Neil Gorsitch's nomination to the Supreme Court change the United States Senate with Republicans eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations in order to put him on the court, and following that Senate fight, Gorsitch was confirmed last week and had very little time to prepare for his first day on the bench, which was today. Today, he took the seat as signed for the most junior justice and heard
and heard arguments in several cases. We're going to talk about Gorsage's first day with Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store, who's also our co host on Bloomberg Law. Greg, how did Gorsige do today? Did he dive right in? Oh, he definitely dove right in, Michael. He was in the first argument, probably the most active questionnaire. Uh he uh waited about ten minutes and then he dove in, and essentially what he said was and this is a question
involving the rights of federal employees. When he basically said was, as I read the statute, actually both of you, you lawyers are wrong, and and it suggested that maybe some previous Supreme Court cases were wrong as well. Well, that's a bowl way to start on your first day, Greg. That prompted, according to your story, Justice Elena Kagan to
say he was proposing revolutionary changes in the federal law. Yes, although she quickly filed it up by saying, in this very obscure technical area of the law, Um, this was the case. I'll try to explain it very explain it very briefly. But Justice, as we're joking about how complicated the statute was and how little seemed to be at stake.
It's basically a question of of if an employee, uh federal employee has both a claim that he was fired in violation of the federal civil service laws and in violation of federal discrimination laws, where that claim can go forward federal district court, federal appeals court. So highly technical, but he did seem to be suggesting, and Justice Kagan called him on it that he thought that some earlier
Supreme Court decisions might might be wrong. Is it unusual for a justice on his or her first day to jump in with the her He seems to have jumped in with No. I looked back a little bit, and both Justice Kagan and Justice so to Mayor, who are the next most junior justices on the Court on their first days, which were at the beginning of Supreme Court terms, they were very active as well, so it's not that unusual.
But it was really striking that he was proposing a way of reading the statute that seemed to go beyond what either of the lawyers were advocating for. What was the tone of his questioning When I read part of your story that described his questioning, some of it sounded a little bit sarcastic. There was a little bit of that, yes, so it was um. There were a lot of questions
and there there were different tones. At one point he apologized for taking up so much time, but there was a point in the argument where the lawyer for the the employee, Chris Landau, said, we're not trying to break any new ground here, and Justice Course it's shot back by saying, uh that, no, you're just you wanna quote just continue to make it up again, suggesting that that is following some of these earlier Supreme Court decisions that
Justice Course has thought might have been wrongly decided on the statute. Well, Greg, now that we know that he's not going to be a shy justice, it it appears what what are the cases you know earlier on in his tenure this week that um, he's going to get a chance to weigh in on Well, the one that is getting the most attention may actually go away. It's
a church state case involving UH Missouri. These things called blame amendments that a number of states have in their state constitutions, and Missouri UH interpreted its blame amendment as as meaning that a funding program for school playgrounds, the funding couldn't go to a church which had had a
school playground. And that case was supposed to come up to the Supreme Court it's going to be argued on Wednesday, But the governor there has just changed the way he's implementing that funding program, so that case may actually go away. So we may not see any of the or at least not many of the big ideological classes this term. But uh, the Court could agree soon to take up a voter I D case, could agree to take up
a gun case. Uh. There are certainly many big issues that are not for in Donald Trump's travel band could come to the Supreme Court. Certainly some big issues that are sort of on the threshold of being considered by the court. Great he did not take part in Friday's last Friday's conference, but he will be taking part in this Friday's conference. And do we have any idea what's going on at the conference. So a couple of those cases I just mentioned, You're right, he didn't take part
in the conference. UH, and and the Spring Court spokeswoman said he decided he was going to focus on preparing for the arguments this the court issued an orders list that sort of deferred consideration of a lot of those cases that they were talking about at that conference. So at the next conference at the end of this week, there will be the voter id case I alluded to coming out of North Carolina. Very good chance the Court in the next couple of weeks could say we're going
to take that case up. There's also a gun case out of California that UH concerns the right to carry a weapon outside the home. UH. Some some California residents say the state is being too strict in is limiting too many is preventing people from having a realistic chance to get a permit to carry a weapon outside the home. Both of those are cases that court could take up, and they would consider those UH next term starting in October Greig, thank you. It's always great to talk with
you about what's going on in the Supreme Court. And uh, I know you're gonna be busy following Justice Corsets as he blazes his path as the ninth justice on the Court.