1 00:00:02,840 --> 00:00:07,680 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law. Some complicated international law issues here. 2 00:00:07,920 --> 00:00:11,760 Speaker 1: What kind of docket is Chief Justice Roberts facing interviews 3 00:00:11,800 --> 00:00:14,960 Speaker 1: with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts. Joining me is 4 00:00:15,000 --> 00:00:18,320 Speaker 1: Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter Greg store Neils Devin's a 5 00:00:18,360 --> 00:00:21,239 Speaker 1: professor at William and Mary Law School and analysis of 6 00:00:21,320 --> 00:00:25,360 Speaker 1: important legal issues cases and headlock. Is this essentially the 7 00:00:25,360 --> 00:00:28,840 Speaker 1: fifth Circuit haunting he has presided over a so called 8 00:00:28,880 --> 00:00:32,040 Speaker 1: hot bench at the Supreme Court. Bloomberg Law with June 9 00:00:32,080 --> 00:00:36,440 Speaker 1: Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Show. 10 00:00:36,640 --> 00:00:40,040 Speaker 1: I'm Kimberly Robinson and I'm Lidia Wheeler. We're in for 11 00:00:40,120 --> 00:00:42,760 Speaker 1: June Grasso. Coming up on the show, we'll talk with 12 00:00:42,880 --> 00:00:45,400 Speaker 1: legal reporter Holly Barker about what it takes to scrub 13 00:00:45,440 --> 00:00:48,559 Speaker 1: old racist laws off the books. An attorney Bohan will 14 00:00:48,600 --> 00:00:51,199 Speaker 1: join us to discuss Yeshiva University's fight to block a 15 00:00:51,400 --> 00:00:55,279 Speaker 1: lgbt Q club on campus. But first we're joined by 16 00:00:55,400 --> 00:00:58,280 Speaker 1: Chris Strom, a reporter for Bloomberg News, to discuss why 17 00:00:58,320 --> 00:01:01,280 Speaker 1: the Justice Department is likely to wait until after the 18 00:01:01,320 --> 00:01:06,040 Speaker 1: midterm elections to bring any charges against former President Donald Trump. Chris, 19 00:01:06,040 --> 00:01:08,840 Speaker 1: thanks so much for being here. Thank you. So, the 20 00:01:08,920 --> 00:01:13,880 Speaker 1: Justice Department has two separate investigations ongoing into former President 21 00:01:13,880 --> 00:01:16,720 Speaker 1: Trump that are happening at the same time, right, So, 22 00:01:17,120 --> 00:01:19,720 Speaker 1: can you start off by telling us what the government 23 00:01:19,880 --> 00:01:23,480 Speaker 1: is after in each of these investigations. Yeah. So, the 24 00:01:23,520 --> 00:01:27,959 Speaker 1: most immediate investigation right now is the investigation into Trump 25 00:01:28,200 --> 00:01:32,640 Speaker 1: having classified documents at his Marlago resort in Florida. UM. 26 00:01:32,680 --> 00:01:35,880 Speaker 1: The government has established that there were classes, there were 27 00:01:35,880 --> 00:01:41,760 Speaker 1: documents of classified marketings at Trump's home and UH the 28 00:01:41,880 --> 00:01:46,640 Speaker 1: UH Justice Department and the FBI are investigating whether the 29 00:01:46,680 --> 00:01:50,640 Speaker 1: documents were mishandled and the classification levels of the document 30 00:01:51,360 --> 00:01:54,280 Speaker 1: and the and they're also working in concert with the 31 00:01:54,280 --> 00:01:58,680 Speaker 1: intelligence agencies to determine if UM any UH any sources 32 00:01:58,680 --> 00:02:01,320 Speaker 1: of methods were compromised. So that's the first one. The 33 00:02:01,360 --> 00:02:07,440 Speaker 1: second investigation has been the ongoing investigation into the UM 34 00:02:07,760 --> 00:02:13,359 Speaker 1: January sixth plot and to overturn the election. And in 35 00:02:13,440 --> 00:02:17,520 Speaker 1: that investigation, one of the central elements of being looked 36 00:02:17,520 --> 00:02:23,240 Speaker 1: into is Trump's role in creating false selectors in UH 37 00:02:23,480 --> 00:02:29,239 Speaker 1: swing states that would um UH vote to certify for 38 00:02:29,720 --> 00:02:32,040 Speaker 1: UM Trump as opposed to the winner of the election, 39 00:02:32,080 --> 00:02:34,240 Speaker 1: it was Joe Biden. Now you reported that we're not 40 00:02:34,320 --> 00:02:37,959 Speaker 1: likely to see any charges stemming from these investigations until 41 00:02:38,000 --> 00:02:42,080 Speaker 1: after the midterm elections. Tell us why that is. There's 42 00:02:42,080 --> 00:02:46,680 Speaker 1: two primary reasons that we're not likely to see charges 43 00:02:47,040 --> 00:02:51,800 Speaker 1: anytime soon. UM. The first one is that there's still 44 00:02:52,240 --> 00:02:55,440 Speaker 1: an extensive amount of work that needs to be done. UM. 45 00:02:55,520 --> 00:02:59,239 Speaker 1: The government has said in court filings just recently that 46 00:03:00,360 --> 00:03:03,280 Speaker 1: with regard to the investigations of the Classified documents, they 47 00:03:03,280 --> 00:03:06,959 Speaker 1: are in the early stages of their investigation and new 48 00:03:06,960 --> 00:03:11,680 Speaker 1: information continues to come forward. The government is still collecting evidence, 49 00:03:12,440 --> 00:03:16,919 Speaker 1: reviewing evidence to determine the scope of any breaches, and 50 00:03:18,280 --> 00:03:22,280 Speaker 1: there's just not um uh, there's there's still a lot 51 00:03:22,280 --> 00:03:24,760 Speaker 1: of work for them to do in in both the 52 00:03:24,800 --> 00:03:28,920 Speaker 1: Classified Documents investigation in the January six investigation. The second 53 00:03:28,919 --> 00:03:32,720 Speaker 1: reason is that UM. The Justice Department also has a 54 00:03:32,800 --> 00:03:39,280 Speaker 1: policy that no public actions should be taken in high 55 00:03:39,280 --> 00:03:44,640 Speaker 1: profile cases UM right before an election. UM that could 56 00:03:44,640 --> 00:03:49,560 Speaker 1: be seen as influencing the outcome of that election, and 57 00:03:50,880 --> 00:03:55,720 Speaker 1: the November elections are just around the corner. Traditionally, prosecutors 58 00:03:55,720 --> 00:03:59,760 Speaker 1: have looked at that policy as taking place sixty days 59 00:04:00,040 --> 00:04:03,000 Speaker 1: poor an election, which in this case would be September ten. 60 00:04:03,440 --> 00:04:06,880 Speaker 1: Now Trump isn't on the ballot, but Trump's candidates are 61 00:04:06,920 --> 00:04:10,640 Speaker 1: on the ballot, and Trump represents a very significant political 62 00:04:10,680 --> 00:04:14,440 Speaker 1: force in this country, under which people in the Justice 63 00:04:14,480 --> 00:04:18,800 Speaker 1: Department UM believe that the policy applies to Trump in 64 00:04:18,800 --> 00:04:22,680 Speaker 1: this case. So you mentioned this policy that the d 65 00:04:22,839 --> 00:04:26,640 Speaker 1: o J has haven't There been some pretty high profile 66 00:04:26,720 --> 00:04:29,440 Speaker 1: times though, in the past, with the Department has ignored 67 00:04:30,200 --> 00:04:35,440 Speaker 1: that policy. Yes, UH and department officials have come under 68 00:04:35,480 --> 00:04:38,120 Speaker 1: criticism for doing so. The most One of the most 69 00:04:38,160 --> 00:04:41,279 Speaker 1: notable ones was when James Comy, the former head of 70 00:04:41,279 --> 00:04:45,480 Speaker 1: the FBI, UM, revealed that the FBI was reopening the 71 00:04:45,520 --> 00:04:49,920 Speaker 1: investigation into Hillary Clinton ten days before the two thousand 72 00:04:50,000 --> 00:04:56,080 Speaker 1: and sixteen election. UM and so UH Comey was criticized, 73 00:04:56,520 --> 00:05:02,040 Speaker 1: UM really from all corners for UM making that decision 74 00:05:02,200 --> 00:05:04,080 Speaker 1: in a lot and in doing it in a way 75 00:05:04,120 --> 00:05:07,280 Speaker 1: that it became public UM and then UM also in 76 00:05:08,080 --> 00:05:13,839 Speaker 1: elections UM. The former Attorney General Bill Baarr UH came 77 00:05:13,839 --> 00:05:16,320 Speaker 1: out right in the in the days right before that 78 00:05:16,400 --> 00:05:20,200 Speaker 1: election and said that it would be okay for UH 79 00:05:20,920 --> 00:05:26,000 Speaker 1: US prosecutors to begin to talk publicly about investigations into 80 00:05:26,000 --> 00:05:30,640 Speaker 1: election fraud and their finding. The Justice Department recently enacted 81 00:05:30,640 --> 00:05:33,159 Speaker 1: a new policy for political appointees that you wrote about. 82 00:05:33,480 --> 00:05:37,640 Speaker 1: Can you tell us about that and who it covers? Sure, um, 83 00:05:37,760 --> 00:05:43,560 Speaker 1: So Traditionally, UM, government employees face restrictions when the elections. 84 00:05:43,680 --> 00:05:46,760 Speaker 1: When the elections arrived in the weeks leading up to 85 00:05:46,800 --> 00:05:53,159 Speaker 1: an election, UM, government employees have to follow certain rules 86 00:05:53,200 --> 00:05:57,400 Speaker 1: in terms of participating in political events or attending political events. 87 00:05:57,760 --> 00:06:03,480 Speaker 1: UM and UM. There's a difference between what a career 88 00:06:03,520 --> 00:06:06,840 Speaker 1: government employee can do and what a political point that 89 00:06:06,920 --> 00:06:09,919 Speaker 1: can do somebody who's you know, directly appointed into a 90 00:06:09,920 --> 00:06:14,280 Speaker 1: political position by by the president. What the Justice Department 91 00:06:14,640 --> 00:06:18,720 Speaker 1: did just just the other day was put new restrictions 92 00:06:18,720 --> 00:06:23,760 Speaker 1: on political appointees prior to they Up until now, they've 93 00:06:23,760 --> 00:06:28,520 Speaker 1: been allowed to attend political events and their personal capacity 94 00:06:28,560 --> 00:06:33,240 Speaker 1: during their time off. But Attorney General Garland uh put 95 00:06:33,320 --> 00:06:38,360 Speaker 1: a bar on that and said political pointees cannot attend 96 00:06:38,440 --> 00:06:42,039 Speaker 1: any political events at all, heading when right before an election. 97 00:06:42,720 --> 00:06:45,880 Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg News reporter Chris Strom, thanks for being on 98 00:06:45,960 --> 00:06:48,800 Speaker 1: with us. Thank you you're listening to Bloomberg Law. Up next, 99 00:06:48,880 --> 00:06:51,360 Speaker 1: we talk with Holly Barker, a legal reporter at Bloomberg 100 00:06:51,440 --> 00:06:54,440 Speaker 1: Law about exactly when a law is scrubbed of its 101 00:06:54,480 --> 00:06:59,280 Speaker 1: discriminatory origins. I'm Widio Wheeler and I'm Kimberly Robinson. This 102 00:06:59,400 --> 00:07:08,320 Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from 103 00:07:08,480 --> 00:07:12,320 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio. I'm Lidio Wheeler and I'm Kimberly Robinson. We're 104 00:07:12,320 --> 00:07:15,520 Speaker 1: in for June Grasso. We're joined now by Holly Barker, 105 00:07:15,640 --> 00:07:18,080 Speaker 1: a legal reporter at Bloomberg Law, to talk about a 106 00:07:18,120 --> 00:07:21,360 Speaker 1: new effort she's seeing in federal courts of appeal. Thanks 107 00:07:21,400 --> 00:07:24,640 Speaker 1: for joining us, Holly. So you wrote an article recently 108 00:07:24,680 --> 00:07:27,480 Speaker 1: focused on what it takes to scrub laws of their 109 00:07:27,520 --> 00:07:31,800 Speaker 1: original discriminatory intent. What sort of laws are we talking 110 00:07:31,840 --> 00:07:36,480 Speaker 1: about here? So we're talking mostly about post Reconstruction era 111 00:07:36,640 --> 00:07:41,800 Speaker 1: laws dealing with felony voter disenfranchisement. Um. The laws were 112 00:07:41,840 --> 00:07:49,120 Speaker 1: return of the century and ostensibly or definitely crossed UH 113 00:07:49,160 --> 00:07:54,000 Speaker 1: to discriminate against black voters. Specifically, you highlighted a recent 114 00:07:54,080 --> 00:07:56,240 Speaker 1: ruling out of the U. S. Court of Appeals for 115 00:07:56,240 --> 00:07:58,560 Speaker 1: the Fifth Circuit. Can you tell us about that two 116 00:07:58,600 --> 00:08:02,240 Speaker 1: individuals challenging that Mississippi law that's an issue here? Yeah, 117 00:08:02,280 --> 00:08:05,280 Speaker 1: So the fifth circuit case was Hardness, B. Watson and 118 00:08:05,400 --> 00:08:08,560 Speaker 1: Roy Harness the names plain f was convicted of forgery 119 00:08:08,600 --> 00:08:12,160 Speaker 1: in nineteen eight six. He completed a sentence and later 120 00:08:12,280 --> 00:08:14,600 Speaker 1: got a degree in social work and even got a 121 00:08:14,640 --> 00:08:17,360 Speaker 1: scholarship towards a master's degree, and apparently all of the 122 00:08:17,360 --> 00:08:20,960 Speaker 1: age of sixty two. The other Plaine fifth is Kamal 123 00:08:21,080 --> 00:08:25,240 Speaker 1: carrion Uh. He's a former Columbus, Mississippi City council member 124 00:08:26,080 --> 00:08:28,600 Speaker 1: and also a pastor and a business center. He was 125 00:08:28,680 --> 00:08:31,040 Speaker 1: convicted of in buzzlement in two Delton five and is 126 00:08:31,120 --> 00:08:34,960 Speaker 1: likewise completed pumma. Neither of them can vote, And so 127 00:08:35,080 --> 00:08:36,760 Speaker 1: can you tell us a little bit about the law 128 00:08:36,840 --> 00:08:40,679 Speaker 1: that those people are challenging in that case? So they're 129 00:08:40,840 --> 00:08:44,960 Speaker 1: they're challenging a Mississippi law that was originally enacted in 130 00:08:45,320 --> 00:08:49,439 Speaker 1: eighteen ninety and it was it's been re enacted twice 131 00:08:49,600 --> 00:08:53,440 Speaker 1: since then, according to the majority, on the most recent 132 00:08:53,520 --> 00:08:57,360 Speaker 1: time being nineteen sixty eight. So that was sort of 133 00:08:57,360 --> 00:09:00,760 Speaker 1: the operative your legislature of the they were looking at. 134 00:09:01,280 --> 00:09:04,360 Speaker 1: So so basically the court took a look at this 135 00:09:04,480 --> 00:09:08,839 Speaker 1: nineteen succeed amendment and and they said, well, even though 136 00:09:08,880 --> 00:09:13,360 Speaker 1: it had discriminatory intent. Uh, you know when it was 137 00:09:13,400 --> 00:09:17,760 Speaker 1: originally enacted, it's been sent to the voters, it's gone 138 00:09:17,800 --> 00:09:20,839 Speaker 1: through this process, and it's effectively been cleansed of its 139 00:09:20,840 --> 00:09:24,920 Speaker 1: original discriminatory intent, meaning that the planists would have to 140 00:09:25,000 --> 00:09:30,280 Speaker 1: prove all over again that the eight Legislature had had 141 00:09:30,320 --> 00:09:33,560 Speaker 1: acted with some prohibited intent and couldn't sort of tie 142 00:09:33,600 --> 00:09:38,640 Speaker 1: it back to that original paint from I understand the 143 00:09:38,679 --> 00:09:41,520 Speaker 1: full US Court of Appeals, you know, took a look 144 00:09:41,520 --> 00:09:44,120 Speaker 1: at this case. Can you talk about the significance of that. 145 00:09:44,320 --> 00:09:48,640 Speaker 1: So they've they've heard So they heard a case dealing 146 00:09:48,720 --> 00:09:53,600 Speaker 1: with the same law, UH in ninet in n Cotton 147 00:09:53,720 --> 00:09:56,600 Speaker 1: before this or about twenty five years ago. And that 148 00:09:56,720 --> 00:10:02,080 Speaker 1: appeal was brought pro se by an innmate who is 149 00:10:02,080 --> 00:10:06,520 Speaker 1: seeking to have his his voting privileges reinstated. UM. He 150 00:10:06,600 --> 00:10:09,200 Speaker 1: didn't advance a lot of arguments. UM. And it's been 151 00:10:09,240 --> 00:10:11,839 Speaker 1: a long time since the case is heard. In this 152 00:10:11,920 --> 00:10:15,600 Speaker 1: case that came up was just was a little bit different, UM. 153 00:10:15,640 --> 00:10:19,319 Speaker 1: And there's been there's been a lot of criticism of UM. 154 00:10:19,480 --> 00:10:22,240 Speaker 1: The prior decision in the interim and the way that 155 00:10:22,320 --> 00:10:24,160 Speaker 1: this case was argued that made it a little bit 156 00:10:24,240 --> 00:10:28,800 Speaker 1: different was instead of just challenging the statute altogether, they 157 00:10:28,840 --> 00:10:33,720 Speaker 1: identified the two specific defenses that had been added in 158 00:10:33,720 --> 00:10:36,560 Speaker 1: the nine eight amendment and they carved those out, and 159 00:10:36,559 --> 00:10:38,960 Speaker 1: they said, no, no no, no, no, we're focusing on just 160 00:10:39,200 --> 00:10:44,200 Speaker 1: these older selonies that were included in the original version 161 00:10:44,720 --> 00:10:47,800 Speaker 1: because those are the ones that haven't hasn't actually been amended. 162 00:10:47,800 --> 00:10:52,000 Speaker 1: The voters haven't revisited those particular provisions. So that was 163 00:10:52,080 --> 00:10:56,840 Speaker 1: sort of why the argument was fresh. Um. Uh. You know, 164 00:10:57,679 --> 00:11:00,240 Speaker 1: when a when the court decides to hear it case 165 00:11:00,679 --> 00:11:04,320 Speaker 1: uh bank, they vote first. Um. So one of the 166 00:11:04,400 --> 00:11:08,760 Speaker 1: judges decided that it was time to revisit this case. Um. 167 00:11:08,920 --> 00:11:11,599 Speaker 1: And you know, and there the substantial number of dissenters 168 00:11:11,640 --> 00:11:13,640 Speaker 1: at the end of the day. You can see where 169 00:11:13,679 --> 00:11:16,120 Speaker 1: that came from. Um. But you know, there was enough 170 00:11:16,160 --> 00:11:19,320 Speaker 1: of a consensus on the court that the original decision 171 00:11:19,360 --> 00:11:23,040 Speaker 1: and sort of premise, uh, you know, was wrongly decided 172 00:11:23,080 --> 00:11:27,440 Speaker 1: that the the idea that the amendments could have cleansed 173 00:11:27,480 --> 00:11:30,840 Speaker 1: it of his original discriminatory incentence was it was a 174 00:11:30,840 --> 00:11:33,840 Speaker 1: bad call. But they came down the same way again. 175 00:11:34,480 --> 00:11:37,560 Speaker 1: So the majority leans into this argument that the nineteen 176 00:11:37,559 --> 00:11:40,120 Speaker 1: sixty eight amendments to the law were made via this 177 00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:43,800 Speaker 1: deliberative process. What does that process look like and what 178 00:11:44,120 --> 00:11:46,720 Speaker 1: was significant for the court. So I'll start by saying 179 00:11:46,760 --> 00:11:49,360 Speaker 1: it wasn't significant, because this is really I think the 180 00:11:49,440 --> 00:11:51,839 Speaker 1: rub part of the rob with the Descent is they 181 00:11:51,880 --> 00:11:55,280 Speaker 1: really didn't look at the sort of broad our historical context, 182 00:11:55,400 --> 00:11:58,000 Speaker 1: just sort of what the vibe was in nineteen sixty 183 00:11:58,080 --> 00:12:01,920 Speaker 1: eight Mississippi. Instead, they just sort of looked, um, I'm 184 00:12:02,000 --> 00:12:04,880 Speaker 1: kind of a sterile way at the process. Uh. So, 185 00:12:04,960 --> 00:12:08,319 Speaker 1: each house of the state legislatures agreed to pose amendments 186 00:12:08,360 --> 00:12:12,600 Speaker 1: by two thirds majority. Then the entirety of the new 187 00:12:12,600 --> 00:12:16,680 Speaker 1: amendment was published uh an advance of the election, and 188 00:12:16,720 --> 00:12:20,400 Speaker 1: then it was the amended provision was printed on the ballot, 189 00:12:20,760 --> 00:12:23,199 Speaker 1: and they had an opportunity to vote up or down, 190 00:12:23,280 --> 00:12:27,200 Speaker 1: either for the entire provision or against the entire provision. 191 00:12:27,880 --> 00:12:31,360 Speaker 1: And something the Descent criticized, and this was also an 192 00:12:31,440 --> 00:12:35,760 Speaker 1: argument that kind it's made that the majority rejected, uh, 193 00:12:36,120 --> 00:12:38,680 Speaker 1: was that by presenting it to the voters this way, 194 00:12:39,040 --> 00:12:41,360 Speaker 1: it really wasn't a re enactment. They didn't have an 195 00:12:41,400 --> 00:12:46,440 Speaker 1: opportunity to vote down those original discriminatory offensive Um. So 196 00:12:46,559 --> 00:12:48,880 Speaker 1: that's sort of the difference. The majority called that a 197 00:12:48,960 --> 00:12:52,560 Speaker 1: sufficient process, and and the then censor said, you know, 198 00:12:53,320 --> 00:12:56,480 Speaker 1: not only is that not a sufficient process, you can't 199 00:12:56,520 --> 00:13:00,079 Speaker 1: disregard the broader context here, um, and the broad or 200 00:13:00,160 --> 00:13:05,360 Speaker 1: context being Mississippi's um, you know, relentless resistance to the 201 00:13:05,400 --> 00:13:08,320 Speaker 1: civil rights movement in that time. I want to focus 202 00:13:08,360 --> 00:13:11,040 Speaker 1: on the dissents for just a second. UM here And 203 00:13:11,160 --> 00:13:14,560 Speaker 1: there was a one by Judge James Graves Jr. Which 204 00:13:14,600 --> 00:13:18,200 Speaker 1: had an extraordinary sentence. UM. He said of Mississippi voters 205 00:13:18,200 --> 00:13:21,840 Speaker 1: that it's hard to imagine an electorate so relentlessly active 206 00:13:21,880 --> 00:13:25,760 Speaker 1: in its resistance to racial equality as somewhere suddenly race 207 00:13:25,840 --> 00:13:29,440 Speaker 1: neutral in their handling of a racially motivated provision in 208 00:13:29,480 --> 00:13:33,680 Speaker 1: its constitution. UM. And I'm curious, does Judge Graves mean 209 00:13:33,760 --> 00:13:35,960 Speaker 1: that the law could never be scrubbed of its racist 210 00:13:36,000 --> 00:13:39,160 Speaker 1: intent or what does he think needs to have been done? 211 00:13:39,760 --> 00:13:41,880 Speaker 1: I know, I don't think he's saying that that it's 212 00:13:41,920 --> 00:13:44,480 Speaker 1: impossible or that it can never happen. I think he 213 00:13:44,600 --> 00:13:48,000 Speaker 1: was just saying it absolutely didn't happen here, or at 214 00:13:48,040 --> 00:13:52,400 Speaker 1: a minimum, there's enough evidence that Mississippi wasn't acting in 215 00:13:52,480 --> 00:13:56,960 Speaker 1: good faith uh, that that it isn't sufficient to sort 216 00:13:56,960 --> 00:14:00,760 Speaker 1: of scrub that original discriminator where he tape so one. 217 00:14:01,120 --> 00:14:03,240 Speaker 1: You know, he sort of started at the really basic 218 00:14:03,320 --> 00:14:06,079 Speaker 1: elements of it, just that you said, you know, look, 219 00:14:06,640 --> 00:14:10,200 Speaker 1: an amendment isn't a reenactment. Um. And that sort of 220 00:14:10,240 --> 00:14:14,360 Speaker 1: goes into you know, the voters didn't revisit the original 221 00:14:14,360 --> 00:14:16,839 Speaker 1: core of the law. They just added, you know to 222 00:14:17,000 --> 00:14:22,640 Speaker 1: ostensibly less discriminatory provisions um and and h or or crimes, 223 00:14:22,640 --> 00:14:26,640 Speaker 1: I should say. Um. The other the other aspect, the 224 00:14:26,640 --> 00:14:29,120 Speaker 1: greatest of focused on was you know, something again that 225 00:14:29,200 --> 00:14:34,080 Speaker 1: the majority disregarded, which is which was a broader history. Um. 226 00:14:34,160 --> 00:14:42,160 Speaker 1: You know there there they resisted constitutional mandates, federal mandates. Um. 227 00:14:42,360 --> 00:14:45,920 Speaker 1: It was the idea that they would have complied with 228 00:14:46,080 --> 00:14:50,240 Speaker 1: recommendations from a commission about their voting laws just didn't 229 00:14:50,280 --> 00:14:54,320 Speaker 1: seem uh to sort of pass the laugh tests for him. Well, 230 00:14:54,360 --> 00:14:57,080 Speaker 1: coming up, we'll continue our conversation with Holly Parker, a 231 00:14:57,160 --> 00:15:00,320 Speaker 1: legal reporter Alm park Law. I'm Kimberly rob in Sen 232 00:15:00,720 --> 00:15:09,000 Speaker 1: and I'm Lydia Wheeler. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg 233 00:15:09,120 --> 00:15:13,480 Speaker 1: Law with June Brasso from Bloomberg Radio. I'm Lydia Wheeler 234 00:15:13,720 --> 00:15:17,480 Speaker 1: and I'm Kimberly Robinson. Where in for June Grasso, We've 235 00:15:17,480 --> 00:15:19,720 Speaker 1: been talking with Holly Barker about what it takes to 236 00:15:19,720 --> 00:15:23,080 Speaker 1: get rid of old racist laws, and in particular, we 237 00:15:23,080 --> 00:15:27,600 Speaker 1: were talking about a descent by Judge Graves, and I'm wondering, 238 00:15:27,840 --> 00:15:30,800 Speaker 1: you know, there's a really interesting aspect of his descent 239 00:15:30,840 --> 00:15:33,520 Speaker 1: that you talk about where he does talk about this 240 00:15:33,640 --> 00:15:37,000 Speaker 1: context of Mississippi of ods um and he pulls on 241 00:15:37,040 --> 00:15:39,200 Speaker 1: his own personal experience, and I was wondering if you 242 00:15:39,200 --> 00:15:45,280 Speaker 1: could um explain that for our listeners. He did, Um. 243 00:15:45,480 --> 00:15:47,760 Speaker 1: He it was. It was a really small piece of 244 00:15:47,840 --> 00:15:50,320 Speaker 1: a very lengthy descent, and he was careful to say 245 00:15:50,400 --> 00:15:53,920 Speaker 1: that his his own personal experience wasn't the driving force 246 00:15:55,360 --> 00:15:59,240 Speaker 1: behind his decision here, but that you know, he wouldn't 247 00:15:59,240 --> 00:16:02,000 Speaker 1: feel fully try of parents if he didn't, you know, 248 00:16:02,280 --> 00:16:03,880 Speaker 1: if he didn't admit that he was reminded of his 249 00:16:03,920 --> 00:16:07,320 Speaker 1: own experience growing up, which was basically in in the 250 00:16:07,360 --> 00:16:12,160 Speaker 1: Deep South. It was I believe a few years before 251 00:16:12,600 --> 00:16:17,320 Speaker 1: this nineteen vote. Uh, he remembers a cross bring burned 252 00:16:17,360 --> 00:16:19,960 Speaker 1: on his grandmother's front lawn, which was, you know, three 253 00:16:20,000 --> 00:16:23,680 Speaker 1: doors down from his house. So for him, uh, you know, 254 00:16:23,800 --> 00:16:27,000 Speaker 1: racism was very alive and real in the Deep South 255 00:16:27,160 --> 00:16:30,440 Speaker 1: at the time. Um So, I think he was, you know, 256 00:16:30,480 --> 00:16:34,680 Speaker 1: almost certainly at least drawing from that to inform what 257 00:16:34,760 --> 00:16:38,880 Speaker 1: he knew about the history. Right. Well, there's another case 258 00:16:38,920 --> 00:16:41,520 Speaker 1: in the neighboring Eleventh Circuit dealing with the same issue. 259 00:16:41,720 --> 00:16:45,640 Speaker 1: Can you tell us about that case? Sure? That case 260 00:16:46,240 --> 00:16:50,440 Speaker 1: it prompts him. The Alabama and so actually the Alabama 261 00:16:50,520 --> 00:16:55,480 Speaker 1: law was modeled after the Mississippi law, but it wasn't 262 00:16:55,480 --> 00:16:59,120 Speaker 1: passed until nineteen o one. It was struck down by 263 00:16:59,280 --> 00:17:02,920 Speaker 1: the Creame Court, and then Alabama went ahead and re 264 00:17:03,120 --> 00:17:07,720 Speaker 1: enacted it. Um So. Now, the challenge that's being raised 265 00:17:07,880 --> 00:17:13,560 Speaker 1: is it's about a very specific provision that worked its 266 00:17:13,560 --> 00:17:17,399 Speaker 1: way back in when it was re enacted in and 267 00:17:17,480 --> 00:17:20,040 Speaker 1: that was the crime of moral turpitude. And it was 268 00:17:20,080 --> 00:17:23,720 Speaker 1: included in the original nineteen one version because it was 269 00:17:23,760 --> 00:17:28,280 Speaker 1: thought to be sufficiently squashy of a category of crimes 270 00:17:28,280 --> 00:17:31,520 Speaker 1: that they could sort of manipulate it and target black voters. 271 00:17:32,280 --> 00:17:35,720 Speaker 1: Um and and so the argument there is largely this 272 00:17:35,760 --> 00:17:41,480 Speaker 1: is was just a housekeeping process to get around and 273 00:17:41,600 --> 00:17:46,600 Speaker 1: otherwise discriminatory law. Um So, in other words, it's sort 274 00:17:46,640 --> 00:17:50,359 Speaker 1: of like it's wandering as opposed to cleansing. It is 275 00:17:50,359 --> 00:17:54,000 Speaker 1: sort of their argument. So the U. S. Supreme Court 276 00:17:54,280 --> 00:17:59,440 Speaker 1: has dealt with this issue of scrubbing discriminatory laws, and 277 00:17:59,640 --> 00:18:02,520 Speaker 1: you high Leddy case in the article you wrote recently 278 00:18:02,640 --> 00:18:06,280 Speaker 1: from four And there's also a footnote in the Courts 279 00:18:06,320 --> 00:18:10,439 Speaker 1: Stop just Dabbs decision overturning Roe versus Way that addresses 280 00:18:10,960 --> 00:18:16,040 Speaker 1: the alleged discriminatory intent behind abortion laws. And in the 281 00:18:16,119 --> 00:18:18,720 Speaker 1: context of the separation of church and state, we've seen 282 00:18:18,760 --> 00:18:22,159 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court remark on so called blamee amendments that 283 00:18:22,240 --> 00:18:26,000 Speaker 1: were originally intended to limit the influence of Catholic schools. 284 00:18:26,040 --> 00:18:28,959 Speaker 1: So I'm wondering, what can you tell us about what 285 00:18:29,000 --> 00:18:33,440 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has said about um scrubbing these laws 286 00:18:33,480 --> 00:18:38,240 Speaker 1: of their originally discriminatory intent. Sure. So the nineteen eight 287 00:18:38,359 --> 00:18:41,920 Speaker 1: four case that you mentioned is Hunter the Underwood, and 288 00:18:41,960 --> 00:18:45,080 Speaker 1: that's the case that struck down Alga the nineteen o 289 00:18:45,200 --> 00:18:51,560 Speaker 1: one felony disch dis lak. I'm sorry, we can start over. 290 00:18:51,640 --> 00:18:53,120 Speaker 1: Want to start that you want to start the answer 291 00:18:53,119 --> 00:18:55,080 Speaker 1: to that question over, go for it. That'd be great. 292 00:18:55,440 --> 00:18:58,840 Speaker 1: So Hunter, Hunter of the Underwood is the nineteen four 293 00:18:58,880 --> 00:19:03,320 Speaker 1: case that you mentioned that struck down Alabama's one following 294 00:19:03,440 --> 00:19:06,800 Speaker 1: disappranchisement law, and that was the one that was subsequently 295 00:19:06,800 --> 00:19:10,920 Speaker 1: re enacted. In that case, Um, it didn't establish this 296 00:19:11,000 --> 00:19:15,000 Speaker 1: notion that you could scrub another wise discriminatory law by 297 00:19:15,040 --> 00:19:18,000 Speaker 1: re enacting it, but it left open the possibility. So 298 00:19:18,119 --> 00:19:20,479 Speaker 1: it's struck down Alabama law, and it said, you know, 299 00:19:21,280 --> 00:19:24,600 Speaker 1: this law when it was enacted was enacted with racist intent. 300 00:19:25,040 --> 00:19:28,880 Speaker 1: But we're withholding judgment as to whether or not a 301 00:19:28,320 --> 00:19:34,359 Speaker 1: le legislature could scrub a law by of its discriminary 302 00:19:34,440 --> 00:19:37,359 Speaker 1: tad by re en oct fan um. So that so, 303 00:19:37,680 --> 00:19:40,960 Speaker 1: so Hunter versus Underwood didn't establish the principle, but it 304 00:19:41,320 --> 00:19:44,640 Speaker 1: opened the door for these kinds of arguments. And that's 305 00:19:44,680 --> 00:19:47,880 Speaker 1: that's what the sort of Fisth Circuit seased on and 306 00:19:47,880 --> 00:19:51,840 Speaker 1: and what the Eleventh Circuit has also subsequently adopted. Um 307 00:19:51,880 --> 00:19:56,320 Speaker 1: with respect of the blame amendments, it's come up there too, 308 00:19:57,160 --> 00:19:59,639 Speaker 1: But as far as I know, it's that's what I 309 00:19:59,680 --> 00:20:04,880 Speaker 1: remember here from it is Aledo's distent basically saying that, 310 00:20:04,960 --> 00:20:07,919 Speaker 1: you know, if they didn't use that test there, so 311 00:20:07,960 --> 00:20:11,560 Speaker 1: they didn't say that these laws had been scrubbed. They scrubbed, 312 00:20:11,560 --> 00:20:15,399 Speaker 1: they struck them down as unconstitutional on their faith and 313 00:20:15,400 --> 00:20:21,400 Speaker 1: in the Blame Amendment, which prohibit state funds from going 314 00:20:21,440 --> 00:20:26,400 Speaker 1: to propial schools, basically isn't on its base neutral um 315 00:20:26,720 --> 00:20:31,720 Speaker 1: at least arguably right, because it targets anybody with a religion. 316 00:20:31,760 --> 00:20:35,480 Speaker 1: And so that's that's sort of an explicit, at least 317 00:20:35,520 --> 00:20:41,480 Speaker 1: an arguably explicit discriminatory standard. Um. So it's the the 318 00:20:41,520 --> 00:20:44,320 Speaker 1: scrubbing got talked about in Alito's descent, but he sort 319 00:20:44,320 --> 00:20:48,080 Speaker 1: of did it begrudgingly and kind of like, well, since 320 00:20:48,119 --> 00:20:49,960 Speaker 1: we have to do this now, I'm going to tell 321 00:20:49,960 --> 00:20:53,000 Speaker 1: you why didn't get got scrubbed. That's Hollie Barker, a 322 00:20:53,080 --> 00:20:56,119 Speaker 1: legal reporter at Bloomberg Law. Thanks for being here, Hollie. 323 00:20:57,200 --> 00:21:00,439 Speaker 1: Thank you, guys, appreciate it. You're listening to Bloomberg. I'm 324 00:21:00,520 --> 00:21:08,080 Speaker 1: Widio Wheeler and I'm Kimberly Robinson. This is Bloomberg. This 325 00:21:08,440 --> 00:21:12,960 Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. I'm 326 00:21:13,040 --> 00:21:16,640 Speaker 1: Lidia Wheeler and I'm Kimberly Robinson. We're in for June Grasso. 327 00:21:17,480 --> 00:21:19,679 Speaker 1: We're joined now by William Han, who's part of the 328 00:21:19,720 --> 00:21:23,560 Speaker 1: team at the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty representing Yeshiva 329 00:21:23,680 --> 00:21:26,320 Speaker 1: University and its attempt to block a state court ruling 330 00:21:26,600 --> 00:21:30,359 Speaker 1: requiring it to recognize an LGBTQ student group. It's the 331 00:21:30,440 --> 00:21:33,400 Speaker 1: latest clash between gay rights and the exercise of free 332 00:21:33,440 --> 00:21:35,880 Speaker 1: religion to come up to the High Court. William, thanks 333 00:21:35,920 --> 00:21:37,800 Speaker 1: so much for joining us. Thank you, it's my pleasure 334 00:21:37,800 --> 00:21:39,520 Speaker 1: to be with you. Can you first tell us a 335 00:21:39,600 --> 00:21:43,040 Speaker 1: little bit about your client, Yeshiva University, because I think 336 00:21:43,080 --> 00:21:47,119 Speaker 1: it's important to this case just the identity of the 337 00:21:47,160 --> 00:21:51,240 Speaker 1: school that we're talking about here. Absolutely, Yeshiva University is 338 00:21:51,240 --> 00:21:56,000 Speaker 1: America's oldest Jewish institution of higher learning. It's world renowned 339 00:21:56,440 --> 00:21:59,520 Speaker 1: for being a leader in the study of Torah with 340 00:21:59,600 --> 00:22:04,280 Speaker 1: second their academics. It's name, the Yeshiva literally means a 341 00:22:04,320 --> 00:22:07,000 Speaker 1: school for the study of talmut. That's the purpose for 342 00:22:07,040 --> 00:22:10,080 Speaker 1: which it was formed, and it furthers that purpose today 343 00:22:10,320 --> 00:22:15,160 Speaker 1: by training the next generation of modern Orthodox Jewish leaders 344 00:22:15,200 --> 00:22:17,639 Speaker 1: around the world. The State court said that the school 345 00:22:17,680 --> 00:22:21,360 Speaker 1: was required to recognize the club. Here. Can you explain 346 00:22:21,400 --> 00:22:24,919 Speaker 1: for the listeners, um, what the law that they're referring 347 00:22:24,920 --> 00:22:29,000 Speaker 1: to that requires this um it does exactly well. The 348 00:22:29,080 --> 00:22:31,040 Speaker 1: law that the trial court invoked is called the New 349 00:22:31,080 --> 00:22:33,240 Speaker 1: York City Human Rights Law, But the law that the 350 00:22:33,280 --> 00:22:37,600 Speaker 1: trial court declined to seriously considers the First Amendment to 351 00:22:37,640 --> 00:22:40,600 Speaker 1: the U s Constitution, because that's really what's at the 352 00:22:40,640 --> 00:22:43,280 Speaker 1: core of this case, which is about who gets to 353 00:22:43,359 --> 00:22:48,080 Speaker 1: decide who gets to direct the religious mission on Yeshiva's campus. 354 00:22:48,080 --> 00:22:51,359 Speaker 1: How does Yeshiva? Does Yeshiva get to make the decisions 355 00:22:51,400 --> 00:22:53,639 Speaker 1: about how to form the next generation of students on 356 00:22:53,760 --> 00:22:56,480 Speaker 1: its campus, or does the government to get to make 357 00:22:56,520 --> 00:23:01,720 Speaker 1: those decisions. The trial court decided that Yeshiva is insufficiently 358 00:23:01,760 --> 00:23:05,680 Speaker 1: religious to make those decisions and therefore can be forced 359 00:23:05,720 --> 00:23:09,399 Speaker 1: to violate its Toura values approve a campus club that 360 00:23:09,480 --> 00:23:13,359 Speaker 1: its senior rabbinical leadership determined it couldn't put its seal 361 00:23:13,359 --> 00:23:16,919 Speaker 1: of approval on consistent with its Toura values, and this 362 00:23:16,960 --> 00:23:20,200 Speaker 1: would open up the door to all kinds of crippling 363 00:23:20,280 --> 00:23:24,879 Speaker 1: litigation against all aspects of Yeshiva's religious mission, because not 364 00:23:25,000 --> 00:23:28,000 Speaker 1: only does it account for religion when it's reviewing clubs 365 00:23:28,520 --> 00:23:30,840 Speaker 1: that they are up to five hours of Tourra study 366 00:23:30,880 --> 00:23:34,920 Speaker 1: that's mandated by curriculum every single day. Their sex segregated 367 00:23:34,960 --> 00:23:39,760 Speaker 1: housing and schooling that's religiously driven. Elevators are rewired on 368 00:23:39,880 --> 00:23:43,720 Speaker 1: Shabbat to prevent electronic usage. You could even have electronics 369 00:23:43,720 --> 00:23:47,280 Speaker 1: publicly confiscated on campus if you're on the Sabbath using them. 370 00:23:47,320 --> 00:23:51,520 Speaker 1: There's kosher requirements throughout campus. This is a deeply religious 371 00:23:51,600 --> 00:23:54,240 Speaker 1: university and no one in the case disputes that. But 372 00:23:54,280 --> 00:23:57,399 Speaker 1: the trial court just decided that Yeshiva isn't religious enough. 373 00:23:57,720 --> 00:24:01,119 Speaker 1: Is it also trains people in secular degree? Yeah, I 374 00:24:01,119 --> 00:24:04,280 Speaker 1: wanted to um kind of flesh out that idea of 375 00:24:04,359 --> 00:24:07,760 Speaker 1: Yeshiva not being religious enough, because there are kind of 376 00:24:07,800 --> 00:24:10,800 Speaker 1: carve outs to this New York City human rights law 377 00:24:10,880 --> 00:24:14,760 Speaker 1: that you know anticipates this sort of tension um with 378 00:24:14,960 --> 00:24:18,000 Speaker 1: the free exercise of religion. So why is it that 379 00:24:18,040 --> 00:24:20,800 Speaker 1: the lower court said that that just didn't apply to 380 00:24:20,840 --> 00:24:24,320 Speaker 1: the university here. The lower court took a look at 381 00:24:24,400 --> 00:24:28,520 Speaker 1: Yeshiva's corporate documents and decided that Yeshiva didn't clearly spell 382 00:24:28,600 --> 00:24:31,640 Speaker 1: out what it said actually when it was incorporated, which 383 00:24:31,640 --> 00:24:34,040 Speaker 1: is that it's a school that exists to promote the 384 00:24:34,040 --> 00:24:37,640 Speaker 1: study of Talmud and that in that purpose express letly 385 00:24:37,680 --> 00:24:41,440 Speaker 1: has been continued, as its more recent corporate documents say. 386 00:24:41,480 --> 00:24:44,160 Speaker 1: But to be honest with you, the corporate document dispute 387 00:24:44,200 --> 00:24:46,919 Speaker 1: and the whether or not Yeshiva used the magic words 388 00:24:47,080 --> 00:24:50,679 Speaker 1: in its corporate language is really beside the point, because 389 00:24:50,720 --> 00:24:55,480 Speaker 1: the First Amendment protects all kinds of religious organizations, not 390 00:24:55,600 --> 00:24:59,920 Speaker 1: just quote unquote religious corporations. It protects all kinds of 391 00:25:00,040 --> 00:25:02,439 Speaker 1: religious organizations, and as we've seen in a number of 392 00:25:02,480 --> 00:25:06,639 Speaker 1: recent Supreme Court decisions US Supreme Court decisions, it clearly 393 00:25:06,680 --> 00:25:09,440 Speaker 1: protects religious schools. We saw this in a main case 394 00:25:09,520 --> 00:25:12,000 Speaker 1: last term. We've seen it in cases brought by the 395 00:25:12,000 --> 00:25:15,639 Speaker 1: Becketts I'm involving religious schools out of California, in the 396 00:25:15,760 --> 00:25:18,639 Speaker 1: or Lady of Guadaloupe case and in the Hozana Tabor 397 00:25:18,680 --> 00:25:21,600 Speaker 1: case back in two thousand and twelve. Now, the current 398 00:25:21,640 --> 00:25:25,000 Speaker 1: Supreme Court um seems to be very protective of religious 399 00:25:25,000 --> 00:25:27,800 Speaker 1: freedom and in particular the right of those to freely 400 00:25:27,880 --> 00:25:31,399 Speaker 1: exercise the religion. Do you agree with that assessment, and 401 00:25:31,440 --> 00:25:34,080 Speaker 1: if so, how does this petition from Yeshiva fit into 402 00:25:34,080 --> 00:25:37,200 Speaker 1: the Court's religion docket here. Well, I think it's a 403 00:25:37,240 --> 00:25:41,080 Speaker 1: commitment that goes beyond even strictly speaking, religion cases. The 404 00:25:41,119 --> 00:25:44,199 Speaker 1: Supreme Court decided in a case called Bostock where it 405 00:25:44,640 --> 00:25:47,879 Speaker 1: understood Title seven of the Civil Rights Act to cover 406 00:25:48,560 --> 00:25:52,520 Speaker 1: protection for sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. They are 407 00:25:52,560 --> 00:25:54,720 Speaker 1: a majority of the Court said that the free exercise 408 00:25:54,760 --> 00:25:58,479 Speaker 1: of religion lies at the heart of a pluralistic society. 409 00:25:58,520 --> 00:26:03,280 Speaker 1: So this is a wine widely acknowledged commitment across the Court. 410 00:26:03,520 --> 00:26:06,520 Speaker 1: Some of the decisions that I mentioned previously where nine 411 00:26:06,600 --> 00:26:11,520 Speaker 1: O decisions or seven two decisions. There is a widespread 412 00:26:11,520 --> 00:26:14,760 Speaker 1: consensus that at the core of our best traditions is 413 00:26:14,800 --> 00:26:18,840 Speaker 1: one of a religious accommodation and a respect for pluralism. 414 00:26:18,880 --> 00:26:22,479 Speaker 1: And that means that Yeshiva University, a school that everyone 415 00:26:22,560 --> 00:26:26,200 Speaker 1: understands to be deeply and pervasively religious, including the people 416 00:26:26,240 --> 00:26:28,920 Speaker 1: that suited. They admit to that, and they went there 417 00:26:28,960 --> 00:26:32,720 Speaker 1: for that reason, UM gets to be a religious university 418 00:26:33,040 --> 00:26:35,160 Speaker 1: in terms of how it forms, in shape, its its 419 00:26:35,200 --> 00:26:39,439 Speaker 1: campus environment. I'm just wondering, from an advocate's perspective, is 420 00:26:39,480 --> 00:26:42,920 Speaker 1: this the kind of case that at this point, uh, 421 00:26:43,000 --> 00:26:45,199 Speaker 1: you would have brought it up to the justices in 422 00:26:45,920 --> 00:26:48,920 Speaker 1: you know, years past, or is there a sense among 423 00:26:49,280 --> 00:26:53,840 Speaker 1: you Supreme Court attorneys that the justices are more receptive 424 00:26:53,920 --> 00:26:56,960 Speaker 1: to these kinds of requests. Now, I think that the 425 00:26:57,160 --> 00:27:00,840 Speaker 1: concern about the Supreme Court's emergency docut in cases like 426 00:27:00,960 --> 00:27:05,040 Speaker 1: this is also something of being beside the point, because 427 00:27:05,480 --> 00:27:08,320 Speaker 1: if the concern is is that the court's not getting 428 00:27:08,400 --> 00:27:12,160 Speaker 1: enough briefing this case. Our case went through summary judgment, 429 00:27:12,200 --> 00:27:14,600 Speaker 1: which is as thorough as it gets. In the trial court. 430 00:27:14,960 --> 00:27:18,480 Speaker 1: There was separate briefing about an injunction. There's been briefing 431 00:27:18,960 --> 00:27:22,159 Speaker 1: at this intermediate appellate level in New York at the 432 00:27:22,160 --> 00:27:25,560 Speaker 1: New York Court of Appeals. There's been amicus briefs filed 433 00:27:25,600 --> 00:27:28,680 Speaker 1: in the case. The idea that the court isn't familiar 434 00:27:28,920 --> 00:27:31,600 Speaker 1: with how to handle a final decision on the merits 435 00:27:32,040 --> 00:27:35,480 Speaker 1: and isn't familiar with how to handle an emergency. That's 436 00:27:35,480 --> 00:27:38,959 Speaker 1: what the Supreme Court exists to do. Um. Maybe some 437 00:27:39,000 --> 00:27:41,879 Speaker 1: people don't like the fact that the emergency docket is 438 00:27:41,920 --> 00:27:45,359 Speaker 1: being used to solve certain kinds of emergencies that maybe 439 00:27:45,359 --> 00:27:48,679 Speaker 1: they don't think our emergencies, But that's different than saying 440 00:27:48,720 --> 00:27:52,520 Speaker 1: that this is that there's a problem with the emergency docket. Now, 441 00:27:52,560 --> 00:27:54,919 Speaker 1: this case has gotten a lot of traction on social media, 442 00:27:55,480 --> 00:27:58,400 Speaker 1: with many pointing out that the graduate schools that Yeshiva 443 00:27:58,480 --> 00:28:02,080 Speaker 1: have already recognized LGB t Q groups. Um is that 444 00:28:02,200 --> 00:28:05,920 Speaker 1: relevant or is the undergraduate school different here? No, it 445 00:28:05,920 --> 00:28:09,199 Speaker 1: it's also beside the point because the question isn't The 446 00:28:09,280 --> 00:28:12,000 Speaker 1: question is a question of who decides. The question is 447 00:28:12,320 --> 00:28:15,520 Speaker 1: who decides how to direct the religious mission at Yeshiva. 448 00:28:15,800 --> 00:28:18,840 Speaker 1: When it comes to the graduate schools, Yeshiva made a 449 00:28:18,840 --> 00:28:23,360 Speaker 1: religious judgment that a professional school where people are older, 450 00:28:23,720 --> 00:28:26,560 Speaker 1: at a different stage in life, their religious identity is 451 00:28:26,600 --> 00:28:29,640 Speaker 1: already a bit more form than people just leaving home 452 00:28:29,720 --> 00:28:31,879 Speaker 1: for the first time. They're going to take a different 453 00:28:31,880 --> 00:28:35,400 Speaker 1: approach towards religiosity on those campuses than they might take 454 00:28:35,800 --> 00:28:38,240 Speaker 1: in their undergraduate campus, where in the case of the 455 00:28:38,240 --> 00:28:42,600 Speaker 1: men's campus at Yeshiva, the rabbinical seminary is literally integrated 456 00:28:42,640 --> 00:28:45,720 Speaker 1: within the men's campus. So I want to make sure 457 00:28:45,760 --> 00:28:48,960 Speaker 1: that we're kind of situating the listeners here. Where does 458 00:28:49,000 --> 00:28:51,160 Speaker 1: this case stand now? Is there any Do you have 459 00:28:51,160 --> 00:28:54,440 Speaker 1: any expectations on when the Supreme Court might rule on 460 00:28:54,480 --> 00:28:57,520 Speaker 1: your request? Well, the Supreme Court has called for a 461 00:28:57,560 --> 00:29:01,480 Speaker 1: response from the other side no later than five pm tomorrow, 462 00:29:02,240 --> 00:29:04,600 Speaker 1: and so we expect a prompt ruling from the U. S. 463 00:29:04,600 --> 00:29:07,440 Speaker 1: Supreme Court, and we're hopeful that the Supreme Court will 464 00:29:07,440 --> 00:29:10,920 Speaker 1: do what it has consistently done, which is reflect our 465 00:29:10,960 --> 00:29:15,680 Speaker 1: best traditions of accommodation and and pluralism toward religion. Um. 466 00:29:15,720 --> 00:29:18,680 Speaker 1: There's also the underlying appeal of the merits of the 467 00:29:18,760 --> 00:29:23,000 Speaker 1: case that's still proceeding in the New York courts that 468 00:29:23,000 --> 00:29:26,120 Speaker 1: that is going on as well. But the principal focus 469 00:29:26,240 --> 00:29:29,160 Speaker 1: right now is the emergency application at the Supreme Court, 470 00:29:29,240 --> 00:29:32,640 Speaker 1: because the semester has begun at Yeshiva, there's a permanent 471 00:29:32,640 --> 00:29:36,440 Speaker 1: injunction telling Yeshiva you need to immediately violate your tour 472 00:29:36,640 --> 00:29:40,000 Speaker 1: values or we're going to sanction you. And so that 473 00:29:40,160 --> 00:29:44,120 Speaker 1: is the foremost dispute, and the Supreme Court will, I'm sure, 474 00:29:44,240 --> 00:29:47,320 Speaker 1: promptly resolve it and if and we hope and are 475 00:29:47,360 --> 00:29:52,440 Speaker 1: optimistic consistently with our best traditions under the First Amendment. Now, 476 00:29:52,520 --> 00:29:55,200 Speaker 1: I know it's always a little risky to read the 477 00:29:55,240 --> 00:29:58,040 Speaker 1: tea leaves in terms of what the Supreme Court you know, 478 00:29:58,240 --> 00:30:00,320 Speaker 1: is going to do here, But I was wondering if 479 00:30:00,360 --> 00:30:03,920 Speaker 1: you could take a guess and if you had any 480 00:30:04,080 --> 00:30:06,920 Speaker 1: sense of where you think them Court might come down 481 00:30:06,920 --> 00:30:11,160 Speaker 1: on this emergency application well, as as I suggested, I 482 00:30:11,200 --> 00:30:14,480 Speaker 1: think the Supreme Court is going to vindicate Yeshiva's religious liberty. 483 00:30:15,600 --> 00:30:20,280 Speaker 1: The Court recognizes again and again and in nine oh decisions, 484 00:30:20,320 --> 00:30:24,440 Speaker 1: seven two decisions, that eight one decisions. We Beckett was 485 00:30:24,800 --> 00:30:27,440 Speaker 1: involved in the case last year called Ramirez versus Collier 486 00:30:27,520 --> 00:30:30,680 Speaker 1: that also began on the emergency docket as an involved 487 00:30:30,680 --> 00:30:34,280 Speaker 1: a death penalty related issue, uh and then was resolved 488 00:30:34,880 --> 00:30:39,200 Speaker 1: in effort merits. Going on the merits docket again and again, 489 00:30:39,280 --> 00:30:41,840 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court acknowledges the high stakes that are an 490 00:30:41,880 --> 00:30:45,560 Speaker 1: issue when someone's religious freedom is being put under threat. 491 00:30:45,640 --> 00:30:48,040 Speaker 1: It's in the First Amendment for a reason, and the 492 00:30:48,080 --> 00:30:51,520 Speaker 1: Supreme Court gets that. And so I'm confident that Yeshiva's 493 00:30:51,520 --> 00:30:55,600 Speaker 1: religious liberty will be indicated. Yeah. I know that Beckett 494 00:30:55,680 --> 00:30:57,600 Speaker 1: has had a pretty good run at the Supreme Court, 495 00:30:58,080 --> 00:31:01,640 Speaker 1: particularly recently, and it's one of my favorite Supreme Court 496 00:31:01,680 --> 00:31:04,720 Speaker 1: cases is the one that you all handled dealing with 497 00:31:04,760 --> 00:31:09,560 Speaker 1: these miniature pistols hidden in prisoners beards. Um. I wonder though, 498 00:31:10,920 --> 00:31:13,440 Speaker 1: that's right. I wonder though in this case, if there 499 00:31:13,440 --> 00:31:18,160 Speaker 1: are any particular justices that you're watching, we we just 500 00:31:18,520 --> 00:31:21,680 Speaker 1: we respect the whole Supreme Court because every single justice, 501 00:31:21,760 --> 00:31:23,520 Speaker 1: if you think about a case like at Fulton, that 502 00:31:23,640 --> 00:31:25,800 Speaker 1: was a nine out decision, that was a case that 503 00:31:25,880 --> 00:31:28,600 Speaker 1: we had the privilege of Brittany, and every single justice 504 00:31:29,000 --> 00:31:33,040 Speaker 1: acknowledged that in that case, Catholic Social Services, a religious 505 00:31:33,080 --> 00:31:36,320 Speaker 1: foster agency that really began foster care in the city 506 00:31:36,320 --> 00:31:40,520 Speaker 1: of Philadelphia, couldn't be kicked out of public life because 507 00:31:40,560 --> 00:31:45,520 Speaker 1: of its religious beliefs. Every single justice recognized that. Another 508 00:31:45,560 --> 00:31:47,720 Speaker 1: case we had was on a table from two thousand 509 00:31:47,720 --> 00:31:51,160 Speaker 1: and twelve that involves a similar question of the ability 510 00:31:51,200 --> 00:31:54,520 Speaker 1: of a church or religious organization to decide who's going 511 00:31:54,640 --> 00:31:57,160 Speaker 1: to how they're going to carry out their mission, preach 512 00:31:57,200 --> 00:31:59,600 Speaker 1: and teach and form the next generation. That was a 513 00:31:59,720 --> 00:32:04,040 Speaker 1: nine our decision as well. Uh, we were very confident 514 00:32:04,080 --> 00:32:07,680 Speaker 1: that this principle is widely understood by every justice on 515 00:32:07,800 --> 00:32:10,760 Speaker 1: the Court and we look forward to seeing what the U. S. 516 00:32:10,760 --> 00:32:14,280 Speaker 1: Supreme Court will do in vindicating Shiva's religious liberty. Well, 517 00:32:14,440 --> 00:32:16,400 Speaker 1: thanks so much for getting us up to speed on 518 00:32:16,440 --> 00:32:19,800 Speaker 1: this case. That was William Han and that's going to 519 00:32:19,920 --> 00:32:23,320 Speaker 1: do it for this episode of Bloomberg Law, I'm Kimberly Robinson. 520 00:32:23,680 --> 00:32:26,560 Speaker 1: And I'm Lidia Wheeler. This is Bloomberg.