WEBVTT - The Fight Over Flavored E-Cigarettes

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:10.240 --> 0:00:15.480
<v Speaker 2>About one point six million school children currently use e cigarettes.

0:00:15.840 --> 0:00:19.720
<v Speaker 2>Flavored vapes with colorful names that evoke candy and sweets

0:00:20.040 --> 0:00:23.840
<v Speaker 2>are particularly appealing to young people, which has prompted the

0:00:23.880 --> 0:00:27.560
<v Speaker 2>Food and Drug Administration to curb access to the products.

0:00:28.080 --> 0:00:32.240
<v Speaker 2>The FDA turned down two companies' applications to market e

0:00:32.440 --> 0:00:37.479
<v Speaker 2>cigarettes with names like Jimmy the Juiceman, Peachy Strawberry, and

0:00:37.640 --> 0:00:43.040
<v Speaker 2>Suicide Bunny, Mother's Milk and Cookies. The agency's attorney, Curtis Gannin,

0:00:43.240 --> 0:00:45.640
<v Speaker 2>defended its position at the Supreme Court.

0:00:46.400 --> 0:00:50.479
<v Speaker 1>Research has long shown that flavors increased youth appeal of

0:00:50.600 --> 0:00:54.720
<v Speaker 1>tobacco products, and evidence accumulates further confirming that youth are

0:00:54.760 --> 0:00:59.400
<v Speaker 1>particularly attracted to flavored ends products. The concern would be

0:00:59.480 --> 0:01:02.600
<v Speaker 1>that their getting addicted to tobacco at a time when

0:01:02.760 --> 0:01:06.280
<v Speaker 1>when tobacco to a nicotine, at a time when nicotine

0:01:06.319 --> 0:01:10.520
<v Speaker 1>is dangerous to their developing brains, and may be, you know,

0:01:10.720 --> 0:01:15.360
<v Speaker 1>sensing them to a long life of needing to satisfy

0:01:15.400 --> 0:01:15.960
<v Speaker 1>that addiction.

0:01:16.760 --> 0:01:20.880
<v Speaker 2>The vaping companies say the FDA changed its standards with

0:01:21.000 --> 0:01:23.800
<v Speaker 2>little warning as it blocked the sale of more than

0:01:23.840 --> 0:01:27.920
<v Speaker 2>a million new flavored products. But just as Elena Kagan

0:01:28.000 --> 0:01:31.679
<v Speaker 2>said that the FDA's position has been clear, do.

0:01:31.600 --> 0:01:34.760
<v Speaker 3>You know that FDA thinks that flavors? I mean, FDA

0:01:35.200 --> 0:01:38.480
<v Speaker 3>has been completely upfront about this, and I think that

0:01:38.560 --> 0:01:43.360
<v Speaker 3>the point you know that flavors you give people blueberry vapes.

0:01:44.920 --> 0:01:48.640
<v Speaker 3>The difficulty with that, and FDA I think has tried

0:01:48.680 --> 0:01:52.120
<v Speaker 3>to document this is that blueberry vapes are very appealing

0:01:52.200 --> 0:01:54.680
<v Speaker 3>to sixteen year olds, not to forty year olds.

0:01:55.160 --> 0:01:59.320
<v Speaker 2>Aside from legalities, the practical question is what's the remedy

0:01:59.480 --> 0:02:02.440
<v Speaker 2>even if the court rules for the vaping companies, because,

0:02:02.480 --> 0:02:06.040
<v Speaker 2>as just as Brett Kavanaugh pointed out to the company's attorney,

0:02:06.400 --> 0:02:10.280
<v Speaker 2>Eric Higher, the companies can always reapply to the FDA

0:02:10.600 --> 0:02:11.760
<v Speaker 2>for sales authorization.

0:02:12.280 --> 0:02:14.520
<v Speaker 4>And while they won this case, they can reapply.

0:02:16.440 --> 0:02:18.480
<v Speaker 1>Yes, if they won this case or if they lose

0:02:18.520 --> 0:02:20.280
<v Speaker 1>this case, they will be able to reapply.

0:02:20.440 --> 0:02:25.560
<v Speaker 4>That's my question about what the relief really accomplishes here

0:02:25.680 --> 0:02:28.520
<v Speaker 4>that is being sought as a practical matter. I understand

0:02:28.520 --> 0:02:32.639
<v Speaker 4>the legal point the FDA acted arbitraining capriciously, but either way,

0:02:32.680 --> 0:02:36.640
<v Speaker 4>it's going to be that they can reapply and hope

0:02:36.639 --> 0:02:37.200
<v Speaker 4>to succeed.

0:02:38.120 --> 0:02:41.359
<v Speaker 2>This case is an appeal from the conservative Fifth Circuit's

0:02:41.440 --> 0:02:46.080
<v Speaker 2>decision finding that the agency unfairly shifted its standards for

0:02:46.160 --> 0:02:50.320
<v Speaker 2>approving the vaping products while deciding on applications from the

0:02:50.360 --> 0:02:53.720
<v Speaker 2>two companies. Joining me is Sean Collins, a partner at

0:02:53.760 --> 0:02:58.040
<v Speaker 2>Straddling Yoguck, Carlson and Rauth give us some background on

0:02:58.120 --> 0:03:00.880
<v Speaker 2>the FDA and these flavors eat cigarettes.

0:03:01.880 --> 0:03:05.120
<v Speaker 5>Let's start with what the FDA's mandate is. The FDA's

0:03:05.160 --> 0:03:07.320
<v Speaker 5>mandate is to look out for the health and well

0:03:07.400 --> 0:03:10.400
<v Speaker 5>being of the general American public, meaning they are supposed

0:03:10.400 --> 0:03:13.840
<v Speaker 5>to certify all foods and drugs and certify that they

0:03:13.840 --> 0:03:17.040
<v Speaker 5>are healthy and beneficial for the well being of the

0:03:17.080 --> 0:03:20.680
<v Speaker 5>citizens of the United States of America. And so what

0:03:20.800 --> 0:03:23.560
<v Speaker 5>we have going on between the FDA and the e

0:03:23.720 --> 0:03:26.120
<v Speaker 5>cigarette companies right now, I call it a bit of

0:03:26.160 --> 0:03:29.880
<v Speaker 5>the game of whack a mole. And so it's like anything.

0:03:30.000 --> 0:03:32.679
<v Speaker 5>You know, if you regulate one product and you're successful

0:03:32.680 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 5>in getting a certain product regulated, another product is going

0:03:35.680 --> 0:03:38.760
<v Speaker 5>to pop up. And so you know, the FDA spent

0:03:39.560 --> 0:03:43.080
<v Speaker 5>fifty years or more trying to get people to stop

0:03:43.160 --> 0:03:47.480
<v Speaker 5>smoking cigarettes, right, and they were pretty successful at doing that.

0:03:47.680 --> 0:03:49.640
<v Speaker 5>When you look at the statistics of how many people

0:03:49.760 --> 0:03:52.640
<v Speaker 5>actually smoke cigarettes. You know, I remember growing up in

0:03:52.680 --> 0:03:56.200
<v Speaker 5>the eighties and everybody smoked. You know, people smoked indoors,

0:03:56.240 --> 0:04:00.400
<v Speaker 5>people smoked in offices, and everybody smoked. Nowadays, you know,

0:04:00.440 --> 0:04:03.360
<v Speaker 5>I live in California, so it's probably more skew than

0:04:03.480 --> 0:04:06.400
<v Speaker 5>anywhere else. But you can't smoke anywhere. I don't see

0:04:06.400 --> 0:04:09.240
<v Speaker 5>anybody smoking. And you know, you look at the statistics,

0:04:09.240 --> 0:04:12.080
<v Speaker 5>I think they say two percent of America smoke cigarettes now,

0:04:12.480 --> 0:04:16.400
<v Speaker 5>which is negligible. That's pretty much nobody smokes cigarettes. So

0:04:16.600 --> 0:04:20.040
<v Speaker 5>obviously the people that still do smoke cigarettes. You know,

0:04:20.240 --> 0:04:22.719
<v Speaker 5>business and enterprise are always wanting to come up with

0:04:22.760 --> 0:04:25.440
<v Speaker 5>an alternative, so they came up with the e cigarette.

0:04:26.000 --> 0:04:29.280
<v Speaker 5>And so the e cigarette was designed as a mechanism

0:04:29.360 --> 0:04:33.279
<v Speaker 5>to help wean adults who are otherwise addicted to cigarettes,

0:04:33.320 --> 0:04:36.119
<v Speaker 5>that try to help them stop smoking cigarettes and smoke

0:04:36.160 --> 0:04:39.320
<v Speaker 5>something that would be a better alternative for them. Now,

0:04:39.600 --> 0:04:42.880
<v Speaker 5>like any business, e cigarette companies, they want to advertise

0:04:42.920 --> 0:04:45.039
<v Speaker 5>and market their products and make it look cool. So

0:04:45.120 --> 0:04:47.839
<v Speaker 5>think the Marlboro Man. You know, I used to always

0:04:47.839 --> 0:04:50.039
<v Speaker 5>think when I would drive a billboard, look at their

0:04:50.040 --> 0:04:52.760
<v Speaker 5>cowboy It looks really cool with the cigarette and mouth,

0:04:53.240 --> 0:04:55.320
<v Speaker 5>and that attracts a lot of people that want to

0:04:55.320 --> 0:04:58.960
<v Speaker 5>smoke cigarettes. So e cigarette companies obviously came up with

0:04:59.080 --> 0:05:03.120
<v Speaker 5>creative ways to advertising market their e cigarette fronduct. Now

0:05:03.200 --> 0:05:06.000
<v Speaker 5>that's all well and good, and the FDA probably wouldn't

0:05:06.000 --> 0:05:10.440
<v Speaker 5>have cared if their marketing was being successful with adults.

0:05:10.880 --> 0:05:14.279
<v Speaker 5>The problem is is e cigarettes became cool amongst younger

0:05:14.279 --> 0:05:18.080
<v Speaker 5>demographics and particular teenagers, and so what you saw is

0:05:18.120 --> 0:05:22.000
<v Speaker 5>a spike in teams using e cigarette. So it was

0:05:22.040 --> 0:05:24.200
<v Speaker 5>one of those situations. The reason why I said whack

0:05:24.240 --> 0:05:26.400
<v Speaker 5>the mo mole was because you whacked one problem and

0:05:26.480 --> 0:05:30.160
<v Speaker 5>were able to successfully pretty much negate that problem, and

0:05:30.200 --> 0:05:32.600
<v Speaker 5>then another problem popped up over on the right, which

0:05:32.600 --> 0:05:36.880
<v Speaker 5>as teenagers are now really into e cigarette and explain.

0:05:36.600 --> 0:05:39.320
<v Speaker 2>The issue in the case the Supreme Court heard this week.

0:05:39.640 --> 0:05:43.200
<v Speaker 5>So the issue that you currently have before the Supreme Court,

0:05:43.800 --> 0:05:47.000
<v Speaker 5>it's more of what is the authority of the FDA.

0:05:47.160 --> 0:05:50.200
<v Speaker 5>That's the actual legal question the Supreme Court is looking at.

0:05:50.600 --> 0:05:53.920
<v Speaker 5>But I will say that one of the balancing tests

0:05:53.960 --> 0:05:57.880
<v Speaker 5>that the Supreme Court is having to deal with is well, okay,

0:05:57.920 --> 0:06:01.640
<v Speaker 5>I understand that the FDA is trying to regulate, you know,

0:06:02.040 --> 0:06:05.800
<v Speaker 5>the advertising and marketing of cigarettes. Two teams. But the

0:06:05.920 --> 0:06:08.680
<v Speaker 5>question becomes, one, do they have the authority to do that?

0:06:09.200 --> 0:06:11.640
<v Speaker 5>And whether or not they have the authority to do

0:06:11.760 --> 0:06:14.800
<v Speaker 5>that is more of a great question, because I think

0:06:14.839 --> 0:06:17.840
<v Speaker 5>the Supreme Court is looking at it as well. What

0:06:17.880 --> 0:06:20.239
<v Speaker 5>they're doing is coming from a good place. They're trying

0:06:20.279 --> 0:06:22.880
<v Speaker 5>to protect the help of the future generation. And so

0:06:22.920 --> 0:06:25.560
<v Speaker 5>I think that's the particular that the Supreme Court is

0:06:25.560 --> 0:06:28.040
<v Speaker 5>grappling with right now, which is why when you listen

0:06:28.040 --> 0:06:31.080
<v Speaker 5>to the oral argument, the oral argument, even you know,

0:06:31.120 --> 0:06:34.520
<v Speaker 5>everybody said, oh, it's the conservative court. They're probably going

0:06:34.560 --> 0:06:37.839
<v Speaker 5>to side with big business. They're going to side with

0:06:38.080 --> 0:06:41.520
<v Speaker 5>the e cigarette companies. And what you heard oral argument

0:06:41.720 --> 0:06:45.200
<v Speaker 5>is it sounded like the Supreme Court was kind of

0:06:45.279 --> 0:06:48.279
<v Speaker 5>deferring to the regulatory authority of the SPA.

0:06:49.440 --> 0:06:53.680
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that was surprising. Just as Kagan said, I guess

0:06:53.720 --> 0:06:56.479
<v Speaker 2>I'm not really seeing what the surprise is here or

0:06:56.520 --> 0:07:00.760
<v Speaker 2>what the change is here, because basically everyone knew the

0:07:00.880 --> 0:07:06.000
<v Speaker 2>FDA's position on e cigarettes. So the question that Ret.

0:07:06.080 --> 0:07:09.640
<v Speaker 2>Kavanaugh brought up as well, what's the relief here? Even

0:07:09.680 --> 0:07:11.360
<v Speaker 2>if you win the cigarette.

0:07:10.880 --> 0:07:15.160
<v Speaker 5>Companies exactly, And that's the big question, and that's usually

0:07:15.160 --> 0:07:18.000
<v Speaker 5>the biggest problem. You know, It's funny everybody spends all

0:07:18.040 --> 0:07:20.920
<v Speaker 5>their time in law school thinking about the big legal

0:07:21.000 --> 0:07:23.440
<v Speaker 5>arguments of why I'm right on a particular issue, but

0:07:23.480 --> 0:07:26.200
<v Speaker 5>nobody ever thinks, okay, well what if I win? What's

0:07:26.200 --> 0:07:29.680
<v Speaker 5>the remedy? Which is why when I talked to the young

0:07:29.760 --> 0:07:32.160
<v Speaker 5>law students, I always tell them, probably the most important

0:07:32.200 --> 0:07:34.760
<v Speaker 5>class you will take while you're in law school is remedy.

0:07:35.000 --> 0:07:37.600
<v Speaker 5>And they look at me confused, like nities, like what

0:07:37.600 --> 0:07:40.640
<v Speaker 5>are you talking about? That's like what happens after the

0:07:40.680 --> 0:07:43.120
<v Speaker 5>case is over? And it's like, yeah, I know, but

0:07:43.240 --> 0:07:45.800
<v Speaker 5>think about it. You can spend ten million dollars arguing

0:07:45.880 --> 0:07:47.760
<v Speaker 5>that you're right, and then the court days you're right,

0:07:47.840 --> 0:07:49.480
<v Speaker 5>and then they ask you, well, what do you want?

0:07:49.840 --> 0:07:52.680
<v Speaker 5>And so that's the issue here is you know, for

0:07:52.720 --> 0:07:55.520
<v Speaker 5>the e cigarette companies, it's like, okay, well, even if

0:07:55.560 --> 0:07:59.920
<v Speaker 5>you are correct in saying that the laws that the

0:08:00.320 --> 0:08:04.200
<v Speaker 5>isn't imposing here are arbitrary and capricious, which is the

0:08:04.280 --> 0:08:06.920
<v Speaker 5>core legal argument that the e cigarette companies are making,

0:08:06.960 --> 0:08:09.520
<v Speaker 5>which is a good legal argument. They're basically saying you're

0:08:09.520 --> 0:08:12.680
<v Speaker 5>making up rules and regulations that are effectively a moving target.

0:08:13.080 --> 0:08:16.240
<v Speaker 5>So me as a company, I can't even craft policy

0:08:16.640 --> 0:08:19.720
<v Speaker 5>to address your concerns because every month you're moving the

0:08:19.720 --> 0:08:22.480
<v Speaker 5>goalpost on me. And so the Supreme Court has it

0:08:22.600 --> 0:08:26.000
<v Speaker 5>technically said, Okay, let's say that we do tell the

0:08:26.160 --> 0:08:29.080
<v Speaker 5>FDA that they need to be more definitive with their

0:08:29.160 --> 0:08:31.960
<v Speaker 5>rule making and say these are the laws and regulations

0:08:31.960 --> 0:08:35.000
<v Speaker 5>that governing the advertising and marketing and the regulation and

0:08:35.080 --> 0:08:37.199
<v Speaker 5>e cigarettes. How does that help you?

0:08:38.320 --> 0:08:42.480
<v Speaker 2>Are the e cigarette companies just looking for more time

0:08:42.960 --> 0:08:45.920
<v Speaker 2>to start the process over again or do they not

0:08:46.000 --> 0:08:47.480
<v Speaker 2>want to start the process over again?

0:08:47.920 --> 0:08:51.120
<v Speaker 5>I think timing is definitely of concern because, if you

0:08:51.240 --> 0:08:54.200
<v Speaker 5>think about it right now, one of the biggest things

0:08:54.200 --> 0:08:56.160
<v Speaker 5>and nobody really talks about it when it comes to

0:08:56.240 --> 0:09:00.240
<v Speaker 5>businesses and advertising and marketing. But they currently have has

0:09:00.280 --> 0:09:03.440
<v Speaker 5>the attention of a generation, so they have captivated a

0:09:03.480 --> 0:09:07.079
<v Speaker 5>particular generation. So when you look at cigarette companies, cigarette

0:09:07.120 --> 0:09:11.360
<v Speaker 5>companies effectively capture the imagination of the baby boomers, and

0:09:11.400 --> 0:09:14.240
<v Speaker 5>that's a very large demographic. So if you're selling a

0:09:14.240 --> 0:09:17.760
<v Speaker 5>product and you have a captive audience and a whole

0:09:17.840 --> 0:09:20.959
<v Speaker 5>generation of you know, so for e cigarette companies. I

0:09:21.000 --> 0:09:23.280
<v Speaker 5>guess you would call it gen Z. The other day

0:09:23.320 --> 0:09:24.800
<v Speaker 5>I heard that the granted the gen A.

0:09:25.240 --> 0:09:29.960
<v Speaker 6>Now I've lost track of the gen So gen Z.

0:09:30.200 --> 0:09:34.640
<v Speaker 5>I believe is effectively sixteen year old to young professionals.

0:09:34.640 --> 0:09:38.360
<v Speaker 5>So let's go sixteen to thirty right now. That is

0:09:38.360 --> 0:09:42.600
<v Speaker 5>the demographic that is very captivated by e cigarette And

0:09:42.720 --> 0:09:45.640
<v Speaker 5>I think the sense of urgency from the e cigarette

0:09:45.679 --> 0:09:49.880
<v Speaker 5>generation right now is that they are now being prohibited

0:09:50.559 --> 0:09:54.520
<v Speaker 5>from advertising and marketing to gen Z, which could be

0:09:54.520 --> 0:09:59.120
<v Speaker 5>a very lucrative demographic because the thing about especially products

0:09:59.160 --> 0:10:03.319
<v Speaker 5>like this, if you develop brand loyalty right now, this

0:10:03.400 --> 0:10:05.760
<v Speaker 5>is the type of product that they will use throughout

0:10:05.760 --> 0:10:08.040
<v Speaker 5>their lives. It's not like a toy or a video

0:10:08.120 --> 0:10:10.120
<v Speaker 5>game where a person may grow out of it or

0:10:10.120 --> 0:10:11.959
<v Speaker 5>phase out of it. You know, if you're an e

0:10:12.160 --> 0:10:14.559
<v Speaker 5>cigarette person, you may be using the e cigarettes for

0:10:14.600 --> 0:10:16.440
<v Speaker 5>the next thirty forty fifty years.

0:10:17.040 --> 0:10:22.640
<v Speaker 2>Do vaping companies have problems getting regular e cigarettes approved

0:10:23.200 --> 0:10:26.720
<v Speaker 2>or is it just about the flavored e cigarettes.

0:10:26.920 --> 0:10:30.560
<v Speaker 5>For this particular case, And that's a very important question.

0:10:30.600 --> 0:10:32.920
<v Speaker 5>For this particular case, you're talking about the flavored e

0:10:33.000 --> 0:10:37.000
<v Speaker 5>cigarette because that's what the FDA is saying. They're saying,

0:10:37.040 --> 0:10:41.640
<v Speaker 5>the E cigarette companies with the flavored cigarette, you're no

0:10:41.720 --> 0:10:45.000
<v Speaker 5>longer targeting the forty year old who is trying to

0:10:45.000 --> 0:10:48.280
<v Speaker 5>win themselves off a cigarette. You were targeting the thirteen,

0:10:48.440 --> 0:10:51.360
<v Speaker 5>fourteen to fifteen year old to try to entice them

0:10:51.720 --> 0:10:54.520
<v Speaker 5>and to hook them on e cigarette so that you

0:10:54.640 --> 0:10:56.880
<v Speaker 5>have them for a generation, so that you have them

0:10:56.920 --> 0:10:58.600
<v Speaker 5>for the next forty to fifty years.

0:10:58.840 --> 0:10:58.960
<v Speaker 2>Now.

0:10:59.040 --> 0:11:02.160
<v Speaker 5>E cigarette company will probably deny that, but that's absolutely

0:11:02.200 --> 0:11:04.600
<v Speaker 5>what they're trying to do, and I'm not saying that

0:11:04.640 --> 0:11:08.400
<v Speaker 5>there's anything wrong with it. That's smart marketing and business strategy.

0:11:08.679 --> 0:11:12.559
<v Speaker 5>The focus of this particular case that before Supreme Court

0:11:12.960 --> 0:11:15.400
<v Speaker 5>is the flavored e cigarettes, and the reason why it's

0:11:15.400 --> 0:11:19.640
<v Speaker 5>the focus of the court is because the FDA is arguing,

0:11:20.160 --> 0:11:23.680
<v Speaker 5>you are advertising and marketing these flavored cigarettes in a

0:11:23.760 --> 0:11:27.359
<v Speaker 5>manner whereby you are trying to make them incredibly attractive

0:11:27.920 --> 0:11:32.640
<v Speaker 5>to gen Z thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen year old,

0:11:32.800 --> 0:11:36.800
<v Speaker 5>and by doing that, you are compromising their health now

0:11:37.120 --> 0:11:41.120
<v Speaker 5>and for a future generation. E cigarette companies are arguing, well,

0:11:41.320 --> 0:11:45.439
<v Speaker 5>you can't create an arbitrary and capricious rule that says

0:11:46.160 --> 0:11:49.079
<v Speaker 5>you as an e cigarette company can advertise and market

0:11:49.120 --> 0:11:51.960
<v Speaker 5>your e cigarettes, you just can't do it in this manner.

0:11:52.040 --> 0:11:53.640
<v Speaker 5>You can't have flavors.

0:11:53.840 --> 0:11:56.160
<v Speaker 2>Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue

0:11:56.160 --> 0:11:59.719
<v Speaker 2>this conversation with Sean Collins. How the President elect's name

0:11:59.800 --> 0:12:03.880
<v Speaker 2>came up in the oral arguments over flavored east cigarettes.

0:12:04.280 --> 0:12:08.880
<v Speaker 2>This is Bloomberg. Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical that they

0:12:08.880 --> 0:12:12.560
<v Speaker 2>could give any relief to companies whose applications to sell

0:12:12.679 --> 0:12:16.640
<v Speaker 2>flavored e cigarettes were denied by the Food and Drug Administration.

0:12:17.400 --> 0:12:20.400
<v Speaker 2>Several of the justices pointed out that even if the

0:12:20.440 --> 0:12:25.559
<v Speaker 2>companies reapplied, the FDA would continue to deny the applications.

0:12:26.360 --> 0:12:31.480
<v Speaker 2>Perhaps the vaping company's best hope is the incoming Trump administration.

0:12:32.000 --> 0:12:35.679
<v Speaker 2>Here's the attorney for the vaping companies, Eric Higher.

0:12:36.200 --> 0:12:38.960
<v Speaker 7>And Frankly, we don't know what FD is, HOWFT is

0:12:38.960 --> 0:12:40.720
<v Speaker 7>going to approach it on remand we have a new

0:12:40.760 --> 0:12:44.120
<v Speaker 7>administration coming in. The President elect is on record saying

0:12:44.160 --> 0:12:47.240
<v Speaker 7>I'm going to say flavored vapes. We don't know exactly

0:12:47.240 --> 0:12:48.760
<v Speaker 7>what that's going to look like. It maybe that the

0:12:48.800 --> 0:12:51.360
<v Speaker 7>approach the agency takes is much more aligned with the

0:12:51.400 --> 0:12:54.000
<v Speaker 7>statute and looks at all the risks and benefits.

0:12:54.400 --> 0:12:57.320
<v Speaker 2>I've been talking to Sean Collins, a partner at Straddling.

0:12:57.679 --> 0:13:01.720
<v Speaker 2>So this is an appeal from the ultra conservative Fifth Circuit.

0:13:02.080 --> 0:13:08.200
<v Speaker 2>There is a circuit split. The second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth,

0:13:08.360 --> 0:13:12.520
<v Speaker 2>and DC circuits have sided with the FDA and denied

0:13:12.559 --> 0:13:18.280
<v Speaker 2>the petitions or requests to stay the agency's marketing denial

0:13:18.440 --> 0:13:21.920
<v Speaker 2>orders for flavored e cigarettes. So the Supreme Court almost

0:13:21.960 --> 0:13:24.439
<v Speaker 2>had to take this case to straighten it out, even

0:13:24.480 --> 0:13:26.880
<v Speaker 2>though more than one of the justices said there was

0:13:27.000 --> 0:13:29.200
<v Speaker 2>no real relief to be had here.

0:13:29.840 --> 0:13:33.240
<v Speaker 5>That sounds like what's happening here. I was surprised that

0:13:33.360 --> 0:13:35.880
<v Speaker 5>the Fifth Circuit was the lone wolf here for lack

0:13:35.920 --> 0:13:38.240
<v Speaker 5>of a better word. You know, it's not the type

0:13:38.240 --> 0:13:40.080
<v Speaker 5>of ruling that I would have expected out of the

0:13:40.080 --> 0:13:42.800
<v Speaker 5>Fifth Circuit. But yeah, now, I mean, that's that's what

0:13:42.840 --> 0:13:45.239
<v Speaker 5>the Supreme Court is up against right now, the effectively

0:13:45.280 --> 0:13:46.560
<v Speaker 5>overruling the Fifth Circuit.

0:13:46.800 --> 0:13:50.640
<v Speaker 2>Is it surprising that the justices seemed to be crediting

0:13:51.200 --> 0:13:55.320
<v Speaker 2>the FDA's expertise here. I mean, this is a court

0:13:55.400 --> 0:13:59.359
<v Speaker 2>that has been skeptical of the power of federal regulators,

0:13:59.520 --> 0:14:04.000
<v Speaker 2>including by striking down the Chevron doctrine that had judges

0:14:04.120 --> 0:14:07.280
<v Speaker 2>deferring to agencies and interpretations of the law.

0:14:07.679 --> 0:14:10.640
<v Speaker 5>I personally don't think this is kind of outside of

0:14:11.080 --> 0:14:14.560
<v Speaker 5>what's to be expected from this particular court. I think

0:14:14.600 --> 0:14:19.000
<v Speaker 5>that this court is very fixated on not necessarily tearing

0:14:19.080 --> 0:14:22.920
<v Speaker 5>down the authority of a particular agency, but making sure,

0:14:23.200 --> 0:14:27.120
<v Speaker 5>especially with this particular Supreme Court, they are very focused

0:14:27.160 --> 0:14:30.720
<v Speaker 5>on making sure that a particular agency does not exceed

0:14:30.800 --> 0:14:33.680
<v Speaker 5>the authority that was originally granted to it. And so,

0:14:33.800 --> 0:14:36.520
<v Speaker 5>for instance, I use the FTC as an example. Obviously

0:14:36.560 --> 0:14:39.280
<v Speaker 5>we're talking about the FDA with this particular case, but

0:14:39.720 --> 0:14:41.560
<v Speaker 5>and you know those probably I think it was three

0:14:41.640 --> 0:14:43.920
<v Speaker 5>or four years ago now, there was a ruling that

0:14:43.960 --> 0:14:47.880
<v Speaker 5>effectively said, hey, the FTC has gone lead beyond the

0:14:47.960 --> 0:14:50.760
<v Speaker 5>bounds of what the authority that was originally given to

0:14:50.800 --> 0:14:54.080
<v Speaker 5>them by commas. You know, in the military, you called

0:14:54.080 --> 0:14:57.600
<v Speaker 5>a mission increase and you set out for objective A,

0:14:57.800 --> 0:14:59.480
<v Speaker 5>and then the next thing you know you're going after

0:14:59.560 --> 0:15:03.840
<v Speaker 5>be F and it's like, you know, before you know it,

0:15:03.880 --> 0:15:06.520
<v Speaker 5>everybody started asking the question of all, right, well, when

0:15:06.560 --> 0:15:09.240
<v Speaker 5>did the FTC get into the business of going after

0:15:09.960 --> 0:15:13.680
<v Speaker 5>these types of cases, and so with this particular issue,

0:15:14.040 --> 0:15:17.120
<v Speaker 5>I think the Supreme Court is looking at it and saying, again,

0:15:17.200 --> 0:15:20.240
<v Speaker 5>this is kind of how I started my comments was, well,

0:15:20.360 --> 0:15:24.040
<v Speaker 5>at a very high level, why did we create the FDA? Well,

0:15:24.080 --> 0:15:27.560
<v Speaker 5>the FDA was created because back in the eighteen hundred

0:15:27.720 --> 0:15:30.240
<v Speaker 5>there was a severe problem with the quality of food

0:15:30.760 --> 0:15:33.520
<v Speaker 5>and there were effectively snake oil salves and out there

0:15:33.560 --> 0:15:37.160
<v Speaker 5>selling drugs that were doing series armed particulars. And so

0:15:37.440 --> 0:15:40.880
<v Speaker 5>as a society, we decided we should probably have an

0:15:40.920 --> 0:15:45.600
<v Speaker 5>agency that's responsible for regulating the food and the drugs

0:15:45.640 --> 0:15:48.760
<v Speaker 5>that are sold and marketed in the United States of America.

0:15:49.360 --> 0:15:51.000
<v Speaker 5>And when we cut to the red tape of that,

0:15:51.040 --> 0:15:53.920
<v Speaker 5>what does that mean? How do we keep Americans safe?

0:15:54.120 --> 0:15:56.400
<v Speaker 5>And so when you look at what the FDA is

0:15:56.440 --> 0:16:00.720
<v Speaker 5>doing here, they're saying, we are creating these oles because

0:16:00.720 --> 0:16:04.480
<v Speaker 5>when you're trying to keep teenagers safe, you know, we

0:16:04.560 --> 0:16:08.840
<v Speaker 5>have eighty years worth of literature and research that pretty

0:16:08.920 --> 0:16:13.160
<v Speaker 5>convincingly proved that smoking is bad for you. It's really

0:16:13.200 --> 0:16:16.160
<v Speaker 5>bad for your lungs. It causes lung cancer. And I

0:16:16.160 --> 0:16:19.880
<v Speaker 5>don't think there's anybody that disagrees with that. And these cigarettes,

0:16:20.400 --> 0:16:23.520
<v Speaker 5>while they are a better alternative, it's still not great

0:16:23.560 --> 0:16:26.960
<v Speaker 5>for your health. And the FDA has presented some pretty

0:16:26.960 --> 0:16:31.440
<v Speaker 5>convincing evidence again that kind of goes beyond whatever your

0:16:31.440 --> 0:16:35.120
<v Speaker 5>political views may be, and it's kind of unequivocal that

0:16:35.320 --> 0:16:38.160
<v Speaker 5>e cigarettes are probably not good for the lungs of teenagers.

0:16:38.360 --> 0:16:41.400
<v Speaker 5>And so the Supine Court is looking at this and saying, well,

0:16:42.000 --> 0:16:45.440
<v Speaker 5>the FDA has been tasked with keeping teenagers safe, and

0:16:45.880 --> 0:16:48.360
<v Speaker 5>they are now passing involves in regulations that are very

0:16:48.400 --> 0:16:52.600
<v Speaker 5>focused on keeping teenagers safe. Kind of straightforward, you know,

0:16:53.120 --> 0:16:55.840
<v Speaker 5>even in this concern, Supreme Court has to look at

0:16:55.840 --> 0:16:58.200
<v Speaker 5>it and say, the job, FDA, you're doing.

0:16:58.200 --> 0:17:01.560
<v Speaker 2>Your job is Joining his campaign, Trump said that he

0:17:01.720 --> 0:17:06.320
<v Speaker 2>was going to save vaping basically, and during the oral arguments,

0:17:06.600 --> 0:17:10.280
<v Speaker 2>the attorney for the companies pointed to that, so, what's

0:17:10.320 --> 0:17:14.679
<v Speaker 2>the effect of a new administration? Can the FDA just

0:17:14.760 --> 0:17:18.280
<v Speaker 2>do a one to eighty on E flavored cigarettes?

0:17:18.960 --> 0:17:23.960
<v Speaker 5>Obviously, whenever there's a new administration, there's always every federal

0:17:24.000 --> 0:17:27.120
<v Speaker 5>agency there's going to be a significant shift in policy.

0:17:27.560 --> 0:17:30.119
<v Speaker 5>So whoever takes over the FDA is going to be

0:17:30.160 --> 0:17:33.080
<v Speaker 5>a Donald Trump appoint to e and they are going

0:17:33.119 --> 0:17:37.480
<v Speaker 5>to execute me. What the wishes of President Trump. Now,

0:17:37.560 --> 0:17:40.840
<v Speaker 5>I will say that when President Trump says, you know,

0:17:40.920 --> 0:17:44.080
<v Speaker 5>I'm going to support e cigarette, he can do that

0:17:44.320 --> 0:17:47.520
<v Speaker 5>and still kind of ad yere to what the Supreme

0:17:47.560 --> 0:17:49.640
<v Speaker 5>Court is talking about here, because keep in mind, thinking

0:17:49.680 --> 0:17:52.480
<v Speaker 5>about who did he appoint as his head of Department

0:17:52.520 --> 0:17:55.840
<v Speaker 5>of Health and Human Service Arekji, And they've already talked

0:17:55.880 --> 0:17:58.520
<v Speaker 5>about saying, all right, we're going to, you know, use

0:17:58.560 --> 0:18:01.600
<v Speaker 5>a lot of scrutiny with respect to the drugs that

0:18:01.640 --> 0:18:04.679
<v Speaker 5>we are administering to the American public. So when you

0:18:04.720 --> 0:18:06.560
<v Speaker 5>look at what's going on here, let me say this

0:18:06.600 --> 0:18:08.280
<v Speaker 5>because I want to be quit. I am by no

0:18:08.359 --> 0:18:11.760
<v Speaker 5>means beaten up on the e cigarette industry at all.

0:18:12.080 --> 0:18:15.120
<v Speaker 5>What's that state here is the fact that the SBA

0:18:15.359 --> 0:18:19.880
<v Speaker 5>believes that the e cigarette company are advertising and marketing

0:18:19.920 --> 0:18:23.080
<v Speaker 5>their products to people who are not legally authorized to

0:18:23.119 --> 0:18:25.760
<v Speaker 5>buy their products. I probably should have started with that.

0:18:26.320 --> 0:18:29.120
<v Speaker 5>And so what the FDA is saying here is, hey,

0:18:29.280 --> 0:18:32.800
<v Speaker 5>e cigarette companies, if you want to put billboards up

0:18:32.840 --> 0:18:35.800
<v Speaker 5>on every single billboard along every major freeware in the

0:18:35.920 --> 0:18:38.560
<v Speaker 5>United States to say, if you are eighteen and up,

0:18:38.840 --> 0:18:42.080
<v Speaker 5>you should really buy my product, knock yourself out but

0:18:42.119 --> 0:18:46.159
<v Speaker 5>the problem is is the data suggests that the flavored

0:18:46.200 --> 0:18:50.160
<v Speaker 5>products that you are marketing, more fourteen, fifteen and sixteen

0:18:50.240 --> 0:18:52.879
<v Speaker 5>year olds are buying your product than eighteen and ups.

0:18:53.400 --> 0:18:56.280
<v Speaker 5>And we think that is very intentional on your part,

0:18:56.359 --> 0:18:58.840
<v Speaker 5>and that you are aware of the fact that you're

0:18:58.880 --> 0:19:03.159
<v Speaker 5>advertising in marketing is targeting and being more effective with

0:19:03.240 --> 0:19:06.000
<v Speaker 5>people who are not even legally authorized to buy your product.

0:19:06.119 --> 0:19:08.679
<v Speaker 5>That's what they're taking issues with. And I think that

0:19:08.840 --> 0:19:11.720
<v Speaker 5>handedly when you look at who President Trump depicted for

0:19:11.920 --> 0:19:14.480
<v Speaker 5>his Department of Health and Human Services are As K. Junior,

0:19:15.320 --> 0:19:18.480
<v Speaker 5>and then his other mandate of I will support e

0:19:18.560 --> 0:19:21.119
<v Speaker 5>cigarette companies, I don't really I think he can achieve

0:19:21.200 --> 0:19:25.120
<v Speaker 5>both of those objectives. He's effectively saying, hey, e cigarette companies,

0:19:25.760 --> 0:19:27.960
<v Speaker 5>if you want to increase your profits themselves to the

0:19:28.080 --> 0:19:30.040
<v Speaker 5>eighteen and up, so be it. As long as you

0:19:30.040 --> 0:19:33.320
<v Speaker 5>don't break any laws, go forward, but you can't market

0:19:33.320 --> 0:19:35.359
<v Speaker 5>your products at thirteen, fourteen, fifteen year old.

0:19:35.440 --> 0:19:38.760
<v Speaker 2>Thanks so much, Sean. That's Sean Collins, a partner at

0:19:38.800 --> 0:19:42.600
<v Speaker 2>Straddling Yoga, Carlson and Ralth And for those who are

0:19:42.720 --> 0:19:47.159
<v Speaker 2>counting on President elect Trump to change the rules for

0:19:47.280 --> 0:19:50.080
<v Speaker 2>flavored e cigarettes, so let's take a look at his

0:19:50.920 --> 0:19:56.679
<v Speaker 2>various positions. During his first administration. In twenty nineteen, Trump

0:19:56.720 --> 0:20:00.000
<v Speaker 2>threatened to ban most flavored East cigarettes from the market

0:20:00.280 --> 0:20:03.120
<v Speaker 2>due to concerns over the appeal to children. He later

0:20:03.240 --> 0:20:06.520
<v Speaker 2>backed off the ban after it was met with industry resistance.

0:20:07.200 --> 0:20:10.560
<v Speaker 2>In twenty twenty, his ban on certain East cigarette pods

0:20:10.680 --> 0:20:15.000
<v Speaker 2>made by companies like Jewel Labs prohibited flavored e liquids,

0:20:15.240 --> 0:20:18.960
<v Speaker 2>but allowed menthol and tobacco products on the market. He

0:20:19.040 --> 0:20:22.080
<v Speaker 2>also signed a law that raised the federal legal age

0:20:22.080 --> 0:20:26.520
<v Speaker 2>for purchasing tobacco from eighteen to twenty one, which vaping

0:20:26.600 --> 0:20:31.480
<v Speaker 2>proponents say lowered youth vaping numbers. So stay tuned. Coming

0:20:31.560 --> 0:20:34.520
<v Speaker 2>up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, The Justice has

0:20:34.560 --> 0:20:38.080
<v Speaker 2>once again faced a question over the role that US

0:20:38.200 --> 0:20:42.720
<v Speaker 2>court should play in returning properties stolen from Holocaust survivors

0:20:43.040 --> 0:20:47.400
<v Speaker 2>by foreign countries during World War II. I'm June Grosso

0:20:47.520 --> 0:20:52.040
<v Speaker 2>and you're listening to Bloomberg. The Supreme Court once again

0:20:52.160 --> 0:20:55.320
<v Speaker 2>struggle with the role that US courts should play in

0:20:55.359 --> 0:20:59.560
<v Speaker 2>returning properties stolen by foreign countries during World War two

0:21:00.119 --> 0:21:04.760
<v Speaker 2>to its original owners. In several cases brought by Holocaust survivors,

0:21:04.800 --> 0:21:08.520
<v Speaker 2>against foreign nations. The justices have wrestled with how to

0:21:08.640 --> 0:21:13.160
<v Speaker 2>balance the international friction that can result from hauling sovereign

0:21:13.240 --> 0:21:16.920
<v Speaker 2>nations into US courts, while at the same time fulfilling

0:21:17.000 --> 0:21:21.040
<v Speaker 2>Congress's intent to allow suits in some cases. In a

0:21:21.080 --> 0:21:25.199
<v Speaker 2>case the Justice is heard on Tuesday, Holocaust survivors and

0:21:25.240 --> 0:21:29.800
<v Speaker 2>their families say Hungary and its National Railroad stole property

0:21:29.800 --> 0:21:34.080
<v Speaker 2>from Jews while transporting them to concentration camps. The question

0:21:34.240 --> 0:21:37.320
<v Speaker 2>is whether the US is the proper place to resolve

0:21:37.400 --> 0:21:40.800
<v Speaker 2>the legal dispute. Joining me is mc Sanaila, a partner

0:21:40.840 --> 0:21:44.320
<v Speaker 2>at Complex Appellate Litigation Group. So MC, we have seen

0:21:44.640 --> 0:21:48.040
<v Speaker 2>similar cases before. In fact, we've seen this case at

0:21:48.040 --> 0:21:49.280
<v Speaker 2>the Supreme Court before.

0:21:49.720 --> 0:21:52.080
<v Speaker 6>You know, this isn't an art case. This is the

0:21:52.760 --> 0:21:57.399
<v Speaker 6>really all kinds of property case. Most of these cases

0:21:57.440 --> 0:22:00.679
<v Speaker 6>are involved in some kind of Holocaust art. But this

0:22:00.840 --> 0:22:04.080
<v Speaker 6>is yes, we sent the people off to the camp,

0:22:04.400 --> 0:22:09.520
<v Speaker 6>and we also took all of their property and transported

0:22:09.560 --> 0:22:12.639
<v Speaker 6>that on the rail line. So they've been trying to,

0:22:13.240 --> 0:22:16.639
<v Speaker 6>you know, make this claim and have been really, like

0:22:16.800 --> 0:22:21.320
<v Speaker 6>many of these Holocaust claims, really bouncing back and forth

0:22:21.400 --> 0:22:25.639
<v Speaker 6>between the Supreme Court, the Federal Court of appeal the

0:22:25.720 --> 0:22:31.400
<v Speaker 6>district court on some very threshold issues which often come

0:22:31.480 --> 0:22:35.240
<v Speaker 6>up in these cases involving sovereign immunity. You know, under

0:22:35.359 --> 0:22:39.640
<v Speaker 6>the foreign Sovereign mediac can you do the Hungarian government

0:22:39.880 --> 0:22:44.880
<v Speaker 6>or some other countries government for these activities.

0:22:45.200 --> 0:22:48.040
<v Speaker 2>We've talked about this so many times. I'm surprised this

0:22:48.280 --> 0:22:50.120
<v Speaker 2>issue isn't more settled.

0:22:50.680 --> 0:22:53.119
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, I mean, I was just looking back at some

0:22:53.240 --> 0:22:56.720
<v Speaker 6>of the sovereign immunity questions that have come up in

0:22:56.760 --> 0:23:00.760
<v Speaker 6>the Holocaust context, and really one of the last, you know,

0:23:00.840 --> 0:23:04.520
<v Speaker 6>ultimately successful ones was Altman back in two thousand and four,

0:23:04.640 --> 0:23:07.879
<v Speaker 6>where the question there was just whether the Foreign Sovereign

0:23:07.920 --> 0:23:13.879
<v Speaker 6>Immunity that applied retroactively or not and therefore allowed Maria

0:23:13.920 --> 0:23:19.520
<v Speaker 6>Altman to bring her claim against Austria for her paintings

0:23:20.119 --> 0:23:24.000
<v Speaker 6>that Austria had taken. And in that case, of course, yes,

0:23:24.160 --> 0:23:29.600
<v Speaker 6>you know, Foreign Sovereignity Act applies retroactively and therefore property

0:23:29.800 --> 0:23:36.080
<v Speaker 6>taken in violation of international law, which her case qualified for. Yes, Okay,

0:23:36.359 --> 0:23:40.240
<v Speaker 6>that's the standards and it can you can see governments

0:23:40.240 --> 0:23:43.960
<v Speaker 6>for that. But since then it's been this case and

0:23:44.119 --> 0:23:48.200
<v Speaker 6>others have really dealt with Okay, now that we know

0:23:48.320 --> 0:23:52.640
<v Speaker 6>that it applies retroactively. What are the you know, sort

0:23:52.680 --> 0:23:57.520
<v Speaker 6>of exceptions within that statute that allow these kinds of

0:23:57.560 --> 0:24:00.440
<v Speaker 6>claims to be brought? And how do all of those

0:24:00.520 --> 0:24:04.199
<v Speaker 6>various exceptions you know, kind of worked out and end

0:24:04.320 --> 0:24:11.159
<v Speaker 6>up applying. And so here this expropriation exception. And really

0:24:11.200 --> 0:24:14.520
<v Speaker 6>it seems like the DC Circuit has been trying very

0:24:14.560 --> 0:24:17.879
<v Speaker 6>hard to find a way to allow these clients to

0:24:17.920 --> 0:24:24.120
<v Speaker 6>be brought. Right, it's all various aspects of expropriation that

0:24:24.160 --> 0:24:26.720
<v Speaker 6>they've been hanging their hat on to say, no, no, no,

0:24:26.760 --> 0:24:28.520
<v Speaker 6>you really need to look at this more carefully, just

0:24:28.640 --> 0:24:31.919
<v Speaker 6>a court or there's a possibility here, you know that

0:24:32.000 --> 0:24:34.120
<v Speaker 6>a claim could be brought. We need to we need

0:24:34.160 --> 0:24:37.040
<v Speaker 6>to look at that again. And each time it's been

0:24:37.600 --> 0:24:41.199
<v Speaker 6>sent back on the particular theory that the that the

0:24:41.280 --> 0:24:44.119
<v Speaker 6>Circuit may have relied on. But the Spring Court has

0:24:44.119 --> 0:24:47.880
<v Speaker 6>even opened up other avenues for consideration. And so that's

0:24:47.880 --> 0:24:50.800
<v Speaker 6>why it keeps coming back, is you think we haven't

0:24:51.000 --> 0:24:56.200
<v Speaker 6>solved these problems already, we haven't figured out the scope

0:24:56.200 --> 0:25:01.119
<v Speaker 6>of sovereign immunity, and it seems like here is this

0:25:01.240 --> 0:25:05.000
<v Speaker 6>effort to make sure we have turned over every rock,

0:25:05.240 --> 0:25:07.600
<v Speaker 6>you know, to make sure that we have fully investigated

0:25:07.960 --> 0:25:12.840
<v Speaker 6>every potential for acclaim against Hungary. It keeps coming back

0:25:12.880 --> 0:25:13.520
<v Speaker 6>for that reason.

0:25:13.800 --> 0:25:18.520
<v Speaker 2>The cases we've discussed before involved artworks, particular artworks that

0:25:18.560 --> 0:25:23.040
<v Speaker 2>were stolen. This case involves property. And it's unclear to

0:25:23.119 --> 0:25:26.880
<v Speaker 2>me what kind of property that the Hungarian government stole

0:25:27.160 --> 0:25:31.280
<v Speaker 2>and then liquidated and the money went into the national

0:25:31.320 --> 0:25:34.800
<v Speaker 2>treasury and then that fund was used to issue bonds

0:25:34.840 --> 0:25:38.480
<v Speaker 2>in the US. But how would they trace the stolen

0:25:38.520 --> 0:25:39.880
<v Speaker 2>property to the bonds?

0:25:40.440 --> 0:25:42.439
<v Speaker 6>Well, that's the question, and I think that was the

0:25:42.560 --> 0:25:46.719
<v Speaker 6>concern that really animated or argument really on both sides.

0:25:46.960 --> 0:25:52.040
<v Speaker 6>Some of the justices suggested, well, this question of commingling

0:25:52.119 --> 0:25:56.679
<v Speaker 6>and the proof of commingling and what percentage of the

0:25:56.720 --> 0:26:00.639
<v Speaker 6>money here in the US needs to be either theoretically

0:26:00.720 --> 0:26:05.600
<v Speaker 6>or you know, potentially traceable to this nationalized property that

0:26:05.800 --> 0:26:10.119
<v Speaker 6>had been taken from Jewish families. And that was really

0:26:10.320 --> 0:26:13.560
<v Speaker 6>kind of the rub right of the petition of what

0:26:13.680 --> 0:26:16.639
<v Speaker 6>level of proof and who needs to prove it? And

0:26:17.160 --> 0:26:21.200
<v Speaker 6>the justices were kind of scratching their heads saying, well,

0:26:21.240 --> 0:26:25.119
<v Speaker 6>on the one hand, were concerned that you as a

0:26:25.200 --> 0:26:28.680
<v Speaker 6>claimant could almost make any claim right, sure, there's still

0:26:28.760 --> 0:26:31.800
<v Speaker 6>must be some trace element of co mingling, or there

0:26:31.880 --> 0:26:34.560
<v Speaker 6>could be and as a result of there could be

0:26:34.680 --> 0:26:37.080
<v Speaker 6>even a small amount that now you can make a

0:26:37.160 --> 0:26:42.080
<v Speaker 6>claim against another country in US courts. That seemed concerning

0:26:42.160 --> 0:26:46.040
<v Speaker 6>because this is an exception to the Sovereign Community Act,

0:26:46.160 --> 0:26:51.280
<v Speaker 6>the General Provision saying you cannot do countries in US courts.

0:26:51.800 --> 0:26:54.840
<v Speaker 6>And on the other hand, there were the concerns raised, well,

0:26:56.080 --> 0:26:59.360
<v Speaker 6>if you don't have some kind of allow some kind

0:26:59.400 --> 0:27:03.520
<v Speaker 6>of claims for co mingling and giving some kind of

0:27:03.600 --> 0:27:09.320
<v Speaker 6>laxity for that definition, then any bad actor could just go, oh, well,

0:27:09.680 --> 0:27:12.080
<v Speaker 6>I'm going to I'm going to take this property and

0:27:12.119 --> 0:27:13.600
<v Speaker 6>then the next thing I'm going to do is I'm

0:27:13.600 --> 0:27:15.639
<v Speaker 6>going to co mingle it with something. I'm going to

0:27:15.720 --> 0:27:17.960
<v Speaker 6>put it somewhere else, and then that will immunize me

0:27:18.440 --> 0:27:22.919
<v Speaker 6>from this exception to have clean spot against me. And

0:27:23.000 --> 0:27:25.080
<v Speaker 6>so there's also that concern that, like, well, if you

0:27:25.080 --> 0:27:29.120
<v Speaker 6>make it too easy for someone to kind of hide

0:27:29.119 --> 0:27:32.360
<v Speaker 6>the ball and get themselves outside of this exception, then

0:27:32.720 --> 0:27:35.920
<v Speaker 6>what's the point of having the exception. So those both

0:27:35.960 --> 0:27:39.760
<v Speaker 6>of those concerns concerned about going too far and concerned

0:27:39.800 --> 0:27:45.040
<v Speaker 6>about you know, letting letting folks who are violating international

0:27:45.119 --> 0:27:49.480
<v Speaker 6>law off off the hook more easily. Those were the tensions.

0:27:49.520 --> 0:27:53.399
<v Speaker 6>But the members of the Court identified.

0:27:53.280 --> 0:27:57.000
<v Speaker 2>I feel like I've heard these same concerns from the

0:27:57.200 --> 0:28:02.080
<v Speaker 2>justices about, you know, the risk of reciprocal actions by

0:28:02.119 --> 0:28:05.840
<v Speaker 2>other countries and it's a big deal to haul a

0:28:05.880 --> 0:28:08.840
<v Speaker 2>foreign country into US court. I mean, those are the

0:28:08.840 --> 0:28:11.280
<v Speaker 2>same things they've been saying for years.

0:28:11.960 --> 0:28:15.480
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, exactly, it's the same. It's the same because it's

0:28:15.560 --> 0:28:20.960
<v Speaker 6>the same concerns and policies animating US foreign policy and

0:28:21.040 --> 0:28:25.520
<v Speaker 6>the State Department's view on these things. And also they're

0:28:25.680 --> 0:28:28.000
<v Speaker 6>looking at the Foreign Sovereign I Meanity Act and the

0:28:28.119 --> 0:28:34.359
<v Speaker 6>various things that they congressated in enacting those. So yes,

0:28:34.440 --> 0:28:38.280
<v Speaker 6>they come up with the same concerns because they're looking

0:28:38.320 --> 0:28:43.280
<v Speaker 6>at various aspects of the same statues and so the

0:28:43.360 --> 0:28:45.120
<v Speaker 6>same policy concerns.

0:28:45.480 --> 0:28:48.800
<v Speaker 2>Could you tell it all from the oral arguments which

0:28:48.800 --> 0:28:51.240
<v Speaker 2>way it was going. It seemed to me like the

0:28:51.440 --> 0:28:53.000
<v Speaker 2>justices were all over the place.

0:28:53.400 --> 0:28:56.200
<v Speaker 6>I mean, I think it's hard. I think it's harder

0:28:56.240 --> 0:28:59.720
<v Speaker 6>to tell here. But if you look at their overarching

0:29:00.120 --> 0:29:03.160
<v Speaker 6>concerns that you mentioned before, which is, we don't want

0:29:03.200 --> 0:29:07.520
<v Speaker 6>to open the door to everyone to bring their concerns

0:29:07.560 --> 0:29:11.120
<v Speaker 6>to US courts, and maybe somebody could do this to us,

0:29:11.160 --> 0:29:13.719
<v Speaker 6>and we want to be careful about that too, of

0:29:13.760 --> 0:29:17.600
<v Speaker 6>being called into other courts. That that is the general,

0:29:17.880 --> 0:29:21.560
<v Speaker 6>you know, conservative sort of reaction to this is to say,

0:29:21.640 --> 0:29:24.320
<v Speaker 6>we don't want to do anything that would make that easier.

0:29:24.600 --> 0:29:28.000
<v Speaker 6>We want to be very cautious about that. And so

0:29:28.400 --> 0:29:31.400
<v Speaker 6>you'd say, oh, well, if you want to go with

0:29:31.480 --> 0:29:34.680
<v Speaker 6>where the court ends up going normally or typically in

0:29:34.720 --> 0:29:38.280
<v Speaker 6>these cases, they typically end up being, you know, very

0:29:38.360 --> 0:29:42.680
<v Speaker 6>narrowly construing the exceptions to the Foreign Common Community Act.

0:29:43.000 --> 0:29:44.960
<v Speaker 6>But on the other hand, every once in a while

0:29:45.000 --> 0:29:47.840
<v Speaker 6>you have a case like Altman where they said, okay,

0:29:48.280 --> 0:29:50.520
<v Speaker 6>you know, we're opening this, we're opening this up, we're

0:29:50.520 --> 0:29:55.600
<v Speaker 6>applying the Act retroactively and you know, allowing this claim

0:29:55.640 --> 0:30:01.240
<v Speaker 6>to be brought. So it's possible, but those concerns are

0:30:01.880 --> 0:30:06.000
<v Speaker 6>still animating the court, and so it's possible, but most

0:30:06.080 --> 0:30:09.640
<v Speaker 6>likely that they will close the door to this one too.

0:30:10.320 --> 0:30:13.480
<v Speaker 2>And the Altman Court, I don't know what justices were

0:30:13.480 --> 0:30:15.880
<v Speaker 2>on the court at that point, but most of them

0:30:15.920 --> 0:30:18.160
<v Speaker 2>are certainly not on the court now.

0:30:18.520 --> 0:30:21.640
<v Speaker 6>A completely different court. I mean that's two thousand and four,

0:30:21.840 --> 0:30:23.920
<v Speaker 6>so we're talking, you know, twenty years ago.

0:30:24.200 --> 0:30:27.040
<v Speaker 2>It doesn't seem like they're split ideologically.

0:30:27.600 --> 0:30:31.440
<v Speaker 6>No, No, that's a good point, June. You can't say, oh, well,

0:30:31.960 --> 0:30:35.400
<v Speaker 6>you know, the conservatives are this way and the more

0:30:35.440 --> 0:30:39.160
<v Speaker 6>liberal folks are spar to lean another way on these issues.

0:30:39.440 --> 0:30:44.080
<v Speaker 6>That's really this larger concern about their role, the Court's role,

0:30:44.320 --> 0:30:49.080
<v Speaker 6>the executive branch's role in sovereign immunity. So it's not

0:30:49.120 --> 0:30:54.160
<v Speaker 6>an ideological question, but it is a question that across

0:30:54.480 --> 0:30:57.720
<v Speaker 6>you know, multiple iterations of the Court that they've had

0:30:57.960 --> 0:31:00.320
<v Speaker 6>this concern they want to make sure that they are

0:31:01.320 --> 0:31:05.400
<v Speaker 6>executing on what Congress has legislated and that they're not

0:31:05.480 --> 0:31:06.560
<v Speaker 6>going any further than that.

0:31:07.840 --> 0:31:10.680
<v Speaker 2>It seems like they might have taken the case to

0:31:10.760 --> 0:31:14.360
<v Speaker 2>reverse the DC's circuit. Is that your conclusion that they're

0:31:14.400 --> 0:31:17.240
<v Speaker 2>going to end up reversing the DC circuit in some

0:31:17.320 --> 0:31:18.960
<v Speaker 2>way through some argument.

0:31:19.760 --> 0:31:22.760
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, it's possible. Although in the past they've opened up

0:31:22.800 --> 0:31:24.960
<v Speaker 6>you know, they've closed one door and opened another one

0:31:25.280 --> 0:31:27.480
<v Speaker 6>or for this case, which is why it keeps coming

0:31:27.520 --> 0:31:30.400
<v Speaker 6>back too, so you know, perhaps that will happen again,

0:31:30.560 --> 0:31:33.560
<v Speaker 6>that one door gets closed another door is you know,

0:31:33.600 --> 0:31:36.800
<v Speaker 6>at least slightly a jar, and then the case continues.

0:31:37.080 --> 0:31:40.400
<v Speaker 6>It's because the DC Circuit at least seems very interested

0:31:40.440 --> 0:31:43.440
<v Speaker 6>in making sure that they have explored every potential avenue

0:31:43.520 --> 0:31:46.560
<v Speaker 6>before they they say, absolutely, you should not be bringing

0:31:46.600 --> 0:31:48.920
<v Speaker 6>your claims here, and before I let you.

0:31:48.960 --> 0:31:51.320
<v Speaker 2>Go, tell me about your big win yesterday at the

0:31:51.440 --> 0:31:52.160
<v Speaker 2>Ninth Circuit.

0:31:52.440 --> 0:31:55.800
<v Speaker 6>So my case yesterday was another long running piece of

0:31:56.840 --> 0:32:01.840
<v Speaker 6>litigation for the city of Costanisa, and I've worked on

0:32:01.920 --> 0:32:05.160
<v Speaker 6>various appeals for them involving challenges to their sober living

0:32:05.160 --> 0:32:09.480
<v Speaker 6>home ordinances. So they have they allow sober living homes

0:32:09.520 --> 0:32:14.080
<v Speaker 6>in their city, but they have certain permitting requirements for

0:32:14.120 --> 0:32:20.800
<v Speaker 6>them that are you know, allowing requiring certain distances. So

0:32:20.840 --> 0:32:23.840
<v Speaker 6>in other words, you can't have a residential street with

0:32:24.400 --> 0:32:28.280
<v Speaker 6>you know, multiple of these homes or sober living homes

0:32:28.280 --> 0:32:31.000
<v Speaker 6>on them, because that would be a bad thing not

0:32:31.040 --> 0:32:35.360
<v Speaker 6>only for the residential environment, but for the residents who

0:32:35.440 --> 0:32:38.880
<v Speaker 6>are there, who are trying to be integrated back into

0:32:41.200 --> 0:32:49.360
<v Speaker 6>a traditional living arrangements after they've been in recovery. So

0:32:49.360 --> 0:32:53.360
<v Speaker 6>so this has been challenged as you know, violating various

0:32:53.360 --> 0:32:58.120
<v Speaker 6>their housing federal and states, their housing laws and harming

0:32:58.160 --> 0:33:02.320
<v Speaker 6>the disabled and to day or yesterday, the Ninth Circuit

0:33:02.480 --> 0:33:05.160
<v Speaker 6>agreed with the City of Costa Mesa that just there

0:33:05.240 --> 0:33:10.680
<v Speaker 6>was no discrimination. Oh various, whether it's spacially discriminatory, whether

0:33:10.760 --> 0:33:15.120
<v Speaker 6>it's dispread treatment there, you know, there's just there was

0:33:15.120 --> 0:33:22.200
<v Speaker 6>no discrimination. And in fact, these ordinances were designed to

0:33:22.360 --> 0:33:27.120
<v Speaker 6>benefit uh, the residents, the disabled residents of these towns.

0:33:27.800 --> 0:33:31.840
<v Speaker 6>It's a really wonderful result for a city that has

0:33:31.920 --> 0:33:35.000
<v Speaker 6>been standing up, you know, for its ordinances for for

0:33:35.080 --> 0:33:41.160
<v Speaker 6>many years, and helpful to other cities and counties and

0:33:41.240 --> 0:33:45.560
<v Speaker 6>local governments who want to have similar kind of land

0:33:45.680 --> 0:33:49.200
<v Speaker 6>use regulations that help all of their sort of balance

0:33:49.240 --> 0:33:52.160
<v Speaker 6>the interests of all of their residents, including those who

0:33:52.200 --> 0:33:53.000
<v Speaker 6>live in these homes.

0:33:53.120 --> 0:33:54.880
<v Speaker 2>It's great to talk to you as always.

0:33:55.000 --> 0:33:55.200
<v Speaker 5>MC.

0:33:55.720 --> 0:33:59.800
<v Speaker 2>That's MC san Gila, a partner at Complex Appellate Litigation Group.

0:34:00.480 --> 0:34:02.800
<v Speaker 2>And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

0:34:03.120 --> 0:34:05.440
<v Speaker 2>Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

0:34:05.520 --> 0:34:09.160
<v Speaker 2>our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts,

0:34:09.200 --> 0:34:14.120
<v Speaker 2>Spotify and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast

0:34:14.320 --> 0:34:18.040
<v Speaker 2>Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg