Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law. Some complicated international law issues here.
Speaker 1: What kind of docket is Chief Justice Roberts facing interviews
Speaker 1: with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts. Joining me is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg Store, Neil Devon's professor
Speaker 1: at William and Mary Law School, and analysis of important
Speaker 1: legal issues cases and headlock. Is this essentially the fifth
Speaker 1: circuit haunting he has presided over a so called hot
Speaker 1: bench at the Supreme Court. Bloomberg Law with June Grasso
Speaker 1: from Bloomberg Radio. Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Shop. I'm
Speaker 1: Kimberly Robinson and I'm Gregg's Store. We're in for June
Speaker 1: Grasso coming up on the show. The Supreme Court prepares
Speaker 1: to consider scaling back the reach of the Clean Water Act,
Speaker 1: but first, in a new court filing, the Justice Department
Speaker 1: says a few of the documents that see from Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's home may be covered by attorney client privilege. With
Speaker 1: us to discuss the filing and what's next in the
Speaker 1: Marl Lagas search Saga is Bloomberg News reporter so Wee Tillman, Zoe,
Speaker 1: thanks for being here. Tell us about this court filing Zoe,
Speaker 1: what do we learn today? You know, we learned a
Speaker 1: couple of key things, the first being that investigators are
Speaker 1: quite far along in going through the documents that were seized,
Speaker 1: to the point that they could tell a judge in
Speaker 1: Florida that their privileged team had gone through the documents
Speaker 1: that were seized, had identified that some were potentially attorney
Speaker 1: client privileged material, and that they were already going through
Speaker 1: the process that they had previously laid out for what
Speaker 1: to do with that information. It was a strong suggestion
Speaker 1: to the judge perhaps that this is all moot and
Speaker 1: far too late in the game to bring in someone
Speaker 1: now to to unring the bell of giving investigators access
Speaker 1: to these documents. So, putting aside the special master issue,
Speaker 1: what's the normal procedure that the d o J goes
Speaker 1: through when dealing with privileged documents like this? Yeah, so
Speaker 1: it's pretty common for a federal and instigation, especially one
Speaker 1: like this, to have what's known as a taint team
Speaker 1: or a filter team or privileged team, which is a
Speaker 1: collection of usually FBI agents and prosecutors who are not
Speaker 1: the lead prosecutors in case agents in an investigation, And
Speaker 1: the purpose of that is so that the folks who
Speaker 1: are ultimately prosecuting the case, they don't see something that
Speaker 1: could get them disqualified or knocked out of the investigation
Speaker 1: at some later critical phase, or I think worst case
Speaker 1: scenario for the Justice Department jeopardized the entire integrity of
Speaker 1: the investigation with less clear here is this the concept
Speaker 1: of executive privilege and whether that type of privilege is
Speaker 1: something that the Justice Department could or should filter for
Speaker 1: as they're going through these documents. That's not typically what
Speaker 1: a taint team would be looking for. So that's a
Speaker 1: big question mark. And the Justice Department did not address
Speaker 1: that issue, which Trump has raised in the filing today.
Speaker 1: So what about the documents that are clearly not privileged? Um,
Speaker 1: which may be significant. We don't really know how much
Speaker 1: we're talking about here. Um. Is there any arguments that's
Speaker 1: even on the table that uh that that former President
Speaker 1: Trump might be able to get those documents back. There's
Speaker 1: a little precedent for this. Early on, Trump had complained
Speaker 1: that they had taken his some of his passports and
Speaker 1: those were returned. I think that's an example of what
Speaker 1: is you know, generally, what it's supposed to happen, where
Speaker 1: if something gets caught up in a seizure that they
Speaker 1: don't have legal authority to take, they will give it back. Uh.
Speaker 1: And that appears to have happened here. You know, Trump
Speaker 1: has not suggested there any other specific categories of documents
Speaker 1: that he should have back for some other reason besides privilege. Um.
Speaker 1: And the legal argument for that I think would be
Speaker 1: a bit murky. You know, at the point that there's
Speaker 1: no contest to the legality of the search warrant and
Speaker 1: the seizure itself, you know, at that point those documents
Speaker 1: have been seized are sue into that authority. So privilege
Speaker 1: is really one of the few carve outs to their
Speaker 1: ability to use what they took under the umbrella of
Speaker 1: categories that they a judge gave them the green light
Speaker 1: to take. And so, what, if anything, do we know
Speaker 1: about how much classified information was seized by the Justice
Speaker 1: Department on August eight more logo, Yeah, so we don't
Speaker 1: know a whole lot about the substance. We know that
Speaker 1: there were I think it was roughly twenty boxes and
Speaker 1: within those eleven sets of classified materials with different markings
Speaker 1: indicating levels of classified information. UM. And so you know,
Speaker 1: we don't have much more than that, they don't have
Speaker 1: more specific markings that we've been made aware of sort
Speaker 1: of similar, not quite similar to what we've learned about
Speaker 1: documents that were seized in January and returned to the
Speaker 1: National Archives from our lago where there's Justice Department revealed
Speaker 1: that some of those had markings related to the foreign
Speaker 1: intelligence surveillance at door, markings related to intelligence from human sources.
Speaker 1: You know, we've got a bit more detail about the
Speaker 1: level of sensitivity of some of those documents. We don't
Speaker 1: have that yet for the August eight collection. Remind us
Speaker 1: what potential criminal charges could grow out of these documents. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think what's important to remember is that the charges
Speaker 1: that the Justice Department cited are not specific to classified information.
Speaker 1: They have to do with generally mishandling government records, information
Speaker 1: related to national defense, which can be uh an even
Speaker 1: broader category of information. It's not just about what happened
Speaker 1: to information that's classified. It's about the handling of sensitive
Speaker 1: government records. And then finally, obstruction, you know, whether there
Speaker 1: was evidence of obstructing an investigation, which is separate and
Speaker 1: apart from the question of the documents and how they
Speaker 1: were handled. At the beginning So this is all happening
Speaker 1: at the same time that the Justice Department is also
Speaker 1: pursuing a grand jury investigation centering on Trump's attempts to
Speaker 1: over earned the election result. Is there any reason to
Speaker 1: think that one of those two investigations is going to
Speaker 1: come before the other? You know, I think that in
Speaker 1: green lighting the seeking of a search warrant for the
Speaker 1: home of a former president, the Attorney General has, you know,
Speaker 1: put this investigation at the front of the queue in
Speaker 1: terms of public awareness and the public consciousness and the
Speaker 1: sense of urgency that they seem to feel around this investigation.
Speaker 1: Whether one results in charges before the other, or whether
Speaker 1: anything results in charges ever remains to be seen. But
Speaker 1: I think they've conveyed more of a sense of urgency
Speaker 1: now around these records as opposed to the January six investigation.
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg News reporters Zoe Tillman, Zoe, thanks for joining us.
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law. Up next, property rights advocates
Speaker 1: are hoping the Supreme Court will put new limits on
Speaker 1: the Clean Water Act. I'm Greg Store and I'm Kimberly Robinson.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. Yeah, this is Bloombird. Law with June
Speaker 1: Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. I'm Gregg Store and I'm Kimberly Robinson.
Speaker 1: We're in for June Grasso. We turned away from Florida
Speaker 1: now and onto Idaho, which is the center of a
Speaker 1: water dispute that the U. S. Supreme Court is set
Speaker 1: to here in October. Joining us is Georgetown law professor
Speaker 1: William Busby, who wrote a front of the court brief
Speaker 1: in support of the e p A here. Thanks so
Speaker 1: much for joining us. I'm pleased to join you so, William.
Speaker 1: This case stretches all the way back to two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight and is actually on its second trip to
Speaker 1: the High Court. What is it that the plaintiff, the
Speaker 1: second Family, is fighting about? Um This case focuses on
Speaker 1: this question of where federal power begins and ends to
Speaker 1: protect what are called waters of the United States, and
Speaker 1: in particular um our lands that are wet lands or
Speaker 1: alleged to be wetlands. Can they be protected by the
Speaker 1: federal government under the Clean Water Act? The sackets the
Speaker 1: homeowners here property owners. They argue the federal government has
Speaker 1: no power to protect their property from filling UH and
Speaker 1: e p A and the Army Corps of engineers. Uh,
Speaker 1: they view this property as a wetland subject to federal
Speaker 1: jurisdiction and then thus subject to restructions on polluting into
Speaker 1: it or filling it. And tell us just a little
Speaker 1: bit about their property. They are neither in northern Idaho,
Speaker 1: and they're near lake, but not right on it. Is
Speaker 1: that right? Yes, Um, they are near the lake. What
Speaker 1: one thing that complicates it is they are essentially on
Speaker 1: a map which is part of the record of the
Speaker 1: case shows their property be essentially in a whole area
Speaker 1: that is clearly mapped as wetlands and that are kind
Speaker 1: of continuously transitioning to connections with the lake. But their property,
Speaker 1: the Sackets property, actually has a in one area and
Speaker 1: some houses in the other. And so their story is
Speaker 1: that their land lacks the connection to this large lake,
Speaker 1: which most people agree is subject to federal jurisdiction, and
Speaker 1: they argue that because it's essentially cut off, it should
Speaker 1: not be protected. The federal government says, no, that this
Speaker 1: is clearly a wetland when you look at the nature
Speaker 1: of it, the wetness of it, what it would be
Speaker 1: but for uh, this road in these houses, that this
Speaker 1: is a protectable wetland. And so let's step back a
Speaker 1: little bit. Why does the definition of waters of the
Speaker 1: United States matter? What is it that it allows the
Speaker 1: e p A to do um? Well, first, it's important.
Speaker 1: This is the e p A and the Army Corps
Speaker 1: of Engineers. They divide jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act,
Speaker 1: And going back to basically the early nineteen seventies version
Speaker 1: of the Clean Water Act, what is a water of
Speaker 1: the United States is what is protectable by the federal
Speaker 1: government from all types of pollution. Uh. And so the
Speaker 1: question of whether something is a protected water um is
Speaker 1: absolutely the heart and core of the Clean Water Act. So,
Speaker 1: for example, if an industrial polluter right now is discharging
Speaker 1: pollution into something, that's debatable. If it is a water
Speaker 1: it has to have a permit, or if it's filling,
Speaker 1: it has certain restrictions on filling at all. If it's
Speaker 1: not federally protected, then the only protections would be if
Speaker 1: a state has on its own decided to protect out
Speaker 1: that land or that water. So there's a very important
Speaker 1: precedent governing the Clean Water Act from two thousand six.
Speaker 1: Turns out, Kimberly and I disagree how to pronounce it.
Speaker 1: So we'll let you tell us what the correct pronunciation is.
Speaker 1: Can you do that? And also tell us why that
Speaker 1: case is so important? What what did or did not
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court decide in that case? Sure well to
Speaker 1: to add confusion on confusion the way I've always heard,
Speaker 1: I've not met that people at issue in that earlier case,
Speaker 1: but everyone refers to it as Ropanos, So so I
Speaker 1: will refer to it as Rapanos. Like that said, I've
Speaker 1: not met the Ropontos family, so I can't guarantee that
Speaker 1: I won't. I won't tell anybody who was right. Uh.
Speaker 1: And so the Rapanos case is the last major Supreme
Speaker 1: Court case that addressed this question, uh and uh. And
Speaker 1: in that case what happened ended up being very confusing
Speaker 1: because in the end also a case about whether some
Speaker 1: waters or lands that were kind of at the border,
Speaker 1: whether they were protected. The court splintered in several ways,
Speaker 1: so there was no single majority opinion um. And so
Speaker 1: there was what's called a plurality opinion that only four
Speaker 1: justices joined, that was written by Justice Scalia. Then there
Speaker 1: was an important opinion by Justice Kennedy, but which for
Speaker 1: dissenters mostly agreed with um uh. And then there was
Speaker 1: dissenting opinions, and so there was no single opinion that
Speaker 1: a clear majority agreed with. But if you analyze that,
Speaker 1: there were certain agreements on certain issues, so um, it
Speaker 1: kind of in the cases and before agencies, it actually
Speaker 1: had sorted out pretty well. How to make sense of
Speaker 1: it when you look at certain issues. Okay, this is
Speaker 1: where a majority stood, but it definitely is a confusing
Speaker 1: case that professors and students and certainly those out in
Speaker 1: the real world have puzzled over since that time. Now,
Speaker 1: if I'm correct, the lower court here applied a test
Speaker 1: that was close to the one that Justice Kennedy had
Speaker 1: written just for himself. And if that's right, can you
Speaker 1: tell us what that allowed the E p A and
Speaker 1: the Army Corps of Engineers to do? Sure? But actually,
Speaker 1: so this is important is that us as Kennedy wrote
Speaker 1: an opinion that that it was his own name, but
Speaker 1: most of that opinion the dissenters uh explicitly agreed with,
Speaker 1: and Justice Kennedy in his opinion agreed with most of
Speaker 1: what the dissenters said. So in looking at Supreme Court law,
Speaker 1: you often look at where do people agree and disagree?
Speaker 1: And so the part of the reason the Kennedy opinion,
Speaker 1: which does this thing called the significant nexus test. The
Speaker 1: reason it was so important is it seemed to be
Speaker 1: the kind of common ground that most of the justices
Speaker 1: agreed with UM, and then you just asked, you know,
Speaker 1: what does it do? What this What that opinion said
Speaker 1: was when you decide whether a disputed water is protected
Speaker 1: by the federal government, you look to see if it
Speaker 1: has a significant nexus to what is clearly a navigable
Speaker 1: such as like ships and barges. Is it clearly have
Speaker 1: a significant nexus to kind of large, indisputable jurisdictional water
Speaker 1: is UM. And that's important because it was a kind
Speaker 1: of a functional test to just look to see how
Speaker 1: does it connect, what does it do? And so was
Speaker 1: quite consistent with the Clean Water Act, which is overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: focused on protecting waters for their functions and to make
Speaker 1: sure they're safe for drinking and recreation and biological integrity.
Speaker 1: So that was the test he formulated, but it was
Speaker 1: consistent with long standing regulations in the Statute. And so
Speaker 1: since two thousand and six, Justice Kennedy's test has been
Speaker 1: the main test people have applied in deciding if something
Speaker 1: is protected. You're listening to Bloomberg Law. Coming up, we'll
Speaker 1: continue our conversation with Georgetown law professor William Buzzby wrote
Speaker 1: a Friend of the Court brief in support of the
Speaker 1: e p A and a major Clean Water Act case.
Speaker 1: I'm Greg Store and I'm Kimberly Robinson. This is Bloomer.
Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: I'm Gregg Store and I'm Kimberly Robinson. We're in for
Speaker 1: June Grasso. We're chatting with Georgetown law professor William Buzby
Speaker 1: about the latest environmental case that the U. Supreme Court
Speaker 1: will consider in October. And what did the sackets say
Speaker 1: should be the test Instead of that significant nexus test,
Speaker 1: they basically want to completely discard the Kennedy test. Um
Speaker 1: they would they prefer, and they've come up really on
Speaker 1: their own, is a test that is kind of like
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia's opinion that was called the plurality that four
Speaker 1: justices agreed with. But they even go further. They kind
Speaker 1: of want to say, as as best as I can
Speaker 1: understand it, you only protect waters that are sort of
Speaker 1: being used as channels of interstate commerce um and that
Speaker 1: have a permanent surface connection. Uh and continuously low. Um.
Speaker 1: And so that's kind of what school Leah said and
Speaker 1: what they have sort of embellished, and that sackets have
Speaker 1: embellished and maybe further strengthened or maybe i'd say weekend Um.
Speaker 1: The problem with that test is much of the country
Speaker 1: would no longer be subject to federal protection if that
Speaker 1: test were adopted. If you look at the west and
Speaker 1: the southwest, or you look also in the southeast an
Speaker 1: areas where there are levies on rivers and the lake,
Speaker 1: the test that they prefer would render but are most
Speaker 1: people would clearly say our water is no longer protected
Speaker 1: by federal law. And so the United States and my
Speaker 1: clients a hundred and sixty seven members of Congress argue
Speaker 1: against that test, saying it's just not consistent with the
Speaker 1: Clean Water Act, which is you protect waters for their criteria,
Speaker 1: for their you know, high quality water criteria, and for
Speaker 1: their functions. Um and uh. So this test that the
Speaker 1: Sacatswan we argue is just not consistent with the statute.
Speaker 1: So you filed an amicus brief on behalf of a
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty seven members of Congress tell us why
Speaker 1: they decided to weigh in on this case. UM. Members
Speaker 1: of Congress have viewed and scientists and environmentalists, and frankly
Speaker 1: much of the world views our nation's Clean Water Act
Speaker 1: as one of its signature successes. UM. The Clean Water
Speaker 1: Act has been very strong and really a bipartisan project
Speaker 1: going back to nineteen seventies and UH. And so the
Speaker 1: goal of our clients, the hundred sixty seven members of Congress,
Speaker 1: was to basically make sure the Clean Water Act is
Speaker 1: not weakened, and the Clean Water Act has a The
Speaker 1: statute is very clear with its language. It about don't
Speaker 1: degrade waters, protect fish, shellfish, biological integrity, ecosystem diversity, recreation,
Speaker 1: and economic values. This is all in the statute. And
Speaker 1: so the members of Congress really wanted to put before
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. This is what the statute says, UM
Speaker 1: and UH, and discourt is in an interesting position. It
Speaker 1: claims the conservatives on the Supreme Court, I think, claim
Speaker 1: that they are textualists. UM. That is, they would be
Speaker 1: governed by what statute say and if they really are serious,
Speaker 1: the statute answers the questions in this case, and it
Speaker 1: would protect these waters. But there's a strong push to
Speaker 1: get these justices to weaken the Clean Water Act to
Speaker 1: kind of look away from the language and actually just
Speaker 1: sort of reach an outcome that weakens the statute. And
Speaker 1: so our effort and our brief and the reason hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty seven members of Congress joined it was trying
Speaker 1: to protect the Clean Water Act and it's long time successes.
Speaker 1: In your brief, you say the administration of Donald J.
Speaker 1: Trump is only administration to have sought a major weakening
Speaker 1: of the Clean Water Act. What are you talking about
Speaker 1: there and how did it work out for the Trump administration?
Speaker 1: M so. So, First, that's just the script, accurate the scripts,
Speaker 1: and that even going back to two thousands six earlier
Speaker 1: case we talked about called Rapanos, the Bush administration, that
Speaker 1: George W. Bush administration was aligned with the environmental interest
Speaker 1: in trying to protect the Clean Water Act. Um. The
Speaker 1: Trump administration very quickly tried to roll back protections through
Speaker 1: several regulations and then also in briefs in the courts um,
Speaker 1: and they did not meet with success. Um. People looked
Speaker 1: at their regulations or their proposed change in regulations and
Speaker 1: said they violated what the statute said. Um. And so
Speaker 1: so now it's gone to the Supreme Court and the
Speaker 1: question is will the current reconfigured court cut back on
Speaker 1: the Clean Water Act or go with what has been
Speaker 1: the view for about fifty years of the reach of
Speaker 1: the statute. Well, thank you very much. That was William Buzby,
Speaker 1: Georgetown law professor, talking about Second versus E p A,
Speaker 1: which is going to be heard by the spoom Court
Speaker 1: in October. You're listening to Bloomberg Law. I'm Kimberly Robinson
Speaker 1: and I'm Greg's store. We're in for June Grasso. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio. I'm Kimberly Robinson and I'm Greg's store. We're
Speaker 1: in for June Grasso. The Supreme Court's Dabbs decision is
Speaker 1: changing the nation's abortion landscape, but just how quickly is
Speaker 1: it happening? With us to discuss that is Elizabeth Nash,
Speaker 1: who follows state abortion policy at the Goomaker Institute, a
Speaker 1: research organization that supports reproductive rights. Elizabeth, thanks for being
Speaker 1: on with us. UM. Let's are with the overarching question
Speaker 1: as we sit here right now in how many states
Speaker 1: are all are virtually all abortions band So right now
Speaker 1: we're looking at eleven states where there are near total
Speaker 1: abortion bands. So those are abortion bands that may have
Speaker 1: some exceptions like life for life, endanger mint, perhaps serious
Speaker 1: physical health conditions, rape or incest, or fatal fetal anomaly. Right.
Speaker 1: So that's the first eleven states, and then there are
Speaker 1: another two states that have bands in effect at six weeks,
Speaker 1: and then you have Florida at fifteen weeks, in North
Speaker 1: Carolina at twenty weeks, and then the rest of the states.
Speaker 1: So we're really looking at a large number of women
Speaker 1: who are living in states without abortion access. If you
Speaker 1: look at those eleven states alone, that's almost sixteen million
Speaker 1: women of reproduct of age. And then can you tell
Speaker 1: us looking forward, how many states are there where abortion
Speaker 1: is on the brink of being banned, right, So we
Speaker 1: also are looking at states where there may be a
Speaker 1: special session upcoming, like in South Carolina, the legislature this summer,
Speaker 1: the House committees and Senate committees have been discussing an
Speaker 1: abortion band and they're about to go into special session
Speaker 1: to pass it. And then there are states that had
Speaker 1: adopted abortion bands, you know, maybe last year, the year before,
Speaker 1: even years before that, where they're blocked in the courts,
Speaker 1: and so there are states like Utah and Wyoming where
Speaker 1: abortion bands are not in effect because of court action.
Speaker 1: So we're really looking at a number of states where
Speaker 1: we may be seeing more action around abortion bands in
Speaker 1: the coming months. And if we were looking at a
Speaker 1: man up, Um, we're we're an audio medium here, but
Speaker 1: if we were looking at a map, where would we
Speaker 1: see most of the states that you're talking about, right?
Speaker 1: So yeah, So pretend you have this map in front
Speaker 1: of you and we're really looking at the south, the plains,
Speaker 1: the Midwest. So we're really looking at basically from North
Speaker 1: Dakota over to Idaho, down to Texas, over to Georgia
Speaker 1: and up back through Ohio. That is really the landscape
Speaker 1: what we're looking at. And what that means is that
Speaker 1: for these regions as states are you know, have abortion
Speaker 1: bands in effect, that means that people have to travel
Speaker 1: much longer distances in order to access care in another state. Right,
Speaker 1: It's not like they're just and this is already a
Speaker 1: huge burden to try to travel across state lines, but
Speaker 1: the added burden is traveling multiple states. If you think
Speaker 1: about Louisiana, Louisiana, you're probably going to go to Illinois.
Speaker 1: And that's well over a thousand miles round trip for
Speaker 1: somebody going from Louisiana to Illinois for an abortion right,
Speaker 1: and that is a very hard trip to make. Right.
Speaker 1: You're leaving your um, your support network, your you may
Speaker 1: have a child. Sixty of abortion patients have had a child.
Speaker 1: Of abortion patients are low income. So you're talking about
Speaker 1: really difficult and burdensome journey financially and emotionally for somebody
Speaker 1: to travel. And then I think you describe them as
Speaker 1: near total bands. I'm wondering what kinds of exceptions are there?
Speaker 1: Do we see many of these states have in place
Speaker 1: exceptions for rape and incest or or is it really
Speaker 1: just for the health and safety of the mother. So really,
Speaker 1: what we've seen in all eleven states, there's an exception
Speaker 1: for life endangerment um that that's in every single one
Speaker 1: of them, and then a smaller subset have exceptions for
Speaker 1: rape and incest or fatal fetal anomaly or serious physical
Speaker 1: health conditions. And you really do not see the rape
Speaker 1: and incest exceptions or the fatal fetal anomaly exceptions very often.
Speaker 1: Those exceptions people think are more or more often you know,
Speaker 1: happen more often than actually do. So if we're you know,
Speaker 1: looking at it's it's really just a couple of these
Speaker 1: states that have those exceptions. Even though they get debated
Speaker 1: in public in state legislatures, they don't often get added
Speaker 1: into these bills. So where are the biggest court fights,
Speaker 1: legal fights that you're watching, right? And there have been
Speaker 1: a couple at least over whether federal federal law requires
Speaker 1: certain health exceptions and abortion laws. Right, So your pinpointing
Speaker 1: the Idaho in the Texas cases where the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice has sued arguing that m talah applies two abortion
Speaker 1: bands because the exceptions for life and health in these
Speaker 1: states was just simply insufficient. And in Texas, what we've
Speaker 1: seen so far is that the courts have sided with
Speaker 1: the state and and in Idaho the courts have sided
Speaker 1: with the Department of Justice. And so in Idaho, uh,
Speaker 1: if abortion is going to be provided under an exception,
Speaker 1: you know, the health exception has to follow m TWA,
Speaker 1: meaning that you know, there's a condition that requires treatment
Speaker 1: UM and because you know, transferring that pace it may
Speaker 1: be deleterious to that person's um medical status UM. In
Speaker 1: other states we are seeing, you know, court cases in
Speaker 1: state court um against their trigger bands, and you know,
Speaker 1: cases are using their state constitutions, which we really haven't
Speaker 1: seen much of over the past fifty years because we
Speaker 1: had these spectral abortion rights. So places like in Utah
Speaker 1: and Wyoming, their state constitutions are being tested now to
Speaker 1: see if they support abortion rights. And so I'm wondering
Speaker 1: if you see any of these cases that are currently
Speaker 1: pending making their way up to the Supreme Court maybe
Speaker 1: around mid terms to keep kind of abortion in the spotlight, um,
Speaker 1: do you think any of them will be moving that
Speaker 1: quickly or is the Supreme Court out of abortion for
Speaker 1: a little bit. Well, I think the U. S. Supreme
Speaker 1: Court is probably not going to be weighing in on
Speaker 1: abortion over the next couple of months, at least. I'm
Speaker 1: not anticipating right now that there will be a case
Speaker 1: put before them, but we will be seeing, you know,
Speaker 1: what is happening in the state courts, and that has
Speaker 1: galvanized people in a way that I don't know if
Speaker 1: we told you know, people totally expected it. But as
Speaker 1: we are seeing what is happening in South Carolina with
Speaker 1: their legislature, or we're seeing how patients are denied care
Speaker 1: or we're seeing how these court cases are moving through
Speaker 1: the system. It's almost a daily reminder of what happened
Speaker 1: in Dobbs. Before the Supreme Court ruled UM. The number
Speaker 1: that that you and your organization used was twenty six,
Speaker 1: that there were twenty six states that you that were
Speaker 1: either certain or likely to be an abortion without row.
Speaker 1: Is that number still still what you're thinking? It is
Speaker 1: still what we're saying. Thing you know, I think that
Speaker 1: we're looking at about half of the states probably at
Speaker 1: least going to try to ban abortion, And in many
Speaker 1: of these states it feels like a certainty UM. In part,
Speaker 1: we're going to have to see how some of these
Speaker 1: court cases shake out. UM. But also there are these
Speaker 1: states like South Carolina that are moving ahead for abortion bands.
Speaker 1: Were also anticipating Nebraska will move ahead with some sort
Speaker 1: of abortion band when they return. One place where I
Speaker 1: think one state that we included in our account with
Speaker 1: Michigan and Michigan maybe the one state where we really
Speaker 1: think that it's going to go in an opposite direction, UM,
Speaker 1: where people have been motivated by Dobbs to um asked
Speaker 1: on abortion rights, and we're seeing that with the governor
Speaker 1: and the Attorney general pushing back against the pre row band,
Speaker 1: but also because there's a ballot initiative in November that
Speaker 1: would protect abortion rights in the state constitution. So Michigan's
Speaker 1: the one state where it's more of a question mark
Speaker 1: than the others. So in those states the question will
Speaker 1: then become UH an issue of interstate travel. Can people
Speaker 1: seeking abortions travel to other states? And wondering have any
Speaker 1: states put into place laws designed to UH, designed to
Speaker 1: prevent their residents from traveling elsewhere to get abortions. We
Speaker 1: haven't seen that yet. We what we saw this year
Speaker 1: was language introduced in Missouri around banning out of state
Speaker 1: travel for an abortion, and that language was so striking
Speaker 1: and stunning that it really got a lot of attention
Speaker 1: and was and as a result, never adopted into any
Speaker 1: of the bills that were moving. But it simply introducing
Speaker 1: it and starting a conversation has changed the debate where
Speaker 1: states are now potentially looking at some way to limit travel,
Speaker 1: and they may not pass explicit ban on travel, but
Speaker 1: what they might do is look to limit the scope
Speaker 1: of abortion funds and practical support organizations that help people
Speaker 1: get from their home to the abortion clinic in another
Speaker 1: state and back our thanks to Elizabeth Nash of the
Speaker 1: Gootmacker Institute talking about the state of abortion policy in
Speaker 1: the United States. That does it for this episode of
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law. I'm Greg Store and I'm Kimberly Robinson. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg