SCOTUS Guts FTC Power to Recoup Billions for Consumers

are already under attack by Republicans. Joining me is Pat Parento, a professor of environmental law at Vermont Law School. So what's the strategy that the Biden administration is using impending environmental cases. It seems like there isn't a uniform approach to how the Biden administration is going to undo what

the Trump administration did on environmental issues. For exact sample, with the two big pipeline cases, we saw right out of the box, Biden killed the Keystone XL pipeline because he was able to do that at a time before actual construction in the United States portion was underway, or at least part of it. With regard to the Dakota Access pipeline. On the other hand, Biden and the d o J have decided not to stop the flow of

oil through that pipeline, which is already built. And if you look at these two pipelines, the common theme from both of them is the impact on jobs. And the unions were all over Biden when he killed Keystone and said you've cost us thousands of potential jobs. With regard to Dakota Access, those are jobs that are already underway. And I think it was a political calculation in these

two cases. So I think what we're gonna see is that the Biden administration is going to look at each one of these environmental issues in its context and decide which ones can it immediately reverse and which ones is it going to take longer to reverse. And a good example of that is happening right now today where a judge in Virginia is hearing arguments to overturn Trump's NIPA rules,

which greatly watered down and weakened NIPA analysis. And in that case, the Biden administration has asked the court to stay the case and allow c e Q to review, of course, the Trump rules and decide how they're going to make changes. They signaled very strongly that they have serious problems with the Trump NIPA rules. But it's curious that they didn't agree to let the judge rule that the Trump NIPA rules are in fact illegal, even though the Biden c e Q filing in the case has

identified all the same reasons why the Trump rules are illegal. Right, so you can't figure out exactly what the strategy is from the Biden administration, except it seems to depend on each individual case. Do you think that there is a broad strategy in place or it's just case by case.

I think that the broad strategy is we do want to reverse these Trump policies, but each one is going to be apparently evaluated, I guess, as I say, in its own context, in its own circumstances, and the thinking behind when Biden takes a decisive action and when he differs. It's not clear yet whether it's politics or whether it's a different kind of strategy that would strengthen the ultimate decision that Biden is going to make. We don't really know yet. Um we have a similar situation with the

litigation over the Clean Power Plan. This is the rule of course regulating greenhouse gases from power plants. And that again, the Trump Rule, which replaced the Obama Rule, has been struck down by the d C Circuit, And the DC Circuit also struck down the Trump rule that repeals the Clean Power Plan. But again the Biden administration did not

agree to reinstate the Clean Power Plan. Rather, it sets to the d C Circuit hold off on that part of your order to give us time to figure out what kind of a new rule we want to adopt for power plants. In that case, it might make some sense to do that because the Clean power Plant has already been overtaken by market forces, which have reduced emissions from the power plant sector by more than what Clean Power Plan would have done. The Clean Power Plan was

talking about reduction and emissions. We've already achieved reduction and emissions measured from two thousand and five baseline. So again, you know you're gonna I think we're gonna all have to be patient and and watch to see, you know, how Biden is going to deal with each one of these issues, and how quickly the administration is going to be able to come up with new rules when those are required for new decisions, and I'm not sure there

is a uniform approach yet. Are the courts in general allowing the Biden administration to press the pause button on these cases? Well, not in the case of the nap of rule, Judge Jones. It is in Virginia. You know, the Biden administration went into his court weeks ago and asked the judge to put a hold on the case.

And the judge said, no, the case is being briefed and these Trump rules are on the books and agencies are lying on them and the way they're doing their environmental impact assessments, and no, we need to decide this case. You're not giving me any firm deadline by which you intend to take an action that would resolve the issues in this case. So no, I think we should proceed.

And I predict that Judge Jones is going to make that same decision at argument, and he's probably gonna rule on the merits of the case challenging the Trump rule. And the Biden administration is in a really awkward position. They certainly can't defend the Trump rule. So you know, if the judge says, no, I'm not going to hold this case back, I'm going to decide it with or without the input of the Biden administration. That's a really

unusual situation that one. To me, it's very hard to understand. Has the Biden administration completely eliminated any Trump error rules? Oh, let's see, the so called secret Science rule is off the books, but that was done through the Congressional Review Act. The methane rules are also, I think gonna be revoked by this d r A, as it's called the Congressional Review Act Resolution, the rule that would have changed the interpretation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. That's been vacated

with the Biden administration's approval. But you know, you have to go sort of issue by issue, don't you. And I'd have to say that very few of the Trump rules have been acts at this point. Have industry groups and Republicans have they begun mounting a legal campaign against the Biden agenda which is unfolding. Oh? Yes, yes, for sure.

The so called Red States, the Republican ages have challenged the moratorium on oil and gas leasing, both on on land, on the public lands in the West and off shore. The States and some of the power companies still have an opportunity to take the Clean Power Plan and the so called eighths rule that replaced it to the Supreme Court.

The time period for filing a petition for review by the Supreme Court will expire in May, so we don't know are they going to try to get the Supreme Court to actually overturn the DC Circuits decision which struck down the eighth rule. So yeah, I would say we're only beginning now to see pushback coming from the opponents, well, either the supporters of the Trump rule or the opponents

of the Obama rules that preceded them. Same with the Chamber of Commerce, the Pacific Legal Foundation on the clean Water rule. The District Court in Colorado had overturned the Trump Water rule. The Tent Circuit set that injunction aside and set it back to Colorado. But but the the opponents to the Obama Clean Water Rule and the supporters of the Trump replacement rule, they're continuing to press in the cases that are that are trying to decide which

are those rules is going to survive. So you know, there is there is so much litigation going on with all of these environmental rules now it's very difficult to keep track of it all and it's very very hard to predict how it's all going to come out, because sooner or later many of these issues are going to have to go to the Supreme Court. Is this similar to what's happened in other changes of administration from Democratic

to Republican or Republican to Democratic, not at this scale. No. In my fifty years of practice, so going on fifty years, I haven't seen this much turmoil and so many major rules up in the air and in doubt, and again blooming over all of this is the uncertainty about how much is the current Supreme Court going to allow these agencies to assert authority under statutory provisions that are ambiguous. The term waters of the United States is still undecided.

The scope of what I p A can do under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources is still undecided. The scope of the Endangered Species Act is very much in doubt these days. So I haven't seen so many bed rock environmental laws and rules in such a state of chaos in my entire career. Tell us about this unusual suit by Arizona where they're using federal environmental law against the Biden administration. Right, it's

the border wall case. And they flipped the script. You know, when when Trump was building his border wall without fully complying with NIPA, UM, California and some environmental groups took him to court and they lost. And so now the proponents of the border are trying to argue that Biden's decision to stop building the wall m was done without compliance with NIPA. So I mean, you know, crocodile tears, I guess is what you'd say. Um, And we'll see

what the courts do with it. They mean, the courts were not very sympathetic two people that were trying to stop the construction using NIPA. I'm not sure the courts are going to be any more sympathetic to those that are trying to keep the construction of the wall going because of non compliance with NIPA. Can a court really forced an administration to spend billions of dollars on our wall? I really can't mean it can certainly say you didn't, you know, jump through some of the hoops that NIPA

or some other statute procedural requirements. There's another statutes impose you can you can certainly find the administration isn't following certain procedures and and require that they do. So the question of whether you can order the government to spend money or to continue construction, you know, those are what we call, you know, questions of equity, where you're asking the court to exercise the extraordinary remedies, and those are

just very rare. I mean, even when environmentalists are trying to stop project if you think the Code to Access pipeline again, you know, the environmental groups have not actually been able to stop the flow of oil even though the courts are finding violations of law. So I think these efforts to try to force Biden to do things like spend money and build the wall, um, well, they're going to run into a brick wall. That's my feeling.

Let's talk about some of the legal questions that play the Obama administration, that went on resolved during the Trump administration that are now posing an obstacle for the Biden administration. For example, the proper scope of the Clean Water Act, the limits of presidential authority to create national monuments, and the e p A wielding it's regulatory tools against climate change. Yeah, those are all big ones. And you know what each

one that you mentioned. The scope of the Clean Water Act, the scope of the President's power to designate monuments under the Antiquities Act, the scope of epas authority to deal with climate change under the Clean Ract. All three of those huge environmental issues are ultimately going to have to go to the Supreme Court. I don't think any one of them is going to be settled by lower court decisions.

They're too big, and each one of them implicates issues that this current Conservative Supreme Court is very interested in. For example, the scope of deference under the Chevron doctrine and whether that doctrine is going to enable the Biden e p A To interpret statutes that have some vague terms in them. Waters of the US under the Antiquities Act areas that are limited to those scope necessary to

protect objects of scientific interest? What does that mean? Right? So, these are huge issues of statutory interpretation, and this Conservative Supreme Court is very suspicious of agencies exercising broad authority under vague statutory terms. Right. They're also interested in reviving

what's called the non delegation doctrine. This is a constitutional doctrine in which and this is going to be applicable to the Antiquities Act, and so these conservative justices and Robert signaled this, by the way, Chief Justice Robert signaled is in the Seamounts case, this is the national monument off the Atlantic coast that has these very high biological values. That Obama designated this huge area of the North Atlantic

as a marine monument. And so Roberts has agreed that the challenge from the fisherman to that monument designation is no longer right for the Court to review. But he's also signaled that this question of the scope of the president's power under the Antiquities Act is an open question. And he specifically said, even though we have never found a case where the president has exceeded that authority, that

doesn't mean that there aren't limits to it. That's a pretty clear signal that the scope of the Antiquities Act power, which is going to relate to Bear's Ears Monument and the Grand Staircase monument. It's a pretty clear signal that the Supreme Court may exercise its final judgment on what the scope of those powers are. So, yeah, we are in for years of uncertainty about all of these big powers. Thanks for being the Bloomberg Law Show. Pat that's professor

Pat Parento of their Mont Law School. The Scott Tucker paid a lending business was illegal from top to bottom. Scott Tucker walked away with over four hundred million dollars money taken from struggling consumers. Scott Tucker was charging two or three times that interest rates that the New York City mafia loan Shark instin. The kids charged. You didn't

hear a moral person. I'm a business person. Scott Tucker, a subject of the Netflix documentary series Dirty Money, was sentenced in ten to more than sixteen years in prison

for racketeering. The Federal Trade Commission also got a one point three billion dollar judgment against Tucker in a civil case on behalf of the sumers he defrauded, but this week the Supreme Court overturned that judgment in a decision that also eliminates the legal tool the FTC has used to recoup billions of dollars for defrauded consumers over the past decade. Joining me is Andrea, a tuition a professor

at Penn State Law School. So with this decision, the Supreme Court has taken away what the FTC calls the strongest tool it has to recoup money for consumers who have been defrauded? Are you surprised that this was a unanimous decision? While it may be viewed to a surprise in some ways, in the reading of the decision, it is a statutory interpretation exercise that was done very precisely

by the Court, so the unanimity is understandable in that way. However, the Court does point out that in other circumstances, when it has been faced with somewhat are a little questions, the Court has not always engaged in such a narrow

reading of a statute. So here the Supreme Court made a strategic choice to engage in the narrow reading of the statute and to punt the conversation over the policy and the availability of the streamlined remedy that the FTC has been using offensively through into the halls of Congress. So in that way, this is definitely a bump in the road for the FTC. However, that said Congress is

poised to act to correct this. So tell us about the Senate hearing earlier this week where they addressed what could be done to restore the FTC's power to recoup

money for consumers. So on Tuesday, there was testimony from four FTC commissioners, all four in front of the Senate com the e Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Senator Maria Cantwell indicated her readiness to act withly in the eventuality that the Supreme Court did decide in the way that we see the verdict coming down today, and it was

reassuring to see that this was a bipartisan approach. So the ranking member, Senator Wicker agreed with the framing that the FTC performs a critical function in preserving remedies for considers against fraud, and in particular in a time when fake COVID remedies and fought and misleading advertising around the health treatments are prevalent enough that Congress had earlier this year already given the FTC additional authority in connection with

COVID relief. We see bipartisan in risks in preserving the enforcement authority of the FTC, and it was a very

non acrimonious hearings. There was much agreement among both senators on the one hand and STEC commissioners on the other regarding the need for certainly preserving and in some directions expanding the authority of the FTC to address both traditional areas of entering and deceptive practices and the kind of fraud that we sensibly see an issue in the facts of case allegedly, but also in particular around some of the concerning technology practices that are at the center of

our discussions, not only in terms of the data security engagement of the FTC and the privacy concerns that consumers have, but also the competition concerns around the high degree of concentration that we're seeing in the largest technology company. So it's an expect in the one hands, this opinion certainly is as the FTC put it, a major obstacle for

their continued use of existing tools as they've been using them. However, the small upside, if we can call it that, is that there does seem to be bipartisan interest in the Senate on ensuring that the call from the Supreme Court for congressional clarification and policy articulation has been heard, and the Senate may indeed move swiftly to address the questions that the Supreme Court raised in today's According to reports, five hundred million dollars of that judgment has already been

given back to victims. What happens to that. Are they going to try to claud that back? So certainly I would expect there to be some attempt on the part of the defendant in this case, Scott Tucker and his counsel, to attempt to cause that back. There will undoubtedly be pushed back through other procedural means from the FTC on that and the existing avenues that are otherwise provided by the FTC Act will undoubtedly be used by the FTC to try to hold onto as much of that consumer

redress as possible. But yes, I would expect there to be continuing litigation with respect of the substance of this case and the illegal conduct that was relevant here. So can the FTC go back and start again and go down the route that the Supreme Court has left them in this case? Well, certainly there is the opportunity to go through the other processes that are created by the FTC Act, and to go through the administrative decision making process and to uh attempt to engage with the conduct

in in other ways. We'll see whether there is engagement with this alternative enforcement task on the part of the FTC. Um There has not been a statement by them as to what they're expected next conduct will be so we'll have to wait and see how this place out. What are some other and going back to the opinion, Basically, the Supreme Court has said that the route that the FTC was using to go straight to court for monetary penalties using a provision that allows it to seek injunctions

was not proper and so has been cut off. So the way the Court framed the questions involved what has sometimes been framed as two parallel structure as a possible relief on the part of the FTC. So, on the one hand, we have the traditional administrative proceedings that then lead to potential subsequent litigation as a results of the outcomes through those administrative proceedings there or we're looking to

Section nineteen. But here in this particular case, we're looking at the other parallel avenue, which in thirteen B creates an explicit authorization for the FTC to seek injunctive relief. But the FTC has also, in connection with that injunctive relief, been successfully obtaining equitable monetary relief to compensate harmed consumers who have been the victims of the illegal conduct that is the subject of the injunctive relief and the reason

that the FTC is in court on that occasion. So the spirit of the disgorgement through both possible avenues is parallel in the framing of a number of circuits up

to this point. And so well we ended up with this circuits foot because there certainly is a plausible interpretation in in that way, particularly when you think about the framing of equitable relief, and say a contract law context where monetary damages are part of the package of possible remedies of the court might award in in that body of law, or in other circumstances where we give the court's discretion to offer relief, such as the circumstances warrant.

But in this case, the general approaches that there were these two parallel paths, either of which could end up with a disgorgement of ill gotten gains in order to compensate consumers for the actual harms that were suffered. This UH duality of pathways in today's opinion is foreclosed by UM the Supreme Court as the Court understands for Team V. And so the Court is saying that their Team V

should be narrowly understood UH. On the point of the injunctive relief, but it should not be considered by courts to include that secondary authorization for UH monetary relief and disgorgement.

So the practical impact of what this means is that the run of the mill frauds that are well established to be within the type of unfair and deceptive trade practices that result in consumers being targeted by frauds will no longer potentially have a streamlined a pathway from the identification and enforcement action to stop the fun from continuing, through too through to the actual recovery of the ill gotten gains to make the consumers at least partially whole um.

So that's in particular where I think Congress will UH step into clarify the role of thirteen b as at least now implicitly including that right to have the FTC seats that disgorgement. So Andrea this, what are some other things that Congress can do here? And I would encourage Congress to think even more creatively and to recognize that the same way as in civil litigation attorneys fees are recovered by UH plaintiffs and meritorious cases that the FTC

is inctled to recovery for their lawyer time. UM. And the other thoughts that that I would highlight from the facts of this case is that in this case we don't have a sort of last generation, run of the mill offline frauds. We have a fraud that was facilitated

by technology. So this was an Internet facilitated frauds. And so in that way, this sort of case fact connects with the broader discussions about technology practices that are permeating our legal and policy ecosystem today and in particular are presenting uh, some novel challenges to the speed and nimbleness of enforcement for all regulatory agencies. But the FTC is

on the front lines of these discussions. UM. So UH a way that we could try to connect the competition and the fraud concerns from the consumer protection side that are articulated in the policy discussions underpinning today's conversation, and I've advocated for this in my scholarship, is the creation of a new Technology Practices Division within the FTC whose goal is to have a higher level of rulemaking and

finding and enforcement authority as granted by Congress explicitly. And here's the golden opportunity, as we're correcting this framing from the Supreme Court's opinion, UM to give this new Technology Practices group an explicit authorization to engage with the technology economy in a deeper dive, pulling in the FTC technologists into this group, authorizing the group to specifically work across agency boundaries, create cross detailed teams, and to address the

problems as they present themselves through the lens of the technologies that are at issue. What are some of the first things that would be on the agenda UM The first order of business could be, for example, taking a look at the heart stat Redino process and why it is that technology assets are treated more with greater laxity, with more flexibility and in some cases their assent from the reporting requirements UM for harts cut Ridino filing UM. And so that's a great first cut that would help

with the competition side. On the consumer fraud side UM, the kind of payday lending or online lending UM enterprises that are the subject of the facts of today's case would similarly create a golden opportunity for some rulemaking and guidance and collaboration UH as the FTC has already been

doing with UH. The CFPV to ensure that there is a consumer harm focus and that just because we're dealing with evolving business models, that the uh externalities of those business models are not imposed on consumers, that uh nothing

is falling through the regular Tory cracks. And having having been a corporate lawyer myself, I know that sometimes companies look for those gaming opportunities between different agencies to position themselves in one way for purposes of say, their SEC filings, in a slightly different way, perhaps for purposes of their heartstut Routino filing. But by creating this kind of a new central point for coordination within the SEC with rulemaking

and finding authority um. That is one add on that Congress could offer in this case too neatly closed this gap and to start to take a first cut at addressing some of the gaps that exist in the technology competition and technology fraud spaces that are unfortunately prevalent as a point of concerns for consumers today and enforcers arelike thanks Andrea. That's professor Andrew a tuition of Penn State

Law School. The Justice Department is opening a sweeping investigation into policing practices in Minneapolis Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the investigation a day after a jury found Derek Chauvin guilty of murdering George Floyd. The investigation I am announcing today we'll assess whether the Minneapolis Police Department engages in a pattern or practice of using excessive force, including during protests.

Joining me is Calfoni Terrey, a former police officer who was an associate professor of criminal justice at Quinnipiac University. I want to start with the verdict in the Chauvin case. Does it indicate a new era of police accountability? Well, I'd likened this to a pivot in sort of athletic sport. A pivot doesn't necessarily mean that one is making an advancement.

It just simply means that they have turned the body politics, they have turned themselves around, or they've angled in a different direction in order to take in either a more panoramic view, a more comprehensive view, or certainly, at the

very minimum, a different view. So if, in fact, which I think, this verdict is a small step, a small pivot, if you will, then what we now must do is decide whether we will advance in a new direction retreat from a new direction or do something which is lateral, either moving in a different direction side to side, and I would argue that a retreat here would be unacceptable and advance would be preferable, and a side movement, a more lateral movement, would only be a strategic movement to

maintain the status quo. So what we need then from this verdict, If this verdict is a sign that there is a new traject to be ahead, we now need the advancement. We need to see the agility of our criminal justice system from our legal system. We need to see the advancement in policing, and we also need to see a different community support that would help moved the sport President. Biden said this was a murder in the

full light of day. Some of the factors here that set this apart is that video that was seen around the world, the summer of protests, the blue wall of silence crumbling. But in the future, how many cases will there be with so many factors like that, So this

is significantly important for us to appreciate. We will not often see cases such as this come before the court where there is an overwhelming amount of video epidence and that there is a sympathy jury in a sense to the facts of the case, and even more so that there is an array of experts to um and give us a precise moment when George Floyd would have taken his last breast, when the life basically lifted away from him.

We don't benefit from that. And I would like to argue or at least recall with Ratney King and the four l A p D officers who were charged and ultimately exonerated, at least in the state court, we had visual evidence, but the defense was able to tap into a certain logic, a certain white logic if you will, that beholds the black or Latin or minority male or female, or someone who's considered non normative, and some stretch of imagination as the threat to what they were able to do,

even with footage, was to say that Ratney King was reaching up from the hells of urth to strike damage to these officers who were hovering above him and the jury if you recall that narrative, and it was very much um racio undertones there. And so that was one piece of footage. In this particular case, you had a substand you amount of footage available and it just became insurmountable. Even though I think the defense attorney Eric Nelson, without

being explicit, attempted to draw on those racio stereotypes. That was successful um for the cops in the Ratney King case. It just wasn't successful here. And so there is something to celebrate, there is something to hope in that. But to answer your anitie question, we will not be afforded in most cases with this much evidence and these many experts, witnesses, and these many direct witnesses. The Attorney General Merrick Garland

has announced a pattern or practice investigation. How important is it? You know, I am very pleased by that because I have made inintains that there was a danger in celebrating this particular conviction. The prostratorial teams stated in their summary remark that this wasn't an indictment against mp D Minneapolis Police Department, It wasn't an indictment against the Minnesota police agency. In fact, it clearly wasn't an indictment of policing around

the country. They made it clear that it was just one officer, and that was a strategic decision on the part of the proscratorial team because, as we all know, at this point, it is almost unlikely that you will have an officer broughth to trial. Only three percent are and if and when they're brought to trial, less than one percent are actually convicted. So they had to isolate Derek children by himself. He wasn't representative of policing throughout

the country. And the danger in that was that those on the outside of the Indepen County courthouse were complaining

about a more systemic problem. Well, the beautiful things about the Department of Justice and the U. S Attorney General Merrick Garland, who just yesterday announced that there would be an investigation in sweeping investigation around patterns and practices, is that it seems that Attorney General Garland understands that Derek Chauvin being found guilty on all three counts is about accountability. It is what we call reactive accountability what Attorney General

Merrick Garland realized that we need proactive justice. Today's a difference between reactive accountability and proactive justice. Pro Active justice is the effort to create an environment where the loss of life will not be a sort of touch point for pro police against those who are anti police, et cetera. It will not lead to the grieving and the pain suffered by that community and by the immediate family. That's

proactive justice. Proactive justice says that we want police not to simply enforce the law in black and brown communities, but we want them to serve the community just the same as they would do in more suburban communities. They serve and protect as opposed to enforce the law and engage in order maintenance. Now, I want to be careful here and be and be very clear. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,

is a suburban community. So it is not the case that all suburban communities where African American or Latin American or other minority people are located. Somehow it is the rap of pretextual stops or racial profiling or stop express or heavy handed policing. But by and large, there is a different experience in police in the suburbs versus policing in urban centers. How does this investigation go forward? Who

do they talk to, what do they do? This is a great question, and most people don't know what these very sort of complicated investigations which are initiated by the Department of Justice until and and often when we hear that the Department of Justice are initiating or beginning a patterns and practice investigation. We almost automatically assume that there's going to be some decisions rendered in the same amount of time as a criminal conviction. Right, it doesn't work

at length. These types of investigations last for months on end, and they're very comprehensive. It requires that professionals from the Department of Justice, sometimes in partnership with the local agency being investigated, in most cases without them. They will seek out witnesses both excessive police violence. They will look up complaints citizen complain and investigate those stretching back perhaps some

teen years. They will look at the actual data, arrest records and police incidents that work found, and they will reach out to those participants of that police encounter there, whether a positive encounter or field investigation of what we call a carry stop, or an actual criminal encounter where there is an arrect and they will attempt to ascertain what was the treatment, like what was the nature of the stop? Where these pretextual stops, where was the pattern

of these stops? Are they concentrated in a particular corridor, on a particular neighborhood where it is predominantly black and Latin. These are the things that they want to know. They want to try to gather all the complaints, to gather all the witnesses, but they also want to talk to police officers. And one of the beautiful things about this particular trial with Derek Children is that we heard nearly a dozen police officers come out and say, not in

our names. We will not allow nor accept brutality in our names. This might bode or signal that there is a new horizon horizon ahead of us with regards to police and black and Latin relations, community relations. I hope so. But the Department of Justice will want to talk to almost all those officers in that department, and they do this comprehensive investigation so they can get at those patterns

and practices. You know, I'm an ethnographer and I studied policing, and in order to really discover something about the less visible aspects of police culture, you can't come in one day and ask if your questions and think you've arrived at some truth. You have to get in and experience this community for the long haul. I mean almost you know,

a year more. Because people will present themselves in a certain way for the public, but off the main stage, if you will, they begin to show who they truly are. And this is what the Department of Justice essentially is going to do. Some activists and members of Floyd's family are calling for Derek Chauvin to get the maximum sentence. What's your take on the sentencing. Well, they're always are these mitigating factors, and they're there are these exaggerated factories

that either will push the penalty up or down. I think I'm certainly this homicide was committed before children, and that should be accounted for, and that should a call for a great a party. Um. I can only think about, for example, Darnella Frazier, who lamented the fact in her testimony that she's haunted at night and harried by day of the idea that she could not intervene. She had the impulse to save this man's life, but it was not seeing that she could do, and and how she's

been haunted by that. I think about her, and I think about her companion, her her relative who was just nine at the time. No, this should factor in. These are factors that should cause or call for great epivalcy. Now I can't tell you whether or not Derek Cholden should receive the minimum that he could be charged on.

The max is somewhere in between. What I can tell you is that his disposition, his response to the conviction, his response throughout the trial, and his science both from his body dispositions, his non verbals, and also his election to exercise us at amendment was the same cold, of course, in different silence to which he expressed when he kneels upon George Floyd's neck. And so I am not a judge, but I think that when you're thinking about the penalties,

you have to even take into account that matter. There was absolutely no signs of contrition on his face, um, And so I think whatever the judge um decides, it should be as substantial as the actions that were committed the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act. How important is it that that get passed? Are there certain things in that act that are necessary? Or can we move forward

without it? You know, this is this is a great question again disappoints to Merrick's Gardener's the Attorney General's comment yesterday, he said the verdict does not resolve systemic policing. We myre deal with the issues of spetimic policing are in this country, and that must be legislated at higher level. It must come from city council and state legislatures, and our federal legislature, which is the Congress. It also, i

would argue, it must come from the court. You know, as the Supreme Court has given wide latitude two officers in order to carry out law and order law enforcement, and by and large the depictions of their practices has been the sim blue line against a k chaotic black backdrop.

In other words, that police have been operating in this sort of dystopian phase of African Americans and Latino people and other people of color, and so in some ways perhaps the implicit biases of the of the court, and I'm speaking of the Supreme Court, it has allowed for these practices, in other words, not to prohibit nor interfere with with responsible police practicing because they keeping society's safe.

And time and time again we have seen evidence where uh police have operated and you know, very oppressive fashion against these fellow citizens. The Supreme Court in fact has given white latitude and has given very little guard rails. It's told police that they can do all of these things, but it's never told the police what they can't do. And so hopefully this becomes law at the federal level,

but we need the Supreme Court. Uh. And you know, as part of this right, we need local courts to be part of this as well, but we need the Supreme Court to be part of this uh. And there's been a number of fact is where the court has to be quite freek let the American Injury down. Thanks for being on the show. Califanni. That's Califanni Torre, an associate professor of criminal justice at Quinnipiac University. And that's it for the edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. I'm

June Grasso. Thanks so much for listening, and please tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten pm Eastern right here on Bloomberg Radio.