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

2
00:00:09,039 --> 00:00:12,360
Speaker 1: It's a great victory for Sean Combs. It's a great

3
00:00:12,440 --> 00:00:14,840
Speaker 1: victory for the jury system.

4
00:00:15,320 --> 00:00:18,600
Speaker 2: You saw that the Southern District of New York prosecutors

5
00:00:18,640 --> 00:00:20,680
Speaker 2: came at him with all that they had.

6
00:00:21,160 --> 00:00:25,760
Speaker 3: It was indeed a resounding victory for Sean Diddy Combs

7
00:00:25,800 --> 00:00:29,920
Speaker 3: and a resounding loss for federal prosecutors. After more than

8
00:00:30,040 --> 00:00:34,680
Speaker 3: six weeks of sometimes graphic and emotional testimony, the jury

9
00:00:34,720 --> 00:00:40,000
Speaker 3: acquitted Combs of the most serious charges against him, racketeering, conspiracy,

10
00:00:40,159 --> 00:00:43,760
Speaker 3: and sex trafficking, and convicted him only of the lesser

11
00:00:43,920 --> 00:00:48,720
Speaker 3: charges of transportation to engage in prostitution. After the verdict

12
00:00:48,840 --> 00:00:52,760
Speaker 3: was read, Combs mouthed the words thank you to the jurors,

13
00:00:53,159 --> 00:00:57,320
Speaker 3: dropped to his knees, and prayed with good reason. Instead

14
00:00:57,360 --> 00:01:00,640
Speaker 3: of facing a sentence of life in prison, he now

15
00:01:00,800 --> 00:01:04,560
Speaker 3: likely faces no more than six years, although the decision

16
00:01:04,600 --> 00:01:07,959
Speaker 3: on his sentence will ultimately be up to the judge.

17
00:01:08,200 --> 00:01:11,880
Speaker 3: My guest his former federal prosecutor, Robert Mintz, a partner

18
00:01:11,920 --> 00:01:15,920
Speaker 3: maccarter and English Bob. He was convicted of two felonies,

19
00:01:16,319 --> 00:01:19,640
Speaker 3: but Combs and his lawyers were elated with the verdict.

20
00:01:20,319 --> 00:01:24,160
Speaker 4: Given the charges he was potentially facing, which included up

21
00:01:24,200 --> 00:01:28,000
Speaker 4: to life in prison for the racketeering conspiracy and a

22
00:01:28,160 --> 00:01:31,720
Speaker 4: minimum sentence of fifteen years to life for sex trafficking.

23
00:01:32,160 --> 00:01:35,000
Speaker 4: The fact that he was only convicted of two counts

24
00:01:35,240 --> 00:01:39,360
Speaker 4: of transportation to engaging prostitution can't be viewed as anything

25
00:01:39,440 --> 00:01:42,200
Speaker 4: other than a win by the defense and a bitter

26
00:01:42,280 --> 00:01:43,520
Speaker 4: loss for prosecutors.

27
00:01:44,040 --> 00:01:49,160
Speaker 3: So the top count racketeering conspiracy, the charge has historically

28
00:01:49,200 --> 00:01:52,360
Speaker 3: been used to take down mob bosses like John Gotti.

29
00:01:52,680 --> 00:01:56,560
Speaker 3: Did the prosecutors overcharge him with this count?

30
00:01:56,800 --> 00:01:58,880
Speaker 4: Well, I think that's going to be the question that

31
00:01:58,960 --> 00:02:01,880
Speaker 4: prosecutors will have to ask themselves when they look back

32
00:02:01,920 --> 00:02:04,840
Speaker 4: on this case, whether or not it was overcharged with

33
00:02:04,960 --> 00:02:08,600
Speaker 4: the rico conspiracy. Now, the rico conspiracy, as you say,

34
00:02:08,639 --> 00:02:13,160
Speaker 4: has been used traditionally in order to prosecute organized crime figures,

35
00:02:13,160 --> 00:02:16,519
Speaker 4: but it has been used more broadly in recent years

36
00:02:16,560 --> 00:02:19,560
Speaker 4: and was used in a high profile case just a

37
00:02:19,600 --> 00:02:23,040
Speaker 4: couple of years ago in the R. Kelly case where

38
00:02:23,080 --> 00:02:25,720
Speaker 4: that hip hop artist was also charged with RICO and

39
00:02:25,800 --> 00:02:29,120
Speaker 4: sex trafficking in twenty twenty one, and in that instance,

40
00:02:29,200 --> 00:02:33,440
Speaker 4: prosecutors did get a conviction, but here jurors ultimately concluded

41
00:02:33,800 --> 00:02:39,040
Speaker 4: that the Rico conspiracy was overcharged, that the prosecution did

42
00:02:39,040 --> 00:02:42,520
Speaker 4: not meet the burden of showing that Sean Combs had

43
00:02:42,639 --> 00:02:47,080
Speaker 4: used his business empire as a vehicle in orders to

44
00:02:47,280 --> 00:02:51,240
Speaker 4: commit further acts and in order to force his former

45
00:02:51,280 --> 00:02:55,240
Speaker 4: girlfriends into performing sexual acts against their will.

46
00:02:55,919 --> 00:03:00,800
Speaker 3: Explain how when prosecutors overcharged it, it gives the defense

47
00:03:00,840 --> 00:03:03,080
Speaker 3: an opening to challenge their case.

48
00:03:03,600 --> 00:03:06,600
Speaker 4: Well, that's ultimately where this case turned. It was really

49
00:03:06,639 --> 00:03:10,320
Speaker 4: an argument by the defense that although mister Combe had

50
00:03:10,360 --> 00:03:14,519
Speaker 4: committed some abhorrent acts, they had the video of him

51
00:03:14,639 --> 00:03:18,440
Speaker 4: picking Tasti Ventura by the elevator bank out in Beverly Hills.

52
00:03:18,680 --> 00:03:22,440
Speaker 4: That was undeniably bad behavior and painted mister Combs in

53
00:03:22,440 --> 00:03:25,280
Speaker 4: a very negative light. But when that was held up

54
00:03:25,320 --> 00:03:30,240
Speaker 4: against the more serious charges of racketeering conspiracy, which included

55
00:03:30,560 --> 00:03:36,160
Speaker 4: certain criminal acts such as forced labor, bribery, obstruction of justice,

56
00:03:36,200 --> 00:03:39,640
Speaker 4: all of that was thrown in and basically prosecutors were

57
00:03:39,680 --> 00:03:42,800
Speaker 4: stating that he used this vast empire that he built

58
00:03:42,920 --> 00:03:46,720
Speaker 4: up over many years simply as a means of forcing

59
00:03:46,760 --> 00:03:50,400
Speaker 4: these ex girlfriends to continue to perform these sexual acts

60
00:03:50,440 --> 00:03:53,360
Speaker 4: against their will, and all the while they were coerced

61
00:03:53,360 --> 00:03:56,760
Speaker 4: into doing this. The defense was able to effectively pick

62
00:03:56,880 --> 00:04:01,080
Speaker 4: that apart by showing text messages from both of the

63
00:04:01,160 --> 00:04:06,040
Speaker 4: victims which at various times suggested that they had participated

64
00:04:06,080 --> 00:04:09,360
Speaker 4: in these acts willfully, that they were not coerced, that

65
00:04:09,440 --> 00:04:12,560
Speaker 4: they could have left but chose not to, And ultimately

66
00:04:12,600 --> 00:04:16,000
Speaker 4: I think that was the downfall for the prostitution's case.

67
00:04:16,279 --> 00:04:19,919
Speaker 4: It really ultimately turned on whether they believed that the

68
00:04:20,000 --> 00:04:23,720
Speaker 4: victims were actually trapped in this relationship and had no

69
00:04:23,839 --> 00:04:26,960
Speaker 4: way out and were literally forced to commit these acts,

70
00:04:27,360 --> 00:04:30,160
Speaker 4: or whether this is more complex than that, and the

71
00:04:30,240 --> 00:04:33,840
Speaker 4: defense was able to show that these relationships, while toxic,

72
00:04:34,120 --> 00:04:37,680
Speaker 4: while not healthy, and while it involved bad behavior by

73
00:04:37,680 --> 00:04:41,600
Speaker 4: mister Colmbs, didn't rise to the level of racketeering conspiracy.

74
00:04:42,520 --> 00:04:47,239
Speaker 3: The two acquittals for sex trafficking, which stemmed from allegations

75
00:04:47,279 --> 00:04:51,200
Speaker 3: that Colmbs forced his two ex girlfriends to engage in

76
00:04:51,240 --> 00:04:56,240
Speaker 3: these so called freak offs, and Ventura testified over four

77
00:04:56,360 --> 00:05:00,920
Speaker 3: days some very emotional testimony refer to this, But did

78
00:05:00,960 --> 00:05:02,760
Speaker 3: the jurors just not believe her.

79
00:05:03,240 --> 00:05:05,839
Speaker 4: It's hard to say exactly what they were thinking that

80
00:05:05,960 --> 00:05:10,800
Speaker 4: testimony was compelling. That testimony had to be very emotional

81
00:05:10,960 --> 00:05:13,920
Speaker 4: for jurors to sit through, and yet at the end

82
00:05:13,960 --> 00:05:16,719
Speaker 4: of the day, they did not believe that she was

83
00:05:16,839 --> 00:05:22,480
Speaker 4: necessarily compelled to participate in commercial sex acts through force, fraud,

84
00:05:22,560 --> 00:05:25,520
Speaker 4: and coercion. The key here is there has to be

85
00:05:25,560 --> 00:05:29,560
Speaker 4: a link between the force, the fraud, and the coercion

86
00:05:29,800 --> 00:05:32,200
Speaker 4: and the acts of sex. And I think at the

87
00:05:32,279 --> 00:05:35,159
Speaker 4: end of the day, the evidence was just not clear

88
00:05:35,279 --> 00:05:38,680
Speaker 4: enough for them to meet that burden. Remember, prosecutors have

89
00:05:38,760 --> 00:05:42,279
Speaker 4: to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything less

90
00:05:42,320 --> 00:05:44,880
Speaker 4: than that will result in an acquittal, as we saw

91
00:05:44,960 --> 00:05:46,880
Speaker 4: here and sex trafficking.

92
00:05:47,080 --> 00:05:50,479
Speaker 3: Did those charges even fit the facts here? Aren't people

93
00:05:50,600 --> 00:05:54,560
Speaker 3: usually charged with sex trafficking when there's no connection to

94
00:05:54,640 --> 00:05:59,039
Speaker 3: the victims, not people in long term relationships like Combs

95
00:05:59,080 --> 00:05:59,960
Speaker 3: and his ex girlfriend.

96
00:06:00,800 --> 00:06:03,320
Speaker 4: Yeah, that was I think one of the problems too,

97
00:06:03,480 --> 00:06:07,840
Speaker 4: because the victims here were involved in these long term relationships,

98
00:06:07,960 --> 00:06:11,680
Speaker 4: and they had written many messages, emails, text messages, other

99
00:06:11,760 --> 00:06:15,480
Speaker 4: writings evidencing their love for mister Combs at various times.

100
00:06:15,560 --> 00:06:18,680
Speaker 4: The fact that they willingly participated in some of these acts,

101
00:06:18,720 --> 00:06:21,240
Speaker 4: the fact that they did things in order to please him,

102
00:06:21,520 --> 00:06:24,279
Speaker 4: and the fact fact that after some of these sessions

103
00:06:24,360 --> 00:06:26,800
Speaker 4: they texted him saying that they enjoyed them. And I

104
00:06:26,839 --> 00:06:30,720
Speaker 4: think it was very difficult for jurors to necessarily conclude

105
00:06:30,760 --> 00:06:33,560
Speaker 4: that all of this was done against their will, that

106
00:06:33,720 --> 00:06:36,640
Speaker 4: none of it was consensual. And as you say, June,

107
00:06:36,680 --> 00:06:40,479
Speaker 4: it's a situation where the sex trafficking charge is typically

108
00:06:40,560 --> 00:06:44,560
Speaker 4: brought in an instance where the perpetrator does not have

109
00:06:44,600 --> 00:06:47,960
Speaker 4: a relationship with the victim. Here there was a long

110
00:06:48,040 --> 00:06:52,320
Speaker 4: term relationship, one that was very complicated, and also one

111
00:06:52,360 --> 00:06:56,720
Speaker 4: in which the victims had benefited financially from their relationship

112
00:06:56,720 --> 00:07:00,400
Speaker 4: with mister Combs. So it became, I think, very difficult

113
00:07:00,640 --> 00:07:04,479
Speaker 4: for jurres to sort out the true nature of those relationships.

114
00:07:04,560 --> 00:07:07,800
Speaker 4: I don't think they necessarily disbelieve the victims, but I

115
00:07:07,839 --> 00:07:11,240
Speaker 4: think they ultimately concluded that the fact as presented to

116
00:07:11,280 --> 00:07:14,480
Speaker 4: them in court did not meet the elements of the

117
00:07:14,520 --> 00:07:15,760
Speaker 4: sex trafficking charges.

118
00:07:15,840 --> 00:07:20,560
Speaker 3: He was convicted of two counts of transportation to engage

119
00:07:20,560 --> 00:07:24,960
Speaker 3: in prostitution that stems from allegations that he paid sex

120
00:07:25,040 --> 00:07:28,760
Speaker 3: workers to come to his freak off parties. Tell us

121
00:07:28,760 --> 00:07:32,600
Speaker 3: about that that's a felony violation of the Federal Man Act.

122
00:07:32,920 --> 00:07:36,240
Speaker 4: These were the charges that were really easiest for prosecutors

123
00:07:36,240 --> 00:07:38,680
Speaker 4: to prove, because all they have to show is that

124
00:07:38,840 --> 00:07:42,600
Speaker 4: individual's cross state lines with the intent to engage in prostitution.

125
00:07:43,000 --> 00:07:45,160
Speaker 4: And there was plenty of evidence presented at the trial

126
00:07:45,520 --> 00:07:49,400
Speaker 4: that mister Colms had made arrangements for these male prostitutes

127
00:07:49,680 --> 00:07:53,000
Speaker 4: to meet with his girlfriends. He bought plane tickets, there

128
00:07:53,000 --> 00:07:56,520
Speaker 4: were credit card statements, there were hotel records. These were

129
00:07:56,560 --> 00:08:01,080
Speaker 4: the charges that prosecutors were able to prove fairly readily,

130
00:08:01,280 --> 00:08:03,760
Speaker 4: and there wasn't really much of a defense to them.

131
00:08:03,960 --> 00:08:06,440
Speaker 4: I think the defense strategy was to focus on the

132
00:08:06,480 --> 00:08:11,080
Speaker 4: more serious charges, which they ultimately succeeded in convincing jurors

133
00:08:11,160 --> 00:08:12,320
Speaker 4: to quit their client on.

134
00:08:12,840 --> 00:08:17,640
Speaker 3: The prosecution put on thirty four witnesses. The defense didn't

135
00:08:17,680 --> 00:08:22,760
Speaker 3: call any witnesses and elected instead to challenge the credibility

136
00:08:22,800 --> 00:08:27,920
Speaker 3: of the prosecution's witnesses through lengthy cross examinations that sometimes

137
00:08:28,320 --> 00:08:31,440
Speaker 3: were longer than the directs. Was that a risky move

138
00:08:31,520 --> 00:08:33,839
Speaker 3: by the defense, No, I.

139
00:08:33,800 --> 00:08:37,679
Speaker 4: Think from the very start the defense strategy was always

140
00:08:37,800 --> 00:08:40,920
Speaker 4: to win their case through cross examination. I think they

141
00:08:41,040 --> 00:08:44,000
Speaker 4: correctly sized the case up and knew that it was

142
00:08:44,040 --> 00:08:46,760
Speaker 4: going to turn on the testimony of the two victims

143
00:08:46,960 --> 00:08:50,320
Speaker 4: and how compelling they were, and that by adding witnesses

144
00:08:50,600 --> 00:08:53,240
Speaker 4: for the defense, it was only going to complicate the

145
00:08:53,280 --> 00:08:56,720
Speaker 4: case and create a more complex narrative for them to

146
00:08:56,800 --> 00:08:59,920
Speaker 4: have to convince Durres ask exactly what was going on here.

147
00:09:00,240 --> 00:09:03,240
Speaker 4: They wanted the case ultimately to be about these two

148
00:09:03,320 --> 00:09:06,080
Speaker 4: victims and to show that the relationship that they were

149
00:09:06,120 --> 00:09:09,040
Speaker 4: in with mister Colmbs over many years was one in

150
00:09:09,080 --> 00:09:13,160
Speaker 4: which they gained financially, one in which they willingly participated.

151
00:09:13,200 --> 00:09:16,400
Speaker 4: In no doubt, they were ups and downs in those relationships,

152
00:09:16,400 --> 00:09:18,760
Speaker 4: and there were some domestic violence that went on, and

153
00:09:18,800 --> 00:09:21,760
Speaker 4: the defense readily admitted that. But the question is did

154
00:09:21,760 --> 00:09:24,800
Speaker 4: it really rise to the level of racketeering conspiracy? The

155
00:09:24,880 --> 00:09:28,120
Speaker 4: defense placed a large set that the jurors would answer

156
00:09:28,120 --> 00:09:31,080
Speaker 4: that question in the negative, and ultimately they prevailed.

157
00:09:31,360 --> 00:09:34,720
Speaker 3: Were you surprised that the judge refused to release Colmbs

158
00:09:34,760 --> 00:09:36,439
Speaker 3: while he waits to be sentenced.

159
00:09:36,920 --> 00:09:40,280
Speaker 4: I wasn't totally surprised. I think here there was some

160
00:09:40,600 --> 00:09:43,640
Speaker 4: sense from the judge that the defense team is really

161
00:09:43,640 --> 00:09:46,319
Speaker 4: trying to have it both ways on this issue. He

162
00:09:46,520 --> 00:09:50,080
Speaker 4: noted that the Combs defense team at trial admitted the

163
00:09:50,120 --> 00:09:54,320
Speaker 4: domestic violence claims and said that a confession was really

164
00:09:54,400 --> 00:09:59,320
Speaker 4: unnecessary here because the defendant's violence was starkly depicted in

165
00:09:59,400 --> 00:10:04,000
Speaker 4: the twenti sixteen Intercontinental video, referring to the video of

166
00:10:04,080 --> 00:10:08,960
Speaker 4: mister Holmes violently beating Cathy Ventura. This suggests to me

167
00:10:09,080 --> 00:10:11,599
Speaker 4: that the judge was very troubled by the violence he

168
00:10:11,720 --> 00:10:15,560
Speaker 4: witnessed in the video and led him to conclude that

169
00:10:15,640 --> 00:10:19,000
Speaker 4: mister Colmbs continues to pose a danger to the community,

170
00:10:19,160 --> 00:10:22,120
Speaker 4: which is why he decided to leave him in jail

171
00:10:22,200 --> 00:10:23,000
Speaker 4: pending sentencing.

172
00:10:23,520 --> 00:10:26,840
Speaker 3: As far as sentencing, technically it's ten years on each

173
00:10:27,000 --> 00:10:30,079
Speaker 3: of the counts, colmb's lawyers said that under the federal

174
00:10:30,160 --> 00:10:35,800
Speaker 3: sentencing guidelines, he'd likely face twenty one to twenty seven months. Prosecutors,

175
00:10:36,080 --> 00:10:39,600
Speaker 3: citing his violence and other factors, said he'd likely face

176
00:10:39,720 --> 00:10:43,280
Speaker 3: fifty one to sixty three months. Considering what the judge

177
00:10:43,280 --> 00:10:47,320
Speaker 3: said in denying bail, mighty sentence Colmb's to more than that.

178
00:10:47,800 --> 00:10:50,199
Speaker 4: Well, the upper limit that the judge can send them

179
00:10:50,240 --> 00:10:53,960
Speaker 4: to is actually twenty years. That's the statutory maximum the

180
00:10:54,040 --> 00:10:58,319
Speaker 4: sentencing guidelines govern these sentences to the extent that they

181
00:10:58,360 --> 00:11:01,600
Speaker 4: give guidance to the jug judge, but the judge has

182
00:11:01,840 --> 00:11:05,720
Speaker 4: full discretion to send mister Colmbs to whatever he wants,

183
00:11:05,760 --> 00:11:08,680
Speaker 4: theoretically up to twenty years. I think the fact that

184
00:11:08,720 --> 00:11:12,040
Speaker 4: he's decided to keep him in jail pending sentencing, even

185
00:11:12,080 --> 00:11:14,840
Speaker 4: though he's already been in jail for almost a year,

186
00:11:15,280 --> 00:11:19,040
Speaker 4: suggests that the judge does do this as a serious crime,

187
00:11:19,440 --> 00:11:22,320
Speaker 4: and they send them to something much closer to what

188
00:11:22,400 --> 00:11:25,520
Speaker 4: prosecutors are asking than what the defense is speaking here.

189
00:11:25,760 --> 00:11:28,640
Speaker 4: And it is even possible that the judge sends them

190
00:11:28,679 --> 00:11:32,160
Speaker 4: to something more than what prosecutors are asking for. It's

191
00:11:32,240 --> 00:11:36,280
Speaker 4: highly unusual, but it is within the judges' discretion to

192
00:11:36,360 --> 00:11:39,400
Speaker 4: really send mister Combs to whatever he believes is fair

193
00:11:39,440 --> 00:11:41,079
Speaker 4: and just given the circumstances.

194
00:11:41,320 --> 00:11:45,439
Speaker 3: They'll be a hearing next Tuesday to discuss the sentencing process.

195
00:11:45,600 --> 00:11:48,760
Speaker 3: That should be interesting. Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert

196
00:11:48,800 --> 00:11:52,360
Speaker 3: Mins of maccarter and English coming up next. The winners

197
00:11:52,400 --> 00:11:56,240
Speaker 3: and losers at the Supreme Court this term, I'm June gross.

198
00:11:56,320 --> 00:12:00,880
Speaker 3: When you're listening to Bloomberg, Chief Justice John Roberts repeatedly

199
00:12:01,000 --> 00:12:05,200
Speaker 3: stresses the importance of judicial independence as he did during

200
00:12:05,200 --> 00:12:06,320
Speaker 3: an interview in May.

201
00:12:06,720 --> 00:12:07,839
Speaker 1: Its job is to.

202
00:12:09,400 --> 00:12:13,320
Speaker 2: Obviously decide cases, but in the course of that check

203
00:12:13,360 --> 00:12:16,679
Speaker 2: the excesses of Congress or of the executive, and that

204
00:12:16,720 --> 00:12:18,679
Speaker 2: does require degree of independence.

205
00:12:18,960 --> 00:12:22,680
Speaker 3: However, in the Supreme Court's recent term, it doesn't appear

206
00:12:22,760 --> 00:12:26,520
Speaker 3: that justices did much to check the excesses of the

207
00:12:26,600 --> 00:12:30,160
Speaker 3: current executive. In fact, the clear winner of the term

208
00:12:30,559 --> 00:12:33,800
Speaker 3: was President Donald Trump. The Court sided with him on

209
00:12:33,880 --> 00:12:38,200
Speaker 3: broad legal questions and emergency request to let his policies

210
00:12:38,280 --> 00:12:42,280
Speaker 3: take effect, from throwing transgender service members out of the

211
00:12:42,360 --> 00:12:46,679
Speaker 3: military to opening hundreds of thousands of migrants to deportation.

212
00:12:47,280 --> 00:12:49,760
Speaker 3: And for the second year in a row, the Court

213
00:12:49,960 --> 00:12:53,880
Speaker 3: ended the term with a decision handing Trump a major victory,

214
00:12:54,240 --> 00:12:59,079
Speaker 3: basically eliminating the main tool used to thwart his ambitious agenda,

215
00:12:59,520 --> 00:13:00,960
Speaker 3: the nation wide injunction.

216
00:13:01,440 --> 00:13:02,800
Speaker 1: This was a big one, wasn't it.

217
00:13:03,720 --> 00:13:08,160
Speaker 5: This was a big decision, an amazing decision, one that

218
00:13:08,200 --> 00:13:09,199
Speaker 5: we're very happy about.

219
00:13:09,760 --> 00:13:13,240
Speaker 3: Like almost all the high profile cases this term, the

220
00:13:13,320 --> 00:13:17,720
Speaker 3: Court divided six to three down ideological lines, with the

221
00:13:17,760 --> 00:13:21,840
Speaker 3: conservatives in the majority and the liberals dissenting. Joining me

222
00:13:21,920 --> 00:13:25,840
Speaker 3: is constitutional law expert Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell

223
00:13:25,920 --> 00:13:29,440
Speaker 3: Law School, Mike The finale of the term, if you will,

224
00:13:29,880 --> 00:13:33,160
Speaker 3: was the decision in the case over Trump's ban on

225
00:13:33,440 --> 00:13:38,520
Speaker 3: automatic birthright citizenship, where the Conservatives stripped the lower courts

226
00:13:38,559 --> 00:13:42,280
Speaker 3: of the power to grant nationwide injunctions, which have really

227
00:13:42,280 --> 00:13:46,240
Speaker 3: been the only effective check on the Trump agenda. Trump

228
00:13:46,280 --> 00:13:49,439
Speaker 3: thought the decision was important enough to call a press conference.

229
00:13:49,800 --> 00:13:51,000
Speaker 3: How important do you think.

230
00:13:50,880 --> 00:13:54,480
Speaker 1: It is that remains to be seen? The prohibition on

231
00:13:54,960 --> 00:14:01,040
Speaker 1: most universal injunctions will have very serious bite if, but

232
00:14:01,200 --> 00:14:05,440
Speaker 1: only if, the Court makes it difficult for plaintiffs to

233
00:14:05,480 --> 00:14:09,920
Speaker 1: bring class actions and makes it difficult for states to

234
00:14:10,000 --> 00:14:16,560
Speaker 1: sue for statewide injunctions. Those are two potential workarounds, neither

235
00:14:16,720 --> 00:14:22,040
Speaker 1: of which the majority directly addressed is but both of which,

236
00:14:22,520 --> 00:14:26,040
Speaker 1: just as the Leto and his concurrence suggests, should be

237
00:14:26,440 --> 00:14:31,280
Speaker 1: only available under a heightened standard of sorts. So what

238
00:14:31,360 --> 00:14:35,560
Speaker 1: remains to be seen is whether plaintiffs challenging these executive actions.

239
00:14:35,600 --> 00:14:39,520
Speaker 1: Here it was the birthright citizenship order, but it applies

240
00:14:39,560 --> 00:14:43,320
Speaker 1: diversely everything, whether they can quickly convert to class actions,

241
00:14:43,520 --> 00:14:46,080
Speaker 1: whether states can bring these cases. If they can, then

242
00:14:46,120 --> 00:14:48,280
Speaker 1: I think this ends up not being such a big deal.

243
00:14:48,640 --> 00:14:51,960
Speaker 3: Getting class action status is a lot more complicated, and

244
00:14:52,080 --> 00:14:55,120
Speaker 3: I think we've seen just in the last week how

245
00:14:55,160 --> 00:14:58,640
Speaker 3: confusing it is for the lower courts to parse through this.

246
00:14:59,240 --> 00:15:02,360
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court could have, and in my view, should

247
00:15:02,400 --> 00:15:07,000
Speaker 1: have given more guidance on whether class actions are available

248
00:15:07,040 --> 00:15:09,080
Speaker 1: and under what standard. You know, one of the things

249
00:15:09,320 --> 00:15:12,240
Speaker 1: I think is easily overlooked is the ruling in the

250
00:15:12,320 --> 00:15:17,600
Speaker 1: case is not a constitutional holding. The court doesn't say

251
00:15:18,120 --> 00:15:21,200
Speaker 1: that the Constitution forbids this kind of equitable relief. What

252
00:15:21,240 --> 00:15:24,920
Speaker 1: it says is that this power was not conferred by

253
00:15:25,080 --> 00:15:28,160
Speaker 1: statute on the federal courts. Well, if that's the case,

254
00:15:28,200 --> 00:15:32,160
Speaker 1: it's possible that federal Rule of Civil Procedure twenty three,

255
00:15:32,320 --> 00:15:35,880
Speaker 1: which is the class action provision, is empowered by the

256
00:15:35,960 --> 00:15:39,360
Speaker 1: Rules Enabling Act that that does confer this power, and

257
00:15:39,360 --> 00:15:41,840
Speaker 1: that would be fully consistent. It would just lead to,

258
00:15:42,120 --> 00:15:45,200
Speaker 1: you know, the availability of similar relief under a different mechanism.

259
00:15:45,520 --> 00:15:48,760
Speaker 3: President Trump says that the administration is going to move

260
00:15:48,880 --> 00:15:52,200
Speaker 3: to lift hold that judges have placed on a number

261
00:15:52,200 --> 00:15:56,880
Speaker 3: of his policies. He mentioned fights over refugee resettlement, federal spending,

262
00:15:56,920 --> 00:15:59,440
Speaker 3: and sanctuary cities. So you know, it's going to open

263
00:15:59,480 --> 00:15:59,680
Speaker 3: up a.

264
00:15:59,680 --> 00:16:02,240
Speaker 1: Can of Oh, I think that's right. I mean, I

265
00:16:02,240 --> 00:16:05,320
Speaker 1: think this is in some ways the basic problem with

266
00:16:05,520 --> 00:16:09,080
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court these days, which is it's treating the

267
00:16:09,120 --> 00:16:14,160
Speaker 1: Trump administration like a normal administration rather than one that

268
00:16:14,360 --> 00:16:16,880
Speaker 1: is committed to sort of pushing the edge of the

269
00:16:17,000 --> 00:16:19,640
Speaker 1: envelope and getting away with whatever it can. And so,

270
00:16:20,000 --> 00:16:22,480
Speaker 1: you know, if you were thinking about the system as

271
00:16:22,480 --> 00:16:24,800
Speaker 1: a whole and what's good for the rule of law,

272
00:16:25,120 --> 00:16:27,800
Speaker 1: you would have been much clearer of your guidance and

273
00:16:28,040 --> 00:16:30,360
Speaker 1: in what you're allowing and not allowing justice.

274
00:16:30,400 --> 00:16:33,200
Speaker 3: Sonya Sotomayor and one of her ascent said the Court

275
00:16:33,400 --> 00:16:38,280
Speaker 3: was rewarding lawlessness because the Trump administration has repeatedly, either

276
00:16:38,440 --> 00:16:43,520
Speaker 3: explicitly or not so explicitly, ignored court orders, particularly in

277
00:16:43,560 --> 00:16:45,920
Speaker 3: the cases of immigration orders.

278
00:16:46,400 --> 00:16:49,280
Speaker 1: She is exactly right that it's one thing to stay,

279
00:16:49,440 --> 00:16:51,880
Speaker 1: as the Court has said in some of these cases. Well,

280
00:16:51,920 --> 00:16:54,280
Speaker 1: we think the lower courts went too far in issuing

281
00:16:54,280 --> 00:16:57,720
Speaker 1: this order. That doesn't mean that the administration was permitted

282
00:16:57,760 --> 00:17:01,280
Speaker 1: to violate the order while it was us in force.

283
00:17:01,520 --> 00:17:03,960
Speaker 1: The normal rule is if you don't like a court order,

284
00:17:04,359 --> 00:17:07,199
Speaker 1: you appeal it. But unless you get a stay of

285
00:17:07,280 --> 00:17:09,360
Speaker 1: that order, and until you get a stay of that order,

286
00:17:09,359 --> 00:17:10,440
Speaker 1: you have to comply with it.

287
00:17:11,240 --> 00:17:16,439
Speaker 3: There were three cases involving LGBTQ rights that divided the

288
00:17:16,680 --> 00:17:20,800
Speaker 3: justices down ideological lines and ended up in losses for

289
00:17:20,960 --> 00:17:25,400
Speaker 3: the LGBTQ plus community. In the Scrimmeti case, which has

290
00:17:25,520 --> 00:17:29,440
Speaker 3: implications for transgender youth in more than half the states,

291
00:17:29,880 --> 00:17:35,200
Speaker 3: the Court's conservatives uphel Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care

292
00:17:35,359 --> 00:17:40,280
Speaker 3: for transgender miners, and advocates say the decision is devastating

293
00:17:40,359 --> 00:17:44,240
Speaker 3: for transgender youth and their families in the twenty seven

294
00:17:44,320 --> 00:17:48,200
Speaker 3: states that have similar bands. Here's Kelly Robinson, the president

295
00:17:48,240 --> 00:17:49,639
Speaker 3: of the Human Rights Campaign.

296
00:17:50,119 --> 00:17:53,080
Speaker 1: You're going to have families, families that have been in

297
00:17:53,320 --> 00:17:55,119
Speaker 1: states that they live in for generations.

298
00:17:55,119 --> 00:17:58,520
Speaker 2: I know family has been in Arizona for generations and generations.

299
00:17:58,560 --> 00:18:01,280
Speaker 1: They are Arizonas. They're going to have to leave their

300
00:18:01,320 --> 00:18:04,480
Speaker 1: states just to get access to care for their kids.

301
00:18:05,240 --> 00:18:09,760
Speaker 3: Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote that she dissented in sadness. She

302
00:18:09,840 --> 00:18:12,720
Speaker 3: said this decision will open the door to more state

303
00:18:12,800 --> 00:18:18,159
Speaker 3: discrimination against trans tenes and authorize, in her words, untold

304
00:18:18,280 --> 00:18:22,080
Speaker 3: harm to these families. Mike, this was an equal protection argument.

305
00:18:22,520 --> 00:18:25,280
Speaker 1: As it came to the Supreme Court, the only issue

306
00:18:25,320 --> 00:18:28,639
Speaker 1: was whether this was a violation of equal protection, and

307
00:18:28,880 --> 00:18:32,400
Speaker 1: the Court, in a sense I wouldn't say, duck that issue,

308
00:18:32,440 --> 00:18:35,359
Speaker 1: but sort of mooted it by saying, well, there isn't

309
00:18:35,560 --> 00:18:40,359
Speaker 1: a sex based classification or even a transgender identity based

310
00:18:40,359 --> 00:18:44,320
Speaker 1: classification at issue here, so we don't have to apply

311
00:18:45,040 --> 00:18:50,040
Speaker 1: the intermediate scrutiny that would normally apply to such laws,

312
00:18:50,240 --> 00:18:52,600
Speaker 1: and therefore we only have to say whether it's rational.

313
00:18:52,640 --> 00:18:54,919
Speaker 1: And of course states get to make all sorts of

314
00:18:55,240 --> 00:18:58,119
Speaker 1: medical judgments, and you subject those to rational basis scrutiny,

315
00:18:58,119 --> 00:19:01,720
Speaker 1: they're almost always going to survive. So, in a sense,

316
00:19:02,000 --> 00:19:06,720
Speaker 1: the case doesn't tell us that much about the status

317
00:19:06,760 --> 00:19:10,119
Speaker 1: of discrimination of the basis of transgender status under the

318
00:19:10,160 --> 00:19:13,000
Speaker 1: Constitution going forward, because the Court said, well, we don't

319
00:19:13,000 --> 00:19:17,040
Speaker 1: have to address that here, except that several justices in

320
00:19:17,320 --> 00:19:21,639
Speaker 1: concurring opinions didn't address that and said, even if it

321
00:19:21,680 --> 00:19:26,760
Speaker 1: is transgender based discrimination, that's okay because that kind of

322
00:19:26,760 --> 00:19:29,440
Speaker 1: discrimination doesn't trigger any heightened scrutiny.

323
00:19:29,800 --> 00:19:34,800
Speaker 3: Would those three concurring justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and

324
00:19:34,920 --> 00:19:40,800
Speaker 3: Amy Cony Barrett reject heightened scrutiny for any anti trans laws.

325
00:19:41,680 --> 00:19:44,200
Speaker 1: I think that's right. I mean Justice Barrett actually is

326
00:19:44,240 --> 00:19:47,440
Speaker 1: the one who writes most extensively on this, and she says, look,

327
00:19:47,520 --> 00:19:52,280
Speaker 1: we have criteria for deciding whether something is a suspect

328
00:19:52,280 --> 00:19:56,160
Speaker 1: of sent me susie classification, and transgender status doesn't meet

329
00:19:56,240 --> 00:19:59,280
Speaker 1: those criteria. Now, I think she applies them a little

330
00:19:59,280 --> 00:20:01,320
Speaker 1: bit strangely. One of the thing she says is that

331
00:20:01,400 --> 00:20:04,520
Speaker 1: in order for something to be so called immutable characteristic,

332
00:20:04,880 --> 00:20:08,840
Speaker 1: it has to be identifiable at birth, and transgender status

333
00:20:08,840 --> 00:20:12,919
Speaker 1: doesn't emerge until later. Well, that's a kind of backwards analysis,

334
00:20:13,240 --> 00:20:16,320
Speaker 1: because of course, the whole point of someone wanting to

335
00:20:16,800 --> 00:20:20,840
Speaker 1: transition to address their gender dysparrior or other mismatch between

336
00:20:20,880 --> 00:20:24,800
Speaker 1: their experience of themselves and the sex assigned at birth

337
00:20:25,320 --> 00:20:29,520
Speaker 1: is that what they were treated as at birth was

338
00:20:29,880 --> 00:20:32,919
Speaker 1: you know, not accurate. And so it's a very odd

339
00:20:33,240 --> 00:20:35,800
Speaker 1: odd thing to say, Well, because when you were an

340
00:20:35,840 --> 00:20:40,359
Speaker 1: infant you didn't realize or other people didn't realize, that

341
00:20:40,440 --> 00:20:42,920
Speaker 1: you were a male inside of a female body, or

342
00:20:43,000 --> 00:20:46,399
Speaker 1: vice versa, then that's not real in some sense. So

343
00:20:46,600 --> 00:20:48,560
Speaker 1: there's a way in which it's a kind of you know,

344
00:20:48,680 --> 00:20:52,679
Speaker 1: denial of the existence of transgender persons at all. I mean,

345
00:20:52,720 --> 00:20:54,840
Speaker 1: she doesn't say that, but I think that's the logical

346
00:20:54,920 --> 00:20:57,000
Speaker 1: implication of that particular criterion.

347
00:20:57,400 --> 00:21:01,280
Speaker 3: I mean, the same drugs that Tennessee ban for the

348
00:21:01,320 --> 00:21:05,440
Speaker 3: purpose of gender firming care for transitioning miners are allowed

349
00:21:05,800 --> 00:21:10,199
Speaker 3: for a number of other purposes in non transminers. How

350
00:21:10,240 --> 00:21:12,560
Speaker 3: do they get away from saying that's not an equal

351
00:21:12,640 --> 00:21:14,280
Speaker 3: protection violation?

352
00:21:15,119 --> 00:21:18,200
Speaker 1: So the plaintiffs and just the state of my orin descent,

353
00:21:18,320 --> 00:21:20,720
Speaker 1: I think, are very clear. Look, if a boy wants

354
00:21:20,800 --> 00:21:24,679
Speaker 1: to take this drug to give himself facial hair, you

355
00:21:24,760 --> 00:21:29,119
Speaker 1: allow it. If a transgender boy who's assigned female at

356
00:21:29,119 --> 00:21:31,000
Speaker 1: birth wants to take it, you disallow. It's the same

357
00:21:31,400 --> 00:21:34,760
Speaker 1: same effect. How could that be anything other than sex discrimination?

358
00:21:35,160 --> 00:21:39,200
Speaker 1: And what the court says is, well, it's not the

359
00:21:39,240 --> 00:21:44,440
Speaker 1: same treatment if it's being prescribed for a different condition.

360
00:21:44,880 --> 00:21:49,080
Speaker 1: In the boy who's taking this to give himself facial hair,

361
00:21:49,560 --> 00:21:54,280
Speaker 1: it's being prescribed because he has low testosterone. In the

362
00:21:54,440 --> 00:21:58,200
Speaker 1: transgender boy who's signed female at birth, it's being given

363
00:21:58,560 --> 00:22:04,040
Speaker 1: to facilitate sex transition. And that the course says is

364
00:22:04,080 --> 00:22:08,080
Speaker 1: a different treatment. Now they analogize to something like, you know,

365
00:22:08,280 --> 00:22:12,240
Speaker 1: different off label uses, so that something might be approved

366
00:22:12,480 --> 00:22:15,880
Speaker 1: as a treatment for hypertension and people discover heness also

367
00:22:15,920 --> 00:22:19,879
Speaker 1: can cure baldness mormally. If a drug is approved for

368
00:22:19,960 --> 00:22:22,439
Speaker 1: one purpose, it can be prescribed off label, but states

369
00:22:22,560 --> 00:22:26,200
Speaker 1: can forbid certain off label uses if they think the

370
00:22:26,280 --> 00:22:29,880
Speaker 1: risks and benefits are different. So that's the analogy that

371
00:22:30,240 --> 00:22:33,680
Speaker 1: the majority draws. The difficulty with that as I think

372
00:22:33,840 --> 00:22:36,680
Speaker 1: just the studyment are convincingly, says in dissent, is well, here,

373
00:22:36,880 --> 00:22:40,520
Speaker 1: what makes this a different treatment is simply the sex

374
00:22:40,520 --> 00:22:43,720
Speaker 1: assigned birth of the person taking it, And you're sort

375
00:22:43,760 --> 00:22:47,000
Speaker 1: of building the lily or double counting by working that in.

376
00:22:47,359 --> 00:22:50,640
Speaker 3: On Monday, the Court ordered federal appeals courts in four

377
00:22:50,840 --> 00:22:54,960
Speaker 3: states to re examine their rulings in favor of transgender

378
00:22:55,040 --> 00:22:59,160
Speaker 3: people in clashes over healthcare and birth certificates in light

379
00:22:59,200 --> 00:23:02,120
Speaker 3: of the Scrimmette decision. Can we read anything into that?

380
00:23:02,640 --> 00:23:04,640
Speaker 1: Oh yes, So I was trying to be a little

381
00:23:04,640 --> 00:23:07,080
Speaker 1: bit hopeful there to say that, you know, as a

382
00:23:07,119 --> 00:23:11,359
Speaker 1: matter of the official holdings, the court has not or

383
00:23:11,480 --> 00:23:16,040
Speaker 1: closed the possibility that sometime in the future it could

384
00:23:16,080 --> 00:23:21,000
Speaker 1: say transgender status ecrimination is sort of presumptively invalid in

385
00:23:21,040 --> 00:23:25,200
Speaker 1: the same way that sex discrimination is. But reading the

386
00:23:25,320 --> 00:23:28,040
Speaker 1: tea leaves, I think it's pretty clear that that's not

387
00:23:28,160 --> 00:23:31,320
Speaker 1: the direction of this Court is going. And another way

388
00:23:31,320 --> 00:23:35,080
Speaker 1: to put that is that they are going to increasingly

389
00:23:35,160 --> 00:23:38,600
Speaker 1: treat the boss Stock decision, the case that held that

390
00:23:38,800 --> 00:23:43,280
Speaker 1: sexual orientation and transgender status discrimination or sex discrimination for

391
00:23:43,320 --> 00:23:46,200
Speaker 1: purposes of Title seven. They're going to treat that decision

392
00:23:46,240 --> 00:23:49,200
Speaker 1: as a kind of outlier, the case that gets distinguished,

393
00:23:49,440 --> 00:23:53,840
Speaker 1: and they specifically say, Inscremmetti, well, we're not addressing this

394
00:23:53,920 --> 00:23:56,880
Speaker 1: Bostock analogy. Title seven might be different. So I think

395
00:23:56,920 --> 00:23:59,280
Speaker 1: they're teeing that up and so cutting back, you know,

396
00:23:59,680 --> 00:24:03,879
Speaker 1: anti trends backlash that we've been seeing in the political

397
00:24:03,960 --> 00:24:06,800
Speaker 1: realm I think is now flowering in the Supreme Court

398
00:24:06,840 --> 00:24:07,200
Speaker 1: as well.

399
00:24:07,560 --> 00:24:12,000
Speaker 3: And LGBTQ rights may be further curb next term because

400
00:24:12,040 --> 00:24:15,240
Speaker 3: on Thursday, the Court agreed to decide whether states can

401
00:24:15,320 --> 00:24:19,119
Speaker 3: ban transgender girls and women from competing for their schools

402
00:24:19,200 --> 00:24:22,760
Speaker 3: on female athletic teams. Coming up next on the Bloomberg

403
00:24:22,800 --> 00:24:26,200
Speaker 3: Law Show, I'll continue this analysis of the just completed

404
00:24:26,320 --> 00:24:29,840
Speaker 3: term with Cornell law professor Michael Darf How far to

405
00:24:29,920 --> 00:24:33,879
Speaker 3: the right. Has the conservative super majority moved the court.

406
00:24:34,240 --> 00:24:38,000
Speaker 3: I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. The Supreme

407
00:24:38,040 --> 00:24:41,240
Speaker 3: Court waded into the culture wars this term, and that

408
00:24:41,359 --> 00:24:43,879
Speaker 3: showed up nowhere more than in a case where the

409
00:24:43,960 --> 00:24:48,240
Speaker 3: six Conservatives ruled that religious public school parents have the

410
00:24:48,320 --> 00:24:51,840
Speaker 3: right to opt their children out of classroom lessons that

411
00:24:51,920 --> 00:24:57,360
Speaker 3: involved the reading of LGBTQ themed storybooks. In the majority opinion,

412
00:24:57,720 --> 00:25:02,080
Speaker 3: Justice Samuel Alito took issue some of the books, for example,

413
00:25:02,200 --> 00:25:05,800
Speaker 3: saying that the book entitled Uncle Bobby's Wedding presents a

414
00:25:05,840 --> 00:25:08,119
Speaker 3: subtle message about gay marriage.

415
00:25:08,320 --> 00:25:08,760
Speaker 1: Quote.

416
00:25:08,960 --> 00:25:12,399
Speaker 3: It asserts that two people can get married regardless of

417
00:25:12,440 --> 00:25:15,200
Speaker 3: whether they are of the same or the opposite sex,

418
00:25:15,560 --> 00:25:18,199
Speaker 3: as long as they love each other, an echo of

419
00:25:18,240 --> 00:25:21,399
Speaker 3: the concerns you raised when questioning the attorney for the

420
00:25:21,400 --> 00:25:25,200
Speaker 3: school district, Alan Schoenfeld, during the oral arguments.

421
00:25:25,600 --> 00:25:29,560
Speaker 5: But it expresses the idea this is a good thing, Mommy,

422
00:25:29,600 --> 00:25:33,200
Speaker 5: said Chloe. I don't understand why is Uncle Bobby getting married.

423
00:25:34,600 --> 00:25:37,760
Speaker 5: Bobby and Jamie love each other, said Mummy. When people,

424
00:25:38,160 --> 00:25:41,240
Speaker 5: when grown up, people love each other that much, sometimes

425
00:25:41,280 --> 00:25:44,679
Speaker 5: they get married. I mean that's not sending subtly sending

426
00:25:44,680 --> 00:25:46,160
Speaker 5: a message this is a good thing.

427
00:25:46,520 --> 00:25:48,280
Speaker 2: I think that's a way of a mother consoling her

428
00:25:48,359 --> 00:25:50,879
Speaker 2: daughter who's annoyed that her favorite uncle is distracted and

429
00:25:50,920 --> 00:25:53,240
Speaker 2: doesn't have time for her. But even if the message

430
00:25:53,400 --> 00:25:57,480
Speaker 2: were some people are gay, some people get married, I

431
00:25:57,480 --> 00:26:01,640
Speaker 2: don't think there's anything impermissive normative about that.

432
00:26:02,080 --> 00:26:05,399
Speaker 3: I've been talking to constitutional law professor Michael Dorf of

433
00:26:05,480 --> 00:26:10,120
Speaker 3: Cornell Law School, Mike, when religion comes up against other rights,

434
00:26:10,160 --> 00:26:15,359
Speaker 3: in particular LGBTQ rights, religion always wins at the Roberts Court.

435
00:26:15,880 --> 00:26:17,439
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. I mean, you can think of this

436
00:26:17,720 --> 00:26:21,919
Speaker 1: as sort of the finale, for now of a trilogy

437
00:26:22,119 --> 00:26:25,439
Speaker 1: that began with the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, continued with

438
00:26:25,520 --> 00:26:28,760
Speaker 1: the three or three Creative case, and now here we

439
00:26:28,920 --> 00:26:34,640
Speaker 1: have a similar situation where the religious claim wins out

440
00:26:34,720 --> 00:26:38,480
Speaker 1: as against the effort to in this case have an

441
00:26:38,600 --> 00:26:45,760
Speaker 1: LGBTQ plus inclusive curriculum. To my mind, what's so surprising

442
00:26:45,800 --> 00:26:50,639
Speaker 1: about this case is how quickly and easily the court

443
00:26:50,800 --> 00:26:57,760
Speaker 1: dismisses the administrative burden that it's placing on school districts. Right,

444
00:26:57,760 --> 00:27:01,160
Speaker 1: what the court says is, if there is a burden

445
00:27:01,320 --> 00:27:07,440
Speaker 1: on religion, then the government school district has to give

446
00:27:07,640 --> 00:27:13,840
Speaker 1: an exemption unless it can statisfy scrutiny. And the burden

447
00:27:13,880 --> 00:27:18,119
Speaker 1: on religion here is as the descent points out, that

448
00:27:18,640 --> 00:27:22,760
Speaker 1: kids are being exposed to ideas that are contrary to

449
00:27:23,359 --> 00:27:26,280
Speaker 1: what their parents want to teach them as a matter

450
00:27:26,359 --> 00:27:28,840
Speaker 1: of religious faith. And if you just think about that

451
00:27:28,880 --> 00:27:31,440
Speaker 1: for a moment, you quickly realize, well, that could cover

452
00:27:31,520 --> 00:27:33,400
Speaker 1: a lot of things. You know, there are great many

453
00:27:33,400 --> 00:27:36,200
Speaker 1: people in this country who, as a matter of religious faith,

454
00:27:36,440 --> 00:27:42,000
Speaker 1: don't believe that humans descended from other animals through revolution.

455
00:27:42,480 --> 00:27:45,400
Speaker 1: Does that mean that religious parents can op their kids

456
00:27:45,440 --> 00:27:50,480
Speaker 1: out of biology? People believe in the millions that the

457
00:27:50,640 --> 00:27:54,040
Speaker 1: Earth is only six thousand years old, even though you know,

458
00:27:54,280 --> 00:27:57,879
Speaker 1: geology suggests that it's four and a half billion years old.

459
00:27:58,080 --> 00:28:01,480
Speaker 1: Can parents op their kids out of geology? I think

460
00:28:01,560 --> 00:28:05,400
Speaker 1: those issues are probably unlikely to arise in large numbers,

461
00:28:05,560 --> 00:28:09,640
Speaker 1: But the real impact will be to these concerned efforts

462
00:28:09,680 --> 00:28:14,639
Speaker 1: to have parents object to what they see as some

463
00:28:14,840 --> 00:28:19,560
Speaker 1: woke curricula on religious grounds. And because the administrative burden

464
00:28:19,800 --> 00:28:22,800
Speaker 1: is so great, the school district might conclude, well, you

465
00:28:22,840 --> 00:28:25,760
Speaker 1: know what, it's just easier not to teach this stuff.

466
00:28:25,800 --> 00:28:28,320
Speaker 1: At all, and that is the point that the descent makes,

467
00:28:28,400 --> 00:28:29,520
Speaker 1: I think very effectively.

468
00:28:29,840 --> 00:28:33,720
Speaker 3: You mentioned the trilogy of cases, and this reminds me

469
00:28:33,920 --> 00:28:37,920
Speaker 3: of the three to H three Creative case, which involved

470
00:28:38,000 --> 00:28:42,840
Speaker 3: a website designer who didn't want to design websites for

471
00:28:42,920 --> 00:28:47,080
Speaker 3: gay marriages. However, she'd never been asked to. And here

472
00:28:47,720 --> 00:28:51,040
Speaker 3: you have a case where the curriculum for using these

473
00:28:51,240 --> 00:28:55,440
Speaker 3: LGBTQ books isn't even established yet. It seems like the

474
00:28:55,480 --> 00:28:59,840
Speaker 3: Court is just jumping in before there's a real controverse.

475
00:29:00,600 --> 00:29:03,240
Speaker 1: I think a fair criticism of the Court would be

476
00:29:03,760 --> 00:29:09,120
Speaker 1: that in these cases where there are religious objections to

477
00:29:09,920 --> 00:29:14,400
Speaker 1: aay rights, trans rights, etc. That are statutory, the court's

478
00:29:14,400 --> 00:29:18,760
Speaker 1: standing rules seem to be flexible. You know, you can

479
00:29:18,800 --> 00:29:21,880
Speaker 1: make a case that there is standing both in three

480
00:29:21,960 --> 00:29:25,240
Speaker 1: or three Creative and here. But again, some of the

481
00:29:25,240 --> 00:29:29,440
Speaker 1: same justices who might be sticklers in other contexts in

482
00:29:29,480 --> 00:29:32,760
Speaker 1: this context tend to say, well, of course you can challenge.

483
00:29:32,400 --> 00:29:35,680
Speaker 3: This policy, and the Court isn't stepping away from the

484
00:29:35,760 --> 00:29:40,000
Speaker 3: culture wars. Next term, it's going to hear a challenge

485
00:29:40,160 --> 00:29:44,400
Speaker 3: to Colorado's ban on conversion therapy, and the challenge is

486
00:29:44,440 --> 00:29:48,400
Speaker 3: from a licensed counselor who says she views her work

487
00:29:48,440 --> 00:29:51,920
Speaker 3: as an outgrowth of her Christian faith. So I think

488
00:29:51,920 --> 00:29:54,200
Speaker 3: we're going to see the same result in that case.

489
00:29:54,240 --> 00:29:55,640
Speaker 3: Maybe I'm jumping the gun bill.

490
00:29:55,920 --> 00:29:57,840
Speaker 1: I don't think you are. And you know, if you

491
00:29:57,840 --> 00:30:00,800
Speaker 1: want to sort of juxtapose that with skir Many right,

492
00:30:00,880 --> 00:30:04,640
Speaker 1: so INSCRIMMENTI the court is all about giving deference to

493
00:30:04,960 --> 00:30:12,640
Speaker 1: Tennessee's ostensibly medical determination that it's not in the interests

494
00:30:12,680 --> 00:30:15,760
Speaker 1: of miners and they're not sort of fully able to

495
00:30:16,240 --> 00:30:20,560
Speaker 1: give and form consent to have puberty blockers and hormone therapy.

496
00:30:20,800 --> 00:30:23,080
Speaker 1: I don't think you'll see the same kind of deference

497
00:30:23,160 --> 00:30:28,479
Speaker 1: given to Colorado in its judgment that this kind of

498
00:30:28,920 --> 00:30:32,760
Speaker 1: therapy is not in the interests of miners.

499
00:30:33,560 --> 00:30:37,640
Speaker 3: There were three Second Amendment cases, and the justices upheld

500
00:30:37,680 --> 00:30:42,040
Speaker 3: federal regulations for build at home ghost gun kits, refuse

501
00:30:42,120 --> 00:30:46,440
Speaker 3: to give gun manufacturers broad immunity from civil suits, and

502
00:30:46,480 --> 00:30:51,840
Speaker 3: turned away constitutional challenges to state bans on assault weapons

503
00:30:51,880 --> 00:30:56,120
Speaker 3: and high capacity magazines. Does this signal that the Court

504
00:30:56,240 --> 00:30:59,920
Speaker 3: won't eviscerate gun control measures or is it too soon

505
00:31:00,080 --> 00:31:00,480
Speaker 3: to tell?

506
00:31:01,040 --> 00:31:03,720
Speaker 1: I think it's a little of both. The Vanderstock case

507
00:31:03,720 --> 00:31:08,320
Speaker 1: that's the ghost guns case there. The statute is pretty specific,

508
00:31:08,440 --> 00:31:11,400
Speaker 1: and you look at that versus the bump stock case

509
00:31:11,520 --> 00:31:14,200
Speaker 1: that they had where they came out the other way.

510
00:31:14,680 --> 00:31:17,600
Speaker 1: You can just see those as a statutory construction. You know.

511
00:31:17,720 --> 00:31:20,760
Speaker 1: The same thing goes for Smith and Weston. I mean,

512
00:31:20,760 --> 00:31:24,200
Speaker 1: after all, Mexico did lose that case, so they're unable

513
00:31:24,280 --> 00:31:26,680
Speaker 1: to bring the lawsuits. I don't count that one as

514
00:31:26,680 --> 00:31:31,280
Speaker 1: a pure victory for gun regulation. And then Henston, which

515
00:31:31,320 --> 00:31:35,240
Speaker 1: is the case where they denied cert from the District

516
00:31:35,280 --> 00:31:39,840
Speaker 1: of Columbia CIRT denial doesn't set a precedent, and I

517
00:31:40,000 --> 00:31:43,160
Speaker 1: think they're the case involved a limit of ten rounds

518
00:31:43,320 --> 00:31:45,920
Speaker 1: on a gun. You can make an argument that the

519
00:31:46,200 --> 00:31:48,200
Speaker 1: gun that is in common use, that's the term for

520
00:31:48,240 --> 00:31:52,240
Speaker 1: Second Amendment purposes, is the handgun. And then you ask, well,

521
00:31:52,680 --> 00:31:56,880
Speaker 1: is it consistent with the history of regulation of guns

522
00:31:57,200 --> 00:31:59,800
Speaker 1: to limit them to ten rounds. Well, you're not going

523
00:31:59,880 --> 00:32:02,760
Speaker 1: to find guns that were capable of firing more than

524
00:32:02,800 --> 00:32:05,200
Speaker 1: ten rounds at the founding, so there's a way to

525
00:32:05,240 --> 00:32:07,600
Speaker 1: get to this result. But I think is consistent with

526
00:32:07,720 --> 00:32:10,760
Speaker 1: what they've said before, and I think it's far too

527
00:32:10,800 --> 00:32:13,560
Speaker 1: soon to say that the court is sort of easing

528
00:32:13,640 --> 00:32:18,160
Speaker 1: up on the Second Amendment revolution that it began in

529
00:32:18,240 --> 00:32:19,760
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight with the Heller case.

530
00:32:20,000 --> 00:32:23,160
Speaker 3: The Trump administration repeatedly went to the court on an

531
00:32:23,160 --> 00:32:29,240
Speaker 3: emergency basis, and the conservative justice is repeatedly reinstated Trump

532
00:32:29,280 --> 00:32:33,880
Speaker 3: policies found by lower courts to be illegal. A few examples,

533
00:32:34,160 --> 00:32:38,160
Speaker 3: the court allowed Trump to discharge transgender people from the military,

534
00:32:38,440 --> 00:32:42,280
Speaker 3: fire top officials at government agencies, and open hundreds of

535
00:32:42,280 --> 00:32:45,760
Speaker 3: thousands of migrants to deportation. How do you read all

536
00:32:45,840 --> 00:32:47,760
Speaker 3: his wins on the emergency docket?

537
00:32:48,040 --> 00:32:50,920
Speaker 1: I guess I'd say a few things. First. One of

538
00:32:50,920 --> 00:32:52,480
Speaker 1: the things we didn't talk about when we're taling about

539
00:32:52,480 --> 00:32:57,280
Speaker 1: Trump against KASA is Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence, in which he says, well,

540
00:32:57,320 --> 00:33:01,640
Speaker 1: the solution to the problem of universal injunctions is for

541
00:33:01,720 --> 00:33:04,320
Speaker 1: us to get these cases up here really fast, and

542
00:33:04,320 --> 00:33:07,000
Speaker 1: then for us to decide them because we can lay

543
00:33:07,040 --> 00:33:11,200
Speaker 1: down the law that will be binding nationally. Well, one

544
00:33:11,200 --> 00:33:13,719
Speaker 1: of the odd things is, if that's true, how come

545
00:33:13,760 --> 00:33:15,920
Speaker 1: they're not doing that that in a lot of these cases.

546
00:33:16,040 --> 00:33:19,640
Speaker 1: They're not actually saying, well, here's the rule, and we're

547
00:33:19,640 --> 00:33:22,440
Speaker 1: deciding on the emergency docket. They're just sort of reversing

548
00:33:22,480 --> 00:33:26,640
Speaker 1: the lower courts giving either no guidance or very scant guidance.

549
00:33:26,800 --> 00:33:29,360
Speaker 1: And that's to say nothing of whether Justice Kavanaugh's proposed

550
00:33:29,360 --> 00:33:32,640
Speaker 1: solution makes any sense, given that putting something on the

551
00:33:32,640 --> 00:33:35,480
Speaker 1: emergency docket means they don't really have that much time

552
00:33:35,600 --> 00:33:38,880
Speaker 1: to decide the case, and they don't have full briefing

553
00:33:38,960 --> 00:33:42,320
Speaker 1: in full oral argument. So you had this remarkable decision

554
00:33:42,360 --> 00:33:46,840
Speaker 1: where they essentially overrule the Humphreys executor case, which is,

555
00:33:47,160 --> 00:33:50,280
Speaker 1: you know, a very old president banding for the proposition

556
00:33:50,400 --> 00:33:54,160
Speaker 1: that Congress can create independent agencies. And you know, Justice

557
00:33:54,240 --> 00:33:56,880
Speaker 1: Kagan in the sense says, what are you doing? You

558
00:33:57,000 --> 00:33:59,760
Speaker 1: barely even mentioned the case and you're off ruling it,

559
00:33:59,840 --> 00:34:02,680
Speaker 1: and we haven't had a full briefing in argument on this,

560
00:34:02,840 --> 00:34:06,680
Speaker 1: and you're reversing the lower court for following our established president,

561
00:34:06,680 --> 00:34:09,120
Speaker 1: which we've told them they're supposed to do. So one

562
00:34:09,160 --> 00:34:12,280
Speaker 1: remarkable thing about what they're doing on the emergency donket

563
00:34:12,680 --> 00:34:14,960
Speaker 1: is timply, you know how much law they're making. And

564
00:34:14,960 --> 00:34:18,040
Speaker 1: now that's not an entirely new phenomenon. They did that

565
00:34:18,080 --> 00:34:20,880
Speaker 1: in a bunch of religion cases during the pandemic, and

566
00:34:20,960 --> 00:34:23,239
Speaker 1: they continue to do that, but it is the very

567
00:34:23,320 --> 00:34:25,920
Speaker 1: strange thing for them to be doing. It is striking

568
00:34:26,239 --> 00:34:30,800
Speaker 1: how different a position the Court is staking out from

569
00:34:31,080 --> 00:34:34,320
Speaker 1: that of the lower Court. One of the interesting phenomena

570
00:34:34,560 --> 00:34:36,400
Speaker 1: in this court this year is if you look at

571
00:34:36,480 --> 00:34:41,520
Speaker 1: the statistics on their plenary docket, they reverse the Fifth Circuit,

572
00:34:41,640 --> 00:34:44,560
Speaker 1: which is the most conservative circuit, quite a lot. So

573
00:34:44,600 --> 00:34:46,239
Speaker 1: the Fifth Circuit is getting how to head of the

574
00:34:46,239 --> 00:34:50,399
Speaker 1: Supreme Court and beings very very conservative. But on their

575
00:34:50,400 --> 00:34:55,600
Speaker 1: emergency docket in these cases challenging coup administration actions, the

576
00:34:55,840 --> 00:34:59,400
Speaker 1: Court is basically saying, well, the lower court are too liberal. Now.

577
00:34:59,480 --> 00:35:02,799
Speaker 1: Part of that I think is forum shopping by plenty TIFFs. Right,

578
00:35:02,840 --> 00:35:05,200
Speaker 1: if you're going to challenge the Trump administration policy, you're

579
00:35:05,200 --> 00:35:07,719
Speaker 1: not going to go to Judge Kasmiric or one of

580
00:35:07,760 --> 00:35:12,000
Speaker 1: the other judges that Republicans go to to challenge democratic administrations.

581
00:35:12,160 --> 00:35:17,319
Speaker 1: But I think it also suggests again that this court is,

582
00:35:17,840 --> 00:35:20,480
Speaker 1: you know, not all that skeptical of a lot of

583
00:35:20,480 --> 00:35:23,200
Speaker 1: what the Trump administration is doing on the merits.

584
00:35:23,640 --> 00:35:27,240
Speaker 3: So how far to the right has the conservative super

585
00:35:27,280 --> 00:35:29,200
Speaker 3: majority moved the law?

586
00:35:29,480 --> 00:35:30,920
Speaker 1: I mean, I think the answer to that question is

587
00:35:31,040 --> 00:35:33,319
Speaker 1: very far. I don't think there's any question about that.

588
00:35:33,360 --> 00:35:35,280
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, they did most of the work

589
00:35:35,360 --> 00:35:37,839
Speaker 1: in prior terms. They overturn roep Wade, they got rid

590
00:35:37,840 --> 00:35:40,520
Speaker 1: of the permative Action, the religion cases go very far.

591
00:35:40,600 --> 00:35:43,200
Speaker 1: They invigorated the Second Amendment. So in that sense, their

592
00:35:43,239 --> 00:35:48,560
Speaker 1: work is basically done on what traditional conservatives care about.

593
00:35:49,000 --> 00:35:53,040
Speaker 1: To my mind, the question that is most pressing and

594
00:35:53,120 --> 00:35:56,239
Speaker 1: sort of remains open is not how far to the

595
00:35:56,360 --> 00:35:59,759
Speaker 1: right the Court is moving the law, but how far

596
00:36:00,160 --> 00:36:03,960
Speaker 1: to the sort of maga direction is the Court moving

597
00:36:04,000 --> 00:36:07,600
Speaker 1: the law or at least allowing the Trump administration to go.

598
00:36:08,120 --> 00:36:10,920
Speaker 1: You know, a lot of what President Trump and his

599
00:36:11,000 --> 00:36:16,960
Speaker 1: administration are doing doesn't fall within traditional left right boundaries.

600
00:36:16,960 --> 00:36:19,200
Speaker 1: It's just sort of you know, authoritarian, for lack of

601
00:36:19,200 --> 00:36:22,600
Speaker 1: a better term. So it's not surprising to me that,

602
00:36:22,920 --> 00:36:26,840
Speaker 1: you know, if the Trump administration wants to peel back

603
00:36:27,120 --> 00:36:30,719
Speaker 1: transgender rights, that conservatives on the Supreme Court would be

604
00:36:31,400 --> 00:36:35,120
Speaker 1: on board with that. What is surprising, and I think

605
00:36:35,200 --> 00:36:39,840
Speaker 1: frankly alarming, is the extent to which the Roberts Court

606
00:36:40,080 --> 00:36:45,040
Speaker 1: is facilitating the Trump administration's challenges to the rule of law.

607
00:36:45,160 --> 00:36:46,960
Speaker 1: So what we were talking about a little earlier with

608
00:36:47,120 --> 00:36:51,319
Speaker 1: defiance of court orders and other things that fall outside

609
00:36:51,360 --> 00:36:54,040
Speaker 1: the left right spectrum. As we've understood, it's for the

610
00:36:54,120 --> 00:36:57,520
Speaker 1: last hundred years or so, and are on a sort

611
00:36:57,520 --> 00:36:59,959
Speaker 1: of democracy and rule of law on the one hand

612
00:37:00,239 --> 00:37:02,200
Speaker 1: versus authoritarianism on the other.

613
00:37:02,440 --> 00:37:05,440
Speaker 3: Thanks so much for your analysis, Mike. That's Professor Michael

614
00:37:05,520 --> 00:37:08,719
Speaker 3: Dorf of Cornell Law School. And on Friday, another win

615
00:37:08,800 --> 00:37:12,480
Speaker 3: for the Trump administration on the emergency docket, a divided

616
00:37:12,520 --> 00:37:16,920
Speaker 3: court rule the administration can send eight migrants to South Sudan,

617
00:37:17,200 --> 00:37:20,279
Speaker 3: where they've said their risk of torture and death. I'm

618
00:37:20,360 --> 00:37:22,800
Speaker 3: June Grosso and that's it for this edition of the

619
00:37:22,800 --> 00:37:25,760
Speaker 3: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest

620
00:37:25,800 --> 00:37:28,919
Speaker 3: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find

621
00:37:28,960 --> 00:37:33,520
Speaker 3: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg

622
00:37:33,600 --> 00:37:37,399
Speaker 3: dot com, slash podcast, slash Law, And remember to tune

623
00:37:37,400 --> 00:37:40,600
Speaker 3: into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm

624
00:37:40,680 --> 00:37:43,400
Speaker 3: Wall Street Time. You're listening to Bloomberg