1
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,960 --> 00:00:11,320
Speaker 1: In a class that fits the rights of same sex

3
00:00:11,360 --> 00:00:15,600
Speaker 1: couples against free speech, the conservative justices on the Supreme

4
00:00:15,640 --> 00:00:18,919
Speaker 1: Court appear ready to side with a website designer who

5
00:00:18,960 --> 00:00:21,680
Speaker 1: says she has a free speech right to refuse to

6
00:00:21,720 --> 00:00:25,880
Speaker 1: create websites for same sex weddings because of her Christian faith.

7
00:00:26,239 --> 00:00:30,040
Speaker 1: Liberal Justice Sonya Sotomayor said that a decision allowing the

8
00:00:30,080 --> 00:00:33,680
Speaker 1: designer to turn away same sex couples would be a first.

9
00:00:34,440 --> 00:00:37,960
Speaker 1: This would be the first time in the Court's history

10
00:00:38,880 --> 00:00:43,800
Speaker 1: correct that it would say that a business opened to

11
00:00:43,920 --> 00:00:48,360
Speaker 1: the public, a commercial business open to the public serving

12
00:00:48,400 --> 00:00:52,240
Speaker 1: the public, that it could refuse to serve a customer

13
00:00:53,280 --> 00:00:59,680
Speaker 1: based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. But several

14
00:00:59,680 --> 00:01:04,080
Speaker 1: of the conservative justices focused on the designers stated intention

15
00:01:04,200 --> 00:01:08,479
Speaker 1: to create customized wedding sites and the difference between businesses

16
00:01:08,560 --> 00:01:13,400
Speaker 1: engaged in expression and one simply selling products. Here's Justice

17
00:01:13,440 --> 00:01:19,640
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh, how do you characterize website designers? Are they

18
00:01:19,680 --> 00:01:24,320
Speaker 1: more like the restaurants and the jewelers and the tailors,

19
00:01:24,560 --> 00:01:28,320
Speaker 1: or they more like, uh, you know, the publishing houses

20
00:01:28,360 --> 00:01:33,280
Speaker 1: and the other free speech analogs. My guest is constitutional

21
00:01:33,360 --> 00:01:36,640
Speaker 1: law expert Michael Dorff, a professor at Cornell Law School.

22
00:01:37,000 --> 00:01:41,200
Speaker 1: Under Colorado law, a business may not refuse to serve

23
00:01:41,240 --> 00:01:45,280
Speaker 1: individuals because of their sexual orientation. How is freedom of

24
00:01:45,319 --> 00:01:51,680
Speaker 1: speech involved? So, the petitioner argues that her web design

25
00:01:51,880 --> 00:01:57,360
Speaker 1: business is inherently expressive because when clients come to her

26
00:01:57,360 --> 00:02:00,919
Speaker 1: and say they want her to design a wedding website,

27
00:02:01,160 --> 00:02:05,400
Speaker 1: she puts various creative efforts into it to fashion a

28
00:02:05,840 --> 00:02:11,040
Speaker 1: bespoke website, and in so doing she is creating speech

29
00:02:11,400 --> 00:02:14,840
Speaker 1: thus speaking, and if the government tells her she must

30
00:02:14,880 --> 00:02:19,160
Speaker 1: create same sex wedding websites, it is forcing her to

31
00:02:19,360 --> 00:02:23,560
Speaker 1: espouse a message the tacit approval of same sex marriage

32
00:02:23,880 --> 00:02:27,040
Speaker 1: that is inconsistent with her beliefs tell us now. The

33
00:02:27,280 --> 00:02:32,920
Speaker 1: justices responded to this claim. Some of them were skeptical

34
00:02:33,280 --> 00:02:36,639
Speaker 1: of whether there really was any expression at all here.

35
00:02:36,680 --> 00:02:40,600
Speaker 1: I think Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the most skeptical. She

36
00:02:40,680 --> 00:02:44,640
Speaker 1: wanted to know how this is speech by Laurie Smith,

37
00:02:44,800 --> 00:02:48,639
Speaker 1: the owner of the web design company, given that it's

38
00:02:48,760 --> 00:02:52,000
Speaker 1: essentially for the couple. Right, part of the point is

39
00:02:52,040 --> 00:02:54,960
Speaker 1: that it's not speech endorsing same sex marriage at all.

40
00:02:55,040 --> 00:02:57,919
Speaker 1: It's simply saying things like, here's the date of the wedding,

41
00:02:58,080 --> 00:03:01,480
Speaker 1: here's the venue. Here direct and here's a registry, here's

42
00:03:01,520 --> 00:03:04,440
Speaker 1: how we met, etcetera. So there's skepticism that it's the

43
00:03:04,600 --> 00:03:08,680
Speaker 1: web designers speech at all, and then there's a question

44
00:03:08,720 --> 00:03:12,480
Speaker 1: of whether it's speech that endorses this particular message. So

45
00:03:12,520 --> 00:03:15,079
Speaker 1: that's at one end. At the other end of the spectrum,

46
00:03:15,120 --> 00:03:17,880
Speaker 1: you had Justice Alito and some of the other justices

47
00:03:18,240 --> 00:03:22,000
Speaker 1: who seem to just accept that, of course this is expressive,

48
00:03:22,040 --> 00:03:25,560
Speaker 1: and they gave some hypothetical examples where you pretty clearly

49
00:03:25,639 --> 00:03:29,160
Speaker 1: would have expression. For example, you know, if you had

50
00:03:29,200 --> 00:03:31,960
Speaker 1: to put on the website, I the web designer, believe

51
00:03:32,080 --> 00:03:35,000
Speaker 1: that God blesses this marriage, or even just God blesses

52
00:03:35,000 --> 00:03:37,320
Speaker 1: this marriage. I think some of the justice has had

53
00:03:37,560 --> 00:03:41,040
Speaker 1: the view that there certainly is expression here and it

54
00:03:41,120 --> 00:03:44,680
Speaker 1: could be understood as expression endorsing same sex marriage. And

55
00:03:44,680 --> 00:03:48,160
Speaker 1: then the question is does the state get to override

56
00:03:48,200 --> 00:03:52,320
Speaker 1: that because they have a public accommodations law And what

57
00:03:52,400 --> 00:03:57,080
Speaker 1: about the argument they're making about expressive works. Oh, this

58
00:03:57,240 --> 00:04:00,440
Speaker 1: is hardly new. So a very similar case was before

59
00:04:00,440 --> 00:04:05,120
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court in seventeen, also from Colorado. That case

60
00:04:05,240 --> 00:04:09,280
Speaker 1: involved a baker, the so called Masterpiece Cake Shop case,

61
00:04:09,440 --> 00:04:14,880
Speaker 1: and there too, the business owner objected to providing services

62
00:04:15,000 --> 00:04:17,080
Speaker 1: for a same sex wedding on the ground that he

63
00:04:17,120 --> 00:04:20,920
Speaker 1: opposed same sex marriage. In that case, the court had

64
00:04:20,960 --> 00:04:23,560
Speaker 1: before it the same argument that has here, but it

65
00:04:23,640 --> 00:04:27,680
Speaker 1: also had a claim of religious discrimination, and a majority

66
00:04:27,720 --> 00:04:30,760
Speaker 1: of the court decided the case on that ground without

67
00:04:30,839 --> 00:04:34,440
Speaker 1: addressing the free speech issue. But I should say that

68
00:04:34,640 --> 00:04:38,960
Speaker 1: these arguments go back as far as the nineteen sixties

69
00:04:39,360 --> 00:04:43,080
Speaker 1: when Congress enacted the nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Act

70
00:04:43,160 --> 00:04:47,080
Speaker 1: that includes titled two with the Public Accommodations Provision, and

71
00:04:47,240 --> 00:04:50,520
Speaker 1: some business owners during the tail end of the Jim

72
00:04:50,600 --> 00:04:53,880
Speaker 1: Crow era said that it would be inconsistent with either

73
00:04:53,920 --> 00:04:58,720
Speaker 1: their religious or speech views to serve African American customers

74
00:04:58,720 --> 00:05:02,279
Speaker 1: either at all or in an integraded setting. And the

75
00:05:02,480 --> 00:05:08,200
Speaker 1: claims then were pretty quickly rejected by the courts. The

76
00:05:08,360 --> 00:05:12,720
Speaker 1: justices are considering only her free speech arguments, not her

77
00:05:12,760 --> 00:05:18,000
Speaker 1: religious rights arguments. Did the justices jettison the religious rights

78
00:05:18,040 --> 00:05:20,479
Speaker 1: part of the case so they'll be able to say,

79
00:05:20,600 --> 00:05:25,080
Speaker 1: the conservative justices, well, this is free speech, not free exercise.

80
00:05:25,240 --> 00:05:29,200
Speaker 1: Of religion against same sex marriage. Well, I'm not sure

81
00:05:29,240 --> 00:05:32,440
Speaker 1: why they decided not to take the religion question, but

82
00:05:32,520 --> 00:05:35,560
Speaker 1: it was apparent throughout the argument that even though as

83
00:05:35,600 --> 00:05:38,400
Speaker 1: a technical matter they're not going to decide and can't

84
00:05:38,400 --> 00:05:43,039
Speaker 1: decide the case on religious freedom grounds, this is understood

85
00:05:43,080 --> 00:05:47,919
Speaker 1: to be religiously motivated speech. And of course everybody understands

86
00:05:48,160 --> 00:05:53,680
Speaker 1: that part of what sets this up in a conservative

87
00:05:53,839 --> 00:05:58,920
Speaker 1: liberal ideological space, so that the conservatives come in sympathetic

88
00:05:59,000 --> 00:06:02,000
Speaker 1: to the claimant and liberals come in sympathetic to the state.

89
00:06:02,720 --> 00:06:07,080
Speaker 1: That might not necessarily be the political valence if we

90
00:06:07,200 --> 00:06:10,599
Speaker 1: imagined a very different law, and they're very different circumstances

91
00:06:10,640 --> 00:06:14,400
Speaker 1: with different speakers. But the religious dimension of it, I

92
00:06:14,440 --> 00:06:18,479
Speaker 1: think is below the surface, if not expressly part of

93
00:06:18,520 --> 00:06:23,080
Speaker 1: the case. There is a lot of discussion about race

94
00:06:23,160 --> 00:06:29,440
Speaker 1: discrimination here. The liberal justices express concern that this argument

95
00:06:29,440 --> 00:06:31,960
Speaker 1: would open the door to discrimination on the basis of

96
00:06:32,080 --> 00:06:35,520
Speaker 1: race or disability. Justice Soda Mayor said, how about people

97
00:06:35,560 --> 00:06:38,800
Speaker 1: who don't believe in interracial marriage, or about people who

98
00:06:38,800 --> 00:06:41,920
Speaker 1: don't believe that disabled people should get married? Where is

99
00:06:41,960 --> 00:06:45,599
Speaker 1: the line? That is a question? Where is the line here? Yeah,

100
00:06:45,640 --> 00:06:49,360
Speaker 1: so that's right there were a whole series of hypothetical examples.

101
00:06:49,440 --> 00:06:53,800
Speaker 1: One that Justice Jackson gave, which I think was intriguing,

102
00:06:53,880 --> 00:06:57,799
Speaker 1: was she imagined a Santa Clause in a mall who

103
00:06:57,920 --> 00:07:02,680
Speaker 1: takes photos with and the Santa Claus takes photographs with

104
00:07:02,760 --> 00:07:05,320
Speaker 1: children of all races, but says that there's a certain

105
00:07:05,440 --> 00:07:08,600
Speaker 1: kind of photograph sort of it's a wonderful life kind

106
00:07:08,600 --> 00:07:11,440
Speaker 1: of photograph that he only takes with white children because

107
00:07:11,440 --> 00:07:13,640
Speaker 1: it's got a sort of nostalgic element and that's part

108
00:07:13,640 --> 00:07:16,200
Speaker 1: of his artistic expression. So it's not that he doesn't

109
00:07:16,200 --> 00:07:18,600
Speaker 1: serve African American children, but he excludes him from that.

110
00:07:19,080 --> 00:07:23,960
Speaker 1: And presumably a Colorado style public accommodations law would say, well,

111
00:07:24,000 --> 00:07:26,760
Speaker 1: you can't do that. And the argument of the petitioner

112
00:07:26,840 --> 00:07:29,960
Speaker 1: here would say, well, that Santa Claus gets to exclude

113
00:07:30,000 --> 00:07:33,080
Speaker 1: the African American children from that kind of photograph, which

114
00:07:33,120 --> 00:07:37,840
Speaker 1: seems problematic. Justice Alito countered with his own Santa Claus example.

115
00:07:37,920 --> 00:07:40,520
Speaker 1: So he imagined an African American Santa Claus at the

116
00:07:40,520 --> 00:07:43,559
Speaker 1: other end of the mall and a child who wants

117
00:07:43,600 --> 00:07:47,320
Speaker 1: to be photographed in a ku Klux Klan outfit. And

118
00:07:47,640 --> 00:07:51,040
Speaker 1: the point of his example, I think was to generate

119
00:07:51,120 --> 00:07:54,360
Speaker 1: the intuition that the African American Santa Claus shouldn't have

120
00:07:54,400 --> 00:07:57,320
Speaker 1: to do that. And I thought there was a good

121
00:07:57,360 --> 00:08:00,280
Speaker 1: response to that that got kind of washed over pretty ically,

122
00:08:00,640 --> 00:08:04,119
Speaker 1: which was that there is no public accommodations law saying

123
00:08:04,160 --> 00:08:07,240
Speaker 1: you have to serve people even if they're in clan outfits,

124
00:08:07,520 --> 00:08:09,960
Speaker 1: at least not in Colorado, not at the federal level. Now,

125
00:08:09,960 --> 00:08:13,520
Speaker 1: it's true that there are some state laws that say

126
00:08:13,600 --> 00:08:16,520
Speaker 1: you can't discriminate in your business on the basis of

127
00:08:16,560 --> 00:08:20,440
Speaker 1: the politics or ideology of your customers. And so maybe

128
00:08:20,880 --> 00:08:24,440
Speaker 1: in one of those states that law would mean that

129
00:08:24,560 --> 00:08:27,360
Speaker 1: the African American Santa Claus would have to take the

130
00:08:27,400 --> 00:08:30,680
Speaker 1: photo with the child in the clan outfit. But you

131
00:08:30,760 --> 00:08:33,160
Speaker 1: might say, and I would be inclined to say, that

132
00:08:33,240 --> 00:08:37,920
Speaker 1: the state doesn't have the same compelling interest in forbidding

133
00:08:37,960 --> 00:08:41,520
Speaker 1: discrimination on the basis of political viewpoints that it does

134
00:08:41,920 --> 00:08:45,440
Speaker 1: in preventing the discrimination on the basis of an identity

135
00:08:45,520 --> 00:08:51,600
Speaker 1: characteristic such as ray sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

136
00:08:51,640 --> 00:08:55,320
Speaker 1: After all, you can always go into the store and

137
00:08:55,400 --> 00:08:57,920
Speaker 1: you know, take off your Maga hat or your A

138
00:08:58,000 --> 00:09:02,160
Speaker 1: C l U pin if you're worried it about viewpoint discrimination.

139
00:09:02,960 --> 00:09:05,559
Speaker 1: You can't you know, change who you are in these

140
00:09:05,600 --> 00:09:07,800
Speaker 1: other settings, nor should you have to even if you can,

141
00:09:07,920 --> 00:09:12,120
Speaker 1: you know, be closeted for purposes of getting service. Yeah,

142
00:09:12,160 --> 00:09:17,360
Speaker 1: I mean there were so many hypotheticals and some for example,

143
00:09:17,600 --> 00:09:22,760
Speaker 1: what happens if an architect whose work is expressive refuses

144
00:09:22,800 --> 00:09:26,640
Speaker 1: to work for black customers? I mean, none of those

145
00:09:26,640 --> 00:09:29,439
Speaker 1: were answered sufficiently. I think that's right. So I think

146
00:09:29,440 --> 00:09:33,240
Speaker 1: it's very tempting to want to go where David Cole,

147
00:09:33,360 --> 00:09:35,480
Speaker 1: the National legal director of the a c L. You

148
00:09:35,520 --> 00:09:37,400
Speaker 1: went in a brief at the a c L you

149
00:09:37,520 --> 00:09:39,360
Speaker 1: filed and in a New York Times op ed that

150
00:09:39,440 --> 00:09:41,880
Speaker 1: he published under his own name, which is to say

151
00:09:41,920 --> 00:09:44,880
Speaker 1: that none of these claims really should get off the ground.

152
00:09:45,280 --> 00:09:47,400
Speaker 1: Of course, you have a right to free speech, but

153
00:09:47,920 --> 00:09:50,760
Speaker 1: when you go out into the marketplace and offer your services,

154
00:09:50,840 --> 00:09:53,559
Speaker 1: you're going to have to take some lumps, because otherwise

155
00:09:53,760 --> 00:09:56,800
Speaker 1: everybody in virtually any trade or craft is going to

156
00:09:56,840 --> 00:09:59,520
Speaker 1: say that there's some expressive element. Right. Think about a

157
00:09:59,559 --> 00:10:03,480
Speaker 1: bart Sure bartender just provides drinks, but we know that

158
00:10:03,600 --> 00:10:06,640
Speaker 1: part of being a bartender is talking to the patrons

159
00:10:06,640 --> 00:10:08,840
Speaker 1: at the bar and you might not want to engage

160
00:10:08,840 --> 00:10:11,440
Speaker 1: in certain conversations with certain people because you'll have to

161
00:10:11,480 --> 00:10:14,560
Speaker 1: express views that are polite and therefore could be taken

162
00:10:14,600 --> 00:10:17,520
Speaker 1: as endorsing their lifestyle or whatever it is. So if

163
00:10:17,559 --> 00:10:21,000
Speaker 1: the Court goes down this road and wants to say, well,

164
00:10:21,320 --> 00:10:25,640
Speaker 1: there's some occupations, some services, some goods that are more

165
00:10:25,679 --> 00:10:28,400
Speaker 1: inherently expressive than others, it's going to have a lot

166
00:10:28,440 --> 00:10:31,480
Speaker 1: of cases for a long time trying to draw those lines.

167
00:10:31,720 --> 00:10:34,679
Speaker 1: Why do you think that Justices took this case over

168
00:10:34,720 --> 00:10:37,520
Speaker 1: the rights of same sex couples at a time when

169
00:10:37,559 --> 00:10:40,600
Speaker 1: there's so much concern that the Court will reverse the

170
00:10:40,679 --> 00:10:43,720
Speaker 1: right to same sex marriage, just as it reversed the

171
00:10:43,800 --> 00:10:46,120
Speaker 1: right to abortion. I mean, that's the reason for the

172
00:10:46,160 --> 00:10:49,880
Speaker 1: same sex marriage bill. I think they took it for

173
00:10:50,600 --> 00:10:53,520
Speaker 1: at least two sorts of reasons. One is that the

174
00:10:53,600 --> 00:10:57,480
Speaker 1: timing is somewhat accidental. This was an issue that they

175
00:10:57,600 --> 00:11:01,680
Speaker 1: did want to address in twenties mainteen. They punted then,

176
00:11:01,840 --> 00:11:04,240
Speaker 1: and it's sort of been around since then. And that

177
00:11:04,280 --> 00:11:08,080
Speaker 1: was from before the Court's decision overruling rob Wade and

178
00:11:08,360 --> 00:11:11,280
Speaker 1: thus raising the possibility of the overruling of other cases,

179
00:11:11,360 --> 00:11:15,000
Speaker 1: including a Burger Fell against HADJ is the case recognizing

180
00:11:15,000 --> 00:11:17,680
Speaker 1: a right to same sex marriage. The second reason, though,

181
00:11:17,720 --> 00:11:21,520
Speaker 1: I think, is that especially the conservative justices on this

182
00:11:21,640 --> 00:11:28,480
Speaker 1: court want to limit the scope of lgbt Q plus equality,

183
00:11:28,559 --> 00:11:32,920
Speaker 1: at least insofar as they see it infringing on conservative

184
00:11:33,120 --> 00:11:39,680
Speaker 1: religious lifestyles. There's a line in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion

185
00:11:40,160 --> 00:11:42,959
Speaker 1: in the Burger Filt case in which he says that

186
00:11:43,080 --> 00:11:47,280
Speaker 1: many people oppose same sex marriage based on honorable and

187
00:11:47,400 --> 00:11:52,280
Speaker 1: decent religious or philosophical principles. Now, when Justice Kennedy wrote that,

188
00:11:52,480 --> 00:11:55,400
Speaker 1: just the leado in dissent mocked it is saying, well, sure,

189
00:11:55,679 --> 00:11:57,880
Speaker 1: you're saying that they're entitled to have these principles, are

190
00:11:57,920 --> 00:12:00,400
Speaker 1: just not entitled to act on them. But since then

191
00:12:00,559 --> 00:12:03,440
Speaker 1: he and some of the other conservative justices have sort

192
00:12:03,440 --> 00:12:05,600
Speaker 1: of taken that up as a banner to say, well,

193
00:12:05,760 --> 00:12:08,080
Speaker 1: if it's decent and honorable, then people should be able

194
00:12:08,120 --> 00:12:11,480
Speaker 1: to opt out. That wanting to oppose same sex marriage

195
00:12:11,480 --> 00:12:14,520
Speaker 1: is not the same thing. It's not morally equivalent to

196
00:12:14,640 --> 00:12:17,600
Speaker 1: race discrimination, and so they want to sort of carve

197
00:12:17,640 --> 00:12:21,520
Speaker 1: a hole in anti discrimination law. Indeed, you might even

198
00:12:21,600 --> 00:12:24,320
Speaker 1: look at just as Gorsuch, who after all wrote the

199
00:12:24,360 --> 00:12:29,400
Speaker 1: court's opinion in the case, finding that discrimination on the

200
00:12:29,440 --> 00:12:33,840
Speaker 1: basis of sexual orientation and gender identity are forbidden by

201
00:12:33,960 --> 00:12:37,880
Speaker 1: the Federal employment anti discrimination law. That having sort of

202
00:12:38,160 --> 00:12:42,640
Speaker 1: established his bona fides as not a homophob or transphobe

203
00:12:42,640 --> 00:12:45,680
Speaker 1: in those cases, he now wants to say, but don't worry,

204
00:12:45,679 --> 00:12:47,520
Speaker 1: I'm going to give something to the other side by

205
00:12:47,600 --> 00:12:53,160
Speaker 1: giving this carve out or religiously motivated expression or opposition

206
00:12:54,440 --> 00:12:57,720
Speaker 1: your said ruling for the web designer here would be

207
00:12:57,760 --> 00:13:00,800
Speaker 1: the first time in Supreme Court history to allow a

208
00:13:00,880 --> 00:13:03,840
Speaker 1: business open to the general public to refuse to serve

209
00:13:03,880 --> 00:13:08,200
Speaker 1: a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.

210
00:13:08,800 --> 00:13:12,360
Speaker 1: So how do the conservatives make a carve out that

211
00:13:12,760 --> 00:13:17,160
Speaker 1: doesn't characterize this as inviting business to be exempt from

212
00:13:17,160 --> 00:13:21,080
Speaker 1: civil rights laws? Well, so, I mean, she's right, but

213
00:13:21,160 --> 00:13:24,560
Speaker 1: only because we defined you know, that narrowly. After all,

214
00:13:24,600 --> 00:13:27,280
Speaker 1: in the hobby lobby case, and I believe it was

215
00:13:28,360 --> 00:13:32,400
Speaker 1: the Court gave a carve out from statute and regulations

216
00:13:32,400 --> 00:13:37,280
Speaker 1: requiring the provision of health insurance that covers contraception to

217
00:13:37,640 --> 00:13:41,040
Speaker 1: religiously motivated business owners, and that was in the context

218
00:13:41,080 --> 00:13:45,080
Speaker 1: of employment rather than public accommodations, but it's also a

219
00:13:45,120 --> 00:13:48,640
Speaker 1: carve out from antidiscrimination law, also based in sort of

220
00:13:48,679 --> 00:13:52,200
Speaker 1: conservative religious principles. Part of the reason the Court would

221
00:13:52,200 --> 00:13:53,760
Speaker 1: be doing this for the first time, I think, is

222
00:13:53,800 --> 00:13:56,600
Speaker 1: because it's the first time they're addressing it in this

223
00:13:56,720 --> 00:13:59,760
Speaker 1: specific context. Although I do think Justice of my Aora

224
00:13:59,840 --> 00:14:03,000
Speaker 1: is right herketing back to those cases from the nineties

225
00:14:03,440 --> 00:14:07,960
Speaker 1: and seventies in which they dismiss the proposed exceptions with

226
00:14:08,040 --> 00:14:10,520
Speaker 1: respect to race. But I think the answer to the

227
00:14:10,600 --> 00:14:13,960
Speaker 1: question of how does the Court prevent people from perceiving

228
00:14:14,120 --> 00:14:18,680
Speaker 1: this as them, you know, taking sides, you know, against

229
00:14:18,840 --> 00:14:21,960
Speaker 1: anti discrimination law, is that they can't. They can't control

230
00:14:22,240 --> 00:14:26,200
Speaker 1: how their decisions are perceived. I actually would share that perception.

231
00:14:26,280 --> 00:14:29,040
Speaker 1: I'm you know, I'm sympathetic to the position articulated by

232
00:14:29,040 --> 00:14:31,720
Speaker 1: Justice so to Mayor, but I think this Court has

233
00:14:31,760 --> 00:14:37,240
Speaker 1: shown that they're not all that attuned to or concerned

234
00:14:37,280 --> 00:14:41,320
Speaker 1: about how the public perceives them. Chief Justice Roberts seemed

235
00:14:41,400 --> 00:14:43,960
Speaker 1: more concerned about that early in his career, and maybe

236
00:14:44,040 --> 00:14:47,000
Speaker 1: still is, but he's lost control of this court. I

237
00:14:47,040 --> 00:14:49,880
Speaker 1: know you can't get everything from these oral arguments, but

238
00:14:50,160 --> 00:14:52,880
Speaker 1: what do you see as the result here, I think

239
00:14:52,880 --> 00:14:56,160
Speaker 1: it's likely that three to three creative and MS Smith,

240
00:14:56,360 --> 00:14:59,400
Speaker 1: the owner of the web design company, will win. I

241
00:14:59,440 --> 00:15:02,520
Speaker 1: think that at chief Justice Roberts will either write the

242
00:15:02,560 --> 00:15:04,800
Speaker 1: opinion himself or try to assign it to one of

243
00:15:04,880 --> 00:15:08,640
Speaker 1: his colleagues, likely Justice Barrett or Justice Kavanaugh, who he

244
00:15:08,720 --> 00:15:13,400
Speaker 1: thinks will write a somewhat narrow opinion that doesn't open

245
00:15:13,480 --> 00:15:16,520
Speaker 1: the door to the complete gutting of anti discrimination law,

246
00:15:16,560 --> 00:15:21,120
Speaker 1: at least not initially. But exactly what distinctions they draw

247
00:15:21,600 --> 00:15:24,160
Speaker 1: is hard to predict at this point. You know, depending

248
00:15:24,160 --> 00:15:27,280
Speaker 1: on how they write it. This becomes a question that's

249
00:15:27,280 --> 00:15:30,320
Speaker 1: going to be litigated over and over, isn't it. It's

250
00:15:30,360 --> 00:15:33,120
Speaker 1: it's opening the door. Yes, sure, for the most part,

251
00:15:33,160 --> 00:15:36,000
Speaker 1: claims like this have lost in the lower courts. But

252
00:15:36,480 --> 00:15:40,560
Speaker 1: if the web designer wins in the Supreme Court, even

253
00:15:40,600 --> 00:15:43,800
Speaker 1: in a relatively narrow way, there will then be a

254
00:15:44,440 --> 00:15:48,600
Speaker 1: large number of cases of this sort, posing all sorts

255
00:15:48,600 --> 00:15:51,160
Speaker 1: of difficult questions. Right, one will be about you know,

256
00:15:51,520 --> 00:15:55,600
Speaker 1: our florist like web designers if they're not, what about

257
00:15:55,800 --> 00:15:59,720
Speaker 1: Baker's What about you know, the difference between a bespoke

258
00:16:00,120 --> 00:16:02,960
Speaker 1: website and one off the rack? Right? So there are

259
00:16:03,320 --> 00:16:06,360
Speaker 1: very many questions that will be left open, and as

260
00:16:06,480 --> 00:16:10,320
Speaker 1: alexis to Toakville pointed out in the early nineteenth century

261
00:16:10,320 --> 00:16:13,320
Speaker 1: when he visited America. In America, the open questions become

262
00:16:13,400 --> 00:16:16,520
Speaker 1: legal questions and they're all going to be litigated. So then,

263
00:16:16,760 --> 00:16:20,520
Speaker 1: if this decision comes out as you expected to, what

264
00:16:20,600 --> 00:16:24,320
Speaker 1: does this mean for lgbt Q rights, It's open season

265
00:16:24,440 --> 00:16:27,360
Speaker 1: on lgbt Q rights. I No, I don't think so.

266
00:16:27,480 --> 00:16:29,680
Speaker 1: I think I think it's still going to be true

267
00:16:30,120 --> 00:16:34,920
Speaker 1: that the vast majority of let's say, same sex couples

268
00:16:34,920 --> 00:16:41,000
Speaker 1: looking for wedding services will find them, especially because people

269
00:16:41,120 --> 00:16:45,920
Speaker 1: tend to clump geographically in places that are sympathetic. So

270
00:16:46,040 --> 00:16:48,840
Speaker 1: you know, the people who will be most hurt by

271
00:16:48,880 --> 00:16:53,480
Speaker 1: this are same sex couples and lgbt Q plus individuals

272
00:16:54,160 --> 00:17:00,200
Speaker 1: living outside of major metropolitan areas in places that are

273
00:17:00,320 --> 00:17:04,240
Speaker 1: not sympathetic to their rights, and they will face discrimination there.

274
00:17:04,680 --> 00:17:09,120
Speaker 1: Although the truth is that they might face discrimination they're

275
00:17:09,160 --> 00:17:15,120
Speaker 1: already because the law is hardly perfect at changing people's attitudes.

276
00:17:15,720 --> 00:17:19,639
Speaker 1: This um struck me. The web designer hasn't even tried

277
00:17:20,160 --> 00:17:25,840
Speaker 1: to start wedding website business yet, so why does she

278
00:17:25,960 --> 00:17:28,679
Speaker 1: have standing and it seems like it's one of those

279
00:17:28,720 --> 00:17:32,920
Speaker 1: cases being brought to bring this issue to the court. Yeah,

280
00:17:32,920 --> 00:17:35,399
Speaker 1: that that was a threshold question. It does seem like

281
00:17:35,400 --> 00:17:38,360
Speaker 1: it's sort of made up, both because she hasn't entered

282
00:17:38,359 --> 00:17:41,199
Speaker 1: the business yet. It was done on stipulated facts, just

283
00:17:41,320 --> 00:17:43,960
Speaker 1: as Thomas asked that question at the beginning of the case.

284
00:17:44,080 --> 00:17:46,320
Speaker 1: And there is sort of a technical way around it.

285
00:17:46,720 --> 00:17:48,280
Speaker 1: But it does it does have that kind of air

286
00:17:48,320 --> 00:17:50,680
Speaker 1: of unreality. It seems unreal to me in another way,

287
00:17:50,720 --> 00:17:52,439
Speaker 1: which is, I don't see how she's going to make

288
00:17:52,440 --> 00:17:55,520
Speaker 1: any money on this website anyway. If you just if

289
00:17:55,560 --> 00:17:59,719
Speaker 1: you just go online and google wedding websites, you'll find

290
00:18:00,040 --> 00:18:03,560
Speaker 1: half a dozen services that allow you to create your

291
00:18:03,560 --> 00:18:07,080
Speaker 1: own website in about fifteen minutes for free, and they

292
00:18:07,119 --> 00:18:10,159
Speaker 1: look very professional. Um so, why someone is going to

293
00:18:10,320 --> 00:18:12,760
Speaker 1: go to this person to, you know, to have her

294
00:18:12,960 --> 00:18:15,600
Speaker 1: services for a fee is a mystery to me. Thanks

295
00:18:15,640 --> 00:18:19,280
Speaker 1: so much, Mike. That's Professor Michael Dorff of Cornell Law School.

296
00:18:20,880 --> 00:18:24,000
Speaker 1: The fate of grocery store workers seems to be a

297
00:18:24,000 --> 00:18:27,560
Speaker 1: pivotal factor in the Federal Trade Commission's decision on whether

298
00:18:27,600 --> 00:18:30,720
Speaker 1: to sue to block Kroger's twenty four point six billion

299
00:18:30,800 --> 00:18:35,200
Speaker 1: dollar acquisition of Albertson's. The labor concerns surrounding the merger

300
00:18:35,200 --> 00:18:38,639
Speaker 1: were underscore at a Senate hearing this week, where Kroger's

301
00:18:38,680 --> 00:18:42,800
Speaker 1: CEO made promises not to lay off quote frontline workers,

302
00:18:43,320 --> 00:18:46,560
Speaker 1: joining me as Bloomberg Law reporter Dan Paskin, Dan tell

303
00:18:46,640 --> 00:18:50,520
Speaker 1: us a little about this proposed merger. So Kroger and Albertson's,

304
00:18:50,560 --> 00:18:53,240
Speaker 1: which are two of the largest grocery companies in the US.

305
00:18:53,359 --> 00:18:56,320
Speaker 1: They're the second and fourth largest in the country in

306
00:18:56,400 --> 00:18:59,520
Speaker 1: terms of where Americans buy their groceries. So walmartt is

307
00:18:59,560 --> 00:19:02,280
Speaker 1: also Mozon is competing with them program I was a

308
00:19:02,280 --> 00:19:05,400
Speaker 1: couple of months ago. It's going to buy Albertson's um

309
00:19:05,720 --> 00:19:10,800
Speaker 1: for almost twenty five billion dollars, and regulators and some

310
00:19:10,880 --> 00:19:13,800
Speaker 1: of the public and advocacy groups are concerned that the

311
00:19:13,840 --> 00:19:17,840
Speaker 1: deal could basically concentrate the market for the groceries in

312
00:19:18,080 --> 00:19:20,640
Speaker 1: certain parts of the country where there aren't that many

313
00:19:20,760 --> 00:19:24,520
Speaker 1: stores and where Kroger and Albertson's stores like Safeway and

314
00:19:24,600 --> 00:19:28,399
Speaker 1: Harris Teeter are the only ones in town. Has Albertson's

315
00:19:28,480 --> 00:19:32,760
Speaker 1: promised that stores won't be closed, that they'll be sold.

316
00:19:32,920 --> 00:19:35,640
Speaker 1: Is that part of the deal. Yes, So, as part

317
00:19:35,680 --> 00:19:39,600
Speaker 1: of the proposed deal, Kroger and Albertson's are offering to

318
00:19:39,640 --> 00:19:43,200
Speaker 1: spin off up to about six hundred, six hundred fifty stores,

319
00:19:43,640 --> 00:19:47,200
Speaker 1: probably around three hundred right now, basically to a suage

320
00:19:47,240 --> 00:19:50,240
Speaker 1: concerns that it would concentrate the market, and it's basically

321
00:19:50,240 --> 00:19:53,840
Speaker 1: a move to forestall a Federal Trade Commission challenge to

322
00:19:53,880 --> 00:19:57,760
Speaker 1: the deal. And yes, in a kind of hearing last week,

323
00:19:58,320 --> 00:20:03,240
Speaker 1: the CEO Kroger committed to not close stores, distribution centers,

324
00:20:03,320 --> 00:20:06,840
Speaker 1: or manufacturing facilities as a result of the merger. We've

325
00:20:06,880 --> 00:20:14,200
Speaker 1: seen antitrust regulators focus recently on concerns about labor with

326
00:20:14,760 --> 00:20:17,919
Speaker 1: mergers or acquisition. So tell us what the concern is

327
00:20:17,960 --> 00:20:20,800
Speaker 1: here about labor. Yeah, So the last few years, labor

328
00:20:20,800 --> 00:20:23,800
Speaker 1: has become a much more significant part of murder review

329
00:20:23,960 --> 00:20:26,840
Speaker 1: and anti trust in general. It's not just about product

330
00:20:26,880 --> 00:20:29,320
Speaker 1: markets anymore. It's also about you know, where you and

331
00:20:29,359 --> 00:20:32,800
Speaker 1: I work, and so here there's a concern that if

332
00:20:32,880 --> 00:20:35,639
Speaker 1: you have several stores in a town or a city

333
00:20:36,000 --> 00:20:40,240
Speaker 1: where grocery workers work, and the merger goes through, all

334
00:20:40,280 --> 00:20:42,840
Speaker 1: of the stores could be owned by the new Kroger

335
00:20:42,880 --> 00:20:47,880
Speaker 1: Albertson's company, the merged company, and so workers. Typically when

336
00:20:47,880 --> 00:20:50,720
Speaker 1: when mergers go through, stores are closed, there are layoffs

337
00:20:50,800 --> 00:20:54,879
Speaker 1: because we can save money by laying off like extra workers.

338
00:20:55,000 --> 00:20:59,120
Speaker 1: And so lawmakers and specifically the union that represents over

339
00:20:59,119 --> 00:21:02,840
Speaker 1: a hundred thousand Roger and Albertson's workers, are concerned that

340
00:21:02,880 --> 00:21:05,520
Speaker 1: despite kind of what the CEO said is hearing last week,

341
00:21:06,040 --> 00:21:08,879
Speaker 1: there could still be layoffs. There could still be um

342
00:21:09,160 --> 00:21:14,320
Speaker 1: decreasing circumstances for promotions. Pay could be suppressed because when

343
00:21:14,320 --> 00:21:17,320
Speaker 1: you think about it, um, if I work at at

344
00:21:17,320 --> 00:21:20,480
Speaker 1: a Kroger store, and UM, I want to get a raise,

345
00:21:20,560 --> 00:21:22,040
Speaker 1: maybe the best way for me to get a raised

346
00:21:22,040 --> 00:21:23,720
Speaker 1: isn't keep working at the Kroger store, but it's to

347
00:21:23,760 --> 00:21:26,760
Speaker 1: get hired at an Albigeon store or somewhere else where

348
00:21:26,760 --> 00:21:28,639
Speaker 1: they'll pay me more and go. When you don't have

349
00:21:28,680 --> 00:21:31,280
Speaker 1: that kind of threat of losing your employees to a competitor,

350
00:21:31,800 --> 00:21:35,320
Speaker 1: you're much less incentivized to raise their wages every so

351
00:21:35,440 --> 00:21:39,159
Speaker 1: often give them a raise. At the Senate hearing, the

352
00:21:39,240 --> 00:21:45,560
Speaker 1: Kroger CEO promised to refrain from laying off quote frontline workers.

353
00:21:45,680 --> 00:21:49,920
Speaker 1: So what did he mean by frontline take a good question. Um,

354
00:21:49,960 --> 00:21:52,159
Speaker 1: he was referring to kind of the frontline workers that

355
00:21:52,160 --> 00:21:54,760
Speaker 1: we've talked about all pandemic, and he was pressed on

356
00:21:54,800 --> 00:21:57,640
Speaker 1: it by a couple of different editors to kind of say,

357
00:21:57,880 --> 00:22:00,720
Speaker 1: will you not layoff any workers? And he wouldn't say that,

358
00:22:01,600 --> 00:22:04,600
Speaker 1: which the implication being that kind of more staffing and

359
00:22:04,640 --> 00:22:07,800
Speaker 1: managerial roles could be affected, or people at headquarters. But

360
00:22:07,880 --> 00:22:10,320
Speaker 1: it's hard to say exactly, like we don't know exactly

361
00:22:10,320 --> 00:22:12,080
Speaker 1: what human He didn't offer a kind of a clear

362
00:22:12,280 --> 00:22:17,199
Speaker 1: definition of frontline, so it's it's hard to say. And

363
00:22:17,240 --> 00:22:20,320
Speaker 1: the union, like I said, is concerned that even that

364
00:22:20,640 --> 00:22:25,680
Speaker 1: isn't a guarantee. This focus of the FTC does it

365
00:22:25,760 --> 00:22:31,639
Speaker 1: come from the Biden administration's supportive unions, Yes and no.

366
00:22:32,240 --> 00:22:35,679
Speaker 1: Um in the DJ and the FTC came out with

367
00:22:35,720 --> 00:22:38,040
Speaker 1: new guidance that they would be going after what are

368
00:22:38,080 --> 00:22:41,920
Speaker 1: called noppoach cases and treating them as criminal cases, which

369
00:22:41,960 --> 00:22:45,960
Speaker 1: is basically agreements between employers not to hire each other's workers.

370
00:22:46,000 --> 00:22:48,840
Speaker 1: So there there's evidence that like this overall interest in

371
00:22:48,960 --> 00:22:52,000
Speaker 1: labor goes beyond the Biden administration. That was at the

372
00:22:52,080 --> 00:22:55,640
Speaker 1: end of the Obama administration into the Trump administration when

373
00:22:55,680 --> 00:22:58,840
Speaker 1: that happens. But yes, this kind of specific focus on

374
00:22:58,920 --> 00:23:04,199
Speaker 1: workers is very much under FTC chair Lena Kahn and

375
00:23:04,680 --> 00:23:07,600
Speaker 1: d o J and Star's division as an Attorney General

376
00:23:07,720 --> 00:23:10,520
Speaker 1: Jonathan canter Um, they both said it's a big priority

377
00:23:10,560 --> 00:23:12,560
Speaker 1: for them, and it's very much in line with the

378
00:23:12,640 --> 00:23:16,719
Speaker 1: overall bid administration focus on labor and on competition. So

379
00:23:16,760 --> 00:23:22,560
Speaker 1: the Justice Department was successful recently in blocking Penguin Random

380
00:23:22,600 --> 00:23:26,199
Speaker 1: Houses two point one eight billion dollar acquisition of Simon

381
00:23:26,280 --> 00:23:29,960
Speaker 1: and Schuster, and the focus there was on the authors

382
00:23:30,000 --> 00:23:35,560
Speaker 1: who might lose lucrative contracts and advances because of a deal.

383
00:23:36,080 --> 00:23:39,880
Speaker 1: Is that different from trying to focus on supermarket workers.

384
00:23:40,600 --> 00:23:43,439
Speaker 1: It's actually pretty similar, and that's a really good comparison. So,

385
00:23:43,480 --> 00:23:46,040
Speaker 1: I mean, yes, they are at opposite ends of the

386
00:23:46,080 --> 00:23:48,720
Speaker 1: economic spectrum in terms of income and the kind of

387
00:23:48,800 --> 00:23:53,119
Speaker 1: form of labor, but they're both cases that kind of

388
00:23:53,240 --> 00:23:56,520
Speaker 1: could indicate a focus on labor um. The publisher's case

389
00:23:56,600 --> 00:23:59,240
Speaker 1: is actually the first big murder challenge we've seen, or

390
00:23:59,280 --> 00:24:01,240
Speaker 1: at least the first one in a while that has

391
00:24:01,280 --> 00:24:04,440
Speaker 1: focused primarily on labor. There were other arguments there, but

392
00:24:04,760 --> 00:24:07,080
Speaker 1: d o J really leaned on kind of the effect

393
00:24:07,119 --> 00:24:10,360
Speaker 1: on authors. So yeah, they're they're similar, and there I mean,

394
00:24:10,600 --> 00:24:13,800
Speaker 1: you can't compare them perfectly. That the group of authors

395
00:24:13,800 --> 00:24:16,280
Speaker 1: who make kind of the amount of money and the

396
00:24:16,359 --> 00:24:19,959
Speaker 1: books um that would have been affected by the Penguin

397
00:24:20,040 --> 00:24:23,920
Speaker 1: Random House deal are nowhere in the economic bracket of

398
00:24:24,000 --> 00:24:27,119
Speaker 1: grocery store workers. And grocery store workers can work in

399
00:24:27,200 --> 00:24:30,720
Speaker 1: other places. They're not limited to just banking groceries at Kroger,

400
00:24:30,840 --> 00:24:33,679
Speaker 1: for example. But now there are absolutely comparison and the

401
00:24:33,720 --> 00:24:38,479
Speaker 1: overall focus is similar. Could the FTC decide to go

402
00:24:38,640 --> 00:24:43,720
Speaker 1: after this merger just based on its effect on labor markets?

403
00:24:44,520 --> 00:24:48,399
Speaker 1: That's pretty unlikely, um, And it's we probably won't see

404
00:24:48,480 --> 00:24:52,320
Speaker 1: a challenge really with any specific allegations about labor markets.

405
00:24:52,520 --> 00:24:54,720
Speaker 1: We won't see a kind of a Sherman Act or

406
00:24:54,840 --> 00:24:59,719
Speaker 1: Clayton Act charge saying this would concentrate the labor market

407
00:24:59,800 --> 00:25:04,000
Speaker 1: and in Los Angeles or in Washington. Um. What it

408
00:25:04,040 --> 00:25:07,400
Speaker 1: will do is uh. The sources told me it's likely

409
00:25:07,440 --> 00:25:10,040
Speaker 1: to kind of influence how the FTC analyzes the deal

410
00:25:10,240 --> 00:25:13,879
Speaker 1: right now before it actually files the challenge and during

411
00:25:13,960 --> 00:25:16,959
Speaker 1: these because of the merger of view process before an

412
00:25:17,000 --> 00:25:20,040
Speaker 1: agency decides to sue or not um their meeting with

413
00:25:20,080 --> 00:25:25,280
Speaker 1: the lawyers or um both companies, and it's likely influencing

414
00:25:25,320 --> 00:25:29,000
Speaker 1: the FTC to kind of not take company promises that

415
00:25:29,119 --> 00:25:32,800
Speaker 1: like they won't close stores for granted and often kind

416
00:25:32,840 --> 00:25:34,960
Speaker 1: of those are the sorts of things companies will point

417
00:25:34,960 --> 00:25:37,040
Speaker 1: out as reasons to let the deal go through, like

418
00:25:37,080 --> 00:25:39,199
Speaker 1: these are kind of shavings that are good for the

419
00:25:39,200 --> 00:25:42,760
Speaker 1: economy and that we can um, we translate the savings

420
00:25:42,960 --> 00:25:46,000
Speaker 1: to customers right that you won't pay as much at

421
00:25:46,040 --> 00:25:49,520
Speaker 1: the cash register. And it basically means, uh, the SEC's

422
00:25:49,520 --> 00:25:52,120
Speaker 1: focused on whatever. Basically means the companies probably can't make

423
00:25:52,160 --> 00:25:54,840
Speaker 1: those commitments to the FTC because the FTC won't see

424
00:25:54,840 --> 00:25:57,359
Speaker 1: them as a good thing. So they're kind of forcedalled

425
00:25:57,359 --> 00:26:00,879
Speaker 1: in those defenses what we call in efficiencies defense. It

426
00:26:01,000 --> 00:26:03,280
Speaker 1: definitely means the FEC is scrutinizing as harder than it

427
00:26:03,320 --> 00:26:09,119
Speaker 1: would be other ones. How does Albertson's acquisition in safe

428
00:26:09,160 --> 00:26:13,359
Speaker 1: Way affect the thinking here or you know, the thinking

429
00:26:13,440 --> 00:26:18,840
Speaker 1: of those who are opposing this. Yeah, so in Albertson's

430
00:26:18,840 --> 00:26:23,120
Speaker 1: purchased safe Way, which is a pretty significant, pretty large brand,

431
00:26:23,720 --> 00:26:25,800
Speaker 1: and as part of the deal, the FTC let it

432
00:26:25,840 --> 00:26:29,240
Speaker 1: go through and required that alberton has been off. I

433
00:26:29,280 --> 00:26:32,040
Speaker 1: believe it was a hundred and sixty nine hundred sixty

434
00:26:32,119 --> 00:26:36,400
Speaker 1: eight stores. Most of those went to a regional grocery

435
00:26:36,480 --> 00:26:38,640
Speaker 1: chain called Higgins, which I believe is in the Pacific

436
00:26:38,640 --> 00:26:42,560
Speaker 1: Northwest and UM within a year, Higgins declared bankruptcy and

437
00:26:42,680 --> 00:26:46,399
Speaker 1: sold thirty three of the stores back to Albertson's at

438
00:26:46,400 --> 00:26:49,000
Speaker 1: a massive discount. So Alberton's actually made money on the

439
00:26:49,040 --> 00:26:51,960
Speaker 1: stores that that has then bought back. They purchased them

440
00:26:51,960 --> 00:26:54,760
Speaker 1: for so little. One of my sources called it like

441
00:26:55,040 --> 00:26:59,359
Speaker 1: a poster child for bad murder of you because the FTC,

442
00:26:59,440 --> 00:27:02,520
Speaker 1: according to is advocate and now chair Lena Coln, made

443
00:27:02,560 --> 00:27:05,200
Speaker 1: a mistake in letting Mattieod go through at least with

444
00:27:05,480 --> 00:27:09,040
Speaker 1: the divester that it required, because Higgins can handle the

445
00:27:09,080 --> 00:27:11,840
Speaker 1: additional stores, and albertson has benefited. At the end of

446
00:27:11,880 --> 00:27:15,959
Speaker 1: the day, UM and we talked to several union members

447
00:27:16,280 --> 00:27:18,480
Speaker 1: who had friends who are laid off for co workers,

448
00:27:18,640 --> 00:27:21,920
Speaker 1: and there was a union press conference where members talked

449
00:27:21,920 --> 00:27:25,359
Speaker 1: about like going through layoffs as a result of as well.

450
00:27:25,440 --> 00:27:28,240
Speaker 1: So the ACTUALC is definitely aware of what went wrong.

451
00:27:28,359 --> 00:27:32,720
Speaker 1: Seven years ago Um, and that's going to make both

452
00:27:32,800 --> 00:27:37,680
Speaker 1: them and Oversight way more interested in longer push back. Here.

453
00:27:38,160 --> 00:27:42,280
Speaker 1: Thanks Dan. That's Bloomberg Law reporter Dan Paskin, and that's

454
00:27:42,359 --> 00:27:44,960
Speaker 1: it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

455
00:27:45,000 --> 00:27:47,080
Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news on our

456
00:27:47,080 --> 00:27:51,199
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

457
00:27:51,440 --> 00:27:56,400
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast slash Law,

458
00:27:56,880 --> 00:27:59,720
Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every week.

459
00:28:00,000 --> 00:28:03,480
Speaker 1: I'd attend B M. Wall Street Time. I'm June Grossow,

460
00:28:03,600 --> 00:28:05,119
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg