>> Laura: ERIK, WELCOME.

THANKS FOR BEING HERE AGAIN.

>> Goodrich: MY PLEASURE.

>> Laura: SO IN JUNE, THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE.

FIRST, TO START, WHAT WAS THAT?

>> Goodrich: THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE IS A 40-YEAR-OLD PRECEDENT THAT NO LONGER EXISTS.

CHEVRON REALLY DOESN'T REFER TO THE OIL AND GAS COMPANY, IT REFERS TO A JUDICIAL DOCTRINE.

THAT JUDICIAL DOCTRINE STANDS FOR A BASIC PROPOSITION.

THAT WHEN CONGRESS PASSES A LAW AND COURTS ARE INTERPRETING THAT LAW, THEY WILL DEFER TO AN AGENCY INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THAT LAW, IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF AMBIGUITY, OR IF THE LAW IS STRUCTURED IN A WAY TO ADDRESS COMPLEXITY IN THE WORLD.

FOR EXAMPLE, CLIMATE CHANGE, OR AIR QUALITY REGULATION, OR WORKER SAFETY, PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION.

IT'S BASICALLY THE IDEA THAT COURTS ARE NOT WELL-SITUATED TO WORK THROUGH VERY COMPLEX TECHNICAL ISSUES, SO WE SHOULD RELY ON ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES WHO HAVE SCIENTISTS AND ECONOMISTS AND OTHER TECHNICAL EXPERTS AND LAWYERS AND REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR MISSION IS IN THE WORLD, SO THEY CAN MEET THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

AND WITH THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE, THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE IS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE BECAUSE OF A RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION, LOPER BRIGHT AND RELENTLESS, ACTUALLY TWO CASES THAT WERE CONSOLIDATED.

AND WHAT THE COURT DID IS IT OVERTURNED THAT 40 YEARS OF PRECEDENT AND IT BASICALLY SAID COURTS WILL INTERPRET THE LAW.

>> Laura: SO, HOW DOES THAT PLAY OUT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, AND MAYBE SPECIFICALLY HERE IN NEW MEXICO?

>> Goodrich: AT ONE LEVEL, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT LOPER BRIGHT AND RELENTLESS, THESE TWO DECISIONS, IT KIND OF MAKES SENSE THAT COURTS DO INTERPRET THE LAW.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT COMPLEXITY THAT COMES WITH ISSUES, IN PARTICULAR, MY ARENA OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

AND WHAT CHEVRON WAS -- THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE WAS SAYING WELL, WE INTERPRET THE LAW BUT WE UNDERSTAND THERE ARE THESE COMPLEXITIES IN THE WORLD.

THEREFORE, WE'RE GOING TO DEFER TO THE AGENCIES.

THE COURTS WERE EXERCISING THAT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY.

THE CHALLENGE NOW IS THAT COURTS ARE USURPING THAT AUTHORITY AND AGGREGATING POWER TO THEMSELVES TO DECIDE HOW LAWS SHOULD BE APPLIED.

WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE BEDROCK ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS THAT OUR COUNTRY RELIES ON THAT ARE VERY RELEVANT TO NEW MEXICO, YOU THINK ABOUT THE CLEAN WATER ACT IN PARTICULAR, THE CLEAN AIR ACT, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.

THESE LAWS WERE PASSED IN THE 1970s WITH THE RECOGNITION THAT WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW.

WE DO KNOW THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD AND WE HAVE TO DO A BETTER JOB BALANCING ECONOMIC INTERESTS WITH PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS.

SO, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THE AGENCIES LOTS OF AUTHORITY.

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID IS WE DON'T REALLY LIKE THAT.

IT'S THE IMPOSITION OF IDEOLOGY AND USURPING POWER NOT JUST FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH BUT FROM CONGRESS BECAUSE THEY'RE BASICALLY SAYING ALL THOSE CAPACIOUS LAWS, THE EXPANSIVE, BIG VISIONARY LAWS, WE DON'T REALLY LIKE THEM.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HEM IN ON THAT AUTHORITY AND WE'RE GOING TO IMPOSE OUR SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT ABOUT WHAT THESE LAWS MEANS AND WHAT THEIR IMPLICATIONS ARE TO THE WORLD AROUND US.

WHAT ARE THE VALUES OF THE RIGHT-WING SUPREME COURT?

IT'S THE ELEVATION OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS OVER THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

AND THAT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL THING TO UNDERSTAND HERE.

THERE'S A LOT OF LEGAL NUANCE.

THERE'S A LOT OF LEGAL SUBTEXT.

ULTIMATELY, LOPER BRIGHT, RELENTLESS, THE SUPREME COURT'S ACTION IT'S A FUNCTION OF POWER.

NOT SO MUCH OF LEGAL ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION FROM, SAY, AN OBJECTIVE LAWYERLY PERSPECTIVE.

>> Laura: RIGHT.

SO, OKAY.

OKAY, SO IT'S AS BAD AS I THOUGHT.

>> Goodrich: IT'S VERY BAD.

WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE LEGAL REASONING, THERE'S ARGUMENTS THAT SAY, WELL, WHAT THE COURT IS DOING HERE IS THEY'RE JUST MAKING SURE THAT, HEY, WE'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE THE EXPERTISE ON UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE WORDS IN A PARTICULAR LAW MEANS.

THE CHALLENGE IS YOU HAVE FACTS.

AND COURTS ARE NOT WELL-SITUATED TO RESOLVE THOSE FACTS.

AGENCIES ARE.

YOU TAKE A SITUATION LIKE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION.

HOW DO YOU PROTECT WATER QUALITY?

HOW DO YOU PROTECT EPHEMERAL STREAMS?

HOW DO YOU PROTECT PLAYA LAKES?

HOW DO YOU ENSURE THAT POLLUTION DOESN'T HARM FISH?

HOW DO YOU ENSURE THAT IT DOESN'T HARM PEOPLE WHO SWIM IN THE WATER?

COURTS AREN'T WELL-SITUATED TO DEAL WITH THAT.

SO, NOW WHAT YOU HAVE IS COURTS VERY FRANKLY, I THINK, SAYING THAT, WELL NO THIS IS OUR POWER, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT EXERCISE OF POWER, AGAIN IT IS ELEVATING THOSE ECONOMIC INTERESTS.

I THINK WHAT HAPPENS ULTIMATELY IS THIS COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

THAT WILL CAUSE GRAVE HARM TO NEW MEXICO ACROSS ALL ARENAS FROM PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO CLIMATE ACTION, WORKER SAFETY.

>> Laura: YEAH, SPEAKING OF POWER, WE'VE GOT A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COMING UP.

YOU AND I ARE TALKING ON WEDNESDAY, THIS WILL AIR ON FRIDAY.

WHO KNOWS?

THE WAY THINGS ARE MOVING SO FAST.

WHAT'S AT STAKE IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WHEN IT COMES TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE ACTION, IN PARTICULAR?

>> Goodrich: AN IMMENSE AMOUNT.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT CLIMATE ACTION SPECIFICALLY, DURING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION THE CONGRESS PASSED THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT WHICH IS THE LARGEST CLIMATE INVESTMENT BY A COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION WILL HAVE CONSIDERABLE AUTHORITY ON WHAT ARE THE CONTOURS OF HOW THAT IS IMPLEMENTED.

HOW EFFECTIVE IT WILL BE.

IT'S VERY CLEAR TO ME THAT KAMALA HARRIS IS VERY MUCH PRO CLIMATE ACTION, AND DONALD TRUMP IS VERY MUCH ANTI CLIMATE ACTION.

SO THAT EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY ALLOWS THEM TO EITHER SUBVERT THE LAW OR TO AMPLIFY THE LAW THROUGH THEIR EXECUTIVE POWER.

NOW, WITH THE SUPREME COURT IN PLACE, THAT'S SOMETHING CRITICAL TO KEEP IN MIND.

BECAUSE IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL CHOOSE JUSTICES TO THE SUPREME COURT.

THEY'RE ELDERLY PEOPLE.

SO SOMETIMES THEY GET ILL, SOMETIMES THEY DECIDE TO STEP ASIDE.

WITH THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION, THAT NEXT PRESIDENT WILL LIKELY CHOOSE NEW SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.

SO, THE COURT'S STRUCTURE AND POWER AND HOW THEY THINK ABOUT THE WORLD, THAT IS ALSO VERY MUCH ON THE AGENDA.

AND SOMETHING THAT I HOPE VOTERS REALLY THINK ABOUT VERY, VERY CAREFULLY.

AND STEPPING BACK TO THE LOPER BRIGHT DECISION AND THE OVERTURNING OF CHEVRON, I THINK THAT WHAT I'VE SEEN AS A LEGAL PRACTITIONER, AS SOMEBODY WHO'S LITIGATED FOR A QUARTER-CENTURY, I APPROACH THIS WITH THE VALUES OF WE NEED TO ELEVATE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, NOT PURELY ECONOMIC INTERESTS.

OF COURSE ECONOMICS ARE PART OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

BUT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE THE JUSTICES ON THE SUPREME COURT, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE CONSERVATIVE, I THINK THEY'RE RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGUES.

THE MAJORITY THAT'S ON THE COURT.

PARTICULARLY, WHEN YOU THINK OF FOLKS LIKE JUSTICE THOMAS, AND JUSTICE ALITO.

JUSTICE THOMAS IN PARTICULAR, AS PROPUBLICA HAS VERY WELL DOCUMENTED, IS ETHICALLY COMPROMISED.

HANGS OUT WITH BILLIONAIRES LIKE HARLAN CROW, KOCH BROTHERS, LEONARD LEO OF THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY.

THESE ARE FOLKS THAT ARE ACTIVELY TRYING TO ENGINEER SOCIETY THROUGH THEIR VISION AND THROUGH THEIR VALUES.

AND THAT'S VERY MUCH A RIGHT-WING VISION, IT'S NOT A CONSERVATIVE VISION IN MY OPINION.

>> Laura: YEAH, SPEAKING OF THAT RIGHT-WING VISION, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION HAS RELEASED IN THE PAST THIS PROJECT 2025 WHICH IS A MANDATE FOR CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP.

IT'S LIKE SIX OR NINE HUNDRED PAGES LONG.

>> Goodrich: NINE HUNDRED PAGES.

>> Laura: NINE HUNDRED PAGES LONG.

THERE IS A LOT FOR ALARM WITHIN THAT DOCUMENT.

ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR ON THE ENVIRONMENT THAT JUMPS OUT AT YOU IN TERMS OF A VISION FOR THE FUTURE?

>> Goodrich: JUST AS BROAD CONTEXT, THIS IS SORT OF A FANTASY FOR RIGHT-WING THINKERS, LEGAL SHOPS, LIKE THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION TO REMAKE SOCIETY AND TO REMAKE GOVERNMENT, IN PARTICULAR.

REALLOCATING HOW POWER ACTUALLY WORKS IN OUR COUNTRY.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

WITH THE ENVIRONMENT, WHAT I WOULD HIGHLIGHT IS PUBLIC LANDS.

WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO IS ESSENTIALLY OPEN UP PUBLIC LANDS TO EXTRACTIVE INTERESTS.

A LOT OF PUBLIC LANDS ARE ALREADY OPENED TO EXTRACTIVE INTERESTS.

IT'S VERY MUCH OUT OF BALANCE.

THERE'S A LOT OF RECKLESS, IRRESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ALREADY OCCURRING.

THEY WOULD AMPLIFY THAT RECKLESS DEVELOPMENT.

THEY WOULD BASICALLY TAKE PUBLIC LANDS, WHICH OSTENSIBLY ARE STEWARDED FOR THE BENEFIT FOR ALL OF US, FOR YOU, FOR ME, FOR ALL OF OUR LISTENERS TODAY, AND THEY WOULD SAY NO, WE'RE GOING TO ELEVATE THE POWER OF EXTRACTIVE COMPANIES, HARD ROCK MINING COMPANIES, OIL AND GAS COMPANIES.

FOLKS WHO ARE EXTRACTING VALUE FROM PUBLIC LANDS, RATHER THAN STEWARDING AND CONSERVING PUBLIC LANDS.

I THINK THAT IS A VERY DANGEROUS THING.

I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE POLLING, WESTERNERS ARE VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF PROTECTING PUBLIC LANDS.

WHY?

BECAUSE THEY'RE ONE OF THE REASONS WE LIVE HERE.

WE LOVE OUR PUBLIC LANDS.

I LIVE IN NORTHERN NEW MEXICO, A PLACE THAT I LOVE AND ADORE.

YOU THINK OF THE RIO GRANDE DEL NORTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, OR THE VALLE VIDAL.

THOSE ARE PLACES THAT PROJECT 2025 WOULD TRY TO PUT ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK.

WHETHER THEY SUCCEED OR NOT IS CONTINGENT ON WHAT VOTERS CHOOSE IN NOVEMBER.

>> Laura: YEAH.

PROJECT 2025, ANYBODY CAN READ THAT ONLINE.

IT'S LIKE THIS BIG, SWEEPING, DETAILED DOCUMENT.

I'M CURIOUS THOUGH, WHAT ABOUT THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HAPPEN BEHIND CLOSED DOORS THAT WE'RE NOT HEARING ABOUT?

DO YOU THINK ALL THE STRATEGIES ARE OUT THERE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AND DEREGULATION?

OR ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THAT MAYBE DON'T MAKE THE HEADLINES OR THE INTERNET?

>> Goodrich: THERE'S A LOT OF ACTIVE WORK BEHIND THE SCENES BASICALLY AMONG ANYBODY WHO IS ENGAGED IN POLITICS OR ANYBODY WHO'S IN ENGAGED IN ADVOCACY RIGHT NOW.

WE LIVE IN THIS WORLD RIGHT NOW WHERE 2025 THERE ARE TWO PATHWAYS.

THERE IS ONE WHERE KAMALA HARRIS IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND ONE WHERE DONALD TRUMP IS.

AND EVERYBODY IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS DEPENDING UPON THAT CHOICE THAT VOTERS MAKE.

WHAT I WOULD SAY RELATIVE TO RIGHT-WING INTERESTS IS THAT IN THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION I DON'T THINK THERE WAS AN EXPECTATION THAT TRUMP WOULD WIN.

SO, THEY WERE CAUGHT VERY FLAT-FOOTED WHEN SUDDENLY THEY REALIZED OH, WE'VE WON WHAT DO WE DO NOW.

THAT IS NOT THE SITUATION WITH THIS NOVEMBER.

THE PROJECT 2025 VERY MUCH IS THE BLUEPRINT FOR WHAT A NEXT REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION WOULD DO.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TRIED TO DISASSOCIATE HIMSELF FROM PROJECT 2025, HERITAGE FOUNDATION ISN'T PART OF THE CAMPAIGN, BUT THEN AT THE SAME TIME THAT DOCUMENT WAS WRITTEN BY VARIOUS FOLKS WHO WILL LIKELY POPULATE A TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

SO, I THINK IT'S VERY FAIR TO SAY THAT PROJECT 2025 IS THAT RIGHT-WING BLUEPRINT.

IT IS VERY WELL-DEVELOPED AND THEY WILL RUN WITH IT FROM DAY ONE.

>> Laura: YEAH.

I, LIKE YOU, HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THESE ISSUE FOR A LONG TIME.

I HAVE FRIENDS WHO HELP ME FIND HOPE AND GIVING ME BOOKS LIKE THIS.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE READ THIS.

ALL THAT WE CAN SAVE.

BUT I WAS READING IT AND THERE'S A CHAPTER CALLED LITIGATING IN A TIME OF CRISIS THAT ACTUALLY MADE ME THINK OF YOU.

AND ABIGAIL DILLEN STARTS HER ESSAY, WATCHING CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRESS IS LIKE LIVING IN A DREAM WHERE RUNNING IS REQUIRED BUT THE REFLEXES ARE GONE.

EVEN AS LIFE GOES ON IN FAMILIAR WAYS, THE FAMILIAR HAS BECOME UNRELIABLE.

I'M WONDERING IF THAT RESONATES WITH YOU AT ALL?

>> Goodrich: IT DOES.

ABBY IS A FRIEND OF MINE.

I KNOW HER WELL.

SHE'S THE PRESIDENT OF EARTH JUSTICE.

WE'VE TALKED FREQUENTLY.

IT DOES.

IN A WEIRD WAY, I FEEL A LOT OF POSITIVITY IN THIS MOMENT.

I FEEL VERY ENERGIZED.

THERE'S A DYNAMIC OF HAVING THE PRIVILEGE AND THE HONOR OF LIVING THIS MOMENT IN THE WORLD AND HAVING A SENSE OF AGENCY THAT I CAN CHANGE THE COURSE OF HISTORY.

YOU KNOW, THE TEAM THAT I WORK WITH AT THE WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, WE'VE HAD IMMENSE DEMONSTRATED SUCCESS.

I THINK IN TERMS OF POSITIVITY, IN TERMS OF HOPE, THE LITIGATION THAT WE DID IN MONTANA ON BEHALF OF MONTANA YOUTH IN THE HELD V. MONTANA TRIAL, WHERE WE ESTABLISHED IN MONTANA A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A CLEAN AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT.

THAT'S FANTASTIC.

AND THAT'S KIDS RISING TO THE OCCASION AND RISING INTO LEADERSHIP LEVELS TO CHANGE THE COURSE OF HISTORY.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO THINK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF AGENCY THEY HAVE AS INDIVIDUALS.

HOW THEY SHOW UP IN THE WORLD, AND TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COURSE OF HISTORY.

WE ALL HAVE AGENCY IN THAT SITUATION.

WHETHER IT'S SIMPLY GOING TO THE VOTING BOOTH, WHETHER IT'S DOING WHAT I DO PROFESSIONALLY, WHERE I HAVE THIS PRIVILEGE OF LEADING A PUBLIC INTEREST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION.

WHETHER YOU'RE A REPORTER WHO CAN LOOK INTO AND DIG DEEP INTO THESE ISSUES AND UNDERSTANDS HOW IT IMPACTS PEOPLE.

I ALMOST THINK -- BILL MCKIBBEN , I THINK, HAD A FAMOUS LINE.

I'M PARAPHRASING IT SLIGHTLY, I DON'T HAVE TIME TO BE DISCOURAGED OR WORRY ABOUT HOPE, THERE'S SIMPLY TOO MUCH TO DO.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO DO.

IS TO LEAN INTO WHAT THEY CAN DO AND TO FOSTER A SENSE OF BELONGING AMONG PEOPLE SO THAT WE HAVE A SHARED SENSE OF IDENTITY, THAT WE HAVE A SHARED SENSE OF THE TRAJECTORY OF HOW WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT OUR COMMUNITIES, HOW WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT OUR RELATIONSHIP TO EACH OTHER, TO OUR GOVERNMENT, AND TO THE WORLD AROUND US.

I FIND A LOT OF HOPE IN THINKING ABOUT THAT AGENCY AND HOW WE FOSTER A SENSE OF BELONGING WITH EACH OTHER.

>> Laura: YEAH.

>> Goodrich: WE REFER IT TO IT INTERNALLY AT MY ORGANIZATION AS AN ECOLOGY OF KINSHIP.

SO, THINKING ABOUT HOW WE ADVANCE STRATEGIES THAT -- WE DO A LOT OF VERY WONKY TECHNICAL AND POLICY WORK, WE DO LITIGATION ON BEHALF OF NEARLY 200 ORGANIZATIONS.

ULTIMATELY, WHAT WE THINK ABOUT IS HOW DO WE FOSTER AN ECOLOGY KINSHIP WHICH IS GOOD, RIGHT, HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS WITH EACH OTHER AND THE WORLD AROUND US.

>> Laura: I LOVE IT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING IN TODAY.

I APPRECIATE IT.

>> Goodrich: MY PLEASURE.

I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY.