1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,480 --> 00:00:14,520
Speaker 2: I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting

3
00:00:14,560 --> 00:00:17,599
Speaker 2: on the defendant's post arrest silence.

4
00:00:18,079 --> 00:00:20,840
Speaker 1: That's basic law. It's been basic law in this country

5
00:00:21,160 --> 00:00:24,360
Speaker 1: for forty years, fifty years. We're used to seeing judges

6
00:00:24,560 --> 00:00:29,040
Speaker 1: yelling in court, reprimanding, even berating. What we're not used

7
00:00:29,040 --> 00:00:32,440
Speaker 1: to is judges crying in court, especially when telling the

8
00:00:32,520 --> 00:00:34,960
Speaker 1: defendant the good news that he doesn't have to go

9
00:00:35,000 --> 00:00:38,280
Speaker 1: to prison. But that's what happened when Brooklyn Federal Judge

10
00:00:38,320 --> 00:00:43,839
Speaker 1: Pamela Chen sentenced Alejandro Burzaco, a banker turned sports marketing

11
00:00:44,000 --> 00:00:49,200
Speaker 1: executive turned star witness at two FIFA corruption trials. Joining

12
00:00:49,200 --> 00:00:52,199
Speaker 1: me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, who was in

13
00:00:52,240 --> 00:00:55,320
Speaker 1: the courtroom. Patty tell us about Brazaco.

14
00:00:55,360 --> 00:01:00,000
Speaker 2: He has been one of the most prolific and helpful witness,

15
00:01:00,120 --> 00:01:03,760
Speaker 2: says the US government has ever had. I've never covered

16
00:01:03,840 --> 00:01:07,040
Speaker 2: a case where at the sentencing, the federal judge who

17
00:01:07,080 --> 00:01:10,880
Speaker 2: presided over two trials and saw Berzakos on the stand

18
00:01:11,000 --> 00:01:13,920
Speaker 2: for fourteen days as a witness for the government, she

19
00:01:14,040 --> 00:01:17,240
Speaker 2: actually cried and had to stop and grabbed the tears

20
00:01:17,280 --> 00:01:19,920
Speaker 2: away as she told him how proud she was, some

21
00:01:20,080 --> 00:01:23,440
Speaker 2: privilege she was to see and hear his testimony, and

22
00:01:23,480 --> 00:01:26,120
Speaker 2: then she continued, but as you were speaking, mister Brazaco,

23
00:01:26,240 --> 00:01:28,920
Speaker 2: I felt some bit of privilege and pride about being

24
00:01:28,959 --> 00:01:32,480
Speaker 2: able to participate in this role in this system, because

25
00:01:32,520 --> 00:01:34,800
Speaker 2: this is a great justice system, and I think the

26
00:01:34,840 --> 00:01:37,360
Speaker 2: finest in the world, and it does, I hope, always

27
00:01:37,360 --> 00:01:40,440
Speaker 2: reward people for doing the right thing. And it was extraordinary.

28
00:01:40,560 --> 00:01:43,679
Speaker 2: As a reporter for decades of experience, I've never seen that.

29
00:01:44,120 --> 00:01:46,679
Speaker 1: I haven't either. It's stunning what the.

30
00:01:46,680 --> 00:01:50,920
Speaker 2: Government said he did is he helped them basically uncover

31
00:01:51,520 --> 00:01:56,720
Speaker 2: the fraud and rampant bribery that was in international soccer.

32
00:01:57,160 --> 00:01:59,640
Speaker 2: That there always been these rumors but no one had

33
00:01:59,680 --> 00:02:03,040
Speaker 2: ever been willing to come forward, and that Brazaco had

34
00:02:03,040 --> 00:02:07,320
Speaker 2: helped the US government disclose the actual fraud that was

35
00:02:07,400 --> 00:02:11,720
Speaker 2: involved in bribery. And after the trials has happened, there

36
00:02:11,800 --> 00:02:14,800
Speaker 2: was one in twenty seventeen that went on for weeks

37
00:02:14,800 --> 00:02:18,120
Speaker 2: and weeks, and the second trial that just finished was

38
00:02:18,160 --> 00:02:21,360
Speaker 2: like a twelve week trial. Earlier this year, she said

39
00:02:21,400 --> 00:02:24,840
Speaker 2: that now the truth is out that was bribery in soccer.

40
00:02:24,919 --> 00:02:28,480
Speaker 2: People couldn't deny it any longer. After all these witnesses testified.

41
00:02:28,840 --> 00:02:30,160
Speaker 1: What was he accused of.

42
00:02:30,680 --> 00:02:34,000
Speaker 2: Brazoco was accused and pled guilty to paying tens of

43
00:02:34,040 --> 00:02:38,639
Speaker 2: millions of dollars in bribe. Is sports marketing executive. It's

44
00:02:38,639 --> 00:02:41,600
Speaker 2: a very odd world. But basically, if you want to

45
00:02:41,600 --> 00:02:46,079
Speaker 2: get access to events, players, and you want to broadcast

46
00:02:46,120 --> 00:02:49,680
Speaker 2: those rights and endure certain teams, these bribes were paid

47
00:02:49,880 --> 00:02:52,200
Speaker 2: to the soccer bosses that were the heads of these

48
00:02:52,240 --> 00:02:56,800
Speaker 2: different soccer entities. So basically, these soccer bosses were taking

49
00:02:56,840 --> 00:03:02,680
Speaker 2: bribes from these corporations in exchange for are extraordinarily lucrative broadcast. Right.

50
00:03:03,360 --> 00:03:06,320
Speaker 1: So the judge said that by cooperating, he put his

51
00:03:06,400 --> 00:03:07,240
Speaker 1: life in danger.

52
00:03:07,760 --> 00:03:11,000
Speaker 2: Yeah, And the first trial actually had all the trappings

53
00:03:11,040 --> 00:03:15,240
Speaker 2: of a mafia case where witnesses, especially Brazaco, who were

54
00:03:15,280 --> 00:03:20,399
Speaker 2: basically escorted to and from court under guard of SBI agents.

55
00:03:20,440 --> 00:03:24,119
Speaker 2: The jurors were anonymous and their identities were not disclosed,

56
00:03:24,160 --> 00:03:26,680
Speaker 2: which is what you see in a mafia trial, you know,

57
00:03:26,760 --> 00:03:32,160
Speaker 2: a terrorism case. And he testified that because he was cooperating,

58
00:03:32,280 --> 00:03:35,280
Speaker 2: he was terrified for his own safety as well as

59
00:03:35,320 --> 00:03:38,480
Speaker 2: the safety of his family. His family was still living

60
00:03:38,520 --> 00:03:41,160
Speaker 2: in Argentina and some of his children still live there.

61
00:03:41,240 --> 00:03:45,040
Speaker 2: So in fact, his sentencing memo and the government's memo

62
00:03:45,560 --> 00:03:48,280
Speaker 2: everything is under steal and the court has refused to

63
00:03:48,320 --> 00:03:51,480
Speaker 2: release it. The allegation was that he and his family

64
00:03:51,520 --> 00:03:54,360
Speaker 2: had actually received death threats. So here's a guy that

65
00:03:54,560 --> 00:03:57,200
Speaker 2: basically can never return home to Argentina.

66
00:03:57,280 --> 00:04:00,360
Speaker 1: So he was on the stand a total of fourteen days,

67
00:04:00,720 --> 00:04:03,360
Speaker 1: two trials. What was he like on the stand?

68
00:04:03,960 --> 00:04:06,680
Speaker 2: He has a phenomenal memory, and because it was a

69
00:04:06,680 --> 00:04:10,040
Speaker 2: former businessman in banker, he knew about all the transactions

70
00:04:10,040 --> 00:04:12,640
Speaker 2: and he could talk about the financing. But then he

71
00:04:12,720 --> 00:04:15,280
Speaker 2: was I thought extraordinarily smart and down to earth guy

72
00:04:15,760 --> 00:04:20,600
Speaker 2: that knew how to communicate two jurors. He remembered people's conversations.

73
00:04:20,680 --> 00:04:23,400
Speaker 2: You remember the nicknames of some of these soccer bosses.

74
00:04:23,520 --> 00:04:27,720
Speaker 2: One of the guys in Argentina ran the empire from

75
00:04:27,800 --> 00:04:31,400
Speaker 2: a gas station and he was called in Spanish the Pope,

76
00:04:31,520 --> 00:04:34,240
Speaker 2: and he wore a big signet ring and people he

77
00:04:34,400 --> 00:04:36,560
Speaker 2: used to come and pay tribute to him and they

78
00:04:36,560 --> 00:04:38,359
Speaker 2: would have to kiss his ring, just like you have

79
00:04:38,440 --> 00:04:40,720
Speaker 2: to go when you see the Pope. So you can

80
00:04:40,800 --> 00:04:45,200
Speaker 2: see that there's all these anecdotes that Burzaco had at

81
00:04:45,200 --> 00:04:48,640
Speaker 2: the tip of his fingertips just off his memory, and

82
00:04:48,720 --> 00:04:52,960
Speaker 2: he could recite whole parts of conversations. He remembered details

83
00:04:53,000 --> 00:04:56,320
Speaker 2: about sitting in a restaurant and where they were sitting

84
00:04:56,680 --> 00:04:59,880
Speaker 2: Seventh Avenue in Manhattan near the News Court building. When

85
00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:04,200
Speaker 2: when were twenty first century Fox executives talked about paying

86
00:05:04,480 --> 00:05:08,840
Speaker 2: bribes to get lucrative broadcast rights, including some of the

87
00:05:08,880 --> 00:05:12,560
Speaker 2: allegations the government alleged was the rights to the twenty

88
00:05:12,640 --> 00:05:14,080
Speaker 2: twenty two World Cup.

89
00:05:14,360 --> 00:05:18,040
Speaker 1: How many people were convicted because of his testimony.

90
00:05:17,880 --> 00:05:22,880
Speaker 2: Dozens, more than two dozen were convicted. The soccer bosses

91
00:05:23,000 --> 00:05:26,760
Speaker 2: were convicted three a trial, two were acquitted. So of

92
00:05:26,839 --> 00:05:30,560
Speaker 2: five that went to trial, dozens and dozens pled guilty.

93
00:05:30,800 --> 00:05:34,440
Speaker 2: Sports marketing companies pled guilty. One of them is actually

94
00:05:34,480 --> 00:05:37,480
Speaker 2: trying to get out got convicted at the first trial.

95
00:05:37,760 --> 00:05:41,080
Speaker 2: Some of the biggest guys in the sports were ousted also,

96
00:05:41,240 --> 00:05:44,800
Speaker 2: like step Blatder, who was the boss of FIFA. He

97
00:05:44,920 --> 00:05:48,400
Speaker 2: was president for seventeen years and was kicked out of

98
00:05:48,440 --> 00:05:52,839
Speaker 2: the job. So prosecutors said that without Brazaco's help that

99
00:05:53,240 --> 00:05:58,760
Speaker 2: international soccer the true dirty underbelly would have never been exposed.

100
00:05:59,480 --> 00:06:01,919
Speaker 1: Tell us who he was in the courtroom for his sentencing.

101
00:06:02,400 --> 00:06:04,960
Speaker 2: It was kind of wild because he not only had

102
00:06:05,040 --> 00:06:09,200
Speaker 2: his lawyer, all of his family was there from Argentina,

103
00:06:09,320 --> 00:06:13,479
Speaker 2: his children, I understand, maybe two x wives and his

104
00:06:13,760 --> 00:06:17,960
Speaker 2: fiance and then you know, as reporters who cover courts,

105
00:06:18,440 --> 00:06:21,600
Speaker 2: you always hear these people that suddenly do good deeds

106
00:06:21,680 --> 00:06:24,520
Speaker 2: just ahead of their sentencing, where you know they're working

107
00:06:24,520 --> 00:06:27,200
Speaker 2: in a soup kitchen or working with a homeless or

108
00:06:27,200 --> 00:06:30,839
Speaker 2: something like that. Right, well, Brazaco actually had some of

109
00:06:30,839 --> 00:06:34,039
Speaker 2: the co workers from the food pantry he works with,

110
00:06:34,360 --> 00:06:37,880
Speaker 2: and there was a soup kitchen he works with where

111
00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:41,960
Speaker 2: he's so vigilant about working with him. From the description

112
00:06:42,040 --> 00:06:45,520
Speaker 2: of his lawyer, Jim Walden, it sounded like he had

113
00:06:45,560 --> 00:06:50,000
Speaker 2: felt so responsible after turning rogue as the former City

114
00:06:50,040 --> 00:06:53,640
Speaker 2: Group banker you know, turns bag man paying money millions

115
00:06:53,680 --> 00:06:56,240
Speaker 2: of dollars in Bride. He decided to turn over a

116
00:06:56,240 --> 00:06:58,640
Speaker 2: new leaf and cooperate with the government. But it didn't

117
00:06:58,720 --> 00:07:01,440
Speaker 2: just end there with help being in testifying as a

118
00:07:01,480 --> 00:07:03,960
Speaker 2: government witness. Here he is doing this good work for

119
00:07:04,080 --> 00:07:06,640
Speaker 2: years and years and years. So it's been eight years

120
00:07:06,680 --> 00:07:10,600
Speaker 2: since that raid at the five star hotel in Switzerland

121
00:07:10,600 --> 00:07:14,160
Speaker 2: when all the FIFA bosses got arrested, right he somehow

122
00:07:14,240 --> 00:07:17,960
Speaker 2: was in the dining room, but they didn't get him

123
00:07:18,320 --> 00:07:21,640
Speaker 2: for some reason. I don't know why. But he walked

124
00:07:21,640 --> 00:07:25,000
Speaker 2: out the back door and immediately went to the Swiss

125
00:07:25,000 --> 00:07:29,200
Speaker 2: Italian border and called his lawyers and immediately came in

126
00:07:29,400 --> 00:07:32,560
Speaker 2: and offered to help and then secretly pled guilty and

127
00:07:32,680 --> 00:07:35,720
Speaker 2: has been on Team America right helping the government. But

128
00:07:35,840 --> 00:07:38,440
Speaker 2: here he is for eight years. He's also been working

129
00:07:38,680 --> 00:07:42,040
Speaker 2: in the suit kitchens and food pantries, and he wanted

130
00:07:42,080 --> 00:07:45,320
Speaker 2: to make amends in such a way that when he

131
00:07:45,440 --> 00:07:49,920
Speaker 2: saw another guy at the soup kitchen getting attacked and

132
00:07:50,000 --> 00:07:55,280
Speaker 2: somebody was stealing his motorbike or his bicycle, Brazaco stepped

133
00:07:55,280 --> 00:07:58,240
Speaker 2: in to stop the crime and stopped to protect the

134
00:07:58,320 --> 00:08:02,800
Speaker 2: man it was getting hit by chains and call the cops.

135
00:08:02,840 --> 00:08:06,520
Speaker 2: And then when the DA found out who the witness was,

136
00:08:06,720 --> 00:08:10,400
Speaker 2: she had to tell the Manhattan Die's office who exactly

137
00:08:10,720 --> 00:08:13,880
Speaker 2: they wanted to call as a witness, that they couldn't

138
00:08:14,040 --> 00:08:17,360
Speaker 2: use him because they would interfere with their criminal case.

139
00:08:17,680 --> 00:08:21,840
Speaker 2: So Brazaco found another witness and convinced that guy to

140
00:08:21,920 --> 00:08:26,720
Speaker 2: come forward and testify against the wrongdoer. So his lawyer

141
00:08:26,800 --> 00:08:30,120
Speaker 2: called him the Superman of cooperators, and it really did

142
00:08:30,160 --> 00:08:32,839
Speaker 2: make him sound like Superman of all this good deeds

143
00:08:32,880 --> 00:08:35,679
Speaker 2: that he'd done that weren't just idle. You know, let's

144
00:08:35,679 --> 00:08:38,560
Speaker 2: do it for a weekend on Thanksgiving, and let's get

145
00:08:38,679 --> 00:08:41,320
Speaker 2: done with our public service. This is a guy who's

146
00:08:41,360 --> 00:08:43,760
Speaker 2: been committed for the last eight years to helping people.

147
00:08:44,120 --> 00:08:48,720
Speaker 1: Patty, besides family members and co workers at the food

148
00:08:48,800 --> 00:08:52,160
Speaker 1: kitchens he's worked at. Who else was at the sentencing.

149
00:08:52,679 --> 00:08:56,599
Speaker 2: That was the other extraordinary thing to see Rose and

150
00:08:56,840 --> 00:09:00,520
Speaker 2: rose of former prosecutors who've been on the case for

151
00:09:00,559 --> 00:09:03,560
Speaker 2: eight years and left the US Attorney's office and they're

152
00:09:03,600 --> 00:09:07,240
Speaker 2: sitting there and FBI agents I haven't clapped eyes on

153
00:09:07,320 --> 00:09:10,400
Speaker 2: in years, and they're sitting there, and all of them

154
00:09:10,440 --> 00:09:12,760
Speaker 2: had worked in the case, and they all came and

155
00:09:13,160 --> 00:09:16,959
Speaker 2: show support to him. And everyone said to me afterwards,

156
00:09:17,000 --> 00:09:19,880
Speaker 2: you know that you don't often see a federal judge crying,

157
00:09:20,080 --> 00:09:22,880
Speaker 2: And there she was crying about how proud she was

158
00:09:23,400 --> 00:09:26,800
Speaker 2: to have seen his testimony, and she noted that some

159
00:09:26,840 --> 00:09:31,720
Speaker 2: of the defense lawyers availed his credibility and called into

160
00:09:31,800 --> 00:09:36,240
Speaker 2: question his motives. He was assailed as a liar who

161
00:09:36,280 --> 00:09:40,080
Speaker 2: was fingering these other upstanding members of the community in

162
00:09:40,120 --> 00:09:43,680
Speaker 2: the soccer world just to get even or to hide

163
00:09:43,679 --> 00:09:46,440
Speaker 2: his crime. But you know, the judge said she had

164
00:09:46,480 --> 00:09:49,320
Speaker 2: not seen evidence of that and these guys, I mean,

165
00:09:49,360 --> 00:09:51,480
Speaker 2: it was just I've never seen anything like it. It

166
00:09:51,520 --> 00:09:52,559
Speaker 2: was quite the spectacle.

167
00:09:52,880 --> 00:09:55,160
Speaker 1: So tell us about what he said at the sentencing.

168
00:09:55,440 --> 00:09:57,960
Speaker 2: It was very emotional, you can tell you know that

169
00:09:58,080 --> 00:10:01,960
Speaker 2: this whole aspect of leaving one's country and his family

170
00:10:02,280 --> 00:10:05,320
Speaker 2: behind and trying to do the right thing and make

171
00:10:05,400 --> 00:10:08,080
Speaker 2: up for his crime weighs really heavily on him. He

172
00:10:08,160 --> 00:10:12,720
Speaker 2: seems a man who's very tortured and affected by the

173
00:10:12,760 --> 00:10:17,160
Speaker 2: remorse he feels. It was definitely palpable. He has to pause.

174
00:10:17,320 --> 00:10:19,760
Speaker 2: He reddened in the face at some points in time.

175
00:10:20,200 --> 00:10:23,520
Speaker 2: I mean, he got very emotional and his voice choked

176
00:10:23,600 --> 00:10:27,559
Speaker 2: up with emotion trying to talk about how horrified and

177
00:10:27,600 --> 00:10:31,959
Speaker 2: remorseful he was about the crimes he committed. And you know,

178
00:10:32,280 --> 00:10:36,359
Speaker 2: he had to live alone in the US and facing

179
00:10:36,520 --> 00:10:39,400
Speaker 2: the prospect and then imagine that you're on hold, you

180
00:10:39,480 --> 00:10:42,000
Speaker 2: have everything to put on hold. Well, you wait for

181
00:10:42,080 --> 00:10:44,880
Speaker 2: these two trials to go through the system, and so

182
00:10:44,920 --> 00:10:49,240
Speaker 2: the first one started in May twenty fifteen. The first

183
00:10:49,280 --> 00:10:53,199
Speaker 2: trial started in November twenty seventeen, so we're talking two

184
00:10:53,280 --> 00:10:56,480
Speaker 2: years later, and the second trial didn't happen un till

185
00:10:56,480 --> 00:10:59,719
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three because of the pandemic. So imagine having

186
00:10:59,760 --> 00:11:02,200
Speaker 2: your life and being put on ice like that, and

187
00:11:02,240 --> 00:11:05,480
Speaker 2: then you're having to stand by. He thanked everybody, you know,

188
00:11:05,559 --> 00:11:07,400
Speaker 2: He says, I want to say to all the victims,

189
00:11:07,440 --> 00:11:10,600
Speaker 2: I fully accept to take responsibility for the crimes I've committed.

190
00:11:11,000 --> 00:11:13,600
Speaker 2: I understood it was bad, and no one forced to

191
00:11:13,600 --> 00:11:15,360
Speaker 2: do me to do it, and I know my conduct

192
00:11:15,400 --> 00:11:18,160
Speaker 2: was wrong, it was very wrong. He apologized to the

193
00:11:18,200 --> 00:11:20,960
Speaker 2: soccer world, to the members of the soccer clubs in

194
00:11:21,000 --> 00:11:24,240
Speaker 2: South America, who he called the real shareholders of these clubs,

195
00:11:24,320 --> 00:11:26,960
Speaker 2: and these people who loved the sport, who were basically

196
00:11:27,000 --> 00:11:30,240
Speaker 2: betrayed by this fraud. Talked about how was his motivation,

197
00:11:30,360 --> 00:11:33,160
Speaker 2: why did he engage in this fraud. My conclusion is

198
00:11:33,200 --> 00:11:35,360
Speaker 2: that at the beginning of my career in the soccer

199
00:11:35,400 --> 00:11:37,640
Speaker 2: in industry, I was motivated by a desire to be

200
00:11:37,640 --> 00:11:40,400
Speaker 2: close to the people in the industry and He basically

201
00:11:40,440 --> 00:11:42,960
Speaker 2: wanted to get in where all the decisions were made

202
00:11:43,000 --> 00:11:46,360
Speaker 2: in big soccer. And of course what happens is when

203
00:11:46,440 --> 00:11:51,560
Speaker 2: he joined this company, Torneo Si Comenthensius, the soccer management company,

204
00:11:51,880 --> 00:11:53,880
Speaker 2: the people were paying bribes and it was sort of

205
00:11:53,920 --> 00:11:55,880
Speaker 2: like the way you had to do business to succeed.

206
00:11:56,040 --> 00:11:59,040
Speaker 2: So he saw firsthand what was going on, and then

207
00:11:59,160 --> 00:12:02,360
Speaker 2: he knowingly went along with it. So, you know, he said,

208
00:12:02,480 --> 00:12:06,079
Speaker 2: I was motivated by greed, and I deeply regret my actions,

209
00:12:06,120 --> 00:12:08,360
Speaker 2: and I was selfish, and I am ashamed of it,

210
00:12:08,400 --> 00:12:10,520
Speaker 2: and I'm still ashamed of it, and I want to

211
00:12:10,520 --> 00:12:13,160
Speaker 2: tell the victims. I've dedicated my last eight years to

212
00:12:13,240 --> 00:12:16,240
Speaker 2: repair this. It just was extraordinary. You don't most of

213
00:12:16,280 --> 00:12:19,959
Speaker 2: the time. I call it the Great American Apology. Mistakes

214
00:12:19,960 --> 00:12:23,120
Speaker 2: were made, things happened, but I don't have anything to

215
00:12:23,200 --> 00:12:25,439
Speaker 2: do with it, because that's the way some people act

216
00:12:25,600 --> 00:12:29,439
Speaker 2: after getting caught and pleading guilty. You know, they minimize

217
00:12:29,520 --> 00:12:32,000
Speaker 2: their role. He was definitely not that kind of guy.

218
00:12:32,240 --> 00:12:36,280
Speaker 1: It sounds like it was an extraordinary sentencing. Thanks so much, Patty.

219
00:12:36,520 --> 00:12:41,680
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. The Supreme Court upheld

220
00:12:41,720 --> 00:12:46,520
Speaker 1: California's new humane pork law, rejecting an industry challenge in

221
00:12:46,600 --> 00:12:50,320
Speaker 1: a ruling buttressing the power of states to impose rules

222
00:12:50,320 --> 00:12:53,320
Speaker 1: that have a broad economic impact on other parts of

223
00:12:53,320 --> 00:12:57,480
Speaker 1: the country. The ruling could force pork producers to implement

224
00:12:57,640 --> 00:13:00,600
Speaker 1: costly changes to keep selling in the world rol's most

225
00:13:00,640 --> 00:13:06,160
Speaker 1: populous state. The industry argued, unsuccessfully that California is violating

226
00:13:06,160 --> 00:13:11,679
Speaker 1: the Constitution by regulating commerce outside its borders. Justice Neil

227
00:13:11,720 --> 00:13:15,880
Speaker 1: Gorsuch wrote for the five justice majority, saying the poork

228
00:13:15,920 --> 00:13:20,120
Speaker 1: industry would have us cast aside caution for boldness by

229
00:13:20,240 --> 00:13:24,240
Speaker 1: intervening where Congress had declined to act. The ruling cut

230
00:13:24,280 --> 00:13:28,400
Speaker 1: across the Court's left right divide Justice as Clarence Thomas,

231
00:13:28,400 --> 00:13:32,920
Speaker 1: Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Gorsuch

232
00:13:33,000 --> 00:13:36,520
Speaker 1: in voting to toss out the lawsuit. Although the majority

233
00:13:36,600 --> 00:13:40,240
Speaker 1: splintered in some of its reasoning, for Justice's Chief Justice

234
00:13:40,320 --> 00:13:45,000
Speaker 1: John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Katanji Brown

235
00:13:45,120 --> 00:13:47,800
Speaker 1: Jackson said they would have kicked the case back to

236
00:13:47,840 --> 00:13:51,480
Speaker 1: a federal appeals court for more scrutiny. My guest is

237
00:13:51,520 --> 00:13:54,640
Speaker 1: Harold Krant, a professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law.

238
00:13:55,000 --> 00:13:58,839
Speaker 1: First of all, tell us about California Proposition twelve, which

239
00:13:58,880 --> 00:14:03,600
Speaker 1: is one of the nation's strongest farm animal welfare laws.

240
00:14:04,080 --> 00:14:08,280
Speaker 3: California's PAS Proposition twelve to ensure sort of humane conditions

241
00:14:08,320 --> 00:14:11,200
Speaker 3: for pigs, and the problem was that pigs are usually

242
00:14:11,200 --> 00:14:14,559
Speaker 3: put in and tends very close to other pigs. There

243
00:14:14,600 --> 00:14:18,160
Speaker 3: can be violence, pigs don't get exercise, and so in

244
00:14:18,240 --> 00:14:20,920
Speaker 3: terms of cruelty, made people think that those kinds of

245
00:14:20,960 --> 00:14:24,680
Speaker 3: conditions should be banned. And California is not alone. There

246
00:14:24,720 --> 00:14:29,000
Speaker 3: are laws against cruelty in terms of raising food in

247
00:14:29,040 --> 00:14:32,640
Speaker 3: Massachusetts and Florida and other states. But this one is

248
00:14:32,680 --> 00:14:36,000
Speaker 3: noteworthy because California is such a large market and so

249
00:14:36,320 --> 00:14:40,479
Speaker 3: it decides that pigs have to be housed in humane conditions.

250
00:14:40,800 --> 00:14:43,320
Speaker 3: That's going to cause a huge ripple effect into the

251
00:14:43,360 --> 00:14:44,720
Speaker 3: pork industry as a whole.

252
00:14:45,160 --> 00:14:48,560
Speaker 1: The argument in this case is about this arcane constitutional

253
00:14:48,600 --> 00:14:53,040
Speaker 1: doctrine called the dormant Commerce clause. Explain what that is.

254
00:14:54,000 --> 00:14:56,800
Speaker 3: So we have a commerce clause in the Constitution which

255
00:14:56,880 --> 00:15:01,760
Speaker 3: gives Congress the ability to regulate amongst the states, and

256
00:15:01,800 --> 00:15:05,120
Speaker 3: that's not at state care and that's not controversial. But

257
00:15:05,200 --> 00:15:08,840
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court later in its history decided to read

258
00:15:08,880 --> 00:15:13,600
Speaker 3: a negative implication into that clause, suggesting that some kinds

259
00:15:13,640 --> 00:15:18,240
Speaker 3: of state regulatory actions, even if they're based upon public policy,

260
00:15:18,680 --> 00:15:24,280
Speaker 3: can't have the impact of interfering with interstate commerce. And

261
00:15:24,360 --> 00:15:28,120
Speaker 3: so the Court on its own will sort of judge

262
00:15:28,160 --> 00:15:34,000
Speaker 3: whether a state regulatory effort is discriminatory against out of

263
00:15:34,080 --> 00:15:38,800
Speaker 3: state commerce and therefore violates the spirit of the Constitution

264
00:15:39,280 --> 00:15:44,400
Speaker 3: by picking and choosing which kind of producers to value

265
00:15:44,960 --> 00:15:47,440
Speaker 3: from which states there should be an accepted commerce in

266
00:15:47,520 --> 00:15:47,960
Speaker 3: the states.

267
00:15:48,480 --> 00:15:51,680
Speaker 1: And what was the argument here by the pork industry.

268
00:15:52,120 --> 00:15:55,680
Speaker 3: The pork industry had two or three different arguments, depending

269
00:15:55,760 --> 00:15:58,800
Speaker 3: upon how one counts. The first might be called an

270
00:15:58,840 --> 00:16:02,720
Speaker 3: extra territorial print, so that any kind of state regulation

271
00:16:02,800 --> 00:16:07,320
Speaker 3: that has the impact that is felt mostly externally should

272
00:16:07,440 --> 00:16:10,760
Speaker 3: as a per se matter be found to be unconstitutional.

273
00:16:11,000 --> 00:16:13,640
Speaker 3: A variant of that is the fact that in this

274
00:16:13,760 --> 00:16:17,800
Speaker 3: case it wasn't just a state regulation, it was a

275
00:16:17,880 --> 00:16:22,480
Speaker 3: moral regulation. And both and Mikai as well as the

276
00:16:22,560 --> 00:16:26,240
Speaker 3: park industry said, look, if you allow California to impose

277
00:16:26,680 --> 00:16:30,640
Speaker 3: a kind of moral principle in terms of humane treatment

278
00:16:30,680 --> 00:16:34,760
Speaker 3: for pigs. What's the stop California from men saying is

279
00:16:34,760 --> 00:16:37,600
Speaker 3: a moral issue. We only want to deal with employers

280
00:16:37,800 --> 00:16:40,680
Speaker 3: who are fair to their employees, or we only want

281
00:16:40,720 --> 00:16:43,640
Speaker 3: to have products from employers that are fair to employees.

282
00:16:43,680 --> 00:16:47,320
Speaker 3: So we only want to deal with products in companies

283
00:16:47,640 --> 00:16:52,920
Speaker 3: which bide by the privacy rights of their female employees.

284
00:16:53,360 --> 00:16:56,760
Speaker 3: So the fear was that this kind of case opened

285
00:16:56,800 --> 00:16:59,920
Speaker 3: up the Pandora's box and giving sort of a green

286
00:17:00,240 --> 00:17:04,560
Speaker 3: like to states to impose all sorts of regulations that

287
00:17:04,720 --> 00:17:07,399
Speaker 3: have ability to do with the morals of the state

288
00:17:07,800 --> 00:17:13,440
Speaker 3: as opposed to any kind of legitimate protection for their citizens,

289
00:17:13,440 --> 00:17:17,679
Speaker 3: such as from poison or pollution or something along those lines.

290
00:17:18,280 --> 00:17:22,160
Speaker 3: So that was one argument, and as probably that's why

291
00:17:22,200 --> 00:17:26,600
Speaker 3: this case got so much attention because of this extraterritoriality

292
00:17:26,720 --> 00:17:29,200
Speaker 3: aspect of it. The second one was just a plain

293
00:17:29,320 --> 00:17:33,119
Speaker 3: balancing test, and in prior cases the court had held

294
00:17:33,560 --> 00:17:38,440
Speaker 3: that when the burdens of a state regulation are excessive

295
00:17:38,480 --> 00:17:43,240
Speaker 3: in comparison to the in state benefits, that that state

296
00:17:43,359 --> 00:17:46,800
Speaker 3: rule also violates the dormant commerce clause of which we've

297
00:17:46,840 --> 00:17:51,080
Speaker 3: been speaking with the second argument, there are some the

298
00:17:51,080 --> 00:17:53,000
Speaker 3: court that want to get rid of it, and this

299
00:17:53,160 --> 00:17:57,000
Speaker 3: balancing test was severely limited by the court. It wasn't

300
00:17:57,000 --> 00:17:59,720
Speaker 3: by a majority of the court, but three members of

301
00:17:59,720 --> 00:18:02,000
Speaker 3: the court or suggested that they'd get rid of this

302
00:18:02,119 --> 00:18:05,240
Speaker 3: balancing test in a proper case, and other members of

303
00:18:05,280 --> 00:18:08,240
Speaker 3: the court enough to get a majority, said that the

304
00:18:08,320 --> 00:18:12,679
Speaker 3: port producers had not demonstrated such a huge excessive burden

305
00:18:12,760 --> 00:18:16,760
Speaker 3: in this case. So that coalition, which led on the

306
00:18:16,800 --> 00:18:20,560
Speaker 3: second point this balancing which is called the pipe test,

307
00:18:21,040 --> 00:18:24,080
Speaker 3: led to the court ruling against the pork industry on

308
00:18:24,119 --> 00:18:24,920
Speaker 3: that one as well.

309
00:18:25,320 --> 00:18:29,800
Speaker 1: This was a weird lineup that cut across ideological divides

310
00:18:29,840 --> 00:18:34,520
Speaker 1: and resulted in five separate opinions. So what was the

311
00:18:34,560 --> 00:18:36,000
Speaker 1: strand in the majority?

312
00:18:37,000 --> 00:18:40,600
Speaker 3: Well, its trand. Majority held that you cannot parse a

313
00:18:40,680 --> 00:18:44,160
Speaker 3: state regulation and say that it's having to do mostly

314
00:18:44,200 --> 00:18:47,560
Speaker 3: with morals as opposed to protection for the citizens of

315
00:18:47,600 --> 00:18:50,800
Speaker 3: the state. So that distinction that was forwarded by the

316
00:18:50,800 --> 00:18:55,040
Speaker 3: port producers was clearly rejected by a majority of the court,

317
00:18:55,280 --> 00:18:58,000
Speaker 3: Which is the controversial aspect of the decision, because then

318
00:18:58,040 --> 00:19:03,280
Speaker 3: it does open up states to enact morals legislation, which

319
00:19:03,280 --> 00:19:06,320
Speaker 3: has an impact upon out of state commerce. Because again,

320
00:19:06,680 --> 00:19:12,320
Speaker 3: on the face this regulation Proposition twelve is neutral because

321
00:19:12,320 --> 00:19:15,720
Speaker 3: it would apply to pork producers in California as well

322
00:19:15,760 --> 00:19:19,119
Speaker 3: as pork producers outside. It's just that there are almost

323
00:19:19,320 --> 00:19:23,479
Speaker 3: zero pork producers in California, so obviously this had a

324
00:19:23,520 --> 00:19:26,399
Speaker 3: great out of state impact. So at least on the

325
00:19:26,440 --> 00:19:29,879
Speaker 3: first question, it's whether, if you have this kind of

326
00:19:30,119 --> 00:19:33,199
Speaker 3: huge impact, is that a per se violation of the

327
00:19:33,320 --> 00:19:38,399
Speaker 3: negative commerce clause. The court clearly came down no. On

328
00:19:38,440 --> 00:19:41,679
Speaker 3: the second issue, it had to do with this balancing

329
00:19:41,800 --> 00:19:45,919
Speaker 3: of in state benefits versus out of state burdens, and

330
00:19:45,960 --> 00:19:49,600
Speaker 3: that's where the court was fractured. On that case. Three

331
00:19:49,640 --> 00:19:52,160
Speaker 3: of the justices said, we get rid of this balancing test.

332
00:19:52,520 --> 00:19:57,200
Speaker 3: It's inappropriate for courts. How can you balance benefits and costs?

333
00:19:57,400 --> 00:20:00,320
Speaker 3: And then two members of the court said, well, we

334
00:20:00,400 --> 00:20:03,080
Speaker 3: need to keep the test, but it's a narrow test

335
00:20:03,640 --> 00:20:08,560
Speaker 3: and the Portunustry did not demonstrate the excessive burden in

336
00:20:08,600 --> 00:20:12,560
Speaker 3: this case, and to dissenting justices, they would have at

337
00:20:12,680 --> 00:20:16,360
Speaker 3: least held that the pro producers did make a facial

338
00:20:16,600 --> 00:20:21,119
Speaker 3: claim as to a substantial burden and that should be

339
00:20:21,160 --> 00:20:24,000
Speaker 3: remanded back to the court to make that kind of

340
00:20:24,640 --> 00:20:28,040
Speaker 3: balancing tests. Though they agreed that the test of balancing

341
00:20:28,080 --> 00:20:31,840
Speaker 3: burdens and benefits was difficult, but they said it wasn't impossible,

342
00:20:32,280 --> 00:20:34,480
Speaker 3: and that's what the lower court should undertake.

343
00:20:34,960 --> 00:20:39,399
Speaker 1: Do you have any inkling as to why this opinion

344
00:20:39,680 --> 00:20:43,480
Speaker 1: was so fractured and cut across ideological lines?

345
00:20:44,240 --> 00:20:47,480
Speaker 3: Well, I think in terms of ideology, what's interesting is

346
00:20:47,480 --> 00:20:50,639
Speaker 3: you have the kind of liberals who you might think

347
00:20:50,960 --> 00:20:54,000
Speaker 3: would be in support of California and this kind of

348
00:20:54,040 --> 00:20:58,159
Speaker 3: moral legislation. But then again you have the traditional stage

349
00:20:58,240 --> 00:21:02,440
Speaker 3: writers who believe that the dormant commerce clause should be

350
00:21:03,080 --> 00:21:06,800
Speaker 3: very limited if it exists at all, and therefore because

351
00:21:06,920 --> 00:21:09,440
Speaker 3: now would give more power to the states as well.

352
00:21:09,520 --> 00:21:13,200
Speaker 3: So you have two different types of movements which would

353
00:21:13,200 --> 00:21:17,119
Speaker 3: suggest that the states should get more power than they

354
00:21:17,160 --> 00:21:20,040
Speaker 3: have in higher commerce clause challenges. And of course the

355
00:21:20,840 --> 00:21:24,359
Speaker 3: line up on the other side cuts across ideological lines

356
00:21:24,400 --> 00:21:28,440
Speaker 3: as well, with Justice and Jackson agreeing with Chief Judges

357
00:21:28,600 --> 00:21:31,359
Speaker 3: Roberts saying that we ought to keep the balancing test.

358
00:21:31,840 --> 00:21:36,800
Speaker 3: That's the proper way to understand limits on state authorities,

359
00:21:37,000 --> 00:21:39,919
Speaker 3: and if the state action does have a disproportionate impact

360
00:21:40,000 --> 00:21:43,440
Speaker 3: outside the state, then that measure runs a follow dormant

361
00:21:43,480 --> 00:21:46,160
Speaker 3: commerce clause, and so again you had both Chief Justice

362
00:21:46,440 --> 00:21:50,159
Speaker 3: Roberts as well as Justice Alito and Justice Jackson, all

363
00:21:50,200 --> 00:21:51,240
Speaker 3: on the same side.

364
00:21:51,359 --> 00:21:54,679
Speaker 1: You don't often have the Supreme Court making decisions in

365
00:21:54,760 --> 00:21:59,040
Speaker 1: the animal welfare area. Is this a victory for the

366
00:21:59,080 --> 00:22:02,920
Speaker 1: animal welfare movement in more ways than one?

367
00:22:03,560 --> 00:22:07,159
Speaker 3: Well, it's absolutely theigory formal welfare sanctioning any kind of

368
00:22:07,160 --> 00:22:10,960
Speaker 3: state efforts to try to ensure that animals are housed

369
00:22:11,080 --> 00:22:14,959
Speaker 3: or slaughtered in a humane manner. You know, there are

370
00:22:15,200 --> 00:22:18,920
Speaker 3: states that ban the stale of horse meat, and obviously

371
00:22:19,040 --> 00:22:21,360
Speaker 3: states if they want to take other kinds of measures

372
00:22:21,359 --> 00:22:24,280
Speaker 3: to protect animals, they can do so. And maybe there's

373
00:22:24,280 --> 00:22:26,200
Speaker 3: true for fish farming too, but who knows.

374
00:22:27,240 --> 00:22:30,399
Speaker 1: Do you buy the pork producers saying that this is

375
00:22:30,440 --> 00:22:34,520
Speaker 1: going to increase prices for consumers and drive small farms

376
00:22:34,560 --> 00:22:38,159
Speaker 1: out of business and increase consolidation in the industry.

377
00:22:38,440 --> 00:22:41,920
Speaker 3: Because California is such a large market, its impact will

378
00:22:41,960 --> 00:22:44,199
Speaker 3: be felt in the industry. And I do think that

379
00:22:44,320 --> 00:22:48,639
Speaker 3: Proposition twelve US will give rise to higher prices because

380
00:22:48,720 --> 00:22:50,520
Speaker 3: you know, once you have to spend more money in

381
00:22:50,600 --> 00:22:54,760
Speaker 3: terms of housing pigs and ensuring exercise and so forth,

382
00:22:54,880 --> 00:22:57,840
Speaker 3: that is going to raise costs on doing business. So

383
00:22:58,200 --> 00:23:00,800
Speaker 3: how big of an effect is unknown, but it is

384
00:23:00,920 --> 00:23:04,000
Speaker 3: logical economically to think that this is going to drive

385
00:23:04,160 --> 00:23:05,040
Speaker 3: court prices up.

386
00:23:05,600 --> 00:23:10,120
Speaker 1: Also, just as Kavanaugh referred to the slippery slope argument

387
00:23:10,200 --> 00:23:14,399
Speaker 1: in his opinion, And there are some concerns that the

388
00:23:14,480 --> 00:23:17,960
Speaker 1: reasoning here, you know, the core issue the ability of

389
00:23:18,000 --> 00:23:22,439
Speaker 1: states to take actions with impacts beyond their borders, could

390
00:23:22,600 --> 00:23:26,480
Speaker 1: also be used by states in their efforts to restrict

391
00:23:26,920 --> 00:23:28,560
Speaker 1: or expand abortion access.

392
00:23:28,920 --> 00:23:31,560
Speaker 3: I'm skeptical that there'll be a direct impact here on

393
00:23:31,960 --> 00:23:34,240
Speaker 3: the question about what states can do in terms of

394
00:23:34,359 --> 00:23:38,639
Speaker 3: either ensuring the delivery of the abortion pill or precluding it.

395
00:23:38,800 --> 00:23:41,520
Speaker 3: That has to do with the Privileges and Immunities clause

396
00:23:41,560 --> 00:23:44,000
Speaker 3: and how that's developed in terms of the rights between

397
00:23:44,160 --> 00:23:46,359
Speaker 3: those in one state and another state. I think the

398
00:23:46,440 --> 00:23:49,520
Speaker 3: commerce issue here is distinct enough that there won't be

399
00:23:49,520 --> 00:23:53,640
Speaker 3: any spillover into the more contentious issue of what kind

400
00:23:53,720 --> 00:23:57,920
Speaker 3: of impact can one state have on citizens of another

401
00:23:57,960 --> 00:24:01,800
Speaker 3: state or prevent their own state from unveiling themselves of

402
00:24:01,840 --> 00:24:05,639
Speaker 3: the options available, whether it be marijuana or abortion services

403
00:24:05,720 --> 00:24:08,160
Speaker 3: in a different state. So I'm skeptical then there will

404
00:24:08,160 --> 00:24:10,119
Speaker 3: be any kind of carryover effect.

405
00:24:10,240 --> 00:24:13,399
Speaker 1: So how much does this buttress the power of states

406
00:24:13,560 --> 00:24:17,680
Speaker 1: to impose rules that have an impact and economic impact

407
00:24:17,760 --> 00:24:19,359
Speaker 1: on other parts of the country.

408
00:24:20,000 --> 00:24:22,359
Speaker 3: It's a huge win for states. States can take the

409
00:24:22,440 --> 00:24:26,280
Speaker 3: signal in the poor producer's case and decide on a

410
00:24:26,320 --> 00:24:31,440
Speaker 3: whole variety of local welfare type of regulation which has

411
00:24:31,520 --> 00:24:35,359
Speaker 3: the practical impact of imposing more costs on out of

412
00:24:35,400 --> 00:24:37,960
Speaker 3: state producers. They can't discriminate. They have to treat in

413
00:24:38,160 --> 00:24:40,720
Speaker 3: state producers the same as out of state producers, but

414
00:24:40,960 --> 00:24:44,000
Speaker 3: with that bare sort of minimum. It gives the states

415
00:24:44,119 --> 00:24:46,320
Speaker 3: rights to do that. Now that always is subject to

416
00:24:46,320 --> 00:24:49,480
Speaker 3: preemption by Congress. Congress under the Commerce power can say

417
00:24:49,520 --> 00:24:52,720
Speaker 3: that those kinds of restrictions are not conducive to free

418
00:24:52,720 --> 00:24:56,400
Speaker 3: flow of commerce from place to place, but subject to preemption,

419
00:24:56,720 --> 00:25:00,439
Speaker 3: that the states can make those decisions and impose as

420
00:25:00,480 --> 00:25:03,320
Speaker 3: long as they don't do so in a discriminatory manner.

421
00:25:03,440 --> 00:25:06,400
Speaker 3: It was interesting because the reason why this was controversial

422
00:25:06,800 --> 00:25:11,120
Speaker 3: is because of the sort of moral extra territoriality effect

423
00:25:11,280 --> 00:25:14,040
Speaker 3: of California's law, and yet all the members of the

424
00:25:14,080 --> 00:25:18,520
Speaker 3: court refuse to strike it down on that ground, seemingly

425
00:25:18,840 --> 00:25:23,199
Speaker 3: inviting the kind of retaliation or tit for tap. That

426
00:25:23,600 --> 00:25:27,439
Speaker 3: may well arise as states begin to regulate more in

427
00:25:27,480 --> 00:25:30,600
Speaker 3: the social area, whether it be an ESD type stuff

428
00:25:30,720 --> 00:25:32,200
Speaker 3: or another kinds of context.

429
00:25:32,480 --> 00:25:36,080
Speaker 1: Does any other red state have the economic power that

430
00:25:36,240 --> 00:25:37,320
Speaker 1: California does.

431
00:25:37,960 --> 00:25:41,040
Speaker 3: No, That's the underlying thing is that this gives big

432
00:25:41,080 --> 00:25:46,000
Speaker 3: states the advantage, particularly when it's talking about environmental pollution

433
00:25:46,200 --> 00:25:49,080
Speaker 3: or other kinds of activities. California can make a difference

434
00:25:49,320 --> 00:25:52,040
Speaker 3: just because of its size. Rhode Island and Arkansas aren't

435
00:25:52,040 --> 00:25:53,640
Speaker 3: going to have that kind of national prominence.

436
00:25:53,840 --> 00:25:56,359
Speaker 1: Well, we'll see if other states make any moves. Thanks

437
00:25:56,359 --> 00:25:59,200
Speaker 1: so much. How that's Professor Harald Krant do the Chicago

438
00:25:59,280 --> 00:26:01,720
Speaker 1: Kent College of Law. And that's it for this edition

439
00:26:01,760 --> 00:26:04,440
Speaker 1: of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get

440
00:26:04,440 --> 00:26:07,560
Speaker 1: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You

441
00:26:07,600 --> 00:26:11,720
Speaker 1: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www

442
00:26:11,840 --> 00:26:16,119
Speaker 1: dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, And remember

443
00:26:16,160 --> 00:26:19,120
Speaker 1: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at

444
00:26:19,119 --> 00:26:22,600
Speaker 1: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're

445
00:26:22,680 --> 00:26:23,919
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg