125
00:07:45,680 --> 00:07:49,640
Speaker 1: in that case UH said it suggested that they were

126
00:07:49,640 --> 00:07:52,160
Speaker 1: strungly inclined to say that at a minimum, they should

127
00:07:52,160 --> 00:07:54,640
Speaker 1: be allowed to use that measure, and that would be

128
00:07:54,760 --> 00:07:57,840
Speaker 1: something that would likely help Republicans at the polls. And

129
00:07:57,920 --> 00:08:01,880
Speaker 1: so Rick Casson's point is that to the extent that

130
00:08:01,960 --> 00:08:04,840
Speaker 1: this new evidence suggests that the real reason was to

131
00:08:04,880 --> 00:08:09,920
Speaker 1: help states UH draw districts using citizen voting age population

132
00:08:10,040 --> 00:08:13,040
Speaker 1: rather than total population, it might be something that some

133
00:08:13,120 --> 00:08:16,200
Speaker 1: of the more conservative justices are very sympathetic to. All Right,

134
00:08:16,240 --> 00:08:18,480
Speaker 1: thanks so much, Greg. We'll learn more next week. That's

135
00:08:18,480 --> 00:08:22,200
Speaker 1: Bloomberg New Supreme Court report of Greg Store. Thanks for

136
00:08:22,280 --> 00:08:25,520
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and

137
00:08:25,600 --> 00:08:28,840
Speaker 1: listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on

138
00:08:28,920 --> 00:08:37,959
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brasso. This is Bloomberg. Yeah,