RBG Hints Sharp Divisions Will Mark SCOTUS Term

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg hinted that sharp divisions will mark the final weeks of the term. Joining me is Bloomberg new Supreme Court reporter of Greg store So Greg. Justice Ginsberg indicated in a speech that we'll be seeing a lot of decisions go down narrow partisan lines. She did, this is an annual speech she gives at the Second Circuit UH she's the Circuit Justice for for that that

covers New York and some other states. Um And occasionally she said some things that at least seem like their hints as to what's going to come. And she mentioned that about a quarter of the cases decided so far, I've been either five to four or five to three, and she said, I'm not sure I can predict that that low percentage will hold as we decide the last

couple dozen cases. So maybe even more than might that account for why we're seeing the decisions which always happens, but the decisions that we've really been waiting for, not only partis in Jerryman during the Senses, but many others in the last weeks here. Yeah, you're right that it

does often happen. If the cases were easy, they would decide them more quickly, and that's why sometimes we get a lot of nine nothing decisions earlier in the term, and at the end it's often the cases they've really been struggling with. Uh, we do have a number of cases that look like they could be ideologically divisive. You've

you mentioned the Gerryman during cases, the Census citizenship question case. Uh, there's a case over whether a cross a Fort cross in the Maryland intersection is a violation of the Constitution's Religion Clause. All those cases could be pretty divisive. So the Court did announce some decisions today about what cases to add for the term that starts in October. Let's start with the Supreme Court agreeing to use a Montana case to consider shielding companies from pollution cleanup suits. Yeah,

this is a case involving VPS Atlantic rich Field. Uh the uh it's a lawsuit about a super fun site up there. The e p A years ago set up a plan to clean it up, and there are some property owners who uh say that they want more than what might be coming to them under the p A plan. They want Uh there's arsenic that's in the soil. They want to have more soil removed. They want to have

it shipped further away. And so the question for the Supreme Court is whether that kind of lawsuit can go forward even in the face of an ep A plan to do a little bit less remediation. And what did the lower court rule? The lower court said the lawsuit could go forward. Atlantic Richfield asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. So we're now in the position where the company could limit the type of lawsuits that a

federal appeals court allowed. Another one that may limit lawsuits is a consideration of making it harder to press some types of civil rights suits. Yeah, this is a case involving Comcast. It's being sued by a black owned media company called Entertainment Studios Network owned by Byron Allen, and his allegation is that Comcast, like some other cable companies, refused to carry his his programming, so he Mr. Allen is black. His company has a number of shows that

he's been trying to get on on cable systems. UH Comcast refused it says it has legitimate reasons why it didn't want to add those programs his company says. Allen's company says no, it was racial discrimination. And he's suing under a law that was passed in the reconstruction era known as Night one that bars racial discrimination in contracting. And the question for the Supreme Court is a somewhat technical one, but it's basically, how much does he have

to allege in the lawsuit. Does he have to allege that racial discrimination was the reason he didn't get the contract that he wanted, or is it enough that racial discrimination was one of many factors that went into uh Comcast decision not to carry his channels. The Court has dealt with this issue with other civil rights statutes, and now it's going to resolve with regard to Section and to finish off the trifecta. Let's talk about the Intel suit. Yeah,

so there is there's a theme here to at least today. Yeah, where the three Records is agreeing to hear a bunch of the kind of meat and potatoes cases that that Corporate America likes them to take to limit lawsuits. Uh. The Intel one has to do with worker retirement plans and the deadlines for workers to sue. And so basically, an ex employee says Intel was making overly risky investments, too much money and hedge funds, too much money in private equity, and he sued. And there's a three year

statute of limitations in federal law. And he says that three year period doesn't start running until I have actual knowledge about what the investments are. Uh. Intel says, no, it's not actual knowledge. Look, we sent you the documents, uh, well more than three years ago, and you didn't look at them. And uh so that's when the three years ought to start running. When we sent you these documents

that you had access to electronically. Uh. It is one of now two cases involving retirement plans that the court has got to hear. It also, just a week or two ago agreed to hear a case involving IBM having to do again with how specific the allegations have to have to be in a lawsuit. And together these two cases could make it more difficult for employees to press suits over the investments in the retirement plan. And Greg,

this is known as a pro business court. So does it seem as if they're taking these cases in order to limit lawsuits? And at least some cases it does. Uh. You know, in some cases there is some lower court disagreement, and that that's always a reason the Supreme Court might want to get involved. But um, it's also fair to say that it's this court is quicker to and and and what happened today shows this a little quicker to hear appeals that are pressed by businesses trying to clear

up some lower court disagree mint. Uh, So I think if I were the companies in these cases, I might think that I'm at least starting with a bit of a lead. Now, the Court decided not to take up a case in violent involving guns, silence or registration. Tell us about that. Yes, And there's a federal law that requires if you if you're buying or or selling a gun, silence or they there's a federal law that imposes a

two tax and requires registration of it. And there are two appeals filed by two men from Kansas, one who bought a silence or one who sold the silence, or saying, among other things, that's a violation of the Second Amendment, Uh, that I have a right to own a silence or to sell a silence or without the kind of restrictions that are being put on me by the federal registration requirement. And the Supreme Court simply refused to hear those appeals,

didn't make any comment. Uh. And so for now, at least, the registration requirement stands. All right. Thanks so much, Greg. We'll probably be checking back with you later this week because we still could get some opinions this week. That's Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter of Greg Store. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brasso. This is Bloomberg