but, clearly, he decided to give it to neil gorsuch. i think that is a very interesting decision that he made. because it sort of reinforces this, if you will, to use this term used in legal circles, this textual approach to deciding cases. neil gorsuch has a long history here in the federal court of appeals in the tenth circuit out in the west, in colorado where he lived, as one of the sort of chief textualists among the conservative members of the judiciary. that's the basis on which he wrote the decision. he said, it's the text that counts, not what was in congress's mind when they passed the law. >> pete, unfortunately, you just missed our conversation with melissa on textualism. we spent three or four minutes. >> i'm late to the party. >> pete, thank you. melissa, thank you. jonathan capehart, always good to have you, as well. good to have you all. >>> we also want to talk about the huge protests we're seeing now in georgia. the protests come on the heels of the shooting death of rayshard brooks in atlanta. nbc news does not know w

justice gorsuch: okay. mr. olson: this is a -- an announcement of a policy -- this is a reversal of a policy that the government created that triggered -- to use the words of this court, engendered reliance interests. and all we're saying is that it should be subject to review in the context of this big picture. it isn't to say that every decision by a prosecutor that i'm going to now enforce murder cases or kidnapping cases or child porn cases or serious drug cases. it doesn't cause individuals to come forward to participate in a program, to make decisions. businesses, health, educational institutions, the armed forces, all are making decisions based upon this. no one was saying that the policy can't be changed. but when the policy does -- if the government wishes to change a broad policy like this which affects so many people in so many serious ways -- justice gorsuch: well, if i might ask a question about that if we're talking about the merits then, and then i -- i'll pass off the baton. the reliance interes

you noted it is very surprising that neil gorsuch joined the majority. it is doubly surprising that he wrote the decision. what he said is, yeah, sure, same-sex discrimination and transgender status were clearly not on the minds of anybody in congress when they passed the civil rights act 56 years ago. he says, that doesn't matter. what matters is the cold words of the law on the page. he says discriminating against someone on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status are both forms of sex discrimination. so that's a very surprising outcome here. i think the reason the chief justice chose justice gorsuch to write this opinion, remember, it's the senior justice who is in the majority that assigns the opinion, so that would clearly be roberts. he could have written it himself, but i think one of the reasons he gave it to gorsuch

gorsuch gave a hint at how he feels about this. was about one word in the civil rights act title vii discrimination on the basis of sex. well, what did sex mean? does it mean just i won't hire you because you're a woman? or does it mean also people who are gay and transgender? and the court said sex also means discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and being transgender. that was something that neil gorsuch, you know, he just came at it by analyzing that one word. i just would offer a brief word of caution. don't think that gorsuch and roberts have become born-again liberals. this was not a constitutional decision. it was only about this meaning of this one word in this one statute. it's a very important decision. but i wouldn't overstate its significance for the future of the court. >> can i say, jake,>> go ahead. >> i wasn't necessarily surprised by the decision because i agree with what jeff said. it was a simple matter of statutory interpretation. i was surprised that we got six votes, both roberts and gorsuch. but i

you know, neil gorsuch didn't turn into a liberal overnight. you know, this was what a -- a decision simply about what the statute meant and really what one word in the statute meant. >> sure. >> sex, and i wouldn't extrapolate more from his views about the constitution generally, but this decision is this decision and it's a big one. >> and justice sotomayor asked the then solicitor general during arguments, at what court does the court invidious incorporation? thanks for laying it all out for us. we'll see if we get more key decisions today. >>> 18 states have seen a rise in new coronavirus cases. the country though still pushing forward with reopening. we'll talk about those states ahead and the implications, and the u.s. calling for the immediate release of a former marine being held in moscow. this is after a russian court has sentenced him to 16 years in prison. hey, you! nice smartphone. you should switch it to tracfone wireless to get more control over your wireless plan. they give you unlimited carryover data-- you pay for your data, y

were you surprised by the vote of neil gorsuch because the breakdown is 6-3. you had the four liberal judges on the bench plus chief justice john roberts 'opponented by president bush, a socially conservative president and neil gorsuch appointed by president trump. >> it doesn't surprise me that justice gorsuch wrote this opinion. when he was nominated, i testified in favor of him. if i were president he's not the justice i would appoint, but he's a real judge. i think you see a decision like today underscoring it, it's not to say i agree with him on every case, but here you see what the craft of judging is all about, reviewing a statute, some words enacted by congress and interpreting them not with bias toward policy results you want to get at, but just the text of the statute and what those words actually mean to us as living breathi breathing persons today. i'm proud of justice gore sink reaching this decision. if you're an lgbt person, you don't have to rely on the vague law in one of 26 states where you could have been fired for saying i'm gay. not anymor

it was gorsuch who authored the majority opinion.raged many of the legal scholars and activists who had lobbied for his appointment. the trump administration had argued that the 1964 law did not cover discrimination over sexual orientation. it may represent a political setback for the president who made the appointment of conservatives a key promise during his 2016 campaign. >> the justices that i am going to appoint will be pro-life. they will have a conservative bent. >> you know i've picked through federalist society, we picked 11 supreme court justices. we're going to add probably four more. all vetted. the biggest thing a president can do, they have always said, is supreme court justice. i've been there less than two years and i have two of them. we have judges that are very young. they'll be there for 40 years. think of it. 252 judges, 2 supreme court justices. nobody has e.ver done things lie this. >> and some conservatives have pointed to gorsuch's appointment to make the case for trump's re-election. in a recent book, ralph

gorsuch, roberts, they were surprises for sure.e didn't -- we weren't optimistic about this ruling, if we were being completely honest. just the way the world is going right now, the culture that we're living in, the trump administration spoke loudly and proudly that we were anti this ruling, that they were not for protections for the lgbtq community against discrimination at the workplace. we didn't think this was going to go in our way. we are both surprised and thrilled. and i just want to build a little context to this, ari. which is, just think about this. i could be fired just for being gay. and that is being debated at supreme court level, which is the first issue. so what kind of dignity can i have as a person and our community have if we are debating whether or not we could be fired just because we're gay or trans. so even that conversation is pretty startling, i think. >> yeah. well, it is a big day, as mentioned. you obviously are celebrating, giving the work you and your organization have done. thank you so much. >> tha

and yesterday judge gorsuch did just that. it was a 6-3 decision, joined by chief justice roberts, another conservative. so 6 to 3 decision. i'm sure donald trump is not pleased with the decision given that's his judge but gorsuch said an employer who fires someone on the basis of being gay or transgender defies the law, period. i'm looking at the law, looking at title 7 of the 1964 act and that act defies the law according to judge governrsuchg. >>> we have some breaking news this morning. south korea says north korea has blown up an interliaison building. north korea had threatened to demolish the office as it stepped up rhetoric over south korea not stopping propaganda flying over the border. this shows the moment the bombing took place. it comes as the united states and north korea remains deadlocked on nuclear diplomacy. joining us senior international correspondent kier simmons. so what exactly happened here? >> reporter: willie, this is symbolic and also i think potentially serious, not least for president trump as he h

the majority opinion writer neil gorsuch says here, yeah, i understand. this was not on the minds of congress 56 years ago when they were debating the civil rights act, but he said it doesn't matter what congress was thinking. what matters is what the law says. and he says when you fire someone because they're gay, that's sex discrimination, just as if you fire someone if they're transgender, because if it was -- the sexes reverpr reversed you wouldn't have fired. a victory for jared boss stalk, bosstock after his employer found out he was on a gay baseball team. he sued. sorry, doesn't protect you. today the supreme court said that's not right and reversed that decision. the three descenters wrote a blistering dissent. alito says preposterous not making legal decisions noting congress repeatedly debated whether to add explicit orientation and said it's imporp aimporp -- improper to do it. the other trump appointee joined dissenters. a splis amot among the trump appointees. and replacing anthony kennedy writing up a rulings or rights and neil gorsuch repl

justice gorsuch road it and there were no concurring opinions.ave decisions regarding sex discrimination we anticipate there will be an opinion written by justice ginsburg. and then there are dissenting opinions by justice samuel alito and by justice thomas and the descending by justice kavanaugh. his dissent was in particular i think it is fair to say a bit vicious in the tone of it and it was really quite extreme. justice kavanaugh wrote a more respectful dissent. and those three conservative members of the court behaved in a way that is consistent with their record on other issues. one of the questions that i think justice gorsuch's races now is that is more likely to vote independently of the other conservatives on the court. in a way he has sent a signal that he is going to follow his judicial philosophy regardless of where it takes them. he is less of a results oriented justice perhaps that some people may have assumed. i think he has aligned that he opens with in his opinion that i think is ambiguous but some whites amusing. he starts off

what does it tell you that john roberts had gorsuch in this role?well, i think, you know, the chief justice does have the ability to siassign the power t any justice. that he did with gorsuch i think suggests that there's something of an alignment of views there. these are folks who do believe in law. we will disagree with a lot of their decisions, but i don't think they're based on politics, and that's something nice we're seeing today. >> yeah. and i think at a time when there's so much going on, this is a ruling that has a lot of what you just said. universal principles of law, equal civil rights protection. and yes, even in 2020, washington, d.c., some bipartisanship or nonpartisanship if you want to call it. neil, always good to see you, sir. >> thank you. >> thank you. and if you're watching at home and thinking i want to see more of neil, we have the solution for you. after the end of "the beat," of course, go to msn msnbc.com/openingarguments. there's so much to learn there. i call it a little online law school. for more law, in 30 seconds,

>> and pete, you mentioned neil gorsuch. you had told us when we were preparing for this possibility today that he argued in the argument, you know, indicating that he might accept this argument, that these rights are covered by that statute. >> yeah, he said that, actually, more in the transgender argument, but he seemed to be among the conservatives the one that was distantly possible to maybe be peeled away to join the majority, and that's what he's done here. we'll have to see what the logic is as this -- this thing is -- i guess there are so many people on the supreme court website that the pages are loading very slowly, but at least we know what the bottom line is, kate. >> well, why don't we let you read that, pete? and i'll jump over to nbc's peter alexander at the white house, who is with us as well. peter, this is a landmark ruling. any reaction yet from the white house? >> reporter: no, kate. actually, we just reached out to the white house moments ago. we haven't heard from them yet. the president's been tweeting

justice gorsuch: i will give you one more shot. when a case is close, really close, on evidence, and i assume for the moment it is close we are not talking the extra textual stuff, a judge finds it close. at the end of the day, should he or she take into consideration a massive social upheaval and the possibility that congress did not think about it? it is a question of judicial modesty. mr. cole: federal courts of appeals have been recognizing discrimination and danced transgender people is sex discrimination for 20 years. there are transgender male lawyers following the dress code and going to the men's room, and the court's dress code and sex segregated dress code have not fallen. for 20 not seen that years, there is no reason to see that, transgender people follow the rules associated with their gender identity and it is not disruptive. as whether this was a question of interpretation, it is, how can a court interpret title vii to say ann hopkins cannot be fired, but my client can be fired for being insufficiently masculine? th

supporting equality for florida who protect the people in their own states and not wait for neil gorsuch or kavanaugh to green light it. if we wait on a state or national level, then we'll lose. >> brandon wolf, jennifer levi, thank you for your insights. we'll have more "a.m. joy" right after the break. stay with us. more "a.m. joy" rt after the break. stay with us when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection.

this is one of them — judge neil gorsuch. but it wasjudge gorsuch who wrote the majority opinion.er who fires an individualfor being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex." we've haven't yet had any reaction from president trump. but his democratic rival for the presidenchoe biden tweeted this: "today's decision is another step in our march toward equality for all. the supreme court has confirmed the simple but profoundly american idea that every human being should be treated with respect. but we're not done." anthony zurcher has been covering this for us. help me understand the dynamics in the supreme court and why some people are surprised the ruling went this way. well, you have to view this way. well, you have to view this ruling in the context of what the supreme court had been doing over the past two decades on gay rights issues. back in the early 2000, the texas ban on suddenly and then 15 years later, it legalised 93v then 15 years later, it legalised gay marriage across the country, so

the man appointed by the president neil gorsuch. this was a 6-3 opinion. not only was it written by neil gorsuch, but it was also joined by chief justice john roberts, two conservatives joining with the liberal wing to say that discrimination against transgender and gay individuals is now against the law. believe it or not, before this ruling, it was in fact lawful for employers to fire or discriminate their workers on the basis of their sexual orientation or their transgender status. neil gorsuch setting for the a new rule as it pertains to the civil rights act of 1964 putting it this way, that an employer who fires an individual for being gay or transgender defies the law. neil gorsuch, a staunch conservative appointed by president trump, but it was during oral arguments that neil gorsuch indicated he was leaning this way to rule in favor of the gay and transgender community. he's a texturalists, looks at the actual laws that the congress has written, and in this law congress says you can not discriminate on the basies of sex. neil gores such said that y

justice gorsuch arrived at the right outcome here.a 6-3 ruling, with justices alito, thomas, and kavanaugh in dissent. i believe justice alito deemed the case a travesty and felt that the outcome here should have been one left to political process. but time and time again, efforts have been made to get congress to place a federal law that would provide protections that are now extended to a group of americans who deserve the right and the dignity to work like any other american in our country. >> are there any other lbgtq cases that will be affected by this precedent? >> we'll have to see. that's something that the dissenting justices talked about, the potential ripple effect. what's most important at the end of the day is that we are protecting the civil rights of all americans. we are recognizing the dignity of lbgtq people who face unsufferable amounts of discrimination, particularly when you think about people who lie at the intersection of race and lbgtq discrimination in particular. so now is the time for us to turn the chapter,

the 6-3 decision was written by justice neil gorsuch. >>> the food drug and administration has pulled its emergency use authorization to use the drug hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus patients. saying the drug carries too many risks. president trump of course promoted the drug as a treatment and says that he took it for two weeks as some sort of preventive measures. new worries about a second wave of coronavirus infections after newly two dozen states reported big spike in their number of cases. governor cuomo warnd that he could shut down new york city again as crowds like this formed in manhattan over the weekend. cities including nashville have temporarily paused their reopening plans. i'm joined by brian williams, in the interest of full disclosure had a few technical difficulties. hello there, friend. >> hello, we had to put the studio up on the lift and take a look at what was wrong with it and we fixed it about 60 seconds before air, so you and i have switched roles, another eventful weekend in our country. most of it bad. as nicolle mentioned, the city of atlanta experie

they lost. 6-3 landmark ruling written by justice neil gorsuch. president trumps first supreme court nominee. who was joined by the chief justice john roberts and the courts four liberal justices. the president calling it a powerful decision. >> they ruled and we live with the decision. that's what it's all about. we live with the decision of the supreme court. >> former president obama tweeting this tonight. today remind us progress might be slow or take decades. no matter what things might look like today, it is always possible. happy pride month, everybody. right on. happy pride month everybody. for years the president has used a tax on his opponents. opponents health, unfounded against them. remember the whole hillary clinton thing. she was on her death bed, not true. now questions are raised about the president's health. so take a look at this. he walks slowly. and cautiously down a ramp at west point on saturday. and needed two hands to steady a glass of water. remember that? president tweeting the ramp that i descended after my west point c

neil gorsuch wrote that opinion. he didn't become a liberal overnight. there are five conservatives on the supreme court yet in two major cases within a week they rejected the position of the trump administration which is a pretty extraordinary thing, and it will be interesting to see how the president reacts to this one. >> it certainly will be. given the way that he's tweeted about and spoken about daca recipients and the way that president obama initiated the daca program in the past. >> that's right. the president has continuously put himself opposite of the daca program, whether it was in 2016 or also 2018. immigration was a huge political issue for the president. he really hammered it, the vilification of immigrants around 2016 and also was the separation of the children at the border and when i was in states like texas talking to voters ahead of those mid terms, they were former republicans who were very upset about the inhumane treatment of immigrants at the border so this is an issue, and then we saw a number of those -- those districts flip fro

>> i'm one of the very surprised people that this opinion came from justice gorsuch. when you think about it, it's considered very simple. you look at the statute. does the statute say the words "transgender" or address sexual preference? it does not. it says sex. therefore, thas the conservativ consent ter consenters, it does not. gorsuch said look at any time you discrimination against anybody for their sexual preference. if that person was a female, the essentially you can't discriminate. i've handled some of these cases. the narrowness in which the courts has interpreted sex has been very challenging over the years. it's very interesting because he took tex turlism and applied it toward the definition of sex rather than the language of title 7, which doesn't contain this protection. >> so what does this say about how the court may likely come down on other cultural disputes, shall we say? >> it's not a sure thing, but this analysis could be applied to other federal laws, for example, title ix and other laws based on sechlkts it's not a sure thing because as the co

justice gorsuch thought you should read the meaning of the words as they were originally written, but would be understood today. where as justice kavanaugh and justice alito said you should read them in context. it was a great debate. it had nothing to do with politics. it's an important reminder that in this incredibly contested time, the courts are being guided more by constitutional principle than by politics. >> you have written a lot of bocks about the supreme court and supreme court justices. talk to me about chief justice john roberts. he continues to play an interesting role during the trump administration. >> what chief justice roberts did in his incredibly important decision, siding with justice gorsuch and the liberals in the lgbtq case and also in refusing to allow the trump administration to repeal daca is insisting that the president follow proper administrative procedures. this is what chief roberts did insidi in siding with the liberals last year talking about the immigrant status on the census. chief justice in case after case -- we're seeing this in the obamacare cas

what do you think of justice gorsuch leading the way here?s extraordinary, terry, and the 6-3 opinion joined by the chief justice as well. the biggest opinion for gay rights in this country since 2015 since same-sex marriage was legalized and this caught a lot of advocates by surprise. there was deep anxiety among the 11 million lgbt americans in this country about whether or not this court would still stand by gay rights after anthony kennedy left the court, and today it has dramatically changed that landscape. until today, terry, it was still legal across the country under federal law to fire an employment because they are gay, lesbian or bisexual. this dramatically changes that, and because of neil gorsuch, a conservative justice on this court, simply extraordinary. >> and out of colorado, when justice kennedy who had written so many opinions vindicating the rights of lgbt americans, left the court of california, people were wondering if the court would hold to this course. they do. i want to read one passage from that 1964 law. this was a

so justice gorsuch tried to say i'm not plowing any new ground and yet he and the court are. >> yeah, key here is that the words of the statute have not changed in the you know 56 years since enacted but our understanding has. so for the majority in today's decision, i think the big part of this is when an employer fires someone because of their sexual orientation, because they're transgender, the employer is making the exact decision congress, even way back in 1964, did not want the employer to make. jon, the big question is where does this go from here? is this just about title 7 or are we going to see similar angel is about discrimination based on sex extending to sexual orientation and transgender status. in pay equity and housing. that's the door this majority opinion has opened up today. >> it's a door that's opened up and a door that justice alito disagreed with. he writes -- that gets to steve's point. he says we have evolved in our understanding, the words aren't in the law, therefore you can't say what you say. >> actually, justice fwgorsuch writing for the majority says the

i supported both of the confirmations of justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh. both of them have had a wide record of a really good opinion rendering. so i think that to say that it was the wrong pic just for 1 -- pick for one or two decisions is unfair. president trump took into has advisement -- his advisement going into 2016, which is the first time a president revealed who he might pick and had put together that list. that was with the input of conservative organizations like the federal society. what the president has committed himself to his creating a new list and issuing that before september 1. he tweeted that out after the title vii decision. i think that he is going to hear from other groups and other interested parties that will get together a really good list. this is why we need a conservative court, so that when one or two justices who are otherwise excellent get a decision wrong and are on the wrong side of the constitution, then they will always be in the minority. , that wasvii decision a completely inappropriate expansion of the definition of

e justil gorsuch, a member of the court's conservative faction, wrote the opinion and was joined by chief justice john roberts and the four liberal justices in the 6-to-3 majority. the ruling is a milestone for gay rights and comes at a time when minorities across the country are speaking out for justice. >> what do we want? >> justice! >> when do we want it? >> now! >> yang: as in this joint "blacr lives matt" and l.g.b.t.q. rights march yesterday in los angeles. before today's decision, it was legal in 28 states to fire somee, refuse them a promoti or not protect them from simply because the gay ornt transgender. marcia coyle is chief washington correspondent for the national law journal. t could it is fair to call lan mark decision, one is because it has been a long timei ng, long fought by the lgbtq community. we don't know ye all the implications of the decision. and some of the questions that were raised in the opinion, justice gorsh said will be saved for another day. but it clearly is going to make employers across the uned states think about their employments policies towardswo t

that was very distinct to neil gorsuch and the way he wrote that opinion. now, granted the chief justice signed on, but i think the chief justice realized once there was a majority for this very important decision having to do with a statutory interpretation that he would be with it. he was not with the supreme court when it voted in 2015 to support a fundamental right to gay marriage, so the chief is going to come on when it appear a narrower ruling, something that's within the -- the limits of a statute as we have here, the requirements that the trump administration faced to actually do the daca recision properly. we had that. and i think going forward, john, in the next crucial weeks as the supreme court finishes what's been just a -- a very unparalleled term, unprecedented to time in american history, will probably see other surprises, but we'll have to take them one at a time and dissect them just as you're doing one at a time because the pattern, again, even though it involves smacking down the trump administration from going too far, does not involve

the lgbt one was 6-3, and it was by justice gorsuch, president trump's nominee. >> i hope i didn't lose you, nina. i didn't hear you for a moment. i hope you're still there. i think the cynical view of john roberts is that his goal in a lot of cases whether it was on the affordable care act or even now in some of these rulings, he's ruling on is to save the court, the reputation of the court from donald trump and from the ways in which donald trump is denigrating government, and denigrating the system, and norms. and that is sort of what people feel or that what he's doing is he's softening up the public for the bad things to come. here's what's still on their docket. they're still to rule on whether donald trump can block disclosure of his financial records to house committees and prosecutors, which the law says he's supposed to, whether he can fire the consumer financial protection board, a director without cause. whether the administration can allow employers to deny contraception coverage on religious or moral grounds, whether the louisiana law requiring doctors to perform abortions

in termsms of e breakdowown come absolutely we b briefed thiss ce for r neil gorsuch.w was o s swing vote. premised on the idea you look to the worords of the statute, noto the intentions of congress at the time a statute was enacted. we hopope that he would stick to his pririncipleles insteaead of reverse engineer an outcome based on politics, and he did that. ththe chief f joined. i am shocked butt t was ee right and d righteous decision. we were right on the law, and so were they. thehein terms of implications off this decicisio, just last week, the trump administration reversed h health protections for transgender peopople under the affordable ce acact. they announced this ironically in the fourth anniversary of the pulse massacre that claiaimed 49 , i gayn orlando, florida nightclub. your sense of how -- with this decision have any impact on t ts latestst movove of the trump administration? >>>> absolutely y it will have a huge impact. onone of the things to pointt ot is t the trump administrtration isissued a comprprehensive anti-trans regulation at 4:00 p.m. eas

. >> reporter: the vote 6-3, with chief justice john roberts and neil gorsuch joining the more court's four more liberal members. gorsuch wrote the ruling congress might not have anticipated this result when it pass it the civil rights act, he said, but, quot the limits of the drafter's imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands, only the written word is the law. >> the lgbtq community was panic stricken that the retirement of their hero kennedy would cause them to suffer a huge setback in the supreme court instead, it's a massive victory. >> reporter: brett kavanaugh was one of the three dissenters, justice samuel alito called the ruling preposterous, quote, legislation in the form of a judicial opinion. he noted congress has repeatedly declined to explicitly add sexual orientation as a category in the civil rights law. the ruling is also a victory for amy stevens, fired when she told her boss she was transgender. she died las month of a kidney disease and did not live to see the victory. many gay rights advocates consider this even more important than the fight for same

members gorsuch wrote the ruling congress might not have anticipated this result when it pass it had civil rights act, he said, but, quote, the limits of the drafters -- no reason to ignore the law's demands, only the written word is the law. >> the lgbtq community was panic stricken that the retirement of their hero kennedy would -- instead it's a massive victory. >> reporter: brett kavanaugh was one of the three dissenters, justice samuel alito called the ruling preposterous, legislation in the form of a judicial opinion. he noted congress has repeatedly declined to explicitly add sexual orientation as a category victory for amy stevens, she died last month of a kidney disease and did not live to see the victory. many gar rights advocates consider this even more important than the fight for same sex marriage it used to be a gay person could b legally married on sunday and legally fired on monday, but not anymore. lester >> all right, pete wi williams tonight, thanks. >>> as more of the country reopens cases of covid-19 are surging in some areas, tonight a dire forecast from researc

richard, impressed with gorsuch and roberts because they voted the way they prefer?> richard: i think the american people are covering where the people are. if you look issues, they are in support of gay folks, lgbtq not being fired and protected by the law and kat pointed out, people who came to the country at no fault of their own staying here you read the resultings of justice roberts in the daca case, he's very clear, this is not about the political nature of daca, this is about how this administration operated and the media i think has missed that coverage because this is a larger problem whether it's john bolton's book, whether it's other issues. the problem here is how donald trump and his administration operates, do they abide by the law, do they follow the rules and a lot of times they don't and this is why the supreme court ruled against this in this particular case. howie: it is true. this was a procedural ruling, trump said it was a victory because they yourself have to refile the paperwork but it was a setback no question about it. kat, immigration faded

we all in most cases have to work the ruling was 63 conservatives chief justice roberts and neil gorsuch sided with the liberal into the court the crux of the legal fight came down to the word, just as gorsuch in his opinion says firing someone for their orientation or gender identity is quote and disguise double from their sets. something americans are already protected against this ruling is disappointing kate andersen represent the michigan funeral home that lost in today's ruling unfortunately the supreme court decided to legislate and change the ring and we're conceened about it. >>for our clients as well as the consequences that it could have for other businesses for women she hoped congress takes action to better define the word in minority leader chuck schumer is calling on senate republicans to pass the equality act. >>to further expand protections for lgbtq americans that would be the great leap forward on equality were look we're all looking for that bill has been stalled in the senate for more than a year in washington raquel martin. >>he said in part quote nobody should ever

of them, judge neil gorsuch, and it was he who wrote the majority opinion who set an employee who firesn individmol for being xual or transgender, fires that person for traits or actions they would not have questioned in members of a differe sex. reaction from president on this, and i democratic rival for the presidency, joe biden, has already tweeted, "thisot is r step towards equality. the supreme court has affirmed this simple but profoundly american idea that every human being should be treated with respect." that's bring in anthony, who has beenovering this for us -- let's bring in anthony. the supreme court, so manhave been surprised that this ruling went this way. anthy: well, you have to view this ruling in the context of what the supreme court had been doing over the past decades on gay rights issues. back in the early tous tds, it struck down a texas ban o sodomy. about 15 years later, it legalized gay marriage across the country, so you can see this progression in the supreme court a expanded interpretation of gay rights, but that was aco different, and as you mentioned, ther

we all in most cases have to work the ruling was 63 conservatives chief justice roberts and neil gorsuch sided with the liberal into the court the crux of the legal fight came down to the word, just as gorsuch in his opinion says firing someone for their orientation or gender identity is quote and disguise double from their sets. something americans are already protected against this ruling is disappointing kate andersen represent the michigan funeral home that lost in today's ruling unfortunately the supreme court decided to legislate and change the ring and we're concerned about it. >>for our clients as well as the consequences that it could have for other businesses for women she hoped congress takes action to better define the word in minority leader chuck schumer is calling on senate republicans to pass the equality act. >>to further expand protections for lgbtq americans that would be the great leap forward on equality were look we're all looking for that bill has been stalled in the senate for more than a year in washington raquel martin. >>and in response to today's supreme court

this is six jurists including, as you said, brian, trump's first supreme court nominee, neil gorsuch, the chief justice of the united states, who was appointed by george w. bush. this is law at its best. and at a time when people are disheartened about the supreme court, about what law is, about what politics is, this is a moment for us to come together and celebrate america because this is us at our best. >> well said. a big day in fact. neal katyal, counsel, thank you very much for coming on. always great to talk to you. >>> coming up, the mayor of miami on the tough decisions local governments now face as coronavirus cases and hospitalizations surge now in the sunbelt. >>> we will not be going into phase three at this moment. although we're not going into phase three right now. we're not going to be announcing any sort of rollbacks, nor will we be announcing an implementation or re-implementation of a stay-at-home order. now is not a time to let your guard down. if we continue on this trajectory, we're going to be put in a situation where we're going to have to make tough choices.

civil rights act 1964 for transgender individuals and gay americans. >> you surprise bid justice gorsuche position? >> kim: i think that puts it mildly. i was shocked, another example of him and john roberts again contorting himself to get to a desired outcome. when congress wrote the 1964 civil rights act, when they used the word sex they meant it in a biological sense, you're not allowed to discriminate against women who are applying for a job, what gorsuch did was go so literal on this to say actually i think you can define that to mean gender identity and so that's how he got to that place but there's no evidence and, again, this sort of a situation, if we would have let congress get to this, some point, i have no doubt that they would have added the protection but instead this is a supreme court short circuiting that legislative process and it's a bad precedent for the court and is simply bad ruling. paul: kyle, a lot of states have passed laws that do protect against discrimination for those groups, and i think congress would have eventually anyway without much doubt but one thing

. >> reporter: the vote 6-3 with chief justice john roberts and neil gorsuch joining the court's four more liberal members. more surprising, it was gorsuch, president trump's first supreme court appointee who wrote the ruling congress might not have anticipated this result when it passed the civil rights act, he said, but, quote, the limits of the drafters imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands, only the written word is the law >> the lgbtq community was panic stricken that the retirement of their hero justice kennedy would cause them to suffer a huge setback in the supreme court instead, it is a massive victory. >> reporter: president trump's other appointee was one of the three dissenters justice alito called it preposterous, legislation in the form of a judicial opinion he noted that congress repeatedly declined to explicitly add sexual orientation as a category in the civil rights law the ruling is also a victory for amy stevens, fired when she told her boss she was transgender but she died last month of a kidney disease and did not live to see the victory many g

one is all the things that neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh were put on the court to do, guns, abortionation. and then there is all the other stuff that has churned up by the trump era. i think in a weird way, and we talked about this before, the fact that every time the justice department has lost on anything that donald trump has done, they run straight to the supreme court. they leapfrog over the intermediate courts. in some ways, i think the court is just exhausted carrying water both for the sort of deregulatory regime that they're all excited to do, all the conservatives, but also this other stuff that came up today. the the court is batting away a bunch of issues, particularly guns. the conservatives are furious they're not getting to. this we saw dissents today from claurree thomas say, my god, we haven't had a gun case since 2010. the court can't get down to dismadi dismdi dismantle the things they promised to dismantle. >> donald trump always said that his model supreme court justice was antonin sscalia. sm someone must have told him to say that because how would he know. >> y

justice neil gorsuch, who was appointed by president trump, wrote the opinion for the majority, whichrturns laws in more than half of all states and extends workplace rights to millions of l.g.b.t.q. americans. there's a lot of news to get to tonight and our team of correspondents is standing by to cover it all. cbs's mark strassmann will lead off our coverage tonight from atlanta. mark? >> reporter: norah, what many in this community now want is accountability, justice. will the officer who shot rayshard brooks be charged, and will that charge be murder? >> i'm not causing any problems. >> reporter: rayshard brooks seemed cordial, but confused. two white atlanta cops answered a call about a man passed out in his car at a wendy's drive-thru. >> i had one drink. >> what kind of drink was it? >> a margarita. >> reporter: but brooks failed a field sobriety test. after roughly 40 minutes, the moment turned deadly. >> put your hands behind your back. hey, stop fighting! stop fighting! >> reporter: in the ground fighting, brooks wrestled away a taser and ran. officer garrett rolfe chased hi

there's been some views that this is an intellectual power play by neil gorsuch.is an attempt, i suppose, and does this make it likely that we will see further leanings towards, i guess, what you call liberal causes from the justice? greg: justice gorsuch is somebody who cares a lot about the text of the statute. that was something antonin scalia are believed in an justice gorsuch very much sees himself as a follower of justice scalia's philosophy. this case was all about how you interpret the federal job determination law. that law says you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex and the core question was does that include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity? justice gorsuch says just looking at the words of the statute, yes, it does include that, so my textual list approach to this case is going to say yes, even though congress may not have had this in mind back in 1964. indeed, that is what the statute covers. impacthow broad of an will this have on the united states antidiscrimination laws? greg: very big. more than half the states d

neil gorsuch wrote the civil rights ruling and he was appointed to succeed antonin scalia.t tell you? >> it tells us justice gorsuch is willing to follow the law even when it doesn't coincide with his policy preferences. it was a principle decision. he was a textualist, and he said that we have to read the law as it applies today even if it's not what people in 1964 intended. but it does not signify in any way that this has become a liberal court, it means that the justices will follow their constitutional methodologies. it means that chief justice roberts in particular is such an institutionalist that he will side with the liberals when he thinks that it will avoid what appears to be a part sal split. we have this trump subpoena case coming up, religious liberty cases coming up. often at the end of a term we see more 5-4 splits. the fact that we see more liberal decisions this week doesn't mean there couldn't be a lot of conservative decisions coming down the line. >> sometimes they will save the high, dramatic opinions to the very, very end of the term and make you really