WEBVTT - Mail Ballots, Open Road Rule & Aftermath of DC Arrest Surge 0:00:02.880 --> 0:00:07.120 This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:11.240 --> 0:00:15.120 A big win for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court 0:00:15.320 --> 0:00:18.720 sided with President Trump over his plan to use the 0:00:18.760 --> 0:00:23.119 Postal Service to impose new restrictions on mail in voting, 0:00:23.360 --> 0:00:27.160 at least for now. The court six conservatives put on 0:00:27.320 --> 0:00:31.040 hold one of two Boston Federal Court rulings that have 0:00:31.160 --> 0:00:34.880 blocked key parts of Trump's executive order from being fully 0:00:35.000 --> 0:00:39.920 implemented ahead of the November midterms. The three liberals dissented, 0:00:40.320 --> 0:00:44.080 joining me is Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Storr, So, Greg, 0:00:44.120 --> 0:00:46.720 it's only a ten page decision, tell us about it. 0:00:46.920 --> 0:00:50.040 So it's a temporary decision. And it goes back to 0:00:50.080 --> 0:00:53.600 this executive order that Donald Trump issued about five months ago. 0:00:54.000 --> 0:00:56.720 And this is a challenge to that executive order, and 0:00:56.760 --> 0:01:00.000 it's important to keep that in mind. The Supreme Court 0:01:00.080 --> 0:01:03.240 said that executive order, which among other things, directs the 0:01:03.280 --> 0:01:06.360 Postal Service to restrict who can get mail ballots. The 0:01:06.400 --> 0:01:09.120 Supreme Court said that executive order in and of itself 0:01:09.440 --> 0:01:12.119 doesn't harm anybody. It doesn't harm the states that suit 0:01:12.200 --> 0:01:15.039 to challenge it. But the Supreme Court said, when the 0:01:15.080 --> 0:01:19.520 government actually issues some rules to implement this, then we'll 0:01:19.520 --> 0:01:21.560 be happy to reconsider and then maybe the States will 0:01:21.560 --> 0:01:23.280 be harmed and they can win their challenge. Well, the 0:01:23.319 --> 0:01:25.679 Postal Service has now issued a final rule that would 0:01:25.720 --> 0:01:28.520 restrict who can get mail ballots. The States are challenging 0:01:28.560 --> 0:01:31.280 that at a lower court, so this whole thing may 0:01:31.360 --> 0:01:33.679 get back up to the Supreme Court very very quickly. 0:01:34.160 --> 0:01:38.880 They issued this decision on Monday, but on Friday we 0:01:39.000 --> 0:01:45.160 had the Postal Service proposing the rules that this decision's about. 0:01:45.280 --> 0:01:48.840 So that is a final rule that will be formally 0:01:48.880 --> 0:01:53.960 published on Wednesday. There is lower court litigation about whether 0:01:54.040 --> 0:01:56.600 that is legal. The States are going to be able 0:01:56.640 --> 0:02:01.040 to argue in that case that that rule does harm 0:02:01.120 --> 0:02:02.960 them and they should be able to pursue. And then, 0:02:02.960 --> 0:02:05.600 more importantly, they say that rule is well beyond the 0:02:05.640 --> 0:02:08.200 authority of the federal government, well beyond the the authority 0:02:08.440 --> 0:02:11.760 of the Postal Service. If the district court agrees with 0:02:11.800 --> 0:02:15.399 that argument that it's beyond the power of the President, 0:02:15.480 --> 0:02:18.280 beyond the power of the Postal Service, then we could 0:02:18.280 --> 0:02:21.079 get a new injunction blocking the rules, and that could 0:02:21.200 --> 0:02:23.440 very quickly get back up to the Supreme Court again. 0:02:23.840 --> 0:02:26.720 So should we look at this decision as a placeholder. 0:02:27.280 --> 0:02:30.560 It is a placeholder, which doesn't mean that it's not 0:02:30.960 --> 0:02:33.799 at least a bit of a good sign for Donald Trump. 0:02:33.880 --> 0:02:37.680 So they accepted some arguments he made. For example, the 0:02:37.720 --> 0:02:41.600 administration argued that the federal government would be irreparably harmed 0:02:41.760 --> 0:02:46.960 if the Court blocked this executive order, and the Supreme 0:02:47.000 --> 0:02:49.880 Court agreed with that argument. Doesn't mean to say that 0:02:50.160 --> 0:02:52.200 he had authority to do it, but it does mean 0:02:52.280 --> 0:02:56.480 that one key component to how the Supreme Court assesses 0:02:56.520 --> 0:02:59.600 an emergency application, what's going to be the relative harm 0:02:59.600 --> 0:03:02.440 on each depending on how we rule on that point. 0:03:02.800 --> 0:03:06.519 Seemingly six justices in the majority agreed with Donald Trump 0:03:06.600 --> 0:03:09.960 that he would be hurt if the Court blocked this rule. 0:03:10.560 --> 0:03:13.840 So the opinion says, this doesn't mean that any measures 0:03:13.840 --> 0:03:18.160 that the government takes will necessarily be lawful. Quote. On 0:03:18.240 --> 0:03:21.440 that score, time will tell. 0:03:21.560 --> 0:03:21.880 Well. 0:03:22.480 --> 0:03:26.040 Some states are sending out ballots within a couple of weeks, 0:03:26.720 --> 0:03:28.640 so what's the time the conservatives are. 0:03:28.560 --> 0:03:32.240 Waiting for the timing of This is a real wild 0:03:32.280 --> 0:03:36.240 card and potentially could be a real problem. So back 0:03:36.240 --> 0:03:39.680 when the administration filed this application at the Supreme Court 0:03:39.760 --> 0:03:43.480 back in late July, they said we need to implement 0:03:43.520 --> 0:03:48.200 this executive order by early to mid August. We're obviously 0:03:48.400 --> 0:03:51.680 past that point, and you know, just now the government's 0:03:51.720 --> 0:03:55.000 going to be able to think about actually implementing that order. 0:03:55.480 --> 0:03:59.440 The Supreme Court sat on this thing for almost three weeks. 0:03:59.440 --> 0:04:02.360 It was full briefed, and the Supreme Court didn't act 0:04:02.400 --> 0:04:05.120 on it. Not at all clear why the Supreme Court 0:04:05.160 --> 0:04:08.400 waited so long. I mean, they clearly had opinions to write, 0:04:08.440 --> 0:04:11.480 but by waiting so long, they did sort of create 0:04:11.560 --> 0:04:15.480 this potential collision coming along where states do need to 0:04:15.520 --> 0:04:18.839 send out their ballots. The Postal Service rule would require 0:04:19.279 --> 0:04:22.680 them to put a special barcode on the ballots and 0:04:22.720 --> 0:04:27.840 the envelopes to designate that these are going to eligible voters. 0:04:28.080 --> 0:04:32.360 And that all takes time, and we're getting darn near 0:04:32.440 --> 0:04:36.400 the point where both the Postal Service and the states 0:04:36.440 --> 0:04:38.480 are running out of time to do this in an 0:04:38.600 --> 0:04:40.279 orderly fashion before November. 0:04:40.520 --> 0:04:44.159 It sounds like this decision is a recipe for confusion 0:04:44.520 --> 0:04:49.600 and chaos in the midterms. Thanks so much, Greg. That's 0:04:49.640 --> 0:04:55.200 Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. It's called the roadless rule, 0:04:55.680 --> 0:04:58.840 and for the last twenty five years, it's prevented the 0:04:58.880 --> 0:05:03.320 building of roads and commercial logging on fifty eight million 0:05:03.400 --> 0:05:08.400 acres of unspoiled national forests. But now the Trump administration 0:05:08.800 --> 0:05:12.839 is proposing to repeal the rule in full, a move 0:05:12.880 --> 0:05:17.160 that will bring litigation from environmental groups like Earth Justice, 0:05:17.320 --> 0:05:21.720 which has been successfully defending the rule in court for decades. 0:05:22.360 --> 0:05:26.120 Joining me is environmental law expert Pat Parento, a professor 0:05:26.160 --> 0:05:29.719 at the Vermont Law and Graduate School. Pat explain what 0:05:29.800 --> 0:05:34.359 the roadless Rule is and what it's accomplished over the 0:05:34.440 --> 0:05:35.920 last twenty five years. 0:05:36.600 --> 0:05:38.800 So this is a rule that was adopted under the 0:05:38.880 --> 0:05:43.120 National Forest Management Act in the Clinton administration, right at 0:05:43.160 --> 0:05:46.120 the very end of the Clinton administration in January two 0:05:46.200 --> 0:05:52.160 thousand and one. It covers thirty percent of the national forests. 0:05:52.520 --> 0:05:59.200 That represents over fifty eight million acres of literally unspoiled wilderness. 0:05:59.400 --> 0:06:04.760 This has been hailed as one of the greatest conservation moves, 0:06:04.839 --> 0:06:08.920 probably outside of what Teddy Roosevelt did in the early 0:06:08.960 --> 0:06:13.480 part of this last century. And it is the stronghold 0:06:14.200 --> 0:06:19.719 for hundreds, literally hundreds of endangered and threatened species. And 0:06:19.760 --> 0:06:24.000 you think about the big carnivores, the wolves and bears 0:06:24.120 --> 0:06:28.800 and pumas and cougars, even jaguars. You know, we do 0:06:28.880 --> 0:06:31.880 have some jaguars right at the very southern border and 0:06:31.920 --> 0:06:36.560 they're in the Coronado National Force, So incredibly valuable for 0:06:36.680 --> 0:06:42.000 watershed protection. Twenty five million Americans get their water supply 0:06:42.680 --> 0:06:45.920 coming off of these watersheds that don't have to be 0:06:46.680 --> 0:06:50.800 gone through enormous treatment, expensive treatment, and so forth. So 0:06:51.480 --> 0:06:55.320 very important to Native Americans, not only in the Lower 0:06:55.400 --> 0:06:59.240 forty eight, but in Alaska on the Tongas National Forest, 0:06:59.320 --> 0:07:02.720 one of the large intact boreal forests that we have, 0:07:03.400 --> 0:07:08.880 and so forth, so incredibly valuable natural resources. The rationale 0:07:08.920 --> 0:07:13.520 for repealing this rule is to fight fires. And one 0:07:13.560 --> 0:07:17.280 thing we know for sure when you build roads, you're 0:07:17.280 --> 0:07:20.960 going to get fires. Ninety percent of fires are ignited 0:07:21.000 --> 0:07:24.480 by humans, people throwing their cigarette butts out of the car, 0:07:24.680 --> 0:07:29.000 not putting out their campfires, et cetera. So you know, 0:07:29.320 --> 0:07:32.760 if you want wildfires, then build more roads, because that's 0:07:32.760 --> 0:07:35.000 what you're going to get. So there's lots of other 0:07:35.080 --> 0:07:38.400 problems with what's being proposed. You know, there are three 0:07:38.440 --> 0:07:42.400 hundred and sixty eight thousand roads already in national forests. 0:07:42.400 --> 0:07:48.840 Most of them are unsafe they're deteriorating, they're prone to landslides, erosion, 0:07:49.160 --> 0:07:51.360 and sedimentation, et cetera. 0:07:51.920 --> 0:07:55.040 So you know, one of the reasons for the roadless. 0:07:54.680 --> 0:07:58.480 Rule was to stop spending money on new roads when 0:07:58.520 --> 0:08:00.960 we can't even take care of the road we already have. 0:08:01.360 --> 0:08:02.040 So there you go. 0:08:02.560 --> 0:08:05.760 Is the real reason behind this from the Trump administration, 0:08:05.880 --> 0:08:08.160 for the executive order, et cetera, is the real reason 0:08:08.200 --> 0:08:09.720 that they want more timber. 0:08:09.840 --> 0:08:13.600 Yeah, he issued an executive order one of of course 0:08:13.800 --> 0:08:16.720 many early in his term, in which he said, we 0:08:16.800 --> 0:08:19.800 need to increase timber production on the national forests. All 0:08:19.800 --> 0:08:24.280 these environmental laws and endangered species protections, et cetera are 0:08:24.320 --> 0:08:29.240 costing us, you know, loss of revenue and having to 0:08:29.280 --> 0:08:33.319 rely on can you believe it, Canada for our timber products, 0:08:33.679 --> 0:08:35.959 which and we hate Canada apparently. 0:08:36.400 --> 0:08:36.640 Yeah. 0:08:36.679 --> 0:08:40.360 So you know, it's all about mining and timber production 0:08:40.920 --> 0:08:45.000 and so forth. And the answer is the reason that 0:08:45.040 --> 0:08:49.800 these areas haven't been timbered and have been roaded is 0:08:49.840 --> 0:08:54.880 because they are incredibly remote and expensive as hell, and 0:08:54.960 --> 0:08:59.079 the timber values outside of maybe the Tongas National Force, 0:08:59.120 --> 0:09:03.640 which you know, admittedly has incredibly valuable timber, but in 0:09:03.720 --> 0:09:07.760 the lower forty eight. The timber revenues probably won't offset 0:09:07.800 --> 0:09:12.680 the economic costs of building these roads, and also the 0:09:12.760 --> 0:09:18.240 impact on local communities that depend on access to these 0:09:18.320 --> 0:09:24.280 pristine areas, namely ecotourism. There are studies that show that 0:09:24.400 --> 0:09:28.600 loss of revenue will outweigh whatever expected revenue you get 0:09:28.600 --> 0:09:29.600 from timber sales. 0:09:30.200 --> 0:09:34.960 So the USDA said, and the statement that across the country, 0:09:35.040 --> 0:09:40.320 we've watched preventable conditions, overgrown stands, insect outbreaks, and disease 0:09:40.800 --> 0:09:45.280 turn healthy landscapes into tinderboxes. And it said its repeal 0:09:45.320 --> 0:09:50.240 will allow individual forest managers to make decisions tailored to 0:09:50.320 --> 0:09:55.040 the land they're overseeing, without mandating road building or timber production. 0:09:55.720 --> 0:09:59.920 So here comes the inconvenient truth. The roadless rule all 0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:07.439 allows access to thin the forests, to conduct prescribe burns, 0:10:07.840 --> 0:10:11.720 to take whatever measures the Forest Service people on the 0:10:11.800 --> 0:10:16.920 ground think are necessary to prevent and control wildfires. The 0:10:17.040 --> 0:10:22.959 rule does not do what the Trump administration says it does. 0:10:23.360 --> 0:10:23.760 Doesn't. 0:10:23.840 --> 0:10:26.120 You can look at it, you can read it. Those 0:10:26.200 --> 0:10:30.880 exceptions are there. Pest control, same thing. You build roads. 0:10:31.160 --> 0:10:34.439 Guess what's going to happen. You bring cars and trucks 0:10:34.760 --> 0:10:39.840 and logging vehicles into those areas. They'll spread invasive species 0:10:39.840 --> 0:10:43.240 and pests all over the place. That's what the data shows. 0:10:43.559 --> 0:10:49.319 So no, the rule itself allows what's necessary. It doesn't 0:10:49.360 --> 0:10:54.160 allow industrial scale logging, which is what the administration wants, 0:10:54.480 --> 0:10:59.520 but it does allow sensible fire control measures. 0:11:00.240 --> 0:11:03.280 Revoking this rule is the greatest threat, you know, destroying 0:11:03.360 --> 0:11:08.280 the beautiful forests or is it the habitat and endangered species? 0:11:08.320 --> 0:11:09.960 I mean, what's the greatest threat? 0:11:10.160 --> 0:11:10.360 You know? 0:11:10.520 --> 0:11:13.680 I think the water supply situation is the one to 0:11:13.760 --> 0:11:16.199 really focus on. And if you're thinking about all the 0:11:16.240 --> 0:11:20.880 forest lands in the Western United States, is water a. 0:11:20.880 --> 0:11:25.800 Problem out there right now? It sure is. So this 0:11:26.000 --> 0:11:29.680 is really the hidden cost of what's being. 0:11:29.559 --> 0:11:35.840 Proposed, because again, when you have intact watersheds right that 0:11:35.920 --> 0:11:41.000 are fully functional ecologically, that means your water supply is 0:11:41.080 --> 0:11:41.880 more reliable. 0:11:42.120 --> 0:11:46.280 What are trees? After all? They are enormous straws. 0:11:46.840 --> 0:11:50.920 They take up water, they release water, They are part 0:11:51.160 --> 0:11:55.679 of the hydrologic system of the Western United States. So 0:11:55.800 --> 0:11:59.880 you want to road these areas, log these areas, spread 0:12:00.160 --> 0:12:05.080 herbicides and pesticides and firefighting chemicals all over the place 0:12:05.480 --> 0:12:08.280 into these areas that don't need it. Right now, and 0:12:08.360 --> 0:12:12.319 you are going to really impact water supply. So you know, 0:12:12.600 --> 0:12:16.880 the impetus for the rule primarily was not water supply 0:12:17.000 --> 0:12:19.160 and water protection when it was started. I mean, that 0:12:19.280 --> 0:12:21.360 was part of it, but it wasn't the central part 0:12:21.360 --> 0:12:25.680 of it. Now the administration is talking about, well, conditions 0:12:25.720 --> 0:12:30.200 have changed on the western landscape. Well, hell, yes, they've changed. 0:12:30.480 --> 0:12:37.000 Climate change is driving these catastrophic wildfires and water loss, 0:12:37.200 --> 0:12:39.600 interruption of snowpack. 0:12:39.000 --> 0:12:39.640 And all the rest. 0:12:39.720 --> 0:12:43.439 So you know, at a time when we desperately need 0:12:43.480 --> 0:12:46.600 functioning ecosystems, they want to tear them apart. 0:12:47.160 --> 0:12:51.400 This rule goes to public comment for thirty days, but 0:12:51.960 --> 0:12:55.240 does the Trump administration ever follow the public comments. 0:12:55.400 --> 0:12:56.520 No, it's all for show. 0:12:56.960 --> 0:13:00.000 And by the way, the original rule, the public comment 0:13:00.120 --> 0:13:03.560 period was sixty days, twice what this one is, and 0:13:03.600 --> 0:13:07.800 there were over four hundred public meetings. And by the way, 0:13:08.120 --> 0:13:10.640 I argued the roadless rule in the Ninth Circuit. 0:13:10.720 --> 0:13:12.440 So the reason I get. 0:13:12.360 --> 0:13:16.600 Kind of worked up about these issues is because it's personal, 0:13:16.800 --> 0:13:19.840 you know. So Anyway, when we were doing the research 0:13:20.040 --> 0:13:22.960 on the argument in the ninth Circuit back in two thousand. 0:13:22.600 --> 0:13:25.600 And two, we found out all these facts. 0:13:25.679 --> 0:13:29.240 So there was an enormous amount of public outreach in 0:13:29.360 --> 0:13:33.560 participation before that rule was finally adopted. This one is 0:13:33.600 --> 0:13:38.600 being ramrodded through the process, and I predict the courts 0:13:38.640 --> 0:13:42.040 are going to see that, and you know, the administration 0:13:42.160 --> 0:13:45.400 is going to have a very hard time justifying what 0:13:45.520 --> 0:13:49.160 they're doing. You know, we've had decades of litigation. About 0:13:49.160 --> 0:13:53.800 a dozen lawsuits have been brought against the roadless Rule. 0:13:53.840 --> 0:13:55.680 The first one is the one I argued back in 0:13:55.679 --> 0:13:59.320 two thousand and two, but since then there've been countless 0:13:59.760 --> 0:14:03.920 as all of these issues have been thrashed out in 0:14:04.040 --> 0:14:04.559 the courts. 0:14:04.800 --> 0:14:09.000 And guess what, no court has ever permanently. 0:14:08.640 --> 0:14:14.440 Enjoined the roadless Rule. It has survived multiple attacks. I 0:14:14.520 --> 0:14:16.800 think it's going to survive this one too. 0:14:17.320 --> 0:14:21.440 Yeah. Earth Justice, Drew Caputo, vice president of Litigation, said, 0:14:21.520 --> 0:14:25.160 Earth Justice has successfully defended the roadless Rule in court 0:14:25.200 --> 0:14:28.080 for decades. Nothing will stop us from taking up that 0:14:28.120 --> 0:14:30.920 fight again. And I as we say, it'll end up 0:14:30.920 --> 0:14:33.040 in court because they'll try to push this through. 0:14:33.480 --> 0:14:36.240 You know, when the Forest Service put out it's what 0:14:36.280 --> 0:14:40.240 they call the notice of intent to prepare an environmental 0:14:40.240 --> 0:14:41.080 impact statement. 0:14:41.520 --> 0:14:43.400 This was within the last year. 0:14:44.040 --> 0:14:48.640 They've got almost a million comments just on that, and 0:14:48.720 --> 0:14:51.760 the Force Service said this in the draft impact statements 0:14:51.800 --> 0:14:56.960 that they've now issued, they acknowledged ninety nine percent of 0:14:57.040 --> 0:15:02.720 the comments oppose repealing the rule. That tells you the 0:15:02.800 --> 0:15:07.600 battles to come are going to be ferocious. These places 0:15:08.000 --> 0:15:14.720 have you know, very very loyal, intense supporters, and you 0:15:14.760 --> 0:15:18.880 know this will not stand according to the people that 0:15:19.320 --> 0:15:20.960 love and care about these places. 0:15:22.240 --> 0:15:27.080 But the governors of Montana, Utah, and Wyoming praised the 0:15:27.200 --> 0:15:28.160 repeal of the rule. 0:15:28.960 --> 0:15:32.480 Yeah, right, well those are Maga Republicans, So okay, I'm 0:15:32.480 --> 0:15:34.800 not surprised by that. I would like to know what 0:15:34.840 --> 0:15:38.800 the people of Montana feel in terms of what their 0:15:38.840 --> 0:15:41.680 support for public lands and these areas are. 0:15:41.960 --> 0:15:43.160 So it'll be divided. 0:15:43.280 --> 0:15:47.240 I understand that there is you know, high emotions on 0:15:47.320 --> 0:15:49.000 both sides of this kind of an issue. 0:15:49.080 --> 0:15:52.200 Right There are people that want the control. 0:15:51.840 --> 0:15:55.920 Over these lands, you know, people who want to exploit them, 0:15:56.360 --> 0:15:59.000 but you know also people that just don't like the 0:15:59.000 --> 0:16:04.560 federal government period. So you know, those are ideological cultural arguments. 0:16:04.640 --> 0:16:08.680 I'm just addressing the legal aspects of the case, and 0:16:09.120 --> 0:16:13.560 the rule is on absolutely solid legal ground, and the 0:16:13.600 --> 0:16:17.480 proposal to repeal it is not on solid legal ground. 0:16:17.880 --> 0:16:21.080 Are they moving faster in the second administration? Are they 0:16:21.160 --> 0:16:22.960 better prepared this time around? 0:16:23.720 --> 0:16:28.200 I think they're showing what I would call facile sophistication. Okay, 0:16:28.680 --> 0:16:32.880 I mean, so the USDA, which oversees the Forest Service, 0:16:33.800 --> 0:16:41.320 is articulating this policy decision, as the president has the 0:16:41.480 --> 0:16:47.160 power to change policies regarding management of national forests. That 0:16:47.400 --> 0:16:50.880 is true, and they're trying to say this is just 0:16:51.080 --> 0:16:56.800 returning control to the local Forest Service officials, right So 0:16:57.280 --> 0:17:02.520 on the surface it sounds awful rational, But here's the thing. 0:17:03.120 --> 0:17:09.040 What they're not saying is what has the rule really 0:17:09.240 --> 0:17:14.560 done to make forest management more difficult? 0:17:14.640 --> 0:17:18.240 They don't make a strong case, in my view, for that. 0:17:18.640 --> 0:17:24.040 There are six hundred district rangers, so this idea of 0:17:24.200 --> 0:17:28.080 returning control to those people, that's what they're talking about, 0:17:28.400 --> 0:17:33.080 these Forest Service district rangers, right, Well, that means there 0:17:33.080 --> 0:17:36.159 are going to be six hundred different decision makers, and 0:17:37.200 --> 0:17:41.879 that just means you're going to have more conflict, more controversy, 0:17:42.200 --> 0:17:48.040 more litigation because you're dispersing the decision making authority across 0:17:48.440 --> 0:17:52.919 a huge landscape, and each one of these individual rangers 0:17:53.280 --> 0:17:55.680 is going to be trying to figure out what am 0:17:55.680 --> 0:17:59.760 I supposed to be doing without national guidance. Without any 0:18:00.040 --> 0:18:03.680 national guidance, I'm supposed to figure out whether to put 0:18:03.680 --> 0:18:04.320 a road. 0:18:04.119 --> 0:18:04.879 In here or not. 0:18:05.440 --> 0:18:10.520 So I don't think the rationale that this is just 0:18:10.840 --> 0:18:14.000 you know, returning control where it belongs, is going to 0:18:14.040 --> 0:18:14.720 pass muster. 0:18:15.080 --> 0:18:17.760 It's going to lead to more chaos, more conflicts. 0:18:18.400 --> 0:18:21.679 During his first administration, how much did he make in 0:18:21.800 --> 0:18:26.400 ways into you know, opening up the national forests. 0:18:26.400 --> 0:18:27.080 Not at all. 0:18:27.359 --> 0:18:29.760 I mean, this was not a major impetus of his 0:18:29.760 --> 0:18:32.240 first administration. I mean, there are lots of things that 0:18:32.600 --> 0:18:34.879 this is all goes back to the Project twenty twenty 0:18:34.880 --> 0:18:40.119 five textbook or rule book. And so he's paying heed 0:18:40.680 --> 0:18:45.040 to the Western constituents that he has. And there are 0:18:45.320 --> 0:18:49.320 obviously a lot of very strong Republican states and districts 0:18:49.680 --> 0:18:53.879 in the West, and they've had a long term fractious 0:18:53.920 --> 0:18:59.720 relationship with government. You know, federal agencies that manage public lands, 0:19:00.240 --> 0:19:03.119 you know, they like the idea of having public lands. 0:19:03.119 --> 0:19:05.639 They just want to be able to exploit them more 0:19:06.080 --> 0:19:09.680 than the Forest Service has been allowing like this rule. 0:19:10.000 --> 0:19:13.440 So you know that's what he's playing to now. It's 0:19:13.440 --> 0:19:17.199 a shrinking base, but it's still strong enough that it 0:19:17.359 --> 0:19:18.960 controls his policy making. 0:19:19.880 --> 0:19:24.320 The Trump administration has taken many steps to reshape and 0:19:24.600 --> 0:19:29.520 shrink the scope of federal environmental protection. Each of those 0:19:29.560 --> 0:19:32.800 steps has been met with a flood of legal challenges 0:19:32.840 --> 0:19:38.640 from companies, environmental groups, and state officials. So far this summer, 0:19:38.760 --> 0:19:42.439 the Trump administration has been losing more than it's been 0:19:42.560 --> 0:19:46.280 winning in court. Over the past three months, federal courts 0:19:46.400 --> 0:19:51.480 nationwide have delivered rulings in several cases centered on attempts 0:19:51.520 --> 0:19:55.960 by the EPA to terminate billions of dollars in climate 0:19:56.040 --> 0:20:00.560 grants and roll back Biden era air policies, and in 0:20:00.600 --> 0:20:04.200 more than half of those cases, the judges have decided 0:20:04.320 --> 0:20:09.119 against the agency. Some of those lawsuits remain unresolved, and 0:20:09.200 --> 0:20:12.080 the EPA is looking to appeal some of the cases 0:20:12.119 --> 0:20:16.680 at lost. According to an EPA spokesperson, the Trump EPA 0:20:16.800 --> 0:20:20.000 is committed to following the law, and courts have affirmed 0:20:20.040 --> 0:20:24.160 our rules and actions in a variety of contexts. These 0:20:24.240 --> 0:20:27.800 wins rarely get the same attention in the media as 0:20:27.960 --> 0:20:32.160 short term losses. I've been talking to environmental law professor 0:20:32.240 --> 0:20:36.080 Pat Parento of the Vermont Law and Graduate School pat 0:20:36.119 --> 0:20:40.360 Do you see any pattern in these losses by the EPA. 0:20:40.920 --> 0:20:44.720 You know, the cases that have succeeded have all dealt 0:20:44.760 --> 0:20:48.040 with whether or not there's any merit to what the 0:20:48.880 --> 0:20:54.360 administration is doing in freezing and canceling funding. And by 0:20:54.400 --> 0:20:57.160 the way, a lot of these funds have actually been 0:20:57.160 --> 0:21:00.919 deposited in banks, and so they issued orders against the 0:21:00.960 --> 0:21:05.320 banks dispersing the money they're under contract. You would think 0:21:05.920 --> 0:21:10.560 that an administration would honor, you know, the contracts that 0:21:10.600 --> 0:21:13.560 the government has entered into. Maybe they wouldn't enter into 0:21:13.640 --> 0:21:16.879 any more of those kinds of contracts. But having done so, 0:21:17.520 --> 0:21:21.520 what kind of trust does that build in government decision making. 0:21:21.840 --> 0:21:25.040 The cases that have lost, by the way, have lost 0:21:25.080 --> 0:21:29.399 on jurisdictional grounds. In other words, the judges have said, 0:21:29.720 --> 0:21:31.679 these kinds of cases don't. 0:21:31.440 --> 0:21:32.679 Belong in my court. 0:21:33.119 --> 0:21:36.359 They belong in what's called the Court of Federal Claims, 0:21:36.840 --> 0:21:40.560 because they should be brought under what's called the Tucker Act, right, 0:21:40.720 --> 0:21:45.879 which does vest this particular court of claims with exclusive 0:21:45.960 --> 0:21:50.880 jurisdiction when you're trying to recover money from the federal government. 0:21:50.960 --> 0:21:55.399 So there is this thorny court sort of jurisdictional question 0:21:55.480 --> 0:21:59.800 of where do these cases belong, But that doesn't mean 0:22:00.400 --> 0:22:06.520 that the claims that the government has unlawfully breached these 0:22:06.600 --> 0:22:10.360 contracts in these agreements, that doesn't mean that they're wrong. 0:22:10.720 --> 0:22:12.719 It just means you should be going to a different 0:22:12.840 --> 0:22:15.960 court to lay your case right. And then of course 0:22:15.960 --> 0:22:21.240 there's Congress coming into the picture and saying, in some instances, yeah, 0:22:21.280 --> 0:22:25.080 we agree that what the Biden administration did with these 0:22:25.119 --> 0:22:27.640 grant programs is wrong, and we're going. 0:22:27.600 --> 0:22:29.280 To repeal them going forward. 0:22:29.400 --> 0:22:33.240 But that's a prospective kind of change. 0:22:33.320 --> 0:22:34.320 So there you are. 0:22:35.119 --> 0:22:39.480 I mean, did the Biden administration follow the rules they did? 0:22:39.720 --> 0:22:42.000 As far as I know it, Nobody, you know, the 0:22:42.359 --> 0:22:46.320 Trump administration is not saying, or if they are, I 0:22:46.320 --> 0:22:49.160 don't think they've got a court to agree that what 0:22:49.200 --> 0:22:52.840 the Biden administration did was illegal. They're just simply saying, 0:22:52.920 --> 0:22:55.119 we don't agree with it, and we don't want this 0:22:55.280 --> 0:23:00.439 money being spent on renewables and environmental justice and climate justice. 0:23:00.560 --> 0:23:05.119 We don't want that kind of DEI woke kind of 0:23:05.160 --> 0:23:08.120 expenditures being made, and so we're going to stop them. 0:23:08.720 --> 0:23:11.639 And as usual, they're going to say, if the courts 0:23:11.760 --> 0:23:14.600 try to stop us, we'll just keep appealing until we 0:23:14.680 --> 0:23:16.879 run out of the appeals that we can have. 0:23:17.359 --> 0:23:20.320 So in these instances, instead of you know, proposing a 0:23:20.359 --> 0:23:23.360 new rule and going through a noticing comment and all that, 0:23:23.440 --> 0:23:26.520 they just try to find a different way. How long 0:23:26.560 --> 0:23:29.359 does it take for the government, the federal government to 0:23:29.440 --> 0:23:32.000 put a rule in usually like how much time are 0:23:32.040 --> 0:23:33.520 we talking about that they're trying to. 0:23:33.480 --> 0:23:36.000 Say it can easily be a year, Oh key, if 0:23:36.000 --> 0:23:39.080 you really follow all the steps that are required a 0:23:39.160 --> 0:23:41.639 year or more on a big rule, it could be 0:23:41.760 --> 0:23:46.560 multiple years, right for these kinds of decisions, though, you know, 0:23:46.680 --> 0:23:50.040 you could you could probably do this in six months, 0:23:50.680 --> 0:23:53.440 but you would have to allow comment. You know, there's 0:23:53.480 --> 0:23:57.600 a lot of different steps. There's a Regulatory Flexibility Act 0:23:57.640 --> 0:24:01.840 that requires an economic analysis when you propose a rule, 0:24:02.359 --> 0:24:05.320 and you'd have to notice it in the Federal Register 0:24:05.480 --> 0:24:08.720 and allow comments. So yeah, I mean there are steps 0:24:08.760 --> 0:24:11.879 that you know, this administration doesn't want to take. But 0:24:12.520 --> 0:24:15.000 if they wanted to do a lot of the things 0:24:15.040 --> 0:24:19.040 they're doing, if they follow the process, cross the t's 0:24:19.119 --> 0:24:21.800 and dot the iss they could probably do a lot more, 0:24:22.040 --> 0:24:24.600 not as fast as they want to, and maybe not 0:24:24.720 --> 0:24:27.320 as much, you know, given the fact that they're already 0:24:27.359 --> 0:24:30.679 two years in to their term. Almost they wouldn't be 0:24:30.720 --> 0:24:34.720 able to accomplish as much, perhaps, but you know that's 0:24:34.760 --> 0:24:35.160 the law. 0:24:35.760 --> 0:24:35.960 Now. 0:24:36.000 --> 0:24:39.560 The EPA has had more success in court with smaller 0:24:39.680 --> 0:24:44.080 deregulatory moves and going back to the roadless rule for 0:24:44.160 --> 0:24:49.320 a moment, and the Trump administration's attempt to open up 0:24:49.359 --> 0:24:54.480 the forest to roads and commercial logging, et cetera. Are 0:24:54.480 --> 0:24:57.879 they moving faster in the second administration? Are they better 0:24:57.920 --> 0:24:59.400 prepared this time around? 0:25:00.160 --> 0:25:04.720 I think they're showing what I would call facile sophistication. Okay, 0:25:05.119 --> 0:25:09.320 I mean, so the USDA, which oversees the Forest Service, 0:25:10.240 --> 0:25:17.719 is articulating this policy decision, as the president has the 0:25:17.920 --> 0:25:22.640 power to change policies regarding management. 0:25:22.200 --> 0:25:26.000 Of national forests. That is true, And they're. 0:25:25.760 --> 0:25:29.840