1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:24,880
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:27,160 --> 00:00:31,160
Speaker 2: From Kink Floyd to Lil Wayne, artists of every genre

3
00:00:31,240 --> 00:00:34,559
Speaker 2: have sung about the corrupting influence of money, and it

4
00:00:34,640 --> 00:00:37,519
Speaker 2: seems that the nine justices on the Supreme Court have

5
00:00:37,680 --> 00:00:41,360
Speaker 2: done well in amassing wealth and leading a privileged lifestyle.

6
00:00:42,040 --> 00:00:46,000
Speaker 2: In fact, they're significantly richer than ninety percent of Americans.

7
00:00:46,520 --> 00:00:49,880
Speaker 2: According to an analysis by Bloomberg News, at least six

8
00:00:49,920 --> 00:00:53,880
Speaker 2: of the Supreme Court justices are multimillionaires, with as much

9
00:00:53,920 --> 00:00:57,320
Speaker 2: as twenty seven million dollars in assets. The numbers could

10
00:00:57,360 --> 00:01:01,600
Speaker 2: be even higher because it's impossible to get specifics due

11
00:01:01,640 --> 00:01:05,039
Speaker 2: to the constraints of federal ethics laws. Joining me is

12
00:01:05,040 --> 00:01:09,400
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Legal reporter Emily Burnbound, who's written about this. Emily

13
00:01:09,480 --> 00:01:13,760
Speaker 2: explain why you just can't get specific numbers about the

14
00:01:14,040 --> 00:01:14,960
Speaker 2: justice's wealth.

15
00:01:15,760 --> 00:01:20,319
Speaker 3: Yeah, the Supreme Court justices are required to file these

16
00:01:20,440 --> 00:01:24,919
Speaker 3: annual financial disclosures. They are required under a law pass

17
00:01:25,080 --> 00:01:29,600
Speaker 3: in the late nineteen seventies. But the disclosures aren't meant

18
00:01:29,680 --> 00:01:33,400
Speaker 3: to tell you the justices net worth. Basically, when they

19
00:01:33,440 --> 00:01:37,200
Speaker 3: were constructed, they were constructed pretty narrowly and they're just

20
00:01:37,240 --> 00:01:41,240
Speaker 3: supposed to tell you about potential conflicts of interest, and

21
00:01:41,280 --> 00:01:45,000
Speaker 3: that's defined super narrowly, and so there's definitely been a

22
00:01:45,080 --> 00:01:50,160
Speaker 3: lot of discussion about why don't justices have to disclose

23
00:01:50,200 --> 00:01:53,880
Speaker 3: the value of their personal residences on the forums that's

24
00:01:53,880 --> 00:01:57,920
Speaker 3: a really important asset that people have that contributes to

25
00:01:57,960 --> 00:02:00,600
Speaker 3: their wealth, or why don't they justice this is have

26
00:02:00,800 --> 00:02:03,800
Speaker 3: to disclose how much money they have in their government

27
00:02:03,920 --> 00:02:08,600
Speaker 3: retirement accounts. That is sometimes a place where justice can

28
00:02:08,680 --> 00:02:10,440
Speaker 3: keep a lot of money and the public doesn't know

29
00:02:10,440 --> 00:02:13,200
Speaker 3: about it. So it's a law with a lot of loopholes.

30
00:02:13,320 --> 00:02:16,880
Speaker 2: Essentially, in general, what did you discover? What's the range

31
00:02:16,919 --> 00:02:18,480
Speaker 2: of wealth of the justices?

32
00:02:19,280 --> 00:02:23,079
Speaker 3: So we discovered after adding up all of their twenty

33
00:02:23,160 --> 00:02:26,360
Speaker 3: twenty one disclosures, which is the most recent we have,

34
00:02:27,240 --> 00:02:32,520
Speaker 3: they collectively have between twenty three million dollars in assets

35
00:02:32,560 --> 00:02:35,720
Speaker 3: to sixty eight million dollars. Then you know, I'm sure

36
00:02:36,160 --> 00:02:39,920
Speaker 3: you can guess it's probably closer to the sixty eight million,

37
00:02:40,040 --> 00:02:43,240
Speaker 3: but it's such a huge range. The justices only have

38
00:02:43,520 --> 00:02:49,359
Speaker 3: to report in ranges about particular assets, so it's almost

39
00:02:49,400 --> 00:02:52,040
Speaker 3: impossible to nail down how much they're actually worth.

40
00:02:52,480 --> 00:02:54,280
Speaker 2: So who is the richest justice.

41
00:02:54,720 --> 00:02:58,200
Speaker 3: The richest justice is Chief Justice John Roberts. So he

42
00:02:58,680 --> 00:03:02,320
Speaker 3: reported in twenty twenty one between nine point nine million

43
00:03:02,400 --> 00:03:06,799
Speaker 3: and twenty seven million dollars in assets. He has been

44
00:03:06,840 --> 00:03:12,040
Speaker 3: known to have a pretty comfortable lifestyle. He owns two

45
00:03:12,080 --> 00:03:16,079
Speaker 3: properties on a little remote island in Maye that that's

46
00:03:16,120 --> 00:03:19,800
Speaker 3: only accessible by boat. He owns part of a cottage

47
00:03:19,840 --> 00:03:23,600
Speaker 3: in Ireland, and he has a really nice house worth

48
00:03:23,680 --> 00:03:27,000
Speaker 3: you know, over two million dollars in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

49
00:03:27,200 --> 00:03:30,480
Speaker 3: So Chief Justice John Roberts is the richest by a

50
00:03:30,520 --> 00:03:34,480
Speaker 3: pretty significant amount, followed by Justice Neil Gorsus, who has

51
00:03:34,480 --> 00:03:37,720
Speaker 3: between four million and twelve million dollars in assets in

52
00:03:37,800 --> 00:03:38,480
Speaker 3: twenty twenty one.

53
00:03:38,960 --> 00:03:42,040
Speaker 2: Tell us about their annual salary, it's not anything near

54
00:03:42,080 --> 00:03:45,760
Speaker 2: what a lawyer with their exproduce would get in private practice.

55
00:03:46,120 --> 00:03:49,960
Speaker 3: Right exactly. So Roberts makes two hundred and ninety eight thousand,

56
00:03:50,040 --> 00:03:52,880
Speaker 3: five hundred dollars annually. The rest makes two hundred and

57
00:03:52,880 --> 00:03:56,400
Speaker 3: eighty five four hundred. So that's a pretty good salary

58
00:03:56,440 --> 00:03:59,119
Speaker 3: when we're looking at, you know, the average in America.

59
00:03:59,640 --> 00:04:02,920
Speaker 3: But for a lot of these justices, they have lengthy

60
00:04:03,560 --> 00:04:06,920
Speaker 3: histories of government service. Of private practice, they could be

61
00:04:07,000 --> 00:04:10,600
Speaker 3: making millions per year. And you know, one expert I

62
00:04:10,680 --> 00:04:14,640
Speaker 3: talked to pointed out, there's actually some good arguments for

63
00:04:15,160 --> 00:04:19,360
Speaker 3: increasing the income that Supreme Court justices make in order

64
00:04:19,400 --> 00:04:24,279
Speaker 3: to encourage more people to you know, come into doing

65
00:04:24,360 --> 00:04:27,200
Speaker 3: service like that for the government. You know, is it

66
00:04:27,279 --> 00:04:30,000
Speaker 3: actually better to have a Supreme Court justice who doesn't

67
00:04:30,040 --> 00:04:32,040
Speaker 3: make that much money and doesn't have that much money?

68
00:04:32,200 --> 00:04:35,080
Speaker 3: You know, could they potentially be corrupted even more so

69
00:04:35,200 --> 00:04:37,240
Speaker 3: than someone who comes from a lot of wealth. So

70
00:04:37,279 --> 00:04:40,800
Speaker 3: there's divisions within the ethics community itself about, you know,

71
00:04:40,800 --> 00:04:43,280
Speaker 3: how to think about the Supreme Court justice wealth and income.

72
00:04:44,160 --> 00:04:46,920
Speaker 2: So I take it that most of this wealth then

73
00:04:47,360 --> 00:04:52,600
Speaker 2: is from their prior life, from their prior practice or

74
00:04:52,640 --> 00:04:56,919
Speaker 2: prior jobs. What can they make as professors? Some of

75
00:04:56,960 --> 00:04:59,400
Speaker 2: them have outside gigs as professors.

76
00:05:00,520 --> 00:05:04,080
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's pretty normal for different core justice to have

77
00:05:04,240 --> 00:05:08,920
Speaker 3: side gigs as professors at universities around where they live

78
00:05:09,279 --> 00:05:14,080
Speaker 3: or around CC And the cap on what they're allowed

79
00:05:14,080 --> 00:05:17,320
Speaker 3: to make is about thirty thousand dollars. It's suggusted for

80
00:05:17,400 --> 00:05:22,279
Speaker 3: inflation every couple of years, but it's a pretty low amount.

81
00:05:22,400 --> 00:05:27,599
Speaker 3: So it's supposed to encourage them to share their expertise

82
00:05:27,760 --> 00:05:30,880
Speaker 3: with students and to share some of the knowledge, but

83
00:05:31,560 --> 00:05:34,200
Speaker 3: it's not supposed to be their main source of income.

84
00:05:34,279 --> 00:05:36,960
Speaker 3: And one reason why it's a popular side gig for

85
00:05:37,120 --> 00:05:40,400
Speaker 3: these justices is they're not allowed to give legal advice.

86
00:05:40,560 --> 00:05:42,520
Speaker 3: That makes a lot of sense. They're not allowed to

87
00:05:42,640 --> 00:05:46,760
Speaker 3: have their own separate clients they're consulting, you know, with

88
00:05:46,880 --> 00:05:50,080
Speaker 3: any companies, because that could create a huge conflict of interest.

89
00:05:50,360 --> 00:05:53,040
Speaker 3: So that's why teaching is a good happy medium.

90
00:05:53,360 --> 00:05:57,080
Speaker 2: And some of the justices have made a lot of

91
00:05:57,160 --> 00:05:58,520
Speaker 2: money from book deals.

92
00:05:59,080 --> 00:06:02,840
Speaker 3: Yes, this isn't a increasing trends among Supreme Court justices.

93
00:06:03,320 --> 00:06:06,839
Speaker 3: You know, some of them have gotten a million dollars

94
00:06:06,880 --> 00:06:10,960
Speaker 3: in advances, two million dollars for advances. Justice Amy Coney

95
00:06:11,040 --> 00:06:16,279
Speaker 3: Barrett broke records by getting a huge advance for her autobiography.

96
00:06:16,360 --> 00:06:19,520
Speaker 3: So Barrett collected about four hundred and twenty five thousand

97
00:06:19,640 --> 00:06:22,560
Speaker 3: dollars in royalties for her book in twenty twenty one,

98
00:06:22,839 --> 00:06:25,920
Speaker 3: and it hasn't been released yet. Stuffics no gorses to

99
00:06:25,920 --> 00:06:29,640
Speaker 3: receive more than two hundred and fifty thousand. Soda Mayor

100
00:06:29,800 --> 00:06:32,800
Speaker 3: collected more than one hundred and ten thousand, So there's

101
00:06:33,000 --> 00:06:35,839
Speaker 3: you know, no rules barring any of the justice from

102
00:06:36,200 --> 00:06:38,640
Speaker 3: writing books while they're sitting on the bench, and it

103
00:06:38,680 --> 00:06:41,960
Speaker 3: seems like that is increasingly a.

104
00:06:41,800 --> 00:06:45,760
Speaker 2: Popular past ten So Timayork collected that in twenty twenty one,

105
00:06:45,800 --> 00:06:48,040
Speaker 2: but she had something like a three million dollar book

106
00:06:48,080 --> 00:06:50,719
Speaker 2: deal when it came out, So a lot of her wealth,

107
00:06:50,760 --> 00:06:54,640
Speaker 2: I take it, comes from that. So now Justice Samuel Leito,

108
00:06:54,640 --> 00:06:57,719
Speaker 2: who comes in three on the list, has a lot

109
00:06:57,760 --> 00:07:01,120
Speaker 2: of stock, and that's caused him to have to recuse

110
00:07:01,200 --> 00:07:02,560
Speaker 2: himself several times.

111
00:07:03,440 --> 00:07:07,880
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's no rules barring the justices from owning stock

112
00:07:07,960 --> 00:07:12,800
Speaker 3: and individual companies, but there is increasingly a culture that

113
00:07:12,880 --> 00:07:16,400
Speaker 3: discourages it. So there's been a lot of scrutiny on

114
00:07:16,720 --> 00:07:21,960
Speaker 3: Justice Alito for the individual stock he owns in dozens

115
00:07:22,000 --> 00:07:25,119
Speaker 3: of companies. So he is the only Supreme Court justice

116
00:07:25,160 --> 00:07:28,160
Speaker 3: that owns that much stock in individual companies. She's Justice

117
00:07:28,320 --> 00:07:32,160
Speaker 3: John Roberts did own a bunch of stock and individual company.

118
00:07:32,480 --> 00:07:35,880
Speaker 3: A family member died and he inherited that stock. He's

119
00:07:35,920 --> 00:07:39,480
Speaker 3: been selling it off. But yeah, Alito himself, he has

120
00:07:39,520 --> 00:07:43,480
Speaker 3: a recuse from a case involving Johnson and Johnson because

121
00:07:43,520 --> 00:07:45,640
Speaker 3: he owns stock. He gets a recuse from a case

122
00:07:45,680 --> 00:07:49,040
Speaker 3: involving exon Mobile because he owns stock. And there are

123
00:07:49,040 --> 00:07:51,600
Speaker 3: people who say, well, this really hampers the functioning of

124
00:07:51,640 --> 00:07:54,760
Speaker 3: the court. It means he has to recuse himself more

125
00:07:54,800 --> 00:07:57,920
Speaker 3: than any of the other justices than his vote doesn't count.

126
00:07:58,000 --> 00:08:02,960
Speaker 2: So approaching the halfway mark, Justices Amy Cony, Barrett, Elena Kagan,

127
00:08:03,040 --> 00:08:06,640
Speaker 2: and Sonya Soto Mayor come in fourth, fifth, and sixth,

128
00:08:06,920 --> 00:08:08,760
Speaker 2: and two of them are landlords.

129
00:08:09,320 --> 00:08:14,040
Speaker 3: Yes, a bunch of the Supreme Court justices own some property,

130
00:08:14,120 --> 00:08:17,680
Speaker 3: so they have to disclose secondary homes on the financial soltures,

131
00:08:18,000 --> 00:08:23,280
Speaker 3: not their primary residences. But Justice Soda Mayor rents out

132
00:08:23,320 --> 00:08:26,920
Speaker 3: and New York property. It's valued somewhere between a million

133
00:08:26,960 --> 00:08:30,640
Speaker 3: and five million. She gets somewhere between fifteen thousand and

134
00:08:30,680 --> 00:08:34,080
Speaker 3: fifty thousand a year from that property. And Justice Selena

135
00:08:34,120 --> 00:08:38,520
Speaker 3: Kagan is making barely any money at all off of

136
00:08:38,800 --> 00:08:42,800
Speaker 3: renting out her Washington DC residents, So she makes between

137
00:08:42,800 --> 00:08:46,439
Speaker 3: one thousand and two thousand and five hundred in rental income.

138
00:08:47,040 --> 00:08:50,320
Speaker 3: So it's possible that that's a part time tenant. But

139
00:08:50,520 --> 00:08:53,160
Speaker 3: it's really interesting to think about a lot of these

140
00:08:53,240 --> 00:08:57,440
Speaker 3: justices as landlords because they see cases that have to

141
00:08:57,480 --> 00:09:00,480
Speaker 3: do with tenants' rights, and you know cases in which

142
00:09:00,840 --> 00:09:06,040
Speaker 3: the parties are landlords versus tenants representative. So the Supreme

143
00:09:06,040 --> 00:09:09,520
Speaker 3: Court last year block part of the New York eviction moratorium,

144
00:09:09,679 --> 00:09:12,960
Speaker 3: so they sided with landlords over tenants, and it definitely

145
00:09:13,000 --> 00:09:16,559
Speaker 3: brings up some interesting questions about the definition of conflict

146
00:09:16,640 --> 00:09:18,560
Speaker 3: of interest and how wide ranging that should be.

147
00:09:19,240 --> 00:09:23,960
Speaker 2: Clarence Thomas, who has recently made headlines because of lavish

148
00:09:24,080 --> 00:09:28,720
Speaker 2: vacations that were paid for by a mega Republican donor

149
00:09:28,760 --> 00:09:32,440
Speaker 2: and a property deal. He's at seven on the list,

150
00:09:32,960 --> 00:09:36,719
Speaker 2: and the newest Justice, Katanji Brown Jackson, is eight, So

151
00:09:36,760 --> 00:09:39,160
Speaker 2: tell us who the justice at the bottom of the

152
00:09:39,200 --> 00:09:39,720
Speaker 2: list is.

153
00:09:40,240 --> 00:09:43,200
Speaker 3: At the bottom of the list is Brett Kavanaugh, which

154
00:09:43,760 --> 00:09:47,320
Speaker 3: was kind of surprising. When he was being considered by

155
00:09:47,440 --> 00:09:51,440
Speaker 3: the Senate, he was framed in public as this rich guy.

156
00:09:51,559 --> 00:09:53,920
Speaker 3: He comes from the suburbs in Maryland, he went to

157
00:09:54,040 --> 00:09:58,720
Speaker 3: private school. But he has reported between fifteen thousand and

158
00:09:58,760 --> 00:10:03,040
Speaker 3: sixty five thousand in asset. What's possible is that he

159
00:10:03,200 --> 00:10:06,120
Speaker 3: has a lot of money in places that he doesn't

160
00:10:06,120 --> 00:10:08,160
Speaker 3: have to disclose. So for instance, it could be in

161
00:10:08,240 --> 00:10:12,280
Speaker 3: his government retirement plan, or it could come down to

162
00:10:12,320 --> 00:10:15,480
Speaker 3: his personal residence. But it's possible that he's worth more

163
00:10:15,480 --> 00:10:16,480
Speaker 3: than he has to disclose.

164
00:10:16,679 --> 00:10:20,240
Speaker 2: On Zillo, his home is worth about one point seven

165
00:10:20,280 --> 00:10:23,440
Speaker 2: million dollars. So that just shows how it's so hard

166
00:10:23,480 --> 00:10:26,320
Speaker 2: to figure out what they're worth. So, I know you

167
00:10:26,440 --> 00:10:30,960
Speaker 2: spoke to some ethics experts. What do they say about

168
00:10:31,240 --> 00:10:36,960
Speaker 2: having decisions that affect everyday life decided by so many

169
00:10:37,520 --> 00:10:38,840
Speaker 2: super rich people.

170
00:10:39,559 --> 00:10:43,760
Speaker 3: So I spoke to Richard Painter, who was the White

171
00:10:43,760 --> 00:10:47,760
Speaker 3: House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, and he

172
00:10:47,880 --> 00:10:51,440
Speaker 3: said it comes down to this concern that the justices

173
00:10:51,520 --> 00:10:54,679
Speaker 3: may be out of touch with America in a lot

174
00:10:54,760 --> 00:10:57,760
Speaker 3: of different ways, including their wealth. Another way they're out

175
00:10:57,760 --> 00:11:00,640
Speaker 3: of touch related to wealth is that all of them

176
00:11:00,920 --> 00:11:04,640
Speaker 3: went to either Harvard or Yale Law school. Besides Justice

177
00:11:04,679 --> 00:11:08,079
Speaker 3: Amy Cony Barrett. You know, they come from elite circles,

178
00:11:08,120 --> 00:11:11,600
Speaker 3: They live elite lives, and they make decisions that often

179
00:11:12,080 --> 00:11:17,400
Speaker 3: are deeply tied to class and you know, issues about economics,

180
00:11:17,440 --> 00:11:21,440
Speaker 3: so you can think about students, debt, relief, renters' rights,

181
00:11:21,520 --> 00:11:26,080
Speaker 3: disability claims, you know, labor issues. They're seeing cases about

182
00:11:26,120 --> 00:11:29,600
Speaker 3: all of these, and I think we're entering a moment

183
00:11:29,800 --> 00:11:33,560
Speaker 3: in American life, where we're not seeing these justices as

184
00:11:33,600 --> 00:11:37,680
Speaker 3: simply neutral arbiters anymore. You know, they seem to be

185
00:11:37,880 --> 00:11:42,920
Speaker 3: more comfortable than ever expressing their ideologies, and so some

186
00:11:43,080 --> 00:11:47,880
Speaker 3: epics experts are asking does their wealth amount to sort

187
00:11:47,920 --> 00:11:51,880
Speaker 3: of conflicts or a bias that colors they're thinking and

188
00:11:51,880 --> 00:11:52,920
Speaker 3: their approach to the law.

189
00:11:53,320 --> 00:11:56,680
Speaker 2: Senate Democrats have been trying to get the justices to

190
00:11:56,800 --> 00:11:59,920
Speaker 2: adopt ethics rules. Are there any request to get them

191
00:12:00,080 --> 00:12:03,280
Speaker 2: to disclose more of their wealth?

192
00:12:04,000 --> 00:12:07,160
Speaker 3: Definitely, So there are a couple of different proposals circulating

193
00:12:07,200 --> 00:12:10,200
Speaker 3: in Congress. They've been around per years and energy is

194
00:12:10,200 --> 00:12:13,959
Speaker 3: building around them now in light of the Clearance Thomas revolutions.

195
00:12:14,440 --> 00:12:17,840
Speaker 3: It would expand how much they have to disclose. It

196
00:12:17,880 --> 00:12:21,720
Speaker 3: would also create potentially a code of ethics for the

197
00:12:21,720 --> 00:12:25,480
Speaker 3: Supreme Court. Right now, the Supreme Court is not bound

198
00:12:25,520 --> 00:12:28,640
Speaker 3: by the same rules that federal judges are bound by,

199
00:12:29,000 --> 00:12:31,200
Speaker 3: because you know, there's the highest court in the land.

200
00:12:31,480 --> 00:12:35,120
Speaker 3: But the legislation in Congress would hold them to higher

201
00:12:35,120 --> 00:12:38,000
Speaker 3: ethical standards, including better financial disclosures.

202
00:12:38,160 --> 00:12:41,080
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for that analysis, Emily. That's Bloomberg Legal

203
00:12:41,120 --> 00:12:46,560
Speaker 2: reporter Emily Burnbound. Gender rights have been an increasing Republican

204
00:12:46,679 --> 00:12:49,440
Speaker 2: target across the country as the party looks for a

205
00:12:49,480 --> 00:12:53,120
Speaker 2: wedge issue to excite social conservatives before the twenty twenty

206
00:12:53,160 --> 00:12:57,280
Speaker 2: four election. This year alone, ten Republican led state legislators

207
00:12:57,440 --> 00:13:01,880
Speaker 2: have banned gender affirming care or surgery reminders, and last week,

208
00:13:01,920 --> 00:13:04,720
Speaker 2: hous Republicans pushed through a bill on a party line

209
00:13:04,800 --> 00:13:09,240
Speaker 2: vote that would limit transgender students from playing sports. Joining

210
00:13:09,240 --> 00:13:12,600
Speaker 2: me is Angela Reddock right, an employment and Title nine

211
00:13:12,640 --> 00:13:16,360
Speaker 2: attorney and mediator in Los Angeles. So let's start with

212
00:13:16,440 --> 00:13:21,760
Speaker 2: the big issue. Why are transgender girls and women in

213
00:13:21,840 --> 00:13:27,560
Speaker 2: sports such a contentious issue in sports and in culture today?

214
00:13:28,480 --> 00:13:33,280
Speaker 4: Well, it's such a contentious issue because we see an

215
00:13:33,320 --> 00:13:39,840
Speaker 4: increasing focus on transgender youth, in particular in the experiences

216
00:13:39,920 --> 00:13:42,960
Speaker 4: they have in the trauma that MANI face, and just

217
00:13:43,000 --> 00:13:47,120
Speaker 4: in terms of navigating the world and more and more,

218
00:13:47,320 --> 00:13:52,040
Speaker 4: as LGBTQ rights are being asserted across the board and

219
00:13:52,080 --> 00:13:58,200
Speaker 4: there's growing support for individuals who are LGBTQ, that's going

220
00:13:58,280 --> 00:14:04,200
Speaker 4: face to face with politicians, elected officials, advocates and others

221
00:14:04,640 --> 00:14:09,240
Speaker 4: who are saying, you know, while these individuals may be people,

222
00:14:09,679 --> 00:14:13,760
Speaker 4: we don't think their transgender status gives them quote unquote

223
00:14:13,800 --> 00:14:19,520
Speaker 4: extra special rights over their non transgender peers, so to speak.

224
00:14:19,760 --> 00:14:22,040
Speaker 4: So I think the issue is coming to a head

225
00:14:22,760 --> 00:14:26,960
Speaker 4: in US and American politics in particular, and so that

226
00:14:27,040 --> 00:14:32,880
Speaker 4: filters down obviously through our schools, our workplaces, our churches,

227
00:14:33,320 --> 00:14:38,640
Speaker 4: you know, our synagoguic congregations, everywhere that we live and

228
00:14:38,840 --> 00:14:40,080
Speaker 4: engage in society.

229
00:14:40,480 --> 00:14:42,360
Speaker 2: So tell us about this House bill.

230
00:14:42,880 --> 00:14:46,840
Speaker 4: So recently the House passed the bill that would make

231
00:14:46,840 --> 00:14:50,320
Speaker 4: it a violation of Federal Title MIND roles in Title

232
00:14:50,400 --> 00:14:54,440
Speaker 4: Mind exists to provide equality in sports and schools in

233
00:14:54,520 --> 00:14:58,760
Speaker 4: particular and educational institutions that are federally funded. And they

234
00:14:58,760 --> 00:15:00,960
Speaker 4: passed the built that it would be a violation of

235
00:15:01,040 --> 00:15:05,040
Speaker 4: federal Title nine rules for schools to use funds to

236
00:15:05,200 --> 00:15:10,480
Speaker 4: allow transgender girls and women to compete in female event categories.

237
00:15:10,800 --> 00:15:14,160
Speaker 4: And they haven't fully defined that, but essentially what the

238
00:15:14,200 --> 00:15:16,480
Speaker 4: bill would do is pass But it's not likely to

239
00:15:16,520 --> 00:15:19,560
Speaker 4: pass the Senate or to be signed into law by

240
00:15:19,600 --> 00:15:23,200
Speaker 4: the President. But if it were, it would essentially say,

241
00:15:23,360 --> 00:15:26,040
Speaker 4: at the K through twelve level as well as the

242
00:15:26,040 --> 00:15:30,200
Speaker 4: college and university level, if there's a transgender woman in

243
00:15:30,280 --> 00:15:34,160
Speaker 4: particular who wants to compete in any athletic sport that

244
00:15:34,160 --> 00:15:37,720
Speaker 4: that person would be barred from participating based on their

245
00:15:37,760 --> 00:15:41,040
Speaker 4: transgender status. It does create a caveat that as the

246
00:15:41,080 --> 00:15:46,120
Speaker 4: person can train with a female team, but if their

247
00:15:46,280 --> 00:15:51,920
Speaker 4: participation causes a female, a biologically female athlete not to

248
00:15:52,080 --> 00:15:55,760
Speaker 4: be able to participate or to compete, then that trumps

249
00:15:56,120 --> 00:15:59,960
Speaker 4: that the person who is still identifies biologically as female

250
00:16:00,640 --> 00:16:04,160
Speaker 4: is able to compete over the transgender athlete. So it

251
00:16:04,280 --> 00:16:09,600
Speaker 4: basically bars transgender individuals women in particular transgender women, from

252
00:16:09,680 --> 00:16:13,640
Speaker 4: participating in K through twelve or college or athletic sports.

253
00:16:13,840 --> 00:16:17,640
Speaker 2: Now, the bill passed on strictly party lines, with all

254
00:16:17,720 --> 00:16:21,240
Speaker 2: Republicans voting yes and all the Democrats voting know. But

255
00:16:21,320 --> 00:16:23,120
Speaker 2: as you mentioned, it's not going to go anywhere in

256
00:16:23,160 --> 00:16:26,440
Speaker 2: the Democratic controlled Senate, and the White House has said

257
00:16:26,440 --> 00:16:30,800
Speaker 2: that the President would veto the measure. So are Republicans

258
00:16:30,920 --> 00:16:35,920
Speaker 2: just trying to take advantage of what Republican congresswoman at

259
00:16:36,000 --> 00:16:40,600
Speaker 2: least Stephonic called, quote a winning issue in America?

260
00:16:40,680 --> 00:16:43,280
Speaker 4: Well, it is not clear that it's the winning issue, right,

261
00:16:43,400 --> 00:16:47,360
Speaker 4: because there's such a divide along Republicans and Democrats, and

262
00:16:47,400 --> 00:16:51,120
Speaker 4: I think that's reflected throughout the country. But certainly the

263
00:16:51,240 --> 00:16:54,000
Speaker 4: Republicans in the House are using this as an opportunity

264
00:16:54,360 --> 00:16:56,960
Speaker 4: to kind of assert what we're seeing there doing across

265
00:16:57,000 --> 00:16:59,920
Speaker 4: the board in terms of reproductive rights, in terms of

266
00:17:00,680 --> 00:17:03,880
Speaker 4: you know, in Florida, for example, banning the education of

267
00:17:04,040 --> 00:17:07,560
Speaker 4: race and discrimination and critical race theory, so to speak,

268
00:17:07,840 --> 00:17:12,480
Speaker 4: in the classroom. So every time that the current Republicans

269
00:17:12,640 --> 00:17:17,200
Speaker 4: have an opportunity to kind of assert these hardline views

270
00:17:17,680 --> 00:17:22,480
Speaker 4: around gender, race, and equity in our society, they're taking

271
00:17:22,480 --> 00:17:25,760
Speaker 4: that opportunity to do so. And this is yet another example.

272
00:17:26,359 --> 00:17:29,159
Speaker 2: So what kind of message does this send to a

273
00:17:29,200 --> 00:17:31,680
Speaker 2: group that's so vulnerable already.

274
00:17:32,000 --> 00:17:34,520
Speaker 4: It's certainly I think it, you know, has the potential

275
00:17:34,600 --> 00:17:37,360
Speaker 4: for a setback in terms of a group that is,

276
00:17:38,000 --> 00:17:42,240
Speaker 4: you know, known to be traumatized and to feel stigmatized

277
00:17:42,320 --> 00:17:45,919
Speaker 4: in our society. But you know, they have a whole

278
00:17:46,200 --> 00:17:51,719
Speaker 4: Senate full of Democrats, the presidents that support transgender rights.

279
00:17:51,760 --> 00:17:53,840
Speaker 4: And so I would say that the fight is not

280
00:17:54,040 --> 00:17:57,600
Speaker 4: over and that you know, those who support the rights

281
00:17:57,600 --> 00:18:01,399
Speaker 4: of transgender are going to continue to aggressively advocate and

282
00:18:01,440 --> 00:18:04,760
Speaker 4: it's really going to fall down to party lines, which

283
00:18:04,880 --> 00:18:09,080
Speaker 4: obviously is why the next election cycle will be so important,

284
00:18:09,320 --> 00:18:12,440
Speaker 4: you know, not just in terms of whose elected president,

285
00:18:12,680 --> 00:18:16,320
Speaker 4: but you know, the House and Senate races, and ultimately

286
00:18:16,840 --> 00:18:19,440
Speaker 4: I think this issue will go to the Supreme Court.

287
00:18:19,480 --> 00:18:23,159
Speaker 4: They have weighed in on kind of emergency efforts to

288
00:18:23,200 --> 00:18:26,280
Speaker 4: have iss you know, issues around transgender rights hurt, but

289
00:18:26,400 --> 00:18:29,560
Speaker 4: they have yet to fully weigh in on the question

290
00:18:29,720 --> 00:18:34,399
Speaker 4: of whether transgender athletes, particularly transgender female athletes, have the

291
00:18:34,520 --> 00:18:38,879
Speaker 4: right to participate in sports based on the gender identity

292
00:18:38,880 --> 00:18:41,800
Speaker 4: that they've chosen. So I don't think, you know, the

293
00:18:41,880 --> 00:18:44,760
Speaker 4: final determination has been made, But because of such a

294
00:18:44,760 --> 00:18:50,320
Speaker 4: politicized issue, I think where this lands will depend on

295
00:18:50,600 --> 00:18:54,439
Speaker 4: the next election cycle and who we see in the

296
00:18:54,440 --> 00:18:57,439
Speaker 4: White House, who we see in Congress. And you know,

297
00:18:57,480 --> 00:18:59,960
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court pretty much is what it is right now.

298
00:19:00,480 --> 00:19:05,200
Speaker 4: It's not likely will have a new Supreme Court appointee

299
00:19:05,280 --> 00:19:08,080
Speaker 4: unless the Supreme Court has expanded at some point. So

300
00:19:08,359 --> 00:19:11,760
Speaker 4: I think, you know, what that court does is up

301
00:19:11,760 --> 00:19:14,760
Speaker 4: for debate. But based on what we're seeing, you know,

302
00:19:14,800 --> 00:19:18,760
Speaker 4: I think it's a heavily conservatively leaning Supreme Court, so

303
00:19:19,320 --> 00:19:23,159
Speaker 4: they may ultimately rule similar to what we see Republicans

304
00:19:23,240 --> 00:19:24,800
Speaker 4: arguing for in the House.

305
00:19:25,520 --> 00:19:27,679
Speaker 2: When that case, the West Virginia case went up to

306
00:19:27,680 --> 00:19:32,280
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court. Some prominent women athletes, including you know,

307
00:19:32,440 --> 00:19:37,800
Speaker 2: tennis great Martine and avagur Loova. We're against transgender women

308
00:19:37,840 --> 00:19:42,000
Speaker 2: in sports. So is there a split among athletes as

309
00:19:42,040 --> 00:19:44,640
Speaker 2: to whether or not it's a fair competition?

310
00:19:45,280 --> 00:19:49,080
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think so, And it's understandably a very sensitive

311
00:19:49,160 --> 00:19:53,359
Speaker 4: issue because especially when you're talking about athletes who train

312
00:19:53,480 --> 00:19:57,000
Speaker 4: their entire lives, they you know, engage in sports at

313
00:19:57,000 --> 00:20:01,480
Speaker 4: are you know, highly competitive level. You know, it's very

314
00:20:01,520 --> 00:20:05,080
Speaker 4: important to them understandably that the playing kill is level,

315
00:20:05,280 --> 00:20:09,000
Speaker 4: that the rules are being exercised in terms of you know,

316
00:20:09,040 --> 00:20:12,440
Speaker 4: what type of enhancing drugs people can take, what they

317
00:20:12,520 --> 00:20:16,639
Speaker 4: do to you know, increase their performance. And you know,

318
00:20:16,760 --> 00:20:19,680
Speaker 4: I don't think anyone would debate that the studies show

319
00:20:20,240 --> 00:20:23,840
Speaker 4: early studies show that there could be a competitive edge

320
00:20:23,880 --> 00:20:27,760
Speaker 4: by someone who's you know, previously male and now have

321
00:20:27,920 --> 00:20:31,720
Speaker 4: gone through home hormone therapy too to become female. But

322
00:20:31,800 --> 00:20:36,800
Speaker 4: there's a possible competitive advantage. So, unlike some issues around

323
00:20:36,800 --> 00:20:40,639
Speaker 4: reproductive rites, et cetera, I think the issue is a

324
00:20:40,640 --> 00:20:44,159
Speaker 4: little bit more split just because of you know, the

325
00:20:44,280 --> 00:20:48,560
Speaker 4: science and the medical thought behind you know, the difference

326
00:20:48,640 --> 00:20:52,080
Speaker 4: in whether it allows for competitive edge.

327
00:20:52,680 --> 00:20:56,320
Speaker 2: So the Biden administration recently proposed a new rule that

328
00:20:56,400 --> 00:21:00,440
Speaker 2: would prohibit categorical bands on trans and athletes. It's schools

329
00:21:00,480 --> 00:21:04,080
Speaker 2: receiving federal funding, but what allows some restrictions. Can you

330
00:21:04,119 --> 00:21:06,040
Speaker 2: explain what that new rule would do?

331
00:21:06,800 --> 00:21:09,639
Speaker 4: My understanding is that he also would leave it to

332
00:21:10,000 --> 00:21:13,720
Speaker 4: individual states and schools to kind of decide what works

333
00:21:13,800 --> 00:21:17,560
Speaker 4: best in their environment and to make decisions on a

334
00:21:17,600 --> 00:21:21,480
Speaker 4: case by case basis. And I actually think that's a

335
00:21:21,600 --> 00:21:25,479
Speaker 4: good approach, with the exception that we know that in

336
00:21:25,520 --> 00:21:29,120
Speaker 4: some states and some schools within those states, that there

337
00:21:29,119 --> 00:21:32,520
Speaker 4: would be a heavy bias toward our complete band. They

338
00:21:32,520 --> 00:21:35,080
Speaker 4: would use this as an opportunity to have a complete

339
00:21:35,119 --> 00:21:40,679
Speaker 4: ban on transgender individuals women are in particular participating in sports. So,

340
00:21:41,160 --> 00:21:43,840
Speaker 4: you know, I think in places like we've already seen

341
00:21:43,920 --> 00:21:47,000
Speaker 4: in California and Connecticut and other places that are considered

342
00:21:47,040 --> 00:21:51,000
Speaker 4: more progressive, I think the schools and the legislatures would

343
00:21:51,040 --> 00:21:54,520
Speaker 4: take that to heart, you know, in terms of let's

344
00:21:54,520 --> 00:21:57,959
Speaker 4: look at this what's there in this particular situation, And

345
00:21:58,000 --> 00:22:00,520
Speaker 4: I think that's the right approach. But in other states,

346
00:22:00,800 --> 00:22:03,880
Speaker 4: I think we would basically see a complete Ban and

347
00:22:04,200 --> 00:22:07,000
Speaker 4: Hansley would have such a divide in the US that

348
00:22:07,119 --> 00:22:09,480
Speaker 4: I think it would continue to just be such a

349
00:22:09,800 --> 00:22:14,800
Speaker 4: highly dealed discussion that undoubtedly would cause a major divide

350
00:22:14,840 --> 00:22:15,480
Speaker 4: in the country.

351
00:22:15,880 --> 00:22:18,640
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for being on the show. That's Angela

352
00:22:18,720 --> 00:22:22,320
Speaker 2: reduc Right and Employment and Title nine attorney and Mediator

353
00:22:22,400 --> 00:22:25,000
Speaker 2: in Los Angeles. And that's it for this edition of

354
00:22:25,000 --> 00:22:27,639
Speaker 2: The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the

355
00:22:27,720 --> 00:22:30,960
Speaker 2: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can

356
00:22:31,000 --> 00:22:35,200
Speaker 2: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot

357
00:22:35,240 --> 00:22:39,399
Speaker 2: bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and remember to

358
00:22:39,440 --> 00:22:42,520
Speaker 2: tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten

359
00:22:42,560 --> 00:22:46,320
Speaker 2: pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening

360
00:22:46,440 --> 00:22:47,080
Speaker 2: to Bloomberg