[music]

This is Bloomberg Law with June Graasso

from Bloomberg Radio.

About a month ago, the US Attorney for

DC, Janine Piro, professed that she

didn't care that Senator Tom Tillis was

opposing her controversial criminal

investigation into Federal Reserve Chair

Jerome Powell. She was moving forward.

>> You know, honestly, I don't know and I

don't care. And I'll tell you why. I am

in a legal lane.

All of the rest is white noise. I don't

care what they say. I have a job. I have

the ability to go into a grand jury.

There are questions that the American

public and people in DC are entitled to

know where a billion dollars has gone.

And on Wednesday, Piro doubled down and

again vowed to continue the

investigation into building renovation

cost overruns by the Fed and to appeal a

judge's order quashing her two grand

jury subpoenas. This investigation

continues. I am in the legal lane. There

are others who were in the political

lane. I don't intersect those two lanes.

I am going forward. We are appealing the

decision of Judge Boseberg. But then on

Friday, in a stunning reversal, Piro

said in a social media post that her

office was closing the investigation on

Powell, but that quote, "This morning,

the inspector general for the Federal

Reserve has been asked to scrutinize the

building costs overruns. In fact, the

IG's investigation began last year. Does

the end of Piro's investigation clear

the way for the confirmation of Kevin

Worsh as Fed chair? Even though Piro

added in her post, quote, "Note well,

however, that I will not hesitate to

restart a criminal investigation should

the facts warrant doing so." Joining me

is Elliot Stein, Bloomberg Intelligence

senior litigation analyst. Elliot, what

do you make of Piro's abrupt reversal?

Is it due to the lack of evidence or

pressure to clear the way for Walsh's

confirmation?

>> Probably a combination. I mean, you

know, the whole point of Judge Bowberg's

opinion quashing the subpoenas was that,

you know, there's very little evidence

of a crime versus a lot of evidence that

this is all a pretext to go after Powell

for not lowering interest rates. But

then you also have this whole Senator

Tillis dynamic and he has been very

forceful in saying that he's not going

to allow Wars to be confirmed until the

investigation is wrapped up. And you

know they're coming up on a May 15th

deadline which is when Chair Powell's

term ends as Federal Reserve chair. And

so I think they want to move things

along. They want to get Wars in there

and this is sort of the quickest path to

doing that. Although, you know, Janine

Piro did leave an opening for opening

the investigation down the road. So,

it's unclear right now if this is going

to be enough for Senator Tillis. I

suspect it probably is, but if I'm

Jerome Powell, I I would want a little

more assurance in the form of perhaps an

immunity agreement of some sort. Piro

appeared to be trying to gloss over the

implications of dropping the

investigation by saying that the

inspector general was now going to be

the one scrutinizing the cost overruns

and quote, "I expect a comprehensive

report in short order and am confident

the outcome will assist in resolving

once and for all the questions that led

this office to issue subpoenas. But in

fact, the IG has already reviewed the

project twice and started another review

last year because Powell had requested

it. So, does this seem like sort of a

dead end,

>> right? Yeah. I mean, we're sort of where

we were before the investigation

started, right? That it's still with the

inspector general and that and that's

what they do. And, you know, it sounds

like Janine Piro is sort of trying to

appease two camps here, right? On the

one, she obviously reports to President

Trump, who has been adamant about going

after Jerome Powell for several years

now, and he wants him out of the board

completely. On the other hand, she needs

to satisfy Senator Tillis, who has said,

you know, he's going to block the

confirmation of Kevin Worsh until the

investigation is wrapped up. So, you

know, her tweet sort of seems to try to

navigate right through both those sides

in that narrow passageway. And we'll see

if it's enough. I don't think we've

heard anything from Senator Tillis yet,

but I suspect maybe we will soon.

>> Let's back up for a moment, Elliot. What

is she investigating? The cost overruns

and possible perjury by Powell.

>> Right. Those are the the two things. I

think the testimony to me sort of seemed

to be more the impetus for her

investigation because the inspector

general is already investigating the

cost overruns for one. And you know,

they tried to accuse Powell of

essentially lying in his testimony to

the Senate last summer, but you know, it

seemed very nitpicky and sort of a

matter of semantics. Nothing approaching

a federal crime.

>> And proving perjury is not easy. You

have to prove that someone knowingly and

willfully made a false statement under

oath about a material matter. Yeah, it's

very hard to prove intent in one of

these types of cases.

>> And we know that as late as a month ago,

Piro's office essentially had no

evidence that Powell had committed a

crime because during a closed door

hearing with Judge Booseberg, the judge

who quashed their subpoenas, they

acknowledged they had no evidence but

said they wanted to go ahead with the

investigation anyway.

>> Right. Right. I mean, you know, in most

cases, that's sort of the purpose for

the subpoena, right? When you don't have

all these other things going on that

suggest it's a pretext, right? If you

have, you know, reasonable suspicion or

probable cause that that a crime was

committed, then you issue subpoenas to

develop the evidence further. But yeah,

to your point, the judge found, you

know, not only is there no evidence yet,

and not only did the Justice Department

concede that, you have to balance that

with the other side of the equation that

the subpoenas were issued for the

purpose of harassing Jerome Powell

because he's not lowering interest rates

fast enough. And the evidence of that

was overwhelming, according to the

judge.

>> Yeah. Judge Boseberg said there was no

evidence whatsoever that Powell had

committed any crime, but there was a

mountain of evidence that the

investigation was intended to pressure

Powell to lower rates or resign. And

this isn't the first time that Piro's

office has had trouble moving forward on

an indictment. Several times DC grand

juries have refused to indict,

disproving the old adage that a

prosecutor can get a grand jury to

indict a ham sandwich. They couldn't get

a grand jury to indict the guy who threw

the salami sandwich at an officer. And

there are other instances, including a

federal grand jury unanimously rejecting

charges against six members of Congress

for making that video reminding the

military that they don't have to follow

illegal orders.

>> Right. And it's not just her. In DC, I

think it was also in the Eastern

District of Virginia. You had subpoenas

issued and investigations opened against

Tesha James, James Comey. Those were

also essentially quashed or the grand

juries refused to indict. And you know

this case too against Jerome Powell if

it had proceeded it looked like it was

on a path to also not lead to an

indictment. So it does seem that you

know they are bringing weak cases.

They're obviously going after President

Trump's perceived political enemies. And

you know, if that's a justification,

it's an explanation for why there's not

evidence of a crime.

>> What also strikes me about this is that

Piro dropped the investigation by social

media post, but she held a press

conference to announce that Judge

Boseberg had quashed the subpoenas, a

loss many people would not want to

broadcast.

>> I remember watching that press

conference and and at the time it really

felt very performative. It felt like she

was defensive and you know, I'm sure

some of it was knowing that President

Trump was watching and that she wanted

him to know that she was continuing to

pursue this case aggressively against

Jerome Powell, who the president, you

know, is not happy with, hasn't been

happy with for a while. But what's

interesting is they filed a motion to

reconsider that opinion. They lost that

on April 3rd. They haven't appealed

those decisions to the DC circuit at

all. And you would think that if they

really wanted to move the case along and

continued to prosecute it, they would

have done that. We haven't seen that.

The the deadline um is 2 months from

that April 3rd date where the motion to

reconsider was denied. I mean, they do

have until June 3rd. Obviously, we don't

expect that to happen now that they're

dropping the probe, but it may be a date

that gives Jerome Powell some comfort.

If it comes and goes and it results in

no appeal being filed, it may give him

some comfort that the investigation

really is being dropped because they're

not going to be able to really revive

those subpoenas. I suppose in theory,

they could issue new subpoenas that

cover different subject matter and

different terrain, but it's hard to

envision what that looks like. But I

mean the real question, you know, the

two people that you really need to get

inside the heads of at this point right

now are Senator Tillis and Jerome Powell

and whether Janine Piro's tweets are

enough to give them assurance that the

investigation is not going to be

relaunched at some point down the road

after Kevin Wars gets confirmed in the

coming weeks. And in other Fed news, we

are still waiting for the Supreme

Court's decision on President Trump's

attempts to fire Fed Reserve Governor

Lisa Cook over unproven mortgage fraud

allegations. Those oral arguments were

in January. And every time there's an

announcement of decisions by the Supreme

Court, we keep expecting that the Cook

decision will be among them.

>> Yeah, exactly. I was on the soccer

fields down in North Carolina this last

Friday at 10:00 a.m. when when it was a

Supreme Court opinion date and I have

one eye on my daughter playing. I have

one eye on my phone and I I was just so

relieved when it was not that decision.

I think one of the reasons it may be

taking longer than people uh anticipated

is that it's sort of wrapped up with the

Slaughter case. Rebecca Slaughter, if

you recall, is the FTC commissioner who

also challenged her termination. And

these cases are all sort of wrapped up

together because the Supreme Court has

indicated that even though the president

likely has the authority to remove most

agency commissioners at will and that

for cause removal restrictions as to

them is unconstitutional. The Federal

Reserve is situated differently because

it's sort of quasi private. It's not

really part of the executive branch and

as a result the four cause removal

restriction in the Federal Reserve Act

is likely constitutional. The only

question is what does it actually

entail?

>> Maybe next Supreme Court opinion day,

the Cook decision will come out. Thanks

so much for joining me today, Elliot.

That's Bloomberg Intelligence senior

litigation analyst Elliot Stein. Coming

up next, revelations from behind the

curtain at the Supreme Court. I'm June

Graasso and this is Bloomberg.

Chief Justice John Roberts has long

cultivated an image of the Supreme Court

as an institution above politics. Nine

justices who reach their decisions based

on the law alone.

>> I think the important thing to

understand is that there three branches

of government and two of them are

political. Uh and if you don't like what

the Congress is doing, your congressman,

you can throw him out of office. If you

don't like what the president is doing

can throw him out of office. If you

don't like what I'm doing, it's just too

bad. And now most people would say, "How

can that be? You do, you know, the cases

are pretty important, and you need to

understand, well, it's because the

framers didn't want the courts to be

making political decisions."

>> And Roberts famously compared justices

to umpires at his confirmation hearings

more than 20 years ago.

>> Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't

make the rules, they apply them. The

role of an umpire and a judge is

critical. They make sure everybody plays

by the rules, but it is a limited role.

Nobody ever went to a ball game to see

the umpire.

>> But the New York Times has published

leaked confidential memos between the

justices and they reveal a very

different side of Roberts. Certainly not

an umpire calling balls and strikes, but

rather the driving force to block

President Obama's signature

environmental policy, pushing the

decision through in just 5 days without

oral arguments, without briefings, and

without input from lower court

decisions. Why? because Obama's power

plan, in Robert's words, was quote the

most expensive regulation ever imposed

on the power sector. And so on February

9th of 2016 in a 5 to4 vote along

partisan lines, the justices issued a

one paragraph ruling halting Obama's

clean power plan. It was just the

beginning of the court's emergency or

shadow docket that has been repeatedly

used to move President Trump's agenda

forward. My guest is an expert in

constitutional law, Harold Krent, a

professor at the Chicago Kent College of

Law. House. So, the New York Times has

published these until now secret memos

about the five days before the Supreme

Court issued an order blocking President

Obama's clean power plant. Tell us what

happened.

>> So, the court never blocked the power

plant on the merits, but rather used its

power to to stop the action before they

could even hear the case. And so they

deployed their power to basically

protect individuals in the United States

from what they saw as overreaching by

the Obama administration. So this is an

overtly political move because they

didn't like the power plan and the memos

against the fact that they thought that

there shouldn't be this much of a drain

on the economy in order to protect the

environment. And so the way it reads is

that the Supreme Court was overtly

political in deciding to resolve this

case not on the merits but rather simply

on the basis of its emergency docket

thereby stopping the plan before it

could be effectuated.

>> So this was pushed through in 5 days and

some of the justices were in Europe. So,

it was all done by exchanging memos. And

from your reading of those memos, did it

seem like the chief justice was the one

really pushing it through?

>> And what astonishes me is that we know

that for years the chief justice stood

and said, "Integrity of the court is my

mission. This is the most important

thing to me." So, we have stature. Yet

it was the chief who decided to use the

power of the Supreme Court to try to

attain his political ends. So this to me

is what is so amazing is that while the

chief seemed to have this public persona

of respect and integrity of the court,

he was the one that instigated the

unorthodox use of the court in order to

accomplish a political result. Did it

seem as if some of the justices didn't

recognize, you know, the importance of

what was happening here?

>> In retrospect, I think we could all tell

this was the start of the aggressive use

by the robber's court of the shadow

docket. But the justices of the time

didn't know that. They thought maybe

this was a one-off. The the court was

not in session. They were in various

places around the world. And so they

could have said this is a one-off, a

unique response that wouldn't create any

kind of precedent. That's what it seemed

to me from reading the memos. Obviously,

now with a lens of history, we look back

and say we can see a linear progression,

the use of the power of the Supreme

Court for various political ends has

become much more common. But at that

time, it was rare. And I don't think the

justices realize what a precedent this

could create. So the chief justice said

that this was the most expensive

regulation ever imposed on the power

sector. Too big, costly, and

consequential for the court not to act

immediately. Yet no justice, not a

liberal, not a conservative ever

mentioned the dangers on the opposite

side of climate change.

>> Yeah, there's no discussion of climate

change. There was no discussion of

letting the challenges to the regulation

play out in court. This wasn't a

discussion of the usual legality of an

administrative action. This was a

political reaction to the Obama

administration saying this is too

extensive, too much, and no

consideration of the equities on the

other side. It's astonishing

>> the irony. So, Justice Kennedy figures

that, you know, well, when we take this

on the merits docket, it's going to end

up being struck down anyway. But then

Justice Scalia passed away and so the

vote on the power plan would most likely

have been 44 and so Obama's power plan

would have gone into effect.

>> Likely. Obviously, we don't know because

we're deprived of that knowledge because

of how history played out. The other

thing that's amazing about this is why

the leak now, you know, is this a leak

from clerks who have hoarded this

material for 10 years? Is this a leak

from the Supreme Court justice that's

more and more frustrated with how the

court is acting? We don't know, but it

certainly suggests that tensions are a

flame within the Supreme Court building.

>> Well, we've seen that with the various

justices. I mean, we saw Sodtoayor

criticizing Kavanaaugh and then coming

out with an apology. We saw Jackson and

Kavanaaugh quibbling about the shadow

docket in a public appearance and

Jackson giving an hour-long speech at

Yale Law School basically taking the

shadow docket apart and criticizing it.

So, it seems like the tensions are

pretty much out in the open.

>> Yeah. And this idea of, you know, the

friendship between RBG and Justice

Scalia is, you know, a thing of the

distant past. And obviously these

justices don't like each other. They're

sniping at each other. And now they're

arguably possibly making leaks. So we

don't have a very unified or collegial

court.

>> I've asked you often in the past, how

much are the justices influenced by

public discussions of the issues, public

discourse. And here they're relying on

outside sources like a blog post and

television interviews to push their

points. We try to teach our students,

you know, that Supreme Court justices

consider, they deliberate, they're

influenced by their predecessors, they

try to understand the integrity of the

legal process. And then we're confronted

by these memos, the disperate memos that

seem to suggest, oh, it's all about

politics and our knee-jerk reaction to

what we think is dangerous for politics.

So, they're acting as politicians. So

what then differentiates the court from

the other institutions is getting a

little muddier here. And I think that's

the real downside of what they've done

is to sap the Supreme Court of the

respect that it should otherwise deserve

in our part system.

>> Yeah. And how many times have we heard

the Chief Justice talk about the Supreme

Court is not a political institution.

We're different from the political

branches. And here it's all about

politics.

>> It is. And again, I can understand why

people are disillusioned because if the

court is thinking about politics, you

know, what gives them the advantage as

opposed to those in Congress.

>> Was this in any sense President Obama

versus Chief Justice Roberts? Because I

mean, Obama was one of just 22 senators

who voted against Robert's confirmation.

And here it seems like the Chief Justice

is eager to assert the authority of the

Supreme Court against Obama.

>> I don't know how much of this is a

reaction to the friction between Chief

Justice Roberts and President Obama. I

think it's more about President Obama's

policies that he just thought that the

Democrat was wrongheaded in trying to

sort of quickly change the ground in

terms of climate change and limiting

pollution and saw his responsibility as

a court to do something about the rapid

change that was at play within the

Environmental Protection Agency. Do you

think that there'll be any fallout from

this publication of these notes?

>> Well, we saw that the first DOS

decision, if you remember, was released

by someone and we knew what the top

decision was going to say over ruling

their right to an abortion and tighter

security was imposed, but nothing really

happened. Again, we don't know if the

leak is from now or from 10 years ago.

There may be some more security, but I

think now in this age, there won't be

too many more steps that can be

undertaken by the court to prevent this

kind of leaking, but the leaking isn't

good for the court. Clearly, this is a

court that has lost its civility, but

also its ability to be colleial. And

also I'm wondering if since now we have

this huge leak, you mentioned the leak

before, whether the justices will be

more reluctant to put things into

writing that can be leaked.

>> Oh, absolutely. I think that if you know

that your rough draft and your comments,

snider or otherwise, may end up in the

New York Times, you're going to think

twice before you write that down. And

that's also not good for the court,

right? Sometimes it's really important

to have a sharply worded memo, some kind

of comments about the wisdom of a

particular argument that another justice

may write and the justices will be more

restrained in showing cander for fear of

the disclosure. And how I want to get

your reaction to this speech by Justice

Thomas ostensibly to commemorate the

250th anniversary of the Declaration of

Independence, but it devolved into an

attack on progressivism.

>> Progressivism seeks to replace the basic

premises of the Declaration of

Independence and hence our form of

government. Thomas said that Stalin,

Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao were all

intertwined with the rise of

progressivism as was racial segregation,

eugenics, and other evils.

>> I do think there's a tie here both with

the Roberts decision and with Thomas,

there is such a deep-seated hatred for

the administrative state and Justice

Thomas calls it progressivism. What he's

talking about is this idea of these

experts in government and both Chief

Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas sort

of events a real distrust for anybody

who believes in bureaucratic government.

Anybody who relies upon the government

to actually respond to our nation's woes

and to try to help the country.

>> Well, the Roberts court's attacks on the

administrative state have been pretty

clear. Thanks, Hal. That's Professor

Harold Krent of the Chicago Kent College

of Law. Coming up next, an appela court

rules it's okay to force schools to post

the Ten Commandments in classrooms. I'm

June Grao and you're listening to

Bloomberg.

President Trump cheered laws requiring

the Ten Commandments to be displayed in

schools while speaking to a group of

evangelical Christians as he campaigned

in 2024.

Who likes the Ten Commandments, by the

way, going up in the schools? [cheering]

[applause]

They think it's such a bad thing. I

said, "Has anyone read the thou shalt

not steal, thou shalt I mean, has

anybody read this incredible stuff?"

It's just incredible. They don't want it

to go up. And now in a significant win

for conservatives who've been trying to

inject more religion into classrooms,

the fifth circuit court of appeals has

ruled that Texas can force public

schools to display the Ten Commandments

in classrooms. A 9 to8 decision of the

full appellet court considered the most

conservative circuit court in the

country found that the Texas law doesn't

violate the separation of church and

state. Challenges of the law had argued

that displaying the Ten Commandments in

classrooms amounts to procilitizing and

violates the rights of parents to decide

when, how, and if to provide religious

instruction to their children. The case

is expected to end up at the Supreme

Court where the conservative majority

has steadily been expanding religious

rights. My guest is an expert in the

First Amendment, Caroline Mala Corbin, a

professor at the University of Miami Law

School. Caroline, to put this case into

context, tell us about the Texas law and

Supreme Court president. So, the Texas

law is pretty straightforward. It

basically required that in every single

public school classroom, there had to be

a Ten Commandments poster. It had to be

sufficiently large, easy to read, easy

to see. There couldn't be anything else

around it. And they dictated the

particular version of the Ten

Commandments. Now, it's not surprising

that this mandatory scripture on the

wall triggered an establishment clause

violation. The establishment clause, of

course, is that part of the first

amendment of the US Constitution, which

requires some separation between church

and state. Texas was not the first state

to mandate ten commandments in the

public schools. Kentucky had tried the

same thing about 45 years ago and the

Supreme Court had already made a

decision about it in a case known as

Stone V. Graham, the Supreme Court held

this is a blatant violation of the

establishment clause. There is no

secular purpose for mandating biblical

texts on school room walls when you're

not even incorporating it into any kind

of secular education. It is

unconstitutional. So there is a case

directly on point that holds this kind

of law violates the establishment

clause. Unfortunately, the precedent

doesn't stop there because the Roberts

court has been very busy trying to

dismantle protections of the

establishment clause. And one way it's

been doing that is by rejecting earlier

tests that the Supreme Court has relied

on. And the doctrine that was part of

the decision in the earlier ten

commandments case was something known as

the lemon test. And the lemon test said,

"Listen, you're violating the

establishment clause if your law doesn't

have a primarily secular purpose or it

doesn't have a primarily secular

effect." And the Roberts court has said,

"This is no longer the test we're going

to use in the establishment clause.

Instead, the touchstone for an

establishment clause analysis is to look

to history and original understandings."

And so this is what faced the fifth

circuit court of appeals.

>> Only the Supreme Court can overturn its

own precedent. So isn't strong v. Graham

still the president?

>> Now the courts below had said, listen,

there's still a Supreme Court case

that's directly on point. It has not

been explicitly overruled and therefore

it still controls and therefore this is

not a difficult case. The fifth circuit,

on the other hand, argued the president

depended on a test that has since been

rejected. And not only did it reject

Stone Graham as controlling precedent,

it interpreted the Supreme Court

guidance to look to history and

understanding in a very narrow way. It

basically adapted a concurrence from

Gorsuch that said, and this was the

fifth circuit's new rule for

establishment clause challenges, is if

this does not resemble something the

original founders would consider a

religious establishment, then it doesn't

violate the establishment clause. And

there was a short list of things. It

said these are the things that the

founders thought was a religious

establishment and this does not resemble

any of them and therefore it doesn't

violate the establishment clause. So

that's what it held. It rejected the

Supreme Court's existing precedent. It

interpreted the Supreme Court's turn to

history in a very particular narrow way

and said this does not resemble

something that was an establishment at

the time of our country's origins and

therefore

no problem whatsoever to have a

Protestant version of the Ten

Commandments on every single classroom

in every single public school in Texas,

regardless of whether it's the science

lab or the library or the music room or

your English class.

>> Caroline, what also struck me is that

there was that Supreme Court case,

Mammud, that you and I discussed at the

time saying that parents could opt their

children out of LGBTQ material that

contradicted their religious beliefs.

And here the fifth circuit said the

measure doesn't restrict parents' right

to direct their children's religious

upbringing. I mean, how do they possibly

distinguish that case? So, this is the

case involving picture books with LGBT

characters in them that were part of the

English curriculum in some public

schools. And some conservative religious

folks claimed that having their children

hear these stories about same-sex

marriage when that same-sex marriage was

not condemned violated their religious

rights. and therefore they had a free

exercise right to opt their children out

of hearing their stories. And the

Supreme Court always sympathetic to very

conservative Christian concerns said

absolutely it's a violation of your free

exercise rights for your child to be

exposed to same-sex marriages in a

positive way because that's contrary to

your anti-samesex marriage beliefs and

you are allowed to opt out. And so,

isn't this an even more direct affront

to non-inherence beliefs to be presented

with the Ten Commandments everywhere

they turned, which is contrary to their

own beliefs. Like, it clashes just like

the same-sex marriage clashes with my

beliefs, the Ten Commandments clashes

even more directly because they're

religious. And surely the Mimmude case

would support the approach to the ten

commandments as something problematic

and something that should not be

allowed. The fifth circuit distinguished

it in two ways. They exaggerated the

harm to the parents in Mimmude and they

ignored the harms to the parents who

oppose the ten commandments. The other

thing as one of the descent points out

that they completely ignore is that the

Supreme Court has historically been very

mindful of the establishment clause in

the public school context for several

reasons. One, the state requires

children to be there. So, they're

already using coercion and requiring

their attendance. Second, these are

young children. These are impressionable

children and they're very influenced by

what happens in school. They're very

influenced by their teachers, by their

peers. There's a lot of pressure on them

to conform. And third, this whole idea

is parents are trusting them to schools

on the understanding that they're not

going to try and inculcate them in a

religion not their own. And so even when

the Supreme Court was moving away from

more protection under the establishment

clause, it has historically been

especially careful when it comes to

children in public schools. And there

was zero mention of that in the

majority's opinion. Although the Supreme

Court has allowed a high school football

coach to pray on the 50ard line right

after games, saying his players wouldn't

feel coerced to pray alongside him. So,

not if, but when this gets to the

Supreme Court, how do you think they'll

rule? I have little confidence in a

principal decision from the current

Supreme Court when it comes especially

to issues involving the rights of

conservative Christians and doing what

they want. Right? I think it's a white

Christian nationalist court. I think

they'll decide whatever is favorable to

white Christian nationalists. So, I

think that they would probably end up

upholding this law. Now, there are a lot

of different tactics that they might use

to do it. They might not do what the

fifth circuit did. They might try and

dodge it by not finding standing. They

might do it by something I call secular

washing. What they might try to argue is

that the Ten Commandments is not

ultimately a religious doctrine, but a

secular item. It's not about inculcating

particular religious beliefs. It's about

explaining or showing the role of

religion in our nation's history, trying

to make clear the origins of our

political structure or law. None of

that's true. But one thing the Supreme

Court has done in other cases where

there is some object that's obviously

inherently religious and therefore

should be problematic under the

establishment clause is the court has

said, "No, no, no. This is not actually

religious like you think. So it's not a

problem like you think. And one

particular case that comes to mind is a

challenge to the very large Latin cross

monument in the middle of the highway.

And you think that's the preeminent

symbol of Christianity. And the court

was like, "No, no, no, no, no, no. It's

not. You you don't understand. It's

actually just a symbol of World War I.

And therefore there's no problem with

it." And they've done that with the Ten

Commandments as well. They've already

laid the groundwork for arguing that the

Ten Commandments is not religious

scripture. It's not trying to procitize.

It's an educational document about our

country's history and the origins of our

law and government.

>> Well, it will certainly be a while

before this gets up to the Supreme Court

and we find out the answer to that

question. It's always great to have you

on, Caroline. Thanks so much. That's

Professor Caroline Malac Corbin of the

University of Miami Law School. And

that's it for this edition of the

Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you can

always get the latest legal news on our

Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them

on Apple Podcast, Spotify, and at

www.bloomberg.com/mpodcast/law.

And remember to tune in to the Bloomberg

Law Show every week night at 1000 p.m.

Wall Street time. [music]

I'm June Graasso and you're listening to

Bloomberg.