10 Commandments & Trump Climate Whiplash

Published Jan 28, 2025, 2:31 AM

First Amendment law expert Caroline Mala Corbin, a professor at the University of Miami Law School, discusses the legal fight over Louisiana’s law requiring every public school classroom to post the Ten Commandments. Environmental law expert Pat Parenteau, a professor at the Vermont Law & Graduate School, discusses Trump’s executive orders to make a sweeping overhaul of US energy policy. June Grasso hosts.

This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

Louisiana's law requiring the Ten Commandments be displayed in public school classrooms is making its way up to the Supreme Court. The constitutionality of the law is now before the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit after a federal judge said the requirement violated the First Amendment. The case has implications outside Louisiana, as lawmakers in other state houses have begun to propose similar laws, joining me his First Amendment expert Caroline Malik Corbin, a professor at the University of Miami Law School. Caroline explain why the lower court blocked this Louisiana law.

So this all started when Louisiana passed the law mandating that every single public school classroom in Louisiana from kindergarten through high school through college post a King James version of the Ten Commandments. And naturally, this was challenged as violating the Establishment Clause that the clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution that mandates some degree of separation of church and state and lawsuits start in district court. And in some ways this was a really easy decision for the district court because the US Supreme Court had addressed a very similar statute forty five years ago. Forty five years ago, Kentucky had passed a law that mandated every single public school classroom posts the Ten Commandments, and the US Supreme Court said, this violates the Establishment clause, is completely unconstitutional. There's no secular reason to have ten Commandment texts in public schools, and laws passed by governments has to have a primarily secular reason. Otherwise is it's a primarily religious reason.

That's getting a.

Bit like a theocracy. And so when the case came before the District Court, it had a precedence from the Supreme Court directly on point that held that laws mandating ten Commandments in public school classrooms violates the Establishment Corse, did.

The Supreme Court in nineteen eighty two did they change the test that they had used in that case.

So here's what's going on since nineteen eighty when this decision was made. We have a very different Supreme Court and we have very different Supreme Court rules. And that's what Louisiana has binking on because at the time the first case was decided, there was particular doctrine that controlled the test that's known as a Lemon test. Now the current Supreme Court has jettison that test, and it said the way we're going to decide whether something violates separation church and state is we're going to look at history and tradition. And history and tradition is highly manipulable and very contested. But Louisiana is probably banking on the Supreme Court's willingness sort of construct history and uncover traditions that would support Ten Commandments in public schools. So the answer is, the doctrine has changed, court has changed. We currently have a court that is much more receptive to Christianity and public schools, and it's not at all clear what it's going to do when it revisits this case.

Louisiana said that the law was passed to teach students about the Ten Commandments' importance to the American legal system.

That was one of their arguments.

They had many arguments. Yes, So there are lots of different strategies that you could use when accused of violating the Establishment clause, and one of them and I just finished a paper sort of addressing precisely this question. So I delighted that you're having me on to talk about it. So one of these strategies is what I am calling secular washing, and that's when something that is inherently religious, an inherent religious symbol, inherentlygigious text like a giant Latin cross or the Ten Commandments from the Holy Bible, is recharacterized as something that's actually secular. And so one of the things that Louisiana is trying to do is argue that these Ten Commandments, this is not religion, this is history. It's just history, and therefore, you know, it's not really problematic at all under the establishment clause. It's not even about really, so what's all the fuss about the history of our country, the importance of the Ten Commandments to our law, and the importance of the Ten Commandments to our values. This is again the bottom line with secular washing, is trying to recharacterize something that is obviously religious, but to claim that no, it's not really it's actually secular if you truly understood what it was all about.

The attorney for the challengers try to stress the religious intent of the law's author, who he quoted as saying, it's so important that our children learn what God says is right and what he says is wrong.

Yes, the claim that this is about history is ridiculous. It's clearly about trying to reintroduce Christianity into the public schools. And the sponsors themselves, as you started to cite, are not really hiding the fact. The litigators might be trying to to cover up the religious motivation behind the law, but the sponsors were quite clear it was about making sure children understood God's words.

How does Louisiana defend against the fact that there are references to God and the Sabbath in the first four Commandments, the.

First five commandment, they're all religious. I am your God, you shall have no other God. You shall not take my name in vain. You should observe the Sabbath. The first five are religious commandments. There's absolutely nothing secular about them, and even the others are not altogether secular. Honor thy Mother and Father, but it's ultimately a religious obligations. Kind of a hard argument to make that this is not religious. I mean, it is from the Holy Bible. But again, what Louisiana is banking on is that the Supreme Court is not going to analyze whether it's religious or not. What instead it's going to do is ask is there a history and traditions of Ten Commandments in public schools? And if there is, then we're going to find it constitutional, because that's the new test the Roberts Court has created for challenges like these. The question is is this a long standing religious practice? If it is, we're going to find it constitutional.

Well, I mean, is there a history of having the Ten Commandments in public schools?

So the answer is no and definitely no. Another tactic. Again, there are lots of strategies that courts use. Part of the challenge when you're trying to define whether a practice is deeply rooted in our history, whether there's a long standing tradition of a particular practice, is how you define the practice. Defining the practice is really key, and the State of Louisiana is trying to define the practice as any appearance of the Ten Commandments in public schools, although the more accurate is is there a long history? Is there a practice of posting Ten Commandment posters in public schools?

And that matters?

That matters because the Supreme Court has never completely banned the Bible or the Ten Commandments from public schools. It is entirely constitutional to talk about the Ten Commandments in a secular course of study. So if you're studying literature, for example, absolutely you could study the King James Bible, which is a masterpiece of writing. Or if you're in a world histories class, obviously you can compare and contrast the Holy Commandments of different religions. But the thing you're not supposed to be able to do is to cosletize or priests or try and teach religious tenants as the true word of God. That is what is forbidden in class. So it's neither here nor there.

If people have.

Studied the Ten Commandments in class in public school before, the question is have they posted Ten Commandments on the walls as a way of bringing children closer to God? That's the real question, And the answer to that question is absolutely not. There is no history of any such thing. One of the things that the district Court did was listen to an expert on this sac subject testify about the history of religion in early common schools up through today, and he said, absolutely, there is no history whatsoever of Ten Commandment displays and public school and Louisiana hasn't offered any evidence either. Again, the test is is there a history and tradition of this particular practice, this particular practice ten Commandments posters. The answer is no, and Louisiana has no evidence.

Otherwise, this is expected to go to the Supreme Court. Do you think that this posting of the Ten Commandments goes even too far for this court, which favors religion in almost every case it comes up in.

I don't know, I really don't. This court seems to have been welcoming religion into all areas of the government where has previously been unconstitutional. It looks like it's about to remake Establishment Cause doctrine when it comes to funding religion. Again. This is a court that upheld a giant Latin cross a government and cross monument as perfectly constitutional. This is a court that has held that a coach on duty may pray in the middle of football fields immediately after games in front of his students, despite three prior Establishment Clause decisions suggesting that's not constitutional. So I don't know where the Supreme Court draws the line, and I have no confidence that it's going to draw the line here.

Now.

I sure hope I'm wrong, but I can't confidently say one way or the other.

I mean, it seemed like this Fifth Circuit panel, which was one Reagan appointee, one Clinton appointee, and one Obama appointee, seem pretty critical of Louisiana's position.

It's blatantly unconstitutional under any test, and certainly under Supreme Court president that has not yet been over ruled. It's obviously unconstitutional. There's no question that it's unconstitutional. And again, to the extent that Louisiana tried to create a history and tradition of Ten Commandments in public schools, its proof was really weak. I mean, part of their proof was a quotation from James Madison that they've just made up.

What was that?

Here is the quotation in the Legislative History History Records that James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, stated that we have staked the whole future of our new nations upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments. He never said that they have been called on that. And again they have trying to construct a history and tradition for the Supreme Court of Ten Commandments in public schools. The best they can come up with are three different textbooks that included it, So they have no history of actual displays or posters, just textbooks that might have included the Ten Commandments, and that's really the extent of it. And of course one of them existed before the country was formed. That was used for colonies, which is not really very informative, and it was also buriantly anti Catholic, right, the part of their history is relying on Protestant practices that reflect virulent anti Catholicism, which in other contexts the Court has said, we will not find this history dispositive in our constitutional inquiry.

Their argument that the controversy, you know, it wasn't ripe and the challenges don't have standing.

I mean again, a common tactic for trying to jodge an establishment clause violation, in addition to secular washing, is to claim that the plaintiffs don't have standing. That is, in this case, they say it's too early to bring this claim. It hasn't actually been put into effect yet. So more specifically, they're saying it's brought too early. It's the legal term is unripe. It's not ripe. There's not enough of a record. But Frankly, you don't need any more information than is already present to decide whether it's unconstitutional or not. They're clearly hoping that this will be a vehicle for the Supreme Court to overrule its prior precedents holding you can't bost Christian dogma onto public school students. They're trying to overrule the prior case, and so the question will be will the Robberts Court take this invitation and happily overrule prior precedent and allow religion into the public schools, and not just religion Christianity. These are Christian Ten Commandments.

And even Christianity.

I mean, that's the Saint James version exactly right.

People say, oh, but Jews have the Ten Commandments. Yes, they do, but their ten Commandments are different than the ones posted, and the Catholic Ten Commandments are also different. So not only is the Ten Commandments favoring Christianity, it's favoring one branch of Christianity over others. And if the establishment clause means anything, it's that the government can't favor some religions over others. And that is inevitably what happens when a school posts the Ten commandments in its classrooms.

It'll be interesting to see how this fifth Circuit Panel with two Democratic appointees on it rules in this case. Thanks so much, Caroline. That's Professor Caroline Malacorbin of the University of Miami Law School. Coming up next. Trump lays the groundwork for a sweeping anti climate agenda. I'm June gross when you're listening to Bloomberg In the dizzy number of executive orders President Donald Trump signed on day one, where a series of orders laying the groundwork for a sweeping overhaul of US energy policy, putting the weight of the federal government behind fossil fuel production and pulling back from the fight against climate change. Trump insists his drill Baby, drill program will bring down prices and inflation.

It just works that way. It just economically works that way.

When the oil comes down, its will bring down prices.

Then you won't have inflation, and then the interest rates will come down. My guest is an expert in environmental law, Pat Parento, a professor with the Vermont Law and Graduate School.

Let's start.

Trump declared a national energy emergency on day one. What does that allow him to do?

Well? Declaration of a national emergency just generally does quote unlock certain provisions of federal law. But it's a statute by statute kind of thing. The declaration itself doesn't do anything. It's a predicate for what's to come next. So now you have to go through individual statutes. For example, offshore oil and gas leasing that's governed by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. If it's an online oil and gas development, the drill, baby drill, the mantra that's governed by a law known as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and so on and so forth. So the orders themselves are a clarion call, right, and a policy announcement clearly and a direction that the administration is going to go. But legally it's going to go statute by statute, and in fact, project by project, whether you're talking about a gas pipeline or an oil pipeline or an LNG terminal or whatever, it's gonna go, you know, project by project, law by law.

He also ordered quarterly meetings of a committee of cabinet level officials known as the Gods Squad.

What is the God Squad?

They've only met a handful of times over the past four.

Decades, right, and I've been the only lawyer who has appeared in all four of the god Squad proceeding. So you're talking to you.

I don't know if or bad I'm trying to.

I don't know. I can tell you this. The Endangered Species Committee is not a standing committee. Okay, it doesn't meet quarterly or regularly at all. In fact, it can only meet as the Endangered Species Committee when there is an application in front of it that meets really specific statutory criteria that I had a hand in drafting, and the most basic one is there can be no exemption process unless there's what's called an irreconcilable conflict between a specific project. Maybe it's a water project, a highway project, timber sale project, but there has to be a really specific project federally authorized or undertaken, and it then has to conflict with the commands under Section seven of the Endangered Species Act, meaning the activity in question has to jeopardize. That's the term the continued survival of a listed species endangered or threatened, right, So we don't have anything like that, As you point out, there hasn't been one since the spotted owl got Squad proceeding. Where I was the owl's lawyer, if you will, because I was the special counsel appointed to the Fish and Wildlife Service to present the case for preserving the owl's habitat to the God Squad. So there hasn't been one since nineteen ninety two, it's my point. And there is nothing on the horizon that would give rise to convening the God Squad.

Pat I wish I could say I was once the spotted owl's lawyer. That's so No, No, Really, saving an endangered species is a higher calling in my book. Back to the executive orders now, so Trump is trying to speed up project reviews using emergency consultations under the Endangered Species Act, which is usually reserved for natural disasters. And Noah Greenwald, he's the Endangered Species program director the Center for Biological Diversity, said this executive order is a death warrant for polar bears, lesser prairie chickens, whooping cranes, and so many more species on the brink of extinction.

Is he right?

Well? I love Noah, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a death warrant. Okay, it's a threat from this administration to use the exemption process and the accelerated consultation process to speed up fossil fuel development. But here's the thing again, there's law that has to be followed. You don't just wave your arms and sign a piece of paper calling it an order and then you start building stuff. That's not the way it works. So if, in fact, the Secretary of Interior, the Secretary of the Department of Energy, or some other cabinet official starts authorizing projects that conflict with the Endangered Species Act that don't go through the full formal consultation process, I'm sure that the Centers for Biological Diversity will be the first one to file a lawsuit, and they're going to win because here's the thing. The emergency consultation procedures are triggered by disasters that threaten human life and property. Where is that happening. That's happening in California, for sure, but it's not the result of the Endangered Species Act. Here comes the punchline. It's climate stupid. So that's what's threatening natural disasters right now. It's not water management in California, it's climate change accelerating and exacerbating the wildfire problems in California has always had, So I'm not ready to say that just because Trump issued in order, species are going to go extinct, not without a hell of a fight anyway.

Pat is he trying to blame the water crisis in California on that little fish?

Yes, he is. Although the delta smelt he's called the delta smelt out. The Delta smelt, by the way, now exists in captivity. It's functionally extinct in the wild. That's happened with other species like the California condor the blackfooted ferret. There's a number of species that have gotten to the point where they had to be taken into captive breeding programs and then reintroduced into the wild. That's the case with the Delta smelt. But here's the other thing. There are five species of fish, including two species of salmon, which are recreationally, commercially valuable and also valuable to the tribes in California. So there are five different species involved in the San Joaquin Delta where the Delta smelt habitat exists. So it isn't one species, it's a whole suite. In fact, it's the whole ecosystem of the San Joaquin Delta that's at risk. Here.

One promise he made repeatedly during the campaign was drill, baby drill.

That's his policy.

And in his inaugural address he said, we will be a rich nation again, and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help.

Right.

So here's the facts. That's a fact free statement, right. So the fact is the United States is the largest producer an exporter of oil and gas on the planet. And oil and gas development, contrary to a lot of climate activists, tremendously exponentially expanded under Biden in the last four years. So A, there is no energy emergency. B as to drill, baby drill. Here's the data. Twenty five million acres of federal lands on land oiling gas are under lease already not being developed. Twenty five million acres of public land. Secondly, there are nine thousand drilling permits that have been issued. They're not being developed either. Why not because there's a glut of oiling gas on the market. Why are gasoline prices at the pump the lowest they've been in seventy years? You're that right, seventy years. Go back and look it up. Not since the nineteen fifties have we seen prices this low at the pump. The reason is there is a glut of oil and gas on the market right now that could change course, but as of right now, there's no basis to declare an energy emergency. There certainly is a climate emergency, or if you want to look at it another way, the real energy emergency is the failure to convert and transition away from fossil fuels and to the cleaner sources of energy solar, wind, which of course Trump hates because it interferes with his golf course in Scotland. But beyond that, you know where is most of the renewable energy being developed right now? In Republican states Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, and so forth. So the real emergency is we need to get on with the business of transitioning to cleaner, more efficient, and actually more profitable sources of energy.

So, as you mentioned, he's been vocal about his dislike of wind for years. What is he trying to do with these executive orders and alternative energy like solar and wind.

He's put up as he put it on offshore wind projects that are still in the permit process. There are nine of them that have already received their permits, and they aren't caught by the executive order, but there are seven others that are not finished with permitting, and so he's he's put a pause on them, and he's threatened to withdraw major portions of offshore wind areas, particularly in what he calls the Gulf of America, which the rest of the world still calls the Gulf of Mexico. And that's a problem or an issue that's going to have to go to the courts, because once again, the President does have authority to withdraw areas of the ocean from development, including I would acknowledge wind development, but again there's a practice by which you do that, including doing an environmental assessment and changing the leasing programs that already have been approved and so forth, so as to further development offshore, that'll be a subject of litigation as well. Here's the downside to all this is it is going to discourage investment. There's been a lot of interest from European Union nations like Norway and Denmark, which is pioneered a lot of offshore win and they want to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in offshore wind in the United States waters. But of course this particular period of time would probably discourage that kind of investment. So even though the orders may lack some legal foundation, they probably will have the desired effect of discouraging at least rapid development of wind and in some cases, probably stolar as well.

City Group analysts have said that Trump's policies won't stop the transition to green energy, citing its economic viability and technological innovation. So in four years, how much damage do you think he can do to the advancement of clean energy.

Through these orders and decisions and changes in rules and rollbacks of environmental rules. I think he's going to get tripped up repeatedly in court on those actions, but I do think we're losing an awful lot of momentum and opportunity. I do think there's going to be a discouraging effect on the investment market for the next four years that may take longer than that to rebound, And certainly, as he drives more and more people away from federal service, which he's intent on doing, that's going to have an institutional impact on our ability to recover from these four years and get back into the game of transitioning to renewable energy and cleaner energy sources. Including electric vehicles, all of which the marketplace is pushing. So I would agree with the comment that he can't stop the transition that's underway. He will certainly slow it down.

Stay with me, Pat, Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, I'll continue this conversation with Professor Pat Parento of the Vermont Law in Graduate School. Well talk about Trump's reversing course on electric vehicles, rescinding environmental justice initiatives, and dropping out of the Paris Accords for the second time. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg. On day one, President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders laying the groundwork for a sweeping overhaul of US energy policy, putting the weight of the federal government behind fossil fuel production and pulling it back from the fight against climate change. I've been talking to environmental law expert Pat Parento, a professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School. You mentioned electric vehicles. He's reversing course on electric vehicles. What were the rules on electric vehicles in the Biden administration?

So there are two of them. There's one called the tailpipe rule, which regulates tailpipe pollution from automobiles, primarily under the Clean Air Act. And the other one is the fuel Economy rule that the Department of Transportation, through the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, or NITSA as it's called, adopts. These are the CAFE, the corporate average fuel economy standards that get promulgated every few years. Right, So, both EPA under Biden and NITSA under Biden adopted strong tailpipe and fuel efficiency rules. They don't quote mandate electric vehicles. They do anticipate that the standards put in place will move more of the automotive fleet in the United States towards electric vehicles and plug in hybrids. And in fact, it's really the plug in hybrid market the one that's the most promising and the most robust right now because a lot of people and myself included, have you know, electric vehicles that have very limited range capacity because there aren't enough charging stations. That was another thing that Biden administration was investing billions in building out charging stations across the country. And I'm sure we're going to see both Trump and probably the Republican Congress cutting back on some of those investments as well, all of which is not good news for a rapid uptake, as they say, of electric vehicles, but it isn't going to stop electric vehicles. Large auto manufacturers like Ford and others have actually supported these really strong measures on tailpipe standards in fuel economy. They see what's happening with the innovative technologies that are being spurred frankly by places like countries like China, which is building electric vehicles left and right. China is also the largest producer of solar panels in the world, so we're feeding economic development to China with these policies and orders that are coming out of the White House. We're not advancing America first. We're not advancing America dominance. We're going in the opposite direction of where the market is going.

This is no surprise. He's rescinding environmental justice initiatives. So there are nearly eighty Biden administration initiatives.

What kind of damage does this do?

This is terrible. This is another part of what we're seeing out of this administration is outright cruelty the people. There's no question but what black, brown, and low income communities across the country have for decades been subject to disproportionate health and environmental impacts. That's where all the really hazardous facilities are cited, whether it's dumping grounds for toxic chemicals and toxic waste, or whether it's oil refineries, whatever it is, Cancer Alley in Louisiana, for example. These are communities that have suffered from disproportionate environmental impacts for decades, and finally we had an administration who took seriously the ethical and the moral obligation to stop that and to bring attention to bear on places where people are getting elevated levels of cancer, dying prematurely, having miscarriages, and all kinds of really serious health and well being impacts. And the truth is that we have not devoted enough time through environmental laws, through permitting and licensing, to avoid burdening these communities with ever more life threatening health threatening activities, and also creating the enforcement capability to target those areas where people are dying and getting sick and bringing enforcement actions through EPA and the Department of Justice to clean it up and to stop it and to protect people. We've also seen last week that Trump has ordered five all five of the Section chiefs in the Department of Justice that are in charge of the environmental enforcement sections of Justice. He's reassigned them to immigration. I don't know exactly what they're going to be doing on immigration. They're environmental lawyers. They're the lawyers that are leading the effort in the United States to keep unity safe, to bring polluters to justice, and he's decimating the capability of these agencies to do that. That's the real harm that we're seeing.

His administration has stopped all pending environmental litigation, that includes pending settlements and consent decrees.

But aren't they going to need.

Environmental lawyers to be fighting all the lawsuits that are going to come down because of these executive orders.

Well, that's the irony of what's going on here. By taking out senior career professionals in the federal agencies, it's actually going to make what Trump wants to do even harder to do. It'll mean that instead of carefully following the law, crossing the t's, dotting the eyes and all of that, they're going to keep making the kinds of mistakes they did in the first round in Trump's first administration. In their hurry to do this in the demand or you know, to be loyal to the president, not loyal to the rule of law. They're going to make all kinds of mistakes. But here's the it takes time to chase down all these things. That's another strategy here is, you know, flood the zone, throw so many things out there that people will be dispersed and can't keep up with everything he's doing. Can't get all these cases into court and get them heard, get them reversed. That's what they're counting on, I think is just do so much that some stuff is just going to go through because there isn't enough opposition on the other side, and there isn't enough time to get them all turned around or overturned. Right, So eventually I think you're going to see that happening. It'll be later in the four years. But you know, apparently the strategy is stop us if you can.

So he rescinds Biden rules. Do most of the things he wants to do require federal rule making.

Yeah, the big things, do you know, the tail Fife rule, the power plant rule, the methane rule, a lot of the rules under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act that Biden adopted, and Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. All of those rules that are on the books are going to have to go through notice and comment rule making under the Administrative Procedure Act, and they're all going to be subject to challenge in various courts, sometimes district courts, sometimes courts of appeal. So that's the process that we're now in, and as I say, it's going to take years, and he'll be gone actually before a lot of these cases are resolved. And who knows what's going to happen after he's out of office and who comes in next. That's another big question mark.

So in an executive order entitled Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements, he withdrew from the Paris Accord for the second time.

What's the impact of that.

Well, the impact is to certainly slow down the rate at which countries that are signatory to the Climate Treaty are upping their commitment. You know, Biden made a very strong commitment to cut our missions in half. That's not going to happen now. Of course, by twenty thirty. I wouldn't overstate this because several countries, in response to what Trump has announced, including China, have said, you know what, we are going to stick with the international process under the Paris Treaty of Paris Agreement. In fact, China is saying we're going to up our game, and we see the as said this before, we see the economic advantage of building more clean energy and providing more of the rare earth materials that are required for electric vehicles and other green energy.

Right.

So it's going to be a mix. I mean, it's not a good thing, but I don't think it's going to mean that all progress is going to come to a screeching halt by any means. The other thing is, once again, as we saw before, we're going to see states and cities and counties stepping up and doing the best they can anyway to fill some of the gaps. California, the fifth large economy in the world, has already announced that it's going to make up for the fact that the Trump administration is going to not be building as much charging stations to support electric vehicles. They are going to be putting very significant money into that. They may expand their cap and trade program. Other states are looking to join that program. The state of Washington has adopted a carbon tax, which has been renewed by a popular referendum in Washington state, so Vermont, my little Vermont, has adopted a climate super fun law to go after the oil companies to get money for adaptation. We're going to see those kinds of efforts picking up, at least over the period of time that Trump's in office. This time. It won't make up for all of the losses of momentum and opportunity that Trump is going to cost us. It won't make up for that, but it'll upset some of it, and it'll at least keep us fighting for trying to get to the point where we really are seriously reducing the emissions that are causing the kinds of health scapes that we're seeing in La County.

Right now, I'm waiting for the first lawsuits to be filed over these environmental orders.

We shall see. Thanks so much. Pat.

That's Professor Pat Parento of the Vermont Law and Graduate School. And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm.

Wall Street Time.

I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg

Bloomberg Law

Host June Grasso speaks with prominent attorneys and legal scholars, analyzing major legal issues an 
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 2,307 clip(s)