>> 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.