1
00:00:00,520 --> 00:00:05,720
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:10,920
Speaker 1: A cry for survival of camp from planet itself, A

3
00:00:11,080 --> 00:00:14,400
Speaker 1: cry that can't be any more desperate or any more clear.

4
00:00:14,560 --> 00:00:21,520
Speaker 1: Now arise of political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that

5
00:00:21,720 --> 00:00:26,439
Speaker 1: we must confront and we will defeat. President Joe Biden

6
00:00:26,560 --> 00:00:29,920
Speaker 1: was clear about the importance of his environmental agenda in

7
00:00:30,000 --> 00:00:33,400
Speaker 1: his inaugural speech, and then just hours later, he kick

8
00:00:33,479 --> 00:00:37,720
Speaker 1: started his ambitious climate goals by rejoining the Paris Climate Accord,

9
00:00:38,120 --> 00:00:42,040
Speaker 1: resending the construction permit for the Keystone Excel oil pipeline,

10
00:00:42,320 --> 00:00:46,760
Speaker 1: and directing federal agencies to review the Trump administration's environmental

11
00:00:46,880 --> 00:00:50,400
Speaker 1: rollbacks of the past four years. Joining me is environmental

12
00:00:50,479 --> 00:00:54,160
Speaker 1: law professor Pat Parento of the Vermont Law School. Pat,

13
00:00:54,240 --> 00:00:58,320
Speaker 1: let's talk about Biden's first steps. How important is rejoining

14
00:00:58,360 --> 00:01:02,480
Speaker 1: the Paris Accord? And have we missed a lot of time? Yeah?

15
00:01:02,520 --> 00:01:04,919
Speaker 1: We did miss some time, and we've lost some momentum.

16
00:01:05,120 --> 00:01:07,960
Speaker 1: And some of the commitments that were made in Paris

17
00:01:08,040 --> 00:01:12,280
Speaker 1: have really not been realized, and China has not followed

18
00:01:12,319 --> 00:01:16,840
Speaker 1: through as aggressively as they had indicated. When Obama negotiated

19
00:01:16,880 --> 00:01:20,560
Speaker 1: with Shigiping before Paris, so we've lost some momentum in

20
00:01:20,680 --> 00:01:23,399
Speaker 1: some time, but nothing that we can't recapture if we

21
00:01:23,400 --> 00:01:26,479
Speaker 1: can move fast enough. Biden now has to come up

22
00:01:26,560 --> 00:01:30,080
Speaker 1: with what are called the nationally Determined Contributions, which is

23
00:01:30,080 --> 00:01:35,320
Speaker 1: basically our commitment to reduction in greenhouse gases by so

24
00:01:35,440 --> 00:01:37,800
Speaker 1: before the end of the year, because the next meeting

25
00:01:38,080 --> 00:01:41,399
Speaker 1: of the cop parties to the convention is in Glasgow,

26
00:01:41,440 --> 00:01:44,440
Speaker 1: Scotland in November. So you know, he's got carry, He's

27
00:01:44,480 --> 00:01:48,200
Speaker 1: got Jeanne McCarthy, he's got a real strong team. In fact,

28
00:01:48,240 --> 00:01:51,279
Speaker 1: I've never seen a stronger team focused on climate throughout

29
00:01:51,320 --> 00:01:55,000
Speaker 1: his entire cabinet. So he's got the people, he's got

30
00:01:55,040 --> 00:01:57,480
Speaker 1: the ideas. A lot of what he needs to do

31
00:01:57,600 --> 00:02:00,760
Speaker 1: he can do through executive orders and through rulemaking, but

32
00:02:00,800 --> 00:02:03,280
Speaker 1: of course rulemaking by E. P A and others will

33
00:02:03,320 --> 00:02:06,000
Speaker 1: take time. But he's got to come up with this

34
00:02:06,120 --> 00:02:10,400
Speaker 1: number for how we're going to reduce our carbon and

35
00:02:10,480 --> 00:02:13,760
Speaker 1: other greenhouse gas footprints. And he's got to convince the

36
00:02:13,800 --> 00:02:16,080
Speaker 1: other nations of the world that it's real that he

37
00:02:16,080 --> 00:02:19,080
Speaker 1: can make it happen, either through his own authority or

38
00:02:19,320 --> 00:02:23,080
Speaker 1: somehow working with Congress. Now that the Democrats at least

39
00:02:23,080 --> 00:02:27,200
Speaker 1: have a slim really majority in both houses, there's some

40
00:02:27,280 --> 00:02:30,960
Speaker 1: ability to get some stuff through Congress, including some investments

41
00:02:31,000 --> 00:02:34,880
Speaker 1: that we desperately need and clean energy and transportation. So

42
00:02:34,960 --> 00:02:39,280
Speaker 1: some kind of combination of executive actions and legislation he

43
00:02:39,320 --> 00:02:41,800
Speaker 1: can work out with Congress is going to have to

44
00:02:41,840 --> 00:02:44,200
Speaker 1: happen this year. Maybe not all of it in the

45
00:02:44,280 --> 00:02:48,000
Speaker 1: first hundred days, but certainly within the first year. I

46
00:02:48,040 --> 00:02:51,639
Speaker 1: think before the meeting in Glasgow, he's got to convince

47
00:02:51,720 --> 00:02:55,880
Speaker 1: the world that he has the ability to follow through

48
00:02:56,360 --> 00:02:59,200
Speaker 1: on his promises and make them happen. That's what we've

49
00:02:59,240 --> 00:03:03,120
Speaker 1: got to see. The Trump administration pushed through all kinds

50
00:03:03,120 --> 00:03:07,160
Speaker 1: of new rules environmental rollbacks in its final days, so

51
00:03:07,240 --> 00:03:11,040
Speaker 1: much so that California Attorney General Javier Bassara sued the

52
00:03:11,040 --> 00:03:16,400
Speaker 1: Trump administration nine times on Tuesday to combat those last

53
00:03:16,440 --> 00:03:20,520
Speaker 1: minute environmental rollbacks. How difficult will it be for the

54
00:03:20,520 --> 00:03:25,400
Speaker 1: Biden administration to roll back the rollbacks, Well, the last

55
00:03:25,440 --> 00:03:28,440
Speaker 1: minute rollback that just have happened within the last literally

56
00:03:28,520 --> 00:03:31,720
Speaker 1: few weeks. Biden can freeze. In fact, his chief of

57
00:03:31,760 --> 00:03:36,320
Speaker 1: staff has already announced an executive order freezing all of

58
00:03:36,400 --> 00:03:40,920
Speaker 1: those rollbacks for now, and then they'll be reevaluated by

59
00:03:40,960 --> 00:03:43,680
Speaker 1: EPA or whatever other agencies you know. In the Department

60
00:03:43,720 --> 00:03:46,680
Speaker 1: of Interior as a whole bunch of rules, they've got

61
00:03:46,720 --> 00:03:49,320
Speaker 1: all those leases, you know, like the oil and gas

62
00:03:49,360 --> 00:03:53,480
Speaker 1: leases in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and other places. So

63
00:03:53,640 --> 00:03:57,120
Speaker 1: there are a lot of sort of immediate things that

64
00:03:57,240 --> 00:04:01,040
Speaker 1: Biden can put a hold on and then reconsider and

65
00:04:01,200 --> 00:04:05,080
Speaker 1: dropped eventually, or change one or the other. The ones

66
00:04:05,120 --> 00:04:07,240
Speaker 1: that are more difficult, obviously, are the rules that have

67
00:04:07,280 --> 00:04:10,520
Speaker 1: already taken effect, like the power plant rules. The good

68
00:04:10,560 --> 00:04:14,800
Speaker 1: news there is this amazing decision from the d C

69
00:04:14,800 --> 00:04:21,200
Speaker 1: Circuit Court yesterday and eighty five page opinion trashing the

70
00:04:21,279 --> 00:04:25,719
Speaker 1: Trump power plant rules, throwing them out completely, sending ETA

71
00:04:25,880 --> 00:04:29,839
Speaker 1: back to square one, which gives the Biden administration a

72
00:04:30,000 --> 00:04:34,559
Speaker 1: terrific opportunity to redesign what used to be the Clean

73
00:04:34,640 --> 00:04:38,320
Speaker 1: power Plan. I think we're going to see something somewhat different,

74
00:04:38,360 --> 00:04:41,560
Speaker 1: maybe a lot different from the Clean power Plant But

75
00:04:41,720 --> 00:04:45,240
Speaker 1: this opinion that the d C Circuit handed down is

76
00:04:45,320 --> 00:04:48,440
Speaker 1: kind of a blueprint for how to design a really

77
00:04:48,480 --> 00:04:52,280
Speaker 1: strong greenhouse gas rule for power plants to replace the

78
00:04:52,360 --> 00:04:55,760
Speaker 1: really bad rule that Trump came up with. So each

79
00:04:55,800 --> 00:04:59,080
Speaker 1: one of these issues and rules and decisions, you know,

80
00:04:59,320 --> 00:05:02,160
Speaker 1: is going to have a different process for how they

81
00:05:02,200 --> 00:05:05,599
Speaker 1: have to be fixed, and how Trump's rolled back has

82
00:05:05,640 --> 00:05:09,000
Speaker 1: to in itself be rolled back. So it's gonna take time,

83
00:05:09,560 --> 00:05:11,680
Speaker 1: and it's going to have to be done carefully, but

84
00:05:11,760 --> 00:05:15,760
Speaker 1: it can be done, and eventually, I do think we're

85
00:05:15,800 --> 00:05:20,120
Speaker 1: probably gonna see a rollout of some of the strongest,

86
00:05:20,640 --> 00:05:23,359
Speaker 1: well strongest in relation to what Trump tried to do

87
00:05:23,440 --> 00:05:27,520
Speaker 1: anyway strongest set of rules, and not just for climate,

88
00:05:27,600 --> 00:05:31,640
Speaker 1: but across the board. You know, Biden's talking about environmental

89
00:05:31,680 --> 00:05:35,320
Speaker 1: justice issues all the time and sort of racial justice

90
00:05:35,360 --> 00:05:38,839
Speaker 1: issues more broadly. So one of the things I expect

91
00:05:38,880 --> 00:05:43,560
Speaker 1: to see is increasing protection for these communities of color

92
00:05:43,880 --> 00:05:48,479
Speaker 1: that have been disproportionately affected by pollution for way too long.

93
00:05:49,120 --> 00:05:51,560
Speaker 1: And he's not just going to focus on these really

94
00:05:51,640 --> 00:05:55,360
Speaker 1: high profile rules that we've been talking about, but there's

95
00:05:55,400 --> 00:05:59,080
Speaker 1: a lot of sort of conventional pollution, air pollution, and

96
00:05:59,120 --> 00:06:01,840
Speaker 1: water pollution. You know, if you think about the flint

97
00:06:01,920 --> 00:06:06,600
Speaker 1: situation with lead in people's drinking water, that's a pervasive

98
00:06:06,640 --> 00:06:10,479
Speaker 1: problem around the country. So I anticipate that we're going

99
00:06:10,520 --> 00:06:15,120
Speaker 1: to see a lot of activity in the environmental regulatory

100
00:06:15,200 --> 00:06:17,919
Speaker 1: space over the next four years. Did he cancel the

101
00:06:18,000 --> 00:06:21,880
Speaker 1: Keystone XL pipeline or he did he just stop it? Well,

102
00:06:22,080 --> 00:06:24,680
Speaker 1: he canceled it in the sense that he rejected or

103
00:06:24,760 --> 00:06:30,400
Speaker 1: revoked Trump's border crossing presidential permit, and without that they

104
00:06:30,440 --> 00:06:33,640
Speaker 1: can't bring the oil in from Alberta. So in effect

105
00:06:33,640 --> 00:06:38,640
Speaker 1: it's been canceled. And I just read that the company

106
00:06:39,160 --> 00:06:43,520
Speaker 1: hasn't a trans Canada has announced that they're stopping construction,

107
00:06:44,040 --> 00:06:47,280
Speaker 1: and of course that has the the unfortunate effect of

108
00:06:47,320 --> 00:06:50,679
Speaker 1: putting some We have a lot of work, right, So

109
00:06:50,680 --> 00:06:52,880
Speaker 1: so Biden has got some fence mending to do with

110
00:06:52,920 --> 00:06:56,120
Speaker 1: the unions, but he has canceled the pipeline. It's dead.

111
00:06:57,000 --> 00:07:01,719
Speaker 1: And also with Canada because it puts Minister Trudeau in

112
00:07:01,760 --> 00:07:06,200
Speaker 1: a bad situation, and also Alberta. Canada said it's prepared

113
00:07:06,240 --> 00:07:11,000
Speaker 1: to use every legal means to get compensation. Yeah, that's

114
00:07:11,040 --> 00:07:13,760
Speaker 1: what used to be NAFTA. It's got a new name now.

115
00:07:13,760 --> 00:07:17,120
Speaker 1: But that trade agreement with Canada and Mexico in the

116
00:07:17,240 --> 00:07:22,320
Speaker 1: US does have some provisions in it that might give

117
00:07:22,360 --> 00:07:26,760
Speaker 1: a claim to the companies and to Alberta, saying you've

118
00:07:26,800 --> 00:07:32,040
Speaker 1: closed your market for our you know, oil, and that's

119
00:07:32,080 --> 00:07:35,240
Speaker 1: the violation of the treaty of the compact. And so

120
00:07:35,320 --> 00:07:37,360
Speaker 1: we'll see how that goes. Right that that's going to

121
00:07:37,440 --> 00:07:40,400
Speaker 1: be an interesting question is to where that if it

122
00:07:40,440 --> 00:07:43,800
Speaker 1: does get filed, where that gets litigated. We'll have to

123
00:07:43,800 --> 00:07:46,960
Speaker 1: watch for that. Let's turn to the Supreme Court now,

124
00:07:47,640 --> 00:07:51,480
Speaker 1: because this week the Justice has appeared open to the

125
00:07:51,520 --> 00:07:55,440
Speaker 1: oil industry's arguments in a high stakes case that will

126
00:07:55,480 --> 00:07:58,840
Speaker 1: set the course for climate litigation across the country. It's

127
00:07:58,840 --> 00:08:02,800
Speaker 1: a procedural disput you that centers on a really technical question.

128
00:08:03,320 --> 00:08:06,720
Speaker 1: Tell us about that question. Yeah, So the technical issue

129
00:08:07,240 --> 00:08:10,680
Speaker 1: is when the cities and states that have sued the

130
00:08:10,680 --> 00:08:14,840
Speaker 1: oil companies in state court. Um, when they do that,

131
00:08:15,280 --> 00:08:19,080
Speaker 1: the oil companies then come in and remove those cases

132
00:08:19,080 --> 00:08:21,400
Speaker 1: from state court to federal court. And then the cities

133
00:08:21,400 --> 00:08:23,480
Speaker 1: and states go to federal court and say no, no,

134
00:08:24,040 --> 00:08:26,400
Speaker 1: they belong in state courts. Send them back, which is

135
00:08:26,400 --> 00:08:31,200
Speaker 1: called reman And now the question is when the federal

136
00:08:31,240 --> 00:08:36,320
Speaker 1: courts reman these cases back the state court. Is the

137
00:08:36,440 --> 00:08:42,320
Speaker 1: review of that decision to reman limited to a single

138
00:08:42,640 --> 00:08:48,240
Speaker 1: ground for federal jurisdiction, which is called the federal officer doctrine.

139
00:08:48,240 --> 00:08:50,200
Speaker 1: You don't really need to know too much about that.

140
00:08:51,080 --> 00:08:55,600
Speaker 1: So why is it so important for environmentalists to be

141
00:08:55,760 --> 00:09:00,920
Speaker 1: in state court rather than in federal court. The main

142
00:09:01,000 --> 00:09:03,840
Speaker 1: reason is that the state courts are going to be

143
00:09:03,960 --> 00:09:07,480
Speaker 1: more disposed to let the case go to trial, and

144
00:09:07,520 --> 00:09:12,120
Speaker 1: of course in a state court proceeding the jury in

145
00:09:12,160 --> 00:09:14,640
Speaker 1: these cases, because these are going to be jury cases.

146
00:09:14,640 --> 00:09:18,920
Speaker 1: They're seeking large damages in the billions of dollars damages

147
00:09:18,960 --> 00:09:23,040
Speaker 1: from climate change and for the costs of adaptation, building seawalls,

148
00:09:23,080 --> 00:09:28,760
Speaker 1: and so forth. And in state courts, those juries, you know,

149
00:09:28,840 --> 00:09:30,839
Speaker 1: are going to be drawn from a pool of people

150
00:09:30,840 --> 00:09:35,760
Speaker 1: that are being affected by these these impacts, and and

151
00:09:36,080 --> 00:09:41,880
Speaker 1: verdicts in state courts don't require unanimous decisions of the juries,

152
00:09:41,960 --> 00:09:45,720
Speaker 1: whereas they do require unanimous decisions in federal courts. So

153
00:09:45,760 --> 00:09:49,319
Speaker 1: that's one big difference. Another one is the oil companies

154
00:09:49,440 --> 00:09:53,199
Speaker 1: think that federal courts are going to be more disposed

155
00:09:53,640 --> 00:09:56,400
Speaker 1: to simply dismiss the case and not even let it

156
00:09:56,440 --> 00:10:01,520
Speaker 1: get to trial. And they're they're they're thinking is federal

157
00:10:01,520 --> 00:10:05,480
Speaker 1: courts are going to see these claims which are based

158
00:10:05,520 --> 00:10:09,640
Speaker 1: on a global pollution problem like climate change as really

159
00:10:09,679 --> 00:10:13,800
Speaker 1: not being something that the court should even entertain that

160
00:10:13,880 --> 00:10:15,800
Speaker 1: they should be that that's the kind of problem that

161
00:10:15,880 --> 00:10:18,920
Speaker 1: only Congress should deal with. And I don't know if

162
00:10:19,120 --> 00:10:21,600
Speaker 1: all companies are right about that, by the way, but

163
00:10:21,679 --> 00:10:24,560
Speaker 1: they think they think they have a better chance of

164
00:10:24,679 --> 00:10:28,280
Speaker 1: convincing a federal judge to throw these cases out than

165
00:10:28,320 --> 00:10:32,200
Speaker 1: they do convincing these individual state court judges around the

166
00:10:32,240 --> 00:10:35,600
Speaker 1: country who are much closer to the communities that are

167
00:10:35,600 --> 00:10:40,280
Speaker 1: being impacted. So explain just just briefly what the Fourth

168
00:10:40,320 --> 00:10:43,440
Speaker 1: Circuit did. The Fourth Circuit said, you came to this

169
00:10:43,640 --> 00:10:48,280
Speaker 1: court arguing that there was the involvement of the federal

170
00:10:48,320 --> 00:10:55,560
Speaker 1: government directly in the activity that you were engaged in,

171
00:10:55,800 --> 00:10:59,160
Speaker 1: not just the production of the oil and gas, but

172
00:10:59,280 --> 00:11:04,319
Speaker 1: the marketing of it, the promotion of it. And it

173
00:11:04,360 --> 00:11:08,920
Speaker 1: turns out, not surprisingly, there is no federal involvement in that.

174
00:11:08,920 --> 00:11:12,920
Speaker 1: That's strictly something that the companies do and are in

175
00:11:13,040 --> 00:11:17,800
Speaker 1: charge of. So when the Fourth Circuit looked at the

176
00:11:17,920 --> 00:11:21,640
Speaker 1: question is there really the involvement of the federal government

177
00:11:22,559 --> 00:11:26,440
Speaker 1: and concluded there wasn't, the Fourth Circuit sent the case

178
00:11:26,480 --> 00:11:29,000
Speaker 1: back to the state court, and it didn't consider any

179
00:11:29,000 --> 00:11:33,000
Speaker 1: other grounds for why the case should belong in in

180
00:11:33,000 --> 00:11:36,600
Speaker 1: in federal court. And that's what the oil companies are

181
00:11:36,600 --> 00:11:40,400
Speaker 1: now arguing to the Supreme Court was wrong. They're saying

182
00:11:40,400 --> 00:11:43,640
Speaker 1: the Fourth Circuit should have led us make a bunch

183
00:11:43,679 --> 00:11:47,360
Speaker 1: of other arguments for why the case belongs in federal court.

184
00:11:48,040 --> 00:11:51,640
Speaker 1: And so that's what that's the narrowest question the Supreme

185
00:11:51,679 --> 00:11:54,360
Speaker 1: Court has to decide. Are they going to let the

186
00:11:54,440 --> 00:11:58,120
Speaker 1: oil companies make more arguments for why the cases belong

187
00:11:58,200 --> 00:12:01,480
Speaker 1: in federal court or not? That's that's all. That's that

188
00:12:01,679 --> 00:12:05,200
Speaker 1: issue um in the Baltimore case. It doesn't get to

189
00:12:06,080 --> 00:12:10,880
Speaker 1: the real question is their liability, uh, for what the

190
00:12:10,960 --> 00:12:14,760
Speaker 1: oil companies have done. The Supreme Court argument, it was

191
00:12:14,760 --> 00:12:18,000
Speaker 1: pretty clear that none of the justices we're interested in

192
00:12:18,000 --> 00:12:21,120
Speaker 1: that in trying to reach the ultimate merits of the

193
00:12:21,200 --> 00:12:25,520
Speaker 1: cases or even in issuing a sweeping decision that all

194
00:12:25,559 --> 00:12:27,839
Speaker 1: of the cases belong in federal court. There was no

195
00:12:28,440 --> 00:12:30,880
Speaker 1: no support for that argument from the oil companies that

196
00:12:30,920 --> 00:12:34,480
Speaker 1: I could hear. So what did you hear of? What

197
00:12:34,520 --> 00:12:36,800
Speaker 1: did you hear from the justices as to where they

198
00:12:36,840 --> 00:12:41,040
Speaker 1: stand on this? I do think it probably looked there's

199
00:12:41,040 --> 00:12:44,760
Speaker 1: only eight justices because Alito has recused himself because he

200
00:12:44,800 --> 00:12:49,160
Speaker 1: owns a bunch of conical oil stock. But I do

201
00:12:49,320 --> 00:12:53,000
Speaker 1: think there's probably a majority to agree that the Fourth

202
00:12:53,040 --> 00:12:56,079
Speaker 1: Circuit should have allowed the oil companies to make these

203
00:12:56,120 --> 00:12:59,600
Speaker 1: other arguments. If that's true, then they'll send the case

204
00:12:59,679 --> 00:13:03,640
Speaker 1: back to the Fourth Circuit to let the oil companies

205
00:13:03,679 --> 00:13:07,280
Speaker 1: make these other arguments. It will delay the progress of

206
00:13:07,320 --> 00:13:09,680
Speaker 1: these cases for sure. They won't be able to move

207
00:13:09,760 --> 00:13:13,200
Speaker 1: forward in federal court until this is resolved, but it

208
00:13:13,280 --> 00:13:16,920
Speaker 1: won't end them. It won't be a ruling on the merits.

209
00:13:17,679 --> 00:13:20,880
Speaker 1: It'll it'll be a delay. It will be costly. It'll

210
00:13:20,880 --> 00:13:23,640
Speaker 1: be costly for both, by the way, the oil companies

211
00:13:24,160 --> 00:13:26,600
Speaker 1: and the cities and states. Maybe the oil companies have

212
00:13:26,679 --> 00:13:29,760
Speaker 1: more money, you know, to spend on this litigation than anybody.

213
00:13:29,800 --> 00:13:32,200
Speaker 1: I don't know. But it will be costly and it

214
00:13:32,240 --> 00:13:34,920
Speaker 1: will take time. But it's not going to be the

215
00:13:35,000 --> 00:13:38,760
Speaker 1: end of the cases. For the textuals on the court.

216
00:13:39,360 --> 00:13:42,880
Speaker 1: For example, Kavanaugh, is it all about the meaning of

217
00:13:42,920 --> 00:13:47,440
Speaker 1: the word order? Yeah, that's what he That's what the

218
00:13:48,280 --> 00:13:51,840
Speaker 1: at least Kavanaugh Gorcich. You never can tell. With Thomas

219
00:13:52,600 --> 00:13:55,560
Speaker 1: and maybe Roberts. Roberts is still I think in play

220
00:13:55,679 --> 00:13:58,520
Speaker 1: from what I could tell. He asked vic Cher, who

221
00:13:58,559 --> 00:14:01,040
Speaker 1: was arguing for the City of ball some more. He said,

222
00:14:01,080 --> 00:14:02,960
Speaker 1: I'm going to give you three minutes to convince me

223
00:14:03,040 --> 00:14:07,800
Speaker 1: you're right. So that that says, yeah, that says uninterrupted,

224
00:14:07,800 --> 00:14:13,040
Speaker 1: he said, So that says that he's uncertain, which is,

225
00:14:13,080 --> 00:14:15,280
Speaker 1: you know, an opportunity to convince him. So we'll have

226
00:14:15,360 --> 00:14:19,240
Speaker 1: to see. But yeah, I think it's an interesting issue

227
00:14:19,280 --> 00:14:23,240
Speaker 1: on the textualists point, because both sides are arguing the

228
00:14:23,280 --> 00:14:26,800
Speaker 1: same thing, but both sides are arguing the text is clear. Um,

229
00:14:27,120 --> 00:14:29,960
Speaker 1: you know, the city's the City of Baltimore is saying,

230
00:14:30,000 --> 00:14:34,040
Speaker 1: it's clear that the only basis for review is this

231
00:14:34,120 --> 00:14:37,600
Speaker 1: federal officer question, and it's clear that Congress wanted to

232
00:14:37,720 --> 00:14:41,680
Speaker 1: limit the review of federal courts to just that basis

233
00:14:41,720 --> 00:14:45,480
Speaker 1: and not everything that the defendants could think of. Whereas

234
00:14:45,840 --> 00:14:49,720
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh and Gorsets in particular said, well, this word order.

235
00:14:50,320 --> 00:14:52,920
Speaker 1: You know, once there's an order issue to remand the

236
00:14:52,960 --> 00:14:55,680
Speaker 1: case the state court, then you should be able to

237
00:14:55,760 --> 00:14:59,680
Speaker 1: argue any reason why that order is flawed, whether or

238
00:14:59,760 --> 00:15:03,600
Speaker 1: not it involves this this crazy federal officer question or not.

239
00:15:04,120 --> 00:15:07,320
Speaker 1: You should be able to argue in one court, the court,

240
00:15:07,400 --> 00:15:10,520
Speaker 1: you know, the Court of Appeals, Um, all the reasons

241
00:15:10,520 --> 00:15:12,840
Speaker 1: why sending it back to the state court is wrong.

242
00:15:13,280 --> 00:15:15,880
Speaker 1: So that's where that's where the case turns. Are you

243
00:15:15,960 --> 00:15:18,520
Speaker 1: just going to look at the issuance of the order

244
00:15:18,560 --> 00:15:21,520
Speaker 1: and why it's wrong, or are you going to look

245
00:15:21,560 --> 00:15:24,920
Speaker 1: at the text of the provision in question and congress

246
00:15:25,000 --> 00:15:29,200
Speaker 1: is intent, which seems to be to limit the basis

247
00:15:29,240 --> 00:15:32,760
Speaker 1: for federal removal to this federal officer question. And what

248
00:15:32,880 --> 00:15:36,160
Speaker 1: was the opposition to that from the liberal justices or

249
00:15:36,320 --> 00:15:39,760
Speaker 1: was there there wasn't too much the justice so to

250
00:15:39,840 --> 00:15:43,880
Speaker 1: Mayor said, what about the fact that Congress in two

251
00:15:43,920 --> 00:15:47,760
Speaker 1: thousand and eleven UM, when it looked at this very

252
00:15:47,800 --> 00:15:53,560
Speaker 1: statutory provision, decided not to change it. And the backdrop

253
00:15:53,640 --> 00:15:56,320
Speaker 1: to that, as everybody was arguing, was a whole bunch

254
00:15:56,360 --> 00:16:00,360
Speaker 1: of circuit court decisions that were consistent with what City

255
00:16:00,360 --> 00:16:04,000
Speaker 1: of Baltimore is now arguing again that review is limited

256
00:16:04,040 --> 00:16:07,200
Speaker 1: to this single question a federal officer and you can't

257
00:16:07,240 --> 00:16:10,600
Speaker 1: bootstrap a whole bunch of other arguments into that. So

258
00:16:10,880 --> 00:16:15,320
Speaker 1: both Soda Mayor and Kagan, we're you know, asking what

259
00:16:15,400 --> 00:16:19,200
Speaker 1: I call softball question um to vic share that you know,

260
00:16:19,200 --> 00:16:22,800
Speaker 1: the Council for the city, um, and they just let

261
00:16:22,880 --> 00:16:26,440
Speaker 1: Vic you know, roll out his whole argument and after

262
00:16:26,480 --> 00:16:29,600
Speaker 1: that they said thank you. So they were trying to give,

263
00:16:30,040 --> 00:16:35,479
Speaker 1: you know, the Council for Baltimore every opportunity to explain

264
00:16:35,760 --> 00:16:40,400
Speaker 1: why they're reading of the statute was consistent with congress

265
00:16:40,520 --> 00:16:42,920
Speaker 1: Is intent. That's the way I read it. Thanks for

266
00:16:42,960 --> 00:16:46,040
Speaker 1: being on the Bloomberg Laws Show. Pat. That's Pat Parento,

267
00:16:46,240 --> 00:16:49,360
Speaker 1: a professor of environmental law at the Vermont Law School.

268
00:16:51,520 --> 00:16:55,000
Speaker 1: A fine dating back two decades finally reached the Supreme

269
00:16:55,040 --> 00:16:58,680
Speaker 1: Court this week. Should the Federal Communications Commission be allowed

270
00:16:58,720 --> 00:17:02,200
Speaker 1: to relax the limits the ownership of local broadcast stations

271
00:17:02,200 --> 00:17:04,960
Speaker 1: and newspapers, even though it could lead to a wave

272
00:17:05,040 --> 00:17:08,639
Speaker 1: of consolidation. Justice Neil Gorse had said that the rules

273
00:17:08,640 --> 00:17:12,080
Speaker 1: are outdated. We're stuck with rules from the nineties, seventies

274
00:17:12,520 --> 00:17:15,680
Speaker 1: that twenty years ago, twenty five years ago. Kyra said,

275
00:17:15,680 --> 00:17:20,320
Speaker 1: we're outdated, and when when is the FCC gonna be

276
00:17:20,359 --> 00:17:23,760
Speaker 1: able to try and experiment? But the Third Circuit Court

277
00:17:23,760 --> 00:17:27,199
Speaker 1: of Appeals had blocked the changes and ordered the FCC

278
00:17:27,440 --> 00:17:30,359
Speaker 1: to study the impact easing the rules could have on

279
00:17:30,520 --> 00:17:34,320
Speaker 1: female and minority ownership in the media industry. One problem

280
00:17:34,359 --> 00:17:36,520
Speaker 1: seemed to be the lack of evidence of what might

281
00:17:36,600 --> 00:17:41,400
Speaker 1: happen something Justice Stephen Bryer found frustrating. Why in Heaven's

282
00:17:41,480 --> 00:17:45,639
Speaker 1: name did you not are groups that support you? Given

283
00:17:45,680 --> 00:17:49,040
Speaker 1: the tremendous number of people who I'm happy are interested

284
00:17:49,080 --> 00:17:51,800
Speaker 1: in this, Why aren't there some studies or something? There

285
00:17:51,840 --> 00:17:55,640
Speaker 1: are ten thousands law professors and economics professors suit look

286
00:17:55,720 --> 00:17:58,760
Speaker 1: for studies to do. Why isn't there something joining me?

287
00:17:58,800 --> 00:18:02,640
Speaker 1: Is match Schettenhelm netigation and government analysts for Bloomberg Intelligence.

288
00:18:02,880 --> 00:18:05,520
Speaker 1: Matt tell us about these rules that the FCC wants

289
00:18:05,560 --> 00:18:09,479
Speaker 1: to relax. So this case involves rules that in some

290
00:18:09,520 --> 00:18:13,080
Speaker 1: cases have been around since the nineties seventies that limit

291
00:18:13,320 --> 00:18:18,119
Speaker 1: how many stations both TV and radio stations that a

292
00:18:18,200 --> 00:18:22,400
Speaker 1: broadcast company can own in a local market, so for example,

293
00:18:22,440 --> 00:18:26,280
Speaker 1: the New York market or the Chicago market. And for

294
00:18:26,520 --> 00:18:32,200
Speaker 1: years broadcasters have been pushing the SCC to loosen those

295
00:18:32,320 --> 00:18:36,520
Speaker 1: rules to make the situation more competitive with media like

296
00:18:36,600 --> 00:18:39,159
Speaker 1: the Internet. And so this case is really about the

297
00:18:39,320 --> 00:18:44,280
Speaker 1: FEC's repeated efforts to ease up those rules and let

298
00:18:44,480 --> 00:18:48,040
Speaker 1: stations own more stations in a local market and also

299
00:18:48,240 --> 00:18:52,400
Speaker 1: own multiple forms of media. The SEC rules have long

300
00:18:52,520 --> 00:18:57,240
Speaker 1: restricted the ownership of both newspapers and broadcast stations, as

301
00:18:57,240 --> 00:19:00,320
Speaker 1: well as the ownership of radio and TV stay stations

302
00:19:00,359 --> 00:19:04,240
Speaker 1: by the same company. Now, the same three judge panel

303
00:19:04,240 --> 00:19:07,399
Speaker 1: of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has been preventing

304
00:19:07,520 --> 00:19:11,639
Speaker 1: the FCC from loosening its ownership restrictions for something like

305
00:19:11,680 --> 00:19:15,879
Speaker 1: twenty years. Why yeah, That's the remarkable thing about this

306
00:19:15,960 --> 00:19:19,240
Speaker 1: case is that the same three judge panel has hung

307
00:19:19,280 --> 00:19:23,159
Speaker 1: onto the case for, as you said, over seventeen years,

308
00:19:23,160 --> 00:19:25,760
Speaker 1: and it's really been two judges of those three, and

309
00:19:25,800 --> 00:19:28,760
Speaker 1: there's always been one of the three dissenting. And the

310
00:19:28,800 --> 00:19:32,400
Speaker 1: main reason has been that these two judges have said

311
00:19:32,400 --> 00:19:37,440
Speaker 1: that the FCC hasn't done enough to look at how

312
00:19:37,560 --> 00:19:42,359
Speaker 1: relaxing its rules would impact diversity of ownership. The FCC

313
00:19:42,520 --> 00:19:45,960
Speaker 1: has long said that one factor it takes into consideration

314
00:19:46,160 --> 00:19:50,840
Speaker 1: is how broadcast stations would be owned by emails and minorities,

315
00:19:51,119 --> 00:19:54,920
Speaker 1: and latching onto that, these two judges have said, since

316
00:19:55,000 --> 00:19:59,280
Speaker 1: you consider that important, FEC, why aren't you doing more

317
00:19:59,600 --> 00:20:02,600
Speaker 1: to sure that there is ownership? And these two judges

318
00:20:02,600 --> 00:20:05,280
Speaker 1: have effectively said you're not doing enough and until you

319
00:20:05,400 --> 00:20:08,480
Speaker 1: do more to ensure that sort of ownership, we're not

320
00:20:08,560 --> 00:20:12,240
Speaker 1: going to let you lack the rules. So what's the

321
00:20:12,280 --> 00:20:16,800
Speaker 1: FECs argument the Supreme Court. The basic argument is that

322
00:20:16,840 --> 00:20:21,440
Speaker 1: these two judges have sort of gone beyond their jurisdiction,

323
00:20:21,560 --> 00:20:25,720
Speaker 1: that this is ultimately a policy call, not for judges

324
00:20:25,880 --> 00:20:30,600
Speaker 1: but for administrative agencies. And the Federal Communications Commission is

325
00:20:30,640 --> 00:20:33,680
Speaker 1: passed with balancing a number of factors. One of those

326
00:20:33,720 --> 00:20:37,119
Speaker 1: factors is diversity of ownership, which these two judges have

327
00:20:37,200 --> 00:20:40,560
Speaker 1: focused on, but the FEC says there's a number of

328
00:20:40,560 --> 00:20:43,480
Speaker 1: other things that it also has to consider, and most

329
00:20:43,520 --> 00:20:47,679
Speaker 1: importantly for this SEC is considerations of competition and the

330
00:20:47,800 --> 00:20:52,560
Speaker 1: idea that maybe it's best to facilitate broadcasting as an

331
00:20:52,600 --> 00:20:57,159
Speaker 1: industry to ease up on these limits. And so the

332
00:20:57,240 --> 00:21:00,760
Speaker 1: FEC looked at diversity of ownership, but it's balance that

333
00:21:01,320 --> 00:21:03,960
Speaker 1: against the number of other factors, and it says, ultimately,

334
00:21:04,119 --> 00:21:06,879
Speaker 1: we as an agency should get to make this call,

335
00:21:07,520 --> 00:21:10,720
Speaker 1: not two unelected judges from the Third Circuit. And that's

336
00:21:10,800 --> 00:21:14,119
Speaker 1: the case that the SEC pushed pretty aggressively to the

337
00:21:14,160 --> 00:21:17,119
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, who is on the other side of this case.

338
00:21:17,680 --> 00:21:21,159
Speaker 1: So the cases is being brought by public interest groups

339
00:21:21,200 --> 00:21:25,479
Speaker 1: that that really have have long emphasized the importance of

340
00:21:25,640 --> 00:21:29,920
Speaker 1: diversity of ownership, and so they have had great success

341
00:21:29,960 --> 00:21:33,600
Speaker 1: in pushing their case at the Third Circuit and they

342
00:21:33,600 --> 00:21:37,639
Speaker 1: continue to present that fight to the court. Tell me,

343
00:21:37,720 --> 00:21:41,240
Speaker 1: when you look at media ownership, but is it true

344
00:21:41,280 --> 00:21:47,000
Speaker 1: that there isn't enough minority or female owned stations. So

345
00:21:47,119 --> 00:21:49,240
Speaker 1: that's a great question, and that's one of the things

346
00:21:49,280 --> 00:21:52,200
Speaker 1: that when the FEC did it's rulemaking on whether it

347
00:21:52,200 --> 00:21:56,520
Speaker 1: should relax its rules, it asked for data on exactly

348
00:21:56,560 --> 00:21:59,639
Speaker 1: that question, and it said, tell us what is the

349
00:22:00,000 --> 00:22:03,760
Speaker 1: act and what is the status of ownership of these stations.

350
00:22:03,800 --> 00:22:07,320
Speaker 1: And the SEC's response after it it went through all

351
00:22:07,359 --> 00:22:10,760
Speaker 1: that data, we don't have great answers in terms of

352
00:22:11,000 --> 00:22:13,960
Speaker 1: it got very little in the record in terms of

353
00:22:14,000 --> 00:22:17,280
Speaker 1: the impact of reducing its rules. Arts. I think these

354
00:22:17,280 --> 00:22:19,760
Speaker 1: public interest groups have made the case, and I think

355
00:22:19,800 --> 00:22:23,720
Speaker 1: it can be documented that there is very limited ownerships

356
00:22:23,960 --> 00:22:28,960
Speaker 1: by females and by minority owners of broadcast stations. But

357
00:22:29,119 --> 00:22:32,400
Speaker 1: the real question in the case has been does easing

358
00:22:32,480 --> 00:22:35,520
Speaker 1: the rules have any impact on that? And that's where

359
00:22:35,520 --> 00:22:37,800
Speaker 1: the SEC after waiting through all the data, so we

360
00:22:37,840 --> 00:22:41,760
Speaker 1: can't say conclusively that relaxing the rules is going to

361
00:22:41,840 --> 00:22:45,520
Speaker 1: make this situation worse, and we think it will actually

362
00:22:45,720 --> 00:22:48,919
Speaker 1: have the potential to make it better by improving the

363
00:22:49,080 --> 00:22:54,200
Speaker 1: market position for broadcasters. Generally, during the oral arguments, did

364
00:22:54,200 --> 00:22:57,359
Speaker 1: you get a feel for what the justices seemed most

365
00:22:57,480 --> 00:23:01,560
Speaker 1: concerned about, what issue was foremost in their minds, so

366
00:23:01,720 --> 00:23:04,000
Speaker 1: coming into this case, you know, with the Supreme Court

367
00:23:04,119 --> 00:23:07,800
Speaker 1: choosing to accept the case at all, that was a

368
00:23:07,920 --> 00:23:12,640
Speaker 1: very good sign, I think for the FEC and for broadcasters,

369
00:23:12,720 --> 00:23:16,359
Speaker 1: because if the Court was satisfied with what the Third

370
00:23:16,359 --> 00:23:18,720
Speaker 1: Circuit has done, it could have just let this case

371
00:23:18,880 --> 00:23:21,720
Speaker 1: fit and not take it all. The mere act of

372
00:23:21,800 --> 00:23:25,320
Speaker 1: taking the case suggest there's concerns, and I think the

373
00:23:25,440 --> 00:23:29,280
Speaker 1: argument supported that we have a six to three Supreme

374
00:23:29,359 --> 00:23:32,320
Speaker 1: Court in terms of the nominating party of the president,

375
00:23:32,400 --> 00:23:35,760
Speaker 1: and it's a more business friendly court here. I think

376
00:23:35,800 --> 00:23:39,480
Speaker 1: what we saw from the argument was exactly what we expected.

377
00:23:39,960 --> 00:23:43,480
Speaker 1: There was, generally, I think a focus on maybe this

378
00:23:43,640 --> 00:23:47,000
Speaker 1: Third Circuit Court has gone too far to be sure.

379
00:23:47,040 --> 00:23:50,960
Speaker 1: There was some sympathy from Justices Soto, Mayor and Tagan

380
00:23:51,240 --> 00:23:55,119
Speaker 1: with the public interest group position here, but it's very

381
00:23:55,160 --> 00:23:59,600
Speaker 1: difficult to see that position earning five votes on Mr

382
00:23:59,680 --> 00:24:02,520
Speaker 1: Frames Court, and I saw very little from the conservative

383
00:24:02,600 --> 00:24:05,760
Speaker 1: side of the Suspreme Court in terms of their questions

384
00:24:05,920 --> 00:24:09,320
Speaker 1: to suggest that there will be five votes to support

385
00:24:09,400 --> 00:24:13,240
Speaker 1: the Third Circuit here. So, and in fact, it seems

386
00:24:13,240 --> 00:24:16,840
Speaker 1: as if Justice Neil Gorstch was pretty direct in saying

387
00:24:16,880 --> 00:24:19,159
Speaker 1: that the rules are old. He said, we're stuck with

388
00:24:19,280 --> 00:24:22,800
Speaker 1: rules from the nineties seventies that twenty years ago, twenty

389
00:24:22,800 --> 00:24:26,320
Speaker 1: five years ago, Congress said we're outdated. He seems pretty

390
00:24:26,400 --> 00:24:30,520
Speaker 1: vehement about the point exactly. And I think that position

391
00:24:30,800 --> 00:24:33,800
Speaker 1: is going to carry a lot of weight with the

392
00:24:33,880 --> 00:24:37,920
Speaker 1: conservative side of the Court, that it's a very uphill

393
00:24:38,359 --> 00:24:42,080
Speaker 1: argument for the public interests group to prevail. I do

394
00:24:42,240 --> 00:24:45,840
Speaker 1: think there's a possibility of a dissenting opinion from Justice

395
00:24:45,840 --> 00:24:50,080
Speaker 1: So to my or potential Justice Kagan joining her, maybe

396
00:24:50,119 --> 00:24:53,480
Speaker 1: Justice Briar, But when you look at the other six

397
00:24:53,600 --> 00:24:56,760
Speaker 1: justices on the Court, it's difficult to envision any of

398
00:24:56,800 --> 00:25:01,399
Speaker 1: them jumping on board with that position. So it's not impossible.

399
00:25:01,480 --> 00:25:05,120
Speaker 1: In the oral argument doesn't assure anything about the outcome,

400
00:25:05,200 --> 00:25:08,720
Speaker 1: and sometimes we're surprised, but right now, in terms of likelihood,

401
00:25:08,880 --> 00:25:12,000
Speaker 1: you would say that the SEC and the broadcasters are

402
00:25:12,040 --> 00:25:15,960
Speaker 1: in a pretty strong position. So what happens now that

403
00:25:16,040 --> 00:25:19,720
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is president. I mean President Trump had this

404
00:25:20,400 --> 00:25:25,080
Speaker 1: focus from day one on deregulation, and Joe Biden has

405
00:25:25,080 --> 00:25:27,959
Speaker 1: a different kind of focus, So what happens at the FCC.

406
00:25:29,400 --> 00:25:32,240
Speaker 1: That's exactly right. So the next step will be Joe

407
00:25:32,240 --> 00:25:36,840
Speaker 1: Biden will name his own SEC chairman. Trump's SEC chairman,

408
00:25:36,880 --> 00:25:39,720
Speaker 1: A G. Pie is stepping down now, and it will

409
00:25:39,800 --> 00:25:43,240
Speaker 1: be a difference in appro from this FCC. I don't

410
00:25:43,280 --> 00:25:48,240
Speaker 1: think the primary focus will be easing ownership rules. I

411
00:25:48,240 --> 00:25:50,800
Speaker 1: think it's going to be a focus on the sorts

412
00:25:50,840 --> 00:25:53,040
Speaker 1: of issues that came up at the Court this week.

413
00:25:53,359 --> 00:25:56,440
Speaker 1: Encouraging diversity of ownership is going to be a big

414
00:25:56,480 --> 00:25:59,199
Speaker 1: focus for this SEC. At the same time, I do

415
00:25:59,320 --> 00:26:02,600
Speaker 1: think there is is sort of a bipartisan agreement that

416
00:26:03,080 --> 00:26:06,400
Speaker 1: these rules are really old. They are in some cases,

417
00:26:06,600 --> 00:26:09,800
Speaker 1: you know, decades old, and they do need some updating.

418
00:26:09,920 --> 00:26:13,240
Speaker 1: So I think even the Democrats at the SEC, and

419
00:26:13,280 --> 00:26:17,159
Speaker 1: whether the chairman is Jessica ros and Warsaw or Jeffrey Starts,

420
00:26:17,440 --> 00:26:20,120
Speaker 1: I do think that there will be some support for

421
00:26:20,200 --> 00:26:23,360
Speaker 1: easing those caps on how many stations you can own.

422
00:26:23,600 --> 00:26:26,280
Speaker 1: It's not as good of news for broadcasters as it

423
00:26:26,359 --> 00:26:29,200
Speaker 1: might have been under a Trumps FCC. I still think

424
00:26:29,240 --> 00:26:33,000
Speaker 1: winning this case will create some positive momentum in terms

425
00:26:33,040 --> 00:26:36,280
Speaker 1: of easing those station limits in the years ahead, just

426
00:26:36,440 --> 00:26:38,800
Speaker 1: not as aggressively as we would have seen under a

427
00:26:38,840 --> 00:26:42,359
Speaker 1: Trump SEC. So just clarify, everyone seems to agree with you.

428
00:26:42,400 --> 00:26:44,560
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court is going to rule for the f SEC.

429
00:26:45,200 --> 00:26:49,600
Speaker 1: Are rule changes then put into place right away? What happens,

430
00:26:49,640 --> 00:26:53,000
Speaker 1: So yeah, in part, some rule changes will take effect immediately.

431
00:26:53,040 --> 00:26:56,240
Speaker 1: So the Trumps FCC did a couple things, as I said,

432
00:26:56,280 --> 00:26:59,000
Speaker 1: It got rid of the ban on cross ownership of

433
00:26:59,119 --> 00:27:02,760
Speaker 1: newspapers and broadcast stations. It also got rid of the

434
00:27:02,840 --> 00:27:06,720
Speaker 1: ban on owning TV and radio stations, and it loosened

435
00:27:06,760 --> 00:27:08,960
Speaker 1: the rule on how many TV stations you can own

436
00:27:08,960 --> 00:27:11,960
Speaker 1: in the market. Those changes which the Third Circuit put

437
00:27:12,040 --> 00:27:15,960
Speaker 1: on hold, those will immediately take affect. The other part

438
00:27:16,000 --> 00:27:18,560
Speaker 1: of it is that the SEC has an open rulemaking

439
00:27:18,640 --> 00:27:22,159
Speaker 1: to go further and to further relax as rules. The

440
00:27:22,240 --> 00:27:25,200
Speaker 1: SEC is taking comments on that record, and it's really

441
00:27:25,200 --> 00:27:28,159
Speaker 1: ready to act, but it's been on pause until this

442
00:27:28,440 --> 00:27:31,840
Speaker 1: court case is resolved. I think after the court rules.

443
00:27:32,040 --> 00:27:36,880
Speaker 1: The now Democratic led SEC can finish that rulemaking and

444
00:27:36,920 --> 00:27:40,239
Speaker 1: in theory proceed with easing the caps even beyond what

445
00:27:40,280 --> 00:27:42,639
Speaker 1: the Trump SEC was able to do. I think the

446
00:27:42,760 --> 00:27:46,359
Speaker 1: number one focus is likely to be the radio station limits,

447
00:27:46,400 --> 00:27:49,600
Speaker 1: where we've seen some sympathy from the Democrats to finish

448
00:27:49,760 --> 00:27:53,280
Speaker 1: easing those rules as well. So so it's a mixed bag.

449
00:27:53,440 --> 00:27:56,240
Speaker 1: Some rule changes take effect immediately based on what the

450
00:27:56,240 --> 00:27:59,080
Speaker 1: Trump SEC did, but we're also likely to see the

451
00:27:59,160 --> 00:28:03,320
Speaker 1: SEC move had with further relaxation of the rules, just slowly.

452
00:28:03,760 --> 00:28:06,360
Speaker 1: So let me ask you this man. It seems that

453
00:28:06,480 --> 00:28:09,000
Speaker 1: just by the nature of what's going to happen that

454
00:28:09,040 --> 00:28:11,600
Speaker 1: you're going to be able to own more stations in

455
00:28:11,680 --> 00:28:16,760
Speaker 1: the market, that that will lead to more consolidation in media.

456
00:28:17,440 --> 00:28:20,359
Speaker 1: That's right, and the broadcasters make the case that that

457
00:28:20,440 --> 00:28:22,919
Speaker 1: that can be a good thing in many cases, and

458
00:28:22,960 --> 00:28:27,240
Speaker 1: in local markets, a number of broadcasters are struggling, and

459
00:28:27,359 --> 00:28:33,200
Speaker 1: there can be great efficiencies from one company owning multiple

460
00:28:33,359 --> 00:28:38,160
Speaker 1: stations in a market in terms of the advertising dollars

461
00:28:38,200 --> 00:28:40,320
Speaker 1: that they can bring in, in terms of the local

462
00:28:40,480 --> 00:28:44,360
Speaker 1: staffing that they can do in that market. Efficiencies can

463
00:28:44,400 --> 00:28:49,120
Speaker 1: be gained by ownership of multiple stations. Now both of

464
00:28:49,160 --> 00:28:51,520
Speaker 1: that would say, yeah, but what are you losing in

465
00:28:51,640 --> 00:28:54,800
Speaker 1: terms of a diversity of voices and a focus on

466
00:28:55,120 --> 00:28:58,960
Speaker 1: different perspectives in your media. There's a risk of lass

467
00:28:59,080 --> 00:29:02,200
Speaker 1: on that side. Sure, so that's the balancing that the

468
00:29:02,320 --> 00:29:06,400
Speaker 1: SEC has long been trying to do. But the broadcasters say, look,

469
00:29:06,400 --> 00:29:09,960
Speaker 1: it's not quite imbalanced right now. There's been too much

470
00:29:10,200 --> 00:29:12,760
Speaker 1: preservation of these rules that are a little bit out

471
00:29:12,760 --> 00:29:16,120
Speaker 1: of date, especially with the rise of new media, which

472
00:29:16,520 --> 00:29:19,400
Speaker 1: isn't harnessed with any of these sorts of rules. It's

473
00:29:19,440 --> 00:29:22,680
Speaker 1: not fair and it's not reasonable to expect broadcasters to

474
00:29:22,800 --> 00:29:27,600
Speaker 1: succeed as competitors if they're harnessed with these sorts of limitations.

475
00:29:27,840 --> 00:29:32,000
Speaker 1: Were the stations involved here, the broadcasters involved here? Were

476
00:29:32,080 --> 00:29:35,720
Speaker 1: they what's considered conservative media? Is this a victory for

477
00:29:35,760 --> 00:29:38,840
Speaker 1: conservative media? I don't think I would say that. I

478
00:29:38,840 --> 00:29:43,480
Speaker 1: think this is all broadcast station, all companies that own

479
00:29:43,520 --> 00:29:48,560
Speaker 1: broadcast station, So it's it really doesn't divide along political lines.

480
00:29:48,760 --> 00:29:52,840
Speaker 1: This is the entire industry. The National Association of Broadcasters

481
00:29:52,880 --> 00:29:56,600
Speaker 1: supported this case, and so this is really a victory

482
00:29:56,680 --> 00:29:59,840
Speaker 1: for broadcasting. It's not a victory yet. We need to

483
00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:03,160
Speaker 1: with the court says, but this would be a victory

484
00:30:03,160 --> 00:30:06,560
Speaker 1: for the industry as a whole because it it gives

485
00:30:06,760 --> 00:30:10,840
Speaker 1: the industry more freedom to move ahead with, as you said, consolidation.

486
00:30:11,120 --> 00:30:14,720
Speaker 1: But what they would emphasize is the efficiencies in delivering

487
00:30:14,760 --> 00:30:18,600
Speaker 1: their service that they've been unable to provide in recent

488
00:30:18,680 --> 00:30:23,720
Speaker 1: years under these litigations. Thanks Matt. That's Matt Shettenhelm, litigation

489
00:30:23,760 --> 00:30:27,240
Speaker 1: and government analysts for Bloomberg Intelligence. And that's it for

490
00:30:27,240 --> 00:30:30,360
Speaker 1: the sedition of the Bloomberg Lawn podcast. I'm June Grosso.

491
00:30:30,480 --> 00:30:33,240
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening, and remember you can always

492
00:30:33,240 --> 00:30:36,000
Speaker 1: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg laun podcast.

493
00:30:36,360 --> 00:30:39,760
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever

494
00:30:39,880 --> 00:30:43,360
Speaker 1: you get your favorite podcasts. You're listening to Bloomberg