strong and strong there's no time for me to think think think either of course of course afraid alito alito yes to be honest. a little afraid. as dawn breaks the crew is pretty the same. after years of training this is the 1st time he will be involved in an actual deep same mission. today she won't be drawn back to tame the testing her ability to cope with extreme conditions from the. cold more than me. is sorry for us so if we are fast. walks on so we know it's a serious nor light but i can see south that any most bling bling bling bling bling me 1st won't. see in your eyes. his fiery exciting. cancer or any other word. you think yes i. do love. wired. i'm fond of big fish it's a fish it's just a lack the whole. this area. may find big alive. i'm tired of the small b.s. the window and the become see anything. everything goes to plan and the copes well with the pressure and impresses her husband her shipmates away some back on board to celebrate the town i hope i will pick future and have been me. cause i was. yes. china is leading the global race to explore the dates they are mine but it f

alito? justice alito? justice alito: yes. mr. lessig, my question is similar to justice breyer's. or at least it follows along the same lines. suppose an elector is bribed between the time of the popular vote and the time when the electors vote. can the state remove that elector? mr. lessig: your honor, we believe that prior to the vote, the state's power is the incidental power exists to assure the person who shows up is not engaged in criminal activity. it is difficult to imagine how that plays out because to claim someone has been bribed is a charge and needs to be proven. we believe that is going to be a difficulty with the bribery, but let's remember that the framers expressly considered this problem. george mason expressly said the reason not to have electors is that they could be bribed. what the framers saw is that there were two risks, the risk of elector bribery, but also the risk of corruption -- justice alito: your argument must be either that the electors cannot be removed by the state. the state says at least some removal power goes along with the appointment power. i

alito? -- justice alito? justice alito: if one house of congress were to subpoena personal records in the hands of a third party regarding a member of the other house, let's say someone in a leadership position in the other house, do you think that the doctrine of separation of powers would impose any limitation on that subpoena? mr. letter: very interesting question. your honor, the first thing that comes to mind, though, is wouldn't that violate this debate clause that no member of either house or senate can be question anywhere else? any way to the legislative functions of that senator or house member, that would be invalid. justice alito: well, it's similar to the subpoenas here, they don't of anything to do with the performance of the legislative function, records regarding the personal activities of this individual, similar to the subpoenas here, they don't of anything to do with the performance of the legislative function, records regarding the personal activities of this individual, purely personal activities, and

alito? justice alito: one quick question.on't know how good this court is about predicting the consequences of some of our decisions, but would you say that the -- the court's prediction in -- in clinton versus jones that the decision wouldn't have much of an impact on the presidency has been borne out by history? dunne: i guess, your honor, i -- i -- my view of the chronology in clinton v. jones, i'll try to be brief, is that i -- i think, contrary to some people's view of history, i think that the -- the -- the district court, following this court's decision, kept a rather close rein on discovery in that case and, don't forget, later, granted summary judgment in favor of the president long before trial. it was only that it came out later, of course, that it turns out that in his brief deposition in the case that the president committed perjury, which is what led to the impeachment proceedings and other travails he had. so i don't think it was this court's opinion or the litigation itself that led to those problems. frankly,

alito? justice alito: general, what factors other than medical need can hrsa take into account in deciding which preventive services under the degree to which preventative services would have to be covered by an insurance plan. for example, could it take cost into account? >> your honor, if it took cost into account, i think the first question would be whether the manner in which it took cost into account satisfied the arbitrary and capricious standard. i certainly do think they could take cost into account in deciding what types of preventative services to require. if, for example, there was a particular type of preventative service that was a new technology that was actually quite helpful but it was cost prohibitive for just about every employer or any insurance company to cover, i certainly think hrsa could take that into account in deciding whether or not to require it pursuant to the guidelines issued under section 13a4. >> this broad issue has been before the court a number of prior occasions. until this case, i had not seen the argument that the affordable care act did not allow hrsa to make any exceptions based on conscientious objection. when did this argument first surface? >> to my knowledge, your honor, it first surfaced in this litigation. and if you look back to the promulgation of the original church exemption back on august 3, 2011, and you look at the federal register notice, it makes crystal clear the church exemption was based on section 13a4. describing it, the government determined that it had the authority under 13a4 to promulgate the church exception and that is why the exception in the accommodation more generally is likewise lawful under 13a4 under my friend -- under 13a4. friend's position on the others, i think all of those things would violate 13a4. >> thank you, general. justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: general, first of all, you keep calling it a small number of women who won't get coverage. but i understand that figure to be between somewhere between 75 -- 750,000 -- 75,000 and 125,000 women, correct? >> your honor, yes, that is the number that would be affected by the exemption as compared to the original church exemption and affective exemptions that cover -- that affected around 30,000 women. i would note, in this particular litigation, the respondents have not yet identified anyone who would actually lose access to contraception as a result of these rules. i think presumably because contraceptive -- access to contraception is widely available in this country for many other means besides -- justice sotomayor: let's go there. hhs decided that contraceptives were preventive service required under the act. now you say it has to take care to both promulgate the act and accommodate religious injections. but in your calculus, what you have not considered or told me about is the effect on women who now have to go out, as justice ginsburg said, and search for contraceptive coverage. if they cannot personally afford it. i just wonder, if there is no substantial burden, how can the government justify an exemption that deprives those women of seamless coverage? >> so, your honor, two points. first of all, i think 13a4 provides them the discretion to do it, which is what they did in the effective exemption that covered self-insured church plan . that imposes no more or less a burden than this exemption does. a putting that to the side, rfra itself in section 2000db-four explicitly permits any exemption that doesn't violate the establishment clause. here i don't there's any plausible argument that the exemption violates the establishment clause under this court's decision in the case that upheld the exemption to religious employers which after all authorized religious employers to fire an employee for religious reasons. and since it is permitted under rfra and permitted under section 13a4, i don't think any of these considerations undermine the validity of these final rules. >> thank you, counsel. justice kagan? justice kagan: good morning, general. i would like to go to the chief justice's first question, which was about whether this rule sweeps too broadly. i understand your concern about giving agencies some leeway so they don't have to think through thousands of accommodations in their head and then find the narrowest one possible for every person. but that is not really the situation we are in with respect to this. there was existing accommodation in place. some employers had objections to that accommodation. the little sisters and some others. even assuming those objections needed to be taken into account, the rule sweeps more broadly than that and essentially scraps the existing accommodation even for employers who have no religious objection to it. and sort of by definition, doesn't that mean that the rule has gone too far? >> no, your honor, for two reasons. first of all, the accommodation is available. it has not been scrapped. secondly, including contraception as a seamless part of your insurance plan does not cost employers anything. so there is no reason why an employer who doesn't object to providing contraception as part of their plan, whether through the accommodation or otherwise, would invoke the exemption since they would be depriving their employees of a valuable benefit to which they do not object and that doesn't cost them anything. but i guess i would add -- justice kagan: do you have any evidence that the current being -- that only employers of the little sister clients who have complicity of -- complicity objections are now taking advantage of the exemption? i would think there will be a lot of employers who would say, you know, we don't have those complicity beliefs, but now that they're giving us an option, sure, we will take it. >> i respectfully think that would be irrational given that employers would then be depriving their employees of a valuable benefit that doesn't cost them anything. because it does not cost any money to add contraceptive coverage to an insurance plan. it a cost-neutral coverage provision. justice kagan: why couldn't you just have written the rule to cover only those who have objections to the existing accommodation? in other words, those who have the complicity-based beliefs that the little sisters have? >> well, because, i think there's no reason to think anybody would do what you're suggesting, and the original burden stems from the contraceptive mandate itself. so i guess what i would point to, case like richie, which if broader argument, gives the government collectibility in the case that could potentially compete statutory obligations. that is the case -- >> justice gorsuch? >> general, i would like to get the rest of your answer. >> i was focusing on richie against stefano, which i think it's the government flexibility when it is facing potentially competing obligations. that is the case where the court said employer could violate title disparate treatment position if it had substantial ground against believing would otherwise be violating title vii disparate impact provision. it is the way that courts reconcile statutes that put parties in the place of having to decide whether to violate one at the expense of the other. here i think we had the very least have a strong basis for believing that the prior regime violated the religious freedom restoration act, and that gives us the discretion to adopt a traditional exemption -- which, after all, is the way the governments have traditionally accommodated religious beliefs. i think that is particularly clear here since, one, rfra both applies to and supersedes the aca. and two, there is nothing in the aca that prohibits exemption. >> thank you, general. >> so if you had a situation where the certification was not necessary, in other words, the government finds out employees do not have contraceptive coverage throughout -- through other means and you do not have the hijacking problem you refer to, because the insurance cover would not provide the services through the little sister's plan but provide them directly to the sortyees, why isn't that of accommodation sufficient? i did not understand the problem then and i don't understand it now. >> i did not think we would have an objection to simply objecting to the government and then if the government has some way to provide the contraception services independently of us and our plans, we have never had an objection to that. but the government has insisted throughout this whole process that we not just be able to have an opt out form and objection form, but that same form serves as a permission slip to allow the government to track down ppa's and others to provide services. that has never been an objection to objecting itself. >> the problem is neither side in this debate wants the accommodation to work. the one side does not want it to work because they want to say the mandate required and the other does not wanted to work because they want to impose the i do not think there really was because the government has always consisted -- insisted on seamless coverage through the little sisters plans. >> justice thomas? >> thank you. would like you to have an opportunity to comment on the questionable standing of the states in this case, as well as the pleura for ration of nationwide injunction. >> i guess i would say one thing about each of those issues, at this juncture as long as massachusetts against epa remains good law, we do not have an objection to the state standing, but i think their standing has to stand on that precedent. throughout this litigation they have not been able to identify even a single person who would lose coverage in such a way that would increase the burdens for the state of pennsylvania and new jersey. so the only way they can have standing in this case is if they are excused from the requirement of being able to identify specific individuals who are harmed and increased their burdens. i think there is a massachusetts against epa that says that is ok, but that is certainly the absolute outer limit of standing to be sure. with respect to the nationwide injunctions, that is an issue where i think it is particularly inappropriate to have a nationwide injunction in a case like this. the one thing we should have learned from years of litigation over the affordable care act and its contraceptive mandate in particular is that the courts do not come to uniform decisions in this area. and sometimes the majority view in the circuit court is rejected by this court. and under those circumstances in particular, for a single district court judge to think that he or she has a monopoly on the reasoning here and should impose a remedy that affects people across the nation seems to me to be very imprudent and not something that is consistent with equity practice, or really just good practice in the way our judicial system works, since it really depends on having the circuits potentially look at , whenissues independently they revise this court takes should and this short-circuit all of that and put enormous pressure on this court and endorses this court to hear cases and the rest. clement thesk mr. same question i asked the government. at the end of the day, the government is thrown to the wind the woman's entitlement to seamless, no cost to them. it is requiring those women to pay for contraceptive services. first they would have to search for a government plan, and if it turns out, as it will for many of them, that there is no other plan that covers them, then they are not covered. and the only way they can get these contraceptive services is to pay for them out of pocket. precisely what congress did not want to happen in the affordable care act. so this idea that the balance has to be all four little sisters type organizations and not at all for the women, it seems to me to rub against what is a history of accommodation, of tolerance, of respect for divergent views. berg come iagan would say two things in response. first, i would echo what the solicitor general said in two things in response. first, i would echo what the solicitor general said in pointing out that congress itself cannot even specify that contraception would be included in the preventative health mandate. and congress went further and said, with respect to grandfathered plans, there were other mandates in the affordable care act like coverage for people up to age 26, and pre-existing conditions, that they would impose even on grandfathered plans, that they did not impose the preventative mandates, so congress itself recognized that tens of women's of employees could be in the same position as employees of the little sisters of the poor, even though there is no religious objection hatsoever. from that point of view, i really repeat that if you want to add, the chief justice's questions, i don't understand why this cannot be worked out. but if you can't, from what has been said so far, it seems to me the proper legal blocks to work it out in is whether his articular rule is arbitrary or in abuse of discretion. after all, the religious group say they have a real basis in objection. and the other say, these are women who will be hurt, who have no religious objection, and moreover, the insurance will be heard because it will raise -- will be her hurt -- it will -- the insurance companies will be hurt because it will raise costs. he question is whether this is a reasonable effort to accommodate? and that i think, is arbitrary, capricious, abuse of, but that is the one thing that isn't argued in this appeal. so what do i do? >> justice breyer, i think you're absolutely right that that is not the nature of the objection that has been raised by the other side. they have not said, for example, yes, this exemption might be ok if it were limited to the little sisters and others, who object to the accommodation, but they ent too far. that is not the nature of the challenge. they have not brought that kind of challenge. i think what you would do is, you would reject the challenge that is before you because i don't think any of the grants litigated before you were a valid, and you can make clear in your opinion that if somebody, down the road, has an objection to the scope of the objection, say they work for a for-profit company, and with respect to that profit company, they are not getting their services at net is because the apa -- because the rule is too broad, that would be a separate apa challenge that i don't think rejecting the challenge here would four i think that is the path forward. >> justice alito? >> i certainly agree with my colleagues that our best tradition in this area is to accommodate diverse, religious views. so i am going to ask you about the interests that are involved here. on the one hand, what with the little sisters feel compelled to do if they lose this case, and they are told, you must provide this coverage through your plan? and on the other side, i want to ask you -- this has been going on for some period of time -- whether you have -- you have identified a number of women who work for the little sisters, who want contraceptives, but they cannot get them through their employers' plan or the insurance plan, or a government program, nd cannot easily afford to urchase them on their own. >> just justice alito -- justice alito, first, the little sisters believe that complying with this mandate is simply inconsistent with their faith. and so, if this burden is mposed on them, they will have to reconfigure their operations. one of the anomalies here is that the gover

alito. justice alito. >> yes. mister gershengorn has a section of his brief that's labeled the sky is not falling in his argument is that you and the federal government are exaggerating the effect of this decision. that won't have such a major impact either in the criminal or in civil area. is he right in that? >> no justice alito. let me put some solid numbers on this. we have currently over 1700 inmates crimes were committed in the former indian territory identify as native americans so the state presumptively would not have jurisdiction over those people and would have to release them so that is the actual number because it doesn't include crimes committed against indians which the state would not have jurisdiction over so we're talking here about potentially 3000 inmates we may have turn over. as faras future cases go , there were 32,000 colonies committed in the former indian territory an area that is about 12 percent native american so only including crimes committed by native americans that would be 4000 new felonies per year that the government would have to prosecute including crimes where the native american is the victim and you can take that to about 8000. on the civil side what happens is it creates precisely the differential legal treatment between non-indians and indians that congress tried to ab

against catholics who were more likely to be immigrants and i think -- i think, you know, alito, justice alito the decision does open the door to more of those amendments following. paul: especially significant, dan, seems to me that overturn to montana state supreme court ruling, you have a lot of state supreme courts that are quite left to center and this was a real shot across their bowl. daniel: it was a big shot across their bowel. they choose to attend charter school, then public funding might have to be used to support that choice which would go way beyond the status quo that we have right now and i would not be surprised if you didn't see legislature in some of the states doing precisely that and it will end up in front of the supreme court again and maybe it would win. paul: all right, dan, what about this decision in the abortion service's case in louisiana? they killed the law by admitting privileges. roe v. wade and right to abortion wasn't really on the table. this was a question of whether the law in louisiana created undue burden for women having an abortion. what do you make --

alito -- justice alito, first, the little sisters believe that complying with this mandate is simply inconsistent with their faith. and so, if this burden is imposed on them, they will have to reconfigure their operations. one of the anomalies here is that the government, from the beginning, has exempted religious orders, but they refuse -- if they stick to their bidding and do only religious hand,es -- on the other they do with the little sisters to is go out and provide care for the elderly, poor, and for the sick, then they don't qualify for the exemption. with a little sisters will have to reconfigure their operations, but there is nothing they can do that will allow them to, compliance with the plan. and so, with a government's mandate. i think that is what congress had in mind because they understood that when people are faced with a government obligation, that their religion absolutely forbids them to comply with, that is something the government should try to avoid at all costs. to answer the second part of your question quickly, the little sisters have never complied with the mandate throughout this entire litigation. and so, we what that means is two things. one, no one will lose their coverage that they have now at the little sisters are given this exemption. heard of a have not single employee who views this as a problem. presumably because many of these employees, even if they are not catholic because a little sisters hires on a non-discriminatory bases, but they come with a little sisters with the understanding with their mission and i don't think they would want to put them in the position of maybe having to stop serving the elderly/poor. >> justice sotomayor? assume that the government passes a law that says every insurance company must reimburse fory policyholder they have the covid-19 vaccine. they say nothing about whether it is in your policy are not. if someone has a religious objection, they say they can be exempted from it, but you -- but your insurance carrier must pay anyone who has a policy with you , for anyone who submits for covid-19 vaccine. object toployer paying to that policy? >> i think the answer is no. i would like to explain how it works. rules thatthe same contraceptives, meaning all they have to do is tell the government that they object to vaccines, and by the -- thatboth know they there are religious groups that objective vaccines, and they don't want their plans to be complicit in providing vaccines. your --ce sotomayor your, ice sotomayor want to explain in what it works. the government obligation was imposed directly on the insurers. i don't think the employers could object at all. had i think an insurer that a sincere, religious objection to providing the coverage, say like the christian brothers, they might be able to object. i don't think they have an objection, but they could in theory if they objected to providing compensation for that coverage. they could object, and i think it probably would be a substantial burden in the context of covid-19. i think that you might strike -- the government might be able to carry its burden, but i think that would be the way to think through that hypothetical. >> justice kagan? >> good morning. i would like to start by asking you about the response you gave to the chief justice because you said there, you have no objection to object in the little sisters. i have taken that to mean you're consistent position throughout the litigation, but what if an employer did have an objection to object? in other words, had an even more say extended view of complicity, so the employer thought that extending itself made him complicit because it led to a chain reaction, whereby the employees were eventually going to get coverage. would you say about that? would depend on additional factors, like whether the government enforced its requirement an objection with the same massive penalties we have here. if they did, then i think the way to think about that particular, sort of objection, would be that if that objection is sort of -- if that objection is prevented by the person's religious beliefs and the person is enforced a massive penalty, there is a substantial burden in the analysis was shipped to the compelling, least restrictive alternative test. i think the government would be able to submit or sustain its requirement of at least having an objection. the irony is that this may be the one context they can't because they have never required the churches, their religious auxiliaries, the other orders that engage in only religious activities -- they have never had to object. >> even in that case, where object into objecting is the only thing that you would think the employer would prevail? make all the same arguments that women can get contraceptive coverage elsewhere, and there are other exemptions to this. so, the employer would prevail, even if it were only objecting to objecting? i thinkto be clear, that has to do with the linda government has operated this whole program. since they never were hired to churches or other religious orders, or the grandfathered plans to object, i think that puts a government in a difficult position in this hypothetical situation. justice gorsuch? >> a major feature of the opinion below and the arguments in the briefs, at least, is the government failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the apa, and i did not want that major component of the case to go unaddressed today. i want to give you a chance to respond to that. >> thank you, just as gorsuch. on the apa, there are a number of different ways to come out differently than the way the third circuit analyzed it. -- think the third circuit e we think the third circuit erred . we think the original was satisfied. we think the good claws was satisfied for the same reasons that the government had good cause for example to make immediately effective moderations in light of the court's order. we think likewise, my friends on the other sides as there was good cause for the original exemptions and the like in the mandate because they needed to make changes quickly for additional upcoming plan years. we think all of those same things apply here. another way to rule against the third circuit on that issue is to recognize that there are specific statutory authority here to propagate benefit plans, which probably recognizes the benefit plans will often have to be changed in ways that will affect certain future plan years, so changes need to be made quickly, but a third way is to reject the reasoning of the third circuit is to say, even if there was some original sin in -- propagation, consequently, one feature of the third circuit opinion i want to draw attention to is the third circuit never faulted the government for responding to the thousands and thousands and thousands of comments a god in any kind of insufficient way. so, the government has complied with all of the textual requirements of the apa procedurally and yet, they have still been found to be out of a-textual based on an text. >> justin -- justice kavanaugh? >> i want to follow up on justice kagan's question on the objection to objecting. i have thought that that would leastught under the restrictive alternative and the government might argue there is no less restrictive alternative available in that situation. you might disagree and try to identify a less restrictive alternative, but i thought that is where it would be litigated. is that correct or not? >> i think i'm a justice kavanaugh, that is where it would be litigated. we are talking about hypothetical. were it is differently on the least restrictive alternative is to point to the fact that the church exemption on the grandfathered plans exemption has worked quite well without requiring there to be any kind of formal objection registered. it seems to me those are essentially other ways the government has been able to comply, and the other question is if we are in the round where the government itself has the final rule, alleviated the obligation, even to have an objection, i am not sure this question we are talking about would arise. >> i understand that. that is what i expected your argument to be in that context. second question just to follow-up on justice breyer on the arbitrary, capricious tests, the exercise of discretion must be reasonable, what are the limits that you would identify to the government's discretion, if any? >> i would identify all of the limits that general francisco alluded to in one more. one thing that i think is artificial here, is the position of the other side is that they wanted to look at the a ca and refer -- these aca and rfra. hrsda,s an obligation on so it seems to me that an goingion for religion is to be insulated from an arbitrary and capricious challenge anyway that exempting just large employers, or implores incorporating delaware, i think all of those would be irrational and arbitrary/capricious under the apa. but here, the agency testified with rfra consistent with its authority under the aca to give it a strong case where it to not be capricious. >> thank you, counsel. mr. fisher? the exemption rolls rest on three sweeping assertions of agency authority. narrowthe agency delegation allows the health resources and service diminished ration to decide which services must cover the women's health amendment into a grant of authority so broad it allows a to virtually any employee or college to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage entirely. as a morphor reasons is vaguely defined moral beliefs. second, the agency's claim that rfra, a statute that limits government action, affirmatively employersm to prevent to death for women to deny , as many of the questions have reflected, the prior rules struck a balance that permitted objecting employers to opt out, but still allow their female employees to receive contraceptive coverage. these rules exempt such employers altogether, even if they had no objection to this prior accommodation. these rules also allow for the first time of the lead traded companies to claim the same exemptions, despite the agency's admission no companies ever requested one. and third, the agency's claim they were justified at putting out the rules at the apa requires. it is inconsistent with its purpose and would break the requirement out of the statute. in addition, the agency challenged the scope in they have advanced a novel claim that federal courts lack the authority to invalidate unlawful agency regulations in their entirety. in isolation, the agency's argument are incorrect. taken together, stretching a narrow delegation, finding broad rule-making authority in a statute that doesn't provided, it inre the apa requires seeking tutor tale the court's authority of action, these notments -- these cases are a long-running dispute, but rather the assertion of vast agency authority at the expense of congress and the courts. >> thank you, counsel. i have a question and it was a hypothetical that i thought was pretty good, and i have not heard an answer to yet. say you have a couple going out to dinner and they tell the babysitter, well the children have to do chores, you decide which ones. i think everybody would agree that that includes the authority to say, not only that we have to do the dishes and sweep the floors, but tommy, you do the dishes in sally, you sweep the floors, and not the assumption that each child would have to do each chore. and here, your argument about the aca statute is that he gives hhs the authority to specify which services had to be provided, but does not give them the authority to make determinations about who has to provide which, but instead imply every employer has to provide everyone. what is your answer to that? answerchief justice, our is that is the only reasonable reading of the text of the women's health amendment. the who must provide is answered by the beginning of 13a4. offering health insurance coverage at a minimum provide coverage for it shall not impose any cost-share requirements. the court recently acknowledged again in the cost-sharing case recently dealing with the aca, below that language are four separate categories of services to be covered. nobody disputes the first three are mandatory, that all covered insurers must cover the first three. the only dispute comes in the fourth one, which is respect to women, such preventative care is provided in conference of guidelines. in a hypothetical that your honor referred to is in the amicus brief with a modified the language of this requirement by taking out the such additional language. that language is key because it answers the question of, what services are insurers to provide? with respect to women, it is such preventative care and remains as provided for in conference of guidelines. it doesn't go beyond that. >> thank you, counsel. justice thomas? >> just a brief question that is a little different. i'm interested in your view on standing, with your arguments for standing in this case, the challenge -- the government's regulation that may impact the state's cost, seems to suggest that any time there is a rule change at the federal level that affects you, you would have standing, and that, again following this case to its remedy of a nationwide injunction, would suggest that in these sorts of cases, a nationwide injunction would be appropriate. i would like you to comment on that. it seems to be somewhat was amatic that there problem with both standing and nationwide injunctions, if they are this easy to get. >> thank you, your honor. to be clear, we have to satisfy standing requirements just as any other litigant has to justify standing. we did that by showing the rules would impose costs on pennsylvania and new jersey, and that is in some way the most basic type of injury and showing harm. my friend on the others had referred to massachusetts versus the apa that recognize states have a special place in our constitutional order, however, we still demonstrated that based on the government's own estimates and the number of women affected, these rules would impose direct cost on us. and with respect to the question about nationwide injunctions, i want to stress that we are here in the preliminary posture. we were granted a plural luminary injunction. the government requested the case be stayed. we could have the case wrapped up now. the analysis with respect to nationwide injunctions is different. where the only ultimate remedy available is that the court shall set aside a rule that is invalid. able to slice and dice rules and say, the agency can enforce with this person but it stays with everyone else, the results would not be regulatory chaos -- the results would be read literary chaos. of that final remedy that is available, granting preliminarily relief on a nationwide issue is appropriate. it was appropriate here because the court found a very well reasoned discussion that found your honor's concerns expressed about nationwide injunctions, discussed this idea that there are cross-border harms that could not be addressed. thank you. it would seem though that themately, -- that is argument, nationwide injunctions with any read literary change? >> i don't think that is the case, your honor. i think there are many regulations that would not impose costs on states directly or indirectly. and certainly, in a nationwide injunction context, it would still depend on the specifics of the rule being challenged, and the nature of the harm that the challengers are alleging. as i indicated, the district court took accounts of all of these concerns, talked about the need for percolation among the circuit courts in acknowledged in plain terms that bashing preliminarily is an imperfect science. when this was adopted, do you think there was such things as nationwide injunctions or were they handled on a case-by-case basis? >> i believe there is a history certainly of these gone beyond the parties to a case whether they were classified as nationwide injunctions is difficult to say. think that in passing the apa, congress provided a specific remedy and as your honor stated in the travel ban case, authority for nationwide injunction has to come from the constitution or statutes. this is the authority we would allege we argue the basis for this injunction comes from, it says is a final remedy set aside proper agency action and then permits agencies -- permits courts to stay agency action as this court did a few years ago. injunctions, to postpone the effective dates and many of those remedies suggest relief going to the rule in its entirety. justice ginsburg: i'm troubled by the complete abandonment of the congresses interest in saving women cost. it's a forced cost on women congress want to provide free coverage for. i've never seen any of our prior decisions suggest that those interests would be thrown to the wind and the women could be left to their own resources to cover themselves and get policies that would cover for these contraceptive services. at a premium to them. i think it's important to remember just how broad these rules are. there are two rules we are dealing with. one we haven't talked about is the moral rule that says an employer with a moral objection to provide contraception can be exempted. the district court noted this could allow an employer that objects to women in the workforce for instance to remove itself from providing contraception. with respect to the religious exemption, there are certain key features that really should show how broad this is. it illuminates the accommodations as mandatory requirements. even for instance all the various planes of plaintiff and the hobby lobby case that recognize they were fine with the accommodation, they are now exempt. i disagree with my friends conclusion they are unlikely to take advantage because these are at any subject to contraception -- contraceptive. we were fine with the cop -- complying with the accommodations. , the supplies. >> where does the moral exemption come from? >> they do not rely on that for a moral exemption. they claim authority under 300 gg -- 13 under the women's health amendment. argued and the court has found that statute doesn't support the conclusion they can create whatever exceptions they want. if they were correct there would be no limits what it could do. could remove the cost-sharing requirement. and that certain services couldn't be --, they could exempt whole classes of employers for reasons having nothing to do with the reasons here. our reading we submit is a far better one and we have to remember with targa resources, it's really unlikely congress would delegate to that organization authority to create religious and moral protections. exemptions given they have no expertise in the area. >> justice breyer. justice breyer: two related questions. says they have to provide additional preventive care as provided for in conference of guidelines supported by the health resources and services administration. read that and you get some ambiguity. my question is given your and given what may well be ambiguity in the statute, why didn't you make the argument it's arbitrary, capricious use of discretion. you are saying it's too broad and it will hurt women, you know it will point out it will raise health care costs and a lot of things. and the government has things to reply to that. why isn't that the proper legal box? my related question is if you were to let a district court that that issue, that district judge might try to reach an accommodation by saying having , philip or z have and daniel maguire and you point out that the prior rule did not pirate the plane a little sisters. if they think it did and you think it didn't, you can't -- it can't be able to monkey with it in some way since everybody reluctantly agrees that it's ok. i see of goings back and making a different kind of argument all the organs in a different legal box. so why not? , i think thesagree rules are are additionally arbitrary and capricious and we did raise that argument in the complaint. we also argued they exceeded the statutory authority cited by the agencies did not support the rules and since we won on that basis there was no need to go further and say if they had the authority to the exercise correctly. i disagree with the suggestion that the language is ambiguous. the use of the word supportive in context reflect similar language immediately preceding. guidelinest that the of the bright horizons guidelines. were funded by hrsa but conducted and produced by the american academy of petri at pediatrics. -- pediatrics. congress borrowed that language. such preventive care and screening. whether there could be a resolution, i would hope that there is. the government and prior ministration we do not believe that these plans are being hijacked. . to be clear we brought the suit against federal government, we have not challenged little sisters come with not challenge their colorado injunction. they and all the other parties are protected by injunctions and do not have to comply with a matter what happens in this case. could there be a resolution to the narrow set of cases out there, i would hope so. the fact that there is in this dispute doesn't justify jettisoning it for public traded companies. think are the most egregious examples of simple how overbroad these are. >> thank you very much. >> justice alito. >> you say the affordable care act does not allow the government to make any exceptions to the contraceptive mandate to accommodate religious objections. exemption for churches, conventions of churches which was established by the prior administration violet of the formal care act. to saying that was required apply the first to mimic church autonomy doctrine. your understanding of the scope for at, a woman who works church and an entirely secular capacity. under your understanding of this religious autonomy doctrine, does that mean that that employment relationship is entirely off-limits for example or any state regulation, for example prohibition and discrimination on the basis of race, age discrimination, americans disabilities act, equal pay act. >> we would not agree with that individuals in entirely secular positions are exempt from all of those requirements under the church autonomy doctrine. what we have argued. >> but you do say it would violate the first amendment to require

there was a great exchange between justice scalia and justice alito in the jps case. alito said there were no gps advices, scalia said there's a tine no constable hiding, and lito says you knee 1,000 constable to get the coverage of gps. so here you have these two conservative justices, one an originalist, the other not, agreeing that the fourth amendment applied, but not for the same reason. justice black at the end of his career was being very ridge i had. he didn't see the conversations as digital effects, and wrote noble, but not in the end a very influential dissent. >>> from at the 19th, 1967, the "los angeles times" headline -- supreme court rules bugging is subject to legal safeguards. in the "new york times" -- high court eases curbs on bugging, adds safeguard, insists police just obtain warrant. we now look at it as a landmark case. how significant was it seen in society back then. >> i think it was a big deal. at that point, you know, these devices were just coming into vogue. it was a new erace of electronic surveillance. they had been around for a while, but th

the dissenters--ceustices clarhomas and samuel alito-- said a sitting president de.rves special considerati " alitot is unrealistic to think that the prospect of possible criminal prosecutionwi not interfere with the performance of the duties of the office." today's ruling was a milestone: the first time justices said whether a president must comply with a state criminal investigation. it was stinging rebuke for a president who has a sweeping view of his powers. >> witch hunt. reporte marcia coyle is chief washington correspondent for "the natiol law journal." and is there a message to a president who says he has his article two powers, allow him to >> i think that opinion is a clear message to a sitting e president that your artio powers are not unlimited, very clear message. th was, you know, across ideological opinion, a very strong precedent for the future. >> reporter: a manhattan grand jury convened by district attorney cyrus vance jr. subpoenaed records-- including the presidens zealously guarded tax returns-- datingck o 2011.dr a bernstein co-hosts wnyc radio and propublica's podcast" tr p,

alito could announce their retirements before the election. radio host hugh hewitt says sources tell him alito is considering retirement, while justice thomas is most likely to step down. they're watching the team leads and all of this. not one of my favorite activities. i prefer to see what is real. sometimes you have to line things up if something is coming down the pike. what do you see? >> based on my time back at the department of justice, the white house prepares for this. this is a big, big deal for them. them. any time a justice might step down. and we know the president had released a number of names, and has been really transparent, it seems to me, about this. i think they are prepared. we know that alitohat, 70 years old? justice thomas is 72. it is tough duty, no matter how you call it, harris. sitting on that court, it is tough. washington is not the most -- >> harris: let me ask you quickly. we are cutting in. >> that's all right. >> harris: how risky is it for the g.o.p. to try to do this? the senate might not be able to get somebody through before the election. just real quick, your thought on that. >> as a politician, i would hold off. it is risky. especially when you consider what happened the last few months of the obama administration, harris, where mitch mcconnell wouldn't put through obama's nominee in the last few months. there is risk associated with this, for sure. >> harris: all right. guy lewis, i didn't mean to cut in, but i wanted us to be able to get to as much as possible. i'll see you soon, my friend. thank you. the move to defund the police's going national. two squad members, as they are called in the house, progresses in the house, proposing a federal plan t to

alito agreed. here is some of what justice alito said. he said the religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools. therefore, the selection and supervision of teachers upon whom the schools rely lie at the core of their mission. judicial review of the way in which the religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the first amendment does not tolerate." sent, justice sotomayor writing, "pause for a moment on the court's conclusion. even if the teachers were not catholic, even if they were forbidden to participate in the churches sacrament to worship, they would nonetheless be ministers of the catholic faith simply because of their supervisory role over students at a religious school. that stretches the law and logic passed their breaking points." let's here from reston, virginia. this is chris. what you think? caller: good morning. i came from a muslim country. christians were minority there. they did impose their religious belief on us. to feel that before they know religious freedom -- religion should not interfere in state affairs. we are treading on dangerous ground. the -- were killing people. based on their interpretation of the bible. this is the first step in banning abortion. i think church and state should be separate completely. this is not right. belief or religion interfering governments. period. in north bergen, new jersey. caller: good morning. out about the -- [indiscernible] i want to know why the so-called -- that nothing is said about -- [indiscernible] this is going to destroy everything in the religion and -- [indiscernible] the employee wants to save money, nothing else. two impose your views on somebody else. the supreme court is playing politics here. host: connie in new jersey. another story new jersey about the u.s. exit from the world health organization. the plan to do it anyway from usa today. -- may hurt a vaccine trial. a republican sharply criticized president trump's decision to withdraw from the who's saying it could jeopardize the development of covid-19 vaccine and impair efforts to stop the global pandemic. "withdrawing u.s. membership could, among other things, interfere with clinical trials essential to develop into -- develop vaccines." after the white house formally notified congress they had begun the who withdrawal process. mike pompeo commenting yesterday at the state department. [video clip] >> we provided notice to capitol hill for our intent to withdraw often the world health organization. we had, he kidded to congress even in the informal progress process that this was our intention. we did that consistent with residence guidance. we will work with congress in respect to appropriated funds. we are not going to underwrite an organization that has historically been incompetent and not performed its fundamental function. there is a focus on the failure that took place around wuhan and the who ability. this is an institution that got ebola, the sars, u.s. had to create their own system to do the work to prevent and come up with solutions to hiv-aids. the united states did that. the world health organization has a long history of corruption and politicization. don't gethat they some pieces of their program right, but this organization has not been able to deliver on its core mission for decades. we got some reforms through back a handful of years ago. leadership hasn't been able to implement them in a way that can prevent the kind of global pandemic that has destroyed lives and cost the global economy trillions of dollars. that is not an organization that the administration has any intention of underwriting. host: the house and senate are out this week for the july 4 break. the senate coming in for a short pro forma session. word this morning there could be additional debate, could be some collaboration on police reform. the headline from the hill, "tim cut -- tim scott saying he is talking with democrats about reviving the bill. he said yesterday he is talking about potentially reviving the bell. he is the only black republican senator and had taken the lead in writing the gop's police reform legislation. ofsaid he had spoken with -- california who has the congressional black caucus about conch rising -- compromising parts of his bill. the hill reports the senator bill had previously stalled after democrats blocked it, saying it did not do enough. scott expressed optimism, he is hopeful agreements will happen in the next couple of weeks. when they return." bobby from spanish fork, alabama. caller: i am cheering. this has been nine years of effort. i am familiar with the little sisters of the poor, having grown up in a city where one of the most beautiful convent exists in mobile, alabama. if you know these women, they are extraordinary. if you know the people who give to them, they are extraordinary. they exceptional money to stay in nursing homes. they take the poorest of the poor off the street. -- in an for them extraordinarily loving way. if you have been to a nursing home and smelled deterioration, it is absolutely the antithesis of what you see in the little sisters of the poor. everything is spotlessly clean. it is gorgeous. there are fresh flowers around. the floors are clean. it is very cheerful. everyone is smiling. these are lovely places. co-worse -- these religious groups against their will to pay for what an earlier ,aller very rightly alluded to these so-called contraceptives are in fact -- i will fill in what he didn't know. if you have rudimentary knowledge of obstetrics, you are aware that these contraceptives senseortifacients in the that they have morning after pills. has been created by conception, that is a new person. people deserve and will receive their civil rights. we are hearing about black lives matter, we are not hearing anything about prenatal lives matter. this started with griswold v connecticut. contraceptive rights was something unheard-of prior to that. this was not a legal right. this should not happen. of biden and his business pro-choice catholics, that is an oxymoron. there is no such thing. if you are pro-abortion, for the killing of prenatal lives, you are no longer in factoid a member of the roman catholic christian church. that needs to be said very loudly. that collar is absolutely completely off the rails. many bishops around the country have for bid in joe biden from receiving the eucharist because he holds positions absolutely antithetical to those of the roman catholic church. host: the case was little sisters of the poor versus pennsylvania. pennsylvania's bob casey with the tweet, "today's decision is a gross misinterpretation of the affordable care act and will disproportionately impact low-wage workers, people of color and lgbtq people who are already facing barriers. no private employer has the right to deny access to health care, that includes birth control. anne-marie in hazleton township. on the i am commenting oppose line because i had ovarian cancer. my daughter has to be on some sort of birth control pill so she doesn't get it. to say to somebody you can't have that and it is a health condition -- i mean that should have been brought into the fact. whoel -- for these people think every birth control pill is used to stop birth. it is not. there are health reasons that some women need to take this. they are not cheap. it is not fair to everybody. host: to cleveland. this is william. caller: good morning. support of what has happened with the supreme court. i would like to explain why. -- as far as abortions go, i personally don't believe in them. through the course of a marriage, my spouse asked me to pick her up birth control medication because she did not like me using condoms. she didn't want me to be fixed either. control,et this birth her regular supply, and i bring it home only to find out she had not been taking it for several months. she was pregnant and she knew it did -- she knew it. we were getting ready to divorce and she wanted another child to get more money in her monthly support check. let's hear from tony in tillman, maryland. caller: first off, you have to believe that the religious right believes in the right to life. 92% of them support capital punishment. a great deal of them support trump putting three-year-old immigrant children in cages, 17 of them died. they don't believe in wearing masks to protect other people from getting the virus and dying. they are not right to life, they are right to birth. once you are born you are free game. you are on your own. paying -- tweet from jen for jacobs, "tulsa county reported 261 cases for monday and tuesday, equipping tuesday's seven-day rolling average of 146.7. a health official said the june 20 child -- trump rally likely boosted cases. " tulsa county covid cases soaring weeks after a trump rally." the president has another event set for portsmouth, new hampshire. this is the headline in usa today, "doctors warn of risks that trump's new hampshire rally. the news press he will hold a rally saturday raised concerns among experts about what his visit will due to the relatively low covid-19 numbers in the area. residentsununu urged to wear masks and practice social distancing at the outdoor rally." on the president, his niece mary trump, her book is coming out. we have a copy here. trump, the nice of donald trump, "too much and never enough: how my family created the world's most dangerous man." because of legal issues involved in the publication of the book, she is not yet able to speak with us or others in interviews about the book. we expect that when that -- when she is available, we will have --erage on "book tv pico book tv." 2.ry weekend on c-span providence, rhode island. michael, good morning. providence, you are on the air. caller: first i would like to clear something up. people who are pro-abortion are leftists that literally have sex only to have abortions. there are people on the left to have a fetish did not give birth, but to be pregnant and then kill the child. batavia, illinois. caller: good morning. i have been listening to two opposing people's opinions. theyave people who think can just make everybody else do what they want and other people are losing their freedoms. other people want to just pursue their rights to happiness and keep their freedoms and keep the constitution the way it was written, that we have the right to pursue our happiness. every time we have government interference telling us what to do, having single-payer anything, we are losing more freedom. when i listen to too many liberals you have talking on your shows every day that talk so much nonsense, i have to turn you off just to get a clear head. it is overwhelming. nobody should tell someday else what to do. if i don't want to take a pill, the government should not put that in my insurance. we should have a choice. choices make us free. choices do not dictate us to be all the same. we are not happy if we are all the same. this is totally nonsense. it is not church and state. that has nothing to do with church and state. it has to do with the constitution that says we have freedoms to choose and think what we want to do and buy, and no government should force us to buy anything or pay for 70 else's. host: houston for one more thought. caller: good morning. i oppose. it is supercritical. -- it is hypocritical. when it comes to the nuns, they are hypocrites. the 1970's, i couldn't work in their hospital. indidn't get a right to work st. joseph's hospital here in houston, texas until the 1980's. host: why weren't you allowed to work there? iller: it was the 1980's and was a nursing assistant before i was allowed to work there. the nuns would walk past you and turn their heads. host: beverly, thanks for your call. we are joined by author and conservative columnist cal thomas who will talk about president trump, what he should do to improve his chances for reelection. we will hear from illinois democrat chuy garcia talking about the meeting with president obrador with president trump yesterday. book tv on c-span2 has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. coming up this weekend, sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on examining what he calls the new face of socialism in the united states and whether it is becoming part of our political culture in his book "the united states of socialism." he is interviewed by benjamin powell. at 10:00 p.m. dr. easy kill ezekiel -- dr. eas emmanuelle discusses his book "which country has the world's best health care?" this weekend on c-span two. we are joined by syndicated columnist cal thomas to talk about president trump's campaign and election campaign 2020. welcome to "washington journal." guest: it is nice to be back. host: we talked about the rally in tulsa and the rally head for president trump in portsmouth. from a strategic and safety point of view, what is your thought of him returning to those rallies? guest: i think they're fine. imagery has a lot to do with this, along with medical substance. i have been an advocate of the president leading with a mask except when he is speaking, like we saw the coronavirus task force yesterday. everyone had a mask on except when they got to the podium and spoke. that's about leadership. i think that's a good thing. whether they are effective or not, we will find out later. his audience as well. this is what leadership is about . this is deeper than just symbolism. we've got to get beyond this. we had a roaring economy before the virus hit. all demographics were doing well, african-americans, hispanics, asians, women. this is an aberration, a pause button on a great economic boom. when the pause button is put on fast-forward again i think things will improve. what i wish the president would do is begin to set an agenda for the next four years if he is elected. we already know what the joe biden agenda is. it has been published as part of a biden-sanders compilation. their first issue is climate change. it goes on in the proposed democratic platform, these hyperbolic things come the end of the world is near that we have heard for several years. this has become the number one priority for democrats -- host: if you are writing the agenda for president trump, what are the topline bullet point items that should be in there? guest: going back to what he was doing before in terms of creating jobs, protecting the streets, there's a really good column in the wall street journal that says this could be a july 4 election. by that he means that the president is playing to his strengths when he talks about tearing down monuments, undermining basic american values and principles. this worked for richard nixon in 1968 with a rise in the democratic convention in chicago and lawlessness on the streets. i think public order is better than law as a phrase for him. people are concerned about what's going on in the streets and the tearing down of the statues. there are ways of removing statues beyond their sell by dates, but that should be done through a legislative council process and orderly fashion rather than these writers in the rioters in the streets who are undermining some of our principles will stop as the president said in his july 3 remarks in south dakota. one page outtioned of the playbook, tweeting about the silent majority, most of the time in capitals. do you think there is a silent majority and the president needs to expand that silent majority, expand his base? guest: to questions, very good ones. a lot of people do not respond to pollsters because they are afraid of what might be said about them if their neighbors find out or if they are asked about it. the other point is we heard this in the 2016 election. hillary clinton was going to win hands down. everyone wondered after the election, what happened? i didn't know anyone who voted for donald trump, democrats said. that is the silent majority. can trump re-mobilize them to the extent he did in 2016. number two, turnout. will they turn out? whiteree, can he reach suburban women and men who were enthusiastic -- especially blue-collar men -- and the 2016 election? there has been a slip among his strongest base, evangelical christians. especially in the latter group he needs to get off of the personal attacks. theydon't solve anything, don't convince anyone. diminishing another person, calling nancy pelosi and joe biden names doesn't help in my view. americans respond to a positive agenda, a forward-looking agenda. that is what ronald reagan did. a city on the hill. even in his last letter to the american people he said america's best days are ahead. we are an optimistic and forward-looking people. host: you can read his syndicated columns in the nation's capital in "the washington times." also a new book "america's ,xpiration date" by our guest cal thomas. we are talking about the president's campaign and the broader campaign 2020. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. the headline whose divisive in a new american revolution? democrats want to impose socialism and worse in the nation. where is it written that the left it's to control the agenda, you write? in fact it is liberalism that has brought the nation to near ruin. which ideology is responsible for 60 million abortions, the welfare state, and family breakup, drugs, and the teaching of false american history? failing inner-city public schools and much more? when conservatives oppose these cultural revisionists, they are called divisive. they should be holding the left accountable for the destruction caused by their ideology. what about for those who still consider themselves in the middle of this clash between ideologies on the right and left? guest: the old line the middle of the road is the dangerous place to be. that is where dead rabbits and armadillos are. i don't even know what moderate means anymore. we have labels we apply to people, left, right, conservative, liberal, and the rest. i do it to sometimes, but at least i define the terms. most people can't even define them anymore. same with the religious area. a lot of people couldn't define evangelical. they have no idea. conservatives have been playing on defense for too many years. the ideology that has caused a lot of social and political unrest. we have a unified philosophy on the left. in academia and the public schools, in hollywood, singulare, which has a worldview. "the new york times", "the washington post" put out an article on diversity. they don't mean diversity of opinion or ideology. a person who is african-american, a woman, hispanic, a latino, whatever, if they are liberal they are liberal no matter how you dress them up. i think real diversity means entertaining other points of view. we have seen when conservatives try to enter the public square and media they are shouted down or censored. that's not good for america. i would say the same to my liberal friends. i don't want to censor them. i read liberal colonists, many of them are my friends. all i want is an equal opportunity to be heard, and i think that's the major objective of most conservatives i know in the country. host: you mention the folks who do not participate in polls. let's go to the polls before we get to calls. the average showing joe biden eight points ahead. what is your thought on that? guest: we had hillary clinton way ahead in 2016. we had jimmy carter ahead in 1980 of ronald reagan. the polls have been wrong so many times in so many ways. it depends on several things. how the question is asked and the understanding of the person being asked, as well as if they are being honest. a lot of people hang up when the calls come in. they don't want to be bothered. mine, around dinnertime, which is annoying. around dinnertime, which is annoying. we would be better off going to a fortuneteller than upholstered. first, pennsylvania, our democrats line. caller: good morning. whatalling in regards to we actually have experienced. the true colors of our president and his way of doing things. some of the things that are brought up in this book i feel we see in his character. narcissism,, the the narcissistic personality that he is looking at what this now and thefor him problems of america are way down somewhere. he tries to stifle -- if he could he would be firing people in his way because the campaign and him holding these rallies and beefing that up in a couple of months, instead of trying to curb the control -- and this is what he wanted. he wanted things to open quick because his economy was going down the tubes will stop his economy, he thinks. he thinks he brought it up. -- i'm sorry,rted but we ignore the fact that it started to come up in the obama. obama did start the rise of the economy. it happened to get in his hands. host: cal thomas? guest: i would say the same thing about ronald reagan. he was benefiting from his predecessors. were't know which book you talking about. there are a lot of books and more coming. many politicians are narcissistic and think more highly of themselves than they ought to. trump don't think donald is any different from barack obama or bill clinton for that matter. as far as benefiting from the economy, everyone benefits from a good economy, republican or democrat. can't we be unified on the fact that lower taxes and fewer regulations and many other things that the president has done has improve the economy? barack obama inherited a really, really bad economy and did some things that helped improve it. i think, like ronald reagan, donald trump has gone far more. if joe biden is elected he said he would raise taxes and reimpose regulations and adopt the green new deal business which would force a lot of people out of the jobs they like and have now into green energy jobs. i think that will be a major issue in the campaign and one that a lot of people won't like. callerre mentioned character. you brought up the decline in polls along evangelical supporters of the president. how concerned are you that the president's character could be a negative factor in the campaign? guest: it is only july. we will have to see. i think that if there is a , and friedman of "the new york times" said yesterday, the president ought to be forced to release his taxes first. that could be decided in a few hours by the supreme court. that there should be fact checkers at the end of the debate. i know how that would go. i think character matters in some way. if i'm about to have surgery, i might be interested in the character of the surgeon, but i'm more interested in how many of his patients have been healed to his surgical skill. i don't put my faith -- as king david said in princes and kings -- i put it in a higher authority. this is the choice we have, trump versus biden. if there were other choices i might think friendly, but i don't have any other choices. nor that i have any other choices in 2016. host: republican line, stuart, florida. and i: i am a republican am also an intelligent republican. i am an environmentalist and i believe we are destroying the planet through climate change. do you believe in climate change, mr. thomas? guest: i think over the history of the world -- and i'm sure you're smart enough. you said you are an intelligent republican. i don't think they are contradictory. the climate has ebbed and flowed. we had a warmer climate then a cooler climate. in the 1970's there was a newsweek cover story of the coming ice age. scientists are not god. they put in models into the computers and the computer spit out things based on the models. we have seen that with the coronavirus. the world health organization saying one thing one week and the opposite the next week. the cdc saying one thing one week and the opposite the next week. even dr. birx says she doesn't fully trust the numbers coming out of the cdc anymore. it's difficult to base policy on these models. i think the earth has a built in self cleansing element to it. should we pollute the planet with more carbon emissions? no, we ought to be responsible, but i think turning the power over to the federal government -- which doesn't do mar very may things well, honestly, and i think that's a bipartisan statement -- to basically take over the economy on the green that is a verynk dangerous for our economy and future. host: you had a column with the headline will lightning strike twice about the trump campaign. you write that a myth says lightning never strikes twice in the same place. but donald trump seems to believe it when it comes to replicating his narrow victory in 2016. what is not a myth is you can't reproduce experiences. some of the concerns you were trying to raise in that column? guest: i go back to something i said earlier. the late glen campbell had a wonderful song called "try a little kindness." i think reaching out counts for a lot. i would like to have seen, even before the virus hit, the president heading up on stage as some of these rallies -- having as some oftage these rallies african-americans you didn't have jobs who have jobs. you might be able to go into the hospitals and talk to people who had the virus and overcome it. you can talk to the relatives of people who have succumbed to it to demonstrate empathy. i think he's capable of that. but the constant battering, negativity, and labeling people i don't think is helpful. while it may fire up his base, you can't win with just the base. you have to expand it. that is what we saw with blue-collar democrats voting for the president. the issue in this campaign is if they will still do that or asert to the status quo ante said.lege professor i think kindness carries a lot of weight, especially to suburban white women without college degrees, and to other people who want a positive, encouraging message when there is a lot to discourage us. host: arlington, texas, independent line. caller: i left the democratic party and became an independent years ago over there in session with daca. this president is clearly a neofascist. the most unintelligent person i've ever seen. he is an unintelligent person who suggested we inject disinfectant into our bodies to kill coronavirus. there is no trump tax cut. i am paying more federal income taxes now than under president obama. i made 51,000 dollars this year thus far and paid 8000 dollars in federal income tax. where has my tax break come in this tax cut president trump has given? and what economy? he is on the coattails of barack obama's economy. he has done nothing but start a tariff war with china and we had to give welfare payments to for soybean purchases. he has the instincts of an authoritarian. he cleared out lafayette park using thug-like tactics on peaceful protesters. guest: we get the talking points. maybe you can define neofascist for me. it doesn't sound like you are independent to me, sir. you are speaking the democrats' talking points. you are calling names. i'm sorry that you think you are paying more in taxes. i don't know -- you said you made $57,000 last year. i think the republican tax cut was basically across the board. if you are paying more taxes even on the republican tax cut, you may want to consult your advisor and see what you're doing. maybe you're not taking enough deductions. taxes andme ask about federal spending. the federal deficit ballooned in june totaling 860 $3 billion, nearly as much as the entire gap for fiscal year 2019 as federal spending triple to combat the coronavirus pandemic and tax revenues plunged. what are your concerns? guest: i think this is one of the few bipartisan things that occur in washington, spending. no one wants to address the debt, the deficit. as i write in my book "america's expiration date," one of the common denominators to the the klein of all empires and great societies and -- the decline of all empires and great societies is massive debt. the problem isn't taxes. the problem is spending. no one can cut the rate of increase of spending in washington. the democrats in my view would demagogue them as wanting to starve children, we saw this before. this is the kind of ridiculous non-debate you get. when paul ryan was the speaker of the house he put forward a legitimate plan. it had flaws, but it was a good start to reform social security and medicare, the major drivers of debt entitlement programs in the country. someone came up with an actor that looked like ryan pushing an old lady in a wheelchair over a cliff. that is not a credible response to a credible proposal. ,his is what politicians fear doing anything, cutting spending on unworkable and outmoded programs, because their major goal is to be reelected and they will be demagogue by their opponents if they try to cut even the increase in spending. host: congress is clearly not in that mode with spending on coronavirus alone. guest: that's true. every year there are anti-tax organizations like citizens against government waste who puts out a book on wasteful and unnecessary spending. i have said on several occasions in my call and that every agency of government should be forced to come before congress every couple of years and justify not just its baseline budget -- it's budget, and baseline budgeting is ridiculous, but its existence. if it is living up to the charter, if it's a living up to the reason for its existence, and it cannot be done better and more cheaply by the private sector, we keep it. if he can't we get rid of it. we do that -- if it can't, we get rid of it. we do that in business and private life, why can't we do it in government? like ronald reagan said the only proof of eternal life is government programs in washington. caller: i would like to say that the coronavirus and the trump campaign, to have the president of the united states run a campaign so people can get sick and take the illness out and spread it to other people is a selfish act. there is no debating that. we see in arizona doctors are sending elderly people home to die because they can't care for them. we see governor desantis in florida trying to hide the numbers and misconstrue the numbers to fit his agenda. the other thing about president trump compared to barack obama, tell me how many lawyers barack obama had to hire and how many of his lawyers they had to hire and how many and president obama's administration are in prison or on their way to jail. you talk about the drug war. are you kidding me? the drug war is funded by the alcohol and tobacco commissions. it doesn't seem they care so much about people being strung out on drugs as much as it is whose drugs people are being strung out on. host: we will let cal thomas respond. guest: president obama did not need a lot of lawyers. he had his attorney general who described himself as president obama swingman. all of these personal attacks -- first of all the coronavirus death rate is down 39% according to figures i saw yesterday. infected andhose affect did recover. do some have lingering problems? yes, they do. this has been true of all kinds of viruses and pandemics in the past. more people died of the flu in last worldwide pandemic we had. be bipartisan because the virus does not discriminate between liberals and conservatives. this ought to be something that unifies us and is not used as a political weapon for or against one party or the other. can't we come together on everything, or have our politics been so poisoned that someone puts out another statement according to whom? host: the homepage of the group called 43 alumni for biden, we work for w we support joe. your thoughts on this group and a similar group, the lincoln project of like-minded republicans opposing the president. guest: you never see this working on the others will stuff you don't see groups being formed democrats for donald trump or democrats for ronald reagan, though there were a few more for him. way.ways works this some wishy-washy republicans want to the approval of the editorial pages of "the new york post. or the washington a lot of editorial writers were behind john mccain when he ran for the republican nomination. as soon as he got the nomination, they were opposed to him. death, we moderates are for joe biden -- if you -- all of this moderate stuff, we are for joe biden, if you are for low taxes and more freedom, how can you vote for someone who is against those things? joe biden for almost 40 years was me emily opposed the federal -- was opposed to federal funding of abortion. now he is for it. he says times have changed. the value of the unborn child hasn't changed. these so-called republicans, republican in name only. myron in ohio. caller: good morning, mr. thomas. for all of your wonderful work over the years. i am a republican. i have this question. the democrats, day in and day to, to use your word, seem be unified. republicans never seem to be. can you tell me why? guest: there are several reasons. i am a native washingtonian. the establishment is very strong. people like the approval of others. it's human nature. i would rather have every call from you saying wonderful things about me, but that is not reality. people like to go to cocktail parties and read the paper and see their name in a favorable way. it's very attractive and seductive. a lot of people who are not well grounded in their ideology and are afraid to speak out for what they believe in because they fear being labeled racist, sexist, homophobic, intolerant, bigoted -- we have heard all of the buzzwords. there are a lot of people who are fearful about that. a couple of books ago i had a whole chapter about hate mail. it was funny. i couldn't print the obscene things, but one of my favorite lines was when i was doing commentary on npr. " is there some kind of inbreeding program on npr that produces a guy like thomas?" i thought that was funny. host: jim in missouri. caller: good morning. good morning, how are you? thisld like to flip around. i want to know why you think the broadest segment of the woolorate can have the pulled over their eyes. you're guy trump is in trouble. you picked the wrong jockey and probably have a weaker hors revisionism, i'm sorry, is actually a large monkey on the back of the so-called conservative republican party, which is actually, i'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you are neither conservative and i doubt you are a republican. host: we will let you go there, short on time. final thoughts? guest: we had a mix of species there, we went from a worst way monkey, kind of confused about that. if you were still on the line i would ask in what is a conservative to you? like to lower taxes, individual liberty, personal responsibility. that in the is a hard conservatism. for you to say that i'm not something, i think you'd have to define what you think conservatism is, but we out of time and i appreciate your call. once again, always a pleasure to be on c-span. host:'s new book is called "america's expiration date." thanks again. more ahead here on washington journal, we are joined next by joe garcia to talk about the visit yesterday. also litter on we will be speaking with advancing health talkingounder and ceo about the impact of covid-19 on minorities and what she calls the pandemic of inequities. ♪ >> american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the americans for every weekend. coming up as we can, saturday on oral history, an interview with cox,eney cox -- courtland his involvement with a student nonviolent quarter many committee. on sunday at four clock p.m. eastern on real america, the 1963 nbc news report, the american revolution of 1963. and the status of the civil rights movement with protests maryland,ia, alabama, and in the northern cities of new jersey, chicago, and brooklyn. i said in a discussion on congress, and polarization with historians as well as political scientist norman ornstein. and in :00 p.m. on the cohen talksandrew about his book. days that defined jfk's response to the nuclear arms race and civil rights. exploring the american story. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. announcer: washington federal continues. host: we are joined next by congressman chile garcia from the fourth district of illinois. welcome. guest: good morning. glad to join you. morning to on this talk about u.s.-mexico relations and obviously with the visit yesterday of the mexican president lopez meeting with president trump and holding a briefing with reporters, also talking about the beginnings of the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement. let me read you a little bit from the washington post article about that. from visiting the mexican president improve relations. they say trump was elected on the anti-immigration platform that said he would build a wall along the u.s.-mexico water and worse mexico to pay for it. mexico rejected that idea out right, u.s. taxpayers have funded the barricade which is under construction. last year, trump threatened to impose tariffs on mexico. a deal was struck to avoid a trade war but not without hard feelings on both sides. lopez seem to and have a pretty good relationship going on. why do you think that is? i think that the meeting for the most part was a dog and pony show. attacked insulted and mexico and mexican-americans for years now. it's hard to believe that president lopez is falling for it, even though minister trudeau did not show up and sees right byough the whole photo op trump and his aides. whatalso very true that both presidents have in common is countries that are being withed by the coronavirus new levels of infection. we've reached the 3 million mark yesterday, one of the highest totals ever, 59,000 cases, new cases reported yesterday. of course, both economies are reeling from the effects. both of them had a need for a distraction and this was sort of a perfect press conference. what is almost interesting was no mention of the free trade wasement, the usmca improved significantly by democrats and the house of representatives in negotiations with light hauser. it's also very telling the president lopez would come and only meet with trump and not even arrange for a phone call with vice president biden, particularly given the polling in the country that shows vice president biden would have beat him in many states across the events trumpg many won in 2016. host: a letter that you sent to president trump, you said that while this meeting may appear to totrade related, and tied the new united states-mexico-canada trade agreement, it is nothing more than an attempt to distract from the coronavirus crisis and your failure to lead an adequate response to the pandemic. those are the words and the experience of the congressional hispanic caucus. i am a member, a signatory to that letter, and we feel very strongly about a variety of things. they won when donald trump became a candidate for president, he attacked mexico and he attacked mexicans and mexican americans. he has unleashed almost daily attacks against the immigrant community, calling people like myself criminals and drug dealers and everything else. that hurts. we take that personally and it has not ended there. it's also ironic that it was in washington, d.c. that the community across the country of immigrant groups had to fight and defeated efforts to include the question of citizenship on the census, a clear act that is meant to suppress the census reporting in this country, and particularly among immigrants and latinos. and more recently, just two weeks ago, we were able to stop trump's effort to end the daca program, a program that is helping almost 800,000 young people who, by all measurements, are u.s. citizens except they don't have a piece of paper to prove it. they were children who were brought here many, -- were very young. who simply want an opportunity to legalize their status and a pathway to citizenship. they are doing good things and communities, many of whom are front-line workers, many of whom are essential workers saving lives in hospitals with doctors and nurses and other personnel. this is the track record of why wetrump, and that's wanted to send that letter to president trump and we wanted everyone to take note of it because these are grievances and this is the track record of this administration as it pertains to immigrants and latino and mexican-american communities. democrat from illinois, (202) 748-8000 is the democrat line. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. story,spanic immigrant what you are very familiar with. you came here from durango, mexico. briefly tell us your story of when you can to the united states and why that was. here, my father was a pioneer. he left a very small village in the northern state of durango like many other men at that time who were trying to provide for their families. part of a u.s. worker exchange program to work the fields in texas and tell on you and he made his way to chicago when he got his green card. therrived here, the rest of family, to be united with him with every card 1985 and have been members of our community contributing. i have the great honor of being one of 14 members of the 116th congress who are foreign-born immigrants who understand the contributions of immigrants in this country and why we need to embrace and have a good immigration policy and immigration reform in our country, we are law abiding, we are hard-working, we are god-fearing. we are as red-blooded americans as anyone else, and we just want simply for the american public to know that and to also know of the contributions that we are making to build our nation. indiana, katelyn on our democrat line. trump has repeatedly tried cutting the international budget which can disproportionally affect people in poverty around the globe, and i'm just wondering what you are doing with the rest of congress to try to protect it and make sure that citizens outside of america are still safe and healthy. guest: thank you for that question. haveu know, trump doesn't very many international friends collaborators to engage the rest of the world in a globalizing economy and in terms of foreign relations, about the only does go friends that he seems to have our , but he putin in russia has been someone who just doesn't have a history of understanding foreign relations and the need to be a leader on the world stage by assisting other nations in their time of need. one of the things we're trying to do now is to ensure that during covid-19, four countries -- more countries have access to credit and are not obligated to pay whatever obligations they may have because of the pandemic, just as we have created relief programs in this country that has resulted in stimulus checks to working families across the country, initiatives to help small businesses, and also looking at a passive of important legislation, the heroes act, that would help many states and provide thingsts like rental assistance and help for small property owners who have to make their mortgage payments as well. this is the agenda that we are trying to advance in the u.s. congress today, both on the domestic front to help are working families and workers across the country in small businesses, as well as to help other countries during the pandemic when they are very strapped for cash and where exceptions need to be made to help people get through these tough times. host: kingston illinois, sharon, independent line. caller: i just wanted to say i think it's unfair to mark quite as as racist if few million white french people wanted to come into america in any area. rather you have people that have been in a certain place for 30 or 40 years, even if it is a white, french person. i think any american would have a problem with that. if tingling or 3 million andagoans decided to move, go to mexico and move into any i wonderood in mexico, many mexicans would have a problem with 2 million or 3 million illegal americans coming them,free anything from any people that have been in an area for a certain amount of time, i don't think race or nationality or color has anything to do with it. americans have real problems with french people or a wish or anybody coming into the area if they feel threatened like they can have their job or something like that. i don't think america has a race problem at all or a nationality problem. i think they are very accepting of other nations. we are all next and all that, that's all i have to say. no racial or ethnic characterizations of the american public whatsoever in the remark that i've made this just want you to know that there are many americans living happily in mexico and many are parts of mexico. they find a welcoming country and that accepting country and one that they want to live their golden years in in many places across mexico, so with respect to the flow of people across the border, it goes both ways. the moment that we can ensure the advancement of working people and working families on both sides of the border, then we can talk about full integration. their long stood and equality rates on both sides of the border as long as you have working conditions both in the mexican economy, workers in the manufacturing sector in mexico only earned about 40% of what workers in china make working in manufacturing, you are going to have the exodus of jobs going to other countries. that's why we fought to improve labor standards in the new trade agreement. i wish the two presidents would have talked about it, i wish they would have taken at least one question from the media in their two press conferences that they had, but obviously that wasn't the emphasis of it, it seems to be one more opportunity for a photo op. i welcome the debate around immigration reform and why it is .adly needed our immigration system and the laws are broken, we need to reform them and we been pushing for a dialogue and collaboration in the u.s.. host: the administration citing covid-19 in their proposal to change a file of roles. asylum from disease hotspots. the trump administration proposed a new set of rules that block migrants from applying for asylum if they came or passed through a country with a widespread contagious disease such as the coronavirus. that would block nearly all asylum-seekers at the u.s. southern border from applying or any form of humanitarian projection in the u.s., and would put them on the fast-track to deportation instead. what are your thoughts? guest: in the first place, it's very important to understand that president trump has fought to dismantle our silent system process. a long-held set of values that recognizes that people who are fleeing from violence and persecution should be given the ,pportunity to make their case this new announcement has to be looked at within the framework of what the president has intended on doing for the past several years. there are legal actions against the president and the the stepstion and they taken with respect to the asylum system. it is one of the distinguishing features of our system in this country to welcome the persecuted and people who are fleeing danger and who are seeking refuge in a nation that historically has welcomed them. that came to a halt with president trump. the latest announcement is simply efforts to scare people into not accepting any new comers as a part of the recipe that helped the president elected in 2016, but i think the american public is recognizing that you can't just do things like that and do away with many of the things that have made a legacy around the world as it relates to immigrants and refugees. host: alberto is next in bakersfield, california, republican line. from vegas though, california. promised immigration reform in the first year of his presidency, he lied to us with all the congress. deported more mexican people from their home state. i have a lot of friends that have been supportive. and you guys are saying nothing. nothing. have the latino congress, they don't say nothing to obama. and you guys do not complain. don't see any deportations right now here in california. i don't see nothing. like obama did. you guys didn't say nothing. we have all these aliticians, democratic, liquor store on every corner of the latino community. that's the way you guys allow the latino community? to have a liquor store on every corner? host: will get a response. guest: thank you for your call, alberta. for the record, i am one of the freshmen members of congress, i was not there when president obama was in the white house. he does hail from chicago, i was quite disappointed that no immigration reform was achieved period, it's one of the lacking's of his administration. i served with president obama and the illinois senate, by the way. in a house of representatives, we have passed the dream and promise act, an important part of immigration reform. it has been languishing in the senate for almost eight months now. we have urged leader mcconnell to call the bill for consideration in the senate, he has refused to do that. the bill would enable doctor --daca class of young people, it would provide a pathway to citizenship for people who have temporary protected status in our country. that is what we have done. i plan on continuing to be an advocate for immigration debates and immigration reform in our country. there is another bill i believe we past three months ago, the farm modernization act that would also provide such a vehicle so that farmworkers could stabilize their situation and could provide a significant pathway to legalization for them. their employers supported the essential nature of farmworkers in our economy, especially in the pandemic. so we are looking forward to continuing to press immigration reform bills in the congress, but that's what the 160th congress and the house of representatives had done to advance immigration reform in our country. host: that call from bakersfield, california. kevin mccarthy, the minority leader from california represents that central california city. with president trump in january at the signing of the usmca, the political article, trust north american trade deal starts now, here is what to expect. it started yesterday at the white house. congressman, you alluded to some of the changes, the improvements in the usmca that were made. what can you tell us about this deal, particularly in terms of u.s.-mexico portions? guest: the bill is an improvement over the prior north american trade agreement that was in place for 25 years. , acifically, it provoked cause mexico to act on its labor laws, passing a historic piece of legislation that on paper sounds really good and is going in the right direction. with respect to getting workers in mexico greater opportunities theytermine what union want to be affiliated with. mexico has a long history of government-dominated unions, they are quite friendly to employers and they have kept wages very low. part of the reason why many jobs have gone out over the 25 year period of the north american free trade agreement. other improvements in the bill included the fact that the initial proposal would have granted from the, large pharmaceutical companies the ability to move to mexico with all of their monopolies guaranteed. thus raising the price of pharmaceuticals in mexico, including the price of insulin because of their intervention in the house of representatives with trade representative , thatouses -- lighthizer allow that provision of the law to move forward. however, better bill, the conditions in mexico are still such that, as i stated previously in the manufacturing sector, mexican workers only earned about 40% of what chinese workers earned in china. the incentive for companies to continue outsourcing and moving jobs in relocating, the only way that can be improved is by strengthening labor rights in mexico. will fall short mexican workers are not able to organize and american workers will suffer from that outsourcing of labor. there were improvements to the bill. there were also initiatives to ensure that along the border they were both drinking water is -- there were both drinking water a residual water systems implemented. the usmca, things can only improve the living conditions of workers in canada and the u.s. and mexico improve, and that's why in the end, i wound up voting against the usmca. one other provision that was completely ignored by the usmca, even though it has modest improvements, what the omission of any mention, even the word climate change is not included in the agreement. when so many countries are recognizing that climate change is a threat to everything that we are as countries and the civilized world, it was omitted from the usmca. reason why i voted against the agreement, because i felt that it was a shortcoming and that we should have done more. european countries and the european union understand climate change, they are taking sustainable energy and move away from fossil fuels. we don't have the luxury of not addressing climate change in the most important economic agreement between the countries in north america. host: a couple more calls here, we will go to tim in gainesville, florida. democrat line. caller: good morning representative garcia. so glad to be talking with you. i want to know i'm a pro-life democrat. i'm also a black lives matter person. i marched with the children of daca, i am the grandson of a jamaican immigrant in my mother's name was carmelita. i wanted to say that you can be a patriot like john quincy. they were against the mexican war. it withncy adams viewed disparity, the annexation of texas. he thought that was the ultimate betrayal of the constitution, but i would like to get your remarks on this direct quote. -- and theution is union is sinking into military monarchy to the ripped asunder like the empire of alexander. that was as comment about the annexation of texas. thank you so much for taking my call. guest: thank you so much. i see your also a historian and a very wise one. i think we've had warnings from great leaders in our country from different sectors of the population all along who have warned against the election of people who think that they are alleged to be king, and their elected to do it they will. i'm also reminded of the threat of the military-industrial complex and how we have the responsibility to always protect the constitution and to make sure that no one in any branch of government monopolizes power or violates the constitution, so thank you for your call in for sharing a little bit of american history with us and the things that make us a unique nation. host: steve is next, independent line, port saint lucie, florida. caller: joe biden's 50 year career with 5 million factories and jobs and most of them to communist china. where do you think this virus came from? the communist chinese government. back, marxisp reveledt in the streets of chicago, and you haven't said one word about that. let's talk about that. you are hispanic american, your brothers and sisters know they're not going to vote for joe biden because the offshore's and outsources all the jobs. guest: thank you for your call. know, there is plenty of blame to go around in past bipartisan trade deals. i've heard regrets from members of congress who have been there during that previous experience with respect to what we are facing now. we are trying to do things in the u.s. congress to address the working conditions in those three countries, we are trying to ensure that workers have the right to affiliate with unions freely. we are trying to increase wages and we see wage differentials as being one of the things that creates inequality and disparities from one country to another. only when we have enforcement of labor models and transparency in trade agreements that we can advance and ensure that working people are advancing. the blame on bad trade agreements is bipartisan. the people who were there prior to my arrival in congress should be held to account for that, but i think that as we move forward, we will learn from mistakes and shortcomings and that's what will make us a better country, and that's what will enable us to engage in real and fair trade deals in the future that improve a lot of working families in all three countries. host: great to have you with us on washington journal this morning. guest: thank you so much. host: there's more ahead. up next, we are going to be talking about the inequities of the treatments the pandemic. we will be speaking with advancing health founder and ceo talking about covid-19 and the impact across minority communities. your calls and comments ahead. trump: america's future is in our hands and ladies and gentlemen, the best is yet to come. trump is hosting a rally in portsmouth, new hampshire. campaign 2020 coverage saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, on-demand at c-span.org or listen on the go with the free c-span radio app. today, secretary of defense mark esper and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general mark milley testify before the house armed services committee on the authorities and roles of the defense department related to civilian law enforcement. watch live coverage beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, on demand on c-span.org, or listen live wherever you are on the free c-span radio app. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events. you can watch all of c-span's public affairs programming on television, online, or listen on the free radioactive and the part -- radioactive -- radio app or through our social media feed. c-span, created by america's as ae's television company public service and brought to you today by your television provider. washington journal continues. host: dr. blackstock is an emergency medicine physician in new york. you can read some of her postings on yahoo! news, she's in medical could trigger and also the founder and ceo of an organization called advancing health equity. welcome to washington journal. guest: thank you for having me. host: tellis, what is your group, advancing health equity. what is that about? guest: i start of the organization about a year and a half ago in response to racial health inequities that i can see in my clinical practice, practicing over 10 years in the emergency department. we have some very concerning statistics. black men have the shortest life expectancy, black women have the highest maternal mortality rate. i really want us to work with health care and related organizations around these racial health inequities. host: how do you propose going about doing that? in a practical way, what is your organization doing? guest: i partner with these organizations for talks, training, consulting. most training is about racism and health care, unconscious bias in health care. making organizations more aware trying although we are to the wonderful positions and clinicians to people, sometimes our biases actually implement the way that we care for people and we have data that shows that. and also working with organizations to ensure that they are meeting their health equity goals, ensuring that all patients are having the optimal health outcome as much as possible. host: our guest, a former associate professor of emergency medicine at the nyu medical school. the organization you just mentioned you formed a year and a half ago, well before the pandemic. inequities, the pandemic must be really revealing much more of that to you. guest: absolutely. obviously these were concerned that i had before this pandemic and i think there are a number epidemiologists and researchers and other folks working in the health equity space that were very concerned about the health inequities because before the pandemic, what the pandemic has done is really exposed and amplified the numbers. thinking about what we've seen in, andfour months we've seen black lies and indigenous communities being absolutely disproportionately impacted not only in infection rates, but who is hospitalized and who dies from coronavirus. host: that exposure and that amplification of those inequities, the problems it has caused in particular among minority communities in some way could be a good thing in terms of evolving solutions down the road in terms of legislation, health-care legislation, in particular? say, i don't will know if i would say it's a good thing, i think it's definitely bringing more attention to the inequities, and i think that for example, i testified in front of the u.s. house of representatives subcommittee on the coronavirus. we had a briefing in early june on racial health disparities and they were very interested in developing legislation to address the inequities that we're seeing. testify, to talk about the importance of having legislation around the disparities because as we know, we are going to be in this pandemic for much longer than we expected. what i expect is for these communities that have already been devastated, to be devastated even further if we don't have legislation passed to mitigate the impact of the virus. host: our guest talking this morning about the effect of covid-19, the pandemic on minority communities. we welcome your calls, your comments. the numbers are (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones. in the mountain and pacific regions, (202) 748-8001. dr. blackstock, give us an idea of what your day to day work life is like. guest: sure. a clinic,bination of seeing patients in urgent care since january, and it's interesting because i transitioned out of the emergency department at urgent care because i thought it would be quite simple. typically we see minor complaints. but the pandemic happened, so i started seeing patients who essentially the walking wounded of the pandemic. i had many patients who were sick enough for me to have to send them to the emergency department. and what i did notice over those first few weeks here at the pandemic hit was my patient population with specifically very diverse quickly shifted over a matter of weeks to mostly .lack and latin many of them have been working continuously, they had not had the luxury of working from home. many were essential workers and service workers. they were in a sense exposed and put at risk to be infected with the virus. many of them also to public transportation and lived in overcrowded housing, which we also know are risk factors to being infected. forally had the opportunity hundreds of coronavirus patients up until this point. unfortunately in new york city, our numbers are doing much better, so we are seeing much less patients who are infected. but i will say that that experience was quite scary. host: in new york city in terms of minority communities, can you address some of the underlying issues in terms of, is it more because those communities are more susceptible, you mentioned the transportation issues in new york. susceptible to an impact from covid-19, or because they are lacking adequate resources, access to primary health care, for example? guest: those are all factors. we are seeing these disproportionate rates is multifactorial. pandemic, wehe have communities with high rates of uninsurance, do not have access to follow the care. we also know that there are certain social to terminating employment,cation, all have a direct influence on the health of individuals and communities. even before the pandemic, if communities carried the highest burden of causing disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and asthma, which we can to find out work risk factors for doing very poorly when you are infected with coronavirus. add on to that the other factors such as overcrowding in housing, transportation, and it's almost a perfect storm to make these communities even sicker. looking hopefully a year or more down the road when the pandemic subsides, what do you help your organization, the advancing health equity, can take forward? what kind of ideas are you trying to take forward for minority communities? term, we are short pressing for recommendations to the subcommittee on the coronavirus, but the recommendations are really targeting testing and contact tracy infrastructures in black and indigenous communities. is goingink outreach to be very, very critical as we go on in the pandemic. education around the symptoms of coronavirus, how is it transmitted, because we know the messenger is incredibly important in terms of relaying these messages to communities. and in the long term, we need to really think about impact in the communities and those areas i mentioned in terms of employment. leave,s of having sick having personal protective equipment on the job, having access to homeownership. homeownership is very important to developing wealth and welfare is key in addressing some of the issues that we're seeing in terms of racial health inequities. ist we are calling for really for federal, state, and local governments to invest in black and other minority communities because i think that we will see in the future of the , further devastation if we don't make social change. host: the u.s. passing 3 million cases yesterday, a graphic in the washington post, new coronavirus cases and deaths are the day. this was last night, so obviously it has gone up. 62,751 total cases, now over 3 million and the debts yesterday alone, 897. that death toll has no risen above 130,000. were you surprised at all by the spike we seen in cases of states that had reopened? guest: no, i wasn't surprised, to be honest. beginning,the very although there were not stringent federal guidelines about reopening, that you needed to see a certain number of cases or at least see a downward trend over the course of 14 days, and many of the states that reopened not have that. some states were even trending upward as they reopened. to be honest, i think what we're seeing now has been very easily predicted because when you don't have the virus under control, and you are not using the public health measures and you decide to reopen, slowly opening restaurants, clubs, bars, you are going to see what we're seeing now in the south and western parts of the country. host: we have called waiting period first to jenny in missouri. -- jimmy in missouri. guest: caller: i just wanted to say that right now as everything saysing on, as everybody minority communities, i think all communities are minorities due to the fact that sometimes, thele get confused about whole world watching and it's very hard to run a state in very complicated to run a country. i'm a longtime democratic and i believe that the president we have right now is doing his best, and may god bless america and may god bless the united states. host: dr. blackstock, any thoughts? guest: i respectfully disagree with that. i think what we're seeing now looking at the case numbers is that the death we had in this country compared to other countries, compared to europe, compared to asia, compared to even other countries, what we're seeing is a clear lack of effective federal leadership and also of a clear strategy for containing this virus. we know that there are basic public health measures that eliminate the spread of this virus. had 50t that we different countries and the united states, everyone is doing their own thing. if we had a uniform strategy, we would have had more success. host: you talked protective equipment and moment ago, this is from the washington post. health care workers again short on protective equipment, health care workers on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic are accounting shortages of masks, face shields and gloves. a frustrating occurrence of a struggle that haunted the first month of the crisis. why does there continue to be such a problem? guest: that is such a great question. we know in the beginning that we had a shortage, and a lot of it is due to one supply chain issue but also to the fact that the federal government could not take the lead on ensuring that we could procure large amounts of personal protective equipment. again, we need to have a uniform strategy and the federal government needs to be involved in that. but also the issue is that we have this shortage, and then we started having to reopening. reopening happened and we are seeing surges in the south and west, and those hospitals don't have enough ppe. we are also seeing outpatient clinics and offices open as well, and they also need ppe. we have even a larger demand for personal protective equipment now than we had previously, but we had no national strategy to attain large amounts of ppe.. int: let's hear from sherry dallas, texas, next up. [indiscernible] host: dr. blackstock, were you able to hear her,? guest: i wasn't able to hear clearly. host: it was kind of money on my end, too. we apologize for that. we will go to john in chantilly, virginia. caller: thanks for taking my call. thank you for your service. you give us the best advice that you can give to us. said, i would like to elaborate the point that the gentleman was just calling and say black people in this country, they have been suffering for a long time and they have a lot of existence that they have. but that's not why a call. the president is challenging our doctors, telling us what needs to be done and how we should view this disease. that doesn't mean that wearing a , you are protecting yourself and protecting others. have do you convince someone who is ignorant who goes to the people and knowingly doesn't know what is going to come? a lot of young people, they listen to the president and they think that you are a coward if you are not wearing a mask. i will never let the doctor do a surgery on my wife that wearing a mask, you're not going to do it. this is very simple, i just came back from new zealand and i can tell you one thing, i am surprised how people are irresponsible and following the doctor's order and the guidelines and i appreciate your service. thank you very much. thank you for sharing that experience. from new zealand, new zealand has done a tremendous job of containing the virus and i think they could be an example for this country. the other thing that you mentioned in terms of this administration, they really need to follow the advice of public health experts. public health experts are experts for a reason, and they know what interventions work. we know that universal masking, we know that washing hands, social distancing all works. and we follow that in the city. we had some really scary numbers, we had preventable deaths, even. and we saw what happened and we shut it down. we saw our numbers go down dramatically. pointd echo the caller's that visit ministration needs to start listening to public health experts. we know what we are talking about. host: can i asked you, he was critical of the president, a tweet from the president this morning about a test, he said for the thousandth time, the reasons we've shown so many cases compared to other countries is that we have not done nearly as well as -- have not the newly as well as we have is that our testing is much a grand better. we have tested 40 million people. if we did 20 million instead, cases would be half. not reported! the president saying that the cases are higher because we are testing more. guest: no. that is something he keeps saying that is actually quite inaccurate. for several reasons. for one, the positivity rate has been increasing. hospitalizations, especially in increasing.re also that tells of the people are actually getting sick enough to be hospitalized. know that there is a lag of three to five weeks between detected and hospitalizations and deaths. we will next few weeks, start seeing not only the hospitalization rate go up, but also the death rate as well. there are other countries testing much more than we are that are not having the same positivity rate. there's something going on here and we know that it is because there is no national strategy around the spread of the virus. host: along those lines, our guest is also a contributor to yahoo! medical news. one of her most recent pieces, new covid-19 cases, our inevitable outcome of opening too quickly. l is joining us from california. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm just wondering with the effective the virus, -- effect of the virus, i would think that today, they don't have a lot of medical insurance, i think that they were more so affected. you know? if there was a cure for the disease. my question for the doctor, isn't it true most diseases are all diseases attached to the iron in your red blood cells? guest: i'm actually not familiar with that mechanism. that this virus is a novel coronavirus, and we are learning a lot about it every day. vaccines, we have about 145 vaccines being studied worldwide, we have a little over 20 that are actually in human clinical trials, and then we also have a tremendous number of researchers working on therapeutics to mitigate or hopefully cure this disease. host: does this feel like it has been a crash course in infectious diseases for you training in the emergency room? guest: it's funny that you say that because i was talking to one of my colleagues, we have really never needed this much infectious disease before and also epidemiology. the epidemiologists are probably the cool kids of this pandemic, we are definitely learning a lot we go along each day. there's a situation quickly evolving. even now, the fact that a few days ago, a few hundred scientists got together and said they were concerned that coronavirus is not only being transmitted by respiratory droplets, but through aerosol. that also is another concern about whether or not the transmission is also significantly airborne as well. host: could that be part of the issue in terms of national it seems like every two to three weeks, guidance changes, or certainly may be revised? i think that we've seen other countries handle this virus well. i don't think that is probably the reason why as a country, we are doing so poorly in terms of managing it. i think we need to be flexible, we need to realize there are new discoveries, the evidence coming out day by day and that we respond appropriately. david in's hear from mississippi. go ahead. caller: [indiscernible] handling covid patients. because of that -- sets up for fraud. test positive, they don't test positive. one story about 12 nurses who tested for covid and out of curiosity i went with hospital to test and every single one came back positive. woman whord about a found out she had to wait an hour and set underscore to go home. after she got home she gets a phone call saying she tested positive. don't believe the numbers. it's all made up, it's all political. what going to happen? and theor reelection only state he didn't win was minnesota. they know trump has got minnesota. host: dr. blackstone, is it all political? no, it is not all political. here since march, taking care of coronavirus patients, and i saw it with my own eyes. walk in withs short of breath, fatigue, low oxygen levels, oxygen levels sometimes incompatible with life. i had a considerable number of them sent to the emergency department. saw were scary. i have to admit even as a physician, i was scared to go to work because i saw how sick my patients were and i was scared of getting infected, i was scared to bring it home to my family. and i saw was very real have a lot of colleagues that without for that as well. host: there's a headline about the effect on pregnant women, a warning for expectant mothers, especially black and hispanic. what are the issues facing them and why black and hispanic women are more susceptible? ago,: a few weeks declassified pregnant woman as a high risk category for coronavirus because they are more likely to be hospitalized. these are pregnant women in general. we are not sure if the hospitalization is for pregnancy-related reasons or coronavirus, but what we do know was that black and hispanic women were more likely to be admitted to the icu, the intensive care unit, and also to be intubated, to have a breathing tube placed down. they were more likely to get sicker. what it suggests from that data is that we are seeing issues affecting other racial disparities that we are seeing in the pandemic, the fact that black and latino people are more likely to be working on the front lines, more likely to live in overcrowded housing and basically be at risk of being infected. it's the same reasons we are seeing black and latino pregnant women being infected as well. ob/gyns have to take into consideration how they are keeping them safe. host: pennsylvania, amos. caller: how are you today? host: fine, thanks. caller: i'm calling concerning, you are constantly hearing about infections and deaths, but what about the recovery rate? you never hear about the recovery rate, you never hear about natural medications, you never hear about vitamin d, a, c, zinc. help me out with that. guest: that's a great question. i always tell my patients and others that you should definitely be taking your vitamins. zinc is very important, vitamin d is very important. but also, you have to take into consideration that other public health measures that are mentioned previously are really what is going to keep you the safest. look into that if you some of the chinese data, there are a lot of herbal medications that they have used for coronavirus patients, so definitely there are more holistic ways of treating coronavirus, but they really haven't undergone any clinical trials, and so we really don't have any evidence on how effective they are. one more call from kathy in fremont, california. caller: i work in a library and i was off for seven weeks and now we are doing curbside pickup. it is a large group of people. they have taken a lot of strict precautions but they are not having us do things like testing or temperature checks. when i go to my church, they are limited to 80 people. they take their temperature when you go in. they do that. is there a risk for me and work where we are not doing some of that stuff? .uest: we will see temperature checks are not that helpful because not everybody with coronavirus will have a fever. temperature checks actually end up mixing a lot of people. the key during this time is to have small groups of people indoors if you have to be indoors, wearing masks, keeping six feet apart while you are indoors, and then spending as much time outside. you mentioned you were doing curbside pickup. that sounds relatively safe to me. i would actually be more concerned about you being in church with 80 other people. that is a large number of people to be indoors with. we know the virus has high rates of transmissibility in indoor settings. host: dr. blackstock is the founder and ceo of advancing health equity and an emergency medical physician in new york city. you can read her writing or reporting at yahoo! medical news. thank you so much. guest: thank you. host: the supreme court will be issuing additional opinions. could be the final opinions in this term in the next half-hour or so, we expect. we will go there live if we see a reaction from the court steps as we get a live look at the u.s. supreme court and spend the next half-hour hour or so asking you about this current supreme court term. as it ends, your reaction to the decisions that have come down so far. for democrats, our lines are (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. , (202) 748-8002 . back in a minute. "q&a," a night on journalist talks about the history of voting in the u.s. and some of the issues surrounding voting today in her book "thank you for voting." >> the 2013 decision had a massive impact on voting rights, and there is not any voting thats advocate or attorney does not see it as just a ground shaking impact. laws of course the voting that are discriminatory are still illegal, there is not federal oversight based on the history of discrimination of the kind of stopgap where they need federal approval to make voting changes. >> watch sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's "q&a." president, from public affairs, available now in paperback and e-book. presents biographies of every president, organized by their ranking by noted historians, from best to worst. and features perspectives into the lives of our nation's chief executives and leadership styles. visit our website, topan.org/thepresidents learn more. order your copy today wherever books and e-books are sold. host: here on "washington journal," this is the stakeout position, what is called the stakeout position, outside the u.s. supreme court across from the u.s. capitol. reporters gather there for potential comments from participants in cases that are being decided, decisions handed down today by the supreme court. we expect that after 10:00 eastern or so. going to ask you in this next half-hour -- actually, we will continue longer and make it a longer program for you so we can see if we can get some of those final decisions in. plenty of time to get through. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. on the current court term that is wrapping up this week of the decisions that have come down, we talked about the coverage, the prenatal coverage, birth control decision that came down from the court earlier in the little sisters of the poor case. we will talk about that some more. this morning, expecting rulings on the president's finances. this is yahoo! news. "the u.s. supreme court to rule in trump finances case." court on thursday will say whether president trump onds to release documents potentially sensitive cases with potentially far-reaching applications. they write that asserting presidential immunity, the new york real estate tycoon has refused to release his tax returns despite promising to do so during his 2016 campaign for the white house. trump finances are the target of the democrat led committees in the house of a percentage which are looking into the president, the trump organization and his family in what started as a probe into foreign influence in 2016. a new york prosecutor, a democrat, is looking meanwhile into whether the trump campaign broke finance laws with hush money payments to a point start and a former playboy model. the supreme court said wednesday it would issue its opinions in the remaining cases for this term at 10:00 a.m. eastern today, on thursday. so about 25 minutes away. they come out fairly quickly. back to the discussion we had this morning, the headline in "usa today," "justice is ok exemption to birth control coverage." decision is the latest in battle over affordable care act. towards the end of the story, richard wolf writes this. "the case, which had confounded the justices for several years, represented the latest but not the last challenge the affordable care act, a decade after its passage. the high court has upheld the law twice and will hear a third challenge in the fall, one in which the trump administration recommends the entire law be struck down. it was one of the three religious freedom cases heard by the court this term and one by conservatives. in june, the justices ruled a state may not deny financial support for religious education if it provided such for private secular schools. and also on wednesday and ruled that religious schools can fire teachers without being subject to jobless nomination lawsuits." -- job discrimination lawsuits." first in johnstown, pennsylvania. ron, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thanks. caller: ok. on the supreme court ruling on the birth control pills, many women use birth control pills for not just birth control, but for things like irregular endometriosis, things like that. are they going to deny a woman the right to obtain birth control pills because of other medical conditions other than birth control? that is what i don't understand. i can't believe that 7-2 vote either. that really astounded me that some of the liberals on the court would vote with the conservatives on that. host: the review expressed by rachel in california -- a similar view expressed by rachel in california. "my daughter has pc os and it has been a lifesaver for her." it helps with them to be to tryst, hormone imbalances, and can cut your risk of developing ovarian cancer by 50%. "ixel on twitter says, totally missed what religious freedom means. i thought it allowed christians the freedom to worship. it really means their minority gets to dictate how the real world works." richard is on the independent line in star lake, new york. welcome. caller: hello. considering the two supreme court decisions today on the tax returns for mr. trump, i think the subpoena from new york is a legitimate subpoena that the supreme court, i would think, would want to support. i think the request by the committees could be seen as overreaching. i don't think there is a law that says a president has to provide his tax returns. i realize practice has allowed it. but i am not sophisticated enough to know about the law, but i do think common sense says it could be a bit overreaching. host: on that piece, "the washington post" says this about that case in particular. , theew york attorney president is attempting to stop subpoenas from a grand jury. he is looking into whether corporate records were altered in violation of state laws to cover up hush money payments. he too is seeking the information from a third party. in lancaster, california, welcome. caller: yes. i think we need to know about his tax returns, because i think he is a crook. this is our money. i believe he is stealing it. he needs to be exposed. that is my comment. host: ok. to maine. jack, welcome, independent line. how are you? caller: wonderful, thanks. glad i got through to you today. my opinion on -- first, i will go to the birth control thing. we are missing the boat. the insurance companies should make some sort of allowances to take contraceptives in or out of a policy. i don't know. there is probably a lot of details to work out there but it is easiest to have insurance companies to do it. but with regards to the supreme court, i believe it is in the constitution that the house of representatives is not only permitted but required to investigate the president's branch of the government. i think it is their responsibility to do it, and i do not think a supreme court would be well advised to not allow them to investigate. those are my comments. i hope i was clear. host: ok. good to hear from you. this is the elite opinion piece in "the wall street journal" this morning. religious liberty lives at the high court. they write the second opinion wednesday, little sisters of the poor versus pennsylvania, involved employers who rejected providing contraceptives under a mandate from obamacare. the little sisters had been fighting this for years. the trump administration put forth regulations in 2017 and 2018 to expand exemptions for employers with good-faith objections. pennsylvania and new jersey sued, calling it an abuse of discretion. not so, ro justice clarence thomas for the court's five conservatives. the affordable care act's text doesn't mention contraceptives here but rather empowers the to decide whath preventive health coverage is mandatory. that quepasa's grant of authority includes the ability to identify and create exemptions, justice thomas wrote. this is a victory, but a narrow one. justice kagan concurred in the judgment, joined by justice breyer. but as the case moves back to lower courts, the trumpet ministrations opt out might prove arbitrary. that reads like an invitation to keep the sisters in court. saidces alito gorsuch they would have also held for the sisters under the religious freedom restoration act, which would end their "legal odyssey." but progressives today exhibit a growing hostility to religion, writes "the wall street journal," and are likely to pursue the nuns to the end of the legal earth. they conclude by saying a president biden would be under pressure from the left to undo protections for religious employers so the fight could start a new in 2021. a question for joe biden, how much do you want to force catholic nuns to violate their conscience to appease the secular left? we hear from michael up next. we are waiting for opinions from for opinions from the supreme court in the next when he minutes or so. michael, good morning, in richmond, virginia. caller: hello. i want to give my opinion and a shout out to my friend, nick. he is one of my colleagues. we were discussing this recently. to delaware and here from anthony, democrats line. -- hear from anthony, democrats line. cal

alito in the case, scalia thought that the framers did not think about gps devices. scalia said yes, but there was an analog. and alito says, these devices would have to be small. you have them agreeing that the fourth amendment up guys, but not for the same reason. justice black toward the end of the career was being very rigid about it. he was not able to see conversations for their digital effects, and for that reason it was noble, but not in the end, a very influential dissent. susan: december 19, 1967, here are the headlines on the decision in this case. -- the supreme court will set bugging is subject to legal safeguards, that from the l.a. times. how significant, we look at these as landmark cases, how significant wasn't sorry, was it seen in society at the time? >> i was a big deal because a change that law, and changed it in the weather was important. because at that point, these devices are just becoming into vogue among it wasn't your of surveillance. >> it has been around for a while, but this is an important way that the government found evidence. a way to obtain criminal evidence by the government, and also national security evidence. on terrorists and operatives and the like. and apparently the muslim government officials, or campaign officials, as we have learned in the last few months and years -- apparently, as you have just seen. so this is an important case, even at the time. but i don't think anybody realized how transformative it would be, and how much it would influence our law, even 45 years later. we are here today and having the same conversation, 50 years later, and a the same exact conversation. what does katz beat in this context? what do we look for? do we look to the subjective test, looks to the framers and what they thought? do we look to what the law of the state? the jurisdiction in which it is happening? -- do we look what modern law said? the law of the state? susan: we had a lawyer today telling the story of what happened when he learned the decision. but first, here is a caller from new hampshire. caller: thank you for taking my call. >> at the uniting amendment. com, the crowd sourced constitutional amendment, privacy is on of the things we struggle with trying to figure out. we have made quite a bit of progress. >> privacy is an instinct, something that evolved through nature. what it comes down to, is not places and people, it comes down to information. it is a lot of information around -- if you think about it in terms of information, it is easier to get around it. at the time the fourth amendment was written, paper was the only way that information could get stored. so if the justices could think of it that way, in terms of paper and information, i think it would be useful for them to extrapolate what the right really means. the problem is that one that instinct is manifest in a culture, the way it manifests varies from culture to culture. so standards have to be established, which is rather common law comes in, establishing our standards. susan: thank you for that. i will add what more related comment. this is a tweet. [reading >> item] for those viewers, what would you say? >> those are important comments, and the framers do believe that we have natural rights to come from god or nature, not from governments. >> and those include a kind of cognitive liberty, of privacy, of our thoughts. and we know that, because the great battles of the revolution were fought through pamphlets. so the first caller is right. he did not focus on technology, the framers, they thought of paper. so that has to be translated into a digital age. it is interesting that your crowdsourcing amendment project is trained to come up with ways to make that clear. i would ask students, how do you amend the fourth amendment to apply to digital technology? often, people suggest adding the word digital, the right to be secure in our digital effects, such as ours of phone records and our gps movements, those of be explicitly protected? >> and of course, justice black had his concerns. wiretapping is a modern analog, to eavesdropping. eavesdropping was well known, and were meant to be protected against it. but the framers did not say so. they said -- persons, houses, papers and effects. so, they did not need to. so this very much -- that question of, do you look at just the words, or what they were trying to protect as an intellectual matter? was it about protecting what is in your brain and how you translate the things on your aprons, or the things you carry around with you? there were debates in that era, and there are debates in the modern era. do you solve that by saying that the modern paper is the iphone, and that is your solution? or do you come up with a different theory. susan: our next caller says on twitter -- [reading] >> let's hear from harvey snyder, charles katz's lawyer up on hearing the supreme court decision. >> i think the decision was in december, between october and december, two or three months, we had to wait. >> then you get it in the mail, you get the decision from the court, which 7-1, we won. it was exhilarating. the very next case that i had when i returned from arguing before the supreme court was representing a guy who had a traffic ticket in inglewood, california. going from the heights, to the depths. susan: how human is that clip? at that law review many years later, he added a postscript in his decision of the case. this is what he wrote. -- [reading] >> we are going to spend our last 15 minutes talking about the consequences of katz and its long tail. we've done that already. let us listen to jimmy in athens, georgia. you are on the air. caller: yes, i am glad that they did increase the freedoms we have with this decision, the one thing they did not mention was the right to gamble. >> has there ever been a case which said hey, that law should have been unconstitutional, because people have the right to gamble? thank you. guest: that is really interesting. you could absolutely ban things that were against public morals under the old date laws, from gambling to cockfighting. but justice kennedy's decision recognizing the right of autonomy, a right to define your own conception of the mystery of human life, could we theoretically extended to protecting the right to gamble. but i am confident in saying that the court has not yet extended the right of autonomy to include the right to gamble. susan: so, katz, he was never heard from again. he was faded from the history books, after giving his name to this case and pursuing it, which give us an extended right to privacy. >> but, society reacted to it. i want to talk a bit about that, here is a new york times story in a december 20, 1967. bugging in supreme court's ruling may reduce state laws allowing eavesdropping. how did the states respond and how did congress respond to this ruling? >> congress passed title iii, the omnibus crime and control act of 1968 which provided a worked procedure for wire taps. >> the law has been modified over time, but congress reacted by legalizing wiretaps for specified crimes. that remains the law today and has been expended and modified overtimes. to give different levels of requirements, including 1986, amendments to include electronic communications. to provide protections for electronic communications some would say, low protections. there has been debate on whether in is to be updated for the modern era. then, obviously, the laws we see being applied today in the cell phone cases, and these metadata cases. which permit access to noncontent records. there is a big debate in the policy space before the courts, as to whether that is an appropriate stand, or whether there is more required in records such as location, which could track you days and weeks on end. susan: here are some of the key cases that came after. in 1972, the omnibus crime bill was challenged by the nixon administration. >> in 2001, kylo versus the u.s.. and in 2012, usb verses jones and in 2018, carpenter vs u.s., which will be decided on the tracking of telephone positions -- carpenter versus the u.s.. what do we need to know about these cases? >> each as an attempt to translate the lessons of katz in light of new technologies. there could be a national security exception to the fourth amendment, and if there is a real threat to national security, maybe you can have lower standards, but generally, you need a weren't to get records. >> the kyllo case was about thermal imaging which could measure the presence of someone through heat in her house. the defendant was growing marijuana in the case. the other case, jones and the carpenter case, which could be the most important digital privacy case in the 21st century, involves the question, can police walk down the street with our cell phones admitting our geo locations, can the police use this data? do we have a expectation of privacy with those records. in the government, said no. the reason the carpenter case is so important, because it could be the most important privacy case of the 24 century. but just as he was focused on our property interest and the digital records, and justice sotomayor, in the privacy expectations we have that the government is likely tracking arguments for five months. and seeing the people we associate with and rallies we attend, and so forth. if, what's accepting about carpenter, it's an opportunity for the court to do what he did in katz and transit the amendment with a theory that is spaced, not in existing case law, but requires them to take an additional step, and they may do so for different reasons, but it's exciting to see justice on both sides, converging around that production. >> what would you say about that list? and would you add some others to it. >> i think keith is a privileged case, and what's near and dear to my heart because i teach national security. keith is named kate because, u.s. court filed a position a monday must petition to the district court to require the judge to do something, and it does what the surveillance of someone who was trying to block the local cfo, and an arbor michigan who's trying to blow the office up. was this a dismasted security? is our national security case? the whole case decided, actually, in favor of the government, that there was domestic security in the of in the case of national security, it may not get a warrant. they just sort of -- wind it is over not reasonable so for the amendment, it's an interesting doctrine because this one has developed the cases through their servants, act it was built on the debt you don't need a fourth admit warrant, but something close to, but not a fourth minute word. it's a question, i think keith is really important at least to the national security conscious for that purpose. >> christine is watching us, and in new jersey. hi, christiane. >> hello. my question is about expectation of privacy, and whether the ball will be lowered as the younger people have less of an expectation that we do. i was born in the middle of a baby boom in 55, and i talked to my niece who is a millennial about privacy, and my expectations are very high, and she laughs at me, and says, look, get over, there is no such thing as privacy so, if people in their thirties and younger feel that those nor expectation of privacy, then where does the bar stand for what's reasonable? thank you >> it's a crucial question as you suggest, if you have a test which is based on subjective expectations, if privacy goes down, then some of the protections now, it's not sure it will have no expectations of privacy. the privacy researchers does some interesting studies, just assisting millennials have different expectations than people of our generation do and they may be well willing to avail themselves on facebook, but also not so willing to do that. we can't have the show to know that the facebook hearings tomorrow, and we are having a national conversation and i think it's one i've ever seen during my many years of writing and looking at privacy about whether we trust private companies to manage data and to share it and to allow that to be governed by user agreements which may or may not be violated. if the world is experiencing that we have no privacy on facebook, according to the katz doctrine which suggests the protections might be diminished as well, and that reaffirms justice sotomayor caution that we really need to reconsider that subjective expectation. as importance as katz was, it's not adequate for protecting privacy in the age of facebook, and it would be very interesting to see what congress, as well as the courts, come up with next. >> i think jeff is right, and i think the big question now is whether, you know, there is some irritable mom of privacy that has to survive even after you look at the subjective expectation of an individual, and the objective use of society, whether society, as an objective matter, sort of the common law of the founding era sets a baseline that states cannot deviate below, even if they were to permit some type of surveillance based on the views of the trinity at the time. this is an interesting debate that i think we will see play out here, interview mentioned, they had some stuff in the university of chicago law review >> high, stephen. >> hi. i had a comment that i wish you would advertised this series more, so more people get watch it and understand that the courts have a legitimate role in making more law which apparently have the country does not understand. but my question is also a quick one. is there any agreement as to what is an object to have evidentiary standard for what society will accept a reasonable? is it state law, or court decisions, or public opinion polls, or is there anything -- anything, because otherwise, the objective standard becomes a chance to make sure that, like a subject of standard, a shiny story in front of the court. i don't think that such a shaggy dog, anyway, thank you. >> it's funny, justices toured who wrote the majority opinion in this case, of course, is also the one who, in oregon set about pornography, i know when i see it in a lot of ways, the standard, i think jeff would agree with me, that there is no test for what is objectively determined in societal expect other than what the court says at the time that he says society is ready to expect we have seen the court when it comes to the cruel and unusual punishment, to talk about what the states are doing, a sort of taking a look at what the states and even what foreign jurisdictions are doing. there is a lot of disagreements about whether or not to be doing that, let's least one where the courts try to interpret certain aspects of what they think society thinks of terms of the constitution, when they are trying to apply it to the modern era. again, hotly debated and whether that is appropriate methodology for constitutional adjudication. . but what you think jeff? >> you are right, jeff, and the lack of precise standards does make it like a shaggy dog. in the eighth amendment, the court might look to state constitutions, or to state laws, but technology is moving so fast, that often states have not passed laws regulating, for example, jill locational privacy before congress has. there's been a bill pending in congress that has a law regulating that policy, and it hasn't passed enough and states haven't passed that either, to give the court guidance which makes the whole enterprise frustratingly (inaudible) and makes regionalist -- look to property standards, justice alito said look to state based trespass rules to try to identify something objective. this is what justice black was upset about. to give him his due, he was right that there is something mushy at shaggy dog like about this reasonableness standard, and i think both sides are recognizing that it's not satisfactory >> historical question from a viewer on twitter, asking, do you feel that earl or an expanded civil rights because he felt guilty about the denial of japanese rights during world war ii when it was governor of california? and i'm going to d.c. to see further detail, especially to blacks. do you know anything about his writings or cometary about the motivation? >> we know that he was very upset at the end of his life about his role in the japanese internment, and in his autobiography, revising it, he expressed regret for his role, and he wept. however, earl warren was not soft on crime contrary to popular conception of the war in court, and those banners, he sided with law enforceme