WEBVTT - Appeals Court Throws Out Teens’ Climate Change Suit 0:00:00.360 --> 0:00:05.200 This is Bloomberg Law. Some complicated international law issues here. 0:00:05.360 --> 0:00:08.960 What's kind of docket is Chief Justice Roberts facing interviews 0:00:09.000 --> 0:00:12.080 with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg Legal experts joining me is 0:00:12.080 --> 0:00:15.239 Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg Store, Neil Devans, a 0:00:15.280 --> 0:00:18.040 professor at William and Mary Law School, and analysis of 0:00:18.120 --> 0:00:22.600 important legal issues, cases and headlines. President Trump lost resoundingly 0:00:22.680 --> 0:00:26.439 in the circuit courts and unusually large number of immigration cases. 0:00:26.520 --> 0:00:30.800 Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio is at 0:00:30.840 --> 0:00:33.919 the end of the landmark climate change lawsuit brought by 0:00:33.960 --> 0:00:36.840 twenty one young people, A panel of the Ninth Circuit 0:00:36.880 --> 0:00:40.519 Court of Appeals has thrown out the lawsuit. Despite agreeing 0:00:40.560 --> 0:00:44.479 that the plaintiffs presented compelling evidence that climate change is 0:00:44.600 --> 0:00:48.040 bringing quote the eve of destruction, the court said it 0:00:48.080 --> 0:00:50.720 was beyond the power of the judiciary to order a 0:00:50.760 --> 0:00:54.840 remedial plan. The decision echoed the questioning by Judge Andrew 0:00:54.920 --> 0:00:58.880 Hurwitz during the oral arguments, you present compelling evidence that 0:00:58.920 --> 0:01:02.080 we have a real You can make compelling evidence that 0:01:02.120 --> 0:01:05.280 we have in action by the other two branches of government. 0:01:05.600 --> 0:01:08.360 It may even rise to the level of criminal neglect. 0:01:09.080 --> 0:01:12.200 The tough question for me, I suspect for my colleagues 0:01:12.840 --> 0:01:15.840 is do we get to act because of that? Joining 0:01:15.880 --> 0:01:19.440 me is Pat Parento, professor at Vermont Law School. Many 0:01:19.520 --> 0:01:23.880 legal experts didn't even expect this to go the distance. 0:01:24.040 --> 0:01:28.839 Why is that? Well, it is an extraordinary request that 0:01:29.319 --> 0:01:33.200 the federal courts ordered the US government to begin reducing 0:01:33.640 --> 0:01:37.360 greenhouse gas emissions at the level that the scientists say 0:01:37.360 --> 0:01:40.399 are necessary. You know, courts are reluctant to make that 0:01:40.520 --> 0:01:44.520 kind of big policy judgment in most cases, and this 0:01:44.600 --> 0:01:47.440 is the biggest case of all where you're literally talking 0:01:47.440 --> 0:01:51.240 about the entire American economy and every every sector of it. 0:01:51.760 --> 0:01:54.720 And it's true that the other two branches are grid locked, 0:01:54.960 --> 0:01:56.960 and it is true that in the past the court 0:01:57.000 --> 0:01:59.920 has seen its way clear to intervene when the other 0:02:00.040 --> 0:02:05.320 branches were stuck, and most notably the desegregation cases. But 0:02:05.880 --> 0:02:08.120 this one is even bigger than those. So the courts 0:02:08.160 --> 0:02:11.920 are just reluctant to step over the line under the 0:02:11.960 --> 0:02:15.600 separation of powers doctrine and order that kind of broad 0:02:15.639 --> 0:02:20.040 scale relief. Go back and remind us what this lawsuit 0:02:20.160 --> 0:02:24.000 is about. So this is literally a case under the 0:02:24.040 --> 0:02:27.920 Constitution the Fifth Amendment substantive due process, in which the 0:02:28.000 --> 0:02:32.799 youth plaintiffs are arguing they have a fundamental constitutional right 0:02:33.120 --> 0:02:36.919 to a climate system that quote is capable of sustaining 0:02:37.000 --> 0:02:40.720 life on earth and ordered liberty. That's kind of a 0:02:40.760 --> 0:02:45.320 code word for substantive due process, ordered liberty. So it's 0:02:45.320 --> 0:02:49.040 a fundamental constitutional right. It's unenumerated, of course, like many 0:02:49.160 --> 0:02:52.320 other rights that we enjoy, including the right to privacy 0:02:52.360 --> 0:02:55.400 and all that goes with that. So it's a constitutional 0:02:55.880 --> 0:02:59.520 based case, very different from any other kind of environmental 0:02:59.560 --> 0:03:03.120 case we've ever seen, and quite sweeping, of course in 0:03:03.200 --> 0:03:06.480 its dimension. You said that this was bigger or went 0:03:06.720 --> 0:03:11.880 further than the desegregation cases. How so, Well, it literally 0:03:11.919 --> 0:03:16.840 is saying the government is affirmatively taking actions that's creating 0:03:16.880 --> 0:03:21.280 a danger to US citizens, to the U S economy, 0:03:21.400 --> 0:03:24.040 to U S security by virtue of the fact that 0:03:24.080 --> 0:03:27.560 they're promoting. The government, I mean, is promoting all of 0:03:27.600 --> 0:03:31.400 this fossil fuel development, pipelines and oil terminals and coal 0:03:31.480 --> 0:03:36.200 export terminals and drilling on land, drilling offshore, and the 0:03:36.280 --> 0:03:38.800 science is saying that has to stop, and we have 0:03:38.920 --> 0:03:43.720 to phase very very fast to renewable energy, energy efficiency, 0:03:43.960 --> 0:03:47.760 low carbon energy. We have to reach zero carbon emissions 0:03:47.760 --> 0:03:51.400 by twenty fifty, say many of the scientists. So all 0:03:51.400 --> 0:03:53.960 of the actions that the Trump administration is taking to 0:03:54.000 --> 0:03:58.000 facilitate all of this expansion of fossil fuels is going 0:03:58.040 --> 0:04:01.400 in exactly the opposite direction from what the science says 0:04:01.560 --> 0:04:05.000 is necessary. And the science further says that we're approaching 0:04:05.040 --> 0:04:07.960 these tipping points, as they call them, where you have 0:04:08.520 --> 0:04:12.720 irreversible climate change that's impossible to stop because of all 0:04:12.760 --> 0:04:16.880 these feedback loop mechanisms like the melting of the permafrost 0:04:17.000 --> 0:04:20.800 releasing methane, and the drying of the Amazon turning it 0:04:20.839 --> 0:04:24.160 into a source of emissions instead of a sink, and 0:04:24.200 --> 0:04:27.680 so on and so on. And the Ninth Circuit panel 0:04:28.000 --> 0:04:30.839 in the Juliana case acknowledged all this. It said, the 0:04:30.839 --> 0:04:34.040 plaintiffs have made a very compelling case that this is 0:04:34.080 --> 0:04:39.000 an extremely dire emergency that demands government actions. So the 0:04:39.080 --> 0:04:42.120 court walked right up to the point of saying we 0:04:42.200 --> 0:04:45.520 need to intervene, and then it backed away. This was 0:04:45.560 --> 0:04:50.200 a split decision, so one of the judges did believe 0:04:50.480 --> 0:04:54.360 that the court could handle this. Yes, the dissenting judge, 0:04:54.560 --> 0:04:59.160 Josephine Stanton She said, this is precisely the kind of 0:04:59.200 --> 0:05:02.920 case where the Core needs to enforce a constitutional right. 0:05:03.240 --> 0:05:07.360 For purposes of the Ninth Circus decision, the panel assumed 0:05:07.640 --> 0:05:11.280 that there was this constitutional right. They didn't actually decide 0:05:11.520 --> 0:05:14.520 on the merits whether there was such a right, but 0:05:14.600 --> 0:05:16.919 they said at this stage of the case, which is 0:05:17.200 --> 0:05:20.880 should we have a trial, we must accept the argument 0:05:20.960 --> 0:05:25.000 that there is a colorable basis for this constitutional right. 0:05:25.400 --> 0:05:28.040 So this was an early stage of the case, and 0:05:28.080 --> 0:05:30.760 all the youth plainists were asking for it was just 0:05:30.839 --> 0:05:35.080 a trial, and so the dissenting judge said, my goodness, 0:05:35.120 --> 0:05:37.840 at least we ought to grant these plainists a trial 0:05:38.000 --> 0:05:40.240 to see what they can prove through the evidence that 0:05:40.320 --> 0:05:43.800 they have. She said, it is as if an asteroid 0:05:43.880 --> 0:05:46.960 were barreling towards Earth and the government decided to shut 0:05:47.040 --> 0:05:51.080 down our only defenses. Yes, And she basically painted a 0:05:51.120 --> 0:05:55.000 picture of we're standing on a cliff and we need 0:05:55.000 --> 0:05:58.400 to do something serious to address it, and the courts 0:05:58.640 --> 0:06:02.080 have a role to do that and shape a remedy. 0:06:02.200 --> 0:06:05.000 Maybe not everything the planeiffs were asking for, but at 0:06:05.080 --> 0:06:09.680 least some accounting from the government for why it's continuing 0:06:09.720 --> 0:06:12.599 to do things that some of its own scientists have 0:06:12.760 --> 0:06:16.640 said must stop pat The Planetts attorney has said that 0:06:16.920 --> 0:06:20.200 the case didn't have to have a sweeping remedy that 0:06:20.360 --> 0:06:23.200 the court described in its decision. They could have done less. 0:06:23.800 --> 0:06:28.040 That's right. For example, there's a lot of government power 0:06:28.440 --> 0:06:36.200 in procurement. The government is actually the largest buyer of everything, services, automobiles, buildings. 0:06:36.640 --> 0:06:40.880 You can just imagine, they're like three fifty thousand federal buildings. 0:06:40.920 --> 0:06:43.599 So there's there's a whole lot of power that the 0:06:43.640 --> 0:06:47.640 federal government has to reduce emissions and ensure that the 0:06:47.680 --> 0:06:51.800 products and services they're buying are using the most efficient 0:06:52.120 --> 0:06:56.240 technologies to reduce emissions. Plus they have control over all 0:06:56.240 --> 0:06:58.719 of the offshore oil and gas leasing. They can declare 0:06:58.839 --> 0:07:02.400 moratorium on at until we begin to see these emissions 0:07:02.440 --> 0:07:05.479 start to decline. There's probably a hundred things that the 0:07:05.520 --> 0:07:10.040 federal government could do to make meaningful progress towards achieving 0:07:10.120 --> 0:07:14.120 carbon neutrality. And that's what the Plainest lawyers were saying, 0:07:14.280 --> 0:07:17.600 is give us a chance, with our expert testimony to 0:07:17.680 --> 0:07:20.880 show you what can be done that's reasonable and doable 0:07:21.200 --> 0:07:23.600 and really ought to be done in the interest not 0:07:23.680 --> 0:07:27.680 only of climate change, but many many other environmental problems 0:07:27.680 --> 0:07:30.000 that we're dealing with. That's what they were shooting for, 0:07:30.160 --> 0:07:33.000 is a trial on the merits and an opportunity to 0:07:33.080 --> 0:07:36.120 prove that there is a way forward that doesn't cripple 0:07:36.160 --> 0:07:39.840 the US economy, that actually strengthens it. The plans are 0:07:39.880 --> 0:07:42.880 going to ask for a full on bank hearing of 0:07:42.920 --> 0:07:46.800 the Ninth Circuit. Since the judges on this panel were 0:07:47.160 --> 0:07:50.640 three judges appointed by President Barack Obama, do you think 0:07:50.640 --> 0:07:52.720 it will help them to have it on bank panel 0:07:52.760 --> 0:07:55.840 if the Ninth Circuit agrees to that. I'm not sure 0:07:55.880 --> 0:07:59.160 about that. I think there's a danger this This decision 0:07:59.400 --> 0:08:02.040 is probably the best that they could possibly hope for with, 0:08:02.360 --> 0:08:06.480 as you say, three Obama appointees. The panel was clearly 0:08:06.520 --> 0:08:10.560 sympathetic to these plaintiffs. Even the majority went on and 0:08:10.640 --> 0:08:14.600 on about how strong a case they've made, a moral case, 0:08:14.680 --> 0:08:17.960 they said, for the government not acting in the way 0:08:18.000 --> 0:08:20.920 that it should. You know, the composition of the Ninth 0:08:20.920 --> 0:08:25.040 Circuit right now, there are ten Trump appointees on the court. 0:08:25.080 --> 0:08:28.560 There are twenty nine active judges. Ten of them are 0:08:28.600 --> 0:08:32.640 Trump appointees, thirteen and all are Republican appointees. You need 0:08:32.679 --> 0:08:35.600 a majority of the Ninth Circuit to get on Bank, 0:08:36.000 --> 0:08:38.560 which seems unlikely to me. But if they did get 0:08:38.559 --> 0:08:40.760 on Bank, the risk is they're going to get a 0:08:40.760 --> 0:08:43.560 worse opinion. They're going to get an opinion that vacates 0:08:43.760 --> 0:08:46.280 the opinion that's now on the books, including that wonderful 0:08:46.360 --> 0:08:49.720 dissent by Judge Stanton, and replaced with something that could 0:08:49.720 --> 0:08:53.520 be far more damaging in terms of standing to bring 0:08:53.520 --> 0:08:56.680 these kinds of cases. So there's a risk involved in 0:08:56.840 --> 0:08:59.800 just going for on Bank. There's an even greater risk, 0:08:59.840 --> 0:09:02.600 of course, as they try to go for review by 0:09:02.600 --> 0:09:06.000 the US Supreme Court. Explain why this has already been 0:09:06.160 --> 0:09:09.680 up at the Supreme Court once yes, and the Court 0:09:09.880 --> 0:09:13.280 declined to intervene when the government asked it to stop 0:09:13.320 --> 0:09:16.040 the whole case. But it made it very clear that 0:09:16.080 --> 0:09:20.600 the relief the plainists were seeking was extremely broad and questionable. 0:09:21.040 --> 0:09:24.960 So the Supreme Court has signaled the Ninth Circuit that 0:09:25.040 --> 0:09:28.000 this is a case that probably should be dismissed. I 0:09:28.040 --> 0:09:31.240 think the majority on the panel we're looking and reading 0:09:31.280 --> 0:09:33.800 the tea leaves, if you will, from what the Supreme 0:09:33.840 --> 0:09:37.080 Court's order was sending the case back to the Ninth Circuit. 0:09:37.440 --> 0:09:40.680 It's almost impossible to think that you could get a 0:09:40.800 --> 0:09:46.800 five member majority opinion of this Supreme Court ruling relief 0:09:47.200 --> 0:09:50.080 that a very liberal panel of the Ninth Circuit was 0:09:50.160 --> 0:09:53.880 unable to come to. So again, the risk when you 0:09:53.920 --> 0:09:56.520 get to the Supreme Court is you get a new 0:09:56.559 --> 0:10:00.960 opinion that slams the door on other cases that might 0:10:01.000 --> 0:10:04.400 be brought challenging actions of the government that are making 0:10:04.720 --> 0:10:07.640 climate change worse. And the way they do that is 0:10:07.679 --> 0:10:10.800 by saying it's a political question. And all of these 0:10:10.880 --> 0:10:13.720 different cases that have been making their way through the 0:10:13.760 --> 0:10:16.440 lower courts would be in jeopardy if the U. S. 0:10:16.440 --> 0:10:19.760 Supreme Court says the nature of climate change, because of 0:10:19.840 --> 0:10:23.160 its global dimension, is a matter that the Court should 0:10:23.160 --> 0:10:26.079 stay out of and it's up to the Congress and 0:10:26.160 --> 0:10:29.040 the executive branch to deal with it, not the courts. 0:10:29.080 --> 0:10:31.679 That's the big danger in my mind. So, Pat then 0:10:31.720 --> 0:10:34.920 this case is basically over. Well, it's not over as 0:10:34.960 --> 0:10:37.520 far as the plane Off lawyers are concerned. They're on 0:10:37.520 --> 0:10:41.160 a mission. They're determined to take their chances. I hope 0:10:41.360 --> 0:10:44.880 they will step back if they lose the on bond petition, 0:10:45.240 --> 0:10:47.600 they will step back and rethink whether they really should 0:10:47.600 --> 0:10:50.400 press their luck with the Supreme Court. But I know 0:10:50.960 --> 0:10:54.240 they're determined to try to do something now in the 0:10:54.280 --> 0:10:57.800 face of this emergency, and it's just a very excruciating 0:10:57.840 --> 0:11:01.160 decision for lawyers to have. Demand do they roll the 0:11:01.240 --> 0:11:04.160 dice and think that they might get a breakthrough opinion, 0:11:04.480 --> 0:11:07.920 you know, a precedent setting opinion like Brown versus Board 0:11:07.960 --> 0:11:12.120 of Education, or like the burgher Fell decision for marriage equality, 0:11:12.480 --> 0:11:15.000 some kind of breakthrough in the law at a time 0:11:15.000 --> 0:11:18.000 when we need it. That's the promise of what they're 0:11:18.000 --> 0:11:20.480 trying to do. But the peril is they could end 0:11:20.600 --> 0:11:24.160 up making bad law for everybody. Let's turn now to 0:11:24.440 --> 0:11:29.280 the Trump administration last week finalizing a rule to strip 0:11:29.360 --> 0:11:34.080 away environmental protections for streams, wet lands, and groundwater. Tell 0:11:34.080 --> 0:11:38.040 me about the new rule. Well, in a nutshell, this rule, 0:11:38.480 --> 0:11:41.920 with a stroke of a pen, removes protection for over 0:11:42.040 --> 0:11:44.680 half of the wetlands in the United States that were 0:11:44.679 --> 0:11:48.800 previously covered or at least arguably protected. There are still 0:11:49.160 --> 0:11:52.120 when you get down to the individual circumstances of each 0:11:52.160 --> 0:11:55.160 water body, whether they're in fact covered by the federal 0:11:55.200 --> 0:11:58.360 are or not, you can get arguments, But in broad scope, 0:11:58.760 --> 0:12:02.160 this rule makes it clear that literally half of the 0:12:02.200 --> 0:12:04.599 wetlands of the United States are not protected under the 0:12:04.640 --> 0:12:08.199 Clean Water Act, and hundreds of thousands of so called 0:12:08.240 --> 0:12:13.640 headwater streams sometimes called ephemeral streams that only run part 0:12:13.679 --> 0:12:16.360 of the year in response to major rain events or 0:12:16.800 --> 0:12:19.800 snow melt and that sort of thing, and even some 0:12:19.920 --> 0:12:25.000 intermittent streams that might not contribute significantly to the major 0:12:25.200 --> 0:12:28.199 rivers and lakes in the country. The Clean Water Act 0:12:28.360 --> 0:12:33.040 over almost fifty years now has protected many of these waters. 0:12:33.080 --> 0:12:36.720 And it's critical because they are about twenty eight states 0:12:36.760 --> 0:12:39.640 that have laws on the books that say their laws 0:12:39.679 --> 0:12:42.920 can't be any stricter than what the Federal Clean Water 0:12:43.000 --> 0:12:45.839 Act requires. So when you reduce the scope of the 0:12:45.880 --> 0:12:50.280 Federal Clean Water Act, you automatically revert to these laws. 0:12:50.280 --> 0:12:52.840 That's in the states that say their laws can't be 0:12:52.880 --> 0:12:56.640 any stricter. The Trump administration was trying to argue that 0:12:56.720 --> 0:12:59.800 if you remove federal protection, it's not a big problem 0:13:00.000 --> 0:13:02.560 because the states are free to step up and fill 0:13:02.640 --> 0:13:05.400 the gap. But what we've seen is the states haven't 0:13:05.440 --> 0:13:08.679 done that quite the contrary, So this is really a 0:13:08.679 --> 0:13:12.760 remarkable rule. It's not getting the kind of analysis in 0:13:12.800 --> 0:13:15.640 the in the media. Frankly, that it it deserves. This 0:13:15.720 --> 0:13:20.400 is a very serious matter. One in three Americans depend 0:13:20.559 --> 0:13:24.480 on waters for drinking water supplies that were formally covered 0:13:24.840 --> 0:13:27.320 by the Clean Water Act that will not be covered 0:13:27.559 --> 0:13:31.880 if this rule withstands the legal challenges that are just 0:13:32.000 --> 0:13:34.960 about to begin. Is it true that this rule not 0:13:35.120 --> 0:13:39.040 only undoes the Obama rule, but also rules that were 0:13:39.080 --> 0:13:41.800 in place in the seventies and eighties, all the way 0:13:41.840 --> 0:13:44.239 back to the seventies. Yes, I was in the courtroom 0:13:44.720 --> 0:13:47.040 when the first case was decided n R d C 0:13:47.360 --> 0:13:50.760 Versus Callaway. That's the case where the core of engineers 0:13:51.280 --> 0:13:54.160 was arguing that the scope of the Clean Water Act 0:13:54.280 --> 0:13:58.080 was limited to what we call traditionally navigable waters, big waters, 0:13:58.520 --> 0:14:01.920 and immediately adjacent wetlands and nothing more. And the court 0:14:02.000 --> 0:14:06.160 in nineteen struck that down and said, no, this new 0:14:06.240 --> 0:14:09.320 law is much broader than that. So all the way 0:14:09.320 --> 0:14:13.520 from the mid seventies to just recently, we've seen the 0:14:13.600 --> 0:14:18.480 courts continually upholding a broad reach of the law. It's 0:14:18.559 --> 0:14:20.960 true that the United States Supreme Court, in these two 0:14:20.960 --> 0:14:26.800 controversial decisions, the Swank decision and the Rapanos decision, have 0:14:27.040 --> 0:14:30.160 raised all kinds of questions about the scope of the Act. 0:14:30.240 --> 0:14:32.840 But the point is, the Supreme Court has never struck 0:14:32.920 --> 0:14:36.120 down any of these regulations that date back to the 0:14:36.200 --> 0:14:40.720 nineteen seventies. They've challenged the application of the regulations in 0:14:40.800 --> 0:14:44.880 particular cases cases where the wetlands were isolated, as they 0:14:44.920 --> 0:14:47.760 call them, or cases where the wetlands were very far 0:14:47.880 --> 0:14:52.000 removed from any major river in the Rapano's case, for example, 0:14:52.040 --> 0:14:55.200 But the Court has never either definitively said what is 0:14:55.240 --> 0:14:58.360 the limit of the federal law, nor have they struck 0:14:58.400 --> 0:15:01.800 down any of these regulations. So the Trump rule is 0:15:01.840 --> 0:15:05.480 now the first time that we have an administration adopting 0:15:05.480 --> 0:15:09.000 a rule that cuts way back on the Clean Water 0:15:09.080 --> 0:15:13.560 Act without any clear judicial precedent for what they're doing. So, 0:15:13.680 --> 0:15:16.720 Pat you mentioned that there will likely be challenges. What 0:15:16.760 --> 0:15:19.840 would the legal basis for a challenge b Well, the 0:15:19.840 --> 0:15:23.800 basis is going to be the historical interpretation and the 0:15:23.880 --> 0:15:27.240 sharp break from that forty seven years worth of law 0:15:27.600 --> 0:15:30.760 and interpretation. And the Supreme Court has said when you 0:15:30.840 --> 0:15:34.760 break from a traditional interpretation of the law like that, 0:15:35.120 --> 0:15:39.360 you need to have really strong justification, like, for example, 0:15:39.400 --> 0:15:41.600 there's been a change in the way the states have 0:15:41.680 --> 0:15:44.800 been regulating these waters, so that the federal law is 0:15:44.840 --> 0:15:47.720 no longer as necessary. But as I've just said, that's 0:15:47.760 --> 0:15:50.920 not true, or maybe a change in the science that 0:15:51.000 --> 0:15:54.360 says that these headwater areas are not that important, but 0:15:54.480 --> 0:15:57.560 that's certainly not true. The e p A under Obama 0:15:57.600 --> 0:16:01.240 did the most comprehensive analysis of the importance of these 0:16:01.280 --> 0:16:05.360 so called headwater streams and what's called the Connectivity Report, 0:16:05.840 --> 0:16:09.760 And even the Science Advisory Board that Trump has appointed 0:16:10.120 --> 0:16:15.120 has criticized this rule cutting back on protecting these headwaters 0:16:15.120 --> 0:16:18.680 and these wetlands as being not based on science. So 0:16:18.720 --> 0:16:22.600 there are lots of reasons why the Trump administration rule 0:16:23.160 --> 0:16:27.760 is breaking from prior interpretations, is not supported by the science, 0:16:28.160 --> 0:16:31.640 is not supported by the economic value of the resources 0:16:31.680 --> 0:16:34.240 that they're writing off, and so forth. So this will 0:16:34.280 --> 0:16:39.080 be a classic challenge to whether the action that's being 0:16:39.120 --> 0:16:42.520 taken is reasonable and it's based on a strong record 0:16:42.680 --> 0:16:45.400 or not. Thanks for being on Bloomberg Law, Pat. That's 0:16:45.440 --> 0:16:48.240 Pat Parento, a professor at Vermont Law School.