With the coming of october comes a new term at the Supreme Court with a lot of cases to be letterhead and a lot of topics to be considered and here to set the stage on what is determined is greg stohr, our bloomberg reporter and thanks for giving us your time. Guest good to be honor. Host if you had to break it down as the issues to expect, how would you do that . Guest we dont have blockbuster cases like the Abortion Case or affirmative action case but there are hot button social issues at the court or likely to be there and include as gun case, a potential Abortion Case or a transgender rights case and then there are a lot of cases about the structure of government that are perhaps a little morwongy but very, very important for the power of administrative agencies here in washington. Hese cases come frome fifth Circuit Court of appeals. Can you explain what the court is and host can you explain what the court is and why so many cases appear . Guest this is texas, louisiana, and mississippi and pretty much the most conservative Appeals Court in the country. And conservative litigants, including the state of texas, likes to file cases there and the fifth circuit has issued a number of rulings, many of which are before the Supreme Court this year that go beyond are more conservative than the Supreme Court has yet allowed and includes the gun case im sure well be talking about. Ones term is does this conservative Supreme Court want to go as far as the fifth circuit. Host our guest with us for the half hour if you want to ask about these cases we heard. You can do that at 202 7488001 four republicans. Democrats, 202 7488000. Independents, 202 7488002. You brought up guns and if domestic abusers can on them. Guest go back a couple terms, the Supreme Court upholds says theres a constitutional right to carry a weapon in public. The court in the case set up a tough new test for gun regulation saying you have to have historical analog. Look at history and tradition and if we cannot find something in 1789 or around the end of expect regulation were looking at today, it is unconstitutional. With that as the backdrop, the fifth circuit took up this case involving the federal law that says if you are subject to Domestic Violence restraining order, you can lose your gun rights and a man was prevented from owning a firearm. He subsequently was involved in of this allegedly several shootings, the and his girlfriend threatened his girlfriend, physically abuse her and to suffer an ink a number of women and the question is whether he retains his Second Amendment right is threatening to abuse another woman and the question is whether he retains his Second Amendment right. Host what is the biden of case in the matter . Guest the history and tradition test does not require to define the exact thing that when you go back and look at the history. In 1789 we were talking about the messick abuser and it does not have to be detest here. They say it is a case where we have individual lies finding. A judge found this person was dangerous and in that context Second Amendment does not let him go out and get a weapon and potentially use it to get someone else. Host go back to 2022 record took action on Second Amendment standalone the court took action on Second Amendment standalone. Guest if they are going to state no this man does not have Second Amendment right, will have to do with the test they set up in 2022. Theyre going to have to explain why finding an exact historical analog is not always the test. Theyre going to have to provide more flexibility for governments and setting up gun restrictions. If not, it is hard to see how any gun restriction, of any significance, is going to survive Second Amendment reviewed with this court. Host that is why the case is to be considered. One of the other cases came from the result of the obama administration, Consumer Financial protection bureau. Being consider on is on with operation, particularly its funding. Guest this was a case argued just yesterday. The question a case of the fifth circuit and fifth circuit said the way the cfp gets its funding is unconstitutional. Draws the money from Federal Reserve and not subject to yeartoyear aggression appropriation so it would have been subject to the Government Shutdown had that happen. The cfpb is an agency set up after 2008 financial crisis regulates mortgages, home loans, Consumer Products and conservatives have long set is unaccountable. Has too much power. The question is whether the Supreme Court will try to grow back cfpb in this way. The argument yesterday suggests they were skeptical of the argument that funding mechanism is unconstitutional. Host there is reporting justices had questions coming from the lawyer representing challengers. Guest even Justice Thomas, Justice Kavanaugh, some of the conservative justices were questioning whether this agency whether it be cfpb was any different from other agencies, including the customs service, set up at the time of the founding, how they get their funding. Secondly, Justice Thomas had asked the question he said you may be right this is something new and different, but even so, what is the constitutional problem . You give us a constitutional argument. The argument that misappropriation clause somehow limits Congress Discussion setting up an agency did not sound that there was a whole lot of support for that argument. Host on the topic of Regulatory Power, give us a legal one on one, a case taking a look at the topic known as chevron deference, implications there. What is it . How does it apply to at the justices will hear . Guest chevron deference is this doctrine established in 1984 by the Supreme Court. It goes to the question of who gets to interpret the primary role in interpreting statutes. In the chevron case, the court says if an agencys interpret ambiguous term in the statue, if it is reasonable, we the court will defer to the agency. When it happened conservatives like that were building because they liked what agencies were doing and liberals did not like it. Now things have flipped. Conservatives arent unhappy with the chevron doctrine. Liberals want to defend it. The court is considering abolishing that doctrine, returning that. Is a case that arises out of rules in new jersey, this may be that the conservatives who have been after the chevron doctrine may say to themselves, it not doing work here. We have limited it so we do not need to overturn it. But certainly this is the court that is skeptical of the power of the administrative agencies, so one would expect they narrow the chevron doctrine even more. Host will in ohio on the line for independents. Youre on with greg stohr talking about the upcoming Supreme Court term. Caller thank you, mr. Stohr. On the cfpb case, are there other Government Agencies funded like the cfpb . If that funding mechanism is overturned, what will happen to the cfpb . Also, when can we expect and decision . A decision . Guest much of the argument was about whether the cfpb is like any other agencies. A lot of the liberal and conservative justices were saying you cannot distinguish the cfpb from the Federal Reserve. It is basically the same. The Federal Reserve also is not subject to yearbyyear congressional appropriations. To get this money from Federal Reserve banks it gets its money from Federal Reserve banks. Join that line challengers to the cfpb urged the court to do that make it an only rolling but it is not seem like the court sees a way to do that. By the administration has argued that the ruling by the fifth circuit has passed a legal cloud over everything the cfpb has done since its inception. The case is nearly just about payday lending rule that has not been enforced because the fifth circuit said the cfpb operating illegally this whole time, other defendants have raised this issue in pending cases. There are questions about how it might apply to pass cases and pass roles. From the argument did not seem like the Supreme Court was interested in going there at all so we would not see that disruption. Host again, greg stohr is our guests. Democrats, 202 7488000. Republicans, 202 7488001. Republicans, 202 7488001. Independents, 202 7488002. You probably seen the polling and Clarity Trust in the Supreme Court. How does it factor into the perception of the court, how justices viewed their work. Guest the perception of the court is not good right now. Whether that matters to the justices is a bit harder to say, it probably matters to some of them rather than others. That said, the efforts, controversies the past year do weight on the court. They are very cognizant of that. There are some suggestions they might be changing how they operate in public a little bit. Maybe there is less willingness to do some things they might have done otherwise. It is certainly in the back of the minds all the time. Host Justice Thomas coming into the low light because of the propublica pieces. As far as someone who watches the court, what do you think about the way they do things to get they talk about these things . Do you get a sense they care . Guest my sense is they cannot avoid talking about it, at least a little bit. There certainly Justice Kavanaugh has said clearly they are working on some sort of code of conduct or something along those lines. Justice kavanaugh suggested he is hopefully to come up with something soon. Theyre talking about it at least on that level. Some of these stories, it is hard to say how much they talk about the stories of Justice Thomas. The interviews Justice Alito has given to the wall street journal. There are very aware of those. No doubt some of those topics are awkward for them to talk about. It is a bit of a challenge for them to just focus on their work without letting all that be a distraction. Host it was Justice Kagan recently in an interview talks about the potential for that code of ethics. Going to play on little bit about what she had to say. [video clip] we are in a situation where we have committed to following certain kinds of ethical rules, respecting judges, but have said you only be guided by others. We have committed to following the gift roles the other judges follow rules that other judges follow an outside income that other judges follow but other judges havent extensive code of ethics that governs everything they do and there has been concern and i think is a legitimate concern that the Supreme Court is an unusual kind of court in certain respects and some of the rules do not fit as well at the Supreme Court level then they do at the level of lower courts. But, of course, what we could do is adapt the code of conduct that the other Court Systems have to reflect those slight or certain differences. I think it will be a good thing for the court to do that. It would help in our own compliance with the rules. It would i think go far as persuading other people we were adhering to the highest standards of conduct. Host does chief justice has interest of playing that kind of template other justice have to start under to the Supreme Court . Guest he has an interest in it. He is not a said that much. He has put out when they declined to testify before the Senate Judiciary committee, he put out the statement of symbols and practices that all principles and practices all justices sign it. He has made brief comments talking about the importance of ethics. He is somebody who has always cared deeply about the institutional standards of the court. That is something not everybody agrees with in terms of how he thinks about it is important for the court, but the courts reputation, the respect the court gets around the country, the that is always been high on the list of priorities and cannot be lost on him coming out with some code of conduct that seems like the court get there are legitimate issues here about gifts and disclosures and things like that. Will go a long way to at least being First Step Towards regaining some of that confidence. Host joe in virginia. Republican line. Caller thanks for taking my call. Thank you for your guest. I have a legal question concerning former president donald trump. This is question i think a lot of americans have come especially trump supporters. My legal question is this. With all the misinformation and all the slander, i will give you four examples. Dirty dossier that turned out to be paid for by democrat and holy clint hillary clinton. The Mueller Report were he was cleared to create the new charges that seem to be ridiculous, over property values. What is Donald TrumpsLegal Recourse is the actually filing personal lawsuits against these people, government and a former government officials, who have lied in public to smear him . I want to know if he has a Legal Recourse to sue people for slander or defamation because if he does, why do you think he has not done so yet . Guest that is probably a little outside area of coverage. I covered the Supreme Court. The caller made allegations there. People would disagree with, certainly donald trump has said he will file a lot of lawsuits and then not file them. My own observation of the president had a strong legal case on any of those things, he is not afraid to file a lawsuit. None of what i heard there has made it up to the Supreme Court in any way shape or form. When cases involving donald trump, not as president , but as an individual, have made it up to the Supreme Court, he has not fared very well. The court has ejected his arguments. Not exact arguments the caller is bringing up, but at least for the Supreme Court standpoint, a lot of the times Donald Trumps arguments do not hold a lot of water. Host back to an january 6. We saw Justice Thomas recuse himself concerning a case about that. Is there a the initial report came back of what he did it . Guest Justice Thomas did not give an extra nation. Explanation. The case was an appeal filed for somebody who was a lawyer to President Trump during the time a january 6. Has been indicted in the georgia case. Hes also former law clerk to clarence thomas. This case did not have any particle sticks but stemmed from the House Committee looking to january 6 and their efforts to get his emails which they already gotten. The emails according to political report a year ago referred to Justice Thomas in efforts to use him tal to him to try to overturn the election results. There are some factors in there including the fact that his former clerk and potential reference there that might explain why Justice Thomas recuse in this case it is not recuse in other cases stemming from the election in january 6. Host joe in maryland. Caller good morning. Thank you for taking my call. I just wanted to comment from a citizens perspective and try to be as honest as possible. People call in and defending donald trump and everything he has done. He asked the gentleman a question. The question was how this he have a recourse. He has a recourse but everything he was accused of has been proven. It is factual. People calling in defending trying to turn it around, i do not know where they get their news source from. Host you are on with our guest. We are talking to the Supreme Court about the Supreme Court. Caller the Supreme Court done what they need to do. They do the right thing by the constitution, as far as honesty is concerned, this summit and the Supreme Court has no problem gentleman and the Supreme Court has no problem. Host we saw history made with Supreme Court overturning roe v. Wade but when it comes to matters of abortion, to see any other cases on that front . Guest there is an uphill the the Biden Administration has failed which the court will probably take up having to do with mifepristone, the abortion pill. That came up to the Supreme Court on emergency basis a few months ago and the court said that pill remain fully available, while litigation goes forward. Legal fight is basically and abortion advocates arguing that the fda gave short Scientific Evidence of dangerousness when it approved the drug and when expanded access. At this point the fight is about the expanded access. The fifth circuit said the fda, it blocked the rules that allowed the pill to be mailed so people do not have to go in person visit to a doctor and that allowed use beyond up until the 10th week of pregnancy. The Biden Administration has appealed that the Supreme Court. We have find out whether the court will take that case. For now it remains available at least until the Supreme Court deal with the appeal. Host marcus arndt was it could one concern was a kid go to the fda and Regulatory Power and impact. Is that still a concern . Guest it is a concern for supporters among the fda. This unusual case where the federal Court Essentially secondguess scientific judgment of the fda. Said it did not give enough treatise of the arguments credence to the arguments that the drug was dangerous. Concern is if a court can do that, it can do that with all manner of drugs the fda has approved. Host one of the topics debated on capitol hill frequently is social media and it looks like the justice may have to take a look at a couple cases concerning that. From texas and florida. Guest there is that bucket and another bucket. Texas and florida laws both conservatives run states would restrict the discretion of social Media Companies when they say take down misinformation. The texas law requires them to be social Media Companies have to be cannot engage in viewpoint termination. They cannot take down the ideas. The idea they have taken down to many conservative post. Florida law has not the provision, one requiring a detail extra nation for every time they take down a post explanation for every time they take down a post. Supreme court has agreed to take of both cases. Federal appeal court split. Another potential case with you here about having to do with the Biden Administrations contact with social Media Companies. The fifth circuit with the by the administration can do in the case stemming of covid misinformation. We could have several social media cases this term. Host claire. Independent line. Caller hello. Soon as possible, it is truly political. Host do you have a question about the Supreme Court . Caller do i have a question about the Supreme Court . Host yes, our guest deals with the Supreme Court. Caller i think theyre doing just fine the way we are. Host all right. One of the papers highlights of the headline a headline dealing with the americans with disability acts. What is the impact . Guest it is a case being argued today and it has to do with socalled tester standing. The question is whether somebody who probably is not going to go to a hotel, can go to their website and say Hotels Website and say they may not have complied with the ada to provide certain information about access to make sure suitable access for people to use the hotel. The question is whether it somewhat like that can file a lawsuit. The advocates being able to sue saying if they cannot come admix it tougher it makes it tou ghter for tougher for us to force enforce it. Host mike the democrat line. Caller do we have anything on the docket regarding elections and how they are conducted, politically since we have had so much controversy with whether the election was stolen, whether the electronic machines can be programmed to deceive . Do we have anything on the docket concerning how we go about our elections . Anything there to try to resolve the controversies . Because it seems that it has been a lot of energy wasted on this issue. We did not have these problems back in the 1960s and 1970s. We have anything to look forward to with the Supreme Court . Any case or controversy that is on the docket for that . Guest so, there is nothing yet with regards to how we come to vote, the questions of machines and the like. It is early and we have an election next year so would not be surprised if something crops up. There is one election case that is a bit different, very important. Another edition case out of socket redrisrictng case at South Carolina. Whether they needed to create a second majority black district in alabama. The Supreme Court essentially said yes, and that had to do with the Voting Rights act. This is the case having to do with equal protection clause and the argument is that South Carolina republicans when they drew their districts, took race into account too much. They intentionally cap particular district at a number of africanamericans voters and even though the Supreme Court has even though the Supreme Court has said that lawmakers have a free hand to gerrymander for political reasons, they still cannot do it for racial reasons. That is the South Carolina case the court will be considering next week. Host our guests work can be found up bird. Com. Greg stohr reports on the Supreme Court for bloomberg. Cspans washington journal to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy. From washington and across the country. Coming up thursday morning, craddick strategist rosenberg talks about the battle over House Speaker and the impact on campaign 2024. And we continue our conversation on the next House Speaker with Tennessee Republican congressman ken goodrick and then political education reported Michael Strafford discusses student loan payments resuming this month. And president bidens latest efforts to ease student debt. Join the conversation live at 7 a. M. Eastern on thursday morning on cspan in cspan now or online at cspan. Org. Cspan is your unfiltered view of government. We are fd