1 00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:09,400 --> 00:00:13,160 Speaker 1: In a ruling dividing the court down ideological lines, the 3 00:00:13,200 --> 00:00:16,759 Speaker 1: Supreme Court once against strength and religious rights over what 4 00:00:16,880 --> 00:00:20,400 Speaker 1: the Court says is governmental discrimination. In a six to 5 00:00:20,520 --> 00:00:24,000 Speaker 1: three vote, the Court rule that Maine cannot exclude religious 6 00:00:24,000 --> 00:00:27,319 Speaker 1: schools from a program that pays for private instruction in 7 00:00:27,480 --> 00:00:30,920 Speaker 1: rural areas that lack public schools, opening the door to 8 00:00:31,000 --> 00:00:34,680 Speaker 1: more use of public dollars for religious schools. Even during 9 00:00:34,800 --> 00:00:38,839 Speaker 1: oral arguments, the conservative justices and the liberal justices had 10 00:00:38,840 --> 00:00:43,159 Speaker 1: opposing views on just what constitutes discrimination on the basis 11 00:00:43,159 --> 00:00:46,600 Speaker 1: of religion. Here are Justice is Brett Kavanaugh and Sonya 12 00:00:46,640 --> 00:00:49,960 Speaker 1: Soto mayor. And the first neighbor says, we're going to 13 00:00:50,080 --> 00:00:55,560 Speaker 1: send our child children to secular private school. They get 14 00:00:55,600 --> 00:00:59,280 Speaker 1: the benefit. The next door neighbor says, well, we want 15 00:00:59,280 --> 00:01:03,320 Speaker 1: to send our oldren to a religious private school and 16 00:01:03,640 --> 00:01:06,199 Speaker 1: they're not going to get the benefit. And I don't 17 00:01:06,240 --> 00:01:10,200 Speaker 1: see how your suggestion that the subsidy changes the analysis. 18 00:01:10,240 --> 00:01:15,640 Speaker 1: That's just discrimination on the basis of religion. These parents 19 00:01:15,720 --> 00:01:18,280 Speaker 1: are put to the same choice that every other parent 20 00:01:18,400 --> 00:01:22,360 Speaker 1: in Maine is put to either get a free public 21 00:01:22,440 --> 00:01:26,920 Speaker 1: EDGIC secular education, or pay for your religious training. They're 22 00:01:26,920 --> 00:01:30,760 Speaker 1: being treated as everybody else's joining me, is Richard Garnett, 23 00:01:30,840 --> 00:01:34,399 Speaker 1: a professor at Notre Dame Law School. What does this 24 00:01:34,640 --> 00:01:40,920 Speaker 1: ruling stand for? Well, this decision reaffirms a principle that 25 00:01:41,040 --> 00:01:45,600 Speaker 1: the Justices have applied in several recent cases, and that 26 00:01:45,840 --> 00:01:50,360 Speaker 1: is that the free exercise clause of the Constitution does 27 00:01:50,400 --> 00:01:56,560 Speaker 1: not permit governments to exclude or to discriminate against religious 28 00:01:56,720 --> 00:02:00,680 Speaker 1: entities or individuals when they're operating a benefit program or 29 00:02:00,800 --> 00:02:03,360 Speaker 1: funding program. So a simpler way of putting that, I 30 00:02:03,360 --> 00:02:06,200 Speaker 1: suppose might be that the pre exercise clause of the 31 00:02:06,240 --> 00:02:10,079 Speaker 1: First Amendment doesn't permit governments to discriminate against religion. And 32 00:02:10,560 --> 00:02:14,600 Speaker 1: in the Carson case, the justices applied that principle to 33 00:02:14,720 --> 00:02:18,280 Speaker 1: conclude that the State of Mainz policy, which is to 34 00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:23,160 Speaker 1: allow parents in rural school districts to get public support 35 00:02:23,320 --> 00:02:28,000 Speaker 1: to send their kids to some private schools, was unconstitutional 36 00:02:28,120 --> 00:02:32,760 Speaker 1: because nine denied similar benefits to parents if they chose 37 00:02:33,080 --> 00:02:37,040 Speaker 1: a religious school. And the court, instead, relying on these 38 00:02:37,200 --> 00:02:41,080 Speaker 1: recent precedents, that discrimination simply on the basis of the 39 00:02:41,080 --> 00:02:45,320 Speaker 1: school's religious character violate the pree exercise guarantee of the 40 00:02:45,320 --> 00:02:49,919 Speaker 1: First Amendment. So I'm wondering if the court was extending 41 00:02:50,400 --> 00:02:54,839 Speaker 1: precedents too, because two years ago, in a case from Montana, 42 00:02:55,000 --> 00:02:58,680 Speaker 1: the court rule that states can exclude schools run by 43 00:02:58,840 --> 00:03:03,240 Speaker 1: religious instant tuitions when they're making tax money available, but 44 00:03:03,520 --> 00:03:06,200 Speaker 1: didn't answer the question of whether it would matter if 45 00:03:06,240 --> 00:03:11,239 Speaker 1: the schools actually offered religious instruction. Is the Court now 46 00:03:11,320 --> 00:03:16,880 Speaker 1: answering that question and saying that even teaching religion doesn't matter. Yeah, 47 00:03:16,960 --> 00:03:20,040 Speaker 1: So the Montana case you mentioned, and then one a 48 00:03:20,080 --> 00:03:23,280 Speaker 1: few years before that out of Missouri called Trinity Lutheran. 49 00:03:23,720 --> 00:03:28,440 Speaker 1: In those cases, the program that was challenged had involved 50 00:03:28,760 --> 00:03:33,120 Speaker 1: discrimination on the basis of what the court called religious status. 51 00:03:33,240 --> 00:03:35,800 Speaker 1: In those cases, the people who were challenging the programs 52 00:03:35,880 --> 00:03:41,080 Speaker 1: had been excluded entirely because of religious affiliation or religious nature. 53 00:03:41,520 --> 00:03:43,720 Speaker 1: And the court in each of those cases was able 54 00:03:43,760 --> 00:03:45,600 Speaker 1: to say, look, we don't have to decide in this 55 00:03:45,640 --> 00:03:49,360 Speaker 1: case whether the result would be different if the entity 56 00:03:49,440 --> 00:03:53,640 Speaker 1: and question also was engaged in religious activity or instruction, 57 00:03:53,680 --> 00:03:57,760 Speaker 1: and so on and so in. In yesterday's case Carson 58 00:03:57,880 --> 00:04:02,120 Speaker 1: Versus Making, the Court Sarah Finde and made explicit the 59 00:04:02,160 --> 00:04:04,960 Speaker 1: fact that well, if you if you discriminate against the 60 00:04:05,040 --> 00:04:10,640 Speaker 1: school because of its religious activities or instruction or policies, 61 00:04:10,960 --> 00:04:13,520 Speaker 1: that's the same thing that discriminating against on the basis 62 00:04:13,520 --> 00:04:17,039 Speaker 1: of religion, and so the same principle applies. The CEO 63 00:04:17,120 --> 00:04:21,000 Speaker 1: of Americans United for a Separation of Church and State, 64 00:04:21,760 --> 00:04:25,440 Speaker 1: Rachel Laser, said, the court is forcing taxpayers to fund 65 00:04:25,520 --> 00:04:32,680 Speaker 1: religious education. Is this making taxpayers fund religious education? Well, 66 00:04:33,040 --> 00:04:37,279 Speaker 1: uh so no, because the Court was very careful to 67 00:04:37,320 --> 00:04:39,960 Speaker 1: say that states don't have to fund religious schools that 68 00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:43,120 Speaker 1: they don't want to. But once the state decides that 69 00:04:43,560 --> 00:04:47,400 Speaker 1: it wants to fund some private education, then it can't 70 00:04:47,440 --> 00:04:53,000 Speaker 1: discriminate against religious schools. Now, the upshot of that is that, indirectly, 71 00:04:53,560 --> 00:04:57,080 Speaker 1: because you know, the stable assists parents to choose to 72 00:04:57,080 --> 00:05:00,760 Speaker 1: send kids to school where they will receive religious instruction, indirectly, 73 00:05:01,320 --> 00:05:04,880 Speaker 1: the parents decision to seek out religious instruction is being supported. 74 00:05:05,400 --> 00:05:08,840 Speaker 1: But I think that quote leaves out the important part 75 00:05:08,920 --> 00:05:10,960 Speaker 1: that it's it's up to the state to decide whether 76 00:05:11,000 --> 00:05:13,640 Speaker 1: it wants to open up funding programs to private schools. 77 00:05:14,120 --> 00:05:17,920 Speaker 1: Once the state makes that decision, it then can't exclude 78 00:05:17,960 --> 00:05:22,120 Speaker 1: schools simply because they're engaged in religious instruction, and of 79 00:05:22,160 --> 00:05:27,280 Speaker 1: course the states indirectly pay for some religious education all 80 00:05:27,320 --> 00:05:30,240 Speaker 1: the time. You know, the g I Bill for more 81 00:05:30,279 --> 00:05:34,240 Speaker 1: than seventy years has been paying for people to attend 82 00:05:34,320 --> 00:05:37,600 Speaker 1: Boston College in the game. So I think the language 83 00:05:37,600 --> 00:05:41,159 Speaker 1: of forcing overlooks the point that it's it's the state's 84 00:05:41,240 --> 00:05:45,119 Speaker 1: choice whether or not to create a program that's open 85 00:05:45,160 --> 00:05:48,320 Speaker 1: to some private schools but not others. So this was 86 00:05:48,400 --> 00:05:52,800 Speaker 1: a six to three decision down ideological lines. So in 87 00:05:52,839 --> 00:05:56,160 Speaker 1: her descent, Justice Sonya so to Mayor sort of lamented 88 00:05:56,200 --> 00:05:59,160 Speaker 1: how far the Court has moved in five years since 89 00:05:59,200 --> 00:06:03,320 Speaker 1: the Trinity looth Are in case. Quote in, I fear 90 00:06:03,400 --> 00:06:05,400 Speaker 1: that the Court was leading us to a place where 91 00:06:05,440 --> 00:06:09,479 Speaker 1: separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not 92 00:06:09,600 --> 00:06:12,960 Speaker 1: a constitutional commitment. Today the Court leads us to a 93 00:06:13,000 --> 00:06:18,479 Speaker 1: place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation. Yeah. 94 00:06:18,600 --> 00:06:22,960 Speaker 1: So clearly, Justice so tom Or just understands what separation 95 00:06:22,960 --> 00:06:26,320 Speaker 1: of church and state is differently than the majority of 96 00:06:26,360 --> 00:06:29,800 Speaker 1: the justices. So I think in her view, Justice Or 97 00:06:30,000 --> 00:06:34,160 Speaker 1: disagrees with twenty years of court presidents permitting school vouchers 98 00:06:34,160 --> 00:06:37,120 Speaker 1: and so on. And I think in her view, any 99 00:06:37,320 --> 00:06:40,000 Speaker 1: support for parents who choose to send their kids to 100 00:06:40,080 --> 00:06:43,800 Speaker 1: religious schools in a church state violation, but the Court 101 00:06:43,960 --> 00:06:46,640 Speaker 1: rejected that view twenty two years ago. It is true 102 00:06:46,839 --> 00:06:50,440 Speaker 1: that since Trinity Lutheran, these last five years, we have 103 00:06:50,560 --> 00:06:54,960 Speaker 1: seen a pretty important interesting some people don't like, of course, development, 104 00:06:55,040 --> 00:06:58,640 Speaker 1: which is the Court has said not only may school 105 00:06:58,720 --> 00:07:03,560 Speaker 1: voucher programs in religious schools, they've added to that this 106 00:07:03,720 --> 00:07:07,600 Speaker 1: non discrimination rule that once you create a funding program, 107 00:07:07,640 --> 00:07:11,000 Speaker 1: you then can't discriminate. But the premise of justice myors 108 00:07:11,200 --> 00:07:14,240 Speaker 1: language there, I think is that you know, the indirect 109 00:07:14,320 --> 00:07:19,280 Speaker 1: support or differently supporting parents decisions to choose religious schools 110 00:07:19,280 --> 00:07:23,720 Speaker 1: for their children violates church state separation. That certainly has 111 00:07:23,760 --> 00:07:26,120 Speaker 1: been a view that many people have held over the 112 00:07:26,200 --> 00:07:28,640 Speaker 1: last several decades, but it hasn't been the rule of 113 00:07:28,640 --> 00:07:32,760 Speaker 1: the Court for a long time. Justice Brier brought up 114 00:07:33,080 --> 00:07:36,520 Speaker 1: the fact that both these schools have admissions policies that 115 00:07:37,160 --> 00:07:42,440 Speaker 1: allow them to deny enrollment to students based on gender, 116 00:07:42,600 --> 00:07:47,280 Speaker 1: gender identity, sexual orientation, and religion. Justice Robert's dressed I 117 00:07:47,280 --> 00:07:50,840 Speaker 1: think in a footnote, should that have been addressed? Should 118 00:07:50,920 --> 00:07:55,680 Speaker 1: mane be able to look at what's happening in the schools. Well, 119 00:07:55,680 --> 00:07:58,040 Speaker 1: it's a tricky question. On the one hand, Um, this 120 00:07:58,080 --> 00:08:02,200 Speaker 1: case did not involve the question whether Maine, if it 121 00:08:02,320 --> 00:08:06,080 Speaker 1: wanted to, could have a rule that in order to 122 00:08:06,120 --> 00:08:10,000 Speaker 1: participate in the tuitioning program, a school has to have, 123 00:08:10,480 --> 00:08:14,320 Speaker 1: you know, an open admissions policy, say Justice Prior concede 124 00:08:14,440 --> 00:08:17,880 Speaker 1: their religious schools have the right to admit students and 125 00:08:17,960 --> 00:08:21,360 Speaker 1: higher teachers on the basis of their religious teachings. And again, 126 00:08:21,400 --> 00:08:26,120 Speaker 1: the state is not directly subsidizing these schools. That's kind 127 00:08:26,120 --> 00:08:28,960 Speaker 1: of a misunderstanding. What the state is doing is assisting 128 00:08:29,280 --> 00:08:32,719 Speaker 1: parents who live in districts without high schools to get 129 00:08:32,760 --> 00:08:35,480 Speaker 1: their kids educated. And their kids have a constitutional right 130 00:08:35,559 --> 00:08:39,040 Speaker 1: of the Main Constitution to a publicly funded education. And 131 00:08:39,120 --> 00:08:42,400 Speaker 1: so I think Justice Roberts point in that footnote was 132 00:08:42,440 --> 00:08:47,080 Speaker 1: that the question of these schools, particular policies about curriculum 133 00:08:47,280 --> 00:08:50,400 Speaker 1: or admissions and so on, are not really relevant to 134 00:08:50,440 --> 00:08:53,040 Speaker 1: the question that was presented here. I suspect there will 135 00:08:53,040 --> 00:08:55,319 Speaker 1: be people in Maine who will consider whether or not 136 00:08:55,360 --> 00:08:59,080 Speaker 1: to revise their program, who as to add new conditions 137 00:08:59,160 --> 00:09:01,360 Speaker 1: to the support, but that wasn't the issue presented in 138 00:09:01,400 --> 00:09:04,200 Speaker 1: this case. And I think Justice Roberts is also sort 139 00:09:04,200 --> 00:09:08,240 Speaker 1: of suggesting that it would be suspect to be denying 140 00:09:08,440 --> 00:09:14,440 Speaker 1: funding to religious schools simply because one didn't like those 141 00:09:14,480 --> 00:09:18,160 Speaker 1: schools particular religious practices and beliefs. But that issue is 142 00:09:18,200 --> 00:09:21,320 Speaker 1: clearly not going away. The issue of the conditions that 143 00:09:21,400 --> 00:09:23,920 Speaker 1: attached to the money. This case was just about whether 144 00:09:24,040 --> 00:09:27,479 Speaker 1: or not Maine could exclude these schools from the program altogether. 145 00:09:27,840 --> 00:09:30,560 Speaker 1: There'll be other controversies whether or Maine or somewhere else 146 00:09:30,679 --> 00:09:33,760 Speaker 1: setting up the question whether or not legislators can attach 147 00:09:34,080 --> 00:09:37,680 Speaker 1: these regulatory strings to the support that they provide the parents. 148 00:09:38,160 --> 00:09:42,080 Speaker 1: About thirty seven states have amendments to their constitutions that 149 00:09:42,559 --> 00:09:47,959 Speaker 1: bar government funding of religious institutions, including schools. Are those 150 00:09:48,040 --> 00:09:51,439 Speaker 1: now invalid? Well, it's interesting. These are sometimes called the 151 00:09:51,480 --> 00:09:54,560 Speaker 1: Blaine amendments, as you say, the provisions that many of 152 00:09:54,559 --> 00:09:57,559 Speaker 1: the states added to their constitutions, many of them is 153 00:09:57,559 --> 00:10:00,880 Speaker 1: a historical matter, were specifically designed to make sure that 154 00:10:00,920 --> 00:10:04,120 Speaker 1: Catholic schools didn't get any funding, because, of course, at 155 00:10:04,120 --> 00:10:08,000 Speaker 1: the time these provisions were enacted, the public schools were 156 00:10:08,040 --> 00:10:12,480 Speaker 1: still religious, they were just Protestant. One implication of these 157 00:10:12,559 --> 00:10:16,280 Speaker 1: last three decisions, these last five years, including Carson's is 158 00:10:16,320 --> 00:10:20,959 Speaker 1: that if a state has a constitutional provision that purports 159 00:10:21,000 --> 00:10:26,120 Speaker 1: to require discrimination against religious schools, then that state provision 160 00:10:26,520 --> 00:10:31,480 Speaker 1: cannot be enforced. That is the first amendments free exercise 161 00:10:31,559 --> 00:10:35,440 Speaker 1: clause trumps that. Now, it's important to note that in 162 00:10:35,559 --> 00:10:38,480 Speaker 1: many of the states that have these Plaine amendments, the 163 00:10:38,559 --> 00:10:41,680 Speaker 1: state courts have interpreted them in such a way as 164 00:10:41,720 --> 00:10:45,520 Speaker 1: to permit indirect aid or you know, support for parental 165 00:10:45,600 --> 00:10:48,000 Speaker 1: choice and so on. So it's not really the case 166 00:10:48,040 --> 00:10:50,840 Speaker 1: that all of these provisions are interpreted in the same 167 00:10:50,880 --> 00:10:54,400 Speaker 1: way or that they're equally strict. But that said, yes, 168 00:10:54,440 --> 00:10:56,160 Speaker 1: it appears to be the case now that if a 169 00:10:56,240 --> 00:11:00,400 Speaker 1: state has one of these provisions that has been interpreted strictly, 170 00:11:00,480 --> 00:11:05,080 Speaker 1: you know, no indirect aid to education in prochial school period, 171 00:11:05,840 --> 00:11:10,320 Speaker 1: then the court's free exercise ruling trumps those provisions. Some 172 00:11:10,600 --> 00:11:16,080 Speaker 1: proponents of strong separation between church and state are fearful 173 00:11:16,280 --> 00:11:20,200 Speaker 1: that the next step could be requiring states to subsidize 174 00:11:20,240 --> 00:11:26,880 Speaker 1: religious education regardless of whether they provide alternative school choice funding. 175 00:11:27,440 --> 00:11:30,600 Speaker 1: Do you think that's the next step? As a preliminary matter, 176 00:11:30,679 --> 00:11:33,240 Speaker 1: I should just register that I think this is about 177 00:11:33,280 --> 00:11:35,480 Speaker 1: to debate about whether the separation of church and state 178 00:11:35,520 --> 00:11:39,080 Speaker 1: is important. Certainly, I believe that it's crucial to distinguish 179 00:11:39,160 --> 00:11:42,520 Speaker 1: between religious and political authorities. It's more a debate about 180 00:11:42,559 --> 00:11:45,280 Speaker 1: what the separation of church and state actually means. Does 181 00:11:45,280 --> 00:11:48,920 Speaker 1: it actually mean that the governments can never cooperate with 182 00:11:48,960 --> 00:11:52,400 Speaker 1: religious entities in order to help accomplish the common good? 183 00:11:53,320 --> 00:11:56,000 Speaker 1: In my experience, most people don't think that, you know, 184 00:11:56,040 --> 00:12:00,360 Speaker 1: Medicare should refuse to fund the care of people at 185 00:12:00,360 --> 00:12:03,800 Speaker 1: a religiously affiliated hospital. Most people think it's fine for 186 00:12:03,840 --> 00:12:07,360 Speaker 1: the government to cooperate with Catholic charities to help resettle refugees. 187 00:12:07,440 --> 00:12:11,040 Speaker 1: So this cooperation is not a violation of the church 188 00:12:11,080 --> 00:12:14,520 Speaker 1: state separation principle in my view. So then the next 189 00:12:14,600 --> 00:12:17,840 Speaker 1: question is, well, what forms of cooperation are permissible? What 190 00:12:17,960 --> 00:12:21,560 Speaker 1: forms of cooperation might be required. The language of the 191 00:12:21,600 --> 00:12:27,079 Speaker 1: opinion is pretty clear that this decision is about discrimination 192 00:12:27,280 --> 00:12:30,480 Speaker 1: once the court has decided to open up funding to public, 193 00:12:31,120 --> 00:12:35,240 Speaker 1: public and private institutions, and it at least by its terms, 194 00:12:35,320 --> 00:12:40,000 Speaker 1: doesn't create any entitlement for school choice or for school 195 00:12:40,160 --> 00:12:43,439 Speaker 1: religious school funding outside of that context. But it is 196 00:12:43,480 --> 00:12:45,880 Speaker 1: an interesting question. I mean, people have raised, you know, 197 00:12:45,920 --> 00:12:48,959 Speaker 1: in academic debates and political debates for years have been saying, 198 00:12:49,640 --> 00:12:52,280 Speaker 1: you know, why should people who choose religious schools for 199 00:12:52,280 --> 00:12:55,199 Speaker 1: their kids in a sense have to pay twice? If 200 00:12:55,200 --> 00:12:59,200 Speaker 1: the schools are providing a public benefit, namely education, you know, 201 00:12:59,240 --> 00:13:02,720 Speaker 1: why shouldn't that benefit be supported in the same way 202 00:13:02,720 --> 00:13:05,000 Speaker 1: that it is that a government run school. You know, 203 00:13:05,040 --> 00:13:07,480 Speaker 1: if the goal is public education, and why should it 204 00:13:07,520 --> 00:13:10,640 Speaker 1: matter where that education takes place? So I think the 205 00:13:10,679 --> 00:13:15,959 Speaker 1: policy arguments for supporting parental choice regardless of who owns 206 00:13:15,960 --> 00:13:19,400 Speaker 1: the school building, I think those policy arguments are pretty strong, 207 00:13:19,520 --> 00:13:23,560 Speaker 1: But in terms of the holding in yesterday's case, it 208 00:13:23,600 --> 00:13:26,080 Speaker 1: does not extend that far. I'm seeing a lot of 209 00:13:26,320 --> 00:13:31,080 Speaker 1: articles being written about how this will affect charter schools. Yeah, 210 00:13:31,160 --> 00:13:34,680 Speaker 1: charter schools are fascinating because it's not quite clear what 211 00:13:34,800 --> 00:13:37,640 Speaker 1: they are. Right. So, on the one hand, um, we 212 00:13:37,679 --> 00:13:39,720 Speaker 1: often think of charter schools as being just you know, 213 00:13:39,840 --> 00:13:45,240 Speaker 1: public schools with less regulations, but still government run schools. 214 00:13:45,440 --> 00:13:48,760 Speaker 1: And if if that's what they are, namely government run schools, 215 00:13:49,040 --> 00:13:52,200 Speaker 1: then they can't be religious. Um. And similarly, if the 216 00:13:52,280 --> 00:13:55,680 Speaker 1: government run schools, then you know, churches can't operate them 217 00:13:55,720 --> 00:13:58,480 Speaker 1: as religious schools. I suppose they could operate them as 218 00:13:58,480 --> 00:14:02,280 Speaker 1: secular schools. The wrinkle is that a number of courts 219 00:14:02,320 --> 00:14:07,160 Speaker 1: have said that charter schools aren't really government schools, that 220 00:14:07,559 --> 00:14:13,880 Speaker 1: instead they are well, they're chartered, they're they're publicly subsidized 221 00:14:13,920 --> 00:14:18,959 Speaker 1: and funded, but they are um non state operated. And 222 00:14:19,040 --> 00:14:21,920 Speaker 1: on that vision you might think, well, why why couldn't 223 00:14:22,520 --> 00:14:26,480 Speaker 1: a religious organization or a church operate a charter school 224 00:14:26,960 --> 00:14:30,320 Speaker 1: and receive the same charter funding. Again, that's not where 225 00:14:30,320 --> 00:14:33,080 Speaker 1: the law is yet, but this is something, you know, 226 00:14:33,200 --> 00:14:36,080 Speaker 1: for people to keep their eye on and take a 227 00:14:36,120 --> 00:14:38,520 Speaker 1: great interest in. You know, what, what do we think 228 00:14:38,640 --> 00:14:43,520 Speaker 1: charter schools really are? And if they're private, then today's 229 00:14:43,560 --> 00:14:46,160 Speaker 1: ruling might suggest that the government shouldn't be able to 230 00:14:46,280 --> 00:14:51,680 Speaker 1: exclude religious groups from participating in the charter sector. But again, 231 00:14:51,760 --> 00:14:55,000 Speaker 1: on the other hand, if they are government schools, then 232 00:14:55,120 --> 00:14:59,360 Speaker 1: it's certainly permissible for the government to to treat them 233 00:14:59,360 --> 00:15:01,760 Speaker 1: as such and not permit them to be run by churches. 234 00:15:02,520 --> 00:15:07,520 Speaker 1: Any final thoughts, Rick, it's worth noting with yesterday's decision 235 00:15:07,840 --> 00:15:12,200 Speaker 1: the extent to which Chief Justice Roberts in particular has 236 00:15:12,240 --> 00:15:14,920 Speaker 1: built up over his time on the Court a really 237 00:15:15,080 --> 00:15:19,600 Speaker 1: significant body of law and religion opinions. You know, in 238 00:15:19,600 --> 00:15:22,920 Speaker 1: addition to this nondiscrimination trilogy of cases that we were 239 00:15:22,920 --> 00:15:25,720 Speaker 1: talking about, you know, he wrote a very important decision 240 00:15:26,120 --> 00:15:30,840 Speaker 1: in the Josanna Tabor case about church autonomy. He had 241 00:15:30,920 --> 00:15:35,080 Speaker 1: an important religious freedom restoration at case early in his tenure. 242 00:15:35,360 --> 00:15:38,240 Speaker 1: I think that it's obviously early to be speculating about 243 00:15:38,320 --> 00:15:40,760 Speaker 1: legacies and so on. But one of the places in 244 00:15:40,800 --> 00:15:43,480 Speaker 1: which the Chief Justice has really made a mark has 245 00:15:43,560 --> 00:15:46,320 Speaker 1: been with the religion clauses. And that's something that I 246 00:15:46,400 --> 00:15:49,160 Speaker 1: find interesting. Thanks so much for being in the Bloomberg 247 00:15:49,280 --> 00:15:52,320 Speaker 1: Laws show. Rick. That's Professor Richard Garnett of Notre Dame 248 00:15:52,400 --> 00:15:58,400 Speaker 1: Law School. The Supreme Court rejected a multibillion dollar repeal 249 00:15:58,520 --> 00:16:01,760 Speaker 1: from They are refusing to shield the company from potentially 250 00:16:01,880 --> 00:16:05,600 Speaker 1: tens of thousands of claims that it's top selling round 251 00:16:05,720 --> 00:16:09,960 Speaker 1: Up weed killer causes cancer on Tuesday. The Jostice has 252 00:16:10,080 --> 00:16:14,040 Speaker 1: left intact a twenty five million dollar award to Edwin Hardeman, 253 00:16:14,440 --> 00:16:18,160 Speaker 1: a California man who said decades of exposure to round 254 00:16:18,240 --> 00:16:22,160 Speaker 1: Up caused his non Hodgkins lymphoma. It was the first 255 00:16:22,160 --> 00:16:26,040 Speaker 1: federal trial to question whether glyphas say, which is roundups 256 00:16:26,080 --> 00:16:30,680 Speaker 1: active ingredient, causes cancer. Bayer had said a Supreme Court 257 00:16:30,800 --> 00:16:34,840 Speaker 1: ruling in its favor would effectively and largely end roundup 258 00:16:34,880 --> 00:16:39,840 Speaker 1: litigation in the United States by dissuading future lawsuits joining me. 259 00:16:39,920 --> 00:16:43,600 Speaker 1: Is Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg's store. So Greg tell 260 00:16:43,680 --> 00:16:47,760 Speaker 1: us about Edwin Hardeman and his jury verdict Edwin Hardeman 261 00:16:47,840 --> 00:16:51,320 Speaker 1: is a California man who said he was exposed to 262 00:16:51,400 --> 00:16:55,400 Speaker 1: round up over decades and that caused non Hodgkins lymphoma. 263 00:16:56,520 --> 00:17:00,840 Speaker 1: His case went to trial and he won. He was 264 00:17:00,960 --> 00:17:05,400 Speaker 1: originally worded by jurors more than eighty million. Trial had 265 00:17:05,480 --> 00:17:08,480 Speaker 1: cut that to million, and that was upheld by a 266 00:17:08,480 --> 00:17:12,000 Speaker 1: federal appeals court. And that's what Bear took up to 267 00:17:12,040 --> 00:17:14,879 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court trying to get them to review. So 268 00:17:14,960 --> 00:17:18,520 Speaker 1: what was Beyar's argument as to why the Supreme Court 269 00:17:18,600 --> 00:17:22,240 Speaker 1: should take its case. Bear's argument was basically that the 270 00:17:22,440 --> 00:17:25,360 Speaker 1: label the safety label on round up, was approved by 271 00:17:25,440 --> 00:17:30,560 Speaker 1: federal regulators that man Hardeman's suit couldn't go forward. Bear 272 00:17:30,760 --> 00:17:35,040 Speaker 1: argued that federal regulators had concluded that the act of 273 00:17:35,240 --> 00:17:39,760 Speaker 1: ingredients in round up g life of States doesn't cause cancer, 274 00:17:40,400 --> 00:17:46,000 Speaker 1: and the legal question was whether a California law a 275 00:17:46,320 --> 00:17:50,240 Speaker 1: California failure to war in law could nonetheless serve as 276 00:17:50,280 --> 00:17:54,359 Speaker 1: the basis for a lawsuits. Mr. Hardeman and his lawyers said, 277 00:17:54,840 --> 00:17:59,720 Speaker 1: you know, the federal government never approved for cleared life 278 00:17:59,760 --> 00:18:02,600 Speaker 1: of aids with other ingredients, never said that that wouldn't 279 00:18:02,600 --> 00:18:05,800 Speaker 1: cause cancer, and so they said that opening the suit 280 00:18:05,880 --> 00:18:09,040 Speaker 1: to go forward wasn't at all consistent with what the 281 00:18:09,080 --> 00:18:13,720 Speaker 1: federal government was required. The justices sought the Department of 282 00:18:13,880 --> 00:18:18,240 Speaker 1: Justices view, where did the Justice Department come out? Yeah, 283 00:18:18,280 --> 00:18:21,760 Speaker 1: the Justice Department the administration urged the Supreme Court to 284 00:18:21,840 --> 00:18:25,560 Speaker 1: reject the bear appeal. Uh. They said that people who 285 00:18:25,720 --> 00:18:28,960 Speaker 1: used round up shouldn't be barred despite the fact that 286 00:18:29,040 --> 00:18:32,960 Speaker 1: the federal regulators approved the safety label. They said that 287 00:18:33,000 --> 00:18:36,920 Speaker 1: the lower courts were right that these types of lawsuits 288 00:18:37,280 --> 00:18:41,080 Speaker 1: were basically only trying to enforce a requirement that is 289 00:18:41,320 --> 00:18:45,560 Speaker 1: parallel to what's required under federal law. Bayer said that 290 00:18:45,920 --> 00:18:49,840 Speaker 1: respectfully disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision. The company is 291 00:18:49,880 --> 00:18:54,040 Speaker 1: fully prepared to manage the litigation risk associated with potential 292 00:18:54,080 --> 00:18:57,720 Speaker 1: future claims in the US. So how much has it 293 00:18:57,840 --> 00:19:01,639 Speaker 1: set aside for litigation? It is set aside a total 294 00:19:01,720 --> 00:19:06,879 Speaker 1: of sixteen billion and the rejection of appeal may cost 295 00:19:06,920 --> 00:19:09,560 Speaker 1: it as much as three billion of that sixteen billion. 296 00:19:10,280 --> 00:19:14,520 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Holly from estimated that's what it would 297 00:19:14,520 --> 00:19:17,119 Speaker 1: have saved bay Or had the Supreme Court taken up 298 00:19:17,119 --> 00:19:20,440 Speaker 1: this case and ruled in favor of the of the company. 299 00:19:20,840 --> 00:19:22,800 Speaker 1: Bay Area is now saying it's got a few other 300 00:19:23,160 --> 00:19:26,080 Speaker 1: arrows in its quiver, a few other issues that might 301 00:19:26,080 --> 00:19:29,360 Speaker 1: be able to argue and potentially get to the Supreme 302 00:19:29,400 --> 00:19:32,440 Speaker 1: Court and maybe trim that bill a little bit. Yeah, 303 00:19:32,520 --> 00:19:35,160 Speaker 1: is there another round up case pending before the Supreme 304 00:19:35,200 --> 00:19:39,000 Speaker 1: Court with a different argument. There is. It's another California 305 00:19:39,080 --> 00:19:42,760 Speaker 1: case that has both the same argument, and one would 306 00:19:42,760 --> 00:19:45,640 Speaker 1: anticipate the Supreme Court would reject that since they rejected 307 00:19:45,680 --> 00:19:48,359 Speaker 1: it in the Hardeming case. But it also has an 308 00:19:48,400 --> 00:19:52,160 Speaker 1: additional argument about punitive damages. This is the case where 309 00:19:52,200 --> 00:19:55,920 Speaker 1: a couple was awarded seventy million dollars in punitive damages. 310 00:19:56,359 --> 00:20:00,760 Speaker 1: Bear argues that that is so big, about four times 311 00:20:00,760 --> 00:20:03,440 Speaker 1: the amount of compensatory damages in the case. They argue 312 00:20:03,480 --> 00:20:06,919 Speaker 1: that's so big it violates the Constitution. So that is 313 00:20:06,960 --> 00:20:10,320 Speaker 1: at least potentially an issue that the Supreme Court might 314 00:20:10,720 --> 00:20:14,760 Speaker 1: want to take up, Yeah, and all the round up 315 00:20:14,880 --> 00:20:18,040 Speaker 1: cases that they are lost who are in California courts. 316 00:20:18,480 --> 00:20:21,680 Speaker 1: It's won four of seven trials so far, the most 317 00:20:21,760 --> 00:20:26,160 Speaker 1: recent last Friday, let's turn out of the Supreme Court docket. 318 00:20:26,560 --> 00:20:29,320 Speaker 1: The court said it was going to issue decisions on Tuesday, 319 00:20:29,520 --> 00:20:33,159 Speaker 1: which it did and Thursday, and now it's added another 320 00:20:33,200 --> 00:20:36,639 Speaker 1: decision day Friday. Do you think that they're, you know, 321 00:20:36,680 --> 00:20:39,560 Speaker 1: trying to rush to a conclusion and they'll finish this 322 00:20:39,640 --> 00:20:42,600 Speaker 1: week or will still be into next week. I think 323 00:20:42,640 --> 00:20:44,760 Speaker 1: we'll almost certainly still be into next week. The Court 324 00:20:44,840 --> 00:20:49,080 Speaker 1: still has thirteen opinions to go. They almost certainly will 325 00:20:49,119 --> 00:20:52,399 Speaker 1: issue more of them on Monday of next week. Really, 326 00:20:52,440 --> 00:20:54,480 Speaker 1: what's been happening over the last couple of weeks is 327 00:20:54,560 --> 00:20:57,240 Speaker 1: the court was way behind its normal schedule in terms 328 00:20:57,240 --> 00:21:00,480 Speaker 1: of issuing opinions, and so they've been ring out a 329 00:21:00,480 --> 00:21:03,200 Speaker 1: lot of the backlog. And you know, if they head 330 00:21:03,240 --> 00:21:07,080 Speaker 1: into next week with say six opinions to go, that 331 00:21:07,080 --> 00:21:09,280 Speaker 1: would be kind of typical for where they are at 332 00:21:09,320 --> 00:21:11,760 Speaker 1: this time of year, and and that would be the 333 00:21:11,840 --> 00:21:13,480 Speaker 1: kind of thing that you could expect them to deal 334 00:21:13,520 --> 00:21:16,560 Speaker 1: with on on maybe a couple of days next week. 335 00:21:16,960 --> 00:21:20,760 Speaker 1: So let's talk about some of the cases that are outstanding. Greg. 336 00:21:20,840 --> 00:21:25,760 Speaker 1: Let's start with the most anticipated case, the decision on 337 00:21:25,840 --> 00:21:31,080 Speaker 1: Mississippi's ban on abortions. And I mean, usually you see 338 00:21:31,119 --> 00:21:35,960 Speaker 1: these really hot button issue controversial cases the last week 339 00:21:36,000 --> 00:21:39,080 Speaker 1: of the term. This seems like it might be a 340 00:21:39,200 --> 00:21:42,480 Speaker 1: last week or a last day of the term case. Yeah, 341 00:21:42,480 --> 00:21:45,840 Speaker 1: we're really getting deep into speculation when we try to 342 00:21:45,840 --> 00:21:47,920 Speaker 1: say exactly when we think of opinions are going to 343 00:21:48,000 --> 00:21:50,960 Speaker 1: come out at this stage. But having said that, I've 344 00:21:51,000 --> 00:21:54,359 Speaker 1: always felt that, because of how explosive that issue is, 345 00:21:54,400 --> 00:21:56,879 Speaker 1: the abortion issue is that the last week and perhaps 346 00:21:56,960 --> 00:21:59,680 Speaker 1: even the last day is very very possible the case 347 00:21:59,720 --> 00:22:04,840 Speaker 1: of challenging a fifteen week abortion ban UH in Mississippi, 348 00:22:05,280 --> 00:22:08,480 Speaker 1: and the Court is potentially going to use it to 349 00:22:08,600 --> 00:22:11,840 Speaker 1: overturn the Roe v. Wade landmark Roe v. Wade abortion 350 00:22:11,920 --> 00:22:16,560 Speaker 1: rights decision that legalized abortion nationwide. A leaked draft opinion 351 00:22:17,000 --> 00:22:20,560 Speaker 1: that political published would would go take that step, would 352 00:22:20,560 --> 00:22:24,679 Speaker 1: overturn Roe v. Wade. And the real question is whether 353 00:22:24,800 --> 00:22:27,600 Speaker 1: behind the scenes, Chief Justice John Roberts has been able 354 00:22:27,640 --> 00:22:32,160 Speaker 1: to condense UH any of his colleagues and more conservative colleagues. 355 00:22:32,200 --> 00:22:35,240 Speaker 1: Perhaps Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett to join with 356 00:22:35,320 --> 00:22:38,200 Speaker 1: him in a narrower opinion that perhaps would uphold the 357 00:22:38,240 --> 00:22:42,159 Speaker 1: Mississippi law without going all the way in an overturning row. 358 00:22:42,680 --> 00:22:45,560 Speaker 1: Don't we have the New York State Rifle and Pistol 359 00:22:45,600 --> 00:22:50,639 Speaker 1: Association case and this is the oldest case, the oldest 360 00:22:50,680 --> 00:22:55,760 Speaker 1: outstanding case that the Court has. Tell us why it 361 00:22:55,840 --> 00:22:59,639 Speaker 1: might be being held? Yes, Well, you know it's going 362 00:22:59,680 --> 00:23:02,200 Speaker 1: to be the biggest Second Amendment case in more than 363 00:23:02,240 --> 00:23:05,720 Speaker 1: a decade. And uh so, much like with the abortion case, 364 00:23:05,760 --> 00:23:08,760 Speaker 1: you can imagine that the justices really think that what 365 00:23:08,800 --> 00:23:11,159 Speaker 1: they were writing, both in the majority and in dissent, 366 00:23:11,760 --> 00:23:15,399 Speaker 1: is exceptionally important and they want to do everything they 367 00:23:15,400 --> 00:23:17,679 Speaker 1: can to make it as good as they can. This 368 00:23:17,760 --> 00:23:20,639 Speaker 1: is a case that, based on the argument, is likely 369 00:23:20,720 --> 00:23:24,400 Speaker 1: to establish that the Second Amendment applies outside the home. 370 00:23:24,480 --> 00:23:27,080 Speaker 1: The Court has only said previously that it allows you 371 00:23:27,119 --> 00:23:29,320 Speaker 1: to have a handgun with you in the home for 372 00:23:29,320 --> 00:23:33,280 Speaker 1: self protection purposes. There are handful of states, six to 373 00:23:33,359 --> 00:23:36,800 Speaker 1: eight states that make it very difficult, make it such 374 00:23:36,880 --> 00:23:40,800 Speaker 1: that most people cannot get a license to carry a 375 00:23:40,880 --> 00:23:44,520 Speaker 1: handgun in public. New York is one of those. Uh 376 00:23:44,680 --> 00:23:47,480 Speaker 1: some other big states as well, like California are among them. 377 00:23:47,920 --> 00:23:49,600 Speaker 1: And from the sound of the argument, the court was 378 00:23:49,640 --> 00:23:54,440 Speaker 1: going to say that those restrictions are unconstitutional. And then 379 00:23:54,640 --> 00:23:57,880 Speaker 1: if that happens, the question will be how much room 380 00:23:57,960 --> 00:24:00,640 Speaker 1: does the court leave for the government to carve out 381 00:24:01,000 --> 00:24:04,960 Speaker 1: so called sensitive areas where the government can say, even 382 00:24:05,000 --> 00:24:06,800 Speaker 1: though you have a right to carry a handgun, you 383 00:24:06,840 --> 00:24:08,640 Speaker 1: can't bring it in here. You can't bring it into 384 00:24:08,640 --> 00:24:11,320 Speaker 1: this courthouse, you can't bring into this school. Maybe you 385 00:24:11,320 --> 00:24:13,439 Speaker 1: can't bring it into the sports stadium or or in 386 00:24:13,480 --> 00:24:15,520 Speaker 1: the Times Square on New Year's Eve. A lot of 387 00:24:15,560 --> 00:24:18,760 Speaker 1: those were examples that came up during the argument, So 388 00:24:19,200 --> 00:24:21,080 Speaker 1: that's probably going to be the thing that we are 389 00:24:21,119 --> 00:24:25,360 Speaker 1: looking closely at understand the reach of this decision. Then 390 00:24:25,400 --> 00:24:28,320 Speaker 1: we have an e p A case that's drawing a 391 00:24:28,320 --> 00:24:33,840 Speaker 1: lot of attention. So that's West Virginia the e p A. Yeah, 392 00:24:33,880 --> 00:24:36,160 Speaker 1: this is the case that surprised a lot of people 393 00:24:36,200 --> 00:24:38,399 Speaker 1: that the Court agreed to take it up because the 394 00:24:38,440 --> 00:24:42,320 Speaker 1: Biden administration hasn't yet issued a plan through the e 395 00:24:42,440 --> 00:24:46,919 Speaker 1: p A for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plans, 396 00:24:46,960 --> 00:24:51,800 Speaker 1: but there's some litigation going on over the first the 397 00:24:51,840 --> 00:24:54,479 Speaker 1: Obama plan to do that, and then the Trump effort 398 00:24:54,520 --> 00:24:57,919 Speaker 1: to repeal the Obama plan, and the Supreme Court decided 399 00:24:57,920 --> 00:25:00,840 Speaker 1: it wanted to get involved in that case and potentially 400 00:25:00,920 --> 00:25:03,119 Speaker 1: lay out some limits on what the e p A 401 00:25:03,280 --> 00:25:08,720 Speaker 1: can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from from power plants. 402 00:25:08,960 --> 00:25:13,080 Speaker 1: The Obama administration tried to do that in part by 403 00:25:13,119 --> 00:25:17,639 Speaker 1: shifting power generation away from from coal fired power plants 404 00:25:17,640 --> 00:25:23,560 Speaker 1: to renewable sources like solar and wind, and uh, it's possible. 405 00:25:23,600 --> 00:25:26,359 Speaker 1: The Supreme Court will say that sort of thing is 406 00:25:26,440 --> 00:25:28,800 Speaker 1: beyond the authority of the e p A. They have 407 00:25:28,920 --> 00:25:32,920 Speaker 1: to focus whatever they're going to do on particular facilities. 408 00:25:32,960 --> 00:25:36,119 Speaker 1: Maybe they can require equipment at particular facilities, but they 409 00:25:36,160 --> 00:25:38,840 Speaker 1: can't try to do a big, economy wide shifting of 410 00:25:38,920 --> 00:25:43,000 Speaker 1: power production. They issue a couple of decisions already in 411 00:25:43,320 --> 00:25:47,000 Speaker 1: immigration related cases, but the big one that people have 412 00:25:47,160 --> 00:25:51,159 Speaker 1: been watching is the one concerning the Trump Remained in 413 00:25:51,240 --> 00:25:55,840 Speaker 1: Mexico policy. Yeah, this one is procedurally pretty complicated, but 414 00:25:55,920 --> 00:25:59,879 Speaker 1: the bottom line may not be essentially. Lower courts, including 415 00:25:59,880 --> 00:26:04,960 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, have required the by the administration to 416 00:26:05,920 --> 00:26:11,000 Speaker 1: re implement the Trump policy that required asylum applicants to 417 00:26:11,119 --> 00:26:14,600 Speaker 1: wait in Mexico while their applications are being processed, or 418 00:26:14,600 --> 00:26:17,000 Speaker 1: at least a lot of asyla that applicants have to 419 00:26:17,040 --> 00:26:20,240 Speaker 1: do that. The question at the Supreme Court is basically 420 00:26:20,240 --> 00:26:24,400 Speaker 1: whether they buy the administration can resend that policy. And 421 00:26:24,560 --> 00:26:28,800 Speaker 1: kind of the core issue is that federal immigration law 422 00:26:29,240 --> 00:26:33,640 Speaker 1: says that the people who are seeking asylum are supposed 423 00:26:33,640 --> 00:26:36,879 Speaker 1: to be detained while they wait. Well, everybody knows that 424 00:26:36,920 --> 00:26:40,199 Speaker 1: there's not enough tension capacity to do that, and so 425 00:26:40,320 --> 00:26:43,639 Speaker 1: the question is really what does the administration have to 426 00:26:43,680 --> 00:26:46,040 Speaker 1: do with the people that it doesn't have space to detain. 427 00:26:46,640 --> 00:26:51,159 Speaker 1: Can they release them into the country and require them 428 00:26:51,200 --> 00:26:53,760 Speaker 1: to come back for their for their asylum hearings, or 429 00:26:54,119 --> 00:26:57,200 Speaker 1: must they send them back to the country they came 430 00:26:57,400 --> 00:27:01,920 Speaker 1: through in this case Mexico. The arguments were more or 431 00:27:02,000 --> 00:27:04,800 Speaker 1: less inconclusive in that case, but there are a lot 432 00:27:04,800 --> 00:27:08,240 Speaker 1: of procedural ins and outs, and so it potentially could 433 00:27:08,359 --> 00:27:12,199 Speaker 1: could be complicated. And we have the case of the 434 00:27:12,240 --> 00:27:15,720 Speaker 1: football coach who wants to pray after games on the 435 00:27:15,800 --> 00:27:19,920 Speaker 1: fifty yard line. Yeah, this is the case that this 436 00:27:20,040 --> 00:27:24,160 Speaker 1: coach lost his job. His contract was not renewed after 437 00:27:24,240 --> 00:27:28,640 Speaker 1: he repeatedly had taken me in midfield in games. He's 438 00:27:28,680 --> 00:27:31,119 Speaker 1: a he's a high school football coach in Washington State, 439 00:27:31,800 --> 00:27:35,320 Speaker 1: and the question is whether that violated his First Amendment rights, 440 00:27:35,359 --> 00:27:39,199 Speaker 1: either his speech rights or his religious rights. And the 441 00:27:39,280 --> 00:27:44,000 Speaker 1: school district said a number of things in response. It 442 00:27:44,359 --> 00:27:47,840 Speaker 1: has argued that there's a potential that he is coercing 443 00:27:47,880 --> 00:27:52,200 Speaker 1: students into taking part in those midfield prayers after games, 444 00:27:52,520 --> 00:27:56,960 Speaker 1: and it also argues that he's essentially still um, if 445 00:27:56,960 --> 00:28:00,359 Speaker 1: not on duty, he's still taking part in an event 446 00:28:00,400 --> 00:28:02,639 Speaker 1: that we are sponsoring, and we have the right to 447 00:28:03,680 --> 00:28:07,080 Speaker 1: control that event, this football game that we're putt putting on, 448 00:28:07,640 --> 00:28:09,840 Speaker 1: and for him to make a spectacle of himself as 449 00:28:09,920 --> 00:28:13,159 Speaker 1: something that we are allowed to to prohibit. This is 450 00:28:13,400 --> 00:28:15,240 Speaker 1: a Supreme Court, as we saw this week with a 451 00:28:15,240 --> 00:28:19,240 Speaker 1: case involving school funding, is very favorable towards religious rights. 452 00:28:19,600 --> 00:28:23,240 Speaker 1: The argument certainly sounded like the Court was predisposed to 453 00:28:23,280 --> 00:28:25,919 Speaker 1: side with the football coach and bolster the ability of 454 00:28:25,960 --> 00:28:29,760 Speaker 1: teachers and staff at public schools to pray in at 455 00:28:29,840 --> 00:28:32,679 Speaker 1: least somewhat public areas. Thanks so much, Greg, I know 456 00:28:32,760 --> 00:28:35,840 Speaker 1: you're going to be very busy until the end of June. 457 00:28:36,200 --> 00:28:39,600 Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg. Supreme Court reporter Greg's Store. And that's it 458 00:28:39,680 --> 00:28:42,240 Speaker 1: for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you 459 00:28:42,280 --> 00:28:44,760 Speaker 1: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg 460 00:28:44,840 --> 00:28:48,600 Speaker 1: Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, 461 00:28:48,640 --> 00:28:53,680 Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, 462 00:28:54,080 --> 00:28:56,680 Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every 463 00:28:56,720 --> 00:29:00,680 Speaker 1: week night. Attend m Wall Street Time. I'm your grossou 464 00:29:00,760 --> 00:29:07,120 Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg MHM.