1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,639
Speaker 1: Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief,

2
00:00:02,680 --> 00:00:05,160
Speaker 1: exploring legal issues in the news, and the law Brief

3
00:00:05,240 --> 00:00:09,400
Speaker 1: is brought to you by American Arbitration Association. Business disputes

4
00:00:09,480 --> 00:00:13,840
Speaker 1: are inevitable, resolved Faster with the American Arbitration Association, the

5
00:00:13,880 --> 00:00:17,520
Speaker 1: global leader in alternative dispute resolution for over ninety years.

6
00:00:17,840 --> 00:00:21,640
Speaker 1: More at a dr dot org. Today Bloomberg, Lajos, Juon Grasso,

7
00:00:21,680 --> 00:00:24,400
Speaker 1: and Michael Best discussed the latest legal challenge facing the

8
00:00:24,480 --> 00:00:29,000
Speaker 1: heavily disputed Dakota Access oil pipeline. They speak with Pat Parento, or,

9
00:00:29,040 --> 00:00:32,400
Speaker 1: professor at Vermont Law School, and Charles Warren, a partner

10
00:00:32,440 --> 00:00:36,240
Speaker 1: at Kramer Levin Chuck. This has been a roller coaster

11
00:00:36,479 --> 00:00:41,000
Speaker 1: ride of legal, administrative and executive actions. Can the Army

12
00:00:41,000 --> 00:00:45,800
Speaker 1: Corps of Engineers just abandon an environmental impact study which

13
00:00:45,800 --> 00:00:50,320
Speaker 1: it started on January? And that's the question that the

14
00:00:50,360 --> 00:00:54,480
Speaker 1: tribes are really gonna press the court when they're they've

15
00:00:54,520 --> 00:00:57,520
Speaker 1: applied for this plmary injunction in the Washington d c

16
00:00:58,440 --> 00:01:02,200
Speaker 1: UH District Court. And I think you know the history

17
00:01:02,240 --> 00:01:05,520
Speaker 1: of this is that at first the Corps had approved it,

18
00:01:05,720 --> 00:01:09,360
Speaker 1: and they they did some environmental review and said there

19
00:01:09,360 --> 00:01:14,160
Speaker 1: wouldn't be any significant impact, and then the Assistant Secretary

20
00:01:14,160 --> 00:01:16,920
Speaker 1: of the Army for Civil Works that has jurisdiction over

21
00:01:16,920 --> 00:01:20,400
Speaker 1: the core basically said, no, we're going to reconsider this

22
00:01:20,600 --> 00:01:23,200
Speaker 1: and we need to do a further study. And I

23
00:01:23,200 --> 00:01:24,880
Speaker 1: think that's gonna be the That's going to be the

24
00:01:24,920 --> 00:01:27,720
Speaker 1: issue is whether or not you can just drop that

25
00:01:28,040 --> 00:01:33,000
Speaker 1: study even though they had previously approved it and said

26
00:01:33,040 --> 00:01:37,200
Speaker 1: that they didn't have any there weren't any real significant

27
00:01:37,280 --> 00:01:39,240
Speaker 1: environmental impacts. And I think that's what the court is

28
00:01:39,280 --> 00:01:43,959
Speaker 1: going to have to decide UH in d C. Probably

29
00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:46,440
Speaker 1: in the first instance. And I think the Standing Rock

30
00:01:46,800 --> 00:01:49,960
Speaker 1: Tribe is apparently going to go back to the their

31
00:01:50,000 --> 00:01:55,120
Speaker 1: own lawsuit that the judge had ruled against them on. Well,

32
00:01:55,240 --> 00:01:59,680
Speaker 1: pat what procedurally, how does it work when the government

33
00:01:59,720 --> 00:02:04,080
Speaker 1: in oakes an environmental impact statement and then decides not

34
00:02:04,200 --> 00:02:07,280
Speaker 1: to do it. What? What are the parameters in the

35
00:02:07,400 --> 00:02:11,400
Speaker 1: law regulations over this. Well, there's a Supreme Court case

36
00:02:11,440 --> 00:02:15,840
Speaker 1: that we refer to as State Farm Mutual and it's

37
00:02:15,880 --> 00:02:19,839
Speaker 1: a case that says when an agency reverses position, UH,

38
00:02:20,080 --> 00:02:23,160
Speaker 1: sometimes it's a repeal of a rule, but it can

39
00:02:23,200 --> 00:02:27,400
Speaker 1: also be just reversing their position in court um or

40
00:02:27,520 --> 00:02:30,200
Speaker 1: reversing a decision to in this case, prepare and environmental

41
00:02:30,280 --> 00:02:33,320
Speaker 1: impact statement that the Supreme Court has said an agency

42
00:02:33,400 --> 00:02:36,440
Speaker 1: doing that, they're entitled to change their mind, but but

43
00:02:36,560 --> 00:02:40,239
Speaker 1: they have to have a sufficient reason, an objective reason

44
00:02:40,280 --> 00:02:42,600
Speaker 1: for doing so, not simply because there's a change in

45
00:02:42,639 --> 00:02:46,720
Speaker 1: the White House or a purely political decision. So that'll

46
00:02:46,760 --> 00:02:48,800
Speaker 1: be I think a focal point is how does this

47
00:02:49,000 --> 00:02:52,720
Speaker 1: Supreme Court precedent play out in this case? As Pat

48
00:02:52,760 --> 00:02:55,840
Speaker 1: parento Or, professor at Vermont Law School and Charles Warren,

49
00:02:55,880 --> 00:02:59,480
Speaker 1: partner at Cramer Levin, speaking with Bloomberg Lahosting Grosso and

50
00:02:59,520 --> 00:03:02,480
Speaker 1: Michael Best. You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at

51
00:03:02,480 --> 00:03:06,360
Speaker 1: one pm Wall Street Time here on Bloomberg Radio