1 00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseol from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:08,760 --> 00:00:12,559 Speaker 2: Time after time, President Trump has tried to freeze federal 3 00:00:12,640 --> 00:00:17,040 Speaker 2: funding as a cudgel against political opponents and programs he 4 00:00:17,160 --> 00:00:22,119 Speaker 2: considers woke, from freezing ten billion dollars for childcare and 5 00:00:22,239 --> 00:00:26,920 Speaker 2: aid for low income families to freezing five billion dollars 6 00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:31,479 Speaker 2: for a Federal Highway Administration program to build infrastructure for 7 00:00:31,600 --> 00:00:36,720 Speaker 2: electric vehicle charging. But also, time after time, federal courts 8 00:00:36,720 --> 00:00:40,840 Speaker 2: have stepped in to lift those funding freezes. In fact, 9 00:00:41,000 --> 00:00:43,800 Speaker 2: in more than half of the one hundred sixty seven 10 00:00:43,960 --> 00:00:48,199 Speaker 2: spending fights reviewed by Bloomberg News, joining me is the 11 00:00:48,280 --> 00:00:53,520 Speaker 2: reporter who crunched the numbers, Bloomberg Legal reporter Zoe Tillman. Zoe, 12 00:00:53,640 --> 00:00:58,040 Speaker 2: for those who may not know, explain President Trump's use 13 00:00:58,080 --> 00:01:03,160 Speaker 2: of federal funding freezes against people or groups or programs 14 00:01:03,200 --> 00:01:04,360 Speaker 2: that he disagrees with. 15 00:01:04,920 --> 00:01:08,520 Speaker 3: So, I mean from day one of the administration, and 16 00:01:08,600 --> 00:01:11,920 Speaker 3: really before day one, there was this big push where 17 00:01:12,000 --> 00:01:15,319 Speaker 3: Elon Musk was the face of this Department of Government 18 00:01:15,319 --> 00:01:16,520 Speaker 3: efficiency initiative. 19 00:01:16,680 --> 00:01:19,640 Speaker 1: They're going to cut spending, They're going to cut the 20 00:01:19,680 --> 00:01:20,840 Speaker 1: federal workforce. 21 00:01:21,680 --> 00:01:25,880 Speaker 3: This was really a message from the incoming administration from 22 00:01:25,920 --> 00:01:29,440 Speaker 3: the very beginning, and you know, right away it was 23 00:01:29,720 --> 00:01:34,200 Speaker 3: a slash and burn approach. Grants were cut, executive orders 24 00:01:34,280 --> 00:01:37,600 Speaker 3: were signed right from the start saying, you know, no 25 00:01:37,720 --> 00:01:40,520 Speaker 3: more federal money is going to go to things that 26 00:01:41,200 --> 00:01:45,959 Speaker 3: this administration doesn't support. So nothing that is DEI related 27 00:01:46,160 --> 00:01:49,840 Speaker 3: in any way, nothing that relates to you know, the 28 00:01:49,920 --> 00:01:52,760 Speaker 3: term they used as gender ideology, but really has to 29 00:01:52,760 --> 00:01:57,240 Speaker 3: do with programs that relate or involve transgender individuals, things 30 00:01:57,280 --> 00:02:01,280 Speaker 3: related to climate change, really just using the flow of 31 00:02:01,360 --> 00:02:06,040 Speaker 3: federal dollars to achieve any number of policy objectives. Later on, 32 00:02:06,720 --> 00:02:10,480 Speaker 3: we saw a number of actions related to immigration, including 33 00:02:11,120 --> 00:02:17,800 Speaker 3: efforts to condition grants on compliance with immigration enforcement, even 34 00:02:17,840 --> 00:02:21,440 Speaker 3: for grants that weren't directly related to immigration. So this 35 00:02:21,480 --> 00:02:25,560 Speaker 3: has been just a big priority for this administration from 36 00:02:25,639 --> 00:02:29,560 Speaker 3: day one and has been, you know, predictably met with 37 00:02:29,680 --> 00:02:32,080 Speaker 3: legal challenges from day one. 38 00:02:32,280 --> 00:02:36,320 Speaker 2: So you reviewed one hundred and sixty seven fights over spending, 39 00:02:36,520 --> 00:02:38,240 Speaker 2: tell us a little bit more about them. 40 00:02:38,600 --> 00:02:40,480 Speaker 3: Yeah, so I should say, I mean taking a few 41 00:02:40,520 --> 00:02:43,720 Speaker 3: more steps back. You know, we've been tracking every lawsuit 42 00:02:44,000 --> 00:02:47,119 Speaker 3: against administration, you know, from day one to the best 43 00:02:47,160 --> 00:02:50,519 Speaker 3: of our ability with an eye to sort of looking 44 00:02:50,600 --> 00:02:53,680 Speaker 3: at what the role of the courts will be and 45 00:02:53,800 --> 00:02:56,960 Speaker 3: has been in you know, our government. 46 00:02:57,080 --> 00:02:58,320 Speaker 1: Are they serving as a check? 47 00:02:58,919 --> 00:03:01,920 Speaker 3: Is there an adversarial rellylationship with the executive branch At 48 00:03:01,919 --> 00:03:04,800 Speaker 3: a moment when Congress has sort of removed itself in 49 00:03:04,840 --> 00:03:08,560 Speaker 3: many ways from the policy make sphere and so much 50 00:03:08,639 --> 00:03:11,680 Speaker 3: is coming out through executive action, you know, what is 51 00:03:11,720 --> 00:03:14,799 Speaker 3: the dynamic with courts? So with that in mind, at 52 00:03:14,800 --> 00:03:18,040 Speaker 3: the one year mark, we decided to drill down and 53 00:03:18,120 --> 00:03:21,080 Speaker 3: look at funding to see just where the money is 54 00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:24,440 Speaker 3: going or not and what role the courts have played. So, 55 00:03:25,440 --> 00:03:29,400 Speaker 3: you know, there have been cases about really any realm 56 00:03:29,440 --> 00:03:31,760 Speaker 3: of federal spending you could think of, you know, money 57 00:03:31,760 --> 00:03:43,240 Speaker 3: going to universities for medical research, scientific research, transportation, infrastructure grants, agriculture, arts, media, humanities. 58 00:03:43,760 --> 00:03:47,800 Speaker 3: Really every aspect of federal spending has landed in court 59 00:03:48,200 --> 00:03:49,200 Speaker 3: at this point. 60 00:03:49,480 --> 00:03:53,840 Speaker 2: Tell us about some of the cases where judges lifted freezes. 61 00:03:54,560 --> 00:03:56,600 Speaker 2: In January alone. 62 00:03:56,440 --> 00:03:59,800 Speaker 3: There was an instance of a specific set of grants 63 00:03:59,800 --> 00:04:04,440 Speaker 3: that I went to a pediatricians organization, a national. 64 00:04:04,040 --> 00:04:06,040 Speaker 1: Group of pediatric doctors. 65 00:04:06,640 --> 00:04:09,480 Speaker 3: They had had twelve million dollars in grants cut off 66 00:04:09,840 --> 00:04:14,200 Speaker 3: a number of medical groups have you found themselves in 67 00:04:14,240 --> 00:04:18,320 Speaker 3: an adversarial position with this administration on everything from vaccines 68 00:04:18,800 --> 00:04:24,039 Speaker 3: to care for transgender children, and the court in this instance, 69 00:04:24,040 --> 00:04:27,960 Speaker 3: a DC federal judge found that the way the government 70 00:04:28,000 --> 00:04:31,600 Speaker 3: had gone about, you know, suddenly cutting off these grants 71 00:04:31,600 --> 00:04:34,600 Speaker 3: that had been approved, that that was likely unlawful and 72 00:04:34,720 --> 00:04:36,920 Speaker 3: ordered them to resume paying them out. So that was 73 00:04:36,960 --> 00:04:39,599 Speaker 3: an instance of sort of a direct stream of money 74 00:04:39,880 --> 00:04:43,640 Speaker 3: to a particular organization. In another set of cases, there 75 00:04:43,720 --> 00:04:48,040 Speaker 3: was a trio of appeals before the first Circuit involving 76 00:04:48,480 --> 00:04:53,080 Speaker 3: a cut to the rate that research institutions are reimbursed 77 00:04:53,480 --> 00:04:57,760 Speaker 3: for what's commonly known as indirect costs, things like overhead facilities, 78 00:04:57,839 --> 00:05:00,400 Speaker 3: you know, not the cost of the research, but all 79 00:05:00,440 --> 00:05:05,200 Speaker 3: the money spent to support that research, you know, around it. 80 00:05:05,240 --> 00:05:09,720 Speaker 3: And the first circuit upheld lower court judge who had 81 00:05:09,839 --> 00:05:12,840 Speaker 3: enjoined the way the administration had gone about doing that, 82 00:05:12,920 --> 00:05:16,520 Speaker 3: and that was, you know, costs that the government itself 83 00:05:16,520 --> 00:05:17,320 Speaker 3: had estimated. 84 00:05:17,520 --> 00:05:20,280 Speaker 1: You know, we're worth billions of dollars of reinforcements to 85 00:05:20,360 --> 00:05:21,600 Speaker 1: research institutions. 86 00:05:22,000 --> 00:05:25,320 Speaker 3: So it's really run the gamut, and you know, we've 87 00:05:25,400 --> 00:05:29,599 Speaker 3: just continued to see orders come down that you know, 88 00:05:29,600 --> 00:05:32,440 Speaker 3: are often preliminary, so I should say we haven't reached 89 00:05:32,480 --> 00:05:35,280 Speaker 3: the final judgment phase in most cases we're talking about 90 00:05:35,320 --> 00:05:40,440 Speaker 3: temporary restraining orders. We're talking about preliminary injunctions. Some cases 91 00:05:40,440 --> 00:05:44,120 Speaker 3: are nationwide, many or not, especially after the Supreme Court 92 00:05:44,240 --> 00:05:48,760 Speaker 3: last year made a big step to rein in nationwide 93 00:05:48,800 --> 00:05:51,719 Speaker 3: or so called nationwide or universal injunctions. So some of 94 00:05:51,760 --> 00:05:54,760 Speaker 3: these orders have been limited to the states that have 95 00:05:54,839 --> 00:05:58,520 Speaker 3: sued the organizations that have sued, although I should say, 96 00:05:58,600 --> 00:06:02,560 Speaker 3: you know, sometimes there are membership groups that involve hundreds 97 00:06:02,560 --> 00:06:07,719 Speaker 3: of individual nonprofit members or organizations, so you know, sometimes 98 00:06:07,760 --> 00:06:11,039 Speaker 3: the relief is limited. But advocates in the course of 99 00:06:11,080 --> 00:06:13,200 Speaker 3: doing this have said, you know, if we didn't sue, 100 00:06:13,200 --> 00:06:16,680 Speaker 3: we would get nothing, so they see every win as 101 00:06:17,000 --> 00:06:18,479 Speaker 3: valuable at this point. 102 00:06:18,600 --> 00:06:24,520 Speaker 2: And how often did judges halt the Trump administration's funding cuts. 103 00:06:24,720 --> 00:06:27,480 Speaker 3: So as of when you know, I sort of cut 104 00:06:27,520 --> 00:06:30,040 Speaker 3: off the data collection for this project or data collection 105 00:06:30,080 --> 00:06:32,839 Speaker 3: has continued, but for this project, as of mid January, 106 00:06:33,360 --> 00:06:36,279 Speaker 3: across the one hundred and sixty seven cases that you 107 00:06:36,320 --> 00:06:41,000 Speaker 3: know we looked at dockets, there were more orders in place, 108 00:06:41,520 --> 00:06:45,520 Speaker 3: halting in fuller in part that contested actions in more 109 00:06:45,560 --> 00:06:48,919 Speaker 3: than half, just over half, so you know, more often 110 00:06:48,960 --> 00:06:53,640 Speaker 3: than not, there continued to be court orders either requiring 111 00:06:53,720 --> 00:06:56,839 Speaker 3: money to go out the door. In some cases it 112 00:06:56,920 --> 00:06:58,760 Speaker 3: wasn't money going out the door, but it was just 113 00:06:58,880 --> 00:07:02,839 Speaker 3: preserving the funding it issue or access to that funding, 114 00:07:03,000 --> 00:07:06,960 Speaker 3: making sure it couldn't be redistributed amid the litigation. Other 115 00:07:07,040 --> 00:07:10,720 Speaker 3: cases there are orders lifting I mentioned earlier sort of 116 00:07:10,800 --> 00:07:13,920 Speaker 3: conditions on grants, lifting those new conditions. So that doesn't 117 00:07:13,920 --> 00:07:17,840 Speaker 3: guarantee that everyone who's sued will get the money, but 118 00:07:17,920 --> 00:07:21,520 Speaker 3: it means they don't have to satisfy those new and 119 00:07:21,560 --> 00:07:28,120 Speaker 3: what they contend are you know, improperly crafted conditions to 120 00:07:28,240 --> 00:07:31,240 Speaker 3: at least apply for money. So that's that's where things 121 00:07:31,280 --> 00:07:33,760 Speaker 3: are as of middle end of last month. 122 00:07:34,000 --> 00:07:38,840 Speaker 2: Does the government almost always appeal these lower court orders? 123 00:07:39,600 --> 00:07:43,440 Speaker 3: Not always often, you know. I think the one trend 124 00:07:43,480 --> 00:07:48,640 Speaker 3: that we've seen is in cases that involve very straightforward 125 00:07:48,920 --> 00:07:51,880 Speaker 3: you know, you owe me money, you haven't paid it, 126 00:07:51,960 --> 00:07:54,080 Speaker 3: and I want that money back, they are more likely 127 00:07:54,160 --> 00:07:57,160 Speaker 3: to appeal and they are more likely to seek emergency 128 00:07:57,160 --> 00:08:01,760 Speaker 3: relief from an appeals court in case that involve conditions 129 00:08:02,520 --> 00:08:06,520 Speaker 3: where there's less of a time sensitivity involved and you know, 130 00:08:06,560 --> 00:08:08,520 Speaker 3: it's not as if a judge has literally turned the 131 00:08:08,560 --> 00:08:11,679 Speaker 3: spigot back on and money has to come out. They 132 00:08:11,920 --> 00:08:15,200 Speaker 3: are appealing some of those, but not always pursuing, you know, 133 00:08:15,240 --> 00:08:18,680 Speaker 3: this emergency relief, and then in some cases they're not appealing, 134 00:08:19,240 --> 00:08:23,960 Speaker 3: and you know, they're letting preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining 135 00:08:24,040 --> 00:08:27,840 Speaker 3: orders stay on the books as the litigation plays out. 136 00:08:27,880 --> 00:08:30,200 Speaker 3: You know, it's in the first year, there was so 137 00:08:30,520 --> 00:08:34,920 Speaker 3: much activity on sort of emergency dockets, not just for 138 00:08:34,960 --> 00:08:38,400 Speaker 3: the Supreme Court, but up and down the judicial chain 139 00:08:38,559 --> 00:08:41,720 Speaker 3: that so many things happened on a preliminary basis, and 140 00:08:41,800 --> 00:08:45,600 Speaker 3: in the moment, we and you know, we including me 141 00:08:45,760 --> 00:08:49,880 Speaker 3: and our coverage would often characterize a temporary or preliminary 142 00:08:49,880 --> 00:08:52,080 Speaker 3: injunction as a win or a loss for one side 143 00:08:52,120 --> 00:08:55,240 Speaker 3: or the other. But those are not final orders, and 144 00:08:55,640 --> 00:08:57,479 Speaker 3: you know, those orders will. 145 00:08:57,520 --> 00:08:58,400 Speaker 1: Stay on the docket. 146 00:08:58,440 --> 00:09:02,559 Speaker 3: But then later on courts might take a different position 147 00:09:02,679 --> 00:09:06,319 Speaker 3: once they've had a full airing of the evidence and arguments. 148 00:09:06,360 --> 00:09:09,240 Speaker 3: So I think it's worth stressing that many of these cases, 149 00:09:09,240 --> 00:09:11,600 Speaker 3: even when we've had sort of quote unquote wins and 150 00:09:11,640 --> 00:09:15,720 Speaker 3: losses early on, they keep going, and you know, there's 151 00:09:15,760 --> 00:09:18,400 Speaker 3: more action potentially down the pike. 152 00:09:18,760 --> 00:09:22,200 Speaker 2: What happens to the funds. Let's say a lower court says, 153 00:09:22,320 --> 00:09:26,079 Speaker 2: you know, we're lifting this freeze and then the government appeals. 154 00:09:26,360 --> 00:09:29,640 Speaker 2: Are the funds paid out in the meantime they are? 155 00:09:29,760 --> 00:09:31,880 Speaker 3: I mean, it depends on how the order is structured. 156 00:09:31,960 --> 00:09:36,040 Speaker 3: So we've had cases where there's an injunction. I know 157 00:09:36,120 --> 00:09:39,480 Speaker 3: from talking to grantees that you know they've gotten the money. 158 00:09:39,920 --> 00:09:41,920 Speaker 3: It might not always be a lot of money, but 159 00:09:42,000 --> 00:09:45,280 Speaker 3: they've gotten money even with an appeal. You know, in 160 00:09:45,320 --> 00:09:47,800 Speaker 3: cases where the government gets a stay of a lower 161 00:09:47,800 --> 00:09:51,480 Speaker 3: court injunction, than the government doesn't have to do anything 162 00:09:52,080 --> 00:09:52,480 Speaker 3: while the. 163 00:09:52,440 --> 00:09:53,439 Speaker 1: Case goes forward. 164 00:09:53,920 --> 00:09:57,160 Speaker 3: There have been some issues with compliance, not to the 165 00:09:57,240 --> 00:10:00,480 Speaker 3: extent that we've seen more recently in the immigration context, 166 00:10:00,760 --> 00:10:04,679 Speaker 3: where you know, there have been a number of judicial 167 00:10:04,760 --> 00:10:08,800 Speaker 3: rulings that have gotten a lot of understandably attention for saying, 168 00:10:08,920 --> 00:10:11,800 Speaker 3: you know, there's defiance by ice when we've ordered release, 169 00:10:11,920 --> 00:10:16,480 Speaker 3: where we've ordered bond hearings. It hasn't reached that level 170 00:10:17,080 --> 00:10:20,160 Speaker 3: in funding cases. What I've heard in reporting the story 171 00:10:20,200 --> 00:10:23,679 Speaker 3: out is that for the most part, states and nonprofits 172 00:10:23,720 --> 00:10:27,720 Speaker 3: feel that the government is mostly complying when ordered to 173 00:10:27,920 --> 00:10:31,280 Speaker 3: keep paying out or accept applications, you know, what have you. 174 00:10:31,800 --> 00:10:34,400 Speaker 3: But it has not always been smooth sailing, even after 175 00:10:34,559 --> 00:10:37,600 Speaker 3: an injunction or temporary restraining order comes down. 176 00:10:38,040 --> 00:10:40,400 Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue 177 00:10:40,440 --> 00:10:44,440 Speaker 2: this conversation with Bloomberg Legal reporter Zoe Tillman, will take 178 00:10:44,480 --> 00:10:46,640 Speaker 2: a look at what the Supreme Court has done when 179 00:10:46,679 --> 00:10:50,960 Speaker 2: these funding freezes have reached the justices. I'm June Grosso 180 00:10:51,080 --> 00:10:57,400 Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump's expansive efforts 181 00:10:57,440 --> 00:11:01,479 Speaker 2: to use federal funding as a cudgel against political opponents 182 00:11:01,520 --> 00:11:06,320 Speaker 2: and programs he considers woke remain mired in court more 183 00:11:06,360 --> 00:11:08,680 Speaker 2: than a year since his return to the White House. 184 00:11:09,160 --> 00:11:12,439 Speaker 2: By the start of twenty twenty six, federal judges had 185 00:11:12,520 --> 00:11:15,920 Speaker 2: halted his funding cuts and limits in more than half 186 00:11:15,960 --> 00:11:19,040 Speaker 2: of one hundred and sixty seven spending fights reviewed by 187 00:11:19,040 --> 00:11:22,920 Speaker 2: Bloomberg News. The rulings against the government underscore how the 188 00:11:23,000 --> 00:11:26,559 Speaker 2: legal system has persisted as a roadblock, or at the 189 00:11:26,679 --> 00:11:30,080 Speaker 2: very least, a speed bump, to Trump's second term agenda. 190 00:11:30,720 --> 00:11:34,280 Speaker 2: I've been talking to Bloomberg Legal reporter Zoe Tillman, so 191 00:11:34,400 --> 00:11:38,040 Speaker 2: some of these fights have reached the Supreme Court. Tell 192 00:11:38,120 --> 00:11:41,600 Speaker 2: us about how the Supreme Court has ruled generally. 193 00:11:42,280 --> 00:11:44,520 Speaker 3: Yeah, so what the Supreme Court has said, and it's 194 00:11:44,520 --> 00:11:49,680 Speaker 3: really two cases that pushed this newer jurisprudence to evolve. 195 00:11:50,160 --> 00:11:52,120 Speaker 3: What the Court has said is if you've got to 196 00:11:52,160 --> 00:11:55,280 Speaker 3: basically a breach of contract claim and you're coming in 197 00:11:55,320 --> 00:11:59,199 Speaker 3: and saying this grant was approved, I was supposed to 198 00:11:59,240 --> 00:12:03,640 Speaker 3: get a million dollar for my project and they terminated it, 199 00:12:03,760 --> 00:12:05,920 Speaker 3: and I should get this money. Or I already spent 200 00:12:06,040 --> 00:12:09,080 Speaker 3: money and submitted for reimbursement and I didn't get the money. 201 00:12:09,440 --> 00:12:12,360 Speaker 3: The Court has said those really belong in the US 202 00:12:12,400 --> 00:12:15,360 Speaker 3: Court of Federal Claims and not a US district court. 203 00:12:16,120 --> 00:12:19,480 Speaker 3: The US Court of Federal Claims is a specialized federal court. 204 00:12:19,720 --> 00:12:23,160 Speaker 3: Its judges are not They don't get lifetime appointments in 205 00:12:23,200 --> 00:12:24,920 Speaker 3: the same vein as US district courts. 206 00:12:25,320 --> 00:12:26,720 Speaker 1: It's a more limited forum. 207 00:12:26,800 --> 00:12:30,160 Speaker 3: You can't get, you know, preliminary injunctions or relief turning 208 00:12:30,200 --> 00:12:30,840 Speaker 3: money back on. 209 00:12:31,000 --> 00:12:32,880 Speaker 1: It's you have to play it out to the end. 210 00:12:33,520 --> 00:12:35,760 Speaker 3: And you know, sources I talked to you for this 211 00:12:36,120 --> 00:12:39,320 Speaker 3: said if you're a small nonprofit, you can't spend a 212 00:12:39,400 --> 00:12:41,400 Speaker 3: year waiting for money. 213 00:12:41,559 --> 00:12:42,840 Speaker 1: It's really make or break. 214 00:12:43,040 --> 00:12:46,480 Speaker 3: You need that preliminary or temporary order from a court 215 00:12:46,559 --> 00:12:51,480 Speaker 3: to preserve status quo while you litigate. So moving these 216 00:12:51,559 --> 00:12:54,880 Speaker 3: types of funding cases over to federal claims, which is 217 00:12:54,880 --> 00:12:58,240 Speaker 3: what the Supreme Court said needs to happen, is considered 218 00:12:58,360 --> 00:13:00,480 Speaker 3: a big win for the government, and it you know, 219 00:13:00,559 --> 00:13:04,800 Speaker 3: knocks out certain types of cases over funding cuts. But critically, 220 00:13:05,080 --> 00:13:08,920 Speaker 3: these cases didn't rule out all funding fights from US 221 00:13:09,000 --> 00:13:13,640 Speaker 3: district courts. There are constitutional claims even if they involve 222 00:13:13,720 --> 00:13:16,839 Speaker 3: funding terminations. If it's purely a you know, you retaliated 223 00:13:16,880 --> 00:13:21,200 Speaker 3: against me for exercising my First Amendment right and the 224 00:13:21,280 --> 00:13:25,520 Speaker 3: relief involves getting the money back, you know, that is 225 00:13:25,559 --> 00:13:27,800 Speaker 3: still fair game, or at least you know, the court 226 00:13:27,840 --> 00:13:31,960 Speaker 3: didn't say you can't pursue those claims. Issues with the 227 00:13:32,040 --> 00:13:36,120 Speaker 3: conditions on funding, those are still fair game to pursue. 228 00:13:36,720 --> 00:13:40,960 Speaker 3: And so, you know, advocates that are opposed to what 229 00:13:41,000 --> 00:13:44,079 Speaker 3: the government is doing say that it didn't help to. 230 00:13:44,040 --> 00:13:46,280 Speaker 1: Have these Supreme Court orders come down. 231 00:13:46,320 --> 00:13:50,080 Speaker 3: But that they didn't knock out all funding fights, and 232 00:13:50,160 --> 00:13:55,080 Speaker 3: judges have certainly not felt that they can't issue, you know, 233 00:13:55,200 --> 00:13:58,480 Speaker 3: more relief against the government in light of what the 234 00:13:58,640 --> 00:14:02,160 Speaker 3: justices that and I should say, you know, the Supreme 235 00:14:02,200 --> 00:14:05,480 Speaker 3: Court orders came on the emergency or so called shadow docket, 236 00:14:05,880 --> 00:14:10,120 Speaker 3: so they too were preliminary and not very fulsome so 237 00:14:10,240 --> 00:14:12,760 Speaker 3: you know, I quote one judge in the story who 238 00:14:12,760 --> 00:14:14,640 Speaker 3: had an order that said, you know, they felt like 239 00:14:14,679 --> 00:14:17,520 Speaker 3: their funding case fell in a gray area of what 240 00:14:17,720 --> 00:14:21,480 Speaker 3: Supreme Court had said, and you know, barring a more 241 00:14:21,840 --> 00:14:27,880 Speaker 3: fully aired judgment articulating all the ways that funding cases 242 00:14:27,880 --> 00:14:29,840 Speaker 3: can be litigated or not in district courts. 243 00:14:29,880 --> 00:14:32,640 Speaker 1: This judge said, I see room for me to act. Here. 244 00:14:33,520 --> 00:14:36,840 Speaker 2: Is there a number for how much money, how much 245 00:14:37,120 --> 00:14:39,240 Speaker 2: in funding the government has frozen? 246 00:14:40,640 --> 00:14:44,240 Speaker 3: We don't have a complete number, at least not one 247 00:14:44,280 --> 00:14:48,000 Speaker 3: that everyone agrees on. We know that the Department of 248 00:14:48,040 --> 00:14:52,400 Speaker 3: Government Efficiency, which was you know, the Elon Musk driven project, 249 00:14:52,440 --> 00:14:55,240 Speaker 3: even though Elon Musk is no longer part of the administration, 250 00:14:56,000 --> 00:14:59,600 Speaker 3: DOAGE said that they saved two hundred and fifteen billion 251 00:14:59,680 --> 00:15:05,000 Speaker 3: dollars and that savings covered you know, terminated spending streams. 252 00:15:05,160 --> 00:15:08,960 Speaker 3: It covered government employees salaries or the cost of running 253 00:15:09,000 --> 00:15:12,400 Speaker 3: agencies that were trimmed or shut down. There's also some 254 00:15:12,960 --> 00:15:15,640 Speaker 3: nuance to that number where Bloomberg reported, you know that 255 00:15:16,280 --> 00:15:18,440 Speaker 3: spending still went up. 256 00:15:18,360 --> 00:15:21,120 Speaker 1: In other ways over the past fiscal years. 257 00:15:20,800 --> 00:15:24,360 Speaker 3: So that you know, might cancel out whatever those savings were. 258 00:15:24,400 --> 00:15:26,160 Speaker 3: But that said, you know, we have this number of 259 00:15:26,200 --> 00:15:29,359 Speaker 3: like two hundred and fifteen billion. We know that states, 260 00:15:29,560 --> 00:15:33,520 Speaker 3: state a g offices, state attorney general offices have offered 261 00:15:33,560 --> 00:15:35,560 Speaker 3: their own estimates of money that. 262 00:15:35,520 --> 00:15:36,600 Speaker 1: They say they've protected. 263 00:15:36,880 --> 00:15:41,720 Speaker 3: Will usually say like they've protected or secured for their residence, 264 00:15:41,800 --> 00:15:45,160 Speaker 3: and that can mean both, you know, literal money going 265 00:15:45,200 --> 00:15:48,160 Speaker 3: back out the door to grantees. It can mean the 266 00:15:48,240 --> 00:15:52,560 Speaker 3: conditions on funding streams. It can mean you know, they've 267 00:15:52,560 --> 00:15:55,320 Speaker 3: preserved access to a pool of money even if it's 268 00:15:55,360 --> 00:15:57,880 Speaker 3: not clear who will get it in the end. But 269 00:15:57,920 --> 00:16:00,400 Speaker 3: they've offered up their own estimates, sometimes in the billions 270 00:16:00,440 --> 00:16:03,960 Speaker 3: of dollars that they've you know, won in litigation. 271 00:16:04,400 --> 00:16:05,360 Speaker 1: And it's very fluid. 272 00:16:05,560 --> 00:16:09,160 Speaker 3: You know, in one day last month, there was an 273 00:16:09,280 --> 00:16:12,880 Speaker 3: order lifting a freeze on something with ten billion dollars 274 00:16:12,880 --> 00:16:17,160 Speaker 3: in aid funding for low income families. So you know, 275 00:16:17,200 --> 00:16:20,640 Speaker 3: in an instant the numbers can fluctuate by the billions. 276 00:16:20,760 --> 00:16:25,240 Speaker 3: As far as what's at stake in these legal fights. 277 00:16:25,040 --> 00:16:29,800 Speaker 2: And these funding freezes are continuing. Recently, Trump tried to 278 00:16:29,840 --> 00:16:34,280 Speaker 2: freeze the sixteen billion dollar Gateway rail tunnel between New 279 00:16:34,320 --> 00:16:38,520 Speaker 2: York and New Jersey. And that's been unfolding rapidly. 280 00:16:38,720 --> 00:16:41,400 Speaker 3: That's right, I mean, speaking of fluid that case, I 281 00:16:41,440 --> 00:16:43,280 Speaker 3: think it's been a week a week and a half, 282 00:16:43,800 --> 00:16:48,000 Speaker 3: and forebody gone through so many iterations where I think 283 00:16:48,040 --> 00:16:52,640 Speaker 3: it was sixteen billion that was frozen. A judge ordered 284 00:16:52,640 --> 00:16:56,600 Speaker 3: it unfrozen for this massive, you know, rail tunnel project 285 00:16:56,600 --> 00:17:00,400 Speaker 3: between New Jersey and New York. The government appealed, and 286 00:17:00,440 --> 00:17:04,920 Speaker 3: then the district judge sort of suspended her own order 287 00:17:05,640 --> 00:17:07,959 Speaker 3: for a few days to give the government a chance 288 00:17:08,119 --> 00:17:11,000 Speaker 3: to go to the appeals court to get a longer 289 00:17:11,119 --> 00:17:15,840 Speaker 3: term pause on that injunction. The States then went to 290 00:17:15,920 --> 00:17:18,520 Speaker 3: the district judge and said, can you lift your own 291 00:17:18,760 --> 00:17:22,520 Speaker 3: pause of your own order lifting the freeze. So it's 292 00:17:22,560 --> 00:17:24,960 Speaker 3: one of those cases where, you know, as I said earlier, 293 00:17:25,560 --> 00:17:29,280 Speaker 3: when it's about money going out the door, things have 294 00:17:29,440 --> 00:17:32,479 Speaker 3: moved often very quickly in a way that if we 295 00:17:32,480 --> 00:17:36,479 Speaker 3: were just talking about, you know, conditions on accessing that 296 00:17:36,600 --> 00:17:40,600 Speaker 3: money long term, it likely wouldn't have unfolded at such 297 00:17:40,640 --> 00:17:41,439 Speaker 3: a rapid clip. 298 00:17:41,760 --> 00:17:46,480 Speaker 2: You're anticipating I'm anticipating too. We're all anticipating that there 299 00:17:46,480 --> 00:17:50,480 Speaker 2: are going to be a lot more funding freezes connected 300 00:17:50,640 --> 00:17:56,400 Speaker 2: with Trump's immigration crackdown. In his railing against sanctuary cities 301 00:17:56,440 --> 00:17:57,880 Speaker 2: and states, you. 302 00:17:57,800 --> 00:17:59,200 Speaker 1: Know, it's a big question mark. 303 00:17:59,560 --> 00:18:04,480 Speaker 3: They have not had success defending these types of funding 304 00:18:04,520 --> 00:18:08,359 Speaker 3: decisions tied to you know, whether a city or state 305 00:18:08,440 --> 00:18:11,639 Speaker 3: is a so called sanctuary fiction. There's an order still 306 00:18:11,640 --> 00:18:15,440 Speaker 3: an effect from a San Francisco federal judge last year 307 00:18:15,640 --> 00:18:19,000 Speaker 3: that's being appealed at the moment, but there's alredient order 308 00:18:19,359 --> 00:18:22,800 Speaker 3: finding a similar effort was unlawful. So the President more 309 00:18:22,840 --> 00:18:26,800 Speaker 3: recently had again said that they would pull funding from 310 00:18:26,840 --> 00:18:30,639 Speaker 3: these types of jurisdictions that they feel are failing to 311 00:18:30,640 --> 00:18:32,639 Speaker 3: be as cooperative as they would. 312 00:18:32,440 --> 00:18:34,680 Speaker 1: Like on immigration enforcement. 313 00:18:35,240 --> 00:18:37,800 Speaker 3: And you know, we as part of this story talked 314 00:18:37,840 --> 00:18:43,280 Speaker 3: with municipal services loving the Seattle City Attorney's office, which 315 00:18:43,359 --> 00:18:46,919 Speaker 3: was part of the earlier sanctuary cities fight, and the 316 00:18:46,960 --> 00:18:51,320 Speaker 3: message very broadly, not addressing specific litigation, but broadly was 317 00:18:52,240 --> 00:18:55,080 Speaker 3: if there's grounds to sue, you know, they're ready to 318 00:18:55,160 --> 00:18:58,880 Speaker 3: sue if something is threatening. They're funding many that they 319 00:18:58,920 --> 00:19:03,280 Speaker 3: need for their cipal services. They're ready and able and 320 00:19:03,560 --> 00:19:06,000 Speaker 3: prepared to go back to court as needed. 321 00:19:06,480 --> 00:19:09,280 Speaker 2: And I'm sure you'll be looking at that lawsuit if 322 00:19:09,359 --> 00:19:13,720 Speaker 2: they do. Thanks so much, Zoe, great research. That's Bloomberg 323 00:19:13,800 --> 00:19:19,280 Speaker 2: Legal reporter Zoe Tillman. Uber's facing some three thousand cases 324 00:19:19,280 --> 00:19:24,359 Speaker 2: from around the country over passengers sexual assault claims. Last week, 325 00:19:24,440 --> 00:19:28,639 Speaker 2: and Arizona jury found the ride sharing giant libel for 326 00:19:28,760 --> 00:19:32,320 Speaker 2: not preventing an alleged sexual assault of a passenger by 327 00:19:32,359 --> 00:19:35,840 Speaker 2: a driver, returning an eight and a half million dollar 328 00:19:36,000 --> 00:19:39,600 Speaker 2: verdict for the passenger. The jurors found that the driver 329 00:19:39,840 --> 00:19:43,480 Speaker 2: was acting as an apparent agent of Uber. However, they 330 00:19:43,520 --> 00:19:48,200 Speaker 2: rejected claims that the ride share company itself acted negligently 331 00:19:48,359 --> 00:19:52,640 Speaker 2: in its safety standards or designed a deceptive product. Now 332 00:19:52,720 --> 00:19:55,680 Speaker 2: jurors came to a different result in a similar case 333 00:19:55,720 --> 00:19:59,840 Speaker 2: in California State court last year. Uber says it's going 334 00:19:59,840 --> 00:20:03,639 Speaker 2: to to appeal the Arizona verdict. But are these Bellweather 335 00:20:03,760 --> 00:20:07,720 Speaker 2: cases likely to lead to a global settlement. My guest 336 00:20:07,800 --> 00:20:11,440 Speaker 2: is Michael Green, a tourt law professor at Washington University 337 00:20:11,480 --> 00:20:16,719 Speaker 2: School of Law. Uber has been fighting sexual assault claims 338 00:20:16,760 --> 00:20:21,760 Speaker 2: for a decade, and the argument is that the company 339 00:20:22,160 --> 00:20:26,080 Speaker 2: can't be blamed for the misconduct of its drivers, that 340 00:20:26,119 --> 00:20:29,920 Speaker 2: there are contractors rather than employees. Has that been working 341 00:20:30,320 --> 00:20:31,960 Speaker 2: until now? 342 00:20:32,040 --> 00:20:36,800 Speaker 4: Just the basics here is that Uber can be liable 343 00:20:36,880 --> 00:20:43,120 Speaker 4: in two respects. One is, if Uber acts wrongfully negligently 344 00:20:43,359 --> 00:20:49,480 Speaker 4: on its own. Suppose Uber hires a known sexual offender 345 00:20:49,760 --> 00:20:53,960 Speaker 4: to drive cars. In that case, we would say, Uber, 346 00:20:54,240 --> 00:20:59,040 Speaker 4: you're negligent and you are subject to liability. The second basis, 347 00:20:59,080 --> 00:21:03,280 Speaker 4: and this is what you reverting to, is employers can 348 00:21:03,359 --> 00:21:09,320 Speaker 4: be vicariously liable for the torts of their employees. Okay, 349 00:21:10,160 --> 00:21:17,280 Speaker 4: and that's where the Dean verdict was based. Uber says 350 00:21:17,359 --> 00:21:22,960 Speaker 4: two things. One is, these drivers are not our employees. 351 00:21:23,800 --> 00:21:27,879 Speaker 4: They are independent contractors. And the law is that a 352 00:21:27,960 --> 00:21:32,400 Speaker 4: person who hires an independent contractor is not normally vicariously 353 00:21:32,480 --> 00:21:40,320 Speaker 4: liable for that independent contractor's towards. And then secondly, it says, alternatively, 354 00:21:40,800 --> 00:21:45,439 Speaker 4: even if the driver is our employee, we are not 355 00:21:45,720 --> 00:21:50,280 Speaker 4: vicariously liable when an employee goes off and does things 356 00:21:50,840 --> 00:21:54,879 Speaker 4: that are not for our benefit, that goes off on 357 00:21:54,960 --> 00:22:00,480 Speaker 4: a personal detour and frolic. Well, almost all of these 358 00:22:00,560 --> 00:22:04,520 Speaker 4: sexual assaults, virtually all of them, are not for the 359 00:22:04,560 --> 00:22:10,320 Speaker 4: benefit of Uber. They are personal whatever they are by 360 00:22:10,520 --> 00:22:16,400 Speaker 4: the drivers. So Uber really has two claims with regard 361 00:22:16,480 --> 00:22:19,960 Speaker 4: to why it's not vicariously libel tell us what. 362 00:22:20,040 --> 00:22:24,160 Speaker 2: The jury found in the case in Arizona. 363 00:22:24,800 --> 00:22:29,439 Speaker 4: So that's the Dan case. And interestingly, what the jury 364 00:22:29,560 --> 00:22:35,479 Speaker 4: found was that Uber was not negligent, So they didn't 365 00:22:35,560 --> 00:22:40,680 Speaker 4: find anything that Uber did wrong vis a vis protecting 366 00:22:40,960 --> 00:22:45,919 Speaker 4: its passengers from sexual assaults. But what they did find 367 00:22:46,440 --> 00:22:52,960 Speaker 4: was that Uber was vicariously liable for its driver based 368 00:22:53,040 --> 00:22:59,080 Speaker 4: on a subtle doctrine that exists in Arizona but is 369 00:22:59,600 --> 00:23:03,359 Speaker 4: not widespread across the states, and that would not apply, 370 00:23:03,480 --> 00:23:06,879 Speaker 4: for example, in the next case that Judge Bryer is 371 00:23:06,960 --> 00:23:10,719 Speaker 4: planning to try, which is in North Carolina. That is, 372 00:23:11,119 --> 00:23:14,600 Speaker 4: if we had the law of North Carolina applied in 373 00:23:14,720 --> 00:23:18,240 Speaker 4: the Dean case, the planeff would not have succeeded on 374 00:23:18,400 --> 00:23:19,880 Speaker 4: vicarious liability. 375 00:23:20,200 --> 00:23:23,479 Speaker 2: The jury award of the eight and a half million 376 00:23:23,560 --> 00:23:26,720 Speaker 2: was substantial, but it was far below the twenty four 377 00:23:26,800 --> 00:23:31,080 Speaker 2: million she'd ask for for compensatory damages for her past 378 00:23:31,119 --> 00:23:33,760 Speaker 2: and future sufferings, and she asked for one hundred and 379 00:23:33,760 --> 00:23:38,520 Speaker 2: twenty million impunitive damages, and the jury awarded no punitive damages. 380 00:23:38,960 --> 00:23:43,320 Speaker 2: So what do you make of the actual amount awarded? 381 00:23:44,000 --> 00:23:46,240 Speaker 4: Well, first of all, I don't pay any attention to 382 00:23:46,320 --> 00:23:51,880 Speaker 4: what planeiffs seek. They can seek the moon, and there's 383 00:23:51,920 --> 00:23:55,480 Speaker 4: no cost to them seeking the moon, right, So, plainiff's 384 00:23:55,520 --> 00:23:58,800 Speaker 4: lawyers typically will ask for lots and lots of in 385 00:23:58,840 --> 00:24:02,240 Speaker 4: the hope that somehow that will stick with the jury. 386 00:24:02,400 --> 00:24:05,919 Speaker 4: Often it does not, and the Dean case is an 387 00:24:06,000 --> 00:24:10,520 Speaker 4: example where that was the case. I'm not surprised that 388 00:24:10,560 --> 00:24:16,560 Speaker 4: they did not award punitive damages given their finding that 389 00:24:17,160 --> 00:24:20,520 Speaker 4: Uber did nothing wrong. That is, they found Uber did 390 00:24:20,640 --> 00:24:25,440 Speaker 4: not act negligently. It's very difficult to get punitive damages 391 00:24:25,600 --> 00:24:29,879 Speaker 4: based on vicarious liability, which was the basis for liability 392 00:24:29,920 --> 00:24:36,240 Speaker 4: and Dean. You need really bad behavior more even than 393 00:24:37,240 --> 00:24:43,560 Speaker 4: acting unreasonably to get punitive damages. It commits a jury 394 00:24:43,640 --> 00:24:47,800 Speaker 4: that this is really something heinous that deserves punitive damages. 395 00:24:47,960 --> 00:24:50,640 Speaker 4: So I'm not surprised there were no punitive damages. Now 396 00:24:50,800 --> 00:24:54,919 Speaker 4: that's not to say that in another case, the evidence 397 00:24:55,160 --> 00:25:00,880 Speaker 4: about Uber's bad behavior might not be stronger and might 398 00:25:00,920 --> 00:25:05,280 Speaker 4: not influence a jury to think, wow, or what Uber 399 00:25:05,359 --> 00:25:09,840 Speaker 4: did here was unconscionable, and I think that would probably 400 00:25:09,960 --> 00:25:16,040 Speaker 4: be much stronger for cases that occurred later rather than 401 00:25:16,320 --> 00:25:22,120 Speaker 4: back in the mid twenty tens, particularly the case in California. 402 00:25:22,160 --> 00:25:24,280 Speaker 2: The jury came to a different verdict in the case 403 00:25:24,320 --> 00:25:27,240 Speaker 2: in California, So tell us about that. 404 00:25:27,240 --> 00:25:30,840 Speaker 4: That was a case in state court in California, not 405 00:25:31,040 --> 00:25:36,480 Speaker 4: part of this federal multi district litigation. And in that case, interestingly, 406 00:25:36,960 --> 00:25:41,640 Speaker 4: the jury found that Uber was negligent for its own conduct, 407 00:25:42,680 --> 00:25:46,560 Speaker 4: but they also found another element of course of a 408 00:25:46,720 --> 00:25:51,680 Speaker 4: tort is not just that the defendant acted wrongfully, but 409 00:25:51,720 --> 00:25:56,679 Speaker 4: that that wrongful conduct caused the plane off's harm. And 410 00:25:56,760 --> 00:26:00,000 Speaker 4: what the jury found in that case was that Uber's 411 00:26:00,040 --> 00:26:06,000 Speaker 4: negligence was not a cause of the plainiff's harm. That 412 00:26:06,400 --> 00:26:09,920 Speaker 4: means that the jury felt that even if Uber had 413 00:26:09,960 --> 00:26:13,159 Speaker 4: done better, the planeff in that case would still have 414 00:26:13,359 --> 00:26:15,920 Speaker 4: suffered the assault that she suffered. 415 00:26:16,400 --> 00:26:20,119 Speaker 2: Is there a way to reconcile those two verdicts? I mean, 416 00:26:20,280 --> 00:26:23,440 Speaker 2: is it the facts of each of the cases are different. 417 00:26:23,640 --> 00:26:27,560 Speaker 2: Is it the law is different in Arizona and California? 418 00:26:28,000 --> 00:26:30,720 Speaker 2: Or is it just two juries looking at the same 419 00:26:30,800 --> 00:26:32,960 Speaker 2: thing and saying different things. 420 00:26:33,560 --> 00:26:36,760 Speaker 4: Well, of course we don't know what evidence was introduced 421 00:26:36,920 --> 00:26:39,920 Speaker 4: in those two cases, and whether it was the same 422 00:26:40,640 --> 00:26:43,480 Speaker 4: or it very That could very well be the case, 423 00:26:44,400 --> 00:26:48,280 Speaker 4: but it could also be the case that juries simply 424 00:26:48,560 --> 00:26:53,760 Speaker 4: respond to evidence differently. Earlier in my career, I was 425 00:26:53,880 --> 00:26:58,480 Speaker 4: looking at a very interesting trial that was conducted by 426 00:26:58,600 --> 00:27:03,720 Speaker 4: Judge Robert Parker of the Eastern District of Texas. At 427 00:27:03,760 --> 00:27:07,920 Speaker 4: the time, his docket was just flooded with asbestos cases 428 00:27:08,280 --> 00:27:10,679 Speaker 4: and he was looking for a way to try and 429 00:27:10,800 --> 00:27:16,960 Speaker 4: handle what was a Sissapian task. The more he resolved, 430 00:27:17,320 --> 00:27:21,560 Speaker 4: the bigger the pile god. And so what Judge Parker 431 00:27:21,640 --> 00:27:26,359 Speaker 4: did was to have a trial of five cases, five 432 00:27:26,440 --> 00:27:32,080 Speaker 4: asbestos cases, in the same courtroom before five different judges. 433 00:27:32,840 --> 00:27:37,560 Speaker 4: The evidence was the same in those five cases, the juries. 434 00:27:37,720 --> 00:27:43,760 Speaker 4: Five juris heard the same evidence for each of what 435 00:27:44,040 --> 00:27:48,080 Speaker 4: was their case, and then they rendered verdicts, and Judge 436 00:27:48,080 --> 00:27:51,840 Speaker 4: Parker gave me access to those verdict forms, and it 437 00:27:51,960 --> 00:27:57,280 Speaker 4: was remarkable how on the difficult issues, the difficult issues 438 00:27:57,640 --> 00:28:02,000 Speaker 4: the jury split and did not fly consist. I've taken 439 00:28:02,119 --> 00:28:07,359 Speaker 4: that as a pretty good evidence of the way in 440 00:28:07,400 --> 00:28:12,160 Speaker 4: which juries can come to different outcomes, and that's part 441 00:28:12,200 --> 00:28:15,919 Speaker 4: of the purpose of these Bellwether trials that Judge Bryar 442 00:28:16,160 --> 00:28:21,040 Speaker 4: is conducting to see how a variety of juries will 443 00:28:21,080 --> 00:28:25,400 Speaker 4: react to the evidence in these cases. 444 00:28:26,040 --> 00:28:29,120 Speaker 2: As you mentioned, and this goes to the Bellweather part, 445 00:28:29,119 --> 00:28:33,320 Speaker 2: there is something like three thousand cases obviously different facts, 446 00:28:33,720 --> 00:28:39,720 Speaker 2: but also different laws in the jurisdiction. So can it 447 00:28:39,800 --> 00:28:42,520 Speaker 2: still be a Bellweather when you have different laws that 448 00:28:42,560 --> 00:28:43,160 Speaker 2: are applied. 449 00:28:43,880 --> 00:28:48,240 Speaker 4: Well, that's part of the reason for trying cases in 450 00:28:48,280 --> 00:28:55,400 Speaker 4: different jurisdictions. He's got six cases teed up for Bellwether 451 00:28:55,560 --> 00:28:59,640 Speaker 4: Trials tour in California too, in Arizona, two are in 452 00:28:59,680 --> 00:29:03,880 Speaker 4: North Carolina. My guess is that he wants to see 453 00:29:03,880 --> 00:29:08,280 Speaker 4: how those come out before scheduling more. But you're right 454 00:29:08,440 --> 00:29:13,280 Speaker 4: at different state laws differences In the fact some of 455 00:29:13,320 --> 00:29:20,160 Speaker 4: these plaintiffs suffered horrific sexual assaults, I think that may 456 00:29:20,200 --> 00:29:24,960 Speaker 4: be important to a jury in deciding these cases. So 457 00:29:25,320 --> 00:29:31,880 Speaker 4: there's factual variation, legal variation across states, and jury variation 458 00:29:32,680 --> 00:29:35,880 Speaker 4: that could affect and produce different outcomes. 459 00:29:36,080 --> 00:29:40,400 Speaker 2: In response to the Arizona verdict, Uber said, this verdict 460 00:29:40,400 --> 00:29:46,160 Speaker 2: affirms that Uber acted responsibly and has invested meaningfully in writers' safety, 461 00:29:46,840 --> 00:29:49,120 Speaker 2: but it is going to appeal the finding that the 462 00:29:49,200 --> 00:29:52,640 Speaker 2: driver was acting as an agent of the company, saying 463 00:29:52,640 --> 00:29:56,160 Speaker 2: the judge aired on the instructions given to the jury. 464 00:29:56,640 --> 00:30:01,040 Speaker 2: When Uber looks at this behind closed doors, should they 465 00:30:01,040 --> 00:30:05,280 Speaker 2: be motivated to start settling cases or should they look 466 00:30:05,320 --> 00:30:09,800 Speaker 2: at it and say, well, different juries can bring different results, 467 00:30:10,160 --> 00:30:11,400 Speaker 2: so let's forge ahead. 468 00:30:12,080 --> 00:30:15,560 Speaker 4: The first thing I hope is that this motivates Uber 469 00:30:16,600 --> 00:30:21,240 Speaker 4: to find better ways to protect their passengers. When tort 470 00:30:21,400 --> 00:30:28,280 Speaker 4: law is working right, it results in better safety precautions 471 00:30:28,840 --> 00:30:32,240 Speaker 4: being taken, and we can go across a whole lot 472 00:30:32,320 --> 00:30:36,640 Speaker 4: of areas. Asbestos is a great example of that. So 473 00:30:36,880 --> 00:30:42,040 Speaker 4: that's the first thing. I think it's probably too early. Publicly, 474 00:30:42,600 --> 00:30:44,760 Speaker 4: of course, Uber is going to deny that they have 475 00:30:44,800 --> 00:30:48,080 Speaker 4: any liability and appeal and do all the things that 476 00:30:48,200 --> 00:30:53,719 Speaker 4: defendants who are held liable do. I think it's probably 477 00:30:53,760 --> 00:30:59,800 Speaker 4: too early for Uber to say, Okay, what we need 478 00:30:59,800 --> 00:31:04,360 Speaker 4: to do now is figure out a global settlement in 479 00:31:04,440 --> 00:31:10,640 Speaker 4: other mass torques. As the cases develop, you see defendants 480 00:31:10,760 --> 00:31:18,720 Speaker 4: see global peace, and that's a complicated dance that occurs, 481 00:31:19,360 --> 00:31:22,440 Speaker 4: and I think that's what Judge Brier in those federal 482 00:31:22,520 --> 00:31:27,320 Speaker 4: cases that you referred to, is trying to develop. But 483 00:31:27,520 --> 00:31:31,160 Speaker 4: first Uber needs to get a feeling. Then the Plaineff 484 00:31:31,240 --> 00:31:35,920 Speaker 4: lawyers need to get a feel on really how much 485 00:31:36,160 --> 00:31:39,720 Speaker 4: is their exposure here, and these first two cases give 486 00:31:39,840 --> 00:31:44,000 Speaker 4: us a little bit of information. It might be different 487 00:31:44,280 --> 00:31:47,960 Speaker 4: if the first two cases both came in with very 488 00:31:48,120 --> 00:31:53,200 Speaker 4: high liability and very high damage awards or vice versa. 489 00:31:53,320 --> 00:31:56,560 Speaker 4: That hasn't happened. That may suggest we're going to need 490 00:31:56,640 --> 00:32:01,880 Speaker 4: to try more cases to see how jurys respond. 491 00:32:02,320 --> 00:32:06,680 Speaker 2: The American Law Institute amended its restatement of tourts. 492 00:32:07,240 --> 00:32:10,600 Speaker 4: Yeah. So there have been a lot of suits not 493 00:32:10,720 --> 00:32:15,040 Speaker 4: just against Uber, but by women who have been sexually 494 00:32:15,080 --> 00:32:19,320 Speaker 4: assaulted in a variety of contexts. Think a woman who's 495 00:32:19,440 --> 00:32:24,120 Speaker 4: arrested by a police officer. Think a woman who is 496 00:32:24,200 --> 00:32:30,560 Speaker 4: incarcerated in a jail or a prison, think about patients 497 00:32:30,640 --> 00:32:34,480 Speaker 4: in the hospital. What we also found as we were 498 00:32:34,560 --> 00:32:38,040 Speaker 4: doing this research is that there has been a trend. 499 00:32:38,720 --> 00:32:43,600 Speaker 4: Despite what I said earlier about no vicarious liability for 500 00:32:43,720 --> 00:32:47,400 Speaker 4: sexual assaults because they're not for the benefit of the employer, 501 00:32:47,960 --> 00:32:52,959 Speaker 4: and that was the Hornbuck black Letter rule, we found 502 00:32:53,000 --> 00:32:58,400 Speaker 4: a number of courts finding ways to permit those plaintiffs 503 00:32:58,400 --> 00:33:03,120 Speaker 4: to continue to pursue their case by curious liability case 504 00:33:03,920 --> 00:33:09,800 Speaker 4: against the employers of these people employees who are committing 505 00:33:09,800 --> 00:33:13,840 Speaker 4: sexual assaults, and there were enough cases where we found 506 00:33:13,920 --> 00:33:18,600 Speaker 4: that that the American Law Institute, which develops restatements of 507 00:33:18,640 --> 00:33:23,960 Speaker 4: the law, decided last May to promulgate a special rule 508 00:33:24,360 --> 00:33:33,800 Speaker 4: that says that employers of employees who are given power 509 00:33:34,440 --> 00:33:41,640 Speaker 4: or control over vulnerable potential victims and who use that 510 00:33:41,960 --> 00:33:46,720 Speaker 4: position to commit a sexual assault a special rule that 511 00:33:46,800 --> 00:33:50,600 Speaker 4: says by curious liability can be imposed there by a 512 00:33:50,720 --> 00:33:56,280 Speaker 4: journey that would be a significant game changer for these 513 00:33:56,400 --> 00:34:01,600 Speaker 4: cases if courts that do not have have not adopted 514 00:34:01,640 --> 00:34:05,480 Speaker 4: that rule decide to adopt it. I'm very interested to 515 00:34:05,560 --> 00:34:10,160 Speaker 4: see how that provision that the ALI adopted last May 516 00:34:10,480 --> 00:34:15,319 Speaker 4: plays out when plaintiffs attorneys try to use that to 517 00:34:15,440 --> 00:34:21,400 Speaker 4: convince accord in Kansas or Alaska or New Mexico to 518 00:34:21,560 --> 00:34:25,560 Speaker 4: expand the scope of vikeras liability for sexual assaults. 519 00:34:25,960 --> 00:34:28,759 Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me on the show. That's 520 00:34:28,760 --> 00:34:32,640 Speaker 2: Professor Michael Green of the Washington University School of Law. 521 00:34:33,080 --> 00:34:35,440 Speaker 2: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. 522 00:34:35,760 --> 00:34:38,120 Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on 523 00:34:38,160 --> 00:34:42,440 Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, 524 00:34:42,600 --> 00:34:47,640 Speaker 2: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, 525 00:34:48,040 --> 00:34:50,640 Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every 526 00:34:50,680 --> 00:34:54,600 Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso 527 00:34:54,719 --> 00:34:56,320 Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg