1 00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:09,560 --> 00:00:12,080 Speaker 1: There's a lot of legal maneuvering going on as the 3 00:00:12,119 --> 00:00:17,920 Speaker 1: Biden administration navigates tricky territory in implementing its own environmental policies. 4 00:00:18,200 --> 00:00:21,520 Speaker 1: Lawyers in the Justice Department and other agencies have evaluated 5 00:00:21,520 --> 00:00:25,080 Speaker 1: the government's position in hundreds of pending cases, pressing pause 6 00:00:25,160 --> 00:00:28,480 Speaker 1: on as many as possible. The focus is on strategic 7 00:00:28,560 --> 00:00:32,880 Speaker 1: delays rather than dramatic changes in position, although new policies 8 00:00:32,920 --> 00:00:36,839 Speaker 1: are already under attack by Republicans. Joining me is Pat Parento, 9 00:00:36,920 --> 00:00:40,320 Speaker 1: a professor of environmental law at Vermont Law School. So 10 00:00:40,560 --> 00:00:45,879 Speaker 1: what's the strategy that the Biden administration is using impending 11 00:00:46,200 --> 00:00:51,240 Speaker 1: environmental cases. It seems like there isn't a uniform approach 12 00:00:51,920 --> 00:00:56,080 Speaker 1: to how the Biden administration is going to undo what 13 00:00:56,280 --> 00:01:00,280 Speaker 1: the Trump administration did on environmental issues. For exact sample, 14 00:01:00,320 --> 00:01:03,320 Speaker 1: with the two big pipeline cases, we saw right out 15 00:01:03,320 --> 00:01:08,160 Speaker 1: of the box, Biden killed the Keystone XL pipeline because 16 00:01:08,360 --> 00:01:10,520 Speaker 1: he was able to do that at a time before 17 00:01:10,800 --> 00:01:14,080 Speaker 1: actual construction in the United States portion was underway, or 18 00:01:14,120 --> 00:01:16,360 Speaker 1: at least part of it. With regard to the Dakota 19 00:01:16,440 --> 00:01:19,280 Speaker 1: Access pipeline. On the other hand, Biden and the d 20 00:01:19,400 --> 00:01:23,399 Speaker 1: o J have decided not to stop the flow of 21 00:01:23,440 --> 00:01:26,920 Speaker 1: oil through that pipeline, which is already built. And if 22 00:01:26,920 --> 00:01:30,200 Speaker 1: you look at these two pipelines, the common theme from 23 00:01:30,200 --> 00:01:33,679 Speaker 1: both of them is the impact on jobs. And the 24 00:01:33,800 --> 00:01:36,920 Speaker 1: unions were all over Biden when he killed Keystone and 25 00:01:36,959 --> 00:01:41,120 Speaker 1: said you've cost us thousands of potential jobs. With regard 26 00:01:41,200 --> 00:01:45,240 Speaker 1: to Dakota Access, those are jobs that are already underway. 27 00:01:45,319 --> 00:01:48,520 Speaker 1: And I think it was a political calculation in these 28 00:01:48,560 --> 00:01:51,880 Speaker 1: two cases. So I think what we're gonna see is 29 00:01:51,960 --> 00:01:54,520 Speaker 1: that the Biden administration is going to look at each 30 00:01:54,560 --> 00:01:58,280 Speaker 1: one of these environmental issues in its context and decide 31 00:01:58,640 --> 00:02:02,400 Speaker 1: which ones can it immediately reverse and which ones is 32 00:02:02,400 --> 00:02:05,040 Speaker 1: it going to take longer to reverse. And a good 33 00:02:05,040 --> 00:02:08,840 Speaker 1: example of that is happening right now today where a 34 00:02:08,919 --> 00:02:16,320 Speaker 1: judge in Virginia is hearing arguments to overturn Trump's NIPA rules, 35 00:02:16,400 --> 00:02:21,000 Speaker 1: which greatly watered down and weakened NIPA analysis. And in 36 00:02:21,040 --> 00:02:24,840 Speaker 1: that case, the Biden administration has asked the court to 37 00:02:25,120 --> 00:02:29,560 Speaker 1: stay the case and allow c e Q to review, 38 00:02:29,880 --> 00:02:33,600 Speaker 1: of course, the Trump rules and decide how they're going 39 00:02:33,680 --> 00:02:37,600 Speaker 1: to make changes. They signaled very strongly that they have 40 00:02:37,919 --> 00:02:42,320 Speaker 1: serious problems with the Trump NIPA rules. But it's curious 41 00:02:42,400 --> 00:02:47,440 Speaker 1: that they didn't agree to let the judge rule that 42 00:02:47,480 --> 00:02:50,440 Speaker 1: the Trump NIPA rules are in fact illegal, even though 43 00:02:50,919 --> 00:02:54,760 Speaker 1: the Biden c e Q filing in the case has 44 00:02:54,800 --> 00:03:00,560 Speaker 1: identified all the same reasons why the Trump rules are illegal. Right, 45 00:03:00,639 --> 00:03:05,080 Speaker 1: so you can't figure out exactly what the strategy is 46 00:03:05,600 --> 00:03:08,880 Speaker 1: from the Biden administration, except it seems to depend on 47 00:03:09,080 --> 00:03:12,680 Speaker 1: each individual case. Do you think that there is a 48 00:03:12,760 --> 00:03:17,160 Speaker 1: broad strategy in place or it's just case by case. 49 00:03:18,440 --> 00:03:21,160 Speaker 1: I think that the broad strategy is we do want 50 00:03:21,200 --> 00:03:24,560 Speaker 1: to reverse these Trump policies, but each one is going 51 00:03:24,600 --> 00:03:28,760 Speaker 1: to be apparently evaluated, I guess, as I say, in 52 00:03:28,840 --> 00:03:33,600 Speaker 1: its own context, in its own circumstances, and the thinking 53 00:03:33,680 --> 00:03:40,880 Speaker 1: behind when Biden takes a decisive action and when he differs. 54 00:03:41,560 --> 00:03:47,040 Speaker 1: It's not clear yet whether it's politics or whether it's 55 00:03:46,600 --> 00:03:51,440 Speaker 1: a different kind of strategy that would strengthen the ultimate 56 00:03:51,480 --> 00:03:54,640 Speaker 1: decision that Biden is going to make. We don't really 57 00:03:54,640 --> 00:03:59,560 Speaker 1: know yet. Um we have a similar situation with the 58 00:04:00,120 --> 00:04:03,320 Speaker 1: litigation over the Clean Power Plan. This is the rule 59 00:04:03,360 --> 00:04:08,360 Speaker 1: of course regulating greenhouse gases from power plants. And that again, 60 00:04:08,400 --> 00:04:13,000 Speaker 1: the Trump Rule, which replaced the Obama Rule, has been 61 00:04:13,040 --> 00:04:17,040 Speaker 1: struck down by the d C Circuit, And the DC 62 00:04:17,080 --> 00:04:21,839 Speaker 1: Circuit also struck down the Trump rule that repeals the 63 00:04:21,920 --> 00:04:25,960 Speaker 1: Clean Power Plan. But again the Biden administration did not 64 00:04:26,200 --> 00:04:31,279 Speaker 1: agree to reinstate the Clean Power Plan. Rather, it sets 65 00:04:31,320 --> 00:04:35,080 Speaker 1: to the d C Circuit hold off on that part 66 00:04:35,080 --> 00:04:38,640 Speaker 1: of your order to give us time to figure out 67 00:04:38,680 --> 00:04:41,799 Speaker 1: what kind of a new rule we want to adopt 68 00:04:41,839 --> 00:04:45,719 Speaker 1: for power plants. In that case, it might make some 69 00:04:45,880 --> 00:04:49,840 Speaker 1: sense to do that because the Clean power Plant has 70 00:04:49,920 --> 00:04:56,680 Speaker 1: already been overtaken by market forces, which have reduced emissions 71 00:04:56,760 --> 00:05:00,279 Speaker 1: from the power plant sector by more than what Clean 72 00:05:00,320 --> 00:05:02,360 Speaker 1: Power Plan would have done. The Clean Power Plan was 73 00:05:02,400 --> 00:05:08,880 Speaker 1: talking about reduction and emissions. We've already achieved reduction and 74 00:05:08,920 --> 00:05:13,880 Speaker 1: emissions measured from two thousand and five baseline. So again, 75 00:05:13,920 --> 00:05:15,839 Speaker 1: you know you're gonna I think we're gonna all have 76 00:05:15,880 --> 00:05:19,840 Speaker 1: to be patient and and watch to see, you know, 77 00:05:20,320 --> 00:05:22,440 Speaker 1: how Biden is going to deal with each one of 78 00:05:22,480 --> 00:05:26,440 Speaker 1: these issues, and how quickly the administration is going to 79 00:05:26,520 --> 00:05:29,200 Speaker 1: be able to come up with new rules when those 80 00:05:29,240 --> 00:05:33,200 Speaker 1: are required for new decisions, and I'm not sure there 81 00:05:33,279 --> 00:05:36,520 Speaker 1: is a uniform approach yet. Are the courts in general 82 00:05:36,720 --> 00:05:41,440 Speaker 1: allowing the Biden administration to press the pause button on 83 00:05:41,480 --> 00:05:44,440 Speaker 1: these cases? Well, not in the case of the nap 84 00:05:44,520 --> 00:05:48,040 Speaker 1: of rule, Judge Jones. It is in Virginia. You know, 85 00:05:48,200 --> 00:05:51,720 Speaker 1: the Biden administration went into his court weeks ago and 86 00:05:51,800 --> 00:05:54,039 Speaker 1: asked the judge to put a hold on the case. 87 00:05:54,080 --> 00:05:56,440 Speaker 1: And the judge said, no, the case is being briefed 88 00:05:56,680 --> 00:05:59,680 Speaker 1: and these Trump rules are on the books and agencies 89 00:05:59,720 --> 00:06:01,839 Speaker 1: are lying on them and the way they're doing their 90 00:06:01,960 --> 00:06:06,880 Speaker 1: environmental impact assessments, and no, we need to decide this case. 91 00:06:07,120 --> 00:06:10,440 Speaker 1: You're not giving me any firm deadline by which you 92 00:06:10,560 --> 00:06:14,000 Speaker 1: intend to take an action that would resolve the issues 93 00:06:14,040 --> 00:06:16,600 Speaker 1: in this case. So no, I think we should proceed. 94 00:06:16,720 --> 00:06:19,360 Speaker 1: And I predict that Judge Jones is going to make 95 00:06:19,400 --> 00:06:23,119 Speaker 1: that same decision at argument, and he's probably gonna rule 96 00:06:23,560 --> 00:06:26,720 Speaker 1: on the merits of the case challenging the Trump rule. 97 00:06:27,040 --> 00:06:30,160 Speaker 1: And the Biden administration is in a really awkward position. 98 00:06:30,200 --> 00:06:34,440 Speaker 1: They certainly can't defend the Trump rule. So you know, 99 00:06:34,560 --> 00:06:36,760 Speaker 1: if the judge says, no, I'm not going to hold 100 00:06:36,800 --> 00:06:40,520 Speaker 1: this case back, I'm going to decide it with or 101 00:06:40,560 --> 00:06:44,080 Speaker 1: without the input of the Biden administration. That's a really 102 00:06:44,160 --> 00:06:48,560 Speaker 1: unusual situation that one. To me, it's very hard to understand. 103 00:06:49,440 --> 00:06:56,279 Speaker 1: Has the Biden administration completely eliminated any Trump error rules? Oh, 104 00:06:56,360 --> 00:07:00,680 Speaker 1: let's see, the so called secret Science rule is off 105 00:07:00,680 --> 00:07:04,279 Speaker 1: the books, but that was done through the Congressional Review Act. 106 00:07:04,839 --> 00:07:10,440 Speaker 1: The methane rules are also, I think gonna be revoked 107 00:07:10,440 --> 00:07:13,000 Speaker 1: by this d r A, as it's called the Congressional 108 00:07:13,000 --> 00:07:20,120 Speaker 1: Review Act Resolution, the rule that would have changed the 109 00:07:20,160 --> 00:07:24,560 Speaker 1: interpretation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. That's been vacated 110 00:07:25,240 --> 00:07:29,200 Speaker 1: with the Biden administration's approval. But you know, you have 111 00:07:29,280 --> 00:07:31,680 Speaker 1: to go sort of issue by issue, don't you. And 112 00:07:32,040 --> 00:07:35,520 Speaker 1: I'd have to say that very few of the Trump 113 00:07:35,600 --> 00:07:40,280 Speaker 1: rules have been acts at this point. Have industry groups 114 00:07:40,520 --> 00:07:46,240 Speaker 1: and Republicans have they begun mounting a legal campaign against 115 00:07:47,200 --> 00:07:52,400 Speaker 1: the Biden agenda which is unfolding. Oh? Yes, yes, for sure. 116 00:07:52,600 --> 00:07:56,960 Speaker 1: The so called Red States, the Republican ages have challenged 117 00:07:57,000 --> 00:08:01,000 Speaker 1: the moratorium on oil and gas leasing, both on on land, 118 00:08:01,080 --> 00:08:03,320 Speaker 1: on the public lands in the West and off shore. 119 00:08:03,960 --> 00:08:10,280 Speaker 1: The States and some of the power companies still have 120 00:08:10,360 --> 00:08:16,120 Speaker 1: an opportunity to take the Clean Power Plan and the 121 00:08:16,200 --> 00:08:19,840 Speaker 1: so called eighths rule that replaced it to the Supreme Court. 122 00:08:20,400 --> 00:08:24,080 Speaker 1: The time period for filing a petition for review by 123 00:08:24,120 --> 00:08:27,600 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court will expire in May, so we don't 124 00:08:27,600 --> 00:08:29,480 Speaker 1: know are they going to try to get the Supreme 125 00:08:29,520 --> 00:08:33,440 Speaker 1: Court to actually overturn the DC Circuits decision which struck 126 00:08:33,520 --> 00:08:37,960 Speaker 1: down the eighth rule. So yeah, I would say we're 127 00:08:37,960 --> 00:08:44,320 Speaker 1: only beginning now to see pushback coming from the opponents, well, 128 00:08:44,360 --> 00:08:46,760 Speaker 1: either the supporters of the Trump rule or the opponents 129 00:08:46,800 --> 00:08:49,760 Speaker 1: of the Obama rules that preceded them. Same with the 130 00:08:49,840 --> 00:08:53,839 Speaker 1: Chamber of Commerce, the Pacific Legal Foundation on the clean 131 00:08:53,880 --> 00:08:59,880 Speaker 1: Water rule. The District Court in Colorado had overturned the 132 00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:03,640 Speaker 1: Trump Water rule. The Tent Circuit set that injunction aside 133 00:09:03,640 --> 00:09:07,440 Speaker 1: and set it back to Colorado. But but the the 134 00:09:07,559 --> 00:09:11,400 Speaker 1: opponents to the Obama Clean Water Rule and the supporters 135 00:09:11,440 --> 00:09:15,240 Speaker 1: of the Trump replacement rule, they're continuing to press in 136 00:09:15,280 --> 00:09:18,240 Speaker 1: the cases that are that are trying to decide which 137 00:09:18,240 --> 00:09:21,480 Speaker 1: are those rules is going to survive. So you know, 138 00:09:21,520 --> 00:09:25,520 Speaker 1: there is there is so much litigation going on with 139 00:09:25,559 --> 00:09:28,560 Speaker 1: all of these environmental rules now it's very difficult to 140 00:09:28,600 --> 00:09:31,240 Speaker 1: keep track of it all and it's very very hard 141 00:09:31,280 --> 00:09:33,880 Speaker 1: to predict how it's all going to come out, because 142 00:09:33,880 --> 00:09:36,079 Speaker 1: sooner or later many of these issues are going to 143 00:09:36,200 --> 00:09:39,480 Speaker 1: have to go to the Supreme Court. Is this similar 144 00:09:39,520 --> 00:09:44,520 Speaker 1: to what's happened in other changes of administration from Democratic 145 00:09:44,520 --> 00:09:49,520 Speaker 1: to Republican or Republican to Democratic, not at this scale. No. 146 00:09:50,120 --> 00:09:53,160 Speaker 1: In my fifty years of practice, so going on fifty years, 147 00:09:53,200 --> 00:09:58,840 Speaker 1: I haven't seen this much turmoil and so many major 148 00:09:59,040 --> 00:10:02,640 Speaker 1: rules up in the air and in doubt, and again 149 00:10:02,800 --> 00:10:05,480 Speaker 1: blooming over all of this is the uncertainty about how 150 00:10:05,559 --> 00:10:10,199 Speaker 1: much is the current Supreme Court going to allow these 151 00:10:10,240 --> 00:10:16,360 Speaker 1: agencies to assert authority under statutory provisions that are ambiguous. 152 00:10:16,360 --> 00:10:20,560 Speaker 1: The term waters of the United States is still undecided. 153 00:10:21,200 --> 00:10:23,760 Speaker 1: The scope of what I p A can do under 154 00:10:23,800 --> 00:10:27,520 Speaker 1: the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from 155 00:10:27,600 --> 00:10:33,000 Speaker 1: stationary sources is still undecided. The scope of the Endangered 156 00:10:33,040 --> 00:10:37,280 Speaker 1: Species Act is very much in doubt these days. So 157 00:10:37,960 --> 00:10:43,160 Speaker 1: I haven't seen so many bed rock environmental laws and 158 00:10:43,320 --> 00:10:48,160 Speaker 1: rules in such a state of chaos in my entire career. 159 00:10:49,440 --> 00:10:54,080 Speaker 1: Tell us about this unusual suit by Arizona where they're 160 00:10:54,200 --> 00:11:00,160 Speaker 1: using federal environmental law against the Biden administration. Right, it's 161 00:11:00,200 --> 00:11:03,800 Speaker 1: the border wall case. And they flipped the script. You know, 162 00:11:03,960 --> 00:11:08,040 Speaker 1: when when Trump was building his border wall without fully 163 00:11:08,120 --> 00:11:13,719 Speaker 1: complying with NIPA, UM, California and some environmental groups took 164 00:11:13,760 --> 00:11:18,880 Speaker 1: him to court and they lost. And so now the 165 00:11:18,920 --> 00:11:23,800 Speaker 1: proponents of the border are trying to argue that Biden's 166 00:11:23,840 --> 00:11:28,640 Speaker 1: decision to stop building the wall m was done without 167 00:11:28,720 --> 00:11:32,480 Speaker 1: compliance with NIPA. So I mean, you know, crocodile tears, 168 00:11:32,520 --> 00:11:35,400 Speaker 1: I guess is what you'd say. Um, And we'll see 169 00:11:35,400 --> 00:11:37,199 Speaker 1: what the courts do with it. They mean, the courts 170 00:11:37,240 --> 00:11:40,240 Speaker 1: were not very sympathetic two people that were trying to 171 00:11:40,320 --> 00:11:44,200 Speaker 1: stop the construction using NIPA. I'm not sure the courts 172 00:11:44,200 --> 00:11:46,320 Speaker 1: are going to be any more sympathetic to those that 173 00:11:46,320 --> 00:11:49,240 Speaker 1: are trying to keep the construction of the wall going 174 00:11:49,559 --> 00:11:53,360 Speaker 1: because of non compliance with NIPA. Can a court really 175 00:11:53,520 --> 00:11:57,559 Speaker 1: forced an administration to spend billions of dollars on our wall? 176 00:11:58,720 --> 00:12:02,080 Speaker 1: I really can't mean it can certainly say you didn't, 177 00:12:02,280 --> 00:12:04,880 Speaker 1: you know, jump through some of the hoops that NIPA 178 00:12:05,280 --> 00:12:10,160 Speaker 1: or some other statute procedural requirements. There's another statutes impose 179 00:12:10,240 --> 00:12:13,520 Speaker 1: you can you can certainly find the administration isn't following 180 00:12:13,520 --> 00:12:16,600 Speaker 1: certain procedures and and require that they do. So the 181 00:12:16,679 --> 00:12:19,600 Speaker 1: question of whether you can order the government to spend 182 00:12:19,600 --> 00:12:22,640 Speaker 1: money or to continue construction, you know, those are what 183 00:12:22,679 --> 00:12:25,920 Speaker 1: we call, you know, questions of equity, where you're asking 184 00:12:25,960 --> 00:12:30,040 Speaker 1: the court to exercise the extraordinary remedies, and those are 185 00:12:30,080 --> 00:12:33,360 Speaker 1: just very rare. I mean, even when environmentalists are trying 186 00:12:33,400 --> 00:12:36,439 Speaker 1: to stop project if you think the Code to Access 187 00:12:36,840 --> 00:12:40,360 Speaker 1: pipeline again, you know, the environmental groups have not actually 188 00:12:40,400 --> 00:12:43,800 Speaker 1: been able to stop the flow of oil even though 189 00:12:43,800 --> 00:12:47,320 Speaker 1: the courts are finding violations of law. So I think 190 00:12:47,360 --> 00:12:50,520 Speaker 1: these efforts to try to force Biden to do things 191 00:12:50,559 --> 00:12:53,680 Speaker 1: like spend money and build the wall, um, well, they're 192 00:12:53,679 --> 00:12:55,760 Speaker 1: going to run into a brick wall. That's my feeling. 193 00:12:56,960 --> 00:12:59,920 Speaker 1: Let's talk about some of the legal questions that play 194 00:13:00,120 --> 00:13:04,080 Speaker 1: the Obama administration, that went on resolved during the Trump 195 00:13:04,280 --> 00:13:10,439 Speaker 1: administration that are now posing an obstacle for the Biden administration. 196 00:13:11,040 --> 00:13:14,240 Speaker 1: For example, the proper scope of the Clean Water Act, 197 00:13:14,720 --> 00:13:19,319 Speaker 1: the limits of presidential authority to create national monuments, and 198 00:13:19,679 --> 00:13:25,240 Speaker 1: the e p A wielding it's regulatory tools against climate change. Yeah, 199 00:13:25,280 --> 00:13:27,720 Speaker 1: those are all big ones. And you know what each 200 00:13:27,800 --> 00:13:30,160 Speaker 1: one that you mentioned. The scope of the Clean Water Act, 201 00:13:30,480 --> 00:13:33,800 Speaker 1: the scope of the President's power to designate monuments under 202 00:13:33,800 --> 00:13:37,720 Speaker 1: the Antiquities Act, the scope of epas authority to deal 203 00:13:37,760 --> 00:13:41,080 Speaker 1: with climate change under the Clean Ract. All three of 204 00:13:41,120 --> 00:13:46,079 Speaker 1: those huge environmental issues are ultimately going to have to 205 00:13:46,120 --> 00:13:48,920 Speaker 1: go to the Supreme Court. I don't think any one 206 00:13:48,960 --> 00:13:52,959 Speaker 1: of them is going to be settled by lower court decisions. 207 00:13:52,960 --> 00:13:56,640 Speaker 1: They're too big, and each one of them implicates issues 208 00:13:56,679 --> 00:14:01,040 Speaker 1: that this current Conservative Supreme Court is very interested in. 209 00:14:01,360 --> 00:14:05,319 Speaker 1: For example, the scope of deference under the Chevron doctrine 210 00:14:05,440 --> 00:14:08,800 Speaker 1: and whether that doctrine is going to enable the Biden 211 00:14:08,920 --> 00:14:12,960 Speaker 1: e p A To interpret statutes that have some vague 212 00:14:13,040 --> 00:14:16,360 Speaker 1: terms in them. Waters of the US under the Antiquities 213 00:14:16,400 --> 00:14:20,840 Speaker 1: Act areas that are limited to those scope necessary to 214 00:14:20,960 --> 00:14:25,480 Speaker 1: protect objects of scientific interest? What does that mean? Right? So, 215 00:14:26,080 --> 00:14:32,800 Speaker 1: these are huge issues of statutory interpretation, and this Conservative 216 00:14:32,840 --> 00:14:38,640 Speaker 1: Supreme Court is very suspicious of agencies exercising broad authority 217 00:14:39,240 --> 00:14:44,600 Speaker 1: under vague statutory terms. Right. They're also interested in reviving 218 00:14:44,600 --> 00:14:48,800 Speaker 1: what's called the non delegation doctrine. This is a constitutional 219 00:14:49,000 --> 00:14:51,840 Speaker 1: doctrine in which and this is going to be applicable 220 00:14:51,880 --> 00:14:56,600 Speaker 1: to the Antiquities Act, and so these conservative justices and 221 00:14:56,760 --> 00:14:59,920 Speaker 1: Robert signaled this, by the way, Chief Justice Robert signaled 222 00:15:00,080 --> 00:15:04,680 Speaker 1: is in the Seamounts case, this is the national monument 223 00:15:04,760 --> 00:15:09,400 Speaker 1: off the Atlantic coast that has these very high biological values. 224 00:15:09,960 --> 00:15:13,960 Speaker 1: That Obama designated this huge area of the North Atlantic 225 00:15:14,120 --> 00:15:19,360 Speaker 1: as a marine monument. And so Roberts has agreed that 226 00:15:19,560 --> 00:15:23,920 Speaker 1: the challenge from the fisherman to that monument designation is 227 00:15:23,960 --> 00:15:26,960 Speaker 1: no longer right for the Court to review. But he's 228 00:15:27,040 --> 00:15:30,000 Speaker 1: also signaled that this question of the scope of the 229 00:15:30,000 --> 00:15:34,000 Speaker 1: president's power under the Antiquities Act is an open question. 230 00:15:34,280 --> 00:15:38,480 Speaker 1: And he specifically said, even though we have never found 231 00:15:38,520 --> 00:15:42,400 Speaker 1: a case where the president has exceeded that authority, that 232 00:15:42,480 --> 00:15:45,240 Speaker 1: doesn't mean that there aren't limits to it. That's a 233 00:15:45,280 --> 00:15:49,000 Speaker 1: pretty clear signal that the scope of the Antiquities Act power, 234 00:15:49,440 --> 00:15:52,640 Speaker 1: which is going to relate to Bear's Ears Monument and 235 00:15:52,680 --> 00:15:57,640 Speaker 1: the Grand Staircase monument. It's a pretty clear signal that 236 00:15:57,680 --> 00:16:02,400 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court may exercise its final judgment on what 237 00:16:02,440 --> 00:16:05,640 Speaker 1: the scope of those powers are. So, yeah, we are 238 00:16:05,720 --> 00:16:11,320 Speaker 1: in for years of uncertainty about all of these big powers. 239 00:16:12,200 --> 00:16:15,080 Speaker 1: Thanks for being the Bloomberg Law Show. Pat that's professor 240 00:16:15,120 --> 00:16:20,200 Speaker 1: Pat Parento of their Mont Law School. The Scott Tucker 241 00:16:20,360 --> 00:16:24,480 Speaker 1: paid a lending business was illegal from top to bottom. 242 00:16:24,640 --> 00:16:28,080 Speaker 1: Scott Tucker walked away with over four hundred million dollars 243 00:16:28,120 --> 00:16:32,760 Speaker 1: money taken from struggling consumers. Scott Tucker was charging two 244 00:16:32,880 --> 00:16:35,480 Speaker 1: or three times that interest rates that the New York 245 00:16:35,520 --> 00:16:39,080 Speaker 1: City mafia loan Shark instin. The kids charged. You didn't 246 00:16:39,080 --> 00:16:44,560 Speaker 1: hear a moral person. I'm a business person. Scott Tucker, 247 00:16:44,680 --> 00:16:48,320 Speaker 1: a subject of the Netflix documentary series Dirty Money, was 248 00:16:48,400 --> 00:16:51,800 Speaker 1: sentenced in ten to more than sixteen years in prison 249 00:16:51,840 --> 00:16:55,400 Speaker 1: for racketeering. The Federal Trade Commission also got a one 250 00:16:55,440 --> 00:16:58,520 Speaker 1: point three billion dollar judgment against Tucker in a civil 251 00:16:58,600 --> 00:17:02,120 Speaker 1: case on behalf of the sumers he defrauded, but this 252 00:17:02,200 --> 00:17:06,120 Speaker 1: week the Supreme Court overturned that judgment in a decision 253 00:17:06,119 --> 00:17:09,520 Speaker 1: that also eliminates the legal tool the FTC has used 254 00:17:09,560 --> 00:17:12,879 Speaker 1: to recoup billions of dollars for defrauded consumers over the 255 00:17:12,920 --> 00:17:16,320 Speaker 1: past decade. Joining me is Andrea, a tuition a professor 256 00:17:16,320 --> 00:17:19,240 Speaker 1: at Penn State Law School. So with this decision, the 257 00:17:19,320 --> 00:17:22,919 Speaker 1: Supreme Court has taken away what the FTC calls the 258 00:17:23,000 --> 00:17:27,080 Speaker 1: strongest tool it has to recoup money for consumers who 259 00:17:27,080 --> 00:17:29,800 Speaker 1: have been defrauded? Are you surprised that this was a 260 00:17:29,920 --> 00:17:34,240 Speaker 1: unanimous decision? While it may be viewed to a surprise 261 00:17:34,320 --> 00:17:39,800 Speaker 1: in some ways, in the reading of the decision, it 262 00:17:40,119 --> 00:17:45,680 Speaker 1: is a statutory interpretation exercise that was done very precisely 263 00:17:45,800 --> 00:17:52,000 Speaker 1: by the Court, so the unanimity is understandable in that way. However, 264 00:17:52,160 --> 00:17:57,479 Speaker 1: the Court does point out that in other circumstances, when 265 00:17:57,560 --> 00:18:01,359 Speaker 1: it has been faced with somewhat are a little questions, 266 00:18:01,560 --> 00:18:05,760 Speaker 1: the Court has not always engaged in such a narrow 267 00:18:05,880 --> 00:18:09,800 Speaker 1: reading of a statute. So here the Supreme Court made 268 00:18:09,960 --> 00:18:13,040 Speaker 1: a strategic choice to engage in the narrow reading of 269 00:18:13,080 --> 00:18:18,360 Speaker 1: the statute and to punt the conversation over the policy 270 00:18:18,480 --> 00:18:24,000 Speaker 1: and the availability of the streamlined remedy that the FTC 271 00:18:24,160 --> 00:18:29,159 Speaker 1: has been using offensively through into the halls of Congress. 272 00:18:29,359 --> 00:18:33,320 Speaker 1: So in that way, this is definitely a bump in 273 00:18:33,359 --> 00:18:38,959 Speaker 1: the road for the FTC. However, that said Congress is 274 00:18:39,119 --> 00:18:42,280 Speaker 1: poised to act to correct this. So tell us about 275 00:18:42,320 --> 00:18:46,080 Speaker 1: the Senate hearing earlier this week where they addressed what 276 00:18:46,200 --> 00:18:49,600 Speaker 1: could be done to restore the FTC's power to recoup 277 00:18:49,680 --> 00:18:55,560 Speaker 1: money for consumers. So on Tuesday, there was testimony from 278 00:18:55,560 --> 00:18:59,760 Speaker 1: four FTC commissioners, all four in front of the Senate 279 00:18:59,760 --> 00:19:04,840 Speaker 1: com the e Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Senator Maria 280 00:19:04,960 --> 00:19:10,680 Speaker 1: Cantwell indicated her readiness to act withly in the eventuality 281 00:19:10,800 --> 00:19:14,679 Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court did decide in the way that 282 00:19:14,760 --> 00:19:18,719 Speaker 1: we see the verdict coming down today, and it was 283 00:19:18,920 --> 00:19:23,920 Speaker 1: reassuring to see that this was a bipartisan approach. So 284 00:19:24,000 --> 00:19:29,320 Speaker 1: the ranking member, Senator Wicker agreed with the framing that 285 00:19:29,400 --> 00:19:34,320 Speaker 1: the FTC performs a critical function in preserving remedies for 286 00:19:34,520 --> 00:19:39,760 Speaker 1: considers against fraud, and in particular in a time when 287 00:19:40,240 --> 00:19:45,720 Speaker 1: fake COVID remedies and fought and misleading advertising around the 288 00:19:45,800 --> 00:19:51,280 Speaker 1: health treatments are prevalent enough that Congress had earlier this 289 00:19:51,359 --> 00:19:56,719 Speaker 1: year already given the FTC additional authority in connection with 290 00:19:56,840 --> 00:20:02,280 Speaker 1: COVID relief. We see bipartisan in risks in preserving the 291 00:20:02,440 --> 00:20:06,199 Speaker 1: enforcement authority of the FTC, and it was a very 292 00:20:06,400 --> 00:20:11,240 Speaker 1: non acrimonious hearings. There was much agreement among both senators 293 00:20:11,240 --> 00:20:13,440 Speaker 1: on the one hand and STEC commissioners on the other 294 00:20:13,920 --> 00:20:19,480 Speaker 1: regarding the need for certainly preserving and in some directions 295 00:20:19,480 --> 00:20:24,520 Speaker 1: expanding the authority of the FTC to address both traditional 296 00:20:24,600 --> 00:20:28,000 Speaker 1: areas of entering and deceptive practices and the kind of 297 00:20:28,280 --> 00:20:32,200 Speaker 1: fraud that we sensibly see an issue in the facts 298 00:20:32,320 --> 00:20:37,679 Speaker 1: of case allegedly, but also in particular around some of 299 00:20:37,720 --> 00:20:41,800 Speaker 1: the concerning technology practices that are at the center of 300 00:20:41,840 --> 00:20:46,440 Speaker 1: our discussions, not only in terms of the data security 301 00:20:46,520 --> 00:20:50,199 Speaker 1: engagement of the FTC and the privacy concerns that consumers have, 302 00:20:50,720 --> 00:20:54,840 Speaker 1: but also the competition concerns around the high degree of 303 00:20:54,880 --> 00:20:59,520 Speaker 1: concentration that we're seeing in the largest technology company. So 304 00:21:00,160 --> 00:21:03,200 Speaker 1: it's an expect in the one hands, this opinion certainly 305 00:21:03,480 --> 00:21:07,000 Speaker 1: is as the FTC put it, a major obstacle for 306 00:21:07,080 --> 00:21:12,160 Speaker 1: their continued use of existing tools as they've been using them. However, 307 00:21:12,359 --> 00:21:16,280 Speaker 1: the small upside, if we can call it that, is 308 00:21:16,359 --> 00:21:19,080 Speaker 1: that there does seem to be bipartisan interest in the 309 00:21:19,119 --> 00:21:23,040 Speaker 1: Senate on ensuring that the call from the Supreme Court 310 00:21:23,200 --> 00:21:28,719 Speaker 1: for congressional clarification and policy articulation has been heard, and 311 00:21:28,800 --> 00:21:32,440 Speaker 1: the Senate may indeed move swiftly to address the questions 312 00:21:32,440 --> 00:21:36,199 Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court raised in today's According to reports, 313 00:21:36,280 --> 00:21:40,000 Speaker 1: five hundred million dollars of that judgment has already been 314 00:21:40,040 --> 00:21:42,840 Speaker 1: given back to victims. What happens to that. Are they 315 00:21:42,920 --> 00:21:46,159 Speaker 1: going to try to claud that back? So certainly I 316 00:21:46,200 --> 00:21:49,480 Speaker 1: would expect there to be some attempt on the part 317 00:21:49,600 --> 00:21:55,240 Speaker 1: of the defendant in this case, Scott Tucker and his counsel, 318 00:21:55,320 --> 00:22:00,080 Speaker 1: to attempt to cause that back. There will undoubtedly be 319 00:22:00,560 --> 00:22:04,679 Speaker 1: pushed back through other procedural means from the FTC on 320 00:22:04,760 --> 00:22:10,800 Speaker 1: that and the existing avenues that are otherwise provided by 321 00:22:10,880 --> 00:22:14,159 Speaker 1: the FTC Act will undoubtedly be used by the FTC 322 00:22:14,320 --> 00:22:16,840 Speaker 1: to try to hold onto as much of that consumer 323 00:22:17,240 --> 00:22:20,960 Speaker 1: redress as possible. But yes, I would expect there to 324 00:22:21,040 --> 00:22:25,520 Speaker 1: be continuing litigation with respect of the substance of this 325 00:22:25,640 --> 00:22:30,800 Speaker 1: case and the illegal conduct that was relevant here. So 326 00:22:30,960 --> 00:22:34,440 Speaker 1: can the FTC go back and start again and go 327 00:22:34,800 --> 00:22:37,880 Speaker 1: down the route that the Supreme Court has left them 328 00:22:37,960 --> 00:22:43,960 Speaker 1: in this case? Well, certainly there is the opportunity to 329 00:22:44,240 --> 00:22:48,840 Speaker 1: go through the other processes that are created by the 330 00:22:48,960 --> 00:22:54,720 Speaker 1: FTC Act, and to go through the administrative decision making 331 00:22:54,880 --> 00:23:00,600 Speaker 1: process and to uh attempt to engage with the conduct 332 00:23:00,640 --> 00:23:05,800 Speaker 1: in in other ways. We'll see whether there is engagement 333 00:23:05,840 --> 00:23:09,879 Speaker 1: with this alternative enforcement task on the part of the FTC. 334 00:23:10,280 --> 00:23:13,320 Speaker 1: Um There has not been a statement by them as 335 00:23:13,320 --> 00:23:16,600 Speaker 1: to what they're expected next conduct will be so we'll 336 00:23:16,600 --> 00:23:19,520 Speaker 1: have to wait and see how this place out. What 337 00:23:19,600 --> 00:23:22,680 Speaker 1: are some other and going back to the opinion, Basically, 338 00:23:22,680 --> 00:23:25,320 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has said that the route that the 339 00:23:25,440 --> 00:23:28,720 Speaker 1: FTC was using to go straight to court for monetary 340 00:23:28,800 --> 00:23:32,639 Speaker 1: penalties using a provision that allows it to seek injunctions 341 00:23:33,000 --> 00:23:35,680 Speaker 1: was not proper and so has been cut off. So 342 00:23:35,720 --> 00:23:41,760 Speaker 1: the way the Court framed the questions involved what has 343 00:23:41,800 --> 00:23:45,120 Speaker 1: sometimes been framed as two parallel structure as a possible 344 00:23:45,160 --> 00:23:47,840 Speaker 1: relief on the part of the FTC. So, on the 345 00:23:47,880 --> 00:23:52,720 Speaker 1: one hand, we have the traditional administrative proceedings that then 346 00:23:53,040 --> 00:23:57,000 Speaker 1: lead to potential subsequent litigation as a results of the 347 00:23:57,000 --> 00:24:01,520 Speaker 1: outcomes through those administrative proceedings there or we're looking to 348 00:24:02,200 --> 00:24:06,320 Speaker 1: Section nineteen. But here in this particular case, we're looking 349 00:24:06,359 --> 00:24:11,919 Speaker 1: at the other parallel avenue, which in thirteen B creates 350 00:24:11,960 --> 00:24:15,840 Speaker 1: an explicit authorization for the FTC to seek injunctive relief. 351 00:24:16,640 --> 00:24:21,280 Speaker 1: But the FTC has also, in connection with that injunctive relief, 352 00:24:21,880 --> 00:24:29,400 Speaker 1: been successfully obtaining equitable monetary relief to compensate harmed consumers 353 00:24:29,480 --> 00:24:34,200 Speaker 1: who have been the victims of the illegal conduct that 354 00:24:34,359 --> 00:24:38,320 Speaker 1: is the subject of the injunctive relief and the reason 355 00:24:38,400 --> 00:24:42,359 Speaker 1: that the FTC is in court on that occasion. So 356 00:24:42,560 --> 00:24:49,639 Speaker 1: the spirit of the disgorgement through both possible avenues is 357 00:24:49,720 --> 00:24:54,359 Speaker 1: parallel in the framing of a number of circuits up 358 00:24:54,359 --> 00:24:57,520 Speaker 1: to this point. And so well we ended up with 359 00:24:57,560 --> 00:25:01,440 Speaker 1: this circuits foot because there certainly is a plausible interpretation 360 00:25:01,680 --> 00:25:05,040 Speaker 1: in in that way, particularly when you think about the 361 00:25:05,080 --> 00:25:09,200 Speaker 1: framing of equitable relief, and say a contract law context 362 00:25:09,320 --> 00:25:14,040 Speaker 1: where monetary damages are part of the package of possible 363 00:25:14,080 --> 00:25:17,159 Speaker 1: remedies of the court might award in in that body 364 00:25:17,160 --> 00:25:21,240 Speaker 1: of law, or in other circumstances where we give the 365 00:25:21,280 --> 00:25:28,959 Speaker 1: court's discretion to offer relief, such as the circumstances warrant. 366 00:25:29,040 --> 00:25:32,080 Speaker 1: But in this case, the general approaches that there were 367 00:25:32,119 --> 00:25:35,440 Speaker 1: these two parallel paths, either of which could end up 368 00:25:35,600 --> 00:25:39,119 Speaker 1: with a disgorgement of ill gotten gains in order to 369 00:25:39,160 --> 00:25:43,440 Speaker 1: compensate consumers for the actual harms that were suffered. This 370 00:25:44,000 --> 00:25:50,080 Speaker 1: UH duality of pathways in today's opinion is foreclosed by 371 00:25:50,320 --> 00:25:54,560 Speaker 1: UM the Supreme Court as the Court understands for Team V. 372 00:25:55,119 --> 00:25:57,440 Speaker 1: And so the Court is saying that their Team V 373 00:25:57,560 --> 00:26:01,200 Speaker 1: should be narrowly understood UH. On the point of the 374 00:26:01,280 --> 00:26:04,959 Speaker 1: injunctive relief, but it should not be considered by courts 375 00:26:05,000 --> 00:26:13,159 Speaker 1: to include that secondary authorization for UH monetary relief and disgorgement. 376 00:26:14,040 --> 00:26:20,400 Speaker 1: So the practical impact of what this means is that 377 00:26:20,520 --> 00:26:24,320 Speaker 1: the run of the mill frauds that are well established 378 00:26:24,320 --> 00:26:28,520 Speaker 1: to be within the type of unfair and deceptive trade 379 00:26:28,520 --> 00:26:36,159 Speaker 1: practices that result in consumers being targeted by frauds will 380 00:26:36,200 --> 00:26:42,800 Speaker 1: no longer potentially have a streamlined a pathway from the 381 00:26:43,119 --> 00:26:48,960 Speaker 1: identification and enforcement action to stop the fun from continuing, 382 00:26:49,359 --> 00:26:55,400 Speaker 1: through too through to the actual recovery of the ill 383 00:26:55,440 --> 00:27:03,120 Speaker 1: gotten gains to make the consumers at least partially whole um. 384 00:27:03,200 --> 00:27:08,680 Speaker 1: So that's in particular where I think Congress will UH 385 00:27:08,840 --> 00:27:16,919 Speaker 1: step into clarify the role of thirteen b as at 386 00:27:17,000 --> 00:27:22,600 Speaker 1: least now implicitly including that right to have the FTC 387 00:27:22,760 --> 00:27:29,600 Speaker 1: seats that disgorgement. So Andrea this, what are some other 388 00:27:29,640 --> 00:27:33,680 Speaker 1: things that Congress can do here? And I would encourage 389 00:27:33,720 --> 00:27:38,000 Speaker 1: Congress to think even more creatively and to recognize that 390 00:27:38,080 --> 00:27:42,200 Speaker 1: the same way as in civil litigation attorneys fees are 391 00:27:42,200 --> 00:27:47,119 Speaker 1: recovered by UH plaintiffs and meritorious cases that the FTC 392 00:27:47,240 --> 00:27:51,080 Speaker 1: is inctled to recovery for their lawyer time. UM. And 393 00:27:52,440 --> 00:27:56,760 Speaker 1: the other thoughts that that I would highlight from the 394 00:27:56,960 --> 00:28:00,320 Speaker 1: facts of this case is that in this case we 395 00:28:00,640 --> 00:28:04,879 Speaker 1: don't have a sort of last generation, run of the 396 00:28:04,920 --> 00:28:08,280 Speaker 1: mill offline frauds. We have a fraud that was facilitated 397 00:28:08,280 --> 00:28:14,239 Speaker 1: by technology. So this was an Internet facilitated frauds. And 398 00:28:14,280 --> 00:28:17,920 Speaker 1: so in that way, this sort of case fact connects 399 00:28:18,000 --> 00:28:23,000 Speaker 1: with the broader discussions about technology practices that are permeating 400 00:28:23,240 --> 00:28:27,400 Speaker 1: our legal and policy ecosystem today and in particular are 401 00:28:27,440 --> 00:28:32,720 Speaker 1: presenting uh, some novel challenges to the speed and nimbleness 402 00:28:32,960 --> 00:28:37,639 Speaker 1: of enforcement for all regulatory agencies. But the FTC is 403 00:28:37,680 --> 00:28:42,600 Speaker 1: on the front lines of these discussions. UM. So UH 404 00:28:42,840 --> 00:28:47,640 Speaker 1: a way that we could try to connect the competition 405 00:28:47,880 --> 00:28:51,560 Speaker 1: and the fraud concerns from the consumer protection side that 406 00:28:51,600 --> 00:28:58,160 Speaker 1: are articulated in the policy discussions underpinning today's conversation, and 407 00:28:58,160 --> 00:29:00,960 Speaker 1: I've advocated for this in my scholarship, is the creation 408 00:29:01,240 --> 00:29:05,400 Speaker 1: of a new Technology Practices Division within the FTC whose 409 00:29:05,440 --> 00:29:11,040 Speaker 1: goal is to have a higher level of rulemaking and 410 00:29:11,280 --> 00:29:16,240 Speaker 1: finding and enforcement authority as granted by Congress explicitly. And 411 00:29:16,320 --> 00:29:19,680 Speaker 1: here's the golden opportunity, as we're correcting this framing from 412 00:29:19,720 --> 00:29:23,040 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court's opinion, UM to give this new Technology 413 00:29:23,040 --> 00:29:28,320 Speaker 1: Practices group an explicit authorization to engage with the technology 414 00:29:28,320 --> 00:29:33,360 Speaker 1: economy in a deeper dive, pulling in the FTC technologists 415 00:29:33,400 --> 00:29:37,240 Speaker 1: into this group, authorizing the group to specifically work across 416 00:29:37,440 --> 00:29:43,040 Speaker 1: agency boundaries, create cross detailed teams, and to address the 417 00:29:43,120 --> 00:29:46,160 Speaker 1: problems as they present themselves through the lens of the 418 00:29:46,200 --> 00:29:48,719 Speaker 1: technologies that are at issue. What are some of the 419 00:29:48,760 --> 00:29:51,520 Speaker 1: first things that would be on the agenda UM The 420 00:29:51,640 --> 00:29:54,440 Speaker 1: first order of business could be, for example, taking a 421 00:29:54,480 --> 00:29:57,080 Speaker 1: look at the heart stat Redino process and why it 422 00:29:57,200 --> 00:30:02,840 Speaker 1: is that technology assets are treated more with greater laxity, 423 00:30:02,920 --> 00:30:06,200 Speaker 1: with more flexibility and in some cases their assent from 424 00:30:06,240 --> 00:30:09,959 Speaker 1: the reporting requirements UM for harts cut Ridino filing UM. 425 00:30:10,240 --> 00:30:14,840 Speaker 1: And so that's a great first cut that would help 426 00:30:15,360 --> 00:30:19,680 Speaker 1: with the competition side. On the consumer fraud side UM, 427 00:30:19,720 --> 00:30:25,720 Speaker 1: the kind of payday lending or online lending UM enterprises 428 00:30:25,960 --> 00:30:28,760 Speaker 1: that are the subject of the facts of today's case 429 00:30:28,800 --> 00:30:33,680 Speaker 1: would similarly create a golden opportunity for some rulemaking and 430 00:30:33,840 --> 00:30:37,960 Speaker 1: guidance and collaboration UH as the FTC has already been 431 00:30:38,000 --> 00:30:42,600 Speaker 1: doing with UH. The CFPV to ensure that there is 432 00:30:42,840 --> 00:30:48,320 Speaker 1: a consumer harm focus and that just because we're dealing 433 00:30:48,440 --> 00:30:55,120 Speaker 1: with evolving business models, that the uh externalities of those 434 00:30:55,160 --> 00:30:58,720 Speaker 1: business models are not imposed on consumers, that uh nothing 435 00:30:58,800 --> 00:31:02,720 Speaker 1: is falling through the regular Tory cracks. And having having 436 00:31:02,800 --> 00:31:06,160 Speaker 1: been a corporate lawyer myself, I know that sometimes companies 437 00:31:06,200 --> 00:31:10,320 Speaker 1: look for those gaming opportunities between different agencies to position 438 00:31:10,400 --> 00:31:14,160 Speaker 1: themselves in one way for purposes of say, their SEC filings, 439 00:31:14,160 --> 00:31:17,080 Speaker 1: in a slightly different way, perhaps for purposes of their 440 00:31:17,080 --> 00:31:20,800 Speaker 1: heartstut Routino filing. But by creating this kind of a 441 00:31:20,880 --> 00:31:25,480 Speaker 1: new central point for coordination within the SEC with rulemaking 442 00:31:25,520 --> 00:31:29,800 Speaker 1: and finding authority um. That is one add on that 443 00:31:29,880 --> 00:31:35,440 Speaker 1: Congress could offer in this case too neatly closed this 444 00:31:36,640 --> 00:31:39,960 Speaker 1: gap and to start to take a first cut at 445 00:31:40,000 --> 00:31:43,440 Speaker 1: addressing some of the gaps that exist in the technology 446 00:31:43,480 --> 00:31:50,520 Speaker 1: competition and technology fraud spaces that are unfortunately prevalent as 447 00:31:50,520 --> 00:31:53,680 Speaker 1: a point of concerns for consumers today and enforcers arelike 448 00:31:54,040 --> 00:31:57,640 Speaker 1: thanks Andrea. That's professor Andrew a tuition of Penn State 449 00:31:57,760 --> 00:32:02,959 Speaker 1: Law School. The Justice Department is opening a sweeping investigation 450 00:32:03,040 --> 00:32:07,840 Speaker 1: into policing practices in Minneapolis Attorney General Merrick Garland announced 451 00:32:07,880 --> 00:32:11,440 Speaker 1: the investigation a day after a jury found Derek Chauvin 452 00:32:11,520 --> 00:32:15,680 Speaker 1: guilty of murdering George Floyd. The investigation I am announcing 453 00:32:15,720 --> 00:32:20,800 Speaker 1: today we'll assess whether the Minneapolis Police Department engages in 454 00:32:20,840 --> 00:32:26,320 Speaker 1: a pattern or practice of using excessive force, including during protests. 455 00:32:27,000 --> 00:32:30,600 Speaker 1: Joining me is Calfoni Terrey, a former police officer who 456 00:32:30,640 --> 00:32:34,920 Speaker 1: was an associate professor of criminal justice at Quinnipiac University. 457 00:32:35,080 --> 00:32:37,560 Speaker 1: I want to start with the verdict in the Chauvin case. 458 00:32:38,280 --> 00:32:43,040 Speaker 1: Does it indicate a new era of police accountability? Well, 459 00:32:43,320 --> 00:32:48,440 Speaker 1: I'd likened this to a pivot in sort of athletic sport. 460 00:32:48,960 --> 00:32:54,560 Speaker 1: A pivot doesn't necessarily mean that one is making an advancement. 461 00:32:55,200 --> 00:32:59,200 Speaker 1: It just simply means that they have turned the body politics, 462 00:32:59,240 --> 00:33:02,959 Speaker 1: they have turned themselves around, or they've angled in a 463 00:33:02,960 --> 00:33:06,560 Speaker 1: different direction in order to take in either a more 464 00:33:06,680 --> 00:33:11,880 Speaker 1: panoramic view, a more comprehensive view, or certainly, at the 465 00:33:11,960 --> 00:33:16,680 Speaker 1: very minimum, a different view. So if, in fact, which 466 00:33:16,720 --> 00:33:21,760 Speaker 1: I think, this verdict is a small step, a small pivot, 467 00:33:21,800 --> 00:33:25,080 Speaker 1: if you will, then what we now must do is 468 00:33:25,160 --> 00:33:29,120 Speaker 1: decide whether we will advance in a new direction retreat 469 00:33:29,240 --> 00:33:33,160 Speaker 1: from a new direction or do something which is lateral, 470 00:33:33,640 --> 00:33:36,920 Speaker 1: either moving in a different direction side to side, and 471 00:33:37,000 --> 00:33:41,320 Speaker 1: I would argue that a retreat here would be unacceptable 472 00:33:41,600 --> 00:33:46,320 Speaker 1: and advance would be preferable, and a side movement, a 473 00:33:46,320 --> 00:33:50,960 Speaker 1: more lateral movement, would only be a strategic movement to 474 00:33:51,040 --> 00:33:54,840 Speaker 1: maintain the status quo. So what we need then from 475 00:33:54,840 --> 00:33:58,840 Speaker 1: this verdict, If this verdict is a sign that there 476 00:33:59,040 --> 00:34:01,840 Speaker 1: is a new traject to be ahead, we now need 477 00:34:01,960 --> 00:34:05,520 Speaker 1: the advancement. We need to see the agility of our 478 00:34:05,680 --> 00:34:09,200 Speaker 1: criminal justice system from our legal system. We need to 479 00:34:09,239 --> 00:34:12,920 Speaker 1: see the advancement in policing, and we also need to 480 00:34:12,960 --> 00:34:16,520 Speaker 1: see a different community support that would help moved the 481 00:34:16,560 --> 00:34:20,359 Speaker 1: sport President. Biden said this was a murder in the 482 00:34:20,400 --> 00:34:23,400 Speaker 1: full light of day. Some of the factors here that 483 00:34:23,480 --> 00:34:27,240 Speaker 1: set this apart is that video that was seen around 484 00:34:27,320 --> 00:34:30,799 Speaker 1: the world, the summer of protests, the blue wall of 485 00:34:30,920 --> 00:34:34,680 Speaker 1: silence crumbling. But in the future, how many cases will 486 00:34:34,719 --> 00:34:38,680 Speaker 1: there be with so many factors like that, So this 487 00:34:38,719 --> 00:34:42,120 Speaker 1: is significantly important for us to appreciate. We will not 488 00:34:42,800 --> 00:34:46,720 Speaker 1: often see cases such as this come before the court 489 00:34:47,040 --> 00:34:51,440 Speaker 1: where there is an overwhelming amount of video epidence and 490 00:34:51,520 --> 00:34:55,080 Speaker 1: that there is a sympathy jury in a sense to 491 00:34:55,200 --> 00:34:57,880 Speaker 1: the facts of the case, and even more so that 492 00:34:57,960 --> 00:35:00,759 Speaker 1: there is an array of experts to um and give 493 00:35:00,840 --> 00:35:04,040 Speaker 1: us a precise moment when George Floyd would have taken 494 00:35:04,040 --> 00:35:08,360 Speaker 1: his last breast, when the life basically lifted away from him. 495 00:35:08,440 --> 00:35:11,160 Speaker 1: We don't benefit from that. And I would like to 496 00:35:11,280 --> 00:35:15,279 Speaker 1: argue or at least recall with Ratney King and the 497 00:35:15,360 --> 00:35:19,080 Speaker 1: four l A p D officers who were charged and 498 00:35:19,200 --> 00:35:23,239 Speaker 1: ultimately exonerated, at least in the state court, we had 499 00:35:23,440 --> 00:35:27,000 Speaker 1: visual evidence, but the defense was able to tap into 500 00:35:27,160 --> 00:35:31,240 Speaker 1: a certain logic, a certain white logic if you will, 501 00:35:31,560 --> 00:35:37,520 Speaker 1: that beholds the black or Latin or minority male or female, 502 00:35:37,920 --> 00:35:41,560 Speaker 1: or someone who's considered non normative, and some stretch of 503 00:35:41,600 --> 00:35:45,319 Speaker 1: imagination as the threat to what they were able to do, 504 00:35:45,440 --> 00:35:50,160 Speaker 1: even with footage, was to say that Ratney King was 505 00:35:50,239 --> 00:35:55,000 Speaker 1: reaching up from the hells of urth to strike damage 506 00:35:55,040 --> 00:35:58,440 Speaker 1: to these officers who were hovering above him and the 507 00:35:58,520 --> 00:36:02,239 Speaker 1: jury if you recall that narrative, and it was very 508 00:36:02,320 --> 00:36:07,279 Speaker 1: much um racio undertones there. And so that was one 509 00:36:07,560 --> 00:36:10,440 Speaker 1: piece of footage. In this particular case, you had a 510 00:36:10,600 --> 00:36:15,520 Speaker 1: substand you amount of footage available and it just became insurmountable. 511 00:36:16,160 --> 00:36:20,440 Speaker 1: Even though I think the defense attorney Eric Nelson, without 512 00:36:20,480 --> 00:36:25,480 Speaker 1: being explicit, attempted to draw on those racio stereotypes. That 513 00:36:25,640 --> 00:36:29,439 Speaker 1: was successful um for the cops in the Ratney King case. 514 00:36:29,760 --> 00:36:33,320 Speaker 1: It just wasn't successful here. And so there is something 515 00:36:33,400 --> 00:36:36,719 Speaker 1: to celebrate, there is something to hope in that. But 516 00:36:37,120 --> 00:36:40,719 Speaker 1: to answer your anitie question, we will not be afforded 517 00:36:40,760 --> 00:36:46,880 Speaker 1: in most cases with this much evidence and these many experts, witnesses, 518 00:36:47,080 --> 00:36:51,600 Speaker 1: and these many direct witnesses. The Attorney General Merrick Garland 519 00:36:51,719 --> 00:36:55,920 Speaker 1: has announced a pattern or practice investigation. How important is it? 520 00:36:56,560 --> 00:36:59,440 Speaker 1: You know, I am very pleased by that because I 521 00:36:59,600 --> 00:37:03,319 Speaker 1: have made inintains that there was a danger in celebrating 522 00:37:03,760 --> 00:37:09,240 Speaker 1: this particular conviction. The prostratorial teams stated in their summary 523 00:37:09,280 --> 00:37:14,880 Speaker 1: remark that this wasn't an indictment against mp D Minneapolis 524 00:37:14,920 --> 00:37:19,000 Speaker 1: Police Department, It wasn't an indictment against the Minnesota police agency. 525 00:37:19,480 --> 00:37:23,240 Speaker 1: In fact, it clearly wasn't an indictment of policing around 526 00:37:23,239 --> 00:37:25,160 Speaker 1: the country. They made it clear that it was just 527 00:37:25,239 --> 00:37:28,880 Speaker 1: one officer, and that was a strategic decision on the 528 00:37:28,920 --> 00:37:31,840 Speaker 1: part of the proscratorial team because, as we all know, 529 00:37:32,040 --> 00:37:36,239 Speaker 1: at this point, it is almost unlikely that you will 530 00:37:36,280 --> 00:37:39,680 Speaker 1: have an officer broughth to trial. Only three percent are 531 00:37:39,800 --> 00:37:42,080 Speaker 1: and if and when they're brought to trial, less than 532 00:37:42,120 --> 00:37:46,120 Speaker 1: one percent are actually convicted. So they had to isolate 533 00:37:46,320 --> 00:37:50,880 Speaker 1: Derek children by himself. He wasn't representative of policing throughout 534 00:37:50,880 --> 00:37:53,680 Speaker 1: the country. And the danger in that was that those 535 00:37:53,719 --> 00:37:57,960 Speaker 1: on the outside of the Indepen County courthouse were complaining 536 00:37:58,040 --> 00:38:02,160 Speaker 1: about a more systemic problem. Well, the beautiful things about 537 00:38:02,200 --> 00:38:06,320 Speaker 1: the Department of Justice and the U. S Attorney General 538 00:38:06,440 --> 00:38:11,080 Speaker 1: Merrick Garland, who just yesterday announced that there would be 539 00:38:11,080 --> 00:38:15,000 Speaker 1: an investigation in sweeping investigation around patterns and practices, is 540 00:38:15,040 --> 00:38:20,000 Speaker 1: that it seems that Attorney General Garland understands that Derek 541 00:38:20,120 --> 00:38:26,120 Speaker 1: Chauvin being found guilty on all three counts is about accountability. 542 00:38:26,480 --> 00:38:31,200 Speaker 1: It is what we call reactive accountability what Attorney General 543 00:38:32,040 --> 00:38:37,320 Speaker 1: Merrick Garland realized that we need proactive justice. Today's a 544 00:38:37,400 --> 00:38:44,320 Speaker 1: difference between reactive accountability and proactive justice. Pro Active justice 545 00:38:44,719 --> 00:38:48,560 Speaker 1: is the effort to create an environment where the loss 546 00:38:48,680 --> 00:38:52,000 Speaker 1: of life will not be a sort of touch point 547 00:38:52,239 --> 00:38:56,440 Speaker 1: for pro police against those who are anti police, et cetera. 548 00:38:56,880 --> 00:39:00,920 Speaker 1: It will not lead to the grieving and the pain 549 00:39:01,280 --> 00:39:05,399 Speaker 1: suffered by that community and by the immediate family. That's 550 00:39:05,480 --> 00:39:10,400 Speaker 1: proactive justice. Proactive justice says that we want police not 551 00:39:10,640 --> 00:39:14,960 Speaker 1: to simply enforce the law in black and brown communities, 552 00:39:15,160 --> 00:39:18,160 Speaker 1: but we want them to serve the community just the 553 00:39:18,239 --> 00:39:23,439 Speaker 1: same as they would do in more suburban communities. They 554 00:39:23,640 --> 00:39:27,680 Speaker 1: serve and protect as opposed to enforce the law and 555 00:39:27,760 --> 00:39:31,080 Speaker 1: engage in order maintenance. Now, I want to be careful 556 00:39:31,239 --> 00:39:36,040 Speaker 1: here and be and be very clear. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, 557 00:39:36,680 --> 00:39:39,720 Speaker 1: is a suburban community. So it is not the case 558 00:39:39,800 --> 00:39:44,600 Speaker 1: that all suburban communities where African American or Latin American 559 00:39:44,760 --> 00:39:48,319 Speaker 1: or other minority people are located. Somehow it is the 560 00:39:48,440 --> 00:39:55,440 Speaker 1: rap of pretextual stops or racial profiling or stop express 561 00:39:55,600 --> 00:39:58,759 Speaker 1: or heavy handed policing. But by and large, there is 562 00:39:58,800 --> 00:40:03,520 Speaker 1: a different experience in police in the suburbs versus policing 563 00:40:03,800 --> 00:40:08,000 Speaker 1: in urban centers. How does this investigation go forward? Who 564 00:40:08,040 --> 00:40:10,560 Speaker 1: do they talk to, what do they do? This is 565 00:40:10,600 --> 00:40:14,360 Speaker 1: a great question, and most people don't know what these 566 00:40:14,480 --> 00:40:17,960 Speaker 1: very sort of complicated investigations which are initiated by the 567 00:40:18,000 --> 00:40:21,279 Speaker 1: Department of Justice until and and often when we hear 568 00:40:21,320 --> 00:40:24,320 Speaker 1: that the Department of Justice are initiating or beginning a 569 00:40:24,480 --> 00:40:30,239 Speaker 1: patterns and practice investigation. We almost automatically assume that there's 570 00:40:30,280 --> 00:40:33,760 Speaker 1: going to be some decisions rendered in the same amount 571 00:40:33,800 --> 00:40:36,560 Speaker 1: of time as a criminal conviction. Right, it doesn't work 572 00:40:36,560 --> 00:40:40,799 Speaker 1: at length. These types of investigations last for months on end, 573 00:40:41,200 --> 00:40:45,440 Speaker 1: and they're very comprehensive. It requires that professionals from the 574 00:40:45,440 --> 00:40:49,280 Speaker 1: Department of Justice, sometimes in partnership with the local agency 575 00:40:49,320 --> 00:40:53,600 Speaker 1: being investigated, in most cases without them. They will seek 576 00:40:53,600 --> 00:40:58,040 Speaker 1: out witnesses both excessive police violence. They will look up 577 00:40:58,040 --> 00:41:02,960 Speaker 1: complaints citizen complain and investigate those stretching back perhaps some 578 00:41:03,160 --> 00:41:07,560 Speaker 1: teen years. They will look at the actual data, arrest 579 00:41:07,640 --> 00:41:11,239 Speaker 1: records and police incidents that work found, and they will 580 00:41:11,239 --> 00:41:14,839 Speaker 1: reach out to those participants of that police encounter there, 581 00:41:15,400 --> 00:41:19,480 Speaker 1: whether a positive encounter or field investigation of what we 582 00:41:19,560 --> 00:41:23,520 Speaker 1: call a carry stop, or an actual criminal encounter where 583 00:41:23,560 --> 00:41:26,719 Speaker 1: there is an arrect and they will attempt to ascertain 584 00:41:27,120 --> 00:41:29,880 Speaker 1: what was the treatment, like what was the nature of 585 00:41:29,920 --> 00:41:33,840 Speaker 1: the stop? Where these pretextual stops, where was the pattern 586 00:41:33,880 --> 00:41:37,280 Speaker 1: of these stops? Are they concentrated in a particular corridor, 587 00:41:37,640 --> 00:41:41,360 Speaker 1: on a particular neighborhood where it is predominantly black and Latin. 588 00:41:41,880 --> 00:41:43,759 Speaker 1: These are the things that they want to know. They 589 00:41:43,760 --> 00:41:46,440 Speaker 1: want to try to gather all the complaints, to gather 590 00:41:46,480 --> 00:41:48,840 Speaker 1: all the witnesses, but they also want to talk to 591 00:41:48,920 --> 00:41:52,520 Speaker 1: police officers. And one of the beautiful things about this 592 00:41:52,560 --> 00:41:57,240 Speaker 1: particular trial with Derek Children is that we heard nearly 593 00:41:57,280 --> 00:42:01,040 Speaker 1: a dozen police officers come out and say, not in 594 00:42:01,280 --> 00:42:05,920 Speaker 1: our names. We will not allow nor accept brutality in 595 00:42:06,000 --> 00:42:10,080 Speaker 1: our names. This might bode or signal that there is 596 00:42:10,120 --> 00:42:15,440 Speaker 1: a new horizon horizon ahead of us with regards to 597 00:42:15,560 --> 00:42:20,320 Speaker 1: police and black and Latin relations, community relations. I hope so. 598 00:42:20,800 --> 00:42:22,799 Speaker 1: But the Department of Justice will want to talk to 599 00:42:22,880 --> 00:42:25,840 Speaker 1: almost all those officers in that department, and they do 600 00:42:25,920 --> 00:42:31,400 Speaker 1: this comprehensive investigation so they can get at those patterns 601 00:42:31,400 --> 00:42:35,640 Speaker 1: and practices. You know, I'm an ethnographer and I studied policing, 602 00:42:36,320 --> 00:42:40,319 Speaker 1: and in order to really discover something about the less 603 00:42:40,440 --> 00:42:44,479 Speaker 1: visible aspects of police culture, you can't come in one 604 00:42:44,560 --> 00:42:47,000 Speaker 1: day and ask if your questions and think you've arrived 605 00:42:47,040 --> 00:42:51,440 Speaker 1: at some truth. You have to get in and experience 606 00:42:51,680 --> 00:42:54,920 Speaker 1: this community for the long haul. I mean almost you know, 607 00:42:54,960 --> 00:42:58,920 Speaker 1: a year more. Because people will present themselves in a 608 00:42:59,040 --> 00:43:03,120 Speaker 1: certain way for the public, but off the main stage, 609 00:43:03,160 --> 00:43:05,839 Speaker 1: if you will, they begin to show who they truly are. 610 00:43:05,920 --> 00:43:08,440 Speaker 1: And this is what the Department of Justice essentially is 611 00:43:08,480 --> 00:43:13,160 Speaker 1: going to do. Some activists and members of Floyd's family 612 00:43:13,280 --> 00:43:17,080 Speaker 1: are calling for Derek Chauvin to get the maximum sentence. 613 00:43:17,920 --> 00:43:22,200 Speaker 1: What's your take on the sentencing. Well, they're always are 614 00:43:22,960 --> 00:43:27,799 Speaker 1: these mitigating factors, and they're there are these exaggerated factories 615 00:43:28,040 --> 00:43:31,040 Speaker 1: that either will push the penalty up or down. I 616 00:43:31,040 --> 00:43:34,960 Speaker 1: think I'm certainly this homicide was committed before children, and 617 00:43:35,040 --> 00:43:38,319 Speaker 1: that should be accounted for, and that should a call 618 00:43:38,440 --> 00:43:42,080 Speaker 1: for a great a party. Um. I can only think about, 619 00:43:42,239 --> 00:43:46,480 Speaker 1: for example, Darnella Frazier, who lamented the fact in her 620 00:43:46,520 --> 00:43:52,080 Speaker 1: testimony that she's haunted at night and harried by day 621 00:43:52,080 --> 00:43:56,399 Speaker 1: of the idea that she could not intervene. She had 622 00:43:56,480 --> 00:43:59,800 Speaker 1: the impulse to save this man's life, but it was 623 00:43:59,840 --> 00:44:02,879 Speaker 1: not seeing that she could do, and and how she's 624 00:44:02,920 --> 00:44:07,040 Speaker 1: been haunted by that. I think about her, and I 625 00:44:07,080 --> 00:44:10,600 Speaker 1: think about her companion, her her relative who was just 626 00:44:10,760 --> 00:44:14,919 Speaker 1: nine at the time. No, this should factor in. These 627 00:44:14,960 --> 00:44:19,680 Speaker 1: are factors that should cause or call for great epivalcy. 628 00:44:20,120 --> 00:44:23,040 Speaker 1: Now I can't tell you whether or not Derek Cholden 629 00:44:23,719 --> 00:44:27,440 Speaker 1: should receive the minimum that he could be charged on. 630 00:44:27,560 --> 00:44:30,439 Speaker 1: The max is somewhere in between. What I can tell 631 00:44:30,480 --> 00:44:35,759 Speaker 1: you is that his disposition, his response to the conviction, 632 00:44:36,239 --> 00:44:44,400 Speaker 1: his response throughout the trial, and his science both from 633 00:44:44,520 --> 00:44:50,880 Speaker 1: his body dispositions, his non verbals, and also his election 634 00:44:51,080 --> 00:44:55,760 Speaker 1: to exercise us at amendment was the same cold, of course, 635 00:44:56,840 --> 00:45:01,600 Speaker 1: in different silence to which he expressed when he kneels 636 00:45:01,760 --> 00:45:06,240 Speaker 1: upon George Floyd's neck. And so I am not a judge, 637 00:45:07,200 --> 00:45:09,960 Speaker 1: but I think that when you're thinking about the penalties, 638 00:45:10,000 --> 00:45:14,399 Speaker 1: you have to even take into account that matter. There 639 00:45:14,520 --> 00:45:20,759 Speaker 1: was absolutely no signs of contrition on his face, um, 640 00:45:20,840 --> 00:45:27,239 Speaker 1: And so I think whatever the judge um decides, it 641 00:45:27,560 --> 00:45:32,320 Speaker 1: should be as substantial as the actions that were committed 642 00:45:33,480 --> 00:45:37,560 Speaker 1: the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act. How important is 643 00:45:37,600 --> 00:45:40,839 Speaker 1: it that that get passed? Are there certain things in 644 00:45:40,880 --> 00:45:45,120 Speaker 1: that act that are necessary? Or can we move forward 645 00:45:45,160 --> 00:45:47,480 Speaker 1: without it? You know, this is this is a great 646 00:45:47,560 --> 00:45:53,880 Speaker 1: question again disappoints to Merrick's Gardener's the Attorney General's comment yesterday, 647 00:45:54,320 --> 00:45:59,160 Speaker 1: he said the verdict does not resolve systemic policing. We 648 00:45:59,719 --> 00:46:03,719 Speaker 1: myre deal with the issues of spetimic policing are in 649 00:46:03,719 --> 00:46:08,680 Speaker 1: this country, and that must be legislated at higher level. 650 00:46:09,480 --> 00:46:13,279 Speaker 1: It must come from city council and state legislatures, and 651 00:46:13,360 --> 00:46:17,719 Speaker 1: our federal legislature, which is the Congress. It also, i 652 00:46:17,760 --> 00:46:22,520 Speaker 1: would argue, it must come from the court. You know, 653 00:46:22,640 --> 00:46:27,759 Speaker 1: as the Supreme Court has given wide latitude two officers 654 00:46:27,800 --> 00:46:32,319 Speaker 1: in order to carry out law and order law enforcement, 655 00:46:32,920 --> 00:46:38,319 Speaker 1: and by and large the depictions of their practices has 656 00:46:38,440 --> 00:46:43,680 Speaker 1: been the sim blue line against a k chaotic black backdrop. 657 00:46:44,200 --> 00:46:47,279 Speaker 1: In other words, that police have been operating in this 658 00:46:47,400 --> 00:46:51,720 Speaker 1: sort of dystopian phase of African Americans and Latino people 659 00:46:51,719 --> 00:46:55,000 Speaker 1: and other people of color, and so in some ways 660 00:46:55,120 --> 00:46:58,680 Speaker 1: perhaps the implicit biases of the of the court, and 661 00:46:58,719 --> 00:47:01,600 Speaker 1: I'm speaking of the Supreme Court, it has allowed for 662 00:47:01,719 --> 00:47:07,120 Speaker 1: these practices, in other words, not to prohibit nor interfere 663 00:47:07,160 --> 00:47:11,280 Speaker 1: with with responsible police practicing because they keeping society's safe. 664 00:47:11,840 --> 00:47:15,360 Speaker 1: And time and time again we have seen evidence where 665 00:47:16,280 --> 00:47:21,880 Speaker 1: uh police have operated and you know, very oppressive fashion 666 00:47:22,719 --> 00:47:27,640 Speaker 1: against these fellow citizens. The Supreme Court in fact has 667 00:47:27,719 --> 00:47:31,280 Speaker 1: given white latitude and has given very little guard rails. 668 00:47:31,760 --> 00:47:34,719 Speaker 1: It's told police that they can do all of these things, 669 00:47:34,760 --> 00:47:37,040 Speaker 1: but it's never told the police what they can't do. 670 00:47:37,600 --> 00:47:41,279 Speaker 1: And so hopefully this becomes law at the federal level, 671 00:47:41,640 --> 00:47:45,880 Speaker 1: but we need the Supreme Court. Uh. And you know, 672 00:47:46,480 --> 00:47:51,400 Speaker 1: as part of this right, we need local courts to 673 00:47:51,480 --> 00:47:53,160 Speaker 1: be part of this as well, but we need the 674 00:47:53,200 --> 00:47:57,000 Speaker 1: Supreme Court to be part of this uh. And there's 675 00:47:57,040 --> 00:48:02,080 Speaker 1: been a number of fact is where the court has 676 00:48:02,080 --> 00:48:07,320 Speaker 1: to be quite freek let the American Injury down. Thanks 677 00:48:07,360 --> 00:48:10,799 Speaker 1: for being on the show. Califanni. That's Califanni Torre, an 678 00:48:10,840 --> 00:48:15,279 Speaker 1: associate professor of criminal justice at Quinnipiac University. And that's 679 00:48:15,280 --> 00:48:17,759 Speaker 1: it for the edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. I'm 680 00:48:17,840 --> 00:48:20,640 Speaker 1: June Grasso. Thanks so much for listening, and please tune 681 00:48:20,680 --> 00:48:22,759 Speaker 1: into The Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten 682 00:48:22,840 --> 00:48:25,120 Speaker 1: pm Eastern right here on Bloomberg Radio.