This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
We're bringing back religion in our country, and we're bringing it back quickly and strongly. And President Trump has made efforts to appeal to his conservative Christian supporters. Trump created a White House Faith Office, a task force to eradicate anti Christian bias, and a Religious Liberty Commission. The Office of Personnel Management encouraged agencies to approve religious accommodations for remote work. The irs greenlit political endorsements from the pulpit.
Perhaps the most striking example is a July twenty eighth administration memo encouraging federal government employees to show off their faith and even proselytize coworkers. Employees are permitted to display religious icons, pray in groups, and discuss religious topics with co workers, including quote attempt to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views. My guest is Stephanie Barclay, a professor at Georgetown Law School and the faculty co
director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. Stephanie give us the broad overview of this memo.
So like the Clinton era guidance, the more recent memo permits allowing workers in federal deployment situations to engage in discussion of their faith. It allows them to display religious symbols, and it just allows faith.
To be a more normal part of the workplace.
It does prohibit those sorts of expressions from rising to the level of harassment or constituting an undue burden, But the memo does say that people just merely having discomfort alone isn't enough to count as an under burden in a government workplace. And so I think it's just trying to normalize that. You know, people in the workplace are allowed to talk about their favorite sports teams or type of food that they'd like to cook, they should be able to talk about their religion too.
Does it usify where the line is between a normal conversation about religion and one that's harassing to co workers. I mean, talking about sports and your favorite foods that's one thing. But having a conversation about why someone should rethink their religious beliefs that can get very personal.
Yeah, so religious speech could be considered harassment if it's sufficiently severe or pervasive, if it's creating a hostile work environment. According to this memo and some of the eeoc's Compliance
manual's guidance about religious discriminations. So there are certainly boundaries like if there's a break in employees engaging another polite discussion about their faith and a non adherent request that to stop, then some sorts of requests like we need to be honored in order to not rise the level of creating a harassing sort of environment. So it's really meant to, I think protect and facilitate polite discussion, not religious evangelizing that's going to be overbearing.
Are there any guard rails for supervisors having religious conversations with their employees?
So for supervisors, they're also allowed to do some of the things we talked about at the beginning. They're allowed to have religious displays, They're allowed to engage in group activities like prayer during breaks or non duty hours, have religious conversations, have public expression about religion. So supervisors have all of those same religious expression rights as o their sorts of employees. The key issue, of course, is there
are concerns about power imbalances with supervisors. So one key limitation is that menmos clear that unwillingness to engage in conversations can't be a basis for workplace discipline, so supervisors can't do anything with the position that they're in to try and put pressure on other employees and colleagues to participate in religious discussions or religious activities.
Was the Clinton memo the same in every respect? Or were there differences?
The Clinton Memo wasn't the same in every respect. It was similar in the way in which it was just trying to allow for fostering of polite conversations in the workplace. It dealt with religion and just to make it a more normal part of the workplace environment. I think the Trump memo is more specific to the other key differences
between the Clinton Memo and this memo. We've had two Supreme Court cases at least that the Trump Memo sites that provide more guidance and both statutory and constitutional protections
for religion in the workplace. One of those is the case of Graph we to Joy, and the other is Kennedy versus Bremerton, and Graph is a case that the Court is analyzing what it means under the Civil Rights Act to require religious accommodation in the workplace, and it takes a much more rigorous approach to what counts as an undue burden, and so the Trump Memo is following that sort of tax here and then in the Kennitty for SSUs Bremerton's Schoolisteric case, that's a free exercise case
and a free speech case dealing with a high school football coach who, when he was off beuty, wanted to be able to pray in public, and the Supreme Court said that does not violate the establishment cause for the
government to accommodate that sort of religious expression. Not only that, but religious exercise and free speech demand that government provide accommodations and contacts like that where they don't have good reason not to, where the coach for the employee would be allowed to do other personal things at that time, there's no reason to prohibit religious expression as long as that religious expression isn't pressuring or coercing others to participate.
Quit encouraging religious expression like this create a hostile work environment under Title seven.
I mean, I think that if it did create hostile work environment, if say you could demonstrate that, then that would be something that's outside of the type of protection
that the memo is trying to offer. That's consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in committee versus per Merchant School District because they're the Supreme Court said that the school district needed to accommodate the quote she wanted to pray, but was very clear to say it would be a different case if there was evident that the coach was
pressuring students to participate in the prayers. There was some evidence of the record where some students that they had felt that sort of pressure earlier when the coach was praying within in the locker room or things like that.
But once the.
Coach had said I'm willing to stop, I'm not going to do that anymore, I'm no longer asking for that sort of accommodation, then the evidence shifted to was there any evidence that anyone had ever felt coerced to pray with him when he prayed alone on the fifty yard line And there was no evidence to the record of that's But what that indicates is that if you had a case where employees, even on an anonymous basis, even like a John Doe employee, had an AFFI David saying,
I feel like if I don't participate in these religious sorts of gatherings or discussions that you know, I'm going to lose a promotion or not be able to participate fully in my job that that would fall outside of
the protection of this sort of guidance. And I think that that's important because having a workplace that allows and protects religious expression also needs to protect non religious people who don't want to be pressured into religious expression that they disagree with or just don't find persuasive.
The Council on American Islamic Relations said it's worried that the memo would be selectively enforced, potentially disadvantaging Muslim workers. Quote. It's concerning that the policy mentions numerous examples of permissible activity, discussion, and dress related to the Christian and Jewish faith, but never mentions a single example related to Muslims. Do you think that that's a valid concern.
I think that if this memo is selectively enforced, that would absolutely be a valid concern. I'm optimistic that it will be enforced in an even handed way, but it would have been a better memo if they had provided an even broader range of religious expression from all sorts
of different religious states. But certainly, just on the face of the text of the memo, there's nothing that would allow for that sort of selective enforcement, and I think it would be a violation of the memo and certainly problematic for constitutional reasons if there was selective enforcement such that only certain types of religious denominations for being given these protections and others.
When on this applies only to federal workers, of course, could policies like this sort of bleed into the private workplace.
I think that this MIMO does provide an example of the type of protections that could be offered in the private workplace. And I think that graph versus a Joy, that's the Supreme Court case where the Court was interpreting again Title seven and religious protections that applies in the private workplace, and that idea of what constitutes an undue
burden is also relevant to religious employers. And so I think this sort of guidance in part is analyzing and building on some of those legal principles and taking a much more rigorous view of what can count as an undue burden, and saying mere discomfort with hearing about religion from time to time, or having a colleague express that
isn't an a nast account as undo burdens. You could imagine that sort of interpretation being relevant for courts that are interpreting what an undo burden means in the context of private employers.
This follows a broader push by the Trump administration to allow federal workers to express religious beliefs. Can you tell us about that oh PM guidance about religious accommodations.
This is following a general trend of the Trump administration where the principle is that we should be as accommodating of religion as possible. And so basically, if there isn't a justification for not accommodating federal workers or not accommodating religious practice that has been demonstrated on some sort of
evidentiary basis, religious accommodation should be allowed. And that's a practice that the Supreme Court has been emphasizing in some of its recent decisions and that the Trump's administration seems to be consistently implementing as well.
What other things has the Trump administration done regarding faith initiatives?
One thing that the Trump administration has done is through its faith initiatives is that has recently put together a Commission on Religious Liberty under the White House, and they held a hearing earlier the Fear to receive input about challenges that still exist for religious believers and for religious institutions in the country. I was actually asked to testify
at that event. There were discussions of all sorts of different religious groups, including religious minorities like Native Americans, and challenges that they still face, protection that they did not receive under the Biden administration, for example, for Native Americans
take to site. So I was optimistic to see that there was not just a focus on Judeo Christian group, which was a concern you expressed earlier that some religious minorities have voiced, but that there was a broader discussion about the need for religious sobrity protections across the board, and a number of the commissioners seemed really interested in ways to improve conditions for all sorts of religious groups in America.
And I guess we'll have to see how this religion memo actually plays out in the federal workplace.
It emphasized the need to balance religious freedom with operational needs. So it's just saying agencies need to reasonably accommodate employees really held religious beliefs, practices, or observances. So I think that it will be important to keep an eye on whether or not these policies are being enforced in an even handed way, and that they're being enforced in ways that don't allow for harassment or pressure for must Americans.
But on the face of the guy that, I think there are some guardrails in place that allow for remedies if that does occur, and are hopefully just going to make it so that employees can discuss religion at work like they can discuss their favorite baseball team or you know, anything else that's important in their life, and that this is an important part of their identity that they should be able to bring to work, just like other employees can bring other aspects of their life to their work
as well, And I think that makes for a better and more inclusive, more pluralistic workplace in our country.
Thanks so much for joining me. That's Stephanie Barklay, a professor at Georgetown Law. This is Bloomberg. Associate positions at top law firms are prestigious and lucrative, with seniority based pay scales that range from two hundred and twenty five thousand dollars to four hundred and thirty five thousand dollars before bonuses. Imagine giving up that job because of your principles. That's what some young lawyers did in response to deals
their law firms made with President Donald Trump. Joining me is Justin Henry, a reporter at Bloomberg Law who's written about these associates, justin explain why these young lawyers quit their jobs at these prestigious law firms.
So I'll start off by saying just how unusual it is for lawyers in big law to loudly quit their jobs and make a big deal about their critiques against
their law firms. The reason why they are quitting their jobs and issuing these public statements is because these law firms, some of the wealthiest law firms in the world, agreed to provide hundreds of million dollars in quote unquote pro bono legal services to the Trump administration in exchange for avoiding some kind of unitive executive action by the White House. These include investigations by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission into
these firms diversity hiring practices. These include executive orders from the White House targeting firms and their lawyers' execurity clearances and ability to interact with government officials. And what these associates have said as well as a few partners also quitting over these deals. Is that this amounts to an unconstitutional shakedown, and these super well resourced law firms should have the backbone to challenge these punitive actions in court.
And at this moment in time, we're looking at those deals in the context of the fact that four firms that were targeted by the Trump administration were vindicated and successful in their legal challenges against the Trump White House. And so I think there are a lot of lawyers, there are a lot of associates who are looking at their own firms saying, you know, we should have challenged these actions or threatened actions in court instead of preemptively folding.
So some associates were vocal about leaving their firms, but others did it quietly.
The reporting that I've done has been focusing on the associates who vocally quit. Now the sense I get just from talking to sources in the industries that there are many more people who are dissatisfied about these deals, and that is serving as at least one of the reasons why they're changing firms or why they're leaving their firms. But I wanted to take a look at the associates who took it upon themselves to vocally disapprove of their firms in a public setting and then leave and then
ask the question, what are their prospects? What are their career prospects now that they've spoken up, because it is so rare. So that's the group of associates that I've been looking at and just trying to follow up with and see how they're viewing their career prospects right now and talking to recruiters and asking them the same question.
Well, let's talk about some of the associates that you spoke to. Start with Sunic Maradian.
He was a third year associate at Simpton Thatcher who was very outraged about the deal. Simpton Thatcher is one of the nine firms that cut a deal with the Trump administration. He sends out a firm wide email on April eleventh, the same day that Simpson's deal with Trump was announced, and on that same day he's exiting the firm, and so he's kind of plotting his next moves. And what he's telling me is that he's looking for a
job as a public defender. And you know, the rationale for that is that it basically aligns more with his values as a lawyer. When you're working at a high powered law firm on Wall Street, you are serving the very wealthy. Now, everybody deserves a lawyer, But according to Sinoek, he's looking for a job where he can represent people who don't have the same access to legal representation. And
that's what he would be doing as a public defender. Now, there aren't many twenty seven year olds who are you making the amount of money that you make as a third year associate in big law. So he's you know, accepting the fact that he's going to be making a lot less as a lawyer in whatever he decides to pursue. But you know, when I asked him about that, he said,
it's worth it. You know, there's not an amount of money that can make me feel comfortable working at a firm that would engage in a deal as highly suspect as what Since the Thatcher agreed to put.
Some numbers on this, tell us about you know what the salaries are like for you know, even associates just coming out of law school.
So working at top law firms like some Ston Thatcher, like Kirkland and Ellis, like Leithan Milwaukins. These are the highest paying jobs that you can get as a junior lawyer coming out of law school. These are firms that pay their associates according to what's called the Cravat scale, the associate seniority based pay scale that is set by
top firms. So imagine this your first year associate in your mid twenties coming out of law school, and your annual salary is two hundred and twenty five thousand, and that's before bonuses. You add bonuses onto that, and you're almost making a quarter of a million dollars as a lawyer in your mid twenties. I mean, there's just no job in the profession that's going to get you close
to that, certainly not being a public defender. And by the time you're in your third year as an associate at one of these firms, you're getting I believe it's three hundred and fifteen thousand, and that's space salary including bonuses. The reason why we know how much these lawyers are making is because they all pay according to the Kravat scale, and that is a seniority based pay scale set by a very powerful Wall Street law firm called Cravats. Swain
and Moore. And it's the top dollar that you can make as a junior lawyer in the profession that all the competitors need to match or else risk losing out on junior legal talent.
Tell us about Ryan Powers, who didn't leave voluntarily. He was fired.
So Ryan Powers didn't quit like the other people we looked at, but he was fired by another powerhouse law firm called Davis, Polk and Wardwell. He was fired because of the op ed pieces that he would get published in newspapers around the country where he would opine and analyze kind of the intersection of political issues and legal issues, and so he would weigh in about things like government surveillance,
the Trump administration and Trump administration allies. And according to the people we've talked to, including Ryan, our understanding is that why he was fired was because he didn't get these op eds cleared or approved by his firm, and so you know, as a result, he breached some internal
policy and had to be let go. But the reason why we took a look at him is because he still falls in this category as a vocal june your lawyer who's speaking out on hot button political issues and so he's in that category, and so we wondered, how is he viewing his career right now? Can you speak up on these issues and still have a career in big law?
And can you can you go back to practicing in big law after speaking out like this? Some of the people you spoke to, like recruiters, thought you couldn't. Yeah.
So my analysis of the situation, based on people we've talked to, is that you can still have a career in big law, but you are making it difficult for yourself by being vocal and speaking out against management decisions. You know, there are still some law firms that didn't
speak up out against the Trump administration. There are a handful of law firms that signed on to a friend of the Court brief in a lawsuit brought by Perkins Cooey, one of these Trump targeted firms, where there does seem to be a value alignment between the associates who spoke up and the law firms who spoke up in support of Perkins Kooi. However, this is a limited number of
law firms that was willing to speak up. There are only eight law firms in the top one hundred biggest law firms in the US who were willing to align themselves with Perkins KOOI, and not all of them are going to hire all the people who are quitting their firms in protest.
Do you have an idea of how many people quit in protest?
We counted twelve associates who posted on LinkedIn or spoke with the media saying I'm quitting and then left. That does not include a group of former Wilkie, far and Gallagher associates who spoke up after they had already secured a job at Cooley following a couple partners there. So in some ways they overlap with our sample size. In other ways they don't because they had already secured another job for kind of speaking out.
So that's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of associates there are at these law firms.
Yeah, it's a drop in the bucket. I mean the law firms that they are leaving and speaking out against have the strongest buying power in the legal industry. Like I said before, they pay top dollar, So I don't think they're worried about their ability to recruit and routine associates and kind of replace the people who have left some.
Have not found other jobs yet, and others are going in wildly different directions.
Correct. Yeah, I think the person you're referring to Taylor Weddick. He's running to represent Iowa's first congressional district in the House of Representatives. And I also wrote about Rachel Cohen, who's maybe the most high profile person in this cohort because she was one of the first people to loudly quit and speak out against her firm, Scaton, for making
its deal with the Trump administration. She's working at a boutique litigation firm founded by Abby Lowell, who said in his mission statement is he's formed this firm, he's a former Winston and Strawn partner, and his goal is to represent political targets of Donald Trump. What I think unite a lot of the people who have found post big law jobs is that they're in places that kind of align with their stated values or allow them to speak
more vocally about their political views. Taylor Weddick, when you're running for Congress as a Democrat, you are going to be speaking up about political views that are against the Trump administration. When you're Rachel Cohen doing media relations for a law firm that was founded to challenge the Trump administration in court. You're going to be speaking in that way.
Did anyone tell you I regret leaving the law firm. I mean a lot of young lawyers have student loans to pay off.
Yes, there are people who are in that position. Some of the people that I talked to found themselves to be in a lucky position, like ce you. Nick Moradian told me that he just finished paying off his student loans before he left. He was in kind of a
lucky position that way. But other people do find themselves with debt, and you know, it kind of goes back to that sentiment I shared before, which is, you know, money is one thing, but there's this sort of feeling of guilt by proxy for practicing at a firm that cut this deal with the Trump administration. So yeah, they're in a position where they're having to find other ways of paying down their debt.
Well, lawyers get a lot of criticism, so it's nice to see some standing up for their principles. Thanks for joining me, Justin. That's Bloomberg Law reporter Justin Henry, the prosecutor whom judges appointed to replace former Trump lawyer Alina Haba as New Jersey's US Attorney, Desiree Grace, has while the complaint challenging the Trump administration's decision to fire her.
The Justice Department fired Grace hours after the state's federal judges voted for her to become the U S Attorney in New Jersey, appointing her to the role instead of extending Hobba's term. The Justice Department then used complex legal maneuvers to keep Haba on as acting US Attorney. Grace says her termination was completely unjustified and that she was fired in direct retaliation for the judges appointing her as
the state's top federal prosecutor. She's filed an appeal with the US Merit System's Protection Board, the body that mediates challenges from federal workers over adverse employment decisions. The case carries broader implications because several defendants being prosecuted on criminal charges have argued that Haba was not lawfully appointed and that the indictments against them are invalid and should be dropped.
Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis. David, to put this in perspective, tell us about Alena Habba's history or path at the US Attorney's Office in New Jersey.
Alena Haba was appointed as the interim US Attorney in New Jersey by President Trump in March for one hundred and twenty day term. She replaced another interim US attorney who was only in office for about two weeks. She had previously been Donald Trump's private attorney, and she had
no proscutorial experience. She came in and soon announced that she was going to help turn New Jersey red, which raised some alarm bells for people because the job is supposed to be nonpartisan and the US Attorney is not
to favor Democrats or Republicans. She furthered. Deepened her controversy by saying that she was going to investigate Governor Murphy, who's a Democrat, over comments he made about possibly having a migrant lived with him, and then she charged the Newark Mayor, Rods Baraka with trespassing over his conduct during a protest at a private immigration facility in Newark, and he later indicted a congresswoman from Newark over her conduct at the same protest, and a judge subsequently scolded the
US Attorney's office quite severely for the way they investigated and brought charges against Rods Baraka, which Elena Habba had dropped, so the.
New Jersey judges refused to appoint Happa when her term was expiring. Tell us what happened.
Habba's term was going to expire after one hundred and twenty days. Under the law, if a four year permanent US Attorney has not been confirmed by the US Senate, then the federal judges in that district have the authority to appoint an acting US Attorney. They decided that they wanted Desiree Grace, who was Alena Hobba's number two, the first assistant US Attorney, to serve as the acting US Attorney in place of Elena Habba. And they met and they decided that she was going to be elevated to
US Attorney. That did not sit well with Attorney General Pam Bondi, and hours later she fired Grace and she assailed what she described as the politically minded judges who appointed her. The administration then used a series of procedural maneuvers to elevate Habba to the job for the next
two hundred and ten days. And what they did was they pulled Habba's nomination from the US Senate and they gave her a title of Special Assistant to the Attorney General, and then they named her first Assistant US Attorney, and from there they named her Acting US Attorney. All of this is possible under the Federal Vacancies Act, in which if someone is one of three positions, including the Deputy
US Attorney, they can be named acting US Attorney. So it was through a fairly complex set of maneuvers that the Trump administration elevated Alena Haba to Act US Attorney, which is a position she can hold for the next two hundred and ten days.
And tell us about Grace's appeal to the US Merit Systems Protection Board.
She said that her July twenty second termination was completely unjustified and that it was in direct retaliation for the judges appointing her as the state's top federal prosecutor. The question is whether this board is going to have the authority to do anything about it, because they do not have a full board that can act in this matter or in other matters of fired federal workers.
Grace was an assistant US Attorney, not a political appointee, So what are the implications of that.
Well, that gives her jurisdiction to apply to the US Merit Systems Protection Board because she's effectively a civil servant. Even though the administration would argue that they have the authority to hire and fire any US Assistant attorney in the United States for any reason, she would say that
she's also covered by the EMERITYSTEM Protection Board. So it's unclear how this might proceed and what sort of protection she might have for her job or for her ability to rise to become the US Attorney in New Jersey, which is what the judges in New Jersey appointed her to do.
The controversy over Haba has led the New Jersey federal criminal proceedings to basically come to a halt except for bail hearings.
There are many criminal cases that have paused because the judges want to see how the dispute will play out, and in particular, there is a case involving a father and son facing drug and weapons related charges in Camden, New Jersey. They have filed emotion challenging paba appointment and saying that Grace should be the lawfully appointed US Attorney
in New Jersey and not Alena Haba. This matter was referred by the Chief Judge in the third Circuit Court of Appeals to Matthew Brand, who's the chief judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, who is considering arguments over whether Alena Haba is the properly appointed US attorney or whether it should be desiree grace, What has.
Happened so far in that case with the Pennsylvania judge. What has he done so far?
So far? The judge has ruled that the appointment of Haba has not adversely affected the ability of this father and son to receive justice in their case, that they cannot show that there's a harm to them individually by Elena Habba directing the case. But he's allowed them to make arguments questioning the legal and constitutional underpinnings of Habba's appointment. So he is going to hear arguments and take motions on the question of whether Alena Habba is legally appointed
to run the attorney's office in New Jersey. There's going to be oral arguments on August fifteenth in the case in Williamsports, Pennsylvania.
To give this a little more context, both Democratic senators in New Jersey have called Haba unfit to serve, so with the blue Slip tradition requiring approval from home state senators. Habba couldn't even get at a Senate hearing, let alone.
A confirmation that's correct.
So as it stands now, she's going to serve for the next two hundred and ten days without Senate confirmation. The process is designed so that US attorneys have advice and consent of the US Senate. In this case, she will be an appointment of Attorney General cam Bondi, to whom she directly reports, but the Senate won't have had input into her appointment.
And the Trump administration is using these acting titles to keep people they want in charge of other US attorneys' offices, like the one in Los Angeles and Albity. So there are a lot of unconfirmed US attorneys. Thanks so much, David. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis. Another legal news today, Texas Senator John Cornyn says he's gotten an assurance from FBI Director Cash Pattel that federal agents will help to locate the Democratic state lawmakers from Texas who've left the state.
The lawmakers are protesting against a special session in which Republicans want to drastically redraw that state's congressional map to give Republicans up to five more seats for the midterm elections. House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries says it's an alarming use of law enforcement.
The FBI should be spending its time chasing down violent criminals, terrorists, drug traffickers, and child predators, not targeting political adversaries in a democracy here in America.
Preventing a quorum back in the Texas House is costing each state representative five hundred dollars a day in fines, not to mention the out of state lodging and food food. But they're getting help. Former Congressman Beto O'Rourke led a fundraiser at a campaign style event in Omaha, Nebraska. All right, thanks everybody, three thousand dollars raise for the Texas Democrats. Powered by People, The political group led by O'Rourke has been holding events in red states to fire up Democrats
and encourage donations. Back home in Texas, Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton is promising to investigate quote any Democrat coward breaking the law by taking a Beto bribe. 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 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 Grassou and you're listening to Bloomberg