Latest / Bloomberg Law / Botched FBI House Raid & RFK Jr.'s Anti-Vax Agenda

Transcript

Botched FBI House Raid & RFK Jr.'s Anti-Vax Agenda · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
0:08
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has unanimously revived the lawsuit by an
0:13
Speaker 1: Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI
0:17
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen. Are members of an FBI swat team
0:21
Speaker 1: smashed in a front door, set off a flash bang grenade,
0:25
Speaker 1: and held the family at gunpoint until they realized they
0:29
Speaker 1: had raided the wrong home.
0:31
Speaker 2: Lower courts had.
0:31
Speaker 1: Dismissed the lawsuit brought by the family under an exception
0:35
Speaker 1: to the Federal Tourt Claims Act that shields the government
0:38
Speaker 1: from liability when it comes to giving federal officers discretion
0:42
Speaker 1: to carry out their jobs. But in the majority opinion,
0:46
Speaker 1: Justice Neil Gorsuch said the lower courts might be applying
0:49
Speaker 1: the exception too broadly, noting that the FBI agent in
0:53
Speaker 1: charge had missed the street sign and the house number,
0:56
Speaker 1: something he noted during the oral arguments.
0:59
Speaker 3: Here. Piers suggests, for example, that the officer should have
1:02
Speaker 3: checked the house number. Yeah, you might look at the
1:04
Speaker 3: address of the house before you have knocked down the door. Yes,
1:08
Speaker 3: And as the District Court found at fifty two eight,
1:11
Speaker 3: that sort of decision is filled with policy trade offs,
1:15
Speaker 3: because checking the house number at the end of the
1:17
Speaker 3: driveway means exposing the agents the potential lines of fire.
1:21
Speaker 4: Making sure you're on the right street?
1:23
Speaker 3: Is that?
1:24
Speaker 2: And how does that mean?
1:25
Speaker 4: Just the right street?
1:27
Speaker 3: Oh?
1:27
Speaker 5: I mean I I was just gonna think the street sign?
1:30
Speaker 3: Is that?
1:30
Speaker 1: Is that?
1:31
Speaker 3: You know?
1:32
Speaker 5: Ask you too much?
1:33
Speaker 1: The court sent the case back to the Eleventh Circuit
1:35
Speaker 1: for more findings. Joining me is constitutional law expert Harold Krant,
1:40
Speaker 1: a professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law, hell
1:43
Speaker 1: tell us about this lawsuit.
1:45
Speaker 5: The lawsuit arose because FBI agents and trying to serve
1:49
Speaker 5: a warrant, went to the wrong house, was the wrong street,
1:52
Speaker 5: it was the wrong address, and so they were just
1:55
Speaker 5: evidently plainly negligent and the crashed through the door, creating
1:59
Speaker 5: damage to the house and scared the wits out of
2:02
Speaker 5: the recipients when they saw these people coming in and
2:05
Speaker 5: they were trying to hide from armed intruders. So the
2:08
Speaker 5: FBI was looking for drug dealers, and evidently they took
2:11
Speaker 5: a little while to find out that their mistake. And
2:14
Speaker 5: so afterwards the private citizens sued sued under the Federal
2:18
Speaker 5: Tware Claims Act, which is a waiver of sovereign immunity
2:21
Speaker 5: from the United States to allow torch suits in particular
2:25
Speaker 5: contexts and compensation both for the physical injuries as well
2:28
Speaker 5: as for the injuries to the house. And this took
2:31
Speaker 5: place outside Atlanta, which is in the Eleventh Circuit and
2:34
Speaker 5: the Eleventh Circuit.
2:35
Speaker 1: So explain a little bit more about the Federal Claims
2:39
Speaker 1: Act and the exception that shields government from liability to
2:43
Speaker 1: give officers discretion.
2:45
Speaker 5: So, prior to nineteen forty six, the Supreme Court had
2:48
Speaker 5: never waived the federal government's immunity from torch suit, so
2:51
Speaker 5: if one was injured by a federal agent or by
2:54
Speaker 5: a post truck driver, one had to submit a private
2:57
Speaker 5: bill to Congress in the hope of compensation, and Congress
3:00
Speaker 5: sort of modernized the system by creating this mechanism to
3:04
Speaker 5: allow federal agencies to be sued in tort, but with
3:09
Speaker 5: some exceptions and the law of the cases that take
3:12
Speaker 5: place in the States. Individuals have to make it claim
3:15
Speaker 5: to the agency before they can go to court. But
3:18
Speaker 5: the most important exceptions to exceptions in this case are First,
3:22
Speaker 5: there is an exception for intentional torts, but carved out
3:27
Speaker 5: of the intentional torts are law enforcement personnel. So the
3:32
Speaker 5: idea of a carve out for intentional torts is evidently
3:35
Speaker 5: that it's just if a federal official is acting intentionally
3:39
Speaker 5: to hurt someone, they're not arguably within the scope of
3:42
Speaker 5: their employment, and so Congress decided that they should be
3:46
Speaker 5: sued in their own individual capacity. But at the same time,
3:50
Speaker 5: Congress decided that if there was a law enforcement agency,
3:54
Speaker 5: then there needs to be extra protection, and so that
3:57
Speaker 5: the federal government would be substitute rooted instead of the
4:01
Speaker 5: law enforcement agents if anyone suffered an intentional tourt at
4:06
Speaker 5: the hand of the law enforcement agencies. So that's the
4:09
Speaker 5: general structure first of the law Enforcement Proviso, which limits
4:13
Speaker 5: the intentional tort exclusion under the Federal Tort Claims Act. So,
4:17
Speaker 5: according to the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit got it
4:19
Speaker 5: wrong two ways. First, the Eleventh Circuit held that, and
4:24
Speaker 5: this is pro plaintiff, if there is law enforcement personnel involved,
4:28
Speaker 5: is in this case not only does the intentional tort
4:31
Speaker 5: exception not apply, but also that the second major exception
4:37
Speaker 5: in the Federal Tort Claims Act, the discretionary function exception,
4:40
Speaker 5: doesn't apply as well. And the discretionary function. Exception is that, yes,
4:46
Speaker 5: the government has waived its community for negligence suits, but
4:50
Speaker 5: if there's some kind of policy, social economic, political policy
4:54
Speaker 5: underlying that negligence, the government is not made a waiver
4:58
Speaker 5: because it doesn't want, of course, the second guest government
5:02
Speaker 5: action when it's grounded in social, economic and political policy.
5:07
Speaker 5: So back to the eleven Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit says
5:10
Speaker 5: that the waiver for law enforcement officials applies to discretionary
5:15
Speaker 5: acts as well. All right, so far that's been a
5:18
Speaker 5: very pro plaintiff decision. But then the Eleventh Circuit grafts
5:23
Speaker 5: on another defense for the government that's not in the statute.
5:27
Speaker 5: They called the supremacy clause defense. And on the supremacy
5:31
Speaker 5: clause defense, the government can come in and say the
5:34
Speaker 5: law enforcement officers were basically doing something at our will
5:40
Speaker 5: and it can't be second guests in state court. This
5:44
Speaker 5: is not in the Federal Twitter Claims Act. And that
5:47
Speaker 5: was the basis on the lower court ruling in favor
5:50
Speaker 5: of the federal law enforcement officers in this case. So
5:54
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court took it and said, you've misread the
5:57
Speaker 5: statute twice. And yes, under the Congressional statute, you can
6:02
Speaker 5: sue law enforcement agencies for intentional courts and also for negligence,
6:08
Speaker 5: but the discretionary function exception will apply. And they remanded
6:13
Speaker 5: the case back to Eleventh Circuit for a proper application
6:17
Speaker 5: of the statute. In c namous case, it should be
6:21
Speaker 5: the Eleventh Circuit just read the statute wrong for reasons
6:23
Speaker 5: that are unknown to me. They probably unknown to the
6:26
Speaker 5: court as well. And I think it's pretty clear that
6:30
Speaker 5: the kind of negligence that's at stake in miss you know,
6:35
Speaker 5: going to the wrong house, the wrong address, to break
6:38
Speaker 5: into the house to try to apprehend the gang, that's
6:42
Speaker 5: operational negligence. It's not based upon any kind of social, political,
6:48
Speaker 5: economic value judgment. And it's pretty clear that that the
6:51
Speaker 5: government's going to lose on Remand.
6:54
Speaker 1: Even though the District Court said that the lead fbi
6:59
Speaker 1: age and had taken significant precautions in preparing for the rate,
7:04
Speaker 1: it had simply made a mistake.
7:06
Speaker 5: That's a negligence, and those mistakes are not covered by
7:09
Speaker 5: the discretionary functioning session. And indeed, just as Sodomayor wrote
7:14
Speaker 5: a concurrence just to spell that out in her view,
7:17
Speaker 5: messing up the address on a warrant is like making
7:20
Speaker 5: a mistake at a stop sign. Those are operational negligence,
7:24
Speaker 5: and Congress said that the government should pay out when
7:28
Speaker 5: its agents makes those kinds of mistakes.
7:30
Speaker 1: Justice Corsigs wrote, if federal officers raid the wrong house,
7:35
Speaker 1: causing property damage and assaulting innocent occupants, made the homeowners
7:40
Speaker 1: sue the government for damages, the answer is not as
7:43
Speaker 1: obvious as.
7:44
Speaker 5: It might be at first. The entire structure of the
7:48
Speaker 5: Toward Claims Act is unusual in that Congress adopted the
7:52
Speaker 5: law in the jurisdiction where the injury arose. So the government,
7:57
Speaker 5: federal government in essence, is being governed by fifty different
8:00
Speaker 5: state laws as to in this case, assault or adequate preparation.
8:06
Speaker 5: So that's why it's never easy to predict. But you know,
8:09
Speaker 5: I think that in this case, at least from the
8:11
Speaker 5: facts that we were privy to in the Supreme Court decision,
8:15
Speaker 5: going to the wrong house is hardly ever a policy issue.
8:19
Speaker 5: It's basically one that's just based upon the GPS mistake
8:24
Speaker 5: not seeing the right car in the driveway it was
8:26
Speaker 5: a different car, and not seeing the address on the
8:30
Speaker 5: address sign.
8:31
Speaker 1: So this is going back to the eleventh Circuit. What
8:32
Speaker 1: are the questions that Eleventh Circuit has to answer?
8:36
Speaker 5: The Eleventh Circuit will ask whether the negligence in this
8:40
Speaker 5: case stems from political, social, and economic policy or is
8:45
Speaker 5: rather considered operational negligence. And again from the facts that
8:49
Speaker 5: we learned in the Supreme Court decision, there was no
8:52
Speaker 5: kind of judgment call, here's a necessity. We have to
8:56
Speaker 5: take a risk because we see somebody fleeing, so we
8:57
Speaker 5: have to go into this house. There was nothing like that,
9:00
Speaker 5: which might be more policy centered. But rather they went
9:04
Speaker 5: to the wrong street than the wrong address. That's pretty inexcusable.
9:09
Speaker 1: So let's say the Eleventh Circuit rules as you say,
9:12
Speaker 1: I mean, does it go to trial?
9:13
Speaker 2: Then what happens next?
9:15
Speaker 5: It will go to trial. There will be no jury
9:17
Speaker 5: trial that has been exempted out of the Settle toward
9:20
Speaker 5: Claims Act, but there will have to be a trial
9:22
Speaker 5: as to the proper amount of damages, and that of
9:24
Speaker 5: course could be subject to appeal as well, and that's
9:27
Speaker 5: paid on the judgment fund.
9:29
Speaker 2: Was it surprising that this was unanimous?
9:33
Speaker 5: I think this is the right way to read the statute.
9:35
Speaker 5: I think it's pretty clear from both prior cases and
9:38
Speaker 5: other circuits as well as from the legislative history that
9:42
Speaker 5: the Eleventh Circuit got it wrong, and I think this
9:44
Speaker 5: is just one of these instances where the Court took
9:47
Speaker 5: the case to clean it up. But interestingly, this is
9:50
Speaker 5: now going to give Senator Padilla, who was treated so
9:54
Speaker 5: rudely at Christy Nomes press conference, he now would be
9:58
Speaker 5: able to sue under this very I think his is
10:01
Speaker 5: a little more difficult factually, but he now would have
10:04
Speaker 5: an avenue to suit.
10:05
Speaker 2: You mentioned Senator Padilla.
10:07
Speaker 1: Does this ruling strengthen future efforts to seek compensation for
10:12
Speaker 1: a federal law enforcement misconduct? It does?
10:16
Speaker 5: I mean, I think that it's righting or wrong because
10:18
Speaker 5: the Eleventh Circuit had it too crabbed of a decision.
10:21
Speaker 5: But in this case, theoretically, Senator Padilla could argue that
10:25
Speaker 5: there was law enforcement lofsters that acted negligently in trying
10:30
Speaker 5: to tackle him and subdue him. Weigh and beyond an
10:34
Speaker 5: exercise of force that needed to be applied. I think
10:36
Speaker 5: it's again it's going to be a harder case, but
10:38
Speaker 5: he certainly has that avenue open.
10:41
Speaker 2: Is there a possibility this might end up at the
10:43
Speaker 2: Supreme Court? Again?
10:44
Speaker 5: I doubt it. I think that in this case, the
10:47
Speaker 5: Court took the case just to sort of correct the
10:51
Speaker 5: case law and to make sure that the principles that
10:54
Speaker 5: the Loved Circuit applies in the future adhere more closely
10:57
Speaker 5: to the statute. I don't think there's any inherently controversial that.
11:01
Speaker 5: I do agree with Justice Soda Mayora when she said
11:05
Speaker 5: that the Supreme Court has not taken a case in
11:08
Speaker 5: twenty five years in this area, and so there is
11:10
Speaker 5: a lot of disagreement about how to frame the proper inquiry,
11:14
Speaker 5: and so that some other case might be appropriate for
11:17
Speaker 5: the Court to take in order to give more direction
11:20
Speaker 5: to the lower courts.
11:21
Speaker 1: The federal agents themselves wouldn't have to pay the damages.
11:24
Speaker 5: No, Once you sue the United States, then the employees
11:29
Speaker 5: are exempted out of the claim and will be immune. Theoretically,
11:33
Speaker 5: the federal government could do a third party suit against
11:37
Speaker 5: the employees for some kind of contribution, but they never
11:41
Speaker 5: do that. They're almost never, and so in essence, again,
11:43
Speaker 5: the judgment would come from the judgment fund.
11:45
Speaker 2: Okay, I'll stay with me.
11:47
Speaker 1: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Laws Show, we'll look
11:49
Speaker 1: at some of the high profile cases the justices have
11:52
Speaker 1: yet to rule on with about two weeks left in
11:55
Speaker 1: the term. I'm June Gross, so when you're listening to Bloomberg,
12:00
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is just two thirds through the cases
12:03
Speaker 1: on its docket, with about two weeks left in the term.
12:06
Speaker 1: The justices have yet to rule on twenty one cases,
12:10
Speaker 1: including some involving hot button issues like gender affirming treatments
12:14
Speaker 1: for minors, a clash over LGBTQ schoolbooks, and one of
12:19
Speaker 1: President Trump's most audacious immigration initiatives. I've been talking to
12:24
Speaker 1: Professor Harold Krant of the Chicago Kent College of Law.
12:28
Speaker 1: One of the cases that stands out is the one
12:31
Speaker 1: over Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors. So,
12:34
Speaker 1: and that was argued the first week of December, and
12:38
Speaker 1: it seemed pretty clear that there were five justices conservatives
12:42
Speaker 1: who were skeptical of the contentions that the Tennessee law
12:47
Speaker 1: violated the Constitution.
12:49
Speaker 2: Why is it taking so well?
12:51
Speaker 5: The other issue in their case is that the administration
12:54
Speaker 5: is flip flop and with the tub administration and disavowing
12:57
Speaker 5: the position that the Biden administration took, which was that,
13:01
Speaker 5: of course that the law was unconstitutional. So we all
13:05
Speaker 5: speculated at the time that the Court might even get
13:08
Speaker 5: rid of the case because of that change of position.
13:11
Speaker 5: It probably won't do that, but I don't know what's
13:14
Speaker 5: taking the court so long, so it is somewhat mysterious,
13:17
Speaker 5: but we expect some kind of decision eminently.
13:20
Speaker 2: This is going to be one.
13:21
Speaker 1: Of the more controversial cases of the term, and they
13:24
Speaker 1: seem to leave those to the end of June. Although
13:29
Speaker 1: you'll hear the explanation for that is that the cases
13:33
Speaker 1: are controversial, so there may be more concurring opinions or
13:37
Speaker 1: dissenting opinions, But it also seems to me like they hold.
13:41
Speaker 2: Them till the end.
13:42
Speaker 5: Yeah. And of course the same is true for the
13:45
Speaker 5: birthright citizenship case, which is probably the other very controversial case,
13:50
Speaker 5: both because the merits of the birthright cititionship issue, but
13:53
Speaker 5: also because of the question of the nationwide injunctions. I
13:56
Speaker 5: would expect to see that on the last day, so
13:59
Speaker 5: it is typical Supreme Court tack And I guess the
14:02
Speaker 5: other one I would put in that same category is
14:05
Speaker 5: a question of whether parents have an opt out can
14:08
Speaker 5: take their kids and pull them out of class if
14:12
Speaker 5: the class is teaching something that strikes against their religious beliefs.
14:17
Speaker 5: I mean that decision will create incredible havoc for public
14:21
Speaker 5: schools who are trying to then have to give notice
14:24
Speaker 5: of every book that may be read, which is particularly
14:28
Speaker 5: difficult for Show and Tell if the kids bring in
14:30
Speaker 5: stories and then have some kind of monitoring of the
14:34
Speaker 5: kids while those texts are being discussed in class. So
14:37
Speaker 5: from the argument, again, it sounded like the Court was
14:40
Speaker 5: going to allow and opt out based on religion, but
14:43
Speaker 5: that implementation that would be incredibly difficult. So I think
14:47
Speaker 5: that's going to be one of the more controversial decisions
14:49
Speaker 5: of the term as well.
14:50
Speaker 1: You know, the Supreme Court has dealt with several gay
14:53
Speaker 1: rights and trends rights cases, and they've decided to take
14:57
Speaker 1: for next term a case over Colorado's ban on conversion therapy,
15:04
Speaker 1: so they're not shying away from issues in this area.
15:06
Speaker 5: Well, and of course, what really is underlying these decisions
15:10
Speaker 5: or whether the permission for gay marriage will remain intact
15:15
Speaker 5: or will the Court, because of its religious views, decide
15:20
Speaker 5: that the right of gay marriage, so to speak, should
15:23
Speaker 5: it be revalued.
15:24
Speaker 1: I know that there are conservative justices who are looking
15:27
Speaker 1: to do that, and there is a movement.
15:29
Speaker 2: To reverse the Obergerfeld decision.
15:31
Speaker 1: But wouldn't that be difficult to do because then what
15:35
Speaker 1: happens to all the gay couples who got married and
15:39
Speaker 1: relied on that decision?
15:40
Speaker 2: What are they going to say your marriage is not
15:42
Speaker 2: valid now?
15:43
Speaker 5: No, it would make it prospective if they did that.
15:45
Speaker 5: And of course it's also complicated because the post Look decision,
15:48
Speaker 5: which recognized you could have a civil rights action if
15:52
Speaker 5: you demote someone or treat them differently because they're gay.
15:56
Speaker 5: But nonetheless, there is this movement that's trying to get
15:59
Speaker 5: the courts attention to try to use another case to
16:03
Speaker 5: reverse a not so long standing ten years standing precedent.
16:07
Speaker 5: But it's not coming now, so that's something we don't
16:10
Speaker 5: have to talk about emitally.
16:11
Speaker 1: Are there any other cases that you're waiting to hear
16:14
Speaker 1: the decision.
16:16
Speaker 5: On whether it's the case involving whether you can limit
16:19
Speaker 5: website pornography websites to some kind of age verification, And
16:23
Speaker 5: that's not so important, I think, because of the question,
16:27
Speaker 5: because of course you can have age limitations in movies
16:31
Speaker 5: and on porn sites. It's the question is what's the
16:33
Speaker 5: standard or review? And in that case, the conflict was
16:37
Speaker 5: any kind of restriction on First Amendment you have to
16:40
Speaker 5: use strict scrutiny or as in that case, you use
16:43
Speaker 5: rational basis. In rational basis is an easy test. So
16:48
Speaker 5: it's not important again for the facts of the case,
16:50
Speaker 5: but articulating the standard review in First Amendment cases does
16:54
Speaker 5: remain incredibly critical for a host of contemporary reasons that
16:58
Speaker 5: you're well aware. I say add that there's two decisions
17:01
Speaker 5: that are pending involving either accessive delegations from Congress to
17:07
Speaker 5: private parties or re christening the private parties as inferior
17:12
Speaker 5: officers and upholding the delegations. So the court probably won't
17:16
Speaker 5: give a bombshell in either of those cases, but they
17:18
Speaker 5: may give out some clues as to the future of
17:21
Speaker 5: the non delegation doctrine and their willingness to permit private
17:25
Speaker 5: parties to play some role in shaping the governance of
17:29
Speaker 5: our country.
17:30
Speaker 2: And just explain the non delegation doctrine.
17:32
Speaker 5: Yeah, so non delegation doctrine says that Congress must be
17:36
Speaker 5: very specific in giving authority to agencies, whether the agencies
17:42
Speaker 5: can have power to fill in the details, but they
17:45
Speaker 5: can't have the power to make policy themselves, and no
17:48
Speaker 5: coise of them able to figure out where the line
17:51
Speaker 5: is between the two. And so it's a continuing issue,
17:53
Speaker 5: particularly on this court, to try to articulate more limits
17:57
Speaker 5: on how much power Congress could do and how specific
18:00
Speaker 5: Congress must be in giving power to the agencies. And
18:03
Speaker 5: that might be true even more so to the extent
18:06
Speaker 5: that there's private parties involved in these cases. And there's
18:11
Speaker 5: one case in which the private party is definitely involved,
18:13
Speaker 5: the other one that's more hazy in terms of the
18:16
Speaker 5: legislative structure of the delegation. But the court may, for inta,
18:20
Speaker 5: say that private parties can only do ministerial tasks and
18:25
Speaker 5: that anything more would be a violation of the non
18:27
Speaker 5: delegation doctrine. And in the one case, there was imposition
18:32
Speaker 5: of a fee on broadcasters in order to ensure adequate
18:37
Speaker 5: access to service in broadband and telephones in schools and
18:41
Speaker 5: rural areas, and that rule the private parties, you know,
18:44
Speaker 5: it's like attacks, And so the court may say that
18:47
Speaker 5: that is stepping too far, that Congress can't allow any
18:50
Speaker 5: kind of private party to help with imposing attacks. So
18:55
Speaker 5: there are some variations of the decisions which could create
18:59
Speaker 5: a doctrine which even more limits the power of Congress
19:04
Speaker 5: to enroll agencies and or private parties in trying to
19:09
Speaker 5: implement national priorities.
19:11
Speaker 1: There's been so much emphasis on the shadow docket, or
19:15
Speaker 1: the emergency docket since Trump became president and has filed
19:21
Speaker 1: so many emergency appeals with the Court. So a lot
19:24
Speaker 1: of the most controversial issues are being decided on the
19:27
Speaker 1: shadow docket, perhaps making the regular docket a little more
19:30
Speaker 1: subdued this term.
19:32
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Hal.
19:33
Speaker 1: That's Professor Harold Krant of the Chicago Kent College of Law.
19:37
Speaker 1: US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Junior is a known
19:42
Speaker 1: vaccine skeptic. For example, two years ago, he suggested that
19:46
Speaker 1: the polio vaccine has killed more people than polio did,
19:50
Speaker 1: and he's linked the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to autism,
19:54
Speaker 1: a theory that's been widely debunked. Kennedy has repeatedly said
19:58
Speaker 1: he won't do anything to keep people from getting vaccines.
20:02
Speaker 1: I'm not going to take away anybody's vaccine.
20:05
Speaker 4: If people are happy with their vaccines, they ought to
20:07
Speaker 4: be able to get them. What we're going to do
20:09
Speaker 4: is give people good science.
20:10
Speaker 1: But some of Kennedy's recent moves, including dismissing all the
20:15
Speaker 1: members of a key panel that advises on immunization policy
20:19
Speaker 1: seem to be steps toward implementing his blueprint to cast
20:23
Speaker 1: doubt on the effectiveness and safety of a broad range
20:26
Speaker 1: of vaccines. My guest is Naya penk Ciity Bloomberg Law.
20:30
Speaker 1: Healthcare reporter RFK Junior wrote on X I took a
20:35
Speaker 1: major step toward restoring public trusts in vaccines by reconstituting
20:41
Speaker 1: the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices. Tell us what he did.
20:46
Speaker 4: Yeah, So, Kennedy last week fired all seventeen members of
20:51
Speaker 4: the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, also known as a
20:56
Speaker 4: STEP And this is a panel of public health and
21:00
Speaker 4: medical experts that advised the CDC on vaccines in what
21:05
Speaker 4: shots should be recommended in the US. So this is
21:08
Speaker 4: a very important panel because they vote on what vaccines
21:12
Speaker 4: should go on the CDC's recommended immanization schedule. Now, that
21:16
Speaker 4: schedule or that list is very important because doctors use
21:20
Speaker 4: that to determine which vaccines to give to patients. And
21:24
Speaker 4: it's also important for insurers because they use that to
21:28
Speaker 4: determine what vaccines to cover. Now, before Secretary Rout of
21:32
Speaker 4: Kenne Junior dismissed the last ACID committee. There were seventeen members,
21:36
Speaker 4: and he pointed out in his pressure release after posting
21:39
Speaker 4: on X that the Biden administration appointed all seventeen of
21:42
Speaker 4: those sitting ASIT members. Thirteen of them were appointed in
21:46
Speaker 4: twenty twenty four. Now what Kennedy did here, he said,
21:49
Speaker 4: he retired all of them, dismissed them, and that raised
21:52
Speaker 4: alan for various public health experts and even drug industry
21:57
Speaker 4: because there were concerns that Kennedy would replaces members with
22:01
Speaker 4: anti vaxers, especially with Kennedy's vaccine skepticism, and they were
22:06
Speaker 4: concerns that he would replace those people with folks who
22:09
Speaker 4: have spread and misinformation about the safety and e fficacy
22:12
Speaker 4: of vaccines, even shots that have been approved by the
22:15
Speaker 4: FDA to be safe and effective.
22:17
Speaker 1: And what about the people he's now appointed to the committee.
22:20
Speaker 4: So he has already appointed eight new members last week,
22:23
Speaker 4: which by the way, is the minimum number of members
22:27
Speaker 4: for a SIP needed. And when he selected eight new members,
22:30
Speaker 4: that included people that actually have anti VAXX views and
22:34
Speaker 4: are against mRNA vaccines in the COVID nineteen vaccine, or
22:38
Speaker 4: have found those vaccines to have safety issues. One of
22:41
Speaker 4: them is Robert Malone. He is a major opponent of
22:45
Speaker 4: mRNA vaccines. He also selected rat stev Levy, who's a
22:48
Speaker 4: professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who's questioned the
22:52
Speaker 4: safety of COVID vaccines. He also picked Martin Coldroff, a
22:57
Speaker 4: former Harvard's Medical School professor who was the co author
23:00
Speaker 4: of the Great Barrington Declaration, and that was a manifesto
23:03
Speaker 4: that came out during the pandemic that called for alternative
23:07
Speaker 4: COVID lockdowns during the pandemic. And it's also already been
23:10
Speaker 4: reported that Malone and Kuldruff were paid expert witnesses in
23:14
Speaker 4: work vaccine cases. So there's already concerns because after Kennedy
23:19
Speaker 4: dismissed the acent members, he went back on x and
23:22
Speaker 4: posted writing that he wouldn't put anti vaxxers on the panel,
23:26
Speaker 4: but rather quote put highly credential positions end quote. And
23:31
Speaker 4: so we've seen folks with anti vacviews now on that panel.
23:34
Speaker 4: So there's already concerns about who's been put on there.
23:38
Speaker 1: And you know, despite the fact that he made promises
23:41
Speaker 1: during his confirmation hearings that he would not attack vaccines,
23:46
Speaker 1: what else has he done to stall or cast doubt
23:49
Speaker 1: on vaccines so far.
23:52
Speaker 4: Even before this significant decision to dismiss and restock a FIPS,
23:58
Speaker 4: Kennedy was already making moves vaccines. So back in May,
24:02
Speaker 4: he announced through a video on x that he would
24:05
Speaker 4: be removing the COVID nineteen vaccine from the CDC's recommended
24:09
Speaker 4: immanization list for healthy children and healthy pregnant women. And
24:13
Speaker 4: that may have raised the alarm for industry again because
24:16
Speaker 4: Kennedy didn't really share any details on how it came
24:19
Speaker 4: about that decision, and the attorneys I've spoken with say that,
24:23
Speaker 4: you know, there are procedural issues on how he went
24:25
Speaker 4: about that. Earlier this year, he also said that he
24:28
Speaker 4: will be requiring all new vaccines to undergo placebo controlled
24:32
Speaker 4: studies before they're approved. Now, that would be a major
24:36
Speaker 4: policy shift because that means vaccines will have to go
24:39
Speaker 4: through safety trials where some participants will receive a placibo
24:43
Speaker 4: injection before the shot can be licensed. The concern there
24:46
Speaker 4: is that the disease already has a vaccine, the study
24:49
Speaker 4: is unethical because a participant in the trial would be
24:51
Speaker 4: exposed to a preventable illness. We also know that vaccines
24:54
Speaker 4: for emerging diseases already undergo possibo controlled testing during development.
24:59
Speaker 4: So already made numerous moves that show his agenda to
25:04
Speaker 4: scrutinize vaccines, and we are expecting more and he appears
25:07
Speaker 4: to be moving at a pretty quick pace.
25:10
Speaker 1: Well, is there a chance that he could look back
25:12
Speaker 1: at vaccines that have already been approved?
25:15
Speaker 4: I can see that. I mean, Kennedy has repeatedly questioned
25:18
Speaker 4: vaccine safety testing for quite some time now. His skepticism
25:22
Speaker 4: really gained wider popularity during the COVID nineteen pandemic, especially
25:26
Speaker 4: with skepticism against MR and A vaccines. He said during
25:30
Speaker 4: his campaign trail that he wouldn't be taking vaccines away,
25:33
Speaker 4: But I think, you know, folks are just also skeptical
25:36
Speaker 4: of how he's going to move. He's questioned the safety
25:39
Speaker 4: as many other vaccines, including you know, linking the measles
25:43
Speaker 4: momps in rebella or the MMR vaccine autism, which is
25:46
Speaker 4: a theory that's been widely debunked. But we know that
25:49
Speaker 4: he's going to keep looking into vaccines even past once
25:53
Speaker 4: because in his Make America Healthy Again report that came
25:56
Speaker 4: out in May, there was a section on vaccines, and
26:00
Speaker 4: and that highlighted how he's going to look into them,
26:03
Speaker 4: you know, areas that weren't future inquiry. There was a
26:06
Speaker 4: part that says that he's going to look into conflicts
26:08
Speaker 4: of interest in the vaccine recommendations tied to the pharmaceutical industry,
26:12
Speaker 4: and we already see him doing that with the Acid Committee.
26:15
Speaker 4: But based on that report, his next steps are likely
26:17
Speaker 4: to address changes to clinical trials, more investigations in the
26:20
Speaker 4: vaccine safety, in the science that really underpins the approvals.
26:24
Speaker 4: And then the report also causing the expansion for the
26:27
Speaker 4: Department's Autism Data Initiative to better study childhood chronic diseases.
26:31
Speaker 4: So we know that Kennedy is supposed to come out
26:34
Speaker 4: with a report and I believe September, on what causes autism,
26:37
Speaker 4: And you know, we're eager to know what's going to
26:39
Speaker 4: be in that report, and we're wondering if there will
26:41
Speaker 4: be something in there that links you know, vaccines to autism,
26:45
Speaker 4: which again has been debunked, but we are curious to
26:47
Speaker 4: know what will be in there.
26:49
Speaker 1: How consequential is it that he yanked seven hundred and
26:53
Speaker 1: sixty six million dollar contract with Maderna to develop Mr
26:57
Speaker 1: NA vaccines for avian influenza.
27:01
Speaker 4: It's a big deal because one that is a lot
27:05
Speaker 4: of money to do research into mRNA and to prevent
27:10
Speaker 4: future diseases and flu in pandemics. So the concern there
27:15
Speaker 4: was when he yanked that, you folks were like, does
27:18
Speaker 4: he not want Maderna to study mRNA and to look
27:22
Speaker 4: into that. So it kind of poses some threat to
27:26
Speaker 4: mRNA vaccines is he's slowly chipping away at it because
27:30
Speaker 4: again he's always had the skepticism with it. And then
27:33
Speaker 4: to yank that contract with Majoernal was a very big deal.
27:37
Speaker 1: And explain what an mRNA vaccine is.
27:41
Speaker 4: mRNA is created in the lab to teach ourselves how
27:43
Speaker 4: to make a protein, and that protein triggers an immune
27:47
Speaker 4: response in our bodies, and that immune response produces antibodies
27:51
Speaker 4: which helped protect us from getting sick from that German
27:53
Speaker 4: the future. So in this case with the COVID nineteen vaccine,
27:56
Speaker 4: that mRNA vaccine helps us from getting sick from COVID
28:00
Speaker 4: in the future. And it was Emma Rena during the
28:04
Speaker 4: first Trump administration was just a major breakthrough because it's
28:07
Speaker 4: something the Trump administration harnessed when they were making vaccines
28:11
Speaker 4: to battle the COVID nineteen pandemic, and it was major
28:14
Speaker 4: for COVID nineteen, but it is also big for treating
28:18
Speaker 4: other diseases, so it's not just about COVID, so Emmorna
28:21
Speaker 4: can do a lot. I've talked to scientists who are like,
28:24
Speaker 4: it's the next big thing, So to be chipping away
28:27
Speaker 4: at it if we do is a big concern.
28:29
Speaker 1: Do the people that you've talked to in this area
28:33
Speaker 1: think that he'll just chip away at the public confidence
28:37
Speaker 1: in vaccines, he'll stop new ones from coming out, or
28:40
Speaker 1: that he's going to go after the vaccines that are
28:44
Speaker 1: already out there.
28:46
Speaker 4: I think it's both. I think for the vaccines already
28:49
Speaker 4: out there, he might find a way to go back
28:52
Speaker 4: and look at the you know, safety data to see
28:55
Speaker 4: if there's something there to look into. And then for
28:59
Speaker 4: future vaccine that haven't hit the market, there might be
29:02
Speaker 4: you know, obstacles that are there for those manufacturers to
29:06
Speaker 4: get them across the finish line to get approved. Because
29:09
Speaker 4: again we're dealing with the Secretary who it's not only
29:13
Speaker 4: skeptical vaccines, but also is skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry.
29:17
Speaker 4: We've seen Kennedy make comments about his you know, issues
29:21
Speaker 4: and concerns and questions around pharmaceutical industry profits and conflicts
29:26
Speaker 4: of interest and how there's relationships between federal agencies and manufacturers,
29:32
Speaker 4: so industry is also dealing with that. It's some kind
29:36
Speaker 4: of in a weird spot right now, and how to
29:38
Speaker 4: move forward with manufacturing these vaccines. But yes, I've talked
29:43
Speaker 4: to people who are like, he will hip away at
29:45
Speaker 4: these vaccines. I talk to one source who's like, this
29:47
Speaker 4: is like the frog in a boiling pot situation, where
29:52
Speaker 4: he's going to go at vaccines with small measures, and
29:56
Speaker 4: he's going to do it slowly, but at the same time,
29:58
Speaker 4: we see him moving quickly right now.
30:00
Speaker 1: During his confirmation hearings, a lot of the senators were
30:03
Speaker 1: concerned about his views on vaccines. So Kennedy's recent moves
30:09
Speaker 1: have caused health professionals to be concerned. What about lawmakers?
30:15
Speaker 4: A good number of lawmakers have expressed concerns with this.
30:20
Speaker 4: I think the most important reaction we got was from
30:23
Speaker 4: Senator Bill Cassidy after Kennedy made this decision. Because during
30:30
Speaker 4: Kennedy's confirmation hearing, before Cassidy decided to vote for Kennedy,
30:35
Speaker 4: to become secretary. He said that Kennedy would quote maintain
30:40
Speaker 4: the committee, and that could have meant many things, and
30:44
Speaker 4: that clearly has not been the case because the committee
30:47
Speaker 4: is now dismissed and Cassidy posted on x that he
30:52
Speaker 4: spoke with Kennedy. You know, we haven't really heard any
30:55
Speaker 4: details since then, but I know that this is a
30:57
Speaker 4: concern for Cassidy because that was one of the promises
31:01
Speaker 4: that Kennedy made to the Senator which got him that
31:05
Speaker 4: vote from Cassidy.
31:07
Speaker 1: I think we've seen time and time again, not only
31:10
Speaker 1: with government officials, but also with Supreme Court justices, that
31:15
Speaker 1: promises made or assurances given during confirmation hearings are not
31:20
Speaker 1: always kept. Thanks so much for joining me, NYA. That's
31:23
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Healthcare Reporter Nya pank City and that's it for
31:27
Speaker 1: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
31:30
Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
31:33
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
31:36
Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and
31:41
Speaker 1: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
31:45
Speaker 1: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
31:48
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg