June 18, 2025 • 24 mins
Kate Redburn, a professor at Columbia Law School and an expert in the law of gender, sexuality and religion, discusses the Supreme Court upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming care for minors. Dave Aronberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney, discusses the jury acquitting Karen Read of murder charges. June Grasso hosts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court divided down ideological
lines upheld Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for transgender miners,
a stunning setback to transgender rights. Chief Justice John Roberts
wrote the majority opinion for the six conservative justices, finding
(00:28):
that the law does not violate the Constitution's equal Protection clause,
which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the
same Roberts wrote that there are fierce scientific and policy
debates about the medical treatments, but quote, we leave questions
regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and
(00:50):
the democratic process, Echoing what the Chief and Justice Brett
kavanaughh pointed to during the oral arguments.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
You know, we might think that we're, you know, we
can do just as good a job with respect to
the evidence here as Tennessee or anybody else. But my
understanding is that the Constitution leaves that question to the
people's representatives rather than to nine people, none of whom
(01:19):
is a doctor.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
If the Constitution doesn't take sides, if they're strong, forceful
scientific policy arguments on both sides In a situation like this,
why isn't it best to leave it to the democratic process?
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Justice Sonya Soto Mayor wrote a blistering descent for the
courts three liberals, accusing the Conservatives of abandoning transgender children
and their families to political whims by retreating from meaningful
judicial review exactly where it matters most. During the oral
arguments so to, Mayor had said that the democratic process
(01:55):
does not protect transgender people against bad laws.
Speaker 5 (02:00):
There one percent of the population or less. Very hard
to see how the democratic process is going to protect you. Well,
you are Blacks were a much larger part of the population,
and it didn't protect them. It didn't protect women for
whole centuries.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Twenty three states have bands similar to Tennessees. Joining me
is Kate Redburn, a professor at Columbia Law School whose
expertise centers on the law of gender, sexuality, and religion.
How much of a setback is this decision for transgender rights.
Speaker 6 (02:35):
It's a significant setback for transgender rights, especially regarding the
availability and access to medically necessary treatments for gender dysphoria.
So the opinion refers to SB one's Tennessee law, which
essentially prohibits transgender youth from accessing gender froming care while
allowing all other youth to access the same treatments. He says,
(02:55):
that's not a sex classification. What it doesn't do, however,
is it doesn't hold that trans people are not a
suspect class in general. So it looks like at least
three justices were willing to go that far, and the
opinion didn't go that far. So it's very bad for
trans kids and potentially trans adults who are seeking medical care,
(03:16):
but it doesn't necessarily reach as far as all transiscrimination.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
What was the central legal question here regarding the equal
protection clause?
Speaker 6 (03:26):
So the question before the court was whether or not
this law violated equal protection, and the United States really
directed under the prior administration, really directed the court's attention
to the question of whether or not this law constituted
a sex classification. So does the law turn on sex?
And the reason for that is because when laws do
turn on sex, then the court it looks more closely
(03:47):
at the law. They call that heightened scrutiny for sex discrimination.
So the court I said that certain kinds of classifications,
race classifications paradigmatically more into strict scrutiny. So the Court's
going to look very hard. Sex classification the Court has
previously said sometimes are permissible, it's sometimes okay for governments
to distinguish between people on the basis of sex or
(04:07):
make sex classifications. But because it sounds a little bit
potentially suspicious, they're going to look more closely. And so
the question here was is it a sex classification? And
then the danger was what had happened in the Sixth
Circuit where in this case that court had said that
this law was not a sex classification and sort of
combined the analysis in a way that made people concern
that the court was going to find that even certain
(04:29):
kinds of sex classifications don't Warrant tightened scrutiny. So here
what happened was the Robert's majority opinion says that this
law is not a sex classification and therefore only warrant's
rational basis review.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Chief Justice Roberts, in his majority opinions talked about the
fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and
propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. Quote, we
leave questions regarding its policy to the people. They're elected
representatives and the democratic process. Is that just the court
(05:02):
looking for an out, I mean, they do make policy decisions.
Speaker 6 (05:06):
Yeah, So it sounds not dissimilar to what the Court
said about Dobbs when it overturned roversus Wade, which was
under the guise of changing doctrine, and that case quite significantly,
it described itself as kicking the question back to the states.
What is suspicious about that language in this context is
that the heightened scrutiny is actually designed to make it
(05:28):
possible for course to spend some time really looking at
the justifications that the governments are using for regulating and
classifying on sex, and then it also asks whether or
not the means justify the ed. So it might be
that there's a close relationship between the purpose of the
law and its classification, but it's nevertheless not an acceptable
purpose anyway. All of that's just to say that the
existing doctrine is meant to give the court the opportunity
(05:50):
to really weigh evidence. And what this decision does is
it seems to open up the possibility of authorizing governments
to regulate around medical procedures that touch on sex without
courts even looking to weigh the evidence. So it might
be the case that the Court could have applied heightened
scrutiny and still found that this particular law had, on
its view of sufficient evidentiary support, you know, in light
(06:13):
of the purported medical controversy, But it might not have,
and it really denied itself and potentially future courts from
even looking into that.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Justice Sonia Sotomayo wrote a blistering dissent, and she read
a summary of it from the bench, which the justices
sometimes do when they feel strongly about a descent. Then
she ended with in sadness I dissent, she talked about
the majority abandoning transgender children and their families to political whims.
Speaker 6 (06:43):
I think that, you know, her sadness stems from the
fact that this is going to force potentially trans kids
and their families in half of the states where similar
laws are on the books to relocate in order to
simply live their lives. The state of the medical controversy
about these issues, and the majority of and is vastly overstated.
Much of the history that it relies on, and some
(07:03):
of the other concurring opinians rely on, it's just the untrue.
And so you know what I think, Justice Sodomayor was
trying to say is that the consequences for trans youth
in particular are just really, really egregious.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
In her courtroom statement, she said that similar arguments were
made to defend the Virginia law that prohibited interracial marriage
that the Supreme Court struck down in nineteen sixty seven.
Speaker 6 (07:28):
Yeah, so we call those equal application laws, and they
basically say that because so in Loving versus Virginia, the
argument was well for the law prohibited interracial marriage, and
the justification for it that the state gave was this
is not racial discrimination because white people are not allowed
to marry people of color and people of color are
not allowed to marry white people. In other words, everyone
is equally prohibited. But the court said no, this is
(07:51):
still rooted in racial stereotypes that suggest that interracial marriage
is bad, and also animus towards racial minorities and trying
to reinforce the racial hierarchy.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
In the country.
Speaker 6 (08:01):
So the fact that you can find in that case
white people and black people on both sides of the
line that the regulation draws does not mean that it's
not subject to heighten scrutiny. And so there's a reading
of the majority's opinion here, which that it does exactly
the same thing. That's what she's saying that just because
there are transgender miners on both sides of the line.
In other words, transgender miners, according to the Court, can
(08:24):
still obtain sort of treatments if they're not for the
purposes of addressing gender dysphoria. That doesn't mean that this
is not motivated by animus towards transgender people and trying
to reinforce as sex and gender hierarchy. That suggests that
there's something normatively preferable about not being transgender.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
How have transgender rights in particular, How have transgender rights
in particular suffered or been affected by Donald Trump's presidency?
Speaker 6 (08:53):
Basically says it's a little bit after twenty sixteen, it's
been a major priority among Republicans legislators in particular to
attack trans rights. There's a lot of reasons why that
could be the case. You know, one reason that having
lost the gay marriage fight, there's an effort to find
a different issue that touches on questions of traditional and
(09:14):
non traditional gender and sexual role to search for another
issue became even stronger after Dobs, after the Supreme Court
overturned row versus ways in part because abortion is actually
quite popular nationally, and so in order to create some
kind of coalition that could win national elections, needed to
find an issue which would connect to traditional gender and
sexual values without touching on something popular like gay marriage
(09:37):
or abortion. So a way to understand the effect of
the Trump administration is really that it has accelerated a
pre existing tendency, and it's turned what were state level
efforts to make transgender life extremely difficult, if not impossible,
into national policy. So the redefinition of sex, attempts to
regulate medical treatments, access to bathrooms, access to sports teams,
(09:59):
all of those those efforts that we saw in the
executive orders, and of course, you know, very important restrictions
and attempted restrictions now in Congress on access to healthcare
through various kinds of federal aid are reflecting the nationalization
of what had been state level attacks.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Does the decision today help legal challenges by President Trump
and Republican administrations to roll back protections for transgender people.
Speaker 6 (10:26):
It might that it might not. As I said, there
is not a majority on the court apparently to hold
that anti transiscrimination, you know, is not visible to the Constitution.
In other words, there are other kinds of anti transcrimination
that the Court seems to have held open the possibility
for recognizing, and so it's going to really depend on
what is characterized as a medical condition. In other words,
(10:46):
this opinion says that SB one is discriminating on the
basis of gender dysphoria and not transgender identity, and so
other laws do not have that character of being ostensibly
justified as medical regulations. Instead, I think the normative stakes
of just trying to force people not to be transgender
or even clearer in those other situation, And the Court
(11:07):
hasn't totally eliminated the possibility of reading those arguments in
the future.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
So the justices still have to rule in another case
about whether a Maryland school district is violating the Constitution
by using LGBTQ friendly books in the classroom without giving
parents the right to opt out. After hearing the oral
arguments in that case, and I know everyone says, you
can't tell what the justices are going to do, but
(11:32):
it seemed pretty clear that there were enough justices to
support the position of the religious parents. There is that
case important.
Speaker 6 (11:43):
Yeah, that case is enormously important for another front in
the ongoing attacks on really any kind of non normative
families or gender or sexual identities. The issue is actually
not at all new to the country. It has never
reached the Supreme Court before, but in the nineteen eighties
there were a series of lower court cases on identical
issues where conservatives, in that case, people who self identified
(12:05):
as fundamentalist Christians, objected to content in public school curricula
that they characterized as secular humanism, and courts universally said
that mere exposure to ideas which parents dislike, or even
ideas which are sensitive to the religious beliefs of parents,
does not constitute coersion, and so it's not constitutionally suspect
(12:26):
that court does seem poised to equate contact with coersion
in ways that are potentially quite quite sweet thing. During
oral argument, the Actings Lister General who made the arguments,
suggested that the presence of a transgender student, for example,
could be considered a kind of content to which a
religious objection might be relevant. In other words, it was
(12:48):
possible not only that a parent could object to a
book being on the shelf or a book being read
in class that includes, for example, gay characters, but also
that the existence of a person whose self is disliked
or reported to be against the religious beliefs of the
parent could prompt an opt out. So it really has
the potential to destroy the ability of public school teachers
(13:11):
to make inclusive choices about what kind of content and
what kind of classrooms they have that reflect the diversity
of our society.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Thanks so much for joining me today. That's professor Kate
Redburn of Columbia Law School. Crowds outside the courthouse in Dedham, Massachusetts,
cheered this afternoon after a jury found Karen Reid not
guilty of second degree murder and manslaughter charges in the
(13:39):
death of her Boston police officer boyfriend in twenty twenty two.
The jury did find Read guilty of the lesser charge
of drunk and driving, handing down its decision after deliberating
for at least twenty two hours over four days. The
verdict comes nearly a year after another jury had deadlocked
over Reid's guilt. It's a huge victory for her lawyers,
(14:00):
who've asserted that she was framed by police after dropping
O'Keefe off at a party at the home of a
fellow officer. Prosecutors argued the forty five year old read
hit O'Keefe with her SUV before driving away, but the
defense maintained that O'Keefe was killed inside the home and
later dragged outside. Joining me is former Palm Beach County
(14:22):
State Attorney Dave Arenberg. Were you surprised at the not
guilty verdicts here?
Speaker 1 (14:29):
I was very surprised by it because I thought the
prosecution this time did an excellent job and focusing the
jury on the evidence, the data, the cell phone data,
the evidence of the battery of the cell phone and
when it started to weaken, and when the phone started
to freeze, the timing. I mean, this was not speculation.
(14:52):
Data doesn't have any ax to grind. Data is data,
and as a result, I thought the jury would listen
to that. Instead, they got distracted by all the things
and apparently found reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Obviously there were no eyewitness accounts, no direct evidence of
the hit, but there were a series of experts to
fill in the evidentiary picture. Do you think that testimony
was too sophisticated for the jury.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Whenever you get into a battle of experts, it's a
problem for prosecution because jurors these days, they want eyewitnesses,
they want the DNA, they want the conclusive smoking guns
because they're used to seeing that on TV shows which
are wrapped up in an hour at CSI and other shows.
And if you don't have that, jurors will quickly find
(15:43):
some reasonable doubt, especially if it becomes a battle of experts.
But I thought that it was a defense that came
up with a cockamamie alternative theory and thus raised the
bar for the defense by saying that John O'Keefe entered
the home. There's no evidence he entered the home. There's
no evidence that anything happened, but he was hit by
the car by a drunk, enraged woman who left dozens
(16:07):
of angry voicemails on the victim's phone while he lay
dying in the snow.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
And how did the defense explain Read's own words to
paramedics afterwards, repeatedly saying I hit him.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Yeah, her own words, I mean, she admitted it. But
they were able to somehow frame it as maybe she
was unsure, maybe she thought she did, but the witnesses
said no, she said I hit him. I hit him.
I mean. Her own lawyer when this case started said
that she did hit him, that this was an accident,
(16:43):
but then they changed their view to try to get
away with it entirely, and she did.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
Would we call it a mixed verdict because they did
convict her of operating under the influence of alcohol. Of course,
the judge just gave her probation for that.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Well, yeah, but they didn't find or guilty of leaving
the seam of an accident, so they didn't even feel
that it was conclusive that she caused an accident. So
how did he die? It's a binary choice. Either she
hit him or he went into the house and was
murdered by law enforcement officers and soccer moms who got
together in a conspiracy of silence the murder their friend
(17:19):
and then dump his body on the front lawn. I
don't even understand how anyone can think that makes sense.
I mean, if you're a law enforcement officer and you're
in cahoots with soccer moms, wouldn't you think you would
just claim self defense if you wanted to kill another
law enforcement officer, or wouldn't you try to hide the body?
Why would you throw the body onto the front of
(17:41):
your house unless it didn't happen, which it didn't happen.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
What some people say is the most powerful defense testimony
was a snowplow driver who passed the home several times
in the hours after the alleged collision and said he
didn't see a two hundred and sixteen six foot one
man lying in the yard.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
Yeah, and no one did. The snow was coming down
and no one did. The only person who found this person,
who is then the next morning buried under the snow.
The only person who found John O'Keefe was the person
who hit him, because she knew where his body was.
Because she hit him, She knew what happened. No one
else could find him. They were driving around looking for him,
but she boughted them from a while away because she's
(18:27):
the one who hit him. So in this case, I
feel the same way as I did after the O. J.
Simpson verdict or the Casey Anthony verdict that he had
a guilty person go free.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
The jury deliberated about twenty two hours over four days.
Does that sound to you like there was a holdout.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Yes, it does sound like there was a Vibman discussion
and this was their compromise verdict. But the compromise isn't
really much of a compromise because the only buster on
the lowest count, which gave her probation, so he gets
the walk free. It's not over yet, though, because there'll
be civil lawsuits than there are, and there also will
(19:06):
be a trial of Turtle Boy, one of the bloggers
who was on her side.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
Usually on a retrial, it's the prosecution that has the advantage.
Why do you think it was different here?
Speaker 1 (19:20):
I thought the prosecution did a really good job. I
don't have any issues with him. I think the defense
was able to capitalize on discontent with police. You had jurors.
All it takes his few jurors who would have issues
with police. And here the accusation was that there was
a police cover up and that the police officers were
(19:41):
too close to the family inside the house, and the
police officers were not only incompetent in collecting the evidence.
That's the defense talking, not me, but also that the
lead investigator, who was not even called to the stand,
but that the lead investigator was much discussing individual with
(20:01):
his comments about Karen Reid, and he did make defensive
comments that the whole thing was tainted, and I think
that did have some residents with the jury. I think
they press want to know why the lead investigator did
not testify. Maybe they were hiding something, which they weren't.
They just thought that this guy was aside show a
distraction because of his comments.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yeah, and the defense seemed to emphasize that in the
closing arguments. Did the defense improve over the first trial
where it just presented a day and a half of
defense witnesses.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
I thought the defense did a really good job as
they did in the first trial. I mean, anytime you
are able to get a guilty client acquitted, it's a
real feat for the defense, and they deserve credit. They're
great lawyers, and it is my belief that she was guilty,
and I think the evidence conclusively establishes that. But when
(20:57):
you're a defense learning able to create a s I
show a distraction and it works with the jury, then
you're doing your job, I guess. And that's a shame
for the victims' families, but that's what it is.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
So explain how in a civil case the standard is lower,
so there might be a verdict in the family's favor
for damages in the civil case, even though she was
found not guilty in the criminal case.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
Right in a civil case. The standard is just proponents
of the evidence. It's much easier to prove and either
have proved negligence, which is a lower burden, So all around,
it's easier to prove that case of the evidence just
means is it more likely than not that Karen Reid
(21:45):
did something wrong here, committed a tort. You don't have
to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
So is the logical conclusion after this verdict that the
murderer is still out there?
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Yeah? I guess she and Simpson will go search for
the real killers. That's really what this is, right, This
was a binary choice. Either she hit him with the
car or he went inside the house and was murdered
by law enforcement officers and soccer moms, and then they
threw their friend's body onto their front lawns. Doesn't make
(22:19):
any sense.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
So, Dave, what do you make of her supporters? I mean,
there were crowds of people outside the courthouse waiting for
the verdict.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
I mean why she became a cult of personality. I
think that the narrative that was fed by bloggers was
that here's this sweet, innocent woman who's being framed for
a crime she didn't commit by by corrupt law enforcement officers.
And I just feel for those law enforcement officers and
the families for having their names dragged through the mud
(22:47):
when they didn't deserve that. They lost a loved one.
And John o' keith was a good man, and now,
in my mind, a guilty defendant walks free.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
And when Reid came out of the courthouse, she made
this statement, no one has fought harder for justice for
John O'Keefe than I have.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
That's her oj Simpson, I'm gonna find the real killers moment,
and just tells you all you need to know about her.
I mean to make a statement like that, what an
insult to the family, Now, what an insult. It rubs
salt in the wounds to say something like that. You know,
at least just go on with your life, and this
family is suffered enough. But she continues to rub salt
(23:28):
in that one.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
And following the verdict, several witnesses in the case said
in a statement that their hearts are with John and
the entire O'Keefe family and that the result is a
devastating miscarriage of justice. Thanks so much, Dave. That's former
Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ehrenberg, and that's it
for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you
(23:51):
can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg
Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,
And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
and you're listening to Bloomberg
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court divided down ideological
lines upheld Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for transgender miners,
a stunning setback to transgender rights. Chief Justice John Roberts
wrote the majority opinion for the six conservative justices, finding
(00:28):
that the law does not violate the Constitution's equal Protection clause,
which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the
same Roberts wrote that there are fierce scientific and policy
debates about the medical treatments, but quote, we leave questions
regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and
(00:50):
the democratic process, Echoing what the Chief and Justice Brett
kavanaughh pointed to during the oral arguments.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
You know, we might think that we're, you know, we
can do just as good a job with respect to
the evidence here as Tennessee or anybody else. But my
understanding is that the Constitution leaves that question to the
people's representatives rather than to nine people, none of whom
(01:19):
is a doctor.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
If the Constitution doesn't take sides, if they're strong, forceful
scientific policy arguments on both sides In a situation like this,
why isn't it best to leave it to the democratic process?
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Justice Sonya Soto Mayor wrote a blistering descent for the
courts three liberals, accusing the Conservatives of abandoning transgender children
and their families to political whims by retreating from meaningful
judicial review exactly where it matters most. During the oral
arguments so to, Mayor had said that the democratic process
(01:55):
does not protect transgender people against bad laws.
Speaker 5 (02:00):
There one percent of the population or less. Very hard
to see how the democratic process is going to protect you. Well,
you are Blacks were a much larger part of the population,
and it didn't protect them. It didn't protect women for
whole centuries.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Twenty three states have bands similar to Tennessees. Joining me
is Kate Redburn, a professor at Columbia Law School whose
expertise centers on the law of gender, sexuality, and religion.
How much of a setback is this decision for transgender rights.
Speaker 6 (02:35):
It's a significant setback for transgender rights, especially regarding the
availability and access to medically necessary treatments for gender dysphoria.
So the opinion refers to SB one's Tennessee law, which
essentially prohibits transgender youth from accessing gender froming care while
allowing all other youth to access the same treatments. He says,
(02:55):
that's not a sex classification. What it doesn't do, however,
is it doesn't hold that trans people are not a
suspect class in general. So it looks like at least
three justices were willing to go that far, and the
opinion didn't go that far. So it's very bad for
trans kids and potentially trans adults who are seeking medical care,
(03:16):
but it doesn't necessarily reach as far as all transiscrimination.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
What was the central legal question here regarding the equal
protection clause?
Speaker 6 (03:26):
So the question before the court was whether or not
this law violated equal protection, and the United States really
directed under the prior administration, really directed the court's attention
to the question of whether or not this law constituted
a sex classification. So does the law turn on sex?
And the reason for that is because when laws do
turn on sex, then the court it looks more closely
(03:47):
at the law. They call that heightened scrutiny for sex discrimination.
So the court I said that certain kinds of classifications,
race classifications paradigmatically more into strict scrutiny. So the Court's
going to look very hard. Sex classification the Court has
previously said sometimes are permissible, it's sometimes okay for governments
to distinguish between people on the basis of sex or
(04:07):
make sex classifications. But because it sounds a little bit
potentially suspicious, they're going to look more closely. And so
the question here was is it a sex classification? And
then the danger was what had happened in the Sixth
Circuit where in this case that court had said that
this law was not a sex classification and sort of
combined the analysis in a way that made people concern
that the court was going to find that even certain
(04:29):
kinds of sex classifications don't Warrant tightened scrutiny. So here
what happened was the Robert's majority opinion says that this
law is not a sex classification and therefore only warrant's
rational basis review.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Chief Justice Roberts, in his majority opinions talked about the
fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and
propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. Quote, we
leave questions regarding its policy to the people. They're elected
representatives and the democratic process. Is that just the court
(05:02):
looking for an out, I mean, they do make policy decisions.
Speaker 6 (05:06):
Yeah, So it sounds not dissimilar to what the Court
said about Dobbs when it overturned roversus Wade, which was
under the guise of changing doctrine, and that case quite significantly,
it described itself as kicking the question back to the states.
What is suspicious about that language in this context is
that the heightened scrutiny is actually designed to make it
(05:28):
possible for course to spend some time really looking at
the justifications that the governments are using for regulating and
classifying on sex, and then it also asks whether or
not the means justify the ed. So it might be
that there's a close relationship between the purpose of the
law and its classification, but it's nevertheless not an acceptable
purpose anyway. All of that's just to say that the
existing doctrine is meant to give the court the opportunity
(05:50):
to really weigh evidence. And what this decision does is
it seems to open up the possibility of authorizing governments
to regulate around medical procedures that touch on sex without
courts even looking to weigh the evidence. So it might
be the case that the Court could have applied heightened
scrutiny and still found that this particular law had, on
its view of sufficient evidentiary support, you know, in light
(06:13):
of the purported medical controversy, But it might not have,
and it really denied itself and potentially future courts from
even looking into that.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Justice Sonia Sotomayo wrote a blistering dissent, and she read
a summary of it from the bench, which the justices
sometimes do when they feel strongly about a descent. Then
she ended with in sadness I dissent, she talked about
the majority abandoning transgender children and their families to political whims.
Speaker 6 (06:43):
I think that, you know, her sadness stems from the
fact that this is going to force potentially trans kids
and their families in half of the states where similar
laws are on the books to relocate in order to
simply live their lives. The state of the medical controversy
about these issues, and the majority of and is vastly overstated.
Much of the history that it relies on, and some
(07:03):
of the other concurring opinians rely on, it's just the untrue.
And so you know what I think, Justice Sodomayor was
trying to say is that the consequences for trans youth
in particular are just really, really egregious.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
In her courtroom statement, she said that similar arguments were
made to defend the Virginia law that prohibited interracial marriage
that the Supreme Court struck down in nineteen sixty seven.
Speaker 6 (07:28):
Yeah, so we call those equal application laws, and they
basically say that because so in Loving versus Virginia, the
argument was well for the law prohibited interracial marriage, and
the justification for it that the state gave was this
is not racial discrimination because white people are not allowed
to marry people of color and people of color are
not allowed to marry white people. In other words, everyone
is equally prohibited. But the court said no, this is
(07:51):
still rooted in racial stereotypes that suggest that interracial marriage
is bad, and also animus towards racial minorities and trying
to reinforce the racial hierarchy.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
In the country.
Speaker 6 (08:01):
So the fact that you can find in that case
white people and black people on both sides of the
line that the regulation draws does not mean that it's
not subject to heighten scrutiny. And so there's a reading
of the majority's opinion here, which that it does exactly
the same thing. That's what she's saying that just because
there are transgender miners on both sides of the line.
In other words, transgender miners, according to the Court, can
(08:24):
still obtain sort of treatments if they're not for the
purposes of addressing gender dysphoria. That doesn't mean that this
is not motivated by animus towards transgender people and trying
to reinforce as sex and gender hierarchy. That suggests that
there's something normatively preferable about not being transgender.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
How have transgender rights in particular, How have transgender rights
in particular suffered or been affected by Donald Trump's presidency?
Speaker 6 (08:53):
Basically says it's a little bit after twenty sixteen, it's
been a major priority among Republicans legislators in particular to
attack trans rights. There's a lot of reasons why that
could be the case. You know, one reason that having
lost the gay marriage fight, there's an effort to find
a different issue that touches on questions of traditional and
(09:14):
non traditional gender and sexual role to search for another
issue became even stronger after Dobs, after the Supreme Court
overturned row versus ways in part because abortion is actually
quite popular nationally, and so in order to create some
kind of coalition that could win national elections, needed to
find an issue which would connect to traditional gender and
sexual values without touching on something popular like gay marriage
(09:37):
or abortion. So a way to understand the effect of
the Trump administration is really that it has accelerated a
pre existing tendency, and it's turned what were state level
efforts to make transgender life extremely difficult, if not impossible,
into national policy. So the redefinition of sex, attempts to
regulate medical treatments, access to bathrooms, access to sports teams,
(09:59):
all of those those efforts that we saw in the
executive orders, and of course, you know, very important restrictions
and attempted restrictions now in Congress on access to healthcare
through various kinds of federal aid are reflecting the nationalization
of what had been state level attacks.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Does the decision today help legal challenges by President Trump
and Republican administrations to roll back protections for transgender people.
Speaker 6 (10:26):
It might that it might not. As I said, there
is not a majority on the court apparently to hold
that anti transiscrimination, you know, is not visible to the Constitution.
In other words, there are other kinds of anti transcrimination
that the Court seems to have held open the possibility
for recognizing, and so it's going to really depend on
what is characterized as a medical condition. In other words,
(10:46):
this opinion says that SB one is discriminating on the
basis of gender dysphoria and not transgender identity, and so
other laws do not have that character of being ostensibly
justified as medical regulations. Instead, I think the normative stakes
of just trying to force people not to be transgender
or even clearer in those other situation, And the Court
(11:07):
hasn't totally eliminated the possibility of reading those arguments in
the future.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
So the justices still have to rule in another case
about whether a Maryland school district is violating the Constitution
by using LGBTQ friendly books in the classroom without giving
parents the right to opt out. After hearing the oral
arguments in that case, and I know everyone says, you
can't tell what the justices are going to do, but
(11:32):
it seemed pretty clear that there were enough justices to
support the position of the religious parents. There is that
case important.
Speaker 6 (11:43):
Yeah, that case is enormously important for another front in
the ongoing attacks on really any kind of non normative
families or gender or sexual identities. The issue is actually
not at all new to the country. It has never
reached the Supreme Court before, but in the nineteen eighties
there were a series of lower court cases on identical
issues where conservatives, in that case, people who self identified
(12:05):
as fundamentalist Christians, objected to content in public school curricula
that they characterized as secular humanism, and courts universally said
that mere exposure to ideas which parents dislike, or even
ideas which are sensitive to the religious beliefs of parents,
does not constitute coersion, and so it's not constitutionally suspect
(12:26):
that court does seem poised to equate contact with coersion
in ways that are potentially quite quite sweet thing. During
oral argument, the Actings Lister General who made the arguments,
suggested that the presence of a transgender student, for example,
could be considered a kind of content to which a
religious objection might be relevant. In other words, it was
(12:48):
possible not only that a parent could object to a
book being on the shelf or a book being read
in class that includes, for example, gay characters, but also
that the existence of a person whose self is disliked
or reported to be against the religious beliefs of the
parent could prompt an opt out. So it really has
the potential to destroy the ability of public school teachers
(13:11):
to make inclusive choices about what kind of content and
what kind of classrooms they have that reflect the diversity
of our society.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Thanks so much for joining me today. That's professor Kate
Redburn of Columbia Law School. Crowds outside the courthouse in Dedham, Massachusetts,
cheered this afternoon after a jury found Karen Reid not
guilty of second degree murder and manslaughter charges in the
(13:39):
death of her Boston police officer boyfriend in twenty twenty two.
The jury did find Read guilty of the lesser charge
of drunk and driving, handing down its decision after deliberating
for at least twenty two hours over four days. The
verdict comes nearly a year after another jury had deadlocked
over Reid's guilt. It's a huge victory for her lawyers,
(14:00):
who've asserted that she was framed by police after dropping
O'Keefe off at a party at the home of a
fellow officer. Prosecutors argued the forty five year old read
hit O'Keefe with her SUV before driving away, but the
defense maintained that O'Keefe was killed inside the home and
later dragged outside. Joining me is former Palm Beach County
(14:22):
State Attorney Dave Arenberg. Were you surprised at the not
guilty verdicts here?
Speaker 1 (14:29):
I was very surprised by it because I thought the
prosecution this time did an excellent job and focusing the
jury on the evidence, the data, the cell phone data,
the evidence of the battery of the cell phone and
when it started to weaken, and when the phone started
to freeze, the timing. I mean, this was not speculation.
(14:52):
Data doesn't have any ax to grind. Data is data,
and as a result, I thought the jury would listen
to that. Instead, they got distracted by all the things
and apparently found reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Obviously there were no eyewitness accounts, no direct evidence of
the hit, but there were a series of experts to
fill in the evidentiary picture. Do you think that testimony
was too sophisticated for the jury.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Whenever you get into a battle of experts, it's a
problem for prosecution because jurors these days, they want eyewitnesses,
they want the DNA, they want the conclusive smoking guns
because they're used to seeing that on TV shows which
are wrapped up in an hour at CSI and other shows.
And if you don't have that, jurors will quickly find
(15:43):
some reasonable doubt, especially if it becomes a battle of experts.
But I thought that it was a defense that came
up with a cockamamie alternative theory and thus raised the
bar for the defense by saying that John O'Keefe entered
the home. There's no evidence he entered the home. There's
no evidence that anything happened, but he was hit by
the car by a drunk, enraged woman who left dozens
(16:07):
of angry voicemails on the victim's phone while he lay
dying in the snow.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
And how did the defense explain Read's own words to
paramedics afterwards, repeatedly saying I hit him.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Yeah, her own words, I mean, she admitted it. But
they were able to somehow frame it as maybe she
was unsure, maybe she thought she did, but the witnesses
said no, she said I hit him. I hit him.
I mean. Her own lawyer when this case started said
that she did hit him, that this was an accident,
(16:43):
but then they changed their view to try to get
away with it entirely, and she did.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
Would we call it a mixed verdict because they did
convict her of operating under the influence of alcohol. Of course,
the judge just gave her probation for that.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Well, yeah, but they didn't find or guilty of leaving
the seam of an accident, so they didn't even feel
that it was conclusive that she caused an accident. So
how did he die? It's a binary choice. Either she
hit him or he went into the house and was
murdered by law enforcement officers and soccer moms who got
together in a conspiracy of silence the murder their friend
(17:19):
and then dump his body on the front lawn. I
don't even understand how anyone can think that makes sense.
I mean, if you're a law enforcement officer and you're
in cahoots with soccer moms, wouldn't you think you would
just claim self defense if you wanted to kill another
law enforcement officer, or wouldn't you try to hide the body?
Why would you throw the body onto the front of
(17:41):
your house unless it didn't happen, which it didn't happen.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
What some people say is the most powerful defense testimony
was a snowplow driver who passed the home several times
in the hours after the alleged collision and said he
didn't see a two hundred and sixteen six foot one
man lying in the yard.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
Yeah, and no one did. The snow was coming down
and no one did. The only person who found this person,
who is then the next morning buried under the snow.
The only person who found John O'Keefe was the person
who hit him, because she knew where his body was.
Because she hit him, She knew what happened. No one
else could find him. They were driving around looking for him,
but she boughted them from a while away because she's
(18:27):
the one who hit him. So in this case, I
feel the same way as I did after the O. J.
Simpson verdict or the Casey Anthony verdict that he had
a guilty person go free.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
The jury deliberated about twenty two hours over four days.
Does that sound to you like there was a holdout.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Yes, it does sound like there was a Vibman discussion
and this was their compromise verdict. But the compromise isn't
really much of a compromise because the only buster on
the lowest count, which gave her probation, so he gets
the walk free. It's not over yet, though, because there'll
be civil lawsuits than there are, and there also will
(19:06):
be a trial of Turtle Boy, one of the bloggers
who was on her side.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
Usually on a retrial, it's the prosecution that has the advantage.
Why do you think it was different here?
Speaker 1 (19:20):
I thought the prosecution did a really good job. I
don't have any issues with him. I think the defense
was able to capitalize on discontent with police. You had jurors.
All it takes his few jurors who would have issues
with police. And here the accusation was that there was
a police cover up and that the police officers were
(19:41):
too close to the family inside the house, and the
police officers were not only incompetent in collecting the evidence.
That's the defense talking, not me, but also that the
lead investigator, who was not even called to the stand,
but that the lead investigator was much discussing individual with
(20:01):
his comments about Karen Reid, and he did make defensive
comments that the whole thing was tainted, and I think
that did have some residents with the jury. I think
they press want to know why the lead investigator did
not testify. Maybe they were hiding something, which they weren't.
They just thought that this guy was aside show a
distraction because of his comments.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yeah, and the defense seemed to emphasize that in the
closing arguments. Did the defense improve over the first trial
where it just presented a day and a half of
defense witnesses.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
I thought the defense did a really good job as
they did in the first trial. I mean, anytime you
are able to get a guilty client acquitted, it's a
real feat for the defense, and they deserve credit. They're
great lawyers, and it is my belief that she was guilty,
and I think the evidence conclusively establishes that. But when
(20:57):
you're a defense learning able to create a s I
show a distraction and it works with the jury, then
you're doing your job, I guess. And that's a shame
for the victims' families, but that's what it is.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
So explain how in a civil case the standard is lower,
so there might be a verdict in the family's favor
for damages in the civil case, even though she was
found not guilty in the criminal case.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
Right in a civil case. The standard is just proponents
of the evidence. It's much easier to prove and either
have proved negligence, which is a lower burden, So all around,
it's easier to prove that case of the evidence just
means is it more likely than not that Karen Reid
(21:45):
did something wrong here, committed a tort. You don't have
to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
So is the logical conclusion after this verdict that the
murderer is still out there?
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Yeah? I guess she and Simpson will go search for
the real killers. That's really what this is, right, This
was a binary choice. Either she hit him with the
car or he went inside the house and was murdered
by law enforcement officers and soccer moms, and then they
threw their friend's body onto their front lawns. Doesn't make
(22:19):
any sense.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
So, Dave, what do you make of her supporters? I mean,
there were crowds of people outside the courthouse waiting for
the verdict.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
I mean why she became a cult of personality. I
think that the narrative that was fed by bloggers was
that here's this sweet, innocent woman who's being framed for
a crime she didn't commit by by corrupt law enforcement officers.
And I just feel for those law enforcement officers and
the families for having their names dragged through the mud
(22:47):
when they didn't deserve that. They lost a loved one.
And John o' keith was a good man, and now,
in my mind, a guilty defendant walks free.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
And when Reid came out of the courthouse, she made
this statement, no one has fought harder for justice for
John O'Keefe than I have.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
That's her oj Simpson, I'm gonna find the real killers moment,
and just tells you all you need to know about her.
I mean to make a statement like that, what an
insult to the family, Now, what an insult. It rubs
salt in the wounds to say something like that. You know,
at least just go on with your life, and this
family is suffered enough. But she continues to rub salt
(23:28):
in that one.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
And following the verdict, several witnesses in the case said
in a statement that their hearts are with John and
the entire O'Keefe family and that the result is a
devastating miscarriage of justice. Thanks so much, Dave. That's former
Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ehrenberg, and that's it
for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you
(23:51):
can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg
Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,
And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
and you're listening to Bloomberg
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.