In short
The episode covers three legal/political stories. First, it explains a July 28 OPM memo allowing federal workers to display religious icons, pray in groups, and discuss faith, including trying to persuade coworkers, as long as it doesn’t create harassment or an undue burden. Guest Stephanie Barclay (Georgetown Law professor; faculty co-director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution) argues the memo normalizes religion at work, draws lines using Title VII/EEOC hostile-workplace standards, and relies on Supreme Court cases like Groff v. DeJoy and Kennedy v. Bremerton. She notes concerns about coercion/power imbalances and warns selective enforcement could harm minorities (e.g., CAIR’s Muslim-worker concerns). Second, Bloomberg Law reporter Justin Henry discusses young lawyers who quit big law over firms’ Trump administration “pro bono” deals, calling them unconstitutional shakedowns; examples include Sunik Moradian (public defender path) and Ryan Powers (fired after op-eds). Third, Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis covers Desiree Grace’s complaint after being fired as New Jersey U.S. attorney-designate, and how Habba’s appointment challenges could affect criminal cases.
Written by AI. May contain mistakes. Listen to the episode to check what was said.
Chapters
Tap a time to open that second in VOFederal Memo on Religious Expression
0:30 to 1:00
Discussion about the government's memo allowing federal workers to express their faith.
“When you're running a business, the best days are the ones where priorities stay on track.”
Federal Memo on Religious Expression
1:05 to 1:38
Discussion about the government's memo allowing federal workers to express their faith.
“Policies provided by Hartford Fire Insurance Company and its property and casualty affiliates, Hartford, Connecticut.”
Federal Memo on Religious Expression
1:49 to 2:53
Discussion about the government's memo allowing federal workers to express their faith.
“and we're bringing it back quickly and strongly.”
Guidelines and Boundaries
2:53 to 5:32
Stephanie Barclay discusses the boundaries of religious expression in the workplace.
“Stephanie, give us the broad overview of this memo.”
Comparing Past Memos
5:32 to 9:48
Exploration of differences between the Trump and Clinton memos on religious expression.
“Was the Clinton memo the same in every respect or were there differences?”
Trump Administration's Faith Initiatives
9:48 to 10:48
Overview of faith initiatives by the Trump administration and how they impact workers.
“I think that this memo does provide an example of the type of protections that could be offered in the private workplace.”
Balance of Religious Freedom and Workplace Needs
10:48 to 13:25
Discussion on balancing religious freedom with operational needs in the workplace.
“This is following a general trend of the Trump administration, where the principle is that we should be as accommodating of religion as possible.”
Balance of Religious Freedom and Workplace Needs
14:28 to 15:24
Discussion on balancing religious freedom with operational needs in the workplace.
“Every sale comes down to a single second.”
Lawyers Quitting for Principles
15:32 to 18:34
Discussing young lawyers leaving prestigious firms over ethical concerns.
“with seniority-based pay scales that range from$225 ,000 to$435 ,000 before bonuses.”
Financial Impacts of Leaving Big Law
18:34 to 21:17
Exploring financial implications for lawyers quitting high-paying jobs.
“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.”
Show all 17 chapters
Examining Case Studies of Departing Lawyers
21:17 to 24:23
Detailed views of lawyers who publicly quit and their journeys afterward.
“The reason why we know how much these lawyers are making is because they all pay according to the Cravat scale.”
Regrets and Realities of Leaving Big Law
24:23 to 27:16
Understanding the regrets and financial struggles of lawyers after quitting.
“That does not include a group of former Wilkie, Farr, and Gallagher associates who spoke up after they had already secured a job at Cooley following a couple partners there.”
Closing Thoughts
27:16 to 27:30
Wrap-up with a reflection on the importance of ethical stances in law.
“So it's nice to see some standing up for their principles.”
Closing Thoughts
28:27 to 29:24
Wrap-up with a reflection on the importance of ethical stances in law.
“Start your free trial at adio.com slash iHeart.”
Alina Habba's Controversial Tenure
29:33 to 39:28
An overview of Alina Habba's appointment and subsequent issues in New Jersey.
“attorney, Desiree Grace, has filed a complaint challenging the Trump administration's decision to fire her.”
Political Maneuvering in Texas
39:28 to 40:55
Discussion on Texas lawmakers leaving state and implications for democracy.
“That's Bloomberg Legal Reporter David Voriakis.”
Political Maneuvering in Texas
41:06 to 41:20
Discussion on Texas lawmakers leaving state and implications for democracy.
“any Democrat coward breaking the law by taking a Beto bribe.”
Transcript
Automatic transcript. May contain errors.0:00So there's a lot of noise about AI, but time's too tight for more promises. So let's talk about results. At IBM, we work with our employees to integrate technology right into the systems they need. Now, a global workforce of 300 ,000 can use AI to fill their HR questions, resolving 94 % of common questions. Not noise. Proof of how we can help companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business. IBM. When you're running a business, the best days are the ones where priorities stay on track. For midsize and large companies, risk can affect multiple parts of the organization at once, from property and liability to cyber and regulatory challenges.
0:43At that level, managing risk becomes an ongoing discipline. At the Hartford, the focus is on helping businesses manage risk before it turns into something more disruptive. And when losses do happen, that work is paired with insurance coverage shaped by years of underwriting, risk engineering, and claims experience. Learn more at thehartford.com slash risk mitigation. Policies provided by Hartford Fire Insurance Company and its property and casualty affiliates, Hartford, Connecticut. Wise is the smart way to manage the currencies you need around the globe. When you send money abroad using your bank, you could get hit with hidden fees and exchange rate markups.
1:18There's a better way. Try Wise. Wise uses the exchange rate you'd usually find on Google with no unwelcome surprises. Plus, most transfers happen in under 20 seconds, which means your money arrives in less time than you've been listening to me. It's simple and free to sign up when you download the WISE app. Be smart. Get wise. T's and C's apply.
1:42This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. We're bringing back religion in our country,
1:50David Voreacos: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 28th administration memo encouraging federal government employees to show off their faith and even proselytize co-workers. Employees are permitted to display religious icons, pray in groups, and discuss religious topics with co-workers, including, quote, attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views.
2:44David Voreacos: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 employment 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 undue burden in a government workplace.
3:27And 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.
3:39David Voreacos:Does it specify where the line is between a normal conversation about religion and one that's harassing to coworkers? 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 guidance about religious discrimination. So there are certainly boundaries. Like if there's a break and employees engaging in other polite discussion about their faith and a non-adherent request that to stop, then those sorts of requests likely need to be honored in order to not rise to the level of creating a harassing sort of environment.
4:32So it's really meant to, I think, protect and facilitate polite discussion, not religious evangelizing that's going to be overbearing.
4:41David Voreacos:Are there any guardrails 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 other sorts of employees. The key issue, of course, is there are concerns about power imbalances with supervisors. So one key limitation is that memo is clear that unwillingness to engage in conversation can't be a basis for workplace discipline.
5:24The 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.
5:35David Voreacos: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. The other key difference is that between the Clinton memo and this memo, we've had two Supreme Court cases, at least, that the Trump memo cites that provide more guidance in both statutory and constitutional protections for religion in the workplace.
6:09One of those is the case of Graff v. DeJoy, and the other is Kennedy v. Bermerton. And Groth 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 Kennedy versus Bremerton school district case, that's a free exercise case and a free speech case dealing with a high school football coach who, when he was off duty, wanted to be able to pray in public. And the Supreme Court said that does not violate the Establishment Clause for the government to accommodate that sort of religious expression.
6:48Not only that, but religious exercise and free speech demand that government provide accommodations in contexts like that where they don't have good reason not to, where the coach or 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.
7:07David Voreacos:Could encouraging religious expression like this create a hostile work environment under Title VII? I think that if it did create a hostile work environment, if they 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 Kennedy v. Bermerton School District, because there the Supreme Court said that the school district needed to accommodate the quote she wanted to say, but it was very clear to say it would be a different case if there was evidence that the coach was pressuring students to participate in the prayers.
7:42There was some evidence in the record where some students said they had felt that sort of pressure earlier when the coach was praying with them 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 50-yard line? And there was no evidence in the record of that. 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 affidavit 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.
8:28And 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.
8:41David Voreacos:The Council on American Islamic Relations said it's worried that the memo would be selectively enforced, potentially disadvantaging Muslim workers.
9:04David Voreacos: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 faiths. 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 were being given these protections and others were not.
9:42David Voreacos:This applies only to federal workers, of course. Could policies like this sort of bleed into the private workplace? I think that this memo does provide an example of the type of protections that could be offered in the private workplace. And I think that Graff versus DeJoy, that's the Supreme Court case where the court was interpreting, again, Title VII and religious protections. And 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.
10:28Is it enough to count as undue burden? You could imagine that sort of interpretation being relevant for courts that are interpreting what an undue burden means in the context of private employers.
10:39David Voreacos:So this follows a broader push by the Trump administration to allow federal workers to express religious beliefs. Can you tell us about that OPM 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 administration seems to be consistently implementing as well.
11:22David Voreacos: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 it has recently put together a commission on religious liberty under the White House. And they held a hearing earlier this year seeking 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 American safety sites.
12:04So I was optimistic to see that there was not just a focus on Judeo-Christian groups, 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 liberty 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.
12:26David Voreacos: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 sincerely 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 most Americans. But on the face of the guidance, 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.
13:11And 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, more inclusive, more pluralistic workplace in our country.
13:23David Voreacos:Thanks so much for joining me. That's Stephanie Barclay, a professor at Georgetown Law. This is Bloomberg. So there's a lot of noise about AI, but time's too tight for more promises. So let's talk about results. At IBM, we work with our employees to integrate technology right into the systems they need. Now, a global workforce of 300 ,000 can use AI to fill their HR questions, resolving 94 % of common questions. Not noise. Proof of how we can help companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off. deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business. IBM. Everyone's talking about how AI is transforming work, especially in sales.
14:03While the landscape shifts, one thing remains the same, the thrill of closing a deal. Whether it's a gong or a confetti machine, every team has its celebration rituals. Adio is designed for that moment. It's the agentic CRM that turns customer signals into actionable insights, helping you close deals faster with revenue agents and automations working around the clock. You'll have everything you need to scale your go-to market efforts. Elevate your wins with Adio. Start your free trial at adio.com slash iHeart.
14:36David Voreacos:Every sale comes down to a single second. The one between buy now and maybe later. PayPal is built to help your business win that moment. With a checkout experience that feels certain, reliable, and familiar. with a global two-sided network and hundreds of millions of buyers who already know us. All to keep you in control however buying happens next. New markets, new AI-powered selling services. A whole new agentic era where you decide how your business will show up and stand up. PayPal is built to help your business come out ahead. We're built for payments, built for growth, built for agentic, PayPal Open.
15:22David Voreacos:Built for all business. Visit PayPalOpen.com to get started. That's PayPalOpen.com. Associate positions at top law firms are prestigious and lucrative, with seniority-based pay scales that range from$225 ,000 to$435 ,000 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 firm.
16:21The 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 punitive 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' security clearances and ability to interact with government officials.
17:03And 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 and saying, you know, we should have challenged these actions or threatened actions in court instead of preemptively folding.
17:48David Voreacos: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 industry is 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 firm. 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?
18:28What 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.
18:42David Voreacos:Well, let's talk about some of the associates that you spoke to. Start with Sunik Miradian. He was a third-year associate at Simpson-Thatcher who was very outraged about the deal. Simpson-Thatcher is one of the nine firms that cut a deal with the Trump administration. He sends out a firm-wide email on April 11th, 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.
19:23When you're working at a higher power law firm on Wall Street, you are serving the very wealthy. Now, everybody deserves a lawyer. But according to Sinoak, 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 27-year-olds who are 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.
20:02You 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 that year agreed to.
20:11David Voreacos: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 Simpson Thatcher, like Kirkland & Ellis, like Latham & Watkins, 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 Cravath Scale, the associate seniority-based pay scale that is set by top firms. So imagine this, you're a first-year associate in your mid-20s coming out of law school, and your annual salary is$225 ,000, and that's before bonuses.
20:55You add bonuses onto that, and you're almost making a quarter of a million dollars as a lawyer in your mid-20s. 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$315 ,000, and that's base salary, including bonuses. The reason why we know how much these lawyers are making is because they all pay according to the Cravat scale. And that is a seniority-based pay scale set by a very powerful Wall Street law firm called Cravat, Swain & Moore.
21:29And 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.
Read the full transcript
21:39David Voreacos: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.
22:30And 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 junior 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?
22:55David Voreacos: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 did 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 Coie, 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 Coie.
23:51However, this is a limited number of law firms that was willing to speak up. There are only eight law firms in the top 100 biggest law firms in the U.S. who were willing to align themselves with Perkins Coie, and not all of them are going to hire all the people who are quitting their firms in protest.
24:08David Voreacos:Do you have an idea of how many people quit in protest? We counted 12 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, Farr, 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.
24:54I 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 retain associates and kind of replace the people who have left.
25:12David Voreacos: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, Skadden, 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.
25:55He's a former Winston and Strawn partner, and his goal is to represent political targets of Donald Trump. What I think unites 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.
26:33David Voreacos: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 Sionik 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.
27:14So yeah, they're in a position where they're having to find other ways of paying down their debt.
27:19David Voreacos: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 thing about AI for business, it may not automatically fit the way your business works. At IBM, we've seen this firsthand. But by embedding AI across HR, IT, and procurement processes, we've reduced costs by millions, slash repetitive tasks, and freed thousands of hours for strategic work. Now we're helping companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business.
27:59IBM.
28:27Your wins with Adio. Start your free trial at adio.com slash iHeart.
28:37David Voreacos:Every sale comes down to a single second. The one between buy now and maybe later. PayPal is built to help your business win that moment. With a checkout experience that feels certain, reliable, and familiar. With a global two-sided network and hundreds of millions of buyers who already know us, All to keep you in control of however buying happens next. New markets. New AI-powered selling services. A whole new agentic era where you decide how your business will show up and stand up. PayPal is built to help your business come out ahead. We're built for payments. Built for growth. Built for agentic.
29:21David Voreacos:PayPal Open. Built for all business. Visit PaypalOpen.com to get started. That's PaypalOpen.com. The prosecutor whom judges appointed to replace former Trump lawyer Alina Habba as New Jersey's U.S. attorney, Desiree Grace, has filed a 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 Habba's term. The Justice Department then used complex legal maneuvers to keep Habba on as acting U.S. 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.
30:18David Voreacos:She's filed an appeal with the U.S. Merit Systems 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 Alina Habba's history or path at the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey. Alina Habba was appointed as the interim U.S.
31:01Attorney in New Jersey by President Trump in March for a 120-day term. She replaced another interim U.S. Attorney who was only in office for about two weeks. She had previously been Donald Trump's private attorney, and she had no prosecutorial 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 U.S. attorney is not to favor Democrats or Republicans. She further 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 live with him.
31:57And then she charged the Newark mayor, Roz 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 U.S. Attorney's Office quite severely for the way they investigated and brought charges against Rod Baraka, which Alina Hoppe had dropped.
32:37David Voreacos:So the New Jersey judges refused to appoint Haba when her term was expiring. Tell us what happened. Haba's term was going to expire after 120 days. Under the law, if a four-year permanent U.S. attorney has not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate, then the federal judges in that district have the authority to appoint an acting U.S. attorney. They decided that they wanted Desiree Grace, who was Alina Haba's number two, the first assistant U.S. attorney to serve as the acting U.S. attorney in place of Alina Haba. And they met and they decided that she was going to be elevated to U.S. attorney. That did not sit well with Attorney General Pam Bondi.
33:35And 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 Hava to the job for the next 210 days. And what they did was they pulled Haba's nomination from the U.S. Senate and they gave her a title of special assistant to the attorney general. And then they named her first assistant U.S. attorney. And from there, they named her acting U.S. attorney. All of this is possible under the Federal Vacancies Act, in which if someone is one of three positions, including the deputy U.S.
34:30attorney, they can be named acting U.S. attorney. So it was through a fairly complex set of maneuvers that the Trump administration elevated Alina Hava to acting U.S. attorney, which is a position she can hold for the next 210 days.
34:49David Voreacos:And tell us about Grace's appeal to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. She said that her July 22nd 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 U.S. attorney, not a political appointee. So what are the implications of that? Well, that gives her jurisdiction to apply to the U.S.
35:40Merit 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 U.S. assistant attorney in the United States for any reason. She would say that she's also covered by the Merit Systems 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 U.S. attorney in New Jersey, which is what the judges in New Jersey appointed her to do.
36:20David Voreacos: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 a motion challenging Haba's appointment and saying that Grace should be the lawfully appointed U.S. attorney in New Jersey and not Alina 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 Alina Hava is the properly appointed U.S.
37:27attorney or whether it should be Desiree Gray.
37:31David Voreacos: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 is a harm to them individually by Alina Haba directing the case. But he's allowed them to make arguments questioning the legal and constitutional underpinnings of Haba's appointment. So he is going to hear arguments and take motions on the question of whether Alina Haba is legally appointed to run the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey.
38:22There's going to be oral arguments on August 15th in the case in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
38:27David Voreacos:To give this a little more context, both Democratic senators in New Jersey have called Habba unfit to serve. So with the blue slip tradition requiring approval from home state senators, Habba couldn't even get a Senate hearing, let alone a confirmation. That's correct. So as it stands now, she's going to serve for the next 210 days without Senate confirmation. The process is designed so that U.S. attorneys have advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. In this case, she will be an appointment of Attorney General Pam Bondi, to whom she directly reports. But the Senate won't have had input into her appointment.
39:18David Voreacos:And the Trump administration is using these acting titles to keep people they want in charge of other U.S. attorney's offices, like the one in Los Angeles and Albany. So there are a lot of unconfirmed U.S. attorneys. Thanks so much, David. That's Bloomberg Legal Reporter David Voriakis. In other legal news today, Texas Senator John Cornyn says he's gotten an assurance from FBI Director Kash Patel 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.
40:07David Voreacos:House Minority Leader Hakeem 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$500 a day in fines, not to mention the out-of-state lodging and 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. $3 ,000 raised for the Texas Democrats.
40:55David Voreacos: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.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law. And remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m.
41:36David Voreacos:Wall Street time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.
41:45David Voreacos:Healthcare doesn't always work great. If you've ever waited on a refill or couldn't schedule an appointment, you get it. That's the kind of stuff Optum is changing. They're using data and technology to integrate patient care, pharmacy, and everything else. So healthcare is connected, not complicated. What's that look like? Cheaper prescriptions that are easier to get and care that looks at the whole person. How you need it. Optum is helping make healthcare work as one for everyone. Learn more at business.optum.com. Everyone's talking about how AI is transforming work, especially in sales. While the landscape shifts, one thing remains the same.
42:22The thrill of closing a deal. Whether it's a gong or a confetti machine, every team has its celebration rituals. Adio is designed for that moment. It's the agentic CRM that turns customer signals into actionable insights, helping you close deals faster with revenue agents and automations working around the clock. You'll have everything you need to scale your go-to market efforts. Elevate your wins with Adio. Start your free trial at adio.com slash iHeart. Whether it's help with hormone therapy, weight management, or sexual health, every woman should have access to affordable prescription medication and personalized care that understands the whole woman.
42:59Join me, Dr. Doug Lucas, clinical lead of hormone optimization and longevity at LifeMD, along with other leading experts on the podcast, Here's Something Good on Women's Health and Longevity. To learn more, go to lifemd.com slash iHeart. Thank you.
From the publisher
Stephanie Barclay, a professor at Georgetown Law, discusses the Trump administration memo encouraging proselytizing in the federal workplace. Justin Henry, Bloomberg Law reporter, discusses the young lawyers who left lucrative jobs because of their principles. David Voreacos, Bloomberg legal reporter, discusses lawsuits over the Trump administration’s maneuvers to keep Alina Habba as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey. June Grasso hosts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.