WEBVTT - SCOTUS Opinions, Debate Reaction 0:00:02.920 --> 0:00:10.799 Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the 0:00:10.840 --> 0:00:15.040 Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at ten am 0:00:15.040 --> 0:00:18.040 Eastern on Effo, Cardplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg 0:00:18.079 --> 0:00:21.400 Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, 0:00:21.640 --> 0:00:23.360 or watch us live on YouTube. 0:00:24.680 --> 0:00:26.760 Here we go the breaking news from the Supreme Court. 0:00:27.080 --> 0:00:30.920 Supreme Court overturning a Chevron ruling. And this really is 0:00:30.960 --> 0:00:34.880 a blow to agency power. So this is truly about 0:00:35.040 --> 0:00:39.199 federal agencies and the current wide birth They have to 0:00:39.320 --> 0:00:42.960 interpret unclear laws, and it looks like the Supreme Court 0:00:43.200 --> 0:00:47.880 has now overturned that Chevron deference. Let's get to June 0:00:48.200 --> 0:00:52.120 Grosso right away. She covers Bloomberg legal analysts and hosts 0:00:52.120 --> 0:00:54.880 of the Bloomberg Law Show. June We've been waiting for this. 0:00:55.240 --> 0:00:56.520 Walk us through what this means. 0:00:56.640 --> 0:01:00.600 So the Chevron doctrine means, you know, the legal definition 0:01:00.680 --> 0:01:03.680 of it basically is that if there is an ambiguous 0:01:03.720 --> 0:01:07.440 statute and ambiguous law, then deference is given to the 0:01:07.800 --> 0:01:11.720 agency's interpretation. What it also means is, basically, you know 0:01:11.760 --> 0:01:16.160 who has more power the administrators at agencies or judges, 0:01:16.400 --> 0:01:18.800 you know, experts in the area or judges who have 0:01:18.880 --> 0:01:21.600 to sort of learn as they as the. 0:01:21.560 --> 0:01:22.280 Cases go on. 0:01:22.760 --> 0:01:26.280 So we have been suspecting that this court was going 0:01:26.319 --> 0:01:31.520 to overturn Chevron because conservatives have for years been targeting it, 0:01:31.680 --> 0:01:35.040 and several of the justices, including Clarence Thomas, have been 0:01:35.080 --> 0:01:36.840 talking about overturning Chevron. 0:01:37.200 --> 0:01:38.160 What this means. 0:01:38.200 --> 0:01:40.560 And this case was just a case, actually it was 0:01:40.600 --> 0:01:44.480 two cases with the National Marine Fisheries where there's a 0:01:44.600 --> 0:01:48.000 rule that the fisheries have to have observers on the 0:01:48.040 --> 0:01:50.080 boats and they have to pay for those. 0:01:50.280 --> 0:01:52.720 And that was being challenged here. 0:01:53.080 --> 0:01:55.720 And so even though the fact is that they've never 0:01:55.840 --> 0:01:59.400 actually had to pay for those fines, but theoretically they do. 0:01:59.760 --> 0:02:02.559 So what the court is saying, and. 0:02:02.640 --> 0:02:05.120 It's the chief road is it's six to three again, 0:02:05.280 --> 0:02:09.080 second six to three decision in this case. And you know, 0:02:09.120 --> 0:02:11.520 we suspected it that it would come out this way 0:02:11.600 --> 0:02:16.600 because of yesterday's opinion knocking back the sec and saying 0:02:16.639 --> 0:02:20.079 it can't have in fraud cases, it can't have its 0:02:20.120 --> 0:02:22.400 in house counsel. It has to be people have to 0:02:22.480 --> 0:02:24.560 be able to go to the federal court and have 0:02:24.600 --> 0:02:28.440 a trial by jury. So we expected this, and you know, 0:02:28.680 --> 0:02:32.040 anyone knows. There are these people who say this is 0:02:32.160 --> 0:02:34.000 the you know, basically the end of the world kind 0:02:34.040 --> 0:02:37.160 of things. This means that federal agencies are going to 0:02:37.240 --> 0:02:39.960 you know, cut back on their regulations. Things are going 0:02:40.000 --> 0:02:43.640 to be challenged, they do things, you know, all of regulations, 0:02:43.800 --> 0:02:48.720 health and safety, consumer regulations, food and drug that all 0:02:48.760 --> 0:02:50.880 these are going to be affected by this, and they will. 0:02:51.520 --> 0:02:55.400 But the question is how much, and that remains to 0:02:55.440 --> 0:02:57.800 be seen. So and people on the other side say, well, no, 0:02:57.880 --> 0:03:00.000 it's not going to really have that much of an effect. 0:03:00.080 --> 0:03:03.160 We haven't been really using Chevron, and as I've said before, 0:03:03.200 --> 0:03:07.720 the Department of Labor has already stopped using Chevron as 0:03:07.760 --> 0:03:10.640 a reason for its regulations in light of this case 0:03:10.720 --> 0:03:11.280 coming down. 0:03:11.560 --> 0:03:13.520 So we just don't know what the effect will be, 0:03:13.600 --> 0:03:15.120 whether it will be huge. 0:03:15.200 --> 0:03:17.919 And also the Supreme Court hasn't really based any of 0:03:17.960 --> 0:03:19.080 its decisions. 0:03:18.600 --> 0:03:22.320 On Chevron in a while, so who knows. But is 0:03:22.360 --> 0:03:24.280 a blow to agency power. As you said in the 0:03:24.280 --> 0:03:25.519 first place. 0:03:27.000 --> 0:03:31.440 Why do we call it the Chevron deference, Because, like 0:03:31.480 --> 0:03:34.000 you said, this actual case at hand that the Supreme 0:03:34.000 --> 0:03:36.720 Court is making a ruling on right now didn't have 0:03:36.840 --> 0:03:40.720 anything to do with the actual company Chevron. Well, it 0:03:40.800 --> 0:03:42.560 was just a precedence walk us through life. 0:03:42.640 --> 0:03:43.960 Well, in how we're understanding that. 0:03:44.440 --> 0:03:47.800 With Supreme Court precedents, often the name of the case 0:03:47.800 --> 0:03:52.000 where it's decided is given the title. So Chevron difference 0:03:52.080 --> 0:03:56.000 comes from a case four decades ago involving Chevron. So 0:03:56.000 --> 0:03:59.520 that's why we call it Chevron defference. It has that name. 0:03:59.560 --> 0:04:01.800 Has nothing really to do with the case the fisheries 0:04:01.880 --> 0:04:05.000 case here, but that's the name it's had for four 0:04:05.080 --> 0:04:07.880 decades and that's the way it's referred to. So you know, 0:04:07.920 --> 0:04:09.800 if you're in law school, that's what you're studying, the 0:04:09.880 --> 0:04:11.160 Chevron Chevron. 0:04:11.520 --> 0:04:12.760 It's called it's Chevron document. 0:04:12.800 --> 0:04:16.480 It's called Chevron deference because you give deference to the 0:04:16.520 --> 0:04:17.840 agency's interpretation. 0:04:18.320 --> 0:04:20.720 So does this mean, though, that it's going to be 0:04:20.800 --> 0:04:24.200 judges that are going to decide the laws versus experts 0:04:24.200 --> 0:04:26.680 within agencies that aren't elected. 0:04:26.200 --> 0:04:27.159 That decide laws. 0:04:27.360 --> 0:04:31.000 Well, that is the intention of the what a judges 0:04:31.120 --> 0:04:35.080 know about it interpreting? Well, what happens is judges, let's say, 0:04:35.120 --> 0:04:38.839 you know, they'll learn, for example, you have anti trust cases. Right, 0:04:39.040 --> 0:04:42.200 judges do all kinds of complex cases, So you have 0:04:42.240 --> 0:04:46.480 anti trust cases, and they take evidence from both sides, 0:04:46.520 --> 0:04:48.680 they listen to all the experts, they study it, and 0:04:48.720 --> 0:04:50.400 then they come out with a ruling. I mean the 0:04:50.440 --> 0:04:53.000 Supreme Court, are they experts in the areas that they've 0:04:53.040 --> 0:04:57.000 been homelessness? You know, that's the way the judicial system works. 0:04:57.040 --> 0:04:59.960 You have judges who are supposedly independent and are independent 0:05:00.000 --> 0:05:03.680 and they come to a decision based on the facts 0:05:03.760 --> 0:05:06.960 and based on weighing both sides of the arguments. But 0:05:07.400 --> 0:05:09.240 you know, it's going to make it more difficult for 0:05:09.360 --> 0:05:12.479 some agency regulations and you can imagine that. And this 0:05:12.640 --> 0:05:15.520 was pushed by conservatives and business groups. They wanted to 0:05:15.520 --> 0:05:18.720 get rid of Chevron. So and this is all about 0:05:18.839 --> 0:05:22.000 the you know, the war on the administrative state. How 0:05:22.000 --> 0:05:26.760 the six Conservatives have sort of been bent on not 0:05:26.880 --> 0:05:30.039 taking down the administrative state, but certainly lessening the power 0:05:30.040 --> 0:05:33.680 of federal agencies. And as last year there was a 0:05:33.720 --> 0:05:38.320 case involving the EPA and its control over water pollution, 0:05:38.800 --> 0:05:44.159 and the Supreme Court invented a doctrine called the Major 0:05:44.880 --> 0:05:48.080 Questions doctrine so that they could take back some. 0:05:48.120 --> 0:05:49.960 Of the power that the EPA has there. 0:05:50.000 --> 0:05:51.880 So it's been going on for a while, but this 0:05:51.960 --> 0:05:54.359 has been sort of out there as a target of 0:05:54.440 --> 0:05:59.159 conservatives and business groups. So the impact is who knows 0:05:59.240 --> 0:06:00.599 what the impact will really be. 0:06:01.400 --> 0:06:05.680 So what exactly do the how do the businesses feel 0:06:05.760 --> 0:06:09.600 about this decision? What is the general argument of why 0:06:09.640 --> 0:06:11.680 the businesses want to overturn this. 0:06:12.080 --> 0:06:15.160 Well, they think that agencies have too much power basically, 0:06:16.400 --> 0:06:20.360 so they think that this is evening out the landscape, 0:06:20.880 --> 0:06:23.760 and you know, it just will make you know, businesses 0:06:23.760 --> 0:06:27.400 don't like restrictions, right, I mean the sec that all 0:06:27.480 --> 0:06:30.000 that we were talking about yesterday was in house you know, 0:06:30.000 --> 0:06:33.080 whether you can have your proceeding in house judged by 0:06:33.080 --> 0:06:36.479 an administrative law judge who knows the area. 0:06:36.320 --> 0:06:38.599 Securities right, securities. 0:06:38.200 --> 0:06:41.000 Lawyer who knows the area, versus being able to go 0:06:41.040 --> 0:06:43.880 to court and have it, you know, a trial. So 0:06:44.880 --> 0:06:48.080 obviously it's it's sort of the less restrictions on business, 0:06:48.200 --> 0:06:51.520 the better it is. So that's I think what you know, 0:06:52.160 --> 0:06:54.480 And so I haven't I haven't been able to read 0:06:54.480 --> 0:06:55.800 it because I've been talking about it. 0:06:55.880 --> 0:07:00.000 Yeah, but my question, how much of this do you 0:07:00.160 --> 0:07:03.760 think is about climate and the EPA And they're really 0:07:03.800 --> 0:07:09.320 tough restrictions that have come down through the agencies on interpretations. 0:07:08.760 --> 0:07:13.600 That excuse me, that's one sort of big area here. 0:07:13.640 --> 0:07:16.840 But it's not just climate that's going to be affected, 0:07:17.040 --> 0:07:17.440 of course not. 0:07:17.480 --> 0:07:20.880 But was that really why conservatives were pushing this or 0:07:20.920 --> 0:07:21.800 we're not totally clear. 0:07:21.840 --> 0:07:25.120 Conservatives have been pushing this for And what's funny is 0:07:25.160 --> 0:07:29.920 this case, the Chevron doctrine was a conservative doctrine that 0:07:30.320 --> 0:07:34.160 was put out forty years ago, and in time conservatives 0:07:34.200 --> 0:07:36.680 have just you know, don't like it. They don't like 0:07:36.720 --> 0:07:38.840 the restrictions that it imposes, and so they've. 0:07:38.880 --> 0:07:39.760 They have attacked it. 0:07:40.200 --> 0:07:45.280 But so it's it's just a you know, where you 0:07:45.360 --> 0:07:48.119 want less regulation. It's sort of you know, when Trump 0:07:48.160 --> 0:07:51.400 came in, less regulation, that's one of his things. I 0:07:51.440 --> 0:07:55.160 took regulations away and he had this big stack of regulations. 0:07:55.360 --> 0:07:58.600 So and it, you know, also depending on the administration 0:07:59.080 --> 0:08:03.400 whether or not regulations are being enforced more what. 0:08:03.320 --> 0:08:04.320 The regulations are. 0:08:04.360 --> 0:08:09.840 But this you know, will affect everything, workplace rules, every rule. 0:08:10.040 --> 0:08:11.600 And I think that what's gonna happen is a lot 0:08:11.640 --> 0:08:13.640 of agencies are going to do what labor has been doing, 0:08:13.640 --> 0:08:16.720 which is not rely on that say, it doesn't rely 0:08:16.800 --> 0:08:19.000 on this. This is our agency power. It comes from 0:08:19.040 --> 0:08:20.680 our agency power. We don't have to go to the 0:08:20.760 --> 0:08:21.640 Chevron difference. 0:08:22.240 --> 0:08:24.440 All right, June, thank you very much. I know we're 0:08:24.440 --> 0:08:26.320 not done with you yet. Stay tuned because you never 0:08:26.400 --> 0:08:28.600 know what else is coming out. June Grassol Bloomberg, Senior 0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:32.440 legal analyst, joining us. Let's continue the conversation here Anthony 0:08:32.520 --> 0:08:36.360 Sabino as professor at Saint John's University, Tobin College of Business, 0:08:36.640 --> 0:08:39.600 and as a reminder, we're looking at the Chevron deference 0:08:39.600 --> 0:08:43.240 has now been overturned. The Supreme Court throws out decades 0:08:43.320 --> 0:08:50.000 old legal doctrine that empowered federal regulations to interpret unclear laws. Professor, 0:08:50.040 --> 0:08:52.079 thank you for joining us. We appreciate it. You've had 0:08:52.080 --> 0:08:55.000 some time to read through the opinions, give us your 0:08:55.000 --> 0:08:55.720 takeaways here. 0:08:56.200 --> 0:08:58.000 Yes, well, first of all, thank you for having me 0:08:58.080 --> 0:09:02.440 on on this important day. This decision is the right decision. 0:09:03.080 --> 0:09:05.800 It's a very good decision because it honors both the 0:09:05.800 --> 0:09:09.880 Constitution in terms of its text and its constitutional plan. Now, 0:09:10.120 --> 0:09:12.880 no doubt we have heard and we're going to hear 0:09:13.040 --> 0:09:16.800 a lot more of the ringing of hands and stermon 0:09:16.920 --> 0:09:20.640 drag about. This is the Supreme Court going off the rails, 0:09:21.360 --> 0:09:26.360 discarding story decisives, upending agency power and basically making life 0:09:26.520 --> 0:09:30.240 very difficult for the agencies. I respectfully disagree, And to 0:09:30.360 --> 0:09:32.600 use a word I've heard mister Biden used quite recently, 0:09:33.480 --> 0:09:35.680 quite a lot recently, is that's a lot of malarkey. 0:09:36.120 --> 0:09:38.760 First of all, it's not a radical decision. It's true 0:09:38.800 --> 0:09:42.880 to the Constitution's text and to the constitutional plan for 0:09:43.040 --> 0:09:46.240 the Supreme Court for all judges, wherever they may be. 0:09:46.800 --> 0:09:49.840 Their job description can be summed up in two words, judges. 0:09:50.000 --> 0:09:55.439 Judge Chevron diminished that. Okay. It required judges to defer 0:09:55.480 --> 0:09:58.120 to agencies, and it was keeping judges from doing their 0:09:58.200 --> 0:10:02.439 jobs which is too independently, thoughtfully and of course forthrightly 0:10:03.080 --> 0:10:05.960 use all their skills or their wisdom to interpret the law. 0:10:06.600 --> 0:10:11.480 And as such, Sefron inflicted damage upon checks and balances 0:10:11.480 --> 0:10:15.679 and separation of powers. In fact, Cheffron introduced an imbalance 0:10:15.800 --> 0:10:19.400 because it gave an advantage to the agencies, to the 0:10:19.400 --> 0:10:22.439 government side. And again, it's a zero sum game. If 0:10:22.480 --> 0:10:25.439 you advantage one side, then by force of logic, you 0:10:25.520 --> 0:10:28.679 disadvantaged the other. But this case now does low for 0:10:28.760 --> 0:10:31.720 bright is it levels the playing field. Now everyone comes 0:10:31.720 --> 0:10:35.760 into court, okay, and has the same situation. The agencies 0:10:35.800 --> 0:10:39.720 will still be able to advocate for their position, the public, okay, 0:10:39.840 --> 0:10:42.480 the American citizens, she will still be able to advocate 0:10:42.480 --> 0:10:46.439 for her position, and the court will listen to both sides, 0:10:46.840 --> 0:10:48.920 and we will take it. We will take it from there, 0:10:51.240 --> 0:10:53.960 and as such, now we will have that balance restored 0:10:54.120 --> 0:10:55.199 as the way it should be. 0:10:55.360 --> 0:10:57.599 Okay, how should. 0:10:57.320 --> 0:10:59.800 We understand what this means for business? 0:11:00.120 --> 0:11:00.240 Is? 0:11:00.320 --> 0:11:01.160 We are Bloomberg. 0:11:01.240 --> 0:11:05.840 We do follow markets very closely. What's your take on 0:11:06.520 --> 0:11:09.280 the business implications of this decision? 0:11:10.400 --> 0:11:10.559 Right? 0:11:11.160 --> 0:11:13.440 Well, yes, yes, okay, right. 0:11:13.320 --> 0:11:17.280 I'm sorry, sorry, I'm zooming I I'm zooming in at 0:11:17.280 --> 0:11:19.760 the same time. Okay, but I'll stay on the phone 0:11:19.760 --> 0:11:20.000 with you. 0:11:20.640 --> 0:11:23.800 All right, we got you. 0:11:23.800 --> 0:11:24.640 Can you hear us? 0:11:25.200 --> 0:11:26.360 Yes, yes, okay. 0:11:27.360 --> 0:11:28.760 Do you want me to stay on the phone or 0:11:28.800 --> 0:11:30.439 the computer? 0:11:31.440 --> 0:11:34.280 This is a great question. I feel like the computer 0:11:34.440 --> 0:11:35.240 is just fine. 0:11:36.480 --> 0:11:36.839 All right. 0:11:36.880 --> 0:11:38.920 So let's get back to that question in tid that 0:11:38.920 --> 0:11:41.240 Emily was asking in terms of what businesses sort of 0:11:41.240 --> 0:11:41.680 think about. 0:11:42.960 --> 0:11:46.880 Well, businesses are going to obviously welcome this because it 0:11:46.920 --> 0:11:49.760 removes that unfair advantage. It is not, in any way, 0:11:49.760 --> 0:11:52.960 shape or form, going to radically change how agencies do business. 0:11:53.280 --> 0:11:55.679 They still have all the enforcement tools available to them 0:11:55.720 --> 0:11:58.040 that they had previously. They're still going to be able 0:11:58.040 --> 0:12:00.040 to argue their position, for they simply will know no 0:12:00.120 --> 0:12:03.600 longer have that unfair advantage of coming in ahead of 0:12:03.640 --> 0:12:07.560 the game and already being able to basically tell federal judges, well, look, 0:12:07.720 --> 0:12:09.959 you don't have to apply your skills, you don't have 0:12:10.000 --> 0:12:14.080 to analyze these ambiguities and statutes. We're the experts. We 0:12:14.160 --> 0:12:16.480 will do that for you, and just listen to us. 0:12:16.880 --> 0:12:19.880 And again, that violates separation of powers and checks and 0:12:19.920 --> 0:12:23.000 balances because you diminish the power of the judges to 0:12:23.080 --> 0:12:26.800 do the job that they constitutionally bound to do, and 0:12:26.880 --> 0:12:29.280 you were expanding the power of the agencies, which are, 0:12:29.320 --> 0:12:32.240 of course, as we know, part of the executive branch 0:12:32.760 --> 0:12:36.360 part of Article two. So you elevate one branch over 0:12:36.400 --> 0:12:39.320 the other branch and prevent the other branch, the judiciary, 0:12:39.520 --> 0:12:43.600 from doing its job. Now, certainly businesses will benefit by 0:12:43.600 --> 0:12:47.160 having this, but also enforcement actions are going to go around. 0:12:47.440 --> 0:12:49.360 They're going to continue and the way they have in 0:12:49.400 --> 0:12:50.040 the best. 0:12:51.480 --> 0:12:52.240 Going forward. 0:12:53.040 --> 0:12:56.400 Do you think that laws will then be written with 0:12:56.600 --> 0:12:59.720 different kind of clarity then to prevent things being helped 0:12:59.760 --> 0:13:01.400 up courts like exactly. 0:13:01.640 --> 0:13:03.240 Okay, so that's the whole point. 0:13:03.160 --> 0:13:04.599 Right, So if that's the case, can you give me 0:13:04.640 --> 0:13:07.120 an example of something that might have been that that 0:13:07.240 --> 0:13:09.680 might be rewritten or might be written differently, now that 0:13:09.720 --> 0:13:12.000 the Chevron deference is by the way aside. 0:13:12.679 --> 0:13:15.000 Okay, Well, for example, and I heard you discussing this 0:13:15.000 --> 0:13:17.760 for June a couple of moments ago. Is environmental laws 0:13:17.920 --> 0:13:22.839 and regulations promulgated there under Congress. And again this ships 0:13:23.120 --> 0:13:26.280 if anything shifts a burden slightly or basically is reminded 0:13:26.280 --> 0:13:27.960 to Congress that they need to do a better job. 0:13:28.200 --> 0:13:30.400 We have to remember that one of the reasons Chevron 0:13:30.440 --> 0:13:32.760 came about was that the Supreme Court at that time, 0:13:32.760 --> 0:13:34.640 in nineteen eighty fourth said all right, well, what do 0:13:34.720 --> 0:13:37.840 we do when there were ambiguities in the statute? Well, 0:13:38.120 --> 0:13:41.559 you have a statute that's ambiguous. You have an agency 0:13:41.559 --> 0:13:44.880 that promulgates regulation or brings some enforcement action to enforce 0:13:45.600 --> 0:13:50.439 that statute notwithstanding the ambiguity. And as such, a court 0:13:50.480 --> 0:13:52.720 at that time in Chefron said, well, let's listen to 0:13:52.720 --> 0:13:55.400 the experts, let's listen to the agencies. And that again 0:13:55.679 --> 0:13:59.320 at the time Chefron was a good decision and rightly 0:13:59.400 --> 0:14:02.720 decided and worked, but it's been taken too far where 0:14:02.800 --> 0:14:06.600 now again the difference has gotten out of hand and 0:14:06.640 --> 0:14:09.560 it has increased the imbalance of the favoritism of the 0:14:09.559 --> 0:14:12.760 agency's view and also again basically shutting out for closing 0:14:12.840 --> 0:14:15.520 judges from doing their job. Now back to again as 0:14:15.559 --> 0:14:18.640 an example environmental law bit it applies to securities law 0:14:18.640 --> 0:14:22.120 anti trust law as well because over the controversy presently therein, 0:14:22.560 --> 0:14:26.080 it's going to compel Congress to write better laws, to 0:14:26.440 --> 0:14:29.800 erase ambiguity, to iron out the ambiguities and the problems 0:14:29.800 --> 0:14:32.320 and the misconceptions in the words the statute, so that 0:14:32.360 --> 0:14:37.840 way you have clear statutory text. Therefore, regulations promulgated by 0:14:37.840 --> 0:14:40.760 agencies will just be just as clear because they are 0:14:40.760 --> 0:14:43.520 starting from the clear foundation of the statute itself. And 0:14:43.640 --> 0:14:46.640 enforcement actions in terms of what can be brought and 0:14:46.680 --> 0:14:50.320 what cannot be brought will likewise benefit from that same clarity, 0:14:50.640 --> 0:14:52.920 and judges of course will have an easier time because 0:14:53.160 --> 0:14:56.040 as again the Supreme Court has said, and the Supreme 0:14:56.080 --> 0:14:58.680 Court of two hundred years is said, we go by 0:14:58.800 --> 0:15:01.880 the plain English meaning of a statute and we apply 0:15:01.920 --> 0:15:04.040 it according to its plain English text. 0:15:04.440 --> 0:15:08.360 So in theory though in theory, businesses should have then 0:15:08.440 --> 0:15:10.160 more clarity, I think, is what you're saying, Like, if 0:15:10.160 --> 0:15:13.200 the law is written more clearly, then the business should say, Okay, 0:15:13.400 --> 0:15:17.160 now I got it. What's the reality though, like Congress 0:15:17.200 --> 0:15:19.280 can barely get you know, anything done, are they're really 0:15:19.280 --> 0:15:21.200 going to be able to write more clearly when it 0:15:21.240 --> 0:15:24.920 comes to certain laws, particularly confusing ones like climate or antitrust. 0:15:25.960 --> 0:15:28.120 That's their job, that's what we the people let them for. 0:15:28.640 --> 0:15:31.080 And if Congress cannot write laws with clarity, then it's 0:15:31.120 --> 0:15:33.600 up to the American people to exercise our will at 0:15:33.600 --> 0:15:35.880 the ballot box and put in people who know how 0:15:35.920 --> 0:15:39.400 to write a clear, unambiguous statute. It's as simple as that. 0:15:39.400 --> 0:15:42.880 That's the constitutional plan. That's separation of powers, that's checks 0:15:42.880 --> 0:15:45.680 and balances. So Congress needs to get to work. And 0:15:45.720 --> 0:15:49.240 in the instances where Congress cannot be okay, as clear 0:15:49.320 --> 0:15:51.880 as one might like, the bottom line is that also 0:15:51.880 --> 0:15:56.240 reflects political compromise, because, yes, ambiguities arise in statutes because 0:15:56.240 --> 0:15:59.160 of the political compromise that is undertaken in the halls 0:15:59.200 --> 0:16:01.960 of Congress, and of course with the President and ultimately 0:16:02.040 --> 0:16:04.040 sign it off and make it into law and so forth. 0:16:04.400 --> 0:16:07.720 So to that extent, that's a natural part of the process. 0:16:07.880 --> 0:16:10.840 That's democracy at its best. That's a republican form of government. 0:16:10.840 --> 0:16:11.440 That's it's best. 0:16:11.760 --> 0:16:12.040 All right. 0:16:12.080 --> 0:16:14.640 You're not always going to get perfectly clear statutes, okay, 0:16:14.920 --> 0:16:17.480 but again, there's nothing wrong with Congress trying to do that. 0:16:17.520 --> 0:16:20.560 And if I may, as you say, businesses, but let 0:16:20.640 --> 0:16:23.280 me broaden that, if you allow me. Okay, it's not 0:16:23.360 --> 0:16:28.320 just American businesses, it's all Americans. All Americans individual in 0:16:28.360 --> 0:16:33.200 their personal lives, their personal liberties, business people, okay, business persons, businesses, 0:16:33.200 --> 0:16:37.200 and entities. We're all entitled to statutes that clearly state 0:16:37.240 --> 0:16:39.240 what the law is. So that way we can look 0:16:39.280 --> 0:16:41.720 at them and we know that the law is consistent, 0:16:41.760 --> 0:16:45.160 it's applied to everybody the same way. It's predictable. So 0:16:45.240 --> 0:16:47.000 when I decide I'm going to take a certain course 0:16:47.040 --> 0:16:49.360 of action, okay, I know what the legal result is 0:16:49.400 --> 0:16:51.640 going to be. That's part of America. That's the way 0:16:51.680 --> 0:16:54.840 it should be. And once again, Local Right today restores 0:16:54.880 --> 0:16:57.200 that balance by letting judges judge. 0:16:57.240 --> 0:16:59.680 All right, professor, we hope that plays out that way. 0:17:00.280 --> 0:17:03.840 Anthony Sabino, Professor at Saint John's University Tobin College of Business. 0:17:03.880 --> 0:17:05.840 Just as a reminder to update you on this breaking news, 0:17:06.040 --> 0:17:08.680 the Supreme Court overturns a Chevron ruling in a blow 0:17:08.680 --> 0:17:13.199 to agency power, throwing a four decade old legal doctrine 0:17:13.240 --> 0:17:16.320 that empowered federal regulators to interpret unclear laws, and now 0:17:16.320 --> 0:17:18.879 that goes to judges and then back to Congress to 0:17:19.040 --> 0:17:20.399 write very clear laws. 0:17:22.000 --> 0:17:25.879 You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live 0:17:25.960 --> 0:17:29.480 weekdays at ten am Eastern on applecard Play and Android 0:17:29.520 --> 0:17:32.680 Auto with the Bloomberg Business. You can also listen live 0:17:32.760 --> 0:17:35.879 on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just 0:17:36.000 --> 0:17:38.639 Say Alexa playing Bloomberg eleven thirty. 0:17:40.240 --> 0:17:43.199 It's definitely the Supreme Court decision day. The latest is 0:17:43.200 --> 0:17:46.240 the Supreme Court backs the January sixth defendant curbing the 0:17:46.359 --> 0:17:50.679 use of Enron law. Remember, nearly three hundred defendants, including 0:17:50.720 --> 0:17:53.359 Donald Trump, were charged under this twenty two thousand and 0:17:53.400 --> 0:17:56.320 two law that grew out of the Enron collapse regarding 0:17:56.359 --> 0:17:59.399 people who obstruct an official proceeding. And it looks like 0:17:59.400 --> 0:18:03.080 the Supreme Court is backed the January sixth defendant. June 0:18:03.080 --> 0:18:05.479 grasshow senior legal analyst is still with US June. What 0:18:05.520 --> 0:18:07.920 does this mean, Well. 0:18:07.680 --> 0:18:11.000 It means that some defendants are going to have their 0:18:11.080 --> 0:18:15.280 cases trim back. And this also affects Donald Trump because 0:18:15.280 --> 0:18:19.600 he's been charged with this same with the same crime. 0:18:20.080 --> 0:18:23.520 So it's going to affect a lot of January sixth cases. 0:18:24.320 --> 0:18:28.119 I think very few of the January sixth defendants just 0:18:28.240 --> 0:18:31.560 have this charge that they're facing, So if they've had 0:18:31.600 --> 0:18:33.520 a trial already, they'll probably still. 0:18:33.280 --> 0:18:38.760 Be And is this charge specifically against preventing approving President 0:18:38.920 --> 0:18:43.159 Biden or or is it like them breaking into Congress 0:18:43.000 --> 0:18:45.040 it's like listening Nancy Pelosi's desk. 0:18:45.440 --> 0:18:48.520 Well, it's yeah, it's about obstructing, that's the whole question. 0:18:48.560 --> 0:18:52.000 It's about obstructing official proceeding. And this was a law 0:18:52.040 --> 0:18:55.600 that came in as we know post and Ron, and 0:18:55.680 --> 0:18:59.280 so what the defendants were saying here is this law 0:18:59.320 --> 0:19:02.240 doesn't apply to this kind of a proceeding. This is 0:19:02.280 --> 0:19:05.720 a law about papers and disrupting papers and stuff. And 0:19:05.840 --> 0:19:08.680 so but you know, the law could be any law 0:19:08.720 --> 0:19:11.879 can be read broadly or narrowly. And it says that 0:19:12.080 --> 0:19:15.119 they said that the government must show that the defendant 0:19:15.160 --> 0:19:19.080 impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official 0:19:19.119 --> 0:19:23.480 proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in 0:19:23.520 --> 0:19:25.800 an official proceeding, or attempting to do so. 0:19:25.920 --> 0:19:28.680 It's six to three again. But what's interesting is that 0:19:28.760 --> 0:19:31.000 the three are not the three liberals. 0:19:31.320 --> 0:19:35.199 The three are two liberals, Justice Kagan and Justice Soto 0:19:35.200 --> 0:19:39.639 Mayor and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. So it'll be 0:19:39.680 --> 0:19:41.800 interesting to see. And this is a case. 0:19:41.640 --> 0:19:44.399 That the Chief wrote the majority opinion in. 0:19:44.440 --> 0:19:46.439 And you know, if you look back a lot of 0:19:46.440 --> 0:19:50.200 the most important cases, the Chief decided because the Chief 0:19:50.240 --> 0:19:53.160 has the ability if he's in the majority, to decide 0:19:53.200 --> 0:19:56.800 who will write the opinion, And so the Chief decided 0:19:56.840 --> 0:19:58.800 that he'll write it himself, meaning that you know, he 0:19:58.840 --> 0:20:00.879 thinks it's a very important case and he wanted to 0:20:00.920 --> 0:20:06.240 handle it. And I'm trying to see what else it says. 0:20:07.440 --> 0:20:10.040 While you're looking, I want to update our audience right now, 0:20:10.040 --> 0:20:13.400 the Supreme Court backs January sixth defendant, curbing the use 0:20:14.000 --> 0:20:17.280 of Enron law. This could affect President Trump as well 0:20:17.320 --> 0:20:20.520 as hundreds of January six cases. In this centers on 0:20:21.000 --> 0:20:24.439 the Enron rule that said that people who obstruct an 0:20:24.440 --> 0:20:28.480 official proceeding could be charged for that. This appears to 0:20:28.560 --> 0:20:30.639 them sort of put that on the sidelines and say, no, 0:20:30.800 --> 0:20:33.880 this was not a disruption of a official proceeding. We're 0:20:33.880 --> 0:20:37.600 talking something like nearly three hundred defendants, including Donald Trump, 0:20:37.600 --> 0:20:41.080 were charged under this two thousand and two law. So 0:20:41.119 --> 0:20:44.040 we are looking at that as we go. So if 0:20:44.080 --> 0:20:47.000 I'm one of the defendants, what happens June, like, do 0:20:47.040 --> 0:20:48.240 I go back and say. 0:20:48.640 --> 0:20:49.400