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

2
00:00:09,760 --> 00:00:12,559
Speaker 1: Last term, it was a high school football coach who

3
00:00:12,600 --> 00:00:16,200
Speaker 1: wanted to pray on the fifty yard line right after games.

4
00:00:16,640 --> 00:00:19,280
Speaker 1: This term, it was a part time postal worker in

5
00:00:19,360 --> 00:00:23,520
Speaker 1: rural Pennsylvania who didn't want to work on Sundays. I

6
00:00:23,560 --> 00:00:24,960
Speaker 1: told them I'm not going to be able to work

7
00:00:25,000 --> 00:00:26,160
Speaker 1: on the Lord's Day at all.

8
00:00:27,920 --> 00:00:29,480
Speaker 2: I didn't really think I should have to quit.

9
00:00:29,520 --> 00:00:32,040
Speaker 1: I really expected the post office to find a way

10
00:00:32,080 --> 00:00:35,320
Speaker 1: to accommodate me. And the Supreme Court agreed with Gerald

11
00:00:35,320 --> 00:00:39,760
Speaker 1: Groff in a unanimous decision expanding an employer's obligation to

12
00:00:39,800 --> 00:00:44,680
Speaker 1: accommodate the religious practices of its employees without clear guidelines,

13
00:00:45,200 --> 00:00:49,320
Speaker 1: under what circumstances can an employer force coworkers to carry

14
00:00:49,320 --> 00:00:53,559
Speaker 1: the burden of an employee's religious practices or beliefs, or

15
00:00:53,600 --> 00:00:57,040
Speaker 1: even their religious expression. Joining me is Debbie Kamener, a

16
00:00:57,080 --> 00:01:00,279
Speaker 1: professor at Peru College at the City University of New York,

17
00:01:00,840 --> 00:01:03,560
Speaker 1: tell us a little about this case of the fill

18
00:01:03,600 --> 00:01:07,040
Speaker 1: in postal worker who refused to fill in on Sundays.

19
00:01:07,800 --> 00:01:13,520
Speaker 2: So basically what happened is that there was a postal

20
00:01:13,600 --> 00:01:19,920
Speaker 2: worker in rural Pennsylvania, and he was a sabbatarian, and

21
00:01:20,360 --> 00:01:23,400
Speaker 2: he eventually ended up quitting his job and sued his

22
00:01:23,480 --> 00:01:26,880
Speaker 2: employer because he had been subject to progressive discipline for

23
00:01:26,920 --> 00:01:30,039
Speaker 2: refusing to work on his Sunday shifts. And the postal

24
00:01:30,080 --> 00:01:34,160
Speaker 2: Service simply was unable to find coverage in the small

25
00:01:34,240 --> 00:01:35,680
Speaker 2: rural postal office.

26
00:01:35,880 --> 00:01:38,679
Speaker 1: And what did the Supreme Court find the broad ruling.

27
00:01:39,160 --> 00:01:42,160
Speaker 2: The big issue in this case is that there is

28
00:01:42,200 --> 00:01:45,360
Speaker 2: a law, a civil rights law, Title seven of the

29
00:01:45,400 --> 00:01:49,000
Speaker 2: Civil Rights Actor of nineteen sixty four, and it mandates

30
00:01:49,080 --> 00:01:52,880
Speaker 2: religious accommodation in the workplace unless it would cause an

31
00:01:53,000 --> 00:01:56,880
Speaker 2: undue hardship. The big issue in this case is what

32
00:01:56,920 --> 00:02:00,800
Speaker 2: does undue hardship mean? Now? The Supreme Court had previously

33
00:02:00,880 --> 00:02:04,000
Speaker 2: said in an earlier case from about forty seven years

34
00:02:04,040 --> 00:02:08,080
Speaker 2: ago that undue hardship means more than a diminimus or

35
00:02:08,120 --> 00:02:12,160
Speaker 2: minimal cost. In this case, the Court changed its ruining

36
00:02:12,760 --> 00:02:17,359
Speaker 2: and said that undue hardship in fact means a substantial cost.

37
00:02:17,440 --> 00:02:21,040
Speaker 2: So what this means is that now additional accommodation is

38
00:02:21,120 --> 00:02:24,400
Speaker 2: going to be needed of religious employees in the workplace.

39
00:02:24,720 --> 00:02:29,320
Speaker 2: In terms of graph himself, the case was sent back

40
00:02:29,400 --> 00:02:32,320
Speaker 2: down to the lower court to decide whether or not

41
00:02:32,480 --> 00:02:37,240
Speaker 2: accommodation is possible under this new substantial cost standard. So

42
00:02:37,400 --> 00:02:40,320
Speaker 2: in terms of Grass, we still don't know whether or

43
00:02:40,400 --> 00:02:44,960
Speaker 2: not accommodation of him as required. In terms of employees

44
00:02:45,000 --> 00:02:48,080
Speaker 2: throughout the United States, this is really a pretty drastic

45
00:02:48,280 --> 00:02:50,000
Speaker 2: change in the rules of the workplace.

46
00:02:50,520 --> 00:02:53,720
Speaker 1: It sounded in this case like the post Office did

47
00:02:53,800 --> 00:02:57,359
Speaker 1: meet the standard of substantial costs. I mean, this was

48
00:02:57,400 --> 00:03:00,639
Speaker 1: a rural post office and officials initial tried to get

49
00:03:00,680 --> 00:03:04,760
Speaker 1: substitutes for grath shifts. They couldn't always accommodate him, and

50
00:03:04,840 --> 00:03:09,200
Speaker 1: they said his absences created a tense environment and contributed

51
00:03:09,240 --> 00:03:13,720
Speaker 1: to morale problems. I believe some employees even transferred out right.

52
00:03:14,040 --> 00:03:17,160
Speaker 2: And the Supreme Court even acknowledged that. The Supreme Court said,

53
00:03:17,240 --> 00:03:20,960
Speaker 2: in this specific case, it might be a substantial cost.

54
00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:23,720
Speaker 2: We just don't know. We're sending it back down with

55
00:03:23,840 --> 00:03:27,200
Speaker 2: this new rule meaning that you have to accommodate unless

56
00:03:27,240 --> 00:03:30,400
Speaker 2: there's a substantial cost, just so that you the lower

57
00:03:30,440 --> 00:03:34,079
Speaker 2: court knows more accommodation is needed, and the Supreme Court actually,

58
00:03:34,120 --> 00:03:37,400
Speaker 2: you know, agreed with that in this specific case. I

59
00:03:37,560 --> 00:03:40,920
Speaker 2: think the really big issue in this case is it's

60
00:03:41,160 --> 00:03:45,240
Speaker 2: changing the way rights are balanced. So it's changing the

61
00:03:45,480 --> 00:03:50,240
Speaker 2: balance of religious rights against other fundamental rights in the workplace.

62
00:03:50,600 --> 00:03:53,320
Speaker 2: Whether that's the right to be free from discrimination, is

63
00:03:53,400 --> 00:03:56,280
Speaker 2: the right to public health, you know, or whatever it

64
00:03:56,360 --> 00:04:00,080
Speaker 2: might be. It's a real sea change in terms of

65
00:04:00,080 --> 00:04:03,280
Speaker 2: of how the workplace is going to run in the future.

66
00:04:04,040 --> 00:04:09,440
Speaker 1: So explain the additional question about when an accommodation burdens

67
00:04:09,840 --> 00:04:13,680
Speaker 1: the colleagues or the co workers of the religious employee.

68
00:04:13,880 --> 00:04:17,200
Speaker 2: What's interesting to me is the Roberts Court is both

69
00:04:17,360 --> 00:04:21,120
Speaker 2: pro business and also pro religion. So they come down

70
00:04:21,160 --> 00:04:26,080
Speaker 2: with this decision which requires additional religious accommodation in the workplace,

71
00:04:26,400 --> 00:04:28,719
Speaker 2: but they do it in a way that leaves the

72
00:04:28,839 --> 00:04:33,240
Speaker 2: door open for employers to shift the cost of accommodation

73
00:04:33,400 --> 00:04:36,480
Speaker 2: to coworkers. So, to give you an example, you have

74
00:04:36,560 --> 00:04:39,719
Speaker 2: an employee who needs time off for religious reasons, he's

75
00:04:39,720 --> 00:04:44,760
Speaker 2: a sabbatarian. The employer could pay employees premium wages or

76
00:04:44,839 --> 00:04:49,520
Speaker 2: over time, the employer could hire additional employees. All of

77
00:04:49,560 --> 00:04:52,880
Speaker 2: that would be a cost on the employer. What employers

78
00:04:52,920 --> 00:04:56,880
Speaker 2: may end up doing instead is saying to co workers, sorry,

79
00:04:56,960 --> 00:05:00,440
Speaker 2: you have no choice. This is what the law is now,

80
00:05:00,600 --> 00:05:04,520
Speaker 2: and you need to work the religious employees on desirable shifts.

81
00:05:04,560 --> 00:05:07,080
Speaker 2: So I think that is the way that we may

82
00:05:07,279 --> 00:05:11,320
Speaker 2: end up seeing this burden being shifted to coworkers as

83
00:05:11,320 --> 00:05:15,599
Speaker 2: opposed to the actual businesses being willing to pay the

84
00:05:15,600 --> 00:05:16,480
Speaker 2: additional cost.

85
00:05:16,920 --> 00:05:18,960
Speaker 1: So what did the court mean when it said that

86
00:05:19,040 --> 00:05:23,159
Speaker 1: the impact on coworkers must quote have ramifications for the

87
00:05:23,240 --> 00:05:25,080
Speaker 1: conduct of the employer's business.

88
00:05:26,240 --> 00:05:28,760
Speaker 2: I have. I have no idea, and I think that's

89
00:05:28,800 --> 00:05:31,200
Speaker 2: what the problem is. It's not that I have no idea,

90
00:05:31,200 --> 00:05:34,080
Speaker 2: but that nobody has any idea. But the decision focused

91
00:05:34,120 --> 00:05:36,960
Speaker 2: primarily on the definition of underhartship, and the idea is

92
00:05:37,000 --> 00:05:40,120
Speaker 2: a substantial cost, not more than a deminamous cost, and

93
00:05:40,200 --> 00:05:43,440
Speaker 2: they want to turn to the issue of burden on coworkers.

94
00:05:44,000 --> 00:05:45,800
Speaker 2: You know, it was about a page and a half.

95
00:05:46,000 --> 00:05:48,880
Speaker 2: It just included this kind of throwaway line about the

96
00:05:48,920 --> 00:05:54,320
Speaker 2: conduct of the employer's business without really explaining what that means.

97
00:05:54,600 --> 00:05:58,880
Speaker 2: So does that mean that if employees are very very

98
00:05:59,000 --> 00:06:03,720
Speaker 2: upset and complete and it harms morale and productivity, it

99
00:06:03,880 --> 00:06:08,520
Speaker 2: would be an undue hardship. But if you have employees

100
00:06:08,560 --> 00:06:11,400
Speaker 2: who are scared about losing their jobs, and making ways,

101
00:06:11,440 --> 00:06:15,719
Speaker 2: so they just quietly do the religious employees' share of

102
00:06:15,839 --> 00:06:19,520
Speaker 2: undesirable work. It's not an undue hardship. I just don't know.

103
00:06:20,000 --> 00:06:23,000
Speaker 2: You know, in the past, most of the federal appellate

104
00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:26,520
Speaker 2: courts that considered this issue said that a burden on

105
00:06:26,600 --> 00:06:30,440
Speaker 2: a coworker alone could be an undue hardship. So just

106
00:06:30,680 --> 00:06:36,000
Speaker 2: making a coworker work or religious employees undesirable shifts, that

107
00:06:36,160 --> 00:06:39,800
Speaker 2: would be an undue hardship, regardless of the impact on

108
00:06:40,360 --> 00:06:43,600
Speaker 2: the business itself. And it's unclear at this point if

109
00:06:43,640 --> 00:06:44,560
Speaker 2: that's the law.

110
00:06:45,600 --> 00:06:48,839
Speaker 1: Looking at the implications of this decision, why do you

111
00:06:48,920 --> 00:06:52,600
Speaker 1: think the three liberal justices agreed.

112
00:06:52,839 --> 00:06:57,640
Speaker 2: It was a unanimous decision, which I think is really

113
00:06:57,720 --> 00:07:02,640
Speaker 2: really quite shocking. And I think the reason why the

114
00:07:02,760 --> 00:07:08,880
Speaker 2: liberal justices probably agreed with this is because it was

115
00:07:08,920 --> 00:07:13,800
Speaker 2: a compromise that kept the court from going even further.

116
00:07:14,200 --> 00:07:17,280
Speaker 2: That's my guess. I think the problem with the liberal

117
00:07:17,400 --> 00:07:21,280
Speaker 2: justices going along with this is that by virtue of

118
00:07:21,360 --> 00:07:25,760
Speaker 2: the fact it's the unanimous decision, the unanimity alone sort

119
00:07:25,800 --> 00:07:28,880
Speaker 2: of makes it feel like it is a reasonable decision

120
00:07:28,920 --> 00:07:31,840
Speaker 2: and it's not such a big decision. And I think

121
00:07:32,080 --> 00:07:35,160
Speaker 2: that on top of all of the blockbuster decisions that

122
00:07:35,240 --> 00:07:37,480
Speaker 2: came at at the end of the term on affirmative

123
00:07:37,520 --> 00:07:43,280
Speaker 2: action and on student loans and on public accommodation looks.

124
00:07:43,800 --> 00:07:47,200
Speaker 2: I think all of those decisions sort of took the

125
00:07:47,280 --> 00:07:52,400
Speaker 2: focus away from graph which is also a crucially important decision,

126
00:07:53,000 --> 00:07:55,880
Speaker 2: and the fact it was this unanimous decision, a lot

127
00:07:55,920 --> 00:07:58,320
Speaker 2: of people, a lot of commentators sort of felt like

128
00:07:58,360 --> 00:08:01,120
Speaker 2: it just wasn't that big deal. I think it is

129
00:08:01,120 --> 00:08:05,120
Speaker 2: a huge, huge deal, huge change in the workplace.

130
00:08:04,880 --> 00:08:07,560
Speaker 1: And it just slipped by. So do you think that

131
00:08:07,640 --> 00:08:11,120
Speaker 1: this is going to lead to a lot more litigation

132
00:08:11,640 --> 00:08:14,000
Speaker 1: rather than less just trying to figure out what the

133
00:08:14,040 --> 00:08:15,880
Speaker 1: Supreme Court actually meant.

134
00:08:16,120 --> 00:08:17,920
Speaker 2: Yes, I think it's going to lead to a lot

135
00:08:17,960 --> 00:08:20,440
Speaker 2: more litigation for a few reasons. I think one is

136
00:08:20,480 --> 00:08:22,960
Speaker 2: trying to figure out what the Supreme Court meant, and

137
00:08:23,040 --> 00:08:27,120
Speaker 2: I think the second is religious rights activists sort of

138
00:08:27,240 --> 00:08:31,600
Speaker 2: trying to test exactly what it means how much accommodation

139
00:08:31,800 --> 00:08:34,800
Speaker 2: can be required. I do think that this is really

140
00:08:34,880 --> 00:08:38,480
Speaker 2: part of a broad trend of the Supreme Court favoring

141
00:08:38,520 --> 00:08:43,119
Speaker 2: religious rights over other rights in cases where it's balancing

142
00:08:43,160 --> 00:08:47,560
Speaker 2: religious rights against other really important fundamental rights, and I

143
00:08:47,600 --> 00:08:49,600
Speaker 2: think this is going to end up leading to an

144
00:08:49,760 --> 00:08:51,240
Speaker 2: enormous amount of litigation.

145
00:08:51,600 --> 00:08:53,360
Speaker 1: And in this case, as you mentioned, it's a pro

146
00:08:53,440 --> 00:08:56,720
Speaker 1: business court and a pro religion court, and they're ruling

147
00:08:56,800 --> 00:09:00,600
Speaker 1: basically against business because it seems as if religious rights

148
00:09:01,360 --> 00:09:04,760
Speaker 1: trump every other right that comes before this court.

149
00:09:05,400 --> 00:09:09,360
Speaker 2: I agree with that. I agree that religion trump's other rights.

150
00:09:09,640 --> 00:09:13,320
Speaker 2: And I think also the way the decision is drafted,

151
00:09:14,040 --> 00:09:18,840
Speaker 2: allowing employers to shift the cost to the coworkers in

152
00:09:18,880 --> 00:09:22,000
Speaker 2: a way, it does allow the court to still come

153
00:09:22,040 --> 00:09:25,040
Speaker 2: down with a decision which it's not pro business, is

154
00:09:25,080 --> 00:09:29,360
Speaker 2: not anti business, it's you know, really anti coworkers who

155
00:09:29,400 --> 00:09:31,480
Speaker 2: are not requesting religious accommodation.

156
00:09:32,200 --> 00:09:36,200
Speaker 1: So you write that it's ironic, you said scary. I

157
00:09:36,280 --> 00:09:40,120
Speaker 1: say ironic that lower courts may now require permitting expression

158
00:09:40,160 --> 00:09:44,840
Speaker 1: that demeans LGBTQ plus individuals under a civil rights law

159
00:09:44,880 --> 00:09:50,679
Speaker 1: aimed at prohibiting employment discrimination and providing equality in the workplace.

160
00:09:51,280 --> 00:09:53,720
Speaker 1: I mean, you can't pick that up, but no.

161
00:09:53,679 --> 00:09:58,040
Speaker 2: It's insane. It's absolutely crazy that this is what is

162
00:09:58,120 --> 00:10:02,240
Speaker 2: now going on, and particularly because that stay in civil

163
00:10:02,360 --> 00:10:05,800
Speaker 2: rights law a few years ago in the bow Stock

164
00:10:05,960 --> 00:10:11,280
Speaker 2: case was interpreted to cover and include as a protected

165
00:10:11,440 --> 00:10:15,920
Speaker 2: class LGBTQ plus individual. The one thing I feel like

166
00:10:16,000 --> 00:10:19,679
Speaker 2: is sometimes a little bit lost is that you know,

167
00:10:19,960 --> 00:10:24,640
Speaker 2: there are many cases where religious accommodation really is possible

168
00:10:24,920 --> 00:10:29,320
Speaker 2: without it being an unfair burden on co workers. Like

169
00:10:29,400 --> 00:10:31,840
Speaker 2: if you have a business that work, you know, runs

170
00:10:31,840 --> 00:10:35,320
Speaker 2: seven days a week, three hundred and sixty five days

171
00:10:35,320 --> 00:10:39,880
Speaker 2: a year, and you have a Saturday sabatarian, you could

172
00:10:39,920 --> 00:10:43,040
Speaker 2: probably arrange a shift swop where that person gets their

173
00:10:43,120 --> 00:10:46,000
Speaker 2: Saturday off and works Sunday and someone else gets Sunday

174
00:10:46,040 --> 00:10:48,440
Speaker 2: off and works Saturday. So you know, there really are

175
00:10:48,640 --> 00:10:50,960
Speaker 2: a lot of times, in a lot of ways and

176
00:10:51,080 --> 00:10:55,960
Speaker 2: cases where religious accommodation is possible. And I feel like

177
00:10:56,120 --> 00:11:01,560
Speaker 2: sometimes the response to these types of cases almost comes

178
00:11:01,679 --> 00:11:07,400
Speaker 2: out is being anti religious. It's not that it's anti religious,

179
00:11:07,440 --> 00:11:11,240
Speaker 2: it's that you need to balance, you know, in society,

180
00:11:11,280 --> 00:11:14,520
Speaker 2: religious rights are important, but there are other countervailing rights

181
00:11:14,520 --> 00:11:17,040
Speaker 2: which are also very very important.

182
00:11:17,240 --> 00:11:20,760
Speaker 1: Do you think the court also is being pushed because

183
00:11:20,800 --> 00:11:25,000
Speaker 1: they're taking these cases. You have these Christian legal organizations

184
00:11:25,000 --> 00:11:29,680
Speaker 1: that are specifically bringing these cases to push the envelope.

185
00:11:29,720 --> 00:11:34,160
Speaker 1: For example, the case involving the Colorado Web designer who

186
00:11:34,960 --> 00:11:38,960
Speaker 1: hadn't designed any wedding websites yet and hadn't been asked

187
00:11:39,080 --> 00:11:42,880
Speaker 1: by a gay couple to design their wedding website yet,

188
00:11:43,120 --> 00:11:45,640
Speaker 1: took her case to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme

189
00:11:45,640 --> 00:11:48,440
Speaker 1: Court said, you didn't have to design wedding websites for

190
00:11:48,559 --> 00:11:49,240
Speaker 1: gay couples.

191
00:11:49,880 --> 00:11:53,240
Speaker 2: I one hundred percent agree with that, but the Court

192
00:11:53,400 --> 00:11:56,760
Speaker 2: doesn't have to grant start or agree to hear these cases.

193
00:11:57,360 --> 00:11:59,280
Speaker 2: One of the things which is really interesting in the

194
00:11:59,320 --> 00:12:02,600
Speaker 2: Graph case is over the last few years, there were

195
00:12:02,640 --> 00:12:07,360
Speaker 2: four times, including in the Graph case, where parties asked

196
00:12:07,440 --> 00:12:11,520
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court to hear a case interpreting the religious

197
00:12:11,520 --> 00:12:15,719
Speaker 2: accommodation requirement under Title seven and to increase the accommodation

198
00:12:15,840 --> 00:12:20,840
Speaker 2: requirement in the prior three cases. For sort of technical reasons.

199
00:12:21,320 --> 00:12:24,000
Speaker 2: The Court refused to hear the cases. But what the

200
00:12:24,080 --> 00:12:28,559
Speaker 2: conservative justices did a number of them real concurring opinions

201
00:12:28,600 --> 00:12:30,840
Speaker 2: where they said, we agree, we're not going to hear

202
00:12:31,000 --> 00:12:35,520
Speaker 2: this specific case, but we want to hear an appropriate

203
00:12:35,640 --> 00:12:39,880
Speaker 2: case where we can reinterpret the religious accommodation requirement of

204
00:12:39,920 --> 00:12:42,600
Speaker 2: Title seven. So I think it really is a court

205
00:12:42,760 --> 00:12:44,560
Speaker 2: looking for these kinds of cases.

206
00:12:45,120 --> 00:12:47,960
Speaker 1: Is the addition of Amy Cony Barrett a reason why

207
00:12:47,960 --> 00:12:49,959
Speaker 1: they're moving the way they are.

208
00:12:50,600 --> 00:12:52,760
Speaker 2: I think it is a big issue. I think that

209
00:12:52,920 --> 00:12:57,640
Speaker 2: since she has joined the court, it has really changed

210
00:12:57,679 --> 00:13:00,640
Speaker 2: the balance when it comes to religious right, not just

211
00:13:00,679 --> 00:13:03,439
Speaker 2: in the workplace, but in society as a whole, because

212
00:13:03,520 --> 00:13:05,600
Speaker 2: this was part of the bigger trend. Like you mentioned,

213
00:13:05,679 --> 00:13:09,160
Speaker 2: the three h three creative case. You know, Dobbs wasn't

214
00:13:09,240 --> 00:13:12,000
Speaker 2: broad is a religion case, but it really was a

215
00:13:12,120 --> 00:13:16,520
Speaker 2: case of favored religious conservatives and overturning Roe v Ways

216
00:13:16,640 --> 00:13:20,240
Speaker 2: right for an individual to have an abortion. There was

217
00:13:20,240 --> 00:13:24,600
Speaker 2: the case last term Kennedy versus Bremerton that said that

218
00:13:24,679 --> 00:13:27,160
Speaker 2: the First Amendment gives a high school football coach the

219
00:13:27,240 --> 00:13:30,640
Speaker 2: right to neil and pray at midfield after football games.

220
00:13:30,920 --> 00:13:34,520
Speaker 2: So I think this really falls within this general context.

221
00:13:35,480 --> 00:13:39,240
Speaker 1: And I can't think of a recent case involving a

222
00:13:39,320 --> 00:13:43,400
Speaker 1: non Christian religion, for example, someone who's a Muslim or

223
00:13:43,440 --> 00:13:44,480
Speaker 1: an atheist.

224
00:13:44,600 --> 00:13:47,920
Speaker 2: You know. Interestingly, there was, and I'm trying to remember

225
00:13:47,960 --> 00:13:52,640
Speaker 2: the exact data, it was sometime around twenty sixteen twenty

226
00:13:52,800 --> 00:13:58,960
Speaker 2: sixteen Abercarambi, which involved a Muslim woman and her right

227
00:13:59,120 --> 00:14:02,520
Speaker 2: to where he in the workplace Right that interpreted this

228
00:14:02,800 --> 00:14:07,280
Speaker 2: same statute. But in general it is Christian conservatives who

229
00:14:07,320 --> 00:14:08,600
Speaker 2: will bring in these cases.

230
00:14:09,120 --> 00:14:12,199
Speaker 1: I really appreciate your insights, Debbie. That's Debbie Kamener, a

231
00:14:12,240 --> 00:14:15,480
Speaker 1: professor at Peru College at the City University of New York.

232
00:14:16,080 --> 00:14:18,400
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

233
00:14:18,760 --> 00:14:21,080
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

234
00:14:21,120 --> 00:14:25,400
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

235
00:14:25,600 --> 00:14:30,640
Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,

236
00:14:31,040 --> 00:14:33,640
Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

237
00:14:33,680 --> 00:14:37,600
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

238
00:14:37,720 --> 00:14:39,320
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg