it's easy to get lost in investment research. introducing j.p. morgan personal advisors. hey david. connect with an advisor to create your personalized plan. let's find the right investments for your goals okay, great. j.p. morgan wealth management. first time i connected with kim, she told me that okay, great. her husband had passed. and that he took care of all of the

internet connected devices in the home. i told her, “i'm here to take care of you.” connecting with kim... made me reconnect with my mom. it's very important to keep loved ones close. we know that creating memories with loved ones brings so much joy to your life. a family trip to the team usa training facility. i don't know how to thank you. >> i'm melissa murray in for i'm here to thank you. alex tonight. james blassingame, a capitol police officer, didn't think he would make it home. he was slammed against a stone column, injuring his head and back, and watched rioters wearing make america great again hats and listened as they shouted racist slurs at him. the actions of the mob on that day traumatized officer blassingame so much

that he still has flashbacks. but he still doesn't blame the rioters for what happened that january sixth. he thinks it's donald trump himself should be held accountable. >> seeing the timing of events and how things unfolded and to whip up, i mean to feed people incorrect narratives and then to have them come to the city at the time that they're gonna how to certify votes, and then to whip people up and say we're gonna go down pennsylvania avenue and as a president, to use the bully pulpit. >> the election -- stolen >> what does that mean? the president united states, this is the most -- human being on the planet. most power human being on the planet if he can, if he is not held accountable, can do whatever they want to do, what does that say about our

democracy as a whole? >> in 2020, one officer blasting game and another capitol police officer filed a civil lawsuit against trump. they said that they should be awarded financial damages from the former president because of the pain the entered of january six. president trump tried to get the case dismissed, claiming the because he was president at that time he was immune from civil cases related to january six. but today the united states court of appeals the district of columbia rejected that assertion. as a three judge panel put it, when he first term president opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win reelection is not an official presidential act. in other words, the panel decided that trump's actions on january 6th, as alleged in these lawsuits, we're not part of his duties as president. so the lawsuits cannot be thrown out at this stage, and that is a huge deal. in addition to officer blassingame's lawsuit, other

police officers have filed lawsuits against trump. trump could try to make the case in court that it is on the evidence he should be held immune. but now, at least, these plaintiffs will get their day in court, and this ruling will make it less likely for any future immunity claims that trump claims to succeed. we're going to get some help from expert, legal experts, unpacking all of this, in just a minute. but first, donald trump's lawyers were back in court today in fulton county, georgia, and they were arguing, yet again, the donald trump deserves special treatment for our justice system because he is running for president. >> can you imagine the notion of the republican nominee for president not being able to campaign for the presidency because he is, in summer form or fashion, in a courtroom defending himself?

that would be the most effective election interference in the history of united states. >> that was trump attorney steve sat out, arguing that fulton county d. a. fani willis 's election interference case against known trump should not take place before the 2024 election. but get this. he also thinks that if trump wins this election than this case can't go to trial after the election either. >> if your client does win the election in 2024, could he even be tried in 2025? >> the answer to that is, i believe, that under the supremacy clause and his role as president united states, his trial will not take place at all, till after he left his term in office. >> that would be in the year 2029. now, most days a ruling saying

donald trump can be sued in civil court for his actions on january 6th or trump's lawyers arguing that he shouldn't see a courtroom until the end of this decade, on most days that would be the biggest pieces of trump legal news. but presidential immunity has reentered the chat. we've just learned that judge tanya chutkan, the judge in the special counsel jack smith's federal criminal election interference case, as denied don't trump's motion to dismiss that case on the grounds of presidential immunity. now trump is surely going to appeal that decision. but it doesn't look good for the former president. in civil court and criminal court trump and his legal team are trying every route that they can to claim that he is immune from any liability. the question, though, is where do these arguments work? and where do they fit? joining me now is lisa rubin, and jim todd. thank you both for being with us tonight. first question for you, lisa.

no we have two decisions dealing with presidential immunity, the district appeals for the columbia circuit claims that trump's action on january six for the act of a candidate, so he's not immune from civil suit. meanwhile judge tanya chutkan has denied trump's motion to dismiss the election interference case, come claiming that presidential immunity provides no defense. what are these two rulings melle other cases that trump faces? >> these two rulings are really different in a way, not only because one is from an appellate court and one is from a district court, but one arises in the civil context where there already is supreme court precedent, and the other does not. so let's take the chutkan case first. it is considering federal law and federal constitutional defenses. she was very clear to say that her decision deals only with the case before her.

she's not necessarily saying that he's not entitled to immunity, for example, in a state prosecution. but what she is saying is the text, the structure, the history of the constitution, affords a president no absolute immunity for apps acts that he takes while he is president, period, full stop. the appellate court's decision is really different because it's nixon versus fitzgerald, the supreme court already said the president is entitled to absolute immunity first official acts in a civil case for damages. and so based on that, the question for the court of appeals was really was donald trump acting in an official capacity with respect to the allegations brought by the members of congress in the police officers who sued him civilly for their injuries? they decided that at this stage, taking allegations made by those plaintiffs as true, as they must on a motion to dismiss, they can't grant him immunity. but he is free to raise his

claim of presidential immunity again after discovery, after he collects evidence. there's a look good for him? no. but is he foreclosed from doing so? also no. >> excellent. so, that's probably going to be raised again in the course of a trial, if one should happen there. but back to this ruling from judge tanya chutkan. so gianna, this decision is going to be appealed to the d. c. circuit and will probably be appealed even further on to the supreme court. given the composition of the court, given the nature of the d. c. circuit, what is the likely future for judge chutkan 's decision? is this going to stand on an appellate review at the intermediate appellate court? >> that's a great question. piggybacking on what lisa said, the same court that decided that the blassingame case today is the court that will hear the appeal from judge chutkan.

it's not definite that she'll get the same panel, but it's likely that her decision will be affirmed and that it will go up on appeal to the u.s. supreme court. the reason why i believe it will be affirmed is for, as lisa mentioned, the case that the precedent for allowing a president to face -- trial is kind of a higher standard in that the thinking was at the time, if we're going back to -- versus fitzgerald, or to the clinton and jones case, the idea is that you don't want the sitting president distracted from their duties while they're in office. until there would be official act immunity here in a civil case that we just talked about. the question is a factual one as to whether donald trump was campaigning when this

insurrection occurred, when his actions lead to that, or he was acting as president. we all know that, we all know that he was campaigning. in this case, the criminal case, the case is being brought now, is not a sitting president. we don't have the olc memo. and we have this, we have a situation where very strong argument is made here by judge chutkan that both his constitutional claims as well as his claim here for immunity just can't stand. we don't have a monarchy. we don't have divided by the kings, is what she said, this power does not come from god, it comes from the people. and he's not even president right now. >> with that in mind, this is not the only legal case that donald trump is facing. let's pivot to fulton county, georgia, where judge scott mcafee did not set a trial date

today. but did you, lisa, get a sense of how he felt about the trump team's scheduling preferences, which could put this trial out to the end of the decade? >> i didn't, melissa. that was actually what surprised me. i think he was trying to see whether there was any room to schedule a trial, a place where the prosecution and the defense might agree. but as you previewed, steve sadow gave him no opening. he said august is way too soon, and anytime after november is too late, and in between, my guy is busy campaigning. and so there was no place. there was much less contentious for example than the lawyers i have been watching in the trump civil fraud trial here in new york. but despite his very polite approach to the bench, he wasn't allowing really for any opportunity to try his client at all. he laid forth the trial

schedule and said he's going to try and d. c. emerge, then he's got a trial scheduled in florida in may, and then there after he supposed to be try to new york, i'll pause there and say that's not actually, it actually. there is not more the case in new york still scheduled for march. but the bottom line is, steve saddle wasn't allowing for the possibility this client can be tried in the next year. and judge scott mcafee withheld comments and said okay, we'll set a trial date at late later time it didn't really give anyone there a sense of what he is thinking other than by being deliberate and pausing and not necessarily engaging with it right now, maybe he's trying to postpone some of the more contentious aspects of the proceeding in court. >> jen, do you think we're ever gonna get a sense of a firm trial date in georgia? there's a lot going on there. it's a multi defendant case, lots of things have happened. but the georgia case is the one that many people are looking at. it's the one where donald trump, if he is reelected president, will not have an opportunity to pardon himself. what's the likelihood that we are going to get a firm date, and when would that be?

>> i'm really concerned after today's hearing that this might get pushed past the november election. the reason why i say that is, the judge didn't seem confident that august that could actually happen as a date, and now, as you know, by the time we're in august, we're gonna have a republican candidate who is the nominee, and if that is donald trump, i can very well see somehow the judge being convinced that it would make sense to postpone this case. so i'm greatly concerned that the name of the game has always been delay. i enjoy, like everyone else, reading the legal details and nerding out on the arguments here, but the more complex the arguments are, the more complex the discovery is, it just delays things. i'm not sure what we're going to get a date, but i don't think we're gonna get a firm date until february, at the earliest. and that it will probably be after august.

>> that is concerning. we've talked about a number of different cases. the one case we haven't really mention is the classified documents case that's pending before a judge aileen cannon. many people have criticize judge cannon for what they view as slow walking this case. there is apparently a forecasted may start date for this trial. but there are a lot of complex issues about how classified information can be introduced into evidence in these cases. that's likely to push this out. all of these decisions have to implicate each other in some way, the scheduling part of this. if judge cannon is going slow on deciding some of these really important issues and setting a date for this trial to start, how is that going to implicate the scheduling of the other cases, like the d. c. election interference case, like the new york hush money trial, and like the georgia election interference case? lisa? >> let's start with the d. c. election interference case, and judge chutkan is determined to try that case in march. unless appellate issues interfere, i think we should expect that she will, in fact, try her case in march.

as for the others, if judge cannon doesn't have her trial in may, one of the reasons i think judge -- here in new york, presiding over the hush money case, refuses to give up his own march trial date, is because he is hoping that what i called trial tetris sorts itself out, he may be able to slot himself in some areas. the other thing that happened today that may give some of us hope, is that judge scott mcafee asked the prosecution of fulton county, georgia, how much time we do need to get yourself ready for trial? in other words, if i said, today, that i'm ready to hold this trial, how many days or weeks do you need to be trial ready? the answer from the prosecution was, 30 days. so it's always possible, i suppose, that if judge cannon, as many expect, be included, doesn't stick to that may trial date, scott mcafee may in fact say to the fulton county deese d. a.'s office, hey, you guys ready to go in 30 days?

because we have some time for a trial. >> anything could happen. one person might slide into take another person's trial date. that's really helpful. lisa rubin and jen taub, thank you so much. lots more ahead on the show, including a voting contra congress that sent representative george santos packing. what does this mean for the gop's already razor-thin majority in the house? and later, the war between israel and hamas rages again after the collapse of weeklong cease-fire. what that means for hostages and civilians in the region. stay with us.

>> bipartisanship is in short supply on capitol hill. but representative george santos managed to do the

impossible. he united lawmakers behind a common goal, expelling him from the house of representatives. >> george santos is a liar. >> he fabricated his qualifications, his background. >> he has manufactured his entire life. >> he blatantly stole from his campaign. >> he is a perpetrator of a massive fraud on his constituents and the american people. >> he can defend himself in a court of law, but for the purposes of this body, he's got to go. >> george santos reported lies unlocked wrongdoing brought together members on both sides of the aisle in a rare act of bipartisanship. that said, this is still a republican party guided by donald trump's principles. so santos's actions weren't a deal breaker for everyone. >> i'll oppose the george santos expulsion. >> but what? because santos was buying botox and onlyfans, we gotta throw him out? >> that swamp water is very murky.

but for george santos, there doesn't appear to be a safe lily pad. >> the congressional equivalent of a public crucifixion. >> and today, just before the house was set to vote on george santos is expulsion, new accusations surfaced. in a letter to house republicans, gop congressman max miller said that the sanders campaign had charged hughes and his mother's credit cards without their approval. the judges were in amounts that exceeded fec limits. miller added that he had seen a list of names that included other house members who he believes were also charged by this campaign. maybe all of that was the straw that broke the elephants back, because after those accusations were made, george santos was expelled from congress in a vote of 311 to 114. santos was present in the chamber and conveniently was wearing his coat during the vote.

he walked out as the vote cleared a two thirds supermajority. he quickly left the grounds of the capital, pushing past reporters without offering comment. george santos is set to go to trial next september and his new york congressional seat is now vacant. the special election to fill that seat will no doubt be hotly contested. joining us to assess all of this is mark leibovich, staff writer for the atlantic. mark, thank you so much for being here. first, up george santos did not talk to any of the press on his way out of the capital today. do you believe he is just going to go back to a quiet private life? >> well, it doesn't sound like he had a very quiet life to begin with. it's unclear whether to believe and what not to believe, obviously, but no, i think george santos is someone who remains dangerous to the republican party. i think that was probably the reason a lot of republicans wound up voting for him.

there weren't enough, but you go to fairmount of support. but almost half the caucus. he basically, well, he's dangerous. he's going to give interviews, obviously. he's not gonna be silent for much longer. and if the last few days are any indication, he seems pretty ready to name names and tell stories. the question is, i wouldn't say there's a lot of credibility but anyone who has been on the inside of this sanctum and who has seen things and who's in a position to tell stories is a loose cannon. so i think they will obviously be some nervous members right now, seeing what his next moves are. >> you alluded to this a little bit. it seems likely that some of the republican leadership might be worried about the kinds of details that george santos might tall. but some in the leadership noted that the decision to vote not to expel santos was predicated on this idea of a slippery slope, that he's expelled in a circumstance and doesn't involve a criminal conviction. this opens the door to censure

or expel other members of the house for other kinds of reasons that don't arise at the level of criminal wrongdoing. what do you make of that claim? we have seen an uptick in these kinds of ethics claims in the house. is it likely that we're going to see a flood of them before long? >> maybe not a flood. i think what you do have to say is the george santos case is pretty egregious. he was dead to rights across the board. just a serial fabrications, the fraud perpetrated, it goes in all directions and you couple that with just his conduct in office which is bizarre to say the least. i would say it's a pretty strong case against him with, whether he was convicted or not. i would be shocked if any of the republican members are being disingenuous here. but i think that this is probably a combination of having a really slim majority to begin with and not wanting to lose his seat, or just also, the slippery slope, meaning it could actually affect others close to them or them themselves. >> one republican leader who

surely should be worried is mike johnson, who has had a disruptive beginning to his new tenure as speaker of the house. what are the chances that he can keep his fractious caucus in line in advance of their agenda when there are so few votes to spare? >> it was extremely kick challenging to begin with, as we have seen in his short tenure, and certainly as we saw in speaker mccarthy's tenure. it's really tough, especially with this caucus. everyone feels empowered because everyone is so powerful, ultimately. now it's not that much more difficult, by a quarter, because it's gone from 4 to 3. he never had an easy job, and it certainly got a little less easy today. on the other hand, george santos doesn't have to be his headache anymore in terms of any embarrassment he's gonna cause within the chamber. >> silver lining.

whether by design or simply by inadvertence, the republicans find themselves in unprecedented circumstances. they have seen a protracted vote to install a speaker of the house. we saw the historic ouster that speaker. and now the rare expulsion other member. is there any way forward for the republican caucus that provides a little more leadership, a little more governing, and a little less turbulence? >> i don't see it happening. i think, if anything, it's going to get harder. it's possible someone like kevin mccarthy could leave congress any day.

he's been making noise about that. then you go from 3 to 2 and who knows what else could happen. the majority is shrinking, and there's not a lot of room to shrink. i also think that, look, this congress, and this majority, has had nothing but chaos, nothing but headaches. i don't see that changing just because there is a new leader. and already what we have seen in the matt gaetz example from last month, is that, look, if you feel compelled to do a motion to vacate, the speaker is in real trouble. johnson, especially getting this recent see our past, has used up a lot of goodwill in his caucus me, and it might be harder for him to do something like that next time. >> thank you so much for helping us to make sense of all of this chaos. mark liebovich, thank you so much for being with us tonight. >> coming up later this hour, sandra day o'connor, the first woman appointed to a supreme court justice, died today. we look at the legacy she left behind and the court she leaves behind. but first, how the cease-fire between israel and hamas collapsed. a new truce is possible in the near future. that's all coming up. stay with us.

uses fewer medicines to help keep you undetectable than dovato. detect this: most hiv pills contain 3 or 4 medicines. dovato is as effective with just 2. if you have hepatitis b, don't stop dovato without talking to your doctor. don't take dovato if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking dofetilide. this can cause serious or life-threatening side effects. if you have a rash or allergic reaction symptoms, stop dovato and get medical help right away. serious or life-threatening lactic acid buildup and liver problems can occur. tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems or if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. dovato may harm an unborn baby. most common side effects are headache, nausea, diarrhea, trouble sleeping, tiredness, and anxiety. detect this: i stay undetectable with fewer medicines. ask your doctor about switching to dovato. liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. with the money i saved, i started a dog walking business. oh. [dog barks] no it's just a bunny! only pay for what you need.

♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪ the first time you connected your godaddy website and your store was also the first time you realized... well, we can do anything. cheesecake cookies? the chookie! manage all your sales from one place with a partner that always puts you first. (we did it) start today at godaddy.com

my mental health was much better. but i struggled with uncontrollable movements called td, tardive dyskinesia. td can be caused by some mental health meds. and it's unlikely to improve without treatment. i felt like my movements were in the spotlight. #1-prescribed ingrezza is the only td treatment for adults that's always one pill, once daily. ingrezza 80 mg is proven to reduce td movements in 7 out of 10 people. people taking ingrezza can stay on most mental health meds. ingrezza can cause depression, suicidal thoughts, or actions in patients with huntington's disease. pay close attention to and call your doctor if you become depressed, have sudden changes in mood, behaviors, feelings, or have thoughts of suicide. don't take ingrezza if you're allergic to its ingredients. ingrezza may cause serious side effects,

including angioedema, potential heart rhythm problems, and abnormal movements. report fevers, stiff muscles, or problems thinking as these may be life threatening. sleepiness is the most common side effect. it's nice. people focus more on me. ask your doctor about #1 prescribed, once-daily ingrezza. ♪ ingrezza ♪ >> a weeklong cease-fire

between israel and hamas came to an abrupt and deadly end today. scenes like these, from earlier in the week, scenes of relief as hostages and prisoners were exchanged and reunited with their families, were in stark contrast to what we saw tonight. scenes of devastation and destruction as israel's bombing campaign resumes in the gaza strip. israel is blaming hamas for the collapse of the cease-fire, saying hamas violated the terms of the deal when it fired

rockets into southern israel shortly before the truce ended. this is southern gaza, where earlier today they found leaflets warning them to locate near the city of rafanelli, the egyptian border. this raises concerns about fears if aliens safety in the region. you called the start of the war palestinians living in northern gaza were told to evacuate to the south. now these already displaced palestinians are once again being directed to relocate amid a war that has resumed in full force. joining us now is ayman mohyeldin, host of ayman on msnbc, someone who has spent years reporting from gaza. thank you so much for being here. israel's telling palestinians in gaza to go to places like rafah, where we are already seeing strikes. what does it tell you that israel is now telling those in southern gaza to relocate?

is there anywhere in gaza that's going to be safe for civilians right now? >> melissa, good to be with you, and i think this was a major concern among human rights organizations. certainly international aid organizations who been following the slow progression of this war over the last eight or nine weeks. keep in mind when this war started on october 7th the most significant part of gaza that was devastated and destroyed was really the northern part. everywhere was being hit, but it was the northern part of gaza that was coming under intense bombardment. you've got about 1 million people displaced, moving south, into the southern part of gaza strip, into the area near -- and elsewhere. now they are being forced further westwards from the eastern part of the strip toward the coastline. so what you're doing is cramming about 2 million people

in an area that normally was densely populated over the span of 150 square miles, to even less than that. it's becoming increasingly more dangerous and more fraught for the civilians that have been displaced and squeezed. it raises concerns among palestinians and egyptians that they're trying to move the palestinian population outside of the strip and displaced alone on the egyptian side of the border. >> we've had these individuals been told to look relocate to rafah for their safety, what will happen to those who do make it to rafah? >> unfortunately right now there is no answer to that. there are tents that are being set up. people are taking refuge wherever they can. in some cases sleeping outside. of course the temperature is dropping. it's getting colder by the day. the conditions there, according to the united nations, you simply described is how on earth? there's no clean water, no sanitation. supplies are once again running low because as a result of today's continuation of the war, humanitarian aid was not delivered into the gaza strip. so the situation there, to

quote humanitarian aid organizations, is beyond catastrophic and dire. the simple answer is, there is nowhere safe for the people of gaza to go. for the palestinians of gaza to go. for them basically it is moving around in the whims of the israeli military, telling them to move from that to the north to the south, now from the southeast across to the western part. but when there they are no one knows. and raises questions about the military strategy. it's one that the white house has also expressed tremendous concern about. because there are no safe places left in gaza, the idea of attacking the southern part, where millions of people have now gathered in congregated, seeking refuge in shelter, would only make a humanitarian catastrophe that much worse. we've already seen 15,000 people dead. another hundred and 80 today. the vast majority of them women and children. >> can we pick up on the timing of this? as you suggested, it's becoming increasingly unsafe even in the southern part of gaza. why, then, is israel choosing this moment to expand its ground campaign to the south? >> the fundamental motivation behind that is, to strategic

objectives. one to release the hostages, and then to destroy hamas. as we saw over the last seven days, it was through diplomatic efforts and mediations that released the vast majority of the hostages so far up to date. this is calm as a result of these nose negotiations. the action of any other further negotiations to release the further remaining hostages that include israeli soldiers, men of reservist age in the civilian population, absent any integrations to release those hostages, israel has decided to return to the other objective, which, it claims, is to destroy hamas. that's why it has returned to the bob myron meant campaign we are seeing playing out right now. because the population had already been displaced from the north, and because the border with egypt's closest, there is nowhere safe for these people yearn to go where this bob byron menace taking place. >> the original plan for the truth was to go for four. days and then through negotiations it's been to seven days so now with israel and hamas blaming each other newer

secretary of state anthony blinken blaming hamas, how have negotiations broken down, and will this prevent the possibility of another extension of the cease-fire? >> when, what we know right now from speaking to officials in the region, and certainly the u.s., is that negotiations are still underway to try and return this process to a diplomatic one. it's important keep in mind and remind our viewers that when we got to the negotiating point of this conflict federalists of hostages, the negotiations centered around the first phase, which included women and children in the formula they had created, which was more or less, for every israeli civilian or hostage that was hailed that was released, israel would release up to ten palestinians that entailed in its custody. that formula was specifically for women and children.

what israel was expecting west for that formula to continue for all of the hostages that hamas had in his possession. amassed made clear that it was not going to abide by that. when it came to israeli soldiers that it has in its custody. and israeli soldiers also include men who are a reservist age, women who possibly served in the military and even the elderly. i now admit negotiations are on trying to realist establish an equation, if you will, on which more humanitarian aid can be delivered, more palestinians can be released, and more israeli hostages could be returned. >> ayman mohyeldin, thank you so much for your time tonight. still ahead tonight, the nightmare that could be headed our way as this conservative supreme court considers whether the government, as we know it, is constitutional. that story, up next. luckily, replacement costumes were shipped with fedex. which means mr. harvey...

could picture the perfect night. we're delivering more happy for the holidays. hi, i'm darlene and i lost 40 pounds with golo could picture the perfect night. in just eight months. golo has really taught me how to eat better and feel better. as long as you eat the right food groups in the right amounts, that's all it is. it's so simple and it works. golo was the smartest thing i ever did.

while i am a paid actor, and this is not a real company, there is no way to fake how upwork can help your business. upwork is half the cost of our old recruiter and they have top-tier talent and everything from pr to project management because this is how we work now. >> today saw the passing of

retired supreme court justice sandra day o'connor. first appointed to the bench in 1981 by republican president ronald reagan, o'connor was the first woman to sit on the high court, where she was viewed as a voice of moderation, caution, and pragmatism. although she was appointed by a republican, o'connor broke with her conservative roots and her personal views to uphold the right to an abortion in the 1992 case of planned parenthood versus casey. she also cast the deciding vote

to defend affirmative action in 2003's grutter versus bollinger. one of her former law clerk's just grabbed her as a stabilizing force in american society, someone who was extremely hesitant about overturning precedents because such decisions jolted the legal system. o'connor's passing really does mark the end of an era at the court, an area where the court seemed more cautious, moderate, and attentive to public mood on hot button issues. now we have a supreme court that in just the last two years has laid waste to precedent, this modeling affirmative action and abortion rights. this term the court may deliver another punishing blow to the foundations of american life and government. a series of cases that were formed under the radar, have the potential to hobble the federal government's authority to regulate markets, the economy, and natural resources, just to name a few. this week, the court heard oral arguments in a case known as the securities exchange commission versus -- the details of the case are

waukee, but its implications are not. the plaintiff me is a punk republican activist and conservative radio shows host it was challenging an fcc panel for misleading investors in mike asking. the question is within whether independent judges within the scc can determine if -- he violated ally and punish him accordingly. but it calls into question the broader question of whether government agencies have broad powers to do, you know, anything. things like issue fines and for enforce workplace safety rules. almost other government regulators usually do. the conservative justices side with mr. -- it seems that they will, it would make it considerably more difficult for the federal government to punish financial fraudsters, enforce environmental law, or ensure that businesses keep their workers safe. and all of this is part of the

conservatives war against government regulation and the so-called administrative state. the man most responsible for the court's current conservative makeup is this guy, federal society cochairman leonard leo, the man who handpicked donald trump's ultraconservative supreme court nominees. leonard leo is a longtime critic of the administrative state and government regulation. take a listen to what leo told a gathering of conservatives, just after brett kavanaugh's confirmation, where he believed the supreme court would be headed. >> i think one area that you're going to see an increasing amount of attention is with regard to the proper role of the administrative state, the regulatory bureaucracy. >> you have to understand what motivates the hard left. they would much prefer to have limitless delegations of authority to the administrative state and to bureaucrat crowds

who aren't elected so that they can create the kind of social safety net, regulatory nap that they want. >> leonard leo really wants to destroy american governments authority to regulate, and particularly to regulate corporate interests, which is why it isn't surprising that the jackie case was brought with a hell of several right wing billionaires with deep size with deep ties to leonard leo and all americas regulatory powers may not be as big an important is affirmative action on the right to the bon jovi autonomy, make no mistake, federal regulation affects everything, the security of your retirement savings, the safety of the food you, eat the water you drink, the purity of the air you breathe and, this court has shown a willingness to drastically alter american society nomadland consequences. now one of its recent decisions is the basis for a new conservative assault on a government program designed specifically to combat high rates of maternal morbidity and mortality among black americans. that's up next.

ever notice how stiff clothes can feel rough on your skin? for softer clothes that are gentle on your skin, try downy free & gentle downy will soften your clothes without dyes or perfumes. the towel washed with downy is softer, and gentler on your skin. try downy free & gentle. when i was diagnosed with h-i-v, i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... being me. keep being you... and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people

whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there whether you're just starting or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable prevents transmitting h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your healthcare provider. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today. >> in america, pregnant black

people are 3 to 4 times more likely than pregnant white people to die in labor. black infants are twice as likely as white infants to be born prematurely and to die before their first birthdays. that is the sort of data that prompted the city of san francisco to launch the abundant birth project in 2020. the program provides monthly stipends to black and pacific islander mothers to reduce the birth complications that disproportionately attached to these groups. it's the first program of its kind in the nation, and maybe the last. conservative groups have sued to shut down the abundant birth project, arguing that the project, quote, violates the equal protection clause of the constitution's 14th amendment the granting money exclusively to black and pacific islander

women. joining me now to break it all down is dorian mason, director of the more -- project at the national women's law center. the recent decision on affirmative action was focused on college admissions. what is the basis for extending the arguments for that case to implicate health care and maternal health. >> honestly, there is no basis for that extension. conservative groups are attempting to extend these attacks into health care symptoms and programs to addressed health and equities but we have to keep in mind what exactly is at risk. when talking about and educational opportunity we're talking about admission to a specific institution or activity. but overtime he about maternal mortality program are actually talking about peoples lives. that isn't an ignoble difference. so yes, these attacks broadly seek to curtail opportunities for black americans, but this

specifically relating to maternal programs opposes such a serious risk to achieving equitable health outcomes that we're all looking to achieve. >> equitable health outcomes that you discuss, their data supported. ending affirmative action, the supreme court said neither harvard nor the university of the university of carolina had enough data to justify the use of race in their college admission protocols. but again, there are dozens of studies are showing disproportionate number of black women die in child book birth. is that kind of data going to affect the outcome of this case? should it? >> that is incredibly important. when we're talking about when black women are seeking out care, they are more likely to have their pain dismissed or ignored. they're more likely to experience misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. they are more likely to be disrespected or talked down too.

so it's no surprise that in turn black women, and the data supports this, and nearly three times is likely or more likely to die from pregnancy related outcomes. so the data is certainly there. what's most ironic is that you won't find a group of people that are more interested in race not being a factor then black people were a placement. they don't want the black to mean they have a three times higher likelihood of dying, or that their children have a two times higher likelihood of dying. so the data is there. the experiences of people directly support the fact that their experiences are distinct enough to warrant having indistinct program to support their health and well-being. >> i great point. you alluded to this before, but i wish you would elaborate. the maternal health context is very different from college admissions. you don't get into the university of virginia, for example, you can attend another school like harvard or yale. however, if you have a maternal health crisis, you're literally risking death to you and for your child.

do you think the life or death stakes of the scenario will change how a court will address this kind of legal challenge. >> that's right. i think that it has to impact health monotony. do we have data that supports the fact that black women are having a unique experience when they are experiencing pregnancy and birth, but we also understand that the consequences, the harm that occurs, is so much more staggering, so much more significant. so that is inevitably going to be a significant part of the consideration by the courts. >> we talked a little bit about this in the last segment. but we have the dobbs decision from 2022. we have the affirmative action decision from last year. in this case seems to be the loved child or both of those decisions. uniquely inside this broader conservative project that the supreme court has been prosecuting. can we expect more programs like this to be targeted? and how would you respond if

more of these programs come under file fire for from conservative groups? >> i would expect it edition programming would be targeted. but the response is simply to, again, uplift the fact that these are unique circumstances, that internet must require a unique and contemplated response. and so there is data that supports targeting black and brown women because it is there to support that we. we know that the data supports the fact that these interventions are effective. and so between those two differences, i believe that we may have some support in having a different ruling. >> dorianne mason, thank you so much for your time tonight. that's our show for tonight. now it's time for the last word with ali velshi in for lawrence. good evening, ali.