1
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,000 --> 00:00:12,280
Speaker 2: I'll put you each in a room and I'll ask

3
00:00:12,320 --> 00:00:14,800
Speaker 2: you every little question. They're a real couple would know

4
00:00:14,840 --> 00:00:18,520
Speaker 2: about each other. Step two, I dig deeper. I look

5
00:00:18,520 --> 00:00:20,799
Speaker 2: at your phone records. I talk to your neighbors, I

6
00:00:20,880 --> 00:00:24,040
Speaker 2: interview your coworkers. If your answers don't match up at

7
00:00:24,079 --> 00:00:28,200
Speaker 2: every point, you will be deported indefinitely, and you, young man,

8
00:00:28,360 --> 00:00:31,639
Speaker 2: will have committed a felony punishable by a fine of

9
00:00:31,680 --> 00:00:34,279
Speaker 2: two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in a stay of

10
00:00:34,400 --> 00:00:37,840
Speaker 2: five years. In federal present.

11
00:00:38,200 --> 00:00:41,560
Speaker 3: The proposal is just one of many rom coms where

12
00:00:41,600 --> 00:00:45,560
Speaker 3: someone threatened with deportation enters into a sham marriage with

13
00:00:45,680 --> 00:00:49,360
Speaker 3: a US citizen. The movies usually have happy endings, but

14
00:00:49,440 --> 00:00:52,760
Speaker 3: a real life case before the Supreme Court that began

15
00:00:52,920 --> 00:00:56,640
Speaker 3: nearly ten years ago still has no ending. The Justice

16
00:00:56,680 --> 00:01:00,640
Speaker 3: is ruled unanimously that federal courts can't sit second guess

17
00:01:00,720 --> 00:01:04,280
Speaker 3: the government revoking a visa due to a sham marriage.

18
00:01:04,440 --> 00:01:08,199
Speaker 3: That's left to the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security,

19
00:01:08,480 --> 00:01:11,760
Speaker 3: putting the couple back at square one. Joining me is

20
00:01:11,760 --> 00:01:14,679
Speaker 3: an expert in immigration law. And in this movie the Proposal,

21
00:01:15,000 --> 00:01:17,959
Speaker 3: Leon Fresco apartnered with Holland and Knight. He was the

22
00:01:18,000 --> 00:01:22,040
Speaker 3: head of the Office of Immigration Litigation in the Obama administration.

23
00:01:22,680 --> 00:01:24,720
Speaker 3: So Leon tell us about the couple in this case.

24
00:01:25,160 --> 00:01:28,760
Speaker 1: So the situation is actually pretty straightforward. There was a

25
00:01:28,920 --> 00:01:32,760
Speaker 1: US citizen. The US citizen applied for a visa for

26
00:01:32,880 --> 00:01:36,080
Speaker 1: the spouse to be able to get lawful permanent residents

27
00:01:36,120 --> 00:01:39,280
Speaker 1: in the United States. The first part of the process,

28
00:01:39,480 --> 00:01:42,400
Speaker 1: because there's two parts, one is is the marriage valid?

29
00:01:42,440 --> 00:01:44,959
Speaker 1: And then the second is is everything fine in the

30
00:01:44,959 --> 00:01:48,560
Speaker 1: background check? The first part is the marriage valid, that's

31
00:01:48,600 --> 00:01:52,200
Speaker 1: what's called the visa petition that was approved. And so

32
00:01:52,320 --> 00:01:54,240
Speaker 1: they thought, okay, we're all said, now we're on to

33
00:01:54,360 --> 00:01:57,240
Speaker 1: the second part, the background check. Everything's going to be good.

34
00:01:57,720 --> 00:02:00,400
Speaker 1: And then during the background check process, he said, you

35
00:02:00,440 --> 00:02:04,160
Speaker 1: know what, we're going to revoke the initial approval because

36
00:02:04,200 --> 00:02:07,760
Speaker 1: we didn't realize at the time that the foreign husband

37
00:02:07,840 --> 00:02:09,600
Speaker 1: who they were trying to get the green card for

38
00:02:10,040 --> 00:02:14,200
Speaker 1: had actually been involved in a sham marriage where supposedly

39
00:02:14,480 --> 00:02:17,120
Speaker 1: this guy had paid five thousand dollars to try to

40
00:02:17,120 --> 00:02:20,040
Speaker 1: get a green card. And I don't know why USCIS

41
00:02:20,040 --> 00:02:22,480
Speaker 1: didn't know it initially, but they figured it out the

42
00:02:22,560 --> 00:02:26,040
Speaker 1: second time around, and so they revoked the petition. They

43
00:02:26,080 --> 00:02:30,720
Speaker 1: then took an administrative appeal. They lost in the administrative appeal,

44
00:02:30,760 --> 00:02:33,600
Speaker 1: so they tried to file a federal court case. And

45
00:02:33,919 --> 00:02:37,400
Speaker 1: the issue in the federal court case was is this

46
00:02:37,520 --> 00:02:41,919
Speaker 1: decision to revoke the initial approval something that you can

47
00:02:41,960 --> 00:02:43,760
Speaker 1: actually review in the federal court.

48
00:02:44,200 --> 00:02:50,320
Speaker 3: So there are mandatory and discretionary decisions, and discretionary decisions

49
00:02:50,880 --> 00:02:52,760
Speaker 3: can't be reviewed by a court.

50
00:02:53,000 --> 00:02:56,680
Speaker 1: Right, there's a lot of things that the government is

51
00:02:56,800 --> 00:02:59,720
Speaker 1: very concerned that if you start giving judicial review for

52
00:03:00,080 --> 00:03:03,120
Speaker 1: or there will be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands

53
00:03:03,160 --> 00:03:06,560
Speaker 1: of federal court cases. So the Congress writes laws that

54
00:03:06,760 --> 00:03:10,040
Speaker 1: say here's what we're gonna do. We are gonna say

55
00:03:10,160 --> 00:03:14,280
Speaker 1: that in certain situations, the agencies that deal with immigrants

56
00:03:14,400 --> 00:03:18,280
Speaker 1: will get the final word, meaning sometimes they can be nice,

57
00:03:18,440 --> 00:03:21,240
Speaker 1: sometimes they can be mean, but whatever they decide, they

58
00:03:21,240 --> 00:03:23,800
Speaker 1: will get the final word because there's no way we

59
00:03:23,880 --> 00:03:27,760
Speaker 1: can possibly allow thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of

60
00:03:27,840 --> 00:03:31,240
Speaker 1: cases to challenge these agencies and what they're saying. There's

61
00:03:31,320 --> 00:03:35,560
Speaker 1: other times that the statute say, if you make a decision,

62
00:03:35,840 --> 00:03:38,920
Speaker 1: you can get review. And so the question is, does

63
00:03:39,080 --> 00:03:42,880
Speaker 1: a particular statute in any given instance give the final

64
00:03:42,960 --> 00:03:46,360
Speaker 1: discretionary word to the agency so that you can't review it.

65
00:03:46,680 --> 00:03:49,040
Speaker 1: Or if the decision is one that has to be

66
00:03:49,160 --> 00:03:52,520
Speaker 1: made yes or no and there's no discretion, you either

67
00:03:52,560 --> 00:03:57,280
Speaker 1: have to decide, for instance, is the person qualified under

68
00:03:57,480 --> 00:04:00,880
Speaker 1: the visa to do it work? So that's either a

69
00:04:00,960 --> 00:04:03,000
Speaker 1: yes or no. And if you say yes, that's finement.

70
00:04:03,120 --> 00:04:05,200
Speaker 1: You say no, you can get review of that. I

71
00:04:05,280 --> 00:04:07,760
Speaker 1: am qualified. I know they said that I'm not, but

72
00:04:07,920 --> 00:04:11,320
Speaker 1: I am. That's the kind of thing where review is available.

73
00:04:11,400 --> 00:04:15,400
Speaker 1: But if the Congress says no, this is a discretionary decision,

74
00:04:15,480 --> 00:04:18,400
Speaker 1: we want it to be decided by the agency, and

75
00:04:18,480 --> 00:04:20,520
Speaker 1: they can either be nice or mean, but it's up

76
00:04:20,560 --> 00:04:22,960
Speaker 1: to them, then they're the last word. You cannot go

77
00:04:23,000 --> 00:04:23,720
Speaker 1: to federal court.

78
00:04:24,000 --> 00:04:27,360
Speaker 3: So why did the Supreme Court here decide that revoking

79
00:04:27,680 --> 00:04:30,080
Speaker 3: the visa is a discretionary decision.

80
00:04:30,480 --> 00:04:33,600
Speaker 1: The statute says if you come across a sham marriage

81
00:04:33,640 --> 00:04:36,400
Speaker 1: in any part of this process, you can revoke it

82
00:04:36,560 --> 00:04:39,880
Speaker 1: for good and sufficient cause. But because it says you

83
00:04:39,920 --> 00:04:42,920
Speaker 1: can revoke and it doesn't say you have to revoke.

84
00:04:43,600 --> 00:04:47,960
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court said, hey, that's again a discretionary decision

85
00:04:48,640 --> 00:04:52,040
Speaker 1: that either the agency can decide to let it slide,

86
00:04:52,120 --> 00:04:54,920
Speaker 1: even if there was a sham marriage, or they can

87
00:04:55,000 --> 00:04:59,320
Speaker 1: decide to revoke the petition. But in either case that's

88
00:04:59,400 --> 00:05:04,080
Speaker 1: aary decision. And so because of that, they say that

89
00:05:04,080 --> 00:05:07,279
Speaker 1: that's then not a decision that the federal courts can review.

90
00:05:07,360 --> 00:05:11,160
Speaker 1: And that was a nothing, rare, nine nothing Supreme Court

91
00:05:11,240 --> 00:05:14,760
Speaker 1: decision that was actually written by Justice Jackson, who's considered

92
00:05:14,800 --> 00:05:19,520
Speaker 1: probably to be the most of the compassionate judges toward immigrants.

93
00:05:19,000 --> 00:05:19,559
Speaker 4: On the court.

94
00:05:19,960 --> 00:05:22,800
Speaker 1: Even she said that this is the kind of discretionary

95
00:05:22,839 --> 00:05:26,760
Speaker 1: decision that is not reviewable in this situation.

96
00:05:27,480 --> 00:05:32,359
Speaker 3: I thought that sham marriages barred people from remaining in

97
00:05:32,400 --> 00:05:34,760
Speaker 3: the country legally, that if they found a sham marriage,

98
00:05:34,760 --> 00:05:35,240
Speaker 3: you were out.

99
00:05:35,360 --> 00:05:37,320
Speaker 1: So interestingly, here's how that worked.

100
00:05:37,520 --> 00:05:40,640
Speaker 4: If you apply on step one.

101
00:05:40,760 --> 00:05:42,719
Speaker 1: So you say I'm a US citizen I want to

102
00:05:42,720 --> 00:05:46,039
Speaker 1: marry a foreign nationalist, you're in step one of the process.

103
00:05:46,320 --> 00:05:51,520
Speaker 1: If USCIS encounters that there was a sham marriage.

104
00:05:51,240 --> 00:05:53,159
Speaker 4: Either the US citizen.

105
00:05:52,760 --> 00:05:55,000
Speaker 1: Had been in a sham marriage in the PIP or

106
00:05:55,080 --> 00:05:57,400
Speaker 1: the foreign national had been in a sham marriage in

107
00:05:57,400 --> 00:06:00,880
Speaker 1: the pipe, they must deny that the ting, and that

108
00:06:00,960 --> 00:06:05,400
Speaker 1: petition therefore can be reviewed in federal court. But this

109
00:06:05,600 --> 00:06:09,159
Speaker 1: is not how that happened. This was after the fact

110
00:06:09,400 --> 00:06:12,599
Speaker 1: USCIS find out that there was an error, do you

111
00:06:12,880 --> 00:06:16,040
Speaker 1: have to revoke it? And what the Supreme Court said

112
00:06:16,240 --> 00:06:20,000
Speaker 1: was nobody says in this statute that you have to

113
00:06:20,080 --> 00:06:23,320
Speaker 1: revoke it. You could just let it slide. Now there's

114
00:06:23,400 --> 00:06:26,320
Speaker 1: evidence in this case, and just as Jackson cites to it,

115
00:06:26,640 --> 00:06:29,880
Speaker 1: that says, well, USCIS never lets it slide. They never,

116
00:06:30,320 --> 00:06:33,120
Speaker 1: They never are nice to people in this situation. They

117
00:06:33,200 --> 00:06:36,680
Speaker 1: always revoke every single case where they see that there

118
00:06:36,720 --> 00:06:40,599
Speaker 1: was a sham marriage involved. But what Justice Jackson says

119
00:06:40,680 --> 00:06:43,920
Speaker 1: is who cares. That doesn't matter what they actually do.

120
00:06:44,000 --> 00:06:47,200
Speaker 1: What matters is whether the legislature gives.

121
00:06:46,960 --> 00:06:49,280
Speaker 4: Them the discretion to overlook.

122
00:06:48,800 --> 00:06:51,680
Speaker 1: It or not. And because the language of the statutes

123
00:06:51,800 --> 00:06:55,520
Speaker 1: give the discretion to the immigration agency to overlook a

124
00:06:55,560 --> 00:06:58,839
Speaker 1: sham marriage if it is found after the fact after

125
00:06:58,880 --> 00:07:02,400
Speaker 1: an approval, not aforehand. But if it is found after

126
00:07:02,440 --> 00:07:06,479
Speaker 1: the fact, then that's considered a discretionary decision. And so

127
00:07:06,600 --> 00:07:11,160
Speaker 1: the decision to revoke, which is discretionary then cannot be reviewed.

128
00:07:11,520 --> 00:07:14,760
Speaker 3: This case seems like a wasted effort because if the

129
00:07:14,800 --> 00:07:18,240
Speaker 3: petition is revoked, the couple can just file a new

130
00:07:18,360 --> 00:07:19,240
Speaker 3: visa application.

131
00:07:19,920 --> 00:07:23,480
Speaker 1: In this marriage context, you can always just apply again,

132
00:07:24,200 --> 00:07:26,520
Speaker 1: and if they deny you, now that they know about

133
00:07:26,560 --> 00:07:29,000
Speaker 1: this Shen marriage, you can get the federal court review

134
00:07:29,240 --> 00:07:32,040
Speaker 1: you were worried about. And in fact, the plaintiff in

135
00:07:32,040 --> 00:07:34,320
Speaker 1: this case is literally in the middle of this, So

136
00:07:34,760 --> 00:07:37,760
Speaker 1: it just seemed like a why are you complaining case

137
00:07:38,080 --> 00:07:40,800
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, since you actually can

138
00:07:40,880 --> 00:07:43,720
Speaker 1: get the federal court review that you want by simply

139
00:07:43,720 --> 00:07:47,080
Speaker 1: putting in a brand new application, and there's no bar

140
00:07:47,400 --> 00:07:50,480
Speaker 1: in this instance to putting in a brand new application.

141
00:07:50,720 --> 00:07:52,480
Speaker 1: So that's why I think you end up getting the

142
00:07:52,560 --> 00:07:57,280
Speaker 1: nine zero decision is because in the end, yes, this

143
00:07:57,320 --> 00:08:00,480
Speaker 1: will close out a way that theoretically could have been

144
00:08:00,520 --> 00:08:04,720
Speaker 1: available for a revocation of a marriage case. But in

145
00:08:04,800 --> 00:08:07,200
Speaker 1: the end, what it makes clear is that if you

146
00:08:07,280 --> 00:08:10,800
Speaker 1: are in this exact situation where your marriage was approved

147
00:08:11,120 --> 00:08:15,160
Speaker 1: for immigration green card purposes, but now it's been revoked

148
00:08:15,160 --> 00:08:18,720
Speaker 1: on step two when you're going through the background check process,

149
00:08:19,320 --> 00:08:21,440
Speaker 1: that all you have to do is file step one

150
00:08:21,520 --> 00:08:24,640
Speaker 1: again and they'll have to deny it because now they

151
00:08:24,720 --> 00:08:28,280
Speaker 1: know about the sham marriage. And since they have to

152
00:08:28,320 --> 00:08:30,160
Speaker 1: deny it, that's what you'll be able to get the

153
00:08:30,200 --> 00:08:31,880
Speaker 1: review of that denial.

154
00:08:32,320 --> 00:08:35,760
Speaker 3: So then did this couple actually win the Supreme Court case,

155
00:08:36,120 --> 00:08:39,079
Speaker 3: because they're eventually going to get the court review they want.

156
00:08:39,520 --> 00:08:41,920
Speaker 1: But she didn't win the case from the standpoint of

157
00:08:41,960 --> 00:08:46,800
Speaker 1: the relief she actually wanted, which was to immediately be

158
00:08:46,880 --> 00:08:49,520
Speaker 1: able to get a decision right now as to whether

159
00:08:49,640 --> 00:08:52,560
Speaker 1: that was really a sham marriage. So she can't get that,

160
00:08:52,880 --> 00:08:55,880
Speaker 1: and she has to restart the process, like you've said,

161
00:08:56,440 --> 00:09:01,680
Speaker 1: And so it's a non ultimate but it's a loss

162
00:09:01,720 --> 00:09:05,480
Speaker 1: in this forum, in these proceedings for what she wanted, Leon.

163
00:09:05,679 --> 00:09:08,440
Speaker 3: I mean, when the federal court reviews it, they're going

164
00:09:08,480 --> 00:09:11,079
Speaker 3: to see there was a sham marriage, correct, So the

165
00:09:11,160 --> 00:09:13,600
Speaker 3: judge will rule against the couple. So what's the point

166
00:09:13,640 --> 00:09:15,840
Speaker 3: here Is it just to delay the inevitable.

167
00:09:16,120 --> 00:09:20,720
Speaker 1: So sometimes the hope is this that occasionally what will

168
00:09:20,720 --> 00:09:24,840
Speaker 1: happen is so you'll have the uscis the Immigration Service,

169
00:09:24,880 --> 00:09:27,360
Speaker 1: We'll say that there was a sham marriage, and then

170
00:09:27,360 --> 00:09:31,560
Speaker 1: you'll have an administrative appeal. But it goes to people

171
00:09:31,600 --> 00:09:36,319
Speaker 1: who are generally inclined to be deferential to the agency,

172
00:09:36,960 --> 00:09:39,280
Speaker 1: and so they'll say it was a sham marriage. But

173
00:09:39,320 --> 00:09:42,840
Speaker 1: you hope you can get a federal court judge who

174
00:09:42,920 --> 00:09:45,840
Speaker 1: maybe looks a little bit more askance at the government

175
00:09:45,920 --> 00:09:48,679
Speaker 1: that says, you know, what, why are you viewing things

176
00:09:48,720 --> 00:09:52,160
Speaker 1: in such a skeptical, cynical light? You know, I know

177
00:09:52,240 --> 00:09:54,880
Speaker 1: there was five thousand dollars exchange, but that was for

178
00:09:55,000 --> 00:09:55,640
Speaker 1: love or.

179
00:09:55,520 --> 00:09:57,480
Speaker 4: Something, you know, who knows.

180
00:09:57,600 --> 00:10:00,439
Speaker 1: And so you get one of these judges who baby

181
00:10:00,480 --> 00:10:03,360
Speaker 1: doesn't really trust the government so much, and maybe you

182
00:10:03,400 --> 00:10:05,880
Speaker 1: could get a decision that's better than you could have

183
00:10:05,880 --> 00:10:08,280
Speaker 1: ever hoped for. And so that's what they're looking for,

184
00:10:08,400 --> 00:10:11,280
Speaker 1: is that kind of hail mayor is here in this situation.

185
00:10:11,800 --> 00:10:15,840
Speaker 3: What did Justice Jackson mean when she said that Congress

186
00:10:15,880 --> 00:10:18,719
Speaker 3: created room for mercy in the process.

187
00:10:19,120 --> 00:10:23,320
Speaker 1: Well, the mercy that she really meant was that the agency,

188
00:10:23,400 --> 00:10:26,800
Speaker 1: if they wanted to overlook the sham marriage, they theoretically

189
00:10:26,840 --> 00:10:30,480
Speaker 1: could have overlooked the sham marriage. So that's the real

190
00:10:30,559 --> 00:10:33,320
Speaker 1: mercy that she meant. But she also meant that there

191
00:10:33,400 --> 00:10:37,720
Speaker 1: is this second out year in this particular fact pattern

192
00:10:37,840 --> 00:10:40,559
Speaker 1: where in the marriage issue, you can go in and

193
00:10:40,640 --> 00:10:43,720
Speaker 1: you can actually restart and do a new application and

194
00:10:43,760 --> 00:10:45,920
Speaker 1: then get the federal court review that you want.

195
00:10:46,120 --> 00:10:49,640
Speaker 3: I'm curious, because there are lots of movies about sham

196
00:10:49,720 --> 00:10:53,079
Speaker 3: marriages for green court purposes. Are there actually a lot

197
00:10:53,120 --> 00:10:54,079
Speaker 3: of sham marriages?

198
00:10:54,559 --> 00:10:59,079
Speaker 1: So here's what's very interesting is what is a marriage?

199
00:10:59,120 --> 00:11:02,199
Speaker 1: And the famous Judge Posner has a decision that really

200
00:11:02,240 --> 00:11:04,840
Speaker 1: goes into this, which is, you know, talk about movies.

201
00:11:04,920 --> 00:11:07,080
Speaker 1: One of my favorite ones of this variety is the

202
00:11:07,080 --> 00:11:11,000
Speaker 1: one with Ryan Reynolds and Sandra Bullock called the Proposal Yes,

203
00:11:11,120 --> 00:11:13,080
Speaker 1: where he says at the end, I want to marry

204
00:11:13,120 --> 00:11:14,320
Speaker 1: you so that I can date you.

205
00:11:14,800 --> 00:11:17,000
Speaker 4: And the question is would that be a.

206
00:11:17,120 --> 00:11:21,240
Speaker 1: Legitimate purpose for an immigration marriage, because in the end

207
00:11:21,720 --> 00:11:25,480
Speaker 1: you are still professing some sort of love there. And

208
00:11:25,559 --> 00:11:28,680
Speaker 1: so what Judge Posner said is this is not exactly

209
00:11:28,720 --> 00:11:31,440
Speaker 1: the law, but I find it very persuasive, and I

210
00:11:31,520 --> 00:11:34,880
Speaker 1: keep trying to convince the agencies that this is the

211
00:11:34,920 --> 00:11:39,080
Speaker 1: real issue, and they're almost there. Is this did money

212
00:11:39,240 --> 00:11:43,640
Speaker 1: change hands? Because if money changed hands, that's a sham marriage.

213
00:11:44,080 --> 00:11:47,280
Speaker 1: But any other kind of marriage, you know, I go

214
00:11:47,360 --> 00:11:49,960
Speaker 1: to Harvard and my wife goes to Stanford. We love

215
00:11:49,960 --> 00:11:53,080
Speaker 1: each other, but we don't live together. Non immigration marriages

216
00:11:53,120 --> 00:11:55,880
Speaker 1: that are just like that. And so that's where it

217
00:11:55,920 --> 00:12:00,200
Speaker 1: gets super complicated. And so the issue is, I say,

218
00:12:00,200 --> 00:12:02,679
Speaker 1: did Bunny change hands? And that really is the main

219
00:12:02,720 --> 00:12:05,360
Speaker 1: thing they look for, but they also do look are

220
00:12:05,400 --> 00:12:07,960
Speaker 1: you living together? And if not, why are you not

221
00:12:08,040 --> 00:12:12,040
Speaker 1: living together? And you know, is their constant communication, is

222
00:12:12,080 --> 00:12:17,080
Speaker 1: their joint assets. All of these things and those areas

223
00:12:17,080 --> 00:12:20,480
Speaker 1: sometimes are not conventional in certain marriages, but they still

224
00:12:20,520 --> 00:12:25,440
Speaker 1: want to try to enforce those conventions on these immigration marriages.

225
00:12:25,679 --> 00:12:29,640
Speaker 3: And that's just what the immigration officer considered in the proposal.

226
00:12:29,920 --> 00:12:33,400
Speaker 3: Thanks so much, Leon. That's Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight.

227
00:12:33,800 --> 00:12:36,640
Speaker 3: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. Marine Vet

228
00:12:36,760 --> 00:12:40,400
Speaker 3: Daniel Petty was acquitted in the subway chocol death of

229
00:12:40,520 --> 00:12:44,760
Speaker 3: Jordan Neely, but now he's facing a civil lawsuit and

230
00:12:44,840 --> 00:12:48,080
Speaker 3: the case against Luigi Mangioni for the shooting death of

231
00:12:48,240 --> 00:12:52,160
Speaker 3: United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. I'm June Grosso and you're

232
00:12:52,240 --> 00:12:56,320
Speaker 3: listening to Bloomberg. Both applause and anger erupted in a

233
00:12:56,360 --> 00:12:59,960
Speaker 3: Manhattan courtroom on Monday when a jury announced its verdict

234
00:13:00,080 --> 00:13:02,959
Speaker 3: of not guilty in the trial of Daniel Penny for

235
00:13:03,120 --> 00:13:06,040
Speaker 3: the choke hold death of Jordan Neely on a subway

236
00:13:06,160 --> 00:13:08,960
Speaker 3: last year. It was a reflection of how the case

237
00:13:09,080 --> 00:13:12,679
Speaker 3: divided the nation, with some hailing Penny as a hero

238
00:13:12,920 --> 00:13:16,120
Speaker 3: for trying to subdue a homeless man who was threatening

239
00:13:16,160 --> 00:13:19,720
Speaker 3: subway writers, while others saw the former marine as a

240
00:13:19,760 --> 00:13:23,920
Speaker 3: white vigilante who choked a black man to death. Neelie's

241
00:13:23,920 --> 00:13:26,920
Speaker 3: father cursed in anger when the verdict was announced and

242
00:13:26,960 --> 00:13:28,559
Speaker 3: had to be removed from the courtroom.

243
00:13:29,200 --> 00:13:32,760
Speaker 4: He mi to macaur no, here's something like that.

244
00:13:33,280 --> 00:13:36,280
Speaker 3: But in an interview with Fox, Penny said he would

245
00:13:36,320 --> 00:13:38,960
Speaker 3: do the same thing again if he faced a similar

246
00:13:39,000 --> 00:13:40,480
Speaker 3: situation in the future.

247
00:13:41,080 --> 00:13:45,400
Speaker 5: I would not be able to live with myself if

248
00:13:45,440 --> 00:13:48,760
Speaker 5: I didn't do anything in that situation and someone got hurt,

249
00:13:49,160 --> 00:13:52,959
Speaker 5: I would feel guilty for the rest of my life.

250
00:13:53,440 --> 00:13:58,640
Speaker 5: And I think I'm in a position and all people,

251
00:13:59,040 --> 00:14:01,520
Speaker 5: if they're in a position help should always help.

252
00:14:01,800 --> 00:14:04,920
Speaker 3: Joining me is Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ahrenberg.

253
00:14:05,320 --> 00:14:08,640
Speaker 3: Dave the jury came back last Friday after four days

254
00:14:08,640 --> 00:14:11,559
Speaker 3: of deliberating, and said they were deadlocked on the top

255
00:14:11,679 --> 00:14:15,440
Speaker 3: charge of manslaughter. Over the course of the deliberations. The

256
00:14:15,520 --> 00:14:19,840
Speaker 3: jury had asked to rewatch the bystander videos of Penny

257
00:14:19,880 --> 00:14:25,600
Speaker 3: restraining Neelie, the officer's bodycam videos, and video of Penny's

258
00:14:25,960 --> 00:14:29,920
Speaker 3: interview with police detectives. They also wanted to rehear the

259
00:14:29,960 --> 00:14:35,440
Speaker 3: medical examiner's testimony about issuing a death certificate before Neale's

260
00:14:35,560 --> 00:14:39,640
Speaker 3: full toxicology reports came in. Can you tell from those

261
00:14:39,760 --> 00:14:43,080
Speaker 3: requests what they were likely hung up on.

262
00:14:43,680 --> 00:14:46,840
Speaker 6: It's really the overall narrative, and it was a question

263
00:14:46,920 --> 00:14:50,400
Speaker 6: whether he acted recklessly, whether he went too far, And

264
00:14:50,600 --> 00:14:54,320
Speaker 6: even with the lesser charge of negligent homicide, you only

265
00:14:54,360 --> 00:14:57,920
Speaker 6: need to act carelessly. So they really wanted to know

266
00:14:58,360 --> 00:15:02,400
Speaker 6: if this guy just went too far, and they wanted

267
00:15:02,400 --> 00:15:05,520
Speaker 6: to hear from bystanders. They want to see video, and

268
00:15:05,720 --> 00:15:08,920
Speaker 6: by all appearances, it looked like Daniel Penny was a

269
00:15:08,960 --> 00:15:13,600
Speaker 6: good samaritan and he was there to hold Jordan Neely

270
00:15:13,760 --> 00:15:16,400
Speaker 6: down in that choke hold. It depends how you define

271
00:15:16,440 --> 00:15:20,600
Speaker 6: it until the threat abated, and was it too long?

272
00:15:20,920 --> 00:15:22,960
Speaker 6: That was the question for the jury, and the jury

273
00:15:23,040 --> 00:15:26,200
Speaker 6: ultimately said, if it's too long or not, we can't

274
00:15:26,440 --> 00:15:29,880
Speaker 6: make a clear delineation beyond a reasonable doubt, and so

275
00:15:30,000 --> 00:15:31,480
Speaker 6: therefore not guilty.

276
00:15:31,720 --> 00:15:35,200
Speaker 3: After the jury said they were deadlocked on the top charge,

277
00:15:35,440 --> 00:15:39,720
Speaker 3: the judge granted the prosecution's motion to drop that charge

278
00:15:40,000 --> 00:15:42,720
Speaker 3: and allow the jury to deliberate on the lesser included

279
00:15:42,840 --> 00:15:46,680
Speaker 3: charge of criminally negligent homicide. The defense had asked for

280
00:15:46,720 --> 00:15:51,040
Speaker 3: a mistrial, saying this could lead to a compromise verdict.

281
00:15:51,240 --> 00:15:53,480
Speaker 3: Do you think the judge should have declared a mistrial.

282
00:15:53,800 --> 00:15:57,520
Speaker 6: No, because it is the prerogative of prosecutors to seek

283
00:15:57,760 --> 00:16:01,240
Speaker 6: a verdict on the lesser counts, And just because you

284
00:16:01,320 --> 00:16:03,960
Speaker 6: can't come up with a verdict on the biggest count

285
00:16:04,120 --> 00:16:07,400
Speaker 6: manslaughter in this case, doesn't mean that you can't look

286
00:16:07,440 --> 00:16:12,320
Speaker 6: to door B. Because prosecutors wanted any type of conviction

287
00:16:12,440 --> 00:16:15,240
Speaker 6: in this case, and quite frankly, I think this case

288
00:16:15,280 --> 00:16:17,960
Speaker 6: probably should not have been brought because I think going

289
00:16:18,000 --> 00:16:21,400
Speaker 6: into it, prosecutors had to know it was very unlikely

290
00:16:21,640 --> 00:16:23,880
Speaker 6: that they would get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

291
00:16:23,920 --> 00:16:27,040
Speaker 6: After all, jurors take the subway too, and all of

292
00:16:27,120 --> 00:16:31,040
Speaker 6: us have had experiences with someone with untreated mental illness

293
00:16:31,200 --> 00:16:33,920
Speaker 6: scaring people on the subway, so I thought this was

294
00:16:33,960 --> 00:16:36,760
Speaker 6: an uphill battle. But I do say that the prosecutors

295
00:16:37,000 --> 00:16:39,640
Speaker 6: should have been able to seek a verdict on the

296
00:16:39,720 --> 00:16:41,320
Speaker 6: lesser charge, and they were.

297
00:16:41,640 --> 00:16:44,800
Speaker 3: I wasn't surprised when the jury said they were deadlocked.

298
00:16:45,280 --> 00:16:48,160
Speaker 3: But here's what did surprise me. The jury deliberates for

299
00:16:48,200 --> 00:16:51,760
Speaker 3: four days on the manslaughter charge, the top charge, and

300
00:16:51,800 --> 00:16:55,280
Speaker 3: there are one or more holdouts. They can't reach a verdict,

301
00:16:55,280 --> 00:16:58,280
Speaker 3: which of course has to be unanimous. They come back

302
00:16:58,320 --> 00:17:01,880
Speaker 3: on Monday and start deliberating the lesser charge, and in

303
00:17:02,000 --> 00:17:05,840
Speaker 3: one hour they reach a not guilty verdict. What happened

304
00:17:05,840 --> 00:17:06,680
Speaker 3: to the holdouts?

305
00:17:07,119 --> 00:17:09,560
Speaker 6: June? You hit the nail on the head. This was

306
00:17:09,600 --> 00:17:13,200
Speaker 6: the biggest head scratcher, because they took a while hand

307
00:17:13,280 --> 00:17:16,119
Speaker 6: ringing over the largest charge, the most difficult charge, the

308
00:17:16,160 --> 00:17:20,280
Speaker 6: manslaughter charge, and after there were holdouts and they couldn't

309
00:17:20,280 --> 00:17:22,600
Speaker 6: come to a verdict, you would think that they would

310
00:17:22,640 --> 00:17:27,280
Speaker 6: then deliberate justice extensively with just as many holdouts on

311
00:17:27,480 --> 00:17:29,280
Speaker 6: the lesser charge. I mean, the lesser charge is much

312
00:17:29,320 --> 00:17:32,400
Speaker 6: easier to convict Penny on. But yet they quitted him

313
00:17:32,400 --> 00:17:34,560
Speaker 6: on that one very quickly, and I think the reason

314
00:17:34,680 --> 00:17:38,840
Speaker 6: is dure fatigue. Dur fatigue is a real thing. They

315
00:17:38,920 --> 00:17:41,399
Speaker 6: had the weekend to think about it, they came back,

316
00:17:41,560 --> 00:17:45,280
Speaker 6: and the holdouts, the ones who could not equit Daniel

317
00:17:45,320 --> 00:17:49,040
Speaker 6: Penny on the biggest charge, manslaughter, decided it wasn't worth

318
00:17:49,040 --> 00:17:51,480
Speaker 6: a fight anymore and let's.

319
00:17:51,240 --> 00:17:52,000
Speaker 4: Just let him go.

320
00:17:52,440 --> 00:17:55,040
Speaker 3: I understand that when the judge told the jurors on Friday,

321
00:17:55,359 --> 00:17:57,919
Speaker 3: you're going to come back on Monday and start deliberating

322
00:17:58,040 --> 00:18:01,320
Speaker 3: on the lesser charge, one of the jurors was shaking

323
00:18:01,359 --> 00:18:04,080
Speaker 3: his head back and forth. I mean, what Jery wants

324
00:18:04,080 --> 00:18:06,240
Speaker 3: to come back after a weekend. That's why you have

325
00:18:06,320 --> 00:18:09,520
Speaker 3: so many Friday verdicts. So, Dave, the defense did raise

326
00:18:09,720 --> 00:18:12,760
Speaker 3: a lot of questions here about the cause of death,

327
00:18:13,000 --> 00:18:16,800
Speaker 3: the medical examiner's report, etc. Do you think that's what

328
00:18:17,000 --> 00:18:20,199
Speaker 3: convinced the jurors or was it just the fact that

329
00:18:20,240 --> 00:18:23,160
Speaker 3: you have this guy who started out with good intentions.

330
00:18:23,440 --> 00:18:26,640
Speaker 3: Even the prosecutor admitted that, and right things got away

331
00:18:26,640 --> 00:18:27,080
Speaker 3: from him.

332
00:18:27,480 --> 00:18:31,280
Speaker 6: Even the prosecution said that Daniel Penny acted with the

333
00:18:31,359 --> 00:18:34,119
Speaker 6: right mindset. He was acting in self defense. This was

334
00:18:34,160 --> 00:18:36,280
Speaker 6: not a murder case. This is a case at some

335
00:18:36,400 --> 00:18:40,199
Speaker 6: point when perhaps Jordan Neely stopped breathing, although that was

336
00:18:40,280 --> 00:18:42,919
Speaker 6: a big bone of contention when that happened, or perhaps

337
00:18:42,960 --> 00:18:46,600
Speaker 6: when the subway cars opened at the station, that Daniel

338
00:18:46,600 --> 00:18:49,520
Speaker 6: Penny had an obligation to release the choke hold, and

339
00:18:49,560 --> 00:18:51,720
Speaker 6: that's where he crossed the line. But see, that's a

340
00:18:51,800 --> 00:18:55,440
Speaker 6: very difficult question for jurors, is to make that distinction

341
00:18:55,920 --> 00:19:01,080
Speaker 6: between heroism and being a killer. So it's tough for

342
00:19:01,200 --> 00:19:05,119
Speaker 6: jurors beyond a reasonable doubt to find that delineation. And

343
00:19:05,200 --> 00:19:07,240
Speaker 6: I think that's why this case was always going to

344
00:19:07,240 --> 00:19:10,000
Speaker 6: be an uphill battle for prosecutors, because no one doubted

345
00:19:10,000 --> 00:19:12,840
Speaker 6: that Journey was threatening people on the train, scared people.

346
00:19:12,880 --> 00:19:16,360
Speaker 6: Even the witnesses for the prosecution that yeah, we were

347
00:19:16,400 --> 00:19:19,720
Speaker 6: scared by him. The question is at what point do

348
00:19:19,800 --> 00:19:22,040
Speaker 6: you cross the line and go too far? And to

349
00:19:22,119 --> 00:19:25,760
Speaker 6: ask a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that

350
00:19:25,880 --> 00:19:29,800
Speaker 6: someone went too far, it's so hard when they probably

351
00:19:29,800 --> 00:19:32,320
Speaker 6: have taken the subways, when they have been scared themselves,

352
00:19:32,560 --> 00:19:34,399
Speaker 6: and when they probably wish at some point in their

353
00:19:34,440 --> 00:19:37,680
Speaker 6: life that a Daniel Penny had stood up to protect them.

354
00:19:37,960 --> 00:19:41,720
Speaker 3: The legal system is not done with Penny. Jordan Neely's

355
00:19:41,760 --> 00:19:46,359
Speaker 3: father is suing him for causing Neely's death through negligence, carelessness,

356
00:19:46,600 --> 00:19:50,080
Speaker 3: and recklessness. Of course, the burden of proof is much

357
00:19:50,160 --> 00:19:53,280
Speaker 3: lower in a civil case and only five out of

358
00:19:53,320 --> 00:19:55,800
Speaker 3: six jurors have to agree on a verdict.

359
00:19:55,960 --> 00:19:58,560
Speaker 6: Well, it's a much easier case than civil court because

360
00:19:58,680 --> 00:20:01,080
Speaker 6: the civil standard is not being a reasonable doubt, it's

361
00:20:01,119 --> 00:20:03,720
Speaker 6: by a preponderance of the evidence. Is it more likely

362
00:20:03,840 --> 00:20:06,880
Speaker 6: than not that this occurred? And so yes, it is

363
00:20:06,920 --> 00:20:10,800
Speaker 6: a much better case against Daniel Penny civilly than criminally.

364
00:20:10,840 --> 00:20:12,800
Speaker 6: I'm not surprised that it has brought. It is one way

365
00:20:12,840 --> 00:20:15,600
Speaker 6: for the family of Jordan needed to obtain a measure

366
00:20:15,600 --> 00:20:18,000
Speaker 6: of justice in their eyes. I don't know which way

367
00:20:18,000 --> 00:20:19,880
Speaker 6: it will go, but definitely is a better chance. Now,

368
00:20:19,920 --> 00:20:23,320
Speaker 6: if Daniel Penny had been convicted, then that lawsuit would

369
00:20:23,320 --> 00:20:26,439
Speaker 6: have been much much easier, because once you've been proven

370
00:20:26,600 --> 00:20:30,520
Speaker 6: beyond a reasonable doubt of acting carelessly or recklessly, then

371
00:20:30,600 --> 00:20:33,280
Speaker 6: that comes into play in the civil court and you're

372
00:20:33,359 --> 00:20:35,480
Speaker 6: almost certain of winning a civil judgment.

373
00:20:35,600 --> 00:20:37,720
Speaker 3: As you know, Dave, there was a lot of pressure

374
00:20:38,240 --> 00:20:42,679
Speaker 3: on Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg to bring charges against Penny,

375
00:20:43,000 --> 00:20:46,480
Speaker 3: and his defense lawyers are considering bringing a malicious prosecution

376
00:20:46,680 --> 00:20:49,679
Speaker 3: case against the DA. They say the DA blurred the

377
00:20:49,720 --> 00:20:53,359
Speaker 3: ethical lines in handling the case and colluded with the

378
00:20:53,400 --> 00:20:57,720
Speaker 3: Medical Examiner's office. How tough are malicious prosecution case is

379
00:20:57,720 --> 00:20:58,120
Speaker 3: to win?

380
00:20:58,680 --> 00:21:00,000
Speaker 4: Oh? Those are very hard.

381
00:21:00,160 --> 00:21:01,920
Speaker 6: I mean you really have to prove some bad faith

382
00:21:02,359 --> 00:21:06,000
Speaker 6: and that hardly ever works in this case. If the

383
00:21:06,119 --> 00:21:09,160
Speaker 6: DA was motivated by political pressure, that's still not malicious

384
00:21:09,160 --> 00:21:11,159
Speaker 6: prosecution as long as you have the evidence. And as

385
00:21:11,200 --> 00:21:13,720
Speaker 6: I said, there was enough evidence here at least to

386
00:21:13,760 --> 00:21:16,400
Speaker 6: file the charge, at least the seeking indictment. And yes,

387
00:21:16,440 --> 00:21:18,280
Speaker 6: you could have been convicted of one of these charges,

388
00:21:18,359 --> 00:21:20,760
Speaker 6: maybe just a lesser charge based on the evidence. But

389
00:21:20,960 --> 00:21:23,440
Speaker 6: because of the lived experiences of the jurors, I thought

390
00:21:23,440 --> 00:21:26,640
Speaker 6: that that would never happen. And so, you know, both sides.

391
00:21:26,480 --> 00:21:27,240
Speaker 4: Can be right about this.

392
00:21:27,400 --> 00:21:29,280
Speaker 6: The defense can be right that this case should never

393
00:21:29,359 --> 00:21:31,720
Speaker 6: have been brought. At the same time, the prosecution can

394
00:21:31,760 --> 00:21:34,040
Speaker 6: be right that there was enough evidence to bring the case.

395
00:21:34,119 --> 00:21:36,159
Speaker 6: Both sides can be true on this one. Now, this

396
00:21:36,440 --> 00:21:39,200
Speaker 6: was a sign of the times. This case reflected a

397
00:21:39,320 --> 00:21:42,679
Speaker 6: larger split amongst the public about issues of crime and

398
00:21:42,760 --> 00:21:45,960
Speaker 6: race and homelessness and mental illness. And in the end,

399
00:21:46,040 --> 00:21:48,120
Speaker 6: because there was such a split, because there was such

400
00:21:48,119 --> 00:21:50,800
Speaker 6: a controversy, you were never going to get a unanimous

401
00:21:50,880 --> 00:21:54,200
Speaker 6: jury a twelve person jury to decide beyond a reasonable

402
00:21:54,240 --> 00:21:59,080
Speaker 6: doubt that Daniel Penny committed manslaughter maybe a lesser crime, possibly,

403
00:21:59,240 --> 00:22:01,280
Speaker 6: but even that was too high of a burden for

404
00:22:01,359 --> 00:22:01,920
Speaker 6: this jury.

405
00:22:02,240 --> 00:22:05,959
Speaker 3: The Manhattan DA is involved in another case that seems

406
00:22:05,960 --> 00:22:08,919
Speaker 3: to have captured the attention of the public, the shooting

407
00:22:08,960 --> 00:22:12,600
Speaker 3: of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a New York

408
00:22:12,640 --> 00:22:16,119
Speaker 3: City street on December twenty fourth. Twenty six year old

409
00:22:16,200 --> 00:22:20,399
Speaker 3: Luigi Mangioni has been charged with second degree murder, and

410
00:22:20,520 --> 00:22:23,520
Speaker 3: DA Bragg has said he finds the public's fascination with

411
00:22:23,720 --> 00:22:25,159
Speaker 3: mangione disturbing.

412
00:22:25,640 --> 00:22:33,800
Speaker 7: Celebrating murders abhorred, you know, for me, sit across the

413
00:22:33,840 --> 00:22:40,760
Speaker 7: table from families who've had a loved one killed, and

414
00:22:41,080 --> 00:22:43,240
Speaker 7: to think of people.

415
00:22:43,119 --> 00:22:47,960
Speaker 3: Celebrating that Mangioni was arrested in Pennsylvania and he's fighting

416
00:22:48,160 --> 00:22:52,159
Speaker 3: extradition to New York. But it's going to happen, isn't it.

417
00:22:52,160 --> 00:22:55,760
Speaker 6: It's inevitable. They're just forestalling the obvious. And there have

418
00:22:55,800 --> 00:22:57,960
Speaker 6: been a lot of theories out there. Maybe one reason

419
00:22:58,000 --> 00:23:00,880
Speaker 6: is he wants to avoid Riker's prison is long as possible,

420
00:23:01,080 --> 00:23:03,560
Speaker 6: but he's going to get there. Or perhaps they want

421
00:23:03,560 --> 00:23:06,199
Speaker 6: to force prosecutors to give up extra evidence that they

422
00:23:06,200 --> 00:23:08,959
Speaker 6: wouldn't be entitled to otherwise at a hearing in Pennsylvania.

423
00:23:09,000 --> 00:23:11,800
Speaker 6: But really, extradition hearings are so easy. The only main

424
00:23:11,880 --> 00:23:15,439
Speaker 6: argument is is this the guy who is described? And

425
00:23:15,480 --> 00:23:17,240
Speaker 6: the problem cause after David, do you have the right

426
00:23:17,240 --> 00:23:19,679
Speaker 6: person or is it mistaken identity? Well, it's clearly not

427
00:23:19,760 --> 00:23:22,159
Speaker 6: mistaken identity. So this is going to happen. He's going

428
00:23:22,200 --> 00:23:24,280
Speaker 6: to be extradited. They're just delaying the inevitable.

429
00:23:24,600 --> 00:23:28,040
Speaker 3: There seems to be a lot of evidence against him already.

430
00:23:28,520 --> 00:23:32,320
Speaker 3: They reportedly have ballistics from the gun he was carrying,

431
00:23:32,640 --> 00:23:35,320
Speaker 3: that Matt shell casing's found at the scene. They have

432
00:23:35,600 --> 00:23:39,600
Speaker 3: his manifesto, which speaks to his motive. It's early, but

433
00:23:39,720 --> 00:23:41,399
Speaker 3: do you see any defenses here?

434
00:23:41,840 --> 00:23:45,000
Speaker 6: I think the only real defense would be that Mangioni

435
00:23:45,200 --> 00:23:49,200
Speaker 6: acted with severe emotional disservants, that he was so upset

436
00:23:49,240 --> 00:23:52,160
Speaker 6: about the way the insurance companies treated him in his family,

437
00:23:52,359 --> 00:23:54,800
Speaker 6: that this could be a manslaughter case and not a

438
00:23:54,880 --> 00:23:56,680
Speaker 6: murder case. Now I would disagree with that. I think

439
00:23:56,680 --> 00:23:59,640
Speaker 6: there's clear murder. I think it should be premeditated murder.

440
00:23:59,680 --> 00:24:01,960
Speaker 6: But that to me will be the best defense to

441
00:24:02,200 --> 00:24:04,919
Speaker 6: try to get a conviction on a lesser count that

442
00:24:04,960 --> 00:24:07,120
Speaker 6: will allow them to get out of prison one day. Now.

443
00:24:07,200 --> 00:24:09,840
Speaker 6: As far as another potential defense, there's what you call

444
00:24:09,960 --> 00:24:13,680
Speaker 6: jury nullification. Jury nullification is when the jurors drew the

445
00:24:13,720 --> 00:24:16,720
Speaker 6: evidence and see the law and disregard it. Instead of

446
00:24:17,040 --> 00:24:19,359
Speaker 6: doing what they're told by the judge, they go their

447
00:24:19,359 --> 00:24:21,880
Speaker 6: own way because they have sympathy for the defendant. They're

448
00:24:21,920 --> 00:24:23,720
Speaker 6: not supposed to do it, but it happens. It's a

449
00:24:23,800 --> 00:24:27,840
Speaker 6: prosecutor's worst nightmare. That is a possibility in a case

450
00:24:27,920 --> 00:24:30,479
Speaker 6: like this, where there's so many emotions about it and

451
00:24:30,560 --> 00:24:34,160
Speaker 6: so many hard feelings and frustrations towards the insurance industry.

452
00:24:34,320 --> 00:24:37,040
Speaker 3: If the jury is anything like the Internet, it seems

453
00:24:37,040 --> 00:24:41,040
Speaker 3: like jury nullification is a possibility because the Internet has

454
00:24:41,119 --> 00:24:44,200
Speaker 3: exploded with all kinds of support for him.

455
00:24:44,240 --> 00:24:46,399
Speaker 6: And as a prosecutor, it's disappointing and it shows you

456
00:24:46,480 --> 00:24:48,240
Speaker 6: this is an age we're living it in the age

457
00:24:48,280 --> 00:24:50,840
Speaker 6: of impunity, where you can say what you want, you

458
00:24:50,840 --> 00:24:52,800
Speaker 6: can do what you want, and nothing.

459
00:24:52,600 --> 00:24:53,280
Speaker 4: Sticks to you.

460
00:24:53,280 --> 00:24:55,600
Speaker 6: You can get elected no matter what your past, you

461
00:24:55,640 --> 00:24:59,000
Speaker 6: can be appointed no matter what you've done, and it's

462
00:24:59,000 --> 00:25:02,560
Speaker 6: a reflection where we are, where people are treating this

463
00:25:02,680 --> 00:25:06,359
Speaker 6: guy as a hero, when it's not a very courageous

464
00:25:06,359 --> 00:25:08,879
Speaker 6: thing to put on a mask, lie in wait for

465
00:25:09,160 --> 00:25:12,000
Speaker 6: an unarmed man, and then shoot him in the back

466
00:25:12,160 --> 00:25:15,960
Speaker 6: and then run away. Not exactly captain courage. So he's

467
00:25:15,960 --> 00:25:18,280
Speaker 6: not someone who should be raised up and lionized.

468
00:25:18,520 --> 00:25:22,240
Speaker 3: We'll see if the Internet loses its fascination with him

469
00:25:22,400 --> 00:25:25,520
Speaker 3: once more details come out. Thanks for your insights, Dave.

470
00:25:25,800 --> 00:25:28,679
Speaker 3: That's Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Arenberg.

471
00:25:29,200 --> 00:25:32,800
Speaker 8: The board was not heedless of environmental effects here. It

472
00:25:32,960 --> 00:25:37,520
Speaker 8: consulted with dozens of agencies, considered every proximate effect, and

473
00:25:37,720 --> 00:25:42,160
Speaker 8: ordered ninety one mitigation measures. Eighty eight miles of track

474
00:25:42,280 --> 00:25:45,280
Speaker 8: should not require more than thirty six hundred pages of

475
00:25:45,359 --> 00:25:46,680
Speaker 8: environmental analysis.

476
00:25:46,960 --> 00:25:51,720
Speaker 3: Former US Solicitor General Paul Clement argued that federal regulators

477
00:25:51,920 --> 00:25:55,720
Speaker 3: had done enough in considering the environmental impact of a

478
00:25:55,760 --> 00:25:59,639
Speaker 3: proposed eighty eight mile railway in Utah. Under the National

479
00:25:59,720 --> 00:26:04,840
Speaker 3: Environmvironmental Policy Act, or NEPA, regulators are required to analyze

480
00:26:04,880 --> 00:26:11,080
Speaker 3: the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts before approving infrastructure projects. But

481
00:26:11,400 --> 00:26:15,440
Speaker 3: justice is across the ideological spectrum struggled with the test

482
00:26:15,520 --> 00:26:20,359
Speaker 3: for determining when upstream and downstream effects should be considered

483
00:26:20,480 --> 00:26:22,520
Speaker 3: in environmental impact studies.

484
00:26:22,800 --> 00:26:26,119
Speaker 9: Here's this eighty eight miles of flying and railroads are

485
00:26:26,160 --> 00:26:30,679
Speaker 9: going to cross it, and wildfires are going to start

486
00:26:30,760 --> 00:26:33,240
Speaker 9: as a result. Is that within time and space?

487
00:26:34,920 --> 00:26:39,879
Speaker 7: But how far down line or upstream or downstream should

488
00:26:39,880 --> 00:26:40,240
Speaker 7: you look?

489
00:26:41,480 --> 00:26:42,439
Speaker 4: I mean, what are you going to do?

490
00:26:42,520 --> 00:26:46,160
Speaker 10: You're going to say, Okay, I've identified this possible issue,

491
00:26:47,480 --> 00:26:49,920
Speaker 10: but I think it's too far away.

492
00:26:50,800 --> 00:26:56,080
Speaker 6: Most environmental effects, like effects on wetlands, are going to

493
00:26:56,080 --> 00:26:59,240
Speaker 6: be sometimes remote in time and geography.

494
00:27:00,119 --> 00:27:04,040
Speaker 3: Men did admit that his proposed test wasn't an easy one.

495
00:27:04,160 --> 00:27:06,440
Speaker 8: If I could give you a ten word test that

496
00:27:06,640 --> 00:27:08,960
Speaker 8: took care of every hard case, I mean, you know,

497
00:27:09,080 --> 00:27:10,720
Speaker 8: they give me tenure at Harvard, but.

498
00:27:12,400 --> 00:27:14,639
Speaker 1: I think you know having I'm sure they give you

499
00:27:14,680 --> 00:27:15,280
Speaker 1: that anyway.

500
00:27:16,600 --> 00:27:20,240
Speaker 3: That last comment coming from Justice Elena Kagan, who was

501
00:27:20,320 --> 00:27:23,080
Speaker 3: once the dean of Harvard Law School, joined me as

502
00:27:23,119 --> 00:27:27,119
Speaker 3: an expert in environmental law. Pat Parento, a professor at

503
00:27:27,119 --> 00:27:30,400
Speaker 3: the Vermont Law and Graduate School, that first tell us

504
00:27:30,440 --> 00:27:32,960
Speaker 3: about the environmental concerns here.

505
00:27:33,480 --> 00:27:39,359
Speaker 10: So this case involves a proposed eighty eight mile rail

506
00:27:39,880 --> 00:27:44,240
Speaker 10: link in the Uinta basin of Utah, which is huge.

507
00:27:44,480 --> 00:27:47,240
Speaker 10: In fact, it's as big as Maryland, and it's loaded

508
00:27:47,359 --> 00:27:51,680
Speaker 10: with all kinds of fossil fuels, including what's called waxy

509
00:27:52,080 --> 00:27:55,320
Speaker 10: crude oil. I hadn't heard about that term before, but

510
00:27:55,400 --> 00:27:57,439
Speaker 10: that's the product that they want to ship on this

511
00:27:57,600 --> 00:28:01,120
Speaker 10: rail line. And the Surface Transportation Board, which is a

512
00:28:01,119 --> 00:28:04,800
Speaker 10: federal agency within the Department of Transportation, has the authority

513
00:28:04,880 --> 00:28:09,320
Speaker 10: to license or approve construction of this link, which will

514
00:28:09,359 --> 00:28:13,760
Speaker 10: take the oil from the Uinta basein east and connect

515
00:28:13,840 --> 00:28:16,800
Speaker 10: it with the national railroad network and take it all

516
00:28:16,840 --> 00:28:19,080
Speaker 10: the way to the Gulf Coast where it will be

517
00:28:19,160 --> 00:28:24,119
Speaker 10: refined into various products. So the concerns here are the

518
00:28:24,200 --> 00:28:28,239
Speaker 10: drilling and the extraction that's going to occur as a

519
00:28:28,280 --> 00:28:31,800
Speaker 10: result of providing this critical link. Without this railroad, this

520
00:28:32,040 --> 00:28:35,359
Speaker 10: oil reserve couldn't be exploited. So it is a major

521
00:28:35,720 --> 00:28:40,400
Speaker 10: resource with economic value and some jobs undoubtedly and income

522
00:28:40,560 --> 00:28:44,160
Speaker 10: to Utah and the county. The Ute tribe of Indians

523
00:28:44,280 --> 00:28:48,120
Speaker 10: is involved in this, and they have concerns about the drilling,

524
00:28:48,400 --> 00:28:51,720
Speaker 10: which will potentially impact some of their resources. And there's

525
00:28:51,960 --> 00:28:55,800
Speaker 10: concerns about spills, which are inevitable when you're moving oil

526
00:28:55,880 --> 00:29:00,600
Speaker 10: by rail, there's always either chronic low level spills, leakages,

527
00:29:00,920 --> 00:29:03,360
Speaker 10: or in some cases, of course worse than that, derailments,

528
00:29:03,360 --> 00:29:06,560
Speaker 10: and we've seen that. But then of course downstream there's

529
00:29:06,600 --> 00:29:10,280
Speaker 10: concerns about burning all of this spoiled duh, and the

530
00:29:10,320 --> 00:29:14,840
Speaker 10: impacts on climate change, but also impacts on the communities

531
00:29:14,920 --> 00:29:18,640
Speaker 10: around the refineries in the Gulf Coast Fort Arthur, Texas

532
00:29:18,680 --> 00:29:22,360
Speaker 10: being as primary focus of this. So a variety of

533
00:29:22,520 --> 00:29:27,200
Speaker 10: environmental issues typical of a major infrastructure project like this,

534
00:29:27,720 --> 00:29:28,240
Speaker 10: and tell.

535
00:29:28,160 --> 00:29:33,080
Speaker 3: Us about the legal issue around the environmental impact study

536
00:29:33,240 --> 00:29:34,040
Speaker 3: for this railway.

537
00:29:34,440 --> 00:29:37,480
Speaker 10: So this has to do with the scope of the

538
00:29:37,600 --> 00:29:42,560
Speaker 10: environmental impact statement that the Surface Transportation Board prepared for

539
00:29:42,640 --> 00:29:47,160
Speaker 10: this project, and actually STB as it's called, get you

540
00:29:47,200 --> 00:29:50,880
Speaker 10: know what you might consider a pretty thorough job. I mean,

541
00:29:50,920 --> 00:29:55,920
Speaker 10: it amounts to literally thousands of pages of analysis when

542
00:29:55,920 --> 00:29:58,880
Speaker 10: you look at the whole administrative record. And they did

543
00:29:58,960 --> 00:30:03,360
Speaker 10: look at these upstream impacts of drilling and the downstream

544
00:30:03,400 --> 00:30:07,320
Speaker 10: impacts of potential spills and the refinery, but they only

545
00:30:07,360 --> 00:30:11,320
Speaker 10: did so to a certain level. And the DC circuit

546
00:30:11,480 --> 00:30:14,600
Speaker 10: when this came to the DC Circuit for Review said,

547
00:30:14,640 --> 00:30:17,920
Speaker 10: you know, STB, you get an okay job, but not

548
00:30:18,000 --> 00:30:21,480
Speaker 10: good enough. You needed to delve more deeply into these

549
00:30:21,600 --> 00:30:25,240
Speaker 10: upstream downstream issues than you did. So what it comes

550
00:30:25,280 --> 00:30:29,520
Speaker 10: down to is how much analysis does NEPA require when

551
00:30:29,600 --> 00:30:32,840
Speaker 10: you have an eighty eight mile project that is approved

552
00:30:32,880 --> 00:30:37,040
Speaker 10: by this agency DSTB. And how far beyond.

553
00:30:36,840 --> 00:30:38,840
Speaker 4: The footprint, if you will, of the.

554
00:30:38,760 --> 00:30:43,400
Speaker 10: Project does NEPA require you to go when you're analyzing

555
00:30:43,440 --> 00:30:47,920
Speaker 10: these more remote in time and distance problems. And that

556
00:30:48,120 --> 00:30:50,920
Speaker 10: was the focus of the argument before the Supreme Court.

557
00:30:51,200 --> 00:30:54,560
Speaker 3: Was there an answer to what kind of test would

558
00:30:54,840 --> 00:30:57,160
Speaker 3: work here? I mean, did anyone have that answer?

559
00:30:57,720 --> 00:30:57,920
Speaker 4: Yes?

560
00:30:58,120 --> 00:31:01,400
Speaker 10: Paul Clement, who's a farmer Listitor General of the United

561
00:31:01,400 --> 00:31:02,600
Speaker 10: States for a while, so he's a.

562
00:31:02,720 --> 00:31:05,400
Speaker 4: Very accomplished, seasoned Supreme.

563
00:31:05,040 --> 00:31:09,240
Speaker 10: Court litigator, and frankly did a terrific job representing his clients,

564
00:31:09,280 --> 00:31:12,000
Speaker 10: of course, who want to develop these oil reserves, and

565
00:31:12,160 --> 00:31:16,040
Speaker 10: his tests which he offered and explained over and over again.

566
00:31:15,880 --> 00:31:16,440
Speaker 4: To the court.

567
00:31:16,520 --> 00:31:18,920
Speaker 10: He was up there for almost an hour being questioned

568
00:31:18,920 --> 00:31:21,720
Speaker 10: by almost everybody on the bench, and his test was

569
00:31:21,720 --> 00:31:25,320
Speaker 10: the following number one, you do take into account how

570
00:31:25,400 --> 00:31:29,360
Speaker 10: remote in time and space. Are the impacts that you're

571
00:31:29,400 --> 00:31:30,080
Speaker 10: talking about?

572
00:31:30,160 --> 00:31:30,680
Speaker 4: Number one?

573
00:31:31,000 --> 00:31:34,920
Speaker 10: And number two, how many of those impacts are actually

574
00:31:35,000 --> 00:31:39,000
Speaker 10: within the jurisdiction and authority of the agency in question,

575
00:31:39,120 --> 00:31:42,880
Speaker 10: namely STV. His answer to both of those was a,

576
00:31:43,480 --> 00:31:46,960
Speaker 10: the impacts, particularly the refinery impacts, which are five hundred

577
00:31:46,960 --> 00:31:50,400
Speaker 10: miles away or more, are way too remote in time

578
00:31:50,480 --> 00:31:53,479
Speaker 10: and distance and speculative in terms of what will actually

579
00:31:53,520 --> 00:31:57,120
Speaker 10: happen and so forth, and they're subject to other agencies jurisdiction,

580
00:31:57,400 --> 00:32:01,680
Speaker 10: either state agencies or federal agencies. Another agency that's involved

581
00:32:01,680 --> 00:32:05,360
Speaker 10: with rail safety, for example, So when you talk about

582
00:32:05,680 --> 00:32:08,720
Speaker 10: the condition of the tracks and whether there's the potential

583
00:32:08,760 --> 00:32:12,000
Speaker 10: for spills, his argument is that's another agency's problem.

584
00:32:11,760 --> 00:32:13,360
Speaker 4: That's not StB's concern.

585
00:32:13,920 --> 00:32:17,960
Speaker 10: And refinery operations that's again that's subject to Texas state

586
00:32:18,040 --> 00:32:20,760
Speaker 10: regulation for whatever that's worth, as well as you know

587
00:32:20,840 --> 00:32:25,240
Speaker 10: EPA and other agencies. So on his remote in time

588
00:32:25,600 --> 00:32:29,080
Speaker 10: and space argument, he said, these impacts that the DC

589
00:32:29,240 --> 00:32:32,520
Speaker 10: Circuit found fault with are not required by NEPA. And

590
00:32:32,600 --> 00:32:35,360
Speaker 10: number two, he said, when you have these other agencies

591
00:32:35,360 --> 00:32:39,440
Speaker 10: with responsibilities and STB does not have any authority to

592
00:32:39,520 --> 00:32:43,800
Speaker 10: control these impacts, then NEPA doesn't require STB to have

593
00:32:43,840 --> 00:32:47,440
Speaker 10: to analyze them. What's the point he said of analyzing

594
00:32:47,480 --> 00:32:49,920
Speaker 10: all this to the nth degree when they can't do

595
00:32:49,960 --> 00:32:52,200
Speaker 10: anything about it, And so that was his argument.

596
00:32:52,400 --> 00:32:53,960
Speaker 3: Did the challengers have a test?

597
00:32:54,400 --> 00:32:58,720
Speaker 10: Yeah, So the challengers said, well, first of all, NIPA

598
00:32:58,800 --> 00:33:04,040
Speaker 10: has always require fired consideration of indirect effects, and these

599
00:33:04,080 --> 00:33:07,600
Speaker 10: are foreseeable indirect effects. And there really wasn't a whole

600
00:33:07,600 --> 00:33:12,160
Speaker 10: lot of argument. Even Clement conceded, these are foreseeable impacts.

601
00:33:12,280 --> 00:33:16,760
Speaker 10: They may be difficult to quantify, although the environmental advocates

602
00:33:16,800 --> 00:33:19,440
Speaker 10: that they weren't difficult to quantify. I mean, you know

603
00:33:19,520 --> 00:33:22,960
Speaker 10: how much oil is going to be extracted, and from

604
00:33:23,040 --> 00:33:25,680
Speaker 10: that you can begin to calculate how much will be refined,

605
00:33:25,800 --> 00:33:28,000
Speaker 10: and what kind of spills might happen and so forth.

606
00:33:28,360 --> 00:33:31,520
Speaker 4: You know, the environmental groups challenging.

607
00:33:31,000 --> 00:33:34,160
Speaker 10: This project, I thought, we're able to say, look, what

608
00:33:34,160 --> 00:33:37,200
Speaker 10: we're asking for here is not that unreasonable. It's not

609
00:33:37,360 --> 00:33:40,240
Speaker 10: that different from what courts have required in the past.

610
00:33:40,600 --> 00:33:43,320
Speaker 10: And it should still be the test here that you know,

611
00:33:43,400 --> 00:33:47,200
Speaker 10: when the agency undertakes to do an analysis, it needs

612
00:33:47,240 --> 00:33:48,280
Speaker 10: to do it right.

613
00:33:48,720 --> 00:33:51,960
Speaker 3: But did it seem like justice is across the ideological

614
00:33:52,080 --> 00:33:56,360
Speaker 3: spectrum had problems with the environmentalists position.

615
00:33:56,880 --> 00:33:59,760
Speaker 10: Here's what I would say as the bottom line, there's

616
00:33:59,800 --> 00:34:03,920
Speaker 10: no support on the bench, either liberals or conservatives, to

617
00:34:04,080 --> 00:34:05,320
Speaker 10: uphold the DC Circuit.

618
00:34:05,360 --> 00:34:05,880
Speaker 4: That was clear.

619
00:34:06,160 --> 00:34:08,800
Speaker 10: The liberal wing of the Bench asked as many difficult

620
00:34:08,880 --> 00:34:12,520
Speaker 10: questions of the environmental advocate as did the conservative justices,

621
00:34:12,560 --> 00:34:15,600
Speaker 10: in some cases even more aggressive, right, So they were

622
00:34:15,600 --> 00:34:19,080
Speaker 10: clearly signaling they were not going to be upholding the

623
00:34:19,200 --> 00:34:22,240
Speaker 10: DC Circuit. And my reading is what they were really

624
00:34:22,280 --> 00:34:25,160
Speaker 10: signaling to the rest of the conservative colleagues on the

625
00:34:25,160 --> 00:34:28,640
Speaker 10: Bench was, let's see if we can find a basis

626
00:34:28,800 --> 00:34:33,280
Speaker 10: to overturn the DC Circuit's decision and allow this project

627
00:34:33,280 --> 00:34:36,680
Speaker 10: to proceed that doesn't do any more damage to the

628
00:34:36,800 --> 00:34:41,080
Speaker 10: NEPA process than quote is necessary to decide this case.

629
00:34:41,320 --> 00:34:43,799
Speaker 10: So that's what I'm going to be looking for, not

630
00:34:44,160 --> 00:34:46,640
Speaker 10: what the outcome is. The outcome's clear. You know, NEPA

631
00:34:46,719 --> 00:34:49,520
Speaker 10: has been in front of the Supreme Court fifteen different

632
00:34:49,560 --> 00:34:53,399
Speaker 10: times and has lost every single time. This will make

633
00:34:53,520 --> 00:34:56,880
Speaker 10: the sixteenth time that NPA will have lost in the

634
00:34:56,960 --> 00:35:00,359
Speaker 10: Supreme Court. That seems foreordained to me. But the real

635
00:35:00,440 --> 00:35:03,600
Speaker 10: question is how broadly is the Court going to go

636
00:35:04,160 --> 00:35:08,839
Speaker 10: in limiting the scope of NIPA analysis in a variety

637
00:35:09,000 --> 00:35:11,880
Speaker 10: of other cases? This is just you know, one eighty

638
00:35:11,920 --> 00:35:15,360
Speaker 10: eight mile rail line, right That NEPA applies to a

639
00:35:15,520 --> 00:35:19,319
Speaker 10: huge number of federal actions, of course, So that's what

640
00:35:19,360 --> 00:35:20,279
Speaker 10: I'm going to be looking for.

641
00:35:20,360 --> 00:35:21,200
Speaker 4: Will they write a.

642
00:35:21,320 --> 00:35:25,880
Speaker 10: Narrow opinion, overturn the DC circuit, let this project be finished,

643
00:35:26,000 --> 00:35:27,560
Speaker 10: and leave it the rest of it alone.

644
00:35:27,600 --> 00:35:29,600
Speaker 3: Pat, I want you to listen to what Justice Brett

645
00:35:29,680 --> 00:35:34,439
Speaker 3: Kavanaugh said about deference to agencies being important here.

646
00:35:34,560 --> 00:35:36,799
Speaker 9: It seems to me the deference of the courts has

647
00:35:36,840 --> 00:35:41,520
Speaker 9: to be huge with respect to how the agencies think

648
00:35:41,560 --> 00:35:44,719
Speaker 9: about the scope of what they're going to consider. And

649
00:35:45,080 --> 00:35:48,160
Speaker 9: it seems to be the problem that is crept in

650
00:35:48,320 --> 00:35:51,879
Speaker 9: is conflating what the agency can do and should do

651
00:35:51,920 --> 00:35:54,960
Speaker 9: from what the role of the courts is here by

652
00:35:54,960 --> 00:35:57,160
Speaker 9: the courts taking an overly aggressive role.

653
00:35:57,640 --> 00:36:00,239
Speaker 3: Correct me if I'm wrong. But wasn't Kavanaugh and the

654
00:36:00,280 --> 00:36:03,840
Speaker 3: majority when the Court threw out the Chevron doctrine and

655
00:36:03,960 --> 00:36:08,000
Speaker 3: deference to agencies interpretations of ambiguous statutes?

656
00:36:09,640 --> 00:36:12,840
Speaker 10: Well, you know they all saying consistency is the hob

657
00:36:12,880 --> 00:36:18,399
Speaker 10: goblin of small minds. So yeah, there's a little bit

658
00:36:18,440 --> 00:36:22,960
Speaker 10: of inconsistency there, right, So we will defer to agencies

659
00:36:23,120 --> 00:36:26,080
Speaker 10: when we like what they're doing, but not defer to

660
00:36:26,120 --> 00:36:28,560
Speaker 10: them when we don't. I'm not going to go completely

661
00:36:28,600 --> 00:36:32,120
Speaker 10: cynical on that, although I'm tempted, but certainly.

662
00:36:32,000 --> 00:36:35,040
Speaker 4: There's tension here between when you're going to give an

663
00:36:35,040 --> 00:36:36,480
Speaker 4: agency difference and when you're not.

664
00:36:36,840 --> 00:36:39,239
Speaker 10: You know, this is a gray area of Neva law,

665
00:36:39,280 --> 00:36:41,960
Speaker 10: I have to say, and you know, reasonable people, I

666
00:36:42,040 --> 00:36:44,960
Speaker 10: suppose can disagree about how far you should go.

667
00:36:45,440 --> 00:36:47,600
Speaker 3: And we'll find out by June just how far the

668
00:36:47,640 --> 00:36:50,800
Speaker 3: court goes with respect to NIPA. Thanks so much, Pat.

669
00:36:51,200 --> 00:36:54,920
Speaker 3: That's Professor Pat Parento of the Remont Law and Graduate School.

670
00:36:55,239 --> 00:36:57,880
Speaker 3: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

671
00:36:58,200 --> 00:37:00,439
Speaker 3: Remember you've can always get the latest lead the news

672
00:37:00,440 --> 00:37:03,839
Speaker 3: by subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts,

673
00:37:03,840 --> 00:37:08,080
Speaker 3: Spotify and at Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast, Slash Law.

674
00:37:08,400 --> 00:37:11,080
Speaker 3: I'm June Grosso, and this is Bloomberg