Speaker 1: The governor of Louisiana has lost another battle in court
Speaker 1: over his executive order protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
Speaker 1: people in state government from discrimination and harassment. Louisiana's first
Speaker 1: circuit Court of Appeal found Governor John Bell Edwards overstepped
Speaker 1: his authority by including sexual orientation and gender identity among
Speaker 1: the list of protected classes in the state. The unanimous
Speaker 1: appellate court panel sided with a lower court judge who
Speaker 1: blocked enforcement of the order in December after a challenge
Speaker 1: by Attorney General Jeff Landry, joining us as Anthony christ
Speaker 1: a professor at Chicago Kent College of Law. Anthony Edwards
Speaker 1: attorneys argued that nothing prevents the governor from establishing policy
Speaker 1: by executive order as long as it doesn't conflict with
Speaker 1: existing law, and Edwards said, even President Trump agrees, as
Speaker 1: he has kept in place a federal executive order which
Speaker 1: is virtually identical to the order I put in place.
Speaker 1: What was the court's answer to that arguments? So the
Speaker 1: court ultimately sided with the Louisiana Attorney General um and
Speaker 1: said that what the governor was doing was not um
Speaker 1: not just implementing current policy and current law, but was
Speaker 1: actually um in effect lawmaking, so so basically taking the
Speaker 1: legislature's role um and and making creating law. UM. And
Speaker 1: so the court, based you know, looked to federal law
Speaker 1: and state law, which neither expressly protect against sex orientation
Speaker 1: or gender identity discrimination. And they looked to federal interpretation
Speaker 1: or federal courts interpretation or federal law, which in Louisiana
Speaker 1: have yet to recognize that sexual orientation or gender identity
Speaker 1: discrimination is a form of sex discrimination. And um, because
Speaker 1: they because they said, um, Louisiana law doesn't recognize that
Speaker 1: this kind of discrimination is unlawful. Um. It really basically
Speaker 1: validated the Attorney General's position that the governor was making
Speaker 1: a law and not just imple meaning current law and policy.
Speaker 1: But Anthony, the governor is the head state official. Couldn't
Speaker 1: he isn't it within his purview under Louisiana law to say, Look,
Speaker 1: the government that I run is not going to discriminate
Speaker 1: against people based on their sexual identity, and we're not
Speaker 1: going to contracts with companies that do that. What Why
Speaker 1: is it that under Louisiana law he can't do that? Um.
Speaker 1: You know, I think that ultimately it will be up
Speaker 1: to Louisiana Court to to really settle this UM. A
Speaker 1: number of governors and you know, again President Obama have
Speaker 1: done similar things in North Carolina. Just this last month,
Speaker 1: Governor Cooper um initiated a similar executive order UM. And
Speaker 1: and so it'll be remain remain to be seen. UM.
Speaker 1: You know what exactly the Louisiana State Supreme Court will
Speaker 1: will do. UM. But generally speaking, governors and you know,
Speaker 1: the executive branch has a decent amount of of latitude
Speaker 1: UM to create policies, personnel policies for the executive branch
Speaker 1: and for the state government UM employees. UM. Again, so
Speaker 1: long as they're not inconsistent with state law. And if
Speaker 1: the governor, you know, if the governor's executive order is
Speaker 1: unpalatable to the state legislators, they have the authority to
Speaker 1: override it by statute UM as well. So UM, I
Speaker 1: think most people would have assumed that this kind of
Speaker 1: executive order would have been, you know, within the governor's prerogative. UM.
Speaker 1: And so this decision, to me strikes me as as
Speaker 1: as a step with what most states and the federal
Speaker 1: government allows in this area. But UM, it will ultimately
Speaker 1: be up to the Louisiana State Supreme Court. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about the Supreme Court. There's a case before the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court involving the firing of a lesbian hospital security guard
Speaker 1: in Georgia, and the attorneys general of seventeen states and
Speaker 1: the District of Columbia are urging the justices to decide
Speaker 1: if Title seven of the Civil Rights Act protects LGBT
Speaker 1: individuals from discrimination on the job. And it's something that
Speaker 1: the E E O C and the Justice Department are
Speaker 1: in opposition on. Would that taking that case be an
Speaker 1: important step in understanding this? Yeah? So so Ultimately, UM,
Speaker 1: the the Louisiana Pelate Court UM noted that if federal
Speaker 1: law was interpreted in such a way that to recognize
Speaker 1: a sex discrimination or sexual orientation discrimination is a form
Speaker 1: of sex discrimination, as those Attorneys General UM are asking
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court United States Supreme Court to do. UM,
Speaker 1: then the governor's executive order would be merely uh, the
Speaker 1: implementation of of federal federal law and and perhaps state
Speaker 1: uh state employment law UM, and his executive order would
Speaker 1: be would be lawful under the Louisiana Constitution. So UM
Speaker 1: in that sense, Uh, you know that that's an incredibly
Speaker 1: or the Evans case UM could help resolve the issue
Speaker 1: UM in Louisiana enough, but UM Devin's case has a
Speaker 1: lot more promise in the sense that it can protect
Speaker 1: people in private employment UM, in the private employment sector
Speaker 1: and the public appointment sector across the country. UM. If
Speaker 1: Title seven is ruled or interpreted in such a way
Speaker 1: that LGBT people are protected under the sex discrimination ban,
Speaker 1: Anthony in about thirty seconds, what's your opinion of whether
Speaker 1: LGBT should be protected under Title seven? UM, I absolutely
Speaker 1: think that that LGBT employees have a have a cognizable
Speaker 1: claim under Title seven. UM. You can't really discriminate against
Speaker 1: sex orientation or someone's gender identity with really taking their
Speaker 1: sex into account. And at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: Title seven is meant to end sex discrimination in all
Speaker 1: its forms. Thank you, Anthony, as always for being on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law. That's Anthony christ He's a professor at Chicago
Speaker 1: Kent College of Law.