1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,080 --> 00:00:12,040
Speaker 2: When children say they identify as something other than their

3
00:00:12,080 --> 00:00:14,960
Speaker 2: sex at school, do they become mere creatures of the state,

4
00:00:15,800 --> 00:00:19,040
Speaker 2: or do their fit parents still have the fundamental right

5
00:00:19,120 --> 00:00:21,200
Speaker 2: to make decisions regarding their care.

6
00:00:22,239 --> 00:00:26,560
Speaker 3: The emerging legal battle over pronoun protocol in public schools

7
00:00:26,880 --> 00:00:29,880
Speaker 3: has nothing to do with grammar and everything to do

8
00:00:29,960 --> 00:00:34,280
Speaker 3: with gender identity. Some parents are suing schools that keep

9
00:00:34,320 --> 00:00:37,960
Speaker 3: their children's use of new pronouns secret, claiming it's a

10
00:00:38,080 --> 00:00:41,600
Speaker 3: violation of their constitutional right to direct the upbringing of

11
00:00:41,640 --> 00:00:45,800
Speaker 3: their children. The Ludlow, Massachusetts School Committee is being sued

12
00:00:46,120 --> 00:00:49,720
Speaker 3: over a teacher's failure to notify parents that their eleven

13
00:00:49,800 --> 00:00:54,160
Speaker 3: year old began using different preferred pronouns. A federal judge

14
00:00:54,160 --> 00:00:57,560
Speaker 3: dismissed the parent's complaint, but the First Circuit Court of

15
00:00:57,600 --> 00:01:01,120
Speaker 3: Appeals could revive it, and at oral arguments, the judges

16
00:01:01,160 --> 00:01:04,360
Speaker 3: seem to be wrestling with the issues. Here are judges

17
00:01:04,440 --> 00:01:06,399
Speaker 3: Julie Reichelman and Kermit Lepez.

18
00:01:07,120 --> 00:01:10,600
Speaker 4: I think gender identity is clearly very important to everyone,

19
00:01:10,760 --> 00:01:12,840
Speaker 4: and there are many things that happen in school every

20
00:01:12,920 --> 00:01:16,720
Speaker 4: day that would qualify is less important than that. So

21
00:01:17,040 --> 00:01:20,560
Speaker 4: do you really see no limiting principle between something like

22
00:01:20,720 --> 00:01:23,360
Speaker 4: the gender identity of your child and you know who

23
00:01:23,440 --> 00:01:26,000
Speaker 4: your child may have played with during recess that day.

24
00:01:26,040 --> 00:01:27,880
Speaker 4: Are you really saying there's no difference there?

25
00:01:29,120 --> 00:01:32,480
Speaker 1: But you seem to be assert bottom line that the

26
00:01:32,560 --> 00:01:39,520
Speaker 1: rights of the student to preclude disclosure of this request

27
00:01:39,560 --> 00:01:43,080
Speaker 1: to use pronouns trump's the right of the parents to

28
00:01:43,240 --> 00:01:47,200
Speaker 1: know what's going on with respect to the child's gender identity.

29
00:01:47,800 --> 00:01:49,720
Speaker 1: Bottom line, you are asserting.

30
00:01:49,240 --> 00:01:50,640
Speaker 5: That, aren't you joining me?

31
00:01:50,760 --> 00:01:54,080
Speaker 3: Is Audrey Anderson, head of the higher education practice at

32
00:01:54,120 --> 00:01:58,320
Speaker 3: Bassbari and Simms. Audrey explained why the parents are suing here.

33
00:01:59,280 --> 00:02:04,760
Speaker 6: The school where their children middle schoolers attended, have a

34
00:02:04,800 --> 00:02:09,560
Speaker 6: policy that's not an unusual policy that says, if the

35
00:02:09,639 --> 00:02:13,240
Speaker 6: students come to personnel in the school and say that

36
00:02:13,360 --> 00:02:17,840
Speaker 6: they want to change their name, change their pronoun to

37
00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:22,359
Speaker 6: the opposite gender that they were born into, the school

38
00:02:22,360 --> 00:02:25,480
Speaker 6: will work with them to do that, and also we'll

39
00:02:25,560 --> 00:02:30,600
Speaker 6: keep that information from the student's parents if the students

40
00:02:30,880 --> 00:02:33,680
Speaker 6: ask for it to be kept from their parents. So

41
00:02:33,800 --> 00:02:37,200
Speaker 6: the parents here were aware that one of their children

42
00:02:37,840 --> 00:02:41,840
Speaker 6: was experiencing some questions about their gender and actually reached

43
00:02:41,880 --> 00:02:45,280
Speaker 6: out to the school proactively to say, we don't want

44
00:02:45,440 --> 00:02:49,480
Speaker 6: you to talk to our child about this, and the school, nevertheless,

45
00:02:49,720 --> 00:02:53,520
Speaker 6: behind the parents' backs, talk to the child, started calling

46
00:02:53,560 --> 00:02:57,880
Speaker 6: the child by a different name, use different pronouns, and

47
00:02:58,040 --> 00:03:00,880
Speaker 6: the parents, understandably were very upset about this.

48
00:03:01,680 --> 00:03:06,000
Speaker 3: What surprises me about this is that at that age,

49
00:03:06,280 --> 00:03:09,840
Speaker 3: if your kid seems aggressive, gets into a fight with someone,

50
00:03:10,200 --> 00:03:12,600
Speaker 3: the teachers are on the phone, are calling you in,

51
00:03:13,000 --> 00:03:15,000
Speaker 3: and yet they don't want to tell them about this

52
00:03:15,680 --> 00:03:18,320
Speaker 3: very important aspect of their kid's life.

53
00:03:18,560 --> 00:03:23,080
Speaker 6: The countervailing policy decision here, and I think one reason

54
00:03:23,160 --> 00:03:25,920
Speaker 6: why the parents are going to have a particularly hard

55
00:03:26,000 --> 00:03:29,640
Speaker 6: time winning this case is if there's a Massachusetts law

56
00:03:29,760 --> 00:03:35,120
Speaker 6: that requires schools to not discriminate against students because of

57
00:03:35,240 --> 00:03:41,480
Speaker 6: their gender identity. And so this school has decided that

58
00:03:41,640 --> 00:03:45,520
Speaker 6: in order to carry out that duty, they need to

59
00:03:45,640 --> 00:03:50,000
Speaker 6: keep that information about the student private if the student

60
00:03:50,080 --> 00:03:53,520
Speaker 6: asks for it to be private. And as the district

61
00:03:53,560 --> 00:03:58,480
Speaker 6: court opinion says, that law doesn't that any age limits

62
00:03:58,520 --> 00:04:01,640
Speaker 6: as to when this right to non discrimination on the

63
00:04:01,640 --> 00:04:06,720
Speaker 6: basis of gender identity starts. So the school district here says, well,

64
00:04:06,760 --> 00:04:09,880
Speaker 6: we have this date law that says we are not

65
00:04:10,000 --> 00:04:14,760
Speaker 6: allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. And

66
00:04:14,840 --> 00:04:18,640
Speaker 6: there are some students for which it won't be safe

67
00:04:18,640 --> 00:04:22,640
Speaker 6: for them at home. If their parents know that they

68
00:04:22,760 --> 00:04:27,760
Speaker 6: are going by a different gender identity, it may become

69
00:04:27,839 --> 00:04:33,640
Speaker 6: psychologically unsafe for them at home. So that's the countervailing thing.

70
00:04:33,720 --> 00:04:38,320
Speaker 6: And why this is different in the school's mind from

71
00:04:38,560 --> 00:04:41,200
Speaker 6: your child god in a fight, or your child through

72
00:04:41,279 --> 00:04:44,320
Speaker 6: up at school, or all the other things that happen

73
00:04:44,400 --> 00:04:47,920
Speaker 6: to kids at schools that the school does tell parents about.

74
00:04:48,680 --> 00:04:51,240
Speaker 3: I want to be clear on something. Did the school

75
00:04:51,480 --> 00:04:55,440
Speaker 3: just call the child by preferred pronouns or did the

76
00:04:55,440 --> 00:04:56,640
Speaker 3: school do more than that?

77
00:04:57,160 --> 00:05:00,560
Speaker 6: They also had somebody at the school meet with child

78
00:05:00,760 --> 00:05:04,880
Speaker 6: regularly to talk to them about how they were feeling

79
00:05:05,000 --> 00:05:07,520
Speaker 6: and be a resource person for them. And what The

80
00:05:07,640 --> 00:05:12,000
Speaker 6: parents here alleged that in that way they were actually

81
00:05:12,040 --> 00:05:18,320
Speaker 6: giving mental health treatment to their child without the parent's consent. Now,

82
00:05:18,320 --> 00:05:23,320
Speaker 6: the district court found that they hadn't adequately alleged facts

83
00:05:23,360 --> 00:05:28,240
Speaker 6: to support a conclusion that the child was receiving mental

84
00:05:28,279 --> 00:05:32,160
Speaker 6: health treatment, though the district court kind of threw that

85
00:05:32,480 --> 00:05:35,880
Speaker 6: out based on the factual allegation. You know, so they

86
00:05:35,920 --> 00:05:38,320
Speaker 6: were saying it wasn't just calling them by different names.

87
00:05:38,320 --> 00:05:43,440
Speaker 6: They were actually giving their child counseling mental health treatment

88
00:05:43,680 --> 00:05:47,160
Speaker 6: that they did not agree to, which would be a

89
00:05:47,200 --> 00:05:50,560
Speaker 6: more serious allegation if the district court had supported it.

90
00:05:51,080 --> 00:05:55,560
Speaker 3: The district Court used a standard, a very tough standard,

91
00:05:55,800 --> 00:05:58,839
Speaker 3: shocking the conscience. Tell us what that standard is and

92
00:05:59,279 --> 00:06:02,040
Speaker 3: is it appropriate in this case? Is it the correct

93
00:06:02,080 --> 00:06:03,159
Speaker 3: standard in this case?

94
00:06:03,680 --> 00:06:03,840
Speaker 4: Well?

95
00:06:03,920 --> 00:06:07,640
Speaker 6: Yes, the parents here are alleging that their substantive due

96
00:06:07,720 --> 00:06:12,040
Speaker 6: process rights were violated, and the court I think used

97
00:06:12,120 --> 00:06:16,560
Speaker 6: the right standards to figure that out. You know, the

98
00:06:16,600 --> 00:06:19,920
Speaker 6: parents in the Court of Appeals have said that the

99
00:06:19,960 --> 00:06:23,599
Speaker 6: district court kind of made that standard extra tough. But

100
00:06:24,160 --> 00:06:27,520
Speaker 6: the cases I've looked at seemed to require that the

101
00:06:27,560 --> 00:06:31,520
Speaker 6: facts alleged really have to shock the conscience, and they're

102
00:06:31,600 --> 00:06:37,120
Speaker 6: usually looking for something where the state actor has intentionally

103
00:06:37,839 --> 00:06:43,160
Speaker 6: inflicted harm on the person who is suing. So think

104
00:06:43,200 --> 00:06:45,719
Speaker 6: about you know, one of the cases I saw where

105
00:06:46,200 --> 00:06:50,360
Speaker 6: there actually was substantive due process adequately alleged was where

106
00:06:50,400 --> 00:06:56,640
Speaker 6: a school coach had intentionally used a hard object to

107
00:06:56,880 --> 00:07:01,680
Speaker 6: hit a student in the face. That shocked the conscience.

108
00:07:02,440 --> 00:07:05,680
Speaker 6: But there's lots of things where students are hurt, where

109
00:07:05,720 --> 00:07:09,159
Speaker 6: it might be upsetting, but it doesn't reach that shock.

110
00:07:09,279 --> 00:07:13,360
Speaker 6: The conscience standard and substantive due process is a very

111
00:07:13,680 --> 00:07:20,520
Speaker 6: tricky legal standard that lots of judges think should be circumscribed.

112
00:07:20,520 --> 00:07:23,080
Speaker 6: That there should be very few things that we find

113
00:07:23,480 --> 00:07:27,680
Speaker 6: are protected by substantive due process. So what's established is

114
00:07:28,240 --> 00:07:31,960
Speaker 6: the right to marry, the right to have children. So

115
00:07:32,400 --> 00:07:35,560
Speaker 6: they want to keep the range of things that are

116
00:07:35,880 --> 00:07:40,160
Speaker 6: within substantive due process really small. Now these parents say that, well,

117
00:07:40,200 --> 00:07:44,960
Speaker 6: what's within substantive due process is the right to raise

118
00:07:45,000 --> 00:07:48,280
Speaker 6: your children as you see fit. The thing they run

119
00:07:48,360 --> 00:07:51,520
Speaker 6: into there is that there are Supreme court cases that

120
00:07:51,680 --> 00:07:57,000
Speaker 6: support that. But what they support is the right to

121
00:07:57,080 --> 00:07:59,920
Speaker 6: raise your children as you see fit in a prime

122
00:08:00,080 --> 00:08:04,640
Speaker 6: at school setting. So there are old cases that say

123
00:08:04,760 --> 00:08:10,080
Speaker 6: that the state cannot prohibit the teaching of German in

124
00:08:10,200 --> 00:08:14,040
Speaker 6: private schools when parents want their children taught German. It

125
00:08:14,080 --> 00:08:16,880
Speaker 6: doesn't say that the public schools have to teach German.

126
00:08:17,280 --> 00:08:20,960
Speaker 6: There's a case saying that you can't require students to

127
00:08:21,120 --> 00:08:24,960
Speaker 6: attend public schools, they have to also be allowed to

128
00:08:25,000 --> 00:08:28,760
Speaker 6: attend private school So to me, those cases only say

129
00:08:28,800 --> 00:08:31,960
Speaker 6: that these parents have a right to send their children

130
00:08:32,040 --> 00:08:34,960
Speaker 6: to a school that would not have a policy like this,

131
00:08:35,200 --> 00:08:37,640
Speaker 6: and there are lots of private schools that would not

132
00:08:37,800 --> 00:08:40,520
Speaker 6: have a policy like this. I think it's much harder

133
00:08:40,520 --> 00:08:44,040
Speaker 6: to say that within the public schools they get to

134
00:08:44,080 --> 00:08:47,400
Speaker 6: have a right to say what the policy is on

135
00:08:47,559 --> 00:08:50,760
Speaker 6: something like this. Here's my caveat. I'm surprised that they

136
00:08:50,760 --> 00:08:55,320
Speaker 6: haven't raised a religious argument. I think that they'd have

137
00:08:55,400 --> 00:08:59,079
Speaker 6: a stronger argument if they were also raising some kind

138
00:08:59,240 --> 00:09:05,640
Speaker 6: of a free exercise argument that our religion also supports

139
00:09:05,679 --> 00:09:09,199
Speaker 6: the idea that you are the gender that you're born into,

140
00:09:09,280 --> 00:09:11,800
Speaker 6: and so for you to be teaching our child something

141
00:09:12,160 --> 00:09:15,760
Speaker 6: other than that and supporting them transitioning when we've told

142
00:09:15,800 --> 00:09:20,000
Speaker 6: you not to violate our religious rights. But they haven't

143
00:09:20,120 --> 00:09:21,200
Speaker 6: argued that in this case.

144
00:09:21,840 --> 00:09:25,640
Speaker 3: And on that public private school issue, Judge Reichlman said

145
00:09:25,679 --> 00:09:28,200
Speaker 3: that one of the basic rights that parents have is

146
00:09:28,240 --> 00:09:30,920
Speaker 3: to decide whether to keep their children in private or

147
00:09:30,960 --> 00:09:35,240
Speaker 3: public school, and if a school doesn't disclose information about

148
00:09:35,240 --> 00:09:39,440
Speaker 3: a child's gender identity, then parents lose the ability to

149
00:09:39,520 --> 00:09:43,920
Speaker 3: make a really meaningful decision about whether to keep the

150
00:09:44,000 --> 00:09:47,280
Speaker 3: child in that school or move the child to another school.

151
00:09:48,200 --> 00:09:51,400
Speaker 6: Interesting There's a case in Maryland that went to the

152
00:09:51,440 --> 00:09:57,240
Speaker 6: Fourth Circuit where the parents challenged the school policy. None

153
00:09:57,280 --> 00:10:01,120
Speaker 6: of their kids, to their knowledge, had taking any advice

154
00:10:01,120 --> 00:10:03,800
Speaker 6: from the school, or had tried to change their gender

155
00:10:04,000 --> 00:10:07,040
Speaker 6: or anything like that, and the court said that they

156
00:10:07,160 --> 00:10:10,840
Speaker 6: lacked standing to challenge the policy. And they said, hey,

157
00:10:10,880 --> 00:10:14,200
Speaker 6: wait a minute, we don't even know if we have

158
00:10:14,360 --> 00:10:17,920
Speaker 6: standing because the school won't tell us if our kids

159
00:10:18,640 --> 00:10:22,000
Speaker 6: have come forward to use a different name and pronoun

160
00:10:22,120 --> 00:10:25,720
Speaker 6: at school. And this just isn't fair. You're keeping us

161
00:10:25,720 --> 00:10:29,160
Speaker 6: from even having standing to challenge the policy. And the

162
00:10:29,440 --> 00:10:32,920
Speaker 6: Fourth Circuit said, yeah, we understand you're in kind of

163
00:10:32,920 --> 00:10:37,079
Speaker 6: a tough spot, but we in other situations, mostly around

164
00:10:37,200 --> 00:10:43,520
Speaker 6: national security cases, we prevent people from challenging a government

165
00:10:43,640 --> 00:10:48,360
Speaker 6: policy where they don't know that they're on the terrorism

166
00:10:48,440 --> 00:10:52,560
Speaker 6: watch list. For example, they don't know that they are

167
00:10:52,800 --> 00:10:56,040
Speaker 6: being bied on, but they think they're being bied on

168
00:10:56,200 --> 00:11:00,520
Speaker 6: in air quotes being surveiled by the government, and you

169
00:11:00,679 --> 00:11:04,839
Speaker 6: have to allege some kind of facts that can lead

170
00:11:04,880 --> 00:11:08,119
Speaker 6: the court to believe that you are actually being injured

171
00:11:08,640 --> 00:11:11,559
Speaker 6: by the policy. Now Here's these parents have no problem

172
00:11:11,559 --> 00:11:14,320
Speaker 6: with that because they have a good claim of actual

173
00:11:14,400 --> 00:11:18,400
Speaker 6: injury because they know their students were hurt. But the

174
00:11:18,480 --> 00:11:21,200
Speaker 6: Fourth Circuits dealt with that and it was a two

175
00:11:21,280 --> 00:11:25,439
Speaker 6: one decision, but found that the parents last standing to

176
00:11:25,640 --> 00:11:28,640
Speaker 6: challenge the policy, and what the parents should do that

177
00:11:28,720 --> 00:11:32,440
Speaker 6: case said was use the ballot box. What they need

178
00:11:32,480 --> 00:11:35,720
Speaker 6: to do is vote in a new school board that

179
00:11:35,760 --> 00:11:39,320
Speaker 6: will change the policy that it wasn't for the court.

180
00:11:39,559 --> 00:11:43,079
Speaker 3: So this first Circuit decision will be the highest court

181
00:11:43,200 --> 00:11:46,360
Speaker 3: ruling on the merits of this argument.

182
00:11:46,920 --> 00:11:48,600
Speaker 6: I believe that should be the case. And now we're

183
00:11:48,640 --> 00:11:52,320
Speaker 6: only on a motion to dismiss, but yeah, it will

184
00:11:52,320 --> 00:11:54,880
Speaker 6: be on the merits, where the for circus cases only

185
00:11:54,920 --> 00:11:57,840
Speaker 6: on standing. They didn't hit the merits at all. But

186
00:11:58,080 --> 00:12:00,400
Speaker 6: what's interesting to me is that all of the court

187
00:12:00,920 --> 00:12:04,080
Speaker 6: that have addressed this have said that they don't like

188
00:12:04,200 --> 00:12:07,600
Speaker 6: these school policies. They think these school policies are wrong

189
00:12:07,720 --> 00:12:13,360
Speaker 6: headed and inappropriate, but that doesn't mean that they have

190
00:12:13,520 --> 00:12:16,520
Speaker 6: the kind of shock the conscience a fact that you

191
00:12:16,640 --> 00:12:20,199
Speaker 6: need for a substantive due process violation.

192
00:12:21,040 --> 00:12:24,520
Speaker 3: There's a case before the Eleventh Circuit which is very conservative,

193
00:12:24,640 --> 00:12:27,240
Speaker 3: so there might end up being some kind of split

194
00:12:27,240 --> 00:12:28,480
Speaker 3: in the circuits.

195
00:12:28,559 --> 00:12:31,120
Speaker 6: Yeah, I definitely agree with that I think that this

196
00:12:31,280 --> 00:12:36,240
Speaker 6: is an issue that some conservative court will find that

197
00:12:36,559 --> 00:12:39,360
Speaker 6: at least a complaint can go forward, and then the

198
00:12:39,440 --> 00:12:42,600
Speaker 6: question will be whether the Supreme Court gets interested enough

199
00:12:42,679 --> 00:12:45,360
Speaker 6: at that point, just when you have a decision on

200
00:12:45,440 --> 00:12:48,400
Speaker 6: a motion to dismiss, or whether they want a case

201
00:12:48,440 --> 00:12:52,400
Speaker 6: with a little bit more factual development, something that goes

202
00:12:52,559 --> 00:12:56,160
Speaker 6: to a summary judgment motion at least or maybe even

203
00:12:56,480 --> 00:13:00,960
Speaker 6: a trial before they decide to weigh in on this,

204
00:13:01,320 --> 00:13:03,960
Speaker 6: you know, when the Supreme Court. If when the Supreme

205
00:13:04,040 --> 00:13:06,280
Speaker 6: Court weighs into this, I think that some of the

206
00:13:06,440 --> 00:13:10,319
Speaker 6: justices will have a hard time because the conservative side

207
00:13:10,320 --> 00:13:13,559
Speaker 6: of the Supreme Court wants very much to have a

208
00:13:13,720 --> 00:13:18,440
Speaker 6: very very narrow set of circumstances where substantive due process

209
00:13:18,480 --> 00:13:22,120
Speaker 6: protects rights and justice. Thomas doesn't think that there is

210
00:13:22,160 --> 00:13:25,360
Speaker 6: such a thing a substantive due process. On the other hand,

211
00:13:25,520 --> 00:13:29,640
Speaker 6: I would believe them to from a policy angle, be

212
00:13:29,920 --> 00:13:32,400
Speaker 6: very concerned about these kinds.

213
00:13:32,200 --> 00:13:33,280
Speaker 1: Of school policies.

214
00:13:33,320 --> 00:13:36,520
Speaker 6: So how they will thread that needle, I think will

215
00:13:36,520 --> 00:13:41,280
Speaker 6: be very interesting to watch because you know, again there's

216
00:13:41,480 --> 00:13:47,160
Speaker 6: very well settled law that says that at least curriculum

217
00:13:47,200 --> 00:13:52,080
Speaker 6: now this isn't really curriculum, but that public schools get

218
00:13:52,120 --> 00:13:57,160
Speaker 6: to choose their own curriculum and parents don't get a

219
00:13:57,280 --> 00:14:00,160
Speaker 6: say in that except through the school board members if

220
00:14:00,200 --> 00:14:03,640
Speaker 6: they elect. That's how parents get a saying curriculum.

221
00:14:04,559 --> 00:14:09,160
Speaker 3: So, according to the Conservative group Parents Defending Education, more

222
00:14:09,200 --> 00:14:14,280
Speaker 3: than one forty school districts in thirty seven states discourage

223
00:14:14,440 --> 00:14:18,439
Speaker 3: or bar staff from telling parents about a school's transgender

224
00:14:18,520 --> 00:14:22,760
Speaker 3: status or gender identity without their permission. So just how

225
00:14:22,800 --> 00:14:24,040
Speaker 3: big an issue is this?

226
00:14:24,560 --> 00:14:27,320
Speaker 6: There are certainly some communities where I think that there

227
00:14:27,320 --> 00:14:31,280
Speaker 6: are you know, more and more children who are you know,

228
00:14:31,560 --> 00:14:37,800
Speaker 6: between teenagers who are saying that they're trands or that

229
00:14:37,880 --> 00:14:40,600
Speaker 6: they want to use a different pronoun or they want

230
00:14:40,640 --> 00:14:46,800
Speaker 6: to be gender fluid or without a gender, and schools

231
00:14:46,920 --> 00:14:50,600
Speaker 6: are you know, accommodating that. I don't think these policies

232
00:14:50,760 --> 00:14:56,360
Speaker 6: are really unusual. I also though, from a policy perspective,

233
00:14:56,400 --> 00:14:59,360
Speaker 6: I can see that parents would be very, very concerned

234
00:14:59,400 --> 00:15:03,360
Speaker 6: about it. But I can also be the school's reasons

235
00:15:04,040 --> 00:15:07,840
Speaker 6: for doing it, that schools want to be a place

236
00:15:08,080 --> 00:15:15,400
Speaker 6: of psychological safety for students, and as the district court said,

237
00:15:15,400 --> 00:15:17,240
Speaker 6: you know, they could imagine that it would be a

238
00:15:17,280 --> 00:15:21,920
Speaker 6: much better policy that the school supports the student in

239
00:15:22,160 --> 00:15:26,080
Speaker 6: sharing that information with their parents. You know, that can

240
00:15:26,120 --> 00:15:29,120
Speaker 6: be a really tricky thing. And so, for example, I

241
00:15:29,160 --> 00:15:34,760
Speaker 6: wouldn't expect the school to tell me if my child

242
00:15:35,200 --> 00:15:38,440
Speaker 6: was making out in the whole way with another child.

243
00:15:39,360 --> 00:15:41,840
Speaker 6: That might really upset me. It might be against a

244
00:15:41,960 --> 00:15:45,080
Speaker 6: rule i'd said at home, it might be against my

245
00:15:45,160 --> 00:15:48,720
Speaker 6: religious beliefs, but I wouldn't expect the school to tell me.

246
00:15:49,480 --> 00:15:52,840
Speaker 6: And so you know, there are a range of things

247
00:15:52,920 --> 00:15:55,720
Speaker 6: that we don't expect schools to tell us and that

248
00:15:55,800 --> 00:15:59,120
Speaker 6: school don't tell us. So where this fits on the continuum,

249
00:15:59,240 --> 00:16:04,640
Speaker 6: I think people can have good faith disagreements about and

250
00:16:04,720 --> 00:16:07,600
Speaker 6: as concerning as I can see it would be as

251
00:16:07,600 --> 00:16:12,400
Speaker 6: a parent, I can also understand the school's side of this.

252
00:16:13,240 --> 00:16:13,440
Speaker 5: Well.

253
00:16:13,480 --> 00:16:17,480
Speaker 3: Certainly this case is being watched nationally. There were more

254
00:16:17,560 --> 00:16:22,400
Speaker 3: than one hundred amikas briefs filed, including from nineteen states

255
00:16:22,520 --> 00:16:27,080
Speaker 3: that supported the parents' position and fifteen states that supported

256
00:16:27,120 --> 00:16:30,400
Speaker 3: the school's position. So we'll see other first circuit rules.

257
00:16:30,480 --> 00:16:34,120
Speaker 3: Thanks so much, Audrey. That's Audrey Anderson, head of the

258
00:16:34,200 --> 00:16:39,520
Speaker 3: Higher Education practice at bess Berry and Simms. Ninety eight

259
00:16:39,600 --> 00:16:43,000
Speaker 3: year old Judge Paul Newman was inducted into the ip

260
00:16:43,160 --> 00:16:46,400
Speaker 3: Watchdog Hall of Fame at the Patent Law Blogs Annual

261
00:16:46,520 --> 00:16:50,280
Speaker 3: conference in Virginia on Monday. Two days later, she was

262
00:16:50,320 --> 00:16:54,160
Speaker 3: suspended by the Federal Circuit for one year for refusing

263
00:16:54,160 --> 00:16:57,840
Speaker 3: to undergo medical testing as part of an investigation into

264
00:16:57,840 --> 00:17:00,960
Speaker 3: her mental fitness to sit on the bench. The investigation

265
00:17:01,240 --> 00:17:04,560
Speaker 3: was launched in late March, and a proceeding that usually

266
00:17:04,640 --> 00:17:09,240
Speaker 3: unfolds behind the scenes, played out in public. Newman, who's

267
00:17:09,240 --> 00:17:11,879
Speaker 3: been on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for nearly

268
00:17:12,000 --> 00:17:15,840
Speaker 3: four decades, has vowed to find the decision joining me

269
00:17:15,920 --> 00:17:19,000
Speaker 3: is ethics. Law expert Arthur Hellman, a professor at the

270
00:17:19,119 --> 00:17:22,199
Speaker 3: University of Pittsburgh School of Law, tell us about this

271
00:17:22,320 --> 00:17:24,800
Speaker 3: unanimous order from the Federal Circuit.

272
00:17:24,920 --> 00:17:28,720
Speaker 7: Well, what's in the order is that George Newman is

273
00:17:28,760 --> 00:17:34,000
Speaker 7: suspended for one year from hearing new cases. That's both

274
00:17:34,160 --> 00:17:38,280
Speaker 7: panel cases and bank cases. And the one year starts

275
00:17:38,320 --> 00:17:42,040
Speaker 7: from the date of the order, which was yesterday, So

276
00:17:42,160 --> 00:17:46,600
Speaker 7: it's really on top of the suspensions that have been

277
00:17:46,640 --> 00:17:51,080
Speaker 7: issued starting back in March. George Newman has not been

278
00:17:51,080 --> 00:17:54,520
Speaker 7: hearing cases now for about six months, and this will

279
00:17:54,560 --> 00:17:59,600
Speaker 7: add a full year to the suspension, and it also

280
00:18:00,119 --> 00:18:04,639
Speaker 7: two provisos. One is that it's renewable if she continues

281
00:18:04,680 --> 00:18:09,480
Speaker 7: to refuse to cooperate with the committee, but the Committee

282
00:18:09,680 --> 00:18:13,200
Speaker 7: and the Council can reconsider if she does cooperate.

283
00:18:14,000 --> 00:18:18,080
Speaker 3: This comes after a one hundred and eleven page report

284
00:18:18,640 --> 00:18:21,400
Speaker 3: based on more than twenty interviews with members of the

285
00:18:21,400 --> 00:18:26,840
Speaker 3: Court staff that Judge Newman had been having troubles recalling events,

286
00:18:27,000 --> 00:18:32,040
Speaker 3: conversations and information. Does this order have anything to do

287
00:18:32,160 --> 00:18:35,359
Speaker 3: with that report or is this just about her not

288
00:18:35,800 --> 00:18:40,040
Speaker 3: cooperating with the committee and not going for medical tests.

289
00:18:40,600 --> 00:18:44,000
Speaker 7: That's actually one of the problematic aspects of this proceeding

290
00:18:44,040 --> 00:18:47,200
Speaker 7: because in a way, the Council, like the Special Committee,

291
00:18:47,400 --> 00:18:50,560
Speaker 7: is trying to have it both ways. This suspension order

292
00:18:51,080 --> 00:18:55,520
Speaker 7: is predicated solely on refusal to cooperate, which is a

293
00:18:55,640 --> 00:19:00,640
Speaker 7: form of misconduct. And yet the underlying concern, which is subject,

294
00:19:00,680 --> 00:19:04,720
Speaker 7: as you point out, of extensive discussion in the Special

295
00:19:04,720 --> 00:19:08,280
Speaker 7: Committee report as well as the Judicial Council order, the

296
00:19:08,440 --> 00:19:14,600
Speaker 7: underlying concern is with disability. And so even though the

297
00:19:14,640 --> 00:19:20,320
Speaker 7: real subject of the original complaint was disability, the Special

298
00:19:20,320 --> 00:19:23,399
Speaker 7: Committee of the Chief Judge and the Council have turned

299
00:19:23,400 --> 00:19:30,359
Speaker 7: it technically into a misconduct proceeding this supposedly narrow issue

300
00:19:30,880 --> 00:19:32,400
Speaker 7: of failure to cooperate.

301
00:19:32,880 --> 00:19:34,560
Speaker 5: Is there precedent for this order?

302
00:19:34,840 --> 00:19:38,399
Speaker 7: Well, there's something of a precedent in the proceedings a

303
00:19:38,400 --> 00:19:42,919
Speaker 7: few years ago involving District Judge John Adams, and there

304
00:19:42,960 --> 00:19:48,960
Speaker 7: were some similarities and some differences. But the present situation

305
00:19:49,240 --> 00:19:54,320
Speaker 7: where the real concern is disability and Judge Adams, the

306
00:19:54,359 --> 00:19:58,320
Speaker 7: evidence was really of somebody who was campankerous and didn't

307
00:19:58,359 --> 00:20:02,280
Speaker 7: play well with his fellow judge. There was really very

308
00:20:02,320 --> 00:20:07,639
Speaker 7: little evidence there to suggest our disability, and in the

309
00:20:07,800 --> 00:20:13,560
Speaker 7: end the order requiring a examination was withdrawn. So there

310
00:20:13,560 --> 00:20:18,600
Speaker 7: are some parallels, but nothing like this has happened in

311
00:20:18,640 --> 00:20:22,640
Speaker 7: the forty plus years. Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act,

312
00:20:23,240 --> 00:20:24,120
Speaker 7: a nineteen eighty.

313
00:20:23,960 --> 00:20:27,640
Speaker 3: Law allows for judicial sanctions by colleagues as long as

314
00:20:27,640 --> 00:20:31,720
Speaker 3: the punishment is not removal from office or indefinite suspension.

315
00:20:32,160 --> 00:20:34,280
Speaker 5: So does this order fit within that law?

316
00:20:34,720 --> 00:20:37,440
Speaker 7: Well, that's one of the big questions that is going

317
00:20:37,520 --> 00:20:41,360
Speaker 7: to have to be addressed in the first instance by

318
00:20:41,480 --> 00:20:45,680
Speaker 7: the Review Committee, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability

319
00:20:45,720 --> 00:20:50,080
Speaker 7: of the Judicial Conference, because the provision you're referring to

320
00:20:50,480 --> 00:20:55,920
Speaker 7: does limit suspensions to ordering that on a temporary basis

321
00:20:56,480 --> 00:21:01,399
Speaker 7: for a time certain, no further cases be assigned. So

322
00:21:01,600 --> 00:21:05,719
Speaker 7: I regard that as the conjunctive two sets of requirements.

323
00:21:05,760 --> 00:21:08,600
Speaker 7: It has to be on a temporary basis and for

324
00:21:08,720 --> 00:21:11,879
Speaker 7: a time certain. And the question will be when you

325
00:21:12,000 --> 00:21:16,800
Speaker 7: have a one year order that is renewable, does that

326
00:21:16,960 --> 00:21:21,479
Speaker 7: satisfy the statutory language and does it fit with the

327
00:21:21,520 --> 00:21:24,760
Speaker 7: aim of the statute. I mean, the statute has a

328
00:21:24,880 --> 00:21:29,080
Speaker 7: very interesting history because it was a cooperative enterprise the

329
00:21:29,160 --> 00:21:34,560
Speaker 7: drafting by judges and members of Congress, and they were

330
00:21:34,720 --> 00:21:39,520
Speaker 7: very much aware that under the generally accepted interpretation of

331
00:21:40,080 --> 00:21:44,000
Speaker 7: Article three of the Constitution, federal judges can be removed

332
00:21:44,040 --> 00:21:47,600
Speaker 7: from office only through the process of impeachment by the

333
00:21:47,640 --> 00:21:52,439
Speaker 7: House and trial in the Senate, and they, by putting

334
00:21:52,480 --> 00:21:58,200
Speaker 7: that provision in, didn't want to have a backdoor removal.

335
00:21:58,680 --> 00:22:02,320
Speaker 7: So the question is whether you have an order that

336
00:22:02,560 --> 00:22:07,560
Speaker 7: is functionally equivalent to removing a judge from office. So,

337
00:22:07,680 --> 00:22:12,159
Speaker 7: for example, I think a three year suspension probably would

338
00:22:12,560 --> 00:22:16,320
Speaker 7: one year that's renewable, that's an open question. There is

339
00:22:16,400 --> 00:22:20,040
Speaker 7: no authoritative decision about that.

340
00:22:21,520 --> 00:22:26,479
Speaker 3: Or is there precedent for a court forcing a judge

341
00:22:26,480 --> 00:22:30,880
Speaker 3: to undergo medical testing. That's what was an issue here, Right,

342
00:22:30,920 --> 00:22:36,560
Speaker 3: She's submitted tests from her own neurologist and forensic psychiatrist,

343
00:22:36,800 --> 00:22:40,920
Speaker 3: but they wanted her to go to someone they approved.

344
00:22:41,320 --> 00:22:41,439
Speaker 6: Right.

345
00:22:41,600 --> 00:22:45,920
Speaker 7: Well, again, the Adams case is the closest parallel, and

346
00:22:46,000 --> 00:22:50,000
Speaker 7: there the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, as you

347
00:22:50,119 --> 00:22:53,879
Speaker 7: pointed out, that will be the review body that committee

348
00:22:54,200 --> 00:22:58,600
Speaker 7: in terms of what we'll call administrative precedent or precedent

349
00:22:58,680 --> 00:23:02,679
Speaker 7: within the misconduct system. That committee has already said it

350
00:23:02,760 --> 00:23:07,000
Speaker 7: is permissible under the statute. But there's also a lawsuit

351
00:23:07,080 --> 00:23:10,119
Speaker 7: pending that Judge Newman is filed in the District Court,

352
00:23:10,359 --> 00:23:15,080
Speaker 7: and that issue has not been settled by a court,

353
00:23:15,320 --> 00:23:19,040
Speaker 7: and there's an initial question there whether it is even

354
00:23:19,160 --> 00:23:23,119
Speaker 7: something that the district court can consider, because there's another

355
00:23:23,160 --> 00:23:26,680
Speaker 7: provision in the statute that says that the only review

356
00:23:27,280 --> 00:23:31,960
Speaker 7: of council orders is through the Committee of the Judicial

357
00:23:32,080 --> 00:23:36,640
Speaker 7: Conference and there's to be no review anywhere else. And

358
00:23:37,119 --> 00:23:41,160
Speaker 7: the District of Columbia Circuit, in a proceeding involving Judge

359
00:23:41,200 --> 00:23:45,919
Speaker 7: John McBride of Texas, has said that as applied, challenges

360
00:23:45,960 --> 00:23:49,760
Speaker 7: to the statute are barred in federal District Court by

361
00:23:49,800 --> 00:23:55,560
Speaker 7: that preclusion provision, So we don't have a judicial precedent

362
00:23:55,960 --> 00:23:57,320
Speaker 7: and we may never get one.

363
00:23:57,960 --> 00:24:01,199
Speaker 3: Do you think that she has a good chance in

364
00:24:01,240 --> 00:24:05,840
Speaker 3: her challenge at the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability?

365
00:24:05,920 --> 00:24:08,719
Speaker 7: I think she does not have a good chance of

366
00:24:08,800 --> 00:24:14,040
Speaker 7: getting a ruling that the Council cannot order her to

367
00:24:14,320 --> 00:24:19,119
Speaker 7: undergo some kind of testing. I think the Conduct Committee

368
00:24:19,600 --> 00:24:26,080
Speaker 7: may be concerned about the process that was followed here,

369
00:24:26,600 --> 00:24:30,359
Speaker 7: several aspects of it. But for example, the fact that

370
00:24:30,920 --> 00:24:37,160
Speaker 7: the Council suspended Judge Newman from hearing cases before this

371
00:24:37,280 --> 00:24:44,119
Speaker 7: process was formally initiated, but tying that suspension to the

372
00:24:44,240 --> 00:24:48,639
Speaker 7: concerns about disability. One of the emails that is included

373
00:24:48,720 --> 00:24:53,639
Speaker 7: in the voluminous attachments to the order issued yesterday, where

374
00:24:53,760 --> 00:24:59,320
Speaker 7: the Chief Judge refers specifically to a Council order directing

375
00:24:59,400 --> 00:25:04,000
Speaker 7: that Judge Newman not hear any new cases while this

376
00:25:04,280 --> 00:25:09,040
Speaker 7: process is ongoing, and the reference to the process is

377
00:25:09,119 --> 00:25:13,359
Speaker 7: pretty clearly the process under the Act, and as I

378
00:25:13,480 --> 00:25:16,919
Speaker 7: read the Act, that is simply not permissible. So you

379
00:25:17,000 --> 00:25:19,959
Speaker 7: have right at the outset what I believe was a

380
00:25:19,960 --> 00:25:25,840
Speaker 7: serious procedural misstep, and I could see the Judicial Conduct Committee,

381
00:25:25,880 --> 00:25:32,240
Speaker 7: saying that tainted the whole process and it should, if

382
00:25:32,280 --> 00:25:37,520
Speaker 7: not startle over again, it should be redone. And I

383
00:25:37,520 --> 00:25:40,560
Speaker 7: would like to see that done by a different circuit.

384
00:25:41,040 --> 00:25:43,960
Speaker 7: I think that would be much better way of handling it.

385
00:25:44,080 --> 00:25:49,720
Speaker 7: The Federal Circuit has adamantly refused to transfer, to request

386
00:25:49,720 --> 00:25:53,160
Speaker 7: a transfer to another circuit, which is something that's permitted

387
00:25:53,280 --> 00:25:57,119
Speaker 7: under the rules. No, it's not specifically in the Act,

388
00:25:57,240 --> 00:26:00,520
Speaker 7: but it is in the rules. And I think I

389
00:26:00,560 --> 00:26:05,479
Speaker 7: would certainly have much more confidence in this proceeding if

390
00:26:05,520 --> 00:26:09,959
Speaker 7: the findings of fact and the investigation were carried out

391
00:26:10,160 --> 00:26:14,800
Speaker 7: by judges who had no connection to Judge Newman or

392
00:26:14,920 --> 00:26:18,800
Speaker 7: to the judges who are sitting on the Council of

393
00:26:18,840 --> 00:26:19,679
Speaker 7: the Federal Circuit.

394
00:26:20,040 --> 00:26:23,320
Speaker 3: Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with Professor Arthur

395
00:26:23,359 --> 00:26:27,439
Speaker 3: Hellman and we'll discuss whether a mandatory retirement age for

396
00:26:27,520 --> 00:26:29,800
Speaker 3: federal judges would be constitutional.

397
00:26:30,119 --> 00:26:31,000
Speaker 5: This is Bloomberg.

398
00:26:31,280 --> 00:26:33,800
Speaker 3: I've been talking to Professor Arthur Hellman of the University

399
00:26:33,840 --> 00:26:38,200
Speaker 3: of Pittsburgh Law School about the Federal Circuit suspending ninety

400
00:26:38,200 --> 00:26:42,080
Speaker 3: eight year old Judge Pauline Neuman, the Court's eldest jurist,

401
00:26:42,400 --> 00:26:45,600
Speaker 3: for one year as punishment for not submitting to medical

402
00:26:45,640 --> 00:26:50,119
Speaker 3: testing as part of a disability and misconduct investigation to

403
00:26:50,160 --> 00:26:52,719
Speaker 3: look into her mental capacity to sit on the bench.

404
00:26:53,359 --> 00:26:56,840
Speaker 3: According to a twenty twenty Law Review article by Francis Shin,

405
00:26:57,320 --> 00:27:00,120
Speaker 3: the average age of federal judges, the average.

406
00:26:59,800 --> 00:27:01,240
Speaker 5: Age is sixty nine.

407
00:27:01,720 --> 00:27:05,320
Speaker 3: Would it be constitutional to have a mandatory retirement age

408
00:27:05,359 --> 00:27:06,080
Speaker 3: for judges?

409
00:27:06,520 --> 00:27:09,679
Speaker 7: It would not be constitutional to have a statutory in

410
00:27:09,760 --> 00:27:13,399
Speaker 7: retirement age. Now I think to have that, and it

411
00:27:13,480 --> 00:27:16,119
Speaker 7: might be a good idea or might not, But in

412
00:27:16,160 --> 00:27:20,360
Speaker 7: my view, it would require a constitutional amendment. I mean,

413
00:27:20,600 --> 00:27:26,000
Speaker 7: you're certainly correct that there's widening concern about aging figures

414
00:27:26,040 --> 00:27:30,199
Speaker 7: in all three branches of the national government today. The

415
00:27:30,280 --> 00:27:35,280
Speaker 7: judiciary is actually unique in that Congress has provided a

416
00:27:35,400 --> 00:27:39,560
Speaker 7: process for dealing with such a situations. In fact, in

417
00:27:39,560 --> 00:27:42,640
Speaker 7: addition to the process and to the Act, there's an

418
00:27:42,640 --> 00:27:47,919
Speaker 7: even older statute that allows the Circuit Council to certify

419
00:27:48,640 --> 00:27:54,119
Speaker 7: a judge or with essentially mandatory retirement. But something that

420
00:27:54,320 --> 00:27:57,160
Speaker 7: perhaps should have been more of a focus here than

421
00:27:57,240 --> 00:28:03,320
Speaker 7: it has been. So in most instances, these processes work well.

422
00:28:03,760 --> 00:28:08,119
Speaker 7: They work behind the scenes. When they're successful, we don't

423
00:28:08,240 --> 00:28:11,800
Speaker 7: even know it happened. All we see is an announcement

424
00:28:12,240 --> 00:28:16,479
Speaker 7: that Judge Smith is taking senior status. That's all we see.

425
00:28:16,800 --> 00:28:20,720
Speaker 7: What we don't know is what happens. For example, and

426
00:28:20,880 --> 00:28:25,640
Speaker 7: in some cases I'm familiar with, in one instance, you've

427
00:28:25,640 --> 00:28:30,920
Speaker 7: had a judge who was no longer competent. He resisted retiring.

428
00:28:31,520 --> 00:28:35,680
Speaker 7: His wife eventually persuaded him that his whole legacy would

429
00:28:35,720 --> 00:28:40,080
Speaker 7: be at risk if there were a public proceeded. Another case,

430
00:28:40,480 --> 00:28:46,440
Speaker 7: the judge's daughter persuaded him. So while this particular proceeding

431
00:28:46,520 --> 00:28:51,120
Speaker 7: is very, very troubling in many many respects, we should

432
00:28:51,200 --> 00:28:55,240
Speaker 7: not see it as typical. It is extremely atypical. It

433
00:28:55,320 --> 00:28:57,120
Speaker 7: is a failure of the system.

434
00:28:57,600 --> 00:29:01,320
Speaker 3: Why isn't the Chief Judge then use the process you

435
00:29:01,600 --> 00:29:02,560
Speaker 3: just talked about.

436
00:29:03,400 --> 00:29:05,840
Speaker 7: That's a very very good question. Over the course of

437
00:29:05,880 --> 00:29:09,760
Speaker 7: this there now I think been three separate documents where

438
00:29:10,280 --> 00:29:14,480
Speaker 7: the Chief Judge or the Special Committee and are now

439
00:29:14,560 --> 00:29:21,200
Speaker 7: the Circuit Council has attempted to justify the refusal to transfer.

440
00:29:21,840 --> 00:29:25,200
Speaker 7: And I've read all of those. I just don't think

441
00:29:25,200 --> 00:29:29,520
Speaker 7: they're persuasive. I think that everybody's interests would have been

442
00:29:29,600 --> 00:29:34,880
Speaker 7: served could still be served today by having this considered

443
00:29:34,960 --> 00:29:40,080
Speaker 7: by a group of judges who have no connection with

444
00:29:40,320 --> 00:29:44,320
Speaker 7: Judge Newman, no connection with the other judges of the

445
00:29:44,360 --> 00:29:47,400
Speaker 7: Federal Circuit. And in fact, one of the striking things

446
00:29:47,440 --> 00:29:51,880
Speaker 7: about this, because the proceeding here has been though totally

447
00:29:52,280 --> 00:29:56,600
Speaker 7: in house. I mean, in every other circuit, both the

448
00:29:56,720 --> 00:30:01,880
Speaker 7: Special Investigating Committee and the Circuit Council would be composed

449
00:30:02,040 --> 00:30:06,720
Speaker 7: of a mix of district judges and circuit judges. You

450
00:30:06,800 --> 00:30:09,440
Speaker 7: don't have that here. This is the one circuit where

451
00:30:09,800 --> 00:30:13,560
Speaker 7: the only judges participating in the Special Committee, the only

452
00:30:13,640 --> 00:30:18,520
Speaker 7: judges participating serving on the Judicial Council, are all Judge

453
00:30:18,560 --> 00:30:24,120
Speaker 7: Newman's colleagues. The other thing that reinforces that is that

454
00:30:24,240 --> 00:30:29,040
Speaker 7: in most of the Special Committee proceedings, including the Atoms Proceeding,

455
00:30:29,080 --> 00:30:33,480
Speaker 7: which the Circuit Council keeps going back to as the model,

456
00:30:34,080 --> 00:30:37,400
Speaker 7: and the Atoms Proceeding, and in most cases where there's

457
00:30:37,400 --> 00:30:41,400
Speaker 7: a special Committee, the special Committee hires an outside council

458
00:30:41,880 --> 00:30:45,440
Speaker 7: to work with it. And that's important and desirable for

459
00:30:45,520 --> 00:30:49,680
Speaker 7: two reasons. One is that investigation is not something judges

460
00:30:49,720 --> 00:30:52,680
Speaker 7: are trained to do. But you find a law firm

461
00:30:52,880 --> 00:30:58,959
Speaker 7: or a lawyer whose specialty is investigating, for example, investigating

462
00:30:59,360 --> 00:31:04,960
Speaker 7: alleged doing by some corporate insider, a corporate director, so

463
00:31:05,560 --> 00:31:10,560
Speaker 7: we don't have the expertise of an outside council. Second,

464
00:31:10,640 --> 00:31:16,160
Speaker 7: and maybe more important, the outside council brings an outsider perspective.

465
00:31:16,840 --> 00:31:21,840
Speaker 7: You can every kind of investigation benefits from that, whether

466
00:31:21,960 --> 00:31:26,400
Speaker 7: it's in a corporation, government agency, or even a faculty.

467
00:31:26,960 --> 00:31:30,760
Speaker 7: Somebody coming in from the outside and who doesn't know

468
00:31:31,760 --> 00:31:36,600
Speaker 7: the participants can ask the tough questions, can ask about

469
00:31:36,680 --> 00:31:40,280
Speaker 7: things that the insiders might not even be aware of

470
00:31:40,480 --> 00:31:44,120
Speaker 7: because it's so so so much a part of their existence.

471
00:31:44,800 --> 00:31:49,280
Speaker 7: So not only was there no transfer here, there was

472
00:31:49,360 --> 00:31:54,000
Speaker 7: no outside council to provide that external perspective.

473
00:31:54,840 --> 00:31:58,880
Speaker 3: This ends up being such a complex case. And you

474
00:31:59,000 --> 00:32:01,720
Speaker 3: know this area, so, oh, well, is there anything you

475
00:32:01,760 --> 00:32:02,440
Speaker 3: want to add?

476
00:32:02,840 --> 00:32:05,480
Speaker 7: I have not seen discussed anywhere, And then maybe I'm

477
00:32:05,520 --> 00:32:08,640
Speaker 7: off based on this, but I'll mention it just to

478
00:32:09,440 --> 00:32:13,160
Speaker 7: hopefully get it on the table. I mean, one of

479
00:32:13,160 --> 00:32:15,840
Speaker 7: the things that the council might have done would be

480
00:32:16,040 --> 00:32:21,040
Speaker 7: to issue the order, but to stay it, you know,

481
00:32:21,080 --> 00:32:24,280
Speaker 7: and we've seen all these cases challenges to government practices

482
00:32:24,920 --> 00:32:28,000
Speaker 7: where just the court orders are stayed. I mean, let

483
00:32:28,160 --> 00:32:32,200
Speaker 7: Judge Newman sit, let us sit on the November and

484
00:32:32,320 --> 00:32:36,920
Speaker 7: December calendars, and I think that would be the best

485
00:32:36,960 --> 00:32:40,440
Speaker 7: way of finding out whether she is confident to sit.

486
00:32:40,960 --> 00:32:43,280
Speaker 7: You know, we have the oral arguments which are public,

487
00:32:43,760 --> 00:32:47,640
Speaker 7: and then the judge's private conference. We would find out

488
00:32:47,800 --> 00:32:52,920
Speaker 7: not maybe not definitively, but that would be far better

489
00:32:53,040 --> 00:32:59,600
Speaker 7: evidence of her competence to participate in judicial decision making

490
00:33:00,440 --> 00:33:05,600
Speaker 7: than the evidence in the report, which is all interactions

491
00:33:05,640 --> 00:33:11,800
Speaker 7: with staff. The Special Committee refused to interview the judges

492
00:33:12,120 --> 00:33:15,280
Speaker 7: that was not part of excluded that from their investigation.

493
00:33:15,960 --> 00:33:19,200
Speaker 7: So it's a very very limited body. It's a large

494
00:33:19,200 --> 00:33:22,320
Speaker 7: body of information, but it's a limited body.

495
00:33:22,920 --> 00:33:25,600
Speaker 3: Well, this is certainly not the end of the story.

496
00:33:25,880 --> 00:33:29,160
Speaker 3: Thanks so much, Arthur. That's Professor Arthur Hellman of the

497
00:33:29,280 --> 00:33:31,520
Speaker 3: University of Pittsburgh Law School.

498
00:33:31,800 --> 00:33:34,120
Speaker 5: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

499
00:33:34,440 --> 00:33:36,800
Speaker 3: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

500
00:33:36,840 --> 00:33:41,120
Speaker 3: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

501
00:33:41,320 --> 00:33:46,360
Speaker 3: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law,

502
00:33:46,760 --> 00:33:49,320
Speaker 3: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

503
00:33:49,400 --> 00:33:51,080
Speaker 3: weeknight at ten pm.

504
00:33:50,880 --> 00:33:51,760
Speaker 5: Wall Street Time.

505
00:33:52,320 --> 00:33:55,040
Speaker 3: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg