the ruling was 5 to 4, with the chief justice john roberts and justice amy coney barrett joining theiral colleagues in the majority. i want to go straight to cnn's joan biskupic, who spent the morning at the court. tell us what happened. >> sure. what a set of tableaus. you know, there they were, you know, being thanked for their ruling, the chief being thanked for his ruling earlier for donald trump, and then to see them all on the bench today after a fairly dramatic order that actually, dana is not doing all that much what the court did in its five four order today is say that, you know, the administration cannot keep these funds frozen, but it offered a caveat, saying that they still need to hear from the district court judge in terms of how this is going to be paid out. so in terms of the real world consequences, we still don't know when the money will flow and how these groups that are trying to do so much, uh, assistance overseas are going to be able to, uh, to be able to continue that mission. but for these nine justices, what this order revealed is how even a modest compromise

amy coney barrett's suitcase briefcase into the united states supreme court.he is a brilliant woman who's a fantastic jurist. >> well, first, i mean, the worst thing that a concern that a trumper can call you is desire or woke. and that wasn't that being used for amy coney barrett, was it, in my bingo card? but i have a question. okay, so the supreme court has now sided against trump on this usaid. issue. how does he get compelled to actually follow the supreme court? >> that's where things get scary. so they what they did was they sent it down to the judge in washington, d.c., who originally said made this decision. and they told that judge, you give the instructions to the government what to do with the money. and if they don't follow the instructions. >> yeah. he and what army, the judge and what army are going to make him. >> do it? >> what the judge did is he said, you guys are taking too long to carry out my orders. so then he brought them in and issued another order that said, you have to pay this money out in 36 hours. that's why it went back into the

but we are seeing some people in maga world now turn on justice amy coney barrett.nd she's been on the other side of some five, four rulings recently which have upset some conservatives and some trump loyalists. specifically, how misplaced is this idea that a judge's ruling should align with the president who appointed them completely? >> supreme court. >> justices do not. work for the president. they don't. they are appointed by a president. but that doesn't mean they owe that president their loyalty. that doesn't mean their decisions have to line up with his or her priorities. amy coney barrett has really showed that. she has, you know, an independent set of principles. i don't think we should say. i think it's way too early to say like, oh, this is the new coalition with roberts joining with the liberals. i don't think we can say that yet. but what she has shown is an ability to view cases individually and to make ostensibly independent decisions. >> well, and let's remember, she has voted very conservatively on certain issues, whether it's abortion, affirmative

so, that same five coalition, which includes amy coney barrett, voting against the president, one of appointed by president trump. this is from the washington post this morning. their headline, justice amy coney barrett ignites anger on the right after ruling against president trump. all right. do in westward, new jersey. good morning to you. -- victor in westward, new jersey. good morning to you. caller: my thoughts on al green? listen, i watched that the other night, and i am a respectful marine corps veteran and i thought it was disgusting the way he spoke when trump was speaking. that was way out of line. he did not even give a proper apology the following day. instead they gathered in song, the same people singing "we shall overcome" a little over a week ago work outside the capital saying f trump, and my children were watching that as i did, and that was atrocious. there is no respect, they have no leadership, and as far as hakeem jeffries speaking on trump with no executive orders, he signs hundreds of executive orders. and as far as the money being wasted abroad, billions and

him and amy coney barrett. we'll talk about her later. but he's got a new podcast, and he said, it's based. this is from politico. newsom said the creative inspiration for his podcast came from bill maher. >> oh, i'm just giving the news. i'm not. i'm just. >> telling the news. it's not that it's about me. the provocative hbo real time host who leans democratic but has increasingly taken flack from progressives in recent years over his eagerness to criticize the party's woke left flank. that's true. hey, they wrote a sentence about me in the press and got it completely right. that's exactly right, newsom said about maher. i watch him because i appreciate how he calls balls and strikes. he takes shots at both parties and and he's he said they asked him about females in sports. would you say no to men and female sports? he said it's an issue of fairness. it's deeply unfair. okay. i don't it's so funny, gavin. i do love this because i do think he's a great politician. i know he's he's slick. yeah. they said the same thing about clinton. he's

. >> and amy coney. >> barrett both. >> sided with the three liberal justices against. >> donald trumpexpert and court watcher. again, i said, this is more the tea than the substance, but we rarely see them interact like this. trump knows he's on camera. he's a performer. all politicians are, and he is a super performer. but he actually seemed to sort of, in that brief moment, say what was on his mind, which was like, i'll never forget that you saved my bacon before election day. >> yeah. >> well. the here's. >> the thing. >> about donald trump, no. >> one is. >> accusing him of. >> not like. >> saying out loud what. >> people would normally think. >> you don't. >> say so. >> you know, so. >> much of. >> what has. happened and the criminal. >> cases that he. >> was facing. >> are things. >> that were. >> out loud. i mean. >> this is not a complicated matter. >> this is i used to do. mob cases. >> those were complicated. >> you know. >> mob bosses don't tend. >> to just. >> announce they're going to kill somebody. >> and give the order out loud. with donald. >> trump. >> so much of. >>

amy coney barrett i'll be honest, when i was covering her confirmation battle, i couldn't have fathomedfirst. >> thing to remember is that they're not turning on her. for voting to overturn roe v wade. they're not turning on her. for expanding gun. >> rights, for ending. >> affirmative action in college. >> admissions and all these. >> other rulings. >> where she's been a staunch conservative. >> vote on. >> the court. >> what they're. >> turning on her. >> for is this. >> usaid ruling. >> showed, is. >> that she's not. >> fully aligned. >> with the trump. >> agenda 100%. >> of the time. >> so for. >> some loud voices online who have a lot of followers, you know. 100% is. >> all that's needed, not 95%. >> and that's kind of where we are right now. >> they are very loud voices. but christy, remind hear of what this ruling even was because it was 2 billion in payments to usaid. but for contractors who had already done the work. >> right, the district. >> court. >> here issued a temporary order saying that essentially, the president can't seize money that congress had already directed him

now, trump appointee amy coney barrett joined chief justice roberts. what is basically the five votes here that are holding the line. so they're against trump and they're holding the line for her. and there's been a backlash, some saying barrett is a rino, a republican in name only, which is the kind of attack that admits that you don't even respect judges to be independent. you think they should be partizan. and then other attacks saying she was, quote, a die judge. this is how maga treats the person trump chose. now, justice barrett is very conservative in her ideology, which we can glean from things she has said and done. her confirmation hearing was protested by feminists in handmaid's tale outfits. her track record, a recent track record, has been spurned, though, because of this move. this one vote. now basically, the maga crowd worried that she won't be a reliable partizan vote for trump on everything. now here's another trump veteran, alyssa griffin, speaking about this issue. >> i didn't think i would live to see the day that amy coney. >> bar

that the death threats. >> that we're seeing, mike cernovich was tweeting awful stuff about amy coney barrettlot of leaders in the right wing media movement were saying calling her the die hire, saying awful things about her, saying she should be ousted. i'm sure it's escalated to death threats already because it often does. but this oversize reaction to this one ruling that she made this week, i do. >> think. >> it really illustrates the anger and the aggression in this movement and. how illogical. >> it is. and on the one hand, like republicans being disappointed in the supposedly arch conservative justices being appointed, that's not new like since the 1990s or before that, like under reagan, i think it was souter who was appointed who they were like, this is going to be our guy. and it's like, no, he's going to do what he wants to do. yeah, that's what you get when you try. when you appoint a supreme court justice for life, they are going to make their own decisions. the fact that they're singling out barrett for this when mitch mcconnell, let's not forget, rushed to get her confirmed aft

amy coney barrett was included in that. i would like to tell you why they did this but i cannot.w docket. anchor: what did the dissenting justices say? >> they said today the court made an unfortunate misstep. anchor: what happens now? >> the money does not start going out the door immediately. they will decide which get unfrozen and win. conceivably be there will be another hearing. about which get unfrozen. what about the foreign aid groups to handle all of this funding? how are they reacting to this? >> they said they welcome the supreme court's rejection. they said this ruling was not enough. they want to reinstate staff. anchor: there was a moment last night they got a lot of attention. an interaction between president trump as he left the podium and greeted the supreme court justices for the microphone picked up some of what they had to say. >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you again. thank you. i won't forget. anchor: thank you again. won't forget it. >> we don't know what the president was thinking chief justice roberts four. these are rare events in washington or

court essentially said is you have to read the text closely and consider the history now that amy coney barrett is not necessarily going to be the reliable conservative vote that a lot of conservatives that she was going to be quick some are criticizing her and yet when he think about the big decisions he supreme court has made in recent years whether it's on abortion or the so-called about regulation she has been a solid vote the other conservatives what is different about her jurisprudence on some of the administrative law decisions? >> wanted the distinctions is the case that rocketed up on the emergency docket she is skeptical she is more cautious. she likes following proper procedure. this was an appeal of a temporary restraining order generally that's not allowed in the federal court system she did not want to open the door to all sorts of appeal on a temporary restraining order's. her review sometimes is we do not need to make a ruling on these high-profile issues we can kick it back down to the lower courts and sometimes that happens to work there is a dispute whether president trump co

republican appoint years amy coney barrett and john roberts, the chief justice voted with the majorityhat two billion dollars in dubious foreign aid will start flowing again. now, for the dissent, justice samuel alito was his usual brilliant self-writing does a sing quell district court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the united states to pay out and probably lose forever 2 billion taxpayer dollars in the answer to that question should be an emphatic no. but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise. i am stunned. well, again, that means part of the usaid slush fund is back, back on. and we deserve to know where that cash is going according to the white house the agency had spent 17.9 million to teachly is alan can journalists thousand avoid binary gendered language, 1.5 million to rebuild the cuban media ecosystem more than 1.5 information to kazakhstan and 2 million for sex changes and lgbtq activism in guatemala. so much more. joining me now someone hobby documenting all of this along with what doge has been doing a

r stay with me.e republican appointees amy coney barrett and john roberts chief justice photo with theeaning $2 billion in dubious foreign aid will start flowing again. now, for the dissent,ng qsamuel alito with usual brilliant self writing "as a single district court child whop likely lacks jurisdiction heavy unchecked power to compel the o government of the united stateus to pay out and probably losebe forever $2 billion taxpayer?" the answer should be emphatic no but majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise. .agaii am stunned." that means part of the usaid/bond is back, back on, we deserve to know where the cash is going. according to the white house,t the agency17 spent 7.9 million o teach sri lankan journalist how to avoid binary gender language. $1.5 million to rebuild cuban media ecosystem.azak $1.5 million to combat this information in kazakhstan, $2 million for changes in ldgjo cutie activism iinn guatemala ad so much more.ee joining me now, someonear documenting all ofli this along with what doge is doing is charlipoine kirk, founder of th "turning point usa." charl

it was a 5 to 4 ruling, with chief justice john roberts and justice amy coney barrett joining the liberalinority. they refused to block the lower court's order, instead asking the judge to clarify his order. the money at issue is from the state department and usaid, and is intended to pay contractors for work that's already been done. president trump issued what he called a last warning to hamas to release all remaining hostages being held in gaza. as the ceasefire with israel remains uncertain tonight. the president posted on truth social release all of the hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered or it is over for you. the white house says it's engaged in talks with hamas, in a reversal of the long held u.s. policy of not engaging with the militant group directly. israel says it believes about 24 living hostages, including one u.s. citizen, and the bodies of at least 35 other hostages, are still in gaza. ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy sent a letter to the white house expressing regret about friday's oval office meeting wi

we had the chief justice and justice amy coney barrett, siding with the three liberals to give a 5 to 4 majority. and again, i think when we look forward, you're basically going to have three. the three liberal justices, jackson, sotomayor and kagan, they're generally going to be locked in against broad executive power, against the trump administration. it's a safe bet moving forward to count on elite justices alito and thomas and gorsuch basically being in favor of executive power. and so that leaves us, really, three justices in the middle, the chief justice kavanaugh and barrett, who are going to serve more or less as the middle of the swing. now, we know they're conservatives. but as you see in this case, if you can, if the liberals can win over two of those three, then they can actually pull out a decision here and there. >> all right, elie honig, as always, thank you so much. >> thanks, panel. >> and still ahead, we'll sit down with president trump's senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, peter navarro, on what a tariff compromise potentially would look like. >> and we'll

suspicion is and it does kind of fit in line with the 5-4 majority we have seen in the past, when amy coney barrett and chief justice roberts both seem to vote with the liberal justices. in a way that actually kind of essentially seems to take the line, much more about enforcing the separate separation of power, congress has the right of the purse, congress determines -- we don't know this because we don't of the reasoning behind it, but i think the significance, sandra, there are a lot of these cases, a lot of cases related to president trump's executive orders, related to some other things that d.o.g.e. has done, where those cases have been challenged, those decisions have been challenged, and it does look as though the 5-4, three liberals plus barrett and roberts, do look as though they are, a couple of cases we have seen so far, consistently siding with the view that congress has the right here, congress' authority, and congress that should be decide, which will be a big blow for president trump -- >> sandra: kerri, can you weigh in on that? how much of a setback is this for team trump? >> it i

chief justice john roberts and justice amy coney barrett siding with their liberal colleagues in the five four split decision. chief legal affairs correspondent paula reid joins us now. so, paula, walk us through the court's decision. >> this is a technical decision, but it really reveals a lot about the internal partisan divides at the court. now, here, the trump administration had asked the court to allow this foreign aid to continue to be frozen, not force them to disperse it as a lower court had. but the supreme court declined to intervene on behalf of the trump administration. they didn't say when this money needs to be sent out. instead, they sent that all back down to the lower court to be hashed out. but in this dissent, four conservative justices took the time to write an opinion disagreeing with the majority. and that's notable because, again, this isn't a huge decision. this isn't the constitutional opinion on whether trump has the power to reshape the federal government. this is a pretty technical issue, but these justices felt very strongly that a lower court judge shoul

loss for the new administration in that 5-4 vote saw chief justice john roberts and justice amy coney barrettiding with the court's liberal block the justices refused to lift a lower judge's order that the trump administration must pay out some $2 billion in foreign aid funding. left leaning organizations like the center for american progress celebrated the win. that group saying in its reaction, all around the world, millions of the most vulnerable people will die because president trump and elon musk decided to end these cost effective programs on a whim. well, the dissenters led by justice alito asked whether a single lower court judge has the, quote: unchecked power to force the government pay out billions in money it would likely never be able to recover. quote the answer to that question should be an emphatic no. but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise. he finished it "i many stunned. did lower court to clarify exactly what obligations the administration must pay out. the judge in that case has set a hearing for tomorrow. peter morocco now running usaid for the administ

in a54 ruling written by chief justice john roberts and joined by the trump appointed justice amy coney barrettwith the three justices appointed by democratic presidents, the supreme court supported an order by a district court judge that forces the trump administration to pay $2 billion to contractors of the united states agency for international development for work that they have already completed. joining us now is democratic senator sheldon whitehouse of rhode island. he's a member of the senate judiciary committee, senate finance committee, and senate budget committee, and the senate environment and public works committee. senator, what did we learn today? the one vote majority for preserving the government. we thought we had fields rather narrow. yeah, i think. >> it looks even narrower. >> when. >> you understand how. obvious this decision was. there was a contract between the government and these parties. >> there had been performance. >> by the parties of what they had been contracted to do. there was. >> no allegation. >> that the contract had. >> been violated. >> and then the gover

chief justice john roberts and justice amy coney barrett sided with liberal justices on this order. over foreign aid isn't over, though. this ruling only applies to work already completed and not the administration's overall effort to freeze foreign aid. a lower court will rule on that later. >> developing news on pope francis's ongoing battle with pneumonia. according to the vatican, the pope rested well during the night and woke up normally. the vatican says the 88 year old is still receiving oxygen therapy. he is also alert and cooperative with medical staff. his prognosis remains guarded. that means he is not out of danger yet. the pope's blood test showed that he does not have an elevated white blood cell count, suggesting he has no new respiratory infection. pope francis has been receiving care for pneumonia in the hospital since february 14th. the pope did not lead ash wednesday services in rome. >> in southern california, the los angeles city council rejected a bid by former fire chief kristen crowley to get her job back. crowley was fired after january's fires. at a hearing

the majority included chief justice roberts and amy coney barrett.ould like to tell you why they did this but i cannot because there was no explanation as is usually the case. when you're dealing with an emergency application and it is an unsigned order, it is part of what is called the shadow doc. >> what about the dissenting justices. what did they say in this case? >> written by justice alito, joined by thomas and kevin. he said the district court judge overstepped his bounds. he wrote today the court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an active judiciary hubris and opposes a $2 billion penalty on american taxpayers. >> in terms of the freezing or unfreezing of the funds, what happens now? >> it does not mean the money starts going out the door immediately. the justices and sent it back to the district court. back to judge ali for him to decide which programs get un frozen and when he said keep in mind the ability of the administration to carry out your order. and conceivably there will be another hearing about which programs get unfroz

the ruling was 5 to 4 chief justice john roberts and trump appointed justice amy coney barrett, siding with elena kagan, ketanji brown jackson and sonia sotomayor, and telling trump no terms of what happens next. both sides in that case, the trump administration and the plaintiffs, they're going to have to file a joint status report by 11 a.m. tomorrow in the courtroom of the judge who told the trump administration they need to restart that funding. they need to file a joint status report tomorrow at 11 a.m. saying what they're going to do. but the supreme court has weighed in on this now, and they are not as yet on this, letting trump just blatantly break the law. so we'll see what happens tomorrow at 11. but, you know, no rush, right? no rush in restarting this funding. i mean, among other things, the supreme court has been sitting on it for nearly a week, and that funding is still stopped. i mean, in the meantime, today, this morning, people were arrested on capitol hill outside a meeting between a trump state department official and members of congress. these people got arrested pr

so chief justice john roberts and justice amy coney barrett joined the three democratic appointees in republican appointed justices samuel alito, clarence thomas, neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh dissented from alito's dissent. what does this single district court judg, who likely lacks jurisdiction, have the unchecked power to compel the government of the united states to pay out and probably lose forever, 2 billion taxpayer dollars? question mark. the answer to that question should be an emphatic no, but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise. i am stunned. it is not the common tone and tenor of opinions. but as andrew pointed out, here we are. it's also very. different than justice alito's position back a few years. >> ago in the. >> united states versus texas. >> case, where. >> he dissented. >> from the supreme. >> court's refusal. >> to essentially. uphold and. >> uphold the decision of a. single district. >> court. judge in texas with respect to immigration. >> a statute. >> texas texas. >> had passed that. >> really would have encroached. >> on the. >> federal go

conservatives in that view john roberts, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, clarence thomas, justice amy coney barrett sided with the court's three liberals. in the dissent, she writes this, quote, taking a tool away from epa may make it harder for the agency to issue permits that municipalities and businesses need in order for their discharges to be lawful. she's becoming more and more interesting as days go by. according to a local environmental group, the san francisco bay keeper, the city already dumps millions of gallons of combined sewer discharges every year, and big storms make that number higher. boating season right around the corner. all right. thanks so much to my panel for joining us today. really appreciate it. hope you all come back. thanks to all of you at home for watching as well. don't go anywhere. the lead with jake tapper starts right now. >> the. >> historic night ahead. >> on capitol hill. >> the lead starts. >> right now. >> tonight, the president's first. >> address to congress. >> for trump 2.0. >> what to expect, what. special guests. >> will attend and. who is boycotting. >

broke down within the supreme court, specifically seeing the chief justice, as well as justice amy coney barrettcourt in the majority here. >> you know, that's an interesting point, ali. and i think that what it speaks to is the notion of respect. >> for process. >> and ultimately. >> that is an. >> important thing when you're talking about powers that the executive branch are exercising that we have not seen before. these justices, regardless of their political affiliations. or ideologies. conservative or liberal. >> they have a respect for the process, or they're. demonstrating a respect for the process. >> as being paramount. over everything else. and that's why you saw the breakdown. >> be what it is, which is important. >> because ultimately, the question should not necessarily be about. whether you agree with what is being done by the administration. before you answer the question whether the administration actually has the power to. >> do it. >> yeah, and i think that's a really critical point, especially as we use your frame on this conversation, which is that the courts are going to be

john roberts and amy coney barrett joined with the three liberal justices in the decision.ph stern is a senior writer at slate covering the courts and the law. he joins me now. mark, a little bit. i mean, this should be nine zero, but but what what what was this decision today? and what do you see as its significance? >> well, you know, the decision is, of course, the bare minimum of what this supreme court could have done to push back against trump and musk's illegal impoundment of funds. and as you said, it should have been nine zero. also, the majority did not actually explain its reasoning. the court did not step in and say impoundment is illegal. the foreign aid freeze is illegal. all it did was back up the district court judge who said the administration has to pay out this $2 billion for services already rendered. obviously that is a really good sign. it's certainly encouraging that roberts and barrett joined with the three liberals here. but it's hard to read too. too much into this. i think that we should give the chief and barrett credit for showing some spine her

the three liberal justices were joined by chief justice john roberts and justice amy coney barrett in the unsigned decision. joining us now is msnbc's lisa rubin. so, lisa, first of all, what exactly is this? it's a preliminary decision. >> well, jose, functionally, it is not a preliminary decision. as the dissenting justices point out, it was a temporary restraining order entered by a district court. and today, a majority of the supreme court is saying that that temporary restraining order can stand. as a result of that temporary restraining order standing, that means usaid has to pay certain contractors for already contracted funds on work that was already completed before a certain day in february. so it is a very narrow ruling in that way. it just pertains to contracts for work that was already completed. but essentially what they're saying is usaid does have to pay up on those contracts. and this is important as well. the district court judge here has to and this is according to the majority. they have to clarify what obligations the government must fulfill to ensure that complia

chief justice john roberts and justice amy coney barrett sided with the court's three liberal justices to uphold a lower court's order directing the government to unfreeze some of those funds. following the supreme court's ruling, the lower court judge who was presiding over the case, ameer ali, directed the government to pay up by monday, march 10th. now, to be very clear, this was a narrow ruling that did not address the core constitutional questions. and for now, it only applies to the plaintiffs who brought this case. the fate of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding remains unresolved. nonetheless, this case is an example of how the courts are standing up to this administration. and another good example of that occurred on thursday. judge beryl howell of the united states district court for the district of the district of columbia, rebuked president trump for firing gwen wilcox, a member of the national labor relations board. judge howell wrote that president trump did not have the authority to fire wilcox, and that his attempt to do so was, quote, a blatant violation

john roberts and amy coney barrett joined the liberal members of the court in that majority, that 5-4 decision. this from jimmy hoover of the national law journal. quoting from samuel alito's dissent. "i am stunned about this." that is the news out of the court this morning. the supreme court denying president trump's emergency bid to cancel $2 billion in spending from the u.s. agency for international development. host: robin in pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: there are so many people that said everything i was going to say. i am so happy with the speech donald trump gave. it was a wonderful speech. he told a lot of information. i'm appalled at the way the democrats sat there and acted like they did. we elected these people. they have to show respect. there was no respect for the american people or the president. what do other countries think about this? it's a disgrace. anybody that puts democrat has got to have a screw loose. i'm sorry. that is all i got. host: anne from new york state, democrats line. caller: good morning. i think there were many lies and misstatement

it was a 5 to 4 decision, with chief justice john roberts and associate justice amy coney barrett joiningnd ketanji brown jackson. folks do not take too much comfort in the decision. the ruling only upheld a lower court decision, which the dissenting justices claimed was the wrong court to appeal trump's decision to pause usaid payments. and it leaves the larger constitutional question about whether congress has the ultimate power of the purse unanswered. i am confused. so joining me now is an expert msnbc legal analyst, melissa murray, professor of law at new york university and co-host of the strict scrutiny podcast. melissa, i thought that congress has the power of the purse because it's in the constitution. and did the dissenting justices literally send these folks to go judge shopping? >> so. >> okay, you were exactly. >> right to frame this. >> as a very. >> narrow ruling. this was on. >> the court's. >> emergency docket, also known as the shadow docket. so the court gets to decide. things on an emergency basis. >> and they. >> don't have to. >> offer a lot. >> of. >> language about

john roberts and amy coney barrett sided with the liberal judges.hing her for not being loyal to trump after he appointed her. what is your take on this? because she's in a unique position. she doesn't need to get elected or appointed again. she's on the bench for life, doesn't matter what maga says. >> there's a reason we give. >> federal judges life. >> tenure. >> and it's precisely for this situation. her job isn't to be loyal to the president who appointed her. her job. >> is. >> to be loyal to the. constitution and to find the law based on the facts and the truth. >> in the cases. >> in front of her. but but look, i think this motion, this particular situation has been overblown a little bit. this is an early procedural skirmish. this is not a substantive decision about who's right or who's wrong in this case. so we'll. see whether these judges line up in. >> the same. >> fashion when this case. comen from the court. >> there's something else i want to ask you about. we talked about it earlier in the show. the president's words may be coming ba

roberts today sided with the three liberal justices and with conservative amy coney barrett in today's 5 to 4 decision. our panel is back. uh, david kelly, in an interesting moment there with john roberts that president trump had. what did you make of. >> i don't know what to make of it. i would love to know what he was thanking him for. like for the inauguration. >> obviously immunity. >> like we don't know about being there tonight. >> or being there. >> tonight and showing the courtesy to the president that the democrats got. >> that's not. >> what you. >> just said. we don't know. you don't know either. >> what, like alito and thomas didn't show up. okay. this is not. but something they go sometimes. >> they leaves it open for interpretation. >> there's no need to get a dinner reservation in washington last night at any restaurant you want. >> scott jennings, what do you make of this conservative court doing this? >> okay, i generally like six of these people. i do not like this ruling. i, i respect the supreme court's decision. i do not care for this. i do not like the idea that a

i mean, obviously, everyone's been watching justice amy coney barrett, especially when it comes to howwith the other justices on the usaid funding. but on this tonight, you know, what judge howell did write is at one point she said, the president, who touts an image of himself as a king or as a dictator, perhaps as his vision of effective leadership fundamentally misapprehends the role as she accuses him of exactly what you're laying out there. a court to to test the presidency and the limits of it. >> i think that is an overstatement by the judge and frankly, a misstatement of donald trump's actual legal argument in this case. i think the judge is actually getting quite political there in a way that undermines her credibility. donald trump is making a perfectly reasonable good faith argument that, as the elected head of the executive branch, he controls the executive branch. that is very much in dispute. that's a reasonable argument to make. that's not the same thing as saying he's a king. or in another part of the decision, the judge even refers to his comments that he's a dictator.

conservatives in that view john roberts, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, clarence thomas, justice amy coney barrett sided with the court's three liberals. in the dissent, she writes this, quote, taking a tool away from epa may make it harder for the agency to issue permits that municipalities and businesses need in order for their discharges to be lawful. she's becoming more and more interesting as days go by. according to a local environmental group, the san francisco bay keeper, the city already dumps millions of gallons of combined sewer discharges every year, and big storms make that number higher. boating season right around the corner. all right. thanks so much to my panel for joining us today. really appreciate it. hope you all come back. thanks to all of you at home for watching as well. don't go anywhere. the lead with jake

there is elena kagan, uh, amy coney barrett. uh, former justice kennedy.uh, is there you know, the point was made by, uh, kamala harris and by joe biden before her that the next president may get as many as as two new supreme court justices. but it's something we shouldn't lose sight of. he he could dramatically reshape the court even more than he already has. >> yeah. and and he has done so incredibly dramatically. i mean, i think this is why this last election was seen as so pivotal, especially on the democratic side, because it was their opportunity to potentially get ahead of that. and they haven't. and it's very likely that there will be, uh, other vacancies on this court as some of the older justices, uh, are out, frankly, and the ones that trump put on the bench were intentionally among the youngest ever to be put on the court because conservatives have had a, you know, decades long effort to reshape the court and to to make it younger so that they have more justices on there for longer. i noticed that, you know, there there were some absences, uh,

let's hear it for amy coney barrett, standing up for the people. [applause] and we've got the power of oversight. to me, is the most humiliating thing in the world to see james comer and jim jordan on the oversight committee. i was a ranking member. to see all these people whose job it is to go out and ferret out waste, fraud, abuse, cheering when they've created this monstrous fourth branch of government that doesn't obey the constitution or the rule of law. they say, great job. why don't you do your job? [applause] if you think the first thing they did when they got in was they sacked the inspector -- inspector general. 18 inspectors general have been fired. their job is to fight, waste, fraud, abuse. they really do it. this is painstaking work that they do in every department of the government. they don't do that work by showing up with a bunch of juvenile computer hackers. they do it by coming with forensic accountants, budget analysts. they go through what the departments are working on and they find the waste, fraud, abuse. $91 billion last y

uh, two of whom there he appointed amy coney barrett and brett kavanaugh. kavanaugh, obviously, uh, were contentious confirmation process. and there were those in the white house who wanted president trump to drop him to cut, uh, and put somebody else in. president trump said, no, uh, brett kavanaugh no doubt very appreciative of that here. the joint chiefs, the new chairman, that president trump appointed, someone who met, i believe, in iraq years before. >> a brief note, jake, on kavanaugh, the playbook that got him to congress is one that you've seen them repeat. they did it again with pete hegseth to make sure that he became secretary of defense. >> yeah, they just keep fighting and fighting and pushing and pushing. and then they have the vote. when they have the votes, uh, with a lot of intense pressure on anybody wavering, not a lot of outreach from house democrats or senate democrats there, just in terms of physically approaching the president or his cabinet. christopher dring is giving the vice president and the speaker copies of the address, the jo

conservative chief justice john roberts and amy coney barrett interestingly joined the liberal justices in this case, ruling against one of president trump's major efforts to cut federal spending, craig. >> chief white house correspondent peter alexander for us there. peter thank you. >>> also fallout this morning from president trump's newly-launched tariffs against the country's largest trading partners, canada, mexicond china. consumers are starting to feel the impact now. some grocery prices are already rising again. but the administration is announcing a brief reprieve for one key sector, u.s. automakers. nbc senior business correspondent christine romans watching all of it. good morning. >> good morning. that announce from the the white house provided temporary relief to the american auto companies. the keyword is temporary. the administration signaled could be over car tariffs. they remain largely in place with more tariffs expected in a matter of week. >> reporter: america's big-three automakers breathing a temporary sigh of relief this morning after the trump administration ann