Speaker 1: If, as expected, Neil Gorsuch is confirmed to the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court on Friday, he will become the first justice to
Speaker 1: join the Court midway through a term since sam Alito
Speaker 1: did that. The timing means course which could have an
Speaker 1: immediate impact on American law. He could cast a deciding
Speaker 1: vote in pending cases involving religion, housing discrimination, and redistricting.
Speaker 1: He might help the Court decide whether to take up
Speaker 1: pending appeals on gun rights and voter id laws. And
Speaker 1: then there's Donald Trump's travel band which is currently being
Speaker 1: contested in the lower courts. With us to talk about
Speaker 1: this and what impact course which might make right away
Speaker 1: is Kimberly Robinson, the Supreme Court report reporter for Bloomberg
Speaker 1: B and A. Kimberly, always good to talk to you,
Speaker 1: either on or off the air. Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1: So tell me, uh, if you could pick out a
Speaker 1: single case or issue that you think will tell us
Speaker 1: the most about Neil Gorsuch and what kind of justice
Speaker 1: he will be over the next couple of months. Pick pick,
Speaker 1: pick one. What do you think would be the biggest
Speaker 1: tell I think you know, probably the easiest answer here
Speaker 1: is a religious freedom case Trinity Luther and versus Comer.
Speaker 1: This was a case that was actually granted over a
Speaker 1: year ago, and the Supreme Court has been holding onto it,
Speaker 1: probably because it's one that's likely to get a pretty
Speaker 1: close vote from the Supreme Court. And this one is
Speaker 1: about UM. As I mentioned religious liberty, and we heard
Speaker 1: a lot of criticism during Neil gorsus is confirmation hearings
Speaker 1: that you know he aggressively uh ruled in favor of
Speaker 1: religious groups, and we could see if that's going to
Speaker 1: happen here. This one is is a little bit different though,
Speaker 1: because it goes to a constitutional provision rather than a statute,
Speaker 1: and so UM, we could right off the back it
Speaker 1: get some look on how he will analyze these broad
Speaker 1: constitutional rights. That's a case that's set for argument on
Speaker 1: April the nineteenth, So of course it is confirmed we
Speaker 1: know he will be involved in that case. Um. There's
Speaker 1: also just sort of explained to our listener, is Um,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of cases that the Court has
Speaker 1: already heard arguments in, and UH, by tradition, the last
Speaker 1: few times the Justice has joined the court midway uh
Speaker 1: those cases, even though maybe Gorsage could as a technical
Speaker 1: matter take part in them. UH. He probably won't unless
Speaker 1: the Court is divided four to four in those cases,
Speaker 1: in which case the Court could order reargument in those
Speaker 1: cases either this term or next term. Uh, Kimberly, are
Speaker 1: there particular cases that have been argued that the Court
Speaker 1: hasn't decided where you think that's a pretty good candidate
Speaker 1: for a four four split and maybe a new argument
Speaker 1: with Gorciage as the deciding vote. The one on the
Speaker 1: top of my head is redistricting case out of North Carolina. UM.
Speaker 1: One of the reasons that I think this might be
Speaker 1: one that's um is coming down four to four is
Speaker 1: not just from the arguments, UM, but also because the
Speaker 1: Court also heard another redistricting case on the same day
Speaker 1: and it's already handed down its opinion in that case. UM.
Speaker 1: So it's indicating that the justices may be struggling with
Speaker 1: this North Carolina case a bit more. And this one
Speaker 1: here has some tougher questions on racial jerrymandering and and
Speaker 1: really how the courts UM look at these claims Uh
Speaker 1: that people bring challenging their maps as taking race into
Speaker 1: consideration too much. UM. So that's what I'm I'm thinking about.
Speaker 1: One other case that's in my mind one that was
Speaker 1: argued back in the fall has to do with the
Speaker 1: Fair Housing Act and a lawsuit by the City of
Speaker 1: Miami against uh Wells, Fargoing, Bank of America, and City,
Speaker 1: although cities not involved at the Supreme Court, which essentially says,
Speaker 1: because of your predatory lending, we have blight in the
Speaker 1: City of Miami. That's a case. Uh. That an issue
Speaker 1: that could divide the Court on a long ideological lines.
Speaker 1: And uh, I am certainly wondering whether the Court um
Speaker 1: is divided in that and whether we'll here reargue meant um. Kimberly,
Speaker 1: let me ask you about cases the Court hasn't yet
Speaker 1: agreed to hear um. There are a number of pending things,
Speaker 1: are always more things coming along. Are there issues that
Speaker 1: you're thinking, Well, I'm thinking maybe the Court's conservative wing
Speaker 1: is eager to take up that issue or would take
Speaker 1: that up that issue once we get Neil Gorsage on
Speaker 1: the court. Well, there have been a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of cases testing voter requirements, things like voter id
Speaker 1: laws are the most obvious, and the Court has kind
Speaker 1: of been hanging around these laws and how the many
Speaker 1: cases have come to the court, but they haven't accepted them,
Speaker 1: although they've given kind of some signals that you know,
Speaker 1: maybe in the right circumstances they would um. And there's
Speaker 1: one out there from North Carolina that had a particularly
Speaker 1: harsh ruling below on the state of North Carolina, where
Speaker 1: the Court said that the legislatures actually acted with a
Speaker 1: discriminatory intent whenever they created this voter id law to
Speaker 1: specific glee target African Americans. I think that's the kind
Speaker 1: of case that, UM that conservatives might be wanting to
Speaker 1: take a look at once they have somebody they that
Speaker 1: seemingly might vote with them on that issue. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: the case of correct me if I'm wrong. I think
Speaker 1: where the court voted four to four on on whether
Speaker 1: that that voter ideal law could be in effect for
Speaker 1: the most recent election, right, that's right. And interestingly, in
Speaker 1: this the court also has pending um or in front
Speaker 1: of it a case that UH from North North Carolina
Speaker 1: as well, dealing with a different set of redistricting. UM.
Speaker 1: So it might be this court is waiting to handle
Speaker 1: those two cases, are wanting to handle those two cases together.
Speaker 1: What do you foresee with regard to Trump's travel ban?
Speaker 1: Is that going to How quickly do you see that
Speaker 1: getting up to the Supreme Court and being in front
Speaker 1: of a justice coursage. Well, right now it's in the
Speaker 1: appellate courts. It's moving along very quickly. Uh. In fact,
Speaker 1: to the Appellate Court just granted emotion to expedite the case.
Speaker 1: So it's going to be hearing arguments in the case
Speaker 1: sometime in May. So I would expect that to move
Speaker 1: along pretty quickly. Um, I'm not I'm not as good
Speaker 1: as you actual timing of the cases. Do you have
Speaker 1: an understanding of when that might be in front of
Speaker 1: the High Court? Actually, I don't have an understanding, and
Speaker 1: I was hoping you would provide it. But we can
Speaker 1: both agree that it will becoming becoming to the court, uh,
Speaker 1: and not the too horribly distant future. I would think, Um,
Speaker 1: last thing for you, just how much do you think
Speaker 1: the court is in Chief Justice Roberts is concerned. I
Speaker 1: means it's gonna be such a partisan fight over Neo
Speaker 1: grocer Arty is about the Supreme Court seeming really partisan
Speaker 1: if they if they suddenly start taking up these conservative
Speaker 1: cases and issuing conservative, big conservative rulings. Well, it's interesting
Speaker 1: in the month before Justice Schooly have passed away, Chief
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts actually give a speech at a law school
Speaker 1: where he said that the Senate confirmation process is really
Speaker 1: polarizing the public perception of the Supreme Court. And it's
Speaker 1: not their actions that they take the Supreme Court themselves, um,
Speaker 1: but rather it's Congress. So I'm not sure that he
Speaker 1: thinks that, you know, taking these cases and deciding these
Speaker 1: cases are adding anything to the public perception of them
Speaker 1: as politically divided. Um. But I'm sure that this confirmation
Speaker 1: process that's currently unfolding, um, probably something he would think
Speaker 1: is affecting the public perception. Okay, thank you so much,
Speaker 1: Kimberly Robinson, Bloomberg Being a Supreme Court reporter talking about
Speaker 1: the impact Neil Gors which might make that's it for
Speaker 1: the sedition of Bloomberg Law. We'll be back tomorrow thanks
Speaker 1: to our producer David Sutterman and our technical director Mark
Speaker 1: Sennis Kolchi. You can find more legal news at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law dot com and Bloomberg Being a dot com. Coming
Speaker 1: up on Bloomberg Radio, we'll have Bloomberg Markets with Carol
Speaker 1: Masster and Corey Johnson. Stay tuned for that on here
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio. This is Bloomberg,