justice alito: what about revocation of an occupational license for someone whose livelihood depends on pursuing that license, pursuing that cupation? someone has worked as 30 years as a barber andet say that the district of columbiaks the license to operate a barbershop? lauren: i think if there was a stuty silence on that that a higher standard of proof be necessary to carry out the statutory scheme ue. the fsla is such a unique statute in terms of its breadth and statement of purpose and remedial nure it's nonwaivali. justice alito: if you want the justice pament to decide if things are particularly important, we wod need a methodology to determine if something is partic important. lauren: yes, your honor. i think that's right. i think this court can adhere to the standardhait has developed in previ cases, and have derned that a right is particularly important where it implicates not just individual ry damages. stice roberts: it's the same point justice alito is talking about, the clean wer act, the necessary of purpose is there, to preserve life and everything else. if you're sui

i agree with that, justice alito. justice alito: so it's not an immutable characteristic, is it? mr. strangio: well, i in of it shifts, but the evidence- shows that there ieast a strong underlying basis. and i think the normative reason for that parti consideration is whether or not this is somethat someone should or could change and whether they should have to change it in order to receive tutional protections, and i think transgender status squarely fits within that. said that having a disability is not a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, so if we were to agree withoun the question of quasi-suspect classification, how coulustify saying, for exampl tt a person who is schizophrenic does not fall a category that -- that -- that is not a law that -- that distinguishes on that ground is not a suspect classification? and i'm not suggesting that gendphoria is a disease, a mental illness. i'm not suggesting that at i'm just saying, how could we juify the different treatment? mr. strangio: i think that -- justice alito: it' it's there isn't any cure for it. there's been severe di

justice alito: how wld we go about doing that? sait the determination of welfare benefits, is that less important than this? lauren: certainly not but one operative question is whether ose rights are waivable by the individual andecse they're not waivablee fsla context, it's an indicator that there is a broader remedial scheme at issue than individual monetary damages. ste alito: what about revocation of occupational licens for someone whose livelihood depends on pursuing that license, pursuing that occupation? someone has worked as 30 years as a barber and let's say that the district of columbia yanks the license to operate a barbershop? uren: i think if there was a statutory silence on that matter,s far as i can see would be reason to believe that a h standard of proof would be necessa to carry out the statutory scheme at issue. the fsla isa unique statute in terms of its breadth and statement of purpose and remedial nature it's nonwaivability. justice alito: if you wa t justice department to dede if things are particularly impo

justice alito? justice alito: this harmless error review -- is harmless error review confined to administrative record in the case at hand? mr. gannon: i don't think in this instance -- i think you would need tuaten the basis of what you know ahe agen i think you can take notice of all the public things that fda haady done. we are primarily pointing things fda had de before iengaged in these marketing denial orders. but we know that subseque orders apply to the same concern thathese youth marketing restrictions weren't independently suffito reduce the risk to youth posed by fd e-garettes in order to say you don't need to thextra benefit on the adult side of the equation in order to have a net population benefit. justice alito: a big part of your harmless error argument is based on ter that the fda issued after the order in this casehe logicology development case. is that proper to look to an order that came after the order in this case to determine whether the error -- mr. gannon: i think in this in

justice alito: do you think that's clearly established? do you think there's reason for disagreement about that? mr. strangio: i do -- i do think it is clearly established in the science and in -- in the record. i think, as ll underlying questions of looking at evidence, there can be disagreement. i don't dispute that. here, and -- and sort of going back to questions about the eview, for example, e cass review only looked at studies up until 2022. after -- justice alito: well, i don't regard the cass review as -- necessarily as -- as the bible or as something that's, you know, true in every respect, but, on page 195 of the cass report, it says: there is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide. mr. strangio: what i think that is referring to is there is no evidenceme -- in the studies that this treatment reduceleted suicide. and the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully admittedly, is rare and we're talking about a vall population of individuals with studies that don't arily have completed suicides within th

the fact that the judge was reprimanded while justice alito wasn't at all, calling out justice alitouch of that right now. just a couple of weeks ago at a federalist society conference, a fifth circuit judge, edith jones called out a law professor who was noted the practice of individuals filing cases in a particular district in texas where they know that they will get judge matthew csmaryk and that judge is favorable to conservative arguments and causes, she called him out, had tweets that he had written. all sorts of things. and basically said that he was the one that was assaulting the judiciary by simply raising questions about the way that these judges do their work. it cannot be the case in a democracy that these individuals are completely above the law and above criticism, but that is exactly where we're going, and it's a dangerous place to be. >> melissa murray and gabe roth, thank you both so much for helping us break this down. >>> after the break, a full circle moment for president biden as he commutes the death sentence for inmates facing execution, thanks in part to a la

hence alito's decision to fly flags favored by insurrectionist outside two of his homes. ponds or criticized that move in a new york times opinion essay earlier this year that was entitled, a federal judge wonders, how could alito have been so foolish. to be clear, it is an ethics violation to question the ethics of a supreme court justice. but the ethical behavior at issue, at the center of all of this, is flying of political flags outside the health of a supreme court justice, no violations there. this is all coming at a time when public confidence in the american legal system has sunk so low that a new gallup pole puts it in the company of nations like burma, also known as myanmar, syria, and venezuela. joining me now is marco stern, senior writer i know you have thoughts on this. i myself had a few when i read the judge he was questioning alito's ethics is the guy that had to apologize. how does this work, mark? how does this work? tell me how this works. >> it's almost too absurd to believe, but there is a code of conduct that strictly governs the rules for federal j

alito and thomas have denied any wrongdoing. cnn reporter brian abel has more. >> victor m.j., the blistering nearly 100 page senate judiciary committee report accuses conservative justices clarence thomas and samuel alito of violating federal disclosure laws by failing to disclose lavish trips and gifts paid for by wealthy people with business in front of the court. then allegedly improperly using the personal hospitality exemption to defend themselves. now, this report highlights the months long investigation by the staff of senator dick durbin, an illinois democrat and chairman of the committee. many of the luxury trips, private flights and other gifts in question have been publicly known for months. but this report provides more detail. some of that detail comes from information gained by subpoenas of some of the wealthy donors of the gifts. now, one of those trips, according to the report, was a 2008 alaskan fishing expedition taken by justice alito, where the report puts the private flight alone at a value of nearly $24,00

how could alito have been so foolish?clear, it is an ethics violation to question the ethics of a supreme court justice. but the ethical behavior at issue at the center of all of this, the flying of political flags outside the house of a supreme court justice? no violations there. this is all come at a time with public confidence has sunk so low that a new poll puts it in the company of places like burma, syria, and venezuela. joining me now is mark joseph stern. i know you have thoughts on this. i myself had a few. how does this work, mark? how does this work? tell me how this works? >> it is almost too absurd to believe. but there is a code of conduct that strictly governs the rules for federal judges in this country. but it only covers lower court judges. it does not cover the justices themselves. the justices have exempted themselves from that code. the code they have written which is much more lenient is entirely unenforceable and voluntary. so lower court judges who have far less power and prestige and public image

>>s i, of course, acknowledge justice alito there was uta lotx acdebate here and abroad about properodel of this care and exactly when should receive itit and identify the adolescents who it would be helpful. thei stand by there is a conses these treatments can be medically necessary for some adolescents. >> laura: this ios paul's, there isis s no consensus, impat going back to justice alito there is evidence to back up puberty blockers improve mental health. the consensus review of gender services by the doctor innt england is telling. her report found a weak evidencn for puberty blockers and noticen risks with lack of bone growthh and fertility loss in some patients. we pumped at the national health service to stop percent to makeu prescribing thlle doctor and a new with similar pullbacks and several other european countries.-c during covid the medicalal intelligence of the experts and our government they did andren enormous harm to the children and many still haven't recovered from the lost learning,ss isolation, andar unnecessaryem shots. be stood up for them on "the angle" and w

to stand by this statement that you made in to your petition. >> i, of course, acknowledge justice alitohat there is a lot of debate happening here and abroad about the proper model of delivery of this care and exactly when adolescence should receive it and how to identify the adolescence who it would be helpful. i stand by there is a consensus that these treatments can be medically necessary for some adolescence. this is false there is no consensus. going back to what justice alito is saying there is scant evidence to back up the conclusion that pursuant blockers. the review of gender services by dr. hillary cass in england is telling. her report found weak evidence for pursuant blockers and noted some risks including lags in bone growth and fertility loss in some patients. it prompted the national health service in england to stop prescribing the drugs outside of new clinical trial following similar pullbacks in several other european countries. look, during covid, the medical intelligentsia, the so-called experts and our own government they did enormous harm to our children. many stil

justices thomas and alito have said previously they were not obligated to report the trips, and thaty've done nothing wrong. a supreme court spokesperson has yet to respond to a request for comment about the findings of this report, and it does come at a peculiar time. released the day after lawmakers passed a budget and left for the year. when senator durbin returns, he will be in the minority of his chamber and ethics proposals that he and other senate democrats have supported recently will likely be shelved. >> jessica, very, very, very, very likely. brian abel, thank you very much for that. a new cnn film examines the storied career of one of the most influential artists of all time, luther vandross, from his formative years in harlem to his rise as the king of love songs. vandross tells his own story using a wealth of archives along with the voices of his closest musical collaborators and friends. here's a preview. >> during that time, we had this whole thing where the way that we used to get gigs is we would attend each other's session and if, incidentally, they happened to nee

for example, justice alito went at it from a medical point of view and medical science and different studies and contradicted some of the studies that were being cited. justice kavanaugh said, isn't this a state issue? to me, it's also a parental rights issue. don't you think? >> well, it's all of that and so much more. >> there were moments in this argument that were were quite sporty. i mean, you had justice alito asking the solicitor general whether she wanted to take back part of her filing with the court because she stated that there's overwhelming evidence that this treatment is necessary and safe and does not have these problems in the vast majority of cases. and alito said, right after you gave that to us, this cas report came out which joined other european reports saying the opposite, that there are serious questions about the efficacy of the treatment, about the effects on on these children. and he said, do you want to change your your statement about that? of course, she declined. but there was a lot of uncomfortable moments and not surprisingly, given the subject matter,

>> justice sam alito.minated and took the bench in 2006 after nearly two decades on the court. >> rob costa? >> we'll get that win at the sugar bowl. i'm stepping into your territory. >> i'm happy to give it to you. >> governing by crisis in 2025. when we first met over a tdecad ago, we were covering crisis on capitol hill, crisis persists. and kaicaitlin huey-burns as we and scott was there as well. look. they all have a handful of seats in the house for the republican majority. they can only do so much as scott said. the debt limit battle on the horizon, spending fights, deja vu. that culture of crisis governing to the brink of discussions is here again. >> ed o'keefe? >> i'll make the firmer prediction that based on all that chaos, speaker johnson won't be speaker by the end of 2025. did that a few years ago on paul ryan and it didn't work. be careful. nothing personal. look at what faces him. the other one real quick, washington commanders will get a stadium here in the district of columbia because tha

>> justice sam alito. he was nominated, took the bench in 2006.er nearly two decades on the report. >> marcus freeman and the fighting irish will win the sugar bowl on january 1st. >> this is normally my prediction with alabama. >> i'm stepping into your territory. >> i'm happy to give it to you. >> governing by crisis in 2025. ed, when we first met over a decade ago, we were covering crisis on capitol hill, crisis perfsist persists. and caitlin huey-burns and scott was there as well. they only have a handful of seats for the republican majority. they can only do so much, as scott said. debt limit battle on the horizon, spending fights. deja vu, that culture of crisis, governing to the brink of discussions is here again. >> ed o'keefe? >> i'll make the firmer prediction that based on all that chaos, speaker johnson won't be speaker by the end of 2025. did that on paul ryan and it worked. watch out, speaker johnson. >> be careful. be advised. >> look what faces him. the other one, real quick, washington commanders will get a stadium here in the dis

i believe we're listening to justice alito and elizabeth prelogar the solicitor general. let's listen in for just a moment if we can, to modify that. >> and withdraw the statement that there is overwhelming evidence establishing that these treatments have benefits, that greatly outweigh the risks and the dangers. >> i, of course acknowledge, justice alito, that there is a lot of debate happening here and abroad about the proper model of delivery of this care and exactly when adolescents should receive it, and how to identify the adolescents for whom it would be helpful. but i stand by that. there is a consensus that these treatments can be medically necessary for some adolescents. and that's true. no matter what source you look at. you mentioned both the cass report and sweden, but neither of those can be medically necessary for some minors but for the general run of minors do you dispute the proposition, in fact, that in almost all instances, the judgment at the present time of the health authorities in the united kingdom and sweden is that the risks and dangers greatly

the day that has been look forward to buy so much of this country and if i can take you live to the alito scene there because this is where the french president emmanuel macron is going to welcome world leaders, dignitaries and royalty. you can see there that the parade of soldiers is ready. we will see among others president elect trump of the united states, he will be arriving and welcomed by president macron, as well as president zelensky of ukraine. prince william, the duke of wales, will also be making an appearance as well as so many other dignitaries and celebrities from around france but also from around the world. it is a very important moment for secular france, as well as for secular france, as well as for religious france. as i mentioned there, president macron will be welcoming those. we will take you there live when that starts to happen. 0ne guest on that list, maybe not a world leader, maybe not a member of royalty but a renowned author, ken follett, the author of the book pillars of the earth, and also the of the earth, and also the author of the book notre dame, which he

uniquely, the solicitor general was able to relate as justice alito pushed back on, there is widely accepted in the medical community that this is an appropriate treatment for kids. that is incorrect. i find it highly disingenuous for the department of justice to argue that it is widely accepted when the second in charge of health and human services directly contacted those medical organizations that established standards of care to have them remove age you can have it both ways, not only did they remove those age restrictions for kids, it wasn't for medical reasons. instead it was for the political gain of the biden administration to push a transgender agenda. it is clear if you go to the record on the alabama attorney general's website to be able to see the fact that this is not settled science but in fact not only do we hear the reference to what is going on in europe, but you can look at the direct record, they were seeking systematic reviews of the studies to determine standards of care but instead seeking the advice of social activist lawyers, the biden administration, political agenda

justice alito: well, do you maintain that these were -- however madreds of thousands there were, each one a bespoke consideration of the application ere was not some sort of checklist beh the scenes that was actually dictating the outcome in these cases? mr. gannon: my points that an individual applicant went is -- applicant when it is applying for thousands of products but once is using the same application over and over. it has the siden to say we think it will be good on one side notad on the other side of the equationo to the extent the applicant is saying again, the fda saying the same thing and denyin it, and in each instance they are loo to see whether they have this evidence aody d this evidence. chief justice roberts: justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: all of these productain tobacco, right? mr. gannon: they contain nicotine. justice sotomayor: nicotine. and it'tine that's addictive, correct? mr. gathat's correct. justice sotomayor: could you make a smoking product that didn't have nicotine? mr. gannon: i mean, you can make an e-cigarette or vaping product that doesn't hav

. >> justice alito. >> on thless error point, does harmless error review -- is harmless error reviewecord in the case at hand?ive >> i don't think in this instance -- i think you would need to evaluate on the basis of re.t you know about the agency i think you can take notice of all the public thing has already done. we are primarily pointing at things fda had done before it engaged in these marketing derder but walso note that subsequent marketing denial orders alied the same concernhat these youth marketing restrictions were not indepen sufficient to reduce the risk to youth posed by flavored e-cies in order to say, y'need to have the extra benefit on the adult sidhe equation in order to having a population benefit. >> a big part of your harmless error argument is based on the order -- that the fda issued after the orderis case in the logic technology development case. is not proper to look to, the order that came after the order in this case? toetermine whether the error was harmless. >> the reason why are giving you that example is i tn th instance the reason we are giving you th

one of those trips, according to the inquiry, was a fishing expedition in alaska that alito took in 2008t this the cost of the private plane alone was nearly $24,000 per passenger. the report also says thomas failed to recuse himself from cases where there is a conflict of interest, namely cases involving the 2020 presidential election. despite political advocacy by his wife in support of then president donald trump. thomas and alito have said previously they've done absolutely nothing wrong, and a supreme court spokesperson has yet to respond to cnn's request for comment. president elect donald trump made some major energy promises while on the campaign trail, but the changing economics of energy might make the realities of coming through on those pledges much more complex. cnn's chief climate correspondent bill weir has more. >> frac frac frac and drill. >> drill. >> drill. drill, baby. >> drill on the trail we're going to frac frac frac. donald trump made some big energy promises on your energy bill. >> within 12 months will be cut in half. and that's my pledge all over the country. >

justice alito? >> in your opening brief did not mention any of these european developments. is it not true you ted the cass report to a footnote? >> so, justice alitwith respect to the developments, there s en no change in the law that i'aware of in sweden, finland and norway. each of the medical authorities in those stes has called for an individualized approach to care. routinely applied but they have not changed eilaws to do anything like what tennessee is doing here, which is to categorically ban it no er the need. the cass report, that isn't the record in the case but we have discussed that report in our reply brief, and as i just noted, it likewise recognizes the need for this care on individual cases. the uk has not banned the and hillary cassnot calling for such a ban. >> your primary argument in oral presentation this morning is based on bostock-like reasoning. is that not correct? >> i think that's correct. our primary argument isthis statute on its face , you can't have medications inconsistent with sex. no matter what u think about transgender discrimination gene

justice alito? >> should we just draw a clear line and say when a higher standard of proof is not required by the constitution and there is no liberty interest stake, then the conclusively that the standard is preponderance? >> do not think there is any need to take thatkind of further step, particularly in this case. this is in an area where there has been a lot of confusion among the lower courts as to how they are applied. another letter cases where we are seeing lower courts -- lower courts doing this. i t think it is necessary i will also say i think the court's on in grogan goes pretty fard saying something like that it says the utory silences in conception with the understanding that congress would have been taken to heighten the standard of proof presumption is overcome as if it is is a vacant deprivation, which has been limited to the three cases, depoatn, do naturalization, and expatriation. i do not think it is necessary to take that further staff. ers not a lot of confusion. >> what meth

. >> i am sorry, ste sotomayor --justice alito? >> should we draw a clear line and say what a high standard of proof is not required by the constitution? theris no liberty interest at stake, then the standard is, we would presume, conclusively, that the standard is preponderance? >> i don't think this any need to take that kind of this case. p in particularly in this is an area where there ha been a lot of e confusion among the lower courts as to apply, not a lot of other cases which we are seeing other courts apply standards of proof, absent the case fall into one of these categories the court already addressed . i don't think it necessary to do that. i will say, i think the far in saying something like that. sty silence is consistent with the understanding that congress would have intended to heighten standard of proof and the only way i think that presumption is overcome is if it is a significant deprivatn,which has been limited to those three cases i have talked about. i don't think it is necessary to take that further step. th

it's a little bit coordinated, like we saw two supreme court justices, alito and -- alito and thomasg them, right, the comstock act but not saying the name of it. then we've seen rope can activists talking about how comstock is the law of the land even though it has not been, you know, in practice in decades. >> it's an important piece. we'll have more on it in the 9:00 hour. special corr spon dent at vanity fair, molly john fast. thank you. we'll see you a little bit later. >>> live to cnbc with a look at what's driving stocks after the dow snopd the 10-day losing streak. plus, we'll bring you the latest on the amazon workers strike and how it could impact the holiday season. that's next on "way too early." for more than a decade farxiga has been trusted again and again, and again. ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ask your doctor about farxiga. ♪ like a relentless weed, moderate to severe ulcerative colitis symptoms can keep coming back. start to break away from uc with tremfya... with rapid relief at 4 weeks. tremfya blocks a key source of inflammation. at on

have violated judicial ethics rules, but the offense was criticizing supreme court justice samuel alitoe down flag, a violation of the u.s. flag code one done after jan 6. the judge had condemned the display of flags. he thought this out and wanted to say something in public. that's actually unusual for judges, criticizing supreme court justice in the press. the judge has apologized for his ethics misstep. note despite the odd circle of ethics rules here, the only person who hasn't apologized was the one being criticized, supreme court justice alito. we'll be right back. despite treatment, it's still not under control. but now, i have rinvoq. rinvoq is a once-daily pill... that reduces the itch... and helps clear the rash of eczema— ...fast. some taking rinvoq felt significant itch relief as early as 2 days. and some achieved dramatic skin clearance... as early as 2 weeks. many saw clear or almost-clear skin. rinvoq can lower ability to fight infections. before treatment, test for tb and do bloodwork. serious infections, blood clots, some fatal... cancers, including lymphoma and skin; s

uniquely, the solicitor general was able to relate, as justice alito pushed back on, that there is widely accepted -- within the medical community that this is an appropriate treatment for kids. that's absolutely incorrect. i find it highly disingenuous for the department of justice to argue that it's widely accepted when the second in charge of health and human services directly contacted those medical organizations that established standards of care to have them remove age restrictions on surgeries for kids. you can't have it both ways. not only did they remove those age restrictions for kids, it was for the political gain of the biden administration to push a transgender agenda. if you go to the attorney general's website, this is the fact that this is not settled. and the court and reference to what's going on in europe. instead, you can look at the direct records and they weren't seeking systematic reviews of the studies to determine standards of care but instead seeking of advice of social activist lawyers, the biden administration's political agenda and not the wealth of our childr

i think justices alito, thomas and kavanaugh are clearly going to want to uphold the law. and then that leaves us with roberts gorsuch and amy coney barrett somewhere in the middle although it sounds like roberts and amy coney barrett are leaning with their conservative colleagues. and so this came up through tennessee, as you said but this is something that has been an issue in many states. and i just want to show what we're talking about. there are 26 states that have passed laws restricting gender affirming care for transgender minors. estimated 40% of transgender minors ages 13 to 17 live in these states. now, 16 states and dc have passed protections for trans health care since 2022, and you mentioned the arguments this morning. it's really been fascinating to hear how the how the justices have been questioning, and you could see where they're leaning. let's first listen to justice sotomayor there are some children who actually need this treatment, isn't there? >> yes. i think the evidence is uniform on that. whether you look at the standard of care, whether you look a

and justice alito wrote off the court's critics as politically motivated and unappeaseable.n lofty promises. "the new york times" spoke with jeremy fogle who noted an ethics code is not a blue red issue. if confidence in the supreme court tanks, then confidence in the whole system tanks. that's the direction it seems to be heading. gallup reports based on a survey they conducted in september. this, quote, at 48%, the proportion of americans who have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the federal government's judicial branch is statistically similar to the 2022 record low. 47%. and 2023, 49% ratings. before 2022, trust in the judicial branch had never been below the majority level and typically exceeded 60%. holding the justices of our highest court to the same standards as other federal judges would likely help fix or address that crisis in confidence. and yet, and yet, a majority of those on the court seem unwilling to take that next step. that's where we start the hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. "new york times" investigative reporter, jodi, is h

talks about trips and travel and things that justices thomas and alito have taken in the past and neitherthe justices and more taking this thing apart and going for them and they like other justices aimedded filings when it's -- amended their filings when it's necessary to do so. it lands on a holiday weekend and not getting attention that the democrats hoped it would. >> it is a holiday weekend and what's your more traditional family christmas tradition? >> there's a couple movies i have to watch, christmas vacation and white christmas, which will be tonight, has to happen. i have a christmas birthdayish, it's the 23rd so it's tomorrow and a lot of my birthday is wrapped up in christmas. my parents gave me the middle name noel because of the christmas arastle. i love the first noel. carley: we know it's your birthday and we're decked out ask ready to celebrate with you. it is great! >> happy birthday! carley: happy early birthday, shannon! >> the illustrious wyatt is in on this too. >> thank you to my team that helped put this up. >> we need to find out, was there not a smaller party hat

justices lifetime decisions but justices have to make you have to respect, the careers of justice thomas alitoal indication of one way or the other but, obviously, justices are aware what happened, with justice ruth bader ginsburg you know she, unfortunately passed away end of donald trump's term was be replaces the by barrett, obviously, the justices are aware of that dynamic i am not saying that is going to influence decision very personal choices lifetime points a question will donald trump have ab opportunity to nominate one or more supreme court justices moving forward a big question going to talk a lot about cheryl. in month of june as supreme court winds up term. clarence thomas in fight of life to get that appointment if you go back to confirmation hearings, i recall. let's move on to issue of immigration and criminal activity let me -- i want to ask about a lot of discussions with the role of local state officials fighting against immigration i want to get to luigi mangione story apologies to producers i want to ask you we are seeing legal fight now, that is beginning, with -- with im

>> i do, justice alito, maintained the medications and questions reduce the risk of depression, anxietyality-- back do you think that's clearly established? page 195 of the cass report says there is no evidence that gender affirmative treatments reduce suicide. >> the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully, and admittedly it is rare, however, there are multiple studies, long-term, longitudinal studies, that do show there is a reduction in suicidality, which i think is a positive outcome to this treatment. >> executive director south carolina first transgender person to lead any aclu chapter. he joins me now. good to have you on the program, jason. at the national level, you are the first trans-person to argue in front of the court today. first, just give us the stakes for this given the fact that there has been a legal limbo, it looks like the court will come in and definitively resolve in one direction or the other. >> thanks for having me, chris, great to be with you. look, i want to take us to the families that are at the center of this case. the plaintiff's in this case, t

elliston is from alito in north texas and we are seeing 95% of the deepfakes onlinel nonconsensual imagery taking real people and making them appear like naked picturesk or naked videos. my legislation take it down x a makes it a crime to did this o a real person to target and objectify or be as a real person. a grea ot member of the victims are teenage girls or women.liga our legislation to take it downk act puts a legal obligation onrs the tech platforms to take this garbage down within 48 hours have notified by the victim. elliston, snapchat had her pictures up for nine months. they did not take them down into my office called him directly and said "take this garbage dowi now!" it will give the victim a rightl to getau it taken down immediately. >> laura: this is so outrageous and that things lik e porn hub lakes and aclu will bek e,fighting in court. elliston, very, very quicklyir like 15 secondlss but what do yu say to young girls out there make that have been victimized? >> i want to say that you areli not alone. at is what the government isiv supposed to do, listen and v protect the

you had justice alito evoking his decision in dobbs saying we upheld a law that restricted health careized their lives so why not just do that here? the court facilitating states enforcing traditional notions of gender at great cost to people is definitely a throw line in all of this. and it is really concerning because we have now seen the consequences of the abortion restrictions playing out. and we are likely to see really tragic consequences. >> yeah. mark, to that point, this is coming as the court is really seeing in the media thanks largely to propublica. the result of dobbs overturning roe. the deathly cost. and they have been armed. they execute suicidal thoughts at a vastly greater rate than non-trans minors especially if they are denied gender affirming medication. i wonder if you think any of that is crossing the radar in a meaningful way. where is your expectation here? >> i don't think it is. justice kavanaugh kept bringing up detransitioners who are very rare saying we have to protect them. we have to protect children who think they want this treatment. he is setting up

you know, you had justice alito involcanoing his decision -- invoking his decision saying basically weare for women and jeopardized their lives, so why couldn't we do that here? the court facilitating states enforcing traditional notions of gender at great cost to people is definitely a through line in all of this. and it's really concerning because we have now seen the consequences of these abortion restrictions playing out. and we are likely to see really tragic consequences from states rolling back health care for transgender individuals, as well. >> yeah. mark, to that point, this is coming as the court is really seeing in the media thanks largely to "propublica" the result of dobbs overturning roe, the cost, the deathly cost, the motorial cost of that decision. and you are -- they have been armed courtesy of the biden administration and the aclu, stats on what this does to trans minors who contemplate and execute suicidal thoughts at a vastly greater rate than non-trans minors, especially if they're denied gender- ing medication. i wonder if you think any of that is crossing the r

the fishing trip on the airplane with justice alito.u begin to get the sense that there is more to this than individual episodes. it is actually a plan and a program that the supreme court or at least these justices were very aware of and it puts the chief justices and the conference's failure to get in and clean it up in a different and more damning light. >> what could the chief justice do? >> we just did my report two weeks ago. every single supreme court, all 50 states and the district of columbia have figured out how you take the system and figure out a way so the supreme court justices can be reviewed when there is a challenge to their ethical conduct. it is simple. you have a inbox were ethics complaints can go. you have people that screen to take out the crazy ones. you have staff lawyers that investigate and that is the key here. there is no investigation. you do not do fact-finding if you are in the supreme court, everybody else does fact- finding, not the supreme court, they will not have it and when you do fact-finding you h

you had justice alito invoking his decision in dobbs saying we upheld a law that restricted health careso why can't we just do that here? and so the court facilitating states enforcing you know traditional notions of gender at great cost to people is definitely a through line in all of this. and it's really concerning because we have now seen the consequences of these abortion restrictions playing out. and we are likely to see really tragic consequences from states ruling back health care for transgender individuals as well. >> mark, to that point. this is coming as a court is really seeing in the media thanks largely to propublica the result of dobbs overturning rowe the cost, the deadly cost, the mortal cost of that decision. and you are, they've been armed courtesy of the. what this does to transminors who execute suicidal at a vastly larger rate than nontransgender minors. i wonder if you think any of that is crossing the radar in a meaningful way for these conservative justices. what's your expectation here? >> unfortunately i don't really think it is. justice kavanaugh kept bringi

you had justice alito asking the solicitor general whether she wanted to take back part of her filing with the court because she stated there is overwhelming evidence that this treatment is necessary and safe and does not have these problems in the vast majority of cases. they said right after you gave that to us this past report came out which joined other european reports saying the opposite, that there are serious questions about the efficacy of the treatment, about the effects on these children. he said do you want to change your statement. she declined. there was a lot of uncomfortable moments and not surprisingly given the subject matter, including win this solicitor general was asked to where you the line on things like sports, when we get to those questions is there a constitutional right here that it will extend far beyond the question of treatment the biden administration said you can work on that. they sort of shrugged and didn't give a very clear answer. that i think really undermined them a great deal because these justices were very concerned about the implications. and

alito's decision on, that but the idea of protecting girls, what were the arguments like in court todayent -- you're more likely to get hit by a bus in central park than you are to ever meet a trans kid. there are almost none of them. they don't exist anywhere. there are very few of them. the idea they are a threat to girls, especially in sports. >> i mean, it's heartbreaking. that's part of the misinformation and lies they've been peddling against the trans community for months. you mentioned this earlier, this is not new. the same sort of lies they're telling about the trans community they've said about black women before, they've said about immigrants before. this is all fear mongering to take us away from the fundamental issue. the question before the supreme court today was a question of whether or not trans kids deserve equal protection under the constitution or not, making sure that they get the same access to healthcare as every other child in this country can get. the question before them is about discrimination. if we're in a world where we're allowing any small group of peopl

i have a strong suspicion that alito and thomas were leading the charge against any kind of fact findinganism. but what's interesting, as we just showed in a report that i put out this week, you know, you've heard the come plaints from republicans and from the court, oh, this is complicated, oh, the separation of powers issues, oh, what do you do when -- high court judges, that's also difficult. well, it turns out it's not difficult at all. it turns out that every single one of our 50 states has figured it out and has a process for fact finding and for adjudication of legitimate ethics complaints. and so it really puts a spotlight on how willful this particular set of justices is at protecting itself from essential elements of rule of law like fact finding and independent evaluation of the facts. and i think it's, you know, it's pretty telling that they were -- they made so much noise about these arguments without bothering to check first whether maybe every single state has figured out this problem for its own sovereign highest court. and it really gives the lie to a lot of the concerns