1 00:00:02,720 --> 00:00:06,800 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law. A divided Supreme Court rejects a 2 00:00:06,920 --> 00:00:09,800 Speaker 1: religious challenge. Tell us a little about the facts of 3 00:00:09,800 --> 00:00:13,600 Speaker 1: the case. In interviews with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg Legal experts, 4 00:00:13,680 --> 00:00:16,919 Speaker 1: I guess his former federal prosecutor Jimmy Garula. Joining me 5 00:00:16,960 --> 00:00:20,760 Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Law reporter Jordan Ruben and analysis of important 6 00:00:20,800 --> 00:00:24,160 Speaker 1: legal issues, cases and headlines. The Supreme Court takes on 7 00:00:24,239 --> 00:00:28,520 Speaker 1: state secrets. Multiple lawsuits were filed against the emergency rule? 8 00:00:28,800 --> 00:00:32,599 Speaker 1: Is this lawsuit? For real? Bloomberg Law with June Grasso 9 00:00:32,960 --> 00:00:39,519 Speaker 1: from Bloomberg Radio. Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm 10 00:00:39,560 --> 00:00:43,040 Speaker 1: Greg Store and I'm Lady Wheeler. We're in for June Grasso. 11 00:00:43,320 --> 00:00:45,960 Speaker 1: Coming up on the show, we'll talk with Jake Belsheni 12 00:00:46,040 --> 00:00:48,720 Speaker 1: at the Alliance for Justice Action Fund about state Supreme 13 00:00:48,720 --> 00:00:51,640 Speaker 1: Court judicial races and why these are courts worth paying 14 00:00:51,640 --> 00:00:55,440 Speaker 1: attention to. And Jennifer Levi, director of glad's Transgender Rights Project, 15 00:00:55,480 --> 00:00:57,720 Speaker 1: will join us to talk about a recent federal Appeals 16 00:00:57,720 --> 00:01:01,840 Speaker 1: Court decision that gives transgender workers honor legal protections. But 17 00:01:02,000 --> 00:01:05,520 Speaker 1: first we're joined by Bloomberg News reporter Angelica Peebles to 18 00:01:05,600 --> 00:01:08,840 Speaker 1: discuss the new lawsuit they're enough filed against Fiser over 19 00:01:08,880 --> 00:01:13,080 Speaker 1: the technology used to create the COVID nineteen vaccine. Angelica, 20 00:01:13,120 --> 00:01:15,880 Speaker 1: thanks for joining us. Tell us why Moderna is filing 21 00:01:15,920 --> 00:01:19,520 Speaker 1: the suit and what the company is alleging. Maderna says 22 00:01:19,520 --> 00:01:22,560 Speaker 1: they're filing this lawsuit now because they are trying to 23 00:01:22,600 --> 00:01:26,120 Speaker 1: protect their MR and a technology platform that they've spent 24 00:01:26,160 --> 00:01:29,680 Speaker 1: the past decade or so making, and they're saying that 25 00:01:30,040 --> 00:01:33,840 Speaker 1: they're claiming that Fiser and bion Tech knowingly copied some 26 00:01:33,880 --> 00:01:38,680 Speaker 1: of the key elements of Maderna's patented technology. And so 27 00:01:38,959 --> 00:01:43,000 Speaker 1: they're not trying to actually stop the sale of their 28 00:01:43,000 --> 00:01:46,360 Speaker 1: COVID vaccine or do anything that would interfere with the 29 00:01:46,520 --> 00:01:51,760 Speaker 1: vaccination campaign, but they do want some some monetary um, 30 00:01:51,800 --> 00:01:54,880 Speaker 1: you know, some money from them starting this spring and 31 00:01:54,960 --> 00:01:57,840 Speaker 1: going forward. So we'll have to see how it plays out, 32 00:01:58,160 --> 00:02:01,800 Speaker 1: um in the court. But um, you could see that, um, 33 00:02:01,840 --> 00:02:04,400 Speaker 1: you know, it's a big deal for for the companies 34 00:02:04,440 --> 00:02:07,280 Speaker 1: and also you know, just the public at large watching this. 35 00:02:08,600 --> 00:02:12,040 Speaker 1: Tell us what Maderna is after in this litigation and 36 00:02:12,080 --> 00:02:14,080 Speaker 1: what's the likelihood that the company is going to be 37 00:02:14,120 --> 00:02:18,480 Speaker 1: successful here. Yeah, So Maderna is not seeking to stop 38 00:02:18,520 --> 00:02:22,119 Speaker 1: the sale of Fisor and BioNTech vaccine, but they are 39 00:02:22,200 --> 00:02:25,360 Speaker 1: seeking what would be essentially a loyalty, so you know, 40 00:02:25,440 --> 00:02:28,400 Speaker 1: a cut of the money that they make on the 41 00:02:28,480 --> 00:02:31,799 Speaker 1: sales of their vaccine. And they're saying that they only 42 00:02:31,880 --> 00:02:35,680 Speaker 1: want some money UM starting from earlier this spring and 43 00:02:35,720 --> 00:02:39,240 Speaker 1: going forward and only in high income countries. And it's 44 00:02:39,280 --> 00:02:41,840 Speaker 1: a little complicated, but it has to do with the 45 00:02:41,880 --> 00:02:45,280 Speaker 1: fact that Maderna made this pledge UM two years ago 46 00:02:45,440 --> 00:02:49,239 Speaker 1: saying that it would not enforce its patents during the pandemic, 47 00:02:49,400 --> 00:02:53,799 Speaker 1: and then this spring they said, never mind, Actually we 48 00:02:53,880 --> 00:02:57,359 Speaker 1: are only going to in for to not enforce our 49 00:02:57,400 --> 00:03:01,560 Speaker 1: patents in low income countries. So it's the way that 50 00:03:02,080 --> 00:03:04,360 Speaker 1: all of those steps have played out. It seems like 51 00:03:04,400 --> 00:03:07,919 Speaker 1: they're trying to match up by saying, you know, now 52 00:03:08,120 --> 00:03:11,000 Speaker 1: we are only seeking money from this period of time. 53 00:03:11,040 --> 00:03:14,280 Speaker 1: But the real question is whether they can go back 54 00:03:14,320 --> 00:03:17,119 Speaker 1: on that pledge that they made two years ago. UM. 55 00:03:17,240 --> 00:03:20,560 Speaker 1: One legal expert we spoke to said that they can't UM. 56 00:03:20,639 --> 00:03:22,880 Speaker 1: So that's something that will be really interesting to watch. 57 00:03:23,320 --> 00:03:27,280 Speaker 1: So is that pledge something that Fiser and Biotech can 58 00:03:27,639 --> 00:03:31,040 Speaker 1: use in their defense against this lawsuit? Yea, so um. 59 00:03:31,120 --> 00:03:34,160 Speaker 1: Jorge can Trist, the professor from the University of Utah 60 00:03:34,160 --> 00:03:37,280 Speaker 1: who we spoke to. He says that under the law, 61 00:03:37,400 --> 00:03:42,920 Speaker 1: these patent pledges are considered contracts, so the companies it's 62 00:03:42,920 --> 00:03:45,280 Speaker 1: a public company, they made a public statement and other 63 00:03:45,360 --> 00:03:49,560 Speaker 1: companies UM can use that information to make decisions about 64 00:03:49,640 --> 00:03:53,800 Speaker 1: their own strategies, which obviously Fiser and bion Tech went 65 00:03:53,840 --> 00:03:57,480 Speaker 1: out and introduced their own COVID vaccine, so they could 66 00:03:57,600 --> 00:04:01,080 Speaker 1: argue that they were just opera wading under you know, 67 00:04:01,200 --> 00:04:05,560 Speaker 1: under um the assumption that Maderna was not going to 68 00:04:05,680 --> 00:04:08,560 Speaker 1: enforce his patents. So at the least the way he 69 00:04:08,760 --> 00:04:11,880 Speaker 1: um he sees it, either and BioNTech have a pretty 70 00:04:11,880 --> 00:04:14,920 Speaker 1: good defense here. It might not even get into all 71 00:04:14,960 --> 00:04:17,440 Speaker 1: of the details of the patents and you know who 72 00:04:17,560 --> 00:04:20,880 Speaker 1: used what and what was patented and what wasn't. But 73 00:04:21,000 --> 00:04:23,919 Speaker 1: that could be that contract, the patent pledge could be 74 00:04:23,960 --> 00:04:28,080 Speaker 1: a solid defense. Or Fiser and BioNTech didn't this lawsuit 75 00:04:28,200 --> 00:04:32,080 Speaker 1: have any impact on the company's market shares for either 76 00:04:32,120 --> 00:04:34,960 Speaker 1: Maderna or Fiser, so they did see a little bit 77 00:04:34,960 --> 00:04:37,840 Speaker 1: of a hit the other day. UM. You know these 78 00:04:37,880 --> 00:04:40,640 Speaker 1: things they're not expecting Analysts are not expecting it to 79 00:04:40,760 --> 00:04:44,240 Speaker 1: be a big money maker for either um for Maderna, 80 00:04:44,279 --> 00:04:48,320 Speaker 1: if they even do win. And that's just because according 81 00:04:48,320 --> 00:04:51,440 Speaker 1: to precedent that we haven't seen a huge impact like 82 00:04:51,520 --> 00:04:55,760 Speaker 1: these payments haven't been jaw dropping, especially in the context 83 00:04:55,800 --> 00:05:00,800 Speaker 1: of the billions of dollars that Maderna has made so far. UM. 84 00:05:00,839 --> 00:05:04,200 Speaker 1: But of course these things take a long time, they're expensive, 85 00:05:04,800 --> 00:05:07,479 Speaker 1: so I think you can imagine that investors are a 86 00:05:07,520 --> 00:05:11,240 Speaker 1: little bit nervous to see what exactly happens and the 87 00:05:11,320 --> 00:05:14,160 Speaker 1: impact it has on all of the companies involved. So 88 00:05:14,400 --> 00:05:17,279 Speaker 1: news of this lawsuit comes out just as we're learning 89 00:05:17,279 --> 00:05:20,520 Speaker 1: we're all going to be eligible for another shot after 90 00:05:20,720 --> 00:05:26,000 Speaker 1: labor Day. Well, this lawsuit uh potentially have any effect 91 00:05:26,080 --> 00:05:30,760 Speaker 1: on the availability of future COVID shots from our understanding, No, 92 00:05:31,080 --> 00:05:34,159 Speaker 1: because Madernas says they're not trying to stop the production 93 00:05:34,839 --> 00:05:38,200 Speaker 1: or stop the sale of Fiser and bion text COVID vaccine. 94 00:05:38,680 --> 00:05:41,720 Speaker 1: So the way at least the complaint was written and 95 00:05:41,760 --> 00:05:44,800 Speaker 1: the damages they're seeking, it doesn't seem that there will 96 00:05:44,839 --> 00:05:48,200 Speaker 1: be any any disruption there. And I'm curious if this 97 00:05:48,400 --> 00:05:51,680 Speaker 1: if there could be any ulterior motives here on Maderna's 98 00:05:51,680 --> 00:05:54,440 Speaker 1: behalf as to why they're bringing this lawsuit against Fiser. Yeah, 99 00:05:54,560 --> 00:05:58,040 Speaker 1: well they're saying that they're trying to protect the technology 100 00:05:58,080 --> 00:06:01,960 Speaker 1: that they've spent so long trying to develop, so you 101 00:06:02,000 --> 00:06:04,640 Speaker 1: could see that as well. They're trying to make sure 102 00:06:04,720 --> 00:06:08,719 Speaker 1: this doesn't happen again. You know, if if Fiser Bronte 103 00:06:08,880 --> 00:06:11,839 Speaker 1: did even infurage on their patents, which obviously the companies 104 00:06:11,880 --> 00:06:15,680 Speaker 1: say they did not. But um Again, the legal expert 105 00:06:15,760 --> 00:06:18,560 Speaker 1: we spoke to, he said that it's probably it wouldn't 106 00:06:18,600 --> 00:06:22,760 Speaker 1: be surprising if Maderna has been trying to get Fiser 107 00:06:22,839 --> 00:06:26,159 Speaker 1: and bion Tech to negotiate some sort of royalty in 108 00:06:26,200 --> 00:06:29,400 Speaker 1: the background here, and maybe those talks haven't gone well, 109 00:06:29,839 --> 00:06:34,000 Speaker 1: and so now Maderna is going to doing the lawsuit 110 00:06:34,080 --> 00:06:36,840 Speaker 1: because of that. He says, it's a classic strategy just 111 00:06:36,960 --> 00:06:41,159 Speaker 1: to companies um into getting them to license technology that 112 00:06:41,640 --> 00:06:45,440 Speaker 1: you think that is yours. So that's one possibility for sure. 113 00:06:46,000 --> 00:06:49,719 Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg News reporter Angelica Peoples, you're listening to Bloomberg Law. 114 00:06:50,160 --> 00:06:52,760 Speaker 1: Up next, we talk about state Supreme Court judicial races 115 00:06:52,839 --> 00:06:55,719 Speaker 1: and which ones are worth paying attention to. I'm Widio Wheeler. 116 00:06:56,040 --> 00:07:08,720 Speaker 1: And I'm Greg Store. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloombird 117 00:07:08,800 --> 00:07:13,760 Speaker 1: Law with June Brusso from bloom Bird Radio. I'm Lidia 118 00:07:13,800 --> 00:07:16,760 Speaker 1: Wheeler and I'm Greg Store. We're in for June Brasso. 119 00:07:17,200 --> 00:07:19,600 Speaker 1: State Supreme court races in a number of states are 120 00:07:19,600 --> 00:07:22,080 Speaker 1: being closely watched this year for their potential to affect 121 00:07:22,080 --> 00:07:25,920 Speaker 1: a host of issues, including congressional maps and abortion restrictions. 122 00:07:26,720 --> 00:07:30,120 Speaker 1: We're joined now by Jake Valaskini, legal director at the 123 00:07:30,120 --> 00:07:33,640 Speaker 1: Progressive Alliance for Justice Action Fund, which has been tracking 124 00:07:33,640 --> 00:07:39,000 Speaker 1: these races. So, Jake, UM, Michigan, North Carolina, Illinois, and 125 00:07:39,040 --> 00:07:42,280 Speaker 1: Ohio are or for the states that have been highlighted 126 00:07:42,320 --> 00:07:45,520 Speaker 1: as having particularly important races. Can you just tell us 127 00:07:45,560 --> 00:07:49,920 Speaker 1: generally why those four races are such a big deal. Sure, 128 00:07:49,960 --> 00:07:51,960 Speaker 1: and thank you much so much for having me on. 129 00:07:52,000 --> 00:07:55,160 Speaker 1: I really appreciate it. Um. So, all four of those 130 00:07:55,200 --> 00:07:59,720 Speaker 1: states or states where you have a fairly divided electorate um, 131 00:07:59,800 --> 00:08:03,840 Speaker 1: and also where you have a divided supreme court ideologically, 132 00:08:04,400 --> 00:08:08,400 Speaker 1: so generally speaking, in Michigan we have a four three 133 00:08:08,440 --> 00:08:13,160 Speaker 1: democratic majority on that Supreme Court. In North Carolina we 134 00:08:13,280 --> 00:08:17,400 Speaker 1: also have a four three democratic majority on that Supreme Court. 135 00:08:18,360 --> 00:08:23,240 Speaker 1: And in Illinois, we have a four three Democratic majority 136 00:08:23,400 --> 00:08:27,280 Speaker 1: on that Supreme Court. In Ohio, however, we have a 137 00:08:27,960 --> 00:08:32,720 Speaker 1: three three one Supreme Court with three Democrats, three Republicans, 138 00:08:32,800 --> 00:08:37,360 Speaker 1: and one independent who is a Republican that sometimes sides 139 00:08:37,400 --> 00:08:42,080 Speaker 1: with the Democrats on issues of democracy and voting rights. 140 00:08:43,600 --> 00:08:49,240 Speaker 1: Talk about why, UM, party control matters here and um, 141 00:08:49,320 --> 00:08:52,920 Speaker 1: you know, how these races could impact which party is 142 00:08:52,920 --> 00:08:57,800 Speaker 1: in control. Sure, generally speaking, UM, what we've seen, at 143 00:08:57,840 --> 00:09:00,440 Speaker 1: least over the last ten to fifteen years, a sort 144 00:09:00,480 --> 00:09:06,560 Speaker 1: of consolidation around issues of democracy, UM in differences between 145 00:09:06,600 --> 00:09:11,160 Speaker 1: Republicans and Democrats and how they how they approach those 146 00:09:11,280 --> 00:09:16,359 Speaker 1: issues of democracy. Republicans have tended to be more restrictive 147 00:09:16,520 --> 00:09:21,080 Speaker 1: on on voting, on access to the polls, on redistricting, 148 00:09:21,360 --> 00:09:26,320 Speaker 1: on jerrymanderin, whereas Democrats have tended to be more open 149 00:09:26,400 --> 00:09:29,360 Speaker 1: on those issues, more liberal on those issues, trying to 150 00:09:29,400 --> 00:09:33,280 Speaker 1: expand the franchise, expand the right, protect the rights of 151 00:09:33,360 --> 00:09:36,880 Speaker 1: minorities to vote when they're being restricted. For several of 152 00:09:36,880 --> 00:09:40,680 Speaker 1: those states going forward, uh, some with with litigation that 153 00:09:40,800 --> 00:09:44,680 Speaker 1: is currently pending. Other with litigation that we uh, you know, 154 00:09:44,720 --> 00:09:46,600 Speaker 1: we can't foresee it might come out of a future 155 00:09:46,840 --> 00:09:50,840 Speaker 1: election UM, the justices who sits on those courts might 156 00:09:50,880 --> 00:09:57,200 Speaker 1: matter forward, how those how those different cases are decided. Yeah, 157 00:09:57,200 --> 00:10:00,319 Speaker 1: so you recently tweeted that the state Supreme Court races 158 00:10:00,360 --> 00:10:03,920 Speaker 1: in in Wisconsin, which I guess is next April, as 159 00:10:03,960 --> 00:10:06,240 Speaker 1: well as the ones in Michigan, North Carolina, and Ohio 160 00:10:06,400 --> 00:10:10,079 Speaker 1: this fall, are about as important to our democracy as 161 00:10:10,120 --> 00:10:12,680 Speaker 1: these things get. Can you dive into that a little 162 00:10:12,720 --> 00:10:16,440 Speaker 1: bit more? Why? Why are these races so important? Sure? 163 00:10:16,480 --> 00:10:19,360 Speaker 1: I'd be happy to um so. I think Michigan is 164 00:10:19,400 --> 00:10:22,440 Speaker 1: a perfect example of why these sorts of races are 165 00:10:22,440 --> 00:10:27,640 Speaker 1: extremely important. UM. In Michigan, after the elections, several lawsuits 166 00:10:27,640 --> 00:10:30,600 Speaker 1: were brought in front of the state UH state courts 167 00:10:30,920 --> 00:10:36,400 Speaker 1: UM challenging the results UH in UM at least one 168 00:10:36,559 --> 00:10:41,320 Speaker 1: four three case, the Democratic majority concluded that the election 169 00:10:41,360 --> 00:10:45,960 Speaker 1: results should be certified. Had they not been certified and 170 00:10:46,000 --> 00:10:49,480 Speaker 1: in a timely matter, UM, that could have allowed even 171 00:10:49,520 --> 00:10:54,080 Speaker 1: more chicanery to happen in UH in the final determination 172 00:10:54,160 --> 00:10:59,720 Speaker 1: of the election result nationally UM in UH and in 173 00:11:02,800 --> 00:11:05,920 Speaker 1: after the current election cycles, who who are in those 174 00:11:05,920 --> 00:11:10,760 Speaker 1: positions deciding those election case outcomes could be determinative of 175 00:11:11,559 --> 00:11:15,720 Speaker 1: how elections are certified UM. Same. I think it's true 176 00:11:15,800 --> 00:11:19,720 Speaker 1: also in Wisconsin, where currently you have a four three 177 00:11:20,480 --> 00:11:25,720 Speaker 1: Republican Supreme Court UM, and that court has overwhelmingly decided 178 00:11:25,760 --> 00:11:29,200 Speaker 1: to restrict voting rights UM in several decisions that have 179 00:11:29,240 --> 00:11:33,600 Speaker 1: come down over the past decade UM and UH. In 180 00:11:34,000 --> 00:11:39,240 Speaker 1: next year's election, Wisconsin voters will have the opportunity to 181 00:11:39,320 --> 00:11:44,680 Speaker 1: change potentially the partisan makeup of that court, flipping it 182 00:11:44,760 --> 00:11:48,080 Speaker 1: to a four three Democratic majority UM, in which case 183 00:11:48,160 --> 00:11:50,960 Speaker 1: I think that you would see that that Supreme Court 184 00:11:51,040 --> 00:11:55,800 Speaker 1: would be UH much more responsive to concerns over UH 185 00:11:56,200 --> 00:12:04,160 Speaker 1: over issues of redistricting, voter restriction, UM, limiting ballot boxes, 186 00:12:04,520 --> 00:12:07,120 Speaker 1: that sort of things. There seems to be more of 187 00:12:07,160 --> 00:12:10,080 Speaker 1: a focus on state supreme courts now than there has 188 00:12:10,120 --> 00:12:12,280 Speaker 1: been in the past, and I was wondering to what 189 00:12:12,400 --> 00:12:18,440 Speaker 1: extent is the US Supreme Courts abortion decision driving that UM. 190 00:12:18,480 --> 00:12:22,599 Speaker 1: I think it is definitely driving that. We've seen a 191 00:12:23,440 --> 00:12:28,439 Speaker 1: huge concern over UM state constitutional rights to an abortion 192 00:12:29,280 --> 00:12:33,720 Speaker 1: UM and and a renewed focus on this issue. UM. 193 00:12:33,760 --> 00:12:37,760 Speaker 1: I think that that's a good thing. Generally, UM state 194 00:12:37,760 --> 00:12:43,560 Speaker 1: Supreme courts have always determined many of our rights and liberties. UM. 195 00:12:43,880 --> 00:12:47,880 Speaker 1: State Supreme courts. Here of all of the lawsuits that 196 00:12:47,920 --> 00:12:53,080 Speaker 1: are filed in America every year, UM, and they've always 197 00:12:53,120 --> 00:12:57,920 Speaker 1: had an outweighed um uh impact on our rights and liberties. 198 00:12:58,000 --> 00:13:00,760 Speaker 1: The fact that people are paying more attention now UM 199 00:13:01,000 --> 00:13:04,920 Speaker 1: is great. And if people UH start to consider whether 200 00:13:05,000 --> 00:13:08,400 Speaker 1: or not our state constitutions might afford even greater rights 201 00:13:08,400 --> 00:13:12,280 Speaker 1: and liberties that are federal uh constitution does, UM, then 202 00:13:12,320 --> 00:13:15,240 Speaker 1: I think that that can be incredibly positive for the 203 00:13:15,360 --> 00:13:18,600 Speaker 1: rights of many. Although it isn't a complete band aid 204 00:13:18,640 --> 00:13:20,800 Speaker 1: for the fact that the you know, the U. S. 205 00:13:20,800 --> 00:13:23,840 Speaker 1: Supreme Court is stripping away so many important rights nationally. 206 00:13:24,440 --> 00:13:26,480 Speaker 1: Let's just take a step back and and talk about 207 00:13:26,520 --> 00:13:29,280 Speaker 1: how state Supreme Court justices get on the court in 208 00:13:29,320 --> 00:13:31,880 Speaker 1: the first place. We've been talking about some states where 209 00:13:32,400 --> 00:13:35,480 Speaker 1: voters go to the polls and vote on state Supreme 210 00:13:35,520 --> 00:13:38,440 Speaker 1: Court justices. But it does vary a bit from state 211 00:13:38,480 --> 00:13:42,840 Speaker 1: to state, right, it does. That's correct. UM. Generally speaking, 212 00:13:43,080 --> 00:13:46,920 Speaker 1: about half of the justices in the United States. State 213 00:13:47,120 --> 00:13:50,560 Speaker 1: Supreme Court justices in the United States each year are 214 00:13:50,600 --> 00:13:54,120 Speaker 1: elected and half are appointed. UM. Of those that are 215 00:13:54,160 --> 00:13:58,040 Speaker 1: elected again about half and half. It's not completely accurate, 216 00:13:58,080 --> 00:14:03,800 Speaker 1: but it's a close estimate. Are elected nonpartisan races and 217 00:14:03,880 --> 00:14:06,120 Speaker 1: about half of those that are elected or elected in 218 00:14:06,160 --> 00:14:10,720 Speaker 1: partisan races. UM. So, like you said, it varies widely 219 00:14:10,840 --> 00:14:13,920 Speaker 1: state to state. There are two real anomalies where the 220 00:14:14,000 --> 00:14:19,680 Speaker 1: legislature picks the justices in those states. That's in South 221 00:14:19,720 --> 00:14:23,440 Speaker 1: Carolina and Virginia. UM. And even in those states, what 222 00:14:23,560 --> 00:14:26,880 Speaker 1: they're where justices are elected. Uh, it's a little bit 223 00:14:27,080 --> 00:14:30,480 Speaker 1: different when those justices might appear on the ballot. What's 224 00:14:30,480 --> 00:14:34,560 Speaker 1: in whether it's in an odd year and h or 225 00:14:34,600 --> 00:14:39,080 Speaker 1: in an even year presidential, congressional um. So, every state 226 00:14:39,120 --> 00:14:41,840 Speaker 1: does it a little bit different. Um. And so it's 227 00:14:42,040 --> 00:14:44,960 Speaker 1: it's not surprising that folks around the country might might 228 00:14:45,040 --> 00:14:49,040 Speaker 1: not know exactly how how the judges and justices and 229 00:14:49,080 --> 00:14:53,080 Speaker 1: their states are picked. You're listening to Bloomberg Law. Up next, 230 00:14:53,160 --> 00:14:56,560 Speaker 1: we continue our conversation with Jake Paliskini, legal director at 231 00:14:56,560 --> 00:15:00,480 Speaker 1: Alliance for Justice Action Fund. I'm Greg Store and I'm 232 00:15:00,560 --> 00:15:13,440 Speaker 1: Lydia Wheeler. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Law with 233 00:15:13,560 --> 00:15:19,000 Speaker 1: June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. I'm Greg Store and I'm 234 00:15:19,080 --> 00:15:22,960 Speaker 1: Lydia Wheeler. We're in for June Grasso. We've been talking 235 00:15:22,960 --> 00:15:26,760 Speaker 1: with Jake Falskini legal director and Alliance for Justice Action Fund, 236 00:15:26,960 --> 00:15:30,360 Speaker 1: which has been tracking state Supreme court races. Jake, how 237 00:15:30,440 --> 00:15:33,520 Speaker 1: common is it for state Supreme Court justices to lose 238 00:15:33,640 --> 00:15:37,000 Speaker 1: a retention election? And does this happen when there's a 239 00:15:37,040 --> 00:15:41,000 Speaker 1: coordinated effort by Republicans to house someone? Um. That's a 240 00:15:41,080 --> 00:15:44,720 Speaker 1: great question. So it happened, happened that often in history, 241 00:15:45,200 --> 00:15:48,840 Speaker 1: but there are some reason recent examples of when it's happened, 242 00:15:49,440 --> 00:15:54,160 Speaker 1: especially when you have coordinated and well funded attacks on 243 00:15:54,320 --> 00:15:58,400 Speaker 1: current sitting justices. UM. So. A couple of good examples 244 00:15:58,440 --> 00:16:02,760 Speaker 1: of this that folks normally point you historically are back 245 00:16:02,800 --> 00:16:06,720 Speaker 1: in the early two thousands when the Illinois State Supreme 246 00:16:06,720 --> 00:16:11,680 Speaker 1: Court found a constitutional right for lgbt Q folks to 247 00:16:11,760 --> 00:16:18,040 Speaker 1: marry UM. After that, Republicans and conservative organizations launched a 248 00:16:18,080 --> 00:16:22,920 Speaker 1: coordinated uh uh sitting in Supreme Court justices who had 249 00:16:23,000 --> 00:16:27,360 Speaker 1: ruled in favor of that constitutional right UM and UH, 250 00:16:27,400 --> 00:16:30,880 Speaker 1: and three of those justices were outsted from the court. UM. 251 00:16:30,960 --> 00:16:35,160 Speaker 1: Similar instances have happened, say, in Illinois, a siting Supreme 252 00:16:35,160 --> 00:16:39,720 Speaker 1: Court justice lost the retention election in UM. In Michigan, 253 00:16:39,800 --> 00:16:42,720 Speaker 1: this happened a few years ago as well. UM and 254 00:16:42,880 --> 00:16:47,680 Speaker 1: other attacks have been launched against current sitting justices UM. 255 00:16:47,760 --> 00:16:51,560 Speaker 1: Ultimately many of those were unsuccessful, but sometimes they do happen. 256 00:16:52,560 --> 00:16:55,920 Speaker 1: How much does money play a role in all this? 257 00:16:57,120 --> 00:17:00,600 Speaker 1: Are we seeing just a significant at all amount of 258 00:17:00,680 --> 00:17:06,120 Speaker 1: money going into state supreme court races and retention battles? Yes, 259 00:17:06,280 --> 00:17:10,320 Speaker 1: absolutely it plays a huge role. UM Our friends at 260 00:17:10,359 --> 00:17:13,639 Speaker 1: the Brennan Center have done a great job tracking the 261 00:17:13,760 --> 00:17:17,600 Speaker 1: flood of money into judicial elections over time, UM and 262 00:17:17,640 --> 00:17:20,080 Speaker 1: I would highly suggest that listeners take a look at 263 00:17:20,080 --> 00:17:23,119 Speaker 1: their great resources on the state supreme courts and and 264 00:17:23,240 --> 00:17:28,040 Speaker 1: money that bloods into those races. But generally speaking, over time, 265 00:17:28,040 --> 00:17:31,560 Speaker 1: we've seen a huge increase in the amount of money 266 00:17:31,600 --> 00:17:36,080 Speaker 1: that's gone into these judicial elections UM and UH and 267 00:17:36,280 --> 00:17:40,399 Speaker 1: often not times those are coordinated by groups that have 268 00:17:40,520 --> 00:17:45,080 Speaker 1: a very particular idea of what results they want out 269 00:17:45,080 --> 00:17:47,919 Speaker 1: of the election, And often what we also see is 270 00:17:47,960 --> 00:17:52,120 Speaker 1: that the advertising doesn't necessarily match up with the end 271 00:17:52,160 --> 00:17:56,120 Speaker 1: results that they want. So business groups will often, for example, 272 00:17:56,359 --> 00:18:00,480 Speaker 1: launch attacks on justices where they don't like the outcome 273 00:18:00,720 --> 00:18:04,960 Speaker 1: of business decisions in their cases. Yet their advertising will 274 00:18:05,000 --> 00:18:08,800 Speaker 1: often focus on issues of criminal law. UM and focus 275 00:18:08,840 --> 00:18:14,480 Speaker 1: on UM, you know, advertisements that might impugne the justices 276 00:18:14,520 --> 00:18:18,240 Speaker 1: around their decisions on criminality and other issues like that. 277 00:18:19,800 --> 00:18:22,320 Speaker 1: Let's talk a little bit about the particular states, um 278 00:18:22,359 --> 00:18:24,960 Speaker 1: with these races that are worth worth watching. UM, can 279 00:18:25,000 --> 00:18:27,199 Speaker 1: you talk to us about what's happening in Illinois, Like 280 00:18:27,280 --> 00:18:31,240 Speaker 1: what are the issues that could come before the state 281 00:18:31,280 --> 00:18:35,800 Speaker 1: Supreme Court there, um where an ideological shift would make 282 00:18:35,800 --> 00:18:40,200 Speaker 1: a big impact. So, I going back to your earlier question, 283 00:18:40,240 --> 00:18:41,879 Speaker 1: I think one of the most obvious is going to 284 00:18:41,920 --> 00:18:45,960 Speaker 1: be abortion. UM. That issue could definitely come back before 285 00:18:46,000 --> 00:18:49,359 Speaker 1: the Illinois Supreme Court. UM if that court were to 286 00:18:49,480 --> 00:18:54,440 Speaker 1: flip from liberal to more conservative majority. If that were 287 00:18:54,440 --> 00:18:57,520 Speaker 1: to happen, then you know, it becomes a question as 288 00:18:57,520 --> 00:19:00,320 Speaker 1: to whether or not the right to an abortion could 289 00:19:00,320 --> 00:19:05,320 Speaker 1: still be deemed legal in Illinois. And that has a 290 00:19:05,400 --> 00:19:12,879 Speaker 1: huge downstream effect on other Midwestern states because Illinois dipped 291 00:19:12,920 --> 00:19:16,560 Speaker 1: so deep into the Midwest, UM that the right to 292 00:19:16,600 --> 00:19:20,959 Speaker 1: an abortion is often protected for other Midwestern people, UM 293 00:19:21,080 --> 00:19:23,760 Speaker 1: through Illinois still having that right. There are so many 294 00:19:23,800 --> 00:19:26,000 Speaker 1: issues and many other issues that are going to be 295 00:19:26,560 --> 00:19:30,399 Speaker 1: in front of that state state Supreme Court. Issues of 296 00:19:31,040 --> 00:19:34,960 Speaker 1: business law and issues of UM, you know, criminal rights 297 00:19:35,080 --> 00:19:38,520 Speaker 1: and UM. All all sorts of other issues would come 298 00:19:38,600 --> 00:19:41,560 Speaker 1: before that court too. And one one other state we've 299 00:19:41,560 --> 00:19:44,240 Speaker 1: talked about a little bit is Ohio. Are the issues 300 00:19:44,480 --> 00:19:49,200 Speaker 1: the same there or are they different from Illinois? In Ohio, 301 00:19:50,119 --> 00:19:53,639 Speaker 1: the you have many of the same issues. But also 302 00:19:53,840 --> 00:19:58,120 Speaker 1: I would just stress the importance of democracy cases there. Um, 303 00:19:58,240 --> 00:20:01,760 Speaker 1: you have a state legislature in Ohio and a state 304 00:20:01,760 --> 00:20:06,359 Speaker 1: governor that have done everything that they possibly can really 305 00:20:06,400 --> 00:20:09,840 Speaker 1: to restrict the right to vote in that state. Hundreds 306 00:20:09,840 --> 00:20:13,600 Speaker 1: of thousands of voters are stripped from the roles every 307 00:20:13,680 --> 00:20:19,119 Speaker 1: year in Ohio. Um, they've gerrymandered the state legislature to 308 00:20:19,160 --> 00:20:24,240 Speaker 1: an incredible degree. Um, there really is uh. There are 309 00:20:24,280 --> 00:20:28,200 Speaker 1: many cases there uh to protect the right to vote 310 00:20:28,280 --> 00:20:35,280 Speaker 1: that I think um would be extremely uh uh under 311 00:20:35,520 --> 00:20:40,439 Speaker 1: threat with a more conservative court there. That's Jake Falaskini 312 00:20:40,680 --> 00:20:44,080 Speaker 1: at Alliance for Justice Action Fund. Thanks for joining us, Jake, 313 00:20:44,560 --> 00:20:46,639 Speaker 1: thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate it. 314 00:20:46,800 --> 00:20:49,479 Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law. Up next, we're joined by 315 00:20:49,640 --> 00:20:53,560 Speaker 1: Jennifer Levi, director of Glad's Transgender Rights Project, to talk 316 00:20:53,560 --> 00:20:56,600 Speaker 1: about a recent appeals court decision that expanded legal protections 317 00:20:56,640 --> 00:21:00,520 Speaker 1: for transgender workers I'm Lidia Wheeler and I'm egg Store. 318 00:21:00,880 --> 00:21:14,760 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso 319 00:21:15,200 --> 00:21:20,119 Speaker 1: from Bloomberg Radio. I'm Lidia Wheeler and I'm gregg Store. 320 00:21:20,240 --> 00:21:23,440 Speaker 1: We're in for June Grasso. Earlier this month, the Fourth 321 00:21:23,560 --> 00:21:27,360 Speaker 1: US Circuit Court of Appeals declared gender dysphoria a disability 322 00:21:27,440 --> 00:21:30,480 Speaker 1: under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Joining us now is 323 00:21:30,560 --> 00:21:35,040 Speaker 1: Jennifer Levi, director of glad's transgender Rights Project. GLAD stands 324 00:21:35,080 --> 00:21:39,359 Speaker 1: for the g l B t Q legal advocates and defenders. Jennifer, 325 00:21:39,400 --> 00:21:41,760 Speaker 1: thanks for joining us. UM talked a little bit about 326 00:21:41,840 --> 00:21:45,000 Speaker 1: this ruling, call us how significant it is and what 327 00:21:45,040 --> 00:21:49,320 Speaker 1: it means for transgender and gender fluid people. Yeah, so 328 00:21:49,480 --> 00:21:52,560 Speaker 1: thanks for having me, and yeah, this is a really 329 00:21:52,640 --> 00:21:56,800 Speaker 1: important decision that makes it clear that there's no exclusion 330 00:21:57,119 --> 00:22:00,119 Speaker 1: under the a d A for disability claims that are 331 00:22:00,119 --> 00:22:04,520 Speaker 1: brought by transgender people. The reality is because of both 332 00:22:04,560 --> 00:22:08,320 Speaker 1: misunderstandings about gender dysphoria as a health condition and also 333 00:22:08,400 --> 00:22:12,120 Speaker 1: because of outdated language in the a d A. There 334 00:22:12,160 --> 00:22:16,040 Speaker 1: have been people and courts that have um in the 335 00:22:16,080 --> 00:22:20,440 Speaker 1: past said that transgender people can't bring disability claims, and 336 00:22:20,560 --> 00:22:24,679 Speaker 1: this really clarifies that individuals can which is very important 337 00:22:24,720 --> 00:22:29,040 Speaker 1: source of federal protections. Can you explain what gender dysphoria 338 00:22:29,200 --> 00:22:31,960 Speaker 1: is and how someone um with it might benefit from 339 00:22:31,960 --> 00:22:36,439 Speaker 1: being covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act? Yeah, absolutely so. 340 00:22:36,560 --> 00:22:41,600 Speaker 1: Gender dysphoria is the clinically significant distress that a transgender 341 00:22:41,640 --> 00:22:46,159 Speaker 1: person experiences if they can't live consistent with the gender 342 00:22:46,200 --> 00:22:49,080 Speaker 1: identity that they know themselves to be. So, for example, 343 00:22:49,119 --> 00:22:52,879 Speaker 1: a transgender woman as somebody who has assigned the sex 344 00:22:53,200 --> 00:22:58,040 Speaker 1: of mail at birth but has the identity and internalized 345 00:22:58,040 --> 00:23:01,080 Speaker 1: experience of being a female, and of gender dysphoria is 346 00:23:01,119 --> 00:23:03,920 Speaker 1: the experience that that individual has if they can't live 347 00:23:04,160 --> 00:23:07,560 Speaker 1: as a woman. How did this ruling by the Fourth 348 00:23:07,600 --> 00:23:10,800 Speaker 1: Circuit come about? What was the underlying dispute that that 349 00:23:10,920 --> 00:23:13,560 Speaker 1: got us here? Yeah, So the underslying dispute in this 350 00:23:13,640 --> 00:23:17,800 Speaker 1: case was that there is was the transgender woman who 351 00:23:18,200 --> 00:23:24,000 Speaker 1: was um incarcerated and denied medical treatment and made to 352 00:23:24,240 --> 00:23:29,360 Speaker 1: reside with men despite having lived as a woman, and 353 00:23:29,440 --> 00:23:33,280 Speaker 1: so she brought claim under this very important source of 354 00:23:33,359 --> 00:23:38,280 Speaker 1: federal protections against discrimination because of having a stigmatized medical condition. 355 00:23:39,000 --> 00:23:43,560 Speaker 1: And the court decision in this case makes clear that 356 00:23:44,080 --> 00:23:48,680 Speaker 1: she has to be fairly treated, and that fair treatment 357 00:23:48,760 --> 00:23:52,679 Speaker 1: has to take into account the medical condition that she experiences. 358 00:23:52,720 --> 00:23:55,560 Speaker 1: And so basically it means, you know that trans gender 359 00:23:55,640 --> 00:24:00,760 Speaker 1: women have to be treated UM. In this case, it 360 00:24:00,960 --> 00:24:03,680 Speaker 1: was UM in a prison, but the A d A 361 00:24:03,680 --> 00:24:08,200 Speaker 1: applies in other contexts, including in workplaces and public accommodations 362 00:24:08,240 --> 00:24:10,840 Speaker 1: and other public institutions, and so she has to be 363 00:24:11,080 --> 00:24:14,280 Speaker 1: treated like other women would be treated. Can you give 364 00:24:14,320 --> 00:24:18,000 Speaker 1: us some specific examples about how people transgender people could 365 00:24:18,040 --> 00:24:20,720 Speaker 1: benefit by being covered under the A D A. I mean, 366 00:24:20,760 --> 00:24:23,560 Speaker 1: I know that you you mentioned accommodations, um, you mentioned 367 00:24:23,600 --> 00:24:25,640 Speaker 1: things in the workplace. Can you give us some examples 368 00:24:25,640 --> 00:24:29,879 Speaker 1: as to how this could be a benefit. Yeah, absolutely so, 369 00:24:29,960 --> 00:24:33,800 Speaker 1: I mean the workplace provides a lot of uh examples 370 00:24:33,920 --> 00:24:37,520 Speaker 1: where um, you know, it's really important for a transgender 371 00:24:37,520 --> 00:24:40,200 Speaker 1: woman to be treated like other women. It may involve 372 00:24:40,600 --> 00:24:45,000 Speaker 1: um uh making sure that uh you can you know, 373 00:24:45,040 --> 00:24:47,359 Speaker 1: if there's a dress code in the workplace conformed with 374 00:24:47,400 --> 00:24:52,119 Speaker 1: a female dress code. Certainly, if there are accommodations for 375 00:24:52,359 --> 00:24:55,680 Speaker 1: changing or for restroom access, making sure that she has 376 00:24:56,160 --> 00:24:59,520 Speaker 1: access to those um for trans for transgender people who 377 00:24:59,600 --> 00:25:03,920 Speaker 1: might UM, taking you know, a period of time to transition. 378 00:25:04,359 --> 00:25:11,920 Speaker 1: Then it's important that they get them accommodations or any 379 00:25:12,000 --> 00:25:14,840 Speaker 1: kind of medical care that they might need during a 380 00:25:14,920 --> 00:25:17,920 Speaker 1: particular gap of time. So, I mean, one of the 381 00:25:18,000 --> 00:25:19,680 Speaker 1: things I want to say is that, you know, the 382 00:25:19,760 --> 00:25:23,880 Speaker 1: ADA has been such an important source of protection for 383 00:25:23,960 --> 00:25:27,879 Speaker 1: people who are fully capable of contributing and working but 384 00:25:28,080 --> 00:25:33,399 Speaker 1: are facing barriers because of the stigma and misunderstandings associated 385 00:25:33,400 --> 00:25:36,359 Speaker 1: with some underlying medical condition. And this is such an 386 00:25:36,359 --> 00:25:39,679 Speaker 1: important decision because it really levels the playing field for 387 00:25:39,800 --> 00:25:43,280 Speaker 1: transgender people in those um series like the workplays or 388 00:25:43,280 --> 00:25:47,720 Speaker 1: public institutions where the ad A applies. Let me dig 389 00:25:47,720 --> 00:25:50,920 Speaker 1: in a little bit to the legal battle here. So 390 00:25:51,359 --> 00:25:54,800 Speaker 1: the A d A includes some language that says this 391 00:25:54,880 --> 00:26:00,360 Speaker 1: law excludes people with gender identity disorders now, and that 392 00:26:00,359 --> 00:26:02,600 Speaker 1: that's a phrase that we don't use anymore, and perhaps 393 00:26:02,600 --> 00:26:06,240 Speaker 1: more importantly, psychiatrists don't use anymore, isn't it though? Or 394 00:26:06,600 --> 00:26:08,840 Speaker 1: the argument, at least from the Descent and the other 395 00:26:08,880 --> 00:26:11,760 Speaker 1: side in this case was that it is an indication 396 00:26:11,840 --> 00:26:15,320 Speaker 1: that may be Congress meant to exclude transgender and gender 397 00:26:15,359 --> 00:26:19,920 Speaker 1: fluid people from the statute. What's the counter to that? Yeah, 398 00:26:19,960 --> 00:26:23,480 Speaker 1: I mean, so what the majority said is that that 399 00:26:23,640 --> 00:26:29,359 Speaker 1: language of gender identity disorders is outdated, um and doesn't 400 00:26:29,400 --> 00:26:33,480 Speaker 1: reflect the current medical understanding of gender dysphoria, which is 401 00:26:33,520 --> 00:26:40,320 Speaker 1: the underlying medical condition that this individual experience. And so um, 402 00:26:40,359 --> 00:26:43,359 Speaker 1: you know, just looking at the plane, the plain text 403 00:26:43,400 --> 00:26:46,200 Speaker 1: and the plain meaning of what that exclusion reflected, there 404 00:26:46,240 --> 00:26:51,200 Speaker 1: would be no basis to deny somebody who experiences gender dysphoria, 405 00:26:51,280 --> 00:26:56,160 Speaker 1: which is a different medical condition than than gender identity disorders, 406 00:26:56,160 --> 00:26:59,520 Speaker 1: which was excluded under the original law. So just like 407 00:26:59,560 --> 00:27:03,359 Speaker 1: a straight non textual reading suggests there's no basis for 408 00:27:03,400 --> 00:27:08,560 Speaker 1: excluding transgender people. But what the majority also recognized is 409 00:27:08,600 --> 00:27:11,040 Speaker 1: that to the extent that it were to be read 410 00:27:11,119 --> 00:27:15,480 Speaker 1: to create that categorical exclusion, that that really violates the 411 00:27:15,520 --> 00:27:18,959 Speaker 1: most basic guarantees of equal protection, which is that you 412 00:27:19,000 --> 00:27:21,959 Speaker 1: can't be excluded from a law's protection just because of 413 00:27:22,480 --> 00:27:28,160 Speaker 1: bias or animus against a particular group. Do you think 414 00:27:28,240 --> 00:27:32,080 Speaker 1: that the ad A should be amended um at some point, 415 00:27:32,080 --> 00:27:35,399 Speaker 1: and and and do you think that lawmakers wrote it 416 00:27:35,440 --> 00:27:40,680 Speaker 1: in a way, um, in a kind of a bigoted way. Yeah, Look, 417 00:27:40,680 --> 00:27:44,760 Speaker 1: I mean I think there is very clear um testimony 418 00:27:44,800 --> 00:27:48,560 Speaker 1: and very clear history, that legislative history that has been 419 00:27:48,720 --> 00:27:51,800 Speaker 1: on earth. That does reflects the fact that you know, 420 00:27:51,840 --> 00:27:56,119 Speaker 1: there were some legislators, um who who were speaking you know, 421 00:27:56,160 --> 00:28:00,359 Speaker 1: out of from a very bias uh and discriminatory perspective. 422 00:28:00,520 --> 00:28:03,120 Speaker 1: And yeah, I think it creates a stain on that 423 00:28:03,280 --> 00:28:07,000 Speaker 1: law to have that exclusion written into it, and ultimately 424 00:28:07,000 --> 00:28:10,800 Speaker 1: it would make sense to update the language and get 425 00:28:10,880 --> 00:28:15,359 Speaker 1: rid of the archaic references. But the reason why this case, 426 00:28:15,840 --> 00:28:19,399 Speaker 1: you know, is so important is that transgender people should 427 00:28:19,440 --> 00:28:22,560 Speaker 1: not have to wait for that change in order to 428 00:28:23,480 --> 00:28:28,280 Speaker 1: um be able to secure such important federal protections. But yeah, 429 00:28:28,280 --> 00:28:30,160 Speaker 1: I mean there's probably a lot of ways in which 430 00:28:30,840 --> 00:28:34,520 Speaker 1: our laws uh need to be updated, and doing so 431 00:28:34,680 --> 00:28:38,320 Speaker 1: would be important, but um, those who should be protected 432 00:28:38,320 --> 00:28:41,600 Speaker 1: by the laws should not have to wait. And I 433 00:28:41,600 --> 00:28:43,240 Speaker 1: actually I want to say one other, one other side 434 00:28:43,240 --> 00:28:45,040 Speaker 1: of that, if if I have a minute, which is 435 00:28:45,280 --> 00:28:48,440 Speaker 1: this is important not just for transgender people, but also 436 00:28:48,760 --> 00:28:52,120 Speaker 1: you know, for the workplaces and the public institutions to 437 00:28:52,200 --> 00:28:54,440 Speaker 1: which they contribute. I mean, the point of the ADA 438 00:28:54,680 --> 00:28:57,640 Speaker 1: was to ensure that people who can thrive and make 439 00:28:57,680 --> 00:29:03,120 Speaker 1: contributions aren't held back um by you know, misunderstanding, by 440 00:29:03,200 --> 00:29:05,680 Speaker 1: stigma associated with the medical condition, and the point is 441 00:29:05,720 --> 00:29:08,600 Speaker 1: really so that we can all benefit from the contributions 442 00:29:08,640 --> 00:29:11,640 Speaker 1: that they can make. So this is obviously just one 443 00:29:11,720 --> 00:29:15,400 Speaker 1: federal appeals court, important decision, but just one. Where have 444 00:29:15,520 --> 00:29:19,600 Speaker 1: other courts come down on this? Where does the state 445 00:29:19,640 --> 00:29:23,600 Speaker 1: of the law stand nationwide on this issue? Yeah? So no, 446 00:29:23,760 --> 00:29:26,920 Speaker 1: there has been a number of at this point federal 447 00:29:27,040 --> 00:29:31,360 Speaker 1: district courts which have are in agreement with what UM 448 00:29:31,400 --> 00:29:34,880 Speaker 1: the Fourth Circuit recently said, And so, I mean, at 449 00:29:34,880 --> 00:29:40,680 Speaker 1: this point it is very much the UM prevailing understanding 450 00:29:41,080 --> 00:29:44,800 Speaker 1: of the idea, which is that it does apply UM. 451 00:29:44,840 --> 00:29:48,680 Speaker 1: It can be used UM in you know, where somebody 452 00:29:48,720 --> 00:29:52,560 Speaker 1: faces discrimination or biased because of the medical condition of 453 00:29:52,960 --> 00:29:56,640 Speaker 1: gender dysphoria. This is the first circuit court decision, but 454 00:29:56,720 --> 00:29:59,480 Speaker 1: there are a number of federal district courts which are 455 00:29:59,520 --> 00:30:03,280 Speaker 1: aligned with the outcome here. How should employers who are 456 00:30:03,320 --> 00:30:07,400 Speaker 1: trying to comply with this lot respond to this decision? Yeah, so, 457 00:30:07,520 --> 00:30:10,160 Speaker 1: I mean, I think one of the ways to respond 458 00:30:10,280 --> 00:30:15,160 Speaker 1: is to just make sure that people's h R policies 459 00:30:15,200 --> 00:30:20,720 Speaker 1: are taking into account and ensuring equal treatment for UM. 460 00:30:20,760 --> 00:30:26,840 Speaker 1: Anyone who speaks an accommodation because of gender dysphoria, or 461 00:30:26,960 --> 00:30:29,880 Speaker 1: who is trying to ensure that they have full and 462 00:30:29,920 --> 00:30:34,440 Speaker 1: equal access to UM the workplace or you know, other 463 00:30:34,480 --> 00:30:39,960 Speaker 1: public accommodations, public including you know, federal UM places, for 464 00:30:40,040 --> 00:30:42,520 Speaker 1: which not just the Americans with Disabilities Act but also 465 00:30:42,560 --> 00:30:45,600 Speaker 1: the Federal Rehab Act applies. And so it's really just 466 00:30:45,800 --> 00:30:49,920 Speaker 1: making sure that there's that the touchstone is equal treatment, 467 00:30:50,040 --> 00:30:52,440 Speaker 1: you know, to the extent because its employers have to 468 00:30:52,480 --> 00:30:56,320 Speaker 1: have you know, um UH policies to address a d 469 00:30:56,480 --> 00:31:00,160 Speaker 1: A accommodations and probitions against discriminations. So this is just 470 00:31:00,280 --> 00:31:02,800 Speaker 1: making sure that there's no carve out or no exclusion 471 00:31:03,280 --> 00:31:07,400 Speaker 1: for transgender people. It's a touchdown of equal equal treatment. 472 00:31:08,400 --> 00:31:12,440 Speaker 1: Given the importance of this issue and the fact that 473 00:31:12,440 --> 00:31:16,360 Speaker 1: there is some disagreement among lower court judges as evidenced 474 00:31:16,400 --> 00:31:19,080 Speaker 1: by the dissenting judge in this case, does this seem 475 00:31:19,120 --> 00:31:21,480 Speaker 1: like an issue that inevitably is going to be decided 476 00:31:21,480 --> 00:31:25,480 Speaker 1: by the Supreme Court? Um? I actually not convinced of that, 477 00:31:25,600 --> 00:31:29,920 Speaker 1: because you know, I think that UM, you know, the 478 00:31:29,960 --> 00:31:32,880 Speaker 1: Fourth Circuit got it right here. I think that we 479 00:31:32,920 --> 00:31:37,280 Speaker 1: are likely to see other favorable decisions. UM. If there 480 00:31:37,320 --> 00:31:39,760 Speaker 1: are issues are cases that go up on appeal. As 481 00:31:39,760 --> 00:31:43,000 Speaker 1: they said, there's a growing number of federal district courts 482 00:31:43,000 --> 00:31:47,040 Speaker 1: that have also clarified there's no exclusion for gender dysphoria 483 00:31:47,200 --> 00:31:50,480 Speaker 1: under the A d A. And you know, I think 484 00:31:50,520 --> 00:31:52,680 Speaker 1: that this is kind of an issue, Whereas they said, 485 00:31:52,760 --> 00:31:57,600 Speaker 1: just like a you know, straightforward plane reading of the 486 00:31:57,680 --> 00:32:02,840 Speaker 1: text of the statute um would would support this outcome here. 487 00:32:02,960 --> 00:32:05,400 Speaker 1: And so I don't think that we're going to see 488 00:32:05,840 --> 00:32:09,880 Speaker 1: a divide among appeal to courts on this issue, but 489 00:32:10,200 --> 00:32:14,040 Speaker 1: we'll see. I'm hopeful. Well, that's Jennifer Levi, director of 490 00:32:14,040 --> 00:32:18,880 Speaker 1: Glad's Transgender Rights Project. Thanks for joining us, Jennifer, Yeah, 491 00:32:18,880 --> 00:32:22,040 Speaker 1: thanks for inviting me on. I appreciate the coverage. And 492 00:32:22,120 --> 00:32:24,240 Speaker 1: that does it for this episode of Bloomberg Law. I'm 493 00:32:24,280 --> 00:32:27,760 Speaker 1: Lydia Wheeler, I'm Greg Store. This is Bloomberg