hobby lobby wins! >> you can hear the cheering as the supreme court announced that the government cannot force certain companies to provide contraceptive coverage to employees, because according to the court, those corporations are people with religious beliefs. we'll break down the court's ruling and talk about the long-term impact of the decision. plus, the crisis in iraq where isis has declared itself an islamic caliphate. and facebook is facing a major backlash over a major psychological experiment conducted on its users without their knowledge. but we start with the reaction to the most anticipated ruling of this supreme court term. >> today's decision jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies. we'll work with congress to make sure any women affected by this decision will still have the same kormg of vital health services as everyone else. >> this is one of the most significant religious freedom victories from the court in a decade, frankly.

and what the court said is that basically the obama administration overreached again. >> supporters of privately owned arts and craft chain hobby lobby erupted in cheers after learning of the court's 5-4 ruling in their favor today. nbc's justice correspondent pete williams joining me now from the supreme court. okay, pete. break down this ruling for us. >> okay. well, what the court said is you have a test that's laid out by federal law. when a company says that abiding by a law would violate its religious beliefs, then this test kicks in. first the court said, yes, a for-profit company can assert religious freedoms. the mere fact that a group of individuals choose to do business as a corporation doesn't require them to set their religious views aside. that's step one. step two, they say, is what the government wants them to do, an important thing. and the court says, yes, it is

important to make sure women get contraceptive coverage. the court agrees with the government there. then the third question is where these companies win and the government lose. the court says, is there some other way to achieve that end, namely getting contraceptives, without violating the religion beliefs of the company? the court said the answer to that is yes. it said the government is already doing it. because people, women who work for nonprofit corporations that are affiliated with churches, they get their coverage, they get their contraceptive coverage at no cost to them. it's usually paid for by the insurance companies. the supreme court notes in passing today that the insurance companies can do that at no net cost because while they do have an additional cost of providing the contraceptive care, they say that's offset by the fact there are in essence fewer preg sis. so the court says given there's a way to do this without violating the company's religious beliefs, the company can be exempt from this requirement. it goes on to say this is a very narrow decision and applies only

to companies like hobby lobby held closely by a family, perhaps a small group of individual, and organized around religious principles. >> quickly, pete, because one of the questions people have about the potential breadth is that hobby lobby say they were not a posed to all kinds of contraception, just certain kinds of contraception. so is it possible that this ruling could, even though it's narrow, apply to another company that was just opposed to blood transfusions? that's all they're opposed to, will cover everything else, but you can't get a blood transfusion, at least on the company's insurance. >> the court actually mentions blood transfusions and inoculations as claims companies could make that probably wouldn't succeed because you don't have the alternative way of providing coverage for those. in the case of inoculations, for example, they say it's important to inoculate everybody, because if you leave a few people out, the disease can still spread. so time after time, the court tries to say this is a narrow

ruling. the court's four dissenters don't buy it. they say this opens a door that a lot of companies will try to get through with all manner of claims. >> pete williams, thanks a lot. appreciate it. joining me now, "the cycle" co-host ari melboure. i'm going to come to you on the same question that i asked pete. that was what the dissent in this case stated, was that no matter how narrowly the majority says they're tailoring this ruling, if i'm a company and have miss religious principles, i've now incorporated myself, but i oppose something like blood transfusions, couldn't this ruling be used to allow other employers to opt out of things like that? >> pete williams is certainly right that the court with justice alito writing for the majority makes great pains to show that this is narrow and only applies to a certain class. so you can look at what the court says or you can look at

what the court does. i think what the court is doing regardless of its own description is saying for really the first time in the history of american law, that's why today is a significant day that, corporations have some sort of free-standing religious freedom. the reason this hasn't come up much, justice alito said, look, a lot of corporations have never asked for this kind of exception or protection. you're like, yeah, they didn't even know it was possible. so it is a big-time decision in terms of what a lot of civil rights advocate, women's rights advocates care about, which is precedent. this is a new precedent. what will be built on top of it? we don't yet know. to the question you asked, although the court does single out vaccination and blood transfusion as areas that are dicier, to me there is no doubt that the logic of this ruling, whether you think this is a good or bad thing, the logic of this ruling says outside of the

context of church and religious organizations, entities that are created to make money and get benefits solely for that purpose now can say that they have some free standing corporate religious belief that gives them an exception potentially to our laws. >> yeah, indeed. and in her dissent, justice ginsburg writes, would the exemption extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions, antidepressions, medications derived from pigs, not much help there from thor courts found by today's decision. one thing that does seem definitive is this court is injecting something new as sort of novel interpretation of personhood and corporate personhood. how much danger do you think that other sort of women's rights might be in because of it? >> well, it's an excellent day to be a boss. basically, justice ginsburg says in her dissent, isn't it convenient that a corporation is only religious when it benefits the owners without any regard for what impact it might have on the employees. so she talks a lot about what

about the third-party harm here? the government said when it was considering what minimum preventive care coverages to include that there was a huge unmet need in contraceptive coverage, that there was a huge public health interest. an iud is both highly effective and costs something like a monthly wage on a minimum wage. so there are real public health realities. to say this is only contraception, it's so narrow, it's only you ladies and your pills, right, belies the fact there's a real public health rationale and this care matters. it does lay the groundwork and set a precedent for a broader corporate exercise, which has justice ginsburg really benefits the boss and the boss' religious beliefs and doesn't take into account the harm on the employees. it also kind of says that contraceptive care and women's health care for which women pay more doesn't matter and doesn't have that kind of compelling interest and they suggest that they go directly to the

insurers. but something really important to note about this go directly to the insurers, the government can just help you get it is there's a bunch of lawsuits right now by nonprofit companies that are religiously affiliated saying that's not good enough. so does hobby lobby find it good enough? the court says it's not going to exactly say whether -- it says it's a good accommodation but we're not actually saying anything like cases like the little sisters of poor. but this is not over. >> and it's interesting justice alito focused on the cost to employers. essentially saying that if you force these employers to go ahead and provide this contraceptive coverage, it imposes a cost on them. and he actually named that cost. he said it could be $1.3 million a day. but the reality is there is a cost to the employers of providing insurance coverage, but there's also a cost to women, which before we had the affordable care and the mandate, women were paying something like 68% more. and most of the reason women's health care is so much more costly is because of things like

the iud and birth control because it is costly. essentially, the court has balanced the employer's cost versus the employee and they've chosen the boss. >> exactly. freedom of religion is very important in this country, but freedom from religion is also important. and these women now are being imposed these religious beliefs. a lot of them are paying into these insurance programs, even by virtue of just doing their labor and being part of the company. so they'll have to pay for their iuds, birth control out of pocket. an iud can cost up to $1,000. actually, they're some of the most reliable forms of birth control. this entire case is built on a false premise that it's equivocal to abortion. there's no woman who says, i get an abortion every month because i have my iud. actually, the biggest irony is if, you know, this case now has passed and we see other companies doing similar things, it will most likely increase the abortion rate because the single most effective way of reducing abortion is increasing access to

contraception. i don't think these people can actually be anti-contraception and anti-abortion at the same time. >> i guess, ari, that's what's sort of unique and striking about the decision. the court is calling it unique, and the companies are calling it unique because at the end of the day, this is about abortion. this is about a company wanting to keep women away from something it believes are abortions, making a moral judgment in advance on these women's lives. now that that's sanctioned by the court, i don't even know what that means in terms of our law. >> i think it opens the door to more of this and that's why it matters, even though the court, as we've said, has said, well, we're only going to do certain things. you're also gesturing towards another piece of this, which is this is not just a case about god and people's belief in what god wants. this is a case about capitalism, okay. this is a very business-friendly court that's using the language of god and very sincerely held beliefs, i should mention. but we're not talking about a universal fair rule that suddenly gives people more

religious freedom across the board. there might be a cost to that, and we could debate it, but we're not even there. we're talking about something that gives management and ownership the ability to invoke god, to have more, quote, freedom, if you want to use that, or be able to do more or have exceptions to the law and not workers. it doesn't say if you believe in a faith that gives you a holy sabbath and you can't answer e-mails on the sabbath, that now you have more rights today than you did yesterday to make sure you can take a job and still honor your faith. no, we're talking about something that only applies to a minority of people. to some degree, this is a 1% decision. >> exactly. it's certainly sayings corporations are people, but they're also superior people to ordinary people. >> i was so struck reading the decision about how passionate justice alito is on issues of corporate law. contrast that with how passionate justice ruth bader ginsburg is on issues that actually affect women's daily lives. unfortunately, samuel alito was replacing justice sandra day o'connor. i couldn't help but wonder, what

is justice o'connor thinking today now that this decision has been written? justice ginsburg quotes this line from planned parenthood versus casey. controlling reproduction is an important part of women's liberty. that was co-written by justice kennedy and o'con author. >> that goes to the doctrinal hole here, which is the best argument on the side of hobby lobby and alito is the idea that corporations ultimately operate to extend people's desires, right. that's their best argument. in the free speech matter or when you look at newspaper and media companies that still get first amendment rights, which a lot of us care about, you see that to a point. we've never seen that in the religious context because corporations don't pray. even if you take that logic, you say, why then does that extension of the right only go the owners but not to the employees? who decided that? because a lot of americans would say, huh, i relate more as an employee to my corporation than as an owner of it. >> indeed. corporations are superior people. that's the general takeaway from

this court as a rule. thank you so much. appreciate it. we got to go because -- well, first of all. before we give you breaking news, i have to remind you that you can catch ari on "the cycle" after "the reid report." turns out it's right at 3:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc. >> fact czeheck. 100% true. >> let's go to breaking news now. israel is reporting that the military has found the bodies of three missing teenagers. just over two weeks after they were abduct the in the west bank, allegedly by hamas. benjamin netanyahu has called a meeting with his security cabinet. we'll bring you more details as we have them, and we'll be right back.

♪ i quit smoking with chantix. before chantix, i tried to quit... probably about five times. it was different than the other times i tried to quit. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. it's a non-nicotine pill. chantix reduced my urge to smoke. that helped me quit smoking. some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these, stop chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it.

if you develop these, stop chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. tell your doctor if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, or if you develop new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack or stroke. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. my quit date was my son's birthday. and that was my gift for him and me. ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.

from health care and contraception to affirmative

action and gun rights. the supreme court's influence on our every day lives as americans is substantial. in a court that often splits along ideological lines, as it did in today's hobby lobby ruling, the challenge for its chief justice, john roberts, who is steering the court in a decidedly conservative direction is to also try and maintain the court's public stature. some would argument to assert its power. lawrence tribe is a harvard law school professor and co-author of the book "uncertain justice: the roberts court and the constitution." thank you for being here, professor. really appreciate it. >> my pleasure. >> i want to start by giving you an opportunity to react to the hobby lobby decision, another 5-4 ruling. does this decision and the way it was constructed with all of that language about it being narrow, does that fit into the general world view that you've discerned about the roberts court? >> well, actually, i think the journalistic account of the roberts court's world view is much too simplistic. the world view is very

complicated, and it pushes in lots of directions. one reason that i wrote this book with my wonderful former research assistant joshua matts is to clear things up a little bit. like in today's case, the court was not elevating corporations above actual human beings. it was interpreting an act of congress where congress in the religious freedom restoration act itself said that corporations, along with people and along with unions, should be able to argue that something needlessly burdens their religion. employees could make exactly the same argument and have in many successful cases. and what the court said was that as long as the government can provide the contraception at public expense, there is no need to burden the religious beliefs of closely held corporations whose owners basically operate

the business. that's not as radical a decision as some people think. >> well, let me ask you this, because i think a lot of people would look at the roberts court and see they seem to come down on the side of corporations a lot, right. when it comes to what corporations can do with regard to elections, when it comes to what corporations can do with regard to contraception. knowing that women individually have a burden, too, in terms of buying contraception, but it seems they sided with easing the corporate burden over the individual burden. there does seem to be a theme that i think a lot of people who watch the court would see it's a corporate-friendly court. is that accurate? >> it's partially accurate. in the last chapter of my book called "making rights real: access to justice," i do criticize the court for making class actions harder, for making litigation harder, for siding very often with arbitration rather than litigation. but it's a lot too simple to say it's just corporations.

in the citizens united decision, for example, the court was citing with unions as well as corporations, and it was saying that regardless of who or what the speaker s we don't trust the government to regulate the amount of speech. and if you focus only on the fact that lots of corporations win in this court and that the chamber of commerce does really well, then you're going to miss a lot of what's really going on in many of these cases. i think, you know, i'm a great watcher of msnbc. i like preaching to the converted. but i think that when push comes to shove, we'll do a lot better trying to understand what's really going on inside the minds of all these people rather than doing kind of cardboard cut-out caricatures. >> you essentially write the five conservative justices who rule in the majority often are essentially reasserting an

attempt to rein in government regulation. and it's sort of the signaling a willingness, in your words, or perhaps an eagerness to resume a judicial role in limiting federal economic regulation. >> that i think is true. that's very true, and that's true whether the regulation leans in one direction or another. it's a very anti-regulatory court. in today's decision in the other case, the very important case involving home health care workers who are only part-time workers for the state government and for local governments, in that case the court took a rather dangerous step toward using free speech principles toward that deregulatory agenda. but it's not only the more supposedly conservative members. the other big case that went in this direction not long ago was a case in which the court with justice sotomayor as part of the majority struck down a vermont economic regulation designed to rein in pharmaceutical prices.

justice breyer, in his dissent, pointed out that's a big step backward, making it harder to regulate in the benefit of workers and consumers. >> all right. very interesting. the book is "uncertain justice: the roberts court and the constitution." the co-author is lawrence tribe of harvard university. thank you so much being here. >> thank you, joy. time for an update on the immigration story we've been following where thousands of children have been pouring across the u.s. southern border. this hour, president obama will deliver a statement on immigration reform in the rose garden, and we'll bring that to you live. president obama is asking congress for more than $2 billion for humanitarian aid and to help deal with the situation. the administration would also like expanded authority to return many of the children home more quickly. most of the undocumented kids are from guatemala, honduras, and el salvador. we'll be right back.

defiance is in our bones. defiance never grows old. citracal maximum. calcium citrate plus d. highly soluble, easily absorbed. cozy or cool? exactly the way you want it ... until boom, it's bedtime! your mattress is a battleground of thwarted desire. enter the sleep number bed. right now, you can save $400 on the all-new c4 mattress set. he's the softy. his sleep number setting is 35. you're the rock, at 60. and snoring? sleep number's even got an adjustment for that. you can only find sleep number at a sleep number store. don't miss the lowest prices of the season with the all-new c4 mattress at $1499.98. know better sleep with sleep number.

lactaid® is 100% real milk? right. real milk. but it won't cause me discomfort. exactly, because it's milk without the lactose. and it tastes? it's real milk! come on, would i lie about this? [ female announcer ] lactaid. 100% real milk. no discomfort.

yeah?om. come on, would i lie about this? we got allstate, right? uh-huh. yes! well, i found this new thing... called allstate quickfoto claim. it's an app. you understand that? just take photos of the damage with your phone and upload them to allstate. really? so you get a quicker estimate, quicker payment, quicker back to normal. i just did it. but maybe you can find an app that will help you explain this to your father. introducing quickfoto claim. just another way allstate is changing car insurance for good.

it's time for we the tweeple. today's social media exploded on the left and the right with news of the supreme court ruling in favor of hobby lobby. people for the ruling are sending tweets like this one. quote, liberals should be happy regarding the hobby lobby decision. they say it's no one's business what people do, and the court agreed. but many of you are saying this ruling unfairly harms women in tweets like this one saying, the men on the supreme court remind you women that some women's medication isn't actually medication. pointing to some of the ironies among the trending topics is viagra, which by the way is still covered under obamacare. now to a much-less significant milestone. i've just attended my very first b.e.t. awards. here's me on the red carpet. i rubbed elbows with lots of stars at last night's ceremony, but many of you can't stop talking about nicki minaj.

many of you think she took a swipe at newcomer iggy izaelea. in addition to gabbing about the winners, you're still lol'ing about host chris rock's interviews at a monster truck rally. >> are you familiar with this gentleman right here? >> looks like mr. t. >> he looks like mr. t? >> who is it? >> who do you think it is? >> i have no idea. >> do you ever here of swanzaa? he's black santa claus. >> of course, that's super popular rapper rick ross. at least super popular to some people. and you can join the conversation with fellow reiders on twitter, facebook, instagram and msnbc. now this news. today president obama will pick bob mcdonald to head up the department of veterans affairs. here's more about the president's nominee.

i do a lot oresearch on angie's list before i do any projects on my home. i love my contractor, and i am so thankful to angie's list for bringing us together. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust. that's keeping you from the healthcare you deserve. at humana, we believe if healthcare changes, if it becomes simpler... if frustration and paperwork decrease... if grandparents get to live at home instead of in a home... the gap begins to close. so let's simplify things. let's close the gap between people and care.

♪ take them on the way you always have. live healthy and take one a day men's 50+. a complete multivitamin with 7 antioxidants to support cell health. age? who cares.

say "hi" rudy. [ barks ] [ chuckles ] i'd do anything to keep this guy happy and healthy. that's why i'm so excited about these new milk-bone brushing chews. whoa, i'm not the only one.

it's a brilliant new way to take care of his teeth. clinically proven as effective as brushing. ok, here you go. have you ever seen a dog brush his own teeth? the twist and nub design cleans all the way down to the gum line, even reaching the back teeth. they taste like a treat, but they clean like a toothbrush. nothing says you care like a milk-bone brushing chew. [ barks ] now an update on the breaking news out of israel. there are reports that the bodies of three missing teenagers have been found. they went missing just over two weeks after abducted by alleged hamas militants. they say they're still working to identify the bodies and contacting families. israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu has called an emergency meeting with his security cabinet to discuss a response and we'll bring you more details as we have them. but now to iraq. an islamic caliphate, the

arrival of russian military experts, and a counteroffensive against those militants. those are just a few of the reported events out of iraq today and overed the weekend. in an interview on sunday, the president commented on what the u.s. needs to do better in order to help contain the threat from the civil war in iraq. >> we got to improve our surveillance, reconnaissance, intelligence there. special forces are going to have a role, and there are going to be times where we take strikes against organizations that could do us harm. >> bob, thanks for being here. i want to start with just this question of isis or isil or whatever we're calling them today now declaring themselves a caliphate. tactically, mistake? >> tactically, i don't think it matters much. strategically is what's important here. this is something al qaeda has talked about doing ever since they were founded. and if they're trying as they

have stated in the last few days that they're essentially superseding al qaeda within the jihad world, then this is a strategically important thing for them. it sets them up as the militant jihadi group because they are now saying, look, al qaeda tried to do this, we have actually succeeded. >> right. and is there a possibility then that could trigger a war between these two sunni militant groups, al qaeda and isis? >> there has been fighting between al nusra, which is the al qaeda-backed group in syria and isis. that's been going on for weeks or months. in fact, in that -- in those battles, al nusra was winning. there's a number of people who think because they were having such a difficult time in syria that they saw the vacuum that was western iraq and moved. u.s. intelligence officials will tell you the thing that they're

most concerned about is ungoverned territory around the world. western iraq has been one of the more troubling places for them. >> and what is the risk? because it doesn't seem that likely. but what is the risk that baghdad could become part of that ungoverned territory? >> i think the question becomes, what is the strategy that isis has in terms of looking at baghdad? i mean, you're not talking about a large group. you're talking about a core of 3,000 to 5,000 fighters helped by sunni tribesmen who may or may not be getting along with them. the point is they have been stopped outside of baghdad. now do they change strategies? do they change tactics? and do they do a series of car bombings? because that is the big worry now that they go in with car bombings. they also tried to get control of the biggest dam outside of baghdad last week and failed. so there are a number of things they're trying to do. car bombing, infrastructure control. remember they took over the

refinery for a while. so these are the sorts of things they're doing. not frontal assaults but a number of things that are counter normal military strategy. >> i wonder if we can put that map back up. sort of where isis is structured. how can a group of 3,000 to 5,000 people hold that much territory? it looks like more than maybe it is, but how is that possible? >> they have help from sunni tribesmen. basically, again, this was ungoverned territory. a lot of this is sunni land. the sunnis have been very upset with the way they're being governed by the shia majority inside baghdad. essentially, it's a combination of things. the question is whether they can sustain that control, which is a very, very difficult proposition. >> let's talk about the russians now involvement in this. the latest outside entity to try to get involved to stem the situation is russia. what does their involvement mean sort of for the mix of what's happening in iraq and syria?

>> well, i think one of the things they're trying to do is to show that they're more reliable partners than the united states. they're going to be providing fighter jets, they say, which the iraqis need. they're going to be supplying advisers. and i think that this goes back to super power politics. this is like cold war, third-world colonialism. it's fascinating, but i don't think they're going to have much of an effect. >> all right. bob, thank you. appreciate you being here. >> thank you. okay. coming up, facebook's mood experiment that has privacy advocates in a really bad mood. but first, a reid alert to pass along. general motors announced today it will conduct six new safety recalls in the united states involving about 7.6 million vehicles from 1997 to the 2014 model year. now, this as the nation's largest automaker will begin paying the price for faulty ignition switch defects that killed at least 13 people. gm announced today a plan to pay at least $1 million to each of the victim's families.

the funds administration says there will be no cap on the amount of money gm would agree to, which could cost the billions of dollars. >> money is a pretty poor substitute for loss. it's the limits of what we can do, unfortunately. we can't bring people back. we can't restore limbs. it's the best we can do. (music) defiance is in our bones. defiance never grows old. citracal maximum. calcium citrate plus d. highly soluble, easily absorbed.

you're looking at live pictures of the white house rose garden where moments from now president obama will speak on the topic of immigration reform. in the meantime, it wasn't long ago facebook ceo mark zuker burg was chastising congress on issues of privacy. now his company is facing a huge backlash over whether it practices what it preaches when it comes to online privacy and transparency. it's a place facebook has been before. the latest started this weekend when three researchers,

including a facebook today that scientist, published a paper in the official journal of the national academy of sciences. the paper's authors say their research indicates that the number of positive or negative posts in a person's facebook news feed may have an impact on their behavior. but in obtaining that finding, the researchers didn't explicitly inform the nearly 700,000 english-language facebook users that they studied that they were conducting a massive psychological experiment back in january of last year. they also neglected to mention that to some users, that some of their news feeds were being carefully selected to display slightly more positive or slightly more negative posts. the backlash has been swift. first, over whether this was even legal. and second, even if facebook's privacy policy indemnifies the company legally, is this kind of research ethical? "the reid report" reached out to facebook. in part they said, this research was conducted for a single week in 2012 and none of the data

used was associated with a specific person's facebook account. a big part of this is how people respond to content. whether it's positive or negative in tone, news from friends, or information from pages they follow, we carefully consider what research we do. there's no unnecessary collection of people's data in connection with these research initiatives and all data is stored securely. reed, i'm going to start with you. that statement from facebook sounds awfully like what the federal government said in the case of nsa spying or nsa data collection, i should say, which mark zuckerberg was extremely critical of. >> oh, yeah. look, this is -- i mean, it's obviously a different thing. facebook is always tweaking this algorithm that determines what you see in your news feed, essentially what appears in front of you when you go on facebook.

but what they did here that was different that i think really triggered nerves is they're trying to change people's emotions on facebook. i mean, that is a line that i think academics are now questioning. you know, should we have better guidelines about this? the other difference is that instead of just doing this research internally, facebook actually published it, you know, with other researchers and academic institutions that received federal funding and have obligations about, you know, the ethical guidelines here in their research. that's what's really stirred this debate. >> this wasn't just them looking at the sort of attitudes and actions of their users in collecting the data. they were actually manipulating in some cases the content that people were seeing in their news feeds, even with a slight manipulation and recording the result. is that something new? have you ever heard of anything like that before? >> i mean, i think we all know,

joy, that technology companies such as facebook have always been able to observe our data. but to be able to go in and not only manipulate it but do a study around is it, this is like entering into a whole other level. i think a lot of legal experts are telling us it is legal, apparently, when you check that little terms of service box agreement that you buy into this and many other things. but i think the real question is we're talking about now is it ethical? should companies like facebook really be taking this data, particularly without us knowing about it, and being able to do all kinds of research around it. in addition, we have to all be able to look at how is this being worded? are people just giving away the keys to the kingdom without even really knowing, you know, what it is that they're doing? so as data becomes more and more of what we're calling the new oil, this is going to become a huge, huge conversation. >> indeed. i mean, the facebook privacy policy that lauren just mentioned, it reads, we may use the information we receive about you for internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research, and service improvement.

it doesn't specifically say we may also add to that data and then study you. going back to you, reed, mark zuckerberg's core criticism of the administration, he said essentially, quote, the u.s. government should be the champion for the internet, not a threat. they need to be much more transparent about what they're doing, otherwise people will believe the worst. does it strike you as ironic that essentially the government in these big data operations was taking information from companies like facebook? that's what they were subpoenaing, this information given voluntarily. now if some of that data is not original, if it is manipulated, i don't know. i feel like we're in a gray area where the data isn't necessarily your data. it's been manipulated. >> i don't think it is your data. whatever you put on facebook, it basically becomes data belonging to facebook. actually, that's the core of facebook's business. a lot of users don't realize this, but data gathering for use in targeted advertising is what

pays the bills there and is what is growing that company. so certainly, i mean, users should know, and i think that's a big part of this issue. people just, you know, they don't read those privacy policies. they aren't really aware of what they're turning over. here transparency is an interesting question because facebook actually did publish this study publicly, so they obviously didn't think there was a problem with it ethically. but what's not really transparent, and the question that a lot of people are asking now is what exactly was the internal process at facebook? how did they decide whether this study should have happened or should not have happened? and how is that process carried out with the academic researchers as well? another big question. >> i wish we had more time. thank you so much. we just ran out of time. okay. more details now on the breaking news out of israel. there are reports of the bodies of three missing teenagers that they have been found. they went missing just over two weeks after they were ab ducked

in the west bank, allegedly by hamas militants. what do we know now? >> reporter: the israeli defense force has confirmed that the boys have indeed -- the bodies of bot i have been found. all of them students at a religious school in the south of the west bank. around about 5:00 p.m. this evening local time, the discovery was made. the bodies were found under a pile of rocks in an open field in a little town just to the north of hebron. the families were informed, and the bodies were removed for what has been described as forensic identification. meanwhile, the israeli government's security council is meeting right now. >> all right. thanks very much for that

update. and more breaking news on this busy monday afternoon. moments from now, we'll hear from president obama in the rose garden on immigration reform. we'll bring that to you live. we'll be right back. yoplait whips! it is so good for whipping up a little treat. your studied day and night for her driver's test. secretly inside, you hoped she wouldn't pass. the thought of your baby girl driving around all by herself was... you just weren't ready. but she did pass. 'cause she's your baby girl. and now you're proud. a bundle of nerves proud. but proud. get a discount when you add a newly-licensed teen to your liberty mutual insurance policy. call to learn about our whole range of life event discounts.

newlywed discount. new college graduate and retiree discounts. you could even get a discount when you add a car. call liberty mutual for a free quote today at see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance. sfx: car unlock beep. vo: david's heart attack didn't come with a warning. today his doctor has him on a bayer aspirin regimen to help reduce the risk of another one. if you've had a heart attack be sure to talk to your doctor

pictures from the white house rose garden where moments from now we'll hear president obama speak on immigration reform. nbc news senior political recorder perry bacon joins me now with a preview. what are we expecting to hear? >> the president's going to lay out a process by the end of the summer. he's going to say congress will not pass immigration reform, so i want the cabinet to look into ways that i can use my executive power to change immigration law in whatever ways i can through the executive power only. he's going to lay out today a process for that. by the end of the summer, he's going to i la out the steps he's going to take. the important thing to think about here is remember last week, first of all, that we learned the house is probably not going to have any kind of immigration both this year. speaker boehner apparently told the president that over the

phone. the president is ready to move forward that way. also, speaker boehner has the lawsuit he wants to file against the president to stop executive action. the response you could see today is the president announcing new executive actions or at least a process to do that. that's in some ways a direct rebuke of the speaker and house republicans. >> over the weekend there was also a statement from the president saying he's not going to be cowed by this attempt by congress to stop him when they're not actually doing anything. the sort of stalemate is strange, perry. you have the congress saying that the president needs to come to the house but also saying the house isn't going to act. i don't understand how that stalemate works out in washington. >> the way it is, is right now the house republicans, they feel like particularly after watching eric cantor lose -- we can talk about why he lost later, but their view is he lost in part because he was not firmly enough against immigration reform. most house republicans right now -- an immigration bilked pass in congress in the house, but it would only pass with democratic votes. the majority of house republicans do not support

creating a path to citizenship. that's why this bill has not moved so far. the president has sort of waited and waited and waited and in his view thinks this bill should pass. he thinks boehner should put it on the floor. so now you're seeing -- the key thing to think about here is the president two years ago changed the deportation law, essentially said if you're a person who's young and your parents brought you here, you will not be deported in the future. now the white house is talking and thinking about, how do we expand out that deferred action to other groups? it's not clear how much you can do without any kind of formal legislative bill. that's what they're looking for. the house republicans are saying you cannot do much more than now. we're going to -- and that's what that lawsuit was about. the lawsuit boehner filed was a kind of warning shot to obama, which he's now ignoring. >> well, it's a warning shot, but let's talk about the potential for escalation. obviously on the base of the republican party, which as you said, is sending a very clear signal that they do not want to see immigration reform pass, that house leaders, whether they're interpreting it rightly

or not are listening to, there is also that "i" word floating out there, that the base wants to see the president impeached for not following the laup. how much are they willing to ratchet up this game of chicken with the white house over executive action? >> boehner was asked about impeachment last week. he categorically ruled it out. i don't think that means it will not happen, but i'm certain for right now the republicans feel like they have the advantage going into the midterms. they're going to keep the house, probably gain seats there, potentially gain seats in the senate, maybe control the senate as well. it's hard to imagine a scenario in which they would push this issue much further before election day. after november, i think, everything starts over again. but right now, they feel like they're pretty confident wherer this. boehner's view is like the lawsuit, obama called it a stunt, but from where boehner sits, the base of the republican party is pretty much posed to

everything obama does. and therefore, this was a good move for him. the white house views it as another sign that the republicans will not treat obama as a legitimate president. this is another step in overreach on their part. and the president -- the president's view is basically, i'm in office 2 1/2 more years. i want to accomplish whatever i can. congress is not moving. what can i do on my own? >> right. and obviously, though, anything the president does is clearly temporary. executive actions only last as long as the executive. as you said, that's 2 1/2 more years. what are activists on the hill saying about that process peck, that anything the president does would be temporary anyway? >> a lot of concern that the president just can't do much on immigration. the immigration activists who wanted to see him do more, they've been pushing for him to change. there's been a debate in the last year where they've been pushing obama to change, use more executive authority as well. he hasn't been able to do that so far. this is going to be a response to that in part. >> perry bacon, thanks. that wraps things up for "the

reid report." "the cycle" will have live coverage of president obama's comments from the white house rose garden. you're watching msnbc. take 4 advil in a day which is 2 aleve... ...for all day relief. "start your engines" yobut you may notds. know we're a family. 12 brands. more hotels than anyone else in the world. like days inn, where you can do everything under the sun. save up to 15 percent and earn bonus points when you book at wyndhamrewards.com

and for many, it's a struggle to keep your a1c down. so imagine -- what if there was a new class of medicine that works differently to lower blood sugar? imagine...loving your numbers. introducing once-daily invokana®. it's the first of a new kind of prescription medicine that's used along with diet and exercise to lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. invokana® is a once-daily pill that works around the clock to help lower a1c. here's how. the kidneys allow sugar to be absorbed back into the body. invokana® reduces the amount of sugar allowed back in and sends some sugar out through the process of urination. and while it's not for weight loss, it may help you lose some weight. invokana® can cause important side effects, including dehydration, which may cause some people to have loss of body water and salt. this may also cause you to feel dizzy, faint,

lightheaded, or weak especially when you stand up. other side effects may include kidney problems, genital yeast infections, urinary tract infections, changes in urination, high potassium in the blood, or increases in cholesterol. do not take invokana® if you have severe kidney problems or are on dialysis or if allergic to invokana® or its ingredients. symptoms of allergic reaction may include rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing. if you experience any of these symptoms, stop taking invokana® and call your doctor right away or go to the nearest hospital. tell your doctor about any medical conditions, medications you are taking, and if you have kidney or liver problems. using invokana® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase risk of low blood sugar. it's time. lower your blood sugar with invokana®. imagine loving your numbers. ask your doctor about invokana®.

here on "the cycle," president obama will be in the rose garden momentarily to lay out his plans to address the flood of unaccompanied minors crossing the border into the u.s. i'm toure. it's part of the president's larger plan to try to fix our nation's broken immigration system through executive action after house speaker john boehner informed him the house will not be voting on a reform bill this year. while we wait for the president, let's bring in josh bower, friend of the show, and domestic correspondent for "new york times." the president, we're told, is going to ask for about $2 billion to deal with this surge of folks, a lot of them minors, coming from countries in central america where they are coming to get away from violence in their own country. this is a little different than

the traditional immigration conversation where we have a lot of folks from mexico, asia, w t wanting to work here. you noted in your e-mail before the show that this means two things. they admit that comprehensive immigration reform is dead in congress and that the president is unbowed by john boehner's lawsuit. >> well, not only unbowed, like when the president was talking about the lawsuit last week, it was the first time i'd seen the president having fun in a while. he seemed amused by the idea. i think the reason for that is the president sees his last really good month was during the government shutdown. it kind of heightened the crazy in the republican party and made the democrats look very adult by comparison. i think the ideal situation is he provokes the republicans to impeaching him. >> let me stop you there. you think the ideal scenario is