lara: before we go, i just want to give a special thank you to this room. as a girl who grew up in southeastern north carolina, first and foremost, it was an honor to be a part of the trump family. and i never in my wildest dreams ever believed that something like that was in my future. so that alone h humbling. and then to be a part of the rsf the united states of america. my second greatest honor ever. and then now to be the co-chair of the r.n.c. and know that i started out at lainie high school and nova middle school in wilmington, north carolina, i truly hope i do you guys proud. thank you, thank you, thank you. i love you all. god bless you guys. let's go win. thank you. [captions copyright national >> we take you live to hear all

professors talk about the supreme court term. the current supreme court term is scheduled to end in late june. now live coverage. >> unequivocally benefits partisan allies and corporate interests consistently at the expense of our democracy, at the expense of workers, consumers and the environment. the court has taken a more ideological role and its no wonder that the public doesn't protect them to protect our rights and freedoms. only 34% of americans approve of the supreme court, a historic low. the public backlash has not matter to this right wing court. nothing suggests they have been chastened.

they continue to put right wing policy adjustments ahead of principal legal reasoning. they continued their crusade against voting rights. justice alito wrote the majority overturning established precedent to reverse the review of racial gerrymandering. it will make nearly impossible to challenge gerrymandering on the basis of race in the future. thert is willing to substitute ideology over precedent and rule of law. in a number of cases, could

ripple out across the country. another set of cases, push to end women's rights and undermine the federal government's ability to step in and protect the right to essential reproductive health care and bodily a tommy. and of course the january 6 ■/cases have a resounding the supreme court actionsrican throughout, unnecessarily delaying a ruling on donald trump's absurd argument that the president should be held immune from all legal resource --

recourse. all of this is and to protect donald trump from accountability on january 6. reporting have confirmed that far from being impartial, these right wing justices are part -- partisan political actors. the court is facing an ethics crisis. congress must step in to an act of bold reforms to restore accountability. there are solutions at the ready. 64% of americans support term limits for justices. 74% support ethics for the court.

congress must considertranspared promoting the ability to hold corporate actors accountable by codifying -- that, i'm thrilled about the conversation we are hosting today. we have some of the leading analysts and experts in the country. we will get their take on the stakes for the country, how qxthese cases fit into a larger right wing movement to consolidate power in the courts, and how the court can be reined in. with that i will turn it over to our moderator and my colleague. >>necessary context and introduction, and thank you to those who are

joining us about this conversation -- joining us for this conversation. some time at the end for questions so please use the q&a section. most of all thank you to our panelist for sharing your wealth of knowledge. joining us, for official caroline fredrickson -- professor caroline fredrickson, kate shaw, and steve vladeck. there is a lot of ground to cover so i want to jump right into the conversation and given the news of the day, i think we need to start with the january presidential immunity cases that have not been decided yet. there's been a large push for justice alito to recuse himself from those cases given the upside down flag flying in front virginia home and the

appeal to heaven home -- flag outside his new jersey home, both of which are symbols co-opted by january 6 insurrectionist. alito refused the request for recusal, saying it was his wife who raised the flags and anybody reasonable would be able to say there was no impartiality there. it feels like justice alito, is both reliant on this nonbinding code of ethics the supreme court enacted in november and also showing contempt for it by saying anybody who thinks anywise is not correct in their assessment of impartiality. he also to balk at the concept of checks and balances where as congress can conduct oversight on the court. i would like your brief initial reactions until we discuss

the cases coming along. professor shaw? prof. -- prof. shaw: sure, i'm digesting this news. it was striking that justice alito personally responded to a letter addressed to the chief justice. senator durbin asked for a response from john roberts, but senator alito said i am not recusing. he turned around a calls for his recusal to suggest that weather than motivated by good faith, is those callfoi will read a quoter ideological considerations. that's the characterization his

letter offers to those calling for his recusal. a couple things, the letter if you haven't read it, it was essentially mrs. alito, justice alito was only aware of the flag once, he prevailed on her to lower the flag and she refused to do so. also i think there is a reputation of the claimant that the semiotics of the flags are what they are. i don't find that remotely plausible. there is a suggestion that these flags have become associated with maga end of the stop the steal movement, and it's not a credible claim, at the time they were raised, they were understood by a lot of people, not everyone but certainly by those who would display the flags.

it was a political and illegal meaning. the political meaning was trump was the rightful winner of the 2020 election, which was stolen, that's a political claim, but also legal implications because it doesn't bear directly on two of the cases you mentioned, the january 6 case involving donald trump in self -- himself. it's not crazy to presume individuals with sympathy for the■m sentiment communicated by these flags might have a view about the characterization that prosecutors have offered around conduct on and four and surrounding january 6. i think they are tightly linked and suggestions that the two have nothing to do with one the flag with the contested meaning on the one hand, generally six cases

prosecuting individuals for their involvement in the insurrection, i think are a crediblei'm eager to hear what e others think. devon: thank you, appreciate that. you mentioned the anderson case and the presidential immunity case bildly divergent. professor vladek, could you comment on how these are so different, and the representation of impartiality. prof. vladeck: sure, i think a couple of things are true. no one really has much doubt where justice alito is going to come down the january 6 immunity case or in fisher, i think that was true long before jodey contours -- jodi kantor's first

reporting on the flags. i think the more we've uses -- we view this through the lens of recusal, the more we are letting alito off the hook. there are arguments for why he doesn't have to recuse in official or the trump immunity case even though the argument depend on him throwing his wife under the bus, it's not out of the realm of possibility. if we have a recusal standard, we miss the larger question of whether he engaged in good behavior. it seems like we ought to get much more comfortable talking about goodav not limited to the specific cases. if a justice were to go out and

publicly give a series of speeches at white supremacist rallies or antisemitic them instructions or another extreme, i think that would raise serious questions about their behavior even if there was no connection to any ongoing litigation before the sum -- the supreme court. i think the more we make this about if he should recuse more we let him off the hook, where as the real problem is how unapologetic he's been about this episode. maybe he really did try to convince his wife to take the flag down, that seems to be almost conceding he understands why it is a problem that the flag was flying outside the house. i guess my reaction is, and this is a long-term problem for me, i think we spend too much time analyzing individual cases and

not enough time talking about the justices more holistically. do i think alito owes more than an apology? absolutely. do i1h believe he has to recuse? no, and we ought to be able to believe those of the same time. devon: reasonable enough. to my mind, just taking this in the context of things, anderson and trump, i think it's drifting analyzing things in a way the meaning of the 14th amendment at least to my mind was completely gone wrong in the anderson case and now in the trump presidential immunity case we have justice alito putting presidential immunity, found nowhere in the constitution, into play. professor fredrickson, comment on how we can

rationalize what is going on with the court in these cases? prof. fredrickson: i have to put my cynical hat on. first of for posting this and my panelists i listen to regularly. most of what i will say is plagiarized from what they've said. disingenuous is such a nice word in this context. i know we often say put a pin in , but i want to say put a flag and it. i think the way justice alito in particular plays on history and

tradition to advance a very particul right position, i think is something we need to tackle, and i agree about justice alito's behavior as being bad. i think the idea that someone with his intellect could come home and see an upside down american flag and not have some questions about what might be going on. a flag that says appeal to heaven, he might not know what it means, although he could go online and do a little research. i want to mention in this context, i know we will get to

the south carolina redistricting case, but in that context, justice alito in a very extreme -- that is unappropriate. you got a situation of a strange set of events in his own house, flying the american flag upside down. it makes me have a great deal of cynicism about his motivations, his use of terminology like original. the facts stated at the beginning of the program, i

think it's been driven by the actions of justices like alito who show disdain to issues of the rule of law to the extent of , as was mentioned, he is disdainful of checks and balances, suggesting we have some kind of extreme separation of power in the constitution, which only goes one way. no one can check the supreme court but the supreme court is free to check everybody else. g4nobody controls somehow constitutionally the supreme court. it puts us in a position where the supreme court is now a branch of government falling into disrepute. we know the only power of the court is the power of trust people have in the rule of law. devon: disrepute and disrepair.

professor fredrickson and professor shah, you brought up great points about alexander. you said justice alito accuses the people who bring this issue up as being motivated by ideological reasons and in south carolina, where he completely up ended, he wrote the majority opinion, up ended the way racial gerrymandering is considered by the court, he said we must be wary of plaintiffs who seek to transform federal courts into weapons of political warfare that will deliver victories that eluded them in the political arena. just transitioning, keeping on alito but transitioning to the subject matter merits, how do we see this judicial hubris translating into opinions and how is it affecting the actual

rights of everyday americans? prof. shaw: the quote from the alexander case, it's projection and the hubris i think is a defining characteristic of this court in this moment in time with the 6-3 majority. it's a case where the court says we know better. we have determined that race did play a part in the court i think did what i expect it to do, but i think i expect the court to do something similar, which is simply assert more power that the court possesses and potentially do that in a way that is contemptuous of other

institutional players and entities in our separation of power system. caroline was talking about how the court is seeing itself as outside the system of powers and the system of power is dynamic and always requires negotiation. there have been moments in time when the balance got really out of whack, in the nixon administration the presidency was largely unchecked. tin the early new deal period, the supreme court was out of whack in terms of separated powers and institutions responded. i think the supreme court is in one of those moments right now. and conduct of some justices it is true but also the -- also what is being rendered by the court.

there are a bunch of administrative law cases but as to the two cases the court has overturned 40-year-old precedent , chevron, administrative law, if the court perceives the way we expect and overrules chevron, it would essentially be saying this long-standing, 40-year-old set of institutional practices and understandings against which administrative agencies have operated for decades, whereby it leaves ambiguities in statues, the agencies take the first crack at filling those ambiguities, and the courts reasonably should essentially give agencies a position in the drivers seat in determining statutes. what the court is trying to do is give itself the power to drive that car and i think it will mean a couple of things.

one is it will disempower agencies. i think that will be especially true when pared with the novel questions doctrine the court has deployed with increasing frequency in recent years to invalidate anything big it seeks to do. replacing chevron, where the court is the interpreter of ambiguities, where anything significant, are -- agencies are disabled from doing anything at all,skeptical majority, skeptical grid large,i think it means there will be much less space for agencies to meaningfully regulate in the we we have become accustomed to them regulating in ways that are often invisible but hugely important to us, everything from clean air and water to drugs

safety and efficacy, fyou name . these are the kinds of topics agencies touch and i think the court will make it significantly more difficult for agencies to meaningfully regulate in these domains and i think that will some cleaning not just more traditional power but less meaningf regulation and more subject to the lack of safety and environmental protections that could have very tangible consequences for ourselves and our families. devon: thank you, that is incredible. you mentioned judicial humility and hubris. i'that chevron doctrine is itsef a doctrine of judicial humility because it gives the power away to a branch of government,

whereas major questions and things are more a doctrine of judicial authority and power. but if relentless goes away, or narrowed to the point of unimportance or completely overrun, stephen, i wonder if you can talk about how that will disrupt the legal system because you've been writing about nationwide injunctions and the shadow docket and judges shopp ing for some time. i imagine it will supercharge the way we see right wing litigation against agencies attempting to protect the health, safety and well-being of american in any number of policy areas. prof. vladeck: i thinkha in a rn administration we would see the polarity switch. that's part of the problem, we

talked about one of the real catalysts, which is the u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit, which is responsible for 11 of the 55-plus cases on the supreme court docket, which is a stunning number. one of the things that happened, in a world in which courts can decide for themselves not just what agencies mean but also which issues are of "vast, economic or political significance" which is the test for a major question, litigants will try to bring their cases to the friendliest possible judge they can find. two things have happened in the last decade that have put the turbo boost into this. the first is as federal courts have become more polarized, we've had ideological outliers appointed to do -- to the federal courts. the real impact is on the lower

courts, and president trump's judicial appointees. i think it's more the judges on courts of appeals. the fifth circuit has 17 active judges, six of them are trump appointees, 13 total are republican appointees and there's no administrative issue to small -- too small. they said the nuclear regulatory commission lacks the ability to create temporary licenses for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste because congress hadn't specifically authorized the nuclear regulatory commission to deal with radioactive waste. if not the nuclear regulatory commission, then who? the problem is you have a court

of appeals that is willing to go much further than we've ever seen before, to outlier district judges where you can also ensure cases are passed by him by filing in amarillo. let's be frank, for folks who have politicalensibilities, we are going to see the exact flip of this in a republican presidency, whether it is cases in washington state or vermont or you can have civil and political manipulation of dockets. i think in the long run is unhealthy for government because it shifts a massive transfer of

power from the democratic branches to the judgemaybe we le judges more than the others but there is no coherent vision of separation of powers in which we are better off in a world with unelected judges running the government and yet that's where we are headed. devon: that is entirely fair. you said 11 of the 55 cases, just some of the cases we will talk about today. these are not small cases, each and every single one of them is a blockbuster case in its own right. prof. vladeck: the blockbuster cases in the abstract, but what is the real nerdy reason why at least four of them are blockbuster cases? the district's approach to article three standing, who is allowed to be a plaintiff, if we are sympathetic.

that's only a little unfair. we have three different cases wh reversed. we are looking at at least two or three of those this term. white standing is important is r hippocratic medicine has standing to challenge prescription of mifepristone or when two vaccine opponents talk about covid, it's allowing courts to decide a broad range of issues. it is a power grab. ■before you ever get to the

substantive power grab you see in the context of these major questions doctrine like chevron. it's a paragraph to they can decide these cases in the first place, if at least under long-standing interpretations of the constitution are not. those are of concern to me. devon: i think that gives us a good transition point is we are talking about judge kaczmarek scattered throughout the circuit. in the wake of dogs, we have seen -- of dobbs, we've seen a massive amount of litigants moved to striking statutes in states that limit women's ability to have abortions and safe prenatal health care. two of the big cases come from judge kaczmarek, who is

blatantly antiabortion, there are number of cases being brought before him as we speak. he struck down the right to medication aborting. that might not win the day, but professor fredrickson i was hoping you could talk a little bit about your take away from the case before the supreme court was and how, even given what is going on with the court, how judge kaczmarek's ruling has given a lot of speed to efforts throughout the country to do things with mifepristone, like louisiana deciding to criminalize its possession last week. prof. fredrickson: he let a fire under a lot of the antiabortion activists to push extreme

argumentthat are gravely consequential not just for women pursuing a needed abortion but also for people who want medicine at some point, and the approval not from the agencies. we have these judges decided at which point something should not be accessible to someone with a medical need who got a prescription from their doctor. to agree, the manipulation of standing, i think it has completely opened the door. i've had an extraordinarily hard

with some students and maybe some fellow law professors, trying to explain what goes on with standing doctrine. it seems the supreme court is just as guilty of ignoring the standing depending on whether they like the outcomes. certainly we have a situation where women and others across the country are in a position of great danger, precarious situation because the medical attention they might need is in danger. see it as a welcome opportunity to support the fifth circuit. maybe they will cut it back and medical abortion will still be available but not available

through mail delivery, but in the doctor's office. despite the fact that medication abortion is extraordinarily safe when administered by women themselves at home. they will try to mitigate all the damage that has been done. to show themselves as somehow not so bad because we are better than the fifth circuit. devon: i don't know that that is saying much when on the underside of the coin you have other cases, in idaho and texas,

that are spreading. kate, could you talk about those a little bit? i think those are slightly diametrically opposed to what will happen with alliance. prof. fredrickson: -- prof. shaw: shirt and i think after alliance courts will find these positions don't have standing and it will leave medical abortion available. the really extreme ruling of the just record but the less extreme ruling but still extreme ruling of the fifth circuit have standing to this day. as i read, the court will find there was never standing and thus medication abortion will remain available. the district court has permitted several state cases, so

medication abortion may be secure only in the very near term, even on an identical theory. i do think -- i'm not sure honestly about the oral&ñ argument, but it is a clash between a federal law that requires federal funds to provide care to those who present in emergency rooms sometimes including women and abortion is the standard of care to keep the patient safe and healthanidaho, under its post ds

prohibition allows the provision of abortion only in the last of f a patient. there is a gap between what the federal law requires to provide and idaho law requires hospitals to provide. federal law should control and the federal statute should permit doctors to give life and health preserving care to patients in crisis and yet i don't know that was the likely outcome in the case coming out of the oral arguments. i was a little less pessimistic than some court watchers, i felt there was a question about where justice barrett and justice kavanaugh case. it's possible the federal law would control, it's also

possible they might try to read the idaho statute as essentially permitting the same scope of care is the federal law requires hospitals provide end doctors wish to provide it, and it might in short-term mean that pregnant patients in crisis get necessary medical care in the state of idaho, all thing -- although i think it is a pretty's tortured -- pretty tortured statute to get there. i'm optimistic about the likely future decisions of the court but i think it's lily the court will civilly say that regardless of the federal law, not sure how it would be reasoned, but federal law not control and idaho may prohibit care. if a patient is in crisis and organ loss is possible but death

is not a■ possibility, idaho law might not allow it to be performed. that might be what the court says is the best reading of these conflicting bodies of law. devon: that is incredibly disturbing and i never thought i would have to wish upon a star for the supreme court to uphold the supremacy clause of federal laws over state laws, but that is where we have landed. i want to transition briefly to another fun fifth circuit case. murphy v missouri. to put it bluntly, fifth circuit seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth in this case. in murphy, they said the government is not -- i'm sorry, the federal goveallowed to talka companies in any regard, it

doesn't matter if it is massive misinformation, national security, no talking. in the netflix cases, they say texas can control all moderating for social media companies. can you square the circle as to what is going on and what you think the court might do? prof. vladeck: both of these cases have at their core conservative complaints about the relationship between government and social media. in the murphyase, the complaint is a biden administration was jawboning social media companies when it came to suppressing vaccine misinformation, but in that case the complaint is texas should be allowed to coerce social media companies. so it should be allowed when we

like the government but not when we don't. i think one of the real es of this term, and maybe this is where we will be more cynical again, when if not if the supreme court reverses many of these fifth circuit decisions, and already has in one case, i think there will be a lot of folks inclined to defend the court andl say look, the court is not nearly as problematic or extreme as people make it out to be. the reality is the lower court decisions that provoked the supreme court involvement in these cases were themselves extreme, so it's a lot more about the low courts. what the cases have in common is in both cases of the fifth circuit issue or didn't issue

over emergency relief, forcing the supreme court to step in and so we already have a strong clue of what the supreme court did, because the netflix allows the texas court to be on hold, and the other froze the injunction. i think with the section 230 cases, the supreme court i think is where the sort of part of the current republican party is when it comes to the relationship between government and social media. there iservative vibe when it comes to these kind of cases. which means a court that will be skeptical and maybe resolve that on standing, which means a court that will be skeptical of the state ability to force a social

media company to moderate content. i could see a narrow decision in one of the net likes cases, but i think the reality, when it is over, some people will hold these cases as an example of the court being responsible. it's worth putting in context, yes it could always be worse, trying to have its cake and eat it too is not necessarily something the justices will consider a participation trophy. von: i wholeheartedly agree because them not doing the worst thing possible is not a goldstar. so often even when they have a chance to snacked on the fifth circuit and say bad fifth circuit, they leave the door open for future malfeasance in some way, shape or form and the fifthirown.

i've been saying we are all frogs in a pot and the supreme court is turning up the heat slowly but surely. the fact it's not a full blast immediately is not a cause for celebration. that brings us to the next thing. we are not completely doom and gloom about all of this. they are ostensibly a coequal branch of government through congress and presidency and one of the things i think we need to all recognize a you all have certainly, is congress should be reasseing authority more forcefully. certainly the loss and standards by which the court and agencies can operate to prevent this type of judicial malfeasance and overreach we are seeing. caroline, can we jump to you first for your thoughts on how can congress respond in a robust

manner to this court? prof. fredrickson: absolutely. there is ad for hearings, which is low hanging fruit at the moment. the judiciary committee should have real discussions, whether or not the justices testify, they can still talk about it. there are a lot ofreas, some of which we touched upon. something that is widely approved of the american public across the political spectrum,

and apex court that has lifelong ability to stay on the court, in other countries, there is either a retirement age or set number of years. said on a podcast i was listening to earlier today, the uniqueness of the american system where we have an apex court that is the final word on constitutiona questions and also the highest appeals court a statutory matters. there's lifelong court membership. it doesn't work, with members

impeached by the senate. as a result, there is impunity, some of them sitting on the court for 30 years, and extraordinary power on the last word on whatever the fundamental rights americans should enjoy. i think it puts us in a place that is extraordinarily dangerous for democracy. a third an obvious one, kind of cross partisan group of scholars could agree on the best way this could be accomplished. you probably want to move on to other reforms but i think at

this moment this particular court is so out of balance that i would advocate for whatever congress can do. devon: i want to remind the folks watching that if you want to submit a question, now is the time. we got about 10 minutes left. i deftly don't want to turn away from thoughts on reform. prof. shaw: i think short-term hearings are important and i also think that, steve, i think you wrote about this in your book, jump in if i am wrong, but i don't think there was a particular hearing for gore,

they were sharply pressed on bush versus gore in a way i don't think we've heard them pressed in the halls of congress in the quarter-century since and i think that would be healthy. that's something they could do, they have the invitation to come to the hill to talk about the budget, they can ask them about recusal and behavior. they are posing the questions and the justices have to respond. i think that would be have moret conversations about things like expansion. early in the presidency there's been talk about that and there's been more talk about it recent months and i think that should be on the table and i think surrogates should be talking more about this as a democracy issue and election issue more than now. prof. vladeck: it turns out that

the supreme court for the fifth term in a row will be deciding fewer cases than it has since the civil war. the court hadn't fallen low 60 cases since 1864 and 2019. the poinis not yes, we want the court and more areas of american law, the is congress over the years gave the court too much control over its docket. i think one of the things seeing, not just in the cases the court is hearing but were generally, if congress takes its hands off the case is, we may never have the political ability to pursue the kind of really big -- that i know a lot of folks would prefer. but there are low hanging fruit reforms i think would go a long

way toward reinserting even a modicum of congressional interest in the daily operations of the court i think we should be talking more about and docket reform, nerdy though it might be, ought to be close to the top of the list. devon: that is amazing. thank you also much for your time. i am turning to questions. i think that is an interesting take. i want to go back to what we were talking about earlier in the way a change in administration could affect ings, the way lower courts rule and the supreme court ruled. i want to get your thoughts, carojudiciary could change in te case of a gop trifecta in 2025 and also with the court is doing right now, if it is maybe laying

the groundwork a little bit for the project 2025 agenda. prof. fredrickson: i must admit i am in the south of france right now, but i think it is extraordinary worrisome. the idea that somehow some of the judges trump appointed in his first term which i hope will be his only term, was not sufficient to the ideological vision. and some idea that they need to be more vigorous about controlling the kinds of pothat's very much in line with

2025 with the heritage foundation, they are trying to make sure the judges are more like judge kaz mark. a lot is unrestrained by judicial methodology. that seems to be what we will see, there is a trifecta, those judges will be served up, nominated by trump and quickly confirmed by a senate and house will do whatever they need to do to make sure the wheels are turning to make sure that the ones they don't like are eliminated. perhaps there will be some difference in the minutia around

the way they understand theory or other approaches that could depending on the orientation between power. devon: one of the areas we didn't get to just because this has been such a jampacked supreme court year, that our audience wants to inquire about, thoughts around rossini and carville because they could have brought second amendment implications. for whoever wants to take a stab at it, i won't say take a shot at it. prof. shaw: it's a tough case in terms of how committed the court really is with the extreme

vision of the second amendment that the bruin case sets forth. i■o÷b think it means the demisef any genuinely innovative and in a lot of safety at the state or federal level. i think the court has agreed with some of the laws. cargo i think is more administrative law, it's really

about the power of federal agencies as so many on the docket are, that felt like a coin toss on the oral argumt prof. vladeck: the thing about rohini is it was such an easy case for the court to reverse without getting into the real hard question, which is just how many federal gun laws are going to fall into ruin. the fifth circuit picked just about the easiest one to defend to strike down. the real issue will be next term, when the court gets one or series of about a statute that is a much your deal and affects a lot more people, former likely to fracture.

it's kind of weird because here it is may 29 and the court has a grand total of nine cases on its docket next term, that is insanely low. even last year, we were talking about historically low numbers of grants for the upcoming term, i think it was 16 cases by the end of may. the court is not going to be done when it rises for summer recess, it will have other big things coming and i think this is more of a harbinger. prof. fredrickson: one quick thing. óáthis is perfect evidence ofpow driven by outcomes. there could not be a more manipulative doctrine.

it depends on what level of justice you look at, what the applicable gun law is at the time they need to be much more rigorous in terms of specificity. devon: if were looking back that far we can say felony result in civil death so it would seem there would be something analogous done. i have so many more questions for you all, i wish we had unfortunately we don't, you are all incredibly busy people and i

truly appreciate you spending an hour of your day a lot of time preparing for this conversation. >>calls from members of congress toecuse themselves om cases involving former president donald trump -- at of which were both carried by rioters who stormed the capital in january of 2021. in other to congress, justice alito claimed his wife flying thelags and stated in part, a reasonable person wh is not

motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of supreme court cases would conclude this event does not meet the applicable standard for recusal. i am therefore duty-bound to reject your request. the supreme court is set to issue a ruling on presidential immunity in a case involving former president donald trump before the end of june. >> the house will be in order. >> this year, ccn celebrates 40 five years of covering congress like no other. been your primary source for capital health, providing balanced unfiltered coverage of government, taking to -- taking you to where it is debated and decided with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> keep in mind that it will take thousands of years at the current pace to reach treatments

for all patients with rare conditions. that is unacceptable to me and i hope it is unacceptable to all of you as well. we know the orphan drug act is working. we have seen the innovations it has provided in bringing novel therapies to patients in need. i urge you all to turn to those instead of extend them and protect them from harmful policies that will restrict innovation and access to the treatments that can help our patients live better lives, help our patients live longer lives, and help us have more days to spend and love our loved ones care professionals and advocates testified on supporting patients with rare diseases. the witnesses were asked about several topics including treatment options, pharmaceutical costs,