1
00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Brusso from Bloombird Radio.

2
00:00:09,520 --> 00:00:12,920
Speaker 1: For decades, the Navajo Nation has been fighting in court

3
00:00:13,080 --> 00:00:16,880
Speaker 1: for water. Thirty percent of people on the largest Indian

4
00:00:16,920 --> 00:00:21,160
Speaker 1: reservation in the country live without running water. The Navajo

5
00:00:21,280 --> 00:00:24,279
Speaker 1: claims the US government is on the hook to help

6
00:00:24,280 --> 00:00:28,080
Speaker 1: it access water under a treaty dating back to eighteen

7
00:00:28,200 --> 00:00:32,280
Speaker 1: forty nine, which returned the tribe to its ancestral lands

8
00:00:32,600 --> 00:00:35,920
Speaker 1: and promised to provide them with a quote permanent home.

9
00:00:36,440 --> 00:00:38,960
Speaker 1: And this week the nation took its case to the

10
00:00:39,000 --> 00:00:43,880
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, where three liberal juices and conservative Justice Neil

11
00:00:43,960 --> 00:00:49,040
Speaker 1: Gorsich seems sympathetic to its claims. Here are Jounstices Gorsch

12
00:00:49,120 --> 00:00:51,879
Speaker 1: and Elena Kagan. Could I bring a good breach of

13
00:00:51,920 --> 00:00:55,680
Speaker 1: state contract claim for someone who promised me a permanent home,

14
00:00:55,800 --> 00:00:58,880
Speaker 1: the right to conduct agriculture and raise animals if it

15
00:00:58,920 --> 00:01:02,440
Speaker 1: turns out it's the Sahara Desert. I don't think you

16
00:01:02,520 --> 00:01:04,680
Speaker 1: would be able to bring a breach of contract claim.

17
00:01:05,120 --> 00:01:08,120
Speaker 1: I think you don't think that's a breach of good

18
00:01:08,160 --> 00:01:12,959
Speaker 1: faith and fair dealing. And I guess I don't understand

19
00:01:13,080 --> 00:01:16,640
Speaker 1: if the treaty promises water where you get the idea

20
00:01:16,720 --> 00:01:20,640
Speaker 1: that that is unenforceable. Four of the other conservative justice

21
00:01:20,760 --> 00:01:23,920
Speaker 1: is including the Chief Justice, appeared to side with the

22
00:01:24,000 --> 00:01:29,560
Speaker 1: Biden administration. Why wasn't the water mentioned? As your argument

23
00:01:29,560 --> 00:01:33,160
Speaker 1: now is it's necessarily implicit, but the other things were

24
00:01:33,200 --> 00:01:35,360
Speaker 1: spelled out. Wouldn't you have spelled out the water at

25
00:01:35,360 --> 00:01:39,160
Speaker 1: the time? Leaving Justice Amy Coney Barrett as the possible

26
00:01:39,440 --> 00:01:43,240
Speaker 1: decisive vote in the case. Joining me is Ezra Rosser,

27
00:01:43,480 --> 00:01:47,400
Speaker 1: Professor of Law at the American University Washington College of Law.

28
00:01:48,160 --> 00:01:51,600
Speaker 1: It appears that the water situation for the Navajo nation

29
00:01:51,840 --> 00:01:55,760
Speaker 1: is really bleak. Almost a third of houses don't have

30
00:01:55,880 --> 00:02:00,200
Speaker 1: running water. So how bad is it? It's been bad,

31
00:02:00,280 --> 00:02:02,760
Speaker 1: and it is bad. I think one of the positives

32
00:02:02,760 --> 00:02:04,840
Speaker 1: of this case is that it brings some attention to

33
00:02:05,120 --> 00:02:07,480
Speaker 1: something that doesn't usually get much attention at all. But

34
00:02:07,960 --> 00:02:10,720
Speaker 1: my view on it, outside of the law, this would

35
00:02:10,760 --> 00:02:13,639
Speaker 1: not be tolerated for any other group in America. It's

36
00:02:13,680 --> 00:02:16,519
Speaker 1: just because their Navajo that we are okay with people

37
00:02:16,560 --> 00:02:21,200
Speaker 1: living with such lack of basic conservices. Does this lawsuit

38
00:02:21,880 --> 00:02:26,680
Speaker 1: depend on treaty in eighteen sixty eight, so it depends

39
00:02:26,680 --> 00:02:29,799
Speaker 1: how you interpret it. I think one answer would be

40
00:02:30,440 --> 00:02:35,240
Speaker 1: the treaty set stop land and under Winters, which is

41
00:02:35,240 --> 00:02:38,680
Speaker 1: this case that recognized the rights of tribes to water

42
00:02:38,840 --> 00:02:42,200
Speaker 1: to fulfill the purposes of the reservation. That should be enough.

43
00:02:42,560 --> 00:02:46,520
Speaker 1: And so there's certainly a claim that the treaty, combined

44
00:02:46,560 --> 00:02:50,880
Speaker 1: with the Winters doctrine, should provide the tribe a lot

45
00:02:50,919 --> 00:02:54,240
Speaker 1: more rights than they've been given so far. So what's

46
00:02:54,280 --> 00:02:58,080
Speaker 1: the argument of the federal government and the others involved,

47
00:02:58,160 --> 00:03:01,560
Speaker 1: Why shouldn't they have access to this water? Well, technically

48
00:03:01,639 --> 00:03:04,760
Speaker 1: it's not about access, and even the tribes position is

49
00:03:04,800 --> 00:03:07,400
Speaker 1: not about access at this point. We long term, of course,

50
00:03:07,400 --> 00:03:10,320
Speaker 1: it's about actual water. But at this point the case

51
00:03:10,440 --> 00:03:13,840
Speaker 1: is about is the United States even doing the bare

52
00:03:13,919 --> 00:03:17,040
Speaker 1: minimum to figure out how much water the tribe should have?

53
00:03:17,280 --> 00:03:19,800
Speaker 1: And the tribes position, of course is no, they haven't

54
00:03:19,800 --> 00:03:24,120
Speaker 1: done anything. The US's position is, and I think, even

55
00:03:24,280 --> 00:03:27,080
Speaker 1: reading it fairly to them, it is that we don't

56
00:03:27,120 --> 00:03:29,280
Speaker 1: have to It's not a yes, we've done enough. It's

57
00:03:29,320 --> 00:03:31,959
Speaker 1: that we don't have to do enough, meaning that there's

58
00:03:32,040 --> 00:03:35,760
Speaker 1: no enforcement that the tribe has to force the United

59
00:03:35,800 --> 00:03:39,920
Speaker 1: States to deal with and protect the tribe's winter's rights.

60
00:03:39,960 --> 00:03:42,840
Speaker 1: In this day and age, that does seem astonishing that

61
00:03:42,920 --> 00:03:45,840
Speaker 1: the federal government would say that. I mean in defense

62
00:03:45,880 --> 00:03:48,240
Speaker 1: of the federal government position, which, of course, as you know,

63
00:03:48,280 --> 00:03:50,440
Speaker 1: I wrote a brief on the other side saying that

64
00:03:50,480 --> 00:03:52,880
Speaker 1: it should be enforceable. But there have been a number

65
00:03:52,920 --> 00:03:56,520
Speaker 1: of Supreme Court cases that have come out against Indian

66
00:03:56,600 --> 00:04:00,200
Speaker 1: tribes saying that the United States does not have an

67
00:04:00,320 --> 00:04:05,120
Speaker 1: enforceable obligation or trust responsibility, and so if you read

68
00:04:05,200 --> 00:04:09,600
Speaker 1: those in a very broadway, then they might limit the

69
00:04:09,600 --> 00:04:13,080
Speaker 1: ability of tribes to enforce their rights against the United States.

70
00:04:13,160 --> 00:04:17,040
Speaker 1: Could tell us briefly what the issue is before the justices.

71
00:04:17,600 --> 00:04:22,960
Speaker 1: So the issue is the enforceability of the Winter's right.

72
00:04:23,279 --> 00:04:25,880
Speaker 1: I think there is a broadway to describe it. So

73
00:04:26,360 --> 00:04:30,040
Speaker 1: the United States government, because of the conquest of tribes,

74
00:04:30,240 --> 00:04:33,560
Speaker 1: has long recognized that it has a trust responsibility, and

75
00:04:33,600 --> 00:04:36,560
Speaker 1: sometimes it's praised in terms of a guardian ward relationship.

76
00:04:36,760 --> 00:04:39,880
Speaker 1: But the United States government, for example, on land, the

77
00:04:40,040 --> 00:04:43,080
Speaker 1: land is held in trust for the tribes, and both

78
00:04:43,120 --> 00:04:46,080
Speaker 1: the United States and tribes are the owner of the lane.

79
00:04:46,720 --> 00:04:49,200
Speaker 1: And if you hold something in trust, then you're supposed

80
00:04:49,240 --> 00:04:51,599
Speaker 1: to have obligations to make sure you live up to

81
00:04:51,640 --> 00:04:55,279
Speaker 1: the rights of the beneficiary or the party you're supposedly supporting.

82
00:04:55,760 --> 00:04:59,400
Speaker 1: And so it's the tribes position that the United States

83
00:04:59,400 --> 00:05:02,159
Speaker 1: has not been doing that, and that at the very

84
00:05:02,160 --> 00:05:05,280
Speaker 1: bare minimum, the US has to figure out what the

85
00:05:05,400 --> 00:05:08,600
Speaker 1: level of water Navajo should have is and then after

86
00:05:08,640 --> 00:05:14,080
Speaker 1: that presumably takes steps to ensure that Navajo does get

87
00:05:14,120 --> 00:05:17,400
Speaker 1: the water they're entitled to. But so far, and we

88
00:05:17,440 --> 00:05:20,480
Speaker 1: know this just from things like the Central Arizona Project,

89
00:05:21,120 --> 00:05:24,359
Speaker 1: the basic position of the federal government has been to

90
00:05:24,440 --> 00:05:28,560
Speaker 1: give away water to non Indian and offer reservation communities

91
00:05:28,600 --> 00:05:32,080
Speaker 1: and do very little to protect tribal water rights. Looking

92
00:05:32,120 --> 00:05:36,840
Speaker 1: at the oral arguments, it seems as if there were

93
00:05:37,360 --> 00:05:42,000
Speaker 1: two camps, the Conservatives leaning against the Navajo Nation, the

94
00:05:42,080 --> 00:05:46,799
Speaker 1: liberals plus Justice Gore Such leaning for the Navajo Nation,

95
00:05:46,839 --> 00:05:50,640
Speaker 1: and then Justice Amy Coney Barrett perhaps the deciding vote.

96
00:05:51,000 --> 00:05:53,800
Speaker 1: I mean, I think the challenge on making any of

97
00:05:53,800 --> 00:05:57,239
Speaker 1: these predictions is that in the recent path the Court

98
00:05:57,279 --> 00:06:01,640
Speaker 1: has done two very dramatic decisions. So they did McGirt,

99
00:06:01,680 --> 00:06:06,000
Speaker 1: which came out variant favor of the tribal side on

100
00:06:06,160 --> 00:06:09,320
Speaker 1: jurisdiction in Oklahoma, and then they came out with another case,

101
00:06:09,440 --> 00:06:12,920
Speaker 1: Castro Horrita, which did the opposite variant favor of the

102
00:06:12,920 --> 00:06:16,880
Speaker 1: state over tribes. One pessimistic reed from an Indian side

103
00:06:16,960 --> 00:06:19,600
Speaker 1: is that there had been a change in the composition

104
00:06:19,600 --> 00:06:22,840
Speaker 1: of the court and so the balance swung against Indians.

105
00:06:22,880 --> 00:06:25,919
Speaker 1: But the more positive from the tribal side is you

106
00:06:25,960 --> 00:06:30,720
Speaker 1: do see that these are hard cases where conservatives that

107
00:06:30,880 --> 00:06:34,280
Speaker 1: is particularly Gorset, of course, but conservatives can see the

108
00:06:34,400 --> 00:06:37,960
Speaker 1: validity of the tribal arguments. You mentioned Justice Gorset, who

109
00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:41,680
Speaker 1: frequently votes in favor of Native Americans. He focused on

110
00:06:41,720 --> 00:06:44,440
Speaker 1: the language and the treaty that guaranteed the tribe a

111
00:06:44,560 --> 00:06:47,920
Speaker 1: permanent homeland. Is it possible to have a permanent home

112
00:06:47,960 --> 00:06:51,800
Speaker 1: and raise animals without water? That is the most basic

113
00:06:52,400 --> 00:06:55,160
Speaker 1: And this is a little bit maybe not as objective

114
00:06:55,160 --> 00:06:58,480
Speaker 1: as perhaps we're wanting, but this should be an easy case.

115
00:06:58,680 --> 00:07:03,240
Speaker 1: Navajos lived without nearly the water non Indian communities have,

116
00:07:03,800 --> 00:07:06,920
Speaker 1: and we have said that they are supposed to have

117
00:07:07,040 --> 00:07:10,119
Speaker 1: this reservation land and supposed to be used, among other things,

118
00:07:10,120 --> 00:07:13,600
Speaker 1: for agricultural purposes, as spelled out in the treaties, and

119
00:07:13,680 --> 00:07:16,320
Speaker 1: we have not guaranteed or protected their rights to water.

120
00:07:16,440 --> 00:07:19,679
Speaker 1: So I think Gorstache is right to think it really

121
00:07:19,720 --> 00:07:22,560
Speaker 1: should come down to a pretty simple do we believe

122
00:07:22,600 --> 00:07:25,840
Speaker 1: in Winters and his Winters still good law? But there

123
00:07:25,880 --> 00:07:27,920
Speaker 1: are arguments on the other side that are likely to

124
00:07:27,920 --> 00:07:30,880
Speaker 1: complicate it. And that is, even if you believe in Winters,

125
00:07:31,000 --> 00:07:34,120
Speaker 1: can you give a right to enforce win pan on

126
00:07:34,320 --> 00:07:37,760
Speaker 1: that some of the recent cases Hikoria and Namahonation one

127
00:07:37,800 --> 00:07:41,040
Speaker 1: and two, both of those have even in the face

128
00:07:41,080 --> 00:07:43,920
Speaker 1: and Navonation of really bad facts on the federal government,

129
00:07:43,960 --> 00:07:46,800
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has come back and said no remedy

130
00:07:46,880 --> 00:07:51,120
Speaker 1: for the tribe. In Navajonation one, the Secretary of the

131
00:07:51,160 --> 00:07:55,440
Speaker 1: Interior had killed a report that was going to release

132
00:07:55,920 --> 00:08:00,240
Speaker 1: information that the nomination could use to renegotiate a mining

133
00:08:00,320 --> 00:08:03,680
Speaker 1: leaf and they killed the report because Peabody Cole hired

134
00:08:03,720 --> 00:08:06,200
Speaker 1: the best friend of the secretary to lobby um and

135
00:08:06,440 --> 00:08:09,400
Speaker 1: that wasn't enough for the nalahnation to have a remedy,

136
00:08:09,480 --> 00:08:12,400
Speaker 1: even though that is a clear breach of the trust responsibility.

137
00:08:12,480 --> 00:08:15,920
Speaker 1: So the challenge is is that Winters is now confronting

138
00:08:16,480 --> 00:08:19,760
Speaker 1: these sort of anti Indian cases. Mahanation want to pike Korea,

139
00:08:20,160 --> 00:08:22,720
Speaker 1: and the Corps has to figure out, you know, do

140
00:08:22,840 --> 00:08:25,120
Speaker 1: we mean it when we said tribes should live on

141
00:08:25,160 --> 00:08:28,520
Speaker 1: these reservations, which, of course it's or do we want

142
00:08:28,560 --> 00:08:32,280
Speaker 1: to excuse the federal government from obligations? Yeah, I'm so.

143
00:08:32,480 --> 00:08:36,319
Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Roberts asked why wasn't the water mentioned

144
00:08:36,520 --> 00:08:41,080
Speaker 1: in the treaty? And Justice Samuel Alito he sort of

145
00:08:41,160 --> 00:08:44,720
Speaker 1: questioned the real world impacts of the tribe's claim that

146
00:08:44,800 --> 00:08:47,720
Speaker 1: it would have negative impacts on the water to allocate

147
00:08:47,720 --> 00:08:49,880
Speaker 1: you to the surrounding states, should that be part of

148
00:08:49,920 --> 00:08:52,600
Speaker 1: the equation, what happens to the surrounding states? Or should

149
00:08:52,600 --> 00:08:54,560
Speaker 1: it be you know what's in the treaty and what

150
00:08:54,600 --> 00:08:57,440
Speaker 1: the federal government is supposed to do. Two thoughts, So,

151
00:08:57,600 --> 00:09:00,800
Speaker 1: first to take a step back, or did focus a

152
00:09:00,800 --> 00:09:02,920
Speaker 1: lot on the eighteen sixty eight treaty, and that's a

153
00:09:03,040 --> 00:09:06,640
Speaker 1: fair nomination. Has a day that celebrates the treaty. There's

154
00:09:06,640 --> 00:09:08,920
Speaker 1: a treaty Day, right. It's a very important treaty, but

155
00:09:09,160 --> 00:09:11,960
Speaker 1: it's not limited to that. The reservation is much larger

156
00:09:12,000 --> 00:09:15,199
Speaker 1: than the original reservation, and it expanded through executive orders

157
00:09:15,280 --> 00:09:18,400
Speaker 1: and other legislation that pushed the boundaries out to the

158
00:09:18,440 --> 00:09:23,280
Speaker 1: Colorado River. And those also were only viable if they

159
00:09:23,320 --> 00:09:26,520
Speaker 1: had access to water. So I think one dangerous thing

160
00:09:26,640 --> 00:09:29,160
Speaker 1: is to focus too much just on the treaty land,

161
00:09:29,320 --> 00:09:32,160
Speaker 1: because it's also the whole of the reservation needs water,

162
00:09:32,559 --> 00:09:34,959
Speaker 1: and presumably when they set up the rest of the

163
00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:37,880
Speaker 1: reservation they also, just like in winters, imagine that there

164
00:09:37,880 --> 00:09:39,959
Speaker 1: would be waters to support life on that part of

165
00:09:39,960 --> 00:09:42,480
Speaker 1: the reservation. So I know the oral argument focused a

166
00:09:42,480 --> 00:09:44,240
Speaker 1: lot on that, but I think it is bigger than

167
00:09:44,280 --> 00:09:48,319
Speaker 1: that on the question of the impacts formally, of course,

168
00:09:48,600 --> 00:09:51,559
Speaker 1: and the lawyer for the tribe at this point, formally

169
00:09:51,880 --> 00:09:55,240
Speaker 1: the United States has just been asked to account for

170
00:09:55,280 --> 00:09:58,640
Speaker 1: how much water Navajo has a right to, which formally

171
00:09:58,760 --> 00:10:01,880
Speaker 1: does not take away rights from any other non Indian

172
00:10:01,960 --> 00:10:06,120
Speaker 1: users of course, though the second thing is is once

173
00:10:06,200 --> 00:10:10,240
Speaker 1: that right becomes quantified, and that right is probably very significant,

174
00:10:10,280 --> 00:10:12,600
Speaker 1: as we heard from the oral argument, that Nava hosts

175
00:10:12,679 --> 00:10:16,160
Speaker 1: use so much less water offer reservation users, then there'd

176
00:10:16,200 --> 00:10:17,560
Speaker 1: have to be a question of where does that water

177
00:10:17,600 --> 00:10:20,800
Speaker 1: come from? And the choice to always prioritize non Indian

178
00:10:20,800 --> 00:10:24,360
Speaker 1: water users is one that I hope would be challenged.

179
00:10:24,880 --> 00:10:28,720
Speaker 1: What does the federal government expect the Navajo Nation to do?

180
00:10:29,240 --> 00:10:32,600
Speaker 1: I think it's hard right now. Again, the position though

181
00:10:32,640 --> 00:10:34,360
Speaker 1: they just are saying we need to know what we

182
00:10:34,440 --> 00:10:37,800
Speaker 1: have before we do things right, so they're not asked

183
00:10:37,840 --> 00:10:40,800
Speaker 1: the big allocations things. Of course, once they have a

184
00:10:40,920 --> 00:10:43,199
Speaker 1: right to things, then they can push for more right

185
00:10:43,360 --> 00:10:47,480
Speaker 1: tied to those recognition of their allocation. I think one answer,

186
00:10:47,520 --> 00:10:49,880
Speaker 1: you know, when you think about from the Nava hosts

187
00:10:49,880 --> 00:10:53,040
Speaker 1: the endpoint. The example that I use is the Central

188
00:10:53,080 --> 00:10:56,200
Speaker 1: Arizona Project is not something that the rest of the

189
00:10:56,240 --> 00:10:58,439
Speaker 1: state of Arizona had a right to, but the government

190
00:10:58,480 --> 00:11:01,480
Speaker 1: decided to support right as they recognize the needs of

191
00:11:01,520 --> 00:11:03,559
Speaker 1: the lower part of the state. Well, if the needs

192
00:11:03,559 --> 00:11:07,839
Speaker 1: of a Navajo reservation are recognized, then hopefully the US

193
00:11:07,920 --> 00:11:10,120
Speaker 1: government would come in and say, you know, it matters

194
00:11:10,160 --> 00:11:12,360
Speaker 1: that if many people don't have access to water and

195
00:11:12,400 --> 00:11:14,440
Speaker 1: we need to do something about it. So that is

196
00:11:14,520 --> 00:11:17,480
Speaker 1: different from the legal question. This case will not resolve

197
00:11:17,480 --> 00:11:20,160
Speaker 1: all those questions. But I would be hopeful that if

198
00:11:20,200 --> 00:11:23,520
Speaker 1: we recognize the depth of the need and the idea,

199
00:11:23,559 --> 00:11:25,160
Speaker 1: and this is the part of the case that the

200
00:11:25,280 --> 00:11:28,040
Speaker 1: United States will be held accountable for where it doesn't

201
00:11:28,400 --> 00:11:33,160
Speaker 1: act as a good trustee, then some of the water

202
00:11:33,200 --> 00:11:37,000
Speaker 1: would eventually flow to the Navaho households. There was a

203
00:11:37,080 --> 00:11:41,000
Speaker 1: tension paid early on in the Biden administration to having

204
00:11:41,080 --> 00:11:44,880
Speaker 1: a Native American as part of Biden's staff. So it

205
00:11:44,960 --> 00:11:48,079
Speaker 1: seems odd to me that the federal government is taking

206
00:11:48,120 --> 00:11:54,000
Speaker 1: this hardline position. I too think that this is sad

207
00:11:54,280 --> 00:11:58,200
Speaker 1: that the Biden administration is coming out this way. I

208
00:11:58,200 --> 00:12:01,320
Speaker 1: would have hoped that the Biden administration would have decided

209
00:12:01,400 --> 00:12:03,760
Speaker 1: this is something that we don't want to argue the

210
00:12:03,800 --> 00:12:07,840
Speaker 1: strongest version of our possible arguments. Right. So their argument

211
00:12:07,960 --> 00:12:10,600
Speaker 1: right now to me is like you know, a child

212
00:12:10,720 --> 00:12:14,040
Speaker 1: that gets caught and says you can't punish, and that

213
00:12:14,120 --> 00:12:16,719
Speaker 1: can't be right. Right If you actually mean that this

214
00:12:16,800 --> 00:12:20,480
Speaker 1: is an obligation, it should have some enforcement attached to

215
00:12:20,480 --> 00:12:23,240
Speaker 1: the person you owe something too. And the argument they're

216
00:12:23,280 --> 00:12:26,080
Speaker 1: making is no enforcement. On the other hand, you know

217
00:12:26,120 --> 00:12:28,600
Speaker 1: the first part of your question, I've just gently pushed

218
00:12:28,600 --> 00:12:31,440
Speaker 1: back again. I don't think this is getting anywhere near

219
00:12:31,800 --> 00:12:34,880
Speaker 1: or the Biden administration or any the administration in recent

220
00:12:34,920 --> 00:12:37,000
Speaker 1: history has paid much attention to Indians. I mean, there

221
00:12:37,080 --> 00:12:39,920
Speaker 1: was some attention in COVID when Navajo Nation, in part

222
00:12:40,040 --> 00:12:42,000
Speaker 1: tied to their lack of water, had some of the

223
00:12:42,080 --> 00:12:45,880
Speaker 1: highest rates of COVID early on, and people correctly saw it. Well,

224
00:12:45,880 --> 00:12:48,040
Speaker 1: if you can't wash your hands, you know, that could contribute,

225
00:12:48,080 --> 00:12:50,480
Speaker 1: et cetera. And if you had the overcrowding on the reservation,

226
00:12:50,559 --> 00:12:52,839
Speaker 1: that would contribute. But the joke that one of the

227
00:12:52,880 --> 00:12:55,080
Speaker 1: books that I read said is that there was a

228
00:12:55,120 --> 00:12:57,800
Speaker 1: big turning point when Kostner came out with the answers

229
00:12:57,840 --> 00:13:01,760
Speaker 1: with wolves. Suddenly people cared about it. I don't see

230
00:13:01,800 --> 00:13:03,960
Speaker 1: a lot of care. I am a non Indian than

231
00:13:04,040 --> 00:13:07,280
Speaker 1: I get still tons of questions to just show the

232
00:13:07,400 --> 00:13:09,760
Speaker 1: basic ignorance. My kids are in school and we teach

233
00:13:09,800 --> 00:13:14,320
Speaker 1: Indians as if they mattered until eighteen thirty, and they don't.

234
00:13:14,400 --> 00:13:17,080
Speaker 1: And maybe they mattered until the eighteen eighties, but we

235
00:13:17,120 --> 00:13:20,320
Speaker 1: don't think of them as living people much anymore. This

236
00:13:20,360 --> 00:13:23,000
Speaker 1: case was first brought by the Navajo Nation in two

237
00:13:23,080 --> 00:13:26,880
Speaker 1: thousand and three. How is it still not resolved? There's

238
00:13:26,920 --> 00:13:29,120
Speaker 1: a lot of answers to that. I mean, one is

239
00:13:29,200 --> 00:13:32,120
Speaker 1: the positioning of the case, and really what they're asking

240
00:13:32,160 --> 00:13:35,320
Speaker 1: about in this case in part on the treatise was

241
00:13:35,440 --> 00:13:38,440
Speaker 1: disagreements between the nomination and the lower court on whether

242
00:13:38,520 --> 00:13:40,800
Speaker 1: or not the treaties could come in to help rester

243
00:13:41,040 --> 00:13:45,079
Speaker 1: ground the trust responsibility claim, and so part of it

244
00:13:45,120 --> 00:13:47,920
Speaker 1: is just sort of stuff involving legal process. I think

245
00:13:47,920 --> 00:13:49,680
Speaker 1: the other and you see this in all the water

246
00:13:49,760 --> 00:13:54,400
Speaker 1: rights cases, even water rights settlements where tribes, states and

247
00:13:54,440 --> 00:13:57,800
Speaker 1: the federal government want a settlement. It is a wrong,

248
00:13:58,160 --> 00:14:01,240
Speaker 1: dragged out process, and I would say it's probably only

249
00:14:01,240 --> 00:14:04,840
Speaker 1: going to get worse as the new normal the drought

250
00:14:04,960 --> 00:14:09,040
Speaker 1: on that's affecting the Colorado River intensifizing. People recognize that

251
00:14:09,240 --> 00:14:13,760
Speaker 1: it's likely to have significant impacts on life in those states.

252
00:14:14,280 --> 00:14:16,760
Speaker 1: So do you have any feel for how the argument

253
00:14:16,800 --> 00:14:19,280
Speaker 1: went at all? There's some positive and this is sort

254
00:14:19,280 --> 00:14:22,440
Speaker 1: of like the Braccine case, where I'd like the fact

255
00:14:22,640 --> 00:14:25,560
Speaker 1: that all the parties were willing to talk about the treatise.

256
00:14:25,680 --> 00:14:28,520
Speaker 1: I think the winters part of the claim is the strongest,

257
00:14:28,560 --> 00:14:30,600
Speaker 1: and that tying that to the treaties and making sure

258
00:14:30,600 --> 00:14:34,800
Speaker 1: the justices recognized that forceability matters if you're actually going

259
00:14:34,880 --> 00:14:37,520
Speaker 1: to have winters right. So I liked that part. I

260
00:14:37,560 --> 00:14:41,040
Speaker 1: thought that was strong. I thought the liberal justices did

261
00:14:41,080 --> 00:14:44,560
Speaker 1: a great job undermining the state and the federal claim.

262
00:14:44,680 --> 00:14:47,520
Speaker 1: So I thought the liberal justices were actually very vocal

263
00:14:47,560 --> 00:14:51,640
Speaker 1: and pushing their view, and I like that they were

264
00:14:51,640 --> 00:14:55,040
Speaker 1: a little bit. This will sound small, but they got

265
00:14:55,080 --> 00:14:57,560
Speaker 1: into the details a little bit, not a lot, and

266
00:14:57,600 --> 00:14:59,800
Speaker 1: they still had some trouble about like amount of water

267
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:03,360
Speaker 1: being used. But the fact that they cared about details

268
00:15:03,720 --> 00:15:06,520
Speaker 1: to me suggests that even if the case comes out

269
00:15:06,600 --> 00:15:11,520
Speaker 1: against nomination, hopefully it won't be against the Winter's right

270
00:15:11,880 --> 00:15:14,520
Speaker 1: period right. So the fact that it was focused on

271
00:15:14,760 --> 00:15:17,640
Speaker 1: details suggests that even a negative turn on the case

272
00:15:17,680 --> 00:15:20,960
Speaker 1: would it be a total reversal of all. President, Thanks

273
00:15:20,960 --> 00:15:23,360
Speaker 1: so much for being on the Bloomberg Laws Show. That's

274
00:15:23,400 --> 00:15:28,560
Speaker 1: Professor Ezra Rosser of the American University Washington College of Law.

275
00:15:30,400 --> 00:15:33,720
Speaker 1: A federal judge has tossed the majority of the claims

276
00:15:33,760 --> 00:15:37,200
Speaker 1: made against JP, Morgan Chase, and Deutsche Bank in a

277
00:15:37,280 --> 00:15:41,120
Speaker 1: lawsuit by A. Jane Doe, who alleges the banks participated

278
00:15:41,160 --> 00:15:45,760
Speaker 1: in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking scheme. Still, Jane Doe's attorneys

279
00:15:45,800 --> 00:15:48,520
Speaker 1: called the judge's decision, which allows the case to go

280
00:15:48,640 --> 00:15:53,080
Speaker 1: forward a victory. Discovery will proceed as the bank's face

281
00:15:53,200 --> 00:15:57,560
Speaker 1: claims that they knowingly benefited from Epstein's sex trafficking venture.

282
00:15:58,000 --> 00:16:01,080
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter A. Benny Morrison, who

283
00:16:01,120 --> 00:16:04,400
Speaker 1: has been covering all these cases. EVA. Before we get

284
00:16:04,400 --> 00:16:07,520
Speaker 1: to the judge's decision, give us a little background on

285
00:16:07,560 --> 00:16:11,720
Speaker 1: the lawsuit itself. So, a victim of Jeffrey Epstein filed

286
00:16:11,880 --> 00:16:16,240
Speaker 1: a proposed class action against JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank

287
00:16:16,320 --> 00:16:19,800
Speaker 1: late last year. The victim, known only as Jane Doe,

288
00:16:19,960 --> 00:16:24,400
Speaker 1: is alleging that the banks facilitated Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking

289
00:16:24,440 --> 00:16:28,760
Speaker 1: by providing him with financial services for many years, allowing

290
00:16:28,840 --> 00:16:32,080
Speaker 1: him to move around millions of dollars and payoff victims

291
00:16:32,080 --> 00:16:35,880
Speaker 1: allegedly and use it to finance his private jet to

292
00:16:35,880 --> 00:16:38,120
Speaker 1: fly them around as well. There was a hearing the

293
00:16:38,160 --> 00:16:42,040
Speaker 1: banks asked Judge Jed Rakoff to throw out the suit.

294
00:16:42,680 --> 00:16:45,720
Speaker 1: Tell us what grounds they asked him to throw it

295
00:16:45,760 --> 00:16:49,320
Speaker 1: out under both banks made motions are dismissed to have

296
00:16:49,360 --> 00:16:53,440
Speaker 1: the entire lawsuits thrown out, and the claims were a

297
00:16:53,480 --> 00:16:58,120
Speaker 1: little bit different. Deutsche Bank relied on a settlement agreement

298
00:16:58,240 --> 00:17:00,880
Speaker 1: that Jane Doe had entered it to a few years ago,

299
00:17:01,520 --> 00:17:06,840
Speaker 1: which was meant to protect some entities and people with

300
00:17:07,040 --> 00:17:10,040
Speaker 1: ties to Epstein from being sued in the future, and

301
00:17:10,200 --> 00:17:13,920
Speaker 1: Deutsche Bank said that that extended to them, whereas Jane

302
00:17:13,920 --> 00:17:16,760
Speaker 1: Doe said, Noah didn't and that wasn't the attention of

303
00:17:16,800 --> 00:17:20,479
Speaker 1: the settlement at all. JP Morgan, who had Epstein as

304
00:17:20,480 --> 00:17:25,560
Speaker 1: a client from about nineteen eighty eight thirteen, said that

305
00:17:26,640 --> 00:17:29,200
Speaker 1: it made a number of arguments, essentially in asking for

306
00:17:29,240 --> 00:17:31,960
Speaker 1: the case to be dismissed. The lawyers for the bank

307
00:17:32,040 --> 00:17:35,639
Speaker 1: said that Jane Doe hadn't met the legal threshold to

308
00:17:35,760 --> 00:17:39,640
Speaker 1: show that there was knowledge of sex trafficking that could

309
00:17:39,680 --> 00:17:42,240
Speaker 1: be imputed to the bank, or that there was sex

310
00:17:42,280 --> 00:17:46,080
Speaker 1: trafficking at all. Sexual abuse, yes, but not trafficking. It

311
00:17:46,240 --> 00:17:50,000
Speaker 1: also said that the actions of its former executive, Jess Daily,

312
00:17:50,080 --> 00:17:52,639
Speaker 1: he was very close with Epstein, went to his house

313
00:17:52,760 --> 00:17:55,280
Speaker 1: the one his jet, could not be imputed to the

314
00:17:55,320 --> 00:17:59,280
Speaker 1: bank because they fell outside the scope of his employment.

315
00:18:00,160 --> 00:18:04,000
Speaker 1: Judge Rakoff actually dismissed a majority of the claims against

316
00:18:04,000 --> 00:18:06,639
Speaker 1: the bank tell us which ones yes. It was a

317
00:18:06,720 --> 00:18:09,280
Speaker 1: very quick decision, I think in less than a week

318
00:18:09,440 --> 00:18:12,880
Speaker 1: he made a call on what claims would be dismissed

319
00:18:12,880 --> 00:18:17,320
Speaker 1: and what would proceed. So Judge Rakoff dismissed a majority

320
00:18:17,520 --> 00:18:20,320
Speaker 1: of the claims that were in Jaden Doe's suit against

321
00:18:20,400 --> 00:18:25,160
Speaker 1: JP Morgan but he did allow a few key claims

322
00:18:25,320 --> 00:18:28,639
Speaker 1: under the Trafficking Victims Prevention Act to proceed, and I

323
00:18:28,640 --> 00:18:31,520
Speaker 1: spoke to a couple of attorneys who deal with human

324
00:18:31,560 --> 00:18:34,280
Speaker 1: trafficking cases who said that this was a pretty good

325
00:18:34,280 --> 00:18:37,640
Speaker 1: outcome for the plaintiffs. So the ones that survived were

326
00:18:37,880 --> 00:18:43,400
Speaker 1: that JP Morgan knowingly benefited from Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking

327
00:18:43,480 --> 00:18:48,840
Speaker 1: venture and that it obstructed enforcement of the TVPA so

328
00:18:48,960 --> 00:18:53,760
Speaker 1: it delayed charges being pressed against Epstein because it didn't

329
00:18:54,240 --> 00:18:58,080
Speaker 1: follow proper banking laws and raise red flags about his

330
00:18:58,160 --> 00:19:03,240
Speaker 1: transactions and with Dewitch Bank, those two key claims were

331
00:19:03,280 --> 00:19:06,800
Speaker 1: also allowed to proceed, with a couple of other ones

332
00:19:06,840 --> 00:19:11,479
Speaker 1: as well, about negligent failure to exercise reasonable care as

333
00:19:11,520 --> 00:19:15,439
Speaker 1: a banking institution providing non routine banking. Do the judge

334
00:19:15,480 --> 00:19:19,320
Speaker 1: say why he was dismissing certain charges and allowing others

335
00:19:19,320 --> 00:19:22,960
Speaker 1: to go forward. No, and that's what we're all waiting for.

336
00:19:23,040 --> 00:19:28,000
Speaker 1: So he announced his decision yesterday, but he hasn't filed

337
00:19:28,640 --> 00:19:31,960
Speaker 1: his opinion yet, which will go into I guess why

338
00:19:32,080 --> 00:19:36,160
Speaker 1: he decided to strike some claims and why he decided

339
00:19:36,200 --> 00:19:40,159
Speaker 1: to keep others. I'm surprised you don't often hear a

340
00:19:40,320 --> 00:19:44,439
Speaker 1: plaintiff because the lawyers for Jane Doe also call this

341
00:19:44,520 --> 00:19:47,720
Speaker 1: a victory. You don't usually hear a plaintiff calling something

342
00:19:47,760 --> 00:19:52,720
Speaker 1: a victory when a majority of their claims are being dismissed. No,

343
00:19:53,000 --> 00:19:55,119
Speaker 1: but I think a lot of people expected it was

344
00:19:55,160 --> 00:19:56,920
Speaker 1: going to be a bit of a mixed bag. So

345
00:19:57,000 --> 00:20:00,159
Speaker 1: there were going to be some claims that survived and

346
00:20:00,359 --> 00:20:04,680
Speaker 1: some that didn't. And it is a very difficult thing

347
00:20:04,760 --> 00:20:08,960
Speaker 1: to prove that a business or a company was directly

348
00:20:09,160 --> 00:20:12,520
Speaker 1: involved and participated in either a sex traffing or a

349
00:20:12,600 --> 00:20:15,560
Speaker 1: human trafficking venture. So the fact that they've been able

350
00:20:15,600 --> 00:20:19,280
Speaker 1: to hold on to some of those key trafficking claims

351
00:20:19,720 --> 00:20:22,040
Speaker 1: was seen as a victory, like he said, by the

352
00:20:22,040 --> 00:20:25,080
Speaker 1: plaintiffs lawyers, but also a couple of other legal experts

353
00:20:25,080 --> 00:20:28,640
Speaker 1: I spoke to yesterday who said that this was pretty positive.

354
00:20:29,080 --> 00:20:33,399
Speaker 1: What is the effect of dropping those charges on what

355
00:20:33,480 --> 00:20:39,760
Speaker 1: will happen at trial or on the plaintiff's claims for damages,

356
00:20:40,000 --> 00:20:43,159
Speaker 1: So the damages will still be decided by a jury,

357
00:20:43,480 --> 00:20:47,520
Speaker 1: and there's not much difference there from what I understand.

358
00:20:48,160 --> 00:20:51,360
Speaker 1: Lawyer I spoke to said, it still leaves some room

359
00:20:51,440 --> 00:20:55,200
Speaker 1: for punititive damages to be awarded if it reaches trial.

360
00:20:55,640 --> 00:20:59,040
Speaker 1: In terms of the differences and claims being dismissed, they

361
00:20:59,320 --> 00:21:04,560
Speaker 1: now can't argue that JP Morgan knowingly participated in epstein

362
00:21:04,640 --> 00:21:08,119
Speaker 1: sex trafficking, betch, So it's all about them making money

363
00:21:08,240 --> 00:21:11,520
Speaker 1: from his sex trafficking and his crimes. They will still

364
00:21:11,600 --> 00:21:15,560
Speaker 1: have to zero in on knowledge show that the bank

365
00:21:15,800 --> 00:21:18,359
Speaker 1: knew that what Jeffrey Epstein was up to and using

366
00:21:18,359 --> 00:21:20,639
Speaker 1: his money from, or that they should have known. So

367
00:21:20,720 --> 00:21:25,720
Speaker 1: now discovery goes forward, tell us who's already scheduled for

368
00:21:26,480 --> 00:21:29,520
Speaker 1: depositions and who's in the r thing. So because a

369
00:21:29,600 --> 00:21:32,119
Speaker 1: parallel also going on at the same time that is

370
00:21:32,119 --> 00:21:35,359
Speaker 1: sort of intertwined in these other two cases, it's the

371
00:21:35,440 --> 00:21:39,000
Speaker 1: US Virgin Highlands that has sued JP Morgan for also

372
00:21:39,080 --> 00:21:43,760
Speaker 1: facilitating sex trafficking. So these three cases are all very

373
00:21:43,800 --> 00:21:47,760
Speaker 1: interrelated and they're sharing discovery and depositions, and they've really

374
00:21:48,040 --> 00:21:51,399
Speaker 1: gone for the top of the JP Morgan hierarchy. So

375
00:21:51,560 --> 00:21:55,320
Speaker 1: last week we saw the CEO of JP Morgan's Asset

376
00:21:55,359 --> 00:22:00,240
Speaker 1: and Wealth Management division, Mariotto's deposed. This week, just stay

377
00:22:00,240 --> 00:22:03,160
Speaker 1: who's the former executive who's very close to Jeffrey Epstein

378
00:22:03,560 --> 00:22:06,240
Speaker 1: is facing a two day deposition over his ties to

379
00:22:06,320 --> 00:22:09,240
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein, and there's a number of other former and

380
00:22:09,320 --> 00:22:14,280
Speaker 1: current executives, senior managers across compliance and the private bank

381
00:22:14,320 --> 00:22:16,639
Speaker 1: who have to hand over documents as part of the

382
00:22:16,680 --> 00:22:22,040
Speaker 1: discovery process. Let's talk a little about Jeff Daley, about

383
00:22:22,080 --> 00:22:25,840
Speaker 1: the bank suit against him, and about those more than

384
00:22:25,880 --> 00:22:30,479
Speaker 1: twelve hundred emails. So, Jeff Daley was at JP Morgan

385
00:22:30,720 --> 00:22:35,880
Speaker 1: for decades, and towards the latter part of his tenure there,

386
00:22:35,920 --> 00:22:39,520
Speaker 1: he looked after Jeffrey Epstein's accounts and became very very

387
00:22:39,560 --> 00:22:43,240
Speaker 1: close to him, was visiting his house and traveling with him.

388
00:22:43,480 --> 00:22:47,280
Speaker 1: But the depth of that relationship haven't really been revealed

389
00:22:47,440 --> 00:22:50,040
Speaker 1: until these lawsuits. There's been a lot of sort of

390
00:22:50,040 --> 00:22:54,000
Speaker 1: scuttle butt and rumors about how close they were. In

391
00:22:54,040 --> 00:22:57,680
Speaker 1: these lawsuits, we've read a few of the more than

392
00:22:57,720 --> 00:23:01,840
Speaker 1: twelve hundred emails that were exchanged between Epstein and Staley

393
00:23:01,920 --> 00:23:05,320
Speaker 1: when he was at the bank. These emails included photographs

394
00:23:05,359 --> 00:23:09,880
Speaker 1: of young women, references to Disney princesses, which the plaintiffs

395
00:23:09,880 --> 00:23:14,520
Speaker 1: alleged was code for young women, and talks about the

396
00:23:14,640 --> 00:23:18,240
Speaker 1: meeting after Jeffrey Epstein was released from prison for still

397
00:23:18,280 --> 00:23:20,800
Speaker 1: sitting a minor for prostitution in Florida in two thousand

398
00:23:20,800 --> 00:23:25,040
Speaker 1: and eight. Initially, JP Morgan had sort of sought to

399
00:23:25,359 --> 00:23:29,320
Speaker 1: distance itself from Staley's actions, but said that the allegations

400
00:23:29,640 --> 00:23:33,560
Speaker 1: weren't made out or supported by backs essentially, and earlier

401
00:23:33,600 --> 00:23:37,320
Speaker 1: this month, JP Morgan filed its own lawsuit against Staley,

402
00:23:37,680 --> 00:23:43,760
Speaker 1: saying what he did was disloyal and if damages are

403
00:23:43,800 --> 00:23:47,480
Speaker 1: awarded in the allegations by Jane Doe and the USBI

404
00:23:47,760 --> 00:23:49,880
Speaker 1: made out that he should be liable for the damages.

405
00:23:50,320 --> 00:23:52,840
Speaker 1: It's also going to step further in trying to callback

406
00:23:53,080 --> 00:23:55,520
Speaker 1: and tens of millions of dollars it paid to Staley

407
00:23:55,600 --> 00:23:58,240
Speaker 1: when he was an executive at the bank for his

408
00:23:58,800 --> 00:24:03,160
Speaker 1: period of disloyal and his faithless service. Staley has denied

409
00:24:03,400 --> 00:24:07,920
Speaker 1: involvement in Epstein sex trafficking. My question is why wasn't

410
00:24:07,960 --> 00:24:12,159
Speaker 1: he named as a defendant in these lawsuits. That's a

411
00:24:12,240 --> 00:24:16,199
Speaker 1: question that I've asked a number of legal experts, and

412
00:24:16,320 --> 00:24:21,280
Speaker 1: the answers very one answer provided was that he didn't

413
00:24:21,280 --> 00:24:24,760
Speaker 1: have as deeper pockets as JP Morgan. One of the

414
00:24:24,760 --> 00:24:28,560
Speaker 1: biggest banks financial institutions in the country. Another answer was

415
00:24:28,600 --> 00:24:32,840
Speaker 1: that maybe the plaintiffs just didn't have the evidence or

416
00:24:32,840 --> 00:24:37,199
Speaker 1: the factual basis to sue him directly for participating and

417
00:24:37,320 --> 00:24:41,680
Speaker 1: facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking. They might end up with

418
00:24:41,880 --> 00:24:46,600
Speaker 1: a little bit more mature and documentation throughout the discovery process.

419
00:24:46,600 --> 00:24:48,520
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Ava, I know you're keeping track of

420
00:24:48,600 --> 00:24:52,639
Speaker 1: everything happening in these cases. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Ava

421
00:24:52,640 --> 00:24:55,240
Speaker 1: Benny Morrison, and that's it for this edition of The

422
00:24:55,240 --> 00:24:58,200
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest

423
00:24:58,280 --> 00:25:01,560
Speaker 1: legal news. Honor Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them

424
00:25:01,560 --> 00:25:06,639
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com,

425
00:25:06,640 --> 00:25:10,000
Speaker 1: slash podcast slash Law, and remember to tune into The

426
00:25:10,000 --> 00:25:14,000
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time.

427
00:25:14,560 --> 00:25:17,240
Speaker 1: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg