June 16, 2025 • 31 mins
Constitutional law expert Harold Krent, a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, discusses the Supreme Court reviving a lawsuit over a botched FBI home raid. Nyah Phengsitthy, Bloomberg Law healthcare reporter, discusses US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s steps toward implementing his anti-vaccine agenda. June Grasso hosts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
The Supreme Court has unanimously revived the lawsuit by an
Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI
in twenty seventeen. Are members of an FBI swat team
smashed in a front door, set off a flash bang grenade,
(00:25):
and held the family at gunpoint until they realized they
had raided the wrong home.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Lower courts had.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Dismissed the lawsuit brought by the family under an exception
to the Federal Tourt Claims Act that shields the government
from liability when it comes to giving federal officers discretion
to carry out their jobs. But in the majority opinion,
Justice Neil Gorsuch said the lower courts might be applying
the exception too broadly, noting that the FBI agent in
(00:53):
charge had missed the street sign and the house number,
something he noted during the oral arguments.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Here. Piers suggests, for example, that the officer should have
checked the house number. Yeah, you might look at the
address of the house before you have knocked down the door. Yes,
And as the District Court found at fifty two eight,
that sort of decision is filled with policy trade offs,
because checking the house number at the end of the
driveway means exposing the agents the potential lines of fire.
Speaker 4 (01:21):
Making sure you're on the right street?
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Is that?
Speaker 2 (01:24):
And how does that mean?
Speaker 4 (01:25):
Just the right street?
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (01:27):
I mean I I was just gonna think the street sign?
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Is that?
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Is that?
Speaker 3 (01:31):
You know?
Speaker 5 (01:32):
Ask you too much?
Speaker 1 (01:33):
The court sent the case back to the Eleventh Circuit
for more findings. Joining me is constitutional law expert Harold Krant,
a professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law, hell
tell us about this lawsuit.
Speaker 5 (01:45):
The lawsuit arose because FBI agents and trying to serve
a warrant, went to the wrong house, was the wrong street,
it was the wrong address, and so they were just
evidently plainly negligent and the crashed through the door, creating
damage to the house and scared the wits out of
the recipients when they saw these people coming in and
they were trying to hide from armed intruders. So the
(02:08):
FBI was looking for drug dealers, and evidently they took
a little while to find out that their mistake. And
so afterwards the private citizens sued sued under the Federal
Tware Claims Act, which is a waiver of sovereign immunity
from the United States to allow torch suits in particular
contexts and compensation both for the physical injuries as well
(02:28):
as for the injuries to the house. And this took
place outside Atlanta, which is in the Eleventh Circuit and
the Eleventh Circuit.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
So explain a little bit more about the Federal Claims
Act and the exception that shields government from liability to
give officers discretion.
Speaker 5 (02:45):
So, prior to nineteen forty six, the Supreme Court had
never waived the federal government's immunity from torch suit, so
if one was injured by a federal agent or by
a post truck driver, one had to submit a private
bill to Congress in the hope of compensation, and Congress
sort of modernized the system by creating this mechanism to
allow federal agencies to be sued in tort, but with
(03:09):
some exceptions and the law of the cases that take
place in the States. Individuals have to make it claim
to the agency before they can go to court. But
the most important exceptions to exceptions in this case are First,
there is an exception for intentional torts, but carved out
of the intentional torts are law enforcement personnel. So the
(03:32):
idea of a carve out for intentional torts is evidently
that it's just if a federal official is acting intentionally
to hurt someone, they're not arguably within the scope of
their employment, and so Congress decided that they should be
sued in their own individual capacity. But at the same time,
Congress decided that if there was a law enforcement agency,
(03:54):
then there needs to be extra protection, and so that
the federal government would be substitute rooted instead of the
law enforcement agents if anyone suffered an intentional tourt at
the hand of the law enforcement agencies. So that's the
general structure first of the law Enforcement Proviso, which limits
the intentional tort exclusion under the Federal Tort Claims Act. So,
(04:17):
according to the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit got it
wrong two ways. First, the Eleventh Circuit held that, and
this is pro plaintiff, if there is law enforcement personnel involved,
is in this case not only does the intentional tort
exception not apply, but also that the second major exception
(04:37):
in the Federal Tort Claims Act, the discretionary function exception,
doesn't apply as well. And the discretionary function. Exception is that, yes,
the government has waived its community for negligence suits, but
if there's some kind of policy, social economic, political policy
underlying that negligence, the government is not made a waiver
(04:58):
because it doesn't want, of course, the second guest government
action when it's grounded in social, economic and political policy.
So back to the eleven Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit says
that the waiver for law enforcement officials applies to discretionary
acts as well. All right, so far that's been a
very pro plaintiff decision. But then the Eleventh Circuit grafts
(05:23):
on another defense for the government that's not in the statute.
They called the supremacy clause defense. And on the supremacy
clause defense, the government can come in and say the
law enforcement officers were basically doing something at our will
and it can't be second guests in state court. This
(05:44):
is not in the Federal Twitter Claims Act. And that
was the basis on the lower court ruling in favor
of the federal law enforcement officers in this case. So
the Supreme Court took it and said, you've misread the
statute twice. And yes, under the Congressional statute, you can
sue law enforcement agencies for intentional courts and also for negligence,
(06:08):
but the discretionary function exception will apply. And they remanded
the case back to Eleventh Circuit for a proper application
of the statute. In c namous case, it should be
the Eleventh Circuit just read the statute wrong for reasons
that are unknown to me. They probably unknown to the
court as well. And I think it's pretty clear that
(06:30):
the kind of negligence that's at stake in miss you know,
going to the wrong house, the wrong address, to break
into the house to try to apprehend the gang, that's
operational negligence. It's not based upon any kind of social, political,
economic value judgment. And it's pretty clear that that the
(06:51):
government's going to lose on Remand.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
Even though the District Court said that the lead fbi
age and had taken significant precautions in preparing for the rate,
it had simply made a mistake.
Speaker 5 (07:06):
That's a negligence, and those mistakes are not covered by
the discretionary functioning session. And indeed, just as Sodomayor wrote
a concurrence just to spell that out in her view,
messing up the address on a warrant is like making
a mistake at a stop sign. Those are operational negligence,
and Congress said that the government should pay out when
(07:28):
its agents makes those kinds of mistakes.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Justice Corsigs wrote, if federal officers raid the wrong house,
causing property damage and assaulting innocent occupants, made the homeowners
sue the government for damages, the answer is not as
obvious as.
Speaker 5 (07:44):
It might be at first. The entire structure of the
Toward Claims Act is unusual in that Congress adopted the
law in the jurisdiction where the injury arose. So the government,
federal government in essence, is being governed by fifty different
state laws as to in this case, assault or adequate preparation.
(08:06):
So that's why it's never easy to predict. But you know,
I think that in this case, at least from the
facts that we were privy to in the Supreme Court decision,
going to the wrong house is hardly ever a policy issue.
It's basically one that's just based upon the GPS mistake
not seeing the right car in the driveway it was
(08:26):
a different car, and not seeing the address on the
address sign.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
So this is going back to the eleventh Circuit. What
are the questions that Eleventh Circuit has to answer?
Speaker 5 (08:36):
The Eleventh Circuit will ask whether the negligence in this
case stems from political, social, and economic policy or is
rather considered operational negligence. And again from the facts that
we learned in the Supreme Court decision, there was no
kind of judgment call, here's a necessity. We have to
take a risk because we see somebody fleeing, so we
(08:57):
have to go into this house. There was nothing like that,
which might be more policy centered. But rather they went
to the wrong street than the wrong address. That's pretty inexcusable.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
So let's say the Eleventh Circuit rules as you say,
I mean, does it go to trial?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Then what happens next?
Speaker 5 (09:15):
It will go to trial. There will be no jury
trial that has been exempted out of the Settle toward
Claims Act, but there will have to be a trial
as to the proper amount of damages, and that of
course could be subject to appeal as well, and that's
paid on the judgment fund.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Was it surprising that this was unanimous?
Speaker 5 (09:33):
I think this is the right way to read the statute.
I think it's pretty clear from both prior cases and
other circuits as well as from the legislative history that
the Eleventh Circuit got it wrong, and I think this
is just one of these instances where the Court took
the case to clean it up. But interestingly, this is
now going to give Senator Padilla, who was treated so
(09:54):
rudely at Christy Nomes press conference, he now would be
able to sue under this very I think his is
a little more difficult factually, but he now would have
an avenue to suit.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
You mentioned Senator Padilla.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Does this ruling strengthen future efforts to seek compensation for
a federal law enforcement misconduct? It does?
Speaker 5 (10:16):
I mean, I think that it's righting or wrong because
the Eleventh Circuit had it too crabbed of a decision.
But in this case, theoretically, Senator Padilla could argue that
there was law enforcement lofsters that acted negligently in trying
to tackle him and subdue him. Weigh and beyond an
exercise of force that needed to be applied. I think
(10:36):
it's again it's going to be a harder case, but
he certainly has that avenue open.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Is there a possibility this might end up at the
Supreme Court? Again?
Speaker 5 (10:44):
I doubt it. I think that in this case, the
Court took the case just to sort of correct the
case law and to make sure that the principles that
the Loved Circuit applies in the future adhere more closely
to the statute. I don't think there's any inherently controversial that.
I do agree with Justice Soda Mayora when she said
(11:05):
that the Supreme Court has not taken a case in
twenty five years in this area, and so there is
a lot of disagreement about how to frame the proper inquiry,
and so that some other case might be appropriate for
the Court to take in order to give more direction
to the lower courts.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
The federal agents themselves wouldn't have to pay the damages.
Speaker 5 (11:24):
No, Once you sue the United States, then the employees
are exempted out of the claim and will be immune. Theoretically,
the federal government could do a third party suit against
the employees for some kind of contribution, but they never
do that. They're almost never, and so in essence, again,
the judgment would come from the judgment fund.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Okay, I'll stay with me.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
Coming up next on the Bloomberg Laws Show, we'll look
at some of the high profile cases the justices have
yet to rule on with about two weeks left in
the term. I'm June Gross, so when you're listening to Bloomberg,
the Supreme Court is just two thirds through the cases
on its docket, with about two weeks left in the term.
The justices have yet to rule on twenty one cases,
(12:10):
including some involving hot button issues like gender affirming treatments
for minors, a clash over LGBTQ schoolbooks, and one of
President Trump's most audacious immigration initiatives. I've been talking to
Professor Harold Krant of the Chicago Kent College of Law.
One of the cases that stands out is the one
(12:31):
over Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors. So,
and that was argued the first week of December, and
it seemed pretty clear that there were five justices conservatives
who were skeptical of the contentions that the Tennessee law
violated the Constitution.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Why is it taking so well?
Speaker 5 (12:51):
The other issue in their case is that the administration
is flip flop and with the tub administration and disavowing
the position that the Biden administration took, which was that,
of course that the law was unconstitutional. So we all
speculated at the time that the Court might even get
rid of the case because of that change of position.
It probably won't do that, but I don't know what's
(13:14):
taking the court so long, so it is somewhat mysterious,
but we expect some kind of decision eminently.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
This is going to be one.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
Of the more controversial cases of the term, and they
seem to leave those to the end of June. Although
you'll hear the explanation for that is that the cases
are controversial, so there may be more concurring opinions or
dissenting opinions, But it also seems to me like they hold.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Them till the end.
Speaker 5 (13:42):
Yeah. And of course the same is true for the
birthright citizenship case, which is probably the other very controversial case,
both because the merits of the birthright cititionship issue, but
also because of the question of the nationwide injunctions. I
would expect to see that on the last day, so
it is typical Supreme Court tack And I guess the
(14:02):
other one I would put in that same category is
a question of whether parents have an opt out can
take their kids and pull them out of class if
the class is teaching something that strikes against their religious beliefs.
I mean that decision will create incredible havoc for public
schools who are trying to then have to give notice
(14:24):
of every book that may be read, which is particularly
difficult for Show and Tell if the kids bring in
stories and then have some kind of monitoring of the
kids while those texts are being discussed in class. So
from the argument, again, it sounded like the Court was
going to allow and opt out based on religion, but
that implementation that would be incredibly difficult. So I think
(14:47):
that's going to be one of the more controversial decisions
of the term as well.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
You know, the Supreme Court has dealt with several gay
rights and trends rights cases, and they've decided to take
for next term a case over Colorado's ban on conversion therapy,
so they're not shying away from issues in this area.
Speaker 5 (15:06):
Well, and of course, what really is underlying these decisions
or whether the permission for gay marriage will remain intact
or will the Court, because of its religious views, decide
that the right of gay marriage, so to speak, should
it be revalued.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
I know that there are conservative justices who are looking
to do that, and there is a movement.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
To reverse the Obergerfeld decision.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
But wouldn't that be difficult to do because then what
happens to all the gay couples who got married and
relied on that decision?
Speaker 2 (15:40):
What are they going to say your marriage is not
valid now?
Speaker 5 (15:43):
No, it would make it prospective if they did that.
And of course it's also complicated because the post Look decision,
which recognized you could have a civil rights action if
you demote someone or treat them differently because they're gay.
But nonetheless, there is this movement that's trying to get
the courts attention to try to use another case to
reverse a not so long standing ten years standing precedent.
(16:07):
But it's not coming now, so that's something we don't
have to talk about emitally.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Are there any other cases that you're waiting to hear
the decision.
Speaker 5 (16:16):
On whether it's the case involving whether you can limit
website pornography websites to some kind of age verification, And
that's not so important, I think, because of the question,
because of course you can have age limitations in movies
and on porn sites. It's the question is what's the
standard or review? And in that case, the conflict was
(16:37):
any kind of restriction on First Amendment you have to
use strict scrutiny or as in that case, you use
rational basis. In rational basis is an easy test. So
it's not important again for the facts of the case,
but articulating the standard review in First Amendment cases does
remain incredibly critical for a host of contemporary reasons that
(16:58):
you're well aware. I say add that there's two decisions
that are pending involving either accessive delegations from Congress to
private parties or re christening the private parties as inferior
officers and upholding the delegations. So the court probably won't
give a bombshell in either of those cases, but they
may give out some clues as to the future of
(17:21):
the non delegation doctrine and their willingness to permit private
parties to play some role in shaping the governance of
our country.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
And just explain the non delegation doctrine.
Speaker 5 (17:32):
Yeah, so non delegation doctrine says that Congress must be
very specific in giving authority to agencies, whether the agencies
can have power to fill in the details, but they
can't have the power to make policy themselves, and no
coise of them able to figure out where the line
is between the two. And so it's a continuing issue,
(17:53):
particularly on this court, to try to articulate more limits
on how much power Congress could do and how specific
Congress must be in giving power to the agencies. And
that might be true even more so to the extent
that there's private parties involved in these cases. And there's
one case in which the private party is definitely involved,
(18:13):
the other one that's more hazy in terms of the
legislative structure of the delegation. But the court may, for inta,
say that private parties can only do ministerial tasks and
that anything more would be a violation of the non
delegation doctrine. And in the one case, there was imposition
of a fee on broadcasters in order to ensure adequate
(18:37):
access to service in broadband and telephones in schools and
rural areas, and that rule the private parties, you know,
it's like attacks, And so the court may say that
that is stepping too far, that Congress can't allow any
kind of private party to help with imposing attacks. So
there are some variations of the decisions which could create
(18:59):
a doctrine which even more limits the power of Congress
to enroll agencies and or private parties in trying to
implement national priorities.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
There's been so much emphasis on the shadow docket, or
the emergency docket since Trump became president and has filed
so many emergency appeals with the Court. So a lot
of the most controversial issues are being decided on the
shadow docket, perhaps making the regular docket a little more
subdued this term.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
Thanks so much, Hal.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
That's Professor Harold Krant of the Chicago Kent College of Law.
US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Junior is a known
vaccine skeptic. For example, two years ago, he suggested that
the polio vaccine has killed more people than polio did,
and he's linked the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to autism,
(19:54):
a theory that's been widely debunked. Kennedy has repeatedly said
he won't do anything to keep people from getting vaccines.
I'm not going to take away anybody's vaccine.
Speaker 4 (20:05):
If people are happy with their vaccines, they ought to
be able to get them. What we're going to do
is give people good science.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
But some of Kennedy's recent moves, including dismissing all the
members of a key panel that advises on immunization policy
seem to be steps toward implementing his blueprint to cast
doubt on the effectiveness and safety of a broad range
of vaccines. My guest is Naya penk Ciity Bloomberg Law.
Healthcare reporter RFK Junior wrote on X I took a
(20:35):
major step toward restoring public trusts in vaccines by reconstituting
the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices. Tell us what he did.
Speaker 4 (20:46):
Yeah, So, Kennedy last week fired all seventeen members of
the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, also known as a
STEP And this is a panel of public health and
medical experts that advised the CDC on vaccines in what
shots should be recommended in the US. So this is
(21:08):
a very important panel because they vote on what vaccines
should go on the CDC's recommended immanization schedule. Now, that
schedule or that list is very important because doctors use
that to determine which vaccines to give to patients. And
it's also important for insurers because they use that to
determine what vaccines to cover. Now, before Secretary Rout of
(21:32):
Kenne Junior dismissed the last ACID committee. There were seventeen members,
and he pointed out in his pressure release after posting
on X that the Biden administration appointed all seventeen of
those sitting ASIT members. Thirteen of them were appointed in
twenty twenty four. Now what Kennedy did here, he said,
he retired all of them, dismissed them, and that raised
(21:52):
alan for various public health experts and even drug industry
because there were concerns that Kennedy would replaces members with
anti vaxers, especially with Kennedy's vaccine skepticism, and they were
concerns that he would replace those people with folks who
have spread and misinformation about the safety and e fficacy
of vaccines, even shots that have been approved by the
(22:15):
FDA to be safe and effective.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
And what about the people he's now appointed to the committee.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
So he has already appointed eight new members last week,
which by the way, is the minimum number of members
for a SIP needed. And when he selected eight new members,
that included people that actually have anti VAXX views and
are against mRNA vaccines in the COVID nineteen vaccine, or
have found those vaccines to have safety issues. One of
(22:41):
them is Robert Malone. He is a major opponent of
mRNA vaccines. He also selected rat stev Levy, who's a
professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who's questioned the
safety of COVID vaccines. He also picked Martin Coldroff, a
former Harvard's Medical School professor who was the co author
of the Great Barrington Declaration, and that was a manifesto
(23:03):
that came out during the pandemic that called for alternative
COVID lockdowns during the pandemic. And it's also already been
reported that Malone and Kuldruff were paid expert witnesses in
work vaccine cases. So there's already concerns because after Kennedy
dismissed the acent members, he went back on x and
posted writing that he wouldn't put anti vaxxers on the panel,
(23:26):
but rather quote put highly credential positions end quote. And
so we've seen folks with anti vacviews now on that panel.
So there's already concerns about who's been put on there.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
And you know, despite the fact that he made promises
during his confirmation hearings that he would not attack vaccines,
what else has he done to stall or cast doubt
on vaccines so far.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
Even before this significant decision to dismiss and restock a FIPS,
Kennedy was already making moves vaccines. So back in May,
he announced through a video on x that he would
be removing the COVID nineteen vaccine from the CDC's recommended
immanization list for healthy children and healthy pregnant women. And
(24:13):
that may have raised the alarm for industry again because
Kennedy didn't really share any details on how it came
about that decision, and the attorneys I've spoken with say that,
you know, there are procedural issues on how he went
about that. Earlier this year, he also said that he
will be requiring all new vaccines to undergo placebo controlled
studies before they're approved. Now, that would be a major
(24:36):
policy shift because that means vaccines will have to go
through safety trials where some participants will receive a placibo
injection before the shot can be licensed. The concern there
is that the disease already has a vaccine, the study
is unethical because a participant in the trial would be
exposed to a preventable illness. We also know that vaccines
for emerging diseases already undergo possibo controlled testing during development.
(24:59):
So already made numerous moves that show his agenda to
scrutinize vaccines, and we are expecting more and he appears
to be moving at a pretty quick pace.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
Well, is there a chance that he could look back
at vaccines that have already been approved?
Speaker 4 (25:15):
I can see that. I mean, Kennedy has repeatedly questioned
vaccine safety testing for quite some time now. His skepticism
really gained wider popularity during the COVID nineteen pandemic, especially
with skepticism against MR and A vaccines. He said during
his campaign trail that he wouldn't be taking vaccines away,
But I think, you know, folks are just also skeptical
(25:36):
of how he's going to move. He's questioned the safety
as many other vaccines, including you know, linking the measles
momps in rebella or the MMR vaccine autism, which is
a theory that's been widely debunked. But we know that
he's going to keep looking into vaccines even past once
because in his Make America Healthy Again report that came
out in May, there was a section on vaccines, and
(26:00):
and that highlighted how he's going to look into them,
you know, areas that weren't future inquiry. There was a
part that says that he's going to look into conflicts
of interest in the vaccine recommendations tied to the pharmaceutical industry,
and we already see him doing that with the Acid Committee.
But based on that report, his next steps are likely
to address changes to clinical trials, more investigations in the
(26:20):
vaccine safety, in the science that really underpins the approvals.
And then the report also causing the expansion for the
Department's Autism Data Initiative to better study childhood chronic diseases.
So we know that Kennedy is supposed to come out
with a report and I believe September, on what causes autism,
And you know, we're eager to know what's going to
be in that report, and we're wondering if there will
(26:41):
be something in there that links you know, vaccines to autism,
which again has been debunked, but we are curious to
know what will be in there.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
How consequential is it that he yanked seven hundred and
sixty six million dollar contract with Maderna to develop Mr
NA vaccines for avian influenza.
Speaker 4 (27:01):
It's a big deal because one that is a lot
of money to do research into mRNA and to prevent
future diseases and flu in pandemics. So the concern there
was when he yanked that, you folks were like, does
he not want Maderna to study mRNA and to look
(27:22):
into that. So it kind of poses some threat to
mRNA vaccines is he's slowly chipping away at it because
again he's always had the skepticism with it. And then
to yank that contract with Majoernal was a very big deal.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
And explain what an mRNA vaccine is.
Speaker 4 (27:41):
mRNA is created in the lab to teach ourselves how
to make a protein, and that protein triggers an immune
response in our bodies, and that immune response produces antibodies
which helped protect us from getting sick from that German
the future. So in this case with the COVID nineteen vaccine,
that mRNA vaccine helps us from getting sick from COVID
in the future. And it was Emma Rena during the
(28:04):
first Trump administration was just a major breakthrough because it's
something the Trump administration harnessed when they were making vaccines
to battle the COVID nineteen pandemic, and it was major
for COVID nineteen, but it is also big for treating
other diseases, so it's not just about COVID, so Emmorna
can do a lot. I've talked to scientists who are like,
(28:24):
it's the next big thing, So to be chipping away
at it if we do is a big concern.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
Do the people that you've talked to in this area
think that he'll just chip away at the public confidence
in vaccines, he'll stop new ones from coming out, or
that he's going to go after the vaccines that are
already out there.
Speaker 4 (28:46):
I think it's both. I think for the vaccines already
out there, he might find a way to go back
and look at the you know, safety data to see
if there's something there to look into. And then for
future vaccine that haven't hit the market, there might be
you know, obstacles that are there for those manufacturers to
get them across the finish line to get approved. Because
(29:09):
again we're dealing with the Secretary who it's not only
skeptical vaccines, but also is skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry.
We've seen Kennedy make comments about his you know, issues
and concerns and questions around pharmaceutical industry profits and conflicts
of interest and how there's relationships between federal agencies and manufacturers,
(29:32):
so industry is also dealing with that. It's some kind
of in a weird spot right now, and how to
move forward with manufacturing these vaccines. But yes, I've talked
to people who are like, he will hip away at
these vaccines. I talk to one source who's like, this
is like the frog in a boiling pot situation, where
he's going to go at vaccines with small measures, and
(29:56):
he's going to do it slowly, but at the same time,
we see him moving quickly right now.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
During his confirmation hearings, a lot of the senators were
concerned about his views on vaccines. So Kennedy's recent moves
have caused health professionals to be concerned. What about lawmakers?
Speaker 4 (30:15):
A good number of lawmakers have expressed concerns with this.
I think the most important reaction we got was from
Senator Bill Cassidy after Kennedy made this decision. Because during
Kennedy's confirmation hearing, before Cassidy decided to vote for Kennedy,
(30:35):
to become secretary. He said that Kennedy would quote maintain
the committee, and that could have meant many things, and
that clearly has not been the case because the committee
is now dismissed and Cassidy posted on x that he
spoke with Kennedy. You know, we haven't really heard any
details since then, but I know that this is a
(30:57):
concern for Cassidy because that was one of the promises
that Kennedy made to the Senator which got him that
vote from Cassidy.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
I think we've seen time and time again, not only
with government officials, but also with Supreme Court justices, that
promises made or assurances given during confirmation hearings are not
always kept. Thanks so much for joining me, NYA. That's
Bloomberg Healthcare Reporter Nya pank City and that's it for
(31:27):
this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and
remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
(31:48):
you're listening to Bloomberg
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
The Supreme Court has unanimously revived the lawsuit by an
Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI
in twenty seventeen. Are members of an FBI swat team
smashed in a front door, set off a flash bang grenade,
(00:25):
and held the family at gunpoint until they realized they
had raided the wrong home.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Lower courts had.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Dismissed the lawsuit brought by the family under an exception
to the Federal Tourt Claims Act that shields the government
from liability when it comes to giving federal officers discretion
to carry out their jobs. But in the majority opinion,
Justice Neil Gorsuch said the lower courts might be applying
the exception too broadly, noting that the FBI agent in
(00:53):
charge had missed the street sign and the house number,
something he noted during the oral arguments.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Here. Piers suggests, for example, that the officer should have
checked the house number. Yeah, you might look at the
address of the house before you have knocked down the door. Yes,
And as the District Court found at fifty two eight,
that sort of decision is filled with policy trade offs,
because checking the house number at the end of the
driveway means exposing the agents the potential lines of fire.
Speaker 4 (01:21):
Making sure you're on the right street?
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Is that?
Speaker 2 (01:24):
And how does that mean?
Speaker 4 (01:25):
Just the right street?
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (01:27):
I mean I I was just gonna think the street sign?
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Is that?
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Is that?
Speaker 3 (01:31):
You know?
Speaker 5 (01:32):
Ask you too much?
Speaker 1 (01:33):
The court sent the case back to the Eleventh Circuit
for more findings. Joining me is constitutional law expert Harold Krant,
a professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law, hell
tell us about this lawsuit.
Speaker 5 (01:45):
The lawsuit arose because FBI agents and trying to serve
a warrant, went to the wrong house, was the wrong street,
it was the wrong address, and so they were just
evidently plainly negligent and the crashed through the door, creating
damage to the house and scared the wits out of
the recipients when they saw these people coming in and
they were trying to hide from armed intruders. So the
(02:08):
FBI was looking for drug dealers, and evidently they took
a little while to find out that their mistake. And
so afterwards the private citizens sued sued under the Federal
Tware Claims Act, which is a waiver of sovereign immunity
from the United States to allow torch suits in particular
contexts and compensation both for the physical injuries as well
(02:28):
as for the injuries to the house. And this took
place outside Atlanta, which is in the Eleventh Circuit and
the Eleventh Circuit.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
So explain a little bit more about the Federal Claims
Act and the exception that shields government from liability to
give officers discretion.
Speaker 5 (02:45):
So, prior to nineteen forty six, the Supreme Court had
never waived the federal government's immunity from torch suit, so
if one was injured by a federal agent or by
a post truck driver, one had to submit a private
bill to Congress in the hope of compensation, and Congress
sort of modernized the system by creating this mechanism to
allow federal agencies to be sued in tort, but with
(03:09):
some exceptions and the law of the cases that take
place in the States. Individuals have to make it claim
to the agency before they can go to court. But
the most important exceptions to exceptions in this case are First,
there is an exception for intentional torts, but carved out
of the intentional torts are law enforcement personnel. So the
(03:32):
idea of a carve out for intentional torts is evidently
that it's just if a federal official is acting intentionally
to hurt someone, they're not arguably within the scope of
their employment, and so Congress decided that they should be
sued in their own individual capacity. But at the same time,
Congress decided that if there was a law enforcement agency,
(03:54):
then there needs to be extra protection, and so that
the federal government would be substitute rooted instead of the
law enforcement agents if anyone suffered an intentional tourt at
the hand of the law enforcement agencies. So that's the
general structure first of the law Enforcement Proviso, which limits
the intentional tort exclusion under the Federal Tort Claims Act. So,
(04:17):
according to the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit got it
wrong two ways. First, the Eleventh Circuit held that, and
this is pro plaintiff, if there is law enforcement personnel involved,
is in this case not only does the intentional tort
exception not apply, but also that the second major exception
(04:37):
in the Federal Tort Claims Act, the discretionary function exception,
doesn't apply as well. And the discretionary function. Exception is that, yes,
the government has waived its community for negligence suits, but
if there's some kind of policy, social economic, political policy
underlying that negligence, the government is not made a waiver
(04:58):
because it doesn't want, of course, the second guest government
action when it's grounded in social, economic and political policy.
So back to the eleven Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit says
that the waiver for law enforcement officials applies to discretionary
acts as well. All right, so far that's been a
very pro plaintiff decision. But then the Eleventh Circuit grafts
(05:23):
on another defense for the government that's not in the statute.
They called the supremacy clause defense. And on the supremacy
clause defense, the government can come in and say the
law enforcement officers were basically doing something at our will
and it can't be second guests in state court. This
(05:44):
is not in the Federal Twitter Claims Act. And that
was the basis on the lower court ruling in favor
of the federal law enforcement officers in this case. So
the Supreme Court took it and said, you've misread the
statute twice. And yes, under the Congressional statute, you can
sue law enforcement agencies for intentional courts and also for negligence,
(06:08):
but the discretionary function exception will apply. And they remanded
the case back to Eleventh Circuit for a proper application
of the statute. In c namous case, it should be
the Eleventh Circuit just read the statute wrong for reasons
that are unknown to me. They probably unknown to the
court as well. And I think it's pretty clear that
(06:30):
the kind of negligence that's at stake in miss you know,
going to the wrong house, the wrong address, to break
into the house to try to apprehend the gang, that's
operational negligence. It's not based upon any kind of social, political,
economic value judgment. And it's pretty clear that that the
(06:51):
government's going to lose on Remand.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
Even though the District Court said that the lead fbi
age and had taken significant precautions in preparing for the rate,
it had simply made a mistake.
Speaker 5 (07:06):
That's a negligence, and those mistakes are not covered by
the discretionary functioning session. And indeed, just as Sodomayor wrote
a concurrence just to spell that out in her view,
messing up the address on a warrant is like making
a mistake at a stop sign. Those are operational negligence,
and Congress said that the government should pay out when
(07:28):
its agents makes those kinds of mistakes.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Justice Corsigs wrote, if federal officers raid the wrong house,
causing property damage and assaulting innocent occupants, made the homeowners
sue the government for damages, the answer is not as
obvious as.
Speaker 5 (07:44):
It might be at first. The entire structure of the
Toward Claims Act is unusual in that Congress adopted the
law in the jurisdiction where the injury arose. So the government,
federal government in essence, is being governed by fifty different
state laws as to in this case, assault or adequate preparation.
(08:06):
So that's why it's never easy to predict. But you know,
I think that in this case, at least from the
facts that we were privy to in the Supreme Court decision,
going to the wrong house is hardly ever a policy issue.
It's basically one that's just based upon the GPS mistake
not seeing the right car in the driveway it was
(08:26):
a different car, and not seeing the address on the
address sign.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
So this is going back to the eleventh Circuit. What
are the questions that Eleventh Circuit has to answer?
Speaker 5 (08:36):
The Eleventh Circuit will ask whether the negligence in this
case stems from political, social, and economic policy or is
rather considered operational negligence. And again from the facts that
we learned in the Supreme Court decision, there was no
kind of judgment call, here's a necessity. We have to
take a risk because we see somebody fleeing, so we
(08:57):
have to go into this house. There was nothing like that,
which might be more policy centered. But rather they went
to the wrong street than the wrong address. That's pretty inexcusable.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
So let's say the Eleventh Circuit rules as you say,
I mean, does it go to trial?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Then what happens next?
Speaker 5 (09:15):
It will go to trial. There will be no jury
trial that has been exempted out of the Settle toward
Claims Act, but there will have to be a trial
as to the proper amount of damages, and that of
course could be subject to appeal as well, and that's
paid on the judgment fund.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Was it surprising that this was unanimous?
Speaker 5 (09:33):
I think this is the right way to read the statute.
I think it's pretty clear from both prior cases and
other circuits as well as from the legislative history that
the Eleventh Circuit got it wrong, and I think this
is just one of these instances where the Court took
the case to clean it up. But interestingly, this is
now going to give Senator Padilla, who was treated so
(09:54):
rudely at Christy Nomes press conference, he now would be
able to sue under this very I think his is
a little more difficult factually, but he now would have
an avenue to suit.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
You mentioned Senator Padilla.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Does this ruling strengthen future efforts to seek compensation for
a federal law enforcement misconduct? It does?
Speaker 5 (10:16):
I mean, I think that it's righting or wrong because
the Eleventh Circuit had it too crabbed of a decision.
But in this case, theoretically, Senator Padilla could argue that
there was law enforcement lofsters that acted negligently in trying
to tackle him and subdue him. Weigh and beyond an
exercise of force that needed to be applied. I think
(10:36):
it's again it's going to be a harder case, but
he certainly has that avenue open.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Is there a possibility this might end up at the
Supreme Court? Again?
Speaker 5 (10:44):
I doubt it. I think that in this case, the
Court took the case just to sort of correct the
case law and to make sure that the principles that
the Loved Circuit applies in the future adhere more closely
to the statute. I don't think there's any inherently controversial that.
I do agree with Justice Soda Mayora when she said
(11:05):
that the Supreme Court has not taken a case in
twenty five years in this area, and so there is
a lot of disagreement about how to frame the proper inquiry,
and so that some other case might be appropriate for
the Court to take in order to give more direction
to the lower courts.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
The federal agents themselves wouldn't have to pay the damages.
Speaker 5 (11:24):
No, Once you sue the United States, then the employees
are exempted out of the claim and will be immune. Theoretically,
the federal government could do a third party suit against
the employees for some kind of contribution, but they never
do that. They're almost never, and so in essence, again,
the judgment would come from the judgment fund.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Okay, I'll stay with me.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
Coming up next on the Bloomberg Laws Show, we'll look
at some of the high profile cases the justices have
yet to rule on with about two weeks left in
the term. I'm June Gross, so when you're listening to Bloomberg,
the Supreme Court is just two thirds through the cases
on its docket, with about two weeks left in the term.
The justices have yet to rule on twenty one cases,
(12:10):
including some involving hot button issues like gender affirming treatments
for minors, a clash over LGBTQ schoolbooks, and one of
President Trump's most audacious immigration initiatives. I've been talking to
Professor Harold Krant of the Chicago Kent College of Law.
One of the cases that stands out is the one
(12:31):
over Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors. So,
and that was argued the first week of December, and
it seemed pretty clear that there were five justices conservatives
who were skeptical of the contentions that the Tennessee law
violated the Constitution.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Why is it taking so well?
Speaker 5 (12:51):
The other issue in their case is that the administration
is flip flop and with the tub administration and disavowing
the position that the Biden administration took, which was that,
of course that the law was unconstitutional. So we all
speculated at the time that the Court might even get
rid of the case because of that change of position.
It probably won't do that, but I don't know what's
(13:14):
taking the court so long, so it is somewhat mysterious,
but we expect some kind of decision eminently.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
This is going to be one.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
Of the more controversial cases of the term, and they
seem to leave those to the end of June. Although
you'll hear the explanation for that is that the cases
are controversial, so there may be more concurring opinions or
dissenting opinions, But it also seems to me like they hold.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Them till the end.
Speaker 5 (13:42):
Yeah. And of course the same is true for the
birthright citizenship case, which is probably the other very controversial case,
both because the merits of the birthright cititionship issue, but
also because of the question of the nationwide injunctions. I
would expect to see that on the last day, so
it is typical Supreme Court tack And I guess the
(14:02):
other one I would put in that same category is
a question of whether parents have an opt out can
take their kids and pull them out of class if
the class is teaching something that strikes against their religious beliefs.
I mean that decision will create incredible havoc for public
schools who are trying to then have to give notice
(14:24):
of every book that may be read, which is particularly
difficult for Show and Tell if the kids bring in
stories and then have some kind of monitoring of the
kids while those texts are being discussed in class. So
from the argument, again, it sounded like the Court was
going to allow and opt out based on religion, but
that implementation that would be incredibly difficult. So I think
(14:47):
that's going to be one of the more controversial decisions
of the term as well.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
You know, the Supreme Court has dealt with several gay
rights and trends rights cases, and they've decided to take
for next term a case over Colorado's ban on conversion therapy,
so they're not shying away from issues in this area.
Speaker 5 (15:06):
Well, and of course, what really is underlying these decisions
or whether the permission for gay marriage will remain intact
or will the Court, because of its religious views, decide
that the right of gay marriage, so to speak, should
it be revalued.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
I know that there are conservative justices who are looking
to do that, and there is a movement.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
To reverse the Obergerfeld decision.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
But wouldn't that be difficult to do because then what
happens to all the gay couples who got married and
relied on that decision?
Speaker 2 (15:40):
What are they going to say your marriage is not
valid now?
Speaker 5 (15:43):
No, it would make it prospective if they did that.
And of course it's also complicated because the post Look decision,
which recognized you could have a civil rights action if
you demote someone or treat them differently because they're gay.
But nonetheless, there is this movement that's trying to get
the courts attention to try to use another case to
reverse a not so long standing ten years standing precedent.
(16:07):
But it's not coming now, so that's something we don't
have to talk about emitally.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Are there any other cases that you're waiting to hear
the decision.
Speaker 5 (16:16):
On whether it's the case involving whether you can limit
website pornography websites to some kind of age verification, And
that's not so important, I think, because of the question,
because of course you can have age limitations in movies
and on porn sites. It's the question is what's the
standard or review? And in that case, the conflict was
(16:37):
any kind of restriction on First Amendment you have to
use strict scrutiny or as in that case, you use
rational basis. In rational basis is an easy test. So
it's not important again for the facts of the case,
but articulating the standard review in First Amendment cases does
remain incredibly critical for a host of contemporary reasons that
(16:58):
you're well aware. I say add that there's two decisions
that are pending involving either accessive delegations from Congress to
private parties or re christening the private parties as inferior
officers and upholding the delegations. So the court probably won't
give a bombshell in either of those cases, but they
may give out some clues as to the future of
(17:21):
the non delegation doctrine and their willingness to permit private
parties to play some role in shaping the governance of
our country.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
And just explain the non delegation doctrine.
Speaker 5 (17:32):
Yeah, so non delegation doctrine says that Congress must be
very specific in giving authority to agencies, whether the agencies
can have power to fill in the details, but they
can't have the power to make policy themselves, and no
coise of them able to figure out where the line
is between the two. And so it's a continuing issue,
(17:53):
particularly on this court, to try to articulate more limits
on how much power Congress could do and how specific
Congress must be in giving power to the agencies. And
that might be true even more so to the extent
that there's private parties involved in these cases. And there's
one case in which the private party is definitely involved,
(18:13):
the other one that's more hazy in terms of the
legislative structure of the delegation. But the court may, for inta,
say that private parties can only do ministerial tasks and
that anything more would be a violation of the non
delegation doctrine. And in the one case, there was imposition
of a fee on broadcasters in order to ensure adequate
(18:37):
access to service in broadband and telephones in schools and
rural areas, and that rule the private parties, you know,
it's like attacks, And so the court may say that
that is stepping too far, that Congress can't allow any
kind of private party to help with imposing attacks. So
there are some variations of the decisions which could create
(18:59):
a doctrine which even more limits the power of Congress
to enroll agencies and or private parties in trying to
implement national priorities.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
There's been so much emphasis on the shadow docket, or
the emergency docket since Trump became president and has filed
so many emergency appeals with the Court. So a lot
of the most controversial issues are being decided on the
shadow docket, perhaps making the regular docket a little more
subdued this term.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
Thanks so much, Hal.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
That's Professor Harold Krant of the Chicago Kent College of Law.
US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Junior is a known
vaccine skeptic. For example, two years ago, he suggested that
the polio vaccine has killed more people than polio did,
and he's linked the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to autism,
(19:54):
a theory that's been widely debunked. Kennedy has repeatedly said
he won't do anything to keep people from getting vaccines.
I'm not going to take away anybody's vaccine.
Speaker 4 (20:05):
If people are happy with their vaccines, they ought to
be able to get them. What we're going to do
is give people good science.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
But some of Kennedy's recent moves, including dismissing all the
members of a key panel that advises on immunization policy
seem to be steps toward implementing his blueprint to cast
doubt on the effectiveness and safety of a broad range
of vaccines. My guest is Naya penk Ciity Bloomberg Law.
Healthcare reporter RFK Junior wrote on X I took a
(20:35):
major step toward restoring public trusts in vaccines by reconstituting
the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices. Tell us what he did.
Speaker 4 (20:46):
Yeah, So, Kennedy last week fired all seventeen members of
the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, also known as a
STEP And this is a panel of public health and
medical experts that advised the CDC on vaccines in what
shots should be recommended in the US. So this is
(21:08):
a very important panel because they vote on what vaccines
should go on the CDC's recommended immanization schedule. Now, that
schedule or that list is very important because doctors use
that to determine which vaccines to give to patients. And
it's also important for insurers because they use that to
determine what vaccines to cover. Now, before Secretary Rout of
(21:32):
Kenne Junior dismissed the last ACID committee. There were seventeen members,
and he pointed out in his pressure release after posting
on X that the Biden administration appointed all seventeen of
those sitting ASIT members. Thirteen of them were appointed in
twenty twenty four. Now what Kennedy did here, he said,
he retired all of them, dismissed them, and that raised
(21:52):
alan for various public health experts and even drug industry
because there were concerns that Kennedy would replaces members with
anti vaxers, especially with Kennedy's vaccine skepticism, and they were
concerns that he would replace those people with folks who
have spread and misinformation about the safety and e fficacy
of vaccines, even shots that have been approved by the
(22:15):
FDA to be safe and effective.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
And what about the people he's now appointed to the committee.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
So he has already appointed eight new members last week,
which by the way, is the minimum number of members
for a SIP needed. And when he selected eight new members,
that included people that actually have anti VAXX views and
are against mRNA vaccines in the COVID nineteen vaccine, or
have found those vaccines to have safety issues. One of
(22:41):
them is Robert Malone. He is a major opponent of
mRNA vaccines. He also selected rat stev Levy, who's a
professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who's questioned the
safety of COVID vaccines. He also picked Martin Coldroff, a
former Harvard's Medical School professor who was the co author
of the Great Barrington Declaration, and that was a manifesto
(23:03):
that came out during the pandemic that called for alternative
COVID lockdowns during the pandemic. And it's also already been
reported that Malone and Kuldruff were paid expert witnesses in
work vaccine cases. So there's already concerns because after Kennedy
dismissed the acent members, he went back on x and
posted writing that he wouldn't put anti vaxxers on the panel,
(23:26):
but rather quote put highly credential positions end quote. And
so we've seen folks with anti vacviews now on that panel.
So there's already concerns about who's been put on there.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
And you know, despite the fact that he made promises
during his confirmation hearings that he would not attack vaccines,
what else has he done to stall or cast doubt
on vaccines so far.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
Even before this significant decision to dismiss and restock a FIPS,
Kennedy was already making moves vaccines. So back in May,
he announced through a video on x that he would
be removing the COVID nineteen vaccine from the CDC's recommended
immanization list for healthy children and healthy pregnant women. And
(24:13):
that may have raised the alarm for industry again because
Kennedy didn't really share any details on how it came
about that decision, and the attorneys I've spoken with say that,
you know, there are procedural issues on how he went
about that. Earlier this year, he also said that he
will be requiring all new vaccines to undergo placebo controlled
studies before they're approved. Now, that would be a major
(24:36):
policy shift because that means vaccines will have to go
through safety trials where some participants will receive a placibo
injection before the shot can be licensed. The concern there
is that the disease already has a vaccine, the study
is unethical because a participant in the trial would be
exposed to a preventable illness. We also know that vaccines
for emerging diseases already undergo possibo controlled testing during development.
(24:59):
So already made numerous moves that show his agenda to
scrutinize vaccines, and we are expecting more and he appears
to be moving at a pretty quick pace.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
Well, is there a chance that he could look back
at vaccines that have already been approved?
Speaker 4 (25:15):
I can see that. I mean, Kennedy has repeatedly questioned
vaccine safety testing for quite some time now. His skepticism
really gained wider popularity during the COVID nineteen pandemic, especially
with skepticism against MR and A vaccines. He said during
his campaign trail that he wouldn't be taking vaccines away,
But I think, you know, folks are just also skeptical
(25:36):
of how he's going to move. He's questioned the safety
as many other vaccines, including you know, linking the measles
momps in rebella or the MMR vaccine autism, which is
a theory that's been widely debunked. But we know that
he's going to keep looking into vaccines even past once
because in his Make America Healthy Again report that came
out in May, there was a section on vaccines, and
(26:00):
and that highlighted how he's going to look into them,
you know, areas that weren't future inquiry. There was a
part that says that he's going to look into conflicts
of interest in the vaccine recommendations tied to the pharmaceutical industry,
and we already see him doing that with the Acid Committee.
But based on that report, his next steps are likely
to address changes to clinical trials, more investigations in the
(26:20):
vaccine safety, in the science that really underpins the approvals.
And then the report also causing the expansion for the
Department's Autism Data Initiative to better study childhood chronic diseases.
So we know that Kennedy is supposed to come out
with a report and I believe September, on what causes autism,
And you know, we're eager to know what's going to
be in that report, and we're wondering if there will
(26:41):
be something in there that links you know, vaccines to autism,
which again has been debunked, but we are curious to
know what will be in there.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
How consequential is it that he yanked seven hundred and
sixty six million dollar contract with Maderna to develop Mr
NA vaccines for avian influenza.
Speaker 4 (27:01):
It's a big deal because one that is a lot
of money to do research into mRNA and to prevent
future diseases and flu in pandemics. So the concern there
was when he yanked that, you folks were like, does
he not want Maderna to study mRNA and to look
(27:22):
into that. So it kind of poses some threat to
mRNA vaccines is he's slowly chipping away at it because
again he's always had the skepticism with it. And then
to yank that contract with Majoernal was a very big deal.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
And explain what an mRNA vaccine is.
Speaker 4 (27:41):
mRNA is created in the lab to teach ourselves how
to make a protein, and that protein triggers an immune
response in our bodies, and that immune response produces antibodies
which helped protect us from getting sick from that German
the future. So in this case with the COVID nineteen vaccine,
that mRNA vaccine helps us from getting sick from COVID
in the future. And it was Emma Rena during the
(28:04):
first Trump administration was just a major breakthrough because it's
something the Trump administration harnessed when they were making vaccines
to battle the COVID nineteen pandemic, and it was major
for COVID nineteen, but it is also big for treating
other diseases, so it's not just about COVID, so Emmorna
can do a lot. I've talked to scientists who are like,
(28:24):
it's the next big thing, So to be chipping away
at it if we do is a big concern.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
Do the people that you've talked to in this area
think that he'll just chip away at the public confidence
in vaccines, he'll stop new ones from coming out, or
that he's going to go after the vaccines that are
already out there.
Speaker 4 (28:46):
I think it's both. I think for the vaccines already
out there, he might find a way to go back
and look at the you know, safety data to see
if there's something there to look into. And then for
future vaccine that haven't hit the market, there might be
you know, obstacles that are there for those manufacturers to
get them across the finish line to get approved. Because
(29:09):
again we're dealing with the Secretary who it's not only
skeptical vaccines, but also is skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry.
We've seen Kennedy make comments about his you know, issues
and concerns and questions around pharmaceutical industry profits and conflicts
of interest and how there's relationships between federal agencies and manufacturers,
(29:32):
so industry is also dealing with that. It's some kind
of in a weird spot right now, and how to
move forward with manufacturing these vaccines. But yes, I've talked
to people who are like, he will hip away at
these vaccines. I talk to one source who's like, this
is like the frog in a boiling pot situation, where
he's going to go at vaccines with small measures, and
(29:56):
he's going to do it slowly, but at the same time,
we see him moving quickly right now.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
During his confirmation hearings, a lot of the senators were
concerned about his views on vaccines. So Kennedy's recent moves
have caused health professionals to be concerned. What about lawmakers?
Speaker 4 (30:15):
A good number of lawmakers have expressed concerns with this.
I think the most important reaction we got was from
Senator Bill Cassidy after Kennedy made this decision. Because during
Kennedy's confirmation hearing, before Cassidy decided to vote for Kennedy,
(30:35):
to become secretary. He said that Kennedy would quote maintain
the committee, and that could have meant many things, and
that clearly has not been the case because the committee
is now dismissed and Cassidy posted on x that he
spoke with Kennedy. You know, we haven't really heard any
details since then, but I know that this is a
(30:57):
concern for Cassidy because that was one of the promises
that Kennedy made to the Senator which got him that
vote from Cassidy.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
I think we've seen time and time again, not only
with government officials, but also with Supreme Court justices, that
promises made or assurances given during confirmation hearings are not
always kept. Thanks so much for joining me, NYA. That's
Bloomberg Healthcare Reporter Nya pank City and that's it for
(31:27):
this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and
remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
(31:48):
you're listening to Bloomberg
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.