From New York Times, unlike all of our own. This is the day today. The support court begins ruling out a series of major works on the jury system, immigration, abortion rights and presidential power. Adam lip on the high court in the middle of the pandemic, it's Tuesday April. Twenty first.

Here we go Adam Michael! Is it you as the birds, chirping cattle or maybe it? May? I can close the window. I have a window, this cracked open a bit by bit. I condemn Dieter barrage Perrier, ok, thanks Thank you for turning off your birds least. I can do, and we usually talk to you after you spend a morning over the Supreme Court in the chamber, watching the justices, and I have to imagine to the routines of the cord that completely changed

The supreme Court is turned invisible to me. I cover the court now from you know my home office, whereas on days like this, when the court issued decisions, he typically the pact press, room and people listening to the justice is announced and decisions from the bench, but they ve postponed. Two sets of arguments and just recently decided to hear ten arguments by telephone, which is a brand new apiarians for all concerned and will let the public listening on those arguments, which is also a brain. You experience of live audio from the Supreme Court, so a lot is cheap so as different as everything is for the justices and for you covering them There was a major ruling that was handed down on Monday. To tell us about this case was so I'm sitting at my desk hitting the refresh button right before ten o clock in the case comes up. It's called rainbows verses, Louisiana. It involves eventually story

most who, in twenty sixteen was convicted of murder by a Louisiana jury, but only ten of the twelve jurors agreed that he was guilty and it presents a really significant question: can states luxurious convict people when they're, not unanimous in just one clear, the man at the centre of this case. Rumours was charged the mortar and Louisiana and he was convicted of that charge even though only ten of the twelve jurors believed that he was guilty, that's right to states Louisa! in Oregon, allow non unanimous jury is Louisiana's recently changed its constitution so going forward even Louisiana doesn't have this rule anymore, but that only applies going forward. So Mr Ramos was still on the hook for this and lots of other defendants and prisoners have been convicted in Louisiana by non unanimous jury he's. So the case is quite concert.

She'll, for perhaps thousands of people NOS two states and on what grounds to his lawyers, make a case that somehow gets up to the Supreme Court while they have what would seem to be a pretty strong case. The Supreme Court has said that were federal. Juries are concerned, the sixth amendment which guarantees the right to a fair trial, requires the jury's be unanimous and in general, the bill of rights applies to the states, just as it does to the federal government. So you would think that if you have this right in federal court, you ought to have an in state court to and that's the basic point most his lawyers pressed, and so how does this case unfold before the justices? But one fascinating aspect of the case, Michael, is that a hiss Three of these non unanimous jury laws were deeply tainted by racism. Louisiana used to require unanimously

is. But after the civil war and after a Supreme Court decision did said, the Louisiana and other states couldn't exclude blacks from juries. They held a constitutional convention they stated purpose of which was to ensure white supremacist. While in one upshot of it was to say ok, maybe we can have a couple black serve on juries, but we want to make sure that they will be powerless to alter the conclusion. And how does a non unanimous jury verdict? Disempower black chairs well, let's assume you're a black defended and, let's assume you're in the deep south where and all white jury Webby predisposed against you. But if you have a black sure or two,

That jury, who might be more willing to hear your story and might be more willing to give you the benefit of a reasonable doubt that could end up in a Hungary and it would prevent what would otherwise be in all white jury from railroading you. That would be the theory of real your argument next in case eighteen. Fifty nine, twenty four Ramos Verses, Louisiana, Mr Fischer, and how does this racial history come?

anywhere architects. Assertive justice, a map- please, the court- will re most. His lawyer makes clear that the presence of all sorts of minority voices on a jury deserve to be considered and heard and shouldn't be shut out, which is, if you have one or two members of a minority on a jury, could be a racial minority. It could be a political majority, it could be a religious minority. Are we really prepared to say that those one or two votes can be utterly cancelled out? The idea of the american jury system is that everyone gets a vote and the community as a community is meant to reach consensus. Not pretend people doubt vote to people and how did the justices approached this question of race? Well, nobody seriously disputes that the roots of these laws were ugly, that the rule

question here is rooted in an in racism. Justice Cavanaugh went on about the ugly history of Louisiana requirement rooted in a desire, apparently to diminish the voices of black charters in the weight, a team nineties. So do so. There was no real dispute that obviously racially war. Jury systems are bad, but at least some of the justices thought that what was true in the eighteen ninety- this is not a reason in twenty twenty necessarily to strike down these laws and which justice is made, that argument will the leading and, to my mind, most surprising proponent of the argument was justice. A Selina Kagan Obama appointee,

a liberal, but she said then listen some states to it. One way some states do it another way we ve been doing it this way. For a long time, and there's no reason to reverse course. At this point, and what do you make of that? I think that if Justice Kagan were riding on a blank slate, he would surely be on the other side, but she's. The court's leading proponents,

of respect for precedent and there's a precedent in play in this case in nineteen. Seventy two: the court in a fractured decision, allowed these kinds of laws, and this is an outlier in our incorporation doctrine. There's no question that it is, but it's been an outline for fifty years it's been completely administration has been completely clear. States have had every right to rely on this for fifty years. It doesn't matter whether it was wrong because overruling something requires more than just the decision be wrong. It's been their states have relied on it. There's no reason to change at the end story designed for justice, gig,

more important to stick to that precedent, then, to drive herself to the result. She might otherwise want she's playing along game and that long game includes the day when a challenge to Roby weighed the nineteen. Seventy three decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion reaches the court and she wants to have as much fire power is possible to insist that the work, respect precedent in that sitting and she's willing to make the argument in every sitting, because she thinks the stakes are high enough Such is making a larger point about the need for the court to remain faithful to president. That's right, I think she's nervous This new conservative majority on the Supreme Court is poor.

He's done, do all sorts of precedents and, in particular, she's nervous about abortion rights and she's nervousness. The court will take up the challenge to Roby weighed, and so she is trying to marshal is much evidence and and as many arguments for it, during the president's and its importance to the rule of law in stability and respect for the court is she can do so without in mind. How did the justices, including justice, can, end of ruling on Monday in this Louisiana case, so the vote is sixty three to strike down the Louisiana LAW and it's a really rambled line up. It's a very unusual lineup justice Gore Such wrote, the majority opinion and he was joined by all of justice, Kagan usual liberal allies. This is Ruth Baker, Ginsburg Stephen Briar

and soon you sort of my work and also in large part by justice, bread, Cavenaugh Justice, Thomas rode, his opinion all for himself, but agreed on the bottom line that Dil laws were no good and on the other side, you have too conservative justices Chief Justice Roberts engine, this Samuel Alito joined by Justice king in the liberal and their dissent is completely focused on respect for president. I have no reason to think they think this Louisiana law is a good idea, but they also say that lowering the bar for overruling our president's, is a bad idea, and I think the audience Justice Kagan was speaking too was not her liberal colleagues, but her conservative means saying I'll come along with you, chief justice, Robertson, justice leader in this one, and I'm here. Pull the when the day comes, that we confront the same issue in a setting where your policy instincts might go in a different direction. You too will respect precedent,

in other words, she sang all come with you in this case, and I hope you will come with me when Ruby Wade is or when is a major abortion case- that's right and, of course, TAT Day may be coming up we may have been an abortion case. The court will almost certainly decide by June a very quick answer to the question of whether Justice Kagan got anything for her vote in this jury case, or they back. The New York Times wants to invite you to join our panel by joining our panel you'll provide regular feedback about the show and your general experiences with advertising in products

the times while connecting with fellow listeners and readers join it and why times, dot com, slash daily Listener Adam. We have talk with you about this case so before, but remind us of this abortion case that Justice Kagan seems to be eyeing so closely. What's one of several big cases in what shaping up to be a blow Mr Term, but it's the one that most pointedly gets at this question of respect for president It involves the Louisiana law. They requires doctors performing abortions, David admitting privileges, nearby hospitals and

probably will drive the number of clinics in Louisiana down to one and the number of doctors able to perform abortions at the clinic, also to one drastically reduce the availability of abortions. In the easy Anna, I say that this picks up on precedent because just a few years ago, in twenty sixteen, the court struck down is unconstitutional and essentially identical, Texas law. So just a few years later, it's come back to decide the same basic legal question in a different state, and it's gonna give us a very strong sense of where the court stands on. The power of precedent right most feels like an ideal test of whether Justice Kagan can say to her conservative colleagues, I will do you a solid, unprecedented now, it's time for you to do one for me, and this would be the perfect case. That's right, ok! So what's the next major decision that will becoming

in the next few months were also waiting to hear a set of cases argued very early in the term, which present a very consequential quest and of whether a landmark federal civil rights law protects gay and transgender people from job discrimination. The law says you can't discrimination based on sex and the question of what those words mean whether sex applies to sexual orientation, discrimination and transgender status. Discrimination will matter to millions of Americans who are in most of the country not protected from job discrimination right in a whisper to you about this case and about the plaintiff, who worked for a funeral home and says she was fired after telling her boss that she

was transitioning from male to female right and your experience is emblematic of what is a very important case, because Justice Anthony Kennedy, who rode all four of the court's major gay rights decisions, has left. The court

placed by the more conservative justice bread Cavenaugh? So this will give us a real insight into this courts. Commitment to gay rights in transgender rights were also gonna, get a major constitutional showdown on presidential power. It involves subpoenas from Congress in from prosecutors seeking President's Frumps Tax records, so that case, which has echoes of the Nixon tapes case in which President Nixon was made to turn over evidence in the Watergate scandal to Clinton against Jones, in which President Clinton was made to give a deposition sexual harassment case. All of that involves a real confrontation between executive power and the rule of law and the ability of prosecutors in Congress to get access to evidence, and it's really gonna put to court to attest, given that those earlier decisions were both them unanimous,

both of them involved. Appoint ease of the president in question will be very interesting to see how Trump sapling keys justices courses in Cavenaugh rule in a case involving him. My incredibly farming Adam those two previous cases involving both Nixon and Clinton, ended with in Cavanaugh rule, in a case involving must turn these documents these tapes over, yet in both of them, the president had to submit evidence. That's right and unanimously and including justices did he had appointed to the court. So that's it. Instance also. We ve been talking about present, where president will probably have some gravitational pull over. What the court does there, not precisely identical issues, but there are certainly very similar. So in the next few weeks, the court is gonna, be

when, on the future of abortion, on whether a civil rights law protects gay and transgender Americans in the workplace and whether the president can keep something as important as his tax records from congressional investigators and supreme concession. Oh there's more were also weight. Here on a case that will affect some seven hundred thousand young immigrants, known as dreamers brought to the United States as children, and whether the trumpet ministration can roll back approach M meant to protect them from deportation and allow them to work and weird that case stand their cases awaiting decision, but just on Monday There was a develop into small development, but a telling one where the court allowed some of these dreamers lawyers for some of these dreamers to submit an additional brief, making the point that

the corona virus pandemic should figure. In the case it's not immediately obvious, but once you think about it, it is obvious some twenty seven thousand of these dreamers work in there care industry, summer, doctors, summer, nurses, summer, emergency, medical technician, some work in other parts of hospitals and so on, and if the court were to decide the trumpet Creation can shut down this programme. In the midst of the pandemic, it could do real damage to society's ability to respond to the pandemic because they would be forbidden from being able to work. I wonder Adam if used, an argument like that could possibly sway the justices, given that it is such a practical rationale for rolling one way, rather than a kind of legal one. It's

to have to do almost exclusively with the on the ground consequences rather than a kind of larger legal theory. So two points the justices don't always admitted, but of course they take account of what the real world consequences of their decision. It's going to be. In the transgender case we talked about a second ago. Everyone went on and on what would happen to our bathrooms if we rule in favour transgender people, that's not a question about what the law requires. That's a question about consequences on the guy but the other is that there is a way to make this a legal argument. The question in this case was whether the administration had gone adequate consideration to the costs and benefits of its move, and this might be one place where they didn't give adequate consideration to the council, Of their move and the crisis is now revealing those consequences that's right

It sounds like you're saying that, although justices may not explicitly say this pandemic could very well Florence, how they rule in a case like doc. I feel certain that, on some level, Dick Account of it reminds me of a famous statement by justice, Phyllis frankfurter who said there comes a point where this court should not be ignorant as joy. Of what we know is men. In the real world intrudes generally.

World has doing food and it would be foolish to think otherwise. We were talking about precedent earlier, Michael and, of course, respect for precedent is important. It's an aspect of the rule of law, but the court has to balance all kinds of things: practical considerations, the societal consequences of its decisions, the public's respect for the authority of the court and getting that makes right is what makes their job to be a Supreme court justice so very hard bottom. Thank you very much. Thank you might go back

Vanguard was founded on the simple, but radical idea that initiative company can succeed because it puts investors. First, Vanguard is and only you The funds and the funds own Vanguard, which means Vanguard, is built to ensure that your interests will be the priority together. Vanguard, thirty million investors are changing the way the world invests, visit, Vanguard, Doc, or talk to your financial adviser to learn more here's. What else you need

on Monday, several states in the American South announced plans to begin reopening their economies. Despite evidence that the corona virus is still spreading across the country for the good of our state, social distancing must continue, but our economic shut down. Not South Carolina is allowing shops ranging from department stores to flee markets, to resume operations immediately. Georgia said that residents could return to gems and so long as a Friday and dine at restaurants starting Monday and in Tennessee Governor Billy said that most businesses will be allowed to reopen on May first. While we continue to observe social distancing for tennesseeans, I will not extend the safer.

At home order. Past April phobia. All three states said they would still require social distancing measures at the reopened businesses, but its unclear how they would be enforced, and for the first time in history, the price of a barrel of oil did lose Euro on Monday as invest Yours deemed its value as essentially worthless. The anomaly occurred, because the pandemic is just growing demand for energy, meaning that there is now far more oil They can be used or stored the negative price for barrels to be delivered in May yield that sellers are now willing to pay for access oil to be taken off their hands.

that's it for the deal. I Michael bottle. Cinema. This episode of the railway is supported by the new Showtime original series penny dreadful city of angels when a gruesome, are shocks. Nineteen thirty eight hundred and thirty Tioga Vega, his partner Louis mentioned, or find themselves grappling with nazi spies, crooked politicians and powerful supernatural forces Natalie D, We're Daniels of Otto Nathan Lane STAR in penny, dreadful city of angels, preparing April twenty six. Only on Showtime, the daily listeners contrive Showtime free for thirty days go to. No time dot. Com now and enter CO daily offer expires, may twenty fourth, twenty twenty