WEBVTT - Will Supreme Court Sidestep Controversy in 2019?

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 --> 0:00:22.360
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The Supreme Court

0:00:22.400 --> 0:00:25.560
<v Speaker 1>is not scheduled to hear its arguments until January seven,

0:00:25.680 --> 0:00:28.800
<v Speaker 1>but the justices will be meeting for a conference this Friday.

0:00:29.040 --> 0:00:31.080
<v Speaker 1>Joining me to talk about what's coming up is Bloomberg

0:00:31.120 --> 0:00:35.360
<v Speaker 1>News Supreme Court reporter Greg's store in our DC Studios. Greg,

0:00:35.440 --> 0:00:37.680
<v Speaker 1>It seems as if the Court has been trying to

0:00:37.760 --> 0:00:42.360
<v Speaker 1>avoid contentious issues since the appointment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

0:00:42.840 --> 0:00:46.519
<v Speaker 1>Will that become more difficult on January four, when the

0:00:46.720 --> 0:00:50.560
<v Speaker 1>justices meet to consider new cases for April It will

0:00:50.680 --> 0:00:53.000
<v Speaker 1>junr right. The Court seems to have been trying to

0:00:53.040 --> 0:00:55.320
<v Speaker 1>take a low profile over the last few months, but

0:00:55.480 --> 0:00:57.760
<v Speaker 1>there are a spate of cases that are going to

0:00:57.840 --> 0:00:59.520
<v Speaker 1>be right in front of them when they come back.

0:00:59.520 --> 0:01:01.680
<v Speaker 1>In Jeanne Weary that are going to make that very

0:01:01.680 --> 0:01:04.520
<v Speaker 1>hard to keep keep up. The first one is a

0:01:04.560 --> 0:01:06.520
<v Speaker 1>case or two of the first ones that are going

0:01:06.560 --> 0:01:10.200
<v Speaker 1>to be there are a case involving partisan jerrymandering. That's

0:01:10.240 --> 0:01:12.640
<v Speaker 1>the the issue of voting maps that are drawn to

0:01:12.760 --> 0:01:17.360
<v Speaker 1>maximize the the advantages of the party in power. Uh,

0:01:17.400 --> 0:01:19.800
<v Speaker 1>it's possible the court, very likely the court will take

0:01:19.800 --> 0:01:22.720
<v Speaker 1>that up, and possible the courts conservatives will say once

0:01:22.720 --> 0:01:25.200
<v Speaker 1>and for all that those sorts of maps cannot be

0:01:25.319 --> 0:01:28.280
<v Speaker 1>challenged in court. And then there's the issue of the

0:01:28.319 --> 0:01:32.720
<v Speaker 1>federal law that bars job discrimination, and lower courts are

0:01:32.800 --> 0:01:37.000
<v Speaker 1>divided as to whether people who are discriminated against on

0:01:37.040 --> 0:01:40.800
<v Speaker 1>the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity are protected

0:01:40.880 --> 0:01:43.560
<v Speaker 1>under that law. Uh, there are several appeals that are

0:01:43.560 --> 0:01:45.920
<v Speaker 1>gonna be waiting for the court when they come back,

0:01:46.319 --> 0:01:49.240
<v Speaker 1>and there's again an excellent chance the Court will agree

0:01:49.280 --> 0:01:52.520
<v Speaker 1>to take those issues up. Do you see more of

0:01:52.560 --> 0:01:58.240
<v Speaker 1>the conservative justices, including Kavanaugh, trying to t up controversial

0:01:58.320 --> 0:02:03.760
<v Speaker 1>cases that might might advance a conservative agenda? Certainly with

0:02:03.920 --> 0:02:09.280
<v Speaker 1>the three established conservatives on the court, Thomas, Alito and

0:02:09.400 --> 0:02:13.480
<v Speaker 1>Gorstch Kavanaugh is a really interesting case because we're still

0:02:13.520 --> 0:02:15.400
<v Speaker 1>seeing what kind of justice he is going to be. Like.

0:02:16.120 --> 0:02:18.200
<v Speaker 1>Up until a couple of weeks ago, I would have

0:02:18.240 --> 0:02:21.200
<v Speaker 1>said to you, so far, Justice Kavanaugh has seemed to

0:02:21.200 --> 0:02:23.800
<v Speaker 1>be a little more like Chief Justice Roberts in that

0:02:23.880 --> 0:02:26.800
<v Speaker 1>he wants the court to move slowly. But there was

0:02:27.280 --> 0:02:32.320
<v Speaker 1>UH an emergency application filed by the Trump administration recently

0:02:32.400 --> 0:02:36.400
<v Speaker 1>having to do with restricting where people could claim asylum

0:02:36.440 --> 0:02:40.480
<v Speaker 1>along the Mexican border. The Chief Justice John Roberts voted

0:02:40.520 --> 0:02:46.000
<v Speaker 1>with the liberals to reject the administration's emergency application UH,

0:02:46.040 --> 0:02:50.000
<v Speaker 1>and Justice Kavanaugh joined with the conservatives, saying, we would

0:02:50.320 --> 0:02:53.600
<v Speaker 1>we would have voted to let the Trump administration require

0:02:53.680 --> 0:02:57.000
<v Speaker 1>that any asylum applications be made at ports of entry.

0:02:57.280 --> 0:03:00.600
<v Speaker 1>So we're we're seeing that Justice Cavana to be starting

0:03:00.600 --> 0:03:02.880
<v Speaker 1>to show some some different colors than we saw from

0:03:02.960 --> 0:03:06.240
<v Speaker 1>him in the first few months. And at the conference

0:03:06.240 --> 0:03:12.320
<v Speaker 1>on January eleventh, there are also some controversial cases coming. Yeah,

0:03:12.320 --> 0:03:14.240
<v Speaker 1>so this will be the second private conference that they

0:03:14.320 --> 0:03:17.480
<v Speaker 1>have coming back in the new year. UH to two

0:03:17.480 --> 0:03:20.639
<v Speaker 1>big issues there too of many significant issues, but the

0:03:20.880 --> 0:03:24.760
<v Speaker 1>two biggest ones I highlight are one the Trump administration

0:03:25.040 --> 0:03:28.000
<v Speaker 1>trying to let the president resend the DACA policy, that's

0:03:28.000 --> 0:03:32.400
<v Speaker 1>the fird deportation policy for UH young immigrants who came

0:03:32.440 --> 0:03:37.360
<v Speaker 1>here as children illegally UM and the second appeal that

0:03:37.480 --> 0:03:41.080
<v Speaker 1>involves the Trump administration's efforts to largely ban transgender people

0:03:41.080 --> 0:03:44.120
<v Speaker 1>from serving in the military. Both those cases will before

0:03:44.160 --> 0:03:47.640
<v Speaker 1>the Court be before the court in both cases. It's

0:03:47.680 --> 0:03:50.240
<v Speaker 1>possible the Court will duck those fights and not take

0:03:50.320 --> 0:03:53.240
<v Speaker 1>up the Trump administration appeals. But again, it's gonna be

0:03:53.280 --> 0:03:55.760
<v Speaker 1>hard for them to avoid them, particularly when you have

0:03:56.520 --> 0:03:59.240
<v Speaker 1>the federal government saying this is a really important issue

0:03:59.240 --> 0:04:01.920
<v Speaker 1>and we think you need to decide it. Now. What's

0:04:01.960 --> 0:04:05.840
<v Speaker 1>the latest on that mysterious filing that everyone's been talking

0:04:05.920 --> 0:04:09.040
<v Speaker 1>about that appears to ask the Supreme Court to intervene

0:04:09.320 --> 0:04:13.320
<v Speaker 1>for the first time in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation

0:04:13.400 --> 0:04:16.599
<v Speaker 1>into the election. Yet right now we're just waiting for

0:04:16.640 --> 0:04:19.239
<v Speaker 1>the court to act. So the Chief Justice John Roberts

0:04:19.240 --> 0:04:24.320
<v Speaker 1>has temporarily UH blocked a lower court order that imposed

0:04:24.680 --> 0:04:29.760
<v Speaker 1>finds on a mystery company H for not UH it's

0:04:29.800 --> 0:04:34.680
<v Speaker 1>owned by an an unidentified country, UH finds imposed for

0:04:34.839 --> 0:04:38.520
<v Speaker 1>not complying with a grand jury subpoena. Almost all the

0:04:38.560 --> 0:04:40.680
<v Speaker 1>documents in the case are undersealed, so we don't know

0:04:40.760 --> 0:04:43.520
<v Speaker 1>a whole lot. There are strong indications that it does

0:04:43.600 --> 0:04:47.040
<v Speaker 1>involve Robert Mueller, but beyond that, it's it's hard to

0:04:47.080 --> 0:04:50.960
<v Speaker 1>speculate on on exactly what's involved. But we are waiting

0:04:50.960 --> 0:04:54.160
<v Speaker 1>for the Supreme Court to do something that uh, potentially

0:04:54.160 --> 0:04:57.359
<v Speaker 1>will affect the Muller probe for the first time. Now.

0:04:57.680 --> 0:05:00.480
<v Speaker 1>A new movie came out over the weekend, the holiday

0:05:00.480 --> 0:05:04.559
<v Speaker 1>weekend about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. What's her prognosis after

0:05:04.720 --> 0:05:08.000
<v Speaker 1>undergoing lung surgery and the fall she had a few

0:05:08.040 --> 0:05:11.359
<v Speaker 1>months ago. She's an eight five year old woman, and

0:05:11.400 --> 0:05:14.960
<v Speaker 1>so you know that that grain of salt. But but um,

0:05:15.240 --> 0:05:18.080
<v Speaker 1>it appears to be good. There's no Uh. All the

0:05:18.120 --> 0:05:21.080
<v Speaker 1>information we've received from the court is that there's no

0:05:21.200 --> 0:05:24.600
<v Speaker 1>sign that the disease, the masses that were found on

0:05:25.720 --> 0:05:28.240
<v Speaker 1>um on her lung, there's no sign that those have

0:05:28.360 --> 0:05:31.400
<v Speaker 1>spread anywhere else. She was released from the hospital on

0:05:31.520 --> 0:05:34.800
<v Speaker 1>Christmas Day, UM, and every indication is that she will

0:05:34.839 --> 0:05:37.840
<v Speaker 1>be on the bench when the court returns next week.

0:05:38.400 --> 0:05:42.840
<v Speaker 1>You wrote a story about how her her medical condition

0:05:42.880 --> 0:05:47.240
<v Speaker 1>has led some to speculate on both sides. Yeah, this

0:05:47.320 --> 0:05:50.039
<v Speaker 1>is the you know, the greatest nightmare for liberals and

0:05:50.360 --> 0:05:54.479
<v Speaker 1>uh and potentially an amazing opportunity for conservatives if either

0:05:54.560 --> 0:05:57.719
<v Speaker 1>she or some other liberal justice. Keep in mind Stephen

0:05:57.720 --> 0:06:00.400
<v Speaker 1>Briars also eighty years old. If either the word to

0:06:00.480 --> 0:06:04.440
<v Speaker 1>have to step down, we would potentially move away from

0:06:04.440 --> 0:06:07.279
<v Speaker 1>this world where John Roberts is in the middle of

0:06:07.279 --> 0:06:10.960
<v Speaker 1>the court and holding the court back and limiting what

0:06:11.000 --> 0:06:14.479
<v Speaker 1>the Court does, to a world where John Roberts's vote

0:06:14.560 --> 0:06:17.200
<v Speaker 1>might not matter because Donald Trump could appoint a fifth

0:06:17.240 --> 0:06:20.240
<v Speaker 1>hardcore conservative to the Court, and then we could see

0:06:20.279 --> 0:06:24.039
<v Speaker 1>some real dramatic changes in American law. Greg you know,

0:06:24.160 --> 0:06:26.640
<v Speaker 1>John Roberts is the chief. I know his vote counts

0:06:26.680 --> 0:06:28.720
<v Speaker 1>as just as much as the other justices or the

0:06:28.760 --> 0:06:31.200
<v Speaker 1>other justices votes counts just as much as his. But

0:06:31.520 --> 0:06:34.640
<v Speaker 1>is there any more pull that he has or pushed

0:06:34.680 --> 0:06:38.479
<v Speaker 1>because he's the chief? Can he twist a few arms?

0:06:38.520 --> 0:06:40.920
<v Speaker 1>Certainly he can try. There are subtle ways. He does

0:06:41.000 --> 0:06:44.600
<v Speaker 1>have the power to assign opinions when he's in the majority,

0:06:44.600 --> 0:06:47.680
<v Speaker 1>and that's potentially a very important power because if you

0:06:47.839 --> 0:06:50.480
<v Speaker 1>have a justice who wants to go further in a

0:06:50.480 --> 0:06:54.599
<v Speaker 1>particular case, and John Roberts wants to issue a narrow ruling, uh,

0:06:54.640 --> 0:06:57.640
<v Speaker 1>he can assign himself the opinion and make sure that

0:06:57.680 --> 0:07:01.960
<v Speaker 1>the language of it is pretty limited. So it's potentially important,

0:07:02.000 --> 0:07:04.440
<v Speaker 1>but at the end of the day, Uh, he certainly

0:07:04.480 --> 0:07:08.200
<v Speaker 1>is a conservative justice. Now, there is a big argument

0:07:08.240 --> 0:07:11.720
<v Speaker 1>coming up in February that we've been talking about regarding

0:07:11.760 --> 0:07:14.280
<v Speaker 1>the census. So you have about a minute here to

0:07:14.320 --> 0:07:17.240
<v Speaker 1>tell us about that. Okay, this is the case, a

0:07:17.280 --> 0:07:22.000
<v Speaker 1>controversy over the addition of a citizenship question to the census,

0:07:22.040 --> 0:07:24.840
<v Speaker 1>and people who are opposed to it, UH say it's

0:07:24.840 --> 0:07:29.559
<v Speaker 1>going to depress depressed participation, UH and make it less

0:07:29.560 --> 0:07:33.800
<v Speaker 1>likely that that heavily Hispanic and often democratic areas will

0:07:33.840 --> 0:07:36.640
<v Speaker 1>be counted in the census. UH. And the issue is

0:07:36.680 --> 0:07:39.480
<v Speaker 1>what sort of evidence can be used in the trial

0:07:39.600 --> 0:07:43.280
<v Speaker 1>to consider whether the administration can put that that question

0:07:43.680 --> 0:07:48.800
<v Speaker 1>on the next census. Uh. The Supreme Court has interviewed, intervened,

0:07:48.840 --> 0:07:53.080
<v Speaker 1>excuse me, in a couple uh incremental ways before this

0:07:53.240 --> 0:07:56.400
<v Speaker 1>this argument. Now in late February, they're going to hear

0:07:56.520 --> 0:07:59.640
<v Speaker 1>arguments UH in a way that will potentially determine whether

0:07:59.680 --> 0:08:02.760
<v Speaker 1>that question can be on the next census. All right,

0:08:02.800 --> 0:08:06.080
<v Speaker 1>we'll be looking forward to that. That's Bloomberg News Supreme

0:08:06.080 --> 0:08:11.120
<v Speaker 1>Court reporter Greg Store. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg

0:08:11.200 --> 0:08:14.280
<v Speaker 1>Law podcast. You can subscribe and Listen to the show

0:08:14.320 --> 0:08:19.040
<v Speaker 1>on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast.

0:08:19.400 --> 0:08:22.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg