supreme court. that issue whether the fifth circuit are properly applied first amendment doctrine whether online age verification imposes a burden to adult constitutionally protected speech. >> will hear argument this morning case 231122 free speech coalition versus paxton. mr. schaeffer. >> thank you mr. chief justice and may please the court. in this case the fifth circuit majority held that mere rational basis review, the most lax form of judicial scrutiny, plies her texas law that burdens constitutionally protected speech based on its content. specifically, by imposing an age verification bear before anyone can access a sexually themed website. that advert holding defies this court's consistent precedent, good ashcroft decision as judge higginbotham will expend his dissent. this court should begin by confirming a strict scrutiny apply to adult users. notably texas laws even more problematic than its failed federal precedent predecessors put in a place or entire websites depending on whether one

i welcome court questions.ustice thomas: would you articulate for us what you think strict court and the court of appeals held? ms. pettit i think the point your honor to footnote two the fifth circuit that created risk weren'ts relevant under the fifth circuit test, the argument the petitioner was pursuing at that time. to justiceotayor's queson earlier the statements she's referring to have to be read in light of those arguments because it is what the fifth circuit was rejecting when it set up our wereevant. judge jackson: sorry. you are saying the statements the fifth circuit made in its opinion regardat it's holding was have to be read in light of the arguments that were before it? ms. pettit: elieve that is what they are referring to when they say t the actions you are talking about are relevan judge jackson: what is a judge "i write separately to express my concern with the circuit nt of threat doctrine" but does not define it the way you have. he say doctrine counters at the supreme court instructions to

so you have this wide dispersal of political power. like the moment in 2023 when a court, a high courtn gujarat, essentially upheld a conviction of opposition stand for re—election. for political purposes. you're looking at. of a trial court in india, but thatjudgment of you are talking about could resume his activities in parliament. sure, it's a suspension of the decision, but and it's in a sense a symptom of something much wider that of narendra modi's party. as correct as statistics. in the supreme court. the supreme court disposed of 21,300 bail applications. it's in the us, it's australia or india, there's a legal process which is to be followed. as to whether a court correctly decided a particular case or didn't correctly decide a particular case. kashmir. now that had been put in place at the very inception to abrogate article 370. because they felt that you had failed to uphold or critiquing theirjudgments. caveat, which is this — that article 370 of the constitution, when it was introduced was part of a chapter which is titled transitional arrangements. 0r transitional provis

and that could freeze the court. now there is an answer, don't you to that's the hurricane union hasn't acted what's called the blocking statute. and it theoretically put, put in place on banking measures that would insure it or put it to give the court and it's personnel. it's gonna have to move quickly, but that i think it's the answer. everybody has seen this coming and hopefully they're bigger. they will be ready to move so that the court can continue to do what's important business with him. the other concern his that trouble this executive order talks not only about sanctioning the staff members of the i, c c, but also people who work with the i c. c in, in the investigation. how significant is that? well, i mean, i think that's a huge, broad because it's not uh, limited to of to those who are most responsible for conducting the out the, the trial or an enforcement of the wrong statute. it is so broad that it concerns almost anyone who works at the court. a good concern of possibly international human rights or

i welcome court questions. justice thomas: would you articulate for us what you think the district court and the court of appeals held? ms. pettit: ihink the district court held, and i would point yoor to footnote two under the fifth circuit president that prior actions that created risk weren't re under the fifth circuit test, the argument the petitioner wasursuing at that time. to justice sotomayor's questions earlier the statements she's referring to have to be read in t of those arguments because it i what the circuit was rejecting when it set up our judge jackson: sorry. youaying the statements the circuit made in its opinion regarding what it' holding was have to be read in light of the arguments that were before it? ms. pettit: i believe that is what they are referring to when they say that the a you are talking about are relevant. judge jackson: what is a judge higginbotham same when he says "i writeately to express my concern with the circuit moment of thretrine" but does not define it the way y have.

but president trump lost a lot of the cases brought in court that the court was not a rubber stamp and i think that's important to say. host: i was going to ask you to elaborate the role the courts have about crossing a line that the viewer brought up, can you elaborate more on where you see the courts going even in these first tranche of executive orders. guest: to the extent that somehow teed up control the department of justice. i'm not quite sure how that would arise. what i was trying to get across is the supreme court has kind of given trump whether he knows it or not, a green light to challenge the independence of these agencies i was talking about. as well as even possibly undermining the civil service and it is unclear just how far the court would let trump go and you can read the decisions that i just mentioned in a limited way that they're not interested in destroying the whole structure of independent agencies, but i think we have to face the fact that the roberts court gave a green light, sort of opened the door and president trump is walking through it. it's not to say he

for quite a wild, conservative legal thinkers, justice scalia on the court, and other people on the court have been pushing the idea the president should be in sole control of the executive branch, so when i talk about removals, you need to think power over the executive branch, president versus congress. it can seem like a technical issue of who gets to fire whom, but the real issue, the underlying issue is control and power, direct power over the executive branch. and so those decisions had to do with extending the reach of presidential authority to fire. for example, until the cell law decision, you could not remove the head of the consumer finance protection board. both president trump and president biden availed themselves of this power to dismiss. president just did it again, but there are broader issues, broader issues having to do with so-called independent regulatory agencies that congress designed to be somewhat independent of presidential power, and also a huge issue, control over civil service employees. those are really big issues, and i am not sure they have been discussed t

it's not only the courts.l report on the other key check on powers, how this has worked historically, the playbook that can work against trump, the republican elements in it that are actually a problem for this party, and why problem for this party, and why some (♪♪) some people just know they could save hundreds on car insurance by checking allstate first. duke versus unc. what a storied rivalry? like you know to check your outfit first before meeting your girlfriend's family. that's a tough one to recover from steve. the disappointment on their faces says it all. uh-uh. yeah, checking first is smart. yeah. so check allstate first for a quote that could save you hundreds. you're in good hands with allstate. have you always had trouble with your weight? same. discover the power of wegovy®. with wegovy®, i lost 35 pounds. and some lost over 46 pounds. and i'm keeping the weight off. i'm reducing my risk. wegovy® is the only weight-management medicine proven to reduce risk of major cardiovascular events such as

peter: in your court, u.s. district court of eastern district of new york is known as the mafia court. why is that? judge block: because, you know, we have jurisdiction over most of these cases. most of these folks were sort of born and raised in howard beach, part of queens, part of the eastern district of new york district -- distribution and a lot of them live in staten island and the murders and criminal activities came about in brooklyn, mostly, in the eastern district of new york and i think the bodies were buried here so we have jurisdiction over most of the mafia cases because of their connection they have to their residences and living patterns in the eastern district of new york, which consists of brooklyn, staten island, queens, and two long island counties suffolk and nassau county. so it's divided into 94 districts and it is basically a population oriented dynamic. in new york we have four of the 96 district court's. we have the eastern district, which i just mentioned, the southern district is man

the courts can't do that. the truth is that the divorce courts, the custody courts, are an absolute mess right now and routinely children are being given to abusive fathers through the demonization of mothers. it is something happening across the entire united states. children are continuing to be abused. i don't have a whole lot of faith in the family court system right now. but with respect to legislation, it gives me hope because it is almost always bipartisan. they really are focusing on children and trying to do something meaningful. i expect that in the coming administration. >> elizabeth? >> i largely agree the legislature ought to be the place where these conversations happen in a robust way. it might be why the court including the supreme court has not definitively decided all of this for us, because it is not the best suited to do that. the only other thing i would add beyond what has already been said is i think conservatives and perhaps libertarians have abandoned many of these institutions, whethe

from apolitical body. breach of courts own the breach of the courts own founding statute and actingown jurisdiction is the first. the court secondly, the court has breached its own rules. the rule of whereby rule of complementarity whereby jurisdictions are domesticjurisdictions are given this is a court given priority. this is a court thatis given priority. this is a court that is meant to complement existing state jurisdictions and only follow—up where estate ml mum unwillin or unable to full and prosecute investigateand prosecute in a allegations. there is credible allegations. there is no suggestion that is no suggestionthat lsrael is a of law and order, luke the rule oii lain where luke the rule of law is prized and the track prized and certainly the track record in pursuing criminals of sorts is well—established. all sorts is well—established. that breach of the rule of complementarity to apply for arrest warrants did even arrest warrants ascone did even the course of israel's in the course of israel's war against in the course of been "is... nigh.” - thzenigalready been multi

sanctions on staff at the international criminal court.by nearly 80 countries including some of washington's closest allies said the measures increase the risk of impunity for the most serious crimes. the united nations has called on mr. trump to reverse the order. in his statement, he criticized the icy seat for issuing the arrest -- icc for issuing the arrest warrant for benjamin netanyahu along with his former defense minister who is wanted for war crimes in gaza. speaking in washington alongside mike johnson, mr. netanyahu praised president trump decision. >> the american-israeli alliance has never been stronger. the week began with an extraordinary meeting with president trump and under his leadership the critical decisions that show his commitment and the american people's israel come to the fore instantly. the sanctions on the icy sea that threatens the right of all democracies to defend themselves. >> with us is a barrister who volunteers as the lawyers for israel charitable trust. welcome to the program. >> thank you, good to be w

~ ,,, . ,,, court case in birthright court case in boston.his is trying to stop besten. this is trying tg stag ,, , ,, , . . ,, w ”7 who are bestsn. this is trying ts stss ,, , ,, s . . w w sw who are born in bsstsn. this is trying ts stss ,, , ,, s . . w w sw who are born in the bsstsh. this is trying ts stss ,, , w 7 . . w w sw who are born in the us having us automaticall havinui ,. ., ,, s citizenship. exactly. this is a case that _ citizenship. exactly. this is a case that goes _ citizenship. exactly. this is a case that goes to _ citizenship. exactly. this is a case that goes to the - citizenship. exactly. this is a case that goes to the 14th i case that goes to the 14th amendment the us amendment sfthe'h�*e�*. ' amendment constitution. that amendment states that anyone born the constitution. that amendment states states yone born the constitution. that amendment states states and born the constitution. that amendment states states and subject the constitution. that amendment states states and subject to e united states and subject to t

we are happy that the courts are beginning to check this behavior, especially with the court order that. the attorneys general were able to were able to secure yesterday. with respect to treasury data. you had a meeting with the senate minority leader, chuck schumer, recently and he posted on x about the legal work that you all are doing to, quote unquote, protect the american people. what was the nature of this meeting? and will you be working directly with democrats on your legal challenges moving forward? you know, we're a nonpartisan organization and we invite anyone in this country, whether you're a conservative liberal, independent, whether you vote democrat, whether you vote republican, whether you. we hope you vote. but whether you don't vote, we invite everyone into our work, because this is really a moment that is not about one political party. it is not about one political perspective. it is about the country. it is about our people and our communities across the country. and it is about the future that this nation will have. and so we make ourselves available to brief lawmak

i will not only meet him in court, i will defeat him in court. and we have demonstrated that already three times in a matter of a couple of weeks. and so, to the extent mr. trump continues to violate the law, he can expect the democratic attorneys general will show up to defeat him in court and protect the rule of law, because that's all that matters in the context of our particular perspectives. >> now, that confidence i can understand might be well placed now that you're in the in the lower courts. but how how confident are you that as these cases bubble up through through the judicial system, that if some of these cases land before the supreme court, that you will still prevail, given the six three conservative supermajority? >> listen, we're not. oblivious to the reality that this court leans a bit more conservative and in fact, has been stacked by this current president. but we remain confident in the rule of law. in your opening monologue, you said, sir, the founding fathers would have something to say to you. i believe that the founding fa

they went to the supreme court, and the supreme court ruled in our favor against the trump administrationhether it's the birthright citizenship case or one of the other cases that we're bringing, we're going to make sure we defend our states, defend the rule of law. and if that means all the way to the supreme court, so be it. >> i mean, when you talk about the supreme court, it has changed since some of those other earlier cases you mentioned during the first trump administration. this is the same supreme court that gave president trump broad immunity when it comes to actions he takes in office. and we heard from the president vice president in an earlier segment today challenging the authority of the court. so just how confident are you that judges will look at these cases without fear or favor, especially given the reactions that are coming out now from the white house? >> the initial results that are in three cases we've brought making clear the law was violated. in three cases, judges have entered orders saying the law was violated. i remain a believer in the rule of law. i recognize

court's court harming the court's and impartiality independence and impartiality and depriving millionsope innocent victims of a atrc goes ofjustice and hope innocent victims of a atrc goes on justice and hope innocent victims of a atrc goes on to tice and hope innocent victims of a atrc goes on to say and hope innocent victims of a atrc goes on to say it 1d hope innocent victims of a atrc goes on to say it is hope innocent victims of a atrc goes on to say it is the e and goes on to say it is the latest in a of escalatory unprecedented and escalatory attacks aimed to the attacks aimed to undermine the ability to all: all; such justice in all situations, such threats and coercive threatsrand'ceerciue mess-see a threatsand'ceercive "easues a serious attack constitute a serious attack this court state party against this court state party is the rule of law based on the international of order and millions of victims. just part of that has just of the statement that has just been issued by the icc president. go live tojerusalem. we let's go live tojerusalem. we were listening to netanyahu ju

our courts going to fight back? going -- which has been far too acquiescent and what the president has been doing, going to push back? it is a redline we have never crossed, and when we have not crossed for good reason. geoff: on this matter of the president's unilateral efforts to reshape the federal government, jim jordan who chairs the house judiciary committee, he was 1 -- he was on one of the sunday shows. he defended the work of elon musk by making this argument that musk is a proxy of the executive branch. >> the constitution is clear. article two, section one, says the executive power shall be vested in a president of the united states of america. first sentence in the section about the executive order. it is the presidents, not a bureaucrat, is not some staff person or employee at the department of education. it is the president of the united states. the folks who work for that are federal employees carrying out the will of the executive branch leader. geoff: is that argument hold up? stephen: so far as it

i very agree with court twettzzjt’e—w; . ass. a a... .,. court *: courteiseess . ass. a a... .,. courtejsstiss similarlyg'the' ' ' ' ” ' ' ' in afghanistan. for taliban in afghanistan. for of —— the deaths during many of —— the deaths during conflict. half the the bosnian conflict. half the population in afghanistan are the bosnian conflict. half the popula basic afghanistan are the bosnian conflict. half the popula basic rights. |istan are the bosnian conflict. half the popula basic rights. thereare the bosnian conflict. half the popula basic rights. there were denied basic rights. there were also involved in condemning the behaviour of the people in �*which is to be w w new; towbew by �*which is to be by my in myanmar which is to be by my in its treatment of the rohingya muslims. have done a lot work but it does m wwlelw-i www- they will get it right. i repeat point they're made repeat that point they're made of a few months ago. i thought repeat that point they're made off rate months ago. i thought repeat that point they're made off rate in onths ago. i thought repeat that point th

. >> court rulings. stalling their government. >> overhaul, igniting a fresh debate over. >> judicial authority. >> and finds a new target for its ax. the consumer financial protection bureau. congresswoman rosa delauro is going to join us on efforts by democrats to stall the slash and burn. also ahead, trump's new talk of tariffs on aluminum and steel, with threats of more to come in an escalating trade war. and later, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. the grocery stores now setting buying limits amid an egg shortage. good monday morning. it's ten eastern, 7 a.m. pacific. i'm ana cabrera, reporting from new york. and this morning, president trump threatening new tariffs and targeting new agencies for the acts. the president announcing new tariffs on steel and aluminum as soon as today with more reciprocal tariffs sometime this week. this as trump's team targets a new federal agency for its slash and burn cuts. this time, it is the agency tasked with protecting the consumer you against

courts. major changes in the senate started happening, as you know, in late 2013. want to show our viewers, then, majority leader harry reid with his announcement on lowering the number of votes needed to advance lower court judicial nominees. and then we'll hear the reaction from then minority leader mitch mcconnell. the change we proposed today would ensure executive and judicial nominations. an up or down vote on confirmation? yes. no. the rule change will make cloture for all nominations other than the supreme court. a majority threshold vote yes or no. the senate is a living thing, and to survive, it must change as it has over the history of this great country. to the average american. adapting the rules to make the senate work again is just common sense. this is not about democrats. first, republicans. this is about making washington work regardless of who's in the white house or who controls the senate. to remain relevant and effective as an institution, the senate must evolve to meet

it's been the courts. i mean, you know, obviously senators and democrat and there are some who are but there's been disarray in the democratic party. certainly congress. there's a disarray question, chaos about what they can or even want to do about it, depending where they sit. the white house say, spinning the news of a setback on the resignations, mass resignations of federal employees, saying we're grateful to the judge for extending the deadline so that the, you know, people can take up this very generous, once in a lifetime offer. obviously, they put the deadline out because they wanted the deadline, so they're not happy about the deadline being extended. i mean, that's obviously spin. is it? >> it is. i mean, if they. >> wanted to extend. >> the deadline, they. >> could extend the deadline. >> so the part of the. >> problem with the program. >> is that it put enormous. >> pressure on the. >> workers to have to. decide within just over. >> a week the rest of their lives. >> and the. >> program is. >>

like good luck with the courts. and the courts are pushing back and saying this is. latest to say you actually have defied my court order. and that could be the first really big constitutional test of, you know, because the courts don't have an army, right? but we all know we should know internally there are checks and balances. and if there's a court order, you this is your option, obeying it and appealing it, you can appeal it. and if you can get it reversed, fine. but you have to obey it. the same motion is being made in d.c. before judge nichols with respect to usaid, with the same arguments being made that this administration is not complying with judge nichols order. if this continues, this is going to be a real constitutional showdown. and, you know, to ruth's point, i really don't think that the country voted for that. no, they're on the ballot, was not if there is a lawful order from a court, should you appeal it and you know, and is that your remedy or can you just is it a law of the jungle where you just decide yourself what the law is? remember, we do hav

international criminal court. according to donald trump, the international criminal court has engaged in... the icc accused both men of war crimes and crimes against humanity including murder, persecution and starvation. food, water and medicine. israel was outraged. the decision to issue an arrest warrant against me, the democratically elected prime minister of israel, and a former defence minister was made himself from sexual harassment charges and by biased judges the court's prosecutors also sought arrest warrants for three hamas leaders responsible for the savage attacks on october 7, 2023. but all three including the group's military chief have been killed during the war. this morning it condemned trump's executive order which it said would harm its independent and impartial judicial work. officials, its funding and even its it systems. during his first term as president, donald trump now he is redoubling his efforts, declaring war on the court in defence of israel. paul adams, bbc news. paul al fors, bbc ne

supreme court? >> everything we know. >> has seen. >> or. >> have reported on from all of these agencies and from what you just heard from karoline leavitt outside the white house and in her statement to jeff zeleny, says, yes, they are going to continue to push this. this is, in fact, not just a central element of their kind of opening weeks agenda, but it's also something they deeply believe in. when you talk to, particularly the conservatives that have been working on these types of proposals over the course of several years now, of course, accelerated by elon musk and his team and what they've been able to do in these agencies is to kind of go agency by agency, by agency. i think what's been fascinating and at times difficult to report on is when you talk to career officials, the amount of confusion combined with anxiety and kind of an unsettled approach to this moment. and it's not just because they feel like they're under attack or they don't feel like they're being respected, it's because the

circuit court of. appeals said, we're going to let the state court proceedings play. >> out. >> but we'll retain the power. >> to examine. >> whether what. >> happens in. >> the state courts. >> would violate federal law. or the federal constitution later. >> what that means for voters is this process. >> is going. >> to. >> be dragged out. it's not going to be over any. >> time soon. >> and i need. folks to understand that we can't stop paying. >> attention to this. we cannot get outraged, fatigued. the stakes are too high. >> this is an important, important point. and there is still work to be done here. this this thing may drag out, but it's not over. former attorney general holder ends his op ed like this. he says, quote, we have we all have an obligation to defend the founding principles of our nation, and the courts have a sacred responsibility to uphold voting rights. north carolinians and all americans should be watching closely to ensure justice is done here. four years after america survived

try— have to go to court in the us to try to— have to go to court in the us to try to do— have to gotry to do that and i think that is— to try to do that and i think that is morally— to try to do that and i think that is morally wrong. - ? n- :: no statement followin- has made no statement following the filing of the lawsuit but says searches for videos says searches foratideos . to are relating to the challenge are blocked. the wildly popular social media platform says it is reported to them. graham fraser, bbc news. european far—right leaders are gathering in madrid on friday and saturday under the banner "make europe great again" — a slogan inspired by us the organisers, the "patriots for europe" group, are aiming to disrupt the dominance of the conservatives and social democrats in the european parliament. has more details about the event — that make up the group feel that now is their moment, politically speaking. they feel that there's a certain amount of momentum own countries. in one case, for example, you have viktor orban, of strength to that end. and they're going to talk

, including a new court in concord. but still, the national backlog has continued to grow, and a 2023 congressional research service report found that even if 700 more judges were hired, roughly doubling the current number, it would still take ten years to clear all the cases. immigration courts are an independent. they're run by the department of justice. fujimoto says that makes them prone to constant rule changes depending on who's in power. i find it hard to believe that you could fix this without some type of legislation. otherwise, you just keep going back and forth. one party does this. here's my executive order. other party comes in and says, i'm canceling that. maria's attorney suggests dismissing cases for migrants without criminal records could help ease the backlog, an option federal prosecutors and judges had under all other recent presidents, except under trump's first term. so when you effectively tie the hands of prosecutors and you tie the hands of judges, what that causes is a traffic jam. we reached o

now, both sides plan to meet after court to go over the discovery. defense says they need months to go through it. a bit of tension in court this morning when chiles attorney told the judge that he was representing mayor sheng thao federal magistrate yvonne gonzalez rogers responded with former mayor chiles attorney seemed caught off guard. the judge then said, you said mayor. she's the former mayor. now, last month, sheng thao and her co-defendants did appear in federal court to plead not guilty to charges of bribery, conspiracy and mail and wire fraud. prosecutors allege that tao and her partner, andre jones, used her influence as mayor in a bribery scheme and with the dogs. now in court records, prosecutors have revealed text messages exchanged between andy dong and a coconspirator weeks ahead of the november mayoral election back in 2022, promising tao would buy 100 modular housing units from a company run by the dongs. the federal government alleges the duos funded a negative mailers campaign attacking tao's political rivals one week before that

the courts. >> yeah. and also congress. when congress writes laws with specific language, this court seems to give deference to that. elie honig, great to see you this morning. congratulations on your big win. i know you played hard. >> thank you. the eagles you can't hate him because ellie is an eagle. anyway, think of it as a big real estate site. that's what president trump is now saying about gaza as he doubles down on america taking it over, eyes in the sky. cnn has learned the u.s. has stepped up the use of spy planes at the southern border. what it is they are after there, and winter alerts for 29 people, 29 million people across the country as storms after storm after storm hits over the next several days. what to expect ahead. >> i've got good news and i've got bad news. what do you want? first the bad, the news is newsy even more than ever. >> what's the good news? >> we're doing another season of have i got news for you. >> have i got news for you returns saturday at 9:00 on cnn. >> so i got yo

if the courts are captured it's more difficult to do something through the courts, for example.it's useful to prevent these efforts from early stages from institutional -- [inaudible] >> thank you. we have time for questions, comments from the audience. so please feel free. okay. we will move a microphone here to the center in front if you could come forward to ask your questions, please. >> and if you wouldn't mind, , interdigital. >> brian wells, university of tampa. as i was come for so i push it were taught by -- get bogged down. i would like to ask the question by putting the dimension of time into this. so just thinking about democratization. in between each of those ways with two troughs of -- others were in a third wave of democratization now. there are differences in these ways of autocracies asian. for example, there was mechanism and now it seems to be erosion of rule of law. are there any similarities in these ways of autocracy that we can draw from lessons from? in the other two ways we have met him to find a way back to democracy. >> who wants to take that went on?

federal courts to decide. injunctions — from the bottom tier of three levels american 'udiciary, americanjudiciary, the of the american judiciary, the next will be applet next will be the applet or circuit and a lot of circuit courts, and a lot of these are likely to be a mm mum delicate end up at the spring court. itjust to take a step back, senator murphy does have at least some that it's at least some point that it's been a long time since a person who doesn't have any official — actually, scratch fsls s sstesllss =ttstth that; elon fsts s sstestlst =ttstth that; elon is tats s aataatls; =ttatth that; elon is now part i think elon musk is now part the united states digital of the united states digital service, which is a small “mes ehshtea =~'a" so of — effice. se that's sentent ef — been long effice, se that's sentent ef — been long time since bet—it's heen a lens tirne sinse who bet—it's heen a lens titne sinse who no bet—it's been a lens titne sinse who no one voted for 77 "$357th " 7 w w w wdinnw'tgthhr

evade a court order. now what the hell do you do? on the communications front, we've all been active trying to point out that this is a chaos and corruption scheme that is driven by a little packet of right-wing billionaires. creepy right-wing billionaires who have been at this for a long time. we are behind the scheme to capture the court. we are behind the climate denial operation. if that begins to sink in and people begin to understand who is behind this, who is doing this to them ultimately, that's a very powerful shift in narrative and public perception. we do have oversight capabilities. some republicans are willing to support us in our oversight. continuing to do that. i think we raised a lot of good health around cash patel for instance and helped bring to light a lot of the rather evil stuff that he has done. so there's multiple fronts we are going forward on. again, when you consider the sudden shock of the trump executive order blitzkrieg, the fighting back has actually been under the circumst

we won district courts. the appellate courts found in our favor. the reality is, sananctuary laws are about public safety. we need to make sure that communities trust law enforcement. that is going to make it more likely that victims and witnesses of crime are going to come forward, that we're going to get criminals off the streets, make everyone safer. what donald trump is doing is eroding trust in law enforcement. he often likes to spread lies that sanctuary cities harbor criminals. that is absolutely false. the federal government knows every inmate in our city. they have fingerprints. if they have a legal reason to arrest someone, they can just simply bring a criminal warrant or court order. the purpose of our sanctuary laws is not to interfere with lawful federal immigration enforcement, but immigration enforcement is the responsibility of federal government, not state or local government. we can't be forced to prioritize our scarce local resources to have our police officers deputized as ice agents. david, let's just go through this. if the tr

international criminal court. according to donald trump, the international criminal court has engaged in... against humanity including murder, persecution and starvation. food, water and medicine. israel was outraged. the democratically elected prime minister warrants for three hamas leaders responsible which it said would harm its independent and impartial judicial work. could have serious consequences on court officials, its funding and even its it systems. allegations of war crimes committed by us troops in afghanistan. on the court in defence of israel. zachary gave us his reaction to donald trump issuing these sanctions on the icc. the international criminal court. and you say it was expected. the icc have ended up paying salaries and the hamas leader. leaders and israeli leaders were issued at the same time. there's no actual equivalence at the moment, given that the three palestinians who were in terms of the impact of the sanctions, it's too early to know exactly what the practical impact could affect the

. >> courts tonight. judges tonight hitting pause on trump's buyout offer to 2 million federal workers. trump facing major reality and legality checks on his agenda. also breaking one of musk's doge deputies is out abruptly resigning after being confronted with his racist posts, according to the wall street journal. kara swisher and katie drummond, two reporters known for covering musk's extensively, are outfront tonight, together with their latest breaking reporting and the senate voting this hour on the man some are calling trump's most dangerous nominee and author of project 2025 now about to be in charge of all the money, the budget chief. let's go out front and good evening. i'm erin burnett. outfront tonight, the breaking news rejected by the court. so trump's sweeping plans to dismantle the federal government did hit a major snag late today, two courts actually shutting trump down. for now. i'll go through it here. the first hit came after musk's massive buyout offer to federal employees, which he

they take it up to the supreme court. but if the supreme court of the united states says you have to do this, historically, at. least united. >> states presidents. >> have complied. >> i mean. >> to that point, you can go to the appellate process. tom, you know this well, i would also wonder if the president. can mandate you saw the speaker saying, we want to codify some of these changes. tom. >> could the president mandate. >> some of his cabinet secretaries. >> to attempt to. >> do what doge is. >> doing. by finding ways, making some of those cuts within some of those agencies and not having some of this. outside ancillary group doing. >> some. >> of. those efforts. yeah. look, i mean, the president certainly can direct people in the agencies. >> to carry out his agenda. there's no problem. that's how our system works. >> but at some point, i think the. >> courts are. >> probably going to step in. i mean, we've already seen democratic attorney generals and everyone and their brother filing lawsuits, litigating. trying t