1
00:00:00,480 --> 00:00:05,680
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:05,920 --> 00:00:08,960
Speaker 1: It's been the Roberts Court for nearly fifteen years, but

3
00:00:09,080 --> 00:00:12,440
Speaker 1: that term has new meaning as Chief Justice John Roberts

4
00:00:12,560 --> 00:00:14,880
Speaker 1: is not only the chief but it's clearly now the

5
00:00:14,960 --> 00:00:18,560
Speaker 1: swing vote at the ideological center of the Court. Speaking

6
00:00:18,600 --> 00:00:22,599
Speaker 1: at Renstler Polytechnic Institute three years ago, Roberts said that

7
00:00:22,680 --> 00:00:26,640
Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Marshall was his model for a Chief Justice.

8
00:00:27,080 --> 00:00:31,600
Speaker 1: He appreciated the role of the Court uh in sort

9
00:00:31,600 --> 00:00:34,800
Speaker 1: of bringing the United States together under the Constitution, under

10
00:00:34,840 --> 00:00:39,480
Speaker 1: the rule of law, and he had a very particular focus.

11
00:00:39,520 --> 00:00:43,440
Speaker 1: He's the author of some great decisions that define our nation.

12
00:00:44,360 --> 00:00:48,560
Speaker 1: But he also had a very modest and measured understanding

13
00:00:48,640 --> 00:00:53,279
Speaker 1: of his job, so he was very restrained. He had

14
00:00:53,320 --> 00:00:56,840
Speaker 1: a way of diffusing political controversy and focusing on case.

15
00:00:57,200 --> 00:01:00,840
Speaker 1: Roberts may display some of Marshall's attributes, but his power,

16
00:01:01,280 --> 00:01:05,280
Speaker 1: especially in cases involving divisive cultural issues in our country,

17
00:01:05,640 --> 00:01:09,559
Speaker 1: exceeds that of almost any other Chief Justice. Roberts cast

18
00:01:09,600 --> 00:01:12,319
Speaker 1: the deciding vote in all ten cases this term in

19
00:01:12,360 --> 00:01:14,679
Speaker 1: which there was a five to four decision. In the

20
00:01:14,720 --> 00:01:18,319
Speaker 1: past two weeks, the Chief's donned many conservatives by joining

21
00:01:18,360 --> 00:01:22,400
Speaker 1: with the liberal justices to strike down limitations on abortion rights,

22
00:01:22,600 --> 00:01:27,880
Speaker 1: to save Dreamers from deportation, and to expand lgbt Q rights,

23
00:01:27,880 --> 00:01:31,080
Speaker 1: But he sided with the conservatives to boost religious schools

24
00:01:31,120 --> 00:01:33,160
Speaker 1: and the president's power to fire the head of an

25
00:01:33,200 --> 00:01:36,480
Speaker 1: independent agency. Joining me is Harold Granted, Professor at the

26
00:01:36,560 --> 00:01:40,520
Speaker 1: Chicago Kent College of Law. How everyone seems to agree

27
00:01:40,560 --> 00:01:43,640
Speaker 1: that the Chief is an institutionalist. Some critics have even

28
00:01:43,760 --> 00:01:46,880
Speaker 1: used that term against him. Explain what that means for

29
00:01:46,920 --> 00:01:51,920
Speaker 1: a chief justice. He cares about the respect and the

30
00:01:51,920 --> 00:01:57,360
Speaker 1: integrity of courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular. Famously,

31
00:01:57,560 --> 00:02:00,760
Speaker 1: he retorted to President Trump, there are no Trump judges

32
00:02:00,840 --> 00:02:04,240
Speaker 1: or Obama judges. We just have judges. And he wants

33
00:02:04,280 --> 00:02:07,400
Speaker 1: the judiciary to be viewed as out of the partisan

34
00:02:07,520 --> 00:02:11,160
Speaker 1: fray within which it's too often dragged, And so he's

35
00:02:11,200 --> 00:02:14,519
Speaker 1: trying to build up a kind of just in the

36
00:02:14,520 --> 00:02:18,120
Speaker 1: spree of court. But a reputation for judges as being,

37
00:02:18,440 --> 00:02:24,119
Speaker 1: if not bumpires, at least being fossiful independent jurists who

38
00:02:24,160 --> 00:02:28,040
Speaker 1: the public can rely upon. Is that true of most

39
00:02:28,200 --> 00:02:32,080
Speaker 1: chief Justices? Do they usually have that kind of impetus

40
00:02:32,120 --> 00:02:36,079
Speaker 1: to protect the institution and the judiciary in general. Well,

41
00:02:36,120 --> 00:02:39,320
Speaker 1: it makes this so unique in our time in history

42
00:02:39,360 --> 00:02:43,160
Speaker 1: is the division and the court. We all think and

43
00:02:43,360 --> 00:02:46,560
Speaker 1: most times it's true that the chief can be the

44
00:02:46,639 --> 00:02:50,320
Speaker 1: deciding vote in a close case. So many other Chief

45
00:02:50,360 --> 00:02:53,160
Speaker 1: Justices have not had this sort of breakdown of for

46
00:02:53,360 --> 00:02:56,320
Speaker 1: liberal and for conservative juices. And of course he's conservative,

47
00:02:56,360 --> 00:02:59,440
Speaker 1: he's very conservative. But yet he cares not just in

48
00:02:59,560 --> 00:03:03,320
Speaker 1: rubbers amping conservative results, but in trying to build this

49
00:03:03,520 --> 00:03:06,800
Speaker 1: integrity for the court. And that's been manifested in some

50
00:03:06,880 --> 00:03:09,640
Speaker 1: of the recent decisions of the term. Let's talk about

51
00:03:09,639 --> 00:03:13,919
Speaker 1: some of the high profile cases involving divisive issues where

52
00:03:13,960 --> 00:03:16,480
Speaker 1: the chiefs study what the liberal justice is to make

53
00:03:16,520 --> 00:03:19,800
Speaker 1: the majority. On Monday, there was the abortion rights case

54
00:03:20,000 --> 00:03:23,359
Speaker 1: where Robert said he was bound by president. And what's

55
00:03:23,360 --> 00:03:27,040
Speaker 1: remarkable about this case is that four years ago he

56
00:03:27,240 --> 00:03:32,440
Speaker 1: voted to uphold the very serious restrictions on abortion access

57
00:03:32,560 --> 00:03:37,160
Speaker 1: that Texas has provided Louisiana copied Texas statute, and then

58
00:03:37,200 --> 00:03:40,960
Speaker 1: four years later Chief Justice Roberts decided that because he

59
00:03:41,040 --> 00:03:44,400
Speaker 1: lost four years ago, he should lose again now, which

60
00:03:44,400 --> 00:03:47,640
Speaker 1: is pretty extraordinary. It suggests that He doesn't want the

61
00:03:47,720 --> 00:03:50,040
Speaker 1: court to be seen as just because there's a change

62
00:03:50,040 --> 00:03:54,040
Speaker 1: in personnel, they changed the results. That's really what's at

63
00:03:54,080 --> 00:03:57,280
Speaker 1: stake here in the decision. And he just said, I

64
00:03:57,360 --> 00:04:00,480
Speaker 1: want people to understand that we're a court to because

65
00:04:00,480 --> 00:04:03,000
Speaker 1: we have a different that we've gone become more conservative,

66
00:04:03,040 --> 00:04:06,480
Speaker 1: We're not going to unravel what just occurred four years ago.

67
00:04:07,040 --> 00:04:10,520
Speaker 1: Very sort of bold step forward by the Chief. Then

68
00:04:10,560 --> 00:04:14,640
Speaker 1: you have a decision upholding DACA, which echoed the census case,

69
00:04:14,960 --> 00:04:18,840
Speaker 1: where the Chief you know, wasn't buying the Trump administration's

70
00:04:18,839 --> 00:04:23,080
Speaker 1: explanations and said you have to do better. And part

71
00:04:23,080 --> 00:04:25,440
Speaker 1: of this seems to me, I don't think it's really

72
00:04:25,800 --> 00:04:28,160
Speaker 1: a direction against President Trump at all, but I think

73
00:04:28,160 --> 00:04:30,760
Speaker 1: it's a recognition that if we're going to be tough

74
00:04:30,800 --> 00:04:33,280
Speaker 1: on agencies, we need to be tough on agencies when

75
00:04:33,320 --> 00:04:36,920
Speaker 1: they're Republican as well as be tough on agencies when

76
00:04:36,960 --> 00:04:41,440
Speaker 1: they're democratic. And so in the DOCCA case, he basically

77
00:04:41,560 --> 00:04:45,520
Speaker 1: told the agency, the Department of Homeland Security, that it

78
00:04:45,600 --> 00:04:50,440
Speaker 1: couldn't go back and give a better rationality justification for

79
00:04:50,640 --> 00:04:54,040
Speaker 1: the recision of DOCCA because the first time that they

80
00:04:54,080 --> 00:04:57,279
Speaker 1: tried to explain it they just said, oh, Obama didn't

81
00:04:57,279 --> 00:05:00,800
Speaker 1: have the power, and that really isn't a satisfactory explanation

82
00:05:01,160 --> 00:05:04,200
Speaker 1: even by the dissenters in the case. But they went

83
00:05:04,240 --> 00:05:07,680
Speaker 1: back several months later and gave i think, a relatively

84
00:05:07,800 --> 00:05:13,039
Speaker 1: coherent justification for why they were changing Obama's policy that

85
00:05:13,120 --> 00:05:16,680
Speaker 1: should have been held constitutional. But that initial failure to

86
00:05:16,760 --> 00:05:19,480
Speaker 1: the chief was enough for him to break away from

87
00:05:19,520 --> 00:05:22,200
Speaker 1: the conservative justices and say, you know, we're going to

88
00:05:22,279 --> 00:05:24,440
Speaker 1: hold your feet to the fire, and you're gonna have

89
00:05:24,520 --> 00:05:28,520
Speaker 1: to give a persuasive explanation at the time you change

90
00:05:28,520 --> 00:05:31,440
Speaker 1: your policy. You didn't do that until you go back

91
00:05:31,440 --> 00:05:33,719
Speaker 1: and accomplish the same result if you want to, but

92
00:05:33,760 --> 00:05:35,839
Speaker 1: you're gonna have to do it the right way in

93
00:05:35,880 --> 00:05:39,560
Speaker 1: the future. An interesting decision, again somewhat like the census case,

94
00:05:39,640 --> 00:05:41,640
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, which said that even though he's very

95
00:05:41,680 --> 00:05:45,000
Speaker 1: sympathetic to the end result, he went with the liberal

96
00:05:45,160 --> 00:05:48,880
Speaker 1: wing of the court in striking down the Trump administration's

97
00:05:48,920 --> 00:05:52,080
Speaker 1: effort to really change one of the signal accomplishments of

98
00:05:52,160 --> 00:05:55,680
Speaker 1: the Obama era, which was the refuge for the dreamers.

99
00:05:55,920 --> 00:06:00,400
Speaker 1: The decision that really drew a lot of political was

100
00:06:00,440 --> 00:06:05,279
Speaker 1: the lgbt Q rights in job discrimination case, in which

101
00:06:05,640 --> 00:06:11,719
Speaker 1: conservative Justice Neil Gorst joined with Justice Roberts in the majority. Yeah,

102
00:06:11,760 --> 00:06:14,799
Speaker 1: so here we have a slightly different situation on one hand,

103
00:06:14,839 --> 00:06:18,240
Speaker 1: because Justice Gorsage did split with his conservative brethren in

104
00:06:18,240 --> 00:06:20,520
Speaker 1: that case, which made it a six to three decisions.

105
00:06:20,839 --> 00:06:24,479
Speaker 1: Interesting from Chief Justice Robert's perspective is he was a

106
00:06:24,520 --> 00:06:28,040
Speaker 1: notable dissenter from the gay marriage case, very eloquent, I

107
00:06:28,120 --> 00:06:30,599
Speaker 1: might add, and then he decided to vote with the

108
00:06:30,640 --> 00:06:33,040
Speaker 1: majority here. And the difference, you could say, is that

109
00:06:33,240 --> 00:06:35,880
Speaker 1: we're now opining about a statute to reach of what

110
00:06:36,120 --> 00:06:40,400
Speaker 1: Congress meant in nineteen sixty four, whereas the Constitution obviously

111
00:06:40,520 --> 00:06:43,599
Speaker 1: is more enduring. And what might be seen in these

112
00:06:43,640 --> 00:06:47,359
Speaker 1: cases is that the Chief will be uncompromising in his

113
00:06:47,480 --> 00:06:51,760
Speaker 1: interpretation of the Constitution, and we saw that in the CFPB,

114
00:06:51,960 --> 00:06:56,000
Speaker 1: the Consumer Finance Privacy Bureau, but that he will give

115
00:06:56,160 --> 00:06:59,479
Speaker 1: on agency action, he will give a statutory action. He

116
00:06:59,520 --> 00:07:02,480
Speaker 1: will be more you could say it independent, more institutional

117
00:07:02,560 --> 00:07:05,560
Speaker 1: binding than those types of cases. He has been the

118
00:07:05,720 --> 00:07:10,200
Speaker 1: deciding vote in all of the five four votes this term,

119
00:07:10,680 --> 00:07:13,840
Speaker 1: and he also has the power of being the chief

120
00:07:13,960 --> 00:07:17,280
Speaker 1: so beyond the swing vote, has any other chief justice

121
00:07:17,440 --> 00:07:20,600
Speaker 1: in our history had that kind of power. Given the

122
00:07:20,640 --> 00:07:23,720
Speaker 1: composition the court, he is exercised in the power much

123
00:07:23,760 --> 00:07:26,920
Speaker 1: more effectively than his predecessors had. Some people think Chief

124
00:07:27,080 --> 00:07:30,160
Speaker 1: Justice Hues way back when seventy five years ago, during

125
00:07:30,200 --> 00:07:34,000
Speaker 1: the FDR days, had somewhat similar power in terms of

126
00:07:34,040 --> 00:07:37,760
Speaker 1: trying to keep the court independent despite FDR's insistence that

127
00:07:37,840 --> 00:07:40,400
Speaker 1: they change course. But of course they finally did buggle

128
00:07:40,480 --> 00:07:44,800
Speaker 1: under to FDR and did become much more living or

129
00:07:44,800 --> 00:07:48,560
Speaker 1: welcoming to the rise of the national government and its agencies.

130
00:07:48,640 --> 00:07:50,360
Speaker 1: But you have to look best far back. I mean,

131
00:07:50,480 --> 00:07:53,880
Speaker 1: certainly the numbers speak for themselves. We've never had a

132
00:07:53,880 --> 00:07:56,600
Speaker 1: period of history, at least in the less probably fifty

133
00:07:56,640 --> 00:08:00,800
Speaker 1: five years, where the Chief Justice been able to dominate

134
00:08:00,920 --> 00:08:04,320
Speaker 1: the court's rulings. I think of the cases in the

135
00:08:04,360 --> 00:08:07,240
Speaker 1: last two years or so, he's been in the majority,

136
00:08:07,480 --> 00:08:10,800
Speaker 1: whether it's five four, six, three, and he's able and

137
00:08:10,800 --> 00:08:13,320
Speaker 1: then to have that kind of incredible influence is really

138
00:08:13,400 --> 00:08:16,680
Speaker 1: unique in our history, and we're seeing how it's played out.

139
00:08:16,800 --> 00:08:19,320
Speaker 1: People say he's an incrementalist, which means he doesn't want

140
00:08:19,360 --> 00:08:22,360
Speaker 1: to air out too many issues. He's been using the

141
00:08:22,400 --> 00:08:25,760
Speaker 1: searcher our power to limit the type of controversial cases

142
00:08:26,040 --> 00:08:29,160
Speaker 1: that go to the court. The Court recently has decided

143
00:08:29,200 --> 00:08:33,120
Speaker 1: to reject many cases involving the Second Amendment, which is

144
00:08:33,160 --> 00:08:35,320
Speaker 1: the gun rights issue, which is a hot Buddon issue,

145
00:08:35,520 --> 00:08:40,080
Speaker 1: many cases involving sanctuary cities, another hot Buddon issue, cases

146
00:08:40,480 --> 00:08:44,640
Speaker 1: involving qualified immunity. And in all these cases, he's trying

147
00:08:44,679 --> 00:08:49,080
Speaker 1: to sort of camp down the political acrimony on the

148
00:08:49,080 --> 00:08:51,760
Speaker 1: court and I think slowly build up the court stature

149
00:08:51,800 --> 00:08:54,960
Speaker 1: for the future. And if it's a five four case,

150
00:08:55,240 --> 00:08:57,040
Speaker 1: he's in charge, and he decides who writes it, and

151
00:08:57,120 --> 00:08:59,680
Speaker 1: he knows if another justice will write the decision broadly

152
00:08:59,840 --> 00:09:03,040
Speaker 1: or are more incrementally, and he tries to adopt a

153
00:09:03,040 --> 00:09:06,720
Speaker 1: more incremental approach whoever possible. It seems as if many

154
00:09:06,760 --> 00:09:11,040
Speaker 1: conservatives are forgetting some of Robert's past decisions. For example,

155
00:09:11,080 --> 00:09:13,400
Speaker 1: one that he got a lot of criticism for was

156
00:09:13,480 --> 00:09:16,360
Speaker 1: the voting rights case. Yeah, I mean both in the

157
00:09:16,440 --> 00:09:21,080
Speaker 1: voting rights cases and particularly in the gerrymandering cases, he's

158
00:09:21,120 --> 00:09:24,079
Speaker 1: been incredibly conservative. And again just this week, this is

159
00:09:24,120 --> 00:09:27,920
Speaker 1: the first abortion case he's ever cited himself. With those

160
00:09:28,120 --> 00:09:30,880
Speaker 1: favoring a right to choose, so this is the first time.

161
00:09:30,960 --> 00:09:34,319
Speaker 1: So he's been very conservative in many cases, and in

162
00:09:34,440 --> 00:09:37,280
Speaker 1: the hot button case for this term will be the

163
00:09:37,280 --> 00:09:39,920
Speaker 1: Trump tactics, and we'll see what he does. If you

164
00:09:40,000 --> 00:09:46,080
Speaker 1: consider Justices David Suitor, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Anthony Kennedy,

165
00:09:46,400 --> 00:09:48,880
Speaker 1: does how long you're on the court play a role

166
00:09:49,200 --> 00:09:53,280
Speaker 1: in changing the way you view cases. My own opinion

167
00:09:53,360 --> 00:09:57,400
Speaker 1: is Chief Justice Robert is not changing. Certainly. I think

168
00:09:57,400 --> 00:10:01,960
Speaker 1: he has been somewhat discussed with aspect of President Trump's rule,

169
00:10:02,480 --> 00:10:05,199
Speaker 1: but I think he's fundamentally conservative. We're not going to

170
00:10:05,320 --> 00:10:09,360
Speaker 1: see that kind of Suitor switch or Justice Stevens switch,

171
00:10:09,720 --> 00:10:12,600
Speaker 1: or even Justice White switch. But yet again, I think

172
00:10:12,640 --> 00:10:15,440
Speaker 1: that the layer for Chief Justice Roberts is not that

173
00:10:15,520 --> 00:10:18,520
Speaker 1: he's becoming more moderate, but that he really sees a

174
00:10:18,600 --> 00:10:21,680
Speaker 1: crisis for the Court and he's in a unique role

175
00:10:21,960 --> 00:10:24,480
Speaker 1: to do everything he can to try to help the

176
00:10:25,000 --> 00:10:29,480
Speaker 1: respect and dignity of this August institution. Thanks so much

177
00:10:29,480 --> 00:10:32,680
Speaker 1: for being on Bloomberg Lahaw. That's Harold Grant, professor at

178
00:10:32,679 --> 00:10:36,920
Speaker 1: the Chicago Kent College of Law. In a five to

179
00:10:37,000 --> 00:10:41,080
Speaker 1: four decision down ideological lines, the Supreme Court gave religious

180
00:10:41,080 --> 00:10:44,480
Speaker 1: schools a victory this week, ruling that states that offered

181
00:10:44,559 --> 00:10:48,040
Speaker 1: taxpayer subsidies to private schools must do the same for

182
00:10:48,080 --> 00:10:52,440
Speaker 1: religious schools. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the conservatives on

183
00:10:52,520 --> 00:10:55,080
Speaker 1: the court and the decision that lowers the wall between

184
00:10:55,160 --> 00:10:58,800
Speaker 1: church and state. In the majority opinion, Roberts wrote that

185
00:10:58,840 --> 00:11:03,120
Speaker 1: the Montana Supreme Court violated the US constitutions protection of

186
00:11:03,160 --> 00:11:05,960
Speaker 1: the free exercise of religion when it threw out a

187
00:11:06,000 --> 00:11:09,199
Speaker 1: scholarship program because most of the money went to students

188
00:11:09,200 --> 00:11:13,439
Speaker 1: attending faith based schools. His reasoning echo that expressed by

189
00:11:13,520 --> 00:11:16,640
Speaker 1: Justice Samuel Alito during the oral arguments in the case.

190
00:11:17,280 --> 00:11:19,640
Speaker 1: There's a difference between saying we're not going to fund

191
00:11:19,679 --> 00:11:25,000
Speaker 1: religious activities and saying we're going to discriminate based on religion.

192
00:11:25,120 --> 00:11:28,160
Speaker 1: That's the point that nobody's claiming the state has an

193
00:11:28,160 --> 00:11:33,800
Speaker 1: obligation to make particular grants to religious institutions. My guest

194
00:11:33,840 --> 00:11:36,600
Speaker 1: is Richard Garnett, a professor at the University of Notre

195
00:11:36,720 --> 00:11:40,160
Speaker 1: Dame Law School. Would you call this a landmark ruling?

196
00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:44,920
Speaker 1: Did it go beyond previous decisions on religion? So? Yes

197
00:11:44,960 --> 00:11:48,520
Speaker 1: and no. On the one hand, it's a very natural

198
00:11:48,760 --> 00:11:52,920
Speaker 1: and probably expected next step from a case that was

199
00:11:52,920 --> 00:11:57,120
Speaker 1: decided two years ago called Trinity Lutheran. That case involved

200
00:11:57,160 --> 00:12:02,079
Speaker 1: a program in Missouri that provided recycled tire parts to

201
00:12:02,240 --> 00:12:05,600
Speaker 1: various nonprofits that they could use for playgrounds, but it

202
00:12:05,679 --> 00:12:09,199
Speaker 1: excluded a religious daycare center from participating in. The Court

203
00:12:09,280 --> 00:12:11,600
Speaker 1: said there that if the government's got a general benefit

204
00:12:11,640 --> 00:12:15,480
Speaker 1: program that it makes available to qualified applicants, it can't

205
00:12:15,520 --> 00:12:19,080
Speaker 1: selectively exclude religious applicants. And the court in that decision

206
00:12:19,120 --> 00:12:21,640
Speaker 1: was seven to two, and there were some interesting little

207
00:12:21,679 --> 00:12:24,000
Speaker 1: cryptic footnotes that made it clear that all of the

208
00:12:24,080 --> 00:12:26,520
Speaker 1: justices were aware that the next question was going to

209
00:12:26,600 --> 00:12:30,000
Speaker 1: be and the next case was going to involve schools

210
00:12:30,040 --> 00:12:32,800
Speaker 1: and school funding, and that's exactly what happened in this

211
00:12:32,920 --> 00:12:35,280
Speaker 1: Espinosa case. So in that sense, it's again at the

212
00:12:35,320 --> 00:12:37,960
Speaker 1: other shoe dropping that. On the other hand, if you

213
00:12:38,000 --> 00:12:41,200
Speaker 1: step back the kind of thirty ft level, the case

214
00:12:41,280 --> 00:12:44,640
Speaker 1: represents a very interesting and pretty clear change in the

215
00:12:44,679 --> 00:12:48,560
Speaker 1: Court's doctrine over the last forty years. Let's say, even

216
00:12:48,600 --> 00:12:51,720
Speaker 1: fifty years ago, the Supreme Court would have been very

217
00:12:51,760 --> 00:12:56,880
Speaker 1: skeptical about whether the Constitution even permitted governments to provide

218
00:12:57,120 --> 00:13:00,720
Speaker 1: neutral scholarship benefits to kids. Attending religiou schools. There are

219
00:13:00,760 --> 00:13:03,320
Speaker 1: all these decisions in the seventies and early eighties where

220
00:13:03,320 --> 00:13:06,080
Speaker 1: the court instructees down as violations of the separation of

221
00:13:06,120 --> 00:13:08,960
Speaker 1: church and state. But over the decades, the Court's doctrine

222
00:13:09,000 --> 00:13:12,200
Speaker 1: has just evolved, and it's moved away from what some

223
00:13:12,280 --> 00:13:15,600
Speaker 1: would call kind of strict no aid separation to more

224
00:13:15,640 --> 00:13:19,800
Speaker 1: of a neutrality approach, where as long as religious beneficiaries

225
00:13:19,800 --> 00:13:24,800
Speaker 1: are being treated equally to non religious qualifying beneficiaries, that's permissible.

226
00:13:25,080 --> 00:13:27,440
Speaker 1: And then you add to that this idea that the

227
00:13:27,440 --> 00:13:31,480
Speaker 1: free exercise clause doesn't permit discrimination. So one way to

228
00:13:31,480 --> 00:13:33,920
Speaker 1: see what's happened over the last several decades is that

229
00:13:34,200 --> 00:13:37,439
Speaker 1: assistance that might have been impermissible thirty or forty years

230
00:13:37,480 --> 00:13:41,440
Speaker 1: ago is now under the new doctrine required. We went

231
00:13:41,480 --> 00:13:46,120
Speaker 1: from not allowing even neutral aid to now requiring even

232
00:13:46,160 --> 00:13:48,520
Speaker 1: handed fundings. You know, we see developments in the courts

233
00:13:48,520 --> 00:13:50,959
Speaker 1: docritione in lots of areas all the time, but certainly

234
00:13:51,240 --> 00:13:54,040
Speaker 1: in this area there has been a change. Critics would

235
00:13:54,080 --> 00:13:57,400
Speaker 1: say that the Roberts Court seems to be blurring the

236
00:13:57,440 --> 00:14:00,679
Speaker 1: line between church and state, is on its way to

237
00:14:00,840 --> 00:14:03,760
Speaker 1: erasing the line yeah, I think critics would say that,

238
00:14:03,800 --> 00:14:05,480
Speaker 1: I think they'd be mistaken. I mean a lot of

239
00:14:05,559 --> 00:14:09,120
Speaker 1: depends on what one thinks the appropriate line between church

240
00:14:09,120 --> 00:14:12,160
Speaker 1: and state is. So I think the Roberts majority believes,

241
00:14:12,280 --> 00:14:14,520
Speaker 1: and this is probably my view as well, that the

242
00:14:14,559 --> 00:14:18,120
Speaker 1: separation of church and state is about keeping religious and

243
00:14:18,160 --> 00:14:21,200
Speaker 1: political power separate. At its core, it means, you know,

244
00:14:21,200 --> 00:14:23,760
Speaker 1: we don't want bishops deciding what the tax rate is,

245
00:14:23,800 --> 00:14:26,040
Speaker 1: and we don't want politicians deciding what songs they're going

246
00:14:26,080 --> 00:14:29,040
Speaker 1: to sing at mass. But properly understood, the separation of

247
00:14:29,120 --> 00:14:32,560
Speaker 1: church and state in the American tradition has never ruled

248
00:14:32,600 --> 00:14:36,080
Speaker 1: out all forms of cooperation between religious entities in the

249
00:14:36,120 --> 00:14:38,080
Speaker 1: one hand and government on the other. So, you know,

250
00:14:38,240 --> 00:14:41,000
Speaker 1: people who returned from World War two used government funds

251
00:14:41,000 --> 00:14:43,080
Speaker 1: on the g I Bill to attend Notre Dame in

252
00:14:43,080 --> 00:14:47,440
Speaker 1: Boston College. Religious hospitals have been getting reimbursed by Medicare forever.

253
00:14:47,760 --> 00:14:50,840
Speaker 1: The government funded all kinds of educational and other projects

254
00:14:50,920 --> 00:14:54,360
Speaker 1: working with religious nonprofits. It delivers all kinds of social

255
00:14:54,400 --> 00:14:56,960
Speaker 1: services to low income people through churches. Now, So the

256
00:14:57,000 --> 00:14:59,560
Speaker 1: separation of church and state is an important principle in

257
00:14:59,560 --> 00:15:02,200
Speaker 1: our edition. But I think what the Roberts Courts believes

258
00:15:02,320 --> 00:15:05,360
Speaker 1: is that it's a mistake to think that separation rules

259
00:15:05,400 --> 00:15:08,880
Speaker 1: out all forms of cooperation. And you know, education is

260
00:15:08,920 --> 00:15:12,520
Speaker 1: a public good, it's a secular good, and if qualified

261
00:15:12,600 --> 00:15:15,360
Speaker 1: education is provided by a religious school, I think the

262
00:15:15,440 --> 00:15:19,080
Speaker 1: Roberts Courts position is that that public good isn't somehow

263
00:15:19,160 --> 00:15:22,800
Speaker 1: tainted just because it's being delivered by St. Cecilia's rather

264
00:15:22,880 --> 00:15:27,640
Speaker 1: than PS. You could briefly explain the Chief's reasoning in

265
00:15:27,760 --> 00:15:31,000
Speaker 1: his majority opinion. Sure, you can think of it as

266
00:15:31,040 --> 00:15:34,920
Speaker 1: having two steps. So step one is to say, and

267
00:15:34,960 --> 00:15:38,440
Speaker 1: this has been the law now for a while, that

268
00:15:39,120 --> 00:15:43,600
Speaker 1: a state is allowed to provide it's permissible to provide

269
00:15:44,360 --> 00:15:48,320
Speaker 1: um neutral, even handed aid, whether it's a tax credit

270
00:15:48,360 --> 00:15:50,120
Speaker 1: or what have you. That's what that's what this case involved,

271
00:15:50,360 --> 00:15:55,160
Speaker 1: two kids attending religious schools. Then the next step you ask, well,

272
00:15:55,240 --> 00:15:58,200
Speaker 1: Montana has decided that it's going to provide aid to

273
00:15:59,000 --> 00:16:04,000
Speaker 1: secular private school but not religious private schools. Is Montana

274
00:16:04,040 --> 00:16:06,720
Speaker 1: permitted to do that? Because, as the Chief frames it,

275
00:16:06,760 --> 00:16:09,760
Speaker 1: that's a form of discrimination. You're saying, here's a benefit,

276
00:16:10,760 --> 00:16:12,760
Speaker 1: you can use it at a secular private schools, but

277
00:16:12,840 --> 00:16:15,160
Speaker 1: you can't use it at religious ones. So is that

278
00:16:15,320 --> 00:16:20,479
Speaker 1: is that discrimination permissible? And under the courts doctrines, discrimination

279
00:16:20,560 --> 00:16:24,120
Speaker 1: like that, you know, different differential treatment like that is

280
00:16:24,160 --> 00:16:30,120
Speaker 1: only permissible if it's necessary to promote an important government purpose.

281
00:16:30,920 --> 00:16:33,600
Speaker 1: And the Chief Justice says, well, the government doesn't have

282
00:16:33,720 --> 00:16:35,880
Speaker 1: an important public purpose. Indeed, it doesn't even have a

283
00:16:35,960 --> 00:16:40,840
Speaker 1: legitimate public purpose in denying funding that the constitution permits.

284
00:16:41,680 --> 00:16:46,040
Speaker 1: So although some critics framed this in terms of separation

285
00:16:46,040 --> 00:16:47,360
Speaker 1: of church and state and so on, I think for

286
00:16:47,400 --> 00:16:50,240
Speaker 1: the Chief this is really a case about equal treatment

287
00:16:50,360 --> 00:16:55,360
Speaker 1: and non discrimination. Right. The free exercise clause requires, among

288
00:16:55,360 --> 00:17:00,120
Speaker 1: other things, that religious activities and religious believers not be

289
00:17:00,160 --> 00:17:03,840
Speaker 1: discriminated against just because they're religious. And as he saw it,

290
00:17:03,920 --> 00:17:07,280
Speaker 1: that's what this Montana rule did. Didn't say that the

291
00:17:07,440 --> 00:17:10,520
Speaker 1: education being provided, you know, wasn't of a certain quality.

292
00:17:11,119 --> 00:17:15,160
Speaker 1: It didn't say that the beneficiaries were somehow disqualified because

293
00:17:15,160 --> 00:17:18,200
Speaker 1: of income or something. The only reason why the benefits

294
00:17:18,200 --> 00:17:21,280
Speaker 1: couldn't be used to these schools was because of the

295
00:17:21,400 --> 00:17:24,320
Speaker 1: religious nature, the religious status as he calls it, of

296
00:17:24,400 --> 00:17:27,280
Speaker 1: the schools. And so that kind of discrimination on the

297
00:17:27,280 --> 00:17:31,280
Speaker 1: basis of religious status is current law. It is very

298
00:17:31,280 --> 00:17:35,760
Speaker 1: hard to justify, and again Montana's reasoning that wasn't determined

299
00:17:35,760 --> 00:17:38,600
Speaker 1: to rest on a strong enough government interest to justify

300
00:17:38,640 --> 00:17:43,080
Speaker 1: that discrimination. The dissent basically said, you know, Montana is

301
00:17:43,119 --> 00:17:47,440
Speaker 1: treating people neutrally because it closed down the scholarship program

302
00:17:47,480 --> 00:17:51,600
Speaker 1: to all and justice, so to Mayor called this decision

303
00:17:51,600 --> 00:17:54,960
Speaker 1: by the majority perverse without any need or power to

304
00:17:55,000 --> 00:17:57,679
Speaker 1: do so. The Court appears to require a state to

305
00:17:57,800 --> 00:18:01,399
Speaker 1: reinstate a tax credit program that the Constitution did not

306
00:18:01,560 --> 00:18:04,919
Speaker 1: demand in the first place. The dissenters have a number

307
00:18:05,040 --> 00:18:09,080
Speaker 1: of kind of lines of attack. UM. One lineup attack

308
00:18:09,240 --> 00:18:13,119
Speaker 1: is that the dissenting justices believe that the established I

309
00:18:13,119 --> 00:18:17,160
Speaker 1: think they believe that they really are strong establishment cause

310
00:18:17,280 --> 00:18:22,840
Speaker 1: reasons why a state would want to not fund religious schools. Um.

311
00:18:22,880 --> 00:18:24,880
Speaker 1: They don't necessarily come out and say that they want

312
00:18:24,920 --> 00:18:29,480
Speaker 1: to reverse the Supreme Court's decisions permitting school choice, but

313
00:18:29,520 --> 00:18:34,159
Speaker 1: it's clear that for the dissenters, they're more sympathetic to

314
00:18:34,280 --> 00:18:38,080
Speaker 1: Montana's desire just to keep public funds away from religious

315
00:18:38,119 --> 00:18:40,359
Speaker 1: school So that's that's part of what's going on on

316
00:18:40,400 --> 00:18:43,480
Speaker 1: the dissenting side. Another thing that's going on, as you said,

317
00:18:44,080 --> 00:18:47,600
Speaker 1: is that there was a kind of a procedural oddity

318
00:18:47,640 --> 00:18:50,480
Speaker 1: in this case, which is that what the Montana Supreme

319
00:18:50,520 --> 00:18:53,320
Speaker 1: Court did was to say, you know, no, no one

320
00:18:53,359 --> 00:18:56,800
Speaker 1: can get the benefits of this UM tax credit program

321
00:18:57,040 --> 00:19:00,680
Speaker 1: whether they're going to secular or religious private school. So

322
00:19:00,720 --> 00:19:04,320
Speaker 1: that that was the remedy that the Montana Court granted.

323
00:19:05,080 --> 00:19:08,440
Speaker 1: But I think what the majority UH says in response is, look,

324
00:19:09,119 --> 00:19:12,960
Speaker 1: the reason why the Montana Supreme Court shut down this

325
00:19:13,040 --> 00:19:18,840
Speaker 1: program was because of its interpretation of the Montana Provision,

326
00:19:18,840 --> 00:19:23,919
Speaker 1: which requires discrimination against religious schools. So the the in

327
00:19:23,960 --> 00:19:26,439
Speaker 1: a sense, the majority and that the centers are talking

328
00:19:26,520 --> 00:19:29,200
Speaker 1: past each other a little bit, because the majority says, look,

329
00:19:29,760 --> 00:19:32,959
Speaker 1: the Montana Court did what it did because of this

330
00:19:33,040 --> 00:19:38,800
Speaker 1: discriminatory UM Montana Provision, and the reason why these parents

331
00:19:39,240 --> 00:19:42,800
Speaker 1: ended up losing the benefits that they were otherwise entitled

332
00:19:42,800 --> 00:19:46,199
Speaker 1: to was because of this discriminatory provision. But as you

333
00:19:46,240 --> 00:19:49,320
Speaker 1: point out, the dissenters say, well, you know, maybe it's

334
00:19:49,320 --> 00:19:53,560
Speaker 1: an interesting theoretical question whether UM this kind of discrimination

335
00:19:53,720 --> 00:19:57,960
Speaker 1: is unconstitutional, But in this particular case, what Montana did

336
00:19:59,000 --> 00:20:02,800
Speaker 1: was treat non public school kids the same. So in

337
00:20:02,800 --> 00:20:08,320
Speaker 1: a way, the dissenters are focusing on the Montana Supreme

338
00:20:08,359 --> 00:20:11,800
Speaker 1: Court's remedy, and the majority is focusing on the Montana

339
00:20:11,880 --> 00:20:16,120
Speaker 1: constitutional provision and that that that is a really interesting

340
00:20:16,200 --> 00:20:23,199
Speaker 1: point of of disagreement between the two. I suspect that um,

341
00:20:23,280 --> 00:20:27,000
Speaker 1: the four dissenters would have dissented in any event, that is,

342
00:20:27,600 --> 00:20:31,200
Speaker 1: even if the even if the Montana Supreme Court had

343
00:20:31,280 --> 00:20:34,439
Speaker 1: only singled out the parents who were attending religious schools.

344
00:20:35,680 --> 00:20:40,840
Speaker 1: I think that the Center's position is being um driven

345
00:20:40,960 --> 00:20:46,040
Speaker 1: substantially by this idea that Montana should be permitted to

346
00:20:46,240 --> 00:20:49,920
Speaker 1: decide not to fund religious schools. That's really the that's

347
00:20:49,960 --> 00:20:53,280
Speaker 1: really the sticking point between the majority and the descent.

348
00:20:53,400 --> 00:20:58,720
Speaker 1: I believe states have these blamee amendments that block religious

349
00:20:58,760 --> 00:21:04,520
Speaker 1: schools from getting pel like funds. Are those now unconstitutional? Well,

350
00:21:04,840 --> 00:21:06,800
Speaker 1: a couple of things, they're The first thing to keep

351
00:21:06,800 --> 00:21:10,200
Speaker 1: in mind is that, UM, a lot of these these

352
00:21:10,200 --> 00:21:14,520
Speaker 1: provisions in the various state constitutions, there are slight but

353
00:21:14,720 --> 00:21:19,280
Speaker 1: often important variations among them. So, you know, state state

354
00:21:19,320 --> 00:21:23,520
Speaker 1: supreme courts have the primary authority to interpret state constitutions,

355
00:21:23,560 --> 00:21:26,600
Speaker 1: and with respect to a lot of those provisions, the

356
00:21:26,640 --> 00:21:31,880
Speaker 1: state supreme courts have already said, you know, these provisions.

357
00:21:31,920 --> 00:21:34,200
Speaker 1: We know, we know how they're worded, but we think

358
00:21:34,200 --> 00:21:38,159
Speaker 1: they actually do permit things like vouchers and tax credits

359
00:21:38,160 --> 00:21:42,240
Speaker 1: and scholarships so long as their neutral. So um, this

360
00:21:42,320 --> 00:21:46,919
Speaker 1: opinion doesn't do anything to undermine or to change the

361
00:21:47,000 --> 00:21:50,040
Speaker 1: law in those states. So a state like Arizona, as

362
00:21:50,080 --> 00:21:54,120
Speaker 1: an example, it has a a blame blame amendment type provision,

363
00:21:54,200 --> 00:21:57,560
Speaker 1: but the state court had already interpreted it to allow

364
00:21:57,680 --> 00:22:04,879
Speaker 1: even handed funding. But with respect to those states like Montana, Um,

365
00:22:04,920 --> 00:22:06,720
Speaker 1: you know my neighbor state of Michigan. I think it

366
00:22:06,760 --> 00:22:09,359
Speaker 1: is another example with respect to those states that have

367
00:22:09,480 --> 00:22:17,720
Speaker 1: interpreted their own constitutions to require um discrimination against religious schools,

368
00:22:17,800 --> 00:22:21,920
Speaker 1: than what this latest Supreme Court decision means is that

369
00:22:21,920 --> 00:22:25,760
Speaker 1: those state constitutional provisions can't be enforced. The Supreme Court

370
00:22:25,840 --> 00:22:27,440
Speaker 1: can't tell a state like, hey, take that out of

371
00:22:27,480 --> 00:22:30,879
Speaker 1: your constitution. That's not how it works. But given the

372
00:22:30,960 --> 00:22:36,159
Speaker 1: Espinosa decision, the states can't use their state constitutions in

373
00:22:36,280 --> 00:22:42,080
Speaker 1: order to require or to excuse differential treatment in these

374
00:22:42,160 --> 00:22:45,199
Speaker 1: kinds of programs. How far does this decision open the

375
00:22:45,280 --> 00:22:49,800
Speaker 1: door to more public funding of religious education. Well, it

376
00:22:49,840 --> 00:22:52,560
Speaker 1: opens the door in the sense that it permits the

377
00:22:52,640 --> 00:22:55,959
Speaker 1: legislative process to consider this issue. Right, So this decision

378
00:22:56,040 --> 00:22:58,760
Speaker 1: doesn't require a state to have about your program or

379
00:22:58,760 --> 00:23:02,199
Speaker 1: a scholarship program, right like that. Um. But you know,

380
00:23:02,280 --> 00:23:07,360
Speaker 1: for the last several decades, a lot of times, UM,

381
00:23:07,359 --> 00:23:11,800
Speaker 1: political movements to get more school choice has kind of

382
00:23:11,840 --> 00:23:15,679
Speaker 1: bumped up against these provisions. Um. These provisions have stood

383
00:23:15,680 --> 00:23:18,640
Speaker 1: as kind of an obstacle to choice based reform, even

384
00:23:18,640 --> 00:23:21,320
Speaker 1: in states that have wanted to enact it. So what

385
00:23:21,480 --> 00:23:27,080
Speaker 1: this decision says basically is, look going forward, UM, these

386
00:23:27,240 --> 00:23:31,280
Speaker 1: blame Amendment type provisions. They can't stand in the way

387
00:23:31,440 --> 00:23:36,280
Speaker 1: of even handed school aboucher programs. No states required to

388
00:23:36,320 --> 00:23:39,480
Speaker 1: adopt them. A state, if it wants to, can say

389
00:23:39,680 --> 00:23:43,399
Speaker 1: public money is for government run schools only, or government

390
00:23:43,440 --> 00:23:48,720
Speaker 1: run schools and charter schools only. But what this decision

391
00:23:49,160 --> 00:23:52,800
Speaker 1: does mean is that if the state decides no, we're

392
00:23:52,800 --> 00:23:57,119
Speaker 1: open to some experiments with programs that allow kids to

393
00:23:58,200 --> 00:24:01,920
Speaker 1: use scholarships and tax credit the private schools. They can't

394
00:24:02,480 --> 00:24:05,200
Speaker 1: single out religious schools for exclusion or flip it around,

395
00:24:05,200 --> 00:24:08,840
Speaker 1: since most private schools are religious in a lot of states.

396
00:24:10,200 --> 00:24:14,080
Speaker 1: What this decision means is that the option of including

397
00:24:14,160 --> 00:24:17,440
Speaker 1: private schools in your in your kind of menu of

398
00:24:17,680 --> 00:24:22,000
Speaker 1: publicly funded options. That option is now available, but it's

399
00:24:22,040 --> 00:24:24,840
Speaker 1: still going to be a political decision, right. That doesn't

400
00:24:24,920 --> 00:24:27,439
Speaker 1: mandate school choice. It just kind of opens up the

401
00:24:27,440 --> 00:24:30,080
Speaker 1: debate a little bit, and now people have to convince

402
00:24:30,080 --> 00:24:32,640
Speaker 1: each other what the best and most just and most

403
00:24:32,640 --> 00:24:36,200
Speaker 1: efficient way they think to fund educational opportunity is. This

404
00:24:36,440 --> 00:24:40,240
Speaker 1: was another decision where the five to four majority, where

405
00:24:40,280 --> 00:24:43,639
Speaker 1: the Chief was the deciding vote or the swing vote.

406
00:24:44,280 --> 00:24:46,640
Speaker 1: What's your take on that whole thing about the chief

407
00:24:46,800 --> 00:24:50,560
Speaker 1: being now the most powerful chief justice almost in history

408
00:24:50,960 --> 00:24:52,920
Speaker 1: history is big, And I think there's a lot to

409
00:24:52,960 --> 00:24:55,000
Speaker 1: admire about John Roart. I suspect he wouldn't want to

410
00:24:55,000 --> 00:24:57,280
Speaker 1: say that he was more powerful than say John Marshall

411
00:24:57,359 --> 00:24:59,720
Speaker 1: or something like that yet, But um, this year has

412
00:24:59,720 --> 00:25:02,920
Speaker 1: been in this has been a year where he's been

413
00:25:02,920 --> 00:25:05,840
Speaker 1: in the majority of all the close cases. As for

414
00:25:05,880 --> 00:25:07,760
Speaker 1: the swing votes thing, I'm not sure that fits in

415
00:25:07,800 --> 00:25:12,160
Speaker 1: this case. Roberts has for the entire fifteen years he's

416
00:25:12,160 --> 00:25:17,080
Speaker 1: been on the court been entirely consistent. I think in

417
00:25:17,240 --> 00:25:21,120
Speaker 1: law and religion cases he has voted in every case

418
00:25:21,119 --> 00:25:25,359
Speaker 1: that I can recall in favor of free exercise claims.

419
00:25:25,480 --> 00:25:27,720
Speaker 1: So this this isn't a case where his voted the

420
00:25:27,760 --> 00:25:31,119
Speaker 1: majority is some kind of a surprise or goes against

421
00:25:31,119 --> 00:25:33,600
Speaker 1: other things. He said again, he wrote the decision just

422
00:25:33,640 --> 00:25:36,720
Speaker 1: two years ago in Trinity Lutheran. In the past, some

423
00:25:36,840 --> 00:25:42,000
Speaker 1: justices like Justices Kagan and Brier have joined with the

424
00:25:42,040 --> 00:25:45,400
Speaker 1: more conservative justices in some of these religion cases, and

425
00:25:45,480 --> 00:25:49,240
Speaker 1: here the more liberal block of justices all all stayed together.

426
00:25:49,600 --> 00:25:53,000
Speaker 1: Thanks Rick. That's Richard Garnett, a professor at the University

427
00:25:53,000 --> 00:25:55,600
Speaker 1: of Notre Dame Law School. And that's it for the

428
00:25:55,600 --> 00:25:58,200
Speaker 1: sedition of Bloomberg Law. Remember you can always get the

429
00:25:58,280 --> 00:26:01,120
Speaker 1: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can

430
00:26:01,160 --> 00:26:04,720
Speaker 1: find them on iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot com Slash

431
00:26:04,760 --> 00:26:08,880
Speaker 1: podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grosso. Thanks so much for listening,

432
00:26:09,119 --> 00:26:11,640
Speaker 1: and remember to tune to the Bloomberg Law Show weeknights

433
00:26:11,640 --> 00:26:20,720
Speaker 1: at ten pm Eastern right here on Bloomberg Radio. How

434
00:26:20,760 --> 00:26:24,000
Speaker 1: far does this decision open the door to more public

435
00:26:24,040 --> 00:26:27,399
Speaker 1: funding of religious education. Well, it opened the door in

436
00:26:27,440 --> 00:26:30,680
Speaker 1: the sense that it permits the legislative process to consider

437
00:26:30,720 --> 00:26:33,480
Speaker 1: this issue. Right, So this decision doesn't require a state

438
00:26:33,520 --> 00:26:35,960
Speaker 1: to have about your program or a scholarship program or

439
00:26:36,000 --> 00:26:38,439
Speaker 1: anything like that. But for the last several decades, a

440
00:26:38,440 --> 00:26:42,480
Speaker 1: lot of times political movements to get more school choice

441
00:26:42,960 --> 00:26:45,840
Speaker 1: have kind of bumped up against these provisions. These provisions

442
00:26:45,880 --> 00:26:48,520
Speaker 1: have stood as kind of an obstacle to choice based

443
00:26:48,520 --> 00:26:50,840
Speaker 1: reform even in states that have wanted to enact it.

444
00:26:51,000 --> 00:26:54,280
Speaker 1: So what this decision says basically is, look going forward,

445
00:26:54,680 --> 00:26:58,200
Speaker 1: these blame amendment type provisions can't stand in the way

446
00:26:58,359 --> 00:27:02,320
Speaker 1: of even handed school ut your programs, no states required

447
00:27:02,359 --> 00:27:04,560
Speaker 1: to adopt them. A state, if it wants to, can

448
00:27:04,680 --> 00:27:07,800
Speaker 1: say public money is for government run schools and charter

449
00:27:07,880 --> 00:27:11,160
Speaker 1: schools only. But if the state decides no, we're open

450
00:27:11,520 --> 00:27:15,479
Speaker 1: to some experiments with programs that allow kids to use

451
00:27:15,520 --> 00:27:18,639
Speaker 1: scholarships and tax credits at private schools. They can't single

452
00:27:18,720 --> 00:27:22,600
Speaker 1: out religious schools for exclusion. Thanks Rick. That's Richard Garnett,

453
00:27:22,640 --> 00:27:25,119
Speaker 1: a professor at No. Tre Dame Law School. Coming up

454
00:27:25,119 --> 00:27:28,040
Speaker 1: next on Bloomberg Law, the chief joins with the liberal

455
00:27:28,119 --> 00:27:32,200
Speaker 1: justices in giving abortion rights activists a win. I'm juring

456
00:27:32,280 --> 00:27:33,879
Speaker 1: Grosso and this is Bloomberg