1
00:00:02,160 --> 00:00:05,800
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Lawn Podcast. Catch us weekdays

2
00:00:05,840 --> 00:00:09,680
Speaker 1: at ten pm Easter on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app,

3
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,639
Speaker 1: and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever

4
00:00:12,640 --> 00:00:13,920
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts.

5
00:00:15,840 --> 00:00:19,240
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm Kimberly Robinson alongside

6
00:00:19,239 --> 00:00:22,279
Speaker 2: Greg Storr. June Grosso is out this week ahead. In

7
00:00:22,320 --> 00:00:24,599
Speaker 2: this hour, we'll talk about the growing threats against the

8
00:00:24,680 --> 00:00:27,840
Speaker 2: judiciary and the inadequacies in the tracking system meant to

9
00:00:27,880 --> 00:00:29,320
Speaker 2: keep federal judges safe.

10
00:00:29,520 --> 00:00:32,559
Speaker 3: But first, the Supreme Court heard its last argument of

11
00:00:32,600 --> 00:00:36,320
Speaker 3: the year this week in a case about workplace bias protections.

12
00:00:36,920 --> 00:00:39,600
Speaker 4: I want to give you a chance to just flesh

13
00:00:39,600 --> 00:00:43,360
Speaker 4: out your position, which I understand has been subject to

14
00:00:43,400 --> 00:00:49,120
Speaker 4: some questioning this morning, that in adopting the Civil Rights

15
00:00:49,159 --> 00:00:54,480
Speaker 4: Act of nineteen sixty four, Congress sought to root out discrimination,

16
00:00:55,600 --> 00:00:59,959
Speaker 4: root and branch, and that all of it is impermissible,

17
00:01:00,560 --> 00:01:02,120
Speaker 4: presumptively injurious.

18
00:01:02,920 --> 00:01:05,759
Speaker 2: That was Justice Neil Gorstch, shuming up the employees' argument

19
00:01:06,080 --> 00:01:10,240
Speaker 2: about the sweeping nature of federal anti discrimination laws. Joining

20
00:01:10,319 --> 00:01:13,360
Speaker 2: us now to explain is robert Iafula, who covers labor

21
00:01:13,440 --> 00:01:15,600
Speaker 2: Law at Bloomberg Law. Thanks for joining.

22
00:01:15,360 --> 00:01:17,200
Speaker 5: Us, Thanks for having me.

23
00:01:17,720 --> 00:01:20,200
Speaker 2: So, Bobby, tell us about the former Saint Louis police

24
00:01:20,200 --> 00:01:21,840
Speaker 2: sergeant at the heart of this case.

25
00:01:21,880 --> 00:01:23,360
Speaker 6: What is she claiming happened to her?

26
00:01:23,959 --> 00:01:28,399
Speaker 5: Well, yeah, so, Jaitania Muldrow was a veteran's sergeant in

27
00:01:28,480 --> 00:01:31,480
Speaker 5: the Saint Louis Police Department and she was assigned to

28
00:01:32,360 --> 00:01:36,560
Speaker 5: the Intelligence unit, which allowed her to work on investigations

29
00:01:36,680 --> 00:01:41,240
Speaker 5: and wear playing clothes and driving on my car, and

30
00:01:41,280 --> 00:01:44,280
Speaker 5: then she was transferred. This is not something she wanted.

31
00:01:44,640 --> 00:01:47,680
Speaker 5: She was transferred to sort of a normal beat cop position,

32
00:01:47,960 --> 00:01:51,000
Speaker 5: so she had to go back to driving a squad car,

33
00:01:51,160 --> 00:01:57,760
Speaker 5: wearing uniform, dealing with the changing shifts of a beat

34
00:01:57,760 --> 00:02:01,000
Speaker 5: coop and that was not something that she wanted or

35
00:02:01,960 --> 00:02:02,720
Speaker 5: led to this suit.

36
00:02:04,120 --> 00:02:07,600
Speaker 3: Okay, So this case is about the employment protections in

37
00:02:07,680 --> 00:02:11,760
Speaker 3: something called Title seven. Tell our listeners, what are those

38
00:02:11,760 --> 00:02:13,520
Speaker 3: protections generally meant to do?

39
00:02:14,680 --> 00:02:19,240
Speaker 5: Yeah, generally, they're meant to prevent discrimination in the workplace.

40
00:02:19,639 --> 00:02:26,200
Speaker 5: Title seven spells out some certain protected traits, sex, religion, race,

41
00:02:26,840 --> 00:02:30,640
Speaker 5: so on, and so forth, that workers are not to

42
00:02:30,680 --> 00:02:34,359
Speaker 5: be discriminated against on the basis of those protected traits

43
00:02:34,480 --> 00:02:38,200
Speaker 5: as they affect the terms, conditions and privileges of employment.

44
00:02:38,760 --> 00:02:42,600
Speaker 5: So here the former police sergeant, she claimed that this

45
00:02:42,639 --> 00:02:44,440
Speaker 5: transfer was based on her gender.

46
00:02:45,080 --> 00:02:48,120
Speaker 2: So really at the heart of this case is whether

47
00:02:48,520 --> 00:02:51,840
Speaker 2: these sort of adverse job transfers, as opposed to something

48
00:02:51,840 --> 00:02:56,400
Speaker 2: like an outright firing, are sufficient to trigger Title seven's

49
00:02:56,440 --> 00:03:01,600
Speaker 2: employment protections, even if there's not a showing a specific harm.

50
00:03:02,120 --> 00:03:02,720
Speaker 6: Is that right?

51
00:03:02,800 --> 00:03:05,960
Speaker 2: And if so, how did that play out in Muldro's case.

52
00:03:06,880 --> 00:03:10,440
Speaker 5: Well, yes, so with her case, the trial court and

53
00:03:10,480 --> 00:03:14,040
Speaker 5: then the appellate court that viewed the trial court's decision

54
00:03:14,480 --> 00:03:16,840
Speaker 5: both looked at the facts of the case and they said,

55
00:03:17,480 --> 00:03:20,560
Speaker 5: you know, while she didn't want this transfer to happen,

56
00:03:21,680 --> 00:03:25,560
Speaker 5: she retained the same rank, it didn't affect her pay,

57
00:03:26,520 --> 00:03:31,880
Speaker 5: her salary, you know, and that basically it didn't materially

58
00:03:31,960 --> 00:03:35,600
Speaker 5: disadvantage her, even though it was a preference to work

59
00:03:35,640 --> 00:03:39,160
Speaker 5: on the intelligence team that instead of the beat And

60
00:03:39,440 --> 00:03:43,839
Speaker 5: because of that lack of a material harm, that's why

61
00:03:44,160 --> 00:03:46,680
Speaker 5: the court threw up her claim. Like she never got

62
00:03:46,720 --> 00:03:50,040
Speaker 5: to the point of proving whether the transfer was based

63
00:03:50,080 --> 00:03:54,480
Speaker 5: on gender, which would be violet of Title seven. It

64
00:03:54,520 --> 00:03:56,960
Speaker 5: got thrown up because she couldn't show she suffered a

65
00:03:56,960 --> 00:03:57,800
Speaker 5: material harm.

66
00:03:59,080 --> 00:04:01,560
Speaker 3: So before we talk about what happened at the Supreme Court,

67
00:04:02,120 --> 00:04:05,760
Speaker 3: the other lower federal courts have they all agreed with

68
00:04:06,440 --> 00:04:09,600
Speaker 3: the analysis of the Eighth Circuit in saying that you

69
00:04:09,680 --> 00:04:11,880
Speaker 3: need to show that sort of material harm.

70
00:04:12,960 --> 00:04:15,760
Speaker 5: So there's a split on that issue. Most of the

71
00:04:15,800 --> 00:04:19,039
Speaker 5: Court's appellate courts that have weighed in on this issue

72
00:04:19,240 --> 00:04:22,600
Speaker 5: have agreed with the position that the Eighth Circuit took.

73
00:04:22,760 --> 00:04:25,880
Speaker 5: So I think it's something in the order of five

74
00:04:26,960 --> 00:04:30,600
Speaker 5: appellate courts have said, yeah, there's some sort of They

75
00:04:30,680 --> 00:04:35,000
Speaker 5: kind of formulate it different ways, whether the material, tangible harm,

76
00:04:35,200 --> 00:04:39,480
Speaker 5: or a significant disadvantage. It's just some way of saying, hey,

77
00:04:39,560 --> 00:04:42,960
Speaker 5: what's the material harm? Why didn't this hurt you? But

78
00:04:43,040 --> 00:04:45,200
Speaker 5: there are two circuits that have gone the other way,

79
00:04:45,760 --> 00:04:48,880
Speaker 5: the DC Circuit and I think it's a sixth Circuit

80
00:04:48,920 --> 00:04:53,000
Speaker 5: have said no, that's not a requirement to making a

81
00:04:53,040 --> 00:04:57,600
Speaker 5: claim of discrimination under Title seven when it comes to transfers.

82
00:04:57,920 --> 00:05:01,760
Speaker 2: And so during the oral arguments in the Supreme Court court,

83
00:05:02,240 --> 00:05:04,800
Speaker 2: what were some of the concerns from the justices regarding

84
00:05:04,839 --> 00:05:07,640
Speaker 2: these different tests? And I guess let's start with a

85
00:05:07,760 --> 00:05:11,919
Speaker 2: lack of a harm requirement. What's the concern there?

86
00:05:13,120 --> 00:05:17,440
Speaker 5: The concern there is cheaply around what is a limiting principle?

87
00:05:18,680 --> 00:05:22,160
Speaker 5: You know, if the justice is posed all sorts of

88
00:05:22,160 --> 00:05:26,880
Speaker 5: different hypothetical questions. You know, what if an employer transfers

89
00:05:27,000 --> 00:05:33,120
Speaker 5: all the women workers into rooms offices that have one

90
00:05:33,160 --> 00:05:36,520
Speaker 5: color of paint and another all the men in a

91
00:05:36,520 --> 00:05:40,920
Speaker 5: different color of paint. Or what if an employer, you know,

92
00:05:40,960 --> 00:05:45,800
Speaker 5: a supervisor asks all the employees, how is your weekend?

93
00:05:45,839 --> 00:05:49,000
Speaker 5: Except for one employee? And they allegedly done that. Do

94
00:05:49,120 --> 00:05:52,520
Speaker 5: that on the basis of of race or sex or

95
00:05:52,600 --> 00:05:56,000
Speaker 5: other protected trait? You know? So, is it connected with

96
00:05:56,080 --> 00:05:59,960
Speaker 5: this sort of policy concern about federal courts being inundated

97
00:06:00,279 --> 00:06:04,040
Speaker 5: with frivolous lawsuits, that they can't just get rid of

98
00:06:04,080 --> 00:06:08,000
Speaker 5: it an early stage, that they have to go through

99
00:06:08,000 --> 00:06:10,680
Speaker 5: stages of litigation before it could be thrown out.

100
00:06:11,760 --> 00:06:14,440
Speaker 3: And was there an answer to those concerns? What did

101
00:06:14,480 --> 00:06:18,360
Speaker 3: the lawyer for the police sergeant say when, for example,

102
00:06:18,360 --> 00:06:22,640
Speaker 3: presented with the hypothetical about workers of different genders being

103
00:06:22,680 --> 00:06:24,960
Speaker 3: assigned to offices with different colors.

104
00:06:26,680 --> 00:06:32,560
Speaker 5: Yes, so his position was that discrimination is the harm itself,

105
00:06:33,320 --> 00:06:36,440
Speaker 5: and he kind of resisted the premise of the question

106
00:06:36,520 --> 00:06:39,159
Speaker 5: that they were supposed to be absurd. For example, he

107
00:06:39,240 --> 00:06:44,080
Speaker 5: talked about if you distribute pink pens to some employees

108
00:06:44,240 --> 00:06:48,719
Speaker 5: and bluepens to others at a random basis, that's that's

109
00:06:48,760 --> 00:06:50,680
Speaker 5: clearly not a problem. But if you do it on

110
00:06:50,720 --> 00:06:54,000
Speaker 5: the basis of race, that is a problem. But during

111
00:06:54,080 --> 00:06:57,640
Speaker 5: arguments they did talk about other sort of natural limiting

112
00:06:57,720 --> 00:07:02,040
Speaker 5: principles that might emerge. You know, the fact that an

113
00:07:02,040 --> 00:07:05,200
Speaker 5: employee could prove that there was discrimination. In order to

114
00:07:05,240 --> 00:07:07,760
Speaker 5: win damages, they'd have to show that they suffered an

115
00:07:07,760 --> 00:07:11,720
Speaker 5: injury that needed to be compensated. So if it's the

116
00:07:11,760 --> 00:07:15,840
Speaker 5: pen hypothetical, sure you might get a jury to say

117
00:07:15,840 --> 00:07:17,720
Speaker 5: that that was discrimination, but you're not going to win

118
00:07:17,720 --> 00:07:19,880
Speaker 5: any money. If you're not going to win any money,

119
00:07:19,920 --> 00:07:21,400
Speaker 5: you're not going to get a lawyer. You know, this

120
00:07:21,600 --> 00:07:24,160
Speaker 5: sort of comes out that way.

121
00:07:24,720 --> 00:07:26,040
Speaker 6: So what about going the other way.

122
00:07:26,280 --> 00:07:29,000
Speaker 2: Let's say the Supreme Court say is that there's some

123
00:07:29,080 --> 00:07:33,080
Speaker 2: kind of heightened arm requirement. What concerns do critics of

124
00:07:33,240 --> 00:07:34,040
Speaker 2: that side have.

125
00:07:35,520 --> 00:07:40,160
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean argument is that it basically would allow

126
00:07:40,320 --> 00:07:44,880
Speaker 5: for segregation in the workplace based on gender or race

127
00:07:45,080 --> 00:07:49,840
Speaker 5: or other protected traits. You know, which they argue that

128
00:07:50,560 --> 00:07:52,480
Speaker 5: Title seventh clearly does not allow.

129
00:07:53,640 --> 00:07:57,120
Speaker 3: Did you get a sense in the courtroom of which

130
00:07:57,160 --> 00:07:59,840
Speaker 3: way the justices were leaning on this question.

131
00:08:01,000 --> 00:08:04,640
Speaker 5: Yeah, it did seem like there was a small minority

132
00:08:05,480 --> 00:08:11,640
Speaker 5: of justices that were extremely concerned about this question about

133
00:08:11,920 --> 00:08:19,000
Speaker 5: trivial differences creating frivolous lawsuits and the negative consequences of that,

134
00:08:19,360 --> 00:08:22,480
Speaker 5: But that was only maybe two or three justices seemed

135
00:08:22,480 --> 00:08:25,520
Speaker 5: to focus on that. The other justices seemed to really

136
00:08:26,080 --> 00:08:31,440
Speaker 5: embrace the workers argument that the harm of discrimination is

137
00:08:31,480 --> 00:08:32,720
Speaker 5: the discrimination itself.

138
00:08:33,440 --> 00:08:35,080
Speaker 2: And so, you know, there's been a lot of talk

139
00:08:35,160 --> 00:08:39,600
Speaker 2: over the years that the Roberts Court is friendly to businesses,

140
00:08:39,600 --> 00:08:42,600
Speaker 2: that it's a business friendly court, So this sort of

141
00:08:42,960 --> 00:08:44,720
Speaker 2: suggests the opposite in this case.

142
00:08:45,440 --> 00:08:45,680
Speaker 1: Yeah.

143
00:08:45,720 --> 00:08:48,320
Speaker 5: Well, you know, each case is going to be a

144
00:08:48,360 --> 00:08:53,040
Speaker 5: separate issue, and with this issue in particular. For example,

145
00:08:53,559 --> 00:08:59,440
Speaker 5: when Brett Kavanaugh was DC Circuit judge before he assented

146
00:08:59,440 --> 00:09:01,960
Speaker 5: to the bend, which he was in a case that

147
00:09:02,040 --> 00:09:05,120
Speaker 5: dealt with this issue, and at that time there was

148
00:09:05,200 --> 00:09:08,240
Speaker 5: binding precedent that had to be applied that required a

149
00:09:09,080 --> 00:09:11,839
Speaker 5: material harm. But he said in a concurring opinion that

150
00:09:11,960 --> 00:09:15,280
Speaker 5: DC Circuit should change their case law and get rid

151
00:09:15,320 --> 00:09:19,240
Speaker 5: of this requirement, and which is something that the circuit

152
00:09:19,240 --> 00:09:22,559
Speaker 5: did a few years later. Or also take you know

153
00:09:22,679 --> 00:09:26,040
Speaker 5: Gorsich for example. You know, in some respects a rock

154
00:09:26,440 --> 00:09:31,920
Speaker 5: conservative justice you appointed by former President Trump. But at

155
00:09:31,920 --> 00:09:37,559
Speaker 5: the same time he wrote the case that expanded Title

156
00:09:37,600 --> 00:09:44,280
Speaker 5: seven's protection to cover gender identity and sexual orientation, which

157
00:09:44,320 --> 00:09:46,880
Speaker 5: would be it was something that businesses did not want

158
00:09:46,920 --> 00:09:50,160
Speaker 5: at the time, but he grounded that decision in the

159
00:09:50,200 --> 00:09:54,760
Speaker 5: text of Title seven. You know today he asked a

160
00:09:54,800 --> 00:10:00,000
Speaker 5: lot of questions that indicated that he was firmly ground

161
00:10:00,240 --> 00:10:03,040
Speaker 5: in the text of Title seven when he talked about

162
00:10:04,040 --> 00:10:06,640
Speaker 5: they're not needing to be an additional requirement.

163
00:10:07,120 --> 00:10:09,240
Speaker 2: Well, coming up on the program, we'll get more on

164
00:10:09,280 --> 00:10:11,480
Speaker 2: the Title seven case in front of the Justices with

165
00:10:11,640 --> 00:10:14,960
Speaker 2: Robert Iafola. Remember you can always get the latest legal

166
00:10:15,000 --> 00:10:18,160
Speaker 2: news by listening to our Bloomberg Law podcast on Apple,

167
00:10:18,360 --> 00:10:21,280
Speaker 2: Spotify or anywhere where you get your podcasts.

168
00:10:21,600 --> 00:10:24,040
Speaker 6: I'm Kimberly Robinson and I'm Greg Store.

169
00:10:24,559 --> 00:10:25,760
Speaker 3: This is Bloomberg.

170
00:10:32,920 --> 00:10:36,319
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Cat's the program

171
00:10:36,360 --> 00:10:39,880
Speaker 1: weekdays at ten pm Eastern on Bloomberg Radio. Tune in

172
00:10:39,920 --> 00:10:42,880
Speaker 1: app Bloomberg dot Com and the Bloomberg Business App. You

173
00:10:42,880 --> 00:10:46,160
Speaker 1: can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship

174
00:10:46,200 --> 00:10:50,000
Speaker 1: New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.

175
00:10:51,559 --> 00:10:55,199
Speaker 3: I'm Kimberly Robinson and I'm Greg Store worrying for June Grosso.

176
00:10:56,000 --> 00:10:59,240
Speaker 7: But are you saying that if the employer wants to

177
00:10:59,320 --> 00:11:04,360
Speaker 7: increase in the workplace and so promotes, say some black employees,

178
00:11:04,880 --> 00:11:08,080
Speaker 7: and they get better jobs, then that's discrimination.

179
00:11:09,080 --> 00:11:11,720
Speaker 3: That was Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wondering how a broad

180
00:11:11,800 --> 00:11:15,240
Speaker 3: view of employment discrimination protections might play out in future cases.

181
00:11:15,679 --> 00:11:19,160
Speaker 3: We've been speaking with robert Iofola about employee bias protections

182
00:11:19,200 --> 00:11:22,560
Speaker 3: being considered by the US Supreme Court. Bobby, We're going

183
00:11:22,640 --> 00:11:26,440
Speaker 3: to get to Justice Barrett's question in a second, but

184
00:11:26,520 --> 00:11:29,680
Speaker 3: first let me ask you. This case had kind of

185
00:11:29,920 --> 00:11:33,520
Speaker 3: a coirk to it in that the question that the

186
00:11:33,559 --> 00:11:36,760
Speaker 3: Saint Louis police sergeant asked the Supreme Court to consider

187
00:11:37,000 --> 00:11:40,400
Speaker 3: is not the exact question they're actually considering. Can you

188
00:11:40,440 --> 00:11:43,320
Speaker 3: explain what happened and how that might be affecting what

189
00:11:43,360 --> 00:11:44,040
Speaker 3: the Court does?

190
00:11:45,440 --> 00:11:50,280
Speaker 5: Yes, yeah, that's right, Greg. So Originally, when Muldro petitioned

191
00:11:50,320 --> 00:11:54,600
Speaker 5: the court to review the Eighth Circuit decision and revive

192
00:11:54,679 --> 00:11:58,920
Speaker 5: her gender bias lawsuit. She asked a much broader leader

193
00:11:59,040 --> 00:12:04,840
Speaker 5: question about the need for a showing of material harm

194
00:12:05,200 --> 00:12:10,200
Speaker 5: for any workplace decision that affects terms, conditions, and privileges

195
00:12:10,240 --> 00:12:13,320
Speaker 5: of employment. You know, so you could imagine that could

196
00:12:13,440 --> 00:12:18,360
Speaker 5: cover things like work assignments. You know, where you're assigned

197
00:12:18,360 --> 00:12:20,280
Speaker 5: to work you have to work outside? And the heat

198
00:12:20,400 --> 00:12:22,800
Speaker 5: can you work inside? And the air conditioning? You know

199
00:12:22,840 --> 00:12:25,200
Speaker 5: what job functions you have to perform, all sorts of

200
00:12:25,200 --> 00:12:29,640
Speaker 5: different things. But the court, when they accepted her request

201
00:12:29,760 --> 00:12:34,679
Speaker 5: to take this case, they narrowed it down and to

202
00:12:35,240 --> 00:12:41,680
Speaker 5: just job transfers, just the material harm requirement for job transfers,

203
00:12:41,720 --> 00:12:46,040
Speaker 5: not for a whole myriad of employment decisions that could

204
00:12:46,080 --> 00:12:53,120
Speaker 5: potentially be illegally motivated by race or another biased decisions.

205
00:12:53,400 --> 00:12:57,400
Speaker 2: Okay, but we've already on this program talked about things

206
00:12:57,400 --> 00:13:00,200
Speaker 2: that go well beyond transfer, right. We talked about the colors,

207
00:13:00,200 --> 00:13:03,880
Speaker 2: We talked about the color of offices. So this is

208
00:13:03,920 --> 00:13:06,320
Speaker 2: something that confused me about the argument was there was

209
00:13:06,400 --> 00:13:10,200
Speaker 2: discussion on this broader point, right, and whether there's some

210
00:13:10,320 --> 00:13:15,319
Speaker 2: sort of deminimous discrimination that sort of is permissible by

211
00:13:15,360 --> 00:13:16,120
Speaker 2: Title seven?

212
00:13:16,800 --> 00:13:17,400
Speaker 6: Is that right?

213
00:13:18,760 --> 00:13:21,480
Speaker 5: Yeah? So, on the one hand, I think that some

214
00:13:21,520 --> 00:13:25,680
Speaker 5: of the justices were using those examples kind of to

215
00:13:26,400 --> 00:13:30,480
Speaker 5: deployment the weapon of absurdity to point out why you

216
00:13:30,520 --> 00:13:33,559
Speaker 5: need a limitation. So some of these situations are not real,

217
00:13:33,679 --> 00:13:36,800
Speaker 5: like the assignment of colors of pens and whatnot. But

218
00:13:36,920 --> 00:13:39,640
Speaker 5: also they had some concerns about these situations. But at

219
00:13:39,640 --> 00:13:43,080
Speaker 5: one point Justice Jackson brought it back to the narrow

220
00:13:43,520 --> 00:13:47,080
Speaker 5: question presented and she said, quite directly, Hey, look, I

221
00:13:47,120 --> 00:13:50,400
Speaker 5: thought we narrowed this question to just transfers so that

222
00:13:50,440 --> 00:13:53,880
Speaker 5: we didn't have to worry about this sort of issue

223
00:13:53,960 --> 00:13:59,320
Speaker 5: about what is trivial and all sorts of random and

224
00:13:59,360 --> 00:14:02,200
Speaker 5: potentially discriminatory workplace's actions.

225
00:14:02,679 --> 00:14:05,440
Speaker 3: So the case before the Supreme Court is being pressed

226
00:14:05,480 --> 00:14:09,439
Speaker 3: by a woman claiming discrimination, but there's also the specter

227
00:14:09,640 --> 00:14:12,800
Speaker 3: that whatever rule the Court comes out with could be

228
00:14:12,880 --> 00:14:17,400
Speaker 3: used by people pressing so called reverse discrimination cases, namely

229
00:14:17,440 --> 00:14:21,800
Speaker 3: and say a white person saying an employer's diversity policy

230
00:14:22,920 --> 00:14:27,000
Speaker 3: discriminates against them. We heard that question from Justice Barrett

231
00:14:27,480 --> 00:14:30,400
Speaker 3: asking about that subject. Was there any more from the

232
00:14:30,480 --> 00:14:33,360
Speaker 3: court on that Do we have any kind of indication

233
00:14:33,480 --> 00:14:37,760
Speaker 3: as to whether corporate diversity policies might be affected by

234
00:14:37,800 --> 00:14:38,280
Speaker 3: this case.

235
00:14:39,040 --> 00:14:39,280
Speaker 1: Well.

236
00:14:39,600 --> 00:14:45,560
Speaker 5: Justice Thomas also asked whether the worker's definition of discrimination

237
00:14:45,720 --> 00:14:50,240
Speaker 5: here in the need for no material harm, could run

238
00:14:50,280 --> 00:14:54,200
Speaker 5: headlong into efforts to diversify the workplace. So it's clearly

239
00:14:54,240 --> 00:15:00,320
Speaker 5: on the court's mind. It seems like with this narrow

240
00:15:00,440 --> 00:15:06,200
Speaker 5: question presented, the ruling will most likely deal just with transfers.

241
00:15:06,680 --> 00:15:09,400
Speaker 5: But you could imagine that there'll be all sorts of

242
00:15:09,480 --> 00:15:13,400
Speaker 5: commentary in the opinion that down the road litigans My

243
00:15:13,600 --> 00:15:20,440
Speaker 5: point to whether they be folks worried about discriminatory employment

244
00:15:20,480 --> 00:15:24,360
Speaker 5: actions that aren't transfers, or you know, whether they're raised

245
00:15:24,360 --> 00:15:27,920
Speaker 5: by the sort of people that you're mentioning, folks who

246
00:15:27,920 --> 00:15:30,640
Speaker 5: are against quote unquote reverse racism.

247
00:15:31,480 --> 00:15:35,000
Speaker 2: And then surprisingly, bathrooms have been a topic at the

248
00:15:35,080 --> 00:15:39,200
Speaker 2: US Supreme Court over recent terms, and sort of wondering

249
00:15:39,440 --> 00:15:41,720
Speaker 2: that came up in the argument too, is that going

250
00:15:41,760 --> 00:15:44,560
Speaker 2: to be one of the areas where you know, this

251
00:15:44,640 --> 00:15:48,480
Speaker 2: case could potentially have a broader impact the idea of

252
00:15:48,920 --> 00:15:54,400
Speaker 2: access to bathrooms for transgender students or transgender workers.

253
00:15:54,760 --> 00:15:57,400
Speaker 5: Yeah, I was sort of surprised when that came up

254
00:15:57,440 --> 00:16:02,520
Speaker 5: in the arguments myself. When the parties were discussing, you know,

255
00:16:02,920 --> 00:16:07,840
Speaker 5: possible exceptions to this idea that discrimination is by definition

256
00:16:08,040 --> 00:16:11,640
Speaker 5: a harm the people suffer. You know, that attacked your

257
00:16:11,640 --> 00:16:14,800
Speaker 5: dignity and statement attaching these sort of things. But when

258
00:16:14,920 --> 00:16:18,640
Speaker 5: discussing this, I believe it was the lawyer for the

259
00:16:18,640 --> 00:16:22,360
Speaker 5: Solicator General's office that the Biden administration lawyer had brought

260
00:16:22,440 --> 00:16:25,360
Speaker 5: up bathrooms as one of the examples of an area

261
00:16:25,440 --> 00:16:32,720
Speaker 5: that traditionally we just viewed it's essentially sex discrimination. Right

262
00:16:33,280 --> 00:16:36,520
Speaker 5: to say that women go to the bathroom in that

263
00:16:36,640 --> 00:16:38,480
Speaker 5: room and then go to the bathroom in that room.

264
00:16:38,560 --> 00:16:43,200
Speaker 5: But if that's an example of an accepted discrimination on

265
00:16:43,240 --> 00:16:46,080
Speaker 5: the basis of sex, that nobody were the questions. But

266
00:16:46,160 --> 00:16:48,760
Speaker 5: of course it is coming up in cases a bathroom

267
00:16:48,800 --> 00:16:53,040
Speaker 5: access for transgendered individuals. Again, I think it's similar to

268
00:16:53,640 --> 00:16:57,600
Speaker 5: the issue with the diversity programs that I do not

269
00:16:57,720 --> 00:17:01,080
Speaker 5: believe that there'll be any like holding directly on point

270
00:17:01,360 --> 00:17:05,560
Speaker 5: about the bathroom issue, but there may be stray discussion

271
00:17:05,760 --> 00:17:10,400
Speaker 5: in the majority opinion or an assenting opinion that litigans

272
00:17:10,400 --> 00:17:13,680
Speaker 5: down the road might seize on lit on either side

273
00:17:13,680 --> 00:17:14,200
Speaker 5: of the debate.

274
00:17:14,880 --> 00:17:17,680
Speaker 3: Bobby stepping back just a little bit, so this Court,

275
00:17:17,720 --> 00:17:21,200
Speaker 3: in many ways, is a very conservative court. I think

276
00:17:21,240 --> 00:17:24,080
Speaker 3: a lot of people listening might be a little bit

277
00:17:24,160 --> 00:17:27,639
Speaker 3: surprised that this court, even though this may end up

278
00:17:27,680 --> 00:17:31,879
Speaker 3: being a narrow decision, might be ruling in favor of

279
00:17:32,080 --> 00:17:35,720
Speaker 3: employment discrimination suits. And it wouldn't be the first time

280
00:17:35,960 --> 00:17:39,640
Speaker 3: they've done that. You mentioned the case involving suits by

281
00:17:39,960 --> 00:17:45,960
Speaker 3: transgender people on suits alleging sexual orientation discrimination. What's going

282
00:17:46,000 --> 00:17:50,119
Speaker 3: on here? Can you excurve encapsulate why the court is

283
00:17:50,160 --> 00:17:53,280
Speaker 3: doing something that many people might be counterintuitive?

284
00:17:54,840 --> 00:17:57,480
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, from my perspective, I think it comes

285
00:17:57,520 --> 00:18:04,440
Speaker 5: down to judicial philosophy. Essentially, judges that tend to hail

286
00:18:04,560 --> 00:18:08,119
Speaker 5: from the right side of the political spectrum also claim

287
00:18:08,160 --> 00:18:13,040
Speaker 5: allegiance to a way of interpreting law known as textualism,

288
00:18:13,600 --> 00:18:18,360
Speaker 5: where they're not interested in the legislative history that might

289
00:18:18,440 --> 00:18:21,600
Speaker 5: have gone on that led up to the writing of

290
00:18:21,600 --> 00:18:25,199
Speaker 5: the law. They're only interested in what the words on

291
00:18:25,280 --> 00:18:28,280
Speaker 5: the paper say and what those words meant at the

292
00:18:28,320 --> 00:18:31,560
Speaker 5: time that they were written. So in this case, give

293
00:18:32,320 --> 00:18:35,960
Speaker 5: the workers attorney really leaned into this, It's really about

294
00:18:36,000 --> 00:18:40,120
Speaker 5: what does Title seven say. Title seven does not explicitly

295
00:18:40,200 --> 00:18:44,520
Speaker 5: create any separate harm requirement. It just says it's unlawful

296
00:18:44,520 --> 00:18:48,520
Speaker 5: for an employer to discriminate against any individual concerning terms, conditions,

297
00:18:48,520 --> 00:18:53,480
Speaker 5: and privileges of employment because of their sex, or race

298
00:18:53,600 --> 00:18:58,920
Speaker 5: or other protected traits. So in that respect, it kind

299
00:18:58,920 --> 00:19:02,600
Speaker 5: of fits right in with some of the justices on

300
00:19:02,680 --> 00:19:06,760
Speaker 5: the Court that are conservative justices, but their textualers well.

301
00:19:06,560 --> 00:19:09,399
Speaker 2: Our thanks to Bloomberg Law is robert Iafola. Coming up

302
00:19:09,400 --> 00:19:11,320
Speaker 2: next on the Bloomberg Law Show, we'll take a look

303
00:19:11,320 --> 00:19:14,080
Speaker 2: at threats against federal judges and what the government is

304
00:19:14,119 --> 00:19:15,479
Speaker 2: doing to try to stop them.

305
00:19:15,600 --> 00:19:17,280
Speaker 6: I'm Kimberly Robinson.

306
00:19:17,119 --> 00:19:19,800
Speaker 3: And I'm Greg Store. This is Bloomberg.

307
00:19:26,840 --> 00:19:30,520
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Catch us weekdays

308
00:19:30,560 --> 00:19:34,359
Speaker 1: at ten pm Easter on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app,

309
00:19:34,400 --> 00:19:37,320
Speaker 1: and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever

310
00:19:37,359 --> 00:19:38,480
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts.

311
00:19:40,680 --> 00:19:43,480
Speaker 2: I'm Greg Store and I'm Kimberly Robinson. In for June

312
00:19:43,520 --> 00:19:46,760
Speaker 2: Grosso Up now. The number of credible threats against federal

313
00:19:46,840 --> 00:19:49,920
Speaker 2: judges climbed in recent years, with more than one hundred

314
00:19:49,920 --> 00:19:53,399
Speaker 2: and eighty substantiated threats against federal judges from January to

315
00:19:53,440 --> 00:19:54,960
Speaker 2: March of twenty twenty three.

316
00:19:55,440 --> 00:19:58,560
Speaker 8: Two weeks ago. My life as I knew it changed

317
00:19:58,560 --> 00:20:01,800
Speaker 8: in an instant, and my family will never be the same.

318
00:20:02,680 --> 00:20:06,320
Speaker 8: A madman who I believe was targeting me because of

319
00:20:06,359 --> 00:20:09,359
Speaker 8: my position as a federal judge came to my house.

320
00:20:10,119 --> 00:20:12,840
Speaker 2: That was Federal Judge Esther Salas in twenty twenty, after

321
00:20:12,880 --> 00:20:15,200
Speaker 2: a gunman open fire at her home, killing her twenty

322
00:20:15,320 --> 00:20:17,680
Speaker 2: year old son and severely injuring her husband.

323
00:20:17,880 --> 00:20:20,400
Speaker 3: Here to talk to us about threats against judges and

324
00:20:20,480 --> 00:20:23,360
Speaker 3: the government's efforts to thwart them. As a familiar voice,

325
00:20:23,520 --> 00:20:26,560
Speaker 3: Bloomberg laws Lydia Wheeler, who when she's not filling in

326
00:20:26,600 --> 00:20:29,399
Speaker 3: as a host on this show, covers the Supreme Court

327
00:20:29,440 --> 00:20:32,919
Speaker 3: and the federal judiciary. So, Lydia, you recently wrote a

328
00:20:32,960 --> 00:20:36,440
Speaker 3: story about judicial security and threats against judges. What did

329
00:20:36,440 --> 00:20:36,959
Speaker 3: you uncover?

330
00:20:37,640 --> 00:20:40,400
Speaker 9: That's right. So, I actually learned in my reporting that

331
00:20:40,440 --> 00:20:44,600
Speaker 9: the United States Marshal Service can't fully assess the security

332
00:20:44,680 --> 00:20:48,200
Speaker 9: risks that federal judges face because its system for tracking

333
00:20:48,200 --> 00:20:52,840
Speaker 9: threats doesn't allow marshalls to cross reference behavioral information and

334
00:20:52,960 --> 00:20:57,359
Speaker 9: spot suspicious activity that could actually help them connect cases. So,

335
00:20:57,520 --> 00:20:59,960
Speaker 9: former marshals told me that the system that there use

336
00:21:00,240 --> 00:21:03,239
Speaker 9: now was actually built to keep tabs on prisoners and

337
00:21:03,440 --> 00:21:08,639
Speaker 9: futuitism investigations, not actually track threats and inappropriate communications against

338
00:21:08,680 --> 00:21:11,840
Speaker 9: the judiciary. You know, one former marshal you know put

339
00:21:11,840 --> 00:21:13,959
Speaker 9: it to me this way. He said, think about if

340
00:21:14,000 --> 00:21:16,880
Speaker 9: there's a little red corvette seen circling the federal courthouse

341
00:21:16,880 --> 00:21:20,720
Speaker 9: in Omaha, Nebrassa on Wednesday, and then a red corvette

342
00:21:20,720 --> 00:21:23,560
Speaker 9: is spotted circling a federal courthouse in Little Rock, Arkansas

343
00:21:23,600 --> 00:21:26,800
Speaker 9: on Friday. Intelligence analysts really need to be able to

344
00:21:26,800 --> 00:21:29,400
Speaker 9: connect those dots pretty quickly, and that's something that they

345
00:21:29,400 --> 00:21:30,520
Speaker 9: can't do right now.

346
00:21:31,760 --> 00:21:34,520
Speaker 2: Well, is the Marshal Service working on a fix for

347
00:21:34,600 --> 00:21:35,200
Speaker 2: this problem?

348
00:21:35,880 --> 00:21:37,840
Speaker 9: Yeah, they are, so. The Martial Service has been working

349
00:21:37,880 --> 00:21:40,280
Speaker 9: on this for some time. They've been working to transition

350
00:21:40,640 --> 00:21:44,160
Speaker 9: the entire agency over to a new system called capture.

351
00:21:44,800 --> 00:21:46,760
Speaker 9: That former marshals I talked to told me that it

352
00:21:46,800 --> 00:21:50,000
Speaker 9: would let the Judicial Security Division actually break data down

353
00:21:50,480 --> 00:21:54,320
Speaker 9: into more detail, you know, track threats by district, by drudge,

354
00:21:54,359 --> 00:21:56,520
Speaker 9: by you know, person who made the thread and how

355
00:21:56,560 --> 00:22:00,000
Speaker 9: the threat was communicated. But funding issues and competing prayer

356
00:22:00,040 --> 00:22:03,040
Speaker 9: already have really contributed to the projects away.

357
00:22:04,000 --> 00:22:06,399
Speaker 3: So what sorts of threats are judges getting.

358
00:22:07,119 --> 00:22:09,160
Speaker 9: For this story, I actually looked at cases of people

359
00:22:09,160 --> 00:22:12,479
Speaker 9: who have been federally prosecuted for threatening a judge, just

360
00:22:12,520 --> 00:22:15,440
Speaker 9: to get an idea of the type of threats that

361
00:22:15,640 --> 00:22:18,239
Speaker 9: you know judges are getting, and I can tell you

362
00:22:18,640 --> 00:22:22,439
Speaker 9: they're often very explicit and some are actually pretty scary.

363
00:22:22,640 --> 00:22:26,920
Speaker 9: So you know, the threats are most often communicated by email.

364
00:22:27,600 --> 00:22:30,239
Speaker 9: They come to the judges chambers by phone and are

365
00:22:30,359 --> 00:22:33,960
Speaker 9: left in a voicemail message, and oftentimes they come in

366
00:22:34,040 --> 00:22:37,840
Speaker 9: handwritten letters. So I actually came across one case from

367
00:22:37,920 --> 00:22:42,280
Speaker 9: twenty seventeen that was against a man in Connecticut who's

368
00:22:42,320 --> 00:22:46,000
Speaker 9: threatened to harm a federal bankruptcy judge in a handwritten

369
00:22:46,040 --> 00:22:49,200
Speaker 9: letter that he put in in her mailbox at her home,

370
00:22:49,400 --> 00:22:52,439
Speaker 9: so he actually knew where she lived, and you know,

371
00:22:52,520 --> 00:22:55,760
Speaker 9: it was basically telling her like, don't go too far

372
00:22:55,840 --> 00:22:58,399
Speaker 9: in this hearing. You know, back off, I'm warning you.

373
00:22:59,560 --> 00:23:03,440
Speaker 9: And you know, oftentimes the threat goes beyond not only

374
00:23:03,480 --> 00:23:06,480
Speaker 9: the judge, but also targets the people who are closest

375
00:23:06,480 --> 00:23:09,000
Speaker 9: to them, so it will say that they know the

376
00:23:09,040 --> 00:23:13,440
Speaker 9: threatener often threatens a spouse or the judges children as well.

377
00:23:14,680 --> 00:23:17,560
Speaker 2: So in looking at the people who have been prosecuted

378
00:23:17,600 --> 00:23:20,800
Speaker 2: for threatening a federal judge. Are there any similarities among

379
00:23:20,880 --> 00:23:21,520
Speaker 2: those people?

380
00:23:22,320 --> 00:23:26,159
Speaker 9: There definitely are. So we teamed up with Peter Simmy,

381
00:23:26,280 --> 00:23:29,840
Speaker 9: who is a sociologist at Chapman University. He's actually been

382
00:23:29,920 --> 00:23:34,800
Speaker 9: studying threats against public officials at the National counter Terrorism Innovation,

383
00:23:35,000 --> 00:23:39,280
Speaker 9: Technology and Education Center at the University of Nebraska, Omaha,

384
00:23:39,600 --> 00:23:42,160
Speaker 9: and so with his data, we were able to look

385
00:23:42,160 --> 00:23:45,040
Speaker 9: at cases from the last ten years, and you know,

386
00:23:45,240 --> 00:23:49,080
Speaker 9: looking at this wealth of information, we found that most often,

387
00:23:49,400 --> 00:23:51,919
Speaker 9: you know, threateners have some sort of a connection to

388
00:23:51,960 --> 00:23:54,840
Speaker 9: the judge that they're threatening, or at least a connection

389
00:23:54,920 --> 00:23:57,560
Speaker 9: to the case that that judge is hearing. So meaning

390
00:23:57,600 --> 00:23:59,680
Speaker 9: they've either had a case before the judge in the

391
00:23:59,720 --> 00:24:03,399
Speaker 9: past or they know someone who has. Sometimes so the

392
00:24:03,440 --> 00:24:06,119
Speaker 9: person is just really upset about the case that the

393
00:24:06,200 --> 00:24:09,560
Speaker 9: judge is presiding over, so thinks back. You know, we've

394
00:24:09,560 --> 00:24:14,000
Speaker 9: reported in recent months that Judge Tanya Chutkin has gotten

395
00:24:14,040 --> 00:24:16,679
Speaker 9: death threats. You know, she's the judge that's overseeing that

396
00:24:16,760 --> 00:24:20,760
Speaker 9: criminal case right now in DC that's accusing President Donald

397
00:24:20,760 --> 00:24:24,600
Speaker 9: Trump of conspiring to overturn the twenty twenty election results.

398
00:24:25,040 --> 00:24:29,280
Speaker 9: We also found that people who threaten judges often have

399
00:24:29,560 --> 00:24:34,200
Speaker 9: a criminal history already, lots of them have mental health issues,

400
00:24:34,640 --> 00:24:38,919
Speaker 9: and several of them are motivated by ideology. So, you know,

401
00:24:39,320 --> 00:24:41,919
Speaker 9: Peter Sime at Chapman University, you know, found that in

402
00:24:41,960 --> 00:24:46,520
Speaker 9: his research that actually right wing extremism ideologies tend to

403
00:24:46,520 --> 00:24:51,280
Speaker 9: be the most prominently presented here. And so you know,

404
00:24:51,359 --> 00:24:53,840
Speaker 9: but threats are also coming in, you know, from people

405
00:24:53,880 --> 00:24:56,399
Speaker 9: on the other side of the political line too. If

406
00:24:56,440 --> 00:24:59,440
Speaker 9: you'll think back Judge Matthew kes Merrick, who's the federal

407
00:24:59,480 --> 00:25:02,440
Speaker 9: district judg in Texas. You know, he got a barrage

408
00:25:02,480 --> 00:25:05,640
Speaker 9: of death threats and harassing phone calls in March when

409
00:25:05,640 --> 00:25:09,000
Speaker 9: he was hearing a big case over a key abortion

410
00:25:09,119 --> 00:25:12,359
Speaker 9: drug known as mis apristone. And I'm sure you both

411
00:25:12,440 --> 00:25:16,080
Speaker 9: remember the man who was found, you know, outside of

412
00:25:16,600 --> 00:25:18,879
Speaker 9: Justice Brett Kavanaugh's home. You know, he was armed with

413
00:25:18,920 --> 00:25:22,000
Speaker 9: a pistol and he told investigators that he was there

414
00:25:22,680 --> 00:25:25,359
Speaker 9: to kill the justice because he was upset about the

415
00:25:25,359 --> 00:25:27,520
Speaker 9: court's leak of the draft abortion decision.

416
00:25:28,200 --> 00:25:32,560
Speaker 3: Lydia, in your story, you distinguish among different types of

417
00:25:32,880 --> 00:25:36,040
Speaker 3: people who make threats. You said that there are hunters

418
00:25:36,119 --> 00:25:39,360
Speaker 3: and there are howlers. Can you describe what those are?

419
00:25:40,080 --> 00:25:40,480
Speaker 5: That's right?

420
00:25:40,520 --> 00:25:43,840
Speaker 9: So the marshals refer to people who threatened judges repeatedly

421
00:25:43,920 --> 00:25:47,840
Speaker 9: at howlers, you know those, and then they those are

422
00:25:47,880 --> 00:25:52,159
Speaker 9: people who repeatedly send messaging or threatening messages, but they

423
00:25:52,200 --> 00:25:54,959
Speaker 9: don't ever act on them. And then there are people

424
00:25:55,080 --> 00:25:58,240
Speaker 9: who actually go out and seek out the judge and

425
00:25:58,359 --> 00:26:01,880
Speaker 9: attack them, and those are known as hunters. And I'm

426
00:26:01,920 --> 00:26:04,720
Speaker 9: told that they're rarely one and the same, so meaning

427
00:26:04,800 --> 00:26:09,480
Speaker 9: howlers don't often turn into hunters, but marshals, you know,

428
00:26:09,640 --> 00:26:12,840
Speaker 9: former marshals told me that it's impossible to know kind

429
00:26:12,880 --> 00:26:16,560
Speaker 9: of which threats are credible and if a hunter or

430
00:26:16,600 --> 00:26:18,920
Speaker 9: if a howler is going to become a hunter eventually

431
00:26:19,280 --> 00:26:22,480
Speaker 9: unless they actually investigate and look into the threat itself.

432
00:26:22,880 --> 00:26:23,080
Speaker 4: You know.

433
00:26:23,240 --> 00:26:26,159
Speaker 9: I will say that the judges and the former marshals

434
00:26:26,160 --> 00:26:29,040
Speaker 9: that I spoke with all praised the work of the

435
00:26:29,040 --> 00:26:33,479
Speaker 9: Marshals Service and spoke about how judicial security is just

436
00:26:33,520 --> 00:26:36,639
Speaker 9: a really difficult job, even with the best analytical tools.

437
00:26:36,720 --> 00:26:38,520
Speaker 9: You know, several of the judges I spoke with just

438
00:26:39,440 --> 00:26:41,520
Speaker 9: you know, wanted to make that clear, you know that

439
00:26:41,600 --> 00:26:43,879
Speaker 9: they have a really hard job, you know, even if

440
00:26:43,920 --> 00:26:44,920
Speaker 9: they have the best tools.

441
00:26:46,080 --> 00:26:48,320
Speaker 2: So you said you spoke with some federal judges, how

442
00:26:48,320 --> 00:26:50,520
Speaker 2: do they feel about these threats and sort of what's

443
00:26:50,560 --> 00:26:52,280
Speaker 2: going on with the Marshall's office.

444
00:26:52,880 --> 00:26:55,680
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's right. So I spoke with Judge Timothy Corrigan.

445
00:26:55,920 --> 00:26:58,320
Speaker 9: You know, he now serves as chief judge of the U. S.

446
00:26:58,400 --> 00:27:01,359
Speaker 9: District Court for the Middle District of four. You know,

447
00:27:01,440 --> 00:27:04,040
Speaker 9: he said that threats are just part of the job

448
00:27:04,160 --> 00:27:06,680
Speaker 9: and that he has to deal with them. But that's

449
00:27:06,720 --> 00:27:10,199
Speaker 9: actually really hard on his family. And that's the hardest

450
00:27:10,200 --> 00:27:12,240
Speaker 9: part to think about that because of what he chose

451
00:27:12,280 --> 00:27:14,320
Speaker 9: to do for a living, he's now putting you know,

452
00:27:14,680 --> 00:27:17,800
Speaker 9: those that he loves the most at risk. And Judge

453
00:27:17,840 --> 00:27:22,359
Speaker 9: Corgan is interesting because actually in twenty thirteen he was

454
00:27:22,440 --> 00:27:25,760
Speaker 9: nearly as fascinated at his home when a gunman took

455
00:27:25,800 --> 00:27:29,040
Speaker 9: aim outside his window. You know, he was just relaxing

456
00:27:29,080 --> 00:27:31,960
Speaker 9: in his recliner watching TV and you know, all of

457
00:27:32,000 --> 00:27:34,879
Speaker 9: a sudden, there was this big explosion and you know,

458
00:27:35,400 --> 00:27:38,520
Speaker 9: in the investigation afterwards, they found out that the bullet

459
00:27:38,840 --> 00:27:42,919
Speaker 9: had missed his head by one point six inches. You know,

460
00:27:43,000 --> 00:27:46,280
Speaker 9: in that attack, the attacker was actually able to sneak

461
00:27:46,320 --> 00:27:48,560
Speaker 9: away from the scene and he ended up on the

462
00:27:48,960 --> 00:27:51,760
Speaker 9: list of possible suspects because he had a warrant out

463
00:27:51,760 --> 00:27:54,680
Speaker 9: for his arrest. He had violated I guess the terms

464
00:27:54,680 --> 00:27:57,280
Speaker 9: of his supervised release and was actually few backs before

465
00:27:57,359 --> 00:28:01,000
Speaker 9: Judge Corgan. But Judge Corgan told me that he didn't

466
00:28:01,000 --> 00:28:03,560
Speaker 9: even remember him very well, and like the only reason

467
00:28:03,640 --> 00:28:06,399
Speaker 9: he made that list of potential suspects was because you know,

468
00:28:06,480 --> 00:28:08,879
Speaker 9: he had he had that warrant out for his arrest.

469
00:28:09,000 --> 00:28:13,200
Speaker 9: But so, you know, Judge Corgan has gotten threats since

470
00:28:13,240 --> 00:28:16,280
Speaker 9: then from other people, and you know, like I said,

471
00:28:16,320 --> 00:28:17,760
Speaker 9: he said, they're just a feature of the job, and

472
00:28:17,800 --> 00:28:19,399
Speaker 9: he said that they don't try to affect him that

473
00:28:19,440 --> 00:28:21,720
Speaker 9: much on the bench or you know that they aren't

474
00:28:21,720 --> 00:28:24,359
Speaker 9: really having an impact. But you know, the sociologists I

475
00:28:24,400 --> 00:28:27,439
Speaker 9: spoke with said, you know, judges are human and these

476
00:28:27,480 --> 00:28:30,959
Speaker 9: threats could impact you know, how they they you know,

477
00:28:31,000 --> 00:28:33,080
Speaker 9: form their decisions and how they rule on the bench.

478
00:28:33,560 --> 00:28:36,920
Speaker 3: Lydia, you said they are increasing. Now, is there a

479
00:28:37,280 --> 00:28:39,160
Speaker 3: broader effect on the federal judiciary.

480
00:28:39,840 --> 00:28:42,080
Speaker 9: Yeah, So my sources are telling me that, you know,

481
00:28:42,120 --> 00:28:44,520
Speaker 9: a threat against a member of the judiciary is really

482
00:28:44,800 --> 00:28:47,960
Speaker 9: a threat against democracy and that it's not tenable for

483
00:28:48,040 --> 00:28:52,120
Speaker 9: democracy to have people expressing their grievances and leasing that

484
00:28:52,240 --> 00:28:55,680
Speaker 9: discontent with threats of violence, you know, at this volume,

485
00:28:55,880 --> 00:28:59,040
Speaker 9: so you know, the sociologists I spoke with that it

486
00:28:59,120 --> 00:29:03,600
Speaker 9: suggests that a certain lawlessness is acceptable and actually becoming normalized.

487
00:29:03,640 --> 00:29:06,480
Speaker 9: So yeah, this is you know, the broader impacts are

488
00:29:06,480 --> 00:29:07,680
Speaker 9: pretty great here, So.

489
00:29:07,720 --> 00:29:11,880
Speaker 2: Lydia, we heard previously from Judge Esther Sallas, who was

490
00:29:12,120 --> 00:29:14,440
Speaker 2: involved in an attack in twenty twenty by a gunman

491
00:29:14,440 --> 00:29:16,840
Speaker 2: that killed her son and injured her husband. Can you

492
00:29:16,920 --> 00:29:20,400
Speaker 2: tell us what happened with that case. There was some

493
00:29:20,520 --> 00:29:23,200
Speaker 2: legislation that came as a result of that, right.

494
00:29:24,040 --> 00:29:27,800
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's right. So you know, Judge Sallas actually lobbied

495
00:29:27,840 --> 00:29:32,840
Speaker 9: Congress after that horrible tragedy to pass the Daniel anderl

496
00:29:32,920 --> 00:29:36,680
Speaker 9: Judicial Security and Privacy Act in twenty twenty two, and

497
00:29:36,720 --> 00:29:40,920
Speaker 9: that law aims to make judges personal identifiable information harder

498
00:29:40,960 --> 00:29:45,080
Speaker 9: to find online. And so actually I reached out to

499
00:29:45,080 --> 00:29:47,920
Speaker 9: the Administrative Office of the US Courts and they told

500
00:29:48,000 --> 00:29:53,040
Speaker 9: me that since that law passed, about three million individual

501
00:29:53,040 --> 00:29:56,600
Speaker 9: pieces of judges information have been removed from the Internet

502
00:29:56,720 --> 00:29:59,960
Speaker 9: since then, So we know that the law is having

503
00:30:00,280 --> 00:30:03,800
Speaker 9: an impact and Judge Ballas told me that she also

504
00:30:03,960 --> 00:30:06,720
Speaker 9: got a similar legislation passed at the state level in

505
00:30:06,760 --> 00:30:10,240
Speaker 9: New Jersey, and she's working for other states to pass

506
00:30:10,360 --> 00:30:13,760
Speaker 9: a similar legislation as well. She's really made it her

507
00:30:13,920 --> 00:30:18,520
Speaker 9: life's mission now without her only son, so living, you know,

508
00:30:18,600 --> 00:30:23,360
Speaker 9: to have some sort of impact on judicial security and

509
00:30:23,400 --> 00:30:25,400
Speaker 9: make judges safe so no one else has to go

510
00:30:25,440 --> 00:30:27,560
Speaker 9: through this a horrible tragedy Lydia.

511
00:30:27,680 --> 00:30:30,160
Speaker 3: Is there reason the thing that the removal of all

512
00:30:30,200 --> 00:30:34,400
Speaker 3: that information has indeed made judges in their families safer.

513
00:30:35,360 --> 00:30:40,000
Speaker 9: It has in some respects, but you know, judges and

514
00:30:40,160 --> 00:30:42,640
Speaker 9: former commercials that I spoke to said that there's no

515
00:30:42,760 --> 00:30:45,960
Speaker 9: way to remove all of the information from the Internet.

516
00:30:46,680 --> 00:30:48,840
Speaker 9: You know, it's hard to keep track of all of it,

517
00:30:48,880 --> 00:30:51,720
Speaker 9: and it's hard to find it all, and there's always

518
00:30:51,720 --> 00:30:53,959
Speaker 9: going to be information on the dark web, and so

519
00:30:54,040 --> 00:30:56,760
Speaker 9: that's going to continuously be a risk. That this is

520
00:30:56,800 --> 00:30:59,360
Speaker 9: a step in the right direction. You know, I actually

521
00:31:00,320 --> 00:31:04,520
Speaker 9: chatted with a former marshal who trains judges on security,

522
00:31:04,680 --> 00:31:06,800
Speaker 9: and you know, he said that they needed to be

523
00:31:06,880 --> 00:31:11,160
Speaker 9: proactive and be a participant in their own survival. So

524
00:31:11,480 --> 00:31:14,640
Speaker 9: he basically advises them to get a home security system,

525
00:31:14,760 --> 00:31:17,840
Speaker 9: you know, be really mindful of their social media posts.

526
00:31:18,200 --> 00:31:21,360
Speaker 9: He said that they should protect their private information the

527
00:31:21,360 --> 00:31:23,480
Speaker 9: best way that they can. You know, it starts with them,

528
00:31:23,960 --> 00:31:26,720
Speaker 9: and that they when they are out of the office

529
00:31:26,760 --> 00:31:29,720
Speaker 9: and you know, outside of the federal courthouse, that they

530
00:31:29,720 --> 00:31:32,360
Speaker 9: should pay attention to their surroundings and if they see

531
00:31:32,360 --> 00:31:35,600
Speaker 9: something suspicious to report it. You know. Judge Dallas told

532
00:31:35,640 --> 00:31:37,720
Speaker 9: me that she, you know, prior to this attack, she

533
00:31:37,720 --> 00:31:42,400
Speaker 9: had actually seen the attacker on her street and had

534
00:31:42,520 --> 00:31:44,800
Speaker 9: had seen him ahead of time. And former marshals say

535
00:31:44,800 --> 00:31:46,880
Speaker 9: that they hear this kind of thing, you know, all

536
00:31:46,920 --> 00:31:49,040
Speaker 9: the time from some judges that you know, they'll get

537
00:31:49,080 --> 00:31:51,920
Speaker 9: that kind of intuition of like oh that doesn't feel right,

538
00:31:52,320 --> 00:31:55,440
Speaker 9: and they don't report it, and you know, or they

539
00:31:55,440 --> 00:31:57,240
Speaker 9: don't know that they should report it. And so this

540
00:31:57,360 --> 00:32:00,440
Speaker 9: former marshal was saying, definitely, if something rubbed you the

541
00:32:00,480 --> 00:32:02,440
Speaker 9: wrong way, like, you know, it's better to err on

542
00:32:02,480 --> 00:32:06,040
Speaker 9: the side of caution. So really to trust your intuition

543
00:32:06,200 --> 00:32:08,600
Speaker 9: and to take all the threats that you're getting seriously.

544
00:32:08,960 --> 00:32:12,400
Speaker 2: So Lydia wondering is there any other advice that's given

545
00:32:12,440 --> 00:32:14,760
Speaker 2: to judges on how they can protect themselves and keep

546
00:32:14,760 --> 00:32:16,280
Speaker 2: themselves safe well on the bench.

547
00:32:17,120 --> 00:32:20,680
Speaker 9: Yeah, so you know, marshals are basically just saying that,

548
00:32:20,800 --> 00:32:24,000
Speaker 9: you know, pay attention to the threats that are coming through.

549
00:32:24,880 --> 00:32:27,760
Speaker 9: You know, it's easy to disregard them that you think

550
00:32:27,800 --> 00:32:30,960
Speaker 9: are just like completely you know, outlandish. I mean some

551
00:32:31,000 --> 00:32:33,160
Speaker 9: of the threats that I read. Yeah, you know, you

552
00:32:33,200 --> 00:32:37,280
Speaker 9: can tell that a person that is writing them is

553
00:32:37,280 --> 00:32:41,480
Speaker 9: suffering from some mental health crisis, but that doesn't necessarily

554
00:32:41,520 --> 00:32:43,800
Speaker 9: mean that that person won't act on that threat. So

555
00:32:43,840 --> 00:32:47,520
Speaker 9: it's important to make sure that you're reporting them and

556
00:32:47,560 --> 00:32:50,600
Speaker 9: then also that you know, Marshalls told me that it's important,

557
00:32:50,640 --> 00:32:52,320
Speaker 9: or former marshals, I should say, told me that it's

558
00:32:52,320 --> 00:32:54,520
Speaker 9: important that judges kind of follow up and say like,

559
00:32:54,840 --> 00:32:56,640
Speaker 9: you know, hey, where are we with that, and kind

560
00:32:56,680 --> 00:32:58,920
Speaker 9: of you know, like I said, be an active participant

561
00:32:59,000 --> 00:33:00,200
Speaker 9: in their own security.

562
00:33:00,680 --> 00:33:03,920
Speaker 3: LYDIA. We haven't talked about state court judges. Are they

563
00:33:04,160 --> 00:33:06,560
Speaker 3: getting similar types of threats?

564
00:33:06,560 --> 00:33:09,960
Speaker 9: Definitely, they're one hundred percent facing the same kind of

565
00:33:10,000 --> 00:33:12,760
Speaker 9: threats that federal judges are facing, and some of them

566
00:33:13,200 --> 00:33:16,280
Speaker 9: have had really horrible tragedies like some federal judges have.

567
00:33:16,880 --> 00:33:20,280
Speaker 9: Just recently in October, there was a Maryland state court

568
00:33:20,320 --> 00:33:22,720
Speaker 9: judge who was shot to death in the driveway of

569
00:33:22,760 --> 00:33:26,240
Speaker 9: his home. You know, the prime suspect was actually a

570
00:33:26,240 --> 00:33:30,080
Speaker 9: man that had lost a custody of his children in

571
00:33:30,160 --> 00:33:33,040
Speaker 9: a divorce hearing earlier that day in front of the

572
00:33:33,160 --> 00:33:36,320
Speaker 9: judge that he shot. And you know, police actually found

573
00:33:36,320 --> 00:33:41,080
Speaker 9: that man about a week later deceased. So while marshals

574
00:33:41,080 --> 00:33:44,880
Speaker 9: are tracking threats against federal judges, there, I've been told

575
00:33:44,920 --> 00:33:49,120
Speaker 9: there is no national repository for threats against state court judges.

576
00:33:49,320 --> 00:33:52,200
Speaker 9: And there's way more of them. I mean, we're talking

577
00:33:52,200 --> 00:33:56,600
Speaker 9: about like over thirty thousand state court judges across the country,

578
00:33:57,040 --> 00:34:01,320
Speaker 9: and you know, states either aren't collecting this data, or

579
00:34:02,320 --> 00:34:05,960
Speaker 9: they're not collecting it consistently across states, or they're not

580
00:34:06,000 --> 00:34:08,799
Speaker 9: reporting it publicly. So it's really hard to tell what

581
00:34:09,400 --> 00:34:11,560
Speaker 9: state court judges are facing. And they don't have the

582
00:34:11,600 --> 00:34:14,440
Speaker 9: protection of the Marshall Service, so actually those people are

583
00:34:14,520 --> 00:34:15,200
Speaker 9: less protected.

584
00:34:16,360 --> 00:34:17,879
Speaker 2: Sounds like a lot of work to do, but thank

585
00:34:17,920 --> 00:34:20,319
Speaker 2: you to Lydia Wheeler that's going to do it. For

586
00:34:20,360 --> 00:34:24,160
Speaker 2: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show, I'm Kimberly Robinson and.

587
00:34:24,080 --> 00:34:27,320
Speaker 3: I'm Greg Storr. Stay with us top stories and global

588
00:34:27,360 --> 00:34:30,760
Speaker 3: business headlines are coming up right now.