1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:03,120
Speaker 1: Can private schools refuse to admit students because of their

2
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:06,920
Speaker 1: parents political connections? There has been talk about the possibility

3
00:00:07,040 --> 00:00:09,959
Speaker 1: that some DC area schools might not admit Kelly and

4
00:00:10,160 --> 00:00:13,800
Speaker 1: Conway's children because of her connections to the incoming administration.

5
00:00:14,280 --> 00:00:17,479
Speaker 1: Conway was President elect Trump's campaign manager and will be

6
00:00:17,520 --> 00:00:20,200
Speaker 1: one of his top advisors. I want to emphasize that

7
00:00:20,239 --> 00:00:23,400
Speaker 1: there is no evidence that any school is planning not

8
00:00:23,680 --> 00:00:26,400
Speaker 1: to take Knway's children or the children of any other

9
00:00:26,440 --> 00:00:30,280
Speaker 1: Trump staffers. But it presents some interesting questions and noted

10
00:00:30,320 --> 00:00:33,560
Speaker 1: First Amendment scholar Professor Eugene Folic of u c l

11
00:00:33,640 --> 00:00:36,400
Speaker 1: A Law School wrote a column about those questions in

12
00:00:36,479 --> 00:00:42,440
Speaker 1: the Washington Post. Volic conspiracy. Well, Eugene, speaking about conspiracies,

13
00:00:42,479 --> 00:00:46,080
Speaker 1: what would happen if some private schools decided to reject

14
00:00:46,200 --> 00:00:51,600
Speaker 1: children because their parents were Trump staffers? Is that legal? UH?

15
00:00:52,040 --> 00:00:57,480
Speaker 1: In most states? Most cities absolutely UH? In most UM

16
00:00:57,800 --> 00:01:04,200
Speaker 1: most places don't ban public, UM accommodations, or UM private

17
00:01:04,200 --> 00:01:08,440
Speaker 1: and educational institutions from discriminating based on political affiliation. But

18
00:01:08,560 --> 00:01:11,920
Speaker 1: d C is an exception. In d C, it actually

19
00:01:12,040 --> 00:01:17,000
Speaker 1: is illegal to discriminate against UH children because of their

20
00:01:17,040 --> 00:01:21,520
Speaker 1: parents political parties. Uh and UH. That means if a

21
00:01:21,560 --> 00:01:23,520
Speaker 1: school does say, look, you know, we're going to accept

22
00:01:23,600 --> 00:01:27,240
Speaker 1: high level uh Democratic official children, but not high level

23
00:01:27,240 --> 00:01:30,280
Speaker 1: of Republican officials children, that would violate d C law,

24
00:01:30,400 --> 00:01:35,840
Speaker 1: but wouldn't violate Maryland Virginia law. UH. Likewise as to employment,

25
00:01:36,360 --> 00:01:39,040
Speaker 1: that varies from state to state. As to employment, more

26
00:01:39,160 --> 00:01:42,800
Speaker 1: states and uh uh and uh. Cities including d C,

27
00:01:42,920 --> 00:01:48,880
Speaker 1: including California and New York, banned political affiliation discrimination by employers,

28
00:01:49,000 --> 00:01:52,120
Speaker 1: but the majority of states don't. So this is an

29
00:01:52,160 --> 00:01:54,720
Speaker 1: area where the law varies from state to state, in

30
00:01:54,760 --> 00:01:58,320
Speaker 1: jurisdiction to jurisdiction. And as the school's only DC and

31
00:01:58,400 --> 00:02:00,640
Speaker 1: I think the virgin Islands, I think the only other

32
00:02:00,680 --> 00:02:06,200
Speaker 1: place that banned political affiliation discrimination by private schools. Eugene, So,

33
00:02:06,520 --> 00:02:08,760
Speaker 1: I learned from your your column that the d C

34
00:02:08,919 --> 00:02:13,000
Speaker 1: law talks about, as you said, political affiliation. How about

35
00:02:13,520 --> 00:02:17,840
Speaker 1: if say a school worth to say, we're fine with with, uh,

36
00:02:17,880 --> 00:02:20,440
Speaker 1: you know, Republicans or Democrats, we just don't like. The

37
00:02:20,480 --> 00:02:24,359
Speaker 1: Trump administration could have still do that. That is one

38
00:02:24,440 --> 00:02:28,639
Speaker 1: area that's not certain a school could discriminate under d

39
00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:33,120
Speaker 1: C law based on political views. Uh. So long as

40
00:02:33,160 --> 00:02:34,960
Speaker 1: it doesn't do it based on parties. So for example,

41
00:02:34,960 --> 00:02:37,200
Speaker 1: it could say we're not going to allow the children

42
00:02:37,200 --> 00:02:40,040
Speaker 1: of racist, the children of the environmentalists, or the children

43
00:02:40,040 --> 00:02:43,800
Speaker 1: of communists, uh to go to our excuse you shouldn't

44
00:02:43,800 --> 00:02:48,000
Speaker 1: say communist communist is a political party, but uh to

45
00:02:48,040 --> 00:02:52,000
Speaker 1: go to our school. But when it comes to saying

46
00:02:52,040 --> 00:02:57,040
Speaker 1: no Republicans, then uh, that's not permitted. How do you

47
00:02:57,120 --> 00:02:59,800
Speaker 1: treat something like the Trump administration which is a Republican

48
00:02:59,840 --> 00:03:02,560
Speaker 1: and illustration that people involved in it are involved in

49
00:03:02,720 --> 00:03:05,480
Speaker 1: because they are primarily because there are Republicans, are not

50
00:03:05,560 --> 00:03:10,400
Speaker 1: necessarily because they're big Trump accolites. Um. Uh, that's unclear.

51
00:03:10,639 --> 00:03:13,280
Speaker 1: As you might gather, these kinds of laws are very

52
00:03:13,360 --> 00:03:18,280
Speaker 1: rarely litigated, partly because political affiliation discrimination is actually pretty rare,

53
00:03:18,320 --> 00:03:21,239
Speaker 1: at least overtly. So my sense is that most DC

54
00:03:21,360 --> 00:03:25,679
Speaker 1: area schools UH want that don't want to limit their

55
00:03:25,960 --> 00:03:29,359
Speaker 1: audience to just one side of the political aisle. But yeah,

56
00:03:29,400 --> 00:03:32,520
Speaker 1: that's an area that's unclear. Clearly, if they said no

57
00:03:32,639 --> 00:03:36,120
Speaker 1: Republicans or no high level of Republicans, that would be impermissible.

58
00:03:36,320 --> 00:03:38,480
Speaker 1: But what if they said no Trump supporters or no

59
00:03:38,600 --> 00:03:42,080
Speaker 1: Sanders supporters. Um? Probably I think that would be treated

60
00:03:42,120 --> 00:03:46,119
Speaker 1: as political affiliation discrimination, but it's not completely cirt Gene.

61
00:03:46,120 --> 00:03:48,840
Speaker 1: Will you explain a little bit further about isn't political

62
00:03:48,920 --> 00:03:56,200
Speaker 1: affiliation associated or akin to political speech and isn't that protected? Well,

63
00:03:56,400 --> 00:04:00,680
Speaker 1: if a public school discriminates based on political aviation, whether

64
00:04:00,800 --> 00:04:04,440
Speaker 1: party affiliation or political views, UH, that would violate the

65
00:04:04,440 --> 00:04:07,440
Speaker 1: First Amendment because the First Amendment embodies this general principle

66
00:04:07,720 --> 00:04:12,000
Speaker 1: of viewpoint neutrality. But when it comes to private schools,

67
00:04:12,080 --> 00:04:16,040
Speaker 1: those aren't bound by the by the First Amendment. Instead,

68
00:04:16,120 --> 00:04:19,360
Speaker 1: they're bound by UH state law or in d C

69
00:04:20,080 --> 00:04:23,920
Speaker 1: context of d C district law. UH and UH. There

70
00:04:23,960 --> 00:04:27,279
Speaker 1: the statute is quite clear. The statute defines the prohibited

71
00:04:27,279 --> 00:04:34,320
Speaker 1: political affiliation as being a party affiliation. UH. And DC

72
00:04:34,520 --> 00:04:37,560
Speaker 1: could have enacted up honor ban and indeed some of

73
00:04:37,600 --> 00:04:42,200
Speaker 1: them bands and discrimination in employment in some jurisdictions like

74
00:04:42,279 --> 00:04:47,960
Speaker 1: California applied to discrimination against employees based on all sorts

75
00:04:48,000 --> 00:04:52,279
Speaker 1: of political views, but other statutes of specifically focused on

76
00:04:52,360 --> 00:04:56,000
Speaker 1: party UH discrimination, and that's exactly what the DC statute does.

77
00:04:56,320 --> 00:04:59,720
Speaker 1: It's a fascinating topic. Thank you so much for being

78
00:04:59,760 --> 00:05:03,440
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Law and for your column. That's Eugene Vallack.

79
00:05:03,480 --> 00:05:06,000
Speaker 1: He is a professor at u c l A law school.

80
00:05:06,160 --> 00:05:08,200
Speaker 1: That's it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. We'll be

81
00:05:08,240 --> 00:05:10,680
Speaker 1: back tomorrow at one pm Wall Street time, and hope

82
00:05:10,760 --> 00:05:13,920
Speaker 1: you will be as well. Thanks to our producer David

83
00:05:13,960 --> 00:05:17,400
Speaker 1: Suckerman and our technical director Marks in his cauchy. You

84
00:05:17,400 --> 00:05:19,880
Speaker 1: can always find the latest legal news at Bloomberg Law

85
00:05:19,920 --> 00:05:22,719
Speaker 1: dot com and Bloomberg b NA dot com, plus a

86
00:05:22,760 --> 00:05:25,880
Speaker 1: website for the legal community at Big Law Business dot com.

87
00:05:26,279 --> 00:05:29,839
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Markets with Carol Masser and Corey Johnson is next

88
00:05:29,880 --> 00:05:33,440
Speaker 1: here on Bloomberg Radio, and Carol is in the studio.

89
00:05:34,000 --> 00:05:36,839
Speaker 1: M and D. Good afternoon, June afternoon, everybody. In just

90
00:05:37,000 --> 00:05:39,640
Speaker 1: a few minutes, we're gonna get the latest minutes from

91
00:05:39,720 --> 00:05:41,880
Speaker 1: the f O m C. Of course from that December meeting,

92
00:05:41,920 --> 00:05:44,200
Speaker 1: so we'll get a little bit into the FED thinking.

93
00:05:44,200 --> 00:05:46,560
Speaker 1: We're also going to talk about car sales Tesla. We

94
00:05:46,640 --> 00:05:49,440
Speaker 1: got it all covered back, okay, it sounds great and

95
00:05:49,600 --> 00:05:54,160
Speaker 1: very important. That's right now on Bloomberg Radio, Bloomberg Markets

96
00:05:54,160 --> 00:05:57,640
Speaker 1: with Carol Masster and Corey Johnson. I'm June Grosslo with

97
00:05:57,680 --> 00:06:01,240
Speaker 1: Greg Store. Please join us again tomorrow for Bloomberg Lo

98
00:06:01,360 --> 00:06:04,480
Speaker 1: at one pm Wall Street Time. This is Bloomberg