>> building a better bay area. moving forward and finding solutions. this is abc7news. anchor: you are watching getting answers live on abc seven. every day at this time we talk to experts about issues important to the bay area and we get you answers in real-time. there is a movement underway to make flag football an official sport for girls in california. we look at the arguments for and against. and what the commissioner of athletics has this a about it. have you heard of the one chip challenge? it is a viral tiktok challenge and parents are being warned. an expert will explain what it

is and why it is so dangerous. first, the u.s. supreme court opened its new session today with a new associate justice on the bench. justice quintana brown jackson spoke today about her ascendance. >> i am on a path where there has been and will be highs and lows. in reaching this incredible milestone, i have already benefited from great good fortune. i have a seat at the table now. [applause] anchor: joining us live to explore the new impact of the justice on the conservative court to enter preview the new term and cases that might make seismic changes is professor kate shaw from new york city. thank you for joining us, professor shaw. what is the case the court

opened its new term on? >> this is a case involving the scope of the environmental protection agency's authority under the clean water act to regulate not just typical waters like streams, lakes, and rivers but wetlands that connect to bodies of navigable water. the epa has long asserted its authority to regulate wetlands where the wetlands have some impact on the quality of water and other parts of the united states and these challengers argue with the epa's authority over wetlands is actually very narrow. and the wetlands have to be physically connected to another body of water in order to be regulated under the clean water act and the epa says that narrow understanding of its authority would curtail its ability to protect and maintain clean waters rout the united states. a big environmental case and a

big administrative law case. the term is off to a running start. anchor: at the end of the last term, the court was taking away some of the powers belonging to federal agencies. it will be interesting to see if they move in the same direction. i want to talk about justice brown jackson. she make a mark? >> --does she make a mark? >> she really had the ground running. sometimes new justices take a little time to get their bearings. she did not seem to be at all right tiring from the bench. she was really active pressing the lawyer of the challengers on this narrow vision of the epa's authority that the liar was asserting -- that the lawyer was asserting. i don't think she is going to be

a shrinking violet from the bench. in terms of her impact on the makeup of the court, she replaced justice stephen breyer who was a moderate liberal justice. i think she is likely to vote in ways that align with the way justice breyer would vote in similar cases. i do think the symbolic significance of having a first black woman justice on the supreme court and also the three liberal members of the supreme court, all being women will not be lost on the country. even if she is typically in dissent as i expect she will be, she is going to be dissenting in a voice different from any voice we have heard on the supreme court before and that i do think is significant. anchor: do you expect this will be a term filled with 6-3 decisions? or will we see the chief justice swinging sometimes with the

liberal side and having some 5-4? >> i think we will see quite a few 6-3 cases. i think it is possible the chief justice will cross over and join the liberal justices. 5-4 rather than 6-3. i have to say there are a number of cases on the docket this term involving the question of how much the constitution permits the use of rates by government decision-makers. cases involving of her medevac chick -- cases involving affirmative action in education, the constitutionality of the child indian welfare act which is being challenged. this is an area where chief justice roberts has long been at the forefront of this conservative push to eliminate the permissibility of using race even for the purposes of

increasing diversity or eradicating or responding to histories of discrimination. he has been in some ways hardest liner on those questions. i think there he could be in a 6-3 majority. in other cases, i can see him crossing over. anchor: if you were a betting woman, do you think that affirmative action will no longer be allowed, raise considerations for college admissions, for example? >> i think that is the most likely outcome of the two cases that the court will hear at the end of october. i do think the court has given every signaled that it will rule that issues of race are unconstitutional in virtually all circumstances. the big question is is this just about college admissions or is it use of race across the board

in other contexts. i do think it is likely these challengers who say these programs are unlawful will prevail. anchor: california is a strong state for lgbtq rights. what case is coming up in front of this court that could challenge some of those rights currently afforded? >> the most important case is a case out of colorado involving a challenge to a nondiscrimination law that requires individuals in the commercial marketplace to provide goods for services on a nondiscriminatory basis including not discriminating on --. the case is a would-be web designer who argues that her to comply with this nondiscrimination law would require her to speak in violation of her free speech rights in ways that are inconsistent with her religious convictions. that is the big challenge to a nondiscrimination law. and like the affirmative action

cases, there is a very good chance that this web designer challenging this nondiscrimination law will prevail and the question is how broadly -- could the court write something narrow limited to the context of the service she provides? if it rules broadly it could call into question the constitutionality of nondiscrimination laws good we have them in every state, in many cities. and as a matter of federal law. if you are going to go out into the commercial marketplace with a good or a service, you cannot discriminate. you have to make the service or good you are making available to all comers. the court could raise real questions about those rules most broadly. anchor: it seems like chief justice roberts is in favor of going narrow but some of his conservative colleagues are in favor of going broader. that is why it was such a shock when the court ended the last term with the ruling that

reversed roe v. wade. at made it federal law to grant to abortion rights. since it was overturned, half of the states have moved to restrict those rights. they had said this was established law. i wonder if you think other cases considered established law will be revisited and reversed. >> a couple things -- you are right. chief justice roberts made clear in a separate writing, dobbs versus jackson, that he agreed the mississippi law which was a 15 week band, he believed that law was permissible but he would not have gone as far as the five more conservative justices did and overturn roe v. wade from 1973. in terms of -- but i do think because the court in that case showed its willingness to overturn even really well-settled precedent, president that had been affirmed

and reaffirmed again and again i different supreme court's, i think dobbs tells us the court is not going to be hesitant or shy about overturning presidents where it believes those presidents were wrong or as the court sometime says, egregiously wrong. in the affirmative action cases, i believe the court will overturn a 2000 three decision from the university of michigan which upheld the use of race in admissions. the court has showed its willing -- its willingness to overturn presidents. only in extreme or rare circumstances overturns its prior cases. i'm not sure that long-standing principle holds much sway with this newly constituted and quite conservative supreme court's. anchor: buckle your seatbelts, supreme court watchers. professor, thank you for your time. coming up, step forward for

girls in sports. california is getting closer to making girls flag football and official high school sport. more on thi

kristen: girls flag football is coming closer to an official high school sport in california. the southern section noted in support last week so the next step is for the entire estate federation devoe. if they are in favor of it, girls flag football will be an official sport. joining us live to talk more about the movement is rob, the california inter--- interscholastic commissioner of athletics. thank you for your time. rob: thank you for having me. kristen: tell us about the vote.

it got pretty overwhelming support. why do think there is so much excitement for making flag football and official girls high school sport? rob: i believe we are in the business of basing education and athletics. there are always other students out there we do not touch so directly who are not involved under the umbrella. all of those that will participate in girls flight football will be another example of students that we can interact with and have as a part of education based athletics where they learn life lessons that help them beyond high school and further into their future. we are excited to bring girls flag football and you will see it in the fall of 2023. kristen: i wonder what led up to this. has interest in flag football grown in the last few years? rob: the nfl has been strongly

in support of this. they have been involved with our schools and other states as well. there has been a groundswell for this. our young ladies seem excited about the opportunity to be able to play football that they watch on tv and see being played all the time in the tackle football world and now they have a chance to play a different kind of football. there are a lot of commonalities between flag and tackle football. it has continued to grow. once it becomes an official sport, we will have championships and it will grow more. kristen: is flag football a boy sport or only regular tackle football? rob: girls can play tackle football and they do. we have girls that play on tackle football teams at their schools but this venture will be only for girls. kristen: i know girls can play tackle football with mostly boys. can boys play flag

football as a high school sport in california? rob: they cannot. we have a bylaw that says if there is a team at a high school that is offered for boys and is not offered for girls, girls can play that sport on the "boys team." if there is just a girls team and not a boys team, and cannot play on a girls team. if there are boys and girls teams as far as basketball and soccer, the students a play for their gender. kristen: i know flag football leagues have become more popular. some driven by parents who fear concussions for their kids. i wonder if that was part of the discussion with regard to flag football for girls. though you pull a flag and don't tackle, are there still concerns in terms of all going after the ball or aspects of the sport that still merit examining? rob: there can be and there are

certain precautionary pieces of equipment that can be born -- that can be worn. there are softshell, they are not helmets, you can put them on your head to help with any collisions. the single most involved sport with concussions is actually soccer. kristen: the heading? rob: there are more concussions in soccer than any other sports. with flag football, there is some equipment -- protective equipment you can wear but the head is not really worn -- is not really used in the sport of flight football. they grab a flag and they grabbed at the waist. they are not doing anything with the head. kristen: the folks who voted no on this, what do you think the concerns were? were there concerns for competition for field time? is there an alternative sport

that is better? was it safety concerns? rob: that is a great question. i want to make sure that people realize there were some no votes but typically when talking to those that voted no, they were in support of the concept. there was little feedback we heard that did not support the idea of adding girls flag football. those that voted no one to do see the season in the spring it will be a fall sport. to be honest, i think most of the no votes were tied up with the idea that they would prefer it be played in the spring rather than the fall. kristen: there is always the challenge of field time or does this mean she is not playing volleyball and doing this. do you think there will be a lot of teams, a lot of schools that will be able to field teams and there will be competition? rob: one issue we think about is

our schools will have control of this. they can decide when and where they play, what day of week, if they want to play at night before the tackle football game. or if they want to play on a different night. they are all over the different things that can be done but the schools ultimately have the control. what fits best for them is what they will do. some field space issues, practice times, coaching time. you mentioned girls volleyball players -- we have no -- kristen: rob, i think we are losing -- rob: i'm sorry. kristen: i am glad we got all the great information in there. rob is the commissioner for athletics. thank you for your time and we

will watch for that vote next month and report back. thanks a lot. coming up next, it is the latest tiktok trench. the one chip challenge. naomi: every year the wildfires, the smoke seems to get worse. jessica: there is actual particles on every single surface. dr. cooke: california has the worst air pollution in the country. the top 2 causes are vehicles and wildfires. prop 30 helps clean our air. it will reduce the tailpipe emissions that poison our air

kevin: and helps prevent the wildfires that create toxic smoke that's why calfire firefighters, the american lung association, and the coalition for clean air support prop 30. naomi: i'm voting yes on 30.

kristen: have you heard of the one chip challenge? area school districts and the cdc are sounding the alarm over this challenge that many teens are it is fading in. just one tortilla chip made with two of the world's hottest peppers. here is a promotional video for it. ♪ kristen: misery is the point and

surviving it is a badge of honor but is it dangerous? joining us is a medical toxicologist. thank you for joining us today. school districts and the cdc sent out warnings to parents about the super spicy chip. what is it made of? >> the chip -- the trend has been produced by this company for the last six years. this year the chip features the carolina reaper pepper and the scorpion pepper, two of the hottest peppers out there. kristen: are these peppers that we eat in other things ever? >> they might be you might like hot sauce and want to buy a pungent hot sauce but in this case, we are getting twice the dose of heats. kristen: let's talk about the

danger. what kind of reaction is it eliciting in people that eats it -- eat it? >> it is very irritating to your stomach in your mouth. you will feel a strong sensation of pain in your mouth, your throat, and your stomach. the active ingredient is capsaicin. capsaicin in our body causes your heart rate to go out. if you have underlying medical issues, you can have a heart attack or a stroke from eating these peppers. if you touch your eyes, you can have intense irritation of your eyes that can cause damage. kristen: any documented cases of this more permanent kind of damage that you have talked about? >> yes. there are published cases in medical literature about people who were utterly -- who were otherwise healthy who ate capsaicin and experienced heart

attacks and strokes. at poison control, we get reports every day about people who are having severe reactions after eating these chips. kristen: maybe this is kind of philosophical, why do these challenges start? why do kids want to consume dangerous items? >> i think the challenges offer a sense of collegiality. you are entering into a trend and you can post it on social media. it lets people form a community. the problem is some of the challenges are innocuous the ice bucket challenge from 10 years ago. pretty harmless. some of these challenges can be dangerous and what we need to understand is in these videos, you do not see the full story. you do not see what happens after the camera turns off. just because someone else can do it on camera does not mean it is

safe for you to do. kristen: i want to put up a website where you can buy it. i saw it on amazon and walmart. it is easy to purchase. can the sale deregulated if it has such a great risk -- can the sale be regulated if it has such a great risk? >> it is a food. it is interesting to note that the single in that package is about nine dollars. you are paying a lot of money for something that could cause a lot of harm to your body. kristen: what can parents do? should we bring it up to our kids? how do we talk to them about it? >> i think it is helpful to let your kids know that you are aware of the challenges.

children listen to us. it is worthwhile to bring the challenges up and discuss the limitations of social media with your children. kristen: kelly johnson arbor, thank you so much for joining us today. a reminder, you can get our live newscast, breaking news and more with our abc 7 various streaming tv app. just search abc 7 bay area and just search abc 7 bay area and life is busy. so, come to shell and get three things done at once. first, fill up with shell v-power nitro+ to help keep your engine running like new. nice! then save up with the fuel rewards program and never pay full price for gas again.

oh wow! and, finally, snack up to save even more at the pump. that's great! make the most of the stop you need to make with shell. wait! there's three of me? awesome! you might take something for your heart... your joints... or your digestion... so why wouldn't you take something for the most important part of you... your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

kristen: thank you so much for joining us for "getting answers ." we will be answering your questions. at 4:00, more on the deadly

shooting of two berkeley high school students in oakland. what police are now saying. world news is coming up next and i will see you back here at 4:00. tonight the desperate search is under way in florida. families still being rescued days later and major new questions about mandatory evacuation orders. should they have come sooner? and tonight the remnants of ian affecting the east, north carolina through new jersey and new york in the coming hours. tonight the staggering death toll from hurricane ian now rising. survivors of the hurricane still being airlifted days after the deadly storm made landfall. lee county alone reporting at least 54 deaths, and more than 800 rescues. the new images emerging showing hurricane ian blasting pine island with wind, waves and debris and many asking about those mandatory evacuation orders, should they have been issued sooner. tonightou