1
00:00:04,200 --> 00:00:09,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:14,480
Speaker 2: It appears to be unprecedented. A judge has ordered three

3
00:00:14,600 --> 00:00:19,760
Speaker 2: lawyers for Southwest Airlines to attend religious liberty training from

4
00:00:19,800 --> 00:00:24,480
Speaker 2: a conservative Christian legal advocacy group, the Alliance Defending Freedom,

5
00:00:24,960 --> 00:00:28,800
Speaker 2: a prominent player in several major legal battles over abortion

6
00:00:28,960 --> 00:00:34,440
Speaker 2: and LGBTQ rights. Texas Federal Judge Brantley's Star, a Trump appointee,

7
00:00:34,600 --> 00:00:39,320
Speaker 2: found Southwest had flouted his order in a religious discrimination case.

8
00:00:39,800 --> 00:00:43,640
Speaker 2: Southwest is appealing to the Fifth Circuit. Joining me is

9
00:00:43,720 --> 00:00:47,240
Speaker 2: Shao Wang, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School.

10
00:00:47,600 --> 00:00:50,360
Speaker 2: This judge's order, how would you characterize it on a

11
00:00:50,440 --> 00:00:52,839
Speaker 2: scale from ordinary to shocking?

12
00:00:53,680 --> 00:00:57,640
Speaker 1: But I think that the order here is highly unusual,

13
00:00:57,840 --> 00:01:02,560
Speaker 1: and it's probably highly unus usual for three different reasons.

14
00:01:02,640 --> 00:01:05,840
Speaker 1: The first reason is that sanctions in general are pretty

15
00:01:05,840 --> 00:01:11,720
Speaker 1: sparingly imposed, and here there's certainly questions about whether Southwester

16
00:01:11,720 --> 00:01:15,800
Speaker 1: in fact complied with the judge's original direction in the

17
00:01:15,800 --> 00:01:19,280
Speaker 1: first place, and Southwest is of course appealing that point.

18
00:01:19,480 --> 00:01:23,399
Speaker 1: The second reason that makes this highly unusual is that

19
00:01:23,840 --> 00:01:27,240
Speaker 1: no one asked for this particular sanction the sanction of

20
00:01:27,280 --> 00:01:31,080
Speaker 1: taking religious liberty training. When the plaintiff originally filed her

21
00:01:31,160 --> 00:01:34,440
Speaker 1: motion for sanctions in December of twenty twenty two, she

22
00:01:34,560 --> 00:01:38,200
Speaker 1: asked for attorney's fees and costs and certain financial penalties

23
00:01:38,400 --> 00:01:43,200
Speaker 1: and a new corrective notice to be supplied to Southwest workers,

24
00:01:43,280 --> 00:01:45,960
Speaker 1: and she got that. But in May this year, the

25
00:01:46,080 --> 00:01:49,880
Speaker 1: judge said that he was contemplating an additional sanction, which

26
00:01:49,960 --> 00:01:52,760
Speaker 1: was religious liberty training. And I think the third thing

27
00:01:53,040 --> 00:01:55,920
Speaker 1: that makes this sort of a highly unusual order is

28
00:01:56,120 --> 00:01:58,920
Speaker 1: who is supposed to give that training. It is the

29
00:01:58,960 --> 00:02:02,440
Speaker 1: Alliance Defending Free, which is not an organization that ordinarily

30
00:02:02,480 --> 00:02:05,800
Speaker 1: holds itself out as providing continuing legal education, but is

31
00:02:05,840 --> 00:02:08,880
Speaker 1: in fact an advocacy organization with a specific point of

32
00:02:08,960 --> 00:02:12,400
Speaker 1: view and a number of high profile cases in the

33
00:02:12,440 --> 00:02:13,160
Speaker 1: federal courts.

34
00:02:13,480 --> 00:02:16,320
Speaker 2: Let's put this into context. So this was a case

35
00:02:16,360 --> 00:02:20,560
Speaker 2: where a jury awarded five point one million dollars for

36
00:02:21,480 --> 00:02:26,440
Speaker 2: a Southwest flight attendant in her religious discrimination suit. And

37
00:02:26,480 --> 00:02:27,640
Speaker 2: it's been going on for.

38
00:02:27,560 --> 00:02:32,160
Speaker 1: A while, that's right. The origin of this suit was

39
00:02:32,440 --> 00:02:37,080
Speaker 1: around twenty seventeen when Southwest terminated flight attendant Charlene Carter

40
00:02:37,400 --> 00:02:41,600
Speaker 1: in Southwest Miss Carter had sent a number of messages

41
00:02:41,680 --> 00:02:45,960
Speaker 1: on social media to the airlines then union president, and

42
00:02:46,200 --> 00:02:50,320
Speaker 1: those messages concerned abortion. They included graphic videos of aborted

43
00:02:50,360 --> 00:02:55,320
Speaker 1: infants and other messages, and Southwest believed that that violated

44
00:02:55,320 --> 00:02:59,519
Speaker 1: its social media and harassment policies. Miss Carter, on the

45
00:02:59,600 --> 00:03:03,040
Speaker 1: other hand, insisted and stated that those messages were an

46
00:03:03,040 --> 00:03:06,560
Speaker 1: expression of her religious beliefs and that she was terminated

47
00:03:06,840 --> 00:03:10,080
Speaker 1: based on her expression of those religious beliefs in violation

48
00:03:10,200 --> 00:03:10,920
Speaker 1: of federal law.

49
00:03:11,440 --> 00:03:14,520
Speaker 2: The judge, as you mentioned, he required that a notice

50
00:03:14,760 --> 00:03:18,440
Speaker 2: be sent to flight attendants after the jury's verdict. Is

51
00:03:18,480 --> 00:03:20,760
Speaker 2: that unusual or is that par for the course?

52
00:03:21,320 --> 00:03:23,679
Speaker 1: I think it's fairly par for the course. I think,

53
00:03:23,800 --> 00:03:27,000
Speaker 1: especially in a case like this one that involves the

54
00:03:27,000 --> 00:03:30,880
Speaker 1: intersection between federal law and a company's policies, it's pretty

55
00:03:30,880 --> 00:03:34,400
Speaker 1: common for a company to say exactly what happened in

56
00:03:34,400 --> 00:03:37,920
Speaker 1: this litigation and whether it is making any changes as

57
00:03:37,960 --> 00:03:41,680
Speaker 1: a result. But in the judge's view, the specific notice

58
00:03:41,960 --> 00:03:46,360
Speaker 1: that Southwest sent out did not comply with the court's order.

59
00:03:46,360 --> 00:03:48,720
Speaker 1: In fact, it was intentional non compliant.

60
00:03:49,000 --> 00:03:51,560
Speaker 2: He wanted them to send a notice saying that quote,

61
00:03:51,680 --> 00:03:55,080
Speaker 2: it may not discriminate against Southwest flight attendants for their

62
00:03:55,080 --> 00:03:59,280
Speaker 2: religious practices and beliefs. Instead, Southwest send a notice saying

63
00:03:59,320 --> 00:04:03,160
Speaker 2: it does not discriminate, and also double down sending a

64
00:04:03,200 --> 00:04:08,320
Speaker 2: memo defending the policy and telling flight attendance to adhere

65
00:04:08,320 --> 00:04:11,120
Speaker 2: to the policy that was behind the firing. So does

66
00:04:11,200 --> 00:04:14,680
Speaker 2: it seem like Southwest didn't comply with the judge's order.

67
00:04:15,080 --> 00:04:18,039
Speaker 1: I think that that's something that Southwest is contesting right now.

68
00:04:18,080 --> 00:04:21,360
Speaker 1: It's contesting that on appeal. I think that in the

69
00:04:21,440 --> 00:04:25,200
Speaker 1: judge's view, the judge threw an analogy in his order

70
00:04:25,560 --> 00:04:28,560
Speaker 1: to the story in Genesis where he says that this

71
00:04:28,640 --> 00:04:31,960
Speaker 1: is the equipment of God saying that you may not

72
00:04:32,680 --> 00:04:36,400
Speaker 1: eat from the tree, and Adam saying I do not

73
00:04:36,480 --> 00:04:38,520
Speaker 1: eat from the tree, and having the apple core at

74
00:04:38,520 --> 00:04:41,240
Speaker 1: his feet. I think in this analogy, the judge or

75
00:04:41,240 --> 00:04:44,400
Speaker 1: the court would be God, Southwest would be Adam, and

76
00:04:44,480 --> 00:04:47,720
Speaker 1: the apple core would be evidence of its religious discrimination

77
00:04:47,839 --> 00:04:51,719
Speaker 1: against Miss Carter. The judge also pointed out a memo

78
00:04:52,160 --> 00:04:55,960
Speaker 1: which it says essentially ambassid Miss Carter. I think those

79
00:04:56,000 --> 00:04:58,880
Speaker 1: are the court's words, and I read the memo and

80
00:04:58,920 --> 00:05:02,080
Speaker 1: I think that there's a lot more gray there because

81
00:05:02,360 --> 00:05:07,240
Speaker 1: it says that in ambassiedness, Carter for her inappropriate harassing,

82
00:05:07,279 --> 00:05:10,400
Speaker 1: offensive communications, and I think it suggests that it sort

83
00:05:10,440 --> 00:05:13,279
Speaker 1: of still holds that view, but if you reads the memos,

84
00:05:13,360 --> 00:05:16,000
Speaker 1: it uses some pretty important modifiers. It uses a modifier

85
00:05:16,040 --> 00:05:20,040
Speaker 1: at the time we believed these messages were inappropriate, harassing

86
00:05:20,080 --> 00:05:24,360
Speaker 1: and offensive. We felt past tense, we felt across the boundaries.

87
00:05:24,720 --> 00:05:27,800
Speaker 1: But that's different than saying you still believe it. Is.

88
00:05:27,880 --> 00:05:31,520
Speaker 2: There training that's common for judges to order for lawyers.

89
00:05:32,360 --> 00:05:35,560
Speaker 1: There is the common training that the judge would order

90
00:05:35,560 --> 00:05:39,000
Speaker 1: would be to say, hey, take some continuing legal education classes,

91
00:05:39,000 --> 00:05:40,760
Speaker 1: and here are a number of different providers that you

92
00:05:40,760 --> 00:05:44,039
Speaker 1: could choose from, and that's something that we've seen in

93
00:05:44,080 --> 00:05:46,360
Speaker 1: a number of different cases. I think what makes this

94
00:05:46,600 --> 00:05:50,960
Speaker 1: unique is that Alliance Defending Freedom doesn't hold itself out

95
00:05:51,240 --> 00:05:55,040
Speaker 1: as conducting trainings regularly, and in fact holds itself out

96
00:05:55,080 --> 00:05:58,560
Speaker 1: as an advocacy organization and says that it is one

97
00:05:58,600 --> 00:06:02,520
Speaker 1: of the leading Christian law committed to protecting religious freedom,

98
00:06:02,600 --> 00:06:06,200
Speaker 1: free speech, marriage and the family, plantal rights, and the

99
00:06:06,240 --> 00:06:09,800
Speaker 1: sanctity of life for the express goal of keeping the

100
00:06:09,839 --> 00:06:13,440
Speaker 1: doors open for the Gospel and Jesus Christ, so certainly

101
00:06:13,480 --> 00:06:17,000
Speaker 1: it has its own litigation agenda, and it had its

102
00:06:17,040 --> 00:06:20,480
Speaker 1: litigation agenda for a specific purpose. I think that there

103
00:06:20,480 --> 00:06:25,680
Speaker 1: are certainly organizations like the Practicing Law Institute, certain law schools,

104
00:06:25,760 --> 00:06:29,760
Speaker 1: the ABA, who would offer, say, a course on the

105
00:06:29,760 --> 00:06:33,400
Speaker 1: First Amendment, or developments in religious liberty law that are

106
00:06:33,440 --> 00:06:36,920
Speaker 1: different from the positions that are religious advocacy organization like

107
00:06:36,960 --> 00:06:39,040
Speaker 1: Aliance Defending Freedom might offer.

108
00:06:39,480 --> 00:06:42,960
Speaker 2: And this group, Beliance to Fending Freedom, has been involved

109
00:06:42,960 --> 00:06:45,560
Speaker 2: in some of the biggest cases at the Supreme Court

110
00:06:45,760 --> 00:06:51,640
Speaker 2: involving religious liberty and LGBTQ rights. It helped convince the

111
00:06:51,680 --> 00:06:56,240
Speaker 2: Supreme Court to overturn the constitutional right to abortion last year.

112
00:06:56,839 --> 00:06:59,520
Speaker 2: A few years ago, it represented the Colorado baker who

113
00:06:59,520 --> 00:07:02,400
Speaker 2: didn't want to make a wedding cake for gay couples.

114
00:07:02,520 --> 00:07:07,440
Speaker 2: And this term it successfully defended the Colorado website designer

115
00:07:07,640 --> 00:07:10,920
Speaker 2: who didn't want to design a wedding website for gay couples.

116
00:07:11,240 --> 00:07:14,400
Speaker 2: And it's involved in this case challenging the abortion pill

117
00:07:14,760 --> 00:07:18,800
Speaker 2: mif A pristone. But the group's chief legal counsel, Jim Campbell,

118
00:07:19,080 --> 00:07:22,600
Speaker 2: told the Associated Press the judges order calls for ADF

119
00:07:22,640 --> 00:07:26,760
Speaker 2: to provide training in religious liberty law, not religious doctrine.

120
00:07:26,880 --> 00:07:30,400
Speaker 2: It's baseless to suggest that people of faith cannot provide

121
00:07:30,480 --> 00:07:33,840
Speaker 2: legal instruction if their beliefs differ from their audiences.

122
00:07:34,480 --> 00:07:38,760
Speaker 1: I think that from my review of ADF's website and

123
00:07:38,960 --> 00:07:41,880
Speaker 1: my understanding, it in fact holds itself out as providing

124
00:07:42,040 --> 00:07:45,200
Speaker 1: one specific type of legal training and through its Legal Academy,

125
00:07:45,760 --> 00:07:50,000
Speaker 1: and it describes that legal academy as combining outstanding training

126
00:07:50,040 --> 00:07:54,239
Speaker 1: with an unwavering commitment to Christian principles. And at the academy,

127
00:07:54,240 --> 00:07:57,680
Speaker 1: in addition to the training, you will join an inspiring

128
00:07:57,760 --> 00:08:01,240
Speaker 1: worship and devotions. Each day you'll be trained effectively to

129
00:08:01,240 --> 00:08:04,560
Speaker 1: advocate for religious liberty, free speech, life, and marriage in

130
00:08:04,600 --> 00:08:07,400
Speaker 1: the family. I think that if that is the type

131
00:08:07,400 --> 00:08:09,600
Speaker 1: of training that's being offered, that's not the same as

132
00:08:09,640 --> 00:08:12,720
Speaker 1: necessarily what the law is and understanding the state of

133
00:08:12,760 --> 00:08:15,680
Speaker 1: play of a doctrine. Now, certainly, I don't think it's

134
00:08:15,720 --> 00:08:19,080
Speaker 1: outside the realm of possibility for ADF to provide a

135
00:08:19,120 --> 00:08:23,360
Speaker 1: more neutral form of training and understanding where the law stands.

136
00:08:23,880 --> 00:08:26,320
Speaker 1: But I don't think we necessarily have a record of that.

137
00:08:26,960 --> 00:08:30,240
Speaker 1: And if the judge had ordered in this case that

138
00:08:30,360 --> 00:08:35,480
Speaker 1: the Southwest Attorneys take training from say a law school

139
00:08:35,559 --> 00:08:38,040
Speaker 1: or practicing lawns to you'd have a syllabus or you'd

140
00:08:38,080 --> 00:08:40,760
Speaker 1: have materials that you would cover during that training. Here,

141
00:08:40,800 --> 00:08:44,760
Speaker 1: from what we know, ADF's materials fairly explicitly try to

142
00:08:44,800 --> 00:08:48,080
Speaker 1: integrate its advocacy into its trainings themselves.

143
00:08:48,760 --> 00:08:54,000
Speaker 2: So the judge is a Trump appointee with some conservative bonafides.

144
00:08:54,679 --> 00:08:57,400
Speaker 1: So Judge Stars, as you pointed out, was appointed by

145
00:08:57,480 --> 00:09:00,640
Speaker 1: Donald Trump e've be in twenty nineteen. He is the

146
00:09:00,720 --> 00:09:04,560
Speaker 1: nephew of Ken Starr, who was the Special Council of

147
00:09:04,600 --> 00:09:08,520
Speaker 1: course under President Clinton investigating the Whitewaters matter. This Judge

148
00:09:08,520 --> 00:09:12,439
Speaker 1: Star who has issued this order. Before he joined the bench,

149
00:09:12,600 --> 00:09:15,720
Speaker 1: he worked in Texas state government on the Attorney General's

150
00:09:15,720 --> 00:09:18,400
Speaker 1: office and has been a member of the Federalist Society

151
00:09:18,600 --> 00:09:21,400
Speaker 1: since I believed the early two thousands. When he was

152
00:09:21,440 --> 00:09:23,200
Speaker 1: in law school, he was editor in chief of the

153
00:09:23,240 --> 00:09:26,839
Speaker 1: Texas Law Review in Politics, which is a fairly conservative

154
00:09:27,160 --> 00:09:28,079
Speaker 1: legal publication.

155
00:09:28,640 --> 00:09:32,480
Speaker 2: So Southwest is appealing, what would some grounds for appeal be?

156
00:09:33,080 --> 00:09:36,800
Speaker 1: Southwest It's appealing even the initial judgment that was at

157
00:09:36,840 --> 00:09:39,600
Speaker 1: issue here, and I think it has some grounds there

158
00:09:39,679 --> 00:09:43,680
Speaker 1: because you know, remarkably miss Carter when she originally filed

159
00:09:43,679 --> 00:09:47,200
Speaker 1: suit back in twenty seventeen, she did not say explicitly

160
00:09:47,200 --> 00:09:51,560
Speaker 1: in her complaint that she was making religiously motivated speech.

161
00:09:51,679 --> 00:09:55,160
Speaker 1: She did not identify as a Christian. That only came later,

162
00:09:55,200 --> 00:09:57,240
Speaker 1: about a year later into the case. So I think

163
00:09:57,440 --> 00:09:59,720
Speaker 1: Southwest has some grounds to say that even the initial

164
00:09:59,760 --> 00:10:03,760
Speaker 1: judgement was off base or incorrect. But even if Southwest

165
00:10:03,760 --> 00:10:06,360
Speaker 1: were to lose there, I think Southwest would challenge and

166
00:10:06,400 --> 00:10:09,880
Speaker 1: say that it in fact did comply with Judge Starr's order,

167
00:10:10,360 --> 00:10:13,320
Speaker 1: and if it did not, that that noncompliance was not

168
00:10:13,760 --> 00:10:17,360
Speaker 1: intentional in fact, to try to do so. It didn't succeed.

169
00:10:17,679 --> 00:10:21,120
Speaker 1: But the action that one might take is not necessarily

170
00:10:21,160 --> 00:10:24,840
Speaker 1: religious liberty training, but it's to comply with the order

171
00:10:24,920 --> 00:10:28,000
Speaker 1: to send out a new notice and to pay certain

172
00:10:28,040 --> 00:10:30,920
Speaker 1: financial fees and penalties, which is something that it might

173
00:10:30,920 --> 00:10:34,280
Speaker 1: be willing to do. So. I think Southwest has signaled

174
00:10:34,320 --> 00:10:37,520
Speaker 1: at least that it wants reconsideration of many different aspects

175
00:10:37,800 --> 00:10:40,800
Speaker 1: of the district court proceedings in this case, as far.

176
00:10:40,720 --> 00:10:45,720
Speaker 2: As the religious training could. Southwest argue that ADF has

177
00:10:45,760 --> 00:10:50,160
Speaker 2: extreme views and so it's unfair to subject the lawyers

178
00:10:50,679 --> 00:10:54,040
Speaker 2: who may be of different religious backgrounds to those views.

179
00:10:55,040 --> 00:10:57,640
Speaker 1: Certainly, I think that that's a great point, June, and

180
00:10:57,720 --> 00:10:59,839
Speaker 1: I think what it would do is to point to

181
00:10:59,880 --> 00:11:04,000
Speaker 1: the fact that Alliance Defending Freedom is an advocacy organization

182
00:11:04,320 --> 00:11:07,960
Speaker 1: and its training is supposed to integrate Christian faith into

183
00:11:08,120 --> 00:11:12,520
Speaker 1: one's practice in order to promote certain ideals held by

184
00:11:12,559 --> 00:11:16,280
Speaker 1: the Alliance Defending Freedom. But Southwest may not hold those ideals,

185
00:11:16,360 --> 00:11:20,960
Speaker 1: and Southwest attorneys may not be comfortable receiving such instruction.

186
00:11:21,160 --> 00:11:23,800
Speaker 1: I think that the gap that you're talking about is

187
00:11:23,800 --> 00:11:26,040
Speaker 1: sort of the gap between where the law is and

188
00:11:26,400 --> 00:11:29,040
Speaker 1: sort of where the law should be according to the

189
00:11:29,040 --> 00:11:32,960
Speaker 1: Alliance Defending Freedom. That's a fairly big gap in some circles,

190
00:11:33,280 --> 00:11:35,079
Speaker 1: and I think that that is the source of some

191
00:11:35,200 --> 00:11:36,640
Speaker 1: of the controversy issue here.

192
00:11:37,160 --> 00:11:39,800
Speaker 2: This appeal, though, would be going to the Fifth Circuit,

193
00:11:40,040 --> 00:11:44,120
Speaker 2: which many consider the most conservative appellate court in the country,

194
00:11:44,559 --> 00:11:48,880
Speaker 2: so Southwest is not likely to find a receptive appellate

195
00:11:48,960 --> 00:11:49,520
Speaker 2: panel there.

196
00:11:50,200 --> 00:11:53,600
Speaker 1: I think that certainly the makeup of the court may

197
00:11:53,640 --> 00:11:56,280
Speaker 1: make a difference in the result here, but this is

198
00:11:56,360 --> 00:11:58,440
Speaker 1: not necessarily the end of the line. This might be

199
00:11:58,559 --> 00:12:01,840
Speaker 1: sort of subject to further appeal well, and it is

200
00:12:01,960 --> 00:12:06,880
Speaker 1: possible that the Fifth Circuit might nevertheless uphold some form

201
00:12:06,920 --> 00:12:10,800
Speaker 1: of sanctions, but as we've discussed, may offer a middle

202
00:12:10,840 --> 00:12:15,160
Speaker 1: ground where, instead of selecting or the live spending freedom

203
00:12:15,360 --> 00:12:18,760
Speaker 1: allowed Southwest to choose between a number of different options.

204
00:12:18,840 --> 00:12:22,400
Speaker 1: So I think that certainly the makeup of the court

205
00:12:22,520 --> 00:12:25,280
Speaker 1: might make a difference, But there are colorable arguments that

206
00:12:25,400 --> 00:12:28,800
Speaker 1: Southwest might raise on appeal that that may lead to

207
00:12:29,320 --> 00:12:30,560
Speaker 1: a slightly different outcome.

208
00:12:30,920 --> 00:12:33,160
Speaker 2: So I want to ask you a broad question. Do

209
00:12:33,240 --> 00:12:37,840
Speaker 2: you think that lower courts are becoming more raised in,

210
00:12:38,559 --> 00:12:41,679
Speaker 2: you know, leaning in favor of religious liberties because the

211
00:12:41,720 --> 00:12:47,079
Speaker 2: Supreme Court has in recent years never ruled against religious liberty.

212
00:12:47,440 --> 00:12:50,240
Speaker 1: Yeah, I absolutely think that that is something that is happening.

213
00:12:50,280 --> 00:12:52,600
Speaker 1: I think certain courts, as you point out, certain courts

214
00:12:52,640 --> 00:12:55,880
Speaker 1: like the Fifth Circuit, possibly the Eleventh Circuit, are leaning

215
00:12:55,880 --> 00:12:58,040
Speaker 1: into this point. They're trying to read the tea leaves

216
00:12:58,040 --> 00:13:00,640
Speaker 1: of where the Supreme Court is going. But that said,

217
00:13:00,920 --> 00:13:03,680
Speaker 1: I think even this past term, the Streme Court has

218
00:13:03,720 --> 00:13:08,200
Speaker 1: signaled that sometimes circuits go too far and that there

219
00:13:08,200 --> 00:13:10,880
Speaker 1: are some circuits that go beyond where the Supreme Court

220
00:13:10,920 --> 00:13:14,240
Speaker 1: wants to go. So certainly I think the Fifth Circuit

221
00:13:14,280 --> 00:13:17,000
Speaker 1: is trying to read the TV's is trying to perhaps

222
00:13:17,160 --> 00:13:21,720
Speaker 1: take expansive views of religious liberty doctrine, but I think

223
00:13:21,760 --> 00:13:24,520
Speaker 1: that it's not a guarantee that those views will be

224
00:13:24,600 --> 00:13:26,720
Speaker 1: affirmed by the Streame Court. Certainly, the Streame Court has

225
00:13:26,760 --> 00:13:29,680
Speaker 1: definitely trended towards that direction, and that's been the subject

226
00:13:29,679 --> 00:13:33,240
Speaker 1: of much debate and scholarship, but it's unclear in every

227
00:13:33,280 --> 00:13:34,960
Speaker 1: specific case what the result might be.

228
00:13:35,360 --> 00:13:37,440
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Shao. It's your first time on the show,

229
00:13:37,440 --> 00:13:40,080
Speaker 2: and I hope you'll come back again. That's Professor Joao

230
00:13:40,160 --> 00:13:43,680
Speaker 2: Wang of the University of Virginia Law School, And that's

231
00:13:43,720 --> 00:13:46,360
Speaker 2: it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

232
00:13:46,360 --> 00:13:48,440
Speaker 2: you can always get the latest legal news on our

233
00:13:48,480 --> 00:13:52,640
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

234
00:13:52,840 --> 00:13:57,880
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

235
00:13:58,280 --> 00:14:00,840
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

236
00:14:00,880 --> 00:14:04,800
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

237
00:14:04,920 --> 00:14:06,520
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg