WEBVTT - Defense Says SBF Needs More Adderall to Testify

0:00:01.960 --> 0:00:05.200
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Boomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso. A

0:00:05.240 --> 0:00:09.200
<v Speaker 1>third witness from his inner circle who flipped takes the

0:00:09.240 --> 0:00:13.400
<v Speaker 1>stand against Sam Bankman Freed and his attorney's raised questions

0:00:13.720 --> 0:00:16.560
<v Speaker 1>related to his taking the stand in his own defense.

0:00:17.320 --> 0:00:22.560
<v Speaker 1>A top bankruptcy judge resigns amid ethics questions, and a

0:00:22.640 --> 0:00:27.280
<v Speaker 1>black high school student in Texas sues after being suspended

0:00:27.480 --> 0:00:32.640
<v Speaker 1>over his hairstyle. Prosecutors have built their criminal fraud case

0:00:32.680 --> 0:00:37.120
<v Speaker 1>against Sam Bankman Freed by reaching cooperation deals with his

0:00:37.200 --> 0:00:40.519
<v Speaker 1>inner circle, and the third member of that inner circle

0:00:40.640 --> 0:00:44.560
<v Speaker 1>testified against him today in court. Nishad Singh told the

0:00:44.600 --> 0:00:48.280
<v Speaker 1>Manhattan jury that he was in severe emotional distress in

0:00:48.320 --> 0:00:51.680
<v Speaker 1>the days leading up to ftx's failure as he dealt

0:00:51.720 --> 0:00:56.840
<v Speaker 1>with accusations from ftx's former chief regulatory officer and others

0:00:57.120 --> 0:00:59.720
<v Speaker 1>that he was partly to blame for the company's demise.

0:01:00.360 --> 0:01:03.160
<v Speaker 1>Sing claimed he had only learned about the massive eight

0:01:03.240 --> 0:01:06.160
<v Speaker 1>billion dollar hole in the company's balance sheet and the

0:01:06.240 --> 0:01:10.759
<v Speaker 1>misuse of FTX customer funds in September of twenty twenty two,

0:01:11.280 --> 0:01:15.000
<v Speaker 1>about two months before the firm file for bankruptcy. Bankman

0:01:15.040 --> 0:01:18.360
<v Speaker 1>Freed faces decades in prison on charges that he funneled

0:01:18.440 --> 0:01:23.280
<v Speaker 1>FTX customer money into Alimeter Research and affiliated hedge fund

0:01:23.680 --> 0:01:28.440
<v Speaker 1>for risky trades, political donations, and expensive property before both

0:01:28.480 --> 0:01:32.280
<v Speaker 1>companies collapsed into bankruptcy last year. Joining me is Bloomberg

0:01:32.360 --> 0:01:36.119
<v Speaker 1>legal reporter Bob van Voris, who's covering the trial. Okay,

0:01:36.200 --> 0:01:38.080
<v Speaker 1>so tell us about him. Who is he? H?

0:01:38.160 --> 0:01:42.039
<v Speaker 2>Nashat saying is the former director of engineering at FTX.

0:01:42.520 --> 0:01:46.880
<v Speaker 2>He's somebody who was a close friend of SBF's younger

0:01:46.880 --> 0:01:50.880
<v Speaker 2>brother Gabriel and worked initially for Elmet Research and then

0:01:50.920 --> 0:01:54.120
<v Speaker 2>came over to FTX. Obviously he was a tech person,

0:01:54.760 --> 0:01:59.320
<v Speaker 2>and he was somebody who admitted to crimes for conspiring

0:01:59.400 --> 0:02:04.280
<v Speaker 2>with Ellison, Garry Wang and Sam Bankman Freed into frauding

0:02:04.320 --> 0:02:06.320
<v Speaker 2>investors and customers.

0:02:06.680 --> 0:02:09.959
<v Speaker 1>What was the most important part of his testimony.

0:02:09.480 --> 0:02:12.079
<v Speaker 2>Well, certainly the most dramatic part was at the end

0:02:12.120 --> 0:02:15.240
<v Speaker 2>when he was talking about the slide of FTX and

0:02:15.280 --> 0:02:18.600
<v Speaker 2>Alameda into bankruptcy and everything was blown up, and there

0:02:18.600 --> 0:02:22.760
<v Speaker 2>were all kinds of crazy accusations. He testified, and at

0:02:22.760 --> 0:02:25.800
<v Speaker 2>the end he said the accusation that he was getting

0:02:26.080 --> 0:02:29.520
<v Speaker 2>for helping to blow up the firm had him suicidal

0:02:29.680 --> 0:02:32.240
<v Speaker 2>in the final days in the early part of November

0:02:32.280 --> 0:02:35.520
<v Speaker 2>twenty two. He claims he only knew about the fraud

0:02:35.760 --> 0:02:40.120
<v Speaker 2>beginning around September of twenty two, and that he wanted

0:02:40.200 --> 0:02:43.640
<v Speaker 2>Sambakmin Freed to step up and take responsibility for all

0:02:43.680 --> 0:02:43.840
<v Speaker 2>of this.

0:02:44.840 --> 0:02:47.280
<v Speaker 1>What did he admit to that he had done was

0:02:47.320 --> 0:02:50.519
<v Speaker 1>he part of the redesign of the computer code.

0:02:50.440 --> 0:02:53.200
<v Speaker 2>Was a part of basically designing a lot of the

0:02:53.240 --> 0:02:58.120
<v Speaker 2>code that allowed Sambankman Freed to allegedly shift money from

0:02:58.360 --> 0:03:01.919
<v Speaker 2>Alameda Research over to f PX and to steal the money.

0:03:02.040 --> 0:03:05.000
<v Speaker 2>But as I say, he didn't understand that there was

0:03:05.639 --> 0:03:10.480
<v Speaker 2>a multi billion dollar hole in FTX customer accounts until

0:03:10.520 --> 0:03:14.519
<v Speaker 2>September twenty two. According to his testimony, he admitted also

0:03:15.200 --> 0:03:18.920
<v Speaker 2>being used as a straw donor for lots of political donations.

0:03:18.960 --> 0:03:22.880
<v Speaker 2>He told jurors about how he was given blank checks

0:03:22.919 --> 0:03:26.560
<v Speaker 2>to sign and that those would go to Gabriel Bankman Freed,

0:03:26.840 --> 0:03:29.919
<v Speaker 2>who was the head of a pack that Sam Bankman

0:03:29.960 --> 0:03:34.480
<v Speaker 2>Free donated to. The money would go to various Democratic candidates.

0:03:34.520 --> 0:03:37.920
<v Speaker 2>And that's saying it acted basically as a donor to

0:03:38.080 --> 0:03:40.640
<v Speaker 2>lots of center left causes. That he really for the

0:03:40.720 --> 0:03:42.000
<v Speaker 2>most part, had no idea.

0:03:42.280 --> 0:03:44.840
<v Speaker 1>Let me understand this did. He claim that he didn't

0:03:44.880 --> 0:03:46.760
<v Speaker 1>know that anything was wrong until the end.

0:03:47.240 --> 0:03:50.400
<v Speaker 2>He claimed he didn't know about the big hole in

0:03:50.440 --> 0:03:54.080
<v Speaker 2>the FTX customer account until the end. Until you know

0:03:54.160 --> 0:03:57.880
<v Speaker 2>the massive fraud. There were certainly crimes that he admits

0:03:57.960 --> 0:04:00.800
<v Speaker 2>being a part of before then, but that he didn't

0:04:00.800 --> 0:04:05.080
<v Speaker 2>know about the big hole in the FTX account until September.

0:04:05.360 --> 0:04:09.280
<v Speaker 1>He felt embarrassed and ashamed at the investment FTX made

0:04:09.320 --> 0:04:12.920
<v Speaker 1>in a firm K five that had ties to many celebrities.

0:04:13.040 --> 0:04:15.280
<v Speaker 1>Say he was embarrassed and ashamed about the rest of his.

0:04:15.280 --> 0:04:18.800
<v Speaker 2>Actions, certainly at the end. He described a lot of

0:04:18.800 --> 0:04:21.160
<v Speaker 2>the things that were going on it's dishonest, and that

0:04:21.240 --> 0:04:25.520
<v Speaker 2>he tried to sidestep some of them, not to be

0:04:25.600 --> 0:04:30.320
<v Speaker 2>involved in some of the decisions. He considered quitting many times,

0:04:30.640 --> 0:04:34.120
<v Speaker 2>he said, but didn't want to be responsible for helping

0:04:34.200 --> 0:04:37.920
<v Speaker 2>to hasten the final blow up of the firm. He

0:04:37.960 --> 0:04:42.400
<v Speaker 2>wanted to stay, he said, and hopefully figure out a solution.

0:04:42.839 --> 0:04:45.400
<v Speaker 2>As that became more and more remote, he became just

0:04:45.440 --> 0:04:46.440
<v Speaker 2>more and more despondent.

0:04:46.760 --> 0:04:50.680
<v Speaker 1>I understand that Judge Kaplan was pretty active, asking him

0:04:50.760 --> 0:04:56.200
<v Speaker 1>questions about things like venture investing, blockchain, algorithmic failure.

0:04:56.640 --> 0:05:00.120
<v Speaker 2>Well, same spoke very precisely, but often in a very

0:05:00.360 --> 0:05:03.560
<v Speaker 2>technical manner and used a lot of terms that the

0:05:03.680 --> 0:05:05.800
<v Speaker 2>judge I think was afraid we're going to go over

0:05:05.920 --> 0:05:10.599
<v Speaker 2>Dror's head. Prosecutor Nicholas Ruse here really wasn't, you know,

0:05:10.720 --> 0:05:13.920
<v Speaker 2>setting it up in a way that you know, some

0:05:14.000 --> 0:05:17.560
<v Speaker 2>of these things were explainable. Judge Kaplan, Lewis Kaplan was,

0:05:17.680 --> 0:05:20.120
<v Speaker 2>before he was appointed the bench, was a litigator for

0:05:20.440 --> 0:05:23.080
<v Speaker 2>many years, so he kind of knows how Jerry's work

0:05:23.200 --> 0:05:26.000
<v Speaker 2>and I think sense that some of these terms were

0:05:26.000 --> 0:05:28.839
<v Speaker 2>going over their heads, and so he was jumping in

0:05:28.960 --> 0:05:32.960
<v Speaker 2>quite a bit to ask questions of saying directly and

0:05:33.080 --> 0:05:35.240
<v Speaker 2>just ask him to explain, you know, what he was

0:05:35.240 --> 0:05:35.799
<v Speaker 2>talking about.

0:05:35.920 --> 0:05:39.440
<v Speaker 1>Did they come across as believable contrite?

0:05:40.640 --> 0:05:43.920
<v Speaker 2>I think certainly he came across as both. And I

0:05:44.080 --> 0:05:47.679
<v Speaker 2>think you know, he kind of is in a similar

0:05:47.720 --> 0:05:51.040
<v Speaker 2>sense to Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang, the other two

0:05:51.400 --> 0:05:56.760
<v Speaker 2>people who were senior executives and pleaded guilty and have

0:05:56.839 --> 0:06:00.240
<v Speaker 2>cooperated with the government. These are very brilliant young people

0:06:00.279 --> 0:06:03.960
<v Speaker 2>who are very good at expressing themselves. They were pretty

0:06:03.960 --> 0:06:07.440
<v Speaker 2>good on the stand, and certainly Ellison and Wang were

0:06:07.480 --> 0:06:10.479
<v Speaker 2>able to get through cross examination without too many dents.

0:06:10.480 --> 0:06:14.440
<v Speaker 2>We'll see how Sing does tomorrow, but these are kind

0:06:14.480 --> 0:06:17.039
<v Speaker 2>of the big three witnesses against the guy, and the

0:06:17.080 --> 0:06:19.200
<v Speaker 2>defense is certainly going to look to score some points.

0:06:19.880 --> 0:06:23.080
<v Speaker 1>Sam begman Fried's lawyers have brought up the possibility of

0:06:23.360 --> 0:06:26.080
<v Speaker 1>him testifying in his own defense.

0:06:26.480 --> 0:06:29.120
<v Speaker 2>Well, they discussed it in the letter last night. Sam

0:06:29.160 --> 0:06:32.200
<v Speaker 2>Begminfried has been having a problem all along that they've

0:06:32.240 --> 0:06:35.640
<v Speaker 2>been raising with a judge about getting his adderall prescription.

0:06:35.880 --> 0:06:40.240
<v Speaker 2>He gets the prescription for depression and for ADHD. His

0:06:40.360 --> 0:06:43.400
<v Speaker 2>lawyers claim that he's not able to concentrate and to

0:06:43.480 --> 0:06:46.800
<v Speaker 2>focus to the extent that he needs to, and that

0:06:47.000 --> 0:06:49.040
<v Speaker 2>if he's not able to sort of work this out,

0:06:49.360 --> 0:06:51.880
<v Speaker 2>that it's going to be a problem with him being

0:06:51.920 --> 0:06:55.480
<v Speaker 2>able to meaningfully participate in his defense. And of course,

0:06:55.560 --> 0:06:57.520
<v Speaker 2>you know that's what he needs to do to have

0:06:57.560 --> 0:07:00.800
<v Speaker 2>a fair trial. So this is some serious that they're raising.

0:07:00.960 --> 0:07:03.360
<v Speaker 2>In a letter late last night to the judge, they

0:07:03.440 --> 0:07:05.240
<v Speaker 2>raised this and they said, you know that this is

0:07:05.279 --> 0:07:09.080
<v Speaker 2>a critical time because we're deciding whether or not Bekmin

0:07:09.120 --> 0:07:11.160
<v Speaker 2>Freed is going to get on the stand and testify

0:07:11.160 --> 0:07:11.920
<v Speaker 2>in his own defense.

0:07:12.080 --> 0:07:15.720
<v Speaker 1>I know they brought this up before, and it's surprising

0:07:15.760 --> 0:07:18.640
<v Speaker 1>to me that if someone's on medication, you know, they

0:07:18.680 --> 0:07:21.640
<v Speaker 1>can't get the medication that they're on because they're in

0:07:21.680 --> 0:07:24.880
<v Speaker 1>prison during their trial. It seems sort of ridiculous.

0:07:25.120 --> 0:07:27.960
<v Speaker 2>It certainly does. And the judge said, well, look, I'm

0:07:28.000 --> 0:07:31.320
<v Speaker 2>not a doctor. I can't prescribe him medication, and that

0:07:31.360 --> 0:07:34.240
<v Speaker 2>he only has limited control over the Bureau of Prison,

0:07:34.360 --> 0:07:37.800
<v Speaker 2>whose doctors are the ones who make decisions. For Bekman

0:07:37.880 --> 0:07:40.640
<v Speaker 2>freed while he's confined at the MDC in Brooklyn, the

0:07:40.680 --> 0:07:44.880
<v Speaker 2>federal lock up in Brooklyn, as people probably know, Kaplan

0:07:44.960 --> 0:07:48.320
<v Speaker 2>ordered them locked up in August after he violated the

0:07:48.400 --> 0:07:51.720
<v Speaker 2>terms of his bail at the time. So this has

0:07:51.720 --> 0:07:54.960
<v Speaker 2>been a problem that just keeps popping up, including well

0:07:54.960 --> 0:07:55.640
<v Speaker 2>into the trial.

0:07:55.920 --> 0:08:00.360
<v Speaker 1>I understand that during cross examination of Ellison, the defense

0:08:00.440 --> 0:08:03.080
<v Speaker 1>wasn't able to ask a lot of questions because, you know,

0:08:03.160 --> 0:08:06.400
<v Speaker 1>there were objections that were almost always sustained as to form,

0:08:06.440 --> 0:08:08.840
<v Speaker 1>et cetera, et cetera. Did you see that too.

0:08:09.360 --> 0:08:12.560
<v Speaker 2>There were definitely a lot of objections that were sustained,

0:08:12.600 --> 0:08:16.120
<v Speaker 2>and the judge had put a number of issues, you know,

0:08:16.200 --> 0:08:19.320
<v Speaker 2>out of reach for the defense, including things like whether

0:08:19.480 --> 0:08:22.440
<v Speaker 2>he was acting on the advice of lawyers. You know,

0:08:22.480 --> 0:08:25.440
<v Speaker 2>anytime the defense tried to get near any of these issues,

0:08:25.720 --> 0:08:28.600
<v Speaker 2>there would be an objection. Often there'd be discussion of

0:08:28.760 --> 0:08:30.760
<v Speaker 2>at the bench. Lawyers tell me, this is the kind

0:08:30.800 --> 0:08:33.640
<v Speaker 2>of thing that really just screws up your rhythm, you know,

0:08:33.679 --> 0:08:37.000
<v Speaker 2>when you're trying to get into a groove and cross examination.

0:08:37.559 --> 0:08:41.600
<v Speaker 1>And I know that pre trial Caplan made several important

0:08:41.720 --> 0:08:45.199
<v Speaker 1>rulings that were detrimental to bankman freed.

0:08:46.000 --> 0:08:47.680
<v Speaker 2>You know, if he's convicted, we're going to see this

0:08:47.720 --> 0:08:50.360
<v Speaker 2>on appeal. Judge Kaplan is definitely a judge who wants

0:08:50.360 --> 0:08:53.440
<v Speaker 2>to move things along. He also, you know, can be

0:08:53.480 --> 0:08:57.319
<v Speaker 2>a little cranky with trial counsel if they're not behaving

0:08:57.320 --> 0:08:58.280
<v Speaker 2>in the way he wants them to.

0:08:58.679 --> 0:09:01.920
<v Speaker 1>Seeing testified that he was a millionaire during his time

0:09:01.960 --> 0:09:04.120
<v Speaker 1>at Alameda, Is he still a millionaire?

0:09:04.640 --> 0:09:07.000
<v Speaker 2>Most of this money just slipped through, you know, just

0:09:07.080 --> 0:09:10.400
<v Speaker 2>vanished into thin air. There's not much left for these people.

0:09:10.400 --> 0:09:13.439
<v Speaker 2>They certainly sing is no longer a billionaire.

0:09:13.240 --> 0:09:15.839
<v Speaker 1>So how much is left In the prosecution's case.

0:09:16.280 --> 0:09:18.600
<v Speaker 2>The government is saying that they're going to basically wrap

0:09:18.720 --> 0:09:21.400
<v Speaker 2>up their case. Oh really by the end of the week,

0:09:21.440 --> 0:09:23.520
<v Speaker 2>with maybe a couple of people who have travel issues

0:09:23.559 --> 0:09:25.240
<v Speaker 2>that they're going to have to put over till next week.

0:09:25.280 --> 0:09:28.040
<v Speaker 2>So you know, this is going to move pretty fast

0:09:28.280 --> 0:09:28.800
<v Speaker 2>for the end.

0:09:29.120 --> 0:09:31.800
<v Speaker 1>So then we'll soon know if bankmin Freed is actually

0:09:31.800 --> 0:09:34.200
<v Speaker 1>going to take the stand. And we'll check back with

0:09:34.240 --> 0:09:38.080
<v Speaker 1>you tomorrow, Bob to see how the cross examination of

0:09:38.160 --> 0:09:41.920
<v Speaker 1>sing when. Thanks so much. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Bob

0:09:42.040 --> 0:09:46.559
<v Speaker 1>van voris coming up next. A top bankruptcy judge resigns

0:09:47.040 --> 0:09:52.720
<v Speaker 1>amid ethics charges. President Joe Biden has confirmed thirty six

0:09:52.880 --> 0:09:56.000
<v Speaker 1>judges to the federal appellate courts and one hundred and

0:09:56.000 --> 0:09:59.320
<v Speaker 1>eight judges to the district courts. But you can expect

0:09:59.320 --> 0:10:03.080
<v Speaker 1>to slow down in the confirmation process in twenty twenty four,

0:10:03.240 --> 0:10:07.640
<v Speaker 1>a presidential year, and there's also the prospect of Democrats

0:10:07.720 --> 0:10:11.800
<v Speaker 1>losing the Senate. Joining me is judiciary expert Carl Tobias,

0:10:11.960 --> 0:10:15.720
<v Speaker 1>a professor at the University of Richmond Law School. Start

0:10:15.760 --> 0:10:18.600
<v Speaker 1>with the Biden numbers. How are his numbers at this

0:10:18.720 --> 0:10:21.520
<v Speaker 1>point compared to other presidents.

0:10:21.920 --> 0:10:25.720
<v Speaker 3>Well, I think they're still pretty solid compared to many

0:10:25.880 --> 0:10:30.520
<v Speaker 3>other presidents, especially recent ones. I think he doesn't have

0:10:30.679 --> 0:10:34.640
<v Speaker 3>quite as many confirmations as Trump did at this point

0:10:34.679 --> 0:10:39.400
<v Speaker 3>in his presidency, but he's not very far behind, and

0:10:39.760 --> 0:10:42.520
<v Speaker 3>there are a number of nominees on the floor who

0:10:42.559 --> 0:10:47.960
<v Speaker 3>could be confirmed before Thanksgiving, for example, and so I

0:10:48.000 --> 0:10:51.200
<v Speaker 3>think he may well catch Trump by the end of

0:10:51.240 --> 0:10:55.479
<v Speaker 3>the year. Though there need to be more nominees forthcoming

0:10:55.480 --> 0:10:56.280
<v Speaker 3>from the White House.

0:10:56.520 --> 0:10:58.400
<v Speaker 1>So is that what's holding it up? The White House

0:10:58.520 --> 0:11:01.199
<v Speaker 1>is not nominated them fast enough.

0:11:01.880 --> 0:11:06.559
<v Speaker 3>Well, it could nominate them faster. Chair Durbin of the

0:11:06.640 --> 0:11:11.320
<v Speaker 3>Judiciary Committee promised to hold hearings every two weeks that

0:11:11.520 --> 0:11:16.280
<v Speaker 3>the Senate was in session, but that hasn't happened every

0:11:16.559 --> 0:11:21.120
<v Speaker 3>two weeks this year, and so that's unfortunate, and I

0:11:21.160 --> 0:11:25.000
<v Speaker 3>think that could be remedied. But there are problems because

0:11:25.160 --> 0:11:28.760
<v Speaker 3>a number of the present vacancies are in states with

0:11:28.800 --> 0:11:33.360
<v Speaker 3>one or two Republican senators, and especially in the district

0:11:33.360 --> 0:11:36.880
<v Speaker 3>courts where most of the vacancies are, they have the

0:11:36.960 --> 0:11:44.560
<v Speaker 3>blueslip privilege and they can reject White House nominees, and

0:11:44.640 --> 0:11:49.200
<v Speaker 3>so that's a more difficult vacancy to fill. Where you

0:11:49.320 --> 0:11:52.600
<v Speaker 3>have one or two home state senators who are GOP

0:11:52.760 --> 0:11:56.400
<v Speaker 3>members and perhaps unwilling to work with the White House,

0:11:56.600 --> 0:12:00.640
<v Speaker 3>though a number have been, for example in Indiana and

0:12:00.720 --> 0:12:01.840
<v Speaker 3>in other states.

0:12:02.679 --> 0:12:05.720
<v Speaker 1>I mean, once twenty twenty four arrives, it's going to

0:12:05.760 --> 0:12:08.640
<v Speaker 1>be slowed down, right, the process.

0:12:08.280 --> 0:12:12.400
<v Speaker 3>To some extent, Yes, because of a presidential election year,

0:12:13.080 --> 0:12:18.200
<v Speaker 3>and both parties believe that their nominees will win, and

0:12:18.280 --> 0:12:21.640
<v Speaker 3>so they don't want to confirm. Well, at least the

0:12:21.640 --> 0:12:26.440
<v Speaker 3>Republicans won't want to confirm any more Biden nominees than

0:12:26.520 --> 0:12:30.000
<v Speaker 3>they have to. But I think that Democrats are committed

0:12:30.520 --> 0:12:37.200
<v Speaker 3>to confirming as many as possible and will schedule as

0:12:37.240 --> 0:12:40.839
<v Speaker 3>many hearings and committee votes and floor votes as they can,

0:12:41.480 --> 0:12:44.960
<v Speaker 3>even in a lame duck session, as Trump did in

0:12:45.040 --> 0:12:48.760
<v Speaker 3>twenty twenty where he confirmed thirteen district and one circuit

0:12:48.800 --> 0:12:52.480
<v Speaker 3>judge after the election. And so I think that's what

0:12:52.520 --> 0:12:54.640
<v Speaker 3>you're likely to see. So it may not slow down

0:12:54.760 --> 0:12:57.800
<v Speaker 3>that much, but there'll be times, you know, for example

0:12:57.800 --> 0:13:02.240
<v Speaker 3>August recess and then campaigning in the fall, where it'll

0:13:02.280 --> 0:13:05.120
<v Speaker 3>be difficult for the Senate to be in session.

0:13:05.360 --> 0:13:09.200
<v Speaker 1>Let's turn out to some judges who are making news

0:13:09.280 --> 0:13:11.240
<v Speaker 1>or in trouble, whichever way you want to look at it.

0:13:11.400 --> 0:13:14.640
<v Speaker 1>So we talked about Judge Pauline Newman, who was the

0:13:14.800 --> 0:13:20.040
<v Speaker 1>oldest judge in the country and she was suspended from

0:13:20.120 --> 0:13:23.040
<v Speaker 1>new assignments for one year or until she complies with

0:13:23.200 --> 0:13:26.240
<v Speaker 1>orders to submit to medical testing. She was doing an

0:13:26.240 --> 0:13:29.480
<v Speaker 1>interview and she said, I have an open invitation from

0:13:29.520 --> 0:13:32.480
<v Speaker 1>one circuitcause she didn't say which circuit or when that

0:13:32.559 --> 0:13:36.600
<v Speaker 1>invitation came, to preside over a patent trial at the

0:13:36.679 --> 0:13:41.200
<v Speaker 1>district court level. Since she suspended from new assignments on

0:13:41.240 --> 0:13:44.440
<v Speaker 1>the federal circuit, is she allowed to just hear a

0:13:44.520 --> 0:13:46.240
<v Speaker 1>case at the district court level.

0:13:46.480 --> 0:13:48.880
<v Speaker 3>I don't know the precise answer to that. My guess

0:13:48.960 --> 0:13:55.320
<v Speaker 3>is she probably can't. And often judges do entertain those

0:13:55.440 --> 0:13:58.839
<v Speaker 3>kinds of invitations when they have them. Circuit judges may

0:13:58.880 --> 0:14:01.720
<v Speaker 3>do that occasionally have a better sense of what the

0:14:01.760 --> 0:14:05.280
<v Speaker 3>cases look like at the district level if they're competent

0:14:05.320 --> 0:14:08.080
<v Speaker 3>to try them, and she certainly has the expertise in

0:14:08.120 --> 0:14:11.000
<v Speaker 3>the patent area. I don't know that she's tried a

0:14:11.040 --> 0:14:14.000
<v Speaker 3>lot of cases at the trial court level, probably not

0:14:14.120 --> 0:14:18.600
<v Speaker 3>very many, but often you see that happening with appellet judges,

0:14:19.200 --> 0:14:22.960
<v Speaker 3>so we'll see. I don't know maybe it's Delaware, which

0:14:22.960 --> 0:14:24.080
<v Speaker 3>has a lot of patent cases.

0:14:24.160 --> 0:14:26.560
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. No, I was just wondering because she was suspended

0:14:26.880 --> 0:14:29.920
<v Speaker 1>at the Federal Circuit, and does that mean she's suspended

0:14:29.960 --> 0:14:32.600
<v Speaker 1>everywhere because she's a federal Circuit judge.

0:14:33.400 --> 0:14:36.400
<v Speaker 3>I don't know the answer to that, Okay. I think

0:14:36.440 --> 0:14:39.800
<v Speaker 3>that probably she could sit in some other court, but

0:14:40.000 --> 0:14:41.560
<v Speaker 3>not in the federal Circuit.

0:14:41.920 --> 0:14:45.240
<v Speaker 1>Moving on to Texas, one of the nation's top bankruptcy

0:14:45.320 --> 0:14:48.920
<v Speaker 1>judges who's at the center of an ethics storm, said

0:14:49.040 --> 0:14:53.080
<v Speaker 1>yesterday he's resigning after the Fifth Circuit issued a formal

0:14:53.360 --> 0:14:57.320
<v Speaker 1>misconduct complaint against him. David Jones was the chief bankruptcy

0:14:57.400 --> 0:15:00.400
<v Speaker 1>judge for the Southern District of Texas, and he's come

0:15:00.480 --> 0:15:04.160
<v Speaker 1>under fire for failing to disclose that his living girlfriend

0:15:04.680 --> 0:15:08.200
<v Speaker 1>was a bankruptcy attorney at a prominent Texas law firm

0:15:08.600 --> 0:15:12.800
<v Speaker 1>with business before his court. What ethics rules are involved here?

0:15:13.920 --> 0:15:18.240
<v Speaker 3>I think the Ethics Code twenty eight USC. Four fifty

0:15:18.280 --> 0:15:23.040
<v Speaker 3>five is clear as to that kind of situation. If

0:15:23.080 --> 0:15:29.520
<v Speaker 3>you have a conflict in terms of financial benefit that

0:15:29.600 --> 0:15:33.160
<v Speaker 3>may flow when a judge is ruling, then the judge

0:15:33.200 --> 0:15:37.000
<v Speaker 3>is supposed to recuse in that case. And this sounds

0:15:37.160 --> 0:15:40.680
<v Speaker 3>like that because at least the media reports are saying

0:15:41.440 --> 0:15:46.080
<v Speaker 3>that he decided cases where the person with whom he

0:15:46.280 --> 0:15:49.480
<v Speaker 3>shared a home was involved or her firm was involved,

0:15:50.040 --> 0:15:53.920
<v Speaker 3>and probably he should have accused then and has chosen

0:15:53.960 --> 0:15:56.960
<v Speaker 3>to resign, which is probably the best thing that could

0:15:57.000 --> 0:15:57.880
<v Speaker 3>happen right now.

0:15:58.200 --> 0:16:01.040
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, he had previously defended his conduct to the Wall

0:16:01.040 --> 0:16:04.800
<v Speaker 1>Street Journal by arguing that he and the attorney were

0:16:04.840 --> 0:16:08.200
<v Speaker 1>not married, he had no economic interest from her cases,

0:16:08.800 --> 0:16:11.400
<v Speaker 1>and he said he would only have to accuse himself

0:16:11.440 --> 0:16:15.200
<v Speaker 1>if they had been married and had communal property and

0:16:15.240 --> 0:16:17.760
<v Speaker 1>she never personally appeared in his courtroom. Isn't there the

0:16:18.360 --> 0:16:22.080
<v Speaker 1>appearance of impropriety? Or are the strict rules on this

0:16:22.520 --> 0:16:24.960
<v Speaker 1>on having a relationship with an attorney?

0:16:25.440 --> 0:16:28.960
<v Speaker 3>No, I think you're correct. I mean basically that four

0:16:29.040 --> 0:16:33.000
<v Speaker 3>fifty five talks about the appearance of a conflict, and

0:16:33.040 --> 0:16:37.960
<v Speaker 3>that's enough, And there seems to be enough of a

0:16:38.040 --> 0:16:43.280
<v Speaker 3>financial interest there in her former firm when she was

0:16:43.600 --> 0:16:48.040
<v Speaker 3>responsible for some cases that it would look like the

0:16:48.080 --> 0:16:52.800
<v Speaker 3>appearance of a conflict, and so probably should have recused

0:16:52.880 --> 0:16:54.800
<v Speaker 3>himself in any of those cases.

0:16:55.320 --> 0:16:59.960
<v Speaker 1>And this judge has issued rulings in multi billion dollar reorganizations,

0:17:00.880 --> 0:17:04.040
<v Speaker 1>and some legal experts say that both he and his

0:17:04.320 --> 0:17:09.520
<v Speaker 1>girlfriend face the possibility of disbarment and criminal charges. So

0:17:09.600 --> 0:17:12.040
<v Speaker 1>we'll see whether the resignation is the end of this

0:17:12.600 --> 0:17:15.359
<v Speaker 1>or if there's more to come. Thanks so much, Carl.

0:17:15.640 --> 0:17:19.240
<v Speaker 1>That's Professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond Law School.

0:17:19.560 --> 0:17:23.520
<v Speaker 1>Coming up next. A black high school student in Texas

0:17:23.560 --> 0:17:27.840
<v Speaker 1>sues after being suspended over his hairstyle. I'm June Grasso,

0:17:27.880 --> 0:17:30.919
<v Speaker 1>and you're listening to Bloomberg. After serving more than a

0:17:30.960 --> 0:17:34.879
<v Speaker 1>month of in school suspension over his hairstyle, a black

0:17:34.920 --> 0:17:37.919
<v Speaker 1>student in Texas was told he'll be removed from his

0:17:38.000 --> 0:17:42.440
<v Speaker 1>high school and sent to a disciplinary alternative education program.

0:17:42.960 --> 0:17:46.080
<v Speaker 1>Eighteen year old Darryl george, a junior at Barber's Hill

0:17:46.160 --> 0:17:50.720
<v Speaker 1>High School, has been suspended since August thirty first. Last month,

0:17:50.760 --> 0:17:54.200
<v Speaker 1>his family filed a formal complaint with the Texas Education

0:17:54.359 --> 0:17:58.000
<v Speaker 1>Agency and a federal civil rights lawsuit against the state's

0:17:58.160 --> 0:18:02.000
<v Speaker 1>governor and attorney General, alleging they fail to enforce a

0:18:02.040 --> 0:18:06.560
<v Speaker 1>new law outlying discrimination based on hair styles. The family

0:18:06.600 --> 0:18:12.040
<v Speaker 1>alleges Georgea's suspension and subsequent discipline violate the state's Crown Act.

0:18:12.359 --> 0:18:15.360
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is Melanie Jordan, a labor and employment attorney

0:18:15.359 --> 0:18:18.600
<v Speaker 1>at Dorsey and Whitney. So, first of all, tell us

0:18:18.720 --> 0:18:21.919
<v Speaker 1>about the Crown Act that was signed into law in

0:18:21.960 --> 0:18:22.800
<v Speaker 1>Texas in May.

0:18:23.680 --> 0:18:26.440
<v Speaker 4>That's right. So the Crown Act actually sits an acronym

0:18:26.960 --> 0:18:30.040
<v Speaker 4>and it means creating a respectful and open world for

0:18:30.160 --> 0:18:33.920
<v Speaker 4>natural hair. Now, this law prohibits discrimination based on race

0:18:33.960 --> 0:18:38.359
<v Speaker 4>based hair styles such as twist, lacks, braves, et cetera.

0:18:39.000 --> 0:18:42.399
<v Speaker 4>And so what the Crown Act does is extends statutory

0:18:42.440 --> 0:18:46.240
<v Speaker 4>protection to hair texture and protective styles. And it does

0:18:46.280 --> 0:18:49.119
<v Speaker 4>so in the workplace and in public schools.

0:18:49.280 --> 0:18:51.399
<v Speaker 1>How many states have this law.

0:18:51.480 --> 0:18:54.040
<v Speaker 4>So the Crown Act is currently law in more than

0:18:54.119 --> 0:18:58.359
<v Speaker 4>forty localities cities like New Orleans, and in twenty four states,

0:18:58.400 --> 0:19:02.880
<v Speaker 4>which includes Texas. Texas. Actually this law went into effect

0:19:03.160 --> 0:19:06.480
<v Speaker 4>in September. September. First, you know the Crown Act. It's

0:19:06.560 --> 0:19:09.760
<v Speaker 4>the brainchild of a coalition led by Dove, you know,

0:19:09.800 --> 0:19:14.359
<v Speaker 4>the maker of soap shampoos. Dove partnered with several organizations

0:19:14.359 --> 0:19:17.480
<v Speaker 4>such as Western Center on Law and Poverty in the

0:19:17.560 --> 0:19:21.320
<v Speaker 4>National Urban League. And what this coalition did was they

0:19:21.440 --> 0:19:25.720
<v Speaker 4>undertook a study and they only corroborated what's been experienced

0:19:25.760 --> 0:19:30.280
<v Speaker 4>by generations of black and brown people, and especially black women,

0:19:30.320 --> 0:19:33.520
<v Speaker 4>and that is that a fairly large percentage, over twenty

0:19:33.560 --> 0:19:36.120
<v Speaker 4>percent of Black women aged twenty five to thirty four

0:19:36.119 --> 0:19:38.440
<v Speaker 4>were sent home from work because of their hair. And

0:19:38.680 --> 0:19:40.440
<v Speaker 4>I would even go as far as to say that,

0:19:40.720 --> 0:19:44.000
<v Speaker 4>you know, as every black woman in the workplace knows,

0:19:44.359 --> 0:19:46.840
<v Speaker 4>this is impactful because it's something that we've dealt with

0:19:47.080 --> 0:19:49.879
<v Speaker 4>for honestly our whole entire life.

0:19:50.160 --> 0:19:53.919
<v Speaker 1>Has there been a lot of litigation around the Crown

0:19:53.960 --> 0:19:56.159
<v Speaker 1>Act in different states or localities.

0:19:56.440 --> 0:19:58.680
<v Speaker 4>You know, a lot of these laws are new, right,

0:19:58.680 --> 0:20:02.119
<v Speaker 4>they're passing on on a monthly basis, and so the

0:20:02.160 --> 0:20:04.760
<v Speaker 4>first one in California that was passed in twenty nineteen,

0:20:04.800 --> 0:20:07.399
<v Speaker 4>and we saw some litigation arising from that. There was

0:20:07.440 --> 0:20:09.679
<v Speaker 4>a case that I think the first one in California

0:20:09.720 --> 0:20:12.280
<v Speaker 4>was in twenty twenty one, as it relates to an

0:20:12.320 --> 0:20:15.800
<v Speaker 4>out of state's job applicant who is intending to move

0:20:15.840 --> 0:20:18.720
<v Speaker 4>to California and take a job, but he was informed,

0:20:18.720 --> 0:20:21.920
<v Speaker 4>you know, allegedly that he needed to cut his hair. Right.

0:20:22.240 --> 0:20:25.120
<v Speaker 4>And so as these laws take shape and they're being

0:20:25.119 --> 0:20:27.680
<v Speaker 4>an act, it will see some litigation coming from them.

0:20:28.160 --> 0:20:30.560
<v Speaker 1>So tell us what happened to this Texas high school

0:20:30.640 --> 0:20:33.960
<v Speaker 1>student Darryl George in Barber's.

0:20:33.560 --> 0:20:37.080
<v Speaker 4>Hill Independent School District or ISIC. We have a student,

0:20:37.240 --> 0:20:39.800
<v Speaker 4>Darryl George. Darryl George, I think he was seventeen and

0:20:39.840 --> 0:20:43.120
<v Speaker 4>now he's eighteen. He attends their high school and he

0:20:43.200 --> 0:20:46.600
<v Speaker 4>wears his hair in locks. I know some people call

0:20:46.640 --> 0:20:49.800
<v Speaker 4>it dreadlocks, but that's actually become more of a pejeorative term.

0:20:49.920 --> 0:20:54.640
<v Speaker 4>So he wears his hair and twisted locks, and he

0:20:54.680 --> 0:20:58.240
<v Speaker 4>typically ties it back with a headband and twisted away

0:20:58.280 --> 0:21:00.680
<v Speaker 4>from his face in order to comply with barbars Hill's

0:21:00.720 --> 0:21:04.600
<v Speaker 4>dress and group policy. Now, this policy only applies to

0:21:04.720 --> 0:21:08.640
<v Speaker 4>male students, and it mandates that male students cannot wear

0:21:08.720 --> 0:21:11.920
<v Speaker 4>their hair at any time below their eyebrows, or below

0:21:11.960 --> 0:21:15.000
<v Speaker 4>their earlobes, or below the top of their T shirt

0:21:15.040 --> 0:21:18.119
<v Speaker 4>collared or it has to be gathered or worn up

0:21:18.160 --> 0:21:21.439
<v Speaker 4>in a style so that it stays above the eyebrows,

0:21:21.480 --> 0:21:24.280
<v Speaker 4>the T shirt collar, or the ear lobes. And so

0:21:24.560 --> 0:21:28.560
<v Speaker 4>obviously when you're wearing locks, they're growing and growing long,

0:21:28.920 --> 0:21:33.399
<v Speaker 4>which is usually the intention. And so Darryl was wearing

0:21:33.440 --> 0:21:37.119
<v Speaker 4>his hair or his locks and they became long. So

0:21:37.280 --> 0:21:41.240
<v Speaker 4>he was suspended not once, but twice just this school

0:21:41.320 --> 0:21:43.919
<v Speaker 4>year alone. He was suspended in August for wearing the

0:21:43.920 --> 0:21:46.720
<v Speaker 4>twisted locks. Then when he returned to school, he was

0:21:46.720 --> 0:21:51.480
<v Speaker 4>suspended immediately again September eighteenth, and now as recently as

0:21:51.480 --> 0:21:55.480
<v Speaker 4>October twelfth, the school placed him in a disciplinary alternative

0:21:55.560 --> 0:21:58.600
<v Speaker 4>education program and he's apparently going to be in this

0:21:58.640 --> 0:22:02.399
<v Speaker 4>program through at least the end of November. And so

0:22:02.480 --> 0:22:07.280
<v Speaker 4>the school district, they're contending that these disciplinary actions are

0:22:07.800 --> 0:22:14.920
<v Speaker 4>fine essentially, and they argue that Darryl has violated many

0:22:15.040 --> 0:22:17.760
<v Speaker 4>campus and classroom rules. For example, they alleged that he's

0:22:17.800 --> 0:22:22.600
<v Speaker 4>disrupted the iss classroom in school suspension classroom. They contend

0:22:22.640 --> 0:22:25.560
<v Speaker 4>that he's failed to comply with directives from their staff.

0:22:25.640 --> 0:22:29.240
<v Speaker 4>He's been tardy, and he's violated the dress and ruling policy.

0:22:30.240 --> 0:22:34.639
<v Speaker 4>And so now we're faced with the situation where the

0:22:34.640 --> 0:22:39.000
<v Speaker 4>school district is administering the same hair and ruling policy

0:22:40.240 --> 0:22:43.720
<v Speaker 4>against the same hairstyle for an issue that they faced,

0:22:43.880 --> 0:22:46.280
<v Speaker 4>I guess just three years ago at this point, with

0:22:46.400 --> 0:22:49.680
<v Speaker 4>other black students wearing dreadlocks as well or locks as well.

0:22:50.600 --> 0:22:53.120
<v Speaker 1>And I believe in twenty twenty, a federal judge rule

0:22:53.280 --> 0:22:57.920
<v Speaker 1>that the district's hair policy was discriminatory as far as

0:22:57.960 --> 0:23:03.360
<v Speaker 1>the school's rules, does George's hair comply with those rules,

0:23:03.920 --> 0:23:05.680
<v Speaker 1>you know above the collar, et cetera.

0:23:06.400 --> 0:23:10.320
<v Speaker 4>So, no, his hair is quite long, and he wears

0:23:10.359 --> 0:23:14.560
<v Speaker 4>it tied back, but his hair does extend past, of

0:23:14.640 --> 0:23:17.639
<v Speaker 4>course his t shirt collars. He has very long dread locks,

0:23:18.080 --> 0:23:21.080
<v Speaker 4>and his family contends that this is an expression of

0:23:21.080 --> 0:23:24.640
<v Speaker 4>his culture, of his racial heritage. Many of the male

0:23:24.720 --> 0:23:27.600
<v Speaker 4>family members also have worn their hair in locks, and

0:23:27.640 --> 0:23:32.879
<v Speaker 4>so the family now has recently brought a lawsuit contending

0:23:33.040 --> 0:23:36.920
<v Speaker 4>that this hair and growing policy is violated not only

0:23:36.960 --> 0:23:40.960
<v Speaker 4>the Crown Act, but the plessora of other state and federal.

0:23:40.720 --> 0:23:41.360
<v Speaker 3>Laws as well.

0:23:42.119 --> 0:23:44.520
<v Speaker 1>So I take it the school district is going to

0:23:44.760 --> 0:23:47.640
<v Speaker 1>come back or has come back and said that this

0:23:47.840 --> 0:23:50.439
<v Speaker 1>applies to all male students.

0:23:51.400 --> 0:23:54.959
<v Speaker 4>That's right. So the school district, they're contending that this

0:23:55.119 --> 0:23:59.520
<v Speaker 4>policy is defensible because it applies to all male students

0:23:59.520 --> 0:24:03.119
<v Speaker 4>and has nothing to do with their race or your

0:24:03.320 --> 0:24:06.320
<v Speaker 4>hair style, but simply length. And this is the same

0:24:06.440 --> 0:24:09.640
<v Speaker 4>argument that they advanced back in twenty twenty when they

0:24:09.680 --> 0:24:13.600
<v Speaker 4>were food by two other black male students who were

0:24:13.640 --> 0:24:16.000
<v Speaker 4>wearing their hair and loss as well. And in that

0:24:16.160 --> 0:24:19.000
<v Speaker 4>case it's still ongoing, but the court did issue a

0:24:19.040 --> 0:24:24.399
<v Speaker 4>preliminary injunction against Barber still is sc which allowed those

0:24:24.440 --> 0:24:27.119
<v Speaker 4>students at least one student because the other graduated, but

0:24:27.200 --> 0:24:30.120
<v Speaker 4>one student to return to the classroom and to participate

0:24:30.160 --> 0:24:33.600
<v Speaker 4>in extracurricular activities. And that case is still ongoing. But

0:24:33.640 --> 0:24:36.040
<v Speaker 4>I think it would have been instructive at least in

0:24:36.080 --> 0:24:40.680
<v Speaker 4>this circumstance for barbers Hill ISD in terms of maybe

0:24:40.680 --> 0:24:44.960
<v Speaker 4>taking a step back and reevaluating its policy. But as

0:24:44.960 --> 0:24:48.000
<v Speaker 4>of now, it's advancing the same argument that it's not

0:24:48.119 --> 0:24:51.280
<v Speaker 4>about the race, it's not about the hairstyle, it's about

0:24:51.320 --> 0:24:55.399
<v Speaker 4>the lane. And you know this argument, I guess others

0:24:55.400 --> 0:24:58.000
<v Speaker 4>have contended that it kind of exploits the loophole within

0:24:58.080 --> 0:24:59.040
<v Speaker 4>the Crown Act.

0:24:59.359 --> 0:25:02.240
<v Speaker 1>Do you think this win? Then if it's using a

0:25:02.280 --> 0:25:05.320
<v Speaker 1>loophole in the Act itself, you.

0:25:05.200 --> 0:25:08.520
<v Speaker 4>Know, it's hard to say. The Crown Act at least

0:25:08.520 --> 0:25:11.280
<v Speaker 4>in Texas and amended the Texas Labor Code in Texas

0:25:11.400 --> 0:25:15.680
<v Speaker 4>Education Code and the Education Code was amended and when

0:25:15.720 --> 0:25:19.439
<v Speaker 4>it was amended, it lists specific hair styles, but it

0:25:19.560 --> 0:25:23.160
<v Speaker 4>is silent on length and when you look at even

0:25:23.200 --> 0:25:26.159
<v Speaker 4>the legislative history of the Act in Texas, there's no

0:25:26.440 --> 0:25:29.879
<v Speaker 4>discussion about length as well. I don't think that the

0:25:29.920 --> 0:25:33.440
<v Speaker 4>school will actually succeed, maybe as it relates to the

0:25:33.440 --> 0:25:36.760
<v Speaker 4>pleasor of other claims that it could face, because, again

0:25:36.880 --> 0:25:40.280
<v Speaker 4>referring back to that twenty twenty case, same school district,

0:25:40.760 --> 0:25:45.439
<v Speaker 4>same hairstyle, the preliminary injunction was issued against them in

0:25:45.520 --> 0:25:49.119
<v Speaker 4>part because the court looked at that record and found

0:25:49.160 --> 0:25:52.120
<v Speaker 4>that there was a Native American student who wore his

0:25:52.200 --> 0:25:55.280
<v Speaker 4>hair long, and the school was able to make an

0:25:55.320 --> 0:25:58.640
<v Speaker 4>exception for him and allowed him to wear his hair

0:25:59.560 --> 0:26:04.679
<v Speaker 4>passed the policy's mandated length. And so now when faced

0:26:04.720 --> 0:26:08.160
<v Speaker 4>with that same question about lanes here, I don't think

0:26:08.160 --> 0:26:11.399
<v Speaker 4>the school will succeed again on the record that was

0:26:11.480 --> 0:26:12.440
<v Speaker 4>established before.

0:26:12.880 --> 0:26:14.560
<v Speaker 1>Explain why it's so important for him to have his

0:26:14.640 --> 0:26:19.280
<v Speaker 1>hair long if he can have the locks but shorter

0:26:19.680 --> 0:26:20.360
<v Speaker 1>or tied up.

0:26:20.760 --> 0:26:23.600
<v Speaker 4>Well, this is a great question because it speaks to

0:26:23.800 --> 0:26:27.400
<v Speaker 4>the point of black culture and heritage. Right when you're

0:26:27.400 --> 0:26:31.159
<v Speaker 4>wearing dreadlock or wearing locks, it's not just about the

0:26:31.200 --> 0:26:34.280
<v Speaker 4>actual locking of the hair, but the locks are intended

0:26:34.359 --> 0:26:37.320
<v Speaker 4>generally to grow long and you don't necessarily cut your

0:26:37.359 --> 0:26:40.240
<v Speaker 4>locks to make them short, because then you would unravel

0:26:40.359 --> 0:26:44.760
<v Speaker 4>and essentially undo sometimes the years long process of cultivating

0:26:44.800 --> 0:26:48.760
<v Speaker 4>the locking process. And you know, when you're wearing your

0:26:48.760 --> 0:26:52.320
<v Speaker 4>hair and locks, it's long been regarded as an expression

0:26:52.480 --> 0:26:56.680
<v Speaker 4>of black heritage, of African American heritage, of West Indian

0:26:56.760 --> 0:26:59.720
<v Speaker 4>identity as well. And so when it's an expression of

0:26:59.760 --> 0:27:04.320
<v Speaker 4>your racial identity and it's been routinely associated with, you know,

0:27:04.480 --> 0:27:07.720
<v Speaker 4>black and brown people, it's important to note that it's

0:27:07.760 --> 0:27:10.679
<v Speaker 4>not just about the locks itself, but length should be

0:27:10.720 --> 0:27:13.879
<v Speaker 4>included in that assessment because the length of the locks

0:27:13.880 --> 0:27:17.359
<v Speaker 4>demonstrates how long you've been invested in wearing that hair.

0:27:18.520 --> 0:27:21.879
<v Speaker 1>Are they now enforcing this for all male students. I

0:27:21.920 --> 0:27:24.720
<v Speaker 1>know you mentioned before they had made an exception for

0:27:24.760 --> 0:27:26.200
<v Speaker 1>a Native American student.

0:27:26.800 --> 0:27:29.600
<v Speaker 4>So the argument has been that they have not enforced

0:27:29.600 --> 0:27:33.560
<v Speaker 4>it equally across the board. There's been selective enforcement. In fact,

0:27:33.640 --> 0:27:37.919
<v Speaker 4>the policy has been amended numerous times my understanding and

0:27:38.080 --> 0:27:42.560
<v Speaker 4>barbershel isd to make it more narrowly drawn so that

0:27:42.600 --> 0:27:45.200
<v Speaker 4>it clearly is targeting those students who are wearing their

0:27:45.200 --> 0:27:48.240
<v Speaker 4>hair in a protective hairstyle like locks. So, for example,

0:27:48.280 --> 0:27:49.840
<v Speaker 4>it used to be just you know, it couldn't be

0:27:49.840 --> 0:27:52.440
<v Speaker 4>a certain length, and now they're saying, well, you can't

0:27:52.480 --> 0:27:56.040
<v Speaker 4>circumvent the policy by simply tying your hair back. We're

0:27:56.080 --> 0:27:58.359
<v Speaker 4>saying you can't have it at length at all. But

0:27:58.440 --> 0:28:01.280
<v Speaker 4>then you look around and you're saying, Okay, this policy

0:28:01.320 --> 0:28:04.120
<v Speaker 4>is not being enforced against those of white male students,

0:28:04.119 --> 0:28:07.320
<v Speaker 4>for example, who are wearing their hair longer than their

0:28:07.359 --> 0:28:09.920
<v Speaker 4>T shirt collar. And yet you had students such as

0:28:10.320 --> 0:28:13.399
<v Speaker 4>dear old mister George the other plaintiffs in the twenty

0:28:13.440 --> 0:28:18.440
<v Speaker 4>twenty case, they were being heavily disciplined for wearing their

0:28:18.520 --> 0:28:21.240
<v Speaker 4>hair longer than what the policy permitted.

0:28:21.600 --> 0:28:25.000
<v Speaker 1>Unequal enforcement seems like a good argument. Do you give

0:28:25.040 --> 0:28:28.120
<v Speaker 1>us some context? Is this school in a conservative area

0:28:28.280 --> 0:28:28.920
<v Speaker 1>of Texas?

0:28:29.760 --> 0:28:32.760
<v Speaker 4>Yes, so this school district is in Mount Belvioe, Texas,

0:28:32.920 --> 0:28:35.119
<v Speaker 4>the southern part of Texas, and of course you know

0:28:35.720 --> 0:28:39.280
<v Speaker 4>Texas in general has a very conservative culture. And so

0:28:39.920 --> 0:28:42.960
<v Speaker 4>it's interesting that you raise that as a question because

0:28:43.160 --> 0:28:47.160
<v Speaker 4>I understanding the superintendent has argued that this is the

0:28:47.160 --> 0:28:49.720
<v Speaker 4>same policy that we've had for the last thirty years.

0:28:49.800 --> 0:28:52.720
<v Speaker 4>Nothing was wrong with it then, nothing's wrong with it now.

0:28:52.960 --> 0:28:55.480
<v Speaker 4>But I think that's the issue that they're going to

0:28:55.600 --> 0:28:58.760
<v Speaker 4>face is the policy hasn't been changed in thirty years,

0:28:58.800 --> 0:29:02.160
<v Speaker 4>and it's only enforced against male students, and it narrowly

0:29:02.280 --> 0:29:07.800
<v Speaker 4>targets those hairstyles that disproportionately impact your black and brown students.

0:29:07.920 --> 0:29:10.080
<v Speaker 4>Maybe it is time for it to be revised.

0:29:10.760 --> 0:29:13.240
<v Speaker 1>Well, certainly this case is getting a lot of attention,

0:29:13.880 --> 0:29:17.320
<v Speaker 1>so there may be changes ahead, either voluntary or perhaps

0:29:17.400 --> 0:29:19.959
<v Speaker 1>court ordered. Thanks so much for being on the show.

0:29:20.200 --> 0:29:23.640
<v Speaker 1>That's Melanie Jordan, a labor and employment attorney at Dorsey

0:29:23.720 --> 0:29:25.960
<v Speaker 1>and Whitney. And that's it for this edition of The

0:29:26.000 --> 0:29:28.960
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest

0:29:29.000 --> 0:29:32.120
<v Speaker 1>legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find

0:29:32.120 --> 0:29:36.720
<v Speaker 1>them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg

0:29:36.760 --> 0:29:40.560
<v Speaker 1>dot com, slash podcast, slash Law, and remember to tune

0:29:40.560 --> 0:29:43.800
<v Speaker 1>into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm

0:29:43.880 --> 0:29:47.440
<v Speaker 1>Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to

0:29:47.480 --> 0:29:48.000
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg