1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,280
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law, with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,640 --> 00:00:14,560
Speaker 2: A Texas judge struck down the FTC's ban on non

3
00:00:14,600 --> 00:00:18,680
Speaker 2: compete agreements before the ban even went into effect, blocking

4
00:00:18,720 --> 00:00:23,160
Speaker 2: the agency's effort to make labor markets more competitive. Non

5
00:00:23,200 --> 00:00:28,160
Speaker 2: Compete agreements have become increasingly common, with an estimated twenty

6
00:00:28,200 --> 00:00:32,720
Speaker 2: percent of workers that's about thirty million Americans subject to them.

7
00:00:33,159 --> 00:00:37,800
Speaker 2: Last January, President Joe Biden touted the FTC's overhaul of

8
00:00:37,840 --> 00:00:42,760
Speaker 2: the rules, saying non compete clauses are overused and often

9
00:00:42,840 --> 00:00:47,560
Speaker 2: make it unnecessarily difficult for average working Americans to get

10
00:00:47,600 --> 00:00:48,440
Speaker 2: better jobs.

11
00:00:48,760 --> 00:00:52,680
Speaker 3: That's another thing to say you're working for a subway

12
00:00:53,200 --> 00:00:56,240
Speaker 3: and you can't walk across the street and go to

13
00:00:56,360 --> 00:00:59,080
Speaker 3: Jimmy Johns and get a twenty cent raise. What tells

14
00:00:59,120 --> 00:01:01,520
Speaker 3: that all about others and keeping wages down?

15
00:01:02,240 --> 00:01:06,000
Speaker 2: But Texas Judge Ada Brown, a Trump appointee, said the

16
00:01:06,120 --> 00:01:09,959
Speaker 2: FTC lacked the authority to enact the non compete ban

17
00:01:10,360 --> 00:01:13,520
Speaker 2: and tossed it out. Joining me is William Kavasik, a

18
00:01:13,560 --> 00:01:16,679
Speaker 2: professor at GW Law School and the former chair of

19
00:01:16,720 --> 00:01:17,520
Speaker 2: the FTC.

20
00:01:18,200 --> 00:01:19,800
Speaker 4: The judge said.

21
00:01:19,640 --> 00:01:23,120
Speaker 2: In her twenty seven page ruling that the FTC's proposed

22
00:01:23,200 --> 00:01:27,679
Speaker 2: rule was arbitrary and capricious and would cause irreparable harm.

23
00:01:27,840 --> 00:01:30,399
Speaker 4: Can you tell us more about her decision?

24
00:01:31,000 --> 00:01:35,720
Speaker 1: Judge Brown had two grounds for suspending the implementation of

25
00:01:35,760 --> 00:01:38,840
Speaker 1: the rule vacating it. The first is the one you mentioned,

26
00:01:38,840 --> 00:01:42,640
Speaker 1: which is that the FDC lacked an adequate basis to

27
00:01:42,760 --> 00:01:46,000
Speaker 1: support the scope and the complete reach of the rule.

28
00:01:46,120 --> 00:01:49,280
Speaker 1: That is, the rule applies to a very broad range

29
00:01:49,280 --> 00:01:52,160
Speaker 1: of employment contracts. There are a couple of carbouts, but

30
00:01:52,560 --> 00:01:57,200
Speaker 1: the judge concluded that you lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis

31
00:01:57,280 --> 00:02:00,680
Speaker 1: to implement that rule, and therefore the rule itself as

32
00:02:00,800 --> 00:02:04,520
Speaker 1: arbitrary and caprecious. The second basis for rejecting the rule

33
00:02:04,960 --> 00:02:08,240
Speaker 1: is her conclusion that the FDC lacks the legal authority

34
00:02:08,440 --> 00:02:13,519
Speaker 1: to adopt rules involving competition policy. That is, substantive competition

35
00:02:13,639 --> 00:02:16,920
Speaker 1: rules are beyond the FDC's remit. This involved a fairly

36
00:02:17,080 --> 00:02:21,360
Speaker 1: elaborate and technical analysis the FDC's authority going back to

37
00:02:21,480 --> 00:02:25,880
Speaker 1: nineteen fourteen when Congress established the FDC Act and coming forward,

38
00:02:25,960 --> 00:02:29,800
Speaker 1: but her review of the original framework and its subsequent

39
00:02:29,800 --> 00:02:34,320
Speaker 1: evolution to the FTC simply lacks legal authority to adopt

40
00:02:34,360 --> 00:02:36,760
Speaker 1: and apply such a rule, so that on that basis

41
00:02:36,760 --> 00:02:39,200
Speaker 1: as well, the rule was suspended.

42
00:02:39,480 --> 00:02:41,600
Speaker 4: Do you agree with her reasoning.

43
00:02:41,360 --> 00:02:44,640
Speaker 1: On the second point. I do. It's always difficult to

44
00:02:44,720 --> 00:02:47,920
Speaker 1: decide when you have a good fit between the substantive

45
00:02:48,000 --> 00:02:50,839
Speaker 1: rule and the underlying basis. I think what's a matter

46
00:02:50,919 --> 00:02:54,520
Speaker 1: of concern is that, first, it's an extraordinarily broad rule

47
00:02:54,600 --> 00:02:58,120
Speaker 1: and unashamably it applies to the laws that have forty

48
00:02:58,120 --> 00:03:02,480
Speaker 1: eight states that currently allowed various forms of noncompete. It involves,

49
00:03:02,560 --> 00:03:05,960
Speaker 1: as the FTC emphasized, hundreds of billions of dollars of wages.

50
00:03:06,080 --> 00:03:09,240
Speaker 1: There are tremendous economic stakes here. This is very clearly

51
00:03:09,320 --> 00:03:14,880
Speaker 1: a major extension of the FDC's oversight role in labor

52
00:03:15,040 --> 00:03:17,640
Speaker 1: related agreements. You would think that for a measure of

53
00:03:17,680 --> 00:03:20,560
Speaker 1: that art you would have to have a fairly extensive

54
00:03:20,600 --> 00:03:23,640
Speaker 1: and careful review of the existing literature pro and con.

55
00:03:23,960 --> 00:03:26,400
Speaker 1: I would say, in many ways, the SEC took shortcuts

56
00:03:26,400 --> 00:03:29,400
Speaker 1: on that and tended to brush aside views that it

57
00:03:29,520 --> 00:03:32,600
Speaker 1: found to be incompatible with its policy preferences. And I

58
00:03:32,639 --> 00:03:35,440
Speaker 1: think that did create a real vulnerability with respect to

59
00:03:35,480 --> 00:03:38,920
Speaker 1: the arbitrary and capricious issue you argue about the FDC's

60
00:03:38,960 --> 00:03:42,600
Speaker 1: authority is ambiguous. There are certainly plausible arguments that the

61
00:03:42,640 --> 00:03:46,080
Speaker 1: FDC has the authority. My intuition is that given the

62
00:03:46,120 --> 00:03:51,360
Speaker 1: current direction of Supreme Court jurisprudence involving the grant of

63
00:03:51,440 --> 00:03:55,760
Speaker 1: authority to administrative agencies and the effort that administrative agencies

64
00:03:55,840 --> 00:03:59,000
Speaker 1: regulators to interpret their authority in a way to meet

65
00:03:59,040 --> 00:04:02,640
Speaker 1: new conditions and to stretch in some sense the application

66
00:04:02,760 --> 00:04:06,040
Speaker 1: of their authority, the current Supreme Court is skeptical about that.

67
00:04:06,200 --> 00:04:08,200
Speaker 1: The current Supreme Court says, if you want to do

68
00:04:08,320 --> 00:04:11,400
Speaker 1: bold thing and to apply the law in a broad way,

69
00:04:11,720 --> 00:04:14,480
Speaker 1: we want you to anchor that in a clear statement

70
00:04:14,520 --> 00:04:18,320
Speaker 1: of congressional purpose. That Congress to allow you to do

71
00:04:18,400 --> 00:04:21,800
Speaker 1: bold things has to say so. Clearly, the direction of

72
00:04:21,960 --> 00:04:26,640
Speaker 1: travel of this doctrine runs against the philosophy the interpretation

73
00:04:26,800 --> 00:04:30,320
Speaker 1: approach that the FDC is relying on. Here. Goodness knows

74
00:04:30,360 --> 00:04:34,000
Speaker 1: how the Supreme Court would ultimately evaluate the rule. I

75
00:04:34,040 --> 00:04:37,039
Speaker 1: haven't talked to them today, so I don't know exactly

76
00:04:37,120 --> 00:04:40,360
Speaker 1: what they'll do. But my inference from the current direction

77
00:04:40,760 --> 00:04:44,080
Speaker 1: of their jurisprudence and the attitude that's embedded in that

78
00:04:44,160 --> 00:04:47,680
Speaker 1: jurisprudence is that this rule would have a very difficult

79
00:04:47,680 --> 00:04:50,440
Speaker 1: time surviving review as it goes up to the court,

80
00:04:50,800 --> 00:04:53,560
Speaker 1: and that Judge Brown's ruling here is quite likely to

81
00:04:53,600 --> 00:04:54,280
Speaker 1: be sustained.

82
00:04:54,600 --> 00:04:57,080
Speaker 2: If the rule had been narrower, let's say it just

83
00:04:57,120 --> 00:05:00,440
Speaker 2: applied to low and middle income workers, I think that

84
00:05:00,560 --> 00:05:01,880
Speaker 2: it would have passed.

85
00:05:01,720 --> 00:05:03,960
Speaker 1: Mustard, I think June if it had been limited in

86
00:05:04,000 --> 00:05:07,480
Speaker 1: that way. If it had been limited to say, low

87
00:05:07,520 --> 00:05:11,240
Speaker 1: income workers who were engaged in applying skills that arguably

88
00:05:11,279 --> 00:05:14,760
Speaker 1: don't involve the special training and conveying of know how

89
00:05:14,960 --> 00:05:17,200
Speaker 1: that might take place in other settings. If it had

90
00:05:17,240 --> 00:05:22,200
Speaker 1: been tailored to that specific concern, I think the rule

91
00:05:22,200 --> 00:05:25,880
Speaker 1: would have had a better chance of sidestepping the arbitrarrian

92
00:05:25,960 --> 00:05:29,800
Speaker 1: capricious ruling that Judge Brown found here. It would still

93
00:05:30,080 --> 00:05:33,520
Speaker 1: perhaps run into the concern about whether the FDC has

94
00:05:33,600 --> 00:05:36,120
Speaker 1: the authority in the first place. That is, Judge Brown's

95
00:05:36,120 --> 00:05:39,640
Speaker 1: conclusion that the FDC lacks authority would mean that even

96
00:05:39,680 --> 00:05:43,159
Speaker 1: a narrower rule would not be permissible unless Congress would

97
00:05:43,200 --> 00:05:46,080
Speaker 1: have come back and clearly give the authority to do it.

98
00:05:46,200 --> 00:05:48,560
Speaker 1: But I think a narrower rule would have had a

99
00:05:48,640 --> 00:05:52,159
Speaker 1: stronger chance of surviving review in two respects. One is

100
00:05:52,160 --> 00:05:54,680
Speaker 1: that it would be less likely to be found arbitrary

101
00:05:54,680 --> 00:05:57,480
Speaker 1: and capricious, and the other is that there's another issue

102
00:05:57,520 --> 00:06:00,720
Speaker 1: looking in the background, where the Supreme Court recently has said,

103
00:06:00,920 --> 00:06:06,120
Speaker 1: if you purport to do path breaking economically significant things

104
00:06:06,160 --> 00:06:09,800
Speaker 1: by rule making, you have to point to specific grant

105
00:06:09,839 --> 00:06:12,560
Speaker 1: of legislative authority to do that. In other words, as

106
00:06:12,560 --> 00:06:16,760
Speaker 1: the Court is said, where your initiative raises major questions

107
00:06:17,320 --> 00:06:20,599
Speaker 1: about the operation of the economy, for example, you have

108
00:06:20,760 --> 00:06:24,440
Speaker 1: to be able to show more precisely that Congress intended

109
00:06:24,520 --> 00:06:27,719
Speaker 1: for you to address those major questions and to adopt

110
00:06:27,880 --> 00:06:30,960
Speaker 1: rules to treat them. That is the basis on which

111
00:06:31,160 --> 00:06:34,960
Speaker 1: yet another court in Florida, Federal Court in Florida issued

112
00:06:35,000 --> 00:06:38,560
Speaker 1: a preliminary injunction concerning the application of the rule. So

113
00:06:38,600 --> 00:06:42,120
Speaker 1: when we take all of these, I would say, skeptical

114
00:06:42,240 --> 00:06:47,560
Speaker 1: streams of jurisprudence, the FTC is traveling into a very

115
00:06:47,600 --> 00:06:51,320
Speaker 1: difficult storm, and that a narrower rule would have helped

116
00:06:51,400 --> 00:06:55,560
Speaker 1: avoid the arbitrary and capricious ruling. A narrower rule would

117
00:06:55,560 --> 00:06:59,920
Speaker 1: be less likely to raise concerns under the major question doctrine,

118
00:07:00,120 --> 00:07:03,680
Speaker 1: but even a narrower rule would run into the concern

119
00:07:03,800 --> 00:07:06,719
Speaker 1: that Judge Brown showed that the Commission just doesn't have

120
00:07:06,760 --> 00:07:09,920
Speaker 1: authority to issue any rules involving competition.

121
00:07:10,840 --> 00:07:14,520
Speaker 2: How about another agency doing this? The National Labor Relations

122
00:07:14,520 --> 00:07:18,560
Speaker 2: Board's top lawyer is moving ahead with an enforcement strategy

123
00:07:18,720 --> 00:07:23,840
Speaker 2: to make restrictive covenants illegal. General Counsel Jennifer Brusso says

124
00:07:24,160 --> 00:07:28,120
Speaker 2: such packs deny workers the ability to quit or change jobs,

125
00:07:28,400 --> 00:07:32,440
Speaker 2: which in turn interferes with exercising their organizing rights in

126
00:07:32,480 --> 00:07:35,960
Speaker 2: their current positions for fear of being fired and not

127
00:07:36,040 --> 00:07:38,880
Speaker 2: being able to obtain new employment. Do you think of

128
00:07:39,040 --> 00:07:41,120
Speaker 2: rule by the NLRB would survive.

129
00:07:41,480 --> 00:07:45,560
Speaker 1: I'm less familiar tune with the specific grant of authority

130
00:07:45,640 --> 00:07:48,640
Speaker 1: that the NLRB would be relying upon, certainly in the

131
00:07:48,680 --> 00:07:52,120
Speaker 1: application of its adjudication function, that is, in the prosecution

132
00:07:52,240 --> 00:07:54,960
Speaker 1: of individual cases, it would be less likely to run

133
00:07:55,000 --> 00:07:58,120
Speaker 1: into the question whether it has rule making authority, which

134
00:07:58,160 --> 00:08:01,200
Speaker 1: is the issue in the FTC proceeding. The question for

135
00:08:01,240 --> 00:08:05,960
Speaker 1: the NLRB would be in its law enforcement capacity. Has

136
00:08:06,120 --> 00:08:10,440
Speaker 1: it appropriately interpreted the mandate the Congress gave it, and

137
00:08:10,720 --> 00:08:14,560
Speaker 1: would reviewing courts conclude that its interpretation of its The

138
00:08:14,640 --> 00:08:20,160
Speaker 1: law enforcement mission encompasses the concerns that the NLRB Solicitor

139
00:08:20,200 --> 00:08:24,600
Speaker 1: General has raised about noncompete. So the NLRB might be

140
00:08:24,640 --> 00:08:27,280
Speaker 1: in a position to challenge these I don't know if

141
00:08:27,320 --> 00:08:29,760
Speaker 1: they mean to do it by rulemaking. And I would

142
00:08:29,800 --> 00:08:34,199
Speaker 1: add that the FDC does have authority to challenge individual

143
00:08:34,320 --> 00:08:38,760
Speaker 1: non compete agreements using its law enforcement mandate. It has

144
00:08:38,920 --> 00:08:42,559
Speaker 1: a law enforcement mandate to prohibit unfair deceptive acts or

145
00:08:42,640 --> 00:08:46,600
Speaker 1: practices or unfair methods of competition that involves case by

146
00:08:46,640 --> 00:08:51,120
Speaker 1: case adjudication to challenge specific arrangements. That authority is not

147
00:08:51,440 --> 00:08:54,880
Speaker 1: endangered in the challenges that are present in the federal

148
00:08:54,880 --> 00:08:58,480
Speaker 1: courts now, the FDC can continue to do that. That

149
00:08:58,600 --> 00:09:01,720
Speaker 1: has the disadvantage that you go step by step and

150
00:09:01,760 --> 00:09:05,640
Speaker 1: you don't have the capacity necessarily to adopt a broad

151
00:09:05,720 --> 00:09:10,200
Speaker 1: based prohibition that applies across the country and condemns all

152
00:09:10,240 --> 00:09:14,400
Speaker 1: of the arrangements. It's a more laborious way to get

153
00:09:14,440 --> 00:09:17,240
Speaker 1: to the final destination that you wish to achieve. That

154
00:09:17,400 --> 00:09:20,679
Speaker 1: task is still open to the FDC. That kind of

155
00:09:20,720 --> 00:09:24,280
Speaker 1: litigation I assume is open to the NRB. That case

156
00:09:24,320 --> 00:09:28,160
Speaker 1: by case litigation approach is available. The district judge decision,

157
00:09:28,400 --> 00:09:31,200
Speaker 1: and the FDC case deals with the effort in a

158
00:09:31,240 --> 00:09:35,320
Speaker 1: single rule to achieve what otherwise be attained through a

159
00:09:35,400 --> 00:09:36,959
Speaker 1: collection of cases over time.

160
00:09:37,360 --> 00:09:37,959
Speaker 4: How big a.

161
00:09:37,920 --> 00:09:39,880
Speaker 2: Blow do you think this is to the FTC.

162
00:09:40,559 --> 00:09:42,920
Speaker 1: I think it's a significant blow. And when I look

163
00:09:42,960 --> 00:09:46,360
Speaker 1: at the whole span of the FTC's program since the

164
00:09:46,400 --> 00:09:50,800
Speaker 1: Biden administration began in twenty twenty one, I would characterize

165
00:09:50,840 --> 00:09:54,200
Speaker 1: this as the most significant initiative that they pursued. Most

166
00:09:54,240 --> 00:09:59,320
Speaker 1: significant measured by its purported economic impact, it's anticipated economic impact,

167
00:09:59,400 --> 00:10:03,000
Speaker 1: which is self described as being very broad, most significant

168
00:10:03,040 --> 00:10:06,319
Speaker 1: in terms of it's effort to move the doctrinal framework

169
00:10:06,360 --> 00:10:09,840
Speaker 1: of intervention outwards, the game acceptance through the idea that

170
00:10:09,880 --> 00:10:13,520
Speaker 1: the FTC has power to issue these competition rules and

171
00:10:13,600 --> 00:10:18,160
Speaker 1: include powerful prohibitions in them. And Third, symbolically, it is

172
00:10:18,240 --> 00:10:22,800
Speaker 1: held out as an example of the Biden FTC is

173
00:10:22,880 --> 00:10:25,760
Speaker 1: willing to take more risks, to be far more ambitious

174
00:10:25,760 --> 00:10:28,960
Speaker 1: than its predecessors are, and as such to bring a

175
00:10:29,120 --> 00:10:34,400
Speaker 1: new attitude toward the application of federal power to control commerce.

176
00:10:34,600 --> 00:10:37,240
Speaker 1: In all of these respects, I would say, in the

177
00:10:37,400 --> 00:10:42,319
Speaker 1: entire fleet of FDC initiatives, this is the flagship, and

178
00:10:42,840 --> 00:10:44,840
Speaker 1: if you are running a navy, you don't want your

179
00:10:44,880 --> 00:10:46,040
Speaker 1: flagship to be sunk.

180
00:10:46,320 --> 00:10:50,520
Speaker 2: In a statement, FTC spokesperson Victoria Graham said the agency

181
00:10:50,600 --> 00:10:54,120
Speaker 2: is seriously considering a potential appeal. Do you think they

182
00:10:54,160 --> 00:10:57,040
Speaker 2: should appeal this because it's going to the Fifth Circuit,

183
00:10:57,120 --> 00:11:01,839
Speaker 2: which is ultra conservative as a reputation for overturning Biden

184
00:11:01,880 --> 00:11:05,760
Speaker 2: administration rules, and then likely to the Supreme Court, where

185
00:11:06,000 --> 00:11:07,959
Speaker 2: you know, as you mentioned, I don't think they'll find

186
00:11:08,160 --> 00:11:09,480
Speaker 2: a receptive court.

187
00:11:09,800 --> 00:11:12,280
Speaker 1: I think they should. If I was guiding the strategy,

188
00:11:12,400 --> 00:11:14,920
Speaker 1: I would do it. One reason is that the FDC

189
00:11:15,040 --> 00:11:17,880
Speaker 1: has had some surprising success over the past year in

190
00:11:17,920 --> 00:11:20,199
Speaker 1: front of that very court. It was in the context

191
00:11:20,200 --> 00:11:23,480
Speaker 1: of a merger challenge to an acquisition by a Lumina

192
00:11:23,559 --> 00:11:26,120
Speaker 1: of the Grail Company. It was an appeal from an

193
00:11:26,120 --> 00:11:30,400
Speaker 1: FDC administrative decision, a law enforcement measure. The parties opposing

194
00:11:30,440 --> 00:11:35,479
Speaker 1: the FDC roise four distinct constitutional and administrative law challenges

195
00:11:35,520 --> 00:11:39,280
Speaker 1: to the FDC's authority in addition to challenging the FDC's

196
00:11:39,280 --> 00:11:41,599
Speaker 1: decision on the merits. I think that they thought that

197
00:11:41,640 --> 00:11:44,160
Speaker 1: had gone to exactly the forum that would be favorable

198
00:11:44,200 --> 00:11:46,600
Speaker 1: to them. They didn't quite get the panel that they

199
00:11:46,600 --> 00:11:49,920
Speaker 1: hoped for, but the panel they did get basically brushed

200
00:11:49,920 --> 00:11:54,319
Speaker 1: the side all of the administrative law and constitutional law challenges.

201
00:11:54,800 --> 00:11:58,280
Speaker 1: It upheld the FDC's decision, and in a sense, it

202
00:11:58,400 --> 00:12:03,400
Speaker 1: showed that EVE been in a very difficult litigation environment,

203
00:12:03,520 --> 00:12:06,559
Speaker 1: you can prevail, so it's not a hopeless pursuit. And

204
00:12:06,600 --> 00:12:09,079
Speaker 1: another reason I'd bring the case is it I think

205
00:12:09,080 --> 00:12:12,560
Speaker 1: it would demonstrate the conviction of the agency to take

206
00:12:12,640 --> 00:12:17,439
Speaker 1: on hard, difficult matters notwithstanding the possibility of failure in

207
00:12:17,480 --> 00:12:21,000
Speaker 1: the court. You're ultimately going to have to face a judiciary,

208
00:12:21,200 --> 00:12:25,080
Speaker 1: perhaps ultimately the Supreme Court, that has raised issues with

209
00:12:25,160 --> 00:12:29,439
Speaker 1: this form of approach. My suggestion was have it out now,

210
00:12:29,840 --> 00:12:32,760
Speaker 1: get the appellate decision, take it up to the Supreme

211
00:12:32,800 --> 00:12:37,240
Speaker 1: Court and say we need a basic decision about the

212
00:12:37,280 --> 00:12:42,120
Speaker 1: framework of FDC authority generally and about its application of

213
00:12:42,160 --> 00:12:45,400
Speaker 1: its abserdive authority in this instance. Let's not wait for

214
00:12:45,480 --> 00:12:48,280
Speaker 1: another case or another time. Let's bring it to a

215
00:12:48,360 --> 00:12:50,960
Speaker 1: head now, and if the result is adverse, we go

216
00:12:51,040 --> 00:12:53,320
Speaker 1: back to Congress and say, if you want us to

217
00:12:53,360 --> 00:12:56,040
Speaker 1: be active in this area, give us a clearer mandate

218
00:12:56,120 --> 00:12:58,760
Speaker 1: to do, so.

219
00:12:57,760 --> 00:13:02,880
Speaker 2: There are noncompetes. At state level. Four states have banned

220
00:13:02,920 --> 00:13:05,880
Speaker 2: nearly all non competes, and at least eleven more have

221
00:13:06,480 --> 00:13:11,280
Speaker 2: thresholds protecting lower income, middle income, hourly workers, etc. Do

222
00:13:11,320 --> 00:13:14,280
Speaker 2: you think we'll see more states trying to pass laws

223
00:13:14,360 --> 00:13:15,480
Speaker 2: about non competes.

224
00:13:15,880 --> 00:13:18,240
Speaker 1: I think we'll see an amendment of the legal framework.

225
00:13:18,320 --> 00:13:20,920
Speaker 1: And this is a respect in which the FDC's initiative,

226
00:13:21,280 --> 00:13:24,640
Speaker 1: despite the risks that I've been describing in the Sensus,

227
00:13:24,760 --> 00:13:28,840
Speaker 1: achieved real success. It has drawn broad attention within the

228
00:13:28,960 --> 00:13:32,959
Speaker 1: United States. So the issue of non compete it's catalyzed

229
00:13:33,080 --> 00:13:37,480
Speaker 1: reconsideration of the existing legal framework, which, with the exception

230
00:13:37,559 --> 00:13:40,200
Speaker 1: of a handful of states such as California, does not

231
00:13:40,360 --> 00:13:44,880
Speaker 1: prohibit these agreements or render them unenforceable. Most states allow

232
00:13:44,960 --> 00:13:48,200
Speaker 1: them to be evaluated by a reasonableness standard. The FDC's

233
00:13:48,240 --> 00:13:52,200
Speaker 1: initiative has inspired a new debate about whether or not

234
00:13:52,280 --> 00:13:55,520
Speaker 1: these kinds of restrictions are appropriate. So I think we're

235
00:13:55,559 --> 00:13:58,800
Speaker 1: going to see a rethink in many states that allow

236
00:13:58,920 --> 00:14:03,040
Speaker 1: these arrangements or a reasonableness standard, to rethink that approach,

237
00:14:03,440 --> 00:14:07,560
Speaker 1: perhaps to create presumptions against them, to apply prohibitions that

238
00:14:07,679 --> 00:14:11,880
Speaker 1: exist now on certain noncompete more broadly, so we could

239
00:14:11,880 --> 00:14:17,360
Speaker 1: see in the States a restoration of bolder enforcement and

240
00:14:17,440 --> 00:14:22,160
Speaker 1: scrutiny regarding noncompete, notwithstanding the result that comes from the

241
00:14:22,200 --> 00:14:25,800
Speaker 1: federal litigation itself. And I think you point to a

242
00:14:25,920 --> 00:14:29,600
Speaker 1: result that the FDC probably had in mind in taking

243
00:14:29,600 --> 00:14:32,360
Speaker 1: a very bold approach here, which was to change the

244
00:14:32,400 --> 00:14:36,160
Speaker 1: policy debate to bring about indirect effects, including in the

245
00:14:36,160 --> 00:14:39,560
Speaker 1: state government. And I suspect if we were to give

246
00:14:39,640 --> 00:14:43,080
Speaker 1: truth theorem to the leadership team at the FTC, the

247
00:14:43,120 --> 00:14:45,760
Speaker 1: FDC might stay. That is an important measure of success

248
00:14:45,800 --> 00:14:50,080
Speaker 1: by itself, and that made the entire effort worthwhile, even

249
00:14:50,120 --> 00:14:53,080
Speaker 1: if our own specific initiative is not successful.

250
00:14:53,560 --> 00:14:57,480
Speaker 2: I've been reading and you know some articles say management

251
00:14:57,600 --> 00:15:00,520
Speaker 2: is back in control. Now you know, this is a

252
00:15:00,640 --> 00:15:02,120
Speaker 2: huge win from management.

253
00:15:02,160 --> 00:15:03,440
Speaker 4: Do you agree with that.

254
00:15:03,880 --> 00:15:06,000
Speaker 1: I'm afraid that's a bit like saying that the match

255
00:15:06,080 --> 00:15:08,640
Speaker 1: is over when there are still many minutes left on

256
00:15:08,720 --> 00:15:13,680
Speaker 1: the clock. So there's a temporary reprieve, but there are still,

257
00:15:14,040 --> 00:15:17,640
Speaker 1: as Jimmy Cliff would say, many rivers to cross before

258
00:15:17,680 --> 00:15:20,720
Speaker 1: you get confidence that the status quo which allows many

259
00:15:20,760 --> 00:15:23,400
Speaker 1: of these arrangements stays in place. So it's way too

260
00:15:23,480 --> 00:15:27,680
Speaker 1: early to speak so confidently about things, especially because of

261
00:15:27,720 --> 00:15:31,400
Speaker 1: the point that we just mentioned. There are some limitations

262
00:15:31,440 --> 00:15:34,040
Speaker 1: on these agreements at the state level, and I think

263
00:15:34,080 --> 00:15:37,760
Speaker 1: the FTC initiative, even if it fails in the court,

264
00:15:38,360 --> 00:15:42,200
Speaker 1: it's set in motion a policy rethink that's going to

265
00:15:42,240 --> 00:15:45,600
Speaker 1: spill over through a number of jurisdictions. So I wouldn't

266
00:15:45,640 --> 00:15:49,800
Speaker 1: be comfortable in simply sitting back and the storm has passed,

267
00:15:50,000 --> 00:15:53,160
Speaker 1: the status quo prevails. I think that is not a

268
00:15:53,520 --> 00:15:56,720
Speaker 1: completely thoughtful understanding of what's taking place now.

269
00:15:57,040 --> 00:15:59,360
Speaker 2: As you say, a lot more to come. Thanks so much, Bill,

270
00:15:59,400 --> 00:16:03,160
Speaker 2: I really appreciate your insights. That's Professor William Kavasik of

271
00:16:03,280 --> 00:16:07,720
Speaker 2: GW Law School. A divided Supreme Court refused to bolster

272
00:16:07,800 --> 00:16:12,720
Speaker 2: the Biden administration's ability to extend protections against discrimination in

273
00:16:12,800 --> 00:16:17,760
Speaker 2: schools to transgender students nationwide in an unsigned order. The

274
00:16:18,000 --> 00:16:21,120
Speaker 2: Justice has left enforced two lower court orders that are

275
00:16:21,200 --> 00:16:25,840
Speaker 2: temporarily blocking a new Education Department rule in ten states.

276
00:16:26,320 --> 00:16:30,560
Speaker 2: Joining me is Chase Stradio, Deputy director for Transgender Justice

277
00:16:30,600 --> 00:16:34,360
Speaker 2: at the American Civil Liberties Union, tell us first about

278
00:16:34,400 --> 00:16:37,360
Speaker 2: the Education Department rule that's at issue here.

279
00:16:38,280 --> 00:16:44,960
Speaker 5: The federal law that prohibits tex discrimination in educational programs

280
00:16:44,960 --> 00:16:50,040
Speaker 5: that receive federal funding, and Title nine has regulations that

281
00:16:50,120 --> 00:16:53,920
Speaker 5: the Department of Education has promulgated over the years, and

282
00:16:53,960 --> 00:16:56,840
Speaker 5: the Biden administration, over the course of the last several years,

283
00:16:56,840 --> 00:17:01,480
Speaker 5: has been working on an extensive rule implementing provisions of

284
00:17:01,840 --> 00:17:05,280
Speaker 5: Title nine that were subject to notice in common and

285
00:17:05,800 --> 00:17:09,119
Speaker 5: we're set to go into effect on August first, and

286
00:17:09,480 --> 00:17:13,560
Speaker 5: we're talking about fifteen hundred pages that cover a lot

287
00:17:13,560 --> 00:17:17,359
Speaker 5: of different areas of issues related to sex discrimination. The

288
00:17:17,520 --> 00:17:19,679
Speaker 5: subject that has received the most attention that's been the

289
00:17:19,720 --> 00:17:25,240
Speaker 5: centerpiece of litigation over these regulations concerns transgender students and

290
00:17:25,520 --> 00:17:29,399
Speaker 5: protections for transgender students and educational settings. First at the

291
00:17:29,520 --> 00:17:32,400
Speaker 5: sort of definitional threshold level, whether or not Title nine

292
00:17:32,440 --> 00:17:37,639
Speaker 5: itself includes discrimination against people who are LGBTQ. And then specifically,

293
00:17:37,880 --> 00:17:40,199
Speaker 5: there are sort of two central provisions that have been

294
00:17:40,200 --> 00:17:46,040
Speaker 5: the subject of litigation. One concerns the inclusion of transgender

295
00:17:46,080 --> 00:17:51,040
Speaker 5: students in sex segregated spaces in most specifically restrooms, and

296
00:17:51,080 --> 00:17:56,000
Speaker 5: then the other concerns the interpretation of basically what is

297
00:17:56,040 --> 00:18:00,320
Speaker 5: a hostile environment harassment under titlemind and in particular, the

298
00:18:00,400 --> 00:18:03,280
Speaker 5: context has been the subject of most of this conversation

299
00:18:03,359 --> 00:18:06,239
Speaker 5: has to do with pronouns for trench under students. So

300
00:18:06,720 --> 00:18:09,960
Speaker 5: those are two, you know, very discrete areas that have

301
00:18:10,040 --> 00:18:13,400
Speaker 5: been the subject of litigation in a rule that covers,

302
00:18:13,480 --> 00:18:18,600
Speaker 5: you know, extensive areas of federal educational programming, including protections

303
00:18:18,600 --> 00:18:23,760
Speaker 5: for pregnant and receiving students, and other areas of interpretation

304
00:18:23,880 --> 00:18:27,040
Speaker 5: under Title nine. So that is the overall context that

305
00:18:27,200 --> 00:18:30,359
Speaker 5: we're dealing with when we're talking about the recents that

306
00:18:30,640 --> 00:18:33,359
Speaker 5: of cases that ultimately made their way up to the

307
00:18:33,400 --> 00:18:34,679
Speaker 5: Supreme Court shadow docket.

308
00:18:35,000 --> 00:18:40,480
Speaker 2: Federal trial judges in Kentucky and Louisiana issued orders temporary

309
00:18:40,600 --> 00:18:42,280
Speaker 2: blocking the rule in tense states.

310
00:18:42,280 --> 00:18:43,920
Speaker 4: So did they block the entire rule?

311
00:18:44,359 --> 00:18:48,000
Speaker 5: Yes, So there has been a number of different cases

312
00:18:48,040 --> 00:18:51,439
Speaker 5: proceeding through the federal courts and the appeal of courts

313
00:18:51,480 --> 00:18:54,600
Speaker 5: and the district courts. Coming out of three cases, one

314
00:18:54,640 --> 00:19:00,000
Speaker 5: in Kentucky and two consolidated in Louisiana enjoined the entire

315
00:19:00,040 --> 00:19:04,600
Speaker 5: higher Rule, not just the provisions related to the sex

316
00:19:04,640 --> 00:19:09,160
Speaker 5: separated spaces and the hostile environment harassment language that were

317
00:19:09,200 --> 00:19:13,200
Speaker 5: the actual subject of the litigation that was brought by

318
00:19:13,240 --> 00:19:16,200
Speaker 5: the various states and in some instances localities.

319
00:19:16,720 --> 00:19:19,880
Speaker 2: Was the reasoning of the two courts the same or similar?

320
00:19:20,000 --> 00:19:22,800
Speaker 2: Why did they issue this temporary injunction?

321
00:19:23,200 --> 00:19:25,479
Speaker 5: I think there's sort of two sets of questions about,

322
00:19:25,720 --> 00:19:28,280
Speaker 5: you know, why did they issue the induction? The first

323
00:19:28,320 --> 00:19:31,560
Speaker 5: is sort of on the merits. The argument as to

324
00:19:31,800 --> 00:19:35,480
Speaker 5: the provisions that the litigations focused on were that the

325
00:19:35,520 --> 00:19:40,199
Speaker 5: interpretation of the rules exceeded that the administration statutory authority

326
00:19:40,600 --> 00:19:44,359
Speaker 5: under Title nine, and that was the main substantive merits argument.

327
00:19:44,440 --> 00:19:50,159
Speaker 5: In essence, the protections that the statute affords from discrimination

328
00:19:50,280 --> 00:19:54,479
Speaker 5: based on sets did not include discrimination against transgender people,

329
00:19:54,800 --> 00:19:58,480
Speaker 5: and in particular not in these discrete ways. So those

330
00:19:58,480 --> 00:20:01,360
Speaker 5: were the merits questions, and courts held that they were

331
00:20:01,480 --> 00:20:05,159
Speaker 5: likely to succeed that the administration exceeded its authority in

332
00:20:05,200 --> 00:20:09,119
Speaker 5: promulgating these rules. Now, as to why the injunctions threat

333
00:20:09,280 --> 00:20:13,320
Speaker 5: so broadly, the argument there, I know it wasn't even

334
00:20:13,359 --> 00:20:17,720
Speaker 5: really advanced by the states themselves in litigating these claims,

335
00:20:17,800 --> 00:20:21,280
Speaker 5: was that the rest of the rule could not be

336
00:20:21,320 --> 00:20:25,600
Speaker 5: severed from the injury that they complained of with respect

337
00:20:25,640 --> 00:20:29,720
Speaker 5: to the provisions related to transtudents. That is the argument,

338
00:20:29,800 --> 00:20:33,199
Speaker 5: and that is the basis for the sweeping injunctions that

339
00:20:33,280 --> 00:20:37,120
Speaker 5: reach across all of the areas in which this Title

340
00:20:37,200 --> 00:20:41,280
Speaker 5: nine regulation covered, and like I said, including related to

341
00:20:41,920 --> 00:20:46,119
Speaker 5: general protections from discrimination for pregnant and breastleading students. And

342
00:20:46,160 --> 00:20:47,800
Speaker 5: so the vision from the court was that what they

343
00:20:47,800 --> 00:20:50,720
Speaker 5: couldn't sever the various provisions, and.

344
00:20:50,720 --> 00:20:54,600
Speaker 2: The Solicitor General had only asked the Court to allow

345
00:20:54,640 --> 00:20:58,879
Speaker 2: the other provisions to be enforced while the legal fight

346
00:20:59,280 --> 00:20:59,679
Speaker 2: goes on.

347
00:21:00,240 --> 00:21:01,119
Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct.

348
00:21:01,160 --> 00:21:05,199
Speaker 5: So there had been a motion for partial stay that

349
00:21:05,280 --> 00:21:09,160
Speaker 5: had been filed in the appeals courts in the sixth

350
00:21:09,280 --> 00:21:13,120
Speaker 5: and fifth Circuits, and the motion for the partial stay

351
00:21:13,560 --> 00:21:18,560
Speaker 5: was only seeking to stay the injunction with respect to

352
00:21:19,280 --> 00:21:25,280
Speaker 5: the provisions that did not concern the single sex facilities

353
00:21:25,320 --> 00:21:28,760
Speaker 5: in the hostile environment harassment, So in essence saying their

354
00:21:28,840 --> 00:21:32,720
Speaker 5: complaining of injuries with respect to these two discreete things,

355
00:21:33,119 --> 00:21:36,600
Speaker 5: we're not seeking to block the injunction with respect to those,

356
00:21:36,960 --> 00:21:40,560
Speaker 5: but it sleeps too broadly, and we are seeking relief

357
00:21:40,880 --> 00:21:47,399
Speaker 5: from this incredibly broad injunction that prevents us from implement

358
00:21:47,600 --> 00:21:51,560
Speaker 5: mening this critical rule protecting students and staff from sex

359
00:21:51,560 --> 00:21:55,119
Speaker 5: discrimination and education. So that was the stay they thought

360
00:21:55,119 --> 00:21:58,639
Speaker 5: from the lower federal appeals courts. Those were denied at

361
00:21:58,680 --> 00:22:01,520
Speaker 5: the appeals level, and then ultimately they went to the

362
00:22:01,560 --> 00:22:07,520
Speaker 5: Supreme Court seeking the same stay with respect to the

363
00:22:07,560 --> 00:22:10,959
Speaker 5: rest of the rule and not challenging the stay with

364
00:22:11,000 --> 00:22:14,080
Speaker 5: respect to the to the two provisions that I was mentioning,

365
00:22:14,080 --> 00:22:18,600
Speaker 5: the hostile environment and the single sex facilities. Now there

366
00:22:18,640 --> 00:22:21,200
Speaker 5: is some complicated piece to all this, which is that

367
00:22:21,400 --> 00:22:23,800
Speaker 5: it is in part complicated because of how the Supreme

368
00:22:23,800 --> 00:22:27,600
Speaker 5: Court ultimately does it. But there's a definitional provision at

369
00:22:27,640 --> 00:22:30,720
Speaker 5: the center of all this as well, and the SU's

370
00:22:30,800 --> 00:22:34,840
Speaker 5: office also thought a stay of the injunction with respect

371
00:22:34,880 --> 00:22:38,159
Speaker 5: to the definitional provision, and that definitional provision, you know,

372
00:22:38,440 --> 00:22:42,119
Speaker 5: in essence, the piece of the rule that defines what

373
00:22:42,359 --> 00:22:46,280
Speaker 5: is sex discrimination for purposes of Title nine and explains

374
00:22:46,320 --> 00:22:52,280
Speaker 5: that sex includes cender identity, sex, stereotyping, pregnancy status, and

375
00:22:52,320 --> 00:22:56,600
Speaker 5: this broad understanding of what it means to discriminate because

376
00:22:56,640 --> 00:22:59,720
Speaker 5: of sex Undercidle nine. So this definitional provision was also

377
00:22:59,760 --> 00:23:03,560
Speaker 5: at the center of the litigation. Even though the states

378
00:23:03,600 --> 00:23:06,040
Speaker 5: that brought the initial lawsuit never complained that they were

379
00:23:06,080 --> 00:23:09,040
Speaker 5: injured by the definitional provision, and if you think about

380
00:23:09,080 --> 00:23:13,199
Speaker 5: what that means in essence, the idea here would be well,

381
00:23:13,480 --> 00:23:17,719
Speaker 5: certainly after Boss Stock, which held that under Title seven,

382
00:23:18,000 --> 00:23:22,560
Speaker 5: sex discrimination includes a prohibsion on discrimination against LGBT people

383
00:23:23,160 --> 00:23:27,800
Speaker 5: in educational settings, a school couldn't say deny someone the

384
00:23:27,880 --> 00:23:31,640
Speaker 5: ability to be a graduation speaker simply because they're transgender.

385
00:23:31,800 --> 00:23:37,600
Speaker 5: There's general educational protections against discrimination for the community, and

386
00:23:38,000 --> 00:23:42,040
Speaker 5: that is distinct from the injuries being complained of with

387
00:23:42,119 --> 00:23:45,640
Speaker 5: respect to you know, in particular bathrooms and pronouns. And

388
00:23:45,760 --> 00:23:47,680
Speaker 5: so they did speak a stay with respect of the

389
00:23:47,720 --> 00:23:52,119
Speaker 5: definitional provision, but again that was denied at the Intermediate

390
00:23:52,200 --> 00:23:55,800
Speaker 5: appeals Court and then at the Supreme Court they thought

391
00:23:55,920 --> 00:23:59,640
Speaker 5: the partial stay of the sweeping injunction with the exception

392
00:23:59,760 --> 00:24:02,159
Speaker 5: of the two provisions that they did not seek of.

393
00:24:02,200 --> 00:24:05,600
Speaker 2: Stay coming up next. So what split the court five

394
00:24:05,680 --> 00:24:08,960
Speaker 2: to four? This is Bloomberg. So it was five to

395
00:24:09,000 --> 00:24:12,200
Speaker 2: four decision, but all nine members of the court agreed

396
00:24:12,280 --> 00:24:16,000
Speaker 2: that the parts of the rules that include the protections

397
00:24:16,040 --> 00:24:19,880
Speaker 2: for transgender students, you know, the definition of sex discrimination

398
00:24:20,000 --> 00:24:24,840
Speaker 2: including gender identity, and the restrictions on same sex spaces

399
00:24:25,160 --> 00:24:28,520
Speaker 2: shouldn't go into effect until the legal challenges are resolved.

400
00:24:28,880 --> 00:24:31,240
Speaker 2: But tell us why the majority the five in a

401
00:24:31,359 --> 00:24:34,800
Speaker 2: very very short opinion agreed with the lower courts.

402
00:24:35,359 --> 00:24:38,719
Speaker 5: So this is where things get complicated and pretty unfortunate.

403
00:24:38,800 --> 00:24:41,880
Speaker 5: And that is you know, again, this is all happening

404
00:24:42,119 --> 00:24:45,600
Speaker 5: on the shadow docket and the context of emergency relief,

405
00:24:45,680 --> 00:24:48,440
Speaker 5: without the benefit of full briefing and without the benefit

406
00:24:48,520 --> 00:24:52,240
Speaker 5: of oral argument in a procureum order that is, as

407
00:24:52,280 --> 00:24:54,280
Speaker 5: you know, two and a half pages and two and

408
00:24:54,320 --> 00:24:59,920
Speaker 5: a half pages addressing legal issues that are underlying hosts

409
00:25:00,119 --> 00:25:02,879
Speaker 5: of cases in the lower courts over many years, and

410
00:25:02,920 --> 00:25:06,720
Speaker 5: then a fifteen hundred page rule, and this cursory treatment

411
00:25:06,840 --> 00:25:09,720
Speaker 5: just shows that the hazards of the shadow docket and

412
00:25:10,160 --> 00:25:15,359
Speaker 5: how unfortunately imprecise it is. And then what happens with

413
00:25:15,680 --> 00:25:19,840
Speaker 5: critical pieces of federal administrative action, and then of course

414
00:25:19,840 --> 00:25:23,280
Speaker 5: the rights and responsibilities of individuals across the country, because

415
00:25:23,280 --> 00:25:24,920
Speaker 5: you have this two and a half page order which

416
00:25:24,960 --> 00:25:29,879
Speaker 5: in essence doesn't really say anything and in fact misconstrues

417
00:25:30,320 --> 00:25:36,080
Speaker 5: the United States's day application, in essence suggesting that they

418
00:25:36,240 --> 00:25:41,880
Speaker 5: have not sought relief from the injunction against the definitional provision,

419
00:25:41,920 --> 00:25:45,080
Speaker 5: and so they sort of just ignore that. And then

420
00:25:45,119 --> 00:25:47,800
Speaker 5: I think this is really important, and it is also unclear,

421
00:25:47,840 --> 00:25:50,520
Speaker 5: but that's how I'm interpreting it. And then the question is,

422
00:25:50,600 --> 00:25:54,080
Speaker 5: in essence, are they likely to succeed on the merits

423
00:25:54,119 --> 00:25:56,399
Speaker 5: meaning day of the United States, on the merits of

424
00:25:56,440 --> 00:26:03,080
Speaker 5: the claim that you can set the provisions that this

425
00:26:03,440 --> 00:26:05,760
Speaker 5: alleged injuries flow from from the rest of the rule,

426
00:26:05,920 --> 00:26:10,080
Speaker 5: And in essence, the procureum order says, no, they are

427
00:26:10,119 --> 00:26:12,639
Speaker 5: not likely to succeed on that claim, in essence that

428
00:26:12,680 --> 00:26:18,800
Speaker 5: they're all interconnected, in part because this definitional provision is

429
00:26:18,840 --> 00:26:21,120
Speaker 5: sort of at this center. But they don't in any

430
00:26:21,200 --> 00:26:25,359
Speaker 5: way contend with several of the arguments that the United

431
00:26:25,400 --> 00:26:29,399
Speaker 5: States has raised, and you know, somewhat curiously, and I

432
00:26:29,400 --> 00:26:33,960
Speaker 5: would say disingenuously, they suggest that the United States has

433
00:26:34,000 --> 00:26:37,080
Speaker 5: not explained how you can sever those things, even though

434
00:26:37,160 --> 00:26:40,240
Speaker 5: in their briefing they say, you know, so quite clearly

435
00:26:40,359 --> 00:26:44,480
Speaker 5: that an injury related to trans people using the bathroom

436
00:26:44,560 --> 00:26:48,640
Speaker 5: has no impact on the rest of the rule concerning

437
00:26:48,960 --> 00:26:52,560
Speaker 5: whether or not you could, for example, kick a breastfeeding

438
00:26:52,600 --> 00:26:56,280
Speaker 5: student out of school. And I think intuitively, any person

439
00:26:56,600 --> 00:27:00,919
Speaker 5: understands these to be discreet things, even when it comes to,

440
00:27:01,560 --> 00:27:06,119
Speaker 5: you know, the overall authority of the government to promulgate

441
00:27:06,160 --> 00:27:08,320
Speaker 5: these rules with respect to the meaning of Title nine.

442
00:27:08,640 --> 00:27:10,200
Speaker 5: So the majority of two and a half page order,

443
00:27:10,240 --> 00:27:13,840
Speaker 5: as far as I can tell, doesn't really take the

444
00:27:14,040 --> 00:27:17,720
Speaker 5: United States arguments at base value. It doesn't even seem

445
00:27:17,760 --> 00:27:20,840
Speaker 5: to contend with them as they were presented, and an

446
00:27:20,920 --> 00:27:24,240
Speaker 5: essence just suggests that these provisions rise and fall together.

447
00:27:24,520 --> 00:27:27,520
Speaker 2: Let's talk about the four in the minority or dissent,

448
00:27:27,760 --> 00:27:31,600
Speaker 2: which was the three Liberals and Justice Gorsuch. And they

449
00:27:31,640 --> 00:27:34,760
Speaker 2: at least wrote nine pages. What was their descent about?

450
00:27:35,520 --> 00:27:37,360
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, that's a great question. What was their

451
00:27:37,400 --> 00:27:41,199
Speaker 5: dis about? They wrote more, you know, in terms of

452
00:27:41,240 --> 00:27:46,480
Speaker 5: the number of pages, not much more, And they don't challenge,

453
00:27:46,840 --> 00:27:49,879
Speaker 5: first and foremost, they don't challenge the majorities in misrepresentation

454
00:27:50,000 --> 00:27:52,560
Speaker 5: of the United States position. So, in essence, we end

455
00:27:52,640 --> 00:27:57,119
Speaker 5: up with this very hard to follow, very cursory, you know,

456
00:27:57,320 --> 00:28:00,919
Speaker 5: order and dissent that does not to be responding to

457
00:28:01,000 --> 00:28:04,440
Speaker 5: what is actually presented before them. And so the descent

458
00:28:04,880 --> 00:28:09,679
Speaker 5: leaves unchallenged this idea that the United States has an

459
00:28:09,760 --> 00:28:14,840
Speaker 5: essence conceded to leave the definitional provision in place. So

460
00:28:14,880 --> 00:28:18,560
Speaker 5: that's a big problem because it sort of does not

461
00:28:18,800 --> 00:28:23,080
Speaker 5: get at sort of the fundamental question of their stay application,

462
00:28:23,400 --> 00:28:26,760
Speaker 5: which is that, you know, there's a huge amount of

463
00:28:26,760 --> 00:28:29,679
Speaker 5: harm flowing from this, and in fact, these provisions can

464
00:28:29,720 --> 00:28:32,880
Speaker 5: be severed from from one another, and here's how and

465
00:28:32,920 --> 00:28:36,600
Speaker 5: why not to mention, there is within the United States

466
00:28:36,760 --> 00:28:41,840
Speaker 5: stay application argument that the definitional provision is compelled by

467
00:28:41,960 --> 00:28:45,360
Speaker 5: boss stock. In other words, the Supreme Court has already

468
00:28:45,480 --> 00:28:49,560
Speaker 5: held that, you know, at least in Title seven, which

469
00:28:49,640 --> 00:28:52,920
Speaker 5: usually is interpreted to be the same with respect to

470
00:28:53,640 --> 00:28:56,800
Speaker 5: whether or not something is because of or based on sex,

471
00:28:57,320 --> 00:29:00,640
Speaker 5: has held that it is because of sex to discriminate

472
00:29:00,680 --> 00:29:05,040
Speaker 5: against someone because they are transgender. This seemingly obviously flows

473
00:29:05,080 --> 00:29:08,640
Speaker 5: from that. But there's a lot of confusion here because

474
00:29:08,680 --> 00:29:12,560
Speaker 5: it is not clear when the dissent says all nine

475
00:29:12,600 --> 00:29:17,840
Speaker 5: members of the Court agree that the respondents were entitled

476
00:29:17,880 --> 00:29:22,880
Speaker 5: to the underlying relief, what that refers to, and if

477
00:29:22,920 --> 00:29:26,440
Speaker 5: in fact all nine members of the Court agree on anything,

478
00:29:26,880 --> 00:29:30,600
Speaker 5: especially given the misrepresentation by the Perterium Order of what

479
00:29:30,640 --> 00:29:34,400
Speaker 5: the United States position actually was. And so I hesitate

480
00:29:34,760 --> 00:29:39,600
Speaker 5: to say what this means or or says, because it

481
00:29:39,680 --> 00:29:45,400
Speaker 5: seems unlikely that they meant the states were entitled to

482
00:29:46,320 --> 00:29:51,760
Speaker 5: relief on the merits that somehow, you know, Title nines

483
00:29:52,520 --> 00:29:57,120
Speaker 5: protections can't be interpreted into aclude LGBTQ students. I find

484
00:29:57,160 --> 00:30:02,680
Speaker 5: that to be very unlikely interpretation of what this very

485
00:30:02,720 --> 00:30:06,240
Speaker 5: curious sentence in is referring to. That said, it is

486
00:30:06,320 --> 00:30:10,719
Speaker 5: unclear and it is causing obviously a lot of confusion

487
00:30:11,200 --> 00:30:16,720
Speaker 5: among people who are trying to decipher this short but

488
00:30:17,000 --> 00:30:23,000
Speaker 5: impactful order. You know, my interpretation of it is in

489
00:30:23,120 --> 00:30:26,600
Speaker 5: essence that you know, as to the provisions first that

490
00:30:27,040 --> 00:30:31,360
Speaker 5: everyone has either agreed or has misrepresented that are not

491
00:30:31,800 --> 00:30:34,720
Speaker 5: being challenged with respect to a stay. So, in other words,

492
00:30:34,760 --> 00:30:39,080
Speaker 5: the provisions that the court has said, nobody is seeking

493
00:30:39,120 --> 00:30:42,360
Speaker 5: a stay of the injunction. As to those, my read

494
00:30:42,840 --> 00:30:47,560
Speaker 5: is they're saying, everyone agrees that the alleged injuries allow

495
00:30:47,680 --> 00:30:52,320
Speaker 5: them to receive injunctive relief as to those provisions, in

496
00:30:52,360 --> 00:30:56,640
Speaker 5: other words, that was a proper scope of remedy, not

497
00:30:56,720 --> 00:30:59,920
Speaker 5: necessarily that they were entitled to relief on the merrit.

498
00:31:00,960 --> 00:31:03,960
Speaker 2: Justice Corsetch wrote the boss Stock opinion, as you know,

499
00:31:04,480 --> 00:31:07,520
Speaker 2: and he sided with the liberals here, is it surprising

500
00:31:07,600 --> 00:31:10,800
Speaker 2: to you that the Chief Justice who joined in the

501
00:31:10,840 --> 00:31:15,000
Speaker 2: boss Stock majority opinion sided with the other conservatives here,

502
00:31:15,480 --> 00:31:16,960
Speaker 2: I mean, do you read anything into that?

503
00:31:17,680 --> 00:31:21,640
Speaker 5: Well, so again, I mean I'm not exactly sure, and

504
00:31:21,680 --> 00:31:26,360
Speaker 5: I hesitate to guess what any of them are suggesting

505
00:31:26,440 --> 00:31:29,080
Speaker 5: as to the underlying Merit's question, that is to say,

506
00:31:29,600 --> 00:31:34,880
Speaker 5: you know, whether or not Title nine can or must

507
00:31:34,960 --> 00:31:38,160
Speaker 5: be interpreted in such a way that includes prohibitions on

508
00:31:38,200 --> 00:31:42,840
Speaker 5: discrimination against LGBTQ people, because I think, and again coming

509
00:31:42,880 --> 00:31:46,720
Speaker 5: back to the extraordinary hazards of the shadow docket and

510
00:31:46,880 --> 00:31:50,800
Speaker 5: these emergency orders, it's very possible that everyone is just

511
00:31:50,880 --> 00:31:54,480
Speaker 5: laying in to one degree another on what is the appropriate,

512
00:31:54,720 --> 00:31:59,440
Speaker 5: you know, scope of the injunction visa the claimed injuries

513
00:31:59,640 --> 00:32:04,160
Speaker 5: that the States alleged in their initial filing. I recognize

514
00:32:04,160 --> 00:32:08,000
Speaker 5: that that is somewhat difficult to square with some aspects

515
00:32:08,040 --> 00:32:11,680
Speaker 5: of the order and the descent, but I also don't

516
00:32:11,680 --> 00:32:15,959
Speaker 5: think it's clear what everyone is referring to at various points.

517
00:32:16,000 --> 00:32:19,160
Speaker 5: So you know, in some sense, it is possible to

518
00:32:19,200 --> 00:32:22,520
Speaker 5: me that you have a procureum order that reflects a

519
00:32:22,600 --> 00:32:27,200
Speaker 5: subset of the justices saying two circuits have said these things,

520
00:32:27,360 --> 00:32:30,400
Speaker 5: multiple district courts have enjoined it. We are, in this

521
00:32:30,480 --> 00:32:33,160
Speaker 5: emergency posture going to let it stand. Do I think

522
00:32:33,160 --> 00:32:36,400
Speaker 5: that's a consistent position with what they've done in other cases? No,

523
00:32:37,040 --> 00:32:40,160
Speaker 5: But could that be what's happening here in a Friday

524
00:32:40,240 --> 00:32:43,440
Speaker 5: night order in August with very little reasoning. Maybe so,

525
00:32:43,720 --> 00:32:46,160
Speaker 5: I would say in terms of whether or not it

526
00:32:46,320 --> 00:32:49,040
Speaker 5: means that the Chief, you know, sort of has a

527
00:32:49,120 --> 00:32:54,040
Speaker 5: limited interpretation of Bostock's reach with respect to other statutory

528
00:32:54,080 --> 00:32:57,640
Speaker 5: and constitutional protections for trans people, I'm not willing to

529
00:32:57,880 --> 00:33:00,680
Speaker 5: sort of hazard a guess on that justice yet, but

530
00:33:00,920 --> 00:33:04,000
Speaker 5: I don't think either of these, the order or the descent,

531
00:33:04,280 --> 00:33:08,840
Speaker 5: are particularly encouraging endorsements of this Title nine rule. I

532
00:33:08,880 --> 00:33:12,320
Speaker 5: think it is deeply upsetting in terms of what it

533
00:33:12,400 --> 00:33:15,520
Speaker 5: means for people across the country, because we now have

534
00:33:15,680 --> 00:33:19,040
Speaker 5: a regulation that is in effect in some parts of

535
00:33:19,080 --> 00:33:23,280
Speaker 5: the country and not others, with some provisions you know,

536
00:33:23,800 --> 00:33:29,320
Speaker 5: enjoined to varying degrees depending on the circuit, and obviously

537
00:33:29,360 --> 00:33:33,719
Speaker 5: as an enforceability administrability matter, that is horrible for the

538
00:33:33,720 --> 00:33:37,080
Speaker 5: federal government, but it's also horrible for the individuals who

539
00:33:37,120 --> 00:33:40,479
Speaker 5: are trying to protect their rights Title Mine, and it's

540
00:33:40,520 --> 00:33:44,480
Speaker 5: also horrible for the entities that are, you know, trying

541
00:33:44,520 --> 00:33:46,960
Speaker 5: to comply with their obligations under Title.

542
00:33:46,800 --> 00:33:49,760
Speaker 2: Nind next term, the Supreme Court is going to take

543
00:33:49,840 --> 00:33:54,240
Speaker 2: up the issue of gender transition care in a Tennessee case.

544
00:33:54,640 --> 00:33:57,000
Speaker 4: Do you think that in that case.

545
00:33:56,760 --> 00:34:01,120
Speaker 2: The Court will actually decide the issue?

546
00:34:01,560 --> 00:34:04,800
Speaker 5: Well, so in scrimmati, which is the case that the

547
00:34:04,960 --> 00:34:07,440
Speaker 5: Court is going to be hearing this term, which which

548
00:34:07,480 --> 00:34:10,600
Speaker 5: comes from the United States petitions out of the prohibition

549
00:34:10,680 --> 00:34:14,319
Speaker 5: on medical care for transgender adolescence in Tennessee. You know,

550
00:34:14,360 --> 00:34:18,120
Speaker 5: the question is whether or not these laws that categorically

551
00:34:18,120 --> 00:34:22,719
Speaker 5: prohibit medical care for transgender minors violate the Constitution, And

552
00:34:22,800 --> 00:34:25,759
Speaker 5: so they will be answering, you know, sort of one

553
00:34:25,760 --> 00:34:28,960
Speaker 5: set of questions with respect to the ways in which

554
00:34:29,000 --> 00:34:33,280
Speaker 5: transgender people and particularly transgender youth have had their rights

555
00:34:33,320 --> 00:34:36,560
Speaker 5: attacked by state legislatures. And the question there is really

556
00:34:37,000 --> 00:34:40,680
Speaker 5: is it sex discrimination? Is it trans status discrimination? When

557
00:34:40,680 --> 00:34:44,440
Speaker 5: the government draws these lines based on gender transition and

558
00:34:44,480 --> 00:34:48,280
Speaker 5: categorically prohibits this medical treatment, this is a constitutional case.

559
00:34:48,320 --> 00:34:50,440
Speaker 5: I think the main question is really what level of

560
00:34:50,480 --> 00:34:54,480
Speaker 5: scrutiny is going to apply? And whether they resolve it

561
00:34:54,520 --> 00:34:57,160
Speaker 5: in such a way that answers other questions, whether they don't,

562
00:34:57,200 --> 00:34:59,879
Speaker 5: I think that is still very much up in the air.

563
00:35:00,120 --> 00:35:02,880
Speaker 5: I think whatever happens in Scrimmati, they're going to separately

564
00:35:02,920 --> 00:35:06,120
Speaker 5: have to contend with the Title nine regulations, because at

565
00:35:06,120 --> 00:35:08,920
Speaker 5: this point it seems that this is going to be

566
00:35:09,160 --> 00:35:12,440
Speaker 5: percolating in the lower courts and likely to end up

567
00:35:12,520 --> 00:35:15,240
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court. Of course, all of that is dependent

568
00:35:15,280 --> 00:35:18,960
Speaker 5: on what happens in the election, because these are rules

569
00:35:19,000 --> 00:35:22,960
Speaker 5: that are promulgated by the Biden administration's Department of Education.

570
00:35:23,120 --> 00:35:27,560
Speaker 5: If Trump wins the presidency, those rules will be rescinded

571
00:35:27,680 --> 00:35:29,839
Speaker 5: or they will no longer enforce them, and then they

572
00:35:29,840 --> 00:35:33,480
Speaker 5: will seek to promulgate new rules and probably have some

573
00:35:33,480 --> 00:35:36,279
Speaker 5: sort of temporary rule of rescinding the old ones. So

574
00:35:36,320 --> 00:35:38,560
Speaker 5: some of this all depends on what happens in the election.

575
00:35:39,160 --> 00:35:41,600
Speaker 5: And then with respect to the constitutional challenges to the

576
00:35:41,680 --> 00:35:45,239
Speaker 5: gender firming medical care bands for adolescents, the Supreme Court

577
00:35:45,280 --> 00:35:47,759
Speaker 5: is going to consider those. They are going to have

578
00:35:47,840 --> 00:35:52,160
Speaker 5: to contend with what is the nature of discrimination against

579
00:35:52,160 --> 00:35:55,319
Speaker 5: trans people and what is the reach of Bostock. And

580
00:35:55,360 --> 00:35:59,360
Speaker 5: then also because the states have argued that these cases

581
00:35:59,440 --> 00:36:04,240
Speaker 5: are governed by dobs. Also, what is the reach of dobs.

582
00:36:04,280 --> 00:36:08,320
Speaker 5: So there's a lot that's already up at the court imminently,

583
00:36:08,400 --> 00:36:11,680
Speaker 5: and I expect there will be more. And obviously trans

584
00:36:11,680 --> 00:36:15,239
Speaker 5: people and their families are are just trying to live

585
00:36:15,239 --> 00:36:15,880
Speaker 5: their lives.

586
00:36:16,440 --> 00:36:20,560
Speaker 2: Conservative states have passed a slew of laws aimed at

587
00:36:20,719 --> 00:36:26,800
Speaker 2: transgender youth, including restricting treatments like puberty blocking drugs, hormone therapy,

588
00:36:27,120 --> 00:36:33,040
Speaker 2: or surgeries for miners experiencing gender dysphoria, laws regulating bathroom use,

589
00:36:33,160 --> 00:36:38,320
Speaker 2: and pronouns. Which laws affecting transgender youths are the most

590
00:36:38,360 --> 00:36:40,560
Speaker 2: common in these states.

591
00:36:41,360 --> 00:36:44,680
Speaker 5: Just to give sort of temporal framework here, in twenty twenty,

592
00:36:45,120 --> 00:36:48,920
Speaker 5: no states had any of these laws, and now we're

593
00:36:49,040 --> 00:36:53,720
Speaker 5: in a situation where half the country, so about twenty

594
00:36:53,800 --> 00:36:58,200
Speaker 5: four states bans both medical care for transcender adolescents related

595
00:36:58,200 --> 00:37:01,320
Speaker 5: to gender transitions, as well as the inclusion of trans

596
00:37:01,360 --> 00:37:02,240
Speaker 5: girls and sports.

597
00:37:02,320 --> 00:37:03,480
Speaker 1: Those are the main.

598
00:37:03,480 --> 00:37:06,760
Speaker 5: Central pieces of legislation that have been passed in the

599
00:37:06,800 --> 00:37:10,560
Speaker 5: most Then, the bills that ban trans students from the

600
00:37:10,600 --> 00:37:13,880
Speaker 5: bathroom are you know, increasing in number, and there's you know,

601
00:37:14,080 --> 00:37:17,719
Speaker 5: sort of about ten or so states that ban or

602
00:37:17,760 --> 00:37:20,480
Speaker 5: restrict the ability of trans students to use the restroom

603
00:37:21,080 --> 00:37:24,480
Speaker 5: that aligns with who they are. Then there's you know,

604
00:37:24,520 --> 00:37:27,600
Speaker 5: a number of leather laws that aren't you know, increasing

605
00:37:27,719 --> 00:37:30,479
Speaker 5: that we're seeing, including you know, sort of the don't

606
00:37:30,480 --> 00:37:34,560
Speaker 5: say gay style laws, so restrictions on discussions of LGBTQ

607
00:37:34,719 --> 00:37:40,000
Speaker 5: people and content in schools. There's restrictions on the ability

608
00:37:40,239 --> 00:37:44,360
Speaker 5: of students and school staff to use pronouns that accord

609
00:37:44,400 --> 00:37:47,640
Speaker 5: with their gender identities. So those are sort of percolating

610
00:37:47,680 --> 00:37:51,560
Speaker 5: and expanding. But I would say the primary legal frameworks

611
00:37:51,640 --> 00:37:54,879
Speaker 5: or emphasism and states across the country over the last

612
00:37:54,880 --> 00:37:59,080
Speaker 5: three years has been banning medical care and inclusion in sports.

613
00:37:59,160 --> 00:38:04,480
Speaker 2: Unbelievable number of laws in just about three years. Thanks

614
00:38:04,520 --> 00:38:07,680
Speaker 2: so much for joining me today, Chase. That's Chase Strangio,

615
00:38:07,800 --> 00:38:12,000
Speaker 2: Deputy director for Transgender Justice at the ACLU. And that's

616
00:38:12,000 --> 00:38:14,960
Speaker 2: it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember

617
00:38:15,000 --> 00:38:17,719
Speaker 2: you can always get the latest legal news by subscribing

618
00:38:17,760 --> 00:38:21,200
Speaker 2: and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and

619
00:38:21,320 --> 00:38:24,480
Speaker 2: at Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law.

620
00:38:24,800 --> 00:38:27,480
Speaker 4: I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg