advances, a majority of the justices on the court have increasingly and certainly too often reversed the progress of the 20th century. over the last 15 years they have corrected the notion of religious liberty, transforming from a show to protect religious organizations and religious minorities to impose harm on the already marginalized and they have restrict it and diminish the voices and votes of everyday americans in our elections by gutting the voting rights act in deregulating money in politics. the three major cases we are discussing today faced the most conservative court in decades. each of these three major decisions is integral for the functioning and future of our country. a positive decision and anyone -- in any one or two of these cases does not diminish and will

not diminish or negate the damage of the negative decision in just one. in their hands this month rests the hopes of loving same-sex couples waiting for decades to walk down the aisle for the person whom they love. in their hands this month, rests the ability of the federal government to effectively combat housing discrimination based on race, color, national organization, family status or religion. housing discrimination has remained one of the most persistent and hideous forms of racial discrminations and one of the avenues for recourse but disparate impact claims to

provide cover to prejudice and bias. kept to the american dream out of reach for far too many families. in their hands this june rests the stability and future of the american health care system and quite literally the lives of 6 million americans who receive subsidies from the federal exchanges. we are no longer merely talking about the the affordable act, president obama's health care law. we aren't talking about whether the american health care system will continue to work for all whether one action by the supreme court will send our health care system into chaos with prices skyrocketing and affordable access shut off for millions. the stakes couldn't be higher. millions of lives hang in the balance. the goal processes at the center

for american progress -- no matter the issue health care immigration, marriage equality offshore drilling, privacy ethics committee judiciary will play an increasingly important role in the lives of hard-working americans as well as the success of the progressive legislative agenda through legal analysis, policy analysis, communications and the public education in convenient stakeholders come a little progress is helping to push the american legal system and a more progressive direction and educate the public about the impact of the coors on issues they care about most. each of the decisions will impact the health, well-being and security of millions of americans and to introduce our distinguished panelists. it is my pleasure to introduce the moderator of today's discussion, ari melber, chief legal correspondent for msnbc and cohost of msnbc's popular

daytime ensemble showcase "the cycle" of the writer of law and politics which covers politics law and constitutional rights on msnbc.com. in addition to his work, ari is an attorney and correspondent and his writings have appeared in the atlantic, "politico." he has practiced first amendment law at a major firm in new york city and has worked for the 2004 john kerry presidential campaign as well as legislative aide for maria cantwell. thank you for joining us on the floor is yours. ari: thank you so much. good morning, everyone. excited about our panel that will get under way. you know the tv show i am on his popular because she said so and that is a good rule of thumb. we will keep that in mind and keep telling everyone now. i want to do this very quickly, which is call up each of our star panelists one at a time. not unlike a big popular concert or anyone who's ever been to coachella or lollapalooza. you do the names one at a time. but we don't have to do loud

applause. that is up to you guys. michele jawando let me welcome -- let me welcome michele jawando to the stage. vice president legal progress. she worked as general counsel to senator kristen hillebrand and , also served as campaign manager for election protection of people for the american way and many other things. i'll keep this moving. roberta kaplan is a partner at a major firm that many of you have heard of fort edith windsor. welcome her. ian millhiser, a senior fellow here also has written extensively and clerked for judge eric clay on the sixth circuit.

lisa rice, come on now. executive vice president for the fair housing alliance very much involved in the case we will discuss another civil rights issues. elizabeth taylor, executive director of the national law program. welcome her here. she spent her career both in the court room in the boardroom and also worked at doj. as you can imagine, that is very brief because i want to spend our time hearing from these folks with a lot more they've done. i will move over here because i don't want to do a big formal thing. how do i sound? are you guys all on? say hello. get the technical stuff out of the way. we want to talk about these three cases as they promised. for an opening, one way to think about the current supreme court and this may run through all

three cases -- if this not only term were not just nine justices were sort of a personality, or a friend of years. ian is shaking his head. ian: they are not friends. ari: i think you could argue that they would be a bit like a friend that wants to be considered laid-back. you ever have a friend who says i don't care where we go to dinner. it's up to you guys when they pick a restaurant they have strong opinions about where you go to dinner.

or i don't care which way we drive. but when we are going to the stadium, they have strong opinions on which way to go. what i mean by that is we have a court that talks a lot about judicial dynamism and a constrained role for unelected judges. it talks a lot of times about deferring to congress or congress' ability to discuss the health care example, congress' ability to amend and fixed their role in voting rights. congress can get in and change it. there seems to be a lot of references across these areas by this court. into the idea that you guys figure it out and we know our role and we are easy-going and sushi is fine. you get to the point that there's something the court cares about in that cares about of medicines to reach deeply not only into the life of americans but into the political process and to the extent it has limiting principles, again, if you think about the fair housing case many of the limiting principles seem empty as a practical matter today. we will speak today about

whether it's a fair concern or perhaps not and whether the court has every right as statutory problems congress can fix. maybe that is not the point and they have every right to do what they need to do and not as just -- not adjust based on whether congress is. i would like us to think about that and i would like to start with a simple restaurant analogy before we get too deep. i want to turn it to our panel. the way we will do this, so that you hear more of them and less of me, we split up the cases. we will do roughly 20 minutes on each with each being explained by one of our two panelists. and then go out to the audience. and for everyone watching i'm live stream or c-span, when we do the audience part, identify yourself. we can do a comment or question. we care only about length. you want to do a comment, that is fine.

we can get a response from it. with that said, we still want to start with fair housing and start with lisa. tell us in plain english with this case is about and then let chop it up. lisa: ok, i will try to tell you in plain english because it involves a very technical issue called disparate impact or discriminatory impact. the case was initially brought by the inclusive community project which is a nonprofit fair housing organization based in texas doing work in taxes and the mission of inclusive communities project is to redress or try to undo centuries long, systemic residential segregation, both perpetuated by a federal government and also perpetuated by private actors. that is their goal and mission. one of the ways they do that is to help place persons of color in communities where their race

does not predominate. and it does so by using some -- in some part, by taking advantage of a voucher program that is offered under the tax credit, the low income housing tax credit, which is administered at the federal level by the treasury , department, but the treasury department does leave it up to each individual state to come up with its own formula for how the tax credits will be apportioned. the state of texas used a formula for a place in the tax credit housing and the number -- in a way that icp argued showed perpetual racial segregation. in fact, they showed evidence that court that 92% of the low income housing tax credit projects had been placed in predominate communities of color.

icp challenged the formulas that it had a disparate impact based on race. the lower court agreed with icp. the appellate court also agreed with icp and the state of texas appealed the case to the supreme court. this -- the question before the supreme court is whether or not the whole theory of disparate impact is cognizable under the federal act. this case is taking place -- it is laid out or unfolded against a very interesting backdrop and that is that 11 appellate court -- courts that have heard the matter have agreed there is disparate impact that is

cognizable under the law and you have unanimity under the appellate court on that particular issue before the court. what you don't have unanimity on amongst the appellate court is this test, this three-pronged test you have to use to determine whether or not there's disparate impact, and that is not before the court. ari: define disparate impact. lisa: the disparate impact is where you have a policy that seems neutral on its face. let me give you an example not related to the case. i've worked on. one of the casesi've worked on. the insurance company said we will not insure any home that is valued under $65,000. if the market value of your home is $65,000, you cannot get insurance at their company. the policy is mutual on its face. it doesn't seem to have any racial connotations they are. if you apply the policy across the board, it has the discriminatory effect of this

discrimination against african-american and latino homeowners who have market values under $65,000. ari: for we bring this back to the panel explain did congress , mean to provide this kind of attention even where there isn't explicit evidence of individual racial discrimination and let the court deal with the outcome. lisa: so that's a great question. it was one raised during the hearing. i think it's very clear that congress did intend for disparate impact to be included when it originally passed the law in 1968 and also when it amended the law in 1988. in fact, there was a

congressional brave written and co-authored empire by senator walter mondale and ed brooke the original authors and they say in their amicus brief that they actually did intend for it to be included in the original law that was passed april the 11, 1968. actually as the brief points out, there were amendment made at the time that the law was passed in 1968 to infer an intentional standard within the statute and congress rejected that amendment. so, not only did the framers are -- or the authors of the law intend for there to be disparate impact, but when those who were opposing the law meant to infer or confer the intentional standard in the statute, it was rejected by the congress.

subsequently, in multiple years, senator orrin hatch tried to amend the fair housing act by adding an intentional standard -- standard. so, after the law was passed in 1968, senator hatch tried on many, many occasions to change the law by adding this intentional standard. every single time it was rejected by the court and in 1988 when the law was amended to really expand and broaden coverage to include two protected classes. disability status and the familial status at that time again, this intentional amendment was introduced. it was rejected, but what congress did do when it amended the law was it said there were three instances that we don't want to apply to disparate impacts. one example is remember familial status is now a protected class.

what congress said is if local musicality's past a reasonable occupancy standard, we do not mean for the reasonable occupancy standard to be challenged by the fair housing act under the disparate impact analysis, saying the occupancy standard will discriminate against families with children. because you can see how that will happen. ari: right. lisa: you have an occupancy standard that says you have to have one person in a bedroom for every 70 square feet. that is going to limit having an opportunity for children. ari: panel? michele: one thing i find interesting as we consider disparate impact as we think about often discrimination in

this country through the prism of white and black interaction. i think what is so important about this particular standard is how we look at discrimination as we think about familial status. he think about young families. also recently you see how it has this great uptake in claims being brought from disabled residents that we often don't see discrimination to read through a plan to disabled citizens, but yet you find difficulty with appropriate housing. to the extent that many of the conversations have only centered on just talking about race and not thinking about these other protected classes, my hope here is that the court considers the far-reaching effect that will come into play if you think about striking down disparate and act. ari: robbie, i wonder who could speak to what the court views as the dilemma here, especially

given your time before the court because on one hand many people relate to the concern that we have a lot of what is called in the literature racism without racist -- racism that is unfair and built on a legacy of what was formal racism is no longer explicitly announced and applied in the same way and it way and -- in the country wants to come by -- combat that. people can relate to that. yet it is not so easy because on the other hand being fair-minded about legal limitations, people say if you are going to use the legal punishment or regulation of saying something is racist, that has agreed to a stigma in -- as formal legal consequences and a great deal of stigma in the society and people saying we set up what is a neutral policy

based on numbers and how the government will comment and say this is racism. how does the court deal with the dilemma? roberta: i spent countless hours thinking about the different journeys this court has been on comparing lgbt civil rights and more traditional african-american civil rights. when it handed down shelby county, it could not be more opposite in terms of promoting civil rights. i spent a lot of time thinking about why another one hand is -- and we have seen incredible progress and on the other hand we are seeing quite the same thing. i think you hit on an issue that is important to the court and this issue of labeling people as racist or homophobic in the

context of windsor is something they are extremely sensitive to. some of the most intense questioning in windsor and so -- is what i was expecting. doma was passed with huge majorities, signed into law, in the question i got was are you saying the huge number of senators and president clinton who voted, are you saying they were homophobes? in dealing with that, whether it is african-american civil rights or gay civil rights, you kind of have to dance a bit because the answer is yes, they probably were homophobic at the time. on the other hand, used the word and say that in that kind of creates this reaction you do not want to have. i, kind of said no, i am not

, saying it's prejudice. it's based on a misunderstanding which was true. but i think your question arguably has the core of what may be motivating the court that they don't want to label anyone a bad person. lisa: ari, if i could follow up to what robbie said -- some argue that is the beauty actually the disparate impact argument. you are saying we know that you know you did not intend to discriminate. you are not a racist but you employ this policy that has a discriminatory effect. he didn't mean to do it but you did it so let's change that. some argue that is the beauty of the disparate impact of a discriminatory effect argument.

elizabeth: one of the points you made at the outset is just federal law. we are just interpreting what the words say. of the argument was that there a lotof the argument was that there are that there are parts of the fair housing act as they adversely affect. so the fha does that make them available. there was a lot of conversation about but there may come available is the same as adversely affect. ari: you are saying make housing unavailable. elizabeth: make housing unavailable -- does that mean congress intended to look at the impact and not just the intent. the proponents of the disparate impact analysis makes them available in some statutes there is language that adversely affects them they were ok with using disparate impact analysis just looking at the aesthetics.

what is interesting to me as justice breyer, in arguments said why should we change a law , analysis that is working and has been working for many years to use the disparate impact analysis. he made a similar point in that case several years ago. the family community schools against seattle for justice roberts said the way to end discrimination is to end discrimination. the court struck down voluntary efforts to integrate the school system that was de facto segregated. justice breyer said this is crazy to shut our eyes at the realities that de facto

segregation is just as harmful and in this case to bring it back to where i live, and the impact where you live on your health is enormous. there was a study done recently that in two areas of richmond, virginia, life expectancy changes by 20 years because of the area you live in. women in low income communities, largely african-american are 15 times more likely to die of a than women in other communities. there's a tremendous amount of work being done on the socioeconomic causes of health disparities and it all has to do with -- much of it has to do with where you live. whether you have access to healthy food, primary care providers. and simply, the stress of living in a community like that, there was "the new yorker" last week

about the impact on a developing child's brain on the impact of living in a low income community. there is up to a 6% change in the development of the brain of such -- of the child solely because of where he or she is born. to shut our eyes to that and simply say we are going to decide this by focusing on the statue is certainly the impact of whether it has the intent of -- impact of being counterproductive. whether it has the intent of being counterproductive i can't , say. ari: that is a limitation that we see certainly applied selectively for some of the time. it won't tell you whether people under the view of the constitution are involved in the equality and decency should allowed to marry regardless of their gender, how they met or

what they want to do together, which gets us to the next case we want to reach. it is an injustice that he knows so much about this case, but i promise you we go 2020 and we will do that. definitely get you on the next case. robbie tell us what this case is , about. it's fair to assume our audience and people at home remember the previous cases including those that you argued. what is in this case will be decided this month and potentially the create the national standard are right and nations history. roberta: i have to tell you, i never thought i would get to be the good news bear on civil rights issues. knock on wood -- i'm hoping that will be the case. when i walked into the office this morning they had cnn on the tv and they had a flash and there is a new whole that says 63% of americans nationwide support marriage equality. again i have to pause every time

i see those numbers. if you told me that when i brought the windsor case, i would have told you you needed to get medication, or something, because that was not going to happen. so, the journey the country has been on, 2003 was the first case of seeking marriage equality in massachusetts and the first time gay people could get married. and now we are at 37 states. the question before this court is whether that equality will extend to the remaining 13. whether or not does the federal government has to recognize the equal dignity, but states like like mississippi or texas or louisiana or florida have to allow gay citizens to have the equality of marriage. that is the case is about.

that is why, obviously it's , getting the attention it's getting. we shall see. fingers crossed. ari: ian, why don't you walk us through what the outcomes could be here. it seems that one would be simply saying states have to recognize marriages performed in other states regardless of the the law, which is sort of a federally -- federalism issue the other seemingly faulty federalized or something else. enlighten us. ian: the most likely outcome is some version of all 50 states required not just to recognize out-of-state marriages, they're required to issue marriage licenses to gay couples under their own law. that is the good news. but i think how the court reaches that decision is almost

important as if they reach that decision. so you know, what is interesting about this case in relation to the housing case, i see it as a proxy war over the broader ideological battle where conservatives for a long time have wanted to limit civil rights to disparate treatment, where you show intent in order to prove discrimination. if you believe, which i don't that the only type of civil rights violation is where you have intent, marriage discrimination qualifies. even if the person doesn't hold it, it is the intent of the law to provide less rights than they provide to opposite couples. it is also the case if you look at the supreme court doctrine, gay-rights is a very easy question.

what the supreme court has said is when a group has historically experienced the type of discrimination which bears no relation to their ability to perform or contribute to society, they are entitled to protection under the constitution. there is really just no question that sexual orientation should fit the bill. i will throw a few numbers that you hear. new york city arrested 50,000 people over the course for four decades because they were seeking consensual sex with the person of the same sex. that used to be a crime in the state of new york. the city of philadelphia formed a moral squad that arrested 200 gay man every month. it is to be the policy of the united states of america that the federal government would not hire gay people. it uses words like revulsion.

the last thing i will say is more than half the state at one point had laws stating sexual deviance to be confined against their will said the state could try to care what they do. so i don't think there's any question that sexual orientation meet the standard that the history of discrimination and yet the court has slow walked. there have been a number of decisions beginning in 1996. what strikes me about roemer and windsor is how incremental these have been. the court has resisted reaching the natural conclusion of gay people should be entitled to heighten protection. i suspect they will continue to resist it in this case. if that is true, that is -- has profound applications for

the future. while it will mean same-sex couples will be allowed to marry, it also won't mean they won't be able to engage in other forms of anti-gay scriven nation. sam brownback recently rescinded an executive order that said the state would discriminate against gay people in its own hiring. that might be constitutional, at least under the supreme court has said, after they rule marriage equality as the law of the land. i think it is likely a narrow victory will be a complete victory -- we will get marriage equality in all 50 states. but that it is much less likely that the court will recognize that the constitutional dish demands is discrimination

against gay people of any kind should be treated with skepticism. ari: what is interesting as you mentioned the federal obligation to explain itself and in all the cases we see some discussion of where did these rules from, but it is something positive about the judiciary that is the only part that has binding rules and having to explain itself. many disagree, it can be held at in the light of day of why did you do this. some decisions don't wear well in real time. i want to go back to robbie and then broaden out to the sixth circuit decision, which you are intimately familiar with, in which ohio against marriage equality but it is striking because it feels to a lawyer and even a non-lawyer, a weak argument. let me read from it, a brief

quoting saying that it is rational to recognize that marriage was adopted not to regulate love, but to regulate sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of mail-female intercourse. the argument being made there is that because marriage was initially structured to deal with what society viewed as the potential problems or messiness of sex and procreation, it is therefore fully limited. speak to us about why this is arising because it seems like a very weak argument when you look at the endurance of marriage as something that exists and is protected with or without children and for elderly people who would not have children etc.. roberta: you'll be shocked to

hear i agree with you. most of the justices actually think it's a pretty silly argument, too. this is prominent in the oral argument in april. the reason the argument is so prominent is because there aren't any other left. this is the only distinction that people who oppose marriage equality can come up with between gay couples and straight couples is the idea that straight couples sometimes procreate. this has pushed them into a view of marriage that is so divorced from reality and from what anyone thinks his marriage. i do nothing anyone thinks if they get married -- they get married to someone because it's accidentally procreate, the kid is protected. nobody says i want to make sure the kid has protection. i do not know what universe marriage exist in that world

but it's no universe i know of. the image of marriage portrayed if you are the council of michigan or tennessee, was the situation that i try to hypothesize. you have been married straight couple that are abusive to each other, violent to each other. it happens. but they are fine to their kids. under this theory that these people should be the state's policy for that couple to stay married because it's good for the kids. obviously that makes no sense. that is just crazy world. the justices recognize that. i do not even think in the dissent, hopefully again -- i cannot help myself -- in the dissent of this case you will see that view of marriage. it is so divorced from reality. michele: one piece i want to go

back to is something that we think about -- i will join the knock on wood and the concept we think about marriage equality as we will create a legal environment where there are protections for same-sex loving couples to marry, and the very next day they could go to work share that they have been married and for a host of reasons potentially lose their job, lose their health care depending where they are. so, the question is are we setting framework where we are protecting and moving forward as we think about marriage equality in the country. at the same time, when we expand our questions discrimination -- now you are not talking about the relationship between individuals. then do we find ourselves back in the world, a disparate impact

world where we are looking at civil rights for all persons where you will be -- and you have the potential to, kind of, lose out on long-held traditional ideas or notions of civil rights but in a very different context because now you talk about losing your ability to work, to live, health care. there's a host of protections that many of us in the community are thinking about what nondiscrimination looks like for everyone. we are hoping we have the opportunity to do that at the end of this term, but as we think about the long reaching the fact, discrimination in the way the court has thought about it as potential ramifications for same-sex couples the way we see it in other traditional civil rights. ari: final thought, that we are going to go to obamacare.

roberta: there are some people seem to get fired because their abbas says -- please excuse me, i'm not trying to offend anyone, they fire you because they say you are a faggot. people are coming around to the idea you shouldn't fire someone. the question is what do you do with a situation where there's a disparate disparate impact or a subtle discrimination and that is where the commonalities will very much come to the floor. ari: we will go to obamacare. at this juncture on the past two cases because folks have a deep sense obamacare. it will be simply what you think will happen on each case. start with their housing and say do you think the disparate impact will be upheld to continue or will it be overruled and struck down. show of hands how many think , current will be upheld in that

case? michele: i am a progressive. ari: how many people think it will be struck down? mixed here, ok. and on marriage equality -- i am not going to do every possibility. do you think the case will advance? by a show of hands, yes. most of the room. by a show of hands no. and you think it is fair to do -- we can do the obamacare next. i thought this was a nice halftime. we're about to hear about it. you may have heard about whether the way the law was written written should deny subsidies. by show of hands, how many people think the law will be upheld and subsidies continued. how many think no, the part of the law will be essentially struck down? we have some pessimists. that gives a sense of where we

come from and now where we are going. now tell us about the case. elizabeth: that was a good test of what the class knows already. most of you know a fair amount. just to take you back a little bit. congress enacted the affordable care act to address very serious problems and access to health care and country. there are basically three prongs to this tool that were part of the affordable care act. one is everybody has to get health care unless he makes so -- unless you make so little money are exempted from the requirement. two is that insurance companies have to provide insurance to people regardless of preexisting conditions. so for the first time people , have been diagnosed with cancer or multiple sclerosis or whatever it is they don't want to cover, those people are entitled to get insurance.

the third wrong -- prong is the tax subsidies. the only way the three leg is still works as for the tax subsidy to be available because if you don't provide the tax subsidies, then you've got a big pool of people exempted from the requirement to get health care. all of a sudden the people who are getting insurance i just do -- are just the people with preexisting conditions. the insurance companies can't afford it. they need the big base of healthy people to be able to spread the risk of covering people with preexisting conditions. the problem is we had a lot of people in the country were getting health care by showing up at the emergency room door which is really bad economically and also really bad for your health to not get preventive care along the way and show up at the emergency room door. on top of the people with

pre-existing conditions not getting treatment, you had normal everyday people who couldn't afford health care because they did not health -- have insurance and congress is trying to fix a significant social problem. the affordable care act got past. the opposition to the affordable care act has not yet given up. i can't remember how many times there's been a bill passed. i think it is 49. 50, 51. the opposition continues. after supreme court decided in the case that the affordable care act passed muster because it was enacted pursuant to the taxing power of the united states. then the opponents came up with another idea and this idea was to find a creative idea to find four words in the statute that

says exchanges created by the state and because of these words in the statute admit that they couldn't be in the exchange that were created by the state. this is a fairly technical statutory argument created by -- argument because the language is in a provision of the statute that addresses how you calculate the subsidy that somebody is entitled to. there are various other provisions that interrelate. there is a provision that says states shall create exchanges. there is another provision says that the state opts not to create an exchange, federal government will step in and create an exchange. it is used throughout the statute to refer both to the exchange created by the state and the exchange created if the state opts not to create an exchange. so it is pulling his words out , of context because of the calculation of tax subsidies and a provision that refers to

exchange created by the state and is even more complicated because it refers back to another statutory section that refers back to another statutory section. the argument is these words mean you can't give tax subsidies in exchange created by the federal government. 34 states have exchanges that are federally facilitated marketplaces. there are 6.4 million people getting tax subsidies on the federally facilitated marketplaces. if the court was the wrong way not only will the 6.4 million people lose their tax subsidies and therefore their insurance, but the estimates are another million and a half people will probably lose insurance because as i said at the beginning if you pull out the base, everybody's costs go up, so people who are not getting tax

subsidies will have their , insurance priced out of reach because the cost of coverage is going now. ian: i want to bring what they says that at the beginning about fair housing, which is about how orin hatch has tried over and over again to get the results of the litigants in the fair housing cases not trying to get out of court. you know, you see the exact same dynamic with the affordable care act. this is the weakest statutory interpretation argument that i have ever seen reach the supreme court. elizabeth listed some of the evidence that the plaintiffs' theory is wrong. i will explain one more. the plaintiffs hone in on these words through an exchange established by the state. if you read one sentence completely divorced from anything else in the statute you may think they're onto something until you see that the word "exchange" is defined to

mean a government agency or nonprofit entity is established by a state. so any exchange, regardless of whether it's federal government or state government is aimed to be established by state. this case borders on the sanction of frivolousness. that said, there is an argument for why it's out here. while there are some things a lawyer has not been candid about, he was unusually candid in a conversation with a friend of mine who is a reporter now with bloomberg. he had a conversation with mr. carvin and he asked them -- him on the same issue called high --

how the some of you may remember the d.c. circuit actually bought the plaintiffs theory and the full d.c. circuit decided to do with its located over again. this is all the drama was going about the d.c. circuit are going to block it, and in that context, mr. carvin said he thinks the republicans on the supreme court are going to get -- going to give a damn about what a bunch of obama appointees on the d.c. circuit think and just in case there's any ambiguity as to what he was saying here, he asked them, do you think you are going to lose any judges appointed by a republican and he said no i do not think i will lose any republican appointed judges.

so this is not a case about statutory interpretation. elizabeth: let me just jump in. it is important that we use the language of statutory interpretations. this cases are good as a statutory interpretations case and the reason for that is because it is obvious what congress intended. but to just say congress intended the subsidies to be available in federal exchanges but you can say congress screwed up in a cognition that, then we lose. the court's answer to that is that we will let congress six that. you should look not just at the four words, but at the context of the entire statute.

stratasys range of petition should get to where the court needs to be -- ari: let me say to make sure we to the case we are saying accessible it seems we are , collapsed into different political structures that should be decided. one is the actual inquiry the court is doing, which is what does the law do. in this case on paper record it seems very far-fetched to argue that the challengers to obamacare argue that the laws secretly discriminated based on geography. nobody knew about it. nobody opposed the law is a good or bad thing. we had this multiyear debate about it and that was just a secret design that somehow was never discovered and now needs to be applied by the court in a way the other branches never wanted, never discuss, never sad. -- never said, and the democrats who were pushing the law, as you so eloquently described, included in a sort of secret suicide trigger.

right? it's just very far-fetched. i say that being fair to the argument. then the second analytical , structure you refer to and cynicism as well is the most -- cynicism people bring to the court is well, isn't this political? i wonder if we could tease that out because it's fair to say justices are humans and their -- and at times will be moved by their own instincts whether they personal, political or ideological. the question for folks to understand what the court is going to do is how does that actually work because it's also fair to say that members of this court and past courts. plenty of instances where justices depart from what you might think they would want to do or feel constrained by the rule. you've written about this a lot. if this is a far-fetched statutory argument, that is to say this law doesn't do what you

think it does why is this , appealing as a far-fetched and potentially controversial way to limit the aca when the court has clearly not gone out -- gone that route when given other, i would call, mainstream chances? ian: it is definitely true that there is a two-tiered litigation strategy going on here. there's a strategy on the surface where there was an excellent amicus brief filed which lays out what elizabeth and i have been talking about which shows it is absolutely clear the statutes only be read one way. below the surface, there is another strategy going on they consist of trying to embarrass the justice says are inclined to not do what the statute clearly says that it should do. a lot of it just consists of pointing to how obvious this legal argument is and going

come on, guys, you cannot get away with this. one person who should be particularly embarrassed if he decides to vote with the plaintiffs here is justice scalia because he wrote in a 2012 book that he co-authored that there is no interpretive fault more common than the failure to follow the whole text can in which causes the judicial interpreter to consider the entire text in view of its structure and the physical and logical relations of many parts. again, i would hope that the mere fact that this is an easy case, and there is really only one way to read a statute would be enough to convince nine judges there is only one way to read the statute, but in the event, through motivated reasoning or a more conscious partisan desire, they are not inclined to do their job, i would hope they would at least realize the arguments in this case are so weak that it would

be embarrassing, not just to themselves, but i think to the court as an institution. ari: robbie, help me out. ian gave a good answer, but did not answer the question posed and as a journalist one of my pet peeves, one of the questions posed is if you're sympathetic to that, then why do you think as a court expert that justices are linked in to consider what is a week apart against the aca right now? roberta: i think you realize there is some sense to look, no one can explain how the justice make certain decisions. no one is allowed in that room there anyone who tells you they somehow have some insight i'd , like to know where they went to law school. it certainly was not taught to me in law school. one might guess, and this is a guess, they knew there would have to do this earlier.

circumvent the d.c. circuit -- and reverse it. so my guess is they figured guess is they figure they might as we'll get over with now. that's why you saw it. hopefully i agree with the panel that it doesn't speak to the merits of the plaintiff argument. i'm amazed, sitting there amazed as a supreme court advocate to hear the comment that the plaintiff's counsel made, i justn if that's what you think in heart of hearts i cannot imagine saying i'm going to get all republican appointed judges on my side and none of the others. look, maybe i'm idealistic or i've never been accused of assisting publicly idealistic in my life i think a lot of judges to decide on the merits. there's an awful lot of republican appointed judges. most of them since windsor have decided for equality. so, the degree of cynicism and that sigmund is a little bit

surprising, even to me. michele: one technical point, it only take four justices. if we look at it, we know there were four justices who thought the decision should of went that way. i think that is really important. ari: to hear a case in the first place. michele: to hear a case in the first place. i think that's another part of the conversation that we should add. the other thing that i will say his there is a larger conversation taking place about the roberts court in kind of a direction in which this court is moving. i think most americans, there's a poll out today i think in the "washington post" just released, or just wrote that over 55% of americans want the supreme court to uphold the subsidies.

and i think it's -- ari: within the states? michele: within the states that would be denied the. so most of these states again, that are 34 states. most of the states are kind of presidential primary, and in those states which you could say that the more conservative population, they want the obamacare subsidies to be upheld by the supreme court. just cannot look at the backdrop of what's happening at a think that's a really important point to make. ari: i want to go to the audience questions and final thought on the obamacare and then bring you guys in. elizabeth: i was going to broaden it a little bit to why the court might want to use these words in sort of a craft four interpretation. there are a number decisions of the roberts court come with the is doing is pulling back sort of standing in the way of efforts to address social problems by either the states or the federal government, striking down section five of the voting rights, the other part of it,

didn't get nearly as much press but the court struck down the medicaid expansion peace of the affordable care act. ari: you are talking about the first affordable care act case. elizabeth: yes, sorry. the court upheld the core part of the three-legged stool i described, but in the medicaid expansion that was mandatory under the affordable care act the court struck that down. so what i fear is that the pendulum and the court has long suffered untold wingnut heaven activist courts does look at social ills of drug abuse the law to address them but is all with the opposite extreme, standing in what efforts by publicly elected officials to name and address social problems. ari: well, and you you are also putting your finger on a looming inconsistency which in the first obamacare case the notion of having high demands on states to get the money was considered

coercive, right? and in this case they could potentially read rate interpret the statute to deny funds, which if it was the theme would also be -- that's a lot of hypothetical. elizabeth: that's a problem for down the road. ari: that's what we do. we look for more problems in our nature as attorneys. i want to talk to you guys for three cases. it's been really wonderful. you guys are just really wonderful that this. let's go to the mic. as i said at the top please introduce yourself come comments are fine, questions are fine but let's wait time for responsive. >> good morning. previously at the university of baltimore center for international and comparative law. now i am in private practice. i appreciate all other marks and one general question i for the entire panel is on the darkest of the dark said what if the

, court were to point in all three cases in point to congress because you love it congress that is under the control of one party, and the party has been chomping at the bit for a very long time to really sink its teeth into all these three issues. it wouldn't be the first time the court would've interest itself in american history but what if it were to congress on two point all of these three issues and say to congress can you deal with it. the last speaker talked about on health care but what about all three of them? it gets punted to congress across the way. lisa: this is something that we've been grappling with. the potential fix, if it meets the a legislative fix, will depend on what the court says in its opinion. so one of the key hang ups happen in the icp case compassing thing that elizabeth was talking about.

reading the plain text of the law which justice alito really wanted the court to do any made -- and he made arguments toward that end. actually justice scalia said no, we take the whole law in its entirety. we consider the entire law including the amendments. and justice scalia said, look if you read the entire law including the amendments, it's very clear that disparate impact was like under the fair housing act. but i think, look, we don't have any fallacies that at least the house would put forth the cure it would be a legislative fix. i don't necessary think that the senate, this particular senate might do that as well, but i think if there was a potential fix that would harm the fair

housing act that the president would veto that, but i also think that it will take us some time to get to the fix that we need an oakley we would be dealing with not this particular same congress. ian: i'll just add one thing which is to resist the word punt. if the court were to say so these were to be cut off or if they say that if they said that we're going to get comfortable doesn't offer disparate impact litigation, the fact that they didn't include language all, but congress to pass new law this and that, that is not a punt. it is a changing existing law. you know, it's not a punt to the say we're going to do this thing blows up a bunch of 11, -- >> forty-five years. ari: you are talking about whether they will overrule two pieces of progressive legislation, something from the civil rights era that at the economic component to voting

rights act. and obamacare which has already been tested. in that sense from the defenders of the laws view they are like leave it alone. and anyone else was looking to change this court. let's take two questions at the time. roberta this is the last thing : in the world republicans in congress want to deal with. mayors no way. you see the presidential republican candidates contorting themselves and pretzels odyssey. they say they are against marriage equality but they would go to a gay marriage. ari: broadly, let's be careful to visit pretzel are just pieces of the wedding cake? roberta they would like to have : waited longer but the sixth circuit me that not really a choice. ari: i want to get, let's take to questions at a time. >> my question is regarding the fair housing case.

as far as if disparate impact if they decide it has no place in the fair housing act, how does that affect some hud programs? i know they have a program coming out this summer, or a proposal coming out this summer which basically was going to require state agencies to look at data on the map and assess where their services are. ari: hold it and we will take one more. >> i'm with the financial consulting firm. one issue that it neither interestingly on the gay marriage issue was they came out, both justices, is that these arguments just a pretense? doesn't a pretext argument hold for the two other issues that we also elaborate both senator -- both in the fair housing and

the obamacare argument? lisa so, if the supreme court : strikes down disparate impact under the fair housing act actually will not affect the affirmative we are housing will. that particular rule is being promulgated under a different section of the law. affirmatively furthering their housing and disparate impact are two distinctly different things. but one of the things that you may consider when you're conducting your analysis, under the provision, is whether or not there are any policies, for example, zoning ordinances that had been passed by the principality that have a disparate effect on a particular protected class. the disparate impact is a component in terms of considering whether you are affirmatively furthering fair housing but they are cute distinct things that i don't think disparate come into court

to strike and disparate impact what you do not expect it to do, but let's say that it does, it will not impede the furtherance of the rule. afro deadly furthering fair housing is not anything new. it's been in existence for decades. municipal seven doing it for decades. it's just that for decades they've been calling it the analysis. now that would be called the fair housing assessment. it is empowering the municipalities with the data that they will need to adequate and accurately provide the assessment. >> just quickly on the question on pretext. there continues to be a debate about whether or not the roberts court finds itself kind of online, using a third branch

which is supposed to be a part of our checks and balances, our system of checks and balances would align itself more with this kind of ideological who saved that we see taking place in the conservative movement? and so whether it's an issue like immigration that we are currently dealing with down in texas or if it's an issue around environment or civil rights, there are questions that are currently happening come with this roberts court ally itself where what we are seen as a naked direction to push the court and to push the country in very specific ways. and so i think a lot of us would say for the court to overturn years of precedent, finding situations where there hasn't been a circuit split, taking cases that many people just assume the court would never consider. you have to ask yourself, is

that a real question and is there something happening where the court that is supposed to be above kind of partisan politics, is something changing with this particular court? i think it's a fair question. lisa can i jump in real quick? : i want to go back to an issue that elizabeth had raised earlier if we don't have another question. ari: do we have other questions or comments? go right ahead. lisa: thanks. so i want to begin a little bit deeper on this sort of plaintext of the issue. and alito focusing at least another housing case on the fact that no, you just look at the plane text of the law as it was written in 1968. and if the plaintext of the law as it was written in 1968 didn't mean to include disparate impact you cannot include disparate impact.

but in opposition to that justice scalia went to a very prolonged discussion about the fact that you to look at the law holistically. if you look at the law in all of its elements when you are trying to determine whether or not there was a statutory intent for whatever the question is. and i think that's very important going back to the point and made earlier, because in my mind, if scalia votes against disparate impact in this particular case, he's going against the precedent -- the belief he is already set forth and it does raise for me this protection issue, michele, you're talking about like what is your real purpose? and i think it opens up a whole new can of worms at least for scalia, not for a leader but

certainly for scalia it does. ari: want to go to kind of closing foster i want to doublecheck, commit any other questions or comments? there is one. >> i'm not affiliated with anything, but my question is what will the republicans do if obama, the obamacare gets decided the other way? they will have the same kind of problem that they would in a same-sex marriage thing. they will have a mess. everything is kind of build on this one thing and they will pick it apart and then what will they do? no one is going to like the chaos that results. elizabeth you are absolutely : right. of course a lot has been written in the preceding weeks and months about exactly the issue

that you're identifying, it usually no backup plan for what's going to happen if the supreme court strikes down the subsidies. what's interesting about that is what impact that has on the court to realize that there really isn't a backup plan, and that millions of people who are getting health insurance for the first time and getting reprinted care for the first time are going to have it snatched away from them. you know, the justices are people. they read the newspapers. their clerks with the newspapers. what those of us that are difficult these issues are always talk about what can we do, what can we do? we really don't know how much of an impact it has on the justices to realize that we hope that it makes a difference for the justices to understand just how horrible it will be if the tax subsidies are struck down. ari: but in fairness, they would

say that a punitively or negative outcome does not bind their decision because they policy concern. elizabeth: that's exactly right but in this case as in a number of cases that have gone the wrong way, there is at least a fair reading of the statute that comes out the right way. and as clinton has said, a much fair reading of the statute that comes out to uphold the subsidies. ian: i will say two things. one is to the extent that are justices who are partisan reasons motivated to decide what the point is, i think it is really helpful a lot of helpful a lot of political analysts have weighed in and pointed out that this may not be so good for the republican party. so if they aren't willing to do

the right thing because they're just following the law, maybe they will do the right thing out of some other concern. that said, if they do to the wrong thing i think we already have a pretty good indicator of what's going to happen because we have seen it happen that the medicaid expansion. what we've seen is that in many states where you have governors and lawmakers who are ideologically opposed to the affordable care act, they are turning down free money him literally turn down free money. effect with the soviets the affordable care act don't even have to country with this extension at all because they have an ideological to all things obamacare. so i don't think there's any question regardless of what the politics are that there will be many states what the supreme court does the wrong thing. subsidies would get cut off and that means there's a brief that was submitted by several public health advocates have predicted that 10,000 people, about 10,000 people will die every year if the tax credits are cut off.

that's a lot of mothers who don't get to hold the suns again, a lot of husbands who don't get to kiss their wives again if this goes the wrong way. ari: i want to go to closing comments, which can be whatever you want to wrap on. we will go down the line for anything you didn't get to say. for a response to a bit of a paradox of the court that it would close on as we think about so many of these important public issues that the court is potentially right, right in and of acting one way or another. i think there's a paradox about the supreme court as the third branch of government is always interesting for folks who care deeply our want of impact, unlike the other two branches the court doesn't exist to respond to the public. it's very as we said this rule is the opposite. at the most basic level if you

write a letter to your member of congress our find it anything they would be at least some notion of respond to you or pretended to care what you think at least one of your idealistic or cynical. is at least that structure. therebut isn't it into court are quite the opposite. it would've been around the culture of the court is the idea of insulating the court and justices. they do that themselves in small ways they don't allow television cameras in come at our structure and constitution does with tenure and a lack of elections and a real strong tradition in -- and forced in our body politics against we michael obligor political pressure on the justices. and yet when you think about several of these cases and others term will be defined, there is an extensive discussion i was even in oral argument as we saw in the marriage case about what the public gets it. and for marriage equality is an area of lower many people who fashion themselves as

egalitarians, a quality oriented to progressives, are very positive about the role of the court might not have much of 1.1 people positive about the court's support of the civil rights movement. it is a point of pride in our history and yet it is not one of the think can be fairly argued as independently arising from justices who often talk about how strings of these concepts are to them, however growing up as kids the notion people as syngenta getting married were unimaginable to quote one judge. there was an interesting paradox when the one in the court is insulated and once to be so come and get on the other hand, particularly on airs of what many people consider a march march for social progress, there is incredible attention to what the public is that, are we being pushed from the grassroots up? if we have what many people consider that a marriage equality, a historic event this month potentially coming from the court it would seem to me to get a response for those who want to speak to this is not a closing thought, it would seem to me to be very much a direct response to what we the people have been doing and growing and evolving on and not some other independent legal conclusion

that came from some legal doctrine. so that's one thing about thinking about with this term. let's get thoughts and closing for each of her expert panelists. michelle first off i think we're : all time but probably descended because we're at a panel talking about supreme court, right? but i think what's fascinating is the kind of look at the arc of history. you can look at dred scott and then you can look at where the court was in brown and you can see the evolution, you see a growth. the same thing as you look at kind of the marriage equality cases. you can see where we were even when windsor happened to where we are now. i would like to believe that the most americans like to believe that somehow the court is a part of our system that is just untouchable, that you can't reach, that somehow they are not

connected to all of us broadly. they are. they are real people. they look at the news. interconnected and they pay attention to the arc of human history. and so something in me believes that the roberts court particularly the chief justice here, is looking and paying attention to the way that people are continuing to lose faith in the institution of the court as a whole, as a separate kind of independent about the politics body. i think that that's a real concern for the chief justice, as it should be. because we see a 10% approval rate for congress. i am a former congressional staffers on why people hate on congress. it makes sense sometimes, but the court doesn't want to have those same numbers. and so it's very real for them to watch what the american people, where the american people are, how these decisions affect real people. the fact that they're

potentially 10,000 people who could die when subsidies are taken away, the fact that jeff -- you have some states where you can be married in other states that you can't seems kind of, does it seem, doesn't comprehend for some of the justices ensure that with some of it back and forth in the most recent oral arguments. and so i would like to believe again this is my optimistic i think my head was raised all the questions that the court will do the right thing. i think the court is paying attention to deplete the american people have a role to

play as the court considers these decisions. and with a question obviously the fidelity must always be to the constitution and to the interpretation. the believe that the constitution is a living and breathing document for a reason because the arc of history in our people and we are as americans move and changes through history. and that counts for something. roberta i'm just going to echo : the comments that have been made. judges after all as i said are human beings. i think even they would admit that. so there impacted by the same kinds of things that human beings are anti-think, based on not only legal arguments, kind of emotion and morality et cetera. we all do. what's amazing in america called the contest is the arguments have not changed. one of the reasons e.g. wind had to go to toronto to get married instead of in our home state of new york is it's my fault the i argued that new york marriage case in 2006 and lost it. not a single argument change. every argument they make it is exactly the same. what has changes the ability of judges to hear those arguments. there's no doubt that what made that change is change in american people.

it is a change in moral understanding about who you are gay neighbor and gay colleague and friend and family member is. that only happened because people came out of the closet. all of the justices know people who are gay. that makes it very hard in that context is it's ok to treat them, to have discrimination under the law. ari: so this is a very interesting transitional period i think for the supreme court. and blaming by that is if you go back 100 years in supreme court history, the supreme court was an abomination. they struck down child labor laws, they struck down minimum wage. the court had basically set itself up as a nation since sure, if they saw a lot of it like they would strike it down just because they didn't like it. and we got out of the air and then there was the warren court era with the court, i think the extent do people think of the

warren court as being protected in pushing the boundaries of law, i think that is exaggerated but it is certainly true that liberals saw it loss of life -- like. other interesting thing happened in nixon's that the second bush administration, which is that conservatives having seen what it was like to go over and over again being on the losing end of the supreme court decision decide it didn't like getting very much. they decided they did not like that feeling very much, so much he started to have a meaningful movement for conservative judicial restraint and. you see that in the rhetoric that comes out of reagan on the second president bush. they were quite bad on some but a lot of issues, nixon, reagan bush way of looking at judges

was extraordinarily constrained compared to conservatives have looked at the law in the past. now, and it happened sometime around january 20, 2009, that emphasis, that focus on restraint is very much on the wane in conservative circles or you go to the site and i can put every year, they had a whole panel of why we shouldn't have discrimination laws last year. to help them weather should have a minimum wage. and so i think the question right now for the supreme court is whether the conservatives on the court are going to still embrace a more restrained vision that was dominant for a while, but whether they will take us back to the bridge in in the 19th century competitor know the answer to that question. lisa: i totally agree that justices are human. and that evolve and that they do

pay attention to public opinion. i also believe they are very smart and crafty. and that when they make decisions to impede on our rights or to limit or takeback rights that we already have, that they can frame those decisions in a way that on its -- a façade that has its appearance of trying to see, seem like they're moving us in the right direction, so take justice roberts quote, right, at best way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race. it seems like the right thing to say, it sounds right on its face but when you give back the layers of that onion, a very very dangerous thing because it is rooted in something, rooted in an argument that i hear oftentimes in my consulting work when i work with lenders and i get this response from executives who say, we don't discriminate. in fact, i don't even see race

, i don't even see color. and on one element that's offensive. it is like you coming to me and saying i don't recognize that you're a woman that i am a woman. yes, i am a person of color. it's insensitive for utility don't see that educate be prejudicial over discriminate because you don't see race. you are colorblind, right? and that is the argument that justice roberts is saying their admirers bonds to that is the best way to stop discriminating based on the race is to see it in the first place. and if you adopt laws that impede us from being able to see race discrimination, you are perpetuating segregation. you are perpetuating the systemic practices and institutions that promote race discrimination, gender discrimination, et cetera.

elizabeth i share ian's look at : the arc of the court began to say earlier what i fear is this court is counter progressive in that there will be efforts to address social problems as we go forward and the court make it cash may stand in the way of those. i don't think we can afford as a country not to address some very serious social issues. one of the impacts of the court decision not to expand or not to allow expanding medicaid is that there are a million african-americans in texas florida and georgia who are in the coverage gap, who get no health insurance as a result of that decision. a million african-americans. and just in d.c., residents of ward seven are much more likely than anybody else in the city to suffer from cardiovascular disease. residents of ward seven and eight are tied for the top obesity rates. we can't afford as a country to

lose the productivity of segments of our society because they are stuck in neighborhoods where they can't get out. and so my hope is that what we see -- i think the reason that we are optimistic about these three cases is that there is so much momentum across the nation. there's been so much momentum toward marriage equality. and as we talked about there's been so much publicity about the fact that people who have health care don't want to give it up. and maybe what we have to do that we just have to be that loud about what we care about, if the court is tending toward stopping those efforts to address social ill. then we just have to be louder. ari: all right. these join me in welcoming thanking our panel for this great conversation. [applause]

>> tonight i'm on the communicators, at this years consumer electronics show, we met up with andrew keen and asked him why he feels the internet is not the answer. >> the internet is not the answer at the moment. not in the sense it is not working currently. it is lending itself to undermining jobs. it is compounding the inequality of our economic lives, creating new massive monopolies that were unimaginable in the 20th century. it has created this economy in which we have all been turned into products.

you and i have been packaged when we use google or facebook. we become the product like a hitchcock movie. >> tonight on the communicators on c-span two. >> coming up tonight on c-span president obama speaks to reporters at the closing news conference of the g summit -- g7 summit. after that, and all merkel speaks to reporters. later, the center for american progress looks at three major cases from the supreme court term. looking at the g7 summit, how it is being reported from the german news service, a story titled "protest, climate, and if you commitments." the discussion also focused on ukraine and russia. the chancellor warning that g7

leaders of a ready to toughen sanction over moscow's role in the current conflict and notes leaders committed themselves to furthering bilateral trade agreements, including the controversial free-trade agreement. the president just has landed back at andrews air force base just outside of washington. next up, his use conference from germany earlier today. it is 35 minutes. president obama: good afternoon. let me begin by once again thanking chancellor angela merkel and the people of bavaria and germany for the restored three hospitality here the g-7. my stay here has been asked ordinary and i wish i could stay longer. one of the pleasures of being

president is scouting out places that you want to come back to, where you don't have to spend all your time in a conference room. the setting is breathtaking. our german friends have been absolutely wonderful and the success of this summit is a tribute to their outstanding work. the g-7 represents some of the largest economies in the world but in our g-7 partners, united states also embraces some of our strongest allies and closest friends in the world. even as we work to promote the growth that creates jobs and opportunity, we are also here to stand up for the fundamental principles that we share as democracies for freedom, for peace, for the right of nations and peoples to decide their own destiny, for universal human rights and the dignity of every human being. i am pleased that here we showed that on the most pressing global challenges, we stand united.

we agree the best way to sustain the global economic recovery is by focusing on jobs and growth. that's what i am focused on in the united states and on friday, we learned our economy created another 280,000 jobs in may, the strongest month of the year so far. it is more than 3 million new jobs over the past year, nearly the fastest pace in a decade. we have now seen five straight years of private-sector job growth, 12.6 million new jobs created, the longest streak on record. the unemployment rate is near its lowest level in seven years and wages for american workers continue to rise and, since i took office, the united states has cut our deficit by two thirds. in the global economy, america is a major source of strength. at the same time, we recognize that the global economy while growing is still not performing at its full potential. we agreed on a number of necessary steps.

in europe, we support efforts to find a path that enables greece to carry out the reforms and return to growth within a strong and stable and growing eurozone. i updated my partners with congress to fast-track promotion authority so we can move forward with tpp in the asia-pacific region and ttip in the european area. we continue to make progress toward a strong global climate agreement this year in paris. all the g-7 countries of now put -- have now put forward our post-2020 targets for reducing carbon omissions and will continue to urge other significant emitters to do so as well. we will continue to work our climate finance commitments to help developing countries transition to low carbon growth. as we have done in the u.s., the g-7 agreed on the need to integrate climate risks in the development assistance and developing programs across the

board and to increase access to risk insurance to help developing countries respond to and recover from climate related disasters. building on the power africa initiative, the g7 will work to mobilize more financing for clean energy projects in africa. with respect to security, the g7 remains strongly united in support for ukraine. we will continue to provide economic support and technical assistance that ukraine needs as it moves ahead on critical reforms to transform its economy and strengthen its democracy. as we have seen in recent days, russian forces continue to operate in eastern ukraine. this is now the second year in a row the g-7 has met without russia, another example of their isolation. every member of the g7 continue to maintain sanctions on russia for its aggression against ukraine. it's important to recognize the

russian economy has been seriously weakened. the ruble and foreign investments are down, inflation is up, the russian central-bank has lost more than $150 billion in reserves. russian banks and firms are virtually locked out of the international markets. russian energy company's are struggling to import the services and technology they need for complex energy projects. russian defense programs have been cut off from key technologies. russia is in deep recession. the russian actions in ukraine are hurting russia and hurting the russian people. here at the g7, we agree that even as we will continue to seek a diplomatic solution, sanctions against russia will remain in place so long as russia continues to violate its obligations under the minsk agreement. our european partners reaffirm they will maintain sanctions on russia until the minsk agreements are fully implemented which means extending the eu existing sectoral sanctions passed july.

the g7 is making clear if necessary we stand ready to impose additional significant sanctions against russia. beyond europe, we discussed the negotiations over iran's nuclear program and remain united adding josh heading into the final stages of the talks. iran has as torque opportunity to resolve the international committee's concerns about its nuclear program and we agreed iran needs to seize that opportunity. our discussions with the prime minister of iraq and president of tunisia and the president of nigeria were a chance to address the threats of isil and boko haram. as many of the world's leading partners in global development joined by leaders of ethiopia, liberia, and nigeria, senegal

and the african union, we discussed how to maximize the impact of our development relationships. part of our effort to lift 500 million people in developing countries out of hunger and malnutrition by 2030. we'll continue to work with our partners in west africa to get ebola cases down to zero and, as part of our health security agenda, i am pleased the g7 made a major commitment to help 60 countries over the next five years achieve specific targets to better prevent, detect, and respond to future outbreaks before they become epidemics. finally, i want to commend chancellor merkel for assuring the summit included educational and economic opportunities for women and girls. the g7 committed to expanding career training for women in our own countries and increase technical and vocational training in developing countries which will help all of our nations prosper.

i want to thank angela and the people of germany for their extraordinary hospitality. i leave here confident that when it comes to the key challenges of our time, america and our closest allies stand shoulder to shoulder. with that, i will take some questions and i will start off with jeff mason of reuters. jeff mason: thank you, mr. president. after your meetings here, you mentioned greece in your opening statement. do you believe the europeans are being too tough on greece in these talks and what else needs to be done on both sides to ensure there is a deal and ensure there is not undue harm to financial markets? on a separate topic, the french told reporters today that you said at the g7 meeting you are concerned that the dollars too strong. what did you say exactly and are you concerned that the dollar is

too strong? president obama: first of all don't believe unnamed sources -- i did not say that and i make a practice of not commenting on the daily fluctuations of the dollar or any other currency. with respect to greece, not only are the g7 partners but the imf and other institutions represented here feel a sense of urgency in finding a path to resolve the situation there. what it's going to require is greece being serious about making some important reforms not only to satisfy creditors but more importantly to create a platform whereby the greek economy can start growing again and prosper. the greeks are going to have to follow through and make some tough political choices that

will be good for the long-term. i also think it will be important for the international community and the international financial agencies to recognize the extraordinary challenges that greece faces. if both sides are showing a sufficient flexibility, i think we can get this problem resolved but it will require some tough decisions for all involved and we will continue to consult with all the parties involved to try to encourage that. >> will it happen before the deadline? president obama i think : everybody wants to make it happen and they are working hard to get it done. nedra? >> thank you, mr. president. how are frustrated are you that after you personally raised concerns about cyber security with the chinese president that a massive attack on u.s.

personnel files? was the chinese government involved in as a sports fan, can you give us your reaction to the fifa scandal? president obama with respect to : fifa, i cannot comment on a pending case by our attorney general. i will say that in conversations i have had here in europe, people think it is very important for fifa to be able to operate with integrity and transparency and accountability. as the investigation and charges proceed, i think we also have to keep in mind that, although, football, soccer, depending which side of the atlantic you live on, is a game, it is also a massive business.

it is a source of incredible national pride. and people want to make sure that it operates with integrity. the united states, by the way, since we get better and better at each world cup, we want to make sure that a sport that's gaining popularity is conducted in an upright manner. i don't want to discuss, because we haven't publicly unveiled who we think may have engaged in these cyberattacks. but i can tell you that we have known for a long time that there are significant vulnerabilities and that these vulnerabilities are going to accelerate as time goes by both in systems within government and within the private sector. this is why it is so important

that congress moves forward on passing cyber legislation, cyber security legislation that we have been pushing for. over the last several years, i have been standing up new mechanisms inside of government to investigate and start finding more effective solutions. part of the problem is we've got very old systems. we discovered this new breach in opm precisely because we have initiated this process of inventorying and upgrading to assess these existing vulnerabilities. a we are doing is going agency by agency and figuring out what we can fix and what better practices and better computer hygiene by personnel and where

we need new systems and infrastructure to protect information not just of government employees or government activities but also most importantly, where there is an interface between government and the american people. this is going to be a big project and we will keep on doing it because both state and nonstate actors are sending everything they've got at trying to breach the systems. in some cases, it is nonstate actors engaging in criminal activity and potential theft. in the case of state actors, they are probing for intelligence or, in some cases trying to bring down systems in pursuit of their various foreign-policy objectives. in either case, we will have to be more aggressive and more attentive than we have been and this problem will not go away. it will accelerate. that means that we have to be as nimble, as aggressive, and as

well resourced as those trying to break into the systems. justin. >> i wanted to ask about two things that were on the agenda at the g7 this weekend. the first was the islamic state. you said yesterday that you would assess what is working and what wasn't. i'm wondering what is not working in the fight against islamic state. will the british prime minister step up help with the fight? chancellor merkel said she was pleased to get fast-track authority. does that mean you gave her or other leaders assurance it would go through the house and if it doesn't, what does it say about your ability to achieve meaningful agreements with congress for the remainder of your time in office? president obama: i'm not going to hypothesize about getting it

done. i will get it done and we will get a vote soon because the right thing to do. with respect to isil, we have made significant progress in pushing back isil from areas in which they had occupied or disrupted local populations. but we have also seen areas like in ramadi where they are displaced and they come back in another and they are nimble and they are aggressive and opportunistic. one of the areas where we will have to improve is the speed at which we are training iraqi forces. where we have trained them directly and equipped them and we have a train and assist posture, they operate effectively. where we haven't, morale, lack of equipment, etc. may undermine

the effectiveness of iraqi forces so we want to get more security forces trained and well-equipped and focused. the president wants the same thing so we are reviewing a range of plans for how we might do that, essentially accelerating the number of iraqi forces that are properly trained and equipped and have a focused strategy and good leadership. when a finalized plan is presented to me by the pentagon, then i will share it with the american people. we don't yet have a complete strategy because it requires good amendments -- commitments on the part of the iraqis as well about how recruitment takes place how the training takes , place. the details of that are not yet worked out. >> what about additional u.s. military personnel?

are they under consideration? president obama what's fair to : say is that all of the countries in the international coalition are prepared to do more, to train iraqi security forces come if they feel like additional work has been taken advantage of. one of the things we are still seeing in iraq is places where we have gotten more training capacity than we have recruits. part of my discussion with the prime minister was how we make sure we get more recruits in. a big part of the answer is our outreach to sunni tribes. we have seen sunni tribes who are not only willing and prepared to fight isil but have been successful at rebuffing them but it has not been happening as fast as it needs to. one of the efforts that i am

hoping to see out of the prime minister and the iraqi legislature when they are in session is to move forward on a national guard law that would help devolve the security efforts in places like anbar to local folks and to get those sunni tribes involved more rapidly. this is part of what helped defeat aqi, the precursor of isil during the iraq war in , 2006. without that kind of local participation even if you have a short-term success, it's hard to hold those areas. the other thing is we have to make more progress is stemming the flow of foreign fighters. you will recall that i hosted a

u.n. general security council meeting specifically on this issue. we have made some progress but not enough. we are still seeing thousands of foreign fighters flowing into syria and oftentimes ultimately into iraq. not all of that is preventable but a lot of it is. if we have better cooperation and coordination and intelligence, if we are monitoring what's happening at the turkish-syria border more effectively this is an area -- this is an area where we have been seeking deeper cooperation with turkish authorities who recognize it's a problem but haven't fully ramped up the capacity they need. this is something i think we

have to spend a lot of time on. if we can cut off some of that foreign fighter flow, then we can isolate and wear out isl -- isil forces that are already there because we are taking them off the battlefield. if they are being replenished, it does not solve the problem over the long term. the final point i would emphasize is the political agenda of inclusion remains as important as the military fight this out there. -- that is out there. if sunnis, kurds and shia all feel as if their concerns are being addressed and that operating within a legitimate political structure can meet their need for security, prosperity, nondiscrimination and we will have a much easier time. the good news is the prime minister is very much committed to that principle. but he is inheriting a legacy of

a lot of miss trust groups in -- mistrust between very us groups in iraq and has to take a lot of political risks. in some cases, there are efforts to undermine that trust so we have to support those on the right side of the issue. >> you mentioned the u.s. and its european allies have reached a consensus on extending the sanctions against russia. is there a consensus about what specifically the next step should be if russia continues to violate the minsk agreement? also, can you determine -- the terror - deter russian aggression in other parts of eastern europe without a permanent u.s. troop presence? i wanted to ask you about the possibility of the court battle of your actions on immigration. is there anything more you can do for the people who would have benefited from that program and now are in limbo? how do you view the possibility

of your term ending without a couple she goals and immigration? -- without a couple she your goals on immigration -- without a compass and your goals on immigration. president obama there are strong : consensus that we need to keep pushing russia to abide by the terms of the minsk agreement. we need to continue to support and encourage ukraine to meet its obligation under minsk. until that happens, sanctions remain in place. there was discussion about additional steps that we might need to take if russia, working through separatists, doubled down on aggression inside of ukraine. those discussions are taking place at a technical level, not yet at a political level because i think the first goal going into the european council

meeting coming up is just rolling over the extinct -- existing sanctions. at a technical level, we want to be prepared. our hope is that we don't have to take additional steps. the minsk agreement can be met and i want to give enormous credit to chancellor merkel who has shown extraordinary patience in trying to get that done. ultimately, this is going to be an issue for mr. putin. he's got to make a decision to either continue to wreck his country's economy and continue russia's isolation in pursuit of a wrongheaded desire to re-create the glories of the soviet empire or does he

recognize that russia's greatness does not depend on violating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other countries. as i mentioned earlier, the cost the russian people are hearing are severe. that is being felt. it may not always be understood why they are suffering because of state media inside russia and propaganda coming out of state media in russia and with russian speakers. but the truth of the matter is the russian people would greatly benefit and ironically, one of the rationales nestor putin

provided for is to protect russian speakers there. russian speakers inside ukraine are precisely the ones bearing the brunt of the fighting. their economy has collapsed in their lives are in disorder and many of them are displaced in our homes may have been destroyed. they are suffering. the best way for them to stop suffering is if the minsk agreement is fully implemented. with respect to immigration, obviously, i am frustrated by a disparate court ruling that is now winning its way through the appeals process. we are being as aggressive as we can legally to first and foremost appeal that ruling and then to implement those elements of immigration executive actions that were not challenged in court.

obviously, the centerpiece, one of the key provisions for me was being able to get folks who are undocumented to go through a background check, a criminal background check, pay back taxes, and then have a legal status. that requires an entire administrative apparatus and us getting them to apply and come clean. i made a decision which i think is the right one that we should not accept applications until the legal status of this is clarified. i'm absolutely convinced this is well within my legal authority the department of homeland security's legal authority if you look at the president if you look at the traditional discretion that be executive

ranch has, i am convinced what we are doing is lawful and our lawyers are convinced what we are doing is lawful. but the united states is a government of laws and separations of power. even if it is an individual district court judge of making this determination, we've got to go through the process to challenge it. until we get clarity there, i don't want to bring people in and have them apply and jump through a lot of hoops only to have it deferred and delayed further. the one great way to solve this problem is congress acting which would obviate the need for executive actions. the majority of the american people i think still want to see that happen. i suspect it will be a major topic of the next presidential campaign. we will continue to push as hard

as we can on all fronts to fix a broken immigration system, administratively, we will be prepared if and when we get the kind of ruling i think we should have gotten the first place to go ahead and implement. ultimately, this has never fully replaced the need for congress to act. my hope is that after a number of other issues we are working on currently get cleared, that there will be quiet conversations that start back up again particularly in the republican party about the shortsighted approach they are taking when it comes to immigration. ok. >> thank you, mr. president.