1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,440
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,360
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. A federal judge

6
00:00:22,360 --> 00:00:25,560
Speaker 1: has ruled that President Trump cannot end the DOCCA program

7
00:00:25,600 --> 00:00:30,160
Speaker 1: that shields young undocumented immigrants from deportation. Hundreds of thousands

8
00:00:30,160 --> 00:00:34,000
Speaker 1: of children facing deportation want a court order temporarily blocking

9
00:00:34,040 --> 00:00:37,960
Speaker 1: the Trump administration's decision to end the so called Dreamer's program.

10
00:00:38,000 --> 00:00:41,720
Speaker 1: In March, President Trump tweeted that the decision shows quote

11
00:00:41,960 --> 00:00:45,720
Speaker 1: how broken and unfair our court system is. Joining me?

12
00:00:45,800 --> 00:00:50,479
Speaker 1: Is David Beer, immigration policy analysts at the Cato Institute, David,

13
00:00:50,520 --> 00:00:54,800
Speaker 1: what did the judge base his decision on? Well, ultimately

14
00:00:54,800 --> 00:00:57,000
Speaker 1: it was a question of whether or not the legal

15
00:00:57,080 --> 00:01:03,200
Speaker 1: reasoning uh presented by the administration m was believed by

16
00:01:03,240 --> 00:01:08,480
Speaker 1: this judge, and they and the judge said that ultimately

17
00:01:09,080 --> 00:01:16,280
Speaker 1: their determination that DOCCA was an illegal executive action was

18
00:01:16,680 --> 00:01:21,520
Speaker 1: without a legal basis or was false. And so then

19
00:01:21,640 --> 00:01:27,160
Speaker 1: ultimately the question became whether or not while the judge

20
00:01:27,200 --> 00:01:29,880
Speaker 1: is listening to the arguments in the case before he

21
00:01:29,959 --> 00:01:35,520
Speaker 1: makes a final decision whether or not uh the administration

22
00:01:35,640 --> 00:01:40,759
Speaker 1: could shut down DOCTA completely during the case, and uh

23
00:01:40,880 --> 00:01:45,160
Speaker 1: the judge ruled that they could not. The judge quoted

24
00:01:45,240 --> 00:01:49,280
Speaker 1: directly from a Trump tweet, which was, does anybody really

25
00:01:49,280 --> 00:01:52,320
Speaker 1: want to throw out good educated and accomplished young men

26
00:01:52,360 --> 00:01:56,080
Speaker 1: who have jobs, some serving in the military. How did

27
00:01:56,120 --> 00:02:01,320
Speaker 1: he use that tweet? Well, really, the point of quoting

28
00:02:01,320 --> 00:02:04,480
Speaker 1: the president there was one of the components of issuing

29
00:02:04,480 --> 00:02:09,240
Speaker 1: an injunction against uh, you know, an action taken by

30
00:02:09,280 --> 00:02:13,240
Speaker 1: the President or the administration UM is whether or not

31
00:02:13,280 --> 00:02:16,800
Speaker 1: it's in the public interest to have an injunction imposed

32
00:02:17,040 --> 00:02:20,440
Speaker 1: during the case as as it proceeds through the courts.

33
00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:25,399
Speaker 1: And uh. The judge cited this tweet, this tweet by

34
00:02:26,000 --> 00:02:31,239
Speaker 1: the president to show that even the president thinks keeping

35
00:02:31,360 --> 00:02:36,240
Speaker 1: these um uh protections in place is something that's in

36
00:02:36,280 --> 00:02:39,920
Speaker 1: the national interest, even if he, uh you know, thinks

37
00:02:39,960 --> 00:02:45,280
Speaker 1: that Congress should have authorized it. Looking at this politically,

38
00:02:46,440 --> 00:02:49,800
Speaker 1: does this take the pressure off Republicans and Democrats to

39
00:02:49,960 --> 00:02:54,880
Speaker 1: find a political solution to the DOCTA problem. Well, I

40
00:02:54,880 --> 00:03:02,400
Speaker 1: think it does present another argument or people who say

41
00:03:02,440 --> 00:03:04,640
Speaker 1: that there's not a lot of urgency. They you know,

42
00:03:04,919 --> 00:03:09,639
Speaker 1: they can debate this until March when the protections under

43
00:03:09,720 --> 00:03:17,200
Speaker 1: DOCA we're supposed to expire before this recent ruling. And UM, really,

44
00:03:17,680 --> 00:03:22,640
Speaker 1: you know, the the likelihood of getting a deal UM

45
00:03:22,720 --> 00:03:28,840
Speaker 1: in time for the January nine deadline is UM is

46
00:03:28,880 --> 00:03:31,600
Speaker 1: going down by the day. Every day that passens without

47
00:03:31,600 --> 00:03:34,000
Speaker 1: a deal makes it more unlikely that there will be

48
00:03:34,040 --> 00:03:38,880
Speaker 1: a deal. And this just adds another reason, uh for

49
00:03:39,080 --> 00:03:42,240
Speaker 1: negotiators to kick the can down the road. So the

50
00:03:42,320 --> 00:03:45,560
Speaker 1: Justice Department has already fought all the way to the

51
00:03:45,560 --> 00:03:49,360
Speaker 1: Supreme Court to win a reprieve from an earlier order

52
00:03:49,400 --> 00:03:53,040
Speaker 1: by the judge to disclose records explaining why it chose

53
00:03:53,120 --> 00:03:57,680
Speaker 1: to end the program. Is it likely to appeal this

54
00:03:58,040 --> 00:04:02,440
Speaker 1: or is it going to leave of the political process. Well,

55
00:04:02,480 --> 00:04:08,840
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice UM indicated that they probably would appeal,

56
00:04:09,080 --> 00:04:12,760
Speaker 1: but haven't said so directly, and the White House strangely

57
00:04:12,800 --> 00:04:16,760
Speaker 1: did not mention UM, you know, their intentions on whether

58
00:04:16,839 --> 00:04:19,919
Speaker 1: or not they're going to appeal or not. So maybe

59
00:04:19,960 --> 00:04:24,880
Speaker 1: there's some internal debate going on within the administration about

60
00:04:24,880 --> 00:04:28,800
Speaker 1: whether or not UM it's a good idea to appeal

61
00:04:29,040 --> 00:04:31,920
Speaker 1: or whether they could you know, uh, you know, pin

62
00:04:32,080 --> 00:04:35,599
Speaker 1: not getting rid of DOCTA on this uh, on this

63
00:04:35,760 --> 00:04:38,839
Speaker 1: judge's decision. Um. So we'll have to see what the

64
00:04:38,920 --> 00:04:42,680
Speaker 1: ultimate determination is. But uh no, no decision has been

65
00:04:42,720 --> 00:04:45,480
Speaker 1: made at this time. Do you think it would be

66
00:04:45,680 --> 00:04:48,599
Speaker 1: smart to appeal to the Supreme Court or better to

67
00:04:49,040 --> 00:04:54,279
Speaker 1: let the process unfold at the trial court level? Well,

68
00:04:54,400 --> 00:04:56,240
Speaker 1: it would be smart if you're looking to get rid

69
00:04:56,240 --> 00:05:00,960
Speaker 1: of the program as quickly as possible, because uh, you know,

70
00:05:01,040 --> 00:05:04,400
Speaker 1: it seems pretty likely that the Supreme Court would not

71
00:05:04,960 --> 00:05:10,880
Speaker 1: um go along um with this decision. It's more conservative leaning,

72
00:05:11,440 --> 00:05:16,280
Speaker 1: and uh, you know, the decision um is one in

73
00:05:16,279 --> 00:05:20,719
Speaker 1: which a lot of people were surprised by political comments.

74
00:05:20,760 --> 00:05:24,400
Speaker 1: Are legal commentators on both sides of the aisle, we're

75
00:05:24,440 --> 00:05:28,599
Speaker 1: not expecting to win, and now they are, you know,

76
00:05:28,680 --> 00:05:34,360
Speaker 1: sort of in the unexpected position of of having received this,

77
00:05:34,360 --> 00:05:38,599
Speaker 1: this ruling in favor of the doctor program, David. Why

78
00:05:38,640 --> 00:05:42,480
Speaker 1: weren't they expecting a win? The judge analyzed the decision

79
00:05:42,520 --> 00:05:45,919
Speaker 1: making process behind the creation of DAK and found that

80
00:05:46,000 --> 00:05:49,839
Speaker 1: each step was grounded in previous decisions by Congress and

81
00:05:49,880 --> 00:05:55,440
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. Why weren't legal analysts expecting that. Well,

82
00:05:55,720 --> 00:06:00,680
Speaker 1: if you look at the the you know, a decision

83
00:06:00,720 --> 00:06:03,360
Speaker 1: that went into the creation of DOCTA, it was very

84
00:06:03,440 --> 00:06:06,360
Speaker 1: similar to the decision making process that went into the

85
00:06:06,360 --> 00:06:12,600
Speaker 1: creation of a separate Obama era immigration program UM called DAPPA,

86
00:06:12,800 --> 00:06:18,400
Speaker 1: which was intended to essentially expand DOCTA to include parents

87
00:06:18,480 --> 00:06:24,200
Speaker 1: of undocumented parents of US citizen children. And UH that

88
00:06:24,240 --> 00:06:27,279
Speaker 1: program was shut down by the courts. The Supreme Court

89
00:06:27,839 --> 00:06:33,599
Speaker 1: UM ultimately, in a split decision, UH elected to uphold

90
00:06:34,080 --> 00:06:37,159
Speaker 1: lower courts decisions preventing that. And we've just had a

91
00:06:37,320 --> 00:06:42,880
Speaker 1: new uh conservative justice added to the Supreme Court. So UM,

92
00:06:42,920 --> 00:06:46,560
Speaker 1: you know that line of cases is very similar to

93
00:06:47,440 --> 00:06:51,719
Speaker 1: UH this line of cases and so UM, based on

94
00:06:52,040 --> 00:06:58,120
Speaker 1: where the courts were in UH, it certainly seems likely

95
00:06:58,200 --> 00:07:01,960
Speaker 1: that this decision will not stay and um if it

96
00:07:02,040 --> 00:07:07,880
Speaker 1: was appealed. So President Trump has issued many executive orders

97
00:07:07,960 --> 00:07:11,120
Speaker 1: during the year that he's been in office. By challenging

98
00:07:11,240 --> 00:07:16,320
Speaker 1: these executive actions of President Obama, is President Trump setting

99
00:07:16,440 --> 00:07:22,000
Speaker 1: himself up for challenges of his executive orders. Well, look,

100
00:07:22,160 --> 00:07:27,320
Speaker 1: not all executive orders are illegal executive orders, and UM,

101
00:07:27,360 --> 00:07:31,240
Speaker 1: you know, some have a basis in legislation and the

102
00:07:31,320 --> 00:07:35,240
Speaker 1: law that are you know, uh, perfectly within the power

103
00:07:35,280 --> 00:07:39,800
Speaker 1: of the president to take and uh some are ones

104
00:07:39,880 --> 00:07:45,560
Speaker 1: that are not legal and exceed the authorities granted by Congress.

105
00:07:45,600 --> 00:07:50,800
Speaker 1: And so there's no real relationship between um, you know,

106
00:07:50,960 --> 00:07:54,880
Speaker 1: one executive you know, one challenge to an executive order, uh,

107
00:07:54,880 --> 00:07:57,760
Speaker 1: and another challenge to an executive order. You know, the

108
00:07:58,080 --> 00:08:03,960
Speaker 1: travel ban executive order is really completely different, um than

109
00:08:04,360 --> 00:08:09,920
Speaker 1: the decision to eliminate data. Let's talk a little bit

110
00:08:09,960 --> 00:08:13,640
Speaker 1: about what happens now to the Dreamers. Is everything on

111
00:08:13,760 --> 00:08:17,960
Speaker 1: whold for them? Well, you know, there's a lot of

112
00:08:18,040 --> 00:08:23,600
Speaker 1: uncertainty about how the administration is going to proceed. Um.

113
00:08:23,640 --> 00:08:27,080
Speaker 1: You know, it takes a while to you know, submit

114
00:08:27,120 --> 00:08:31,880
Speaker 1: new applications and you know that's essentially what the the

115
00:08:32,000 --> 00:08:36,480
Speaker 1: decision would require to happen. And even in this decision,

116
00:08:36,600 --> 00:08:39,960
Speaker 1: the judge says, well, you know, there's still discretion for

117
00:08:40,000 --> 00:08:44,080
Speaker 1: the administration to deny these applications on an individual, case

118
00:08:44,160 --> 00:08:48,640
Speaker 1: by case basis. And so it's it's very unclear how

119
00:08:48,760 --> 00:08:53,959
Speaker 1: this decision ultimately gets implemented in practice. And I think

120
00:08:54,000 --> 00:08:57,600
Speaker 1: a lot of Dreamers are just waiting around to hear

121
00:08:57,679 --> 00:09:00,559
Speaker 1: exactly what the administration plans to do do they plan

122
00:09:00,679 --> 00:09:04,320
Speaker 1: to appeal to Uh they plan to accept applications? Do

123
00:09:04,480 --> 00:09:09,440
Speaker 1: they plan to do something else? Uh? Will they approve

124
00:09:09,559 --> 00:09:13,080
Speaker 1: these applications? Uh, there's a lot of uncertainty at the moment.

125
00:09:13,760 --> 00:09:17,480
Speaker 1: And what about at the this trial level. When does

126
00:09:17,960 --> 00:09:20,800
Speaker 1: what happens is a trial go forward immediately or is

127
00:09:20,840 --> 00:09:25,400
Speaker 1: there time? Well, there's going to you know, it's going

128
00:09:25,480 --> 00:09:28,480
Speaker 1: to proceed at the trial court level as long as

129
00:09:28,559 --> 00:09:33,480
Speaker 1: the administration does not appeal. UM. So we'll have to

130
00:09:33,520 --> 00:09:36,640
Speaker 1: see what the you know, the ultimate decision is there

131
00:09:37,480 --> 00:09:41,080
Speaker 1: by the Department of Justice and the White House. The

132
00:09:41,120 --> 00:09:44,520
Speaker 1: California Attorney General called the ruling a huge step in

133
00:09:44,520 --> 00:09:49,200
Speaker 1: the right direction. How big a victory is this, Well,

134
00:09:49,240 --> 00:09:51,280
Speaker 1: like I said, there's a lot of uncertainty about how

135
00:09:51,280 --> 00:09:53,680
Speaker 1: big of a victory it is. UM, if it's quickly

136
00:09:53,720 --> 00:09:58,440
Speaker 1: reversed by uh the appellate court served by the Supreme Court,

137
00:09:58,640 --> 00:10:01,960
Speaker 1: not a big victory. If the administration decides to leave

138
00:10:02,000 --> 00:10:05,400
Speaker 1: it in place. UM, it could be a big victory

139
00:10:05,720 --> 00:10:10,280
Speaker 1: if they decide to implement it in a way that

140
00:10:10,920 --> 00:10:16,160
Speaker 1: allows these protections to continue. Uh. There's a possibility, as

141
00:10:16,200 --> 00:10:18,839
Speaker 1: I mentioned, that they might start to deny them on

142
00:10:18,880 --> 00:10:23,240
Speaker 1: a case by case basis, and uh so DOCU might

143
00:10:23,280 --> 00:10:27,120
Speaker 1: exist only as a theory as opposed to uh something

144
00:10:27,160 --> 00:10:31,400
Speaker 1: that has actual um impact on people. Thank you, David.

145
00:10:31,559 --> 00:10:40,559
Speaker 1: That's David Beer, immigration policy analysts at the Cato Institute.

146
00:10:41,840 --> 00:10:44,520
Speaker 1: Ford is being sued by truck owners who claim it's

147
00:10:44,600 --> 00:10:48,400
Speaker 1: digital diesel engines were rigged. Drivers in the class action

148
00:10:48,480 --> 00:10:51,800
Speaker 1: lawsuit claimed that Ford rigged at least five hundred thousand

149
00:10:51,880 --> 00:10:55,280
Speaker 1: heavy duty trucks to beat emissions tests. Ford marketed the

150
00:10:55,320 --> 00:10:58,440
Speaker 1: trucks as the cleanest super diesel ever, while the lawyer

151
00:10:58,520 --> 00:11:01,680
Speaker 1: bringing the suit so they should have been called super dirty.

152
00:11:01,840 --> 00:11:04,520
Speaker 1: Ford is at least the fifth car maker accused of

153
00:11:04,559 --> 00:11:08,080
Speaker 1: diesel cheating in the US. Joining me as card came erotra.

154
00:11:08,320 --> 00:11:10,560
Speaker 1: He's a Bloomberg News legal reporter and he broke the

155
00:11:10,600 --> 00:11:15,199
Speaker 1: story card case. The suit includes fifty eight alleged allegations

156
00:11:15,200 --> 00:11:19,720
Speaker 1: of state consumer law, false advertising, and racketeering claims. Let's

157
00:11:19,720 --> 00:11:22,520
Speaker 1: start with the claims of a conspiracy with a German

158
00:11:22,760 --> 00:11:26,880
Speaker 1: automotive supplier. Tell us about that. So Robert Bosch is

159
00:11:26,960 --> 00:11:29,240
Speaker 1: the is the auto supplier, and this is the same

160
00:11:29,280 --> 00:11:33,800
Speaker 1: company that has been accused of providing UH tech algorithms

161
00:11:33,840 --> 00:11:39,920
Speaker 1: to h broadly the the diesel industry this time to forward.

162
00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:43,320
Speaker 1: The allegation is that they created an algorithm and embedded

163
00:11:43,400 --> 00:11:46,440
Speaker 1: in the software of these diesel vehicles so that when

164
00:11:46,480 --> 00:11:51,439
Speaker 1: the cars were tested UH they produced clean results. When

165
00:11:51,440 --> 00:11:54,760
Speaker 1: they're on the road, UH, the emissions were far greater

166
00:11:55,480 --> 00:11:59,640
Speaker 1: as the software was not in place. UM so essentially,

167
00:12:00,040 --> 00:12:03,360
Speaker 1: while testing clean, while on the road polluting at fifty

168
00:12:03,360 --> 00:12:06,960
Speaker 1: times a legal limit and has bosh to not any

169
00:12:07,000 --> 00:12:11,080
Speaker 1: wrongdoing in the other cases they have throughout. Let's talk

170
00:12:11,080 --> 00:12:14,440
Speaker 1: about the responses of some of the automakers that have

171
00:12:14,559 --> 00:12:18,800
Speaker 1: faced similar claims, because, as you write in your story,

172
00:12:19,040 --> 00:12:22,120
Speaker 1: Ford has an opportunity here can go in many different directions,

173
00:12:22,800 --> 00:12:26,360
Speaker 1: that's right. So if you recall Volkswagen, which was the

174
00:12:26,400 --> 00:12:31,920
Speaker 1: first UH car maker pulled up for diesel cheating, admitted

175
00:12:31,960 --> 00:12:34,920
Speaker 1: their wrongdoing immediately after the consumer suit was filed in

176
00:12:34,920 --> 00:12:37,760
Speaker 1: September of two thousand fifteen. UH. They went to court

177
00:12:38,000 --> 00:12:42,280
Speaker 1: where the priority for the car company the judge plaintiffs

178
00:12:42,320 --> 00:12:44,560
Speaker 1: was to get the cars off the road, and admitting

179
00:12:44,559 --> 00:12:50,079
Speaker 1: wrongdoing helped facilitate a settlement between the parties. UH. Fiat

180
00:12:50,120 --> 00:12:54,880
Speaker 1: Chrysler is facing not identical but similar claims. And they've said,

181
00:12:54,920 --> 00:12:57,640
Speaker 1: you know, we made a mistake. We're sorry. UM, we

182
00:12:57,679 --> 00:13:00,720
Speaker 1: will try to fix the problem. GA is fighting it

183
00:13:00,720 --> 00:13:03,319
Speaker 1: out right. UH. So Ford has the option of pursuing

184
00:13:03,320 --> 00:13:04,840
Speaker 1: one of these three options, are coming up with their

185
00:13:04,840 --> 00:13:07,840
Speaker 1: own combination. Uh, what they do remains to be seen.

186
00:13:09,880 --> 00:13:15,000
Speaker 1: What what are the claims about the emissions of these diesels?

187
00:13:15,120 --> 00:13:18,880
Speaker 1: Does it go across all five hundred thousand heavy duty trucks?

188
00:13:18,880 --> 00:13:22,240
Speaker 1: And it is it? Is it a claim that of

189
00:13:22,320 --> 00:13:24,720
Speaker 1: a of a certain amount of emissions in each in

190
00:13:24,760 --> 00:13:29,480
Speaker 1: each vehicle or is it variations? So the Environmental Protection

191
00:13:29,520 --> 00:13:34,160
Speaker 1: Agency in California's Air Resources boards set pollution limits. And

192
00:13:34,200 --> 00:13:36,800
Speaker 1: the claim in the lawsuit is that Ford's F two

193
00:13:36,920 --> 00:13:41,000
Speaker 1: fifty and F three fifty. These are the biggest diesel pickups. Um,

194
00:13:41,360 --> 00:13:44,320
Speaker 1: we're polluting at up to fifty times a limit. So

195
00:13:44,400 --> 00:13:47,240
Speaker 1: depending on the circumstance, depending on the strain on the engine,

196
00:13:47,800 --> 00:13:51,400
Speaker 1: UM they were, they were emitting far more than uh

197
00:13:51,600 --> 00:13:56,760
Speaker 1: what the federal regulator and individual states require. Now the

198
00:13:56,880 --> 00:14:02,040
Speaker 1: question will be UM two what end UH will plaintiffs

199
00:14:02,080 --> 00:14:05,760
Speaker 1: pursue damages or are they simply going to seek a fix?

200
00:14:06,320 --> 00:14:10,920
Speaker 1: And and you know what is Ford's Ford's reply, Are

201
00:14:10,960 --> 00:14:14,720
Speaker 1: any of the state regulators getting involved in this right

202
00:14:14,760 --> 00:14:17,120
Speaker 1: now to see what these trucks are doing and get

203
00:14:17,120 --> 00:14:20,240
Speaker 1: them off the road? Not yet. That doesn't mean that

204
00:14:20,280 --> 00:14:23,480
Speaker 1: they won't. We've seen the E p A and CARB

205
00:14:23,600 --> 00:14:27,880
Speaker 1: get involved pretty early on in Vokeswagen and Fiat Chrysler.

206
00:14:27,880 --> 00:14:31,840
Speaker 1: I believe in GM as well, UM, but they haven't

207
00:14:32,040 --> 00:14:34,160
Speaker 1: haven't jumped on this just yet. That doesn't mean that

208
00:14:34,200 --> 00:14:38,120
Speaker 1: they won't in due course. So car decay, if these

209
00:14:38,120 --> 00:14:43,479
Speaker 1: super duty pickups will require modifications to control the emissions,

210
00:14:43,600 --> 00:14:47,640
Speaker 1: what does that do to the rest of the pickup

211
00:14:47,720 --> 00:14:51,280
Speaker 1: and its power, etcetera. And that's the question that will

212
00:14:51,360 --> 00:14:56,160
Speaker 1: be litigated in court most likely. UH, the plaintiffs will

213
00:14:56,280 --> 00:14:58,360
Speaker 1: argue that if you're going to fix the cars, there's

214
00:14:58,400 --> 00:15:01,440
Speaker 1: a very very good chance at the performance will decline

215
00:15:01,480 --> 00:15:04,720
Speaker 1: that the cars won't be as powerful as advertised, the

216
00:15:04,760 --> 00:15:08,120
Speaker 1: torque won't be as advertised, the efficiency of the fuel

217
00:15:08,160 --> 00:15:11,720
Speaker 1: won't be as advertised. UH. And the company is accused

218
00:15:11,720 --> 00:15:14,200
Speaker 1: of false advertising from two thousand eleven to two thousand

219
00:15:14,160 --> 00:15:18,720
Speaker 1: and seventeen for that very issue. UM. They will likely

220
00:15:18,800 --> 00:15:20,840
Speaker 1: reply by by saying we can either fix it or

221
00:15:20,880 --> 00:15:23,280
Speaker 1: there's no problem and you can continue driving the cars.

222
00:15:23,320 --> 00:15:27,200
Speaker 1: But that is probably the most pressing question before a

223
00:15:27,240 --> 00:15:30,360
Speaker 1: federal judge whenever this case does come to court. You

224
00:15:30,400 --> 00:15:33,200
Speaker 1: write that Ford plans to introduce a diesel engine in

225
00:15:33,240 --> 00:15:36,880
Speaker 1: its smaller AT one pick up for the first time.

226
00:15:37,520 --> 00:15:41,200
Speaker 1: Will those plans likely be put on hold? Another excellent

227
00:15:41,320 --> 00:15:44,000
Speaker 1: question that that will hopefully learn during the car show

228
00:15:44,000 --> 00:15:48,160
Speaker 1: in Detroit. Um in a few weeks. Um, will they

229
00:15:48,240 --> 00:15:50,880
Speaker 1: will they carry forward? Uh and and stick to their

230
00:15:50,880 --> 00:15:55,600
Speaker 1: guns or or? Um? Is this likely to yield further

231
00:15:55,640 --> 00:16:00,000
Speaker 1: introspecting forward regarding their dependence and liability of their diesel vehicles.

232
00:16:00,440 --> 00:16:03,000
Speaker 1: What does it say about these diesel vehicles that we

233
00:16:03,080 --> 00:16:08,840
Speaker 1: have this many lawsuits against carmakers accused of cheating to

234
00:16:08,960 --> 00:16:14,400
Speaker 1: meet the environmental standards. Yeah, how reliable is diesel tech

235
00:16:14,440 --> 00:16:18,040
Speaker 1: in these vehicles right now? Is a very valid question, um,

236
00:16:18,320 --> 00:16:21,960
Speaker 1: and certainly worth asking and their attorneys across the US

237
00:16:22,040 --> 00:16:25,720
Speaker 1: that are now taking it upon themselves to test these vehicles.

238
00:16:25,720 --> 00:16:28,520
Speaker 1: Not just rely on what CARB and the EP are

239
00:16:28,520 --> 00:16:30,920
Speaker 1: telling them, but they're trying to answer these questions themselves.

240
00:16:30,920 --> 00:16:34,600
Speaker 1: And we'll see what the performance of diesel sales are

241
00:16:34,680 --> 00:16:38,440
Speaker 1: like in the next next year. UM, the F series

242
00:16:38,480 --> 00:16:41,880
Speaker 1: is the best selling vehicle in America, and these diesel

243
00:16:41,880 --> 00:16:46,560
Speaker 1: pickups produced a healthy slice of those. UM. What happens

244
00:16:46,600 --> 00:16:50,000
Speaker 1: to Ford sales going forward is is another great question.

245
00:16:50,160 --> 00:16:51,960
Speaker 1: We won't have an answer. Ask me a year from now.

246
00:16:54,200 --> 00:16:56,040
Speaker 1: We'll know about the sales then. But will we know

247
00:16:56,120 --> 00:16:58,680
Speaker 1: anymore about the lawsuit? It could be it could be

248
00:16:58,760 --> 00:17:01,760
Speaker 1: a long haul nuts. I shouldn't have used the word

249
00:17:01,760 --> 00:17:05,040
Speaker 1: hall here with trucks, but thank you so much, Car Deka.

250
00:17:05,160 --> 00:17:08,320
Speaker 1: That's Cardica Marotra. He's a Bloomberg News legal reporter and

251
00:17:08,359 --> 00:17:11,680
Speaker 1: he broke this story. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg

252
00:17:11,760 --> 00:17:14,840
Speaker 1: Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show

253
00:17:14,880 --> 00:17:19,600
Speaker 1: on Apple podcast, SoundCloud and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast.

254
00:17:20,000 --> 00:17:22,719
Speaker 1: I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg