1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,280 --> 00:00:13,440
Speaker 2: We've had a lot of stuff going on lately. But

3
00:00:13,560 --> 00:00:16,799
Speaker 2: obviously I signed the fifteen week I believe it. I

4
00:00:16,800 --> 00:00:19,800
Speaker 2: believe it's constitutional, both under the federal and under the

5
00:00:19,840 --> 00:00:20,680
Speaker 2: state constitution.

6
00:00:20,920 --> 00:00:24,280
Speaker 1: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis may not have listened to the

7
00:00:24,440 --> 00:00:28,000
Speaker 1: oral arguments at the Florida Supreme Court over the state's

8
00:00:28,040 --> 00:00:32,120
Speaker 1: fifteen week abortion ban, but after reshaping the court into

9
00:00:32,120 --> 00:00:35,080
Speaker 1: what many consider to be one of the most conservative

10
00:00:35,080 --> 00:00:38,800
Speaker 1: courts in the country, he probably can predict the outcome.

11
00:00:39,400 --> 00:00:43,080
Speaker 1: The case brought by Planned Parenthood, centers on a provision

12
00:00:43,080 --> 00:00:46,960
Speaker 1: in the Florida Constitution that protects the right to privacy,

13
00:00:47,360 --> 00:00:50,280
Speaker 1: a provision that has long been interpreted by the state's

14
00:00:50,400 --> 00:00:54,680
Speaker 1: courts as a safeguard against restrictions on abortion. But the

15
00:00:54,720 --> 00:00:59,760
Speaker 1: seven justices, which included five conservatives appointed by DeSantis and

16
00:01:00,000 --> 00:01:03,720
Speaker 1: a few other Republican appointees, appeared open to the idea

17
00:01:03,800 --> 00:01:08,160
Speaker 1: of upholding the abortion ban despite precedent. In fact, the

18
00:01:08,240 --> 00:01:12,960
Speaker 1: chief Justice, Carlos Munez, seemed to suggest several times that

19
00:01:13,040 --> 00:01:15,760
Speaker 1: he considers fetuses to be human beings.

20
00:01:16,080 --> 00:01:21,920
Speaker 3: You're asking us to essentially take a whole class of

21
00:01:22,000 --> 00:01:25,959
Speaker 3: human beings and put them outside of the protection of

22
00:01:26,000 --> 00:01:29,120
Speaker 3: the law, essentially in the sense that if the legislature

23
00:01:29,360 --> 00:01:32,400
Speaker 3: wants to protect those human beings, they are precluded by

24
00:01:32,440 --> 00:01:36,920
Speaker 3: the Constitution of Florida from doing that. And at the

25
00:01:37,000 --> 00:01:39,240
Speaker 3: end of the day, the argument as to why that

26
00:01:39,280 --> 00:01:41,920
Speaker 3: would be right would be based on a sort of

27
00:01:42,040 --> 00:01:45,360
Speaker 3: legal meaning, kind of understanding of right of privacy.

28
00:01:45,840 --> 00:01:49,240
Speaker 1: My guest is Elizabeth Zepper, a professor at the University

29
00:01:49,240 --> 00:01:52,960
Speaker 1: of Texas at Austin School of Law. Since Roe v.

30
00:01:53,120 --> 00:01:58,240
Speaker 1: Wade was overturned, Florida has allowed abortion up to fifteen weeks.

31
00:01:58,720 --> 00:02:02,560
Speaker 1: Governor DeSantis signed a new law that would ban abortion

32
00:02:02,840 --> 00:02:07,200
Speaker 1: after six weeks. So do these Florida Supreme Court arguments

33
00:02:07,560 --> 00:02:10,359
Speaker 1: affect the fifteen week ban or the six week ban

34
00:02:10,680 --> 00:02:11,080
Speaker 1: or both.

35
00:02:11,600 --> 00:02:14,600
Speaker 4: The argument affects the six week law because the sixth

36
00:02:14,639 --> 00:02:17,600
Speaker 4: week law is a trigger ban. It will go into

37
00:02:17,680 --> 00:02:21,959
Speaker 4: effect thirty days after the fifteen week ban is upheld

38
00:02:22,120 --> 00:02:25,240
Speaker 4: if it is upheld, so they're closely related. The Florida

39
00:02:25,280 --> 00:02:28,280
Speaker 4: Supreme Court knows that whatever it decides with regards the

40
00:02:28,320 --> 00:02:32,600
Speaker 4: fifteen week ban will affect whether the six week ban exists.

41
00:02:32,880 --> 00:02:36,600
Speaker 1: So explain the issue how it centers on a provision

42
00:02:36,800 --> 00:02:40,000
Speaker 1: in the Florida Constitution that protects the right to privacy.

43
00:02:40,320 --> 00:02:44,120
Speaker 4: So, the Florida Constitution has an explicit protection for a

44
00:02:44,400 --> 00:02:48,280
Speaker 4: right of privacy, and in nineteen eighty nine, the Florida

45
00:02:48,320 --> 00:02:52,520
Speaker 4: Supreme Court interpreted that text in the state Constitution to

46
00:02:52,600 --> 00:02:55,920
Speaker 4: include a right to abortion and to protect, in that

47
00:02:56,040 --> 00:03:00,760
Speaker 4: specific case, a minor's right to abortion. The question that

48
00:03:00,800 --> 00:03:03,480
Speaker 4: the State of Florida has put before this Florida Supreme

49
00:03:03,520 --> 00:03:09,519
Speaker 4: Court is whether they should overrule their previous precedents protecting

50
00:03:09,600 --> 00:03:13,640
Speaker 4: a right to privacy under the explicit text of the

51
00:03:13,680 --> 00:03:17,799
Speaker 4: state Constitution. So, unlike the Federal Constitution, we actually have

52
00:03:17,960 --> 00:03:21,040
Speaker 4: a textual protection for the right to privacy.

53
00:03:21,760 --> 00:03:24,680
Speaker 1: What's at stake here as precedent, then if they're going

54
00:03:24,760 --> 00:03:27,040
Speaker 1: to reverse precedent or not.

55
00:03:27,639 --> 00:03:31,240
Speaker 4: This case squarely presents the question presented in Dobbs. At

56
00:03:31,280 --> 00:03:34,880
Speaker 4: the end of the day, whether to overrule existing precedent

57
00:03:35,200 --> 00:03:37,600
Speaker 4: that is many decades old in the state of Florida

58
00:03:37,680 --> 00:03:42,960
Speaker 4: under a state constitutional provision that expressly protects the rights privacy.

59
00:03:43,360 --> 00:03:46,240
Speaker 4: As in Dabbs, what's at stake is whether Floridians can

60
00:03:46,280 --> 00:03:48,480
Speaker 4: access abortion really at all.

61
00:03:49,280 --> 00:03:53,760
Speaker 1: Several of the justices were drilling the lawyers on both

62
00:03:53,800 --> 00:03:56,080
Speaker 1: sides about how they could know what was in the

63
00:03:56,080 --> 00:03:59,920
Speaker 1: minds of Florida voters when they passed the privacy amend them.

64
00:04:00,760 --> 00:04:03,560
Speaker 1: Do you see that as a problem for the plaintiff

65
00:04:03,880 --> 00:04:05,160
Speaker 1: planned parenthood here.

66
00:04:05,600 --> 00:04:07,680
Speaker 4: So a lot of the argument focused on what's called

67
00:04:07,760 --> 00:04:12,080
Speaker 4: original public meaning what would a Florida voter have understood

68
00:04:12,120 --> 00:04:15,839
Speaker 4: when they cast their vote in favor of a right

69
00:04:15,880 --> 00:04:19,440
Speaker 4: of privacy in the constitution they amended the constitution to

70
00:04:19,520 --> 00:04:21,960
Speaker 4: create a right of privacy. Some of this is a

71
00:04:22,000 --> 00:04:24,960
Speaker 4: little bit baffling. Right Roe v. Wade was decided in

72
00:04:25,040 --> 00:04:29,159
Speaker 4: nineteen seventy three, it's pretty common sensical to think the

73
00:04:29,240 --> 00:04:32,800
Speaker 4: right of privacy as a constitutional matter for voters would

74
00:04:32,800 --> 00:04:36,520
Speaker 4: have brought to mind abortion as well as contraception during

75
00:04:36,560 --> 00:04:39,719
Speaker 4: the relevant time period, and the Florida Supreme Court in

76
00:04:39,800 --> 00:04:43,520
Speaker 4: nineteen eighty nine concluded just that right. We just voted

77
00:04:43,520 --> 00:04:46,000
Speaker 4: on this, it's quite clear that the voters meant to

78
00:04:46,000 --> 00:04:50,360
Speaker 4: protect abortion through a right of privacy. Apparently, the historical

79
00:04:50,440 --> 00:04:55,440
Speaker 4: record isn't super robust in terms of legislative debate, but

80
00:04:55,600 --> 00:04:57,640
Speaker 4: what courts are supposed to do here is engage in

81
00:04:57,760 --> 00:05:02,680
Speaker 4: textual interpretation. Look at the t of the Florida Constitution.

82
00:05:03,279 --> 00:05:05,480
Speaker 4: They can do things like look at the ballot summary,

83
00:05:05,560 --> 00:05:08,000
Speaker 4: what did people think they were voting on? But all

84
00:05:08,040 --> 00:05:11,200
Speaker 4: of those factors seem to lead, given our common sense

85
00:05:11,320 --> 00:05:14,240
Speaker 4: understanding of what the right to privacy means, toward a

86
00:05:14,279 --> 00:05:17,520
Speaker 4: conclusion in favor of the plaintifs that is planned parenthood here.

87
00:05:18,240 --> 00:05:20,560
Speaker 1: But it seemed like the justices here were leaning in

88
00:05:20,600 --> 00:05:23,719
Speaker 1: the opposite direction. We should mention that there are seven

89
00:05:23,960 --> 00:05:29,080
Speaker 1: justices hearing this case, with five conservatives appointed by DeSantis

90
00:05:29,520 --> 00:05:33,719
Speaker 1: and two other Republican appointees, including one who refused to

91
00:05:33,800 --> 00:05:37,240
Speaker 1: recuse himself despite the fact that he's married to a

92
00:05:37,279 --> 00:05:41,599
Speaker 1: Republican state representative who co sponsored the sixth week ban.

93
00:05:42,560 --> 00:05:45,320
Speaker 1: So did it seem like the composition of this panel

94
00:05:45,440 --> 00:05:48,560
Speaker 1: did not augur well for planned parenthood?

95
00:05:49,080 --> 00:05:52,760
Speaker 4: Absolutely, we didn't need to listen to the argument to

96
00:05:53,120 --> 00:05:55,640
Speaker 4: conclude what was going to happen here. We're going to

97
00:05:55,680 --> 00:05:59,760
Speaker 4: have seven votes, seven justices who are a Republican, five

98
00:05:59,760 --> 00:06:02,800
Speaker 4: of are put there for this very specific task. We

99
00:06:02,880 --> 00:06:06,760
Speaker 4: will see them over rule a number of state court

100
00:06:06,839 --> 00:06:10,200
Speaker 4: decisions in favor of abortion rights, and that's state court.

101
00:06:10,520 --> 00:06:13,360
Speaker 4: The question is what do they say, how do they

102
00:06:13,520 --> 00:06:15,599
Speaker 4: go about overturning their own precedent.

103
00:06:16,120 --> 00:06:18,920
Speaker 1: So what would be the broadest thing they could say,

104
00:06:18,960 --> 00:06:21,160
Speaker 1: and what would be the narrowest thing they could say.

105
00:06:21,800 --> 00:06:24,680
Speaker 4: I suspect they will say the broadest thing they can say,

106
00:06:24,760 --> 00:06:27,400
Speaker 4: which is that there is no right to abortion protected

107
00:06:27,560 --> 00:06:31,640
Speaker 4: under the right of privacy in the Florida Constitution. To

108
00:06:31,680 --> 00:06:33,880
Speaker 4: get there, I think they have to follow the past

109
00:06:34,000 --> 00:06:36,800
Speaker 4: that the state lays down for them, which is to

110
00:06:36,960 --> 00:06:41,720
Speaker 4: argue that the Florida Constitution protects only informational privacy. That

111
00:06:41,880 --> 00:06:45,640
Speaker 4: is that the state can't get information you hold private,

112
00:06:46,000 --> 00:06:49,600
Speaker 4: but may not protect decisional privacy at all. That is

113
00:06:49,680 --> 00:06:52,520
Speaker 4: what you do in your private life, whether that's how

114
00:06:52,560 --> 00:06:55,640
Speaker 4: you parent your children, whether that's how you make medical decisions,

115
00:06:55,800 --> 00:06:58,320
Speaker 4: or whether you decide to carry a pregnancy to term.

116
00:06:58,520 --> 00:07:01,919
Speaker 4: Some of the justices seem worried about this because decisional

117
00:07:01,960 --> 00:07:05,440
Speaker 4: privacy applies beyond abortion to a number of other rights

118
00:07:05,440 --> 00:07:08,440
Speaker 4: that we exercise, and that it seems any viable right

119
00:07:08,720 --> 00:07:10,160
Speaker 4: of privacy should include.

120
00:07:10,760 --> 00:07:14,600
Speaker 1: The Chief Justice, Carlos Munez said, you're asking us to

121
00:07:14,760 --> 00:07:17,680
Speaker 1: essentially take a whole class of human beings and put

122
00:07:17,720 --> 00:07:21,800
Speaker 1: them outside the protection of the law. So appeared to

123
00:07:21,840 --> 00:07:26,520
Speaker 1: be suggesting that he considers fetuses to be human beings.

124
00:07:27,080 --> 00:07:30,760
Speaker 4: Yes, I suppose the broadest reading and the broadest decision

125
00:07:30,800 --> 00:07:35,760
Speaker 4: would go and say that fetuses have constitutional rights under

126
00:07:35,760 --> 00:07:39,560
Speaker 4: the state constitution. Now, Chief Justice Munias didn't seem to

127
00:07:39,560 --> 00:07:43,000
Speaker 4: have any other buyers to this theory. The state is

128
00:07:43,080 --> 00:07:45,480
Speaker 4: not asking the court to do that, and it would

129
00:07:45,520 --> 00:07:49,440
Speaker 4: in fact throw lord of law into chaos. Things like

130
00:07:49,520 --> 00:07:54,520
Speaker 4: inheritance and taxation, property, the status of frozen embryos would

131
00:07:54,560 --> 00:07:58,520
Speaker 4: all be thrown into question if the court determined that

132
00:07:58,560 --> 00:08:02,800
Speaker 4: fetuses have constitutional right. But Mounia's suggested a number of

133
00:08:02,840 --> 00:08:07,360
Speaker 4: times that the fetus was a person with constitutional rights.

134
00:08:07,880 --> 00:08:13,239
Speaker 1: If, as you suspect, the court rules against planned parenthood here,

135
00:08:14,040 --> 00:08:18,520
Speaker 1: what will that do to abortion access in Florida and

136
00:08:18,560 --> 00:08:21,880
Speaker 1: in the South over ruling.

137
00:08:21,480 --> 00:08:24,040
Speaker 4: The right to abortion in Florida will be devastating to

138
00:08:24,280 --> 00:08:28,600
Speaker 4: abortion access. Florida is a very populous state. It is

139
00:08:28,640 --> 00:08:31,840
Speaker 4: a very long state geographically, which means those who live

140
00:08:31,880 --> 00:08:34,360
Speaker 4: in the south of Florida have very long distances to

141
00:08:34,480 --> 00:08:38,320
Speaker 4: travel to access abortion. So it will be quite devastating

142
00:08:38,520 --> 00:08:41,640
Speaker 4: and of course, at the moment abortion is banned post

143
00:08:41,760 --> 00:08:45,440
Speaker 4: fifteen weeks, this presents lots of difficulties, in particular for

144
00:08:45,559 --> 00:08:51,120
Speaker 4: those facing pregnancy complications or fetal anomalies. But the vast majority,

145
00:08:51,400 --> 00:08:55,640
Speaker 4: around the ninetieth percent style of abortions are taking place

146
00:08:55,800 --> 00:08:59,640
Speaker 4: in the first trimester, and so those abortions have not

147
00:08:59,760 --> 00:09:03,280
Speaker 4: been impacted by the fifteen week ban. A six week

148
00:09:03,360 --> 00:09:06,480
Speaker 4: ban basically does away with abortion, and we saw that

149
00:09:06,520 --> 00:09:09,880
Speaker 4: in Texas when FB eight went into effect before Dobbs

150
00:09:10,000 --> 00:09:13,000
Speaker 4: was overruled and banned abortion at six weeks.

151
00:09:13,160 --> 00:09:17,840
Speaker 1: An abortion rights group, Floridians Protecting Freedom, is working to

152
00:09:17,880 --> 00:09:20,880
Speaker 1: get an abortion rights referendum on the state's twenty twenty

153
00:09:20,960 --> 00:09:25,840
Speaker 1: four ballot, and apparently they hit the threshold of signatures

154
00:09:25,840 --> 00:09:29,760
Speaker 1: needed to trigger state Supreme Court review of the ballot

155
00:09:29,840 --> 00:09:34,440
Speaker 1: questions language. According to a recent study by the Public

156
00:09:34,480 --> 00:09:38,880
Speaker 1: Religion Research Institute, sixty four percent of Floridians believe abortion

157
00:09:39,040 --> 00:09:42,280
Speaker 1: should be legal in all or most cases. I mean,

158
00:09:42,400 --> 00:09:46,320
Speaker 1: is this ballot referendum the only sort of hope that

159
00:09:46,480 --> 00:09:49,920
Speaker 1: Floridians have for keeping abortion legal in their state?

160
00:09:51,000 --> 00:09:53,640
Speaker 4: Yeah, So, if the Supreme Court were to determine that

161
00:09:53,679 --> 00:09:57,520
Speaker 4: the right of privacy does an encompass abortion, then enacting

162
00:09:57,720 --> 00:10:03,560
Speaker 4: a constitutional amendment to protect abortion explicitly becomes necessary. But

163
00:10:03,640 --> 00:10:06,959
Speaker 4: what we have seen, of course is ron DeSantis engaging

164
00:10:07,000 --> 00:10:12,160
Speaker 4: in counter majoritarian tactics, stacking the Florida Supreme Court with

165
00:10:12,720 --> 00:10:16,280
Speaker 4: arch conservatives, and so I think we have cause to

166
00:10:16,320 --> 00:10:19,240
Speaker 4: be worried about what they might do with the ballot

167
00:10:19,240 --> 00:10:20,400
Speaker 4: initiative language.

168
00:10:20,640 --> 00:10:23,920
Speaker 1: Are there any parameters for what the Supreme Court can

169
00:10:24,000 --> 00:10:25,520
Speaker 1: do with the ballot language?

170
00:10:26,000 --> 00:10:29,640
Speaker 4: We saw some of this in Ohio, where the anti

171
00:10:29,800 --> 00:10:33,280
Speaker 4: choice groups kept going to the Court in an effort

172
00:10:33,440 --> 00:10:37,640
Speaker 4: to change the language, in an effort to challenge the language,

173
00:10:37,640 --> 00:10:40,559
Speaker 4: an effort to make the language misleading to voters in

174
00:10:40,679 --> 00:10:43,640
Speaker 4: hopes that that would lead them to vote in the

175
00:10:43,640 --> 00:10:46,480
Speaker 4: wrong direction on the REFERENDU. So, I think there are

176
00:10:46,480 --> 00:10:49,240
Speaker 4: a number of strategies and court can be allies of

177
00:10:49,280 --> 00:10:50,600
Speaker 4: the anti abortion movement.

178
00:10:51,320 --> 00:10:54,439
Speaker 1: Turning to another issue about the abortion pill. The Biden

179
00:10:54,440 --> 00:10:59,240
Speaker 1: administration and the abortion pill manufacturer are asking the Supreme

180
00:10:59,320 --> 00:11:04,360
Speaker 1: Court to get back into the abortion issues after that

181
00:11:04,480 --> 00:11:08,679
Speaker 1: Fifth Circuit decision. So tell us about that Fifth Circuit decision,

182
00:11:08,720 --> 00:11:10,040
Speaker 1: how restricting it was.

183
00:11:10,480 --> 00:11:15,280
Speaker 4: The Fifth Circuit essentially takes us back to pre twenty sixteen,

184
00:11:15,960 --> 00:11:20,280
Speaker 4: which means that medication abortion is only available up to

185
00:11:20,440 --> 00:11:23,800
Speaker 4: seven weeks rather than ten weeks where it is currently approved.

186
00:11:23,840 --> 00:11:27,160
Speaker 4: That it would require multiple in person visits to a

187
00:11:27,200 --> 00:11:29,920
Speaker 4: provider in place of the telehealth that we now have,

188
00:11:30,120 --> 00:11:33,840
Speaker 4: So medication abortion we'd revert to a different regulatory regime.

189
00:11:34,080 --> 00:11:36,640
Speaker 4: We'd have to revert to new labels, which would mean

190
00:11:36,679 --> 00:11:39,840
Speaker 4: the pharmaceutical company would have to pull all of medication

191
00:11:39,920 --> 00:11:43,280
Speaker 4: abortion from the market and go through a process of

192
00:11:43,440 --> 00:11:48,840
Speaker 4: redoing the labeling and the packaging of the medication, and

193
00:11:48,880 --> 00:11:52,080
Speaker 4: it would really restrict access. The Supreme Court knows this

194
00:11:52,120 --> 00:11:55,280
Speaker 4: is coming, because the Supreme Court, of course already saw

195
00:11:55,320 --> 00:11:59,319
Speaker 4: this case at the beginning of the summer and anticipated

196
00:11:59,400 --> 00:12:02,360
Speaker 4: that the Fifth Circuit might in fact do what it did,

197
00:12:02,880 --> 00:12:06,680
Speaker 4: and thus issued a stay until it determines whether to

198
00:12:06,760 --> 00:12:10,160
Speaker 4: grant a petition for CIRT or decides on the petition

199
00:12:10,240 --> 00:12:13,880
Speaker 4: for cert from the government. So currently, medication abortion it's

200
00:12:13,920 --> 00:12:16,959
Speaker 4: still available as it was before, and I think it's

201
00:12:17,040 --> 00:12:19,120
Speaker 4: likely that the Supreme Court will have to take up

202
00:12:19,480 --> 00:12:22,319
Speaker 4: this issue and issue a decision on the merits.

203
00:12:22,640 --> 00:12:25,960
Speaker 1: What sort of astonishing is the way the Fifth Circuit

204
00:12:26,280 --> 00:12:30,800
Speaker 1: is putting itself in the place of experts at the FDA.

205
00:12:31,559 --> 00:12:34,960
Speaker 4: What's the most astonishing to your neighborhood law professors and

206
00:12:35,040 --> 00:12:38,800
Speaker 4: lawyers is that the Fifth Circuit found standing here. I mean,

207
00:12:38,840 --> 00:12:43,080
Speaker 4: these are doctors who cannot show that the change in

208
00:12:43,240 --> 00:12:46,800
Speaker 4: labeling affected them at all. There's no injury to them

209
00:12:47,160 --> 00:12:51,960
Speaker 4: from the move from the pre existing regulation to what

210
00:12:52,160 --> 00:12:55,680
Speaker 4: is existent today. They don't have standing here. This is

211
00:12:55,760 --> 00:12:58,800
Speaker 4: just the basic federal courts one oh one. You have

212
00:12:58,880 --> 00:13:01,960
Speaker 4: to be injured or not. And we see really expansive

213
00:13:02,000 --> 00:13:06,560
Speaker 4: notions of standing that would really allow anti abortion and

214
00:13:06,720 --> 00:13:11,280
Speaker 4: other sort of anti HIV AIDS treatment groups to come

215
00:13:11,320 --> 00:13:15,240
Speaker 4: into the courts and challenge regulatory approval of drugs changes

216
00:13:15,280 --> 00:13:17,559
Speaker 4: in their labeling second guessing the agency.

217
00:13:17,880 --> 00:13:20,920
Speaker 1: I want to also ask you about new anti abortion

218
00:13:21,160 --> 00:13:25,199
Speaker 1: ordinances that have been adopted in several Texas counties where

219
00:13:25,880 --> 00:13:31,240
Speaker 1: they're dubbed abortion trafficking and it could make driving someone

220
00:13:31,240 --> 00:13:33,959
Speaker 1: to get an abortion punishable by law.

221
00:13:34,840 --> 00:13:39,079
Speaker 4: So I believe there's only one municipality that has passed

222
00:13:39,080 --> 00:13:43,120
Speaker 4: the law. Lanto, Texas, made headlines for proposing it, but

223
00:13:43,240 --> 00:13:47,480
Speaker 4: has cabled the ordinance. So these new ordinances I think

224
00:13:47,679 --> 00:13:51,960
Speaker 4: present real challenges to the constitutional right to travel, which

225
00:13:52,160 --> 00:13:56,320
Speaker 4: does protect people's movements within the states they live in.

226
00:13:56,760 --> 00:13:58,840
Speaker 4: So I think we could expect that if it were

227
00:13:58,880 --> 00:14:01,080
Speaker 4: to be enforced, sort of hard to know what that

228
00:14:01,080 --> 00:14:04,680
Speaker 4: would look like, that we could see claims based around

229
00:14:04,679 --> 00:14:07,720
Speaker 4: the right to travel. But mostly I think it's meant

230
00:14:07,720 --> 00:14:10,480
Speaker 4: to make people afraid. Even the news about it makes

231
00:14:10,559 --> 00:14:14,240
Speaker 4: people afraid, makes them think simply traveling in a car

232
00:14:14,559 --> 00:14:17,280
Speaker 4: with a person of reproductive age could be enough to

233
00:14:17,400 --> 00:14:21,400
Speaker 4: subject you to suspicion or surveillance from police.

234
00:14:22,360 --> 00:14:25,800
Speaker 1: It seems like abortion rights are a constant fight on

235
00:14:26,240 --> 00:14:27,360
Speaker 1: so many levels.

236
00:14:27,800 --> 00:14:30,080
Speaker 4: So I mean, I actually find great hope in the

237
00:14:30,120 --> 00:14:34,880
Speaker 4: fact that there are people fighting. Looking at Ohio, for instance,

238
00:14:34,960 --> 00:14:38,760
Speaker 4: and folks coming out in August to vote on a

239
00:14:38,760 --> 00:14:43,240
Speaker 4: referendum that wasn't entirely clearly related to abortion until the

240
00:14:43,680 --> 00:14:47,520
Speaker 4: abortion rights movement made it really clear. Right. They put

241
00:14:47,600 --> 00:14:49,680
Speaker 4: in a lot of hours, a lot of shoe leather

242
00:14:50,240 --> 00:14:53,160
Speaker 4: making sure that enough voters got out in a very

243
00:14:53,200 --> 00:14:55,960
Speaker 4: off time for an important vote.

244
00:14:56,640 --> 00:14:59,680
Speaker 1: There's a lot going on in this area. Thanks so much,

245
00:14:59,760 --> 00:15:02,960
Speaker 1: Liz for helping us keep up to date. That's Elizabeth Zepper,

246
00:15:03,000 --> 00:15:06,320
Speaker 1: a professor at the University of Texas at Austin Law School.

247
00:15:07,800 --> 00:15:10,600
Speaker 1: The government is offering settlements of up to four hundred

248
00:15:10,600 --> 00:15:14,680
Speaker 1: and fifty thousand dollars to compensate Camp Lejeune veterans and

249
00:15:14,800 --> 00:15:17,880
Speaker 1: others who say they were sickened by the toxic water

250
00:15:17,960 --> 00:15:21,360
Speaker 1: on the North Carolina Marine base. The plan comes as

251
00:15:21,400 --> 00:15:24,520
Speaker 1: more than ninety three thousand claims have been filed and

252
00:15:24,600 --> 00:15:27,840
Speaker 1: as some sick veterans have complained about the slow pace

253
00:15:28,000 --> 00:15:32,000
Speaker 1: of resolving those claims. Government and plaintiffs' attorneys are fighting

254
00:15:32,040 --> 00:15:34,440
Speaker 1: over how to move forward with civil trials. In the

255
00:15:34,480 --> 00:15:38,360
Speaker 1: Eastern District of North Carolina. About eleven hundred lawsuits have

256
00:15:38,560 --> 00:15:42,040
Speaker 1: already been filed by those whose claims were rejected or

257
00:15:42,120 --> 00:15:45,880
Speaker 1: weren't resolved quickly enough by the Navy and the court system.

258
00:15:45,960 --> 00:15:49,440
Speaker 1: There is bracing for thousands more in what could become

259
00:15:49,520 --> 00:15:52,760
Speaker 1: one of the largest mass tourts in history. Joining me

260
00:15:52,840 --> 00:15:55,920
Speaker 1: is the lead council for the plaintiffs, ed Bell and

261
00:15:56,080 --> 00:15:58,920
Speaker 1: tell us a little about the history of the Camp

262
00:15:59,040 --> 00:15:59,920
Speaker 1: Lejeune litigation.

263
00:16:01,120 --> 00:16:03,640
Speaker 5: Well, we started our Camp Reviunion claims back in two

264
00:16:03,680 --> 00:16:07,960
Speaker 5: thousand and seven and immediately learned that the government was

265
00:16:08,040 --> 00:16:13,000
Speaker 5: going to request dismissal of the claims due to an

266
00:16:13,080 --> 00:16:17,200
Speaker 5: odd law in North Carolina which indicated that if you

267
00:16:17,240 --> 00:16:21,400
Speaker 5: didn't file your claims within ten years of the exposure

268
00:16:21,440 --> 00:16:25,240
Speaker 5: to the water, and your claims were lost. And we

269
00:16:25,320 --> 00:16:28,400
Speaker 5: thought that was kind of a crazy law, and we

270
00:16:28,440 --> 00:16:31,120
Speaker 5: didn't think it'd be a problem, but apparently it turned

271
00:16:31,120 --> 00:16:33,520
Speaker 5: out to be. And so over the last over that

272
00:16:33,800 --> 00:16:36,920
Speaker 5: maybe five or six years, through a lot of appellate

273
00:16:38,680 --> 00:16:43,080
Speaker 5: worked in courts, including the US Supreme Court, we were

274
00:16:43,160 --> 00:16:47,040
Speaker 5: eventually kicked out of court. But the instructions we got

275
00:16:47,080 --> 00:16:51,040
Speaker 5: from the courts were they can't really change the law

276
00:16:51,080 --> 00:16:55,600
Speaker 5: in North Carolina. The legislature of North carolinas to change it.

277
00:16:56,360 --> 00:17:01,160
Speaker 5: So we went back to North Carolina. At that time

278
00:17:02,080 --> 00:17:06,160
Speaker 5: now Senator Tom Tillis was Speaker of the House, Tom Tillis,

279
00:17:06,480 --> 00:17:10,119
Speaker 5: and he helped us and got a bill passed and

280
00:17:10,240 --> 00:17:16,000
Speaker 5: the Senate and the legislature to the House and they

281
00:17:16,040 --> 00:17:19,399
Speaker 5: fixed the problem. And then we went back to the

282
00:17:19,400 --> 00:17:22,480
Speaker 5: appellate courts and said they've fixed the problem. You told

283
00:17:22,520 --> 00:17:24,760
Speaker 5: us to go get it fixed, and they said, well,

284
00:17:24,760 --> 00:17:28,480
Speaker 5: that's good prospectively in the future, but you can't make

285
00:17:28,520 --> 00:17:32,639
Speaker 5: it retroactive. So eventually we realized that we're going to

286
00:17:32,720 --> 00:17:36,600
Speaker 5: need some help from Congress in Washington, and in fact,

287
00:17:36,680 --> 00:17:40,320
Speaker 5: that's what we did. So we started drafting a statute

288
00:17:40,320 --> 00:17:43,480
Speaker 5: and started working it through Congress, and eventually it got

289
00:17:43,520 --> 00:17:47,880
Speaker 5: passed in August of last year, twenty twenty two.

290
00:17:48,560 --> 00:17:52,240
Speaker 1: So the Navy still hasn't paid out a claim, but

291
00:17:52,359 --> 00:17:55,560
Speaker 1: the government is offering now settlements of up to four

292
00:17:55,640 --> 00:18:00,280
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty thousand dollars to compensate some veterans ends

293
00:18:00,320 --> 00:18:02,640
Speaker 1: and others. What's your take on.

294
00:18:02,560 --> 00:18:10,160
Speaker 5: This offer, Well, my first comment is it's a start,

295
00:18:11,600 --> 00:18:15,200
Speaker 5: but they put the wrong foot forward. If you really

296
00:18:15,280 --> 00:18:19,600
Speaker 5: understand what happens with this offer, then you realize it's

297
00:18:19,640 --> 00:18:25,600
Speaker 5: really not It is awful. Give you an example. The

298
00:18:25,720 --> 00:18:29,200
Speaker 5: highest payout is if you live there more than five years.

299
00:18:29,840 --> 00:18:34,400
Speaker 5: This is a training base, so very few people live

300
00:18:34,480 --> 00:18:39,640
Speaker 5: to work there over five years. We have two sisters

301
00:18:39,680 --> 00:18:43,720
Speaker 5: who lived there fifteen years whose father was a principal

302
00:18:43,720 --> 00:18:47,600
Speaker 5: at one of the schools, so they of course would

303
00:18:47,640 --> 00:18:51,280
Speaker 5: be in that top tier. But those two sisters both

304
00:18:51,320 --> 00:18:55,320
Speaker 5: have got have had two separate cancers each and have

305
00:18:55,560 --> 00:19:01,920
Speaker 5: four other currently they're currently being die diagnosed with four

306
00:19:01,960 --> 00:19:06,040
Speaker 5: additional diagnoses each. So each one of those sisters who

307
00:19:06,040 --> 00:19:10,320
Speaker 5: lived on the base fifteen years has had already six

308
00:19:11,440 --> 00:19:16,080
Speaker 5: six diagnosable diseases. They came from the water each, and

309
00:19:17,000 --> 00:19:21,760
Speaker 5: it's fairly understandable because this is a dose related reaction.

310
00:19:21,920 --> 00:19:27,320
Speaker 5: The more water you drink, the worse your result. So

311
00:19:27,600 --> 00:19:32,840
Speaker 5: under their circumstances, the best they could get would be

312
00:19:34,119 --> 00:19:36,159
Speaker 5: either the four hundred or the four fifty because they

313
00:19:36,240 --> 00:19:40,520
Speaker 5: lived there fifteen years. But they've got six diseases each,

314
00:19:41,200 --> 00:19:45,200
Speaker 5: and so in anybody's fairness doctrine, that just didn't work.

315
00:19:46,320 --> 00:19:51,200
Speaker 5: The second thing is a lot of these folks who've

316
00:19:51,200 --> 00:19:56,159
Speaker 5: had cancer are in the later stages in life. Their

317
00:19:56,240 --> 00:20:00,160
Speaker 5: circumstances as such that they may feel like they have

318
00:20:00,200 --> 00:20:04,440
Speaker 5: to take it. And the overwhelming response I'm getting from

319
00:20:04,440 --> 00:20:08,359
Speaker 5: our clients is that they feel like the government's trying

320
00:20:08,359 --> 00:20:11,560
Speaker 5: to buy them off. And it's it's a very negative

321
00:20:11,600 --> 00:20:16,320
Speaker 5: response from the from the clients. So think about it

322
00:20:16,359 --> 00:20:23,440
Speaker 5: this way. If missus Jones decides that she has multi

323
00:20:23,640 --> 00:20:27,280
Speaker 5: my loma, and she's been and she has lived on

324
00:20:27,320 --> 00:20:31,560
Speaker 5: the base a year, and she takes one hundred thousand dollars,

325
00:20:32,720 --> 00:20:34,680
Speaker 5: but a year a year and a half from now,

326
00:20:35,000 --> 00:20:38,679
Speaker 5: the multiple my loma ends up paying out, you know,

327
00:20:38,920 --> 00:20:43,080
Speaker 5: ten times that amount, then how does that fare to her?

328
00:20:43,520 --> 00:20:48,080
Speaker 5: And it's not the government is taking advantage of people's circumstances.

329
00:20:48,640 --> 00:20:52,320
Speaker 5: They're taking advantage of the idea that these people maybe

330
00:20:52,400 --> 00:20:57,440
Speaker 5: later on in their years and and the and the

331
00:20:57,480 --> 00:21:01,679
Speaker 5: individuals did not they didn't do that to themselves. The

332
00:21:01,720 --> 00:21:03,880
Speaker 5: government is the one who made them wait this long.

333
00:21:04,600 --> 00:21:06,879
Speaker 5: And so the government made them wait this long, and

334
00:21:06,960 --> 00:21:10,359
Speaker 5: now trying to take advantage of that situation. The thing

335
00:21:10,520 --> 00:21:16,000
Speaker 5: is totally unffair. We appreciate, we appreciate the government getting started,

336
00:21:16,720 --> 00:21:19,320
Speaker 5: but this is this is a they didn't put the

337
00:21:19,359 --> 00:21:20,000
Speaker 5: best football.

338
00:21:20,600 --> 00:21:23,359
Speaker 1: But do you think still they'll get a lot of

339
00:21:23,400 --> 00:21:24,199
Speaker 1: takers on this?

340
00:21:26,080 --> 00:21:29,560
Speaker 5: You know, I think they'll get some. We had a webinar,

341
00:21:31,560 --> 00:21:34,159
Speaker 5: we put out notice to our clients. I think we

342
00:21:34,200 --> 00:21:37,639
Speaker 5: had eighteen hundred and some people on the webinar, which

343
00:21:37,640 --> 00:21:41,520
Speaker 5: I thought was a lot for that short notice. Not

344
00:21:41,600 --> 00:21:45,679
Speaker 5: a single person either, that entire eighteen hundred, although this

345
00:21:45,880 --> 00:21:50,399
Speaker 5: was very good to offer, not one. So they're going

346
00:21:50,480 --> 00:21:54,440
Speaker 5: to get some people. Again, you may have somebody whose

347
00:21:54,480 --> 00:21:58,560
Speaker 5: circumstances whether they say, well, you know, I need the

348
00:21:58,680 --> 00:22:01,840
Speaker 5: hundred or I need the hundred, I better take it.

349
00:22:02,720 --> 00:22:05,760
Speaker 5: But how fair is that? And our government should treat

350
00:22:05,800 --> 00:22:10,080
Speaker 5: people equally, And so if missus Jones gets a one

351
00:22:10,160 --> 00:22:14,680
Speaker 5: hundred thousand today and Missus Smith gets eight hundred thousand

352
00:22:14,760 --> 00:22:19,120
Speaker 5: next year, my proposal would be that we pay these

353
00:22:19,119 --> 00:22:22,760
Speaker 5: folks who need the money now, but if they end

354
00:22:22,840 --> 00:22:26,120
Speaker 5: up paying more on a disease later, then they come

355
00:22:26,160 --> 00:22:28,840
Speaker 5: back and pay people equally. I think that's fair.

356
00:22:30,160 --> 00:22:33,920
Speaker 1: You've been fighting or arguing with the government on how

357
00:22:33,960 --> 00:22:37,600
Speaker 1: to move forward with the civil trials. Tell me how

358
00:22:37,640 --> 00:22:39,560
Speaker 1: you want to handle it and how the government wants

359
00:22:39,600 --> 00:22:40,200
Speaker 1: to handle it.

360
00:22:42,080 --> 00:22:45,880
Speaker 5: Well, the government wants to take as long as they

361
00:22:45,920 --> 00:22:49,960
Speaker 5: can to handle it. We've been with some of our

362
00:22:50,080 --> 00:22:53,159
Speaker 5: clients have been waiting thirty and forty years to have this,

363
00:22:53,800 --> 00:22:57,399
Speaker 5: to have something done, and they can't wait any longer.

364
00:22:57,440 --> 00:23:03,480
Speaker 5: We're having literally people dying every week every week, and

365
00:23:03,720 --> 00:23:09,240
Speaker 5: it's not fair. Again, the government knew about these chemicals

366
00:23:08,880 --> 00:23:14,760
Speaker 5: in the water since the seventies. They knew about it,

367
00:23:14,880 --> 00:23:17,679
Speaker 5: they stopped, they fixed the water in eighty seven. They

368
00:23:17,760 --> 00:23:21,080
Speaker 5: delayed telling people to ninety seven, and they could have

369
00:23:21,400 --> 00:23:27,360
Speaker 5: told people earlier so they could get screening an early diagnosis,

370
00:23:27,359 --> 00:23:30,800
Speaker 5: which they didn't do. Thousands of people died because of

371
00:23:30,840 --> 00:23:34,359
Speaker 5: the government's problems, because of what they did, and they

372
00:23:34,400 --> 00:23:37,600
Speaker 5: cover up. But yet the government doesn't want to do

373
00:23:37,680 --> 00:23:41,800
Speaker 5: something quickly and didn't want to help people. Well, that's

374
00:23:41,800 --> 00:23:46,440
Speaker 5: why people are upset, because there's not the money. That

375
00:23:46,560 --> 00:23:50,000
Speaker 5: gets them upset is no one's asking me the question

376
00:23:50,720 --> 00:23:54,439
Speaker 5: how could this have happened? Why isn't Congress interested in

377
00:23:54,520 --> 00:23:58,600
Speaker 5: finding out why it happened, who's supposed to be responsible

378
00:23:58,640 --> 00:24:00,440
Speaker 5: for it? And what can we do to not have

379
00:24:00,560 --> 00:24:04,119
Speaker 5: this happen again? Otherwise historys are going to repeat itself.

380
00:24:04,160 --> 00:24:07,560
Speaker 5: But we don't figure that out. Most of our clients

381
00:24:07,600 --> 00:24:11,000
Speaker 5: don't ask how much is this case worth? They want

382
00:24:11,000 --> 00:24:13,040
Speaker 5: to know what happened to them? How did I lose

383
00:24:13,080 --> 00:24:16,920
Speaker 5: my wife, my children? Why did I have three miscarriages?

384
00:24:16,960 --> 00:24:21,200
Speaker 5: Why were my two children? Why did they die two

385
00:24:21,280 --> 00:24:23,920
Speaker 5: days after they were born? They don't give a happy

386
00:24:24,000 --> 00:24:26,879
Speaker 5: damn about the money. They need to know. They have

387
00:24:26,920 --> 00:24:29,840
Speaker 5: to have answers, and so for the government not one

388
00:24:29,880 --> 00:24:32,080
Speaker 5: not to give them the answers and then come up

389
00:24:32,119 --> 00:24:35,560
Speaker 5: and try to take advantage of their age and the infirmities.

390
00:24:36,119 --> 00:24:37,400
Speaker 5: They think it's unfair.

391
00:24:38,200 --> 00:24:41,200
Speaker 1: I want to point out that Justice Department lawyers signal

392
00:24:41,400 --> 00:24:44,119
Speaker 1: they need more time to prepare, saying only that a

393
00:24:44,200 --> 00:24:47,800
Speaker 1: start date of some time in twenty twenty four was possible,

394
00:24:48,200 --> 00:24:51,680
Speaker 1: and that the Undersecretary of the Navy, Eric Ravin said

395
00:24:51,720 --> 00:24:54,639
Speaker 1: in a statement, we are committed to ensuring that every

396
00:24:54,720 --> 00:24:59,199
Speaker 1: valid camp lejun claim is resolved fairly and as expeditiously

397
00:24:59,359 --> 00:25:03,160
Speaker 1: as possible. Bob so ed, are you looking to have

398
00:25:03,480 --> 00:25:04,639
Speaker 1: a Bellweather trial?

399
00:25:05,800 --> 00:25:08,600
Speaker 5: Well, our proposal, which is pending before the court, now

400
00:25:09,960 --> 00:25:15,760
Speaker 5: asked the court to give us Bellweather trials based on disease. So,

401
00:25:15,840 --> 00:25:19,480
Speaker 5: for example, we may have all the clients would have

402
00:25:19,520 --> 00:25:23,000
Speaker 5: a certain or similar disease, and they may have different

403
00:25:24,119 --> 00:25:30,600
Speaker 5: different stages of that disease. Let's say you had bladder cancer,

404
00:25:31,080 --> 00:25:36,000
Speaker 5: caught it early, it was cured. Somebody who had bladder

405
00:25:36,040 --> 00:25:39,720
Speaker 5: cancer that was caught mid stage and have extensive treatment.

406
00:25:40,600 --> 00:25:45,080
Speaker 5: And someone who had bladder cancer extensive treatment eventually died

407
00:25:45,800 --> 00:25:49,800
Speaker 5: or a metastasized and they had multiple cancer uses there.

408
00:25:50,280 --> 00:25:55,240
Speaker 5: So there are different values for each person who may

409
00:25:55,320 --> 00:25:59,439
Speaker 5: have the same disease but have different results, And so

410
00:25:59,520 --> 00:26:03,800
Speaker 5: I think a Belweather case would have the ability to

411
00:26:03,840 --> 00:26:08,159
Speaker 5: tell us and tell the government this is what a

412
00:26:08,280 --> 00:26:11,240
Speaker 5: jury thinks is proper. And you can have several of those.

413
00:26:11,280 --> 00:26:14,480
Speaker 5: You don't have to just rely on one Belwether. You

414
00:26:14,480 --> 00:26:17,920
Speaker 5: can have you know, multiple beil Weathers. And I think

415
00:26:17,960 --> 00:26:24,600
Speaker 5: that's a fair way. What does the government want at all?

416
00:26:24,800 --> 00:26:27,800
Speaker 1: That they want separate trials for everyone, for each person?

417
00:26:30,000 --> 00:26:35,080
Speaker 5: It is funny they I think they recognize that they

418
00:26:35,119 --> 00:26:42,280
Speaker 5: need to have some kindance as well. But the construct

419
00:26:42,280 --> 00:26:46,399
Speaker 5: of how these cases is going to be tried they

420
00:26:46,600 --> 00:26:49,760
Speaker 5: kind of I wouldn't use the words kiddish, but they

421
00:26:49,760 --> 00:26:53,840
Speaker 5: are not very definitive about how they think it ought

422
00:26:53,880 --> 00:26:56,520
Speaker 5: to go. They do think that first trials ought to

423
00:26:56,520 --> 00:27:01,240
Speaker 5: start in twenty twenty five. Believe ours should start the

424
00:27:01,240 --> 00:27:05,439
Speaker 5: first quarter in twenty twenty four. We're ready for it.

425
00:27:06,000 --> 00:27:07,320
Speaker 1: When will this be decided?

426
00:27:09,040 --> 00:27:12,240
Speaker 5: Whether they are are proposed alternate orders or before the

427
00:27:12,280 --> 00:27:15,240
Speaker 5: court now? So we're waiting to hear from them any day.

428
00:27:15,520 --> 00:27:17,639
Speaker 1: I know there was a challenge to your appointment as

429
00:27:17,720 --> 00:27:19,760
Speaker 1: lead counsel. Is that settled yet.

430
00:27:21,080 --> 00:27:24,280
Speaker 5: The court has an issue in order. We responded with

431
00:27:24,320 --> 00:27:28,639
Speaker 5: a brief last week and so that's penning before the court.

432
00:27:29,119 --> 00:27:36,280
Speaker 5: But to be honest, with you. The courts have multiple

433
00:27:36,280 --> 00:27:39,560
Speaker 5: courts all over the country have done the same thing

434
00:27:39,920 --> 00:27:43,119
Speaker 5: Eastern District of North Carolina did. There's no error in

435
00:27:43,160 --> 00:27:43,800
Speaker 5: that at all.

436
00:27:44,480 --> 00:27:47,119
Speaker 1: I know that there were ninety three thousand claims filed.

437
00:27:47,119 --> 00:27:51,040
Speaker 1: How many lawsuits do you think you'll end up with?

438
00:27:52,640 --> 00:27:56,840
Speaker 5: Well, the secret behind the camp of View and Justice Act.

439
00:27:57,800 --> 00:28:01,359
Speaker 5: It's something we tried to prevent what happens in a

440
00:28:01,359 --> 00:28:05,000
Speaker 5: lot of mass torts. In most mass torts, you are

441
00:28:05,040 --> 00:28:08,040
Speaker 5: required to file your lawsuit because if you don't, you're

442
00:28:08,040 --> 00:28:11,000
Speaker 5: going to miss the statue of limitations. So therefore the

443
00:28:11,040 --> 00:28:15,399
Speaker 5: courts just get overwhelmed with thousands and thousands of lawsuits.

444
00:28:16,240 --> 00:28:19,240
Speaker 5: So what we did is we set up the system

445
00:28:19,359 --> 00:28:22,320
Speaker 5: where someone could file their claim to the Navy and

446
00:28:22,400 --> 00:28:26,240
Speaker 5: that would toll the statue of limitations, and then they

447
00:28:26,240 --> 00:28:30,120
Speaker 5: don't actually have to file their lawsuit. If they don't

448
00:28:30,119 --> 00:28:33,240
Speaker 5: want to, they can wait on the settlement process, or

449
00:28:33,280 --> 00:28:35,840
Speaker 5: they can file their lawsuit, but there's no rush to

450
00:28:35,880 --> 00:28:39,760
Speaker 5: the courthouse. So it's pretty nifty the way it turned out.

451
00:28:39,800 --> 00:28:43,080
Speaker 5: And right now they're about a thousand cases that are

452
00:28:43,160 --> 00:28:48,719
Speaker 5: filed and the court's not getting overwhelmed with all the filings.

453
00:28:48,960 --> 00:28:52,480
Speaker 1: Thanks so much Ed. That's Ed Bell, lead plaintiff's Council

454
00:28:52,720 --> 00:28:55,560
Speaker 1: in the Camp lejun cases. And that's it for this

455
00:28:55,680 --> 00:28:58,440
Speaker 1: edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always

456
00:28:58,440 --> 00:29:01,720
Speaker 1: get the latest legal news on Bloomberg Law Podcast. You

457
00:29:01,760 --> 00:29:05,840
Speaker 1: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www

458
00:29:06,000 --> 00:29:10,280
Speaker 1: dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, slash Law, and remember

459
00:29:10,320 --> 00:29:13,280
Speaker 1: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at

460
00:29:13,280 --> 00:29:16,760
Speaker 1: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're

461
00:29:16,840 --> 00:29:18,080
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg