texas's law is not fithat purpose, for reasons that have effectively by texas and by its amici. and you can find i well-substantiated set of findings fm e district court about how under-inclusive this law is. your honors have room, and i understand sympathy, for ata that is trying to do its job to regulate in this area conscientiously. and i want to assure justice barrett, when we talk about scrutiny that is strict in lucky enough to learnfact, i was constitutional law from gerry gunther. that resonates. none of us is suggesting that, in this context, strict ny is fatal. it is not. it should not be. we've conceded that there is a compelling interest here. the question will always be, has rnment tried to arrive at a less restricti -has it tried to do this in a way that is not unduly burdening adults and is truly protecting kids? his law answers to strict scrutiny, as it has long been understood, i do think, respectfully, this becn easy case. the last point for mr. fletcher, and i agree with so much of what he says, he talked about tradition as a guidepost here. and i would just n

yo age verification that just, respectfully, does not the description that texas's amici are offeri that mr. nielson is collapsing to today, which is age verification different from what the plain terms of the law w permit. and you have none of protections that you would expect from a respe regulator who's concerned about adults' interests here. you don't have enforceable rights for them. you doave privacy protection. you n have confidentiality of information. yodo not have the government saying, "we cannot pry open this information and use it agast you." all of that, your honors, you should await ste or the federal government doing its work, showing its homework, hangomething other than the ill-tailored law that you have record that tells you nothing about why texas wou've arrived at a law that looks like this unless it was out tohi adults and chill speakers when it comes to exon that is clearly protected as to adults. and i want to offer the ashcroft law, if i may, as a point of comparison. nk that this is the -- your honors. the court was looking at federal legislation on a welloped,

you have age verification that just, respectfully, does answer the description that texas's amici are offering and to today, which is ageng the plain terms of the law would permit. and you have none of the protections ou would expect from a responsible regulator who's concerned abou adults' interests here. you don't have enforceable rights for them. you do not have privacy protection. you do not have confidentiality of information. you do not have the government saying, "we cannotrypen this information and use it against you." all of tt,our honors, you should await a state or the federal government doing its work, showing its homework having something other than the here, and a blank legislative record that tells you nothing about why texas would've arrived at a law that looks like unless it was out to chill adults and chill speakers when it comes to expression that is cleay otected as to adults. and i want to offer the ashcroft w, if i may, as a point of comparison. we think that this is the -- your honors. the court was looking at federal legislation on a well-developed, comprehensi

. >> amici. >> who the judge. >> has not made the decision to recognize. >> yeah, but he incorporatedhat decision in the entire decision. he's going to decide whether he will accept those documents as part of the record. but, you know, like that fox news video is never going to be part of the record. there's a there's a context that we all know out here in the world that the courtroom will never allow within the playing field of this issue in the courtroom. and so this is one of those issues where we are more informed than the judge will be, even though the judge will be correctly, legally informed. andrew weissman, adam klasfeld, thank you both very much for starting us off tonight. thank you. you're welcome. coming up, our next guest is from a place that used to be ruled by the king of england. and so he had a little something to say today when donald trump declared himself a king. senator sheldon whitehouse joins us. that's next. >> not feeling the graze, but don't want a color? try just for men. control gg gray reducing shampoo. just shampoo like you do to gradually reduce grays.

e ninth circus, the 10th circuit, it is the reason we have amici from california that say the standard mak i impossible for us to train officers and give them clear guidance. it is incumbent on the court to offer a little more clarity on at. justice barrett: what clarity would you want us to giv mr. mccloud: if the court is going to offer or accept some version of our broker -- of officer crte dger, you would want to make clear tt something like negligence alone is not going to be enough. it is going to be an ficer's creation of the danger is the basis for a fourth amendment claim. >> thank you, counsel, justice thomas. justice thomas: i understand you are saying it is not so much that the difference between whether to u totality of circumstances, bu rather, what evidenld be aille -- or could be ud in that analysis. here you sayhe officer created danger should -- that the fifth circuit sawould not permit that. assessme. mr. mccloud: correct. judge thomas: so it is a subcategorofhe totality of circumstances. mr. mccloud: it is a particular argument off limit in the fifth circuit and are