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

2
00:00:09,000 --> 00:00:13,560
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court's conservative majority signal it's likely to deal

3
00:00:13,680 --> 00:00:18,959
Speaker 2: another blow to LGBTQ rights. During oral arguments today over

4
00:00:19,079 --> 00:00:23,880
Speaker 2: state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender

5
00:00:23,960 --> 00:00:27,640
Speaker 2: girls and women from competing for their schools on female

6
00:00:27,640 --> 00:00:33,400
Speaker 2: athletic teams, Conservative justices like Samuel Alito and Brett Cavanaugh

7
00:00:33,800 --> 00:00:38,520
Speaker 2: directed skeptical questions at the lawyers for the transgender athletes

8
00:00:38,840 --> 00:00:43,280
Speaker 2: who are challenging these bans as violating the Constitution's Equal

9
00:00:43,360 --> 00:00:48,800
Speaker 2: Protection Clause and Title nine, which prohibit sex discrimination in education.

10
00:00:49,680 --> 00:00:54,480
Speaker 3: There are an awful lot of female athletes who are

11
00:00:54,560 --> 00:01:02,200
Speaker 3: strongly opposed to participation by trans athletes and competitions with them.

12
00:01:02,440 --> 00:01:06,880
Speaker 3: What do you say about them? They Are they bigots?

13
00:01:07,280 --> 00:01:10,800
Speaker 3: Are they deluded in thinking that they are subjected to

14
00:01:10,840 --> 00:01:11,840
Speaker 3: unfair competition?

15
00:01:13,080 --> 00:01:15,440
Speaker 4: You know, there's some states in the federal government, and

16
00:01:15,480 --> 00:01:19,240
Speaker 4: the NCAA and the Olympic Committee. So these are a

17
00:01:19,360 --> 00:01:24,080
Speaker 4: variety of groups who study this issue think that allowing

18
00:01:24,600 --> 00:01:31,640
Speaker 4: transgender women and girls to participate will undermine or reverse

19
00:01:31,760 --> 00:01:34,360
Speaker 4: that amazing success and will.

20
00:01:36,640 --> 00:01:42,600
Speaker 2: Create unfairness LGBTQ advocates haven't had a major Supreme Court

21
00:01:42,680 --> 00:01:46,080
Speaker 2: win since twenty twenty, when the Court ruled six to

22
00:01:46,200 --> 00:01:49,320
Speaker 2: three that the main federal job bias law known as

23
00:01:49,400 --> 00:01:55,080
Speaker 2: Title seven Barr's Discrimination against Sexual Orientation and gender identity.

24
00:01:55,560 --> 00:01:58,960
Speaker 2: Joining me is Suzanne Goldberg, a professor at Columbia Law

25
00:01:58,960 --> 00:02:04,440
Speaker 2: School and director of the Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic. Suzanne,

26
00:02:04,480 --> 00:02:08,040
Speaker 2: based on the oral arguments, did it seem like the

27
00:02:08,080 --> 00:02:12,240
Speaker 2: Supreme Court is likely to uphold the state laws that

28
00:02:12,480 --> 00:02:17,640
Speaker 2: ban transgender girls and women from competing on female athletic teams.

29
00:02:18,360 --> 00:02:21,960
Speaker 5: I always hesitate to predict outcomes in the wake of

30
00:02:22,000 --> 00:02:25,880
Speaker 5: an oral argument. I think what is fair to say

31
00:02:25,960 --> 00:02:28,960
Speaker 5: and interesting about the argument is that most of the

32
00:02:29,160 --> 00:02:32,960
Speaker 5: justices really appear to be grappling with the hard questions

33
00:02:33,160 --> 00:02:36,560
Speaker 5: and the implications of a ruling either way, Meaning that

34
00:02:37,080 --> 00:02:40,840
Speaker 5: while I think a couple of the justices on both sides,

35
00:02:40,880 --> 00:02:43,239
Speaker 5: some of the justices on both sides were pretty clear

36
00:02:43,280 --> 00:02:46,760
Speaker 5: about how they would come out, several of them seem

37
00:02:47,120 --> 00:02:52,440
Speaker 5: to understand that ruling strongly in one direction or another

38
00:02:52,680 --> 00:02:57,120
Speaker 5: might pose great risks to constitutional law and to protections

39
00:02:57,160 --> 00:03:02,080
Speaker 5: under Title nine against sex discrimination. The lawyers for both

40
00:03:02,120 --> 00:03:06,119
Speaker 5: of the athletes in these cases made what I thought

41
00:03:06,120 --> 00:03:10,280
Speaker 5: were quite strong arguments that there is not enough information

42
00:03:10,480 --> 00:03:12,880
Speaker 5: in the record in front of the court for the

43
00:03:12,880 --> 00:03:17,040
Speaker 5: court actually to decide that big questions about whether transgender

44
00:03:17,080 --> 00:03:23,720
Speaker 5: athletes are sometimes or always sufficiently controlling any effects of

45
00:03:23,760 --> 00:03:26,480
Speaker 5: testosterone to be able to compete on the same basis

46
00:03:26,919 --> 00:03:29,600
Speaker 5: as non transgender athletes. So I think there are a

47
00:03:29,600 --> 00:03:33,919
Speaker 5: lot of fact questions in the mix, and the lawyers

48
00:03:33,960 --> 00:03:36,320
Speaker 5: for both of the athletes, I think made strong arguments

49
00:03:36,360 --> 00:03:38,720
Speaker 5: that the cases should actually go back to the lower

50
00:03:38,760 --> 00:03:42,839
Speaker 5: courts for full development of a record or dismissal.

51
00:03:42,920 --> 00:03:44,640
Speaker 6: In the case of the college student.

52
00:03:44,680 --> 00:03:47,480
Speaker 2: So explain what the legal issue is.

53
00:03:48,560 --> 00:03:54,560
Speaker 5: The cases are centrally about whether states can ban transgender

54
00:03:54,720 --> 00:03:57,880
Speaker 5: female students a girl in one case, and a college

55
00:03:57,920 --> 00:04:01,720
Speaker 5: student and a young woman and another from participating on

56
00:04:01,840 --> 00:04:05,040
Speaker 5: the girls and women's sports teams. These state laws are

57
00:04:05,120 --> 00:04:10,520
Speaker 5: categorical bands, meaning it doesn't matter how much a student

58
00:04:10,680 --> 00:04:14,320
Speaker 5: has mitigated the effects of testosterone, or in the case

59
00:04:14,400 --> 00:04:18,839
Speaker 5: of the West Virginia young student, she's not gone through

60
00:04:18,839 --> 00:04:22,240
Speaker 5: male puberty, she's going through female puberty, and so the

61
00:04:22,360 --> 00:04:25,960
Speaker 5: legal question in the case is can the state impose

62
00:04:26,480 --> 00:04:30,680
Speaker 5: categorical bands on every transgender girl and woman from ever

63
00:04:30,720 --> 00:04:35,000
Speaker 5: participating on a girls or women's team. The legal questions

64
00:04:35,040 --> 00:04:38,520
Speaker 5: come under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution,

65
00:04:38,640 --> 00:04:42,080
Speaker 5: which guarantees equal treatment and says the government must have

66
00:04:42,160 --> 00:04:45,240
Speaker 5: a good enough reason if it is going to draw

67
00:04:45,279 --> 00:04:49,040
Speaker 5: lines based on sex. And there is also, in the

68
00:04:49,040 --> 00:04:52,520
Speaker 5: case of the West Virginia student, a claim under Title nine,

69
00:04:52,560 --> 00:04:56,160
Speaker 5: which is the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination, and

70
00:04:56,240 --> 00:05:00,400
Speaker 5: that claim is that states, of course can have separate

71
00:05:00,440 --> 00:05:05,160
Speaker 5: girls and boys teams, but it is unreasonable to keep

72
00:05:05,800 --> 00:05:09,080
Speaker 5: this student who is going through female puberty and never

73
00:05:09,080 --> 00:05:11,720
Speaker 5: gone through male puberty off of the girls team.

74
00:05:12,200 --> 00:05:15,000
Speaker 2: So there were a lot of sort of broad statements

75
00:05:15,080 --> 00:05:20,400
Speaker 2: about transgender women. Samuel Alito asked, looking at the broader

76
00:05:20,480 --> 00:05:22,440
Speaker 2: issue that a lot of people are interested in. There're

77
00:05:22,480 --> 00:05:25,640
Speaker 2: an awful lot of female athletes who are strongly opposed

78
00:05:25,640 --> 00:05:30,320
Speaker 2: to participation by trans athletes in competitions with them. Are

79
00:05:30,360 --> 00:05:34,080
Speaker 2: they bigots? And just as Kavanaugh said, the court can't

80
00:05:34,120 --> 00:05:38,159
Speaker 2: look past what he characterized as the harm that transgender

81
00:05:38,200 --> 00:05:43,240
Speaker 2: inclusive sports policies impose on cisgender women and girls' sports

82
00:05:43,320 --> 00:05:46,040
Speaker 2: team For the individual girl who doesn't make the team,

83
00:05:46,120 --> 00:05:48,080
Speaker 2: or doesn't get on the stand for the medal, or

84
00:05:48,160 --> 00:05:50,880
Speaker 2: doesn't make all leagues, there's a harm, and I think

85
00:05:50,920 --> 00:05:54,240
Speaker 2: we can sweep that aside. So do you think that

86
00:05:55,000 --> 00:05:59,560
Speaker 2: a lot of the justices were looking at stereotypes of

87
00:06:00,080 --> 00:06:01,520
Speaker 2: transgender athletes.

88
00:06:01,960 --> 00:06:09,040
Speaker 5: I think the lawyers responded very clearly to the concern

89
00:06:09,520 --> 00:06:14,359
Speaker 5: expressed by the justices related to some girls and women

90
00:06:14,400 --> 00:06:17,560
Speaker 5: objecting to transgender girls and women on their sports teams,

91
00:06:18,160 --> 00:06:23,120
Speaker 5: and what they said was, no, nobody is accusing anybody

92
00:06:23,160 --> 00:06:26,719
Speaker 5: of being a bigot, and you know, of course competition

93
00:06:26,839 --> 00:06:27,560
Speaker 5: is important.

94
00:06:28,160 --> 00:06:29,000
Speaker 6: The question in.

95
00:06:28,960 --> 00:06:35,480
Speaker 5: These cases is whether it is reasonable or discriminatory to

96
00:06:35,520 --> 00:06:39,160
Speaker 5: say every single transgender girl and woman, no matter to

97
00:06:39,200 --> 00:06:43,160
Speaker 5: what extent she's mitigated the effects of testosterone or not

98
00:06:43,240 --> 00:06:48,839
Speaker 5: even experienced them, that it is unreasonable to keep those

99
00:06:48,880 --> 00:06:52,480
Speaker 5: students off of girls and women's teams. You know, it's

100
00:06:52,600 --> 00:06:55,880
Speaker 5: tough always to not make the team or not win

101
00:06:55,920 --> 00:07:00,880
Speaker 5: the competition, but that is part of sports. And part

102
00:07:00,920 --> 00:07:04,440
Speaker 5: of the point the lawyers were making was even when

103
00:07:04,440 --> 00:07:07,719
Speaker 5: somebody is upset about losing, it doesn't necessarily mean their

104
00:07:07,800 --> 00:07:13,520
Speaker 5: loss violates the law or violates the constitution. Always right,

105
00:07:13,560 --> 00:07:16,400
Speaker 5: one athlete wins right, one athlete is better than another.

106
00:07:17,080 --> 00:07:20,880
Speaker 5: And in these cases the point was, it's not because

107
00:07:20,880 --> 00:07:22,480
Speaker 5: this other student is transgender.

108
00:07:22,760 --> 00:07:24,680
Speaker 6: It's because the other student either has.

109
00:07:24,720 --> 00:07:28,280
Speaker 5: You know, practices harder or having a better day of competition,

110
00:07:28,640 --> 00:07:33,400
Speaker 5: or may have more natural ability. But none of that

111
00:07:33,520 --> 00:07:37,960
Speaker 5: in these cases is keyed to a student being transgender.

112
00:07:38,280 --> 00:07:38,440
Speaker 1: Right.

113
00:07:38,520 --> 00:07:41,480
Speaker 5: Athletes vary in many ways, and that is the point

114
00:07:41,520 --> 00:07:44,000
Speaker 5: of the lawyers and the plaintiffs in these cases.

115
00:07:44,600 --> 00:07:49,640
Speaker 2: Aren't these laws, though, based on a belief that transgender

116
00:07:49,800 --> 00:07:54,960
Speaker 2: women or girls have a better chance at women's athletics

117
00:07:55,480 --> 00:07:56,840
Speaker 2: because they're transgender.

118
00:07:57,840 --> 00:08:03,320
Speaker 5: Yeah, the laws are based on a view that transgender

119
00:08:03,400 --> 00:08:07,440
Speaker 5: girls and women are always and automatically going to be

120
00:08:08,200 --> 00:08:12,720
Speaker 5: stronger and faster in ways that matter for athletics because

121
00:08:13,280 --> 00:08:17,280
Speaker 5: they're transgender. The facts in these cases about the two

122
00:08:17,360 --> 00:08:21,840
Speaker 5: athletes show that that is not always true, and the

123
00:08:21,960 --> 00:08:25,800
Speaker 5: science shows that's not always true. One of the questions

124
00:08:25,840 --> 00:08:28,680
Speaker 5: that came up quite a bit during the argument is, well,

125
00:08:28,680 --> 00:08:31,480
Speaker 5: how much should the court get involved in the science,

126
00:08:31,600 --> 00:08:35,200
Speaker 5: especially as the science is under development. The response from

127
00:08:35,240 --> 00:08:39,680
Speaker 5: the athletes lawyers was the records in these cases, which

128
00:08:39,720 --> 00:08:42,560
Speaker 5: is what the court has to look at to examine

129
00:08:42,559 --> 00:08:47,760
Speaker 5: the facts are incomplete and if anything, if this, if

130
00:08:47,760 --> 00:08:49,920
Speaker 5: the court wants to get into the science, then the

131
00:08:49,960 --> 00:08:52,800
Speaker 5: cases should be sent back to the lower courts for

132
00:08:52,840 --> 00:08:56,720
Speaker 5: a trial and development of a full record and the

133
00:08:56,800 --> 00:09:02,079
Speaker 5: trial court's consideration of the compete. Experts and the experts

134
00:09:02,320 --> 00:09:08,319
Speaker 5: in science for the athletes say students can mitigate their

135
00:09:08,360 --> 00:09:13,000
Speaker 5: testosterone levels, and again BPJ the West Virginia student's case,

136
00:09:13,559 --> 00:09:17,280
Speaker 5: she has not never experienced male puberty, has only experienced

137
00:09:17,320 --> 00:09:22,200
Speaker 5: female hormonal puberty, and so to suggest that she is

138
00:09:22,400 --> 00:09:27,600
Speaker 5: somehow advantaged by male puberty is incorrect and is belied

139
00:09:27,640 --> 00:09:31,360
Speaker 5: by the record. A lawyer for the college student athlete

140
00:09:31,840 --> 00:09:35,640
Speaker 5: made the point that there is some scientific evidence that

141
00:09:35,720 --> 00:09:40,839
Speaker 5: transgender women are at a disadvantage because they may, if

142
00:09:40,840 --> 00:09:43,520
Speaker 5: they've gone through mail puberty, have a larger body frame,

143
00:09:44,280 --> 00:09:48,920
Speaker 5: but because they've dropped their testosterone to typical levels for

144
00:09:49,040 --> 00:09:53,439
Speaker 5: women may not have the muscle mass and the strength

145
00:09:53,920 --> 00:09:56,520
Speaker 5: that is needed to propel that larger body frame. So

146
00:09:56,600 --> 00:09:59,840
Speaker 5: there is some scientific evidence showing a disadvantage rather than

147
00:09:59,840 --> 00:10:02,200
Speaker 5: the kind of advantage to the state claims.

148
00:10:02,000 --> 00:10:05,480
Speaker 2: Will you explain? West Virginia is arguing that the laws

149
00:10:05,559 --> 00:10:07,640
Speaker 2: about sex, not gender.

150
00:10:08,160 --> 00:10:11,440
Speaker 5: You know, one of the questions in this case is

151
00:10:12,760 --> 00:10:17,840
Speaker 5: do the state laws impose discrimination based on gender identity

152
00:10:18,000 --> 00:10:22,079
Speaker 5: or do they impose discrimination based on sex. Title nine

153
00:10:23,120 --> 00:10:27,800
Speaker 5: cover sex discrimination, and in constitutional law, the Court has

154
00:10:27,880 --> 00:10:32,200
Speaker 5: long applied heightened scrutiny to sex discrimination. So the states

155
00:10:32,240 --> 00:10:34,440
Speaker 5: in these cases and the government in these cases are

156
00:10:34,559 --> 00:10:40,720
Speaker 5: arguing that these laws don't actually discriminate against transgender people.

157
00:10:40,840 --> 00:10:45,120
Speaker 5: They do draw lines based on biology, and that kind

158
00:10:45,160 --> 00:10:50,160
Speaker 5: of line drawing is permissible. The lawyers for the athletes

159
00:10:50,200 --> 00:10:55,160
Speaker 5: in these cases are arguing, yes, in general, line drawing

160
00:10:55,240 --> 00:10:58,520
Speaker 5: based on biology when it comes to sports might be permissible,

161
00:10:58,960 --> 00:11:02,959
Speaker 5: but categoric banning all transgender girls and women from playing

162
00:11:03,000 --> 00:11:07,720
Speaker 5: girls and women's sports is not reasonable. It defies the science,

163
00:11:07,840 --> 00:11:11,400
Speaker 5: and most importantly, it defies the fact about the athlete.

164
00:11:11,000 --> 00:11:14,120
Speaker 2: Teams cases coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show,

165
00:11:14,520 --> 00:11:18,040
Speaker 2: could a ruling favoring the bands in Idaho and West

166
00:11:18,160 --> 00:11:22,840
Speaker 2: Virginia affects states that permit transgender girls and women to

167
00:11:23,000 --> 00:11:27,040
Speaker 2: participate on female teams. Remember, you can always get the

168
00:11:27,120 --> 00:11:30,160
Speaker 2: latest legal news by listening to our Bloomberg Law podcasts.

169
00:11:30,559 --> 00:11:33,560
Speaker 2: You can find them on Apple Podcasts. Spotify and at

170
00:11:33,600 --> 00:11:38,320
Speaker 2: Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grasso,

171
00:11:38,440 --> 00:11:44,520
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg. Idaho and West Virginia are

172
00:11:44,559 --> 00:11:50,080
Speaker 2: among twenty seven states with laws restricting transgender student athletes,

173
00:11:50,559 --> 00:11:55,000
Speaker 2: all enacted since twenty twenty. During three hours of oral

174
00:11:55,120 --> 00:12:00,360
Speaker 2: arguments today, the Supreme Court's conservatives suggested their law likely

175
00:12:00,400 --> 00:12:05,000
Speaker 2: to uphol those state bands, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised

176
00:12:05,000 --> 00:12:09,079
Speaker 2: the question of whether a ruling favoring those state bans

177
00:12:09,440 --> 00:12:13,800
Speaker 2: would affect laws in states that allowed transgender girls and

178
00:12:13,840 --> 00:12:16,680
Speaker 2: women to participate on female teams.

179
00:12:17,040 --> 00:12:21,040
Speaker 4: And those states who do allow it, are they is

180
00:12:21,080 --> 00:12:25,839
Speaker 4: your position that they are violating the Constitution the Equal

181
00:12:25,880 --> 00:12:32,040
Speaker 4: Protection claus rights of biological girls and women by allowing that,

182
00:12:32,320 --> 00:12:35,880
Speaker 4: or do you say that's up to each state to decide,

183
00:12:36,040 --> 00:12:40,880
Speaker 4: and that the Constitution gives discretion to the state whether

184
00:12:41,040 --> 00:12:44,200
Speaker 4: to allow it or not to allow it. I have

185
00:12:44,320 --> 00:12:46,720
Speaker 4: not yet been persuaded by a constitutional theory that would

186
00:12:46,760 --> 00:12:48,640
Speaker 4: let us use the egal protection clause to impose our

187
00:12:48,640 --> 00:12:50,000
Speaker 4: policy on other states in this matter.

188
00:12:50,280 --> 00:12:53,920
Speaker 2: I've been talking to Columbia Law School professor Suzanne Goldberg.

189
00:12:54,520 --> 00:12:58,200
Speaker 2: Suzanne in the Bosta case the twenty twenty case where

190
00:12:58,200 --> 00:13:03,120
Speaker 2: the Court ruled six to three Title seven protects transgender

191
00:13:03,240 --> 00:13:09,880
Speaker 2: workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

192
00:13:10,280 --> 00:13:13,000
Speaker 2: But did it appear that both the Chief Justice, who

193
00:13:13,040 --> 00:13:16,560
Speaker 2: was in the majority in Bosstok, and Justice Neil Gorsich,

194
00:13:16,600 --> 00:13:20,520
Speaker 2: who wrote the opinion in Bosstok, were backing away from

195
00:13:20,520 --> 00:13:21,760
Speaker 2: it in this case.

196
00:13:22,720 --> 00:13:24,480
Speaker 5: I think it's fair to say that Justice Gorsic and

197
00:13:24,679 --> 00:13:28,800
Speaker 5: Chief Justice Roberts did not heartily endorse.

198
00:13:28,480 --> 00:13:30,880
Speaker 6: The application of Bostok to Title nine.

199
00:13:31,440 --> 00:13:34,120
Speaker 5: At one point, Justice Gorsich even said, I wonder how

200
00:13:34,160 --> 00:13:37,040
Speaker 5: straightforward this all is, and this was after several hours

201
00:13:37,040 --> 00:13:40,800
Speaker 5: of oral argument. Bosstok does not have to be applied

202
00:13:40,880 --> 00:13:43,920
Speaker 5: for the individual athletes to prevail in these cases.

203
00:13:44,480 --> 00:13:45,319
Speaker 6: But I think it is.

204
00:13:45,320 --> 00:13:48,880
Speaker 5: Fair to say that they don't see an easy connection

205
00:13:49,040 --> 00:13:54,080
Speaker 5: or a direct connection between prohibiting sex discrimination under Title

206
00:13:54,200 --> 00:14:00,080
Speaker 5: seven in employment against gay or transgender employees to carry

207
00:14:00,120 --> 00:14:04,120
Speaker 5: over to Title nine, which prohibits sex discrimination in education.

208
00:14:04,280 --> 00:14:06,080
Speaker 5: I mean, obviously we'll see what they have to say

209
00:14:06,080 --> 00:14:10,040
Speaker 5: in their opinions, but they did not say anything in

210
00:14:10,080 --> 00:14:13,240
Speaker 5: the argument to indicate that they see an easy carryover

211
00:14:13,320 --> 00:14:15,319
Speaker 5: of boss Stock from one setting to the other.

212
00:14:15,640 --> 00:14:21,080
Speaker 2: Were lawyers for the transgender athletes, hoping that there would

213
00:14:21,080 --> 00:14:22,920
Speaker 2: be a carryover from Boss Stoc.

214
00:14:23,600 --> 00:14:27,480
Speaker 5: The lawyers for the athletes made the argument that, of

215
00:14:27,520 --> 00:14:30,720
Speaker 5: course there's a connection both in terms of the specifics

216
00:14:30,800 --> 00:14:35,000
Speaker 5: of the language of Title nine and Title seven. In

217
00:14:35,000 --> 00:14:38,560
Speaker 5: interpreting Title nine, the Supreme Court often looks to its

218
00:14:38,680 --> 00:14:43,800
Speaker 5: rulings under Title seven to keep the two statutes and

219
00:14:43,840 --> 00:14:48,560
Speaker 5: their understandings of discrimination in sync, and so the normal

220
00:14:48,680 --> 00:14:51,520
Speaker 5: course would be that a case like Boss Stock, which

221
00:14:51,520 --> 00:14:55,160
Speaker 5: is an important interpretation of Title seven, would carry over

222
00:14:55,240 --> 00:14:59,360
Speaker 5: to Title nine. The athletes lawyers also make the point,

223
00:14:59,440 --> 00:15:02,840
Speaker 5: which I think is very fair, that whether the decision

224
00:15:02,920 --> 00:15:08,360
Speaker 5: carries over formally or not, it's logic certainly should carry over,

225
00:15:08,880 --> 00:15:12,000
Speaker 5: which is that when a government draws a line, or

226
00:15:12,080 --> 00:15:16,400
Speaker 5: when there's line drawing that says all transgender people are

227
00:15:16,440 --> 00:15:19,880
Speaker 5: on one side of the line, that necessarily is a

228
00:15:20,000 --> 00:15:23,360
Speaker 5: kind of sex discrimination. It says we will treat you

229
00:15:23,960 --> 00:15:29,200
Speaker 5: differently and worse because we don't conform to your expectations

230
00:15:29,240 --> 00:15:31,760
Speaker 5: of what a man or woman should be. And that's

231
00:15:31,800 --> 00:15:35,640
Speaker 5: exactly the kind of discrimination that Title seven is understood

232
00:15:35,680 --> 00:15:36,240
Speaker 5: to prohibit.

233
00:15:36,560 --> 00:15:39,640
Speaker 2: Were the three liberal justices on the same page.

234
00:15:40,400 --> 00:15:45,920
Speaker 5: I would say that the three liberal justices seem troubled

235
00:15:45,960 --> 00:15:51,880
Speaker 5: by the state's laws. Their questions reinforced one another. They

236
00:15:51,920 --> 00:15:54,640
Speaker 5: were troubled, especially by an argument made by the state

237
00:15:55,360 --> 00:15:59,680
Speaker 5: and the federal government that, you know, if the group

238
00:15:59,720 --> 00:16:03,600
Speaker 5: that's discriminated against is really small, and the group of

239
00:16:03,600 --> 00:16:08,760
Speaker 5: transgender people are really small, then the Constitution isn't so

240
00:16:08,880 --> 00:16:12,160
Speaker 5: concerned about that. I think that is that argument is

241
00:16:12,280 --> 00:16:17,400
Speaker 5: wildly incorrect and misstates the law, and it seemed that

242
00:16:17,400 --> 00:16:20,480
Speaker 5: that was a key point of concern for those justices.

243
00:16:21,480 --> 00:16:25,640
Speaker 2: Justice Brett Kavanaugh several times asked about the roughly two

244
00:16:25,720 --> 00:16:30,200
Speaker 2: dozen states that allow transgender athletes to compete and whether

245
00:16:30,240 --> 00:16:34,440
Speaker 2: they'd be forced to change course if the Justice is

246
00:16:34,480 --> 00:16:37,840
Speaker 2: uphold state ban so he said, are those states violating

247
00:16:37,880 --> 00:16:42,400
Speaker 2: the constitutional rights of biological girls and women by allowing that?

248
00:16:42,600 --> 00:16:45,360
Speaker 2: And Justice Kagan also asked that question.

249
00:16:45,760 --> 00:16:49,320
Speaker 5: I think this is one important takeaway from this argument

250
00:16:49,640 --> 00:16:54,760
Speaker 5: is that the governments trying to defend these laws did

251
00:16:54,840 --> 00:16:59,920
Speaker 5: not argue that it would violate the rights of cisgender

252
00:17:00,120 --> 00:17:04,119
Speaker 5: girls to allow transgender girls to compete against them on

253
00:17:04,240 --> 00:17:07,760
Speaker 5: girls or women's teams. And so, you know, a key

254
00:17:08,560 --> 00:17:12,280
Speaker 5: takeaway here is no one seemed to be embracing an

255
00:17:12,400 --> 00:17:16,280
Speaker 5: argument that it would be unconstitutional for nearly half of

256
00:17:16,320 --> 00:17:20,760
Speaker 5: the states in the country to allow transgender girls and

257
00:17:20,800 --> 00:17:24,439
Speaker 5: women to compete on girls and women's teams. The lawyer

258
00:17:24,480 --> 00:17:27,280
Speaker 5: for the United States specifically argued that they were not

259
00:17:27,600 --> 00:17:30,679
Speaker 5: asking the court to address this. The United States has

260
00:17:30,720 --> 00:17:33,359
Speaker 5: taken the position that it violates Title nine for states

261
00:17:33,400 --> 00:17:37,520
Speaker 5: to allow transgender girls and women to participate on girls

262
00:17:37,520 --> 00:17:42,119
Speaker 5: and women's teams. But the lawyer for the government in

263
00:17:42,160 --> 00:17:45,119
Speaker 5: this case try to strongly make the point that that

264
00:17:45,240 --> 00:17:47,920
Speaker 5: is not what this case is about, and it would

265
00:17:47,960 --> 00:17:50,800
Speaker 5: be surprising, I think if the court were to reach

266
00:17:50,880 --> 00:17:51,800
Speaker 5: that question here.

267
00:17:52,200 --> 00:17:55,199
Speaker 2: So, I mean, we've talked about this before, about how

268
00:17:55,480 --> 00:18:00,280
Speaker 2: there have been setbacks to transgender rights from this court

269
00:18:00,680 --> 00:18:04,480
Speaker 2: allowing Donald Trump to ban transgender people from the military,

270
00:18:05,119 --> 00:18:10,320
Speaker 2: blocking transgender and non binary people from choosing passport sex markers,

271
00:18:10,880 --> 00:18:14,480
Speaker 2: as well as the ruling that upheld Tennessee's ban on

272
00:18:14,640 --> 00:18:18,680
Speaker 2: gender affirming care for transgender youth. And when you listen

273
00:18:18,760 --> 00:18:21,440
Speaker 2: to the oral arguments, you know you have the three liberals,

274
00:18:21,720 --> 00:18:23,600
Speaker 2: and then it seems hard for me to find two

275
00:18:24,000 --> 00:18:28,679
Speaker 2: more justices who would side with the transgender athletes in

276
00:18:28,720 --> 00:18:32,199
Speaker 2: these cases. And also it would just be a continuation

277
00:18:32,359 --> 00:18:35,719
Speaker 2: of what the Supreme Court has been doing in recent years,

278
00:18:35,840 --> 00:18:39,119
Speaker 2: which is cutting back on transgender rights.

279
00:18:39,720 --> 00:18:42,679
Speaker 5: It's certainly true that in recent years, and especially this

280
00:18:42,840 --> 00:18:46,840
Speaker 5: past year, the Supreme Court has cut back in profound

281
00:18:46,880 --> 00:18:50,920
Speaker 5: ways on the rights of transgender people by upholding an

282
00:18:50,960 --> 00:18:56,040
Speaker 5: executive order excluding transgender people from military service on an

283
00:18:56,040 --> 00:18:59,280
Speaker 5: emergency basis, or allowing that order to stay in place,

284
00:19:00,000 --> 00:19:03,120
Speaker 5: by allowing an order to stay in place that blocks

285
00:19:03,160 --> 00:19:07,600
Speaker 5: transgender people from getting accurate gender identity documents through the

286
00:19:07,680 --> 00:19:13,040
Speaker 5: passport service, by upholding a ban on access to gender

287
00:19:13,160 --> 00:19:19,160
Speaker 5: firming healthcare for transgender youth. This case presents a different

288
00:19:19,200 --> 00:19:25,000
Speaker 5: type of question because it squarely asks on the merits

289
00:19:25,040 --> 00:19:28,600
Speaker 5: of the case, at least in this early stage. Is

290
00:19:28,600 --> 00:19:32,640
Speaker 5: it a violation of the rights of transgender people directly

291
00:19:32,760 --> 00:19:36,359
Speaker 5: to be excluded from athletics participation? Right, this is not

292
00:19:36,480 --> 00:19:40,320
Speaker 5: a national security issue like with passports or like with

293
00:19:40,359 --> 00:19:44,240
Speaker 5: the military service. It's not a medical care issue that

294
00:19:44,320 --> 00:19:48,359
Speaker 5: states often regulated, like with the gender affirming care case.

295
00:19:49,080 --> 00:19:52,439
Speaker 5: So the question really is, you know, can kids and

296
00:19:52,560 --> 00:19:55,360
Speaker 5: young people be kept out of part of their educational

297
00:19:55,440 --> 00:20:00,359
Speaker 5: program because they're transgender. It's a different kind of ca case.

298
00:20:00,640 --> 00:20:04,160
Speaker 5: We will see where the court comes out. I do

299
00:20:04,440 --> 00:20:10,359
Speaker 5: think the lawyers for the athletes presented the facts in

300
00:20:10,400 --> 00:20:15,320
Speaker 5: a way that was so clearly showing that there isn't

301
00:20:15,640 --> 00:20:16,680
Speaker 5: on the facts.

302
00:20:16,320 --> 00:20:17,240
Speaker 6: In these cases.

303
00:20:17,840 --> 00:20:21,160
Speaker 5: These two students were not at some sort of special

304
00:20:21,240 --> 00:20:25,280
Speaker 5: advantage because they were transgender. And so the question is,

305
00:20:25,440 --> 00:20:30,679
Speaker 5: can states override the right of these two students to

306
00:20:30,840 --> 00:20:34,080
Speaker 5: participate in girls and women's teams even when the facts

307
00:20:34,160 --> 00:20:38,840
Speaker 5: show that these students are similarly situated to their female peers.

308
00:20:39,200 --> 00:20:43,320
Speaker 2: There was also a discussion about the small percentage of

309
00:20:43,520 --> 00:20:46,639
Speaker 2: athletes made up by transgender athletes.

310
00:20:47,440 --> 00:20:51,160
Speaker 5: You know, one of the interesting legal questions the court

311
00:20:51,200 --> 00:20:55,280
Speaker 5: may need to address here is what happens when a

312
00:20:55,320 --> 00:20:59,040
Speaker 5: small group of people challenge a law saying this law

313
00:20:59,280 --> 00:21:04,120
Speaker 5: is not a reasonable fit when applied to us, and

314
00:21:04,280 --> 00:21:08,600
Speaker 5: the law discriminates against us based on sex. The governments

315
00:21:08,640 --> 00:21:13,600
Speaker 5: in these cases we're arguing, well, you know, the law

316
00:21:13,640 --> 00:21:15,480
Speaker 5: doesn't have to be a perfect fit, it just has

317
00:21:15,520 --> 00:21:18,520
Speaker 5: to be reasonable, and well, you know, it's too bad

318
00:21:18,560 --> 00:21:22,120
Speaker 5: if some people are left out, but the constitution allows that.

319
00:21:22,680 --> 00:21:27,040
Speaker 5: I do think that even some of the justices in

320
00:21:27,080 --> 00:21:30,000
Speaker 5: the middle would be troubled to reach that kind of

321
00:21:30,080 --> 00:21:34,359
Speaker 5: conclusion because it is fairly damning, I think to suggest

322
00:21:34,480 --> 00:21:38,199
Speaker 5: that the equal protection guarantee in the Constitution does not

323
00:21:38,440 --> 00:21:45,119
Speaker 5: guarantee minority groups, however, defined the ability to challenge discriminatory

324
00:21:45,200 --> 00:21:47,479
Speaker 5: laws as applied to those groups.

325
00:21:47,480 --> 00:21:49,639
Speaker 6: That's the whole point of the equal Protection clause.

326
00:21:49,680 --> 00:21:53,119
Speaker 5: It's to say, yes, of course governments can engage in

327
00:21:53,160 --> 00:21:57,199
Speaker 5: line drawing, but they cannot engage in line drawing that

328
00:21:57,400 --> 00:22:01,720
Speaker 5: is unreasonable with respect and certainly illegitimate with respect to

329
00:22:01,760 --> 00:22:05,359
Speaker 5: any group. And in these cases, as applied to students

330
00:22:05,480 --> 00:22:10,280
Speaker 5: who are transgender girls and women who have mitigated the

331
00:22:10,320 --> 00:22:13,840
Speaker 5: effects of testosterone and are able to compete against other

332
00:22:13,840 --> 00:22:18,480
Speaker 5: girls and women, those are unreasonable rules, right. They categorically

333
00:22:18,520 --> 00:22:21,440
Speaker 5: exclude those students from those teams, and I think the

334
00:22:21,440 --> 00:22:23,600
Speaker 5: court will have to take that up, and some of

335
00:22:23,640 --> 00:22:25,840
Speaker 5: the justices will be troubled by that.

336
00:22:26,880 --> 00:22:30,480
Speaker 2: Also. I found it odd that the girl in the

337
00:22:30,640 --> 00:22:35,760
Speaker 2: Idaho case wanted to drop the case, but Idaho officials,

338
00:22:36,040 --> 00:22:39,560
Speaker 2: who are the defendants, don't want the case to be dropped.

339
00:22:39,880 --> 00:22:43,760
Speaker 5: So the college student went back to the trial court

340
00:22:43,800 --> 00:22:48,600
Speaker 5: and said, I'm not going to participate in school athletics anymore. Right,

341
00:22:48,680 --> 00:22:51,920
Speaker 5: I'm going to focus on finishing college, and you know

342
00:22:52,040 --> 00:22:55,280
Speaker 5: it will be harmful to me. I've already come under

343
00:22:55,320 --> 00:22:57,160
Speaker 5: a lot of scrutiny, you know, having.

344
00:22:56,960 --> 00:22:57,760
Speaker 6: This case decided.

345
00:22:57,800 --> 00:23:00,680
Speaker 5: My case decided by the Supreme Court will not be

346
00:23:00,760 --> 00:23:01,320
Speaker 5: in my interest.

347
00:23:01,359 --> 00:23:02,480
Speaker 6: I don't want to play anymore.

348
00:23:03,440 --> 00:23:07,600
Speaker 5: And so there's a question whether the court actually can

349
00:23:07,680 --> 00:23:10,360
Speaker 5: address her case or should address her cases. The government

350
00:23:10,440 --> 00:23:13,600
Speaker 5: tried to argue that there are other similar cases in

351
00:23:13,640 --> 00:23:16,880
Speaker 5: the past when the court has gone ahead and said, yes,

352
00:23:16,880 --> 00:23:18,840
Speaker 5: we're going to address your case anyway, but none of

353
00:23:18,880 --> 00:23:23,399
Speaker 5: those situations really apply here. And at the end of

354
00:23:23,440 --> 00:23:25,399
Speaker 5: the day, I think if the court were to go

355
00:23:25,480 --> 00:23:29,879
Speaker 5: ahead and say, you know what, you were a plaintiff before,

356
00:23:29,920 --> 00:23:32,359
Speaker 5: so we're making you stick on through this whole case,

357
00:23:32,400 --> 00:23:34,879
Speaker 5: even though you want to drop it, that would have

358
00:23:34,920 --> 00:23:38,560
Speaker 5: implications far beyond this case and would actually be quite dangerous,

359
00:23:38,600 --> 00:23:40,879
Speaker 5: I think for the court to pursue on a separate

360
00:23:41,040 --> 00:23:45,679
Speaker 5: Another question that came up was, well, what about laws

361
00:23:45,840 --> 00:23:49,040
Speaker 5: that treat boys and girls differently for other purposes? Right,

362
00:23:49,640 --> 00:23:54,760
Speaker 5: what about restrictions on a chess club or restrictions on

363
00:23:55,240 --> 00:23:59,200
Speaker 5: participation of girls in calculus classes or other things. How

364
00:23:59,280 --> 00:24:03,119
Speaker 5: far can discrimination extend? And this was connected to this

365
00:24:03,240 --> 00:24:06,320
Speaker 5: question about well, what a science show? And if science

366
00:24:06,359 --> 00:24:10,679
Speaker 5: somehow showed that men or boys were better at math

367
00:24:11,000 --> 00:24:14,520
Speaker 5: or better at chess, would that mean that the state

368
00:24:14,560 --> 00:24:18,320
Speaker 5: could then exclude girls and women? That also, the court

369
00:24:18,359 --> 00:24:22,919
Speaker 5: seemed troubled by pretty much everybody, And so I suspect

370
00:24:22,960 --> 00:24:26,640
Speaker 5: that whatever the justices do, at least most of them

371
00:24:26,680 --> 00:24:28,960
Speaker 5: are going to want to stay away from those questions.

372
00:24:29,320 --> 00:24:33,520
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Suzanne. That's Professor Suzanne Goldberg of Columbia

373
00:24:33,640 --> 00:24:38,120
Speaker 2: Law School coming up next. Former Supreme Court advocate on trial.

374
00:24:38,520 --> 00:24:44,159
Speaker 2: This is Bloomberg. Tom Goldstein was a top Supreme Court

375
00:24:44,280 --> 00:24:47,920
Speaker 2: advocate who shocked the legal community when he was charged

376
00:24:47,960 --> 00:24:52,400
Speaker 2: with tax evasion and his double life was revealed. The

377
00:24:52,480 --> 00:24:55,840
Speaker 2: allegations and the indictment painted a picture of a wild

378
00:24:55,880 --> 00:25:00,399
Speaker 2: lifestyle that included ultra high stakes poker games, million in

379
00:25:00,440 --> 00:25:06,199
Speaker 2: gambling debts, extramarital affairs, and more. Goldstein faces charges of

380
00:25:06,359 --> 00:25:10,800
Speaker 2: tax evasion and making a false statement. The tax charges

381
00:25:10,960 --> 00:25:16,520
Speaker 2: revolve primarily around Goldstein's alleged mischaracterization of business and personal

382
00:25:16,560 --> 00:25:21,639
Speaker 2: expenses and failure to report certain income the willful failure

383
00:25:21,680 --> 00:25:24,680
Speaker 2: to pay taxes. Charges are based on the theory that

384
00:25:24,800 --> 00:25:29,840
Speaker 2: Goldstein opted to pay off other expenses, including gambling debts.

385
00:25:30,040 --> 00:25:35,320
Speaker 2: First joining me is former federal prosecutor Marissa Darden. She's

386
00:25:35,400 --> 00:25:39,840
Speaker 2: chair of the White Collar Government Investigations and Regulatory Practice

387
00:25:39,880 --> 00:25:44,600
Speaker 2: Group at Benisch. Marissa tell us a little about Tom Goldstein.

388
00:25:45,640 --> 00:25:48,920
Speaker 1: I think everybody revered him as one of the scions

389
00:25:48,920 --> 00:25:51,960
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court. He has argued some of the

390
00:25:52,040 --> 00:25:56,240
Speaker 1: most important cases of our time. He has had some

391
00:25:56,280 --> 00:26:00,879
Speaker 1: really successful wins for Google and for other huge companies

392
00:26:01,720 --> 00:26:03,800
Speaker 1: in you know, sort of bet the stakes, you know,

393
00:26:03,840 --> 00:26:06,840
Speaker 1: sort of anti trust and other sort of complicated, really

394
00:26:07,240 --> 00:26:10,680
Speaker 1: sophisticated First Amendment issues, trying to persuade the Court in

395
00:26:10,720 --> 00:26:13,439
Speaker 1: this favor, which he's done really well. I think, you know,

396
00:26:13,600 --> 00:26:16,040
Speaker 1: I remember learning more about him in the bushby core

397
00:26:16,160 --> 00:26:18,000
Speaker 1: Era because I think he was part of that original

398
00:26:18,000 --> 00:26:21,240
Speaker 1: team with David Boyce. But he's you know, got a

399
00:26:21,280 --> 00:26:24,159
Speaker 1: stellar reputation or at least had a stellar reputation in

400
00:26:24,240 --> 00:26:28,719
Speaker 1: front of the Supreme Court, very successful Washington lawyer, and

401
00:26:28,800 --> 00:26:31,000
Speaker 1: I think these allegations have all kind of come as

402
00:26:31,040 --> 00:26:34,119
Speaker 1: a surprise and raise a lot of questions about the

403
00:26:34,160 --> 00:26:36,280
Speaker 1: double lives that all of us might be leading.

404
00:26:36,480 --> 00:26:39,840
Speaker 2: And what was the reaction in the legal community when

405
00:26:39,840 --> 00:26:40,920
Speaker 2: he was charged.

406
00:26:41,520 --> 00:26:46,440
Speaker 1: As a general rule, you know, Supreme Court clerks and

407
00:26:46,640 --> 00:26:50,440
Speaker 1: people who work in the Supreme Court, people who work

408
00:26:50,480 --> 00:26:53,600
Speaker 1: around the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General's office. You know,

409
00:26:53,680 --> 00:26:58,480
Speaker 1: it is technically the most and realistically the most elite

410
00:26:58,800 --> 00:27:01,480
Speaker 1: form of lawyering that one can do, right, and so

411
00:27:02,160 --> 00:27:04,840
Speaker 1: most of the time people you meet are kind of

412
00:27:04,960 --> 00:27:09,639
Speaker 1: nerdy to be honest, Like, you meet a lot of lawyers,

413
00:27:09,720 --> 00:27:11,560
Speaker 1: or go to school with these lawyers who seem like

414
00:27:11,600 --> 00:27:16,080
Speaker 1: they study all the time, They prioritize academic and personal excellence,

415
00:27:16,160 --> 00:27:20,080
Speaker 1: They hold themselves to a high standard of integrity, and

416
00:27:20,160 --> 00:27:23,639
Speaker 1: so you wouldn't really expect people like that to be

417
00:27:24,000 --> 00:27:28,680
Speaker 1: also having, you know, a side hustle that involves online

418
00:27:28,680 --> 00:27:31,359
Speaker 1: poker and gambling at a high level and high stakes

419
00:27:31,359 --> 00:27:35,000
Speaker 1: of poker games, or you know, using call girls or

420
00:27:35,040 --> 00:27:39,800
Speaker 1: other types of websites to find female companionships. I think,

421
00:27:39,840 --> 00:27:42,640
Speaker 1: as a general rule, like lawyers, just like everybody else,

422
00:27:42,680 --> 00:27:45,040
Speaker 1: are kind of snotty, and they think of themselves in

423
00:27:45,119 --> 00:27:48,000
Speaker 1: an elitist category of people, and so the idea that

424
00:27:48,000 --> 00:27:50,560
Speaker 1: anybody that you know, revere or think of at the

425
00:27:50,600 --> 00:27:53,000
Speaker 1: highest echelon of your profession could be doing that. It's

426
00:27:53,000 --> 00:27:53,920
Speaker 1: pretty shocking.

427
00:27:54,280 --> 00:27:56,480
Speaker 2: Tell us about the charges he's facing.

428
00:27:57,080 --> 00:28:00,920
Speaker 1: The United States District Court for the District of Maryland

429
00:28:00,920 --> 00:28:03,840
Speaker 1: has charged him in a multi count indictment with several

430
00:28:05,080 --> 00:28:08,240
Speaker 1: different violations of federal law, the most serious of which

431
00:28:08,280 --> 00:28:12,199
Speaker 1: being tax evasion, aiding and assisting in the preparation of

432
00:28:12,240 --> 00:28:15,439
Speaker 1: false and fraudulent tax returns, and making false statements to

433
00:28:15,480 --> 00:28:19,680
Speaker 1: the government. So it's a fairly long indictment, it's about

434
00:28:19,800 --> 00:28:23,960
Speaker 1: fifty pages. They go to great lengths in the indictment

435
00:28:24,000 --> 00:28:27,400
Speaker 1: to lay out his gambling activities, the way he funded

436
00:28:27,400 --> 00:28:31,480
Speaker 1: his poker games, and then some of the other employment

437
00:28:31,680 --> 00:28:37,320
Speaker 1: arrangements and quote unquote employees he used or hired to

438
00:28:37,800 --> 00:28:41,120
Speaker 1: do a range of activities according to the government that

439
00:28:41,440 --> 00:28:46,160
Speaker 1: would not have been considered legitimate employment arrangements, some of

440
00:28:46,160 --> 00:28:48,680
Speaker 1: which were, you know, women that he met online and whatnot.

441
00:28:49,280 --> 00:28:54,560
Speaker 1: So the maximum term of imprisonment under tax evasion is

442
00:28:54,960 --> 00:28:59,360
Speaker 1: up to five years, but the more serious penalties involved

443
00:28:59,360 --> 00:29:04,240
Speaker 1: the fine. Typically in an indictment for tax evasion, there's

444
00:29:04,280 --> 00:29:08,040
Speaker 1: going to be a settlement that's required in any results

445
00:29:08,080 --> 00:29:10,920
Speaker 1: of the case, whether he goes to trial and loses

446
00:29:11,440 --> 00:29:15,520
Speaker 1: or whether he pleads guilty, he will be subject to

447
00:29:15,560 --> 00:29:19,479
Speaker 1: restitution and fines, which are usually sometimes double or triple

448
00:29:19,560 --> 00:29:22,520
Speaker 1: the amount that you actually owe the irs. So he's

449
00:29:22,760 --> 00:29:24,680
Speaker 1: in addition to jail time, he's looking at some pretty

450
00:29:24,720 --> 00:29:26,240
Speaker 1: significant fines and penalties.

451
00:29:26,960 --> 00:29:31,640
Speaker 2: Are you surprised that apparently he was offered plea deals

452
00:29:31,680 --> 00:29:33,280
Speaker 2: twice and turn them down.

453
00:29:34,200 --> 00:29:37,520
Speaker 1: Everybody's motivated by something different, So I can't say that

454
00:29:37,560 --> 00:29:41,080
Speaker 1: I'm surprised given some of the allegations here, he seems

455
00:29:41,120 --> 00:29:44,120
Speaker 1: to be really doubling down on the hubrious of what

456
00:29:44,240 --> 00:29:46,160
Speaker 1: he did. I mean, he spoke to the New York

457
00:29:46,160 --> 00:29:48,720
Speaker 1: Times magazine and Jeffrey Tuban and gave a really long

458
00:29:48,800 --> 00:29:52,920
Speaker 1: interview that now the government is trying to use against

459
00:29:53,000 --> 00:29:56,360
Speaker 1: him in their case in chief. And so the fact

460
00:29:56,400 --> 00:29:59,000
Speaker 1: that he's willing to kind of go down swinging doesn't

461
00:29:59,000 --> 00:29:59,560
Speaker 1: surprise me.

462
00:30:00,120 --> 00:30:03,760
Speaker 2: Is the prosecution going to have a difficult time proving

463
00:30:03,960 --> 00:30:05,040
Speaker 2: wilfulness here?

464
00:30:05,480 --> 00:30:09,720
Speaker 1: Some people think that the tax evasion statutes there has

465
00:30:09,800 --> 00:30:13,959
Speaker 1: to be willful, intentional misrepresentation of your taxes, right, But

466
00:30:14,000 --> 00:30:16,640
Speaker 1: there's really only three elements that the government is required

467
00:30:16,680 --> 00:30:19,440
Speaker 1: to prove. For the top count in tax evasion, you

468
00:30:19,520 --> 00:30:22,720
Speaker 1: have to show a substantial tax was owed beyond what

469
00:30:22,880 --> 00:30:27,440
Speaker 1: was reported, that the individual did some deliberate or intentional

470
00:30:27,480 --> 00:30:31,240
Speaker 1: action to avoid paying the tax. And it can't just

471
00:30:31,280 --> 00:30:33,680
Speaker 1: be that you omitted something, right, You have to actually

472
00:30:34,000 --> 00:30:39,520
Speaker 1: intend to evade or obvious gate the income that was

473
00:30:39,560 --> 00:30:42,600
Speaker 1: taxable that you owed, and then you have to do

474
00:30:42,760 --> 00:30:45,680
Speaker 1: so with the intent, with the specific intent to evade

475
00:30:45,680 --> 00:30:49,920
Speaker 1: the taxes. So in some ways it's complicated because the

476
00:30:49,960 --> 00:30:53,720
Speaker 1: government has to do enough digging and create enough factual

477
00:30:53,800 --> 00:30:58,080
Speaker 1: basis to prove that he intended to evade taxes beyond

478
00:30:58,080 --> 00:31:02,520
Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt. But as a matter of fact, that's

479
00:31:02,560 --> 00:31:05,120
Speaker 1: not that hard to do to a jury, right, I mean,

480
00:31:05,120 --> 00:31:08,440
Speaker 1: you can consider or think about a host of factual

481
00:31:08,720 --> 00:31:13,120
Speaker 1: situations and circumstances where you and I, as regular taxpayers,

482
00:31:13,360 --> 00:31:15,920
Speaker 1: would owe x amount of dollars. Then if we just

483
00:31:16,360 --> 00:31:19,200
Speaker 1: didn't do it but knew we had the responsibility and duty,

484
00:31:19,280 --> 00:31:21,120
Speaker 1: that might be enough to convince a jury beyond a

485
00:31:21,120 --> 00:31:27,080
Speaker 1: reasonable doubt that you intended to evade payton lawful taxes. So, yes,

486
00:31:27,480 --> 00:31:31,320
Speaker 1: there's a high threshold in every criminal case. Of proving

487
00:31:31,360 --> 00:31:35,560
Speaker 1: beyond a reasonable doubt the allegations that the government posits.

488
00:31:35,600 --> 00:31:38,760
Speaker 1: But there are a whole host of facts here that

489
00:31:38,880 --> 00:31:43,360
Speaker 1: suggests that he knew he was making income from illegal

490
00:31:43,800 --> 00:31:46,280
Speaker 1: poker games and from gambling, and if he was not

491
00:31:46,440 --> 00:31:50,040
Speaker 1: reporting that as taxable income, that could be a really

492
00:31:50,120 --> 00:31:53,600
Speaker 1: serious problem for him. The other issue is I think

493
00:31:53,640 --> 00:31:59,440
Speaker 1: the IRS agents and the US Attorney's office will generally

494
00:31:59,600 --> 00:32:04,960
Speaker 1: sort of actually impute a higher level of responsibility to

495
00:32:05,000 --> 00:32:08,520
Speaker 1: a person like an attorney, who basically should know better, right.

496
00:32:08,560 --> 00:32:10,560
Speaker 1: I mean, this is not an average person off the

497
00:32:10,600 --> 00:32:13,240
Speaker 1: streets who may or may not understand the full scope

498
00:32:13,240 --> 00:32:16,560
Speaker 1: of the tax code. This is a very sophisticated, smart

499
00:32:17,160 --> 00:32:20,800
Speaker 1: individual with a legal degree who's operated at the highest

500
00:32:20,800 --> 00:32:23,680
Speaker 1: echelon of our career. It's just not going to be

501
00:32:23,840 --> 00:32:25,960
Speaker 1: as plausible of an argument to say that he didn't

502
00:32:25,960 --> 00:32:27,640
Speaker 1: know he was supposed to report this income.

503
00:32:28,120 --> 00:32:31,320
Speaker 2: So I guess you tell the Times that the case

504
00:32:31,360 --> 00:32:33,880
Speaker 2: may turn on whether the jury thinks he's a good

505
00:32:33,920 --> 00:32:35,320
Speaker 2: guy or a bad guy.

506
00:32:35,760 --> 00:32:39,640
Speaker 1: I don't disagree with that. Juries are fickle, sickle folks,

507
00:32:39,840 --> 00:32:42,560
Speaker 1: and you don't know what they're going to focus on,

508
00:32:43,120 --> 00:32:46,080
Speaker 1: and you hope as a prosecutor that you can make

509
00:32:46,120 --> 00:32:49,160
Speaker 1: your case and lay it out. But studies after study

510
00:32:49,280 --> 00:32:52,239
Speaker 1: has shown that the vast majority of jurors make up

511
00:32:52,240 --> 00:32:55,800
Speaker 1: their mind an opening statement. Sometimes they lose attention or

512
00:32:55,840 --> 00:32:58,880
Speaker 1: focus on very specific details and the things that the

513
00:32:58,960 --> 00:33:01,560
Speaker 1: lawyers are focused on, who have lived this case and

514
00:33:01,560 --> 00:33:03,840
Speaker 1: breathed this case for months or years in many cases

515
00:33:04,240 --> 00:33:09,280
Speaker 1: don't always resonate with the common duror. So, yeah, credibility

516
00:33:09,320 --> 00:33:13,400
Speaker 1: is everything. Evaluation of credibility is a very normal human response,

517
00:33:13,760 --> 00:33:16,600
Speaker 1: and jurors are going to be looking to see, you know,

518
00:33:17,000 --> 00:33:19,640
Speaker 1: whether they have then enough facts to deduce whether this

519
00:33:19,760 --> 00:33:22,120
Speaker 1: is a good guy. I think he's very right on

520
00:33:22,240 --> 00:33:23,760
Speaker 1: about that in many respects.

521
00:33:24,120 --> 00:33:27,840
Speaker 2: Of course, no defendant has to take the stand, But

522
00:33:27,920 --> 00:33:30,360
Speaker 2: in order to get that point across to the jury,

523
00:33:30,480 --> 00:33:35,560
Speaker 2: would he realistically, not legally, but realistically almost have to

524
00:33:35,600 --> 00:33:36,320
Speaker 2: take the stand.

525
00:33:37,280 --> 00:33:40,280
Speaker 1: No, But it's a lot harder to make that argument

526
00:33:40,320 --> 00:33:43,000
Speaker 1: if you don't, because I think the average duror again

527
00:33:43,240 --> 00:33:47,480
Speaker 1: is thinking, Okay, well, now you have an opportunity to

528
00:33:47,520 --> 00:33:49,760
Speaker 1: tell your side of the story and tell us who

529
00:33:49,800 --> 00:33:51,880
Speaker 1: you are, and if you elect not to do that,

530
00:33:52,480 --> 00:33:56,240
Speaker 1: the judge gives an instruction to jurors. That says, specifically,

531
00:33:56,760 --> 00:33:59,240
Speaker 1: just because the defendant did not take the stand in

532
00:33:59,280 --> 00:34:01,920
Speaker 1: their own defense, you are not to interpret that as

533
00:34:02,000 --> 00:34:07,320
Speaker 1: evidence of guilt. But factually and colloquially jurors do that

534
00:34:07,480 --> 00:34:11,600
Speaker 1: all the time. And so I think if he's wanting

535
00:34:11,640 --> 00:34:16,040
Speaker 1: to put his credibility into the factual analysis here, then

536
00:34:16,040 --> 00:34:17,880
Speaker 1: he's got to show the jury who he is, and

537
00:34:17,920 --> 00:34:19,720
Speaker 1: the best way to do that is to take the stand.

538
00:34:20,360 --> 00:34:23,080
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised given these allegations if that's what

539
00:34:23,160 --> 00:34:25,399
Speaker 1: he intends to do well.

540
00:34:25,440 --> 00:34:30,440
Speaker 2: He's obviously been successful at convincing people of legal arguments

541
00:34:30,600 --> 00:34:35,520
Speaker 2: through his career. The government has listed more than sixty

542
00:34:35,560 --> 00:34:39,400
Speaker 2: potential witnesses and more than a thousand exhibits. So the

543
00:34:39,440 --> 00:34:42,839
Speaker 2: trial is expected to last about a month. Is that

544
00:34:42,880 --> 00:34:44,160
Speaker 2: long for a tax case?

545
00:34:45,880 --> 00:34:48,880
Speaker 1: Maybe a little long, But given the amounts of money

546
00:34:49,200 --> 00:34:55,120
Speaker 1: that mister Goldstein is alleged to have won and lost

547
00:34:55,239 --> 00:34:58,720
Speaker 1: in these poker games and some of the other allegations,

548
00:34:59,400 --> 00:35:03,080
Speaker 1: particularly if they feel as though Goldstein is a formidable

549
00:35:03,120 --> 00:35:07,480
Speaker 1: opponent given his legal expertise in his legal mind, then

550
00:35:07,520 --> 00:35:11,200
Speaker 1: the US Attorney's Office has to go the links to

551
00:35:11,320 --> 00:35:15,680
Speaker 1: really demonstrate to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt as

552
00:35:15,800 --> 00:35:18,040
Speaker 1: much as they can, as often as they can, and

553
00:35:18,040 --> 00:35:20,440
Speaker 1: they don't want to leave anything on the floor. So

554
00:35:20,760 --> 00:35:23,160
Speaker 1: it doesn't surprise me that they're willing to kind of

555
00:35:23,200 --> 00:35:26,439
Speaker 1: go the extra distance here and try to go guns

556
00:35:26,480 --> 00:35:27,279
Speaker 1: blazing to get a.

557
00:35:27,239 --> 00:35:30,400
Speaker 2: Conviction, even though it's a tax case and normally I

558
00:35:30,440 --> 00:35:34,239
Speaker 2: would say not too interesting, but this seems like it's

559
00:35:34,360 --> 00:35:36,640
Speaker 2: going to be an interesting case with a lot of

560
00:35:36,640 --> 00:35:37,560
Speaker 2: different facets.

561
00:35:38,000 --> 00:35:40,520
Speaker 1: I think it's an interesting story. I'm excited to kind

562
00:35:40,520 --> 00:35:43,840
Speaker 1: of see how things go. I'll be watching this child closely,

563
00:35:44,760 --> 00:35:47,319
Speaker 1: just like I think a lot of lawyers are. The

564
00:35:47,360 --> 00:35:49,839
Speaker 1: other thing that will be interesting to see is how

565
00:35:49,880 --> 00:35:54,360
Speaker 1: the defense puts forward a case at all. Right, there's

566
00:35:54,480 --> 00:35:58,040
Speaker 1: no constitutional mandate that the defense do anything. So are

567
00:35:58,120 --> 00:36:01,640
Speaker 1: they going to bring character witnesses into defensive Goldstein? Is

568
00:36:01,640 --> 00:36:04,279
Speaker 1: he going to try to enter his own record? What

569
00:36:04,400 --> 00:36:06,200
Speaker 1: is he? Is he going to be calling the shots

570
00:36:06,239 --> 00:36:09,279
Speaker 1: versus his own attorneys? So there's a lot to sort

571
00:36:09,280 --> 00:36:12,239
Speaker 1: of watch outside of just how the evidence is put

572
00:36:12,280 --> 00:36:16,280
Speaker 1: in to see how this all goes. I'm looking forward

573
00:36:16,280 --> 00:36:16,600
Speaker 1: to it.

574
00:36:16,719 --> 00:36:19,240
Speaker 2: Too bad there are no cameras in federal court though,

575
00:36:19,520 --> 00:36:24,120
Speaker 2: thanks so much, Marissa. That's Marissa Darden of Benish, and

576
00:36:24,160 --> 00:36:26,320
Speaker 2: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

577
00:36:26,640 --> 00:36:29,000
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

578
00:36:29,040 --> 00:36:33,319
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

579
00:36:33,520 --> 00:36:38,560
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

580
00:36:38,960 --> 00:36:41,560
Speaker 2: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

581
00:36:41,600 --> 00:36:45,480
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

582
00:36:45,640 --> 00:36:47,239
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg