Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: I say to Mr Trump, Mr President, at least twenty
Speaker 1: one years in my tax returns, we talk about corruption.
Speaker 1: Release yours are shut up curious. You probably remember how
Speaker 1: Joe Biden prodded former President Donald Trump to release his
Speaker 1: taxes during the campaign, So it may surprise you that
Speaker 1: as President, Biden is now protecting Trump's tax returns. Four
Speaker 1: months into Biden's term and the Johnstice Department is still
Speaker 1: fighting to keep secret documents related to Trump. These include
Speaker 1: an internal memo to former Attorney General William Barr justifying
Speaker 1: the decision not to charge Trump in the Mueller probe,
Speaker 1: grand jury material in the Russia investigation, and yes, Trump's
Speaker 1: tax returns. The Joice Department is following the lead need
Speaker 1: of prior administrations in protecting the power of the executive
Speaker 1: branch through that legal doctor known as executive privilege. Joining
Speaker 1: me is Harold Crent, a professor at the Chicago Kent
Speaker 1: College of Law. Also, executive privilege is a court made doctrine.
Speaker 1: Tell us how it came about? No mission of executive
Speaker 1: privilege and the Constitution. Nonetheless, Presidents from George Washington on
Speaker 1: have felt the need to keep some information confidential, not
Speaker 1: to share it with Congress or the courts or interested
Speaker 1: in individuals, because you can't run a government unless you
Speaker 1: can have some kind of secret to some kind of
Speaker 1: promise of confidentiality to encourage candid discussions. So then there
Speaker 1: are no right lines as far as what should be
Speaker 1: protected by executive privilege and what should not be. There
Speaker 1: are no bright lines, and courts at times have intervened
Speaker 1: and vague decisions, such as in the recent Trump tax case,
Speaker 1: to try to reconcile the rights of those interested. But
Speaker 1: most questions about confidentially out if communications are resolved outside
Speaker 1: of courts, and the presidents decide what to release, and
Speaker 1: Congress the size if it wants to make a stink
Speaker 1: and try to take some kind of action to encourage
Speaker 1: or to incentivize the president to disclose more information. So
Speaker 1: these battles are hard. They've been in and out of
Speaker 1: court for centuries, and we don't know exactly where the
Speaker 1: lines are to be drawn. Was the Nixon case the
Speaker 1: first big executive privilege case or were there cases before that?
Speaker 1: The Nixon case case was the biggest case. It's the
Speaker 1: Bellwether because they are. The Court clearly recognized the existence
Speaker 1: of the communications privilege within Article two of the Constitution,
Speaker 1: but held that, at least with respect to claims arising
Speaker 1: out of specific criminal cases, that the interest in trying
Speaker 1: to get information in the executive's hands was so important
Speaker 1: to the misery of justice that will outweighed the separation
Speaker 1: of powers concerned expressed by the President. So now, I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people assume that when Joe Biden
Speaker 1: became president that all the documents that the Democrats were
Speaker 1: looking for from the Trump presidency would be turned over.
Speaker 1: But not. So. Let's start with the memo prepared by
Speaker 1: the Office of Legal Counsel. Where does that stand? So,
Speaker 1: on the one hand, the two thousand nine Office of
Speaker 1: Legal Council memorandum should be an easy case because the
Speaker 1: Office of Legal Counsel is to give advice in the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice, so give advice to executive branch agencies
Speaker 1: as well as to the President on all sorts of
Speaker 1: legal issues that arise and confront the administration. But the
Speaker 1: problem here is that the memo was first of all
Speaker 1: relied upon by a trained general bar in deciding and
Speaker 1: announcing why he would not prosecute President Trump. But it
Speaker 1: turns out a to Judge Amy Jackson that this oil
Speaker 1: C memorandum is really part of the public relations effort
Speaker 1: of the government, so it wasn't advice, so it wouldn't
Speaker 1: be covered by deliberative process privilege the way it ordinarily
Speaker 1: would be, because it was part of the far orchestration
Speaker 1: of trying to distance the administration from the Muller investigation.
Speaker 1: So what would have ordinarily been covered by deliberative process
Speaker 1: privilege as advice in this case seems to be something else,
Speaker 1: seems to be result oriented, And therefore the question is
Speaker 1: why is the administration not willing to release it? Other
Speaker 1: than the fact that it might embarrass the Justice Department.
Speaker 1: It seems like a memorandum by the Office of Legal Counsel.
Speaker 1: Shouldn't it be something that everyone can read to know
Speaker 1: where the department stands. Administration's consistently have held that it's
Speaker 1: up to the Office of Also whether to disclose these memoranda. Indeed,
Speaker 1: there's ongoing litigation under the Freedom of Information Act in
Speaker 1: many other contexts right now about whether or not the
Speaker 1: opposite lead Council has to disclose the advice It gives
Speaker 1: to various agencies, and the Executive Branch has taken the
Speaker 1: consistent position that most everything that the Office of Legal
Speaker 1: Council does is advice. It's not binding, therefore it falls
Speaker 1: within the deliberative process privilege. And they have the fact
Speaker 1: Lee decided not to reveal certain amounts of OLC documents,
Speaker 1: of course, including the one about the Muller investigation itself.
Speaker 1: But I think the real issue here is not whether
Speaker 1: it ordinarily would be part of the deliberative process privilege,
Speaker 1: but was this really a traditional OLC memorandum or is
Speaker 1: this something that was hatched up by Attorney General bar
Speaker 1: in order to paper over the very damning information in
Speaker 1: the Mullar report. And so now the Justice Department is
Speaker 1: appealing Judge Jackson's decision to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
Speaker 1: How important is this case in context? And I think
Speaker 1: this may well make law. And the real questions was
Speaker 1: the motivation of the Biden administration and Merrick Island. Are
Speaker 1: they trying to preserve the tarnished image of the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice or is their advice in this memorandum that
Speaker 1: would routinely be protected by the deliberative process privilege? Let's
Speaker 1: turn to Trump's taxes. During the campaign, Biden kept pressing
Speaker 1: Trump to release his taxes, and every president since Richard
Speaker 1: Nixon has voluntarily released his taxes, and yet the Biden
Speaker 1: administration is fighting to keep from giving Trump's taxes to
Speaker 1: the House. That sort of defies logic in my mind.
Speaker 1: I must confess, I agree with you on that one.
Speaker 1: I don't understand how Trump's taxes are subject to any
Speaker 1: kind of recognized privilege. Obviously there's privacy issues involved with
Speaker 1: all of our taxes, but Congress can easily override that.
Speaker 1: And in fact, there's a statute which demands that anybody
Speaker 1: turn over the taxes is subject to a legitimate congressional inquiry.
Speaker 1: And so I think that it should have been a
Speaker 1: very straightforward issue about allowing Congress to look at those taxes,
Speaker 1: because it is the basis upon which future legislation may arise.
Speaker 1: And of course, the Manhattan District Attorney already has Trump's
Speaker 1: tax returns for his investigation. Now, one issue that has
Speaker 1: been resolved after a two year battle, Former White House
Speaker 1: Counsel Don McGan testified to the House Judiciary Committee behind
Speaker 1: closed doors on Friday. Was there sort of a standoff
Speaker 1: in court, there was no final resolution of the question
Speaker 1: about what to do with McGann's testimony, but that led
Speaker 1: to finally a brokered agreement where McGann will be able
Speaker 1: to testify about narrow issues before the House Committee. And
Speaker 1: it's a very complicated issue because personal McGee and was
Speaker 1: a former White House official, he wasn't currently in the
Speaker 1: office when he was being subpoenat. But clearly the information
Speaker 1: that the Congress was interested in getting had to do
Speaker 1: with his communications to the President about the Mueller investigation.
Speaker 1: So it became a centerpiece of potential obstruction because he
Speaker 1: was so termed in the room when all these various
Speaker 1: actions by the President took place. So for him, clearly
Speaker 1: the presidential privilege would apply, but it could be overridden
Speaker 1: if it involved some kind of witness to criminal activity.
Speaker 1: And so that's why it became so contentious. And then
Speaker 1: the Biden administration again broker this compromised so that mcdan
Speaker 1: would be able to testify, but only with respect to
Speaker 1: the same matters that have been publicly disclosed. You look
Speaker 1: at this trying to assess who won the power struggle
Speaker 1: between Congress and the president. It's the president with respect
Speaker 1: to McGann's testimony, And here I think it's easier to
Speaker 1: see the Biden administration's perspective. All presidential administrations try to
Speaker 1: preserve the confidentiality of White House Council. So President Biden
Speaker 1: is probably worried about any kind of precedent allowing a
Speaker 1: Congress to brake a former presidential council over the cold.
Speaker 1: That was the incentive for the president to be tough
Speaker 1: and Congress back down, and so this is a very
Speaker 1: limited victory for Congress. Has the trend been for presidents
Speaker 1: to assert executive privilege more? Have recent presidents asserted it
Speaker 1: more than in the past. So I think there's a
Speaker 1: historical track record of many presidents invoking executive privilege. President Eisenhower,
Speaker 1: if I recall, invoted forty times, and that indeed it
Speaker 1: was under his administration where the term executive privilege was coined.
Speaker 1: So this is not a new creation. But I do
Speaker 1: think the trend we see is that the courts, with
Speaker 1: the accept perhaps of the tax case, are more likely
Speaker 1: to override claims of privilege when they interfere with judicial
Speaker 1: fortunes than they do with congressional functions or its seemed
Speaker 1: to want to stay out of the fray and allow
Speaker 1: Congress in the presidence to hash out any differences themselves.
Speaker 1: But when the courts are involved, or individuals claiming the
Speaker 1: need for information in the President's hand in order to
Speaker 1: try to vindicate an interest in the court system, then
Speaker 1: the courts have been brought in and are more willing
Speaker 1: to second guess the invocation of privilege. So again, the
Speaker 1: court seemed to be more willing to investigate the limit
Speaker 1: of privilege when it's vital to resolve a court case,
Speaker 1: and they want to allow the two majoritarian branches, Congress
Speaker 1: and the President to fight through issues of access to
Speaker 1: information on their own. It seems that so far the
Speaker 1: Biden administration's position is executive privilege rules. They haven't been
Speaker 1: willing to give over anything readily. That's correc and I
Speaker 1: think many people are surprised at the extent that they
Speaker 1: have defended presidential privilege. No one expected them to abandon
Speaker 1: presidential privilege. It's just the extent to which they are
Speaker 1: even protecting President Trump's interests has been surprising too many.
Speaker 1: Thanks Hal. That's Harold Grant of the Chicago Kent College
Speaker 1: of Law, Johnson and Johnson will be writing a check
Speaker 1: for two point one billion dollars plus interest to twenty
Speaker 1: women who claim it's baby powder was tainted with cancer
Speaker 1: causing asbestos. That's because the Supreme Court refused to take
Speaker 1: Jay and Jay's appeal from a St. Louis jury's verdict.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Eric Gordon, a professor of business at
Speaker 1: the University of Michigan. Eric, the court rejected JA and
Speaker 1: J without comment. Why do you think they left in
Speaker 1: place this staggering verdict? We can only guess as to
Speaker 1: why the Supreme Court declined to take the appeal, because
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court never gives its reasons. It just decided.
Speaker 1: But the Supreme Court can only take appeals in very
Speaker 1: narrow circumstances. They can't take an appeal just because they
Speaker 1: disagree with the verdict. There has to be a narrow
Speaker 1: constitutional issue. The issues J and J raised were due
Speaker 1: process issues, and apparently the Supreme Court didn't think that
Speaker 1: the due process issues needed to be decided. So now
Speaker 1: two of the justices didn't participate. We don't know why,
Speaker 1: but Samuel Alito does own Stock and J and J
Speaker 1: and Brett Kavanaugh's father lobby J and J not to
Speaker 1: include a warning apparently on the baby powder. So could
Speaker 1: the fact that those two conservative justices didn't take part.
Speaker 1: Could that have been part of the reason why they
Speaker 1: couldn't get four justices to take the case. That could
Speaker 1: be it because it leads only seven. So you go
Speaker 1: from needing four out of nine to needing four out
Speaker 1: of seven with two justices who might say, look, this
Speaker 1: is an important issue. This huge multibillion dollar punitive damage
Speaker 1: award against J and J. That's really an important due
Speaker 1: process question, where the more liberal justices might think, well,
Speaker 1: you know, it's just the big company paying money, we're
Speaker 1: not so interested in it. It is a staggering amount, though.
Speaker 1: One of the interesting features is that each woman, no
Speaker 1: matter what she suffered, was awarded twenty five million dollars
Speaker 1: in competatory damages and then an equal share of about
Speaker 1: a billion six in punitive damages. So it's a lot
Speaker 1: of money per plaintiff. The judge in this case said
Speaker 1: that he found J and J's conduct particularly reprehensible, yet
Speaker 1: J and J has won some of these cases. It's
Speaker 1: almost a prizing that there are juries that overlooked the
Speaker 1: conduct and apparently looked at the science that J and J.
Speaker 1: Was presenting because juries are usually pretty sympathetic in these cases.
Speaker 1: I think it's a miracle when J and J wins
Speaker 1: in front of a jury, because when you say cancer,
Speaker 1: and when you talk about women suffering with cancer, how
Speaker 1: do you get a juror to say, well, look, let's
Speaker 1: just let's look at this, let's look at the science.
Speaker 1: You have a big company with a lot of money,
Speaker 1: you have women who have suffered horribly. To get a
Speaker 1: juror to focus just on causation, what's the science of
Speaker 1: causation as opposed to sort of the humanity of what's
Speaker 1: going on here, it's really hard. It's really really hard
Speaker 1: to do. Well. How did the appellate court handle the
Speaker 1: due process issues that J and J. Raised? The appellate court,
Speaker 1: which was a state court Missouri State Court, said, well, look,
Speaker 1: all of these problems that J and J. Has brought up,
Speaker 1: the fact that twenty two different plaintiffs were in the
Speaker 1: same courtroom at the same time, the fact that jurors
Speaker 1: decided twenty two cases at once, the fact that the
Speaker 1: trial court took five hours to walk the jurors through
Speaker 1: the laws of a dozen different states as the jury instructions.
Speaker 1: The Missouri State Court of Appeals said, well, we're going
Speaker 1: to assume that the jury followed the trial court's instructions,
Speaker 1: and following those instructions that came up with twenty five
Speaker 1: million dollars. Well, the Missouri Appeals Court made it what
Speaker 1: seems like a pretty big assumption that the jurors understood
Speaker 1: instructions from twelve different states after five hours. What we
Speaker 1: don't know is if the Supreme Court justice has said, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: all right, we agree that the jury instructions are sufficient
Speaker 1: to cure any of these problems. It could just be
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court thought, well, this case isn't interesting
Speaker 1: enough for us to take, because the Supreme Court takes
Speaker 1: very few cases. They take about three percent of the
Speaker 1: cases that people pitch at them. J and J also
Speaker 1: argued that the punitive damages were so out of sync
Speaker 1: with the compensatory damages that it violated its due process rights.
Speaker 1: The compensatory damage award was sixty million dollars and the
Speaker 1: punitive damages were one point six billion dollars. What has
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court said on the subject. So, the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court has said it is a violation of due process too,
Speaker 1: to use the legal term get angry and sock it
Speaker 1: to and come up with ridiculous punitive damages. Now, even
Speaker 1: the federal courts of appeal don't all agree with each
Speaker 1: other on just what they have to do based on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court's decisions. There's a question about whether one
Speaker 1: of the main things the court said is actually the
Speaker 1: law or just dicta a comment on the law. So
Speaker 1: some of the federal courts of appeal have said, well,
Speaker 1: one to one a dollar of punitive damages for each
Speaker 1: dollar of compensatory damages, is you more or less the limit. Interestingly,
Speaker 1: the Federal Court of Appeals that covers Missouri follows that
Speaker 1: if this case has been in federal court and this
Speaker 1: has gone to a federal court of appeals, those punitive
Speaker 1: damages probably would have been swatted down. But this is
Speaker 1: a state court case, and there are other federal courts
Speaker 1: of appeals at to say, we don't have to follow
Speaker 1: that one to one thing exactly. We just have to
Speaker 1: look at the punitive damages and make sure they're not unreasonable.
Speaker 1: What J and J said was, look, Supreme Court, these
Speaker 1: punitive damages are ridiculous, and this is a good oper
Speaker 1: tunity for you to resolve this disagreement amongst the federal
Speaker 1: courts of appeal, but the Supreme Court declined. J and
Speaker 1: J still faces about twenty six thousand similar cases, and
Speaker 1: its attorney argued that other plaintiffs could look at this
Speaker 1: case and use it as sort of a script for
Speaker 1: their cases. Is that a good argument, Well, it's something
Speaker 1: that the defense attorneys fear. They fear that the plaintiffs
Speaker 1: attorneys will say, Wow, this is what worked with that jury,
Speaker 1: so we will use it with our jury. I think
Speaker 1: that the plaintiff's bar is pretty sophisticated. They do a
Speaker 1: lot of testing, They test their testimony in front of
Speaker 1: mock jurors, they hire psychologists. Yeah, this is a data
Speaker 1: point for the plaintiff's bar that the plaintiffs bar in
Speaker 1: these high stakes case they're really sophisticated. They will come
Speaker 1: at you with tested testimony, very well crafted testimony. With
Speaker 1: or without this case. What effect does this have on
Speaker 1: the J and J litigation going forward? I think it
Speaker 1: does make settling harder. I think other courts will be
Speaker 1: less likely to allow that kind of punitive damages. I
Speaker 1: think other courts are going to be less likely to
Speaker 1: allow twenty two different plaintiffs from twelve different states to
Speaker 1: sue at the same time. So I don't think jan
Speaker 1: J is going to be up against the deck that's
Speaker 1: sort of shuffled quite the same way as it was
Speaker 1: in Missouri. In future cases, do the punitive damages add
Speaker 1: up so that another jury can't give as much in
Speaker 1: punitive damages because they're cumulative to punish J and J.
Speaker 1: Every jury is free to assess punitive damages. You can't say, wait,
Speaker 1: we've already paid one point six billion dollar, there's com
Speaker 1: punitive damages, no more. Um It can be stacked one
Speaker 1: on top of the other. Uh and and that's a
Speaker 1: real danger. The punitive damages can can add up. Even
Speaker 1: if the punitive damages are limited to sort of one
Speaker 1: for one the dollar per dollar with compensatory damages idea,
Speaker 1: you know, even at one to one, it doubles the
Speaker 1: compensatory damages. It basically says, all right, if you pay
Speaker 1: a million dollars in compensatory damages, your total bill is
Speaker 1: going to be two million dollars. So this is the
Speaker 1: end for J and J in this case. They have
Speaker 1: to pay up now. The next step in this case
Speaker 1: is to write a check. There is no more avenue
Speaker 1: for appeal. So they're going to write a check. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's going to be more than the two point one
Speaker 1: billion dollars. They're going to pay a check. With interest,
Speaker 1: it will probably be more like two point four two
Speaker 1: point five billion dollars. Not a good day for J
Speaker 1: and J. Thanks for Vanna, Bloomberg Lass Show Eric. That's
Speaker 1: Eric Gordon of the University of Michigan. Supreme Court Justice
Speaker 1: Neil Gorst rejected a request from two churches to block
Speaker 1: a Colorado law that lets the state issue emergency orders.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter Greg Store.
Speaker 1: What were the two churches complaining about? What do they
Speaker 1: want from the Supreme Court? Originally, the two churches were
Speaker 1: complaining about COVID restrictions and capacity limits and distancing requirements
Speaker 1: that Colorado was imposing on them. But by the time
Speaker 1: I get the case got to the Supreme Court, all
Speaker 1: those restrictions were gone. And so what they were asking
Speaker 1: the court to do was to block the disaster emergency
Speaker 1: law that Colorado was using to impose these restrictions, and
Speaker 1: that law also applies to things like, you know, earthquakes
Speaker 1: and wildfires. So it was a very broader request that
Speaker 1: these churches were making. Justice Neil Gorsuch handles emergencies from Colorado.
Speaker 1: Explain how that works with the justice is handling you know,
Speaker 1: a section of the country. Yeah, each justice has one
Speaker 1: or more circuits parts of the country that they're responsible
Speaker 1: for Justice Course, which has the tenth circuit, which includes Colorado,
Speaker 1: and so any emergency request from their first go to him,
Speaker 1: and he then has the option of acting on himself
Speaker 1: or referring it to the full nine member court. In
Speaker 1: this particular case, he just acted on his own denied it.
Speaker 1: It's theoretically possible the churches could now go to a
Speaker 1: different justice and ask for the same thing they're asking
Speaker 1: Justice courses war. But if it ain't at Justice Courses,
Speaker 1: his vote, it's it's it's pretty clear that the Court
Speaker 1: as a whole is not going to grant the request.
Speaker 1: So what does it indicate that he did not even
Speaker 1: refer it to the full court. Well, that sometimes can
Speaker 1: can indicate that it wasn't a very serious request and
Speaker 1: it wasn't worth the bother of sending it to to
Speaker 1: all the other justices. In this case, though, if you
Speaker 1: read the tea leaves, it's a little less clear because
Speaker 1: this request, which was originally filed on May the third,
Speaker 1: and Justice Corsage gave the State of Colorado a fair
Speaker 1: amount of times to follow its response, and then he
Speaker 1: took a while to issue a decision that didn't include
Speaker 1: any explanations. So it seems likely that there were some
Speaker 1: some behind the scenes machinations going on. Uh he may
Speaker 1: have probably did talk to some of his colleagues about
Speaker 1: how they were going to handle the case. We don't
Speaker 1: know that, but that the amount of time that elapsed
Speaker 1: suggests that something was going on. Explain how the Court
Speaker 1: has been handling these emergency appeals from churches during the
Speaker 1: pandemic well as a general matter, at least since Justice
Speaker 1: Barrett has joined the Court and gave the Court a
Speaker 1: more solid conservative majority. As a general matter, they have
Speaker 1: been granting these requests from from churches, even with regard
Speaker 1: to restrictions that are no longer in place at the
Speaker 1: time of the request, and the Court is actually, in
Speaker 1: the minds of many experts, really banded religious rights in
Speaker 1: the process, even though these are emergency matters where they're
Speaker 1: not supposed to be making making new law. But the Court,
Speaker 1: in a series of decisions has essentially created what people
Speaker 1: are calling a most Favored Nation status for churches. In
Speaker 1: other words, if there's any other entity that is not
Speaker 1: subject to similar restrictions and it is similarly situated, it
Speaker 1: can impose them on on churches. It's been a significant
Speaker 1: deal in terms of blocking states and local governments from
Speaker 1: imposing capacity requirements that affect churches as well as some,
Speaker 1: but not all, other entities. And did that start when
Speaker 1: Justice Amy Corney Barrett came to the Court. It did before,
Speaker 1: back when Justice Ginsburg was still alive. Chief Justice Roberts
Speaker 1: had joined with the Court's liberals to allow COVID restrictions
Speaker 1: to go forward. There's an opinion where the Court said,
Speaker 1: we have to give them a lot of space, especially
Speaker 1: during an emergency situation like a pandemic, to impose the
Speaker 1: restrictions they think are warranted and not second guests states
Speaker 1: and local governments. And then once Jefficsparrick joined the Court,
Speaker 1: that started to shift. And in some cases John Roberts
Speaker 1: from found himself in the minority, or at least by
Speaker 1: himself and not not wanting to go as far as
Speaker 1: some of his conservative colleagues. So we have certainly seen
Speaker 1: movement in this area towards more deference towards houses of
Speaker 1: worship since just Ae Sparit joined the court. So we're
Speaker 1: waiting now for all the decisions that we've been waiting
Speaker 1: for for quite a while. Is the only one involving religion,
Speaker 1: the Fulton County case where it's a question of gay
Speaker 1: rights versus religious rights. Yeah, that's certainly the big one
Speaker 1: involving religion. It's a case where the City of Philadelphia
Speaker 1: has a foster care program and they use private organizations
Speaker 1: that helped run the foster care program at least certain
Speaker 1: parts of it. And and one thing that those groups
Speaker 1: do is screen out applicants people who want to be
Speaker 1: foster parents, and Catholic Social Services will not certify same
Speaker 1: sex couples. If the same sex couple were to go
Speaker 1: to Tatholic Social Services and say we want to be
Speaker 1: approved as a foster family, Catholic Social Services would refer
Speaker 1: them elsewhere. And so the city is saying that violates
Speaker 1: our anti discrimination policy that we have here, and so
Speaker 1: Catholic Social Services cannot continue as one of our screening agencies.
Speaker 1: And that case does have the potential, like that's the
Speaker 1: court to overturn a pretty significant precedence. It does have
Speaker 1: the potential to be a very big religious rights decision
Speaker 1: that would further bolster religious rights as or stand alongside
Speaker 1: this COVID decision as being a real turning point in
Speaker 1: this debate over the rights of churches and in this case,
Speaker 1: gay rights. Thanks Craig. That's Bloomberg News Supreme Court Reporter
Speaker 1: Greg's store, and that's it for this edition of the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Launscha. Remember you can always at the latest legal
Speaker 1: news on our Bloomberg Glow podcast. You can find them
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grasso. Thanks so much
Speaker 1: for listening, and please turn into The Bloomberg Law Show
Speaker 1: every week night at ten pm Eastern right here on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio.