Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: In cities across the country, as we see nightly video
Speaker 1: of fires and looting overshadowing peaceful protests, protesters are demanding
Speaker 1: justice for George Floyd, who died last week after a
Speaker 1: Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for more than
Speaker 1: eight minutes during an arrest for an alleged counterfeit twenty
Speaker 1: dollar bill. Joining me is Kimberly Crenshaw, a professor Columbia
Speaker 1: Law School and a leading scholar of critical race theory
Speaker 1: who developed the theory of intersectionality. Is this unrest a
Speaker 1: reaction to George Floyd's death or was it a combination
Speaker 1: of things coming together? Well, I think it's clear that
Speaker 1: it was a combination of many things coming together. There
Speaker 1: of course, had been many deaths since the last moment
Speaker 1: of civil unrest over police killing of black people. Um,
Speaker 1: and that's just been again a study beat. It hasn't
Speaker 1: been at all arrested since the last major uprising. And
Speaker 1: then one has to also take into account that the
Speaker 1: killing that that prompted all of this caught on video,
Speaker 1: particularly egregious, particularly statistic comes on the heels of a
Speaker 1: vigilante style of slaying that happened in Georgia, and the
Speaker 1: killing also of a black woman, Brianna Taylor in her
Speaker 1: bed uh, in her own home. So I think it
Speaker 1: was a sort of the constant reminder of the procarity
Speaker 1: of black life and that uh, it's simply amplifying the
Speaker 1: fact that black lives were being lost by COVID UM,
Speaker 1: thousands upon thousands of Black lives being lost to COVID,
Speaker 1: And the overall impression, UH, at least coming from the
Speaker 1: White House, if not more broadly for many UM governors,
Speaker 1: and it seems more broadly from the community at large,
Speaker 1: is that this loss of life is not particularly significant.
Speaker 1: So I think the frustration building up around the constant
Speaker 1: messaging that your lives really don't matter UM was a
Speaker 1: tinder box waiting to happen. Are you surprised at the
Speaker 1: extent of the reaction, not only in this country but worldwide?
Speaker 1: Not having lived through now two other moments in history
Speaker 1: where there's been broad UM reaction. I think that some
Speaker 1: part of the strength of this lene and the depth
Speaker 1: of it is because they're they're sort of a recognition
Speaker 1: that there's the moment of outrage. There's protests, there's promises
Speaker 1: that something is going to happen, and then nothing happens,
Speaker 1: I mean literally very little happy ends, and then other
Speaker 1: avenues are are shut off. UM. I think, at least
Speaker 1: in in the minds of many people here in the
Speaker 1: United States, peaceful protests taken up by UH Kaepernick, for example,
Speaker 1: UM the football player resulted in him being um actually
Speaker 1: unable to do his job, being uh verbally assaulted by
Speaker 1: the President of the United States. So the message seems
Speaker 1: to be not that there's a proper way and an
Speaker 1: improper way. There is no way to actually protest and
Speaker 1: create the meaningful avenue towards change. And I think that
Speaker 1: messaging is the one that is so completely, um debilitating,
Speaker 1: so frustrating that it it generates UM sort of mass
Speaker 1: outrage and the desire to demand a different outcome. This time,
Speaker 1: we saw some police kneeling in solidarity with the protesters,
Speaker 1: and we saw violent confrontations in other places. How should
Speaker 1: police and government leaders be handling this? Is there any
Speaker 1: right way to handle this? Well? I was very impressed
Speaker 1: by some of the performances that I saw by police
Speaker 1: officials and in fact some police I saw a clip
Speaker 1: from Houston where the chiefs of police there has offered
Speaker 1: to escort UM George Floyd's body back to Houston. I
Speaker 1: think that is utterly unprecedented. UM the police chief UH
Speaker 1: in UH Minneapolis taking off his hat in speaking UH
Speaker 1: to the family. Now, many people will say that these
Speaker 1: are symbolic, and they are indeed symbolic. They will point
Speaker 1: out that there are ways that even these police chiefs
Speaker 1: UM could do more and maybe constrained from doing more,
Speaker 1: given the structural realities that we have a highly militarized
Speaker 1: UH police force across the country, and many constraints that
Speaker 1: might otherwise be placed on them have been removed or
Speaker 1: not are not actually actionable because of law, Supreme Court doctrine,
Speaker 1: and politics. So the structural dimensions of racialized policing are
Speaker 1: still a problem. But these symbolic gestures, I think are
Speaker 1: cracks in the blue wall. They are acknowledgements that what
Speaker 1: we saw there was utterly inhumane, completely and totally inexcusable,
Speaker 1: and reflection of what police officers are able to do
Speaker 1: or feeling hour to do when of the death of
Speaker 1: black people in the last five years UM have resulted
Speaker 1: in no charges against the police officers. So a symbolic
Speaker 1: crack is an important moment, an important recognition that there
Speaker 1: is something that's too much. Now, the fact that that
Speaker 1: something is something like this con on tape UM and
Speaker 1: that's so vicious doesn't say a lot, But the fact
Speaker 1: that it's meaningful that they did it says a lot.
Speaker 1: So I think that's good. My worry at this moment, frankly,
Speaker 1: is that the UH media UM engagement with the protests,
Speaker 1: of focusing exclusively pretty much UM at this point, it
Speaker 1: seems on the violence. UH undermines these symbolic moments, and
Speaker 1: it undermines the the fact that the vast majority of
Speaker 1: people protesting our protesters, to to say, the protesters and
Speaker 1: looters are one and the same, UH is the same
Speaker 1: kind of group logic and group punishment that contributes to
Speaker 1: precisely the kinds of things that the protesters are protesting against.
Speaker 1: So now the question is whether the media can break
Speaker 1: out of the cycle of of of focusing on the
Speaker 1: fires and the sirens and not at least trying to
Speaker 1: balance that with attention given to the demands of the
Speaker 1: protesters and the possibilities of resolving this through de escalation
Speaker 1: as opposed to um the siren UH, the literal siren
Speaker 1: and the metaphoric siren that we're seeing in the coverage
Speaker 1: right now. I want to turn to the charges for
Speaker 1: a moment. So we see now this video, and most
Speaker 1: people look at this and say, this is an open
Speaker 1: and shut case for the police officer to be convicted. However,
Speaker 1: we see that before, and it's it's rare that a
Speaker 1: police officer gets convicted in these circumstances. Yes, it is rare.
Speaker 1: UM when need only go back to the last the
Speaker 1: time that UM there was UH controversial UH acquittal, and
Speaker 1: that was you know, the Rodney King UH acquittal, when
Speaker 1: there was an there was video tape of basically a
Speaker 1: gang beating of Rodney King, and many people, I was
Speaker 1: among them, I thought that this was going to come
Speaker 1: out differently because so many times they conflict was over
Speaker 1: what actually happened. So there's a long history of black
Speaker 1: UH witnesses not being believed. It used to be a
Speaker 1: matter of law, the black witnesses couldn't even testify against
Speaker 1: white people. We had the echoes of that in contemporary
Speaker 1: UH court cases against police officers. But a lot of
Speaker 1: people thought this is on tape, So we cannot lose here.
Speaker 1: And I think some part of the outrage was, my God,
Speaker 1: even when it's on tape, even when you can see
Speaker 1: um uh, police officers swarming a black man, um who's
Speaker 1: prone on the ground and beating him senseless, potentially even
Speaker 1: killing him, we still can't get a conviction. And I
Speaker 1: think what a lot of folks don't really understand is
Speaker 1: how it happened. And one of the ways it happened
Speaker 1: was that the defense attorney said, um, you show us
Speaker 1: the in the still picture where the force became excessive.
Speaker 1: It only becomes excessive when Rodney King complies. And because
Speaker 1: Rodney kinging is trying to shield himself from the blows,
Speaker 1: there's no moment in which he's prone, still complying with
Speaker 1: the police officers. This is another reason by so many
Speaker 1: chokeholds um did not result in a conviction, even when
Speaker 1: the chokeholds killed the person, Because when you're when you're
Speaker 1: dying and your body is dying, it flails, it moves,
Speaker 1: it tries to breathe. And again they were able to say, well,
Speaker 1: the person is not compliant, so he can, uh, the
Speaker 1: officer can continue applying the force. The thing that's different
Speaker 1: about this video is that it is abundantly clear that
Speaker 1: the officer continues to apply the force after after George
Speaker 1: Floyd is no longer responsive a full two minutes after,
Speaker 1: so some of the controversy about the charges. At that point,
Speaker 1: it becomes clear that this officer is intending to inflict
Speaker 1: maximum harm on him and it should be up to
Speaker 1: the jury to decide whether that intention is enough to
Speaker 1: justify a murder conviction. I, for one, the family, the attorneys,
Speaker 1: many people think that, uh, a charge can be made out.
Speaker 1: And let me just point out one of the things
Speaker 1: that happens in the criminal justice system all the time
Speaker 1: is that people are the prosecutor's charge and they also
Speaker 1: include lesser charges and leave it up to the jury
Speaker 1: to decide if that's sufficient for ordinary um criminal um defendants.
Speaker 1: Why is that not sufficient, uh for this police officer
Speaker 1: and the rest of them? I might add, So you
Speaker 1: think that it should have been a higher charge than
Speaker 1: third degree murder. I think that he could have charged
Speaker 1: for all and leave it to the jury to decide.
Speaker 1: I do understand, and this makes sense to a lot
Speaker 1: of people. They really need to get a conviction. They
Speaker 1: really need to get a conviction so there's reason to
Speaker 1: to worry that sometimes juries might react to what they
Speaker 1: perceive as an overcharge, leading to an acquittal. So some
Speaker 1: of my colleagues are saying that this, in fact is
Speaker 1: the safest bet, and I agree that it is safer,
Speaker 1: but I also think there's a symbolic dimension to actually
Speaker 1: denouncing what is seen. One has to recall as well
Speaker 1: that there's a police officer in Minnesota that was recently
Speaker 1: convicted of the same charge, and his act involved shooting
Speaker 1: someone who apparently startled him. So it was a split
Speaker 1: second choice that was shown to be criminally negligent, and
Speaker 1: he was convicted. These are two different levels, though. What
Speaker 1: Chalmon did and what this officer did just seems to
Speaker 1: be incredibly different, and so the symbolic story of basically
Speaker 1: making these the same seems not to capture what it
Speaker 1: was that drives so many people, you know, to angry
Speaker 1: protests when they saw that video. Let me ask you this,
Speaker 1: there are calls for the three other officers to be charged.
Speaker 1: Should they be charged equally or should they be charged
Speaker 1: as accessories? Well, I think minimally they should be charged
Speaker 1: as accessories, and I would not be opposed to them.
Speaker 1: Actually being charged along with Chamin. We have to remember
Speaker 1: that in our criminal justice system, there are many people
Speaker 1: serving many years for actions that they helped facilitate, even
Speaker 1: though they didn't themselves do it. Felony murder, for example,
Speaker 1: is a commonly used way of accusing, prosecuting, and convicting
Speaker 1: everyone who's involved in a criminal enterprise, whether they were
Speaker 1: the ones that actually inflicted the fatal blow or shot
Speaker 1: the fatal bullet, are not um. So our criminal justice
Speaker 1: system recognizes that everyone is accountable and can be made
Speaker 1: accountable for an act that they helped facilitate. Look at
Speaker 1: that videotape. Two of the other officers were actually holding
Speaker 1: him down. Another one was effectively keeping any other humanitarian
Speaker 1: aid at bay. How can they not be responsible? How
Speaker 1: can they be sitting in their homes safely at this
Speaker 1: moment when thousands of people um are in the streets
Speaker 1: and many people are being arrested. So one I have
Speaker 1: to remember that the point of charging is to denounce
Speaker 1: behavior that this society has a judge to be criminal
Speaker 1: and immoral. I wonder if there is a defense out
Speaker 1: in that that George Floyd had underlying conditions and it
Speaker 1: was a combination of factors that led to his death,
Speaker 1: whether that will be something the defense can use to
Speaker 1: win another acquital here. I'm so glad you mentioned that,
Speaker 1: because one of the sub struggles in many of these
Speaker 1: cases is the choice of the corner to attribute the
Speaker 1: death of a person who's died at the hands at
Speaker 1: least to underlying condition. And it's interesting there there's some
Speaker 1: evidence that one of the officers who tried to suggest
Speaker 1: that perhaps they were getting into the territory of this
Speaker 1: excited delirium so that perhaps they should stop, seemed to
Speaker 1: be aware of this fact that they were moving into
Speaker 1: a terrain in which if they didn't do something, this
Speaker 1: person might die, and it would be kind of an
Speaker 1: open question as to whether this was a homicide for
Speaker 1: which they were responsible. This is all to say that
Speaker 1: there's a whole system that allows this to continue, and
Speaker 1: part of that system is not to acknowledge that had
Speaker 1: this encounter not happened, then this person would not be dead.
Speaker 1: And that is in fact, one of the real eyebrow
Speaker 1: raising concerns of moving forward in this case and in
Speaker 1: many of the others. That's Professor Kimberly Crenshaw of Columbia
Speaker 1: Law School, the Supreme Court rejected calls by churches in
Speaker 1: California and Illinois to block restrictions on worship services during
Speaker 1: the coronavirus outbreak, but the orders came in a closely
Speaker 1: divided five to four decision. Joining me is. Richard Garnett,
Speaker 1: a professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School,
Speaker 1: tell us what the church was objecting to, sure well, UM,
Speaker 1: So this this particular UH litigation involving regulations of in
Speaker 1: person religious services, and of course we've seen lots of
Speaker 1: these all over the country. UM came out of California,
Speaker 1: and the church was objecting to what they saw, as
Speaker 1: you know, overly restrictive limits on again in person religious
Speaker 1: service gatherings UM. And you know, litigation commenced, this being America,
Speaker 1: litigation usually does. And the church was seeking for what's
Speaker 1: called an injunction that as they wanted the court to
Speaker 1: stop UM the order that was in place UM limiting
Speaker 1: their in person services, and the federal courts out in
Speaker 1: California declined to do that. So things were moving kind
Speaker 1: of quickly on the ground because as as the church
Speaker 1: was asking the Supreme Court to step in and to
Speaker 1: put a stop um to the to the restrictions. UM
Speaker 1: governor knewso uh came out with kind of a modified order.
Speaker 1: So under the current order, and we're speaking on Monday, UM,
Speaker 1: religious services that are in person are permitted, but they're
Speaker 1: limited in terms of the percentage capacity. I believe it's
Speaker 1: UM or to a hundred people, UM, whatever's whatever's greater.
Speaker 1: And so the church's argument to the Supreme Court was that, look,
Speaker 1: we want you to enjoy this policy of violence the
Speaker 1: free exercise clause. And the reason it does is because
Speaker 1: it's it's discriminating against religious services. But if it's not
Speaker 1: treating in person religious services UM the same way as
Speaker 1: it's treating analogous secular activities. But the wrinkle here is
Speaker 1: is just um uh, what is it exactly that we
Speaker 1: should be comparing in person religious services to um so.
Speaker 1: On the one side, and this is the church's argument,
Speaker 1: the claim is, look, UM, in person religious services should
Speaker 1: be treated just like say, grocery stores or factories or
Speaker 1: um restaurants and so on, which are which are currently
Speaker 1: allowed to be open under less restrictive rules in California.
Speaker 1: And the state's argument was that, well, no, actually, religious
Speaker 1: services are more like you know, movies, or theater events
Speaker 1: or concerts or sporting events where you know, large numbers
Speaker 1: of people are congregating for extended periods of time and
Speaker 1: maybe singing, and so if you want to you know,
Speaker 1: the free exercise clause does it does ban discrimination? We agree,
Speaker 1: but um, uh there is no such discrimination happening here
Speaker 1: because religious services are being treated like the state says
Speaker 1: similar things. So what split the justices? So coming out
Speaker 1: of Supreme Court, the the interesting thing to watch and
Speaker 1: this is what divided the justices, Um was you know,
Speaker 1: whether these in person religious services should be thought of
Speaker 1: as being uh more like grocery stores, are more like movies,
Speaker 1: and uh that's what That's what the Justice has divided on.
Speaker 1: But it is worth remembering, and some of the press
Speaker 1: coverage didn't quite get this right. Uh, the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: didn't sort of carefully evaluate and decide that in fact,
Speaker 1: the California rules are constitutional. Um. The Chief Justice Robberts
Speaker 1: was careful to emphasize that this is kind of an
Speaker 1: unusual pers fejural situation where you have a litigant who's
Speaker 1: trying to stop a policy that's in place before it's
Speaker 1: really been litigated, and that that's what you know an
Speaker 1: emergency injunction is and in situations like that, Um, the
Speaker 1: Court is reluctant to intervene too hastily, write the Court.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court, generally speaking, likes to have the facts
Speaker 1: developed a little bit more um through the normal course
Speaker 1: of litigation before it wags in. So it's entirely possible
Speaker 1: that UM Justice Kavanaughs dissenting opinion that that the California
Speaker 1: ruled is not permissible. That might well be what the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court would say eventually, or it might well be
Speaker 1: what the Court will say eventually. It's that's pretty much
Speaker 1: what another federal court UM in the Sixth Circuit has said.
Speaker 1: So it would be a mistake, I think, for the
Speaker 1: governor of California or for anybody else to assume that
Speaker 1: the policy now has the kind of Supreme Courts constitutional blessing. Um.
Speaker 1: What happens instead, I think, is that the Court is
Speaker 1: taking seriously the fact that the facts on the ground
Speaker 1: are fluid and changing. And if this litigation continues, there
Speaker 1: could well come a day when when a federal court says, no, Um.
Speaker 1: You know, temporary measures are one thing, but you can't
Speaker 1: indefinitely um place these kinds of limits on in person
Speaker 1: religious services. Because you know, our our First Amendment embodies
Speaker 1: a commitment to the idea that religious exercise is really important,
Speaker 1: then it has to be treated um as such. And
Speaker 1: while of course I think all the justices agreed that,
Speaker 1: you know, stopping a pandemic and stopping the spread up
Speaker 1: virus is a very important government interest, I think everybody
Speaker 1: also agrees that we don't just switch off the constitution
Speaker 1: just because we're in a public health emergency. And so
Speaker 1: I think this litigation will continue, um. But but for now,
Speaker 1: the Court didn't want to uh step in and sort
Speaker 1: of second s the local officials without the benefit of
Speaker 1: more fact development. Chief Justice Roberts said that judges must
Speaker 1: give elected officials wide latitude to make health and safety
Speaker 1: judgments during a pandemic. It seems to go further than
Speaker 1: just saying this is more like a movie theater than
Speaker 1: a grocery store. Yeah. I think that's consistent with what
Speaker 1: I was saying, in the sense that um, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: some difference is appropriate, and that that provides a good
Speaker 1: reason for the Court not to swoop in and put
Speaker 1: a stay on the order before the regular litigation process
Speaker 1: has time to develop. The facts. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: I think it's a mistake. I don't think the Chief
Speaker 1: Justice means to say that, um, local officials can just
Speaker 1: invoke public health and then they get a blank check
Speaker 1: that that's I think that's a misunderstanding of the Court's presidents. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, judicial reviews still exists even when we're talking
Speaker 1: about public health. But but certainly for the Chief Justice,
Speaker 1: and this is consistent with his jurisp students generally. UM,
Speaker 1: there's a sense that unelected federal judges here, he's sounding
Speaker 1: a lot like his his boss, Chief Justice rankuist Um.
Speaker 1: Unelected federal judges should appropriately, um defer to local officials
Speaker 1: who are on the ground, who have closer access to
Speaker 1: the facts and so on. But I don't take the
Speaker 1: Chief Justice. I could be wrong, I would say, but
Speaker 1: I don't take the Chief Justice to be saying, you know,
Speaker 1: because of a virus, uh, the first Amendment is judicial
Speaker 1: review under the First Amendment is suspended. I think that
Speaker 1: would be a mistake. So how did he balance public
Speaker 1: health and religious freedom and his decision? Well, again, the decision,
Speaker 1: I think what's doing the most work is not so
Speaker 1: much his sense of the balance, because I think he'd
Speaker 1: want to say it's not at this point in the procedure. Um,
Speaker 1: it's not really up to the court to kind of
Speaker 1: on its own try to balance these competing things. I mean,
Speaker 1: certainly of dis exercise as a fundamental constitutional right and
Speaker 1: protecting public health is an important public um object for
Speaker 1: for the Chief Justice, though because of the unusual posture
Speaker 1: where you're seeking an emergency stay, I think his view
Speaker 1: was that's what makes some difference appropriate in a different
Speaker 1: procedural context. So maybe a couple you know, weeks or
Speaker 1: maybe months from now, it might well be that the
Speaker 1: Court then have to say, well, wait a minute, it
Speaker 1: actually is up to us now to have to kind
Speaker 1: of on our own, use our independent judgment to decide
Speaker 1: whether the state in question, if it's California or somebody else,
Speaker 1: has appropriately tailored the regulations. Um. Again, even in a
Speaker 1: time of a public health emergency, you know, restrictions on
Speaker 1: constitutional rights have to be justified, and um, even if
Speaker 1: defference is appropriate when you're talking about a request for
Speaker 1: an emergency injunction. Again, I'd be surprised if this opinion
Speaker 1: means that there's kind of a blank check too officials
Speaker 1: to indefinitely limit in person religious services, especially as they
Speaker 1: start to open up, um more and more other services. Again,
Speaker 1: the first Amendment, you know, the free exercise right is
Speaker 1: not completely absolute, but it is fundamental and um uh.
Speaker 1: The Constitution allows religious services to be regulated under neutral laws,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't allow religious services to be treated worse
Speaker 1: than things that are similar. So eventually, I think the
Speaker 1: question of you know, again, what our religious services more like, uh,
Speaker 1: would have to be litigated. But I think it's going
Speaker 1: to take a little more time to get a developed
Speaker 1: record on that point. And you'll see, you'll see you'll
Speaker 1: see disagreements among the court. So and we've we've seen
Speaker 1: that already. I mean the Ninth Circuit, which was the
Speaker 1: case that went up to the Supreme Court last week. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, they seem to lean in favor of comparing
Speaker 1: churches to theaters, and the six Circuits seemed a lean
Speaker 1: in favor of comparing them more to the grocery stores.
Speaker 1: So we'll see how that plays out. Why do you
Speaker 1: think the Liberals joined in the majority but didn't sign
Speaker 1: on to Robert's opinion. I'm not sure. Yes, I guess
Speaker 1: I'm reluctant to read too much into it, because again,
Speaker 1: you know, this was um and a lot of people
Speaker 1: have I think missed this. This This wasn't the case
Speaker 1: that the court had accepted for review and actually decided
Speaker 1: five four instead. Um, they didn't have to issue opinions
Speaker 1: at all, right they Justice Gagan received the request first day,
Speaker 1: and she referred it to her colleagues for a vote.
Speaker 1: And oftentimes these things are resolved without any opinion at all.
Speaker 1: It's just an order, you know, the motion the motions denied. Right, Um,
Speaker 1: this wasn't a request for um, what we call stertiary
Speaker 1: or review. Uh. If such a petition comes in at
Speaker 1: some point, we might well see the court grant because
Speaker 1: it only takes four justices to grant. I don't read
Speaker 1: a whole lot into those justices not um uh not
Speaker 1: signing on It could be that, you know, because um,
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts usually agrees with those other four about religious
Speaker 1: freedom matters, that he felt the need to kind of
Speaker 1: explain and respond, uh to kind of publicly make it
Speaker 1: clear that, um, you know, he's he's on board with
Speaker 1: the importance of the of the free exercise of religion.
Speaker 1: But um, anything else on my part is really just
Speaker 1: speculations as to why the other four didn't jore it
Speaker 1: didn't join, But again it's not unusual for justices to
Speaker 1: not join opinions that have to do only with orders.
Speaker 1: Do you think that his opinion gives enough guidance to
Speaker 1: lower courts about how to proceed in these matters? Now? Um? Well,
Speaker 1: I think it provides uh, some guidance or at least
Speaker 1: some clues for uh, how appellate courts are going to
Speaker 1: treat reques for injunctions right emergency injunctions. Um. I I
Speaker 1: don't think it's it ought to be seen as providing
Speaker 1: a blueprint blueprint, sorry, for how these cases should be regarded, um,
Speaker 1: resolved on the merits when they're presented, because again the
Speaker 1: justices don't just don't have the benefit really of the
Speaker 1: usual course of litigation. And going forward, some lower courts
Speaker 1: probably probably will, but I suspect that you will see some,
Speaker 1: especially a pellet courts, kind of sounding a similar theme
Speaker 1: of you know, for now we're going to defer to
Speaker 1: local officials. But um, again, the facts are fluid, and
Speaker 1: these orders are changing, and there they vary from state
Speaker 1: to state and locality to locality, and as the as
Speaker 1: we learn more about the coronavirus, and as the nature
Speaker 1: of the threat UM changes hopefully improves UM. I think
Speaker 1: the restrictions on in person religious services will will have
Speaker 1: to evolve and will have to be lifted, because again,
Speaker 1: religious services can't be treated worse than other similar activities.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being on Bloomberg Law. Rick. That's Richard Garnett,
Speaker 1: a professor at Notre Dame Law School. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen
Speaker 1: to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast. I'm June Basso. This is Bloomberg