legacy justices, like justice thomas -- current justices. regularized justices, replacement justices and emeritus justices. all legacy -- regular are likely 18 year thing, replacement is if someone steps off a little early or dies early, emeritus is after 18 years and legacy are the current ones. all legacy, regularized and replacement justices shall be considered justices in active service and then they are emeritus justices. all justices in active service on the days of this laws magnet are designated legacy justices. their service, tenure, rights and response abilities on the court shall remain unchanged provided that at any time a legacy justice may elect to take emeritus status by becoming an emeritus justice. regularized justices shall be eligible to receive good behavior commissions that commence no sooner than july 1 2023 and every two years thereafter. one regularized commission for every odd year. if you don't want to pass it now, adjusted forward to the next year one after the next presidential election. no president may nominate

, legacy justices, that would be like justice thomas or, the current justices, regular eyes justices, replacement justices, and eight marital justices. all legacy, the regular rise 18 your thing, the replacement is what happens when someone steps off a little bit early or dies early. emeritus is what you do after 18 years and legacy of the current ones, so all legacy regular iced we should be considered justices as an act of service. while justice is an active service on the days of this wasn't dumb and or designated legacy justices. their service, tenure, rights and responsibility on the court shall remain unchanged provided that at anytime a legacy justice may elect to take emeritus titus by becoming emeritus justice. regular iced justices shall be eligible to receive good behavior commissions that come in snow sooner than july 2023 and every two years thereafter. and if you don't want to pass now just adjusted for the next year after the next presidential election. no president may nominate, so if it will be july, and every odd number year. no president may nominate irregular is ju

legacy justices, like justice thomas -- current justices. regularized justices, replacement justices and emeritus justices. all legacy -- regular are likely 18 year thing, replacement is if someone steps off a little early or dies early, emeritus is after 18 years and legacy are the current ones. all legacy

justice roberts: thank you. justice alito? justice alito: well, the seetary did what he did, so presumably, he had and h a view about the fairness question that the chief justice posed to you, do, what is that view? ms. prelogar: so, the secretary understood t stutory authority and mandate here, to focus on whether this national emergey s going to leave borrowers words off because of the pandemic. th icongress deciding that the government should be in a position to provide benefits solely with of t ctext of the -- program and i do't think there's any part of the statutory analysis, thiss congress's judgment that borrowers should be leo get relief if the secretary makes these determinations. but no suggeiothat the relief should turn on or off based on the possible impacts on those ouidthe student loan program. congress obviously knew when it was giving this authority to take care of borrowers who are otherwise going to be worse off that might have otherwise pacts outside the program. wanted to make sure the secretary could prov

justice coney barrett: thank >> justice jackson?ustice brown jackson: i wanted to quick ccle back to the fairness point. i guess i'm wondering whether or not the same fna issue would arise with respect to any federal benefit program. so, i'm thki about the fact that as a result of covid, we had massive infusions of money given vious companies or organizations, clearly authorized because congress sa, it. i'm wondering whether thatou be unfair to people who didn't n a company or somebody who didn't have, you know, a nonprofit and wasn'getting that money. i just don'know how far we can go with this notion of, to the extent tt e government is providing much-needed assistance to people in an emergency. 's going to be unfair to those who don't get the same benefit. ms. prelogar: yes, that's exactly right. what i wou s is that's inherently an aspect of what congress authorized in the heroes act as well. it specifically thought about this suaon, what to do about student loan borrowers who are imct by a national emergency, who might then end

yet, the department of justice has not brought these violent criminals to justice.you contrast that, if you are violent criminal any attack a crisis pregnancy center that is not a priority in the biden department of justice. contrast that to mark houck, a pro-life activist. a sidewalk counselor. he had an altercation with someone who, allegedly, interfered with his son's personal space. he threatened his son. he pushed to. in an ordinary world pushing someone would maybe a simple misdemeanor assault. not under the biden department of justice. if you are pro like after this what can you expect? in this instance according to mr. housewife, two dozen agents clad in body armor, ballistic helmets, shields with a battering ram showed up at his house pointing rifles and his family. why do you send two dozen agents in body armor to arrest a sidewalk counselor who happens to be pro-life but you don't devote resources to prosecute people who are violently firebombing crisis pregnancy center. >> it is a priority of the department to prosecute, investigate, and find the people

chief justice roberts: justice jackson. justice jackson: yes, so on the merits it -- it was ry clarifying to me in your exchanges with jusceotomayor and justice kagan, that you said you're not challenging the removal determination, that you're saying this is really about detention, as the statute ysn that you are interpreting section 1226-c to require the detention of certain criminal noncitizens before dhs decides to initiate remol proceedings. am i right about that? mr. stone: and arrest, which we think both of those come from take into custody. but, yes. justice jackson:utt's before. mr. stone: yes. justice jackson: you said when they make the decision not to remove someone then that -- then their duty dissipates and they can let th g mr. stone: it attaches once the individual is released and it dissipates as soon as they make a decision. justice jackson: the reason why that's troubling me so, and you mentioned the fourth amendnt at one point, the reason why that's troubling me so is that isn't it the executive branches

justice roberts: thank you. justice alito? justice alito: well, the secretary did what he did, so presumably, he h a has a view about the fairness question that the chief justice posed to you, do, what is that view? ms. prelogar: so, the secretary undeto the statutory authority and mandate here, to focus on whether this national emgency was going to leave borrowers words off because the pandemic. this is congress deciding that the government should be in a position to provide benefits solely wh the context of the -- program a ion't think there's any part of the statutory analys, is is congress's judgment that borrowers shlde able to get relief if the secretary makes these determinations. but sgestion that the relief should turn on or off based on the possible impacts on osoutside the student loan program. congress obviously knew when it was giving this authority to take care of borrowershore otherwise going to be worse off that might have otherwise impacts outside the program. wanted to make sure the secretary could provide re

that we don't have, we do have there are restored of justic and transformative justice opportunities that so for me, i am -- we are talking about recalling i also want to reframe the conversation about how the respond to harm. how we center survivors. >> for the filmmakers, the disses part of the problem - wrong response, let's say fo the sake of the argument the did, that alone doesn' necessarily cancel out wha those activists said they woul try to achieve so your thoughts >> i mean, i go back to th reframing. right? i know i share just talked about it but, the activists who wer recalling, who called for th recall, right, they were pushing for a longer sentences that is what the motivatio was. i too, like aisha, i also, whe rebecca first tell me abou this project, my initial thing was, yeah, i remember bein outraged about this ligh sentencing so as women, and many people we were, there is a visceral you know, visceral thing of th sky wasn't punished enough for this horrible deed h committed. but when you understand, hopefully this film will b part of opening, getting peopl to open u

does the department of justice still consider nicholas maduro a few digit fugitive of u.s. justice?and if so, do you commit to diligently pursuing his arrest? >> to be honest, senator, i really don't have any information. i know who maduro is, obviously. i know he was charged. i don't know what his current status is. i would be happy to look in that for you though, sir. >> are you answering right? >> of course, of course. >> this will be my last question. i have strong concerns about competition problems in different areas of the economy. example, i've conducted oversight drafted legislation to address abuses in pharmaceutical agriculture, in high tech industries. can you tell us what the antitrust priorities are for the justice department, under your leadership? and are your resources following that priority? >> yeah, so our priority, both to prevent increased concentration in industries that are already concentrated agriculture is a very good example. pharmaceutical is another very good example. therefore, to closely look at the mergers and to investigate them, and our other prior

violent criminals to justice. you contrast that to mark houck who is a pro-life activist, a sidewalk counselor. and he had an altercation with someone who allegedly interfered with his son's personal space and he pushed him. in an ordinary world, pushing someone would be a simple misdemeanor assault, but not under the biden department of justice. if you are a pro-life activist, what can you expect? in this instance, according to mr. houck's wife, two dozen agents clad in body armor and ballistic helmets and shields and a battering ram showed up at his house pointing rifles at his family. why do you send two dozen agents in body armor to arrest a sidewalk counselor happens to be pro-life, but you do not devote resources to prosecute people who are violently firebombing crisis pregnancy centers? a.g. garland: it is a priority of the department to prosecute and investigate and find the people doing those firebombings. you are doing it at night and in secret, and we have found one group, which we did prosecute. sen. c

does the department of justice still consider nicolas maduro a fugitive of u.s. justice? if so, do you commit to diligently pursuing his arrest? a.g. garland: senator, i really don't have any information. i know who maduro is and that he was charged, i don't know his current status. i will be happy to answer. >> will you enter in writing? a.g. garland: of course. >> i have strong concerns about competition problems in different areas of the economy. example, i have conducted oversight instructed legislation to address abuses in pharmaceutical agriculture, high-tech industries. can you tell us what the antitrust priorities are for the justice department under your leadership? and are your resources following that priority? a.g. garland: our priorities are both the prevent increased concentration in industries that are already concentrated. agriculture is a good example. pharmaceuticals is another very good example. we closely look at the mergers, and investigate them. our other priority, closely related is exclusionary conduct by dominant firms. we are doing quite a bit of

for the justice department prosecutors, the worry was often, we can't sit on this. we can't just wait and hope that the former president will do the right thing, and those two worries and two types of concerns really were at odds sometimes. >> devlin, i guess one of the things -- i wonder what your final opinion on this is. on one hand, it seems like fbi agents are reluctant to investigate two radar search the mar-a-lago property because they're concerned about the optics, they're concerned about what will happen in their careers, they don't want to go in and read a former presidents homes and jackets that say fbi. and then on the other hand, it seems like some legitimate belief that maybe trump and his legal team are cooperating, and that they have gotten everything that they need. how much of this reluctance to search mar-a-lago was due to political pressure, and how much of it was legitimate belief that, actually, we have everything that we need? >> so, i think one thing to remember is the hangover, crossfire hurricane and really, the hangover investigation of 20

and, the justice department does have this unique ability. not only to bring together the kind of federal funding dollars that we have. we are are a big funder and supporter for systems around the country in terms of all the federal side across the board for supporting justice reform. but also, on the enforcement side we have a lot of olmsted limited litigation through our civil rights division which is aimed at making sure that states are providing and funding the types of community based support so that people are not unnecessarily institutionalized as a result. and we can break down some of those silos, but also use our convening power. i understand you heard from some key folks in other agencies at the health and human services, and our surgeon general, and others where we are trying to have a much more integrated approach of the federal government level. we have been, as responsible as other governments in breaking down these issues into silos and kind of living in our silos to address particular problems. and one of the things that we h

threatening the justices?ven one? >> you asked me whether i set on my hands, quite the offices -- opposite. >> let me try again. has the department of justice brought a single case under the statute? it is a yes or no question. >> the job of the u.s. marshals to defend -- to defend the lives of justices, that is the number one priority. >> why are you unwilling to say no? everyone in the hearing room knows it is no. have you brought a case under the statute, yes or no? >> what we have done is defend lives of justices -- host: that is just some of the topics that were undertaken at the senate hearing yesterday, will show you more during the course of the hour when it comes to review of the justice department. you can look at the department as a who or merrick garland specifically. call on the lines, (202) 748-8000 free democrats, (202) 748-8001 for democrats and (202) 748-8002 for independents. text at (202) 748-8003, some of you posting on social media. from facebook, the word politicized and partisan. another

staff on protests and the justices homes.and ask about any arrests that have been made or might be made for people engaged in that behavior. the briefers came to the briefing, and informs the staff that they had not read section 15 07. i assume you have read it, of course. just wondering why the promote schedule such a briefing on a statute, without having read it and especially window actions have been brought for section 15 07 for these actions. i have a lot to cover. can you answer that? i will try to answer all of these questions -- >> now, just tell me, am i right in concluding you haven't brought any charges under 15 07? >> i don't know the answer to that. we have a thing of matter -- as soon as the jobs craft leaked i ordered the marshals to do something that the united states marshals had never, in history, done before. which was protect the justices homes, residents, live 24/7. no attorney general had ever ordered that before. no justice department had ever done that before. >> terrific. that's fantastic. >> to the w

it's partisan justice. it seems not looking into something like this is that a correction, an overcorrection in response to claims the irs is somehow acting in a partisan fashion, who knows. but it does seem the idea of discrediting the irs is maybe related to something like this, not allowing them to be viewed as legitimate if they were to investigate this kind of behavior. >> i mean, leonard leo reaped a $1.6 billion wind fall from a single donor in what is likely the biggest single political gift in u.s. history. he's getting $1.6 billion at the same time that the supreme court now focused there is issuing some of the most conservative opinions it ever has and reshaping american life. now, $1.6 billion is a hefty price tag, but if you think about what they're getting for their money potentially i mean do you think there's going to be any oversight of the court, of what leo's doing? i mean what is the road forward here and what seem so questionable at least on the outside? >> i think every time i appear o

yet, the department of justice has not brought these violent criminals to justice. you contrast that, if you are violent criminal any attack a crisis pregnancy center that is not a priority in the biden department of justice. contrast that to mark houck, a pro-life activist. a sidewalk counselor. he had an altercation with someone who, allegedly, interfered with his son's personal space. he threatened his son. he pushed to. in an ordinary world pushing someone would maybe a simple misdemeanor assault. not under the biden department of justice. if you are pro like after this what can you expect? in this instance according to mr. housewife, two dozen agents clad in body armor, ballistic helmets, shields with a battering ram showed up at his house pointing rifles and his family. why do you send two dozen agents in body armor to arrest a sidewalk counselor who happens to be pro-life but you don't devote resources to prosecute people who are violently firebombing crisis pregnancy center. >> it is a priority of the department to prosecute, investigate, and find the people

what is justice 40. so i'm here to tell you just a little bit about what is justice 40. and while he was still candidate biden and 2020 uh, i said on the call with him and about 26. other leaders, uh, environmental justice leaders around the country. and then candidate biden. asses is like, what can i do? what can i do to help you in the climate, arena and environmental justice? i want to get it right. and he sat there with us, and everyone gave their um thoughts as to what needs to happen in the appalachian region in the south out west. so you got a good picture from everyone around the country, saying this is what we need. and when he was able to put that plan together, he came back and said, is this right? you're the first to see this before i release it. and so i want you to know that because this wasn't some we're just gonna put this so called justice 40 of fly by night out there. this was a lot of work before he even became president. that went into what is justice 40 today? and so with that um once he was able to get this out there. and won the election. he decide

justice thomas? justice kavanaugh? justice jackson?>> yes, so even if he has a full and complete cause of action after the trial court rules, which is what i understood you to say in response to justice the root, do you dispute then, in determining when the accrual date should be, when e statute of limitations runs, you look all sorts of things, not just when, quote quote, an injury occurs. les say that was the injury at e time. i e what i'm worried out is the suggestion that the accrual date necessarily has to start,rom a moment in which you can dentify an injury, such as you have in this case, when incases like mcdonald, emmanuel, the ourt seems to suggst that the accrual date is set in light of other considerations, including the fact that in this se, you would have parallel litigation if you set the a cruel date early. in this case, it doesn't seem toa any difference,n ter helping the ate, because the litigation in the state court is going on, it's not like they don't have the notice thatheerson is interested in litigating this aim

court justices? guy is a disgrace. he needs to go. [applause] >> you just -- you are out there with the voters, talking to them. how concerned -- tell a little about your story. you are what i call a blue-collar conservative. you come in and run for this thing. how concerned are the american people about these type of issues when you were talking to them? hey, this government i'm supposed to trust that is supposed to trust me, protect my rights, i am innocent until proven guilty and now accused of things just because of politics, they can come in and literally ruin your life. >> one of the things ted set on the campaign trail campaigning with me -- i hope you don't mind me saying it -- but i will give you credit, borrowing. he would talk about how if you look at who is voting republican, we're the party of soldiers and sailors, nurses, construction workers, of people who go to work, pay their taxes, raise their children, and just want to live in safe communities. that is our base. i love that. we sho

we launched several years ago in 2006 justice and mental health collaboration. that really supports partnerships across government to improve public safety responses in outcomes for people with mental health arco occurring disorders. we've been able to provide 600 grants to over 49 states and as i'm speaking, every grant on mentioning is right now open for solicitation for the fy 23 grant, and we hope we will see more jurisdictions that may not have already taken advantage of them apply. we recently launched as part of that an initiative that is aimed at specifically supporting cross sector partnerships between law enforcement and mental health providers, aimed at getting at the interaction on patrol, it's about peer-to-peer learning opportunities. it's funding and training guys to promote best practices. another solicitation that is currently open and available and i hope naco members will take advantage of it. i want to name a couple more programs, we have through our knowledge lab, if you go online, we have aggregated all our mental health resources. you can

better -- our criminal justice system fairer. we will protect the american civil rights and against attacks on their bottle it on me, especially after the dobbs decision. the foreign intelligence surveillance act of this year provides an opportunity to implement needed reforms to keep america both safe and free. the department must continue to hold steadfast in the principles of equity and access despite resistance from those who are threatened by an even playing field. as more citizens face impediments to exercising their constitutional right to vote, there is an increase in incidence of hate violence, the department must defend america's bedrock values. at this point, i turned to my colleague and the ranking member of the senate judiciary commitee, senator graham. sen. graham: welcome to the committee. here is the other side of the story, when you ask americans, about 70 percent of them say no. why? i think there's a feeling in this country that we are losing, crime is increasing in the world is a dangerous place. and people do

like really what justice actually is. the word justice in other realms takes on different meanings. for us, it's a particular way of seeing that term. can you talk about how that animates us when we decide what to do on immigration, on gun control, on poverty, on education. >> certainly on immigration and similarly on the other issues, we look to our history and to the way that justice is framed in the torah as something we're connected to in part because of our history. that's the biblical history and our history actually more recent. knowing what it's like to be persecuted. knowing what it's like to be on the outside and vulnerable. not to have the protection of law. all of those things, we can feel it in our bones. we organize based on that history as well just knowing what is right. >> absolutely. on the issue of immigration, so many people we've done a lot of work on immigration and so many people came to this work because of their own personal stories. whether they were refugees or their parents were survivors of the holocaust, it infused them with the need to do that. the nee

but the bottom line is it's devastating to the justice department. it would lead to a loss of more than eight billion dollars in our annual funding for the fbi, it would mean a loss of 11,000 positions and a loss of non personal costs of about one billion. for the atf, it would lead to a loss of 190 agents and 113 industry operations investigators. it would eliminate all state and local training at the national center for explosive training and research, and it would increase the amount of time necessary to trace crime guns by greater than two months. the marshals service, it will lead to our inability to replace about 221 deputy u.s. marshals who are expected to leave by attrition in particularly a year. it would slash the programs that we now have for the violence against women's act. they would not be able to be with funded without redactions in other grand areas. for the cops program, it would mean that we would not be able to provide funding for 300 to 400 law enforcement funded positions. so, -- fewer positions. for the office of justice progra

she jumped -- justice rehnquist and justice scalia, congratulations to both of you.ith these two outstanding men taking their new positions, i consider this a time of renewal in the great system that our forefathers gave us. [end video clip] >> that was the swearing-in, which was three months after he was nominated by president reagan. talk about those three months and what it was like. you referenced earlier, two at the same time, and the real lightning was rehnquist. how did the administration prepare? >> the book publishers for the first time a lot of the documents that were generated at the reagan white house and the department of justice to support this twin nomination, and it shows that the white house devised an elaborate campaign on behalf of scalia, probably more elaborate than any supreme court nominee ever received to that point, to cultivate various voting -- voting blocks in the senate, and to capitalize on the fact that he would become the first italian-american on the port -- court. scalia was eager to go and those who work with him who work is guided

marshals service for the supreme court justices and their families. can you sharena with us the resources that are necessary for this 24/7 protection, and how long you expect that to continue? you expect to see itit continue indefinitely? and you think we need to take legislative action to address how we deal with that protection long-term? >> so i will have to get you the exact numbers for that. we are asking for an increase specifically for judicial security to hire, to be able to increase by 42 deputy u.s. marshals, $21 million out of the total that we are asking for for the marshals. congress authorized last year the supreme court police to provide that protection. i don't know what it's appropriate the money for them to do that, and this is a task we would happily turn over to the supreme court police. i don't think, we were hoping this isn't a long-term solution for the justices because a lot of courts around the country as you could imagine, at the marshals have judicial security responsibilities, to say nothing other future apprehension respon

court decision.rst tria >> justice kagan. >> justice go. >> thank you counsel. general stone. >> thank you mister chief justice and me please the court . claim is both jurisdictional he barredn untimely . on jurisdiction, the renamed claim he and the relief he seeks don't li u we sued goertz regarding chapter 64 chapter 64 governs onlyaccess to testing through texas courts . ds not control goertz's common-law authorityto agree. the declaration regarding chapter 64 against goertz woulnoaffect goertz's common-law authority by in texas courts that mismatch closes its reliance. on the merits, erye agrees due process is the relevant constituon right and everyone agrees that wallace supplied t presumptive rule, res aim accrued when he had a mpte present causeof action . he formulated it somewhat differently in his complaint and his petitio, the brother of reads claim is the court violat d process. if so we had a cau o action and therefore his claim accrued no later than when the court of crimina appeals issued its opinion and judgment is that opinion and judgment impo

everyone says what is justice in order to implement justice . the situation is that they put everything in its place. people who have no financial means can not having the facilities of their patients, their information, which is the most expensive diseases and treatment information, step by step towards the implementation of administrative justice in installments , economic justice is the easy access to facilities for people in need, people can easily access them, today the issue of justice is the implementation of justice in the field of health and treatment. justice in the fields of employment and entrepreneurship , people feel that they have access to it. everyone who is drunk had financial means, not in the movie of the province . you we exist in our city, very well, there is the same feeling of justice and treatment because he is rich , he was treated , he was saved from this information. justice in the direction of poverty alleviation, deprivation and providing the country with the facilities and equipment that is needed in the whole coun

justice in the sense of justice should be universal, such a view prevailed at the end of the 20th centurythe systemic split of the cold war ended. bloody civil strife in europe and africa demanded a response. moreover, life seems to have proved that there is only one correct moral and ethical system and it is based on liberal principles. the international criminal court began its work in 2002, after the entry into force of the rome statute, it formalized the creation of a new judicial body and authorized it to investigate cases of genocide violation of the rules of war or the geneva convention, but the muses are not directly related to it should not be confused with the international court of justice, which is also located in the hague and is one of the main bodies. un in forty-five. it was created to resolve international disputes or situations that could lead to conflict . it is important that the jurisdiction of the muses extends exclusively to the states that have signed and ratified the rome statute , with the exception of cases where the request makes the un security council in the

justice somor, justice kagan, justice gorch >> thank you counsel. ms. blatt, rebuttal. >> thank you mr. chief justice. justice alito all trademarks are expressive. they have speech rights and every time you infnge them it's going to implicate speech by definition. what the oth side, and i don't hear you talking about is the half of speech no o likes, the pornography and the poison and it's hard for me toee how you can say that the tdemark owner doesn't have an interest in something thatppach is compelled speech if it's been used in porn films and sex toys and people are profiting off of that in terms of where we are going with the message versus the product, the-srt example, there is a very entertaining case on page 25 rejecting parody and it involves the miami vice t-shirt that's turned into miami vice. very funny, no one would think it confusing because theyre cartoon mice so there's plenty of t-shirts that don't meet that confusion. the first, seventh, tenth dc circui he not adopted rogers. there's a case we cited on page 11 on the seventh circuit an

uh, that material shell in which today justice is done has changed slightly. yes, she hasn't changed much. she has changed very significantly and all these changes. the bulk, of course, is connected with the events that took place after 2013, when the president of the country decided to form a unified system of courts of general jurisdiction headed by the supreme court. and we had to solve a lot of fairly complex tasks related to the transfer to the supreme court of the function of personnel support for material and technical supply. e of the entire system of courts general jurisdiction. what functions does the supreme court now perform, because well, for an average person who has not encountered this, the supreme court is an instance that is not always clear. yes , what are they handling and responsible for what? well, in the sense of directly administering justice, this supreme court is today the highest and judicial instance, uh, on which u lies u, the duty to consider complaints of protests against judicial decisions of lower courts , checking the legality

chief justice and make pleasehe court. a clay model afterkinner accrues at the end of the state court litigating seeking dna testing. doctrinally, a skinner claim challenges the lawot a judgment. it makes sen to challenge what e state court o last resort authoritatively says theaw means after that construction becomes final onenl of rehearing. helen review does not proceed until the lower court denies rehearing and traditional due process claims are not complete until the states for procedures deny due process. the fact isehearing can change reshooting and results. while section 1983 president need not exhaust just as a the clock doesn't start takingg until the state court procedures second, as a practical matter time accrual to thend of state court litigio is simple predictable and sensible. timeccal to some earlier stages not. linking accrual to the trial courts judgment would disrespect e state court appellate process and require a state in almost every case. it would clutter dockets with ottiveomaints, motions and amen

there are no further qus. >> i'm sorry. >> justice thomas. justice cavaug further.justicejackson . >> so even if he had the full and complete cause of action afr the trial court rules, this is what i understood you s. do you dispute that in determining when the accrual date should be when the statute of limitations runs, we look at l sorts of things not just when the poor the koran put an injury occurred, let's say that was the injury at the time. gus what i'm worried about is the suggestion that the accrual date necessarily has to start fr a moments in you can identify an injury such as you have in this case when in cas ke the general and manualthe court seems to suggest that the accrual date isein light oer considerations including the fact that in this case you would have parallellitigation , that the accrual date is really in this case it seemed to make any differen terms of heinthe state cause of the litigation in the state is gngn so it's not like they don't have tice that the person is interested in ligating this claims all the reasons why you would t it earl

some of the justices, the chief justice, justice alito, justice kavanaugh spoke about, i think the chieftice gave the best hypothetical talking about two students who graduate from high school, one takes out a loan to go to college, another takes out a loan to crte a lawn service. why should the student who goes to college you will probably make more than the lawn service student in a lifetime, why should that student have a debt forgiven but not the lawn service? the government said that this act involved student loans, not other types of loans and there are other types of aid available to the lawn service student who has that loan. there is that concern and they were asking whether they should factor into their analysis the idea of fairness here. >> if this program were to go away, what kind of student loan borrower would be most heavily affected? >> because student loan debt is disproportionately shouldered by black borrowers and borrowers of color, they would be the ones most likely impacted. i think it is telling that the administration chose to add a pell grant bonus, allowing for

justice alito? justice sotomayor? >> this is ssttially different because the secretary is authorized to cancel loans under hda, so this is not an ti as a moratorium on eviction, which had never occurred previously before or was not in the wheelhouse of the agency. at least thaishat the court said. i had a diffen of opinion. putting that asideth is not an action that could come as a rprise because it i expressly permitted under the hea act and nothing in the heroes act says that the secretary cannot do something that is in the normal course of its business in circumstances that juifit like a school shooting -- closing or like a location. the are exceptions that are permitted under ha to cancel a debt. why would i have a view that congress did not understand at in a proper emergency, that cancellation would be right? >> i wouldo ck to my prior answer, which is there is a difference between modifying an existingoaforgiveness program in light of the national emergency, which is appropriate. an example of that is to tak th

chief justice. may please the crt the states proved their standing in trial based on alarmed well recognized by this court's presence. eiled on merits arguments firmly based in the text, and receive vacatur. the standardapa remedy. they respond by attempting to rewrite the language of article three, ty e wrong. petitioners caedhe states standing illegitimate, and it's because it is based on the costs states incur when petitioners violate federal law. when such costs fall well within those held sufficient, in at least maschetts versus epa, and the department of congress. if this court is recognized, the states bear nyf the consequenceof federal immigration. those consequences fit comfortably in this court's ational standing framework. on the merits, the na memorandum is unlawful for multiple rsons. most clearly, because it treats section 12:26 see as it discretionary, while both thi court and every previous administratioacowledges that it's mandatory. petitioners rpo by healing to resour constraints

let's bring him to justice. tom tillis, republican senator from north carolina says that this indictment doesn't pass the smell test. adam schiff, the former chairman of the intelligence committee, the lead impeachment manager said this is a deeply and fundamentally necessary to preserve this rule of law. tomorrow is the deadline for this, jim jordan and james comer, a republican of kentucky, they had another deadline for tomorrow to get information from alvin bragg. they want to know what money is being spent on this investigation. they also want to know if he's been talking to the justice department. they want to understand the scope. they're saying you're a local d.a. in one borough in manhattan, new york. how can you deal with a former president of the united states and somebody that is a candidate for president in 2024? in reaching out in the past 30, 40 minutes here, i'm told on capitol hill with senior sources on the republican side that they had no heads-up. one term that was used on me is they were dige