district court is a one judge court. district court is the trials.o, if it is a martha stewart trial, a case involving a jury, that will be conducted by a one judge district court. and the district court also will hear other kinds of cases. when the party loses, the party, if it so chooses, will appeal to the court of appeals. that is the circuit court. that is my court. , is one, second circuit of the cords that you alluded to. we have 13 full-time judges and nine senior judges. we have 22 judges. >> what is a senior judge? >> a senior judge is someone who is over 65, has the requisite number of years of experience, and can take senior status. there is an arcane rule known as the rule of 80. if you are 65 and have 15 years of service -- 65 plus 15 equals 80. you can go on senior status. if you're 70, if you went on the .ench at 60, you have to wait the senior judges do a large metal work and our court system. when they go senior, what happens is it creates a vacancy so that we can get another judge, and so a combination of the senior judges and the

the court of course is a court of discretionary jurisdiction.ly hears around 75 cases a year so it has the luxury to decide what cases to hear and i'm curious whether anyone on this panel has any thoughts about whether this particular category of cases that the court perhaps should take more of or is this a particular category of kateses that the court maybe -- cases that the court maybe is taking too many. and of course any practicing lawyer is going to say, well, they don't take enough of my cases. [laughter] >> it's -- intellectual property is such a driving force in the economy that it's not a surprise that the court is taking so many cases. it's like going back to the late 19th century, there were a lot of railroad cases on the docket and that makes sense viewing the nature of the economy and it makes sense now given the nature of the economy. let's talk about the upcoming supreme court term. we're really talking about half of the upcoming supreme court term because the court has filled a little less than half of its calendar for the upcomi

court? >> i don't really think about being reversed by the supreme court. i think about trying to follow the law where the precedents direct me to go a certain direction. and where they don't, i try to do the best i can. there are times when i can reach and write a decision where -- if i could rule the world, i might differently, but it is my job to follow that president. i believe we would have a lawless judicial system if we weren't intensive -- attentive to what the supreme court directed us to do. but where questions are left open, we have more discretion to try to answer the question, and that of course can lead to further court tests up in the supreme court. >> do you have any idea how many cases you have adjudicated? >> that is a great question. i would have to think about that. it's in the thousands. i think that there are probably about -- oh, 300 cases orally argued, and we have the immigration docket -- it is probably about 500 cases a year. >> from the court. >> i sit on a three-

court. and in particular we will start by talking about the roberts court because as hard as it is to believe we are about to start the 10th year in the supreme court under the chief justice john roberts. many view of a certain generation, you remember where you were when president kennedy was shot and i think for many of us who are supreme court lawyers, we remember where we were when we heard the sad news and i was actually watching college football at my parents house when they broke into the football game with the news that the chief justice had passed away. and i think for all of us, in many ways, it feels like it was yesterday and yet it was more than nine years ago. john roberts had been nominated as a replacement for sandra day o'connor who had retired. but president bush turned around and renominated him to become the chief justice. and so i thought that we will start with some general observations and talk a little bit about the supreme court term that ended in june before we trans

supreme court justice david suitor. and also jenae wilson, she's director of counsel for the naacp preview defense and council fund. she was the associate director of the ronald h. brown civil economic development at st. john's university of law. steven is a fellow of law and government at the american university washington college of law. he is co-author of a biography of justice brennan, a columnist and previously served as continue for "the wall street journal." please welcome our panel for today's discussion. let me tell you a bit the format, we have asked each of our panelists to provide briefings, something they're very good at on a variety of upcoming cases, in some cases by category, in others a little more free form. so when each panelist does that presentation, then we'll engage him or her in some discussion of the cases, then eventually we'll turn it to u you and we'll ask for your questions and comments. but first, let me begin with a general question about the state of the court. is the court currently eith

whether the supreme court gets involved or not, you have courts that have gotten involved. whether you have the case of democraticallyng elected positions, it may be possible for the court to avoid a specter of a repeat on that. one wonders what justice kennedy is thinking. panele kennedy preview with special guest -- on the marriage cases, it is especially so. he wrote about liberty and also wrote about state authority and federalism. it wasn't clear to anybody where he was going with this. what we have seen in the aftermath is a lot of courts focused on their version of liberty with much less care for state power and federalism. maybe justice kennedy is happy to watch this play out. maybe he is looking for another opportunity to clarify what he wrote. >> so it is the case that justice kennedy is the author of all three major gay rights decisions. it will likely be his legacy and it would be surprising if he would make a turn now when the polling numbers are moving in one direction. or do you disagree? to make anygoing money betting on what justice kennedy is going to do.

court is that it's similar to the adult court.the reality is the system is much more concerned about giving hides rehabilitated and giving them an opportunity to have not this happen again as opposed to just locking someone up. >> one of the things we'll have is convincing the court and the judge in particular that despite you having been here before and not learned your lesson that you're going to learn your lesson this time and not get into trouble again. so kentrell, help me understand some of the things that are going in your life that helped demonstrate that. >> i play ball. >> where do you play ball at? >> at the court. >> tell me a little bit about that. what do you do? what position do you play? >> i just play ball. >> what else do you do besides play basketball? >> i just wish he never got himself into this. he's still a little kid. i just pray every day, like, i hope he get out. >> i know you're a very quiet person, but you've got to make a decision if you want to stay in here or not because we'll put both of you guys on

i think in some ways the courts may be able to avoid looking at issue but that's something the court is concerned about an part of the reason she was suggesting maybe you want to wait as long as we can before getting involved in this case. the challenge as will pointed out is that we do have almost a fever of lower court decisions rushing as fast as they can to overstate -- overturn every state law that they can find so what did the supreme court gets involved or not you certainly have courts that get involved so you still have the case of courts overriding democratically-elected positions in the law. it may be possible for the court to involve such a complicated issue. >> i wonder what justice kennedy's thinking is this place out. the supreme court preview pane panels. [inaudible] but in the marriage cases it's especially so. the president is the windsor case and that justice kennedy wrote in a wrote about liberty and state authority and federal and it wasn't clear to anybody at the time where he was going with this. what we have seen in the aftermath is a lot of federal courts focu

significant reduction in the number of class actions in the court and the requirement by the court into the commonality of interest of the parties in the class has to be much more rigorous than before the rulings of the last few years i think i've made a class-action more difficult. >> that is absolutely right that makes it difficult to bring the class-action lawsuits which a few years ago that also narrowed it down and coming you know, preceding that there had been a huge attack on the ability of the lawyers in these specific cases. but i think that we often ignore is how we proceed to the rules how they have an impact on the vindicating of rights. so when we talk about the substantive case is quite a bit and the rights are at stake but they are only enabled by these procedural rules and so they are as consequential in many ways as the substance is delivered to the substance if you don't have the right to procedural entrÉe so i'm glad you raised that question. i don't know of any cases on the docket this term that are pending. but who knows. >> i think that we have time for one more qu

. >> in the new supreme court term beginning october 6 the court has agreed to hear cases relating to congressional district gerrymandering religious freedom in prison and freedom of speech on the internet. attorneys specializing in constitutional law preview the upcoming court term at an event hosted by the federalist society. this is an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon welcome. it's the season of the federal court review and this is the -- this is also the season where we have two kinds of cases before the supreme court. they have granted a lease 40 cases some of them quite interesting and you'll hear about them today but also on the horizon there are some real blockbusters that could really transform american life including seven petitions the justices will consider at their first conference of the new term on september 29 concerning the question of constitutional rights and same-sex marriage and not far behind at far behind that challenged another aspect of the affordable care act and perhaps also on the horizon conceivably this term affirmative action

it's not a secret court, we know the court exists, we know who's on it. but it does operate much of the time in a classified environment because the information being presented itself is classified. but one way to buildadditional al trust in the court would be to have an -- >> there are many other than possibilities for reform. one of the problems on the court is that they don't have the technological expertise and they don't have the resources to monitor the things that they're asking the nsa and others to do. for instance for almost three years, the nsa was clearing data without any suspicion, even though the court required it. when the administration came in in 2009, they realized what was happening, within a week reported it to the court. that's actually one thing i do want to say, although there's no contrary council, there's no advocate on the other site, doj takes their job really seriously in terms of trying to present contrary arguments so the structure is not a den me grags on the way people have tried to carry out their duties and responsibilit

now what we have is in his seeking searcher rory to the court, it seems like he, of course the court doesn't disclose what its reasons are but seems likely the fact that there's a pretty established disagreement in the circuit on what the standard is probably had a lot to do with her case. they recently looked at it, pass on another case raising th this issue. perhaps they thought that case had some issues that would stop them from getting to the substantive question. but that's how we wound up where we are today. >> might of the bit -- with the arrested and in jail, charged with a crime and find, or what speak was yes. there's a federal statute under which it was charge which is a federal threat statute and he was arrested and charged under that statute. it's also not clear from that statute what state of mind you need which is part of why this whole thing has become a first amendment issue because there's not a lot of clear direction from the statute about what's necessary. but yes, there's a federal threat statute under which he was charged. >> first questioner graciously demonstr

inside court. i'm with willem heath, the former high court judge, analyzing the implications for oscar pistorius now, just going back to where we are, he has been granted continuation of bail, convicted of culpable homicide, and now awaiting sentence we think mid october. >> yes, very much so. >> reporter: and we talked also about the considerations the judge will make, and the fors and the againsts. judge masipa sentenced someone for over 200 years for serial rape. we can't tell, though. can you gauge anything from her behavior in court so far? >> no, she's been playing such an objective role. probably on purpose. it's difficult to judge it. she's already found that the accused was actually in self-defense. because of those circumstances. so she can hardly ignore that when the sentence is imposed. so the killing happened during the course of that situation. so with that in mind. >> reporter: we talked when we were discussing this yesterday not knowing what the verdict was going to be about the pub

the court -- do these differences that the court seems to care about make a difference on the ground?>> i think to some it does because those that follow the supreme court closely or using proxies for what's right and what's wrong. for example if you are are in a conservative site you might say all right i'm going to follow justice scalia and justice thomas and whatever they do is where i would come out of rerun the liberal side you might follow justice of the lie are follow justice out of ir or justice ginsburg. if they are important something you'll probably say well it must not be that problematic or if you think of a scalia's dissent where he ripped the other side that's something that can influence people. i suspect it really influences the 35 legal authority sitting around around. >> many of them are here. >> that's the inside crowd that has a strong sense of i like the footnote in that opinion. i suspect the public is not really influenced by any of that. there is a debate out there but they are not -. >> i think the question is who are we talking about? i think how the case ca

the court of course is a court of discretionary jurisdiction, the court only hears around 75 cases a year so it has the great luxury of deciding which cases to hear. i'm just curious of whether anybody on this panel has any thoughts about whether there's a particular category of cases that the judges should take more of, or the category of cases that the court's taking too many of? everybody on this panel who's a practicing lawyer is going to stay they don't take enough of my cases. >> intellectual property has become such an important driving force in the economy, that it's not such a surprise that the court's taking so many cases. it's as though you go back to the late 19th century, there were a lot of railroad cases on the docket and that makes sense due to the nature of the economy. >> let's say the one issue that seems to have fallen off the agenda a little bit in the roberts court are cases that involve federalism. >> uh-huh and cases involving claims by states. and that was an area that was obviously of great interest to chief justice rehnquist. that seems to be a little less

>> they would ask the supreme court to resolve the conflict. >> it would have to be the supreme court? >> i think so. i think they would permit a state. >> should we permit a stay? i guess are going to get to this later. we agree with you that this other litigation that is going on, we want the supreme court -- supposing where wrong and somebody blows of a subway train -- does it make sense for us to say here are our views and wait for the d.c. circuit to speak. before actually making an order, an injunction? >> i think it would be relevant. we have not taken a position on that. >> that would be within our power to do? >>yes. >> i will now proceed to the constitution. our claim under the fourth amendment is quite straightforward. the government will collection of our bulk records intrudes on a resort location of privacy. this was decided in 1979 in a supreme court decision. >> let's suppose that we agree that quantity is quality here. that this program is different. isn't there still quite a bit to the government's argument that even in this context, there is not much of an expectatio

this is her fifth book, stories from the history of the supreme court, "out of order."tice o'connor, five books. when you discover you enjoyed writing? >> guest: there were just lots of things to write about until about. >> host: what are you doing at the book festival today because i don't think you are talking about your book. >> guest: no, not really. i know jim billington and his head of the library of congress and my brother has a new book out and so jim billington told me had to bring my brother to the conference so i said i would and that's why we are here. >> host: you were in conversation with allen dey who is your brother. the horse lovers. what's his book about? >> guest: well, for a long time he had the wild horses, most of them in the country and he had two ranches up in north dakota where he could take these forces and keep them for a whi while. the federal government had the responsibility for them so they paid something for the care of the horses. he did that for quite a while and it was most interesting. >> host: well i want to talk while i've got you a

the court. to come to an agreement with what it is they are doing, and often there is a vote of confidence, or the committee report -- they often give background about the backgrounds. >> can you define what a statute is? >> a statute is a law of congress, so it could be the civil rights act of 1964. it could be the hobby protection act of whatever year that deals with protecting memorabilia from being copied or coins from being copied. it could be the clean air act. when congress passes a law, that is a statute. so where justice scalia and i i that theld agree is language of the statute, the law, where it is crystal clear, then, of course, fidelity to written meanst is you do not have to go beyond the words of a statute because it is clear, so if i said to you, there is a law that makes it distribute in a 30-day period three grams of a and not you personally, because you would never be involved in any of this, but let's say a person had been his grams,rams, having 30 well, it is very clear that

courts. experienced lawyers are surprised to encounter many of the things i will tell you about today. most members of the public do not have a clue about the realities of the world. when they do come face to face with the laws, they are often dismayed. any fan of a crime drama and recite the miranda warnings given when someone is arrested. you have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford 1, 1 will be appointed for you. not true and immigration courts. there is no right to appointed counsel. one has the privilege of having an attorney's help if he can pay , or if he is fortunate enough to find a willing volunteer. this is true, even though all respondents have the burden of proof. that is the legal obligation to prove they are able to remain in the united states or qualify for benefits under complicated immigration laws. the last fiscal year, only 40% were unrepresented, a figure that froze to 85% if only detained dockets are considered. as you look around our courtrooms, you see t

the court has decided as you know otherwise. i think the potential consequences of this decision are more serious than many people realize. they are not the kinds of consequences that arise every day but it's a time bomb sitting in the back of the room as far as i'm concerned that may in fact impede action that could be terribly important to the national situation. >> host: the prince case you mention about a gun free school zone act of federal law that congress passed to regulate guns in schools. the supreme court struck it down on the grounds that federal officials can't command state officers to carry out certain duties and you presciently objected and said a future terrorist attacks and this was before 9/11 and he said this would make it hard to respond to terrorism and other acts of violence. >> guest: that's exactly right and i really think the rule in place now would interfere with a draft law for example where both in world war ii and other prior situations the federal government had made important use of state officials

whether the supreme court gets involved or not, you have courts that have gotten involved. whether you have the case of courts overriding democratically elected positions, it may be possible for the court to avoid a specter of a repeat on that. >> one wonders what justice kennedy is thinking. justice kennedy preview panel with special guest -- on the marriage cases, it is especially so. he wrote about liberty and also wrote about state authority and federalism. it wasn't clear to anybody where he was going with this. what we have seen in the aftermath is a lot of courts focused on their version of liberty with much less care for state power and federalism. maybe justice kennedy is happy to watch this play out. maybe he is looking for another opportunity to clarify what he wrote. >> so it is the case that justice kennedy is the author of all three major gay rights decisions. it will likely be his legacy and it would be surprising if he would make a turn now when the polling numbers are moving in one direction. or do you disagree? >> i am not going to make any money betting o

supreme court term.rsation about national security with the director of the non counter- -- national counterterrorism center. stays >>> now to a debate for the open seat in iowa's third congressional district, which covers the southwestern part of the state. democrat, staci appel, who served in the iowa state senate, is running against republican david young, former chief of staff to u.s. senator chuck grandsonley. the winner of the race replaces tom latham, who is retiring. this is courtesy of iowa public tv. [applause] >> welcome this is iowa's third congressional district, stretching from central iowa to the missouri border and the missouri river, too. that includes des moines, council bluffs, and creston, red oak, shen unanimous dough, and atlantic. republican tom latham is not seeking re-election so make it one of the 44 open seats in the u.s. house of representatives. democrats hoping to reclaim the seat are pinning the hopes on staci appel, form state senator, serving from 2006 to 2010. republican

court indicated a lot of credibility that it needed. the court was still young and trying to be accepted in the country. as an equal branch. and marbury and madison. >> host: with the traditions of the court you also talk about but three by three why do justices enter that way? >> where? been taken to the courtroom itself. >> we actually don't. the fact of the matter is that the justices are behind the curtains as they get ready to enter i guess it means 369 and there they are and they march. >> host: that he and shake before the court rand? what happens? >> guest: that is very important to feel let me shake your hand to feel someone's hand, you will not be cost tyler somebody's team and is in your ears. it matters. and a wonderful way and the justices have very tough decisions to make sometimes. >> host: you wrote to the you quit shaking the hand of one justice and wittily grab his thumb? been the key would grabbed my hand and i thought i would lose my he and. [laughter] it was byron white and he was so strong that i know he did not re

>> didn't go to court. >> what you have to go to court for?ation. >> how long have you been on probation? >> i've been on probation for, like, five years. i'm not really too worried about these court dates. i don't know. now that i'm 18, legally they can't hold me no more than 120 days. as soon as i get this legal trouble out of the way, i know i'm going to have a good life. i have all the essential tools and capabilities to carry me anywhere i want to go. but it's just me finding a way to use them. >> monday morning means court is back in session. those detained downstairs in the detention center are shackled for their own safety and the safety of those bringing them to the juvenile court wing. >> no talking in the hallway. >> on the judge's docket, today, two very different but equally heavy hearings. the case of two young brothers who have been in detention over and over but still could face years in the juvenile system. and then there's devon who at 18 will stand in the judge's courtroom one last time. if he gets locked up again it will be

while they are still available for some dream court -- supreme court nominations, it would be naÏve tothink that harry reid would not get rid of those as well as there was any pushback on whoever the president nominates. if the democrats maintain control of the senate, the president could appoint another ginsburg if he wanted to. i think he could easily get 51. that is all he will need when harry reid takes the next step. >> chief justice pater decried the partisanship around nominations and reminded us that scalia was unanimously confirmed. ginsburg got just a handful of votes against. with the last four nominations, we seem to be in a different climate. what accounts for that? >> you can't talk about that without going back. the whole system has really changed from one of significant deference to the president to one in which there is a lot of pushback and a lot of fight. my perspective is that it was started by the democrats making a huge deal out of borg's nomination. we are now in a world where that is how nominations are dealt with. i don't think we can step back from that now. y

the court of course is a court of discretion are just itching to the court only hears around 75 cases so does the great luxury of deciding which cases to hear. i'm just curious whether anyone on the panel has any thoughts about whether there's a particular category of cases the court perhaps should take more of or if there's a category of cases the court is taking too many of? any thoughts on that? everyone on the panel isn't practicing what was i they don't pick up my cases. >> they take almost every case that the government asks them to take. we think that's just right. been on the ip point, i guess i'm saying something obvious but intellectual property has become such an important driving force in the economy that is not such a surprise that the court has taken so many cases. it's as though, with about two the late 19th century there were a lot of railroad cases on the docket and that makes sense. >> one issue that seems to have fallen off the agenda a little bit in the roberts court cases that involve federal claims in cases involving claims by states. that was an area that was ob

the court was still young.nd needed credibility. >> host: another thing that you write is that marbury in madison both hang in the private dining area. >> is that something? >> some of the traditions of the court that you talk about like you enter three by three. why do you enter that way? into the court itself? >> we actually don't. the fact is the justices said it behind the curtain as they get ready to enter. it is an equal division so they end up three, six, nine. >> host: a handshake before you go in and? what happens? >> that is very important to let me sheik your hand to feel the warmth of someone's hand. you have a momentary bond but it is one that matters if you go up against them if you have their hand in your ears. at matters the way to have that will amount of justices. >> you said you quit shaking the hand of one justice? >> because he would grab my hand and i thought i would lose my hand. [laughter] it was byron white and he was so strong he did not realize how he was hurting my hand with that squ

karin is at the court for us in pretoria. andrew harding, our correspondent, is inside the court.th us here on the bbc as we make sure you get all the latest developments. and that became our passion. to always build something better, airplanes that fly cleaner and farther on less fuel. that redefine comfort and connect the world like never before. after all, you can't turn dreams into airplanes unless your passion for innovation is nonstop. ♪ you drop 40 grand on a new for innoset of wheels,top. then... wham! a minivan t-bones you. guess what: your insurance company will only give you 37-thousand to replace it. "depreciation" they claim. "how can my car depreciate before it's first oil change?" you ask. maybe the better question is, why do you have that insurance company? with liberty mutual new car replacement, we'll replace the full value of your car. see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance. >>> welcome to "bbc world news." here are our top stories. the athlete oscar pistorius is found guilty of culpable homicide over the killing of his girlfriend reeva

the case in the court of appeal we court of appeal we told the supreme court does same thing.we are confident we can win again before you. give us the hearing, grants the grant the case and let us have ever shot in court and win the nationwide rule because now the folks that are in utah they can have their marriages recognized even if they've lived in another state or had to move for work or something like that so you have had a patchwork regime state to state and nobody had certainty until the idea behind acquiescence would be in the documents that the government decided its resolve this once and for all. the second case comes from oklahoma. that is a case also coming from the tenth circuit. interestingly here, however, it is only one thing instead of two to be a better or not they can prohibit same-sex marriage it doesn't have the recognition issue of someone being married to say in california and is moving to oklahoma before. for that reason, the challengers have said they are case is even better than the utah case because it is a little cleaner than the one issue instead o

court. it is a very limited number of people in both branches who have had hands-on experience in the other branch. >> can't help but ask though, if you look at the statistics of the numbers are former members of congress and the senate who go into lobbying that makes a tremendous amount of money, how much of this is tied to the fact that judges in the context of the city do not make that much. your chief judge. what is it, $150,000 a year? >> no, it is an increase. but the key is public service as a calling. those of us who are in it really feel privileged to be in it. it is certainly true that i have observed the phenomenon where i am in a court room and everybody arguing the cases are probably multimillionaires. but what a great system it is that we are in it not for the money, but we want to serve the public good? i consider it a really precious, treasured honor to be in the system. >> where is your court located? >> we are located in downtown new york city at 30 foley square. it is now

scream court. by word of -- supreme court. by way of disclosure i'm one of lawyers along with amazing team of folks across the country on the utah case. so i will stick to the public filings in this case and tell you what it is about. basically, you know, utah has amend amendment three to this constitution which does a few things t restricts marriage to only that between a man and a woman. it also said, if you had a same-sex marriage in some other state, that and you moved to utah, they won't recognize that. indeed it bans not just, bans all benefits and things like that for folks with same-sex marriages or civil unions. they say that is also, we're not going to give any such benefits. so the plaintiffs, three different couples, challenged that it is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and due process clause, saying essentially this is unconstitutional. it is a denial of equality. and, they won in the district court. and indeed, think there have been 31 or so cases across the country in the last tw

>> that the courts follow poll six? >> yeah. or that politics influences what courts do.t's always been a separate domain for law. >> that's very difficult. obviously when you teach constitutional law, you're aware of the political context in which decisions are made and of the general orientation of the justices. but also the effort to reconcile propositions before it with constitutional provisions. >> absolutely. >> i just want to throw out, i think both an observation -- i may have a question for marty that i wanted to be able to ask. but the observation is that, look. this is really important discussion and laura's points, where the law is heading, really interesting and important part of this debate. but i think it would be wrong, and it is really a miyth that na is lawlessly making these arguments and going forward on its own implementing these programs. fact is on 215, for example, the fisa court, independent article 3 judges, 37 times i believe, have upheld 215, including since the revelation of the snowden documents and the debate in the public. the federal judge

the court didn't think they're trying to influence our official duties? could anyone in this chamber really conclude with this conclusion with straight face? in fact, some do agree. but there isn't a single soul in colorado who does. but to me, the more significant point is that the court failed to recognize how unlimited an undisclosed spending corruption corrupts the very act of governing. this extends far beyond the traditional notion of quid pro quo corruption. in searching pretty much in vain -- not entirely but pretty much in vain for the pitiful politician hiding cash in his icebox, the court missed the real corruption and in doing so, the looming threat of unchecked spending has led to almost complete prarl sis. the end of principled compromise on behalf of the public interest. in his dissent in citizens united, justice stevens warned of this poe teption problem when he wrote -- quote -- "the influx of unlimited corporate money into the electoral realm also creates new opportunities, new opportunities for the mirror image of quid pro quo deals, th

and the court took the case. the prisoner then appealed to the supreme court saying that, okay, right. prison officials do tend to have great lee way in terms of how they run their institutions, there are matters of security, public safety, but this rule doesn't even meet the most basic standard because 44 other prison systems in america do allow beards for religious systems and not long ones, as i said this one involved the half inch one. the question is how much deference to give to prison officials under this federal statute. and the prisoner' lawyer -- they raised issues all the way -- going back to 1879 case that involved a no braided hair policy that a chinese prisoner was objecting to and justice field wrote that that violated the equal protection clause because it was so severe on chinese prisoners who at the time had long braids and the prisoner's lawyer in this new case says it was as if any kind of institution in this case the city in san francisco had mandated that all prisoner confined in the county

do you need the court to help you? you don't need the court's help? >> no. i'm fine. >> do you understand you're on probation? so this kind of looks bad on you. >> complicating ayryana's case are two prior offenses for driving without a license and battery on a classmate. her last day in court came with a warning. >> the probation officer told me if i got into any more trouble, i was going to have to go to girls school. so, yeah, i'm real nervous. >> with the threat of girls school still fresh in her mind, ayryana gets ready for another weekend in detention, followed by another day in court and an outcome that could mean months away from home. >> i'm trying not to think about it. this is making me real nervous. i just don't know what's going to happen. usually i got an idea. this time i don't. >>> there's five of you. fighting with one lone person. >> yes. >> and you beat up this victim, right? >> you've been very immature. you're like a kid that don't want to grow up. how uncomfortable it can be. [ crickets chirping ] but did you know that the lack of saliv

so when we were sitting up there before the supreme court, we knew that court because that was the court we knew. the 11th circuit is fascinating. but i've only been before the supreme court of the united states twice and the supreme court of the united states is a trip. we were in a room that had 750 people in it and they took the counsel table and slid them up against the bench. if you have seen pictures of the supreme court, the bench is in a sort of semicircle. so where i sat, justice ginsberg was no more than three feet away, just sitting there. and usually when you are in front of an appellate court you don't worry about having all of them hot. some are deceased. but the supreme court of the united states, the only respite you have in the supreme court of the united states is when either justice breyer or suter asked questions because they asked long, detailed questions. but the rest of them were just rat-tat-tat all the way through. the lawyers on the other side -- i've known ben, and david boies, we've had some of the finest lawyers in the country working on this case. i had ment

>> they would ask the supreme court to resolve the conflict. >> it would have to be the supreme court? >> i think so. i think they would permit a state. >> should we permit a stay. ? >? i guess are going to get to this later. we agree with you that this other litigation that is going -- we want the supreme court supposing where wrong and somebody blows of a subway train -- does it make sense for us to say here are our views and wait for the d c circuit to speak. before actually making an order, an injunction? >> i think it would be relevant. we have not taken a position on that. >> that would be within our power to do? >> yes. >> i will now proceed to the constitution. our claim under the fourth amendment is quite straightforward. the government will collection records intrudes on a resort location of privacy. in 1979 in aded supreme court decision. suppose that we agree that quantity is quality here. that this program is different. isn't there still quite a bit to the government's argument that even in this context, there is not much of an expectation of privacy in these records. abo

and then he failed to come to his court date in july. so he didn't appear in court.is mother did, his counselors did, his probation officer did, but morris was on run away status. >> why didn't you go to court on the 24th? everybody else did. >> i was scared. >> you were scared. did you get a chance to talk to your probation officer prior to going to court? >> my probation officer, he was talking about sending me a place where i didn't know. that's why i didn't go to court. they was going to put me in placement for two weeks. >> the indiana juvenile courts have options other than sending young offenders to juvenile prison. kids can also be placed in a variety of rehabilitation facilities known as placement. for morris, his probation officer was recommending an extended placement in a facility where he can learn to manage his anger problems. >> i can't control my anger. i've been angry all my life. i was here because me and my mom got into it and i punched a hole in the wall. >> but it makes it worse when you don't appear in court. now you present yourself as a flight

circuit court. ton the president fails perform his constitutional duty, the congress has appropriations and other powers over the thoseent, but none of powers can be exercised if a senate, controlled by the partyent's own little refuses to exercise them, nor would the exercise of those powers solve the problem at hand, because they would not actually require the president to faithfully execute the laws. -- and of course, the most powerful way of solving the problem at hand is to vote out of office the of users of power, which i hope the american people will do in november. in the meantime, however, the need to pursue the establishment of clear principles of political accountability is obvious in its. as lincoln said, let reverence for the laws be enforced in courts of justice. duty, too,ourts' two old reference for the law, and it is the court's duty to call foul when the lines of the separation of power have been breached. lawsuit by the house of representatives would grant no additional powers to

is a well-known court case and courted is my uncle became a family with five siblings and my father was the middle kid and gordon was the older son. >> host: who was gordon hirabayashi? >> that is a multifaceted you answer. for much of his life a sociology professor in alberta edmonton canada to talk about his professional career but he actually came into the limelight as a 24 year-old student and felt the curfew against not own the japanese after pearl harbor but also japanese americans that he felt he was a u.s. citizen. in and that alien parents because they were ineligible to become naturalized citizens but i think gordon thought of himself as americans know -- not only to his parents but others liken self. >> host: what was the curfew? >> guest: at the order of the defense command after pearl harbor understandably they felt the need to secure areas like seattle and san francisco and glossy angeles purpleheart . these areas and airports were too sensitive so they were restricted along with that for the u.s. and treat with a dawn to dusk curfew to keep the supposedly dangerous elemen

but the supreme court has agreed to take up a question that has bothered the patent appeals court for a long time, which is basically how do you divide the work between a trial court and an appeals court in interpreting what patent means? patents are complicated documents and if you ever read one, my condolences. i feel for you. they are written not for normal people and not for lawyers even. they're written for scientists. or technologists or experts in whatever the field is, whether it's mechanics for fluid dynamics or biochemistry, and the patent office actually encourages you not to put too much background science into your patent, but it's all teams to be there. -- all deemed to be there. so when the judge get this case they have to figure out that the patent means to figure out whether it's a valid inexpense whether the defendant's invention infringes the patent, and often thanks to a ruling the supreme court had 20 years ago, they have the what is called a markman hearing, which is base late minitrial before the court, not a jury, where they decide what the terms in the patent