1
00:00:02,840 --> 00:00:07,680
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law. Some complicated international law issues here.

2
00:00:07,920 --> 00:00:11,760
Speaker 1: What kind of docket is Chief Justice Roberts facing interviews

3
00:00:11,800 --> 00:00:14,960
Speaker 1: with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts. Joining me is

4
00:00:15,000 --> 00:00:18,759
Speaker 1: Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg Store, Neil Devon's professor

5
00:00:18,800 --> 00:00:21,840
Speaker 1: at William and Mary Law School, and analysis of important

6
00:00:21,920 --> 00:00:25,680
Speaker 1: legal issues cases and headlock. Is this essentially the fifth

7
00:00:25,680 --> 00:00:29,080
Speaker 1: circuit haunting he has presided over a so called hot

8
00:00:29,160 --> 00:00:32,519
Speaker 1: bench at the Supreme Court. Bloomberg Law with June Grasso

9
00:00:32,800 --> 00:00:39,839
Speaker 1: from Bloomberg Radio. Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Shop. I'm

10
00:00:39,920 --> 00:00:43,000
Speaker 1: Kimberly Robinson and I'm Gregg's Store. We're in for June

11
00:00:43,040 --> 00:00:46,080
Speaker 1: Grasso coming up on the show. The Supreme Court prepares

12
00:00:46,159 --> 00:00:48,720
Speaker 1: to consider scaling back the reach of the Clean Water Act,

13
00:00:49,280 --> 00:00:52,120
Speaker 1: but first, in a new court filing, the Justice Department

14
00:00:52,159 --> 00:00:54,200
Speaker 1: says a few of the documents that see from Donald

15
00:00:54,200 --> 00:00:57,840
Speaker 1: Trump's home may be covered by attorney client privilege. With

16
00:00:57,920 --> 00:01:00,440
Speaker 1: us to discuss the filing and what's next in the

17
00:01:00,440 --> 00:01:04,679
Speaker 1: Marl Lagas search Saga is Bloomberg News reporter so Wee Tillman, Zoe,

18
00:01:04,800 --> 00:01:07,240
Speaker 1: thanks for being here. Tell us about this court filing Zoe,

19
00:01:07,319 --> 00:01:09,240
Speaker 1: what do we learn today? You know, we learned a

20
00:01:09,280 --> 00:01:13,080
Speaker 1: couple of key things, the first being that investigators are

21
00:01:13,160 --> 00:01:16,640
Speaker 1: quite far along in going through the documents that were seized,

22
00:01:17,000 --> 00:01:18,959
Speaker 1: to the point that they could tell a judge in

23
00:01:19,000 --> 00:01:23,160
Speaker 1: Florida that their privileged team had gone through the documents

24
00:01:23,200 --> 00:01:27,120
Speaker 1: that were seized, had identified that some were potentially attorney

25
00:01:27,120 --> 00:01:30,600
Speaker 1: client privileged material, and that they were already going through

26
00:01:30,640 --> 00:01:32,880
Speaker 1: the process that they had previously laid out for what

27
00:01:32,959 --> 00:01:36,080
Speaker 1: to do with that information. It was a strong suggestion

28
00:01:36,200 --> 00:01:38,920
Speaker 1: to the judge perhaps that this is all moot and

29
00:01:39,160 --> 00:01:41,600
Speaker 1: far too late in the game to bring in someone

30
00:01:41,680 --> 00:01:46,360
Speaker 1: now to to unring the bell of giving investigators access

31
00:01:46,400 --> 00:01:50,640
Speaker 1: to these documents. So, putting aside the special master issue,

32
00:01:51,720 --> 00:01:53,880
Speaker 1: what's the normal procedure that the d o J goes

33
00:01:53,920 --> 00:01:57,160
Speaker 1: through when dealing with privileged documents like this? Yeah, so

34
00:01:57,200 --> 00:02:01,280
Speaker 1: it's pretty common for a federal and instigation, especially one

35
00:02:01,320 --> 00:02:03,680
Speaker 1: like this, to have what's known as a taint team

36
00:02:03,760 --> 00:02:07,000
Speaker 1: or a filter team or privileged team, which is a

37
00:02:07,000 --> 00:02:11,480
Speaker 1: collection of usually FBI agents and prosecutors who are not

38
00:02:11,760 --> 00:02:15,520
Speaker 1: the lead prosecutors in case agents in an investigation, And

39
00:02:15,560 --> 00:02:17,680
Speaker 1: the purpose of that is so that the folks who

40
00:02:17,720 --> 00:02:20,920
Speaker 1: are ultimately prosecuting the case, they don't see something that

41
00:02:20,960 --> 00:02:25,000
Speaker 1: could get them disqualified or knocked out of the investigation

42
00:02:25,600 --> 00:02:28,799
Speaker 1: at some later critical phase, or I think worst case

43
00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:32,040
Speaker 1: scenario for the Justice Department jeopardized the entire integrity of

44
00:02:32,080 --> 00:02:37,240
Speaker 1: the investigation with less clear here is this the concept

45
00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:41,600
Speaker 1: of executive privilege and whether that type of privilege is

46
00:02:41,639 --> 00:02:45,560
Speaker 1: something that the Justice Department could or should filter for

47
00:02:45,800 --> 00:02:48,320
Speaker 1: as they're going through these documents. That's not typically what

48
00:02:48,440 --> 00:02:50,960
Speaker 1: a taint team would be looking for. So that's a

49
00:02:50,960 --> 00:02:53,399
Speaker 1: big question mark. And the Justice Department did not address

50
00:02:53,560 --> 00:02:57,359
Speaker 1: that issue, which Trump has raised in the filing today.

51
00:02:57,680 --> 00:03:03,000
Speaker 1: So what about the documents that are clearly not privileged? Um,

52
00:03:03,440 --> 00:03:06,320
Speaker 1: which may be significant. We don't really know how much

53
00:03:06,360 --> 00:03:10,400
Speaker 1: we're talking about here. Um. Is there any arguments that's

54
00:03:10,440 --> 00:03:14,520
Speaker 1: even on the table that uh that that former President

55
00:03:14,520 --> 00:03:17,240
Speaker 1: Trump might be able to get those documents back. There's

56
00:03:17,600 --> 00:03:21,160
Speaker 1: a little precedent for this. Early on, Trump had complained

57
00:03:21,720 --> 00:03:24,840
Speaker 1: that they had taken his some of his passports and

58
00:03:24,880 --> 00:03:27,520
Speaker 1: those were returned. I think that's an example of what

59
00:03:27,760 --> 00:03:30,440
Speaker 1: is you know, generally, what it's supposed to happen, where

60
00:03:30,480 --> 00:03:33,640
Speaker 1: if something gets caught up in a seizure that they

61
00:03:33,639 --> 00:03:36,960
Speaker 1: don't have legal authority to take, they will give it back. Uh.

62
00:03:37,000 --> 00:03:39,160
Speaker 1: And that appears to have happened here. You know, Trump

63
00:03:39,200 --> 00:03:43,160
Speaker 1: has not suggested there any other specific categories of documents

64
00:03:43,200 --> 00:03:47,560
Speaker 1: that he should have back for some other reason besides privilege. Um.

65
00:03:47,640 --> 00:03:50,040
Speaker 1: And the legal argument for that I think would be

66
00:03:50,120 --> 00:03:52,720
Speaker 1: a bit murky. You know, at the point that there's

67
00:03:52,760 --> 00:03:55,400
Speaker 1: no contest to the legality of the search warrant and

68
00:03:55,440 --> 00:03:58,880
Speaker 1: the seizure itself, you know, at that point those documents

69
00:03:58,880 --> 00:04:02,160
Speaker 1: have been seized are sue into that authority. So privilege

70
00:04:02,160 --> 00:04:04,280
Speaker 1: is really one of the few carve outs to their

71
00:04:04,320 --> 00:04:08,600
Speaker 1: ability to use what they took under the umbrella of

72
00:04:08,800 --> 00:04:11,160
Speaker 1: categories that they a judge gave them the green light

73
00:04:11,200 --> 00:04:13,760
Speaker 1: to take. And so, what, if anything, do we know

74
00:04:13,920 --> 00:04:17,800
Speaker 1: about how much classified information was seized by the Justice

75
00:04:17,839 --> 00:04:22,080
Speaker 1: Department on August eight more logo, Yeah, so we don't

76
00:04:22,120 --> 00:04:24,680
Speaker 1: know a whole lot about the substance. We know that

77
00:04:24,720 --> 00:04:27,800
Speaker 1: there were I think it was roughly twenty boxes and

78
00:04:27,880 --> 00:04:32,520
Speaker 1: within those eleven sets of classified materials with different markings

79
00:04:32,520 --> 00:04:38,040
Speaker 1: indicating levels of classified information. UM. And so you know,

80
00:04:39,480 --> 00:04:41,520
Speaker 1: we don't have much more than that, they don't have

81
00:04:42,040 --> 00:04:45,160
Speaker 1: more specific markings that we've been made aware of sort

82
00:04:45,160 --> 00:04:48,919
Speaker 1: of similar, not quite similar to what we've learned about

83
00:04:48,960 --> 00:04:51,960
Speaker 1: documents that were seized in January and returned to the

84
00:04:52,040 --> 00:04:55,560
Speaker 1: National Archives from our lago where there's Justice Department revealed

85
00:04:56,000 --> 00:04:58,520
Speaker 1: that some of those had markings related to the foreign

86
00:04:58,520 --> 00:05:04,359
Speaker 1: intelligence surveillance at door, markings related to intelligence from human sources.

87
00:05:04,520 --> 00:05:06,240
Speaker 1: You know, we've got a bit more detail about the

88
00:05:06,320 --> 00:05:09,360
Speaker 1: level of sensitivity of some of those documents. We don't

89
00:05:09,360 --> 00:05:14,000
Speaker 1: have that yet for the August eight collection. Remind us

90
00:05:14,120 --> 00:05:18,080
Speaker 1: what potential criminal charges could grow out of these documents. Yeah,

91
00:05:18,120 --> 00:05:20,440
Speaker 1: I think what's important to remember is that the charges

92
00:05:20,560 --> 00:05:24,160
Speaker 1: that the Justice Department cited are not specific to classified information.

93
00:05:24,279 --> 00:05:28,560
Speaker 1: They have to do with generally mishandling government records, information

94
00:05:28,600 --> 00:05:31,800
Speaker 1: related to national defense, which can be uh an even

95
00:05:31,839 --> 00:05:35,599
Speaker 1: broader category of information. It's not just about what happened

96
00:05:35,600 --> 00:05:39,200
Speaker 1: to information that's classified. It's about the handling of sensitive

97
00:05:39,240 --> 00:05:43,000
Speaker 1: government records. And then finally, obstruction, you know, whether there

98
00:05:43,080 --> 00:05:46,800
Speaker 1: was evidence of obstructing an investigation, which is separate and

99
00:05:46,839 --> 00:05:49,240
Speaker 1: apart from the question of the documents and how they

100
00:05:49,240 --> 00:05:51,839
Speaker 1: were handled. At the beginning So this is all happening

101
00:05:51,880 --> 00:05:54,559
Speaker 1: at the same time that the Justice Department is also

102
00:05:54,640 --> 00:05:59,640
Speaker 1: pursuing a grand jury investigation centering on Trump's attempts to

103
00:05:59,680 --> 00:06:02,839
Speaker 1: over earned the election result. Is there any reason to

104
00:06:02,880 --> 00:06:05,599
Speaker 1: think that one of those two investigations is going to

105
00:06:06,360 --> 00:06:08,800
Speaker 1: come before the other? You know, I think that in

106
00:06:08,960 --> 00:06:12,520
Speaker 1: green lighting the seeking of a search warrant for the

107
00:06:12,560 --> 00:06:15,880
Speaker 1: home of a former president, the Attorney General has, you know,

108
00:06:16,279 --> 00:06:19,000
Speaker 1: put this investigation at the front of the queue in

109
00:06:19,120 --> 00:06:22,520
Speaker 1: terms of public awareness and the public consciousness and the

110
00:06:22,560 --> 00:06:25,920
Speaker 1: sense of urgency that they seem to feel around this investigation.

111
00:06:26,400 --> 00:06:29,279
Speaker 1: Whether one results in charges before the other, or whether

112
00:06:29,400 --> 00:06:32,159
Speaker 1: anything results in charges ever remains to be seen. But

113
00:06:32,240 --> 00:06:35,080
Speaker 1: I think they've conveyed more of a sense of urgency

114
00:06:35,160 --> 00:06:38,839
Speaker 1: now around these records as opposed to the January six investigation.

115
00:06:39,560 --> 00:06:43,040
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg News reporters Zoe Tillman, Zoe, thanks for joining us.

116
00:06:43,200 --> 00:06:46,920
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law. Up next, property rights advocates

117
00:06:46,920 --> 00:06:48,880
Speaker 1: are hoping the Supreme Court will put new limits on

118
00:06:48,920 --> 00:06:52,400
Speaker 1: the Clean Water Act. I'm Greg Store and I'm Kimberly Robinson.

119
00:06:52,880 --> 00:07:04,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. Yeah, this is Bloombird. Law with June

120
00:07:04,960 --> 00:07:09,960
Speaker 1: Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. I'm Gregg Store and I'm Kimberly Robinson.

121
00:07:10,280 --> 00:07:13,440
Speaker 1: We're in for June Grasso. We turned away from Florida

122
00:07:13,520 --> 00:07:15,840
Speaker 1: now and onto Idaho, which is the center of a

123
00:07:15,840 --> 00:07:18,040
Speaker 1: water dispute that the U. S. Supreme Court is set

124
00:07:18,080 --> 00:07:21,480
Speaker 1: to here in October. Joining us is Georgetown law professor

125
00:07:21,520 --> 00:07:23,920
Speaker 1: William Busby, who wrote a front of the court brief

126
00:07:24,120 --> 00:07:26,040
Speaker 1: in support of the e p A here. Thanks so

127
00:07:26,120 --> 00:07:30,000
Speaker 1: much for joining us. I'm pleased to join you so, William.

128
00:07:30,080 --> 00:07:32,760
Speaker 1: This case stretches all the way back to two thousand

129
00:07:32,840 --> 00:07:35,480
Speaker 1: and eight and is actually on its second trip to

130
00:07:35,520 --> 00:07:37,920
Speaker 1: the High Court. What is it that the plaintiff, the

131
00:07:38,240 --> 00:07:43,160
Speaker 1: second Family, is fighting about? Um This case focuses on

132
00:07:43,200 --> 00:07:48,280
Speaker 1: this question of where federal power begins and ends to

133
00:07:48,360 --> 00:07:51,600
Speaker 1: protect what are called waters of the United States, and

134
00:07:51,640 --> 00:07:56,520
Speaker 1: in particular um our lands that are wet lands or

135
00:07:56,640 --> 00:07:59,440
Speaker 1: alleged to be wetlands. Can they be protected by the

136
00:07:59,520 --> 00:08:04,400
Speaker 1: federal government under the Clean Water Act? The sackets the

137
00:08:04,480 --> 00:08:08,080
Speaker 1: homeowners here property owners. They argue the federal government has

138
00:08:08,120 --> 00:08:11,960
Speaker 1: no power to protect their property from filling UH and

139
00:08:12,120 --> 00:08:14,960
Speaker 1: e p A and the Army Corps of engineers. Uh,

140
00:08:15,120 --> 00:08:18,720
Speaker 1: they view this property as a wetland subject to federal

141
00:08:18,800 --> 00:08:23,880
Speaker 1: jurisdiction and then thus subject to restructions on polluting into

142
00:08:23,920 --> 00:08:27,800
Speaker 1: it or filling it. And tell us just a little

143
00:08:27,800 --> 00:08:31,920
Speaker 1: bit about their property. They are neither in northern Idaho,

144
00:08:32,080 --> 00:08:34,840
Speaker 1: and they're near lake, but not right on it. Is

145
00:08:34,880 --> 00:08:39,360
Speaker 1: that right? Yes, Um, they are near the lake. What

146
00:08:39,559 --> 00:08:42,080
Speaker 1: one thing that complicates it is they are essentially on

147
00:08:42,160 --> 00:08:44,120
Speaker 1: a map which is part of the record of the

148
00:08:44,200 --> 00:08:47,560
Speaker 1: case shows their property be essentially in a whole area

149
00:08:47,640 --> 00:08:51,960
Speaker 1: that is clearly mapped as wetlands and that are kind

150
00:08:51,960 --> 00:08:58,040
Speaker 1: of continuously transitioning to connections with the lake. But their property,

151
00:08:58,200 --> 00:09:01,600
Speaker 1: the Sackets property, actually has a in one area and

152
00:09:01,720 --> 00:09:05,000
Speaker 1: some houses in the other. And so their story is

153
00:09:05,080 --> 00:09:09,640
Speaker 1: that their land lacks the connection to this large lake,

154
00:09:10,160 --> 00:09:14,040
Speaker 1: which most people agree is subject to federal jurisdiction, and

155
00:09:14,080 --> 00:09:17,960
Speaker 1: they argue that because it's essentially cut off, it should

156
00:09:17,960 --> 00:09:22,000
Speaker 1: not be protected. The federal government says, no, that this

157
00:09:22,120 --> 00:09:24,800
Speaker 1: is clearly a wetland when you look at the nature

158
00:09:24,840 --> 00:09:27,080
Speaker 1: of it, the wetness of it, what it would be

159
00:09:27,160 --> 00:09:30,240
Speaker 1: but for uh, this road in these houses, that this

160
00:09:30,440 --> 00:09:33,640
Speaker 1: is a protectable wetland. And so let's step back a

161
00:09:33,640 --> 00:09:36,800
Speaker 1: little bit. Why does the definition of waters of the

162
00:09:36,880 --> 00:09:39,080
Speaker 1: United States matter? What is it that it allows the

163
00:09:39,120 --> 00:09:42,440
Speaker 1: e p A to do um? Well, first, it's important.

164
00:09:42,480 --> 00:09:44,240
Speaker 1: This is the e p A and the Army Corps

165
00:09:44,240 --> 00:09:48,679
Speaker 1: of Engineers. They divide jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act,

166
00:09:48,760 --> 00:09:53,800
Speaker 1: And going back to basically the early nineteen seventies version

167
00:09:53,880 --> 00:09:57,080
Speaker 1: of the Clean Water Act, what is a water of

168
00:09:57,120 --> 00:10:01,440
Speaker 1: the United States is what is protectable by the federal

169
00:10:01,520 --> 00:10:05,200
Speaker 1: government from all types of pollution. Uh. And so the

170
00:10:05,280 --> 00:10:09,360
Speaker 1: question of whether something is a protected water um is

171
00:10:09,800 --> 00:10:13,480
Speaker 1: absolutely the heart and core of the Clean Water Act. So,

172
00:10:13,640 --> 00:10:18,360
Speaker 1: for example, if an industrial polluter right now is discharging

173
00:10:18,400 --> 00:10:22,840
Speaker 1: pollution into something, that's debatable. If it is a water

174
00:10:23,120 --> 00:10:25,840
Speaker 1: it has to have a permit, or if it's filling,

175
00:10:26,360 --> 00:10:29,920
Speaker 1: it has certain restrictions on filling at all. If it's

176
00:10:29,960 --> 00:10:34,319
Speaker 1: not federally protected, then the only protections would be if

177
00:10:34,360 --> 00:10:37,000
Speaker 1: a state has on its own decided to protect out

178
00:10:37,559 --> 00:10:40,680
Speaker 1: that land or that water. So there's a very important

179
00:10:40,679 --> 00:10:44,120
Speaker 1: precedent governing the Clean Water Act from two thousand six.

180
00:10:44,600 --> 00:10:47,040
Speaker 1: Turns out, Kimberly and I disagree how to pronounce it.

181
00:10:47,040 --> 00:10:49,520
Speaker 1: So we'll let you tell us what the correct pronunciation is.

182
00:10:50,000 --> 00:10:52,080
Speaker 1: Can you do that? And also tell us why that

183
00:10:52,160 --> 00:10:54,600
Speaker 1: case is so important? What what did or did not

184
00:10:54,880 --> 00:10:58,800
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court decide in that case? Sure well to

185
00:10:58,800 --> 00:11:02,000
Speaker 1: to add confusion on confusion the way I've always heard,

186
00:11:02,040 --> 00:11:04,680
Speaker 1: I've not met that people at issue in that earlier case,

187
00:11:04,720 --> 00:11:08,880
Speaker 1: but everyone refers to it as Ropanos, So so I

188
00:11:08,920 --> 00:11:11,760
Speaker 1: will refer to it as Rapanos. Like that said, I've

189
00:11:11,840 --> 00:11:15,040
Speaker 1: not met the Ropontos family, so I can't guarantee that

190
00:11:16,400 --> 00:11:20,360
Speaker 1: I won't. I won't tell anybody who was right. Uh.

191
00:11:20,400 --> 00:11:24,480
Speaker 1: And so the Rapanos case is the last major Supreme

192
00:11:24,520 --> 00:11:28,679
Speaker 1: Court case that addressed this question, uh and uh. And

193
00:11:28,800 --> 00:11:33,680
Speaker 1: in that case what happened ended up being very confusing

194
00:11:34,120 --> 00:11:38,320
Speaker 1: because in the end also a case about whether some

195
00:11:39,040 --> 00:11:41,360
Speaker 1: waters or lands that were kind of at the border,

196
00:11:42,200 --> 00:11:47,160
Speaker 1: whether they were protected. The court splintered in several ways,

197
00:11:47,200 --> 00:11:51,719
Speaker 1: so there was no single majority opinion um. And so

198
00:11:51,840 --> 00:11:55,000
Speaker 1: there was what's called a plurality opinion that only four

199
00:11:55,040 --> 00:11:58,960
Speaker 1: justices joined, that was written by Justice Scalia. Then there

200
00:11:59,000 --> 00:12:02,560
Speaker 1: was an important opinion by Justice Kennedy, but which for

201
00:12:02,880 --> 00:12:07,160
Speaker 1: dissenters mostly agreed with um uh. And then there was

202
00:12:07,440 --> 00:12:11,160
Speaker 1: dissenting opinions, and so there was no single opinion that

203
00:12:11,240 --> 00:12:15,680
Speaker 1: a clear majority agreed with. But if you analyze that,

204
00:12:15,679 --> 00:12:19,079
Speaker 1: there were certain agreements on certain issues, so um, it

205
00:12:19,240 --> 00:12:22,560
Speaker 1: kind of in the cases and before agencies, it actually

206
00:12:22,559 --> 00:12:25,560
Speaker 1: had sorted out pretty well. How to make sense of

207
00:12:25,600 --> 00:12:27,760
Speaker 1: it when you look at certain issues. Okay, this is

208
00:12:27,760 --> 00:12:31,920
Speaker 1: where a majority stood, but it definitely is a confusing

209
00:12:31,960 --> 00:12:35,760
Speaker 1: case that professors and students and certainly those out in

210
00:12:35,760 --> 00:12:40,920
Speaker 1: the real world have puzzled over since that time. Now,

211
00:12:40,960 --> 00:12:44,000
Speaker 1: if I'm correct, the lower court here applied a test

212
00:12:44,840 --> 00:12:47,400
Speaker 1: that was close to the one that Justice Kennedy had

213
00:12:47,400 --> 00:12:51,800
Speaker 1: written just for himself. And if that's right, can you

214
00:12:51,840 --> 00:12:54,680
Speaker 1: tell us what that allowed the E p A and

215
00:12:54,720 --> 00:12:58,640
Speaker 1: the Army Corps of Engineers to do? Sure? But actually,

216
00:12:58,640 --> 00:13:00,960
Speaker 1: so this is important is that us as Kennedy wrote

217
00:13:01,000 --> 00:13:04,040
Speaker 1: an opinion that that it was his own name, but

218
00:13:04,520 --> 00:13:09,000
Speaker 1: most of that opinion the dissenters uh explicitly agreed with,

219
00:13:09,440 --> 00:13:12,840
Speaker 1: and Justice Kennedy in his opinion agreed with most of

220
00:13:12,880 --> 00:13:17,080
Speaker 1: what the dissenters said. So in looking at Supreme Court law,

221
00:13:17,160 --> 00:13:20,880
Speaker 1: you often look at where do people agree and disagree?

222
00:13:21,400 --> 00:13:24,600
Speaker 1: And so the part of the reason the Kennedy opinion,

223
00:13:24,640 --> 00:13:28,080
Speaker 1: which does this thing called the significant nexus test. The

224
00:13:28,160 --> 00:13:30,440
Speaker 1: reason it was so important is it seemed to be

225
00:13:30,480 --> 00:13:33,679
Speaker 1: the kind of common ground that most of the justices

226
00:13:33,720 --> 00:13:36,560
Speaker 1: agreed with UM, and then you just asked, you know,

227
00:13:36,679 --> 00:13:40,000
Speaker 1: what does it do? What this What that opinion said

228
00:13:40,080 --> 00:13:44,559
Speaker 1: was when you decide whether a disputed water is protected

229
00:13:44,600 --> 00:13:47,200
Speaker 1: by the federal government, you look to see if it

230
00:13:47,240 --> 00:13:51,439
Speaker 1: has a significant nexus to what is clearly a navigable

231
00:13:51,679 --> 00:13:54,880
Speaker 1: such as like ships and barges. Is it clearly have

232
00:13:54,960 --> 00:13:59,880
Speaker 1: a significant nexus to kind of large, indisputable jurisdictional water

233
00:14:00,080 --> 00:14:02,640
Speaker 1: is UM. And that's important because it was a kind

234
00:14:02,640 --> 00:14:05,640
Speaker 1: of a functional test to just look to see how

235
00:14:05,679 --> 00:14:08,559
Speaker 1: does it connect, what does it do? And so was

236
00:14:08,679 --> 00:14:12,920
Speaker 1: quite consistent with the Clean Water Act, which is overwhelmingly

237
00:14:13,000 --> 00:14:17,160
Speaker 1: focused on protecting waters for their functions and to make

238
00:14:17,160 --> 00:14:21,760
Speaker 1: sure they're safe for drinking and recreation and biological integrity.

239
00:14:22,640 --> 00:14:26,040
Speaker 1: So that was the test he formulated, but it was

240
00:14:26,120 --> 00:14:29,880
Speaker 1: consistent with long standing regulations in the Statute. And so

241
00:14:29,960 --> 00:14:34,160
Speaker 1: since two thousand and six, Justice Kennedy's test has been

242
00:14:34,200 --> 00:14:38,120
Speaker 1: the main test people have applied in deciding if something

243
00:14:38,200 --> 00:14:41,480
Speaker 1: is protected. You're listening to Bloomberg Law. Coming up, we'll

244
00:14:41,480 --> 00:14:44,920
Speaker 1: continue our conversation with Georgetown law professor William Buzzby wrote

245
00:14:44,920 --> 00:14:46,880
Speaker 1: a Friend of the Court brief in support of the

246
00:14:46,880 --> 00:14:49,240
Speaker 1: e p A and a major Clean Water Act case.

247
00:14:49,800 --> 00:14:53,480
Speaker 1: I'm Greg Store and I'm Kimberly Robinson. This is Bloomer.

248
00:15:01,640 --> 00:15:06,400
Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

249
00:15:07,200 --> 00:15:10,280
Speaker 1: I'm Gregg Store and I'm Kimberly Robinson. We're in for

250
00:15:10,360 --> 00:15:13,880
Speaker 1: June Grasso. We're chatting with Georgetown law professor William Buzby

251
00:15:13,920 --> 00:15:16,520
Speaker 1: about the latest environmental case that the U. Supreme Court

252
00:15:16,560 --> 00:15:19,880
Speaker 1: will consider in October. And what did the sackets say

253
00:15:19,920 --> 00:15:22,880
Speaker 1: should be the test Instead of that significant nexus test,

254
00:15:23,320 --> 00:15:28,800
Speaker 1: they basically want to completely discard the Kennedy test. Um

255
00:15:28,920 --> 00:15:31,720
Speaker 1: they would they prefer, and they've come up really on

256
00:15:31,760 --> 00:15:35,440
Speaker 1: their own, is a test that is kind of like

257
00:15:35,840 --> 00:15:40,000
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia's opinion that was called the plurality that four

258
00:15:40,080 --> 00:15:43,640
Speaker 1: justices agreed with. But they even go further. They kind

259
00:15:43,640 --> 00:15:45,920
Speaker 1: of want to say, as as best as I can

260
00:15:46,000 --> 00:15:49,800
Speaker 1: understand it, you only protect waters that are sort of

261
00:15:49,840 --> 00:15:54,760
Speaker 1: being used as channels of interstate commerce um and that

262
00:15:54,920 --> 00:16:01,480
Speaker 1: have a permanent surface connection. Uh and continuously low. Um.

263
00:16:01,560 --> 00:16:04,920
Speaker 1: And so that's kind of what school Leah said and

264
00:16:05,000 --> 00:16:07,720
Speaker 1: what they have sort of embellished, and that sackets have

265
00:16:07,760 --> 00:16:12,680
Speaker 1: embellished and maybe further strengthened or maybe i'd say weekend Um.

266
00:16:12,720 --> 00:16:15,920
Speaker 1: The problem with that test is much of the country

267
00:16:16,800 --> 00:16:19,440
Speaker 1: would no longer be subject to federal protection if that

268
00:16:19,520 --> 00:16:22,600
Speaker 1: test were adopted. If you look at the west and

269
00:16:22,640 --> 00:16:26,120
Speaker 1: the southwest, or you look also in the southeast an

270
00:16:26,160 --> 00:16:28,480
Speaker 1: areas where there are levies on rivers and the lake,

271
00:16:29,480 --> 00:16:33,920
Speaker 1: the test that they prefer would render but are most

272
00:16:33,920 --> 00:16:36,640
Speaker 1: people would clearly say our water is no longer protected

273
00:16:36,640 --> 00:16:40,720
Speaker 1: by federal law. And so the United States and my

274
00:16:40,800 --> 00:16:44,640
Speaker 1: clients a hundred and sixty seven members of Congress argue

275
00:16:44,640 --> 00:16:47,400
Speaker 1: against that test, saying it's just not consistent with the

276
00:16:47,440 --> 00:16:51,680
Speaker 1: Clean Water Act, which is you protect waters for their criteria,

277
00:16:51,800 --> 00:16:56,360
Speaker 1: for their you know, high quality water criteria, and for

278
00:16:56,520 --> 00:17:00,400
Speaker 1: their functions. Um and uh. So this test that the

279
00:17:01,120 --> 00:17:04,920
Speaker 1: Sacatswan we argue is just not consistent with the statute.

280
00:17:05,359 --> 00:17:08,159
Speaker 1: So you filed an amicus brief on behalf of a

281
00:17:08,240 --> 00:17:11,040
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty seven members of Congress tell us why

282
00:17:11,080 --> 00:17:15,760
Speaker 1: they decided to weigh in on this case. UM. Members

283
00:17:15,760 --> 00:17:19,960
Speaker 1: of Congress have viewed and scientists and environmentalists, and frankly

284
00:17:20,040 --> 00:17:23,680
Speaker 1: much of the world views our nation's Clean Water Act

285
00:17:23,760 --> 00:17:27,720
Speaker 1: as one of its signature successes. UM. The Clean Water

286
00:17:27,800 --> 00:17:31,560
Speaker 1: Act has been very strong and really a bipartisan project

287
00:17:32,080 --> 00:17:35,719
Speaker 1: going back to nineteen seventies and UH. And so the

288
00:17:35,760 --> 00:17:39,320
Speaker 1: goal of our clients, the hundred sixty seven members of Congress,

289
00:17:39,480 --> 00:17:43,439
Speaker 1: was to basically make sure the Clean Water Act is

290
00:17:43,480 --> 00:17:47,119
Speaker 1: not weakened, and the Clean Water Act has a The

291
00:17:47,160 --> 00:17:50,200
Speaker 1: statute is very clear with its language. It about don't

292
00:17:50,280 --> 00:17:59,920
Speaker 1: degrade waters, protect fish, shellfish, biological integrity, ecosystem diversity, recreation,

293
00:18:00,040 --> 00:18:03,919
Speaker 1: and economic values. This is all in the statute. And

294
00:18:03,960 --> 00:18:07,680
Speaker 1: so the members of Congress really wanted to put before

295
00:18:07,720 --> 00:18:11,600
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. This is what the statute says, UM

296
00:18:12,200 --> 00:18:16,720
Speaker 1: and UH, and discourt is in an interesting position. It

297
00:18:17,160 --> 00:18:20,040
Speaker 1: claims the conservatives on the Supreme Court, I think, claim

298
00:18:20,119 --> 00:18:23,600
Speaker 1: that they are textualists. UM. That is, they would be

299
00:18:23,640 --> 00:18:27,320
Speaker 1: governed by what statute say and if they really are serious,

300
00:18:27,560 --> 00:18:30,439
Speaker 1: the statute answers the questions in this case, and it

301
00:18:30,440 --> 00:18:34,199
Speaker 1: would protect these waters. But there's a strong push to

302
00:18:34,880 --> 00:18:38,040
Speaker 1: get these justices to weaken the Clean Water Act to

303
00:18:38,160 --> 00:18:41,479
Speaker 1: kind of look away from the language and actually just

304
00:18:41,520 --> 00:18:44,520
Speaker 1: sort of reach an outcome that weakens the statute. And

305
00:18:44,560 --> 00:18:48,399
Speaker 1: so our effort and our brief and the reason hundred

306
00:18:48,440 --> 00:18:51,760
Speaker 1: and sixty seven members of Congress joined it was trying

307
00:18:51,760 --> 00:18:55,880
Speaker 1: to protect the Clean Water Act and it's long time successes.

308
00:18:56,640 --> 00:18:59,359
Speaker 1: In your brief, you say the administration of Donald J.

309
00:18:59,480 --> 00:19:02,960
Speaker 1: Trump is only administration to have sought a major weakening

310
00:19:03,160 --> 00:19:06,040
Speaker 1: of the Clean Water Act. What are you talking about

311
00:19:06,040 --> 00:19:08,720
Speaker 1: there and how did it work out for the Trump administration?

312
00:19:09,640 --> 00:19:13,960
Speaker 1: M so. So, First, that's just the script, accurate the scripts,

313
00:19:13,960 --> 00:19:17,160
Speaker 1: and that even going back to two thousands six earlier

314
00:19:17,200 --> 00:19:21,000
Speaker 1: case we talked about called Rapanos, the Bush administration, that

315
00:19:21,080 --> 00:19:26,240
Speaker 1: George W. Bush administration was aligned with the environmental interest

316
00:19:26,280 --> 00:19:29,480
Speaker 1: in trying to protect the Clean Water Act. Um. The

317
00:19:29,520 --> 00:19:35,520
Speaker 1: Trump administration very quickly tried to roll back protections through

318
00:19:35,560 --> 00:19:40,200
Speaker 1: several regulations and then also in briefs in the courts um,

319
00:19:40,320 --> 00:19:43,760
Speaker 1: and they did not meet with success. Um. People looked

320
00:19:43,760 --> 00:19:47,679
Speaker 1: at their regulations or their proposed change in regulations and

321
00:19:47,760 --> 00:19:52,560
Speaker 1: said they violated what the statute said. Um. And so

322
00:19:52,560 --> 00:19:54,840
Speaker 1: so now it's gone to the Supreme Court and the

323
00:19:55,080 --> 00:20:00,040
Speaker 1: question is will the current reconfigured court cut back on

324
00:20:00,119 --> 00:20:02,960
Speaker 1: the Clean Water Act or go with what has been

325
00:20:03,040 --> 00:20:05,879
Speaker 1: the view for about fifty years of the reach of

326
00:20:05,920 --> 00:20:09,760
Speaker 1: the statute. Well, thank you very much. That was William Buzby,

327
00:20:09,880 --> 00:20:13,920
Speaker 1: Georgetown law professor, talking about Second versus E p A,

328
00:20:14,080 --> 00:20:16,080
Speaker 1: which is going to be heard by the spoom Court

329
00:20:16,080 --> 00:20:19,520
Speaker 1: in October. You're listening to Bloomberg Law. I'm Kimberly Robinson

330
00:20:20,080 --> 00:20:23,200
Speaker 1: and I'm Greg's store. We're in for June Grasso. This

331
00:20:23,400 --> 00:20:35,920
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from

332
00:20:36,040 --> 00:20:40,760
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio. I'm Kimberly Robinson and I'm Greg's store. We're

333
00:20:40,760 --> 00:20:44,439
Speaker 1: in for June Grasso. The Supreme Court's Dabbs decision is

334
00:20:44,520 --> 00:20:47,639
Speaker 1: changing the nation's abortion landscape, but just how quickly is

335
00:20:47,680 --> 00:20:50,720
Speaker 1: it happening? With us to discuss that is Elizabeth Nash,

336
00:20:50,800 --> 00:20:54,040
Speaker 1: who follows state abortion policy at the Goomaker Institute, a

337
00:20:54,119 --> 00:20:57,960
Speaker 1: research organization that supports reproductive rights. Elizabeth, thanks for being

338
00:20:57,960 --> 00:21:01,720
Speaker 1: on with us. UM. Let's are with the overarching question

339
00:21:02,080 --> 00:21:05,080
Speaker 1: as we sit here right now in how many states

340
00:21:05,119 --> 00:21:10,600
Speaker 1: are all are virtually all abortions band So right now

341
00:21:10,640 --> 00:21:15,119
Speaker 1: we're looking at eleven states where there are near total

342
00:21:15,119 --> 00:21:18,880
Speaker 1: abortion bands. So those are abortion bands that may have

343
00:21:18,920 --> 00:21:23,360
Speaker 1: some exceptions like life for life, endanger mint, perhaps serious

344
00:21:23,760 --> 00:21:29,600
Speaker 1: physical health conditions, rape or incest, or fatal fetal anomaly. Right.

345
00:21:29,680 --> 00:21:33,560
Speaker 1: So that's the first eleven states, and then there are

346
00:21:33,640 --> 00:21:38,440
Speaker 1: another two states that have bands in effect at six weeks,

347
00:21:38,520 --> 00:21:40,960
Speaker 1: and then you have Florida at fifteen weeks, in North

348
00:21:40,960 --> 00:21:44,760
Speaker 1: Carolina at twenty weeks, and then the rest of the states.

349
00:21:44,800 --> 00:21:50,639
Speaker 1: So we're really looking at a large number of women

350
00:21:50,920 --> 00:21:54,199
Speaker 1: who are living in states without abortion access. If you

351
00:21:54,240 --> 00:21:58,520
Speaker 1: look at those eleven states alone, that's almost sixteen million

352
00:21:58,560 --> 00:22:02,480
Speaker 1: women of reproduct of age. And then can you tell

353
00:22:02,560 --> 00:22:05,960
Speaker 1: us looking forward, how many states are there where abortion

354
00:22:06,119 --> 00:22:10,400
Speaker 1: is on the brink of being banned, right, So we

355
00:22:10,480 --> 00:22:15,320
Speaker 1: also are looking at states where there may be a

356
00:22:15,400 --> 00:22:20,000
Speaker 1: special session upcoming, like in South Carolina, the legislature this summer,

357
00:22:20,320 --> 00:22:24,239
Speaker 1: the House committees and Senate committees have been discussing an

358
00:22:24,240 --> 00:22:27,320
Speaker 1: abortion band and they're about to go into special session

359
00:22:27,359 --> 00:22:30,520
Speaker 1: to pass it. And then there are states that had

360
00:22:30,560 --> 00:22:36,119
Speaker 1: adopted abortion bands, you know, maybe last year, the year before,

361
00:22:36,400 --> 00:22:39,800
Speaker 1: even years before that, where they're blocked in the courts,

362
00:22:40,040 --> 00:22:44,159
Speaker 1: and so there are states like Utah and Wyoming where

363
00:22:44,560 --> 00:22:47,840
Speaker 1: abortion bands are not in effect because of court action.

364
00:22:48,400 --> 00:22:52,320
Speaker 1: So we're really looking at a number of states where

365
00:22:52,320 --> 00:22:56,159
Speaker 1: we may be seeing more action around abortion bands in

366
00:22:56,240 --> 00:22:59,720
Speaker 1: the coming months. And if we were looking at a

367
00:22:59,760 --> 00:23:03,000
Speaker 1: man up, Um, we're we're an audio medium here, but

368
00:23:03,000 --> 00:23:05,280
Speaker 1: if we were looking at a map, where would we

369
00:23:05,400 --> 00:23:08,480
Speaker 1: see most of the states that you're talking about, right?

370
00:23:08,520 --> 00:23:11,560
Speaker 1: So yeah, So pretend you have this map in front

371
00:23:11,600 --> 00:23:15,880
Speaker 1: of you and we're really looking at the south, the plains,

372
00:23:16,119 --> 00:23:20,760
Speaker 1: the Midwest. So we're really looking at basically from North

373
00:23:20,840 --> 00:23:26,000
Speaker 1: Dakota over to Idaho, down to Texas, over to Georgia

374
00:23:26,200 --> 00:23:30,760
Speaker 1: and up back through Ohio. That is really the landscape

375
00:23:30,800 --> 00:23:35,080
Speaker 1: what we're looking at. And what that means is that

376
00:23:35,359 --> 00:23:39,840
Speaker 1: for these regions as states are you know, have abortion

377
00:23:39,880 --> 00:23:45,159
Speaker 1: bands in effect, that means that people have to travel

378
00:23:45,560 --> 00:23:51,239
Speaker 1: much longer distances in order to access care in another state. Right,

379
00:23:51,280 --> 00:23:53,919
Speaker 1: It's not like they're just and this is already a

380
00:23:54,000 --> 00:23:57,080
Speaker 1: huge burden to try to travel across state lines, but

381
00:23:58,240 --> 00:24:02,080
Speaker 1: the added burden is traveling multiple states. If you think

382
00:24:02,119 --> 00:24:08,040
Speaker 1: about Louisiana, Louisiana, you're probably going to go to Illinois.

383
00:24:08,880 --> 00:24:13,120
Speaker 1: And that's well over a thousand miles round trip for

384
00:24:13,160 --> 00:24:18,480
Speaker 1: somebody going from Louisiana to Illinois for an abortion right,

385
00:24:18,560 --> 00:24:22,760
Speaker 1: and that is a very hard trip to make. Right.

386
00:24:22,800 --> 00:24:28,200
Speaker 1: You're leaving your um, your support network, your you may

387
00:24:28,240 --> 00:24:31,639
Speaker 1: have a child. Sixty of abortion patients have had a child.

388
00:24:33,320 --> 00:24:36,719
Speaker 1: Of abortion patients are low income. So you're talking about

389
00:24:37,480 --> 00:24:41,800
Speaker 1: really difficult and burdensome journey financially and emotionally for somebody

390
00:24:41,800 --> 00:24:44,840
Speaker 1: to travel. And then I think you describe them as

391
00:24:44,920 --> 00:24:48,480
Speaker 1: near total bands. I'm wondering what kinds of exceptions are there?

392
00:24:48,560 --> 00:24:50,879
Speaker 1: Do we see many of these states have in place

393
00:24:50,920 --> 00:24:54,200
Speaker 1: exceptions for rape and incest or or is it really

394
00:24:54,240 --> 00:24:58,760
Speaker 1: just for the health and safety of the mother. So really,

395
00:24:59,040 --> 00:25:02,480
Speaker 1: what we've seen in all eleven states, there's an exception

396
00:25:02,720 --> 00:25:07,200
Speaker 1: for life endangerment um that that's in every single one

397
00:25:07,200 --> 00:25:11,919
Speaker 1: of them, and then a smaller subset have exceptions for

398
00:25:12,720 --> 00:25:17,200
Speaker 1: rape and incest or fatal fetal anomaly or serious physical

399
00:25:17,200 --> 00:25:22,119
Speaker 1: health conditions. And you really do not see the rape

400
00:25:22,160 --> 00:25:27,440
Speaker 1: and incest exceptions or the fatal fetal anomaly exceptions very often.

401
00:25:28,840 --> 00:25:34,439
Speaker 1: Those exceptions people think are more or more often you know,

402
00:25:34,880 --> 00:25:39,199
Speaker 1: happen more often than actually do. So if we're you know,

403
00:25:39,359 --> 00:25:43,120
Speaker 1: looking at it's it's really just a couple of these

404
00:25:43,119 --> 00:25:47,359
Speaker 1: states that have those exceptions. Even though they get debated

405
00:25:47,480 --> 00:25:51,639
Speaker 1: in public in state legislatures, they don't often get added

406
00:25:51,680 --> 00:25:57,640
Speaker 1: into these bills. So where are the biggest court fights,

407
00:25:57,720 --> 00:26:01,560
Speaker 1: legal fights that you're watching, right? And there have been

408
00:26:01,600 --> 00:26:05,959
Speaker 1: a couple at least over whether federal federal law requires

409
00:26:07,400 --> 00:26:12,840
Speaker 1: certain health exceptions and abortion laws. Right, So your pinpointing

410
00:26:12,960 --> 00:26:17,280
Speaker 1: the Idaho in the Texas cases where the Department of

411
00:26:17,359 --> 00:26:23,879
Speaker 1: Justice has sued arguing that m talah applies two abortion

412
00:26:23,920 --> 00:26:28,120
Speaker 1: bands because the exceptions for life and health in these

413
00:26:28,119 --> 00:26:32,360
Speaker 1: states was just simply insufficient. And in Texas, what we've

414
00:26:32,400 --> 00:26:35,040
Speaker 1: seen so far is that the courts have sided with

415
00:26:35,080 --> 00:26:40,000
Speaker 1: the state and and in Idaho the courts have sided

416
00:26:40,000 --> 00:26:44,560
Speaker 1: with the Department of Justice. And so in Idaho, uh,

417
00:26:44,640 --> 00:26:47,680
Speaker 1: if abortion is going to be provided under an exception,

418
00:26:48,040 --> 00:26:51,320
Speaker 1: you know, the health exception has to follow m TWA,

419
00:26:51,760 --> 00:26:56,800
Speaker 1: meaning that you know, there's a condition that requires treatment

420
00:26:57,600 --> 00:27:00,640
Speaker 1: UM and because you know, transferring that pace it may

421
00:27:00,800 --> 00:27:06,840
Speaker 1: be deleterious to that person's um medical status UM. In

422
00:27:07,080 --> 00:27:11,280
Speaker 1: other states we are seeing, you know, court cases in

423
00:27:11,440 --> 00:27:16,760
Speaker 1: state court um against their trigger bands, and you know,

424
00:27:17,000 --> 00:27:22,080
Speaker 1: cases are using their state constitutions, which we really haven't

425
00:27:22,119 --> 00:27:25,919
Speaker 1: seen much of over the past fifty years because we

426
00:27:26,080 --> 00:27:29,960
Speaker 1: had these spectral abortion rights. So places like in Utah

427
00:27:30,040 --> 00:27:35,440
Speaker 1: and Wyoming, their state constitutions are being tested now to

428
00:27:35,600 --> 00:27:39,479
Speaker 1: see if they support abortion rights. And so I'm wondering

429
00:27:39,600 --> 00:27:42,680
Speaker 1: if you see any of these cases that are currently

430
00:27:42,720 --> 00:27:46,080
Speaker 1: pending making their way up to the Supreme Court maybe

431
00:27:46,160 --> 00:27:50,240
Speaker 1: around mid terms to keep kind of abortion in the spotlight, um,

432
00:27:50,320 --> 00:27:51,840
Speaker 1: do you think any of them will be moving that

433
00:27:51,920 --> 00:27:54,800
Speaker 1: quickly or is the Supreme Court out of abortion for

434
00:27:54,840 --> 00:27:58,560
Speaker 1: a little bit. Well, I think the U. S. Supreme

435
00:27:58,600 --> 00:28:02,159
Speaker 1: Court is probably not going to be weighing in on

436
00:28:02,280 --> 00:28:04,800
Speaker 1: abortion over the next couple of months, at least. I'm

437
00:28:04,840 --> 00:28:07,920
Speaker 1: not anticipating right now that there will be a case

438
00:28:08,000 --> 00:28:11,520
Speaker 1: put before them, but we will be seeing, you know,

439
00:28:11,600 --> 00:28:15,840
Speaker 1: what is happening in the state courts, and that has

440
00:28:16,000 --> 00:28:19,359
Speaker 1: galvanized people in a way that I don't know if

441
00:28:19,400 --> 00:28:22,240
Speaker 1: we told you know, people totally expected it. But as

442
00:28:22,280 --> 00:28:27,399
Speaker 1: we are seeing what is happening in South Carolina with

443
00:28:27,520 --> 00:28:31,240
Speaker 1: their legislature, or we're seeing how patients are denied care

444
00:28:31,680 --> 00:28:35,240
Speaker 1: or we're seeing how these court cases are moving through

445
00:28:35,280 --> 00:28:40,680
Speaker 1: the system. It's almost a daily reminder of what happened

446
00:28:40,680 --> 00:28:47,040
Speaker 1: in Dobbs. Before the Supreme Court ruled UM. The number

447
00:28:47,080 --> 00:28:49,600
Speaker 1: that that you and your organization used was twenty six,

448
00:28:49,600 --> 00:28:52,040
Speaker 1: that there were twenty six states that you that were

449
00:28:52,080 --> 00:28:54,480
Speaker 1: either certain or likely to be an abortion without row.

450
00:28:54,960 --> 00:28:59,040
Speaker 1: Is that number still still what you're thinking? It is

451
00:28:59,080 --> 00:29:01,920
Speaker 1: still what we're saying. Thing you know, I think that

452
00:29:02,800 --> 00:29:08,040
Speaker 1: we're looking at about half of the states probably at

453
00:29:08,120 --> 00:29:11,360
Speaker 1: least going to try to ban abortion, And in many

454
00:29:11,400 --> 00:29:16,600
Speaker 1: of these states it feels like a certainty UM. In part,

455
00:29:16,640 --> 00:29:18,120
Speaker 1: we're going to have to see how some of these

456
00:29:18,120 --> 00:29:22,400
Speaker 1: court cases shake out. UM. But also there are these

457
00:29:22,440 --> 00:29:26,480
Speaker 1: states like South Carolina that are moving ahead for abortion bands.

458
00:29:26,560 --> 00:29:31,360
Speaker 1: Were also anticipating Nebraska will move ahead with some sort

459
00:29:31,400 --> 00:29:35,680
Speaker 1: of abortion band when they return. One place where I

460
00:29:35,720 --> 00:29:38,640
Speaker 1: think one state that we included in our account with

461
00:29:38,800 --> 00:29:42,440
Speaker 1: Michigan and Michigan maybe the one state where we really

462
00:29:42,520 --> 00:29:47,720
Speaker 1: think that it's going to go in an opposite direction, UM,

463
00:29:47,720 --> 00:29:54,240
Speaker 1: where people have been motivated by Dobbs to um asked

464
00:29:54,360 --> 00:29:57,920
Speaker 1: on abortion rights, and we're seeing that with the governor

465
00:29:58,080 --> 00:30:01,400
Speaker 1: and the Attorney general pushing back against the pre row band,

466
00:30:01,840 --> 00:30:05,680
Speaker 1: but also because there's a ballot initiative in November that

467
00:30:05,800 --> 00:30:10,360
Speaker 1: would protect abortion rights in the state constitution. So Michigan's

468
00:30:10,400 --> 00:30:13,840
Speaker 1: the one state where it's more of a question mark

469
00:30:13,960 --> 00:30:17,680
Speaker 1: than the others. So in those states the question will

470
00:30:17,720 --> 00:30:21,920
Speaker 1: then become UH an issue of interstate travel. Can people

471
00:30:21,960 --> 00:30:25,720
Speaker 1: seeking abortions travel to other states? And wondering have any

472
00:30:25,760 --> 00:30:30,480
Speaker 1: states put into place laws designed to UH, designed to

473
00:30:30,480 --> 00:30:35,360
Speaker 1: prevent their residents from traveling elsewhere to get abortions. We

474
00:30:35,440 --> 00:30:38,440
Speaker 1: haven't seen that yet. We what we saw this year

475
00:30:38,520 --> 00:30:44,400
Speaker 1: was language introduced in Missouri around banning out of state

476
00:30:44,440 --> 00:30:50,600
Speaker 1: travel for an abortion, and that language was so striking

477
00:30:50,680 --> 00:30:54,400
Speaker 1: and stunning that it really got a lot of attention

478
00:30:54,480 --> 00:30:58,160
Speaker 1: and was and as a result, never adopted into any

479
00:30:58,200 --> 00:31:02,240
Speaker 1: of the bills that were moving. But it simply introducing

480
00:31:02,240 --> 00:31:06,560
Speaker 1: it and starting a conversation has changed the debate where

481
00:31:07,800 --> 00:31:13,080
Speaker 1: states are now potentially looking at some way to limit travel,

482
00:31:13,640 --> 00:31:18,720
Speaker 1: and they may not pass explicit ban on travel, but

483
00:31:18,880 --> 00:31:23,800
Speaker 1: what they might do is look to limit the scope

484
00:31:23,840 --> 00:31:28,440
Speaker 1: of abortion funds and practical support organizations that help people

485
00:31:28,600 --> 00:31:32,240
Speaker 1: get from their home to the abortion clinic in another

486
00:31:32,320 --> 00:31:35,479
Speaker 1: state and back our thanks to Elizabeth Nash of the

487
00:31:35,480 --> 00:31:38,680
Speaker 1: Gootmacker Institute talking about the state of abortion policy in

488
00:31:38,720 --> 00:31:41,400
Speaker 1: the United States. That does it for this episode of

489
00:31:41,400 --> 00:31:45,480
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law. I'm Greg Store and I'm Kimberly Robinson. This

490
00:31:45,640 --> 00:31:46,200
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg