WEBVTT - Musical 'Hamilton' Featured in Faithless Electors Case 0:00:00.640 --> 0:00:05.840 You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:06.320 --> 0:00:09.280 In some ways, the cases of the Faithless Electors may 0:00:09.280 --> 0:00:13.080 have been the most entertaining of Supreme Court cases this term. 0:00:13.119 --> 0:00:17.080 It started oral arguments with Justice Clarence Thomas wondering if 0:00:17.079 --> 0:00:19.479 an elector could vote for a character from the Lord 0:00:19.480 --> 0:00:23.840 of the Rings. The elector who had promised to vote 0:00:23.880 --> 0:00:28.040 for the winning candidate could suddenly say, you know, I'm 0:00:28.080 --> 0:00:31.760 going to vote for Froto Wagons, and that's I really 0:00:31.840 --> 0:00:35.519 like Froto Wagons, and ended with a decision by Justice 0:00:35.520 --> 0:00:42.240 Elena Kagan that told the history of presidential electors. Alexander 0:00:42.320 --> 0:00:49.880 Hamilton's my name is Alexander Hamilton. There's a million things 0:00:49.920 --> 0:00:55.880 I haven't done just to just including references to the 0:00:55.920 --> 0:00:59.440 Broadway hit Hamilton's and the TV show v The Court 0:00:59.520 --> 0:01:02.760 rule that's states can require members of the Electoral College 0:01:02.840 --> 0:01:06.400 to vote for the presidential candidate who won the statewide balloting. 0:01:06.760 --> 0:01:09.840 Although a faithless elector has never affected the outcome of 0:01:09.840 --> 0:01:13.800 a presidential election, the unanimous decisions are important in giving 0:01:13.800 --> 0:01:17.680 a measure of predictability to our nation's complex election system. 0:01:17.880 --> 0:01:20.959 Joining me is elections law expert Richard Braffald, a professor 0:01:21.040 --> 0:01:24.160 Columbia Law School, which does this decision seem to take 0:01:24.160 --> 0:01:26.840 care of the concerns that were raised by the justices 0:01:26.920 --> 0:01:30.680 during the oral arguments. I think the justices, many of them, 0:01:30.680 --> 0:01:34.480 were concerned about potential chaos if the states could not 0:01:34.680 --> 0:01:37.479 make sure that electors would cast the votes that they 0:01:37.480 --> 0:01:40.600 were elected to cast. There is the constitutional argument that 0:01:40.840 --> 0:01:43.399 the original intent of the framers would actually have the 0:01:43.440 --> 0:01:47.960 electors used their judgment. But our practice since almost the 0:01:47.960 --> 0:01:50.400 beginning of the country has been for the electors to 0:01:50.560 --> 0:01:53.360 vote the positions that they were chosen to take. Presidential 0:01:53.360 --> 0:01:57.040 elections are in practice popular elections, even if we still 0:01:57.080 --> 0:01:59.840 have to use the electoral college. I think the justices 0:02:00.120 --> 0:02:03.240 were showing that made sense to have the states be 0:02:03.320 --> 0:02:06.440 able to require the electors to cast the votes that 0:02:06.480 --> 0:02:09.440 they were chosen to cast in the majority opinion. How 0:02:09.480 --> 0:02:13.080 did Elena kaig In frame it? The Constitution doesn't address this. 0:02:13.639 --> 0:02:16.040 Did she do a constitutional argument, did she do a 0:02:16.080 --> 0:02:21.240 practical argument? She really did a combination of classical text 0:02:21.360 --> 0:02:24.440 and history, text, history and practice. I mean, the text 0:02:24.480 --> 0:02:28.079 doesn't really address this. The text basically directs the states 0:02:28.120 --> 0:02:31.760 to select the electors. It doesn't say anything about any 0:02:31.919 --> 0:02:34.720 rights of the electors might have, And then she traces 0:02:34.760 --> 0:02:38.839 the history which shows that really from maybe from sevent on, 0:02:39.360 --> 0:02:43.240 it was expected that electors would vote for the person 0:02:43.320 --> 0:02:45.720 they were chosen to vote for. So I think she 0:02:45.800 --> 0:02:48.560 basically said that this was something that the states were 0:02:48.639 --> 0:02:51.720 free to do. There were no counter precedents. There was 0:02:51.760 --> 0:02:55.320 one Supreme Court Presidents in the nineteen fifties which upheld 0:02:55.520 --> 0:02:59.040 the authority of states to require the electors to take 0:02:59.080 --> 0:03:01.600 pledges that they would vote the way they were chosen 0:03:01.639 --> 0:03:03.680 to vote, but there was no punishment in that case. 0:03:03.880 --> 0:03:06.760 So I think she basically had text practice or history, 0:03:07.240 --> 0:03:09.880 and maybe a sense of in effect, we have reached 0:03:09.880 --> 0:03:13.280 the stage now where the electors are really a part 0:03:13.280 --> 0:03:16.959 of the process of popular election. And in her opinion, 0:03:17.200 --> 0:03:20.720 she referenced the HBO show Veep as well as the 0:03:20.760 --> 0:03:24.720 Broadway musical Hamilton's Correct Yes, So she seemed to have 0:03:24.880 --> 0:03:27.320 a little bit of fun with it, right. She is 0:03:27.360 --> 0:03:31.079 a very lively writer. She often puts in colloquial things 0:03:31.120 --> 0:03:34.880 popular things. She is a lively and readable writer, and 0:03:35.000 --> 0:03:38.320 sometimes find myself laughing out loud when I read something 0:03:38.360 --> 0:03:41.080 of her. She had an opinion recently dealing with the 0:03:41.280 --> 0:03:44.320 power of Congress to limit the president to just cause removal, 0:03:44.360 --> 0:03:47.120 which the court struck down in that case. And one 0:03:47.160 --> 0:03:49.440 of the arguments in the majority in that case was 0:03:49.480 --> 0:03:51.560 that this had never been done before, or it was 0:03:51.680 --> 0:03:54.400 very rarely done before. And she said that really shouldn't 0:03:54.440 --> 0:03:58.360 matter the necessary improper clauses, not the rinse and repeat clause. 0:03:58.680 --> 0:04:03.240 And she adds a lot of fairly colloquial, casual funny things. 0:04:03.280 --> 0:04:06.680 There are more faithless electors in the sixteen presidential election 0:04:06.720 --> 0:04:10.040 than ever before in history. But how much impact will 0:04:10.080 --> 0:04:14.240 this decision really have going forward? As you point out, 0:04:14.280 --> 0:04:17.480 I mean, the pace of electors are very rare. If 0:04:17.520 --> 0:04:20.080 you go back for the preceding center. I was looking 0:04:20.120 --> 0:04:24.279 at this between nineteen sixteen and twenty twelves, there were 0:04:24.320 --> 0:04:28.120 exactly nine faithless electors, and that was in twenty five elections, 0:04:28.160 --> 0:04:32.040 and there were five electors or more in every one 0:04:32.080 --> 0:04:35.240 of those elections. So it's a very rare thing. There 0:04:35.279 --> 0:04:38.520 were a sizeable number in sixteen, and I think it 0:04:38.600 --> 0:04:41.240 reflected a lot of the discontent in the country with 0:04:41.320 --> 0:04:44.760 the choices that people had. It's highly unlikely we were 0:04:44.760 --> 0:04:46.800 going to have a constitution with crisis due to faith 0:04:46.800 --> 0:04:50.360 with electors. But I think the value is more symbolic 0:04:50.400 --> 0:04:53.120 than anything else. But it does kind of confirm the 0:04:53.200 --> 0:04:56.400 idea that this is a popular election in Italy. It's 0:04:56.440 --> 0:04:59.160 a popular election by state, which is why we can 0:04:59.160 --> 0:05:02.680 still get a gap between the national popular vote and 0:05:02.720 --> 0:05:05.720 the national electoral vote. The president is popular upon a 0:05:05.800 --> 0:05:07.960 state by state basis. So it is that kind of 0:05:07.960 --> 0:05:11.320 a confirmation that whatever the intentions of the Framers were 0:05:11.360 --> 0:05:14.680 in seven, we have moved in a more small d 0:05:14.839 --> 0:05:19.560 democratic direction. Advocates for allowing faith as electors to so 0:05:19.680 --> 0:05:22.440 called go rogue said it would be a back doorway 0:05:22.640 --> 0:05:27.320 for states to add qualifications for presidential candidates, such as 0:05:27.520 --> 0:05:31.760 voting only for those who release taxes. Did that come 0:05:31.839 --> 0:05:34.560 up in the opinions? Justice Kagan takes the position that 0:05:34.600 --> 0:05:37.039 since the states have the power to write the rules 0:05:37.080 --> 0:05:40.120 for the selection of the electors, they can also imposed conditions. 0:05:40.200 --> 0:05:42.159 But then she dropped the footnotes and says what the 0:05:42.160 --> 0:05:45.480 states can't do is imposed conditions that would violate another 0:05:45.520 --> 0:05:49.719 constitutional norm, or adding a new qualification to the president. 0:05:50.040 --> 0:05:53.040 You could read that as aimed at knocking out the 0:05:53.040 --> 0:05:55.240 idea that the States could for imposed the requirement of 0:05:55.320 --> 0:05:58.120 its closed as a qualification for being president. That's where 0:05:58.160 --> 0:06:02.560 to the fault of Columbia Law School. The Subreme Court 0:06:02.600 --> 0:06:04.920 delivered a ruling in a criminal case that could have 0:06:05.040 --> 0:06:09.680 vast implications for Oklahoma's criminal and civil jurisdiction, as well 0:06:09.720 --> 0:06:12.640 as tribal sovereignty in the eastern half of that state. 0:06:13.120 --> 0:06:16.800 Justice Neil gorsts joined the court's four liberal appointees in 0:06:16.800 --> 0:06:19.520 a five to four decision that found that Congress had 0:06:19.560 --> 0:06:23.240 granted the Creek Nation a reservation and the United States 0:06:23.240 --> 0:06:27.480 had to keep its promises. In the majority opinion, Gorstge wrote, 0:06:27.920 --> 0:06:31.360 because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government 0:06:31.360 --> 0:06:34.800 to its word. Joining me is Jordan Reuben Bloomberg Law 0:06:34.920 --> 0:06:39.039 Legal Editor. This case is about Indian Land in Oklahoma, 0:06:39.200 --> 0:06:43.000 but it's actually a criminal case. Explain how it went 0:06:43.120 --> 0:06:46.000 from criminal case to this broader case. So the case 0:06:46.040 --> 0:06:49.400 involves a man named Jim c mcgurt, and he's a 0:06:49.400 --> 0:06:53.880 member of the Seminole Nation. So he was convicted of 0:06:53.920 --> 0:06:57.800 some very serious crimes and was serving a life sentence 0:06:57.880 --> 0:07:01.520 in state prison. However, he raised an argument on appeal, 0:07:02.000 --> 0:07:04.640 saying that because he is an Indian and his crime 0:07:04.680 --> 0:07:08.040 took place in what he said was Indian country, that 0:07:08.279 --> 0:07:12.200 the state actually didn't have jurisdiction to prosecute him, because 0:07:12.600 --> 0:07:16.160 jurisdiction for such a prosecution would only fall to the 0:07:16.200 --> 0:07:19.320 federal government under federal law. And so that wind up 0:07:19.360 --> 0:07:22.480 raising the question in turn of whether where he actually 0:07:22.520 --> 0:07:26.120 committed the crime was in fact, quote unquote Indian country. 0:07:26.160 --> 0:07:29.160 And so that's what brought into question the status of 0:07:29.200 --> 0:07:32.840 the Creek Reservation, which is where mcgret committed his crime, 0:07:32.960 --> 0:07:36.120 and the question of whether the Creek Reservation still exists 0:07:36.240 --> 0:07:40.920 today from its nineteenth century treaty origins. So the state 0:07:41.080 --> 0:07:44.640 said it wasn't legally a reservation in the first place, 0:07:44.760 --> 0:07:48.080 and even if it was, Congress has since taken away 0:07:48.120 --> 0:07:52.760 that status, explained the state's argument, right, So there's this 0:07:52.920 --> 0:07:56.840 threshold question of whether there's even a reservation in the 0:07:56.880 --> 0:08:00.480 first place, and then if there was, whether Congress has 0:08:00.720 --> 0:08:04.360 done something called disestablishing the reservation. It's a strict test 0:08:04.440 --> 0:08:07.440 where if a state argues that a reservation has been 0:08:07.560 --> 0:08:10.720 essentially undone, there needs to be a clear statement from 0:08:10.760 --> 0:08:13.960 Congress showing that that happened. And so what happened in 0:08:13.960 --> 0:08:18.160 this case, the majority opinion, written by Justice Gorsich said, 0:08:18.600 --> 0:08:21.320 in the first instance, it was obvious that the Creek 0:08:21.320 --> 0:08:24.200 Reservation was a reservation in the first place. It even 0:08:24.320 --> 0:08:27.480 used the word reservation in the treaty to discuss it. 0:08:27.840 --> 0:08:30.640 And Gorst wound up going to say in the opinion 0:08:30.680 --> 0:08:34.880 that Congress has not clearly disestablished the reservation. Even if 0:08:35.559 --> 0:08:39.120 the government did, at various points in history actually want 0:08:39.360 --> 0:08:42.800 the reservation to be disestablished, the government was never actually 0:08:42.840 --> 0:08:46.559 successful in doing that, and so technically, as a legal matter, 0:08:46.840 --> 0:08:51.200 the reservations still exists today. Corse, it said, the government's 0:08:51.240 --> 0:08:54.040 dire warnings are just that, and not a license for 0:08:54.120 --> 0:08:57.640 us to disregard the law. So tell us about the 0:08:57.679 --> 0:09:02.920 government's dire warnings. So the government was warning that Ismagert's 0:09:03.000 --> 0:09:05.680 argument is correct, that him and a bunch of other 0:09:05.720 --> 0:09:09.040 people who are convicted under state law in state court 0:09:09.040 --> 0:09:12.440 will wind up having their convictions overturned. And so there 0:09:12.440 --> 0:09:15.000 were big consequences as far as the state was concerned 0:09:15.000 --> 0:09:17.680 when it comes to criminal law. And then even beyond that, 0:09:17.840 --> 0:09:20.680 if it turns out that the Creek Reservation persists today, 0:09:21.040 --> 0:09:23.720 and if in turn, other reservations in the eastern half 0:09:23.720 --> 0:09:26.880 of the state also are still reservations then that could 0:09:26.920 --> 0:09:31.280 have the consequences for civil regulatory and tax enforcement as well. 0:09:31.400 --> 0:09:34.439 So the state's argument even went beyond the criminal sphere 0:09:34.440 --> 0:09:39.360 and into civil tax and regulatory as well. During the 0:09:39.480 --> 0:09:44.000 argument that justices were asking questions about how this would 0:09:44.040 --> 0:09:49.360 affect adoptions and business disputes. Do we know how this 0:09:49.520 --> 0:09:53.520 will affect that The ruling here focused on the criminal side, 0:09:53.880 --> 0:09:56.640 there was it actually an interesting statement that came out 0:09:56.679 --> 0:09:59.400 after the ruling, a joint statement from the state and 0:09:59.480 --> 0:10:01.720 also the tribes in the eastern half of the state 0:10:02.080 --> 0:10:04.920 talking about how they were going to work together going 0:10:04.960 --> 0:10:08.880 forward to sort out jurisdictional issues and enforce public safety. 0:10:09.000 --> 0:10:11.080 So it was an interesting thing, not the sort of 0:10:11.080 --> 0:10:13.240 thing that you see every day in terms of two 0:10:13.320 --> 0:10:15.680 sides of a dispute coming out with a joint statement 0:10:15.800 --> 0:10:19.040 together after the case. Of course, the case was mcgret 0:10:19.040 --> 0:10:22.480 against Oklahoma, but you had the Creek Nation UH and 0:10:22.559 --> 0:10:26.360 other tribal interests supporting McGirt at the High Court. So 0:10:26.400 --> 0:10:29.480 this statement that came out after was from Oklahoma and 0:10:29.520 --> 0:10:34.319 then the tribes. Of course McGirt and other state defendants 0:10:34.320 --> 0:10:36.720 who are convicted in state court could be retried in 0:10:36.800 --> 0:10:39.600 federal court, which was an argument that mcgart and his 0:10:39.640 --> 0:10:42.600 supporters were making as to why there wouldn't really be 0:10:42.720 --> 0:10:45.679 this wide disruption that the state was claiming because people 0:10:45.800 --> 0:10:48.480 could just be retried in a different court. It's not 0:10:48.520 --> 0:10:51.200 like they would just be let loose on the streets forever. 0:10:51.920 --> 0:10:55.240 There might be statute of limitations problems with some of 0:10:55.240 --> 0:10:59.839 the cases, right. There could definitely be procedural obstacles to 0:11:00.040 --> 0:11:03.280 be trying some defendants, and there could be practical hurdles too. 0:11:03.400 --> 0:11:05.800 You know, if it's a case from very long ago, 0:11:06.080 --> 0:11:09.200 witnesses could be dead, their memories could be faded, and 0:11:09.280 --> 0:11:13.040 so even if legally a lot of these defendants could 0:11:13.080 --> 0:11:16.839 simply be retried as a practical matter, that won't necessarily 0:11:16.920 --> 0:11:20.920 be the case. But the point in Gorsuch's opinion was 0:11:21.440 --> 0:11:24.240 those consequences be them as they may. That's really not 0:11:24.280 --> 0:11:26.719 the issue in the case. The issue is the discrete 0:11:26.800 --> 0:11:31.240 legal question of whether the reservation has been disestablished, and 0:11:31.280 --> 0:11:34.360 the answer to that question that the majority said it 0:11:34.440 --> 0:11:37.920 was clearly no. The reservation still stands today. So does 0:11:37.960 --> 0:11:42.160 this mean that any Indian who was convicted by the 0:11:42.240 --> 0:11:47.040 state of an offense on reservation land can now apply 0:11:47.120 --> 0:11:51.400 to have that reversed. So, as always happens in these cases, 0:11:51.520 --> 0:11:54.520 there may be further litigation testing the limits of it. 0:11:54.559 --> 0:11:57.640 But they're certainly going to be the challenges brought, and 0:11:57.720 --> 0:12:00.360 so that's something that the state is we're it about. 0:12:00.360 --> 0:12:03.040 And even the defense conceded that there certainly could be 0:12:03.080 --> 0:12:06.280 convictions that are challenged, they argue over really how many 0:12:06.400 --> 0:12:09.360 are in question, And even though the state was warning 0:12:09.400 --> 0:12:11.200 that a lot of convictions are going to wind up 0:12:11.240 --> 0:12:14.240 being overturned, of the state very may well wind up 0:12:14.480 --> 0:12:18.720 challenging those convictions being overturned now that the litigation is 0:12:18.760 --> 0:12:21.199 on sort of a new terrain, So as always, it's 0:12:21.200 --> 0:12:23.560 sort of an open question about exactly how many people 0:12:23.600 --> 0:12:26.920 are affected. But certainly there are going to be cases 0:12:26.920 --> 0:12:30.040 that wind up getting overturned as a result of this ruling. 0:12:30.080 --> 0:12:32.959 And then the question, as we're discussing, is whether they 0:12:32.960 --> 0:12:35.880 do wind up getting retried in federal court or what 0:12:37.000 --> 0:12:40.160 So does McGirt get released now or do they does 0:12:40.200 --> 0:12:42.559 it have to go back to a lower court. So 0:12:43.679 --> 0:12:46.480 the question is going to wind up going back and 0:12:46.480 --> 0:12:48.440 there will be a question of whether he winds up 0:12:48.440 --> 0:12:51.760 getting retried on the the federal level. I don't think 0:12:51.800 --> 0:12:54.440 it's going to be a situation of him just getting 0:12:54.760 --> 0:12:57.800 released out onto the street. And even if he even 0:12:57.840 --> 0:13:00.240 if he did, the federal government may well will be 0:13:00.280 --> 0:13:02.840 able to pick him up right there. That's something that 0:13:02.880 --> 0:13:07.319 does happen sometimes when there's transfer between jurisdictions. So as 0:13:07.440 --> 0:13:11.479 mcgarrett himself, even though he won the case, he very 0:13:11.480 --> 0:13:14.520 he very may well wind up still spending the rest 0:13:14.520 --> 0:13:19.320 of his life in prison anyway. And Chief Justice John Roberts, 0:13:19.440 --> 0:13:24.080 very busy today wrote the discent what was his descent about? 0:13:25.160 --> 0:13:27.959 This descent mirror mirrored the state's concerns in a lot 0:13:28.000 --> 0:13:31.720 of ways, worrying about the consequences of the decision, saying 0:13:31.760 --> 0:13:35.760 that the majority really gave it short shrift and wasn't 0:13:35.800 --> 0:13:39.240 taking the state's concerns seriously enough. And as to the 0:13:39.520 --> 0:13:43.880 legal question, Roberts also agreed with the State that the 0:13:43.920 --> 0:13:48.160 government's actions that it was taken against the reservation and 0:13:48.160 --> 0:13:51.760 the Creek Nation really amounted to the Creek Reservation not 0:13:51.960 --> 0:13:55.680 legally existing anymore. So, the descent and the majority really 0:13:55.720 --> 0:13:58.560 both disagreed as to the legal question and as to 0:13:58.640 --> 0:14:01.760 the consequences claim as well. Now I want to ask 0:14:01.800 --> 0:14:05.480 a fact question because I've read that this means that 0:14:05.640 --> 0:14:10.760 nearly half of Oklahoma, eastern half is reservation land. What 0:14:10.920 --> 0:14:14.120 is it now? I mean, do the reservations constitute that 0:14:14.200 --> 0:14:17.600 part of the land. So a little bit of background 0:14:17.600 --> 0:14:21.080 explanation is necessary to explain that. So, the Creek Nation, 0:14:21.160 --> 0:14:23.520 which was the land that was an issue in this case, 0:14:23.720 --> 0:14:26.560 is one of the five tribes that were marched west 0:14:26.720 --> 0:14:30.200 on the Trail of Tiers back in the eighteen thirties. 0:14:30.240 --> 0:14:32.240 And so the Creek, as well as for other tribes 0:14:32.440 --> 0:14:36.400 which had similar arrangements, all had treaties with the government 0:14:36.440 --> 0:14:38.840 and they wound up in the eastern part of the state. 0:14:38.920 --> 0:14:42.920 And so the government's argument here the government was concerned 0:14:42.960 --> 0:14:45.560 that a wind for the Creek would then lead to 0:14:46.040 --> 0:14:49.680 similar findings as to those other tribes as well, saying 0:14:49.680 --> 0:14:52.640 that their reservations also still exists. So it's sort of 0:14:52.680 --> 0:14:57.160 a two step process. As for now, it's technically after 0:14:57.240 --> 0:14:59.920 this decision, only the Creek reservation, which has still been 0:15:00.080 --> 0:15:03.680 firmed by the court as still being quote unquote Indian land, 0:15:04.200 --> 0:15:07.760 as to the other half. As to the remaining four 0:15:07.800 --> 0:15:10.760 of those tribes. Certainly the logic of that may well 0:15:10.800 --> 0:15:13.960 apply to that case, but as a technical matter, there 0:15:13.960 --> 0:15:18.320 could still potentially be further litigation or legislation or further 0:15:18.400 --> 0:15:21.680 disputes as to the exact status of those lands. But 0:15:21.720 --> 0:15:25.320 certainly the implication of it is essentially that the eastern 0:15:25.360 --> 0:15:29.960 half of Oklahoma would be technically still a reservation if 0:15:30.000 --> 0:15:33.000 that same logic from today's opinion is applied to the 0:15:33.000 --> 0:15:35.160 rest of the tribes as well as it was applied 0:15:35.200 --> 0:15:39.400 to the Creek. Did the justices make a decision in 0:15:39.720 --> 0:15:44.400 the other case criminal case Sharply Murphy and so last 0:15:44.480 --> 0:15:47.680 term the justices tried to decide this case, but it 0:15:47.760 --> 0:15:50.960 was a case where Justice course which was recused because 0:15:51.240 --> 0:15:53.840 because it came from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, 0:15:53.880 --> 0:15:57.320 where he sat before reaching the Supreme Court, so he 0:15:57.400 --> 0:15:59.680 recused himself from that one. And the court wound up 0:16:00.040 --> 0:16:02.760 deadlocking presumably four to four on the case because they 0:16:02.760 --> 0:16:05.240 couldn't reach a decision, And so that case was on 0:16:05.360 --> 0:16:08.280 hold while the Jim c. Mcgret case was playing out. 0:16:08.400 --> 0:16:11.680 And so now, as happens often when there's a Supreme 0:16:11.680 --> 0:16:14.560 Court ruling and other decisions are sort of on hold. 0:16:14.880 --> 0:16:17.920 Now that mcgret won, the Supreme Court issued essentially a 0:16:17.960 --> 0:16:22.440 summary decision saying that Murphy wins too, and sent his 0:16:22.840 --> 0:16:25.840 case back as well. In that case, that Murphy had 0:16:25.880 --> 0:16:30.440 actually one prior so it was just affirming the previous 0:16:30.560 --> 0:16:32.880 ruling for him, as opposed to this case where mcgret 0:16:32.920 --> 0:16:36.600 lost at the previous court and today's decision wind up 0:16:36.760 --> 0:16:40.520 reversing in favor of mcgret. So now let's sprawden the 0:16:40.560 --> 0:16:43.400 discussion and talk a little bit about the Chief because 0:16:43.480 --> 0:16:47.720 we learned that the Chief actually had a fall and 0:16:47.800 --> 0:16:51.560 he was hospitalized overnight on Father's Day. Believe it was. 0:16:52.720 --> 0:16:55.680 That's right. We wounded up learning this week that Chief 0:16:55.680 --> 0:16:58.800 Justice Roberts did fall and did stay in the hospital 0:16:59.120 --> 0:17:02.400 overnight on Father's Day. But it's something that the Court 0:17:02.480 --> 0:17:05.320 did not wind up announcing and only really wound up 0:17:05.320 --> 0:17:09.439 confirming in response to a media inquiry from the Washington 0:17:09.560 --> 0:17:12.760 Post this week. And so this was something that was 0:17:12.840 --> 0:17:15.160 not full to us at the time and only really 0:17:15.200 --> 0:17:17.879 came out because someone was poking around and got a 0:17:17.960 --> 0:17:19.879 tip about it and asked the court about it. He 0:17:19.960 --> 0:17:23.439 said two prior seizures that if there's never been a 0:17:23.440 --> 0:17:27.160 clear diagnosis of I don't think, but that's right too 0:17:27.240 --> 0:17:30.560 that we know of anyway, and um, technically doctors have 0:17:30.720 --> 0:17:34.359 said that they don't know the exact cause of them. 0:17:34.400 --> 0:17:38.520 And really, what the shows is that not just the chiefs, 0:17:38.520 --> 0:17:42.760 but a lot of the courts members don't necessarily readily 0:17:42.800 --> 0:17:46.000 share their health information, and it does turn into somewhat 0:17:46.000 --> 0:17:50.320 of a transparency issue. Obviously, the public is well aware 0:17:50.320 --> 0:17:54.480 of Justice Ginsburg's serial battles against cancer, but that's really 0:17:54.520 --> 0:17:58.639 because Justice Ginsberg herself has been forthcoming about that information. 0:17:58.680 --> 0:18:01.800 And so it does seem like the justices are dealing 0:18:01.840 --> 0:18:04.720 with this on an individual basis, and there's not necessarily 0:18:05.000 --> 0:18:08.120 a policy at the Court of how each justice has 0:18:08.160 --> 0:18:11.240 to deal with disclosing their health information to the public, 0:18:11.280 --> 0:18:14.359 no matter how serious it is. Chief Justice Roberts is 0:18:14.400 --> 0:18:18.000 fond of saying that the Court is the most transparent 0:18:18.520 --> 0:18:23.720 of all the branches of government's right so exactly so 0:18:23.920 --> 0:18:28.320 when it comes to something like the justice's health information, 0:18:28.880 --> 0:18:30.679 that might not be the case in terms of the 0:18:30.680 --> 0:18:33.760 Court being the most transparent, at least, as this recent 0:18:33.800 --> 0:18:36.760 incident shows with Chief Justice Roberts, which if no one 0:18:36.800 --> 0:18:39.320 had ever inquired from the Court perhaps we we never 0:18:39.320 --> 0:18:41.880 would have known about it, and so I should probably 0:18:41.960 --> 0:18:44.760 point out that there doesn't seem to be any lingering 0:18:44.760 --> 0:18:47.640 health issue that we know of. Obviously, it doesn't seem 0:18:47.720 --> 0:18:52.000 to be on par with Justice Ginsberg's very serious cancer issues, 0:18:52.040 --> 0:18:54.480 which seems to have resolved as well. But it's more 0:18:54.520 --> 0:18:57.280 a matter of the public being kept in the dark 0:18:57.320 --> 0:19:01.359 about this information. That's Jordan Reuben Senberg Law Legal Editor. 0:19:01.880 --> 0:19:08.760 I'm June Grosso and this is Bienberg m HM.