chief justice roberts: justice thomas? justice alito?ustice alito: could you explain how your rule would be carried out by police officers on a day-to-day basis? let's say that there are 500 beds in a particular town and let's y it's 3:00 in the afternoon, 4:00 in the afternoon on a winter day. wh is an individual police officer supposed to do if invidual police officer would go around and count the number of people who are getting ready to sleep outside? i guess if tt's 4:00, you wouldn't get that. let's say it's 6:00. count the mb of people who are getting ready to sleep outse r the night and then ask each one of them whether you've tried to find a bed at -- at a shelter? whether that person would be willing to go to a shelter if a bed is available without any conditions or whether the bed would have to be available on the conditions that the individual wants, like i won't go to a shelter where they won't take my dog or something like that? can you just explain h i would rkn a daily basis. mr. kneedler: well, first of all, with respect

justice kagan: thank you. chief justice roberts: justice go justice kavanaugh? justice barrett? justice jackson? justice jackson: so my understanding is that you actually asked the d.c. circuit to delay merits briefing in this case, and i think that's the opposite of what i would have expected if you are actual sfering irreparable harm. you owif you're suffering, i would think you'd want the d.c. circuit to be moving as quickly so can you speak to that? ms. sridharan: yes, uronor. first, because of the posture that this case has gone on with respect toitation, the fact that we can get an answer that stymies the irreparable harm that is currently ongoing right now is something that we came to this court seeking because we -- you come to us?: no, but why did you're already before the d.c. circuit. and my questn , if you're sufferinuse you're spending money related to compliith the rule that you're challenging, why didn' you ask the d.c. uit to move quickly in rendering its ruling agreeing with you that the ru i invalid? ms. sridharan: well, your honor, i am not going to get too fa

justice gorsuch: thank y. chief justice roberts: justice kavanaugh? justice kavanaugh: i just want to focus on the actual dispute as it exists now, today, between the government's view of emtala and idaho law, because idaho law has changed since the time of the district cr's injunction both with the idaho supreme court and with a clarifying ge by the idaho legislature. you say in your reply brief, and so too the -- the moyle reply f says, that for each of the conditions identifd the solicitor gewhere, under their vi oemtala, an abortion must be available, you say in the reply brief that idaho law, in fact, lo an abortion in each of those circumstances, and you go through them on pages 8 and 9 of the reply brief, each of the conditions. is there a cdition that you're aware of where e solicitor general says emtala requires that an abortion be available in an emergency circstce where idaho law, as currently stated, does not? mr. turner: , rtainly, the administration maintains that there is such conditions. the eshey identify in the affidavits -- justice

justice kagan: tha. chief justice roberts: justice -- justice kavanaugh? justice kavanaug've touched on what's happening on the ground, and that's an important consideration in answer to the question of what's happ but idaho is representing -- and i just want to get your sw on this -- that, as i count it, nine conditions that have been identifiede government where emtala would require that an abortion be available, an aborti iavailable under idaho law. d at's in the reply brief. now, are there other conditions? -- you've ruled outl health. are there other conditions you would identify, or are you just sayi tt that's not really happening on the ground? i think thats part of your answer, but i just want to get a fuller answeonhat. nel prelogar: it certainly isn't happening on t gund. these are the conditions that we're worried about. and i think the problem with my frn's theory that idaho law would permit it is that you just n't square it with the text of the statute. you know, the -- the -- justice kavanaugh: what ifhe were general prelogar: -- the state of

chief justice roberts: justice thomas? justice alito? justice alito: on the question of the meaning of coercion, i can think on the spectrum -- one end of the spectrum, a government official says, look, suppress this speech, and if you don't do it, i have legal weapons i can use against you and i'm going to punish you for using those. very clear coercion. at the other end, the government official who has no authority to do anything for any practical purposes to that entity that the government official is speaking to says you should do this, it would be a good thing to do, you would be a good citizen if you did it. in between, there are a lot of different gradations, particularly when the official making this request has that power, and you have to assume the person or the entity to whom or to which the request is being made does matter. just as i am sure that these insurance companies were well aware of the power of ms. vullo. how do you define when it goes too far along that line? mr. cole: so, i do think that the power of the official

chief justice roberts: thank you. justice thomas? justice alito? justice alito: mr. martinez, would you agree that one of the reasons why chevron was originally so popular was concern that judges were allowing their policy views, consciously or unconsciously, to -- to -- to influence their interpretation of the statutes in question? martinez: yes. justice alito: why was that fear unfounded? why do you think now that the fear was unfounded? martinez: well, i think three things. first of all, i think the fear has -- it's reasonable to think the fear has diminished over time, regardless of what it was then, in large part due to the very salutary developments in the way that this court and the lower courts generally now think about statutory construction. in the old days, there was a lot of reliance on legislative history and on sort of more free-form analysis that i think made it easier for policy considerations to infect the judicial decision-making process. but this court has now made clear that, you know, really, we should be text-focused, we should be focused on fai

to read on other justices? i don't know what their reactions were to some of the more absurd answers landed by donald trump's counsel. there are so many things that can be there, that the eye can take in that we don't know when we are just listening. >> which is why the american people should be able to see this and it is ridiculous they have to rely on me and a couple of other people in the room to tell them what happened. people should be able to see it for themselves. lawrence, i have seen over 400 oral arguments at the supreme court and sometimes i walked out and i think it is clear what is going to happen. this was not one of those days. that is a little surprising because trumps claims were so bogus. they were ridiculous constitutional claims. i did that to get out earlier in the argument. part of the reason why i think you are seeing some of the predictions like the court is going to side with trump and stuff has actually, i don't think that is accurate. i think it has to do with argument style. trumps l

and justice and attention to justice born.the interests we have, all of us wearing black, all the ceremonies we go to for amir al-mu'minin, if we pay attention to nahj, rhetoric and ali's idea today, others will discover this idea, amir al-mu'minin, in this testament, others will point to you. the idea of ​​nahj al-balagha and the idea should not overtake the qur'an others can take the qur'an, we must try to understand amir al-mu'minin from the point of view of the idea that he has and justice , we used your statements . you will definitely be present next to the holy places of the oppressed people of palestine . pray for the freedom of the holy holy place and all the muslims who are involved in the atrocities of the zionists in palestine today. we are asking for good prayers for hazrat (peace be upon him) and shab al-qadr i and all my good colleagues in the first page program, as well as my good colleagues in qom center radio and television, are blessed with your good prayers. thank you, have a good night and god bless you. i

conservatives seem to be concerned about that, and you heard specifically justice alito, justice kavanaugh raising concerns about essentially runaway prosecutors, unethical attorneys general prosecutors who are bringing improper cases against presidents. that was their concern. justice ketanji brown jackson had a concern on the others, what happens when a president can't be prosecuted? would that make the oval office a center for crime. those are the contrasting views. what we've heard towards the end of the argument, whatever happens here donald trump is not out of the woods. even his own lawyer conceded that many of the acts alleged in this indictment were purely private acts, not official acts, and i didn't hear a majority of justices ready to immunize presidents for private acts. towards end of the argument, they seemed to be trying to forge a way, even if they decide there's immunity for official presidential acts, this case can go forward perhaps even without lengthy delays and it could be solved with a jury instruction saying he's liable for the private acts. we're still going to ta

yes, lady justice is blindfolded but the justices -- we've fwt a lot going on on the set. lady justice is supposed to be blindfolded but the justices are supposed to see the facts. if you can't see the facts in front of you about this maga insurrection era, how can we possibly rely on you to prevent the future coups that we're told are being planned? i have two very special guests on the law and the obvious politics when we're back in 90 seconds. i have upped my dish game auntie, in that dishwasher? watch me platinum plus gives you the highest standard of clean, even in your machine. clean enough for you? yeah! scrape. load. done. cascade platinum plus. shingles. some describe it as an intense burning sensation, or an unbearable itch. this painful, blistering rash can disrupt your life for weeks and could make it hard to be there for your loved ones. shingles could also lead to serious complications that can last for years. if you're over 50, the virus that causes shingles is likely already inside you. and as you age, your risk of developing shingles increases. don't wait.

but, you know, the really moves today as chief roberts and justice kavanaugh and justice barrett want it to move in every, you know closely divided issue in a lot of what happens the scenes. it's really they are the movers and i'll say that like i think one of the reasons why i'm i sound positive is because i'm a mets fan and it's march. but but another reason is because i actually think that if you look not at what justice alito is saying but what the is doing there is at least sign that the justices matter actually are responding at least to some respect to public pressure and pushback. the code conduct that the supreme court last november on one, you know, to call it a half measure is to gravely insult half. but the fact the court felt compelled to do anything is pretty remarkable. if you look at the history of the and its attitude toward else. i we went in seven months from the first propublica of stories about justice thomas to the supreme court saying maybe it's a good idea if we have some rules, even if the rules aren't very good. and i take as a sign, you know, my book talks a

justice thomas? justice alito? >> could we briefly review the layers of protection you think exist? i'm going to start with what the d.c. circuit said. so, the first layer of protection is that attorneys general and other justice department attorneys can be trusted to act in a professional and ethical manner, right? >> yes. >> how robust is that protection? i mean, most of the vast majority of attorneys general and justice department attorneys and we both served in the justice department for a long time are honorable people and they take their professional ethical responsibilities seriously. but there had been exceptions, right? both among attorneys general and among federal prosecutors. >> there have been rare exceptions, justice alito, but when we're talking about layers of protection, i do think this is the starting point and if the court has concerns about the robustness of it, i would suggest looking at the charges in this case. they -- >> i'm going to talk about this in the abstract because what is before us, of course, does involve this particular case, which is immensely imp

justice thomas? justice alito? >> couldst briefly review the layers of protection you thists? i'm going to start with what the d.c. circuit said. the first layer ofroction is that attorneys general and other justice department attorneys can be trusted to t a professional and ethical manner. >> yes. >> how robust is that protection? the vast majority of attorneys geraand justice department atrns and we both served in the justice department for a long time are honorable people and they take their professional, ethical responsibilities serus, but there have been exceptions both among attorneys nel and federal prosecutors. >> there have been rare exceptions, justice alito, but when we are talking about ye of protection, i do think this is the starting point and if t crts have concerns about the robustness of it, i would suggesloing at the charges in the case. >> i'm going to talk abouth in the abstract because what is before us does involve this particular case, which is immensely important, but whever we decide will apply to all future presidents. as for attne general, two have b

that is how we came around economic justice and racial justice. it is not just an issue of looking at incarceration rates, it is an issue around racial justice . same thing for democracy. we take the committees that are structured together and they come up with a consensus to look at this particular issue and then it is a whole process of building consensus around that. around very detailed policy statements that layout positions and put together an action plan of mobilization around those issues. >> similarly we work with each congregation. when we are building a statewide network i also have the opportunity to work with justice teams from each congregation and for them to think about, what we care about, what is happening and where is the congregation on different issues and where can we work as a congregation that won't divide the congregation but bring people together. sometimes it is something very local and sometimes that local issue will bridge to something larger. but also coming back to him and like you said, root causes. in addition to t

thank you. >> justice gorsuch? >> i wanted to confirm i thought i heard that you thought that the blasinga fmework was the appropriate one. >> largely, yes. we agree with the idea of the diinion between officeholder and office seeker. ao agree that if it is objectively reasonable to view tivities as those of officeholder, then the fitzgerald immunity kicks . i think we would look more at the content of the actua interaction in order to make that determination t blasingame suggested on the facts of the case might be approprie. >> can y ge me an example of >> can you give me an example of what you have in mind might be appropriat i'm trying to understand the nuance. >> blasingame, a generally very favorable, pro-government amework that we endorse. >> i would have thought. >> notere, because we don't think fitzgeraldes. >> i understand that, but putting that aside, the distinction beofficial act and private office seeker, their test is you think good enough for ment work? >> on this one, the department hasn't takext s

justice alito? justice alito: what is the situation of people who have possessed bump stocksetween the time of the atf's new rule and the present day, or between the time of the new rule and the fifth circuit decision can they bprecuted? mr. fletcher: probablye unless they have gotten some jucial relief. the rule has not been vacated right large, so the government has been clear ts is what we think the statute means. justicalo: isn't that sturbing? people in the fifth circuit who have been possessing firearms since the beginning of 2023, let's say they are aware of the fifth circui's decision they can be crimill procud for doing something the court of appeals that governs their territory has said is not illegal. mrfletcher: i will give a practical answer and a doctrinal aner practically i am not aware of the prosecutions being brought because we recognize there is legal uncerin. that happens all the time, circuits disagree about what a criminalaweans a someone might do somhi they think is lawful und

>> so this would fall into that small core area that i mentiod to justice kagan or justice gorsuch of presidential possibility that congress cannot regulate. >> how about president obama's drone strikes? >> if the office of legal counselked at us. carefully determined that number e, the federal murder state does apply to the executive branch, the presiden would be personally carrying out the straight, but the aidin abetting laws are broad and it is deternethat a public authorit exception that is built in stus and that applies particularly to the inverter statute talksbo unlawful killing not apply to the drone strike. so this is actually the way that the system can function. the department of justice takes it runs through the analysis. very carefully with established prcies. it documtshem, explains them, and then t psident can go forward in accord. >> thank you for your answers. >> i want to pick up with that blic authority defense. i'm looking at that llc memo at you cited in your briefs. he describes the public authority defense setting e model penal code with a few different definit

chief justice. and may it please the for this court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official petitioner, however, claims had a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts unless he was first impeached and convicted. his novel theory would immunized former president's for criminal liability for bribery, treason, and sedition, murder. and here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself, in power such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution the framers knew too well the dangerous of a king who could do no wrong therefore devised a system to check abuses of power especially the use of official power for private gain. here, the executive branch is forcing congressional statutes and seeking accountability for petitioners alleged misuse of official power to subvert democracy that is a compelling public interest. in response, petitioner raises concerns about potential abuses but establis

>> yes, justice thomas. but i think it is important to put in perspective the position that we are offering the court today. the president, as the head of the article ii branch can assert article ii objections to criminal laws that interfere with an exclusive power possessed by the president or that prevent the president from accomplishing his constitutionally assigned functions. that's the constitutional doctrine that currently governs the separation of powers. what petitioner is asking for is a broad blanket immunity that would protect the president, a former president, from any criminal exposure absent impeachment and conviction, which has never happened in our history. we submit that is not necessary in order to assure that the president can perform all of the important tasks that the constitution reposes in him. >> in the not so distant past, certain presidents have engaged in various activity, coups or operations like operation mongoose when i was a teenager, and yet there were no prosecutions. why? if

chief justice in may it please the court. government officials are free to urge people not to support the groups they oppose. what they cannot do is use regulatory might or add or else to that. not content to rely on the force of her ideas, she abused the coercive power of her office. in february 2018, she told lloyd's, the insurance under white writer that she would go easy on policies if it aided her campaign to weaken the nra by halting business with the group. they agreed. six weeks later she issued guidance letters and up press release for the thousands of banks that she directly oversees to cut off their ties with the nra. not because of alleged illegality but because they promote guns. in a company press release, her boss said he directed her to issue the guidance because doing business with the nra quote sends the wrong message," . with legally binding consent orders from the nra's principal insurance providers for bidding them to provide insurance to the group again no matter how lawfully they do so. this has multipl

liberal justices were having none of it. justice sonia sotomayor pressing trump's lawyer on where his argument could lead. >> there are some things that are so fundamentally evil, that they have to be protected against. if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity? >> it would depend on the hypothetical. we could see that could well be an official act. >> it could and why? because he's doing it for personal reasons. >> reporter: justice elena kagan pointed to history. >> the framers did not put an immunity clause into the constitution. wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch, and the president was not supposed to be above the law? >> reporter: and justice ketanji brown jackson asked if there is no accountability, what would stop a president from "turning the oval office into the seat of criminal activity in this country." >> if the potential for criminal liability

at one upon the, chief justice roberts, chief justice john roberts, he is one of the more -- he is one of the court's institutionist judges talking about the stature over the supreme court, he too seemed to be a bit concerned with the ruling over the d.c. circuit below him. he read from a portion of the opinion at one point and said that is not the law. we should send this case back to d.c. circuit. i think whatever iteration you get, however you get there, it may well just be a narrower form of immunity or some other rational. when you get lower court proceedings that jeopardize if not make it down right impossible idea that former president trump could face trial on this election interference case before this upcoming november election. >> then what could happen with jack smith's case? >> well, i suppose it would depend on what happened in the election. attorneys that i have spoke on the have suggested that smith would be reluctant to put on a trial very close to the election and that potentially if trump wins the election, that the spector of trump coming into office and then essent

for safety and justice as well. we want to talk about resources for survivors of crime. this is personal for you. tell us your story. guest: thank you so much for having me on. back in 2009, i had just became the first men in my family to graduate college. i was on my way to play professional overseas, but unfortunately, i became a victim of gun violence in harford, connecticut. i was shot twice and my back and those bullets ended my professional basketball career and nearly my life. like so many victims from the hospital back into the same community where the incident happened with no support, no services, no resourceses to recover from. that incident was changed my life like crime does with so many people with crime. host: what were you doing at the time of this and what were you doing in that community at that time? guest: just leaving the corner store in my neighborhood. just weeks before i was supposed to go overseas to play professional basketball and that incident, my doctors told me about the physical challe

is there justice for them?a separate sentence was handed down in california come not affected by this. harvey weinstein will not be freed. does that bring you any sense of justice? >> it is of course one of my first thoughts, will this cause the l.a. verdict to be overturned? i'm very much hoping that won't be the case. but you can imagine today is not a day i have a lot of faith in the legal system. caitriona: arby weinstein's lawyer says everyone has the right to justice, even people who are very unpopular in society, no one is above the law or below the law either. you accept that point that he is mickey? >> i do accept that point he is making. we as a civil and just society have to abide by the rule of law. i'm not suggesting we try him of the court of public opinion, but what i am suggesting is i think the legal system needs a lot of reform. i'm hoping the shock of today's overturning will cause us to look back on the system and campaign harder than ever for reform of the way survivors are treated in the w

i have a vivid memory of sitting there, and having each of those justices, justice kavanaugh, chief justice john roberts, and judge gorsuch, going one by one and making clear that they were not going to come out in this case the way that jack smith wants them to come out. at that point, it's a numbers game that i do not think looks good. >> mark, were you as surprised as i was to hear the line of questioning that came out of some of the more conservative justices, like brett kavanaugh and judge gorsuch and samuel alito? >> i was. the sense that i got from those justices was that to them, to their minds, the real threat to democracy was not trump's effort on january 6th, to overturn a free and fair presidential election, the true threat to democracy is the justice department effort to hold him accountable for that act, and i did not expect this kind of minimization of january 6th that we saw from the justices. my sense is that the conservative bloc just did not think that the insurrection at the capital was that big of a deal. instead of hearing concern about what it would mean to let the pr

a cover something it has never covered before. >> justice thomas? justice alito? justice sotomayor? >> we have never had a situation before where there has been a situation like this with people attempting to stop a proceeding violently. i am not sure what a lack of history proves. >> i'm not sure that is true. i would point to hatfield and courthouse problems in portland, oregon. let's also look at what the court has said in so many different cases. in dubin, in yates, and kelly. bond. all of these -- >> there was a difference there in the use of words. here, otherwise obstructs, influences, impedes might have a problem with breadth and the government can address that, but it is on -- not unclear what the words mean. >> but the government has no way to address that. >> we can let them answer. >> justice kagan, justice kavanaugh. >> if it were just t language in c2, and so said whoever obstructs, influences and impedes c2 without the word otherwise, the whole provision, do you acknowledge the language would then be applied properly to a situation like this? >> unfortunately no. the

. >> justice kavanaugh? >> as you have indicated this case has huge implications for the future of the presidency in the future of the country in my view. you referred to the department a few times as having supportive positions. who in the department is a part of the attorney general? >> the solicitor general of the united states, part of the way in which the special counsel functions is as a component of the department of justice. the regulations that we reach out and consult and on a question of this magnitude that involves equity that are far beyond this prosecution if the questions of the court. >> okay, second, i am not focus on the here and now of this case, i am very concerned the future. i think one of the court's biggest mistakes is wilson versus olson. that was at terrible decision for the presidency and for the country, not because they were bad people who were independent counselors. but it was because president reagan's administration and president bush's administration, and president clinton's

and the justices were

by the justice department. where is the fbi coming in now, and locking them down, taking witnesses getting after daaffidavits. >> columbia is asking for help from outside when they have so much power themselves if they would expel students for destroying everyone else's education alec per y educational experience, they have more power than they are willing to use. larry: i say 0 for 3. we'll -- i'm saving best for last this is earth day, i will let john carney and governor of north dakota tear that apart, mollie hemingway, and charlie hurt thank you. >> thank you. larry: it is earth day, i have three word, drill, baby, drill. north dakota governor doug burgum next up on kudlow. her uncle's unhappy. i'm sensing an underlying issue. it's t-mobile. it started when we tried to get him under a new plan. but they they unexpectedly unraveled their “price lock” guarantee. which has made him, a bit... unruly. you called yourself the “un-carrier”. you sing about “price lock” on those commercials. “the price lock, the pri

justice alito is he is pudging the life and conception act from the bench. >> let's be clear for justicelism is the direction to go, there's no text in the united states constitution that recognizes embryos or fetuses and in fact the opposite is true. the first sentence of the 14th amend minute says citizens are people that are born. specifically. that's what it says. and so, there is this reaching that is taking place and it's important what you have just said so americans know because you are right. it's been framed this is something that's hyperbolic, and it's something that is unmeasured. people need to just simply be more reasonable in this. but let's remember it is our united states supreme court that acknowledged in 2014 in case called whole women's health a woman is 14 times more likely to die carrying a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion. so abortions are incredibly safe they save women's lives and we are a country where the maternal mortality rate exceeds that of all other nation and rank 55th in the world. and so those facts really matter because what's left on the o

of the justice department remains unchanged. i look forward to working with you to ensure we are making smart investments, keep our communities safe. just last week fbi director ray was before us and we heard about the real challenges the fbi along with the state local and tribal law enforcement partners are facing, especially in keeping deadly sentinel off the streets. -- sentinel -- fentanyl. we are asking for more from fbi, not less, and i am sure that can be said for other bureaus as well. the defense of our national security and mitigation of emerging foreign and domestic threats including cyber is critical. i view it as the main mission, our power mount responsibility, keeping americans safe in congress and the department's role in upholding the rule of law and preserving our democratic values of free and fair elections cannot be understated. your fiscal year 2025 budget request seeks 38 point $9 billion in discretionary funding, a 5% increase above the last fiscal year. you prioritize the funding for the over 100,000 empl

at one upon the, chief justice roberts, chief justice john roberts, he is one of the more -- he is one of the court's institutionist judges talking about the stature over the supreme court, he too seemed to be a bit concerned with the ruling over the d.c. circuit below him. he read from a portion of the opinion at one point and said that is not the law. we should send this case back to d.c. circuit. i think whatever iteration you get, however you get there, it may well just be a narrower form of immunity or some other rational. when you get lower court proceedings that jeopardize if not make it down right impossible idea that former president trump could face trial on this election interference case before this upcoming november election. >> then what could happen with jack smith's case? >> well, i suppose it would depend on what happened in the election. attorneys that i have spoke on the have suggested that smith would be reluctant to put on a trial very close to the election and that potentially if trump wins the election, that the spector of trump coming into office and then essent

the justices ruled that he has some limited immunity, how long could this take? what's the timeline? >> reporter: well, norah, i wouldn't expect a decision before june. thick obligated case and the justices know it is going to be the law long after they leave the supreme court. but that is what special counsel jack smith asked for. he actually said the justices should expedite this case so they can make a decision by the end of the term, so that is what they are going to do. whether or not this is going to go past too long before intervention, it will happen in november, that will be up to how the court writes it. there will still be decisions left for lower courts to resolve. norah? >> norah: all right, really interesting. jan crawford, thank you. instead of being at those supreme court hearings, donald trump was in a courthouse in lower manhattan for his so-called hush money trial. that's where we find cbs's robert costa. good evening, robert. >> reporter: good evening, norah. former president donald trump isn't attacking david pecker, the former publisher of t

and this experience of so many crime victims that haven't found justice in our criminal justice system and justice should be rooted in accountability and in healing. when you are a victim of a crime as i experienced as danielle just mentioned, these are long-term affects that you have to deal with every single day. the mental health challenges that we experience were also just a spear as well. for most crime victims, there are two things that we want the most. we want what happened to us to never happen again and we want what happened to us to never happen to someone else. so we do need to hold people up accountable. we also need to help crime victims like myself and danielle heal and recover and that's where we need to invest our resource in helping crime victims get back to the safety and support that they need. host: aswad thomas, why are you in washington, d.c.? guest: i'm here in washington, d.c. as i mentioned, the offices victims of crimes is doing incredible work and supporting a lot of states and helping organizations in crime victims access services. so i'm here in d.c. tomor

justice roberts was hard to read.n she might be really thinking about where she will come down. justice barrett later suggested to the other side's lawyer, to the lawyer for special counsel jack smith that maybe if there is a whole bunch of stuff that trump did that everybody admits was just his private acts when he was committing these alleged crimes, maybe all trump's purportedly official actions could be kicked out of the indictment and you could try him on the private stuff. try him for the asserted action his side admits. couldn't you guys just cut the january 6th indictment in half? >> the special council has expressed some concern for speed wanting to move forward. the normal process, what mr. sauer asked would be if we decided there was some official acts of immunity. and let that be sorted out below. it is another option for the special counsel to proceed based on the private conduct and drop the official conduct. >> is it an option to proceed just on some of the stuff trump did. not all of the stuff he did.

we are ready for ready for a resurrection. >> former justice. phew, former justice.h. >> good morning, i'm an attorney with board justice, one of the anchoring organizations for june 29. the moral march on washington. we are committed to organizing and mobilizing people for d.c. we recognize the dire state of our nation with the union people and voter suppression happening in the south and across the nation. change the south, change the nation. we must remain steadfast and committed to action. that is why we are going back to court next monday to challenge north carolina's discriminatory voter acting law. we will keep fighting for the voting rights of formerly incarcerated people. if our votes did not matter there would not be such a push for control. we must demand expansion and not the rollback of voting rights. incarcerated people's voices matter. the money spent on mass incarceration, the condition of our jails are horrific. medical care is often delayed or denied. they are causing illnesses. populations are being harmed, people even killed by correctional office

we have no obligation to os appeal. >> justice jackson. >> justice kavaugpicked up on what might be a critical distinction. i am trying to understand it. he said, here we have a situation in which the government is not acting on a company that is itself in the siness of speech, which is true unlike baambooks where was. what i'm worried about your position ultimately reducing to any time a regulator enforces the law against an tity that does business with an advocacy organization we have a first amendment violation. it seems like your answer to him was, well, what gets this in the first amendment column, unlike other scenarios, is that the nra advocates for guns, d is an advocacy organization, and so acti taken against it makes a first amendment violation, even though the government was not coercing the speech itself in the same way as bantam books. how do we avoid a rlin which advocacy organizations are exempt from regulations? >> we're definitely not asking for advocacy organization exemptions from regulaonor even for regulation of third parties. what bantam books requires is that th

and our office of justice programs, bureau of justice assistance have identified the places that have been compliant than they should be and reached out to encourage that level of compliance. i think the money we have in the budget is sufficient for those kind of reach out programs. but we won't be satisfied until all the crimes are reported. ms. meng: a follow-up. as you said state and local law enforcement agencies play a crucial role in the nationwide response to hate crimes. i also want to make sure to ask about how the d.o.j. works with community-based organizations which also have a crucial part in building up community resilience and preventing future hate crimes. can you talk about how the d.o.j. is coordinating both with law enforcement and local organizations to respond to hate crimes? atty. gen. garland: each of our u.s. attorneys offices has a civil rights and hate crimes coordinator. and each of the u.s. attorneys has been instructed to reach out to the communities to have discussions well in advance of any crisis occurring. our strategy here is to develop trust within co

you had the chief justice raising concerns about this as well, along with justice sotomayor who beganthe argument by saying, look, you've told the lower court if your argument is true, navy s.e.a.l. team six could go out and assassinate the rival of a president under a presidential order and that would be okay. justice sotomayor said are you still sticking with that, and the answer was yes, and justice kagan said, you know, does that mean the president could launch a coup or order the military to launch a coup, the answer was yes. justice ketanji jackson towards the end of the trump lawyer's argument said, wait a minute, you're saying -- i understand your concern about the president being attacked with frivolous prosecutions, but what about the concern on the other side that the president is above the law. so i saw at least five votes for that central proposition that a president is not absolutely immune from the law. he did get some support from justice kavanaugh who talked about a justice scalia opinion 25 years ago and from justice alito, but i don't think it commanded the majority