to my immediate left, if you have not guessed it is a justice elena kagan. justice kagan was with a justice marshal in what year? >> 80. seven >> 87, seems like yesterday. that was after having attended princeton and then oxford and then harvard for law and served at this chambers as a law clerk, indeed all of our panelists this evening clerk for one charge or another on the d.c. circuit, as this i. >> it's a good court. >> it was a great court. and was in the white house counsel's office and then the clinton administration and then in the policy council as deputy director. couldn't keep her job apparently, that's why the university chicago law school and then after getting tenure there, moved on and settled at harvard after a long long after that became the dean of the harvard law school and then couldn't keep that job either and became associate -- solicitor general first and then associate justice of the supreme court. george paul engelmayer at the far end is judge in the southern district of new york and has been since 2011. i should've said you became on

in her dissent, elena kagan wrote -- "what is tragic here is that the court has yet again rewritten - in order to weaken -- a statute that stands as a monument to america's greatness, and protects against its basest impulses. what is tragic is that the court has damaged a statute designed to bring about 'the end of discrimination in voting'." in a statement, president biden criticized the ruling, saying -- "in a span of just eight years, the court has now done severe damage to two of the most important provisions of the voting rights act of 1965." legal experts say the court's ruling will make it harder to challenge new voter suppression laws in court. just last week, the justice department sued the state of georgia saying its new voter law discriminates against black voters. in a second major ruling thursday, the court struck down a california law reqring nonprot ornizationreveal the nameof largeonors to the state. the case was brought by americans for prosperity foundation -- a right-wing group founded by the koch brothers. election law experts predict the ruling could lead to chall

justice elena kagan writing for the dissenters says the court has weakened voting rights and wonders what the impact will be on these other states, some who have restricted access to vote that were enacted after the last presidential election. it will take us a while to get into the weeds to see what the real test is. that's the essence of this decision, but not a surprise that court upheld both those arizona provisions on what they call ballot harvesting and votes in the wrong district. >> it seemed like the standard or this test as it related more broadly to the voting rights act. i wonder, tom -- i know we're still reading through this decision that's come out of the last three minutes here but, tom, the implications of that potentially here nationally. is tom goldstein still with us? >> oh, sorry, yes. >> rules that involve limitations on the time for voting, how far you have to travel for voting and compliance with voting rules are so inherent to how we vote in the united states that they're just immune from scrutiny under section two of the voting rights act. and that's the big

the supreme court historical society hosted the lecture in the supreme court chamber with justice elena kagan offering introductory remarks. >> good evening and welcome to everybody. i'm jerry libin, i'm the vice president of the supreme court historical society and delighted to see everybody here today. in our second lecture of the leon silverman series on dissents and the supreme court. we're very privileged tonight to have as our host justice kagan. she will be introducing our distinguished speaker very shortly. let me just tell you a few things about justice kagan you may or may not know already. born in new york, raised in new york, educated at princeton, oxford and harvard law school. then became a clerk to judge abner mikva on the d.c. circuit followed by justice thurgood marshall. a couple years of law practice and then in 1991 entering academia teaching at the university of chicago law school where she met professor barack obama. two years later invited back to washington to work for the senate judiciary committee as special counsel at the request of the chairman then senator joe bid

elena kagan in her dissent said equal chance to participate in our democracy, that-- referring to theting rights act, that law of all laws should never be diminished by this court. you know, section two is the most recent section attacked by the supreme court and it bars procedures that bar any citizen in the united states to vote on account of race or color. one of the issues was from arizona a situation where you have no easy places to drop off your ballot in large native american reservations. so, by banning the ability for people to collect ballots and drop them off, you essentially make it extraordinarily difficult for this targeted community to vote and that was the intent. that was the intent. now, this law, section two. it didn't say that anything about intent. it said the result and it didn't say it had to be-- an abridgement in other words, to an infringement, but alito doesn't care, the majority doesn't care on the supreme court about defending the right to vote. the pulsating heart of our republic. where does that leave us? it leaves us as the critical factor to defend the

voting as long as the state has some justification for them but in a blistering dissent, justice elena kagan said the court ignores that voter discrimination is getting worse. she said the ruling weakens the voting rights act, a law that stands as a monument to america's greatness and protects against its basest impulses. election law experts say the court now all of the major tools have been significantly weakened or eliminated. >> reporter: and no their pla on or before the court's final day. that suggests justice stephen breyer will probably be around next term. lester >> pete williams at the supreme court for us, thank you. >>> speaker nancy pelosi has named some members of a house select committee to investigate the capitol riot among them, a lone republican garrett haake is at the capitol. garrett, this announcement is causing some controversy. >> reporter: tonight republican liz cheney is telling reporters she is honored to be one of speaker pelosi's eight picks to serve on a special select committee to investigate the january 6 attacks here at the capitol this despite a warning from

the supreme court historical society hosted the lecture with justice elena kagan offering introductory remarks. >>> in the summer of 1839 a foreign schooner accidentally sailed along the shores of the united states and transformed the federal courts into a forum for an explosive national debate. the drama that began when the enslaved african americans on the a.m. stad revolted and took control of the vessel off the coast of cuba would culminate in the supreme court of the united states with a former president arguing on behalf of the african americans' appeal for freedom. the arm stad case forced the federal courts and the nation to consider the legal foundations of slavery. >> for several weeks in the summer of 1839 newspapers along the atlantic coast reported sightings of a mysterious schooner supposedly commanded by african pirates. late in august the crew of the navy brig washington spotted a badly damaged vessel in long island sound and a shore party trading with local residents along the new york coast. when the naval officers boarded the armistad they were braced by two spanish

in an impassioned dissent, justice elena kagan writing for the court's liberals declared, what is tragic is that the court has damaged a statute designed to bring about the end of discrimination in voting. and in arizona, native american activists said the ruling will make it harder for them to vote. >> only 26% of native americans live on a postal route, meaning you can't get mail at home in most places. and that's why ballot collection matters. >> terry moran joins us now. terry, president biden put out a statement today, saying he was extremely disappointed in the court's decision. terry, the president has made it clear that he and his attorney general merrick garland will be feeling these state measures. what are they learning from this case? >> reporter: they're learning it's going to be harder for tny el t challenge these new m toipi thee discriminato tent. but president ben infight, sayi the line. linsey? >> terry, thank you. >>> next, the massive explosion rocking a los angeles neighborhood. what was supposed to be a controlled detonation of illegal fireworks by the lapd turned t

his opinion was joined by justice elena kagan. nine to nothing. why? because the supreme of the states, the recent membership of the supreme court was unanimously in favor of church autonomy in the face of a serious violation of civil rights. dr. farr: i believe justin -- i believe justice kagan joy villa legal. judge starr: and ripen, now as of this last summer, the autonomy was re-articulated into companion catholic school cases. i thought we should win. the voices of liberty. because the los angeles diocese that not even the teachers to be catholic. yet, there were certain religious duties that each teacher have. that was sufficient to carry the day, a 72 majority. the ability of churches and church schools and church ministries to say, hands-off, caesar. even though the federal government may have a very powerful tryst, as it does in the civil rights law's. no you can't go here, thou shalt not enter. victory. the equality principle, the example is what got me seriously thinking about this for years ago when i was serving as chief of staff to the at

next on american history tv four prominent figures in american law including supreme court justice elena kagan recall working as clerks for thurgood marshall. they discuss his personal, his skill as a story teller and his impact on their careers. the supreme court historical society hosted this event in the supreme court chamber. it's just over an hour. >> i'm john ginsburg. i will introduce our panel for this evening in this look back at justice thurgood marshall. to my immediate left if you have not guessed it is justice ellena kagan. justice kagan was with justice marshall what year? >> '87. >> it comes like yesterday. >> 1987. >> that was after having attended princeton, and then oxford, and then harvard for law. and served in judge mikva's claims as a law clerk. all of our panelists this evening clerked for one judge or another on the d.c. circuit. as did i. >> it's a good court. >> it was a great court. and was this the white house counsel's office in the clinton administration, and the policy council as deputy director. couldn't keep a job, apparently. taught at the university of chicag

in a scathing dissent, justice elena kagan, accused the conservative majority of rewriting the law, beyond intended. what is tragic here is that the court has, yet again, rewritten, in order to weaken a statute that stands as a monument to america's greatness and protects against its basest impulses. election law expert and professor of law and political science at university of california irvine says the court's decision, today, quote, makes it harder to prove intentional-racial discrimination in passing a voting rule. making it that much harder for doj to win its suit against the new georgia voting law. in a statement today, president biden said how deeply disappointed he was by the ruling. and added, quote, the court's decision, harmful as it is, does not limit congress' ability to repair the damage done today. it puts the burden back on congress to restore the voting rights act. and to its intended strength. joining us now, is jaime harrison. chair of the democratic national committee. jaime harrison, thank you very much for joining us tonight, mr. chairman. you are a graduate of yale

so justice elena kagan seeming to suggest in her dissenting opinion, today, that congress needs to actle acts are going nowhere, in the senate. are you worried that we are seeing the chance to protect voting rights slip away, if congress doesn't do something? >> that's absolutely right, brother. it's a sign of the spiritual decay and moral decrepitude. too much indifference in the heart, too much greed in the brain. and never forget what the great rabbi said about racism. what did he say? it's a form of satanism. it's the devil in us. the devil in america. the devil in institutions that can't keep track of the rich humanity and creativity and potentiality of black people and brown people and indigenous people and asians. that's what sister kagan was actually accenting. i think she hit the nail on the head. and it's a -- it's a cry in the darkness. and i think -- and i'm not always, as you know, you know, i'm not always in cahoots and coinciding with some of my supreme court judges. even when they liberal but she's telling the truth. and -- and -- in what she had to say, i will tell you

yesterday, that dissent came from justice elena kagan, who said the majority undermined the voting rights by upholding two restrictive laws in arizona. she wrote, "what is tragic here is that the court has (yet again) rewritten-- in order to weaken-- a statute that stands as a monument to america's greatness, and procts against its basest impulses." john yang takes a look at another justice who delivered historic dissents while on the court, during the jim crow era. >> yang: judy, the name of a supreme court justice, john marshall harlan, may not be widely known these days beyond law students and constitutional scholars. during his tenure from 1877-1911, the high court enshrined racial segregation in american life. in the biggest of those cases, harlan's vote was the lone dissent. he alone staked out positions that decades later would become the law of the land. those visionary opinions led him to be known as the great dissenter, which is also the title of a new biography of harlan by peter canellos, the managing editor of "politico." peter, thank you for being with us. what drew you to w

justice elena kagan slammed saying the majority feared the statute congress wrote is too radical so the of rules limiting section 2 there multiple directions. what is tragic here is the court has yet again rewritten in order to weaken a statute that stands as a monument to america's greatness. since roberts has been on the bench the court has eviscerated federal preclearance and gutted the intent test which prohibited states from voting practices with racist intent. nearly all of the pillars of the voting rights act have been defanged leaving the country closer to the jim crow past than the civil rights era. according to vox the rulings endorse phantom fears about voter fraud and it permits lawmakers to enact voting restrictions intended to debunk it. it shows you just how central the big lie has become to republican orthodoxy which is far more troubling than what this means for the future states. according to alito, they can do whatever they want as long as they don't make it obvious. the only remaining question is what will congress, specifically democrats do about it. joining me is e

cast a ballot does not mean that access to voting is an equal and for the liberal dissent, justice elena kagan the majority is weakening a statue designed to bring about the end of discrimination in voting. well, arizona governor doug ducey's tweeted this is a big victory for arizona voters. the navajo nation filed and the case brief concluding how this ruling would despairingly impact native americans ability to exercise their right to vote with one 3rd of the nation living in rural poverty. >> that was allison harris reporting tonight georgia is another state that pass restrictive voting laws the justice department is suing the state of georgia to stop what it calls racially discriminatory provisions attorney general merrick garland has said that he will use every legal tool available to protect the right to vote today. the u.s. supreme court also ordered california to stop collecting the names and addresses of top charity donors. the state had been requiring all charities which get money from people living in california to collect the information so that the state irs can identify the large

yesterday that dissent came from elena kagan who said the under dashers of the majority undermined theshe wrote, and i quote, what is tragic here is that e court has yet again rewritten, in order to weekend, a statue -- statute that stands as a monument to american's greatness and protects us against from its most base instincts. >> judy, the name of supreme court justice john marshall harlan may not be widely known these days. tearing his tenure from 1877 to 1911. the high and -- in american life in the biggest cases, he was the lone dissent. he alone staked out decisions that decades later would become the law of the land. those visionary opinions led him to be known as the great dissenter, which is also the title of a new biography of him. peter, thank you for being with us. what drew you to write about john harlan? >> it started back when i was in law school 30 years ago. and as you know, it's often a dry affair reading legal books but harlan's opinions immediately sort of leapt off the page. here is somebody who is bringing sort of a higher pitch of justice to his consideration of

elena kagan let her opinion be known. sme wrote this court has no right to remake section two. some think that vote suppression is a relic of history but congress gets to make that call. because it has not done so, this court as duty is to apply the law as written. fledged to give every american of equal race an equal chance to participate in our democracy and now stands as the crucial tool to achieve that goal. that law of all laws deserves the subpoena in power congress gave it and that law should be not diminished by this court. and there was another 6-3 decision coming down along dolg lines, this case eliminated a requirement in california that charities report who their donors are and that of course has left concerns that even more dark money could really creep into the system, fredricka. so two big wins on the last day of the term for conservatives here and led by this conservative court that is now 6-3 with the additional three justices, from president donald trump, fredricka. >> jessica schneider, thank you so much. >>> let's zero in on the voting issue on arizona. chef

the supreme court historical society hosted the lecture with justice elena kagan offering introductory

can the voting rights act and upheld what justice the voting rights act and upheld whatjustice elena kaganrden back on congress to restore the voting rights act to its intended strength. as soon as congress passes the for the people act and thejohn lewis voting rights advancement act, i will sign and let the whole world see it! that will be unimportant moment! and the world will be —— the world is wondering... moment! and the world will be -- the world is wondering. . ._ world is wondering... applause. the world is _ world is wondering... applause. the world is wondering... - world is wondering... applause. the world is wondering... and i world is wondering... applause. i the world is wondering... and white knows what i'm talking about, for real. —— dwight knows. the world is wondering what is america going to do. we also have to be clear eyed about the obstruction we face. legislation is one tool but not the only tool. and it's not the only measure of our obligation to defend democracy today. for example, attorney general merrick garland announced the united states department ofjustice is

on american history tv, four prominent figures in american law including supreme court justice elena kagantheir experiences working as clerks for supreme court justice and civil rights icon thurgood marshall. they discuss marshall's personality, his skill as a storyteller and his impact on their careers. the supreme court historical society hosted this event in the supreme court chamber. it's just over an hour. >> i'm doug ginsburg and since nobody else seems to be here to do it i will introduce our panel for this evening. in this look back at justice thurgood marshall. to my immediate left if you have not guessed it is

. >> gillian: justice elena kagan issued this fiery dissent today, accusing the court of gutting section two of the voting rights act which she said is historically the most important piece of jurisprudence put in place to protect the vote of minority americans. what's your response to the justice? >> i think it's important for everyone to remember the history of the country and even the history involving the voting rights act and why it was passed. that being said, everyone was entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. there's a ten day trial in arizona and there was testimony from african-american leaders that wanted these types of voter integrity measures. what she's doing essentially is echoing the far left talking points and if you accepted her logic, no state anywhere would be able to enact any sort of integrity measures. it's really a false dichotomy. you have to have more voting or you can have election integrity measures. we want more people to vote, we want to make sure everyone exercises a franchise but we want to make sure that we have integrity and competence in

justice elena kagan dissented,. we will hear the oral arguments in the case must march. >> the honorable, the chief justice, and the associate justices of the supreme court of the united states. oy e.a., oy e.a., oyez, >> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states are admonishing to give their attention, the court is now sitting. god save the united states and this honorable court. >> we will hear argument this morning and case number -- berkowitz versus democratic national committee and that consolidated case. >> the chief justice, may it please the court. i think the key conceptual point here to understand is that arizona is not denied anyone a budding opportunity of mankind. this is not like a literacy test which denies you the right to vote. it's not like vote dilution where white block voting denies minorities an equal opportunity to elect. everyone here is eligible and registered to vote. all they have to do is utilize the myriad opportunities that arizona's offered

in a scathing dissent, justice elena kagan writes, quote, if a single statute represents the best ofdeals, democracy and racial equality. and it dedicates our country to keerg them out. if a single statute reminds us of the worst in america, it is the voting rights act because it was and remains so necessary. what is tragic here is that the court has yet again rewritten in order to weaken a statute that stands as a monument to america's greatness and protects against its basest impulses. joining us is ari berman, author of the book "give us the ballot" and kim atkins, as msnbc contributor. ari, you have done such reporting on this story. first, you reaction to the supreme court decision today? >> thank you so much, nicolle. it is a dark day for the voting rights act and it is a dark day for democracy. the supreme court has essentially eviscerated what is left of the voting rights act, leaving it severely weakened. remember, nicolle, they already gutted the voting rights act in 2013 and ruled that those states with the longest histories of discrimination, like georgia and texas, don't

next on american history tv four prominent figures in american law including supreme court justice elena kagan

elena kagan in her dissent said equal chance to participate in our democracy, referring to the 1965 votinghts act, that law of all laws should never be diminished by this court. section 2 is the most recent section attacked by the supreme court. and it bars procedures that result in denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the united states to vote on a count of race or color. one of the issues was from arizona, a situation where you have no easy places to drop off your ballot in large native american reservations. so by banning the ability for people to collect ballots and drop them off, you essentially make it extraordinarily difficult for this targeted community to vote. and that was the intent. that was the intent. now, this law, section 2, it didn't say that anything about intent. it said the result. and it didn't say it had to be denial. it said an abridgement. in other words, an afringe -- an infringement on the ability to cast a ballot. but alito doesn't care. the majority doesn't care on the supreme court about defending the right to vote. the pulse stating heart of --