1
00:00:03,080 --> 00:00:08,280
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,920 --> 00:00:12,800
Speaker 1: It was an extraordinary breach and a seismic shock hit

3
00:00:12,840 --> 00:00:16,520
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court on Monday when political published a draft

4
00:00:16,600 --> 00:00:21,480
Speaker 1: opinion overturning the seventy three landmark case of Roe v. Wade.

5
00:00:21,960 --> 00:00:25,840
Speaker 1: In the draft by Justice Samuel Alito, five Justice is

6
00:00:25,960 --> 00:00:29,960
Speaker 1: voted to overturn the constitutional right to abortion, which has

7
00:00:29,960 --> 00:00:33,440
Speaker 1: been guaranteed for nearly half a century. Joining me is

8
00:00:33,560 --> 00:00:36,839
Speaker 1: U C. L. A. Lawn Professor Adam Winkler. Generally, the

9
00:00:36,880 --> 00:00:40,280
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has been considered just about leak proof. How

10
00:00:40,320 --> 00:00:43,960
Speaker 1: surprised were you? Well, I was quite surprised, because while

11
00:00:44,000 --> 00:00:48,640
Speaker 1: there have been a very very rarely leaks of appending

12
00:00:48,760 --> 00:00:51,920
Speaker 1: outcome in a Supreme Court case, I can recall no

13
00:00:52,080 --> 00:00:56,000
Speaker 1: case where we've seen a leak majority opinion in full

14
00:00:56,200 --> 00:00:59,640
Speaker 1: laying out the courts reasoning and rationale and details of

15
00:00:59,720 --> 00:01:03,600
Speaker 1: the vision. So that is even among the instances of

16
00:01:03,600 --> 00:01:09,600
Speaker 1: previous leaks, historically unprecedented. Describe the process of the conferencing

17
00:01:09,840 --> 00:01:13,400
Speaker 1: and the circulation of drafts, Well, that's right. This majority

18
00:01:13,440 --> 00:01:16,800
Speaker 1: opinion is really only a draft majority opinion, and it

19
00:01:16,840 --> 00:01:19,240
Speaker 1: may not be the final decision that comes out of

20
00:01:19,280 --> 00:01:22,520
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. The way the Supreme Court works is

21
00:01:22,560 --> 00:01:24,959
Speaker 1: the Court here's oral argument, and then a few days

22
00:01:25,040 --> 00:01:27,640
Speaker 1: later meets in what they call the conference. And the

23
00:01:27,680 --> 00:01:31,600
Speaker 1: conference involves only the justices. No clerks or secretaries or

24
00:01:31,640 --> 00:01:34,280
Speaker 1: assistance are allowed in the room, and they go around

25
00:01:34,319 --> 00:01:36,880
Speaker 1: and vote on the cases and hash out how the

26
00:01:36,920 --> 00:01:40,280
Speaker 1: reasoning is going to go. Those votes that the Court

27
00:01:40,319 --> 00:01:43,640
Speaker 1: cast in the conference set a majority and sometimes a

28
00:01:43,720 --> 00:01:47,280
Speaker 1: minority perspective on the court, and the two sides will

29
00:01:47,280 --> 00:01:49,840
Speaker 1: go off writing their opinions. But those votes that are

30
00:01:49,880 --> 00:01:52,800
Speaker 1: cast but the conference are not considered final votes. And

31
00:01:52,840 --> 00:01:55,600
Speaker 1: there have been instances in the past where justices have

32
00:01:55,840 --> 00:01:59,880
Speaker 1: changed their votes after the conference, including in planned Parenthood

33
00:01:59,880 --> 00:02:03,080
Speaker 1: be casey, one of the important cases court here purports

34
00:02:03,120 --> 00:02:06,120
Speaker 1: to overturn. Chief Justice John Roberts came out with a

35
00:02:06,240 --> 00:02:09,880
Speaker 1: statement saying that this is not going to affect how

36
00:02:09,919 --> 00:02:14,200
Speaker 1: the Court operates. But I wonder how this might in

37
00:02:14,280 --> 00:02:18,880
Speaker 1: fact affect the justices at their conferences and in circulating

38
00:02:18,960 --> 00:02:23,040
Speaker 1: future drafts. If they're concerned that there could be a leak. Well,

39
00:02:23,120 --> 00:02:25,840
Speaker 1: I imagine it could have some effect. You might imagine,

40
00:02:25,919 --> 00:02:29,799
Speaker 1: for instance, the Court adopting a system where every draft

41
00:02:29,880 --> 00:02:34,200
Speaker 1: opinion has a watermark of some sort or a distinguishing feature,

42
00:02:34,520 --> 00:02:37,360
Speaker 1: so that if a PDF file comes out like in

43
00:02:37,360 --> 00:02:40,799
Speaker 1: this case, it can be traced back to the recipient

44
00:02:40,919 --> 00:02:44,639
Speaker 1: of that draft. However, I also think that more importantly

45
00:02:44,680 --> 00:02:48,720
Speaker 1: than the leaking of the opinion, it's the opinion itself

46
00:02:48,840 --> 00:02:51,120
Speaker 1: is going to cause a lot of disharmony on the

47
00:02:51,160 --> 00:02:53,440
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, and we're likely to see the two sides

48
00:02:53,480 --> 00:02:57,080
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court very very starkly divided in coming

49
00:02:57,160 --> 00:03:00,359
Speaker 1: years and very bitter over the Court's overturning of Grow

50
00:03:00,480 --> 00:03:05,680
Speaker 1: versus Way. Let's talk about what Justice Slido wrote in

51
00:03:05,760 --> 00:03:09,880
Speaker 1: his opinion. He wrote that Row was egregiously wrong from

52
00:03:09,919 --> 00:03:14,800
Speaker 1: the start. Explain his reasoning well. His argument is is

53
00:03:14,880 --> 00:03:18,200
Speaker 1: that Row is an unwritten right under the Constitution, and

54
00:03:18,240 --> 00:03:21,080
Speaker 1: that the way that we define which unwritten rights are

55
00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:24,840
Speaker 1: protected by the Constitution simply doesn't support the holding of

56
00:03:24,919 --> 00:03:27,920
Speaker 1: Row versus Wade. Alito says, the way we do that

57
00:03:28,080 --> 00:03:30,680
Speaker 1: is we look to history and tradition. Those rights that

58
00:03:30,720 --> 00:03:34,639
Speaker 1: are deeply rooted in history and tradition are protected by

59
00:03:34,720 --> 00:03:38,040
Speaker 1: the Fourteenth Amendments to Process Clause and he says the

60
00:03:38,120 --> 00:03:41,960
Speaker 1: right to abortion is not deeply rooted in history and tradition.

61
00:03:42,360 --> 00:03:45,960
Speaker 1: Uh And indeed, many people have criticized Row versus Wade

62
00:03:46,000 --> 00:03:49,520
Speaker 1: over the years for not offering a particularly vibrant and

63
00:03:49,600 --> 00:03:53,120
Speaker 1: robust argument for why the right to choose abortion was

64
00:03:53,160 --> 00:03:57,400
Speaker 1: protected by the Constitution. He wrote, far from bringing about

65
00:03:57,400 --> 00:04:01,080
Speaker 1: a national settlement of the abortion issue, Row and Casey

66
00:04:01,120 --> 00:04:05,280
Speaker 1: have inflamed debate and deepen division. That seems to me

67
00:04:05,320 --> 00:04:08,840
Speaker 1: like it's a political argument. Well, there is a certain

68
00:04:08,880 --> 00:04:12,360
Speaker 1: paradox in Alito's opinion. He says that the Court needs

69
00:04:12,400 --> 00:04:14,800
Speaker 1: to rule on the basis of law without regard to

70
00:04:14,840 --> 00:04:18,760
Speaker 1: any of the political consequences or political opinions Americans. And

71
00:04:18,880 --> 00:04:22,479
Speaker 1: yet this very idea pops up in the reasoning of

72
00:04:22,520 --> 00:04:26,480
Speaker 1: the Court that his majority opinion says that Row hasn't

73
00:04:26,480 --> 00:04:29,280
Speaker 1: settled things, and because it hasn't settled things, that becomes

74
00:04:29,279 --> 00:04:32,600
Speaker 1: a reason for overturning it. What that suggests is that

75
00:04:32,720 --> 00:04:35,440
Speaker 1: people who are opposed to a constitutional ruling of the

76
00:04:35,440 --> 00:04:38,839
Speaker 1: Supreme Court just need to agitate hard enough to make

77
00:04:38,920 --> 00:04:42,240
Speaker 1: that a continuing and current controversy, and if so, then

78
00:04:42,279 --> 00:04:44,839
Speaker 1: they will have unsettled the precedent and made it so

79
00:04:44,960 --> 00:04:49,360
Speaker 1: the precedent doesn't survive. Let's talk about Alito's tone in

80
00:04:49,600 --> 00:04:54,320
Speaker 1: writing this, which is very caustic and very critical of

81
00:04:54,600 --> 00:04:58,360
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court author of row Well, I think that's right,

82
00:04:58,480 --> 00:05:02,080
Speaker 1: and he is very caustic. And Alito's opinions have been

83
00:05:02,160 --> 00:05:05,400
Speaker 1: very caustic for many years, and indeed his questions at

84
00:05:05,480 --> 00:05:08,720
Speaker 1: oral argument often play the same way. One thing that

85
00:05:08,920 --> 00:05:12,880
Speaker 1: seems to run through Alita's opinion is a lack of

86
00:05:13,000 --> 00:05:16,800
Speaker 1: any understanding of how anyone could come up with a

87
00:05:16,839 --> 00:05:20,240
Speaker 1: different argument or a different perspective on the underlying right,

88
00:05:20,640 --> 00:05:23,680
Speaker 1: and I think that's one of the real weaknesses of

89
00:05:23,760 --> 00:05:26,440
Speaker 1: this opinion. Many people have criticized some of the d

90
00:05:26,680 --> 00:05:30,120
Speaker 1: process privacy opinions that were written by Justice Anthony Kennedy,

91
00:05:30,320 --> 00:05:34,200
Speaker 1: such as Oberga Fowl and Lawrence recognizing same sex marriage

92
00:05:34,240 --> 00:05:37,800
Speaker 1: and same sex intimacy as fundamental rights respectively. But one

93
00:05:37,839 --> 00:05:41,479
Speaker 1: thing Anthony Kennedy was always very careful to do was

94
00:05:41,560 --> 00:05:44,320
Speaker 1: to try to show respect for the other side and

95
00:05:44,400 --> 00:05:47,839
Speaker 1: for people who had differings, and made specific efforts in

96
00:05:47,839 --> 00:05:51,640
Speaker 1: his opinion to call those people into his opinion and

97
00:05:51,720 --> 00:05:55,680
Speaker 1: to support his arguments rather than sneering at them as

98
00:05:55,760 --> 00:06:01,200
Speaker 1: being totally lacking in merit and any serious constitutional Adam

99
00:06:01,320 --> 00:06:06,040
Speaker 1: Alito writes that we've long recognized, however, that starry decisive

100
00:06:06,279 --> 00:06:09,760
Speaker 1: is not an inexorable command, and he's got a list

101
00:06:09,839 --> 00:06:13,680
Speaker 1: of cases. What does that do to the view of

102
00:06:13,720 --> 00:06:17,960
Speaker 1: the Court as being, you know, an institution that follows precedent,

103
00:06:18,680 --> 00:06:21,960
Speaker 1: even though on occasion we've seen that they don't follow precedent.

104
00:06:22,000 --> 00:06:24,200
Speaker 1: But this is a precedent that the little girls were

105
00:06:24,240 --> 00:06:26,479
Speaker 1: born with, this precedent, and now it's just being taken

106
00:06:26,520 --> 00:06:29,520
Speaker 1: away from them. This right, Well, that's right, And I

107
00:06:29,600 --> 00:06:34,400
Speaker 1: do think that U the Court's treatment of precedent just

108
00:06:34,520 --> 00:06:37,240
Speaker 1: highlights that the Roberts Court in particular is not that

109
00:06:37,400 --> 00:06:41,120
Speaker 1: interesting precedent and has been overturning precedents pretty much left

110
00:06:41,160 --> 00:06:43,919
Speaker 1: and right, often just using the shadow dockets so that

111
00:06:43,960 --> 00:06:48,160
Speaker 1: they don't even have to offer precise and concise opinion

112
00:06:48,240 --> 00:06:51,560
Speaker 1: and reasoning explaining the decision. So we have seen that

113
00:06:51,640 --> 00:06:55,640
Speaker 1: precedents are being overturned at an increasingly rapid rate in

114
00:06:55,800 --> 00:06:58,880
Speaker 1: the new Roberts Court, especially after the addition of three

115
00:06:58,920 --> 00:07:02,520
Speaker 1: new justices under as a Trump justice is Gorsch, Kavanaugh

116
00:07:02,680 --> 00:07:05,400
Speaker 1: and Barrett and I think this case is a wake

117
00:07:05,480 --> 00:07:08,839
Speaker 1: up call for those who think that Supreme Court nominees

118
00:07:08,920 --> 00:07:12,040
Speaker 1: who go to the Senate and tell Susan Collins, as

119
00:07:12,080 --> 00:07:15,320
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh did, that rovers weight is the settled law

120
00:07:15,360 --> 00:07:17,720
Speaker 1: of the land, don't really mean anything by it. That

121
00:07:17,880 --> 00:07:20,960
Speaker 1: precedent doesn't really mean anything to the justices of the

122
00:07:21,000 --> 00:07:25,080
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Well, Elito himself described it as precedent of

123
00:07:25,200 --> 00:07:30,040
Speaker 1: his own confirmation hearings. Leaks happen in Congress, leaks happen

124
00:07:30,080 --> 00:07:32,600
Speaker 1: in the White House, not usually in the Supreme Court.

125
00:07:32,760 --> 00:07:36,400
Speaker 1: How does this affect the Court's legitimacy? Does it reinforce

126
00:07:36,520 --> 00:07:40,440
Speaker 1: the idea that it's become a more political institution. I'm

127
00:07:40,480 --> 00:07:43,800
Speaker 1: not sure what effect the League will have on the

128
00:07:43,840 --> 00:07:46,960
Speaker 1: perception of legitimacy of the Supreme Court. I think more

129
00:07:47,000 --> 00:07:50,040
Speaker 1: disastrous to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in the

130
00:07:50,040 --> 00:07:52,880
Speaker 1: eyes of many in the public is overturning rovers His

131
00:07:52,960 --> 00:07:56,400
Speaker 1: way is the substance of the underlying decision that was

132
00:07:56,600 --> 00:08:00,600
Speaker 1: released in draft form. If this decision holds, I think

133
00:08:00,640 --> 00:08:03,800
Speaker 1: that many many people will lose faith in the Supreme

134
00:08:03,800 --> 00:08:06,680
Speaker 1: Court in a way that the Screen Court hasn't seen

135
00:08:06,800 --> 00:08:10,360
Speaker 1: in many, many decades, and I would expect that a

136
00:08:10,400 --> 00:08:13,520
Speaker 1: lot of people who used to say, well, yeah, they

137
00:08:13,520 --> 00:08:16,360
Speaker 1: talk about overturning rovers as way, but they'll never really

138
00:08:16,400 --> 00:08:19,000
Speaker 1: do it, will now have to be would be forced

139
00:08:19,000 --> 00:08:21,960
Speaker 1: to really reconsider their approach to politics and who they

140
00:08:21,960 --> 00:08:24,800
Speaker 1: want to vote for, and how important issues of choice

141
00:08:24,840 --> 00:08:28,880
Speaker 1: really are to their sense of liberty and democracy. I've

142
00:08:28,920 --> 00:08:32,720
Speaker 1: heard two different viewpoints, one being that the revelation of

143
00:08:32,760 --> 00:08:36,200
Speaker 1: this draft opinion could lead the majority to dig in

144
00:08:36,280 --> 00:08:40,320
Speaker 1: and stick to the opinion. The other side is that, well,

145
00:08:40,360 --> 00:08:43,320
Speaker 1: it could lead some of the justices to rethink the

146
00:08:43,400 --> 00:08:46,319
Speaker 1: opinion and perhaps go to the middle ground that the

147
00:08:46,400 --> 00:08:49,960
Speaker 1: Chief Justice reportedly has been interested in. What do you

148
00:08:50,000 --> 00:08:52,520
Speaker 1: think It's so hard to know, June. You know, we

149
00:08:52,600 --> 00:08:55,200
Speaker 1: just don't have any information on leaked it and what

150
00:08:55,280 --> 00:08:58,280
Speaker 1: the possible reasons are for leaking it. One could imagine

151
00:08:58,280 --> 00:09:01,600
Speaker 1: an argument that this was leaked by conservatives who are

152
00:09:01,679 --> 00:09:06,120
Speaker 1: looking to shore up Aldo's opinion and stop someone like

153
00:09:06,280 --> 00:09:10,880
Speaker 1: a Kavanaugh from wavering and signing onto a more moderate decision.

154
00:09:10,920 --> 00:09:14,160
Speaker 1: Others have speculated that it's probably someone on the left,

155
00:09:14,320 --> 00:09:17,840
Speaker 1: left leaning clerk who's so outraged and shocked that that

156
00:09:18,000 --> 00:09:20,600
Speaker 1: persone wants to let the world know what's coming in

157
00:09:20,720 --> 00:09:23,480
Speaker 1: Supreme Court and how outrageous this opinion really is in

158
00:09:23,600 --> 00:09:26,160
Speaker 1: light of constitutional law. I think those are really the

159
00:09:26,240 --> 00:09:29,680
Speaker 1: key things, and among lawyers, I think that Alito's draft opinion,

160
00:09:29,720 --> 00:09:32,520
Speaker 1: if it becomes the majority opinion, will not gain the

161
00:09:32,600 --> 00:09:36,000
Speaker 1: respect of the legal community. At critical points in the argument,

162
00:09:36,040 --> 00:09:40,640
Speaker 1: Aledo abandoned legal analysis for really pure policy preference. And

163
00:09:40,960 --> 00:09:43,400
Speaker 1: I don't think that the argument that Alito makes will

164
00:09:43,440 --> 00:09:48,280
Speaker 1: be received with any more compliments than Justice Blackman's original

165
00:09:48,320 --> 00:09:53,040
Speaker 1: decision and Grow versus Way. So it is possible, not probable, perhaps,

166
00:09:53,120 --> 00:09:56,360
Speaker 1: but it is possible that one of the justices could

167
00:09:56,559 --> 00:10:01,280
Speaker 1: change their vote. Absolutely justices in and have changed their

168
00:10:01,360 --> 00:10:05,280
Speaker 1: votes after a conference and after majority opinions has been circulated.

169
00:10:05,600 --> 00:10:09,640
Speaker 1: It happens, you know, with some regularity. Without saying it's frequent,

170
00:10:09,720 --> 00:10:12,360
Speaker 1: it does happen, and it happens many times over the years.

171
00:10:12,400 --> 00:10:15,400
Speaker 1: One prominent example was Planned Parenthood Recasey, one of the

172
00:10:15,440 --> 00:10:18,079
Speaker 1: cases that the Supreme Court reports to overturn in this

173
00:10:18,240 --> 00:10:22,000
Speaker 1: draft opinion. In that case, Justice Kennedy originally voted to

174
00:10:22,040 --> 00:10:26,000
Speaker 1: overturn Roe versus Wade and to uphold broad regulations of abortion,

175
00:10:26,080 --> 00:10:28,920
Speaker 1: and then he changed his mind after the majority opinion

176
00:10:29,360 --> 00:10:33,200
Speaker 1: started circulating. And it's happened in other much less controversial

177
00:10:33,240 --> 00:10:36,800
Speaker 1: areas as well. Sometimes justice is fine that they think

178
00:10:36,840 --> 00:10:39,599
Speaker 1: an outcome is right until they see an opinion explaining

179
00:10:39,640 --> 00:10:42,080
Speaker 1: the outcome, and then they say, wait, that reasoning an

180
00:10:42,160 --> 00:10:44,680
Speaker 1: argument just doesn't work for me. I think I'm going

181
00:10:44,720 --> 00:10:47,640
Speaker 1: to change my votes. I would be very surprised if

182
00:10:47,679 --> 00:10:51,000
Speaker 1: that happens in this particular case. I think these justices

183
00:10:51,040 --> 00:10:54,600
Speaker 1: have been thinking about Roe versus Wade for many decades.

184
00:10:54,920 --> 00:10:57,120
Speaker 1: All of them grew up at a time when roversus

185
00:10:57,120 --> 00:10:59,880
Speaker 1: Wade was a very controversial opinion, the subject of much

186
00:11:00,000 --> 00:11:04,320
Speaker 1: conversation among the Federalist society gatherings that that all of

187
00:11:04,360 --> 00:11:08,240
Speaker 1: the current conservative justices attended with regularity, and so I

188
00:11:08,280 --> 00:11:11,760
Speaker 1: think that their views on this issue are not really

189
00:11:11,840 --> 00:11:15,200
Speaker 1: in play. And that brings us back to all the

190
00:11:15,240 --> 00:11:20,280
Speaker 1: confirmation hearings where every single justice said Row was established precedent.

191
00:11:20,640 --> 00:11:23,680
Speaker 1: I guess that doesn't mean much anymore. Well, I guess

192
00:11:23,679 --> 00:11:26,120
Speaker 1: it only means that it's an established precedent, but not

193
00:11:26,320 --> 00:11:28,640
Speaker 1: that that precedent will be upheld if they get the

194
00:11:28,720 --> 00:11:31,360
Speaker 1: chance to rule on it. You know, there is nothing

195
00:11:31,400 --> 00:11:35,360
Speaker 1: wrong with overturning precedent as a matter of constitutional law.

196
00:11:35,440 --> 00:11:37,560
Speaker 1: The Court has done that many times, and we'll do

197
00:11:37,600 --> 00:11:41,160
Speaker 1: it many times in the future. There is perhaps a

198
00:11:41,240 --> 00:11:44,480
Speaker 1: little bit more of a concern about overturning precedent right

199
00:11:44,520 --> 00:11:47,840
Speaker 1: now when we know that this challenge to Roe versus

200
00:11:47,840 --> 00:11:53,800
Speaker 1: Way was really instigated by changing personnel on the Supreme Court,

201
00:11:54,160 --> 00:11:59,400
Speaker 1: and it really undermines the Court's legitimacy to overturn widely supported,

202
00:11:59,800 --> 00:12:03,880
Speaker 1: incredibly well recognized precedent like ro versus Wade, Life Planned

203
00:12:03,880 --> 00:12:08,480
Speaker 1: Parent Heard versus Casey immediately after three new justices have

204
00:12:08,600 --> 00:12:12,160
Speaker 1: been appointed. I think that really calls into question the

205
00:12:12,240 --> 00:12:15,800
Speaker 1: courts neutrality, and for an opinion that claims to want

206
00:12:15,800 --> 00:12:18,480
Speaker 1: to leave the issue of abortion to politics and not

207
00:12:18,559 --> 00:12:23,480
Speaker 1: constitutionalize it, we see that the constitutional question itself is

208
00:12:23,520 --> 00:12:28,000
Speaker 1: decided by politics, decided by the election and Mitch McConnell's

209
00:12:28,120 --> 00:12:32,000
Speaker 1: manipulation of the confirmation process to get three justices appointed

210
00:12:32,040 --> 00:12:35,080
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court in the Trump years. People are

211
00:12:35,160 --> 00:12:38,400
Speaker 1: now speculating. A leader in his opinion said, this doesn't

212
00:12:38,440 --> 00:12:41,600
Speaker 1: mean that other rights are in jeopardies. But does this

213
00:12:41,800 --> 00:12:45,880
Speaker 1: mean that other rights based on privacy are in jeopardy,

214
00:12:45,960 --> 00:12:51,480
Speaker 1: for example, same sex marriage, or contraception, or interracial marriage.

215
00:12:51,640 --> 00:12:54,600
Speaker 1: I think all of those precedents are called into question

216
00:12:55,040 --> 00:12:59,840
Speaker 1: quite directly by all opinion. You're absolutely right. Alito's opinions

217
00:12:59,840 --> 00:13:03,000
Speaker 1: to those decisions are not affected by the abortion move

218
00:13:03,280 --> 00:13:06,400
Speaker 1: he says, because abortion is different. Abortion is different, he says,

219
00:13:06,520 --> 00:13:12,040
Speaker 1: because it involves potential fetal life and protecting potential to life. Well,

220
00:13:12,400 --> 00:13:15,640
Speaker 1: that's there as a distinction, except it's not a distinction

221
00:13:15,640 --> 00:13:19,760
Speaker 1: that's grounded in constitutional law or constitutional analysis. Right, there's

222
00:13:19,760 --> 00:13:22,040
Speaker 1: nothing in the history and tuition of the fourteenth Amendment

223
00:13:22,320 --> 00:13:25,199
Speaker 1: that says anything about fetal life or why the rights

224
00:13:25,240 --> 00:13:28,679
Speaker 1: that affect third parties aren't going to be recognized by

225
00:13:28,720 --> 00:13:32,600
Speaker 1: the Constitution. We have many rights that adversely affect third parties.

226
00:13:32,679 --> 00:13:34,560
Speaker 1: Think of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear

227
00:13:34,679 --> 00:13:37,440
Speaker 1: arms that results in a number of people dying every

228
00:13:37,480 --> 00:13:40,520
Speaker 1: year from gun violence. And so he makes a distinction

229
00:13:40,520 --> 00:13:42,680
Speaker 1: of the distinguish away of those cases. But the basis

230
00:13:42,760 --> 00:13:47,040
Speaker 1: for the distinction has no constitutional grounding. It's just a

231
00:13:47,120 --> 00:13:50,120
Speaker 1: policy preference. Well, we think this is different because it's

232
00:13:50,320 --> 00:13:53,280
Speaker 1: uh being a life involved. Note that some of the

233
00:13:53,280 --> 00:13:56,240
Speaker 1: other privacy rights that he referred to, such as the

234
00:13:56,320 --> 00:14:00,240
Speaker 1: right to use contraception, arguably have a similar effect Row

235
00:14:00,360 --> 00:14:03,479
Speaker 1: versus Way, and that a potential feet of life is involved.

236
00:14:03,640 --> 00:14:08,240
Speaker 1: More importantly, I think that despite Alito's effort to distinguish

237
00:14:08,280 --> 00:14:12,280
Speaker 1: those other privacy right cases, the history and tradition analysis

238
00:14:12,360 --> 00:14:14,920
Speaker 1: that Alito offers that says we only really look to

239
00:14:15,080 --> 00:14:18,559
Speaker 1: history and law before eighteen sixty eight, when the Fourteenth

240
00:14:18,600 --> 00:14:22,320
Speaker 1: Amendment was adopted, would not support many of the privacy

241
00:14:22,400 --> 00:14:25,400
Speaker 1: rights that the Court has found. The rights interracial marriage

242
00:14:25,400 --> 00:14:28,760
Speaker 1: would not be recognized under this history and traditional test

243
00:14:29,040 --> 00:14:32,560
Speaker 1: that Alito proposes. Here, a right to same sex intimacy

244
00:14:32,880 --> 00:14:35,920
Speaker 1: or a right to minors to have some sexual privacy

245
00:14:36,040 --> 00:14:39,120
Speaker 1: rights would not be recognized at all if we do

246
00:14:39,240 --> 00:14:42,040
Speaker 1: the same history and tradition analysis that he offers. And

247
00:14:42,080 --> 00:14:46,280
Speaker 1: so I think, despite Aldo's assurances, all those other rights

248
00:14:46,400 --> 00:14:49,760
Speaker 1: are in jeopardy. Conservatives have had their eye on Row

249
00:14:50,000 --> 00:14:53,840
Speaker 1: for so long. What is it about Row that has

250
00:14:53,920 --> 00:14:57,280
Speaker 1: led this whole sort of revolution. Well, I think it's

251
00:14:57,360 --> 00:15:01,720
Speaker 1: that there's a real large co hort and American society

252
00:15:01,760 --> 00:15:04,480
Speaker 1: that wants to restrict abortion, that doesn't want women to

253
00:15:04,520 --> 00:15:06,960
Speaker 1: have these rights that doesn't want women to be able

254
00:15:06,960 --> 00:15:10,440
Speaker 1: to exercise this kind of control over their bodies and sexuality.

255
00:15:10,960 --> 00:15:14,320
Speaker 1: And what's happened in in the last thirty years is

256
00:15:14,360 --> 00:15:16,280
Speaker 1: that while there's been plenty of bad decisions about the

257
00:15:16,320 --> 00:15:20,320
Speaker 1: Supreme Courts, plenty of decisions poor reasoning, but few of

258
00:15:20,360 --> 00:15:23,880
Speaker 1: them occasion the kind of controversy and backlash that ro

259
00:15:24,040 --> 00:15:27,520
Speaker 1: versus Wade has caused. And I think that's part of

260
00:15:27,560 --> 00:15:30,600
Speaker 1: the reason why the Court will overturn rovers way, because

261
00:15:30,640 --> 00:15:33,800
Speaker 1: these justices have been steeped in the idea that Roll

262
00:15:33,920 --> 00:15:38,440
Speaker 1: versus Wade is the original sin of American constitutional law,

263
00:15:38,760 --> 00:15:43,720
Speaker 1: the most obvious example in all of American history of

264
00:15:44,320 --> 00:15:47,800
Speaker 1: unbridled judicial activism, and they see it as their role

265
00:15:48,240 --> 00:15:52,560
Speaker 1: to overturn it and to restore an earlier version of

266
00:15:52,600 --> 00:15:56,000
Speaker 1: American law in which women's bodily autonomy was not recognized

267
00:15:56,080 --> 00:15:59,720
Speaker 1: as a constitutional right. Thanks so much for your insights ATAM.

268
00:15:59,760 --> 00:16:02,720
Speaker 1: That's Professor Adam Winkler of u c l A Law School.

269
00:16:05,040 --> 00:16:09,120
Speaker 1: Opioid overdose has killed nearly half a million Americans over

270
00:16:09,200 --> 00:16:13,440
Speaker 1: two decades, and the epidemic is getting worse instead of better.

271
00:16:14,160 --> 00:16:17,640
Speaker 1: D e a administrator and Milgram says an American is

272
00:16:17,760 --> 00:16:21,880
Speaker 1: dying every five minutes from an overdose, and seventy five

273
00:16:22,000 --> 00:16:25,640
Speaker 1: percent of those deaths are from opioids. It's you know,

274
00:16:25,680 --> 00:16:32,520
Speaker 1: Americans of all ages, cuts across every single demographic rural, urban, suburban,

275
00:16:32,920 --> 00:16:37,080
Speaker 1: and that people are dying at record rate. San Francisco

276
00:16:37,240 --> 00:16:42,080
Speaker 1: says opioid manufacturers Allergan and Teva distributor and a and

277
00:16:42,200 --> 00:16:46,920
Speaker 1: pharmacy giant Walgreens flooded the city streets with prescription drugs

278
00:16:47,120 --> 00:16:50,280
Speaker 1: and it's suing over the toll opioids have taken on

279
00:16:50,320 --> 00:16:53,640
Speaker 1: the city where one quarter of emergency room visits are

280
00:16:53,680 --> 00:16:57,800
Speaker 1: the result of opioid related issues. Joining me is healthcare

281
00:16:57,800 --> 00:17:01,840
Speaker 1: attorney Harry Nelson of Nelson Harden In Harry, san Francisco

282
00:17:02,080 --> 00:17:05,359
Speaker 1: is using a public nuisance theory? What does it have

283
00:17:05,440 --> 00:17:09,040
Speaker 1: to prove to make its case? So to prove a

284
00:17:09,040 --> 00:17:11,880
Speaker 1: public nuisance, San Francisco has to prove that the three

285
00:17:11,960 --> 00:17:16,800
Speaker 1: drug companies at issue, along with Walgreen's pharmacy, basically engaged

286
00:17:16,840 --> 00:17:21,520
Speaker 1: in behavior that's so harmed so many people in San

287
00:17:21,560 --> 00:17:24,760
Speaker 1: Francisco and that they need to be essentially forced to

288
00:17:24,800 --> 00:17:27,360
Speaker 1: pay for that harm. And the harm here that we're

289
00:17:27,359 --> 00:17:30,200
Speaker 1: talking about, of course, this prescription opioid, and the claim

290
00:17:30,280 --> 00:17:34,080
Speaker 1: is that these companies are responsible for having flooded San

291
00:17:34,119 --> 00:17:37,680
Speaker 1: Francisco with prescription opioids and then failed to prevent them

292
00:17:37,680 --> 00:17:42,280
Speaker 1: from being routed into the illegal market for misuse. San

293
00:17:42,320 --> 00:17:47,119
Speaker 1: Francisco claims they aggressively marketed opioids to doctors as a

294
00:17:47,200 --> 00:17:50,959
Speaker 1: risk free panacy for all forms of pain. What's the

295
00:17:51,040 --> 00:17:57,240
Speaker 1: line between aggressively marketing and just marketing. It's an interesting question.

296
00:17:57,280 --> 00:17:59,680
Speaker 1: I think, you know, it's much easier when we talk

297
00:17:59,720 --> 00:18:02,040
Speaker 1: about this question of where the line is on marketing

298
00:18:02,359 --> 00:18:05,720
Speaker 1: to look at behavior from for example, Perdue Pharma, where

299
00:18:05,920 --> 00:18:08,399
Speaker 1: it was very clear that they were aware that the

300
00:18:08,440 --> 00:18:12,240
Speaker 1: problem of overdoses and the addictiveness of the drug was

301
00:18:12,400 --> 00:18:15,720
Speaker 1: causing problems, and they just kept marketing more aggressively and

302
00:18:15,760 --> 00:18:18,480
Speaker 1: sort of building that issue into their marketing. It's a

303
00:18:18,480 --> 00:18:22,720
Speaker 1: lot more fuzzy when you come to companies like Walgreens

304
00:18:22,960 --> 00:18:27,040
Speaker 1: or Alegant Tava Pharmaceutical, where they were offering these drugs

305
00:18:27,040 --> 00:18:29,040
Speaker 1: in the market. It's not clear what they did that

306
00:18:29,119 --> 00:18:32,639
Speaker 1: was so unusual in that marketing, And frankly, I think

307
00:18:32,760 --> 00:18:34,320
Speaker 1: that the city is going to have a very hard

308
00:18:34,359 --> 00:18:37,919
Speaker 1: time showing that there was anything particularly distinctive about the

309
00:18:37,920 --> 00:18:40,680
Speaker 1: way that these drugs were promoted, is that somehow ignored

310
00:18:40,720 --> 00:18:44,000
Speaker 1: the risk associated with them. The defendants claimed that they

311
00:18:44,000 --> 00:18:47,560
Speaker 1: were sort of bit players in the opioid crisis, and

312
00:18:47,640 --> 00:18:51,160
Speaker 1: they say the blame should be directed at Perdue, which

313
00:18:51,200 --> 00:18:55,600
Speaker 1: has declared bankruptcy. I think it's a compelling argument. You know.

314
00:18:55,760 --> 00:18:57,960
Speaker 1: The reality is that there were a lot of companies

315
00:18:57,960 --> 00:19:01,280
Speaker 1: that manufactured and distributed, and in the case of the pharmacy's,

316
00:19:01,359 --> 00:19:04,440
Speaker 1: dispensed these drugs. But they are not all equal. Right,

317
00:19:04,520 --> 00:19:09,400
Speaker 1: Perdue Pharma made billions of dollars and orchestrated an aggressive

318
00:19:09,560 --> 00:19:14,080
Speaker 1: campaign to manipulate how doctors and patients perceived the risk.

319
00:19:14,280 --> 00:19:16,879
Speaker 1: There's not the same kind of evidence with regard to

320
00:19:17,160 --> 00:19:20,800
Speaker 1: Allergan and Haveva. These are companies that clearly had a

321
00:19:20,840 --> 00:19:24,800
Speaker 1: business line devoted to pain medication, but there's no signs

322
00:19:24,840 --> 00:19:27,399
Speaker 1: that I've seen to this point to suggest that they

323
00:19:27,440 --> 00:19:31,760
Speaker 1: were somehow scheming to hide the risks associated with these

324
00:19:31,760 --> 00:19:35,000
Speaker 1: medicines or doing something to promote them more aggressively than

325
00:19:35,200 --> 00:19:37,960
Speaker 1: all the other medications that they sell. I personally think

326
00:19:38,000 --> 00:19:40,040
Speaker 1: that the city has an uphill battle In this case,

327
00:19:40,800 --> 00:19:45,320
Speaker 1: before trial, defendants J and J and three large distributors

328
00:19:45,320 --> 00:19:49,360
Speaker 1: reached a twenty six billion dollar nationwide settlement of opioid claims.

329
00:19:49,400 --> 00:19:53,159
Speaker 1: As I mentioned, Perdue went bankrupt five days before trial,

330
00:19:53,280 --> 00:19:56,800
Speaker 1: and O Pharmaceuticals reached a deal with the city. Let's

331
00:19:56,800 --> 00:19:59,480
Speaker 1: say the jury does fund these drug companies in this trial,

332
00:19:59,720 --> 00:20:05,880
Speaker 1: lie do they consider the settlements in deciding damages. If

333
00:20:05,920 --> 00:20:09,199
Speaker 1: they reach a decision that there is liability, that the

334
00:20:09,240 --> 00:20:12,400
Speaker 1: city proved his case of a public nuisance, the jury

335
00:20:12,440 --> 00:20:17,119
Speaker 1: will then be asked to apportion responsibility and to allocate

336
00:20:17,200 --> 00:20:21,040
Speaker 1: some responsibility to different companies. So there's going to be

337
00:20:21,359 --> 00:20:24,720
Speaker 1: a moment where a jury is asked to decide how

338
00:20:24,840 --> 00:20:28,560
Speaker 1: much Allergan, for example, is responsible or how much Walgreen

339
00:20:28,600 --> 00:20:32,480
Speaker 1: is responsible of the total amount of liability here. And

340
00:20:32,480 --> 00:20:34,600
Speaker 1: and that's a very you know, it's hard to see

341
00:20:34,640 --> 00:20:37,040
Speaker 1: how a jury is going to be in a good position,

342
00:20:37,080 --> 00:20:39,720
Speaker 1: assuming that they get that far, to make a really

343
00:20:39,920 --> 00:20:43,119
Speaker 1: nuanced decision when you have a lot of different companies,

344
00:20:43,440 --> 00:20:45,959
Speaker 1: you know, promoting a drug for which there was enormous

345
00:20:46,040 --> 00:20:49,200
Speaker 1: demand clearly, you know, for pain, but which was risky.

346
00:20:49,359 --> 00:20:51,480
Speaker 1: That's the process the jury will be forced to go through.

347
00:20:51,800 --> 00:20:53,960
Speaker 1: But I can't say that I am optimistic that it

348
00:20:53,960 --> 00:20:57,760
Speaker 1: will be an easy one or necessarily precise one for

349
00:20:57,800 --> 00:21:00,800
Speaker 1: deciding how much each party should be response able to pay.

350
00:21:00,920 --> 00:21:04,879
Speaker 1: Do you have any insight into why the other you know,

351
00:21:04,960 --> 00:21:08,680
Speaker 1: why J and J D, etcetera. Why they decided to settle.

352
00:21:09,359 --> 00:21:13,120
Speaker 1: Some of these companies have previous cases where there has

353
00:21:13,200 --> 00:21:15,640
Speaker 1: been more negative evidence. So I think in the case

354
00:21:15,720 --> 00:21:19,320
Speaker 1: of Endo, for example, there there was some evidence, not

355
00:21:19,480 --> 00:21:21,760
Speaker 1: nearly to the extent that we had against Purdue Pharma,

356
00:21:22,119 --> 00:21:24,919
Speaker 1: but that they were a company that was aware of

357
00:21:24,920 --> 00:21:30,119
Speaker 1: the risk and was marketing, for example, offering inducements to

358
00:21:30,400 --> 00:21:33,280
Speaker 1: doctors to promote the drug. So Endo was one of

359
00:21:33,320 --> 00:21:36,359
Speaker 1: those companies that had more risk because there was some

360
00:21:36,440 --> 00:21:38,720
Speaker 1: bad behavior. And I think that a lot of the

361
00:21:38,720 --> 00:21:42,280
Speaker 1: companies that chose to settle were companies that had something

362
00:21:42,720 --> 00:21:47,119
Speaker 1: that they were afraid the prosecutors in the city attorneys

363
00:21:47,119 --> 00:21:50,680
Speaker 1: here would would point to to actually make them look

364
00:21:50,760 --> 00:21:53,119
Speaker 1: like they had behaved badly. And my feeling is just

365
00:21:53,119 --> 00:21:55,000
Speaker 1: the opposite that in this case, the companies that are

366
00:21:55,040 --> 00:21:58,639
Speaker 1: still standing don't see that evidence and are challenging the

367
00:21:58,640 --> 00:22:01,640
Speaker 1: city to the case that they that they actually did

368
00:22:01,680 --> 00:22:05,480
Speaker 1: anything wrong here. Some of the claims against Walgreens are

369
00:22:05,560 --> 00:22:09,119
Speaker 1: that the pharmacy was under guideline to take fifteen minutes

370
00:22:09,160 --> 00:22:13,200
Speaker 1: to fill prescriptions and that didn't check enough. That seems

371
00:22:13,480 --> 00:22:17,080
Speaker 1: pretty thin. Yeah, you know, my perspective on this is

372
00:22:17,119 --> 00:22:20,560
Speaker 1: that over the last two decades, we've seen the standards

373
00:22:20,600 --> 00:22:24,320
Speaker 1: that are expected for pharmacies, for example, changed radically, and

374
00:22:24,359 --> 00:22:27,479
Speaker 1: this whole set of expectations of how much compliance, how

375
00:22:27,520 --> 00:22:31,040
Speaker 1: much verification a pharmacist and a pharmacy is expected to

376
00:22:31,080 --> 00:22:35,400
Speaker 1: do to verify that something is legitimate, have been completely overhauled.

377
00:22:35,440 --> 00:22:39,440
Speaker 1: But if we're not talking about Walgreen's actually affirmatively doing

378
00:22:39,480 --> 00:22:42,399
Speaker 1: anything bad, we're saying that they failed to do certain

379
00:22:42,480 --> 00:22:45,680
Speaker 1: checks that we wish they would have done. I definitely

380
00:22:45,720 --> 00:22:48,320
Speaker 1: think that if you talk to anybody who is learning

381
00:22:48,320 --> 00:22:50,520
Speaker 1: to be a pharmacist today, they're they're learning a very

382
00:22:50,560 --> 00:22:53,440
Speaker 1: different set of responsibilities than the people who went through

383
00:22:53,440 --> 00:22:56,600
Speaker 1: pharmacy programs, you know, twenty years ago. But but I

384
00:22:56,600 --> 00:22:59,240
Speaker 1: do think that, um, I think it's a tough, tough

385
00:22:59,359 --> 00:23:02,600
Speaker 1: argument because there was a way of doing business. Pharmacies

386
00:23:02,640 --> 00:23:04,640
Speaker 1: were entitled to just see that if if it really

387
00:23:04,680 --> 00:23:07,000
Speaker 1: was a prescription from a doctor to assume that it

388
00:23:07,040 --> 00:23:09,600
Speaker 1: was legitimate and then all of a sudden. In cases

389
00:23:09,640 --> 00:23:11,639
Speaker 1: like this, the argument is being made that no, the

390
00:23:11,640 --> 00:23:15,000
Speaker 1: pharmacists had to do more, And it's not clear how

391
00:23:15,119 --> 00:23:18,879
Speaker 1: much more pharmacists could do beyond just seeing that a

392
00:23:19,000 --> 00:23:22,040
Speaker 1: doctor prescribed this to a patient. It's not clear that

393
00:23:22,080 --> 00:23:25,280
Speaker 1: we want pharmacists to be second guesting doctors. So I

394
00:23:25,320 --> 00:23:28,159
Speaker 1: actually think there's a very tough argument the city is

395
00:23:28,160 --> 00:23:30,640
Speaker 1: going to have to try to prove here. This public

396
00:23:30,800 --> 00:23:36,320
Speaker 1: nuisance legal strategy against drug makers for causing or fueling

397
00:23:36,320 --> 00:23:39,760
Speaker 1: the opioid crisis hasn't had a very good track record,

398
00:23:39,840 --> 00:23:43,040
Speaker 1: has it. A California judge ruled in favor of the

399
00:23:43,119 --> 00:23:48,159
Speaker 1: defendants five pharmaceuticals, including Teva, five months ago, and the

400
00:23:48,200 --> 00:23:52,280
Speaker 1: Oklahoma Supreme Court overturned a ruling against Johnson and Johnson.

401
00:23:52,359 --> 00:23:56,720
Speaker 1: Has this public nuisance argument been successful anywhere? Yeah, it

402
00:23:56,800 --> 00:24:00,240
Speaker 1: has had more failures than successes. It's definitely. You know,

403
00:24:00,280 --> 00:24:03,560
Speaker 1: public nuistance comes out of an environmental context, where it

404
00:24:03,600 --> 00:24:06,919
Speaker 1: was much easier to say that a certain company polluted

405
00:24:07,040 --> 00:24:10,000
Speaker 1: the environment in a certain area, and it was a

406
00:24:10,119 --> 00:24:13,879
Speaker 1: very direct link from the source of the harm to

407
00:24:14,119 --> 00:24:18,000
Speaker 1: the actual harm the pollution in those cases. In this context,

408
00:24:18,040 --> 00:24:23,560
Speaker 1: where we see a legitimate medication manufacture, distributed, prescribed by doctors,

409
00:24:23,600 --> 00:24:27,200
Speaker 1: dispense and then traveling through the system in ways that

410
00:24:27,359 --> 00:24:30,800
Speaker 1: cause harm, people getting addicted, people selling it onto the street,

411
00:24:31,080 --> 00:24:35,400
Speaker 1: it's a lot more complicated, with a lot more different players,

412
00:24:35,640 --> 00:24:37,800
Speaker 1: and it's not that clear link that we see in

413
00:24:37,800 --> 00:24:41,040
Speaker 1: those environmental cases. So I think that the public nuistance

414
00:24:41,160 --> 00:24:44,960
Speaker 1: I understand why it's appealing to government and to attorneys

415
00:24:45,000 --> 00:24:47,280
Speaker 1: who are looking to make a case to try to

416
00:24:47,280 --> 00:24:49,280
Speaker 1: get the costs that are were imposed here, which we're

417
00:24:49,320 --> 00:24:53,240
Speaker 1: significant on healthcare, on law enforcement across communities, to be shared.

418
00:24:53,280 --> 00:24:55,400
Speaker 1: But it's not an easy theory and I'm not bullish

419
00:24:55,440 --> 00:24:58,439
Speaker 1: on the future of public nuisance litigation in this area.

420
00:24:59,160 --> 00:25:01,760
Speaker 1: This is the fourth bell Weather case I believe, chosen

421
00:25:01,800 --> 00:25:06,199
Speaker 1: for trial from about three thousand in the federal opioid litigation.

422
00:25:06,720 --> 00:25:09,960
Speaker 1: Explain why it's called a bell Weather case. What that means.

423
00:25:10,840 --> 00:25:13,240
Speaker 1: We had like a log jam, you know, of just

424
00:25:13,560 --> 00:25:16,840
Speaker 1: thousands and thousands of cases that had to be tried.

425
00:25:16,960 --> 00:25:19,320
Speaker 1: So so when we say bell Weather, we're the judge

426
00:25:19,359 --> 00:25:23,960
Speaker 1: in this case was basically selecting a handful of representative

427
00:25:24,000 --> 00:25:27,240
Speaker 1: cases to look at harms in different context. So this,

428
00:25:27,400 --> 00:25:30,440
Speaker 1: I believe is the first urban focused case of how

429
00:25:30,480 --> 00:25:32,919
Speaker 1: did opiod harm you know, how did it progress, what

430
00:25:32,960 --> 00:25:35,720
Speaker 1: did it look like in a city, as opposed to

431
00:25:36,000 --> 00:25:38,159
Speaker 1: some of the rural cases, for example in Ohio that

432
00:25:38,160 --> 00:25:40,359
Speaker 1: were marked as bell weathers. So the idea is that

433
00:25:40,440 --> 00:25:43,760
Speaker 1: hopefully the parties see how the arguments play out in

434
00:25:43,800 --> 00:25:46,880
Speaker 1: these cases, how juries respond to them, and they use

435
00:25:47,000 --> 00:25:49,600
Speaker 1: that as a kind of test so that we don't

436
00:25:49,600 --> 00:25:52,040
Speaker 1: have to go through the same exercise over and over again,

437
00:25:52,280 --> 00:25:54,480
Speaker 1: and that the parties on both sides will have a

438
00:25:54,520 --> 00:25:57,760
Speaker 1: better sense of what their odds of success are, what

439
00:25:57,840 --> 00:26:01,480
Speaker 1: their liability risks are, and settled cases based on the

440
00:26:01,480 --> 00:26:04,399
Speaker 1: indicators that come out from this case. Let's talk of

441
00:26:04,480 --> 00:26:08,000
Speaker 1: this a little bit about Perdue. A six billion dollar

442
00:26:08,119 --> 00:26:12,280
Speaker 1: deal was approved in bankruptcy court last year, but an

443
00:26:12,320 --> 00:26:16,679
Speaker 1: appeals court threw it out in a surprising decision, and

444
00:26:16,960 --> 00:26:21,040
Speaker 1: now it's being argued over in a New York court. Yes,

445
00:26:21,119 --> 00:26:23,680
Speaker 1: so this is super interesting. The reason the settlement was

446
00:26:23,720 --> 00:26:26,320
Speaker 1: thrown out on appeal was the question of whether a

447
00:26:26,640 --> 00:26:30,119
Speaker 1: bankruptcy judge had the power to give the members of

448
00:26:30,160 --> 00:26:34,000
Speaker 1: the family the Stackler family, which owned Perdue Pharma protection right.

449
00:26:34,080 --> 00:26:37,399
Speaker 1: The Stackler family is a very wealthy billionaire family that

450
00:26:37,480 --> 00:26:40,600
Speaker 1: did not file for bankruptcy. The company that they founded did.

451
00:26:40,800 --> 00:26:43,399
Speaker 1: But their insistence was that they were only going to

452
00:26:43,440 --> 00:26:46,320
Speaker 1: settle and pay these billions of dollars out of Perdue

453
00:26:46,400 --> 00:26:49,560
Speaker 1: if they also were given this legal shield, and so

454
00:26:49,600 --> 00:26:52,960
Speaker 1: the court overturned that, and so now the parties are

455
00:26:53,000 --> 00:26:55,840
Speaker 1: back in court arguing about it, and we're still seeing

456
00:26:55,880 --> 00:27:00,000
Speaker 1: the family completely dug in and protecting themselves right the family.

457
00:27:00,080 --> 00:27:01,879
Speaker 1: By the way, reports have come out that the family

458
00:27:01,920 --> 00:27:04,640
Speaker 1: took over ten eleven billion dollars out of the company

459
00:27:04,680 --> 00:27:06,800
Speaker 1: in the years that they were aware of this crisis.

460
00:27:07,040 --> 00:27:09,720
Speaker 1: And so it's still up in the air weather we're

461
00:27:09,720 --> 00:27:12,560
Speaker 1: going to get a settlement here. I assume we will eventually,

462
00:27:12,600 --> 00:27:15,080
Speaker 1: but it's a fascinating question of how far courts can

463
00:27:15,119 --> 00:27:19,320
Speaker 1: go to protect the individual families from the harm resulting

464
00:27:19,359 --> 00:27:22,320
Speaker 1: from the company that they that they owned and managed.

465
00:27:22,840 --> 00:27:26,480
Speaker 1: And the Sackler family has come to represent sort of

466
00:27:26,520 --> 00:27:31,000
Speaker 1: like the evil kingpins of the opioid crisis, So there's

467
00:27:31,000 --> 00:27:33,840
Speaker 1: not much sympathy for them at all. You know. The

468
00:27:33,840 --> 00:27:36,119
Speaker 1: truth is that you know, most of the family was

469
00:27:36,160 --> 00:27:38,480
Speaker 1: far away from this business. There were a handful of

470
00:27:38,480 --> 00:27:41,760
Speaker 1: family members Dr Richard Sackler who were at the heart

471
00:27:41,800 --> 00:27:43,760
Speaker 1: of this, you know, in some ways, you know, it's

472
00:27:43,760 --> 00:27:46,400
Speaker 1: a it's a tricky thing that the family. Clearly, any

473
00:27:46,400 --> 00:27:49,080
Speaker 1: time you walk away with over ten billion dollars from

474
00:27:49,080 --> 00:27:52,840
Speaker 1: a business that killed thousands of people and imposed billion

475
00:27:52,880 --> 00:27:56,359
Speaker 1: dollars farm, you're gonna have a tough time getting sympathy.

476
00:27:56,400 --> 00:27:58,480
Speaker 1: But I do feel for the family members who weren't

477
00:27:58,520 --> 00:28:01,439
Speaker 1: involved that their name was used to grace you know,

478
00:28:01,600 --> 00:28:04,639
Speaker 1: museums and and all kinds of you know, amazing medical

479
00:28:04,680 --> 00:28:07,840
Speaker 1: schools and institutions all over the world for their philanthropy.

480
00:28:07,960 --> 00:28:11,520
Speaker 1: Has now become a sort of keyword for abusive behavior

481
00:28:11,760 --> 00:28:14,600
Speaker 1: in the pharmaceutical world. So it's a lot of damage

482
00:28:14,680 --> 00:28:17,360
Speaker 1: to the Stackler name that's gonna last far longer than

483
00:28:17,400 --> 00:28:20,520
Speaker 1: these cases. And finally, I wanted to get your take

484
00:28:20,600 --> 00:28:23,560
Speaker 1: on the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration told

485
00:28:23,600 --> 00:28:27,360
Speaker 1: the Senate that he wants to toughen standards for drugmakers

486
00:28:27,480 --> 00:28:31,000
Speaker 1: who want to sell new opioids. Congress would have to

487
00:28:31,000 --> 00:28:33,840
Speaker 1: give the FDA that power. Do you think that's a

488
00:28:33,840 --> 00:28:36,640
Speaker 1: good idea? Look I think it's a good idea, although

489
00:28:36,640 --> 00:28:38,760
Speaker 1: I do I think there's a real conundrum here. The

490
00:28:38,800 --> 00:28:42,200
Speaker 1: reality is that something like one in five American adults,

491
00:28:42,200 --> 00:28:45,640
Speaker 1: fifty million people complain that they live in severe or

492
00:28:45,880 --> 00:28:49,040
Speaker 1: serious chronic pain. So we have an enormous need for

493
00:28:49,080 --> 00:28:51,959
Speaker 1: these drugs. We've learned how dangerous they can be, how

494
00:28:51,960 --> 00:28:54,080
Speaker 1: addictive they are, but we've also seen that when you

495
00:28:54,160 --> 00:28:56,640
Speaker 1: deny people access to them, you know, it leads to

496
00:28:56,720 --> 00:29:00,640
Speaker 1: terrible things, including increased risks of suicide. And so we

497
00:29:00,680 --> 00:29:02,880
Speaker 1: do need more controls, and I think it's a good

498
00:29:02,880 --> 00:29:04,600
Speaker 1: thing for there to be more effort. But at the

499
00:29:04,640 --> 00:29:07,800
Speaker 1: same time, we've learned, for example, that when the FDA

500
00:29:07,920 --> 00:29:11,160
Speaker 1: requires the drug companies, for example, to put out additional

501
00:29:11,320 --> 00:29:14,600
Speaker 1: educational materials to doctors so that doctors understand the risk,

502
00:29:14,680 --> 00:29:17,120
Speaker 1: and the net outcome of that is that doctors actually

503
00:29:17,120 --> 00:29:19,680
Speaker 1: prescribe more of the medication. So I think that we

504
00:29:19,760 --> 00:29:23,000
Speaker 1: sort of have these opposing tensions where there's an enormous

505
00:29:23,080 --> 00:29:26,040
Speaker 1: need for these medications, doctors are are nervous in the

506
00:29:26,120 --> 00:29:28,600
Speaker 1: in the current environment about what they can and can't do,

507
00:29:28,880 --> 00:29:33,320
Speaker 1: and I think more clarity from government, more requirements that

508
00:29:33,400 --> 00:29:37,520
Speaker 1: if if those translate to making it safer for doctors

509
00:29:37,560 --> 00:29:39,880
Speaker 1: to prescribe to patients. I think those will be a

510
00:29:39,920 --> 00:29:43,320
Speaker 1: good thing. Thanks Harry. That's Harry Nelson of Nelson Hardeman

511
00:29:43,680 --> 00:29:45,960
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

512
00:29:46,400 --> 00:29:48,640
Speaker 1: Remember you could always at the latest legal news on

513
00:29:48,680 --> 00:29:53,160
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

514
00:29:53,200 --> 00:29:58,080
Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law.

515
00:29:58,440 --> 00:30:00,800
Speaker 1: I'm June Grosso and you're listen. Seemed to be Born