1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,680 --> 00:00:13,360
Speaker 2: Former FBI Director James Comy pleaded not guilty today to

3
00:00:13,520 --> 00:00:17,880
Speaker 2: charge that he lied to lawmakers and obstructed a congressional proceeding.

4
00:00:18,440 --> 00:00:21,000
Speaker 2: It sets up a trial for early next year that

5
00:00:21,079 --> 00:00:24,840
Speaker 2: will delve into the federal prosecution of one of President

6
00:00:24,920 --> 00:00:30,639
Speaker 2: Donald Trump's biggest perceived enemies. Comy's attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, a

7
00:00:30,680 --> 00:00:34,640
Speaker 2: former US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, entered

8
00:00:34,680 --> 00:00:37,559
Speaker 2: the plea of not guilty and said it was the

9
00:00:37,680 --> 00:00:41,600
Speaker 2: honor of my life to represent mister Komy in this matter.

10
00:00:42,000 --> 00:00:45,559
Speaker 2: It wasn't surprising that Fitzgerald said Komy would be asking

11
00:00:45,600 --> 00:00:48,559
Speaker 2: for the case to be dismissed, but there were some

12
00:00:48,800 --> 00:00:52,880
Speaker 2: other surprises during the less than half hour hearing. Joining

13
00:00:52,880 --> 00:00:55,760
Speaker 2: me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Chris Strom, who was in

14
00:00:55,880 --> 00:00:59,960
Speaker 2: the courtroom. Chris So, the defense attorney sort of outlined

15
00:01:00,040 --> 00:01:02,840
Speaker 2: and the grounds they would use to try to dismiss

16
00:01:02,880 --> 00:01:03,360
Speaker 2: the case.

17
00:01:03,840 --> 00:01:07,440
Speaker 1: His attorney is Patrick Fitzgerald, who is a very well known,

18
00:01:07,720 --> 00:01:13,880
Speaker 1: very respected lawyer, former US attorney for Chicago, and he

19
00:01:14,760 --> 00:01:19,640
Speaker 1: made three main points that they are going to challenge

20
00:01:20,080 --> 00:01:25,480
Speaker 1: that the case against Komi represents a vindictive prosecution and

21
00:01:25,560 --> 00:01:31,520
Speaker 1: a selective prosecution, and that the appointment of the interim

22
00:01:31,640 --> 00:01:35,720
Speaker 1: US attorney who brought the charge was unlawful. And so

23
00:01:36,200 --> 00:01:40,080
Speaker 1: they are going to move through those phases of challenges

24
00:01:40,880 --> 00:01:44,560
Speaker 1: and if they all fail, then they will go to

25
00:01:44,680 --> 00:01:45,720
Speaker 1: a speedy trial.

26
00:01:46,280 --> 00:01:50,200
Speaker 2: Why does he say that the appointment was unlawful. I

27
00:01:50,240 --> 00:01:53,880
Speaker 2: mean it was one of Trump's former personal attorneys, an

28
00:01:53,920 --> 00:01:58,520
Speaker 2: insurance lawyer with no prosecutoral experience. But I mean, what's

29
00:01:58,560 --> 00:01:59,120
Speaker 2: the objection.

30
00:02:00,120 --> 00:02:04,200
Speaker 1: The objection is that she was not a Justice Department

31
00:02:04,240 --> 00:02:08,760
Speaker 1: official before she was appointed. There are certain rules that

32
00:02:08,960 --> 00:02:13,079
Speaker 1: have to be followed when you are appointing a temporary

33
00:02:13,320 --> 00:02:17,760
Speaker 1: position within the Justice Department, and US attorneys need to

34
00:02:17,800 --> 00:02:21,280
Speaker 1: be Senate confirmed or they need to be given the

35
00:02:21,320 --> 00:02:27,280
Speaker 1: appointment by federal judges. It's allowed to have a temporary appointment,

36
00:02:27,720 --> 00:02:31,239
Speaker 1: but the temporary appointment must be somebody who comes from

37
00:02:31,280 --> 00:02:34,640
Speaker 1: within the Justice Department, which Lindsay Halligan does not.

38
00:02:35,360 --> 00:02:38,799
Speaker 2: So that's interesting because if the judge threw out the

39
00:02:38,840 --> 00:02:44,360
Speaker 2: indictment because she was not a legal appointee, I mean

40
00:02:44,440 --> 00:02:46,839
Speaker 2: the statute of limitations has run, they wouldn't be able

41
00:02:46,840 --> 00:02:48,440
Speaker 2: to bring the charges against him again.

42
00:02:48,720 --> 00:02:50,800
Speaker 1: Correct, the case would be completely dropped and there'd be

43
00:02:50,800 --> 00:02:52,119
Speaker 1: no ability to bring it back.

44
00:02:52,320 --> 00:02:52,520
Speaker 3: You know.

45
00:02:52,600 --> 00:02:55,960
Speaker 1: The only caveat is these are hard motions to win. Generally,

46
00:02:56,080 --> 00:02:58,880
Speaker 1: judges are hesitant to throw out cases that grand jury's

47
00:02:58,880 --> 00:03:02,680
Speaker 1: have returned, so so the defense does face some obstacles

48
00:03:03,040 --> 00:03:05,880
Speaker 1: to being able to do it. But the rules of

49
00:03:06,080 --> 00:03:09,800
Speaker 1: how US attorneys are appointed in what they can actually

50
00:03:09,840 --> 00:03:13,960
Speaker 1: do raise legitimate questions for the defense to challenge the

51
00:03:14,000 --> 00:03:15,359
Speaker 1: appointment of Halligan.

52
00:03:15,960 --> 00:03:19,600
Speaker 2: So Fitzgerald said that the defense hasn't been giving any

53
00:03:19,639 --> 00:03:23,200
Speaker 2: additional details about the charges. What kind of information is

54
00:03:23,240 --> 00:03:24,000
Speaker 2: he looking for?

55
00:03:24,440 --> 00:03:30,280
Speaker 1: Specifically, the defense wants to know who Komy authorized to

56
00:03:30,320 --> 00:03:35,960
Speaker 1: provide information, and what information that person provided and who

57
00:03:36,080 --> 00:03:39,080
Speaker 1: it related to. In the indictment, it says that Komy

58
00:03:39,280 --> 00:03:44,560
Speaker 1: authorized person three to provide information about person one. It's

59
00:03:44,560 --> 00:03:47,080
Speaker 1: pretty clear from everything we know that person one is

60
00:03:47,120 --> 00:03:50,080
Speaker 1: actually Hillary Clinton, but what's not clear is who is

61
00:03:50,120 --> 00:03:56,080
Speaker 1: person three that actually provided the information. And Komi's defense

62
00:03:56,320 --> 00:03:58,440
Speaker 1: is saying that to this date, they still have not

63
00:03:58,560 --> 00:04:02,840
Speaker 1: been told specifically the details of the indictment, which they

64
00:04:02,960 --> 00:04:05,480
Speaker 1: need to know in order to mount their defense.

65
00:04:05,920 --> 00:04:10,160
Speaker 2: It was a very skimpy indictment. Just explain what he's

66
00:04:10,560 --> 00:04:11,760
Speaker 2: accused of doing. It.

67
00:04:11,760 --> 00:04:15,440
Speaker 1: It's not the leak, yeah, correct. Comy's accused of lying

68
00:04:15,720 --> 00:04:19,320
Speaker 1: to Congress, making a false statement during a testimony that

69
00:04:19,360 --> 00:04:23,240
Speaker 1: he gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee in September of

70
00:04:23,360 --> 00:04:27,640
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. So it was five years ago, and that's

71
00:04:27,680 --> 00:04:30,320
Speaker 1: why the Justice Department was up against the statute of

72
00:04:30,400 --> 00:04:33,680
Speaker 1: limitations in order to bring this charge. And so what

73
00:04:33,720 --> 00:04:38,320
Speaker 1: the Justice Department said is that during Kmy's testimony, Comy

74
00:04:38,480 --> 00:04:42,440
Speaker 1: said that he stood by previous testimony that he never

75
00:04:42,560 --> 00:04:48,039
Speaker 1: authorized anybody to leak information about either the Hillary Clinton

76
00:04:48,120 --> 00:04:51,960
Speaker 1: investigation or the Trump investigation. And what the Justice Department

77
00:04:52,040 --> 00:04:55,160
Speaker 1: is saying is that Komy made a false statement by

78
00:04:56,680 --> 00:05:01,039
Speaker 1: saying he stood behind his previous testimony. So Komy is

79
00:05:01,040 --> 00:05:05,760
Speaker 1: not being charged with actually authorizing the leak. He's being

80
00:05:05,839 --> 00:05:09,160
Speaker 1: charged with lying about authorizing the leak.

81
00:05:09,720 --> 00:05:14,400
Speaker 2: The prosecutor's response was there's a lot of classified information here.

82
00:05:14,480 --> 00:05:17,720
Speaker 2: Were they saying that they couldn't turn things over fast.

83
00:05:18,240 --> 00:05:23,040
Speaker 1: So the new wrinkle from today was that the prosecution

84
00:05:23,240 --> 00:05:26,919
Speaker 1: said that there's a large amount of discovery material that

85
00:05:26,960 --> 00:05:30,960
Speaker 1: they have to sort through, which includes classified information. Up

86
00:05:31,040 --> 00:05:34,000
Speaker 1: until now, we had never heard them say that there

87
00:05:34,160 --> 00:05:41,080
Speaker 1: is a trove of classified information, and that could complicate

88
00:05:41,240 --> 00:05:46,040
Speaker 1: the ability of the case to move forward and also

89
00:05:46,440 --> 00:05:52,320
Speaker 1: Komy to mount his defense because the government needs to

90
00:05:52,400 --> 00:05:56,279
Speaker 1: work out a process by which classified information can be

91
00:05:56,440 --> 00:06:01,479
Speaker 1: shared with Komy's defense team or provided to the judge

92
00:06:01,880 --> 00:06:06,839
Speaker 1: under seal. And I think everybody was surprised when the

93
00:06:06,880 --> 00:06:11,080
Speaker 1: prosecution said that they have classified information that they need

94
00:06:11,120 --> 00:06:14,520
Speaker 1: to sort through, and the judge quickly said he does

95
00:06:14,600 --> 00:06:19,320
Speaker 1: not intend to have a long delay, if any delay

96
00:06:20,040 --> 00:06:24,360
Speaker 1: as a result of needing to deal with classified information.

97
00:06:24,960 --> 00:06:29,080
Speaker 1: The judges basically ordered the prosecution team to get their

98
00:06:29,120 --> 00:06:33,680
Speaker 1: act together, sort through all of the discovery, determine how

99
00:06:33,680 --> 00:06:37,919
Speaker 1: they're going to handle the classified information, and provide the

100
00:06:38,080 --> 00:06:42,279
Speaker 1: necessary material to Komy for his defense.

101
00:06:42,560 --> 00:06:44,839
Speaker 2: The judge said, this doesn't appear to be an overly

102
00:06:44,920 --> 00:06:48,479
Speaker 2: complicated case. I mean, they can certainly give Komy the

103
00:06:48,600 --> 00:06:51,320
Speaker 2: name of the people in the indictment. I mean that

104
00:06:51,400 --> 00:06:52,880
Speaker 2: seems bare minimum.

105
00:06:53,320 --> 00:06:57,960
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was surprising that the government had not already

106
00:06:58,360 --> 00:07:03,240
Speaker 1: provided Komy and his lawyers with the just the basic

107
00:07:03,320 --> 00:07:10,480
Speaker 1: information of who they allege Komy authorized to leak information

108
00:07:10,920 --> 00:07:13,880
Speaker 1: the lawyer for Komy said that they had had no

109
00:07:14,000 --> 00:07:17,600
Speaker 1: discussion with the government until yesterday, and even then that

110
00:07:17,760 --> 00:07:21,640
Speaker 1: was a very brief discussion, and so Comy's defense is

111
00:07:21,680 --> 00:07:27,840
Speaker 1: saying that they need to see the details of what

112
00:07:28,800 --> 00:07:32,680
Speaker 1: the charges actually are. And it really speaks to how

113
00:07:32,760 --> 00:07:36,960
Speaker 1: unusual this case, you know, has been from the start,

114
00:07:37,360 --> 00:07:42,680
Speaker 1: and how there might be a problem with the ability

115
00:07:42,920 --> 00:07:46,840
Speaker 1: of the new US attorney, who has never prosecuted as

116
00:07:46,880 --> 00:07:51,040
Speaker 1: a case before, to manage this prosecution.

117
00:07:51,320 --> 00:07:54,080
Speaker 2: The two prosecutors who have signed on to handle the

118
00:07:54,080 --> 00:07:57,600
Speaker 2: case are both based in North Carolina, as opposed to

119
00:07:57,640 --> 00:08:01,160
Speaker 2: the Eastern District of Virginia where the case is taking place.

120
00:08:01,840 --> 00:08:05,560
Speaker 1: YEP, it's our understanding that most of the career officials

121
00:08:05,760 --> 00:08:08,640
Speaker 1: in the US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of

122
00:08:08,720 --> 00:08:12,720
Speaker 1: Virginia looked at the case and determined that there wasn't

123
00:08:12,720 --> 00:08:16,480
Speaker 1: sufficient evidence to bring a case or go to the

124
00:08:16,480 --> 00:08:20,440
Speaker 1: grand jury and get an indictment, and so none of

125
00:08:20,440 --> 00:08:25,040
Speaker 1: them are willing to sign on to this case. And

126
00:08:25,720 --> 00:08:31,520
Speaker 1: Trump installed a brand new US attorney who went and

127
00:08:31,560 --> 00:08:36,360
Speaker 1: got the indictment by herself, with no other prosecutors from

128
00:08:36,720 --> 00:08:41,520
Speaker 1: the office signed onto the indictment. And then had to

129
00:08:41,559 --> 00:08:46,000
Speaker 1: bring in assistant US attorneys from another office in order

130
00:08:46,040 --> 00:08:47,360
Speaker 1: to appear in court today.

131
00:08:47,520 --> 00:08:48,920
Speaker 2: I don't know if I've ever heard of anything like

132
00:08:49,000 --> 00:08:50,040
Speaker 2: that happening before.

133
00:08:50,480 --> 00:08:51,000
Speaker 1: I haven't.

134
00:08:51,679 --> 00:08:54,240
Speaker 2: What do we know about the judge because President Trump

135
00:08:54,280 --> 00:08:57,840
Speaker 2: has already called him a crooked Joe Biden appointed judge.

136
00:08:58,440 --> 00:09:03,040
Speaker 1: So the judge's reputation, he's very respected and considered to

137
00:09:03,080 --> 00:09:08,240
Speaker 1: be studious and knowledgeable of the law. He previously served

138
00:09:08,320 --> 00:09:13,080
Speaker 1: in the Justice Department. He came onto the bench with experience,

139
00:09:13,360 --> 00:09:17,240
Speaker 1: and he's been handling cases in the Eastern District of

140
00:09:17,320 --> 00:09:21,400
Speaker 1: Virginia for several years now, and these are can be

141
00:09:21,440 --> 00:09:24,840
Speaker 1: some of the most complicated cases that the Justice Department

142
00:09:24,880 --> 00:09:28,480
Speaker 1: deals with. In this case, though, as the judge said,

143
00:09:28,640 --> 00:09:32,280
Speaker 1: it appears to be just a relatively straightforward case and

144
00:09:33,160 --> 00:09:35,720
Speaker 1: should only take a couple of days with the trial,

145
00:09:36,120 --> 00:09:40,000
Speaker 1: and so there's nothing that indicates that the judge should

146
00:09:40,080 --> 00:09:47,200
Speaker 1: have any problem with being able to manage a relatively simple,

147
00:09:47,240 --> 00:09:48,240
Speaker 1: straightforward case.

148
00:09:49,240 --> 00:09:53,040
Speaker 2: So the trial is scheduled for January fifth. Are there

149
00:09:53,080 --> 00:09:54,719
Speaker 2: any other hearings scheduled?

150
00:09:55,480 --> 00:09:59,719
Speaker 1: Yes, there will be two hearings with oral arguments, one

151
00:09:59,720 --> 00:10:02,559
Speaker 1: in the November and one in December, and then along

152
00:10:02,600 --> 00:10:06,920
Speaker 1: the way there'll be status reports, and there's supposed to

153
00:10:06,920 --> 00:10:11,400
Speaker 1: be an agreement on how to handle discovery. The judge

154
00:10:12,240 --> 00:10:16,840
Speaker 1: actually said to get an agreement by this Friday between

155
00:10:17,120 --> 00:10:20,280
Speaker 1: the government and the defense and if they can agree

156
00:10:20,480 --> 00:10:23,800
Speaker 1: on how to handle discovery by this Friday, then both

157
00:10:23,840 --> 00:10:27,040
Speaker 1: sides are supposed to present their own proposals on Monday,

158
00:10:27,440 --> 00:10:30,280
Speaker 1: at which point the judge will then work out a

159
00:10:30,320 --> 00:10:31,640
Speaker 1: compromise between the two.

160
00:10:32,240 --> 00:10:37,360
Speaker 2: Could the prosecution be using these classified materials as a

161
00:10:37,400 --> 00:10:39,040
Speaker 2: sort of stalling tactic.

162
00:10:40,240 --> 00:10:43,160
Speaker 1: It can be used by the government as a stalling technique.

163
00:10:43,640 --> 00:10:46,679
Speaker 1: The government, when they're dealing with classified information, they have

164
00:10:46,720 --> 00:10:49,880
Speaker 1: to go through a process by which they come to

165
00:10:49,920 --> 00:10:55,680
Speaker 1: a decision on whether declassifying information or giving the Defense

166
00:10:55,760 --> 00:10:59,920
Speaker 1: Council a clearance to be able to review the classified information.

167
00:11:00,600 --> 00:11:06,120
Speaker 1: And so what can happen in very complicated cases is

168
00:11:06,160 --> 00:11:11,040
Speaker 1: that the intelligence agencies that basically own the classified information

169
00:11:11,960 --> 00:11:15,760
Speaker 1: might resist allowing it to be shared with the Defense

170
00:11:15,800 --> 00:11:20,120
Speaker 1: Council for some reason, maybe a national security reason, or

171
00:11:20,200 --> 00:11:23,280
Speaker 1: because it relates to some kind of an ongoing investigation

172
00:11:23,400 --> 00:11:27,679
Speaker 1: or an ongoing operation. And so we need to see

173
00:11:27,960 --> 00:11:31,319
Speaker 1: how the government is going to proceed with the classified

174
00:11:31,360 --> 00:11:35,520
Speaker 1: information in Comy's case. If they come back and say

175
00:11:35,640 --> 00:11:40,439
Speaker 1: that there's resistance to declassifying the information or sharing the information,

176
00:11:41,240 --> 00:11:46,320
Speaker 1: then that could throw a wrench into the schedule for

177
00:11:46,640 --> 00:11:49,320
Speaker 1: the upcoming hearings on the motions and the actual trial.

178
00:11:49,760 --> 00:11:54,120
Speaker 1: But again the judges said, he does not look at

179
00:11:54,120 --> 00:11:56,880
Speaker 1: this as being a complicated case at all, and he

180
00:11:56,920 --> 00:12:01,839
Speaker 1: basically ordered the prosecution to figure out everything they need

181
00:12:01,880 --> 00:12:04,720
Speaker 1: to do very quickly, and that he's not going to

182
00:12:04,720 --> 00:12:05,920
Speaker 1: allow them to play games.

183
00:12:06,440 --> 00:12:09,040
Speaker 2: Well, see how fast he can move it along. Thanks

184
00:12:09,040 --> 00:12:13,360
Speaker 2: so much, Chris. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Chris Strom coming up.

185
00:12:13,960 --> 00:12:17,960
Speaker 2: Colorado's ban on conversion therapy is on the line at

186
00:12:17,960 --> 00:12:23,520
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court. This is Bloomberg. Colorado is one of

187
00:12:23,679 --> 00:12:28,000
Speaker 2: twenty seven states that bar licensed counselors from using talk

188
00:12:28,120 --> 00:12:32,200
Speaker 2: therapy to try to change a child sexual orientation or

189
00:12:32,280 --> 00:12:38,120
Speaker 2: gender identity. Colorado's Solicitor General, Shannon Stevenson defended the law

190
00:12:38,200 --> 00:12:42,800
Speaker 2: at the Supreme Court, arguing that the Constitution allows states

191
00:12:42,840 --> 00:12:47,000
Speaker 2: to protect patients from harmful treatments. Even if a regulation

192
00:12:47,440 --> 00:12:49,599
Speaker 2: incidentally affects speech.

193
00:12:50,080 --> 00:12:53,000
Speaker 4: State cannot lose its power to regulate the very professionals

194
00:12:53,080 --> 00:12:56,560
Speaker 4: that it licenses just because they are using words. A

195
00:12:56,559 --> 00:12:59,400
Speaker 4: healthcare provider cannot be free to violate the standard of

196
00:12:59,440 --> 00:13:03,040
Speaker 4: care just because they are using words. And a state

197
00:13:03,080 --> 00:13:06,400
Speaker 4: cannot be required to let its vulnerable young people waste

198
00:13:06,440 --> 00:13:10,200
Speaker 4: their time and money on an ineffective, harmful treatment just

199
00:13:10,280 --> 00:13:12,440
Speaker 4: because that treatment is delivered through words.

200
00:13:13,120 --> 00:13:17,840
Speaker 2: A Christian counselor is challenging the twenty nineteen law as

201
00:13:18,000 --> 00:13:22,080
Speaker 2: violating her free speech rights, saying it wrongly bars her

202
00:13:22,120 --> 00:13:26,880
Speaker 2: from offering voluntary faith based therapy for kids, and the

203
00:13:26,880 --> 00:13:31,080
Speaker 2: Court's conservative justices appear to agree with her during oral

204
00:13:31,200 --> 00:13:35,800
Speaker 2: arguments questioning the constitutionality of the law. Here are Chief

205
00:13:36,040 --> 00:13:39,000
Speaker 2: Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

206
00:13:39,840 --> 00:13:44,360
Speaker 5: In other words, just because they're engaged in conduct, it

207
00:13:44,440 --> 00:13:46,280
Speaker 5: doesn't mean that their words aren't protected.

208
00:13:47,679 --> 00:13:50,320
Speaker 6: One viewpoint is the viewpoint that a miner should be

209
00:13:50,360 --> 00:13:54,600
Speaker 6: able to obtain talk therapy to overcome same sex attraction

210
00:13:54,679 --> 00:13:56,880
Speaker 6: if that's what he or she wants, and the other

211
00:13:57,440 --> 00:13:59,560
Speaker 6: is the viewpoint that the miner should not be able

212
00:13:59,600 --> 00:14:03,720
Speaker 6: to obtain taught therapy to overcome same sex attraction, even

213
00:14:03,720 --> 00:14:06,320
Speaker 6: if that is what he or she wants. Looks like

214
00:14:06,440 --> 00:14:08,040
Speaker 6: blatant viewpoint discrimination.

215
00:14:08,800 --> 00:14:12,480
Speaker 2: Liberal justice is Sonya so To Mayor and Katanji Brown

216
00:14:12,600 --> 00:14:15,679
Speaker 2: Jackson suggested they would back the law.

217
00:14:16,200 --> 00:14:16,520
Speaker 4: So Too.

218
00:14:16,600 --> 00:14:20,000
Speaker 2: Mayor was the only justice who addressed the harms that

219
00:14:20,160 --> 00:14:25,480
Speaker 2: all major medical associations warn about conversion therapy.

220
00:14:25,640 --> 00:14:30,120
Speaker 6: There are studies that say that this advice does harm

221
00:14:30,240 --> 00:14:34,160
Speaker 6: the people emotionally and physically.

222
00:14:34,720 --> 00:14:39,360
Speaker 2: And Jackson question the First Amendment implications.

223
00:14:39,320 --> 00:14:44,200
Speaker 3: Whether a therapist who is acting in their professional capacity

224
00:14:44,240 --> 00:14:49,200
Speaker 3: to help someone achieve their goals, is really expressing the

225
00:14:49,320 --> 00:14:53,400
Speaker 3: kind of message or expressing a message for First Amendment purposes.

226
00:14:53,440 --> 00:14:57,120
Speaker 3: I mean, I understand if ms Child's here were writing

227
00:14:57,160 --> 00:15:01,760
Speaker 3: an article about conversion therapy or writing or giving a

228
00:15:01,800 --> 00:15:02,720
Speaker 3: speech about it.

229
00:15:03,000 --> 00:15:05,360
Speaker 2: My guest is an expert on religion in the law.

230
00:15:05,640 --> 00:15:10,400
Speaker 2: Caroline Malacorbin, a professor at the University of Miami Law School.

231
00:15:10,840 --> 00:15:16,640
Speaker 2: Will you explain conversion therapy and Colorado's law, as about half.

232
00:15:16,400 --> 00:15:21,120
Speaker 5: The states in the country have done Colorado banns something

233
00:15:21,240 --> 00:15:26,280
Speaker 5: that has been called gay conversion therapy that now probably

234
00:15:26,320 --> 00:15:30,760
Speaker 5: also includes trans conversion therapy, so it's just known as

235
00:15:30,840 --> 00:15:35,000
Speaker 5: conversion therapy, and it's the idea of trying to convince

236
00:15:35,080 --> 00:15:38,800
Speaker 5: someone who is gay that they're not actually gay, or

237
00:15:38,840 --> 00:15:41,440
Speaker 5: trying to convince someone who is trans that they're not

238
00:15:41,520 --> 00:15:46,480
Speaker 5: actually trans. And this approach to gay and trans people

239
00:15:46,800 --> 00:15:51,720
Speaker 5: has been proven to be very delictorious for their mental

240
00:15:51,760 --> 00:15:56,760
Speaker 5: well being, and so states have forbidden it. They have

241
00:15:56,920 --> 00:16:02,400
Speaker 5: made it illegal for licensed medical professionals to provide this

242
00:16:03,040 --> 00:16:07,000
Speaker 5: as part of their practice of medicine. So to be

243
00:16:07,160 --> 00:16:11,320
Speaker 5: very clear, it doesn't ban clergy from talking to people

244
00:16:11,600 --> 00:16:15,200
Speaker 5: about sexual orientation or gender identity, and it doesn't even

245
00:16:15,280 --> 00:16:18,560
Speaker 5: ban the therapists from talking about it in their own

246
00:16:18,680 --> 00:16:22,200
Speaker 5: free time. But if they are in the process of

247
00:16:22,280 --> 00:16:28,280
Speaker 5: providing health care services that they have been licensed to provide,

248
00:16:28,800 --> 00:16:32,200
Speaker 5: they're not allowed to try and convince gay people that

249
00:16:32,240 --> 00:16:36,119
Speaker 5: they're not gay, or trans people that they're not trans.

250
00:16:36,400 --> 00:16:38,000
Speaker 5: That's the law, and.

251
00:16:37,920 --> 00:16:40,160
Speaker 2: What's the fundamental issue in the case.

252
00:16:40,720 --> 00:16:44,640
Speaker 5: So you have this law. It says, if you're licensed

253
00:16:44,680 --> 00:16:47,120
Speaker 5: by the state, the state does not allow you to

254
00:16:47,160 --> 00:16:50,600
Speaker 5: do things that are contrary to the standard of care,

255
00:16:50,880 --> 00:16:55,560
Speaker 5: and so you cannot provide conversion therapy. And we have

256
00:16:55,680 --> 00:17:01,320
Speaker 5: this white Christian woman who argues that the ban forbids

257
00:17:01,320 --> 00:17:04,920
Speaker 5: her from providing the type of therapy that she wants

258
00:17:05,280 --> 00:17:09,240
Speaker 5: to practice. She gets help from Alliance to Friending Freedom

259
00:17:09,760 --> 00:17:14,640
Speaker 5: and they argue that this ban on conversion therapy violates

260
00:17:14,720 --> 00:17:18,000
Speaker 5: her free speech rights. And so the question before the

261
00:17:18,080 --> 00:17:23,960
Speaker 5: court is does this ban on this medical therapy violate

262
00:17:24,119 --> 00:17:30,040
Speaker 5: the licensed practitioners' free speech rights? And the legal question

263
00:17:30,760 --> 00:17:36,280
Speaker 5: that makes all the difference is whether providing conversion therapy

264
00:17:36,760 --> 00:17:42,080
Speaker 5: is speech or whether it's conduct. Because if it's speech,

265
00:17:42,920 --> 00:17:46,320
Speaker 5: then it implicates the free speech clause. In fact, it

266
00:17:46,400 --> 00:17:53,320
Speaker 5: becomes presumptively unconstitutional. If, on the other hand, it's considered conduct,

267
00:17:53,560 --> 00:17:56,919
Speaker 5: then it doesn't trigger the free speech clause and the

268
00:17:56,960 --> 00:17:59,800
Speaker 5: government is likely to be allowed to regulate it. So

269
00:18:00,160 --> 00:18:06,919
Speaker 5: the million dollar constitutional question is how should this practice

270
00:18:06,920 --> 00:18:11,399
Speaker 5: of conversion therapy get characterize? Is it speech or is

271
00:18:11,440 --> 00:18:15,000
Speaker 5: it conduct? Now, I just want to point out that

272
00:18:15,359 --> 00:18:19,560
Speaker 5: the speech in the colloquial sense doesn't always match speech

273
00:18:19,640 --> 00:18:22,720
Speaker 5: in the constitutional sense. So let me give you a

274
00:18:22,720 --> 00:18:27,200
Speaker 5: couple of examples when speech is not actually speech, which

275
00:18:27,200 --> 00:18:34,359
Speaker 5: seems counterintuitive. And yet, if for example, you told national

276
00:18:34,480 --> 00:18:39,560
Speaker 5: security secrets to a foreign enemy, that's speech, but that

277
00:18:39,640 --> 00:18:42,320
Speaker 5: it wouldn't be treated as speech, it would be treated

278
00:18:42,480 --> 00:18:46,240
Speaker 5: as the conduct of treason. It's not protected by the

279
00:18:46,240 --> 00:18:50,960
Speaker 5: free speech clause, or for example, a sign on a

280
00:18:51,040 --> 00:18:54,680
Speaker 5: restaurant that said, we do not hire fill in the blank,

281
00:18:54,720 --> 00:18:57,520
Speaker 5: we do not hire black people, or Latino people or

282
00:18:57,560 --> 00:19:02,920
Speaker 5: Asian people. Right, that's words, But that would be considered speech.

283
00:19:03,160 --> 00:19:06,919
Speaker 5: It would be considered the act of discrimination. And so

284
00:19:07,480 --> 00:19:11,080
Speaker 5: while it may seem really obvious on its face, well,

285
00:19:11,280 --> 00:19:14,560
Speaker 5: this is words and therefore it's speech, it's not quite

286
00:19:14,600 --> 00:19:19,280
Speaker 5: as clear cut as the Supreme Court is going to

287
00:19:19,720 --> 00:19:20,639
Speaker 5: probably conclude.

288
00:19:21,600 --> 00:19:26,320
Speaker 2: It seems like there's almost universal agreement among the legal

289
00:19:26,400 --> 00:19:31,840
Speaker 2: experts who listen to the oral arguments that Colorado is

290
00:19:31,880 --> 00:19:36,000
Speaker 2: going to lose and the Christian counselor is going to win.

291
00:19:37,080 --> 00:19:43,160
Speaker 5: I mean, clearly, whenever you have a white conservative Christian

292
00:19:43,960 --> 00:19:47,399
Speaker 5: arguing before the Supreme Court, they're going to win, especially

293
00:19:47,440 --> 00:19:49,640
Speaker 5: if the only thing is at stake, and I say

294
00:19:49,720 --> 00:19:54,280
Speaker 5: only from the Court's perspective is LGBTQ rights. They just

295
00:19:54,320 --> 00:19:58,240
Speaker 5: don't care, right, So, I think it was a foregone conclusion,

296
00:19:58,880 --> 00:20:02,679
Speaker 5: apart from any of the lead principles, that the white

297
00:20:02,760 --> 00:20:04,960
Speaker 5: Christian woman was going to win. You know, I never

298
00:20:05,080 --> 00:20:08,040
Speaker 5: used to predict the outcome of Supreme Court cases, but

299
00:20:08,160 --> 00:20:11,800
Speaker 5: it seems the pattern is so clear these days that

300
00:20:11,960 --> 00:20:14,679
Speaker 5: I think one could say with a certain degree of

301
00:20:14,680 --> 00:20:17,800
Speaker 5: confidence that she's going to win. And they're basically going

302
00:20:17,920 --> 00:20:23,960
Speaker 5: to say this is speech, and therefore it is presumptively unconstitutional,

303
00:20:24,440 --> 00:20:28,480
Speaker 5: and only if the government has a super compelling justification

304
00:20:28,960 --> 00:20:34,000
Speaker 5: for its law, and the law was the only way

305
00:20:34,000 --> 00:20:36,720
Speaker 5: to accomplish its goals, it's not going to win. In

306
00:20:36,760 --> 00:20:39,000
Speaker 5: other words, it's going to have to pass what is

307
00:20:39,040 --> 00:20:41,639
Speaker 5: known as strict scrutiny, and that is very hard to

308
00:20:41,680 --> 00:20:42,960
Speaker 5: do in the speech context.

309
00:20:43,560 --> 00:20:46,199
Speaker 2: It seemed like most of the discussion was about what

310
00:20:46,480 --> 00:20:48,160
Speaker 2: standard should be applied here.

311
00:20:48,760 --> 00:20:54,040
Speaker 5: Well, that's because if it is considered speech, then the

312
00:20:54,119 --> 00:20:56,960
Speaker 5: standard is going to be strict scrutiny. And if it

313
00:20:57,040 --> 00:21:00,000
Speaker 5: is not speech, then it's only going to be rational

314
00:21:00,240 --> 00:21:04,600
Speaker 5: basis scrutiny. So what level of scrutiny a court must

315
00:21:04,680 --> 00:21:08,600
Speaker 5: give to this law, how hard it looks at it,

316
00:21:08,720 --> 00:21:13,800
Speaker 5: questions it, the level of evidence the government needs to

317
00:21:13,840 --> 00:21:18,080
Speaker 5: provide will depend on whether it is speech or conduct,

318
00:21:18,200 --> 00:21:22,359
Speaker 5: because again, if it is speech, then it implicates the

319
00:21:22,359 --> 00:21:23,359
Speaker 5: free speech clause.

320
00:21:24,119 --> 00:21:27,240
Speaker 2: Is this a novel issue coming to the court? Have

321
00:21:27,320 --> 00:21:29,640
Speaker 2: they decided any similar cases?

322
00:21:30,000 --> 00:21:34,760
Speaker 5: The Supreme Court is not deciding this against a blank slate.

323
00:21:35,280 --> 00:21:40,439
Speaker 5: They have already considered the question of medical treatment and

324
00:21:40,520 --> 00:21:44,680
Speaker 5: speech conduct, but in the abortion context. So I want

325
00:21:44,720 --> 00:21:49,120
Speaker 5: to highlight that many states who are hostile to abortion,

326
00:21:49,440 --> 00:21:52,760
Speaker 5: one of the things that they require their abortion providers

327
00:21:52,760 --> 00:21:58,480
Speaker 5: to do is to give women certain information about abortion. So,

328
00:21:58,760 --> 00:22:02,920
Speaker 5: for example, you have to let women know that adoption

329
00:22:03,080 --> 00:22:06,720
Speaker 5: is an option, or that fathers have to pay child support.

330
00:22:06,920 --> 00:22:10,399
Speaker 5: Other states have held that women have to be told

331
00:22:10,640 --> 00:22:13,159
Speaker 5: all the harms that may result from abortion, some of

332
00:22:13,200 --> 00:22:15,959
Speaker 5: which are not even medically accurate. But the point I

333
00:22:16,000 --> 00:22:19,920
Speaker 5: want to make here is that doctors challenge this regulation

334
00:22:20,040 --> 00:22:24,680
Speaker 5: on speech grounds and argued, the government is forcing us

335
00:22:24,720 --> 00:22:28,680
Speaker 5: to say things that are contrary to what we believe

336
00:22:29,000 --> 00:22:33,639
Speaker 5: is appropriate and correct. And you might think, well, these

337
00:22:33,680 --> 00:22:37,879
Speaker 5: are words, and they're being forced to articulate a particular

338
00:22:38,080 --> 00:22:42,320
Speaker 5: viewpoint on things, for example, don't have an abortion, you know,

339
00:22:42,960 --> 00:22:46,439
Speaker 5: adopt your child out instead. That it too should be

340
00:22:46,520 --> 00:22:51,159
Speaker 5: considered a regulation of speech that limits that sort of

341
00:22:51,200 --> 00:22:55,600
Speaker 5: compels a viewpoint. It's a viewpoint based restriction and therefore

342
00:22:55,640 --> 00:23:01,080
Speaker 5: should trigger strict scrutiny and be presumptively unconstitutional. But that

343
00:23:01,359 --> 00:23:04,800
Speaker 5: is not what the Supreme Court did. What the Supreme

344
00:23:04,920 --> 00:23:09,359
Speaker 5: Court said is that these laws that compel doctors to

345
00:23:09,440 --> 00:23:12,320
Speaker 5: speak against their will and say things that they don't

346
00:23:12,359 --> 00:23:15,720
Speaker 5: want to say, the Supreme Court held that is not

347
00:23:15,800 --> 00:23:20,439
Speaker 5: a regulation of speech, that is actually a regulation of

348
00:23:20,520 --> 00:23:26,440
Speaker 5: the medical profession that only incidentally affects speech. So they're

349
00:23:26,840 --> 00:23:32,560
Speaker 5: deciding this case against a backdrop of the Supreme Court

350
00:23:32,800 --> 00:23:38,399
Speaker 5: already having held in a different context that speech that

351
00:23:38,560 --> 00:23:42,439
Speaker 5: is connected to the provision of medical treatment is not

352
00:23:42,760 --> 00:23:47,920
Speaker 5: necessarily going to be treated like speech. And so you know, oh,

353
00:23:48,000 --> 00:23:51,960
Speaker 5: it just so happens, right that if you're challenging something

354
00:23:51,960 --> 00:23:56,560
Speaker 5: that's anti abortion, it's not speech, but if you're challenging

355
00:23:56,600 --> 00:23:59,879
Speaker 5: something that's pro LGBT, it is speech.

356
00:24:01,000 --> 00:24:04,560
Speaker 2: If the Justices rule for the Christian counselor here, how

357
00:24:04,600 --> 00:24:06,240
Speaker 2: will they distinguish that case.

358
00:24:07,119 --> 00:24:10,600
Speaker 5: The way they will get around it is they will say, well,

359
00:24:11,240 --> 00:24:15,200
Speaker 5: in the abortion case, it wasn't just speech. The doctors

360
00:24:15,200 --> 00:24:20,040
Speaker 5: also did something, but in this case it is just speech,

361
00:24:20,760 --> 00:24:24,840
Speaker 5: and that justifies treating the two differently. And they're going

362
00:24:24,920 --> 00:24:29,840
Speaker 5: to use that same distinction, no doubt with their differential

363
00:24:29,880 --> 00:24:33,959
Speaker 5: treatment of gender affirming care because you might think, well,

364
00:24:34,480 --> 00:24:38,439
Speaker 5: if providing medical services now is going to implicate the

365
00:24:38,480 --> 00:24:44,040
Speaker 5: free speech clause, then perhaps other kinds of medical care

366
00:24:44,119 --> 00:24:47,560
Speaker 5: should also have free speech protection, like gender affirming care

367
00:24:47,640 --> 00:24:51,400
Speaker 5: when you talk to your doctor and they also provide

368
00:24:51,400 --> 00:24:56,960
Speaker 5: some psychological counseling. If it's just psychological counseling, then perhaps

369
00:24:57,000 --> 00:25:00,320
Speaker 5: they will get the same protection as a therapist who

370
00:25:00,640 --> 00:25:04,600
Speaker 5: just provides talk therapy. But if it's gender firming care

371
00:25:04,680 --> 00:25:10,160
Speaker 5: coupled with some actual medicine, then they'll say no, no, no, no.

372
00:25:10,480 --> 00:25:15,040
Speaker 5: That's the regulation of medicine that doesn't get any heightened reviewer,

373
00:25:15,119 --> 00:25:19,879
Speaker 5: a very limited heightened review as opposed to regulation of speech.

374
00:25:20,680 --> 00:25:25,520
Speaker 2: Justice Katanji Brown Jackson questioned why the Colorado law should

375
00:25:25,520 --> 00:25:29,199
Speaker 2: be struck down while the court upheld a different measure

376
00:25:29,359 --> 00:25:34,199
Speaker 2: from Tennessee that bands transition related treatments for minors. But

377
00:25:34,280 --> 00:25:36,080
Speaker 2: she didn't push very hard on and she was the

378
00:25:36,119 --> 00:25:37,680
Speaker 2: only one who really mentioned it.

379
00:25:38,359 --> 00:25:42,159
Speaker 5: Yes, exactly, because we have the scrimmatic case that was

380
00:25:42,200 --> 00:25:47,320
Speaker 5: decided recently where states are banning gender firming care and

381
00:25:47,359 --> 00:25:50,120
Speaker 5: the court upheld that they were not challenged on free

382
00:25:50,119 --> 00:25:54,080
Speaker 5: speech grounds. They were challenged on different grounds. But she

383
00:25:54,320 --> 00:25:58,640
Speaker 5: is right to point out the very different results and

384
00:25:58,720 --> 00:26:04,040
Speaker 5: how the results all seem to favor again conservative and

385
00:26:04,160 --> 00:26:08,800
Speaker 5: Christian views at the expense of the LGBTQ community.

386
00:26:09,480 --> 00:26:12,679
Speaker 2: Coming up, might the justices send the case back to

387
00:26:12,720 --> 00:26:16,400
Speaker 2: the lower court. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg,

388
00:26:20,280 --> 00:26:24,240
Speaker 2: A majority of Supreme Court justices seem likely to side

389
00:26:24,240 --> 00:26:30,120
Speaker 2: with a Christian counselor challenging bands on LGBTQ plus conversion

390
00:26:30,280 --> 00:26:34,520
Speaker 2: therapy for kids as a violation of her First Amendment rights.

391
00:26:35,240 --> 00:26:39,000
Speaker 2: I've been talking to Professor Caroline Malcorbin of the University

392
00:26:39,040 --> 00:26:42,879
Speaker 2: of Miami Law School. So let's just go back to

393
00:26:42,920 --> 00:26:46,280
Speaker 2: the basics for a second. Will you explain what Colorado's

394
00:26:46,280 --> 00:26:51,560
Speaker 2: basic argument is and what the Christian counselor's argument is.

395
00:26:52,640 --> 00:26:58,280
Speaker 5: Again, they took different sides on this major legal question

396
00:26:58,560 --> 00:27:04,360
Speaker 5: of whether the conversion therapy should be conceptualized as speech

397
00:27:04,960 --> 00:27:10,240
Speaker 5: or as conduct. So the therapist argued that this is speech,

398
00:27:10,880 --> 00:27:15,080
Speaker 5: and any time the government regulates the content of speech,

399
00:27:15,880 --> 00:27:21,199
Speaker 5: that regulation is presumptively unconstitutional and must pass what is

400
00:27:21,240 --> 00:27:25,280
Speaker 5: known as strict scrutiny in order to survive. So if

401
00:27:25,320 --> 00:27:29,720
Speaker 5: it's speech, it is not going to be constitutional unless

402
00:27:29,760 --> 00:27:34,120
Speaker 5: the government can articulate a compelling goal for the law

403
00:27:34,680 --> 00:27:36,800
Speaker 5: and can argue that there was no other way to

404
00:27:36,840 --> 00:27:40,920
Speaker 5: accomplish it. The state, on the other hand, was arguing

405
00:27:41,160 --> 00:27:44,760
Speaker 5: that this was just part and parcel of the state's

406
00:27:44,840 --> 00:27:48,600
Speaker 5: regulation of the medical profession, that the state had a

407
00:27:48,640 --> 00:27:54,600
Speaker 5: responsibility that those it has licensed to provide medical services

408
00:27:54,640 --> 00:28:01,320
Speaker 5: only provide medical care that meets the consent standard of care.

409
00:28:02,080 --> 00:28:05,760
Speaker 5: And the consensus in the medical community is that conversion

410
00:28:05,880 --> 00:28:10,160
Speaker 5: therapy is a bad thing, that it has studies show

411
00:28:10,280 --> 00:28:13,600
Speaker 5: that it harms people who are forced to undergo it,

412
00:28:13,920 --> 00:28:16,960
Speaker 5: and so those are the two sides of the debate

413
00:28:17,240 --> 00:28:21,880
Speaker 5: on that very central question is how do we conceptualize this?

414
00:28:22,520 --> 00:28:24,800
Speaker 2: Do you make anything out of the fact that Justice

415
00:28:24,840 --> 00:28:28,880
Speaker 2: Brett Kavanaugh asked no questions at all during the ninety minutes.

416
00:28:29,240 --> 00:28:31,239
Speaker 5: I don't know how to read that. So again, I

417
00:28:31,280 --> 00:28:34,480
Speaker 5: just want to emphasize it's not necessarily crazy to say

418
00:28:34,480 --> 00:28:38,000
Speaker 5: this is speech. But I want to just highlight the

419
00:28:38,000 --> 00:28:41,920
Speaker 5: fact that when they encountered a similar argument with regard

420
00:28:42,000 --> 00:28:45,960
Speaker 5: to doctors whose speech was being regulated, they were very

421
00:28:46,000 --> 00:28:51,080
Speaker 5: dismissive of the speech claims that literally, these were laws

422
00:28:51,120 --> 00:28:56,520
Speaker 5: that say, doctors, you must provide this information to your patients.

423
00:28:56,640 --> 00:29:00,600
Speaker 5: Even if it's not medically sound, or medically necessary or

424
00:29:00,640 --> 00:29:04,040
Speaker 5: medically relevant, you still have to say these words, right,

425
00:29:04,080 --> 00:29:07,400
Speaker 5: So it seems even a further step away from the

426
00:29:07,400 --> 00:29:12,560
Speaker 5: provision of medical care because it wasn't even appropriate medical care. Nonetheless,

427
00:29:12,600 --> 00:29:15,080
Speaker 5: the court said, no, no, no, no, this is just

428
00:29:15,200 --> 00:29:20,040
Speaker 5: the state's regulation of the provision of medical treatment. And therefore,

429
00:29:20,520 --> 00:29:24,080
Speaker 5: because it's the parcel of the practice of medicine, which

430
00:29:24,280 --> 00:29:28,680
Speaker 5: is a highly regulated field, the state is allowed to

431
00:29:28,800 --> 00:29:32,760
Speaker 5: regulate its doctors and the provision of care. This too

432
00:29:33,000 --> 00:29:35,760
Speaker 5: is someone who is licensed by the state, and this

433
00:29:35,920 --> 00:29:40,280
Speaker 5: too is regulating their provision of care. So it's really

434
00:29:40,440 --> 00:29:45,360
Speaker 5: hard to principally dis one case from the other case.

435
00:29:45,880 --> 00:29:48,320
Speaker 5: And if this is going to be considered speech protected

436
00:29:48,320 --> 00:29:50,440
Speaker 5: by the free speech clause, then it's going to become

437
00:29:50,480 --> 00:29:55,160
Speaker 5: even harder to understand why abortion doctors speech is not

438
00:29:55,320 --> 00:29:58,280
Speaker 5: also speech that's protected by the free speech clause.

439
00:29:59,000 --> 00:30:01,480
Speaker 2: Is there any chance that they would send this back

440
00:30:01,560 --> 00:30:04,600
Speaker 2: to a lower court for more proceedings.

441
00:30:04,480 --> 00:30:08,000
Speaker 5: So that was another thing that they were wrangling with.

442
00:30:08,080 --> 00:30:10,600
Speaker 5: I think some of the liberal justices had given up

443
00:30:10,680 --> 00:30:14,680
Speaker 5: on persuading the majority that this was not speech that

444
00:30:14,800 --> 00:30:20,080
Speaker 5: triggers strict scrutiny, and so there were two options. They

445
00:30:20,080 --> 00:30:24,200
Speaker 5: could announce, say this is actually speech, it's subject to

446
00:30:24,200 --> 00:30:26,960
Speaker 5: strict scrutiny, and they could remand it back to the

447
00:30:27,000 --> 00:30:31,200
Speaker 5: lower courts to actually apply the scrutiny in the first instance,

448
00:30:31,880 --> 00:30:36,280
Speaker 5: or they could just apply it themselves. And there was

449
00:30:36,400 --> 00:30:41,000
Speaker 5: some attempt to at least have a court say all right,

450
00:30:41,560 --> 00:30:44,920
Speaker 5: this is going to trigger strict scrutiny, and we're going

451
00:30:44,960 --> 00:30:47,600
Speaker 5: to let the lower courts look at it. So Colorado

452
00:30:47,800 --> 00:30:51,200
Speaker 5: has a chance to make its argument that this advance

453
00:30:51,320 --> 00:30:56,280
Speaker 5: is a very compelling goal, namely the protection of LGBTQ kids,

454
00:30:56,920 --> 00:31:01,040
Speaker 5: and that the law was narrowly tailored to accomplish that goal,

455
00:31:01,120 --> 00:31:03,680
Speaker 5: that this is really the only way to protect them

456
00:31:03,720 --> 00:31:08,080
Speaker 5: against the harms of conversion therapy is by not allowing

457
00:31:08,200 --> 00:31:13,920
Speaker 5: conversion therapy. So the fact that it's speech doesn't automatically

458
00:31:14,160 --> 00:31:18,840
Speaker 5: mean that the law is unconstitutional. It just makes it

459
00:31:19,040 --> 00:31:22,200
Speaker 5: that much harder for the state to make its argument

460
00:31:22,320 --> 00:31:23,560
Speaker 5: about why it should stand.

461
00:31:24,360 --> 00:31:28,120
Speaker 2: There was also a standing question because here this law

462
00:31:28,120 --> 00:31:30,600
Speaker 2: has been on the book since twenty nineteen and the

463
00:31:30,640 --> 00:31:34,280
Speaker 2: state has yet to enforce it. The plaintiff here is

464
00:31:34,320 --> 00:31:38,160
Speaker 2: represented by, as you mentioned, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and

465
00:31:38,480 --> 00:31:42,200
Speaker 2: they're also the group that represented a Christian website designer

466
00:31:42,240 --> 00:31:46,280
Speaker 2: in Colorado who didn't want to work on websites for

467
00:31:46,320 --> 00:31:49,320
Speaker 2: same sex couples even though no one had asked her to.

468
00:31:50,080 --> 00:31:54,840
Speaker 2: Is Alliance Defending Freedom just going after these particular causes

469
00:31:54,880 --> 00:31:56,960
Speaker 2: and finding a plaintiff to sue.

470
00:31:57,400 --> 00:31:57,560
Speaker 4: Well.

471
00:31:57,840 --> 00:32:00,600
Speaker 5: I don't know exactly what they're doing, but they are

472
00:32:00,800 --> 00:32:07,920
Speaker 5: clearly at the vanguard of pressing conservative Christian claims that

473
00:32:08,120 --> 00:32:14,320
Speaker 5: disadvantage and harm the LGBT community. And I think that

474
00:32:14,640 --> 00:32:18,520
Speaker 5: the Court is receptive to these claims and is eager

475
00:32:18,880 --> 00:32:25,000
Speaker 5: to decide them in favor of this conservative Christian ideas

476
00:32:25,360 --> 00:32:30,520
Speaker 5: and will not let themselves be bothered by something like standing.

477
00:32:31,160 --> 00:32:34,880
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court has been steadily rolling back protections for

478
00:32:35,000 --> 00:32:37,880
Speaker 2: gay and transgender people in recent terms, and I was

479
00:32:37,920 --> 00:32:40,880
Speaker 2: just trying to remember the last time I can think

480
00:32:40,960 --> 00:32:46,720
Speaker 2: of that LGBTQ wrights one at the Supreme Court was

481
00:32:46,840 --> 00:32:49,400
Speaker 2: the boss Stock case in twenty twenty. Is that the

482
00:32:49,480 --> 00:32:50,280
Speaker 2: last time.

483
00:32:50,480 --> 00:32:55,000
Speaker 5: I think so? And even then they always anticipated a

484
00:32:55,080 --> 00:33:00,480
Speaker 5: carve out for anyone who protested on religious grounds. I

485
00:33:00,480 --> 00:33:03,960
Speaker 5: think the public has less confidence in this Supreme Court

486
00:33:04,000 --> 00:33:08,200
Speaker 5: than any court that I remember. I think they have

487
00:33:08,440 --> 00:33:16,800
Speaker 5: really undermined their own credibility by so aggressively promoting a

488
00:33:16,840 --> 00:33:22,440
Speaker 5: particular ideology, and to do so at the expense of

489
00:33:22,720 --> 00:33:27,560
Speaker 5: a marginalized community is not to their honor. And let's

490
00:33:27,600 --> 00:33:31,000
Speaker 5: be clear, they get to pick and choose their cases.

491
00:33:31,480 --> 00:33:36,560
Speaker 5: There was nothing that require them to decide this case.

492
00:33:37,360 --> 00:33:41,680
Speaker 5: I think in addition to its long standing attack on

493
00:33:41,800 --> 00:33:46,120
Speaker 5: the LGB community, I think we also are seeing here

494
00:33:47,000 --> 00:33:54,520
Speaker 5: a real disparagement of expertise, which we also saw in Screbetti,

495
00:33:54,760 --> 00:33:58,960
Speaker 5: because to be clear, there is a consensus in the

496
00:33:59,000 --> 00:34:03,800
Speaker 5: medical community that this therapy is really harmful, and yet

497
00:34:03,960 --> 00:34:08,600
Speaker 5: they did not seem to accept that. Instead, they kept

498
00:34:08,640 --> 00:34:13,400
Speaker 5: pushing back against this idea that the experts knew what

499
00:34:13,440 --> 00:34:17,520
Speaker 5: they were talking about, and certainly Alliance Defending Freedom is

500
00:34:17,640 --> 00:34:23,480
Speaker 5: helping them by producing all kinds of questionable claims about

501
00:34:23,600 --> 00:34:30,160
Speaker 5: the reliability of the science underlying the medical consensus. And

502
00:34:30,200 --> 00:34:33,440
Speaker 5: to be sure, the medical community has made errors in

503
00:34:33,520 --> 00:34:37,480
Speaker 5: the past, but if we have to rely on something,

504
00:34:38,000 --> 00:34:42,759
Speaker 5: you know better to rely on medical experts and the

505
00:34:42,760 --> 00:34:48,440
Speaker 5: weight of the medical community than a right wing political

506
00:34:48,520 --> 00:34:51,840
Speaker 5: group who has a particular Mission.

507
00:34:51,680 --> 00:34:54,000
Speaker 2: And later in the term the Supreme Court, we'll be

508
00:34:54,080 --> 00:35:00,200
Speaker 2: hearing another case involving transgender girls and women participating in

509
00:35:00,320 --> 00:35:05,440
Speaker 2: female sports. Thanks Caroline. That's Professor Caroline Malacorbin of the

510
00:35:05,520 --> 00:35:08,880
Speaker 2: University of Miami Law School. And that's it for this

511
00:35:09,000 --> 00:35:11,760
Speaker 2: edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always

512
00:35:11,760 --> 00:35:14,640
Speaker 2: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.

513
00:35:14,960 --> 00:35:18,000
Speaker 2: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

514
00:35:18,160 --> 00:35:23,200
Speaker 2: www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, And

515
00:35:23,239 --> 00:35:26,320
Speaker 2: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight

516
00:35:26,400 --> 00:35:29,840
Speaker 2: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and

517
00:35:29,920 --> 00:35:31,400
Speaker 2: you're listening to Bloomberg