1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,480
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,720 --> 00:00:13,800
Speaker 2: Effective immediately, We're repealing the ridiculous endangerment finding and terminating

3
00:00:13,840 --> 00:00:20,200
Speaker 2: all additional green emission standards imposed unnecessarily on vehicle models

4
00:00:20,200 --> 00:00:24,200
Speaker 2: and engines between twenty twelve and twenty twenty seven and beyond.

5
00:00:24,920 --> 00:00:28,800
Speaker 3: It's the most aggressive move by President Trump to roll

6
00:00:28,880 --> 00:00:34,239
Speaker 3: back climate regulations. His administration has revoked a key scientific

7
00:00:34,360 --> 00:00:38,320
Speaker 3: finding that's been the central basis for US action to

8
00:00:38,479 --> 00:00:43,440
Speaker 3: regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. It's undoing

9
00:00:43,520 --> 00:00:47,040
Speaker 3: what's known as the endangerment finding, or ruling from the

10
00:00:47,120 --> 00:00:51,440
Speaker 3: EPA in two thousand and nine under former President Obama

11
00:00:51,760 --> 00:00:56,560
Speaker 3: that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threaten public health

12
00:00:56,600 --> 00:01:00,320
Speaker 3: and welfare. But Trump says it's all a scam.

13
00:01:00,800 --> 00:01:02,840
Speaker 2: Don't worry about it because it has nothing to do

14
00:01:02,920 --> 00:01:04,200
Speaker 2: with public health.

15
00:01:04,480 --> 00:01:06,759
Speaker 1: This was all a scam, giant scam.

16
00:01:06,959 --> 00:01:12,240
Speaker 3: Former EPA administrator Gena McCarthy says the endangerment finding wasn't

17
00:01:12,240 --> 00:01:15,480
Speaker 3: a political decision. It was the result of a Supreme

18
00:01:15,560 --> 00:01:19,680
Speaker 3: Court ruling that ordered the EPA to conduct an extensive

19
00:01:19,840 --> 00:01:23,959
Speaker 3: scientific process to review whether climate change was a hazard

20
00:01:24,040 --> 00:01:25,280
Speaker 3: to health and the environment.

21
00:01:26,400 --> 00:01:29,880
Speaker 4: They are trying to make us think that the endangerment

22
00:01:30,040 --> 00:01:35,080
Speaker 4: finding it can be nullified just because they wanted to,

23
00:01:35,640 --> 00:01:39,280
Speaker 4: not because the science says so. Are the laws allowed

24
00:01:39,280 --> 00:01:40,039
Speaker 4: this to happen.

25
00:01:40,400 --> 00:01:45,440
Speaker 3: Environmental scientists and experts say that revoking the finding could

26
00:01:45,520 --> 00:01:50,040
Speaker 3: have generational impacts and may speed up the negative effects

27
00:01:50,080 --> 00:01:55,480
Speaker 3: of climate change. Attorneys general representing Blue states, environmental groups,

28
00:01:55,520 --> 00:01:59,560
Speaker 3: and healthcare groups say they're planning to sue over the revocation.

29
00:02:00,160 --> 00:02:03,000
Speaker 3: Joining me is Michael Gerard, a professor at Columbia Law

30
00:02:03,040 --> 00:02:06,960
Speaker 3: School and director of the Saban Center for Climate Change Law.

31
00:02:07,400 --> 00:02:09,639
Speaker 3: Will you explain the endangerment finding?

32
00:02:10,480 --> 00:02:10,600
Speaker 5: So?

33
00:02:10,840 --> 00:02:13,600
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court said in two thousand and seven that

34
00:02:13,800 --> 00:02:18,480
Speaker 1: if EPA finds that greenhouse gases posed an endangerment to

35
00:02:18,880 --> 00:02:22,600
Speaker 1: public health and welfare, EPA has the authority to regulate

36
00:02:22,639 --> 00:02:25,880
Speaker 1: them under the Clean Air Act. In two thousand and nine,

37
00:02:26,040 --> 00:02:30,320
Speaker 1: EPA issued that endangerment finding, and since then, especially under

38
00:02:30,320 --> 00:02:34,800
Speaker 1: Presidents Obama and Biden, EPA has been regulated greenhouse gas emissions.

39
00:02:35,000 --> 00:02:38,000
Speaker 3: What are their reasons for rescinding the endangerment finding?

40
00:02:38,760 --> 00:02:42,639
Speaker 1: They said that it was beyond the authority of EPA

41
00:02:42,919 --> 00:02:47,440
Speaker 1: actually to be doing this to be regulating greenhouse gases,

42
00:02:47,480 --> 00:02:50,480
Speaker 1: even though the Supreme Court said they could do that.

43
00:02:51,160 --> 00:02:55,240
Speaker 1: Now the Trump administration is saying, no, they can't, that

44
00:02:55,440 --> 00:02:59,960
Speaker 1: it's such a big issue, an important issue. THATA does

45
00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:03,320
Speaker 1: and have the authority in less. Congress explicitly says that

46
00:03:03,360 --> 00:03:04,000
Speaker 1: they can do that.

47
00:03:04,600 --> 00:03:06,600
Speaker 3: And what's the real reason, I mean, what's the reason

48
00:03:06,639 --> 00:03:08,880
Speaker 3: behind the Trump administration rescinding it.

49
00:03:09,400 --> 00:03:12,760
Speaker 1: The Trump administration is all about maximizing the demand for

50
00:03:13,000 --> 00:03:16,560
Speaker 1: and the supply of fossil fuels. Regulation of greenhouse gas

51
00:03:16,600 --> 00:03:19,280
Speaker 1: emissions gets in the way of that, and so the

52
00:03:19,320 --> 00:03:23,280
Speaker 1: particular regulations they're most focused on were moving toward more

53
00:03:23,360 --> 00:03:26,720
Speaker 1: electric vehicles, which are the main source, the main threat

54
00:03:26,760 --> 00:03:29,360
Speaker 1: to the demand for oil. President Trump says he doesn't

55
00:03:29,400 --> 00:03:31,880
Speaker 1: really believe that climate change is happening, or that it's

56
00:03:31,919 --> 00:03:34,360
Speaker 1: caused by humans, or that it's very bad. So I

57
00:03:34,360 --> 00:03:36,760
Speaker 1: think that's one of the reasons behind what they're doing.

58
00:03:36,800 --> 00:03:39,120
Speaker 1: And they think it's bad for the economy to fight

59
00:03:39,320 --> 00:03:40,040
Speaker 1: climate change.

60
00:03:41,160 --> 00:03:47,000
Speaker 3: How long have scientists been convinced that greenhouse gas emissions

61
00:03:47,040 --> 00:03:50,160
Speaker 3: caused by humans hurt the public's health.

62
00:03:50,760 --> 00:03:54,040
Speaker 1: The first science on this was emerging in the late

63
00:03:54,120 --> 00:03:57,240
Speaker 1: nineteenth century. But I would say, it's fair to say

64
00:03:57,240 --> 00:04:00,000
Speaker 1: that by the late nineteen eighties or early nineteen ninety

65
00:04:00,840 --> 00:04:05,720
Speaker 1: there was a general scientific consensus about the science of

66
00:04:05,760 --> 00:04:10,120
Speaker 1: climate change. When EPA issued the Endangerment Finding in nineteen

67
00:04:10,200 --> 00:04:13,440
Speaker 1: eighty nine, there was a ton of evidence. There's now

68
00:04:13,640 --> 00:04:16,479
Speaker 1: ten tons of evidence about climate change.

69
00:04:16,920 --> 00:04:21,880
Speaker 3: Is the Endangerment Finding considered sort of the keystone for

70
00:04:22,560 --> 00:04:27,479
Speaker 3: our environmental regulations? In other words, everything else depends or

71
00:04:27,640 --> 00:04:28,640
Speaker 3: rests on it.

72
00:04:29,279 --> 00:04:32,920
Speaker 1: Everything that EPA does under the Clean Air Act depends

73
00:04:32,920 --> 00:04:36,159
Speaker 1: on the Engagement Finding. There's some other authorities that the

74
00:04:36,200 --> 00:04:39,120
Speaker 1: administration has, but it's it's certainly by far the most

75
00:04:39,160 --> 00:04:39,920
Speaker 1: important one.

76
00:04:40,200 --> 00:04:44,440
Speaker 3: Have they gone through the proper procedures for revoking the

77
00:04:44,560 --> 00:04:45,640
Speaker 3: Endangerment Finding?

78
00:04:46,160 --> 00:04:49,280
Speaker 1: Well, they did an out say draft plan, and they

79
00:04:49,279 --> 00:04:53,520
Speaker 1: opened it up for public comment, and they then issued

80
00:04:53,520 --> 00:04:55,960
Speaker 1: the final one. So in broad strokes, I'm sure there

81
00:04:56,000 --> 00:04:58,400
Speaker 1: will be challenges to some of the details of the

82
00:04:58,440 --> 00:05:02,400
Speaker 1: procedures that they use, such as did they respond in

83
00:05:02,520 --> 00:05:05,840
Speaker 1: enough detailed all the many public comments that were provided.

84
00:05:06,200 --> 00:05:10,240
Speaker 3: The now disbanded Climate Working Group that wrote the report

85
00:05:10,600 --> 00:05:14,840
Speaker 3: was deemed unlawful in January by a Massachusetts federal court

86
00:05:14,839 --> 00:05:17,719
Speaker 3: because the group met in secret does that have any

87
00:05:17,760 --> 00:05:24,080
Speaker 3: bearing on the legality of this recision of the endangerment finding.

88
00:05:25,080 --> 00:05:30,440
Speaker 1: EPA's initial proposal was to, among other things, rely on

89
00:05:30,520 --> 00:05:34,360
Speaker 1: that report and otherwise say they don't believe climate science,

90
00:05:34,440 --> 00:05:36,920
Speaker 1: or they don't believe that climate change is nearly as

91
00:05:37,000 --> 00:05:41,880
Speaker 1: bad of the report you mentioned, who was roundly debunked

92
00:05:41,920 --> 00:05:45,440
Speaker 1: by the scientific community, including the National Academy of Sciences.

93
00:05:45,839 --> 00:05:49,359
Speaker 1: A federal court, as you said, declared that the committee

94
00:05:49,400 --> 00:05:53,719
Speaker 1: was unlawfully formed, but the Department of Energy disbanded the group,

95
00:05:54,040 --> 00:05:56,720
Speaker 1: and in this new report, they do not rely on it,

96
00:05:56,800 --> 00:05:59,440
Speaker 1: and they in fact don't deny the climate science. They're

97
00:06:00,200 --> 00:06:04,240
Speaker 1: issuing this decision without saying we are wrong that climate

98
00:06:04,320 --> 00:06:07,159
Speaker 1: change is horrible. Okay, maybe it's horrible, but we just

99
00:06:07,160 --> 00:06:09,560
Speaker 1: don't think it's a legal matter that EPA has the

100
00:06:09,600 --> 00:06:10,720
Speaker 1: authority to regulate it.

101
00:06:11,200 --> 00:06:17,760
Speaker 3: Democratic attorneys general, environmental advocacy groups, medical groups say they're

102
00:06:17,800 --> 00:06:21,000
Speaker 3: going to sue over this revocation. Can you give us

103
00:06:21,000 --> 00:06:23,520
Speaker 3: an idea of what the attack might be in the courts.

104
00:06:24,200 --> 00:06:26,880
Speaker 1: So, in two thousand and seven, the Supreme Court issued

105
00:06:27,000 --> 00:06:31,280
Speaker 1: this landmark decision Massachusetts versus EPA. They clearly said that

106
00:06:31,520 --> 00:06:36,960
Speaker 1: greenhouse gases are air pollutants within the meaning of the statute,

107
00:06:37,080 --> 00:06:40,400
Speaker 1: and that if EPA finds the danger, they have to regulate.

108
00:06:41,160 --> 00:06:46,200
Speaker 1: The administration is now going contrary to that. They're relying

109
00:06:46,640 --> 00:06:49,839
Speaker 1: on some new legal doctrines, especially something called the major

110
00:06:49,920 --> 00:06:53,600
Speaker 1: questions doctrine, that even if the words of the statute

111
00:06:53,640 --> 00:06:57,400
Speaker 1: allow an agency to act, they can't unless Congress is

112
00:06:57,480 --> 00:07:00,960
Speaker 1: really really explicit if it's something of large economic and

113
00:07:00,960 --> 00:07:03,440
Speaker 1: political significance. So that's going to be one of the

114
00:07:03,480 --> 00:07:06,320
Speaker 1: major arguments that will be made before the courts.

115
00:07:06,680 --> 00:07:08,600
Speaker 3: Do you think the aim here is to get the

116
00:07:08,640 --> 00:07:14,040
Speaker 3: Supreme Court to reverse its finding in that Massachusetts v.

117
00:07:14,200 --> 00:07:15,119
Speaker 3: EPA case.

118
00:07:15,720 --> 00:07:18,960
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think that the Trump administration, or at least

119
00:07:18,960 --> 00:07:21,400
Speaker 1: some of its supporters, do want the Supreme Court to

120
00:07:21,520 --> 00:07:26,680
Speaker 1: either reverse the finding in the Massachusetts case or construe

121
00:07:26,680 --> 00:07:29,640
Speaker 1: it very very narrowly so that it no longer means much.

122
00:07:29,800 --> 00:07:33,120
Speaker 3: We're in year two of the Trump administration. Could the

123
00:07:33,200 --> 00:07:36,720
Speaker 3: lawsuits outlive the administration.

124
00:07:36,640 --> 00:07:40,320
Speaker 1: In the ordinary course at the first stage at the

125
00:07:40,320 --> 00:07:43,480
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals, it could take easily a year you're

126
00:07:43,560 --> 00:07:46,040
Speaker 1: in a half to get a decision, and then another

127
00:07:46,160 --> 00:07:48,080
Speaker 1: year or you're and a half to get a decision

128
00:07:48,160 --> 00:07:52,239
Speaker 1: from the Supreme Court, so that could outlass the administration. However,

129
00:07:53,280 --> 00:07:57,520
Speaker 1: it's also possible that the Supreme Court will take this

130
00:07:57,680 --> 00:08:00,960
Speaker 1: on an expedited basis, which they have done from time

131
00:08:01,000 --> 00:08:04,040
Speaker 1: to time, in which case it could all happen much faster.

132
00:08:04,520 --> 00:08:08,400
Speaker 3: And so, if it happens and the next administration to

133
00:08:08,520 --> 00:08:13,440
Speaker 3: come in is democratic administration or an administration that believes

134
00:08:13,480 --> 00:08:16,320
Speaker 3: in climate science, et cetera, et cetera, would it be

135
00:08:16,400 --> 00:08:18,960
Speaker 3: easy or difficult to sort of put it back together.

136
00:08:19,440 --> 00:08:21,760
Speaker 1: That depends on the way the Supreme Court rules. There

137
00:08:21,760 --> 00:08:25,400
Speaker 1: are some ways that the Supreme Court could uphold what

138
00:08:25,480 --> 00:08:28,680
Speaker 1: Trump is doing, but not do it so broadly that

139
00:08:28,720 --> 00:08:31,520
Speaker 1: it would prevent the next administration from acting. There are

140
00:08:31,520 --> 00:08:34,520
Speaker 1: other ways that they could uphold the withdrawal of the

141
00:08:34,520 --> 00:08:38,160
Speaker 1: engangement finding. That would mean the administration could not use

142
00:08:38,200 --> 00:08:41,880
Speaker 1: the Clean Air Act for climate change unless they get

143
00:08:42,040 --> 00:08:44,000
Speaker 1: explicit authorization from Congress.

144
00:08:44,640 --> 00:08:49,240
Speaker 3: Will this affect the state's ability to regulate pollution?

145
00:08:50,160 --> 00:08:54,280
Speaker 1: The federal government has exclusive authority to regulate motor vehicle

146
00:08:54,280 --> 00:08:57,480
Speaker 1: emissions unless Congress gets a special waiver, which has been

147
00:08:57,559 --> 00:09:01,679
Speaker 1: taken away. However, the states have comple control over stationary

148
00:09:01,760 --> 00:09:05,360
Speaker 1: sources like power plants and factories and so forth. So

149
00:09:05,400 --> 00:09:08,280
Speaker 1: this does not affect the ability of states to have

150
00:09:08,320 --> 00:09:12,120
Speaker 1: stronger pollution controls on everything but motor vehicles.

151
00:09:13,040 --> 00:09:16,520
Speaker 3: This could turn out to be a red state blue

152
00:09:16,559 --> 00:09:21,200
Speaker 3: state controversy, with the blue state suing and the red

153
00:09:21,240 --> 00:09:26,720
Speaker 3: states supporting the administration's actions. Why should this be a

154
00:09:26,760 --> 00:09:29,520
Speaker 3: blue state red state divide.

155
00:09:29,480 --> 00:09:32,120
Speaker 1: Well, it's a combination of things. They right now, the

156
00:09:32,200 --> 00:09:35,920
Speaker 1: Republican Party, as a matter of its doctrine, doesn't believe

157
00:09:35,920 --> 00:09:39,080
Speaker 1: in regulation of climate change, and the Democrats do. And

158
00:09:39,120 --> 00:09:42,320
Speaker 1: so in all these lawsuits you have the red states

159
00:09:42,360 --> 00:09:44,120
Speaker 1: on one side and the blue states of the other.

160
00:09:44,320 --> 00:09:46,920
Speaker 1: I mean the underlying There are lots of different underlying reasons.

161
00:09:46,960 --> 00:09:49,480
Speaker 1: Some of it is the economies of the state, some

162
00:09:49,559 --> 00:09:53,280
Speaker 1: as some of its ideological reasons. That's a whole other conversation.

163
00:09:54,040 --> 00:09:56,800
Speaker 3: So it was the Saban Center that came out with

164
00:09:56,920 --> 00:10:01,240
Speaker 3: these stats that the EPA has already taken more than

165
00:10:01,440 --> 00:10:07,240
Speaker 3: forty deregulatory actions so far in this second term, compared

166
00:10:07,280 --> 00:10:10,280
Speaker 3: to almost sixty during the first term. So are they

167
00:10:10,320 --> 00:10:11,520
Speaker 3: moving quicker.

168
00:10:11,640 --> 00:10:14,480
Speaker 1: Yes, they are. They're being much more aggressive in the

169
00:10:14,520 --> 00:10:17,800
Speaker 1: second Trump administration than in the First, we have a

170
00:10:17,840 --> 00:10:21,320
Speaker 1: website called the Climate Backtracker that keeps track of all

171
00:10:21,360 --> 00:10:24,000
Speaker 1: of this. But Trump two is moving a good deal

172
00:10:24,080 --> 00:10:25,280
Speaker 1: faster than Trump one.

173
00:10:25,559 --> 00:10:28,600
Speaker 3: They're moving faster. Are a lot of their moves being

174
00:10:28,640 --> 00:10:30,720
Speaker 3: held up in court or not yet.

175
00:10:31,040 --> 00:10:33,800
Speaker 1: So a lot of their moves in cutting back on

176
00:10:33,920 --> 00:10:37,280
Speaker 1: funding have been held up in court and at the

177
00:10:37,320 --> 00:10:40,200
Speaker 1: district court level, and some of that has been reversed

178
00:10:40,200 --> 00:10:43,600
Speaker 1: by the appellic court, some of it hasn't here. Most

179
00:10:43,679 --> 00:10:47,680
Speaker 1: of their regulations substance of regulations as opposed to the

180
00:10:47,720 --> 00:10:51,560
Speaker 1: funding haven't gotten far enough along for there to be

181
00:10:51,640 --> 00:10:54,640
Speaker 1: really litigation. This is one of the first things that

182
00:10:55,160 --> 00:10:57,240
Speaker 1: they have done that has gone all the way through

183
00:10:57,280 --> 00:11:00,880
Speaker 1: the rulemaking process and now is ripe for On.

184
00:11:00,880 --> 00:11:04,160
Speaker 3: A scale of one to ten in terms of damage

185
00:11:04,160 --> 00:11:07,600
Speaker 3: to the environment, how would you rate the seriousness of

186
00:11:07,640 --> 00:11:08,640
Speaker 3: this revocation?

187
00:11:09,559 --> 00:11:12,720
Speaker 1: I'd probably give that an eight, because if it survives,

188
00:11:12,800 --> 00:11:15,360
Speaker 1: it does take away the Clean Air Act. But there

189
00:11:15,360 --> 00:11:17,360
Speaker 1: are still other tools that can be used to fight

190
00:11:17,360 --> 00:11:21,160
Speaker 1: climate change. Despite the opposition by the Trump administration, people

191
00:11:21,200 --> 00:11:24,040
Speaker 1: are still opening a lot of solar farms and wind farms,

192
00:11:24,040 --> 00:11:27,160
Speaker 1: and buying electric vehicles and doing lots of other improving

193
00:11:27,240 --> 00:11:30,640
Speaker 1: energy efficiency, doing lots of other things that also help

194
00:11:30,679 --> 00:11:33,400
Speaker 1: fight climate change wholly apart from the Clean Air Act?

195
00:11:34,840 --> 00:11:39,240
Speaker 3: Is the footprint of the EPA smaller? Is the staff smaller?

196
00:11:39,720 --> 00:11:41,839
Speaker 3: In other words, is the EPA shrinking?

197
00:11:43,040 --> 00:11:49,240
Speaker 1: Yes, EPA is shrinking, so are the is the environmental

198
00:11:49,320 --> 00:11:52,680
Speaker 1: unit in the Department of Justice which helps enforce the laws.

199
00:11:52,720 --> 00:11:57,040
Speaker 1: So the Trump administration has worked very hard to diminish

200
00:11:57,120 --> 00:12:01,559
Speaker 1: the effectiveness and size authority of EPA.

201
00:12:01,679 --> 00:12:05,280
Speaker 3: Thanks for joining me today. That's Professor Michael Gerard of

202
00:12:05,320 --> 00:12:08,439
Speaker 3: Columbia Law School. He's the director of the Saban Center

203
00:12:08,480 --> 00:12:11,679
Speaker 3: for Climate Change Law. Suing people is not new for

204
00:12:11,760 --> 00:12:15,920
Speaker 3: President Trump. Long before he became president, he used litigation

205
00:12:16,240 --> 00:12:20,440
Speaker 3: as a tool, filing at least sixteen hundred civil lawsuits

206
00:12:20,480 --> 00:12:24,680
Speaker 3: against individuals and businesses, and since taking office for the

207
00:12:24,760 --> 00:12:29,000
Speaker 3: second time, Trump has filed suits seeking billions of dollars

208
00:12:29,280 --> 00:12:33,040
Speaker 3: against several news organizations, including The New York Times and

209
00:12:33,080 --> 00:12:37,080
Speaker 3: The Wall Street Journal, JP Morgan Chase and its CEO,

210
00:12:37,240 --> 00:12:41,680
Speaker 3: Jamie Diamond. The pullets are Board, and even the IRS

211
00:12:41,840 --> 00:12:45,079
Speaker 3: and the Treasury. Now, when Trump was sued by two

212
00:12:45,240 --> 00:12:48,680
Speaker 3: co founders of his social media company, he asked a

213
00:12:48,720 --> 00:12:52,000
Speaker 3: Delaware Court to either dismiss the case or delay it

214
00:12:52,040 --> 00:12:55,679
Speaker 3: by four years, saying that having to defend the lawsuits

215
00:12:55,720 --> 00:12:59,839
Speaker 3: would be a distraction from his presidential duties, even though

216
00:13:00,080 --> 00:13:04,560
Speaker 3: turnabout is supposedly fair play. That argument hasn't worked for

217
00:13:04,600 --> 00:13:07,960
Speaker 3: the defendants being sued by Trump. So far, at least,

218
00:13:08,320 --> 00:13:11,680
Speaker 3: no court has delayed one of Trump's lawsuits because it

219
00:13:11,679 --> 00:13:15,839
Speaker 3: would distract from his presidential duties. Joining me is constitutional

220
00:13:15,920 --> 00:13:19,400
Speaker 3: law expert David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law.

221
00:13:19,960 --> 00:13:20,600
Speaker 2: Have we had a.

222
00:13:20,559 --> 00:13:24,840
Speaker 3: President before that's filed lawsuits? I mean, in so many

223
00:13:24,880 --> 00:13:28,920
Speaker 3: different areas. It's against media companies, it's against banks, it's

224
00:13:28,960 --> 00:13:32,800
Speaker 3: against the irs. It's a broad range.

225
00:13:33,200 --> 00:13:37,040
Speaker 6: It certainly is, And I am not aware of any

226
00:13:37,160 --> 00:13:42,840
Speaker 6: president that has found time to litigate while in office.

227
00:13:43,120 --> 00:13:47,640
Speaker 6: It's a rather big job. And presidents also, I think,

228
00:13:47,679 --> 00:13:53,760
Speaker 6: have been sensitive that litigating while their president could send

229
00:13:53,800 --> 00:13:57,880
Speaker 6: the wrong signals and interfere with their ability to lead

230
00:13:57,960 --> 00:14:03,400
Speaker 6: the whole country. Trump has not embraced the idea of

231
00:14:03,480 --> 00:14:09,040
Speaker 6: leading the whole country, so doing more partisan litigation has

232
00:14:09,679 --> 00:14:12,000
Speaker 6: seemed to fit better with his approach.

233
00:14:12,559 --> 00:14:15,360
Speaker 3: The last case that I remember was the Clinton case.

234
00:14:15,600 --> 00:14:18,559
Speaker 3: What kind of protection if any does the president have

235
00:14:19,400 --> 00:14:21,600
Speaker 3: against civil suits while in office?

236
00:14:21,880 --> 00:14:25,800
Speaker 6: The president's very little protection against civil suits. The Supreme

237
00:14:25,880 --> 00:14:27,960
Speaker 6: Court in Clinton.

238
00:14:27,680 --> 00:14:33,520
Speaker 5: Versus Jones upind that the president probably could do at

239
00:14:33,600 --> 00:14:37,520
Speaker 5: least the basics of defending a case while in office,

240
00:14:37,800 --> 00:14:39,960
Speaker 5: and allowed that case to proceed.

241
00:14:40,120 --> 00:14:43,640
Speaker 6: That case started the series of events that led to

242
00:14:43,760 --> 00:14:49,880
Speaker 6: President Clinton's impeachment and certainly caused him enormous political damage.

243
00:14:50,400 --> 00:14:53,560
Speaker 6: Whether Miss Jones was seeking to damage in politically or not,

244
00:14:53,640 --> 00:14:58,560
Speaker 6: it's not clear, but that others eagerly piled on were so.

245
00:14:58,760 --> 00:15:04,400
Speaker 6: In principle, it is not entitled to sweeping immunity. But

246
00:15:04,640 --> 00:15:10,400
Speaker 6: President Trump has claimed that defending lawsuits would be unduly

247
00:15:10,440 --> 00:15:15,040
Speaker 6: burdensome to him now that he's president. It's not clear, though,

248
00:15:15,320 --> 00:15:18,720
Speaker 6: how it's any less burdensome to bring a lawsuit than

249
00:15:18,760 --> 00:15:23,400
Speaker 6: to defend one, and he seems to be making special

250
00:15:23,480 --> 00:15:24,680
Speaker 6: rules just for himself.

251
00:15:25,040 --> 00:15:27,000
Speaker 3: I don't know that we've reached the point in any

252
00:15:27,040 --> 00:15:31,520
Speaker 3: of these lawsuits where Trump has said, no, I can't

253
00:15:31,600 --> 00:15:35,160
Speaker 3: do that deposition because I'm president and I'm too busy.

254
00:15:35,440 --> 00:15:38,400
Speaker 3: But if that happens, what can a judge do?

255
00:15:38,840 --> 00:15:42,800
Speaker 6: The judge can dismiss the lawsuit, although at this point,

256
00:15:43,440 --> 00:15:46,360
Speaker 6: the defendants will already have had to spend an enormous

257
00:15:46,400 --> 00:15:49,040
Speaker 6: amount of money the laws. It may already have served

258
00:15:49,040 --> 00:15:53,360
Speaker 6: its purpose of intimidation. Some of these lawsuits have no

259
00:15:53,560 --> 00:15:57,760
Speaker 6: chance of winning anyway. He's suing news organizations for news

260
00:15:57,760 --> 00:16:01,880
Speaker 6: stories that doesn't like. He's suing the Des Moines Register

261
00:16:02,840 --> 00:16:07,920
Speaker 6: for a poll and a projection that he doesn't like.

262
00:16:08,080 --> 00:16:10,240
Speaker 6: I don't even know what cause of action that is.

263
00:16:10,800 --> 00:16:13,960
Speaker 6: So these cases are not intended to win. They're intended

264
00:16:14,000 --> 00:16:18,240
Speaker 6: to intimidate. So filing them, forcing the defendants to spend

265
00:16:18,280 --> 00:16:22,880
Speaker 6: resources on them, rallying his base against the defendants, and

266
00:16:22,920 --> 00:16:26,360
Speaker 6: then eventually dismissing them when he doesn't want to be

267
00:16:26,440 --> 00:16:31,359
Speaker 6: deposed seems likely. Here the courts have authority to impose

268
00:16:31,640 --> 00:16:35,160
Speaker 6: costs on him, but that's probably not that much of

269
00:16:35,200 --> 00:16:35,800
Speaker 6: a deterrent.

270
00:16:36,680 --> 00:16:39,200
Speaker 3: I mean, there's also the fact that when you're sued

271
00:16:39,440 --> 00:16:43,000
Speaker 3: by the president, there are different kinds of pressures. So

272
00:16:43,520 --> 00:16:48,640
Speaker 3: you had ViacomCBS settling a lawsuit, and of course they

273
00:16:48,640 --> 00:16:50,920
Speaker 3: had a pending merger to be approved.

274
00:16:51,640 --> 00:16:55,000
Speaker 6: Yes, and this is in the context of the president's

275
00:16:55,120 --> 00:17:00,720
Speaker 6: unified executive theory, So in priorated ministrations this happened that

276
00:17:00,800 --> 00:17:04,520
Speaker 6: if an add you could imagine the president saying, well,

277
00:17:04,560 --> 00:17:07,880
Speaker 6: the people making the decision on your merger are independent

278
00:17:07,960 --> 00:17:11,120
Speaker 6: from me, so they won't be influenced. But this administration

279
00:17:11,200 --> 00:17:14,119
Speaker 6: has made the point that everybody in the executive branch

280
00:17:14,200 --> 00:17:18,000
Speaker 6: must be completely tuned in with the president's preference. So

281
00:17:18,760 --> 00:17:23,160
Speaker 6: when he sues or threatens to sue a media organization

282
00:17:23,920 --> 00:17:28,479
Speaker 6: that wants permission for a merger or for licenses of

283
00:17:28,520 --> 00:17:32,719
Speaker 6: some kind, he is effectively telling them that they need

284
00:17:32,840 --> 00:17:36,600
Speaker 6: to give him something in exchange for those licenses. It

285
00:17:36,720 --> 00:17:41,960
Speaker 6: is a way of supposedly legitimating or legalizing bribe.

286
00:17:42,600 --> 00:17:45,119
Speaker 3: Why shouldn't some of these cases be put on hold

287
00:17:45,320 --> 00:17:49,520
Speaker 3: until Trump's term is over? None of the judges have

288
00:17:49,800 --> 00:17:55,120
Speaker 3: allowed any of these cases to be suspended during his presidency.

289
00:17:56,200 --> 00:17:59,280
Speaker 6: Well, it is true for both the president and people

290
00:17:59,320 --> 00:18:02,680
Speaker 6: with Thames against the president, the statutes of limitations run.

291
00:18:03,240 --> 00:18:07,080
Speaker 6: So there's an argument that the president and private party

292
00:18:07,119 --> 00:18:10,879
Speaker 6: should be allowed to file suits, but there should be

293
00:18:11,640 --> 00:18:16,639
Speaker 6: then a freeze on the case until after the president

294
00:18:16,800 --> 00:18:22,040
Speaker 6: leaves office, having the cases go forward selectively, having the

295
00:18:22,080 --> 00:18:27,639
Speaker 6: president able to extract material and resources from defendants but

296
00:18:27,880 --> 00:18:33,800
Speaker 6: not provide the same himself is manifestly unfair and civil

297
00:18:33,880 --> 00:18:38,160
Speaker 6: litigation with rare exception is designed to treat both parties

298
00:18:38,240 --> 00:18:40,480
Speaker 6: equally until we have a resolution of the case.

299
00:18:40,920 --> 00:18:43,119
Speaker 3: So you mentioned he's suing the IRS. He and his

300
00:18:43,400 --> 00:18:47,159
Speaker 3: two eldest sons filed a lawsuit against the IRS and

301
00:18:47,200 --> 00:18:50,679
Speaker 3: the Treasury seeking at least ten billion dollars in damages

302
00:18:50,760 --> 00:18:57,000
Speaker 3: for the unauthorized disclosure of their confidential tax returns, and

303
00:18:57,119 --> 00:19:01,160
Speaker 3: in an amicus brief challenging the suit, group of former

304
00:19:01,240 --> 00:19:05,239
Speaker 3: high ranking government officials said it contains legal flaws and

305
00:19:05,400 --> 00:19:09,479
Speaker 3: risks becoming conclusive litigation. As the president is suing the

306
00:19:09,520 --> 00:19:14,000
Speaker 3: government he presides over, this suit hit me as the

307
00:19:14,040 --> 00:19:17,480
Speaker 3: most inappropriate. Is the IRS going to fight the president?

308
00:19:18,040 --> 00:19:22,040
Speaker 6: No? Again, The unified executive theory says that the president

309
00:19:22,160 --> 00:19:26,280
Speaker 6: absolutely controls the defense against the president's own case. There's

310
00:19:26,359 --> 00:19:30,640
Speaker 6: no way this case can be legitimately litigated now, even

311
00:19:30,680 --> 00:19:34,840
Speaker 6: if someone wanted to, and if it is litigated to judgment,

312
00:19:34,960 --> 00:19:38,800
Speaker 6: a future administration could quite properly demand that the case

313
00:19:38,840 --> 00:19:43,240
Speaker 6: be reopened and then any damage award be reversed and returned,

314
00:19:43,680 --> 00:19:47,760
Speaker 6: because there will not be any true adversy here, just

315
00:19:48,080 --> 00:19:53,840
Speaker 6: as when a prosecution is filed by someone who is

316
00:19:53,880 --> 00:19:59,919
Speaker 6: controlled by the defendant and they throw the case and lose,

317
00:20:00,280 --> 00:20:02,920
Speaker 6: or when the jury was tampered with by the defendant,

318
00:20:03,000 --> 00:20:06,280
Speaker 6: double jeopardy does not attach because there is never any

319
00:20:06,320 --> 00:20:10,080
Speaker 6: serious risk of losing. In the same way here, the

320
00:20:10,119 --> 00:20:15,720
Speaker 6: president's judgment would not be entitled to any weight because

321
00:20:16,119 --> 00:20:20,800
Speaker 6: he controls the defense and never has any possibility of

322
00:20:20,880 --> 00:20:22,040
Speaker 6: losing these cases.

323
00:20:22,320 --> 00:20:25,520
Speaker 3: The other thing in all these cases, particularly HRS case,

324
00:20:25,720 --> 00:20:28,600
Speaker 3: is that how does he prove damages when his net

325
00:20:28,640 --> 00:20:31,280
Speaker 3: worth has increased since he became president.

326
00:20:32,520 --> 00:20:36,200
Speaker 6: These cases are absurd on the merits. You don't need

327
00:20:36,240 --> 00:20:40,119
Speaker 6: to know much about them to know that they are ridiculous.

328
00:20:40,160 --> 00:20:46,280
Speaker 6: There's also serious questions about how he could show fault.

329
00:20:46,640 --> 00:20:50,199
Speaker 6: The president again claims he runs the entire executive branch,

330
00:20:51,080 --> 00:20:54,600
Speaker 6: who was president when these leaks occurred. Why he was

331
00:20:55,320 --> 00:21:01,560
Speaker 6: so Perhaps he ought to sue literally himself for mismanaging

332
00:21:02,119 --> 00:21:06,919
Speaker 6: the federal government during his first term. He's probably can

333
00:21:07,040 --> 00:21:11,520
Speaker 6: afford to pay himself whatever damages are appropriate. Here, the

334
00:21:11,560 --> 00:21:17,880
Speaker 6: case is completely ridiculous, and one might be tempted to

335
00:21:17,960 --> 00:21:21,879
Speaker 6: look for an exception if the case was completely compelling.

336
00:21:22,560 --> 00:21:27,000
Speaker 6: The claim that Paula Jones filed against Bill Clinton. On

337
00:21:27,160 --> 00:21:31,359
Speaker 6: its face was a serious claim, a plausible claim, and

338
00:21:31,960 --> 00:21:34,919
Speaker 6: you could understand why she would need to file it

339
00:21:34,960 --> 00:21:38,879
Speaker 6: before the statute of limitations expired. If someone were to

340
00:21:39,760 --> 00:21:45,200
Speaker 6: do something conventionally harmful to the president, to steal his

341
00:21:45,240 --> 00:21:48,400
Speaker 6: car or something like that, then you could imagine why

342
00:21:48,440 --> 00:21:51,680
Speaker 6: he might need to go to court. But these cases

343
00:21:51,720 --> 00:21:53,080
Speaker 6: are obviously absurd.

344
00:21:53,520 --> 00:21:55,520
Speaker 3: I don't think I've ever used the word unseemly, but

345
00:21:55,560 --> 00:21:58,880
Speaker 3: I was trying to think of how unseemly it is

346
00:21:58,960 --> 00:22:01,960
Speaker 3: for the President of the United States to be suing

347
00:22:02,440 --> 00:22:05,680
Speaker 3: so often for billions of dollars. It's sort of hard

348
00:22:05,720 --> 00:22:09,320
Speaker 3: to comprehend why, except that he's trying to make a

349
00:22:09,440 --> 00:22:12,080
Speaker 3: political point with these I mean suing, as you said,

350
00:22:12,160 --> 00:22:15,000
Speaker 3: the Des Moines Register for a poll that didn't turn

351
00:22:15,040 --> 00:22:17,480
Speaker 3: out to be right. If every politician sued over a

352
00:22:17,520 --> 00:22:19,840
Speaker 3: pole that didn't turn out to be right, the court

353
00:22:19,920 --> 00:22:21,160
Speaker 3: to be clogged.

354
00:22:21,240 --> 00:22:24,120
Speaker 6: And both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris would be very,

355
00:22:24,200 --> 00:22:28,800
Speaker 6: very rich to say how they know Thomas Dewey. But

356
00:22:29,200 --> 00:22:32,040
Speaker 6: the problem people have I'm not trying to understand this.

357
00:22:32,680 --> 00:22:36,000
Speaker 6: I'm looking for American parallels, and that's wrong. They should

358
00:22:36,000 --> 00:22:41,040
Speaker 6: look for international parallels because authoritarian leaders routinely use litigation

359
00:22:41,240 --> 00:22:44,720
Speaker 6: to silence the press. You see this in numerous countries

360
00:22:44,760 --> 00:22:49,240
Speaker 6: around the world, where media outlets simply cease to function

361
00:22:49,440 --> 00:22:53,960
Speaker 6: because they know they'll be sued by the administration and

362
00:22:54,080 --> 00:22:56,960
Speaker 6: they will lose and they will be bankrupted. So they

363
00:22:57,040 --> 00:23:00,160
Speaker 6: either never write about the administration or they move out

364
00:23:00,160 --> 00:23:04,679
Speaker 6: of the country or the fold. And this country is

365
00:23:04,720 --> 00:23:09,000
Speaker 6: following some very unfortunate precedents overseas. Just one more thing.

366
00:23:09,359 --> 00:23:12,960
Speaker 6: The Constitution says the president shall draw a salary at

367
00:23:13,000 --> 00:23:17,440
Speaker 6: regular intervals and shall not receive any further emoluments from

368
00:23:17,440 --> 00:23:22,800
Speaker 6: the States or the United States. And the term emoluments

369
00:23:22,840 --> 00:23:26,640
Speaker 6: has been hotly debated, but broadly speaking, they're saying the

370
00:23:26,680 --> 00:23:29,760
Speaker 6: president should work for a salary and a salary only.

371
00:23:29,920 --> 00:23:34,240
Speaker 6: This is effectively a way of getting more money into

372
00:23:34,280 --> 00:23:37,919
Speaker 6: the president's hand, which the framers very much did not

373
00:23:38,080 --> 00:23:40,840
Speaker 6: want to happen. They wanted the president focused on the

374
00:23:40,960 --> 00:23:45,440
Speaker 6: national good. And certainly, when he sues a justice department

375
00:23:45,480 --> 00:23:49,480
Speaker 6: that he controls, he's increasing his pay. But when he

376
00:23:49,680 --> 00:23:55,000
Speaker 6: sues entities that need his executive brands to give them favors,

377
00:23:55,040 --> 00:24:00,080
Speaker 6: he's also increasing his pay, and that's something the framer

378
00:24:00,240 --> 00:24:02,640
Speaker 6: were acutely aware of. And forhibot It.

379
00:24:03,000 --> 00:24:06,320
Speaker 3: I've been talking to constitutional law professor David super of

380
00:24:06,400 --> 00:24:12,520
Speaker 3: Georgetown Law. So the Solicitor General's Office during this second

381
00:24:13,080 --> 00:24:18,480
Speaker 3: Trump term is filing unsolicited briefs. In other words, in

382
00:24:18,520 --> 00:24:22,040
Speaker 3: the process of the Supreme Court deciding whether or not

383
00:24:22,080 --> 00:24:24,720
Speaker 3: to take a case or not, they're filing these briefs.

384
00:24:25,000 --> 00:24:29,040
Speaker 3: They're not really on areas that the United States or

385
00:24:29,080 --> 00:24:33,040
Speaker 3: federal government is implicated, and they're on like policy matters,

386
00:24:33,119 --> 00:24:36,879
Speaker 3: like they're doing it more than any other administration. What

387
00:24:36,960 --> 00:24:37,639
Speaker 3: are they up to?

388
00:24:38,280 --> 00:24:43,600
Speaker 6: The Lesser General's Office regards the Supreme Court as profoundly

389
00:24:43,640 --> 00:24:46,040
Speaker 6: sympathetic to their mission and they're trying to get the

390
00:24:46,080 --> 00:24:49,439
Speaker 6: most possible out of it. This is not something that

391
00:24:49,640 --> 00:24:54,280
Speaker 6: happened in the nineteen sixties, when the War in Court

392
00:24:55,000 --> 00:25:00,760
Speaker 6: was relatively liberal and we had a liberal It was

393
00:25:00,880 --> 00:25:04,080
Speaker 6: understood that the Court handled what it wanted to handle,

394
00:25:04,160 --> 00:25:07,439
Speaker 6: and there are many cases that were presented to the

395
00:25:07,480 --> 00:25:10,760
Speaker 6: War in Court that it didn't take that history could

396
00:25:10,760 --> 00:25:14,600
Speaker 6: be very different if it had taken. This administration doesn't

397
00:25:14,640 --> 00:25:19,639
Speaker 6: want to do the reverse. It has a majority that

398
00:25:19,720 --> 00:25:23,439
Speaker 6: has proven very cohesive and quite reliable for them on

399
00:25:23,560 --> 00:25:26,679
Speaker 6: all but a very small handful of issues, and is

400
00:25:26,760 --> 00:25:32,520
Speaker 6: trying to move the ideological framework of law in its direction.

401
00:25:33,280 --> 00:25:36,239
Speaker 3: I read some people saying, well, the administration might be

402
00:25:36,359 --> 00:25:38,840
Speaker 3: using up its capital with the Court, but I don't

403
00:25:38,840 --> 00:25:42,200
Speaker 3: know if that's possible with this administration and this court

404
00:25:42,280 --> 00:25:43,680
Speaker 3: with the six Conservatives.

405
00:25:45,000 --> 00:25:48,560
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think what they're doing here is trying to

406
00:25:48,680 --> 00:25:52,040
Speaker 6: get cases pulled out of the pile. The Supreme Court

407
00:25:52,119 --> 00:25:56,480
Speaker 6: gets an enormous number of cases, and there certainly are

408
00:25:56,800 --> 00:26:01,200
Speaker 6: four votes out of the six Conservatives to brant review

409
00:26:01,600 --> 00:26:06,680
Speaker 6: on any number of things that will advance the conservative agenda.

410
00:26:07,240 --> 00:26:10,440
Speaker 6: This lesser general, I think, is trying to weigh in

411
00:26:10,720 --> 00:26:13,879
Speaker 6: and identify cases that it wants special attention to, and

412
00:26:13,920 --> 00:26:17,800
Speaker 6: it's been fairly successful. If it was using up its

413
00:26:17,880 --> 00:26:20,840
Speaker 6: capital with the Supreme Court, you would expect the Court

414
00:26:21,240 --> 00:26:25,880
Speaker 6: to turn down some of these cases as a caution

415
00:26:26,040 --> 00:26:29,360
Speaker 6: to the administration to stay and explain. But so far

416
00:26:29,480 --> 00:26:33,200
Speaker 6: we've seen no indication that the Court is uncomfortable at all.

417
00:26:34,080 --> 00:26:38,600
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court has scheduled Friday, February twentieth as its

418
00:26:38,800 --> 00:26:43,600
Speaker 3: next opinion day. Amid this global weight for a ruling

419
00:26:43,800 --> 00:26:49,960
Speaker 3: that could invalidate most of President Trump's signature tariffs. The

420
00:26:50,080 --> 00:26:53,280
Speaker 3: tariff clash is one of twelve cases that were argued

421
00:26:53,320 --> 00:26:57,920
Speaker 3: in October or November and haven't yet been decided. Why

422
00:26:57,920 --> 00:27:01,240
Speaker 3: do you think it's taking the justices so long to

423
00:27:01,280 --> 00:27:03,240
Speaker 3: come to a decision In this case.

424
00:27:03,600 --> 00:27:06,960
Speaker 6: The oral argument went terribly for the administration. I mean,

425
00:27:06,960 --> 00:27:11,280
Speaker 6: that's very clear. So I don't think there are five

426
00:27:11,400 --> 00:27:14,680
Speaker 6: votes to give them a win, and the next best

427
00:27:14,720 --> 00:27:20,240
Speaker 6: thing for them would be a delay. And the administration

428
00:27:20,440 --> 00:27:23,240
Speaker 6: has argued, both in public and to some extent of

429
00:27:23,320 --> 00:27:27,080
Speaker 6: the court that they need this power to extract concessions

430
00:27:27,080 --> 00:27:30,960
Speaker 6: from other countries. And there may well be justices who

431
00:27:31,000 --> 00:27:34,359
Speaker 6: believe in the end they can't sustain this. But the

432
00:27:34,400 --> 00:27:39,400
Speaker 6: longer they give the administration this authority, the more it

433
00:27:39,480 --> 00:27:43,679
Speaker 6: can dissolve the tariffs as part of deals rather than

434
00:27:43,720 --> 00:27:44,480
Speaker 6: as a judgment.

435
00:27:44,720 --> 00:27:49,040
Speaker 3: But it heard arguments November fifth on an expedited basis,

436
00:27:49,520 --> 00:27:53,800
Speaker 3: setting a schedule that suggested an ultra fast ruling might

437
00:27:53,880 --> 00:27:58,320
Speaker 3: be in the offing. Obviously it wasn't, but all we

438
00:27:58,359 --> 00:28:01,359
Speaker 3: can do is wait and see. Thanks so much. That's

439
00:28:01,359 --> 00:28:05,159
Speaker 3: Professor David super of Georgetown Law. And that's it for

440
00:28:05,240 --> 00:28:07,880
Speaker 3: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can

441
00:28:07,880 --> 00:28:11,159
Speaker 3: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts.

442
00:28:11,400 --> 00:28:14,440
Speaker 3: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

443
00:28:14,600 --> 00:28:19,639
Speaker 3: www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, And

444
00:28:19,720 --> 00:28:22,760
Speaker 3: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight

445
00:28:22,840 --> 00:28:26,320
Speaker 3: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and

446
00:28:26,359 --> 00:28:27,840
Speaker 3: you're listening to Bloomberg