Latest / Bloomberg Law / Court Okays Ten Commandments in Classrooms & Unequal Justice

Transcript

Court Okays Ten Commandments in Classrooms & Unequal Justice · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
0:08
Speaker 2: President Trump cheered laws requiring the Ten Commandments to be
0:13
Speaker 2: displayed in schools while speaking to a group of evangelical
0:17
Speaker 2: Christians as he campaigned in twenty twenty four.
0:21
Speaker 3: Who likes the Ten Commandments, by the way going up
0:23
Speaker 3: in the school. They think it's such a bad thing,
0:30
Speaker 3: I said, Has anyone read the thou shalt not steal?
0:33
Speaker 3: Thou shalt? I mean, has anybody read this incredible stuff?
0:39
Speaker 3: It's just incredible.
0:40
Speaker 1: They don't want it to go up.
0:41
Speaker 2: And Now, in a significant win for conservatives who've been
0:45
Speaker 2: trying to incorporate more religion into classrooms, the Fifth Circuit
0:49
Speaker 2: Court of Appeals his rule that Texas can force public
0:53
Speaker 2: schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms. In a
0:58
Speaker 2: nine to eight vote, the full court, considered the most
1:01
Speaker 2: conservative circuit in the country, ruled that the Texas law
1:05
Speaker 2: doesn't violate the separation of church and state. The challengers
1:10
Speaker 2: say they'll most likely appeal the case to the Supreme Court,
1:14
Speaker 2: a court that has expanded religious rights time after time.
1:18
Speaker 2: My guest is an expert on the First Amendment. Caroline
1:22
Speaker 2: Malacorbin a professor at the University of Miami Law School,
1:26
Speaker 2: Caroline tell us how the Fifth Circuit reached this decision.
1:31
Speaker 1: So, in order to understand the Fifth Circuit's decision, you
1:35
Speaker 1: first need to understand what the Texas law required and
1:39
Speaker 1: what the Supreme Court precedent was. So the Texas law
1:43
Speaker 1: is pretty straightforward. It basically required that in every single
1:48
Speaker 1: public school classroom there had to be a Ten Commandments poster.
1:54
Speaker 1: It had to be sufficiently large, easy to read, easy
1:58
Speaker 1: to see, there couldn't be anything else around it, and
2:01
Speaker 1: they dictated the particular version of the Ten Commandments. Now,
2:06
Speaker 1: it's not surprising that this mandatory scripture on the wall
2:10
Speaker 1: triggered an Establishment Clause violation. The Establishment Clause, of course,
2:14
Speaker 1: is that part of the First Amendment of the US Constitution,
2:18
Speaker 1: which requires some separation between church and state. Believe it
2:23
Speaker 1: or not, Texas was not the first state to mandate
2:26
Speaker 1: Ten Commandments in the public schools. Kentucky had tried the
2:29
Speaker 1: same thing about forty five years ago, and the Supreme
2:33
Speaker 1: Court had already made a decision about it in a
2:36
Speaker 1: case known as Stone v.
2:37
Speaker 4: Graham.
2:38
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court held, this is a blatant violation of
2:43
Speaker 1: the Establishment Clause. There is no secular purpose for mandating
2:48
Speaker 1: biblical texts on schoolroom walls. When you're not even incorporating
2:52
Speaker 1: it into any kind of secular education, it is unconstitutional.
2:57
Speaker 1: So there is a case directly on point that holds
3:01
Speaker 1: this kind of law violates the Establishment Clause. Unfortunately, the
3:05
Speaker 1: precedent doesn't stop there, because the Roberts Court has been
3:10
Speaker 1: very busy trying to dismantle protections of the Establishment Clause.
3:16
Speaker 1: And one way it's been doing that is by rejecting
3:20
Speaker 1: earlier tests that the Supreme Court has relied on. And
3:24
Speaker 1: the doctrine that was part of the decision in the
3:28
Speaker 1: earlier ten Commandment's case was something known as the Lemon test,
3:32
Speaker 1: and the Lemon test said, listen, you're violating the Establishment
3:36
Speaker 1: Clause if your law doesn't have a primarily secular purpose
3:40
Speaker 1: or it doesn't have a primarily secular fact. And the
3:43
Speaker 1: Roberts Court has said, this is no longer the tests
3:48
Speaker 1: we're going to use in the Establishment Clause. Instead, the
3:54
Speaker 1: touchstone for an Establishment Clause analysis is to look to
3:58
Speaker 1: history and original understandings, and so this is what faced
4:04
Speaker 1: the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now the courts below
4:09
Speaker 1: had said, listen, there's still a Supreme Court case that's
4:13
Speaker 1: directly on point. It has not been explicitly overruled, and
4:17
Speaker 1: therefore it still controls, and therefore this is not a
4:22
Speaker 1: difficult case. The Fifth Circuit, on the other hand, argued
4:27
Speaker 1: the precedent depended on a test that has since been rejected,
4:32
Speaker 1: and not only did it reject Stone free Gram as
4:37
Speaker 1: controlling precedent, it interpreted the Supreme Court guidance to look
4:43
Speaker 1: to history and understanding in a very narrow way. It
4:49
Speaker 1: basically adapted a concurrence from Gorsuch that said, and this
4:54
Speaker 1: was the Fifth Circuit's new rule for Establishment clause challenges
4:58
Speaker 1: is if the this does not resemble something the original
5:04
Speaker 1: founders would consider a religious establishment, then it doesn't violate
5:08
Speaker 1: the establishment clause. And there was a short list of
5:12
Speaker 1: things considered. It said, these are the things that the
5:15
Speaker 1: founders thought was a religious establishment, and this does not
5:19
Speaker 1: resemble any of them, and therefore it doesn't violate the
5:24
Speaker 1: establishment clause. So that's what it held. It rejected the
5:29
Speaker 1: Supreme Court's existing precedent. It interpreted the Supreme Court's turned
5:34
Speaker 1: to history in a very particular narrow way and said
5:38
Speaker 1: this does not resemble a historical establishment, something that was
5:43
Speaker 1: an establishment at the time of our country's origins. And
5:46
Speaker 1: therefore no problem whatsoever to have a Protestant version of
5:54
Speaker 1: the Ten Commandments on every single classroom in every single
5:57
Speaker 1: public school in Texas, for regardless of whether it's the
6:01
Speaker 1: science lab or the library, or the music room or
6:04
Speaker 1: your English class.
6:06
Speaker 2: So once again we have to go back in time
6:09
Speaker 2: and discover what the Founders thought.
6:11
Speaker 1: According to the Fifth Circuit, nothing violates the establishment clause
6:16
Speaker 1: unless it would be akin to unless it would resemble
6:21
Speaker 1: what the Founders would think was a religious establishment, And
6:26
Speaker 1: on their list of things that were considered a religious establishment,
6:31
Speaker 1: is compelling people to go to church. And their argument
6:35
Speaker 1: is the Ten Commandments posters has absolutely nothing to do
6:40
Speaker 1: with compelling people to attend church. But you could easily
6:44
Speaker 1: make the argument that they are very analogous, right, because
6:48
Speaker 1: what's really going on with mandatory church attendant it's the
6:53
Speaker 1: state is compelling attendants at a church with forced exposure
6:58
Speaker 1: to someone else's religion tenants. That's the same thing here, right,
7:04
Speaker 1: the state is compelling attendance at school with forced exposure
7:10
Speaker 1: to someone else's religious tenants. So even under their own test,
7:16
Speaker 1: you could easily make an argument that mandatory Ten Commandment
7:21
Speaker 1: posters in every single public school classroom does resemble one
7:27
Speaker 1: of those religious establishments dating to the Founding. And again
7:32
Speaker 1: that just goes to show how maniputable these tests are,
7:37
Speaker 1: how much discretion there is in their application. In other words,
7:42
Speaker 1: it almost doesn't matter what test the court uses. If
7:46
Speaker 1: it's determined to uphold them, they will find a way
7:49
Speaker 1: to uphold them.
7:50
Speaker 2: But looking at history, can we tell what the founders
7:53
Speaker 2: thought about this? And has there ever been a time
7:56
Speaker 2: in our history when it was considered okay to force
8:00
Speaker 2: schools to put up the Ten Commandments in classrooms?
8:03
Speaker 1: I mean, there are always tons of problems with relying
8:07
Speaker 1: on history as guidance for constitutional rights. One is, why
8:12
Speaker 1: should our rights today turn on what people two hundred
8:17
Speaker 1: and fifty years ago thought. They are not known for
8:21
Speaker 1: protecting people on the margins, right, It's ridiculous to tie
8:26
Speaker 1: our protections today to a time that was notoriously unsympathetic.
8:32
Speaker 1: That's just the most problematic aspect. Another problem, as we
8:36
Speaker 1: might see in this case, is there were no public
8:39
Speaker 1: schools at the time of the Founding. The public schools
8:44
Speaker 1: came rather later. They came in the mid nineteenth century,
8:48
Speaker 1: so it's like, who knows what they might have thought,
8:50
Speaker 1: Like any attempt to apply an original understanding of what
8:55
Speaker 1: you could do in public schools is necessarily going to
8:59
Speaker 1: be a matter of interpretation and discretion, Which brings me
9:02
Speaker 1: to another problem with relying on history is it's endlessly manipultal.
9:07
Speaker 1: There's just so many ways you can interpret history. You
9:11
Speaker 1: can easily pluck out your most favorable historical compartments that
9:15
Speaker 1: say this is it, or you can just ignore what
9:19
Speaker 1: doesn't suit you. You could define what you're looking at
9:22
Speaker 1: at a completely different level of generality. In any case,
9:28
Speaker 1: we don't know what the founders would have thought about
9:30
Speaker 1: what should be allowed in public schools because there were
9:32
Speaker 1: no public schools at the time, and even at the
9:35
Speaker 1: start of the public schools there was actually a lot
9:39
Speaker 1: of hostility toward Catholics, so there was sort of Protestantism
9:44
Speaker 1: in the public schools. That was a problem, right, and
9:49
Speaker 1: it is a problem the Supreme Court itself has recognized.
9:53
Speaker 1: So the actual practices that a particular historical error don't
9:57
Speaker 1: always reflect or constitutional ideal, And the Supreme Court itself
10:01
Speaker 1: has said we reject what they did to the Catholics.
10:06
Speaker 1: You know, what was going on was based on anti
10:08
Speaker 1: Catholic animus and should not guide our interpretation. So the
10:12
Speaker 1: one time Court has actually understood that maybe history should
10:15
Speaker 1: not be the perfect guide to our constitutional rights today.
10:18
Speaker 1: I mean, I could go on and on, but basically
10:21
Speaker 1: they insisted on this vero narrow test and again lots
10:26
Speaker 1: of reasons why history should not be a guide. But
10:29
Speaker 1: even if it is a guide, it's not necessarily what
10:33
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court decisions require in terms of relying on history.
10:39
Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, I'll continue
10:41
Speaker 2: this conversation with Professor Caroline Malik Corbin. You might remember
10:46
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court case where religious parents were given the
10:49
Speaker 2: right to opt their children out of class when books
10:53
Speaker 2: with LGBTQ characters were being read. How did the Fifth
10:58
Speaker 2: Circuit reconcile it's decision with that Supreme Court case. I'm
11:03
Speaker 2: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. A divided Fifth
11:09
Speaker 2: Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Texas can enforce
11:13
Speaker 2: a law requiring that the Ten Commandments be displayed in
11:17
Speaker 2: public school classrooms. In a nine to eight decision. The
11:21
Speaker 2: majority came up with a new test whether the law
11:25
Speaker 2: resembles establishment of religion as it was understood at the
11:29
Speaker 2: time of the nation's founding, and said the Texas law
11:33
Speaker 2: looks nothing like a historical religious establishment. Eight judges dissented,
11:39
Speaker 2: with some arguing that the Supreme Court's precedent in Stone
11:43
Speaker 2: versus Graham was still good law and that the Texas
11:46
Speaker 2: law violates the First Amendment. I've been talking to First
11:50
Speaker 2: Amendment law expert Caroline Malakorbin, a professor at the University
11:54
Speaker 2: of Miami Law School. Caroline, what also struck me about
11:57
Speaker 2: this decision is that there was that Supreme Court case Mood,
12:03
Speaker 2: which you and I discussed at the time, saying that
12:06
Speaker 2: parents could opt their children out of LGBTQ material that
12:11
Speaker 2: contradicted their religious beliefs and tyr the Fifth Circuit said
12:15
Speaker 2: the measure doesn't restrict parents' right to direct their children's
12:19
Speaker 2: religious upbringing. I mean, how do they possibly distinguish that case.
12:24
Speaker 1: So this is the case that we discussed earlier, which
12:27
Speaker 1: is a case involving picture books with lgbt characters in
12:33
Speaker 1: them that were part of the English curriculum in some
12:36
Speaker 1: public schools, and some conservative religious folks claimed that having
12:42
Speaker 1: their children hear these stories about same sex marriage when
12:47
Speaker 1: that same sex marriage was not condemned, violated their religious rights,
12:52
Speaker 1: and therefore they had a free exercise right to opt
12:57
Speaker 1: their children out of hearing their stories. And Spreme Court,
13:01
Speaker 1: always sympathetic to very conservative Christian concerns, said absolutely, it's
13:07
Speaker 1: a violation of your free exercise rights for your child
13:10
Speaker 1: to be exposed to same sex marriages in a positive
13:15
Speaker 1: way because that's contrary to your anti same sex marriage beliefs,
13:19
Speaker 1: and you are ou to opt out. And through your
13:21
Speaker 1: question is a very good one, is isn't this even worse? Right?
13:26
Speaker 1: Isn't this in even more direct affront to non adherence
13:31
Speaker 1: beliefs to be presented with the Ten Commandments everywhere they turned,
13:37
Speaker 1: which is contrary to their own beliefs. Like the clashes
13:41
Speaker 1: just like the same sex marriage clashes with my beliefs,
13:44
Speaker 1: The Ten Commandment clashes even more directly because they're religious
13:49
Speaker 1: and surely the mood case would support the approach to
13:55
Speaker 1: the Ten Commandments is something problematic and something that should
13:58
Speaker 1: not be allowed if this circuit distinguished it in two ways. First,
14:03
Speaker 1: they exaggerated the harm to the parents in memod and
14:09
Speaker 1: they ignored the harms to the parents who opposed the
14:13
Speaker 1: Ten Commandments. And so they claimed in me mood that
14:18
Speaker 1: the teachers were taught to shame the children for feeling
14:22
Speaker 1: what they believed, that it was a direct assaults, and
14:25
Speaker 1: that there's no way the children could avoid having their
14:29
Speaker 1: beliefs challenged by authority figures. So they slightly mischaracterize what
14:37
Speaker 1: was actually going on in the case involving story books
14:41
Speaker 1: with LGBT characters, and then in this case they downplay
14:48
Speaker 1: any of the consequences of the Ten Commandments because they said,
14:51
Speaker 1: no one is forced to recite them, no one is
14:55
Speaker 1: forced to affirm them. They're just there. But I the
15:01
Speaker 1: two are exactly analogous. Right. If you're going to argue
15:04
Speaker 1: that exposure to something contrary to your beliefs is coercive,
15:12
Speaker 1: then clearly exposure to the Ten Commandments everywhere your turn
15:19
Speaker 1: contrary to your beliefs should also be coercive. Indeed, it's
15:25
Speaker 1: like you made the argument that the school was endorsing
15:27
Speaker 1: same sex marriage. Obviously the school is endorsing the Ten Commandments,
15:31
Speaker 1: otherwise it wouldn't be in every single classroom and again,
15:38
Speaker 1: you'd think the Ten Commandments everywhere your child turned would
15:41
Speaker 1: be a more direct challenge to a non adherence religious
15:45
Speaker 1: liberty than a story with an LGBT character. But that
15:49
Speaker 1: was not how the Fifth Skirt playd out. Again, it overstated,
15:54
Speaker 1: it mischaracterized what was going on in my mood, and
15:57
Speaker 1: it ignored what was actually going on with the Ten
16:01
Speaker 1: Commandments law.
16:03
Speaker 2: And if you look at what Texas officials said in
16:07
Speaker 2: celebrating this Fifth Circuit ruling, the Texas Attorney General said
16:11
Speaker 2: that it's important that students learn from them the Ten
16:14
Speaker 2: Commandments every single day. And the bill sponsor said, it's
16:18
Speaker 2: incumbent upon all of us to follow God's law, and
16:22
Speaker 2: I think we would all be better off if we
16:24
Speaker 2: did so. Doesn't the intent of the law seem pretty obvious.
16:29
Speaker 1: I mean, there's so many aspects of this case that
16:33
Speaker 1: they ignored. They mentioned nowhere the obvious intent behind the lawmakers.
16:40
Speaker 1: The other thing, as one of the dissent points out,
16:42
Speaker 1: that they completely ignore, is that the Supreme Court has
16:47
Speaker 1: historically been very mindful of the establishment clause in the
16:53
Speaker 1: public school context for several reasons. Right one, the state
16:58
Speaker 1: requires children to be there, so they're already using coercion
17:03
Speaker 1: and requiring their attendance. Second, these are young children. These
17:07
Speaker 1: are impressionable children, and they're very influenced by what happens
17:11
Speaker 1: in school. They're very influenced by their teachers, by their peers.
17:15
Speaker 1: There's a lot of pressure on them to conform. And Third,
17:19
Speaker 1: this whole idea is parents are trusting them to schools
17:24
Speaker 1: on the understanding that they're not going to try and
17:26
Speaker 1: conculcate them in a religion not their own. And so
17:30
Speaker 1: even when the Supreme Court was moving away from more
17:35
Speaker 1: protection under the Establishment Clause, it has historically been especially
17:41
Speaker 1: careful when it comes to children in public schools, and
17:45
Speaker 1: there was zero mention of that in the majority's opinion.
17:50
Speaker 2: Although the Supreme Court has allowed a high school football
17:54
Speaker 2: coach to prey on the fifty yard line right after games,
17:59
Speaker 2: saying his players wouldn't feel coerce to pray alongside him.
18:03
Speaker 2: So not if. But when this gets to the Supreme Court,
18:08
Speaker 2: how do you think they'll rule?
18:11
Speaker 1: I have little confidence in a principal decision from the
18:15
Speaker 1: current Supreme Court when it comes especially to issues involving
18:20
Speaker 1: the rights of conservative Christians and doing what they want right.
18:24
Speaker 1: I think it's a white Christian nationalist court, I think
18:26
Speaker 1: they'll decide whatever is favorable to the white Christian nationalists.
18:30
Speaker 1: So I think that they would probably end up upholding
18:34
Speaker 1: this law. Now, there are a lot of different tactics
18:38
Speaker 1: that they might use to do it. They might not
18:41
Speaker 1: do what the Fifth Circuit did. They might try and
18:45
Speaker 1: dodge it by not finding standing. They might do it
18:49
Speaker 1: by something I call secular washing. What they might try
18:54
Speaker 1: to argue is that the Ten Commandments is not ultimately
18:58
Speaker 1: a religious doctrine, but a secular item. It's not about
19:03
Speaker 1: inculcating particular religious beliefs. It's about explaining or showing the
19:09
Speaker 1: role of religion in our nation's history, trying to make
19:15
Speaker 1: clear the origins of our political structure or law. None
19:18
Speaker 1: of that's true. But one thing the Supreme Court has
19:22
Speaker 1: done in other cases where there is some object that's
19:26
Speaker 1: obviously inherently religious and therefore should be problematic under the
19:31
Speaker 1: establishment clause, is the Court has said, no, no, no,
19:34
Speaker 1: this is not actually religious like you think, so it's
19:37
Speaker 1: not a problem like you think. And one particular case
19:39
Speaker 1: that comes to mind is a challenge to the very
19:43
Speaker 1: large Latin Cross monument in the Middle of the Highway,
19:47
Speaker 1: and you think that's the pre eminent symbol of Christianity.
19:50
Speaker 1: And the Court was like, no, no, no, no, no, no,
19:52
Speaker 1: it's not. You don't understand. It's actually just a symbol
19:58
Speaker 1: of World War One, and therefore there's no problem with it.
20:04
Speaker 1: And they've done that with the Ten Commandments as well.
20:06
Speaker 1: They've already laid the groundwork for arguing that the Ten
20:10
Speaker 1: Commandments is it's not religious scripture. It's not trying to proselytize.
20:14
Speaker 1: It's an educational document about our country's history and the
20:19
Speaker 1: origins of our law and government.
20:22
Speaker 2: So how about this. There are six Catholics on the
20:25
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, and here Texas is putting up Protestant versions
20:30
Speaker 2: of the Ten Commandments. Isn't that showing favoritism to Protestants
20:35
Speaker 2: over Catholics.
20:37
Speaker 1: Well, exactly right. So another rather astonishing move in the
20:42
Speaker 1: Fifth Circuit decision is if Estaberge clause means anything, it
20:47
Speaker 1: means the state can't favor some religions over others. It
20:51
Speaker 1: can't say, you know, Catholics are our favorites, or Protestantism
20:56
Speaker 1: is the true Christianity as opposed to the others, and
20:59
Speaker 1: the other thing people need to know is there are
21:01
Speaker 1: many different versions of the Ten Commandments. The Protestant version
21:06
Speaker 1: is different from the Catholic version, which is different from
21:08
Speaker 1: the Jewish version. They all have slightly different emphasies and wording,
21:13
Speaker 1: and the one that's mandated here is the Protestant version.
21:18
Speaker 1: So how does the Fifth Circuit deal with the fact
21:20
Speaker 1: that this is clearly preferring one denomination over the other.
21:26
Speaker 1: It says, yeah, we know that you're not supposed to
21:30
Speaker 1: favor some denominations over others, like you can't give money
21:34
Speaker 1: to Protestants and Catholics, but that just doesn't apply to symbols.
21:39
Speaker 1: That's their argument. It doesn't apply to symbols because of
21:42
Speaker 1: it applied to symbols, then we couldn't have government sponsored
21:47
Speaker 1: religious symbols. You know, there's another conclusion to draw, which
21:52
Speaker 1: is that maybe there shouldn't be government sponsored religious symbols. Right,
21:56
Speaker 1: Maybe that's what the establishment clause requires, rather than a
21:59
Speaker 1: rule that's says as the Establishment Clause doesn't care about
22:03
Speaker 1: government religious symbols. So that's what the Fifth Circuit said
22:06
Speaker 1: about it. It was fine. They just said, well, obviously
22:09
Speaker 1: it can't apply because the Supreme Court has once upheld
22:13
Speaker 1: the Ten Commandments with this exact language, even though the
22:17
Speaker 1: Supreme Court had done a very detailed contextual analysis of
22:22
Speaker 1: the Ten Commandments in that particular situation, it was not
22:25
Speaker 1: a Ten Commandments all on its own on classroom walls
22:30
Speaker 1: in public schools that children had to attend and look
22:33
Speaker 1: at all day long. That's not there. They just said
22:36
Speaker 1: it doesn't apply to symbols. But yeah, you would think again,
22:39
Speaker 1: there are so many ways. This is such an easy
22:43
Speaker 1: case because even the current Supreme Court would agree that
22:48
Speaker 1: the government cannot favor one religion over others, and this
22:54
Speaker 1: Ten Commandments not only favors Christianity over all other religions,
22:59
Speaker 1: it favors some Christian denominations over others. And you would
23:04
Speaker 1: think that would be problematic. So that's a good question.
23:07
Speaker 1: I don't know what the Catholic Supreme Court justices would
23:10
Speaker 1: make of the Protestant version.
23:12
Speaker 2: And we may have to wait quite a while to
23:13
Speaker 2: find out the answer. Thanks so much, Caroline, it's always
23:16
Speaker 2: a pleasure to have you on. That's Professor Caroline Malacorbin
23:20
Speaker 2: of the University of Miami Law School. I'm June Grosso,
23:24
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg A new survey from Equal
23:28
Speaker 2: Justice Works finds that seventy nine percent of Americans see
23:32
Speaker 2: the justice system as unfair, with only half confident that
23:37
Speaker 2: they would get fair treatment in the system. Joining me
23:40
Speaker 2: is Verna Williams, CEO of Equal Justice Works. Verna tell
23:44
Speaker 2: us a little bit about how the survey was conducted.
23:47
Speaker 4: We surveyed sixteen hundred Americans, making sure it was a
23:51
Speaker 4: representative group of Americans, so different races, different economic backgrounds,
23:57
Speaker 4: including some people, you know, with different immigration statuses. So
24:02
Speaker 4: it's a pretty representative group of folks that we survey.
24:07
Speaker 4: And of those people, so, yeah, you're right, seventy nine
24:09
Speaker 4: percent said that they found the legal system to be unfair,
24:13
Speaker 4: a significant proportion about that. Race and then income. Those
24:18
Speaker 4: were two main reasons that they thought the system was unfair.
24:22
Speaker 2: So a majority think that income affects whether or not
24:26
Speaker 2: you get justice. I tend to agree with that.
24:29
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean on a certain level, it's kind of like,
24:31
Speaker 4: you know, not really that surprising, but I have to
24:35
Speaker 4: say that, even you know, as jaundice as I can
24:38
Speaker 4: be sometimes, I was struck by just the sheer number.
24:42
Speaker 4: I mean, that's like eighty percent and then half the
24:44
Speaker 4: people feeling like they wouldn't get their shake in court,
24:48
Speaker 4: and half said they would but have said that they wouldn't.
24:51
Speaker 4: These are findings that the legal profession really should be
24:53
Speaker 4: concerned about. This is how ordinary Americans are seeing the
24:57
Speaker 4: legal system. I think it has a lot of implications.
25:00
Speaker 4: One is, you know, equal justice under law as really
25:03
Speaker 4: a bedwock principle of our society. You know, rule of
25:07
Speaker 4: law matters a lot. We want people to comply with
25:11
Speaker 4: the law and respect the law and respect for the court.
25:15
Speaker 4: And I think when people are feeling fifty to fifty
25:19
Speaker 4: you know whether I'll get a fair shake or not.
25:21
Speaker 4: I think that's the kind of thing that is really
25:24
Speaker 4: problematic for our democracy.
25:25
Speaker 2: Even and forty nine percent said that race affects outcome,
25:31
Speaker 2: I thought that number would be a little bit higher.
25:33
Speaker 4: Actually I could see that too, you know, but I guess,
25:37
Speaker 4: you know, that speaks to the diversity of the pool.
25:41
Speaker 4: And I have to say, I don't know if we
25:43
Speaker 4: disaggregated the data to that level to say, you know,
25:47
Speaker 4: people of color were much more likely. I would feel
25:51
Speaker 4: safe saying that just because I into it. That and
25:55
Speaker 4: people's experiences, their lived experiences, suggest that there there is
26:00
Speaker 4: a different system where people of color, we're not that
26:03
Speaker 4: far and moved from George Floyd's murder and you know,
26:08
Speaker 4: the reckoning that was supposed to accompany that.
26:11
Speaker 2: An interesting part of this is that so many people
26:15
Speaker 2: misunderstand their own rights and yes, the understanding of how
26:20
Speaker 2: the civil system works. This surprised me. Many Americans believe
26:25
Speaker 2: that they'll be provided attorneys in certain situations, and the
26:29
Speaker 2: numbers are between thirty five percent and forty one percent
26:33
Speaker 2: that they're entitled to an attorney in discrimination cases, child
26:37
Speaker 2: custody cases, and traffic court.
26:39
Speaker 4: I thought that was surprising too. I think that it
26:42
Speaker 4: speaks to you know, the other thing I guess is
26:45
Speaker 4: that people don't understand the system, and that may also
26:49
Speaker 4: contribute to their mistrust of it. You know, they don't
26:53
Speaker 4: they don't understand how it works. What they see suggests
26:57
Speaker 4: that it's not really fair. They don't know where to
27:00
Speaker 4: get help, and so I think all of it it
27:02
Speaker 4: makes the system seem to be actually inaccessible in a
27:06
Speaker 4: lot of different ways. We talk about access to justice,
27:09
Speaker 4: usually from the perspective of, well, if you need an attorney,
27:13
Speaker 4: nine times out of ten people are just not going
27:15
Speaker 4: to be able to find them. Whether they're poor people's
27:17
Speaker 4: for sure. For working class people it's also quite difficult.
27:20
Speaker 4: But these results suggests that it's inaccessible in another way,
27:24
Speaker 4: in the sense that people just don't even understand what
27:27
Speaker 4: the system is, how it works, where to get help.
27:31
Speaker 4: That's really troubling too. The data suggests that part of
27:35
Speaker 4: the problem here is that people also don't recognize when
27:37
Speaker 4: they have a legal problem. They think it's bad luck.
27:40
Speaker 4: You know, they're unable to pay a medical bill collection
27:43
Speaker 4: agency comes after them, maybe there's an effort to garnish
27:46
Speaker 4: their wages, you know, those kinds of things. They're bad luck,
27:50
Speaker 4: but they're not. They have legal implications and there are
27:54
Speaker 4: rights that they have that they can enforce. If there's
27:57
Speaker 4: one thing we know is that when people are represent ended,
28:00
Speaker 4: it makes a difference. For us at Equal Justice Works,
28:04
Speaker 4: what we're doing is to deploy lawyers to places where
28:08
Speaker 4: they're needed. That's really the engine that runs us. We're
28:13
Speaker 4: about getting folks out there. In that context, we work
28:17
Speaker 4: to help support students that want to do public interests work.
28:21
Speaker 4: We work with laws schools to help them support those students,
28:25
Speaker 4: and we're also looking to increase our reach by getting
28:30
Speaker 4: to people before they go to college, even before they
28:34
Speaker 4: go to law school, to help them plode out their
28:37
Speaker 4: public interest law journey. And we're looking to re support
28:41
Speaker 4: the movement for opening up the door to legal assistance
28:46
Speaker 4: for more people besides lawyers. So here thinking some places
28:50
Speaker 4: they are called community justice workers. We're at a crisis.
28:53
Speaker 4: It's been a long standing crisis, and we need everything,
28:58
Speaker 4: all the help that we can bring to bear so
29:00
Speaker 4: people can have the representation that they need.
29:03
Speaker 2: Is this survey informing your work in any way?
29:07
Speaker 4: It is. It's informing the work in the sense that
29:11
Speaker 4: it for one thing, it's reinforcing what we do. Making
29:14
Speaker 4: the system more accessible is important, and it suggests that
29:20
Speaker 4: the aspect of our work that's to lift up the
29:23
Speaker 4: crisis and let people know what's going on is really
29:27
Speaker 4: vitally important. As I said, the profession really really needs
29:31
Speaker 4: to be focusing on this, and you know, working with
29:35
Speaker 4: law schools and state bars, etc. To help people understand
29:41
Speaker 4: how the system works and where they can get help.
29:44
Speaker 4: And in addition to helping people.
29:47
Speaker 2: And tell us a little about your organization.
29:49
Speaker 4: You know, Equal Justice Works. We've been around for forty
29:51
Speaker 4: years and we have dedicated ourselves to really opening up
29:55
Speaker 4: public interest laud to more people. We believe that just
30:00
Speaker 4: this shouldn't be a function of somebody's income or their
30:02
Speaker 4: zip code, and that we're working toward a time when
30:06
Speaker 4: that is not the case, and when the phrase equal
30:09
Speaker 4: justice for all is not just an inscription over the
30:12
Speaker 4: entrance of the United States Supreme Court, but where it's
30:15
Speaker 4: a reality.
30:17
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining me, Verna. That's Werner Williams, CEO of
30:20
Speaker 2: Equal Justice Works. And that's it for this edition of
30:24
Speaker 2: The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the
30:26
Speaker 2: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
30:30
Speaker 2: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot
30:34
Speaker 2: bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and remember to
30:38
Speaker 2: tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten
30:41
Speaker 2: pm Wall Street Time. I'm Junie Grosso and you're listening
30:45
Speaker 2: to Bloomberg