Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: The showtime series Billions introduced television's first non binary gender
Speaker 1: identifying character, Taylor Mason, about four years ago. Hello, I'm Taylor.
Speaker 1: My pronouns are they, There's, and them. Gender neutral pronouns
Speaker 1: are not new. Marian Webster added a definition for a
Speaker 1: singular day in and they was even the word of
Speaker 1: the year. Many federal courts have referred to parties and
Speaker 1: other people who appear before them by the pronouns that
Speaker 1: conform to their gender identities, but remarkably, some courts have not.
Speaker 1: Joining me. As Holly Barker, Bloomberg Law Senior legal reporter,
Speaker 1: the new pronouns may be confusing to some people who
Speaker 1: aren't familiar with them, So just give us a little
Speaker 1: bit of background. For CIS gender individuals, I'm CIS genders.
Speaker 1: I was assigned female at birth, and I identify as
Speaker 1: a woman. Gender pronouns like he or she. You know,
Speaker 1: it's something we don't really think about. But for people
Speaker 1: who are transgender and or non binary, in other words,
Speaker 1: if they have a gender identity that's different from the
Speaker 1: sex they were assigned at birth, pronouns do matter, and
Speaker 1: they might experience being miss gendered regularly, and it's important
Speaker 1: because it's demoralizing for people, and there's been research that
Speaker 1: you know, it can have negative mental health consequences. So
Speaker 1: addressing people by the pronouns that are consistent with their
Speaker 1: gender identity is something that people need to do in
Speaker 1: light of this. Is there any new rule for federal
Speaker 1: courts about the use of gender pronouns. No, there's emphatically
Speaker 1: no rule or law requiring courts or counsel to report
Speaker 1: to parties or other people who appear in court by
Speaker 1: the pronouns that conformed to their gender identities, at least
Speaker 1: not yet, so federal courts have been handling it differently.
Speaker 1: Tell us about what happened in the Eastern District of
Speaker 1: Wisconsin in the lamb Risk case. So they're the attorneys
Speaker 1: for both parties and am using the pronouns days then
Speaker 1: and there to refer to the plane f Lamours, which
Speaker 1: was Lamous David preference, but the judge sort of basically
Speaker 1: decided it was too much trouble. So specifically, the court
Speaker 1: dropped a footnote explaining that the court didn't intend any
Speaker 1: disrespect the lamours but and this is a quote, because
Speaker 1: the use of plural pronouns to refer to individuals and
Speaker 1: proper understandard rules of English grammar, and it's confusing to
Speaker 1: the reader. The courts will use the singular pronouns corresponding
Speaker 1: to his biological sex here and when necessary. Meanwhile, both
Speaker 1: the Chicago Manual Style and the Associated Prest Style Book
Speaker 1: started recognizing singular use of day in certain circumstances in seventeen,
Speaker 1: and then in twenty nineteen Marion Webster added the definition
Speaker 1: of the singular day, and it was worth of the year.
Speaker 1: So the judges view that this is somehow grammatically incorrect
Speaker 1: or hasn't worked its way, and contemporary linguistics, it just
Speaker 1: isn't right. Sort of the signal it send is that
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter, because you know, it might be a
Speaker 1: hosshole and it might be stilted, but it's certainly possible
Speaker 1: to omit gender pronouns altogether when you're writing a legal opinion,
Speaker 1: almost especially because there are all sorts of other terms
Speaker 1: you can use, like plaintiffs. So it's sort of not
Speaker 1: making the effort to accommodate somebody's wishes in that regard
Speaker 1: is dismissive and I think sort of harmful for parties,
Speaker 1: But it doesn't seem like the judge in that case
Speaker 1: was trying to be unkind I agree. There was another
Speaker 1: case in the Sixth Circuit where the court producing to
Speaker 1: go out of its way to use a gender pronoun,
Speaker 1: in part because the Fifth Circuit has written opinions involving
Speaker 1: transgendered parties and omitted pronouns altogether. But I think you
Speaker 1: know one of the reasons, and they're the court declined,
Speaker 1: despite a request from a party to use the gender
Speaker 1: pronoun that conforms with their gender identity, and instead of
Speaker 1: pronoun altogether, decided to use the male pronouns, which were
Speaker 1: the pronouns that had been assigned at birth to the
Speaker 1: party that wanted to be referred to using female pronouns only.
Speaker 1: And one of the reasons they decided was to avoid
Speaker 1: the appearance of bias. And unless they were trying to
Speaker 1: appear biased, then the embedded assumption is that the sort
Speaker 1: of neutral thing we do in that situation is to
Speaker 1: use the pronoun that was assigned at birth, and it's
Speaker 1: not It's something that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is
Speaker 1: recognized as something that kin equal harassment, it's unintentionally and repeatedly, so,
Speaker 1: so I think rather than being this sort of malignant
Speaker 1: or intentionally harmful thing that judges are sometimes doing, I
Speaker 1: think it's sort of a misunderstanding of how importunate it
Speaker 1: is not to sort of intentionally call someone by the
Speaker 1: wrong gender pronoun the misgender them. So the fifth Circuit
Speaker 1: is considered the most conservative circuit in the country, but
Speaker 1: there are judges on that circuit who are handling it correctly,
Speaker 1: and there are judges that are handling it incorrectly. In USB. Varner,
Speaker 1: which is the decision we've been talking about, Judge Dennis
Speaker 1: wroteed this stunt, and in it he used female pronouns
Speaker 1: to discuss Warner, which was Warner's preference. So in that
Speaker 1: respect then it's deviated from the majority, which used male pronouns,
Speaker 1: and other judges like Judge Howe, for example, when he
Speaker 1: writes the opinions, he omits pronouns altogether just it almost
Speaker 1: seems to be a matter of course, there's not very
Speaker 1: much consistency. Dennis seems to agree that it's important to
Speaker 1: call somebody by their preferred pronouns, who avoids the issue
Speaker 1: altogether and Smith and Duncan, who were the two of
Speaker 1: the three judges on the panel, and usb Barner, who
Speaker 1: joined in the majority, either misunderstands the premise over being mean,
Speaker 1: and I would assume it was the former. You refer
Speaker 1: to it as I think this is a good title.
Speaker 1: You refer to it as grammatical Switzerland, what Judge James
Speaker 1: Howe does so. One of the Chicago manuals, the Styles
Speaker 1: General Rules, sort of provide strategies for writing around gender pronouns. Altogether.
Speaker 1: It's like repeating the noun if it's somebody's name, for example, um,
Speaker 1: or admitting the pronoun and it's not really necessary, and
Speaker 1: often pronouns sort of extraneous, and using an article instead
Speaker 1: of a pronoun so instead of his constitutional right, it's
Speaker 1: the constitutional rights for example. Well, while I in my
Speaker 1: view it's preferable to just use the pronouns people ask
Speaker 1: you to, for for some reason, somebody's used that neutrality
Speaker 1: is necessary. There's a way to do it um, and
Speaker 1: it's certainly better than this gendering somebody. The bus Dot
Speaker 1: case is a landmark Supreme Court case where the Court
Speaker 1: haild that Title seven protects employees against discrimination because they're gay,
Speaker 1: or transgender. Did that decision have any influence on what's
Speaker 1: hapening now in the courts with gender pronouns? Interesting that
Speaker 1: you asked that because Eric Corsich, who wrote the majority opinion,
Speaker 1: use female pronouns to refer to a transgender woman, the
Speaker 1: pronoun that this transgender woman wanted him to use. You know, again,
Speaker 1: there's no rule, and it wasn't, you know, something that
Speaker 1: the court said in any way that other courts needed
Speaker 1: to do, but just in terms of modeling, that's behavior
Speaker 1: that they modeled, and you would think that that might
Speaker 1: influence lower courts. And the USB Varner was in January,
Speaker 1: so uh, Bostock was in I believe June until later
Speaker 1: in that year, and most of the decisions I've seen
Speaker 1: since then either omit pronouns altogether or use the party's
Speaker 1: pronoun it's consistent with their gender identity. But still, you know,
Speaker 1: some courts don't, which takes us back to that Eastern
Speaker 1: District of Wisconsin decision where the judge basically said, you know,
Speaker 1: it's too much, too much trouble to use they in
Speaker 1: the singular to refer to this party despite their expression.
Speaker 1: So would you say the boss Stock decision did seem
Speaker 1: to influence most courts. That's really hard to say. Uh,
Speaker 1: most courts, I do think honor of parties requests. But
Speaker 1: you know, we're still seeing instances where where it's not happening,
Speaker 1: like in the Eastern District of was Content case, which
Speaker 1: is you know, decided a little over a year after
Speaker 1: Bostock and where the courts declined to use the party's
Speaker 1: request pronouns. We're still seeing it after Bostock. The Equal
Speaker 1: Employment Opportunity Commission released new guidance just explain that. So
Speaker 1: the agency commemorated the one Your Anniversary Boss Stok in
Speaker 1: June by releasing guid so so Boss Stock, just by
Speaker 1: way of a reminder held for the first time, the
Speaker 1: titles EVAN applies discrimination against homosexual and transgendered people. So
Speaker 1: they're you know, that being sort of a new principle.
Speaker 1: There wasn't a ton of guidance out about it yet,
Speaker 1: So the e o C to address that in June reiterated,
Speaker 1: among other things, that unlawful harassment can include intentionally calling
Speaker 1: someone by the wrong pronoun And they weren't They're not
Speaker 1: referring to sort of accidental or unintentionally doing it. They're
Speaker 1: talking about repeated and an intentional mis gendering. So it's
Speaker 1: something that they've recognized and constitute harassment. Thanks for being
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Laws Show. Holly, that's Holly Barker, Bloomberg Laws
Speaker 1: Senior legal Reporter. President Joe Biden has selected Elizabeth pre
Speaker 1: Lagger to become the next Solicitor General of the United States.
Speaker 1: Free Lagger is a veteran appellate lawyer who has been
Speaker 1: Acting Solicitor General since January. Join me as Kimberly Strawberry
Speaker 1: Robinson Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter. So tell us about
Speaker 1: the importance of the role of the Solicitor General. Well, sure,
Speaker 1: So the Solicitor General, although it's an office that really
Speaker 1: is sort of unknown outside of elite appellant circles, it's
Speaker 1: actually the number four position within the d o J.
Speaker 1: And so not only is it the federal government top
Speaker 1: lawyer at the Supreme Court, but it really oversees all
Speaker 1: of the federal appellate litigation and really determines which cases
Speaker 1: the federal government is going to appeal up to the
Speaker 1: appellate courts and perhaps eventually to the Supreme Court. So
Speaker 1: it's a very powerful office. Uh, and certainly one that
Speaker 1: I'm surprised to see having not been filled for so long.
Speaker 1: Is this the longest that the solicitor general spot has
Speaker 1: been left open with an acting solicito general. Certainly, it's
Speaker 1: the longest in modern times and has really been unprecedented
Speaker 1: in the last several decades. Listeners may remember that under
Speaker 1: the Ump administration there was some grumbling that it was
Speaker 1: taking that administration quite a long time to still the
Speaker 1: solicitor general spot as well, But even then we had
Speaker 1: a nominee in early March, and so not having a
Speaker 1: nominee until August is really quite interesting. And the solicitor
Speaker 1: General that position has to be confirmed by the Senate,
Speaker 1: that's right, This is one that has to be confirmed
Speaker 1: by the Senate. So even though the White House announced
Speaker 1: its intention to have pre Lager be the nominee, we
Speaker 1: still don't have word on when her confirmation hearings might be.
Speaker 1: Although you know, the office is in pretty good hands
Speaker 1: until that time. There are a lot of career deputies
Speaker 1: there that have been there some since the seventies and nineties,
Speaker 1: so there's a lot of institutional knowledge. While we wait
Speaker 1: to see whether or not pre Lagger is going to
Speaker 1: be confirmed. So tell us about Elizabeth pre Lagger. Sure, Well,
Speaker 1: she's a long time d o J attorney. She had
Speaker 1: previously been an assistant in the Solicitor General's office, and
Speaker 1: then I argued some cases in front of the U s.
Speaker 1: Supreme Corps. And then she was briefly detailed to the
Speaker 1: Mueller investigation investigating potential Russian interference in the twenty sixteen election.
Speaker 1: That's likely because she speaks fluent Russian. After that and
Speaker 1: before she went into the d O day she was
Speaker 1: in private practice. But she is one of the few
Speaker 1: female attorneys who has argued regularly in front of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, and she's done so on behalf of the
Speaker 1: Biden administration a couple of times since taking on the
Speaker 1: acting SG role in in late January. And she clerk
Speaker 1: for Merrick Garland and also for the first female Solicitor
Speaker 1: General who is now a Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan.
Speaker 1: That's right, So she has a pretty impressive background with
Speaker 1: guard to clerkships. Not only did she clerk for now
Speaker 1: Attorney General Merrick Garland, which I can't help but think
Speaker 1: helped her prospects of getting this little for their general. No,
Speaker 1: but She also clerked for two Supreme Court Justices, Ruth
Speaker 1: Vader Ginsburg and then Elena Kagan. And you mentioned that
Speaker 1: Elena Kagan was the first female Solicitor General and Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Prologer would be just the second. She seems to have
Speaker 1: a lot of experience, she seems top notch. Why was
Speaker 1: there a delay in naming her as a nominee. Well,
Speaker 1: we've heard from sources, you know, former individuals but in
Speaker 1: the Solicitor General's office that there was some handling between
Speaker 1: the White House and the Department of Justice. As I mentioned,
Speaker 1: Plager but probably got some backing from Merrick Garland Um
Speaker 1: who has championed her career for a very long time.
Speaker 1: But the White House has really placed an emphasis on diversity,
Speaker 1: both racially and with professional experience. And we've been hearing
Speaker 1: that the White House was looking for either an attorney
Speaker 1: of color to leave the office or for somebody with
Speaker 1: criminal defense background, and there's a lot of pressure on
Speaker 1: the White House to kind of reverse the traditional pipeline
Speaker 1: that we see in these high up d o J.
Speaker 1: Positions that really rely on prosecutors, and we really haven't
Speaker 1: seen it happen yet. So the delay in naming a nominee,
Speaker 1: as you write, a p is to have worked in
Speaker 1: her favor. Well, that's right, because you know, as I said,
Speaker 1: she has been doing this job on an acting basis
Speaker 1: um for an unprecedented amount of time. We've seen her
Speaker 1: really take on some of the hardest jobs that a
Speaker 1: solicitor general has to do. That is taking over from
Speaker 1: a previous administration and deciding when the solicitor General's office
Speaker 1: is going to change positions from a previous administration. As
Speaker 1: you can imagine, there were some differences in the way
Speaker 1: of thinking about certain cases between the Trump administration and
Speaker 1: the Biden administration, you know, and Elizabeth Prologer was at
Speaker 1: the front of deciding whether or not the federal government
Speaker 1: should you know, do a one eighty, or whether or
Speaker 1: not they should stick the course and maybe not take
Speaker 1: a hit to their institutional reputation. So she has less
Speaker 1: senior federal government experience than prior solicitor generals. Does that
Speaker 1: really make a difference, Well, you know, I guess we'll
Speaker 1: have to see whether or not it's something that comes
Speaker 1: up in her confirmation hearing. You know, the solicitor General's
Speaker 1: office has often been used as a stepping stone to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. We've already mentioned Elena Kagan, but of
Speaker 1: course you know third Good Marshal was another really high
Speaker 1: profile Solicitor General who eventually got the nod to be
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court. I think this is something that's
Speaker 1: changing in the dynamic of the office. Going back to
Speaker 1: George Bush's Solita General Robert Bork, we actually saw him
Speaker 1: step down from the d C Circuit to take on
Speaker 1: the Solicitor general role of judge ship that's really considered
Speaker 1: to be on the second most important court of the country.
Speaker 1: Um So, now we see, particularly with President Trump's nominee,
Speaker 1: that those kinds of credentials are not being required, and
Speaker 1: we'll see if that's something that continues with pur Lager
Speaker 1: and beyond. So, Kimberly, the White House had to make
Speaker 1: a decision because of a law. Tell us about that law, right, So,
Speaker 1: this is a law that was intended to really prevent
Speaker 1: and runs around the sentence advice and consent role, where
Speaker 1: you know, presidents would just name someone an acting role
Speaker 1: and lead them there for years, perhaps you know, many
Speaker 1: years spanning their whole had been illustration. And so under
Speaker 1: this law, the d o J has only so long
Speaker 1: that it can have somebody work on an acting basis
Speaker 1: before you know, they need to have somebody up for nomination,
Speaker 1: and that timeline runs out in November. Now, once Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Prologger is formally nominated and her nomination is sent to
Speaker 1: the Senate, that timeline will move beyond. But it hasn't
Speaker 1: really happened that the d o J has been coming
Speaker 1: up on a timeline like this. As we talked, this
Speaker 1: has really been an unprecedented delay. Did Divide administration offer
Speaker 1: the job to California Supreme Court Justice Leandre Krueger, Well,
Speaker 1: that's something that we heard very early in the process,
Speaker 1: uh sometime in January that not only did the White
Speaker 1: House um offer her the nomination once, but twice and
Speaker 1: she declined. You know that that's something you know that
Speaker 1: isn't out of the realm to think that someone would
Speaker 1: step down from a prestigious place like a justice on
Speaker 1: the California's Court, because as I mentioned, you know, this
Speaker 1: is a stepping stone to the Supreme Court, and Leander
Speaker 1: Krueger is one of the leading candidates, one of the
Speaker 1: few leading candidates UM for the next opening on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. As we've talked about before, this Listener General's
Speaker 1: office has faced criticism for its lack of gender diversity.
Speaker 1: The Soldiery General's Office put forward sixty one minute argument
Speaker 1: in fifty eight cases compared with ten women. Are they
Speaker 1: working on gender diversity with prologer there? Now, that's something
Speaker 1: that you know, we've heard from the Biden administrations that
Speaker 1: they do want to have more diversity. You know. Not
Speaker 1: only is the number from last term concerning, but it's
Speaker 1: even more concerning because it's really seen as a driver
Speaker 1: of the total imbalance between men and female attorneys arguing
Speaker 1: at the Supreme Court. That's really because the Soldier of
Speaker 1: General's Office participates in so many of these oral arguments.
Speaker 1: They are in approximately two thirds of these cases. So
Speaker 1: if you have an Sg's office that isn't really well
Speaker 1: balanced and isn't diverse, you're not going to have you know,
Speaker 1: attorneys as a whole who are representative um of the
Speaker 1: country who are arguing at the court. There's also a
Speaker 1: problem with racial diversity as well, right, and that's probably
Speaker 1: even bigger are problem for the Solicitor General's Office than
Speaker 1: than the gender diversity and really diversity on so many
Speaker 1: levels as a problem in the office. You know, beyond
Speaker 1: just racial and gender diversity. There really is just one
Speaker 1: kind of typical professional pipeline um you know that we
Speaker 1: see traditionally to the Solicitor General's office. That is, you know,
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court clerkship, a prestigious job in you know,
Speaker 1: an appellate shop in Washington, and then you know some
Speaker 1: kind of prosecutor rule or siding with the federal government.
Speaker 1: And so that's something that Carlager is not going to
Speaker 1: offer a lot of diversity, and that the Biden administration
Speaker 1: will continue to be pressed on. This is not a
Speaker 1: job you know right out of law school. These are
Speaker 1: very experienced attorneys who are going for these jobs, that's right.
Speaker 1: These are typically people who have you know, several years
Speaker 1: um practicing in private practice that you know that's on
Speaker 1: top of these prestigious clerkships. You know, Prai Lauger is
Speaker 1: certainly not out of bounds with having you know, clerks
Speaker 1: for Americ Garland and then two Supreme Court justices. So
Speaker 1: it's definitely not something in entry level position, but they're
Speaker 1: really sought out positions within the federal government that you know,
Speaker 1: attorneys generally stay in for about five years before you know,
Speaker 1: moving out and allowing others to step into that prestigious role.
Speaker 1: And how big is the office? How many attorneys? Well,
Speaker 1: there's been some movement in the number of attorneys. There's
Speaker 1: approximately twenty to twenty three attorneys in the office, and
Speaker 1: those split between kind of temporary positions, these five year
Speaker 1: positions to career positions. I mentioned one of the deputies
Speaker 1: has been there since the nine seventies um and then
Speaker 1: also balanced with some political appointees. So not only is
Speaker 1: the Solicitor general political pointee, but also their principal deputy,
Speaker 1: which is the role that Prelauter is serving them now.
Speaker 1: So we're getting closer, not quite there yet to the
Speaker 1: first Funday in October. Let's talk about some of the
Speaker 1: high profile cases, starting with the abortion case. Right this uh,
Speaker 1: you know, this next term that's coming up is really
Speaker 1: going to be quite a test for you know, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. This abortion case is Dobbs versus Jackson Women's
Speaker 1: Health Organization, and it's a challenge to Mississippi's Gestational Age Act,
Speaker 1: which bans abortion after fifteen weeks. Now, the question formally
Speaker 1: presented to the justices here is about so called pre
Speaker 1: viability abortions. But the briefs from the party and from
Speaker 1: the supporting briefs from Amikus all really go after or
Speaker 1: Row versus Wade, and the right to have an abortion
Speaker 1: at all. Abortion remains one of the most contentious issues
Speaker 1: in this country. Another contentious issue is Second Amendment rights.
Speaker 1: Tell us about that case, that's right the case. The
Speaker 1: Supreme Court will also take up this very contentious issue
Speaker 1: in New York State Rights Rifle versus and Sorry, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court will also take up this issue in New
Speaker 1: York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Corelett. Now, this
Speaker 1: is a challenge just to New York's concealed carry permit process,
Speaker 1: and the question is really whether state legislatures can place
Speaker 1: limits um on a consumed carry permit or whether the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment uh limits what the state legislatures can do.
Speaker 1: And in particular, New York provides local authorities with quite
Speaker 1: a bit of disprestion when deciding whether or not to
Speaker 1: grant these permits. And that is what in the individual
Speaker 1: tier challenging that that kind of dis Russian violates the Constitution.
Speaker 1: And you have several justices on the Supreme Court, conservative
Speaker 1: justices who have wanted to take up a Second Amendment
Speaker 1: case because they haven't taken up one in about a decade. Right,
Speaker 1: we have seen kind of a minority of the conservative
Speaker 1: justices for a long time saying that, you know, there
Speaker 1: are questions that are left open, uh, since the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court really heard one of its landmark cases heller Um,
Speaker 1: deciding some Second Amendment issues, and that you know, federal
Speaker 1: lower federal courts don't really need guidance on these issues.
Speaker 1: But we've seen a majority of the justice saying that
Speaker 1: they didn't want to tackle the issue. They've been really
Speaker 1: denying cases that deal with these same issues, uh, for
Speaker 1: almost a decade, And it wasn't until we saw, you know,
Speaker 1: Justice Barrett come into the picture that we saw one
Speaker 1: of these cases actually get granted at the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: So with these two issues alone, it seems like next
Speaker 1: term is going to be a lot more controversial then
Speaker 1: this term was. That's right. You know, if you look
Speaker 1: back at this last term, you kind of saw an
Speaker 1: effort by at least some of the justices to moderate
Speaker 1: some of the rulings to kind of not go as
Speaker 1: far as conservatives may have wanted them to go. But
Speaker 1: these cases are going to really be where the rubber
Speaker 1: meets the road. Are we going to see the conservative
Speaker 1: justices really moderate and kind of kind of uphold precedent,
Speaker 1: or are we going to see them go big on
Speaker 1: these two very controversial issues. Now, the marathon bomber case
Speaker 1: that's coming before the Supreme Court, what's the issue there? Right?
Speaker 1: So that is a really interesting case because, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: it is about these capital sentences that Joe Harris or
Speaker 1: not of actually got for his participation in the marathon bombing,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't actually deal with his guilt or the sense. Instead,
Speaker 1: the justices are going to look at some technical issues
Speaker 1: related to jury selection in the case and evidence that
Speaker 1: was used during the sentencing phase. But this is a
Speaker 1: really interesting case for the Solicitor General. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: that being the topic that we started off with in
Speaker 1: that you know, the Biden administration or then candidate Biden
Speaker 1: really campaigned against the death penalty, and here we see
Speaker 1: them in this case just continuing the Trump administration's arguments
Speaker 1: that the death penalty should be reinstated and used. Here
Speaker 1: there are there are some couple of really interesting cases
Speaker 1: involving state secrets, that's right, and this is one. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, these are some cases that I was really
Speaker 1: surprised that there wasn't more of a push for the
Speaker 1: Biden administration to have a Senate confirmed Solicitor General um
Speaker 1: by the time that these cases were argued, because they
Speaker 1: are so integral to the federal government litigation. But you know,
Speaker 1: these two cases deal with the state secrets privilege, and
Speaker 1: this is the idea that if the federal government is
Speaker 1: required to turn over certain information and litigations, that it
Speaker 1: could be harmful to national defense. Now these cases really
Speaker 1: come up in the context of the War on Terror,
Speaker 1: but the United States has been in certain state privileges
Speaker 1: back since nine They've been used in cases you know
Speaker 1: as wide ranging as discriminations, things on wire tapping, as
Speaker 1: US citizens and evocatent. So it definitely has, you know,
Speaker 1: implications beyond the War on terror. It's always a pleasure
Speaker 1: to have you on the show. Kimberly, that's Bloomberg Law
Speaker 1: Supreme Court Reporter Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson And that's it for
Speaker 1: this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news Honor Bloomberg Law podcast.
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
Speaker 1: www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law. I'm
Speaker 1: June Brosso and you're listening to Bloomberg