1 00:00:00,480 --> 00:00:05,720 Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grossoe from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:06,600 --> 00:00:10,240 Speaker 1: Remember back in May of last year when Democratic Congressman 3 00:00:10,320 --> 00:00:13,920 Speaker 1: Jerry Nadler said that former White House Counsel Don McGann 4 00:00:14,040 --> 00:00:18,200 Speaker 1: would be forced to testify before Congress under subpoena. President 5 00:00:18,239 --> 00:00:21,240 Speaker 1: Trump and they think he can hide behind his lawyers 6 00:00:21,720 --> 00:00:25,560 Speaker 1: as he launches a series of basis legal arguments designed 7 00:00:25,600 --> 00:00:29,320 Speaker 1: to obstruct our work. He cannot think these legal arguments 8 00:00:29,360 --> 00:00:32,640 Speaker 1: will prevail in court, but he can think he can 9 00:00:32,640 --> 00:00:36,160 Speaker 1: slow us down and run out the clock. And President 10 00:00:36,200 --> 00:00:39,800 Speaker 1: Trump did slow the Democrats down in court by fifteen 11 00:00:39,880 --> 00:00:43,280 Speaker 1: months in counting with legal arguments that have twice won 12 00:00:43,360 --> 00:00:45,479 Speaker 1: over a panel of the d C. Circuit Court of 13 00:00:45,520 --> 00:00:49,720 Speaker 1: Appeals as the case over enforcing the subpoena bounces back 14 00:00:49,760 --> 00:00:52,560 Speaker 1: and forth between that three judge panel and the full 15 00:00:52,600 --> 00:00:56,240 Speaker 1: Appeals Court. The latest decision, the panel ruled two to 16 00:00:56,320 --> 00:00:59,400 Speaker 1: one that the House cannot sue to enforce them again subpoena, 17 00:00:59,720 --> 00:01:02,640 Speaker 1: just weeks after the full court ruled seven to two 18 00:01:02,720 --> 00:01:05,280 Speaker 1: that it can joining me to sort this all out. 19 00:01:05,400 --> 00:01:08,319 Speaker 1: Is Neil Kinkoff, a professor at the Georgia State University 20 00:01:08,480 --> 00:01:10,800 Speaker 1: College of Law, Neil. If you look at the news 21 00:01:10,880 --> 00:01:14,760 Speaker 1: about this case, you would see headlines saying DC Appeals 22 00:01:14,800 --> 00:01:18,600 Speaker 1: Court rules the House can't enforce McGann subpoena. Then d 23 00:01:18,760 --> 00:01:22,640 Speaker 1: C Appeals Court rules the House can enforce McGann subpoena, 24 00:01:22,760 --> 00:01:26,280 Speaker 1: then three weeks later can't. It could give you whiplash. 25 00:01:26,440 --> 00:01:31,600 Speaker 1: What's happening Why the seemingly contradictory decisions from the same court. 26 00:01:32,080 --> 00:01:34,880 Speaker 1: So partly it has to do with the randomness of 27 00:01:34,959 --> 00:01:38,000 Speaker 1: how you draw a panel, right, the panels that here 28 00:01:38,040 --> 00:01:42,080 Speaker 1: the cases are selected at random from the full complement 29 00:01:42,120 --> 00:01:45,559 Speaker 1: of judges in the circuit. And so if you happen 30 00:01:45,640 --> 00:01:48,280 Speaker 1: to get a couple of outliers on the panel, which 31 00:01:48,320 --> 00:01:51,559 Speaker 1: is what has happened with the McGann subpoena case, they'll 32 00:01:51,600 --> 00:01:56,160 Speaker 1: decide it one way, even though the overwhelming majority of 33 00:01:56,200 --> 00:01:59,400 Speaker 1: the d C Circuit disagrees with them. And so that's 34 00:01:59,400 --> 00:02:02,240 Speaker 1: why the case keeps going back and forth from this 35 00:02:02,400 --> 00:02:07,240 Speaker 1: panel of outliers to the more sensible Full Court, which 36 00:02:07,280 --> 00:02:10,240 Speaker 1: then has to send it back to the panel to 37 00:02:10,360 --> 00:02:14,360 Speaker 1: act in a manner that's consistent with the Full Court's decision. 38 00:02:15,040 --> 00:02:18,080 Speaker 1: And the panel has been quite creative in coming up 39 00:02:18,120 --> 00:02:22,440 Speaker 1: with alternative rationales for denying the subpoena, and really what 40 00:02:22,600 --> 00:02:25,160 Speaker 1: that ends up meaning is that the whole thing gets 41 00:02:25,240 --> 00:02:28,720 Speaker 1: drawn out, and if it gets drawn out, then the 42 00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:32,280 Speaker 1: president wins, because the President just wants this to go 43 00:02:32,560 --> 00:02:35,840 Speaker 1: and last beyond the election, so that nothing happens before 44 00:02:35,919 --> 00:02:39,040 Speaker 1: the election, and then should he win a second term, 45 00:02:39,200 --> 00:02:42,119 Speaker 1: to have it last throughout that term before there's ever 46 00:02:42,200 --> 00:02:44,960 Speaker 1: any resolution to it. So this case has been going 47 00:02:45,000 --> 00:02:47,800 Speaker 1: on for years already and it hasn't even gotten to 48 00:02:47,840 --> 00:02:50,520 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court yet, which I take at the White 49 00:02:50,520 --> 00:02:53,880 Speaker 1: House would appeal there, and that's another couple of years 50 00:02:53,960 --> 00:02:56,560 Speaker 1: added to it. So we're not going to see dumb 51 00:02:56,639 --> 00:03:00,680 Speaker 1: again testifying any time within the next couple of years. 52 00:03:00,720 --> 00:03:05,160 Speaker 1: I can't imagine explain what the Full Court decided seven 53 00:03:05,200 --> 00:03:08,640 Speaker 1: to two. So the Full Court decided that the House 54 00:03:08,639 --> 00:03:12,840 Speaker 1: of Representatives has standing. That means they're a proper plaintiff 55 00:03:12,919 --> 00:03:16,040 Speaker 1: to try to seek to enforce their subpoena. You or 56 00:03:16,080 --> 00:03:19,160 Speaker 1: I couldn't go in to court and seek an order 57 00:03:19,360 --> 00:03:23,239 Speaker 1: to enforce the House of Representatives because although we may 58 00:03:23,280 --> 00:03:26,320 Speaker 1: have kind of an interest in the case, we're not 59 00:03:26,480 --> 00:03:30,280 Speaker 1: actually an involved party and there have been a number 60 00:03:30,280 --> 00:03:33,959 Speaker 1: of cases where the House of Representatives as a plaintiff 61 00:03:34,040 --> 00:03:37,360 Speaker 1: has been held not to have standing, but in this 62 00:03:37,440 --> 00:03:40,720 Speaker 1: case to enforce one of their own subpoenas, they rather 63 00:03:40,840 --> 00:03:44,880 Speaker 1: obviously have standing. Although this panel it held that they didn't. 64 00:03:45,360 --> 00:03:49,120 Speaker 1: The full On Bank Court said quite correctly that of 65 00:03:49,160 --> 00:03:53,280 Speaker 1: course they have standing to enforce their own subpoenas. And 66 00:03:53,320 --> 00:03:55,880 Speaker 1: by the way, the panel decision in this case had 67 00:03:55,960 --> 00:04:00,080 Speaker 1: the two Republican appointed judges in the majority and the 68 00:04:00,080 --> 00:04:04,680 Speaker 1: Democratic appointed judge in dissent. So the full Court sends 69 00:04:04,680 --> 00:04:07,920 Speaker 1: it back to the panel, and the panel is supposed 70 00:04:07,960 --> 00:04:11,600 Speaker 1: to decide in accordance with what the full court said, 71 00:04:11,960 --> 00:04:15,240 Speaker 1: whether or not they agree with it. Right, So what happened, right, 72 00:04:15,320 --> 00:04:18,919 Speaker 1: So when it went back they decided on kind of 73 00:04:18,960 --> 00:04:23,279 Speaker 1: an intermediate jurisdictional question. So they said, okay, you have standing, 74 00:04:23,680 --> 00:04:27,360 Speaker 1: House of Representatives, but you don't have a cause of action. 75 00:04:27,680 --> 00:04:30,880 Speaker 1: And a cause of action is the legal term for 76 00:04:31,400 --> 00:04:35,599 Speaker 1: kind of the form by which you enforce your legal rights. 77 00:04:35,680 --> 00:04:38,360 Speaker 1: So you have a right not to be injured by 78 00:04:38,400 --> 00:04:41,560 Speaker 1: someone else's negligence, we call that torts, or you have 79 00:04:41,640 --> 00:04:44,760 Speaker 1: a right to have your contracts enforced and there is 80 00:04:44,800 --> 00:04:47,279 Speaker 1: something called a cause of action that allows you to 81 00:04:47,320 --> 00:04:51,400 Speaker 1: go into court and enforce in court your right to 82 00:04:51,520 --> 00:04:54,640 Speaker 1: have someone with whom you have a contract live up 83 00:04:54,680 --> 00:04:57,599 Speaker 1: to the terms of the contract, or to have someone 84 00:04:57,680 --> 00:05:00,800 Speaker 1: who has committed a tort against you pay you compensation. 85 00:05:01,120 --> 00:05:03,800 Speaker 1: If there were no cause of action, you would have 86 00:05:03,839 --> 00:05:07,000 Speaker 1: no way to vindicate your right not to be injured 87 00:05:07,160 --> 00:05:09,760 Speaker 1: or not to have your contracts breached. So that's what 88 00:05:09,800 --> 00:05:12,360 Speaker 1: a cause of action is. And what the court said 89 00:05:12,440 --> 00:05:16,000 Speaker 1: here is that, okay, House of Representatives, you may have 90 00:05:16,120 --> 00:05:19,719 Speaker 1: been injured, but there is no cause of action that 91 00:05:19,800 --> 00:05:24,040 Speaker 1: allows you to come into court to vindicate that injury. 92 00:05:24,120 --> 00:05:28,599 Speaker 1: Now that claim is flatly wrong, but that's what they said, 93 00:05:28,640 --> 00:05:31,880 Speaker 1: and that's how it's different than the previous case. So 94 00:05:31,920 --> 00:05:36,640 Speaker 1: it's another procedural component of a lawsuit that they ruled on. 95 00:05:36,960 --> 00:05:39,800 Speaker 1: And really the consequence of that we will be appealed 96 00:05:39,839 --> 00:05:43,080 Speaker 1: to the Full DC Circuit and I have every confidence 97 00:05:43,120 --> 00:05:47,200 Speaker 1: that the Full DC Circuit will again reverse the panel's decision. 98 00:05:47,560 --> 00:05:50,839 Speaker 1: But even if it does, Trump wins because of the 99 00:05:50,920 --> 00:05:54,080 Speaker 1: delay that that causes, and then Trump will appeal that 100 00:05:54,160 --> 00:05:57,360 Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court, further delaying things down the road 101 00:05:57,440 --> 00:06:00,680 Speaker 1: for years. You know, did this panel say that Congress 102 00:06:00,720 --> 00:06:03,760 Speaker 1: would have to pass a law specifically allowing this kind 103 00:06:03,800 --> 00:06:07,440 Speaker 1: of legal action. Yes, the Congress would have to pass 104 00:06:07,480 --> 00:06:11,040 Speaker 1: a law giving itself a cause of action to go 105 00:06:11,160 --> 00:06:15,120 Speaker 1: into court and enforce its subpoena through a civil enforcement action. 106 00:06:15,520 --> 00:06:18,040 Speaker 1: That's exactly what they ruled. So they didn't rule that 107 00:06:18,640 --> 00:06:23,520 Speaker 1: it would be unconstitutional for Congress to enforce its subpoena, 108 00:06:23,640 --> 00:06:27,159 Speaker 1: simply that this technical mechanism hadn't been put in place 109 00:06:27,240 --> 00:06:30,360 Speaker 1: by statute yet. But of course for Congress to put 110 00:06:30,440 --> 00:06:33,679 Speaker 1: that in place requires passing a law that I'm quite 111 00:06:33,680 --> 00:06:37,040 Speaker 1: confident Mitch McConnell's Senate wouldn't take up. And even if 112 00:06:37,080 --> 00:06:40,000 Speaker 1: they did, and even if they passed it, certainly Donald 113 00:06:40,040 --> 00:06:43,320 Speaker 1: Trump isn't going to sign it into law. So while 114 00:06:43,360 --> 00:06:46,360 Speaker 1: it sounds like a very narrow kind of you just 115 00:06:46,600 --> 00:06:49,040 Speaker 1: didn't dot your eyes and cross your tea s So 116 00:06:49,160 --> 00:06:53,279 Speaker 1: go back and do your work. Um, as a practical matter, 117 00:06:53,640 --> 00:06:58,000 Speaker 1: it's hard to imagine this statute getting passed in any 118 00:06:58,000 --> 00:07:01,240 Speaker 1: way that's going to end up getting on McGan to testify. 119 00:07:01,520 --> 00:07:04,000 Speaker 1: They talk about other things the House can do instead 120 00:07:04,000 --> 00:07:08,400 Speaker 1: of a subpoena, including its inherent power of contempt, shutting 121 00:07:08,400 --> 00:07:13,280 Speaker 1: down the government, refusing to cooperate with the president's legislative agenda, 122 00:07:13,640 --> 00:07:17,160 Speaker 1: and bringing impeachment. Do any of those work? Let's start 123 00:07:17,160 --> 00:07:21,440 Speaker 1: with the houses inherent power of contempt. When was the 124 00:07:21,520 --> 00:07:24,920 Speaker 1: last time that worked? And can they revitalize it? I 125 00:07:24,960 --> 00:07:28,560 Speaker 1: don't think they could revitalize it without an acting a statute, 126 00:07:28,600 --> 00:07:30,680 Speaker 1: and again that's going to run into the same problem 127 00:07:30,720 --> 00:07:33,680 Speaker 1: that I just discussed. So I don't think inherent contempt 128 00:07:34,000 --> 00:07:37,960 Speaker 1: is a practically viable avenue In terms of the other 129 00:07:38,120 --> 00:07:43,920 Speaker 1: political weapons that Congress has at its disposal, they're all nuclear, right, 130 00:07:44,000 --> 00:07:47,720 Speaker 1: shutting down the government, impeaching the president, and as we 131 00:07:47,800 --> 00:07:50,480 Speaker 1: saw with the last impeachment, it may not be a 132 00:07:50,560 --> 00:07:54,520 Speaker 1: nuclear weapon that works. Um shutting down the government in 133 00:07:54,640 --> 00:07:59,600 Speaker 1: order to get done McGan to testify seems politically preposterous, right, 134 00:07:59,800 --> 00:08:02,640 Speaker 1: How wouldn't do that? If they did do that, I 135 00:08:02,680 --> 00:08:06,440 Speaker 1: think the public would get really mad that essential government 136 00:08:06,520 --> 00:08:09,480 Speaker 1: services were being shut down over a subpoena fight. Some 137 00:08:09,560 --> 00:08:11,600 Speaker 1: of the other weapons that you might think of as 138 00:08:11,640 --> 00:08:17,360 Speaker 1: being available, like refusing to confirm the president's appointees, aren't 139 00:08:17,400 --> 00:08:20,320 Speaker 1: actually available to the House. Because the House doesn't have 140 00:08:20,440 --> 00:08:25,160 Speaker 1: confirmation authority. The Senate does, UM, and in subpoena fights 141 00:08:25,160 --> 00:08:28,080 Speaker 1: with the administration. That's a real weapon that they can 142 00:08:28,200 --> 00:08:30,720 Speaker 1: and do use. But the House doesn't have that one. 143 00:08:31,320 --> 00:08:35,479 Speaker 1: So the idea that the House has real significant political 144 00:08:35,520 --> 00:08:38,960 Speaker 1: weapons at its disposal, UM, it's really hard in this 145 00:08:39,120 --> 00:08:43,120 Speaker 1: situation to see what they are. What does this standoff 146 00:08:43,600 --> 00:08:47,360 Speaker 1: say about the checks and balances that are supposed to 147 00:08:47,440 --> 00:08:50,760 Speaker 1: be in place between the branches. Well, I think it 148 00:08:50,800 --> 00:08:55,560 Speaker 1: illuminates an interesting phenomenon that is really unique to the 149 00:08:55,600 --> 00:08:59,600 Speaker 1: Trump administration. So in the past, the House has had 150 00:09:00,160 --> 00:09:05,000 Speaker 1: meaningful political weapons at its disposal because members of the 151 00:09:05,000 --> 00:09:09,360 Speaker 1: president's own political party have been willing to stand up 152 00:09:09,400 --> 00:09:12,840 Speaker 1: for the institution of Congress and to say to the president. 153 00:09:13,040 --> 00:09:15,960 Speaker 1: I know we're in the same party, but Congress has 154 00:09:16,000 --> 00:09:19,600 Speaker 1: a legitimate interest in asking the questions it's asking. You 155 00:09:19,640 --> 00:09:24,160 Speaker 1: need to answer them. We're not going to support your stonewalling. 156 00:09:24,440 --> 00:09:27,240 Speaker 1: But that's not happening here right. If you think back 157 00:09:27,240 --> 00:09:32,520 Speaker 1: to the Clinton years, the House investigations into Whitewater, into 158 00:09:32,720 --> 00:09:36,240 Speaker 1: firing the White House chef, firing the White House Travel 159 00:09:36,320 --> 00:09:40,360 Speaker 1: Office members, the investigations went on and on and on 160 00:09:40,640 --> 00:09:44,960 Speaker 1: and House and Senate Republicans did not stand with the 161 00:09:45,000 --> 00:09:49,760 Speaker 1: president to completely stonewall those investigations. During the Bush years, 162 00:09:49,760 --> 00:09:53,280 Speaker 1: you saw the same thing with Republicans. But the commitment 163 00:09:53,400 --> 00:09:58,040 Speaker 1: of Republicans to this president is uniform and complete and 164 00:09:58,160 --> 00:10:01,360 Speaker 1: has allowed him to say to cong Risk, no, I'm 165 00:10:01,400 --> 00:10:04,920 Speaker 1: not giving you anything. I'm not even invoking executive privilege. 166 00:10:05,200 --> 00:10:08,000 Speaker 1: I just refused to participate. What are you going to 167 00:10:08,080 --> 00:10:13,360 Speaker 1: do about it? And when Republicans in Congress won't stand 168 00:10:13,440 --> 00:10:17,319 Speaker 1: up for the Institution's parrogatives, then the president can get 169 00:10:17,360 --> 00:10:21,120 Speaker 1: away with that. And that is a real erosion of 170 00:10:21,200 --> 00:10:24,280 Speaker 1: the separation of powers and the design of checks and 171 00:10:24,320 --> 00:10:29,120 Speaker 1: balances when another president sees the way that Donald Trump 172 00:10:29,160 --> 00:10:33,000 Speaker 1: has effectively been able to put off all these subpoenas, 173 00:10:33,040 --> 00:10:35,360 Speaker 1: and of course, you know other presidents don't want to 174 00:10:35,400 --> 00:10:39,080 Speaker 1: comply with subpoenas either, So will that be a roadmap 175 00:10:39,200 --> 00:10:42,959 Speaker 1: for another administration to say, no, I'm not going to comply. 176 00:10:43,360 --> 00:10:47,240 Speaker 1: The Trump administration didn't, so why should I. I think 177 00:10:47,280 --> 00:10:50,440 Speaker 1: that will be the instinct of presidents. I think the 178 00:10:50,480 --> 00:10:53,640 Speaker 1: answer to them will be that you're not Donald Trump, 179 00:10:53,960 --> 00:10:58,040 Speaker 1: And the question will be our members of Congress in 180 00:10:58,120 --> 00:11:02,320 Speaker 1: your party has committed to you or as afraid of 181 00:11:02,360 --> 00:11:06,760 Speaker 1: you politically as Republicans have been of Donald Trump in 182 00:11:07,080 --> 00:11:09,360 Speaker 1: the past. The answer to that question has been no. 183 00:11:10,080 --> 00:11:14,200 Speaker 1: Members of Congress in the president's party have been willing 184 00:11:14,240 --> 00:11:18,239 Speaker 1: to go along with subpoenas and with demands for information, 185 00:11:18,400 --> 00:11:22,200 Speaker 1: which itself places real pressure on the president to work 186 00:11:22,280 --> 00:11:26,360 Speaker 1: something out with Congress to come to a mutual agreement. 187 00:11:26,920 --> 00:11:29,880 Speaker 1: That's how it's always worked in the past. And if 188 00:11:30,120 --> 00:11:32,920 Speaker 1: a president in the future doesn't have the kind of 189 00:11:32,920 --> 00:11:39,640 Speaker 1: walks step unquestioning obedience of members of Congress in his 190 00:11:39,720 --> 00:11:43,520 Speaker 1: political party that Donald Trump has, they won't be able 191 00:11:43,720 --> 00:11:46,600 Speaker 1: to get away with what Donald Trump has been able 192 00:11:46,640 --> 00:11:51,280 Speaker 1: to get away with. So in this case, it is 193 00:11:51,520 --> 00:11:53,920 Speaker 1: going to be appealed to Corn, to Nancy Pelosi, it's 194 00:11:53,920 --> 00:11:56,480 Speaker 1: going to be appealed to the full DC Circuit. The 195 00:11:56,480 --> 00:12:00,640 Speaker 1: Full DC Circuit rules in favor of Congress and sends 196 00:12:00,679 --> 00:12:03,920 Speaker 1: it back to the three judge panel. But in this case, 197 00:12:03,920 --> 00:12:07,960 Speaker 1: that three judge panel will be different because one of 198 00:12:08,000 --> 00:12:12,360 Speaker 1: the judges is retiring, So so there's a chance at 199 00:12:12,360 --> 00:12:18,080 Speaker 1: that point that the panel will rule against McGann. That's right, 200 00:12:18,360 --> 00:12:22,400 Speaker 1: But there's another intermediate step. So if the full DC 201 00:12:22,520 --> 00:12:26,160 Speaker 1: Circuit on Bank rules in favor of the House of Representatives. 202 00:12:26,600 --> 00:12:31,040 Speaker 1: The administration will appeal that to the Supreme Court. There 203 00:12:31,120 --> 00:12:34,760 Speaker 1: is no chance of that being resolved before the election. Right, 204 00:12:34,760 --> 00:12:38,079 Speaker 1: so we're into a second term, or we're into a 205 00:12:38,160 --> 00:12:41,959 Speaker 1: Biden administration. In a Biden administration, I think the public 206 00:12:42,000 --> 00:12:46,800 Speaker 1: interest in the issue is greatly diminished. And if it's 207 00:12:46,800 --> 00:12:52,920 Speaker 1: a second Trump administration, there are continuing mechanisms for delay, 208 00:12:53,400 --> 00:12:57,880 Speaker 1: so that I'm confident we won't have timely access to 209 00:12:58,800 --> 00:13:03,000 Speaker 1: the important information, aation that Don McCann had. Finally, Neil 210 00:13:03,559 --> 00:13:08,600 Speaker 1: has the Court addressed the main theory of the president 211 00:13:08,640 --> 00:13:14,120 Speaker 1: of absolute immunity of his close advisers from congressional subpoenas. 212 00:13:14,760 --> 00:13:19,760 Speaker 1: So Judge Rogers, in her dissenting opinion reached that issue 213 00:13:19,880 --> 00:13:24,200 Speaker 1: because she found all the procedural requirements met the panel. 214 00:13:24,240 --> 00:13:26,760 Speaker 1: The two judges in the panel um they did not 215 00:13:26,880 --> 00:13:30,560 Speaker 1: reach that question, and the on Bank DC Circuit the 216 00:13:30,559 --> 00:13:33,400 Speaker 1: full panel did not. In the in the case that 217 00:13:33,480 --> 00:13:36,920 Speaker 1: asked the question about standing, right is those are procedural 218 00:13:37,000 --> 00:13:40,960 Speaker 1: and preliminary issues. So so far only one judge on 219 00:13:41,000 --> 00:13:44,240 Speaker 1: the d C Circuit has gotten to that question, and 220 00:13:44,520 --> 00:13:49,800 Speaker 1: that Judge has Um dismissed and rejected the president's argument 221 00:13:49,920 --> 00:13:53,800 Speaker 1: for complete immunity. Thanks for being on the Boomberg Law Show, Neil. 222 00:13:54,200 --> 00:13:57,880 Speaker 1: That's Neil Kincaffer, professor at the Georgia State University College 223 00:13:57,880 --> 00:14:02,920 Speaker 1: of Law. California has filed it's one hundred lawsuit against 224 00:14:02,960 --> 00:14:07,240 Speaker 1: the Trump administration, this time to block the administration's rewriting 225 00:14:07,240 --> 00:14:11,040 Speaker 1: of a foundational environmental law that's often referred to as 226 00:14:11,080 --> 00:14:14,640 Speaker 1: the Magna Carta of environmental law, the fifty year old 227 00:14:14,760 --> 00:14:19,320 Speaker 1: National Environmental Policy Act. The state's Attorney General, Javier Bserra, 228 00:14:19,520 --> 00:14:23,840 Speaker 1: call the lawsuit an unfortunate milestone. Now we have seen 229 00:14:24,120 --> 00:14:28,280 Speaker 1: for the hundred time lawless behavior emanating from the White 230 00:14:28,320 --> 00:14:31,000 Speaker 1: House and this administration to the point where we have 231 00:14:31,120 --> 00:14:35,440 Speaker 1: had to suit. Fortunately, when we have suit, we've usually won, 232 00:14:36,000 --> 00:14:39,080 Speaker 1: and this should not be any different. We believe that 233 00:14:39,400 --> 00:14:44,080 Speaker 1: this administration is gone beyond in trying to change. Twenty 234 00:14:44,160 --> 00:14:47,080 Speaker 1: other states are joining California in the suit to stop 235 00:14:47,120 --> 00:14:50,480 Speaker 1: the rollback by the Trump administration of the Nixon era law. 236 00:14:50,760 --> 00:14:53,800 Speaker 1: Joining me as Pat Parento, a professor of environmental law 237 00:14:53,800 --> 00:14:56,600 Speaker 1: at the Vermont Law School, Pat, what does that say? 238 00:14:56,680 --> 00:15:01,160 Speaker 1: Reaching a hundred lawsuits within less than four year years. Well, 239 00:15:01,280 --> 00:15:03,200 Speaker 1: it's going to be an entry in the Guinness Book 240 00:15:03,200 --> 00:15:06,560 Speaker 1: of Litigation Records. I think, you know, I've been doing 241 00:15:06,600 --> 00:15:10,680 Speaker 1: this now for over four decades, almost fifty years, and 242 00:15:10,800 --> 00:15:13,720 Speaker 1: I honestly I have never seen so many attempts to 243 00:15:13,760 --> 00:15:17,000 Speaker 1: both roll back environmental rules but also you know, a 244 00:15:17,080 --> 00:15:21,280 Speaker 1: lawsuit for every one. That's definitely a record in my lifetime. 245 00:15:22,120 --> 00:15:28,680 Speaker 1: This latest lawsuit challenges the administration's rewriting of Nixon era rules. 246 00:15:29,320 --> 00:15:32,800 Speaker 1: Tell us about those rules. Yeah, this one is our 247 00:15:32,880 --> 00:15:36,520 Speaker 1: magna carta, as we call it, the National Environmental Policy Act, 248 00:15:36,920 --> 00:15:40,040 Speaker 1: and it was enacted in nineteen sixty nine, took effect 249 00:15:40,400 --> 00:15:43,640 Speaker 1: in nineteen seventy, so it's fifty years old. It's the 250 00:15:43,680 --> 00:15:48,040 Speaker 1: basic charter, if you will, for environmental policy in the country. 251 00:15:48,120 --> 00:15:52,680 Speaker 1: And Nixon was the president who signed more environmental legislation 252 00:15:52,680 --> 00:15:56,520 Speaker 1: than any president and created the Environmental Protection Agency. So yeah, 253 00:15:56,560 --> 00:15:59,400 Speaker 1: what a change we've seen in politics in the United 254 00:15:59,480 --> 00:16:01,720 Speaker 1: States since those days. You know, this is the law 255 00:16:01,800 --> 00:16:05,680 Speaker 1: that requires the federal government whenever it's undertaking projects that 256 00:16:05,800 --> 00:16:09,440 Speaker 1: impact the environment. They could be you know, highways or dams, 257 00:16:09,560 --> 00:16:13,960 Speaker 1: or leasing oil and gas on land and offshore to 258 00:16:14,200 --> 00:16:17,360 Speaker 1: do an environmental impact statement. Look before you leap is 259 00:16:17,400 --> 00:16:21,520 Speaker 1: the motto. And consider alternatives that are less environmentally damaging 260 00:16:21,640 --> 00:16:23,960 Speaker 1: and that look to the long term and look at 261 00:16:24,000 --> 00:16:28,200 Speaker 1: alternatives that would promote environmental values and at the same 262 00:16:28,240 --> 00:16:31,760 Speaker 1: time promoting economic values. That's the set of rules that 263 00:16:31,840 --> 00:16:34,840 Speaker 1: have stood for all this period of time, and the 264 00:16:34,880 --> 00:16:38,680 Speaker 1: Trump administration has made the most radical changes to those 265 00:16:38,800 --> 00:16:41,280 Speaker 1: rules that we've seen. Give us an example of some 266 00:16:41,440 --> 00:16:45,560 Speaker 1: of the changes that the Trump administration has made. Well, 267 00:16:45,680 --> 00:16:48,680 Speaker 1: They first of all, have narrowed the scope of federal 268 00:16:48,720 --> 00:16:52,400 Speaker 1: actions that would be subject to these requirements. They've created 269 00:16:52,400 --> 00:16:57,840 Speaker 1: a bunch of exemptions for activities that would normally have 270 00:16:57,960 --> 00:17:02,200 Speaker 1: been have required this environment mental assessment and and now wouldn't. 271 00:17:02,720 --> 00:17:05,040 Speaker 1: They've changed the definition of what effects have to be 272 00:17:05,119 --> 00:17:09,320 Speaker 1: considered so that climate change effects in particular, would as 273 00:17:09,359 --> 00:17:13,360 Speaker 1: a general matter, would not be considered because they're too 274 00:17:13,400 --> 00:17:17,600 Speaker 1: much in the future or too uncertain in the minds 275 00:17:17,680 --> 00:17:21,280 Speaker 1: or the views of the Trump administration. Anyway, They've narrowed 276 00:17:21,280 --> 00:17:24,760 Speaker 1: the range of alternatives. That's the key to the NIVA 277 00:17:24,800 --> 00:17:29,560 Speaker 1: analysis is looking for less damaging environmental alternatives. And this 278 00:17:29,720 --> 00:17:32,600 Speaker 1: rule would say if if you don't have authority to 279 00:17:32,680 --> 00:17:35,119 Speaker 1: implement an alternative, and you don't have to consider it, 280 00:17:35,160 --> 00:17:37,280 Speaker 1: even though you know one alternative might be to get 281 00:17:37,320 --> 00:17:40,760 Speaker 1: the authority to consider the alternative. They've limited the amount 282 00:17:40,760 --> 00:17:44,720 Speaker 1: of public participation that can occur during the NIVA process. 283 00:17:45,280 --> 00:17:48,560 Speaker 1: NIP is first and foremost a tool that communities use 284 00:17:48,840 --> 00:17:50,640 Speaker 1: to try to get a handle on some of these 285 00:17:50,680 --> 00:17:55,399 Speaker 1: federally authorized projects like pipelines and coal mines and copper 286 00:17:55,440 --> 00:17:58,680 Speaker 1: minds in Alaska and that sort of thing. So by 287 00:17:58,800 --> 00:18:02,480 Speaker 1: limiting the ability your citizen groups to comment, you know, 288 00:18:02,520 --> 00:18:08,120 Speaker 1: you're limiting participation, and they're requiring citizens to document whatever 289 00:18:08,240 --> 00:18:12,840 Speaker 1: problems they're concerned about with reference to scientific information or 290 00:18:13,160 --> 00:18:16,320 Speaker 1: other technical information that, of course a lot of communities 291 00:18:16,359 --> 00:18:18,480 Speaker 1: just don't have. They have a lot of questions, but 292 00:18:18,520 --> 00:18:21,919 Speaker 1: they're not necessarily expert at answering them. So that's a 293 00:18:22,000 --> 00:18:25,240 Speaker 1: few of the examples, but it's a quite dramatic change 294 00:18:25,240 --> 00:18:28,040 Speaker 1: in the way that law has been implemented. So PAT 295 00:18:28,080 --> 00:18:30,640 Speaker 1: a lot of the times when we've talked about these 296 00:18:30,760 --> 00:18:34,639 Speaker 1: environmental lawsuits against the Trump administration, the grounds have been 297 00:18:34,680 --> 00:18:38,040 Speaker 1: that the Trump administration didn't follow the rules the Administrative 298 00:18:38,040 --> 00:18:40,640 Speaker 1: Procedures Act what are the grounds here for the lawsuit? 299 00:18:40,960 --> 00:18:44,199 Speaker 1: The biggest one that's going to be interesting if this 300 00:18:44,240 --> 00:18:47,159 Speaker 1: case ever gets to the Supreme Court, which it may not, 301 00:18:47,280 --> 00:18:51,080 Speaker 1: but if it did, is what's called reliance interests, And 302 00:18:51,440 --> 00:18:54,960 Speaker 1: what that means is, again, you've had almost fifty years 303 00:18:55,040 --> 00:18:58,960 Speaker 1: of experience in practice under the prior rules, and a 304 00:18:59,000 --> 00:19:02,440 Speaker 1: lot of people have become accustomed. So that's the way 305 00:19:02,520 --> 00:19:06,600 Speaker 1: federal projects are evaluated, and they've relied on that as 306 00:19:06,640 --> 00:19:10,720 Speaker 1: their mechanism for commenting and participating. The same thing is 307 00:19:10,800 --> 00:19:14,080 Speaker 1: true of a lot of the private parties and others 308 00:19:14,119 --> 00:19:18,159 Speaker 1: who rely on federal money to build projects or federal 309 00:19:18,160 --> 00:19:20,720 Speaker 1: permits and so forth. You know, there's been a process 310 00:19:20,760 --> 00:19:23,000 Speaker 1: in place for all this period of time for how 311 00:19:23,280 --> 00:19:26,880 Speaker 1: you do this environmental analysis, and now you've changed all that, 312 00:19:27,200 --> 00:19:31,320 Speaker 1: and they've introduced a lot of new terminology that's ambiguous 313 00:19:31,440 --> 00:19:34,159 Speaker 1: and certainly knew enough that it's going to have to 314 00:19:34,200 --> 00:19:37,000 Speaker 1: be tested in court. So that creates a lot of 315 00:19:37,080 --> 00:19:41,199 Speaker 1: uncertainty across the country. The federal government's involved in so 316 00:19:41,440 --> 00:19:44,520 Speaker 1: many things it's it's almost hard to find something where 317 00:19:44,520 --> 00:19:47,040 Speaker 1: the government isn't in some way involved. So what you 318 00:19:47,119 --> 00:19:49,919 Speaker 1: have now is the situation where people knew the rules 319 00:19:49,920 --> 00:19:53,080 Speaker 1: of the road, knew how you wrote an environmental impact statement, 320 00:19:53,240 --> 00:19:55,760 Speaker 1: what it had to contain, and so forth, and now 321 00:19:55,800 --> 00:19:59,000 Speaker 1: that's changed. So we're gonna have another period of time 322 00:19:59,359 --> 00:20:02,000 Speaker 1: if these rule will survive, where all that's going to 323 00:20:02,080 --> 00:20:04,879 Speaker 1: have to be litigated again and again to you know, 324 00:20:05,000 --> 00:20:07,680 Speaker 1: refine some of these terms and figure out what they mean. 325 00:20:08,640 --> 00:20:12,760 Speaker 1: What are this lawsuits chances of success against the Trump administration. 326 00:20:13,320 --> 00:20:16,560 Speaker 1: I think given the track record of this administration, the 327 00:20:16,640 --> 00:20:19,440 Speaker 1: mistakes that they've made, as you mentioned under the Administrative 328 00:20:19,480 --> 00:20:23,680 Speaker 1: Procedure Act Um, I think there's a high likelihood that 329 00:20:23,800 --> 00:20:28,480 Speaker 1: if the case gets to court um before the election, 330 00:20:28,600 --> 00:20:32,199 Speaker 1: for example, uh, you might see a cord issuing a 331 00:20:32,240 --> 00:20:38,480 Speaker 1: preliminary injunction. Those are difficult to obtained. But when you 332 00:20:38,560 --> 00:20:41,760 Speaker 1: have this kind of a dramatic change and the states, 333 00:20:41,760 --> 00:20:44,440 Speaker 1: of course are arguing you don't really have a justification 334 00:20:44,960 --> 00:20:47,359 Speaker 1: for this kind of radical change. You need to have 335 00:20:47,520 --> 00:20:51,600 Speaker 1: more evidence of the problems that you claim are being 336 00:20:51,640 --> 00:20:54,560 Speaker 1: created by the law that require this kind of a change. 337 00:20:54,640 --> 00:20:58,040 Speaker 1: Maybe there maybe some changes necessary, but this kind of 338 00:20:58,160 --> 00:21:03,520 Speaker 1: radical change is so out of the norm that a 339 00:21:03,640 --> 00:21:08,120 Speaker 1: court might step in and and put an injunction on it, 340 00:21:08,440 --> 00:21:12,200 Speaker 1: and of course, if the election goes against the Trump administration, 341 00:21:12,760 --> 00:21:15,040 Speaker 1: this is one of those rules that could be subject 342 00:21:15,040 --> 00:21:18,800 Speaker 1: to what's called the Congressional Review Act, which, you know, 343 00:21:19,080 --> 00:21:22,960 Speaker 1: assuming again a big assumption, but assuming that that Biden 344 00:21:23,000 --> 00:21:26,800 Speaker 1: were to win and that the Democrats were to take 345 00:21:26,840 --> 00:21:29,440 Speaker 1: control of the Senate they need both the Senate and 346 00:21:29,520 --> 00:21:32,600 Speaker 1: the House, then they can pass in a very quick 347 00:21:32,680 --> 00:21:37,320 Speaker 1: resolution overturning this rule. So there's a there's a variety 348 00:21:37,359 --> 00:21:42,680 Speaker 1: of ways in which um this rule may may either 349 00:21:42,720 --> 00:21:48,240 Speaker 1: get over ruled or repealed or maybe stopped by the court. 350 00:21:48,359 --> 00:21:51,920 Speaker 1: So there's a lot of different ways in which this 351 00:21:52,000 --> 00:21:55,919 Speaker 1: rule could be affected. So you mentioned if Biden wins 352 00:21:55,960 --> 00:21:59,560 Speaker 1: the election. If he wins the election, do we know 353 00:22:00,520 --> 00:22:04,840 Speaker 1: what he intends to try to roll back and are 354 00:22:04,840 --> 00:22:10,200 Speaker 1: those rollbacks going to be difficult? Yeah, I mean, he's 355 00:22:10,240 --> 00:22:14,520 Speaker 1: certainly made statements about virtually all of these rollbacks. Of course, 356 00:22:15,000 --> 00:22:17,760 Speaker 1: most of these rules were adopted when he and Barack 357 00:22:17,800 --> 00:22:20,800 Speaker 1: Obama were in office, so he's he's if he's not 358 00:22:20,840 --> 00:22:23,960 Speaker 1: personally familiar with the rules, he certainly was was part 359 00:22:23,960 --> 00:22:27,280 Speaker 1: of the government that created them, and he's vowed to 360 00:22:27,359 --> 00:22:30,760 Speaker 1: restore if not all of them, most of them, but 361 00:22:31,400 --> 00:22:35,000 Speaker 1: you know, again that will take some time, um if 362 00:22:35,440 --> 00:22:40,480 Speaker 1: as these cases are still pending in court, when if, 363 00:22:40,520 --> 00:22:44,159 Speaker 1: and when Biden takes office. You know one thing that 364 00:22:44,920 --> 00:22:47,480 Speaker 1: the new administration can do, which is what the Trump 365 00:22:47,480 --> 00:22:53,040 Speaker 1: administration did, is go into court and basically concede that 366 00:22:53,200 --> 00:22:57,040 Speaker 1: the rollbacks were not done properly and asked the court 367 00:22:57,119 --> 00:23:00,879 Speaker 1: to reman the rules to be redone and yet again. 368 00:23:01,640 --> 00:23:04,760 Speaker 1: And I would anticipate seeing a lot of that again, 369 00:23:04,800 --> 00:23:07,480 Speaker 1: with the state suing like you mentioned, and of course 370 00:23:07,560 --> 00:23:10,600 Speaker 1: environmental groups suing all the time. I can see a 371 00:23:10,600 --> 00:23:15,520 Speaker 1: new administration going into court and saying, we don't necessarily 372 00:23:15,520 --> 00:23:20,400 Speaker 1: agree with all the criticisms being levied by these these parties, 373 00:23:20,960 --> 00:23:24,919 Speaker 1: but we do think these rules need to be uh 374 00:23:25,160 --> 00:23:29,000 Speaker 1: review it again and revised yet again. And so I 375 00:23:29,280 --> 00:23:32,159 Speaker 1: can I can see a year or more of that 376 00:23:32,240 --> 00:23:35,720 Speaker 1: kind of activity from a new administration. And then, of course, 377 00:23:35,760 --> 00:23:38,600 Speaker 1: the big question is what happens in the meantime while 378 00:23:38,640 --> 00:23:41,960 Speaker 1: all that new review is going on. And that's that's 379 00:23:41,960 --> 00:23:45,080 Speaker 1: a more sort of rule by rule kind of question 380 00:23:45,119 --> 00:23:48,520 Speaker 1: as to whether a rule will remain in place while 381 00:23:48,520 --> 00:23:52,200 Speaker 1: it's being reviewed or taken off the books and replaced 382 00:23:52,200 --> 00:23:56,960 Speaker 1: with the rule that preceded. It gets pretty complicated. Some 383 00:23:57,080 --> 00:24:01,159 Speaker 1: former ep administrators who served both the Aocratic and Republican 384 00:24:01,160 --> 00:24:05,679 Speaker 1: administrations wrote support for e p n S resetting the 385 00:24:05,760 --> 00:24:08,880 Speaker 1: course of the e p A. There are a lot 386 00:24:08,920 --> 00:24:12,840 Speaker 1: of bold proposals there, and one that struck me was 387 00:24:13,000 --> 00:24:17,360 Speaker 1: restoring science in the matter of ep A decision making? 388 00:24:17,720 --> 00:24:20,280 Speaker 1: Has science been taken out of the e p A 389 00:24:20,320 --> 00:24:24,480 Speaker 1: decision making? And the Trump administration, well, the Trump administration 390 00:24:24,560 --> 00:24:28,720 Speaker 1: has a rule, a proposed rule that would require that 391 00:24:28,840 --> 00:24:32,680 Speaker 1: the only science that you can rely on is science 392 00:24:32,720 --> 00:24:39,640 Speaker 1: that's been published, including medical assessments that are the basis, 393 00:24:39,640 --> 00:24:43,400 Speaker 1: for example, for Clean Air Act rules controlling air pollution 394 00:24:43,440 --> 00:24:46,639 Speaker 1: and its effect on people's health. Some of some of 395 00:24:46,640 --> 00:24:51,600 Speaker 1: those studies, they're epidemiological studies. Some of them actually contained, 396 00:24:52,240 --> 00:24:56,480 Speaker 1: you know, private information, information that's actually protected by various 397 00:24:56,480 --> 00:24:59,520 Speaker 1: privacy acts. HIPPA is one of them, so you don't 398 00:24:59,560 --> 00:25:03,720 Speaker 1: reveal the names of subjects that might have been involved 399 00:25:04,160 --> 00:25:08,800 Speaker 1: in various investigations, are even experiments, um trials, you know, 400 00:25:08,960 --> 00:25:14,159 Speaker 1: medical trials, um. And so the scientific community is saying, well, 401 00:25:14,160 --> 00:25:16,800 Speaker 1: wait a minute, you know you can't force us to 402 00:25:16,960 --> 00:25:21,760 Speaker 1: disclose that kind of information that we're bound up to 403 00:25:21,760 --> 00:25:26,600 Speaker 1: to keep confidential. Um, and uh, therefore you're you're going 404 00:25:26,640 --> 00:25:32,680 Speaker 1: to eliminate a whole body of scientific evidence from consideration 405 00:25:32,760 --> 00:25:35,840 Speaker 1: because you're forcing us to do something that's against our 406 00:25:36,480 --> 00:25:39,800 Speaker 1: ethics and rules. And this is what's come to me 407 00:25:39,880 --> 00:25:42,480 Speaker 1: known as secret science. That's that's the way the Trump 408 00:25:42,480 --> 00:25:49,200 Speaker 1: administration characterizes some of these medical records and scientific evidence 409 00:25:49,600 --> 00:25:54,119 Speaker 1: as secret because it is confidential. And so one of 410 00:25:54,119 --> 00:25:56,960 Speaker 1: the ways to undermine science, the science that e p 411 00:25:57,119 --> 00:26:01,560 Speaker 1: A has traditionally relied on, is to limit the types 412 00:26:01,600 --> 00:26:04,639 Speaker 1: of science that can be used. And there is a 413 00:26:04,720 --> 00:26:07,920 Speaker 1: rule that that's that's trying to impose that kind of 414 00:26:08,320 --> 00:26:13,040 Speaker 1: limit on scientific evidence, and the scientific community is uniformly 415 00:26:13,600 --> 00:26:17,280 Speaker 1: opposed to that. So that's yet another rule and it 416 00:26:17,400 --> 00:26:20,399 Speaker 1: isn't final yet, and so it may get caught in 417 00:26:20,440 --> 00:26:26,160 Speaker 1: this Congressional Review Act process as well. What strikes you 418 00:26:26,240 --> 00:26:29,399 Speaker 1: What struck you most about the ep n S resetting 419 00:26:29,440 --> 00:26:33,680 Speaker 1: the course of the e p A, the suggestions they had, Well, 420 00:26:33,840 --> 00:26:39,760 Speaker 1: just how fundamental of the rollbacks and the sort of 421 00:26:39,840 --> 00:26:45,000 Speaker 1: degradation of e PAS professional capability has has become in 422 00:26:45,040 --> 00:26:48,120 Speaker 1: the last four years. I mean this, this group we're 423 00:26:48,160 --> 00:26:52,480 Speaker 1: talking about is the most senior members of the e 424 00:26:52,640 --> 00:26:57,440 Speaker 1: p A staff, both political appointees and career staff. Um. 425 00:26:57,560 --> 00:27:01,640 Speaker 1: You know, hundreds literally of scientists and engineers and lawyers 426 00:27:01,680 --> 00:27:05,000 Speaker 1: and others, the economists that have been working with e 427 00:27:05,119 --> 00:27:08,280 Speaker 1: p A. And for them to come out with a 428 00:27:09,840 --> 00:27:15,240 Speaker 1: you know, a proposed restoration plan that's this comprehensive tells 429 00:27:15,280 --> 00:27:18,240 Speaker 1: you the amount of damage that's been done to the 430 00:27:18,280 --> 00:27:22,040 Speaker 1: integrity of e p A as an institution. Um. And 431 00:27:22,040 --> 00:27:24,960 Speaker 1: and it's gonna it's gonna take a long time to 432 00:27:25,040 --> 00:27:28,679 Speaker 1: restore that. Um. It's not just the rules, of course, 433 00:27:29,040 --> 00:27:31,439 Speaker 1: you know, it's the people that work there and the 434 00:27:31,480 --> 00:27:35,399 Speaker 1: management systems that are in place to make it work effectively. UM. 435 00:27:35,440 --> 00:27:39,120 Speaker 1: You know, I was with the p A. It it Um. 436 00:27:39,480 --> 00:27:44,040 Speaker 1: It's a very daunting challenge to implement something like eighteen 437 00:27:44,160 --> 00:27:47,840 Speaker 1: or more of these these laws, all of these environmental laws, 438 00:27:48,040 --> 00:27:51,560 Speaker 1: and it takes it takes time and effort and experience 439 00:27:52,080 --> 00:27:55,280 Speaker 1: and try and frankly, trial and error sometimes to figure out, 440 00:27:55,800 --> 00:27:57,560 Speaker 1: you know, how do you make these programs works so 441 00:27:57,640 --> 00:28:00,760 Speaker 1: they're really protecting public health, but there also doing it 442 00:28:00,800 --> 00:28:03,600 Speaker 1: in a way that's efficient and not causing at least 443 00:28:03,720 --> 00:28:08,919 Speaker 1: unnecessary costs on industry, but some of these costs are necessary. 444 00:28:08,960 --> 00:28:12,600 Speaker 1: And how you make that determination what's really necessary to 445 00:28:12,640 --> 00:28:16,080 Speaker 1: protect public health and what's something that might be too 446 00:28:16,160 --> 00:28:19,680 Speaker 1: costly in exchange for the benefits that you get. You see, 447 00:28:19,960 --> 00:28:23,600 Speaker 1: those things really do demand a very very high level 448 00:28:24,119 --> 00:28:29,160 Speaker 1: of professional expertise, and and right now e PAS capabilities 449 00:28:29,200 --> 00:28:33,199 Speaker 1: are probably at the lowest they've ever been. Well, and 450 00:28:33,240 --> 00:28:36,480 Speaker 1: one of the goals is restoring credibility to the e 451 00:28:36,680 --> 00:28:39,240 Speaker 1: p A. As you mentioned, the e p A has 452 00:28:39,320 --> 00:28:45,240 Speaker 1: been an agency since President Nixon, so it has functioned 453 00:28:45,320 --> 00:28:51,000 Speaker 1: under democratic and Republican administrations. Have you ever seen the 454 00:28:51,080 --> 00:28:56,000 Speaker 1: e p A needing to be reset so much before? 455 00:28:56,080 --> 00:28:58,920 Speaker 1: I mean, how much of an impact on the e 456 00:28:59,080 --> 00:29:03,520 Speaker 1: PAS mission has the Trump administration had. It's really had 457 00:29:03,760 --> 00:29:08,680 Speaker 1: a devastating effect. You know. The closest analog in history 458 00:29:08,720 --> 00:29:13,600 Speaker 1: would be when when President Reagan appointed an Verford Gorsage, 459 00:29:14,560 --> 00:29:17,320 Speaker 1: of course, the mother of the now Supreme Court justice. 460 00:29:17,320 --> 00:29:21,160 Speaker 1: Of course, as as had of e p A. UM. 461 00:29:21,920 --> 00:29:26,440 Speaker 1: That was the time when e PAS mission was was 462 00:29:26,520 --> 00:29:31,040 Speaker 1: under serious attack, UM, and there was an attempt made 463 00:29:31,080 --> 00:29:35,800 Speaker 1: to sort of reform e p A to be more 464 00:29:35,840 --> 00:29:41,680 Speaker 1: sympathetic to business and industry and use less stringent regulatory 465 00:29:41,680 --> 00:29:45,120 Speaker 1: and mechanisms that didn't last very long. I mean she 466 00:29:45,120 --> 00:29:48,400 Speaker 1: she was ushered out of office within just a few years. 467 00:29:49,120 --> 00:29:51,480 Speaker 1: And then real William Ruckles House was brought back into 468 00:29:51,560 --> 00:29:54,080 Speaker 1: quote restore e p A, which he did, and that's 469 00:29:54,080 --> 00:29:56,760 Speaker 1: when I went to work for e p A in 470 00:29:56,800 --> 00:29:59,360 Speaker 1: the in the eighties. And but you know, and he 471 00:29:59,440 --> 00:30:03,719 Speaker 1: was able to turned things around very quickly. There hadn't 472 00:30:03,720 --> 00:30:07,400 Speaker 1: been a long enough time and significant enough damage that 473 00:30:07,480 --> 00:30:09,920 Speaker 1: it didn't take it that long to reverse it. But 474 00:30:10,120 --> 00:30:12,880 Speaker 1: but the kinds of problems that e p A experienced 475 00:30:13,240 --> 00:30:17,200 Speaker 1: in that era are nothing compared to what they're experiencing today. 476 00:30:17,200 --> 00:30:23,120 Speaker 1: There wasn't a wholesale attack on virtually every regulation that 477 00:30:23,240 --> 00:30:25,440 Speaker 1: was on the books. That that is the case here, 478 00:30:25,720 --> 00:30:31,880 Speaker 1: whether it's air, water, pesticides, hazardous waste, you name it, 479 00:30:32,280 --> 00:30:35,760 Speaker 1: and it's under attack climate change rules of course, um. 480 00:30:35,960 --> 00:30:39,440 Speaker 1: And so we've never seen this kind of broad scale 481 00:30:39,440 --> 00:30:44,160 Speaker 1: attack on every form of regulation that EPA is responsible for. 482 00:30:44,240 --> 00:30:48,040 Speaker 1: We've never seen that before. Thanks Pat. That's Pat Parento, 483 00:30:48,120 --> 00:30:50,800 Speaker 1: a professor Vermont Law School. And that's it for this 484 00:30:50,960 --> 00:30:54,040 Speaker 1: edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso. Thanks 485 00:30:54,040 --> 00:30:56,320 Speaker 1: so much for listening, and remember to tune to The 486 00:30:56,320 --> 00:30:59,040 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten pm Eastern, 487 00:30:59,280 --> 00:31:00,680 Speaker 1: right here on in Brig Radio.