Latest / Bloomberg Law / Internet Giants Sued & Interim Appointments

Transcript

Internet Giants Sued & Interim Appointments · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: It's been three years since a white supremacist opened fire
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: inside a grocery store in Buffalo and killed ten people.
• 0:16
  Speaker 3: This tragedy shocked us. It devastated us. It pushed us
• 0:21
  Speaker 3: to where we thought were beyond our limits. But it
• 0:24
  Speaker 3: didn't break us. It didn't break us. Instead, it revealed
• 0:27
  Speaker 3: a strength that runs deep in the veins of the city,
• 0:30
  Speaker 3: the strength of a community that binds together and refuses
• 0:32
  Speaker 3: to be defined by acts of hate.
• 0:35
  Speaker 2: The eighteen year old shooter pleaded guilty to all state
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: charges and was sentenced to eleven concurrent life sentences. The
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: federal case against him is ongoing, but survivors and families
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: of the victims are seeking to hold social media companies responsible.
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: They're suing internet giants Google, Meta, Amazon, and Reddit for
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: publishing racist content that alleged motivated the shooter to commit
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: a hate crime by targeting people in a historically black
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: neighborhood hundreds of miles from his home.
• 1:08
  Speaker 4: Our case is fundamentally about the isolation, obsession, lack of
• 1:14
  Speaker 4: impulse control, and desensitization resulting from the neurological and psychological
• 1:20
  Speaker 4: trauma inflicted on a teenager's brain by a highly addictive
• 1:24
  Speaker 4: social media product.
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: And today both sides were in a New York appellate
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: courtroom where the social media companies are arguing that they
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: can't be held liable for the racist content on their sites.
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: The victim's families say the algorithms the Internet sites used
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: to deliver tailored content to users should be considered products
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: under the state's product liability law. Here are the attorneys
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: for the victims families and Meta.
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: Any time our manufacturer places a dangerous product into the
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: stream of commerce that they reasonably know creates an unreasonable
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: risk of harm to the public, are libel are in
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: New York state products liability law. It's plain and dirt simple.
• 2:10
  Speaker 5: And there are two sort of foundational problems here that
• 2:13
  Speaker 5: get us outside of the realm of traditional product liability.
• 2:17
  Speaker 5: One is that communicating intangible information is not a product,
• 2:23
  Speaker 5: and the second is that services are not products. And
• 2:27
  Speaker 5: here we have both of those things. Product liability law
• 2:32
  Speaker 5: is geared to the tangible world. That's the language of
• 2:36
  Speaker 5: the seminal Winter case.
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: It would be a first in New York if a
• 2:40
  Speaker 2: court found a non tangible thing to be a product
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: for purposes of liability law. My guest is Eric Goleman,
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: a professor at Santa Clara University Law School and co
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: director of the High Tech Law Institute. Eric, can you
• 2:54
  Speaker 2: tell us about the allegations of the plaintiffs in these cases?
• 2:58
  Speaker 6: The case involved the mass shooting in a Buffalo supermarket
• 3:03
  Speaker 6: by a white supremacist, and the basic gist of the
• 3:07
  Speaker 6: claims is that the shooter was radicalized on Facebook, and
• 3:13
  Speaker 6: so in order to fit that into legal doctrines, there's
• 3:16
  Speaker 6: a variety of different claims that the victims and families
• 3:20
  Speaker 6: have made in order to explain what's wrong with that?
• 3:25
  Speaker 6: Why does that actually create legal rights for the victims does?
• 3:29
  Speaker 6: Some of those include a claim that Facebook was negligent,
• 3:34
  Speaker 6: that it should have done something different to protect the victims,
• 3:38
  Speaker 6: and some of it is based on what we sometimes
• 3:41
  Speaker 6: call products liability. That Facebook is a product that is
• 3:46
  Speaker 6: dangerous and as a result, any harms is caused by
• 3:49
  Speaker 6: a dangerous product can be attributable to the supplier of
• 3:52
  Speaker 6: that product.
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: Are the plaintiffs bringing it under the product liability law?
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: In order to get around sex.
• 4:01
  Speaker 6: No. Section two thirty is a defense whereas the planets
• 4:05
  Speaker 6: have to still figure out a claim that actually fits
• 4:07
  Speaker 6: their facts. However, they do want to pick claims that
• 4:11
  Speaker 6: are not preempted by Section two thirty, which says, in short,
• 4:14
  Speaker 6: that websites aren't liable for third party content. So the
• 4:17
  Speaker 6: idea is that the planets are arguing that they're not
• 4:20
  Speaker 6: suing to hold Facebook liabel for the third party content.
• 4:25
  Speaker 6: They're suing based on Facebook's contribution to the radicalization of
• 4:30
  Speaker 6: the shooter.
• 4:31
  Speaker 2: So when you think of product liability, you think of
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: tangible objects. You know, a mechanical device that injures you,
• 4:40
  Speaker 2: something like that. Has a New York court ever found
• 4:44
  Speaker 2: a streaming service or social media to be a product
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: under the state's product liability law.
• 4:50
  Speaker 6: For decades, there have been legal theories that have held
• 4:53
  Speaker 6: that the supply of physical items that are at risk
• 4:57
  Speaker 6: of causing physical injury are live for those physical injuries.
• 5:01
  Speaker 6: And one of the classic old cases involved exploding coca
• 5:04
  Speaker 6: cola bottles, and if you didn't manufacture and fill the
• 5:08
  Speaker 6: coca cola bottle properly, it could literally explode and create
• 5:11
  Speaker 6: shards of laughs that were projectiles. And so the idea
• 5:14
  Speaker 6: is that we want manufacturers to be more careful in
• 5:16
  Speaker 6: the manufacture of an item like that because of the
• 5:19
  Speaker 6: physical risk of poses when that item is now in consumers' homes.
• 5:23
  Speaker 6: There's a very bright line in those doctrines between physical
• 5:29
  Speaker 6: items they are capable of causing physical injury and intangible
• 5:33
  Speaker 6: thinks or services which do not pose the same risk
• 5:37
  Speaker 6: of sending glass yards as projectiles, because there's literally nothing
• 5:42
  Speaker 6: like that in their possession. So the laws normally limit
• 5:46
  Speaker 6: products liability theories to actual physical products, not to services
• 5:53
  Speaker 6: like Internet services like Facebook. So it's a leap of
• 5:58
  Speaker 6: the theory to try and expand it to cover services.
• 6:01
  Speaker 6: This theory wasn't designed for that purpose, it's not optimized
• 6:06
  Speaker 6: to do so, and unlike the regulation of Coca Cola
• 6:09
  Speaker 6: bottles exploding with glass chards, there's significant speech implications if
• 6:14
  Speaker 6: we tried to regulate the dissemination of information as if
• 6:17
  Speaker 6: it's an exploding coke bottle. So there have been plaintiffs
• 6:21
  Speaker 6: across the country that have been trying out the theories
• 6:25
  Speaker 6: that internet services are subject to products liability doctrines, and
• 6:30
  Speaker 6: courts have split on that issue. Most courts have rejected it,
• 6:35
  Speaker 6: some have entertained it, and so it's a live frontier
• 6:39
  Speaker 6: in internet law today.
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: And have there been rulings bipellate courts on that.
• 6:44
  Speaker 6: Yes and no. There's been a variety of rulings in
• 6:47
  Speaker 6: different fact circumstances. But there's a leading case in this
• 6:50
  Speaker 6: area that just came out in February from the Fourth
• 6:53
  Speaker 6: Circuit involved a very very similar case involving the shooter
• 6:57
  Speaker 6: who allegedly was radicalized on Facebook, and the plaintiffs argued
• 7:01
  Speaker 6: products liability is part of the reasons why Facebook should
• 7:04
  Speaker 6: be liable, and in that case the Federal peblic Court
• 7:07
  Speaker 6: shut all that down and said that Facebook qualified for
• 7:11
  Speaker 6: Section two thirty. Everything that the Planets are arguing was
• 7:14
  Speaker 6: trying to hold Facebook liable for the third party content
• 7:17
  Speaker 6: available on service, and therefore the Planets lose. So the
• 7:20
  Speaker 6: plainliffs in this case aren't directly bound by that ruling,
• 7:24
  Speaker 6: but clearly there's a strong message from that ruling that
• 7:27
  Speaker 6: the Planetf's arguments should not be successful.
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: Does that issue depend on the state's product liability law,
• 7:34
  Speaker 2: because those laws differ from state to state.
• 7:37
  Speaker 6: It can we have to look at the terms of
• 7:40
  Speaker 6: the exact statute, what it says it covers. That might
• 7:43
  Speaker 6: very well restrict plaints claims, but not expand them. In
• 7:46
  Speaker 6: other words, there's some limit to the theory that as
• 7:50
  Speaker 6: far as it can go, at some point it has
• 7:52
  Speaker 6: to stop, either because of doctrines like Section two thirty,
• 7:56
  Speaker 6: which Congress enacted as the way to prevent that kind
• 7:59
  Speaker 6: of explan or because of the First Amendment that the
• 8:02
  Speaker 6: Constitution does not permit a physical based legal doctrine to
• 8:07
  Speaker 6: extend to the dissemination of the speech.
• 8:09
  Speaker 2: If the court allows the case to go forward, well,
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: the plaintiffs have to prove that Facebook or the other
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: platforms led to the radicalization of the shooter. And how
• 8:20
  Speaker 2: difficult will that be?
• 8:22
  Speaker 6: Definitely they'll have to show that what we call causation
• 8:26
  Speaker 6: when it comes to negligence. I believe that that will
• 8:29
  Speaker 6: also be relevant in the context of strict products liability,
• 8:33
  Speaker 6: and it will be difficult. And causation was also an
• 8:36
  Speaker 6: issue in the Federal Appellate Court. Rulin I mentioned from
• 8:39
  Speaker 6: the Fourth Circuit and the court independently said there was
• 8:43
  Speaker 6: not sufficient causation in that case. And when we think
• 8:46
  Speaker 6: about what causes someone to radicalize into a white supremacist
• 8:51
  Speaker 6: and even words, what causes a white supremacist to then
• 8:54
  Speaker 6: decide to engage in mass murder. There's so many things
• 8:58
  Speaker 6: that contribute to that outcome, and it's very difficult to
• 9:01
  Speaker 6: pull out one piece and say that's the cause. They
• 9:05
  Speaker 6: should bear all the burden of responsibility. In fact, it
• 9:08
  Speaker 6: really is a whole of society failure to have people
• 9:11
  Speaker 6: who end up in that circumstance, and we really need
• 9:13
  Speaker 6: to look at our society across the board to figure
• 9:16
  Speaker 6: out what went wrong and what we ought to be
• 9:18
  Speaker 6: doing differently, and to try and pin it on anyone
• 9:21
  Speaker 6: player in the ecosystem. To say Facebook was the reason
• 9:24
  Speaker 6: why this particular person pulled the trigger, I really think
• 9:27
  Speaker 6: kind of denies the reality of how we've all contributed
• 9:32
  Speaker 6: to a society that can lead to these outcomes and.
• 9:35
  Speaker 2: Explain how Section two thirty would work here As a.
• 9:39
  Speaker 6: Defense, So the planets started arguing that Facebook radicalized the shooter,
• 9:44
  Speaker 6: and Facebook itself normally doesn't publish content itself that it authored.
• 9:50
  Speaker 6: Its primary way of engaging in content distribution is to
• 9:55
  Speaker 6: gather third party content like the Facebook post that we
• 9:58
  Speaker 6: all make as the every day activity, and then share
• 10:01
  Speaker 6: that with an audience. And so the content that allegedly
• 10:07
  Speaker 6: radicalized the shooter didn't come from Facebook. Facebook most was
• 10:12
  Speaker 6: the mechanism by which some author matched with the shooter.
• 10:16
  Speaker 6: And so it's impossible really to describe Facebook's role in
• 10:21
  Speaker 6: radicalizing the shooter without talking about the content that regalized
• 10:24
  Speaker 6: the shooter, all of which came from a third party.
• 10:27
  Speaker 6: And if third party content can't create liability for Facebook
• 10:30
  Speaker 6: section two, there you will apply a note.
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: Michael Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP,
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: the parent company of Bloomberg Radio, is a donor to
• 10:40
  Speaker 2: groups that support gun control, including every Town for Gun Safety,
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: which represented the plaintiffs in this case in the lower courts.
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue
• 10:51
  Speaker 2: this conversation with Professor Eric Goleman of Santa Clara University
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: Law School. We'll talk more about the algorithms that issue
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: in the case. Survivors and families of the victims of
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: the mass shooting in a Buffalo supermarket three years ago
• 11:07
  Speaker 2: are suing Internet giants Google, Meta, Amazon, and Reddit for
• 11:11
  Speaker 2: publishing racist content that allegedly motivated the shooter to commit
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: a hate crime targeting people in an historically black neighborhood
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: hundreds of miles from his Home. The plaintiffs blame the
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: proprietary algorithms the companies use.
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: Putting people in groups. There's something called confirmation bias. And
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: when you put people in groups where they're getting these
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: white supremacist theories and these calls to violence and these
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: calls to make a race war and think that that's
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: the right thing. That's what happened to Peyton Gendron, and
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: that's what this lawsuit is about him.
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: But the Internet companies say they're protected from liability under
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: the law, which says no interactive computer service provider can
• 11:57
  Speaker 2: be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information
• 12:01
  Speaker 2: provided by another information content provider. I've been talking with
• 12:05
  Speaker 2: Professor Eric Goldman of Santa Clara University Law School. Eric
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: tell us about the plaintiff's claims about the algorithms.
• 12:14
  Speaker 6: So, in order for the shooter to get access to
• 12:16
  Speaker 6: the radicalizing content, somebody has to upload it, and then
• 12:20
  Speaker 6: Facebook has to make the match to present that to
• 12:23
  Speaker 6: the reader to the shooter in this case, and so
• 12:26
  Speaker 6: plainists have often claimed that it was the algorithm Facebook
• 12:29
  Speaker 6: created that led to this radicalization. Now, there are a
• 12:32
  Speaker 6: couple of problems with that theory. One is it was
• 12:34
  Speaker 6: expressly rejected. In the Fourth Circuit opinion that I mentioned earlier,
• 12:38
  Speaker 6: Federal Peller Court said that's not a way of getting
• 12:41
  Speaker 6: around Section two thirty. The other piece, and the Appellate
• 12:44
  Speaker 6: Court mentioned this as well, that in order for Facebook
• 12:48
  Speaker 6: to do anything differently to prevent that requalization, it would
• 12:50
  Speaker 6: have to re architect its entire service. In other words,
• 12:53
  Speaker 6: there's not a way of it just changing the algorithm
• 12:57
  Speaker 6: to eliminate the risk of rattle and clovation with changing
• 13:00
  Speaker 6: any other element of its algorithm. So, in other words,
• 13:04
  Speaker 6: there's no easy fix here for Facebook. Facebook work the
• 13:07
  Speaker 6: way it was designed to work. It may matches between
• 13:10
  Speaker 6: people and content they might be interested in. Unfortunately, some
• 13:13
  Speaker 6: people are interested in content that is antisocial. Facebook's algorithm
• 13:18
  Speaker 6: treats that the same as all other content.
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: The director of the Center for Democracy and Technologies Free
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: Expression Project, which filed in a MEEKS brief in support
• 13:27
  Speaker 2: of the social media companies, said if the automatic ranking
• 13:31
  Speaker 2: and delivery of content is separated from the Section two
• 13:34
  Speaker 2: thirty liability shield, it will suddenly make many pieces of
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: content open to liability and incentivized platforms that use automated
• 13:43
  Speaker 2: ranking systems to deliver content to suppress or eliminate delivery
• 13:47
  Speaker 2: of content they're worried about. So basically, would there be
• 13:50
  Speaker 2: a chilling effect if that happens.
• 13:53
  Speaker 6: I think that's a riff on what I was just saying,
• 13:55
  Speaker 6: and maybe said better than I did. But let me
• 13:57
  Speaker 6: take another cut at it. So, if Facebook is liable
• 14:01
  Speaker 6: for radicalization content, and if and I'm going to hypothesize this,
• 14:07
  Speaker 6: it's true, people might debate it. There is no way
• 14:10
  Speaker 6: for Facebook to know which content is radicalized in or not,
• 14:14
  Speaker 6: or to properly separate that from the pro social content
• 14:18
  Speaker 6: that it would prefer to disseminate. Then Facebook basically becomes
• 14:21
  Speaker 6: the financial guaranteur of any harms that are caused by
• 14:25
  Speaker 6: people that can be traced back to someone's consumption content
• 14:28
  Speaker 6: on Facebook. We've seen so many cases in this genre.
• 14:32
  Speaker 6: This is not a unique case in Buffalo. Many times,
• 14:35
  Speaker 6: victims of shootings have claimed that the shooter was exposed
• 14:39
  Speaker 6: to content on social media, and social media should be
• 14:42
  Speaker 6: responsible for this, and that's just not tenable. Social media
• 14:45
  Speaker 6: cannot act as the financial guaranteur of all the shootings
• 14:48
  Speaker 6: that take place in the world, so then they have
• 14:51
  Speaker 6: to do something different. If they become the financial guarantur
• 14:53
  Speaker 6: they cannot exist in their current form.
• 14:55
  Speaker 2: The easiest path for the Appellate Division right now in
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: this case is to allow the case to go forward
• 15:03
  Speaker 2: and to say, you know, the facts have to be
• 15:05
  Speaker 2: developed before we can make a decision on whether or
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: not this is subject to the state's product liability law.
• 15:13
  Speaker 6: So that's essentially what the lower court did. The lower
• 15:16
  Speaker 6: court basically said, I understand Facebook's defenses, and yet I
• 15:20
  Speaker 6: need to see more facts than before I'm prepared to
• 15:23
  Speaker 6: make the conclusion that products valuability applies, or even that
• 15:26
  Speaker 6: Section two thirty applies. So one possibility is that pel
• 15:30
  Speaker 6: Court could say that District Court was right. Let the
• 15:33
  Speaker 6: case continue to evolve in its ordinary manner, and once
• 15:36
  Speaker 6: we get more information, then we'll be able to figure
• 15:38
  Speaker 6: out what defenses to actually apply in the circumstance. Most
• 15:42
  Speaker 6: cases evolving section two thirty don't do that. Most cases
• 15:45
  Speaker 6: in section two thirty. And at the motion the Smiths,
• 15:48
  Speaker 6: because it is obvious on the face there's nothing that
• 15:50
  Speaker 6: would be produced in a discovery that would show that
• 15:55
  Speaker 6: Section two thirty didn't apply. And here I don't think
• 15:58
  Speaker 6: anyone's contesting the Facebook provided or authored the radicalizing content.
• 16:03
  Speaker 6: The allegation is that it matched the shooter with their
• 16:07
  Speaker 6: party content. So everything that the court needs to know
• 16:10
  Speaker 6: about Section two theories, I think or are you available
• 16:13
  Speaker 6: to it. So punting on that question actually would be
• 16:16
  Speaker 6: a disservice to Facebook and I think to all other
• 16:18
  Speaker 6: social media that expect to be able to avoid the
• 16:22
  Speaker 6: liability for things that they're not legally responsible for.
• 16:26
  Speaker 2: It's interesting that the plaintiffs to your chose state court
• 16:29
  Speaker 2: were in the other case you were discussing the plaintiffs
• 16:32
  Speaker 2: chose federal court.
• 16:34
  Speaker 6: You know, planets get to pick the venue that they
• 16:36
  Speaker 6: think is the best place for them to achieve justice.
• 16:39
  Speaker 6: So it's completely logical that they might conclude that New
• 16:42
  Speaker 6: York state courts is opposed to New York federal courts
• 16:44
  Speaker 6: are a better venue for them. But I would hope
• 16:47
  Speaker 6: that the New York state courts will still take a
• 16:49
  Speaker 6: look at what's going on in the rest of the country,
• 16:51
  Speaker 6: because this is not a novel issue across the country,
• 16:54
  Speaker 6: and the case law is very clear that the New
• 16:58
  Speaker 6: York state trial courts got a wrong.
• 17:00
  Speaker 2: How important is this case as a precedent, let's say,
• 17:04
  Speaker 2: for other cases around the country, and is it important
• 17:07
  Speaker 2: or is it just, you know, another one of the
• 17:09
  Speaker 2: cases that you've been talking about. Is there any import
• 17:11
  Speaker 2: to it?
• 17:12
  Speaker 6: So every case that involves the situation where social media
• 17:17
  Speaker 6: allegedly contributed to some offline harm is important because if
• 17:23
  Speaker 6: those cases succeed, then all social media services face an
• 17:28
  Speaker 6: extreme amount of liability that may make them financially untenable.
• 17:32
  Speaker 6: So it's like the social media services have to bat
• 17:35
  Speaker 6: a thousand in these cases. If they only bout nine
• 17:38
  Speaker 6: to ninety nine and one case gets through, that one
• 17:41
  Speaker 6: case could potentially change the entire Internet ecosystem. So if
• 17:46
  Speaker 6: this case ends up like essentially all the others, and
• 17:50
  Speaker 6: the planiffs don't succeed, then this case became unimportant. It's
• 17:53
  Speaker 6: just one of the many. If for whatever reason, this
• 17:56
  Speaker 6: case does succeed, then this could be the case that
• 17:59
  Speaker 6: reshapes the Internet. And the district court opinion in this
• 18:03
  Speaker 6: case was so troubling, and because it clearly deviated from
• 18:08
  Speaker 6: pressing around the country, and because it basically said I
• 18:12
  Speaker 6: can't make any judgments, even though many people thought that
• 18:16
  Speaker 6: the court had all the facts that needed to make
• 18:18
  Speaker 6: a judgment. And so if that's the case, it opens
• 18:21
  Speaker 6: up the door for unpredictable results, and that unpredictable is
• 18:25
  Speaker 6: actually its own form of danger to the Internet.
• 18:28
  Speaker 2: Any final thoughts.
• 18:30
  Speaker 6: You know, the Buffalo shoe was horrific. You know, all
• 18:32
  Speaker 6: these mass murders are just heartbreaking. You know, they're a
• 18:36
  Speaker 6: sign of pathology in our country. They just absolutely tear
• 18:39
  Speaker 6: me up. And the fact that the shooter was espousing
• 18:43
  Speaker 6: the great replacement theory is even more troubling that this
• 18:48
  Speaker 6: theory continues to find an audience in our country when
• 18:53
  Speaker 6: it's both a factual but it's also deeply corrosive. I
• 18:57
  Speaker 6: will add that want to blame Facebook for the dissemination
• 19:02
  Speaker 6: of the great replacement theory, but many leading figures in
• 19:05
  Speaker 6: our country, whether that's media pundits or actual government officials,
• 19:10
  Speaker 6: have also dabbled in the great replacement theory, and so
• 19:14
  Speaker 6: to me, the idea that Facebook ratoclides this shooter misses
• 19:18
  Speaker 6: the whole ecosystem.
• 19:20
  Speaker 2: We'll see if the New York Appellate Court here deviates
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: from the way most other courts have ruled. Thanks so much, Eric,
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: that's professor Eric Goldman of a Santa Clara University School
• 19:31
  Speaker 2: of Law. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show.
• 19:34
  Speaker 2: The growing trend of presidents using temporary appointments for top
• 19:39
  Speaker 2: roles in government. President Trump has installed another loyalist in
• 19:44
  Speaker 2: one of the most powerful US attorney's offices in the country.
• 19:48
  Speaker 2: Former Fox News host Janine Piro has taken over as
• 19:51
  Speaker 2: the interim US Attorney for DC from Ed Martin, who
• 19:56
  Speaker 2: was the interim US Attorney for close to one hundred
• 19:58
  Speaker 2: and twenty days. The interim nature of both appointments test
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: the bounds of a federal statute governing temporary officials and
• 20:07
  Speaker 2: reflects a growing trend of presidents leaning on temporary appointments
• 20:12
  Speaker 2: for top roles in government. My guest is Anne Joseph O'Connell,
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: a professor at Stanford Law School who specializes in political appointments.
• 20:21
  Speaker 2: Will you explain the provisions that are at play when
• 20:24
  Speaker 2: a US attorney is given an interim appointment.
• 20:28
  Speaker 7: So, when there's not a Senate confirmed US attorney in
• 20:31
  Speaker 7: a particular district, there are two statutes that can provide
• 20:36
  Speaker 7: for temporary service. So the first, what we call interim
• 20:40
  Speaker 7: US attorneys, is a specific provision in the United States
• 20:45
  Speaker 7: Code called Section five forty six, and that provision allows
• 20:48
  Speaker 7: for the Attorney General to choose a temporary interim US
• 20:53
  Speaker 7: attorney for the district in which there is not a
• 20:55
  Speaker 7: Senate confirmed person. There are no restrictions on who the
• 21:00
  Speaker 7: Attorney General can pick, so they don't have to pick
• 21:02
  Speaker 7: someone who's within the Department of Justice, unlike this other
• 21:06
  Speaker 7: statutory provision. And so the Attorney General can pick an
• 21:09
  Speaker 7: interim US attorney and that person can serve for one
• 21:13
  Speaker 7: hundred and twenty days under section five forty six, and
• 21:17
  Speaker 7: then after that one hundred twenty days expires, the district
• 21:21
  Speaker 7: court may right may appoint a US attorney to serve
• 21:27
  Speaker 7: until there is a Senate confirmed one.
• 21:30
  Speaker 2: So what happened here is the term for ed Martin
• 21:33
  Speaker 2: was about to run out, and before the district court
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: could appoint someone, President Trump nominated as another interim US attorney.
• 21:42
  Speaker 2: Jeanine Piro I mean, is that according to the.
• 21:44
  Speaker 7: Rules, Well, it depends whether you're looking at the text
• 21:48
  Speaker 7: of the rule or the intent of the provision. Under
• 21:51
  Speaker 7: the text, I think it's permitted. The provision Section five
• 21:55
  Speaker 7: forty six does not explicitly bar successive one hundred twenty
• 22:00
  Speaker 7: day appointments. And I should also note that even if
• 22:03
  Speaker 7: the district courts had chosen someone, the President in all
• 22:08
  Speaker 7: likelihood could have fired the district court pick and picked
• 22:12
  Speaker 7: another interim US attorney or turned this other statue the
• 22:16
  Speaker 7: Federal Vacancy's Reform Act. So I think the text permits
• 22:20
  Speaker 7: successive appointments. There's no explicit bar on it. There's no
• 22:24
  Speaker 7: provision that provides for a penalty if you see these
• 22:28
  Speaker 7: successive appointments end. In the past, we have seen successive appointments.
• 22:34
  Speaker 7: Now that's the text. When Congress reimposed time limits, so
• 22:39
  Speaker 7: put back the one hundred and twenty day constraint on
• 22:43
  Speaker 7: how long interim US attorneys can serve. They did that
• 22:46
  Speaker 7: in two thousand and seven after a US attorney scandal
• 22:50
  Speaker 7: involving Attorney General Darto Gonzalez, who had fired a number
• 22:55
  Speaker 7: of US attorneys. And the scandal was not whether the
• 22:59
  Speaker 7: president or the Attorney General could fire US attorneys. It
• 23:02
  Speaker 7: was about the reason that was given for those firings.
• 23:06
  Speaker 7: But at the time that it happened, there was no
• 23:08
  Speaker 7: limit on how long interim US attorneys could serve. And
• 23:13
  Speaker 7: this had occurred after September eleventh. There was a period
• 23:16
  Speaker 7: of years where there was kind of no time limit.
• 23:18
  Speaker 7: But then in two thousand and seven, Congress put back
• 23:21
  Speaker 7: this time limit, and I think the putting back of
• 23:23
  Speaker 7: the time limit suggests strongly that the intent of Congress
• 23:28
  Speaker 7: was not to have endless interim appointments of US attorneys.
• 23:33
  Speaker 2: And was that the intent of the Framers as well.
• 23:36
  Speaker 2: In other words, they wanted the Senate to advise and consent.
• 23:40
  Speaker 3: So we have.
• 23:42
  Speaker 7: Had Senate confirmed appointments since the start of the United
• 23:46
  Speaker 7: States Constitution under the appointments Clause, and interestingly, we've had
• 23:51
  Speaker 7: statutes that provide for temporary appointments from about the same time.
• 23:56
  Speaker 7: The very first Vacancies Act, which applied generally, was in
• 24:00
  Speaker 7: seventeen ninety two, and there was another one in seventeen
• 24:03
  Speaker 7: ninety five. There it gets a little tricky about kind
• 24:06
  Speaker 7: of what were the time limits, because in the seventeen
• 24:08
  Speaker 7: ninety five Act, Congress imposed the six month time limit
• 24:13
  Speaker 7: on acting officials.
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: Here a lot of actings. Have US presidents been using
• 24:19
  Speaker 2: interim positions more and more so I have done.
• 24:23
  Speaker 7: Some research on recent administrations and looking at the very
• 24:29
  Speaker 7: highest level of positions, so the heads of agencies, cabinet
• 24:33
  Speaker 7: secretaries in particular, and definitely recent administrations, and that would
• 24:39
  Speaker 7: include President Obama, President Trump's first term and President Biden
• 24:44
  Speaker 7: have heavily relied on acting officials, much more, I would say,
• 24:49
  Speaker 7: than their predecessors in terms of modern government.
• 24:54
  Speaker 2: What's the reason for this? I know that President Trump
• 24:56
  Speaker 2: in the past has said, you know, he likes the
• 24:59
  Speaker 2: idea of it.
• 25:00
  Speaker 3: Is it because it's.
• 25:00
  Speaker 2: Difficult to get people through the Senate? I mean, what's
• 25:03
  Speaker 2: the reason then they're using it more.
• 25:06
  Speaker 7: I think there are several reasons. The first is it
• 25:10
  Speaker 7: takes time to nominate people. Though I will say that
• 25:13
  Speaker 7: President Trump in his second term has a much faster
• 25:17
  Speaker 7: nominations pace than he had in his first term. I
• 25:20
  Speaker 7: mean six or sevenfold more nominations at one hundred day
• 25:26
  Speaker 7: mark in his second term than in his first term.
• 25:28
  Speaker 7: But nominations still takes time to find the people and
• 25:32
  Speaker 7: to formally nominate them. There's a vetting that occurs, and
• 25:35
  Speaker 7: I think for President Trump that vetting has really focused
• 25:38
  Speaker 7: on loyalty, whereas in other administrations might be focusing on
• 25:43
  Speaker 7: ethical considerations, expertise and the like. And then there's the
• 25:48
  Speaker 7: confirmation process. And so even as we have now and
• 25:52
  Speaker 7: even as we did for President Biden, have a Senate
• 25:56
  Speaker 7: controlled by the same party as the White House. It's
• 25:59
  Speaker 7: still takes time because individual senators. Even though there's no
• 26:03
  Speaker 7: longer a sixty vote threshold to move a nomination to
• 26:08
  Speaker 7: a confirmation vote that went away in November twenty thirteen,
• 26:11
  Speaker 7: individual senators can still delay the confirmation's process, right, And
• 26:16
  Speaker 7: we saw this with Senator Tuberville in the Biden administration.
• 26:21
  Speaker 7: We've seen this in other cases as well. Right, Democrats
• 26:24
  Speaker 7: do it to Republicans. Republicans do it to Democrats, and
• 26:27
  Speaker 7: that can slow it down. And so I think both
• 26:29
  Speaker 7: the nominations and confirmation process make acting officials attractive. But
• 26:33
  Speaker 7: I would also say that what I think is a
• 26:36
  Speaker 7: large reason is that acting officials don't require Senate confirmation,
• 26:41
  Speaker 7: and so you can pick people to serve in the
• 26:45
  Speaker 7: temporary capacity that the Senate might not confirm. So in
• 26:48
  Speaker 7: President Trump's first term, the Republicans, as reported by the media,
• 26:53
  Speaker 7: did not want to confirm Ken Kucinelli to a senior
• 26:56
  Speaker 7: post in the Department of Homeland Security, but through acting
• 27:00
  Speaker 7: appointments and delegations of authority, mister Kuchinelli was able to
• 27:05
  Speaker 7: serve in very high profile roles in DXS. And I
• 27:08
  Speaker 7: think a similar story right for Ed Martin that Republicans
• 27:12
  Speaker 7: balked and he was able through the interim provision to serve,
• 27:17
  Speaker 7: whereas you know, if he had just been put up
• 27:19
  Speaker 7: as a nominee, not as an interim, he might not
• 27:22
  Speaker 7: have gotten true.
• 27:23
  Speaker 2: Has President Trump pushed the limits of the Vacancy's Act
• 27:27
  Speaker 2: further than other presidents?
• 27:30
  Speaker 7: I think the Vacancy's Act is pretty capacious. It allows
• 27:33
  Speaker 7: the government to function. I think the Vacancies Act should
• 27:37
  Speaker 7: be reformed in certain ways because I think it allows
• 27:40
  Speaker 7: more than perhaps what we want for an accountable government.
• 27:44
  Speaker 7: But I think in this term, President Trump is really
• 27:48
  Speaker 7: pushing an argument that no previous president has pushed, which
• 27:52
  Speaker 7: is that he believes that if the Vacancy's Act does
• 27:56
  Speaker 7: not apply, he has inherent article to authority name acting officials.
• 28:01
  Speaker 7: And this has come up in the Inner America Foundation
• 28:05
  Speaker 7: and the African Development Foundation, these are entities not covered
• 28:08
  Speaker 7: by the Vacancies Act, where President Trump has named acting
• 28:12
  Speaker 7: officials to Senate confirmed Board positions relying on claimed inherent
• 28:18
  Speaker 7: article to authority. It seems with the firing of the
• 28:21
  Speaker 7: Librarian of Congress that if the Library of Congress is
• 28:25
  Speaker 7: not subject to the Vacancies Act, and I don't think
• 28:27
  Speaker 7: it is President Trump. The White House is indicated that
• 28:30
  Speaker 7: there is Article two authority to name an acting librarian,
• 28:33
  Speaker 7: and I think this is an outrageous claim. We have
• 28:36
  Speaker 7: an appointments clause, we have a recess appointments clause. It
• 28:39
  Speaker 7: is true that the Vacancies Act and specific agency provisions
• 28:43
  Speaker 7: like section five forty six for interim US attorneys, do
• 28:46
  Speaker 7: allow vast use of temporary appointments, but outside of those,
• 28:51
  Speaker 7: presidents need to rely on the appointments clause or the
• 28:54
  Speaker 7: recess appointment.
• 28:55
  Speaker 2: So some are saying that with the US attorney, for example,
• 28:59
  Speaker 2: with Piero becoming the second interim US Attorney for DC,
• 29:05
  Speaker 2: that defendants might be able to challenge some of the
• 29:10
  Speaker 2: you know, prosecutions, et cetera under her because of this issue.
• 29:15
  Speaker 7: I think they would definitely have standing to sue. And
• 29:19
  Speaker 7: I think their argument would be that under five forty six,
• 29:23
  Speaker 7: successive one hundred and twenty day appointments are not allowed.
• 29:27
  Speaker 7: And I think that is a plausible argument. I just
• 29:30
  Speaker 7: don't think it's a winning argument. I think that courts
• 29:34
  Speaker 7: will look at the text. Right as Justice Kagan says,
• 29:36
  Speaker 7: we're all textless now, that the courts will look at
• 29:39
  Speaker 7: the text and see that successive one hundred and twenty
• 29:43
  Speaker 7: day appointments are not barred. It's happened in the past
• 29:46
  Speaker 7: and permitted. Now, that doesn't mean it shouldn't change. I
• 29:49
  Speaker 7: mean Congress could amend five forty six to make it
• 29:54
  Speaker 7: clear that you get one one hundred twenty day appointment,
• 29:57
  Speaker 7: then the district court gets to choose. And then I
• 30:00
  Speaker 7: should note that there is an alternative to these successive
• 30:03
  Speaker 7: one hundred and twenty day appointments. While a nomination might
• 30:07
  Speaker 7: be pending to a US attorney slot, is that I
• 30:10
  Speaker 7: believe that the Federal Vacancy's Reform Act is available for
• 30:13
  Speaker 7: temporary appointments to these positions. Now, the constraint why I
• 30:19
  Speaker 7: think the Trump administration doesn't want to turn to the
• 30:22
  Speaker 7: Vacancies Act is that under the Vacancy's Act, you can't
• 30:25
  Speaker 7: just choose anyone. You can't choose an outsider like the
• 30:29
  Speaker 7: current person. You can't choose an outsider to come in
• 30:32
  Speaker 7: as an acting US attorney. You either need to choose
• 30:35
  Speaker 7: someone who is the first assistant to the US Attorney right,
• 30:39
  Speaker 7: which is typically a career person. You need to choose
• 30:42
  Speaker 7: someone who has Senate confirmed already to another position, so
• 30:46
  Speaker 7: it has already kind of gone through the Senate process,
• 30:49
  Speaker 7: or you have to choose someone who was in the
• 30:52
  Speaker 7: agency for at least ninety days in the year before
• 30:55
  Speaker 7: the vacancy.
• 30:56
  Speaker 2: So finally, you think there needs to be reform here.
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: I think the.
• 31:01
  Speaker 7: Law of governing temporary appointments are pretty broad and likely
• 31:07
  Speaker 7: too broad. On the other hand, we want the government
• 31:12
  Speaker 7: to function. We don't want the government to come to
• 31:14
  Speaker 7: a standstill. And so finding the balance between getting Senate
• 31:19
  Speaker 7: confirmed appointments through a dysfunctional appointments process and having the
• 31:25
  Speaker 7: government function is tricky. And sometimes we're on the right
• 31:30
  Speaker 7: side of the balance, and sometimes we're on the wrong
• 31:33
  Speaker 7: side of the balance. And so I think that Congress
• 31:37
  Speaker 7: really has a role to play in constraining the use
• 31:40
  Speaker 7: of acting an interim appointment.
• 31:42
  Speaker 2: So we'll start counting now to see if Janine Pirou
• 31:44
  Speaker 2: is nominated to be the permanent US Attorney for DC
• 31:49
  Speaker 2: before the one hundred and twenty days expires. Thanks so
• 31:53
  Speaker 2: much for joining me today. That's Professor and Joseph O'Connell
• 31:57
  Speaker 2: of Stanford Law School, and that's it for the edition
• 32:00
  Speaker 2: of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get
• 32:03
  Speaker 2: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You
• 32:06
  Speaker 2: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www
• 32:10
  Speaker 2: dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and remember
• 32:14
  Speaker 2: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at
• 32:17
  Speaker 2: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're
• 32:21
  Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg