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

2
00:00:08,800 --> 00:00:13,200
Speaker 1: Anxious waiting for federal workers at seventeen agencies now that

3
00:00:13,280 --> 00:00:16,320
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has given the green light to President

4
00:00:16,360 --> 00:00:20,000
Speaker 1: Trump to move ahead with plans to dramatically reduce the

5
00:00:20,040 --> 00:00:24,119
Speaker 1: size of the federal government with mass layoffs, State Department

6
00:00:24,200 --> 00:00:28,320
Speaker 1: spokesperson Tammy Bruce says the Department is now moving to

7
00:00:28,480 --> 00:00:33,280
Speaker 1: implement the layoffs. It will happen quickly. This is not

8
00:00:33,440 --> 00:00:36,080
Speaker 1: going to be an extended wait for people who are

9
00:00:36,600 --> 00:00:39,920
Speaker 1: listening and watching in this building or fellow Americans at

10
00:00:39,960 --> 00:00:42,760
Speaker 1: home and around the world. This will happen quickly. This

11
00:00:42,880 --> 00:00:47,320
Speaker 1: also means new turmoil for lower courts and federal workers

12
00:00:47,360 --> 00:00:51,880
Speaker 1: in challenges to Trump's February eleventh executive order. My guest

13
00:00:51,960 --> 00:00:56,160
Speaker 1: is Jonathan Adler, a professor at William and Mary Law School. Jonathan,

14
00:00:56,160 --> 00:00:59,720
Speaker 1: what's your take on the Supreme Court's order on Tuesday

15
00:01:00,080 --> 00:01:03,320
Speaker 1: allowing Trump to move ahead with mass layoffs.

16
00:01:03,760 --> 00:01:07,279
Speaker 2: I think the Supreme Court's decision to stay the District

17
00:01:07,319 --> 00:01:10,480
Speaker 2: Court's order was largely based on the fact that the

18
00:01:10,520 --> 00:01:15,200
Speaker 2: court saw this as a very narrow and limited question. Basically,

19
00:01:15,480 --> 00:01:19,160
Speaker 2: what was that issue was the lawfulness of an executive

20
00:01:19,240 --> 00:01:24,959
Speaker 2: order directing agencies to develop plans to reduce staffing and

21
00:01:25,240 --> 00:01:28,400
Speaker 2: implement reductions in force. And as we've seen in a

22
00:01:28,480 --> 00:01:32,000
Speaker 2: lot of context, it can be very hard to challenge

23
00:01:32,160 --> 00:01:35,560
Speaker 2: a presidential executive order, and it can be particularly hard

24
00:01:35,640 --> 00:01:39,600
Speaker 2: to enjoin an executive order that is largely telling other

25
00:01:39,680 --> 00:01:42,680
Speaker 2: parts of the federal government what sorts of things they

26
00:01:42,720 --> 00:01:44,880
Speaker 2: should be doing or what sorts of plans to make.

27
00:01:45,000 --> 00:01:47,840
Speaker 2: So I think the reason eight justices thought that there

28
00:01:47,960 --> 00:01:51,920
Speaker 2: was a stay justified in this case is because, at heart,

29
00:01:52,040 --> 00:01:55,440
Speaker 2: that was the question before them. It was whether this

30
00:01:55,640 --> 00:02:00,000
Speaker 2: executive order and the accompanying memorandum to the federal bureaucracy

31
00:02:00,240 --> 00:02:04,240
Speaker 2: saying developed plans for reducing force could be enjoined, and

32
00:02:04,320 --> 00:02:09,079
Speaker 2: didn't really implicate whether or not any specific agencies plan

33
00:02:09,520 --> 00:02:13,560
Speaker 2: or reductions in force and for other changes would itself

34
00:02:13,639 --> 00:02:17,520
Speaker 2: be lawful, and viewed in that narrow way, I think

35
00:02:17,600 --> 00:02:21,120
Speaker 2: the question before the court struck most of the justices

36
00:02:21,800 --> 00:02:27,040
Speaker 2: as fairly straightforward and relatively easy, because it was just

37
00:02:27,160 --> 00:02:31,760
Speaker 2: about the justiciability of challenging and enjoining the executive order.

38
00:02:31,800 --> 00:02:35,120
Speaker 1: At this point in time, would these kinds of challenges

39
00:02:35,280 --> 00:02:39,720
Speaker 1: to firings at an agency, would that conventionally be done

40
00:02:40,440 --> 00:02:42,040
Speaker 1: agency by agency?

41
00:02:42,520 --> 00:02:45,000
Speaker 2: Well, in general, I mean there's two things here. One

42
00:02:45,080 --> 00:02:47,639
Speaker 2: is that and we've seen this with lots of executive

43
00:02:47,720 --> 00:02:51,280
Speaker 2: orders over the last twenty years that direct agencies across

44
00:02:51,320 --> 00:02:54,360
Speaker 2: the board to engage in some sort of behavior, which is,

45
00:02:54,440 --> 00:02:57,120
Speaker 2: as an initial matter, the president is not an agency.

46
00:02:57,160 --> 00:03:00,000
Speaker 2: For purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act speaking, an injunction

47
00:03:00,080 --> 00:03:03,560
Speaker 2: against the President is at the very least disfavored, and

48
00:03:03,639 --> 00:03:07,640
Speaker 2: so as an initial matter, the views from court and

49
00:03:07,680 --> 00:03:10,880
Speaker 2: the view of most deppellate courts has been you have

50
00:03:11,000 --> 00:03:16,320
Speaker 2: to challenge an individual agency action that is following the

51
00:03:16,360 --> 00:03:20,480
Speaker 2: president's direction. You don't challenge the president's direction. So, just

52
00:03:20,520 --> 00:03:23,639
Speaker 2: to give an example, during the Bide deministration, there was

53
00:03:23,680 --> 00:03:28,120
Speaker 2: an executive order directing agencies with responsibilities that relate the

54
00:03:28,160 --> 00:03:32,000
Speaker 2: climate change to incorporate a particular social cost of carbon,

55
00:03:32,040 --> 00:03:35,560
Speaker 2: a particular estimate of the impacts of climate change in

56
00:03:35,920 --> 00:03:38,960
Speaker 2: the various decisions they make, whether that's regulations they issue

57
00:03:39,360 --> 00:03:41,840
Speaker 2: or whether they issue permits for oil and gas exploration

58
00:03:42,000 --> 00:03:44,600
Speaker 2: or for other things. And a bunch of folks tried

59
00:03:44,600 --> 00:03:47,440
Speaker 2: to challenge that, including the State of Louisiana, and what

60
00:03:47,520 --> 00:03:51,480
Speaker 2: the appellate courts ultimately concluded, I think correctly, is you

61
00:03:51,560 --> 00:03:55,800
Speaker 2: can't challenge the executive order that says, insofar as is

62
00:03:55,800 --> 00:04:00,440
Speaker 2: consistent with law, incorporate the following cost of carbon. We

63
00:04:00,480 --> 00:04:04,360
Speaker 2: need a specific agency action, so a specific rulemaking, a

64
00:04:04,520 --> 00:04:08,760
Speaker 2: specific permit denial, a specific action of some sort that

65
00:04:09,120 --> 00:04:13,640
Speaker 2: implements and follows that instruction to challenge. So similarly, here

66
00:04:14,120 --> 00:04:17,400
Speaker 2: it may well be that the reorganization plan or the

67
00:04:17,600 --> 00:04:21,719
Speaker 2: reduction enforced plan of a particular agency is unlawful, but

68
00:04:22,120 --> 00:04:24,040
Speaker 2: that is what will have to be challenged, and that

69
00:04:24,160 --> 00:04:29,960
Speaker 2: necessarily means that litigants that are affected by specific agency

70
00:04:29,960 --> 00:04:34,080
Speaker 2: reorganizations or specific layoffs in particular agencies will have to

71
00:04:34,160 --> 00:04:38,080
Speaker 2: challenge those discreetly. But there's a second complication that I

72
00:04:38,120 --> 00:04:42,200
Speaker 2: think the court is also cognizant of, which is generally

73
00:04:42,440 --> 00:04:44,720
Speaker 2: and another planets will be trying to figure out ways

74
00:04:44,760 --> 00:04:48,760
Speaker 2: around this. But generally courts have been told to consider

75
00:04:49,040 --> 00:04:52,880
Speaker 2: challenges to things like layoffs after the fact and through

76
00:04:53,000 --> 00:04:56,840
Speaker 2: other mechanisms, and not through suits seeking to enjoin or

77
00:04:56,839 --> 00:04:59,520
Speaker 2: prevent the layoffs in the first place. That is, to say,

78
00:04:59,560 --> 00:05:04,280
Speaker 2: an employeoyee who is terminated unlawfully has claims that an

79
00:05:04,320 --> 00:05:07,760
Speaker 2: employee can bring for back pay and for compensation and

80
00:05:07,839 --> 00:05:10,919
Speaker 2: the like, And, as the DC Circuit has concluded in

81
00:05:10,960 --> 00:05:15,640
Speaker 2: a somewhat similar case, that is generally what development statute

82
00:05:16,120 --> 00:05:20,440
Speaker 2: expects to happen, rather than suing ahead of time to

83
00:05:20,520 --> 00:05:24,240
Speaker 2: try in either a stop agencies across the board from

84
00:05:24,240 --> 00:05:27,120
Speaker 2: doing this sort of thing, or even be trying to

85
00:05:27,160 --> 00:05:30,960
Speaker 2: stop an agency from beginning to implement the plan before

86
00:05:31,120 --> 00:05:32,240
Speaker 2: it actually takes effect.

87
00:05:32,720 --> 00:05:37,359
Speaker 1: In separate lawsuits, judges have blocked nearly ten thousand layoffs

88
00:05:37,360 --> 00:05:40,080
Speaker 1: at the Department of Health and Human Services and at

89
00:05:40,120 --> 00:05:44,920
Speaker 1: about thirteen hundred layoffs at the Education Department. Are those

90
00:05:44,960 --> 00:05:48,920
Speaker 1: proceeding the way you're supposed to proceed? Do those injunctions

91
00:05:49,040 --> 00:05:50,560
Speaker 1: remain well?

92
00:05:50,640 --> 00:05:53,600
Speaker 2: For the time being, at least those injunctions remain. One

93
00:05:54,040 --> 00:05:57,680
Speaker 2: unfortunate aspect of the Supreme Court dealing with these sorts

94
00:05:57,720 --> 00:06:00,720
Speaker 2: of questions through orders on the Emerge Agency docket or

95
00:06:00,720 --> 00:06:03,640
Speaker 2: shadow docket, or whatever we're supposed to call it these days,

96
00:06:03,800 --> 00:06:05,880
Speaker 2: is that the lack of an opinion giving us an

97
00:06:05,920 --> 00:06:10,680
Speaker 2: explanation makes it unclear which of the various arguments the

98
00:06:10,760 --> 00:06:14,600
Speaker 2: Court found most persuasive orders relying upon the most As

99
00:06:14,600 --> 00:06:18,760
Speaker 2: I mentioned, the Trump administration raised both brought arguments against

100
00:06:18,760 --> 00:06:22,560
Speaker 2: the justiciability of a challenge to an executive order in

101
00:06:22,640 --> 00:06:26,120
Speaker 2: the abstract, as well as claims about whether or not

102
00:06:26,720 --> 00:06:30,640
Speaker 2: you can challenge layoffs other than after the fact in

103
00:06:30,920 --> 00:06:34,240
Speaker 2: suits for things like compensation or back pay. Because the

104
00:06:34,279 --> 00:06:37,680
Speaker 2: Court didn't tell us which of those or whether both

105
00:06:37,680 --> 00:06:40,560
Speaker 2: of those arguments were persuasive to a majority of the justices,

106
00:06:41,160 --> 00:06:45,920
Speaker 2: we don't entirely know how this applies to the other

107
00:06:46,000 --> 00:06:49,080
Speaker 2: suits that are out there. But insofar as other suits

108
00:06:49,200 --> 00:06:54,200
Speaker 2: are focused more narrowly or specifically on what particular agencies

109
00:06:54,240 --> 00:06:59,159
Speaker 2: are doing under the statutes that are applicable to those agencies,

110
00:06:59,560 --> 00:07:02,520
Speaker 2: and in so far as the plaintiffs are able to

111
00:07:02,880 --> 00:07:06,320
Speaker 2: identify particular layoffs that are going to be happening at

112
00:07:06,320 --> 00:07:10,480
Speaker 2: a particular agency on a particular schedule, where it's not speculative,

113
00:07:10,560 --> 00:07:13,280
Speaker 2: but you can actually identify this is what's going to happen,

114
00:07:13,320 --> 00:07:15,680
Speaker 2: and it's going to happen at a date certain or

115
00:07:15,720 --> 00:07:19,920
Speaker 2: relatively soon, then those cases might be distinguishable and might

116
00:07:20,000 --> 00:07:24,400
Speaker 2: be more consistent with the sources of constraints that motivated

117
00:07:24,400 --> 00:07:26,840
Speaker 2: the court to stay this particular decision.

118
00:07:27,080 --> 00:07:32,520
Speaker 1: Last month, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal of

119
00:07:32,680 --> 00:07:36,560
Speaker 1: the judges order that blocked thirteen hundred layoffs in the

120
00:07:36,720 --> 00:07:40,760
Speaker 1: Education Department. But the Supreme Court hasn't acted on that yet.

121
00:07:41,000 --> 00:07:44,280
Speaker 1: So when they act on that, will we perhaps learn more?

122
00:07:44,840 --> 00:07:47,360
Speaker 2: Perhaps, I mean, I certainly hope. So. I mean, on

123
00:07:47,400 --> 00:07:50,640
Speaker 2: the one hand, the court is dealing with lots of issues,

124
00:07:50,680 --> 00:07:53,240
Speaker 2: and we know that in the term it just completed,

125
00:07:53,280 --> 00:07:55,880
Speaker 2: there were multiple opinions that banned one hundred pages. So

126
00:07:56,160 --> 00:07:58,560
Speaker 2: it's not as if they're not doing other things. But

127
00:07:58,840 --> 00:08:01,080
Speaker 2: it would be beneficial if they took at least a

128
00:08:01,080 --> 00:08:05,360
Speaker 2: little bit of time to provide more explanation of their decisions.

129
00:08:05,400 --> 00:08:07,640
Speaker 2: So in a case like this, we got to paragraph

130
00:08:07,720 --> 00:08:10,960
Speaker 2: from Justice Soda Mayor explaining why she joined the court

131
00:08:11,640 --> 00:08:15,600
Speaker 2: and noting, as I said that daying an injunction against

132
00:08:15,640 --> 00:08:19,200
Speaker 2: the executive order doesn't mean that specific actions by specific

133
00:08:19,280 --> 00:08:22,600
Speaker 2: agencies cannot still be challenged. She wrote that trust for herself,

134
00:08:22,760 --> 00:08:26,240
Speaker 2: but that at the very least means that these other

135
00:08:26,280 --> 00:08:29,400
Speaker 2: cases that are focused on individual agencies and the specific

136
00:08:29,440 --> 00:08:33,040
Speaker 2: plans that individual agencies are likely to be evaluated separately

137
00:08:33,200 --> 00:08:35,679
Speaker 2: and the fact that the Supreme Court did not summarily

138
00:08:35,880 --> 00:08:39,600
Speaker 2: act on these other applications at the same time as

139
00:08:39,600 --> 00:08:42,600
Speaker 2: it did this case suggests that at least some justices

140
00:08:42,960 --> 00:08:46,560
Speaker 2: recognize the difference between an order in joining the executive

141
00:08:46,679 --> 00:08:49,560
Speaker 2: order and enjoining what the executive branch does across the board,

142
00:08:50,000 --> 00:08:53,200
Speaker 2: with an order that enjoins what a specific agency is

143
00:08:53,280 --> 00:08:55,680
Speaker 2: doing or is planning to do, and at the very

144
00:08:55,760 --> 00:09:00,520
Speaker 2: least that implicates the more specific questions and is more

145
00:09:00,679 --> 00:09:02,600
Speaker 2: likely to be the sort of claim that a district

146
00:09:02,640 --> 00:09:03,800
Speaker 2: court can appropriately hear.

147
00:09:04,360 --> 00:09:08,800
Speaker 1: Now with regard to another Supreme Court decision involving Trump's

148
00:09:08,800 --> 00:09:13,720
Speaker 1: executive order ending birthright citizenship, where the Court limited the

149
00:09:13,800 --> 00:09:17,920
Speaker 1: power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, today a federal

150
00:09:18,040 --> 00:09:22,960
Speaker 1: judge in New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction blocking Trump's

151
00:09:22,960 --> 00:09:27,080
Speaker 1: executive order from taking effect anywhere in the United States

152
00:09:27,600 --> 00:09:32,199
Speaker 1: and certifying a class action that includes all US born

153
00:09:32,360 --> 00:09:37,520
Speaker 1: children or future children whose automatic citizenship could be jeopardized

154
00:09:37,640 --> 00:09:41,520
Speaker 1: by that executive order. Is bringing a class action like

155
00:09:41,600 --> 00:09:44,800
Speaker 1: this what the Supreme Court said to do, or at

156
00:09:44,880 --> 00:09:47,000
Speaker 1: least suggested doing, well.

157
00:09:46,840 --> 00:09:50,840
Speaker 2: It's certainly something the Supreme Court acknowledged could happen, and

158
00:09:51,320 --> 00:09:55,040
Speaker 2: insofar as it has nationwide effect, if the class was

159
00:09:55,080 --> 00:09:58,240
Speaker 2: properly certified under the federal rules of civil procedure, then

160
00:09:58,320 --> 00:10:01,000
Speaker 2: this would be in line with what a majority of

161
00:10:01,040 --> 00:10:03,839
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court said should happen. I haven't had a

162
00:10:03,880 --> 00:10:06,640
Speaker 2: chance to read the specifics of this judge's order, but

163
00:10:06,720 --> 00:10:09,680
Speaker 2: insofar as the judge or identified a particular class of

164
00:10:09,760 --> 00:10:13,760
Speaker 2: similarly situated parties that are to be affected by this

165
00:10:13,880 --> 00:10:17,160
Speaker 2: executive order in the same way, and you know it's

166
00:10:17,160 --> 00:10:21,040
Speaker 2: in the same timeframe, it is at least a more

167
00:10:21,160 --> 00:10:25,720
Speaker 2: direct and legally grounded way of joining what the federal

168
00:10:25,760 --> 00:10:28,679
Speaker 2: government has said it's going to do than the use

169
00:10:28,720 --> 00:10:33,000
Speaker 2: of a so called universal injunction, in part because by

170
00:10:33,120 --> 00:10:37,439
Speaker 2: identifying and certifying a class, the Court is still limiting

171
00:10:37,440 --> 00:10:40,920
Speaker 2: the relief it is providing two litigants that are properly

172
00:10:40,960 --> 00:10:43,679
Speaker 2: before the court. Now. I am sure the Trump administration

173
00:10:44,240 --> 00:10:47,680
Speaker 2: will challenge the class certification here and claim that perhaps

174
00:10:47,679 --> 00:10:50,000
Speaker 2: that the class was too broad, or that there are

175
00:10:50,000 --> 00:10:53,480
Speaker 2: other problems with the basis for certification, and this could

176
00:10:53,520 --> 00:10:57,200
Speaker 2: well end up back at the Supreme Court. I also suspect, though,

177
00:10:57,240 --> 00:10:59,520
Speaker 2: that at this point there are likely to be five

178
00:10:59,640 --> 00:11:02,920
Speaker 2: justices that are ready to proceed to the merits of

179
00:11:02,920 --> 00:11:06,840
Speaker 2: this question. And I think, unlike in a lot of

180
00:11:06,840 --> 00:11:10,559
Speaker 2: these cases where the Trump administration has had strong procedural

181
00:11:10,720 --> 00:11:13,719
Speaker 2: arguments or kind of formalistic arguments about the exercise of

182
00:11:13,800 --> 00:11:16,840
Speaker 2: jurisdiction as a way of pushing back against some of

183
00:11:16,880 --> 00:11:20,560
Speaker 2: these district court orders on the merits, the Trump Administration's

184
00:11:20,559 --> 00:11:23,559
Speaker 2: Birthright Citizenship executive Order will be very hard to defend.

185
00:11:24,200 --> 00:11:29,400
Speaker 1: There are parallel cases seeking class action status and nationwide injunctions.

186
00:11:29,520 --> 00:11:33,640
Speaker 1: A judge in Maryland is weighing a similar case. Since

187
00:11:33,679 --> 00:11:37,880
Speaker 1: the New Hampshire judge has certified this class, doesn't that

188
00:11:37,960 --> 00:11:41,360
Speaker 1: stop another judge from certifying the same class.

189
00:11:42,160 --> 00:11:44,360
Speaker 2: I'd want to look and see what the requested class

190
00:11:44,559 --> 00:11:46,880
Speaker 2: is in these other cases, and the extent to which

191
00:11:46,880 --> 00:11:49,079
Speaker 2: there is overlap, or the extent to which there are

192
00:11:49,559 --> 00:11:53,520
Speaker 2: potential classes that would be in addition to what's here. Certainly,

193
00:11:53,800 --> 00:11:58,079
Speaker 2: intents are a very large class of people essentially affected

194
00:11:58,360 --> 00:12:03,520
Speaker 2: by zip Administration's Birthright Citizenship Order, but there are other

195
00:12:03,600 --> 00:12:07,000
Speaker 2: groups of people that could be affected as well, other

196
00:12:07,080 --> 00:12:10,360
Speaker 2: people whose citizenship or lawful presence in the country is

197
00:12:10,400 --> 00:12:13,440
Speaker 2: implicated people whose ability to make life plans are affected

198
00:12:13,440 --> 00:12:17,760
Speaker 2: by the executive order, perhaps even institutions that rely upon

199
00:12:17,960 --> 00:12:22,680
Speaker 2: the ability to hire or by benefits to non citizens.

200
00:12:22,720 --> 00:12:25,280
Speaker 2: There may be other groups that could also be affected

201
00:12:25,280 --> 00:12:27,880
Speaker 2: by the executive order, and so it's quite possible you

202
00:12:27,880 --> 00:12:31,280
Speaker 2: could see requests for classes that are somewhat different. But

203
00:12:31,360 --> 00:12:34,680
Speaker 2: I would not be at all surprised to see efforts

204
00:12:34,720 --> 00:12:37,800
Speaker 2: to perhaps consolidate some of these cases. But again, I

205
00:12:37,840 --> 00:12:40,160
Speaker 2: also think now that there is a class certified, it's

206
00:12:40,240 --> 00:12:43,680
Speaker 2: quite possible that the Supreme Court might be interested in

207
00:12:43,960 --> 00:12:47,520
Speaker 2: finally reaching the merits of this question. And as I noted,

208
00:12:47,520 --> 00:12:49,720
Speaker 2: I think while we've seen in many of these cases

209
00:12:50,000 --> 00:12:53,040
Speaker 2: the Trump administration have strong procedural or jurisdictional arguments that

210
00:12:53,080 --> 00:12:55,840
Speaker 2: it could make, this is a case where on the merits,

211
00:12:55,840 --> 00:12:58,280
Speaker 2: I think the Trump administration really has a bad hand

212
00:12:58,280 --> 00:12:58,720
Speaker 2: to play.

213
00:12:58,880 --> 00:13:01,640
Speaker 1: But why does it take the court so long to

214
00:13:01,720 --> 00:13:02,680
Speaker 1: reach the merits?

215
00:13:03,240 --> 00:13:03,679
Speaker 2: They had the.

216
00:13:03,640 --> 00:13:07,840
Speaker 1: Birthright citizenship question before them and didn't decide it.

217
00:13:08,440 --> 00:13:10,720
Speaker 2: I happen to be sympathetic to the argument that these

218
00:13:10,800 --> 00:13:14,840
Speaker 2: jurisdictional issues matter. I think that the courts, the Streme

219
00:13:14,840 --> 00:13:18,960
Speaker 2: Court in particular, believes that these jurisdictional issues matter in

220
00:13:19,000 --> 00:13:21,920
Speaker 2: some respects. I think the attitude of several of the

221
00:13:22,080 --> 00:13:26,840
Speaker 2: justices is just because the executive is reaching beyond the

222
00:13:26,880 --> 00:13:30,280
Speaker 2: scope of its power, we the courts should not do

223
00:13:30,320 --> 00:13:33,240
Speaker 2: that as well. Rather, the president's willingness to push the

224
00:13:33,280 --> 00:13:37,240
Speaker 2: boundaries of executive authority should not justify the judges or

225
00:13:37,400 --> 00:13:40,680
Speaker 2: justices willingness to push the boundaries of judicial authority. And

226
00:13:40,720 --> 00:13:43,000
Speaker 2: I think what that has meant is that there are

227
00:13:43,000 --> 00:13:47,480
Speaker 2: some justices that are very sympathetic to claims that individual

228
00:13:47,480 --> 00:13:50,080
Speaker 2: district courts have gotten a bit over their skis or

229
00:13:50,120 --> 00:13:53,360
Speaker 2: have been too aggressive, but also recognizing that that is

230
00:13:53,400 --> 00:13:58,360
Speaker 2: wholly distinct from the underlying merits questions, and that means

231
00:13:58,559 --> 00:14:01,360
Speaker 2: that the merits aren't reached as quickly perhaps, but it

232
00:14:01,400 --> 00:14:03,480
Speaker 2: does allow the court to say, look, we're playing by

233
00:14:03,520 --> 00:14:06,280
Speaker 2: the rules. We are making sure that we're dotting our

234
00:14:06,320 --> 00:14:08,720
Speaker 2: eyes and crossing our teas on questions of jurisdiction and

235
00:14:08,720 --> 00:14:11,600
Speaker 2: on questions of what issues are properly before us, properly

236
00:14:11,640 --> 00:14:13,960
Speaker 2: before the courts, so that if and when the Trump

237
00:14:13,960 --> 00:14:16,480
Speaker 2: administration loses on the merits, they have no one to

238
00:14:16,480 --> 00:14:19,600
Speaker 2: blame but themselves. In terms of making legal claims that

239
00:14:19,800 --> 00:14:21,560
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, we're not meritorious.

240
00:14:21,640 --> 00:14:24,320
Speaker 1: Maybe you will see them taking the case next term.

241
00:14:24,560 --> 00:14:28,720
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Jonathan. That's Professor Jonathan Adler of William

242
00:14:28,720 --> 00:14:31,640
Speaker 1: and Mary Law School coming up next on The Bloomberg

243
00:14:31,720 --> 00:14:36,720
Speaker 1: Law Show. Once again, top Justice Department officials are overruling

244
00:14:36,800 --> 00:14:40,400
Speaker 1: line prosecutors giving a deal to the former governor of

245
00:14:40,400 --> 00:14:44,200
Speaker 1: Puerto Rico and a banker with ties to the Trump administration.

246
00:14:44,760 --> 00:14:49,760
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg. A federal judge was troubled by

247
00:14:49,800 --> 00:14:55,040
Speaker 1: the Justice Departments about face giving leniency to Puerto Rico's

248
00:14:55,080 --> 00:14:59,440
Speaker 1: former governor and a billionaire banker shortly before a bribery

249
00:14:59,480 --> 00:15:03,920
Speaker 1: trial with schedule to begin. Former Governor Juanda Vasquez and

250
00:15:04,040 --> 00:15:08,240
Speaker 1: bank owner Julio Herrera Velatini both have connections to the

251
00:15:08,280 --> 00:15:12,240
Speaker 1: Trump administration. Each based up to twenty years in prison

252
00:15:12,360 --> 00:15:16,040
Speaker 1: if convicted of felony, bribery and wire fraud, but they

253
00:15:16,080 --> 00:15:20,200
Speaker 1: can now avoid any prison time after a directive from

254
00:15:20,520 --> 00:15:24,160
Speaker 1: Justice Department leadership allowed them each to plead to a

255
00:15:24,200 --> 00:15:29,119
Speaker 1: single misdemeanor charge. That's according to Bloomberg's sources. As reported

256
00:15:29,200 --> 00:15:33,320
Speaker 1: in an exclusive story by Ben Penn, Senior Justice Department

257
00:15:33,400 --> 00:15:37,200
Speaker 1: reporter at Bloomberg Law. He joins me now ben tell

258
00:15:37,280 --> 00:15:41,120
Speaker 1: Us about the bribery case against Vasquez and Velatini.

259
00:15:41,640 --> 00:15:45,440
Speaker 3: So in August of twenty twenty two, got former governor

260
00:15:45,520 --> 00:15:50,600
Speaker 3: Juana Vascaz and the banker you reference, Julio Herrera Bellatini,

261
00:15:50,920 --> 00:15:53,640
Speaker 3: along with a former FBI agent who was serving as

262
00:15:53,800 --> 00:15:57,800
Speaker 3: an alleged intermediary between the two. They were all charged

263
00:15:58,000 --> 00:16:04,080
Speaker 3: with seven felony count including honest services fraud, bribery, wire

264
00:16:04,160 --> 00:16:10,480
Speaker 3: fraud related to a conspiracy that they allegedly reached. This

265
00:16:10,640 --> 00:16:15,160
Speaker 3: deal in which the governor would terminate Puerto Rico's financial

266
00:16:15,160 --> 00:16:19,360
Speaker 3: regulator in exchange for receiving about three hundred thousand dollars

267
00:16:19,440 --> 00:16:23,320
Speaker 3: in campaign contributions, and this regulator was in the midst

268
00:16:23,360 --> 00:16:28,680
Speaker 3: of scrutinizing about ten billion dollars in transactions for Herrera's bank,

269
00:16:28,760 --> 00:16:32,560
Speaker 3: Bank Credito, which is an international bank that had rations

270
00:16:32,560 --> 00:16:35,960
Speaker 3: in Puerto Rico. So, as part of the deal, as

271
00:16:36,120 --> 00:16:40,000
Speaker 3: originally alleged, not only would they fire the regulator in

272
00:16:40,000 --> 00:16:42,840
Speaker 3: the midst of this investigation, but Herrera, the bank owner,

273
00:16:42,840 --> 00:16:45,600
Speaker 3: would then have the ability to replace him with his

274
00:16:45,760 --> 00:16:49,560
Speaker 3: hand if the successor, and that is what went down.

275
00:16:49,560 --> 00:16:52,280
Speaker 3: Of course, those allegations have been denied from the get go,

276
00:16:52,440 --> 00:16:56,600
Speaker 3: and we've had three years of pretty intensive litigation and

277
00:16:56,960 --> 00:16:59,760
Speaker 3: the parties were all gearing up for trial later.

278
00:16:59,800 --> 00:17:02,520
Speaker 1: This just say three hundred thousand dollars and I'll put

279
00:17:02,520 --> 00:17:04,959
Speaker 1: that in. We'll put that in there. Sure tell us

280
00:17:05,000 --> 00:17:07,959
Speaker 1: about the connections to Trump.

281
00:17:08,240 --> 00:17:11,119
Speaker 3: So the connections come in two forms. First, you have

282
00:17:11,680 --> 00:17:14,639
Speaker 3: Vascas had endorsed Trump in twenty twenty when he was

283
00:17:14,720 --> 00:17:17,439
Speaker 3: running for reelection. She was the governor at that time,

284
00:17:17,640 --> 00:17:22,080
Speaker 3: and her endorsement was seen as helpful for Trump's fability

285
00:17:22,119 --> 00:17:25,960
Speaker 3: to court Latino voters heading up to November. And then

286
00:17:26,400 --> 00:17:30,879
Speaker 3: the other connection is Bellucini has hired as part of

287
00:17:30,880 --> 00:17:35,280
Speaker 3: a powerhouse legal defense team. Christopher Kyle Kaui's was Trump's

288
00:17:35,320 --> 00:17:39,760
Speaker 3: personal attorney during both the mar A Lago malassified Documents

289
00:17:39,880 --> 00:17:43,600
Speaker 3: indictment brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith and the New

290
00:17:43,680 --> 00:17:47,360
Speaker 3: York Civil fraud litigation. So Kai's is somebody who now

291
00:17:47,400 --> 00:17:51,480
Speaker 3: remains a defense attorney and is seen as having from

292
00:17:51,520 --> 00:17:53,879
Speaker 3: my reporting, still has quite a bit of connections in

293
00:17:53,920 --> 00:17:55,320
Speaker 3: the White House well.

294
00:17:55,359 --> 00:18:00,000
Speaker 1: His former co council in the Trump Classified Documents case.

295
00:18:00,720 --> 00:18:04,840
Speaker 1: Todd blanche is now the Deputy Attorney General, and your

296
00:18:04,880 --> 00:18:08,280
Speaker 1: sources told you that Kuyes took the case up the

297
00:18:08,400 --> 00:18:10,639
Speaker 1: chain to the Deputy Attorney General.

298
00:18:11,160 --> 00:18:13,800
Speaker 3: Kyles was part of a team of lawyers who began

299
00:18:13,960 --> 00:18:17,280
Speaker 3: arguing early in this administration when Trump came back to

300
00:18:17,680 --> 00:18:21,280
Speaker 3: the White House and that this investigation was a case

301
00:18:21,480 --> 00:18:25,520
Speaker 3: of weaponized government from the left. And that's an argument

302
00:18:25,560 --> 00:18:28,280
Speaker 3: that at a minimum, we can say gained a receptive

303
00:18:28,320 --> 00:18:32,119
Speaker 3: audience at the upper echelons of the Justice Department. They

304
00:18:32,119 --> 00:18:35,720
Speaker 3: didn't necessarily endorse that this was an example of weaponization,

305
00:18:35,880 --> 00:18:38,800
Speaker 3: but somebody from the Deputy Attorney General's office, at a

306
00:18:38,840 --> 00:18:42,760
Speaker 3: meeting that was held at DOJ headquarters in Washington, that

307
00:18:42,880 --> 00:18:46,080
Speaker 3: was attended by the US Attorney in Puerto Rico and

308
00:18:46,160 --> 00:18:49,640
Speaker 3: a prosecutor based in Washington, there was an order basically,

309
00:18:49,680 --> 00:18:51,639
Speaker 3: after both sides had a chance to make their case,

310
00:18:52,040 --> 00:18:55,600
Speaker 3: the deput Attorney General's office demanded that they reach a

311
00:18:55,640 --> 00:18:59,000
Speaker 3: deal that this case doesn't go to trial. And as

312
00:18:59,040 --> 00:19:04,119
Speaker 3: a result, I really gave the defense councils an upper

313
00:19:04,160 --> 00:19:08,200
Speaker 3: hand and led to a misdemeanor plea deal in which

314
00:19:08,520 --> 00:19:12,840
Speaker 3: now the defendants are really facing a strong likelihood of

315
00:19:13,000 --> 00:19:16,520
Speaker 3: no prison time, whereas before they were facing felonies that

316
00:19:16,640 --> 00:19:18,919
Speaker 3: could have given them a maximum of twenty years in

317
00:19:19,080 --> 00:19:19,640
Speaker 3: prison each.

318
00:19:20,280 --> 00:19:25,720
Speaker 1: So did Todd Blanche overrule line prosecutors who had pursued

319
00:19:25,840 --> 00:19:30,600
Speaker 1: the felony bribery and wire fraud charges. Was it basically

320
00:19:30,600 --> 00:19:31,280
Speaker 1: a directive?

321
00:19:31,720 --> 00:19:37,359
Speaker 3: I don't have reporting to prove what Blanch's direct involvement was.

322
00:19:37,560 --> 00:19:40,119
Speaker 3: What I can say for my reporting is that I

323
00:19:40,320 --> 00:19:42,920
Speaker 3: my sources have told me that it was a representative

324
00:19:42,920 --> 00:19:46,959
Speaker 3: for Blanche, an associate Deputy Attorney General, who convened the meeting,

325
00:19:47,280 --> 00:19:50,800
Speaker 3: and that was the individual who ordered parties to come

326
00:19:50,840 --> 00:19:53,080
Speaker 3: to terms on a much more lenient settlement.

327
00:19:53,760 --> 00:19:58,760
Speaker 1: The federal judge in the case was obviously dismayed by

328
00:19:58,800 --> 00:20:01,679
Speaker 1: the government's decision to shift gears, as she put it,

329
00:20:01,720 --> 00:20:04,840
Speaker 1: at the eleventh hour, and she wrote that the case

330
00:20:05,040 --> 00:20:09,760
Speaker 1: was zealously prosecuted and the defendants will strikingly face a

331
00:20:09,840 --> 00:20:13,720
Speaker 1: mere slap on the wrist with a misdemeanor plea, despite

332
00:20:13,760 --> 00:20:17,520
Speaker 1: the government previously seeking harsher punishment. But she said there

333
00:20:17,560 --> 00:20:18,800
Speaker 1: was nothing she could do about it.

334
00:20:19,720 --> 00:20:22,480
Speaker 3: That's right. She said she wasn't willing to violate the

335
00:20:22,520 --> 00:20:26,560
Speaker 3: constitution and separation of powers by getting in the government's way,

336
00:20:26,600 --> 00:20:28,840
Speaker 3: and she was left with no choice but to respect

337
00:20:28,840 --> 00:20:32,119
Speaker 3: the government's decision that this plea deal is appropriate. She

338
00:20:32,160 --> 00:20:35,200
Speaker 3: did also point out that the order for the plea deal,

339
00:20:35,680 --> 00:20:39,679
Speaker 3: she said, presumably came on an order from Main Justice,

340
00:20:39,880 --> 00:20:42,720
Speaker 3: which in my view implies that whether or not she

341
00:20:42,800 --> 00:20:46,399
Speaker 3: read my reporting, she feels very strongly that there's no

342
00:20:46,440 --> 00:20:50,480
Speaker 3: way that, after years of zealous advocacy for felling convictions,

343
00:20:50,480 --> 00:20:54,080
Speaker 3: that the government wouldn't have changed course at the last

344
00:20:54,119 --> 00:20:56,240
Speaker 3: minute had it not been for intervention from the top

345
00:20:56,280 --> 00:20:56,680
Speaker 3: of the DOJ.

346
00:20:57,160 --> 00:21:01,360
Speaker 1: She did play one card that she had. The defendants

347
00:21:01,359 --> 00:21:05,240
Speaker 1: had asked to have their arraignment and plea hearings be

348
00:21:05,400 --> 00:21:09,680
Speaker 1: held by video teleconference, and she wrote, well, the defendants

349
00:21:09,680 --> 00:21:12,359
Speaker 1: are now charged with a misdemeanor offense, it's still an

350
00:21:12,359 --> 00:21:17,480
Speaker 1: offense that lacerates the integrity of our democratic electoral process. Therefore,

351
00:21:17,520 --> 00:21:20,920
Speaker 1: she said she was denying their request and ordered them

352
00:21:20,960 --> 00:21:22,840
Speaker 1: to appear before her in person.

353
00:21:23,359 --> 00:21:26,399
Speaker 3: Yes, she's playing the hand that she has, so that

354
00:21:26,440 --> 00:21:29,679
Speaker 3: appears to be the bit of leverage that she feels

355
00:21:29,680 --> 00:21:32,359
Speaker 3: she can exert right now. But there's no reason to

356
00:21:32,359 --> 00:21:36,399
Speaker 3: think that this plea agreement won't be fully resolved before

357
00:21:36,440 --> 00:21:37,960
Speaker 3: her in the coming weeks.

358
00:21:37,960 --> 00:21:42,680
Speaker 1: Remarks. This is reminiscent of the case against New York

359
00:21:42,720 --> 00:21:46,480
Speaker 1: City Mayor Eric Adams, where the political appointees at DOJ

360
00:21:46,960 --> 00:21:50,919
Speaker 1: ordered the interim US Attorney for the Southern District of

361
00:21:50,960 --> 00:21:54,040
Speaker 1: New York to drop the case, and she resigned in

362
00:21:54,119 --> 00:21:58,000
Speaker 1: protest with a slew of other prosecutors. And here the

363
00:21:58,040 --> 00:22:02,760
Speaker 1: line prosecutor, the assistant US Attorney, withdrew from the case

364
00:22:02,960 --> 00:22:07,080
Speaker 1: and left the Justice Department. So are there some troubling similarities?

365
00:22:07,480 --> 00:22:09,160
Speaker 3: I would say yes and no at the same time.

366
00:22:09,440 --> 00:22:11,880
Speaker 3: And yes in the sense that you do have an

367
00:22:11,880 --> 00:22:16,440
Speaker 3: example of somebody who is relying on intervention from the

368
00:22:16,520 --> 00:22:19,040
Speaker 3: very top of the Justice Department to go against the

369
00:22:19,640 --> 00:22:22,320
Speaker 3: wishes of prosecutors. But you know, I talked to people

370
00:22:22,320 --> 00:22:25,439
Speaker 3: who used to be public corruption prosecutors. In their minds,

371
00:22:25,480 --> 00:22:29,080
Speaker 3: this Puerto Rico case doesn't come close to the same

372
00:22:29,200 --> 00:22:31,720
Speaker 3: level of alarm they felt in response to the Eric

373
00:22:31,800 --> 00:22:35,480
Speaker 3: Adam situation, in which you had multiple prosecutors resigning in

374
00:22:35,520 --> 00:22:39,239
Speaker 3: protests rather than assign their name to any dismissal. In

375
00:22:39,280 --> 00:22:41,719
Speaker 3: this case, it wasn't just an outright dismissal. There at

376
00:22:41,800 --> 00:22:45,640
Speaker 3: least is some accountability for the defendants, albeit not nearly

377
00:22:45,680 --> 00:22:48,560
Speaker 3: as much as what prosecutors. Mind you, A US attorney

378
00:22:48,600 --> 00:22:51,240
Speaker 3: in Puerto Rico who was appointed by Trump in Trump's

379
00:22:51,240 --> 00:22:54,840
Speaker 3: first term, had been arguing for years was merited. You know.

380
00:22:55,000 --> 00:22:57,679
Speaker 3: I talked to some people who felt that, you know,

381
00:22:57,760 --> 00:23:00,399
Speaker 3: and perhaps in normal times, as they put it, that

382
00:23:00,480 --> 00:23:04,480
Speaker 3: this outcome that is facing her Era and Vasquez would

383
00:23:04,480 --> 00:23:08,400
Speaker 3: be more upsetting and considered more outrageous. But now they

384
00:23:08,400 --> 00:23:10,800
Speaker 3: felt like it's impossible to view it on its own

385
00:23:10,840 --> 00:23:14,359
Speaker 3: and not relative to other developments in this administration. Beculy,

386
00:23:14,400 --> 00:23:17,040
Speaker 3: not just Atoms, but other cases in which people with

387
00:23:17,119 --> 00:23:21,199
Speaker 3: connections to Trump personally or others in his orbit have

388
00:23:21,600 --> 00:23:25,720
Speaker 3: been able to get significant relief, pardons or dismissals against

389
00:23:25,760 --> 00:23:28,640
Speaker 3: the wishes of the federal prosecutors who would try them.

390
00:23:28,920 --> 00:23:32,440
Speaker 1: What is left of the public corruption team.

391
00:23:32,640 --> 00:23:36,040
Speaker 3: Right now, they are down to a skeleton crew. They're

392
00:23:36,040 --> 00:23:40,000
Speaker 3: in the process of being reassigned to other offices, or

393
00:23:40,359 --> 00:23:43,480
Speaker 3: many of them have already left on their own. One

394
00:23:43,480 --> 00:23:47,800
Speaker 3: of the handful of remaining attorneys in that public Integrity

395
00:23:47,800 --> 00:23:52,520
Speaker 3: section happened to be the line attorney prosecuting Vosquez and

396
00:23:52,760 --> 00:23:55,119
Speaker 3: her era, and so it was interesting to me that,

397
00:23:55,200 --> 00:23:59,960
Speaker 3: according to my reporting, that prosecutor was left on his own,

398
00:24:00,400 --> 00:24:02,959
Speaker 3: along with the US Attorney in Puerto Rico, but without

399
00:24:03,000 --> 00:24:06,800
Speaker 3: the backing of any of his direct bosses, to argue

400
00:24:06,960 --> 00:24:10,600
Speaker 3: before the Deputy Attorney General's office why this case should

401
00:24:10,600 --> 00:24:13,960
Speaker 3: proceed and did have merit. I think, you know, perhaps

402
00:24:13,960 --> 00:24:17,280
Speaker 3: if there had been a stronger public integrity section, you

403
00:24:17,359 --> 00:24:19,600
Speaker 3: know that that wouldn't have happened in a line attorney

404
00:24:19,600 --> 00:24:21,640
Speaker 3: wouldn't have been left to stand on his own.

405
00:24:21,760 --> 00:24:23,800
Speaker 1: You wrote that a few days before the plea agreement,

406
00:24:23,880 --> 00:24:26,600
Speaker 1: the head of the Department's Criminal Division, in a speech

407
00:24:26,640 --> 00:24:32,119
Speaker 1: about overseas bribe reinforcement, Warren white collar lawyers, that mischaracterizing

408
00:24:32,240 --> 00:24:36,960
Speaker 1: prosecutorial conduct would be counterproductive to your appeals.

409
00:24:37,600 --> 00:24:41,320
Speaker 3: I thought it was important to place this level of

410
00:24:41,680 --> 00:24:46,240
Speaker 3: outreach to superiors above the line prosecutors to get relief

411
00:24:46,240 --> 00:24:48,480
Speaker 3: for a client in the broader context of what we've

412
00:24:48,480 --> 00:24:51,840
Speaker 3: seen happening in this administration, where you've seen ever since

413
00:24:51,960 --> 00:24:54,760
Speaker 3: cam Bondi when she was sworn in as Attorney General

414
00:24:54,840 --> 00:24:58,400
Speaker 3: and put out a series of memos that narrowly curtailed

415
00:24:58,520 --> 00:25:02,800
Speaker 3: the vigor of white collar enforcement. You've seen defense attorneys

416
00:25:02,800 --> 00:25:05,560
Speaker 3: trying to take advantage of that and bring up cases

417
00:25:05,600 --> 00:25:09,199
Speaker 3: to senior officials at the Justice Department and argue that

418
00:25:09,280 --> 00:25:12,720
Speaker 3: this case no longer meets your priorities or that you know,

419
00:25:12,920 --> 00:25:15,719
Speaker 3: also in alignment with another one of Bond these memos

420
00:25:15,880 --> 00:25:19,960
Speaker 3: seeking to root out weaponization inside the Justice Department, parroting

421
00:25:20,040 --> 00:25:23,359
Speaker 3: Trump's frequent talking point, defense attorneys trying to make the

422
00:25:23,400 --> 00:25:26,800
Speaker 3: point that these were weaponized prosecutors in this case wouldn't

423
00:25:26,800 --> 00:25:30,879
Speaker 3: have been brought had they not had partisan motivation. Now,

424
00:25:31,000 --> 00:25:33,360
Speaker 3: what we saw in this conference that I was referenced

425
00:25:33,440 --> 00:25:36,080
Speaker 3: to in the article, Matt Galliotti, who is the acting

426
00:25:36,119 --> 00:25:40,080
Speaker 3: head of the Criminal Division at DJ, was essentially telling

427
00:25:40,200 --> 00:25:43,000
Speaker 3: white collar defense attorneys, Hey, there are people out here

428
00:25:43,040 --> 00:25:46,000
Speaker 3: who may not be arguing in good faith about why

429
00:25:46,040 --> 00:25:48,359
Speaker 3: their clients deserve relief, and we're not going to just

430
00:25:48,440 --> 00:25:51,520
Speaker 3: represtamp your appeals to us. You need to come to

431
00:25:51,640 --> 00:25:54,760
Speaker 3: us with facts and evidence as to why your case

432
00:25:55,080 --> 00:25:58,199
Speaker 3: should no longer be prosecuted. You know, looking at that

433
00:25:58,320 --> 00:26:01,560
Speaker 3: in the context of what happened with Boscas and Valatini,

434
00:26:01,800 --> 00:26:04,280
Speaker 3: that was an example where you had somebody who had

435
00:26:04,320 --> 00:26:08,119
Speaker 3: direct ties to the Deputy Attorney General's office, which is

436
00:26:08,200 --> 00:26:11,120
Speaker 3: higher up the national ands of TJ, higher up than

437
00:26:11,280 --> 00:26:14,360
Speaker 3: the criminal divisions. It'll be interesting to see going forward

438
00:26:14,640 --> 00:26:18,920
Speaker 3: which types of cases are attorneys trying to make their

439
00:26:18,920 --> 00:26:22,479
Speaker 3: appeals to in criminal division versus the Deputy Attorney General's office.

440
00:26:22,560 --> 00:26:25,439
Speaker 3: If you go to the Dag's office, will they shoot

441
00:26:25,440 --> 00:26:27,280
Speaker 3: down and say no, you need to talk to the

442
00:26:27,280 --> 00:26:29,879
Speaker 3: criminal division first. You know, these are dynamics that are

443
00:26:29,920 --> 00:26:31,840
Speaker 3: still in the early months of playing out and I

444
00:26:31,960 --> 00:26:34,760
Speaker 3: think will be perhaps deal with on a case by

445
00:26:34,800 --> 00:26:35,520
Speaker 3: case basis.

446
00:26:35,800 --> 00:26:39,760
Speaker 1: Well, so much for public corruption cases. Thanks so much, Ben.

447
00:26:40,160 --> 00:26:44,200
Speaker 1: That's Ben Penn's senior Justice Department reporter at Bloomberg Law.

448
00:26:44,720 --> 00:26:47,600
Speaker 1: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, the Labor

449
00:26:47,680 --> 00:26:54,040
Speaker 1: Department's quiet regulation rollback done without a press conference or fanfare.

450
00:26:54,280 --> 00:26:58,640
Speaker 1: I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg. The Trump

451
00:26:58,720 --> 00:27:03,639
Speaker 1: administration's regulatory push has landed at the Labor Department, with

452
00:27:03,760 --> 00:27:08,000
Speaker 1: the agency advancing a slew of proposals to tweak or

453
00:27:08,080 --> 00:27:13,200
Speaker 1: scrap policies across several of its subagencies without much fanfare.

454
00:27:13,760 --> 00:27:17,280
Speaker 1: Rules on the chopping block include minimum wage and overtime

455
00:27:17,359 --> 00:27:23,360
Speaker 1: protections for certain health aids, anti discrimination requirements for apprenticeship programs,

456
00:27:23,640 --> 00:27:27,919
Speaker 1: and union organizing protections for foreign farm workers. Joining me

457
00:27:27,960 --> 00:27:32,280
Speaker 1: is Rebecca Rainey, Senior Labor Department reporter at Bloomberg Law,

458
00:27:32,320 --> 00:27:37,600
Speaker 1: tell us about the major deregulatory push at the Labor Department.

459
00:27:37,680 --> 00:27:38,400
Speaker 1: What's happening.

460
00:27:39,080 --> 00:27:42,720
Speaker 4: The US Department of Labor recently announced that it was

461
00:27:42,800 --> 00:27:46,960
Speaker 4: undergoing this massive deregulation effort, naming that there was going

462
00:27:47,000 --> 00:27:50,400
Speaker 4: to be about sixty three rules or actions that they

463
00:27:50,400 --> 00:27:55,000
Speaker 4: were taking to reduce what they call red tape. And

464
00:27:55,040 --> 00:27:59,560
Speaker 4: so what happened was there was a rollout of dozens

465
00:27:59,560 --> 00:28:04,120
Speaker 4: of rules rescinding certain requirements for employers. We saw more

466
00:28:04,200 --> 00:28:09,240
Speaker 4: than three dozen rules last week that included rules reducing

467
00:28:09,440 --> 00:28:13,560
Speaker 4: certain safety requirements for employers at the Department of Labor's

468
00:28:13,560 --> 00:28:18,560
Speaker 4: worker safety agencies. We saw a cancelation of minimum wage

469
00:28:18,600 --> 00:28:21,639
Speaker 4: and over time protections that have been extended to certain

470
00:28:22,000 --> 00:28:26,440
Speaker 4: home health aids, and even you know, anti discrimination requirements

471
00:28:26,600 --> 00:28:30,720
Speaker 4: or recipients of funding for apprenticeship or job training programs.

472
00:28:31,000 --> 00:28:34,240
Speaker 4: So we got all of these rules very very quickly,

473
00:28:34,600 --> 00:28:36,879
Speaker 4: without a lot of heads up from an Apartment of Labor.

474
00:28:37,000 --> 00:28:39,360
Speaker 4: Now a lot of these proposals will be going through

475
00:28:39,400 --> 00:28:42,760
Speaker 4: a public comment period, but one of the top Democrats

476
00:28:42,800 --> 00:28:48,080
Speaker 4: on the Education and Workforce Committee, Ret. Bobby Scott from Virginia,

477
00:28:48,440 --> 00:28:51,600
Speaker 4: he is now pressing the administration for more details on

478
00:28:51,640 --> 00:28:55,880
Speaker 4: this because we haven't received a regulatory agenda yet. And

479
00:28:56,000 --> 00:29:01,640
Speaker 4: for those unfamiliar, typically every fall and spring, administrations will

480
00:29:01,720 --> 00:29:05,120
Speaker 4: release this big schedule listing all of the rules that

481
00:29:05,160 --> 00:29:09,920
Speaker 4: they plan to advance in the coming months and outlined

482
00:29:10,040 --> 00:29:12,200
Speaker 4: kind of just a short summary of what the rules

483
00:29:12,200 --> 00:29:15,920
Speaker 4: will do. It's usually maybe two sentences, but it gives

484
00:29:15,960 --> 00:29:17,719
Speaker 4: you a little bit more of a heads up of

485
00:29:17,760 --> 00:29:20,640
Speaker 4: what the agency may be doing in that policy space,

486
00:29:20,800 --> 00:29:24,000
Speaker 4: and we don't have that right now. So figuring out

487
00:29:24,160 --> 00:29:27,280
Speaker 4: what these rules do has taken quite a bit of

488
00:29:27,320 --> 00:29:29,520
Speaker 4: time because instead of kind of getting that summary in

489
00:29:29,560 --> 00:29:33,160
Speaker 4: the beginning, we had to, you know, quickly rifle through

490
00:29:33,240 --> 00:29:36,360
Speaker 4: these one hundred page rule makings as soon as they

491
00:29:36,360 --> 00:29:38,280
Speaker 4: came out to try and figure out the impact that

492
00:29:38,320 --> 00:29:41,320
Speaker 4: they may have. So, you know, the ranking member and

493
00:29:41,720 --> 00:29:44,480
Speaker 4: you know, I'm sure a lot of journalists are similarly

494
00:29:44,520 --> 00:29:47,440
Speaker 4: scratching their heads as to what could be coming next.

495
00:29:47,520 --> 00:29:51,160
Speaker 4: Just given the speed and piece of the Trump Administration's

496
00:29:51,240 --> 00:29:54,200
Speaker 4: moves in the Department of Labor's regulatory.

497
00:29:53,680 --> 00:29:57,640
Speaker 1: Space, Representative Scott what were his major concerns. Were there

498
00:29:57,720 --> 00:30:01,160
Speaker 1: some changes that he was particular concerned about.

499
00:30:01,920 --> 00:30:06,200
Speaker 4: Yeah, so there is a proposal currently pending at the

500
00:30:06,200 --> 00:30:08,920
Speaker 4: White House Budget Office, and that is the last step

501
00:30:09,000 --> 00:30:12,520
Speaker 4: before proposal can be released publicly by an agency, it

502
00:30:12,560 --> 00:30:14,920
Speaker 4: has to be approved by the Budget Office. So there's

503
00:30:15,080 --> 00:30:19,040
Speaker 4: two rules pending over there, and one of them mentioned

504
00:30:19,320 --> 00:30:22,880
Speaker 4: that it looks to update the Department of Labor's child

505
00:30:23,000 --> 00:30:28,800
Speaker 4: labor regulations, including its hazardous occupation orders, which list types

506
00:30:28,840 --> 00:30:32,800
Speaker 4: of jobs that anyone under eighteen shouldn't work. In that

507
00:30:32,920 --> 00:30:38,680
Speaker 4: we're talking about mining, working with mechanical tools, power driven

508
00:30:39,240 --> 00:30:43,680
Speaker 4: machinery that could potentially be risky for those who are

509
00:30:43,760 --> 00:30:48,840
Speaker 4: under eighteen to operate. The proposal would also potentially address

510
00:30:49,200 --> 00:30:53,400
Speaker 4: limits on when kids can work. There's currently restrictions for

511
00:30:53,520 --> 00:30:55,880
Speaker 4: fourteen and fifteen year olds as to how late they

512
00:30:55,880 --> 00:30:58,560
Speaker 4: can work during the school year. Those restrictions are a

513
00:30:58,600 --> 00:31:01,960
Speaker 4: little bit more laxed during the summer time. But you know,

514
00:31:02,080 --> 00:31:04,720
Speaker 4: there is a lot of concern about why the Trump

515
00:31:04,760 --> 00:31:08,880
Speaker 4: administration is looking at revising these rules given that there

516
00:31:08,920 --> 00:31:12,719
Speaker 4: has been an extreme uptick in the number of legal

517
00:31:12,840 --> 00:31:16,080
Speaker 4: child labor cases we've seen across the United States in

518
00:31:16,160 --> 00:31:20,800
Speaker 4: recent years, including horrible, egregious cases where we saw children

519
00:31:21,240 --> 00:31:27,480
Speaker 4: working overnight and in neat slaughtering plants, cleaning sharp, dangerous machinery,

520
00:31:27,760 --> 00:31:30,959
Speaker 4: and obviously they weren't allowed to be working there. So,

521
00:31:31,520 --> 00:31:35,080
Speaker 4: you know, the Democrats are raising questions and also worker

522
00:31:35,120 --> 00:31:38,320
Speaker 4: advocates in unions or raising questions as to why the

523
00:31:38,360 --> 00:31:41,600
Speaker 4: Trump administration maybe making those rules a little bit more

524
00:31:41,760 --> 00:31:45,760
Speaker 4: relaxed when there's been so much illegal activity in that

525
00:31:45,880 --> 00:31:47,200
Speaker 4: space in recent years.

526
00:31:47,680 --> 00:31:52,120
Speaker 1: Was Scott implying that the reason why there wasn't, you know,

527
00:31:52,240 --> 00:31:55,920
Speaker 1: a big rollout or press conference was because they were

528
00:31:56,360 --> 00:31:59,280
Speaker 1: trying to hide these rules, the child labor rules.

529
00:32:00,000 --> 00:32:02,720
Speaker 4: Now, not exactly, but you know, there is a bit

530
00:32:02,760 --> 00:32:06,160
Speaker 4: of you know, tea leaf reading here. There was supposed

531
00:32:06,160 --> 00:32:11,440
Speaker 4: to be a press announcement about this deregulatory push. Initially

532
00:32:11,480 --> 00:32:14,680
Speaker 4: it was scheduled for one of the Michigan stops that

533
00:32:14,760 --> 00:32:18,400
Speaker 4: the Labor Secretary, Loris Shaves DeRemer has been traveling the

534
00:32:18,400 --> 00:32:23,000
Speaker 4: country visiting different training and businesses who you know, meet

535
00:32:23,000 --> 00:32:25,960
Speaker 4: with Americans and workers on the job. And she was

536
00:32:26,000 --> 00:32:28,760
Speaker 4: supposed to make this announcement at one stop in Michigan.

537
00:32:29,160 --> 00:32:31,640
Speaker 4: That was postponed. It was pushed a couple of days,

538
00:32:31,640 --> 00:32:33,560
Speaker 4: and you know, the Apartment of Labor said, we're going

539
00:32:33,600 --> 00:32:36,320
Speaker 4: to do this at our headquarters in Washington, d C. Instead,

540
00:32:36,840 --> 00:32:40,840
Speaker 4: And then that was again just postponed indefinitely, and they

541
00:32:41,120 --> 00:32:44,560
Speaker 4: you know, announced that they were doing this deregulatory push instead,

542
00:32:44,680 --> 00:32:47,240
Speaker 4: just through a press release. So I was not able

543
00:32:47,280 --> 00:32:49,400
Speaker 4: to get clarity from the Department of Labor as to

544
00:32:49,400 --> 00:32:51,960
Speaker 4: whether there was a personal reason as to why the

545
00:32:52,040 --> 00:32:55,560
Speaker 4: Labor Secretary and the Deputy Labor Secretary didn't want to

546
00:32:55,600 --> 00:32:59,480
Speaker 4: make this announcement. But you know, again it is questionable,

547
00:32:59,560 --> 00:33:02,600
Speaker 4: especially because they did push out this press release saying, hey,

548
00:33:02,600 --> 00:33:05,880
Speaker 4: look at all these things we're doing, but very quietly,

549
00:33:06,280 --> 00:33:09,320
Speaker 4: you know, and after the fact. So there is a

550
00:33:09,360 --> 00:33:13,040
Speaker 4: lot of questions as to why this rollout didn't receive

551
00:33:13,120 --> 00:33:18,200
Speaker 4: the same fanfare that regulations typically do, especially given that

552
00:33:18,280 --> 00:33:21,400
Speaker 4: this is, you know, such a high priority for President

553
00:33:21,400 --> 00:33:24,920
Speaker 4: Donald Trump when it comes to reducing regulations. He signed

554
00:33:24,920 --> 00:33:29,720
Speaker 4: an executive order shortly after he took office directing Executive

555
00:33:29,760 --> 00:33:34,440
Speaker 4: Branch agencies to send ten regulations for every new regulation

556
00:33:34,720 --> 00:33:38,640
Speaker 4: they issue, and so thed Well was really proud to

557
00:33:38,680 --> 00:33:41,760
Speaker 4: say that they were championing that effort, but did so

558
00:33:41,960 --> 00:33:44,680
Speaker 4: more quietly in a written press release, as opposed to

559
00:33:44,720 --> 00:33:47,360
Speaker 4: a full prece event that had been previously planned.

560
00:33:47,720 --> 00:33:50,040
Speaker 1: Yeah, the Labor Secretary, and the press release said the

561
00:33:50,080 --> 00:33:54,280
Speaker 1: agency's plan is quote the most ambitious proposal to slash

562
00:33:54,360 --> 00:33:58,400
Speaker 1: red tape of any department across the federal government. And

563
00:33:58,480 --> 00:34:03,280
Speaker 1: Trump's new regulatory push is more intense than his regulatory

564
00:34:03,320 --> 00:34:05,080
Speaker 1: push in his first administration.

565
00:34:05,640 --> 00:34:08,600
Speaker 4: I would say so given just the speed and the

566
00:34:08,880 --> 00:34:12,560
Speaker 4: number of regulations that they are targeting so quickly. You know,

567
00:34:12,920 --> 00:34:16,160
Speaker 4: normally this kind of happens one at a time. We

568
00:34:16,640 --> 00:34:19,360
Speaker 4: kind of like take each bite as it goes. But

569
00:34:19,640 --> 00:34:23,000
Speaker 4: this time they just have decided to kind of pol

570
00:34:23,040 --> 00:34:26,160
Speaker 4: the tablecloth off the table, so to say. When it

571
00:34:26,200 --> 00:34:28,879
Speaker 4: comes to a lot of these rules, and some of them,

572
00:34:29,120 --> 00:34:32,239
Speaker 4: I will say, we're more technical. There was a rule

573
00:34:32,280 --> 00:34:36,200
Speaker 4: making that rescinded, you know, multiple pieces of guidance in

574
00:34:36,520 --> 00:34:39,279
Speaker 4: one fell swoop. But a lot of that guidance was

575
00:34:39,680 --> 00:34:42,880
Speaker 4: instructions to employers that how to comply with laws that

576
00:34:42,960 --> 00:34:45,759
Speaker 4: were either no longer in effect or rules that had

577
00:34:45,760 --> 00:34:50,759
Speaker 4: been superseded by new regulations. Some of it was just outdated,

578
00:34:50,880 --> 00:34:53,040
Speaker 4: and some of it seems to be just you know,

579
00:34:53,200 --> 00:34:56,160
Speaker 4: thinning out the code of federal regulations. Not all of

580
00:34:56,160 --> 00:35:01,240
Speaker 4: it is as alarming as the proposals Repcot is learned about. However,

581
00:35:01,560 --> 00:35:04,440
Speaker 4: it still is happening in a way that feels like

582
00:35:04,760 --> 00:35:08,840
Speaker 4: it is kind of a fire hose of new policy moves.

583
00:35:08,920 --> 00:35:11,440
Speaker 4: And this is very hard for those who are watching

584
00:35:11,440 --> 00:35:13,720
Speaker 4: the labor and employment community to kind of keep track

585
00:35:13,800 --> 00:35:16,759
Speaker 4: when things are not happening. You know, one or two

586
00:35:16,800 --> 00:35:19,560
Speaker 4: rules at a time, but sixty three rules at.

587
00:35:19,440 --> 00:35:23,440
Speaker 1: A time are the bulk of them employer friendly.

588
00:35:23,560 --> 00:35:27,040
Speaker 4: So a bulk of the rules that are being reduced

589
00:35:27,480 --> 00:35:31,799
Speaker 4: are rules that puts requirements on employers. So I would

590
00:35:31,840 --> 00:35:36,040
Speaker 4: say overall the effort is an employer friendly effort because

591
00:35:36,040 --> 00:35:40,520
Speaker 4: it is reducing the regular story requirements and rules that

592
00:35:40,560 --> 00:35:44,279
Speaker 4: employers have to follow. So it gives employers less things

593
00:35:44,320 --> 00:35:46,640
Speaker 4: that potentially trip them up and get them a violation

594
00:35:46,760 --> 00:35:50,200
Speaker 4: from the Department of Labor. And we have already seen

595
00:35:50,320 --> 00:35:55,640
Speaker 4: this kind of compliance assistance trend growing from the Trump

596
00:35:55,680 --> 00:35:59,239
Speaker 4: administration and the Department of Labor In recent weeks, they

597
00:35:59,520 --> 00:36:02,600
Speaker 4: recently announced that they were doing an opinion letter program.

598
00:36:02,600 --> 00:36:07,520
Speaker 4: And while opinion letters aren't necessarily a new thing, that

599
00:36:07,719 --> 00:36:11,600
Speaker 4: the DL is doing this initiative to get employers and

600
00:36:11,800 --> 00:36:15,480
Speaker 4: organizations that are regulated by the Department of Labor to

601
00:36:15,600 --> 00:36:19,240
Speaker 4: submit these questions so that the Department can produce opinion

602
00:36:19,320 --> 00:36:22,480
Speaker 4: letters is a new one. And for those I'm familiar,

603
00:36:22,640 --> 00:36:25,960
Speaker 4: an opinion letter is where an employer or an organization

604
00:36:26,160 --> 00:36:29,239
Speaker 4: can write in and say, Hey, I have this situation

605
00:36:29,400 --> 00:36:33,160
Speaker 4: with an employee and I am not sure how they

606
00:36:33,200 --> 00:36:36,200
Speaker 4: should be treated under federal law. Or I have this

607
00:36:36,600 --> 00:36:40,200
Speaker 4: scenario when it comes to certain benefits that I'm not

608
00:36:40,239 --> 00:36:44,880
Speaker 4: sure if I am compensating my employee appropriately under the laws.

609
00:36:44,880 --> 00:36:47,279
Speaker 4: So I'm going to write about this situation to you,

610
00:36:47,360 --> 00:36:50,800
Speaker 4: Department of Labor, and you tell me what your opinion

611
00:36:50,960 --> 00:36:54,640
Speaker 4: is of this situation, and they publish, you know, how

612
00:36:54,680 --> 00:36:58,839
Speaker 4: they would approach each individual case in this letter. They

613
00:36:58,920 --> 00:37:01,799
Speaker 4: scrub the information and about the employer, and you know,

614
00:37:02,040 --> 00:37:06,399
Speaker 4: businesses and attorneys can use these opinion letters to kind

615
00:37:06,400 --> 00:37:13,120
Speaker 4: of guide how they respond to and comfly with different regulations. Now,

616
00:37:13,280 --> 00:37:17,000
Speaker 4: while opinion letters are specific to the companies or organization

617
00:37:17,120 --> 00:37:19,920
Speaker 4: that wrote in the letter it can be a good

618
00:37:19,960 --> 00:37:24,759
Speaker 4: example that provides more guidance about how to follow the law.

619
00:37:25,040 --> 00:37:28,520
Speaker 4: You know, employers sometimes complain that the Department of Labor

620
00:37:28,640 --> 00:37:32,040
Speaker 4: takes a position where it's just trying to find bad

621
00:37:32,080 --> 00:37:35,319
Speaker 4: actors or catch them, you know, being caught up in

622
00:37:35,360 --> 00:37:39,120
Speaker 4: these very complicated regulations that can sometimes go one way

623
00:37:39,200 --> 00:37:41,759
Speaker 4: or sometimes go the other way. And this is an

624
00:37:41,760 --> 00:37:45,160
Speaker 4: effort that the Trump administration says they hope will make

625
00:37:45,160 --> 00:37:48,560
Speaker 4: it easier for businesses who are trying to comfy with

626
00:37:48,680 --> 00:37:52,160
Speaker 4: the law in good base better be able to navigate

627
00:37:52,280 --> 00:37:55,280
Speaker 4: those nuances within the Department of Labor's regulation.

628
00:37:56,080 --> 00:38:00,840
Speaker 1: Besides the child safety concerns, are there other concerns about

629
00:38:00,880 --> 00:38:03,919
Speaker 1: worker safety coming from these proposals.

630
00:38:04,400 --> 00:38:08,239
Speaker 4: Yeah, So, as I mentioned, there's a lot of recisions

631
00:38:08,280 --> 00:38:12,680
Speaker 4: of different protections. Another one is for home health care

632
00:38:12,800 --> 00:38:16,839
Speaker 4: aids and those are you know, nurses or assistants who

633
00:38:16,840 --> 00:38:20,600
Speaker 4: are providing what they call compassionate care for those of

634
00:38:20,719 --> 00:38:24,640
Speaker 4: disabilities or for those who are elderly inside their homes.

635
00:38:24,960 --> 00:38:29,239
Speaker 4: And the Obama administration had issued this rule there was

636
00:38:29,280 --> 00:38:33,000
Speaker 4: an exemption under the law that said certain workers providing

637
00:38:33,080 --> 00:38:36,680
Speaker 4: these types of services don't have to be paid the

638
00:38:36,719 --> 00:38:40,080
Speaker 4: minimum wation overtime protections. Given that you know they're in

639
00:38:40,160 --> 00:38:42,560
Speaker 4: the home for so long in the day, you can

640
00:38:42,640 --> 00:38:45,600
Speaker 4: create record keeping issues, all sorts of things. But the

641
00:38:45,640 --> 00:38:49,200
Speaker 4: Obama administration said, we don't think that's there. We are

642
00:38:49,360 --> 00:38:52,439
Speaker 4: reducing that exemption, and it made a lot of home

643
00:38:52,520 --> 00:38:56,120
Speaker 4: care workers eligible for the first time for minimum wation

644
00:38:56,239 --> 00:38:59,640
Speaker 4: overtime protections. The Trump administration is now coming back and

645
00:38:59,680 --> 00:39:02,640
Speaker 4: trying to cancel that. Basically, it would broaden back that

646
00:39:02,760 --> 00:39:06,960
Speaker 4: exemption and make more of these home care workers ineligible

647
00:39:07,160 --> 00:39:10,799
Speaker 4: for the minimum wage or overtimely And the reason for that,

648
00:39:10,800 --> 00:39:13,719
Speaker 4: the Trump administration says, is just the exemption is very

649
00:39:13,760 --> 00:39:18,040
Speaker 4: hard to comply with and it has led to a

650
00:39:18,239 --> 00:39:23,640
Speaker 4: decrease in availability of these types of workers. And they're

651
00:39:23,680 --> 00:39:26,799
Speaker 4: hoping that by rescinding this rule, it will make it

652
00:39:26,840 --> 00:39:30,360
Speaker 4: easier for companies that have more of these workers available.

653
00:39:30,840 --> 00:39:33,560
Speaker 4: So that is another rool there that is probably going

654
00:39:33,600 --> 00:39:36,640
Speaker 4: to draw a lot of concern from worker advocates and

655
00:39:36,719 --> 00:39:41,120
Speaker 4: Democrats who support the expansion of workplace protections, especially for

656
00:39:41,200 --> 00:39:44,960
Speaker 4: workers in the healthcare industry, which is one of the

657
00:39:45,080 --> 00:39:48,480
Speaker 4: highest industries when it comes to certain types of minimum

658
00:39:48,520 --> 00:39:51,840
Speaker 4: wage and overtime violations, as well as physical violence.

659
00:39:52,200 --> 00:39:53,759
Speaker 1: You'll have to come back and let us know what

660
00:39:53,840 --> 00:39:56,520
Speaker 1: happens with some of these rules. Thanks so much, Rebecca.

661
00:39:57,000 --> 00:40:01,360
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg Lawn Labor Department Reporterbeca and that's it for

662
00:40:01,360 --> 00:40:04,000
Speaker 1: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can

663
00:40:04,040 --> 00:40:07,319
Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts.

664
00:40:07,560 --> 00:40:10,560
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

665
00:40:10,719 --> 00:40:15,759
Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, And

666
00:40:15,840 --> 00:40:18,920
Speaker 1: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight

667
00:40:19,000 --> 00:40:22,440
Speaker 1: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and

668
00:40:22,480 --> 00:40:23,960
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg