president biden waking up in washington this morning with no watershed moment, not many deliverables, maybe signs of progress, and red lines drawn. the big question now, will vladimir putin cross them, and what's next if he does? plus, new reaction this morning to that historic summit coming in to washington from

moscow. and on this show, from the parents of one of the americans being detained in russia, we're live with them in just a moment for an interview you'll not want to miss, all of it as president biden's domestic agenda seems to pick up steam. infrastructure and voting rights. what's happened in the world while the eyes are fixed on geneva. and it's decision day in the supreme court. it's on obamacare, lgbtq rights, and free speech. any second we get word from the court, we're going to break in as it happens. i'm hallie jackson with josh letterman at the white house. leigh ann caldwell on capitol hill and an msnbc contributor. good morning to all of you. josh, let me start with you. the president returns home from

overseas. then the sales job begins. frankly, there's a pretty long list of unresolved issues here. >> reporter: what the white house is saying, hallie, is the president achieved what he cement out to do, not some grand d'etat or where moscow becomes a u.s. alley, but instead trying to keep the bottom falling out from this relationship which has been spiraling over the last few years and have a more common ground so they have a more predictable relationship going forward, so the white house touting the fact as deliverable they're going to return them. >> josh, i have to interrupt you. the obamacare decision is in. this is the biggest case of the term. it is significant. i'm being told in my ear it's a 7-2 decision. remember, this was looking at the individual mandate. here's pete williams.

>> the supreme court took on the case. what's the decision? >> for the third time the u.s. supreme court has spared obamacare from challenges, this time from a group of red states who said the institutional mandate was unconstitutional and could not be upheld as a legitimate taxing authority because congress had later set that tax penalty if you didn't buy that insurance at zero. today in a 7-2 decision the supreme court said the states who challenged it didn't have the legal standing to bring this case. in other words, they've thrown the case out without ruling on the underlying issue. they basically say the red states didn't say they were injured enough by the obamacare surviving to be able to bring this challenge into court. the supreme court in recent years has been very picky about groups that can come into court, what's known for the lawyers as legal standing, and that's the basis of this decision, so this is not a decision on the merits.

this is simply a decision saying these states didn't have the legal standing to bring this case. so what this does is it means in the future, other states could try again this same legal challenge, and if they can find enough ways to get people together and cobble up another case, obamacare could face yet another challenge. but for now, obamacare survives again, a 7-2 decision from the supreme court, rejecting this challenge without ruling on the underlying case. >> that's what's so interesting here. >> we have been obviously simulcasting our pete williams who's reporting for nbc news and msnbc. this is big news. we're getting it before the term has officially ended. we have a whole team. so as pete has laid out there, this is not a case -- a decision necessarily on the merits. put that into plain english and help people understand the

implications of this. >> obamacare wins again. as pete was just explaining, this procedurally has to do with how they didn't want to get into the merits of the case, rejecting it on standing being just a full objection. the conservative states were looking for one more way to chip at or attack obamacare. the headline if you're not a lawyer, it means obamacare is the law of the land. this court wants to come together because you have a wide coalition. you have most of the justices coming together. the language began -- i haven't finish the whole case, but some of the language i'm seeing in there is the court saying the fact that a particular state doesn't like a federal law or doesn't like obamacare, that's not enough to get them into court. the bar that the court is setting in this ruling, defending obamacare, upholding it is to say you have to have a real injury as a state.

you can't say as a state like texas, hey, i don't like it, let us in, let's relitigate the whole thing. >> ari, help us understand this for viewers who are non-lawyers. there are basically three pieces to this case. there was the standing question, whether texas was able to show injury here as you're talking about, there was the question of the individual mandate itself and the constitutionality, and the severability. it sound ts like it's the standing issue that has hung up this particular case? >> yeah. you have to get through that door number one before you even get to the other two things you mentioned. so in most cases -- i guess, let's take a step back. it's a big deal. really interesting. in most cases the supreme court get this far on, they don't back down on standing usually. they usually say we're taking this case this high up, we'll deal with the merits. it's a little unusual to go back

to door number one. >> ari, just so i can let norfolks know what we're dealing with here, it has been printed out and handed to me. it's lengthy. i know you're reading through it. pete williams is as well. melissa murray is with us, former law clerk and now working for judge sotomayor. lay it out for us again. we know what the decision is. i'm going to ask my team to pull up which judge ruled which way. melissa, take us back to how this case originated in the first place and the path that it has gone on over the last, you know, months and months since it was argued. >> so, again, this case has been percolating for a while. it really began when john mccain as a senator voted to uphold the individual mandate in obamacare when the republicans tried to feel it in full. when the republicans failed to

repeal it in the senate, they then shifted to the courts, and they challenged the individual mandate on the ground that because it had been -- the penalty had been lowered to zero, it was no longer a tax, and, therefore, obamacare was no longer constitutional. here again the court has said the plaintiffs who brought this case, the red states, do not have standing to bring this sort of challenge in federal court because they lack a particularized injury because the mandate had been lowered to zero. i might take issue with pete's point. i think we could challenge it, but not necessarily on these grounds. as i read this opinion, a challenge based on the fact that the individual mandate has a penalty of zero and is no longer a tax, it would be hard for any plaintiff going forward to have standing based on this decision today. that's not to say there couldn't

be some kind of challenge to the affordable care act, but it wouldn't be about whether it was a tax or not and therefore was obviously unconstitutional. >> i would like your assessment of that as well. i think as you look at some of the statistics, you know, millions of people, their health care is on the line when it comes to what the court was going to decide with the affordable care act, and i think the question is does this mean this is put to bed? that questions on the constitutionality are put to bed or it's just decided for now and we may see some of those doors open up again down the road? >> that's a great question. i'd rather answer it in a few hours when i've had a chance to digest the whole case. >> that's fair. that's fair. >> that's exactly the right question. everyone is wondering when the supreme court finally affirms obamacare again. that's the essential holding. people wonder whether we're

other it. justice breyer seems to shut the door at least in my reading of the language to the idea you would get back in court anything like this type of challenge that would require what we might call a governmental or theoretical approach. that is to say, not a case where a person says, oh, the way obamacare works has injured me, let me show you how. but it's state versus federal, which is the history. we've seen conservative states find any which way to challenge. looking at one part of the authority opinion here, breyer writes, cannot support the indications that support them. our case speaks to a certain injury of the state's threatened enforcement today or in the future. translation, quote, you can't just say because there's a rule from the feds you don't like, you're injured. a lot of this -- if you want to

say what the holding is today, it's as i mentioned. obamacare wins and you can have this kind of structure. if you want to talk with the kind of clash this was, this was somehow really taxing and troublesome for them as basically autonomous states, and the supreme court on a large coalition is saying, no, it wasn't that bad for you. you're not really hurt, which means you don't get to challenge the rest of this in court. so i would say, big, big picture, this is a very strong holding for obamacare because it certainly makes it hard if not impossible for certain states to get in the door next time on these kind of claims. >> as of february of last year, nearly 11 million people had been enrolled in coverage in the affordable care act exchanges. we now have that list who decided how in this case. justices alito and gorsuch who brork with the two.

and justice breyer is the one who wrote that decision. what if anything, melissa, can you read into that makeup of where the justices fell in this case in. >> i think one of the things that's important to note here is the chief justice was with the majority here. when he's with the majority, he has the prerogative to sign this opinion. he did not keep this important opinion for himself. he gavet to justice breyer. that might mean a lot of things. it might mean nothing. that does mean he was comfortable with breyer to take up this particular opinion, and maybe that's a signaling how this court is coming together on some of these issues. it's worth noting, the question of standing, it's a jurisdictional standing. it's not a decision on the merits. but standing can be a way the court punts. in the earlier same-sex marriage case t court refused to hear the merits of the case, booting it out on standing ground.

it's done that in the past. there have been cases where the court has avoided the larger questions by deciding on other cases. >> is there a way it could potentially come in court in the next maybe term or two related to this issue where if they are punting a bit, they might not do and that might end up ruling on the merits? >> i think it's hard to think of another case that we get up this high as it's structured. and, again, going beyond just the holding that obamacare is safe today, to the professor's point, it is interesting to see breyer as a drem caratic appointee writing this. there are many times on the big divisive issues, the court seems

bitterly divided. you have justice roberts and other justices here going out of their way to say here's something americans thought was politically divisive. certainly many of the states line up politically on obamacare, but the court isn't. that's one other observation i would make. i document think there's a way obamacare is going to hit the court really soon, and a decision that may be red or blue for politicians, today finds a much broader coalition. basically they say, obamacare is fine. you don't have to participate, but the states can't get in and relitigate or overthrow something. >> e want to bring in tom goldstein, a valuable resource through all of this. tom, about 13 minutes ago we got this huge news out of the supreme court. frankly, i think it's safe to

say, the biggest case. it's coming down on thursday, rather unexpectedly. your initial thoughts. >> well, i think that the headline that the supreme court is just saying that there isn't standing to bring a lawsuit, that is, you know, in this one state, the red states like texas couldn't challenge obamacare, actually understates it. you have a 7-2 decision. they do it through the back door. they say not only do texas and the states not have standing, but nobody does. this is a challenge about the minimum coverage of obamacare that everybody hat to get health insurance and now that's unforceable. congress has taken away the penalty to get that coverage, and the supreme court says if you have an unforceable statute, nobody can pursue it.

so obamacare wins but in an opinion only lawyers could like. >> what does it mean for what happens down the road? if the justice went in through the back door to issue this ruling, is there a way, for example, opponents of obamacare, those who had been fighting to get the law torn down, should they feel optimistic this morning? >> no, i don't think so. i think what the supreme court has said here today is that the big challenges to obamacare are done and the country is going to move on from them. it's a massive statute. it has tens of thousands of provisions, and there's lots of statutes how it's implemented. on the fundamental question, which has gone to the supreme court three times, is obamacare going to be the law s it constitutional, it has been upheld. i think it's the end of the road for the challenges. >> that's significant, tom. i believe we have dr. patel with

us who worked in the obama administration and helped draft the affordable care act. dr. patel, i have to askure reaction with the big news out of the supreme court? >> i'll be honest. i thought it came early. i thought it waned in terms of the order since justice breyer was given the majority opinion here. frankly, bottom line, this is incredible and a chance for the biden administration to build and try to take back some of what the country lost when the individual mandate was taken away during the previous attempts to undermine the aca. it puts it to rest. many of us, myself include, were concerned where justice barrett and others would land. not being a lawyer, i don't think you could have a clearer kind of path that says, this is it, we're putting it to rest. people outside and inside are

ecstatic, mostly patients who need it. >> we do not have a reaction from the white house. again, we're 16 minutes into this. i know our white house is working on this, given that this is the morning after president biden returned from the summit, there may be people trying to sleep in. have you spoken with any of your colleagues after this has come out? i don't know if your texts are blowing up. >> i have been. yes, one, we were pleasantly surprised and shocked it was early. number two, it's an overwhelming relief. you see a lot of people who worked with myself and others in the obama agency. one of the women was a fundamental architect herself, so we have people who absolutely know this law inside and out and know how to leverage regulatory demonstration,able. yes, we've been texting.

we've been talking about how we might celebrate, but we're all pointing out it's not enough to celebrate the supreme court decision. we have to build back what we lost, including reputation. the affordable care act is a plan to build more affordable coverage, better coverage, and that couldn't be more important as we're coming out of covid-19 and they're working to pay bills and keep food on the table. >> let me reset. we are again activating and we have activated our breaking news team on this significant development on this thursday morning. the supreme court now for the third time upholding the affordable care act, this, a 7-2 rating. you could think of it as blue states versus red states. there were a couple of differences in place or doors that needed to have opened here in order for this case to have proceeded first.

the supreme court was taking up the issue of standing. that's kind of door number one. if they had made it through that door, there would be have been a discussion on the constitutionality, door number two. if that door proceed and they decided, no, because there's no tax penalty after the individual mandate after congress repealed that in 2017, can you server -- the servability question -- can you server or cut out that piece of the law and move forward. we didn't even get to door 3. as tom goldstein is reporting and, ari, i'd like you to report on this, i want to read what justice breyer had to say. i don't know if we have a graphic to share. we proceed no further than standing, he writes, saying that neither the ving nor the state plaintiffs have shown their injuries are fairly traceable to the conduct they're complaining

about. in other words, they weren't hurt enough to bring this case. he also writes individuals would have to make payments every month to carry insurance. now the irs can't seek a penalty. to find standing on an unenforceable standing powe tigges would allow the federal court to advise an opinion without the possibility of any judicial relief. the same is true for the states he says. ari, if you're going to translate that into plain english, please take a stab at that for us. >>. >> we might think of the supreme court as a place where we have clashes and get the find word. they're only supported to take cases of controversy that result in that high level when people are injured. that's why it's often easier for

a person to get into court than a state. in this case what we're seeing is the court obviously at some earlier point would have been open to the idea they had standing. that would have been a fair statement. they looked at it. and from what you read from justice breyer in other passages really did a full analysis that rejected the idea that obamacare is this bad or troublesome four states. have conservative states that don't like obamacare or other states that are vulnerable or injurious. they really go through what these, again, whether you call them red state or conservative state, and they reject it factually. even as we said this is a jurisdictional thing, they still have to look, is this true you're hurt or not? so, for example, they have 21 states saying obamacare is hard

when it's structured this way and wee northeast need to find it. >> we're going to come back to this, but i have to tell you, there's another major case now, another major ruling decision that's coming in from the supreme court. it's not just obamacare. it's probably the second most watched case of this entire term, and it was on religious freedom, looking at lgbtq rights. the question out of this case was is there a religious exemption to laws against discrimination? we're going to talk about obamacare in a minute, but, again, break news out of the supreme court. >> this is a unanimous decision, 9-0, ruling in favor of catholic social services that had sued the city of philadelphia when philadelphia said, sorry, we're not renewing your contract to provide foster care services to

find families that will adopt foster children because you won't allow them to be into the homes of same-sex parents, and the city says that violates our non-discriminating law, you're violating a city contract. catholic social services sued and said that violates our religious freedom. by a vote of 9-0, the supreme court voted with catholic social services. there's a limiting provision in this decision. what catholic social services said, you need not only to rule in favor of us, but you need to strike doubt an earlier ruling from the supreme court that says there's no religious exemption to laws that apply to everybody. the court did not go that way. this is the supreme court's way of ruling for catholic social services in this case, but not trying to set a larger principle that said any organization is now free to violate laws against

discrimination on the basis of same is sem orientation. it narrows it down because of the way the decision was made. a victory for catholic social services, a defeat for the city, but the supreme court has gone out of its way to not make at green light for other organizations to announce religious freedom. surprisingly again, 9-0. >> that's incredibly interesting. that had been the big question here wlrk or not this would be a broader decision that would, for example, open the door to other businesses here. and in this instance t supreme court did. i think it's fair to say, pete, what i think court observers and court watchers had kind of expect and watched what they

might do is figure out a way to rule for catholic social services but put kind of a fence around it and keep it contained to that particular instance. >> this is what they did. >> they said you got a deal. they seem to ridicule your religious beliefs. so it was a decision in his favor that really set no larger legal principle. and they seemed to have done that again this time. now, this issue is going to come back yet again. just the other day, the colorado baker took another shot in the state courts and lost again and said he's going to appeal again. so this kind of issue is going to keep coming to the supreme court. but this time to take on the larger question. >> pete, stand by for a second. melissa murray, let me bring you

in. is there anything you can read from taking these two days together from the way the justices came down 7-2 in the obamacare case unanimously in the case involving catholic social services? >> well, this is going to be a barn burner of a term anyway because of this new conservative supermajority on the court. there are six conservative justices, which really put the chief justice on the back foot. he's always been the pivotal swing vote. he side with the liberals on abortion. he continues to play that role in both of these cases. he's joined the liberals here and brought along both justice barrett and cavanaugh in the aca case and he's the person writing the fulton opinion, avoiding that more sweeping decision to overrule a key religious freedom precedent, smith versus department of social sufss, and so that's a really point point here. he's really the linchpin, keeping this court from really going over the edge and going

deeply into conservative waters. the chief justice here seems to be keeping the conservative wing in chat. >> that's your takeaway there on that. thank you. i'm going to ask everybody to stay where they are because it's been a morning of breaking news. we're going to be in this coverage for the remainder of this hour. i want to go to josh letterman at the white house. josh, we're getting first reaction to the first decision that we broke here on this show from the supreme court, upholding the affordable care act, the obvious signature piece of legislation from president obama that now president biden was a key part of as well. what are you hearing from the chief of staff there? >> that's right. the first formal reaction from the white house, not coming from the press office but from ron klain who is noun to be a prolific tweeter within seconds of the supreme court decision

coming out, ron klain tweeting out, it's still a bfd. that's when it passed and joe biden was caught on a hot mic telling president obama it was a big blanking deal. and then thanks to a record plan that's lowered premiums and special enrollment period launched by the president, more americans are covered under the aca since any time since the passage. a big sigh of relief at the white house as they realize they're not going to have to deal with this massive distraction that would have been a blow to the affordable care act from the supreme court, allowing it to continue, keeping the eye on the ball on their domestic agenda, on infrastructure, voting rights, and other issues. we do expect a more formal comment from the white house will be coming very shortly. in the meantime, clearly an expression of delight coming from the chief of staff and others at the white house.

>> from democrats on capitol hill as well, josh, with chuck schumer saying in a statement let me say definitively, the affordable care act is there. now we're going to make it bigger and better. we're going to talk about the politics of this significant rulinging in a moment, but i want to bring in former white house adviser andy slavitt and acting administrator for medicare and medicaid services. andy, your reaction to the new this morning? >> you know, when i sit back and think about it, it makes you kind of wonder, who would take away protections during the pandemic and they don't have standing, they're not even being harmed by it. it would have been an absolute grotesque case to have gotten more credibility. i'm grateful it's 7-2 because this was not a close call in

terms of it. >> i'm struck, by the way, how definitive senator schumer was who is on the senate floor as we speak, likely to address the news that has broke then morning. the affordable care act is here to stay. we want to make it bigger and better. how big of a priority do you think the biden administration will make it top of their agenda moving forward? >> well, you think about how many years it's been when we had to play defense, defenders of the law. now there is an opportunity. it came by way of the american rescue plan where many more people have been invited into the exchanges with lower costs. so we're already taking that step. that should be made permanent. i think from here on end, democrats and i would invite republicans to join them since

this issue is now dead. they can sit around and talk about how to make people's coverage better, how to make americans more insured than less insured, which is what they've been doing. if republicans turn a page on this, it would be an extraordinary moment. i'm not optimistic, but i think their road to beating this dead horse is over. >> we should note this is the third time. i think we said it on the program here. the supreme court has upheld the key provisions and the affordable care act in total. andy slavitt. thank you so much. we have a lot more to talk about. we're going to continue to stay in this breaking news coverage, and i want to bring back in tom goldstein, co-founder of scotus blog and smb someone who covers it for us on msnbc. andy, two questions, and let me do a reset as we hit the half hour and what a half hour it's been. the building you're looking at

on the left side of your screen live is the supreme court obviously, and two of the biggest cases of the term if not the biggest cases have been decided. the rulings coming out in the last 30 minutes, one, of coursing on obamacare, but the justices deciding in a 7-2 decision. you see justices alito and gorsuch for the minority. this critical case, deciding there was not standing for this. rule eeg essentially that obamacare will remain the law of the land. nearly 11 million people as of 2020 were enrolled for health care coverage under the exchanges laid out in the affordable care act. a huge ruling, significant there. we're getting political reaction in from all corners. we're going to talk about that in a second. the second decision that came out related to this case.

catholic social services looking to seek a religious exemption because the city of philadelphia no longer allowed them to move forward with foster parents because catholic social services did not want to include same-sex foster parents in that situation. the court ruled in a unanimous decision in favor of catholic social services. however, this was a very narrow ruling. it pertained specifically to this instance, this case, and was not a broader ruling and was not a ruling wle others could seek exemption and could essentially decide not to serve or work with same-sex people, lgbtq people moving forward. those are the two cases moving forward. tom, we talked about obamacare together. i want to get your reaction to what we saw in the catholic services case, the one where css was seeking that. >> what we saw is what we're

going to see over the next five years, which is a big fight over the conservative majority of the supreme court in how fast they can go to change the law. they now have the power to rewrite a lot of american constitutional law. this was a big agenda for conservatives who wanted to change the rules relating to free exercise claims, claims that government laws were inhibiting the exercise of religion because they were amounting to discrimination. and what happened here is that the three most conservative members of the supreme court, justice alito, justice gorsuch, and justice thomas said, let's duo. let's really, really, really rewrite the law here, but they couldn't get six other members of the law to go along. the reason they couldn't -- and this is going to be a phenomenon we're going to see in the coming years -- the more liberal judges said we'll get to the result the conservatives want here to say that catholic social services has the right to make a decision to not serve same-sex couples,

but let's make it a very, very narrow ruling and come back next year and the year after that and slow things down. so it's a big chess game between the left and the right and the middle of the supreme court. >> is there something that could come down the pipeline on this issue? >> on the overall issue on how to look at free exercise claims and whether it is that religious organizations essentially deserve a free pass from public accommodation laws, there are all kinds of challenges because conservatives and state legislatures have been working on this for a long time. they care deeply about the freedom of religious organizations to make their own decisions, so it will be shocking in a year or two we don't have the next version of the philadelphia same-sex foster care case. >> and might that potentially be related to miracle hill and south carolina, tom? i know that's something that could come up as well. >> there are all kinds of different cases going on.

remember, we saw a bunch of these involving covid when religious organizations wanted to be exempt from mask mandates or how many people could be in services. it's impossible to predict which cases including from south carolina it will be, but there are no limits on the number of opportunities that they'll have. >> i want to bring in our team here that has been covering this breaking news with us over this last 40 minutes. we have josh letterman standing by. leigh ann caldwell is joining us from capitol hill as well. we talk about what this means for the affordable care act. it's upheld as of now. we talk about some of the reactions on the democratic side of the aisle, democrat schumer saying this affordable care act is definitively here to stay, and they're going to make it bigger and better. the party has worked for years to dismantle the affordable care act. anything from, for example,

mitch mcconnell, kevin mccarthy? what are you hearing? >> hallie, we're expecting to get statements. they're slow to come in. this is a decision much more beneficial for democrats, something that's much more challenging for republicans, how they're going to frame the issue of health care, especially politically leading in to the midterm elections. as you mentioned, this is something the republicans have been trying to dismantle for years after dozens of attempts to repeal obamacare in the house, and, of course, that very fateful vote in the senate where senator john mccain saved obamacare. since then their strategy turned to the courts to try to get it demolished through the supreme court. that obviously has not happened. now, republicans, while i haven't come across many statements yet from the republican party, one republican aide though, a senior leadership

aide, is harkening back to the confirmation process of amy coney barrett when obamacare was a huge issue and democrats were saying that obamacare was going to be dismantled because of amy coney barrett being on the supreme court. well, this aide says that everyone who demagogued on the issue last october owes amy coney barrett an apology. so we could perhaps see the framing of their response to this through the lens of the supreme court, hallie. >> let me get this straight. it's more on the politics surrounding the justices surrounding that decision. >> at this moment the republicans are going to have to craft whatever their response is going to be regarding health care, something i don't think they were expecting this early. and so it might take some time for them to figure out how to

move forward, because health care has been an extremely big political issue and one democrats have been winning on for the most recent elections. we'll see how they respond, how they craft this, if they're going to try to go through the court system, try through the legislative process, and if they're going to make this an issue in the midterm elections next year, hallie. >> leigh ann, thank you. you're doing yeoman's work here on air, on camera, while sifting through and reading through some of the decision itself. melissa, is there anything else you've seen or heard or has been an important part of the discussion that you think should be noted here? >> i think it's interesting that leigh ann brought up amy coney barrett. she actually joined the majority in both of these cases, but in

fulton, the gay right case, she pen a concurrence, saying she would be open to a case that would consider whether or not the court overruled that precedent, diplomat decision versus smith. she just didn't think it was relevant or necessary to do so in this particular case. i think tipping her hand at that, that she has a more sweeping vision of religious freedom perhaps than what might have been expected from her at the confirmation, that she's willing to go there? the future, but just not right now. >> thank you so much for your analysis here. i know you have other obligations, and i appreciate you being with us. ari melber, same question to you. >> i think the bigheadline is obamacare is one of the most challenging pieces and has been found time and time again to be lawful and constitutional. it's a bit of the paradox in the law where if you challenge it a

lot and you actually get to court, you either ding it or chip away at it or reinforce it and supersize it. whether one likes the law or not as a policy matter, as a legal matter, it's a very constitutional upheld law, which means those who quibble with it are going to are to find other ways to deal with it because it's not going anywhere. >> it's a good point, ari. i can't imagine it will do much to criticize. it has been a journey with the affordable care act. i remember being in washington when the first ruling came down, i think it was in 2012, and what a huge deal that was. i was a baby reporter working with local news affiliates and here we are nearly ten years later, and, again, it is a victory for proponents and supporters of the affordn't c.a.r.e.s. act. >> absolutely, hallie. if you're a hard core

journalist, lawyer, or news junkie, it may feel like deja vu, we're here on another supreme court ruling, whether it's going to live or die in parts. yes, that's partly because there's been such a profoundly intense and well funded effort to chip at it any this way to get any cases in there. in the concurring opinions on the obamacare decision, which i was also scanning while we were covering it, there are several references by legals and others, the long saga, here we go again, thairnld view, oh, it's been challenged so many times, shouldn't we find some fault with it. i think everyone can see regarding the first questions whether the federal government has the constitutional power to regulate health care this way and mandate and require and later change it because this final case yub holding obamacare comes after they did update some of the rules and dilute some of the penalties, did take away that tax penalty. so it's been a saga, but, again,

a new court with new members finds the same answer the older court with different members, and that is this is constitutional. >> tom, what do you make of this specifically with some of those new members ari had mentioned, melissa murray also referencing amy coney barrett, and obamacare was an issue that came up in her confirmation hearing? >> it almost meres the republican party on this. i actually don't think republicans ever truly did want to have obamacare struck down. what they wanted to be able to do was to say to their base that they were fighting over it. and so a couple of the most conservative members of the supreme court say we would have gone all the way and fought for it and voted to say it was unconstitutional, but in general i, they're perfectly happy to not validate it and say the supreme court got in the way.

>> do we still have dr. avita patel with us? there she is. i think she can hear us. dr. patel, to that point, you know, obamacare is part of the health care and has been for almost a decade for millions of people in this country, right? it is no -- there are aspects to the affordable care act that are no longer controversial, that people enjoy and use on a very regular basis with their families, right? it's ingrained in the system and the way millions of americans live. talk about how you see this moving forward given this ruling frankly on a political sense that folks watching know. you were involved in it. >> yeah, hallie, i'll be brief. you're absolutely right. if anybody has goonld received a colin cancer screening, mammogram, that's a benefit. andy also said it. going against people with

pre-existing conditions, that's a fool's errand. we've seen republicans do that. the very same states who brought the suits forward, particularly texas, has been one of the largest non-expansion states, 12 states that refuses to expand medicare about and basically denies coverage. we know after ten years of coverage, having coverage actually reduces mortality. more people die when you don't have coverage. interestingly enough, a democrat from texas has tried to figure out a way for the non-expansion states, and he's putting legislation forward. it will be very interesting with the democratic majority in the house and half and half in the senate so cities, towns, and even hospital districts could expand action circumstances and i think the supreme court ruling is giving them a tail wind. it's going to be critical to get through the last mile, and i feel like it's going to become -- faye fordable c.a.r.e.s. act is always an election issue, as

far as the misunderstandings, what's in and what's out, they have a solid foundation to talk about this is the time to make expansion meaningful, and you have a president who wants to do it too. >> leigh ann, what's your analysis of this? >> i think dr. patel is exactly right, especially democrats are going to feel pretty emboldened now. there's already been this discussion behind the scenes happening up on capitol hill about how to expand access to health care. of course, there are some divisions on how to do that. there's one faction of the democratic party who wants to expand obamacare and creation public option, something that was dropped from the affordable care act legislation when it was trying to get through the congress a decade ago, more than a decade ago. and then there's another idea. people who want to expand medicare as a way to access health care. but this ruling is going to give

that debate some fuel because now democrats are going to be confident that they don't -- that know longer have to worry about the legal challenges and the gutting of the affordable care act so now they can continue to look forward and try to figure out how exactly they can get the votes to provide an even greater access to health care, hallie. >> leigh ann caldwell, thank you. i'm going to ask everybody to stand by with me because i want to bring in somebody to shed life and that's congresswoman nancy meis, republican from south carolina. thank you for being back on the show on an unexpectedly busy show. >> thank you for having me back on the show. >> of course. i have to ask your opinion on the supreme court upholding the affordable care act again. >> as a republican not supporting obamacare, we do find it disappointing.

i've talked with business owners around the state of north carolina now. we see the cost of health care go up every single care. it's causing a lot of price increases, whether it's service, care, pharmaceuticals, you name it. so it was disappointing to hear today, moments ago, that the supreme court won't even take it up. >> is the fight now over? i have to ask. this is the third time as you know and ari melber said so wisely earlier on the show that it has been almost supersized by the supreme court, by being able to survive and withstand so many legal challenges. is this the end of the road for the gop as far as legal challenges to the obamacare. i'm not talking legislatively what you might try to do. >> i hope it's not the end of the road. we have to look at legislative options. for example, the arbitrary, doesn't make sense within obamacare is you can get catastrophic care over the age of 30.

there shouldn't be arbitrary caps on ages. i remember when i was a young mom, two kids at home, and i was starting a company. catastrophic insurance was the only thing i could afford. we want to make sure we give opportunities and options for people all look at some of the burdensome regulations. that would make access greater for all. >> what i didn't hear you say is that you think there will be an effort to try to challenge obamacare and take it up to the level of the supreme court. is that fair? >> i don't know what the next step is. i just heard about this a few moments ago. i hope republicans will come up with solutions. if obamacare is here to stay, how can we repeal some of the regulations that make health care unaffordable for so many across the country. there are regulations within obamacare we have to address, repeal and take away. >> millions of people do rely, as you know, on the affordable care act for their health care coverage to get them access and services they need.

congresswoman mace, i have to get you on another topic which is the repeal of the aumf. i know you have news to make on that. >> right. i'm a co-sponsor of the repeal. one of a handful of republicans working with democrats. it was democrats this morning that allowed me to give a one-minute speech on the floor about the aumf. for two decades, we have seen it abused by presidents, republican and democrat. it has been 20 years. we've got members of our armed service fighting overseas who weren't born during 9/11. it's time to give congress the authority. congress has duty to go to war with anyone. we have to give that constitutional authority back to congress. that's what this is about this morning. we are voting on it right now. >> we have more to get to this morning, but this breaking news has thrown curveballs. i hope you come back.

there is much to discuss. >> any time. thank you. >> appreciate that. we have now two very significant court rulings this morning from the supreme court. that decision on obamacare upholding by a 7-2 decision the affordable care act, allowing it to remain the law of the land. there's that decision unanimously that ruled against the city of philly. it was a narrow decision affecting just this particular issue with this catholic social services and foster care parent placement in philly. i want to bring in i'll alphonso david. >> i think you framed it correctly. the supreme court ruled philly improperly applied their non-discrimination law.

the commissioner has discretion in deciding when to grant an exemption. they were not allowing exemptions for religious entities. government may create laws that are applicable. but the court said the city was not being neutral. the court -- this is very important. the court did not opine on whether non-discrimination laws are enforceable against religious-based entities. those laws are enforceable against religious-based entities. they have to be applied in a neutral way. they are not saying religious institutions cannot be required to comply with non-discrimination laws. what they are saying is in this specific case, the city of philly acted improperly when it didn't apply laws in a neutral way. >> is there a sense of relief that this was not a broader ruling? >> certainly. i think when we look at the

principles that govern or con constitution, there should be no conflict between religious freedoms and advancing individual rights. this case illustrates that. we need to make sure that our government institutions are applying the law in a neutral way. it also, again, highlights and demonstrates the need for consistent federal protections. that's consider we need the equality act. we need to make sure there's consistent application of the law across the country as opposed to what we have been seeing, which is there's questions about individual municipalities and how they interpret their non-discrimination laws. >> it is great to have you on the show specifically to be able to respond to breaking news coming out of the supreme court. ari, give us some final thoughts here as this hour is winding up.

we no longer have ari. i will give you thoughts. you are up to speed just as we are here with clarity and transparency on what has evolved over the last 54 minutes or so. obamacare for the third time has been upheld by the supreme court. in a 7-2 ruling -- you see the other two instances here. here is the 7-2 ruling. they are rejecting a claim that a recent change to the law made it unconstitutional. the other big decision from the supreme court, what we have been talking about, was the unanimous one, justices ruling philly went too far in imposing its anti-discrimination law on a catholic charity. that case required the justices to decide whether the constitution allows a religious freedom exception to

anti-discrimination laws. first to be heard with amy coney barrett on the court. a narrow ruling. that is where we are. in our hour of coverage of the supreme court. the obamacare case, a blockbuster coming unexpectedly early. typically, they don't come in a week or two perhaps. this has real implications politically, potentially. it is a victory for democrats who have been fighting to keep obamacare in place as the law of the land for years. we are going to be covering this throughout the day here on msnbc. i want to thank everybody who jumped into action, including our justice correspondent pete william, melissa murray, dr. patel, leigh ann caldwell and many others who contributed to our coverage. we have more coming up right after the break here on msnbc.

♪ when technology is easier to use... ♪ barriers don't stand a chance. ♪ that's why we'll stop at nothing to deliver our technology as-a-service. ♪ [lazer beam and sizzling sounds] ♪♪ come here! i've got big news! now, nurtec odt can not only stop a migraine it can prevent a migraine as well. nurtec is the first and only option proven to treat and prevent migraines with one medication. onederful. one quick dissolve tablet can start fast and last.

don't take if allergic to nurtec. the most common side effects were nausea, stomach pain, and indigestion. with nurtec, i treat migraine my way. what's your way? ask your doctor about nurtec to find out! this past year has felt like aa long, long norwegian winter. but eventually, with spring comes rebirth. everything begins anew. and many of us realize a fundamental human need to connect with other like-minded people. welcome back to the world. viking. exploring the world in comfort... once again. age is just a number. and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health. versus 16 grams in ensure high protein. boost® high protein also has key nutrients for immune support. boost® high protein.

it's moving day. and while her friends are doing the heavy lifting, boost® high protein also has key nutrients jess is busy moving her xfinity internet and tv services. it only takes about a minute. wait, a minute? but what have you been doing for the last two hours? ...delegating? oh, good one. move your xfinity services without breaking a sweat. xfinity makes moving easy. go online to transfer your services in about a minute. get started today. these are the people who work on the front lines.

they need a network that's built right. that's why we created verizon frontline. the advanced network and technology for first responders. built on america's most reliable network. built for real interoperability. and built for 5g. it's america's #1 network in public safety. verizon frontline. built right for first responders. i'm hallie jackson in for craig melvin. nancy pelosi is discussing the ruling on obamacare. >> i said, this is a pillar of economic and health security along with the others. today's decision is a landmark victory for democrats' work to defend protections for people with pre-existing conditions. every day we