1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,680 --> 00:00:11,840
Speaker 2: President Donald Trump is zero to two at the Supreme

3
00:00:11,920 --> 00:00:15,720
Speaker 2: Court in his second term. The Court rejected his request

4
00:00:15,800 --> 00:00:19,919
Speaker 2: to toss a judge's order that requires the quick disbursement

5
00:00:20,040 --> 00:00:23,400
Speaker 2: of as much as two billion dollars owed to contractors

6
00:00:23,720 --> 00:00:28,360
Speaker 2: for already completed work. The justices were divided five to four,

7
00:00:28,760 --> 00:00:32,600
Speaker 2: with the Chief Justice and Justice Amy Cony Barrett joining

8
00:00:32,640 --> 00:00:35,720
Speaker 2: the three liberals in the majority. And joining me is

9
00:00:35,760 --> 00:00:39,959
Speaker 2: Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter Greg Store Greg tell us

10
00:00:39,960 --> 00:00:41,640
Speaker 2: about this dispute.

11
00:00:42,560 --> 00:00:45,360
Speaker 3: So this all started with the administration putting a broad

12
00:00:45,440 --> 00:00:49,559
Speaker 3: freeze on foreign aid and a judge putting a temporary

13
00:00:49,640 --> 00:00:53,319
Speaker 3: restraining order on that broad freeze. And where we are

14
00:00:53,400 --> 00:00:56,560
Speaker 3: now is that the judge said, Hey, despite the fact

15
00:00:56,560 --> 00:00:59,800
Speaker 3: that I put that freeze on hold, it's still happening.

16
00:01:00,120 --> 00:01:03,520
Speaker 3: So in a follow up order, this judge, Judge all Lee, said,

17
00:01:03,960 --> 00:01:07,840
Speaker 3: I'm going to require the administration to make payments of

18
00:01:07,880 --> 00:01:12,080
Speaker 3: anything that was owed as of February thirteenth, and you

19
00:01:12,120 --> 00:01:15,320
Speaker 3: have thirty six hours to do it. And so what

20
00:01:15,360 --> 00:01:19,160
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court case was about was the Trump administration saying, hey,

21
00:01:19,240 --> 00:01:23,319
Speaker 3: put that compliance order on hold because we can't actually

22
00:01:23,319 --> 00:01:26,520
Speaker 3: comply that quickly, and the judge overstepped his authority by

23
00:01:27,040 --> 00:01:28,400
Speaker 3: ordering us to make these payments.

24
00:01:28,920 --> 00:01:31,120
Speaker 2: They said they couldn't do it that quickly, But this

25
00:01:31,280 --> 00:01:34,000
Speaker 2: was money that was supposed to be paid before.

26
00:01:34,200 --> 00:01:34,480
Speaker 4: Right.

27
00:01:34,720 --> 00:01:36,600
Speaker 2: Does that make sense that they said they couldn't do

28
00:01:36,640 --> 00:01:38,920
Speaker 2: it that quickly. Don't they have it on hand?

29
00:01:39,240 --> 00:01:42,280
Speaker 3: It's certainly hard to tell, and based on the court record,

30
00:01:42,400 --> 00:01:44,800
Speaker 3: it's not clear what exactly is going on. We know

31
00:01:44,880 --> 00:01:47,960
Speaker 3: that this is happening at the same time that huge

32
00:01:48,040 --> 00:01:53,440
Speaker 3: numbers of USAID, the agency that funds most of this staffers,

33
00:01:53,480 --> 00:01:57,600
Speaker 3: have been laid off or furloughed, and so you know,

34
00:01:57,680 --> 00:02:00,480
Speaker 3: it may be at least in part that they're aren't

35
00:02:00,560 --> 00:02:02,960
Speaker 3: people there who can do this sort of stuff the

36
00:02:02,960 --> 00:02:05,880
Speaker 3: way they used to. But yes, your underlying question is

37
00:02:06,000 --> 00:02:09,600
Speaker 3: aren't these all payments that under the normal course, would

38
00:02:09,639 --> 00:02:12,240
Speaker 3: have been made by now, or at least aren't most

39
00:02:12,240 --> 00:02:14,959
Speaker 3: of them? And the answer is yes. So one might

40
00:02:15,000 --> 00:02:17,720
Speaker 3: have imagined that there was a mechanism for actually paying

41
00:02:17,760 --> 00:02:18,320
Speaker 3: these things.

42
00:02:19,080 --> 00:02:22,480
Speaker 2: So you had two conservatives, the Chief Justice and Justice

43
00:02:22,520 --> 00:02:26,639
Speaker 2: Amy Coney Barrett, joining with the three liberals. What did

44
00:02:26,680 --> 00:02:27,440
Speaker 2: they decide.

45
00:02:27,840 --> 00:02:31,000
Speaker 3: Yeah. So again, this was the Trump administration asking the

46
00:02:31,000 --> 00:02:34,080
Speaker 3: Supreme Court to put this compliance order, this order to

47
00:02:34,120 --> 00:02:37,120
Speaker 3: pay as much as two billion dollars on hold, and

48
00:02:37,480 --> 00:02:41,520
Speaker 3: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Barrett joined the Court's three liberal

49
00:02:41,639 --> 00:02:44,080
Speaker 3: justices to say, no, we're not going to put that

50
00:02:44,200 --> 00:02:46,880
Speaker 3: order on hold. Now, there's a twist to this, which

51
00:02:46,919 --> 00:02:50,760
Speaker 3: is that the order was originally put in place last week,

52
00:02:50,880 --> 00:02:55,000
Speaker 3: on Tuesday of last week, and Chief Justice Roberts had

53
00:02:55,240 --> 00:02:59,239
Speaker 3: temporarily put it on hold, which means that the deadline

54
00:02:59,320 --> 00:03:02,840
Speaker 3: for actually make these payments has already passed. The original

55
00:03:02,840 --> 00:03:07,600
Speaker 3: deadline was a week ago today, and so it's not

56
00:03:07,800 --> 00:03:11,919
Speaker 3: clear exactly what happens next. Obviously, since that deadline has passed,

57
00:03:11,919 --> 00:03:15,160
Speaker 3: the administration can't meet it. The Supreme Court did suggest

58
00:03:15,200 --> 00:03:18,639
Speaker 3: that the district Judge juj A. Lee should clarify his

59
00:03:19,120 --> 00:03:23,600
Speaker 3: order and take into account the feasibility of meeting deadlines.

60
00:03:23,880 --> 00:03:26,919
Speaker 3: So probably the next step involves him. But the order

61
00:03:26,919 --> 00:03:30,240
Speaker 3: from the court from the Supreme Court today was a

62
00:03:30,400 --> 00:03:34,120
Speaker 3: little bit ambiguous on exactly how this is supposed to work.

63
00:03:34,560 --> 00:03:40,800
Speaker 2: Four Conservatives dissented, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsich

64
00:03:40,920 --> 00:03:45,240
Speaker 2: and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Alito said he was stunned by

65
00:03:45,280 --> 00:03:48,960
Speaker 2: the majority's decision, and he wrote an eight page descent

66
00:03:49,640 --> 00:03:52,240
Speaker 2: to the majority's one paragraph order.

67
00:03:52,920 --> 00:03:55,600
Speaker 3: Well, his problem was, he said that the district judge

68
00:03:55,640 --> 00:03:59,480
Speaker 3: way overstepped his authority. He called it. Justice Alito called

69
00:03:59,480 --> 00:04:02,360
Speaker 3: it judicial hubris, and he said the court was now

70
00:04:02,440 --> 00:04:06,400
Speaker 3: allowing that, rewarding that and as Leader put it, quote,

71
00:04:06,440 --> 00:04:09,920
Speaker 3: it imposes a two billion dollar penalty on American taxpayers.

72
00:04:09,960 --> 00:04:12,760
Speaker 3: To say that this was a strongly worded dissent would

73
00:04:12,800 --> 00:04:17,039
Speaker 3: be an understatement. Essentially, he said that he thought the

74
00:04:17,040 --> 00:04:20,719
Speaker 3: administration had a really strong argument that the groups could

75
00:04:20,720 --> 00:04:23,880
Speaker 3: not recoup this money, could not force these payments, at

76
00:04:23,960 --> 00:04:27,040
Speaker 3: least in the context of this lawsuit. He talked about

77
00:04:27,080 --> 00:04:30,719
Speaker 3: sovereign immunity, He talked about the court's jurisdiction, and he

78
00:04:30,800 --> 00:04:34,400
Speaker 3: said that because of that, he would have kept a

79
00:04:34,640 --> 00:04:38,160
Speaker 3: pause on this lower court order and maybe even granted

80
00:04:38,360 --> 00:04:42,279
Speaker 3: review of the administration's arguments, granted cert in the case.

81
00:04:42,360 --> 00:04:45,240
Speaker 3: But he certainly would not have let this lower court

82
00:04:45,400 --> 00:04:49,000
Speaker 3: order be reinstated and essentially forced the administration to make

83
00:04:49,040 --> 00:04:49,680
Speaker 3: these payments.

84
00:04:50,240 --> 00:04:54,960
Speaker 2: Did the administration appeal the judge's order itself, or did

85
00:04:54,960 --> 00:04:57,920
Speaker 2: it appeal the compliance timeline for the order.

86
00:04:58,560 --> 00:05:02,599
Speaker 3: The administration appealed only the compliance timeline. It did not

87
00:05:02,880 --> 00:05:08,080
Speaker 3: challenge the original temporary restraining order that lifted the freeze

88
00:05:08,080 --> 00:05:10,479
Speaker 3: that have been put in place. And part of the

89
00:05:10,480 --> 00:05:14,200
Speaker 3: reason for that is that there are real questions about

90
00:05:14,240 --> 00:05:17,400
Speaker 3: whether a t RO can be appealed at all. Normally,

91
00:05:17,640 --> 00:05:20,640
Speaker 3: the answer is no, it can't be appealed, and the

92
00:05:20,680 --> 00:05:23,880
Speaker 3: administration in another case, has been trying to sort of

93
00:05:24,080 --> 00:05:28,080
Speaker 3: carve out an exception to that general principle for cases

94
00:05:28,120 --> 00:05:32,520
Speaker 3: involving the power of the executive branch. But the administration

95
00:05:33,040 --> 00:05:35,719
Speaker 3: argued that this compliance order is not just a temporary

96
00:05:35,720 --> 00:05:38,200
Speaker 3: restraining order that keeps the status quo in place, but

97
00:05:38,279 --> 00:05:41,760
Speaker 3: it's actually an injunction that forces them to do something, namely,

98
00:05:42,160 --> 00:05:45,679
Speaker 3: pay a lot of money. And so they were arguing

99
00:05:46,080 --> 00:05:48,640
Speaker 3: that is something where the Supreme Court can get involved

100
00:05:48,720 --> 00:05:50,320
Speaker 3: right away, well less than.

101
00:05:50,360 --> 00:05:54,400
Speaker 2: Two months into Trump's second term, and this is the

102
00:05:54,480 --> 00:05:58,440
Speaker 2: second time the administration has gone to the court, and

103
00:05:58,480 --> 00:06:02,360
Speaker 2: not in the ordinary course appealing an appellate court's decision,

104
00:06:03,040 --> 00:06:05,800
Speaker 2: but on an emergency basis. Do you think that was

105
00:06:05,839 --> 00:06:10,120
Speaker 2: part of the reason that those five justices said no.

106
00:06:10,880 --> 00:06:12,920
Speaker 3: You know, it's hard to say too much about the

107
00:06:12,960 --> 00:06:17,000
Speaker 3: motivations of the five because the order itself is only

108
00:06:17,120 --> 00:06:19,200
Speaker 3: a page along and really doesn't have any reasoning. So

109
00:06:19,480 --> 00:06:23,560
Speaker 3: I'm speculating to some degree here. It is certainly unusual

110
00:06:23,680 --> 00:06:26,720
Speaker 3: for the Supreme Court to get involved in any litigation

111
00:06:27,320 --> 00:06:30,599
Speaker 3: this quickly, and that is probably part of the hesitance.

112
00:06:31,040 --> 00:06:35,560
Speaker 3: The other part was very likely that normally a district judge,

113
00:06:35,640 --> 00:06:38,240
Speaker 3: if he or she enters a temporary restraining order or

114
00:06:38,279 --> 00:06:41,000
Speaker 3: any other order, has some power to enforce that if

115
00:06:41,120 --> 00:06:44,600
Speaker 3: a party's not complying with it, And had the Supreme

116
00:06:44,680 --> 00:06:48,760
Speaker 3: Court granted the Trump administration request, it would have done

117
00:06:48,800 --> 00:06:50,760
Speaker 3: a little cutting out of the legs of a federal

118
00:06:50,839 --> 00:06:55,200
Speaker 3: district judges when they see an order not being complied

119
00:06:55,240 --> 00:06:59,159
Speaker 3: with when they conclude that a party, in particularly this administration,

120
00:06:59,400 --> 00:07:02,719
Speaker 3: might not be applying with an order. So I would imagine,

121
00:07:02,760 --> 00:07:05,000
Speaker 3: again I'm speculating a little bit here, but I would

122
00:07:05,040 --> 00:07:06,680
Speaker 3: very much imagine that was in the back of the

123
00:07:06,720 --> 00:07:09,040
Speaker 3: minds of many of the justices in the majority.

124
00:07:09,440 --> 00:07:12,920
Speaker 2: So this is the second time that the Supreme Court

125
00:07:13,080 --> 00:07:17,640
Speaker 2: has turned the Trump administration away less than two weeks ago,

126
00:07:17,840 --> 00:07:21,160
Speaker 2: they refuse to let Trump fire the head of an agency.

127
00:07:21,560 --> 00:07:23,560
Speaker 2: Does this indicate that the court is going to provide

128
00:07:23,600 --> 00:07:26,280
Speaker 2: some guardrails for Trump or is it too soon to tell?

129
00:07:26,480 --> 00:07:28,880
Speaker 3: I would say it's too soon to tell. It gives

130
00:07:28,920 --> 00:07:31,400
Speaker 3: a little suggestion that they might be willing to keeping

131
00:07:31,400 --> 00:07:33,840
Speaker 3: in mind that it's only five of the justices for

132
00:07:34,000 --> 00:07:37,720
Speaker 3: them dissented in very strong terms. The earlier case, which

133
00:07:37,760 --> 00:07:40,040
Speaker 3: is one that almost certainly will be back probably in

134
00:07:40,080 --> 00:07:43,120
Speaker 3: the next to a week or two, involved the President

135
00:07:43,200 --> 00:07:46,200
Speaker 3: trying to fire somebody. This guy who is known as

136
00:07:46,200 --> 00:07:48,960
Speaker 3: the Special Council Hampton Dellinger, is basically the head of

137
00:07:48,960 --> 00:07:53,560
Speaker 3: an office that protects whistleblowers, and the Court essentially kicked

138
00:07:53,560 --> 00:07:55,920
Speaker 3: the can down the road a little bit, which let

139
00:07:56,080 --> 00:08:00,320
Speaker 3: Hampton Dellinger stay in his job for now, but left

140
00:08:00,320 --> 00:08:03,520
Speaker 3: open whether ultimately the administration will be able to fire him.

141
00:08:03,960 --> 00:08:08,239
Speaker 2: Gorsachen Alido also dissented in that case, the Dellinger case.

142
00:08:08,920 --> 00:08:12,240
Speaker 2: Do you think that indicates that they are two pretty

143
00:08:12,320 --> 00:08:15,680
Speaker 2: reliable votes for Donald Trump in every case?

144
00:08:16,400 --> 00:08:18,640
Speaker 3: I don't want to say anything too broad because these

145
00:08:18,640 --> 00:08:22,320
Speaker 3: are individual cases, but certainly, if I'm the Trump administration,

146
00:08:22,400 --> 00:08:24,840
Speaker 3: if I'm Donald Trump. I feel very good about Sam

147
00:08:24,920 --> 00:08:27,000
Speaker 3: Alito and Neil Gorsich in most of the cases that

148
00:08:27,000 --> 00:08:30,800
Speaker 3: are likely to come before the court. Probably also Clarence Thomas, who,

149
00:08:30,880 --> 00:08:33,560
Speaker 3: even though he wasn't part of that original dissent, has

150
00:08:33,760 --> 00:08:36,760
Speaker 3: over the years strongly suggested that he is sympathetic to

151
00:08:36,920 --> 00:08:39,720
Speaker 3: what Donald Trump is trying to do. And then, you know,

152
00:08:39,800 --> 00:08:42,400
Speaker 3: as with so many cases at the Supreme Court, these

153
00:08:42,559 --> 00:08:45,720
Speaker 3: fights are probably going to depend on the sort of

154
00:08:45,800 --> 00:08:49,760
Speaker 3: center right justices of John Roberts, Amy Cony Barrett, and

155
00:08:49,840 --> 00:08:52,480
Speaker 3: Brett Kavanaugh to determine which side ultimately wins.

156
00:08:53,160 --> 00:08:55,880
Speaker 2: Yeah, I didn't know whether to add in Clarence Thomas there,

157
00:08:55,920 --> 00:08:58,239
Speaker 2: because he could have had a lot of different reasons

158
00:08:58,679 --> 00:09:01,800
Speaker 2: for agreeing with the major already on the Dellinger case. So,

159
00:09:02,360 --> 00:09:04,120
Speaker 2: but that did surprise me that he was with the

160
00:09:04,160 --> 00:09:04,800
Speaker 2: majority there.

161
00:09:05,120 --> 00:09:07,280
Speaker 3: I have a theory, but it's just a theory, which

162
00:09:07,320 --> 00:09:09,800
Speaker 3: is that he basically took one for the team. Did

163
00:09:10,000 --> 00:09:12,679
Speaker 3: Roberts a favor because if he had joined the descent

164
00:09:13,120 --> 00:09:17,319
Speaker 3: there would not have been five justices on board for anything,

165
00:09:17,480 --> 00:09:19,400
Speaker 3: you know, this notion of holding it in the bands,

166
00:09:19,880 --> 00:09:23,160
Speaker 3: and so by not dissenting, he or at least not

167
00:09:23,200 --> 00:09:28,240
Speaker 3: dissenting publicly. He you know, let the court issue some

168
00:09:28,280 --> 00:09:30,880
Speaker 3: sort of order. So that's my theory.

169
00:09:31,360 --> 00:09:34,120
Speaker 2: I think it's a good theory, Greg, because there's often

170
00:09:34,160 --> 00:09:37,760
Speaker 2: horse trading going on behind the scenes. Do these two

171
00:09:37,880 --> 00:09:41,080
Speaker 2: Trump appeals to the Supreme Court in less than two

172
00:09:41,200 --> 00:09:45,000
Speaker 2: months tell us that you and the Supreme Court are

173
00:09:45,040 --> 00:09:47,640
Speaker 2: going to be very busy in the next four years.

174
00:09:48,200 --> 00:09:51,560
Speaker 2: I mean, one hundred cases have already been filed over

175
00:09:51,600 --> 00:09:54,240
Speaker 2: his executive orders and the like.

176
00:09:55,520 --> 00:09:58,680
Speaker 3: Absolutely. I think both these two cases we've talked about,

177
00:09:58,760 --> 00:10:02,320
Speaker 3: the foreign aid funding and the Special Council case are

178
00:10:02,440 --> 00:10:04,760
Speaker 3: likely to come back to the Supreme Court pretty quickly.

179
00:10:04,840 --> 00:10:07,640
Speaker 3: And then we have all the one hundred other cases

180
00:10:07,679 --> 00:10:12,199
Speaker 3: involving things like birthright citizenship, the mass firing of employees,

181
00:10:12,600 --> 00:10:15,720
Speaker 3: funding for other parts of the government, and very very

182
00:10:15,800 --> 00:10:18,600
Speaker 3: likely these will get up to the Supreme Court fairly quickly.

183
00:10:18,960 --> 00:10:23,600
Speaker 3: That being said, one possible effect of the Supreme Court's

184
00:10:23,679 --> 00:10:27,120
Speaker 3: ordered today might be that it sends a bit of

185
00:10:27,160 --> 00:10:30,600
Speaker 3: a message to the Trump administration, think carefully before you

186
00:10:30,640 --> 00:10:32,280
Speaker 3: bring stuff to us, because we're not just going to

187
00:10:32,280 --> 00:10:34,720
Speaker 3: be a rubber stamp for you. So it might have

188
00:10:35,160 --> 00:10:38,760
Speaker 3: some effect in terms of reducing the number of applications

189
00:10:39,000 --> 00:10:41,760
Speaker 3: that the Trump administration brings to the Supreme Court.

190
00:10:41,880 --> 00:10:45,680
Speaker 2: I'll bet the justices are hoping that's true. Thanks so much, Greg.

191
00:10:46,000 --> 00:10:50,000
Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store coming up next

192
00:10:50,000 --> 00:10:53,120
Speaker 2: on the Bloomberg Law Show. The Supreme Court makes it

193
00:10:53,240 --> 00:10:57,480
Speaker 2: harder for the EPA to police sewage discharges in another

194
00:10:57,600 --> 00:11:00,839
Speaker 2: loss for the agency at the Court, and later in

195
00:11:00,880 --> 00:11:04,400
Speaker 2: the show, the justices confront the question of what to

196
00:11:04,440 --> 00:11:09,239
Speaker 2: do with the growing pile of nuclear waste. Another setback

197
00:11:09,320 --> 00:11:12,960
Speaker 2: for the EPA at the Supreme Court, with the justices

198
00:11:13,080 --> 00:11:16,680
Speaker 2: ruling for San Francisco in a case about the discharge

199
00:11:16,720 --> 00:11:21,360
Speaker 2: of raw sewage that sometimes occurs during heavy rains, a

200
00:11:21,440 --> 00:11:24,960
Speaker 2: ruling that will make it harder for environmental regulators to

201
00:11:25,120 --> 00:11:28,520
Speaker 2: limit water pollution. In a five to four vote, the

202
00:11:28,559 --> 00:11:33,600
Speaker 2: Court's conservative majority ruled that the EPA overstepped its authority

203
00:11:33,679 --> 00:11:37,320
Speaker 2: under the Clean Water Act with water pollution permits that

204
00:11:37,440 --> 00:11:42,480
Speaker 2: contain vague requirements for maintaining water quality. The decision is

205
00:11:42,520 --> 00:11:46,320
Speaker 2: the latest in which the conservative justices have rained in

206
00:11:46,440 --> 00:11:51,720
Speaker 2: pollution control efforts. But one conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett,

207
00:11:52,040 --> 00:11:55,240
Speaker 2: joined the court's three liberals in descent. My guest is

208
00:11:55,360 --> 00:11:59,240
Speaker 2: environmental law expert Pat Parento, a professor at the Vermont

209
00:11:59,320 --> 00:12:03,200
Speaker 2: Law and Grad you at School. Pat Justice Samuel Alito

210
00:12:03,320 --> 00:12:07,839
Speaker 2: wrote the majority opinion. Why did the five Conservatives rule

211
00:12:08,040 --> 00:12:10,040
Speaker 2: against the EPA?

212
00:12:10,320 --> 00:12:14,240
Speaker 1: So Alito wants to rewrite the Clean Water Act, No surprise,

213
00:12:14,480 --> 00:12:17,000
Speaker 1: he doesn't like the way Congress set it up, and

214
00:12:17,080 --> 00:12:21,280
Speaker 1: so he's instructed EPA that when they're dealing with a

215
00:12:21,360 --> 00:12:26,560
Speaker 1: problem like combined sewer overflows, where you have a mixture

216
00:12:26,640 --> 00:12:30,839
Speaker 1: of pollutants. Right, if you think about this, a CSO

217
00:12:31,480 --> 00:12:37,320
Speaker 1: diverts sewage from the treatment plant directly in this case,

218
00:12:37,360 --> 00:12:40,280
Speaker 1: to the ocean, but it also collects all the storm

219
00:12:40,320 --> 00:12:46,040
Speaker 1: water from the urban surface. So you have this literally

220
00:12:46,240 --> 00:12:51,719
Speaker 1: toxic soup of dozens of different kinds of pollutants. So

221
00:12:52,120 --> 00:12:55,480
Speaker 1: EPA's approach to this kind of a problem is to say,

222
00:12:56,280 --> 00:13:02,079
Speaker 1: we have nine best management practices for you to use

223
00:13:02,520 --> 00:13:07,760
Speaker 1: to limit the number of times you're bypassing your treatment plan.

224
00:13:08,360 --> 00:13:08,760
Speaker 4: Okay.

225
00:13:09,320 --> 00:13:11,520
Speaker 1: Alito doesn't talk about any of this. He makes a

226
00:13:11,559 --> 00:13:14,640
Speaker 1: brief reference to EPA's policy.

227
00:13:14,360 --> 00:13:16,040
Speaker 4: Approach to CSOs.

228
00:13:16,360 --> 00:13:21,840
Speaker 1: What he doesn't say is that Congress codified that policy

229
00:13:22,320 --> 00:13:25,680
Speaker 1: in nineteen eighty two and put it into the Clean

230
00:13:25,720 --> 00:13:30,680
Speaker 1: Water Act. EPA wasn't making this up. EPA was following

231
00:13:30,720 --> 00:13:33,840
Speaker 1: what it's done for a very long time, decades. But

232
00:13:33,920 --> 00:13:34,960
Speaker 1: Alito doesn't like it.

233
00:13:35,360 --> 00:13:36,560
Speaker 4: He says it's too vague.

234
00:13:36,920 --> 00:13:39,679
Speaker 1: He says, what you have to do, EPA is come

235
00:13:39,760 --> 00:13:44,840
Speaker 1: up with specific limits for each and every pollutant that

236
00:13:45,240 --> 00:13:51,680
Speaker 1: the City of San Francisco is responsible for managing. That's

237
00:13:51,720 --> 00:13:56,680
Speaker 1: an enormous undertaking, right Just think about all the science,

238
00:13:57,200 --> 00:13:59,400
Speaker 1: all of the analysis that you'd have to do to

239
00:13:59,600 --> 00:14:04,040
Speaker 1: develop numerical limits for all of these different pollutants. It's

240
00:14:04,080 --> 00:14:08,160
Speaker 1: not workable. It's something EPA would do if it could,

241
00:14:08,800 --> 00:14:11,720
Speaker 1: but it can't. So it does the next best thing.

242
00:14:11,760 --> 00:14:12,880
Speaker 4: It says to San.

243
00:14:12,760 --> 00:14:16,240
Speaker 1: Francisco, here are a whole bunch. There's over one hundred

244
00:14:16,240 --> 00:14:19,960
Speaker 1: pages in this permit, one hundred pages of detail. Here

245
00:14:20,040 --> 00:14:22,800
Speaker 1: are the things that we know we can set technology

246
00:14:22,840 --> 00:14:27,880
Speaker 1: standards for. But you still have to meet water quality standards.

247
00:14:28,240 --> 00:14:31,680
Speaker 1: You still have to protect beneficial uses of water. What

248
00:14:31,760 --> 00:14:35,320
Speaker 1: are those swimming? What happens when you have a cso

249
00:14:35,440 --> 00:14:40,320
Speaker 1: bypass sewage raw sewage? As Justice Barrett said in her

250
00:14:40,360 --> 00:14:45,120
Speaker 1: dissent toilet paper goes into the ocean where people are swimming,

251
00:14:45,400 --> 00:14:47,880
Speaker 1: and you can imagine what's with the toilet paper. So

252
00:14:48,240 --> 00:14:53,720
Speaker 1: that's the situation that EPA has inherited and confronted and

253
00:14:53,960 --> 00:14:57,960
Speaker 1: historically has dealt with. Alito says, no, that's no good

254
00:14:58,320 --> 00:15:02,040
Speaker 1: going forward, EPA. You have to come up with specific

255
00:15:02,600 --> 00:15:06,480
Speaker 1: limits for each and every pollutant and tell cities like

256
00:15:06,560 --> 00:15:10,600
Speaker 1: San Francisco and New York and Boston and even Burlington,

257
00:15:10,720 --> 00:15:13,680
Speaker 1: Vermont as CSOs. Right, you have to tell all of

258
00:15:13,680 --> 00:15:16,120
Speaker 1: these municipalities.

259
00:15:15,600 --> 00:15:17,680
Speaker 4: Exactly what they have to do.

260
00:15:18,160 --> 00:15:23,080
Speaker 1: To comply with water quality standards. It's an impossible burden

261
00:15:23,320 --> 00:15:28,240
Speaker 1: for the EPA, certainly given what Trump is proposing to

262
00:15:28,360 --> 00:15:32,040
Speaker 1: do to EPA, which is to gut it, to hollow

263
00:15:32,080 --> 00:15:35,360
Speaker 1: it out, so it won't have the staff, it won't

264
00:15:35,400 --> 00:15:38,640
Speaker 1: have the budget, it won't be able to do what

265
00:15:38,720 --> 00:15:40,840
Speaker 1: Alito has ordered it to do.

266
00:15:41,520 --> 00:15:44,600
Speaker 2: Pat We've talked before about how unusual it was that

267
00:15:44,640 --> 00:15:50,320
Speaker 2: San Francisco, a liberal city, was fighting the EPA over

268
00:15:50,440 --> 00:15:54,440
Speaker 2: water pollution. Why did San Francisco have such trouble with

269
00:15:54,560 --> 00:15:55,880
Speaker 2: these regulations?

270
00:15:56,800 --> 00:16:02,800
Speaker 1: Cost? The fix for these CSOs is incredibly expensive, billions

271
00:16:02,840 --> 00:16:07,840
Speaker 1: of dollars, literally, billions okay, But you know, if you

272
00:16:08,160 --> 00:16:11,160
Speaker 1: don't want to comply with the law because you can't

273
00:16:11,280 --> 00:16:14,560
Speaker 1: because you're too poor or you can't raise the money

274
00:16:14,560 --> 00:16:16,480
Speaker 1: to do it, you need to go to Congress and

275
00:16:16,480 --> 00:16:20,080
Speaker 1: get an exemption. But you can't just declare it's too

276
00:16:20,160 --> 00:16:23,480
Speaker 1: expensive to comply with the Clean Water Act. But that's

277
00:16:23,520 --> 00:16:27,960
Speaker 1: what's driving San Francisco. It's almost bankrupt. It has enormous

278
00:16:28,000 --> 00:16:31,600
Speaker 1: financial problems. It has a hollowed out downtown. It's a

279
00:16:31,720 --> 00:16:33,960
Speaker 1: very sad thing to see San Francisco one of the

280
00:16:33,960 --> 00:16:37,320
Speaker 1: most beautiful cities on earth when it was vibrant, you know,

281
00:16:37,360 --> 00:16:41,560
Speaker 1: and flourishing, not now. So that's the basic problem. Other

282
00:16:41,680 --> 00:16:44,960
Speaker 1: cities have done this. I was involved in one of

283
00:16:45,000 --> 00:16:49,400
Speaker 1: the earliest cases, suing the city of Portland, Oregon, for

284
00:16:49,560 --> 00:16:53,160
Speaker 1: its CSO problem. It has nine of these massive tunnels

285
00:16:53,240 --> 00:16:57,800
Speaker 1: or pipes that discharge to the Willamette River raw sewage.

286
00:16:57,960 --> 00:17:01,080
Speaker 1: We sued them in the early nineteen ninety We wanted

287
00:17:01,120 --> 00:17:04,560
Speaker 1: a victory in the Ninth Circuit. And what did Portland do?

288
00:17:04,640 --> 00:17:06,560
Speaker 1: It fought us for a while, but what did it do?

289
00:17:06,680 --> 00:17:08,800
Speaker 1: Once the Ninth Circuit said you have to do something

290
00:17:08,840 --> 00:17:12,080
Speaker 1: about this, It decided to build a whole new treatment plant.

291
00:17:12,119 --> 00:17:14,760
Speaker 1: It cost a billion dollars, but they got rid of

292
00:17:14,800 --> 00:17:19,720
Speaker 1: the nine CSO pipes that were contaminating the Willamette River.

293
00:17:20,320 --> 00:17:23,200
Speaker 1: The city of Chicago had the similar problem. What did

294
00:17:23,240 --> 00:17:27,879
Speaker 1: they do They built deep underground tunnels to hold the

295
00:17:27,960 --> 00:17:32,440
Speaker 1: storm water so it didn't overwhelm the treatment plant. Those

296
00:17:32,480 --> 00:17:36,359
Speaker 1: are the kinds of choices that you face. Separate the

297
00:17:36,720 --> 00:17:40,800
Speaker 1: storm water from the sewage water, build more treatment facilities,

298
00:17:41,760 --> 00:17:46,120
Speaker 1: figure out something to do with these CSOs. But one

299
00:17:46,160 --> 00:17:50,320
Speaker 1: thing you can't do is continue to contaminate public water.

300
00:17:51,080 --> 00:17:52,400
Speaker 4: That's what the law requires.

301
00:17:52,800 --> 00:17:56,280
Speaker 2: So, as you mentioned, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative,

302
00:17:56,880 --> 00:18:00,840
Speaker 2: sided with the courts three liberal justices. I don't want

303
00:18:00,880 --> 00:18:02,720
Speaker 2: to say it was the women against the men, but

304
00:18:02,760 --> 00:18:05,200
Speaker 2: that's what it turned out to be. Tell us about

305
00:18:05,200 --> 00:18:05,719
Speaker 2: her descent.

306
00:18:06,440 --> 00:18:09,400
Speaker 1: Amy Komy Barrett nailed it. I mean, what she did

307
00:18:09,560 --> 00:18:13,679
Speaker 1: was really remarkable. She actually read the statute, you know,

308
00:18:14,119 --> 00:18:17,040
Speaker 1: and she said, no, I'm looking at the statute. And

309
00:18:17,080 --> 00:18:20,960
Speaker 1: the statute authorizes EPA to not only set these technology

310
00:18:21,000 --> 00:18:25,840
Speaker 1: based what are called affluent limitation standards, but Congress deliberately

311
00:18:25,880 --> 00:18:28,280
Speaker 1: thought about, well what if they don't work? What if

312
00:18:28,320 --> 00:18:31,160
Speaker 1: they don't actually accomplish the goal of protecting public water,

313
00:18:31,440 --> 00:18:37,000
Speaker 1: meeting water quality standards, protecting beneficial uses fishing, swimming, drinking water,

314
00:18:37,080 --> 00:18:39,000
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it. So she said, so

315
00:18:39,040 --> 00:18:43,240
Speaker 1: Congress thoughtfully said, well, as a backup, you can include

316
00:18:43,280 --> 00:18:48,880
Speaker 1: in these requirements other limitations necessary to protect water quality.

317
00:18:48,960 --> 00:18:52,160
Speaker 1: And she said, that's exactly what EPA is doing. It's

318
00:18:52,200 --> 00:18:54,600
Speaker 1: like going to a doctor and a doctor says your

319
00:18:54,600 --> 00:18:57,720
Speaker 1: blood pressure's high. The doctor's not going to necessarily tell

320
00:18:57,760 --> 00:19:00,800
Speaker 1: you what you have to eat to your blood pressure.

321
00:19:00,800 --> 00:19:03,280
Speaker 1: Now you might, you might suggest less salt, you know,

322
00:19:03,600 --> 00:19:06,919
Speaker 1: but he's basically going to say, your illness here is

323
00:19:07,000 --> 00:19:09,520
Speaker 1: high blood pressure. Do something about it. It's something I

324
00:19:09,560 --> 00:19:12,919
Speaker 1: happen to know something about, right. So that's what she

325
00:19:13,119 --> 00:19:17,399
Speaker 1: analogized the Clean Water Act to. It was EPA saying

326
00:19:17,720 --> 00:19:20,359
Speaker 1: you must meet these water quality standards. And by the way,

327
00:19:20,960 --> 00:19:22,360
Speaker 1: where do water quality.

328
00:19:22,040 --> 00:19:22,840
Speaker 4: Standards come from?

329
00:19:22,920 --> 00:19:25,040
Speaker 1: They come from the state. They come from the state

330
00:19:25,080 --> 00:19:29,840
Speaker 1: of California. So these are standards that California itself has

331
00:19:29,880 --> 00:19:33,000
Speaker 1: adopted to protect its water and to protect its people

332
00:19:33,280 --> 00:19:34,920
Speaker 1: because these are public health threats.

333
00:19:34,960 --> 00:19:37,119
Speaker 4: And so she said, you know, you've.

334
00:19:36,880 --> 00:19:40,840
Speaker 1: Signed up for protecting these uses of water, now figure

335
00:19:40,840 --> 00:19:42,720
Speaker 1: out how to do it. And she said, and if

336
00:19:42,760 --> 00:19:46,080
Speaker 1: EPA overstepped by requiring you to do something that, if

337
00:19:46,119 --> 00:19:49,800
Speaker 1: she put it as arbitrary or irrational, the remedy for

338
00:19:49,920 --> 00:19:54,400
Speaker 1: that is to go to court and challenge EPA's requirement

339
00:19:54,760 --> 00:19:59,080
Speaker 1: when EPA imposes it. The remedy isn't to wait until

340
00:19:59,119 --> 00:20:03,320
Speaker 1: you violated and then come into court crying and complaining

341
00:20:03,359 --> 00:20:06,600
Speaker 1: about we really can't comply with the permit we signed.

342
00:20:06,800 --> 00:20:10,199
Speaker 1: So that was amy Cony Barrett's approach. This is the

343
00:20:10,240 --> 00:20:12,959
Speaker 1: second time, by the way, she's parted company with her

344
00:20:13,040 --> 00:20:17,120
Speaker 1: right wing male counterparts. So this is a positive sign.

345
00:20:17,160 --> 00:20:20,040
Speaker 1: If there's any silver lining in this case, it's that

346
00:20:20,400 --> 00:20:24,359
Speaker 1: the hard right members of the court are driving amy

347
00:20:24,400 --> 00:20:29,040
Speaker 1: Cony Barrett into the tender embrace of her female colleagues

348
00:20:29,080 --> 00:20:29,600
Speaker 1: on the bench.

349
00:20:29,840 --> 00:20:31,040
Speaker 4: That's what I see happening.

350
00:20:31,440 --> 00:20:35,160
Speaker 2: Alito said, if the EPA does its work, our holding

351
00:20:35,160 --> 00:20:39,560
Speaker 2: should have no adverse effect on water quality. How much

352
00:20:39,600 --> 00:20:43,280
Speaker 2: harder will it be for the EPA to police water

353
00:20:43,440 --> 00:20:46,160
Speaker 2: quality standards after this decision?

354
00:20:46,840 --> 00:20:47,040
Speaker 4: Yeah?

355
00:20:47,080 --> 00:20:50,439
Speaker 1: How many permits has Alito written? I was regional counsel

356
00:20:50,520 --> 00:20:53,159
Speaker 1: to EPA in New England for several years. I know

357
00:20:53,280 --> 00:20:56,680
Speaker 1: what it's like to write these permits and enforce these permits.

358
00:20:56,720 --> 00:20:59,400
Speaker 1: I know what CSOs are all about and how difficult

359
00:20:59,400 --> 00:21:01,800
Speaker 1: they are. And I can tell you this, it's going

360
00:21:01,880 --> 00:21:05,360
Speaker 1: to take double the staff of EPA's Water Quality Division

361
00:21:05,600 --> 00:21:08,159
Speaker 1: to do what Alito is demanding that they do. He

362
00:21:08,240 --> 00:21:11,320
Speaker 1: has no idea how complicated it is to come up

363
00:21:11,359 --> 00:21:14,280
Speaker 1: with a specific limit for every single pollutant that's in

364
00:21:14,320 --> 00:21:18,000
Speaker 1: a wastewater discharge. Particularly where you're talking about cities.

365
00:21:18,080 --> 00:21:19,120
Speaker 4: You know, each.

366
00:21:18,960 --> 00:21:21,120
Speaker 1: City has a different way of managing.

367
00:21:20,680 --> 00:21:21,800
Speaker 4: The waste that comes through.

368
00:21:22,119 --> 00:21:26,000
Speaker 1: I mean, some cities have streets sweeping, right, some cities don't.

369
00:21:26,160 --> 00:21:28,560
Speaker 1: So if something's on the street, think about what's on

370
00:21:28,600 --> 00:21:31,280
Speaker 1: the street of an average American city, right, and it's

371
00:21:31,320 --> 00:21:35,280
Speaker 1: going into the same system it's supposed to be treating sewage,

372
00:21:35,359 --> 00:21:37,040
Speaker 1: and then it's going directly.

373
00:21:36,640 --> 00:21:37,240
Speaker 4: Into the water.

374
00:21:37,560 --> 00:21:40,080
Speaker 1: Are you kidding me? You think that's a simple thing

375
00:21:40,160 --> 00:21:43,160
Speaker 1: to do. If EPA could have done that, it would

376
00:21:43,160 --> 00:21:46,479
Speaker 1: have done that. I can remember sitting in meetings talking

377
00:21:46,520 --> 00:21:51,119
Speaker 1: about the difficulty of enforcing standards that are vague, that

378
00:21:51,160 --> 00:21:54,959
Speaker 1: are imprecise, and how difficult it is, you know, to

379
00:21:55,040 --> 00:21:58,520
Speaker 1: convince a court that somebody's in violation of something when

380
00:21:58,520 --> 00:22:01,240
Speaker 1: they don't know what the something is. So there's all

381
00:22:01,359 --> 00:22:05,200
Speaker 1: kinds of discussion that goes on in the agency about

382
00:22:05,359 --> 00:22:09,280
Speaker 1: how do you write permits so that people will know

383
00:22:09,359 --> 00:22:12,960
Speaker 1: how to comply so we don't have to enforce them.

384
00:22:13,200 --> 00:22:17,160
Speaker 1: We don't have the staff. There are tens of thousands

385
00:22:17,440 --> 00:22:20,280
Speaker 1: of these permits that have to be issued every year.

386
00:22:20,640 --> 00:22:23,840
Speaker 1: There's no way that you can write a permit and

387
00:22:24,040 --> 00:22:26,600
Speaker 1: enforce it unless you have done the very best you

388
00:22:26,720 --> 00:22:30,439
Speaker 1: can to be as specific as you can. So what

389
00:22:30,600 --> 00:22:33,560
Speaker 1: he glibly says, all all EBA has to do is

390
00:22:33,600 --> 00:22:36,600
Speaker 1: to do his job. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

391
00:22:36,960 --> 00:22:41,760
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court has rained in pollution control efforts. What

392
00:22:41,800 --> 00:22:43,480
Speaker 2: does this decision indicate?

393
00:22:43,960 --> 00:22:48,200
Speaker 1: Yeah, it indicates that this court, at least the conservative

394
00:22:48,760 --> 00:22:54,200
Speaker 1: majority of this court, is outright hostile to environmental law

395
00:22:54,240 --> 00:22:57,440
Speaker 1: and regulation. That's the only way I can read what's

396
00:22:57,480 --> 00:22:59,920
Speaker 1: going on. Not only do they not want to defer

397
00:23:00,920 --> 00:23:06,160
Speaker 1: to the agency, they want to become the agency. They

398
00:23:06,200 --> 00:23:09,840
Speaker 1: want to dictate to the agency how to do their job,

399
00:23:10,200 --> 00:23:13,680
Speaker 1: as if they knew how to do that job. It's

400
00:23:13,680 --> 00:23:17,880
Speaker 1: at the Congress to decide how agencies should do their job.

401
00:23:18,160 --> 00:23:21,520
Speaker 1: And we know if Congress is unhappy with the way

402
00:23:21,680 --> 00:23:24,159
Speaker 1: EPA or any other agency is doing his job, it

403
00:23:24,240 --> 00:23:28,119
Speaker 1: has plenty of opportunity to step in and correct it

404
00:23:28,440 --> 00:23:30,480
Speaker 1: and punish the agency if it needs, if it feels

405
00:23:30,480 --> 00:23:32,520
Speaker 1: like it needs to do that, or hurt them through

406
00:23:32,560 --> 00:23:36,119
Speaker 1: the budget process, you know, demand that they do things

407
00:23:36,119 --> 00:23:39,040
Speaker 1: a certain way. That's what Congress is there to do.

408
00:23:39,119 --> 00:23:41,560
Speaker 1: It's not up to the Court to decide how EPA

409
00:23:41,600 --> 00:23:42,480
Speaker 1: should do its job.

410
00:23:42,720 --> 00:23:44,720
Speaker 4: That's what's going on here, all right, Stay.

411
00:23:44,560 --> 00:23:47,639
Speaker 2: With me, pat coming up next. Today, the Justice has

412
00:23:47,720 --> 00:23:50,600
Speaker 2: confronted the question of what to do with the growing

413
00:23:50,680 --> 00:23:55,880
Speaker 2: pile of nuclear waste. This is bloomberg at oral arguments. Today,

414
00:23:56,200 --> 00:23:59,719
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court confronted the national headache of what to

415
00:23:59,760 --> 00:24:03,720
Speaker 2: do the growing pile of nuclear waste. The Justice is

416
00:24:03,800 --> 00:24:08,120
Speaker 2: wrestled with whether to restart plans to temporarily store nuclear

417
00:24:08,160 --> 00:24:11,800
Speaker 2: waste at sites in rural Texas and New Mexico. The

418
00:24:12,080 --> 00:24:16,160
Speaker 2: justices appeared divided over whether Texas and companies that own

419
00:24:16,320 --> 00:24:19,680
Speaker 2: land in the oil rich Permium Basin had the right

420
00:24:19,760 --> 00:24:22,680
Speaker 2: to challenge a federal plan to let as much as

421
00:24:22,800 --> 00:24:28,240
Speaker 2: forty thousand tons of highly radioactive waste be temporarily stored

422
00:24:28,280 --> 00:24:32,000
Speaker 2: at a privately owned off site facility. I've been talking

423
00:24:32,000 --> 00:24:35,639
Speaker 2: to environmental law expert Pat Parento, a professor at the

424
00:24:35,720 --> 00:24:41,159
Speaker 2: Vermont Law and Graduate School. Right now, where does the

425
00:24:41,359 --> 00:24:44,120
Speaker 2: US store its nuclear waste?

426
00:24:44,680 --> 00:24:47,000
Speaker 4: It doesn't, is the answer.

427
00:24:47,560 --> 00:24:51,240
Speaker 1: All of the nuclear waste at nuclear power plants. Now

428
00:24:51,280 --> 00:24:54,400
Speaker 1: this is in contrast to, of course, weapons grade nuclear waste.

429
00:24:54,440 --> 00:24:55,280
Speaker 4: That's a different issue.

430
00:24:55,320 --> 00:24:59,520
Speaker 1: But the nuclear waste that's generated by nuclear power plants

431
00:24:59,600 --> 00:25:03,440
Speaker 1: is all sitting at the nuclear power plants all over

432
00:25:03,440 --> 00:25:07,879
Speaker 1: the country. They are stored either in casts, concrete casts,

433
00:25:08,000 --> 00:25:13,080
Speaker 1: or in most cases in underground vessels that have water.

434
00:25:13,760 --> 00:25:16,240
Speaker 1: You better hope it has water, because you know, the

435
00:25:16,320 --> 00:25:19,600
Speaker 1: half life of this nuclear waste is measured in hundreds

436
00:25:19,680 --> 00:25:23,200
Speaker 1: or thousands of years. So you've got to maintain the

437
00:25:23,200 --> 00:25:27,480
Speaker 1: integrity of these containment vessels and keep them cool enough

438
00:25:27,680 --> 00:25:31,479
Speaker 1: because of course, you know, nuclear waste is very hot

439
00:25:31,960 --> 00:25:35,040
Speaker 1: and it likes to get out of confinement. But that's

440
00:25:35,080 --> 00:25:38,720
Speaker 1: the way we are quote managing nuclear waste. It's at

441
00:25:38,760 --> 00:25:43,639
Speaker 1: every individual power plant. The proposal was, of course, to

442
00:25:43,680 --> 00:25:49,239
Speaker 1: build a national repository at Yucca Mountain in Utah, and

443
00:25:49,400 --> 00:25:51,320
Speaker 1: we all know what happened. To that. It's never happened.

444
00:25:51,320 --> 00:25:54,440
Speaker 1: As Gorss put it in the oral argument today, it's

445
00:25:54,560 --> 00:25:56,920
Speaker 1: just a hole in the ground. And so now they're

446
00:25:57,000 --> 00:26:01,119
Speaker 1: talking about building a quote interim story facility, one in

447
00:26:01,160 --> 00:26:04,399
Speaker 1: Texas and one in New Mexico and ship all of

448
00:26:04,440 --> 00:26:09,440
Speaker 1: this waste by rail or perhaps truck, God forbid, across

449
00:26:09,480 --> 00:26:12,199
Speaker 1: the country from all of these nuclear power plants to

450
00:26:12,320 --> 00:26:15,720
Speaker 1: this location in Texas where it's supposed to be temporary.

451
00:26:16,119 --> 00:26:18,200
Speaker 4: Well, we know what will happen if.

452
00:26:18,040 --> 00:26:21,159
Speaker 1: They actually put the waste into this facility. This is

453
00:26:21,200 --> 00:26:24,560
Speaker 1: a private facility, by the way, it's not a governmental entity,

454
00:26:24,600 --> 00:26:26,960
Speaker 1: which what yucka mountain would be. We know that once

455
00:26:27,000 --> 00:26:29,840
Speaker 1: it gets there, it's not leaving. And Alito actually raised

456
00:26:29,840 --> 00:26:32,560
Speaker 1: that point today in the oral argument. So that's the

457
00:26:32,640 --> 00:26:36,440
Speaker 1: nature of this problem. It's a fiendishly complicated problem. It's

458
00:26:36,480 --> 00:26:38,800
Speaker 1: one we haven't been able to solve. It's one that

459
00:26:38,840 --> 00:26:41,560
Speaker 1: you have to wonder whether we'll ever be able to solve.

460
00:26:42,760 --> 00:26:46,080
Speaker 2: There were two questions at issue in the case. One

461
00:26:46,119 --> 00:26:49,919
Speaker 2: was whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the power to

462
00:26:50,000 --> 00:26:54,080
Speaker 2: license such a temporary storage site. And as you mentioned,

463
00:26:54,119 --> 00:26:57,600
Speaker 2: several of the justices were more than dubious that this

464
00:26:57,680 --> 00:27:01,240
Speaker 2: would be temporary. Where do you think that justices stood

465
00:27:01,240 --> 00:27:02,040
Speaker 2: on that question?

466
00:27:03,119 --> 00:27:04,280
Speaker 1: Looked like it was split.

467
00:27:05,040 --> 00:27:06,600
Speaker 4: It's always hard to read.

468
00:27:07,280 --> 00:27:09,760
Speaker 1: But you know, this is one of those weird issues

469
00:27:09,800 --> 00:27:13,960
Speaker 1: where it's not it's not EPA, it's the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

470
00:27:13,960 --> 00:27:16,600
Speaker 1: You can hardly say that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is

471
00:27:16,800 --> 00:27:20,359
Speaker 1: hostile to industry. So it's not really one of those

472
00:27:20,440 --> 00:27:25,520
Speaker 1: industry versus the regulatory body so much as it's the

473
00:27:25,720 --> 00:27:31,680
Speaker 1: interests around the location of this proposed facility in Texas, which,

474
00:27:31,960 --> 00:27:34,520
Speaker 1: guess what, it happens to be in the middle of

475
00:27:34,560 --> 00:27:38,080
Speaker 1: the Permian Basin, one of the largest oil and gas

476
00:27:38,119 --> 00:27:42,240
Speaker 1: deposits in the country. So the opposition to this facility

477
00:27:42,560 --> 00:27:45,800
Speaker 1: ain't coming from the environmentalists, although there may be some

478
00:27:45,920 --> 00:27:48,840
Speaker 1: environmental concerns about it. I'm sure there are, But the

479
00:27:49,040 --> 00:27:52,800
Speaker 1: major challenge is coming from the Governor Abbott of Texas.

480
00:27:53,000 --> 00:27:56,760
Speaker 1: Why because industries don't want a nuclear facility in the

481
00:27:56,760 --> 00:27:59,840
Speaker 1: middle of their oil and gas operations it might impen

482
00:28:00,520 --> 00:28:01,600
Speaker 1: on what they're producing.

483
00:28:01,960 --> 00:28:05,600
Speaker 2: I mean, does any state want a nuclear you know,

484
00:28:05,720 --> 00:28:07,080
Speaker 2: storage site in the state.

485
00:28:07,960 --> 00:28:09,879
Speaker 4: That's a hard one. Apparently not.

486
00:28:10,160 --> 00:28:14,000
Speaker 1: Although New Mexico has not been entirely clear about that.

487
00:28:14,640 --> 00:28:18,600
Speaker 1: They're certainly concerned about the nature of the facility that's

488
00:28:18,640 --> 00:28:22,320
Speaker 1: being proposed at Holltech is the name of it, And

489
00:28:22,359 --> 00:28:26,480
Speaker 1: there's a lot of opposition from tribes and from what

490
00:28:26,520 --> 00:28:30,120
Speaker 1: you would call environmental justice communities because they're saying, hey,

491
00:28:30,800 --> 00:28:33,480
Speaker 1: if you think this stuff isn't safe enough where you

492
00:28:33,600 --> 00:28:36,600
Speaker 1: have it, now, why are you bringing it to us?

493
00:28:36,880 --> 00:28:37,120
Speaker 4: Right?

494
00:28:37,600 --> 00:28:41,040
Speaker 1: So, there are some legitimate questions about moving this waste

495
00:28:41,120 --> 00:28:45,760
Speaker 1: around and storing it in quote interiom, facilities which are

496
00:28:45,800 --> 00:28:48,280
Speaker 1: not intended to be permanent. As I say, this is

497
00:28:48,560 --> 00:28:53,520
Speaker 1: talking about perpetual care with this stuff. Perpetual care. As

498
00:28:53,560 --> 00:28:56,520
Speaker 1: one critic put it, it's longer than the Catholic Church

499
00:28:56,560 --> 00:28:59,880
Speaker 1: has been around, right, So you know, it's no wonder

500
00:29:00,040 --> 00:29:02,960
Speaker 1: that people have serious concerns about why did you pick

501
00:29:03,080 --> 00:29:05,360
Speaker 1: us as the place to put all your high level

502
00:29:05,720 --> 00:29:09,800
Speaker 1: radioactive waste, dangerous waste. So that's a problem.

503
00:29:10,280 --> 00:29:14,880
Speaker 2: The second issue was whether Texas and the private plaintiffs

504
00:29:15,680 --> 00:29:19,959
Speaker 2: can seek intervention in the federal courts because they failed

505
00:29:19,960 --> 00:29:24,680
Speaker 2: to intervene at an earlier stage, and the court's liberals

506
00:29:24,720 --> 00:29:27,120
Speaker 2: seemed sympathetic to that argument.

507
00:29:27,680 --> 00:29:31,239
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, and Barrett I think would probably be of

508
00:29:31,280 --> 00:29:34,480
Speaker 1: a similar mind to the three quote liberals on the court.

509
00:29:34,920 --> 00:29:37,800
Speaker 1: This is a kind of a catch twenty two. Procedural

510
00:29:37,840 --> 00:29:41,440
Speaker 1: issues often are right. So here's the way this gets

511
00:29:41,440 --> 00:29:45,800
Speaker 1: set up. The challengers, the petitioners in the case before

512
00:29:45,840 --> 00:29:50,600
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court tried to intervene in the NRC licensing

513
00:29:51,040 --> 00:29:55,920
Speaker 1: and were denied intervention, and they didn't challenge that. And

514
00:29:56,160 --> 00:30:00,440
Speaker 1: so now when it comes to going to court to

515
00:30:00,640 --> 00:30:04,720
Speaker 1: challenge the license that NRC issued, there's a.

516
00:30:04,640 --> 00:30:06,320
Speaker 4: Federal statute that says if.

517
00:30:06,200 --> 00:30:11,440
Speaker 1: You didn't object, if you didn't intervene, you can't challenge

518
00:30:11,920 --> 00:30:14,520
Speaker 1: the license. That's where the catch twenty two comes in.

519
00:30:14,800 --> 00:30:16,240
Speaker 4: But it's certainly.

520
00:30:15,840 --> 00:30:20,840
Speaker 1: True that if you didn't intervene, you can't challenge the license,

521
00:30:21,240 --> 00:30:24,480
Speaker 1: and if you were denied intervention, as they were, your

522
00:30:24,560 --> 00:30:29,880
Speaker 1: remedy should have been challenge. The denial of intervention. Seems

523
00:30:29,920 --> 00:30:33,560
Speaker 1: to me that unless the more conservative members of the

524
00:30:33,600 --> 00:30:38,880
Speaker 1: Court feel that somehow the opponents of this facility align

525
00:30:39,000 --> 00:30:42,400
Speaker 1: more with their ideological view of the world, unless they

526
00:30:42,400 --> 00:30:44,880
Speaker 1: see the case that way, I think they're going to

527
00:30:45,040 --> 00:30:47,200
Speaker 1: agree that you're out of luck.

528
00:30:47,600 --> 00:30:48,240
Speaker 4: Challengers.

529
00:30:48,680 --> 00:30:52,160
Speaker 1: You didn't intervene, you weren't able to intervene. You didn't

530
00:30:52,240 --> 00:30:55,920
Speaker 1: challenge that you're sool in this case.

531
00:30:56,400 --> 00:31:01,720
Speaker 2: What's interesting about this case is that the administration is

532
00:31:01,800 --> 00:31:05,400
Speaker 2: staying on the side that the Biden administration took in

533
00:31:05,480 --> 00:31:10,400
Speaker 2: support of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and against Texas, and

534
00:31:10,560 --> 00:31:15,000
Speaker 2: Texas Governor Greg Abbott is a big ally of Trump's.

535
00:31:14,800 --> 00:31:16,320
Speaker 4: Odd dead fellows for sure.

536
00:31:16,720 --> 00:31:21,120
Speaker 1: This is the dilemma of nuclear power and nuclear waste.

537
00:31:21,600 --> 00:31:22,479
Speaker 4: What to do with it?

538
00:31:22,560 --> 00:31:26,120
Speaker 1: Nobody wants it, but leaving it where it is. Most

539
00:31:26,120 --> 00:31:29,000
Speaker 1: of these plants have been shut down in my home

540
00:31:29,000 --> 00:31:31,239
Speaker 1: state of Vermont. Vermont Yankee has been shut down now

541
00:31:31,280 --> 00:31:35,560
Speaker 1: for almost ten years, Connecticut Yankee shut down, Main Yankee shutdown.

542
00:31:36,000 --> 00:31:38,560
Speaker 1: You know, nuclear power plants have been shutting down left

543
00:31:38,600 --> 00:31:42,400
Speaker 1: and right because natural gas has you know, out competed

544
00:31:42,480 --> 00:31:45,760
Speaker 1: them in terms of the costs. So what are you

545
00:31:45,840 --> 00:31:49,160
Speaker 1: going to do when you don't have a national repository,

546
00:31:49,160 --> 00:31:52,560
Speaker 1: a permanent solution, and you have all of these different

547
00:31:53,160 --> 00:31:56,880
Speaker 1: facilities around the country that have been shut down. I mean,

548
00:31:57,400 --> 00:32:00,479
Speaker 1: it is a bad situation. So that's why Biden sided

549
00:32:00,520 --> 00:32:04,160
Speaker 1: with the NRC in saying, we need a better solution

550
00:32:04,280 --> 00:32:07,040
Speaker 1: than we have Until we find a permanent one. If

551
00:32:07,040 --> 00:32:10,480
Speaker 1: we ever do we need a better way of managing

552
00:32:10,480 --> 00:32:13,240
Speaker 1: this waste than what we're currently doing. That's the best

553
00:32:13,280 --> 00:32:16,400
Speaker 1: way you can understand this situation. There's no good answer

554
00:32:16,440 --> 00:32:19,800
Speaker 1: to this. You know, there were warnings about this. I

555
00:32:19,800 --> 00:32:22,920
Speaker 1: can remember when I first went to George Washington Law

556
00:32:22,960 --> 00:32:25,720
Speaker 1: School to get my LLM and environmental law. I took

557
00:32:25,760 --> 00:32:27,960
Speaker 1: a course from James Ramy, who was chair of the

558
00:32:27,960 --> 00:32:31,400
Speaker 1: Atomic Energy Commission, who told me the nuclear waste.

559
00:32:31,160 --> 00:32:32,680
Speaker 4: Problem was a PR.

560
00:32:32,400 --> 00:32:34,920
Speaker 1: Problem, wasn't a technical problem at all.

561
00:32:35,200 --> 00:32:35,440
Speaker 4: You know.

562
00:32:35,520 --> 00:32:37,680
Speaker 1: That's I hate to say it, but that's now forty

563
00:32:37,680 --> 00:32:40,720
Speaker 1: five years ago. Okay, Well, it isn't a PR problem.

564
00:32:40,840 --> 00:32:43,479
Speaker 1: It's an impracticable problem that we haven't figured out how

565
00:32:43,520 --> 00:32:43,920
Speaker 1: to solve.

566
00:32:44,920 --> 00:32:48,400
Speaker 2: So pat if the court turns them away on this

567
00:32:48,640 --> 00:32:52,000
Speaker 2: procedural ground, is that the end of the question, then

568
00:32:53,160 --> 00:32:53,840
Speaker 2: I'm not sure.

569
00:32:53,960 --> 00:32:54,880
Speaker 4: I'm not sure.

570
00:32:54,920 --> 00:32:56,640
Speaker 1: You know, as Yogi Berra said, it ain't over.

571
00:32:56,560 --> 00:32:57,200
Speaker 4: Until it's over.

572
00:32:57,480 --> 00:33:02,160
Speaker 1: There's probably some other ways of challenging you know, what's

573
00:33:02,200 --> 00:33:05,040
Speaker 1: gonna happen with this facility. There may be ways of challenging,

574
00:33:05,200 --> 00:33:07,320
Speaker 1: how are you going to move this waste across the

575
00:33:07,400 --> 00:33:12,840
Speaker 1: country safely? And when it gets there, how exactly are

576
00:33:12,840 --> 00:33:16,560
Speaker 1: you going to unload and place it safely into containment.

577
00:33:16,720 --> 00:33:20,320
Speaker 1: There's probably going to be other challenges, but I can't

578
00:33:20,320 --> 00:33:23,200
Speaker 1: predict either what they are or how successful they'll be.

579
00:33:23,360 --> 00:33:26,480
Speaker 2: It's probably a long way to go before this facility

580
00:33:26,480 --> 00:33:30,560
Speaker 2: gets authorization. If ever, Thanks so much, Pat. As always,

581
00:33:30,800 --> 00:33:34,560
Speaker 2: that's Professor Pat Parento of the Vermont Law and Graduate School.

582
00:33:35,680 --> 00:33:38,040
Speaker 2: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

583
00:33:38,360 --> 00:33:40,680
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

584
00:33:40,760 --> 00:33:44,960
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

585
00:33:45,200 --> 00:33:50,240
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

586
00:33:50,640 --> 00:33:53,240
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

587
00:33:53,280 --> 00:33:57,200
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso,

588
00:33:57,320 --> 00:33:58,920
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg