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