The Excerpt podcast: Supreme Court fishing case could impact regulations significantly

On today's episode of The Excerpt podcast: Stakes are high in a SCOTUS fishing case. USA TODAY Reporter Maureen Groppe has the latest. Has the GOP presidential race stalled out before New Hampshire? A judge threatened to kick Donald Trump out of the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial. USA TODAY National Political Correspondent David Jackson looks at Trump's latest campaigning from court. 2023 was the deadliest year for killings by police in the U.S.

Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it.  This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Podcasts:  True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Taylor Wilson:

Good morning, I'm Taylor Wilson, and today is Thursday, January 18th, 2024. This is The Excerpt. Today, what a Supreme Court's decision on a fishing case could mean for government power, plus is the GOP race already over ahead of New Hampshire? And we look at how Donald Trump continues to campaign from court.

♦

We have lots of court news in today's show, starting with the Supreme Court, which heard arguments yesterday and a dispute over fishing. And as USA Today Reporter Maureen Groppe told me, the case could have broader implications. Maureen, thanks for hopping on The Excerpt today.

Maureen Groppe:

Happy to be here.

Taylor Wilson:

Maureen, what exactly is that issue in this case?

Maureen Groppe:

Well, the immediate issue is whether the federal government had the authority to charge fishing companies for the federal monitors who sometimes ride on their boats, to make sure that rules are being followed so that there's not overfishing. The law does allow the National Marine Fisheries service to require the boats to let the federal agents collect the data. That law doesn't say anything specifically about charging the fishing industry for their observers.

Now, the government has ended this program and they've reimbursed the fishing companies, so there's nothing really to fix in that sense, but the case is being used as a vehicle to try to convince the Supreme Court to overturn a landmark 1984 decision about regulations in general.

Taylor Wilson:

Yeah, let's get into that 1984 decision. How does that play in here?

Maureen Groppe:

That decision, which is commonly known as Chevron, it set the standard for how courts should decide if a federal agency has overstepped its authority. The Supreme Court said at the time that, "Judges must first decide if the law that the agency is applying is clear." If it's not clear, the justice has said, "Then the courts must defer to the agency's interpretation of that law as long as that's a reasonable interpretation."

And interestingly, the initial case involved a challenge to how the Reagan administration was applying the Clean Air rules, how they were going after polluters. Environmentalists didn't think they were going after them tough enough under the law. And in this decision that set the standard, the court said, "Well, the Reagan administration's interpretation is a reasonable one," and put this rubric in place. And interestingly, at the time, applauded that decision. But in recent years, they've been trying to undo it.

Taylor Wilson:

Yeah, so it's clear this case really does go beyond fishing. What are the broader implications here, Maureen?

Maureen Groppe:

Well, if the court does revisit this '84 decision, it could really limit the regulatory authority of the federal government and put more of these decisions about how exactly you write the rules if Congress says, "This is what the rules should be on the internet, this is what the rules should be for pharmaceuticals, for medicines, make sure that food is safe," and to try to apply those standards the way that the agencies do it, they'll have less maneuverability to do that. And more of those decisions will be in the hands of Congress to be very specific when they write the laws that they can, or it'll be in the hands of the courts to say, "Oh, no, we disagree with you, EPA, or you, FDA, on how you are applying this law." And that could go way beyond fisheries, of course. And as I implied, include rules governing the environment, work safety rules, things that affects consumers in many ways, just a broad range of areas.

Taylor Wilson:

Yeah, absolutely. So on that note, what are the outside interests or groups closely following this and where do they stand?

Maureen Groppe:

There's a lot of outside interest in this case, which could result in one of the biggest decisions of the court this year. It's being very closely followed. And so there are a number of groups on both sides weighing in on the side of those who want to change this 1984 decision. You've got a number of business groups, conservative think tanks, Republican members of Congress, and the Republican Attorneys General from 27 states. And then on the other side, you've got the Democratic Attorneys General from 21 states. You've got Democratic members of Congress, and you have environmental groups, and organizations that advocate for public health, for consumers and for civil rights.

Taylor Wilson:

All right, Maureen Groppe, great insight from the Supreme Court. Thanks so much.

Maureen Groppe:

Happy to be here. Thank you.

♦

Taylor Wilson:

New Hampshire voters were supposed to have two more Republican primary debates to watch this week, one tonight and one Sunday, before next Tuesday's primary. But ABC News and WMUR, who are set to host tonight's debate, canceled the event after Nikki Haley said she would not participate unless front-runner Donald Trump also hopped on stage. And that would've left Ron DeSantis alone.

And CNN has followed suit, canceling their Sunday event. The canceled debates and Trump's runaway win in Iowa earlier this week, have some wondering if the GOP race is already over, but New Hampshire could still be pivotal for Haley, who has closed the gap somewhat on Trump in polling there in recent weeks. It's still not clear whether DeSantis or Haley would end their campaigns after New Hampshire, but Haley might at least have her eyes set on her home state of South Carolina, which will hold its primary on February 24th. Stay up to date with all the latest political news ahead of New Hampshire and beyond with usatoday.com.

♦

A federal judge threatened to kick out Donald Trump from the courtroom yesterday after a lawyer for E. Jean Carroll said, "He repeatedly made comments with an earshot of the jury at his latest civil defamation trial." Carroll has claimed Trump sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room almost 30 years ago. The trial will determine what, if any, damages Trump might owe Carroll after he publicly denied her allegations in 2019 while he was President. Carroll told the jury yesterday that Trump's attacks after she first went public with her allegations led to an avalanche of abuse and threats. Trump called her allegations a disgrace, and at one point said, quote, "People should pay dearly for such false accusations," unquote. Carroll's attorney, Shawn Crowley, told the jury that it's Trump's turn to, quote, "Pay dearly for what he's done," unquote.

♦

With Trump back in court this week, it's a reminder of how he campaigns from the courthouse, as he makes another push for the White House while juggling a slew of legal issues. I caught up with USA Today national political correspondent, David Jackson, for the latest. Hi there, David. Thanks for helping on The Excerpt today.

David Jackson:

Hey, thanks for having me.

Taylor Wilson:

So David, Donald Trump kicked off primary season with an overwhelming win in Iowa. How is he spending his days between the Iowa caucuses and next week's New Hampshire primary?

David Jackson:

In a very unusual way. Usually, candidates that participate in Iowa go straight to New Hampshire and stay there full-time for a week. But what Trump's doing, is that he's alternating between appearing at a defamation trial in New York City and campaigning in New Hampshire.

Taylor Wilson:

And we've talked about this at various points leading up to 2024, but now that it's here, David, what does polling tell us about how all of Trump's legal headaches really do continue to help him with his base?

David Jackson:

Well, it's amazing that he's been able to convince most Republican voters that these lawsuits and indictments of him are all politically motivated, that they're just trying to get him politically. And so far, the evidence suggested a lot of people are buying that. Certainly the voters in Iowa believed that, and that's why they gave him such an overwhelming vote. So, I guess he feels like that it's been working for him so far, so he is going to continue to do it by attending this defamation trial from E. Jean Carroll.

Taylor Wilson:

How do his legal struggles hurt him though with moderate Republicans and also independent voters he might need, David, to win a general election? Also, how would a conviction play out with some of these voters?

David Jackson:

Well, that's the real question because it's pretty clear that the Republican voters don't mind all of Trump's legal troubles, but there's a severe question as to whether moderates or independent voters, what they think about them. Because most of the polls feel like they're very suspicious of Trump, they don't like the fact that he's been indicted, and they also suggest that if he's convicted, that they would look very much askance at that. So the feeling is that Trump might not have any trouble with Republicans on this score, but he's liable to have a lot of trouble with independents and moderates, and those are the ones he's going to need to win a general election.

Taylor Wilson:

So, Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley are Trump's remaining viable rivals in the Republican field. How are they approaching Trump legal troubles at this point? What's their strategy here?

David Jackson:

Well, they're one of the reasons that Trump is profiting from his legal troubles because they really won't say much about it. Both Haley and DeSantis basically agree with Trump. They believe that his indictments have been unfair, and they've said very little about the prospect that there could be a convicted felon be nominated for president. So, in a way, I think that's helped Trump because these two leading challengers haven't made much of an issue about that. There was one Republican candidate, Chris Christie, who did make a big deal about Trump's legal issues and said they rendered him unfit for office, but he didn't get any traction in the election at all and he dropped out. So, Trump's efforts have been very much aided by his opponents on this deal.

Taylor Wilson:

David, you mentioned the E. Jean Carroll civil trial. What's next for Trump? We know he has tons going on in the legal calendar. What's next for him in this strategy of campaigning from the courthouse?

David Jackson:

The E. Jean Carroll trial is accusations of defamation and sexual abuse, and he's basically already been held liable for those, so this trial here is just to determine damages. So, the next big thing will be the jury's decision on how much Trump would have to pay E. Jean Carroll, so that'll be the next big legal thing. And also, there's a bank fraud trial in New York, and the judge in that is going to render a judgment against Trump and decide how much damages he should pay for that. So the next two big events will both be civil cases. His criminal situation's very much up in the air. Special Counsel, Jack Smith, wants to try him for an election theft case in March, but that schedule is very much up in the air because there've been a number of pre-trial legal appeals that are winding their way through the courts. So we really don't know when Trump might go to trial on any of his criminal cases.

Taylor Wilson:

All right. David Jackson, thanks so much.

David Jackson:

Thank you.

♦

Taylor Wilson:

The US set another grim record last year, 2023 was the deadliest year for killings by police. Police killed more than 1,300 people last year. That included high profile cases like the fatal beating of Tyre Nichols in Memphis, and the killing of environmental activist Manuel Paez Teran, who was protesting the construction of a police and fire training center near Atlanta. Data is from a new report out yesterday from Mapping Police Violence, which began tracking such data in 2013.

Meanwhile, last year, the number of people killed by gunfire and of officers killed in the line of duty declined, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive. There was an increase in the number of officers shot. Researchers in general say better data is needed. According to a study in The Lancet in 2021, for instance, more than half of US police killings are not reported in official government data. You can read more with a link in today's show notes.

♦

Be sure to stay tuned to The Excerpt later today when my colleague Dana Taylor looks at fast fashion, its place in the world and some of its controversies. You can find the episode right here on this feed at 4:00 PM Eastern Time.

Thanks for listening to The Excerpt. You can get the podcast wherever you get your pods. And if you use a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. I'm Taylor Wilson, back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA Today.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: The Excerpt podcast: Stakes are high in Supreme Court fishing case