>> THE SUPREME COURT IS EXPECTED

TO HAVE A MOMENTUS TERM HEARING

CASES ON GAY AND TRANSGENDER

RIGHTS, IMMIGRATION, ABORTION,

GUNS AND RELIGION.

NOT ONLY THAT, THE DECISION

SHOULD BE HANDED DOWN IN JUNE

RIGHT IN THE THICK OF THE

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

HERE TO BREAKDOWN THE BIG CASES

ARE MICHAEL SCODRO WHO CLERKED

FOR JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR

FROM 1998-1999.

ADAM MORTARA WHO CLERKED FOR

JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS FROM

2002-2003.

AND ANDY DEVOOGHT WHO SERVED

DURING THE 2002-2003 TERM AS A

CLERK FOR CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM

REHNQUIST.

WELCOME BACK TO "CHICAGO

TONIGHT."

THREE CASES DEALING WITH LGBTQ

RIGHTS.

MICHAEL GIVE US A STATEMENT OF

THE CASES.

>> WE HAVE THREE CASES THAT IN

COMBINATION RAISE TWO ISSUES;

ONE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE

FEDERAL ANTI-EMPLOYMENT

DISCRIMINATION LAW KNOWN AS

TITLE 7 WHETHER THAT LAW ALSO

PROTECTS EMPLOYEES BASED ON

SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

AND THE OTHER CASE, THE THIRD

CASE IN THE TRIO ASKS WHETHER IT

ALSO PROTECTS EMPLOYEES BASED ON

GENDER IDENTITY.

AND THE TITLE 7, THE KEY

LANGUAGE THAT IS AT ISSUE IN THE

STATUTE IS DISCRIMINATION

BECAUSE OF SEX AND WHAT THE

JUSTICES ARE ASKED TO RESOLVE IS

WHETHER THAT TERM INCLUDES

BECAUSE OF SEXUAL OTHER

YENIZATION AND GENDER IDENTITY.

>> ADAM ONE OF THE CASES THAT

THE APPEAL COURT LEVEL AND FOR

THE RECORD MY UNDERSTAND

SOMETHING RIGHT NOW IN THE

MAJORITY OF STATES IN THE

COUNTRY, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO

DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SOMEONE ON

THE BASIS OF SEXUAL OTHER ORIENN

OR GENDER IDENTITY.

>> ON THE BASIS OF FEDERAL LAW

THAT IS TRUE.

THE CIRCUIT COURT THAT COVERS

CONNECTICUT, VERMONT AND NEW

YORK THOSE COURTS HELD THAT

TITLE 7 BARS SUCH

DISCRIMINATION.

ONE OF THE CASES IN THE SECOND

CIRCUIT IS THE ONE THAT I ARGUED

BELOW THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN

FRONT OF THE COURT NOW.

BUT MANY, MANY STATES ALREADY

BAN DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS

OF SEXUAL OTHER YENIZATION OR

GENDER IDENTITY.

IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT ALL THREE

STATES HAD ALREADY BANNED

DISCRIME FACE.

THE YES IS WHAT DOES FEDERAL LAW

PROTECT.

>> AND YOUR TAKE WAS?

>> WHAT I WAS ASKED TO ARGUE AND

WHAT I DID ARGUE IS THE MEANING

OF THE WORD SEX IN 1964 WAS

BIOLOGICAL SEX AND WHAT THE

PLAINTIFFS ARE TRYING TO DO IS

MAKE IT IF YOU SAY I WAS FIRED

BECAUSE I AM GAY THAT THAT IS A

DEFINITIONAL PROVE OF SEX

DISCRIMINATION BUT IT ISN'T.

A EMPLOYER GETS A RESUME FROM

ARE ASHLEY.

ASHLEY HAS THINGS ON THE RESUME

DISCLOSING THAT ASHLEY IS

HOMOSEXUAL AND THE EMPLOYER DOES

NOT WANT TO HIRE ASHLEY.

NOBODY KNOWS WHAT ASHLEY'S SEX

IS.

I HAVE GUY FRIENDS CALLED

ASHLEY.

YET IT CANNOT BE SEX

DISCRIMINATION.

YOU HAVE TO KNOW SOMEBODY'S SEX

TO DO IT.

>> AS YOU LOOK AT THE MAKEUP OF

THE KOURTNEY INDICATION BASED ON

PRIORS RULINGS OR PHILOSOPHY HOW

THE CASE MIGHT GO?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT

CONVENTIONAL WISDOM THIS WOULD

BE A 5-4 DECISION RULING THAT

SEX DOES NOT REACH SEXUAL

ORIENTATION OR TRANSGENDER

STATUS BUT IT WILL BE

INTERESTING SOME OF THE

STRONGEST ARGUMENTS FOR FOLKS

WHO SAY IT SHOULD REACH THOSE

AREAS ARE TEXTUAL ARGUMENTS AND

SOME OF THE JUSTICES IN THE LAST

COUPLE OF YEARS, KAVANAUGH IN

PARTICULAR, THE PLAIN MEANING OF

THE STATUTE FOLKS THINK IT WILL

BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THE

OPINION IS CONSTRUCTED IF IT IS

5-4.

>> CONVERSELY SOME OF THE

STRONGEST ARGUMENTS ON THE OTHER

SIDE ARE THE CONSERVATIVE

JUSTICE DON'T LIKE.

THE FACT THAT CONGRESS HAS BEEN

PRESENTED OVER AND OVER AND OVER

AGAIN WITH AN OPTION TO EXPAND

TITLE 7 AND DONE NOTHING IS TO A

LAYMAN POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF THE

CURRENT LAW DOES NOT COVER IT.

BUT TO THE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES

THAT LEGISLATIVE INACTION IS NOT

POWERFUL EVIDENCE.

>> ANDY TELL US ABOUT THE CASE

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES VERSUS G

IT IS AN ABORTION RIGHTS CASE.

>> THIS IS A CASE OUT OF

LOUISIANA HAVING ACT 620.

AND THIS CASE IS A FOLLOW ON TO

THE DECISION IN 2016 THE WHOLE

WOMEN HEALTH CASE OUT OF TEXAS.

THAT WAS A CASE IT HAD BASICALLY

TWO SETS OF WHAT THE COURT FOUND

TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

RESTRICTIONS ON A WOMAN'S

ABILITY TO RECEIVE AN ABORTION.

IT WAS ADMIT TANS PRIVILEGES OF

A DOCTORS THEY HAD TO HAVE

PRIVILEGES IN A HOSPITAL WITHIN

AN AREA OF CLINIC AND THE SECOND

HAD TO DO WITH THE FACILITY

HAVING TO PROVIDE CERTAIN

SURGICAL REQUIREMENTS.

THIS LAW, ONLY FOCUSES ON THE

ADMITTING PRIVILEGES.

SO IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE IN

THIS CASE, IT CAME UP THROUGH

LOUISIANA, THE DISTRICT COURT

FOUND IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

THINKING IT WAS APPLYING THE

SUPREME COURT'S 5-3 DECISION.

THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE

FIFTH CIRCUIT 2-1 RULED IN FACT

THE DISTRICT COURT AIRED AND THE

LAW WAS CONSTITUTIONAL.

TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE

MAKEUP OF THE COURT THIS IS ONE

EVERYONE WILL BE WATCHING

BECAUSE ALTHOUGH IT WAS 5-3 WITH

THE TEXAS PROVISION YOU NOW HAVE

A COURT WHERE ALL EYES WILL BE

ON ROBERTS.

HE JOINED ALITO'S DECENT

THINKING HE DID NOT THINK THERE

WAS A LINK BETWEEN THE PRIVILEGE

REQUIREMENTS AND THE INTERFERING

WITH A WOMAN'S ABILITY TO GET AN

ABORTION.

CONVENTIONAL WISDOM IS LIKELY

5-4 DECISION BUT WE HAVE TO SEE

HOW IT PLAYS OUT.

>> MICHAEL AS ONE LOOKS AT THE

ABORTION CASE, THE GUIDING STAR

FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT

APPEARS TO BE THE OVERTURN OF

ROE V. WADE.

COULD THIS CASE BE A MARKER IN

THAT POSSIBLE EVENTUALITY?

>> I THINK A LOT OF COURT

WATCHERS WILL LOOK FOR ANY

INDICATION WHICH WAY THE COURT

MAY BE HEADED WITH REGARD TO ROE

IN THE SUPREME COURT.

I THINK THIS CASE AS IT'S BEEN

OUTLINED, THIS PRESENTS A

NARROWER QUESTION.

IT IS NOT ASKING THAT ISSUE BUT

TO BE SURE PEOPLE WILL BE

LOOKING FOR SIGNALS BOTH FROM

WHO JOINS THE OPINION AND WHAT

THE OPINION LOOKS LIKE.

AND I AGREE THERE WILL BE A

DISSENT IT WILL BE A DIVIDED

COURT.

ONE OF THE THINGS PEOPLE ARE

LOOKING AT, SO CHIEF JUSTICE

ROBERTS DID JOIN WITH THE MORE

LIBERAL JUSTICES IN STAYING THE

EFFECT OF THE LAW EARLIER THIS

YEAR THAT IS TO GIVE THE SUPREME

COURT TIME TO ADJUDICATE THE

APPEAL.

AND PEOPLE WILL TRY TO READ INTO

THAT AS WELL.

HAS THE CHIEF JUSTICE SIGNALED

IN SOME WAY THAT HE IS WILLING

TO BE ALIGNED AND TO HOLD FAST

TO THE DECISION FROM 2016?

OR INSTEAD WAS THAT THE CHIEF

JOINING TO GIVE THE COURT TIME

TO VET THE ISSUE.

>> HOW ABOUT THAT, DO YOU AGREE

AT THIS POINT PEOPLE LOOK AT THE

COURT AND SAY GIVEN THE MAKEUP

OF THE COURT AT THIS POINT, THE

CHIEF JUSTICE IS KIND OF IN THE

MIDDLE TO WHAT EXTENT IS HE A

PIVOTAL CHARACTER AS TO WHETHER

OR NOT NOT JUST WITH ROE V. WADE

BUT OTHER CASES HE WILL ADHERE

TO PRECEDENT OR PURSUE CHANGE?

>> HE VERY MUCH IS THE KEY

FIGURE.

IN THIS ABORTION, LAY PEOPLE CAN

BE FORGIVEN THEY MIGHT THINK

THAT A THIRD OF THE CONSTITUTION

IS DEVOTED TO ABORTION AND NONE

OF IT IS.

AND WOMEN'S HEALTH CASE IS

WRONG.

WHAT THE CIRCUIT DID WAS PUT IT

BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT AND

SAY WITH JUSTICE KENNEDY GONE

AND THE SUPER LEGISLATURE THE

SUPREME COURT RECONSTITUTED ARE

YOU SERIOUS ABOUT THIS?

BECAUSE IT IS ESSENTIALLY AN

IDENTICAL CASE.

THEY HAVE SOME REASONS FOR

DIFFERING BUT NOT MUCH.

WHAT AND WHAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE

DID IS ADD A QUESTION AND IT

WAS: DO THE ABORTION PROVIDERS

EVEN HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE

THESE PROVISIONS.

AND I THINK WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE

IS THE COURT PLAY THEIR GET OUT

OF JAIL FREE CARD AND SAY WE ARE

NOT GOING TO OVERRULE BUT

ABORTION PROVIDERS CANNOT

CHALLENGE THESE LAWS.

>> MICHAEL LET'S TALK ABOUT GUN

RIGHTS THE NEW YORK STATE RIFLE

AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION VERSUS

NEW YORK.

>> THIS INVOLVES WHAT HAD BEEN A

NEW YORK ORDINANCE THAT

PROHIBITED THOSE WHO HAVE

SO-CALLED PREMISES LICENSE, THE

LICENSE TO HAVE A GUN FOR

SELF-DEFENSE IN THE HOME IT

PROHIBITED THEM FROM

TRANSPORTING THE FIREARM

UNLOADED OUT OF THEIR HOME AND

OUT OF THE CITY TO THE TWO SPOTS

THE FOCUS OF THE CASE HAS BEEN

GUN RANGES AND SECOND HOMES.

AND THE CHALLENGE WAS UNDER THE

SECOND AMENDMENT WHICH THE COURT

HAS NOT TOUCHED SINCE 2010,

AFTER A COUPLE OF DECISIONS 08

AND 10 WHERE THEY RECOGNIZED THE

PERSONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IN

THE HOMES AND APPLIED IT TO THE

MUNICIPALITIES THE COURT IS

ENTERING TO DECIDE WHAT SOMEWHAT

WHAT THE BOUNDS OF THAT RIGHT

MAY BE.

THERE IS A HICCUP TALK ABOUT THE

POTENTIAL GET OUT OF JAIL FREE

CARD HERE IT IS A DOCTRINE OF

MUTENESS.

NEW YORK NO LONGER HAS THAT LAW

ON THE BOOKS AND NEW YORK STATE

ALSO PASSED A STATUTE THAT

PERMITS NEW YORKERS TO TAKE

THEIR UNLOADED FIREARMS OUT OF

THE CITY FOR THINGS LIKE GUN

RANGES AND SECOND HOMES.

SO THE CITY SAID LOOK THERE IS

NO NEED FOR THE COURT TO REACH

THE MERITS HERE.

THIS IS NOW MUTE AND THE COURT

TODAY ISSUED AN ORDER SAYING

THANK YOU FOR INFORMING US WE

WILL TAKE UP THAT QUESTION WITH

THE MERITS OF THIS ISSUE LATER

THIS YEAR.

>> STAY TUNED FOR THAT ONE.

THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.

APPRECIATE IT.