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

2
00:00:08,640 --> 00:00:11,240
Speaker 2: We're bringing back religion in our country, and we're bringing

3
00:00:11,280 --> 00:00:14,800
Speaker 2: it back quickly and strongly. And President Trump has made

4
00:00:14,960 --> 00:00:19,840
Speaker 2: efforts to appeal to his conservative Christian supporters. Trump created

5
00:00:19,880 --> 00:00:23,520
Speaker 2: a White House Faith Office, a task force to eradicate

6
00:00:23,600 --> 00:00:27,720
Speaker 2: anti Christian bias, and a Religious Liberty Commission. The Office

7
00:00:27,760 --> 00:00:32,800
Speaker 2: of Personnel Management encouraged agencies to approve religious accommodations for

8
00:00:32,880 --> 00:00:37,239
Speaker 2: remote work. The irs greenlit political endorsements from the pulpit.

9
00:00:37,760 --> 00:00:41,520
Speaker 2: Perhaps the most striking example is a July twenty eighth

10
00:00:41,600 --> 00:00:47,200
Speaker 2: administration memo encouraging federal government employees to show off their

11
00:00:47,280 --> 00:00:52,480
Speaker 2: faith and even proselytize coworkers. Employees are permitted to display

12
00:00:52,640 --> 00:00:56,880
Speaker 2: religious icons, pray in groups, and discuss religious topics with

13
00:00:57,000 --> 00:01:01,760
Speaker 2: co workers, including quote attempt to persuade others of the

14
00:01:01,840 --> 00:01:06,120
Speaker 2: correctness of their own religious views. My guest is Stephanie Barclay,

15
00:01:06,360 --> 00:01:09,520
Speaker 2: a professor at Georgetown Law School and the faculty co

16
00:01:09,720 --> 00:01:13,640
Speaker 2: director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. Stephanie give

17
00:01:13,680 --> 00:01:16,199
Speaker 2: us the broad overview of this memo.

18
00:01:16,600 --> 00:01:20,240
Speaker 3: So like the Clinton era guidance, the more recent memo

19
00:01:20,360 --> 00:01:25,560
Speaker 3: permits allowing workers in federal deployment situations to engage in

20
00:01:25,680 --> 00:01:30,080
Speaker 3: discussion of their faith. It allows them to display religious symbols,

21
00:01:30,120 --> 00:01:31,680
Speaker 3: and it just allows faith.

22
00:01:31,480 --> 00:01:33,240
Speaker 1: To be a more normal part of the workplace.

23
00:01:33,319 --> 00:01:36,480
Speaker 3: It does prohibit those sorts of expressions from rising to

24
00:01:36,560 --> 00:01:40,280
Speaker 3: the level of harassment or constituting an undue burden, But

25
00:01:40,400 --> 00:01:43,520
Speaker 3: the memo does say that people just merely having discomfort

26
00:01:43,640 --> 00:01:46,360
Speaker 3: alone isn't enough to count as an under burden in

27
00:01:46,400 --> 00:01:48,920
Speaker 3: a government workplace. And so I think it's just trying

28
00:01:48,960 --> 00:01:52,040
Speaker 3: to normalize that. You know, people in the workplace are

29
00:01:52,040 --> 00:01:55,600
Speaker 3: allowed to talk about their favorite sports teams or type

30
00:01:55,600 --> 00:01:57,080
Speaker 3: of food that they'd like to cook, they should be

31
00:01:57,080 --> 00:01:58,800
Speaker 3: able to talk about their religion too.

32
00:01:59,320 --> 00:02:03,600
Speaker 2: Does it usify where the line is between a normal

33
00:02:03,640 --> 00:02:08,639
Speaker 2: conversation about religion and one that's harassing to co workers.

34
00:02:09,120 --> 00:02:13,600
Speaker 2: I mean, talking about sports and your favorite foods that's

35
00:02:13,639 --> 00:02:17,440
Speaker 2: one thing. But having a conversation about why someone should

36
00:02:17,440 --> 00:02:21,160
Speaker 2: rethink their religious beliefs that can get very personal.

37
00:02:21,600 --> 00:02:25,440
Speaker 3: Yeah, so religious speech could be considered harassment if it's

38
00:02:25,480 --> 00:02:30,000
Speaker 3: sufficiently severe or pervasive, if it's creating a hostile work environment.

39
00:02:30,120 --> 00:02:33,880
Speaker 3: According to this memo and some of the eeoc's Compliance

40
00:02:33,960 --> 00:02:38,440
Speaker 3: manual's guidance about religious discriminations. So there are certainly boundaries

41
00:02:38,560 --> 00:02:41,800
Speaker 3: like if there's a break in employees engaging another polite

42
00:02:41,800 --> 00:02:44,840
Speaker 3: discussion about their faith and a non adherent request that

43
00:02:44,960 --> 00:02:47,440
Speaker 3: to stop, then some sorts of requests like we need

44
00:02:47,480 --> 00:02:49,960
Speaker 3: to be honored in order to not rise the level

45
00:02:50,000 --> 00:02:52,920
Speaker 3: of creating a harassing sort of environment. So it's really

46
00:02:52,919 --> 00:02:56,960
Speaker 3: meant to, I think protect and facilitate polite discussion, not

47
00:02:57,440 --> 00:03:00,839
Speaker 3: religious evangelizing that's going to be overbearing.

48
00:03:01,120 --> 00:03:06,959
Speaker 2: Are there any guard rails for supervisors having religious conversations

49
00:03:07,240 --> 00:03:08,440
Speaker 2: with their employees?

50
00:03:09,040 --> 00:03:12,160
Speaker 3: So for supervisors, they're also allowed to do some of

51
00:03:12,160 --> 00:03:14,120
Speaker 3: the things we talked about at the beginning. They're allowed

52
00:03:14,200 --> 00:03:18,440
Speaker 3: to have religious displays, They're allowed to engage in group

53
00:03:18,480 --> 00:03:22,880
Speaker 3: activities like prayer during breaks or non duty hours, have

54
00:03:23,000 --> 00:03:28,000
Speaker 3: religious conversations, have public expression about religion. So supervisors have

55
00:03:28,160 --> 00:03:31,320
Speaker 3: all of those same religious expression rights as o their

56
00:03:31,360 --> 00:03:33,840
Speaker 3: sorts of employees. The key issue, of course, is there

57
00:03:33,880 --> 00:03:37,720
Speaker 3: are concerns about power imbalances with supervisors. So one key

58
00:03:37,760 --> 00:03:40,760
Speaker 3: limitation is that menmos clear that unwillingness to engage in

59
00:03:40,800 --> 00:03:45,120
Speaker 3: conversations can't be a basis for workplace discipline, so supervisors

60
00:03:45,320 --> 00:03:48,160
Speaker 3: can't do anything with the position that they're in to

61
00:03:48,240 --> 00:03:51,800
Speaker 3: try and put pressure on other employees and colleagues to

62
00:03:51,960 --> 00:03:55,160
Speaker 3: participate in religious discussions or religious activities.

63
00:03:55,600 --> 00:03:59,040
Speaker 2: Was the Clinton memo the same in every respect? Or

64
00:03:59,040 --> 00:04:00,000
Speaker 2: were there differences?

65
00:04:00,480 --> 00:04:03,400
Speaker 3: The Clinton Memo wasn't the same in every respect. It

66
00:04:03,520 --> 00:04:05,360
Speaker 3: was similar in the way in which it was just

67
00:04:05,440 --> 00:04:10,120
Speaker 3: trying to allow for fostering of polite conversations in the workplace.

68
00:04:10,280 --> 00:04:12,240
Speaker 3: It dealt with religion and just to make it a

69
00:04:12,280 --> 00:04:15,080
Speaker 3: more normal part of the workplace environment. I think the

70
00:04:15,080 --> 00:04:18,440
Speaker 3: Trump memo is more specific to the other key differences

71
00:04:18,800 --> 00:04:21,680
Speaker 3: between the Clinton Memo and this memo. We've had two

72
00:04:21,680 --> 00:04:24,279
Speaker 3: Supreme Court cases at least that the Trump Memo sites

73
00:04:24,320 --> 00:04:28,160
Speaker 3: that provide more guidance and both statutory and constitutional protections

74
00:04:28,200 --> 00:04:30,360
Speaker 3: for religion in the workplace. One of those is the

75
00:04:30,400 --> 00:04:32,440
Speaker 3: case of Graph we to Joy, and the other is

76
00:04:32,560 --> 00:04:35,880
Speaker 3: Kennedy versus Bremerton, and Graph is a case that the

77
00:04:36,000 --> 00:04:39,080
Speaker 3: Court is analyzing what it means under the Civil Rights

78
00:04:39,080 --> 00:04:42,440
Speaker 3: Act to require religious accommodation in the workplace, and it

79
00:04:42,560 --> 00:04:46,320
Speaker 3: takes a much more rigorous approach to what counts as

80
00:04:46,360 --> 00:04:49,640
Speaker 3: an undue burden, and so the Trump Memo is following

81
00:04:49,800 --> 00:04:52,240
Speaker 3: that sort of tax here and then in the Kennitty

82
00:04:52,279 --> 00:04:55,800
Speaker 3: for SSUs Bremerton's Schoolisteric case, that's a free exercise case

83
00:04:55,880 --> 00:04:58,479
Speaker 3: and a free speech case dealing with a high school

84
00:04:58,480 --> 00:05:00,720
Speaker 3: football coach who, when he was off beuty, wanted to

85
00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:02,680
Speaker 3: be able to pray in public, and the Supreme Court

86
00:05:02,800 --> 00:05:05,520
Speaker 3: said that does not violate the establishment cause for the

87
00:05:05,520 --> 00:05:08,960
Speaker 3: government to accommodate that sort of religious expression. Not only that,

88
00:05:09,000 --> 00:05:12,719
Speaker 3: but religious exercise and free speech demand that government provide

89
00:05:12,760 --> 00:05:15,279
Speaker 3: accommodations and contacts like that where they don't have good

90
00:05:15,279 --> 00:05:17,960
Speaker 3: reason not to, where the coach for the employee would

91
00:05:17,960 --> 00:05:19,960
Speaker 3: be allowed to do other personal things at that time,

92
00:05:20,000 --> 00:05:22,760
Speaker 3: there's no reason to prohibit religious expression as long as

93
00:05:22,760 --> 00:05:26,920
Speaker 3: that religious expression isn't pressuring or coercing others to participate.

94
00:05:27,279 --> 00:05:31,880
Speaker 2: Quit encouraging religious expression like this create a hostile work

95
00:05:32,000 --> 00:05:34,120
Speaker 2: environment under Title seven.

96
00:05:34,480 --> 00:05:37,800
Speaker 3: I mean, I think that if it did create hostile

97
00:05:37,839 --> 00:05:40,160
Speaker 3: work environment, if say you could demonstrate that, then that

98
00:05:40,600 --> 00:05:43,880
Speaker 3: would be something that's outside of the type of protection

99
00:05:43,920 --> 00:05:46,479
Speaker 3: that the memo is trying to offer. That's consistent with

100
00:05:46,520 --> 00:05:49,760
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court's decision in committee versus per Merchant School

101
00:05:49,760 --> 00:05:52,719
Speaker 3: District because they're the Supreme Court said that the school

102
00:05:52,720 --> 00:05:54,960
Speaker 3: district needed to accommodate the quote she wanted to pray,

103
00:05:54,960 --> 00:05:56,440
Speaker 3: but was very clear to say it would be a

104
00:05:56,480 --> 00:05:59,440
Speaker 3: different case if there was evident that the coach was

105
00:05:59,480 --> 00:06:02,400
Speaker 3: pressuring students to participate in the prayers. There was some

106
00:06:02,640 --> 00:06:04,719
Speaker 3: evidence of the record where some students that they had

107
00:06:04,720 --> 00:06:07,359
Speaker 3: felt that sort of pressure earlier when the coach was

108
00:06:07,400 --> 00:06:10,000
Speaker 3: praying within in the locker room or things like that.

109
00:06:10,040 --> 00:06:10,640
Speaker 1: But once the.

110
00:06:10,600 --> 00:06:12,320
Speaker 3: Coach had said I'm willing to stop, I'm not going

111
00:06:12,400 --> 00:06:14,719
Speaker 3: to do that anymore, I'm no longer asking for that

112
00:06:14,760 --> 00:06:17,920
Speaker 3: sort of accommodation, then the evidence shifted to was there

113
00:06:17,960 --> 00:06:21,040
Speaker 3: any evidence that anyone had ever felt coerced to pray

114
00:06:21,040 --> 00:06:23,040
Speaker 3: with him when he prayed alone on the fifty yard

115
00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:24,800
Speaker 3: line And there was no evidence to the record of

116
00:06:24,880 --> 00:06:26,960
Speaker 3: that's But what that indicates is that if you had

117
00:06:26,960 --> 00:06:31,640
Speaker 3: a case where employees, even on an anonymous basis, even

118
00:06:31,680 --> 00:06:34,679
Speaker 3: like a John Doe employee, had an AFFI David saying,

119
00:06:35,160 --> 00:06:38,160
Speaker 3: I feel like if I don't participate in these religious

120
00:06:38,200 --> 00:06:41,440
Speaker 3: sorts of gatherings or discussions that you know, I'm going

121
00:06:41,480 --> 00:06:44,479
Speaker 3: to lose a promotion or not be able to participate

122
00:06:44,520 --> 00:06:46,800
Speaker 3: fully in my job that that would fall outside of

123
00:06:46,839 --> 00:06:48,640
Speaker 3: the protection of this sort of guidance. And I think

124
00:06:48,640 --> 00:06:52,080
Speaker 3: that that's important because having a workplace that allows and

125
00:06:52,160 --> 00:06:56,160
Speaker 3: protects religious expression also needs to protect non religious people

126
00:06:56,240 --> 00:06:59,120
Speaker 3: who don't want to be pressured into religious expression that

127
00:06:59,160 --> 00:07:01,200
Speaker 3: they disagree with or just don't find persuasive.

128
00:07:01,480 --> 00:07:06,320
Speaker 2: The Council on American Islamic Relations said it's worried that

129
00:07:06,360 --> 00:07:12,239
Speaker 2: the memo would be selectively enforced, potentially disadvantaging Muslim workers. Quote.

130
00:07:12,320 --> 00:07:17,640
Speaker 2: It's concerning that the policy mentions numerous examples of permissible activity, discussion,

131
00:07:17,720 --> 00:07:21,280
Speaker 2: and dress related to the Christian and Jewish faith, but

132
00:07:21,440 --> 00:07:25,440
Speaker 2: never mentions a single example related to Muslims. Do you

133
00:07:25,480 --> 00:07:27,360
Speaker 2: think that that's a valid concern.

134
00:07:28,080 --> 00:07:31,160
Speaker 3: I think that if this memo is selectively enforced, that

135
00:07:31,480 --> 00:07:35,040
Speaker 3: would absolutely be a valid concern. I'm optimistic that it

136
00:07:35,080 --> 00:07:37,600
Speaker 3: will be enforced in an even handed way, but it

137
00:07:37,640 --> 00:07:39,560
Speaker 3: would have been a better memo if they had provided

138
00:07:39,680 --> 00:07:42,560
Speaker 3: an even broader range of religious expression from all sorts

139
00:07:42,560 --> 00:07:45,960
Speaker 3: of different religious states. But certainly, just on the face

140
00:07:45,960 --> 00:07:48,440
Speaker 3: of the text of the memo, there's nothing that would

141
00:07:48,480 --> 00:07:51,440
Speaker 3: allow for that sort of selective enforcement, and I think

142
00:07:51,440 --> 00:07:53,360
Speaker 3: it would be a violation of the memo and certainly

143
00:07:53,560 --> 00:07:57,080
Speaker 3: problematic for constitutional reasons if there was selective enforcement such

144
00:07:57,120 --> 00:08:00,280
Speaker 3: that only certain types of religious denominations for being given

145
00:08:00,320 --> 00:08:01,520
Speaker 3: these protections and others.

146
00:08:01,520 --> 00:08:05,160
Speaker 2: When on this applies only to federal workers, of course,

147
00:08:05,560 --> 00:08:11,480
Speaker 2: could policies like this sort of bleed into the private workplace.

148
00:08:12,000 --> 00:08:15,000
Speaker 3: I think that this MIMO does provide an example of

149
00:08:15,080 --> 00:08:18,120
Speaker 3: the type of protections that could be offered in the

150
00:08:18,120 --> 00:08:20,760
Speaker 3: private workplace. And I think that graph versus a Joy,

151
00:08:20,800 --> 00:08:23,360
Speaker 3: that's the Supreme Court case where the Court was interpreting

152
00:08:23,400 --> 00:08:26,840
Speaker 3: again Title seven and religious protections that applies in the

153
00:08:26,840 --> 00:08:29,760
Speaker 3: private workplace, and that idea of what constitutes an undue

154
00:08:29,800 --> 00:08:33,240
Speaker 3: burden is also relevant to religious employers. And so I

155
00:08:33,280 --> 00:08:36,240
Speaker 3: think this sort of guidance in part is analyzing and

156
00:08:36,280 --> 00:08:39,080
Speaker 3: building on some of those legal principles and taking a

157
00:08:39,160 --> 00:08:41,440
Speaker 3: much more rigorous view of what can count as an

158
00:08:41,480 --> 00:08:46,120
Speaker 3: undue burden, and saying mere discomfort with hearing about religion

159
00:08:46,120 --> 00:08:48,200
Speaker 3: from time to time, or having a colleague express that

160
00:08:48,480 --> 00:08:50,720
Speaker 3: isn't an a nast account as undo burdens. You could

161
00:08:50,720 --> 00:08:54,480
Speaker 3: imagine that sort of interpretation being relevant for courts that

162
00:08:54,520 --> 00:08:58,000
Speaker 3: are interpreting what an undo burden means in the context

163
00:08:58,040 --> 00:09:00,000
Speaker 3: of private employers.

164
00:09:00,000 --> 00:09:03,800
Speaker 2: This follows a broader push by the Trump administration to

165
00:09:04,080 --> 00:09:07,559
Speaker 2: allow federal workers to express religious beliefs. Can you tell

166
00:09:07,600 --> 00:09:12,319
Speaker 2: us about that oh PM guidance about religious accommodations.

167
00:09:12,679 --> 00:09:15,760
Speaker 3: This is following a general trend of the Trump administration

168
00:09:16,080 --> 00:09:19,520
Speaker 3: where the principle is that we should be as accommodating

169
00:09:19,679 --> 00:09:23,800
Speaker 3: of religion as possible. And so basically, if there isn't

170
00:09:23,840 --> 00:09:29,000
Speaker 3: a justification for not accommodating federal workers or not accommodating

171
00:09:29,120 --> 00:09:31,800
Speaker 3: religious practice that has been demonstrated on some sort of

172
00:09:31,840 --> 00:09:34,839
Speaker 3: evidentiary basis, religious accommodation should be allowed. And that's a

173
00:09:34,920 --> 00:09:37,480
Speaker 3: practice that the Supreme Court has been emphasizing in some

174
00:09:37,520 --> 00:09:40,280
Speaker 3: of its recent decisions and that the Trump's administration seems

175
00:09:40,320 --> 00:09:42,120
Speaker 3: to be consistently implementing as well.

176
00:09:42,480 --> 00:09:47,760
Speaker 2: What other things has the Trump administration done regarding faith initiatives?

177
00:09:48,040 --> 00:09:50,760
Speaker 3: One thing that the Trump administration has done is through

178
00:09:50,760 --> 00:09:54,440
Speaker 3: its faith initiatives is that has recently put together a

179
00:09:54,520 --> 00:09:57,679
Speaker 3: Commission on Religious Liberty under the White House, and they

180
00:09:57,880 --> 00:10:01,439
Speaker 3: held a hearing earlier the Fear to receive input about

181
00:10:01,679 --> 00:10:06,920
Speaker 3: challenges that still exist for religious believers and for religious

182
00:10:06,920 --> 00:10:10,240
Speaker 3: institutions in the country. I was actually asked to testify

183
00:10:10,280 --> 00:10:13,240
Speaker 3: at that event. There were discussions of all sorts of

184
00:10:13,240 --> 00:10:17,320
Speaker 3: different religious groups, including religious minorities like Native Americans, and

185
00:10:17,400 --> 00:10:19,880
Speaker 3: challenges that they still face, protection that they did not

186
00:10:19,960 --> 00:10:23,400
Speaker 3: receive under the Biden administration, for example, for Native Americans

187
00:10:23,440 --> 00:10:26,640
Speaker 3: take to site. So I was optimistic to see that

188
00:10:26,679 --> 00:10:30,240
Speaker 3: there was not just a focus on Judeo Christian group,

189
00:10:30,320 --> 00:10:33,000
Speaker 3: which was a concern you expressed earlier that some religious

190
00:10:33,040 --> 00:10:36,160
Speaker 3: minorities have voiced, but that there was a broader discussion

191
00:10:36,160 --> 00:10:38,920
Speaker 3: about the need for religious sobrity protections across the board,

192
00:10:39,000 --> 00:10:41,920
Speaker 3: and a number of the commissioners seemed really interested in

193
00:10:41,960 --> 00:10:44,960
Speaker 3: ways to improve conditions for all sorts of religious groups

194
00:10:45,000 --> 00:10:45,720
Speaker 3: in America.

195
00:10:45,760 --> 00:10:47,760
Speaker 2: And I guess we'll have to see how this religion

196
00:10:47,800 --> 00:10:51,479
Speaker 2: memo actually plays out in the federal workplace.

197
00:10:52,120 --> 00:10:56,040
Speaker 3: It emphasized the need to balance religious freedom with operational needs.

198
00:10:56,240 --> 00:10:59,760
Speaker 3: So it's just saying agencies need to reasonably accommodate employees

199
00:11:00,040 --> 00:11:04,000
Speaker 3: really held religious beliefs, practices, or observances. So I think

200
00:11:04,040 --> 00:11:05,880
Speaker 3: that it will be important to keep an eye on

201
00:11:06,000 --> 00:11:08,400
Speaker 3: whether or not these policies are being enforced in an

202
00:11:08,440 --> 00:11:12,240
Speaker 3: even handed way, and that they're being enforced in ways

203
00:11:12,240 --> 00:11:15,240
Speaker 3: that don't allow for harassment or pressure for must Americans.

204
00:11:15,280 --> 00:11:17,040
Speaker 3: But on the face of the guy that, I think

205
00:11:17,080 --> 00:11:20,640
Speaker 3: there are some guardrails in place that allow for remedies

206
00:11:20,679 --> 00:11:23,040
Speaker 3: if that does occur, and are hopefully just going to

207
00:11:23,040 --> 00:11:26,080
Speaker 3: make it so that employees can discuss religion at work

208
00:11:26,160 --> 00:11:29,480
Speaker 3: like they can discuss their favorite baseball team or you know,

209
00:11:29,520 --> 00:11:31,680
Speaker 3: anything else that's important in their life, and that this

210
00:11:31,760 --> 00:11:33,800
Speaker 3: is an important part of their identity that they should

211
00:11:33,800 --> 00:11:36,559
Speaker 3: be able to bring to work, just like other employees

212
00:11:36,559 --> 00:11:39,000
Speaker 3: can bring other aspects of their life to their work

213
00:11:39,040 --> 00:11:40,439
Speaker 3: as well, And I think that makes for a better

214
00:11:40,480 --> 00:11:43,400
Speaker 3: and more inclusive, more pluralistic workplace in our country.

215
00:11:43,640 --> 00:11:46,240
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me. That's Stephanie Barklay, a

216
00:11:46,280 --> 00:11:51,960
Speaker 2: professor at Georgetown Law. This is Bloomberg. Associate positions at

217
00:11:51,960 --> 00:11:56,360
Speaker 2: top law firms are prestigious and lucrative, with seniority based

218
00:11:56,440 --> 00:11:59,160
Speaker 2: pay scales that range from two hundred and twenty five

219
00:11:59,240 --> 00:12:02,960
Speaker 2: thousand dollars to four hundred and thirty five thousand dollars

220
00:12:03,200 --> 00:12:08,000
Speaker 2: before bonuses. Imagine giving up that job because of your principles.

221
00:12:08,360 --> 00:12:11,760
Speaker 2: That's what some young lawyers did in response to deals

222
00:12:11,760 --> 00:12:15,400
Speaker 2: their law firms made with President Donald Trump. Joining me

223
00:12:15,480 --> 00:12:19,079
Speaker 2: is Justin Henry, a reporter at Bloomberg Law who's written

224
00:12:19,120 --> 00:12:24,319
Speaker 2: about these associates, justin explain why these young lawyers quit

225
00:12:24,360 --> 00:12:27,920
Speaker 2: their jobs at these prestigious law firms.

226
00:12:28,400 --> 00:12:31,400
Speaker 1: So I'll start off by saying just how unusual it

227
00:12:31,480 --> 00:12:36,240
Speaker 1: is for lawyers in big law to loudly quit their

228
00:12:36,360 --> 00:12:39,319
Speaker 1: jobs and make a big deal about their critiques against

229
00:12:39,320 --> 00:12:41,679
Speaker 1: their law firms. The reason why they are quitting their

230
00:12:41,800 --> 00:12:46,080
Speaker 1: jobs and issuing these public statements is because these law firms,

231
00:12:46,120 --> 00:12:49,680
Speaker 1: some of the wealthiest law firms in the world, agreed

232
00:12:49,720 --> 00:12:53,559
Speaker 1: to provide hundreds of million dollars in quote unquote pro

233
00:12:53,640 --> 00:12:57,440
Speaker 1: bono legal services to the Trump administration in exchange for

234
00:12:57,679 --> 00:13:02,920
Speaker 1: avoiding some kind of unitive executive action by the White House.

235
00:13:03,160 --> 00:13:08,120
Speaker 1: These include investigations by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission into

236
00:13:08,200 --> 00:13:12,880
Speaker 1: these firms diversity hiring practices. These include executive orders from

237
00:13:12,920 --> 00:13:17,720
Speaker 1: the White House targeting firms and their lawyers' execurity clearances

238
00:13:18,040 --> 00:13:22,839
Speaker 1: and ability to interact with government officials. And what these

239
00:13:22,920 --> 00:13:26,320
Speaker 1: associates have said as well as a few partners also

240
00:13:26,400 --> 00:13:29,120
Speaker 1: quitting over these deals. Is that this amounts to an

241
00:13:29,200 --> 00:13:35,160
Speaker 1: unconstitutional shakedown, and these super well resourced law firms should

242
00:13:35,160 --> 00:13:39,880
Speaker 1: have the backbone to challenge these punitive actions in court.

243
00:13:40,520 --> 00:13:43,120
Speaker 1: And at this moment in time, we're looking at those

244
00:13:43,160 --> 00:13:46,880
Speaker 1: deals in the context of the fact that four firms

245
00:13:46,920 --> 00:13:50,240
Speaker 1: that were targeted by the Trump administration were vindicated and

246
00:13:50,320 --> 00:13:54,439
Speaker 1: successful in their legal challenges against the Trump White House.

247
00:13:54,559 --> 00:13:56,080
Speaker 1: And so I think there are a lot of lawyers,

248
00:13:56,080 --> 00:13:57,800
Speaker 1: there are a lot of associates who are looking at

249
00:13:57,800 --> 00:14:01,000
Speaker 1: their own firms saying, you know, we should have challenged

250
00:14:01,040 --> 00:14:06,240
Speaker 1: these actions or threatened actions in court instead of preemptively folding.

251
00:14:07,360 --> 00:14:11,520
Speaker 2: So some associates were vocal about leaving their firms, but

252
00:14:11,720 --> 00:14:13,600
Speaker 2: others did it quietly.

253
00:14:13,720 --> 00:14:18,000
Speaker 1: The reporting that I've done has been focusing on the

254
00:14:18,120 --> 00:14:21,880
Speaker 1: associates who vocally quit. Now the sense I get just

255
00:14:21,920 --> 00:14:24,320
Speaker 1: from talking to sources in the industries that there are

256
00:14:24,480 --> 00:14:28,200
Speaker 1: many more people who are dissatisfied about these deals, and

257
00:14:28,360 --> 00:14:31,120
Speaker 1: that is serving as at least one of the reasons

258
00:14:31,120 --> 00:14:33,600
Speaker 1: why they're changing firms or why they're leaving their firms.

259
00:14:33,960 --> 00:14:36,560
Speaker 1: But I wanted to take a look at the associates

260
00:14:36,560 --> 00:14:40,320
Speaker 1: who took it upon themselves to vocally disapprove of their

261
00:14:40,320 --> 00:14:43,280
Speaker 1: firms in a public setting and then leave and then

262
00:14:43,320 --> 00:14:46,680
Speaker 1: ask the question, what are their prospects? What are their

263
00:14:46,720 --> 00:14:49,240
Speaker 1: career prospects now that they've spoken up, because it is

264
00:14:49,320 --> 00:14:52,240
Speaker 1: so rare. So that's the group of associates that I've

265
00:14:52,280 --> 00:14:54,440
Speaker 1: been looking at and just trying to follow up with

266
00:14:54,520 --> 00:14:57,560
Speaker 1: and see how they're viewing their career prospects right now

267
00:14:57,720 --> 00:15:00,000
Speaker 1: and talking to recruiters and asking them the same question.

268
00:15:00,760 --> 00:15:04,400
Speaker 2: Well, let's talk about some of the associates that you

269
00:15:04,520 --> 00:15:07,320
Speaker 2: spoke to. Start with Sunic Maradian.

270
00:15:07,800 --> 00:15:11,560
Speaker 1: He was a third year associate at Simpton Thatcher who

271
00:15:11,840 --> 00:15:15,200
Speaker 1: was very outraged about the deal. Simpton Thatcher is one

272
00:15:15,200 --> 00:15:16,880
Speaker 1: of the nine firms that cut a deal with the

273
00:15:16,880 --> 00:15:20,720
Speaker 1: Trump administration. He sends out a firm wide email on

274
00:15:20,760 --> 00:15:24,200
Speaker 1: April eleventh, the same day that Simpson's deal with Trump

275
00:15:24,360 --> 00:15:27,920
Speaker 1: was announced, and on that same day he's exiting the firm,

276
00:15:28,400 --> 00:15:31,360
Speaker 1: and so he's kind of plotting his next moves. And

277
00:15:31,400 --> 00:15:34,160
Speaker 1: what he's telling me is that he's looking for a

278
00:15:34,240 --> 00:15:37,680
Speaker 1: job as a public defender. And you know, the rationale

279
00:15:37,680 --> 00:15:40,320
Speaker 1: for that is that it basically aligns more with his

280
00:15:40,720 --> 00:15:44,120
Speaker 1: values as a lawyer. When you're working at a high

281
00:15:44,240 --> 00:15:48,160
Speaker 1: powered law firm on Wall Street, you are serving the

282
00:15:48,840 --> 00:15:53,720
Speaker 1: very wealthy. Now, everybody deserves a lawyer, But according to Sinoek,

283
00:15:53,840 --> 00:15:56,080
Speaker 1: he's looking for a job where he can represent people

284
00:15:56,120 --> 00:15:58,720
Speaker 1: who don't have the same access to legal representation. And

285
00:15:58,720 --> 00:16:02,400
Speaker 1: that's what he would be doing as a public defender. Now,

286
00:16:02,760 --> 00:16:06,480
Speaker 1: there aren't many twenty seven year olds who are you

287
00:16:06,720 --> 00:16:08,840
Speaker 1: making the amount of money that you make as a

288
00:16:08,880 --> 00:16:12,400
Speaker 1: third year associate in big law. So he's you know,

289
00:16:12,480 --> 00:16:14,520
Speaker 1: accepting the fact that he's going to be making a

290
00:16:14,520 --> 00:16:17,800
Speaker 1: lot less as a lawyer in whatever he decides to pursue.

291
00:16:17,800 --> 00:16:19,760
Speaker 1: But you know, when I asked him about that, he said,

292
00:16:20,080 --> 00:16:22,400
Speaker 1: it's worth it. You know, there's not an amount of

293
00:16:22,480 --> 00:16:25,240
Speaker 1: money that can make me feel comfortable working at a

294
00:16:25,280 --> 00:16:28,280
Speaker 1: firm that would engage in a deal as highly suspect

295
00:16:28,360 --> 00:16:30,720
Speaker 1: as what Since the Thatcher agreed to put.

296
00:16:30,600 --> 00:16:33,280
Speaker 2: Some numbers on this, tell us about you know what

297
00:16:33,320 --> 00:16:37,240
Speaker 2: the salaries are like for you know, even associates just

298
00:16:37,320 --> 00:16:38,520
Speaker 2: coming out of law school.

299
00:16:38,920 --> 00:16:43,360
Speaker 1: So working at top law firms like some Ston Thatcher,

300
00:16:43,440 --> 00:16:46,520
Speaker 1: like Kirkland and Ellis, like Leithan Milwaukins. These are the

301
00:16:46,640 --> 00:16:49,680
Speaker 1: highest paying jobs that you can get as a junior

302
00:16:49,760 --> 00:16:52,680
Speaker 1: lawyer coming out of law school. These are firms that

303
00:16:53,320 --> 00:16:56,640
Speaker 1: pay their associates according to what's called the Cravat scale,

304
00:16:57,080 --> 00:17:01,360
Speaker 1: the associate seniority based pay scale that is set by

305
00:17:01,560 --> 00:17:04,639
Speaker 1: top firms. So imagine this your first year associate in

306
00:17:04,640 --> 00:17:07,680
Speaker 1: your mid twenties coming out of law school, and your

307
00:17:07,800 --> 00:17:11,439
Speaker 1: annual salary is two hundred and twenty five thousand, and

308
00:17:11,480 --> 00:17:15,000
Speaker 1: that's before bonuses. You add bonuses onto that, and you're

309
00:17:15,000 --> 00:17:17,600
Speaker 1: almost making a quarter of a million dollars as a

310
00:17:17,680 --> 00:17:19,760
Speaker 1: lawyer in your mid twenties. I mean, there's just no

311
00:17:20,000 --> 00:17:22,359
Speaker 1: job in the profession that's going to get you close

312
00:17:22,400 --> 00:17:25,040
Speaker 1: to that, certainly not being a public defender. And by

313
00:17:25,040 --> 00:17:28,280
Speaker 1: the time you're in your third year as an associate

314
00:17:28,280 --> 00:17:30,680
Speaker 1: at one of these firms, you're getting I believe it's

315
00:17:30,880 --> 00:17:35,080
Speaker 1: three hundred and fifteen thousand, and that's space salary including bonuses.

316
00:17:35,400 --> 00:17:37,199
Speaker 1: The reason why we know how much these lawyers are

317
00:17:37,240 --> 00:17:40,160
Speaker 1: making is because they all pay according to the Kravat scale,

318
00:17:40,720 --> 00:17:43,600
Speaker 1: and that is a seniority based pay scale set by

319
00:17:44,280 --> 00:17:47,400
Speaker 1: a very powerful Wall Street law firm called Cravats. Swain

320
00:17:47,520 --> 00:17:49,600
Speaker 1: and Moore. And it's the top dollar that you can

321
00:17:49,640 --> 00:17:52,520
Speaker 1: make as a junior lawyer in the profession that all

322
00:17:52,640 --> 00:17:55,920
Speaker 1: the competitors need to match or else risk losing out

323
00:17:55,960 --> 00:17:57,160
Speaker 1: on junior legal talent.

324
00:17:57,920 --> 00:18:01,879
Speaker 2: Tell us about Ryan Powers, who didn't leave voluntarily. He

325
00:18:02,000 --> 00:18:02,560
Speaker 2: was fired.

326
00:18:03,119 --> 00:18:06,680
Speaker 1: So Ryan Powers didn't quit like the other people we

327
00:18:06,800 --> 00:18:10,960
Speaker 1: looked at, but he was fired by another powerhouse law

328
00:18:10,960 --> 00:18:14,480
Speaker 1: firm called Davis, Polk and Wardwell. He was fired because

329
00:18:14,760 --> 00:18:18,919
Speaker 1: of the op ed pieces that he would get published

330
00:18:19,040 --> 00:18:23,280
Speaker 1: in newspapers around the country where he would opine and

331
00:18:23,359 --> 00:18:27,879
Speaker 1: analyze kind of the intersection of political issues and legal issues,

332
00:18:27,960 --> 00:18:31,439
Speaker 1: and so he would weigh in about things like government surveillance,

333
00:18:32,119 --> 00:18:37,000
Speaker 1: the Trump administration and Trump administration allies. And according to

334
00:18:37,040 --> 00:18:40,800
Speaker 1: the people we've talked to, including Ryan, our understanding is

335
00:18:40,800 --> 00:18:44,160
Speaker 1: that why he was fired was because he didn't get

336
00:18:44,200 --> 00:18:48,520
Speaker 1: these op eds cleared or approved by his firm, and

337
00:18:48,640 --> 00:18:51,800
Speaker 1: so you know, as a result, he breached some internal

338
00:18:51,840 --> 00:18:55,520
Speaker 1: policy and had to be let go. But the reason

339
00:18:55,560 --> 00:18:56,840
Speaker 1: why we took a look at him is because he

340
00:18:56,920 --> 00:19:00,199
Speaker 1: still falls in this category as a vocal june your

341
00:19:00,280 --> 00:19:04,439
Speaker 1: lawyer who's speaking out on hot button political issues and

342
00:19:04,520 --> 00:19:08,360
Speaker 1: so he's in that category, and so we wondered, how

343
00:19:08,440 --> 00:19:11,000
Speaker 1: is he viewing his career right now? Can you speak

344
00:19:11,080 --> 00:19:12,879
Speaker 1: up on these issues and still have a career in

345
00:19:12,960 --> 00:19:13,400
Speaker 1: big law?

346
00:19:14,280 --> 00:19:18,000
Speaker 2: And can you can you go back to practicing in

347
00:19:18,080 --> 00:19:21,879
Speaker 2: big law after speaking out like this? Some of the

348
00:19:21,920 --> 00:19:26,720
Speaker 2: people you spoke to, like recruiters, thought you couldn't. Yeah.

349
00:19:26,760 --> 00:19:30,240
Speaker 1: So my analysis of the situation, based on people we've

350
00:19:30,240 --> 00:19:33,639
Speaker 1: talked to, is that you can still have a career

351
00:19:33,680 --> 00:19:37,560
Speaker 1: in big law, but you are making it difficult for

352
00:19:37,880 --> 00:19:43,560
Speaker 1: yourself by being vocal and speaking out against management decisions.

353
00:19:43,880 --> 00:19:46,880
Speaker 1: You know, there are still some law firms that didn't

354
00:19:46,920 --> 00:19:50,679
Speaker 1: speak up out against the Trump administration. There are a

355
00:19:50,720 --> 00:19:53,520
Speaker 1: handful of law firms that signed on to a friend

356
00:19:53,560 --> 00:19:57,240
Speaker 1: of the Court brief in a lawsuit brought by Perkins Cooey,

357
00:19:57,320 --> 00:20:00,639
Speaker 1: one of these Trump targeted firms, where there does seem

358
00:20:00,640 --> 00:20:05,000
Speaker 1: to be a value alignment between the associates who spoke

359
00:20:05,080 --> 00:20:08,560
Speaker 1: up and the law firms who spoke up in support

360
00:20:08,600 --> 00:20:11,960
Speaker 1: of Perkins Kooi. However, this is a limited number of

361
00:20:12,080 --> 00:20:14,520
Speaker 1: law firms that was willing to speak up. There are

362
00:20:14,680 --> 00:20:17,919
Speaker 1: only eight law firms in the top one hundred biggest

363
00:20:17,960 --> 00:20:20,560
Speaker 1: law firms in the US who were willing to align

364
00:20:20,600 --> 00:20:22,800
Speaker 1: themselves with Perkins KOOI, and not all of them are

365
00:20:22,840 --> 00:20:25,000
Speaker 1: going to hire all the people who are quitting their

366
00:20:25,040 --> 00:20:26,000
Speaker 1: firms in protest.

367
00:20:26,240 --> 00:20:28,320
Speaker 2: Do you have an idea of how many people quit

368
00:20:28,440 --> 00:20:29,159
Speaker 2: in protest?

369
00:20:29,920 --> 00:20:37,040
Speaker 1: We counted twelve associates who posted on LinkedIn or spoke

370
00:20:37,080 --> 00:20:41,920
Speaker 1: with the media saying I'm quitting and then left. That

371
00:20:41,960 --> 00:20:45,760
Speaker 1: does not include a group of former Wilkie, far and

372
00:20:45,880 --> 00:20:50,520
Speaker 1: Gallagher associates who spoke up after they had already secured

373
00:20:50,560 --> 00:20:54,439
Speaker 1: a job at Cooley following a couple partners there. So

374
00:20:54,600 --> 00:20:57,679
Speaker 1: in some ways they overlap with our sample size. In

375
00:20:57,720 --> 00:21:00,919
Speaker 1: other ways they don't because they had already secured another

376
00:21:01,040 --> 00:21:02,880
Speaker 1: job for kind of speaking out.

377
00:21:03,760 --> 00:21:07,159
Speaker 2: So that's a drop in the bucket compared to the

378
00:21:07,240 --> 00:21:10,440
Speaker 2: number of associates there are at these law firms.

379
00:21:10,920 --> 00:21:12,879
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a drop in the bucket. I mean the

380
00:21:12,960 --> 00:21:15,760
Speaker 1: law firms that they are leaving and speaking out against

381
00:21:16,320 --> 00:21:21,000
Speaker 1: have the strongest buying power in the legal industry. Like

382
00:21:21,040 --> 00:21:23,880
Speaker 1: I said before, they pay top dollar, So I don't

383
00:21:23,880 --> 00:21:27,240
Speaker 1: think they're worried about their ability to recruit and routine

384
00:21:27,840 --> 00:21:31,359
Speaker 1: associates and kind of replace the people who have left some.

385
00:21:31,280 --> 00:21:34,440
Speaker 2: Have not found other jobs yet, and others are going

386
00:21:34,480 --> 00:21:36,600
Speaker 2: in wildly different directions.

387
00:21:37,119 --> 00:21:40,080
Speaker 1: Correct. Yeah, I think the person you're referring to Taylor Weddick.

388
00:21:40,160 --> 00:21:45,480
Speaker 1: He's running to represent Iowa's first congressional district in the

389
00:21:45,520 --> 00:21:50,119
Speaker 1: House of Representatives. And I also wrote about Rachel Cohen,

390
00:21:50,160 --> 00:21:53,720
Speaker 1: who's maybe the most high profile person in this cohort

391
00:21:53,800 --> 00:21:57,640
Speaker 1: because she was one of the first people to loudly

392
00:21:58,040 --> 00:22:01,920
Speaker 1: quit and speak out against her firm, Scaton, for making

393
00:22:02,000 --> 00:22:06,359
Speaker 1: its deal with the Trump administration. She's working at a

394
00:22:06,400 --> 00:22:10,760
Speaker 1: boutique litigation firm founded by Abby Lowell, who said in

395
00:22:10,800 --> 00:22:13,439
Speaker 1: his mission statement is he's formed this firm, he's a

396
00:22:13,440 --> 00:22:16,840
Speaker 1: former Winston and Strawn partner, and his goal is to

397
00:22:16,960 --> 00:22:21,000
Speaker 1: represent political targets of Donald Trump. What I think unite

398
00:22:21,119 --> 00:22:23,240
Speaker 1: a lot of the people who have found post big

399
00:22:23,320 --> 00:22:26,879
Speaker 1: law jobs is that they're in places that kind of

400
00:22:27,000 --> 00:22:29,919
Speaker 1: align with their stated values or allow them to speak

401
00:22:30,119 --> 00:22:35,160
Speaker 1: more vocally about their political views. Taylor Weddick, when you're

402
00:22:35,200 --> 00:22:38,080
Speaker 1: running for Congress as a Democrat, you are going to

403
00:22:38,080 --> 00:22:41,480
Speaker 1: be speaking up about political views that are against the

404
00:22:41,520 --> 00:22:45,560
Speaker 1: Trump administration. When you're Rachel Cohen doing media relations for

405
00:22:46,160 --> 00:22:48,600
Speaker 1: a law firm that was founded to challenge the Trump

406
00:22:48,600 --> 00:22:51,520
Speaker 1: administration in court. You're going to be speaking in that way.

407
00:22:52,000 --> 00:22:55,280
Speaker 2: Did anyone tell you I regret leaving the law firm.

408
00:22:55,840 --> 00:22:58,600
Speaker 2: I mean a lot of young lawyers have student loans

409
00:22:58,600 --> 00:22:59,240
Speaker 2: to pay off.

410
00:23:00,119 --> 00:23:03,760
Speaker 1: Yes, there are people who are in that position. Some

411
00:23:03,800 --> 00:23:06,840
Speaker 1: of the people that I talked to found themselves to

412
00:23:06,880 --> 00:23:09,840
Speaker 1: be in a lucky position, like ce you. Nick Moradian

413
00:23:10,000 --> 00:23:11,960
Speaker 1: told me that he just finished paying off his student

414
00:23:12,000 --> 00:23:14,080
Speaker 1: loans before he left. He was in kind of a

415
00:23:14,119 --> 00:23:18,679
Speaker 1: lucky position that way. But other people do find themselves

416
00:23:19,080 --> 00:23:21,640
Speaker 1: with debt, and you know, it kind of goes back

417
00:23:21,640 --> 00:23:24,439
Speaker 1: to that sentiment I shared before, which is, you know,

418
00:23:24,640 --> 00:23:27,479
Speaker 1: money is one thing, but there's this sort of feeling

419
00:23:27,480 --> 00:23:30,520
Speaker 1: of guilt by proxy for practicing at a firm that

420
00:23:30,840 --> 00:23:34,040
Speaker 1: cut this deal with the Trump administration. So yeah, they're

421
00:23:34,040 --> 00:23:35,960
Speaker 1: in a position where they're having to find other ways

422
00:23:35,960 --> 00:23:37,840
Speaker 1: of paying down their debt.

423
00:23:38,200 --> 00:23:41,680
Speaker 2: Well, lawyers get a lot of criticism, so it's nice

424
00:23:41,680 --> 00:23:44,919
Speaker 2: to see some standing up for their principles. Thanks for

425
00:23:45,000 --> 00:23:50,399
Speaker 2: joining me, Justin. That's Bloomberg Law reporter Justin Henry, the

426
00:23:50,480 --> 00:23:55,120
Speaker 2: prosecutor whom judges appointed to replace former Trump lawyer Alina

427
00:23:55,240 --> 00:24:00,200
Speaker 2: Haba as New Jersey's US Attorney, Desiree Grace, has while

428
00:24:00,240 --> 00:24:04,320
Speaker 2: the complaint challenging the Trump administration's decision to fire her.

429
00:24:04,760 --> 00:24:08,760
Speaker 2: The Justice Department fired Grace hours after the state's federal

430
00:24:08,840 --> 00:24:11,800
Speaker 2: judges voted for her to become the U S Attorney

431
00:24:11,800 --> 00:24:15,000
Speaker 2: in New Jersey, appointing her to the role instead of

432
00:24:15,040 --> 00:24:19,840
Speaker 2: extending Hobba's term. The Justice Department then used complex legal

433
00:24:19,880 --> 00:24:24,359
Speaker 2: maneuvers to keep Haba on as acting US Attorney. Grace

434
00:24:24,359 --> 00:24:28,960
Speaker 2: says her termination was completely unjustified and that she was

435
00:24:29,040 --> 00:24:33,400
Speaker 2: fired in direct retaliation for the judges appointing her as

436
00:24:33,440 --> 00:24:37,399
Speaker 2: the state's top federal prosecutor. She's filed an appeal with

437
00:24:37,480 --> 00:24:41,560
Speaker 2: the US Merit System's Protection Board, the body that mediates

438
00:24:41,720 --> 00:24:46,760
Speaker 2: challenges from federal workers over adverse employment decisions. The case

439
00:24:46,840 --> 00:24:52,320
Speaker 2: carries broader implications because several defendants being prosecuted on criminal

440
00:24:52,400 --> 00:24:56,679
Speaker 2: charges have argued that Haba was not lawfully appointed and

441
00:24:56,720 --> 00:25:00,000
Speaker 2: that the indictments against them are invalid and should be dropped.

442
00:25:00,600 --> 00:25:04,720
Speaker 2: Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis. David, to

443
00:25:04,720 --> 00:25:09,080
Speaker 2: put this in perspective, tell us about Alena Habba's history

444
00:25:09,400 --> 00:25:12,920
Speaker 2: or path at the US Attorney's Office in New Jersey.

445
00:25:13,400 --> 00:25:18,119
Speaker 4: Alena Haba was appointed as the interim US Attorney in

446
00:25:18,160 --> 00:25:23,000
Speaker 4: New Jersey by President Trump in March for one hundred

447
00:25:23,040 --> 00:25:28,400
Speaker 4: and twenty day term. She replaced another interim US attorney

448
00:25:28,400 --> 00:25:31,159
Speaker 4: who was only in office for about two weeks. She

449
00:25:31,320 --> 00:25:37,240
Speaker 4: had previously been Donald Trump's private attorney, and she had

450
00:25:37,280 --> 00:25:42,879
Speaker 4: no proscutorial experience. She came in and soon announced that

451
00:25:43,440 --> 00:25:47,520
Speaker 4: she was going to help turn New Jersey red, which

452
00:25:47,800 --> 00:25:50,840
Speaker 4: raised some alarm bells for people because the job is

453
00:25:50,880 --> 00:25:55,440
Speaker 4: supposed to be nonpartisan and the US Attorney is not

454
00:25:55,480 --> 00:26:01,600
Speaker 4: to favor Democrats or Republicans. She furthered. Deepened her controversy

455
00:26:02,400 --> 00:26:07,639
Speaker 4: by saying that she was going to investigate Governor Murphy,

456
00:26:07,680 --> 00:26:11,840
Speaker 4: who's a Democrat, over comments he made about possibly having

457
00:26:11,840 --> 00:26:18,320
Speaker 4: a migrant lived with him, and then she charged the

458
00:26:18,400 --> 00:26:24,280
Speaker 4: Newark Mayor, Rods Baraka with trespassing over his conduct during

459
00:26:24,320 --> 00:26:29,000
Speaker 4: a protest at a private immigration facility in Newark, and

460
00:26:29,280 --> 00:26:36,480
Speaker 4: he later indicted a congresswoman from Newark over her conduct

461
00:26:36,840 --> 00:26:43,240
Speaker 4: at the same protest, and a judge subsequently scolded the

462
00:26:43,320 --> 00:26:48,600
Speaker 4: US Attorney's office quite severely for the way they investigated

463
00:26:48,680 --> 00:26:53,760
Speaker 4: and brought charges against Rods Baraka, which Elena Habba had dropped,

464
00:26:54,680 --> 00:26:55,000
Speaker 4: so the.

465
00:26:54,960 --> 00:26:58,320
Speaker 2: New Jersey judges refused to appoint Happa when her term

466
00:26:58,840 --> 00:27:01,200
Speaker 2: was expiring. Tell us what happened.

467
00:27:01,840 --> 00:27:04,800
Speaker 4: Habba's term was going to expire after one hundred and

468
00:27:04,880 --> 00:27:11,400
Speaker 4: twenty days. Under the law, if a four year permanent

469
00:27:11,520 --> 00:27:15,959
Speaker 4: US Attorney has not been confirmed by the US Senate,

470
00:27:16,359 --> 00:27:21,399
Speaker 4: then the federal judges in that district have the authority

471
00:27:21,840 --> 00:27:26,880
Speaker 4: to appoint an acting US Attorney. They decided that they

472
00:27:27,640 --> 00:27:32,879
Speaker 4: wanted Desiree Grace, who was Alena Hobba's number two, the

473
00:27:32,960 --> 00:27:38,119
Speaker 4: first assistant US Attorney, to serve as the acting US

474
00:27:38,160 --> 00:27:42,920
Speaker 4: Attorney in place of Elena Habba. And they met and

475
00:27:43,040 --> 00:27:46,280
Speaker 4: they decided that she was going to be elevated to

476
00:27:46,440 --> 00:27:50,760
Speaker 4: US Attorney. That did not sit well with Attorney General

477
00:27:50,920 --> 00:27:56,919
Speaker 4: Pam Bondi, and hours later she fired Grace and she

478
00:27:57,520 --> 00:28:02,000
Speaker 4: assailed what she described as the politically minded judges who

479
00:28:02,160 --> 00:28:06,840
Speaker 4: appointed her. The administration then used a series of procedural

480
00:28:06,960 --> 00:28:11,160
Speaker 4: maneuvers to elevate Habba to the job for the next

481
00:28:11,200 --> 00:28:14,560
Speaker 4: two hundred and ten days. And what they did was

482
00:28:14,640 --> 00:28:20,240
Speaker 4: they pulled Habba's nomination from the US Senate and they

483
00:28:20,440 --> 00:28:25,439
Speaker 4: gave her a title of Special Assistant to the Attorney General,

484
00:28:26,040 --> 00:28:30,239
Speaker 4: and then they named her first Assistant US Attorney, and

485
00:28:30,960 --> 00:28:34,959
Speaker 4: from there they named her Acting US Attorney. All of

486
00:28:35,000 --> 00:28:40,360
Speaker 4: this is possible under the Federal Vacancies Act, in which

487
00:28:41,040 --> 00:28:46,440
Speaker 4: if someone is one of three positions, including the Deputy

488
00:28:46,640 --> 00:28:50,960
Speaker 4: US Attorney, they can be named acting US Attorney. So

489
00:28:51,000 --> 00:28:55,400
Speaker 4: it was through a fairly complex set of maneuvers that

490
00:28:55,480 --> 00:29:00,920
Speaker 4: the Trump administration elevated Alena Haba to Act US Attorney,

491
00:29:01,400 --> 00:29:04,520
Speaker 4: which is a position she can hold for the next

492
00:29:04,560 --> 00:29:07,000
Speaker 4: two hundred and ten days.

493
00:29:06,920 --> 00:29:10,960
Speaker 2: And tell us about Grace's appeal to the US Merit

494
00:29:11,000 --> 00:29:12,600
Speaker 2: Systems Protection Board.

495
00:29:13,240 --> 00:29:18,680
Speaker 4: She said that her July twenty second termination was completely

496
00:29:18,800 --> 00:29:23,040
Speaker 4: unjustified and that it was in direct retaliation for the

497
00:29:23,120 --> 00:29:28,720
Speaker 4: judges appointing her as the state's top federal prosecutor. The

498
00:29:28,840 --> 00:29:32,160
Speaker 4: question is whether this board is going to have the

499
00:29:32,240 --> 00:29:36,240
Speaker 4: authority to do anything about it, because they do not

500
00:29:36,560 --> 00:29:40,920
Speaker 4: have a full board that can act in this matter

501
00:29:41,120 --> 00:29:43,840
Speaker 4: or in other matters of fired federal workers.

502
00:29:44,080 --> 00:29:48,360
Speaker 2: Grace was an assistant US Attorney, not a political appointee,

503
00:29:49,080 --> 00:29:50,920
Speaker 2: So what are the implications of that.

504
00:29:51,880 --> 00:29:56,560
Speaker 4: Well, that gives her jurisdiction to apply to the US

505
00:29:56,680 --> 00:30:00,840
Speaker 4: Merit Systems Protection Board because she's effectively a civil servant.

506
00:30:01,120 --> 00:30:04,520
Speaker 4: Even though the administration would argue that they have the

507
00:30:04,600 --> 00:30:10,520
Speaker 4: authority to hire and fire any US Assistant attorney in

508
00:30:10,560 --> 00:30:14,560
Speaker 4: the United States for any reason, she would say that

509
00:30:14,640 --> 00:30:19,280
Speaker 4: she's also covered by the EMERITYSTEM Protection Board. So it's

510
00:30:19,520 --> 00:30:24,000
Speaker 4: unclear how this might proceed and what sort of protection

511
00:30:24,360 --> 00:30:29,600
Speaker 4: she might have for her job or for her ability

512
00:30:29,680 --> 00:30:32,760
Speaker 4: to rise to become the US Attorney in New Jersey,

513
00:30:33,160 --> 00:30:36,640
Speaker 4: which is what the judges in New Jersey appointed her

514
00:30:36,680 --> 00:30:37,040
Speaker 4: to do.

515
00:30:37,800 --> 00:30:42,480
Speaker 2: The controversy over Haba has led the New Jersey federal

516
00:30:42,520 --> 00:30:47,040
Speaker 2: criminal proceedings to basically come to a halt except for

517
00:30:47,120 --> 00:30:47,960
Speaker 2: bail hearings.

518
00:30:48,720 --> 00:30:53,000
Speaker 4: There are many criminal cases that have paused because the

519
00:30:53,080 --> 00:30:57,080
Speaker 4: judges want to see how the dispute will play out,

520
00:30:57,280 --> 00:31:01,880
Speaker 4: and in particular, there is a case involving a father

521
00:31:02,040 --> 00:31:06,520
Speaker 4: and son facing drug and weapons related charges in Camden,

522
00:31:06,560 --> 00:31:13,920
Speaker 4: New Jersey. They have filed emotion challenging paba appointment and

523
00:31:14,360 --> 00:31:20,680
Speaker 4: saying that Grace should be the lawfully appointed US Attorney

524
00:31:20,760 --> 00:31:25,080
Speaker 4: in New Jersey and not Alena Haba. This matter was

525
00:31:25,760 --> 00:31:29,480
Speaker 4: referred by the Chief Judge in the third Circuit Court

526
00:31:29,520 --> 00:31:34,360
Speaker 4: of Appeals to Matthew Brand, who's the chief judge in

527
00:31:34,400 --> 00:31:40,720
Speaker 4: the Middle District of Pennsylvania, who is considering arguments over

528
00:31:40,880 --> 00:31:45,680
Speaker 4: whether Alena Haba is the properly appointed US attorney or

529
00:31:45,840 --> 00:31:48,880
Speaker 4: whether it should be desiree grace, What has.

530
00:31:48,760 --> 00:31:52,120
Speaker 2: Happened so far in that case with the Pennsylvania judge.

531
00:31:52,120 --> 00:31:53,280
Speaker 2: What has he done so far?

532
00:31:53,800 --> 00:31:58,560
Speaker 4: So far? The judge has ruled that the appointment of

533
00:31:59,320 --> 00:32:05,120
Speaker 4: Haba has not adversely affected the ability of this father

534
00:32:05,240 --> 00:32:09,720
Speaker 4: and son to receive justice in their case, that they

535
00:32:09,800 --> 00:32:14,800
Speaker 4: cannot show that there's a harm to them individually by

536
00:32:14,880 --> 00:32:19,160
Speaker 4: Elena Habba directing the case. But he's allowed them to

537
00:32:19,200 --> 00:32:26,400
Speaker 4: make arguments questioning the legal and constitutional underpinnings of Habba's appointment.

538
00:32:27,200 --> 00:32:32,480
Speaker 4: So he is going to hear arguments and take motions

539
00:32:32,960 --> 00:32:36,840
Speaker 4: on the question of whether Alena Habba is legally appointed

540
00:32:36,880 --> 00:32:39,520
Speaker 4: to run the attorney's office in New Jersey. There's going

541
00:32:39,560 --> 00:32:42,640
Speaker 4: to be oral arguments on August fifteenth in the case

542
00:32:43,000 --> 00:32:44,640
Speaker 4: in Williamsports, Pennsylvania.

543
00:32:45,440 --> 00:32:49,680
Speaker 2: To give this a little more context, both Democratic senators

544
00:32:49,680 --> 00:32:53,840
Speaker 2: in New Jersey have called Haba unfit to serve, so

545
00:32:53,920 --> 00:32:58,600
Speaker 2: with the blue Slip tradition requiring approval from home state senators.

546
00:32:59,000 --> 00:33:02,400
Speaker 2: Habba couldn't even get at a Senate hearing, let alone.

547
00:33:02,040 --> 00:33:04,360
Speaker 1: A confirmation that's correct.

548
00:33:04,440 --> 00:33:08,600
Speaker 4: So as it stands now, she's going to serve for

549
00:33:08,680 --> 00:33:13,440
Speaker 4: the next two hundred and ten days without Senate confirmation.

550
00:33:14,160 --> 00:33:19,720
Speaker 4: The process is designed so that US attorneys have advice

551
00:33:19,760 --> 00:33:23,920
Speaker 4: and consent of the US Senate. In this case, she

552
00:33:24,080 --> 00:33:28,560
Speaker 4: will be an appointment of Attorney General cam Bondi, to

553
00:33:28,600 --> 00:33:33,080
Speaker 4: whom she directly reports, but the Senate won't have had

554
00:33:33,240 --> 00:33:35,160
Speaker 4: input into her appointment.

555
00:33:35,800 --> 00:33:40,000
Speaker 2: And the Trump administration is using these acting titles to

556
00:33:40,120 --> 00:33:43,840
Speaker 2: keep people they want in charge of other US attorneys' offices,

557
00:33:44,520 --> 00:33:48,160
Speaker 2: like the one in Los Angeles and Albity. So there

558
00:33:48,200 --> 00:33:51,920
Speaker 2: are a lot of unconfirmed US attorneys. Thanks so much, David.

559
00:33:52,040 --> 00:33:56,200
Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis. Another legal news today,

560
00:33:56,680 --> 00:34:00,360
Speaker 2: Texas Senator John Cornyn says he's gotten an assurance from

561
00:34:00,560 --> 00:34:04,840
Speaker 2: FBI Director Cash Pattel that federal agents will help to

562
00:34:04,960 --> 00:34:09,640
Speaker 2: locate the Democratic state lawmakers from Texas who've left the state.

563
00:34:10,239 --> 00:34:14,439
Speaker 2: The lawmakers are protesting against a special session in which

564
00:34:14,480 --> 00:34:19,480
Speaker 2: Republicans want to drastically redraw that state's congressional map to

565
00:34:19,520 --> 00:34:24,040
Speaker 2: give Republicans up to five more seats for the midterm elections.

566
00:34:24,640 --> 00:34:28,799
Speaker 2: House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries says it's an alarming use

567
00:34:28,880 --> 00:34:29,920
Speaker 2: of law enforcement.

568
00:34:30,880 --> 00:34:38,440
Speaker 5: The FBI should be spending its time chasing down violent criminals, terrorists,

569
00:34:39,320 --> 00:34:46,799
Speaker 5: drug traffickers, and child predators, not targeting political adversaries in

570
00:34:47,080 --> 00:34:48,600
Speaker 5: a democracy here in America.

571
00:34:49,280 --> 00:34:52,480
Speaker 2: Preventing a quorum back in the Texas House is costing

572
00:34:52,560 --> 00:34:56,640
Speaker 2: each state representative five hundred dollars a day in fines,

573
00:34:57,080 --> 00:35:00,239
Speaker 2: not to mention the out of state lodging and food food.

574
00:35:00,880 --> 00:35:04,440
Speaker 2: But they're getting help. Former Congressman Beto O'Rourke led a

575
00:35:04,440 --> 00:35:08,960
Speaker 2: fundraiser at a campaign style event in Omaha, Nebraska. All right,

576
00:35:09,000 --> 00:35:12,680
Speaker 2: thanks everybody, three thousand dollars raise for the Texas Democrats.

577
00:35:13,200 --> 00:35:17,200
Speaker 2: Powered by People, The political group led by O'Rourke has

578
00:35:17,239 --> 00:35:20,680
Speaker 2: been holding events in red states to fire up Democrats

579
00:35:20,800 --> 00:35:25,840
Speaker 2: and encourage donations. Back home in Texas, Republican Attorney General

580
00:35:25,920 --> 00:35:30,800
Speaker 2: Ken Paxton is promising to investigate quote any Democrat coward

581
00:35:31,040 --> 00:35:34,759
Speaker 2: breaking the law by taking a Beto bribe. And that's

582
00:35:34,800 --> 00:35:37,400
Speaker 2: it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

583
00:35:37,440 --> 00:35:39,560
Speaker 2: You can always get the latest legal news on our

584
00:35:39,560 --> 00:35:43,719
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

585
00:35:43,920 --> 00:35:48,960
Speaker 2: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law,

586
00:35:49,360 --> 00:35:51,920
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every

587
00:35:52,000 --> 00:35:55,920
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grassou

588
00:35:56,040 --> 00:35:57,600
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg