We are going to talk about climate change, and uh, there is Well, it's it's not clear whether President Trump is going to pull out of the Paris Climate a cord, but if he does, one reason maybe a ship in a Supreme Court case known by the name of the Charming Betsy. The Charming Betsy was a schooner at the center of an eighteen o four ruling that is still reverberating. The Charming Betsy doctrine as it is known is it has established that federal laws should be interpreted if possible,
so that they don't conflict with international law. So what does the Charming Betsy have to do with climate change? Well, with me to talk about that in the Bloomberg studio is Jennifer de Loewee. She's Bloomberg News is energy and environmental policy reporter. Jennifer. Thank you for joining us. Uh, tell us briefly about the Charming Betsy and and how it ended up at the middle of the case before
the Supreme Court. Right, So, this was a trading vessel that actually sailed from Baltimore down to the Caribbean to St. Thomas where it was sold to a former U. S citizen turned Dane who had pledged allegiance to Denmark and UH after the vessel was captured by a French privateer. It was actually seized under instructions from the U S President because of perceived violation of a trade law that
at the time barred commercial dealings between the US and France. UM. When it made its way to the High Court, UH, the the Supreme Court essentially concluded that the trade restrictions did not apply to this vessel UM and specifically to the to its Danish captain, because that would run afoul of international norms that say, if your countries that are not part of a conflict should not be UM involved in them, and that is true for their citizens to UH.
And the famous language that he used, he basically set an Act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains. And and as you noted, that that's reverberating two years later. Yeah, so it takes us through Jennifer. How it is that at least some in the White House think that this is an issue in regard to the Paris Accord. Right.
The concern is that the Paris Agreement UH in in in and in which everyone agreed to and which nearly two hundred countries agreed to UH slash their greenhouse gas emissions.
The concern is that that agreement UH could could have the weight of of international law UH, that it could be perceived as binding on US efforts UH in the environmental arena, and UH that environmentalists who are seeking to challenge President Trump's efforts to roll back climate policies like the Clean Power Plan, that they could use this as ammunition to say, look, we the US agree to cut
our carbon dioxide emissions. We made this commitment as part of the Paris Agreement, and therefore we cannot back away from our domestic policies that would help us meet those goals. So I've learned from from your story that it's by no means a consensus, that it really would provide much in the way of ammunition for those environmental groups. Give us the argument for why it might not make any difference. There are a number of climate negotiators and and environmentalists
to say, actually, it doesn't. It doesn't provide that kind of ammunition, and their argument centers around the notion that this is indeed just in agreement. It is not a self executing uh, international accord. It is not an international law. Um, so therefore it would not have that kind of force domestically.
I mean, that's really the thrust of it. You're also hearing, you know, basically what we're hearing from some administration lawyers, however, is that there is a non zero legal risk that this could come up, that it could manifest in some cases, and uh, and the folks who want to get out of Paris are making the argument that even a very
small risk is is untenable at this point. So, Jennifer, given the sort of arguments here, and the fact that you have a White House that you know, has gotten some kind of reputation for being a place that leaks a lot um, is this really is this a serious legal concern on their part? Do you think? Or is this really something that is being used is just a way to get momentum for getting the President to pull out of the Paris Accords. You know, it's a good question,
and it's it's hard to say. What I can tell you is that, you know, the these legal discussions have absolutely dominated the last two White House meetings on this issue. One of legal staff assembled from across the administration and another of principles Cabinet level officials and White House UH senior advisors. UH. They focused heavily on these legal discussions, the discussion of domestic legal risk. It's been elevated by
the White House Counsel's Office. UH. And they also discussed even how much authority the US has to revise downward its commitment. The commitment it made in Paris was to cut emissions by and there's question about how much latitude under the agreement they really have to do that. And we only have about thirty seconds. But maybe tell us quickly, what are you hearing from environmental groups. Are they looking at this as some great new potential tool that they
would have to to prevent domestic changes? Yeah, they're so far they are downplaying their ability to use it. I think it's important to note that that's in their interest as they try to push the administration to stay in Paris. But right now they're saying it's not quite the tool that some of these Paris critics think it is. I want to thank our guest Jennifer Delowie, Bloomberg News UH Energy and Environmental policy reporter for joining us here on Bloomberg Law