supreme court today. in terms of when we could see a decision in this case, the associated press is saying the supreme court almost always issues its decisions by early summer, by june. this one could be one of the last cases decided, which is typical of highly contentious issues. those presenting arguments this morning included u.s. solicitor general elizabeth pribogar, chase strangio who argued on behalf of the tennessee families and is the first openly transgender attorney to argue before the nation's high court. matt rice, tennessee's state solicitor general, defended the ban before the court. >> i've been asked many times this week why does this case matter to you. and while people don't realize is that this case isn't just about today, it's about the future, it is beyond the now. the ruling we receive will impact generations to come, whether they're trans or not, because all of us in one way or another received gender affirming care. and i care about this case because i am proof that gender ing care

the court below should. i am asking you why isn't it rmless. >> we think there is more than ample evidence for the court to find and will find by preponderance of the evidence and the main issue as cited i 403a that whether your primary ty is making sales or an outside salesman, inot the time spent but it is the most important, the character and time spent is one factor t part of the things we would .2. thevence is great for us. one is the testimony of t ceo. when she started the business, ur job is to make sales, pushed at inventory d sh the product. there were three salesman who said thekyas the limit for them a ty lost track. ird, there was testimony of a walmart former buyer for sauces and dressings. they said floor plans for inventory shops were honored in the breach. it is true thatafay and giant people said we cannot control who gets the food but the walmart person said sometimes we lethesell us more tortillas or whatever they were selling to gemo space. finally, the fouh one, they are called sales re

supreme court today. in terms of when we could see a decision in this case, the associated press is saying the supreme court almost always issues its decisions by early summer, by june. this one could be one of the last cases decided, which is typical of highly contentious issues. those presenting arguments this morning included u.s. solicitor general elizabeth pribogar, chase strangio who argued on behalf of the tennessee families and is the first openly transgender attorney to argue before the nation's high court. matt rice, tennessee's state solicitor general, defended the ban before the court. >> i've been asked many times this week why does this case matter to you. and while people don't realize is that this case isn't just about today, it's about the future, it is beyond the now. the ruling we receive will impact generations to come, whether they're trans or not, because all of us in one way or another received gender affirming care. and i care about this case because i am proof that gender ing care

the court has work to do. but i thwe sort of got rid of that at thtop by sort of assessing this not as being in one of those categories, and e question becomes, how does the court treait? >> i come again, immigration casegood example. ke her on it was point that perhape is a quasi- cotitional interest at play, but it is never articulateschneiderman. >> what do you do with grogan? i thought from then on, the way in which we out about this was there is no constitutional interest here. congress did not speak to , so what does congress' silence tell out what it is intended with respect to the cause of action that it was >> i think cases like grogan and herman and mclean are illustrative. our view of the methodology is in those cases, the court did undertake a balancinanysis. it did not just observe a statutory laguna and decide, well, certainly preponderance of the evidence s. it looked at the interest that e and granted, those cases, it determined after that iting opponents of the standard. as the relative own vi

supreme court. how independent is the court now? think about it.ith the 14th amend allowing trump to stay on the ballot after january 6. the 14th amend it, section three wasn't written for trump, who was it written for? how could trump remain on the ballot? now we have the immunity decision. now we know clarence thomas's wife is a straight up election denier. do we know if trump is calling ginni thomas and saying i want clarence and the rest of the maga judges to rule this way? there is no independence with this supreme court. none whatsoever. they are nothing more than maga republicans. let's limit the terms and make sure this does not happen again. even if it is with democratic presidents, we need independence back. not a bunch of maga republicans. host: dave roth of the supreme court watchdog group fix the court joined us on the washington journal in august. he countered the idea that imposing term limits would take away the justices' independence. listen to what he said. [video] >> what we have here is the justices are exerting little power. th

supreme court. for most of that time those courts applied the chevron framework named for an 1984 case that first articulated it. chevron involved a two-step test requiring courts to ask first if a statute was ambiguous, and second if an agency's rule interpreting that statute was reasonable. if the answer to both questions was yes, the court was to defer to the regulatory interpretation of the statute. in the 40 years since chevron was decided, it became the most cited supreme court decision. earlier this year on june 28th the supreme court issued its decision on loper reversing chevron is inconsist with the administrative procedure act, or pa. in particular the court held apa's charge that courts decide all relevant questions of law when reviewing agency action conflicts. as a result courts will no longer defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute and instead must decide the best meaning of that statute. the supreme court did not overrule individual cases applying chevron, and tho

there is a possibility that the court woach the determination and we should at least low the court to have the opportunity to do so. >> on this , that there is the potential in evidentiary area potent evidence outcome? >> we have not taken a position on whether the right outcome here under the preponderance of the evidence standard is to find an exemptn or not. i think the lower courts should begin that opportunity. we don't think there is anything we have seen so far to absolutely foreclose that. but again, we have not taken a position on what the overall outcome should be. >> i am sorry, ste sotomayor --justice alito? >> should we draw a clear line and say what a high standard of proof is not required by the constitution? theris no liberty interest at stake, then the standard is, we would presume, conclusively, that the standard is preponderance? >> i don't think this any need to take that kind of this case. p in particularly in this is an area where there ha been a lot of e confusion among the lower courts as to apply, not a lot of other cases which we are seeing other courts apply

court of appeals fo the fourth circuit and the ca was then to the supreme court for them to decide much proof the employer's needed provided withholding overtime wages. argument next case 23217, e.m.d. sales, inc. v. carrarey. >> man pleas t court, forever since we come this court has default standard civil cases upon the evidence that role shou rolve this ce nothing in the text suggest the congress has a clear and convincing evidence that standard to apply the 34 exemptions under the fair labor standards act. and the respondents argue tt i did standard is appropriate are importantghts but it is centered the rights against race discrimination disability discrimination right to organize and wk safety all important rights thi court has reserved clear and convincing standard t deformation by the government of critical rights that don't involve t money managers in this court is never allowed plaintiffs to use the clear and convincing standards is sword certainly is never read clear and convincing standard statute. respondents also argue tt over time rights are available but the standards ap

by federal courts and state courts already.egal arguments risen from the dead, certainly, my position in court is that this is a -- it's a legally erroneous position and my, you know -- until i have the certificate of election, i'm a candidate who is compelled to keep my voters updated, keep all voters updated, and make sure that every vote counts. >> yep, absolutely. because every vote does count. and we appreciate justice allison riggs coming on to talk about the state of her election to the state supreme court. thank you so much, justice riggs. >>> there's more of "the weekend" after this. we'll be right back. "the weekend" after this. we'll be right back. m schwab. (uh-oh) producer : yeah, schwab lets you invest and trade on your own. and if you want they can even manage it for you. not to mention, schwab has a team of specialists for taxes, insurance, and estate planning. both producers: all with low fees. carl: we're experiencing technical difficulties... uh, carl... schwab! schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.

i welcome the court's estions. justice thomas: both the sg and petitioner have suggested at a better approach would be the approach of west virginia. wha's your reaction to that? friends' arguments with respect to the alternative apps is pure policymaking. as justice kavanaughnized throughout his questioning, they cannot stand up nd say that if these alternatives were imposed that would be no de-transitioners. so thethere is -- there -- they cannot eliminate the risk of de-tioners. so it -- it becomes a pure cise of -- of weighing benefits versus risk. and the question of how minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed forven benefits is one that is best left for the legislature. justice sotomayor: i'm sorry, counselor. every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin. e's always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical trt that's going to suffer a harm. so theion in my mind is not do policymakers decide whether one person's life more valuable than the millions of others who get r

this has been tried out initially in three courts, more recently and nearly half the family courts iny major problem with it. journalists have been careful in what they have reported and because of that the judiciary has decided notjust to extend it, but also write it into the roots of the family court so it will be permanent.— roots of the family court so it will be permanent. these pilots had been ongoing. _ will be permanent. these pilots had been ongoing. in _ will be permanent. these pilots had been ongoing. in terms - will be permanent. these pilots had been ongoing. in terms of. had been ongoing. in terms of the stories you had been able to report thus far, what can you tell us?— to report thus far, what can you tell us? to report thus far, what can ou tell us? ~ . ., you tell us? with katie inman i sent you tell us? with katie inman i spent three — you tell us? with katie inman i spent three weeks _ you tell us? with katie inman i spent three weeks in _ you tell us? with katie inman i spent three weeks in leeds - spent three weeks in leeds family courts and we reported a range

>> courts have split on that issue. i hesitate to try in a vacuum witht factual record to try to opine on the state's justification. it's obviously a different set of governmental interests being asserted. in their own right. be analyzed if this court wants to preserve spactoake clear that nothing should be understood to affect the sepauestions arising there, the court could do so and we would have no objection to explicit anguish -- to explicit language saying this decisions not affect the stat interests. >> do you thins logically possible as a matter of constitutionalion-making to say that laws that issue here do not satisfy intermediate scrutiny, but laws that restrict women's and girls sports in a way that transgendered athletes cannot participate would meet intermediate scrutiny? >> definitely. we think intate scrutiny applies in both contexts. there a different set of atinterests at play. readily apparent difference is that in the context of sports, their gument made that affects the rights of cisgender women and

she loved the supreme court building. though she was a person of faith, her biographer, evan thomas, aptly described it as her marble temple. on this bright, cold and blustery day, she was carried up the steps for her lying in repose, and she approached the equal justice under law engraved on the west pediment of the court. her clerks, almost a hundred of us, lined the steps, and just as she reached the top, an enormous gust of wind swept over all of us and was later remarked on by almost every person standing there. it felt somehow fitting because justice to justice o'connor had momentum -- justice o'connor had momentum. she never looked back. she wasn't bitter about december advantages in the past -- disadvantages in the past. she didn't dwell on any can disappointments. she did not extend disagreements from one case to the next. she was always moving forward, and she carried other people along with her. of course, she was a pioneer, but she was not a loner. she was generous and collaborative. she gave other people both

court. i look forward to your tions. justice thomas: would this b behalf of the respondent's part if they had a minimum wage claim? aimee: i think the policy in support of minimum wage is a important policy and would think the same standard wod apply in that context and still a claim for money damages and in that context the statutory history we cite on pages 14 and 15 of our brief would be more relevant and congress made the fact the eponderance standard would apply. i think t same standard woulpplicable there. justice roberts: did i understand opening to say if it's just money, you wouldn't address the clear and convincing rd at all? aimee: so the way the cou is that the deprivation needs to be a significantrivation and it's never applied outside of the first amendment context. the clear and convincing evidence standard, when it's just mey damages. so i think as a general matter, the presump shop is at the -- presumptn at the very least. and the cases this court has departed from the defau

go to his first court appearance in state court for his arraignment. we will bring you the details as soon as we get them. kate also breaking news we're following this morning. >> the house ethics committee has said that it has found evidence that former florida congressman matt gaetz took part in illegal behavior. cnn has obtained the final draft of the house ethics report on matt gaetz and, in part, the committee concludes this. they found substantial evidence that representative gaetz violated house rules and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, impermissible gifts, special favors or privileges, and obstruction of congress. cnn's katelyn polantz has more details for us. we're bringing it in, gathering it all right now. and, caitlin, this is a pretty review of him and what he's done. >> it is. and the committee outlines not just what their findings were, but also the extent they went to try and get information both out of matt gaetz and out of witnesses or even some of the victims here. >> the most se

>> this is a case that's proceeding in georgia state courts, not federal court.bit different. it's very likely that the georgia supreme court will affirm the ruling removing willis from the case. if that happens this case will then be reassigned to another georgia prosecutor. there's a little bit of a precedent for this early on in the case. one of the defendants was peeled off because willis had a conflict of interest with prosecuting him and when that case was reassigned to another prosecutor it was essentially a deathknell for that case. that could be the fate of this entire matter but there's a little bit of hope in this landscape which is that some defendants who had previously pled guilty tried to reverse their guilty pleas after this entire sort of scenario shook out and the trial judge told them absolutely not, guilty pleas are final. that's an important principle in the criminal justice system. defendants aren't permitted to relitigate a guilty plea after they've entered it. those guilty pleas have held that. as christie points out there are other crimin

that was denied by the court.t had accepted that argument, that the right to vote was inherent in the rights and privileges of national citizenships, the whole history of the united states would be different. that's a little excessive. of course the right to vote is still protected through state law. it's not a national right. the most famous person to argue this, this is all completely simultaneous with bradwell, was susan b. anthony. she was allowed to vote and then she was actually arrested on grounds of illegal voting. that's actually part of the 14th amendment. it's a very famous case. but the judge who was a supreme court judge who was sitting circuit in new york, did various things. particularly when she wouldn't pay the fines, she couldn't go to appeal the court on habeas corpus. she was heartbroken. but the person who brought the case was a woman named virginia minor. that's a few years later. once again, it's completely simultaneous. in other cases, dealing with civil and political rights. anticipates an

court of appeals upheld the u.s. ban which tes effect in a few wks on january 1 the lawsuit was brought by a chineseompany after congress passed the ban and president biden signed it in april. theourt heard argument in september. facing speech regulation and cannote justified. and the goal under inclusiveness of the data interest undermines stand-alone justification. and ts urt. no compelling reason justifies congress like an enforcement agency and targeting. >> foreign entity abroad is engaging that is causing the content manipulation that you ghlighted. how does that factor in? the government's point is sure you have gotten t pnt of content manipulation andhat comes up in a lot of cases but this case is differe because it involves something that is happening abroad and we e worried about something that is happening abroa foreign organizationhe don't have a first amendment right to object to a regulation. >> a couple of answers, tiktok is a u.s. entity that engages in speech. if there is third party content and enga

what have the courts done? well, the supreme court has created out of whole cloth the so-called consultant corollary that says well if you are doing work for the government, are you not an agency, that's not an inner-intra agency communication but we'll extend the process to that. they said as to congress, congress is not an agency. and yet to protect communications between agencies and congress the courts have said, well, we don't think congress intended to give up control. they created this control test. once again it's not in the statute, but a judicial reaction to a concern that they need to protect something that otherwise shouldn't be out in the public. i saw this control test abused in my view when i filed multiple lawsuits to get secret service visitor logs. so these are records that the secret service, an agency, creates doing one of its core function, protecting the president. and yet even though these are records the secret service creates, performing its statutory responsibility, that are stored on

today we were able to stand before this court and say the constitution protects trans people just like it protects everyone else. it is breaking no new ground to recognize that when you are prohibited from receiving something because of your sex, it is the role of the court to ensure that the government can satisfy the burden of showing it has a good reason for doing so. tennessee did not meet their burden. this law we believe is unconstitutional and perhaps the scariest thing for all of us is that tennessee's arguments would apply if congress tomorrow band -- they claim there are no protections based on sex for the transgender people who like myself rely on this medical care. so i'm just humbled and honored to be before this court to make the simple case that the constitution protects us too. thank you. i think the argument went as arguments go where you are being tested on the limits of your position, but the statue from top to bottom says you can't do something if it is inconsistent with your sex and we the government of tennessee want you to appreciate your sex. if that's not about

we look forward to a decision from the court. i'm glad to take your questions. >> i think the question was do tennessee laws set a standard for the united states? in the u.s., each state makes its own decisions. different states mean different conclusions, different states elect different people. tennessee's standard is constitutional but we have separate laboratories for democracy. each state is allowed to make its own decisions. >> [indiscernible] >> the question is about whether a heightened degree of scrutiny should apply. i think we made a good argument. the way you categorize the classifications and the law are going to be driving that. this is a different situation than the court has considered before. we think rational basis applies. we think chief justice sutton got it right in the sixth circuit and we will see if the court agrees. >> how do you think kids into the sea are actually impacted by this and if the court rules in your favor, what should be started -- [inaudible] >> the question is about numbers in tennessee. i

>> i think the supreme court gets way more air time than any other court.ect these numbers derive largely from plummeting faith in the united states supreme court. which is probably the one court most americans could name besides traffic court. it is justices behaving badly. acting like monarchs and like they are not only above the law, but above criticism insulating themselves from criticism as justice alito managed to do here. but part of it is i think the republican party's key insight is it could out source really unpopular policies to the federal judiciary. if it is too toxic to pass through the democratic process, you can kick it over to them and they will do the dirty work for you. and that has been mitch mcconnell's defining legacy. it has worked really well in tilting this country to the right. but it comes at a cost. you know, as much as republicans might be able to insulate themselves from political blowback for some of these really bad supreme court decisions, the public is paying attention to who is in the drivers seat. they are seeing the supr

what to take, talk to do it, went to the supreme court. now the supreme court has passed with checking if indeed, that a band of tick tock would be unconstitutional or against the 1st amendment, which guarantees, as you know, the freedom of religion, speech, press and petition. this case, the freedom of speech is what take talk is aiming for that this is harming it's freedom of speech. and so what are the chances that the supreme court really ruled and took talk 3. well, this a chance is actually a 5050. maybe i don't know, nobody knows really that is up to the judges. now, what is absolutely unusual is that they put this on deducted. so later on in the game, they will decide on the 10th of january, they will hear arguments from all parties involved. they have for gold, the necessity normally with those cases to provide written statements, arguments before the court before they actually go into a hearing in, in, in, in, in, in, in a session where they hear a pro or con, oh, of the case by the involved parties. now that is interesting, howe

the new york state court of appeals and the appellate courts will probably disagree because those courts have said this is a charge that really applies to 9/11, the oklahoma city bombing, you know, shooting students on the brooklyn bridge, and it'll be interesting to see the evidence that the manhattan d. d.a.'s office that they'll say health care ceos are considered a civilian population or mangione tried to influence the outcome of government policy. it's a hard charge that may be a harder charge to squeeze a plea. >> we're getting color from the courtroom, that defendant here was attentive in court. he was smiling with his attorney, in this case it was thomas dickey in his hearings in pennsylvania, and we do know that the judge here in new york now assigned to this case is veteran new york judge, gregory carrow who will handle the arraignment expected as soon as he returns or gets brought to new york, and he's facing 11 charges. i want to play a part of what kathy hochul said about this case just yesterday. >> i'm ready to bring him back here, and to make sure that justice is served t

the court of appeals _ the case more broadly? the court of appeals was - the case more broadly? of appeals was clear that this decision only applied to tiktok and only the evidence of espionage specifically to tiktok one is another entity out there is an arm of essentially their state �*s intelligence services those tech companies don't seem to have anything to fear from this decision. in have anything to fear from this decision. ., , decision. in other news. hiring in the united _ decision. in other news. hiring in the united states _ decision. in other news. hiring in the united statesjumped i decision. in other news. hiring in the united statesjumped in j in the united statesjumped in november led by healthcare november led by healthca re companies, november led by healthcare companies, restaurants and bars stop according to official figures, employers added 227,000 jobs last month. that was a strong rebound from october where destruction from major storms and labour strikes hindered jobs growth. us president—elect donald trump says he has no plans to put replacejerome says h

>> i think that the supreme court gets way more airtime in this country than any other court. i suspect that these numbers derive largely from plummeting faith in the united states supreme court, which is probably the one court that most americans could actually name other than maybe traffic court. and, you know, part of the problem is justices behaving badly, behaving like monarchs who can break any rules they want and act like they're not only above the law but above criticism, insulating themselves by criticism from their colleagues, as justice alito managed to do here. but part of it is that i think the republican party's key insight of this century is that it can outsource really unpopular policies to the federal judiciary. if the policy is too toxic to pass the democratic process, then you can just stack the courts with partisan hacks and kick it over to them, and they'll do the dirty work for you. and that has been mitch mcconnell's defining legacy. it has worked really well in tilting this country to the right through judicial fiat, but it comes at a cost. you know, as

the court's questions.> much of your -- the latter part of your opening statement suggests tt e -- seemed to suggest that there's an outright ban on ts eatment, but that's not the case. it's really for minors. so why isn't this simply a case of age classification when it comehese treatments as opposed to a ban as you suggested in the opening statement? >> it is certainly true that the statute classifies based on age, but it packages that age restriction and says for all adolescents you cannotak these medications if they are inconsistent with your sex. i acknowledge the state so r has not banned this care for adults, thgh i think the argument is making would equally apply in that context. the court has likewise made that when classify on the basis of multiple characteristics, you cannot avoid on scrutiny beyou have a nonprotected the protected one.t accompanies standpoint of the plaintiffs affected, the reasoi'm calling it a categorical ban is because the state has left no out those patients to obtain these

thanks very much _ that court proceeding. thanks very much for— that court proceeding.rt proceeding. thanks very much for that, thank - that court proceeding. thanks| very much for that, thank you. around the world and across the uk, you're watching bbc news. you're watching bbc news. today has seen an annual pre—christmas tradition in moscow — an hours—long marathon news conference staged by vladimir putin at which he takes questions from journalists, tv viewers and invited guests. during the event, president putin said russia had no preconditions for starting talks with ukraine on a possible peace deal. he insisted he was ready to conduct negotiations with volodymyr zelensky, but that the ukrainian president would need to be re—elected first. during president putin's press conference, our russia correspondent steve rosenberg was able to put a question to the russian leader. translation: exactly 25 years ago boris yeltsin who retired i resigned office and handed over the power and you told him stay on guard. 25 years later, would you say you have succeeded in it? becau

courts, federal courts, and whether this goes to the supreme court, we've already seen the court punttion abortion cases. we've already seen the supreme court punt on emergency medical care. so we're going into a supreme court term where we're going to see a lot of action on abortion. and that's not a great thing for abortion rights advocates, given the makeup of this court. >> you know, minnie, i had a gentleman from virginia on a couple of segments ago. we talked about how address is local. i want you to explain to our viewers quickly the idea that some states, like florida, which is like to texas, hold my beer, when it comes to draconian laws, when it comes to abortion. you have to have a supermajority to get stuff, like on your state constitution, enshrining access to abortion. so that's already a huge hurdle to begin with, right? then you have to get these petitions signed. for example, to get them on the ballot, to get voters out to vote for them. then you've got to get over that 60% hurdle at the ballot box. talk about why it's so important for people to, yes, be concerned abou

and so far as the way the court is structured, the way the court is elected, all these measures were only included in a normal piece of legislation and not within germany's constitution, something that is the case in other countries in europe, for example. and so therefore, the need to one to anchor these structures within the constitution so that they can only be change with a 2 3rd majority making it's harder to apply changes that couldn't damage the courts. independence and so it is based cool is this verse is past, is that it is not done, the constitution is changed or the most steps to, to go through. so part of, of the, of the measures of proof today have to be also approved from a germany's upper branch of parliament, the buddhist scott, which is made up of the leadership of the jeremy's different states federal states . but it is expected to also be approved their parties to expect to also have a majority in the blue stripes, and at that point it will have to be certified by the president. and it will officially be in the german constitution. ok, thank you for that. do let dw

>> but how does that how does that change the state court or federal court? argument, the same evidence right in the same charges and substance. so unless there was something about alvin bragg and the manhattan d.a.'s office that they're not competent, which you better believe they are, and the prosecutors know the trenches a heck of a lot more than those in the southern district. this case belongs in man hat ha and should be prosecuted in manhattan, and whether or not there's an argument for insanity, karen will explore that, and this does not belong in a federal courthouse, just as i would say it doesn't belong with the charges of terrorism either. both of these offices are going to lionize and martyr the same person. they're sending a message to the public, do not copycat or do this. someone is not thinking this through from a to z. >> you have been looking at these charges and how they either add to or duplicate the state charges. is this just adding on so that potentially he could get a more severe penalty? >> reporter: that's possible and we don't know

or potentially a federal court.t forces police officers on the scene. it raises the cost of police work in indian country. it takes these policymaking decisions out of the hands of the government officials. reducing that complexity makes it cheaper to do police work in indian country and it let the people closest to the problem solve the problem. on that point we have 574 federally recognized tribes in the country because of these complex laws, we only fund law enforcement for 200 of them. fewer than half of the tribes in the country are having the federal government even attempt to meet its trust obligation to provide for public safety. the second area would be to provide more funding as darren said to us at the department of interior for these public safety places. if you are looking for a place to start, you know, they lay out the three broad areas where we are underfunding indian country. tribal courts would be a good place to start that. our latest report says the estimated need is $1.5 billion and we are prese

i welcome e court's questions. justice thomas: both the sg and petitierave suggested that a better approach would be the approach of west virgi what's your reaction to that? mr. rice: your honor, the -- my friends' arguments with respect to theltnative approaches is pure policymaking. as j kavanaugh recognized throughout his questioning, they stand up here and say that if these alternatives were posed that there would be no so there -- there is -- there -- of de-transitioners.risk so it -- it becopure exercise of -- of weighing benefits versk. and the on of how many minors have to have their bodies irrepablharmed for unproven benefits is one that is best left for the legislature. justice sotomayor: i'm sorry, unselor. every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin. there's always going to be a percentage of the population undemedical treatment so the question in my mind is. not do policymakers ci whether one p's life is more valuable than the millions of others who get relief from this treatment. the quest

it is not a corrupt court.se are nine justices who have very different views on how to interpret the constitution, who are in this titanic vstruggle over law, not politics. even immunity decision. that decision was so misreported, to say the court was going to save trump from a criminal trial. no, it wasn't. that was never the decision. in fact, that decision is going to help protect joe biden from any future prosecution by donald trump if he wanted to do that. when we look at public opinion polls, sure, the court has taken a hit, but that's true over the years. the court often takes a hit. so do other constitutions. in the court's opinion, the public opinion remains much higher than our other institutions including the white house, congress, and, by far, the news media. >> congress at 17%. caitlin, jan mentioned the jobs decision. one of the things through the political calendar year of 2024 was how important, how impactful would that decision be on turnout and the ultimate outcome of the election? as you trav

so tiktok appealed to the supreme court, and the supreme court looked at the appeals court decision andthis needs review. the supreme court sent an emergency hearing on a lightning fast deadline. so in a matter of weeks, the department of justice and lawyers for tiktok will be meeting in the supreme court to decide the fate of this app. ali: president-elect trump is getting involved with this letter. what is he asking for? bobby: it was a really stunning letter that surprised lots of legal observers across the political spectrum. basically, trump wrote a letter to the court, saying, hey supreme court, maybe you should hold off on your ruling and give me some time as president-elect to broker a deal that could result in the selling of tiktok. it is a pretty extraordinary request given that trump right now is president-elect, but he's filing this motion as a private citizen. he does not have any kind of legal authority to make this request, but he made it nonetheless. inside tiktok, they are thrilled. it was always a dice roll in terms of what would happen at the supreme court, but now we

no piece of that exists at the supreme court. court in all 50 states in the district has that model, and you can actually get a result from a complaint if there is, in fact, an ethics violation. and with the supreme court they just pretend nothing happened, they don't find real facts, don't make real states. everything about is a botch from the point of view of a rule of law. >> senator sheldon whitehouse, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >>> and coming up, today 37 federal death row inmates found out that they would spend the rest of their lives in prison. that's after president biden commuted their death sentences to life without parole. that's next. death sentences to life without parole that's next. have you always had trouble with your weight? same. discover the power of wegovy®. with wegovy®, i lost 35 pounds. and some lost over 46 pounds. and i'm keeping the weight off. i'm reducing my risk. wegovy® is the only weight-management medicine proven to reduce risk of major cardiovascular events such as

court reform can look at a lot of different things. if you start with this fundamental question of why do we have a right wing court that's been captured by extremist federal -- federalist society hacks, how are we going to move forward. you could talk but ethics reform because we have seen enormous ethics scandals involving members of the court who are not reporting large amounts of money , a large gift, a luxury vacations they are getting from donors. you can talk about term limits because we operate in a modern society and we don't have to consistently stick with the system of everyone stays on until they are no longer physically able to do so. you can talk about members at -- expanding the supreme court. because we want to recognize or create a system where the supreme court issues -- you would want to create a system where which president adds how many seats is standardized rather than a matter of chance. all of those are things that are options that one might consider under the bucket of supreme court reform but fundamentally the

thank you. out in the supreme court. thank ou. ., ~' out in the supreme court.court. thank ou. ., ~' , ., , . here in the us we're just weeks away from the second donald trump administration but before that mexico combat government is protecting —— attempting strategy to protect migrants in the us. mexico's foreign ministerjuan ramon de la fuente announced the launch of a mobile phone panic button which can be activated from anyone facing imminent arrest ljy anyone facing imminent arrest by us immigration authorities. he said the mobile app will elect to a 24—hour call centres for mexicans in the us backed ljy for mexicans in the us backed by a team of more than 300 u.s.—based lawyers. translation: in case you find yourself in a situation - where detention is imminent, you push the alert button. that sends a signal to the nearest consulate and to the relatives whose contact details you saved on the app. donald trump promising some drastic changes to immigration policy when he enters the white house but now some of his high—profile supporters are bickering online

after court after court coming and seeking justice, will get a fair and honest judge to hear that her case, but that does not mean that we can relax our vigilance. because if you have a billionaire-picked maga district judge in a republican billionaire-controlled circuit feeding to a captured supreme court that all needed junk shopping to run that maga pipeline, even the judicial conference has pushed back against the judge shopping into these maga pipelines, so we need to keep a careful eye e on the maga pipeline because that is where the special interests will go to get the decisions they know these judges will give them, and with that, let me turn it over to my terrific colleague from minnesota. >> thank you. as someone who was on the judiciary committee going way back -- >> 1981 to 2015i was on the judiciary committee. >> there you go. anyway, but understands how important this is and how tough it is to get all these judges confirmed -- nominated, confirmed, vetted, all of that, and gave us the time to do that. senator durbin with his tremendous leadership. happy holidays, everyon

according to the supreme court. so now we have to decide or the courts have to decide what's what. presidents can do that is actually admissible evidence of criminal guilt. >> so, karen, not surprisingly, donald trump and his team, they don't think this is the last word. >> no, i mean, they're saying that this is in direct contradiction of what the supreme court said, saying today's decision by deeply conflicted acting justice mershon and the manhattan da witch hunt is a direct violation of the supreme court's decision on immunity and other long standing jurisprudence. president trump must be allowed to continue the presidential transition process and execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this or any other witch hunt. now, we do expect them to appeal this, but they do have these other avenues that they're pursuing. they're saying that this same judge should throw out the conviction and the indictment based on the fact that trump is president elect and certain constitutional provisions that they think apply, such as the transition act supremacy.

s. supreme court agreeing to hear take talks, challenge to law. they could finally been, it's use in the united states. it's a case that will no doubt have far reaching consequences since it descended on america in 2018. it's been a pop culture drug and not young users engage it for everything from news to entertainment, to sharing information. but us lawmakers say it's a security risk.

so this is really a temporary existence in this court, magistrates court. then it will be in district court before a federal district judge and, again, of course, also the new york criminal charges pending in new york state court, which is a block away from chthis courthouse. f >> what is the hierarchy, danny, when there are charges in different jurisdictions, in different venues? does one always get priority over another? >> lwso the short answer is the is the rule and then there is how things work in practice. in theory, generally speaking, the jurisdiction that first gets their hands on a criminal defendant usually has the priority to charge him first before the others. but that isn't always the bu practice. pennsylvania is a great example. pennsylvania in theory was first state to have any charges against luigi mangione. they're not going to try him first. they're going to try him dead last. so 'rnormally there is the rule y that whoever has the body fir gets to prosecute. there is a lot of cooperation as there erwill be here. new york state and federal

supreme court would like it. and then what happened in the court. so supreme court took the case up and at first the oral argument was very much against the city. euclid and the attorney through euclid asked for another opportunity to answer some more of the questions, to have further argument, primarily because one of the judges was absent and they got a last minute stay. i mean, i the story in the book about after the first oral argument, the attorney taking train ride home in the snow and realizing he had a pen, something on the train, and he threw out a brief to the supreme court with a dollar or $10 bill attached to it, hoping that the person at the train station would pick it up and see that it was had instructions to send this to supreme court by telegram. if the word got through, he had a second oral argument and he won and what the supreme court by they could serve it of justice southerland said was that you know building in apartment building in a residential neighborhood is kind of like a nuisance it's