votes on dpun reform. this is different than you're used to seeing because republicans cut the feed from c-span. it's a live stream via social media. the sit-in has been going on now and republicans say it's nothing more than political theater. >> how many more mothers, how many fathers need to shed tears of grief before we do something? we will occupy this floor. we will no longer be denied a right to vote. >> we truly believe that if there were a vote that we would win the vote. >> you can bet your sweet life when the house goes back into session, this fight will be continued. >> so as i said about 11:00 a.m. eastern time wednesday morning, republicans quickly voted to put the house into recess. then at around 10:00 last night, house speaker paul ryan tried to regain control of his chamber. no avail.

>> pursuant to the order of the house of june 8, 2016, the unfinished business is further consideration of the veto message of the president on house joint resolution 88. >> republicans finally voted to adjourn around 3:00 a.m. but that's not stopping democrats. let's get right to kelly o'donnell on capitol hill this morning. how significant is what we're seeing right now? >> it's so highly unusual and takes an issue like guns when there has been so much violence in urban places and shootings on the scale of what we saw in orlando and the sort of compilation effect of so many tragedies that this is coming at a point where the passion is taking hold and democrats who i think we were talking yesterday, when they were visiting with hillary clinton who made a stop on hill went from that meeting to begin this sit-in. this is a case where onto the house rules longstanding and all parties know it and abide by it. republicans in the majority get

to control the rules. they didn't cut the feed in the sense of trying to turn the cameras off. it is standard rules around here when the house is not in session, the cameras are not on. same would be true if democrats were in control. so democrats use the technology of the moment which is not permitted in the rules to do live streaming or use your phone or that sort of thing. they use that innovation to keep their message going. right now what we can say, i've talked to a number of democrats this morning and they think this will continue at least through the early part of the afternoon. that is a point when they can say they have had this national conversation for 24 hours. they have tried to challenge the status quo of republican leadership and they can then go home to their districts for the fourth of july break, which begins for them at the end of this event. and take this issue home to voters. so it is highly unusual. it is volatile and brought people to the capitol and put members of the house against each other on an issue like

this. i don't think it's going to change anything in a short run but it is certainly changing the conversation and democrats consider it a victory that they've been able to shine a light so brightly on what's been going on here. republicans say this -- these are measures that have already failed in the senate, that there isn't political will to pass them and that's where the notion of a political stunt came in. democrats say no, this is much bigger, part of a movement. even if this does not create a change instantly, it's a data point in a line of public concern about what to do with violence, what are the causes and what is the relationship to guns and may ultimately be an important part in resolving this issue. it's certainly an important part of the political campaign for both members of congress and the presidential candidates. >> nancy pelosi in the sound bite introduction saying she believes these measures with pass in the house of representatives.

what is she basing that on? >> reporter: she believes under the pressure of being put to a vote and scored for a vote and accountable for a vote that despite the fact that republicans have a very clear majority, 247 to 188 for democrats, she believes there would be republicans who would feel that pressure from constituents back home. that's hard to really calculate because so many of the districts are pretty reliably red or blue. it has not passed in the senate and there are some efforts under way with the watch list and not being able to buy weapons and bipartisan group trying to make that happen. it hasn't fully materialized yet but there is political pressure. will it change things? it doesn't seem it's going to happen in the long run. there's the enormous power of the nra and democrats are fund raising off of that. e-mail alerts have gone out and appeals for those who are like minded to join up and send money to help elect more democrats to the house to change that balance. it's hard to know what the vote

would look like. democrats say let's have it. republicans say we don't want to move forward because it won't pass and politically both sides want to know how they would be scored by their constituents and outside groups if a vote were taken. it could go either way with this issue being so volatile for people in both parties have kind of the cause and effect of what works or does not work for them politically over this issue. >> kelly o'donnell, thank you very much, good seeing you this morning. i want to move onto the race for the white house. donald trump releasing his attack calling the most corrupt person ever to run for president. >> hillary clinton and as you know, she -- most people know, she's a world class liar. hillary clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and even theft. she ran the state department like her own personal hedge fund doing favors for oppressive

regimes and many others and really many many others in exchange for cash, pure and simple, folks. >> nbc's jacob rascon is outside trump tower here in new york city. i gather this is a preef view for what's happening for the next five months or so? >> reporter: it is and this is the speech republicans were waiting for him, promising it for a while. he was scheduled to give it after orlando and changed course and delayed it a bit and got high remarks, very high received from republican leaders and comes at a pivotal time when polls have been creadecree cratering. then of course there was the firing of this campaign manager, corey lewandowski, a very pivotal times and republicans said this is it, this is the general election pivot that we have been waiting for. but it's note worthy that today he's off to scotland taking time off the campaign trial. he has no scheduled visits that

we know of with any foreign leaders, it's common at this point in the campaign for nominees to go overseas to bolster foreign policy credentials but this is not what the scotland trip is about. it's worth noting that he's going to scotland under interesting circumstances, no leader of any major party in scotland is even planning on attending this reopening of the golf course. it's simply a business deal that he's doing purely business, nothing to do with the campaign. and it comes at this pivotal time. you have some republican leaders now after having the speech that was well received shaking their heads and saying we thought this was the pivot to the general election and thought we were going to see the donald trump who is taking the presidency seriously. and now some of them are not thinking that in light of this trip, jose. >> thank you very much. hillary clinton's team meanwhile hard at work on wednesday. her campaign staff responding to

trump's speech almost simultaneously on e-mail. the candidate was on the stump in north carolina. >> i know donald hates it when anyone points out how hollow his sales pitch really is. and i guess my speech yesterday must have gotten under his skin because right away, he lashed out on twitter with outlsh lies and he did the same in his speech today. now, think about it. he's going after me personally because he has no answers on the substance. >> political correspondent kasie hunt is in washington washington. she's under the assumption that trump's speech helped her. >> i think yesterday you saw what seemed to me the first real day of a general election campaign as we have typically known them. you had both candidates out

there on message, focused with teams behind them that were both disciplined and both responding in real time and that of course is relatively new for donald trump. and i think you saw hillary clinton continue to stay in this groove that she's been hanging on to for the last couple of weeks. she's gotten more and more comfortable and we talked about her attacking trump in that way. you saw it again when she talked about trump criticizing her faith. she looked at the camera, said, sigh, again, you can see the comfort level there. it's a jab back. it's a little bit sarcastic. i think you'll continue to see that going forward. i think the question is, how hard has this reset button been hit. jacob was talking a little bit about this and republicans are a little bit nervous still that okay, we're seeing changes from donald trump but now he's going to stop and go to scotland and it's going to be the focus on a trump property. is this ultimately not really going to stick?

and trump himself has been talking on the radio about his strategy to get to 270 electoral college votes. not talks as much about california, new york, talking more about the rust belt states. the question will be can they focus there? for the clinton team, they know the last couple of weeks aren't going to be status quo for them. this campaign is going to ebb and flow and they believe at the end of the day this is going to be a close election. we've seen polling that shows that. there are going to be some moments in the campaign that will be very unpredictable and potentially in trump's favor. think about those presidential debates. i think you're going to see the clinton campaign continue to be out there pushing a strategy that's very thought through and having to execute every day, despite the fact that trump has had a bad little stretch here. >> although this would not be first time that a candidate takes time off a campaign trail for something personal. we've seen it with bernie sanders and other candidates take time off, either to get

clothes or whatever they do, it's not unusual, right? but, there has been a concern in the clinton campaign that these body blows that trump landed on, when she has high negatives, that maybe just the repetitive nature of something like that focused like it was yesterday, could have a negative impact. >> hillary clinton certainly has vulnerabilities, we've talked about how this campaign is functionally an unpopularity contest. you have two people with high unfavorable ratings in both parties. she does have vulnerabilities to defend and the clinton campaign is well aware of all of those things. if trump can successfully make this pivot or can keep focus. he does have the potential to do real damage. i think the trump campaign knows that. one aside on personal trips, it's very different during a primary election as a presumptive nominee. i think you've seen candidates learn that.

mitt romney for example, went abroad in 2012 because he wanted to go to olympics and we all remember it did not go terribly well, when you have this new mantle of presumptive nominees. >> that's a good point. good seeing you. >> you too. >> i want to go back to the house sit-in and bring in joquin castro. >> i went back to stachange and have been back and i'm heading back myself. >> the house is already not in session. the republicans control it. it's not in session. what is it that you think realistically you can accomplish? >> well, the first thing is that when we come back into session on july 5th, we're going to keep up this effort. but also we're able to speak to the american people through facebook live and periscope to

let people know about the importance of urging congress to take action. jose, we've seen the same thing over an over. after a mass shooting, orlando, charleston, the congress does the same thing which is it does nothing. and americans have had enough of that. they are fed up with that. >> there have been votes as you know in the senate. there has been some movement on it, although it was voted down. even if you think you should have this vote, the fact is that the house of representatives is controlled by republicans. is there a future there? >> absolutely. remember, this is an effort to make sure we take a vote. when you come here and you represent about 750,000 americans as a member of congress and house of representatives, you owe it to the people you represent to at least stand up and say whether you're for or against something, especially something as important as this. and you know jose, in this building, we deal with issues

that concern people from all over the world in europe and asia and africa. this is something that concerns the people we represent right here at home and they deserve a vote. >> congressman, i want to kind of shift to -- now that i have you and your time and you and i have talked about this on telemundo a lot, about the supreme court taking up the president's executive actions on immigration. this is so important for millions of people in this country. how concerned are you one way or another that the decision the supreme court may take may not be beneficial or helpful to those five maybe million people who live in mixed status family households? >> well, i'm absolutely concerned and hoping there's going to be a positive ruling this morning. i know that that decision should be coming out very soon. if dapa and daca go down, millions of families could be separated and many of these young kids who were brought to

the united states by no fault of their own and had no choice in the matter are subject to deportation. otherwise living in a kind of limbo in the united states. >> congressman, it is a pleasure to have you with me this morning. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> appreciate that. and we have -- we have brian williams with breaking news. >> jose, forgive the interruption we're going to go to washington and the supreme court as you may know, these have been the waining days of this court term as we as jose pointed out at the top of the broadcast are awaiting some potential landmark cases in the areas of abortion, immigration and affirmative action. and as the graphic on the screen says, we have had a decision just handed down in what was billed as the landmark affirmative action case of this term. we are waiting to be able to go to our justice correspondent

pete williams in washington on the court grounds. pete, what is the decision? >> it's a 4-3 decision. we knew we were not going to get a tie vote in this case because justice kagan had sat this out. both times it's been at the supreme court because she worked on this case when she was at the justice department. by a 4-3 vote, the supreme court has upheld the affirmative action program at the university of texas in an opinion written by justice anthony kennedy. now it does say that the court's agreement with the program, i'm quoting from the decision, doesn't necessarily mean the university can rely on that policy without refinement, it's the university's obligation to engage in constant deliberatation and continued reflection regarding admission policies. in other words, a kind of judging agreement with the university that the use of affirmative action is needed in getting enough diversity to make quality educational atmosphere.

that was the university's argument. so two things flow from this. first of all, this is a huge defeat for the people who brought this case to the supreme court. a white woman named abigail fisher claimed it was reverse discrimination and people who brought this to the supreme court were hoping this would be a vehicle that the supreme court would use to strike down affirmative action. that clearly is not going to happen. secondly, as for what other universities can do, it is a sort of modified green light to continue with affirmative action at other universities. the university of texas at austin, which is what this case involved, was a special case because state law says that the university must admit the top ten percent academically. that gets the university some diversity. university said we need a little more diversity after that and so for the rest of the admissions we wanted to use affirmative

action and the supreme court today said, you can do that. >> critics of affirmative action, what it's become in the modern era have referred to it kindsly as the cost of good intentions. but in our early reading of this, you feel that the warning here is, mend it, don't end it and continue to refine it and make it better and match its times. >> reporter: right, this is not a full throated defense of affirmative action. this is saying in essence, it's necessary not quite a necessary evil but the supreme court has always been against any kind of government distinctions based on race. bumt the supreme court is willing to allow this one. >> and the other landmark cases, the big ones we're waiting for, regard abortion and immigration and one case of particular interest along the eastern seaboard and d.c. metropolitan area involves the former governor of virginia. we may get that today.

>> yes, we have five decisions left, brian and at least two decisions days including this one. we'll see what else we get. back to you. >> pete williams on pt grounds of the supreme court. ari melber is here with us in the studio. counselor, you've had a little more time than the brothers williams here to read through these opinions while we've been yammering about them. what stands out to you? >> this is the second time this court has reviewed what is called the top ten percent plan at the university of texas. this is a particular style of affirmative action and it is not the predominant style and uses the fact that a lot of schools in texas are already racially segregated to give automatic awed mettance to those in the top ten percent. the court finds that abigail fisher, who said she felt discriminated against, they say she was not denied equal treatment at the time her application was rejected. there's affirmative action as a

broad policy and particular person who was alleging harm here and justice kennedy as you were discussing with pete is not a full throated endorser of all affirmative action, still writing an opinion here with three other justices saying at that basic level, when you go to court and say you were harmed and thus you want relief, that she didn't pass that bar. the other thing that i would flag here is on the limitation side. what does it take to justify affirmative action today now that the court has ruled. there is one guardrail here. justice kennedy writes asserting an interest in the educational benefits of diversity is insufficient to justice the program. the idea that you want to create a diverse institution, governmental or educational is not enough. what they are looking for and court is saying is required is something more. it is a basically a strict and careful analysis by the

institution in this case, the university of texas but the court's precedence carry the day. any institution with public money that wants to do this will have to justify that the program is narrowly taylored and not just vaguely in favor of diversity. >> ari, i'm further reading from our friends on the website scotus blog two things, that this affirmative action case is one where the death of justice scalia was impactful and also that justice alito in the minority is reading his dissent from the bench. a, that will delay any of the further cases we might be getting today and b, that usually speaks to someone who really went down hard. >> exactly. we typically only see those dissents read from the bench when the justice feels very vigorously about it. it is the exception not the rule. you're absolutely right about

the head count here. this is a 4-3 decision with justice okaying an reokayi-kayr recused and his view in the more conservative members of the court and i should mention chief justice roberts in dissent today, whatever the potential utility, it can no longer be justified under equality principles. that has been the thrust of the concern. and so what we're seeing from alito and feeling that strongly and justice roberts in voting rights and other areas have said these are essentially potentially good ideas that have lasted too long or applied too broadly, that is the kind of concern we've seen there. the other point i would make briefly in looking over the opinion. there was a discussion about further fact finding. this is sort of a dodge or at least a delay of the court sometimes uses and justice kennedy speaks bluntly to it.

this would serve little purpose, we wouldn't get that much more information. i mention that because we are looking at other cases including a major case on abortion rules in texas where there was some talk about whether you could use fact finding to kick it to the lower courts while the court is in a 4-4 tie. it's notable justice kennedy, who we know is a tie breaker, isn't looking for that kind of dodge, at least in the affirmative action case. >> just briefly, affirmative action, you touched on this, started in an era where it was in many parts of this country the only way to assure some kind of educational parity and what had been for decades and decades generations a rigged system. >> yeah, i would say advocates would go one better and say it was a product of a time where they felt and the record showed such obvious and direct discrimination that if you didn't find a way to push institutions to consider others, they weren't getting in hardly

at all. people using the colorline example in baseball, jackie robinson was a perfectly good baseball player. the issue whether things were so segregated they couldn't get a fair shot level playing field. this court over the years with different justices has continued to narrow. there was a late 70s case that said no set asides and quotas, you cannot under the law set aside one spot in a school or government job for one type of person based on what they look like. then the narrowing continued. what is significant about today to take a step back. a lot of people thought if there was ever a time, especially after the voting rights jurs pruns of this court, ever a time to actually end government affirmative action it would be this case and this term. that has not happened. it is clear this program is narrowing and as i mentioned again, the way that texas does affirmative action is different than most places. this program being upheld isn't a blank check.

but it is certainly clear that those who have sought to try to end affirmative action through appeals to the supreme court have been told twice that's not going to happen. the door is open although not wide open. >> well put, why ari melber is our chief legal correspondent. jose, we're continuing to watch this. you have a broadcast to do. we'll throw it back to you while we watch the court for any extent decisions of note. >> some very important ones still waiting. we'll see what happens there. we of course will continue watching what's going on in supreme court but there's new information as we watch these pictures of the house floor. democrats continue there to essentially say they will not be going home. the court -- the house of representatives has already been adjourned and yet there they are. they say they want to vote on gun reform. we'll stay on top of that for you and the verdict in the trial of a baltimore police officer

charged in the death of freddie gray. we'll go live to baltimore and there's new information in sarasota where there's some folks missing. we'll have new information on that for you right after a break. 's a drone you control with your brain, which controls your thumbs, which control this joystick. no, i'm actually over at the ge booth. we're creating the operating system for industry. it's called predix. it's gonna change the way the world works. ok, i'm telling my brain to tell the drone to get you a copy of my resume. umm, maybe keep your hands on the controller. look out!! ohhhhhhhhhh... you know what, i'm just gonna email it to you. yeah that's probably safer. ok, cool. real is touching a ray. amazing is moving like one. real is making new friends. amazing is getting this close. real is an animal rescue. amazing is over twenty-seven thousand of them. there is only one place where real and amazing live.

seaworld. real. amazing and you're talking to your doctor about your medication... this is humira. this is humira helping to relieve my pain and protect my joints from further damage. this is humira helping me go further. humira works for many adults. it targets and helps to block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. doctors have been prescribing humira for over 13 years. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection.

ready for a new chapter? talk to your rheumatologist. this is humira at work. squuuuack, let's feed him let's feto the sharks!sharks! yay! and take all of his gold! and take all of his gold! ya! and hide it from the crew! ya...? squuuuack, they're all morons anyway! i never said that. they all smell bad too. no! you all smell wonderful! i smell bad! if you're a parrot, you repeat things. it's what you do. if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico. it's what you do. squuuuack, it's what you do.

we have just received information in the desperate search of a family boaters who disappeared off the coast of florida. the u.s. coast guard says that a flare was seen within the search area overnight and family member tells nbc news that a body recovered yesterday by the u.s. coast guard is that of 17-year-old rebecca kimberly along with her father and two brothers. coast guard has not confirmed the body's identification. janet shamlian just came from the news conference. >> reporter: we are just out of this news conference with the coast guard, the information that came out is significant and there's a lot of it. most importantly, this flare that you mentioned was spotted at 2:30 this morning.

what they are calling a white meteor flare rising for three seconds into the air spotted both by a helicopter and a boat at the same time. immediately after that happened, all resources were diverted to that area in what they call a search zone, a cone of search that was like 12 by 14 miles. they searched throughout the night. during the search at 8:15 this morning they located a bucket that contained cell phones and garman gps and birth certificates, a pool noodle and tool box. they've been able to determine from one of the cell phones that at last transmitted at 1:15 this morning, additionally earlier in the night they found a yellow kayak that has been confirmed to belong to the family. this keeps this search alive at this hour. it is not a recovery mission by any means. they are out there with a c-130

transport plane right now. they do caution that this flare, it can be confused with military py pyrotechnic activity, lights of an airplane. the fact it was spotted by both a helicopter and boat for three seconds is giving people here hope. >> the weather conditions a lot better than they were a couple of days ago in that area. >> reporter: much better. calm seas, it's been ideal for the type of work they need to do. they have searched 20,000 square miles. >> thank you very much. we'll of course stay on top of this story. now to another breaking news story we're following for you, we're awaiting a verdict in the freddie gray trial against the officer who drove the police van where gray was fatally injured. let's go right to ron mott. ron. >> reporter: as you mentioned we are on verdict watch. we believe court is in session. this is the only means of communication inside the room. the folks inside the courtroom cannot use these smartphones or

devices to communicate, they have to leave the courtroom and have permission and rundown to the media room. we have not heard developments on the verdict. officer goodson, this is the most important prosecution, he faces six counts including second degree deprafed heart murder and manslaughter and second degree assault charge and misconduct in office charge. this is the third case that the prosecution has brought before the judge or jury. the first one they essentially lost it was a mistrial. they are going to retry that officer. the second case they loss was an acquittal which was a bench trial. we're waiting on the judge to render his verdict. >> we're following several breaking news stories this morning. another live look at the house floor where democratic protest is now approaching its 24th hour. lawmakers have been getting support from the colleagues in the senate. why didn't the presumptive democratic nominee take part. we'll ask the adviser of the clinton campaign when he joins

me next. after a long day, dave stops working, but his aleve doesn't. because aleve can last 4 hours longer than tylenol 8 hour. what will you do with your aleve hours? ♪ booking.com offers free cancellations, so you're free to decide if the trip you're on... hahahahahaha! ...isn't really the trip you want to be on. hahahaha... hahaha... [mountain woman and key laughing together]

with usaa is awesome. homeowners insurance life insurance automobile insurance i spent 20 years active duty they still refer to me as "gunnery sergeant" when i call being a usaa member because of my service in the military to pass that on to my kids something that makes me happy my name is roger zapata and i'm a usaa member for life. usaa. we know what it means to serve. get an insurance quote and see why 92% of our members plan to stay for life.

we're about a month away from the start of the democratic national convention in philadelphia. new reporting this morning from nbc news says there are about seven in the running to be hillary clinton's running mate. that list you see it there comprised of four senators and one member of congress. with me now in new york, senior adviser to the hillary clinton presidential campaign. great seeing you. >> thanks for having any. >> your campaign, it's not unnecessarily -- you are extremely tight lipped about the search. anywhere near the ballpark? >> i've said all along the list is probably bigger than people think. this is a very personal decision and person is picking their running mate and this rests very largely in the candidates hands and nominee's hands as it should and this is a partnership she has to create and team that has to work together to get things

done for the american people. so it's not an issue for speculation. it's an important -- first important choice the nominee has to make and it's up to hillary clinton -- >> joel, thank you very much, we have breaking news out of the supreme court. thank you for being with me and brian williams. >> jose, sorry to interrupt your conversation once again. but we do indeed have more breaking news. again it's out of the supreme court. this time the second of the three so-called landmark cases we've been waiting for, this one deals with immigration. we will go to pete williams outside the supreme court as soon as he is able to talk to us. he is getting the decision along with all of us. ari melber our chief legal correspondent in the newsroom. how did it come down? >> the news is a 4-4 tie and that leaves the blockage of the obama executive orders on

deferred action immigration in place. that means that as a practical matter, those executive orders are blocked and they are not law. they are blocked by the supreme court in a 4-4 tie. this is probably the first really significant 4-4 tie in this era post scalia's death, his passing but as a presidential matter, we know what happens. this means these orders are not law. >> pete williams is also available for us outside the court. again, on immigration, we were waiting for an abortion case, immigration and affirmative action. we've seen the result on affirmative action, the policy of the state of education and higher education has been affirmed with a caveat that if could -- >> reporter: what happens is the supreme court couldn't decide this case, it's a 4-4 tie. this is what a tie vote looks like in the u.s. supreme court. it's one line, it says basically the decision below is affirmed

by an equally divided court. now the decision below from the fifth circuit court of appeals said president obama did not have the legal authority to impose these immigration rules announced about a year and a half ago. so this decision today changes nothing. it's as though the supreme court never took the case. that leaves the lower court ruling in place. that means a lower court order blocking the administration from carrying out this plan remains in place. as a practical matter, it means obama administration can not begin to put this program into thrce for the remaining days of obama administration. now, there's still a lawsuit. it's still down in texas. what this means is it will continue to work its way through the lower courts and at some point this case may come back to the supreme court. but the real future of president obama's proposal on immigration, to allow adults to remain here if they have children in the

u.s. who are citizens or lawful permanent residents, the real future will be up to the next president. hillary clinton has said that she would uphold the president's policy. she would embrace it and take it further. donald trump has said he's completely opposed to it. but it's dead for the remainder of the obama administration, matt. >> to our viewers, what you just saw there, this news division is a very big place as is our country. pete williams was reporting live for west coast additions of the "today" show that are still spooling out live on the air with the time zones. we've decided it was better to be able to hear his reporting so we latched on to that live report as they say already in progress. in a moment we will be able to have our own discussion live with pete williams. pete said much the same thing, our chief legal correspondent ari melber did, in effect, it's aif they never took the case.

ari, for people looking to see the impact in a jurisprudent shal sense, here's one. >> let's be clear. everyone who has looked at the immigration executive orders agrees they are significant. the president, the white house aides, and a lot of immigration advocates have said they are significant in a positive way, trying to take action where congress failed to deal with millions of people that no longer be deported had this been allowed to stand and the critics have said significant in a negative way. for people following the court. what is significant in the breaking news, the court splitting 4-4, leaving in place the blockage of these executive orders and stop sign against barack obama's attempt to use executive power to adjust our immigration system. this says the fifth circuit in texas is basically in charge right now. they had a ruling and didn't split and worked differently,

they are not shortchanged in terms of vacancy on the court, whatever people think of that debate. their decision stands. i will make another point that pete alluded to for folks trying to understand where this goes. today these orders are now blocked and the supreme court deadlock leaves that block in place. tomorrow and in the future, we can mention that the way these cases work, they were blocked in a sort of temporary way pending further case work. so that's what they call a temporary injunction, which means it's technically possible this could change down the road. but that's not going to be welcomed by the white house or anyone for this because as a practical matter, that long-term process will not rescue these executive orders now or likely by november. that's safe to say given what we know about the time line. in splitting and not being able to answer the question, it is clear that the court has let someone else answer the question that's a federal court in texas and their answer is mr. president, you do not have this

authority right now pending further review. >> and back briefly here to jose diaz-balart. what do you think the reaction is going to be? ari was saying, this is so huge for so many people, brian. think about this. when the president implemented daca, the orders were a temporary stay of deportation of young kids who are brought here through no fault of their own through their parents earn able to live here. hundreds and thousands of kids have been able to fulfill their american dream, study, join the armed forces and contribute to this economy. and so the president's executive orders end of 2014 were going to essentially bring in about 4 to 5 million people temporarily, this is not a permanent measure, not immigration reform, but what it would have done, created the possibility for millions of people who have u.s. born children or legal residents to come out of the shadows, to

register and say here i am, this is what i do, to be given the possibility to participate in this economy and country without fear of deportation. we're talking millions of families that have mixed status immigration status in their homes. and today, today the very real possibility that young children's parents could be deported is a very real reality. i don't see -- and ari was talking about this. i don't see the white house is a plan b, we're towards the end of the obama administration. there has been every single attempt to continue and help to deal with this reality in the united states, which is affecting millions of people. but, i think this tie votes very clearly puts an end to the president's desire to bring in millions of people from out of the shadow. >> thank you. as we go back to pete williams, this is -- this is further

evidence of the american system, the power we place in these nine justices, but the decision we're talking about here, pete is of eight justices, 4-4 tie due to the death of justice scalia. chief justice's particularly have loathed ties and done a lot to avoid them and i assume justice roberts is no different. >> reporter: well, we've talked to several members of the court who said the court was trying its best to avoid a 4-4 tie. let me show you in case you haven't seen it what a tie vote in the supreme court looks like. this is it. this is the toe talty of the opinion. first of all it says per cure yum, from the court itself. it's unsigned opinion for obvious reasons and then it just says that the decision below is affirmed by an equally divided court. so that's the legal phrase. what that means is that nothing changes. it's now -- as a legal matter as though this case never came here

at all. it leaves everything intact as it was before this case came to the supreme court. so the controlling decision was one by the fifth circuit court of appeals that agreed with the states that filed this lawsuit. texas was the lead state, that the president did not have the legal authority to make such a sweeping change on his own and that only congress could do that. now as a very technical matter, brian, this case came up here on an injunction issued by the district court judge who said, you know, you can't put this into effect because we don't think you have the judge said we don't think you have the authority to do this, we're going to put a hold on the program while it works its way through the courts. there's still actually a lawsuit churning away down below grinding slowly. the question that came up here was while that continues, could the government put it into effect? and the appeals court said no, and the supreme court said today, we can't reach a decision so that leaves the appeals court decision intact.

now, you can ask yourself what would have happened if justice scalia were still on the court and we had nine justices. hard to say. there were sort of two key questions for the supreme court, one was the one we've been talking about. does the president have the authority by himself to make such a big change in immigration policy or does the congress have to step? the second lurking decision, whether the states have the authority to sue in the first place. the obama administration had strenuously argued no, that immigration policy is by the constitution exclusively a province of the federal government not the states. but the states basically had no skin in this game. the states argument to some people seemed rather ten youous which was texas's claim that they would have to spend more money to give driver's license's to people to stay in the u.s. under the president's program, the administration had said, you know, that's your problem, texas, you're the state that

decided to subsidize driver's licenses not us. but we don't know whether the -- in any event the supreme court wasn't able to get to a majority vote on the standing question or majority vote on the president's thortd so they say sorry, we're just equally divided. this is the second big tie vote of the term. the first one came a couple of months ago in a case that was a big challenge to public sector unions in california, conservative groups hoping that the supreme court would weaken the authority of public sector unions but the court tied on that one too. that ended up being a victory for the unions. >> pete, while we have you, what do we know about the remaining cases and what remaining days will the court be working at least handing down decisions? >> we haven't heard yet whether -- we know we have at least one more decision. i'm looking at charlie -- is it just one more? now we know there's just one

decision day left. that's monday. we've already gotten affirmative action and gotten the question of the immigration policy. so the big question remaining is challenged to again the case from texas, texas has a lawsuit you may remember that was passed with a considerable amount of debate. it says that doctors performing abortions have to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and that the clinics themselves have to be built to the same standards as walk in surgery centers. we'll see what the supreme court does with that one on monday. you also mentioned the other one that's sort of a b plus case involving the reach of public corruption law. it's a challenge to the conviction, bribery conviction of the former virginia governor, bob mcdonnell. >> no one tries harder not to engage in speculation, but other

tongues will be wagging over the weekend as to the obvious consequences of the death of a justice, not just any justice but justice antonin scalia on the question of reabortion, the remaining case and we've seen one of the big three in terms of cases come down as a 4-4 already. >> reporter: if they tie on the abortion case, that would be something of a victory for texas because it would leave the lower court ruling in place in favor of the texas restrictions that the lower court said there's just a very minimal test that the courts have to use in evaluating these laws and restrictions and texas passed the test. opponents of that law say, no the bar is much higher. if a supreme court ties on that one, that would be another victory for texas, a blow to women's groups and opponents of these laws. on the mcdonald case, it would be every reason to think it

would be a good day for him. based on the oral argument. now, a couple of other things quickly, it's possible we could get a very narrow ruling on the abortion case because during the argument, justice kennedy who could end up being a pivotal vote here said he wasn't sure that he could tease out what the effect of these various restrictions was on the number of clinics that closed. so it's possible that the court can find a way out here by saying, you know what, we're going to send this case back to the appeals court basically for another homework assignment to give us a clearer picture of what effect these laws have had on reducing the number of clinics open in texas. that's a possible out. >> pete williams our justice correspondent outside the supreme court. it's been take pleasure having your advice and counsel while these decisions have come out on yet another decision day. we have another legal front to go to, also breaking news. this has to do with the freddie

gray case in baltimore, maryland, the case that was at the root of so much of the urban violence there. >> we have a verdict of the latest officer to stand charges, caesar goodson. ron mott covering for us as word of this verdict filtered out. >> reporter: we just got word officer goodson who was the driver of that police van in which freddie gray allegedly sustained a life threatening and fatal spinal cord injury has been cleared on all six counts, including second degree depraved heart murder. judge barry williams, this was a bench trial and considered the most serious prosecution of all six officers because it included this second degree murder charge. the first case ended with a hung jury and so officer william porter is expected to be retried

later in the fall. the second case that was a bench trial by judge williams, he was clear. officer nero is cleared. now, a lot of legal experts, brian are going to probably say now that the prosecution should seriously consider dropping the remaining charges against these officers because if they could not get a conviction in officer nero's case which was considered the weakest of the state's cases, and they could not get a decision in their favor on the most serious case, then what does that say about the other four cases to go. this is big developments here in baltimore. we don't see the kind of concentrations of demonstrators that we saw in the first trial that ended with a mistrial. there are about a half dozen people. we are hearing the activity in the skies above us, helicopters and the like. i can tell you that mayor stephanie rawlings blake says

the maryland national guard is essentially in a stand by position here if needed they can be activated very quickly. right now it does not sense there's any quickening of people coming into the courthouse area downtown. officer goodson cleared of all counts this morning. >> ron mott, thank you. one of those helicopters is supplying the aerial shot we were looking at there as people come out aware of the verdict and react to it. but the driver of the police van in which the young man died has been acquitted on all charges in the death of freddie gray. now smau unbelievably, we go overseas. another front in our breaking news. a gunman in germany has open fire in a movie theater. and there's a high number of people who have been hit apparently by gunfire. nbc's matt bradley is in london

and is able to tell us what we know about this story. matt? >> thanks very much, brian, we have very, very little information about this story right now. what we do know an armed gunman entered a movie theater in the town of viernhim, we're getting most information from the german media, one newspaper is reporting early information at least 25 people have been injured. the man entered the theater in a disguise and carrying a gun in one hand and he had a cart ridge belt slung over one of his shoulders. again, we don't have much information. we do know an elite military -- police unit was dispatched and that the man is now surrounded by police in this theater in which he's barricaded himself. dozens of movie goers are fleeing the theater. but we don't know how many were

in the theater and whether the gunman issued demands but we're going to bring that information as soon as we get it. thank you very much. >> thank you, matt. for keeping us updated from our london bureau. again, because we're going through translating german media, it is german public television and one or two german language newspapers that are on the front lines of this and getting the information. this is in viernheim central in the south central part of the country apparently as one of those big strauling movie theaters. a reminder that the u.s. has no exclusive lock on gun violence as we've learned over and over again. but also a reminder that it could happen any time, anywhere. >> this is a satellite

photograph showing the basic construct of the complex appears to be next to a major motor way and part of a larger shopping center. it could be minutes or hours before we learn anything more on this. this story is playing out in some cases you find on social media, we get the kind of latest updates from the ground though with the appropriate cautions that they are not in all cases coming from official news agencies, cal perry is part of our team kind of scanning around looking for anything new on this story. >> in the 24-hour period when facebook live and periscope have taken over the news cycle, i want to play video we're playing on facebook live from r and f,

setting up this cordon around this movie theater. this would be exactly what we see here in the united states, the same sort of procedures are in place, this is going to be on tie terror police. we understand a second unit is being deployed via helicopter from frankfurt. but the priority will be to set up this cordon around the movie theater. i want to scroll past the anchor. you can see as they set this up, there are still people coming out of the theater. the concern being and this is going to strike at the heart of every american, the concern being that people remain inside and that this is headed for some kind of standoff. we don't know that to be specific for now but based on this video and how they loork like they are setting up. that's the major fear that again these anti-terror -- these elite units called the sek in germany,

that's their main concern at this point. >> cal perry, you're right this has become the coin of the realm. a lot of people prior to yesterday did not know what the app periscope is or what it did when it became the chief and only source of live media from the house floor yesterday, a lot of people quickly learned a lot about periscope. this sad event, which we have been told escalated into something of a hostage situation, we see the german equivalent local s.w.a.t. teams going in in that videorom cal perry. problem is -- like all of these, there becomes a fog of war period and we do not know with any specificity what is unfolding inside there other than the very familiar scene of

first responders with helmets and kef lar vests and assault rifles. matt bradley remains in our london bureau. as we prepared across the top of another hour here where we've been on the air reporting on supreme court decisions, the freddie gray trial in baltimore, at 11:00 a.m. eastern time, we're dealing with this just now breaking story, report of 25 wounded by a gunman in a movie theater in viernheim, germany. anything further? >> as you mentioned this is a very rapidly emerging story and we don't have any solid information but what we have can add -- we can't confirm it, getting which from german media but we think -- the shooter has beenet