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

. >> i'm joined by -- i'm joined by melissa murray professor at new york school of law. melissa, can you break down for us the court's reasoning in today's ruling on baker? >> it's a technical opinion. it doesn't focus at all on the merits of this case, whether the aca is in fact unconstitutional. it focuses on the right of the plaintiffs here, group of individual plaintiffs and a group of states to bring this case in federal court. so the decision was on standing. the idea that federal plaintiffs have to have standing, a true injury in order to bring their case in federal court and here it was determined that there was no injury that could be addressed. it was a technical jurisdictional opinion. doesn't address the merits of the case at all. >> how surprising was it to see robs barrett and cav on and off? >> that was quite a surprise. i think it speaks to the justice's skills. as it has the numbers to do what it likes. this was a surprising opinion. again, the fact that it was decided on jurisdictional grounds suggests that he found a narrow way to bring them all togethe

for more on today's decision i am joined by melissa murray professor at new york university school ofand former supreme justice. when she was on the court of appeals for the second circuit. melissa, can you break down for us the quartz reasoning in today's ruling on obamacare? >> it is a very technical opinion and doesn't focus at all on the merits of this case whether the aca is in fact unconstitutional,. it focuses on the right of the plaintiffs here, the individual plaintiffs and a group of states to bring this in federal court. the decision was on standing, this idea that federal plaintiffs need to have standing and true injured to bring their case and federal court and here it was determined that there was no injury that could be addressed by federal court adjudication, it was a very technical jurisdictional opinion. it doesn't address the merits of the case at all. >> how surprising though is it to see so many justices joining the majority on this case? >> that actually was quite a surprise, and i think it speaks to the chief justices skills in continuing to keep the conservativ

professor melissa murray, nyu law school, clerk for justice sewn ya sotomayor, and -- a professor of politics and journalism at morgan state university. phil rutger, we'd like to begin with you. the white house beat. why did the white house choose today, to the best of your knowledge, to launch this anti-crime initiative? >> well, brian, it was an important day for president biden to launch this initiative in part because there are indications that crime this summer could be going up in cities across the country. biden warned of that in his remarks from the white house today. and he wanted to take political advantage or at least position his administration bet ears the summer bears on. this is a politically tricky issue for democrats. it always has been for decades now, but especially in this moment because republicans on capitol hill have said that they want to try to use crime, if there's a crime wave this summer, as a campaign tool to try to defeat the democrats and take back the majority and midterm elections next year somewhat we've heard from biden and the attorney general is a

professor melissa murray, and why you law school who was lock lurk for justice sonia sotomayor on the federal branch prior to her nomination to the supreme court, and jason johnson federal -- contributor at the grow and a professor of politics and journalism at morgan state university. phil rucker, i would like to begin with you. the white house will beat, why did the white house choose, at the best of your knowledge, to launch this anti crime initiative? >> it was an important day for president biden to launch this initiative in part because there are indications that trump crime this summer could be going up in cities across the country, biden warned of that of course in his remarks from the white house today. he wanted to try to take political advantage or position his administration better as this summer bears on. you know, this is a politically tricky issue for democrats, it always has been for decades now. but especially in this moment because republicans on capitol hill have said that they wanted to try to use crime, if there's a crime wave this summer, as a campaign tool to tr

i want to bring in msnbc contributor melissa murray, former cl erk to sewn yo sotomayor. we're waiting to see as we speak what the decisions we got today from the supreme court are. we bust in and brings them to folks live. walk through the jut standing cases. is there a consensus from experts and scholars who watch the court how they think the court is going to go here? >> a number of important cases with he wait for. the obamacare case overshadowed the term. >> so people know what that is, melissa, sorry, you were getting there but we have a graphic, too, the question to the court in that particular case is what is the standard that courts ought to use deciding whether a change in election procedures violates the voting rights act. that is the critical one. >> it concerns section two, the remaining sections with teeth of that landmark civil rights litigation since 2013 when the supreme court gutted the preclearance for teachers of the voting rights act making it hard are for individuals to have voting rights changes made at the state level vetted by the department of ju

joining me now from minneapolis, nbc correspondent shaquille brewster and melissa murray and civil rightsdge said there were aggravated factors like chauvin abusing his position as a cop, doing what he did in front of children. how is that likely to impact the sentence? >> well, it could possibly increase that sentence, andrea. derek chauvin is facing up to 40 years in prison and legal analysts say you can ignore that number because sentencing guidelines have him serving something significantly lower than that. he could be facing 10 1/2 to 15 years, but with the judge agreeing to those aggravating factors it is likely that they can exceed that 15-year mark. prosecutors are asking for 30 years in prison. the defense prison is asking for probation and time served. so you have a wide gap there and when you listen to why the defense team is asking for that probation. they bring up factors like derek chauvin's age. he's 45 years old. law enforcement officials are known for having shorter life expectancies. they mentioned the stability of his family and the support he's receiving from his famil

peter baker, melissa murray, dr. irwin redlener, our thanks for starting us off this evening. greatly appreciate having the three of you. >>> coming up, it is not hyperbole and has become a fair question to ask. have we witnessed this nation's last free and fair election? truly. our political experts are standing by to weigh in. >>> later. president biden just hours away now from the most important meeting thus far in his presidency. a retired four star general former member of the national security council standing by to give us a preview. all of it as "the 11th hour" is just getting under way on this tuesday evening, overlooking geneva, switzerland, site of tomorrow's summit. camera man: yeah, 1 out of 3 people get shingles in their lifetime. well that leaves 2 out of 3 people who don't. i don't know anybody who's had it. your uncle had shingles. you mean that nasty red rash? and donna next door had it for weeks. yeah, but there's nothing you can do about it. camera man: actually, shingles can be prevented. shingles can be whaaaat? camera man: prevented. you can get vaccinat

as promised, back with us is nyu law professor melissa murray.resentative, especially for people who may have been busy living their lives over the weekend, walk us through why you and your colleagues did what you did and what happens next. >> sure. so thank you so much for having me. i wanted to let you know. so sb-7 is the so-called voter integrity, election integrity bill that the republican controlled legislature presented. they presented it to the full body on the 139th day of 140 day session. so for them to go around saying this was a priority bill, they sure did wait to the end to present one of their priorities. but this bill has been through so many iterations. it went from being a 40-page document to a 70-page document almost overnight with measures not even vetted in the public eye. they were not presented to the public and for public input. so this, to me, is evidence that they are trying to pass measures without really hearing the voices of texans who this will greatly impact in the end. so this bill has been put forth. it had so man

joining us right now is nyu law professor melissa murray and former rnc chair michael steele. professor, your view of the combined picture we're getting from each of these reports about the probe? >> well, it's definitely a case of keep your friends close and your enemies or at least those who can testify against you closer. and so it seems that former president trump is keeping tabs on mr. weisselberg because mr. weisselberg is one member of that small circle of trust. it's not just that the circle of trust is small that makes it difficult for the prosecutors, it's also that former president trump has over his course of business been really reticent to document his doings in email. he famously doesn't email. he doesn't write things down. so it's really mr. weisselberg who has been the eyes and ears of this whole operation that can provide the information to link any misdoings to trump. that's really what's needed here. if weisselberg isn't talking, it's going to be very difficult to get the goods to prove intent on the part of trump. >> yeah. michael, this "journal" story aga

our lead off guests, peter baker the chief house white correspondent for the new york times and melissa murray, and why you law school whose law clerk for justice sonia sort of meyer on the federal branch prior to her nomination to the supreme court and doctor irwin red liner columbia university center for disaster preparedness. he advises us on public health. also happens to be a columnist at the daily beast. good evening to you all and welcome peter. let's start with the president you cover for a living and more than that let's start with lindsey graham tonight pre summit advice on hannity. >> he needs to tell putin if there is another cyber attack in america coming from russian soil you're gonna pay a price. in his policies indicate to me that he doesn't understand the dangers we face. this would not have happened if donald trump or president. we would not be attacked twice from russia by cyber terrorists donald trump was president. he needs to fix this. >> interesting advice there to be tough on putin. perhaps the senator can be forgiven. perhaps he is forgetting this in helsinki. >> my pe

i want to bring in correspondent pete williams and melissa murray, former law clerk and now assistant to justice sotomayor. the court voted 6-3, but that's not the same breakdown at all. do you remember, it was former president trump that said, fine, congress won't do it, we'll take it to the supreme court. they'll end obamacare. it didn't happen. >> first of all, i don't think any of donald trump's predictions about the supreme court ever came true. look what justice thomas said yesterday in health care division. that's probably a good barometer here. he said, i think the court has been wrong twice before on obamacare, upholding it, but this time we're not rescuing obamacare, we're simply saying people who want to sue this time don't have the proper legal standing. that's an issue very dear to conservatives' hearts. you can only come into federal court if your claim against the law is that it causes some particular injury to you. and what the court said is, without the individual mandate enforcement mechanism, the tax penalty, the law doesn't force you to do anything. so the states c

. >> melissa murray, peter bake, benjy sarlin, garrett haake. garrett, we'll see you in a little while. >>> i wonder if you can give us your reaction from this ruling in the supreme court, both in your capacity as health and human services secretary, but folks should know before you had this current role, you were the attorney general of california. in that role you led a coalition of states, including the district of columbia, in defending the entirety of the aca, and because of that, there were republicans in the senate to include mitch mcconnell who did not want you to have the job that you have now. to the degree you can speak in your personal capacity as cabinet secretary, i'm not sure that you can, how is all this resonating with you today? >> geoff, i have to say to mike mongan and all the team at the department who actually argued this case before the supreme court, they are owed a debt of gratitude by the american people for defending this. i was fortunate as attorney general in working with him. we had the support of about 22 other sta

. >> professor of law melissa murray, a former law clerk to judge sonia sotomayor and is an msnbc contributor. it's great to have you on. let me get your reaction to what we heard from giuliani claiming this is one-sided, he has not had a chance to defend himself or even discuss what was happening in that courtroom and in terms of suspension. explain what happens and will giuliani get a chance to defend himself in court the way he wants? >> he is exactly right. he hasn't had a chance to rebut these allegations in court because this is, again, an interim suspension. he will have an opportunity because disciplinary proceedings will commence immediately following this particular ruling. that said, the fact that the appellate division has chosen to temporarily suspend his license is an unusual step underscoring the gravity and the idea mr. giuliani through these fraud lend, allegedly, statements, imperilled the system of democracy we know in the united states and the electoral process. he will have an opportunity to go to court, but the fact they've temporarily suspended his license does not bode

we have melissa murray, nyu law professor, and jason johnson from morgan state university. welcome to you both. melissa, you don't have to be a long-time news viewer to remember that donald trump was accused of multiple instances of obstruction of justice. the conservative count in the mueller report is five and then there is some that were gray. but he was president so it was dealt in a very specific way. he had no more vocal defender of the idea that he didn't and perhaps couldn't commit obstruction than matt gaetz. what do you see beyond here in the report that the feds are looking at this beyond other potential charges? >> well, it suggests the investigation has moved into a stage where they're not only dealing with the information that greenberg is offering but those associated with greenberg were also telling them things. again, obstruction of justice is a pretty wide range of activity that could be incapsulated in that. it is everything including threats, coercion. or even more minor things like trying to administrate justice. so if matt gaetz, for example, suggested

i know melissa murray last week talked about her view the rulings and the direction they're going that perhaps justice roberts is keeping the issue conservative wing in check. what is your perception? >> towards the end of the term, we still have a ways to go with ten decisions we have seen a lot of compromises. we've seen the supreme court that is trying to find something of a middle ground and it's in some cutting edge areas here. the court hadn't dealt with offcampus speech yet. they say they're making a modest ruling here as a first step into this area, they want to recognize that the facts will matter a lot and so the justices here just set out some general goal posts on which they could agree and said look, this student was just talking off campus about the cheerleading squad talking to our own social circle, that's not close enough to the interests of the school to permit her to be punished. >> can you, is pete williams still with us? not sure if he is. tom, there is a quote from the majority written by justice breyer that says he concludes "it might be tempting to dismiss the s

. >> joining our conversation is nyu law professor melissa murray. josh marshall still with us. professor, i wanted to bring you in and give this update to your viewers because while one big story in washington is happening right now with the funding, the other big story is what we're still learning and what many in the congress have tried to prevent, which is understanding what led to this. your thoughts on the report? >> it reminds me of the report of the 9/11 commission. what you have here are a number of different agencies all charged with gathering intelligence. but none of it incredibly joined up. so lots of disjointed not sharing of information. not a lot of coordination. there seems to be opportunities for improving communication sharing among these agencies. but the real meat of this report is going to be in this bipartisan working together going forward about the appropriations to improve some of this. there has been a huge bill passed in the house. it is unlikely to pass without serious reconciliation in the senate. but that would be the appropriations to actually mak

joining me now, nyu law professor and msnbc contributor melissa murray, and former watergate prosecutorually wanted to fire acting ag jeff rosen for not looking into the election conspiracies. why is it dangerous for the white house to even tell the justice department what they should be investigating? >> this was all part of donald trump's belief that he controlled the justice department, that he could tell them what to do, that he could have them serve his own political needs and not the attorneys for all the people of america. so it's dangerous in and of itself for that. but this is really beyond ridiculous. the italy gate, as it is now known, was such a ridiculous theory. it goes along with some of the qanon theories. and the fact that the department of justice even had to listen to any request to investigate these conspiracies and was being pushed by this chief of staff to donald trump, mark meadows, to help find election fraud when there clearly was none means that the department of justice was on the edge of being overtaken by political wrongdoing. >> just listening to that theor

murray and mr. cobb. walk us through your view as a participant here. >> i think you started with melissa and jelani at exactly in the right place. it is rare to have a day like this. >> it was 13 mopt ago today that george floyd was murdered. >> the fact that these cases was brought historic. the fact that charges including murder is historic. officers after officers testified how lounge this was, i think the case and the verdict does send a message today that no one is above the law. it is a welcome change. i don't have to words to describe how important i think this is. i think jelani captured it so well and that humanity and empathy is hoep apart of what we can take as a pro protect as what we need to do as a society. i know you work on this case, i imagine some of those reasons and it is broader than that. i didn't want to get your reacc reacc -- reaction. >> we didn't hear from him as a child. their is what chauvin said briefly. >> there will be some information in the future thald be of interest and i hope things will give you some peace of mind. >> do you have any idea? >> yes. >> i have some speculati