cybersecurity of this nation. they're creating the software on which the entire united states military is going to depend, and assure you that there is a lawful work permit for each and them.one of [inaudible] not here today to be an program. that thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you, maria. >> thank you. >> so much love. so much love. >> coming up today, house nancy pelosi and senate inority leader chuck shuma will -- schumer will talk about daca, which the supreme court argued today. their briefing live at 2:30 eastern time.

the house will gavel in just a few minutes. a number ofa today, veterans' related bills. at the se coverage here top of the hour here on c-span. before daca's supreme court case, we spoke to a reporter for some background. arguments in a minute. joining us on the phone is greg, i supreme court -- a supreme court reporter for bloomberg news. remind viewers what this case is about. guest: good morning, greta. the case started in 2012 when barack obama said he was going to give young immigrants, people who came here as children generally with their parents -- illegally, give them the ability to apply for a shield so they would not be deported and could apply for job permits. that program has been in place for a number of years, about 700,000 people now are daca

recipients and president donald trump two years ago -- his administration said we are going to rescind this program, wind it down so people can no longer renew their status and that brought immediate lawsuits and we are now at the supreme court determining whether president trump's reasons -- his administration's reasons are adequate enough to let him do that. host: what are the president's reasons for rescinding daca and how have the lower courts ruled on this? guest: the second part is easier to describe. the lower courts ruled against ruled against the administration. the explanation has evolved a little bit. reason we are rescinding it is it was illegal the whole time.

there was a threat of suit by republican led states and the administration decided they were going to essentially side with the states and say this program should not have been here in the first place, but the reasons have evolved a little over time and they have added additional reasons. sec. kirstjen nielsen of dhs put out a memo saying in addition to concern that the program was illegal, we think it is a bad idea, we think it is better to have consistent enforcement of our immigration laws. we think it sends the wrong message and exempting so many people is a bad idea. now that we are at the supreme court, the administration is not quite so say -- quite saying it was illegal the whole time, but that is one of the reasons they are concerned about the litigation risk if they keep the program in place.

anyone it those reasons could be enough for the supreme court to say that is fine. in a sense, the trump administration has several arrows in its quiver. elaine duke and why do reporters -- supporters point to her in this argument? guest: she was the acting secretary of dhs at the time. there was a story that came out in the new york times that detailed some of the history of how this program got rescinded. whowas someone at dhs balked at the decision and was reluctant to go along with it. there is a strong humanitarian concern supporters can point to in this case. this would be a decision if daca is rescinded that would dramatically up and hundreds of thousands of lives, it is not

clear how quickly it would be rescinded, but those humanitarian arguments may weigh on the supreme court. host: who is arguing on each side? guest: on the side of the administration, the first person to argo -- argue will be noel francisco. he is who you would expect to argue in this case for the administration. on the others did is a former solicitor general ted olson, a conservative. he is known, for among other things, arguing the bush v gore case, but he is representing daca recipients in this case, going to be arguing what the trump administration is doing is illegal and in addition, the solicitor general of california, michael will be arguing on that side of the case as well. california is one of the

with dacalong .ecipients host: ted olson's cocounsel? recipient.s a daca i understand he will be at counsel table with ted olson today. butt be arguing the case, will, just by his presence, undoubtedly have a pretty dramatic impact. i believe it is the first time anything like this has happened that a daca recipient has been one of the council at the table in front of the supreme court. host: who will be listening inside that courtroom today? host: many -- guest: many daca

recipients, i am sure they will have a packed courtroom and there will probably be other top officials. only fits may be 400 people when it is really packed. line stretching out the court for several days, there is high demand to get into the case. it is an extra long argument, it will be 80 minutes. usually supreme court are humans are only an hour. host: how do you think the justices could rule on this? -- of the different options what are the different options? guest: there are a menu of options for the administration to win. the administration has arguments that start with the courts have no business in this area at all, this case is what we call not justiciable. they could, this seems unlikely, wascourt could say daca

illegal from the get-go. either one of those two options would probably give the administration really brought authority if it wanted to rescind daca quickly, that would be the biggest option for the supreme court. do court could also something a bit more narrow that said as long as you have given us some reason you think it is a bad idea, we will defer to the administration. it would leave the administration with how quickly we want to move to start rescinding daca. it doesn't have to happen immediately. more likely, it would be a wind down and there could be renewed negotiations. the cou >> we are going to leave the last couple minutes of our but view on the daca case you can watch it and all of our programs online at c-span.org. the house about to gave,