justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: counsel, under the turner standard, a generalized security interest would have been enough to defeat a claim. rluipa changed that, and whether we like it or not, it requires the state to address each individual person's need. and a risk analysis that talks generally about a compelling new is -- need is not the standard that rluipa sets. the standard is, is something that you're proposing going to interfere with this execution? now i looked at the pictures that i was provided, and the other side gave a bunch of reasons. they said it'll block the view. but i saw the picture of the prison, and the window at least by the foot doesn't block the view. so where you want to stand is not going to block the view. they have fears that a unknown pastor could -- and this goes to justice kavanaugh's concern -- that an unknown pastor could go to the iv line, could go to the manacles, et cetera. but the manacles are nowhere near there. the minister has a person standing with him. i

justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: counsel, under the turner standard, a generalized security interest would have been enough to defeat a claim. rluipa changed that, and whether we like it or not, it requires the state to address each individual person's need. and a risk analysis that talks generally about a compelling new is -- need is not the standard that rluipa sets. the standard is, is something that you're proposing going to interfere with this execution? now i looked at the pictures that i was provided, and the other side gave a bunch of reasons. they said it'll block the view. but i saw the picture of the prison, and the window at least by the foot doesn't block the view. so where you want to stand is not going to block the view. they have fears that a unknown pastor could -- and this goes to justice kavanaugh's concern -- that an unknown pastor could go to the iv line, could go to the manacles, et cetera. but the manacles are nowhere near there. the minister has a person standing with him. i

we -- we did not yet - justice sotomayor: i forgot. mr. hearron: we - justice sotomayor: thank you. mr. hearron: yeah. chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch? justice gorsuch: i do have a couple of questions. on -- on -- on chilling effect, do you agree that other laws often have chilling effects on the exercise of constitutionally protected rights that can only be challenged defensively? mr. hearron: not to this extent, yeah, but there may - justice gorsuch: but do you agree that there are laws -- defamation laws, gun control laws, rules during the pandemic about the exercise of religion -- that discourage and chill the exercise of constitutionally protected liberties? mr. hearron: yes. justice gorsuch: and that they can only be challenged after the fact? mr. hearron: i'm not sure that all of those laws could only be challenged after the fact, but there may be some laws. justice gorsuch: certainly, there are certain circumstances where that's true, right? mr. hearron: that's probably correct. justice gorsuch: okay. so it's a line-drawing between those cases and your case mr. hearro

. >> misses sotomayor? i this law and clearly attempted to thwart judicial review out of time with the law was unsettled but i do think if this court clarified in whole woman's health that the providers can move forward with their suit and if it forcefully rejected texas efforts here to stymie that review then we wouldn't have the same sovereign interest in a future case because at that point the law would be settled and this attempt to circumvention would clearly network. >> so you can't sue the state the way you can because of sovereign immunity? one of the big issues for then and i'm asking you to litigate their case but i'm asking for your views of how it affects yours, is who do they sue? they haven't sued like you have, s.b.-8 plaintiffs who filed suit. they have sued a clerk of the court, a judge, and attorney general and other state officials. so how do they get the relief that you are seeking? you heard justice alito say not everybody has been named because the s.b.-8 plaintiffs have not been named

justice sotomayor: you claim wanting to use this information. the government hasn't made a motion to use it. it made a motion to dismiss. you can see that whether or not that motion to dismiss is appropriate under reynolds and general dynamics and all that case law shouldn't be addressed by us, correct? mr. arulanantham: no, your honor. i believe it's within the question presented and the court has the authority -- and we did argue it below but said in the b.i.o. justice sotomayor: but you agree it hasn't been properly briefed before. in the ninth circuit didn't look at that. mr. arulanantham: the ninth circuit didn't look at that because on bank 65 in the jefferson decision it ruled that totten and reynolds were on a continuum. and before general dynamics. justice sotomayor: that hasn't been addressed by them, not the way you've argued it about. mr. arulanantham: no, your honor, it was disclosed under precedent and didn't that make argument there. justice sotomayor: if you were to lose and i know you desperately don't want to. but assume my ass

justice sotomayor? justice gorsuch? justice kavanaugh, anything further? >> nothing further. >> justice barrett? no? thank you, counsel. rebuttal, counsel? >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> mr. fletcher, i don't want to interrupt you later so i'll just do it up front. why not make the witness available? what is the government's objection to the witness testifying to his own treatment and not requiring any admission from the government of any kind? >> by the witness you mean abu zubaydah? >> right. >> so i was going to address this point. it goes to justice breyer's question about the conditions of his confinement right now. he is not being held in commune caddo. he is subject to the same conditions as other detainees at guantanamo. he is subject to security screening for classified information and other risks. he's able to -- >> that's not really answering my question, i don't think, because i understand there are all sorts of protocols that may or may not, in the government's view, prohibit him from testifying. but i'm asking much more directly, will th

justice sotomayor? justice gorsuch? justice kavanaugh, anything further? >> nothing further. >> justice barrett? no? thank you, counsel. rebuttal, counsel? >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> mr. fletcher, i don't want to interrupt you later so i'll just do it up front. why not make the witness available? what is the government's objection to the witness testifying to his own treatment and not requiring any admission from the government of any kind? >> by the witness you mean abu zubaydah? >> right. >> so i was going to address this point. it goes to justice breyer's question about the conditions of his confinement right now. he is not being held in commune caddo. he is subject to the same conditions as other detainees at guantanamo. he is subject to security screening for classified information and other risks. he's able to -- >> that's not really answering my question, i don't think, because i understand there are all sorts of protocols that may or may not, in the government's view, prohibit him from testifying. but i'm asking much more directly, will th

justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: counselor, your client is permitted to -- mr. nash, one of the two -- to carry when engaged in outdoor activities of any kind like camping, hunting, and fishing, on back roads, with substantially lesser number of people. tell me how many places in rensselaer does your client have a self-defense risk. i mean, at what point do we look at the restriction and the burden it places? meaning, yes, i'm sure it has a center of town, i'm sure it may have a shopping center or two, but it's not like he's totally restricted from carrying a gun. he's just restricted from carrying one basically in those sensitive places. because the rest of his home is pretty distant from other homes. mr. clement: so, justice sotomayor, just so we start on the same wavelength or the same page, literally page 41 of the joint appendix, this tells mr. nash where we can carry concealed. and what the officer, mcnally, told him was, "i emphasize that the restrictions are intended to prohibit," italicized, "you from carrying concealed in any location," all caps, "any

. >> justice sotomayor. >> what happens l to the lawsuit if we were to find -- >> i think that wouldn't retroactively operate to extinguish the sovereign injury that the united states experienced when texas passed to the law and attempted to thwart the review at a time that it was unsettled but i do think if the court clarified that the providers can movele forward wih suit w and if it forcefully rejected texas' effort to stymie that kind of federal court review, then we wouldn't have the same sovereigngn interest in the future case, because at that point it would be settled and this circumvention would clearly not work. >> to sue the state the way that you can because of sovereign immunity. so, one of the big issues for them, and i'm not asking you to litigate their case but for your views of how it affects yours it is who do they sue. they haven't assumed like you have, those that file suit but they sued the clerk of court, judge, attorney general and other state officials. so how do they get the relief that you are seeking? youce heard justice alito say tt not h everybody has been na

time but i want to ask you about two sets of people on the court and first you mentioned justice sotomayor and her very passionate dissent both times and the first time around on september 1 on the supreme court initially allowing texas law to take effect and others on the liberal wing dissented but none as strongly as she did and she was the only one more recently just a couple of weeks ago when the court for the second time let the texas lost in effect and she was the only one who dissented. linda how do you understand this build bridges attitude that justices kagan and breyer have versus, go ahead and burn it down and how do you see that playing out because two of them will probably be around longer and be in the remaining leadership positions on the liberal side justice kagan and sotomayor. >> i think it's a difference in approach so i think both justice breyer and justice kagan think the role they can serve best is is to be able to somehow reach some of the justices and as far as we know that it happened. there's certainly been cases that have turned out to be more narrowly focused in

the key question framed by an opponent of the law, justice sotomayor questioning the lawyer for reproductive rights group appealing the ban. >> let's go to what the harm is that you're seeking an injunction against the clerks for. am i understanding correctly that you believe that the way this sba is structured, that what the chilling effect is the very multiplicity of lawsuits that are threatened against you? >> yes, your honor, that's exactly right. it is the fact -- there's a combination of various ways that the state has created special rules applicable only to sba to make state courts a tool that can be used to nullify constitutional rights that have been recognized by this court. >> and joining me now, nbc's julia ainsley who was following the argumentings, harry litman, former deputy assistant attorney general during the clinton administration. melissa lurie, and former u.s. attorney joyce vance. julia, take us through what you've heard in the last two hours from the justices in this important argument? >> it's interesting, andrea, i spent the morning outside the supreme court where p

everybody from brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett to sotomayor.eally just doesn't work. what it does is allows any state to come up with a law, to thwart constitutional rights. that state just doesn't like, and especially justices like kavanaugh could see how it could be used to restrict access to services or goods or activities that the state has decided is not appropriate. that is probably the best hope that people who support the idea of abortion who want access to abortion in the state of texas have in thwarting this law. >> there was another moment that stuck out where clarence thomas asked stone about what would be considered an injury under sb-8. this is important. listen to this. >> what would that injury be in this under sb-8, if it's an injury, in fact? >> one example would be a injure suffered in the tort of outrage where an individual becomes aware of an abortion and suffers the same emotional harm that would ground an article 3 injury for purposes of texas law. >> that seemed like sort of a weak argument, did it not? how would you go

justin sotomayor tested that. justice elena kagan followed up on it. i pulled this piece of the elena kagan back and forth with the texas solicitor general. i think it is instruction active, almost explanatory to hear justice kagan become exasperated by this line of argument. she has to basically back up after he tries to move on and go, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, did you just say what i think you said? is that really what you're saying? listen. >> i guess i would like to take you back to the other case and ask you to answer the question that you said you wanted to avoid for justice sotomayor. >> i'm sorry, your honor. i thought i agreed it doesn't depend on the nature of the right being asserted and also that none of the -- we could sort of race the potential sanction as high as possible, and that wouldn't affect federal court availability. i'm sorry. i thought i answered that. but to make my answer especially clear. >> thank you. >> i guess i need to back up. if we said that, we would live in a different world. essentially we would be inviting sta

. >> justice sotomayor? >> and your client to carry in jut door activities, camping, hunting, fishing, on backroads so substantially less number of people. tell me how many places in renesler county does your client have a self-defense risk? i mean, at what point do we look at the restriction and the burden it places? meaning, i'm sure it has the center of town. i'm sure it may have a shopping center or two. but it's not like he's totally restricted from carrying a gun, just restricted from carrying one basically in those sensitive places. the rest of his home is pretty distant from other homes. >> so justice sotomayor, so we stay on the same pages, literally 41 of the joint appendix, this tells mr. nash where he can carry concealed. what they told him was, quote, i emphasize that it's to prohibit, carrying location, all caps, any location typically open to and frequented by the general public. >> that's the point. >> that's a pretty broad number of places in the county and it would include, i fear, most of

>> the clerk should reject the filing of that lawsuit. >> thank you. >> justice sotomayor? >> i presume that any other lawsuit based on common law torts, emotional affliction of harm, breach of contract, medical malpractice, whatever else was available would still be available to that woman? >> if there is a common law tort lawsuit, that is not an sb-8 lawsuit, yes. >> common law. >> yes. >> justice kagan? >> mr. hearron, if you could turn technical for a minute, should one of your arguments prevail or another argument in support of your position prevail, doesn't matter exactly which argument it is to me, what exact relief are you requesting? >> we are requesting an injunction -- so we have a pending class certification motion for a defendant class against the clerks. so we would be requesting an injunction against the commencement or the docketing of lawsuits against the clerks -- across the state of texas, as well as injunctive relief against the state executive officials for their riddle authority to enforce sb-8. >> i mean, suppose, i think, i mean, tell me if i'm wrong

justice sona sotomayor questioned the general on that point justice elana kagan followed up on it. and i pulled this piece of the elena kagan back and forth with the texas solicitor general because i think it is instructive. i think it is almost explanatory to hear justice kagan become exasperated by this line of argument. she has to basically backup after she tries to move on and say, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. where--did you just think what i think you said? is that really what you are saying? litsen. >> i guess i just would like to take you back to the other case and to ask you to answer the question that you said you wanted to avoid for justice sotomayor. >> i am sorry your honor, i thought i agreed that it doesn't depend on the nature of the right being asserted and that also that we should sort of raise the potential section as high as possible and that wouldn't affect federal court availability. i'm sorry i thought i'd answer that very clearly. >> okay, thank you. >> the other dimension in which the united states is asking for an extraordinary power is the nat

>> the clerk should reject the filing of that lawsuit. >> thank you. >> justice sotomayor? >> i presume that any other lawsuit based on common-law torts, emotional affliction of harm, breach of contract, medical malpractice, whatever else was available would still be available to that woman? >> if there is a common-law tort lawsuit that is not an s.b.-8 lawsuit, yes. >> contract or otherwise, or contract. >> yes. >> thank you. >> justice kagan? >> mr. hearron, if i could turn technical for a minute. should one of your arguments prevailed or another argument in support of your position prevail, doesn't matter exact which argument it is to me, what exact relief are you requesting? >> we are requesting an injunction -- so we have a pending class certification for defendant class against the clerk so will be requesting an injunction against the commencement, or the docketing of lawsuits against the clerks across the state of texas as well as injunctive relief against the executive officials for the residual authority to enforce s.b.-8. >> i mean, suppose i think, tell me if i'm

justice sotomayor.an. >> you started a thought and then you were taken off someplace else, so i wanted to allow you to finish the thought. what you said was there was a reason why this sensitive place regime cannot serve as a replacement and then you were not given the opportunity to say why. >> essentially because there are -- it would be very hard in the first instance and i think also not very acceptable to my adversaries on the second instance to specify in advance all the places that ought properly to be understood as sensitive so it sounds like a very convenient alternative but we were talking about times square on new year's eve. when the district met, when commerce is in full swing, times square almost every night is shoulder to shoulder people. so then you end up having a difficulty in specifying what all the places are that have the characteristics that make them sensitive. it has an interactive policy but the implementation i think would be unsuccessful. >> justice gorsuch. justice cavanaugh?

. >> how could this possibly be is basically what justice sonia sotomayor said in her dissent when thisent up to the supreme court. we all remember they did nothing for 24 hours this was challenged, and then they said, you know what, this is just so procedurally complicated we're going to have to let thegs law stay in effect while we kind of sort it out. but you can bring other challenges to us. now, let's remember this is another challenge now. it's the department of justice and abortion providers saying we're coming back up with a new question. can we sue? and who can we sue? but to your question of how can this happen, let's imagine that you hurt your ankle, you go to a doctor and your doctor says, god, that's a bad break i'm really not sure, walk on it for a few more weeks and then come back to me. and maybe come back to me and i'll have a better sense when you're more injured what to do. that's essentially what the supreme court did here. >> yeah, that's a good analogy. many thanks to jeksssica levins joining us there and explaining it to us. appreciate it. >> thank you. >>> coming

we remembered in that person's files were some files on justice sotomayor herself. this not only reflects the coarsening of our political violence, but will have consequences on the ground. >> robert, we're going to put up a bit of writing from "the wall street journal." it has to do with some of the political threats made today on the floor of the house of representatives. if we have that quote, there it is. democrats' actions threaten to set off a new round of escalating partisan punishment any time the majority changes hands. that's a direct pull quote from congressman cole, republican of oklahoma. cole backed sending the case to the ethics committee, and said it should be his own party leadership that decides what should happen to mr. gosar. though we have seen the lack of reaction from mr. mccarthy. how much is payback, retribution, going to be the coin of the realm, if control of this house flips during the midterms? >> there is certainly concern among democrats on capitol hill that there will be some kind of retribution in 2023, should republicans win the hou

you are, as we noted, you were a law clerk for supreme court justice sonia sotomayor. how much does popular opinion, how much does an opinion poll like that play in the deliberations of the justices, or does public opinion not factor in at all? >> well, the justices deliberate in a black box. no one admitted to their conferences but the other justices. so no one actually knows what happens there. i think we all do know that the justices are susceptible to public opinion. they have to be because the court relies on its own legitimacy with the public in order to ensure that its decisions are on course. it is not like congress, not like the president, it cannot raise an army, it cannot withhold funds, all it has to make us obey with the decisions is its own legitimacy. they were not partisan, they were not partisan hacks. what they did was above board. for the first time in as long as there has been polling, the supreme court's polling numbers were abysmally low and many people saw that as the public response to what happened in the texas sb-8 case. >> melissa murray, eve

we had gone into that person's, file and there were some fouls from justin sotomayor herself. so these not only reflect the courts name of our discourse, but in a way that will have real life consequences, and very violent consequences on the ground. >> robert costa, we are going to put up a bit of writing from the wall street journal, and it has to do before some of the threats that were made today. political threats that were made on the floor of the house of representatives if we have that, quote let's put it on the street, perhaps we do, -- there it is. >> democrats actions threaten to set off a new round of escalating partisan punishment anytime the majority changes hands, that's a direct pull quote from congressman coal of oklahoma, so the question for you, cole back sending the case to the ethics committee and said it should be his own party leadership that decides what should happen to mr. gosar. we certainly have seen the lack of reaction from mr. mccarthy. how much is payback? retribution? going to be the coin of the realm if control of this house flips during the mi

response to having to cram narrowing construction of this broad text and the second and justice sotomayord early on in their view and i think mr. kneedler agreed with this they didn't dismissin the 1810 claims on the state secrets privilege so alito asked about structural questions in the structural argument in our favor is extraordinarily strong. they wanty they want to dismiss on state secrets they can dismiss it using the same attorney general declaration. those are our two arguments strongest arguments for the request to obtainat part of the argument. obviously the youth argument is different and if we win and that we don't have to get into that. >> thank you. >> at technical argument about the use provision. he is provision requires the government to give notice that it is going to use the information and that makes sense when the government wants to introduce it at a trial so he gives notice that he is going to use at trial and that allows the other party to move to suppress the evidence but what sense does it make to require prior notice when what the government is going to do is t

is that the impact, and i think this is where justice kagan was fairly strong as well as justice sotomayort that normally you don't have the opportunity to see the impact of a law so clearly, and in effect, what we've seen over the last two months is the extremity of this bizarre law and the way it's been taken up and the chilling effect it has had on texans, as well as on providers in many states as well. >> well, we're obviously watching it very closely. alexis mcgill johnson, thank you for your time. >> thank you for having me, alisyn. >>> cnn correspondent turns her own tragic loss into a story of faith and hope, up next, our colleague rene marsh joins us to talk about her new book dedicated to her late son blake. in 2016, i was working at the amazon warehouse when my brother passed away. and a couple of years later, my mother passed away. after taking care of them, i knew that i really wanted to become a nurse. amazon helped me with training and tuition. today, i'm a medical assistant and i'm studying to become a registered nurse. in filipino: you'll always be in my heart. as someone

"the washington post," marianna sotomayor. >>> we turn now to the investigation of a deadly crowd surgea music festival of travis scott. eight people incluing a young boy died. nbc news correspondent morgan chesky has the latest from houston. >> reporter: from packed concert to pandemonium, the fba now joining a massive investigation into how travis scott's astroworld concert turned deadly. the youngest, just 14 years old. all caught in a sea of nearly 50,000 fans pushing toward scott. >> you couldn't breathe. i'm talking about everybody was so crushed up on you. >> reporter: the crowd surge so crushing witnesses say it knocked fans unconscious before being trampled. >> everyone was pushed to the front. you had no room to walk. >> reporter: some so desperate they climbed onto the stage shouting for help. >> we need some help. somebody passed out right here. >> reporter: despite several pauses, authorities worked to shut the show down for 45 minutes before it ended, scott and others criticized for not stopping sooner. crews rushed 25 people to hospitals. at the scene, hundreds overwhelme

npr arabia rasco and cnn's jeremy diamond and marianna sotomayor. the president is mott going to change his schedule. don't panic. let's learn about this as we go forward, but the president had relatively modest travel restrictions and says let's learn more. he was pretty adamant. we're not going back to lockdowns or the early covid restrictions. >> yeah. i think that at this point he's also just bowing to the reality of where the country is. like, yes, he can use his bully pulpit to try to get states to say maybe you can do more mask mandates but people in this country are very tired in the second pandemic year and people will not go along with all of this and what we've seen with the coronavirus is you can tell people what you want them to do, but can you not make people get vaccinated. you can try but you can't make them wear masks and when people push back there are health implications for everyone. >> to that point, i want to show our viewers on the screen. this is the vaccination map of the united states. 55 million americans over the age of 1

justice sonia sotomayor, pressed the attorney arguing for the gun group, on which history was relevant, at least four if not five states restricted on concealed arms. after the civil war, there were many, many more such states, some included in their constitution that you can have a right to arms but not concealed. i don't know how to get past that history. without you sort of making it up, saying there's a right to control states that has never been exercised in the entire history of the united states as to how far they can go in saying this poses a danger. reporter: chief justice john roberts asked one of the attorneys arguing in support of the new york law why someone should have to show a special need to exercise a constitutional right. >> so why do you have to show in this case, convince somebody that you're entitled to exercise your second amendment right? you can say the right is limited in a particular way, just as first amendment rights are the idea that you need a license limited. to exercise the right i think is unusual in the context of the bill of rights. >> that showed on

there might be -- there may be two liberal justices on the court, maybe justice kagan, justice sotomayor. chief justice roberts is a conservative on the court. justice thomas is not a conservative. he is a right wing justice. he's trying to move the court. and what i'll give him is that he owns up to it. he's constantly writing about this, we need to say what we're doing. justice thomas owns up to what he's trying to do. i want to overturn the precedent. or he says, the court just overturned a precedent and acted like it didn't. he's speaking with i think an honesty that i wish the others would, because it's not a matter of conservativism, that's not conservative, that's the opposite of conservative. if you're trying to move the court, just say i'm trying to move the court because i think that's wrong. justice thomas, whether one agrees or disagrees with his positions, is very clear when he's trying to move the court, he doesn't try to hide it and say, no, it's not a conservative position, i want to move this because i believe this was wrongly decided. and i think that honesty i think is

and justices kagan and sotomayor were playing off them very effectively.a pair of decisions not about abortion as such but about whether states can evade federal rights by setting up structures in which you basically extinguish those rights before you can defend them. and i think that is the way to win the case, and i do think that the suit brought by the center for reproductive justice on behalf of whole women's health, planned parenthood, and other private providers is going to win either 6-3 or conceivably, 7-2. now, the suit brought by the united states is probably not going to win but it made a big difference. it helped. >> i mean, it's very interesting. i mean, hearing him make the point, right, that you could use this to infringe on second amendment rights or freedom of religion but it is just interesting, again, in all the commentary we have heard about how these justices were going to go, it's just not that we have seen, thus far. it's not what we appear to be seeing here. but as you point out, professor, the argument that's being made here it see

justice sotomayor pointed out in her dissent, she said this is an opinion that was previously only heldy one person. justice thomas. now, the majority of my colleagues agree with it. it probably took a moment of restraint for the justice to just take a bow. [laughter] she specifically noted this change in the views of the majority of the court in response to the justice's decade-long position. a related example is in campaign-finance, more generally, buckley versus vallejo, has been on the justice's archenemy's list for a long time. since 1996, he has called for the court to overrule buckley because he does not see any difference for constitutional purpose between contributions and expenditures. the court has not overrule buckley, but there has been a string of cases where the court has been undermining a number of rationales for that decision. within that realm, he has called specifically for the court to overrule austin, a 1990 case where the court had allowed for the idea that corporations and unions can spend more money and expenditures, that that is a type of corruption that can be

joining me to talk about this, justice correspondent pete williams, a clerk to judge sotomayor, now an nyu law professor, and joyce vance, a former u.s. attorney. great to have you all here. pete, what are the possible outcomes here? i keep hearing there's no middle ground. >> people say there's no middle ground for this reason. the court starting with roe and many other decisions about abortion has said before viability, before the fetus can exist outside the womb, a state can restrict abortion but not ban it. viability is generally thought to be 24 weeks. along comes mississippi and says we want to ban it after 15 weeks. if the supreme court says yes, we agree with mississippi, that would seem to undercut the central holding of the decisions which is no, states can't ban before viability. now, one of the fallbacks or one of the compromises that mississippi is suggesting here is okay, you don't have to overturn roe they say. just say that restricting abortion or banning abortion after 15 weeks does not unduly burden the right of access to abortion. what the state says is something lik

. >> and it was fascinating to hear justice sotomayor bring up 1789. how unusual this law that they're seeing is, and when you look at this historic context of it, i mean, if it's unusual to that degree, it seems difficult that they would go with it. >> indeed. i agree that texas is really on its back foot, and i want to come back to justice kagen's first question, because i think it really tells you what a tenuous position texas finds itself in as we pivot to the next argument. because texas went on and on here to say that what the abortion provider did, suing the state judges and state clerks in federal courts was improper. the justice said well, then, what does that mean for the next case? she asked about if they can't get relief here, can the petitioners get relief in the next case. and the next question is well, if abortion providers can't bring a lawsuit, then what can the u.s. government do about it? they have come in and said we'll stand up for the vindication of these constitution noolal rights. it's the first time the united states has ever b

in the words of justice sotomayor, it has worked and the laws in effect. for two months, abortion providers in texas have been unable to provide care to scores of patients who desperately needed. because texans seeking to exercise the constitutional right to abortion must now travel out of the state to do so, the burdens imposed by sb 8 are tremendous, but the greatest harm has fallen and will continue to fall on the most marginalized people in texas. indeed, for the poorest people in texas, these burdens are insurmountable. crucially, because there is a close relationship between economic status and raise, with lack people disproportionately living in poverty, burdens for poor people constitute dens for black people. the result is disproportionate numbers of black people will be among those coerced to continue pregnancies, have children against their will, and seek unsafe methods of abortion, or risk exposure to criminal prostitute -- criminal prosecution. black people receive abortions at higher rates than counterparts in other races, this is true becaus