Supreme Court’s New Term: Wildfires & ‘Zombie Forests’

Welcome to the greatest show on FX is a HS 13. What do you sense? Harder of our deal. The star-studded cast returns. Something wicked this way comes. You all got to unite! I'll drink to that. If you're gonna rise up and rule the world, you better get yourself a damn sense of humor. FX is a HS 13. No streaming on Hulu. It's Tuesday, October 6, and the Supreme Court is off to a fiery beginning. We start here. The nation's top court launches its term with a case about climate change. Our forests are changing, probably more rapidly than they'll be likely to keep up with. Wildfires and zombie forests are leading to multi-billion dollar questions. They hope they were one step ahead of their accuser. They didn't know she was recording them. It's possible that both of us remember this and it's time for them. We'll walk through the conversations among Cornell frat brothers. And don't look now, but we're four weeks out. This doesn't look like a blue wave. It looks like a red undertow. What the polls tell us about Democrat and Republican chances in the midterms. From ABC News, this is Start Here. I'm Brad Milky. October is probably my favorite month. The leaves are changing color, the air is turning crisp. My favorite baseball team is inevitably nowhere near the playoffs. There are other reasons to love October 2, like if you're obsessed with the US Supreme Court. This is the time of year when they start hearing cases. Most decisions will be revealed next year, but these arguments right now, these are where you start getting a sense of how the justices could rule. And yesterday, we started off with a barn burner. Let's check in with ABC Senior Washington reporter Devon Dwyer, speaking of obsessed with the court. Listening to arguments as always. Devon, first off, before we even talk about the specific case, what can we expect to see from the court this term? What do you have your eye on? The big question, Brad, is this Supreme Court term going to be more of the same from both last term and over the summer? It's like the never ending Supreme Court season now that you just actually go away. But as you know, they were very busy over the summer on the emergency and election cases, but so much of their caseload this fall and into next year is dominated by Donald Trump. And then there's the retirement watch, Brad. I mean, last spring, we were all wondering whether just a Samuel Alito who has been very sympathetic to President Trump. And of course, has been rumored to be unhappy on the job. He's got his claim to fame, overturning Roe versus Wade. Would he step down? Obviously, has decided to stay another term. And over the weekend, Brad Alito himself sort of lent credence to all this speculation when he told CBS in an interview that he is actively considering retirement. Something I think that somebody at my age has to think about every term. But I thought that I could still make a valuable contribution. He didn't suggest when he'll leave, but certainly said he's thinking about it. Is this going to be the last time we see these nine in action altogether? Well, and then when it comes to this term, I remember asking you about cases you were interested in months ago. One of the ones you said first was the first one that was coming up in the term. This is Suncor versus Boulder. It's case about climate change. What stood out to me as you said, Brad, this is about zombie forests. What is what is happening here? It has zombie forests, this phenomenon and impact of climate change. We don't talk a lot about, but forests that are not matched to the climate. They're dying in some cases or really struggling one of the aspects that was at the center of the case yesterday, Brad. This is, you know, was brought by the city of Boulder and Boulder County, which are faced with what they say monumental costs from global warming. They're facing not just the wildfires and the buckling streets and the drought and the occasional flood. And those wildfires have led to more power outages in our community. They've led to a high degree of smoke when there are fires, which is damaging to our small businesses with business interruptions. They say they're faced with some really significant impacts on the budget that you might not think of. I talked with John Tayer, the CEO of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, who told us in his review of the city budget, they've had to add millions of dollars on infrastructure improvements because of the risks of a changing climate. Just everything from rising heat, which leads to greater air conditioning costs can slow down outdoor work. And then there's this thing called the mountain pine beetle, Brad. And that is where the zombie forests come in. Right now, Colorado, the foothills just outside Boulder are facing a potentially monumental outbreak of these tiny insects the size of a grain of rice and it takes just a few of them to burrow into the bark of a tree and kill it. These are iconic ponderosa pine, many of them hundreds of hundreds of years old. And this outbreak is risking the consumption of more than a million acres of pine trees simply because the warmer temperatures are driving these bugs to proliferate and they're not dying off in the winter. Should I look at the creepy crawlies? Have you seen these? Yeah, we went out there to see these things firsthand. Here are some dead trees. Dead trees, yep. These are dead ponderosa. I couldn't put my mind around a few insects, the size of a grain of rice, killing a hundred-year-old tree, but we saw it. That is tiny. That's crazy. Yep. And it was spreading and this is an outbreak that cannot be stopped by humans. There's probably likely trees down here that are still have a green crown that we can't even tell have been attacked. I talked to forest ecologists Sarah Hart who said, you know, this is something that will run its course. These insects are native to the forest, but warmer temperatures are propelling the spread of these dead trees. I think our forests are changing probably more rapidly than they'll be likely to keep up with over my lifetime. So that's scary to me. Which in turn is really raising the risk for some destructive and intense fires. Oh, so it goes beyond then even just like we're losing our trees, then it starts becoming these states and these cities being like, and now we're losing property in homes because the trees are basically what turning into firewood. Turning into firewood, running the risk of falling on firefighters, if an area burns, falling on homes. The state officials told me they're spending $10,000 per acre to thin the forest, cut down the trees that have been killed by these beetles. You can mention the tab for this outbreak is just beginning to tick up and that is why this case in part was being brought against these oil companies. The city and county of Boulder simply want them to chip in. Yeah, so what happened then in arguments yesterday and how do these companies respond to it? Well, the companies say this whole concept that they can be held liable for damages from a warming climate are preposterous. But under Boulder's theory, Boulder could tag me with personal jurisdiction when I am in Colorado in two weeks and sue me on a nuisance claim for refilling my car and thereby contributing to global climate change. They say global warming is a phenomenon that stretches boundaries. It's impossible to pin certain things on them and they are challenging them. They are asking the court to throw this case out. They also say, you know, only one entity can regulate emissions and that is the EPA. And they are backed by almost half the states, 26 states, including West Virginia have filed an amicus brief in this case, citing with the energy companies. I spoke with Michael Williams. He represents the state of West Virginia as the solicitor general. He says that these types of lawsuits are dangerous not only to the industry, but to the constitutional structure of the country. Our perspective, it's a national really an international issue and something the Supreme Court's already said before. And so we think national issues should be decided at the national stage and that means commerce. But the court yesterday was really divided over this. First of all, it was an eight justice court, just a Samuel Alito recused at the outset of the case without explanation those believed to be because he owned stock in energy companies, though not ExxonMobil or SunCore, which are the parties here. And there was no clear consensus about how they will handle this on the one hand somebody like Justice Brick Havanaugh seemed to suggest that precedent is pretty clear cut that only the feds can regulate matters of climate change, air, water, and that, you know, this lawsuit in Colorado simply has to be shut down. On the other hand, he's had justices like Elena Kagan, likening this suit to the tobacco lawsuits of the 90s and the opioid lawsuits in communities that were affected by widespread use of those products and alleged harms from those products. It was a really difficult debate to follow, but at the end of the day, this is simply about whether or not cases like these and there are about 60 of them around the country, whether they can go forward, whether they can go to trial. Proving liability is a whole different question. We haven't even gotten to that yet, but the question for the court to answer is, you know, can these oil companies be sued for damages because of how they contribute to climate change? It's a big question. We'll see if the justice is answered. Yeah, I was gonna say, I mean, we've had cases about, like you said, the tobacco industry, the gun industry, concorporations be held responsible for the effects of the climate change takes an even larger step and yet could be even that much more costly and devastating to the country and the world. So you want an answer. are quickly, I imagine. All right, Devon Dwyer covering the court. Thank you so much. Thanks Brad. Next up on Start here is they tried to contain the fallout. She was recording phone conversations with her alleged abusers, new details emerging from Cornell after the break. On October 19th, 2025, the Louvre became the backdrop of something straight out of a heist movie. Now, nearly a year out, there are still critical questions to be answered. We're used to following heist in movies from the perspectives of the ever so glamorous and dangerous perpetrators. But when it happens in real life, the lines between good and bad guys aren't so clear. And even less clear is the fate of those French crown jewels. In this series, I'll take you inside the events of that day, like you've never heard them before, through the eyes of the people who lived them. I'll follow the investigation into how this could have happened who could have been behind it. And then, I'll join the international hunt for the Louvre jewels. Heist at the Louvre, a new series from ABC Audio. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or your favorite podcast app, or subscribe to 2020 True Crime Plus on Apple podcasts to listen ad free. This message is brought to you by Avocado Mattress. When you're shopping for mattresses, you can spend hours reading reviews and scrolling through photos. But the only way to truly know if a mattress is right for you is to feel it for yourself. That's why Avocado invites you to come my down. Every Avocado mattress is got certified organic, assembled in our California facility with organic cotton wool and latex. No polyurethane foams, no fiberglass, certified by Made Safe and EWG verified. It's a difference you can feel, so curl up. Try any of our Avocado mattresses in person at an Avocado mattress store or 600 premiere retail locations nationwide. Find out which of our five comfort levels is right for you because buying a mattress shouldn't be a guessing game. And there's no one size fits all when it comes to better sleep. Find your comfort. Come lie down at Avocado. Visit AvocadoGreenMatress.com to find a store near you. If you're trying to piece together what happened at Cornell University in the fall of 2024 at the Chi-5 fraternity house, you're going to want to hear from everyone involved, right? But that's difficult considering the alleged victim, goes by Jane Doe, considering the seven men accused of sexually assaulting her, have all denied the accusations and considering only some of the evidence is even public here. But in recent days, ABC News has been able to review more and more of the words from the students themselves in the days directly following the night in question. Their university records, there are screenshots of text messages, and now ABC News has obtained audio recordings of a phone call between one of those frat brothers and Jane Doe herself. ABC's Peter Harlambos has been covering the story for us. Peter, text messages are one thing, it sounds like we're hearing the voices of the people now with differing stories talking to one another. That's right, Brad. There is an extensive paper trail in a way when it comes to the communications in the three-week period between the date of this alleged incident and on November 8th when she actually reported this to police. At first, the documents we reviewed were largely text messages, where she's staying in touch with some of the men who were allegedly involved in this incident, going back and forth, and at times showing conflicting feelings about what happened that evening, expressing concerns about her physical health, her reputation on campus. Though over time those messages appear to change, the mood eventually becomes more frustrated, she accuses one of them of lying. And in the two days before she actually reported this to the Cornell University Police Department, she called three of the men who allegedly assaulted her and asked them in some ways to recount the evening in their own words. She secretly recorded these phone calls and basically asked them to help her better understand what happened that evening. The lengthiest of these calls was with Matthew Ingalls. That's the brother who actually invited her to the fraternity that evening. One of the men she later accused of this alleged gang rape. And in this phone call, you can hear both sides, both Jane Doe and Ingalls, for our purposes, given the fact that Jane Doe has pushed a proceed with her lawsuit anonymously. We've omitted her voice from these recordings, so you're only going to hear Ingalls. And for what it's worth, we've tried to get in touch with Ingalls. We have not heard back from him or a lawyer representing him. Though internal Cornell documents reviewed by ABC News suggests he denies these allegations and that he argues that he was more intoxicated that evening, that he could not consent, and he suggested in an email that he was actually the victim here, that he was sexually assaulted. So in the absence of a formal response, that's worth flagging his context. So in this phone call, you can hear Jane Doe pushing specifically for more of a description of how intoxicated they were that evening, and what transpired? How do they get from the first floor to the bedroom? So you come in, say hi, we start dancing for maybe three to five minutes, and then I pop the question. How did so many men end up in that bedroom as well? And you hear a times pushing back on what Ingalls said was his account of the evening. At one point, Ingalls said that he thought she was sober. You did tell me you were sober by the way. You did, you said you hadn't been anywhere. She pushes back. She says that's 100% not true that she explicitly said that evening that she had come from a sorority mixer before coming to the frat house and was intoxicated. At another point, you can hear him basically cast down on her recollection of the evening. I have racked my brain for this industry, but you know, it's possible, but both of us like remember this and it's not true. She also pushes back on that suggesting that this is in some ways attempt to gaslight her memory of what happened that evening. At one point, Jane Doe explicitly asked Ingalls, what led to all these people showing up in the bedroom that evening? The party was sort of like crowded, so people started feeling at the balcony because there was nowhere else to go. And omits any kind of mention of this Snapchat group in which you can see in multiple messages. He's seemingly inviting other members of the fraternity to come up to the bedroom to join in at two specific time. Wait, he's the guy who sent that initial message saying, come on over. He's the guy who at two points in this Snapchat message writes to this entire group, which has nearly 60 members in it, that they should come up to this room and quote, whip it out. There is even a moment as well where he sends what appears to be a photo of him and Jane Doe in the bedroom that he sends to this entire fraternity group chat. When he's trying to explain, why did so many people end up in the bedroom? He phrases it more in terms of it was late. It was crowded. People are on the balcony. They just kind of float in. Whereas in these messages, you can see he's explicitly inviting people to come up. So then fast forward then to after these calls, how are fraternity members reacting to the allegations that they start mounting? Yeah, Brad, you can kind of see in these records. It suggests there was in some ways an effort to contain these allegations. We reviewed records from Cornell's own internal investigation. You can actually see a group chat. The next day, when Jane Doe goes to report this to police, this issue goes to the highest levels of the fraternity. There's a group chat actually with Ingles with the fraternity president in it, in which they're trying to figure out where this allegation came from. Ingles at one point explicitly says he doesn't believe it could be Jane Doe that he just spoke to her. In that group chat, they kind of weigh what the appropriate response is. Should they call Jane Doe at this point? Maybe it wasn't her. At one point in this chat, they try to figure out what date this actually happened because Cornell for what it's worth on their end initially got the date wrong in the campus wide email that notified people about what happened. They basically try to figure out what date this alleged incident took place by comparing it to what parties they were hosting. One member basically saying, oh, it can't be on the 25th. That's when we did the risky business party. This incident happened actually when we were having our Lewow party. That was the reference point in these group chats about when this actually took place. Are they talking about investigating what actually happened, like getting to the bottom of it, or are they talking more about just how to get the spotlight off of them? It's a good question. I think it's hard to say, for sure, when you look at these records in their entirety, though, if you look at two witness accounts from students who eventually spoke with campus investigators, one of them described it as "damage control" by this fraternity. If you fast forward Brad a few months, when Cornell actually had their 12-day hearing to investigate these allegations, it's also notable to look at what Jane Doe said in her statements during that phase, where she specifically calls out these fraternity brothers for which she alleged was a cover-up. And it appears at one point in their investigation, the campus investigators actually did look into at least one incident, where Ingalls reached out to a potential witness in this case, and basically asked that individual for evidence that would exonerate him. He specifically said in a Snapchat message, he was looking for, quote, proof she lied. The person he messaged, one time friend of Jane Doe responded that there is no evidence of that, and actually took a screenshot of that, sent it to Jane Doe, who then sent it to campus investigators, who included this in their investigatory file about what happened in the lead-up to this actual 12-day hearing. Wow, and for a case that I think in the early moments, it was like, well, you know, how much evidence is there really? I mean, a ton of documentation digitally and, you know, in the form of people's voices discussing this, what actually happened, though, that that's going to be the thing that the new independent investigators are going to have to sift through Peter Harlombos. Thank you. Thanks so much, Brad. It's Tuesday, which means the midterm elections are now exactly four weeks from today, meaning in just four short weeks, we should know whether Republicans retain control of the the house and or the senate. We'll learn just how much President Trump will be able to achieve legislatively over his last two years in office, and yet compared to a presidential election year, sometimes it feels like we know next to nothing about how this could all go. Like in a presidential year, we would have polls clearly showing usually one party with an edge over the other. Here, there's not really one race to watch. You got to watch almost 500 of them to understand who is playing offense, who's playing defense. Well luckily, we have ABC's Emily Guskin, who's more than happy to watch 500 races at once, she's our polling director, Emily. Can you help me figure out where we stand here? Because usually in the midterm election, like if the economy appears weak to Americans, if the president's job approval ratings are bad, his party tends to lose ground, is that the case here? And what's going on with the Democrats? That definitely seems like the case here. The Democrats are looking pretty good. We heard, I think the cook report had this great analogy. They said this doesn't look like a blue wave. In other words, Democrats aren't winning, but Republicans are losing. The president is just really unpopular. Poll after poll has him near record lows. The big issue out there is the economy. They do not trust the president to handle the economy. They're upset about high prices and they're trying to figure out a way out of inflation of high prices. And a lot of the decisions the president has made have led to some of those high prices. And I think voters are noticing that. And so how does that actually translate then to individual races? Are there ones that stick out to you and go like, "Oh wow, like Democrats kind of overperforming here, or Republican maybe is underperforming?" Absolutely. So we see states that we traditionally think as are going to vote a certain way year after year, or because of their historical voting patterns. And the New York Times and Sianny University over the past weekend did polls in some of those traditionally Republican states. These are places where Trump won by double digits in 2024 and places that usually Republicans running for governor or Senate are pretty comfortable. And in almost all those races, they either fund Democrats with a slight lead, a significant lead, or the races about tide. These are places where Democrats are competitive that they don't think the Republican Party expect them to be competitive in. In the Senate, I'll take on the data centers raising our costs and fight to end the wars driving up gas prices. Looking at Texas, in the Senate race, we have Democrat James Talleriko. He has about a six-point edge over Republican Ken Paxton, in that New York Times, Sianny University poll, and in the gubernatorial race in that state, Democrat Gina Hanehosa has a three-point edge over Republican Governor Greg Abbott. The Democrats are trying to take over Texas because I am advancing transformative policies that Democrats are against. Those are both within the polls margin of error, but Trump won that state in 2024 by 14 percentage points. So that's a pretty big difference there. In Ohio, in the Senate race, former Democratic Senator Shared Brown holds a narrow three-point edge against Republican incumbent Senator John Houston, among Ohio-likely voters. Democrat Amy Acton has a four-point edge over Republican Vivek Ramaswamy. Both of those are within the polls margin of error. Trump won that state in 2024 by 11 percentage points. Looking at Iowa. On Rob Sand, state auditor, former prosecutor, I work for you and no one else. The gubernatorial race there, Democrat Rob Sand, who's the, I believe, the only Democrat elected to state office there, a statewide office, has an 11-point lead over Republican Zach Land. The Senate race there between Republican Ashley Hinson and Democrat Josh Turk is almost exactly tied. Trump won Iowa by 13 points in 2024. But we're also seeing in polls that people don't really love Democrats all that much. When we ask them in polls, what's your favoritility as a Republican Party or the Democratic Party? Both of them are really in the basement. So this points at-- This speaks to your undertow thing, the right undertow more than them. The undertow, exactly. People are not thrilled with Democrats, but they also aren't thrilled with Republicans, and the margins are probably not as big as Democrats want. Those margins, almost all those I just read to you from the New York Times, C&A University poll, almost all those are within the margin of error. So they're not actual leads, but the fact that Democrats are even competitive in a lot of these races is, I think, exciting for the Democratic Party, and not something that I necessarily expected months ago when I think Democrats felt that they would do an okay job of winning the House of Representatives. But the Senate didn't seem like it was even in play several months ago, and now it seems like the Democrats really have a shot of winning a majority in the Senate. Right, that's really interesting, that you could imagine a lot of people expecting the Democrats to win the House, lose the Senate, and yet both are in play. That's a big deal. All right, Emily Guskin, thank you so much. Thanks for having me. Okay, one more quick break. When we come back, you lost the record? Sounds like it's time for some avenging. One last thing is next. Are you sure about that? I had a father called Vision. How was this possible? Don't miss the two episode premiere of Marvel Television's Vision Quest. Nothing bonds a family together quite like Mort or Jeopardy, streaming October 14th, only on Disney+. It was one thing for there to be a single clown sighting, and then there was a second one. Hundreds of students launched a late-night man hunt. How many more of these are we going to have? On October 12th. The rumors started to spread around town that there were killer clowns. The clowns are coming. They were clowns seen in different rural areas. We even tried to form a killer clown buzzes. Most of the new Hulu original documentary, Clown Tanek, on October 12th, streaming with Hulu and Hulu and Disney+ for one subscriber's term to apply. And one last thing. Records are made to be broken, like most baseball fans know that Babe Ruth was passed on the All-Time Home Run list by Hank Aaron, who was later passed by Barry Bonds. But what if one of those legends could just come back and hit a few more dingers any time he wanted to? This weekend, moviegoers were able to buy tickets and go see Avengers Endgame. If that film sounds familiar, it's because Avengers Endgame came out back in 2019. Remember, this is the one that put the bow on a whole series of Marvel movies. But when the weekend was done though, this had become the highest grossing film in history. Eclipsing James Cameron's legendary 2009 film Avatar. But here's the thing. The only reason Avatar occupied the number one spot before this was a few years ago, it did its own re-release when it narrowly passed, wait for it, Avengers Endgame. For years now, studios have been engineering re-releases of these two films, raking in tens of millions of dollars at a time, and then reclaiming the all-time number one slot. At this point Avengers is ahead, let me get this right, 2.9255 billion to 2.9237 billion. That's a difference of 18 million bucks. It's close enough for literally any limited engagement would make you number one. And this back and forth has started annoying some fans. This Avengers Endgame was actually a slightly different version of the film. It had a few extra minutes attached to drive up the hype for the forthcoming movie Avengers Doomsday. Some complain this shouldn't even count towards their record. So why do it? These films are both property of our own parent company, Disney, so it's not like there's some huge corporate rivalry here. Rather, it's probably a continuing reflection of just how fickle Hollywood profits can be. This weekend, Tom Cruise debuted his new film, Digger. This eco-satire cost more than $150 million to make, and reportedly grossed just $8 million on this opening weekend. It's arguably the biggest flop of his career. All this to say, even in a world of superheroes, success is not guaranteed. If someone raises a cash cow, they're going to keep milking it. By the way, if you're interested third, fourth, and fifth Spider-Man brand new day, that was just earlier this year, then Avatar the Way of Water. Then in fifth place Titanic, which is pulled in $2.2 billion to date. Remember, a lot of that's 1996 money. You don't know what those ticket prices would be now. Hey, remember to keep voting for us in the signal awards. We are in second place in one of the categories. We are so close to winning one of these listener choice awards. You only get one vote. So if you did it already, thank you so much for the rest of you. Really does help us out. I appreciate it to see our show notes for our link. And you'll be all set. I'm Brad Milky. I'll see you tomorrow. I said more.