1
00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,240 --> 00:00:13,240
Speaker 1: A landmark trial is kicking off in Minnesota the first

3
00:00:13,280 --> 00:00:16,280
Speaker 1: time one of the thousands of cases against eat cigarette

4
00:00:16,320 --> 00:00:19,599
Speaker 1: maker Jewel is going to play out in a courtroom.

5
00:00:20,280 --> 00:00:24,120
Speaker 1: Minnesota accuses Jewel and Altria of hooking a generation of

6
00:00:24,200 --> 00:00:28,400
Speaker 1: young people on their products by deception and slick advertising,

7
00:00:28,600 --> 00:00:31,240
Speaker 1: and the state wants the companies to pay up for

8
00:00:31,320 --> 00:00:34,960
Speaker 1: the public costs of addressing an uptick in youth vaping

9
00:00:35,040 --> 00:00:38,760
Speaker 1: and smoking. Joining me its healthcare attorney Harry Nelson of

10
00:00:38,880 --> 00:00:44,000
Speaker 1: Nelson Hardeman Harry Minnesota is using the theory of public nuisance,

11
00:00:44,600 --> 00:00:47,440
Speaker 1: a theory that was used against the tobacco industry in

12
00:00:47,440 --> 00:00:50,920
Speaker 1: the nineteen nineties. Tell us about it. Yeah, so a

13
00:00:50,960 --> 00:00:54,520
Speaker 1: public nuisance legal theory. It was a theory that actually

14
00:00:54,520 --> 00:00:56,760
Speaker 1: grew out of cases where there had been some kind

15
00:00:56,800 --> 00:01:01,600
Speaker 1: of public harm like damage to you know, water sources

16
00:01:01,640 --> 00:01:04,280
Speaker 1: and from pollution and things like that. And the idea

17
00:01:04,319 --> 00:01:09,360
Speaker 1: was that essentially you could hold private parties responsible for

18
00:01:09,880 --> 00:01:13,039
Speaker 1: the social costs, the costs that they impost on society.

19
00:01:13,560 --> 00:01:16,720
Speaker 1: So we've been seeing through the opioid cases of the

20
00:01:16,760 --> 00:01:20,480
Speaker 1: last few years they attempt to extend that theory against

21
00:01:20,600 --> 00:01:24,319
Speaker 1: drug makers and pharmacies that allowed easy access, and the

22
00:01:24,319 --> 00:01:26,440
Speaker 1: state of Minnesota is trying to do the same thing here,

23
00:01:26,720 --> 00:01:29,880
Speaker 1: essentially to say that Jewels, you know, the e cigarette company,

24
00:01:30,160 --> 00:01:34,199
Speaker 1: that Altria, the biggest of the tobacco companies, essentially caused

25
00:01:34,280 --> 00:01:38,280
Speaker 1: great harm to the public by encouraging the sale of

26
00:01:38,319 --> 00:01:44,240
Speaker 1: these cigarette flavors to teenagers and to underage consumers. Do

27
00:01:44,280 --> 00:01:46,679
Speaker 1: you think that the public nuisance theory is a good

28
00:01:46,720 --> 00:01:52,040
Speaker 1: fit for what it's accusing Jewelove, I think it is

29
00:01:52,320 --> 00:01:54,760
Speaker 1: a little bit of a stretch. Personally, I think that

30
00:01:55,040 --> 00:02:00,400
Speaker 1: this issue of underage consumers smoking or engaging in healthy

31
00:02:00,440 --> 00:02:05,280
Speaker 1: behaviors is a more complicated problem. It's not a clean

32
00:02:05,520 --> 00:02:08,480
Speaker 1: fit to me that jewel was the entire problem. I

33
00:02:08,520 --> 00:02:12,440
Speaker 1: think there's a broader question about our consumer culture that

34
00:02:12,600 --> 00:02:16,800
Speaker 1: made this product so closely popular with kids. So, while

35
00:02:16,800 --> 00:02:21,000
Speaker 1: I do think that the marketing practices were reprehensible, I'm

36
00:02:21,040 --> 00:02:23,800
Speaker 1: not sure that it's a clear line to say that

37
00:02:23,840 --> 00:02:26,120
Speaker 1: they were the cause of all these problems. I also

38
00:02:26,160 --> 00:02:28,640
Speaker 1: think it's unclear. We won't know for years what the

39
00:02:28,680 --> 00:02:31,840
Speaker 1: long term health effects will be of kids starting to

40
00:02:31,880 --> 00:02:35,640
Speaker 1: smoke in eighth grade, and certainly there's been an issue

41
00:02:35,639 --> 00:02:39,240
Speaker 1: of teenagers of older teenagers, tenth graders, eleventh graders smoking

42
00:02:39,280 --> 00:02:44,160
Speaker 1: that preday e cigarette. Minnesota says in papers that in

43
00:02:44,200 --> 00:02:48,200
Speaker 1: the fourteen years between two and twenty fourteen Minnesota high

44
00:02:48,240 --> 00:02:51,480
Speaker 1: schoolers smoking at least one cigarette in the last thirty

45
00:02:51,560 --> 00:02:54,880
Speaker 1: days dropped from thirty two point four percent down to

46
00:02:54,960 --> 00:02:58,919
Speaker 1: ten point six percent. Six years later, nineteen point three

47
00:02:59,000 --> 00:03:03,480
Speaker 1: percent of high schoolers reported having vaped at least once

48
00:03:03,560 --> 00:03:06,919
Speaker 1: in the last thirty days. Does that make their case

49
00:03:07,160 --> 00:03:10,440
Speaker 1: about public health or do they need to do much more?

50
00:03:11,680 --> 00:03:13,880
Speaker 1: I think that's a helpful fact to them. I just

51
00:03:13,919 --> 00:03:16,560
Speaker 1: don't know the whole story. I think the reality is

52
00:03:16,600 --> 00:03:21,200
Speaker 1: like vaping in general has become a more socially acceptable

53
00:03:21,240 --> 00:03:25,280
Speaker 1: and more popular alternative too smoking. So even as we've

54
00:03:25,280 --> 00:03:29,280
Speaker 1: seen a decline in general rates of cigarette smoking, you know,

55
00:03:29,320 --> 00:03:33,400
Speaker 1: with greater awareness that vaping is a slightly healthier choice

56
00:03:33,600 --> 00:03:37,120
Speaker 1: of an overall very unhealthy activity. You know it's increased.

57
00:03:37,120 --> 00:03:39,000
Speaker 1: So I think it's helpful. I just don't know. I

58
00:03:39,040 --> 00:03:42,400
Speaker 1: don't think it's a clam dunk. Jule and Altria are

59
00:03:42,480 --> 00:03:45,680
Speaker 1: trying to shift the blame to the state of Minnesota.

60
00:03:45,880 --> 00:03:49,480
Speaker 1: Minnesota got billions of dollars from tobacco settlements over the

61
00:03:49,600 --> 00:03:54,520
Speaker 1: last decade, but spent less than one percent on prevention efforts,

62
00:03:54,960 --> 00:03:58,920
Speaker 1: instead using the funds to bankroll unrelated products like the

63
00:03:58,960 --> 00:04:03,720
Speaker 1: Minnesota Viking football Stadium. This is a really interesting argument.

64
00:04:03,880 --> 00:04:06,840
Speaker 1: If you go back to nineteen ninety eight, the various

65
00:04:06,920 --> 00:04:10,840
Speaker 1: states one something like two hundred and five two hundred

66
00:04:10,840 --> 00:04:13,320
Speaker 1: and six billion dollars. I think the state of Minnesota

67
00:04:13,320 --> 00:04:17,839
Speaker 1: alone got over six billion dollars in the tobacco settlements,

68
00:04:17,839 --> 00:04:20,600
Speaker 1: with all the big tobacco companies, but including the company

69
00:04:20,640 --> 00:04:23,800
Speaker 1: that's now Altria right it used to be Philip Morris.

70
00:04:23,839 --> 00:04:28,480
Speaker 1: And so there was an enormous opportunity for not only Minnesota,

71
00:04:28,520 --> 00:04:31,159
Speaker 1: but for all of the states to use that money

72
00:04:31,279 --> 00:04:35,400
Speaker 1: to really create better public health programs, better education programs

73
00:04:35,440 --> 00:04:38,679
Speaker 1: to reduce smoking and educate people about the dangers of smoking,

74
00:04:39,080 --> 00:04:42,400
Speaker 1: and intervene in trends like this. And I think that

75
00:04:42,560 --> 00:04:45,880
Speaker 1: Jewel and Altria have a good case to make that

76
00:04:46,000 --> 00:04:49,440
Speaker 1: not only Minnesota, but literally every state in the country

77
00:04:49,800 --> 00:04:52,120
Speaker 1: basically wasted that opportunity. When we look at what they

78
00:04:52,120 --> 00:04:54,960
Speaker 1: did with the money, they mostly plugged holes in state

79
00:04:55,000 --> 00:04:57,880
Speaker 1: budgets and just considered it's sort of a flush fund

80
00:04:58,279 --> 00:05:00,440
Speaker 1: to be used whenever there was a financi will needs.

81
00:05:00,520 --> 00:05:03,359
Speaker 1: It's hard to find any examples in Minnesota. There's no

82
00:05:03,400 --> 00:05:07,839
Speaker 1: accession of a state that really used the money comprehensively

83
00:05:07,880 --> 00:05:10,679
Speaker 1: for effective public health related to the danger of smoking.

84
00:05:11,080 --> 00:05:14,000
Speaker 1: Do Altria and Jewel have the same defense or are

85
00:05:14,000 --> 00:05:17,719
Speaker 1: they pointing fingers. Jewel is the main target here. Disuel

86
00:05:17,800 --> 00:05:20,839
Speaker 1: Lab is the company that developed this and marketed this,

87
00:05:20,920 --> 00:05:22,880
Speaker 1: and they are a victim of their own success with

88
00:05:23,000 --> 00:05:25,599
Speaker 1: all of the flavors that they came out with, mango

89
00:05:25,640 --> 00:05:28,760
Speaker 1: and other things that really appeals to kids. Altria has

90
00:05:28,800 --> 00:05:31,800
Speaker 1: the misfortune of having been a major investor, I think

91
00:05:31,800 --> 00:05:34,799
Speaker 1: something like twelve to thirteen billion dollar investment in Jewel.

92
00:05:34,960 --> 00:05:37,719
Speaker 1: But it's not to me at all clear why Altria

93
00:05:37,960 --> 00:05:42,320
Speaker 1: is fitting side by side defending this case with Jewel. Frankly,

94
00:05:42,360 --> 00:05:44,800
Speaker 1: it looks like they are there because they are such

95
00:05:44,839 --> 00:05:47,720
Speaker 1: a big player in the overall tobacco industry and not

96
00:05:47,839 --> 00:05:50,919
Speaker 1: because they were so singularly attached to this product. In fact,

97
00:05:51,360 --> 00:05:55,320
Speaker 1: Altria has completely divested itself of its position and Jewel,

98
00:05:55,400 --> 00:05:58,680
Speaker 1: which I think was never more than a small minority percentage. Ironically,

99
00:05:58,680 --> 00:06:01,960
Speaker 1: Altria has actually invested it in a competing product, Enjoy,

100
00:06:02,360 --> 00:06:05,400
Speaker 1: which is competing with jewels, and so I'm not clear

101
00:06:05,800 --> 00:06:08,200
Speaker 1: if their apparence here is more about optics and having

102
00:06:08,680 --> 00:06:11,000
Speaker 1: you know, the biggest tobacco company in the country so

103
00:06:11,080 --> 00:06:14,000
Speaker 1: much as related to their actual activity and state of

104
00:06:14,040 --> 00:06:17,840
Speaker 1: Minnesota related to eastigs. Also for the deep pocket, yeah,

105
00:06:17,920 --> 00:06:20,279
Speaker 1: no questions. As a parent of children, I share the

106
00:06:20,320 --> 00:06:25,640
Speaker 1: concern about the effective, dangerously effective marketing of east cigarettes.

107
00:06:25,640 --> 00:06:28,920
Speaker 1: But it does seem that Altria is at the table

108
00:06:29,320 --> 00:06:32,320
Speaker 1: mostly not only for their size and disability, but also

109
00:06:32,640 --> 00:06:34,960
Speaker 1: for the potential resources that they can add to the

110
00:06:35,000 --> 00:06:37,760
Speaker 1: pool of funds. So I agree with your comment about

111
00:06:37,760 --> 00:06:39,720
Speaker 1: them being a deep pocket here. As far as if

112
00:06:39,760 --> 00:06:43,240
Speaker 1: the jury thinks the state has some responsibility here, is

113
00:06:43,240 --> 00:06:47,640
Speaker 1: this a case where the jury can allocate damages. Yeah, absolutely,

114
00:06:47,680 --> 00:06:51,800
Speaker 1: the jury does have the ability to attribute comparative amount

115
00:06:52,080 --> 00:06:55,800
Speaker 1: and to assess responsibilities. So yeah, it's a tricky case

116
00:06:55,880 --> 00:06:59,359
Speaker 1: for Altria because it obviously the goal is to show

117
00:06:59,360 --> 00:07:02,000
Speaker 1: that this is a bigger, more complex problem that isn't

118
00:07:02,040 --> 00:07:04,719
Speaker 1: specifically tied to this, but also to try to minimize

119
00:07:04,760 --> 00:07:08,000
Speaker 1: its share of any damages that are awarded. So what's

120
00:07:08,040 --> 00:07:11,280
Speaker 1: the question the jury will have to answer. I mean,

121
00:07:11,520 --> 00:07:17,480
Speaker 1: the question is really whether Jewel engaged in deceptive marketing

122
00:07:17,520 --> 00:07:22,120
Speaker 1: practices that targeted Minnesota youth. And so that's really the

123
00:07:22,200 --> 00:07:24,400
Speaker 1: claim that's being made, essentially, that there was some kind

124
00:07:24,440 --> 00:07:28,720
Speaker 1: of fraudulent practice, you know, that there was actually intention

125
00:07:29,320 --> 00:07:34,480
Speaker 1: to lull kids into taking up vaping in the marketing

126
00:07:34,480 --> 00:07:36,480
Speaker 1: that they use, rather than this being a case of

127
00:07:36,600 --> 00:07:40,120
Speaker 1: kids being marketing, you know that was intended for adults,

128
00:07:40,160 --> 00:07:44,120
Speaker 1: that in fact, the entire strategy of Jewel was to

129
00:07:44,480 --> 00:07:47,520
Speaker 1: hook a whole new generation of young kids on vaping.

130
00:07:48,120 --> 00:07:52,440
Speaker 1: Jewel has faced thousands of lawsuits across the nation, but

131
00:07:52,600 --> 00:07:56,520
Speaker 1: most have settled, and it said that Minnesota had rejected

132
00:07:56,520 --> 00:08:00,280
Speaker 1: settlement offers similar to those reached with other states, which

133
00:08:00,280 --> 00:08:03,560
Speaker 1: provided quote hundreds of millions of dollars to further combat

134
00:08:03,680 --> 00:08:08,520
Speaker 1: underage use and developed cessation programs in those states. So

135
00:08:08,800 --> 00:08:11,400
Speaker 1: is this for the good of Minnesota or is this,

136
00:08:11,720 --> 00:08:15,040
Speaker 1: you know, for making a name and making a statement

137
00:08:15,160 --> 00:08:17,800
Speaker 1: about these products. I'm just trying to figure out why

138
00:08:17,840 --> 00:08:21,720
Speaker 1: they wouldn't settle. Yeah, it definitely is an aggressive strategy

139
00:08:21,800 --> 00:08:23,800
Speaker 1: here on the part of the state of Minnesota. It

140
00:08:23,880 --> 00:08:27,680
Speaker 1: seems interesting that the state Attorney General, Keith Ellison is

141
00:08:27,720 --> 00:08:31,600
Speaker 1: actually taking the lead in trying this case. He's certainly

142
00:08:31,600 --> 00:08:36,160
Speaker 1: someone who has a colorful political history nationally, and I

143
00:08:36,200 --> 00:08:39,880
Speaker 1: do think there's certainly a question of whether there's some grandstanding,

144
00:08:40,280 --> 00:08:41,920
Speaker 1: you know, whether it's to create a name for him

145
00:08:42,040 --> 00:08:44,640
Speaker 1: or just to make a statement by taking such an

146
00:08:44,679 --> 00:08:47,520
Speaker 1: aggressive position on this case rather than following the path

147
00:08:47,640 --> 00:08:51,120
Speaker 1: of other states and pursuing a quicker settlement. The State

148
00:08:51,120 --> 00:08:54,880
Speaker 1: of Minnesota hasn't set a number for damages, but Ellison

149
00:08:54,920 --> 00:08:58,080
Speaker 1: said that it could be in the ballpark with Minnesota's

150
00:08:58,160 --> 00:09:01,280
Speaker 1: landmarks seven point one bill million dollars settlement with the

151
00:09:01,320 --> 00:09:05,600
Speaker 1: tobacco industry in nineteen ninety eight. But wasn't that a

152
00:09:05,640 --> 00:09:08,480
Speaker 1: bigger case the case with the tobacco industry, and didn't

153
00:09:08,480 --> 00:09:12,760
Speaker 1: it go back decades. It's really hard to imagine how

154
00:09:12,800 --> 00:09:15,920
Speaker 1: the problem of jewel could be taken as equivalent as

155
00:09:16,000 --> 00:09:19,400
Speaker 1: the nineteen ninety eight tobacco settlement, which was really addressing

156
00:09:19,679 --> 00:09:23,320
Speaker 1: decades and decades of actually deceptive marketing where the tobacco

157
00:09:23,360 --> 00:09:27,600
Speaker 1: industry knew how dangerous smoking was to American health and

158
00:09:28,000 --> 00:09:31,319
Speaker 1: clearly did everything it could to block that information from

159
00:09:31,320 --> 00:09:33,440
Speaker 1: coming out and to keep pushing a product that it

160
00:09:33,480 --> 00:09:36,319
Speaker 1: knew was deadly. So the conduct here happened in a

161
00:09:36,440 --> 00:09:38,840
Speaker 1: much shorter period of time. I don't think Jewel even

162
00:09:38,920 --> 00:09:41,400
Speaker 1: entered the market until twenty sixteen, and I think the

163
00:09:41,440 --> 00:09:44,080
Speaker 1: main period we're focusing on is like twenty sixteen to

164
00:09:44,120 --> 00:09:47,120
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen. So it seems like this should be ultimately

165
00:09:47,120 --> 00:09:50,760
Speaker 1: a drop in the bucket compared to the broader tobacco settlement.

166
00:09:50,880 --> 00:09:53,520
Speaker 1: And again, it does to me raised questions why it's

167
00:09:53,520 --> 00:09:56,640
Speaker 1: any general Ellison is taking such an aggressive position here,

168
00:09:56,960 --> 00:09:58,840
Speaker 1: Not to say that this isn't a problem, but to

169
00:09:58,880 --> 00:10:01,360
Speaker 1: suggest that it's on par with the whole tobacco crisis

170
00:10:01,440 --> 00:10:04,400
Speaker 1: seems a bit much. If the state of Minnesota did

171
00:10:04,440 --> 00:10:09,200
Speaker 1: win here, would it help other states to get leverage

172
00:10:09,240 --> 00:10:12,439
Speaker 1: to reach settlements? I mean, how would it affect states

173
00:10:12,480 --> 00:10:15,680
Speaker 1: outside of Minnesota, or you know, the general population outside

174
00:10:15,679 --> 00:10:19,040
Speaker 1: of Minnesota. I mean, I think if a jury is

175
00:10:19,360 --> 00:10:23,000
Speaker 1: receptive and gives Minnesota, give a Jorney General Ellison a

176
00:10:23,160 --> 00:10:26,240
Speaker 1: multi billion dollars or even a billion dollars settlement here,

177
00:10:26,600 --> 00:10:30,240
Speaker 1: I think it will embolden other states, and it will

178
00:10:30,360 --> 00:10:34,080
Speaker 1: concern Jewels and potentially Altria and sort of increase the

179
00:10:34,160 --> 00:10:37,480
Speaker 1: numbers that are being paid out, which are already significant

180
00:10:37,480 --> 00:10:39,520
Speaker 1: and in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So I

181
00:10:39,559 --> 00:10:42,000
Speaker 1: do think that this case in a sense will either

182
00:10:42,080 --> 00:10:45,280
Speaker 1: strengthen or weaken the assessments on both sides of what

183
00:10:45,360 --> 00:10:48,079
Speaker 1: this case is worse and what this harm is worse

184
00:10:48,160 --> 00:10:50,000
Speaker 1: than what it's going to take settle these cases. So

185
00:10:50,080 --> 00:10:52,920
Speaker 1: there is exposure here. If Minnesota wins this case, there's

186
00:10:52,920 --> 00:10:55,200
Speaker 1: going to be more states that are willing to be

187
00:10:55,240 --> 00:10:58,320
Speaker 1: more aggressive and push for more which is going to

188
00:10:58,360 --> 00:11:02,199
Speaker 1: be obviously bad for Joel in Altria. And if Minnesota

189
00:11:02,280 --> 00:11:06,520
Speaker 1: loses the case, will Jewel in Altria be hesitant to

190
00:11:06,559 --> 00:11:09,920
Speaker 1: settle these cases? Again? I mean it's more like I

191
00:11:09,920 --> 00:11:11,679
Speaker 1: think of it a little bit like a stock, right,

192
00:11:11,720 --> 00:11:14,800
Speaker 1: So if Minnesota loses this case, then the value of

193
00:11:14,840 --> 00:11:17,880
Speaker 1: the claims that other states and jurisdictions could make against

194
00:11:18,000 --> 00:11:21,640
Speaker 1: Jewel against Altria will be a little bit lower. And

195
00:11:21,800 --> 00:11:24,920
Speaker 1: Jewels already shown a desire to settle these cases. I

196
00:11:25,000 --> 00:11:27,880
Speaker 1: just think it may be slightly more aggressive and settle

197
00:11:27,960 --> 00:11:29,880
Speaker 1: for a little bit less. But at the end of

198
00:11:29,880 --> 00:11:32,160
Speaker 1: the day, it seems to me that these companies have

199
00:11:32,320 --> 00:11:36,920
Speaker 1: set aside huge reserves, you know, to pay off claims here,

200
00:11:37,160 --> 00:11:40,080
Speaker 1: not because they agree that there was any deceptive marketing,

201
00:11:40,120 --> 00:11:42,800
Speaker 1: but simply because it's not a popular position to be

202
00:11:43,120 --> 00:11:47,720
Speaker 1: defending marketing that clearly impacted kids and drove more kids

203
00:11:47,760 --> 00:11:50,560
Speaker 1: to vaping. And these companies just need to do what

204
00:11:50,600 --> 00:11:52,920
Speaker 1: they can to get rid of these cases as efficiently

205
00:11:52,920 --> 00:11:55,080
Speaker 1: as they can. So I think this case is going

206
00:11:55,120 --> 00:11:56,840
Speaker 1: to be significant one way or the other. It's going

207
00:11:56,880 --> 00:11:59,560
Speaker 1: to make these cases around the country a little bit

208
00:11:59,600 --> 00:12:03,040
Speaker 1: more are a little bit lessvaluable. Critics of the public

209
00:12:03,120 --> 00:12:07,360
Speaker 1: nuisance theory say that it allows executive officers like state

210
00:12:07,400 --> 00:12:12,440
Speaker 1: attorneys general to improperly step in and replace the role

211
00:12:12,520 --> 00:12:16,280
Speaker 1: of administrative agencies and lawmakers, which should be the ones

212
00:12:16,360 --> 00:12:20,120
Speaker 1: regulating the industry. Do you agree with that or disagree?

213
00:12:20,440 --> 00:12:23,480
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not a stan of the expansion of

214
00:12:23,520 --> 00:12:26,360
Speaker 1: public nuisance theory. I think that it played a very

215
00:12:26,520 --> 00:12:29,120
Speaker 1: valuable role in America when it came to some of

216
00:12:29,160 --> 00:12:33,800
Speaker 1: the terrible environmental harm that American industry imposed on different

217
00:12:33,800 --> 00:12:37,400
Speaker 1: parts of the country, where we saw long term, real

218
00:12:37,720 --> 00:12:41,280
Speaker 1: environmental costs that were imposed. You know, when toxins were

219
00:12:41,280 --> 00:12:43,440
Speaker 1: spread in particular parts of the country. I think these

220
00:12:43,559 --> 00:12:48,280
Speaker 1: kind of social behavior oriented public nuisance cases, as in

221
00:12:48,320 --> 00:12:52,320
Speaker 1: the case of opioids and here, are really questionable. You

222
00:12:52,320 --> 00:12:54,480
Speaker 1: can see why it's very exciting to states and to

223
00:12:54,600 --> 00:12:57,160
Speaker 1: executive leaders. But I agree that the questions of the

224
00:12:57,240 --> 00:13:00,199
Speaker 1: long term harm and long term responsibility are probably going

225
00:13:00,240 --> 00:13:02,720
Speaker 1: to be addressed more accurately and with a little bit

226
00:13:02,800 --> 00:13:06,640
Speaker 1: less passion and uncertainty in other places than putting them

227
00:13:06,640 --> 00:13:09,600
Speaker 1: before juries. So I agree with that criticism. The trials

228
00:13:09,600 --> 00:13:12,959
Speaker 1: expected to last three weeks, so we'll find out just

229
00:13:13,040 --> 00:13:16,200
Speaker 1: how the public nusance theory works here. You know, this

230
00:13:16,280 --> 00:13:18,640
Speaker 1: case makes me wonder what's the next issue that we're

231
00:13:18,640 --> 00:13:23,720
Speaker 1: going to see where Americans engaging in dangerous unhealthy behavior

232
00:13:23,960 --> 00:13:26,319
Speaker 1: is going to lead to a public nusance theory. I'm

233
00:13:26,320 --> 00:13:28,600
Speaker 1: still waiting for the sugar industry, you know, for the

234
00:13:28,600 --> 00:13:32,079
Speaker 1: first public nuisance case food. I don't know where it's

235
00:13:32,080 --> 00:13:34,160
Speaker 1: going to be. But I think this kind of reflects

236
00:13:34,160 --> 00:13:36,640
Speaker 1: the trend in American society where, you know, on the

237
00:13:36,640 --> 00:13:38,320
Speaker 1: one he had is good to in my opinion, that

238
00:13:38,320 --> 00:13:42,880
Speaker 1: we're thinking about where the dangers two consumers are. You know,

239
00:13:42,880 --> 00:13:45,160
Speaker 1: On the other hand, it's not always easy to get

240
00:13:45,240 --> 00:13:49,360
Speaker 1: right exactly who's to blame, Thanks Harry, that's healthcare attorney

241
00:13:49,400 --> 00:13:54,199
Speaker 1: Harry Nelson of Nelson Hardeman. The United Nations has released

242
00:13:54,240 --> 00:13:57,440
Speaker 1: an alarming report on the threat to the world's climate.

243
00:13:57,960 --> 00:14:02,760
Speaker 1: UN Secretary General and Tone Guiterrez compared climate change to

244
00:14:02,840 --> 00:14:06,160
Speaker 1: a ticking time bomb and call the report a how

245
00:14:06,240 --> 00:14:09,600
Speaker 1: to guide to diffuse the climate time bomb. You have

246
00:14:09,679 --> 00:14:12,680
Speaker 1: never been better equipped to solve the climate challenge. But

247
00:14:12,800 --> 00:14:16,400
Speaker 1: we must move into warp speed climate action now. We

248
00:14:16,480 --> 00:14:19,840
Speaker 1: don't have a moment to lose, and sixteen kids in

249
00:14:19,920 --> 00:14:23,840
Speaker 1: Montana are not losing any time. They're suing the state

250
00:14:23,920 --> 00:14:27,480
Speaker 1: for robbing them of a clean and healthful environment guaranteed

251
00:14:27,480 --> 00:14:31,440
Speaker 1: in the state's constitution, with its energy policy and extensive

252
00:14:31,480 --> 00:14:34,640
Speaker 1: support of fossil fuels. It will be the first trial

253
00:14:34,760 --> 00:14:38,840
Speaker 1: involving a constitutional climate case, and it begins on June

254
00:14:38,880 --> 00:14:42,960
Speaker 1: twelfth in Helena. Joining me is Michael Girard, director of

255
00:14:43,000 --> 00:14:46,560
Speaker 1: the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School,

256
00:14:47,000 --> 00:14:50,120
Speaker 1: tell us about the complaint file by these Montana kids.

257
00:14:51,120 --> 00:14:53,800
Speaker 1: These young people are suing the state of Montana in

258
00:14:53,960 --> 00:14:59,040
Speaker 1: Montana State Court saying that the state's fossil fuel friendly

259
00:14:59,600 --> 00:15:04,240
Speaker 1: policy violate the state constitution. The Montana State Constitution has

260
00:15:04,240 --> 00:15:07,320
Speaker 1: a cause guaranteeing a right to a clean and healthy environment,

261
00:15:07,960 --> 00:15:10,560
Speaker 1: and the plaintiffs are saying that the state is violating

262
00:15:10,600 --> 00:15:13,720
Speaker 1: that right by allowing so much coal and oil and

263
00:15:13,800 --> 00:15:20,720
Speaker 1: gas throwing. And Montana added that language in nineteen seventy two.

264
00:15:21,200 --> 00:15:24,280
Speaker 1: Has it done anything since nineteen seventy two to live

265
00:15:24,360 --> 00:15:27,760
Speaker 1: up to that very little? They are one of the

266
00:15:27,880 --> 00:15:32,400
Speaker 1: major fossil fuel producing states in the country. What is

267
00:15:32,400 --> 00:15:36,400
Speaker 1: the state's response to this? The state says that provision

268
00:15:36,440 --> 00:15:40,560
Speaker 1: of the constitution does not really mean that they have

269
00:15:40,640 --> 00:15:43,880
Speaker 1: to do anything differently than what they're doing. They're saying

270
00:15:43,920 --> 00:15:47,200
Speaker 1: that the young people don't have standing to sue, and

271
00:15:47,560 --> 00:15:50,520
Speaker 1: most importantly, that it's not the job of the courts

272
00:15:50,640 --> 00:15:53,280
Speaker 1: to set the state's energy and climate policy. That it's

273
00:15:53,360 --> 00:15:58,280
Speaker 1: up to the elected legislature and governor. The plaintiffs are

274
00:15:58,800 --> 00:16:03,000
Speaker 1: kids who have difference stories about how climate change affected them.

275
00:16:04,200 --> 00:16:08,920
Speaker 1: That's right. They all have been affected by whether it's

276
00:16:08,960 --> 00:16:14,080
Speaker 1: extreme heat or rainfall or drought or other kinds of issues,

277
00:16:14,120 --> 00:16:17,520
Speaker 1: so that they are working to establish that they have

278
00:16:17,600 --> 00:16:21,720
Speaker 1: been personally affected by climate change. The track, then, I assume,

279
00:16:21,840 --> 00:16:25,520
Speaker 1: has said that they do have standing. Yeah, so far

280
00:16:25,640 --> 00:16:28,600
Speaker 1: they may have to make additional showings in court, but

281
00:16:28,720 --> 00:16:31,160
Speaker 1: so far they have standing, and so we have a

282
00:16:31,200 --> 00:16:35,600
Speaker 1: trial set for June. Is this trial a first? There

283
00:16:35,600 --> 00:16:39,000
Speaker 1: have been almost no trials on climate change at all.

284
00:16:39,400 --> 00:16:41,680
Speaker 1: This is the first one that is asserting anything like

285
00:16:41,800 --> 00:16:45,640
Speaker 1: these theories. There was one case more than twenty years

286
00:16:45,640 --> 00:16:49,200
Speaker 1: ago from Vermont about motor vehicle standards, and another one

287
00:16:49,240 --> 00:16:52,160
Speaker 1: a couple of years ago in New York about securitious disclosure.

288
00:16:52,200 --> 00:16:54,480
Speaker 1: But this is the first one that's really getting into

289
00:16:54,520 --> 00:16:57,960
Speaker 1: the merits of these issues. Why haven't those other cases

290
00:16:58,000 --> 00:17:01,040
Speaker 1: gone to trial? What stopped them? The other cases have

291
00:17:01,240 --> 00:17:04,639
Speaker 1: pretty much all been dismissed by the courts before the trial.

292
00:17:04,720 --> 00:17:08,280
Speaker 1: The courts have found that there weren't adequate legal bases

293
00:17:08,280 --> 00:17:11,240
Speaker 1: to bring them, or that it wasn't the job of

294
00:17:11,280 --> 00:17:13,880
Speaker 1: the courts to decide these kinds of cases. But this

295
00:17:13,960 --> 00:17:19,560
Speaker 1: is a case uniquely under the state constitution of Montana,

296
00:17:20,160 --> 00:17:22,320
Speaker 1: and so it comes up in a much different way.

297
00:17:22,520 --> 00:17:24,359
Speaker 1: But I should add that just a couple of weeks ago,

298
00:17:24,400 --> 00:17:28,320
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court of Hawaii said that the environmental clause

299
00:17:28,359 --> 00:17:32,159
Speaker 1: in the Hawaii Constitution required the state to act on

300
00:17:32,280 --> 00:17:35,480
Speaker 1: climate change that was a legal matter without a trial.

301
00:17:35,800 --> 00:17:38,720
Speaker 1: But we're seeing more and more of these state constitutional

302
00:17:38,760 --> 00:17:41,879
Speaker 1: provisions having real teeth. What kind of testimony do you

303
00:17:41,880 --> 00:17:44,480
Speaker 1: expect to hear a trial. I think we'll hear from

304
00:17:44,600 --> 00:17:49,600
Speaker 1: climate scientists who are brought in by the plaintists to

305
00:17:49,640 --> 00:17:53,320
Speaker 1: testify that climate change is happening, that is mostly a

306
00:17:53,400 --> 00:17:58,520
Speaker 1: result of fossil fuel combustion, that those fossil fuels are

307
00:17:58,520 --> 00:18:02,600
Speaker 1: being burnt because of the policies of the state of

308
00:18:02,840 --> 00:18:06,640
Speaker 1: Montana in part, and that there are things that could

309
00:18:06,680 --> 00:18:10,280
Speaker 1: be done to reduce the use and combustion of fossil fuels.

310
00:18:10,320 --> 00:18:13,760
Speaker 1: There will also be testimony about the negative effects that

311
00:18:13,840 --> 00:18:18,000
Speaker 1: these individual children have suffered. We'll see if Montana tries

312
00:18:18,040 --> 00:18:23,840
Speaker 1: to rebut the scientific evidence. No court in the world

313
00:18:23,920 --> 00:18:28,199
Speaker 1: really has seriously questioned climate science. We'll see if this

314
00:18:28,359 --> 00:18:31,879
Speaker 1: is a first would they be able to have, you know,

315
00:18:32,359 --> 00:18:35,560
Speaker 1: scientists come in and say this is not climate change.

316
00:18:36,200 --> 00:18:40,920
Speaker 1: They can try. There are a very very small number

317
00:18:41,119 --> 00:18:45,840
Speaker 1: of scientists to say that, you know, it's a complete

318
00:18:45,880 --> 00:18:49,680
Speaker 1: opposition to overwhelming scientific consensus. But we'll see what to

319
00:18:49,840 --> 00:18:53,200
Speaker 1: what tactics the state tries to pull out. So this

320
00:18:53,280 --> 00:18:56,560
Speaker 1: case has been nearly a decade in the making. It's

321
00:18:56,560 --> 00:18:59,280
Speaker 1: been going on for that long. Well, the planning has

322
00:18:59,560 --> 00:19:01,520
Speaker 1: for it has been going on for some time, and

323
00:19:01,680 --> 00:19:07,879
Speaker 1: we've seen these cases brought under similar theories going on

324
00:19:07,960 --> 00:19:10,879
Speaker 1: for quite a few years. The plaintiffs, what kind of

325
00:19:10,920 --> 00:19:15,400
Speaker 1: relief are they seeking? Well, initially they're seeking a declaration

326
00:19:15,560 --> 00:19:19,320
Speaker 1: from the court that the policies and actions of Montana

327
00:19:19,440 --> 00:19:24,040
Speaker 1: violate the state constitution and are illegal. But beyond that,

328
00:19:24,080 --> 00:19:28,640
Speaker 1: they're asking the court to require the state to come

329
00:19:28,720 --> 00:19:33,159
Speaker 1: up with a plan to greatly reduce fossil fuel use

330
00:19:33,240 --> 00:19:37,199
Speaker 1: and emissions. We'll see how far the court goes. That

331
00:19:37,200 --> 00:19:42,040
Speaker 1: would be an extraordinary relief. No matter who prevails, it's

332
00:19:42,119 --> 00:19:44,240
Speaker 1: likely this is going to be appealed to the State

333
00:19:44,280 --> 00:19:48,240
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Yes, I think it's likely that whoever loses,

334
00:19:48,600 --> 00:19:50,960
Speaker 1: the loser will appeal a case to the decision to

335
00:19:51,040 --> 00:19:54,359
Speaker 1: the state Supreme Court. So what a decision for the

336
00:19:54,480 --> 00:19:59,680
Speaker 1: kids in this case have an impact outside Montana? Yes,

337
00:20:00,000 --> 00:20:02,480
Speaker 1: it would be a very strong signal about the potential

338
00:20:02,560 --> 00:20:06,560
Speaker 1: role of the courts. We saw a comparable situation a

339
00:20:06,600 --> 00:20:09,400
Speaker 1: couple of years ago where the Supreme Court of the

340
00:20:09,440 --> 00:20:15,119
Speaker 1: Netherlands ordered that country's government to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions,

341
00:20:15,160 --> 00:20:18,920
Speaker 1: and that helps spur quite a few similar lasses in

342
00:20:19,040 --> 00:20:22,680
Speaker 1: other countries around the world. If the plaintiffs win this case,

343
00:20:22,720 --> 00:20:26,520
Speaker 1: we may see more litigation using similar theories in other

344
00:20:27,000 --> 00:20:30,240
Speaker 1: places in the US. You know, I remember the case

345
00:20:30,280 --> 00:20:36,200
Speaker 1: of Juliana the United States, and that also bit young people,

346
00:20:36,240 --> 00:20:40,520
Speaker 1: but against the federal government. What happened to that case? Ultimately,

347
00:20:40,600 --> 00:20:43,200
Speaker 1: the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuits, in a

348
00:20:43,280 --> 00:20:47,560
Speaker 1: two to one decision, dismissed the case, saying that it

349
00:20:47,600 --> 00:20:50,320
Speaker 1: was not the role of the courts to be setting

350
00:20:50,440 --> 00:20:54,359
Speaker 1: energy and climate policy. The plaintiffs have now made a

351
00:20:54,440 --> 00:20:58,359
Speaker 1: motion to the district court to amend their complaint to

352
00:20:58,440 --> 00:21:03,919
Speaker 1: seek less traumatic relief, and the court has been considering

353
00:21:03,960 --> 00:21:07,240
Speaker 1: that motion for about a year. That's a long time

354
00:21:07,320 --> 00:21:11,159
Speaker 1: to consider emotion. So why do you think it is

355
00:21:11,240 --> 00:21:17,439
Speaker 1: that children and teenagers are so concerned about climate change?

356
00:21:17,480 --> 00:21:20,240
Speaker 1: When you think about teenagers, to think about them doing

357
00:21:20,280 --> 00:21:23,320
Speaker 1: more fun things than worrying about the climate, Well, it's

358
00:21:23,359 --> 00:21:26,600
Speaker 1: their future. That's a steak. By the time they get

359
00:21:26,640 --> 00:21:30,480
Speaker 1: to be old men and women, the climate could be

360
00:21:30,520 --> 00:21:33,280
Speaker 1: in what much worse shape than it is now? And

361
00:21:33,359 --> 00:21:37,720
Speaker 1: so they have a particularly strong steak in the future,

362
00:21:37,920 --> 00:21:40,200
Speaker 1: much more than those of us who won't be around

363
00:21:40,240 --> 00:21:44,760
Speaker 1: that long. And now let's change the conversation a lot

364
00:21:45,240 --> 00:21:49,359
Speaker 1: to a tiny island in the Pacific trying to do

365
00:21:49,440 --> 00:21:54,240
Speaker 1: something about climate change outside its borders. The tiny Pacific

366
00:21:54,280 --> 00:21:57,280
Speaker 1: island nation of Anahuatu is trying to get in front

367
00:21:57,280 --> 00:22:00,600
Speaker 1: of the International Court of Justice in the Hague with

368
00:22:00,680 --> 00:22:04,640
Speaker 1: the question of what are the legal obligations of the

369
00:22:04,680 --> 00:22:08,440
Speaker 1: major omitting countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions so

370
00:22:08,480 --> 00:22:12,240
Speaker 1: that the small island nations don't drown. In order to

371
00:22:12,280 --> 00:22:15,880
Speaker 1: get before the International Court of Justice, it's necessary to

372
00:22:16,240 --> 00:22:19,119
Speaker 1: have a majority vote of the members of the United

373
00:22:19,200 --> 00:22:23,120
Speaker 1: Nations General Assembly. That vote is coming up on Thursday,

374
00:22:23,680 --> 00:22:27,000
Speaker 1: and it now appears that after several years of campaigning,

375
00:22:27,040 --> 00:22:31,040
Speaker 1: Banawatu has the votes and it looks almost certain that

376
00:22:31,080 --> 00:22:33,680
Speaker 1: this motion is going to pass. In the case we'll

377
00:22:33,720 --> 00:22:37,640
Speaker 1: go to the Hay what impact would a ruling by

378
00:22:37,640 --> 00:22:41,720
Speaker 1: the Hay have? So they don't have the ability to

379
00:22:41,840 --> 00:22:47,840
Speaker 1: order countries to do anything. However, many domestic courts, courts

380
00:22:47,840 --> 00:22:50,800
Speaker 1: of a lot of other countries have been issuing rulings

381
00:22:50,880 --> 00:22:55,160
Speaker 1: based on international law and human rights theories of acquiring

382
00:22:55,760 --> 00:22:58,920
Speaker 1: their countries to do more on climate change. A decision

383
00:22:59,040 --> 00:23:01,840
Speaker 1: from the International Court of Justice would be the most

384
00:23:02,040 --> 00:23:06,720
Speaker 1: definitive statement yet about how international law and Newman rights

385
00:23:06,800 --> 00:23:10,480
Speaker 1: law applied a climate change and it could spur even

386
00:23:10,640 --> 00:23:15,760
Speaker 1: stronger decisions by the domestic courts of more countries. To

387
00:23:15,880 --> 00:23:20,400
Speaker 1: someone looking from the outside at these climate change cases,

388
00:23:20,680 --> 00:23:23,280
Speaker 1: it seems as if we hear a lot about the

389
00:23:23,359 --> 00:23:27,879
Speaker 1: cases and then disappointing conclusions for those who want to

390
00:23:27,880 --> 00:23:31,000
Speaker 1: fight climate change. I mean even you know the Supreme

391
00:23:31,000 --> 00:23:34,440
Speaker 1: Court last year in the West Virginia EPA case, our

392
00:23:34,520 --> 00:23:38,479
Speaker 1: climate change activists making headway, or they are making headway,

393
00:23:38,600 --> 00:23:42,320
Speaker 1: not enough. But back in two thousand and seven, the

394
00:23:42,359 --> 00:23:46,040
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, in a case called Masterchusetts versus EPA, said

395
00:23:46,080 --> 00:23:48,640
Speaker 1: that EPA had the power under the Clean Air Act

396
00:23:48,680 --> 00:23:52,800
Speaker 1: to regulate greenhouse gases. Based on that, the Obama administration,

397
00:23:53,400 --> 00:23:57,600
Speaker 1: using the Supreme Court decision, did many things that reduced

398
00:23:57,680 --> 00:24:01,080
Speaker 1: greenhouse gas emissions. There are lots of others out there.

399
00:24:00,920 --> 00:24:04,399
Speaker 1: There's not a magic bullet, there's no one decision that

400
00:24:04,560 --> 00:24:07,240
Speaker 1: is going to solve climate change, but a lot of

401
00:24:07,240 --> 00:24:11,479
Speaker 1: these are incrementally adding up to real progress. And are

402
00:24:11,520 --> 00:24:15,080
Speaker 1: there some states where's working better than others? Well, we

403
00:24:15,200 --> 00:24:19,440
Speaker 1: certainly see a lot of action in states like California,

404
00:24:19,480 --> 00:24:24,040
Speaker 1: which has long been the leader, New York, Massachusetts, Washington,

405
00:24:24,480 --> 00:24:29,040
Speaker 1: all of them are doing much more on climate change

406
00:24:29,040 --> 00:24:31,680
Speaker 1: than most of the rest of the country. These were

407
00:24:31,720 --> 00:24:34,600
Speaker 1: not spurred by lasses. These were mostly spurred by the

408
00:24:35,160 --> 00:24:40,199
Speaker 1: local political support for for action on climate change. And

409
00:24:40,280 --> 00:24:44,280
Speaker 1: do you feel that more people get climate change than

410
00:24:44,880 --> 00:24:47,679
Speaker 1: did let's say, five years ago, More people know about

411
00:24:47,720 --> 00:24:52,280
Speaker 1: it and are attuned to it. Yes, The polling is

412
00:24:52,320 --> 00:24:57,120
Speaker 1: clear that a larger percentage of the public is alarmed

413
00:24:57,119 --> 00:25:00,640
Speaker 1: about climate change and the scientific evidence that's coming out

414
00:25:00,720 --> 00:25:03,040
Speaker 1: from the ends to that alarm. There are still those

415
00:25:03,119 --> 00:25:06,080
Speaker 1: who don't believe it or don't believe it's serious, but

416
00:25:06,160 --> 00:25:09,880
Speaker 1: that seems to be a shrinking number. And internationally, are

417
00:25:09,920 --> 00:25:14,359
Speaker 1: you seeing more use of the courts to combat climate change?

418
00:25:15,520 --> 00:25:19,400
Speaker 1: On Thursday as well, the European Court of Human Rights

419
00:25:19,520 --> 00:25:23,159
Speaker 1: is hearing two climate change cases, one brought by a

420
00:25:23,200 --> 00:25:28,000
Speaker 1: group of senior women in Switzerland and other brought by

421
00:25:28,040 --> 00:25:32,320
Speaker 1: the former mayor of a town in France that's having

422
00:25:32,320 --> 00:25:34,840
Speaker 1: a lot of c level rights problems. So we're seeing

423
00:25:34,920 --> 00:25:38,000
Speaker 1: an intensification of the use of the courts around the

424
00:25:38,000 --> 00:25:41,199
Speaker 1: world to fight climate change. Thanks so much for being

425
00:25:41,240 --> 00:25:44,280
Speaker 1: on the Bloomberg Law Show. That's Michael Gerard, director of

426
00:25:44,280 --> 00:25:47,840
Speaker 1: the Saban Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.

427
00:25:48,359 --> 00:25:50,680
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

428
00:25:51,040 --> 00:25:53,320
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

429
00:25:53,400 --> 00:25:57,679
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

430
00:25:57,880 --> 00:26:02,000
Speaker 1: and at www dot Blue, Bomberg dot com, slash podcast

431
00:26:02,240 --> 00:26:04,879
Speaker 1: Slash Law, and remember to tune in to The Bloomberg

432
00:26:04,960 --> 00:26:08,320
Speaker 1: Law Show every week night at ten pm Wall Street Time.

433
00:26:08,880 --> 00:26:11,639
Speaker 1: I'm June Grossow, and you're listening to Bloomberg