WEBVTT - Federal Workers Sue Trump & Vaping Case

0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.000
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:08.640 --> 0:00:12.760
<v Speaker 1>President Donald Trump started his second administration with the blitz

0:00:12.800 --> 0:00:17.400
<v Speaker 1>of executive orders on issues ranging from trade, immigration, and

0:00:17.600 --> 0:00:21.840
<v Speaker 1>US foreign aid to demographic diversity, civil rights, and the

0:00:21.920 --> 0:00:25.880
<v Speaker 1>hiring of federal workers. Some orders were challenged in federal

0:00:25.960 --> 0:00:29.040
<v Speaker 1>lawsuits before the end of his first day in office.

0:00:29.520 --> 0:00:32.839
<v Speaker 1>Attorneys general from twenty two states have filed suits to

0:00:32.920 --> 0:00:37.000
<v Speaker 1>block his executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, and

0:00:37.080 --> 0:00:42.040
<v Speaker 1>the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents federal government employees

0:00:42.080 --> 0:00:45.839
<v Speaker 1>and dozens of agencies, has launched a legal attack against

0:00:45.840 --> 0:00:50.880
<v Speaker 1>Trump's Schedule F executive order. It's a directive to reclassify

0:00:51.040 --> 0:00:55.200
<v Speaker 1>federal employees that makes it easier for his administration to

0:00:55.360 --> 0:01:00.600
<v Speaker 1>fire career employees, basically reinstating the order Trump issued at

0:01:00.640 --> 0:01:03.720
<v Speaker 1>the end of his first term, which was quickly revoked

0:01:03.720 --> 0:01:07.319
<v Speaker 1>by President Joe Biden. Joining me is Anne Lafasso, a

0:01:07.400 --> 0:01:10.520
<v Speaker 1>professor at the University of Cincinnati Law School and a

0:01:10.520 --> 0:01:14.720
<v Speaker 1>former attorney at the NLRB, and will you explain what

0:01:14.840 --> 0:01:16.200
<v Speaker 1>Schedule F is.

0:01:17.240 --> 0:01:23.520
<v Speaker 2>Schedule F is a new classification of employees or sub

0:01:23.600 --> 0:01:29.080
<v Speaker 2>classification that will remove employees that are currently in the

0:01:29.080 --> 0:01:33.520
<v Speaker 2>Competitive Service into the Accepted Service. So there's three main

0:01:33.600 --> 0:01:38.920
<v Speaker 2>classifications of employees. They are the Competitive Service, the Accepted Service,

0:01:39.520 --> 0:01:42.240
<v Speaker 2>and the Senior Executive Service. So the Senior Executive Service

0:01:42.240 --> 0:01:45.720
<v Speaker 2>are the super politicals that's you know, like cabinet members

0:01:46.000 --> 0:01:48.760
<v Speaker 2>and the deputy to the General Council of sending the

0:01:48.800 --> 0:01:51.800
<v Speaker 2>General Council. Those are the ones that have absolutely no

0:01:52.160 --> 0:01:57.320
<v Speaker 2>job protection, and then the Competitive Service has all job protection.

0:01:57.440 --> 0:02:01.720
<v Speaker 2>It's almost all federal jobs. And that was put in

0:02:01.800 --> 0:02:05.080
<v Speaker 2>place over one hundred years ago by I think it

0:02:05.160 --> 0:02:08.080
<v Speaker 2>was President Arthur. They were trying to get rid of

0:02:08.120 --> 0:02:13.160
<v Speaker 2>cronyism that really started in the Andrew Jackson era to

0:02:13.440 --> 0:02:16.360
<v Speaker 2>the Victor Goes the Spoils, which was the idea of

0:02:16.400 --> 0:02:19.080
<v Speaker 2>just putting only loyalists into the government and then there'd

0:02:19.080 --> 0:02:21.560
<v Speaker 2>be a lot of corruption. And Teddy Roosevelt was really

0:02:21.600 --> 0:02:24.560
<v Speaker 2>involved in the Competitive Service and think this was really

0:02:24.560 --> 0:02:27.120
<v Speaker 2>important to have civil servants. I mean, obviously everyone has

0:02:27.120 --> 0:02:30.320
<v Speaker 2>their politics as citizens, but as government employees, they would

0:02:30.360 --> 0:02:33.560
<v Speaker 2>just serve whoever the administration is and they would be experts.

0:02:33.600 --> 0:02:35.600
<v Speaker 2>They're the ones who have to take the Civil Service

0:02:35.680 --> 0:02:41.120
<v Speaker 2>exam and they're the ones who are the vast majority

0:02:41.800 --> 0:02:45.760
<v Speaker 2>of employees for the federal government. The accepted service then

0:02:45.960 --> 0:02:49.840
<v Speaker 2>are just exceptions to the competitive service where it doesn't

0:02:49.840 --> 0:02:52.760
<v Speaker 2>make sense to give them this civil service exam like

0:02:52.919 --> 0:02:56.440
<v Speaker 2>all attorneys or accepted service. In other words, the presumption

0:02:56.600 --> 0:02:59.760
<v Speaker 2>is everyone in the government is competitive service unless there's

0:02:59.760 --> 0:03:03.640
<v Speaker 2>an reception or unless you're a political appointee. The political

0:03:03.639 --> 0:03:07.400
<v Speaker 2>appointees are very very few. They're the very top top people,

0:03:07.880 --> 0:03:10.400
<v Speaker 2>and they have no job security. They often get fired

0:03:10.400 --> 0:03:13.440
<v Speaker 2>when there's a new administration. That makes sense because they're

0:03:13.480 --> 0:03:18.000
<v Speaker 2>calling the shots. They're saying, we're implementing the new administration's policies.

0:03:18.160 --> 0:03:24.760
<v Speaker 2>The schedule S is essentially a way of reclassifying these

0:03:24.840 --> 0:03:30.600
<v Speaker 2>competitive service employees so that they no longer have any

0:03:30.720 --> 0:03:35.800
<v Speaker 2>job security. Now, the administration feels that they need to

0:03:35.920 --> 0:03:39.320
<v Speaker 2>do this because it's hard to fire people, and they

0:03:39.600 --> 0:03:41.480
<v Speaker 2>have made a case so that they need to be

0:03:41.520 --> 0:03:43.760
<v Speaker 2>able to fire people because people are not doing their

0:03:43.840 --> 0:03:48.840
<v Speaker 2>job well. And the president does have power to make

0:03:49.000 --> 0:03:52.880
<v Speaker 2>changes in classifications where they're necessary for good administration.

0:03:53.760 --> 0:03:57.840
<v Speaker 1>I mean, the theory of having career employees is that

0:03:58.000 --> 0:04:02.000
<v Speaker 1>every time the administration changes, you don't want all the

0:04:02.120 --> 0:04:07.720
<v Speaker 1>workers changing that would mean no institutional memory at all, exactly.

0:04:07.800 --> 0:04:11.440
<v Speaker 2>So you have to have a balance between implementing policy

0:04:11.640 --> 0:04:16.479
<v Speaker 2>and stability of a government. And so the civil service

0:04:16.960 --> 0:04:20.039
<v Speaker 2>basically is running the governments and there's a few people

0:04:20.120 --> 0:04:24.440
<v Speaker 2>that are the boss and they're implementing policy. But you know,

0:04:24.520 --> 0:04:26.640
<v Speaker 2>I worked for the federal government ten years. I worked

0:04:26.680 --> 0:04:28.880
<v Speaker 2>five years for the Clinton administration and five years for

0:04:28.880 --> 0:04:31.160
<v Speaker 2>the Bush to administration, and my job did not change.

0:04:31.240 --> 0:04:33.920
<v Speaker 2>The only thing that changed was the type of decisions

0:04:33.920 --> 0:04:36.720
<v Speaker 2>that were coming down. And the Clinton administration they were

0:04:36.720 --> 0:04:40.160
<v Speaker 2>more pro union and in the Bush administration they were

0:04:40.200 --> 0:04:43.520
<v Speaker 2>more pro management. But I did the same exact thing.

0:04:43.920 --> 0:04:46.960
<v Speaker 2>My job was to enforce whatever decision came down.

0:04:47.400 --> 0:04:52.239
<v Speaker 1>This executive order from Trump complained that accountability among federal

0:04:52.279 --> 0:04:56.640
<v Speaker 1>employees is currently sorely lacking. Any power they have is

0:04:56.640 --> 0:04:59.719
<v Speaker 1>delegated by the president, and they must be accountable to

0:04:59.760 --> 0:05:02.479
<v Speaker 1>the resident. What does this order actually do.

0:05:02.920 --> 0:05:07.640
<v Speaker 2>It makes it easier for the president, through his administrators

0:05:07.720 --> 0:05:13.000
<v Speaker 2>like general counsels and people like that, to fire employees. Basically,

0:05:13.120 --> 0:05:16.039
<v Speaker 2>there's about fifty thousand people that they think could be

0:05:16.080 --> 0:05:20.000
<v Speaker 2>affected by this order. I mean, there's three million little

0:05:20.080 --> 0:05:22.200
<v Speaker 2>under three million people who look for the federal government.

0:05:22.560 --> 0:05:25.479
<v Speaker 2>But this is going to have large effects. It's also

0:05:25.680 --> 0:05:28.440
<v Speaker 2>possibly going to not just take away their due process rights,

0:05:28.480 --> 0:05:31.160
<v Speaker 2>but also all their union rights because a lot of

0:05:31.200 --> 0:05:34.359
<v Speaker 2>these competitive service people are actually unionized. Some of the

0:05:34.360 --> 0:05:38.760
<v Speaker 2>accepted services are also unionized. They're in unions. And what

0:05:39.000 --> 0:05:42.720
<v Speaker 2>this administration believes is that anything that gets in its

0:05:42.760 --> 0:05:46.919
<v Speaker 2>way of efficiently firing someone is too much. It is said,

0:05:47.000 --> 0:05:49.880
<v Speaker 2>it takes too long and it's too hard to fire people.

0:05:49.920 --> 0:05:55.000
<v Speaker 2>That is just not true. Managers need to manage the

0:05:55.040 --> 0:05:57.039
<v Speaker 2>way that you can fire someone. You just have to

0:05:57.040 --> 0:06:00.480
<v Speaker 2>give them due process. In fact, all of Europe that way,

0:06:00.920 --> 0:06:03.800
<v Speaker 2>all of Europe, there's no such thing as at will employment.

0:06:04.080 --> 0:06:05.920
<v Speaker 2>You have to give people due process if you're going

0:06:05.960 --> 0:06:08.680
<v Speaker 2>to fire them. So if you want to fire a

0:06:08.720 --> 0:06:11.719
<v Speaker 2>poor performer, and this is what Trump is mostly saying,

0:06:11.800 --> 0:06:15.200
<v Speaker 2>he's complaining about it, poor performers, then you just have

0:06:15.320 --> 0:06:18.520
<v Speaker 2>to document them and then you fire them. They get

0:06:18.560 --> 0:06:21.080
<v Speaker 2>their due process and you prove your case. Yeah, it's

0:06:21.080 --> 0:06:23.600
<v Speaker 2>different than if they're at will. You could fire them

0:06:23.600 --> 0:06:26.359
<v Speaker 2>in one day. That is true, unless your reasons for

0:06:26.400 --> 0:06:30.200
<v Speaker 2>firing them is unlawful under federal Estate law. But here,

0:06:30.440 --> 0:06:33.520
<v Speaker 2>what he's really doing is taking away their due process rights. Now,

0:06:33.680 --> 0:06:38.279
<v Speaker 2>federal law says that once an employee has due process

0:06:38.320 --> 0:06:42.320
<v Speaker 2>rights under the Constitution, then you can't just take them away.

0:06:42.680 --> 0:06:46.600
<v Speaker 2>So the NTU is saying that they're taking away these rights. Well,

0:06:46.640 --> 0:06:48.280
<v Speaker 2>you can't just take away property right.

0:06:48.560 --> 0:06:52.080
<v Speaker 1>So the National Treasury Employees Union sue Trump in DC

0:06:52.200 --> 0:06:56.080
<v Speaker 1>federal Court on Monday to block the Schedule F executive order.

0:06:56.320 --> 0:07:00.719
<v Speaker 1>They argue that it's contrary to congressional intent and violates

0:07:00.760 --> 0:07:04.400
<v Speaker 1>the Administrative Procedure Act. So explain why they say it's

0:07:04.520 --> 0:07:06.200
<v Speaker 1>contrary to congressional intent.

0:07:06.320 --> 0:07:10.640
<v Speaker 2>First, Well, Congress created this whole system in order to

0:07:10.800 --> 0:07:15.840
<v Speaker 2>give specifically to give job security to employees, so there

0:07:15.880 --> 0:07:20.720
<v Speaker 2>wouldn't be a changeover for most employees from administration administration

0:07:20.920 --> 0:07:26.320
<v Speaker 2>for one's ability and to combat cronyism, and so this

0:07:26.360 --> 0:07:30.160
<v Speaker 2>would be contrary to the whole idea of stability. So

0:07:30.200 --> 0:07:32.320
<v Speaker 2>that's I think is the most important thing that the

0:07:32.920 --> 0:07:33.920
<v Speaker 2>union is arguing.

0:07:34.640 --> 0:07:38.560
<v Speaker 1>And tell us about their claim that this order violates

0:07:38.560 --> 0:07:40.320
<v Speaker 1>the Administrative Procedures Act.

0:07:40.880 --> 0:07:47.000
<v Speaker 2>Well, the Administrative Procedures Act is the basis for making regulations,

0:07:47.080 --> 0:07:50.880
<v Speaker 2>and these are regulations that have been put in and

0:07:51.520 --> 0:07:53.920
<v Speaker 2>they have to be done in a certain way. And

0:07:54.120 --> 0:07:57.720
<v Speaker 2>what Trump is trying to do by executive order is

0:07:57.800 --> 0:08:02.360
<v Speaker 2>what is supposed to be done by m implementing regulations

0:08:02.440 --> 0:08:06.960
<v Speaker 2>through a congressional act. So an argument is he's essentially

0:08:07.040 --> 0:08:12.280
<v Speaker 2>usurping or commandeering the power of the legislature. Now he

0:08:12.320 --> 0:08:15.000
<v Speaker 2>says he can do this because of his powers that

0:08:15.160 --> 0:08:18.880
<v Speaker 2>Congress gave him under the Administry of the Procedures Acts,

0:08:19.440 --> 0:08:23.440
<v Speaker 2>and the Union saying no, you have very limited powers

0:08:23.520 --> 0:08:28.080
<v Speaker 2>under the Administrative Procedures Acts, and those are to create

0:08:28.200 --> 0:08:32.280
<v Speaker 2>accepted service in the most limited circumstances, which is pretty

0:08:32.360 --> 0:08:35.040
<v Speaker 2>much what the Act does say. But of course we

0:08:35.160 --> 0:08:39.280
<v Speaker 2>know that words can be interpreted different ways depending on judges,

0:08:39.480 --> 0:08:42.440
<v Speaker 2>and so they're going to litigate that. This is definitely

0:08:42.480 --> 0:08:43.920
<v Speaker 2>going to be litigated. I mean, it's not going to

0:08:43.960 --> 0:08:44.679
<v Speaker 2>be thrown out of court.

0:08:45.440 --> 0:08:49.400
<v Speaker 1>Trumpett enacted this Schedule F executive order at the end

0:08:49.400 --> 0:08:53.280
<v Speaker 1>of his first term, and Biden revoked it, and then

0:08:53.280 --> 0:08:58.640
<v Speaker 1>the Biden administration's Office of Personnel Management published a final

0:08:58.760 --> 0:09:02.959
<v Speaker 1>rule in May of twenty four to protect against this

0:09:03.120 --> 0:09:07.880
<v Speaker 1>kind of executive action. So is that rule an obstacle

0:09:07.880 --> 0:09:12.040
<v Speaker 1>in the way of Trump enforcing this executive order on

0:09:12.200 --> 0:09:12.880
<v Speaker 1>Schedule F.

0:09:13.280 --> 0:09:16.839
<v Speaker 2>So it's actually really basic constitutional law if you think about. So,

0:09:17.040 --> 0:09:21.199
<v Speaker 2>what he's saying is that one I have constitutional power

0:09:21.200 --> 0:09:25.320
<v Speaker 2>to do this, and two I have congressional power to

0:09:25.400 --> 0:09:29.440
<v Speaker 2>do this, and no regulation basically can tell me that

0:09:29.559 --> 0:09:33.800
<v Speaker 2>I can't do this. So what he's saying is that

0:09:33.880 --> 0:09:36.120
<v Speaker 2>he has this authority and they have to be accounted

0:09:36.200 --> 0:09:39.760
<v Speaker 2>directly to him. I think he would probably go so

0:09:39.840 --> 0:09:42.840
<v Speaker 2>far as to say that to the extent that Congress

0:09:42.920 --> 0:09:46.040
<v Speaker 2>took away that power, that it was unconstitutional. I'm going

0:09:46.120 --> 0:09:49.440
<v Speaker 2>to guess that they will make that argument. Okay, So

0:09:49.520 --> 0:09:52.600
<v Speaker 2>you see how that works is that there's a congressional act.

0:09:53.520 --> 0:09:57.280
<v Speaker 2>Then there are the regulations, and that's an administrative act,

0:09:57.480 --> 0:10:00.520
<v Speaker 2>which means this executive branch that was done through Brden

0:10:00.720 --> 0:10:03.320
<v Speaker 2>to implement these what you're allowed to do. That's all

0:10:03.360 --> 0:10:07.080
<v Speaker 2>administrative law. Then there's what the President is doing now,

0:10:07.600 --> 0:10:10.520
<v Speaker 2>which is executive orders. And of course the courts will

0:10:10.559 --> 0:10:15.240
<v Speaker 2>interpret these things. Now, remember Chevron has been overturned, which

0:10:15.240 --> 0:10:18.480
<v Speaker 2>means none of these agencies getting different. So the courts

0:10:18.480 --> 0:10:23.199
<v Speaker 2>are going to decide with very little input from the agencies,

0:10:23.320 --> 0:10:25.280
<v Speaker 2>what this means. I mean, yes, the agencies can say

0:10:25.280 --> 0:10:28.439
<v Speaker 2>what they think these regulations mean, and in the meantime,

0:10:29.000 --> 0:10:33.040
<v Speaker 2>Trump will make its own regulations based on Congress's Act.

0:10:33.360 --> 0:10:38.480
<v Speaker 2>But remember they have to implement what the Act says,

0:10:38.559 --> 0:10:42.480
<v Speaker 2>unless under two circumstances can change. One is Congress has

0:10:42.520 --> 0:10:45.559
<v Speaker 2>to change the Act to give the president more power,

0:10:45.880 --> 0:10:49.079
<v Speaker 2>or two the president's can have to argue that to

0:10:49.120 --> 0:10:54.120
<v Speaker 2>the extent that the Act is read as taking away

0:10:54.240 --> 0:10:57.640
<v Speaker 2>power to do this from the president, it's unconstitutional.

0:10:58.080 --> 0:11:01.720
<v Speaker 1>Stay with me and coming up, continue this conversation with

0:11:01.760 --> 0:11:05.920
<v Speaker 1>Professor Ann Lafasso of the University of Cincinnati Law School.

0:11:06.760 --> 0:11:11.800
<v Speaker 1>The Trump administration has ordered federal employees in DEI offices

0:11:12.120 --> 0:11:15.720
<v Speaker 1>to be placed on paid leave by Wednesday at five

0:11:15.840 --> 0:11:21.480
<v Speaker 1>pm as the agencies wind down diversity initiatives. I'm June

0:11:21.520 --> 0:11:27.599
<v Speaker 1>Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. The National Treasury Employees

0:11:27.760 --> 0:11:32.160
<v Speaker 1>Union launched a legal attack against President Donald Trump's Schedule

0:11:32.480 --> 0:11:36.080
<v Speaker 1>F executive order. It's a directive that makes it easier

0:11:36.080 --> 0:11:41.559
<v Speaker 1>for his administration to fire career employees who work across administrations.

0:11:42.040 --> 0:11:45.560
<v Speaker 1>It's the latest lawsuit seeking to block Trump's efforts to

0:11:45.679 --> 0:11:49.680
<v Speaker 1>cull the federal workforce. On Monday, unions and other groups

0:11:49.760 --> 0:11:53.520
<v Speaker 1>file complaints in federal court seeking to end the Department

0:11:53.559 --> 0:11:56.640
<v Speaker 1>of Government efficiency. I've been talking to an expert in

0:11:56.760 --> 0:12:00.920
<v Speaker 1>labor law, Professor Ann Lafasso of the Universe Have Cincinnati

0:12:01.000 --> 0:12:04.839
<v Speaker 1>Law School. It takes a while to change a regulation.

0:12:05.480 --> 0:12:08.760
<v Speaker 1>Does the Trump administration have to change your regulation before

0:12:08.800 --> 0:12:11.480
<v Speaker 1>they can start, let's say, firing people.

0:12:12.280 --> 0:12:14.760
<v Speaker 2>Not according to them. First of all, they can always

0:12:14.760 --> 0:12:18.199
<v Speaker 2>fire a b ses to senior executive service, but they

0:12:18.240 --> 0:12:21.720
<v Speaker 2>want to fire more people. So what they're saying is

0:12:22.160 --> 0:12:27.160
<v Speaker 2>that the mere executive order does the trick and that

0:12:27.200 --> 0:12:31.160
<v Speaker 2>they can just do this now. Or what they're saying

0:12:31.200 --> 0:12:34.760
<v Speaker 2>is they're reclassifying people, which under the Act they're allowed

0:12:34.800 --> 0:12:37.520
<v Speaker 2>to do. Okay, so that's what they're really doing. So

0:12:37.679 --> 0:12:41.320
<v Speaker 2>they're just saying, we are reclassifying people right now. Then

0:12:41.720 --> 0:12:45.000
<v Speaker 2>what the Union is saying is the whole purpose of

0:12:45.040 --> 0:12:48.600
<v Speaker 2>the reclassification is so they can fire them more easily. Now.

0:12:48.679 --> 0:12:51.520
<v Speaker 2>They're not just taking that out of thin air. These

0:12:51.520 --> 0:12:54.560
<v Speaker 2>are statements by Trump that you know, if you look

0:12:54.600 --> 0:12:57.360
<v Speaker 2>at the twenty twenty executive Order that's been reinstated, it

0:12:57.440 --> 0:12:59.240
<v Speaker 2>says all of this. I we read it last night.

0:12:59.280 --> 0:13:01.520
<v Speaker 2>It says all of it. So what they're saying is,

0:13:01.800 --> 0:13:04.080
<v Speaker 2>you know, listen to his words, this is what he

0:13:04.120 --> 0:13:05.960
<v Speaker 2>wants to do, and he said he wants to do

0:13:06.000 --> 0:13:08.120
<v Speaker 2>this also, so I don't think there's any doubt that

0:13:08.120 --> 0:13:12.640
<v Speaker 2>that's the fact. So then the question is is he

0:13:12.720 --> 0:13:17.160
<v Speaker 2>allowed to do this under these regulations and under this law,

0:13:17.840 --> 0:13:21.280
<v Speaker 2>And even if he's not, are the laws unconstitutional which

0:13:21.320 --> 0:13:23.120
<v Speaker 2>and he's allowed to do it anyway, or are the

0:13:23.200 --> 0:13:27.360
<v Speaker 2>laws somehow wrong, incorrect or not being interpreted correctly. It

0:13:27.600 --> 0:13:30.280
<v Speaker 2>is very complicated, and.

0:13:30.559 --> 0:13:32.720
<v Speaker 1>What's your opinion of this executive order?

0:13:33.280 --> 0:13:35.600
<v Speaker 2>If I were a judge, I would say, he can't

0:13:35.640 --> 0:13:37.520
<v Speaker 2>do this. I don't know what the courts are going

0:13:37.600 --> 0:13:40.160
<v Speaker 2>to do, but my guess is that he's going to

0:13:40.160 --> 0:13:44.040
<v Speaker 2>be cut back severely, and generally, the courts have not

0:13:44.160 --> 0:13:47.320
<v Speaker 2>surprised me. I wasn't surprised by Roe being overturned. I

0:13:47.360 --> 0:13:49.600
<v Speaker 2>wasn't surprised by a lot of things. So I'm not

0:13:49.640 --> 0:13:52.480
<v Speaker 2>a person who just always picks the progressive side, because

0:13:52.480 --> 0:13:54.640
<v Speaker 2>that's what I wish would happen. If you try to

0:13:54.720 --> 0:13:58.120
<v Speaker 2>really think through and it seems like this is a

0:13:58.120 --> 0:14:02.520
<v Speaker 2>step too far, but you know, you don't know. You know,

0:14:02.559 --> 0:14:04.320
<v Speaker 2>you could get as a trial judge, you'd get someone

0:14:04.320 --> 0:14:07.440
<v Speaker 2>like an alien cannon who does get overturned quite a bit.

0:14:07.880 --> 0:14:11.640
<v Speaker 2>You might see the President win initially, and then it

0:14:11.679 --> 0:14:14.520
<v Speaker 2>goes up to court appeals, and then it might go

0:14:14.600 --> 0:14:17.520
<v Speaker 2>to an no bounk even which is the full court

0:14:17.520 --> 0:14:20.600
<v Speaker 2>of appeals, and then it could go to the Supreme Court.

0:14:21.000 --> 0:14:22.440
<v Speaker 2>So this could take years.

0:14:22.920 --> 0:14:25.600
<v Speaker 1>If this litigation is going to go on for years,

0:14:26.040 --> 0:14:29.240
<v Speaker 1>the key then would be whether the district court would

0:14:29.280 --> 0:14:33.040
<v Speaker 1>grant some kind of injunction to stay the enforcement of

0:14:33.080 --> 0:14:35.320
<v Speaker 1>this while the litigation proceeds.

0:14:36.240 --> 0:14:39.520
<v Speaker 2>They may very well put in a planmary junction because

0:14:39.880 --> 0:14:42.680
<v Speaker 2>they make a really good case for harm. Now I

0:14:42.720 --> 0:14:47.000
<v Speaker 2>don't see a tro though a temporary restraining order, but

0:14:47.040 --> 0:14:49.480
<v Speaker 2>then again it hasn't been implemented yet. Maybe if they

0:14:49.480 --> 0:14:52.400
<v Speaker 2>try to implement it, they would. They're asking for a

0:14:52.440 --> 0:14:55.360
<v Speaker 2>full restraining order right now, so this is just the lawsuit.

0:14:55.800 --> 0:14:58.760
<v Speaker 2>So then if they do go into court for a

0:14:58.960 --> 0:15:02.360
<v Speaker 2>preliminary or temper restraining order, which is before a full

0:15:02.400 --> 0:15:04.200
<v Speaker 2>hearing could be made, then they have to do the

0:15:04.200 --> 0:15:06.960
<v Speaker 2>four factor tests and the balance of equities, and with

0:15:07.040 --> 0:15:10.960
<v Speaker 2>this would there be harm which basically which side would

0:15:10.960 --> 0:15:14.320
<v Speaker 2>have greater harm. My guess is that it would be

0:15:14.360 --> 0:15:18.360
<v Speaker 2>greater harm to fire all these people. Then the president

0:15:18.360 --> 0:15:20.880
<v Speaker 2>will make some sort of national security argument that he

0:15:21.040 --> 0:15:23.320
<v Speaker 2>has to have these people fired because it's turning the

0:15:23.480 --> 0:15:26.680
<v Speaker 2>entire government. The other side goes, they, no, the government

0:15:26.720 --> 0:15:29.640
<v Speaker 2>hasn't collapsed, and all these people are gonna be fired,

0:15:29.680 --> 0:15:32.960
<v Speaker 2>and it's gonna not only hurt these fifty thousand people,

0:15:33.040 --> 0:15:35.880
<v Speaker 2>but it's also going to hurt it's gonna have tertiary

0:15:35.920 --> 0:15:39.200
<v Speaker 2>effects on the economy. Again, if you're gonna ask me

0:15:39.240 --> 0:15:42.280
<v Speaker 2>what I thought, I would issue the temporary restraining order.

0:15:42.640 --> 0:15:45.360
<v Speaker 2>But again it's going to depend on the judge, and

0:15:45.400 --> 0:15:48.320
<v Speaker 2>then it will go to the DC Circuit, and then

0:15:48.520 --> 0:15:51.960
<v Speaker 2>that could go much quicker, the temporary part, and then

0:15:52.000 --> 0:15:53.800
<v Speaker 2>maybe that even goes to the Supreme Court, or maybe

0:15:53.800 --> 0:15:56.600
<v Speaker 2>the Screme Court denies Tergerri on that and just lets

0:15:56.640 --> 0:15:58.000
<v Speaker 2>whatever the DC Circuit does.

0:15:58.200 --> 0:16:01.720
<v Speaker 1>And let's turn for a moment to the Department of

0:16:01.840 --> 0:16:07.120
<v Speaker 1>Government Efficiency, which Trump established and is led by billionaire

0:16:07.120 --> 0:16:12.400
<v Speaker 1>Elon Musk to cut federal government spending. Unions have filed

0:16:12.400 --> 0:16:17.040
<v Speaker 1>in federal court against that department. Are the same issues

0:16:17.080 --> 0:16:18.880
<v Speaker 1>involved or different issues.

0:16:19.320 --> 0:16:24.000
<v Speaker 2>Well, I think they're overlapping issues there because that department

0:16:24.360 --> 0:16:26.440
<v Speaker 2>is trying to get rid of what they see is

0:16:26.440 --> 0:16:30.240
<v Speaker 2>a lot of government waste. And part of that, you know,

0:16:30.280 --> 0:16:32.400
<v Speaker 2>what's the easiest thing to get rid of if you

0:16:32.400 --> 0:16:35.880
<v Speaker 2>were a private company and this is being headed by well,

0:16:36.200 --> 0:16:40.440
<v Speaker 2>I think Romaswani's out of it, but it's still with

0:16:41.040 --> 0:16:44.200
<v Speaker 2>people with private enterprise experience, you know, like Elon Musk.

0:16:44.520 --> 0:16:47.480
<v Speaker 2>Then the fastest thing to do always is to cut labor,

0:16:47.840 --> 0:16:52.440
<v Speaker 2>because you can't just cut capital meaning leases and buildings

0:16:52.480 --> 0:16:54.520
<v Speaker 2>and things like that right away. You know, you can't

0:16:54.560 --> 0:16:57.160
<v Speaker 2>just get rid of a government contract right away, but

0:16:57.240 --> 0:17:01.200
<v Speaker 2>you can get rid of employees. We can't because they're

0:17:01.240 --> 0:17:04.680
<v Speaker 2>competitive service. So you see, that's what's going on here,

0:17:05.200 --> 0:17:09.119
<v Speaker 2>and so that I think they are very very closely related.

0:17:09.720 --> 0:17:14.720
<v Speaker 2>But remember the old adage that democracy stuck except for

0:17:14.760 --> 0:17:17.080
<v Speaker 2>all the rest, the worse form of government, except for

0:17:17.119 --> 0:17:20.320
<v Speaker 2>all the rest. You know, we trade a little bit

0:17:20.320 --> 0:17:25.119
<v Speaker 2>of efficiency for freedom. Democracy means we're free. It means

0:17:25.119 --> 0:17:28.440
<v Speaker 2>that we get a say. Getting a say is definitely

0:17:28.640 --> 0:17:33.159
<v Speaker 2>less efficient than one person dictating what is going to happen.

0:17:33.400 --> 0:17:38.440
<v Speaker 2>So there is built into a democracy from inefficiency it's

0:17:38.520 --> 0:17:44.120
<v Speaker 2>not profit runs. And I think that the Trump administration

0:17:44.240 --> 0:17:47.720
<v Speaker 2>has done a great job of marketing of government employees.

0:17:47.760 --> 0:17:51.919
<v Speaker 2>There's slackers. They are not doing their jobs, and that's

0:17:51.960 --> 0:17:54.840
<v Speaker 2>like a stereotype. I worked for ten years and I'm

0:17:54.840 --> 0:17:57.199
<v Speaker 2>going to tell you I worked. I also worked till

0:17:57.240 --> 0:18:00.560
<v Speaker 2>nine o'clock at night. I worked from home, you know,

0:18:00.680 --> 0:18:02.959
<v Speaker 2>addition to what I was working in the office. And

0:18:03.080 --> 0:18:05.359
<v Speaker 2>I didn't see a lot of slackers. I know that

0:18:05.440 --> 0:18:07.720
<v Speaker 2>say I'm a godal, but that's my experience at the

0:18:07.920 --> 0:18:11.520
<v Speaker 2>National Air Relations Board. So it's not that it's just

0:18:11.520 --> 0:18:15.040
<v Speaker 2>the things take time, just like lawsuits take time, and

0:18:15.400 --> 0:18:19.320
<v Speaker 2>it's because we have a democracy and that's about freedom.

0:18:20.200 --> 0:18:23.560
<v Speaker 2>So the other side, I think, if they were going

0:18:23.600 --> 0:18:27.760
<v Speaker 2>to market this properly, should be talking about that this

0:18:28.119 --> 0:18:32.679
<v Speaker 2>is really a war on democracy. And then and Trump's

0:18:32.680 --> 0:18:35.840
<v Speaker 2>going to say, no, this is to make our democracy stronger.

0:18:36.040 --> 0:18:38.520
<v Speaker 2>That's the rhetoric that I think is going to be employed.

0:18:39.160 --> 0:18:41.639
<v Speaker 2>And the counter to what Trump is saying is that

0:18:41.680 --> 0:18:44.840
<v Speaker 2>it's actually a war in democracy. Democracy has built into

0:18:44.920 --> 0:18:48.280
<v Speaker 2>it a certain amount of inefficiency because you get to

0:18:48.359 --> 0:18:50.919
<v Speaker 2>hear different points of view. By the way, also, I

0:18:50.920 --> 0:18:53.080
<v Speaker 2>want to make this point when I was in the government,

0:18:53.200 --> 0:18:56.240
<v Speaker 2>and this is the true for every attorney in the government.

0:18:56.760 --> 0:19:01.000
<v Speaker 2>It is our job when political tells us we want X,

0:19:01.280 --> 0:19:05.080
<v Speaker 2>and we want it done using why means, let's say

0:19:05.080 --> 0:19:08.640
<v Speaker 2>why means is unlawful. It was my job to tell them, one,

0:19:09.359 --> 0:19:13.399
<v Speaker 2>you can't do it that way because why is unconstitutional

0:19:13.520 --> 0:19:17.560
<v Speaker 2>or it's unlawful or whatever it is. However, I'm looking

0:19:17.600 --> 0:19:20.840
<v Speaker 2>for solutions to still try to get you to X. So,

0:19:20.920 --> 0:19:25.520
<v Speaker 2>for example, one thing he could do is the long solution,

0:19:26.240 --> 0:19:29.399
<v Speaker 2>go to Congress, put a new bill in, change the

0:19:29.480 --> 0:19:33.040
<v Speaker 2>laws right. That takes time. I think some of the

0:19:33.080 --> 0:19:36.200
<v Speaker 2>things he's done are actually unconstitutional. I might be wrong,

0:19:36.280 --> 0:19:40.440
<v Speaker 2>but it's certainly an argument. And what I would be

0:19:40.520 --> 0:19:43.879
<v Speaker 2>telling someone is it would be my job as a

0:19:43.960 --> 0:19:47.879
<v Speaker 2>lawyer to say, hey, you can't necessarily do it this way.

0:19:48.280 --> 0:19:51.320
<v Speaker 2>It's going to take longer. In fact, I did that

0:19:51.400 --> 0:19:54.560
<v Speaker 2>at the NRB. I never thought my job was in

0:19:54.680 --> 0:19:58.359
<v Speaker 2>danger because I did my job and the politicals didn't

0:19:58.440 --> 0:20:00.200
<v Speaker 2>like it. I never had a problem with you. It's

0:20:00.200 --> 0:20:03.919
<v Speaker 2>not one Republican, not one Democrat, telling them what I

0:20:04.080 --> 0:20:06.840
<v Speaker 2>thought the law was and showing them my reasons, and

0:20:06.880 --> 0:20:09.760
<v Speaker 2>they could reject it. They were lawyers also if they

0:20:09.760 --> 0:20:12.120
<v Speaker 2>didn't like what I said, but it was my job

0:20:12.160 --> 0:20:14.480
<v Speaker 2>to be as honest as possible about what the law

0:20:14.640 --> 0:20:18.520
<v Speaker 2>was so that they don't get in trouble. So I

0:20:18.560 --> 0:20:21.000
<v Speaker 2>think that's another thing that people have to understand. It's

0:20:21.080 --> 0:20:26.960
<v Speaker 2>not disloyal to tell the president or his agents that

0:20:27.000 --> 0:20:32.400
<v Speaker 2>what they're doing is unconstitutional. It's actually loyal to protect them.

0:20:32.960 --> 0:20:36.480
<v Speaker 2>So I think that's a really important point for people

0:20:36.520 --> 0:20:37.120
<v Speaker 2>to understand.

0:20:38.200 --> 0:20:43.560
<v Speaker 1>Trump has directed that all federal employees of diversity, equity

0:20:43.680 --> 0:20:49.080
<v Speaker 1>and inclusion offices be placed on administrative leave with pay

0:20:49.760 --> 0:20:53.200
<v Speaker 1>by five pm Wednesday. This follow is an executive order

0:20:53.200 --> 0:20:57.840
<v Speaker 1>he's signed on Monday, ordering a sweeping dismantling of the

0:20:57.880 --> 0:21:01.199
<v Speaker 1>federal government's diversity and inclusion programs.

0:21:02.160 --> 0:21:06.480
<v Speaker 2>So what he's doing is he's limiting the damages because

0:21:06.760 --> 0:21:10.159
<v Speaker 2>if you put them on paid leave, then they're not

0:21:10.240 --> 0:21:13.560
<v Speaker 2>being injured. Well, they're being injured psychologically, but they're not

0:21:13.600 --> 0:21:19.320
<v Speaker 2>being injured monetarily, So it's terribly inefficient. Well, I guess

0:21:19.320 --> 0:21:21.359
<v Speaker 2>he doesn't see it as inefficient because he doesn't believe

0:21:21.400 --> 0:21:24.359
<v Speaker 2>in DEI, so there's no job to perform. So what

0:21:24.400 --> 0:21:27.920
<v Speaker 2>he's essentially saying is these jobs no longer really exist.

0:21:28.680 --> 0:21:30.520
<v Speaker 2>But to be on the safe side, we're going to

0:21:30.520 --> 0:21:34.000
<v Speaker 2>give them paid leaves, and that would only be a

0:21:34.080 --> 0:21:37.240
<v Speaker 2>monetary loss if they're forced to take their own annual leave.

0:21:37.960 --> 0:21:40.760
<v Speaker 2>So he's just giving extra leave to them, because each

0:21:40.760 --> 0:21:43.320
<v Speaker 2>of them is entitled to a payout of their annual

0:21:43.400 --> 0:21:46.600
<v Speaker 2>leave when they leave if they separate from service, not

0:21:46.640 --> 0:21:50.520
<v Speaker 2>their sick leaves, but they are entitled to their annual leave,

0:21:50.960 --> 0:21:53.600
<v Speaker 2>and you can you can accumulate that. At least when

0:21:53.600 --> 0:21:55.760
<v Speaker 2>I was there, you were able to accumulate that. And definitely,

0:21:55.760 --> 0:21:57.720
<v Speaker 2>so if you have a year's worth of annual leave,

0:21:58.240 --> 0:22:00.000
<v Speaker 2>then they would owe them a year's worth of staff.

0:22:01.160 --> 0:22:03.520
<v Speaker 2>So if you have two weeks, you get two weeks

0:22:03.520 --> 0:22:07.439
<v Speaker 2>of salaries. So if he's just giving them leave right now, additionally,

0:22:07.680 --> 0:22:08.760
<v Speaker 2>there's no harm to them.

0:22:08.960 --> 0:22:11.040
<v Speaker 1>But what about the firing. Is he allowed to fire?

0:22:11.240 --> 0:22:14.680
<v Speaker 1>If he's doing away with DEI completely.

0:22:14.520 --> 0:22:17.160
<v Speaker 2>That would have to be litigated. Let's just say let's

0:22:17.160 --> 0:22:20.000
<v Speaker 2>do it a little less controversially. Okay, let's say there

0:22:20.040 --> 0:22:22.440
<v Speaker 2>really is something that's redundant, like we don't need this

0:22:22.600 --> 0:22:27.479
<v Speaker 2>anymore because we don't need people who run copy machine.

0:22:27.560 --> 0:22:30.920
<v Speaker 2>You remember back in the seventies. How you like xerox things. Okay,

0:22:31.119 --> 0:22:33.320
<v Speaker 2>we don't do that anymore, and we can't find new

0:22:33.320 --> 0:22:37.040
<v Speaker 2>positions for them. You can make a position redundant, so

0:22:37.119 --> 0:22:40.159
<v Speaker 2>that's easy. The question would be that would be litigated.

0:22:40.359 --> 0:22:43.879
<v Speaker 2>Is allowed to just say we don't need any of

0:22:43.920 --> 0:22:46.120
<v Speaker 2>these people. Oh and by the way, we can't find

0:22:46.200 --> 0:22:49.320
<v Speaker 2>jobs for them anywhere, So that's going to have to

0:22:49.320 --> 0:22:53.119
<v Speaker 2>be litigated, and his position will be that these jobs

0:22:53.160 --> 0:22:57.200
<v Speaker 2>no longer exist, and then that's a finding of fact

0:22:57.359 --> 0:23:01.119
<v Speaker 2>and law that some judge is going to have to decide.

0:23:01.480 --> 0:23:05.040
<v Speaker 1>I see so much litigation ahead for so many of

0:23:05.080 --> 0:23:08.199
<v Speaker 1>these executive orders. We'll have to see how the courts

0:23:08.240 --> 0:23:11.680
<v Speaker 1>respond to them. Thanks so much, Anne. That's professor Ann

0:23:11.760 --> 0:23:15.560
<v Speaker 1>Lafasso of the University of Cincinnati Law School. Coming up

0:23:15.600 --> 0:23:19.200
<v Speaker 1>next on the Bloomberg Law Show. The Supreme Court justices

0:23:19.320 --> 0:23:23.480
<v Speaker 1>seem skeptical of the government's arguments that it should curb

0:23:23.560 --> 0:23:27.680
<v Speaker 1>where e cigarette manufacturers can sue in order to cut

0:23:27.720 --> 0:23:31.520
<v Speaker 1>back on form shopping. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening

0:23:31.560 --> 0:23:36.359
<v Speaker 1>to Bloomberg. A case at the Supreme Court about the

0:23:36.440 --> 0:23:40.920
<v Speaker 1>proper place to sue the federal government highlights how far right.

0:23:41.040 --> 0:23:45.440
<v Speaker 1>The nation's most conservative appeals court has shifted with opinions

0:23:45.440 --> 0:23:48.800
<v Speaker 1>that the Supreme Court has increasingly had to push back on.

0:23:49.600 --> 0:23:52.480
<v Speaker 1>It's one of thirteen cases this term out of the

0:23:52.600 --> 0:23:55.920
<v Speaker 1>US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That's more

0:23:55.960 --> 0:24:00.159
<v Speaker 1>than twenty percent of the Supreme Court's current workload. The

0:24:00.160 --> 0:24:03.080
<v Speaker 1>statute at the heart of the oral arguments on Tuesday

0:24:03.440 --> 0:24:07.000
<v Speaker 1>limits where tobacco companies can challenge the Food and Drug

0:24:07.040 --> 0:24:11.719
<v Speaker 1>Administration's denial of an application to sell their products. The

0:24:11.760 --> 0:24:15.720
<v Speaker 1>Fifth Circuit is the only circuit to sign with manufacturers,

0:24:16.040 --> 0:24:19.600
<v Speaker 1>and the government said that has led almost all challenges

0:24:19.680 --> 0:24:23.960
<v Speaker 1>to FDA denials to be brought in that circuit. Joining

0:24:23.960 --> 0:24:27.120
<v Speaker 1>me is healthcare attorney Harry Nelson, a partner at Leech

0:24:27.200 --> 0:24:31.320
<v Speaker 1>Tishman Nelson Hardiman. Harry tell us about the issue before

0:24:31.359 --> 0:24:32.640
<v Speaker 1>the Justices.

0:24:32.600 --> 0:24:37.520
<v Speaker 3>And the ability of private parties to essentially shop for

0:24:37.960 --> 0:24:41.200
<v Speaker 3>where they want to challenge the FDA. Right, the FDA

0:24:41.320 --> 0:24:44.439
<v Speaker 3>has the authority under this law It's fifteen years old,

0:24:44.520 --> 0:24:48.040
<v Speaker 3>called the Family Poking Prevention and Tobacco Act to regulate

0:24:48.119 --> 0:24:53.159
<v Speaker 3>tobacco products. And so when R. J. Reynolds had a

0:24:53.480 --> 0:24:58.760
<v Speaker 3>FDA denial on an attempt to market mental labored e

0:24:58.880 --> 0:25:02.800
<v Speaker 3>cigarette even though based in North Carolina, and they could

0:25:02.840 --> 0:25:05.719
<v Speaker 3>have filed in federal court there in the fourth federal circuits,

0:25:05.800 --> 0:25:08.760
<v Speaker 3>they looked around and they realized that they would get

0:25:08.760 --> 0:25:13.120
<v Speaker 3>a much more favorable audience in the fifth Circuit down

0:25:13.160 --> 0:25:17.080
<v Speaker 3>in Texas and Mississippi, and so they went over to

0:25:17.160 --> 0:25:20.359
<v Speaker 3>shop as people adversely affected by the law to get

0:25:20.680 --> 0:25:24.320
<v Speaker 3>a decision. And so the FDA essentially is challenging that,

0:25:24.359 --> 0:25:27.080
<v Speaker 3>and now the federal government is pushing back, and the

0:25:27.160 --> 0:25:29.800
<v Speaker 3>question is where does this case need to be heard.

0:25:30.560 --> 0:25:34.240
<v Speaker 3>So it's an interesting case because it goes to the

0:25:34.320 --> 0:25:38.560
<v Speaker 3>ability of people challenging the federal government generally the FBA

0:25:38.600 --> 0:25:43.600
<v Speaker 3>in particular, to shop for places where they may have

0:25:43.640 --> 0:25:46.879
<v Speaker 3>a strategic advantage based on the judges that we'll hear it,

0:25:46.960 --> 0:25:51.080
<v Speaker 3>based on private previous decisions, and so you know, it's

0:25:51.119 --> 0:25:54.240
<v Speaker 3>an interesting case that sort of pits on the one side,

0:25:54.359 --> 0:25:58.080
<v Speaker 3>sort of the free market and the opportunity for in

0:25:58.080 --> 0:26:03.000
<v Speaker 3>this case, tobacco product manufacturer and retailers to choose a

0:26:03.040 --> 0:26:05.639
<v Speaker 3>place where they think they're going to have the best

0:26:05.880 --> 0:26:09.119
<v Speaker 3>chance of preventing their case, and on the other side,

0:26:09.280 --> 0:26:13.000
<v Speaker 3>a federal agency the FDA that's afraid of its regulations

0:26:13.040 --> 0:26:17.160
<v Speaker 3>being more vulnerable because of that of that choice. Even

0:26:17.160 --> 0:26:19.200
<v Speaker 3>though its specifically a tobacco case, it has a lot

0:26:19.200 --> 0:26:22.600
<v Speaker 3>of implications for other industries, for drugs, for food, about

0:26:22.640 --> 0:26:24.240
<v Speaker 3>you know, the power of federal agencies.

0:26:24.600 --> 0:26:28.040
<v Speaker 4>Just to clarify, the Fifth Circuit, which is the most

0:26:28.080 --> 0:26:32.600
<v Speaker 4>conservative circuit in the country, is the only circuit that

0:26:32.880 --> 0:26:35.840
<v Speaker 4>sided with manufacturers on this issue.

0:26:36.200 --> 0:26:39.320
<v Speaker 3>Exactly. Yeah, the Fifth Circuit has reliably over the last

0:26:39.359 --> 0:26:42.679
<v Speaker 3>few years become the most conservative circuit and it's the

0:26:42.680 --> 0:26:46.679
<v Speaker 3>only one that really where the FDA didn't prevail on

0:26:46.800 --> 0:26:50.439
<v Speaker 3>its authority to limit these tobacco products from the market.

0:26:50.880 --> 0:26:55.480
<v Speaker 4>The law says that any person adversely affected by a

0:26:55.520 --> 0:26:59.360
<v Speaker 4>denial can challenge in their home circuit or the DC Circuit.

0:27:00.000 --> 0:27:01.960
<v Speaker 4>They certainly don't want to go to the DC Circuit,

0:27:02.359 --> 0:27:06.520
<v Speaker 4>which has expertise and administrative law. So the question then

0:27:06.720 --> 0:27:09.920
<v Speaker 4>was whether these retailers were adversely affected.

0:27:10.320 --> 0:27:13.480
<v Speaker 3>That's a big question. The FDA is making other arguments,

0:27:13.480 --> 0:27:16.040
<v Speaker 3>you know, is challenging whether retailers can go to court

0:27:16.200 --> 0:27:17.639
<v Speaker 3>whole The question is do they have the right to

0:27:17.680 --> 0:27:20.639
<v Speaker 3>go to court to challenge a public health decision by

0:27:20.640 --> 0:27:22.360
<v Speaker 3>the sea in the first place. And then the other

0:27:22.400 --> 0:27:24.880
<v Speaker 3>question is where if they are allowed to go, where

0:27:24.880 --> 0:27:27.200
<v Speaker 3>do they get to go in the time when we're

0:27:27.200 --> 0:27:31.000
<v Speaker 3>watching the power of federal agencies sort of the weekends.

0:27:31.200 --> 0:27:35.800
<v Speaker 3>This is another case that would strengthen certainly anyone challenging regulations.

0:27:36.119 --> 0:27:40.119
<v Speaker 1>Several justices suggested that the plain language of the statute

0:27:40.240 --> 0:27:45.919
<v Speaker 1>includes retailers because they're adversely affected by the denial, just

0:27:45.960 --> 0:27:50.280
<v Speaker 1>as Sprett Kavanaugh said, retailers are losing money by not

0:27:50.400 --> 0:27:53.159
<v Speaker 1>being allowed to sell these products, and that sounds like

0:27:53.320 --> 0:27:57.199
<v Speaker 1>adversely affected. So did it seem like a majority of

0:27:57.240 --> 0:28:03.280
<v Speaker 1>the justices were leaning toward RJR and threetailers here?

0:28:03.680 --> 0:28:06.359
<v Speaker 3>I think there is going to be some sympathy within

0:28:06.520 --> 0:28:11.960
<v Speaker 3>the particularly within the conservative justices, for giving more freedom

0:28:12.200 --> 0:28:16.480
<v Speaker 3>to parties to choose where to file their cases. You know,

0:28:16.640 --> 0:28:19.119
<v Speaker 3>On the one hand, r JR Is based in North Carolina.

0:28:19.200 --> 0:28:21.240
<v Speaker 3>On the other hand, they sell their products nationally, so

0:28:21.960 --> 0:28:24.600
<v Speaker 3>you know, so there certainly is an argument if you're

0:28:24.640 --> 0:28:28.840
<v Speaker 3>interested in the freedom of companies, of private actors who

0:28:28.960 --> 0:28:31.040
<v Speaker 3>are selling products all over the country. It's not like

0:28:31.240 --> 0:28:33.400
<v Speaker 3>r J. Reynolds has no tie. It's just that they

0:28:33.400 --> 0:28:36.119
<v Speaker 3>have the strongest tie in the place where they're based.

0:28:36.480 --> 0:28:39.480
<v Speaker 3>So I think that the conservative justices are going to

0:28:39.480 --> 0:28:44.080
<v Speaker 3>be receptive to the idea that plaintiffs as long as

0:28:44.120 --> 0:28:46.640
<v Speaker 3>they have some basis for why they're choosing the place

0:28:46.640 --> 0:28:50.760
<v Speaker 3>they're choosing, they should have more choices in filing their cases.

0:28:51.080 --> 0:28:53.160
<v Speaker 3>And I think they'll be less sympathetic to the FDA,

0:28:53.440 --> 0:28:55.760
<v Speaker 3>which is warning that you know, essentially this is like

0:28:56.400 --> 0:28:59.560
<v Speaker 3>forum shopping, where basically you get to choose the most

0:28:59.600 --> 0:29:03.160
<v Speaker 3>favorable I mean, ironically, a lot of this actually highlights

0:29:03.200 --> 0:29:05.520
<v Speaker 3>the way that our courts have become so politicized, and

0:29:05.560 --> 0:29:08.040
<v Speaker 3>that there is that's a difference, you know, in this

0:29:08.080 --> 0:29:11.400
<v Speaker 3>one area where the Fifth Circuit has been a reliable

0:29:11.840 --> 0:29:15.080
<v Speaker 3>sort of gadfly for conservative causes, I mean, an interesting flight.

0:29:15.120 --> 0:29:17.880
<v Speaker 3>But I would not bet against the private party here.

0:29:18.120 --> 0:29:19.920
<v Speaker 3>I would not be betting on the FAA in the case.

0:29:20.560 --> 0:29:24.200
<v Speaker 1>The Assistant Solicitor General said about seventy five percent of

0:29:24.240 --> 0:29:28.040
<v Speaker 1>e cigarette cases were filed in the Fifth Circuit, all

0:29:28.080 --> 0:29:30.880
<v Speaker 1>of them by out of circuit applicants trying to use

0:29:30.920 --> 0:29:31.520
<v Speaker 1>the tactic.

0:29:31.760 --> 0:29:34.640
<v Speaker 4>So, since the Fifth Circuit is often.

0:29:34.800 --> 0:29:38.000
<v Speaker 1>The outlier among the circuits.

0:29:37.560 --> 0:29:40.600
<v Speaker 4>Does that mean that the Supreme Court's going to have

0:29:40.640 --> 0:29:43.080
<v Speaker 4>to intervene in all these cases.

0:29:43.840 --> 0:29:46.000
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I mean, I think it's putting the pressure on

0:29:46.000 --> 0:29:48.480
<v Speaker 3>the Supreme Court not only to decide what the power

0:29:48.520 --> 0:29:51.080
<v Speaker 3>of the FEA is, but to decide on these important

0:29:51.680 --> 0:29:56.440
<v Speaker 3>jurisdictional questions that really drives strategy of where litigation gets filed,

0:29:56.480 --> 0:29:59.320
<v Speaker 3>how it gets processed. So I do think this case

0:29:59.400 --> 0:30:00.959
<v Speaker 3>is one of self world that's putting more and more

0:30:01.000 --> 0:30:04.040
<v Speaker 3>pressure on the Supreme Court to you know, be the

0:30:04.120 --> 0:30:07.680
<v Speaker 3>referee about our entire legal framework when it comes to

0:30:07.680 --> 0:30:08.520
<v Speaker 3>sederal agencies.

0:30:09.120 --> 0:30:12.480
<v Speaker 1>And there is another case before the Supreme Court on

0:30:12.520 --> 0:30:18.480
<v Speaker 1>the vaping issue and whether federal regulators misled companies before

0:30:18.680 --> 0:30:24.720
<v Speaker 1>refusing to allow them to sell those sweet flavored vaping products.

0:30:25.160 --> 0:30:27.840
<v Speaker 3>The other case before the Supreme Court it relates to

0:30:27.880 --> 0:30:31.800
<v Speaker 3>flavority cigarettes. This is the FDA versus Wages in White

0:30:31.800 --> 0:30:35.920
<v Speaker 3>Lions case, and that case is really focused on the

0:30:35.960 --> 0:30:39.360
<v Speaker 3>fact that the FEA denied an application to market flavored

0:30:39.520 --> 0:30:43.160
<v Speaker 3>e liquid with names like Rainbow Road and Cremberula, and

0:30:43.200 --> 0:30:46.280
<v Speaker 3>the FDA basically argued that these products were just too

0:30:46.360 --> 0:30:50.200
<v Speaker 3>risky because they're going to you know, recruit more young

0:30:50.280 --> 0:30:53.680
<v Speaker 3>people to smoke so that case was actually already heard

0:30:53.800 --> 0:30:57.120
<v Speaker 3>in December, and there seems here also to be like

0:30:57.160 --> 0:31:01.760
<v Speaker 3>a divide between the justices about the FDA's power and

0:31:01.800 --> 0:31:05.360
<v Speaker 3>whether the FDA had given sufficient guidance to manufacturers to

0:31:05.800 --> 0:31:11.440
<v Speaker 3>allow them to respect public health norms while still creating

0:31:11.520 --> 0:31:15.200
<v Speaker 3>legitimate products that met public safety standards. So it's another

0:31:15.280 --> 0:31:18.280
<v Speaker 3>case that sort of hinges on the FDA authority in

0:31:18.400 --> 0:31:21.880
<v Speaker 3>enforcing public health protection, particularly with the products that appeal

0:31:21.920 --> 0:31:25.360
<v Speaker 3>to kids. Yeah, it's interesting to see as we're starting

0:31:25.360 --> 0:31:28.080
<v Speaker 3>a new presidential administration, you know, with a lot of

0:31:28.160 --> 0:31:31.880
<v Speaker 3>questions about power federal agencies, whether we're in an environment

0:31:31.920 --> 0:31:34.200
<v Speaker 3>where where some of the public safety and public health

0:31:34.240 --> 0:31:35.640
<v Speaker 3>protection is going to get rolled back.

0:31:36.040 --> 0:31:38.360
<v Speaker 4>And that was also out of the Fifth Circuit.

0:31:38.680 --> 0:31:40.520
<v Speaker 3>Yes, the Fifth Circuit also, by the way, was the

0:31:40.560 --> 0:31:44.400
<v Speaker 3>circuit where we had the challenge to the abortion medication

0:31:44.480 --> 0:31:49.360
<v Speaker 3>at the FDA. So the FDA has been a significant

0:31:49.600 --> 0:31:52.400
<v Speaker 3>sort of brick in the wall of our public health

0:31:52.400 --> 0:31:56.120
<v Speaker 3>and safety architecture, and so a lot of the challenges

0:31:56.320 --> 0:31:59.040
<v Speaker 3>to how we're doing things, to what you know private

0:31:59.080 --> 0:32:02.160
<v Speaker 3>parties can do, to what you know companies can sell,

0:32:02.480 --> 0:32:05.840
<v Speaker 3>to you know, what kind of reproductive health medications are

0:32:05.840 --> 0:32:08.480
<v Speaker 3>on the market. These are all questions that run through

0:32:08.520 --> 0:32:11.800
<v Speaker 3>the FDA, and the fifth Circuit seems to be the

0:32:12.440 --> 0:32:15.240
<v Speaker 3>home address for people who want to challenge those might.

0:32:15.120 --> 0:32:20.360
<v Speaker 4>The FDA change its approach to vaping in the Trump administration,

0:32:20.880 --> 0:32:24.280
<v Speaker 4>he has promised to save vaping, right.

0:32:24.360 --> 0:32:27.560
<v Speaker 3>I do think that you know, with RFK, I presumably

0:32:27.560 --> 0:32:30.280
<v Speaker 3>at the HELM, you know, we have this really interesting

0:32:30.480 --> 0:32:32.720
<v Speaker 3>split where you have, on the one hand, make America

0:32:32.760 --> 0:32:36.520
<v Speaker 3>healthy again and a lot of initiatives to push public health,

0:32:36.600 --> 0:32:41.240
<v Speaker 3>but also this greater sort of Trump push for more

0:32:41.480 --> 0:32:45.760
<v Speaker 3>personal autonomy, more personal freedom, and for companies to have

0:32:45.840 --> 0:32:49.760
<v Speaker 3>more freedom from regulations. And so I do think we

0:32:49.840 --> 0:32:53.880
<v Speaker 3>are going to see more permissive activity, and I think

0:32:53.960 --> 0:32:57.200
<v Speaker 3>one of the questions will be how the public reacts.

0:32:57.280 --> 0:33:00.200
<v Speaker 3>And I think there is a divide between, you know,

0:33:00.200 --> 0:33:03.720
<v Speaker 3>people who take seriously the risk that more kids get

0:33:03.760 --> 0:33:07.680
<v Speaker 3>hooked on tobacco and all the public health risks that

0:33:07.760 --> 0:33:11.719
<v Speaker 3>come with that, versus this push for more personal freedom

0:33:11.760 --> 0:33:14.960
<v Speaker 3>in the sense that we went too far. The predictions

0:33:14.960 --> 0:33:17.920
<v Speaker 3>about what's going to happen at the FDA are you know,

0:33:18.000 --> 0:33:19.880
<v Speaker 3>all over the place. It's a dangerous time to be

0:33:20.120 --> 0:33:22.480
<v Speaker 3>doing too much guess work with the new administration and

0:33:23.000 --> 0:33:24.320
<v Speaker 3>a lot of new cooks in the kitchen.

0:33:24.600 --> 0:33:29.000
<v Speaker 1>I mean, even after the oral arguments, the Trump administration

0:33:29.160 --> 0:33:32.360
<v Speaker 1>could come in and say we've changed our position on this,

0:33:32.920 --> 0:33:34.000
<v Speaker 1>and the Supreme coolu.

0:33:34.320 --> 0:33:37.680
<v Speaker 3>The Trump administration can use the rule making process to

0:33:37.840 --> 0:33:41.760
<v Speaker 3>go back and reevaluate FDA standards. It could certainly liberalize

0:33:41.760 --> 0:33:45.800
<v Speaker 3>some of the rules or establish new public safety standards.

0:33:45.840 --> 0:33:48.600
<v Speaker 3>And you know, for example, you could have people who

0:33:48.600 --> 0:33:52.520
<v Speaker 3>are satisfied with labeling warning on the outsides of these products,

0:33:52.520 --> 0:33:55.640
<v Speaker 3>but not actually preventing you know, products from coming into

0:33:55.640 --> 0:34:00.720
<v Speaker 3>the marketplace just because they seem to be targeting appealing

0:34:00.920 --> 0:34:02.200
<v Speaker 3>to kids.

0:34:02.280 --> 0:34:05.640
<v Speaker 1>So two vaping cases to watch out of the Supreme Court.

0:34:05.920 --> 0:34:09.360
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much, Harry. That's Harry Nelson of Leech Tishman

0:34:09.560 --> 0:34:12.440
<v Speaker 1>Nelson Hardiman. And that's it for this edition of The

0:34:12.480 --> 0:34:15.440
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest

0:34:15.480 --> 0:34:18.600
<v Speaker 1>legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find

0:34:18.600 --> 0:34:23.200
<v Speaker 1>them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg

0:34:23.239 --> 0:34:27.040
<v Speaker 1>dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, And remember to tune

0:34:27.040 --> 0:34:30.280
<v Speaker 1>into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm

0:34:30.360 --> 0:34:33.920
<v Speaker 1>Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to

0:34:33.960 --> 0:34:34.480
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg