Speaker 1: With its last two terms bringing down significant rulings on
Speaker 1: issues like abortion, student loan forgiveness, and affirmative action. More
Speaker 1: eyes than ever are on the U. S. Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: which has shown its power to shape important policy issues
Speaker 1: that affect all Americans. Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store
Speaker 1: looks ahead at which cases are likely to be of
Speaker 1: greatest consequence this term, some of which involve gun rights,
Speaker 1: speech on social media and how much power federal agencies
Speaker 1: should have. And later we look at former President Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's legal woes already before the Supreme Court thanks to
Speaker 1: an extraordinary request from one of the prosecutors. I'm Craig
Speaker 1: Gordon today on the big take another pivotal year for
Speaker 1: the US Supreme Court, Greg, The US is a roaching
Speaker 1: a record for the number of mass shootings that have
Speaker 1: occurred within the space of a single year, and the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court will be taking up several cases around the
Speaker 1: issue of gun rights. Let's start by taking a look
Speaker 1: at the case involving a Trump era ban on bump stocks.
Speaker 1: What is a bumpstock and why are they currently banned?
Speaker 2: A bump stock is a device that lets a semi
Speaker 2: automatic rifle fire a little bit like a machine gun.
Speaker 2: And the Trump administration banned bumpstocks. It made it a
Speaker 2: criminal offense after that horrific twenty seventeen shooting in Las
Speaker 2: Vegas that killed about sixty people where the shooter used
Speaker 2: bump stocks, and the question for the Supreme Court is
Speaker 2: whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms had the
Speaker 2: authority to do that, Whether within this law that gives
Speaker 2: ATF some discretion to ban things, whether this device makes
Speaker 2: a semi automatic weapon into something similar enough to a
Speaker 2: machine gun that they have the ability to say that
Speaker 2: is illegal and it's a criminal offense to possess one.
Speaker 1: Another gun case, we're watching concerns of ban on quote
Speaker 1: dangerous people owning firearms. Tell us about this case.
Speaker 2: This is a second Amendment case and it's potentially very
Speaker 2: very important. If you recall a year and a half ago,
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court said there's a constitutional right to carry
Speaker 2: a handgun in public, and as part of that, the
Speaker 2: Court set up a really tough legal test where they said,
Speaker 2: we're going to look to history and unless you can
Speaker 2: point to a regulation, a law within our history that
Speaker 2: shows there's a tradition of regulating this type of behavior
Speaker 2: this type of firearm, then it violates the Second Amendment.
Speaker 2: And so the question here is a federal law that says,
Speaker 2: if you're subject to a domestic violence restraining order, you
Speaker 2: can lose your gun rights. And so what the Justice
Speaker 2: is explored in arguments in November and are going to
Speaker 2: rule on sometime next year is whether there's enough of
Speaker 2: a tradition there of taking weapons away from people like
Speaker 2: the man in question in this case, who is subject
Speaker 2: to a domestic violence restraining order for that to pass
Speaker 2: Second Amendment muster.
Speaker 3: The arguments seem to go.
Speaker 2: Pretty well from the standpoint of gun control advocates in
Speaker 2: the Biden administration, the Court didn't seem like they wanted
Speaker 2: to go quite that far to say, no, you can't
Speaker 2: impose this type of gun restriction. But we'll see what
Speaker 2: happens when they rule.
Speaker 1: So what sorts of other Second Amendment cases could this
Speaker 1: case be a prelude to if the Justice were to
Speaker 1: rule one way.
Speaker 3: Or the other.
Speaker 2: Well, certainly there are a lot of cases kicking around
Speaker 2: about things like restrictions on so called assault weapons and
Speaker 2: large capacity magazines. Those are the kinds of restrictions that
Speaker 2: a lot of states and local governments had in place
Speaker 2: even before the recent wave of mass shootings. There are
Speaker 2: questions about whether those will survive constitutional muster. There are
Speaker 2: questions about whether somebody who is convicted of a non
Speaker 2: violent felony can have their gun rights taken away. That's
Speaker 2: the kind of thing that was very much at issue
Speaker 2: in the arguments in the domestic violence case, question of
Speaker 2: who has a Second Amendment right even if they've done
Speaker 2: something violent or non violent, something to evade the law
Speaker 2: previously in their life.
Speaker 1: The National Rifle Association, often known as the NRA, is
Speaker 1: also involved in one of these gun cases. They are
Speaker 1: claiming that a New York State official blacklisted the organization,
Speaker 1: violating its free speech rights. What is the root of
Speaker 1: the NRA's complaint in this case?
Speaker 3: So this is a first Amendment case.
Speaker 2: They're saying the New York officials violated our rights. They
Speaker 2: discriminated against us because they don't like our viewpoint when
Speaker 2: they pressured insurance companies not to do business with us.
Speaker 1: So the NRA is essentially claiming they are allowed to
Speaker 1: exist as an organization and carry out a position that
Speaker 1: some people might agree with and might disagree with, and
Speaker 1: New York State has no right to squelch that activity.
Speaker 2: Essentially, they're arguing that regulators don't have a free reign
Speaker 2: to target us because they don't like what we do,
Speaker 2: and that that is a quintessential First Amendment violation because
Speaker 2: the government is supposed to treat private individuals and organizations
Speaker 2: the same, regardless of what their viewpoints are. If the
Speaker 2: government wants to express its own views on a matter,
Speaker 2: it's allowed to do that, but it can't punish us
Speaker 2: for expressing what we want to express and doing that
Speaker 2: by pressuring others, in this case, insurance companies to disfavor us.
Speaker 1: Greg you mentioned several First Amendment cases on this year's docket,
Speaker 1: and some in particular, including social media and misinformation. Three
Speaker 1: of these cases deal with the ability of federal entities
Speaker 1: and the platforms themselves to police misinformation.
Speaker 3: Tell us what's at stake.
Speaker 2: There are three different buckets of social media cases this term.
Speaker 2: One has to do with Biden administration efforts to take
Speaker 2: down misleading posts about COVID during the head of the pandemic,
Speaker 2: and a lower court said the Biden deministration violated the
Speaker 2: First Amendment by being too heavy handed there and restricted
Speaker 2: the context that the Biden administration could have with social
Speaker 2: media companies going forward, and that could have big implications
Speaker 2: for the election. Now that ruling is on hold, but
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court is going to take up the underlying
Speaker 2: question of whether the Biden administration could be restricted in
Speaker 2: that way. Another set of cases has to do with
Speaker 2: state laws, one Texas one in Florida that restrict what
Speaker 2: social media companies can do to moderate the content on
Speaker 2: their site. So, in both cases, those states say social
Speaker 2: media companies are disfavoring conservative viewpoints, and so they've set
Speaker 2: up all these rules to make sure that in their mind,
Speaker 2: conservative viewpoints aren't disfavored. And so there are a variety
Speaker 2: of First Amendment attacks that the social media companies are
Speaker 2: pressing against those two laws. And then the final bucket
Speaker 2: of cases has to do with a variation of if
Speaker 2: you remember back when Donald Trump was president and he
Speaker 2: would block people from his Twitter account. These are cases
Speaker 2: where officials at lower levels did something similar to that.
Speaker 2: They have private social media accounts where they talk about
Speaker 2: public events, public affairs, public issues. The question is do
Speaker 2: they have the right to block people from posting comments
Speaker 2: on their social media sites if they're using them for
Speaker 2: at least quasi official purposes.
Speaker 1: All three of these cases would seem to have a
Speaker 1: great bearing on what kind of posts can be made
Speaker 1: during the twenty twenty four election. How do you see
Speaker 1: this shaking out in terms of the election speech that
Speaker 1: both sides are going to be trying to engage in,
Speaker 1: whether that's Biden and Tromp, Republicans and Democrats. Are we
Speaker 1: going to see a kind of a wild West approach
Speaker 1: where things are wide open or do you think there
Speaker 1: will be limitations put on it? Especially after the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen election, when Facebook and other companies played a pretty
Speaker 1: major role in some of the campaigns.
Speaker 2: I would say that cases like these might have seemed
Speaker 2: more important before the social media companies started scaling back
Speaker 2: on their own how much they want to do to
Speaker 2: moderate content. For example, the case about the Biden administration,
Speaker 2: that will be very important in the election going forward.
Speaker 2: It will restrict the ability of the Biden administration if
Speaker 2: they lose to go to X or Facebook or whoever
Speaker 2: and say, hey, somebody is posting false information there.
Speaker 3: You might want to take a look at that. But
Speaker 3: to the extent that.
Speaker 2: The social media companies aren't as interested in taking down
Speaker 2: misleading content, the effect will be a little less now
Speaker 2: the Texas and Florida laws. They could still have a
Speaker 2: pretty big effect if social media companies are affirmatively required
Speaker 2: to take steps to make sure that conservative content isn't disfavored,
Speaker 2: isn't disproportionately taken down, but probably more at the margins
Speaker 2: than it might have been if we were having this
Speaker 2: debate before, say the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 1: Greg The ruling against the Sackler family, of course, they
Speaker 1: are the owners of Purdue Pharma that manufactured oxy content
Speaker 1: is also being challenged, the central question there being whether
Speaker 1: or not the Sackler family could get a legal shield
Speaker 1: from future litigation through their settlement. What arguments are being
Speaker 1: made in this case.
Speaker 2: So, this is a case where the Biden administration and
Speaker 2: a guy in within the Justice Department known as the
Speaker 2: US Trustee is challenging the settlement on the grounds that
Speaker 2: federal bankruptcy law doesn't let bankruptcy judges approve so called
Speaker 2: non consenting third party releases. And to unpack that a
Speaker 2: little bit, the idea is people who might want to
Speaker 2: sue the Sacklers because they blame them for the opioid
Speaker 2: crisis can no longer sue them. Under the settlement, the
Speaker 2: Sacklers are shielded to a large degree from any additional liability.
Speaker 2: In this case, the settlement as a whole requires them
Speaker 2: to put in something like six billion dollars into the
Speaker 2: pot for victims and the fund opioid addiction programs. Some
Speaker 2: folks would like them to pay more. The Sacklers took
Speaker 2: a lot of money out of the company. A lot
Speaker 2: of that money is now offshore, and the question is
Speaker 2: whether the settlement is going to go forward and wipe
Speaker 2: out the ability of victims to keep trying to go
Speaker 2: after the Sacklers for their involvement in the opioid crisis.
Speaker 1: What would ruling against that plan change in current bankruptcy law, It.
Speaker 3: Would change a lot.
Speaker 2: These third party releases are a pretty common feature. So
Speaker 2: for example, the settlements involving the Catholic dioceses involving sexual
Speaker 2: abuse and the Boy Scouts, they have provisions like these,
Speaker 2: and the arguments for them is that's the only way
Speaker 2: we're going to achieve this sort of global pieces. If
Speaker 2: we say we're settling everything, there's this big pot of
Speaker 2: money that will now be available for victims. And without
Speaker 2: this sort of tool, a lot of people think that
Speaker 2: big overarching settlements like that will no longer be possible,
Speaker 2: or at least not as easy to achieve after the break.
Speaker 1: Will the Court limit the power and reach of federal agencies?
Speaker 1: Greg The Supreme Court is also reving several cases regarding
Speaker 1: the reach and power of some federal agencies. The Consumer
Speaker 1: Financial Protection Bureau CFPB as it's known, is under scrutiny
Speaker 1: for the way Congress delivers its funding. What is the
Speaker 1: criticism about the current funding model?
Speaker 2: So the argument is, and a federal appeals court found
Speaker 2: that the bureau's funding system is unconstitutional because the money
Speaker 2: it uses wasn't appropriated by Congress. The CFPB gets its
Speaker 2: money from the Federal Reserve. In fact, the CFPB sort
Speaker 2: of gets to set its own budget. It tells the
Speaker 2: Federal Reserve, here's how much we think we need and
Speaker 2: up to a certain cap. And that amount has always
Speaker 2: been approved. It's always gotten that amount of money. And
Speaker 2: so very conservative appeals court, the Fifth Circuit, said, the
Speaker 2: Constitution says that you can't spend money unless it's appropriated
Speaker 2: by Congress, and that hasn't happened here. And one of
Speaker 2: the issues in the case is this appropriation's clause until
Speaker 2: now has only been used as a restriction on the
Speaker 2: executive branch. So the idea behind it, a lot of
Speaker 2: people will argue is that you know, you don't want
Speaker 2: the president or some agency spending money unless Congress says
Speaker 2: it's okay, because Congress has the power of the purse.
Speaker 2: In this case, this is more of an argument that
Speaker 2: it actually restricts Congress, and it restricts its ability to
Speaker 2: set up this agency the way it wants with the
Speaker 2: level of independence that it wants. The Court heard our
Speaker 2: arguments back in October. In this case, they were perhaps
Speaker 2: surprisingly pretty skeptical of the argument that this is an
Speaker 2: unconstitutional system. It's a novel argument, and it didn't really
Speaker 2: seem to gain a whole lot of traction. So at
Speaker 2: least coming out of that, it felt like the Court
Speaker 2: was going to uphold the CFPB's funding system and let
Speaker 2: the agency continue as.
Speaker 1: It has greg the CFPV is actually a relatively new
Speaker 1: agency meant to be a consumer protection agency at the
Speaker 1: level of the federal government, with federal powers. Why did
Speaker 1: they create this rather unusual funding structure where it does
Speaker 1: seem to do a little bit of and then run
Speaker 1: around the congressional appropriation process.
Speaker 2: Well, this was set up in the aftermath of the
Speaker 2: two thousand and eight financial crisis, and Congress really wanted
Speaker 2: to give it independence and have it be shielded from
Speaker 2: political pressures so that they could do the work of
Speaker 2: protecting consumers. And so ever, since then, opponents of the
Speaker 2: CFPB had been challenging various aspects of it. One issue
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court dealt with a few years ago was
Speaker 2: the notion that it was too hard to fire the
Speaker 2: director of the CFPB, and in fact, the way it
Speaker 2: was set up when Donald Trump was president, for the
Speaker 2: first couple of years, he had a director of the
Speaker 2: CFPB who was appointed by President Obama, and the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court in that case ruled that the president had to
Speaker 2: have the ability under the Constitution to fire the director
Speaker 2: for any reason. And since then the director has been
Speaker 2: somebody who was appointed by the President.
Speaker 1: Greg an agency that's been around a lot longer than that,
Speaker 1: the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC obviously regulates a
Speaker 1: Wall Street is also having the breadth of its already
Speaker 1: scrutinized by the Supreme Court Justice is this term, what
Speaker 1: is the key enforcement tool that is under fire.
Speaker 2: This is the case, and there are multiple arguments, but
Speaker 2: it's all focused on the use of what are known
Speaker 2: as administrative law judges. They're in house judges, and the SEC,
Speaker 2: like some other agencies, when it presses an enforcement action,
Speaker 2: say somebody violated or some company violated the securities fraud laws,
Speaker 2: they can choose to go before one of their in
Speaker 2: house judges or they can go to federal court. And
Speaker 2: the argument, the main argument that's being made in this
Speaker 2: case is when you go to one of your in
Speaker 2: house judges, you violate the constitutional right to a jury trial.
Speaker 2: So this is a case of a hedge fund manager
Speaker 2: who is accused of to frauding investors and he says
Speaker 2: I have a constitutional right to make my defense to
Speaker 2: a jury. And there are a couple other arguments too,
Speaker 2: also having to do with how easy it is for
Speaker 2: administrative law judges to lose their jobs to be fired.
Speaker 2: But the main argument they've focused on at the court
Speaker 2: was that jury trial right, and it did seem to
Speaker 2: get some traction. There's certainly a possibility that the court
Speaker 2: will say, at least when you are the SEC is
Speaker 2: trying to get money from somebody seeking civil penalties from somebody,
Speaker 2: the Constitution's Seventh Amendment guarantees them the right to have
Speaker 2: a jury trial.
Speaker 1: There are two cases coming up the challenge something called
Speaker 1: the Chevron doctrine. What is that exactly and how is
Speaker 1: it being challenged?
Speaker 2: That is a really really important doctrine for the field
Speaker 2: of administrative law. This case called NRDC versus Chevron from
Speaker 2: back in the nineteen eighties probably the most cited case
Speaker 2: when you're talking about fights over regulations, and what it
Speaker 2: says is basically, if there's a statute and the statute
Speaker 2: is unclear, like how much an agency can do, for example,
Speaker 2: how much power it has if the agency interprets a
Speaker 2: statute says it means X, the courts will defer to
Speaker 2: the agency, let it decide what its authorities are as
Speaker 2: long as that interpretation is reasonable. And over the years
Speaker 2: that has given to agency is a fair amount of
Speaker 2: power to kind of define the scope of their missions. Now,
Speaker 2: when the Chevron doctrine was put into place, it was
Speaker 2: something that tended to help conservatives and republicans. Justice Inton
Speaker 2: and Scalia was a big fan of the Chevron doctrine,
Speaker 2: But over time it's become something that is anathma to
Speaker 2: conservatives and folks who don't like big government. So this
Speaker 2: is a case Oral said, actually two cases where the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, which has sort of been wheedling down Chevron
Speaker 2: over the years, is going to consider overturning the Chevron
Speaker 2: doctrine and saying Nope, the agency doesn't get any special difference.
Speaker 2: We're just going to interpret the statute and if we
Speaker 2: think it means why, it doesn't matter whether the agency
Speaker 2: thinks it actually means X. If the Court goes there,
Speaker 2: it certainly has the potential to make it much harder
Speaker 2: for agencies to issue broad regulations and do other things
Speaker 2: that affect American business.
Speaker 1: Right, this strikes me as having enormous implications. As you say,
Speaker 1: in other words, every time it agency makes a regulation,
Speaker 1: court could come along and second guess the agency doesn't
Speaker 1: that completely disempower the federal agencies.
Speaker 2: I would maybe not say completely, but it certainly would
Speaker 2: take a lot of power away from them. There are
Speaker 2: narrow ways that the Court can decide this case. They
Speaker 2: don't have to go all the way to overturning Chevron,
Speaker 2: but certainly if the Court were to overturn it, you
Speaker 2: add on to it, there's a ruling from two terms
Speaker 2: ago involving the Environmental Protection Agency, where the Court said, hey,
Speaker 2: if we're talking about whether Congress has given an agency
Speaker 2: a major power, this is known as the major questions doctrine.
Speaker 2: If we're talking about something that has a major political
Speaker 2: or economic impact, like say, climate change regulations, the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court said, we're going to require Congress to be very clear,
Speaker 2: very explicit, that it did mean to give the EPA
Speaker 2: or some other agency that power. And in that case,
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court said they hadn't done that.
Speaker 1: When we return, the case against former President Donald Trump
Speaker 1: makes its way to the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 4: Special counsel Jack Smith is asking the Supreme Court to
Speaker 4: decide whether Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution for
Speaker 4: alleged crimes he committed while in office.
Speaker 1: Greg The cases against former President Donald Trump also continued
Speaker 1: to move forward. Notably this week we saw Special counsel
Speaker 1: Jack Smith ask the Supreme Court to rule on Trump's
Speaker 1: argument that he's immune from prosecution. How is this unusual?
Speaker 2: It's unusual because the last thing that happened on this
Speaker 2: issue was that a federal trial judge ruled against Trump,
Speaker 2: said you don't have the absolute immunity that you're claiming.
Speaker 2: Trump then appealed to the Federal Appeals Court, the DC Circuit,
Speaker 2: and the Special Council. Jack Smith is now asking the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court to bypass the appeals court level, go ahead
Speaker 2: and decide this issue itself, rather than having it go
Speaker 2: through the normal course of an appeals court decision and
Speaker 2: then the losing side appeal up to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: What are the implications that a Supreme Court ruling one
Speaker 1: way or the other could have on this case.
Speaker 2: It could kill the case if the Supreme Court rules
Speaker 2: against jack Smith. This is pretty much an argument that
Speaker 2: Trump can't be prosecuted for anything stemming from efforts to
Speaker 2: overturn the election or January the sixth. Right Now, trial
Speaker 2: is scheduled from March fourth, and part of the reason
Speaker 2: Jack Smith that he went straight to the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: was that waiting for the DC Circuit to decide the
Speaker 2: case and then going to the Supreme Court could take
Speaker 2: many months, and he wants to move very quickly. Donald
Speaker 2: Trump wants to delay things. He's tried to get the
Speaker 2: trial pushed to after the election, and Jack Smith wants
Speaker 2: to have a trial as soon as possible and with
Speaker 2: the election looming in November. He's making the argument that
Speaker 2: it's in everybody's interests for us to have certainty on
Speaker 2: this issue as soon as possible.
Speaker 1: What are the historical precedents here? Is it common or
Speaker 1: uncommon for the Supreme Court to sort of jump the
Speaker 1: line and take a case before it sort of made
Speaker 1: its way through all the different levels of appeals courts?
Speaker 2: Historically it's uncommon, although it's happened a lot more in
Speaker 2: the last few years for various reasons, in both the
Speaker 2: Trump years and now.
Speaker 3: The Biden years.
Speaker 2: Probably the best precedent for it, though, is back in
Speaker 2: the Nixon tapes case in the nineteen seventies.
Speaker 3: That was a case.
Speaker 2: Where the Supreme Court reviewed a federal district judge's conclusion directly,
Speaker 2: and there was a criminal trial that was going to
Speaker 2: be on hold depending on what the Court did with
Speaker 2: regard to requiring the Nixon tapes to be turned over,
Speaker 2: and the Court ruled in a matter of a couple
Speaker 2: months it agreed to take up the case skip over
Speaker 2: the appeals court and issued a ruling that let the
Speaker 2: trial go forward.
Speaker 1: Greg in that same case in the DC Court did
Speaker 1: judge put down a pretty tough gag order on the
Speaker 1: former president, barring him from commenting about the process and
Speaker 1: the personnel in the court. Trump is obviously fighting this,
Speaker 1: saying that he's essentially in the middle of a presidential
Speaker 1: campaign and he should be allowed to say what he
Speaker 1: wants to say as he seeks to return to the presidency.
Speaker 1: What are the chances that this particular issue could make
Speaker 1: it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: There's certainly a significant chance.
Speaker 2: Where at the point now where we're waiting to see
Speaker 2: if Donald Trump will appeal to the Supreme Court. The
Speaker 2: DC Circuit in that case largely upheld Judge Tuckkins gag
Speaker 2: order against Trump.
Speaker 5: The judge overseeing former president Donald Trump's January sixth case,
Speaker 5: has reinstated a gag order. The judge temporarily halted it
Speaker 5: earlier this month after his appeal. Prosecutor save Trump has
Speaker 5: published intimidating posts on social media about prosecutors and potential witnesses.
Speaker 5: Trump has said that the gag order violates his right
Speaker 5: to free speech.
Speaker 2: The gag order as it stands now restricts what he
Speaker 2: can say about witnesses. It gives him a free hand
Speaker 2: to criticize the judge gives him a free hand to
Speaker 2: criticize Jack Smith, and there are some things he can
Speaker 2: talk about with regard to the case, but as you indicated,
Speaker 2: still seems to think that goes way too far in
Speaker 2: terms of restricting his First Amendment rights, particularly since he.
Speaker 3: Is a candidate.
Speaker 2: So the next thing that could happen there is he
Speaker 2: appeals to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Greg in Colorado, one of a series of Fourteenth Amendment
Speaker 1: cases looking to keep Trump off ballast is still underway.
Speaker 1: What would happen if the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against Trump?
Speaker 2: That almost certainly would go up to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: The question there is this insurrection clause. It's in the
Speaker 2: Fourteenth Amendment, put in there after the Civil War, largely
Speaker 2: thinking about people who are involved in the Confederacy. And
Speaker 2: the question is can it be applied to Donald Trump
Speaker 2: with regard to his actions on January the sixth, And
Speaker 2: if it can be, who makes that decision? How does
Speaker 2: that happen? Do you need like a criminal conviction before
Speaker 2: it kicks in? So there are a lot of questions there,
Speaker 2: And as you said, there are a number of cases
Speaker 2: out there. There are four significant ones out there where
Speaker 2: folks are trying to keep Donald Trump off the ballot.
Speaker 2: Not entirely clear the Supreme Court is going to need
Speaker 2: to jump in or decide it wants to jump in.
Speaker 2: But almost certainly if a state court, say the Colorado
Speaker 2: Supreme Court says Donald Trump cannot appear on our ballot
Speaker 2: because of the insurrection clause, that would almost guarantee the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court would have to take that up.
Speaker 1: And finally, Greg turning to the Supreme Court itself, after
Speaker 1: a series of ethics controversies, the Court adopted a code
Speaker 1: of ethics for itself for the very first time.
Speaker 3: What does that entail?
Speaker 2: It entails essentially putting in a different form the rules
Speaker 2: that the Court says it's always abided by. The Court
Speaker 2: was very clear when it did this that it's not
Speaker 2: changing anything, and in fact, it led it with a
Speaker 2: statement that said that we're dispelling the misunderstanding that we
Speaker 2: act as though were unrestricted by any ethics rules. So
Speaker 2: it put them all in a form of a code
Speaker 2: of conduct that said a judge should do this, and this,
Speaker 2: do that, and all the justices signed it agreed to
Speaker 2: abide by it. There is importantly no real enforcement mechanism
Speaker 2: for it. So one thing that some folks were hoping
Speaker 2: for was that there would at least be a panel
Speaker 2: of outside judges, at least an office within the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court that would vet complaints about the justices.
Speaker 3: And there isn't any of that.
Speaker 2: It remains up to the justices and really up to
Speaker 2: the individual justices to decide their own course of conduct.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: One of the issues with say like recusals, where you
Speaker 2: know you have questions, you know, should to go back
Speaker 2: to January six? Should Clarence Thomas recuse from the January
Speaker 2: six cases because his wife was involved in encouraging efforts
Speaker 2: to overturn the election? And that decision, based on the
Speaker 2: Court's current practice, is going to be made by Justice
Speaker 2: Thomas himself. There's no mechanism for the Court as a
Speaker 2: whole to make that decision about the activities of one
Speaker 2: of the members. So it did address one thing that
Speaker 2: people said the Court should do. They now have a
Speaker 2: code of conduct, But in terms of actually changing any
Speaker 2: behavior on the court, not at all clear that's going
Speaker 2: to happen.
Speaker 1: Is there any chance that the existence of this quote
Speaker 1: of contact would lead to investigations or probes of some
Speaker 1: of the justices activity you mentioned, particularly Clarence Thomas, who's
Speaker 1: there's been some articles written about gifts he's taken from
Speaker 1: various wealthy folks. You mentioned his wife, Jenny Thomas, of course,
Speaker 1: was heavily involved in some of the conversations around overturning
Speaker 1: the election. Any reason to think this quote of conduct
Speaker 1: would lead to investigations into that conduct.
Speaker 2: Craig, There's just not a mechanism in here for that
Speaker 2: sort of investigation. So I think the answer to that
Speaker 2: has to be no. Now, will this have some sort
Speaker 2: of prophylactic effect? That might some of the criticism of
Speaker 2: things justices that have done have some sort of effect
Speaker 2: on them. Do they sort of accept that maybe some
Speaker 2: of the things they've done have cast the court in
Speaker 2: a bad light. Maybe it's hard to say, and I
Speaker 2: think kind of the proof will be in the pudding
Speaker 2: in the next year or two, as we sort of
Speaker 2: see whether or not justices are materially changing the way
Speaker 2: they're going about doing things. And with regard to what
Speaker 2: you're saying with Justice Thomas and his wife, no sign
Speaker 2: that either of them are backing down from the positions
Speaker 2: they've taken. But who knows, Maybe things will change. Thank
Speaker 2: you very much, Greg, my pleasure. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 2: us here at the Big Take. It's a daily podcast
Speaker 2: from Bloomberg and iHeartRadio. For more shows from iHeartRadio, visit
Speaker 2: the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, Bloomberg car Play, or wherever
Speaker 2: you listen, and we'd love to.
Speaker 3: Hear from you.
Speaker 1: Email us questions or comments at Big Take at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot net. This episode was produced by Sam Gabauer, with
Speaker 1: production assistants from Michael Falero and Federica Romaniello. Hilda Garcia
Speaker 1: is our engineer. Our original music was composed by Leo Sidron.
Speaker 1: I'm Craig Gordon. Will be back Monday with another Big Take.
Speaker 1: Great Weekend, b
Speaker 2: Mh