1
00:00:00,600 --> 00:00:05,360
Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:06,120 --> 00:00:09,160
Speaker 1: In cities across the country, as we see nightly video

3
00:00:09,240 --> 00:00:14,840
Speaker 1: of fires and looting overshadowing peaceful protests, protesters are demanding

4
00:00:14,920 --> 00:00:18,239
Speaker 1: justice for George Floyd, who died last week after a

5
00:00:18,239 --> 00:00:21,840
Speaker 1: Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for more than

6
00:00:21,920 --> 00:00:25,120
Speaker 1: eight minutes during an arrest for an alleged counterfeit twenty

7
00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:28,920
Speaker 1: dollar bill. Joining me is Kimberly Crenshaw, a professor Columbia

8
00:00:29,000 --> 00:00:32,159
Speaker 1: Law School and a leading scholar of critical race theory

9
00:00:32,320 --> 00:00:36,879
Speaker 1: who developed the theory of intersectionality. Is this unrest a

10
00:00:36,960 --> 00:00:40,880
Speaker 1: reaction to George Floyd's death or was it a combination

11
00:00:40,960 --> 00:00:44,680
Speaker 1: of things coming together? Well, I think it's clear that

12
00:00:44,960 --> 00:00:49,320
Speaker 1: it was a combination of many things coming together. There

13
00:00:49,320 --> 00:00:54,360
Speaker 1: of course, had been many deaths since the last moment

14
00:00:54,640 --> 00:00:59,720
Speaker 1: of civil unrest over police killing of black people. Um,

15
00:00:59,760 --> 00:01:02,720
Speaker 1: and that's just been again a study beat. It hasn't

16
00:01:02,800 --> 00:01:07,680
Speaker 1: been at all arrested since the last major uprising. And

17
00:01:07,720 --> 00:01:11,160
Speaker 1: then one has to also take into account that the

18
00:01:11,400 --> 00:01:14,959
Speaker 1: killing that that prompted all of this caught on video,

19
00:01:15,560 --> 00:01:23,040
Speaker 1: particularly egregious, particularly statistic comes on the heels of a

20
00:01:23,160 --> 00:01:27,800
Speaker 1: vigilante style of slaying that happened in Georgia, and the

21
00:01:27,920 --> 00:01:32,320
Speaker 1: killing also of a black woman, Brianna Taylor in her

22
00:01:32,400 --> 00:01:36,080
Speaker 1: bed uh, in her own home. So I think it

23
00:01:36,160 --> 00:01:40,360
Speaker 1: was a sort of the constant reminder of the procarity

24
00:01:40,400 --> 00:01:45,280
Speaker 1: of black life and that uh, it's simply amplifying the

25
00:01:45,319 --> 00:01:48,920
Speaker 1: fact that black lives were being lost by COVID UM,

26
00:01:49,120 --> 00:01:52,520
Speaker 1: thousands upon thousands of Black lives being lost to COVID,

27
00:01:53,120 --> 00:01:57,200
Speaker 1: And the overall impression, UH, at least coming from the

28
00:01:57,240 --> 00:02:02,160
Speaker 1: White House, if not more broadly for many UM governors,

29
00:02:02,360 --> 00:02:06,480
Speaker 1: and it seems more broadly from the community at large,

30
00:02:07,000 --> 00:02:10,760
Speaker 1: is that this loss of life is not particularly significant.

31
00:02:11,360 --> 00:02:16,600
Speaker 1: So I think the frustration building up around the constant

32
00:02:16,680 --> 00:02:20,639
Speaker 1: messaging that your lives really don't matter UM was a

33
00:02:20,760 --> 00:02:24,520
Speaker 1: tinder box waiting to happen. Are you surprised at the

34
00:02:24,600 --> 00:02:30,000
Speaker 1: extent of the reaction, not only in this country but worldwide?

35
00:02:30,720 --> 00:02:34,600
Speaker 1: Not having lived through now two other moments in history

36
00:02:34,639 --> 00:02:40,840
Speaker 1: where there's been broad UM reaction. I think that some

37
00:02:41,080 --> 00:02:44,280
Speaker 1: part of the strength of this lene and the depth

38
00:02:44,440 --> 00:02:48,200
Speaker 1: of it is because they're they're sort of a recognition

39
00:02:48,760 --> 00:02:54,120
Speaker 1: that there's the moment of outrage. There's protests, there's promises

40
00:02:54,639 --> 00:02:57,280
Speaker 1: that something is going to happen, and then nothing happens,

41
00:02:57,320 --> 00:03:01,560
Speaker 1: I mean literally very little happy ends, and then other

42
00:03:01,639 --> 00:03:05,239
Speaker 1: avenues are are shut off. UM. I think, at least

43
00:03:05,240 --> 00:03:07,760
Speaker 1: in in the minds of many people here in the

44
00:03:07,840 --> 00:03:15,000
Speaker 1: United States, peaceful protests taken up by UH Kaepernick, for example,

45
00:03:15,600 --> 00:03:21,360
Speaker 1: UM the football player resulted in him being um actually

46
00:03:21,440 --> 00:03:26,239
Speaker 1: unable to do his job, being uh verbally assaulted by

47
00:03:26,360 --> 00:03:30,120
Speaker 1: the President of the United States. So the message seems

48
00:03:30,160 --> 00:03:33,560
Speaker 1: to be not that there's a proper way and an

49
00:03:33,560 --> 00:03:38,160
Speaker 1: improper way. There is no way to actually protest and

50
00:03:38,240 --> 00:03:43,560
Speaker 1: create the meaningful avenue towards change. And I think that

51
00:03:43,720 --> 00:03:49,320
Speaker 1: messaging is the one that is so completely, um debilitating,

52
00:03:49,400 --> 00:03:54,480
Speaker 1: so frustrating that it it generates UM sort of mass

53
00:03:54,480 --> 00:03:59,760
Speaker 1: outrage and the desire to demand a different outcome. This time,

54
00:04:00,320 --> 00:04:05,240
Speaker 1: we saw some police kneeling in solidarity with the protesters,

55
00:04:05,280 --> 00:04:10,680
Speaker 1: and we saw violent confrontations in other places. How should

56
00:04:10,920 --> 00:04:15,160
Speaker 1: police and government leaders be handling this? Is there any

57
00:04:15,400 --> 00:04:18,640
Speaker 1: right way to handle this? Well? I was very impressed

58
00:04:18,720 --> 00:04:24,480
Speaker 1: by some of the performances that I saw by police

59
00:04:24,600 --> 00:04:31,279
Speaker 1: officials and in fact some police I saw a clip

60
00:04:31,720 --> 00:04:36,400
Speaker 1: from Houston where the chiefs of police there has offered

61
00:04:36,440 --> 00:04:42,720
Speaker 1: to escort UM George Floyd's body back to Houston. I

62
00:04:42,760 --> 00:04:48,599
Speaker 1: think that is utterly unprecedented. UM the police chief UH

63
00:04:48,640 --> 00:04:53,640
Speaker 1: in UH Minneapolis taking off his hat in speaking UH

64
00:04:53,680 --> 00:04:57,159
Speaker 1: to the family. Now, many people will say that these

65
00:04:57,200 --> 00:05:01,400
Speaker 1: are symbolic, and they are indeed symbolic. They will point

66
00:05:01,440 --> 00:05:05,400
Speaker 1: out that there are ways that even these police chiefs

67
00:05:05,880 --> 00:05:09,800
Speaker 1: UM could do more and maybe constrained from doing more,

68
00:05:10,720 --> 00:05:14,520
Speaker 1: given the structural realities that we have a highly militarized

69
00:05:15,160 --> 00:05:21,719
Speaker 1: UH police force across the country, and many constraints that

70
00:05:21,839 --> 00:05:25,320
Speaker 1: might otherwise be placed on them have been removed or

71
00:05:25,400 --> 00:05:30,680
Speaker 1: not are not actually actionable because of law, Supreme Court doctrine,

72
00:05:30,720 --> 00:05:36,240
Speaker 1: and politics. So the structural dimensions of racialized policing are

73
00:05:36,279 --> 00:05:39,760
Speaker 1: still a problem. But these symbolic gestures, I think are

74
00:05:39,880 --> 00:05:45,680
Speaker 1: cracks in the blue wall. They are acknowledgements that what

75
00:05:45,800 --> 00:05:53,040
Speaker 1: we saw there was utterly inhumane, completely and totally inexcusable,

76
00:05:53,440 --> 00:05:59,320
Speaker 1: and reflection of what police officers are able to do

77
00:05:59,440 --> 00:06:04,000
Speaker 1: or feeling hour to do when of the death of

78
00:06:04,240 --> 00:06:08,320
Speaker 1: black people in the last five years UM have resulted

79
00:06:08,320 --> 00:06:12,080
Speaker 1: in no charges against the police officers. So a symbolic

80
00:06:12,160 --> 00:06:17,040
Speaker 1: crack is an important moment, an important recognition that there

81
00:06:17,160 --> 00:06:21,479
Speaker 1: is something that's too much. Now, the fact that that

82
00:06:21,640 --> 00:06:24,640
Speaker 1: something is something like this con on tape UM and

83
00:06:24,680 --> 00:06:28,559
Speaker 1: that's so vicious doesn't say a lot, But the fact

84
00:06:28,560 --> 00:06:31,120
Speaker 1: that it's meaningful that they did it says a lot.

85
00:06:31,200 --> 00:06:34,880
Speaker 1: So I think that's good. My worry at this moment, frankly,

86
00:06:35,600 --> 00:06:41,880
Speaker 1: is that the UH media UM engagement with the protests,

87
00:06:42,040 --> 00:06:46,479
Speaker 1: of focusing exclusively pretty much UM at this point, it

88
00:06:46,520 --> 00:06:53,200
Speaker 1: seems on the violence. UH undermines these symbolic moments, and

89
00:06:53,279 --> 00:06:58,039
Speaker 1: it undermines the the fact that the vast majority of

90
00:06:58,080 --> 00:07:02,039
Speaker 1: people protesting our protesters, to to say, the protesters and

91
00:07:02,120 --> 00:07:05,080
Speaker 1: looters are one and the same, UH is the same

92
00:07:05,160 --> 00:07:09,520
Speaker 1: kind of group logic and group punishment that contributes to

93
00:07:09,680 --> 00:07:14,120
Speaker 1: precisely the kinds of things that the protesters are protesting against.

94
00:07:14,640 --> 00:07:17,760
Speaker 1: So now the question is whether the media can break

95
00:07:17,800 --> 00:07:21,680
Speaker 1: out of the cycle of of of focusing on the

96
00:07:21,800 --> 00:07:26,280
Speaker 1: fires and the sirens and not at least trying to

97
00:07:26,440 --> 00:07:31,880
Speaker 1: balance that with attention given to the demands of the

98
00:07:31,920 --> 00:07:37,080
Speaker 1: protesters and the possibilities of resolving this through de escalation

99
00:07:37,560 --> 00:07:42,440
Speaker 1: as opposed to um the siren UH, the literal siren

100
00:07:42,600 --> 00:07:45,720
Speaker 1: and the metaphoric siren that we're seeing in the coverage

101
00:07:45,800 --> 00:07:48,760
Speaker 1: right now. I want to turn to the charges for

102
00:07:48,800 --> 00:07:52,360
Speaker 1: a moment. So we see now this video, and most

103
00:07:52,360 --> 00:07:54,480
Speaker 1: people look at this and say, this is an open

104
00:07:54,480 --> 00:07:59,000
Speaker 1: and shut case for the police officer to be convicted. However,

105
00:07:59,560 --> 00:08:03,040
Speaker 1: we see that before, and it's it's rare that a

106
00:08:03,080 --> 00:08:09,080
Speaker 1: police officer gets convicted in these circumstances. Yes, it is rare.

107
00:08:09,440 --> 00:08:14,160
Speaker 1: UM when need only go back to the last the

108
00:08:14,240 --> 00:08:20,800
Speaker 1: time that UM there was UH controversial UH acquittal, and

109
00:08:20,840 --> 00:08:25,680
Speaker 1: that was you know, the Rodney King UH acquittal, when

110
00:08:25,720 --> 00:08:30,040
Speaker 1: there was an there was video tape of basically a

111
00:08:30,200 --> 00:08:34,480
Speaker 1: gang beating of Rodney King, and many people, I was

112
00:08:35,000 --> 00:08:38,400
Speaker 1: among them, I thought that this was going to come

113
00:08:38,400 --> 00:08:43,280
Speaker 1: out differently because so many times they conflict was over

114
00:08:43,440 --> 00:08:48,840
Speaker 1: what actually happened. So there's a long history of black

115
00:08:49,280 --> 00:08:52,600
Speaker 1: UH witnesses not being believed. It used to be a

116
00:08:52,640 --> 00:08:56,520
Speaker 1: matter of law, the black witnesses couldn't even testify against

117
00:08:56,520 --> 00:08:59,520
Speaker 1: white people. We had the echoes of that in contemporary

118
00:09:00,280 --> 00:09:03,520
Speaker 1: UH court cases against police officers. But a lot of

119
00:09:03,559 --> 00:09:07,760
Speaker 1: people thought this is on tape, So we cannot lose here.

120
00:09:08,440 --> 00:09:13,680
Speaker 1: And I think some part of the outrage was, my God,

121
00:09:13,840 --> 00:09:17,040
Speaker 1: even when it's on tape, even when you can see

122
00:09:17,600 --> 00:09:22,640
Speaker 1: um uh, police officers swarming a black man, um who's

123
00:09:22,720 --> 00:09:26,960
Speaker 1: prone on the ground and beating him senseless, potentially even

124
00:09:27,040 --> 00:09:29,840
Speaker 1: killing him, we still can't get a conviction. And I

125
00:09:29,880 --> 00:09:33,400
Speaker 1: think what a lot of folks don't really understand is

126
00:09:33,440 --> 00:09:36,160
Speaker 1: how it happened. And one of the ways it happened

127
00:09:36,280 --> 00:09:40,640
Speaker 1: was that the defense attorney said, um, you show us

128
00:09:40,760 --> 00:09:45,000
Speaker 1: the in the still picture where the force became excessive.

129
00:09:45,280 --> 00:09:49,800
Speaker 1: It only becomes excessive when Rodney King complies. And because

130
00:09:49,920 --> 00:09:53,679
Speaker 1: Rodney kinging is trying to shield himself from the blows,

131
00:09:53,720 --> 00:09:57,600
Speaker 1: there's no moment in which he's prone, still complying with

132
00:09:57,679 --> 00:10:00,600
Speaker 1: the police officers. This is another reason by so many

133
00:10:00,679 --> 00:10:05,400
Speaker 1: chokeholds um did not result in a conviction, even when

134
00:10:05,440 --> 00:10:09,720
Speaker 1: the chokeholds killed the person, Because when you're when you're

135
00:10:09,840 --> 00:10:13,840
Speaker 1: dying and your body is dying, it flails, it moves,

136
00:10:13,880 --> 00:10:17,560
Speaker 1: it tries to breathe. And again they were able to say, well,

137
00:10:17,640 --> 00:10:21,000
Speaker 1: the person is not compliant, so he can, uh, the

138
00:10:21,160 --> 00:10:25,240
Speaker 1: officer can continue applying the force. The thing that's different

139
00:10:25,320 --> 00:10:31,240
Speaker 1: about this video is that it is abundantly clear that

140
00:10:31,320 --> 00:10:37,920
Speaker 1: the officer continues to apply the force after after George

141
00:10:37,920 --> 00:10:41,800
Speaker 1: Floyd is no longer responsive a full two minutes after,

142
00:10:42,520 --> 00:10:46,680
Speaker 1: so some of the controversy about the charges. At that point,

143
00:10:47,120 --> 00:10:51,680
Speaker 1: it becomes clear that this officer is intending to inflict

144
00:10:51,800 --> 00:10:55,720
Speaker 1: maximum harm on him and it should be up to

145
00:10:55,720 --> 00:11:00,040
Speaker 1: the jury to decide whether that intention is enough to

146
00:11:00,080 --> 00:11:05,600
Speaker 1: justify a murder conviction. I, for one, the family, the attorneys,

147
00:11:06,040 --> 00:11:09,360
Speaker 1: many people think that, uh, a charge can be made out.

148
00:11:09,559 --> 00:11:11,600
Speaker 1: And let me just point out one of the things

149
00:11:11,679 --> 00:11:14,040
Speaker 1: that happens in the criminal justice system all the time

150
00:11:14,480 --> 00:11:18,400
Speaker 1: is that people are the prosecutor's charge and they also

151
00:11:18,559 --> 00:11:22,400
Speaker 1: include lesser charges and leave it up to the jury

152
00:11:22,440 --> 00:11:29,960
Speaker 1: to decide if that's sufficient for ordinary um criminal um defendants.

153
00:11:30,000 --> 00:11:34,080
Speaker 1: Why is that not sufficient, uh for this police officer

154
00:11:34,240 --> 00:11:36,200
Speaker 1: and the rest of them? I might add, So you

155
00:11:36,320 --> 00:11:38,880
Speaker 1: think that it should have been a higher charge than

156
00:11:39,000 --> 00:11:42,840
Speaker 1: third degree murder. I think that he could have charged

157
00:11:42,920 --> 00:11:46,080
Speaker 1: for all and leave it to the jury to decide.

158
00:11:46,280 --> 00:11:49,440
Speaker 1: I do understand, and this makes sense to a lot

159
00:11:49,480 --> 00:11:53,120
Speaker 1: of people. They really need to get a conviction. They

160
00:11:53,240 --> 00:11:57,080
Speaker 1: really need to get a conviction so there's reason to

161
00:11:57,080 --> 00:12:01,160
Speaker 1: to worry that sometimes juries might react to what they

162
00:12:01,240 --> 00:12:06,440
Speaker 1: perceive as an overcharge, leading to an acquittal. So some

163
00:12:06,600 --> 00:12:09,439
Speaker 1: of my colleagues are saying that this, in fact is

164
00:12:09,600 --> 00:12:13,840
Speaker 1: the safest bet, and I agree that it is safer,

165
00:12:13,880 --> 00:12:17,560
Speaker 1: but I also think there's a symbolic dimension to actually

166
00:12:17,960 --> 00:12:21,640
Speaker 1: denouncing what is seen. One has to recall as well

167
00:12:21,720 --> 00:12:25,080
Speaker 1: that there's a police officer in Minnesota that was recently

168
00:12:25,120 --> 00:12:29,840
Speaker 1: convicted of the same charge, and his act involved shooting

169
00:12:29,880 --> 00:12:33,559
Speaker 1: someone who apparently startled him. So it was a split

170
00:12:33,720 --> 00:12:38,280
Speaker 1: second choice that was shown to be criminally negligent, and

171
00:12:38,320 --> 00:12:41,719
Speaker 1: he was convicted. These are two different levels, though. What

172
00:12:41,960 --> 00:12:45,160
Speaker 1: Chalmon did and what this officer did just seems to

173
00:12:45,200 --> 00:12:51,079
Speaker 1: be incredibly different, and so the symbolic story of basically

174
00:12:51,120 --> 00:12:54,920
Speaker 1: making these the same seems not to capture what it

175
00:12:55,160 --> 00:12:59,079
Speaker 1: was that drives so many people, you know, to angry

176
00:12:59,080 --> 00:13:02,240
Speaker 1: protests when they saw that video. Let me ask you this,

177
00:13:02,400 --> 00:13:06,640
Speaker 1: there are calls for the three other officers to be charged.

178
00:13:07,160 --> 00:13:10,360
Speaker 1: Should they be charged equally or should they be charged

179
00:13:10,400 --> 00:13:15,199
Speaker 1: as accessories? Well, I think minimally they should be charged

180
00:13:15,320 --> 00:13:19,160
Speaker 1: as accessories, and I would not be opposed to them.

181
00:13:19,200 --> 00:13:22,679
Speaker 1: Actually being charged along with Chamin. We have to remember

182
00:13:23,200 --> 00:13:27,680
Speaker 1: that in our criminal justice system, there are many people

183
00:13:27,800 --> 00:13:33,079
Speaker 1: serving many years for actions that they helped facilitate, even

184
00:13:33,120 --> 00:13:37,200
Speaker 1: though they didn't themselves do it. Felony murder, for example,

185
00:13:37,679 --> 00:13:43,160
Speaker 1: is a commonly used way of accusing, prosecuting, and convicting

186
00:13:43,760 --> 00:13:47,959
Speaker 1: everyone who's involved in a criminal enterprise, whether they were

187
00:13:47,960 --> 00:13:52,079
Speaker 1: the ones that actually inflicted the fatal blow or shot

188
00:13:52,200 --> 00:13:56,240
Speaker 1: the fatal bullet, are not um. So our criminal justice

189
00:13:56,240 --> 00:14:01,080
Speaker 1: system recognizes that everyone is accountable and can be made

190
00:14:01,240 --> 00:14:05,000
Speaker 1: accountable for an act that they helped facilitate. Look at

191
00:14:05,000 --> 00:14:08,920
Speaker 1: that videotape. Two of the other officers were actually holding

192
00:14:09,040 --> 00:14:14,360
Speaker 1: him down. Another one was effectively keeping any other humanitarian

193
00:14:14,480 --> 00:14:18,520
Speaker 1: aid at bay. How can they not be responsible? How

194
00:14:18,559 --> 00:14:21,640
Speaker 1: can they be sitting in their homes safely at this

195
00:14:21,720 --> 00:14:25,520
Speaker 1: moment when thousands of people um are in the streets

196
00:14:25,560 --> 00:14:28,920
Speaker 1: and many people are being arrested. So one I have

197
00:14:29,000 --> 00:14:33,920
Speaker 1: to remember that the point of charging is to denounce

198
00:14:34,400 --> 00:14:39,120
Speaker 1: behavior that this society has a judge to be criminal

199
00:14:39,280 --> 00:14:44,760
Speaker 1: and immoral. I wonder if there is a defense out

200
00:14:45,280 --> 00:14:49,840
Speaker 1: in that that George Floyd had underlying conditions and it

201
00:14:49,960 --> 00:14:53,440
Speaker 1: was a combination of factors that led to his death,

202
00:14:53,520 --> 00:14:57,120
Speaker 1: whether that will be something the defense can use to

203
00:14:57,200 --> 00:15:00,760
Speaker 1: win another acquital here. I'm so glad you mentioned that,

204
00:15:01,000 --> 00:15:06,080
Speaker 1: because one of the sub struggles in many of these

205
00:15:06,120 --> 00:15:12,760
Speaker 1: cases is the choice of the corner to attribute the

206
00:15:12,840 --> 00:15:16,120
Speaker 1: death of a person who's died at the hands at

207
00:15:16,200 --> 00:15:21,320
Speaker 1: least to underlying condition. And it's interesting there there's some

208
00:15:21,840 --> 00:15:27,040
Speaker 1: evidence that one of the officers who tried to suggest

209
00:15:27,160 --> 00:15:30,640
Speaker 1: that perhaps they were getting into the territory of this

210
00:15:30,800 --> 00:15:34,760
Speaker 1: excited delirium so that perhaps they should stop, seemed to

211
00:15:34,760 --> 00:15:37,920
Speaker 1: be aware of this fact that they were moving into

212
00:15:37,960 --> 00:15:42,200
Speaker 1: a terrain in which if they didn't do something, this

213
00:15:42,240 --> 00:15:44,720
Speaker 1: person might die, and it would be kind of an

214
00:15:44,720 --> 00:15:47,120
Speaker 1: open question as to whether this was a homicide for

215
00:15:47,200 --> 00:15:50,240
Speaker 1: which they were responsible. This is all to say that

216
00:15:50,360 --> 00:15:53,840
Speaker 1: there's a whole system that allows this to continue, and

217
00:15:53,920 --> 00:15:57,400
Speaker 1: part of that system is not to acknowledge that had

218
00:15:57,440 --> 00:16:01,560
Speaker 1: this encounter not happened, then this person would not be dead.

219
00:16:02,080 --> 00:16:06,240
Speaker 1: And that is in fact, one of the real eyebrow

220
00:16:06,400 --> 00:16:10,240
Speaker 1: raising concerns of moving forward in this case and in

221
00:16:10,320 --> 00:16:14,160
Speaker 1: many of the others. That's Professor Kimberly Crenshaw of Columbia

222
00:16:14,240 --> 00:16:18,920
Speaker 1: Law School, the Supreme Court rejected calls by churches in

223
00:16:19,040 --> 00:16:23,200
Speaker 1: California and Illinois to block restrictions on worship services during

224
00:16:23,200 --> 00:16:27,080
Speaker 1: the coronavirus outbreak, but the orders came in a closely

225
00:16:27,160 --> 00:16:30,800
Speaker 1: divided five to four decision. Joining me is. Richard Garnett,

226
00:16:30,960 --> 00:16:33,560
Speaker 1: a professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School,

227
00:16:34,200 --> 00:16:39,880
Speaker 1: tell us what the church was objecting to, sure well, UM,

228
00:16:39,920 --> 00:16:45,520
Speaker 1: So this this particular UH litigation involving regulations of in

229
00:16:45,560 --> 00:16:48,240
Speaker 1: person religious services, and of course we've seen lots of

230
00:16:48,240 --> 00:16:51,920
Speaker 1: these all over the country. UM came out of California,

231
00:16:52,080 --> 00:16:54,760
Speaker 1: and the church was objecting to what they saw, as

232
00:16:55,320 --> 00:17:00,480
Speaker 1: you know, overly restrictive limits on again in person religious

233
00:17:00,520 --> 00:17:06,000
Speaker 1: service gatherings UM. And you know, litigation commenced, this being America,

234
00:17:06,080 --> 00:17:10,840
Speaker 1: litigation usually does. And the church was seeking for what's

235
00:17:10,880 --> 00:17:13,280
Speaker 1: called an injunction that as they wanted the court to

236
00:17:13,480 --> 00:17:17,680
Speaker 1: stop UM the order that was in place UM limiting

237
00:17:17,680 --> 00:17:20,800
Speaker 1: their in person services, and the federal courts out in

238
00:17:20,840 --> 00:17:26,240
Speaker 1: California declined to do that. So things were moving kind

239
00:17:26,240 --> 00:17:29,160
Speaker 1: of quickly on the ground because as as the church

240
00:17:29,400 --> 00:17:33,159
Speaker 1: was asking the Supreme Court to step in and to

241
00:17:33,760 --> 00:17:37,800
Speaker 1: put a stop um to the to the restrictions. UM

242
00:17:38,040 --> 00:17:41,960
Speaker 1: governor knewso uh came out with kind of a modified order.

243
00:17:42,119 --> 00:17:46,960
Speaker 1: So under the current order, and we're speaking on Monday, UM,

244
00:17:47,080 --> 00:17:51,320
Speaker 1: religious services that are in person are permitted, but they're

245
00:17:51,359 --> 00:17:54,800
Speaker 1: limited in terms of the percentage capacity. I believe it's

246
00:17:55,240 --> 00:17:59,680
Speaker 1: UM or to a hundred people, UM, whatever's whatever's greater.

247
00:18:00,440 --> 00:18:03,480
Speaker 1: And so the church's argument to the Supreme Court was that, look,

248
00:18:04,280 --> 00:18:06,560
Speaker 1: we want you to enjoy this policy of violence the

249
00:18:06,600 --> 00:18:08,800
Speaker 1: free exercise clause. And the reason it does is because

250
00:18:08,840 --> 00:18:12,240
Speaker 1: it's it's discriminating against religious services. But if it's not

251
00:18:13,119 --> 00:18:17,840
Speaker 1: treating in person religious services UM the same way as

252
00:18:17,880 --> 00:18:22,639
Speaker 1: it's treating analogous secular activities. But the wrinkle here is

253
00:18:22,920 --> 00:18:26,040
Speaker 1: is just um uh, what is it exactly that we

254
00:18:26,040 --> 00:18:30,239
Speaker 1: should be comparing in person religious services to um so.

255
00:18:30,280 --> 00:18:32,680
Speaker 1: On the one side, and this is the church's argument,

256
00:18:33,359 --> 00:18:36,920
Speaker 1: the claim is, look, UM, in person religious services should

257
00:18:36,920 --> 00:18:40,800
Speaker 1: be treated just like say, grocery stores or factories or

258
00:18:41,280 --> 00:18:44,320
Speaker 1: um restaurants and so on, which are which are currently

259
00:18:44,359 --> 00:18:48,679
Speaker 1: allowed to be open under less restrictive rules in California.

260
00:18:49,040 --> 00:18:51,640
Speaker 1: And the state's argument was that, well, no, actually, religious

261
00:18:51,680 --> 00:18:55,120
Speaker 1: services are more like you know, movies, or theater events

262
00:18:55,200 --> 00:18:58,560
Speaker 1: or concerts or sporting events where you know, large numbers

263
00:18:58,560 --> 00:19:01,879
Speaker 1: of people are congregating for extended periods of time and

264
00:19:02,480 --> 00:19:05,040
Speaker 1: maybe singing, and so if you want to you know,

265
00:19:05,040 --> 00:19:08,600
Speaker 1: the free exercise clause does it does ban discrimination? We agree,

266
00:19:08,720 --> 00:19:12,760
Speaker 1: but um, uh there is no such discrimination happening here

267
00:19:12,800 --> 00:19:17,080
Speaker 1: because religious services are being treated like the state says

268
00:19:17,119 --> 00:19:21,760
Speaker 1: similar things. So what split the justices? So coming out

269
00:19:21,760 --> 00:19:23,919
Speaker 1: of Supreme Court, the the interesting thing to watch and

270
00:19:23,920 --> 00:19:26,679
Speaker 1: this is what divided the justices, Um was you know,

271
00:19:26,800 --> 00:19:29,600
Speaker 1: whether these in person religious services should be thought of

272
00:19:30,080 --> 00:19:34,360
Speaker 1: as being uh more like grocery stores, are more like movies,

273
00:19:35,080 --> 00:19:38,800
Speaker 1: and uh that's what That's what the Justice has divided on.

274
00:19:39,160 --> 00:19:41,399
Speaker 1: But it is worth remembering, and some of the press

275
00:19:41,440 --> 00:19:44,680
Speaker 1: coverage didn't quite get this right. Uh, the Supreme Court

276
00:19:44,760 --> 00:19:48,320
Speaker 1: didn't sort of carefully evaluate and decide that in fact,

277
00:19:49,000 --> 00:19:55,280
Speaker 1: the California rules are constitutional. Um. The Chief Justice Robberts

278
00:19:55,320 --> 00:19:58,359
Speaker 1: was careful to emphasize that this is kind of an

279
00:19:58,440 --> 00:20:02,840
Speaker 1: unusual pers fejural situation where you have a litigant who's

280
00:20:02,880 --> 00:20:06,000
Speaker 1: trying to stop a policy that's in place before it's

281
00:20:06,000 --> 00:20:08,359
Speaker 1: really been litigated, and that that's what you know an

282
00:20:08,359 --> 00:20:12,720
Speaker 1: emergency injunction is and in situations like that, Um, the

283
00:20:12,800 --> 00:20:18,119
Speaker 1: Court is reluctant to intervene too hastily, write the Court.

284
00:20:18,320 --> 00:20:21,959
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court, generally speaking, likes to have the facts

285
00:20:21,960 --> 00:20:25,240
Speaker 1: developed a little bit more um through the normal course

286
00:20:25,280 --> 00:20:28,840
Speaker 1: of litigation before it wags in. So it's entirely possible

287
00:20:29,440 --> 00:20:35,160
Speaker 1: that UM Justice Kavanaughs dissenting opinion that that the California

288
00:20:35,520 --> 00:20:38,639
Speaker 1: ruled is not permissible. That might well be what the

289
00:20:38,640 --> 00:20:42,199
Speaker 1: Supreme Court would say eventually, or it might well be

290
00:20:42,240 --> 00:20:44,879
Speaker 1: what the Court will say eventually. It's that's pretty much

291
00:20:44,920 --> 00:20:48,359
Speaker 1: what another federal court UM in the Sixth Circuit has said.

292
00:20:48,480 --> 00:20:51,520
Speaker 1: So it would be a mistake, I think, for the

293
00:20:51,560 --> 00:20:54,280
Speaker 1: governor of California or for anybody else to assume that

294
00:20:54,960 --> 00:21:00,600
Speaker 1: the policy now has the kind of Supreme Courts constitutional blessing. Um.

295
00:21:00,640 --> 00:21:03,919
Speaker 1: What happens instead, I think, is that the Court is

296
00:21:04,760 --> 00:21:06,920
Speaker 1: taking seriously the fact that the facts on the ground

297
00:21:06,960 --> 00:21:11,880
Speaker 1: are fluid and changing. And if this litigation continues, there

298
00:21:11,920 --> 00:21:15,959
Speaker 1: could well come a day when when a federal court says, no, Um.

299
00:21:16,280 --> 00:21:19,800
Speaker 1: You know, temporary measures are one thing, but you can't

300
00:21:19,960 --> 00:21:24,480
Speaker 1: indefinitely um place these kinds of limits on in person

301
00:21:24,560 --> 00:21:28,560
Speaker 1: religious services. Because you know, our our First Amendment embodies

302
00:21:28,600 --> 00:21:32,240
Speaker 1: a commitment to the idea that religious exercise is really important,

303
00:21:32,240 --> 00:21:36,640
Speaker 1: then it has to be treated um as such. And

304
00:21:36,840 --> 00:21:38,919
Speaker 1: while of course I think all the justices agreed that,

305
00:21:39,880 --> 00:21:41,879
Speaker 1: you know, stopping a pandemic and stopping the spread up

306
00:21:41,920 --> 00:21:45,240
Speaker 1: virus is a very important government interest, I think everybody

307
00:21:45,280 --> 00:21:48,320
Speaker 1: also agrees that we don't just switch off the constitution

308
00:21:48,400 --> 00:21:50,800
Speaker 1: just because we're in a public health emergency. And so

309
00:21:51,119 --> 00:21:55,080
Speaker 1: I think this litigation will continue, um. But but for now,

310
00:21:55,119 --> 00:21:59,120
Speaker 1: the Court didn't want to uh step in and sort

311
00:21:59,119 --> 00:22:02,480
Speaker 1: of second s the local officials without the benefit of

312
00:22:02,560 --> 00:22:07,840
Speaker 1: more fact development. Chief Justice Roberts said that judges must

313
00:22:07,840 --> 00:22:11,840
Speaker 1: give elected officials wide latitude to make health and safety

314
00:22:11,920 --> 00:22:15,520
Speaker 1: judgments during a pandemic. It seems to go further than

315
00:22:15,560 --> 00:22:18,239
Speaker 1: just saying this is more like a movie theater than

316
00:22:18,240 --> 00:22:21,119
Speaker 1: a grocery store. Yeah. I think that's consistent with what

317
00:22:21,160 --> 00:22:24,480
Speaker 1: I was saying, in the sense that um, uh, you know,

318
00:22:24,600 --> 00:22:28,840
Speaker 1: some difference is appropriate, and that that provides a good

319
00:22:28,880 --> 00:22:31,560
Speaker 1: reason for the Court not to swoop in and put

320
00:22:31,600 --> 00:22:35,560
Speaker 1: a stay on the order before the regular litigation process

321
00:22:35,640 --> 00:22:37,480
Speaker 1: has time to develop. The facts. I mean, I think

322
00:22:37,600 --> 00:22:39,359
Speaker 1: I think it's a mistake. I don't think the Chief

323
00:22:39,400 --> 00:22:43,000
Speaker 1: Justice means to say that, um, local officials can just

324
00:22:43,280 --> 00:22:45,680
Speaker 1: invoke public health and then they get a blank check

325
00:22:45,840 --> 00:22:50,400
Speaker 1: that that's I think that's a misunderstanding of the Court's presidents. Um.

326
00:22:50,640 --> 00:22:53,760
Speaker 1: You know, judicial reviews still exists even when we're talking

327
00:22:53,800 --> 00:22:58,040
Speaker 1: about public health. But but certainly for the Chief Justice,

328
00:22:58,040 --> 00:23:02,440
Speaker 1: and this is consistent with his jurisp students generally. UM,

329
00:23:02,720 --> 00:23:07,439
Speaker 1: there's a sense that unelected federal judges here, he's sounding

330
00:23:07,480 --> 00:23:11,080
Speaker 1: a lot like his his boss, Chief Justice rankuist Um.

331
00:23:11,200 --> 00:23:18,240
Speaker 1: Unelected federal judges should appropriately, um defer to local officials

332
00:23:18,440 --> 00:23:20,760
Speaker 1: who are on the ground, who have closer access to

333
00:23:20,800 --> 00:23:23,080
Speaker 1: the facts and so on. But I don't take the

334
00:23:23,119 --> 00:23:24,800
Speaker 1: Chief Justice. I could be wrong, I would say, but

335
00:23:24,840 --> 00:23:27,000
Speaker 1: I don't take the Chief Justice to be saying, you know,

336
00:23:27,280 --> 00:23:31,360
Speaker 1: because of a virus, uh, the first Amendment is judicial

337
00:23:31,359 --> 00:23:33,800
Speaker 1: review under the First Amendment is suspended. I think that

338
00:23:33,840 --> 00:23:37,400
Speaker 1: would be a mistake. So how did he balance public

339
00:23:37,440 --> 00:23:42,440
Speaker 1: health and religious freedom and his decision? Well, again, the decision,

340
00:23:42,600 --> 00:23:44,919
Speaker 1: I think what's doing the most work is not so

341
00:23:45,000 --> 00:23:48,000
Speaker 1: much his sense of the balance, because I think he'd

342
00:23:48,000 --> 00:23:52,640
Speaker 1: want to say it's not at this point in the procedure. Um,

343
00:23:52,720 --> 00:23:55,359
Speaker 1: it's not really up to the court to kind of

344
00:23:55,440 --> 00:23:58,760
Speaker 1: on its own try to balance these competing things. I mean,

345
00:23:58,800 --> 00:24:02,520
Speaker 1: certainly of dis exercise as a fundamental constitutional right and

346
00:24:03,040 --> 00:24:09,440
Speaker 1: protecting public health is an important public um object for

347
00:24:09,440 --> 00:24:14,200
Speaker 1: for the Chief Justice, though because of the unusual posture

348
00:24:14,200 --> 00:24:18,120
Speaker 1: where you're seeking an emergency stay, I think his view

349
00:24:18,240 --> 00:24:22,320
Speaker 1: was that's what makes some difference appropriate in a different

350
00:24:23,160 --> 00:24:26,080
Speaker 1: procedural context. So maybe a couple you know, weeks or

351
00:24:26,080 --> 00:24:29,679
Speaker 1: maybe months from now, it might well be that the

352
00:24:29,720 --> 00:24:31,280
Speaker 1: Court then have to say, well, wait a minute, it

353
00:24:31,320 --> 00:24:33,320
Speaker 1: actually is up to us now to have to kind

354
00:24:33,320 --> 00:24:37,280
Speaker 1: of on our own, use our independent judgment to decide

355
00:24:37,600 --> 00:24:42,520
Speaker 1: whether the state in question, if it's California or somebody else,

356
00:24:43,280 --> 00:24:48,280
Speaker 1: has appropriately tailored the regulations. Um. Again, even in a

357
00:24:48,320 --> 00:24:51,280
Speaker 1: time of a public health emergency, you know, restrictions on

358
00:24:51,320 --> 00:24:55,520
Speaker 1: constitutional rights have to be justified, and um, even if

359
00:24:55,560 --> 00:24:58,560
Speaker 1: defference is appropriate when you're talking about a request for

360
00:24:58,600 --> 00:25:02,840
Speaker 1: an emergency injunction. Again, I'd be surprised if this opinion

361
00:25:02,880 --> 00:25:05,840
Speaker 1: means that there's kind of a blank check too officials

362
00:25:05,480 --> 00:25:09,560
Speaker 1: to indefinitely limit in person religious services, especially as they

363
00:25:09,560 --> 00:25:14,240
Speaker 1: start to open up, um more and more other services. Again,

364
00:25:14,240 --> 00:25:17,440
Speaker 1: the first Amendment, you know, the free exercise right is

365
00:25:17,800 --> 00:25:23,280
Speaker 1: not completely absolute, but it is fundamental and um uh.

366
00:25:23,440 --> 00:25:29,680
Speaker 1: The Constitution allows religious services to be regulated under neutral laws,

367
00:25:29,720 --> 00:25:32,040
Speaker 1: but it doesn't allow religious services to be treated worse

368
00:25:32,280 --> 00:25:34,680
Speaker 1: than things that are similar. So eventually, I think the

369
00:25:34,880 --> 00:25:38,600
Speaker 1: question of you know, again, what our religious services more like, uh,

370
00:25:39,040 --> 00:25:41,080
Speaker 1: would have to be litigated. But I think it's going

371
00:25:41,119 --> 00:25:43,320
Speaker 1: to take a little more time to get a developed

372
00:25:43,640 --> 00:25:46,639
Speaker 1: record on that point. And you'll see, you'll see you'll

373
00:25:46,640 --> 00:25:48,920
Speaker 1: see disagreements among the court. So and we've we've seen

374
00:25:48,960 --> 00:25:51,040
Speaker 1: that already. I mean the Ninth Circuit, which was the

375
00:25:51,040 --> 00:25:54,720
Speaker 1: case that went up to the Supreme Court last week. Um,

376
00:25:54,760 --> 00:25:57,480
Speaker 1: you know, they seem to lean in favor of comparing

377
00:25:57,560 --> 00:26:01,560
Speaker 1: churches to theaters, and the six Circuits seemed a lean

378
00:26:01,640 --> 00:26:03,920
Speaker 1: in favor of comparing them more to the grocery stores.

379
00:26:04,000 --> 00:26:06,919
Speaker 1: So we'll see how that plays out. Why do you

380
00:26:06,960 --> 00:26:11,480
Speaker 1: think the Liberals joined in the majority but didn't sign

381
00:26:11,600 --> 00:26:15,720
Speaker 1: on to Robert's opinion. I'm not sure. Yes, I guess

382
00:26:15,720 --> 00:26:17,680
Speaker 1: I'm reluctant to read too much into it, because again,

383
00:26:18,480 --> 00:26:21,160
Speaker 1: you know, this was um and a lot of people

384
00:26:21,160 --> 00:26:24,560
Speaker 1: have I think missed this. This This wasn't the case

385
00:26:24,600 --> 00:26:27,560
Speaker 1: that the court had accepted for review and actually decided

386
00:26:27,640 --> 00:26:31,120
Speaker 1: five four instead. Um, they didn't have to issue opinions

387
00:26:31,119 --> 00:26:35,560
Speaker 1: at all, right they Justice Gagan received the request first day,

388
00:26:35,560 --> 00:26:38,280
Speaker 1: and she referred it to her colleagues for a vote.

389
00:26:38,840 --> 00:26:41,600
Speaker 1: And oftentimes these things are resolved without any opinion at all.

390
00:26:41,600 --> 00:26:47,120
Speaker 1: It's just an order, you know, the motion the motions denied. Right, Um,

391
00:26:47,160 --> 00:26:50,959
Speaker 1: this wasn't a request for um, what we call stertiary

392
00:26:51,080 --> 00:26:54,840
Speaker 1: or review. Uh. If such a petition comes in at

393
00:26:54,920 --> 00:26:57,560
Speaker 1: some point, we might well see the court grant because

394
00:26:57,600 --> 00:27:00,600
Speaker 1: it only takes four justices to grant. I don't read

395
00:27:00,640 --> 00:27:05,320
Speaker 1: a whole lot into those justices not um uh not

396
00:27:05,400 --> 00:27:09,320
Speaker 1: signing on It could be that, you know, because um,

397
00:27:09,359 --> 00:27:13,960
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts usually agrees with those other four about religious

398
00:27:13,960 --> 00:27:17,199
Speaker 1: freedom matters, that he felt the need to kind of

399
00:27:17,880 --> 00:27:22,320
Speaker 1: explain and respond, uh to kind of publicly make it

400
00:27:22,359 --> 00:27:25,760
Speaker 1: clear that, um, you know, he's he's on board with

401
00:27:25,800 --> 00:27:27,960
Speaker 1: the importance of the of the free exercise of religion.

402
00:27:28,800 --> 00:27:31,800
Speaker 1: But um, anything else on my part is really just

403
00:27:31,840 --> 00:27:34,199
Speaker 1: speculations as to why the other four didn't jore it

404
00:27:34,240 --> 00:27:37,159
Speaker 1: didn't join, But again it's not unusual for justices to

405
00:27:37,240 --> 00:27:39,320
Speaker 1: not join opinions that have to do only with orders.

406
00:27:39,640 --> 00:27:43,000
Speaker 1: Do you think that his opinion gives enough guidance to

407
00:27:43,760 --> 00:27:50,720
Speaker 1: lower courts about how to proceed in these matters? Now? Um? Well,

408
00:27:50,760 --> 00:27:54,720
Speaker 1: I think it provides uh, some guidance or at least

409
00:27:54,760 --> 00:27:59,000
Speaker 1: some clues for uh, how appellate courts are going to

410
00:27:59,080 --> 00:28:05,959
Speaker 1: treat reques for injunctions right emergency injunctions. Um. I I

411
00:28:06,000 --> 00:28:09,840
Speaker 1: don't think it's it ought to be seen as providing

412
00:28:09,840 --> 00:28:13,840
Speaker 1: a blueprint blueprint, sorry, for how these cases should be regarded, um,

413
00:28:14,520 --> 00:28:18,159
Speaker 1: resolved on the merits when they're presented, because again the

414
00:28:18,560 --> 00:28:21,439
Speaker 1: justices don't just don't have the benefit really of the

415
00:28:21,600 --> 00:28:25,000
Speaker 1: usual course of litigation. And going forward, some lower courts

416
00:28:25,080 --> 00:28:29,240
Speaker 1: probably probably will, but I suspect that you will see some,

417
00:28:29,880 --> 00:28:33,320
Speaker 1: especially a pellet courts, kind of sounding a similar theme

418
00:28:33,400 --> 00:28:37,199
Speaker 1: of you know, for now we're going to defer to

419
00:28:37,240 --> 00:28:40,640
Speaker 1: local officials. But um, again, the facts are fluid, and

420
00:28:40,640 --> 00:28:43,320
Speaker 1: these orders are changing, and there they vary from state

421
00:28:43,360 --> 00:28:47,920
Speaker 1: to state and locality to locality, and as the as

422
00:28:47,920 --> 00:28:52,360
Speaker 1: we learn more about the coronavirus, and as the nature

423
00:28:52,440 --> 00:28:58,880
Speaker 1: of the threat UM changes hopefully improves UM. I think

424
00:28:59,720 --> 00:29:02,880
Speaker 1: the restrictions on in person religious services will will have

425
00:29:02,960 --> 00:29:05,560
Speaker 1: to evolve and will have to be lifted, because again,

426
00:29:06,200 --> 00:29:11,680
Speaker 1: religious services can't be treated worse than other similar activities.

427
00:29:12,160 --> 00:29:15,080
Speaker 1: Thanks for being on Bloomberg Law. Rick. That's Richard Garnett,

428
00:29:15,080 --> 00:29:19,960
Speaker 1: a professor at Notre Dame Law School. Thanks for listening

429
00:29:20,000 --> 00:29:23,280
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen

430
00:29:23,320 --> 00:29:26,880
Speaker 1: to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg

431
00:29:26,960 --> 00:29:31,680
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast. I'm June Basso. This is Bloomberg