frederick: yes, you can, justice breyer. and i would point out that the state here has carved out the questions about managerial discretion. managerial policy cannot be bargained for. the state's budget, that can't be bargained for. so what we're talking about is justice roberts: well how does -- mr. frederick: how you manage the workplace. justice roberts: how do negotiation over wages not affect the state budget? mr. frederick: your honor, what essentially happens as i understand it is that either the budget is set and the negotiation occurs within that parameter or the governor takes the collective bargaining agreement to the state and the legislature decides to either ratify it or not. justice roberts: so the public unions do not engage in advocacy with respect to the state budget to the extent that impacts the available wages? mr. frederick: i think -- i wouldn't put it quite that way. what i would say is that of course most public servants are underpaid, and i will stipulate to that before this body. mr. frederick: and

it seems to me that there are at votes for new jersey, chief,t's aledo, the gorsuch andmas, breyer. and breyer seemed to be very therep on the idea that is no federal regime here, that what the federal government is through theely states. i don't know if there's going to a a majority for constitutional ruling. gorsuch seemed to think you the statute narrowly. so the devil will be in the details here. i think even if new jersey wins, not sure that the ruling is far reaching as people think it will be, as people hope it will be. that's true, if it's not just a blanket invalidation of paspa, there's going to be a lot of complicating details for everybody in this room to work out. thanks for inviting me and elbert for that great tomary because it allows me dive right in without explaining the complicated backdrop. here in the unenviable position of talking to state general about why i rightshe anti-state's side of the case is the better side and normally as an advocate the court and in cases about federalism i have been much more often on the states' rights side in litigating preemption

it seems to me that there are at votes for new jersey, chief,t's aledo, the gorsuch andmas, breyer. and breyer seemed to be very therep on the idea that is no federal regime here, that what the federal government is through theely states. i don't know if there's going to a a majority for constitutional ruling. gorsuch seemed to think you the statute narrowly. so the devil will be in the details here. i think even if new jersey wins, not sure that the ruling is far reaching as people think it will be, as people hope it will be. that's true, if it's not just a blanket invalidation of paspa, there's going to be a lot of complicating details for everybody in this room to work out. thanks for inviting me and elbert for that great tomary because it allows me dive right in without explaining the complicated backdrop. here in the unenviable position of talking to state general about why i rightshe anti-state's side of the case is the better side and normally as an advocate the court and in cases about federalism i have been much more often on the states' rights side in litigating preemption

and breyer seemed to be very hung up on the idea that there is no federal regime here, that what the federal government is doing is solely through the states. i don't know if there's going to be a majority for a constitutional ruling. gorsuch seemed to think you could read the statute narrowly. so the devil will be in the details here. i think even if new jersey wins, i'm not sure that the ruling is going to be as far reaching as people think it will be, as people hope it will be. and if that's true, if it's not just a blanket invalidation of paspa, there's going to be a lot of complicating details for everybody in this room to work out. >> thanks to nagg for inviting me and thanks to elbert for that great summary because it allows me to dive right in without explaining the complicated backdrop. i come here in the unenviable position of talking to state attorneys general about why i think the anti-states' rights side of the case is the better side and normally as an advocate before the court and in cases about federalism i have been much more often on the states' rights side in litig

>> justice breyer, that is the crucial distinction. i agree with you on the sauces for the goose and the gander. but when you are performing a medical procedure and you're making disclosures about your own services, what the plurality opinion in casey says, this is page 80 -- >> if it's about doctors, i agree with that. >> that's right. >> but i think for most people you'd think family planning, you know? family planning. that's the category. and the woman will make a decision, and then the state can tell them some things they have to say. and we know we can tell them about adoption, they can make them tell about adoption, so why can't they make them tell about abortion? >> because, justice breyer, when you are going in to have a procedure and you've got to make certainties closures, that's a disclosure -- >> i'm sorry -- >> let him finish the answer, please. >> then it's a question of how much you have to disclose g casey drew that -- >> but, mr. wall, why -- go ahead, i'm sorry. >> you've got to make an informed choice, and all of a

the technical point first is justice breyer you asked what the authority of the district court is. the authority of the district court in this case or magistrate judge comes from, first, 2703 which entitles a court of competent jurisdiction to issue the relevant warrant in this case. this is on page 6a of the government's appendix to its brief. there is then a definition of a court of competent jurisdiction on page 12a of the appendix to the government's brief which defines it to include any magistrate judge that has jurisdiction over the offense being investigated. as well as several other bases. this was a patriot act amendment designed to expand the authority of courts to issue orders. second technical question is the one asked by justice kennedy on whether microsoft could voluntarily disclose this information to the government. it couldn't. it's barred by 2702 from making disclosures accept as authorized by that statute and one of the exceptions is that the government can proceed under 2703 to compel the same information so microsoft is basically claiming the authority once it

the important points is there is's some dispute over this but most agree with us including justice breyer there is no federal regime or federal law ininfe place that prohibits spos wagering it is only through state law. that states cannot do these but there is no federal criminalization or federal policy on the books. another commandeering divide is to say it can only preempt if they have a federal policy ince place but they haven't enacted a federal policy but they will effectuate through the states that is commandeering. so both of those lines are answers will define commandeering in a way that will beer very important with sports wagering and different fields. the third issue i will not spend a lot of time on is the questions there is one provision so it is argued at some length even if the statute applies or the court finds those two parts unconstitutional for that provision, the whole statute does not have to go. and that is also an important thing to look for when the opinion comes out because a couple gentlemen will talk about what you might do if the cart one -- court strikes it d

points.e two quick the technical point is that justice breyer, u.s. the authority in the district court. the authority of the magistrate 2703, whichfrom entitles a court of competent jurisdiction to issue the relevant warrant in this case and that is on page 6a. courtis a definition of a restriction in the appendix to the brief that defines this to include a magistrate judge that has jurisdiction over the offense and other basis. this is designed to expand the authority of courts. the second technical question was asked by kennedy on whether microsoft and voluntarily disclose this information to the government and it could not. far from making disclosures and one of the exceptions is that the government can proceed on the information. is looking to unilaterally disclose this to anyone. they order issued by the nets to it says that they have no obligation to produce information and, the substantive information, that does indeed focus on disclosure and not storage. 2703 requires disclosure on the variety of categories. with theit up disclosure and secti

and jim breyer tells bloomberg the social network will change and survive. ♪ it is jsut one day and allver the markets in the next day we're back. today is the we're back territory. it was of what the chart here that i think is quite interesting. manyrt of signals when so investors are nervous about the open of monday today. bredth in the markets -- breadth in the markets all around the world. it should do the number of stocks trading below their -- start markets -- stock market trading below their 200 day moving average now over 50%. that is a bearish side by some -- fine by some indications. i want to know this is updated as of friday. the new numbers have not been after the close today. i imagine the line going down is going to stop right there and pick up a little bit perhaps. you do not know we're looking at the next day or the days after these days. saw.e: does what we this amazing turnaround in the started in asia as of yesterday afternoon. mnuchin,from steve appearing to be diplomatic now. saying u.s.-china negotiations ongoing. too soon to say there is a break there. there is u

steven breyer said they use these to train miller.ot a medical expert but i know who is and it's not the people the video gamers put out. you need to know more about the case. the data is so overwhelming. when i was a kid nobody buckled seat belt all just fine. the seat belt unbuckled died. but all the ones that died -- >> laura: kids have predispositions to this. >> yeah. >> laura: maybe they have a trigger inside of them, they steep themselves. >> one more ingredient to it great book inside the mind of a teen killer. the new factor in every single indicates, the new factor, the fact that violent crime is down is not true. >> laura: are they using these in army ranger training do they do simulation. >> we do it with law enforcement and video training. you don't see it in ranger school but integral part of our training make killing response part of training. we have to do it. healthy people have to be trained to do and the video games do the same things to the kids. >> laura: ben, what i think about this, science or not, for young chi

district court judge charles breyer said this week a san francisco judge relied on unreliable evidencep 53-year-old james reem's bail at $330,000. breyer had previously ruled that reem's detention was unconstitutional because the san francisco judge failed to consider alternatives to bail. breyer later ruled that reem would have gone free if he had been wealthy, so his detention violated the constitution's equal protection clause.reem was released on tuesday. (steve) the government stepping up for your health with a new plan to seriously change acceptable levels of nicotine in cigarettes. ♪ ♪ get high speed internet from at&t. $30 per month. no extra monthly fees. more for your thing. that's our thing. visit att.com/internet. (steve) federal health officials are taking the first step in a sweeping anti-smoking plan... they say it could make a huge difference in the number of people who smoke..(vicki) catherine heenan is here with the latest on their ambitious plan.. (catherine) america could become the first country in the world to force tobacco companiesto re-engineer their products..

his second book was cited by justice breyer in a landmark

. >>> for one family-owned steel business, tariffs could mean a breyer future. kayla tausche isn cincinnati. >> reporter: every minute at beyersteel, old railroad axles are fed into a furnace, heated, and molded into 1200 feet o steel rebar. they sell the rebar to commercial conanruction cos. it's had to drop the price to compete with cheap foreign imports. we're over 16,000 miles away from japan or turkey. and i can buy japanese or turkish rebar at the port of cincinnati nine miles cheaper than my raw material coasts. i don't understand how that lrks. >> reporter: in tht three years, their profit margins have fallen nearly 40%. he says he's laid off nearly half the workforce at this northeastern cincinnati mill. he says trump's tariffs would reverse tha trend. >> we have production lines that are not operational right now. we hav -- we were dow from 180 employees to 95. those jobs can come back. we have capacity and mhines ght now that are waiting for a market to sell to. and there's people trying to work, that want to come back. >> reporter: employment in ohio

and they are in this goes back to justice breyer sauce for the goose point. there really the exact flipside of the requirements in this case. so how my supposed to think about that. they are triggered by a medical intervention rather than a discussion. i realize there is a factual difference. but these are not informed consent requirements. this court held that they were in casey because they were components of the abortion process. the first amendment allows states to allow factual disclosures. is to require pregnancy centers to make disclosures about services that they do not provide and who would violate their most deeply held beliefs. it needs to compel a speech rather than speak its own message. if you are providing women's health services if the lists all of the services that you will provide. it would provide those facilities. it would apply to the nato care. on the food. i think of california said to our providers across the board in our state. that looks to the united states like truthful of factual factual information about what you're doing. i thin

cited byd book was justice breyer in a landmark case. fors a senior historian special operations command and is here to discuss his new book on the history of gun rights tom colonial militias concealed carry. and, interstate foreign commerce among other numerous books on constitutional law. please join me in welcoming them. our. the introduction to your new book, you discussed being a student and becoming interested the secondt, amendment, with this case making its way through the court. can you tell me why the case struck you? >> i was an undergraduate with a history degree and everybody is trying to find a niche they feel comfortable with and i remember one parker versus the district thislumbia came down and was central to the holding and the legal analysis of the case in, but wille confuse me was that it was all history that i am familiar with and things that intuitively did not add up. ask historian might, you questions and that is how i there werelved and things of the court misconstrued yearsspent about 1.5 digging in and came to a

sign that the court isn't close to answering this question is a suggestion made today by justice breyer. he said at one point, why don't we do this again next year. take the maryland case and the wisconsin case that we heard and another one from north carolina that's waiting in the wings and put them all together and bring all the lawyers in a room and shut the doors and let them hash it out and try to come up with the best test. it's fair to say he would not have made that suggestion if the court had come up with an answer to the wisconsin case that was set satisfactory. so bottom line, they think that it maryland went too far, but they don't know what to do about it. >> it sounds like the supreme court is going the way of congress. it's going to kick the can down the road. >> reporter: here's the difference. the supreme court has to decide these cases. one possibility, one exit ramp would be to say, you know what, you waited too long, republicans. you're coming up here saying that you'll suffer harm, but this redistricting was in 2011. now you come now. it's a little late. why should

justice stephen breyer 79 injustice ruth bader ginsburg turns 85 friday. >> it's easy to imagine havingnees. one of the most long-lasting impacts any president has. >> the trump administration is moving quickly to fill 17 lifetime vacancies on u.s. courts of appeal and another 121 district court vacancies. it's in those courts were 99% of the nation's federal court decisions are made. john. >> john: doug mckelway, thanks. authority's northern california are still not saying why a former army rifleman killed three female employees after a daylong siege at a veterans home friday. 36-year-old albert wong had been expelled from a treatment program at the facility. he was found dead after the standoff. police are not saying how he died. a new hampshire woman who won a powerball jackpot can keep her identity private. a judge has ruled disclosing the woman's name would be an invasion of privacy. the winner signed her ticket after the january 6 drawing but later learned she could have shielded her identity by writing down the name of a trust instead. they woman's lawyers argue that her privacy

breyer: i raise this because i want to think if there is harm in doing that i haven't thought of. is there some reason -- would it be harmful to somebody, because i do see an advantage. you could have a blackboard with everyone's theory on it, then you have the pros and cons and look at them all and then you can see different ones for different variations. there are different parts of gerrymandering. you see the point. you cannot think of a reason not to do it. mr. kimberly: the immediate reason would be this 2018 elections. if the court is disinclined to think there is remedy for that event, then maybe not. that is something we can concede. it would be an issue for the district court in our case. what do you think would be permissible? you said your theory allows for a minimus protection, so what falls in the minimus category? mr. kimberly: a good example would be as i was describing to justice sotomayor, the eighth congressional district. jus. ginsberg: that is not a menacejus. ginsberg:. jus. sotomayor: you are saying there is no burden at all. you are saying there wasn't inten

justice stephen breyer seemed to agree saying that's true but when are we going to have a case that'ss clear? that is the second problem. if you decide it is unconstitutional to have acceptably partisan gerrymandering, then what do you do about it? what is the test. that's where the supreme court majority seemed to be struggling today just as samuel alito says once you open that door, then you are going to get the courts involved in every legislative redistricting unless partisanship is never an issue. that doesn't seem very practical. you mentioned the fact the supreme court heard the wisconsin case in october. we assume that they were holding a decision for that case until they heard the maryland case. well, it didn't seem from today's argument that they're any closer to finding that answer, that test for deciding when partisanship because too much, so blatant that it is unconstitutional. they seem to say that maryland has gone too far but unsure what to do about it. >> fascinating case that could have major implications for our political system. pete williams, thank you for trackin

picking up on that, justice breyer said, well, you know in the law what is sauce for the goose is sauce the gander. >> brangham: in other legal news today, a defamation suit that was brought by a former contestant of "the apprentice"-- this was donald trump's formeha show--tried to sue the president for defamation. according to a new yok rule because he is president doesn't mean he doesn't get out of this potentialse. explain what happened. >> it seems to me what happened here is the prsident's lawyers were relying on a supreme court decision, "cinton v. jones." >> brangham: the famous "clinton v. jones." >> yes, and oddly enough it seemed to work aga the president because the supreme court held that president clinton could be sured fo sexual harassment claimed by paula jones. but the courtid nt-- well, the court explicitly said that it was not deciding whether a suit in ste court could go forward. it was only addressing-- this was a suit against president clinton that was brought in federal court. so i think theump administration is-- or president ngump's lawyers are reln that opening

joshua also served as law clerk to justice stephen breyer of the u.s. supreme court and was editor in chief of yale law journal. thank you very much for participating on the panel today, and welcome to georgetown. why don't we go in and get started director john thompson, if you would mind, leading things off? >> thank you, john. i would like to do three things, talk about why the senses is so important, talk a little bit about what's different with the 2020 census as opposed to previous sentences, and then they the groundwork by saying where we are now i think my fellow panelists more than cover much more details about that. so what is the sense is important that already heard that it's a basis for re-apportioning the congress every ten years. that's a constitutional mandate. the data from the census are used to support fair redistricting and every state uses those data although not every state is required to. the census results are used to allocate over $600 billion in federal funding every year. the private sector relies on census data at the america

bikorean gorod is a former clerk for justice breyer, she also wrote an amicus brief in support of thestate of california in this case. denise harle will be second chair for oral arguments at the u.s. supreme court next tuesday. and last but certainly not least we're honored to have kimberly robinson, supreme court reporter for bloomberg law, as our moderator. so i'll now turn over to this excellent group of women, and please join me in welcoming them. [applause] >> well, thank you all so much for being here today. as we heard, this case really has so many threads to examine from free speech to free religion and, of course, the always controversial topic of abortion. so, denise, why don't you start us off and tell us, you know, what your organization is going to argue and whenever it argues this case next tuesday, just down the road from here. >> sure, thank you. .. these centers have to cosign, in their facilities, advertising abortions and telling women where they can get free and low-cost abortions in california. for the other pregnancy care centers which are nonmedical, they offer

so i think justice breyers more relatively recent book is a response to scalia.let's talk about how we -- approach these texts that was not a conversation that was happening before. and i think it's a very valuable conversation similarly with interpreting statutes. it was common for legislators to stick little bits of business in legislative history with the hope that when a statute gets interpreted, someone might find this -- it little thing in the committee report and interpret the statute in a way that perhaps not everyone had focused on. that was a little cryptic i'm sorry. but he pointed that out. and i think elevated that conversation too. so i think it's unfair to take a conventional measure and say he wasn't that influential but i think we have to look at in what ways was he influential and are those -- are those ways as made ways of counting significant. and i would say -- that he made a significant contribution all around and the fact this he didn't write a lot of majority opinions is as rick said. if people who write the majority when the justice -- wh

justice breyer went through the logical process that marshall use, saying these are the enumerated powers that congress has a right to pursue, the power to tax and regulate commerce. congress'e that choice for how to pursue those ends, unless completely and totally outside the bounds of the possible, a permissible use of their power. starting from the principles that marshall articulated, it followed closely in its footsteps. >> there is another critical distinction. the tax, the individual mandate, the penalty, was on individuals as opposed to on the government itself. the question in mcculloch was taxation of government, not of individuals. >> state versus federal. theere talking about about implications, but let's move onto to the decision itself and how it was reached. how did justice marshall, after listening to nine days of arguments, approach a decision with his other justices? >> very quickly. oral argument ended on wednesday and the decision was announced saturday. some people were very suspicious of this, thinking he had prejudged the case and must have written it up in advance,

justice breyer very carefully went through the very logical process that marshall had used saying these are the enumerated powers that congress has the right to pursue. the power to tax and the power to regulate commerce. and so we -- we must see that congress' choice for how to ursue those ends is -- completely and outside the bounds of the possible -- a permissible use of their power. so it started from the first principles that marshall articulated. and sebelius followed in its footsteps. >> and another critical distinction. the individual mandate, tax, whatever you call it, the penalty, was on individuals as opposed to on the government itself. and the question in mccullough was the taxation of government, not of individuals. >> state versuses federal. we have been talking about the implications so let's move on to the decision itself. and how it was reached. how did justice marshall after listening to nine days of these arguments approach a decision with his other justices? >> very quickly. oral argument ended on wednesday. the decision was announced on saturday. and there were som

she's also a former clerk for justice breyer. she also wrote an amicus brief on behalf of members he of congress in support of the state of california in this case. denise harle is legal counsel here at alliance defending freedom. she will be second chair for oral arguments at the u.s. supreme court next tuesday. and last but certainly not least, we're honored to have kimberly robinson, supreme court reporter for bloomberg law as our moderator. so i'll now turn it over to this excellent group of women and please join me in welcoming them. [applause] kimberly: well, thank you all so much for being here today. as we heard, this case really has so many things to examine from free speech to free religion and also the controversial topic of abortion. denise, why don't you start us off and tell us what your organization is going to argue and whenever it argues this case next tuesday just down the road from here? denise: sure, thank you. so in 2015, the california legislature openly decided that it was going to target pro-life pregnancy

extraordinary things happen and i think one of my favorite stations from the book comes from grace breyer and she was asked why she was bringing suit against this company when she was facing certain death and there's not much money available and why is she doing it. grace said it is not for myself that i care. i am thinking more of the hundreds of other girls to whom this may serve as an example and i think that altruism is extraordinary and i think when you meet the radium girls in the book they are an example to us all and the story does have resignation today and i hope that people do take the example of the radium girls and whatever your personal fight for justice is and they'll take inspiration from their courage and strength and fight your own personal battle what you think is right. [applause] >> now, it is your turn. if you have questions i will ask you to come to the microphone. there is one at the front of each child here and we won't be up to hear you probably and if you have questions or need assistance getting to the microphone, let us know. or we can make the microphone come