1
00:00:02,720 --> 00:00:07,440
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,600 --> 00:00:13,240
Speaker 2: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court divided down ideological

3
00:00:13,360 --> 00:00:18,720
Speaker 2: lines upheld Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for transgender miners,

4
00:00:19,200 --> 00:00:24,080
Speaker 2: a stunning setback to transgender rights. Chief Justice John Roberts

5
00:00:24,120 --> 00:00:28,600
Speaker 2: wrote the majority opinion for the six conservative justices, finding

6
00:00:28,640 --> 00:00:32,920
Speaker 2: that the law does not violate the Constitution's equal Protection clause,

7
00:00:33,240 --> 00:00:37,080
Speaker 2: which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the

8
00:00:37,159 --> 00:00:41,640
Speaker 2: same Roberts wrote that there are fierce scientific and policy

9
00:00:41,680 --> 00:00:45,920
Speaker 2: debates about the medical treatments, but quote, we leave questions

10
00:00:45,960 --> 00:00:50,080
Speaker 2: regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and

11
00:00:50,120 --> 00:00:54,360
Speaker 2: the democratic process, Echoing what the Chief and Justice Brett

12
00:00:54,440 --> 00:00:57,200
Speaker 2: kavanaughh pointed to during the oral arguments.

13
00:00:57,800 --> 00:00:59,640
Speaker 3: You know, we might think that we're, you know, we

14
00:00:59,680 --> 00:01:02,840
Speaker 3: can do just as good a job with respect to

15
00:01:03,880 --> 00:01:09,319
Speaker 3: the evidence here as Tennessee or anybody else. But my

16
00:01:09,480 --> 00:01:13,399
Speaker 3: understanding is that the Constitution leaves that question to the

17
00:01:13,520 --> 00:01:19,040
Speaker 3: people's representatives rather than to nine people, none of whom

18
00:01:19,080 --> 00:01:20,120
Speaker 3: is a doctor.

19
00:01:20,160 --> 00:01:24,120
Speaker 4: If the Constitution doesn't take sides, if they're strong, forceful

20
00:01:24,520 --> 00:01:28,880
Speaker 4: scientific policy arguments on both sides In a situation like this,

21
00:01:30,560 --> 00:01:33,160
Speaker 4: why isn't it best to leave it to the democratic process?

22
00:01:34,000 --> 00:01:37,480
Speaker 2: Justice Sonya Soto Mayor wrote a blistering descent for the

23
00:01:37,520 --> 00:01:43,120
Speaker 2: courts three liberals, accusing the Conservatives of abandoning transgender children

24
00:01:43,200 --> 00:01:47,280
Speaker 2: and their families to political whims by retreating from meaningful

25
00:01:47,400 --> 00:01:51,600
Speaker 2: judicial review exactly where it matters most. During the oral

26
00:01:51,680 --> 00:01:55,040
Speaker 2: arguments so to, Mayor had said that the democratic process

27
00:01:55,520 --> 00:02:00,000
Speaker 2: does not protect transgender people against bad laws.

28
00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:04,040
Speaker 5: There one percent of the population or less. Very hard

29
00:02:04,080 --> 00:02:07,840
Speaker 5: to see how the democratic process is going to protect you. Well,

30
00:02:07,880 --> 00:02:11,600
Speaker 5: you are Blacks were a much larger part of the population,

31
00:02:11,760 --> 00:02:15,920
Speaker 5: and it didn't protect them. It didn't protect women for

32
00:02:16,120 --> 00:02:17,919
Speaker 5: whole centuries.

33
00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:22,720
Speaker 2: Twenty three states have bands similar to Tennessees. Joining me

34
00:02:22,800 --> 00:02:26,080
Speaker 2: is Kate Redburn, a professor at Columbia Law School whose

35
00:02:26,160 --> 00:02:30,160
Speaker 2: expertise centers on the law of gender, sexuality, and religion.

36
00:02:30,560 --> 00:02:34,760
Speaker 2: How much of a setback is this decision for transgender rights.

37
00:02:35,120 --> 00:02:39,280
Speaker 6: It's a significant setback for transgender rights, especially regarding the

38
00:02:39,320 --> 00:02:43,920
Speaker 6: availability and access to medically necessary treatments for gender dysphoria.

39
00:02:44,080 --> 00:02:48,320
Speaker 6: So the opinion refers to SB one's Tennessee law, which

40
00:02:48,560 --> 00:02:52,760
Speaker 6: essentially prohibits transgender youth from accessing gender froming care while

41
00:02:52,800 --> 00:02:55,840
Speaker 6: allowing all other youth to access the same treatments. He says,

42
00:02:55,960 --> 00:02:59,720
Speaker 6: that's not a sex classification. What it doesn't do, however,

43
00:03:00,120 --> 00:03:02,800
Speaker 6: is it doesn't hold that trans people are not a

44
00:03:02,840 --> 00:03:06,519
Speaker 6: suspect class in general. So it looks like at least

45
00:03:06,600 --> 00:03:08,920
Speaker 6: three justices were willing to go that far, and the

46
00:03:08,960 --> 00:03:12,400
Speaker 6: opinion didn't go that far. So it's very bad for

47
00:03:12,639 --> 00:03:16,240
Speaker 6: trans kids and potentially trans adults who are seeking medical care,

48
00:03:16,680 --> 00:03:21,079
Speaker 6: but it doesn't necessarily reach as far as all transiscrimination.

49
00:03:21,560 --> 00:03:25,080
Speaker 2: What was the central legal question here regarding the equal

50
00:03:25,120 --> 00:03:26,160
Speaker 2: protection clause?

51
00:03:26,520 --> 00:03:28,800
Speaker 6: So the question before the court was whether or not

52
00:03:28,840 --> 00:03:32,400
Speaker 6: this law violated equal protection, and the United States really

53
00:03:32,440 --> 00:03:35,520
Speaker 6: directed under the prior administration, really directed the court's attention

54
00:03:35,600 --> 00:03:38,400
Speaker 6: to the question of whether or not this law constituted

55
00:03:38,440 --> 00:03:41,960
Speaker 6: a sex classification. So does the law turn on sex?

56
00:03:42,080 --> 00:03:44,520
Speaker 6: And the reason for that is because when laws do

57
00:03:44,600 --> 00:03:47,200
Speaker 6: turn on sex, then the court it looks more closely

58
00:03:47,240 --> 00:03:50,280
Speaker 6: at the law. They call that heightened scrutiny for sex discrimination.

59
00:03:50,480 --> 00:03:53,520
Speaker 6: So the court I said that certain kinds of classifications,

60
00:03:53,600 --> 00:03:57,840
Speaker 6: race classifications paradigmatically more into strict scrutiny. So the Court's

61
00:03:57,840 --> 00:04:00,720
Speaker 6: going to look very hard. Sex classification the Court has

62
00:04:00,800 --> 00:04:04,840
Speaker 6: previously said sometimes are permissible, it's sometimes okay for governments

63
00:04:04,840 --> 00:04:07,400
Speaker 6: to distinguish between people on the basis of sex or

64
00:04:07,440 --> 00:04:10,400
Speaker 6: make sex classifications. But because it sounds a little bit

65
00:04:10,480 --> 00:04:13,240
Speaker 6: potentially suspicious, they're going to look more closely. And so

66
00:04:13,280 --> 00:04:15,960
Speaker 6: the question here was is it a sex classification? And

67
00:04:16,000 --> 00:04:18,239
Speaker 6: then the danger was what had happened in the Sixth

68
00:04:18,240 --> 00:04:20,760
Speaker 6: Circuit where in this case that court had said that

69
00:04:20,839 --> 00:04:23,520
Speaker 6: this law was not a sex classification and sort of

70
00:04:23,520 --> 00:04:26,640
Speaker 6: combined the analysis in a way that made people concern

71
00:04:26,800 --> 00:04:29,359
Speaker 6: that the court was going to find that even certain

72
00:04:29,440 --> 00:04:32,880
Speaker 6: kinds of sex classifications don't Warrant tightened scrutiny. So here

73
00:04:33,040 --> 00:04:36,440
Speaker 6: what happened was the Robert's majority opinion says that this

74
00:04:36,560 --> 00:04:39,520
Speaker 6: law is not a sex classification and therefore only warrant's

75
00:04:39,800 --> 00:04:40,880
Speaker 6: rational basis review.

76
00:04:41,200 --> 00:04:45,440
Speaker 2: Chief Justice Roberts, in his majority opinions talked about the

77
00:04:45,480 --> 00:04:49,960
Speaker 2: fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and

78
00:04:50,000 --> 00:04:53,800
Speaker 2: propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. Quote, we

79
00:04:53,880 --> 00:04:57,240
Speaker 2: leave questions regarding its policy to the people. They're elected

80
00:04:57,279 --> 00:05:02,080
Speaker 2: representatives and the democratic process. Is that just the court

81
00:05:02,160 --> 00:05:05,920
Speaker 2: looking for an out, I mean, they do make policy decisions.

82
00:05:06,440 --> 00:05:09,320
Speaker 6: Yeah, So it sounds not dissimilar to what the Court

83
00:05:09,400 --> 00:05:12,839
Speaker 6: said about Dobbs when it overturned roversus Wade, which was

84
00:05:13,040 --> 00:05:16,680
Speaker 6: under the guise of changing doctrine, and that case quite significantly,

85
00:05:16,960 --> 00:05:20,799
Speaker 6: it described itself as kicking the question back to the states.

86
00:05:20,880 --> 00:05:24,800
Speaker 6: What is suspicious about that language in this context is

87
00:05:24,839 --> 00:05:28,040
Speaker 6: that the heightened scrutiny is actually designed to make it

88
00:05:28,080 --> 00:05:30,520
Speaker 6: possible for course to spend some time really looking at

89
00:05:30,560 --> 00:05:33,800
Speaker 6: the justifications that the governments are using for regulating and

90
00:05:33,839 --> 00:05:36,440
Speaker 6: classifying on sex, and then it also asks whether or

91
00:05:36,440 --> 00:05:39,000
Speaker 6: not the means justify the ed. So it might be

92
00:05:39,080 --> 00:05:41,840
Speaker 6: that there's a close relationship between the purpose of the

93
00:05:41,920 --> 00:05:45,760
Speaker 6: law and its classification, but it's nevertheless not an acceptable

94
00:05:45,800 --> 00:05:47,719
Speaker 6: purpose anyway. All of that's just to say that the

95
00:05:47,800 --> 00:05:50,760
Speaker 6: existing doctrine is meant to give the court the opportunity

96
00:05:50,800 --> 00:05:53,680
Speaker 6: to really weigh evidence. And what this decision does is

97
00:05:53,720 --> 00:05:57,080
Speaker 6: it seems to open up the possibility of authorizing governments

98
00:05:57,120 --> 00:06:00,960
Speaker 6: to regulate around medical procedures that touch on sex without

99
00:06:01,000 --> 00:06:04,120
Speaker 6: courts even looking to weigh the evidence. So it might

100
00:06:04,160 --> 00:06:06,320
Speaker 6: be the case that the Court could have applied heightened

101
00:06:06,320 --> 00:06:10,040
Speaker 6: scrutiny and still found that this particular law had, on

102
00:06:10,120 --> 00:06:13,800
Speaker 6: its view of sufficient evidentiary support, you know, in light

103
00:06:13,839 --> 00:06:17,640
Speaker 6: of the purported medical controversy, But it might not have,

104
00:06:17,720 --> 00:06:21,120
Speaker 6: and it really denied itself and potentially future courts from

105
00:06:21,279 --> 00:06:22,240
Speaker 6: even looking into that.

106
00:06:23,160 --> 00:06:27,000
Speaker 2: Justice Sonia Sotomayo wrote a blistering dissent, and she read

107
00:06:27,040 --> 00:06:29,719
Speaker 2: a summary of it from the bench, which the justices

108
00:06:29,800 --> 00:06:33,080
Speaker 2: sometimes do when they feel strongly about a descent. Then

109
00:06:33,200 --> 00:06:37,120
Speaker 2: she ended with in sadness I dissent, she talked about

110
00:06:37,200 --> 00:06:42,719
Speaker 2: the majority abandoning transgender children and their families to political whims.

111
00:06:43,200 --> 00:06:45,200
Speaker 6: I think that, you know, her sadness stems from the

112
00:06:45,200 --> 00:06:49,200
Speaker 6: fact that this is going to force potentially trans kids

113
00:06:49,240 --> 00:06:51,880
Speaker 6: and their families in half of the states where similar

114
00:06:51,920 --> 00:06:54,560
Speaker 6: laws are on the books to relocate in order to

115
00:06:54,760 --> 00:06:58,600
Speaker 6: simply live their lives. The state of the medical controversy

116
00:06:58,600 --> 00:07:01,640
Speaker 6: about these issues, and the majority of and is vastly overstated.

117
00:07:02,000 --> 00:07:03,839
Speaker 6: Much of the history that it relies on, and some

118
00:07:03,920 --> 00:07:07,120
Speaker 6: of the other concurring opinians rely on, it's just the untrue.

119
00:07:07,240 --> 00:07:09,600
Speaker 6: And so you know what I think, Justice Sodomayor was

120
00:07:09,600 --> 00:07:13,080
Speaker 6: trying to say is that the consequences for trans youth

121
00:07:13,120 --> 00:07:15,640
Speaker 6: in particular are just really, really egregious.

122
00:07:15,880 --> 00:07:20,560
Speaker 2: In her courtroom statement, she said that similar arguments were

123
00:07:20,600 --> 00:07:25,040
Speaker 2: made to defend the Virginia law that prohibited interracial marriage

124
00:07:25,080 --> 00:07:28,680
Speaker 2: that the Supreme Court struck down in nineteen sixty seven.

125
00:07:28,840 --> 00:07:31,520
Speaker 6: Yeah, so we call those equal application laws, and they

126
00:07:31,560 --> 00:07:34,680
Speaker 6: basically say that because so in Loving versus Virginia, the

127
00:07:34,840 --> 00:07:38,920
Speaker 6: argument was well for the law prohibited interracial marriage, and

128
00:07:39,040 --> 00:07:41,600
Speaker 6: the justification for it that the state gave was this

129
00:07:41,720 --> 00:07:44,320
Speaker 6: is not racial discrimination because white people are not allowed

130
00:07:44,320 --> 00:07:46,240
Speaker 6: to marry people of color and people of color are

131
00:07:46,240 --> 00:07:48,200
Speaker 6: not allowed to marry white people. In other words, everyone

132
00:07:48,280 --> 00:07:51,280
Speaker 6: is equally prohibited. But the court said no, this is

133
00:07:51,360 --> 00:07:55,000
Speaker 6: still rooted in racial stereotypes that suggest that interracial marriage

134
00:07:55,040 --> 00:07:58,880
Speaker 6: is bad, and also animus towards racial minorities and trying

135
00:07:58,920 --> 00:08:00,920
Speaker 6: to reinforce the racial hierarchy.

136
00:08:00,480 --> 00:08:01,040
Speaker 3: In the country.

137
00:08:01,080 --> 00:08:03,600
Speaker 6: So the fact that you can find in that case

138
00:08:03,640 --> 00:08:05,880
Speaker 6: white people and black people on both sides of the

139
00:08:05,920 --> 00:08:08,480
Speaker 6: line that the regulation draws does not mean that it's

140
00:08:08,520 --> 00:08:11,440
Speaker 6: not subject to heighten scrutiny. And so there's a reading

141
00:08:11,680 --> 00:08:14,160
Speaker 6: of the majority's opinion here, which that it does exactly

142
00:08:14,160 --> 00:08:16,640
Speaker 6: the same thing. That's what she's saying that just because

143
00:08:16,680 --> 00:08:19,880
Speaker 6: there are transgender miners on both sides of the line.

144
00:08:20,560 --> 00:08:23,960
Speaker 6: In other words, transgender miners, according to the Court, can

145
00:08:24,000 --> 00:08:26,280
Speaker 6: still obtain sort of treatments if they're not for the

146
00:08:26,280 --> 00:08:29,800
Speaker 6: purposes of addressing gender dysphoria. That doesn't mean that this

147
00:08:29,880 --> 00:08:33,320
Speaker 6: is not motivated by animus towards transgender people and trying

148
00:08:33,320 --> 00:08:36,760
Speaker 6: to reinforce as sex and gender hierarchy. That suggests that

149
00:08:36,840 --> 00:08:39,760
Speaker 6: there's something normatively preferable about not being transgender.

150
00:08:40,160 --> 00:08:46,080
Speaker 2: How have transgender rights in particular, How have transgender rights

151
00:08:46,120 --> 00:08:52,479
Speaker 2: in particular suffered or been affected by Donald Trump's presidency?

152
00:08:53,720 --> 00:08:57,320
Speaker 6: Basically says it's a little bit after twenty sixteen, it's

153
00:08:57,320 --> 00:09:01,600
Speaker 6: been a major priority among Republicans legislators in particular to

154
00:09:01,880 --> 00:09:04,480
Speaker 6: attack trans rights. There's a lot of reasons why that

155
00:09:04,600 --> 00:09:06,600
Speaker 6: could be the case. You know, one reason that having

156
00:09:07,040 --> 00:09:09,920
Speaker 6: lost the gay marriage fight, there's an effort to find

157
00:09:09,960 --> 00:09:14,400
Speaker 6: a different issue that touches on questions of traditional and

158
00:09:14,440 --> 00:09:17,640
Speaker 6: non traditional gender and sexual role to search for another

159
00:09:17,679 --> 00:09:20,720
Speaker 6: issue became even stronger after Dobs, after the Supreme Court

160
00:09:20,840 --> 00:09:23,880
Speaker 6: overturned row versus ways in part because abortion is actually

161
00:09:23,960 --> 00:09:26,360
Speaker 6: quite popular nationally, and so in order to create some

162
00:09:26,440 --> 00:09:29,599
Speaker 6: kind of coalition that could win national elections, needed to

163
00:09:29,640 --> 00:09:33,840
Speaker 6: find an issue which would connect to traditional gender and

164
00:09:33,880 --> 00:09:37,120
Speaker 6: sexual values without touching on something popular like gay marriage

165
00:09:37,200 --> 00:09:39,760
Speaker 6: or abortion. So a way to understand the effect of

166
00:09:39,760 --> 00:09:42,720
Speaker 6: the Trump administration is really that it has accelerated a

167
00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:46,760
Speaker 6: pre existing tendency, and it's turned what were state level

168
00:09:46,880 --> 00:09:51,120
Speaker 6: efforts to make transgender life extremely difficult, if not impossible,

169
00:09:51,240 --> 00:09:55,280
Speaker 6: into national policy. So the redefinition of sex, attempts to

170
00:09:55,320 --> 00:09:59,280
Speaker 6: regulate medical treatments, access to bathrooms, access to sports teams,

171
00:09:59,480 --> 00:10:01,480
Speaker 6: all of those those efforts that we saw in the

172
00:10:01,559 --> 00:10:05,240
Speaker 6: executive orders, and of course, you know, very important restrictions

173
00:10:05,240 --> 00:10:08,840
Speaker 6: and attempted restrictions now in Congress on access to healthcare

174
00:10:09,000 --> 00:10:13,000
Speaker 6: through various kinds of federal aid are reflecting the nationalization

175
00:10:13,080 --> 00:10:15,319
Speaker 6: of what had been state level attacks.

176
00:10:15,640 --> 00:10:20,640
Speaker 2: Does the decision today help legal challenges by President Trump

177
00:10:20,679 --> 00:10:26,120
Speaker 2: and Republican administrations to roll back protections for transgender people.

178
00:10:26,679 --> 00:10:28,679
Speaker 6: It might that it might not. As I said, there

179
00:10:28,720 --> 00:10:31,560
Speaker 6: is not a majority on the court apparently to hold

180
00:10:31,640 --> 00:10:35,319
Speaker 6: that anti transiscrimination, you know, is not visible to the Constitution.

181
00:10:35,440 --> 00:10:38,000
Speaker 6: In other words, there are other kinds of anti transcrimination

182
00:10:38,080 --> 00:10:40,960
Speaker 6: that the Court seems to have held open the possibility

183
00:10:40,960 --> 00:10:43,760
Speaker 6: for recognizing, and so it's going to really depend on

184
00:10:44,240 --> 00:10:46,959
Speaker 6: what is characterized as a medical condition. In other words,

185
00:10:46,960 --> 00:10:49,880
Speaker 6: this opinion says that SB one is discriminating on the

186
00:10:49,880 --> 00:10:53,280
Speaker 6: basis of gender dysphoria and not transgender identity, and so

187
00:10:53,440 --> 00:10:56,680
Speaker 6: other laws do not have that character of being ostensibly

188
00:10:57,040 --> 00:11:01,400
Speaker 6: justified as medical regulations. Instead, I think the normative stakes

189
00:11:01,600 --> 00:11:05,000
Speaker 6: of just trying to force people not to be transgender

190
00:11:05,160 --> 00:11:07,439
Speaker 6: or even clearer in those other situation, And the Court

191
00:11:07,720 --> 00:11:10,719
Speaker 6: hasn't totally eliminated the possibility of reading those arguments in

192
00:11:10,760 --> 00:11:11,320
Speaker 6: the future.

193
00:11:11,480 --> 00:11:15,240
Speaker 2: So the justices still have to rule in another case

194
00:11:15,880 --> 00:11:19,679
Speaker 2: about whether a Maryland school district is violating the Constitution

195
00:11:20,360 --> 00:11:24,959
Speaker 2: by using LGBTQ friendly books in the classroom without giving

196
00:11:25,000 --> 00:11:28,120
Speaker 2: parents the right to opt out. After hearing the oral

197
00:11:28,200 --> 00:11:30,160
Speaker 2: arguments in that case, and I know everyone says, you

198
00:11:30,200 --> 00:11:32,400
Speaker 2: can't tell what the justices are going to do, but

199
00:11:32,400 --> 00:11:36,800
Speaker 2: it seemed pretty clear that there were enough justices to

200
00:11:36,840 --> 00:11:41,360
Speaker 2: support the position of the religious parents. There is that

201
00:11:41,480 --> 00:11:42,920
Speaker 2: case important.

202
00:11:43,320 --> 00:11:46,400
Speaker 6: Yeah, that case is enormously important for another front in

203
00:11:46,559 --> 00:11:49,720
Speaker 6: the ongoing attacks on really any kind of non normative

204
00:11:49,880 --> 00:11:53,400
Speaker 6: families or gender or sexual identities. The issue is actually

205
00:11:53,440 --> 00:11:55,520
Speaker 6: not at all new to the country. It has never

206
00:11:55,520 --> 00:11:58,640
Speaker 6: reached the Supreme Court before, but in the nineteen eighties

207
00:11:58,679 --> 00:12:01,640
Speaker 6: there were a series of lower court cases on identical

208
00:12:01,679 --> 00:12:05,360
Speaker 6: issues where conservatives, in that case, people who self identified

209
00:12:05,559 --> 00:12:09,160
Speaker 6: as fundamentalist Christians, objected to content in public school curricula

210
00:12:09,240 --> 00:12:13,920
Speaker 6: that they characterized as secular humanism, and courts universally said

211
00:12:14,160 --> 00:12:19,000
Speaker 6: that mere exposure to ideas which parents dislike, or even

212
00:12:19,120 --> 00:12:21,680
Speaker 6: ideas which are sensitive to the religious beliefs of parents,

213
00:12:21,760 --> 00:12:25,840
Speaker 6: does not constitute coersion, and so it's not constitutionally suspect

214
00:12:26,240 --> 00:12:30,000
Speaker 6: that court does seem poised to equate contact with coersion

215
00:12:30,160 --> 00:12:33,520
Speaker 6: in ways that are potentially quite quite sweet thing. During

216
00:12:33,600 --> 00:12:37,520
Speaker 6: oral argument, the Actings Lister General who made the arguments,

217
00:12:37,600 --> 00:12:41,760
Speaker 6: suggested that the presence of a transgender student, for example,

218
00:12:41,840 --> 00:12:44,640
Speaker 6: could be considered a kind of content to which a

219
00:12:44,720 --> 00:12:47,960
Speaker 6: religious objection might be relevant. In other words, it was

220
00:12:48,000 --> 00:12:50,880
Speaker 6: possible not only that a parent could object to a

221
00:12:50,920 --> 00:12:52,760
Speaker 6: book being on the shelf or a book being read

222
00:12:53,040 --> 00:12:56,839
Speaker 6: in class that includes, for example, gay characters, but also

223
00:12:56,920 --> 00:13:00,920
Speaker 6: that the existence of a person whose self is disliked

224
00:13:01,200 --> 00:13:04,080
Speaker 6: or reported to be against the religious beliefs of the

225
00:13:04,240 --> 00:13:06,800
Speaker 6: parent could prompt an opt out. So it really has

226
00:13:06,800 --> 00:13:11,320
Speaker 6: the potential to destroy the ability of public school teachers

227
00:13:11,679 --> 00:13:15,200
Speaker 6: to make inclusive choices about what kind of content and

228
00:13:15,240 --> 00:13:17,840
Speaker 6: what kind of classrooms they have that reflect the diversity

229
00:13:17,960 --> 00:13:18,680
Speaker 6: of our society.

230
00:13:18,720 --> 00:13:21,480
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me today. That's professor Kate

231
00:13:21,559 --> 00:13:31,440
Speaker 2: Redburn of Columbia Law School. Crowds outside the courthouse in Dedham, Massachusetts,

232
00:13:31,559 --> 00:13:35,240
Speaker 2: cheered this afternoon after a jury found Karen Reid not

233
00:13:35,360 --> 00:13:39,200
Speaker 2: guilty of second degree murder and manslaughter charges in the

234
00:13:39,200 --> 00:13:43,440
Speaker 2: death of her Boston police officer boyfriend in twenty twenty two.

235
00:13:43,559 --> 00:13:46,360
Speaker 2: The jury did find Read guilty of the lesser charge

236
00:13:46,400 --> 00:13:49,960
Speaker 2: of drunk and driving, handing down its decision after deliberating

237
00:13:50,000 --> 00:13:53,400
Speaker 2: for at least twenty two hours over four days. The

238
00:13:53,520 --> 00:13:57,040
Speaker 2: verdict comes nearly a year after another jury had deadlocked

239
00:13:57,080 --> 00:14:00,600
Speaker 2: over Reid's guilt. It's a huge victory for her lawyers,

240
00:14:00,760 --> 00:14:04,240
Speaker 2: who've asserted that she was framed by police after dropping

241
00:14:04,280 --> 00:14:06,480
Speaker 2: O'Keefe off at a party at the home of a

242
00:14:06,520 --> 00:14:10,720
Speaker 2: fellow officer. Prosecutors argued the forty five year old read

243
00:14:11,040 --> 00:14:15,040
Speaker 2: hit O'Keefe with her SUV before driving away, but the

244
00:14:15,040 --> 00:14:18,800
Speaker 2: defense maintained that O'Keefe was killed inside the home and

245
00:14:18,920 --> 00:14:22,880
Speaker 2: later dragged outside. Joining me is former Palm Beach County

246
00:14:22,920 --> 00:14:27,320
Speaker 2: State Attorney Dave Arenberg. Were you surprised at the not

247
00:14:27,440 --> 00:14:28,600
Speaker 2: guilty verdicts here?

248
00:14:29,160 --> 00:14:32,800
Speaker 1: I was very surprised by it because I thought the

249
00:14:32,840 --> 00:14:35,560
Speaker 1: prosecution this time did an excellent job and focusing the

250
00:14:35,640 --> 00:14:40,360
Speaker 1: jury on the evidence, the data, the cell phone data,

251
00:14:40,960 --> 00:14:44,200
Speaker 1: the evidence of the battery of the cell phone and

252
00:14:44,240 --> 00:14:48,640
Speaker 1: when it started to weaken, and when the phone started

253
00:14:48,640 --> 00:14:52,040
Speaker 1: to freeze, the timing. I mean, this was not speculation.

254
00:14:52,200 --> 00:14:55,680
Speaker 1: Data doesn't have any ax to grind. Data is data,

255
00:14:56,200 --> 00:14:59,720
Speaker 1: and as a result, I thought the jury would listen

256
00:14:59,760 --> 00:15:03,160
Speaker 1: to that. Instead, they got distracted by all the things

257
00:15:03,200 --> 00:15:05,200
Speaker 1: and apparently found reasonable doubt.

258
00:15:05,440 --> 00:15:09,440
Speaker 2: Obviously there were no eyewitness accounts, no direct evidence of

259
00:15:09,520 --> 00:15:12,760
Speaker 2: the hit, but there were a series of experts to

260
00:15:12,960 --> 00:15:17,800
Speaker 2: fill in the evidentiary picture. Do you think that testimony

261
00:15:18,000 --> 00:15:20,720
Speaker 2: was too sophisticated for the jury.

262
00:15:21,640 --> 00:15:23,880
Speaker 1: Whenever you get into a battle of experts, it's a

263
00:15:23,920 --> 00:15:28,880
Speaker 1: problem for prosecution because jurors these days, they want eyewitnesses,

264
00:15:28,960 --> 00:15:34,920
Speaker 1: they want the DNA, they want the conclusive smoking guns

265
00:15:35,320 --> 00:15:37,520
Speaker 1: because they're used to seeing that on TV shows which

266
00:15:37,520 --> 00:15:40,240
Speaker 1: are wrapped up in an hour at CSI and other shows.

267
00:15:40,400 --> 00:15:43,480
Speaker 1: And if you don't have that, jurors will quickly find

268
00:15:43,520 --> 00:15:46,479
Speaker 1: some reasonable doubt, especially if it becomes a battle of experts.

269
00:15:46,520 --> 00:15:49,600
Speaker 1: But I thought that it was a defense that came

270
00:15:49,680 --> 00:15:53,080
Speaker 1: up with a cockamamie alternative theory and thus raised the

271
00:15:53,080 --> 00:15:57,280
Speaker 1: bar for the defense by saying that John O'Keefe entered

272
00:15:57,280 --> 00:15:59,160
Speaker 1: the home. There's no evidence he entered the home. There's

273
00:15:59,400 --> 00:16:02,320
Speaker 1: no evidence that anything happened, but he was hit by

274
00:16:02,320 --> 00:16:07,440
Speaker 1: the car by a drunk, enraged woman who left dozens

275
00:16:07,560 --> 00:16:12,240
Speaker 1: of angry voicemails on the victim's phone while he lay

276
00:16:12,320 --> 00:16:13,080
Speaker 1: dying in the snow.

277
00:16:13,960 --> 00:16:17,120
Speaker 2: And how did the defense explain Read's own words to

278
00:16:17,200 --> 00:16:21,920
Speaker 2: paramedics afterwards, repeatedly saying I hit him.

279
00:16:22,720 --> 00:16:25,240
Speaker 1: Yeah, her own words, I mean, she admitted it. But

280
00:16:25,400 --> 00:16:28,840
Speaker 1: they were able to somehow frame it as maybe she

281
00:16:29,040 --> 00:16:32,920
Speaker 1: was unsure, maybe she thought she did, but the witnesses

282
00:16:32,960 --> 00:16:34,600
Speaker 1: said no, she said I hit him. I hit him.

283
00:16:35,080 --> 00:16:39,200
Speaker 1: I mean. Her own lawyer when this case started said

284
00:16:39,320 --> 00:16:41,960
Speaker 1: that she did hit him, that this was an accident,

285
00:16:43,120 --> 00:16:46,240
Speaker 1: but then they changed their view to try to get

286
00:16:46,280 --> 00:16:47,880
Speaker 1: away with it entirely, and she did.

287
00:16:48,440 --> 00:16:50,720
Speaker 2: Would we call it a mixed verdict because they did

288
00:16:50,800 --> 00:16:55,680
Speaker 2: convict her of operating under the influence of alcohol. Of course,

289
00:16:55,960 --> 00:16:58,080
Speaker 2: the judge just gave her probation for that.

290
00:16:58,720 --> 00:17:01,480
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, but they didn't find or guilty of leaving

291
00:17:01,480 --> 00:17:04,359
Speaker 1: the seam of an accident, so they didn't even feel

292
00:17:04,400 --> 00:17:07,040
Speaker 1: that it was conclusive that she caused an accident. So

293
00:17:07,040 --> 00:17:09,760
Speaker 1: how did he die? It's a binary choice. Either she

294
00:17:09,880 --> 00:17:11,639
Speaker 1: hit him or he went into the house and was

295
00:17:11,720 --> 00:17:15,720
Speaker 1: murdered by law enforcement officers and soccer moms who got

296
00:17:15,760 --> 00:17:18,840
Speaker 1: together in a conspiracy of silence the murder their friend

297
00:17:19,119 --> 00:17:22,199
Speaker 1: and then dump his body on the front lawn. I

298
00:17:22,240 --> 00:17:25,640
Speaker 1: don't even understand how anyone can think that makes sense.

299
00:17:25,640 --> 00:17:28,280
Speaker 1: I mean, if you're a law enforcement officer and you're

300
00:17:28,320 --> 00:17:31,080
Speaker 1: in cahoots with soccer moms, wouldn't you think you would

301
00:17:31,119 --> 00:17:34,119
Speaker 1: just claim self defense if you wanted to kill another

302
00:17:34,160 --> 00:17:36,600
Speaker 1: law enforcement officer, or wouldn't you try to hide the body?

303
00:17:36,880 --> 00:17:41,119
Speaker 1: Why would you throw the body onto the front of

304
00:17:41,119 --> 00:17:45,399
Speaker 1: your house unless it didn't happen, which it didn't happen.

305
00:17:46,240 --> 00:17:49,159
Speaker 2: What some people say is the most powerful defense testimony

306
00:17:49,320 --> 00:17:53,879
Speaker 2: was a snowplow driver who passed the home several times

307
00:17:53,960 --> 00:17:58,359
Speaker 2: in the hours after the alleged collision and said he

308
00:17:58,359 --> 00:18:01,080
Speaker 2: didn't see a two hundred and sixteen six foot one

309
00:18:01,160 --> 00:18:02,399
Speaker 2: man lying in the yard.

310
00:18:03,640 --> 00:18:06,280
Speaker 1: Yeah, and no one did. The snow was coming down

311
00:18:07,080 --> 00:18:10,119
Speaker 1: and no one did. The only person who found this person,

312
00:18:10,119 --> 00:18:12,600
Speaker 1: who is then the next morning buried under the snow.

313
00:18:12,640 --> 00:18:15,240
Speaker 1: The only person who found John O'Keefe was the person

314
00:18:15,240 --> 00:18:18,760
Speaker 1: who hit him, because she knew where his body was.

315
00:18:18,880 --> 00:18:21,479
Speaker 1: Because she hit him, She knew what happened. No one

316
00:18:21,520 --> 00:18:23,520
Speaker 1: else could find him. They were driving around looking for him,

317
00:18:23,520 --> 00:18:27,480
Speaker 1: but she boughted them from a while away because she's

318
00:18:27,520 --> 00:18:30,159
Speaker 1: the one who hit him. So in this case, I

319
00:18:30,200 --> 00:18:32,920
Speaker 1: feel the same way as I did after the O. J.

320
00:18:33,040 --> 00:18:35,959
Speaker 1: Simpson verdict or the Casey Anthony verdict that he had

321
00:18:35,960 --> 00:18:37,120
Speaker 1: a guilty person go free.

322
00:18:37,520 --> 00:18:41,640
Speaker 2: The jury deliberated about twenty two hours over four days.

323
00:18:42,040 --> 00:18:44,879
Speaker 2: Does that sound to you like there was a holdout.

324
00:18:45,760 --> 00:18:49,200
Speaker 1: Yes, it does sound like there was a Vibman discussion

325
00:18:49,680 --> 00:18:53,320
Speaker 1: and this was their compromise verdict. But the compromise isn't

326
00:18:53,320 --> 00:18:55,359
Speaker 1: really much of a compromise because the only buster on

327
00:18:55,400 --> 00:19:00,520
Speaker 1: the lowest count, which gave her probation, so he gets

328
00:19:00,520 --> 00:19:03,760
Speaker 1: the walk free. It's not over yet, though, because there'll

329
00:19:03,800 --> 00:19:06,480
Speaker 1: be civil lawsuits than there are, and there also will

330
00:19:06,520 --> 00:19:10,280
Speaker 1: be a trial of Turtle Boy, one of the bloggers

331
00:19:10,320 --> 00:19:12,120
Speaker 1: who was on her side.

332
00:19:12,880 --> 00:19:17,760
Speaker 2: Usually on a retrial, it's the prosecution that has the advantage.

333
00:19:18,200 --> 00:19:19,600
Speaker 2: Why do you think it was different here?

334
00:19:20,040 --> 00:19:21,840
Speaker 1: I thought the prosecution did a really good job. I

335
00:19:21,880 --> 00:19:25,240
Speaker 1: don't have any issues with him. I think the defense

336
00:19:25,520 --> 00:19:31,280
Speaker 1: was able to capitalize on discontent with police. You had jurors.

337
00:19:31,320 --> 00:19:35,159
Speaker 1: All it takes his few jurors who would have issues

338
00:19:35,200 --> 00:19:38,480
Speaker 1: with police. And here the accusation was that there was

339
00:19:38,520 --> 00:19:41,639
Speaker 1: a police cover up and that the police officers were

340
00:19:41,640 --> 00:19:45,040
Speaker 1: too close to the family inside the house, and the

341
00:19:45,040 --> 00:19:50,560
Speaker 1: police officers were not only incompetent in collecting the evidence.

342
00:19:50,600 --> 00:19:54,520
Speaker 1: That's the defense talking, not me, but also that the

343
00:19:54,600 --> 00:19:56,959
Speaker 1: lead investigator, who was not even called to the stand,

344
00:19:57,600 --> 00:20:01,919
Speaker 1: but that the lead investigator was much discussing individual with

345
00:20:01,960 --> 00:20:04,680
Speaker 1: his comments about Karen Reid, and he did make defensive

346
00:20:04,680 --> 00:20:08,200
Speaker 1: comments that the whole thing was tainted, and I think

347
00:20:08,359 --> 00:20:10,800
Speaker 1: that did have some residents with the jury. I think

348
00:20:10,880 --> 00:20:13,439
Speaker 1: they press want to know why the lead investigator did

349
00:20:13,520 --> 00:20:16,720
Speaker 1: not testify. Maybe they were hiding something, which they weren't.

350
00:20:16,720 --> 00:20:18,600
Speaker 1: They just thought that this guy was aside show a

351
00:20:18,600 --> 00:20:20,160
Speaker 1: distraction because of his comments.

352
00:20:20,640 --> 00:20:23,520
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the defense seemed to emphasize that in the

353
00:20:24,040 --> 00:20:28,679
Speaker 2: closing arguments. Did the defense improve over the first trial

354
00:20:28,760 --> 00:20:31,520
Speaker 2: where it just presented a day and a half of

355
00:20:32,240 --> 00:20:33,280
Speaker 2: defense witnesses.

356
00:20:34,800 --> 00:20:37,120
Speaker 1: I thought the defense did a really good job as

357
00:20:37,160 --> 00:20:39,280
Speaker 1: they did in the first trial. I mean, anytime you

358
00:20:39,440 --> 00:20:44,399
Speaker 1: are able to get a guilty client acquitted, it's a

359
00:20:44,440 --> 00:20:47,920
Speaker 1: real feat for the defense, and they deserve credit. They're

360
00:20:47,960 --> 00:20:52,400
Speaker 1: great lawyers, and it is my belief that she was guilty,

361
00:20:52,600 --> 00:20:57,639
Speaker 1: and I think the evidence conclusively establishes that. But when

362
00:20:57,680 --> 00:21:00,119
Speaker 1: you're a defense learning able to create a s I

363
00:21:00,200 --> 00:21:02,920
Speaker 1: show a distraction and it works with the jury, then

364
00:21:03,520 --> 00:21:06,640
Speaker 1: you're doing your job, I guess. And that's a shame

365
00:21:06,680 --> 00:21:09,040
Speaker 1: for the victims' families, but that's what it is.

366
00:21:09,560 --> 00:21:14,840
Speaker 2: So explain how in a civil case the standard is lower,

367
00:21:15,000 --> 00:21:18,880
Speaker 2: so there might be a verdict in the family's favor

368
00:21:19,040 --> 00:21:22,639
Speaker 2: for damages in the civil case, even though she was

369
00:21:22,640 --> 00:21:24,800
Speaker 2: found not guilty in the criminal case.

370
00:21:25,440 --> 00:21:31,320
Speaker 1: Right in a civil case. The standard is just proponents

371
00:21:31,320 --> 00:21:35,160
Speaker 1: of the evidence. It's much easier to prove and either

372
00:21:35,240 --> 00:21:38,760
Speaker 1: have proved negligence, which is a lower burden, So all around,

373
00:21:38,840 --> 00:21:41,960
Speaker 1: it's easier to prove that case of the evidence just

374
00:21:42,040 --> 00:21:45,440
Speaker 1: means is it more likely than not that Karen Reid

375
00:21:45,840 --> 00:21:48,480
Speaker 1: did something wrong here, committed a tort. You don't have

376
00:21:48,480 --> 00:21:50,160
Speaker 1: to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

377
00:21:50,640 --> 00:21:54,320
Speaker 2: So is the logical conclusion after this verdict that the

378
00:21:54,400 --> 00:21:55,879
Speaker 2: murderer is still out there?

379
00:21:57,600 --> 00:22:01,320
Speaker 1: Yeah? I guess she and Simpson will go search for

380
00:22:01,359 --> 00:22:04,200
Speaker 1: the real killers. That's really what this is, right, This

381
00:22:04,359 --> 00:22:06,919
Speaker 1: was a binary choice. Either she hit him with the

382
00:22:06,960 --> 00:22:10,160
Speaker 1: car or he went inside the house and was murdered

383
00:22:10,400 --> 00:22:14,960
Speaker 1: by law enforcement officers and soccer moms, and then they

384
00:22:15,119 --> 00:22:19,080
Speaker 1: threw their friend's body onto their front lawns. Doesn't make

385
00:22:19,080 --> 00:22:19,679
Speaker 1: any sense.

386
00:22:20,320 --> 00:22:23,320
Speaker 2: So, Dave, what do you make of her supporters? I mean,

387
00:22:23,359 --> 00:22:26,720
Speaker 2: there were crowds of people outside the courthouse waiting for

388
00:22:26,800 --> 00:22:27,320
Speaker 2: the verdict.

389
00:22:27,400 --> 00:22:30,639
Speaker 1: I mean why she became a cult of personality. I

390
00:22:30,680 --> 00:22:33,800
Speaker 1: think that the narrative that was fed by bloggers was

391
00:22:33,840 --> 00:22:37,520
Speaker 1: that here's this sweet, innocent woman who's being framed for

392
00:22:37,560 --> 00:22:41,520
Speaker 1: a crime she didn't commit by by corrupt law enforcement officers.

393
00:22:41,880 --> 00:22:44,720
Speaker 1: And I just feel for those law enforcement officers and

394
00:22:44,760 --> 00:22:47,160
Speaker 1: the families for having their names dragged through the mud

395
00:22:47,800 --> 00:22:50,199
Speaker 1: when they didn't deserve that. They lost a loved one.

396
00:22:50,200 --> 00:22:53,639
Speaker 1: And John o' keith was a good man, and now,

397
00:22:54,119 --> 00:22:56,439
Speaker 1: in my mind, a guilty defendant walks free.

398
00:22:57,800 --> 00:23:00,000
Speaker 2: And when Reid came out of the courthouse, she made

399
00:23:00,200 --> 00:23:03,960
Speaker 2: this statement, no one has fought harder for justice for

400
00:23:04,160 --> 00:23:05,760
Speaker 2: John O'Keefe than I have.

401
00:23:06,560 --> 00:23:09,440
Speaker 1: That's her oj Simpson, I'm gonna find the real killers moment,

402
00:23:10,119 --> 00:23:13,199
Speaker 1: and just tells you all you need to know about her.

403
00:23:13,359 --> 00:23:16,080
Speaker 1: I mean to make a statement like that, what an

404
00:23:16,119 --> 00:23:19,040
Speaker 1: insult to the family, Now, what an insult. It rubs

405
00:23:19,040 --> 00:23:22,520
Speaker 1: salt in the wounds to say something like that. You know,

406
00:23:22,560 --> 00:23:25,679
Speaker 1: at least just go on with your life, and this

407
00:23:25,800 --> 00:23:28,600
Speaker 1: family is suffered enough. But she continues to rub salt

408
00:23:28,640 --> 00:23:29,200
Speaker 1: in that one.

409
00:23:29,320 --> 00:23:32,800
Speaker 2: And following the verdict, several witnesses in the case said

410
00:23:32,840 --> 00:23:36,159
Speaker 2: in a statement that their hearts are with John and

411
00:23:36,240 --> 00:23:40,000
Speaker 2: the entire O'Keefe family and that the result is a

412
00:23:40,040 --> 00:23:44,919
Speaker 2: devastating miscarriage of justice. Thanks so much, Dave. That's former

413
00:23:44,960 --> 00:23:48,800
Speaker 2: Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ehrenberg, and that's it

414
00:23:48,840 --> 00:23:51,439
Speaker 2: for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

415
00:23:51,480 --> 00:23:53,960
Speaker 2: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg

416
00:23:54,040 --> 00:23:57,639
Speaker 2: Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

417
00:23:57,840 --> 00:24:02,880
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,

418
00:24:03,280 --> 00:24:05,840
Speaker 2: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

419
00:24:05,920 --> 00:24:09,840
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

420
00:24:09,960 --> 00:24:11,560
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg