images, we just might put them on tv. always, always stay safe when you're getting a photo or video. thank you for joining us today. jenna: "america live" starts right now. megyn: fox news alert on a blockbuster moment in the fight over the president's healthcare law, with questions at the u.s. supreme court this morning suggesting the government's case could be in real trouble. welcome to "america live," everyone, i'm megyn kelly. in a nutshell here is how it went, the four liberal justices signaled today that they would likely favor the government's argument that the healthcare overhaul is constitutional. the four conservative justices seemed to be tell tkpwrafg that thetell tkpwrafg that they are against the mandate, the constitutioconstitutionality of it. the likely critical swing vote a

short time ago signaling he may not be buying the government's argument either. the mandate that requires all americans to purchase health insurance or pay a fine is constitutional. justice anthony kennedy as we've been saying for many weeks now may be the man this entire healthcare law comes down this. this is why a lot of people said justice kennedy is the most powerful man in america, it's not president obama, and it's not just on issues like healthcare. he is the critical swing vote on this case according to most court watchers, and he has some harsh criticisms for the individual mandate today asking one of the lawyers, the lawyer for the government to speak to what kennedy called a quote, very heavy burden of justification, to show where the constitution authorizes congress to take this kind of sweeping action. tom goldstein runs the top supreme court blog in the

country. i recommend you check it out. he left the courtroom to file this update on the argument just about ten minutes before it ended. >> the individual mandate is in trouble, significant trouble. it's too early to tell whether it will be struck down, but the courts four conservative members who asked questions at the court are quite skeptical. none of them asked particularly pressing questions, but they all asked very pressing questions of the solicitor general, including the core ones of whether there is any limiting principle behind the assertion of commerce power here and whether the health insurance market is truly different from things like purchasing cars. paul khrpaul clement gave the best argument that i've heard, extremely adapt at answering all questions from the left, the liberal wing clearly going to

vote in favor of the individual mandate. megyn: paul clement is the former solicitor general under president bush. he is defending the states who are challenging this law. he is against the government in this case. you heard paul goldstein with high praise for how he handled himself in front of the justices today. we have a former defense attorney, he joins me now with more and we will get to tom goldstein, the man whose voice you heard. greg garrett. >> justice kennedy is the one justice that the challengers feel they need to win over. kennedy took up their chief argument sounding skaept calf the healthcare law's broad mandate. he warned the government that it has a heavy burden of justification in mandating that everybody purchase an insurance policy. why should son's decision he asked not to do something force

them into a marketplace? he seemed very focused, laser-like on whether this new law intrudes on individual liberties. kennedy seemed concerned that the law fundamentally changes the relationship between the american public and their government. but then suddenly toward the end of these oral arguments kennedy did a complete about face seeming to side with the government suggesting that perhaps health insurance is such a unique marketplace that congress is entitled to make unique action forcing people to buy insurance. antonin scalia was also vocal. he said could the government make people buy certain foods because it impacts the marketplace. this is the so-called broccoli argument. how about forcing people to buy gym memberships to workout every day. this is the slippery slope the

healthcare law arguably presents in which the u.s. supreme court must now determine. you know, often you can glean from the justices which way they are leaning, but a cautionary note in trying to do that, just because kennedy, for example was today was extremely tough on the government's lawyer that doesn't necessarily mean he's going to vote to strike the individual mandate. sometimes justices simply want to vigorously challenge the integrity and the logic of a litigant's case before later agreeing with it. so, megyn as you know you've been inside these hearings. reading tea leaves at the nation's highest court is sometimes a very risky business skwraoeut is risky but . megyn: it is risky, but i have to tell you, i said this on the air yesterday, when i was there, every time i felt able to predict how they were going to vote and i was never wrong, it's not because i have any great deconcerning abilities. they generally tip their hands if you know the case and have read the briefs. the lawyers who know the case

very well will accurately predict how they are going to come down. it really does sound like it is going to come down to justice kennedy. what they seem to be saying is that he was extremely skeptical of this mandate, but then at the very end of the argument threw the government a life line suggesting, i am very skeptical of this mandate, but -- but, this case may be unlike any other case because of the weirdness and uniqueness of the insurance market. >> sure extraordinary situation sometimes require extraordinary action, even from congress. but, you know, kennedy may have just at the end been trying to throw everybody off who were up until that point absolutely convince they'd he's going to vote to strike down the individual man date, so he throws out this tidbit at the end saying, maybe it's unique, maybe you have a point before finally saying, thank you very much. who knows. megyn: thank you. the man you heard in that audio clip before i introduced greg

joins me now by phone. tom goldstein is a founder of a blog that covers the u.s. supreme court without by as. he has argued 22 case necessary front of the supreme court, been named one of the one hundred most influential lawyers in the nation. he teaches supreme court litigation at stanford and harvard law school. that gives you a feel for who you're going to hear from. thank you for joining us by phone. >> thank you, megyn. megyn: you really are fair and you've come on the program and you've said you're ideological leanings are a little bit more liberal but you are very fair in your presentation of supreme court cases and i can attest to that personally. i want to ask you overall, first of all, what was your overall impression? >> the government could have had worst days but not many of them. it was an extremely tough day for them. they have what they expected which is four votes, and four votes doesn't do you any good at the supreme court, they need a

fifth. megyn: they got the four liberals. >> that's correct. but they didn't clearly by any means have more than that. you really listen to the questions that are asked and aren't asked and has everybody has said the government got asked very hard questions by the conservative justices that asked questions. you have to listen to the fact that paul clement weren't asked very hard questions. megyn: those are the lawyers challenging the mandate. >> yes, thank you. the folks representing the plaintiffs didn't have a hard time. that tells you as much as everything else. there was a widespread skepticism that you continue see where this power ends. justice kennedy has been identified as generally our swing vote said, look, given that this could be a really fundamental change in the relationship between the government and the american citizenry, doesn't the government bear a special burden of justification here? don't you have to come up with some special reason for allowing this to be constitutional?

and the conservatives certainly didn't seem to think from the oral argument that they had articulated that special justification. megyn: the special justification would change the whole standard by which they are reviewing this law. one of the things the government had been banking on was the very low standard of review. usually whether congress passes a law under the commerce clause they get the easiest standard when they go to the supreme court. they have to show it has a tangential relationship to congress and if it does the supreme court rubber stamps it and says you're good. justice kennedy seems to be suggesting it's a higher burden. when you're going to do something this big and expansive and affects americans sitting on their couch you have a higher burden. that would be a new standard. is it one the liberals would get behind? >> i think the liberals would do what was necessary to get a 6th vote. they won't otherwise do that. certainly there was no support for them to think that this law was anything other than obviously constitutional. given justice kennedy skepticism

and he raised the baron the government the government may look to john roberts and sam alito to see if they can benefit from them. there wasn't a lot of encouragement from them either. neither the chief justice nor justice alito gave the plaintiff's lawyers a hard time saying look, aren't these obviously actually in commerce by making the decision not to purchase health insurance, aren't they inevitably going to get healthcare. they didn't ask the questions the government wanted them to ask. megyn: what about the last update from kennedy. you said look the government, the obama administration had a very tough date today. the mandate is not looking like it's going to be upheld essential leave. at the very end kennedy seemed to throw out some doubt by suggesting that even though he had major doubts about the constitutionality of this mandate, maybe the insurance market, the health insurance market is so unique that in this case it would be justified. how much of a window did he open up there? >> i think he us seriously

thinking about it. the justice asked a lot of questions, i think more than usual in this case. they were more serious yes, si questions, really probing questions. the last one said look what if i agree with you and i probably do that with the core of this case that it is highly unusual and we haven't made people purchase things before. the whole thing is to get uninsured who are young and healthy to subjec subsidize other people. even if i agree with that they might be close enough to the insurance market to justifies this special case. i don't think he was throwing anybody a bone or trying to mislead people. it is the one reason he might vote for the government and he was articulating it. megyn: i have to go. if you would have to handicap it, and i know no one can. what would you bet. >> i will bet that the government will find a fifth or 6th vote. it is a much harder oral argument for the government than it is for the plaintiff also

because it is potentially sweeping, but i think the plaintiffs had a good a day as they could possibly imagine having. i think in the end it probably won't be enough, but it will be breathtakingly close. megyn: wow, wow. building the drama as we look forward to june. tom goldstein, thank you so much, sir. >> thank you. megyn: all the best. his blog is worth your time. in the last few weeks we have seen a growing title wave of stories, other news today about the shooting death of florida teenage trayvon martin. just ahead bernie goldberg is here live on the message behind the coverage and his very controversial take on the dangerous assumption here. and next, breaking news when the epa that could have a big impact on the u.s. power supply, speaking of the u.s. supreme court they confirm that the epa, they have sweeping powers that don't have to be run by congress. well they are using them, and we'll tell you how with stu varney after the break. plus, fresh controversy surrounding one of hollywood's liberal icons.

you will not believe the movie role jane fonda is apparently being considered for now. managing my diabetes is part of my life,

between taking insulin, testing my blood sugar. is this part of your life? freestyle lite test strips? why, are they any beep! wow, that hardly needs any blood! yeah. and the unique zipwik tab targets the blood and pulls it in. so easy. freestyle lite needs just a third the blood of onetouch ultra. really? yep, which is great for people who use insulin and test a lot. max and i are gonna run out and get some right now. or you can call or click today and get strips and a meter fr. test easy.

megyn: fox news alert. after a year of controversy and debate the epa issuing america's first federal limits on carbon gas emissions in just the last couple of hours. a move the coal industry says will slash the u.s. power supply, send electricity rates soaring and they claim cause thousands of jobs. stu varney is anchor of varney and company. the epa is doing something that would have been very controversial if congress had done it. it is going off coal emissions in a very controversial way. >> reporter: carbon emissions, greenhouse gases must be cut in-house for all new power plants built in america. this is the death of coal. you're not likely to see a new power plant built that is fired by coal in the future. the reaction to this is

extravagant. the electric industry says you'll be taking existing power plants off line, less juice, higher prices. the coal industry says it will cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. the epa says nonsense you'll have a huge health benefit. $290billion a year and less climate damage. megyn: they have come out, the folks who are behind this move by the epa and called this a milestone in the fight to reign in climate change that seriously has threatened people and wildlife, and say, you know, we've got carbon pollution coming out of the power plants therbgs needed to be reigned in and it's up to the epa to do it. is there evidence that these emissions really are dangerous, that we need the epa to be sending the standards and coal, fire plants need to be shut down or at least stopped from building anew? >> reporter: if you buy the global warming argument that carbon co2 emissions affect the planet negatively, yes you've got to control the emissions.

the inch sraoerpb meant ta lists say it doesn't gthe environmentalists say it doesn't go far enough. megyn: because it only a employs to newly built. how much will it affect electricity rates. >> reporter: they say it's going to go up about 19%. the coal industry says it would go up 11 to 23%. megyn: the price you pay con-ed or whoever your provider is at the end of the month that is going up as a result of this decision potentially. >> reporter: that's what they say. those two interested parties. the electricity industry, the coal industry, they say less juice will be produced, up go rates. the epa contradicts that. megyn: yesterday we talked about a controversy with president obama suggesting that in his second term he would have more liberty to do certain things. we talked about whether he would be hamstrung because he may presumably still have a republican house. this is an area, epa, carbon emission regulation, this is an area in which you don't need

congressional approval. >> reporter: that is correct. that's why the conservatives, the coal industry, the electricity industry, yes worried. megyn: thank you. you heard our guest at the top of the hour the overhaul of healthcare may be in real trouble in the supreme court. the first audio from this morning's argument is moments away. plus, her seven-year-old daughter was overweight, so she put her on a strict diet, and then she wrote about it in a magazine article that is sparking major controversy coast to coast. that story is next.

megyn: new controversy over a strict diet for a young girl with weight problems. a mother getting tough with her seven-year-old daughter bea who weighed in at nearly a hundred

pounds. her mother wrote in a vogue magazine article that is spiking a firestorm. mimi ross is here with me. what did this mother do. >> the criticism is that she put her child on a strict diet. you know what thee did, megyn she fed her healthy food. megyn: she probably embarrassed her, saying she can't have this. shess overweight. >> the food pushers kept pushing, trying to give her food she would try to politely decline the food offered at school but the other parents wouldn't give up, they kept pushing, pushing food on her daughter somewhere she was put in an awkward situation. megyn: why is the stigma so bad against parents who regulate their children's diets in this way? >> you know the answer to that. it makes the other parents feel bad. megyn: you've been in this

position. >> i've absolutely been in this position. i think it's fascinating. i'm so glad she did this on behalf of her child. how we are going to reverse obesity is not by telling overweight people to lose weight, it's about not legislate our children get overweight in the first place. i come from a long line of obesity. i know the suffering that it causes. so i've tried to always make sure that my children's environment is fairly healthy, especially during the school day, yet i have been met with such hostility when i've said, now what do we have to celebrate everything with pizza. does there have to be so many cupcakes and doughnuts. i've been called names, threatened online. horrible things have been said about my children because i'm just trying to not let them become sick. megyn: of all the thins that we don't want for our children. we don't want them to be bullied or unhealthy, don't want them to be ostracized. unfortunately being very overweight can lead to a lot of those things. so you can understand how a mother would want to be vigilant against protecting her child.

childhood obesity tends to lead to adulthood obesity. >> almost always. especially if your child is overweight at such a young weight, they usually will be obese when they are older. megyn: the things she made her child follow, red light, green light. >> it's really smart. megyn: they later came out and said the mother may have been doing it wrong. improving the child's mental health needs to be taken into consideration. you need to keep their self-esteem up rather than telling them you're fat or overweight. >> she said on occasions she had a weak moment and didn't say the right thing. i don't think there is any indication it went on regularly. in a moment of frustration she said you can't have that, or that is pw-d for you and she wished for herself that she made better choices. she fed her healthy, nothing special. what degree does any one of us need to order lunch? you shouldn't have to be an md or chemical engineer to fed your

children. megyn: i went to syracuse university and i took a class from a woman with with four phd's at the time. she said it's too late for you. you've already learned your habits. i'm working on your children ace teach you. >> she continue be so right. if we could serve a child water instead of juice. it is unbelievable to give a child soda. yes, have them exercise at least an hour a day. make sure their food is not fried and starchy, make sure it's mostly plant base he. if you're not willing to do any of that go for the water. megyn: if your kid loves juice i can do a little spike, they are little kids, they don't really understand. >> i'm not saying they can't ever have a treat. i'm saying this is what you regularly feed them. so when it is time for chuck e cheese or parties they can enjoy it and you don't have to worry and they don't have to worry. megyn: thank you. >> thank you so much, megyn. megyn: new controversy today as hollywood casts hanoi jane as a

former first lady. jane fonda known as denouncing war criminals is slated to play nancy reagan in a new movie. how people are reacting. people have seen the wall to wall coverage of the tra john martin shooting. bernie goldberg is here with a controversial take on why he says the mainstream media is so in love with this story. new fallout as the president is caught in a candid moment in russia's president. the white house on the defensive just ahead. >> after my election i have more flexibility. [inaudible]

c'mon dad!

i'm here to unleash my inner cowboy. instead i g heartburn. [ horse neighs ] hold up partner. prilos isn't for fast relief. try alka-seltzer. it kills heartburn fast. yeehaw! or annuity over 10 or even 20 years? call imperial structured settlements. the experts at imperial can convert your long-term payout into a lump sum of cash today.

megyn: back now to our top story, we are getting just released audio from the u.s. supreme court and what a top court watcher called a very tough day for the government defending the healthcare overhaul. the reaction is still pouring in. you heard tom goldstein say moments ago at the top of our hour if he had to bet he'd suggest that the mandate would be upheld but this is coming out now from jeffery toobin who is a liberal court watcher e called it a train wreck for the obama administration. he says this law looks like it's going to be struck down. i'm telling you all the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were

wrong. it all comes down to justice kennedy according to those inside the courtroom. the four liberals appeared inclined to support the law, the four conservatives did not. justice kennedy in the middle. here is justice kennedy wondering if you can create commerce as the government in order to regulate it. >> can you create commerce in order to regulate it? >> that's not what is going on here, justice kennedy, and we are not seeking to defend the law on that basis. in this case what is being regulated is the method of financing the purchase of healthcare. that itself is economic activity with substantial affects on interstate commerce. >> so think selfpurchasing, you know, if i'm in any market at all my failure to purchase something in that market subjects me to regulation. >> no, that's not our position at all, justice scalia. the healthcare market is characterized by the fact that

aside from the few groups that congress chose to exempt from the minimum coverage requirement, those who for religious reasons don't participate, those who are incarcerated, indian tribes, virtually everybody else is either in that market or will be in that market, and a distinguishing feature of that is that they cannot -- people cannot generally control when they enter that market or what they need what they enter that market. megyn: this is going to be a nailbiter really. it's going to be a nailbiter. coming up, two men with expert knowledge of the issues before the supreme court. i will ask them what today's proceeding means in their judgment for the future of this law, and how are they hand cappin handicapping after what they've heard this morning. you'll see them coming up on "america live." serious new questions today about an upcoming movie on a white house employee who served as the butler to eight

presidents. reports saying that jane fonda has been chosen for this movie to play the role of nancy reagan. jane fond today, the outspoken liberal who famously traveled to north vietnam during the war, denounced american political and military leaders as war criminals, and even sat on an antiaircraft gun in an image that looked like she was trying to shoot at american planes. she has since apologized for that snapshot, calling it thoughtless. joining me now, leslie marshal, and lars larsen a syndicated talk show host with calm pass video met works. lars, i think people will be outraged over this. you tell me. >> i think they should be outraged over it. god bless kennedy and alito for where they are going with this. hanoi jane has no business playing mrs. reagan. mrs. reagan and her late husband are revered figures for

conservatives. the idea that hollywood thinks that this young lady who called returning pow's liars and hypocrites and american leaders war criminals as you said is absolutely outrageous. hollywood should be ashamed of what they are doing. megyn: why would they choose her, leslie? >> well, quite frankly, what lars forgets is that she is an actress. i mean whether you like what she did in her personal life, and she did apologize, she is now a born again christian. last time i checked most born again christians are conservatives and christianity is based on the element of forgiveness. i think everybody forgets the for giving. what we need to remember, jane fond today, whether you like what she's done personally or not is a brilliant actress. that is probably one of the reasons they are looking at her. oprah winfrey is being looked at to play the butler's wife. look at jane fonda as an actress, that was many years ago, she has apologized.

she has met with the vets. the vets that i talked to have forgiven her and she explained herself and they worked that out. >> baloney. megyn: i have to be honest, this was before my time that this went down. there isn't a day that goes by that i don't get emails about jane fonda on our show mail. we are not doing stories about jane fonda or vietnam and i'm getting emails. she still races the hackles for a lot of people, lars. >> the thing is she took decades to come to that apology which came in 2005, decades after the worst, decades after she slurred both american leaders and the people who went to guard our freedom, including jane fonda's freedom, and she did it because a new movie was coming out and she was going to be commercially impacted. leslie, you can't ignore the fact that these people who are actors and actressess playing something on the screen, in their personal lives if they choose to be politically active have to pay for that in their commercial lives, lease lee just

as you and i do and just as megyn would in the same kind of circumstances. you cannot separate what she dotes on the screen and her popularity from her personal acts, and this was an anti-american act. ace said i think she only apologized because she thought it was going to hurt her at the box office. megyn: can't you get somebody, if you're a casting agent in hollywood, or a big director, producers, can't you find somebody who is not as controversial, is not going to destrabgt from the role, you're portraying an iconic american figure, nancy reagan who is still alive. >> first of all unless she's come out. i haven't seen that miss reagan has come out -- mrs. reagan has come out and said theseee against the casting. i also heard the deal hasn't been penned yet, they are in talks. >> good. >> secondly, hollywood like anything else is about making money. they are a business. if they don't think they are going to make money with her, believe me she is not going to be playing it. lastly, lars the wonderful thing about choice in our country, you don't have to go see it. these are actors portraying

characters, and if you don't want to see jane fonda playing nancy reagan or any conservative woman or any woman for that matter you don't have to go see it. that is our freedom. and that's what hollywood needs. megyn: this is being passed along to me, this is not a statement from nancy reagan but a statement we just received from her former press secretary sheila tate who was the press secretary to the former first lady back when she was first lady. she writes, quote, jane fond days so well-known for her politics that this casting is ludicrous. she would likely depict nancy reagan as a caricature and that's part of the fears, lars, is that we can assume her politics i guess and she could assume she would have a certain vision in mind of a republican like nancy reagan that may not be consistent with the view republicans and conservatives in this country have. >> absolutely. and you're going to spit in the faces of all those potential moviegoers. it's not smart casting. although i go to a movie where they had michael moore play the

late senator ted kennedy. i would pay to see a movie like that. i can imagine casting the conservatives with love. the thing is hollywood only chooses to slam conservatives. you can look at all the movies that slammed the iraq war and conservatives in general. megyn: we'll see whether in fact this actually happens. good debate. thank you both so much for being here h. >> thanks, megyn. >> thanks, megyn. megyn: we've seen days of nonstop stories about tr trayvon martin. in three minutes, bernie goldberg and why he thinks the media so covers this story.

megyn: new developments now in the deadly shooting of a florida teenager that has sparked a fierce national debay. there are claims by the suspected shooter and some witnesses that seem to suggest the behavior of the teenage victim, tra vo trayvon martin

in a new light. casting him according to one witness at least as the aggressor in a fight with the neighborhood watch volunteer, george zimmerman. meantime some are now questioning why this case is getting so much attention when other murders involving african-american children and teens get so little. rush limbaugh addressed this question on his show yesterday. watch here. >> i want to share with you some thoughts here from a friend of mine. he writes a piece at national review called impromptus. and it's all about where we are in the country, in terms of race. he says every once in a while something will happen that makes me think, oh, yeah, that's why i became a conservative in the first place. ever happen to you? robert de niro made a joke, just a joke. sometimes often jokes tell us something. de niro said, calista gingrich,

karen santorum and romney's wife do you think we are ready for a white first lady? we used to think of everything and everyone in black-and-white. same thing. i have the same observation that my friend has. it is the left that doesn't see the humanity in people, they see the surface. it's the left who sees black-and-white, male and female, gay and straight, whatever, because they groupify everybody and victimize everybody and they just don't ever see people. megyn: joining me now with reaction is bernie goldberg, a fox news analyst and journalist. thanks so much for being here. you had a very controversial take on this on o'reilly last night and it's not that far from where rush was going. tell us, why do you think that this case has received such extraordinary coverage and

resulting outrage? >> reporter: i'll give you two , megyn, and they are the kind of reasons that you are really not supposed to talk about in public, even though everybody knows it's true. you don't talk about certain things in polite company, and that is that while no descent person is happy about what happened, no matter what your politics, there are some people whose purposes are served by what happened. and i'll tell you about the two. the national media. the national media doesn't do stories about black on black crime. it doesn't interest them. they don't do stories about black on white crime, which happens in far, far greater numbers than white on black crimes. they don't do those stories either. but this is like a movie script handed to them from hollywood. oh, my goodness, a white guy, or in this case a white-hispanic guy shots an unarmed black kid,

perfect story. "the new york times," in a caricature of the liberal media refers to george zimmerman as a white-hispanic. i guarantee you that if george zimmerman did something good, if he finished first in his high school graduating class when he was younger they won't refer to him as a white-hispanic. he would be just be hispanic. if he invented something that made all our lives better they wouldn't describe him as a white-hispanic. he's only a white-hispanic to further the storyline, which is white, probably racist vigilante shoots unarmed black kid. and the second group whose purposes are served is the civil rights establishment. it's like here we are, al sharpton, we are relevant again. this terrible shooting proves what we've always believed, that black kids are targets in this country and the justice system

is stacked against black people. so while nobody of any good standing and good will is happy about this. let's not pretend that there aren't certain groups that are benefitting from this. megyn: could it be -- i'll challenge you on that. could it be not that it's a narrative that they want to exploit, but a genuine injustice which is a difference -- which is different than we've seen in a lot of cases, because in this case the shooter, whether you think he's justified or not, based on the facts as they are emerging, the shooter was let go. was given a free pass by the police without more than an evening's worth of investigation, from the look of it, from the way it's been reported, and that is what led people to say, wait, wait, wait a minute. why was that done? >> well, okay. but if it were a black person, a black kid shooting another black kid, you wouldn't even know about it, megyn. you'd have no idea that it happened, because it won't be on

the national news. megyn: even if hay had let the black shooter go the way they let zimmerman go. >> i think that's a safe bet. now one other thing. i have never taken sides in this saying george zimmerman is not guilty, or that the kid, trayvon martin did something terrible. i have never said a syllable in that direction, you about that didn't stop some people who wrote to me last night after i was on o'reilly, not a lot of people but a few, saying you're a racist. now, i didn't say a word that any reasonable person could conclude that made me a racist. but you know what? race is the wound in this country that never seems to heal. so here you have a hispanic-white, and a black kid, it's a perfect miss for groups that want to make something out of this. and let me say one other thing.

duke lacrosse rape case, the media and the civil rights establishment convicted three kids who did absolutely nothing wrong, and then -- megyn: they were white. >> when it finally came to light, it was oops. you know what i don't want to be found in any oops situation. i'm willing to wait until we find out what happened. ace said last night if a crime was committed i want to see the criminal punished. you're not a bigot because you say something like that. megyn: you say it serves a narrative. do you think there is something going on that the race is the wound that will not heal, do you think that members of the mainstream media, white members of the mainstream media, in particular, have a need to be heard on an issue like this. a case like this? >> yes, i do. i do. and it's not -- the key word isn't white, although that is a big part of it, the key word is liberal. you know, listen, i remember the

civil rights days when really bad things were happening to black people simply, simply because they were black, and i think for a lot of people who missed that story, a lot of journalists who missed that story, this is an opportunity to go back in time to -- and i mean this in the best sense, glory days of the civil rights movement because they missed out on it the first time around. and, again, here you have a case of a white -- i'll put it in quotation marks, person and a black kid, and it's like it's 196 a in selma all over again. well it isn't, it isn't. because even if george zimmerman did something wrong, and if he did he should be punished, america has changed immensely from those days, but sometimes you get the impression, you'd never know that listening to the likes of al sharpton and other so-called civil rights leaders. megyn: bernie goldberg, thank

you for your perspective. good to see you friend. >> good to see you, megyn thank you. megyn: there is a new push to put fire power to use at home. stay tuned.

megyn: a new push to put taofls war from iraq into use right here at home. two texas lawmakers having the pentagon for surplus combat equipment saying local law enforcement could really use the extra fire power along our southern boards. trace gallagher live in our west coast newsroom with more. >> reporter: get this. megyn they are talking about as much as 10% of the equipment that was in iraq to be placed along the u.s.-mexico border, we're talking about things like humvees and aerial surveillance vehicles, night vision goggles and weapons. the two texas congressmen along

with 17 sheriffs from arizona, new mexico and texas have sent a letter to leon panetta which says in part, quote, these criminals show no hesitation in using violence to intimidate law enforcement in mexico, and what was once a regionally isolated criminal justice matter has grown into a significant national security concern for the u.s. and mexico. but they are getting some push back. in fact the mayor of el paso, which is right across the rio grand frorio grande said it could hurt the trade between two countries. others disagree and say they want the police to have better tools to patrol the area. they say it's better to go after drug smugglers in a humvee rather than a crowne victoria.

there has been no response from leon panetta. it looks like they will get a portion of that equipment in iraq being used for the border. megyn: thanks, interesting. in three minutes brand-new audio from inside the healthcare hearings and more reaction coming in, wait until you hear what the left-leaning court analysts are now saying about this morning's argument. we will talk about it right after this break. plus, a so-called talent agent in big trouble for allegedly luring aspiring models with promises of fame and christian values. in the modeling industry? then he allegedly abused them. the cat walk runs through "kelly's court" today. new political fallout from an unscripted moment between president obama and russia's president. michael reagan is mere on what this may mean for the president's re-election campaign. [ donovan ] i hit a wall.

and i thought "i can't do this, it's just too hard." then there was a moment. when i decided to find a way to keep going. go for olympic gold and go to college too. [ male announcer ] every day we help students earn their bachelor's or master's degree for tomorrow's careers. this is your moment. let nothing stand in your way. devry university, proud to support the education of our u.s. olympic team.

devry university, proud to support the education ♪ when your chain of supply goes from here to shanghai, that's logistics. ♪ ♪ chips from here, boards from there track it all through the air, that's logistics. ♪ ♪ clearing customs like that hurry up no time flat that's logistics. ♪ ♪ all new technology ups brings to me, that's logistics. ♪ megyn: fox news alert.

new signals at the fate of the president's healthcare law could i'm megyn kelly. day two in the supreme showdown over healthcare and this was the most important day. the high court hearing arguments that go to the heart of the president's healthcare law. the individual mandate. requiring that virtually everyone in this country buy health insurance or pay a penalty for not doing so. four justices on the left seeming to signal their support for the mandate, not a huge surprise. the four justices on the right seeming sceptical of the government's argument. the one jurist just right of center, justice anthony kennedy, the tie breaker. in so many monumental supreme court cases and apparently so today as well. justice kennedy offering some sharp challenges to the president's healthcare law,

challenging the government's ability to step in and regulate people's lives without them willingly inserting themselves into the healthcare market. take a listen. this is your first listen to justice kennedy just a few hours ago. >> the reason this is a concern is because it requires the individual to dean affirmative act. in the law of torts our law has been you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. if a man is walking in front of a car don't have a duty to stop him absent some relation between them. there is severe moral criticism of the rule but that's generally the rule. here the government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different than what we have in previous statement.

that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fund -- fundamental way. >> i don't think so because it's predicated on the participation of these individuals in the market for healthcare services. megyn: changes the relationship of the government to the individual in a fund amount at way. justice kennedy hammering the issue of liberty and how that is affected by this healthcare law. shannon bream joins us live from the steps of the supreme court. shannon, take us there. report rsh the world is watching justice kennedy. before that happened, right out of the gate the first question he asked was about can you create commerce just so you can force me into it and regulate it which is the argument conservatives have made against this law. saying you can't create a stream of commerce, force people into

it then regulate them. i thought what you played there was very, very telling. he seemed to be make concerned remarks that this would chain it relationship between individuals and their government. but it wasn't just one side. he sounds like he could go either way as a solid vote. you know you get a sense it's dangerous to fully predict how someone is going to go. listen to this from justice and on scaly -- scalia. >> how do you define the market that broadly, healthcare. it may be everybody needs healthcarer or later. not everybody needs a heart transplant or liver transplant. could you defiant market? everybody has to buy food sooner or later so you deseen it market as food. everybody is in the market so you can make people buy

broccoli. >> reporter: they talked about it a lot at the supreme court. the four liberal justices say it's something that already exists. they talk about the fact, is exceptionally justices kagan that young uninsured people who don't get in the market are making it tough for everybody else. that government has a right to make sure people are responsible and get into that stream of commerce. some very telling things tip was sitting a few feet away from senator patrick leahy. and as justice kennedy was speaking he actually to me looking at him seemed very concerned. he was wincing, that's my interpretation. he seeped bothered by the questions coming from justice kennedy. he wasn't the only one in the courtroom who was unhappy about what justice kennedy was asking at least initially.

megyn: there is speculation folks supporting this law would be able to pick off alito or roberts or scalia. it looks like the four conservatives did not telegraph support for this law. it will come down to kennedy. >> reporter: scalia and alito clearly opposed to the mandate. i would be surprised if they do an about-face. justice roberts indicated he wants to solidify a particular line of thought on this mandate. he was hard on both sides. he did not sound like somebody who was 100% ready to cast his vote against the mandate. but he didn't give anything away today in court because he seems as if he was truly questioning both sides and vet them for more information and asking these attorneys to convince him. megyn: i read everything that guy wrote before he was confirmed as chief justice.

as a former 9-year lawyer and somebody who covered that man wall to wall, i would be shocked if he supported the individual mandate. shannon, thank you. it all comes down to kennedy. we'll talk about that in 20 minutes with our legal panel who has been watching these arguments. rasmussen reports just released a new poll on the healthcare law and they show again just how sour americans feel about it. 2/3. americans say they think it's likely this new law will cause some businesses to drop their healthcare coverage all together. contrary to president obama's promises on the law. buenos this law appeared in trouble, the white house doubling down on suspending the law and taking shots at republicans on the issue. >> our position is clear, his position is clear. we feel confident that the

individual responsibility provision weren't affordable care act is constitutional. we remarked before that is' providence -- that its providence is in the conservative political arena, the heritage foundation. it was supported by a number of republicans before it became a bipartisan idea, and it was implement in massachusetts by republican governor. i think that providence speaks to the broad consensus that's out there that it's constitutional. megyn: . joining me scott rasmussen and chris stirewalt. thank you both for being here. scott, it's not a huge change, right? we have head on here for two years. you tell me, has there ever been majority support for the healthcare law? >> no. the day after the president's

first speech in may 2009, he got to 50% support. the more details came out support slipped and since it has become law a majority of americans have consistently opposed this law. you showed a side a moment ago about how people think companies will be forced to drop coverage. one of the reasons democrats have had a hard time grasping opposition to this is a pluralality of democrats say it would be better for workers to be forced onto a government program. a majority of people say it would be much worse if you had to go on a government plan. megyn: you are telling me 62% of america don't believe if you like your doctor and like your plan you can keep it. >> people like the idea of extending coverage. they want to find ways to reduce costs and increase their choices. but if they have to give up and

coverage they have, that's a down side for most americans. megyn: jay carney defending this law saying even some republicans seem to believe it's constitutional. is this an argument that will persuade 62% of voters who say i think employers are going to dump me. is it apples and oranges? >> the thing about the president's situation as it relates to what the justices are talking about today, what's going on, imagine the difficulty if having all of these questions out there, if this law was upheld on a 5-4 margin and it went forward, let's say justice kennedy went with the lib ralds and this law was upheld. it will be very hard for the president to explain to sceptical voters why this is okay. that's what you are hearing jay carney. he's saying don't blame us.

we lifted it from the republicans. megyn: that's interesting. what kind of position are we likely to be in, scott? you tell me how much -- we talked about this a couple years ago. you tell me how it plays in the mind of american voters how the lay was pushed through. >> the way it was pushed through left a bad taste in everybody's mouth because it was clear there was public opposition to it. we remember the stories about all the people come to love fit once they see it in action. democrats made a point of saying we'll put the goodies in first and put the costs in later. it hasn't worked out this way. most americans say they have not seen any impact from the law in their own lives. but 26% say they have been hurt by it already. 13% say they have been helped. so the perception is bad. i think it will get worse. and the reason is if somebody has a bad experience in medical care, their copay goes up, they have to wait longer for a doctor, they don't like what the

understand company has to say. megyn: so politically for the white house, maybe it's not the best thing if they come out of this with a victory if that victory is 5-4. if they come out of this with a defeat, that could work to the president's advantage. >> there is obviously a big down side since the republicans are nearing the point of nominating a more moderate kind of candidate than the guy whose running. mitt romney running on a competency and ability. he can say president obama isn't very good if this signature legislation can't hold up. he will be able to say to liberals, do you see what this republican dominated supreme court said to you? they took away the benefits i fought so hard for you to receive. megyn: there is talk about how the republican candidates will

be deprived of a big argument. saying i'm going to go in there and reverse obama-care. we'll see show it comes out. thank you both so much. coming up, a bombshell of a lawsuit. a modeling agent who spoke of christian values may have forgotten bible teachings when it came to his young models. "kelly's court" goes hint the curtains. plus a story ripped out of science fiction. advertisers are tailoring ads personally for if you as you walk through the mall. the serious privacy concerns it's raising. damage control for the white house after a revealing open mike comment by the president. michael reagan and why he thinks he has heard this story before. >> this is my last election. that's his way situation a nod and a wink, you guys have a free hand because you run a dictatorship. your elections are rigged. once i get past my last election

i'm unleashed, i can do anything i want. are you receiving a payout from a legal settlement

or annuity over 10 or even 20 years? call imperial structured settlements. the experts at imperial can convert your long-term payout into a lump sum of cash today. [♪...] >> i wish my patients could see what i see. that over time, having high cholesterol, plus diabetes or high blood pressure or family

history of early heart disease, can put them at increased risk for plaque buildup. and they'd see that it's more important to get their cholesterol where their doctor wants. and why for these patients, when diet and exercise alone aren't enough, i prescribe crestor. adding crestor lowers bad cholesterol by up to 52%. and is also proven to slow plaque buildup. >> announcer: crestor is not right for everyone. like people with liver disease or women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. simple blood tests will check for liver problems. tell your doctor about other medicines you're taking or if you have muscle pain or weakness. that could be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. >> is your cholesterol where your doctor wants? ask your doctor if crestor is right for you. >> announcer: if you can't afford your medication, astra zeneca may be able to help.

megyn: president obama under fire for that open mike moment with russia's president at a nuclear security summit. ed the two leaders were talking about missile defense. the commander-in-chief out to deflect some of the criticism by jokingly covering the microphone and he's explicitly defending his remarks. >> i don't think it's any surprise that you can't start a few months before a presidential and congressional election in the united states and at a time when they just completed elections in russia. megyn: michael reagan is chairman of the reagan group.

an says this script sounds a little familiar to him in terms of our democratic leader saying something along these lines to russia. what do you mean? >> well, what i mean is you go back to 1978. you have ted kennedy make contact with the kgb in russia to try to undermine jimmy carter to allow ted kennedy to win the aelection away from jimmy carter. in 198 oh goes to his friend john tunney to contact the kgb to tell them he agrees with their afghan policy. and if indeed he will support ted kennedy in what what he wants to do, he will send barbara walters and walter cronkite to moscow to make him look good in front of the public and the united states of

america. 1980, jimmy carter goes to arm & hammer. he -- you let the soviet jews go back to israel. carter if reelected will remember you after he's reelected and be good to the soviet bloc. 1983. kennedy wakes up again and through john tunney reaches out again to the soviets and says, i'll help you with reagan if you will help the democrats win the election in 1984. jimmy carter this time. goes to them and says we can't have reagan as the president. this world is better off if we have another president in 1984, walter mondale. 1984. tip o'neil at a dinner goes to a dinner with the soviets and says

it's in the best interest of the so yets and the democrats to get rid of that demagogue reagan and put someone else in, walter mondale. this is historic for the liberals to go to the soviets, the enemies of freedom to get themselves elected. what i saw unfold in seoul, south korea was all too familiar to me. megyn: you think that wasn't all about missile defense. that was the president telegraphing to the russians if you can help me out in my presidential election, then you will get what you want on missile defense? which is not to have it? >> they already got what they want. i was in poland november 11, 2009 when the polish president who died in that awful plane crash. his question to me sat morning breakfast was this, why did your president take away our missile defense. that afternoon with the

ambassador to poland from the czech republic said to me why did your president take away our missile defense? he's already doing the bidding of the former soviet bloc and putin is take over the presidency again. megyn: so we have been building up this missile defense system, we have been doing that under several presidents and president obama has been change it significantly, and that's been controversial. how strong should it be, the russians don't like it, prior presidents have liked it. and so now that hangs in the balance and that's one of the things they were discussing. you are suggest our president was saying with a wink and nod to medvedev, pass the message over to putin. he can deal with me after i have been reelected and suggesting he should do what to help president obama get reelected. >> to not upset the apple clark to allow this president to be

reelected. don't do anything that may not -- that may upset kennedy and what he is trying to do and we'll put you in a good light with the media in the united states of america. you might remember, my father walked away from reykjavik because gorbachev asked him to walk away from far wars. two years later the berlin wall falls. megyn: interesting perspective. michael, thank you. coming up we have a glimpse at what shopping may look like in the future as tailor made for specific customers using facial recognize as they walk by. that's freaky. the story in three minutes. keeping an eye on the biggest supreme court case in decades. the justices wrapping up day two

and the most important day by far. how is this likely to come down? [ male announcer ] you've never tried miracle whip,

but one thing's for sure -- you don't like it. but you've never tried it? see the problem here... ♪

megyn: new if on deadly wildfires raging in colorado. firefighters recovering a second body just hours ago in the ruins. flames destroying 15 houses west of denver. the fire is being spurred by high wind gusts expected to continue this afternoon. >> welcome back. how did the tank top at gap work

out for you? megyn: signs fiction is becoming signs fact. retailers across the country using facial recognition software to target customers with tailor made advertisements. while the ad world is buzzing about this privacy advocates are raising serious concerns. >> reporter: that scene is famous. we were watching it in the movies 10 years ago. well, the future is now. you walk through the mall, you walk by a display and advertisements pop up for makeup or purses or shoes. i walk about it same display and the advertisements are for sporting goods. kraft foods, adidas, right now it's in handful of locations. but the possibilities are endless and it's expected to expand. there are some people that worry

this is another way to get information from people without their knowledge and companies need to be careful because the info about you can be misused. view there are privacy concerns. how we keep private information from getting into the wrong hand. being misused in an illegal or unethical manner. so that's there any time you have something picking up information about somebody, there will be privacy concerns. >> reporter: government and companies are using this as well. some companies are touting the possibilities, the technology gives demographics of a bar down the street where you are located. cities in austin, texas, chicago and florida have this or are getting it. 8,000 people have downloaded the app. >> what's cool about this information for the operators is now they have the way to measure the effectiveness of their

marketing or advertising. you can see if specials are working for you or how the deejay did. >> reporter: law enforcement using this as well as companies. we talked to experts and they will tell you the possibilities are endless and we are just at the beginning. this is something we are expecting to see more and more. on the law enforcement government side and as a consumer. megyn: can you imagine walking down the street and the games saying to you, new spanx, extra strength, come on in. there will be a lot of one-fingered salutes going on. >> reporter: we were wearing disguises. megyn: there is a dirty joke about a parent in a strip mall that comes to mind. i can't tell it on the air about it's a good one. it end with, you know. a modeling agent who may have forgotten the christian beliefs

he claimed his agency was based on. really? you will meet the women who believed him in "kelly's court." the big question of the day, scratch that maybe for the entire first term of president obama. the one supreme court justice who could save or deep six the president's healthcare law. jay and julian weigh in and we have more from inside the court next. ohhh my head, ohhh. [ speaking in japanese ] yeah, do you have anything for a headache... like excedrin, ohhh, bayer aspirin... ohh, no no no. i'm not having a heart attack, it's my head. no, bayer advanced aspirin, this is made for pain. [ male announcer ] bayer advanced aspirin has microparticles, enters the bloodstream fast, and safely rushes extra strength relief to the sight of your tough pain. feel better? yeah...thanks for the tip! [ male announcer ] for fast powerful pain relief, use bayer advanced aspirin.

[ male announcer ] for fast powerful pain relief, one of the miller twins has a hearing problem. but she got a lyric in her life and everything changed. which one? you'll never know because the lyric is in her ear. 100% invisible. you can't see it, and it's the only device that works round the clock with zero daily hassle. no batteries to change. no taking off and putting on everyday. sound good? call 1-800-411-7040 now. this is the lyric. it's teeny. lyric fits comfortably at the sweet spot right next to your ear drum to minimize background noise and deliver truly natural sound quality.

in fact. 95% of users prefer lyric sound quality to their old hearing aid. now the miller twin with lyric can hear and do most everything her sister does 24/7. an invisible hearing aid is wonderful. finding one with zero daily hassle - too good to pass up. call 1-800-411-7040 right now and ask about your risk free 30 day trial. get a lyric in your life.

megyn: back to the breaking news on the historic case before the united states supreme court. the fate of the president's healthcare law which could be in trouble and may come down to one man. one justice. anthony kennedy. now we have more of the audio of today's key moment. we'll go through some of this with two men who have expert knowledge. julian epstein, he's written extensively on congress' power under the commerce clause which is the linchpin of the government's case. also jay seculo. he has argued before the court 12 times and has had 20 cases before the supreme court. before we get to the audio, how did you think it went? >> it went very good. i'm very pleads. i will say, you never go about

it oral argument, but clearly the key vote here is justice kennedy. his statement that the government had a heavy burden to establish the fundamental change easd called it between the roll of government and its citizens. that was an important statement. he also said can't find a limiting principle here. i was very please'. justice alito -- thomas did not speak. chief justice roberts expressed significant scepticism with the government's case. i'm going to say this. i would rather be on my side of the case today than on the government's side. but oral arguments are oral arguments. paul clement did a magnificent job. megyn: we'll talk to him live about how he thinks it went

tomorrow. we are getting from the left -- jeffrey toobin, who is a liberal commentator called this a train wreck for the obama administration. kennedy is a lost cause. the solicitor general did a poor job defending the law. clement did an excellent job attacking the law. based on what i heard today this law is in grave grave trouble. >> i largely agree with what jay said. justice kennedy did express more scepticism about the mandate than any of us anticipated. on the other hand as jay point out, it is really hazardous to try to read the tea leaves on members of the court's questioning. frequently they ask questions to play devil's advocates. it isn't necessarily a bomb

every their view. and also alito did not express as much scepticism is a would have expected and i think alito's vote is in play. i think jeffrey toobin is an excellent commentators. but his declarations of the death of this are premature at this point. meg thomas gold sign said even though he thinks it went poorly today he thinks once they get behind closed doors the liberals will find that fifth vote. i want to play a little bit of justice kennedy. here is justice kennedy. the man everybody believes it will come down to. let the viewers hear whether they find scepticism in this questioning. i think this is him questioning the government's lawyer. >> the reason this is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative

act. in the law of torts our tradition and law has been you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger, the blind man is walking in front of a car, do you not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between them. and there is severe moral criticism but that's generally the rule. here the government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act. and that is different from what we have in previous statement. >> that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual. in a fundamental way. >> i don't think so, justice kennedy, because it's predicated on the participation of these individuals in the market for healthcare services. megyn: for him it seemed to be about liberty and whether the government can encroach on one's liberty because he or she is

sitting on a sofa today but tomorrow may need healthcare. >> this is the question coming from justice ken did obama administration did not want to hear. the indicator was the fund al -- the fundamental history between the government and the its citizens. i think the concern if you are representing the government here -- and i think julian has to be concerned about this -- that fundamental shift may well be the reason justice kennedy decides the law has to go and is unconstitutional because it's such a dramatic shift. and the government never offered a limiting principle. even when you get to the -- megyn: didn't they, jay in the writeup i'm reading suggests at the end after everybody was saying he was bashing the law, the last question but is there something about the healthcare market that is so unique.

that would be limiting principle that would allow them to take these extraordinary steps. >> i think that has been taken way out of context. i listened to the entire audio. i studied that question. that question was the searching for a limitation. but if you listen to that argument he never could find it nor could the government pro diets. you are reading tea leaves and too much is being made of all that. the key question is where a lot of people going into this argument thought it wasn't going to be a 5-4 case. it may have been 6-3 or 7-2. i think that's banished today. >> i think the response as you pointed out is the mandate to buy healthcare is not like a mandate to buy broccoli. that's because the mandate applies to free riders who have the capacity to buy insurance but choose not to buy insurance

to save money. they don't get insurance until they get sick because they want the rest of us to pick up the tab for their health insurance once they get sick. the impact on us as individuals who have health insurance is $1,000 a year. so the argument that the free riders don't have what under the lopez case is a substantial impact on interstate commerce i think is a weak argument. megyn: i have got to run. by want to get a little bit more of scalia. this is the broccoli thing. listen to justice scaly a. >> how do you define the market that broadly, healthcare. it may well be everybody needs healthcare but not everybody needs a heart prans transplant or liver transplants. >> will you you never know. >> could you define the market as everybody has to buy noon so

you define the market as food. everybody is in the market therefore you can make people buy broccoli. >> no. megyn: he's going for the slippery slope. >> the free riders will cost us a lot of money and have a huge impact on interstate commerce. at least $1,000 a year. and i think a whole host of conservatives scholars agreed with that. megyn: what about those who donate their broccoli and end up having heart attacks. >> the idea is forced entry into commerce. julian is arguing a policy decision. the court is saying we are not talking about the policy decision. we are talking about authorization under the commerce clause. i think it was telling that lopez nary a mention. so far none. megyn: that was another case

dealing with the commerce clause. thank you for being here. got an alert coming in. we are getting breaking news on a crazy scene onboard a jetblue flight. reports a plane was diverted after passengers had to tackle the pilot. there was some sort of scene after he left the cockpit. trace gallagher has this story. stay with me. labored breathing ]

[ coughing continues ] [ gasping ] [ elevator bell dings, coughing continues ] [ female announcer ] washington can't ignore the facts. more air pollution means more childhood asthma aacks. [ coughing continues ] log on to fightingforair.org and tell washington: don't weaken clean air protections.

8% every 10 years.age 40, we can start losing muscle -- wow. wow. but you can help fight muscle loss with exercise and ensure muscle health. i've got revigor. what's revigor? it's the amino acid metabolite, hmb to help rebuild muscle and strength naturally lost over time. [ female announcer ] ensure muscle health has revigor and protein to help protect, preserve, and promote muscle health. keeps you from getting soft. [ major nutrition ] ensure. nutrition in charge!

megyn: we are following a developing story on a jetblue flight that had to be diverted after a disruption onboard. one of the pilots began acting erratically and had to be tackled by the passengers. trace gallagher has more on the breaking news desk. >> reporter: this was the captain. the copilot locked him out of

the cockpit and the captain was bang on the come fit door saying let me in. then started yelling at passengers saying say your prayers, say your prayers and began running up and count aisle. that's when a flight attendant reportedly got on the intercom and told the passengers to restrain the captain. a group of passengers then got up and tackled this captain. we are told one of those was also apparently a former member of the nypd. they tackled the captain. another captain who was off duty riding in the back went up front to help them land the plane while the captain was being subdued. we have seen video that police officers surround the plane when it land in amarillo, texas. that's where the captain was taken off and jetblue says was taken away for a medical evaluation. can you imagine the captain running up and down saying, say your prayers, say your prayers

before being tackled by a griewcht passengers. that's apparently what unfolded on flight 191 to vegas. this is a wild story that just unfolded in the last hour or so. megyn: no, i cannot imagine the captain doing that. the airline describing this as a quote medical situation involving the captain. this is unbelievable to me. we'll find out more about it and get right back to you. i know you are trying to get your hand on that video. "kelly's court" back in session. on the docket today the case of the aspiring teen models who claim their agent was a bible thumping creep who went from praying with them to praying on them. they say he lured them to new york and into his so-called boarding home for models by emphasizing his strong why isan faith, even assuring their parents he would uphold their

values. >> i'm going to rape you. he immediately told me he loved me and awanted me to move to new york. >> tell my parents i would be the world's next super model, god has chosen me to come to his new york models apartment. it all seemed so picture perfect. megyn: the teens moved in with him in december. they say the abuse began just immediately. >> first he would touch my leg up to my thigh or be touching my arm. >> he put his hands on my thigh, and he started talking about god. >> we would have meetings about this self-journey i'm going through with jesus. and it would be like 9:00 or 10:00 at night. then yes there would be touching involved and stuff. and it was just creepy. >> it was virn appropriate. afterwards caelyn and i would

usually go to our rooms and cry. megyn: joining me now to skits, joey jackson, a former prosecutor and defense attorney and lis weihl, a fox news legal analyst. good christian values that we all live together and i'm the den father. i don't know, lis, should they have known better? >> they were 17 and 19, and they were lured by thinking they were going to have this great career in new york. he did have a legitimate modeling agency. he was going to take care of them and follow the path of god. they are from west virginia and south carolina. and they believed in this guy until they got there and realized how horrible it was. they were paying rent and fees. they allege the money they made they never got paid for that

either. megyn: what he did was allegedly hug them and grab them inappropriate spots and use inappropriate language. does that form the bay basis for a lawsuit? >> no young person should be exploited. megyn: alert to modeling industry. >> but there is a couple elements here, not to blame the victim. but you have to be cautious and you have to be on notice where you have a person luring you into a boarding home is that is what happened. and if their claims are realistic there has to be an element of them being on notice that these things could occur and whether they should go is what they have to ask themselves. on the legal claims, it's a different story. why in the claims are predicated as if he was the employer, right? they are suggesting he engaged in sex discrimination and harassment. he's not their employer, he's

the manager. megyn: he claims he has evidence this is part of an extortion plot. this is an rc robotic cw. my high school science teacher made me what i am today. our science teacher helped us build it. ♪ now i'm a geologist at chevron, and i get to help science teachers. it has four servo motors and a wireless microcontroller over the last three years we've put nearly 100 million dlars into american education. that's thousands of ks learning to love science.

♪ isn't that cool? and that's pretty cool ♪

megyn: so i just saw something truly disgusting online that i'm laughing about. we'll bring that tomorrow in "kelly's court." back to this segment. on what does he base this extortion claim? >> the bottom line is there was a reciprocal relationship. you come live with me and as a result of that i will market you and teach you what you need to know about modeling and expose you and do the things necessary to advance your career. in any type of lawsuit like this of extortion claim be the claim

is predicated upon you are trying to get money from me and take something from me that is not rightfully yours that doesn't belong to you and you didn't learn. >> if he was groping and harassing, and didn't do what he promised and kept their money, megyn. megyn: he says he has emails suggesting they said they moved out to be with their boy friend that don't suggest this claim because life with this guy was so unbearable. >> fine, show that in court. that's not really extortion. megyn: do they have a sex harassment? he controlled everything i wore. he controlled every aspect of my life. they are models. >> it wasn't just that. you go on to sexual harassment. also in the complaints -- also

they say many times would come in and they were naked and he would say please don't do that. he goes into some more details. >> the nature of the harassment has to be severe and pervasive. megyn: grabbing their bottoms when they talk about god? god wanted you to do this? >> and he has power over them. megyn: coming up tomorrow, a truly disgusting "kelly's court" on which we'll show you the video. thank you, panel. we are getting new details about the jetblue flight that had to be diverted after a disruption onboard. stay with me. @=h

: are you receiving a payout from a legal settlement

or annuity over 10 or even 20 years? call imperial structured settlements. the experts at imperial can convert your long-term payout into a lump sum of cash today. when i'm on overtime. when i'm in over my head. when i have to be sharp... no matter how many time zones i've crossed.

when i'm on my feet for hours. when it's game time. when the day's only half over but my energy is all gone. when i need the energy to start exercising. every day. every day. every day is a 5-hour energy day. 5-hour energy. every day. >>megyn: madeleine is upset about the dye