there are two constitutional pieces to this. the first is the uniformity of immigration laws, and it would have been one thing here if congress had enacted the provision that arizona enacted. then you would have a clear people protection issue right in front of you. but it's one step removed from that, because what happened here is a state adopted a law that impacts immigration. and that right away sends off red flags, because immigration is routinely constitutionally a matter for the federal government. so you have to stop and think, ok, if the federal government is going say the states can do something that's federal, we need to be really clear about that, and clearly you can tell from our questioning, we don't think it's that clear.

i'll quote one thing on this threshold issues about immigration, and that's about a national government, want the states. congressional enactment to permit state legislatures to adopt laws on the subject of citizenship requirements, there it was for federally supported welfare programs, would appear to contravene this explicit constitutional requirement of uniformity, and that's the whole essence of the whole immigration piece. we don't want new york to decide its own immigration and arizona decide its own immigration, so the meant a state does something regarding immigration or alien, it just sends off red flags, and you don't get to the people's protection argument that you would if it were the national government or if they had specifically delegated. off red flags. i think that we still have an issue, even if it is delegated. there is a lot of case law on

that. i would affirm on that basis. >> i will make it unanimous. also, in the brevity of the holding, i do want to add special thanks to everyone and everyone here there are just two additional things that i would want to say. i think that my colleagues have a very well reflected the grounds for the affirmation that i would vote for. the first thing that i would want to add is that i am proud to say that we did this in the state of new york of we did hold this unconstitutional as a state statute which is under the

personal responsibility and reconciliation act of 1996. we found that the state statute denied benefits for aliens unconstitutional. the state statute was directly in the teeth of gramm. then allow the states to adopt laws on the subject of citizenship requirements for federally supported welfare programs. the other said that the statute must be a value-added. we hold that this violated the protection clause of the united states. do you applaud that decision? >> [applause]

[laughter] you should know that we have a dual constitutional system. every state has a state constitution. the highest court of the state is the last word under the state constitution. they also field federal constitutional issues when they are brought to us. they can be viewed by the united states supreme court and maybe we went wrong. but we did resolve the issue. i think it is consistent with what the court has held today. >> i believe that case involved legal permanent residents which is a slight variation karen >> it is not forswear in any way. -- which is a slight variation.

>> is not a forswear any way. -- it is not a foursquare in any way. if you do not mind, i want to repeat the words of peter. i visited peter this morning and i saw that this so encapsulated the problem. americans are unique in their vision of a dynamic, idea driven identity. the fact that it is demonstrated in national self criticism. what other nation has a constitution that lace up the machinery of government and takes on the quality of a

sacred test. this brings with the quality of an accusation as if they were calling attention of the impossible. indeed, where else can the on- -- the "un" prefix be used? that was the feeling that i had about the problem today. it is not america. it is an american. that is all that i have to say. thank you. [applause] >> i guess but we could take some questions if you like. >> man asked if either counsel wants to say something? >> -- may i ask either counsel

wants to say something? >> good idea. do you want to chime in? >> i agree with the decision of the court. the thing that i found disturbing as an advocate was something that some of you alluded to which was the leaders of other issues that were there. -- the leaders of other issues that were there. -- of the layers -- of the layers the late -- the layers of other issues that were there. i was also grappling with this area. i eat due to see the tension in the doctrine, which is the

enormously -- i do see the tension in the doctrine. this applies to matters. the evolution has different strands going different ways did you do have this very strong doctrine and did you have this concern for the politically marginal and disenfranchised alien. i really like your point about public health. it puts this on the back burner the immigrants are the people who are excluded from priority and they do benefit from a well administered system of

vaccination because they are a fire wall against disease. if you trust that the government had a good system of doing it, not everybody would get it. it just does not make sense. i think it is irrational to say that the student that is coming in foreign authorized, legally sanctioned semester in the u.s. will i get the vaccine. this lady was fleeing prosecution. >> to what extent will the opinion beyond the narrow ground? it is inappropriate to discuss why it is a difficult constitutional issue that has

the kind of problems that all of us say it is on one side or another, so that we've really, as a court, opened the discussion -- so that we really, as a court, open the discussion. i would think that a good opinion in a case like this would use questions without deciding. >> i am going to assign the opinion to you. >> can we hear from mr. starr? >> only to draw from the problem. may it please the court, too.

it is wonderful for an audience that may not seek a court in action. -- seek a court in action. -- see a court in action. my general point is the backdrop of the problem. this was elegantly put together by mr. pace. with the death toll rising, congress's public approval rating plummeted. mr. matter some -- mr. madison and others saw this deliberately body -- this deliberative body. state legislators and struck

them on how to vote. -- state legislators instructed them on how to vote. congress needs to do its job. [applause] >> i think we could take a few minutes for some questions. >> i think that today's court, the way that we see rationing of health care, let's say that if a

human being needs health care, the middle class gets bought pounds. another way of seeing what rationing health care is is to see the needs of the poor people. we give them customized health care in the rich people have different needs and we give them special health care for them. i think that today's case took rationing out. >> were you on leave journalists signed? >> no, on the people side. >> so are we. so are we. >> any other questions?

>> are you a journalist? >> as the case unfolded, we've used this up a little. we have thousands of immigrants. is it plausible that we have a limited supply, so we really have an emergency of trying to control the spread. first of all, what would congress' power be to pass a discriminatory law regarding citizens? at what point does congress delegate this? >> you get into the equal protection aspect and the beat

-- and the different treatments. you look at the category. you look at the strict scrutiny when it is a protected class. alienage is a protected class. he won a protected class is there, government has to have a compelling state interest in order to differentiate or discriminate. @@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have tried everything, we can't stop them, so you might be able to find a compelling state interest for the different treatments. so equal protection is not an absolute. it is a balance. as so of the things we do are a balance. so in that situation, you might

find that there is a compelling state interest. if anybody wants to add to that. >> think about the situation. you've got the two pregnant women in line, and there's only one vaccine, and ultimately it comes down to that. so one woman arrives first and happens to be the alien, and one step behind her is the american pregnant woman who says i want that vaccine, and there's only one dose left, and does the equal protection doctrine prevent arizona from saying in that tiebreaker, we want to use the citizenship of the second woman to get her that vaccine? ? i am reluctant to read equal protection that broadly. i think that if congress wrote a specific statute that said that

it is a tiebreaker in that situation where you only have one vaccine, the state can decide to prefer the american citizen over the non citizen. >> why? >> the one thing that i can say with certainty is that we would have a divided court. >> can i address this question? >> yes. >> it seems to me that the supreme court has given congress authority over matters like this. my guess is that the supreme court would uphold legislation that disadvantaged aliens. i do not know of the the other way to say it. >> there is a body of law that

uses scarce resources and this may be analogous to that. there are only so many resources to go around and there is a preferential treatment of residents of a state where there is only so much to go around. at best -- this may fit into that category. >> there has to be a reason. there has to be a rationale as to why we would say that we prefer the citizen. arizona did not say citizens of arizona, they said citizens of the united states. what rationale makes them want to say citizens of the united states have this in vs. aliens. in one case, there were talking about education. the supreme court said that they did not want to deny the aliens the right to education. we do not want to have this minority that is not educated

and cannot move up in the economic food chain. that is counter-productive. it seems to me that the supreme court would want everybody to be healthy and they want all of these pregnant women to be saved. we do not want discourage on our system -- to discourage -- the scourge on our system. they should be the ones to get it before the health care worker. i cannot come up with a rational reason to say that aliens in a public health issue like this should fare worse than normal citizens. >> this is a very tough issue. let me just begin by saying that i am not the most balanced person about it. i am a refugee. i am an immigrant.

i was sworn in as a judge on the 55th anniversary of the day that i landed because i wanted to say that all the american gave to me maybe a patriot and a very deep sense. if america had not taken me in, there is a very substantial chance that i would have been killed. of the attitude, at any given time, in a democracy, and then the representatives of the people is that this is a zero sum game and we really cannot open it up to others. the scarcity is there, and we must protect it. to look at from a 300 year point of view, is that it is becoming

of immigrants and it is being treating of emigrants that has generation after generation brought forth leaders in this country. how do you deal with this conflict? how do you deal with it? can courts really step in and say what the people want at any given time cannot be done, even though they tell you that there's a shortage that is what he was saying. on the other hand, simply to sit back and let the reactions in an emergency is also not want to do it. it is exactly in this kind of area that courts can exercise their second look doctrine,

they're teaching doctrines, their dialogue doctrines, talking to representatives of the people and saying "is it really necessary in? do you really minutes?"-- do you really need it -- mean it?" but that is an excellent example. >> to a question that was asked that i do not think all of hearing was the status of the the the this. is there a citizenship in potential or some other issue

that may address the issue? if this woman were eight months pregnant, would that make a difference? >> i was particularly angry at a decision of two judges on my court that i admire. in a case that involved medical rights and so on, where the argument was that the child that was about to be going would be a citizen, they were so determined because they were so strongly in favor of abortion rights that they ruled that there was no right at all which seemed to completely misunderstand what ever might be said in favor or

against roe vs. wade. it really did not say that a fetus was not a person at all. it seemed to be a mistake. it focused on the fact that there is something that has rights. >> what we have a discussion of roe vs. wade? -- why don't we have a discussion of roe vs. wade? [laughter] >> as you can see, this has been a tremendous amount of fun for all of us. we really enjoy ourselves. i think that the ultimate pronouncement is that peter jennings will have been very pleased. that is an extremely high standard.

thank you all, so much. [laugh [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> you can see this >> you can see this program again at c-span.org. just click on "america and the courts" under the c-span series link. join us next week for "america and the courts." saturday evenings at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. >> coming up next, a "reporters without borders" next with an iranian photojournalist. and then the student documentary, "text driven," and then your calls and comments on

today's "washington journal." >> today on "news makers," republican governor mitch daniels, george w. bush's director of the office of management and budget, talks about the economic impact of the healthcare bill on indiana and on other states. >> we're continuing to discover new costs, not just the cost that will be visited on some future governor to pick up hundreds of thousands of new people on our medicaid system. we've already been hit with $25 million bill because the federal government is going to confiscate rebates. now they're going to take the benefit that have bargain away starting immediately. we also see huge administrative costs coming when we have to supervise a huge expansion of medicaid and, as we understand

it, shoulder the administrative costs of the new exchanges. so it's going to be a very, very expensive thing under any estimate for taxpayers here and in every other state, and that hidden, crammed down tax increase that this bill will necessity, just another example of the dishonest accounting with which it was sold. >> and you can see the entire interview of governor mitch daniel the on "new makers" today at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. iranian photojournalist recently moved to the united states after the government refused to renew his press pass. the national press club young members committee and reporters without borders are the hosts of this event. it's about 50 minutes. >> thank you for joining us tonight. this is the inaugural event of

the truth teller series. i am more than happy to have the our guest speaking to us tonight -- our guest speaking ato us tonight. we are the only age demographic based committee at the club representing everyone from the ages of 18 to 35, including our students members. anyone who is in journalism school is more than welcome to join. and thank you for coming. this is a more than exciting event. i am happy to be organizing this, it is something i have wanted to see done since i was in journalism school. thank you. to introduce our guest i.

>> we hope we can raise awareness where press freedom is threatened. you might know it now but iran is at a very bad point at its history. reporters are fleeing the country. some of them are afraid that some friends or the families have been found by the government. they are deleting facebook from files. can you imagine being forced to delete your facebook profile because your friends are at stake? it is a critical moment right now. i am honored that hasan is there. in iran, he is a well-