September 15, 2025 • 32 mins
Jennifer Novak, an environmental attorney in California, discusses the EPA no longer requiring big polluters to report. Heather Whiteman Runs Him, director of the Tribal Justice Clinic at the University of Arizona, discusses how tribal suits over sacred sites, expose unequal treatment. 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 Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
When EPA Administrator Lee Zelden launched what he called the
greatest day of deregulation in American history six months ago,
there seemed to be no mention of protecting the environment
or endangered species, but rather of advancing American energy, revitalizing
(00:27):
the auto industry, and getting rid of climate protections put
in place by the Biden administration.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
EPA will be reconsidering many suffocating rules that restrict nearly
every sector of our economy and cost Americans trillions of dollars.
Our actions include the Biden Administration's deeply flowed Clean Power Plan,
two point zero mercury and Air Toxic Standards quato BC,
(00:56):
particulate Matter two point five light Medium, and head, the
Car and Truck rules.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
And in keeping with those goals, the agency has sought
to roll back dozens of environmental regulations. The latest, the
EPA plans to end the greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which
for the last sixteen years has tracked pollution from some
eight thousand sites and requires large, mostly industrial polluters to
(01:24):
report their planet warming greenhouse gas emissions to the government.
My guest is environmental attorney Jennifer Novak Jennifer This greenhouse
Gas Reporting program was created by legislation signed by President
George W. Bush in two thousand and seven. Explain what
it does.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program has been the primary way
for the US government to track certain emissions for about
eight thousand of the country's largest facilities since twenty ten.
This is how we've tried emissions of carbon dioxide, methane
and other gases that come from sources like oil refineries
(02:07):
and steel mills and cement plants and coal burning power plants.
And it's how we have been identifying where a lot
of these emissions have been coming from, but also tracking
whether or not we are able to try to reduce
them by addressing those sources. And we've been relying on
this for quite a long time up until now. I
(02:32):
will also note that this is also a way for
places like California and other states that have cap and
trade programs to be able to both design as well
as track the emissions so that they can determine how
to run those programs and using this information from around
the country.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
The EPA Administrator Lee Zelden said, the Greenhouse Gas Reporting
program is nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that does
nothing to improve air quality. Would you agree with that?
Speaker 3 (03:06):
I do not agree with that. This program provides very
valuable data for us to understand what is going on
in these industries, how it may be contributing to local
communities as well as to a larger, more global problem.
And asking for certain industries known to be large sources
(03:27):
of these emissions is not just red tape, not just costs,
but is part of understanding the science of what the
problem is. And more importantly, science is the foundation for
how we determine what policies to have and how to
implement them, whether or not we even need certain policies.
So by depriving universities, nonprofits, other governments of this data,
(03:53):
we effectively are attacking the very foundation of the policy making,
which is the science. Truthfully, it's the opposite of transparency,
and it would mean a lot of these otherwise climate
based policy makers will be flying blind.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Is the only benefit, the only reason for this that
it's going to save businesses according to Zelden, up to
two point four billion in regulatory costs over the next decade.
Is that the benefit.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Here that's really the only thing I see that the
only justification one could bring up. And more importantly, we
don't know where that number comes from, so we don't
know if that's the true cost. I will also note
that this doesn't mean that certain industries won't collect the data.
It just means they won't report it, so that the
public and the government doesn't know how that a problem
(04:44):
might be. So the cost savings from the collection and
reporting may not be as great as the Trump administration is.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
Assuming the EPA is terminating dozens of environmental regulations, is
this just one part of that rollback.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
It really does go to the issue of the regulations.
One of the reasons why we haven't seen the ability
to eliminate many regulations, especially in the environmental realm, is
because the science just doesn't justify it. If you put
the science out there to show that you do need
certain regulations or certain policies, then it's very hard for
(05:23):
the government to simply wipe them off the books. So
here by attacking the science, or at least depriving the
science from that discussion, then it makes it a lot
easier to try to take things off the books that
might otherwise be needed. I will note that just because
we're not necessarily recording and reporting this information does not
(05:46):
mean that these facilities are not emitting things like the
methane and the carbon dioxide. It just means we won't
know about it.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
Is it sort of in line with the Trump administration
trying to erase notes of climate change on websites.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
It goes part and parcel with that. If you can't
point to the science and the data to show what's
happening with the climate, then one can argue that it's
all made up. Right. If you have the data, then
it makes it harder for them to say that climate
change doesn't exist.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Before Biden left office, he said that they handled things
in such a way that the Trump administration wouldn't be
able to destroy their environmental achievements. But it seems like
they are doing that.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
They certainly are trying. For example, under President Biden, we
had the Inflation Reduction Act of twenty twenty two, which
required certain oil and gas facilities to both collect their
emissions data and report it. The Trump administration is not
getting rid of that particular requirement that they are proposing
(06:56):
that there's a delay in implementation for ten years. In
other circumstances, the priorities of the EPA clearly have been
publicly shifted, where I believe the administrator has been saying
that the mission of EPA is to support the US economy,
whereas I think most people would argue that the mission
of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect both people
(07:20):
and the environment and to ensure that we are not
either destroying health and the environment, but certainly to try
to maintain it as best we can while balancing the
need for economic development and other things we need in
our lives. But in this situation, what we see is
(07:41):
an attack on the inside as well, what kind of
information is coming out, what kind of opinions people can have,
what kind of studies they are developing. And this is
part of an overall much larger situation with the Trump
administration also attacking things like universities and nonprofits that we're
receiving ants to work on, especially climate issues. So it's
(08:03):
a multifaceted attack on the many places that would already
be working together, collaborating, sharing data in order to make
these larger policy changes that the Trump administration clearly does
not agree with.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
You know, you talk about science, etc. But the Trump
administration has asked NASA to decommission and possibly destroyed two
satellites that measure greenhouse gases from space.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
Yes, that has been in the news lightly, and it's
consistent with this proposal to eliminate the reporting of greenhouse gases.
One could look at it as a short term long
term issue. Long term, we're going to need this data
from a variety of sources, and shutting down the reporting
(08:50):
or eliminating satellites means you may save money in the
short term, but sooner or later we are going to
need that back, so we will be behind. It may
be harder for us to address these larger problems in
the long term if we haven't been working on them
consistently all along, and you can't just take a break
(09:11):
and then come back to it and pick up where
you left off. The Earth does not care whether or
not we believe in climate change. The Earth is doing
what it's doing, and we can either address it and
understand it now, or we will have far more expenses
and human effects later on down the road.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
That was going to be my next question, you anticipated.
I was going to say, if a new administration comes
in that believes in climate change and fighting climate change.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
Can we recoup We certainly can go back to the fight,
but you will have lost potentially years of data and
thousands of data points in the process. That being said,
I would anticipate that we will see lawsuits arising from
this proposal. There is also a public comment period, so
(09:59):
it's not a done deal yet this particular proposal, and
I don't know whether or not it will go into
effect right away. I would anticipate there will be requests
to the courts to delay the implementation on the very
grounds that we've been discussing, just the need for it,
the severity of the problem, the fact that we are
at a critical juncture with respect to understanding and addressing
(10:24):
climate change.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Can the states in any way step in and make
requirements of facilities in their state.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
The states can step in and put in their requirements,
but part of the problem is by having a federal program,
you have consistent requirements across the board, as opposed to
going state by state with their requirements. You may see
variances in the quality of information that is reported, and
so it is more difficult to attack this on a
(10:53):
state by state or regional government by regional government basis.
As opposed to having a federal program in addition, and
states definitely like to be able to look to having
federal law to turn to and be consistent with and
to enforce, and the Clean Air Act has been a
very powerful tool for decades in terms of addressing these issues.
(11:16):
It's a lot harder for states to step in and
try to supplant that.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
How does this affect the tax credits that companies get
that capture and bury their carbon emissions.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
It's unclear how it will affect it. That certainly is
one of the unknowns here, which is that there are
other reasons why businesses collect this data and report it.
Sometimes it may be that they have carbon capture requirements,
They may have other sustainability requirements. There may be requirements
(11:50):
from the Department of Energy, for example. And so it's
not that these companies won't necessarily need this information. It
is that, again, that we won't be receiving it through
reporting necessarily, or it will be much more patchwork because
of their other issues. But the extent that companies are
trying to do the right thing, they're going to find
(12:11):
themselves in an interesting situation where some companies may have
ongoing requirements and some may be excused from it and
therefore be getting an economic advantage.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Thanks so much, Jennifer. That's environmental attorney Jennifer Novak coming
up next. Apache tribes try to stop development on a
sacred site. This is Bloomberg John him On, a diva.
Speaker 4 (12:38):
God him.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
For centuries, Western Apaches have worshiped at Oak Flat, a
nearly seven square mile site in Arizona, where tribal members
conduct religious ceremonies that can take place anywhere else. One
is the Sunrise Ceremony, a three day coming of age
ceremony for a patche girls that requires gathering certain plants
(13:03):
at Oak Flat and being painted with white clay from
the ground. For years, the tribal members have tried to
stop the federal government's transfer of the sacred tribal land
to a compromising company, which will end in the sacred
site being destroyed. Indigenous and environmental groups have filed multiple
lawsuits against the US Forest Service, but the legal paths
(13:27):
for tribal groups to protect Oak Flatt on religious grounds
have been narrowed by several decisions. They bring up the
question of whether tribal religious freedom claims are getting equal treatment.
A descent by Justice, Neil Gorsuch suggests they're not. My
guest is Heather white Man, runs him director of the
(13:47):
Tribal Justice Clinic at the University of Arizona. Heather, can
you give us the background of this legal fight.
Speaker 4 (13:55):
Yeah. In twenty fourteen, Congress passed the Southern Arizona Land
Exchange and Conservation Act as part of a much larger
Defense authorization bill that was really so voluminous that it
didn't have a whole lot of review and people weren't
paying super close attention to some of the smaller parts
(14:17):
of that much larger piece of legislation. And because of that,
this particular bill, the Southern Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act,
was able to make its way through congressional ratification and
was signed into law by President Obama. This particular initiative
had been a standalone bill numerous times before and had
(14:40):
never moved forward, never been able to get through Congress.
What the bill does is it mandates the transfer of
forgest service lands to a private company resolution copper for
the purpose of mining a substantial deposit of copper that
underlies the surface of that land. The reason why that's
(15:01):
difficult or why it's been opposed for so many years
is because the land on the surface is the site
of very significant, longstanding religious practices by the Western Apache people,
and so the mining of the copper will result in
the complete destruction of a substantial area of the surface land.
(15:24):
It will subside, it will create a very large crater,
it won't be usable any longer for the purposes that
the Apache people have maintained on that land for hundreds
and hundreds of years, if not longer. And so that,
according to the Apache people, is a substantial burden on
(15:44):
their religious practice. And common sense would I think lead
anybody to a similar result that if you destroy the
land that is absolutely necessary for the practice of a religion,
that's the burden. So that's the conflict in essence.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
Are the legal challenges based on the First Amendment or
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Speaker 4 (16:04):
The challenges are based on both of those. There are
also claims that have been raised related to the treaties
between the Western Apache people in the United States, and
also some claims that are based in NIPA, the National
Environmental Policy Act and consultation claims as well. That you know,
the consultation process between the federal government and the tribes
(16:27):
in question here, the tribal members and the tribal government
was not sufficient or it wasn't meaningful.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
The procedural history here is so complicated. It's been up
to the Ninth Circuit more than once, right, So.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
There are several different causes of action. Right back up
a little bit further. As part of the land exchange,
environmental impact statement is to be prepared and then within
sixty days of the finalization of the EIF or the
environmental impact statement, the land transfer is undated to take place.
(17:01):
That's what the Act provides for. And so the EIS
was underway, was being prepared, preliminarily announced to be about
to be released back in twenty twenty one, and that
was when Apache Stronghold filed its lawsuits in the District
of Arizona. Apache Stronghold is a coalition of tribal members.
(17:25):
It's not the tribal government, but it's you know, some
of the folks who were really involved in so devoted
to the practice of their religious beliefs at Oak Flat,
and you know, really sincere adherence to those cultural practices
and beliefs from within the Apache tribe. And so there
are a couple of different claims that were raised in
(17:45):
that particular lawsuit, the riffra claim, the First Amendment claim,
as well as treaty claims and some of the other
issues with you know, NIPA and the APA. The District
court initially dismissed most of those claims, but what did
go forward was the difference First Amendment issues, and those
went up to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ruled
(18:07):
against Apache Stronghold and moved on to review on Bank
before an on bunk panel also ruled against Apache Stronghold
in a very very complicated opinion or a series of opinions,
about two hundred and forty pages, seven different written opinions
with sort of two different majorities holding in two different ways.
(18:31):
And then from there there was a petition for a
review through the full unbunk Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which was denied, after which point Apache Stronghold petition for
circerari to the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Will you explain why the Ninth Circuit found that the
transfer couldn't be considered a substantial burden on religious exercise.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
So the Ninth Circuit opinion, it's a tough one and
to parse out right, and so there are a couple
of different things that happen there. First, the court ruled
that there was no substantial burden right because there's not
coercion under some previous case laws. The Ninth Circuit has
a very narrow definition of substantial burden and of coercion.
(19:21):
So they have ruled that in the absence of withholding
of a benefit because of a religious practice or a
punative or punishment type of provision in a generally applicable
federal law that is triggered by what would otherwise be,
you know, a basic exercise of a religious practice, that
(19:43):
there's no coercion that results in no substantial burden.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
Will you tell us more about how Native American religious
practices require relationships with specific locations and natural features and
how that played into the arguments.
Speaker 4 (20:02):
And that's the second part of the Ninth Circuits on
bonk holding. So the first is applying this really narrow standard,
really restrictive standard for finding a substantial burden. And also
a different majority of the Ninth Circuit then held that
where there's a federal property management initiative, that cannot burden
(20:24):
religious freedom right, which is really wrong when you think
about it that, you know, under the Ninth Circuit ruling,
we're limited from ever bringing any kind of claim then
saying that a federal land management decision substantially burdens our
free exercise right because it's federal property. The federal government
has a right to do what it wants with its
(20:44):
own land. And that just doesn't seem right to me.
That we can't limit the federal government from violating the
First Amendment because the federal government is the landowner. So
the analysis under the Ninth Circuit approach is really that
we're looking at the relief thought to limit our ability
to ever find an injury to people's First Amendment rights.
(21:08):
So we can't find a burden because the relief that
we're seeking, which will limit what the federal government is
a landowner can do with its own property. You know,
it certainly presents a real challenge to any Native American
person whose religious beliefs depend on a relationship with a
specific land base, and many of ours do. Many of
us have religions and religious practices and beliefs that require
(21:31):
specific things to happen in specific places, often at specific times,
and that is our sincerely held religious belief and how
we practice it, so it renders Native American religious belief
virtually unprotectable in many in many instances under the way
that the case law has developed. And I just think
that can't be right. And I hope most Americans would
consider that situation and feel similarly that that simply cannot
(21:56):
be correct, and that cannot be consistent with our constitution
or what our founds intended.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
And tell us about the religious significance of Oak Flat
with regard to the three day coming of age ceremony
for Apache girls that tribe members say can't take place
anywhere else.
Speaker 4 (22:16):
From my understanding, and I'm not an Apache person, Oak
Flatt is the site where female members of the San
Carlos Apache tribe have their coming of age ceremonies. So
it's where a girl becomes a woman. And there's a
specific ceremony that takes place when a girl becomes a woman,
and it's a very intensive, multi date ceremony. It's incredibly
(22:39):
onerous physically, there's a lot of prayer, a whole community
comes together to help bring a girl into womanhood. It's
a necessity for a woman to go through that ceremony
to fully realize her identity as an attache woman. So
it's incredibly significant. It's one of the most important things
that happens in any woman's life in that culture.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
As we've discussed, there are several cases here, which is
the case that went to the Supreme Court and.
Speaker 4 (23:06):
The litigation that's been most developed and has gone the
furthest up that was brought by a coalition of tribal
members who organized as a nonprofit corporation as Apache Stronghold
and so you know, Pache Stronghold petition for Circherai to
the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court, upon completion
of the cert petition briefing, brought the case in for
(23:29):
conference I think something like sixteen times. So it went
up for review to consider whether it would be whether
it would be granted, many many times over the course
of last spring. Ultimately, on May twenty seventh, the Supreme
Court denied Sircherai. Unfortunately, however, soon after the denial of
(23:50):
cert Apache Strongholds, the attorneys filed a petition for basically
a reconsideration of the cert petition asking the Supreme Court
to grant Scerai remand the case back to the Ninth
Circuit and provide a clear direction to the Ninth Circuit
on how to review the legal arguments going forward in
(24:13):
a new Ninth Circuit review. Part of the reason for
that is because intervening President was decided after the denial
of Scherai.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
Coming up next. The Supreme Court denied cert but Justice
Neil Gorsuch said it was a grave mistake for the
Court not to hear the case. I'm June Grosso and
you're listening to Bloomberg. Indigenous and environmental groups have filed
multiple lawsuits against the government seeking to preserve Oak Flat,
(24:43):
a six point seven square mile site for Western Apache's
religious ceremonies that plaintiffs say can't take place anywhere else.
Years long court challenges have attempted to stop the federal
government's transfer of the land to a copper mining company,
but the legal paths for tribal groups to protect Oak
Flat on religious grounds have been narrowed by several decisions,
(25:07):
especially in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
I've been talking to Heather white Man runs him director
of the Tribal Justice Clinic at the University of Arizona.
Let's talk about Justice Gorsuch's Descent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas,
and he said it was a grave mistake for the
Court not to hear the case. Quote, just imagine if
(25:30):
the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so
questionable a chain of legal reasoning. I have no doubt
that we would find that case worth our time. Face
with the government's plan to destroy an ancient side of
tribal worship. We owe the apaches no less. And this
is a Supreme Court that has expanded religious rights. Is
(25:52):
there a difference with the way they treat tribal religion?
Speaker 4 (25:56):
I see a difference. A lot of people see a difference,
you know. Such is The Descent is a really great read.
I'd encourage anybody interested in these issues to read it.
And I think it recognizes that, like I was saying earlier,
the way that these cases are evaluated and the outcomes
that we keep seeing should be a concern to every American.
(26:17):
Every American citizen should worry about the viability of their
free exercise right. If the Court can condone the complete
annihilation of a place of worship that is absolutely central
to the perpetuation of that religion, they can limit anybody's
religious exercise right. So this is a threat to every
American religious liberty, and it is something that I think
(26:39):
we should all be concerned about and we should all
be advocating to our lawmakers, to our legal scholars that
you know, we need to work through these issues and
we need to find solutions that will bring us different results.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Ultimately, the Supreme Court had a decision in June where
it favored parents who want want their children to be
exempt from lessons involving books that mention sexuality and gender.
So how is that case playing in here?
Speaker 4 (27:10):
So a couple of things. The Apache strongholds petition for
reconsideration relies heavily on the intervening decision in Mahmood because
there are similar impacts of the government policy that's challenged there.
In Mahmood, we had the Supreme Court recognize very, very
(27:31):
vehemently that when we limit parents' abilities to bring up
their children, to raise their children in ways that are
consistent with their religious beliefs, we are violating their First
Amendment rights. That is a substantial burden, and it has
to go through the relevant analysis for when and how
such burdens are limited and when they're allowed to go forward.
(27:53):
That type of test has not been applied yet to
the challenged law to the Land Exchange Act in a
Patchie stronghold. What we've been through so far is the
preliminary injunction analysis, So we haven't had the full the
full review of an application of the relevant legal standards
for what's permissible when.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
And how So, what's happening right now? What stage are
you at.
Speaker 4 (28:18):
The Apache stronghold motions to reconsider and grant curtari and
remand the case back to night Circuit is not decided yet.
But we also have a new case that has been
filed by a group of Apache women, mothers and daughters
that really found it claims in similar issues and similar
analysis to what the Supreme Court decided in Mahmoud. The
(28:42):
Land Exchange app will burden through free exercise rights of
especially APACHE women right because it's limiting APACHE women from
having the ability to become women in ways that are
consistent with their religious beliefs. It's limiting APACHE mothers from
bringing their daughters into womanhood as required by their religious beliefs.
(29:05):
And so there's you know, a real consistency with the
impact in the burden on a religious freedom interest there
as what we saw the Supreme Court limit in Mahmoud.
So that's a new case that was brought. First, it
was filed in the District of BC, it was transferred
into the District of Arizona. The District of Arizona court
(29:26):
ruled on preliminary injunction motions from both the plaintiffs in
this new case, Lopez versus the United States. The judge
subsequently ruled against those three motions that were pending for
injunctive relief. Plaintiffs immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an
(29:49):
emergency injunction basically preventing the land transfer. The land transfer
was about to take place, put the cases on an
expedited briefing schedule, and so we're now in the middle
of that briefing to the Ninth Circuit or a argument
will probably take place early this fall and we'll see
how the Ninth Circuit resolves this issue going forward. So, yeah,
(30:10):
there's still a lot going on. There's still a lot
of activity surrounding various parties claims in relation to the
final disposition of Oak Flat. There are still cases pending
in the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court itself has
not rolled on the motions filed by Apache Stronghold. After
the certain denial.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
The tribal groups have not fared well at the Ninth Circuit.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
Sort of the bigger picture things that are going on
here in the American West, Right, we're in the Ninth Circuit.
As Justice Gorsich pointed out in his dissent, the Ninth
Circuit encompasses more Native American people, more Indigenous religious practitioners
than any other federal district. Right, and we have more
(30:54):
federal land in the Ninth Circuit than in any other
federal circuit. This means that we have a lot of
conflicts right in federal land management decisions, which you know,
are all landscapes that were indigenous not very long ago,
and where practitioners maintained relationships with places and events that
take place on the land. So these conflicts are frequent.
(31:18):
And the other thing that I think people aren't fully
cognizant of is the fact that you know, the party
with the most to gain here if the status quo
is perpetuated is Resolution Copper. Resolution Copper is not a
domestic company. This isn't a project that is going to
(31:38):
immediately enrich the United States of America or its citizens.
It's a foreign held mining company. It's what a British
and Australian corporation. The largest shareholder of Resolution Copper is Chinalco,
which is owned by the Chinese government. So when we
talk about these mining projects being so essential to national
security and the interests of energy security in the United States,
(32:04):
if you dig a little bit deeper, you see that
the things that we're compromising fundamental rights of Americans or
aren't really that compelling to the federal government's interests or
the interests of mainstream society in America. When it comes
down to it, we'll.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
See what happens at the Supreme Court the second time around.
Thanks Heather. That's Heather white Man runs him director of
the Tribal Justice Clinic at the University of Arizona. And
that's it for 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,
(32:40):
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 you're listening to Bloomberg
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
When EPA Administrator Lee Zelden launched what he called the
greatest day of deregulation in American history six months ago,
there seemed to be no mention of protecting the environment
or endangered species, but rather of advancing American energy, revitalizing
(00:27):
the auto industry, and getting rid of climate protections put
in place by the Biden administration.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
EPA will be reconsidering many suffocating rules that restrict nearly
every sector of our economy and cost Americans trillions of dollars.
Our actions include the Biden Administration's deeply flowed Clean Power Plan,
two point zero mercury and Air Toxic Standards quato BC,
(00:56):
particulate Matter two point five light Medium, and head, the
Car and Truck rules.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
And in keeping with those goals, the agency has sought
to roll back dozens of environmental regulations. The latest, the
EPA plans to end the greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which
for the last sixteen years has tracked pollution from some
eight thousand sites and requires large, mostly industrial polluters to
(01:24):
report their planet warming greenhouse gas emissions to the government.
My guest is environmental attorney Jennifer Novak Jennifer This greenhouse
Gas Reporting program was created by legislation signed by President
George W. Bush in two thousand and seven. Explain what
it does.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program has been the primary way
for the US government to track certain emissions for about
eight thousand of the country's largest facilities since twenty ten.
This is how we've tried emissions of carbon dioxide, methane
and other gases that come from sources like oil refineries
(02:07):
and steel mills and cement plants and coal burning power plants.
And it's how we have been identifying where a lot
of these emissions have been coming from, but also tracking
whether or not we are able to try to reduce
them by addressing those sources. And we've been relying on
this for quite a long time up until now. I
(02:32):
will also note that this is also a way for
places like California and other states that have cap and
trade programs to be able to both design as well
as track the emissions so that they can determine how
to run those programs and using this information from around
the country.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
The EPA Administrator Lee Zelden said, the Greenhouse Gas Reporting
program is nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that does
nothing to improve air quality. Would you agree with that?
Speaker 3 (03:06):
I do not agree with that. This program provides very
valuable data for us to understand what is going on
in these industries, how it may be contributing to local
communities as well as to a larger, more global problem.
And asking for certain industries known to be large sources
(03:27):
of these emissions is not just red tape, not just costs,
but is part of understanding the science of what the
problem is. And more importantly, science is the foundation for
how we determine what policies to have and how to
implement them, whether or not we even need certain policies.
So by depriving universities, nonprofits, other governments of this data,
(03:53):
we effectively are attacking the very foundation of the policy making,
which is the science. Truthfully, it's the opposite of transparency,
and it would mean a lot of these otherwise climate
based policy makers will be flying blind.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Is the only benefit, the only reason for this that
it's going to save businesses according to Zelden, up to
two point four billion in regulatory costs over the next decade.
Is that the benefit.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Here that's really the only thing I see that the
only justification one could bring up. And more importantly, we
don't know where that number comes from, so we don't
know if that's the true cost. I will also note
that this doesn't mean that certain industries won't collect the data.
It just means they won't report it, so that the
public and the government doesn't know how that a problem
(04:44):
might be. So the cost savings from the collection and
reporting may not be as great as the Trump administration is.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
Assuming the EPA is terminating dozens of environmental regulations, is
this just one part of that rollback.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
It really does go to the issue of the regulations.
One of the reasons why we haven't seen the ability
to eliminate many regulations, especially in the environmental realm, is
because the science just doesn't justify it. If you put
the science out there to show that you do need
certain regulations or certain policies, then it's very hard for
(05:23):
the government to simply wipe them off the books. So
here by attacking the science, or at least depriving the
science from that discussion, then it makes it a lot
easier to try to take things off the books that
might otherwise be needed. I will note that just because
we're not necessarily recording and reporting this information does not
(05:46):
mean that these facilities are not emitting things like the
methane and the carbon dioxide. It just means we won't
know about it.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
Is it sort of in line with the Trump administration
trying to erase notes of climate change on websites.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
It goes part and parcel with that. If you can't
point to the science and the data to show what's
happening with the climate, then one can argue that it's
all made up. Right. If you have the data, then
it makes it harder for them to say that climate
change doesn't exist.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Before Biden left office, he said that they handled things
in such a way that the Trump administration wouldn't be
able to destroy their environmental achievements. But it seems like
they are doing that.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
They certainly are trying. For example, under President Biden, we
had the Inflation Reduction Act of twenty twenty two, which
required certain oil and gas facilities to both collect their
emissions data and report it. The Trump administration is not
getting rid of that particular requirement that they are proposing
(06:56):
that there's a delay in implementation for ten years. In
other circumstances, the priorities of the EPA clearly have been
publicly shifted, where I believe the administrator has been saying
that the mission of EPA is to support the US economy,
whereas I think most people would argue that the mission
of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect both people
(07:20):
and the environment and to ensure that we are not
either destroying health and the environment, but certainly to try
to maintain it as best we can while balancing the
need for economic development and other things we need in
our lives. But in this situation, what we see is
(07:41):
an attack on the inside as well, what kind of
information is coming out, what kind of opinions people can have,
what kind of studies they are developing. And this is
part of an overall much larger situation with the Trump
administration also attacking things like universities and nonprofits that we're
receiving ants to work on, especially climate issues. So it's
(08:03):
a multifaceted attack on the many places that would already
be working together, collaborating, sharing data in order to make
these larger policy changes that the Trump administration clearly does
not agree with.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
You know, you talk about science, etc. But the Trump
administration has asked NASA to decommission and possibly destroyed two
satellites that measure greenhouse gases from space.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
Yes, that has been in the news lightly, and it's
consistent with this proposal to eliminate the reporting of greenhouse gases.
One could look at it as a short term long
term issue. Long term, we're going to need this data
from a variety of sources, and shutting down the reporting
(08:50):
or eliminating satellites means you may save money in the
short term, but sooner or later we are going to
need that back, so we will be behind. It may
be harder for us to address these larger problems in
the long term if we haven't been working on them
consistently all along, and you can't just take a break
(09:11):
and then come back to it and pick up where
you left off. The Earth does not care whether or
not we believe in climate change. The Earth is doing
what it's doing, and we can either address it and
understand it now, or we will have far more expenses
and human effects later on down the road.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
That was going to be my next question, you anticipated.
I was going to say, if a new administration comes
in that believes in climate change and fighting climate change.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
Can we recoup We certainly can go back to the fight,
but you will have lost potentially years of data and
thousands of data points in the process. That being said,
I would anticipate that we will see lawsuits arising from
this proposal. There is also a public comment period, so
(09:59):
it's not a done deal yet this particular proposal, and
I don't know whether or not it will go into
effect right away. I would anticipate there will be requests
to the courts to delay the implementation on the very
grounds that we've been discussing, just the need for it,
the severity of the problem, the fact that we are
at a critical juncture with respect to understanding and addressing
(10:24):
climate change.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Can the states in any way step in and make
requirements of facilities in their state.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
The states can step in and put in their requirements,
but part of the problem is by having a federal program,
you have consistent requirements across the board, as opposed to
going state by state with their requirements. You may see
variances in the quality of information that is reported, and
so it is more difficult to attack this on a
(10:53):
state by state or regional government by regional government basis.
As opposed to having a federal program in addition, and
states definitely like to be able to look to having
federal law to turn to and be consistent with and
to enforce, and the Clean Air Act has been a
very powerful tool for decades in terms of addressing these issues.
(11:16):
It's a lot harder for states to step in and
try to supplant that.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
How does this affect the tax credits that companies get
that capture and bury their carbon emissions.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
It's unclear how it will affect it. That certainly is
one of the unknowns here, which is that there are
other reasons why businesses collect this data and report it.
Sometimes it may be that they have carbon capture requirements,
They may have other sustainability requirements. There may be requirements
(11:50):
from the Department of Energy, for example. And so it's
not that these companies won't necessarily need this information. It
is that, again, that we won't be receiving it through
reporting necessarily, or it will be much more patchwork because
of their other issues. But the extent that companies are
trying to do the right thing, they're going to find
(12:11):
themselves in an interesting situation where some companies may have
ongoing requirements and some may be excused from it and
therefore be getting an economic advantage.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Thanks so much, Jennifer. That's environmental attorney Jennifer Novak coming
up next. Apache tribes try to stop development on a
sacred site. This is Bloomberg John him On, a diva.
Speaker 4 (12:38):
God him.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
For centuries, Western Apaches have worshiped at Oak Flat, a
nearly seven square mile site in Arizona, where tribal members
conduct religious ceremonies that can take place anywhere else. One
is the Sunrise Ceremony, a three day coming of age
ceremony for a patche girls that requires gathering certain plants
(13:03):
at Oak Flat and being painted with white clay from
the ground. For years, the tribal members have tried to
stop the federal government's transfer of the sacred tribal land
to a compromising company, which will end in the sacred
site being destroyed. Indigenous and environmental groups have filed multiple
lawsuits against the US Forest Service, but the legal paths
(13:27):
for tribal groups to protect Oak Flatt on religious grounds
have been narrowed by several decisions. They bring up the
question of whether tribal religious freedom claims are getting equal treatment.
A descent by Justice, Neil Gorsuch suggests they're not. My
guest is Heather white Man, runs him director of the
(13:47):
Tribal Justice Clinic at the University of Arizona. Heather, can
you give us the background of this legal fight.
Speaker 4 (13:55):
Yeah. In twenty fourteen, Congress passed the Southern Arizona Land
Exchange and Conservation Act as part of a much larger
Defense authorization bill that was really so voluminous that it
didn't have a whole lot of review and people weren't
paying super close attention to some of the smaller parts
(14:17):
of that much larger piece of legislation. And because of that,
this particular bill, the Southern Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act,
was able to make its way through congressional ratification and
was signed into law by President Obama. This particular initiative
had been a standalone bill numerous times before and had
(14:40):
never moved forward, never been able to get through Congress.
What the bill does is it mandates the transfer of
forgest service lands to a private company resolution copper for
the purpose of mining a substantial deposit of copper that
underlies the surface of that land. The reason why that's
(15:01):
difficult or why it's been opposed for so many years
is because the land on the surface is the site
of very significant, longstanding religious practices by the Western Apache people,
and so the mining of the copper will result in
the complete destruction of a substantial area of the surface land.
(15:24):
It will subside, it will create a very large crater,
it won't be usable any longer for the purposes that
the Apache people have maintained on that land for hundreds
and hundreds of years, if not longer. And so that,
according to the Apache people, is a substantial burden on
(15:44):
their religious practice. And common sense would I think lead
anybody to a similar result that if you destroy the
land that is absolutely necessary for the practice of a religion,
that's the burden. So that's the conflict in essence.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
Are the legal challenges based on the First Amendment or
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Speaker 4 (16:04):
The challenges are based on both of those. There are
also claims that have been raised related to the treaties
between the Western Apache people in the United States, and
also some claims that are based in NIPA, the National
Environmental Policy Act and consultation claims as well. That you know,
the consultation process between the federal government and the tribes
(16:27):
in question here, the tribal members and the tribal government
was not sufficient or it wasn't meaningful.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
The procedural history here is so complicated. It's been up
to the Ninth Circuit more than once, right, So.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
There are several different causes of action. Right back up
a little bit further. As part of the land exchange,
environmental impact statement is to be prepared and then within
sixty days of the finalization of the EIF or the
environmental impact statement, the land transfer is undated to take place.
(17:01):
That's what the Act provides for. And so the EIS
was underway, was being prepared, preliminarily announced to be about
to be released back in twenty twenty one, and that
was when Apache Stronghold filed its lawsuits in the District
of Arizona. Apache Stronghold is a coalition of tribal members.
(17:25):
It's not the tribal government, but it's you know, some
of the folks who were really involved in so devoted
to the practice of their religious beliefs at Oak Flat,
and you know, really sincere adherence to those cultural practices
and beliefs from within the Apache tribe. And so there
are a couple of different claims that were raised in
(17:45):
that particular lawsuit, the riffra claim, the First Amendment claim,
as well as treaty claims and some of the other
issues with you know, NIPA and the APA. The District
court initially dismissed most of those claims, but what did
go forward was the difference First Amendment issues, and those
went up to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ruled
(18:07):
against Apache Stronghold and moved on to review on Bank
before an on bunk panel also ruled against Apache Stronghold
in a very very complicated opinion or a series of opinions,
about two hundred and forty pages, seven different written opinions
with sort of two different majorities holding in two different ways.
(18:31):
And then from there there was a petition for a
review through the full unbunk Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which was denied, after which point Apache Stronghold petition for
circerari to the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Will you explain why the Ninth Circuit found that the
transfer couldn't be considered a substantial burden on religious exercise.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
So the Ninth Circuit opinion, it's a tough one and
to parse out right, and so there are a couple
of different things that happen there. First, the court ruled
that there was no substantial burden right because there's not
coercion under some previous case laws. The Ninth Circuit has
a very narrow definition of substantial burden and of coercion.
(19:21):
So they have ruled that in the absence of withholding
of a benefit because of a religious practice or a
punative or punishment type of provision in a generally applicable
federal law that is triggered by what would otherwise be,
you know, a basic exercise of a religious practice, that
(19:43):
there's no coercion that results in no substantial burden.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
Will you tell us more about how Native American religious
practices require relationships with specific locations and natural features and
how that played into the arguments.
Speaker 4 (20:02):
And that's the second part of the Ninth Circuits on
bonk holding. So the first is applying this really narrow standard,
really restrictive standard for finding a substantial burden. And also
a different majority of the Ninth Circuit then held that
where there's a federal property management initiative, that cannot burden
(20:24):
religious freedom right, which is really wrong when you think
about it that, you know, under the Ninth Circuit ruling,
we're limited from ever bringing any kind of claim then
saying that a federal land management decision substantially burdens our
free exercise right because it's federal property. The federal government
has a right to do what it wants with its
(20:44):
own land. And that just doesn't seem right to me.
That we can't limit the federal government from violating the
First Amendment because the federal government is the landowner. So
the analysis under the Ninth Circuit approach is really that
we're looking at the relief thought to limit our ability
to ever find an injury to people's First Amendment rights.
(21:08):
So we can't find a burden because the relief that
we're seeking, which will limit what the federal government is
a landowner can do with its own property. You know,
it certainly presents a real challenge to any Native American
person whose religious beliefs depend on a relationship with a
specific land base, and many of ours do. Many of
us have religions and religious practices and beliefs that require
(21:31):
specific things to happen in specific places, often at specific times,
and that is our sincerely held religious belief and how
we practice it, so it renders Native American religious belief
virtually unprotectable in many in many instances under the way
that the case law has developed. And I just think
that can't be right. And I hope most Americans would
consider that situation and feel similarly that that simply cannot
(21:56):
be correct, and that cannot be consistent with our constitution
or what our founds intended.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
And tell us about the religious significance of Oak Flat
with regard to the three day coming of age ceremony
for Apache girls that tribe members say can't take place
anywhere else.
Speaker 4 (22:16):
From my understanding, and I'm not an Apache person, Oak
Flatt is the site where female members of the San
Carlos Apache tribe have their coming of age ceremonies. So
it's where a girl becomes a woman. And there's a
specific ceremony that takes place when a girl becomes a woman,
and it's a very intensive, multi date ceremony. It's incredibly
(22:39):
onerous physically, there's a lot of prayer, a whole community
comes together to help bring a girl into womanhood. It's
a necessity for a woman to go through that ceremony
to fully realize her identity as an attache woman. So
it's incredibly significant. It's one of the most important things
that happens in any woman's life in that culture.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
As we've discussed, there are several cases here, which is
the case that went to the Supreme Court and.
Speaker 4 (23:06):
The litigation that's been most developed and has gone the
furthest up that was brought by a coalition of tribal
members who organized as a nonprofit corporation as Apache Stronghold
and so you know, Pache Stronghold petition for Circherai to
the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court, upon completion
of the cert petition briefing, brought the case in for
(23:29):
conference I think something like sixteen times. So it went
up for review to consider whether it would be whether
it would be granted, many many times over the course
of last spring. Ultimately, on May twenty seventh, the Supreme
Court denied Sircherai. Unfortunately, however, soon after the denial of
(23:50):
cert Apache Strongholds, the attorneys filed a petition for basically
a reconsideration of the cert petition asking the Supreme Court
to grant Scerai remand the case back to the Ninth
Circuit and provide a clear direction to the Ninth Circuit
on how to review the legal arguments going forward in
(24:13):
a new Ninth Circuit review. Part of the reason for
that is because intervening President was decided after the denial
of Scherai.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
Coming up next. The Supreme Court denied cert but Justice
Neil Gorsuch said it was a grave mistake for the
Court not to hear the case. I'm June Grosso and
you're listening to Bloomberg. Indigenous and environmental groups have filed
multiple lawsuits against the government seeking to preserve Oak Flat,
(24:43):
a six point seven square mile site for Western Apache's
religious ceremonies that plaintiffs say can't take place anywhere else.
Years long court challenges have attempted to stop the federal
government's transfer of the land to a copper mining company,
but the legal paths for tribal groups to protect Oak
Flat on religious grounds have been narrowed by several decisions,
(25:07):
especially in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
I've been talking to Heather white Man runs him director
of the Tribal Justice Clinic at the University of Arizona.
Let's talk about Justice Gorsuch's Descent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas,
and he said it was a grave mistake for the
Court not to hear the case. Quote, just imagine if
(25:30):
the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so
questionable a chain of legal reasoning. I have no doubt
that we would find that case worth our time. Face
with the government's plan to destroy an ancient side of
tribal worship. We owe the apaches no less. And this
is a Supreme Court that has expanded religious rights. Is
(25:52):
there a difference with the way they treat tribal religion?
Speaker 4 (25:56):
I see a difference. A lot of people see a difference,
you know. Such is The Descent is a really great read.
I'd encourage anybody interested in these issues to read it.
And I think it recognizes that, like I was saying earlier,
the way that these cases are evaluated and the outcomes
that we keep seeing should be a concern to every American.
(26:17):
Every American citizen should worry about the viability of their
free exercise right. If the Court can condone the complete
annihilation of a place of worship that is absolutely central
to the perpetuation of that religion, they can limit anybody's
religious exercise right. So this is a threat to every
American religious liberty, and it is something that I think
(26:39):
we should all be concerned about and we should all
be advocating to our lawmakers, to our legal scholars that
you know, we need to work through these issues and
we need to find solutions that will bring us different results.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Ultimately, the Supreme Court had a decision in June where
it favored parents who want want their children to be
exempt from lessons involving books that mention sexuality and gender.
So how is that case playing in here?
Speaker 4 (27:10):
So a couple of things. The Apache strongholds petition for
reconsideration relies heavily on the intervening decision in Mahmood because
there are similar impacts of the government policy that's challenged there.
In Mahmood, we had the Supreme Court recognize very, very
(27:31):
vehemently that when we limit parents' abilities to bring up
their children, to raise their children in ways that are
consistent with their religious beliefs, we are violating their First
Amendment rights. That is a substantial burden, and it has
to go through the relevant analysis for when and how
such burdens are limited and when they're allowed to go forward.
(27:53):
That type of test has not been applied yet to
the challenged law to the Land Exchange Act in a
Patchie stronghold. What we've been through so far is the
preliminary injunction analysis, So we haven't had the full the
full review of an application of the relevant legal standards
for what's permissible when.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
And how So, what's happening right now? What stage are
you at.
Speaker 4 (28:18):
The Apache stronghold motions to reconsider and grant curtari and
remand the case back to night Circuit is not decided yet.
But we also have a new case that has been
filed by a group of Apache women, mothers and daughters
that really found it claims in similar issues and similar
analysis to what the Supreme Court decided in Mahmoud. The
(28:42):
Land Exchange app will burden through free exercise rights of
especially APACHE women right because it's limiting APACHE women from
having the ability to become women in ways that are
consistent with their religious beliefs. It's limiting APACHE mothers from
bringing their daughters into womanhood as required by their religious beliefs.
(29:05):
And so there's you know, a real consistency with the
impact in the burden on a religious freedom interest there
as what we saw the Supreme Court limit in Mahmoud.
So that's a new case that was brought. First, it
was filed in the District of BC, it was transferred
into the District of Arizona. The District of Arizona court
(29:26):
ruled on preliminary injunction motions from both the plaintiffs in
this new case, Lopez versus the United States. The judge
subsequently ruled against those three motions that were pending for
injunctive relief. Plaintiffs immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an
(29:49):
emergency injunction basically preventing the land transfer. The land transfer
was about to take place, put the cases on an
expedited briefing schedule, and so we're now in the middle
of that briefing to the Ninth Circuit or a argument
will probably take place early this fall and we'll see
how the Ninth Circuit resolves this issue going forward. So, yeah,
(30:10):
there's still a lot going on. There's still a lot
of activity surrounding various parties claims in relation to the
final disposition of Oak Flat. There are still cases pending
in the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court itself has
not rolled on the motions filed by Apache Stronghold. After
the certain denial.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
The tribal groups have not fared well at the Ninth Circuit.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
Sort of the bigger picture things that are going on
here in the American West, Right, we're in the Ninth Circuit.
As Justice Gorsich pointed out in his dissent, the Ninth
Circuit encompasses more Native American people, more Indigenous religious practitioners
than any other federal district. Right, and we have more
(30:54):
federal land in the Ninth Circuit than in any other
federal circuit. This means that we have a lot of
conflicts right in federal land management decisions, which you know,
are all landscapes that were indigenous not very long ago,
and where practitioners maintained relationships with places and events that
take place on the land. So these conflicts are frequent.
(31:18):
And the other thing that I think people aren't fully
cognizant of is the fact that you know, the party
with the most to gain here if the status quo
is perpetuated is Resolution Copper. Resolution Copper is not a
domestic company. This isn't a project that is going to
(31:38):
immediately enrich the United States of America or its citizens.
It's a foreign held mining company. It's what a British
and Australian corporation. The largest shareholder of Resolution Copper is Chinalco,
which is owned by the Chinese government. So when we
talk about these mining projects being so essential to national
security and the interests of energy security in the United States,
(32:04):
if you dig a little bit deeper, you see that
the things that we're compromising fundamental rights of Americans or
aren't really that compelling to the federal government's interests or
the interests of mainstream society in America. When it comes
down to it, we'll.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
See what happens at the Supreme Court the second time around.
Thanks Heather. That's Heather white Man runs him director of
the Tribal Justice Clinic at the University of Arizona. And
that's it for 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,
(32:40):
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 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!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.