1
00:00:03,080 --> 00:00:08,280
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,119 --> 00:00:12,080
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has raised the stakes in the politically

3
00:00:12,119 --> 00:00:16,440
Speaker 1: explosive fight over abortion rights. It's agreed to hear arguments

4
00:00:16,440 --> 00:00:19,119
Speaker 1: in a matter of weeks rather than months, over the

5
00:00:19,200 --> 00:00:23,919
Speaker 1: controversial Texas law that bans almost all abortions after six

6
00:00:24,000 --> 00:00:28,200
Speaker 1: weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they're pregnant.

7
00:00:28,640 --> 00:00:30,800
Speaker 1: When she told me that I was measuring at ten

8
00:00:30,840 --> 00:00:37,760
Speaker 1: and a half weeks, I just cried. I was heartbroken

9
00:00:38,560 --> 00:00:44,879
Speaker 1: and terrified because I felt like the only option that

10
00:00:44,960 --> 00:00:48,600
Speaker 1: I knew I had. What's gone? This twenty one year

11
00:00:48,640 --> 00:00:52,800
Speaker 1: old Texas college student called more than thirty abortion clinics

12
00:00:52,800 --> 00:00:56,240
Speaker 1: in nearby states before finally getting an appointment at a

13
00:00:56,240 --> 00:00:59,800
Speaker 1: clinic in Mississippi. A predicament that Justice Sonia so to

14
00:00:59,880 --> 00:01:02,720
Speaker 1: my you are referred to in her partial descent. My

15
00:01:02,840 --> 00:01:06,399
Speaker 1: guest is constitutional law professor Leah Littman of the University

16
00:01:06,400 --> 00:01:10,120
Speaker 1: of Michigan Law School. Leah, the justices are going to

17
00:01:10,200 --> 00:01:17,440
Speaker 1: consider these two cases on an extraordinarily expedited basis briefing schedule,

18
00:01:17,640 --> 00:01:21,240
Speaker 1: culminating in oral arguments in just ten days. What does

19
00:01:21,280 --> 00:01:24,840
Speaker 1: that tell you. If anything, it's hard to read that

20
00:01:24,920 --> 00:01:27,959
Speaker 1: much into the decision to expedite the cases, given that

21
00:01:28,319 --> 00:01:31,720
Speaker 1: at the same time, the Court declined to disturb the

22
00:01:31,880 --> 00:01:35,640
Speaker 1: Fist Circuit opinion that had put on hold the injunction

23
00:01:35,880 --> 00:01:41,880
Speaker 1: against spate. That is, the Supreme Court declined to prevent

24
00:01:42,160 --> 00:01:46,679
Speaker 1: SPATE from being enforced while it was considering these cases.

25
00:01:47,160 --> 00:01:50,400
Speaker 1: So it doesn't appear to think that there's enough of

26
00:01:50,600 --> 00:01:54,680
Speaker 1: an emergency to require the courts to put spate on

27
00:01:54,800 --> 00:01:57,480
Speaker 1: hold while it considers the cases, but still enough of

28
00:01:57,520 --> 00:02:01,520
Speaker 1: an emergency to require the courts to expedite consideration of

29
00:02:01,560 --> 00:02:05,040
Speaker 1: these cases. So it's hard to read too much into

30
00:02:05,080 --> 00:02:07,880
Speaker 1: the Court's decision to grant the cases and hear them

31
00:02:07,920 --> 00:02:10,959
Speaker 1: on such a quick timeline. Do you orders arise out

32
00:02:10,960 --> 00:02:14,200
Speaker 1: of two cases? Tell us about the cases and the

33
00:02:14,400 --> 00:02:19,280
Speaker 1: different questions in them. So one case is by abortion providers,

34
00:02:19,320 --> 00:02:22,799
Speaker 1: and the abortion providers sought an injunction that would prevent

35
00:02:23,000 --> 00:02:26,600
Speaker 1: SPATE from being enforced. And the second case is filed

36
00:02:26,639 --> 00:02:29,440
Speaker 1: by the United States, and the United States also sought

37
00:02:29,440 --> 00:02:32,680
Speaker 1: to prevent SPATE from being enforced. But the differences in

38
00:02:32,680 --> 00:02:36,480
Speaker 1: the case arise because the United States, because it is

39
00:02:36,480 --> 00:02:40,360
Speaker 1: the federal government has the authority to do the State

40
00:02:40,440 --> 00:02:44,800
Speaker 1: of Texas. Private citizens like the abortion providers, however, do not,

41
00:02:45,200 --> 00:02:50,000
Speaker 1: and so the abortion providers had to identify particular state

42
00:02:50,040 --> 00:02:53,840
Speaker 1: officials who had some connection to the enforcement of the

43
00:02:53,919 --> 00:02:57,919
Speaker 1: law in their lawsuit, and the questions in the abortion

44
00:02:57,960 --> 00:03:02,640
Speaker 1: providers case are basically other. The officials that the providers

45
00:03:02,720 --> 00:03:06,120
Speaker 1: named have enough of connection to the enforcement of the law,

46
00:03:06,400 --> 00:03:09,560
Speaker 1: given that the state effectively tried to outsource enforcement of

47
00:03:09,600 --> 00:03:13,600
Speaker 1: the law to private citizens and avoid litigation. The questions

48
00:03:13,639 --> 00:03:17,200
Speaker 1: in the United States lawsuit, by contrast, concerned whether the

49
00:03:17,280 --> 00:03:21,480
Speaker 1: United States as an entity is injured by s P eight.

50
00:03:21,880 --> 00:03:24,560
Speaker 1: No one doubts that the providers, who were no longer

51
00:03:24,600 --> 00:03:27,640
Speaker 1: able to obtain abortions are injured by s P eight,

52
00:03:27,919 --> 00:03:31,320
Speaker 1: but Texases are doing that the United States isn't injured,

53
00:03:31,480 --> 00:03:35,600
Speaker 1: and that the United States doesn't have the legal authorization

54
00:03:35,720 --> 00:03:38,240
Speaker 1: to suit the United States last what's called a cause

55
00:03:38,280 --> 00:03:41,080
Speaker 1: of action. So those are some of the different questions

56
00:03:41,120 --> 00:03:43,920
Speaker 1: that are in play in the two different cases. This

57
00:03:44,040 --> 00:03:46,520
Speaker 1: was the second time the court refused to block the law.

58
00:03:46,960 --> 00:03:50,200
Speaker 1: How unusual is it for the court not to block

59
00:03:50,280 --> 00:03:54,120
Speaker 1: a law that's being challenged, and the Court is considering.

60
00:03:54,880 --> 00:03:59,960
Speaker 1: It really depends. I would say the practice is sometimes

61
00:04:00,040 --> 00:04:03,240
Speaker 1: aims not to block the law. But given that this

62
00:04:03,360 --> 00:04:09,680
Speaker 1: law is concededly unconstitutional and is preventing people from obtaining

63
00:04:09,720 --> 00:04:13,880
Speaker 1: abortions in clear and undisputed conflict with Row versus Wade,

64
00:04:14,320 --> 00:04:18,120
Speaker 1: it is unusual to not block the law, which again

65
00:04:18,240 --> 00:04:22,159
Speaker 1: Texas is barely even bothering to defend on the merits.

66
00:04:23,040 --> 00:04:29,080
Speaker 1: Some people have viewed that refusal as an indication that

67
00:04:29,120 --> 00:04:33,839
Speaker 1: there are five justices who are willing to uphold this law.

68
00:04:34,520 --> 00:04:37,359
Speaker 1: I think it's difficult to know what the Supreme Court

69
00:04:37,400 --> 00:04:39,440
Speaker 1: is going to do with it. I think there is

70
00:04:39,839 --> 00:04:43,279
Speaker 1: a possibility that the Supreme Court will say the United

71
00:04:43,320 --> 00:04:46,360
Speaker 1: States has authority to do states that it believes are

72
00:04:46,400 --> 00:04:51,919
Speaker 1: acting unconstitutionally and that have a thought to insulate themselves

73
00:04:51,960 --> 00:04:57,280
Speaker 1: from accountability to private citizens. But that doesn't necessarily mean

74
00:04:57,440 --> 00:05:02,400
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court would then say SP eight is unconstitutional.

75
00:05:02,640 --> 00:05:06,240
Speaker 1: That is, ostensibly, the only questions that the Supreme Court

76
00:05:06,240 --> 00:05:09,760
Speaker 1: will be addressing in these cases is whether a federal

77
00:05:09,800 --> 00:05:14,920
Speaker 1: court can even decide whether SP eight is unconstitutional and

78
00:05:15,000 --> 00:05:18,160
Speaker 1: if so, enjoy the law. The Court is only addressing

79
00:05:18,440 --> 00:05:23,440
Speaker 1: threshold procedural questions about whether a court can decide if

80
00:05:23,640 --> 00:05:29,000
Speaker 1: SPI is constitutional. Justice Sonia so To Mayor called the

81
00:05:29,040 --> 00:05:34,680
Speaker 1: High Court's refusal to once again block the abortion law catastrophic.

82
00:05:35,120 --> 00:05:39,120
Speaker 1: Can you tell us about her partial descent? Absolutely so.

83
00:05:39,320 --> 00:05:43,000
Speaker 1: Justice Soto Mayor points out that SBA, by the time

84
00:05:43,080 --> 00:05:46,080
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court will have heard oral argument, will have

85
00:05:46,200 --> 00:05:50,040
Speaker 1: been in effect for two months. In that period of time,

86
00:05:50,200 --> 00:05:53,919
Speaker 1: there will be people who have become pregnant, won't know

87
00:05:54,040 --> 00:05:57,680
Speaker 1: they're pregnant, and will not have been able to obtain

88
00:05:57,839 --> 00:06:00,960
Speaker 1: and will not be able to obtain an abortion in

89
00:06:01,000 --> 00:06:04,159
Speaker 1: the state of Texas, given that this law has shut

90
00:06:04,240 --> 00:06:08,680
Speaker 1: down abortion more than six weeks after a person's last period.

91
00:06:09,160 --> 00:06:13,800
Speaker 1: Justice so Do Mayor also recounts the influx of patients

92
00:06:13,880 --> 00:06:17,599
Speaker 1: to clinics in other states, desperate patients who come to

93
00:06:17,720 --> 00:06:22,560
Speaker 1: abortion providers and doctors in tears seeking medical care that

94
00:06:22,680 --> 00:06:25,760
Speaker 1: doctors are unable to provide them, as well as the

95
00:06:25,800 --> 00:06:29,360
Speaker 1: individuals who, because of a variety of circumstances, are not

96
00:06:29,440 --> 00:06:32,360
Speaker 1: able to travel out of state to obtain an abortion care.

97
00:06:32,960 --> 00:06:37,400
Speaker 1: Those harms, Justice so Mayor says won't be remedied even

98
00:06:37,440 --> 00:06:42,320
Speaker 1: if the Supreme Court ultimately says a federal court can

99
00:06:42,520 --> 00:06:46,919
Speaker 1: enjoin SBA going forward. Was it unusual for the Court

100
00:06:47,000 --> 00:06:50,960
Speaker 1: to bypass the Appeals Court, which hasn't made a final

101
00:06:51,040 --> 00:06:56,960
Speaker 1: ruling here, So granting cirtari before a Court of Appeals

102
00:06:57,040 --> 00:07:00,840
Speaker 1: judgment is unusual, But the Supreme Court has done it

103
00:07:01,120 --> 00:07:04,839
Speaker 1: in the past. They did it in some cases involving

104
00:07:04,839 --> 00:07:09,600
Speaker 1: the Trump administration involving challenges to the census, and they

105
00:07:09,600 --> 00:07:12,880
Speaker 1: have previously done so in cases involving the sentencing guideline.

106
00:07:13,280 --> 00:07:17,160
Speaker 1: It is an atypical and not commonly used procedure, but

107
00:07:17,480 --> 00:07:20,760
Speaker 1: both the United States and the providers had requested the

108
00:07:20,760 --> 00:07:23,280
Speaker 1: Court to do so, in part because the Court of

109
00:07:23,320 --> 00:07:27,240
Speaker 1: Appeals had said, we're not going to allow an injunction

110
00:07:27,320 --> 00:07:30,040
Speaker 1: to be in place against this law. And they also

111
00:07:30,080 --> 00:07:34,200
Speaker 1: didn't seem to be in any particular hurry to ultimately

112
00:07:34,280 --> 00:07:38,200
Speaker 1: decide whether the law was constitutional. Theif Circuit hasn't set

113
00:07:38,320 --> 00:07:41,280
Speaker 1: argument in one of the cases even now, and it

114
00:07:41,360 --> 00:07:45,119
Speaker 1: didn't set argument in the other until December. So what's

115
00:07:45,200 --> 00:07:50,800
Speaker 1: your opinion of the argument here by the United States

116
00:07:50,880 --> 00:07:53,560
Speaker 1: and by the providers. Do you think they have a

117
00:07:53,560 --> 00:07:57,440
Speaker 1: good argument before the court? I think both the providers

118
00:07:57,520 --> 00:08:00,960
Speaker 1: and the United States are correct that they should be

119
00:08:01,040 --> 00:08:04,320
Speaker 1: allowed to have a federal court hear their claims. On

120
00:08:04,440 --> 00:08:10,200
Speaker 1: the Brits, the providers sued state court judges and state

121
00:08:10,240 --> 00:08:14,120
Speaker 1: court clerks asking a federal court to prevent state court

122
00:08:14,160 --> 00:08:18,760
Speaker 1: judges and clerks from docketing cases filed under SP eight.

123
00:08:19,200 --> 00:08:23,000
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court three decades ago said that federal courts

124
00:08:23,040 --> 00:08:28,120
Speaker 1: have the power to enjoin state judges who are acting unconstitutionally,

125
00:08:28,360 --> 00:08:32,000
Speaker 1: and so that question is kind of settled, and there's

126
00:08:32,040 --> 00:08:34,920
Speaker 1: no doubt that state court judges and clerks there's some

127
00:08:35,080 --> 00:08:39,040
Speaker 1: connection to what is happening to the providers and to

128
00:08:39,520 --> 00:08:42,600
Speaker 1: the law that is being challenged SB eight, because it's

129
00:08:42,640 --> 00:08:45,640
Speaker 1: only by virtue of the fact that these lawsuits can

130
00:08:45,640 --> 00:08:48,680
Speaker 1: be filed in state courts that abortion providers have been

131
00:08:48,800 --> 00:08:51,680
Speaker 1: chilled from providing abortions and are no longer able to

132
00:08:51,720 --> 00:08:55,160
Speaker 1: provide abortion care. I also think the United States is

133
00:08:55,200 --> 00:08:59,920
Speaker 1: correct that the United States has the authority to student

134
00:09:00,120 --> 00:09:04,600
Speaker 1: enjoy unconstitutional state action that is designed to evade judicial

135
00:09:04,640 --> 00:09:09,520
Speaker 1: review and has thus far successfully evaded judicial review and

136
00:09:09,600 --> 00:09:13,480
Speaker 1: attempts by individuals to enforce their constitutional rights. The United

137
00:09:13,480 --> 00:09:17,040
Speaker 1: States has an interest in securing the supremacy of federal law,

138
00:09:17,120 --> 00:09:21,560
Speaker 1: including the Constitution, and s P eight would also prevent

139
00:09:21,640 --> 00:09:26,359
Speaker 1: the federal government and federal officials and federal contractors from

140
00:09:26,400 --> 00:09:30,600
Speaker 1: assisting abortions that are permitted under a variety of federal programs.

141
00:09:30,640 --> 00:09:33,200
Speaker 1: So I think both the United States and the providers

142
00:09:33,240 --> 00:09:36,400
Speaker 1: have strong claims on their arguments. But that's not to

143
00:09:36,480 --> 00:09:38,920
Speaker 1: say the Supreme Court is necessarily going to agree with

144
00:09:38,960 --> 00:09:42,480
Speaker 1: either or both of them. What's the best argument that

145
00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:46,480
Speaker 1: the other side has Texas? I think that for the

146
00:09:46,520 --> 00:09:52,360
Speaker 1: abortion providers case, Texas's best argument is this law outsources

147
00:09:52,480 --> 00:09:57,240
Speaker 1: the enforcement to private citizens and therefore no state official

148
00:09:57,280 --> 00:10:00,800
Speaker 1: has any connection to the enforcement of the law. Um

149
00:10:00,880 --> 00:10:03,760
Speaker 1: And on the United States lawsuit, I think, you know,

150
00:10:03,800 --> 00:10:07,240
Speaker 1: the best argument is the injuries that the United States

151
00:10:07,280 --> 00:10:10,640
Speaker 1: are a thirting are injuries to the providers, not to

152
00:10:10,679 --> 00:10:13,960
Speaker 1: the United States. And that Congress, if it wanted to,

153
00:10:14,200 --> 00:10:16,280
Speaker 1: you know, could provide the United States with the cause

154
00:10:16,360 --> 00:10:19,840
Speaker 1: faction that it has not chosen to thus far. Sort

155
00:10:19,880 --> 00:10:24,640
Speaker 1: of what's overhanging this whole thing is that on December one,

156
00:10:25,040 --> 00:10:28,800
Speaker 1: the Justices are going to hear a Mississippi appeal in

157
00:10:28,840 --> 00:10:33,440
Speaker 1: which the justices are being asked directly to overrule Row

158
00:10:34,120 --> 00:10:37,240
Speaker 1: that Mississippi case. Is there any way it can be

159
00:10:37,280 --> 00:10:40,840
Speaker 1: approached by the justices without looking at the merits of

160
00:10:40,920 --> 00:10:44,960
Speaker 1: the law? Is there a procedural question there? In the

161
00:10:45,000 --> 00:10:49,199
Speaker 1: Mississippi case? There aren't procedural questions aside from the fact

162
00:10:49,240 --> 00:10:52,200
Speaker 1: that Mississippi has changed its argument from the time it

163
00:10:52,240 --> 00:10:54,599
Speaker 1: initially asked the Supreme Court to hear the case to

164
00:10:54,760 --> 00:10:59,479
Speaker 1: now um. But aside from that, there aren't really threshold

165
00:10:59,480 --> 00:11:03,079
Speaker 1: procedural arguments that are being raised at the Supreme Court.

166
00:11:03,520 --> 00:11:08,160
Speaker 1: Is the Court going to decide about Row in that case? Well,

167
00:11:08,240 --> 00:11:10,719
Speaker 1: it could. There's no doubt that the Supreme Court will

168
00:11:10,720 --> 00:11:13,840
Speaker 1: say something in the Mississippi case about the scope of

169
00:11:14,000 --> 00:11:18,800
Speaker 1: constitutional protection for abortion. Whether and to what extent it

170
00:11:19,000 --> 00:11:22,160
Speaker 1: is willing to admit that it is modifying Row versus

171
00:11:22,200 --> 00:11:27,439
Speaker 1: Wade is unclear. Public approval of the Court is at

172
00:11:27,440 --> 00:11:32,439
Speaker 1: a record law according to the latest Gallop Pole Supposedly,

173
00:11:32,600 --> 00:11:36,160
Speaker 1: justices don't consider that what public opinion is. But is

174
00:11:36,200 --> 00:11:40,400
Speaker 1: that something that some justices do consider and might consider here?

175
00:11:41,280 --> 00:11:44,319
Speaker 1: I think all of their behavior thus far indicates they

176
00:11:44,360 --> 00:11:48,640
Speaker 1: are aware of public views of the Supreme Court. We

177
00:11:48,720 --> 00:11:52,480
Speaker 1: have seen Several justices speak out publicly to defend the

178
00:11:52,520 --> 00:11:56,000
Speaker 1: Supreme Court as an institution against criticism that the Supreme

179
00:11:56,040 --> 00:11:59,440
Speaker 1: Court is partisan, including in the Texas supportion case. And

180
00:11:59,559 --> 00:12:02,559
Speaker 1: we saw Supreme Court decided to hear the Texas abortion

181
00:12:02,640 --> 00:12:05,960
Speaker 1: case on an expedited basis when they were criticized for

182
00:12:06,040 --> 00:12:09,240
Speaker 1: failing to do so two months ago. So I think

183
00:12:09,280 --> 00:12:13,120
Speaker 1: it's very likely the Supreme Court. Here's criticism of the

184
00:12:13,160 --> 00:12:16,520
Speaker 1: Court decisions and actions, and in at least some cases

185
00:12:16,640 --> 00:12:20,559
Speaker 1: sometimes they appear willing to modify their behavior in some ways.

186
00:12:21,400 --> 00:12:23,440
Speaker 1: But there's no telling what will happen in this case.

187
00:12:23,559 --> 00:12:26,480
Speaker 1: In the Mississippi case, oh, no, one has any idea,

188
00:12:26,559 --> 00:12:28,720
Speaker 1: And I think it would be unreasonable to hope that

189
00:12:28,760 --> 00:12:32,679
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court just says we adhere to Row versus Wade,

190
00:12:33,240 --> 00:12:36,760
Speaker 1: and every court that has looked at laws that prohibit

191
00:12:36,880 --> 00:12:41,240
Speaker 1: abortions before viability and say these laws are unconstitutional. Thanks

192
00:12:41,280 --> 00:12:43,880
Speaker 1: for being on the show, Leah. That's Professor LEA. Littman

193
00:12:43,920 --> 00:12:49,160
Speaker 1: of the University of Michigan Law School. Vaccine mandates from

194
00:12:49,200 --> 00:12:52,560
Speaker 1: employers and governments have been challenged in federal courts almost

195
00:12:52,679 --> 00:12:56,360
Speaker 1: forty times this year, but so far they've largely passed

196
00:12:56,440 --> 00:13:00,640
Speaker 1: legal muster, but there are conflicting court rulings about vaccine

197
00:13:00,640 --> 00:13:04,360
Speaker 1: mandates for healthcare workers. In Maine and New York. The

198
00:13:04,400 --> 00:13:07,600
Speaker 1: two states both tried to mandate the shot for healthcare

199
00:13:07,640 --> 00:13:10,679
Speaker 1: workers without giving them the option to bow out due

200
00:13:10,720 --> 00:13:14,640
Speaker 1: to their religious beliefs. In Maine, a federal judge allowed

201
00:13:14,640 --> 00:13:18,000
Speaker 1: the state to move forward without offering employees and exemption,

202
00:13:18,440 --> 00:13:21,360
Speaker 1: while in New York, a federal judge extended an order

203
00:13:21,440 --> 00:13:24,800
Speaker 1: that temporarily blocked the state from enforcing the mandate for

204
00:13:24,880 --> 00:13:29,520
Speaker 1: workers with religious exemptions. Joining me as employment lawyer Dominique Moran,

205
00:13:29,640 --> 00:13:33,760
Speaker 1: a partner at Farrell Fritz, are religious exemptions pretty much

206
00:13:33,880 --> 00:13:38,960
Speaker 1: the standard for COVID nineteen vaccine mandates. The question that

207
00:13:39,000 --> 00:13:43,040
Speaker 1: you ask sort of presupposes that a religious exemption is

208
00:13:43,120 --> 00:13:45,840
Speaker 1: the language that we're all using and the way we

209
00:13:45,880 --> 00:13:49,600
Speaker 1: want to evaluate it. There certainly is the standard that

210
00:13:49,720 --> 00:13:54,920
Speaker 1: in most policies there is a vaccine mandate that allows

211
00:13:55,040 --> 00:13:59,319
Speaker 1: for accommodations to be granted based on religion or medical reasons.

212
00:14:00,360 --> 00:14:04,560
Speaker 1: I distinguished between the words exemption and accommodation because I

213
00:14:04,600 --> 00:14:09,680
Speaker 1: think they're different. Explain why the word exemption suggests that

214
00:14:09,720 --> 00:14:12,600
Speaker 1: either you get vaccinated or you don't, and there's no

215
00:14:12,679 --> 00:14:18,440
Speaker 1: other obligation. Under the law, Title seven, which governs most employers,

216
00:14:19,240 --> 00:14:24,760
Speaker 1: requires that employers reasonably accommodate any sincerely held religious belief.

217
00:14:25,320 --> 00:14:31,520
Speaker 1: That reasonable accommodation may involve an employee not being required

218
00:14:31,560 --> 00:14:35,080
Speaker 1: to get the vaccine, but having to comply with any

219
00:14:35,160 --> 00:14:39,000
Speaker 1: number of other requirements so that the employer can ensure,

220
00:14:39,360 --> 00:14:42,280
Speaker 1: for example, the health and safety of its workforce. We

221
00:14:42,360 --> 00:14:45,120
Speaker 1: can use the word exemption. I just think it's important

222
00:14:45,160 --> 00:14:49,160
Speaker 1: to understand that an employer doesn't have to say you

223
00:14:49,240 --> 00:14:51,920
Speaker 1: don't have to be vaccinated, and that's the end of

224
00:14:51,960 --> 00:14:56,400
Speaker 1: the discussion. Critically important that everyone who's asking for some

225
00:14:56,480 --> 00:15:01,200
Speaker 1: sort of accommodation understand that's what they're asking or an accommodation,

226
00:15:01,760 --> 00:15:03,840
Speaker 1: not just that they don't have to comply with the

227
00:15:03,960 --> 00:15:09,920
Speaker 1: vaccine mandate. Six states main New York, Connecticut, West Virginia, Mississippi,

228
00:15:09,920 --> 00:15:14,920
Speaker 1: and California have vaccine mandates for healthcare workers without a

229
00:15:14,960 --> 00:15:18,360
Speaker 1: religious exemption. Why do you think those states frame the

230
00:15:18,400 --> 00:15:22,720
Speaker 1: mandates that way? In the interest of providing a healthy

231
00:15:22,920 --> 00:15:28,840
Speaker 1: and safe environment in healthcare settings, states wanted to demonstrate

232
00:15:28,920 --> 00:15:33,680
Speaker 1: the importance of having everyone vaccinated to reduce the risk

233
00:15:33,840 --> 00:15:37,600
Speaker 1: of spread of the virus. They did so in many

234
00:15:37,640 --> 00:15:43,480
Speaker 1: of those jurisdictions with very little advanced notice. And so

235
00:15:43,560 --> 00:15:48,640
Speaker 1: they've adopted this and candidly, it is challenging to evaluate

236
00:15:49,080 --> 00:15:53,680
Speaker 1: a sincerely held religious belief, so they've adopted those very

237
00:15:53,720 --> 00:15:56,960
Speaker 1: broad standards. In New York State, what we've seen is

238
00:15:57,040 --> 00:16:01,640
Speaker 1: that Judge Heard have already issued an injunction that does

239
00:16:01,720 --> 00:16:05,080
Speaker 1: not allow New York State to enforce that mandate without

240
00:16:05,120 --> 00:16:10,400
Speaker 1: a religious accommodation or exemption protocol. Let's sayn employees, as

241
00:16:10,440 --> 00:16:13,720
Speaker 1: they have a religious objection to a vaccine mandate. How

242
00:16:14,240 --> 00:16:17,960
Speaker 1: does an employer determine whether or not that is a

243
00:16:18,080 --> 00:16:22,480
Speaker 1: valid objection. So every employer should have a policy that

244
00:16:22,560 --> 00:16:26,360
Speaker 1: allows for the employee to raise that objection, preferably in writing.

245
00:16:26,800 --> 00:16:29,640
Speaker 1: And we want the employee to tell us what is

246
00:16:29,720 --> 00:16:33,440
Speaker 1: their religious objection. The employer then has to go back

247
00:16:33,480 --> 00:16:37,440
Speaker 1: and look at, okay, can we ascertain whether this is

248
00:16:37,480 --> 00:16:43,600
Speaker 1: a sincerely held religious objection? That analysis is challenging because

249
00:16:43,640 --> 00:16:46,920
Speaker 1: the law doesn't say that it has to be a

250
00:16:47,000 --> 00:16:51,320
Speaker 1: common religious objection. The law doesn't say that it has

251
00:16:51,360 --> 00:16:54,360
Speaker 1: to be a religious objection. That is sanctioned by a

252
00:16:54,440 --> 00:16:59,400
Speaker 1: specific church or by some religious official. So the absence

253
00:16:59,480 --> 00:17:03,600
Speaker 1: of agis official saying you can't get vaccinated is not

254
00:17:03,760 --> 00:17:07,680
Speaker 1: the standard. And that's important for employers because there are

255
00:17:07,800 --> 00:17:11,480
Speaker 1: some who I've looked at policies for clients in their

256
00:17:11,520 --> 00:17:15,040
Speaker 1: initial drafting, that's say, give us a letter from your

257
00:17:15,119 --> 00:17:19,639
Speaker 1: religious leader. That's not required, So we need something that

258
00:17:19,760 --> 00:17:23,320
Speaker 1: explains the religious objection. For employers, they're going to have

259
00:17:23,359 --> 00:17:28,120
Speaker 1: to evaluate that is it sincerely held? That's a difficult standard.

260
00:17:28,160 --> 00:17:32,120
Speaker 1: It requires some probing. For most employers, though, they are

261
00:17:32,200 --> 00:17:37,520
Speaker 1: going to quickly move beyond that question and assume it

262
00:17:37,680 --> 00:17:41,720
Speaker 1: is sincerely held and move on to can we accommodate?

263
00:17:41,920 --> 00:17:45,280
Speaker 1: Is there an accommodation that can be granted that achieves

264
00:17:45,400 --> 00:17:47,879
Speaker 1: the same goal, which is to provide a healthy and

265
00:17:47,960 --> 00:17:51,239
Speaker 1: safe workplace and reduce the spread of the virus. So

266
00:17:51,280 --> 00:17:54,879
Speaker 1: then do you think another reason that the States tried

267
00:17:54,960 --> 00:17:59,280
Speaker 1: to mandate a vaccine in this way was to avoid

268
00:17:59,560 --> 00:18:03,760
Speaker 1: the souls of having to figure out the religious accommodation.

269
00:18:04,440 --> 00:18:06,880
Speaker 1: I don't know that states we're looking to avoid the hassle.

270
00:18:07,040 --> 00:18:10,240
Speaker 1: I think states were motivated by wanting to get more

271
00:18:10,280 --> 00:18:16,639
Speaker 1: people vaccinated. So the vaccine mandate gave lots of reasons

272
00:18:16,880 --> 00:18:19,960
Speaker 1: for employees to say, I'm on the fence, but I'm

273
00:18:19,960 --> 00:18:23,399
Speaker 1: going to go get vaccinated because there's this mandate. I

274
00:18:23,440 --> 00:18:25,200
Speaker 1: don't want to call it a hassle, but it does

275
00:18:25,280 --> 00:18:28,520
Speaker 1: require an interactive process. That's what Title seven has been

276
00:18:28,560 --> 00:18:33,680
Speaker 1: requiring for years. And so employers have this obligation under

277
00:18:33,720 --> 00:18:37,760
Speaker 1: Title seven to go back and have an individual dialogue.

278
00:18:38,320 --> 00:18:43,160
Speaker 1: Is your religious belief sincerely held? Can it be accommodated

279
00:18:43,640 --> 00:18:48,320
Speaker 1: without putting others at risk of serious harm? So dominique

280
00:18:48,320 --> 00:18:52,840
Speaker 1: tell us about these conflicting court decisions. So what Judge

281
00:18:52,880 --> 00:18:56,560
Speaker 1: Heard said in New York was, wait a minute, the

282
00:18:56,800 --> 00:19:01,119
Speaker 1: standard that you've set for this mandate did vaccine with

283
00:19:01,320 --> 00:19:04,040
Speaker 1: no religious exemption. We're going to look at a few things.

284
00:19:04,040 --> 00:19:05,920
Speaker 1: And there were some facts in New York that are

285
00:19:05,920 --> 00:19:09,520
Speaker 1: a little different. The initial order that had been drafted

286
00:19:09,600 --> 00:19:14,360
Speaker 1: for health care facilities included the religious exemption, and so

287
00:19:14,560 --> 00:19:17,840
Speaker 1: Judge Heard looked at the original order and then a

288
00:19:17,880 --> 00:19:23,480
Speaker 1: subsequent order which excluded the religious exemption and said that

289
00:19:23,640 --> 00:19:28,840
Speaker 1: targets religious behavior. And under Title seven, where you have

290
00:19:29,080 --> 00:19:34,520
Speaker 1: this obligation to accommodate religion in the workplace, and under

291
00:19:34,640 --> 00:19:38,280
Speaker 1: the Constitution of the United States, if you're going to

292
00:19:38,280 --> 00:19:44,200
Speaker 1: target religious beliefs, and he viewed the move from having

293
00:19:44,200 --> 00:19:48,760
Speaker 1: a religious exemption to eliminating the religious exemption as targeting

294
00:19:49,000 --> 00:19:52,760
Speaker 1: religious behavior, then you have to meet a very high threshold.

295
00:19:53,240 --> 00:19:57,600
Speaker 1: And Judge Heard said, you can't meet that threshold because

296
00:19:57,600 --> 00:20:02,120
Speaker 1: you're providing an accommodation to those with disabilities. And if

297
00:20:02,200 --> 00:20:06,240
Speaker 1: that can make it safe, if providing accommodations to those

298
00:20:06,240 --> 00:20:09,560
Speaker 1: with medical disabilities can make it safe, New York State

299
00:20:09,600 --> 00:20:13,080
Speaker 1: had not adequately explained why they couldn't make it safe

300
00:20:13,760 --> 00:20:19,120
Speaker 1: for those with religious beliefs that prevented vaccination, So that's

301
00:20:19,119 --> 00:20:21,760
Speaker 1: a key difference. I also think we're looking at a

302
00:20:22,000 --> 00:20:26,520
Speaker 1: very complicated issue regarding state rights and federal rights, and

303
00:20:26,560 --> 00:20:28,919
Speaker 1: I think we can expect that an appeal court is

304
00:20:28,960 --> 00:20:31,239
Speaker 1: going to have to evaluate this issue in the end.

305
00:20:32,760 --> 00:20:37,000
Speaker 1: And let's talk about the Supreme Court, which hasn't addressed

306
00:20:37,200 --> 00:20:42,720
Speaker 1: this issue. This Supreme Court has tilted toward religious rights

307
00:20:42,800 --> 00:20:46,560
Speaker 1: over other rights. What's likely to happen if this reaches

308
00:20:46,560 --> 00:20:51,719
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. The challenge with this issue generally is

309
00:20:51,760 --> 00:20:56,840
Speaker 1: that the state's compelling interest in getting people vaccinated is

310
00:20:56,880 --> 00:21:01,639
Speaker 1: based on a need to keep the public healthy and safe.

311
00:21:02,240 --> 00:21:06,440
Speaker 1: So the public health interest is the compelling interest. As

312
00:21:06,520 --> 00:21:09,959
Speaker 1: more people get vaccinated and as the rate of infection

313
00:21:10,080 --> 00:21:13,320
Speaker 1: comes down. The question of whether this gets to the

314
00:21:13,359 --> 00:21:16,439
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is the first thing that people are going

315
00:21:16,520 --> 00:21:19,720
Speaker 1: to grapple with. By the time that we get through

316
00:21:19,760 --> 00:21:23,600
Speaker 1: an appellate court and to the Supreme Court, will states

317
00:21:23,800 --> 00:21:27,280
Speaker 1: need a vaccine mandate to protect the public health or

318
00:21:27,320 --> 00:21:31,480
Speaker 1: will there be a sufficient number of people vaccinated such

319
00:21:31,520 --> 00:21:35,159
Speaker 1: as such that we don't need a mandate because the

320
00:21:35,320 --> 00:21:39,280
Speaker 1: risk has been reduced. When we get to the Supreme Court,

321
00:21:39,359 --> 00:21:42,719
Speaker 1: I think we are looking at fundamental constitutional issues. I

322
00:21:42,760 --> 00:21:46,480
Speaker 1: think we are looking at federal law and whether it

323
00:21:46,760 --> 00:21:51,000
Speaker 1: pre empts state law. So, in the ordinary course, the

324
00:21:51,040 --> 00:21:54,280
Speaker 1: general rule is when a federal law conflicts with the

325
00:21:54,359 --> 00:21:58,680
Speaker 1: state law, the federal law wins. It's called federal preemption.

326
00:21:59,280 --> 00:22:03,359
Speaker 1: The question will be in these jurisdictions, what is the

327
00:22:03,400 --> 00:22:07,000
Speaker 1: analysis Is there a conflict that sometimes there is a question,

328
00:22:07,480 --> 00:22:10,159
Speaker 1: and then if there is a conflict, does the federal

329
00:22:10,240 --> 00:22:14,400
Speaker 1: law win. Even with a conservative court, what we can

330
00:22:14,480 --> 00:22:19,520
Speaker 1: expect is that strict construction that federal law should preempt

331
00:22:19,600 --> 00:22:22,760
Speaker 1: state law, and then we can expect that they're going

332
00:22:22,840 --> 00:22:26,440
Speaker 1: to look at a strict scrutiny of these laws and

333
00:22:26,440 --> 00:22:30,520
Speaker 1: whether they are necessary to protect the compelling interest. Let's

334
00:22:30,520 --> 00:22:34,640
Speaker 1: talk about OSHA right now. OSHA is preparing a rule,

335
00:22:34,760 --> 00:22:38,080
Speaker 1: an emergency rule. So tell us what OSHA is doing,

336
00:22:38,280 --> 00:22:40,200
Speaker 1: and then we'll talk about the challenges that are likely

337
00:22:40,240 --> 00:22:44,080
Speaker 1: to come. Sure, so President Biden announced that there was

338
00:22:44,160 --> 00:22:47,480
Speaker 1: going to be a federal mandate that would come from

339
00:22:47,520 --> 00:22:52,040
Speaker 1: OSHA for employers of one hundred or more employees. That

340
00:22:52,119 --> 00:22:56,840
Speaker 1: mandate is supposed to include a vaccine or test mandate

341
00:22:56,960 --> 00:23:00,560
Speaker 1: for all employers with a hundred or more employees. That

342
00:23:00,680 --> 00:23:03,520
Speaker 1: rule is being prepared by OSHA. What we expect that

343
00:23:03,640 --> 00:23:09,280
Speaker 1: rule to include are conditions. How often does testing have

344
00:23:09,440 --> 00:23:13,840
Speaker 1: to take place, what kind of vaccine proof is required?

345
00:23:14,320 --> 00:23:17,879
Speaker 1: Who's going to bear the cost of both the vaccine

346
00:23:18,320 --> 00:23:22,240
Speaker 1: as well as the time to be vaccinated and the

347
00:23:22,400 --> 00:23:26,199
Speaker 1: testing if that is the alternative. So we're looking for

348
00:23:26,240 --> 00:23:29,040
Speaker 1: that rule to be finalized. That rule has been sent

349
00:23:29,119 --> 00:23:31,760
Speaker 1: to the Office of Management and Budget. That was done

350
00:23:31,800 --> 00:23:35,399
Speaker 1: on October twelve. They although they have a long time

351
00:23:35,520 --> 00:23:37,840
Speaker 1: to review the document, I want to say it's ninety

352
00:23:37,920 --> 00:23:41,119
Speaker 1: days we're expecting that a response is likely in the

353
00:23:41,160 --> 00:23:43,680
Speaker 1: next few weeks from the Office of Management and Budget.

354
00:23:44,000 --> 00:23:46,840
Speaker 1: Once the rule is approved, it can then be adopted.

355
00:23:46,880 --> 00:23:50,240
Speaker 1: It's likely to be a final interim rule, and then

356
00:23:50,320 --> 00:23:55,280
Speaker 1: we can expect a timeline for implementation. Many governors have

357
00:23:55,720 --> 00:23:58,719
Speaker 1: said that they're going to challenge the rule. They say that,

358
00:23:58,760 --> 00:24:01,880
Speaker 1: you know, they don't want their states to be subjected

359
00:24:01,960 --> 00:24:05,400
Speaker 1: to any federal rules. What's their challenge to the Osha

360
00:24:05,520 --> 00:24:10,760
Speaker 1: rule likely to be? Again, states can challenge it on

361
00:24:10,800 --> 00:24:15,840
Speaker 1: the ground that it's not necessary, that it's an overbroad mandate.

362
00:24:16,400 --> 00:24:19,399
Speaker 1: But there is this issue of federal preemption, and so

363
00:24:19,600 --> 00:24:23,040
Speaker 1: OSHA has the ability to set workplace rules for the

364
00:24:23,080 --> 00:24:26,800
Speaker 1: health and safety of employees. And in the case of

365
00:24:26,840 --> 00:24:30,000
Speaker 1: the Osha rule that we're likely to see there's a

366
00:24:30,160 --> 00:24:35,320
Speaker 1: built in alternative to vaccines. The built in alternative is testing,

367
00:24:35,760 --> 00:24:40,639
Speaker 1: which is likely to prevail if challenged because it's not

368
00:24:40,800 --> 00:24:44,520
Speaker 1: just a vaccine mandate, and so the argument the government

369
00:24:44,560 --> 00:24:46,840
Speaker 1: has to make the federal government has to make for

370
00:24:47,000 --> 00:24:52,080
Speaker 1: enforcement is an easier argument with that testing option. Let's

371
00:24:52,119 --> 00:24:55,400
Speaker 1: take Alabama for example. Everyone's talked about Texas. Let's talk

372
00:24:55,400 --> 00:24:59,520
Speaker 1: about Alabama, where the governor signed an executive order directing

373
00:24:59,640 --> 00:25:03,600
Speaker 1: stay executive branch agencies to comply with the Alabama Attorney

374
00:25:03,640 --> 00:25:07,920
Speaker 1: General's Office as it challenges the Biden administration's COVID nineteen

375
00:25:08,000 --> 00:25:11,320
Speaker 1: vaccine mandates. K I V Said, as long as I

376
00:25:11,359 --> 00:25:14,159
Speaker 1: am your governor, the state of Alabama will not force

377
00:25:14,240 --> 00:25:17,960
Speaker 1: anyone to take a COVID nineteen vaccine. So the state

378
00:25:17,960 --> 00:25:21,000
Speaker 1: of Alabama may not. But what happens you mentioned this

379
00:25:21,080 --> 00:25:25,919
Speaker 1: before when the federal government comes in and says, for example,

380
00:25:26,800 --> 00:25:31,159
Speaker 1: federal contractors, Because on December eight, the Biden administration's mandate

381
00:25:31,200 --> 00:25:34,920
Speaker 1: that all federal contractors be vaccinated will go into effect.

382
00:25:35,280 --> 00:25:38,320
Speaker 1: Can the governors of the states do anything about that?

383
00:25:39,000 --> 00:25:41,679
Speaker 1: The governors are going to have to challenge it in court.

384
00:25:41,800 --> 00:25:44,840
Speaker 1: That is already being challenged in Montana based on a

385
00:25:44,920 --> 00:25:48,720
Speaker 1: similar position. And so we are likely to see the

386
00:25:48,720 --> 00:25:52,560
Speaker 1: federal government defends lawsuits, and we are likely to see

387
00:25:52,560 --> 00:25:55,720
Speaker 1: federal judges have to grapple with this question of does

388
00:25:55,760 --> 00:26:01,360
Speaker 1: federal law preempt state law? And again at vaccine mandate

389
00:26:01,440 --> 00:26:06,720
Speaker 1: with no religious exemption, with no exemption for disabilities, that

390
00:26:06,920 --> 00:26:10,120
Speaker 1: is a much higher standard and it's going to get

391
00:26:10,240 --> 00:26:15,200
Speaker 1: strict scrutiny, So that question if it with no exemptions

392
00:26:15,280 --> 00:26:19,440
Speaker 1: for religious beliefs or for medical conditions, is a much

393
00:26:19,640 --> 00:26:23,119
Speaker 1: higher threshold. I think we are likely to see judges

394
00:26:23,240 --> 00:26:28,879
Speaker 1: look at those federal mandate from that perspective and address

395
00:26:28,960 --> 00:26:31,800
Speaker 1: the issue if they can, without ever getting to the

396
00:26:31,880 --> 00:26:34,920
Speaker 1: issue of preemption from the state law. You know, there's

397
00:26:34,960 --> 00:26:39,320
Speaker 1: a lot of confusion about vaccine mandates. We've had mandates

398
00:26:39,920 --> 00:26:43,040
Speaker 1: for years and years for school children to get into

399
00:26:43,080 --> 00:26:47,560
Speaker 1: school and for decades. Why do you think there's such

400
00:26:47,680 --> 00:26:55,240
Speaker 1: confusion and resistance to vaccine mandates today? Great question, And

401
00:26:55,480 --> 00:26:58,040
Speaker 1: one of the things we have to acknowledge is that

402
00:26:58,480 --> 00:27:03,120
Speaker 1: the vaccine mandate that have existed in schools have been

403
00:27:03,200 --> 00:27:07,080
Speaker 1: long standing. So there's lots of evidence, and there's lots

404
00:27:07,080 --> 00:27:10,560
Speaker 1: of views about the safety of those vaccines, and they're

405
00:27:10,560 --> 00:27:14,080
Speaker 1: all children. As we look at the COVID nineteen vaccine,

406
00:27:14,119 --> 00:27:18,400
Speaker 1: there are two significant differences. We're asking adults to be vaccinated,

407
00:27:18,480 --> 00:27:22,840
Speaker 1: and adults have much greater individual opinions about everything. But

408
00:27:22,920 --> 00:27:25,640
Speaker 1: the second one is the timing of the vaccine. This

409
00:27:25,720 --> 00:27:30,880
Speaker 1: is a relatively quick moment. The vaccine was developed and

410
00:27:31,000 --> 00:27:33,800
Speaker 1: rolled out in a very short window of time. Which

411
00:27:33,840 --> 00:27:39,080
Speaker 1: has led to some vaccine hesitancy. So the difference really

412
00:27:39,119 --> 00:27:42,600
Speaker 1: depends on those two qualities, how fast the vaccine has

413
00:27:42,640 --> 00:27:44,960
Speaker 1: been rolled out, as well as the fact that we're

414
00:27:45,000 --> 00:27:48,560
Speaker 1: asking adults to get vaccinated who may have very strongly

415
00:27:48,600 --> 00:27:51,280
Speaker 1: held beliefs. Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Law Show.

416
00:27:51,720 --> 00:27:55,240
Speaker 1: That's Dominique Moran. She's a partner at Farrell Fritz in

417
00:27:55,400 --> 00:27:57,920
Speaker 1: other legal and that's it this edition of the Bloomberg

418
00:27:58,000 --> 00:28:01,280
Speaker 1: Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal

419
00:28:01,280 --> 00:28:04,400
Speaker 1: news by listening to our Bloomberg podcast. You can find

420
00:28:04,440 --> 00:28:07,679
Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your

421
00:28:07,680 --> 00:28:11,800
Speaker 1: favorite podcasts. I'm June Grasso and you're listening to Bloomberg