1
00:00:00,480 --> 00:00:05,680
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:06,000 --> 00:00:09,440
Speaker 1: The Creek Nation was one of five American Indian tribes

3
00:00:09,600 --> 00:00:12,560
Speaker 1: forced west by the federal government on the Trail of

4
00:00:12,640 --> 00:00:17,040
Speaker 1: Tears to present day Oklahoma. That dark history was part

5
00:00:17,040 --> 00:00:19,840
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court oral arguments in the case of

6
00:00:19,920 --> 00:00:23,560
Speaker 1: Jimmy McGurk, who was convicted of trial rape in Oklahoma

7
00:00:23,640 --> 00:00:26,279
Speaker 1: State Court and says the state did not have the

8
00:00:26,360 --> 00:00:29,840
Speaker 1: power to prosecute him for crimes committed on Creek Land,

9
00:00:30,280 --> 00:00:33,640
Speaker 1: but Oklahoma says there was no reservation to begin with.

10
00:00:34,200 --> 00:00:38,440
Speaker 1: The case has vast implications for criminal, tax and regulatory power,

11
00:00:38,800 --> 00:00:42,600
Speaker 1: and Justice Neil Gorsuch may hold the key vote, joining

12
00:00:42,640 --> 00:00:46,040
Speaker 1: me as Jordan Reuben Bloomberg Law editor. So Jordan explained

13
00:00:46,080 --> 00:00:49,280
Speaker 1: the controlling issue here. So this case is an appeal

14
00:00:49,479 --> 00:00:52,600
Speaker 1: from a defendant named jim c McGurk, and he was

15
00:00:52,640 --> 00:00:56,000
Speaker 1: convicted in Oklahoma State Court. And he readed the really

16
00:00:56,040 --> 00:01:00,920
Speaker 1: interesting argument on appeal recently, and that's that Oklahoma state

17
00:01:00,960 --> 00:01:05,600
Speaker 1: officials actually didn't have jurisdictions to prosecute him because he

18
00:01:05,800 --> 00:01:08,840
Speaker 1: is a Native American and his crime technically took place

19
00:01:09,280 --> 00:01:13,000
Speaker 1: on Native American land, and so that's his argument anyway,

20
00:01:13,319 --> 00:01:16,680
Speaker 1: which raises the question of whether that land actually still

21
00:01:16,840 --> 00:01:20,640
Speaker 1: is technically a reservation, which the state contests, and so

22
00:01:21,040 --> 00:01:24,400
Speaker 1: that raises all sorts of issues beyond just this one prosecution.

23
00:01:24,800 --> 00:01:27,280
Speaker 1: And if it does turn out that that land technically

24
00:01:27,440 --> 00:01:30,320
Speaker 1: is a reservation, then that means that the federal government

25
00:01:30,600 --> 00:01:34,800
Speaker 1: actually had exclusive jurisdiction over those prosecutions, as that would

26
00:01:34,800 --> 00:01:38,319
Speaker 1: call into question a lot of prosecutions aside from just McGirt,

27
00:01:38,319 --> 00:01:42,040
Speaker 1: in addition to civil consequences as well, not just criminals.

28
00:01:42,200 --> 00:01:44,399
Speaker 1: Why is there even a question about whether or not

29
00:01:44,440 --> 00:01:48,280
Speaker 1: it's a reservation. Isn't that something that's usually clear, right?

30
00:01:48,360 --> 00:01:52,120
Speaker 1: So Jim c mcgert certainly says that it's clear. He

31
00:01:52,160 --> 00:01:56,040
Speaker 1: would point to the fact that in the Creek Nations

32
00:01:56,120 --> 00:02:00,360
Speaker 1: nineteenth century treaty it does explicitly use the term reserve vation.

33
00:02:00,520 --> 00:02:05,200
Speaker 1: But there's really a complicated history of Native American lands,

34
00:02:05,480 --> 00:02:09,280
Speaker 1: and really the history between the government, the federal government

35
00:02:09,440 --> 00:02:12,240
Speaker 1: and Native Americans and the state government that makes it

36
00:02:12,320 --> 00:02:15,760
Speaker 1: complicated in some ways to figure out what the actual

37
00:02:15,840 --> 00:02:19,280
Speaker 1: status of the land is. But one thing about this

38
00:02:19,360 --> 00:02:23,600
Speaker 1: case is that even beyond the technical status of the land.

39
00:02:23,680 --> 00:02:27,320
Speaker 1: The justices really, in some ways we're more focused on

40
00:02:27,360 --> 00:02:30,000
Speaker 1: the consequences of their decision. You could tell that some

41
00:02:30,120 --> 00:02:32,600
Speaker 1: of them were really worried that if they were to

42
00:02:32,760 --> 00:02:37,320
Speaker 1: rule in favor of Mr mcgart, of the consequences of

43
00:02:37,320 --> 00:02:41,240
Speaker 1: that decision, rather than simply the question of whether, in

44
00:02:41,360 --> 00:02:45,200
Speaker 1: fact that land still is a reservation. It seemed like

45
00:02:45,240 --> 00:02:49,080
Speaker 1: several justices did ask questions about, but if we do this,

46
00:02:49,320 --> 00:02:53,240
Speaker 1: then what happens in this case or that case? Just

47
00:02:53,320 --> 00:02:57,440
Speaker 1: in terms of the general consequences point. You did have justices,

48
00:02:57,520 --> 00:03:01,160
Speaker 1: for example, also Justice Ginsburg pointing to the fact that

49
00:03:01,520 --> 00:03:04,720
Speaker 1: if the Court was to rule for Mr mcgurt she

50
00:03:05,080 --> 00:03:08,320
Speaker 1: was questioning mcgret's lawyer and saying, you know, all of

51
00:03:08,320 --> 00:03:11,520
Speaker 1: these really terrible cases are gonna be opened up. So

52
00:03:11,560 --> 00:03:14,040
Speaker 1: that was one thing that they were really concerned with.

53
00:03:14,120 --> 00:03:17,240
Speaker 1: And then also you saw, for example, a Justice Alito,

54
00:03:17,480 --> 00:03:21,480
Speaker 1: he was questioning mcgurt's side as to the effect of

55
00:03:21,520 --> 00:03:24,480
Speaker 1: the case on non Indians if it turns out that

56
00:03:24,520 --> 00:03:27,679
Speaker 1: the implication of the ruling is that the eastern half

57
00:03:27,720 --> 00:03:31,600
Speaker 1: of Oklahoma is technically still sitting on in Indian reservation,

58
00:03:31,720 --> 00:03:34,680
Speaker 1: which the other side is saying is totally different from

59
00:03:35,000 --> 00:03:37,720
Speaker 1: how people have been living their lives in the last

60
00:03:38,520 --> 00:03:41,880
Speaker 1: over a hundred years. When the Justice asked these questions

61
00:03:41,920 --> 00:03:44,880
Speaker 1: about if we rule this way, it's going to change

62
00:03:44,960 --> 00:03:49,040
Speaker 1: so much. What was the answer of McGirk and the

63
00:03:49,280 --> 00:03:53,040
Speaker 1: Creek Nation, Right, So, I think there's there's probably two

64
00:03:53,120 --> 00:03:56,320
Speaker 1: levels to that. In the first instance, they would say

65
00:03:56,360 --> 00:04:00,200
Speaker 1: that the consequences that the state claims really aren't that bad.

66
00:04:00,200 --> 00:04:03,320
Speaker 1: They would cast it as a creative harribles that won't

67
00:04:03,320 --> 00:04:06,120
Speaker 1: actually come to be. For example, one thing that they

68
00:04:06,200 --> 00:04:09,760
Speaker 1: point to is say, for example Mr mcgret were to

69
00:04:09,800 --> 00:04:12,640
Speaker 1: win this case, and then that would then trigger a

70
00:04:12,640 --> 00:04:15,840
Speaker 1: bunch of state convictions getting overturned. Those cases could then

71
00:04:15,880 --> 00:04:19,200
Speaker 1: be retried in federal court. You have the other side saying,

72
00:04:19,520 --> 00:04:23,440
Speaker 1: with the federal government supporting Oklahoma here, that these federal

73
00:04:23,440 --> 00:04:26,360
Speaker 1: prosecutors would be too overwhelmed if now they have all

74
00:04:26,480 --> 00:04:30,000
Speaker 1: this new jurisdiction to deal with. So that's one level

75
00:04:30,040 --> 00:04:33,599
Speaker 1: to it. Another is that mcgert and the Creek Nation

76
00:04:33,680 --> 00:04:38,279
Speaker 1: would say that the consequences of the decision really aren't relevant. Really,

77
00:04:38,320 --> 00:04:41,440
Speaker 1: the relevant question they're focused on is just simply the

78
00:04:41,520 --> 00:04:45,120
Speaker 1: question of does the Creek Reservations still exist, and they

79
00:04:45,160 --> 00:04:48,559
Speaker 1: say that the state and federal government just haven't shown

80
00:04:48,640 --> 00:04:53,279
Speaker 1: enough to prove that Congress undid the reservation through legislation,

81
00:04:53,360 --> 00:04:56,640
Speaker 1: as is required under a Supreme Court precedent. So you

82
00:04:56,760 --> 00:05:01,400
Speaker 1: heard Justice Scorsages name several arms by the lawyers in

83
00:05:01,400 --> 00:05:05,640
Speaker 1: the case because they were citing Corsige opinions explain why

84
00:05:05,720 --> 00:05:09,640
Speaker 1: he seems to be at the heart of this case. Sure, so,

85
00:05:09,760 --> 00:05:12,760
Speaker 1: this same exact issue was in front of the justice's

86
00:05:12,880 --> 00:05:15,920
Speaker 1: last term in a different case. But the problem is

87
00:05:15,960 --> 00:05:19,720
Speaker 1: that Justice Gorsis was refused from that case because it

88
00:05:19,800 --> 00:05:22,560
Speaker 1: came from the federal appeals Court that he sat on

89
00:05:22,600 --> 00:05:25,160
Speaker 1: when he was a judge there. And so the Supreme

90
00:05:25,200 --> 00:05:28,559
Speaker 1: Court deadlock four to four, it seemed in that prior case.

91
00:05:28,960 --> 00:05:32,719
Speaker 1: And so now with disappeal, which comes from Oklahoma State Court,

92
00:05:33,080 --> 00:05:36,160
Speaker 1: Justice Corsi is free to weigh in because he's not refused,

93
00:05:36,200 --> 00:05:38,800
Speaker 1: and so he can break the apparent deadlock. And so

94
00:05:38,839 --> 00:05:41,960
Speaker 1: what we saw at the argument was the lawyers really

95
00:05:42,000 --> 00:05:46,040
Speaker 1: pitching their cases directly to Justice Gorsis, even though all

96
00:05:46,160 --> 00:05:49,000
Speaker 1: nine justices were on the line. There was an interesting

97
00:05:49,000 --> 00:05:52,640
Speaker 1: phenomenon where it was almost an argument tailored specifically to

98
00:05:52,920 --> 00:05:56,040
Speaker 1: Justice Corsage. There was also a lot of discussion of

99
00:05:56,400 --> 00:06:00,440
Speaker 1: following the text wherever it leads. So Justice Course, which

100
00:06:00,600 --> 00:06:04,440
Speaker 1: is known as a textualists in the tradition of Justice

101
00:06:04,480 --> 00:06:07,600
Speaker 1: Anton and Scalia, the late Justice Anton and Scalia, So

102
00:06:07,960 --> 00:06:11,640
Speaker 1: how will that affect his decision in this case? Well,

103
00:06:11,720 --> 00:06:14,960
Speaker 1: McGirt in the Creek Nation, Uh, they tribe that's supporting

104
00:06:15,040 --> 00:06:17,480
Speaker 1: mcgert here at the Supreme Court would say that this

105
00:06:17,520 --> 00:06:20,640
Speaker 1: is an easy case for a textualist and an originalist

106
00:06:20,680 --> 00:06:23,839
Speaker 1: like Justice Coursis, because their argument is that they're simply

107
00:06:24,279 --> 00:06:28,160
Speaker 1: not clear enough of a congressional statement showing that Congress

108
00:06:28,200 --> 00:06:31,880
Speaker 1: wanted to disestablish the reservation. Under the Supreme Court precedents,

109
00:06:32,160 --> 00:06:34,919
Speaker 1: Congress needs to make a clear showing that they're trying

110
00:06:34,960 --> 00:06:38,560
Speaker 1: to undo a reservation, and the defendants argument is that

111
00:06:38,560 --> 00:06:41,479
Speaker 1: that really just hasn't happened here. So a ruling that

112
00:06:41,560 --> 00:06:44,160
Speaker 1: comes down to just a straightforward ruling on the text

113
00:06:44,480 --> 00:06:47,800
Speaker 1: as opposed to worrying about the consequences of the decision.

114
00:06:48,040 --> 00:06:51,160
Speaker 1: McGirt is arguing anyway, then that's an easy win for him.

115
00:06:51,200 --> 00:06:54,320
Speaker 1: So they're hoping that Justice Corsage does wind up ruling

116
00:06:54,400 --> 00:06:58,320
Speaker 1: in what they're anyway, viewing as this textualist way. So

117
00:06:58,520 --> 00:07:00,800
Speaker 1: what could you tell from the questions that he was

118
00:07:00,880 --> 00:07:05,320
Speaker 1: asking at the oral arguments anything, Yes, the questions definitely

119
00:07:05,600 --> 00:07:10,040
Speaker 1: favored McGirt and the tribe. You're probably if the case

120
00:07:10,240 --> 00:07:13,160
Speaker 1: is going to come down to justice scorsages vote, um,

121
00:07:13,240 --> 00:07:15,720
Speaker 1: as it does seem that it could be, then it

122
00:07:15,760 --> 00:07:19,520
Speaker 1: really does seem like it is looking good for mcgert

123
00:07:19,880 --> 00:07:22,239
Speaker 1: and the tribe. And if you're the state, you're probably

124
00:07:22,240 --> 00:07:25,760
Speaker 1: concerned with the questions that he was asking them. Really,

125
00:07:25,760 --> 00:07:29,360
Speaker 1: Gorse had a bunch of questions for the state's lawyer,

126
00:07:29,440 --> 00:07:31,880
Speaker 1: essentially saying that he disagreed with their approach and also

127
00:07:32,000 --> 00:07:37,120
Speaker 1: disagreed with their claims of negative practical consequences. So, if

128
00:07:37,160 --> 00:07:40,520
Speaker 1: this is coming down to justice scorsages vote, then that's

129
00:07:40,600 --> 00:07:44,040
Speaker 1: probably good news for McGirt and the tribe. Hasn't Justice scurse.

130
00:07:44,120 --> 00:07:49,040
Speaker 1: It's recently written an opinion that indicated that at some point,

131
00:07:49,320 --> 00:07:52,800
Speaker 1: if you're going to follow the statute, let the consequences

132
00:07:53,000 --> 00:07:55,840
Speaker 1: be what they may. Right. So there was a recent

133
00:07:55,880 --> 00:07:59,000
Speaker 1: opinion that came out in another context that came up

134
00:07:59,240 --> 00:08:01,720
Speaker 1: during the argument today, and that was Justice gors Wich

135
00:08:01,800 --> 00:08:05,720
Speaker 1: is somewhat recent opinion in the case called Ramos against Louisiana,

136
00:08:05,880 --> 00:08:09,240
Speaker 1: and that was a case that involved unanimous jury verdicts,

137
00:08:09,280 --> 00:08:13,480
Speaker 1: and that was another somewhat close case where again similar

138
00:08:13,520 --> 00:08:16,280
Speaker 1: to hear somewhat, you have the state arguing that if

139
00:08:16,320 --> 00:08:19,160
Speaker 1: the defendant Ramos won that case, there'd be all of

140
00:08:19,200 --> 00:08:24,600
Speaker 1: these negative consequences of previous non unanimous convictions getting overturned

141
00:08:24,920 --> 00:08:28,120
Speaker 1: and gorship and Gorsich said, essentially in one part of

142
00:08:28,120 --> 00:08:31,600
Speaker 1: his opinion, well, whatever the consequences, maybe we just have

143
00:08:31,720 --> 00:08:34,320
Speaker 1: to render the decision that we think is the correct

144
00:08:34,360 --> 00:08:37,360
Speaker 1: one here. And so in this argument today, which of

145
00:08:37,400 --> 00:08:41,440
Speaker 1: course was in a different context, mcgert's lawyer, he cited

146
00:08:41,480 --> 00:08:43,920
Speaker 1: the Ramo's opinion right at the beginning of his argument.

147
00:08:44,240 --> 00:08:46,960
Speaker 1: And so it seems that McGirt and the Creek Nation

148
00:08:46,960 --> 00:08:50,199
Speaker 1: are hoping that Gorsich takes that same sort of approach

149
00:08:50,280 --> 00:08:53,240
Speaker 1: that he did in the Ramos case and just straight

150
00:08:53,320 --> 00:08:56,040
Speaker 1: up rule on the law without worrying about what the

151
00:08:56,080 --> 00:08:59,400
Speaker 1: state is saying is going to be these disastrous consequences.

152
00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:04,880
Speaker 1: With the four to four decision, was that along ideological lines,

153
00:09:05,000 --> 00:09:09,760
Speaker 1: was it conservatives versus liberals. So the thing is given

154
00:09:09,880 --> 00:09:12,800
Speaker 1: sort of the opaque nature of how the Supreme Court

155
00:09:12,880 --> 00:09:16,440
Speaker 1: operates in some ways, We actually don't know what the

156
00:09:16,480 --> 00:09:19,800
Speaker 1: internal vote breakdown was of that last case. All we

157
00:09:19,880 --> 00:09:22,400
Speaker 1: know is that the Court said that it's going to

158
00:09:22,480 --> 00:09:25,640
Speaker 1: step down the decision to decide at a later point,

159
00:09:25,720 --> 00:09:29,240
Speaker 1: and so it just so happens that the speculation from

160
00:09:29,240 --> 00:09:33,360
Speaker 1: that is that the Justice were in fact deadlock, because otherwise,

161
00:09:33,440 --> 00:09:36,120
Speaker 1: if there was able to be some kind of five

162
00:09:36,160 --> 00:09:39,320
Speaker 1: three decision, one imagines that they would have rendered it.

163
00:09:39,400 --> 00:09:42,920
Speaker 1: And so this is something that court watchers are speculating

164
00:09:43,080 --> 00:09:46,160
Speaker 1: was an internal deadlock. There hasn't really been an argument

165
00:09:46,280 --> 00:09:49,080
Speaker 1: showing otherwise, and so that's what lends people to say

166
00:09:49,160 --> 00:09:51,080
Speaker 1: that you have course that she's going to come in

167
00:09:51,160 --> 00:09:55,280
Speaker 1: and break this four four deadlock by casting the fifth vote.

168
00:09:56,200 --> 00:10:00,240
Speaker 1: And how would a decision in this case affect other

169
00:10:00,320 --> 00:10:03,880
Speaker 1: tribes lands and whether their reservations would have an effect

170
00:10:03,880 --> 00:10:07,320
Speaker 1: on other tribes. It definitely could, and that's part of

171
00:10:07,320 --> 00:10:11,400
Speaker 1: where the state's concerns come from. So the Creek Nation,

172
00:10:11,440 --> 00:10:15,080
Speaker 1: along with four other tribes, basically take up the eastern

173
00:10:15,120 --> 00:10:18,320
Speaker 1: half of Oklahoma. They were the five tribes that were

174
00:10:18,400 --> 00:10:21,480
Speaker 1: forced west by the federal government on the Trail of

175
00:10:21,559 --> 00:10:25,320
Speaker 1: Tears in the eighteen thirties. And so given that these

176
00:10:25,320 --> 00:10:28,319
Speaker 1: other tribes also have similar histories and set ups to

177
00:10:28,920 --> 00:10:31,760
Speaker 1: the way that the Creek Nation was established. If in

178
00:10:31,760 --> 00:10:35,199
Speaker 1: this case here the justices say that the Creek reservation

179
00:10:35,280 --> 00:10:38,440
Speaker 1: still stands in that same logic could apply to the

180
00:10:38,480 --> 00:10:42,280
Speaker 1: other four tribes too. And that's what leads Oklahoma officials

181
00:10:42,320 --> 00:10:46,640
Speaker 1: to worry about losing jurisdiction over Indians and half the

182
00:10:46,679 --> 00:10:49,839
Speaker 1: state because this law, called the Major Crimes Act, gives

183
00:10:49,880 --> 00:10:54,320
Speaker 1: the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over crimes in Indian Country

184
00:10:54,520 --> 00:10:59,679
Speaker 1: involving Indians. Let's say mcgt wins he right now is

185
00:11:00,040 --> 00:11:03,840
Speaker 1: racing a life sentence in Oklahoma State prison for raping

186
00:11:04,040 --> 00:11:07,280
Speaker 1: a four year old girl? Can he Can he be

187
00:11:07,559 --> 00:11:12,680
Speaker 1: retried by the federal government or is the constitute of limitations? No,

188
00:11:12,840 --> 00:11:15,600
Speaker 1: he can be retried by the federal government. And that's

189
00:11:15,640 --> 00:11:20,000
Speaker 1: an argument that he himself makes, not just as applied

190
00:11:20,040 --> 00:11:23,920
Speaker 1: to his own case, but as applied to other cases too.

191
00:11:24,000 --> 00:11:27,640
Speaker 1: If these convictions get overturned, then people can be retried. Now,

192
00:11:28,000 --> 00:11:31,800
Speaker 1: it's another question entirely whether the federal government would be

193
00:11:31,880 --> 00:11:35,240
Speaker 1: able to put on an effective prosecution if a lot

194
00:11:35,280 --> 00:11:38,360
Speaker 1: of time has gone by since the alleged crime has

195
00:11:38,400 --> 00:11:41,360
Speaker 1: taken place, and that's something that came up during the

196
00:11:41,480 --> 00:11:45,640
Speaker 1: argument as well, going against McGurk. But at least in theory,

197
00:11:46,000 --> 00:11:49,000
Speaker 1: if these cases are getting overturned, then the federal government

198
00:11:49,040 --> 00:11:52,280
Speaker 1: can pick them up. But in practice it's probably more

199
00:11:52,320 --> 00:11:55,200
Speaker 1: of an open question as to whether the federal government

200
00:11:55,240 --> 00:11:59,680
Speaker 1: would actually seek to reprosecute every single state conviction that

201
00:11:59,760 --> 00:12:03,640
Speaker 1: might get overturned if mcgart wins. So. Going broader than

202
00:12:03,679 --> 00:12:07,520
Speaker 1: this case too, the oral arguments themselves and how they've

203
00:12:07,520 --> 00:12:11,240
Speaker 1: been going. It seems as if things are going quite

204
00:12:11,280 --> 00:12:18,200
Speaker 1: well until the flush in the last case on Wednesday.

205
00:12:18,280 --> 00:12:21,120
Speaker 1: How are people reacting to that? Is it likely to

206
00:12:21,160 --> 00:12:24,960
Speaker 1: scare the justices off from these kinds of oral arguments?

207
00:12:26,000 --> 00:12:28,960
Speaker 1: You know, they might use that as an excuse to

208
00:12:29,080 --> 00:12:31,160
Speaker 1: not do this sort of thing in the future, But

209
00:12:31,720 --> 00:12:35,120
Speaker 1: I think it actually serves to underscore how well these

210
00:12:35,120 --> 00:12:38,400
Speaker 1: remote arguments were going. Besides all of that, and so

211
00:12:38,920 --> 00:12:41,880
Speaker 1: I don't see why something like a toilet flushing during

212
00:12:42,040 --> 00:12:45,680
Speaker 1: a remote argument, I don't see why that would stop

213
00:12:45,720 --> 00:12:49,240
Speaker 1: the justices from doing live streaming of arguments in court

214
00:12:49,320 --> 00:12:53,559
Speaker 1: where there's not a toilet, and I think if anything, um,

215
00:12:53,600 --> 00:12:55,360
Speaker 1: it speaks to the fact that they should be doing

216
00:12:55,360 --> 00:12:58,240
Speaker 1: these arguments over video, because one hopes anyway that that

217
00:12:58,240 --> 00:13:00,920
Speaker 1: would act as a detern to that sort of thing.

218
00:13:01,240 --> 00:13:07,079
Speaker 1: Thanks Jordan's that's Jordan Reuben Bloomberg, Law editor. Lawsuits to

219
00:13:07,160 --> 00:13:10,240
Speaker 1: hold China accountable for its handling of the COVID nineteen

220
00:13:10,320 --> 00:13:14,319
Speaker 1: pandemic are multiplying, seeking billions of dollars in what is

221
00:13:14,360 --> 00:13:17,880
Speaker 1: a real uphill legal battle. Joining me is Patricia Hurtado,

222
00:13:17,960 --> 00:13:22,280
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter. So Patty, who is filing the lawsuits.

223
00:13:22,920 --> 00:13:26,880
Speaker 1: It's a variety of different entities. There are lawsuits filed

224
00:13:26,880 --> 00:13:30,520
Speaker 1: by the state of Missouri, and the state of Mississippi

225
00:13:30,640 --> 00:13:34,959
Speaker 1: is also threatening to file a lawsuit. Different individuals are

226
00:13:35,040 --> 00:13:39,199
Speaker 1: finally lawsuits, and there's a two class action lawsuits filed

227
00:13:39,200 --> 00:13:42,720
Speaker 1: in Florida. The lawyers for their groups say they're getting

228
00:13:42,720 --> 00:13:45,760
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of people signing up. Everybody from a

229
00:13:45,800 --> 00:13:50,560
Speaker 1: surfboard shop owner injured in Florida because the businesses died down,

230
00:13:51,000 --> 00:13:54,920
Speaker 1: restaurants that have collapsed because there's no business because of

231
00:13:54,960 --> 00:13:58,840
Speaker 1: the stay at home orders to people, the healthcare workers

232
00:13:58,880 --> 00:14:02,520
Speaker 1: that were injured on the job or that victims of

233
00:14:02,559 --> 00:14:05,640
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen. Who are they suing. Are they just suing

234
00:14:05,679 --> 00:14:10,120
Speaker 1: the government of China. Well, they're suing the Communist Party

235
00:14:10,160 --> 00:14:13,360
Speaker 1: as well as the government of China under a nineteen

236
00:14:13,400 --> 00:14:17,319
Speaker 1: seventy six law is the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which

237
00:14:17,440 --> 00:14:23,200
Speaker 1: allowed lawsuits to go forward against state governments, but with

238
00:14:23,280 --> 00:14:28,080
Speaker 1: some restrictions. And it actually stems from early lawsuits that

239
00:14:28,440 --> 00:14:32,800
Speaker 1: people were individuals trying to sue for claiming ownership of

240
00:14:32,840 --> 00:14:36,840
Speaker 1: a warship that was taken in Philadelphia in eighteen twelve.

241
00:14:37,360 --> 00:14:40,320
Speaker 1: So this goes back to the schooner times of trying

242
00:14:40,360 --> 00:14:44,320
Speaker 1: to sue entities and hold who owns something, who's responsible?

243
00:14:44,760 --> 00:14:47,480
Speaker 1: And this is a tort lawsuit. So they're saying injury

244
00:14:48,080 --> 00:14:53,720
Speaker 1: China held secret the virus and the outbreak, kept it

245
00:14:53,760 --> 00:14:57,200
Speaker 1: from the World Health Organization and therefore they should be

246
00:14:57,240 --> 00:15:02,760
Speaker 1: held accountable. They're also suing the Inese Communist Party as well. Yeah,

247
00:15:02,920 --> 00:15:06,160
Speaker 1: that appears to be an attempt to get around there

248
00:15:06,480 --> 00:15:10,960
Speaker 1: are sovereign protections and some some experts say that these

249
00:15:11,040 --> 00:15:17,040
Speaker 1: lawsuits won't survive challenges in the courts because China as

250
00:15:17,080 --> 00:15:20,080
Speaker 1: a country is a sovereign and it has immunity. It's

251
00:15:20,080 --> 00:15:23,320
Speaker 1: a it's a state, a government that has immunity. Under

252
00:15:23,360 --> 00:15:27,160
Speaker 1: the Sovereign Immunities Act, there are some exceptions which say

253
00:15:27,360 --> 00:15:30,560
Speaker 1: you can sue for tort for injury of some kind

254
00:15:30,600 --> 00:15:33,600
Speaker 1: of commercial exception that if there were some kind of

255
00:15:33,600 --> 00:15:38,760
Speaker 1: commercial activity that causes damage in the US, those tortious

256
00:15:38,800 --> 00:15:43,160
Speaker 1: acts or those harms that injury and it injured Americans

257
00:15:43,240 --> 00:15:46,760
Speaker 1: can render the protections and valid. So, but this suit

258
00:15:46,840 --> 00:15:50,840
Speaker 1: alleges that the Communist Party is also susceptible to the

259
00:15:50,920 --> 00:15:55,600
Speaker 1: lawsuits because in essence, they're arguing the Chinese Communist Party

260
00:15:56,000 --> 00:15:59,080
Speaker 1: tells the Chinese government what to do, so that Chinese

261
00:15:59,120 --> 00:16:03,040
Speaker 1: Communist Party can be help responsible. So all these attempts

262
00:16:03,080 --> 00:16:08,040
Speaker 1: to get around the sovereign immunity problem are they usually

263
00:16:08,080 --> 00:16:13,160
Speaker 1: successful in court? Now? There have not been successful in court.

264
00:16:13,240 --> 00:16:15,920
Speaker 1: There have been lawsuits that were brought, for example, against

265
00:16:15,920 --> 00:16:20,480
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia after the September eleventh terrorist attacks. They tried

266
00:16:20,560 --> 00:16:23,360
Speaker 1: to hold the victims of the September eleven attacks, tried

267
00:16:23,360 --> 00:16:30,040
Speaker 1: to hold Saudi Arabia responsible for basically helping indirectly financed

268
00:16:30,040 --> 00:16:34,200
Speaker 1: al Qaeda and Osama bin lawdon and UM those lawsuits

269
00:16:34,280 --> 00:16:40,280
Speaker 1: were uh, were challenged, and then a Congress responded by overwriting,

270
00:16:40,320 --> 00:16:43,800
Speaker 1: so there's a terrorism exception now in in the foreign

271
00:16:43,800 --> 00:16:47,880
Speaker 1: sovereign immunities back. There's also been UH, there was a

272
00:16:47,960 --> 00:16:53,600
Speaker 1: big dispute in Sudan also for trying to hold Sudan

273
00:16:53,720 --> 00:16:59,200
Speaker 1: responsible for terrorist attacks, and that was also UM determined

274
00:16:59,240 --> 00:17:01,960
Speaker 1: that they never could serve Sudan the government, you know,

275
00:17:02,040 --> 00:17:06,000
Speaker 1: serving a country or serving a descendants saying, hey, you're

276
00:17:06,000 --> 00:17:10,160
Speaker 1: being sued. There's difficulty. How do you serve a country? Right,

277
00:17:10,560 --> 00:17:14,280
Speaker 1: So that's what sometimes the lawsuits have not prevailed, but

278
00:17:14,400 --> 00:17:17,400
Speaker 1: there are many legal experts that have said to us

279
00:17:17,520 --> 00:17:22,639
Speaker 1: that the challenges are very significant to this survival of

280
00:17:22,720 --> 00:17:27,720
Speaker 1: these lawsuits. And also some members of Congress are trying

281
00:17:27,760 --> 00:17:30,920
Speaker 1: to pass some kinds of bills to cut more holes

282
00:17:31,040 --> 00:17:34,680
Speaker 1: into the sovereign immunity protection. Yes, they're trying to actually

283
00:17:34,760 --> 00:17:39,080
Speaker 1: hold like a basically whole China responsible uh kind of

284
00:17:39,200 --> 00:17:44,120
Speaker 1: legislation to kind of keep give the loopholes to these

285
00:17:44,200 --> 00:17:50,320
Speaker 1: lawsuits to allow them to survive any challenges China may give. Now,

286
00:17:50,600 --> 00:17:54,160
Speaker 1: one of the claims in this lawsuits are interesting. They're

287
00:17:54,280 --> 00:17:58,040
Speaker 1: arguing that there were these virus labs in Wuhan where

288
00:17:58,040 --> 00:18:01,120
Speaker 1: there was a pathogen leak from the abs. There were

289
00:18:01,320 --> 00:18:05,760
Speaker 1: scientists and virologists studying a horseshoe bat in caves in China,

290
00:18:05,880 --> 00:18:09,159
Speaker 1: and they got the virus and somehow there was a

291
00:18:09,200 --> 00:18:13,440
Speaker 1: pathogen leak. It was a gone you know, that leaked

292
00:18:13,480 --> 00:18:16,080
Speaker 1: out and leached out into the community of Wuhan, and

293
00:18:16,160 --> 00:18:19,160
Speaker 1: that's how it did up in the wet markets. There's

294
00:18:19,200 --> 00:18:22,880
Speaker 1: also a claim um by some that there was this

295
00:18:22,920 --> 00:18:26,240
Speaker 1: is a bioweapon gone terribly wrong, and that China should

296
00:18:26,280 --> 00:18:29,640
Speaker 1: be held responsible. It remains to be seeing how those

297
00:18:29,680 --> 00:18:34,399
Speaker 1: survived because weekly their courts have been very skeptical of

298
00:18:34,480 --> 00:18:38,600
Speaker 1: such claims, and China has said this is completely wrongheaded,

299
00:18:38,600 --> 00:18:41,680
Speaker 1: trying to deny any that happened. They denied it was

300
00:18:41,800 --> 00:18:45,840
Speaker 1: evidence of any bioweapon. And some scientists have also said,

301
00:18:46,240 --> 00:18:48,840
Speaker 1: you know, the the scientists in Wuhan there were studying

302
00:18:48,880 --> 00:18:53,480
Speaker 1: viruses were actually legitimately doing work that was helping helps

303
00:18:53,520 --> 00:18:57,440
Speaker 1: the stars epidemic for example. So this is the way

304
00:18:57,600 --> 00:19:02,480
Speaker 1: science uh virology and scientific advances are made when you

305
00:19:02,560 --> 00:19:05,639
Speaker 1: do these kinds of study these viruses, and there was

306
00:19:05,960 --> 00:19:10,600
Speaker 1: that there's no leak, and from your story, China has

307
00:19:10,640 --> 00:19:13,919
Speaker 1: been pointing to different times in our history when the

308
00:19:14,040 --> 00:19:17,480
Speaker 1: US didn't pay for damages, for example, the two thousand

309
00:19:17,560 --> 00:19:20,160
Speaker 1: nine H one N one flu strain or the two

310
00:19:20,200 --> 00:19:24,760
Speaker 1: thousand eight global financial crisis. Yes, and China has basically said,

311
00:19:24,880 --> 00:19:27,120
Speaker 1: you know, what's good for the United States should also

312
00:19:27,200 --> 00:19:29,480
Speaker 1: apply to China and that you know, this is a

313
00:19:29,520 --> 00:19:34,960
Speaker 1: world epidemic and this one country cannot be held responsible.

314
00:19:35,280 --> 00:19:37,400
Speaker 1: I mean, some of the claims in the lawsuit are

315
00:19:37,560 --> 00:19:41,719
Speaker 1: China hit the information not only from from letting it

316
00:19:41,760 --> 00:19:46,080
Speaker 1: get out, but also that it's basically concealed information from

317
00:19:46,080 --> 00:19:49,560
Speaker 1: the World Health Organization of how serious things were until

318
00:19:49,600 --> 00:19:52,680
Speaker 1: it was too late. So it does you know, I mean,

319
00:19:53,040 --> 00:19:55,800
Speaker 1: it becomes an issue because of course we all now

320
00:19:55,880 --> 00:19:59,240
Speaker 1: know that President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

321
00:19:59,520 --> 00:20:04,560
Speaker 1: are all blaming China. Some critics have said that this

322
00:20:04,720 --> 00:20:08,760
Speaker 1: is possibly maybe the administration's efforts to point the finger

323
00:20:08,840 --> 00:20:12,480
Speaker 1: somewhere else rather than owing up to responsibility of what

324
00:20:12,520 --> 00:20:15,000
Speaker 1: we get and did we do it too late? When

325
00:20:15,000 --> 00:20:17,960
Speaker 1: I look at these lawsuits, I wonder, how are they

326
00:20:18,040 --> 00:20:22,360
Speaker 1: going to prove any of this? China is a closed

327
00:20:22,400 --> 00:20:25,600
Speaker 1: country are they going to just let this information out?

328
00:20:25,760 --> 00:20:29,520
Speaker 1: The proof seems like it might be really difficult. It's

329
00:20:29,560 --> 00:20:31,439
Speaker 1: not only the proof, but if you think about it,

330
00:20:31,520 --> 00:20:34,280
Speaker 1: this would be many steps to getting to a point

331
00:20:34,320 --> 00:20:37,560
Speaker 1: where you'd actually have the case would proceed before a

332
00:20:37,560 --> 00:20:40,919
Speaker 1: federal judge and it would it would you know, go

333
00:20:41,000 --> 00:20:44,320
Speaker 1: to trial, or there would be some kind of evidentiary

334
00:20:44,480 --> 00:20:48,719
Speaker 1: decisions made where there would be an exchange of evidence. Right,

335
00:20:48,720 --> 00:20:52,440
Speaker 1: it's called discovery. But whether or not the cases even

336
00:20:52,480 --> 00:20:56,560
Speaker 1: get to that stage remains in question. The judge who's

337
00:20:56,600 --> 00:20:59,960
Speaker 1: presiding over one of the lawsuits in Florida that's got

338
00:21:00,440 --> 00:21:03,440
Speaker 1: a purported ten thousand members, you know, the ones of

339
00:21:03,520 --> 00:21:06,880
Speaker 1: the people that either got sick or their businesses were

340
00:21:06,920 --> 00:21:10,520
Speaker 1: harmed terribly as a result of the outbreak in Florida

341
00:21:10,640 --> 00:21:13,879
Speaker 1: and Southern Florida. That judge is set a September for

342
00:21:14,200 --> 00:21:18,400
Speaker 1: hearing in the matter. Some experts say, you know, ever

343
00:21:18,520 --> 00:21:20,479
Speaker 1: we even get to the point where there would there

344
00:21:20,480 --> 00:21:22,520
Speaker 1: would be an exchange of evidence and there would be

345
00:21:22,560 --> 00:21:26,520
Speaker 1: discovery may not happen just because it couldn't survive the

346
00:21:26,760 --> 00:21:32,359
Speaker 1: built in challenges to suing, suing and prevailing. Even at

347
00:21:32,359 --> 00:21:37,120
Speaker 1: the early, early, fundamental stages and if they do prevail,

348
00:21:37,480 --> 00:21:40,560
Speaker 1: let's just say they go to trial, they win the case,

349
00:21:41,359 --> 00:21:45,120
Speaker 1: how would they collect a judgment from China. Yeah, there's

350
00:21:45,160 --> 00:21:48,399
Speaker 1: some they lawyers that we spoke to that brought the

351
00:21:48,440 --> 00:21:52,400
Speaker 1: Florida lawsuits said that they think that they could possibly

352
00:21:52,520 --> 00:21:58,840
Speaker 1: collect from UM. There's judgments of property that's owned by

353
00:21:58,880 --> 00:22:05,000
Speaker 1: the Chinese government slash Communist Party in the United States,

354
00:22:05,119 --> 00:22:10,320
Speaker 1: for example, there's businesses that are owned by the Chinese government,

355
00:22:10,520 --> 00:22:15,479
Speaker 1: so UM. One possibility is suggested, you know, hotels and

356
00:22:15,720 --> 00:22:19,520
Speaker 1: entities UM. And the US government has actually done this.

357
00:22:19,680 --> 00:22:24,359
Speaker 1: They did it against Iran and it was Park Fifth

358
00:22:24,400 --> 00:22:28,679
Speaker 1: Avenue skyscraper six fifty fifth Avenue, and the U s

359
00:22:28,720 --> 00:22:34,520
Speaker 1: Attorney and the US government sued for RAND sanctions violations

360
00:22:34,560 --> 00:22:38,240
Speaker 1: and they collected UM and they seized UH skyscraper at

361
00:22:38,240 --> 00:22:41,360
Speaker 1: six fifty fifth Avenue. So, I mean, it's that kind

362
00:22:41,359 --> 00:22:43,800
Speaker 1: of thing where it's amazing to think that the United

363
00:22:43,880 --> 00:22:48,480
Speaker 1: States that there's property and skyscrapers all over the country

364
00:22:48,520 --> 00:22:51,960
Speaker 1: who owned by countries, foreign countries. So that's one of

365
00:22:51,960 --> 00:22:55,760
Speaker 1: the places the way that these guys would like to collect. Also,

366
00:22:55,920 --> 00:22:59,600
Speaker 1: there's a danger that they might start suing Americans in

367
00:22:59,760 --> 00:23:03,119
Speaker 1: China because Americans hold a lot of assets in China

368
00:23:03,560 --> 00:23:07,520
Speaker 1: as well as Chinese holding assets here. Yes, and there's

369
00:23:07,600 --> 00:23:11,320
Speaker 1: also a worry that, um, the Chinese government has also

370
00:23:11,400 --> 00:23:15,760
Speaker 1: threatened sanctions against the US and they can try to

371
00:23:15,840 --> 00:23:19,320
Speaker 1: create havoc, trade havoc with the United States. At these

372
00:23:19,400 --> 00:23:22,919
Speaker 1: kind of cases prevail, I mean currently right now, the

373
00:23:22,960 --> 00:23:26,080
Speaker 1: administration has left it up to states, some of them

374
00:23:26,080 --> 00:23:31,119
Speaker 1: read states to file lawsuits against China. And the next step,

375
00:23:31,160 --> 00:23:33,840
Speaker 1: of course, will be that these bills that have been

376
00:23:33,840 --> 00:23:37,359
Speaker 1: introduced in the Senate and in the House to strip

377
00:23:37,560 --> 00:23:40,560
Speaker 1: China of its community and they would like to also

378
00:23:40,600 --> 00:23:45,199
Speaker 1: prompt international investigations into Beijing's conduct. So those kinds of

379
00:23:45,200 --> 00:23:47,840
Speaker 1: things are going on in the US, but it depends

380
00:23:47,960 --> 00:23:51,760
Speaker 1: on whether they stopped China measures will get major retaliation

381
00:23:51,880 --> 00:23:55,439
Speaker 1: from the Chinese in trade and other avenues to go

382
00:23:55,520 --> 00:23:59,320
Speaker 1: after the United States. Thanks Tad. That's Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg

383
00:23:59,400 --> 00:24:01,720
Speaker 1: Legal Report her and that's it for this edition of

384
00:24:01,720 --> 00:24:05,160
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law. I'm June Blosso, thanks so much for listening,

385
00:24:05,440 --> 00:24:07,880
Speaker 1: and remember to tunity to the Bloomberg Law Show weeknights

386
00:24:07,920 --> 00:24:10,000
Speaker 1: at ten pm Eastern or Bloomberg radio