WEBVTT - California Attorney General Rob Bonta Talks Tariff Ruling

0:00:02.520 --> 0:00:08.399
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. Our covera Joe of

0:00:08.400 --> 0:00:10.880
<v Speaker 1>the Trump terariff decision continues with a closer look at

0:00:10.920 --> 0:00:14.360
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court's majority opinion, which zeroed in on what

0:00:14.440 --> 0:00:18.800
<v Speaker 1>it called a unilateral and transformative expansion of the president's authority.

0:00:19.000 --> 0:00:22.360
<v Speaker 1>Writing for the Plurality, Chief Justice John Roberts said, quote

0:00:22.400 --> 0:00:25.640
<v Speaker 1>that in iipa's half century of existence, no president has

0:00:25.680 --> 0:00:28.960
<v Speaker 1>invoked the statute to impose any teriffts, let alone tariffts

0:00:28.960 --> 0:00:31.920
<v Speaker 1>of this magnitude, and that the lack of historical president,

0:00:32.200 --> 0:00:35.159
<v Speaker 1>coupled with the breadth of authority that the president claimed,

0:00:35.400 --> 0:00:38.640
<v Speaker 1>suggested that the teriffs extended beyond his legitimate reach. That

0:00:38.760 --> 0:00:40.960
<v Speaker 1>issue a core part of the three lawsuits that led

0:00:41.000 --> 0:00:44.080
<v Speaker 1>to this case, including the lawsuit pressed by twelve Democratic

0:00:44.120 --> 0:00:47.880
<v Speaker 1>state attorneys general, including from California's Rob Bonta. He joins

0:00:47.920 --> 0:00:49.960
<v Speaker 1>us right now to talk a little bit more about

0:00:49.960 --> 0:00:53.120
<v Speaker 1>this decision. All right, First, what was your initial reaction

0:00:53.200 --> 0:00:55.680
<v Speaker 1>at ten am of Eastern time, that is, when you

0:00:55.760 --> 0:00:56.600
<v Speaker 1>heard about the decision?

0:00:58.360 --> 0:01:02.200
<v Speaker 2>Not surprising what I expect, having been in the courtroom

0:01:02.200 --> 0:01:04.200
<v Speaker 2>at the US Supreme Court for the oral argument and

0:01:04.560 --> 0:01:08.840
<v Speaker 2>very affirming and Most of all, I feel that it's

0:01:08.840 --> 0:01:12.800
<v Speaker 2>an important amount of relief that's being delivered for the

0:01:12.840 --> 0:01:16.840
<v Speaker 2>American people, including Californians, for consumers who are paying higher prices,

0:01:16.840 --> 0:01:20.480
<v Speaker 2>for workers who've lost their jobs, for businesses, including small

0:01:21.080 --> 0:01:23.960
<v Speaker 2>mom and pops who have struggled, some have shuddered their

0:01:24.000 --> 0:01:25.320
<v Speaker 2>businesses never to open again.

0:01:25.400 --> 0:01:26.360
<v Speaker 3>So this is.

0:01:26.319 --> 0:01:29.640
<v Speaker 2>Important relief delivered to them. And it calls out trumpson

0:01:29.680 --> 0:01:33.440
<v Speaker 2>lawfulness for what it is. He literally acted illegally to

0:01:33.560 --> 0:01:36.880
<v Speaker 2>raise prices for the American people after saying that he

0:01:36.920 --> 0:01:39.319
<v Speaker 2>was going to lower prices on day one. It was

0:01:39.600 --> 0:01:43.039
<v Speaker 2>a lie his statement, and it was improper and inappropriate.

0:01:43.040 --> 0:01:48.080
<v Speaker 2>What he has done. He owes many businesses a refund

0:01:48.560 --> 0:01:49.520
<v Speaker 2>and pay up.

0:01:49.800 --> 0:01:52.280
<v Speaker 1>Well, I'm curious about that. I mean, your governor, the

0:01:52.360 --> 0:01:54.800
<v Speaker 1>California governor, Gavin Newsom has already weighed in on the

0:01:54.800 --> 0:01:56.920
<v Speaker 1>one hundred and seventy plus billion dollars that have been

0:01:56.960 --> 0:02:00.400
<v Speaker 1>collected from consumers and companies. Do you think there's any

0:02:00.480 --> 0:02:04.120
<v Speaker 1>real legitimate chance that those companies, those consumers are actually

0:02:04.120 --> 0:02:06.600
<v Speaker 1>going to see a refund of any portion of that.

0:02:07.320 --> 0:02:12.079
<v Speaker 2>Absolutely, you do. And the opinion could have said that

0:02:12.680 --> 0:02:16.040
<v Speaker 2>we are making a decision that is prospective only that

0:02:16.200 --> 0:02:20.079
<v Speaker 2>going forward, Trump can no longer use these unlawful tariffs.

0:02:20.160 --> 0:02:22.080
<v Speaker 2>They didn't say that, which makes it very clear that

0:02:22.200 --> 0:02:26.320
<v Speaker 2>retro active, retrospective relief is on the table, and there's

0:02:26.360 --> 0:02:27.880
<v Speaker 2>a pathway to do this. You go to the Court

0:02:27.880 --> 0:02:30.240
<v Speaker 2>of International Trade if you're a business and importer that

0:02:30.280 --> 0:02:33.360
<v Speaker 2>had to pay the unlawful tariffs, and you seek a

0:02:33.400 --> 0:02:36.239
<v Speaker 2>refund through what's called the refund to action. And typically

0:02:36.320 --> 0:02:38.760
<v Speaker 2>generally and it would be fair and just here if

0:02:38.800 --> 0:02:41.760
<v Speaker 2>your money is unlawfully withheld from you, if you had

0:02:41.800 --> 0:02:44.760
<v Speaker 2>to pay something based on an unlawful tariff, you should

0:02:44.800 --> 0:02:46.760
<v Speaker 2>get interest on it. So I think you're going to

0:02:46.760 --> 0:02:50.560
<v Speaker 2>see a lot of refund actions being brought against the

0:02:50.560 --> 0:02:53.119
<v Speaker 2>Trump administration for these unlawful tariffs that have been struck down.

0:02:53.400 --> 0:02:56.440
<v Speaker 3>Well, is that something that California as a state plans

0:02:56.480 --> 0:02:58.640
<v Speaker 3>to do. I mean, you know, as we go through

0:02:58.680 --> 0:03:02.400
<v Speaker 3>this process when it comes to demanding refunds, I mean,

0:03:02.480 --> 0:03:04.720
<v Speaker 3>is that action that California would.

0:03:04.560 --> 0:03:10.280
<v Speaker 2>Take very potentially, Yes, you know, we had a case

0:03:10.280 --> 0:03:13.440
<v Speaker 2>in the North District of California that we are now

0:03:13.480 --> 0:03:16.080
<v Speaker 2>will be transferred to or commenced in the Court of

0:03:16.080 --> 0:03:18.560
<v Speaker 2>International Trade. Which the US Supreme Court today said is

0:03:18.600 --> 0:03:22.239
<v Speaker 2>the appropriate court, and that's where we could seek a

0:03:23.280 --> 0:03:25.959
<v Speaker 2>refund action for California, for the state of California, not

0:03:26.320 --> 0:03:32.360
<v Speaker 2>the businesses, not the who paid the unlawful tariff. So

0:03:32.960 --> 0:03:35.880
<v Speaker 2>to the extent that California has been hurt by these tariffs,

0:03:35.920 --> 0:03:38.480
<v Speaker 2>had to pay higher prices because of these tariffs. Yes,

0:03:38.960 --> 0:03:41.880
<v Speaker 2>we could pursue a refund action in the Court of

0:03:41.880 --> 0:03:45.240
<v Speaker 2>International Trade, and we're discussing all of our options now.

0:03:45.440 --> 0:03:45.600
<v Speaker 1>Well.

0:03:45.600 --> 0:03:48.400
<v Speaker 3>We will certainly keep an eye out there for any action.

0:03:48.640 --> 0:03:50.400
<v Speaker 3>I do want to ask about the statement that you

0:03:50.480 --> 0:03:53.600
<v Speaker 3>issued following the Supreme Court decision. You wrote that the

0:03:53.680 --> 0:03:57.600
<v Speaker 3>Trump administration's a legal and chaotic terraf regime has come

0:03:57.720 --> 0:04:00.000
<v Speaker 3>to an end. Of course, in the hours since, we've

0:04:00.120 --> 0:04:02.560
<v Speaker 3>heard from the President directly saying that, you know, he

0:04:02.680 --> 0:04:06.480
<v Speaker 3>still plans to pursue tariffs. It's just AIPA that was

0:04:06.720 --> 0:04:09.760
<v Speaker 3>ruled against here today. And with that in mind, I mean,

0:04:10.160 --> 0:04:12.560
<v Speaker 3>how do you see this evolving? You think about all

0:04:12.600 --> 0:04:15.800
<v Speaker 3>the different sections that he can tap, it seems like

0:04:16.279 --> 0:04:18.880
<v Speaker 3>when it comes to the terriff regime, it's actually far

0:04:18.920 --> 0:04:19.400
<v Speaker 3>from over.

0:04:21.680 --> 0:04:24.200
<v Speaker 2>I think he'll try again, and you know, in some

0:04:24.279 --> 0:04:27.960
<v Speaker 2>of his statements today were very remarkable, almost claiming victory

0:04:28.440 --> 0:04:30.480
<v Speaker 2>in the face of very clear defeat. I mean, this

0:04:30.520 --> 0:04:32.720
<v Speaker 2>is an embarrassing loss in front of the US Supreme

0:04:32.760 --> 0:04:38.520
<v Speaker 2>Court on his you know, key policy proposal of his administration.

0:04:38.960 --> 0:04:41.000
<v Speaker 2>It was unlawful and it was not even close. It

0:04:41.040 --> 0:04:44.200
<v Speaker 2>was clearly unlawful, a six' three loss in front of THE. U.

0:04:44.240 --> 0:04:48.800
<v Speaker 2>S Supreme. Court and he very may well try to

0:04:49.000 --> 0:04:52.000
<v Speaker 2>implement other tariffs through other. Pathways those were always available to.

0:04:52.080 --> 0:04:56.160
<v Speaker 2>Him to be, clear there's prerequisites for those tariffs to be,

0:04:56.160 --> 0:04:59.440
<v Speaker 2>implemented there's limits on those, tariffs there's limits in duration

0:04:59.520 --> 0:05:01.920
<v Speaker 2>in a. Mouth so we'll see what he, does and we'll.

0:05:01.960 --> 0:05:05.400
<v Speaker 2>Assess we've brought fifty eight lawsuits in less than fifty

0:05:05.440 --> 0:05:09.400
<v Speaker 2>eight weeks against A trump administration for repeated illegal, conduct

0:05:09.480 --> 0:05:12.279
<v Speaker 2>and so we will assess whether any of his actions

0:05:12.320 --> 0:05:14.839
<v Speaker 2>going forward in the tariff's space or lawful or. Not

0:05:14.960 --> 0:05:17.560
<v Speaker 2>and if he breaks the lag in and Hurts california,

0:05:17.600 --> 0:05:18.760
<v Speaker 2>again we'll take him to.

0:05:18.800 --> 0:05:20.760
<v Speaker 1>Court, Well i'm just, sorry just real, quickly, Though. ROB i,

0:05:20.800 --> 0:05:23.440
<v Speaker 1>mean looking at the dissenting, opinions and particularly The kavanaugh

0:05:23.440 --> 0:05:26.520
<v Speaker 1>opinion who explicitly in his words said the president did

0:05:26.520 --> 0:05:29.640
<v Speaker 1>have the. Authority does that become the basis for The

0:05:29.640 --> 0:05:33.279
<v Speaker 1>trump administration to move forward with something even under the

0:05:33.320 --> 0:05:33.960
<v Speaker 1>construct of A.

0:05:34.080 --> 0:05:39.320
<v Speaker 2>Epa, WELL apa is off the, table so he can

0:05:39.520 --> 0:05:42.760
<v Speaker 2>longer USE aiba to impost tariffs he. Tried he. Lost

0:05:44.040 --> 0:05:46.080
<v Speaker 2>THE apa doesn't mention the word tariffs has never been

0:05:46.120 --> 0:05:48.320
<v Speaker 2>used in nearly fifty years of its existence to impost.

0:05:48.360 --> 0:05:51.520
<v Speaker 2>Tariffs but, yeah The kavanaugh descent did sort of set

0:05:51.560 --> 0:05:54.200
<v Speaker 2>forth a blueprint That trump might want to pursue in

0:05:54.240 --> 0:05:57.880
<v Speaker 2>terms of other statutes that do provide the opportunity for

0:05:57.960 --> 0:06:01.120
<v Speaker 2>him potentially to implement. Terrorists but the POINT i was,

0:06:01.120 --> 0:06:03.400
<v Speaker 2>making and the majority makes us, too is that those

0:06:03.440 --> 0:06:07.640
<v Speaker 2>other statutes don't give full discretion to im implement and

0:06:07.640 --> 0:06:09.880
<v Speaker 2>impose all the tariffs that he tried to impose UNDER,

0:06:10.080 --> 0:06:13.239
<v Speaker 2>apa and he tried to impose tariffs against every single

0:06:13.240 --> 0:06:15.360
<v Speaker 2>one of our trade partners under A. Epa those other

0:06:15.400 --> 0:06:17.839
<v Speaker 2>statutes have, Limits they have, Prerequisites they have limits in,

0:06:17.880 --> 0:06:23.040
<v Speaker 2>duration limits in. Amount so he may take action using

0:06:23.080 --> 0:06:26.000
<v Speaker 2>those other, statutes but he will be. Limited all, right have.

0:06:25.920 --> 0:06:28.280
<v Speaker 3>To leave it. There really appreciate your. Time that Is

0:06:28.400 --> 0:06:30.920
<v Speaker 3>California Attorney General Rob bonta