1
00:00:00,320 --> 00:00:04,359
Speaker 1: The Justice Department is appealing a Texas federal judge's decision

2
00:00:04,519 --> 00:00:08,880
Speaker 1: to invalidate the Affordable Care Act requirement that private health

3
00:00:08,920 --> 00:00:13,760
Speaker 1: insurers fully cover preventive health screenings at no cost to patience.

4
00:00:14,280 --> 00:00:18,200
Speaker 1: This comes four years after the same judge, Rit O'Connor

5
00:00:18,360 --> 00:00:21,680
Speaker 1: of the Northern District of Texas, tried to toss the

6
00:00:21,920 --> 00:00:27,000
Speaker 1: entire ACA as unconstitutional. Of course, the Supreme Court reverse

7
00:00:27,120 --> 00:00:31,080
Speaker 1: that ruling. O'Connor's latest decision kicks off a case that

8
00:00:31,160 --> 00:00:34,080
Speaker 1: could also wind up at the Supreme Court and has

9
00:00:34,120 --> 00:00:38,440
Speaker 1: financial implications for some one hundred fifty million Americans on

10
00:00:38,640 --> 00:00:43,159
Speaker 1: employer sponsored health plans. Here's White House Press Secretary Karine

11
00:00:43,200 --> 00:00:46,479
Speaker 1: Jean Pierre, it's yet another attack on the ability of

12
00:00:46,520 --> 00:00:51,320
Speaker 1: Americans to make their own healthcare choices. Efforts to undermine

13
00:00:51,440 --> 00:00:55,120
Speaker 1: us requirement are wrong, and they take us backwards, not forwards.

14
00:00:55,800 --> 00:00:59,000
Speaker 1: Joining me, as Lawrence Gostin, Faculty director of the O'Neill

15
00:00:59,120 --> 00:01:01,720
Speaker 1: Institute for a New National and Global Health Law at

16
00:01:01,760 --> 00:01:07,440
Speaker 1: Georgetown University, tell us about this decision, what kinds of

17
00:01:07,440 --> 00:01:13,560
Speaker 1: services it affects. It affects a whole host of highly

18
00:01:13,600 --> 00:01:21,280
Speaker 1: effective prevention services. These include things like cancer screening, pregnancy care,

19
00:01:21,840 --> 00:01:30,200
Speaker 1: they involve HIV medications, datons, hypertension screening. Basically, anything that

20
00:01:31,319 --> 00:01:34,560
Speaker 1: a patient would go to the hospital for what to

21
00:01:34,600 --> 00:01:39,800
Speaker 1: their doctor for to prevent disease that has very high

22
00:01:39,959 --> 00:01:44,400
Speaker 1: cost benefit ratio would be on the chopping block. So

23
00:01:44,440 --> 00:01:48,960
Speaker 1: this is really serious. Of all of the attempts to

24
00:01:49,520 --> 00:01:54,960
Speaker 1: dismantle the Affordable Care Act, and basically it's had eight

25
00:01:55,000 --> 00:01:58,920
Speaker 1: trips to the United States Supreme Court, which is unprecedented,

26
00:01:59,440 --> 00:02:03,440
Speaker 1: almost one hundred attempts to repeal it. And now this

27
00:02:04,000 --> 00:02:08,680
Speaker 1: Wou've got the most important part of the Affordable Care Act,

28
00:02:08,800 --> 00:02:13,480
Speaker 1: which is prevention. And it's important to mention that prevention

29
00:02:14,240 --> 00:02:17,880
Speaker 1: is mentioned more than two hundred times in the Affordable

30
00:02:17,919 --> 00:02:22,919
Speaker 1: Care Act. That's the heart and soul of this law.

31
00:02:23,560 --> 00:02:28,560
Speaker 1: And here we've got a very conservative judge, known hostile

32
00:02:28,639 --> 00:02:32,760
Speaker 1: to the AA, who's in the past struck the whole

33
00:02:32,840 --> 00:02:37,000
Speaker 1: law down, only to be overturned, issuing a nationwide injunction

34
00:02:37,080 --> 00:02:43,400
Speaker 1: against preventive care services. So does this potentially affect not

35
00:02:43,520 --> 00:02:47,560
Speaker 1: just people who get insurance through Obamacare but all Americans

36
00:02:47,560 --> 00:02:53,240
Speaker 1: with private healthcare coverage. Yes, it includes most people with

37
00:02:53,320 --> 00:02:57,760
Speaker 1: private health insurance, and that private health insurance. Now, I

38
00:02:57,840 --> 00:03:03,240
Speaker 1: don't anticipate that insurers will stop covering these, but I

39
00:03:03,400 --> 00:03:06,720
Speaker 1: do anticipate that many of them, not at all, will

40
00:03:06,840 --> 00:03:12,799
Speaker 1: charge a hefty co pay or deductible. And that may

41
00:03:12,840 --> 00:03:17,080
Speaker 1: not affect the richest people, but we know that for

42
00:03:18,080 --> 00:03:22,040
Speaker 1: low and working class Americans, they will stay away from

43
00:03:22,080 --> 00:03:25,880
Speaker 1: their doctor if they have to pay for these prevention services.

44
00:03:26,600 --> 00:03:30,800
Speaker 1: Was this legal challenge brought on religious grounds, because I

45
00:03:30,840 --> 00:03:33,880
Speaker 1: don't see what all these preventive care services have to

46
00:03:33,919 --> 00:03:37,880
Speaker 1: do with religion. They were brought on two grounds. One

47
00:03:38,320 --> 00:03:44,520
Speaker 1: was that the United States Preventative Services Task Force was

48
00:03:44,640 --> 00:03:50,160
Speaker 1: not duly authorized, appointed by the President, ratified by the Senate,

49
00:03:50,200 --> 00:03:53,520
Speaker 1: and doesn't have enough oversight by the Secretary for the

50
00:03:53,600 --> 00:03:57,440
Speaker 1: Department of Health and Human Services. And the judge role

51
00:03:57,600 --> 00:04:01,200
Speaker 1: that the United States Preventative Service, this task Force, which

52
00:04:01,280 --> 00:04:06,160
Speaker 1: recommends these cost free prevention services, that have violated the

53
00:04:06,200 --> 00:04:09,680
Speaker 1: Constitution's appointments clause. And then there was a separate claim

54
00:04:09,880 --> 00:04:15,320
Speaker 1: saying that pre exposure prophylaxis known as PREP that actually

55
00:04:15,360 --> 00:04:20,240
Speaker 1: reduces the risk of HIV from sexual transmission by nearly

56
00:04:20,360 --> 00:04:24,360
Speaker 1: ninety nine percent and from indirection jug used by at

57
00:04:24,440 --> 00:04:30,360
Speaker 1: least seventy four percent, But that violates religious freedom because

58
00:04:31,320 --> 00:04:37,560
Speaker 1: somehow they would be complicit in encouraging behaviors like homosexual

59
00:04:37,600 --> 00:04:41,680
Speaker 1: behavior or drug injunction behavior that they don't agree with, which,

60
00:04:41,680 --> 00:04:45,360
Speaker 1: of course is as a horrible slippery slope if applied

61
00:04:45,360 --> 00:04:51,160
Speaker 1: to all healthcare services. Judge O'Connor's reasoning in other opinions

62
00:04:51,240 --> 00:04:54,880
Speaker 1: has been ridiculed. I mean, what is he basing this on.

63
00:04:54,920 --> 00:04:58,279
Speaker 1: Do you think that this has any staying power? I

64
00:04:58,320 --> 00:05:02,560
Speaker 1: think it's a very weakly reason opinion, And ordinarily I

65
00:05:02,600 --> 00:05:05,520
Speaker 1: would just say, well, don't worry about it. It'll be

66
00:05:05,560 --> 00:05:10,120
Speaker 1: overturned on appeal. But that's far from certain that this

67
00:05:10,160 --> 00:05:15,239
Speaker 1: will happen, because it's going to a very conservative court

68
00:05:15,240 --> 00:05:19,200
Speaker 1: of appeal, the Fifth Circuit, and it's also going to

69
00:05:19,240 --> 00:05:23,839
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, possibly maybe likely, And both the Fifth

70
00:05:23,839 --> 00:05:28,400
Speaker 1: Circuit and the Supreme Court has been increasingly sympathetic to

71
00:05:28,560 --> 00:05:33,479
Speaker 1: religious freedom claims, and they've also been quite aggressive in

72
00:05:33,640 --> 00:05:37,880
Speaker 1: attempts to clawback public health and safety authorities and the

73
00:05:37,880 --> 00:05:42,360
Speaker 1: administrative state. And so while perhaps the appointment's clause would

74
00:05:42,400 --> 00:05:45,400
Speaker 1: not fare well with the Supreme Court, it could be

75
00:05:45,480 --> 00:05:49,880
Speaker 1: widened to the non delegation doctrine, where there's considerable support

76
00:05:49,920 --> 00:05:54,760
Speaker 1: in the Court saying that, you know, Congress didn't delegate

77
00:05:54,960 --> 00:05:59,400
Speaker 1: sufficient criteria for the task force to make its decisions,

78
00:05:59,560 --> 00:06:02,600
Speaker 1: But in view, it did because it basically told this

79
00:06:02,720 --> 00:06:06,240
Speaker 1: task course to use science and the best available evidence.

80
00:06:06,279 --> 00:06:10,480
Speaker 1: And after all, what more would the American public or

81
00:06:10,600 --> 00:06:15,960
Speaker 1: Congress expect to make decisions about which services to provide

82
00:06:16,279 --> 00:06:19,200
Speaker 1: no cost, but how effective they are and what the

83
00:06:19,240 --> 00:06:22,960
Speaker 1: evidence is for them. So this seems to me something

84
00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:27,040
Speaker 1: that I'm worried about for in its appeal. It could

85
00:06:27,080 --> 00:06:30,520
Speaker 1: be devastating for the Affordable Care Act and for the

86
00:06:31,360 --> 00:06:35,320
Speaker 1: help of the American population. But I'm not one hundred

87
00:06:35,360 --> 00:06:39,840
Speaker 1: percent certain that a very conservative judiciary is going to

88
00:06:40,920 --> 00:06:44,960
Speaker 1: be sympathetic to the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court

89
00:06:45,000 --> 00:06:49,160
Speaker 1: has grappled with the Affordable Care Act before and refuse

90
00:06:49,279 --> 00:06:51,839
Speaker 1: to strike it down. Do you think the composition of

91
00:06:51,839 --> 00:06:56,200
Speaker 1: the current court is so different that is concerned. Yes,

92
00:06:56,720 --> 00:06:59,040
Speaker 1: the composition of the Court is very different. I mean,

93
00:06:59,040 --> 00:07:03,240
Speaker 1: you're remember, in the most consequential, the very first attempt

94
00:07:03,240 --> 00:07:08,200
Speaker 1: to overturn the ACA, it was saved by the Chief Justice.

95
00:07:08,279 --> 00:07:11,440
Speaker 1: But the Chief Justice is no longer in the majority

96
00:07:11,480 --> 00:07:15,840
Speaker 1: of the Court, and there are at least five justices

97
00:07:15,880 --> 00:07:21,720
Speaker 1: that seem to be emboldened and don't really have the

98
00:07:21,920 --> 00:07:27,480
Speaker 1: same level of respect for the institution of the Supreme

99
00:07:27,480 --> 00:07:31,800
Speaker 1: Court as as Chief Justice Roberts has. So they've spent

100
00:07:31,920 --> 00:07:36,880
Speaker 1: the last term and the current possibly decisions coming up

101
00:07:36,960 --> 00:07:41,400
Speaker 1: that really dismantle the administrative state, from public health and

102
00:07:41,440 --> 00:07:46,720
Speaker 1: safety in COVID rules through to the environment. And so

103
00:07:47,480 --> 00:07:52,440
Speaker 1: I think we should not take for granted that the

104
00:07:52,560 --> 00:07:58,120
Speaker 1: ACA is saved and will be saved. And particularly it

105
00:07:58,160 --> 00:08:01,640
Speaker 1: would be a great tragedy if, of all of the

106
00:08:01,760 --> 00:08:06,320
Speaker 1: various attempts to dismantle and weaken the Affordable Care Act,

107
00:08:06,920 --> 00:08:10,320
Speaker 1: if the heart of the Act, which is prevention, were

108
00:08:10,400 --> 00:08:16,240
Speaker 1: to suffer this kind of blow. And remember, prevention is

109
00:08:16,600 --> 00:08:21,320
Speaker 1: really cost effective. It's cheap, it prevents just for example,

110
00:08:21,760 --> 00:08:26,400
Speaker 1: it's splashed cervical cancer rates by something like seventy five.

111
00:08:27,320 --> 00:08:32,440
Speaker 1: It's prevented tens of thousands of HIV infections. It's help

112
00:08:32,559 --> 00:08:38,760
Speaker 1: people survive from high blood pressure and cardiovascular problems, women

113
00:08:38,840 --> 00:08:43,880
Speaker 1: with cervical cancer or breast cancer. These are really fundamental

114
00:08:43,920 --> 00:08:49,439
Speaker 1: services that Americans rely on. Wouldn't insurance companies want to

115
00:08:49,520 --> 00:08:53,040
Speaker 1: keep those services to prevent higher costs down the road.

116
00:08:53,640 --> 00:08:56,240
Speaker 1: You would think so, and that's why I think it's

117
00:08:56,360 --> 00:09:00,360
Speaker 1: very possible that insurance companies will continue to cover for them.

118
00:09:01,000 --> 00:09:04,040
Speaker 1: But they may very well, many of them is not.

119
00:09:04,240 --> 00:09:09,920
Speaker 1: Most of them charge large co pays and deductibles, which

120
00:09:09,960 --> 00:09:15,200
Speaker 1: will persuade particularly poor and working class Americans from seeking

121
00:09:15,920 --> 00:09:20,520
Speaker 1: these kinds of cost effective preventive services. You know, being

122
00:09:20,520 --> 00:09:24,199
Speaker 1: an insurer in the United States today is that as

123
00:09:24,240 --> 00:09:29,079
Speaker 1: a risky game because people keep changing their insurance and so, yes,

124
00:09:29,120 --> 00:09:31,200
Speaker 1: it may be that if somebody was going to stay

125
00:09:31,200 --> 00:09:34,360
Speaker 1: with an insurance company for their whole life, that it

126
00:09:34,400 --> 00:09:38,360
Speaker 1: would be better to do prevention. But if an insurer

127
00:09:38,440 --> 00:09:42,079
Speaker 1: pace for prevention and then somebody goes to another insurance

128
00:09:42,080 --> 00:09:47,080
Speaker 1: company and they benefit, the math doesn't figure for those

129
00:09:47,120 --> 00:09:51,280
Speaker 1: insurance companies. Before the ACA, all I can say is

130
00:09:51,840 --> 00:09:54,840
Speaker 1: that there were many insurers that did not cover these

131
00:09:54,880 --> 00:10:02,000
Speaker 1: preventive cares, these preventive screenings, and most them charge significant

132
00:10:02,200 --> 00:10:05,560
Speaker 1: copes and deductibles. We may see a return of that,

133
00:10:06,160 --> 00:10:09,760
Speaker 1: and you know, it's possible that you know, tomorrow or

134
00:10:09,800 --> 00:10:12,720
Speaker 1: next week or next month, a woman will go for

135
00:10:13,240 --> 00:10:17,640
Speaker 1: a PAP snear or breast cancer screening, or a man

136
00:10:17,760 --> 00:10:21,080
Speaker 1: will go for a prostate cancer screening enough fun that

137
00:10:21,120 --> 00:10:24,600
Speaker 1: it's not covered. So what I find a little bit

138
00:10:24,920 --> 00:10:28,400
Speaker 1: confusing is that, you know, the Republicans were out to

139
00:10:29,200 --> 00:10:32,960
Speaker 1: get Obamacare right for lack of a better word, and

140
00:10:33,280 --> 00:10:37,480
Speaker 1: it proved to be so popular across the nation. So

141
00:10:37,520 --> 00:10:39,959
Speaker 1: why are they still attacking it? I mean, it's it's

142
00:10:39,960 --> 00:10:45,160
Speaker 1: a really popular program. It is. There is a total

143
00:10:45,200 --> 00:10:49,439
Speaker 1: disconnect in your question is absolutely well taken. You would

144
00:10:49,480 --> 00:10:54,040
Speaker 1: think after all of twelve years of the Affordable Care Act,

145
00:10:54,760 --> 00:10:58,640
Speaker 1: it's almost unfashionable to think that it's still being attacked.

146
00:10:59,040 --> 00:11:02,920
Speaker 1: It is widely popular, but there are still you know,

147
00:11:04,000 --> 00:11:10,880
Speaker 1: deeply conservative pockets of opinion, their minorities, deeply religious opinion

148
00:11:11,200 --> 00:11:15,440
Speaker 1: again their minorities. But it only takes you know, one person,

149
00:11:15,640 --> 00:11:18,760
Speaker 1: one business to bring a lawsuit, and it only takes

150
00:11:19,240 --> 00:11:24,720
Speaker 1: one judged issue a nationwide injunction, and then the rest

151
00:11:24,760 --> 00:11:28,240
Speaker 1: of it is a lottery. We don't know what the

152
00:11:28,280 --> 00:11:30,520
Speaker 1: appellate courts are going to do or what the Supreme

153
00:11:30,559 --> 00:11:33,440
Speaker 1: Court is going to do. And we've seen in just

154
00:11:33,640 --> 00:11:38,760
Speaker 1: this last term some real significant inroads into the administrative state.

155
00:11:39,320 --> 00:11:43,480
Speaker 1: This is not the same Supreme Court that we you know,

156
00:11:43,840 --> 00:11:47,120
Speaker 1: saw in the heyday of the Roberts Court, where there

157
00:11:47,200 --> 00:11:51,200
Speaker 1: was a certain balance where there was caring about the

158
00:11:51,240 --> 00:11:56,400
Speaker 1: institution itself and not straying too far off of its lane.

159
00:11:57,120 --> 00:11:59,960
Speaker 1: We're not seeing that now, and that's why I think

160
00:12:00,120 --> 00:12:04,400
Speaker 1: every American needs to be concerned. The Biden administration has

161
00:12:04,640 --> 00:12:07,240
Speaker 1: said it's going to appeal this, and I take it

162
00:12:07,280 --> 00:12:11,079
Speaker 1: a lask for the injunction issued by this judge O'Connor

163
00:12:11,440 --> 00:12:15,440
Speaker 1: to be stayed. Is the Fifth Circuit likely to grant that?

164
00:12:16,120 --> 00:12:19,240
Speaker 1: I think it's possible that the Fifth Circuit would grant it.

165
00:12:19,520 --> 00:12:21,600
Speaker 1: If it didn't it, I think it would be a

166
00:12:21,679 --> 00:12:24,880
Speaker 1: huge overreach, because you know, given the fact that you've

167
00:12:24,880 --> 00:12:29,840
Speaker 1: got a law that's been in place for twelve years,

168
00:12:29,880 --> 00:12:34,439
Speaker 1: that these services are so widely embraced by the American public,

169
00:12:35,360 --> 00:12:38,199
Speaker 1: that they're so cost effective, that you would think that

170
00:12:38,440 --> 00:12:42,640
Speaker 1: until it could be a thorough review of the merits,

171
00:12:42,679 --> 00:12:45,040
Speaker 1: that they would stay it. So I think it's possible

172
00:12:45,040 --> 00:12:49,199
Speaker 1: that that will happen. I'm just not convinced about what

173
00:12:49,280 --> 00:12:52,800
Speaker 1: the Fifth Circule will do when it decides on the merits.

174
00:12:53,880 --> 00:12:57,480
Speaker 1: This opinion. Whether it's because of the day it came

175
00:12:57,480 --> 00:13:00,120
Speaker 1: out in the midst of all the Trump news, but

176
00:13:00,160 --> 00:13:04,040
Speaker 1: it didn't get that much attention. And I'm wondering if

177
00:13:04,040 --> 00:13:07,760
Speaker 1: it's because people have become inured to these attacks on

178
00:13:07,840 --> 00:13:11,560
Speaker 1: Obamacare and they just think, oh, another attack, it'll be fine.

179
00:13:11,960 --> 00:13:14,280
Speaker 1: I think that's part of it, you know. But you know,

180
00:13:14,320 --> 00:13:16,319
Speaker 1: I can tell you that I had an op ed

181
00:13:16,880 --> 00:13:21,280
Speaker 1: due to run in a very major news outlet, and

182
00:13:21,840 --> 00:13:26,240
Speaker 1: they told it because like it or not, former President

183
00:13:26,320 --> 00:13:28,840
Speaker 1: Trump seems to suck all of the air out of

184
00:13:28,840 --> 00:13:31,480
Speaker 1: the room. That was part of it. I think part

185
00:13:31,520 --> 00:13:35,560
Speaker 1: of it is just fatigue with the attacks on the

186
00:13:35,600 --> 00:13:38,640
Speaker 1: Affordable Care Act and just assumption that everything will be

187
00:13:38,679 --> 00:13:42,880
Speaker 1: all right. But also there was this huge bombshell for

188
00:13:42,960 --> 00:13:46,480
Speaker 1: American democracy that seemed to have crowded out a lot

189
00:13:46,480 --> 00:13:49,120
Speaker 1: of the discussion. We assume it it's going to go

190
00:13:49,160 --> 00:13:51,480
Speaker 1: up to the Supreme Court. How long will it take?

191
00:13:52,200 --> 00:13:55,280
Speaker 1: It depends on how long was this circuit takes and

192
00:13:55,960 --> 00:14:00,320
Speaker 1: whether there's been expedited appeal. I mean, I think it's

193
00:14:00,360 --> 00:14:04,760
Speaker 1: possible that it could happen within months up to the court,

194
00:14:05,040 --> 00:14:12,040
Speaker 1: especially if you have at stake something so consequential to

195
00:14:12,160 --> 00:14:16,840
Speaker 1: the health and safety of the American population. We're not

196
00:14:16,960 --> 00:14:21,160
Speaker 1: talking about something trivial. Here we're talking about something that

197
00:14:22,080 --> 00:14:26,200
Speaker 1: will cost lives, and it could cost a lot of lives.

198
00:14:27,240 --> 00:14:30,400
Speaker 1: And again, this is from one judge in Texas. We've

199
00:14:30,400 --> 00:14:33,800
Speaker 1: seen this time and again. How one judge in Texas

200
00:14:34,240 --> 00:14:39,920
Speaker 1: issues a nationwide injunction. Yeah, that affects us all. Yeah,

201
00:14:39,920 --> 00:14:44,120
Speaker 1: it's it's remarkable. I mean, one judge in Texas. Another

202
00:14:44,200 --> 00:14:48,120
Speaker 1: example is that you know, the CDC issued a mask

203
00:14:48,440 --> 00:14:55,960
Speaker 1: mandate for airplane travel, and one judge in the middle

204
00:14:55,960 --> 00:14:59,920
Speaker 1: of Florida issues a nationwide injunction and pull the whole

205
00:15:00,240 --> 00:15:02,280
Speaker 1: plug on it, and we still haven't had an appeal

206
00:15:02,320 --> 00:15:06,520
Speaker 1: on it, decision on appeal. So yeah, this, you know,

207
00:15:07,280 --> 00:15:13,000
Speaker 1: we really shouldn't have a single conservative or liberal judge

208
00:15:14,600 --> 00:15:19,240
Speaker 1: be making national policy that has such consequence for the

209
00:15:19,280 --> 00:15:26,800
Speaker 1: American population. It's just simply wrong. And I think the

210
00:15:26,840 --> 00:15:31,480
Speaker 1: American public should really recall, recoil in horror at the

211
00:15:31,520 --> 00:15:36,320
Speaker 1: fact that you know, one conservative lay judge in the

212
00:15:36,320 --> 00:15:40,240
Speaker 1: middle of the country can take down in the entire

213
00:15:40,400 --> 00:15:45,600
Speaker 1: edifice of preventive healthcare in America. And we're waiting for

214
00:15:45,720 --> 00:15:51,200
Speaker 1: a judge in Amarillo, Texas, Matthew Kesmark, to see whether

215
00:15:51,320 --> 00:15:55,520
Speaker 1: or not he's going to issue a nationwide injunction against

216
00:15:55,520 --> 00:16:00,040
Speaker 1: the abortion pill and basically overrule what the FDA he

217
00:16:00,200 --> 00:16:04,800
Speaker 1: decided decades ago. Absolutely, I'm keeping a closed eye on that.

218
00:16:05,640 --> 00:16:09,800
Speaker 1: And you've got a you know, an FDA approved medication

219
00:16:10,440 --> 00:16:13,240
Speaker 1: more than fifty percent of all abortions or through that

220
00:16:13,560 --> 00:16:18,760
Speaker 1: abortion medication. There's another example of or a single federal

221
00:16:19,280 --> 00:16:22,840
Speaker 1: judge with the health of American women hang in the

222
00:16:22,880 --> 00:16:27,840
Speaker 1: balance because of one judge. It just it defies common sense. Yeah,

223
00:16:27,880 --> 00:16:32,200
Speaker 1: they've gone from forum shopping to judge shopping, looking for

224
00:16:32,320 --> 00:16:36,720
Speaker 1: specific judges to bring these cases too. Thanks so much, Lawrence.

225
00:16:37,240 --> 00:16:40,800
Speaker 1: That's Lawrence Gosten, Faculty director of the O'Neill Institute for

226
00:16:40,920 --> 00:16:47,240
Speaker 1: National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University. Prepaid call

227
00:16:47,400 --> 00:16:53,840
Speaker 1: from odd Non. Sayed's case became famous and suspect because

228
00:16:53,840 --> 00:16:58,640
Speaker 1: of the twenty fourteen podcast serial. Then last September, Sayed

229
00:16:58,760 --> 00:17:01,960
Speaker 1: walked out of prison to serving twenty three years for

230
00:17:02,000 --> 00:17:05,119
Speaker 1: the murder of his former high school girlfriend. It seemed

231
00:17:05,160 --> 00:17:08,800
Speaker 1: like the case was over in October when prosecutors dropped

232
00:17:08,800 --> 00:17:13,040
Speaker 1: the charges against him, saying DNA evidence had excluded him.

233
00:17:13,480 --> 00:17:18,200
Speaker 1: But then last week, the Appellate Court of Maryland reinstated

234
00:17:18,320 --> 00:17:22,960
Speaker 1: Sayed's conviction. The reason the victim's family hadn't received enough

235
00:17:23,080 --> 00:17:26,560
Speaker 1: notice of the September hearing where Sayed won his release,

236
00:17:27,200 --> 00:17:30,879
Speaker 1: said has said, the appeal just increases the suffering for

237
00:17:31,000 --> 00:17:34,719
Speaker 1: both families. We definitely understand that Hayes family has suffered

238
00:17:34,760 --> 00:17:39,560
Speaker 1: so much and they continue to suffer, and I just

239
00:17:39,640 --> 00:17:42,640
Speaker 1: it's just that we suffered too, and we just hope

240
00:17:42,680 --> 00:17:47,080
Speaker 1: that the court today just takes notice of that they

241
00:17:47,119 --> 00:17:49,960
Speaker 1: were a family that suffers. Also joining me is Appellet

242
00:17:50,000 --> 00:17:54,680
Speaker 1: attorney Stephen Klepper, a principle with Craymon and Graham. Why

243
00:17:55,040 --> 00:17:59,760
Speaker 1: was Sayed's murder conviction reinstated last week by the Appellate

244
00:18:00,200 --> 00:18:03,000
Speaker 1: of Maryland. What happened was that the Appellate Court of

245
00:18:03,040 --> 00:18:08,639
Speaker 1: Maryland decided that the victim representative, mister Lee, who is

246
00:18:08,680 --> 00:18:12,919
Speaker 1: the brother of the victim, Hayman Lee, that he received

247
00:18:13,400 --> 00:18:17,560
Speaker 1: inadequate notice. It was one business day before the hearing,

248
00:18:17,640 --> 00:18:20,719
Speaker 1: it was a Friday before a Monday hearing, and the

249
00:18:20,960 --> 00:18:25,760
Speaker 1: infringement on his rights under the Maryland Victim's laws was

250
00:18:25,840 --> 00:18:29,760
Speaker 1: that he was only able to attend by zoom rather

251
00:18:29,800 --> 00:18:33,040
Speaker 1: than in person. Because he desired to attend in person

252
00:18:33,320 --> 00:18:37,000
Speaker 1: and everyone else was able to attend in person. As

253
00:18:37,000 --> 00:18:39,919
Speaker 1: I understand it, the judge allowed him to address the court,

254
00:18:40,080 --> 00:18:43,520
Speaker 1: which the law doesn't expressly give victims the right to

255
00:18:43,560 --> 00:18:47,119
Speaker 1: speak at these kinds of hearings. So it seems like

256
00:18:47,400 --> 00:18:51,120
Speaker 1: a technicality, a procedure. He did attend by zoom. So

257
00:18:51,359 --> 00:18:53,879
Speaker 1: this whole thing is about him not being able to

258
00:18:53,920 --> 00:18:57,760
Speaker 1: be there in person. Yes, that is actually it. And

259
00:18:58,359 --> 00:19:01,520
Speaker 1: for so many years we've talked about criminal justice rights

260
00:19:01,600 --> 00:19:04,560
Speaker 1: as in the Fourth Amendment, and the exclusionary rule is

261
00:19:04,600 --> 00:19:09,240
Speaker 1: a technicality. What happened here was that the majority held

262
00:19:09,440 --> 00:19:14,239
Speaker 1: in great detail that mister Lee did not have the

263
00:19:14,320 --> 00:19:16,919
Speaker 1: right to address the court. He did not have the

264
00:19:17,040 --> 00:19:20,280
Speaker 1: right to cross examine any witnesses, He did not have

265
00:19:20,359 --> 00:19:24,040
Speaker 1: the right to present or attack any evidence. That was

266
00:19:24,080 --> 00:19:27,119
Speaker 1: what he was arguing that he, as the victim representative,

267
00:19:27,400 --> 00:19:31,760
Speaker 1: had that right, and all three judges rejected those arguments

268
00:19:31,800 --> 00:19:35,040
Speaker 1: for what he said he was entitled to do at

269
00:19:35,080 --> 00:19:38,480
Speaker 1: the hearing, and instead what the majority held was that, well,

270
00:19:38,520 --> 00:19:41,440
Speaker 1: he has a right to dignity under the Marilyn Constitution,

271
00:19:41,880 --> 00:19:45,080
Speaker 1: and that right of dignity was violated by the fact

272
00:19:45,119 --> 00:19:49,960
Speaker 1: that he had to attend by zoom, when everyone who

273
00:19:50,200 --> 00:19:54,000
Speaker 1: lived locally or had the means to fly in was

274
00:19:54,040 --> 00:19:57,439
Speaker 1: able to attend in person. It's stunning to me because

275
00:19:57,440 --> 00:20:01,320
Speaker 1: defendants appear for hearings by zoom, don't they They do,

276
00:20:01,960 --> 00:20:05,080
Speaker 1: they did very much through the pandemic, and the court

277
00:20:05,200 --> 00:20:09,440
Speaker 1: acknowledges that for the pandemic, many defendants who wanted to

278
00:20:09,520 --> 00:20:13,200
Speaker 1: attend in person did not have that opportunity when their

279
00:20:13,280 --> 00:20:16,640
Speaker 1: most precious rights protected by due presses of the law

280
00:20:16,640 --> 00:20:19,399
Speaker 1: were at stake. And the court said yes, but the

281
00:20:19,440 --> 00:20:23,240
Speaker 1: court was open and people were able to attend, And

282
00:20:23,600 --> 00:20:27,359
Speaker 1: because mister Lee didn't have the required notice, it was

283
00:20:27,400 --> 00:20:31,359
Speaker 1: an affront to his dignity as the victim representative. So

284
00:20:31,760 --> 00:20:35,400
Speaker 1: it is fairly hard to wrap one's mind around. And

285
00:20:35,720 --> 00:20:38,800
Speaker 1: one of the things I find very interesting here is

286
00:20:38,880 --> 00:20:41,840
Speaker 1: that what mister Lee was arguing he had a right

287
00:20:41,880 --> 00:20:45,359
Speaker 1: to do was to have the opportunity to prepare for

288
00:20:45,400 --> 00:20:48,760
Speaker 1: the hearing, that he could present his best statement that

289
00:20:48,840 --> 00:20:52,439
Speaker 1: he could, so that he could cross examine any witnesses,

290
00:20:52,680 --> 00:20:54,960
Speaker 1: so they could put on any evidence of guilt or

291
00:20:55,160 --> 00:20:58,639
Speaker 1: attack the evidence being put forward of actual innocence. And

292
00:20:58,680 --> 00:21:02,600
Speaker 1: if that was the claim, which it was, well, then notice,

293
00:21:02,680 --> 00:21:07,600
Speaker 1: so short may well have been prejudicial error. Prejudicial error

294
00:21:07,600 --> 00:21:10,760
Speaker 1: means error that is not harmless. And much of the

295
00:21:10,880 --> 00:21:14,600
Speaker 1: time what defendants do is they say, well, this right

296
00:21:14,720 --> 00:21:17,760
Speaker 1: was violated, and the courts say, well, yes, your right

297
00:21:17,880 --> 00:21:21,399
Speaker 1: was violated, but it is harmless error. And on the

298
00:21:21,440 --> 00:21:24,200
Speaker 1: civil side all the time, there are many cases here

299
00:21:24,200 --> 00:21:27,520
Speaker 1: in Maryland that say, well, yes, there was a right

300
00:21:27,600 --> 00:21:31,240
Speaker 1: to have a hearing on this motion for summary judgment

301
00:21:31,640 --> 00:21:35,520
Speaker 1: or motion to dismiss, But even though the court violated

302
00:21:35,600 --> 00:21:39,560
Speaker 1: that right, you can't identify anything that would have happened

303
00:21:39,640 --> 00:21:43,040
Speaker 1: differently had the hearing occurred, And so it is harmless error.

304
00:21:43,240 --> 00:21:48,560
Speaker 1: And so the court has essentially done in rejecting mister

305
00:21:48,720 --> 00:21:52,200
Speaker 1: Lee's contentions about what he had the right to do,

306
00:21:52,880 --> 00:21:56,919
Speaker 1: and yet still reversing means that this is akin to

307
00:21:57,080 --> 00:22:01,440
Speaker 1: what's called structural error. A structural error means it's impossible

308
00:22:01,520 --> 00:22:04,560
Speaker 1: to have harmless error. This is structural and that just

309
00:22:05,240 --> 00:22:08,439
Speaker 1: seems like a very strong ruling to me. So his

310
00:22:08,600 --> 00:22:10,800
Speaker 1: lawyer says, they're going to challenge the part of the

311
00:22:10,800 --> 00:22:15,280
Speaker 1: appellate ruling where Lee asked to be able to, as

312
00:22:15,320 --> 00:22:20,159
Speaker 1: you mentioned, actively challenge in court. The prosecutor's evidence that

313
00:22:20,240 --> 00:22:23,240
Speaker 1: the case should be dismissed. But it seems like you're

314
00:22:23,240 --> 00:22:26,360
Speaker 1: getting into a whole different thing if you start allowing

315
00:22:26,560 --> 00:22:32,200
Speaker 1: victims to interfere with the actual merits of a case.

316
00:22:32,880 --> 00:22:35,440
Speaker 1: I'm going to stick to the Maryland Constitution because of

317
00:22:35,520 --> 00:22:38,760
Speaker 1: the Maryland Constitution does is that it gives the state's

318
00:22:38,800 --> 00:22:43,760
Speaker 1: attorney the exclusive right to be the prosecutor in the

319
00:22:43,800 --> 00:22:48,480
Speaker 1: trial courts, except when the General Assembly says otherwise. And

320
00:22:48,680 --> 00:22:52,800
Speaker 1: what all three judges did was they look through and said,

321
00:22:52,880 --> 00:22:55,720
Speaker 1: here are some parts where let's say a victim has

322
00:22:55,760 --> 00:22:59,200
Speaker 1: a right to be heard, a right to present an

323
00:22:59,240 --> 00:23:02,560
Speaker 1: impacts team, And they said, not even that is here.

324
00:23:02,680 --> 00:23:06,480
Speaker 1: And so in this context, it seems quite a stretch

325
00:23:06,880 --> 00:23:10,280
Speaker 1: to say that there was an affirmative right not merely

326
00:23:10,320 --> 00:23:14,760
Speaker 1: to attend and to present an impact statement, but to

327
00:23:15,000 --> 00:23:19,480
Speaker 1: act as a prosecutor when the state's attorney would not.

328
00:23:20,119 --> 00:23:24,280
Speaker 1: And they're already are circumstances where the General Assembly has said, yes,

329
00:23:24,400 --> 00:23:27,800
Speaker 1: we will have the Attorney General be the prosecutor. It

330
00:23:27,800 --> 00:23:30,639
Speaker 1: will be someone other than the state's attorneyho will prosecute

331
00:23:30,640 --> 00:23:33,560
Speaker 1: this case. But there has been no provision in this

332
00:23:33,640 --> 00:23:38,440
Speaker 1: law for anyone to be the one to make arguments

333
00:23:38,520 --> 00:23:42,520
Speaker 1: of guilt when the prosecution isn't. And that's a pretty

334
00:23:42,520 --> 00:23:50,560
Speaker 1: conspicuous omission, because this statutory provision was created for situations

335
00:23:50,680 --> 00:23:55,280
Speaker 1: in which the state's attorney believes that that the defendant

336
00:23:55,359 --> 00:23:56,879
Speaker 1: has a right to a new trial or a right

337
00:23:56,920 --> 00:24:00,639
Speaker 1: to acquittal, and so everyone understood that this would be

338
00:24:00,680 --> 00:24:04,719
Speaker 1: something that would not be a traditional adversarial proceeding. And

339
00:24:04,800 --> 00:24:08,040
Speaker 1: so the absence of something that would say this third

340
00:24:08,080 --> 00:24:11,119
Speaker 1: party has the right to act as prosecutor, that's something

341
00:24:11,160 --> 00:24:14,040
Speaker 1: that's just not there in the statue. The court's order

342
00:24:14,520 --> 00:24:17,560
Speaker 1: to reinstate his conviction and sentence doesn't go into effect

343
00:24:17,560 --> 00:24:20,280
Speaker 1: for sixty days, so during that time a new hearing

344
00:24:20,440 --> 00:24:23,359
Speaker 1: will be scheduled. So if you look at this, the

345
00:24:23,480 --> 00:24:26,240
Speaker 1: only thing that would be different in the new hearing

346
00:24:26,520 --> 00:24:30,040
Speaker 1: is that young Lee would be given notice to attend

347
00:24:30,080 --> 00:24:33,280
Speaker 1: in person, would be there in person. But there's a

348
00:24:33,280 --> 00:24:36,720
Speaker 1: new States attorney in Baltimore. Could he have a different

349
00:24:36,840 --> 00:24:41,800
Speaker 1: position on the case. It is possible, and I do

350
00:24:41,840 --> 00:24:45,920
Speaker 1: not believe that mister Bates, our states attorney, has taken

351
00:24:45,960 --> 00:24:50,960
Speaker 1: a public position on what his intent is. He previously,

352
00:24:51,119 --> 00:24:55,640
Speaker 1: in the case of Keith Davis, junior, who had undergone

353
00:24:55,680 --> 00:24:59,760
Speaker 1: five trials. He dropped those charges rather than doing a

354
00:25:00,000 --> 00:25:04,880
Speaker 1: sixth trial, which was controversial in some quarters. And so

355
00:25:05,119 --> 00:25:08,520
Speaker 1: what I don't know is whether he is going to

356
00:25:08,600 --> 00:25:11,679
Speaker 1: do essentially the same thing with mister Sayed's case. And

357
00:25:12,640 --> 00:25:15,200
Speaker 1: I think a lot of us are sitting waiting, watching,

358
00:25:15,840 --> 00:25:20,960
Speaker 1: and I believe reading the opinion that there would be

359
00:25:21,119 --> 00:25:25,000
Speaker 1: jurisdiction to hold a new hearing during this sixty day period.

360
00:25:25,240 --> 00:25:31,240
Speaker 1: And during this sixty day period, what could happen would be, yes,

361
00:25:31,280 --> 00:25:36,520
Speaker 1: that the vacator would then be redone the same ruling.

362
00:25:37,040 --> 00:25:41,160
Speaker 1: But even in that circumstance, mister Bates would then have

363
00:25:41,240 --> 00:25:44,960
Speaker 1: the ability to decide, well, I'm going to retry rather

364
00:25:45,040 --> 00:25:48,440
Speaker 1: than dismiss the charges because the Appellate Court of Maryland

365
00:25:48,440 --> 00:25:51,840
Speaker 1: held that the prior dismissal was a nullity. I mean,

366
00:25:51,880 --> 00:25:55,359
Speaker 1: there are a lot of times where prosecutors accept plea

367
00:25:55,440 --> 00:25:58,639
Speaker 1: deals and the victim's family doesn't agree with the plea deal.

368
00:25:59,000 --> 00:26:04,040
Speaker 1: So if you start allowing victims families to be the prosecutors,

369
00:26:04,160 --> 00:26:09,600
Speaker 1: that opens up a Pandora's box. Well, from my perspective,

370
00:26:09,920 --> 00:26:14,159
Speaker 1: yes it would. And at the same time, we have

371
00:26:14,480 --> 00:26:18,720
Speaker 1: this constitutional right for victims to be treating, to be

372
00:26:18,840 --> 00:26:23,840
Speaker 1: treated with dignity. And what the Pellet Court of Maryland

373
00:26:24,640 --> 00:26:28,400
Speaker 1: held here was that yes, this was a particular affront,

374
00:26:28,720 --> 00:26:32,399
Speaker 1: and it contained language that this was unique. Normally, the

375
00:26:32,400 --> 00:26:36,720
Speaker 1: state's attorney has unfettered discretion to enter a Noah pross

376
00:26:36,800 --> 00:26:40,240
Speaker 1: a dismissal of charges. But under these unique circumstances, it

377
00:26:40,359 --> 00:26:44,160
Speaker 1: was a nullity. And in so many ways this case

378
00:26:44,320 --> 00:26:50,119
Speaker 1: has created unusual legal questions. And what I certainly find

379
00:26:50,400 --> 00:26:54,040
Speaker 1: frustrating here and that I've written about in Bloomberg Law,

380
00:26:54,440 --> 00:26:59,480
Speaker 1: is that said keeps losing by one vote margins on

381
00:26:59,640 --> 00:27:03,760
Speaker 1: matters that weren't really what the state or in this case,

382
00:27:03,840 --> 00:27:07,199
Speaker 1: the victim were arguing. And so what I would have

383
00:27:07,359 --> 00:27:09,920
Speaker 1: liked would have been many years ago. Many years ago

384
00:27:09,920 --> 00:27:14,760
Speaker 1: I've wrote, right after Judge Welch had entered the new

385
00:27:14,800 --> 00:27:17,119
Speaker 1: trial order, I've wrote an op ed in the Baltimore

386
00:27:17,160 --> 00:27:19,720
Speaker 1: Sun saying, here are the reasons just to have a

387
00:27:19,760 --> 00:27:23,040
Speaker 1: new trial. Don't appeal this, But they appealed it. And

388
00:27:23,200 --> 00:27:25,240
Speaker 1: if we had had a new trial many years ago,

389
00:27:25,640 --> 00:27:29,560
Speaker 1: instead of all of these people who very much believes

390
00:27:29,560 --> 00:27:32,960
Speaker 1: guilty and people very much believes innocent, instead of them

391
00:27:33,000 --> 00:27:35,800
Speaker 1: having to have that hypothetical argument, you could actually have

392
00:27:35,840 --> 00:27:38,919
Speaker 1: had a trial in front of a jury, and now

393
00:27:39,520 --> 00:27:43,199
Speaker 1: strange things just keep happening. What I would say is

394
00:27:43,240 --> 00:27:47,240
Speaker 1: that reading the majority opinion, what they very clearly feel

395
00:27:47,480 --> 00:27:52,639
Speaker 1: is that the state's attorney engaged in behavior that was

396
00:27:52,680 --> 00:27:56,040
Speaker 1: designed to thwart a pellet refuel and that was very

397
00:27:56,119 --> 00:27:59,240
Speaker 1: concerning for them, and a pellet courts do not like

398
00:27:59,480 --> 00:28:03,520
Speaker 1: having their review thwarted. And at the same time, what

399
00:28:03,840 --> 00:28:09,240
Speaker 1: Judge Berger kept saying at the oral argument and essentially

400
00:28:09,280 --> 00:28:12,480
Speaker 1: in his opinion is the criminal defendants have rights too.

401
00:28:12,800 --> 00:28:16,199
Speaker 1: Due process is there for the criminal defendants. That is

402
00:28:16,240 --> 00:28:19,320
Speaker 1: what has always been written in the US Constitution and

403
00:28:19,480 --> 00:28:26,000
Speaker 1: in the State Constitution. And so having this very strange

404
00:28:26,200 --> 00:28:31,080
Speaker 1: finding here that mister Lee had no right other than

405
00:28:31,119 --> 00:28:35,400
Speaker 1: to simply be present, and that it harms his substantial

406
00:28:35,520 --> 00:28:37,840
Speaker 1: rights in a way to render a nullity what happened

407
00:28:37,880 --> 00:28:41,840
Speaker 1: before because he had to attend by zoom rather than

408
00:28:41,880 --> 00:28:45,320
Speaker 1: in person. It's just odd and it is very hard

409
00:28:45,360 --> 00:28:48,640
Speaker 1: for me to imagine any other case that would have

410
00:28:48,760 --> 00:28:53,000
Speaker 1: generated such an odd opinion. And for so long I

411
00:28:53,080 --> 00:28:55,960
Speaker 1: have heard people say, well, you know, as mister sayed,

412
00:28:56,160 --> 00:28:58,640
Speaker 1: who is trying to exploit that that this case has

413
00:28:58,720 --> 00:29:03,800
Speaker 1: received an unusual amount of attention and so wants special treatment. Now,

414
00:29:03,880 --> 00:29:07,400
Speaker 1: my response to that usually is is that, yes, mister

415
00:29:07,480 --> 00:29:13,480
Speaker 1: Said's case received an unusual amount of attention, and it

416
00:29:13,600 --> 00:29:19,479
Speaker 1: resulted in finding evidence that really draws into question the

417
00:29:19,520 --> 00:29:23,120
Speaker 1: predicate for his conviction, and even the state recognized in

418
00:29:23,200 --> 00:29:25,520
Speaker 1: the prior appeal that yes, they would have had to

419
00:29:25,600 --> 00:29:30,720
Speaker 1: prove a different time when Heymn Lee died, a completely

420
00:29:30,720 --> 00:29:33,960
Speaker 1: different timeline. And my response in all of this is

421
00:29:34,080 --> 00:29:37,520
Speaker 1: is that, well, maybe this means that there are more

422
00:29:37,520 --> 00:29:40,280
Speaker 1: people in prison who are innocent than we want to admit,

423
00:29:40,800 --> 00:29:44,200
Speaker 1: and that mister Said should not be penalized for the

424
00:29:44,240 --> 00:29:47,560
Speaker 1: fact that this has drawn so much publicity. Maybe what

425
00:29:47,600 --> 00:29:49,640
Speaker 1: this should do is is to cause us to say,

426
00:29:50,000 --> 00:29:53,320
Speaker 1: are there too many barriers for people to prove their innocence,

427
00:29:53,600 --> 00:29:56,480
Speaker 1: particularly when they are serving a life sentence. Thanks for

428
00:29:56,520 --> 00:29:59,520
Speaker 1: being on the Bloomberg Law Show. That's Stephen Klepper of

429
00:29:59,680 --> 00:30:02,560
Speaker 1: cra and Graham and that's it for this edition of

430
00:30:02,600 --> 00:30:05,520
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the

431
00:30:05,600 --> 00:30:08,800
Speaker 1: latest legal news by listening to our Bloomberg Law podcasts.

432
00:30:09,160 --> 00:30:11,960
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

433
00:30:12,120 --> 00:30:17,600
Speaker 1: www dot bloomberg dot com, slash Podcasts, slash Law. I'm

434
00:30:17,680 --> 00:30:19,480
Speaker 1: June Grass. When you're listening to Bloomberg