Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law for this Friday, April. I'm Greg Storre in Washington.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has ordered a review of two dozen national
Speaker 1: monuments that were shielded from development by previous presidents. But
Speaker 1: even if Trump doesn't like those protections, it's not clear
Speaker 1: what he can do about it. And I'm June Grosso
Speaker 1: in New York. Parents are suing while police and Georgia
Speaker 1: are defending their actions in putting a high school in
Speaker 1: Sylvester on lockdown for hours and padding down each of
Speaker 1: the students, some aggressively looking for drugs. That's straight ahead
Speaker 1: the first a check on the markets done, Bloomberg's Charlie Pellet,
Speaker 1: All right, thank you very much, June Grosso. We have
Speaker 1: got the down SMP lower, nez dank Is advancing stocks
Speaker 1: are trading near records. In fact, the nez dak Compositive
Speaker 1: Index climbing to a record. Treasuries are dropping, oil closing
Speaker 1: in on fifty dollars of barrel, even after the world's
Speaker 1: biggest economy reported the slowest pace of expansion in three years.
Speaker 1: West Texas Intermediate crewed up one cent of barrel to
Speaker 1: eighteen up by were tents of one percent gold higher.
Speaker 1: Now it is Gold is trading higher by two dollars
Speaker 1: thirty cents to twelve sixty eight, a gain there of
Speaker 1: two tents of one percent. The tenure yield two point
Speaker 1: three percent. The nes Stack one stock index adding to
Speaker 1: its records as Alphabet and Amazon rise after reporting strong earnings.
Speaker 1: Alphabet shares up by four percent and Amazon shares up
Speaker 1: one point seven percent. Former Federal Reserve Schellen Alan Greenspan
Speaker 1: sat down with Bloomberg Television and Radio this morning to
Speaker 1: talk about a number of topics, including President Trump's influence
Speaker 1: on the stock market. Has done something or we'll be
Speaker 1: doing something which has made a major effect and the
Speaker 1: reason why stock prices have risen, and that's indicated that
Speaker 1: he wants to cut back the supervision and regulation, which
Speaker 1: is this is a major inhibitor, inhibitor uh to the
Speaker 1: whole from many. CBC Capital Partners has agreed to buy
Speaker 1: of Swiss watchmaker Brightling. It is one oh two on
Speaker 1: Wall Street. Dan time now for the market driver's report
Speaker 1: with a focus on American Depository receipts, and here is
Speaker 1: Dave Wilson. Thanks Charlie. A d R s are lower
Speaker 1: along with the US shares. The SNP a d R
Speaker 1: index down a tenth of a percent, while the SMP
Speaker 1: five hundred lower by about two tenths of a percent.
Speaker 1: The UK's Barkley's has fallen five point six percent. In
Speaker 1: US trading, first quarter results showed the banks bond trading
Speaker 1: revenue foul, which analysts didn't expect. The decline contrasted with
Speaker 1: average growth of twenty four percent at Barkley's biggest US rivals,
Speaker 1: and China's buy Do has dropped four and a half percent.
Speaker 1: The search engine owner indicated second quarter revenue is likely
Speaker 1: to trail the average analyst testament in Bloomberg survey. At
Speaker 1: the same time, by Do plans to spend more on
Speaker 1: its streaming, video and news aggregation services UH. Switzerland's stem
Speaker 1: Micro Electronics has risen three point two percent. The chip
Speaker 1: maker's first quarter earnings and second quarter forecast succeeded projections,
Speaker 1: and st Micro said chief executive Carlo Bozati will stay
Speaker 1: on for another year. And Tokyo Electron has gained six
Speaker 1: point eight percent. The Japanese chip equipment maker forecast fiscal
Speaker 1: year earnings that surpassed estimates and raised its dividend for
Speaker 1: the year that ended in March, Charlie, and we thank
Speaker 1: you very much, Dave Wilson bringing us up to date
Speaker 1: on American depository receipts. Recapping equities are mixed SMP five
Speaker 1: hundred index down for a drop of two tenths of
Speaker 1: one percent, stack hired by a point a little change
Speaker 1: there down, industrials down thirty six, a drop of two
Speaker 1: tenths of one percent. I'm Charlie, that's a Bloomberg business flash.
Speaker 1: Thanks Charlie, you're listening to Bloomberg Law. I'm Greg Storring
Speaker 1: Washington with Jim Grasso in New York. Three weeks before
Speaker 1: leaving office, Barack Obama designated two new national monuments. One
Speaker 1: of them was Bear's Ears in Utah, where Obama set
Speaker 1: aside one point three five million acres that included a
Speaker 1: hundred thousand archaeological sites and areas considered sacred to Native
Speaker 1: American tribes. This week, Donald Trump ordered a review of
Speaker 1: that national monument and more than two dozen others created
Speaker 1: over the past twenty one years. It's a process that
Speaker 1: could end up with Trump trying to rescind Obama's designation
Speaker 1: or at least scale back the monument. But there are
Speaker 1: serious legal questions about what authority Trump has. No president
Speaker 1: has ever tried to rescind the designation of a national monument.
Speaker 1: With us to talk about that is Charles Warren. He's
Speaker 1: a partner at Cramer Levin, lef Talis and Frankel and
Speaker 1: John Lushy. He's a professor at the University of California
Speaker 1: Hastings College of Law, informally the top lawyer in the
Speaker 1: Interior Department, John Lushy. Uh, let me start with you, Um,
Speaker 1: where does the authority come from in the first place
Speaker 1: for a president to designate an area of land or
Speaker 1: an area of the sea as a national monument comes
Speaker 1: from the Antiquities Act of nineteen o six statute Congress
Speaker 1: passed back then that has actually been one of the
Speaker 1: most used and most successful conservation statutes in American history.
Speaker 1: It applies only to federal land, does not apply to
Speaker 1: state or private land. But it authorizes the president to
Speaker 1: set aside uh and protect objects of historic or scientific
Speaker 1: interest on those lands. Every president are practically every president
Speaker 1: since nineteen o six has used this authority. Presidents of
Speaker 1: both parties and set aside well over a hundred million
Speaker 1: acres of land on shore and several hundred millions of
Speaker 1: acres of land off shore. Chuck, The that statute doesn't
Speaker 1: talk about taking away the designation of a national monument.
Speaker 1: But in nineteen thirty eight, when President Franklin Roosevelt wanted
Speaker 1: the authority to do so, tell us what the Office
Speaker 1: of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice to him. Yes,
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice really in said that they he
Speaker 1: did not have the authority to do that because the
Speaker 1: establishment of the National Monument, in accordance to the Antiquities Act,
Speaker 1: is a one way creation of a trust over the resources.
Speaker 1: The presidents then wouldn't have the power to revoke that reservation.
Speaker 1: That's really There haven't been any court cases that specifically
Speaker 1: have dealt with that power. But that was the Attorney
Speaker 1: General and the the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion that's
Speaker 1: been rendered, and there's nothing to contradict that opinion. And
Speaker 1: in fact, although presidents have once in a while narrowed
Speaker 1: the scope of some of these monuments, uh not by
Speaker 1: a lot, but they have never sought to take back,
Speaker 1: you know, the ablishment of one of these national monuments. John,
Speaker 1: Let's let's stick for a moment on on the idea
Speaker 1: that a president might completely resin as opposed to scale
Speaker 1: back at national monument. Does that UM opinion back in
Speaker 1: the thirties make sense to you? Why should it be?
Speaker 1: I mean, why shouldn't this be Like, you know, president
Speaker 1: appoints somebody, a president can fire somebody. Why can't a
Speaker 1: president undo an action taken by a previous previous president. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it has to do with the special field
Speaker 1: of public land law, which has always been somewhat different
Speaker 1: from other areas of federal law. And around the same
Speaker 1: time that Congress passed the Antiquities Act in nineteen o six,
Speaker 1: it passed a number of other statutes that authorized the
Speaker 1: president to take action to protect lands federal lands in
Speaker 1: one way or another. And in those other statutes it
Speaker 1: said it gave the president authority to set aside or
Speaker 1: unset aside. In other words, it specifically said you can
Speaker 1: do this or you can revoke this. But in the
Speaker 1: Antiquities Act it stands out because it's one way. It
Speaker 1: says you can set aside and protect land, but it
Speaker 1: didn't say you could unprotect them. And that's exactly the
Speaker 1: reasoning of the Attorney General. Uh, He's basically said, look,
Speaker 1: this is a delegation from Congress to take protective action.
Speaker 1: It's not a delegation to unprotect UH and so you
Speaker 1: can't do it. It's a it's a pretty powerful argument,
Speaker 1: I think. Obviously, you know, you never can predict what
Speaker 1: the courts are going to do. But I think there's
Speaker 1: grave risk if the President wants to take action to
Speaker 1: resand the monument. Chuck about forty five seconds here. National
Speaker 1: monument status has been revoked from only eleven sites, and
Speaker 1: each of those cases Congress took away the site's national
Speaker 1: monument status. Is that a strong indicator that it's Congress
Speaker 1: that should do this. Yes, I think, as John, as
Speaker 1: John said, it really is Congress that has the authority
Speaker 1: over public lands in the United States, and they can
Speaker 1: do whatever they want. But I think it's a stretch
Speaker 1: to say that the president, acting on his own, can
Speaker 1: revoke one of these things. We're talking with Charles Warren
Speaker 1: of Cramer, Levin of Thalas and Franco, and John Leshi
Speaker 1: of the University of California Hastings College of Law in
Speaker 1: San Francisco about Donald Trump's announcement this week that he
Speaker 1: is considering UH or is ordering a review of national
Speaker 1: monuments created by previous presidents, including Barack Obama. When we
Speaker 1: come back in a moment, I want to ask them
Speaker 1: about whether, even if Donald Trump can't can't revoke a designation,
Speaker 1: whether he might at least be able to shrink the
Speaker 1: size of something like the one point three five million
Speaker 1: acre national monument in bears Ear in U Talk Bears
Speaker 1: Ears National Monuments. But first I'll check on the latest
Speaker 1: world of national headlines with Limburg's Nancy Lions here in
Speaker 1: the newsroom in Washington. Nancy thanks. President Trump says, even
Speaker 1: though it's been ninety nine days, his administration is making
Speaker 1: great strides and getting a lot of things done. I
Speaker 1: don't think there's ever been anything like this. It's a
Speaker 1: full standard a hundred days. But I have to tell you,
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody has done what we've been able
Speaker 1: to do in a hundred days. So we're very happy.
Speaker 1: The President spoke after signing an executive order aimed at
Speaker 1: expanding offshore drilling. He says the executive order lifts restrictions
Speaker 1: on drilling and will unleash American energy and clear the
Speaker 1: way for thousands of high paying energy jobs. With just
Speaker 1: hours to spare, Congress is easily approved a short term
Speaker 1: spending bill that would prevent if partial federal shutdown over
Speaker 1: the weekend. It extends the deadline for another week. Secretary
Speaker 1: of State Rex Tillerson is warning the U n Security
Speaker 1: Council today that there needs to be a new approach
Speaker 1: for dealing with North Korea now that the country is
Speaker 1: becoming bolder with its missile testing. The threat of a
Speaker 1: North Korean nuclear attack on Soul or Tokyo is real,
Speaker 1: and it is likely on a matter of time before
Speaker 1: North Korea developed the capability to strike the US mainlane.
Speaker 1: He wants UN members to suspend or downgrade any diplomatic
Speaker 1: relations with North Korea and further isolate the country with
Speaker 1: new sanctions. Former President George H. W. Bush has been
Speaker 1: released from a Houston hospital where he received treatment from
Speaker 1: a mild case of pneumonia and chronic bronchitis over the
Speaker 1: past two weeks. Pope Francis is in Egypt, arriving today
Speaker 1: to meet with the country's religious and political leaders. He's
Speaker 1: hoping to present a united Christian Muslim front three weeks
Speaker 1: after Islamic militant stage twin Palm Sunday church attacks. He'll
Speaker 1: spend two days in the country. Global News twenty four
Speaker 1: hours a day, powered by more than twenty journalist and
Speaker 1: analyst in more than a hundred and twenty countries on
Speaker 1: Nancy Lines, Global Business News twenty four hours a day,
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot Com, the Radio plus Mobile Lab and
Speaker 1: on your radio face. He's a Bloomberg Business Flash, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: World Headquarters. I'm Charley. Put the down s and pr lower,
Speaker 1: nestack is higher. We've got the ten you yield at
Speaker 1: two point three, gold up to ten, the ounce to
Speaker 1: twelve sixty eight gain there of two tents of one percent,
Speaker 1: and West Texas Intermediate Crude up sixteen cents of errol
Speaker 1: on w T I again there are three tenths of
Speaker 1: one percent. So the SMP down four that's a drop
Speaker 1: of two tenths of one percent. Down Industrials down thirty six,
Speaker 1: also a drop of two tenths of one percent. Nez
Speaker 1: stack barely budgeting it is higher by less than a point.
Speaker 1: I'm Charlie Peltan that June Grosso and Greg Store is
Speaker 1: a Bloomberg Business Flash. Thank you, Charlie. Bloomberg Laws brought
Speaker 1: to you by Sector Spider et F. Why by a
Speaker 1: single stock when you can invest in the entire sector.
Speaker 1: Visits sector sp drs dot com or call one six
Speaker 1: Sector e t F. Greg. Thanks June. We're talking about
Speaker 1: the announcement this week that Barack that Donald Trump said
Speaker 1: he's gonna order a review of the national monuments designated
Speaker 1: by his predecessors, including Barack Obama. Trump said this week
Speaker 1: that Obama committed a quote agreedious to U a federal
Speaker 1: power when he designated some vast areas and put them
Speaker 1: off limits to development. The Antiquities Act does not give
Speaker 1: the federal government unlimited power to lock up millions of
Speaker 1: acres of land and water, and it's time we ended
Speaker 1: this abusive practice. We're speaking with John Lushy, He's a
Speaker 1: professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law,
Speaker 1: and Charles Warren, a partner at Kramer Levin Um. Chuck
Speaker 1: uh the um tell us what it means to have
Speaker 1: something designated as a National monument. What are the practical
Speaker 1: consequences of that sort of designation? Well, you know they
Speaker 1: set them, they set these lands aside. Basically, you know,
Speaker 1: that's taken the historic landmarks or prehistoric structures or objects
Speaker 1: of scientific interests, and it protects these things from these
Speaker 1: areas rather from incompatible activities such as mining and leasing
Speaker 1: and logging and grazing and fishing and other kinds of
Speaker 1: commercial uses essentially, And that's really what it means. And
Speaker 1: that's obviously what some of the people who are against
Speaker 1: these kinds of designations, you know, are are concerned about.
Speaker 1: And John in an NBACY News survey monkey Pole in
Speaker 1: February respond and said more US land should be protected
Speaker 1: by national parks. Of the amount currently protected was right
Speaker 1: and only nine said less land should be protected. So
Speaker 1: it seems as if the American public is in favor
Speaker 1: of these uh monuments and public lands. If this goes
Speaker 1: through for some reason, do those lands go back to
Speaker 1: the states and then do the states have the opportunity
Speaker 1: to do whatever they want with them? No, they would
Speaker 1: remain in federal hints. But you're wrong in saying they
Speaker 1: go back to the states. The states never owned these lands,
Speaker 1: do you nided states always owned these lands. The United
Speaker 1: States acquired these lands usually from foreign governments with the
Speaker 1: blood and treasure of everybody, uh, And so the states
Speaker 1: have no claim to these lands. If a monument is rescinded. Uh,
Speaker 1: they remain federal lands, but the protections of those lands
Speaker 1: are lessons. I should also, uh say, response to something
Speaker 1: Charles said, these lands are generally open to the public
Speaker 1: for recreation. They're also opened generally to grazing. What is
Speaker 1: restricted are those uses, uh sort of intensive industrial uses
Speaker 1: that are inconsistent with protecting these cultural and historic and
Speaker 1: scientific objects. So each monument contains its own kind of
Speaker 1: little management regime built around the resources that you're trying
Speaker 1: to protect, which may include vast landscapes, or it may
Speaker 1: include very specific sites like the Statute of Liberty was
Speaker 1: actually first satisized and national monuments by a president Chuck
Speaker 1: the antiquity access that the national monument should be quote
Speaker 1: confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and
Speaker 1: management of the objects to be protected. Um, if there's
Speaker 1: a good argument that, uh, say, the monument in Utah
Speaker 1: one point three five million acres is bigger than it
Speaker 1: needs to be, is it clear that Donald Trump would
Speaker 1: have a theory to authority to make that smaller. Not
Speaker 1: really clear, but there there is precedent for that, because
Speaker 1: presidents have, on occasion, not many occasions, made some of
Speaker 1: these national monument areas smaller. Um the going back to
Speaker 1: the opinion the Attorney General, you know, he that opinion
Speaker 1: did say that you might be able to do that,
Speaker 1: but it's apparently not considered one of the strongest points
Speaker 1: of the opinion in view of developments that have happened
Speaker 1: in the future. And I think I think you have
Speaker 1: to justify saying why you had, you know, narrowed the
Speaker 1: area and if if the mind you know, if the
Speaker 1: monument is still designation, is still protecting the area from
Speaker 1: the things you want to protect it from, And that's
Speaker 1: what it says. It says with you know, with the
Speaker 1: small area compatible with proper care and managements of the
Speaker 1: objects to be protected. And so that's that's the question,
Speaker 1: right if if something is you try to narrow the area,
Speaker 1: are things still being protected? And if you allow mining
Speaker 1: or drilling and now you could I'm sure make a
Speaker 1: good case that these places will not be protected in
Speaker 1: the same way. So I think I think you're gonna
Speaker 1: be inviting a major lawsuits if if you try even
Speaker 1: to diminish the area it was deficated. John, What kind
Speaker 1: of claims could we see in lawsuits if Trump does
Speaker 1: go forward with this plan? Well, either a recision or
Speaker 1: a reduction would be certainly be challenged by probably local
Speaker 1: groups who want these areas protected, by tribes of Pho,
Speaker 1: particularly interested in in the bears Ears, by recreational interests,
Speaker 1: by outdoor recreation industry, which is a very powerful economic force.
Speaker 1: So you'll see lots of opposition and uh many potential
Speaker 1: and probably real plaintiffs in lawsuits if if the president
Speaker 1: uh follows through and based on based on the grounds
Speaker 1: we've just been talking about that the Antiquities Act is
Speaker 1: really a protection statute. It and it doesn't give a
Speaker 1: president the power to unprotect an area, which is what
Speaker 1: he would be doing if he took accident under this.
Speaker 1: So it's a very straightforward lawsuit and uh, and I'm
Speaker 1: sure we'll see this layout in the courts if the
Speaker 1: president wants to do this. I should also say in
Speaker 1: the clip you put played the president and we're going
Speaker 1: to end this abusive power. This is something that every
Speaker 1: president has done, beginning with Theodore Roso you know the
Speaker 1: secretary in the Interior Zinky, claimed to be a big
Speaker 1: fan of Theodore Roosevelt. Well, uh, Diodo Roosevelt did an
Speaker 1: eight hundred ac or grand Canyon National Monument, Nike Neil eight.
Speaker 1: He set the pattern here that has been followed ever
Speaker 1: since for these these large scale protections. John, we're gonna
Speaker 1: have to leave it there, Thank you so much. John
Speaker 1: Leshie of the University of California Hastings College of Law
Speaker 1: and Charles Warren of Cramer Levin talking about the prospect
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump may scale back or even recent in
Speaker 1: some national monuments designated by his predecessor presidents. You're listening
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg Law. This is Bloomberg