1 00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:08,760 --> 00:00:13,000 Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has unanimously revived the lawsuit by an 3 00:00:13,039 --> 00:00:17,360 Speaker 1: Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI 4 00:00:17,560 --> 00:00:21,560 Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen. Are members of an FBI swat team 5 00:00:21,720 --> 00:00:25,520 Speaker 1: smashed in a front door, set off a flash bang grenade, 6 00:00:25,720 --> 00:00:29,360 Speaker 1: and held the family at gunpoint until they realized they 7 00:00:29,360 --> 00:00:30,840 Speaker 1: had raided the wrong home. 8 00:00:31,160 --> 00:00:32,080 Speaker 2: Lower courts had. 9 00:00:31,960 --> 00:00:35,320 Speaker 1: Dismissed the lawsuit brought by the family under an exception 10 00:00:35,479 --> 00:00:38,720 Speaker 1: to the Federal Tourt Claims Act that shields the government 11 00:00:38,760 --> 00:00:42,560 Speaker 1: from liability when it comes to giving federal officers discretion 12 00:00:42,760 --> 00:00:45,879 Speaker 1: to carry out their jobs. But in the majority opinion, 13 00:00:46,080 --> 00:00:49,440 Speaker 1: Justice Neil Gorsuch said the lower courts might be applying 14 00:00:49,479 --> 00:00:53,440 Speaker 1: the exception too broadly, noting that the FBI agent in 15 00:00:53,520 --> 00:00:56,440 Speaker 1: charge had missed the street sign and the house number, 16 00:00:56,800 --> 00:00:59,000 Speaker 1: something he noted during the oral arguments. 17 00:00:59,560 --> 00:01:02,760 Speaker 3: Here. Piers suggests, for example, that the officer should have 18 00:01:02,840 --> 00:01:04,840 Speaker 3: checked the house number. Yeah, you might look at the 19 00:01:04,840 --> 00:01:08,720 Speaker 3: address of the house before you have knocked down the door. Yes, 20 00:01:08,840 --> 00:01:11,120 Speaker 3: And as the District Court found at fifty two eight, 21 00:01:11,240 --> 00:01:14,759 Speaker 3: that sort of decision is filled with policy trade offs, 22 00:01:15,080 --> 00:01:17,840 Speaker 3: because checking the house number at the end of the 23 00:01:17,920 --> 00:01:21,240 Speaker 3: driveway means exposing the agents the potential lines of fire. 24 00:01:21,560 --> 00:01:23,000 Speaker 4: Making sure you're on the right street? 25 00:01:23,560 --> 00:01:23,800 Speaker 3: Is that? 26 00:01:24,400 --> 00:01:25,120 Speaker 2: And how does that mean? 27 00:01:25,840 --> 00:01:26,679 Speaker 4: Just the right street? 28 00:01:27,280 --> 00:01:27,440 Speaker 3: Oh? 29 00:01:27,520 --> 00:01:30,360 Speaker 5: I mean I I was just gonna think the street sign? 30 00:01:30,480 --> 00:01:30,720 Speaker 3: Is that? 31 00:01:30,840 --> 00:01:31,000 Speaker 1: Is that? 32 00:01:31,560 --> 00:01:31,760 Speaker 3: You know? 33 00:01:32,000 --> 00:01:32,880 Speaker 5: Ask you too much? 34 00:01:33,360 --> 00:01:35,760 Speaker 1: The court sent the case back to the Eleventh Circuit 35 00:01:35,840 --> 00:01:40,080 Speaker 1: for more findings. Joining me is constitutional law expert Harold Krant, 36 00:01:40,440 --> 00:01:43,680 Speaker 1: a professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law, hell 37 00:01:43,680 --> 00:01:45,120 Speaker 1: tell us about this lawsuit. 38 00:01:45,560 --> 00:01:49,240 Speaker 5: The lawsuit arose because FBI agents and trying to serve 39 00:01:49,280 --> 00:01:52,400 Speaker 5: a warrant, went to the wrong house, was the wrong street, 40 00:01:52,480 --> 00:01:54,920 Speaker 5: it was the wrong address, and so they were just 41 00:01:55,080 --> 00:01:59,120 Speaker 5: evidently plainly negligent and the crashed through the door, creating 42 00:01:59,240 --> 00:02:02,320 Speaker 5: damage to the house and scared the wits out of 43 00:02:02,400 --> 00:02:05,000 Speaker 5: the recipients when they saw these people coming in and 44 00:02:05,040 --> 00:02:08,639 Speaker 5: they were trying to hide from armed intruders. So the 45 00:02:08,760 --> 00:02:11,880 Speaker 5: FBI was looking for drug dealers, and evidently they took 46 00:02:11,880 --> 00:02:14,519 Speaker 5: a little while to find out that their mistake. And 47 00:02:14,600 --> 00:02:18,640 Speaker 5: so afterwards the private citizens sued sued under the Federal 48 00:02:18,639 --> 00:02:21,120 Speaker 5: Tware Claims Act, which is a waiver of sovereign immunity 49 00:02:21,520 --> 00:02:25,320 Speaker 5: from the United States to allow torch suits in particular 50 00:02:25,400 --> 00:02:28,880 Speaker 5: contexts and compensation both for the physical injuries as well 51 00:02:28,880 --> 00:02:31,200 Speaker 5: as for the injuries to the house. And this took 52 00:02:31,240 --> 00:02:34,320 Speaker 5: place outside Atlanta, which is in the Eleventh Circuit and 53 00:02:34,400 --> 00:02:35,640 Speaker 5: the Eleventh Circuit. 54 00:02:35,600 --> 00:02:39,120 Speaker 1: So explain a little bit more about the Federal Claims 55 00:02:39,120 --> 00:02:43,400 Speaker 1: Act and the exception that shields government from liability to 56 00:02:43,400 --> 00:02:44,600 Speaker 1: give officers discretion. 57 00:02:45,280 --> 00:02:48,480 Speaker 5: So, prior to nineteen forty six, the Supreme Court had 58 00:02:48,480 --> 00:02:51,560 Speaker 5: never waived the federal government's immunity from torch suit, so 59 00:02:51,639 --> 00:02:54,679 Speaker 5: if one was injured by a federal agent or by 60 00:02:54,680 --> 00:02:57,239 Speaker 5: a post truck driver, one had to submit a private 61 00:02:57,280 --> 00:03:00,919 Speaker 5: bill to Congress in the hope of compensation, and Congress 62 00:03:00,919 --> 00:03:04,720 Speaker 5: sort of modernized the system by creating this mechanism to 63 00:03:04,800 --> 00:03:09,320 Speaker 5: allow federal agencies to be sued in tort, but with 64 00:03:09,360 --> 00:03:12,639 Speaker 5: some exceptions and the law of the cases that take 65 00:03:12,680 --> 00:03:15,760 Speaker 5: place in the States. Individuals have to make it claim 66 00:03:15,840 --> 00:03:18,280 Speaker 5: to the agency before they can go to court. But 67 00:03:18,360 --> 00:03:22,040 Speaker 5: the most important exceptions to exceptions in this case are First, 68 00:03:22,320 --> 00:03:27,280 Speaker 5: there is an exception for intentional torts, but carved out 69 00:03:27,280 --> 00:03:32,200 Speaker 5: of the intentional torts are law enforcement personnel. So the 70 00:03:32,280 --> 00:03:35,800 Speaker 5: idea of a carve out for intentional torts is evidently 71 00:03:35,840 --> 00:03:39,400 Speaker 5: that it's just if a federal official is acting intentionally 72 00:03:39,400 --> 00:03:42,200 Speaker 5: to hurt someone, they're not arguably within the scope of 73 00:03:42,240 --> 00:03:46,200 Speaker 5: their employment, and so Congress decided that they should be 74 00:03:46,320 --> 00:03:50,360 Speaker 5: sued in their own individual capacity. But at the same time, 75 00:03:50,520 --> 00:03:54,240 Speaker 5: Congress decided that if there was a law enforcement agency, 76 00:03:54,760 --> 00:03:57,840 Speaker 5: then there needs to be extra protection, and so that 77 00:03:57,920 --> 00:04:01,480 Speaker 5: the federal government would be substitute rooted instead of the 78 00:04:01,880 --> 00:04:06,280 Speaker 5: law enforcement agents if anyone suffered an intentional tourt at 79 00:04:06,320 --> 00:04:09,320 Speaker 5: the hand of the law enforcement agencies. So that's the 80 00:04:09,400 --> 00:04:13,240 Speaker 5: general structure first of the law Enforcement Proviso, which limits 81 00:04:13,400 --> 00:04:17,080 Speaker 5: the intentional tort exclusion under the Federal Tort Claims Act. So, 82 00:04:17,320 --> 00:04:19,720 Speaker 5: according to the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit got it 83 00:04:19,760 --> 00:04:23,960 Speaker 5: wrong two ways. First, the Eleventh Circuit held that, and 84 00:04:24,040 --> 00:04:28,040 Speaker 5: this is pro plaintiff, if there is law enforcement personnel involved, 85 00:04:28,120 --> 00:04:31,400 Speaker 5: is in this case not only does the intentional tort 86 00:04:31,800 --> 00:04:37,440 Speaker 5: exception not apply, but also that the second major exception 87 00:04:37,640 --> 00:04:40,440 Speaker 5: in the Federal Tort Claims Act, the discretionary function exception, 88 00:04:40,680 --> 00:04:46,520 Speaker 5: doesn't apply as well. And the discretionary function. Exception is that, yes, 89 00:04:46,680 --> 00:04:50,479 Speaker 5: the government has waived its community for negligence suits, but 90 00:04:50,560 --> 00:04:54,520 Speaker 5: if there's some kind of policy, social economic, political policy 91 00:04:54,680 --> 00:04:58,800 Speaker 5: underlying that negligence, the government is not made a waiver 92 00:04:58,960 --> 00:05:02,279 Speaker 5: because it doesn't want, of course, the second guest government 93 00:05:02,320 --> 00:05:06,800 Speaker 5: action when it's grounded in social, economic and political policy. 94 00:05:07,080 --> 00:05:09,599 Speaker 5: So back to the eleven Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit says 95 00:05:10,000 --> 00:05:15,520 Speaker 5: that the waiver for law enforcement officials applies to discretionary 96 00:05:15,520 --> 00:05:18,000 Speaker 5: acts as well. All right, so far that's been a 97 00:05:18,200 --> 00:05:23,840 Speaker 5: very pro plaintiff decision. But then the Eleventh Circuit grafts 98 00:05:23,880 --> 00:05:27,560 Speaker 5: on another defense for the government that's not in the statute. 99 00:05:27,880 --> 00:05:31,359 Speaker 5: They called the supremacy clause defense. And on the supremacy 100 00:05:31,400 --> 00:05:34,760 Speaker 5: clause defense, the government can come in and say the 101 00:05:34,920 --> 00:05:39,760 Speaker 5: law enforcement officers were basically doing something at our will 102 00:05:40,320 --> 00:05:44,240 Speaker 5: and it can't be second guests in state court. This 103 00:05:44,279 --> 00:05:46,920 Speaker 5: is not in the Federal Twitter Claims Act. And that 104 00:05:47,040 --> 00:05:50,080 Speaker 5: was the basis on the lower court ruling in favor 105 00:05:50,120 --> 00:05:54,080 Speaker 5: of the federal law enforcement officers in this case. So 106 00:05:54,120 --> 00:05:57,000 Speaker 5: the Supreme Court took it and said, you've misread the 107 00:05:57,040 --> 00:06:02,719 Speaker 5: statute twice. And yes, under the Congressional statute, you can 108 00:06:02,880 --> 00:06:08,120 Speaker 5: sue law enforcement agencies for intentional courts and also for negligence, 109 00:06:08,400 --> 00:06:13,600 Speaker 5: but the discretionary function exception will apply. And they remanded 110 00:06:13,600 --> 00:06:17,120 Speaker 5: the case back to Eleventh Circuit for a proper application 111 00:06:17,200 --> 00:06:20,760 Speaker 5: of the statute. In c namous case, it should be 112 00:06:21,080 --> 00:06:23,760 Speaker 5: the Eleventh Circuit just read the statute wrong for reasons 113 00:06:23,760 --> 00:06:26,599 Speaker 5: that are unknown to me. They probably unknown to the 114 00:06:26,640 --> 00:06:30,279 Speaker 5: court as well. And I think it's pretty clear that 115 00:06:30,360 --> 00:06:35,320 Speaker 5: the kind of negligence that's at stake in miss you know, 116 00:06:35,400 --> 00:06:38,559 Speaker 5: going to the wrong house, the wrong address, to break 117 00:06:38,600 --> 00:06:42,640 Speaker 5: into the house to try to apprehend the gang, that's 118 00:06:42,920 --> 00:06:48,000 Speaker 5: operational negligence. It's not based upon any kind of social, political, 119 00:06:48,080 --> 00:06:51,599 Speaker 5: economic value judgment. And it's pretty clear that that the 120 00:06:51,640 --> 00:06:54,040 Speaker 5: government's going to lose on Remand. 121 00:06:54,440 --> 00:06:59,360 Speaker 1: Even though the District Court said that the lead fbi 122 00:06:59,600 --> 00:07:03,920 Speaker 1: age and had taken significant precautions in preparing for the rate, 123 00:07:04,000 --> 00:07:05,640 Speaker 1: it had simply made a mistake. 124 00:07:06,080 --> 00:07:08,760 Speaker 5: That's a negligence, and those mistakes are not covered by 125 00:07:09,240 --> 00:07:13,960 Speaker 5: the discretionary functioning session. And indeed, just as Sodomayor wrote 126 00:07:14,000 --> 00:07:16,640 Speaker 5: a concurrence just to spell that out in her view, 127 00:07:17,200 --> 00:07:20,320 Speaker 5: messing up the address on a warrant is like making 128 00:07:20,360 --> 00:07:24,040 Speaker 5: a mistake at a stop sign. Those are operational negligence, 129 00:07:24,360 --> 00:07:28,160 Speaker 5: and Congress said that the government should pay out when 130 00:07:28,160 --> 00:07:30,120 Speaker 5: its agents makes those kinds of mistakes. 131 00:07:30,720 --> 00:07:35,400 Speaker 1: Justice Corsigs wrote, if federal officers raid the wrong house, 132 00:07:35,480 --> 00:07:40,120 Speaker 1: causing property damage and assaulting innocent occupants, made the homeowners 133 00:07:40,160 --> 00:07:43,400 Speaker 1: sue the government for damages, the answer is not as 134 00:07:43,480 --> 00:07:44,360 Speaker 1: obvious as. 135 00:07:44,200 --> 00:07:47,960 Speaker 5: It might be at first. The entire structure of the 136 00:07:48,200 --> 00:07:51,920 Speaker 5: Toward Claims Act is unusual in that Congress adopted the 137 00:07:52,000 --> 00:07:57,040 Speaker 5: law in the jurisdiction where the injury arose. So the government, 138 00:07:57,160 --> 00:08:00,680 Speaker 5: federal government in essence, is being governed by fifty different 139 00:08:00,720 --> 00:08:05,640 Speaker 5: state laws as to in this case, assault or adequate preparation. 140 00:08:06,120 --> 00:08:09,560 Speaker 5: So that's why it's never easy to predict. But you know, 141 00:08:09,600 --> 00:08:11,520 Speaker 5: I think that in this case, at least from the 142 00:08:11,560 --> 00:08:14,840 Speaker 5: facts that we were privy to in the Supreme Court decision, 143 00:08:15,240 --> 00:08:19,200 Speaker 5: going to the wrong house is hardly ever a policy issue. 144 00:08:19,400 --> 00:08:23,760 Speaker 5: It's basically one that's just based upon the GPS mistake 145 00:08:24,280 --> 00:08:26,760 Speaker 5: not seeing the right car in the driveway it was 146 00:08:26,800 --> 00:08:30,000 Speaker 5: a different car, and not seeing the address on the 147 00:08:30,040 --> 00:08:30,720 Speaker 5: address sign. 148 00:08:31,000 --> 00:08:32,720 Speaker 1: So this is going back to the eleventh Circuit. What 149 00:08:32,760 --> 00:08:35,520 Speaker 1: are the questions that Eleventh Circuit has to answer? 150 00:08:36,200 --> 00:08:40,040 Speaker 5: The Eleventh Circuit will ask whether the negligence in this 151 00:08:40,200 --> 00:08:44,440 Speaker 5: case stems from political, social, and economic policy or is 152 00:08:45,000 --> 00:08:49,600 Speaker 5: rather considered operational negligence. And again from the facts that 153 00:08:49,840 --> 00:08:52,680 Speaker 5: we learned in the Supreme Court decision, there was no 154 00:08:52,880 --> 00:08:55,960 Speaker 5: kind of judgment call, here's a necessity. We have to 155 00:08:56,000 --> 00:08:57,880 Speaker 5: take a risk because we see somebody fleeing, so we 156 00:08:57,960 --> 00:08:59,920 Speaker 5: have to go into this house. There was nothing like that, 157 00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:04,920 Speaker 5: which might be more policy centered. But rather they went 158 00:09:04,960 --> 00:09:09,360 Speaker 5: to the wrong street than the wrong address. That's pretty inexcusable. 159 00:09:09,920 --> 00:09:12,400 Speaker 1: So let's say the Eleventh Circuit rules as you say, 160 00:09:12,679 --> 00:09:13,840 Speaker 1: I mean, does it go to trial? 161 00:09:13,880 --> 00:09:15,080 Speaker 2: Then what happens next? 162 00:09:15,360 --> 00:09:17,199 Speaker 5: It will go to trial. There will be no jury 163 00:09:17,200 --> 00:09:20,600 Speaker 5: trial that has been exempted out of the Settle toward 164 00:09:20,600 --> 00:09:22,480 Speaker 5: Claims Act, but there will have to be a trial 165 00:09:22,520 --> 00:09:24,760 Speaker 5: as to the proper amount of damages, and that of 166 00:09:24,760 --> 00:09:27,600 Speaker 5: course could be subject to appeal as well, and that's 167 00:09:27,640 --> 00:09:28,839 Speaker 5: paid on the judgment fund. 168 00:09:29,600 --> 00:09:32,800 Speaker 2: Was it surprising that this was unanimous? 169 00:09:33,720 --> 00:09:35,880 Speaker 5: I think this is the right way to read the statute. 170 00:09:35,960 --> 00:09:38,360 Speaker 5: I think it's pretty clear from both prior cases and 171 00:09:38,440 --> 00:09:42,200 Speaker 5: other circuits as well as from the legislative history that 172 00:09:42,280 --> 00:09:44,040 Speaker 5: the Eleventh Circuit got it wrong, and I think this 173 00:09:44,160 --> 00:09:47,240 Speaker 5: is just one of these instances where the Court took 174 00:09:47,280 --> 00:09:50,240 Speaker 5: the case to clean it up. But interestingly, this is 175 00:09:50,280 --> 00:09:54,040 Speaker 5: now going to give Senator Padilla, who was treated so 176 00:09:54,280 --> 00:09:58,120 Speaker 5: rudely at Christy Nomes press conference, he now would be 177 00:09:58,160 --> 00:10:01,079 Speaker 5: able to sue under this very I think his is 178 00:10:01,120 --> 00:10:04,440 Speaker 5: a little more difficult factually, but he now would have 179 00:10:04,520 --> 00:10:05,559 Speaker 5: an avenue to suit. 180 00:10:05,720 --> 00:10:07,000 Speaker 2: You mentioned Senator Padilla. 181 00:10:07,120 --> 00:10:12,680 Speaker 1: Does this ruling strengthen future efforts to seek compensation for 182 00:10:12,760 --> 00:10:15,800 Speaker 1: a federal law enforcement misconduct? It does? 183 00:10:16,040 --> 00:10:18,160 Speaker 5: I mean, I think that it's righting or wrong because 184 00:10:18,160 --> 00:10:21,080 Speaker 5: the Eleventh Circuit had it too crabbed of a decision. 185 00:10:21,360 --> 00:10:25,320 Speaker 5: But in this case, theoretically, Senator Padilla could argue that 186 00:10:25,559 --> 00:10:30,600 Speaker 5: there was law enforcement lofsters that acted negligently in trying 187 00:10:30,600 --> 00:10:34,319 Speaker 5: to tackle him and subdue him. Weigh and beyond an 188 00:10:34,320 --> 00:10:36,839 Speaker 5: exercise of force that needed to be applied. I think 189 00:10:36,880 --> 00:10:38,679 Speaker 5: it's again it's going to be a harder case, but 190 00:10:38,960 --> 00:10:40,880 Speaker 5: he certainly has that avenue open. 191 00:10:41,120 --> 00:10:43,040 Speaker 2: Is there a possibility this might end up at the 192 00:10:43,040 --> 00:10:44,000 Speaker 2: Supreme Court? Again? 193 00:10:44,559 --> 00:10:47,840 Speaker 5: I doubt it. I think that in this case, the 194 00:10:47,920 --> 00:10:51,479 Speaker 5: Court took the case just to sort of correct the 195 00:10:51,600 --> 00:10:54,760 Speaker 5: case law and to make sure that the principles that 196 00:10:54,840 --> 00:10:57,840 Speaker 5: the Loved Circuit applies in the future adhere more closely 197 00:10:57,920 --> 00:11:01,599 Speaker 5: to the statute. I don't think there's any inherently controversial that. 198 00:11:01,760 --> 00:11:05,000 Speaker 5: I do agree with Justice Soda Mayora when she said 199 00:11:05,000 --> 00:11:08,080 Speaker 5: that the Supreme Court has not taken a case in 200 00:11:08,480 --> 00:11:10,520 Speaker 5: twenty five years in this area, and so there is 201 00:11:10,559 --> 00:11:14,640 Speaker 5: a lot of disagreement about how to frame the proper inquiry, 202 00:11:14,760 --> 00:11:17,080 Speaker 5: and so that some other case might be appropriate for 203 00:11:17,120 --> 00:11:20,000 Speaker 5: the Court to take in order to give more direction 204 00:11:20,080 --> 00:11:20,880 Speaker 5: to the lower courts. 205 00:11:21,240 --> 00:11:24,360 Speaker 1: The federal agents themselves wouldn't have to pay the damages. 206 00:11:24,840 --> 00:11:29,000 Speaker 5: No, Once you sue the United States, then the employees 207 00:11:29,000 --> 00:11:33,400 Speaker 5: are exempted out of the claim and will be immune. Theoretically, 208 00:11:33,920 --> 00:11:37,600 Speaker 5: the federal government could do a third party suit against 209 00:11:37,600 --> 00:11:41,240 Speaker 5: the employees for some kind of contribution, but they never 210 00:11:41,280 --> 00:11:43,880 Speaker 5: do that. They're almost never, and so in essence, again, 211 00:11:43,920 --> 00:11:45,600 Speaker 5: the judgment would come from the judgment fund. 212 00:11:45,720 --> 00:11:46,880 Speaker 2: Okay, I'll stay with me. 213 00:11:47,120 --> 00:11:49,800 Speaker 1: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Laws Show, we'll look 214 00:11:49,800 --> 00:11:52,480 Speaker 1: at some of the high profile cases the justices have 215 00:11:52,640 --> 00:11:55,400 Speaker 1: yet to rule on with about two weeks left in 216 00:11:55,440 --> 00:11:58,319 Speaker 1: the term. I'm June Gross, so when you're listening to Bloomberg, 217 00:12:00,480 --> 00:12:03,520 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is just two thirds through the cases 218 00:12:03,559 --> 00:12:06,360 Speaker 1: on its docket, with about two weeks left in the term. 219 00:12:06,880 --> 00:12:09,920 Speaker 1: The justices have yet to rule on twenty one cases, 220 00:12:10,240 --> 00:12:14,920 Speaker 1: including some involving hot button issues like gender affirming treatments 221 00:12:14,920 --> 00:12:19,720 Speaker 1: for minors, a clash over LGBTQ schoolbooks, and one of 222 00:12:19,840 --> 00:12:24,520 Speaker 1: President Trump's most audacious immigration initiatives. I've been talking to 223 00:12:24,520 --> 00:12:27,520 Speaker 1: Professor Harold Krant of the Chicago Kent College of Law. 224 00:12:28,200 --> 00:12:31,200 Speaker 1: One of the cases that stands out is the one 225 00:12:31,200 --> 00:12:34,839 Speaker 1: over Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors. So, 226 00:12:34,840 --> 00:12:37,960 Speaker 1: and that was argued the first week of December, and 227 00:12:38,040 --> 00:12:42,360 Speaker 1: it seemed pretty clear that there were five justices conservatives 228 00:12:42,400 --> 00:12:47,400 Speaker 1: who were skeptical of the contentions that the Tennessee law 229 00:12:47,520 --> 00:12:49,280 Speaker 1: violated the Constitution. 230 00:12:49,840 --> 00:12:51,560 Speaker 2: Why is it taking so well? 231 00:12:51,600 --> 00:12:54,280 Speaker 5: The other issue in their case is that the administration 232 00:12:54,400 --> 00:12:57,840 Speaker 5: is flip flop and with the tub administration and disavowing 233 00:12:57,880 --> 00:13:01,280 Speaker 5: the position that the Biden administration took, which was that, 234 00:13:01,480 --> 00:13:05,280 Speaker 5: of course that the law was unconstitutional. So we all 235 00:13:05,320 --> 00:13:08,079 Speaker 5: speculated at the time that the Court might even get 236 00:13:08,160 --> 00:13:10,480 Speaker 5: rid of the case because of that change of position. 237 00:13:11,280 --> 00:13:14,360 Speaker 5: It probably won't do that, but I don't know what's 238 00:13:14,520 --> 00:13:17,400 Speaker 5: taking the court so long, so it is somewhat mysterious, 239 00:13:17,400 --> 00:13:20,599 Speaker 5: but we expect some kind of decision eminently. 240 00:13:20,720 --> 00:13:21,800 Speaker 2: This is going to be one. 241 00:13:21,679 --> 00:13:24,640 Speaker 1: Of the more controversial cases of the term, and they 242 00:13:24,679 --> 00:13:29,000 Speaker 1: seem to leave those to the end of June. Although 243 00:13:29,640 --> 00:13:33,160 Speaker 1: you'll hear the explanation for that is that the cases 244 00:13:33,200 --> 00:13:37,360 Speaker 1: are controversial, so there may be more concurring opinions or 245 00:13:37,400 --> 00:13:41,440 Speaker 1: dissenting opinions, But it also seems to me like they hold. 246 00:13:41,200 --> 00:13:42,000 Speaker 2: Them till the end. 247 00:13:42,559 --> 00:13:45,240 Speaker 5: Yeah. And of course the same is true for the 248 00:13:45,280 --> 00:13:50,040 Speaker 5: birthright citizenship case, which is probably the other very controversial case, 249 00:13:50,040 --> 00:13:52,960 Speaker 5: both because the merits of the birthright cititionship issue, but 250 00:13:53,000 --> 00:13:56,120 Speaker 5: also because of the question of the nationwide injunctions. I 251 00:13:56,120 --> 00:13:59,360 Speaker 5: would expect to see that on the last day, so 252 00:13:59,559 --> 00:14:02,760 Speaker 5: it is typical Supreme Court tack And I guess the 253 00:14:02,840 --> 00:14:05,160 Speaker 5: other one I would put in that same category is 254 00:14:05,200 --> 00:14:08,600 Speaker 5: a question of whether parents have an opt out can 255 00:14:08,640 --> 00:14:12,079 Speaker 5: take their kids and pull them out of class if 256 00:14:12,080 --> 00:14:17,240 Speaker 5: the class is teaching something that strikes against their religious beliefs. 257 00:14:17,480 --> 00:14:21,600 Speaker 5: I mean that decision will create incredible havoc for public 258 00:14:21,640 --> 00:14:24,040 Speaker 5: schools who are trying to then have to give notice 259 00:14:24,360 --> 00:14:27,760 Speaker 5: of every book that may be read, which is particularly 260 00:14:28,040 --> 00:14:30,800 Speaker 5: difficult for Show and Tell if the kids bring in 261 00:14:30,840 --> 00:14:34,440 Speaker 5: stories and then have some kind of monitoring of the 262 00:14:34,520 --> 00:14:37,520 Speaker 5: kids while those texts are being discussed in class. So 263 00:14:37,800 --> 00:14:40,720 Speaker 5: from the argument, again, it sounded like the Court was 264 00:14:40,760 --> 00:14:43,320 Speaker 5: going to allow and opt out based on religion, but 265 00:14:43,560 --> 00:14:47,080 Speaker 5: that implementation that would be incredibly difficult. So I think 266 00:14:47,080 --> 00:14:49,720 Speaker 5: that's going to be one of the more controversial decisions 267 00:14:49,720 --> 00:14:50,600 Speaker 5: of the term as well. 268 00:14:50,960 --> 00:14:53,320 Speaker 1: You know, the Supreme Court has dealt with several gay 269 00:14:53,400 --> 00:14:57,600 Speaker 1: rights and trends rights cases, and they've decided to take 270 00:14:57,640 --> 00:15:03,880 Speaker 1: for next term a case over Colorado's ban on conversion therapy, 271 00:15:04,000 --> 00:15:06,240 Speaker 1: so they're not shying away from issues in this area. 272 00:15:06,720 --> 00:15:10,800 Speaker 5: Well, and of course, what really is underlying these decisions 273 00:15:10,840 --> 00:15:15,600 Speaker 5: or whether the permission for gay marriage will remain intact 274 00:15:15,920 --> 00:15:20,000 Speaker 5: or will the Court, because of its religious views, decide 275 00:15:20,080 --> 00:15:23,120 Speaker 5: that the right of gay marriage, so to speak, should 276 00:15:23,120 --> 00:15:23,960 Speaker 5: it be revalued. 277 00:15:24,920 --> 00:15:27,600 Speaker 1: I know that there are conservative justices who are looking 278 00:15:27,680 --> 00:15:29,359 Speaker 1: to do that, and there is a movement. 279 00:15:29,480 --> 00:15:31,560 Speaker 2: To reverse the Obergerfeld decision. 280 00:15:31,880 --> 00:15:35,280 Speaker 1: But wouldn't that be difficult to do because then what 281 00:15:35,480 --> 00:15:38,640 Speaker 1: happens to all the gay couples who got married and 282 00:15:39,240 --> 00:15:40,600 Speaker 1: relied on that decision? 283 00:15:40,600 --> 00:15:42,120 Speaker 2: What are they going to say your marriage is not 284 00:15:42,440 --> 00:15:43,080 Speaker 2: valid now? 285 00:15:43,640 --> 00:15:45,520 Speaker 5: No, it would make it prospective if they did that. 286 00:15:45,640 --> 00:15:48,560 Speaker 5: And of course it's also complicated because the post Look decision, 287 00:15:48,600 --> 00:15:51,960 Speaker 5: which recognized you could have a civil rights action if 288 00:15:52,040 --> 00:15:55,840 Speaker 5: you demote someone or treat them differently because they're gay. 289 00:15:56,160 --> 00:15:59,800 Speaker 5: But nonetheless, there is this movement that's trying to get 290 00:15:59,840 --> 00:16:02,760 Speaker 5: the courts attention to try to use another case to 291 00:16:03,120 --> 00:16:07,880 Speaker 5: reverse a not so long standing ten years standing precedent. 292 00:16:07,960 --> 00:16:10,280 Speaker 5: But it's not coming now, so that's something we don't 293 00:16:10,320 --> 00:16:11,480 Speaker 5: have to talk about emitally. 294 00:16:11,800 --> 00:16:14,760 Speaker 1: Are there any other cases that you're waiting to hear 295 00:16:14,840 --> 00:16:16,320 Speaker 1: the decision. 296 00:16:16,000 --> 00:16:19,080 Speaker 5: On whether it's the case involving whether you can limit 297 00:16:19,480 --> 00:16:23,680 Speaker 5: website pornography websites to some kind of age verification, And 298 00:16:23,720 --> 00:16:27,080 Speaker 5: that's not so important, I think, because of the question, 299 00:16:27,160 --> 00:16:31,000 Speaker 5: because of course you can have age limitations in movies 300 00:16:31,040 --> 00:16:33,000 Speaker 5: and on porn sites. It's the question is what's the 301 00:16:33,040 --> 00:16:36,840 Speaker 5: standard or review? And in that case, the conflict was 302 00:16:37,400 --> 00:16:40,480 Speaker 5: any kind of restriction on First Amendment you have to 303 00:16:40,760 --> 00:16:43,880 Speaker 5: use strict scrutiny or as in that case, you use 304 00:16:43,960 --> 00:16:47,880 Speaker 5: rational basis. In rational basis is an easy test. So 305 00:16:48,240 --> 00:16:50,400 Speaker 5: it's not important again for the facts of the case, 306 00:16:50,880 --> 00:16:54,640 Speaker 5: but articulating the standard review in First Amendment cases does 307 00:16:54,720 --> 00:16:58,640 Speaker 5: remain incredibly critical for a host of contemporary reasons that 308 00:16:58,720 --> 00:17:01,840 Speaker 5: you're well aware. I say add that there's two decisions 309 00:17:01,920 --> 00:17:07,000 Speaker 5: that are pending involving either accessive delegations from Congress to 310 00:17:07,200 --> 00:17:12,200 Speaker 5: private parties or re christening the private parties as inferior 311 00:17:12,240 --> 00:17:16,120 Speaker 5: officers and upholding the delegations. So the court probably won't 312 00:17:16,160 --> 00:17:18,560 Speaker 5: give a bombshell in either of those cases, but they 313 00:17:18,600 --> 00:17:21,760 Speaker 5: may give out some clues as to the future of 314 00:17:21,840 --> 00:17:25,880 Speaker 5: the non delegation doctrine and their willingness to permit private 315 00:17:25,920 --> 00:17:29,080 Speaker 5: parties to play some role in shaping the governance of 316 00:17:29,119 --> 00:17:29,600 Speaker 5: our country. 317 00:17:30,080 --> 00:17:32,480 Speaker 2: And just explain the non delegation doctrine. 318 00:17:32,760 --> 00:17:36,800 Speaker 5: Yeah, so non delegation doctrine says that Congress must be 319 00:17:36,920 --> 00:17:42,119 Speaker 5: very specific in giving authority to agencies, whether the agencies 320 00:17:42,400 --> 00:17:45,560 Speaker 5: can have power to fill in the details, but they 321 00:17:45,560 --> 00:17:48,480 Speaker 5: can't have the power to make policy themselves, and no 322 00:17:48,600 --> 00:17:50,920 Speaker 5: coise of them able to figure out where the line 323 00:17:51,000 --> 00:17:53,639 Speaker 5: is between the two. And so it's a continuing issue, 324 00:17:53,640 --> 00:17:57,680 Speaker 5: particularly on this court, to try to articulate more limits 325 00:17:57,680 --> 00:18:00,639 Speaker 5: on how much power Congress could do and how specific 326 00:18:00,720 --> 00:18:03,760 Speaker 5: Congress must be in giving power to the agencies. And 327 00:18:03,800 --> 00:18:06,879 Speaker 5: that might be true even more so to the extent 328 00:18:06,920 --> 00:18:10,760 Speaker 5: that there's private parties involved in these cases. And there's 329 00:18:11,080 --> 00:18:13,679 Speaker 5: one case in which the private party is definitely involved, 330 00:18:13,720 --> 00:18:16,480 Speaker 5: the other one that's more hazy in terms of the 331 00:18:16,600 --> 00:18:20,440 Speaker 5: legislative structure of the delegation. But the court may, for inta, 332 00:18:20,560 --> 00:18:25,119 Speaker 5: say that private parties can only do ministerial tasks and 333 00:18:25,160 --> 00:18:27,720 Speaker 5: that anything more would be a violation of the non 334 00:18:27,800 --> 00:18:32,359 Speaker 5: delegation doctrine. And in the one case, there was imposition 335 00:18:32,480 --> 00:18:37,360 Speaker 5: of a fee on broadcasters in order to ensure adequate 336 00:18:37,400 --> 00:18:41,359 Speaker 5: access to service in broadband and telephones in schools and 337 00:18:41,440 --> 00:18:44,840 Speaker 5: rural areas, and that rule the private parties, you know, 338 00:18:44,880 --> 00:18:47,400 Speaker 5: it's like attacks, And so the court may say that 339 00:18:47,400 --> 00:18:50,720 Speaker 5: that is stepping too far, that Congress can't allow any 340 00:18:50,840 --> 00:18:55,440 Speaker 5: kind of private party to help with imposing attacks. So 341 00:18:55,720 --> 00:18:59,640 Speaker 5: there are some variations of the decisions which could create 342 00:18:59,880 --> 00:19:04,440 Speaker 5: a doctrine which even more limits the power of Congress 343 00:19:04,480 --> 00:19:09,399 Speaker 5: to enroll agencies and or private parties in trying to 344 00:19:09,480 --> 00:19:11,000 Speaker 5: implement national priorities. 345 00:19:11,320 --> 00:19:15,639 Speaker 1: There's been so much emphasis on the shadow docket, or 346 00:19:15,680 --> 00:19:21,479 Speaker 1: the emergency docket since Trump became president and has filed 347 00:19:21,520 --> 00:19:24,439 Speaker 1: so many emergency appeals with the Court. So a lot 348 00:19:24,480 --> 00:19:27,399 Speaker 1: of the most controversial issues are being decided on the 349 00:19:27,440 --> 00:19:30,920 Speaker 1: shadow docket, perhaps making the regular docket a little more 350 00:19:30,920 --> 00:19:32,040 Speaker 1: subdued this term. 351 00:19:32,080 --> 00:19:33,160 Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Hal. 352 00:19:33,520 --> 00:19:36,639 Speaker 1: That's Professor Harold Krant of the Chicago Kent College of Law. 353 00:19:37,960 --> 00:19:41,920 Speaker 1: US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Junior is a known 354 00:19:42,040 --> 00:19:46,040 Speaker 1: vaccine skeptic. For example, two years ago, he suggested that 355 00:19:46,080 --> 00:19:49,960 Speaker 1: the polio vaccine has killed more people than polio did, 356 00:19:50,080 --> 00:19:54,119 Speaker 1: and he's linked the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to autism, 357 00:19:54,280 --> 00:19:58,600 Speaker 1: a theory that's been widely debunked. Kennedy has repeatedly said 358 00:19:58,680 --> 00:20:02,160 Speaker 1: he won't do anything to keep people from getting vaccines. 359 00:20:02,600 --> 00:20:04,880 Speaker 1: I'm not going to take away anybody's vaccine. 360 00:20:05,000 --> 00:20:07,399 Speaker 4: If people are happy with their vaccines, they ought to 361 00:20:07,440 --> 00:20:09,200 Speaker 4: be able to get them. What we're going to do 362 00:20:09,240 --> 00:20:10,359 Speaker 4: is give people good science. 363 00:20:10,920 --> 00:20:15,119 Speaker 1: But some of Kennedy's recent moves, including dismissing all the 364 00:20:15,200 --> 00:20:19,040 Speaker 1: members of a key panel that advises on immunization policy 365 00:20:19,320 --> 00:20:23,320 Speaker 1: seem to be steps toward implementing his blueprint to cast 366 00:20:23,400 --> 00:20:26,720 Speaker 1: doubt on the effectiveness and safety of a broad range 367 00:20:26,760 --> 00:20:30,560 Speaker 1: of vaccines. My guest is Naya penk Ciity Bloomberg Law. 368 00:20:30,600 --> 00:20:35,159 Speaker 1: Healthcare reporter RFK Junior wrote on X I took a 369 00:20:35,200 --> 00:20:40,560 Speaker 1: major step toward restoring public trusts in vaccines by reconstituting 370 00:20:41,040 --> 00:20:45,960 Speaker 1: the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices. Tell us what he did. 371 00:20:46,640 --> 00:20:51,800 Speaker 4: Yeah, So, Kennedy last week fired all seventeen members of 372 00:20:51,880 --> 00:20:56,480 Speaker 4: the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, also known as a 373 00:20:56,600 --> 00:21:00,119 Speaker 4: STEP And this is a panel of public health and 374 00:21:00,200 --> 00:21:05,160 Speaker 4: medical experts that advised the CDC on vaccines in what 375 00:21:05,240 --> 00:21:08,480 Speaker 4: shots should be recommended in the US. So this is 376 00:21:08,520 --> 00:21:12,160 Speaker 4: a very important panel because they vote on what vaccines 377 00:21:12,520 --> 00:21:16,520 Speaker 4: should go on the CDC's recommended immanization schedule. Now, that 378 00:21:16,600 --> 00:21:20,840 Speaker 4: schedule or that list is very important because doctors use 379 00:21:20,880 --> 00:21:24,360 Speaker 4: that to determine which vaccines to give to patients. And 380 00:21:24,840 --> 00:21:28,040 Speaker 4: it's also important for insurers because they use that to 381 00:21:28,160 --> 00:21:32,560 Speaker 4: determine what vaccines to cover. Now, before Secretary Rout of 382 00:21:32,600 --> 00:21:35,920 Speaker 4: Kenne Junior dismissed the last ACID committee. There were seventeen members, 383 00:21:36,400 --> 00:21:39,399 Speaker 4: and he pointed out in his pressure release after posting 384 00:21:39,440 --> 00:21:42,919 Speaker 4: on X that the Biden administration appointed all seventeen of 385 00:21:42,920 --> 00:21:46,119 Speaker 4: those sitting ASIT members. Thirteen of them were appointed in 386 00:21:46,160 --> 00:21:49,520 Speaker 4: twenty twenty four. Now what Kennedy did here, he said, 387 00:21:49,560 --> 00:21:52,960 Speaker 4: he retired all of them, dismissed them, and that raised 388 00:21:52,960 --> 00:21:56,480 Speaker 4: alan for various public health experts and even drug industry 389 00:21:57,000 --> 00:22:01,040 Speaker 4: because there were concerns that Kennedy would replaces members with 390 00:22:01,119 --> 00:22:06,479 Speaker 4: anti vaxers, especially with Kennedy's vaccine skepticism, and they were 391 00:22:06,520 --> 00:22:09,920 Speaker 4: concerns that he would replace those people with folks who 392 00:22:09,920 --> 00:22:12,760 Speaker 4: have spread and misinformation about the safety and e fficacy 393 00:22:12,800 --> 00:22:15,560 Speaker 4: of vaccines, even shots that have been approved by the 394 00:22:15,600 --> 00:22:17,280 Speaker 4: FDA to be safe and effective. 395 00:22:17,680 --> 00:22:20,440 Speaker 1: And what about the people he's now appointed to the committee. 396 00:22:20,520 --> 00:22:23,639 Speaker 4: So he has already appointed eight new members last week, 397 00:22:23,960 --> 00:22:27,080 Speaker 4: which by the way, is the minimum number of members 398 00:22:27,359 --> 00:22:30,679 Speaker 4: for a SIP needed. And when he selected eight new members, 399 00:22:30,680 --> 00:22:34,280 Speaker 4: that included people that actually have anti VAXX views and 400 00:22:34,440 --> 00:22:37,960 Speaker 4: are against mRNA vaccines in the COVID nineteen vaccine, or 401 00:22:38,040 --> 00:22:41,159 Speaker 4: have found those vaccines to have safety issues. One of 402 00:22:41,200 --> 00:22:45,000 Speaker 4: them is Robert Malone. He is a major opponent of 403 00:22:45,119 --> 00:22:48,720 Speaker 4: mRNA vaccines. He also selected rat stev Levy, who's a 404 00:22:48,720 --> 00:22:52,399 Speaker 4: professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who's questioned the 405 00:22:52,440 --> 00:22:56,919 Speaker 4: safety of COVID vaccines. He also picked Martin Coldroff, a 406 00:22:57,080 --> 00:23:00,320 Speaker 4: former Harvard's Medical School professor who was the co author 407 00:23:00,440 --> 00:23:03,800 Speaker 4: of the Great Barrington Declaration, and that was a manifesto 408 00:23:03,880 --> 00:23:07,400 Speaker 4: that came out during the pandemic that called for alternative 409 00:23:07,440 --> 00:23:10,760 Speaker 4: COVID lockdowns during the pandemic. And it's also already been 410 00:23:10,800 --> 00:23:14,560 Speaker 4: reported that Malone and Kuldruff were paid expert witnesses in 411 00:23:14,720 --> 00:23:19,520 Speaker 4: work vaccine cases. So there's already concerns because after Kennedy 412 00:23:19,600 --> 00:23:21,960 Speaker 4: dismissed the acent members, he went back on x and 413 00:23:22,040 --> 00:23:25,919 Speaker 4: posted writing that he wouldn't put anti vaxxers on the panel, 414 00:23:26,320 --> 00:23:30,760 Speaker 4: but rather quote put highly credential positions end quote. And 415 00:23:31,040 --> 00:23:34,520 Speaker 4: so we've seen folks with anti vacviews now on that panel. 416 00:23:34,760 --> 00:23:37,320 Speaker 4: So there's already concerns about who's been put on there. 417 00:23:38,040 --> 00:23:41,159 Speaker 1: And you know, despite the fact that he made promises 418 00:23:41,280 --> 00:23:45,600 Speaker 1: during his confirmation hearings that he would not attack vaccines, 419 00:23:46,080 --> 00:23:49,600 Speaker 1: what else has he done to stall or cast doubt 420 00:23:49,720 --> 00:23:51,440 Speaker 1: on vaccines so far. 421 00:23:52,440 --> 00:23:57,520 Speaker 4: Even before this significant decision to dismiss and restock a FIPS, 422 00:23:58,040 --> 00:24:02,000 Speaker 4: Kennedy was already making moves vaccines. So back in May, 423 00:24:02,200 --> 00:24:05,640 Speaker 4: he announced through a video on x that he would 424 00:24:05,680 --> 00:24:08,960 Speaker 4: be removing the COVID nineteen vaccine from the CDC's recommended 425 00:24:09,000 --> 00:24:13,480 Speaker 4: immanization list for healthy children and healthy pregnant women. And 426 00:24:13,600 --> 00:24:16,640 Speaker 4: that may have raised the alarm for industry again because 427 00:24:16,760 --> 00:24:19,720 Speaker 4: Kennedy didn't really share any details on how it came 428 00:24:19,760 --> 00:24:23,560 Speaker 4: about that decision, and the attorneys I've spoken with say that, 429 00:24:23,640 --> 00:24:25,720 Speaker 4: you know, there are procedural issues on how he went 430 00:24:25,760 --> 00:24:28,439 Speaker 4: about that. Earlier this year, he also said that he 431 00:24:28,520 --> 00:24:32,240 Speaker 4: will be requiring all new vaccines to undergo placebo controlled 432 00:24:32,280 --> 00:24:36,119 Speaker 4: studies before they're approved. Now, that would be a major 433 00:24:36,160 --> 00:24:39,160 Speaker 4: policy shift because that means vaccines will have to go 434 00:24:39,240 --> 00:24:43,120 Speaker 4: through safety trials where some participants will receive a placibo 435 00:24:43,160 --> 00:24:46,040 Speaker 4: injection before the shot can be licensed. The concern there 436 00:24:46,160 --> 00:24:49,119 Speaker 4: is that the disease already has a vaccine, the study 437 00:24:49,160 --> 00:24:51,600 Speaker 4: is unethical because a participant in the trial would be 438 00:24:51,680 --> 00:24:54,720 Speaker 4: exposed to a preventable illness. We also know that vaccines 439 00:24:54,720 --> 00:24:58,840 Speaker 4: for emerging diseases already undergo possibo controlled testing during development. 440 00:24:59,359 --> 00:25:04,080 Speaker 4: So already made numerous moves that show his agenda to 441 00:25:04,400 --> 00:25:07,280 Speaker 4: scrutinize vaccines, and we are expecting more and he appears 442 00:25:07,359 --> 00:25:09,680 Speaker 4: to be moving at a pretty quick pace. 443 00:25:10,000 --> 00:25:12,680 Speaker 1: Well, is there a chance that he could look back 444 00:25:12,720 --> 00:25:14,879 Speaker 1: at vaccines that have already been approved? 445 00:25:15,680 --> 00:25:18,600 Speaker 4: I can see that. I mean, Kennedy has repeatedly questioned 446 00:25:18,640 --> 00:25:22,480 Speaker 4: vaccine safety testing for quite some time now. His skepticism 447 00:25:22,640 --> 00:25:26,800 Speaker 4: really gained wider popularity during the COVID nineteen pandemic, especially 448 00:25:26,800 --> 00:25:30,000 Speaker 4: with skepticism against MR and A vaccines. He said during 449 00:25:30,040 --> 00:25:33,680 Speaker 4: his campaign trail that he wouldn't be taking vaccines away, 450 00:25:33,720 --> 00:25:36,639 Speaker 4: But I think, you know, folks are just also skeptical 451 00:25:36,640 --> 00:25:39,159 Speaker 4: of how he's going to move. He's questioned the safety 452 00:25:39,160 --> 00:25:43,080 Speaker 4: as many other vaccines, including you know, linking the measles 453 00:25:43,160 --> 00:25:46,320 Speaker 4: momps in rebella or the MMR vaccine autism, which is 454 00:25:46,320 --> 00:25:49,800 Speaker 4: a theory that's been widely debunked. But we know that 455 00:25:49,880 --> 00:25:52,919 Speaker 4: he's going to keep looking into vaccines even past once 456 00:25:53,000 --> 00:25:56,080 Speaker 4: because in his Make America Healthy Again report that came 457 00:25:56,119 --> 00:25:59,840 Speaker 4: out in May, there was a section on vaccines, and 458 00:26:00,000 --> 00:26:03,480 Speaker 4: and that highlighted how he's going to look into them, 459 00:26:03,600 --> 00:26:06,399 Speaker 4: you know, areas that weren't future inquiry. There was a 460 00:26:06,440 --> 00:26:08,640 Speaker 4: part that says that he's going to look into conflicts 461 00:26:08,640 --> 00:26:12,000 Speaker 4: of interest in the vaccine recommendations tied to the pharmaceutical industry, 462 00:26:12,160 --> 00:26:14,919 Speaker 4: and we already see him doing that with the Acid Committee. 463 00:26:15,040 --> 00:26:17,200 Speaker 4: But based on that report, his next steps are likely 464 00:26:17,200 --> 00:26:20,600 Speaker 4: to address changes to clinical trials, more investigations in the 465 00:26:20,680 --> 00:26:24,320 Speaker 4: vaccine safety, in the science that really underpins the approvals. 466 00:26:24,640 --> 00:26:27,359 Speaker 4: And then the report also causing the expansion for the 467 00:26:27,400 --> 00:26:31,360 Speaker 4: Department's Autism Data Initiative to better study childhood chronic diseases. 468 00:26:31,480 --> 00:26:34,159 Speaker 4: So we know that Kennedy is supposed to come out 469 00:26:34,200 --> 00:26:37,359 Speaker 4: with a report and I believe September, on what causes autism, 470 00:26:37,400 --> 00:26:39,399 Speaker 4: And you know, we're eager to know what's going to 471 00:26:39,400 --> 00:26:41,480 Speaker 4: be in that report, and we're wondering if there will 472 00:26:41,520 --> 00:26:45,000 Speaker 4: be something in there that links you know, vaccines to autism, 473 00:26:45,080 --> 00:26:47,760 Speaker 4: which again has been debunked, but we are curious to 474 00:26:47,800 --> 00:26:48,640 Speaker 4: know what will be in there. 475 00:26:49,000 --> 00:26:53,000 Speaker 1: How consequential is it that he yanked seven hundred and 476 00:26:53,000 --> 00:26:57,520 Speaker 1: sixty six million dollar contract with Maderna to develop Mr 477 00:26:57,800 --> 00:27:00,880 Speaker 1: NA vaccines for avian influenza. 478 00:27:01,600 --> 00:27:05,200 Speaker 4: It's a big deal because one that is a lot 479 00:27:05,200 --> 00:27:09,520 Speaker 4: of money to do research into mRNA and to prevent 480 00:27:10,000 --> 00:27:15,480 Speaker 4: future diseases and flu in pandemics. So the concern there 481 00:27:15,720 --> 00:27:18,800 Speaker 4: was when he yanked that, you folks were like, does 482 00:27:18,880 --> 00:27:22,840 Speaker 4: he not want Maderna to study mRNA and to look 483 00:27:22,880 --> 00:27:26,399 Speaker 4: into that. So it kind of poses some threat to 484 00:27:26,840 --> 00:27:30,040 Speaker 4: mRNA vaccines is he's slowly chipping away at it because 485 00:27:30,040 --> 00:27:32,960 Speaker 4: again he's always had the skepticism with it. And then 486 00:27:33,080 --> 00:27:36,560 Speaker 4: to yank that contract with Majoernal was a very big deal. 487 00:27:37,200 --> 00:27:40,399 Speaker 1: And explain what an mRNA vaccine is. 488 00:27:41,240 --> 00:27:43,520 Speaker 4: mRNA is created in the lab to teach ourselves how 489 00:27:43,520 --> 00:27:47,359 Speaker 4: to make a protein, and that protein triggers an immune 490 00:27:47,359 --> 00:27:51,240 Speaker 4: response in our bodies, and that immune response produces antibodies 491 00:27:51,600 --> 00:27:53,840 Speaker 4: which helped protect us from getting sick from that German 492 00:27:53,880 --> 00:27:56,680 Speaker 4: the future. So in this case with the COVID nineteen vaccine, 493 00:27:56,800 --> 00:28:00,520 Speaker 4: that mRNA vaccine helps us from getting sick from COVID 494 00:28:00,560 --> 00:28:04,159 Speaker 4: in the future. And it was Emma Rena during the 495 00:28:04,200 --> 00:28:07,480 Speaker 4: first Trump administration was just a major breakthrough because it's 496 00:28:07,480 --> 00:28:11,160 Speaker 4: something the Trump administration harnessed when they were making vaccines 497 00:28:11,160 --> 00:28:14,399 Speaker 4: to battle the COVID nineteen pandemic, and it was major 498 00:28:14,480 --> 00:28:18,040 Speaker 4: for COVID nineteen, but it is also big for treating 499 00:28:18,080 --> 00:28:21,720 Speaker 4: other diseases, so it's not just about COVID, so Emmorna 500 00:28:21,880 --> 00:28:24,280 Speaker 4: can do a lot. I've talked to scientists who are like, 501 00:28:24,359 --> 00:28:26,879 Speaker 4: it's the next big thing, So to be chipping away 502 00:28:27,040 --> 00:28:28,800 Speaker 4: at it if we do is a big concern. 503 00:28:29,560 --> 00:28:32,679 Speaker 1: Do the people that you've talked to in this area 504 00:28:33,040 --> 00:28:37,320 Speaker 1: think that he'll just chip away at the public confidence 505 00:28:37,320 --> 00:28:40,400 Speaker 1: in vaccines, he'll stop new ones from coming out, or 506 00:28:40,440 --> 00:28:43,920 Speaker 1: that he's going to go after the vaccines that are 507 00:28:44,280 --> 00:28:45,360 Speaker 1: already out there. 508 00:28:46,280 --> 00:28:49,440 Speaker 4: I think it's both. I think for the vaccines already 509 00:28:49,480 --> 00:28:52,240 Speaker 4: out there, he might find a way to go back 510 00:28:52,280 --> 00:28:55,240 Speaker 4: and look at the you know, safety data to see 511 00:28:55,280 --> 00:28:59,040 Speaker 4: if there's something there to look into. And then for 512 00:28:59,160 --> 00:29:01,960 Speaker 4: future vaccine that haven't hit the market, there might be 513 00:29:02,480 --> 00:29:06,120 Speaker 4: you know, obstacles that are there for those manufacturers to 514 00:29:06,280 --> 00:29:09,680 Speaker 4: get them across the finish line to get approved. Because 515 00:29:09,960 --> 00:29:13,000 Speaker 4: again we're dealing with the Secretary who it's not only 516 00:29:13,040 --> 00:29:17,760 Speaker 4: skeptical vaccines, but also is skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry. 517 00:29:17,800 --> 00:29:21,920 Speaker 4: We've seen Kennedy make comments about his you know, issues 518 00:29:21,960 --> 00:29:26,400 Speaker 4: and concerns and questions around pharmaceutical industry profits and conflicts 519 00:29:26,400 --> 00:29:32,720 Speaker 4: of interest and how there's relationships between federal agencies and manufacturers, 520 00:29:32,880 --> 00:29:36,200 Speaker 4: so industry is also dealing with that. It's some kind 521 00:29:36,200 --> 00:29:38,920 Speaker 4: of in a weird spot right now, and how to 522 00:29:38,960 --> 00:29:43,120 Speaker 4: move forward with manufacturing these vaccines. But yes, I've talked 523 00:29:43,160 --> 00:29:45,440 Speaker 4: to people who are like, he will hip away at 524 00:29:45,440 --> 00:29:47,680 Speaker 4: these vaccines. I talk to one source who's like, this 525 00:29:47,720 --> 00:29:51,920 Speaker 4: is like the frog in a boiling pot situation, where 526 00:29:52,400 --> 00:29:56,040 Speaker 4: he's going to go at vaccines with small measures, and 527 00:29:56,840 --> 00:29:58,800 Speaker 4: he's going to do it slowly, but at the same time, 528 00:29:58,840 --> 00:30:00,320 Speaker 4: we see him moving quickly right now. 529 00:30:00,680 --> 00:30:03,840 Speaker 1: During his confirmation hearings, a lot of the senators were 530 00:30:03,920 --> 00:30:09,400 Speaker 1: concerned about his views on vaccines. So Kennedy's recent moves 531 00:30:09,440 --> 00:30:14,600 Speaker 1: have caused health professionals to be concerned. What about lawmakers? 532 00:30:15,000 --> 00:30:19,440 Speaker 4: A good number of lawmakers have expressed concerns with this. 533 00:30:20,000 --> 00:30:23,720 Speaker 4: I think the most important reaction we got was from 534 00:30:23,920 --> 00:30:29,640 Speaker 4: Senator Bill Cassidy after Kennedy made this decision. Because during 535 00:30:30,080 --> 00:30:35,800 Speaker 4: Kennedy's confirmation hearing, before Cassidy decided to vote for Kennedy, 536 00:30:35,880 --> 00:30:40,600 Speaker 4: to become secretary. He said that Kennedy would quote maintain 537 00:30:40,720 --> 00:30:44,200 Speaker 4: the committee, and that could have meant many things, and 538 00:30:44,960 --> 00:30:47,640 Speaker 4: that clearly has not been the case because the committee 539 00:30:47,680 --> 00:30:52,320 Speaker 4: is now dismissed and Cassidy posted on x that he 540 00:30:52,440 --> 00:30:55,480 Speaker 4: spoke with Kennedy. You know, we haven't really heard any 541 00:30:55,480 --> 00:30:57,600 Speaker 4: details since then, but I know that this is a 542 00:30:57,600 --> 00:31:01,840 Speaker 4: concern for Cassidy because that was one of the promises 543 00:31:01,880 --> 00:31:05,320 Speaker 4: that Kennedy made to the Senator which got him that 544 00:31:05,480 --> 00:31:06,440 Speaker 4: vote from Cassidy. 545 00:31:07,040 --> 00:31:10,280 Speaker 1: I think we've seen time and time again, not only 546 00:31:10,320 --> 00:31:15,000 Speaker 1: with government officials, but also with Supreme Court justices, that 547 00:31:15,160 --> 00:31:20,360 Speaker 1: promises made or assurances given during confirmation hearings are not 548 00:31:20,400 --> 00:31:23,480 Speaker 1: always kept. Thanks so much for joining me, NYA. That's 549 00:31:23,480 --> 00:31:27,400 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Healthcare Reporter Nya pank City and that's it for 550 00:31:27,400 --> 00:31:30,040 Speaker 1: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can 551 00:31:30,080 --> 00:31:33,320 Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. 552 00:31:33,600 --> 00:31:36,640 Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at 553 00:31:36,800 --> 00:31:41,800 Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and 554 00:31:41,880 --> 00:31:44,959 Speaker 1: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight 555 00:31:45,040 --> 00:31:48,480 Speaker 1: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and 556 00:31:48,560 --> 00:31:50,000 Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg