1 00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:09,280 --> 00:00:13,640 Speaker 1: Many top flight lawyers abandoned Donald Trump during his divisive presidency, 3 00:00:14,000 --> 00:00:16,040 Speaker 1: but he still has two in his corner as he 4 00:00:16,079 --> 00:00:20,239 Speaker 1: faces his biggest criminal legal threats yet. Mark Mukasey and 5 00:00:20,280 --> 00:00:24,480 Speaker 1: Alan Fuda Fast are representing Trump in two separate investigations 6 00:00:24,480 --> 00:00:27,680 Speaker 1: in New York which could lead to a historic prosecution 7 00:00:27,720 --> 00:00:30,680 Speaker 1: of the former president. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter 8 00:00:30,720 --> 00:00:35,080 Speaker 1: Greg Farrell. Trump has struggled to attract big name lawyers 9 00:00:35,159 --> 00:00:38,520 Speaker 1: and firms in his latest court battles, and at times 10 00:00:38,520 --> 00:00:41,080 Speaker 1: he ended up with lawyers who were not experts in 11 00:00:41,120 --> 00:00:44,680 Speaker 1: the area they were litigating. Is a similar thing happening 12 00:00:44,680 --> 00:00:48,320 Speaker 1: with the New York investigations so far? No, and that's 13 00:00:48,400 --> 00:00:50,920 Speaker 1: one of the main points of the story, and trying 14 00:00:50,920 --> 00:00:53,800 Speaker 1: to do this in a not too disparaging way. But 15 00:00:54,360 --> 00:00:57,680 Speaker 1: unlike some of the stopped to stealing lawyers from November 16 00:00:58,120 --> 00:01:01,120 Speaker 1: who are hold the press conferences in talking about Venezuelan 17 00:01:01,200 --> 00:01:06,240 Speaker 1: dictators in secret plots involving you know, everything but extraterrestrials, 18 00:01:06,280 --> 00:01:08,520 Speaker 1: these guys who are handling the New York case right 19 00:01:08,520 --> 00:01:12,399 Speaker 1: now are serious lawyers who are good at what they do. Now, 20 00:01:12,520 --> 00:01:15,200 Speaker 1: as you mentioned, the former president does have a tendency 21 00:01:15,240 --> 00:01:18,240 Speaker 1: to like cycle through lawyers and get a new one 22 00:01:18,280 --> 00:01:20,440 Speaker 1: if he doesn't like it, you know, the way things 23 00:01:20,480 --> 00:01:23,720 Speaker 1: are going. But I think he also recognizes that, you know, 24 00:01:23,880 --> 00:01:26,240 Speaker 1: it's one thing to have a series of lawyers like 25 00:01:26,280 --> 00:01:29,400 Speaker 1: in November who held a lot of press conferences and 26 00:01:29,440 --> 00:01:31,160 Speaker 1: tried to sew a lot of doubt in the public, 27 00:01:31,400 --> 00:01:34,000 Speaker 1: but really didn't have any good skills when it came 28 00:01:34,040 --> 00:01:36,160 Speaker 1: to found things in court, or at least they couldn't 29 00:01:36,200 --> 00:01:39,480 Speaker 1: present a presentable case to a criminal case in New 30 00:01:39,520 --> 00:01:42,760 Speaker 1: York State, where I think Trump knows he needs good 31 00:01:42,840 --> 00:01:46,320 Speaker 1: lawyers to hold this office and to slow down and 32 00:01:46,360 --> 00:01:51,440 Speaker 1: hopefully derail any investigation into his business practices. Let's start 33 00:01:51,480 --> 00:01:55,400 Speaker 1: with the Vance investigation. Tell us about how he's peached 34 00:01:55,480 --> 00:02:00,000 Speaker 1: up his staff and what you know about it so far. Well, Fortunately, 35 00:02:00,120 --> 00:02:03,840 Speaker 1: because of Trump's contesting turning over the eight years of 36 00:02:03,920 --> 00:02:06,240 Speaker 1: tax records while he was in office, there's a lot 37 00:02:06,240 --> 00:02:09,880 Speaker 1: of back and forth between Svanta's office and the President's lawyers, 38 00:02:10,160 --> 00:02:13,280 Speaker 1: the whole field process. So we do know that Advance's 39 00:02:13,320 --> 00:02:17,359 Speaker 1: office is very interested in paperwork, not just the tax 40 00:02:17,639 --> 00:02:21,359 Speaker 1: filings you know where from personally and Trump organization had 41 00:02:21,400 --> 00:02:24,680 Speaker 1: to state the government what they earned, etcetera. Evaluations on 42 00:02:24,800 --> 00:02:28,760 Speaker 1: various properties, but also related paperwork. This grew out of 43 00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:31,959 Speaker 1: the campaign finance violation that Michael Cohen plainly guilty to, 44 00:02:32,200 --> 00:02:36,200 Speaker 1: where Cohen paid a hundred thirty thousand dollars out of 45 00:02:36,200 --> 00:02:38,600 Speaker 1: his own pocket and hush money to keep an adult 46 00:02:38,639 --> 00:02:42,120 Speaker 1: film actress from talking about an alleged affair with Trump 47 00:02:42,480 --> 00:02:45,120 Speaker 1: and completely guilty of that, and Trump was not charged 48 00:02:45,160 --> 00:02:49,480 Speaker 1: with it. However, it came out during that prosecution, which 49 00:02:49,560 --> 00:02:53,520 Speaker 1: was at the federal level, that the Trump organization basically 50 00:02:53,520 --> 00:02:57,520 Speaker 1: paid Cohen back by a series of payments like that 51 00:02:57,720 --> 00:03:01,639 Speaker 1: details abscribed as retainer, monthly painter for law services, when 52 00:03:01,680 --> 00:03:04,880 Speaker 1: in fact it was a campaign contribution. So that runs 53 00:03:04,880 --> 00:03:08,360 Speaker 1: a foul of New York Books and records laws, which 54 00:03:08,360 --> 00:03:11,400 Speaker 1: indicate which basically holds that companies in the state of 55 00:03:11,440 --> 00:03:16,640 Speaker 1: New York cannot, you know, file or have fraudulent books 56 00:03:16,639 --> 00:03:20,160 Speaker 1: and records that are wrong with the purpose of covering 57 00:03:20,280 --> 00:03:23,520 Speaker 1: up wrong collectivity. So it's one thing to just have 58 00:03:23,560 --> 00:03:25,600 Speaker 1: a mistake in your books. If you're a local jewelry 59 00:03:25,600 --> 00:03:30,640 Speaker 1: shop or a nail salon. But if you're basically distorting 60 00:03:30,760 --> 00:03:33,200 Speaker 1: the books and records of your company out of a 61 00:03:33,320 --> 00:03:37,560 Speaker 1: conscious attempt to hide something that's some form of illicit activity, 62 00:03:37,800 --> 00:03:40,960 Speaker 1: then that day that breaks New York state law. So 63 00:03:41,000 --> 00:03:44,680 Speaker 1: I think that's primarily what Advance's office is looking into, 64 00:03:44,760 --> 00:03:49,240 Speaker 1: because there are many examples in media. In various newspapers 65 00:03:49,280 --> 00:03:53,520 Speaker 1: in Bloomberg have reported on you know, a discrepancy valuations 66 00:03:54,240 --> 00:03:57,040 Speaker 1: where a Trump property is valued at you know, a 67 00:03:57,200 --> 00:04:01,240 Speaker 1: very high you know, arguably in plated value in order 68 00:04:01,280 --> 00:04:04,000 Speaker 1: to secure a bigger line of credit from a bank, 69 00:04:04,720 --> 00:04:07,119 Speaker 1: but come tax time, it's a value that the low 70 00:04:07,120 --> 00:04:10,400 Speaker 1: ball of value in order to reduce the tax on it. Now, 71 00:04:10,880 --> 00:04:13,640 Speaker 1: the defense and the lawyers did not describe to me, 72 00:04:13,720 --> 00:04:15,800 Speaker 1: nor would they like what their plan is. They wouldn't 73 00:04:15,800 --> 00:04:18,320 Speaker 1: show any cards. But you know, people who have been 74 00:04:18,320 --> 00:04:20,919 Speaker 1: down this world before other lawyers explain to me that 75 00:04:21,279 --> 00:04:24,160 Speaker 1: most likely there are there are several ways to defend 76 00:04:24,560 --> 00:04:27,479 Speaker 1: presuming there is a charge at some point about the 77 00:04:27,520 --> 00:04:32,880 Speaker 1: company mismarking or trying to minimize its taxes but maximizing 78 00:04:33,040 --> 00:04:35,880 Speaker 1: its banks loans. Uh, there could be an argument that 79 00:04:36,200 --> 00:04:38,479 Speaker 1: this is the world Manhattan real estate, you know, the 80 00:04:38,760 --> 00:04:42,200 Speaker 1: ten or fifteen top players and Manhattan real estate. This 81 00:04:42,240 --> 00:04:44,360 Speaker 1: is kind of part of the course. Yes, it's a 82 00:04:44,400 --> 00:04:47,680 Speaker 1: fifty five mile per hour speed zone, but everybody drive 83 00:04:47,760 --> 00:04:51,120 Speaker 1: sixty five or seventy, so I'm not sure that will 84 00:04:51,320 --> 00:04:55,880 Speaker 1: hold up necessarily, but it's a legitimate argument that, you know, 85 00:04:55,960 --> 00:04:58,400 Speaker 1: this is the way businesses in Manhattan for everybody, and 86 00:04:58,440 --> 00:05:01,480 Speaker 1: it's actually unfair to expect one of the top dozen 87 00:05:01,520 --> 00:05:05,880 Speaker 1: players to you know, it'd here more closely, you know, 88 00:05:06,040 --> 00:05:08,320 Speaker 1: and get away from the sort of self promotion that's 89 00:05:08,520 --> 00:05:10,760 Speaker 1: you know, part and parcel of the real estate game 90 00:05:10,920 --> 00:05:14,200 Speaker 1: in New York. And also tell me how VANCE has 91 00:05:14,400 --> 00:05:19,000 Speaker 1: beefed up the people working on it. So Vance most 92 00:05:19,040 --> 00:05:23,640 Speaker 1: significantly has brought in a senior lawyer from the law 93 00:05:23,720 --> 00:05:27,000 Speaker 1: firm Paul Wife Mark Pomerantz, who not only has spent 94 00:05:27,040 --> 00:05:30,040 Speaker 1: the past twenty five years or so in the private 95 00:05:30,080 --> 00:05:34,000 Speaker 1: sector and working for corporate clients, but prior to that 96 00:05:34,160 --> 00:05:36,920 Speaker 1: was head of i think criminal section at the Southern 97 00:05:36,920 --> 00:05:39,320 Speaker 1: District of New York. He was Attorney's Office, so he 98 00:05:39,400 --> 00:05:42,800 Speaker 1: was a former federal prosecutor who did handle mop cases, 99 00:05:43,200 --> 00:05:46,200 Speaker 1: other serious crime cases. I mean he's very sophisticated in 100 00:05:46,320 --> 00:05:49,719 Speaker 1: terms of financial fraud. He's been advising Vans, I think 101 00:05:49,720 --> 00:05:52,360 Speaker 1: on and off for several years, but it was made 102 00:05:52,400 --> 00:05:54,440 Speaker 1: formal and official more than a month ago when he 103 00:05:54,440 --> 00:05:57,919 Speaker 1: came on as like a temporary either assistant or deputy 104 00:05:58,000 --> 00:06:01,720 Speaker 1: chief district attorney. What we don't know. The big news 105 00:06:01,800 --> 00:06:04,520 Speaker 1: last week is that say Vance says decided or announced 106 00:06:04,520 --> 00:06:06,640 Speaker 1: he is not going to run for reelection. That means 107 00:06:06,680 --> 00:06:08,560 Speaker 1: Advance will no longer be d a at the end 108 00:06:08,560 --> 00:06:12,200 Speaker 1: of this calendar year. Whereas any prosecution, you know, the 109 00:06:12,440 --> 00:06:15,720 Speaker 1: size and scope and seriousness of going after the former 110 00:06:15,760 --> 00:06:17,520 Speaker 1: president of the United States is certainly going to take 111 00:06:17,520 --> 00:06:21,159 Speaker 1: a long time to unfold. So to some extent, bringing 112 00:06:21,160 --> 00:06:24,640 Speaker 1: in a top person like Mark Mark Promerans who must 113 00:06:24,640 --> 00:06:26,480 Speaker 1: have known it, must have been advised by Vance. I'm 114 00:06:26,480 --> 00:06:29,760 Speaker 1: assuming before he accepted this that Rants would probably go 115 00:06:29,839 --> 00:06:31,640 Speaker 1: and he would need to stay there for the course 116 00:06:31,680 --> 00:06:33,640 Speaker 1: of the year to see this thing through. And this 117 00:06:33,760 --> 00:06:35,560 Speaker 1: is a speculation on my part. We don't know this, 118 00:06:35,680 --> 00:06:37,520 Speaker 1: but it makes sense that this would be a way 119 00:06:37,560 --> 00:06:40,640 Speaker 1: to guarantee some continuity in terms of the management of 120 00:06:40,720 --> 00:06:43,160 Speaker 1: the cage going forward. So let's talk a little bit 121 00:06:43,200 --> 00:06:47,680 Speaker 1: about these two lawyers. Tell us about Mark new Casey. So, 122 00:06:47,760 --> 00:06:50,640 Speaker 1: Mark mckazy, he has a famous last name. His father 123 00:06:51,240 --> 00:06:55,680 Speaker 1: was back in this nighties senior senior prosecutor in New 124 00:06:55,760 --> 00:06:58,000 Speaker 1: Attorney's office in the Southern District under the U S 125 00:06:58,040 --> 00:07:02,600 Speaker 1: Attorney Rudolph Giuliani. So Michael mckazy and Rudolph Giuliani are 126 00:07:02,720 --> 00:07:06,160 Speaker 1: very close, going way back in late eighties, Michael mckasey 127 00:07:06,240 --> 00:07:09,360 Speaker 1: became a federal judge and um in the nineties when 128 00:07:09,400 --> 00:07:12,280 Speaker 1: Rudy was elected mayor, he asked Michael McKay to swear 129 00:07:12,320 --> 00:07:14,960 Speaker 1: him in not only in his first oath of office 130 00:07:14,960 --> 00:07:18,160 Speaker 1: as New York City mayor, but also after he was reelected. 131 00:07:18,440 --> 00:07:21,360 Speaker 1: So there's a close family relationship between the Giuliani's in 132 00:07:21,400 --> 00:07:25,320 Speaker 1: the mccasey's. Mark m'kesey, I think, you know, considered Rudy 133 00:07:25,360 --> 00:07:28,680 Speaker 1: to be an ntor figure and followed his father's career 134 00:07:28,720 --> 00:07:31,840 Speaker 1: bath and Rudy's by becoming a you know, a prosecutor 135 00:07:31,840 --> 00:07:34,240 Speaker 1: in the Southern District of New York and after almost 136 00:07:34,240 --> 00:07:36,600 Speaker 1: ten years went to the private sector and went to 137 00:07:36,720 --> 00:07:40,800 Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani's firm, which was then brace Well Giuliani. He 138 00:07:41,640 --> 00:07:44,240 Speaker 1: Mark mckasey and his father were supported as Rudy when 139 00:07:44,320 --> 00:07:46,600 Speaker 1: he had his brief run for presidents in two thousand 140 00:07:46,600 --> 00:07:49,000 Speaker 1: and eight, and again when Rudy switched firms a few 141 00:07:49,080 --> 00:07:51,040 Speaker 1: years later. I think it's twenty sixteen to go to 142 00:07:51,320 --> 00:07:55,520 Speaker 1: Greenberg Trau rig Mark Lukesey followed him. Now I had 143 00:07:55,560 --> 00:07:57,720 Speaker 1: the perception, I think a lot of people do did 144 00:07:58,240 --> 00:08:00,680 Speaker 1: that through this point, Mark Lucky as he was basically 145 00:08:00,760 --> 00:08:04,400 Speaker 1: benefiting from Rudy's connections and getting a lot of business 146 00:08:04,480 --> 00:08:08,400 Speaker 1: handed to him from Rudy. But it's clear, especially during 147 00:08:08,680 --> 00:08:12,160 Speaker 1: the latter years, that mczy had basically established his own 148 00:08:12,480 --> 00:08:15,960 Speaker 1: credibility as a white collar criminal defense lawyer, so that 149 00:08:16,000 --> 00:08:18,720 Speaker 1: when Rudy did leave Broomberg Prowark, the firm was not 150 00:08:18,840 --> 00:08:23,160 Speaker 1: happy with Rudy being such a big vocal proponent of 151 00:08:23,240 --> 00:08:26,640 Speaker 1: President Trump. Rudy left in early en to basically work 152 00:08:26,720 --> 00:08:29,840 Speaker 1: full time for Trump. On a personal capacity, Mark mckazy 153 00:08:29,920 --> 00:08:31,880 Speaker 1: decided to go his own way instead of his own 154 00:08:31,920 --> 00:08:34,920 Speaker 1: boutique trial which he's a very good trial lawyer. He's 155 00:08:34,960 --> 00:08:37,200 Speaker 1: good on his feet, he's won a number of cases, 156 00:08:37,280 --> 00:08:39,400 Speaker 1: and it can stand on his own I think it's 157 00:08:39,440 --> 00:08:41,520 Speaker 1: clear that it's not so much that there's a break 158 00:08:41,559 --> 00:08:43,880 Speaker 1: with Rudy as much as he's gone his own path 159 00:08:43,960 --> 00:08:46,520 Speaker 1: and sort of left the Rudy here behind. And he 160 00:08:46,600 --> 00:08:48,880 Speaker 1: did give us a quote for the story in terms 161 00:08:48,960 --> 00:08:52,160 Speaker 1: of without saying anything directly disparaging about Rudy. I think 162 00:08:52,160 --> 00:08:54,760 Speaker 1: he was clear that he had nothing to do with 163 00:08:54,840 --> 00:08:57,800 Speaker 1: some of thedoft the steel efforts that Rudy and other 164 00:08:57,920 --> 00:09:00,760 Speaker 1: lawyers were engaging in back in the member. I think 165 00:09:00,800 --> 00:09:03,600 Speaker 1: he views himself and his track record shows he's a 166 00:09:03,679 --> 00:09:08,079 Speaker 1: highly competent, accomplished defense lawyer. White called crime cases and 167 00:09:08,080 --> 00:09:11,679 Speaker 1: and actually, most famously in the past two years, Navy 168 00:09:11,760 --> 00:09:15,160 Speaker 1: Seal Eddie Gallagher, who had been accused of murder, were 169 00:09:15,160 --> 00:09:18,079 Speaker 1: gutting down a seventeen year old prisoner who was part 170 00:09:18,120 --> 00:09:20,640 Speaker 1: of this but he was captive and unarmed and just 171 00:09:21,200 --> 00:09:24,920 Speaker 1: was accused of murder. Kazee won an acquittal for him 172 00:09:25,120 --> 00:09:28,679 Speaker 1: in a Navy court and then Um the President, you know, 173 00:09:29,240 --> 00:09:32,760 Speaker 1: basically championed his cause. And the one charge that Gallagher 174 00:09:32,880 --> 00:09:35,120 Speaker 1: was convicted on, which was posing with the corpse of 175 00:09:35,200 --> 00:09:38,520 Speaker 1: this kid, which is against Navy regulations, a minor infraction 176 00:09:38,600 --> 00:09:41,560 Speaker 1: compared to the murder charge the President issued, you know, 177 00:09:41,920 --> 00:09:44,280 Speaker 1: at order of clemency, so that Eddie Gallagher didn't have 178 00:09:44,360 --> 00:09:46,880 Speaker 1: to do any time in jail or or suffer from 179 00:09:46,880 --> 00:09:48,800 Speaker 1: it at all, and is still a Navy seal. So 180 00:09:49,080 --> 00:09:52,280 Speaker 1: Mark mckazi gained some national notoriety. That was a big case, 181 00:09:52,559 --> 00:09:55,600 Speaker 1: particularly in right wing circles and on Fox News, so 182 00:09:55,679 --> 00:09:59,280 Speaker 1: he developed a national profile to that. The quote is 183 00:09:59,400 --> 00:10:01,840 Speaker 1: about Julie Yawn and m casey said, he went his 184 00:10:01,880 --> 00:10:04,679 Speaker 1: way and I went mine. I did not and would 185 00:10:04,720 --> 00:10:08,079 Speaker 1: not ever get involved in election related cases. Are a 186 00:10:08,160 --> 00:10:13,600 Speaker 1: lot of his client's conservatives. He's clear in saying that 187 00:10:13,640 --> 00:10:16,440 Speaker 1: he represents, you know, a wide variety of people on 188 00:10:16,480 --> 00:10:19,600 Speaker 1: the Democratic side as well as on the Republican side, 189 00:10:19,600 --> 00:10:21,760 Speaker 1: that it actually doesn't matter to him what the politics are. 190 00:10:22,200 --> 00:10:24,880 Speaker 1: But you know, as with the the Eddie Gallagher case, 191 00:10:25,080 --> 00:10:27,079 Speaker 1: and he's done some work for Trump in the past, 192 00:10:27,080 --> 00:10:29,520 Speaker 1: and just his ties to Rudy Uh. At a certain 193 00:10:29,559 --> 00:10:33,319 Speaker 1: point in time in seventeen, Mark mcksey was considered a 194 00:10:33,640 --> 00:10:35,719 Speaker 1: possible contender for the job of U S Attorney in 195 00:10:35,720 --> 00:10:37,920 Speaker 1: the Southern District. I don't know why. I presume it's 196 00:10:37,920 --> 00:10:40,360 Speaker 1: because Rudy had the year of Donald Trump, the incoming 197 00:10:40,400 --> 00:10:42,880 Speaker 1: president back then, and might have been promoting him because 198 00:10:42,960 --> 00:10:46,200 Speaker 1: Rudy and the MCS go way back. If he didn't 199 00:10:46,200 --> 00:10:48,320 Speaker 1: know much about mckasey, you'd assume he was on the 200 00:10:48,440 --> 00:10:51,160 Speaker 1: right side of the spectrum. You know, he did consult 201 00:10:51,200 --> 00:10:53,319 Speaker 1: and give some advice to Roger Ales when Ales was 202 00:10:53,360 --> 00:10:55,760 Speaker 1: going through some trouble at Fox News because of the 203 00:10:56,120 --> 00:10:59,800 Speaker 1: allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace. So there's enough 204 00:11:00,040 --> 00:11:03,640 Speaker 1: eyes visible ties on the right side of the conservative side. 205 00:11:03,679 --> 00:11:06,560 Speaker 1: That's certainly compared to Frudi Fast the other lawyer, that 206 00:11:06,760 --> 00:11:09,840 Speaker 1: it's a perception, even if it's not accurate, that o Casey, 207 00:11:10,080 --> 00:11:13,120 Speaker 1: especially given his father and Rudy's ties and history, is 208 00:11:13,160 --> 00:11:15,839 Speaker 1: on the Republican side of the ledger. So now tell 209 00:11:15,920 --> 00:11:20,160 Speaker 1: us about frutoft Alan. Frutofact belongs to that category of 210 00:11:20,360 --> 00:11:22,760 Speaker 1: very good, competent New York lawyers who are not bold 211 00:11:22,800 --> 00:11:25,240 Speaker 1: faced names. They're not stars, they're not well known. As 212 00:11:25,280 --> 00:11:26,800 Speaker 1: you know from your experience. You know there are a 213 00:11:26,880 --> 00:11:28,960 Speaker 1: lot of good lawyers, but so many good lawyers in Manhattan. 214 00:11:28,960 --> 00:11:31,079 Speaker 1: That's unless you handle like a big case, you aren't 215 00:11:31,080 --> 00:11:33,959 Speaker 1: necessarily going to become a bold faced name. And a 216 00:11:34,040 --> 00:11:37,120 Speaker 1: number of people I spoke to basically consider Frudo Fast 217 00:11:37,160 --> 00:11:40,439 Speaker 1: to be a very good lawyer. The thing is, characteristically 218 00:11:40,440 --> 00:11:43,200 Speaker 1: he's very different and this actually could be a benefit 219 00:11:43,240 --> 00:11:45,880 Speaker 1: to them as a pair. Frutofast is not a shoot 220 00:11:45,880 --> 00:11:49,600 Speaker 1: from the hip swagger. Mark Kesey has some swagger. He's 221 00:11:49,640 --> 00:11:52,760 Speaker 1: not afraid to go on TV after a verdict or 222 00:11:52,800 --> 00:11:56,000 Speaker 1: even before make some statements about the case. And I 223 00:11:56,000 --> 00:11:58,640 Speaker 1: wouldn't say shoot first and ask questions later. But you know, 224 00:11:58,920 --> 00:12:00,760 Speaker 1: you can make a quick judge of and make a 225 00:12:00,800 --> 00:12:03,640 Speaker 1: bold statement. Trudi Fact is not that kind of Guy's 226 00:12:03,679 --> 00:12:09,160 Speaker 1: actually somewhat uncharacteristically, very careful, prepares and plans carefully and meticulously. 227 00:12:09,640 --> 00:12:12,960 Speaker 1: And that's not always a trade you see in defense lawyers. 228 00:12:13,040 --> 00:12:15,000 Speaker 1: Sometimes a really good defense layers to someone who who 229 00:12:15,000 --> 00:12:17,120 Speaker 1: can draw quickly and you know, get out in front 230 00:12:17,120 --> 00:12:19,520 Speaker 1: of a news cycle, as opposed to someone who's like 231 00:12:20,000 --> 00:12:22,480 Speaker 1: enmeshed and entrenched in the minutia in the In the 232 00:12:22,559 --> 00:12:26,000 Speaker 1: legal particulars of the case, I mentioned one example of 233 00:12:26,000 --> 00:12:28,400 Speaker 1: what Bruta Facts had done for Trump before a couple 234 00:12:28,400 --> 00:12:31,120 Speaker 1: of years ago, during the now famous meeting that was 235 00:12:31,160 --> 00:12:34,640 Speaker 1: revealed in seventeen between Donald Trump Jr. And a Russian 236 00:12:34,720 --> 00:12:37,800 Speaker 1: lawyer who was you know, supposedly peddling dirt on Hillary 237 00:12:37,840 --> 00:12:41,280 Speaker 1: Clinton during the campaign of plin sixteen. When this bombshell 238 00:12:41,400 --> 00:12:44,520 Speaker 1: story came out, it seemed to confirm what Trump's critics 239 00:12:44,520 --> 00:12:46,640 Speaker 1: have been saying that there was clearly, you know, some 240 00:12:46,720 --> 00:12:50,439 Speaker 1: ties between you know, the Russian government and the Trump campaign, 241 00:12:50,800 --> 00:12:54,600 Speaker 1: an effort to uh curric Hillary Clinton and helped Trump's candidacy, 242 00:12:55,040 --> 00:12:57,440 Speaker 1: and um, there was a lot of at that time, 243 00:12:57,440 --> 00:12:59,719 Speaker 1: and Trump style had very much heavy wars go out 244 00:12:59,720 --> 00:13:03,000 Speaker 1: on to be and bashed the you know, Democrats on 245 00:13:03,040 --> 00:13:05,760 Speaker 1: the Mueller pro or the Democrats and the judiciary and 246 00:13:05,800 --> 00:13:08,880 Speaker 1: the Democrats wherever they are, including in side Vance's office. 247 00:13:08,960 --> 00:13:12,040 Speaker 1: Bruda fact was not of that opinion. He made a 248 00:13:12,120 --> 00:13:14,200 Speaker 1: judgment that he didn't think any laws were broken and 249 00:13:14,200 --> 00:13:17,360 Speaker 1: that to just let this investigation proceed would probably not 250 00:13:17,440 --> 00:13:20,319 Speaker 1: turn up anything criminal. And it turned out he was 251 00:13:20,440 --> 00:13:22,640 Speaker 1: right that, you know, the Muller report that's four d 252 00:13:22,640 --> 00:13:25,400 Speaker 1: plus pages, covered a wide range of activities and pretty 253 00:13:25,480 --> 00:13:29,840 Speaker 1: much everything that has happened in the campaign, including that meeting, 254 00:13:30,200 --> 00:13:33,160 Speaker 1: but was not able to build any kind of case 255 00:13:33,960 --> 00:13:37,840 Speaker 1: against Trump Junior for taking that meeting and he's considered 256 00:13:37,880 --> 00:13:41,839 Speaker 1: I mean, he's made donations to Democrats. Yeah, so this 257 00:13:41,920 --> 00:13:44,840 Speaker 1: is interesting for a client like Donald Trump, who seems 258 00:13:44,840 --> 00:13:47,319 Speaker 1: to pay attention to who's on the Democratic side and 259 00:13:47,320 --> 00:13:50,120 Speaker 1: who's on the Republican side. It's clear that Fruda fact 260 00:13:50,200 --> 00:13:53,360 Speaker 1: has given money in the past to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 261 00:13:53,520 --> 00:13:56,920 Speaker 1: and closer to their home, Karston Jillibrand. But clearly, you know, 262 00:13:56,960 --> 00:13:59,520 Speaker 1: I think Frudifst has won the loyalty of Trump and 263 00:13:59,520 --> 00:14:01,880 Speaker 1: his family for the work he's done, you know, over 264 00:14:01,920 --> 00:14:04,559 Speaker 1: the past few years, not just done Donald from junior, 265 00:14:04,640 --> 00:14:08,160 Speaker 1: but also on the wind down of the Trump Foundation charity, 266 00:14:08,360 --> 00:14:10,079 Speaker 1: which has been a target of the New York Attorney 267 00:14:10,120 --> 00:14:14,200 Speaker 1: General's office. People will usually hire defense lawyers from one 268 00:14:14,320 --> 00:14:17,199 Speaker 1: firm to defend them, but here you have lawyers from 269 00:14:17,240 --> 00:14:21,160 Speaker 1: two different law firms. Isn't that unusual It would be 270 00:14:21,200 --> 00:14:23,240 Speaker 1: if they were both at big law firms that they 271 00:14:23,320 --> 00:14:27,000 Speaker 1: both run their own small boutiques where the principle is 272 00:14:27,040 --> 00:14:29,840 Speaker 1: involved in pretty much everything. So to some extent, it 273 00:14:29,920 --> 00:14:32,840 Speaker 1: makes sense. A not every big law firm wants to 274 00:14:32,840 --> 00:14:36,040 Speaker 1: take on a controversial client like Donald Trump for reputational 275 00:14:36,080 --> 00:14:38,680 Speaker 1: reasons and otherwise, you know, maybe concerned about being paid 276 00:14:38,960 --> 00:14:40,920 Speaker 1: from the reputation, even if it's not true, it's a 277 00:14:41,000 --> 00:14:43,520 Speaker 1: reputation that it can be a tough guy to we 278 00:14:44,040 --> 00:14:47,000 Speaker 1: you know, when it comes time to getting paid. That's reputation. 279 00:14:47,080 --> 00:14:49,280 Speaker 1: That doesn't mean it's true, but it's sort of unfortunately, 280 00:14:49,280 --> 00:14:53,120 Speaker 1: it's a reputation that he has. So to this extent, 281 00:14:53,280 --> 00:14:55,080 Speaker 1: a couple of guys who don't have to fear what 282 00:14:55,160 --> 00:14:58,440 Speaker 1: their other clients think, who both believe strongly, including the 283 00:14:58,480 --> 00:15:01,040 Speaker 1: Democrat you know, or at least someone seems to be 284 00:15:01,480 --> 00:15:04,080 Speaker 1: leaning on the Democratic side. Alan Frutofast believe that everyone 285 00:15:04,120 --> 00:15:07,960 Speaker 1: deserves a defense. I think in some way that makes sense. 286 00:15:08,160 --> 00:15:11,240 Speaker 1: And even though these guys never worked together before until 287 00:15:11,280 --> 00:15:13,200 Speaker 1: they came together over this case and over the Trump 288 00:15:13,240 --> 00:15:16,040 Speaker 1: Foundation case, it does seem to make a lot of sense. 289 00:15:16,120 --> 00:15:18,400 Speaker 1: And I think temperamentally, well, there's a bit of a 290 00:15:18,960 --> 00:15:21,120 Speaker 1: I wouldn't say good cop, bad cop, but it's sort 291 00:15:21,120 --> 00:15:23,920 Speaker 1: of like, you know, you've got you know, talent. Frutapat 292 00:15:23,960 --> 00:15:27,560 Speaker 1: who's very focused and preparation, got marcu Kase. He's got 293 00:15:27,560 --> 00:15:30,040 Speaker 1: a great track record in recent years of winning cases 294 00:15:30,040 --> 00:15:32,760 Speaker 1: in court, and he's a great courtroom performer and I 295 00:15:32,760 --> 00:15:35,480 Speaker 1: don't mean that in the pejorative sense. He's good at trial. 296 00:15:35,600 --> 00:15:38,160 Speaker 1: He likes being in trial. That's why he gave up 297 00:15:38,200 --> 00:15:40,760 Speaker 1: the trappings of a big white collar law from a 298 00:15:40,760 --> 00:15:43,040 Speaker 1: group of prower to go his own way. Is that 299 00:15:43,280 --> 00:15:45,480 Speaker 1: he's just likes to get in there and fight in court. 300 00:15:46,360 --> 00:15:49,840 Speaker 1: The job of criminal defense attorneys when there's an investigation 301 00:15:49,960 --> 00:15:52,920 Speaker 1: is to try to make sure your client doesn't get indicted. 302 00:15:53,160 --> 00:15:55,120 Speaker 1: What do they do now that there? At this point, 303 00:15:55,560 --> 00:15:58,000 Speaker 1: the biggest effort ended a few weeks ago in the 304 00:15:58,040 --> 00:16:02,240 Speaker 1: Supreme Court refused to UH to hear another appeal over 305 00:16:02,280 --> 00:16:04,400 Speaker 1: whether or not the eight years of tax returns could 306 00:16:04,400 --> 00:16:07,520 Speaker 1: be turned over. That stay the year and a half 307 00:16:07,920 --> 00:16:11,520 Speaker 1: spent haggling over that and fighting it succeeded and pushing 308 00:16:11,760 --> 00:16:15,480 Speaker 1: the tax you know, returns issue out of Trump's presidency 309 00:16:15,600 --> 00:16:18,320 Speaker 1: and now he's a private citizen again. So to some extent, 310 00:16:18,400 --> 00:16:21,960 Speaker 1: even though they locked that case, UH, it was a 311 00:16:21,960 --> 00:16:24,000 Speaker 1: at least as not a complete lot, they were able 312 00:16:24,040 --> 00:16:27,480 Speaker 1: to install the tax returns being turned over until Trump 313 00:16:27,520 --> 00:16:30,560 Speaker 1: was no longer president. But now that's there that now 314 00:16:30,560 --> 00:16:33,080 Speaker 1: it's a much smaller thing they'd have to if there 315 00:16:33,080 --> 00:16:35,040 Speaker 1: are charges and we're not sure there will be, you know, 316 00:16:35,120 --> 00:16:37,520 Speaker 1: just fight on the legiticiacy of the charges and try 317 00:16:37,560 --> 00:16:41,280 Speaker 1: to prevent meant anything from actually ended up going to trial. 318 00:16:41,640 --> 00:16:45,000 Speaker 1: Because a jury trial in the island of Manhattan, which 319 00:16:45,120 --> 00:16:48,080 Speaker 1: is a very high percentage Democratic voters. Uh, it's not 320 00:16:48,280 --> 00:16:51,360 Speaker 1: likely to be a friendly place for Trump. Thanks Greg. 321 00:16:51,560 --> 00:16:58,080 Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg News legal reporter Greg Farrell. The Supreme Court 322 00:16:58,120 --> 00:17:02,120 Speaker 1: will be busy with environmental issues next month, with arguments 323 00:17:02,120 --> 00:17:07,119 Speaker 1: scheduled and closely watched cases involving chemical determination, renewable fuels, 324 00:17:07,200 --> 00:17:11,000 Speaker 1: and a natural gas pipeline. All three cases will be 325 00:17:11,080 --> 00:17:13,679 Speaker 1: heard the last week of the month. Joining me a 326 00:17:13,720 --> 00:17:17,920 Speaker 1: senior legal reporter for Bloomberg Law, Ellen Gilmur, Is this 327 00:17:18,160 --> 00:17:22,639 Speaker 1: a blockbuster term for environmental law? I wouldn't call it 328 00:17:22,680 --> 00:17:26,240 Speaker 1: a blockbuster term. We're not quite there yet because the 329 00:17:26,400 --> 00:17:29,320 Speaker 1: legal questions that the Supreme Court is dealing with in 330 00:17:29,359 --> 00:17:34,280 Speaker 1: these cases, they're just not those big sweeping environmental law questions. 331 00:17:34,560 --> 00:17:37,520 Speaker 1: But it is a big term for environmental law, mostly 332 00:17:37,560 --> 00:17:40,159 Speaker 1: just with the volume of cases. So these might not 333 00:17:40,240 --> 00:17:42,679 Speaker 1: be the major questions, but there's just so many of 334 00:17:42,720 --> 00:17:46,159 Speaker 1: them and they scheduled them all for one week. Do 335 00:17:46,200 --> 00:17:49,120 Speaker 1: you think there is a reason behind that. I mean, 336 00:17:49,160 --> 00:17:54,840 Speaker 1: I think it's just to make environmental law reporters lives difficult. Uh, 337 00:17:55,000 --> 00:17:56,840 Speaker 1: I don't know. They were just feeling like that would 338 00:17:56,840 --> 00:17:59,120 Speaker 1: be a good week for a lot of environmental issues. 339 00:17:59,359 --> 00:18:02,440 Speaker 1: They are, like you said, back to back to back, um, 340 00:18:02,480 --> 00:18:05,679 Speaker 1: Monday through Wednesday. No, I don't. I don't really know 341 00:18:05,760 --> 00:18:08,280 Speaker 1: why they did it that way, but so they'll they'll 342 00:18:08,359 --> 00:18:10,960 Speaker 1: kick off the week with a case called Guam versus 343 00:18:11,080 --> 00:18:14,840 Speaker 1: United States. It has to do with this big contamination 344 00:18:14,880 --> 00:18:17,920 Speaker 1: at a landfill site in Guam and how the federal 345 00:18:17,960 --> 00:18:23,199 Speaker 1: super fund law is interpreted. Basically, whether Guam or the 346 00:18:23,240 --> 00:18:25,760 Speaker 1: federal government should have to pay a one hundred and 347 00:18:25,800 --> 00:18:29,760 Speaker 1: sixty million dollar bill to clean up this site um 348 00:18:29,880 --> 00:18:33,240 Speaker 1: which is contaminated and used to be owned by the U. S. Navy. 349 00:18:33,359 --> 00:18:37,359 Speaker 1: A year ago, the Court resolved another super fund case. 350 00:18:37,800 --> 00:18:40,399 Speaker 1: Does that tell us anything about this case or is 351 00:18:40,440 --> 00:18:44,200 Speaker 1: it different issues? It's different issues and there's no real 352 00:18:44,280 --> 00:18:47,240 Speaker 1: read through in terms of precedent from the case the 353 00:18:47,280 --> 00:18:50,040 Speaker 1: super fund case the Supreme Court heard last term. It 354 00:18:50,200 --> 00:18:52,960 Speaker 1: is interesting, though, just that the Justice has decided to 355 00:18:53,160 --> 00:18:58,679 Speaker 1: do another one, because historically the justices haven't been really 356 00:18:58,760 --> 00:19:01,600 Speaker 1: eager to take a lot of Superfund cases, so a 357 00:19:01,600 --> 00:19:05,040 Speaker 1: lot of environmental law scholars and practitioners were kind of 358 00:19:05,080 --> 00:19:08,000 Speaker 1: surprised to see them, you know, kind of fighting off 359 00:19:08,000 --> 00:19:11,080 Speaker 1: another big superfund question, this term um. But it just 360 00:19:11,119 --> 00:19:14,600 Speaker 1: has to do with this persistent legal issue that's kind 361 00:19:14,640 --> 00:19:17,040 Speaker 1: of been bouncing around in a peller courts for a 362 00:19:17,040 --> 00:19:20,760 Speaker 1: few years. Um. The question is basically, if there's an 363 00:19:20,760 --> 00:19:24,359 Speaker 1: old in the Guam case, there's this old Clean Water 364 00:19:24,400 --> 00:19:27,760 Speaker 1: Act settlement and the question is whether that settlement that 365 00:19:27,840 --> 00:19:32,679 Speaker 1: happened um separate proceedings affecting this contaminated site, whether that 366 00:19:32,720 --> 00:19:36,600 Speaker 1: settlement triggered a statute of limitations under the super Fund law, 367 00:19:36,920 --> 00:19:40,000 Speaker 1: and if it did, how that affects uh when Guan 368 00:19:40,119 --> 00:19:43,360 Speaker 1: went to court to try to recover this money. Um. 369 00:19:43,400 --> 00:19:46,760 Speaker 1: So it's this big question of timing and statutory interpretation. 370 00:19:47,320 --> 00:19:51,000 Speaker 1: Can you describe what the super fund is for those 371 00:19:51,040 --> 00:19:56,240 Speaker 1: of us who are not so well versed to the subject. Yeah, absolutely, So. 372 00:19:56,320 --> 00:20:00,520 Speaker 1: The super fun law is the federal statute that governed 373 00:20:01,080 --> 00:20:04,879 Speaker 1: how the most contaminated sites in the country are cleaned up. 374 00:20:05,080 --> 00:20:07,320 Speaker 1: So it kind of sets out, you know, how do 375 00:20:07,400 --> 00:20:11,280 Speaker 1: we figure out who all of the responsible or potentially 376 00:20:11,320 --> 00:20:16,280 Speaker 1: responsible parties are for this big, you know, legacy contaminated site, 377 00:20:16,600 --> 00:20:19,199 Speaker 1: and then how do we divvy up who's responsible for 378 00:20:19,280 --> 00:20:21,639 Speaker 1: how much of the clean up? Um? So it's really 379 00:20:21,960 --> 00:20:26,119 Speaker 1: a foundational environmental statue, one that deals with cleaning up 380 00:20:26,119 --> 00:20:29,840 Speaker 1: all this legacy pollution. So one might ask, well, if 381 00:20:29,880 --> 00:20:33,400 Speaker 1: the point of the super fund is to clean these sites, 382 00:20:34,000 --> 00:20:37,040 Speaker 1: then why is there a fight over whether or not 383 00:20:37,080 --> 00:20:40,520 Speaker 1: to clean the site. Well, the fight is over who 384 00:20:40,560 --> 00:20:43,880 Speaker 1: has to pay to clean up the site? So uh 385 00:20:43,920 --> 00:20:46,840 Speaker 1: so that's really what what most super fun litigation is 386 00:20:46,880 --> 00:20:49,720 Speaker 1: about is who has to pay and then how much 387 00:20:50,200 --> 00:20:53,080 Speaker 1: who has to pay what share? So here we've got 388 00:20:53,080 --> 00:20:56,520 Speaker 1: this one and sixty million dollar clean up bill and 389 00:20:57,040 --> 00:20:59,359 Speaker 1: it's all about this site that the U. S. Navy 390 00:20:59,480 --> 00:21:02,479 Speaker 1: used to So the issue is is this the federal 391 00:21:02,480 --> 00:21:07,160 Speaker 1: government bill? Is it their responsibility or is it Guam's responsibility? 392 00:21:07,400 --> 00:21:12,199 Speaker 1: And affecting that that kind of disagreement is whether this 393 00:21:12,359 --> 00:21:15,320 Speaker 1: old Clean Water Act settlement kind of effects which party 394 00:21:15,520 --> 00:21:18,879 Speaker 1: can go to quarter where it. Then there's also Holly 395 00:21:18,960 --> 00:21:25,160 Speaker 1: Frontier Cheyenne Refining versus Renewable Fuels Association. What is that about? 396 00:21:25,200 --> 00:21:28,080 Speaker 1: It sounds a little technical, but It does sound a 397 00:21:28,080 --> 00:21:30,080 Speaker 1: little technical, isn't that part for the course for these 398 00:21:30,160 --> 00:21:33,719 Speaker 1: environmental cases. It is, Um, they are so lonkey. So 399 00:21:33,960 --> 00:21:38,320 Speaker 1: this is the case that picks oil refineries against the 400 00:21:38,359 --> 00:21:41,200 Speaker 1: ethanol industry. So that are who those two parties are. 401 00:21:41,240 --> 00:21:46,200 Speaker 1: You've got Holly Frontier operates an oil refinery renewable Fuels association, 402 00:21:46,760 --> 00:21:49,600 Speaker 1: you know, advocates for ethanol interests. So the question here 403 00:21:49,880 --> 00:21:53,800 Speaker 1: is all about the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, which are 404 00:21:53,960 --> 00:21:59,440 Speaker 1: these federal requirements for oil refineries to blend biofuels, ethanol 405 00:21:59,480 --> 00:22:02,040 Speaker 1: and other stuff into their products. The e p A 406 00:22:02,240 --> 00:22:05,680 Speaker 1: under their Renewable Fuel Standard can grant waivers to small 407 00:22:05,760 --> 00:22:09,399 Speaker 1: refineries basically just give them a break on these requirements sometimes. 408 00:22:09,640 --> 00:22:12,560 Speaker 1: And the question is when can they sprand those waivers 409 00:22:12,560 --> 00:22:16,440 Speaker 1: how often? Um, what are the eligibility requirements? So that's 410 00:22:16,480 --> 00:22:19,520 Speaker 1: the issue for the Supreme Court. Basically an appealed court 411 00:22:19,600 --> 00:22:22,080 Speaker 1: that e p A we had overstepped in granting some 412 00:22:22,119 --> 00:22:25,320 Speaker 1: of these waivers and the industry, the oil industry says 413 00:22:25,480 --> 00:22:28,000 Speaker 1: that this ruling gets it all wrong. S Court, you 414 00:22:28,000 --> 00:22:29,920 Speaker 1: need to take a look at this. The Supreme Court 415 00:22:30,000 --> 00:22:32,359 Speaker 1: is taking a look at it and in the meantime, 416 00:22:32,560 --> 00:22:35,240 Speaker 1: e p A under the Biden administration has come around 417 00:22:35,320 --> 00:22:38,240 Speaker 1: and said it actually supports what the appealed Court said, 418 00:22:38,520 --> 00:22:41,280 Speaker 1: that it has this kind of more limited authority to 419 00:22:41,359 --> 00:22:44,359 Speaker 1: grant these waivers. Does it seem like a change in 420 00:22:44,440 --> 00:22:48,040 Speaker 1: position on cases from the Trump administration to the Biden 421 00:22:48,040 --> 00:22:52,439 Speaker 1: administration is going to happen frequently with environmental cases because 422 00:22:52,520 --> 00:22:56,080 Speaker 1: the Biden administration's position on the environment seems to be, 423 00:22:56,280 --> 00:22:59,720 Speaker 1: you know, almost not quite but almost diametrically opposite to 424 00:22:59,760 --> 00:23:03,359 Speaker 1: the Ump administrations. I think, yes, that's a broad trend. 425 00:23:03,600 --> 00:23:06,320 Speaker 1: We'll see switching sides. I do think in some of 426 00:23:06,359 --> 00:23:10,680 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court cases, um, they're getting at really technical 427 00:23:10,760 --> 00:23:17,000 Speaker 1: legal questions that aren't quite so partisan or ideologically charged. 428 00:23:17,320 --> 00:23:20,919 Speaker 1: So so here we did see a shift, and we 429 00:23:20,960 --> 00:23:23,760 Speaker 1: have seen a shift in some other cases. But you know, 430 00:23:23,800 --> 00:23:26,280 Speaker 1: like in the Guam case that we've talked about, and 431 00:23:26,560 --> 00:23:31,880 Speaker 1: in other cases, the Biden administration has maintained the position, 432 00:23:32,320 --> 00:23:35,879 Speaker 1: uh that's the Trump administration had held. Then you have 433 00:23:35,920 --> 00:23:40,000 Speaker 1: the case of the Pennies pipeline. Tell us about that. Yes, 434 00:23:40,320 --> 00:23:45,120 Speaker 1: this is an interesting one. Um, it's another pipeline case, um, 435 00:23:45,200 --> 00:23:47,480 Speaker 1: which we were talking about with the super funds. The 436 00:23:47,520 --> 00:23:50,040 Speaker 1: Supreme Court took a superfund case last term, and it 437 00:23:50,080 --> 00:23:53,400 Speaker 1: took another one this term. Same thing with pipelines. Last time, 438 00:23:53,440 --> 00:23:56,960 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court heard a case about the Atlantic Past pipeline. 439 00:23:57,400 --> 00:24:02,000 Speaker 1: This case, it's hearing uh Pennies Pipe Blind versus New Jersey. 440 00:24:02,359 --> 00:24:04,840 Speaker 1: And the issue here is is kind of a fresh 441 00:24:04,880 --> 00:24:09,240 Speaker 1: issue for the Court has to do with property rights. Um. 442 00:24:09,240 --> 00:24:14,320 Speaker 1: When a big natural gas pipeline gets approved by federal regulators, 443 00:24:14,359 --> 00:24:18,000 Speaker 1: it gets to use the federal power of eminent domain 444 00:24:18,480 --> 00:24:22,800 Speaker 1: to take land along its route to build its projects. Um. 445 00:24:23,119 --> 00:24:26,679 Speaker 1: So Pennies Uses went out to use this power of 446 00:24:26,680 --> 00:24:30,199 Speaker 1: eminent domain after it got its federal permit and started 447 00:24:30,240 --> 00:24:33,600 Speaker 1: taking land along its route so it could build its project, 448 00:24:34,040 --> 00:24:38,680 Speaker 1: which is a pipeline between Pennsylvania New Jersey. And New 449 00:24:38,760 --> 00:24:41,199 Speaker 1: Jersey said, wait, you don't have the power to do 450 00:24:41,280 --> 00:24:45,000 Speaker 1: this for state lands. There are state owned lands along 451 00:24:45,040 --> 00:24:48,760 Speaker 1: the Pennies pipeline's route, and so Pennys was trying to 452 00:24:48,840 --> 00:24:52,560 Speaker 1: use eminent domain against these state owned lands. New Jersey said, 453 00:24:53,359 --> 00:24:56,880 Speaker 1: we have sovereign immunity. You can't use bring a condemnation 454 00:24:56,920 --> 00:25:00,719 Speaker 1: action against the state, And an Appeals Corps agreed with 455 00:25:00,800 --> 00:25:04,560 Speaker 1: New Jersey. So Penny said, this would just flip on 456 00:25:04,640 --> 00:25:06,720 Speaker 1: its head the way that we've been doing pipelines for 457 00:25:06,760 --> 00:25:10,040 Speaker 1: all this time. Uh, Supreme Court, you have to get involved. 458 00:25:10,320 --> 00:25:12,120 Speaker 1: The Supreme Court agreed to take a look at it. 459 00:25:12,680 --> 00:25:16,080 Speaker 1: Um and and so we've got that case coming up 460 00:25:16,119 --> 00:25:19,800 Speaker 1: in April. Um. This is another one. Uh. This is 461 00:25:19,840 --> 00:25:23,400 Speaker 1: one where the position has stayed the same across administration. 462 00:25:23,640 --> 00:25:28,000 Speaker 1: So the Trump administration supported Penny's legal position. The Biden 463 00:25:28,000 --> 00:25:31,439 Speaker 1: administration just recently filed a brief that that just echoes 464 00:25:31,480 --> 00:25:35,199 Speaker 1: those arguments. So now, um, let's talk about some of 465 00:25:35,240 --> 00:25:38,080 Speaker 1: the cases that have already been argued, just to get 466 00:25:38,320 --> 00:25:40,560 Speaker 1: a look at the whole term. So there was a 467 00:25:40,720 --> 00:25:42,920 Speaker 1: there was the water Wars I call it the water 468 00:25:43,000 --> 00:25:47,560 Speaker 1: Wars case between Florida and Georgia. Yeah, I call him 469 00:25:47,560 --> 00:25:50,680 Speaker 1: the water works cases. To there there were there were two, um, 470 00:25:50,720 --> 00:25:53,119 Speaker 1: Florida and Georgia. There was another one earlier in the term, 471 00:25:53,160 --> 00:25:56,680 Speaker 1: has already been decided Texas in New Mexico. So Florida 472 00:25:56,720 --> 00:26:00,359 Speaker 1: and Georgia are fighting over the shared water basin, and 473 00:26:00,680 --> 00:26:04,320 Speaker 1: basically Florida is the downstream state and it wants Georgia 474 00:26:04,720 --> 00:26:08,840 Speaker 1: to use less water because there's not enough uh, fresh 475 00:26:08,840 --> 00:26:13,520 Speaker 1: water coming down into the bay in Florida that hosts 476 00:26:13,640 --> 00:26:18,080 Speaker 1: the state wild oyster industry. So the oysters are suffering. 477 00:26:18,400 --> 00:26:23,120 Speaker 1: They say it's because of Georgia overusing the shared water basin. 478 00:26:23,600 --> 00:26:26,680 Speaker 1: Georgia says, no, there are other factors that are affecting 479 00:26:27,119 --> 00:26:30,600 Speaker 1: the oysters down in Florida. And so, uh, there's this 480 00:26:30,680 --> 00:26:33,520 Speaker 1: question of whether the Supreme Court will issue an order 481 00:26:33,840 --> 00:26:37,920 Speaker 1: that would essentially forced Georgia to use less water from 482 00:26:37,920 --> 00:26:41,639 Speaker 1: this basin. UM. So that was argued in February, and 483 00:26:42,080 --> 00:26:45,800 Speaker 1: the kind of conventional wisdom is that in general, um 484 00:26:46,160 --> 00:26:49,760 Speaker 1: Georgia has the upper hand here because Florida is the 485 00:26:49,800 --> 00:26:53,280 Speaker 1: downstream state and it's asking the Supreme Court issues that's 486 00:26:53,600 --> 00:26:56,240 Speaker 1: you know, really powerful order. So it has to clear 487 00:26:56,280 --> 00:26:59,080 Speaker 1: a really high legal bar to show why such an 488 00:26:59,160 --> 00:27:04,719 Speaker 1: order is necessary. And during arguments last month, it's, you know, 489 00:27:04,840 --> 00:27:06,919 Speaker 1: you could tell the justices were really struggling with this 490 00:27:07,040 --> 00:27:09,679 Speaker 1: question and how to make sure this was fair. But 491 00:27:10,520 --> 00:27:12,960 Speaker 1: everybody who listened to arguments who I talked to kind 492 00:27:12,960 --> 00:27:15,920 Speaker 1: of seemed to agree that Georgia still seemed to keep 493 00:27:15,920 --> 00:27:18,440 Speaker 1: the upper hand throughout the argument. How did they decide 494 00:27:18,440 --> 00:27:21,760 Speaker 1: in the last water case this term. And so there 495 00:27:21,800 --> 00:27:25,040 Speaker 1: was another water case. Um that was Texas and New 496 00:27:25,080 --> 00:27:28,600 Speaker 1: Mexico and it was about the Pacos River. It was 497 00:27:28,680 --> 00:27:31,800 Speaker 1: really a more technical question. Um. It wasn't at all 498 00:27:31,840 --> 00:27:33,960 Speaker 1: in this same kind of posture as this Florida and 499 00:27:34,000 --> 00:27:38,120 Speaker 1: Georgia case because Texas and New Mexico were fighting over 500 00:27:38,200 --> 00:27:42,000 Speaker 1: an existing water compact that the states already have that 501 00:27:42,119 --> 00:27:45,040 Speaker 1: governs how the two states shared the water, and they 502 00:27:45,080 --> 00:27:48,080 Speaker 1: were arguing about a certain way to apply the compact 503 00:27:49,440 --> 00:27:52,280 Speaker 1: to a situation where, uh, you know, there was a 504 00:27:52,320 --> 00:27:55,520 Speaker 1: big storm and all of this water was stored in 505 00:27:55,560 --> 00:28:00,359 Speaker 1: a reservoir and ultimately lost to evaporation and not delivered 506 00:28:00,359 --> 00:28:03,280 Speaker 1: to Texas. So, um, it was the sort of complicated 507 00:28:03,280 --> 00:28:07,080 Speaker 1: scenario where the state's disagreed over whether New Mexico should 508 00:28:07,080 --> 00:28:11,479 Speaker 1: get credit for that water that evaporated. Um. So ultimately, uh, 509 00:28:11,640 --> 00:28:14,919 Speaker 1: Texas lost that fight in New Mexico. One. I'm not 510 00:28:14,960 --> 00:28:18,119 Speaker 1: sure that has because the issues were so specific to 511 00:28:18,200 --> 00:28:23,000 Speaker 1: those kind of really um unique fact patterns in that case. 512 00:28:23,280 --> 00:28:26,000 Speaker 1: I'm not sure it has a big impact on on 513 00:28:26,080 --> 00:28:28,920 Speaker 1: the other water case this term or future water cases. 514 00:28:29,280 --> 00:28:33,040 Speaker 1: There's a newly conservative court, as we've all talked about 515 00:28:33,160 --> 00:28:40,400 Speaker 1: six to three. Does that make a difference in environmental cases? Absolutely, yes, 516 00:28:40,640 --> 00:28:45,560 Speaker 1: it definitely does. UM. A more conservative court is generally 517 00:28:45,600 --> 00:28:49,440 Speaker 1: seen as less favorable to environmental interests, and that can 518 00:28:49,520 --> 00:28:54,400 Speaker 1: present on issues like UM deference to federal agencies and 519 00:28:54,480 --> 00:28:57,560 Speaker 1: the rules they're crafting, that can present in issues like 520 00:28:57,680 --> 00:29:01,880 Speaker 1: environmental standing, who can go to court in the first place. UM. 521 00:29:01,960 --> 00:29:04,720 Speaker 1: So it's a it's a big uh. It's a big 522 00:29:04,720 --> 00:29:08,160 Speaker 1: shift in the dynamics overall. These particular cases on the 523 00:29:08,160 --> 00:29:10,960 Speaker 1: court stock at this term. They're not the most partisan 524 00:29:11,040 --> 00:29:14,600 Speaker 1: or the most ideological cases that you'll see where the 525 00:29:14,680 --> 00:29:18,240 Speaker 1: justices where the justices wouldn't necessarily just like split on 526 00:29:18,320 --> 00:29:21,360 Speaker 1: those lines. So we probably won't see that play out 527 00:29:21,600 --> 00:29:25,200 Speaker 1: just yet. But there are bigger environmental cases on the horizon, 528 00:29:25,480 --> 00:29:29,200 Speaker 1: you know, as the Biden administration gets to work on 529 00:29:29,240 --> 00:29:32,880 Speaker 1: its agenda, we'll see some big questions about how much 530 00:29:32,920 --> 00:29:35,240 Speaker 1: power does the e p A have to address greenhouse 531 00:29:35,240 --> 00:29:39,200 Speaker 1: gas emissions? UM, what are the limits of federal authority 532 00:29:39,400 --> 00:29:43,120 Speaker 1: to limit UM development of fossil fuel? Who can sue 533 00:29:43,160 --> 00:29:46,160 Speaker 1: over climate change? All of these other kind of big 534 00:29:46,200 --> 00:29:50,200 Speaker 1: sweeping environmental law questions that will likely be affected by 535 00:29:50,240 --> 00:29:53,040 Speaker 1: the new power dynamics on the court. You know those 536 00:29:53,080 --> 00:29:55,360 Speaker 1: are still to come. That's where we're really going to 537 00:29:55,400 --> 00:29:58,520 Speaker 1: see an impact there. Okay, that was great, and now 538 00:29:58,560 --> 00:30:02,160 Speaker 1: I know what's coming up. Probably the most closely watched 539 00:30:02,160 --> 00:30:06,400 Speaker 1: case this term is BP versus Baltimore, which is the 540 00:30:06,480 --> 00:30:09,720 Speaker 1: climate case. That's it's not really a climate question before 541 00:30:09,760 --> 00:30:12,880 Speaker 1: the court, but it affects climate litigation, so it's very important. 542 00:30:13,200 --> 00:30:16,800 Speaker 1: Climate litigation in general is really high stakes. There's a 543 00:30:16,840 --> 00:30:20,160 Speaker 1: ton of money and potentially involved, and a lot of 544 00:30:20,280 --> 00:30:22,640 Speaker 1: people are watching this litigation to see where it goes. 545 00:30:22,920 --> 00:30:26,320 Speaker 1: Thanks Ellen. That's Ellen Gilmer of Bloomberg Law. And that's 546 00:30:26,360 --> 00:30:28,760 Speaker 1: it for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm 547 00:30:28,880 --> 00:30:31,720 Speaker 1: June Grosso. Thanks so much for listening. Please tune into 548 00:30:31,720 --> 00:30:35,120 Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Show every week. The attends during right 549 00:30:35,160 --> 00:30:36,440 Speaker 1: here on Bloomberg Radio.