>> that's all the time i have for the day. i am julián castro in for alicia menendez. thanks for spending part of your saturday with us. be sure to follow this show on twitter, instagram, and tiktok at alicia on msnbc. and i will see you tomorrow for more american voices. but for now, i hand it over to ayman mohyeldin. hello, ayman. >> hey, julián, great to see you again. i was gonna say, i was watching the show earlier, and i

appreciated one of the guests you had on making this point about how they thought that the case of 303 creative would be narrowly defined. and i was in agreement with you that i hope that is the case because i think a lot of people have been looking at that and seeing it as opening the floodgates to possible discrimination against lgbtq members for whatever reason, you know, services, or free speech. but at the end of the day, it has created the lgbtq community or made them feel like second class citizens in this country. >> absolutely. i was also, you know, glad to hear it presented in that way that perhaps, it's a lot more-limited, and it can be interpreted by other courts as well in a lot more limiting way. so, let's hope -- >> let's hope, and let's wait and see. it's great to see you, as always, my friend. enjoy the rest of your evening off. and good evening to you. welcome to ayman. >> tonight, it ain't over. the classified documents grand jury is still hearing evidence in the case against donald trump. are more indictments in the works? plus, fox settling warrants again. new details on the 12 million dollar payout a former tucker carlson producer just received.

and cruel and unusual -- the conservative supreme court targeting some of our most vulnerable citizens. and republicans -- well, they are cheering them on. i am ayman mohyeldin. let's get started. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> there is a ton of news to get to tonight and a lot of our coverage over the next two hours will focus on this week's supreme court decisions, and the six conservative justices who upended the lives of minority communities and americans with student debt. their ruling strike at the heart of republican ideology, inflicting that maximum amount of harm on anyone who is different to them. but before we actually get to those rulings we need to first highlight another set of legal matters in the news this week, matters pertaining to donald trump in particular. there is new developments in the classified documents case

that could signal that it is not over yet. donald trump has already been indicted for his alleged mishandling of sensitive material. but officials are reportedly continuing to investigate parts of the case using the federal grand jury in miami. according to the times, there are new subpoenas that have come out in recent days, indicating the probe is actually spending beyond the initial charges, levied against trump and his aide turned codefendant, walt nauta. now, as the times explains, prosecutors often continue investigating strands of a criminal case after charges have been brought. and sometimes, their efforts actually go nowhere. but post indictment investigations can result in additional charges against people who have already been accused of crimes in the case. and the investigations can also be used to bring charges against new defendants. so, at the same time, we are learning that one of trump's go-to excuses to defend his actions has effectively been debunked, because for months, the ex president has insisted

that he had the authority to declassify documents as soon as they left the oval office, citing a so-called standing order. but in response to a freedom of information act that was requested from bloomberg, the justice department and the office of the director of national intelligence, they both said, no. there is no evidence that such an order ever existed. and then, we heard for the first time this week where jurors might someday hear, a 2021 audio recording of trump discussing what he called a highly confidential document about iran at his golf club in new jersey. listen. >> except it is like, highly confidential. >> yeah -- [laughter] >> it's secret information. look at this. this was done by the military and given to me. i think we can probably, right? >> i don't know. we will have to see. yeah, we'll have to try to -- >> declassify it. see, as president, i could have declassified it.

now i can't, you know, but this is still a secret. isn't that interesting? it's so cool. >> all right, that recording cited in the special counsel's indictment against trump debunks another trump lie, that he was simply handling newspaper and magazine clippings as he told fox last week. but, look, the significance of that recording goes beyond trump potentially incriminating himself. the new york times reports that investigators working for special counsel jack smith have been quietly focusing on the site of that audio recording. trump's bedminster resort, with the concern that trump was hiding more documents there. according to the times, previously unreported details of the investigation showed that prosecutors working for mr. smith have subpoenaed surveillance footage from bedminster, much like they did for mar-a-lago, and thought fought a pitched battle with mr. trump's lawyers late last year about how to best search the new jersey property. a lot to break down here. let's bring in my panel for this conversation. renato mariotti is a former federal prosecutor. molly jong-fast, host of the

fast politics podcast. she is also special correspondent for vanity fair. and kurt bardella, dnc adviser, and former house oversight committee spokesperson. it's great to have all three of you with us. so, you know, lots to unpack with what trump is experiencing this week, legally, ornato. and i start with you. how much legal trouble does the fact that this investigation is still ongoing signal for trump, both in what's being reported about the miami grand jury receiving new subpoena material. and at the same time, the idea that this recording took place in bedminster, keeping the door open for possible action in that state. >> well, it's a difficult position for his defense team to be in, because they have to defend against, potentially, a moving target. they know what the charges are now but they could expand them in the future. and prosecutors always continue to investigate in charges. i've done that before actually

against the real estate developer, myself when i was a federal prosecutor, where, you know, there was one set of facts, and we, you know, issued an indictment on certain charges, we kept investigating and added charges later. i think what that means for trump team is they have to be concerned, for example, that there might be another trove of documents in bedminster, new jersey. i think that needs to be on the table for them. and i think for all of them, anybody who's involved in that false -- statements to law enforcement, they have to be -- [inaudible] definitely a concern for trump 's team, and i think it underscores how aggressive jack smith is -- >> molly, i didn't think that's got enough attention this week. but basically, between that

tape recording and the doj saying they can't find a so-called standing order trump was talking about, basically declassifying whatever the heck he was declassifying on his way out of the white house. he is running out of excuses. i mean, on one hand, he is going on fox and self incriminating himself. and then, you have the doj coming out and saying, there is no standing order that he has declassified any documents. >> yes, it's completely shocking that donald trump has once again lied. i am completely shocked. it's so unlike him. but, yes, i mean, i give the trump narrative of declassifying documents. i mean, they were trophies. he liked to show them off. he liked people to see that he had power. and he liked that they served his arguments, which is what we are seeing now. i think that it's a pretty, you know, we find him in a situation very much of his own making, right? he could have given back these documents at anytime. he has now been indicted twice. we think there will also be, even if there is not another federal indictment, there will definitely be, it seems like, an indictment coming out of georgia.

>> and there are still republicans, you know, kurt, who remained not exactly a profile encouraged when this tape came out, what did you see the republicans do? they didn't talk about the substance of the tape because they know they can't actually defend trump for what he said. instead, they are making the tape being leaked as the real issue here. >> yeah, here we go again. every time the republican party is presented with a viable off-ramp away from donald trump and all things trumpism, which has proven to be a political loser for them over and over again, they refused to take. it the only conclusion that we can reach at this point is they don't want to get away from donald trump, from all the bellyaching we hear from republicans who go off the record, and who won't answer anything publicly, but privately or so, just made about trump's return. it doesn't really seem like any of them are willing to do the obvious thing that needs to be done to divorce themselves from donald trump and actually regain some political stability. instead, they would rather line

up behind the walking command in control white-collar criminal who just commits crimes as easily as he breathes, who lies as easily as he breathes, and all the while, they are trying to convince the rest of us that they are the party of law and order. it doesn't really add up. >> renato, we mentioned that the new york times in that times article, jack smith's investigator is paying a lot of attention to new jersey and the golf course in bedminster. and the recording that he made there, judge aileen cannon is handing down unfavorable rulings in florida, at least so far. can -- if that does happen, if she continues down that road of unfavorable rulings against jack smith, can he take his case to new jersey? and do you think we will see a possible search warrant executed there in light of this tape? >> it's interesting, i mean,

certainly they've had this tape for sometime. i suspect, by the way, that this was leaked by the defense team, after all the prosecutions, the longtime the defense team just got it in discovery. so by that i mean trump's team. look, i think there's a continued investigation there. if they were get -- [inaudible] look, the investigation is still ongoing as we learned. they could bring in an indictment there. but it's gonna have to be on different facts than what we have in florida. so again, aileen cannon can do what she can do in florida. this will be over with potential obstruction regarding the documents. that's really what that indictment would have to focus on. >> let me get your reaction to this, molly, multiple outlets have reported that the person speaking is a lady by the name, trump is speaking to, a lady by the name of susie willis or wiles, who was a top trump 2024 campaign advisor. she's also reportedly met with investigators regarding the classified documents case.

how does trump -- you know work around this? >> well, she is really a sort of famous florida campaign operative. she was working for desantis and the desantis campaign lost her. so, i do think she is pretty adept. and i don't know that she ends up going -- it's certainly possible. look, trump has so much potential criminal exposure on so many different levels, that, you know, any single person could theoretically bring him down. but i wonder if susie wiles is the person because she's a pretty seasoned pro. and i think she probably, she would just switch from desantis to trump with the hopes of helping trump win. >> and, kurt, trump has a new strategy here. the way he wants to deal with this tape fiasco is saying, you know, the comments were just bravado. and i gotta say, for me, to hear trump kind of say that he was just full of hot air,

bravado, or just blustering in of itself is quite telling. it sounds like he is getting desperate if he's trying to diminish this by saying it is bravado. >> i think that if your defense, for being caught on tape, talking about the things he's talking about, well, i didn't really mean it, i was just kidding. i think you are in a lot of legal trouble. you don't oftentimes see donald trump tried to walk away from his own words. in fact, he's quite known for doubling down on the things that he says, for meaning every word that he says. that's kind of his -- i'm gonna go up there, and say all these things that everyone else is too afraid to say out loud. now he's been caught red-handed, it's a smoking gun. and he's gonna try to convince all of us, will, i did not really mean when i said, i don't think that's really going to work. and i think that he knows deep down he is in so much trouble. i mean, how many times are we gonna catch this guy on audiotape, admitting to committing crimes? >> the funny thing, to your

point in reference to the georgia recording, now he walks around telling everyone, i'm a legitimate person. i'm a legitimate person, as a totally legitimate phone call, i'm a legitimate person. [laughter] renato, i gotta ask you about this reporting from the washington post, and let me get your reaction to it. this was new reporting from the washington post that trump tried to pressure governor doug ducey who was then at the time the arizona governor, to overturn the states presidential election results in 2020, saying if enough fraudulent votes could be found, it would overcome his loss in that state. the size and the scope, it seems, of jack smith's january six investigation is expanding. i mean, we have been focused on georgia. we know about the electoral scheme. but now, this new reporting from the washington post suggests that there's a lot more -- there's a lot of substance. >> well, i think what it shows is a pattern of behavior, ayman. in other words, a common scheme

or plan. molly had mentioned the fulton county case. he is of course pressuring brad raffensperger, the secretary of state. there is also a call to a man who is now deceased, who i believe there's a recording as well to a speaker of the house in georgia. here we have another piece where he is engaging in similar behavior. he's trying to pressure the governor in arizona. we also know about his efforts for state legislatures in michigan. i really could see a kind of a scheme that is charged in more than just one state. i think that could end up pretty well in the georgia case because it really goes to show his intent. it shows he wasn't just tumbling over his words. he wasn't mistaken when he was talking to brad raffensperger as part of the plan to overturn the election. >> really quickly, renato, where would you bring a case like that that is multi state, if you are talking about georgia, arizona, michigan, places where they may have been an elaborate scheme to overturn an election? washington, d. c., because

that's where the president at the time potentially, allegedly orchestrating all of this? or do you go to different states? >> i would go to washington, d. c.. that's where the grand jury is that he is using. the judges there are familiar with that grand jury, and they have been making rulings. that would make a lot of sense. but you know what? i would not rule out eight cases outside of georgia. it's not -- for example, for arizona and michigan to conduct their own investigation. >> renato, molly, and kurt, stick around. we've got a lot more to discuss after the break. we're gonna discuss the 12 million dollar settlement fox just reached with a former producer. stay with us. ♪ ♪ ♪ agnosed with cancer, they need support. subaru and our retailers are there to help... by providing blankets for comfort and warmth and encouraging messages of hope to help support nearly three hundred thousand patients facing cancer nationwide. we call it “the subaru love promise.” and we're proud to be the largest automotive donor to the leukemia and lymphoma society. subaru. more than a car company.

mr. clean magic eraser powers through tough messes. so it makes it look like i spent hours cleaning! and you know i didn't. it makes my running shoe look like new. it's amazing! wow, it makes it look like... i don't have kids at all. it's so good, it makes it look like i have magical powers! with 80% less scrubbing, mr. clean magic eraser makes cleaning easy. also available in sheets!

we really don't want people to think of feeding food like ours is spoiling their dogs. good, real food is simple. it looks like food, it smells like food, it's what dogs are supposed to be eating. ♪ >> former fox producer abby

grossberg has settled a pair of lawsuits against her old network and tucker carlson for $12 million. grossberg sued fox, you may recall, its parent company, and a number of executives earlier this year, alleging that she was harassed, retaliated against, and set up to take the fall for dominion voting systems defamation suit against the network. fox denied her allegations. here's grossberg speaking to my colleague nicole wallace back in april. >> gradually i was shut out of meetings. i was mocked. i was eventually demoted. that's how it played out for me. and it got worse, and it got worse, and it got worse every time i spoke out. >> in her lawsuits, grossberg who also worked for maria bartiromo described fox as a toxic, misogynistic environment.

and after the settlement was announced fox released a statement on their own, reading in part, we are pleased that we have been able to resolve this matter without further litigation. renato, molly, and kurt are back with me. i am trying to think, guys, who's had a worse year than fox news. and it just seems like it's getting worse by the week. you know, i want to say, you know, abby grossberg put out a statement in which she said that she's heartened that fox news has taken her and her legal claim seriously. hopefully, based on these discussions with fox, that they somehow make this a positive step going forward. what are the chances, molly, that this whole ordeal actually makes fox turn the page into a different direction? even if we hadn't seen that on air, at least for the employees behind the scenes. >> look, this is not the first lawsuit fox has had. it's not the first lawsuit it has had this year. it's not the first harassment

suit a woman has brought against fox. i mean, back with gretchen carlson, you know, fox has really had a lot of long history of having women have terrible experiences working there. i mean, you know, movies have been made about it, books have been written about it. so, i am not super surprised. i am not super hopeful. but i think the message here is that litigation actually works against fox, against large companies. and so, i guess that's useful. i would also say that, you know, fox is, you know, they are not bulletproof, right? they can in fact, and they did fire tucker carlson. so, you know, i do think ultimately, it kind of works. >> yes, so, renato, were you surprised to hear that fox settled with her? we know that this lawsuit was at least one of the reasons why the network decided to part ways with tucker carlson who was their biggest star, biggest moneymaker, you know? at the end of the day, it was

just too much for them to handle. >> well, as molly said, you know, she's just one of the latest of a string pf female employees at fox who have talked openly about harassment and filed a lawsuit, successful lawsuit which gotten very substantial settlements. if you recall, we mentioned tucker carlson. before tucker carlson, you had bill o'reilly, right? he was known for harassing the female employees working for him. so, this is something where fox has a history. and what that means is, if you go to trial, you can expect them to come in and it creates more risk, more litigation risk. it also means that in the future, and they are gonna have trouble getting employees. i mean, you can't drop your workforce -- half of it -- and i think that in order for them to have an environment where they don't have, potentially, a lot of litigation, for the people working there, they need to do

changes, take some of the bad apples out like carlson, and transform the culture which frankly doesn't seem like they are doing. >> yes, to renato's point, kurt, tucker carlson's replacement, jesse waters, not exactly a beacon of journalistic integrity. >> you know, there is something i have been thinking about here and i want every woman who's watching this to consider this. fox news is the propaganda microphone for the parties and the political people in power in this country who believe that women should not be able to exercise control over their own body, who believe that women, their role is to be subservient to men, who believe that women are second-class citizens in this country. is it any wonder that when you go and work at a place that every single day broadcast and promotes and elevates that type of misogyny and sexism that at some point it may be turned on

you. i want to be very clear, nobody deserves that. nobody deserves to be in a workplace culture that treats you with harassment, and disrespect, and makes you uncomfortable. but just consider, if you are at fox news right now, and you are on a program that is every single day, helping promote the war on women in america, what are you being part and parcel to? it really shouldn't take the behavior to be turned on you, that you are helping elevating, that you are helping make acceptable for you to want to step up and say something. so, the next time you are covering a story, or producing a segment about an accuser, or a supreme court justice saying you were sexually harassed, about a presidential candidate who said it was okay to grab you by the you know what, about a person who came forward and said, the former president of the u.s. once sexually assaulted and abused me. and that produces a segment of tearing that person down. put yourself in their shoes, because at a place like that you might be there someday. >> kurt bardella, molly jong-fast, renato mariotti, always a pleasure to have the

three of you on, greatly appreciated as always. coming up -- the supreme court rules against a fringe election theory, but it doesn't mean we are out of the woods just yet. i'll explain. ♪ ♪ ♪ uh... here i'll take that. -everyone: woo hoo! ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein, one gram of sugar. enter the nourishing moments giveaway for a chance to win $10,000. (smelling) ew. gotta get rid of this. ♪tell me why♪ because it stinks. ♪have you tried downy rinse and refresh♪ it helps remove odors 3x better than detergent alone. it worked guys! ♪yeahhhh♪ downy rinse and refresh.

try killing bugs the worry-free way. not the other way. zevo traps use light to attract and trap flying insects with no odor and no mess. they work continuously, so you don't have to. zevo. people-friendly. bug-deadly. i suffer with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. i was on a journey for a really long time people-friendly. to find some relief. cosentyx works for me. cosentyx helps real people get real relief from the symptoms of psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to

or if ibd symptoms develop or worsen. i move so much better because of cosentyx. ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. wayfair has nice prices so you can have nice things. hah! kelly clarkson, we have a kid... and harold. wayfair's got just what you need... performance fabrics, stains don't stand a chance. no chance! -woo! dog friendly and wallet friendly... pug-proved. get nice things with nice prices at wayfair. ♪ wayfair, you've got just what i need ♪

right now get a free footlong at subway. like the subway series menu. buy one footlong in the app, get one free. for freeee. that's what i'm talking about. order in the subway app today. we all need fiber for our digestive health, but less than 10% of us get enough each day. good thing metamucil gummies are an easy way

to get prebiotic, plant-based fiber. with the same amount of fiber as 2 cups of broccoli. metamucil gummies the easy way to get your daily fiber. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> there was some bad news from the supreme court this week. in fact, it ruled against a fringe legal theory that would have upended the way elections are decided in this country. in the original case, known as moore versus harper, voters in north carolina sued the republican-led state legislator, arguing its new heavily gerrymandered congressional map was unconstitutional. state lawmakers cited the independents state legislator theory in their defense. and they basically argued that state courts do not have that power to rule on matters related to federal elections. now that fringe theory by the way, is exactly the same one that trump aligned lawyer john

eastman tried to use to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. yet, in a 6-3 decision this week, the supreme court ruled that state legislatures do not have unchecked power over election rules in this country. meaning that the court actually made it harder for republicans, and specifically someone like a donald trump, to overturn the 2024 election results. and that's undoubtedly good news for our democracy. but those celebrating this surprise ruling should not get too comfortable. the conservative court only ruled against the most extreme version of the independent state legislator theory. in fact, they actually left the door open for more legal challenges down the road. in this majority decision, chief justice john roberts wrote that state courts must act within, quote, the bounds of ordinary judicial review on election matters. and that they do not have free reign. that is the sticking point here. ordinary judicial review, in my

opinion, is a rather vague turn of a phrase. and it will likely allow future election challenges to be brought before the court. and the next time, the justice might not rule as favorably as they did this time. joining me to discuss this hour, anderson clayton, chair of the north carolina democratic party. and malcolm kenyatta, democratic state representative in pennsylvania. it's great to have both of you with us. anderson, i'll start with you. it was republicans in your state who actually brought this case all the way up to the supreme court. and the truth is they hold a lot of power in north carolina at the moment. they've got control over both state legislatures, the state supreme court, what is your reaction to this week's decision, both in terms of the impact it will have on north carolina going forward, but broadly speaking across the country in the long run? >> you know, i think republicans finally have a taste of their own medicine, from their own party, which i'm excited about, and overjoyed over the fact that we're gonna have an opportunity to have our

state legislature redraw these maps because we do know that when the legislature had drawn them originally, we were left with a ten and four congressional district, which is not representative of the 50/50 split that's actually in north carolina right now. currently under an independent judiciary -- independently drawn maps we actually have 77 congressional representation which is much more equitable for the state of north carolina. and so, i am really excited to see this decision come down, and republicans honestly get to see the fact that, you know, partisan gerrymandering is not something that either party wants to align themselves with. >> representative kenyatta, i want to get your thoughts on the political implications of moore versus harper. this ruling is obviously important because it is a win for democratic norms. but it also seems like some of the issues surrounding partisan gerrymandering have actually been left unanswered. do you think that we could see another case about state power in federal elections back at

the supreme court, especially given the fact that donald trump is running again, and he's not committed to accepting the outcome of the elections in 2024. >> yeah, ayman, great to be with you. you know, i think when we take a step back and think about the fact that this court reviews -- are constantly necessary, that you see states all around the country who are going out of their way to rip the process, to gerrymander the line because they can't win the argument. i said this before, if all folks can offer you is a list of who to hate, a list of things to ban, and then they find some marginalized group to blame for all the problems in this country, that is not a party that can win elections with these issues. so the only way they stay in power is by trying to make sure that voters don't get to fairly choose their representative.

this supreme court has given a big middle finger to traditional jurisprudence, to our democracy. and it is terrifying that you have three justices who are willing to accept this extreme version of state power. and i don't think the other folks that sided with us at this time are gonna stop. >> yes, they have demonstrated that with some of the other issues, we're gonna talk about that later on in the program, with just how systematically have been at chipping away at some of these rights, whether it's abortion rights, gay rights, affirmative action. but, anderson, i want to go back to something you said in your first answer, and that is about the gerrymandering, because you've got the supreme court ruling that came out this week. it's not going to make a difference in your state at this point, as i understand it, because i believe back in april, the republicans in your state's supreme court, they ruled that partisan gerrymandering is not illegal. and for now, the republican supermajority in the state legislature is coming up with a new congressional map that

could give republicans an advantage by ten seats. what is your party doing to fight this? and other election related rulings from conservative state supreme courts that have come out? >> we know the number one thing the democratic party in north carolina has to do this year is ensuring that we are contesting every state house and senate race. as representative kenyatta can attest, we know state legislatures are the most important front line defense for our democracy right now. and we really have to ensure that we are fighting and contesting every single seat. the state party is recruiting candidates to run everywhere, and you are interested in running for office and you are in north carolina, please go to our website and sign up to run at the bus today. the other thing we are really trying to do is to ensure that people know what their rights are at the voting sites this year. our supreme court also delivered a repeal of the voter i. d. law that came into play from 2018. and so, we are desperately

trying to make sure that college campuses are prepared to have their ideas count as real ideas to vote in this election cycle. and also ensure that folks really understand what we are up against in 2024 because every single fight for our rights are on the line. >> yes, i was gonna say and i don't think it's just in north carolina. it's safe to say it's gonna happen across the country. anderson clayton, thank you very much. malcolm kenyatta, please stick around. we're gonna talk to you again at the top of the hour. coming up -- ahead, conservatives decades long campaign to destroy affirmative action, finally won. we're gonna break it down for you. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ that lets her pick exactly what she wants and save on every perk. sadie is getting her plan ready for a big trip. travel pass, on. nice iphone. cute couple. trips don't last forever, neither does summer love. so, sadie is moving on. apple music, check! introducing myplan. get exactly what you want, only pay for what you need. switch now and get iphone 14 pro max on us. offer ends july 5th. it's your verizon.

our heritage is ingrained in our skin. and even when we metamorphosize into our new

evolved form, we carry that spirit with us. because you can take alfa romeo out of italy. but you best believe, you can't take the italy out of an alfa romeo. >> if at first you do not succeed, try and try again. that has been the guiding mantra of the conservative legal movement for decades, floating a case before the supreme court, get a couple of justices on your side, and then use their opinions as a guide to shock the nation for a case that gives the justices everything needed for them to

finally take action. it is a strategy that actually predates the trump era and this specific court. but it became super charged with this new conservative super majority. republicans waited for decades to overturn roe v. wade, bringing several unsuccessful cases before the court, until finally, succeeding last term with the dobbs decision. think about how christian activists first brought the plight of a colorado baker, who did not want to bake a gay wedding cake, to the court in 2018. and then, they used a suggestion from clarence thomas that that cake should actually have been considered on free speech grounds rather than a religious liberty test. five years later, we had the 303 creative versus ellis decision, effectively making lgbtq+ individuals second-class citizens. now, that same cynical perseverance has now led to the gutting of affirmative action

in college admissions. since roe was overturned, it is clear this court has no deterrence about undoing long established precedent. and believe me, there are mountains of precedent upholding the constitutionality of affirmative action in america, specifically because of the 50-year republican project aimed at destroying that policy. so, let's look at how we got to this point, because this is the playbook conservatives are using for anything they don't like or approve of, even if it takes decades to overturn and see those results. affirmative action, as a term, actually entered the public lexicon back in 1935, with the wagner act, a federal law that gave workers the right to form and join unions. it was used to describe the process by which an employee would be given their job back if the national labor relations board found they have been fired for union activity. john f. kennedy was the first president to link that term specifically with policies

meant to advance racial equality. and in the years after, the term started to be associated with education, a connection made thanks to the civil rights movement. the assasination of dr. martin luther king jr. in 1968 was a turning point. students demanded their colleges redouble their efforts to have students and student bodies that actually better reflected american society. as the new york times reports, less than four weeks after dr. king's death, harvard's dean of admissions at the time, well, he announced a commitment to enrolling a substantially higher number of african americans. the following years admitted class included a 76% increase in black students. and you better believe that conservatives immediately began gnashing their teeth. the first supreme court case challenging the constitutionality of affirmative action programs and education came just a decade ago later.

and in 78, the supreme court heard regions of the university of california versus bakke. at the time, the university reserved a 16 out of every 100 admissions possible for qualified minority students. allen bakke, a white man, was denied admissions by the university's medical school, despite having a higher test scores than some minor to students admitted that here. and he sued. and ultimately, the supreme court decided that the quota system you see davis use was unconstitutional. but it also ruled that schools did have a, quote, compelling interest in the educational benefits of having a diverse student body, which allowed them to consider race in the admissions process. so long as it was one of many factors they were considering. well, conservatives of course were outraged and spent decades shopping for the perfect self-described victim of affirmative action to bring future challenges. in 2003, for example, conservative activists seized upon white people who were denied admissions to the university of michigan, and

presented a case before the court. those decisions narrowed affirmative action policies slightly, making it illegal to use point based systems with regard to race in college admissions. yet, in the end, a court again reaffirmed the constitutionality of the broader policy. so, conservatives tried in 2013. and in 2016, a white woman named abigail fischer, who was denied admission to the university of texas, again and again, the court ruled affirmative action was constitutional. justice kennedy, writing for the majority at the time, stated that the attainment of a diverse student body serves values beyond race alone, including enhanced classroom dialogue, and the lessening of racial isolation and stereotypes. affirmative action was both constitutional and a force for broader societal good that cannot be denied. but conservatives, well -- they went back to the drawing

board, continued shopping for the perfect plaintiffs, and returned to the court with this past term, with two cases, students for fair admissions versus harvard college, and students for fair admissions versus the university of north carolina. by the way, that group named in both of those cases, students for fair admissions, well, it's a right-wing activist group. it's lawyers argued that admissions programs at harvard and unc violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, by discriminating against asian american applicants and providing favorable treatments to students from other minority background. and finally, john roberts and his extreme colleagues said enough. deciding to end affirmative action as we know it. so, this try and try again mentality, honestly, it's not going anywhere. as we said earlier, those of us who breathe a sigh of relief after the supreme court did not end american democracy this past week with the moore versus harper ruling, well they shouldn't rest easy.

if we know anything, it is this conservative activist court has demonstrated time and time again, in fact, too many times now, that settled law isn't really settled in their eyes. it's just settled for the moment, not forever. and there will be another more perfect case to threaten democracy soon enough in this country. we will be right back with professor jelani cobb to break it all down. (man) what if my type 2 diabetes takes over? (woman) what if all i do isn't enough?

or what if i can do diabetes differently? (avo) now you can with once-weekly mounjaro. mounjaro helps your body regulate blood sugar, and mounjaro can help decrease how much food you eat. 3 out of 4 people reached an a1c of less than 7%. plus people taking mounjaro lost up to 25 pounds. mounjaro is not for people with type 1 diabetes or children. don't take mounjaro, if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop mounjaro, and call your doctor right away, if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, vision changes, or diabetic retinopathy. serious side effects may include pancreatitis and gallbladder problems. taking mounjaro with sulfonylurea or insulin raises low blood sugar risk. tell your doctor if you're nursing, pregnant, or plan to be. side effects include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea which can cause dehydration and may worsen kidney problems.

(woman) i can do diabetes differently with mounjaro. (avo) ask your doctor about once-weekly mounjaro. when you smell the amazing scent of new gain flings... time stops. ♪ (music plays) ♪

your heart races. ♪ ♪ your eyes close. and you realize you're in love... steve? ...with a laundry detergent. new gain flings. seriously good scent. and now, 50% more fresh. that's love at first sniff. (vo) consumer reports evaluates vehicles for car shoppers in... reliability, safety, owner satisfaction, and now, 50% more fresh. and road-test evaluations... and the results are in. subaru is the twenty twenty-three best mainstream automotive brand, according to consumer reports. and subaru has seven consumer reports recommended models. solterra, forester, outback, crosstrek, ascent, impreza, and legacy. it's easy to love a brand you can trust. it's easy to love a subaru. >> all right, let's continue

our conversation about the supreme court's move to end affirmative action in american college admission processes. joining me now is jelani cobb, staff writer at the new yorker, and of course, dean of the columbia university journalism school. he is also an msnbc political contributor. jelani, it's great to see you. thanks for making time for us. i want to start with something you wrote in the new yorker this week that the scale of what has been lost is difficult to assess in the moment. your thoughts on this decision and its long term impact on our country? >> well, let me begin -- this will unfold, you know, over the course of years and decades. but there will likely be other strategies to try to achieve some measure of diversity and representation. what we've seen from the experience of other institutions and other places is that you don't want to impose proxies in those other kinds of approaches, which tend not to be as effective, as being able to take race into

consideration. and so, there are lots of downstream effects that we could think of reasonable possibilities. one, we already know there's a long existing wealth gap between white families and black families, in that white families have roughly ten times the wealth of black families on average. and so, we also know that a ten-year college degree has a lifelong wage earning implications. it greatly enhances your lifelong wage earning. so, we would expect that the wealth gap would potentially expand as opposed to contracting. we might also see things like more significant health disparities. we know for a fact that black doctors tend to give better care to black patients than white doctors do, which has been established by study after study after study. not at all unlikely, but you

will wind up with fewer black doctors, along with fewer black engineers, lawyers and some other professions, fewer black homeowners which will have implications for people's retirement. and so, all of the downstream effects, and that's just a few. there are a lot more that we could anticipate. and all these downstream effects, you know, point to really serious ramifications with the decision that was handed down last week. >> how will universities suffer specifically? i mean, in the nine states where affirmative action had already been blocked, for example like california, which is often cited by conservative -- minority admissions dropped significantly. are you concerned that that is also gonna happen nationwide? and how will universities actually suffer? >> sure. so, that's a high possibility that will happen. and, you know, the point that i made in that piece in the new yorker was that, you know, when

clarence thomas wrote that he didn't understand what diversity meant and seemed to have no meaning, i pointed out that there are only two people, in the 116-year history of the supreme court, who understood what it was like to be a black person in a segregated school. that was him and thurgood marshall. and that the court benefited from having that diversity of perspective and that insight, especially for a body that was charged with establishing the guidelines, legal guidelines for the entire nation. we will have less of that, potentially, less of that kind of breadth of experience on college campuses across the country, and that could be one reasonable outcome of that decision. >> let me ask you about my thesis in this segment, which is, you know, the conservative legal movement going after affirmative action over decades. it has been a 50-year project, and that seems to be their playbook when it comes to things that they are adamant about undoing, whether it is

abortion rights, and as we saw with affirmative action. talk to me a little bit about this relentless effort to get their way, and the way they go about it, playing the long game. and that for us or others now, they should not think of any decision that the supreme court makes as being settled or a precedent? >> sure. the irony here, and i will use that term, but the irony here is that this is all a response to what people call judicial activism in the 1960s and 1970s. and the accusation that the warren court was led by chief justice earl warren was too aggressive in overturning long-standing precedent. and saying they were trying to commit social engineering from the bench. and the response that you've seen is a very heavy-handed form of social engineering, to create a society in which there are not reproductive rights, where reproductive rights are

severely impeded. a society in which diversity and representation, particularly for groups that we think about this in affirmative action, we have ruled out taking into account the only category that people used to exclude people. and people were excluded on the basis of gender, but this ruling has not affected gender. but we have decades, centuries in which institutions would not admit people on the basis of race. and that is the only thing you can't take into account now. we can consider people from the basis of geography, another matter where you grew up, and you had nothing to do with, it has nothing to do with anything that you can control, that people may have assessments about you, may contribute to who you are as an individual. perfectly fine to consider geography in trying to feel that diverse class. but not okay to consider one of the factors, race, that is most profound, and it works for the

idea of american democracy from the outset of the idea of american democracy. >> yes, your daddies checkbook matters more than your race and the admissions process to some of these universities. jelani cobb, it's always a pleasure, thank you so much for joining us. greatly appreciated. save up to 30% off* until july 10th. whether you're moving across town or across the country. save up to 30% at pods.com today.

i'm saving with liberty mutual, mom. they customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. you could save $700 dollars just by switching. ooooh, let me put a reminder on my phone. on the top of the pile! oh. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ sleepovers just aren't what they used to be. only pay for what you need. a house full of screens? basically no hiccups? you guys have no idea how good you've got it. how old are you? like, 80? back in my day, it was scary stories and flashlights. we don't get scared.

oh, really? mom can see your search history. that's what i thought. introducing the next generation 10g network. only from xfinity. this is a special two hour edition of the katie phang show, live from msnbc world headquarters in new york city. 'v g