WEBVTT - Florida's 'Woke' Ban Meets Skeptical Judges 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.760 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:09.880 --> 0:00:12.440 You should not have to compete in the Woke Olympics 0:00:12.760 --> 0:00:15.080 just to get a job or just to get admitted 0:00:15.120 --> 0:00:17.880 to a school. And so in Florida we said we're 0:00:17.880 --> 0:00:20.320 the state where woke goes to die, and we have 0:00:20.440 --> 0:00:22.279 made that a reality. We're going to do that for 0:00:22.360 --> 0:00:22.920 the country. 0:00:23.520 --> 0:00:27.800 Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is campaigning to bring his anti 0:00:27.880 --> 0:00:31.160 woke agenda from Florida to the rest of the country, 0:00:31.360 --> 0:00:33.840 but one of his woke bands has been running into 0:00:33.920 --> 0:00:37.320 trouble in the courts, and now the Eleventh Circuit Court 0:00:37.320 --> 0:00:42.040 of Appeals appears skeptical of Florida's twenty twenty two Stop 0:00:42.159 --> 0:00:45.319 the Wrong to Our Kids and Employees Act, better known 0:00:45.360 --> 0:00:48.880 as the Stop Woke Act. A panel of judges heard 0:00:49.040 --> 0:00:52.440 oral arguments in a first amendment challenge to the part 0:00:52.479 --> 0:00:56.400 of the law that restricts how businesses can conduct diversity 0:00:56.480 --> 0:01:00.920 training for their employees. A federal judge had already blocked 0:01:00.960 --> 0:01:05.000 both the workplace and university classroom portions of the law 0:01:05.319 --> 0:01:08.920 late last year. Joining me is David Lopez, a university 0:01:08.959 --> 0:01:12.560 professor at Rutgers Law School, and the former General Counsel 0:01:12.800 --> 0:01:16.560 of the EEOC SO David tell Us, about this anti 0:01:16.640 --> 0:01:17.319 woke law. 0:01:17.880 --> 0:01:21.959 I think the act was pressed by Governor Destantus as 0:01:22.160 --> 0:01:25.640 part of an effort to sort of restructure the political 0:01:25.720 --> 0:01:29.480 landscape booth in Florida and in the United States, and 0:01:29.480 --> 0:01:33.399 it's been influential. There have been other states, mostly in 0:01:33.480 --> 0:01:37.880 the South and Midwest, who have also adopted similar type 0:01:38.120 --> 0:01:46.400 of legislation. The legislation aims at basically restricting discussion of 0:01:46.640 --> 0:01:51.320 a specific concepts that the state deems repugnant and some 0:01:51.440 --> 0:01:56.520 of these related issues such as afformative action, such as reparations, 0:01:56.560 --> 0:02:01.840 such as discussions about institutionalized racism and its usualized sexism. 0:02:02.040 --> 0:02:07.520 And so almost immediately this act was challenged by students 0:02:07.520 --> 0:02:11.120 and educators in Florida, and it's also been challenged by 0:02:11.120 --> 0:02:14.040 the business community. And what this act does that had 0:02:14.120 --> 0:02:17.440 drawn a lot of attention outside of the substance of 0:02:17.520 --> 0:02:20.320 sweep is that it actually creates a private right of 0:02:20.400 --> 0:02:26.720 action that allows individuals to do either professors or universities 0:02:26.840 --> 0:02:30.880 or businesses who violate the act. And so for me, 0:02:31.520 --> 0:02:33.800 you know, I've worn different hats in my life, so 0:02:33.840 --> 0:02:35.800 I've been the being of a law school and the 0:02:35.840 --> 0:02:40.680 General Council, and in that capacity we have pushed certain 0:02:40.720 --> 0:02:45.400 types of training that take into account the changing diversity 0:02:45.639 --> 0:02:49.520 of the workforce and also really I think greater campabis 0:02:49.680 --> 0:02:53.320 issues such as sexual harassment and other forms of harassment 0:02:53.360 --> 0:02:55.960 in the workplace. And you know, obviously this is to 0:02:56.000 --> 0:02:59.400 make sure that people understand their rights, but also to 0:02:59.520 --> 0:03:04.160 kind of build strong teams and productive workforces. I'm also 0:03:04.240 --> 0:03:07.200 now professor, and I teach in the area of civil rights, 0:03:07.240 --> 0:03:09.680 and so obviously I look at the fact with my 0:03:09.760 --> 0:03:12.440 professor hat and sort of how do I best generate 0:03:12.680 --> 0:03:16.880 conversation about these really important topics in the classroom. But 0:03:16.960 --> 0:03:19.320 I'm also a plaint to slide lawyer, or as I 0:03:19.320 --> 0:03:22.919 tell my wife, I was a lawyer and I bought 0:03:23.000 --> 0:03:25.920 employment litigation, and so I also look at this act 0:03:25.960 --> 0:03:29.519 in terms of how it was written and what opportunities 0:03:29.919 --> 0:03:33.600 might provide to the place as far to really create mischief. 0:03:33.760 --> 0:03:35.960 And so the interesting thing is that, you know, the 0:03:36.080 --> 0:03:39.040 fact I think represents what I had foreseen when I 0:03:39.080 --> 0:03:42.160 was at ESSC is really inclusion course between sort of 0:03:42.240 --> 0:03:46.080 the free market, pro business wing of the Republican Party 0:03:46.320 --> 0:03:49.520 and really sort of the cultural warriors that focused on 0:03:49.640 --> 0:03:54.560 issues such as critical right theory and abortion and immigration 0:03:54.760 --> 0:03:57.160 and drag shows, right. And so I think that these 0:03:57.160 --> 0:04:00.480 two are really kind of coming into conflict here because 0:04:00.640 --> 0:04:03.360 you know, for the perspective of the business community, this 0:04:03.440 --> 0:04:07.800 means more litigation, right, This is government regulation that threatens 0:04:08.080 --> 0:04:10.560 additional litigation. And that's before you even get to the 0:04:10.640 --> 0:04:12.840 First Amendment, the very critical first Amnis. 0:04:13.480 --> 0:04:16.839 The appeal of the Eleventh Circuit currently is over the 0:04:16.920 --> 0:04:21.640 workplace diversity training. The main argument there is the plaintiffs 0:04:21.920 --> 0:04:25.279 who represent the business say that that violates our First 0:04:25.279 --> 0:04:26.240 Amendment rights. 0:04:26.720 --> 0:04:29.680 Yeah, and I mean this is a big First Amendment battle, 0:04:29.920 --> 0:04:33.600 And in some ways it's really ironic because Florida is 0:04:33.640 --> 0:04:36.720 the state as we know, which is incredibly diverse and 0:04:36.800 --> 0:04:39.920 also includes many people who end up in Florida really 0:04:40.000 --> 0:04:43.320 searching for freedom. But I think with this type of legislation, 0:04:44.000 --> 0:04:46.320 if you believe the District Court which is already issued 0:04:46.360 --> 0:04:51.120 to preliminary injunctions, these are sweeping restrictions on free expression 0:04:51.160 --> 0:04:53.599 in the First Amendment. So this is a case that 0:04:53.680 --> 0:04:57.239 involves the private sector and involved the E and I trainee. 0:04:57.440 --> 0:04:59.479 The other case, which also arises out of the same 0:04:59.520 --> 0:05:03.680 act students and universities. The other one went up there 0:05:03.720 --> 0:05:06.920 was a preliminary injunction issued by a judge in Tallahassee 0:05:07.000 --> 0:05:09.440 that went up to the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit 0:05:09.600 --> 0:05:13.679 upheld the preliminary injunction. This one, there's another preliminary injunction, 0:05:13.720 --> 0:05:16.720 and that's what's being argued in front of the Eleventh Circuit. 0:05:16.800 --> 0:05:19.120 But so far, you know, the State of Florida is 0:05:19.160 --> 0:05:21.240 really taking a meeting on this one. And you know, 0:05:21.279 --> 0:05:23.040 I didn't listen to the argument. I just read the 0:05:23.080 --> 0:05:26.120 press accounts, but it sounds like it, based on skepticism, 0:05:26.160 --> 0:05:28.840 is gone of the Eleventh Circuit, which by the way, 0:05:29.360 --> 0:05:33.360 is considered probably one of the friendliest circuits work case 0:05:33.440 --> 0:05:34.880 like this for the State of Florida. 0:05:34.920 --> 0:05:37.800 And there were two Trump appointees on the panel and 0:05:38.480 --> 0:05:42.719 one Clinton appointee. What did they make of the argument 0:05:43.080 --> 0:05:48.080 from the state that we're not regulating speech, we're regulating conduct. 0:05:48.400 --> 0:05:51.080 I think, you know, at least one and probably two 0:05:51.600 --> 0:05:57.640 expressed considerable skepticism about that, given that the legislation itself 0:05:57.839 --> 0:06:03.080 identifies eight category is of speech that basically the state 0:06:03.120 --> 0:06:06.720 itself is the clear repugnant. So the exposure of liability 0:06:06.760 --> 0:06:09.400 in the Act is related to the training, but it's 0:06:09.560 --> 0:06:13.960 as important it's related to training that incorporates these types 0:06:14.279 --> 0:06:17.839 of ideas. And I think that the District Court was 0:06:17.960 --> 0:06:20.840 very clear in terms of like how this con viewpoint 0:06:21.000 --> 0:06:24.280 discrimination because it talks about like if you take you know, 0:06:24.480 --> 0:06:27.400 sort of the converse or you take the opposite position, 0:06:27.960 --> 0:06:32.040 that you're able to express those ideas without basing liability. 0:06:32.120 --> 0:06:35.480 But these certain specific types of ideas, you know, potentially 0:06:35.480 --> 0:06:38.760 will pull the trigger on liability, whether meritorists or not. 0:06:39.120 --> 0:06:41.919 There was a time and probably still now where businesses 0:06:41.960 --> 0:06:45.240 are worried about frivolous lawsuits. So whether meritorious or not, 0:06:46.160 --> 0:06:48.479 you know, these types of ideas configure losses. 0:06:49.160 --> 0:06:52.400 Yeah, so one of the judges, Judge Britt Grant, said 0:06:52.720 --> 0:06:55.880 you can make them listen to literally anything except those 0:06:55.960 --> 0:06:59.720 topics basically, I mean, she seemed to be hinting that 0:06:59.760 --> 0:07:01.520 this viewpoint discrimination. 0:07:02.160 --> 0:07:05.160 Yeah, and this is a court of review. But that 0:07:05.200 --> 0:07:06.960 really does sort of pick up on what the District 0:07:06.960 --> 0:07:10.640 Court said when it issued as preliminary injunction. And you know, 0:07:10.720 --> 0:07:15.040 it provided examples both in the education context and an 0:07:15.040 --> 0:07:19.520 employment context. So here, for instance, if an employer mandates 0:07:19.640 --> 0:07:22.800 a very well regarded book called the Color Law, which 0:07:22.840 --> 0:07:27.240 deals with the history of government mandated housing segregation in 0:07:27.280 --> 0:07:30.960 this country and how it affects wealth today, that the 0:07:30.960 --> 0:07:33.400 employee could get into trouble. But if it requires that 0:07:33.480 --> 0:07:36.880 the employees read you know, Woke Incorporated inside corporate American 0:07:37.000 --> 0:07:41.040 social justice stamp by one of our Republican presidential candidates, 0:07:41.240 --> 0:07:45.160 that that would not trigger liability, right, And I really 0:07:45.240 --> 0:07:47.320 have to say as a law professor that, and I 0:07:47.440 --> 0:07:51.600 thought this that my law students take apart many many 0:07:52.200 --> 0:07:55.560 different either loopholes or potential for liability. I think the 0:07:55.600 --> 0:07:58.680 District Court talked about some that you know, certainly we're 0:07:58.840 --> 0:08:02.080 probably not within the complation of the state. You know, 0:08:02.160 --> 0:08:06.400 for instance, talking about American exceptionalism would seem to fall 0:08:06.440 --> 0:08:10.119 within the language of the Act. A discussion about whether 0:08:10.280 --> 0:08:14.480 Cuban migrants are entitled to privileged position and immigration system 0:08:14.520 --> 0:08:16.560 would seem to run a fellow the Act. And you know, 0:08:16.640 --> 0:08:19.280 both of those are topics that will trigger a lot 0:08:19.280 --> 0:08:21.560 of discussions, right, but they would seem to fall within 0:08:21.560 --> 0:08:23.760 the language of the Act, as well as something like 0:08:23.880 --> 0:08:27.600 the propensity of men to commit gender based violence, as 0:08:27.600 --> 0:08:30.000 opposed to women, and to talk about that and sort 0:08:30.000 --> 0:08:33.559 of in realistic terms of historical terms would also seem 0:08:33.600 --> 0:08:35.319 to run a fellow the Act. So much has been 0:08:35.320 --> 0:08:38.200 focused on the race aspect because I think that's where 0:08:38.440 --> 0:08:41.160 the Governor's trying to stand in the politics, but it's 0:08:41.200 --> 0:08:44.280 also include gender, and so for each of these topics 0:08:44.280 --> 0:08:47.280 you have to consider how it relates to the gender content. 0:08:47.480 --> 0:08:50.000 So I just think that the Districcurt came up with 0:08:50.040 --> 0:08:53.240 a lot of examples of how this is viewpoint discrimination. 0:08:53.800 --> 0:08:55.920 But I think, you know, as an employment lawyer, one 0:08:55.920 --> 0:08:58.320 that really jumped out to me that is really surprising 0:08:58.960 --> 0:09:00.920 is that part of the Act talk about, you know, 0:09:00.960 --> 0:09:06.280 the suggestion that kind of neutral or color blind selection 0:09:06.400 --> 0:09:11.640 measures are discriminatory. That's the repugnant Act. And obviously in academia, 0:09:12.040 --> 0:09:15.040 the whole issue of color blindness as to whether it 0:09:15.040 --> 0:09:19.680 perpetuates historical discrimination in current discrimination is a really hot 0:09:19.720 --> 0:09:22.440 topic and it's one that's heavily debated and it should 0:09:22.440 --> 0:09:24.880 be debated, right. But I think a little bit more 0:09:24.880 --> 0:09:28.880 to the point is that the unanimous decision of Grids 0:09:29.000 --> 0:09:32.640 versus Due Power, which is at nineteen seventy two decision, 0:09:33.200 --> 0:09:36.800 you know, basically encapsulated that idea that neutral principles can 0:09:36.880 --> 0:09:40.679 be discriminatory regardless of intent, and then that was ultimately 0:09:41.160 --> 0:09:45.400 codified by Congress by like ninety two to five votes 0:09:45.800 --> 0:09:48.680 in nineteen ninety one, Like Disparate Impacts has been codified, 0:09:49.120 --> 0:09:53.199 and Disparate Impact aims almost by its turns at systemic 0:09:53.240 --> 0:09:57.480 discrimination at neutral mesons. Right, So, if you're an employer 0:09:57.880 --> 0:09:59.880 and you want to train on what the law is, 0:10:00.280 --> 0:10:03.640 you're potentially reading a fell of the state law. If 0:10:03.679 --> 0:10:07.200 you endorse still right after nineteen ninety one, query whether 0:10:07.200 --> 0:10:08.600 you're also reading a fellow the state. 0:10:09.120 --> 0:10:12.480 I've been talking to David Lopez, former General Counsel at 0:10:12.480 --> 0:10:16.960 the EEOC and a visiting distinguished professor at Arizona State 0:10:17.080 --> 0:10:21.839 University about the eleven circuit oral arguments over Florida so 0:10:21.960 --> 0:10:25.319 called Stop Woke Act. Before the break, you were about 0:10:25.360 --> 0:10:30.360 to talk about why having these conversations is particularly important 0:10:30.679 --> 0:10:31.840 in Florida. 0:10:31.400 --> 0:10:35.440 Today, particularly after there was what has apparently been a 0:10:35.520 --> 0:10:41.480 race based shooting in Jacksonville. Is that in nineteen ninety four, 0:10:42.280 --> 0:10:47.640 the Florida legislature passed the law that basically satisfied two 0:10:47.679 --> 0:10:52.680 point one million dollars for the known survivors of the 0:10:52.800 --> 0:10:57.440 Rosewood massacre, which was a massacre with black community in 0:10:57.679 --> 0:11:00.840 Levy County, Florida in nineteen twenty three. Right, and also 0:11:00.880 --> 0:11:04.640 satisfy the scholarship Fund, and the governor when he's signed 0:11:04.679 --> 0:11:08.520 it talked about the state shame and moral responsibility. So 0:11:08.679 --> 0:11:12.200 the state itself, in my view, to its credit, you know, 0:11:12.320 --> 0:11:15.520 recognize this history and recognize it in the way that 0:11:15.559 --> 0:11:19.040 they provided what they regarded, you know, really broadly as 0:11:19.040 --> 0:11:22.400 sort of a moral compensation for this harm that was 0:11:22.520 --> 0:11:25.720 part of for it at the time, and as of yesterday, 0:11:25.960 --> 0:11:28.000 some may argue that there's a through line between that 0:11:28.120 --> 0:11:30.760 violence and what happened. And so I think it's important 0:11:30.800 --> 0:11:34.160 for Pridians is a very diverse state, to be able 0:11:34.200 --> 0:11:37.160 to have these conversations in sort of an unfettered setting, 0:11:37.559 --> 0:11:41.400 and for responsible employers who now have diverse workforces. I 0:11:41.400 --> 0:11:45.280 think it provides a lot of scary, scary exposure for litigation, 0:11:45.679 --> 0:11:47.640 and that's why seeing challenged them of the person. 0:11:47.960 --> 0:11:50.200 Another issue of the plaintiff's brought up was that this 0:11:50.800 --> 0:11:54.440 law is overly vague. I mean, it's hard to tell 0:11:54.480 --> 0:11:57.679 exactly what you can say in these diversity trainings and 0:11:57.720 --> 0:11:59.199 what you can't say. 0:12:00.040 --> 0:12:01.800 Put on my point to side hat that much. But 0:12:01.880 --> 0:12:04.280 I'm like, oh, if I were a cynical plaint to 0:12:04.360 --> 0:12:06.760 side lawyer, it could be a gravy train in a 0:12:06.760 --> 0:12:09.079 lot of ways that I don't think that the state 0:12:09.160 --> 0:12:12.240 really thought through very well. But putting that hat aside, 0:12:12.320 --> 0:12:15.840 putting on either my employer hat but also my professor has, 0:12:15.920 --> 0:12:17.520 it's hard to make heads and tail. So a lot 0:12:17.520 --> 0:12:19.880 of the elements start to talk about whether I think 0:12:19.880 --> 0:12:21.959 the state sort of started to make conceptions. But no, 0:12:22.040 --> 0:12:24.160 you can talk about this, you just can't endorse it. 0:12:24.400 --> 0:12:29.160 But at what point does triggering the discussion constitute an endorsement. 0:12:29.200 --> 0:12:32.000 I don't think that's clear right in the State's like, 0:12:32.040 --> 0:12:33.920 look at the dictionary, but I don't think that's clear. 0:12:33.960 --> 0:12:35.640 I don't think that would be cure for me, as 0:12:35.679 --> 0:12:38.959 a professor who assigned the color of the law, who 0:12:39.000 --> 0:12:42.240 assigned the new GYMP pro which argues us the semis 0:12:42.280 --> 0:12:46.319 discrimination and the criminal justice system and requires the devil 0:12:46.360 --> 0:12:49.920 and the growth, which is about Thirdgood Marshall in Florida 0:12:50.280 --> 0:12:54.079 in the nineteen forties, navigating the realm of racial violence 0:12:54.160 --> 0:12:57.000 in that state, and I endorsed that book, and that 0:12:57.080 --> 0:12:59.440 book talks about a lot of these issues. You know, 0:12:59.600 --> 0:13:01.079 I don't know at what point are you like to 0:13:01.160 --> 0:13:02.880 doors in the book or you're just like, oh, well 0:13:02.880 --> 0:13:05.079 read able to talk about it and you know whatever. 0:13:05.400 --> 0:13:08.480 As a professor, I think that some of the politicians 0:13:08.520 --> 0:13:11.480 completely don't get this way you want is you want 0:13:11.520 --> 0:13:15.880 to have a road best discussion from abroad range of perspectives. 0:13:16.040 --> 0:13:18.600 I think what this legislation does in a state that's 0:13:18.840 --> 0:13:21.640 very diverse, it makes any conversation about race a gender, 0:13:22.080 --> 0:13:25.880 either at the university or in the workplace, you know, 0:13:26.000 --> 0:13:26.760 fraught with their. 0:13:27.679 --> 0:13:31.800 Florida also said, well, this law only applies if the 0:13:31.880 --> 0:13:36.360 diversity training is mandatory for employees, And one of the 0:13:36.480 --> 0:13:39.160 judges said, how do you train an employee if they 0:13:39.200 --> 0:13:42.520 aren't required to go? But suppose it's not mandatory. 0:13:43.000 --> 0:13:46.160 I'm going to basically express something that I've expected me 0:13:46.200 --> 0:13:48.760 by employers, which actually think makes a lot of sense. 0:13:49.040 --> 0:13:50.760 There's sort of damned that they do and damned if 0:13:50.760 --> 0:13:53.360 they don't. Right, So, if you take something like sexual 0:13:53.400 --> 0:13:57.599 harassment and the post me to era, and that is 0:13:57.640 --> 0:14:00.079 a form of the EMI training, if you can de 0:14:00.240 --> 0:14:03.760 sextual harassment training. The US Supreme Court law encourages you 0:14:03.880 --> 0:14:07.360 to do that, to take voluntary measures Act compliance, to 0:14:07.480 --> 0:14:11.000 have a policy to address these issues. And those training 0:14:11.320 --> 0:14:14.480 can actually and I think should include a discussion about 0:14:14.800 --> 0:14:18.160 gender violence in our society and deal with issues of 0:14:18.640 --> 0:14:22.280 gender insects. But potentially, if you say something that is 0:14:22.360 --> 0:14:24.680 viewed as too sweeping, if you make it sound like 0:14:25.160 --> 0:14:28.280 women are by and large work, I think it's statistically 0:14:28.320 --> 0:14:31.040 true more likely to keep get some tender violence by men. 0:14:31.120 --> 0:14:33.400 Then the other way around, you can get to step 0:14:33.440 --> 0:14:36.320 in trouble unders fact. And then even more broadly, I think, 0:14:36.360 --> 0:14:38.720 but Betn and I training, I think the whole idea 0:14:38.720 --> 0:14:40.680 of that is to sort of build teams and to 0:14:40.720 --> 0:14:43.160 create a productive workforce and get people working together. 0:14:43.680 --> 0:14:43.840 Right. 0:14:44.080 --> 0:14:46.320 There's still a lot of segregation in this country, but 0:14:46.480 --> 0:14:49.680 the workforce and w people come together. And as an employer, 0:14:50.080 --> 0:14:52.520 you want people working together productively. You want who wants 0:14:52.560 --> 0:14:56.200 them working together as teams, and sometimes that requires it 0:14:56.360 --> 0:14:58.760 you navigate a lot of the issues that exist from 0:14:58.760 --> 0:15:01.840 outside of the workplace that are brought into the workplace. Right. 0:15:01.960 --> 0:15:04.600 And so you know, in the state of Florida, as 0:15:04.600 --> 0:15:07.280 I mentioned, there was an apparently race based shooting that 0:15:07.400 --> 0:15:10.160 you know, the city of Miami about thirty four years 0:15:10.200 --> 0:15:14.200 ago was wrapped by numerous incidents of civil unrest following 0:15:14.600 --> 0:15:18.120 shooting by the police department of African American men, and 0:15:18.280 --> 0:15:21.360 people are talking about that, right, and people have opinions 0:15:21.400 --> 0:15:23.160 about that, and people think about that, and they bring 0:15:23.160 --> 0:15:25.760 that into the workplace, and for you in the workplace 0:15:25.800 --> 0:15:28.360 to try to navigate, you know, these distant views from 0:15:28.360 --> 0:15:31.760 the disperate backgrounds and disperate perspectives in order to build 0:15:31.760 --> 0:15:34.480 a team that is now frought with Carol, it's really 0:15:34.520 --> 0:15:36.680 hard to say, well, Okay, we're going to do this training, 0:15:36.680 --> 0:15:38.880 but only only for people who want to go right. 0:15:39.000 --> 0:15:41.160 We're going to have sexual harassment training calling people, so 0:15:41.200 --> 0:15:43.960 we're going to have racial harassment training, but only for 0:15:44.000 --> 0:15:46.840 people who want to go right. Otherwise it's optional. You know, 0:15:46.880 --> 0:15:49.200 I think employers with a lot of the policies, a 0:15:49.240 --> 0:15:52.160 lot of their training that almost like undertupts the purpose 0:15:52.200 --> 0:15:53.320 of training in the first place. 0:15:53.720 --> 0:15:55.800 Do you have a feeling for how the Eleventh Circuit's 0:15:55.800 --> 0:15:56.640 going to rule on this. 0:15:57.680 --> 0:15:59.360 It's kind of part of tell where court's going to 0:15:59.400 --> 0:16:02.040 go on that. What I would predicted Regardless of how 0:16:02.080 --> 0:16:05.200 it goes, there will probably be petitions for either end 0:16:05.240 --> 0:16:09.240 Bank review or for Supreme Court review. I hate to 0:16:09.280 --> 0:16:11.800 make predictions, you know. I think for the statements is 0:16:11.840 --> 0:16:14.520 a real Updill battle and a very Compton battle. But 0:16:14.560 --> 0:16:16.720 I think it's fair to say that, you know, he's 0:16:16.760 --> 0:16:19.600 had a First Amendment problem in the courts, not only 0:16:19.600 --> 0:16:22.520 in this area, you know, but in other areas. And 0:16:22.560 --> 0:16:24.920 I think I think part of the problems here, and 0:16:25.040 --> 0:16:27.560 this is me putting on my loficecor hat is I 0:16:27.560 --> 0:16:31.240 think that the performative nature of the politics here, the 0:16:31.360 --> 0:16:35.000 attempt I think, you know, established a brand, took testaments over. 0:16:35.680 --> 0:16:38.400 I think kind of serious drafting of legislation and thinking 0:16:38.400 --> 0:16:40.200 of through and you know that happens a lot. The 0:16:40.200 --> 0:16:44.680 politics of legislation will often lead to bad space instead 0:16:44.680 --> 0:16:48.360 of the careful lawyering that I think you need to do. 0:16:48.600 --> 0:16:51.160 And that's legislations that's not going to cough tax there's 0:16:51.160 --> 0:16:53.080 a lot of money and then ultimately struck down. And 0:16:53.120 --> 0:16:54.880 so I'm in Arizona, so I've seen a lot of 0:16:54.880 --> 0:16:57.480 that in Arizona. Arizona went through a period in the 0:16:57.520 --> 0:17:01.800 twenty tenth where it was really the ground Bureau of 0:17:02.120 --> 0:17:05.280 a lot of anti immigration legislation and also you know 0:17:05.440 --> 0:17:08.840 bands against Mexican emergeny studies and it's only banned, and 0:17:09.000 --> 0:17:10.680 almost all of that got stuck down in the court, 0:17:11.080 --> 0:17:14.159 as you know, violence of the constitutions, right, And so 0:17:14.280 --> 0:17:17.440 I just think that sort an invest the strategy before 0:17:17.640 --> 0:17:21.280 jun to the California Now you know, Texas jumping on board. 0:17:21.359 --> 0:17:24.280 And I just think that sometimes and I can't say 0:17:24.320 --> 0:17:27.320 this is happening now, but I think sometimes the politicians 0:17:27.320 --> 0:17:29.199 are like, oh, even it gets struck down and all 0:17:29.240 --> 0:17:30.960 the sort of last court, it's still kind of a 0:17:31.040 --> 0:17:31.400 win one. 0:17:32.080 --> 0:17:34.160 Well, we'll see whether it's a win at the eleventh 0:17:34.160 --> 0:17:36.679 Circuit or not. Thanks so much for being on the show. David. 0:17:36.960 --> 0:17:40.560 That's David Lopez, the former General Counsel of the EEOC. 0:17:41.160 --> 0:17:43.840 He's a professor at Rutgers Law School and a visiting 0:17:43.840 --> 0:17:47.320 professor at Arizona State University. And that's it for this 0:17:47.440 --> 0:17:50.200 edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always 0:17:50.200 --> 0:17:53.119 get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. 0:17:53.400 --> 0:17:56.440 You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at 0:17:56.600 --> 0:18:01.600 www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, And 0:18:01.720 --> 0:18:04.760 remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight 0:18:04.840 --> 0:18:08.280 at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and 0:18:08.359 --> 0:18:09.840 you're listening to Bloomberg