Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: Effective immediately, We're repealing the ridiculous endangerment finding and terminating
Speaker 2: all additional green emission standards imposed unnecessarily on vehicle models
Speaker 2: and engines between twenty twelve and twenty twenty seven and beyond.
Speaker 3: It's the most aggressive move by President Trump to roll
Speaker 3: back climate regulations. His administration has revoked a key scientific
Speaker 3: finding that's been the central basis for US action to
Speaker 3: regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. It's undoing
Speaker 3: what's known as the endangerment finding, or ruling from the
Speaker 3: EPA in two thousand and nine under former President Obama
Speaker 3: that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threaten public health
Speaker 3: and welfare. But Trump says it's all a scam.
Speaker 2: Don't worry about it because it has nothing to do
Speaker 2: with public health.
Speaker 1: This was all a scam, giant scam.
Speaker 3: Former EPA administrator Gena McCarthy says the endangerment finding wasn't
Speaker 3: a political decision. It was the result of a Supreme
Speaker 3: Court ruling that ordered the EPA to conduct an extensive
Speaker 3: scientific process to review whether climate change was a hazard
Speaker 3: to health and the environment.
Speaker 4: They are trying to make us think that the endangerment
Speaker 4: finding it can be nullified just because they wanted to,
Speaker 4: not because the science says so. Are the laws allowed
Speaker 4: this to happen.
Speaker 3: Environmental scientists and experts say that revoking the finding could
Speaker 3: have generational impacts and may speed up the negative effects
Speaker 3: of climate change. Attorneys general representing Blue states, environmental groups,
Speaker 3: and healthcare groups say they're planning to sue over the revocation.
Speaker 3: Joining me is Michael Gerard, a professor at Columbia Law
Speaker 3: School and director of the Saban Center for Climate Change Law.
Speaker 3: Will you explain the endangerment finding?
Speaker 5: So?
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court said in two thousand and seven that
Speaker 1: if EPA finds that greenhouse gases posed an endangerment to
Speaker 1: public health and welfare, EPA has the authority to regulate
Speaker 1: them under the Clean Air Act. In two thousand and nine,
Speaker 1: EPA issued that endangerment finding, and since then, especially under
Speaker 1: Presidents Obama and Biden, EPA has been regulated greenhouse gas emissions.
Speaker 3: What are their reasons for rescinding the endangerment finding?
Speaker 1: They said that it was beyond the authority of EPA
Speaker 1: actually to be doing this to be regulating greenhouse gases,
Speaker 1: even though the Supreme Court said they could do that.
Speaker 1: Now the Trump administration is saying, no, they can't, that
Speaker 1: it's such a big issue, an important issue. THATA does
Speaker 1: and have the authority in less. Congress explicitly says that
Speaker 1: they can do that.
Speaker 3: And what's the real reason, I mean, what's the reason
Speaker 3: behind the Trump administration rescinding it.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration is all about maximizing the demand for
Speaker 1: and the supply of fossil fuels. Regulation of greenhouse gas
Speaker 1: emissions gets in the way of that, and so the
Speaker 1: particular regulations they're most focused on were moving toward more
Speaker 1: electric vehicles, which are the main source, the main threat
Speaker 1: to the demand for oil. President Trump says he doesn't
Speaker 1: really believe that climate change is happening, or that it's
Speaker 1: caused by humans, or that it's very bad. So I
Speaker 1: think that's one of the reasons behind what they're doing.
Speaker 1: And they think it's bad for the economy to fight
Speaker 1: climate change.
Speaker 3: How long have scientists been convinced that greenhouse gas emissions
Speaker 3: caused by humans hurt the public's health.
Speaker 1: The first science on this was emerging in the late
Speaker 1: nineteenth century. But I would say, it's fair to say
Speaker 1: that by the late nineteen eighties or early nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: there was a general scientific consensus about the science of
Speaker 1: climate change. When EPA issued the Endangerment Finding in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty nine, there was a ton of evidence. There's now
Speaker 1: ten tons of evidence about climate change.
Speaker 3: Is the Endangerment Finding considered sort of the keystone for
Speaker 3: our environmental regulations? In other words, everything else depends or
Speaker 3: rests on it.
Speaker 1: Everything that EPA does under the Clean Air Act depends
Speaker 1: on the Engagement Finding. There's some other authorities that the
Speaker 1: administration has, but it's it's certainly by far the most
Speaker 1: important one.
Speaker 3: Have they gone through the proper procedures for revoking the
Speaker 3: Endangerment Finding?
Speaker 1: Well, they did an out say draft plan, and they
Speaker 1: opened it up for public comment, and they then issued
Speaker 1: the final one. So in broad strokes, I'm sure there
Speaker 1: will be challenges to some of the details of the
Speaker 1: procedures that they use, such as did they respond in
Speaker 1: enough detailed all the many public comments that were provided.
Speaker 3: The now disbanded Climate Working Group that wrote the report
Speaker 3: was deemed unlawful in January by a Massachusetts federal court
Speaker 3: because the group met in secret does that have any
Speaker 3: bearing on the legality of this recision of the endangerment finding.
Speaker 1: EPA's initial proposal was to, among other things, rely on
Speaker 1: that report and otherwise say they don't believe climate science,
Speaker 1: or they don't believe that climate change is nearly as
Speaker 1: bad of the report you mentioned, who was roundly debunked
Speaker 1: by the scientific community, including the National Academy of Sciences.
Speaker 1: A federal court, as you said, declared that the committee
Speaker 1: was unlawfully formed, but the Department of Energy disbanded the group,
Speaker 1: and in this new report, they do not rely on it,
Speaker 1: and they in fact don't deny the climate science. They're
Speaker 1: issuing this decision without saying we are wrong that climate
Speaker 1: change is horrible. Okay, maybe it's horrible, but we just
Speaker 1: don't think it's a legal matter that EPA has the
Speaker 1: authority to regulate it.
Speaker 3: Democratic attorneys general, environmental advocacy groups, medical groups say they're
Speaker 3: going to sue over this revocation. Can you give us
Speaker 3: an idea of what the attack might be in the courts.
Speaker 1: So, in two thousand and seven, the Supreme Court issued
Speaker 1: this landmark decision Massachusetts versus EPA. They clearly said that
Speaker 1: greenhouse gases are air pollutants within the meaning of the statute,
Speaker 1: and that if EPA finds the danger, they have to regulate.
Speaker 1: The administration is now going contrary to that. They're relying
Speaker 1: on some new legal doctrines, especially something called the major
Speaker 1: questions doctrine, that even if the words of the statute
Speaker 1: allow an agency to act, they can't unless Congress is
Speaker 1: really really explicit if it's something of large economic and
Speaker 1: political significance. So that's going to be one of the
Speaker 1: major arguments that will be made before the courts.
Speaker 3: Do you think the aim here is to get the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court to reverse its finding in that Massachusetts v.
Speaker 3: EPA case.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think that the Trump administration, or at least
Speaker 1: some of its supporters, do want the Supreme Court to
Speaker 1: either reverse the finding in the Massachusetts case or construe
Speaker 1: it very very narrowly so that it no longer means much.
Speaker 3: We're in year two of the Trump administration. Could the
Speaker 3: lawsuits outlive the administration.
Speaker 1: In the ordinary course at the first stage at the
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals, it could take easily a year you're
Speaker 1: in a half to get a decision, and then another
Speaker 1: year or you're and a half to get a decision
Speaker 1: from the Supreme Court, so that could outlass the administration. However,
Speaker 1: it's also possible that the Supreme Court will take this
Speaker 1: on an expedited basis, which they have done from time
Speaker 1: to time, in which case it could all happen much faster.
Speaker 3: And so, if it happens and the next administration to
Speaker 3: come in is democratic administration or an administration that believes
Speaker 3: in climate science, et cetera, et cetera, would it be
Speaker 3: easy or difficult to sort of put it back together.
Speaker 1: That depends on the way the Supreme Court rules. There
Speaker 1: are some ways that the Supreme Court could uphold what
Speaker 1: Trump is doing, but not do it so broadly that
Speaker 1: it would prevent the next administration from acting. There are
Speaker 1: other ways that they could uphold the withdrawal of the
Speaker 1: engangement finding. That would mean the administration could not use
Speaker 1: the Clean Air Act for climate change unless they get
Speaker 1: explicit authorization from Congress.
Speaker 3: Will this affect the state's ability to regulate pollution?
Speaker 1: The federal government has exclusive authority to regulate motor vehicle
Speaker 1: emissions unless Congress gets a special waiver, which has been
Speaker 1: taken away. However, the states have comple control over stationary
Speaker 1: sources like power plants and factories and so forth. So
Speaker 1: this does not affect the ability of states to have
Speaker 1: stronger pollution controls on everything but motor vehicles.
Speaker 3: This could turn out to be a red state blue
Speaker 3: state controversy, with the blue state suing and the red
Speaker 3: states supporting the administration's actions. Why should this be a
Speaker 3: blue state red state divide.
Speaker 1: Well, it's a combination of things. They right now, the
Speaker 1: Republican Party, as a matter of its doctrine, doesn't believe
Speaker 1: in regulation of climate change, and the Democrats do. And
Speaker 1: so in all these lawsuits you have the red states
Speaker 1: on one side and the blue states of the other.
Speaker 1: I mean the underlying There are lots of different underlying reasons.
Speaker 1: Some of it is the economies of the state, some
Speaker 1: as some of its ideological reasons. That's a whole other conversation.
Speaker 3: So it was the Saban Center that came out with
Speaker 3: these stats that the EPA has already taken more than
Speaker 3: forty deregulatory actions so far in this second term, compared
Speaker 3: to almost sixty during the first term. So are they
Speaker 3: moving quicker.
Speaker 1: Yes, they are. They're being much more aggressive in the
Speaker 1: second Trump administration than in the First, we have a
Speaker 1: website called the Climate Backtracker that keeps track of all
Speaker 1: of this. But Trump two is moving a good deal
Speaker 1: faster than Trump one.
Speaker 3: They're moving faster. Are a lot of their moves being
Speaker 3: held up in court or not yet.
Speaker 1: So a lot of their moves in cutting back on
Speaker 1: funding have been held up in court and at the
Speaker 1: district court level, and some of that has been reversed
Speaker 1: by the appellic court, some of it hasn't here. Most
Speaker 1: of their regulations substance of regulations as opposed to the
Speaker 1: funding haven't gotten far enough along for there to be
Speaker 1: really litigation. This is one of the first things that
Speaker 1: they have done that has gone all the way through
Speaker 1: the rulemaking process and now is ripe for On.
Speaker 3: A scale of one to ten in terms of damage
Speaker 3: to the environment, how would you rate the seriousness of
Speaker 3: this revocation?
Speaker 1: I'd probably give that an eight, because if it survives,
Speaker 1: it does take away the Clean Air Act. But there
Speaker 1: are still other tools that can be used to fight
Speaker 1: climate change. Despite the opposition by the Trump administration, people
Speaker 1: are still opening a lot of solar farms and wind farms,
Speaker 1: and buying electric vehicles and doing lots of other improving
Speaker 1: energy efficiency, doing lots of other things that also help
Speaker 1: fight climate change wholly apart from the Clean Air Act?
Speaker 3: Is the footprint of the EPA smaller? Is the staff smaller?
Speaker 3: In other words, is the EPA shrinking?
Speaker 1: Yes, EPA is shrinking, so are the is the environmental
Speaker 1: unit in the Department of Justice which helps enforce the laws.
Speaker 1: So the Trump administration has worked very hard to diminish
Speaker 1: the effectiveness and size authority of EPA.
Speaker 3: Thanks for joining me today. That's Professor Michael Gerard of
Speaker 3: Columbia Law School. He's the director of the Saban Center
Speaker 3: for Climate Change Law. Suing people is not new for
Speaker 3: President Trump. Long before he became president, he used litigation
Speaker 3: as a tool, filing at least sixteen hundred civil lawsuits
Speaker 3: against individuals and businesses, and since taking office for the
Speaker 3: second time, Trump has filed suits seeking billions of dollars
Speaker 3: against several news organizations, including The New York Times and
Speaker 3: The Wall Street Journal, JP Morgan Chase and its CEO,
Speaker 3: Jamie Diamond. The pullets are Board, and even the IRS
Speaker 3: and the Treasury. Now, when Trump was sued by two
Speaker 3: co founders of his social media company, he asked a
Speaker 3: Delaware Court to either dismiss the case or delay it
Speaker 3: by four years, saying that having to defend the lawsuits
Speaker 3: would be a distraction from his presidential duties, even though
Speaker 3: turnabout is supposedly fair play. That argument hasn't worked for
Speaker 3: the defendants being sued by Trump. So far, at least,
Speaker 3: no court has delayed one of Trump's lawsuits because it
Speaker 3: would distract from his presidential duties. Joining me is constitutional
Speaker 3: law expert David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law.
Speaker 2: Have we had a.
Speaker 3: President before that's filed lawsuits? I mean, in so many
Speaker 3: different areas. It's against media companies, it's against banks, it's
Speaker 3: against the irs. It's a broad range.
Speaker 6: It certainly is, And I am not aware of any
Speaker 6: president that has found time to litigate while in office.
Speaker 6: It's a rather big job. And presidents also, I think,
Speaker 6: have been sensitive that litigating while their president could send
Speaker 6: the wrong signals and interfere with their ability to lead
Speaker 6: the whole country. Trump has not embraced the idea of
Speaker 6: leading the whole country, so doing more partisan litigation has
Speaker 6: seemed to fit better with his approach.
Speaker 3: The last case that I remember was the Clinton case.
Speaker 3: What kind of protection if any does the president have
Speaker 3: against civil suits while in office?
Speaker 6: The president's very little protection against civil suits. The Supreme
Speaker 6: Court in Clinton.
Speaker 5: Versus Jones upind that the president probably could do at
Speaker 5: least the basics of defending a case while in office,
Speaker 5: and allowed that case to proceed.
Speaker 6: That case started the series of events that led to
Speaker 6: President Clinton's impeachment and certainly caused him enormous political damage.
Speaker 6: Whether Miss Jones was seeking to damage in politically or not,
Speaker 6: it's not clear, but that others eagerly piled on were so.
Speaker 6: In principle, it is not entitled to sweeping immunity. But
Speaker 6: President Trump has claimed that defending lawsuits would be unduly
Speaker 6: burdensome to him now that he's president. It's not clear, though,
Speaker 6: how it's any less burdensome to bring a lawsuit than
Speaker 6: to defend one, and he seems to be making special
Speaker 6: rules just for himself.
Speaker 3: I don't know that we've reached the point in any
Speaker 3: of these lawsuits where Trump has said, no, I can't
Speaker 3: do that deposition because I'm president and I'm too busy.
Speaker 3: But if that happens, what can a judge do?
Speaker 6: The judge can dismiss the lawsuit, although at this point,
Speaker 6: the defendants will already have had to spend an enormous
Speaker 6: amount of money the laws. It may already have served
Speaker 6: its purpose of intimidation. Some of these lawsuits have no
Speaker 6: chance of winning anyway. He's suing news organizations for news
Speaker 6: stories that doesn't like. He's suing the Des Moines Register
Speaker 6: for a poll and a projection that he doesn't like.
Speaker 6: I don't even know what cause of action that is.
Speaker 6: So these cases are not intended to win. They're intended
Speaker 6: to intimidate. So filing them, forcing the defendants to spend
Speaker 6: resources on them, rallying his base against the defendants, and
Speaker 6: then eventually dismissing them when he doesn't want to be
Speaker 6: deposed seems likely. Here the courts have authority to impose
Speaker 6: costs on him, but that's probably not that much of
Speaker 6: a deterrent.
Speaker 3: I mean, there's also the fact that when you're sued
Speaker 3: by the president, there are different kinds of pressures. So
Speaker 3: you had ViacomCBS settling a lawsuit, and of course they
Speaker 3: had a pending merger to be approved.
Speaker 6: Yes, and this is in the context of the president's
Speaker 6: unified executive theory, So in priorated ministrations this happened that
Speaker 6: if an add you could imagine the president saying, well,
Speaker 6: the people making the decision on your merger are independent
Speaker 6: from me, so they won't be influenced. But this administration
Speaker 6: has made the point that everybody in the executive branch
Speaker 6: must be completely tuned in with the president's preference. So
Speaker 6: when he sues or threatens to sue a media organization
Speaker 6: that wants permission for a merger or for licenses of
Speaker 6: some kind, he is effectively telling them that they need
Speaker 6: to give him something in exchange for those licenses. It
Speaker 6: is a way of supposedly legitimating or legalizing bribe.
Speaker 3: Why shouldn't some of these cases be put on hold
Speaker 3: until Trump's term is over? None of the judges have
Speaker 3: allowed any of these cases to be suspended during his presidency.
Speaker 6: Well, it is true for both the president and people
Speaker 6: with Thames against the president, the statutes of limitations run.
Speaker 6: So there's an argument that the president and private party
Speaker 6: should be allowed to file suits, but there should be
Speaker 6: then a freeze on the case until after the president
Speaker 6: leaves office, having the cases go forward selectively, having the
Speaker 6: president able to extract material and resources from defendants but
Speaker 6: not provide the same himself is manifestly unfair and civil
Speaker 6: litigation with rare exception is designed to treat both parties
Speaker 6: equally until we have a resolution of the case.
Speaker 3: So you mentioned he's suing the IRS. He and his
Speaker 3: two eldest sons filed a lawsuit against the IRS and
Speaker 3: the Treasury seeking at least ten billion dollars in damages
Speaker 3: for the unauthorized disclosure of their confidential tax returns, and
Speaker 3: in an amicus brief challenging the suit, group of former
Speaker 3: high ranking government officials said it contains legal flaws and
Speaker 3: risks becoming conclusive litigation. As the president is suing the
Speaker 3: government he presides over, this suit hit me as the
Speaker 3: most inappropriate. Is the IRS going to fight the president?
Speaker 6: No? Again, The unified executive theory says that the president
Speaker 6: absolutely controls the defense against the president's own case. There's
Speaker 6: no way this case can be legitimately litigated now, even
Speaker 6: if someone wanted to, and if it is litigated to judgment,
Speaker 6: a future administration could quite properly demand that the case
Speaker 6: be reopened and then any damage award be reversed and returned,
Speaker 6: because there will not be any true adversy here, just
Speaker 6: as when a prosecution is filed by someone who is
Speaker 6: controlled by the defendant and they throw the case and lose,
Speaker 6: or when the jury was tampered with by the defendant,
Speaker 6: double jeopardy does not attach because there is never any
Speaker 6: serious risk of losing. In the same way here, the
Speaker 6: president's judgment would not be entitled to any weight because
Speaker 6: he controls the defense and never has any possibility of
Speaker 6: losing these cases.
Speaker 3: The other thing in all these cases, particularly HRS case,
Speaker 3: is that how does he prove damages when his net
Speaker 3: worth has increased since he became president.
Speaker 6: These cases are absurd on the merits. You don't need
Speaker 6: to know much about them to know that they are ridiculous.
Speaker 6: There's also serious questions about how he could show fault.
Speaker 6: The president again claims he runs the entire executive branch,
Speaker 6: who was president when these leaks occurred. Why he was
Speaker 6: so Perhaps he ought to sue literally himself for mismanaging
Speaker 6: the federal government during his first term. He's probably can
Speaker 6: afford to pay himself whatever damages are appropriate. Here, the
Speaker 6: case is completely ridiculous, and one might be tempted to
Speaker 6: look for an exception if the case was completely compelling.
Speaker 6: The claim that Paula Jones filed against Bill Clinton. On
Speaker 6: its face was a serious claim, a plausible claim, and
Speaker 6: you could understand why she would need to file it
Speaker 6: before the statute of limitations expired. If someone were to
Speaker 6: do something conventionally harmful to the president, to steal his
Speaker 6: car or something like that, then you could imagine why
Speaker 6: he might need to go to court. But these cases
Speaker 6: are obviously absurd.
Speaker 3: I don't think I've ever used the word unseemly, but
Speaker 3: I was trying to think of how unseemly it is
Speaker 3: for the President of the United States to be suing
Speaker 3: so often for billions of dollars. It's sort of hard
Speaker 3: to comprehend why, except that he's trying to make a
Speaker 3: political point with these I mean suing, as you said,
Speaker 3: the Des Moines Register for a poll that didn't turn
Speaker 3: out to be right. If every politician sued over a
Speaker 3: pole that didn't turn out to be right, the court
Speaker 3: to be clogged.
Speaker 6: And both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris would be very,
Speaker 6: very rich to say how they know Thomas Dewey. But
Speaker 6: the problem people have I'm not trying to understand this.
Speaker 6: I'm looking for American parallels, and that's wrong. They should
Speaker 6: look for international parallels because authoritarian leaders routinely use litigation
Speaker 6: to silence the press. You see this in numerous countries
Speaker 6: around the world, where media outlets simply cease to function
Speaker 6: because they know they'll be sued by the administration and
Speaker 6: they will lose and they will be bankrupted. So they
Speaker 6: either never write about the administration or they move out
Speaker 6: of the country or the fold. And this country is
Speaker 6: following some very unfortunate precedents overseas. Just one more thing.
Speaker 6: The Constitution says the president shall draw a salary at
Speaker 6: regular intervals and shall not receive any further emoluments from
Speaker 6: the States or the United States. And the term emoluments
Speaker 6: has been hotly debated, but broadly speaking, they're saying the
Speaker 6: president should work for a salary and a salary only.
Speaker 6: This is effectively a way of getting more money into
Speaker 6: the president's hand, which the framers very much did not
Speaker 6: want to happen. They wanted the president focused on the
Speaker 6: national good. And certainly, when he sues a justice department
Speaker 6: that he controls, he's increasing his pay. But when he
Speaker 6: sues entities that need his executive brands to give them favors,
Speaker 6: he's also increasing his pay, and that's something the framer
Speaker 6: were acutely aware of. And forhibot It.
Speaker 3: I've been talking to constitutional law professor David super of
Speaker 3: Georgetown Law. So the Solicitor General's Office during this second
Speaker 3: Trump term is filing unsolicited briefs. In other words, in
Speaker 3: the process of the Supreme Court deciding whether or not
Speaker 3: to take a case or not, they're filing these briefs.
Speaker 3: They're not really on areas that the United States or
Speaker 3: federal government is implicated, and they're on like policy matters,
Speaker 3: like they're doing it more than any other administration. What
Speaker 3: are they up to?
Speaker 6: The Lesser General's Office regards the Supreme Court as profoundly
Speaker 6: sympathetic to their mission and they're trying to get the
Speaker 6: most possible out of it. This is not something that
Speaker 6: happened in the nineteen sixties, when the War in Court
Speaker 6: was relatively liberal and we had a liberal It was
Speaker 6: understood that the Court handled what it wanted to handle,
Speaker 6: and there are many cases that were presented to the
Speaker 6: War in Court that it didn't take that history could
Speaker 6: be very different if it had taken. This administration doesn't
Speaker 6: want to do the reverse. It has a majority that
Speaker 6: has proven very cohesive and quite reliable for them on
Speaker 6: all but a very small handful of issues, and is
Speaker 6: trying to move the ideological framework of law in its direction.
Speaker 3: I read some people saying, well, the administration might be
Speaker 3: using up its capital with the Court, but I don't
Speaker 3: know if that's possible with this administration and this court
Speaker 3: with the six Conservatives.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think what they're doing here is trying to
Speaker 6: get cases pulled out of the pile. The Supreme Court
Speaker 6: gets an enormous number of cases, and there certainly are
Speaker 6: four votes out of the six Conservatives to brant review
Speaker 6: on any number of things that will advance the conservative agenda.
Speaker 6: This lesser general, I think, is trying to weigh in
Speaker 6: and identify cases that it wants special attention to, and
Speaker 6: it's been fairly successful. If it was using up its
Speaker 6: capital with the Supreme Court, you would expect the Court
Speaker 6: to turn down some of these cases as a caution
Speaker 6: to the administration to stay and explain. But so far
Speaker 6: we've seen no indication that the Court is uncomfortable at all.
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court has scheduled Friday, February twentieth as its
Speaker 3: next opinion day. Amid this global weight for a ruling
Speaker 3: that could invalidate most of President Trump's signature tariffs. The
Speaker 3: tariff clash is one of twelve cases that were argued
Speaker 3: in October or November and haven't yet been decided. Why
Speaker 3: do you think it's taking the justices so long to
Speaker 3: come to a decision In this case.
Speaker 6: The oral argument went terribly for the administration. I mean,
Speaker 6: that's very clear. So I don't think there are five
Speaker 6: votes to give them a win, and the next best
Speaker 6: thing for them would be a delay. And the administration
Speaker 6: has argued, both in public and to some extent of
Speaker 6: the court that they need this power to extract concessions
Speaker 6: from other countries. And there may well be justices who
Speaker 6: believe in the end they can't sustain this. But the
Speaker 6: longer they give the administration this authority, the more it
Speaker 6: can dissolve the tariffs as part of deals rather than
Speaker 6: as a judgment.
Speaker 3: But it heard arguments November fifth on an expedited basis,
Speaker 3: setting a schedule that suggested an ultra fast ruling might
Speaker 3: be in the offing. Obviously it wasn't, but all we
Speaker 3: can do is wait and see. Thanks so much. That's
Speaker 3: Professor David super of Georgetown Law. And that's it for
Speaker 3: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
Speaker 3: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts.
Speaker 3: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
Speaker 3: www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, And
Speaker 3: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
Speaker 3: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
Speaker 3: you're listening to Bloomberg