1 00:00:03,279 --> 00:00:07,520 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:09,200 --> 00:00:12,879 Speaker 2: A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration must 3 00:00:12,920 --> 00:00:17,560 Speaker 2: restore thirty four educational panels about slavery at a site 4 00:00:17,560 --> 00:00:22,119 Speaker 2: in Philadelphia where George Washington lived as president. Judge Cynthia 5 00:00:22,200 --> 00:00:25,840 Speaker 2: Ruff compared the display's removal last month by the National 6 00:00:25,880 --> 00:00:30,160 Speaker 2: Park Service to the government mind control employed in George 7 00:00:30,280 --> 00:00:33,960 Speaker 2: Orwell's novel nineteen eighty four. The judge found that the 8 00:00:34,000 --> 00:00:37,919 Speaker 2: federal government does not have the power it claims quote 9 00:00:38,200 --> 00:00:42,519 Speaker 2: to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some 10 00:00:42,720 --> 00:00:46,800 Speaker 2: domain over historical facts. Joining me is Eryl Cashen, a 11 00:00:46,840 --> 00:00:50,640 Speaker 2: professor at Georgetown Law. What's your reaction to this forty 12 00:00:50,680 --> 00:00:53,880 Speaker 2: page opinion by Judge Rufe oh Well. 13 00:00:53,880 --> 00:01:00,680 Speaker 3: I think it's a beautiful piece of Americana now, because yeah, 14 00:01:00,800 --> 00:01:03,440 Speaker 3: first of all, she's a George w. Bush appointee and 15 00:01:03,680 --> 00:01:09,280 Speaker 3: she issues a preliminary injunction basically saying to a sitting president, 16 00:01:10,040 --> 00:01:13,520 Speaker 3: you don't get to be Orwellian, you don't get to 17 00:01:13,560 --> 00:01:16,840 Speaker 3: be like the Ministry of Truth in this science fiction 18 00:01:17,000 --> 00:01:23,000 Speaker 3: novel and impose your view on objective facts. We have 19 00:01:23,080 --> 00:01:28,000 Speaker 3: a complicated history. That history includes slavery. Yes, our greatest 20 00:01:28,040 --> 00:01:31,200 Speaker 3: founder was a slave owner. We're not gonna hide that, 21 00:01:31,760 --> 00:01:34,679 Speaker 3: and we're gonna learn from that history. I actually found 22 00:01:34,680 --> 00:01:38,000 Speaker 3: that there were passages in the opinion there were quite 23 00:01:38,040 --> 00:01:42,480 Speaker 3: patriotic and soaring. So I'm very appreciative of what she 24 00:01:42,640 --> 00:01:46,480 Speaker 3: did in this Black History Month and on President's Day. 25 00:01:46,720 --> 00:01:48,120 Speaker 2: You can't get pass the symbolism. 26 00:01:48,160 --> 00:01:49,840 Speaker 3: There no no. 27 00:01:50,440 --> 00:01:54,120 Speaker 2: When she criticized the Trump administration, she said, truth is 28 00:01:54,200 --> 00:01:56,960 Speaker 2: no longer self evident, but rather the property of the 29 00:01:56,960 --> 00:02:01,480 Speaker 2: elected chief magistrate at his whim, to be scraped clean, hidden, 30 00:02:01,720 --> 00:02:05,800 Speaker 2: or overwritten. Why solely because of defendant state it has 31 00:02:05,840 --> 00:02:10,320 Speaker 2: the power. What was the Trump administration's defense to taking 32 00:02:10,320 --> 00:02:11,280 Speaker 2: these panels down? 33 00:02:11,760 --> 00:02:14,120 Speaker 3: It's only defense. And first of all, it was the 34 00:02:14,240 --> 00:02:17,000 Speaker 3: National Park Service that was sued. They're the ones who 35 00:02:17,000 --> 00:02:21,000 Speaker 3: took them down. But they're only defense. And the judge 36 00:02:21,280 --> 00:02:25,040 Speaker 3: points to this seemed to be that Donald Trump issued 37 00:02:25,080 --> 00:02:29,519 Speaker 3: an executive order requiring things like this. That was it. 38 00:02:29,639 --> 00:02:33,639 Speaker 3: They didn't offer any reasons for it. And I think 39 00:02:33,680 --> 00:02:37,160 Speaker 3: it's important to bring out to your listeners exactly what 40 00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:41,760 Speaker 3: these thirty four panels covered, the stories they covered, and 41 00:02:41,800 --> 00:02:44,320 Speaker 3: I greatly appreciated the judges doing this. They covered the 42 00:02:44,360 --> 00:02:49,640 Speaker 3: fact that the Washingtons in the President's house brought nine 43 00:02:50,120 --> 00:02:54,239 Speaker 3: enslaved people there, and she named them in the opinion, 44 00:02:54,320 --> 00:02:58,120 Speaker 3: and I think it's worth us taking a quick moment 45 00:02:58,200 --> 00:03:04,600 Speaker 3: to name them them all. Onny Judge, Martha Washington's maid, Austin, 46 00:03:04,720 --> 00:03:10,480 Speaker 3: her brother Christopher Shields, the president's valet, Giles, the carriage driver, 47 00:03:10,840 --> 00:03:16,480 Speaker 3: Hercules Posey, a supremely talented chef to the Washingtons, Joe Richardson, 48 00:03:16,520 --> 00:03:21,440 Speaker 3: the coachman Mall Martha Washington's nanny for the grandchildren, Paris, 49 00:03:21,520 --> 00:03:24,880 Speaker 3: a stable worker, and Richmond, who was the son of Hercules, 50 00:03:24,919 --> 00:03:28,480 Speaker 3: and his chimney sweep. The complicated history that these thirty 51 00:03:28,480 --> 00:03:32,760 Speaker 3: four panels told was that George Washington, our first founder, 52 00:03:33,160 --> 00:03:37,360 Speaker 3: would rotate these nine people out every six months to 53 00:03:37,440 --> 00:03:43,760 Speaker 3: evade a law that Quaker abolitionists agitated for and one 54 00:03:44,160 --> 00:03:48,080 Speaker 3: that would allow them after six months to petition for freedom. 55 00:03:48,360 --> 00:03:52,360 Speaker 3: He didn't want them to be free. Okay, that's complicated, 56 00:03:52,400 --> 00:03:55,800 Speaker 3: but it's true. The other story that I think that 57 00:03:55,880 --> 00:03:59,200 Speaker 3: the White House was probably uncomfortable with was the story 58 00:03:59,200 --> 00:04:03,720 Speaker 3: of one Jeff Judge, a freckle faced bushy haired teenager 59 00:04:04,280 --> 00:04:10,120 Speaker 3: who escaped, probably with the help of a free black community. 60 00:04:10,200 --> 00:04:14,520 Speaker 3: Overwhelmingly the black people in the city at that time 61 00:04:14,560 --> 00:04:18,680 Speaker 3: were free, hundreds and hundreds of black people. In fact, 62 00:04:18,760 --> 00:04:23,359 Speaker 3: the black community was blocks away from the President's house, 63 00:04:24,040 --> 00:04:30,400 Speaker 3: and this young teenager escapes. It's beyond Martha's imagination that 64 00:04:30,720 --> 00:04:33,320 Speaker 3: the person who catered to her every need would want 65 00:04:33,360 --> 00:04:38,120 Speaker 3: to leave her, and she, basically, I think, more than anyone, 66 00:04:38,240 --> 00:04:41,760 Speaker 3: put pressure on George Washington to find her. George Washington 67 00:04:41,839 --> 00:04:45,560 Speaker 3: as president, spends two years trying to recapture her and 68 00:04:45,680 --> 00:04:49,640 Speaker 3: does not succeed. So they are outwitted by this young 69 00:04:49,800 --> 00:04:53,440 Speaker 3: black teenager who desperately wanted to be free and lived 70 00:04:53,480 --> 00:04:57,320 Speaker 3: free for the next fifty years. And that's the story 71 00:04:57,440 --> 00:05:02,080 Speaker 3: that the Trump administration suppressed. And the judge, to her credit, 72 00:05:02,640 --> 00:05:07,360 Speaker 3: talked about how the display recognize ony judge and her 73 00:05:07,440 --> 00:05:12,719 Speaker 3: fears struggle for freedom, and how it represented the country's 74 00:05:12,800 --> 00:05:17,279 Speaker 3: progress away from the horrors of slavery, where everybody could 75 00:05:17,320 --> 00:05:19,839 Speaker 3: live with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 76 00:05:20,160 --> 00:05:23,440 Speaker 2: What was the legal basis for the judge's ruling? 77 00:05:23,800 --> 00:05:28,240 Speaker 3: For years I taught administrative law. A basic tenet of 78 00:05:28,320 --> 00:05:35,800 Speaker 3: administrative law is that government does not get to reverss 79 00:05:36,240 --> 00:05:41,479 Speaker 3: itself on a whim without explanation, particularly when a policy 80 00:05:41,520 --> 00:05:45,880 Speaker 3: has been in place. There were several pieces of congressional legislation. 81 00:05:45,960 --> 00:05:48,520 Speaker 3: There was a legislation going back to nineteen forty eight 82 00:05:48,920 --> 00:05:54,080 Speaker 3: creating this National Independence Park. There was a two thousand 83 00:05:54,080 --> 00:05:59,680 Speaker 3: and six law in which Congress encouraged the telling of 84 00:05:59,720 --> 00:06:05,240 Speaker 3: this complicated story. And as we discussed, they didn't offer 85 00:06:05,440 --> 00:06:09,479 Speaker 3: any explanation for why you had this extreme reversal of 86 00:06:09,960 --> 00:06:16,000 Speaker 3: taking down exhibits that told this complicated history. So that 87 00:06:16,160 --> 00:06:19,600 Speaker 3: was arbitrary and capricious. That's one thing. The city of 88 00:06:20,000 --> 00:06:24,840 Speaker 3: Philadelphia also had a statutory right to be consulted on 89 00:06:24,960 --> 00:06:30,120 Speaker 3: any changes at the President's house. They paid for this project. 90 00:06:30,320 --> 00:06:35,120 Speaker 3: They paid for these interpretations, these panels, the videos telling 91 00:06:35,160 --> 00:06:39,600 Speaker 3: this this story. They invested five million dollars in the project. Right, 92 00:06:39,880 --> 00:06:44,640 Speaker 3: so they had a statutory expectation and right to be 93 00:06:44,720 --> 00:06:49,640 Speaker 3: consulted before any changes were made. That law was violated. Right, 94 00:06:50,040 --> 00:06:54,320 Speaker 3: so arbitrary and capricious under administrative law. Also, it was 95 00:06:54,360 --> 00:06:57,720 Speaker 3: a breach of separation of powers. The Court made it 96 00:06:57,920 --> 00:07:02,240 Speaker 3: abundantly clear that the President of the United States does 97 00:07:02,279 --> 00:07:08,960 Speaker 3: not get to by executive order. Frankly, executive fiat authorize 98 00:07:09,240 --> 00:07:14,360 Speaker 3: an agency to violate a law Congress past right, So 99 00:07:14,440 --> 00:07:20,160 Speaker 3: there's that. The court also alluded to federalism judicial conservatives. 100 00:07:20,520 --> 00:07:24,880 Speaker 3: Conservatives generally tend to like the idea of federalism, of 101 00:07:25,240 --> 00:07:30,800 Speaker 3: allowing local and state control. You know the Tenth Amendment values. Well, 102 00:07:31,040 --> 00:07:35,080 Speaker 3: you know, the governor, Governor Shapiro filed an Amika's brief saying, 103 00:07:35,120 --> 00:07:39,520 Speaker 3: you know, we supported telling our public this complicated history, 104 00:07:39,560 --> 00:07:43,200 Speaker 3: and the city supported, and certainly, you know, the black 105 00:07:43,240 --> 00:07:49,160 Speaker 3: cultural institutions that help shape the content. They were outraged that, 106 00:07:49,480 --> 00:07:54,840 Speaker 3: you know, this interesting, complicated history where African Americans are 107 00:07:54,920 --> 00:08:00,840 Speaker 3: present and featured, was ripped out with no explanation. So, oh, 108 00:08:00,880 --> 00:08:03,600 Speaker 3: all of those reasons the judge brought to bear. 109 00:08:04,200 --> 00:08:08,840 Speaker 2: So the judge issued an injunction ordering the government to 110 00:08:08,880 --> 00:08:10,960 Speaker 2: restore the panels, but she didn't give them a date. 111 00:08:11,080 --> 00:08:14,880 Speaker 2: Certain and the government is going to appeal the ruling. 112 00:08:15,080 --> 00:08:17,280 Speaker 2: What do you think their chances are on appeal since 113 00:08:17,280 --> 00:08:19,160 Speaker 2: we don't really know what their argument was in the 114 00:08:19,200 --> 00:08:19,880 Speaker 2: first place. 115 00:08:20,680 --> 00:08:24,000 Speaker 3: I think this is an air tight case. I want 116 00:08:24,040 --> 00:08:28,880 Speaker 3: to say, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed to stop 117 00:08:29,200 --> 00:08:33,840 Speaker 3: the Trump administration from violating law. Either's more than one 118 00:08:33,920 --> 00:08:38,160 Speaker 3: hundred and fifty orders have been issued to the Trump 119 00:08:38,240 --> 00:08:45,480 Speaker 3: administration blocking them from doing something that's unlawful. Right, and 120 00:08:45,760 --> 00:08:49,319 Speaker 3: I want to applaud you know, the federal courts, particularly 121 00:08:49,400 --> 00:08:53,839 Speaker 3: the trial courts, are checking this presidency and upholding the 122 00:08:53,920 --> 00:08:57,600 Speaker 3: rule of law. I do not see how the Court 123 00:08:57,640 --> 00:09:01,000 Speaker 3: of Appeals, even if they get lucky and get a 124 00:09:01,040 --> 00:09:08,240 Speaker 3: panel that's all conservative judges. It's pretty airtight. There are 125 00:09:08,400 --> 00:09:13,160 Speaker 3: two statutes that make it clear that the city. First 126 00:09:13,160 --> 00:09:15,960 Speaker 3: of all, the city owns the land where this presidential 127 00:09:16,000 --> 00:09:22,599 Speaker 3: site is. There's a federal law that sanctioned this cooperative arrangements, 128 00:09:23,000 --> 00:09:27,360 Speaker 3: and the federal government had entered into a series of 129 00:09:27,400 --> 00:09:32,600 Speaker 3: cooperative arrangements. They took and benefited from the five million 130 00:09:32,640 --> 00:09:37,800 Speaker 3: dollars that Philadelphia put forth to put up this display, 131 00:09:38,520 --> 00:09:43,280 Speaker 3: and by the statute, they were entitled to be consultant 132 00:09:43,360 --> 00:09:47,480 Speaker 3: on any changes. So it's pretty airtight. I do not 133 00:09:47,760 --> 00:09:54,320 Speaker 3: see how any judge that's operating with intellectual integrity to 134 00:09:54,520 --> 00:09:58,560 Speaker 3: the rule of law would uphold this violate separation of 135 00:09:58,600 --> 00:10:05,319 Speaker 3: powers Congresses and ten violates principles of federalism violates principles 136 00:10:05,400 --> 00:10:09,840 Speaker 3: of vested interest and also, frankly, in a lot of 137 00:10:09,840 --> 00:10:15,040 Speaker 3: these federal court opinions, there are allusions to what's morally right. 138 00:10:15,480 --> 00:10:21,079 Speaker 3: You know, this judge used the literary reference of nineteen 139 00:10:21,120 --> 00:10:25,320 Speaker 3: eighty four Georgia Orwell's nineteen eighty four right. She quoted 140 00:10:25,760 --> 00:10:29,000 Speaker 3: explicitly from it. There's a law, and there's also what 141 00:10:29,520 --> 00:10:36,000 Speaker 3: ordinary people would recognize as morally right. Let me underscore this, 142 00:10:37,559 --> 00:10:40,640 Speaker 3: and it's part because I'm more familiar with this. I'm 143 00:10:40,640 --> 00:10:43,959 Speaker 3: a Black American, and I'm a law professor, and I've 144 00:10:43,960 --> 00:10:47,079 Speaker 3: written a lot of books in which I play an 145 00:10:47,120 --> 00:10:53,280 Speaker 3: amateur historian. This effort, the removal of these panels here 146 00:10:53,840 --> 00:10:58,520 Speaker 3: was part of a larger despotic erasure of black history 147 00:10:59,080 --> 00:11:03,880 Speaker 3: by this administration. Right, he issues this executive order last 148 00:11:03,960 --> 00:11:08,000 Speaker 3: March March of twenty twenty five, which basically tells every 149 00:11:08,040 --> 00:11:14,200 Speaker 3: single agency in the government to scrub the government of 150 00:11:15,320 --> 00:11:20,960 Speaker 3: references that put any American, including colonial Americans, in a 151 00:11:21,000 --> 00:11:25,400 Speaker 3: bad light. They've purged any reference to Black Americans and 152 00:11:25,440 --> 00:11:31,040 Speaker 3: their contributions from websites. They have threatened any school district 153 00:11:31,480 --> 00:11:35,920 Speaker 3: that has black or ethnic studies in their curriculum with 154 00:11:35,920 --> 00:11:40,320 Speaker 3: withholding of money. It's just clear that Black American history 155 00:11:40,320 --> 00:11:44,200 Speaker 3: and the African Americans struggle for freedom. For some reason, 156 00:11:44,880 --> 00:11:49,640 Speaker 3: they seem to feel that puts, particularly white leaders of 157 00:11:49,679 --> 00:11:53,559 Speaker 3: the past, in a bad light. I actually happen to 158 00:11:53,600 --> 00:11:56,480 Speaker 3: have a very patriotic view, like the judge did, like 159 00:11:56,600 --> 00:12:00,440 Speaker 3: there's nothing more patriotic than people of all colors and 160 00:12:00,720 --> 00:12:05,160 Speaker 3: genders claiming the words of the Declaration of Independence is theirs. 161 00:12:05,400 --> 00:12:09,520 Speaker 3: I'm a proud American. I believe in our self evident truth. 162 00:12:10,160 --> 00:12:14,360 Speaker 3: Let me tell my story of how you know, how 163 00:12:14,400 --> 00:12:16,880 Speaker 3: I live as an American, and that's what it's at 164 00:12:16,880 --> 00:12:21,640 Speaker 3: stake here, whether it's attacking black history or LGBTQ history 165 00:12:22,080 --> 00:12:26,760 Speaker 3: or feminism. I think in twenty twenty six, two hundred 166 00:12:26,760 --> 00:12:29,240 Speaker 3: and fiftieth anniversary of our country, we ought to be 167 00:12:29,400 --> 00:12:34,400 Speaker 3: mature enough to hear complicated history and place it in 168 00:12:34,440 --> 00:12:38,560 Speaker 3: the context of Yes, there are things that happen that 169 00:12:38,600 --> 00:12:41,720 Speaker 3: are unpleasant, but it was part of a larger journey 170 00:12:42,320 --> 00:12:47,520 Speaker 3: of us achieving our professed values and that's a legacy 171 00:12:47,559 --> 00:12:48,360 Speaker 3: to be proud of. 172 00:12:48,679 --> 00:12:51,000 Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me on the show. That's 173 00:12:51,040 --> 00:12:56,800 Speaker 2: Professor Cheryl Cashion of Georgetown Law. It took less than 174 00:12:56,800 --> 00:12:59,959 Speaker 2: a week for lawsuits to be filed over the ep 175 00:13:00,559 --> 00:13:06,360 Speaker 2: elimination of the Bedrock scientific finding that greenhouse gases threaten 176 00:13:06,480 --> 00:13:11,040 Speaker 2: public health. The so called endangerment finding forms the basis 177 00:13:11,080 --> 00:13:15,520 Speaker 2: for regulations to fight climate change, and its revocation could 178 00:13:15,679 --> 00:13:19,680 Speaker 2: unwind current air and climate rules. So a coalition of 179 00:13:19,760 --> 00:13:24,600 Speaker 2: conservation and public health groups are challenging its repeal, saying 180 00:13:24,679 --> 00:13:29,680 Speaker 2: the EPA violated federal law and legal precedent. More lawsuits 181 00:13:29,720 --> 00:13:32,360 Speaker 2: are sure to follow on an issue that's likely to 182 00:13:32,400 --> 00:13:35,680 Speaker 2: reach the Supreme Court. Joining me is an expert in 183 00:13:35,800 --> 00:13:39,560 Speaker 2: environmental law, Pat Parento, a professor at the Vermont Law 184 00:13:39,640 --> 00:13:45,520 Speaker 2: and Graduate School. Pat, just how critical is this revocation 185 00:13:45,840 --> 00:13:47,320 Speaker 2: of the Endangerment Finding. 186 00:13:48,280 --> 00:13:52,280 Speaker 1: It's huge, and it's ugly, and people do not fully 187 00:13:52,480 --> 00:13:57,160 Speaker 1: understand just how devastating this action is going to be, 188 00:13:57,280 --> 00:14:01,280 Speaker 1: not just for climate, but for public health and safety generally. 189 00:14:02,080 --> 00:14:06,040 Speaker 2: And the endangerment finding came out of a landmark Supreme 190 00:14:06,080 --> 00:14:08,520 Speaker 2: Court case in two thousand and seven. 191 00:14:08,920 --> 00:14:11,880 Speaker 1: Right, so it follows on the heels of course of 192 00:14:11,960 --> 00:14:15,720 Speaker 1: Massachusetts versus DPA, which is still the law of the land. 193 00:14:16,120 --> 00:14:20,520 Speaker 1: Contrary to what mister Zelden thinks. And in that decision, 194 00:14:20,760 --> 00:14:24,800 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court not only held that greenhouse gas pollution 195 00:14:25,840 --> 00:14:28,880 Speaker 1: is regulated under the Clean Air Act. The George W. 196 00:14:28,960 --> 00:14:32,680 Speaker 1: Bush administration had taken the position it wasn't regulated, and 197 00:14:32,720 --> 00:14:35,080 Speaker 1: they made many of the same arguments that Trump and 198 00:14:35,160 --> 00:14:38,200 Speaker 1: Zelden are making now. The Supreme Court rejected those. It 199 00:14:38,320 --> 00:14:42,000 Speaker 1: was a five to four decision, and frankly, the majority 200 00:14:42,520 --> 00:14:45,720 Speaker 1: in the Massachusetts case is no longer on the court, 201 00:14:46,200 --> 00:14:49,479 Speaker 1: So that's what gives Trump some hope here. And then secondly, 202 00:14:49,760 --> 00:14:52,880 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court said, since you have the authority to 203 00:14:52,960 --> 00:14:57,760 Speaker 1: regulate greenhouse gas pollution, if you make a finding that 204 00:14:58,000 --> 00:15:01,320 Speaker 1: such pollution and the emissions that cause it in danger 205 00:15:01,440 --> 00:15:05,160 Speaker 1: public health and welfare, you must regulate. You don't have 206 00:15:05,240 --> 00:15:10,200 Speaker 1: any discretion not to regulate once you make a finding. 207 00:15:10,280 --> 00:15:12,160 Speaker 1: And the Supreme Court made it clear that was a 208 00:15:12,440 --> 00:15:17,840 Speaker 1: scientific finding, wasn't policy, it wasn't even law necessarily, it 209 00:15:17,920 --> 00:15:22,680 Speaker 1: was a scientific determination that this kind of pollution is 210 00:15:22,840 --> 00:15:24,920 Speaker 1: endangering people's health and welfare. 211 00:15:25,120 --> 00:15:28,560 Speaker 2: And since that point, has there been any contrary evidence 212 00:15:28,840 --> 00:15:30,360 Speaker 2: to that scientific finding? 213 00:15:30,800 --> 00:15:33,440 Speaker 1: No, quite the contrary. And of course, I think we've 214 00:15:33,480 --> 00:15:37,560 Speaker 1: talked before about how the Department of Energy cooked up 215 00:15:37,680 --> 00:15:43,440 Speaker 1: this phony report based on five climate denialists. They're scientists, 216 00:15:43,520 --> 00:15:48,880 Speaker 1: but they deny the consensus around climate change. And EPA 217 00:15:48,920 --> 00:15:52,640 Speaker 1: was going to use that report, but then the federal 218 00:15:52,680 --> 00:15:57,480 Speaker 1: court in Massachusetts said the report was prepared illegally because 219 00:15:57,520 --> 00:16:01,720 Speaker 1: it was done in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 220 00:16:01,800 --> 00:16:06,080 Speaker 1: and Judge Young issued a decision just recently saying, can't 221 00:16:06,200 --> 00:16:11,080 Speaker 1: use this report. So now EPA has abandoned the argument 222 00:16:11,360 --> 00:16:15,680 Speaker 1: attacking the science underlying the endangerment finding. There's no basis 223 00:16:15,960 --> 00:16:19,600 Speaker 1: to do that. The National Academy of Sciences weighed in 224 00:16:19,680 --> 00:16:24,320 Speaker 1: with a special report rebutting this so called Department of 225 00:16:24,400 --> 00:16:29,480 Speaker 1: Energy report. So the science is absolutely crystal clear and 226 00:16:29,880 --> 00:16:33,200 Speaker 1: the danger is absolutely clear. You can repeal the finding, 227 00:16:33,560 --> 00:16:35,000 Speaker 1: you can't repeal the danger. 228 00:16:35,400 --> 00:16:38,800 Speaker 2: There are two lawsuits in counting, one by a group 229 00:16:38,880 --> 00:16:42,560 Speaker 2: of youth plaintiffs and another by a coalition of health 230 00:16:42,720 --> 00:16:46,600 Speaker 2: and environmental groups. Tell us about their claims that the 231 00:16:46,640 --> 00:16:48,960 Speaker 2: EPA's actions are illegal. 232 00:16:49,520 --> 00:16:53,080 Speaker 1: Well, they're first of all saying that Massachusetts versus EPA 233 00:16:53,160 --> 00:16:56,640 Speaker 1: is the law, and as I said, it states very 234 00:16:56,680 --> 00:17:00,680 Speaker 1: clearly that EPA has the authority to rate. So now 235 00:17:00,800 --> 00:17:04,000 Speaker 1: Zelden is coming along and saying, well, no, we've looked 236 00:17:04,000 --> 00:17:07,720 Speaker 1: at it again through the lens that we use, and 237 00:17:08,080 --> 00:17:11,920 Speaker 1: our conclusion is that the best reading of the Clean 238 00:17:11,960 --> 00:17:14,800 Speaker 1: Air Act is not the reading that the Supreme Court 239 00:17:14,960 --> 00:17:18,560 Speaker 1: issued in Maths versus CPA, but our reading, which is, 240 00:17:18,600 --> 00:17:22,560 Speaker 1: we don't have any authority to regulate greenhouse gases. They're 241 00:17:22,640 --> 00:17:26,520 Speaker 1: using kind of an originalist argument here. They're trying to 242 00:17:26,560 --> 00:17:29,400 Speaker 1: say that because the Clean Air Act of nineteen seventy 243 00:17:30,160 --> 00:17:35,160 Speaker 1: was focused on initially localized pollution, the smog that people 244 00:17:35,200 --> 00:17:38,560 Speaker 1: were breathing and so forth. But it's not true that 245 00:17:38,600 --> 00:17:42,840 Speaker 1: the Clean Air Act was limited geographically. We have multiple 246 00:17:43,160 --> 00:17:46,520 Speaker 1: instances of where the Clean Air Act has been used 247 00:17:46,520 --> 00:17:50,480 Speaker 1: to tackle long range pollution, not just acid rain, but 248 00:17:51,040 --> 00:17:57,160 Speaker 1: ozone pollution, small pollution, fine particulate pollution that floats across 249 00:17:57,200 --> 00:18:01,119 Speaker 1: the United States from upwind states to downwind states. So 250 00:18:01,520 --> 00:18:05,240 Speaker 1: this notion that the Cleaner Act was never intended to 251 00:18:05,320 --> 00:18:08,880 Speaker 1: regulate anything in your immediate area of the area you're 252 00:18:08,880 --> 00:18:13,440 Speaker 1: breathing is simply flatly wrong. That's never been the law. 253 00:18:13,680 --> 00:18:16,600 Speaker 1: No case has ever said that. The Supreme Court has 254 00:18:16,640 --> 00:18:20,800 Speaker 1: never said that. Only Zelden is saying that. So the 255 00:18:20,920 --> 00:18:25,280 Speaker 1: first argument is there really is no legal basis whatsoever 256 00:18:25,640 --> 00:18:29,840 Speaker 1: for repealing the endangerment finding. And of course they also 257 00:18:29,960 --> 00:18:34,080 Speaker 1: repealed immediately what we call the tailpipe standards, the mobile 258 00:18:34,160 --> 00:18:37,800 Speaker 1: source standards, cars and trucks and so forth. They are 259 00:18:37,840 --> 00:18:40,760 Speaker 1: the largest source of this kind of pollution and a 260 00:18:40,760 --> 00:18:44,280 Speaker 1: lot of other pollution as well. So the notion that 261 00:18:44,680 --> 00:18:49,159 Speaker 1: this isn't a significant category, that's another requirement of the 262 00:18:49,200 --> 00:18:51,240 Speaker 1: Clean Air Act. You have to make a finding that 263 00:18:51,280 --> 00:18:54,280 Speaker 1: there's a danger from these pollutants. But then you have 264 00:18:54,400 --> 00:18:57,359 Speaker 1: to look at the sources of the pollutants and say 265 00:18:57,760 --> 00:19:01,960 Speaker 1: those sources contribute to the danger. But if this is 266 00:19:02,000 --> 00:19:05,840 Speaker 1: the largest source of greenhouse gases and these other pollutants, 267 00:19:05,880 --> 00:19:10,800 Speaker 1: they surely contribute to the danger. So there's no legal basis, 268 00:19:11,160 --> 00:19:15,280 Speaker 1: no scientific basis, And there are lots of other arguments 269 00:19:15,280 --> 00:19:18,880 Speaker 1: for why this finding is not based. 270 00:19:18,560 --> 00:19:23,600 Speaker 2: On the law, particularly in light of Massachusetts versus EPA. 271 00:19:24,280 --> 00:19:28,280 Speaker 2: Why do you think the EPA administrator Lee Zelden took 272 00:19:28,320 --> 00:19:29,120 Speaker 2: this route. 273 00:19:29,480 --> 00:19:33,359 Speaker 1: Zelden is counting on the current composition of the court. 274 00:19:33,600 --> 00:19:37,000 Speaker 1: As I said, the majority that was in place in 275 00:19:37,240 --> 00:19:41,840 Speaker 1: Massachusetts versus EPA is no longer there. It's much more conservative. 276 00:19:41,880 --> 00:19:44,639 Speaker 1: There are three Trump appointees on the court, so you 277 00:19:44,760 --> 00:19:48,639 Speaker 1: have to look at can Selden get the Court to 278 00:19:48,720 --> 00:19:55,160 Speaker 1: take review of this issue and reverse Massachusetts versus EPA. 279 00:19:55,240 --> 00:19:58,960 Speaker 1: So this requires basically a head count. Where do you 280 00:19:59,040 --> 00:20:04,040 Speaker 1: get five on this court to overturn mass versus EPA. 281 00:20:04,480 --> 00:20:07,399 Speaker 1: You don't have the liberal wing of the court. You 282 00:20:07,480 --> 00:20:11,359 Speaker 1: don't have Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the dissent in Massachusetts, 283 00:20:11,680 --> 00:20:15,639 Speaker 1: because he has stated publicly, even though I dissented, I 284 00:20:15,720 --> 00:20:19,680 Speaker 1: think mass versus EPA at this point is settled law. 285 00:20:19,800 --> 00:20:23,600 Speaker 1: It's been on the books for nineteen years, right, Lots 286 00:20:23,600 --> 00:20:28,320 Speaker 1: of reliance on that decision, lots of regulatory actions based 287 00:20:28,320 --> 00:20:32,800 Speaker 1: on that decision, lots of industry actions in response to 288 00:20:32,880 --> 00:20:37,919 Speaker 1: that decision, including automakers building more electric vehicles and hybrid 289 00:20:38,000 --> 00:20:41,920 Speaker 1: vehicles and so forth. So lots has happened, and there's 290 00:20:41,960 --> 00:20:44,840 Speaker 1: no way I don't think. Of course, it could always 291 00:20:44,920 --> 00:20:48,000 Speaker 1: surprise me. But you're not going to get Chief Justice 292 00:20:48,080 --> 00:20:51,040 Speaker 1: Roberts vote. So where do you get the fifth vote. 293 00:20:51,040 --> 00:20:56,159 Speaker 1: You've got the three or four perhaps ultra conservatives on 294 00:20:56,240 --> 00:21:01,240 Speaker 1: the court. That would be Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Corsition, 295 00:21:01,680 --> 00:21:05,560 Speaker 1: probably Justice Kavanaugh, although even that's not sure. So where 296 00:21:05,560 --> 00:21:08,399 Speaker 1: does the fifth vote come from? It almost has to 297 00:21:08,440 --> 00:21:13,040 Speaker 1: be Justice Barrett, and my view is that she's not 298 00:21:13,080 --> 00:21:16,840 Speaker 1: going to go along with overturning Mass versus CPA because 299 00:21:16,840 --> 00:21:21,399 Speaker 1: of a doctrine that we call statutory starry decisive. So 300 00:21:21,640 --> 00:21:25,840 Speaker 1: once the Court has interpreted a statue, as opposed to say, 301 00:21:25,880 --> 00:21:30,320 Speaker 1: interpreting the Constitution, which can change over time as we've seen, 302 00:21:30,960 --> 00:21:34,879 Speaker 1: but what comes to interpreting a statue like the Clean 303 00:21:34,920 --> 00:21:39,520 Speaker 1: Air Act. The doctrine that that kind of precedent should 304 00:21:39,600 --> 00:21:43,920 Speaker 1: not be overruled or at least lightly overruled is very 305 00:21:44,040 --> 00:21:47,040 Speaker 1: very strong, and I think Justice Barrett has the kind 306 00:21:47,080 --> 00:21:51,520 Speaker 1: of sort of institutional integrity on the Supreme Court to 307 00:21:51,640 --> 00:21:55,720 Speaker 1: respect that. So I don't see how they get Justice 308 00:21:55,840 --> 00:21:59,439 Speaker 1: Barrett's vote. If they manage to get her vote and 309 00:22:00,200 --> 00:22:04,480 Speaker 1: or other votes on the Court, then yeah, Trump might 310 00:22:04,600 --> 00:22:08,560 Speaker 1: win his argument that Mas versus CPA should be reversed 311 00:22:09,160 --> 00:22:13,199 Speaker 1: and the decision to repeal the endangerment finding upheld, And 312 00:22:13,280 --> 00:22:16,920 Speaker 1: that would have really devastating consequences because it would mean 313 00:22:16,960 --> 00:22:21,440 Speaker 1: that a future president could not reinstate the endangerment finding 314 00:22:21,760 --> 00:22:24,679 Speaker 1: once the Court has determined there is no authority to 315 00:22:24,720 --> 00:22:29,399 Speaker 1: regulate greenhouse gases unless Congress steps in, and that doesn't 316 00:22:29,440 --> 00:22:32,480 Speaker 1: look very likely. That's the end of the ballgame. That's 317 00:22:32,520 --> 00:22:38,320 Speaker 1: the end of federal regulation of climate polluting emissions, devastating 318 00:22:38,680 --> 00:22:39,680 Speaker 1: pat Is there. 319 00:22:39,520 --> 00:22:44,440 Speaker 2: A danger in escalating this fight to the Supreme Court 320 00:22:44,640 --> 00:22:45,520 Speaker 2: at this point? 321 00:22:46,040 --> 00:22:49,120 Speaker 1: Oh? I think so. I mean, it's the old adage 322 00:22:49,280 --> 00:22:52,800 Speaker 1: be careful what you wish for. If Trump is successful 323 00:22:52,840 --> 00:22:55,520 Speaker 1: in getting the Court to agree with him, then what 324 00:22:55,680 --> 00:22:59,440 Speaker 1: happens is the Clean Air Act no longer regulates these pollutants. 325 00:22:59,440 --> 00:23:03,119 Speaker 1: But that means states like California are free to do so, 326 00:23:03,600 --> 00:23:07,160 Speaker 1: and you can be sure they will. California has already 327 00:23:07,200 --> 00:23:12,320 Speaker 1: adopted the most stringent tailpipe standards fuel efficiency standards in 328 00:23:12,359 --> 00:23:17,800 Speaker 1: the country, and thirteen other states have gone along with California. 329 00:23:18,200 --> 00:23:21,480 Speaker 1: That got overturned by Congress. That's another story, But the 330 00:23:21,560 --> 00:23:24,320 Speaker 1: point is, once the Clean Air Act is no longer 331 00:23:24,359 --> 00:23:28,240 Speaker 1: an obstacle to state regulation, it is no longer preempting 332 00:23:28,720 --> 00:23:32,800 Speaker 1: California and other Blue states from regulating these pollutants, not 333 00:23:32,880 --> 00:23:35,879 Speaker 1: just from cars, but from lots of other you know 334 00:23:36,040 --> 00:23:40,280 Speaker 1: sources as well, power plants, oil refineries, et cetera. You know, 335 00:23:40,600 --> 00:23:44,920 Speaker 1: that creates a patchwork of regulation across the country, chaos 336 00:23:45,000 --> 00:23:48,160 Speaker 1: because there'll be litigation over that as well. The one 337 00:23:48,160 --> 00:23:51,480 Speaker 1: thing that industry hates is that kind of chaos, that 338 00:23:51,600 --> 00:23:55,399 Speaker 1: kind of unpredictability. How do you make investment decisions in 339 00:23:55,440 --> 00:23:58,520 Speaker 1: a regulatory environment like that? You know, the one thing 340 00:23:58,640 --> 00:24:03,080 Speaker 1: about federal regulation is once it's in place, that's the baseline. 341 00:24:03,119 --> 00:24:07,840 Speaker 1: That's what everybody can plan against, and particularly for automakers. 342 00:24:08,160 --> 00:24:12,720 Speaker 1: So that's number one. If Trump wins, industry loses. Number 343 00:24:12,720 --> 00:24:17,040 Speaker 1: two is the oil companies also lose. Because the oil 344 00:24:17,080 --> 00:24:21,199 Speaker 1: companies have been somewhat successful getting state and city and 345 00:24:21,280 --> 00:24:25,640 Speaker 1: county lawsuits against them for climate damage. These are the 346 00:24:25,680 --> 00:24:31,080 Speaker 1: so called deception cases, public nuisance cases, more recently climate 347 00:24:31,240 --> 00:24:34,760 Speaker 1: super fun cases, and so forth. There are over forty 348 00:24:34,800 --> 00:24:37,879 Speaker 1: of these lawsuits right and the oil companies are making 349 00:24:37,880 --> 00:24:40,640 Speaker 1: the argument the Clean Air Act preempts all of them. 350 00:24:41,160 --> 00:24:44,840 Speaker 1: In fact, they're hoping that the Supreme Court takes review 351 00:24:44,960 --> 00:24:47,760 Speaker 1: of the Boulder case. They're going to be in conference 352 00:24:47,800 --> 00:24:50,719 Speaker 1: tomorrow on the question of whether they should take review 353 00:24:50,760 --> 00:24:54,680 Speaker 1: of that case. And once again, the leading argument the 354 00:24:54,720 --> 00:24:57,560 Speaker 1: oil companies are making to the Supreme Court is the 355 00:24:57,600 --> 00:25:01,040 Speaker 1: Clean Air Act preempts all these laws suits for damages. 356 00:25:01,320 --> 00:25:05,240 Speaker 1: So when Trump wins the repeal of the endangerment finding 357 00:25:05,359 --> 00:25:08,359 Speaker 1: on the basis that the Clean Air Act doesn't regulate 358 00:25:08,520 --> 00:25:12,200 Speaker 1: these pollutants, their pre emsine argument goes out the window. 359 00:25:12,480 --> 00:25:16,439 Speaker 1: So you know, there are two really bad consequences from 360 00:25:16,680 --> 00:25:21,480 Speaker 1: upholding what Zelden has done, neither of which benefits industry. 361 00:25:21,680 --> 00:25:27,200 Speaker 1: Doesn't benefit automakers, doesn't benefit utilities. It just creates the 362 00:25:27,320 --> 00:25:31,439 Speaker 1: kind of chaos that obviously Trump thrives on, right, but 363 00:25:31,680 --> 00:25:33,359 Speaker 1: the rest of the world doesn't so much. 364 00:25:34,000 --> 00:25:37,199 Speaker 2: Thanks Pat. That's Pat, PARENTO of their Mount Law and 365 00:25:37,280 --> 00:25:42,560 Speaker 2: Graduate School. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testify this week at 366 00:25:42,560 --> 00:25:46,080 Speaker 2: the first Social media Addiction Trial, where two of the 367 00:25:46,119 --> 00:25:50,560 Speaker 2: world's largest social media platforms are facing a jury trial 368 00:25:50,680 --> 00:25:56,120 Speaker 2: over allegations that they intentionally design their products metas Instagram 369 00:25:56,240 --> 00:26:00,080 Speaker 2: and Google's YouTube to be addictive to young people. Over 370 00:26:00,200 --> 00:26:03,840 Speaker 2: six hours, Zuckerberg faced a barrage of questions about his 371 00:26:03,960 --> 00:26:08,440 Speaker 2: company's effort or lack of effort to protect young users 372 00:26:08,480 --> 00:26:13,720 Speaker 2: on Instagram and Facebook, about internal communications in which employees 373 00:26:13,920 --> 00:26:17,800 Speaker 2: pleaded to shore up safety measures, and about choices he 374 00:26:17,920 --> 00:26:21,000 Speaker 2: made the trial, which is expected to run through the 375 00:26:21,160 --> 00:26:24,240 Speaker 2: end of March, will serve as a critical test for 376 00:26:24,400 --> 00:26:28,760 Speaker 2: thousands of other lawsuits that target not only Meta and Google, 377 00:26:29,040 --> 00:26:32,840 Speaker 2: but also TikTok and Snap. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal 378 00:26:32,880 --> 00:26:37,199 Speaker 2: reporter Madelein Mecklberg Madlin on the whole How did Zuckerberg 379 00:26:37,280 --> 00:26:38,600 Speaker 2: do with his testimony? 380 00:26:39,080 --> 00:26:42,600 Speaker 4: So, I think that Zuckerberg really stuck to the line 381 00:26:42,640 --> 00:26:45,360 Speaker 4: that we've heard from Meta, from their attorneys and from 382 00:26:45,400 --> 00:26:49,239 Speaker 4: the company about the fact that they don't think that 383 00:26:49,440 --> 00:26:54,000 Speaker 4: scientific evidence supports this idea that social media is harmful 384 00:26:54,040 --> 00:26:57,080 Speaker 4: to young kids and can be addictive. We heard him 385 00:26:57,119 --> 00:27:00,639 Speaker 4: talk about the benefits of social media and how they've 386 00:27:00,640 --> 00:27:04,560 Speaker 4: tried to design their platforms to create an enjoyable experience 387 00:27:04,600 --> 00:27:08,240 Speaker 4: for users and not one that's causing harm. And we 388 00:27:08,359 --> 00:27:12,160 Speaker 4: heard him feel difficult questions from the plaintiff's lawyer about 389 00:27:12,440 --> 00:27:17,159 Speaker 4: internal emails, internal research, talking about their youth strategy. 390 00:27:16,760 --> 00:27:18,320 Speaker 5: At Meta and Instagram. 391 00:27:18,760 --> 00:27:21,399 Speaker 4: So I think, all in all, he'll probably be happy 392 00:27:21,400 --> 00:27:23,200 Speaker 4: to be done with testimonies. 393 00:27:23,480 --> 00:27:25,240 Speaker 5: Definitely, like we heard. 394 00:27:25,040 --> 00:27:27,040 Speaker 4: A lot of the Meta bottom line that we've heard 395 00:27:27,080 --> 00:27:28,240 Speaker 4: from them from us of this case. 396 00:27:28,280 --> 00:27:33,880 Speaker 2: From him questioning Zuckerberg was Mark Lanier who's an experienced 397 00:27:33,920 --> 00:27:37,040 Speaker 2: trial attorney and has won a number of high profile 398 00:27:37,200 --> 00:27:42,959 Speaker 2: product litigation suits against major companies. He questioned Zuckerberg about 399 00:27:43,080 --> 00:27:48,359 Speaker 2: internal documents, for example, a twenty fifteen memo where Zuckerberg 400 00:27:48,440 --> 00:27:52,880 Speaker 2: said he wanted to reverse the teen trend and increase 401 00:27:53,000 --> 00:27:57,240 Speaker 2: time spent by twelve percent, and another document that said, 402 00:27:57,280 --> 00:27:59,800 Speaker 2: if we want to win big with teens, we must 403 00:28:00,200 --> 00:28:01,520 Speaker 2: them in as tweens. 404 00:28:02,680 --> 00:28:05,760 Speaker 4: Right, So those are some key pieces of evidence for 405 00:28:05,800 --> 00:28:07,879 Speaker 4: the plaintiff' lawyers in this case. Who you say is 406 00:28:08,000 --> 00:28:11,040 Speaker 4: Mark Lanier is the trial attorney here representing the young 407 00:28:11,080 --> 00:28:14,000 Speaker 4: woman in the suit, and he is quite a character 408 00:28:14,160 --> 00:28:18,320 Speaker 4: up on the stand. He uses this overhead document camera 409 00:28:18,560 --> 00:28:22,440 Speaker 4: and writes live notes as the plaintiff is speaking, often. 410 00:28:22,080 --> 00:28:24,560 Speaker 5: With a little photo of them on a piece of paper. 411 00:28:24,960 --> 00:28:28,520 Speaker 4: But he showed Zuckerberg some of these documents, asked him 412 00:28:28,520 --> 00:28:32,040 Speaker 4: to answer to them, and Zuckerberg was talking about how 413 00:28:32,119 --> 00:28:35,680 Speaker 4: some of these metrics he doesn't think they're valuable anymore. 414 00:28:35,680 --> 00:28:38,160 Speaker 4: Time spent, for example, that used to be something that 415 00:28:38,200 --> 00:28:40,920 Speaker 4: he said the company was very concerned about, but they've 416 00:28:41,120 --> 00:28:44,320 Speaker 4: kind of moved away from giving teams goals on that front. 417 00:28:44,840 --> 00:28:47,720 Speaker 4: And he says you know quote, I don't think that's 418 00:28:47,760 --> 00:28:48,400 Speaker 4: the best way to. 419 00:28:48,440 --> 00:28:51,400 Speaker 5: Run a company based on time spent. When he was 420 00:28:51,440 --> 00:28:53,280 Speaker 5: talking about some of the documents to do. 421 00:28:53,280 --> 00:28:55,520 Speaker 4: With teens, I think we've seen that quote quite a bit, 422 00:28:55,600 --> 00:28:57,840 Speaker 4: this idea that if we want to win big with teens, 423 00:28:57,880 --> 00:29:00,520 Speaker 4: we must bring them in as tweens. He says that 424 00:29:00,600 --> 00:29:03,920 Speaker 4: he is being mischaracterized when it comes to that remark, 425 00:29:04,160 --> 00:29:07,240 Speaker 4: and that the company has really tried. 426 00:29:06,920 --> 00:29:09,240 Speaker 5: To consider launching products specifically. 427 00:29:09,320 --> 00:29:14,200 Speaker 4: You're toward teens, they're not necessarily targeting them specifically. He 428 00:29:14,320 --> 00:29:18,160 Speaker 4: stressed this idea that teens aren't really bringing in revenue 429 00:29:18,200 --> 00:29:22,320 Speaker 4: to Instagram, to the companies because they don't have disposable income. 430 00:29:22,360 --> 00:29:24,920 Speaker 4: They're not clicking on ads the same way that older 431 00:29:24,960 --> 00:29:27,479 Speaker 4: people do. So we heard a lot from him about 432 00:29:27,800 --> 00:29:31,440 Speaker 4: how those remarks maybe represented something that was a point 433 00:29:31,440 --> 00:29:33,840 Speaker 4: of discussion at one point in time, but the company 434 00:29:33,880 --> 00:29:34,840 Speaker 4: has moved away from. 435 00:29:35,240 --> 00:29:39,400 Speaker 2: I understand that Zuckerberg repeated several times the phrase you're 436 00:29:39,440 --> 00:29:42,680 Speaker 2: mischaracterizing this or something along those lines. 437 00:29:43,800 --> 00:29:46,320 Speaker 4: That's right, and so he was trying to kind of 438 00:29:46,840 --> 00:29:49,080 Speaker 4: use this moment on the stand, even he didn't have 439 00:29:49,120 --> 00:29:51,600 Speaker 4: a choice. He has to answer questions that are being asked, 440 00:29:51,720 --> 00:29:53,880 Speaker 4: but he was trying to kind of use this moment 441 00:29:53,960 --> 00:29:57,720 Speaker 4: to clarify his position or explain maybe how things have 442 00:29:58,160 --> 00:30:01,000 Speaker 4: shifted over time. And I understand that the questioning at 443 00:30:01,040 --> 00:30:03,840 Speaker 4: some point got quite heated, a little bit of back 444 00:30:03,880 --> 00:30:06,640 Speaker 4: and forth. That's kind of something you can expect when 445 00:30:06,640 --> 00:30:09,000 Speaker 4: you have an adverse witness on the stand like this 446 00:30:09,160 --> 00:30:12,719 Speaker 4: being questioned, where the judge maybe has to step in 447 00:30:12,760 --> 00:30:14,320 Speaker 4: and say, let them finish their answer. 448 00:30:14,480 --> 00:30:15,600 Speaker 5: Let them finish their answer. 449 00:30:16,400 --> 00:30:19,400 Speaker 4: So definitely saw some of that from Zuckerberk's testimony. 450 00:30:20,040 --> 00:30:23,280 Speaker 2: What would you say was the biggest concession he made, 451 00:30:23,400 --> 00:30:25,280 Speaker 2: if he made any concessions at all. 452 00:30:25,720 --> 00:30:27,880 Speaker 4: I don't know that I would characterize any of his 453 00:30:28,000 --> 00:30:31,200 Speaker 4: testimony as a concession necessarily. I think he had some 454 00:30:31,320 --> 00:30:35,960 Speaker 4: interesting comments when it came to Instagram's attempts to keep 455 00:30:36,120 --> 00:30:40,120 Speaker 4: kids under thirteen off the platform. That's an age requirement 456 00:30:40,120 --> 00:30:42,840 Speaker 4: that they impose for people who want to create an account. 457 00:30:43,160 --> 00:30:45,560 Speaker 4: But he did acknowledge, you know, this is a really 458 00:30:45,680 --> 00:30:49,040 Speaker 4: challenging problem. This is a very difficult thing to combat. 459 00:30:49,280 --> 00:30:53,400 Speaker 4: There's this desire to balance kind of privacy concerns with 460 00:30:54,560 --> 00:30:57,440 Speaker 4: you know, actually enforcing this requirement. So I thought some 461 00:30:57,520 --> 00:31:00,800 Speaker 4: of that comment Terry was interesting from him. That's something 462 00:31:00,840 --> 00:31:04,480 Speaker 4: that we've seen Meta discussing in other context of the course, 463 00:31:04,520 --> 00:31:07,960 Speaker 4: and there's this ongoing debate about whether the platforms themselves 464 00:31:08,000 --> 00:31:11,440 Speaker 4: should be responsible for enforcing age requirements or that's something 465 00:31:11,480 --> 00:31:14,640 Speaker 4: that could be done by Apple or Google in the 466 00:31:14,680 --> 00:31:17,560 Speaker 4: app stores on phones before he download it. And so 467 00:31:17,880 --> 00:31:20,360 Speaker 4: it's interesting to see kind of that real world conversation 468 00:31:20,480 --> 00:31:23,600 Speaker 4: happening brought into the context of this litigation while he 469 00:31:23,680 --> 00:31:24,360 Speaker 4: was on the stand. 470 00:31:25,120 --> 00:31:29,880 Speaker 2: So I'm interested in the questions. Lanier asked him about 471 00:31:29,960 --> 00:31:35,800 Speaker 2: what he characterized as extensive media training, and there was 472 00:31:35,840 --> 00:31:39,400 Speaker 2: an internal document about feedback on his tone of voice, 473 00:31:40,120 --> 00:31:44,240 Speaker 2: imploring him to come off as authentic, direct, human, insightful 474 00:31:44,280 --> 00:31:46,920 Speaker 2: and real, not fake or robotic. 475 00:31:47,960 --> 00:31:51,560 Speaker 4: Right, That was an interesting line of questioning, and Zuckerberg 476 00:31:51,840 --> 00:31:55,080 Speaker 4: was kind of restarctive to it. Honestly, he says, I'm 477 00:31:55,320 --> 00:31:58,040 Speaker 4: well known to be very bad at this at public speaking. 478 00:31:58,080 --> 00:32:01,360 Speaker 4: He kind of acknowledged it, and so, yes, that was 479 00:32:01,360 --> 00:32:05,200 Speaker 4: definitely something that we saw Laniar flip to and Zuckerberg said, 480 00:32:05,240 --> 00:32:06,880 Speaker 4: you know, I don't enjoy talking to the media. 481 00:32:06,920 --> 00:32:08,840 Speaker 5: It's part of the job. It's important part. 482 00:32:08,640 --> 00:32:09,120 Speaker 1: Of the job. 483 00:32:09,480 --> 00:32:14,320 Speaker 4: But yeah, definitely a very personal toned that line of questioning. 484 00:32:15,000 --> 00:32:19,640 Speaker 2: So basically, no big surprises in his testimony. 485 00:32:19,560 --> 00:32:22,560 Speaker 5: I don't think so. I mean, this issue itself is 486 00:32:22,640 --> 00:32:23,280 Speaker 5: not a new one. 487 00:32:23,360 --> 00:32:26,120 Speaker 4: I think it's something we've been talking about as kind 488 00:32:26,120 --> 00:32:28,920 Speaker 4: of a culture, as a country for a while, as 489 00:32:28,960 --> 00:32:32,960 Speaker 4: a world, honestly, and we've heard Zuckerberg give testimony to 490 00:32:33,000 --> 00:32:36,240 Speaker 4: Congress before. We've heard him and other executives that made 491 00:32:36,320 --> 00:32:38,960 Speaker 4: us speak publicly on this. So I don't think that 492 00:32:39,160 --> 00:32:41,920 Speaker 4: there was an expectation that there would be a lot 493 00:32:41,960 --> 00:32:46,240 Speaker 4: of fresh information or insights provided. You know, it's significant 494 00:32:46,280 --> 00:32:49,200 Speaker 4: because he's being called to the stand in this really 495 00:32:49,280 --> 00:32:52,000 Speaker 4: unique case. This is the first time these no legal 496 00:32:52,000 --> 00:32:55,000 Speaker 4: claims are being tried out, because this is you know. 497 00:32:55,120 --> 00:32:56,600 Speaker 5: One of thousands of cases. 498 00:32:56,800 --> 00:33:01,240 Speaker 4: So I think there wasn't necessarily new tread but there 499 00:33:01,360 --> 00:33:04,160 Speaker 4: was new ground for probably many members. 500 00:33:03,800 --> 00:33:06,600 Speaker 5: Of the jury. You know, you have to think like they're. 501 00:33:06,440 --> 00:33:09,400 Speaker 4: An average person who's not like us, and the listeners 502 00:33:09,480 --> 00:33:12,080 Speaker 4: is maybe not as plugged into some of this discourse, 503 00:33:12,160 --> 00:33:14,080 Speaker 4: and so they might have been hearing some of this 504 00:33:14,200 --> 00:33:17,440 Speaker 4: information for the first time, and obviously like having a 505 00:33:17,480 --> 00:33:19,960 Speaker 4: witness on the stand is a great opportunity for these. 506 00:33:19,920 --> 00:33:23,920 Speaker 5: Lawyers to kind of help put important documents into context. 507 00:33:24,080 --> 00:33:26,520 Speaker 4: Because we saw Mark Lanier talk about a lot of 508 00:33:26,520 --> 00:33:30,520 Speaker 4: these like the teams into tweens and talking about youth strategy. 509 00:33:30,760 --> 00:33:32,880 Speaker 5: He referenced some of them during his opening statements. 510 00:33:32,920 --> 00:33:35,040 Speaker 4: But I think it's a lot different to hear that 511 00:33:35,320 --> 00:33:38,160 Speaker 4: and see the paper versus see this guy that you 512 00:33:38,240 --> 00:33:41,840 Speaker 4: know from TV and from the news talking about them 513 00:33:42,080 --> 00:33:44,480 Speaker 4: and kind of explaining a little bit more about his thinking. 514 00:33:44,880 --> 00:33:50,320 Speaker 2: So something unusual that happened. The judge scolded some of 515 00:33:50,680 --> 00:33:55,600 Speaker 2: the people who came with Zuckerberg for wearing metaglasses. 516 00:33:56,160 --> 00:33:56,680 Speaker 5: So I'm not. 517 00:33:56,640 --> 00:34:00,360 Speaker 4: Sure that you exactly in the courtroom was the object 518 00:34:00,400 --> 00:34:03,360 Speaker 4: of that, if they were with him or not, But yes, 519 00:34:03,400 --> 00:34:06,600 Speaker 4: at one point the judge did instruct anyone, any member 520 00:34:06,600 --> 00:34:09,040 Speaker 4: of the public who's there in the room to remove 521 00:34:09,160 --> 00:34:12,600 Speaker 4: any meta glasses that they may have. The courthouse, like 522 00:34:12,640 --> 00:34:16,480 Speaker 4: you might expect, is pretty strict about photos and recording 523 00:34:16,600 --> 00:34:17,520 Speaker 4: during the proceedings. 524 00:34:17,560 --> 00:34:18,480 Speaker 5: That is not allowed. 525 00:34:18,520 --> 00:34:21,279 Speaker 4: You can't even have your phone in the room. So 526 00:34:21,320 --> 00:34:23,719 Speaker 4: that that was an interesting reminder from the judge and 527 00:34:23,760 --> 00:34:24,960 Speaker 4: one we haven't heard yet. 528 00:34:25,360 --> 00:34:29,000 Speaker 2: During the proceedings the pointiff is going to take the 529 00:34:29,040 --> 00:34:32,759 Speaker 2: stand at some point, Do you have any idea when 530 00:34:32,800 --> 00:34:33,279 Speaker 2: that might be? 531 00:34:33,960 --> 00:34:37,799 Speaker 4: So both parties in this case, this young woman who's 532 00:34:37,800 --> 00:34:40,440 Speaker 4: being identified in court as Kaylee, she's going to have 533 00:34:40,560 --> 00:34:43,400 Speaker 4: forty hours to present her case, and then the defendants 534 00:34:43,400 --> 00:34:46,359 Speaker 4: are going to have forty hours to present theirs. So 535 00:34:46,800 --> 00:34:49,640 Speaker 4: we're hardly kind of getting into that at this point 536 00:34:49,680 --> 00:34:52,680 Speaker 4: after about a week of testimony so far. For her, 537 00:34:53,400 --> 00:34:55,600 Speaker 4: I don't know exactly when she's going to be called 538 00:34:55,600 --> 00:34:58,040 Speaker 4: to take the stand. I know that we're expecting to 539 00:34:58,080 --> 00:35:00,959 Speaker 4: hear from some other employees little lower down the food 540 00:35:01,000 --> 00:35:06,160 Speaker 4: chain at Meta, some former employees executives at YouTube, likely 541 00:35:06,200 --> 00:35:09,520 Speaker 4: will be called. Kaylee actually was in the courtroom for 542 00:35:09,760 --> 00:35:13,440 Speaker 4: a portion of Zuckerberg's testimony. We heard from Mark Lanier 543 00:35:13,480 --> 00:35:15,480 Speaker 4: that she was not going to be making an appearance 544 00:35:15,480 --> 00:35:18,279 Speaker 4: in court until she was called to testify because he 545 00:35:18,280 --> 00:35:21,600 Speaker 4: didn't want to subject her to hearing lawyers and witnesses 546 00:35:21,680 --> 00:35:24,640 Speaker 4: talk about these really intimate details of her life, and 547 00:35:25,000 --> 00:35:28,080 Speaker 4: he kind of alluded to her fragile mental state as 548 00:35:28,120 --> 00:35:32,080 Speaker 4: a result of this alleged addiction to social media that's the. 549 00:35:31,880 --> 00:35:35,080 Speaker 5: Root of this litigation. But he had her there. 550 00:35:35,719 --> 00:35:39,480 Speaker 4: He was asking Zuckerberg questions about her, whether he'd had 551 00:35:39,480 --> 00:35:40,040 Speaker 4: a chance to. 552 00:35:40,000 --> 00:35:41,640 Speaker 5: Review her social media feed. 553 00:35:41,920 --> 00:35:45,480 Speaker 4: I think a particularly powerful moment during the testimony was 554 00:35:45,840 --> 00:35:48,880 Speaker 4: he was allowed to bring out a demonstrative showing it 555 00:35:48,960 --> 00:35:51,880 Speaker 4: was a large banner that stretched across most of the 556 00:35:51,920 --> 00:35:55,239 Speaker 4: courtroom and it was a collage of like thousands of 557 00:35:55,280 --> 00:35:58,560 Speaker 4: selfies that Kaylee had taken and posted to Instagram. 558 00:35:59,120 --> 00:36:01,960 Speaker 5: And so I think centering. 559 00:36:01,480 --> 00:36:03,840 Speaker 4: This case on her and or reminding jurors that it 560 00:36:03,960 --> 00:36:06,960 Speaker 4: is about one individual, I think that's definitely what they 561 00:36:06,960 --> 00:36:09,480 Speaker 4: were trying to do with that strategy, and that's what 562 00:36:09,480 --> 00:36:11,240 Speaker 4: they'll be doing when they call her to the stand 563 00:36:11,280 --> 00:36:13,799 Speaker 4: and have her kind of talk about her experiences. 564 00:36:14,080 --> 00:36:16,560 Speaker 2: I know you'll be watching this case closely, so we'll 565 00:36:16,560 --> 00:36:20,120 Speaker 2: talk again. Thanks so much, Madeline. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter 566 00:36:20,239 --> 00:36:23,120 Speaker 2: Madelein Mecklberg, and that's it for this edition of The 567 00:36:23,160 --> 00:36:26,120 Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest 568 00:36:26,160 --> 00:36:29,279 Speaker 2: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find 569 00:36:29,280 --> 00:36:33,880 Speaker 2: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg 570 00:36:33,920 --> 00:36:37,719 Speaker 2: dot com, Slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune 571 00:36:37,719 --> 00:36:40,960 Speaker 2: into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm 572 00:36:41,040 --> 00:36:44,600 Speaker 2: Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to 573 00:36:44,640 --> 00:36:45,160 Speaker 2: Bloomberg