but brett kavanaugh with the unanimous supreme court behind him. went through each of their reasoning on why they should be able to sue rejected them out of hand, starting with the notion that some of these physicians said that they would have conscience? objection objections to ever perform an abortion. and justice kavanaugh said, but federal law already has a conscience clause that protects individuals from having to perform a procedure that would violate their moral or religious faith. so went through them methodically shut the door to any kind of challenge from these groups because they had no real injury. and i want to stress that even though this affects the fda policy and it was the fda's policy of expanding access to abortion, for example, allowing the medication to be taken at ten weeks and not just seven weeks allowing the medication to be obtained from male. but the justices did not endorse one way or another that policy. they just said, this, these groups could not sue and as i said, federal, courts from cases that should not be in fede

kavanaugh also warned that if these doctors could bring a court case challenging federal laws, so could others, posing this hypothetical -- "the government repeals certain restrictions on guns. does a surgeon have standing to sue because he might have to operate on more gunshot victims?" abortion-rights advocates welcomed the ruling. >> hugely relieved that the court threw the case out. but frankly angry that we ever were there to begin with. >> reporter: but they know the court has left this troerns open for future fights. medication abortions account for approximately 63% of all abortions in the united states. and today's ruling means that in most states where abortion is legal, women can still receive the pill by mail and without seeing a medical provider in person first. but there are currently 14 states with a near total ban on all abortions, including the use of this pill, mifepristone, medication abortions. in addition, five more have taken moves to restrict the practice of prescribing abortion pills by telemedicine or delivering pills through the mail. anti-abortion rights activ

justice kavanaugh.to tell you you released a whirlwind and price. you won't know what hit you senator schumer said. if you go forward with these awful qudecisions close what we are seeing today, in my opinion. is parking lot of the promised whirlwind. ihat we should try to undermind the integrity of the incidence institution of the supreme court of the united states because we are unhappy with onee' of it's opinions. i will with hold my objection to allow my friend senator lee to speak. objection? >> senator fromof utah. >> reserving the right to object. the united states of america benefited for 2.5. one of the world's best most objective object judicial systems in the entire world. no system run by umhumans can be described as perfect. ours is as good a system aisted in the world. it's as good as any that the world today. solution, the solution that's been ran throughme today. it's a solution insearch of■í a. that probably wasn't there. one of the greetest straights. independentre functioning tra edit

kavanaugh tells anyone listening that the court doesn't need to do anything.intiffs may present their concerns and objections to the president and fda in the regulatory process. or to congress. and the president in the legislative process. now this is where i'll remind everyone there's already a law on the books these conservative justices and republicans can use to present their concerns and objections to congress and a republican congress. it's the comstock act. an 1873 law which remains on the books and bans sending drugs or implements that could be used for abortion through the mail. trump allies have said they plan to start enforcing it if he wins in november. that would ban mifepristone from being sent to any woman in this country across state lines with no help from kavanaugh and friends. and the legislative process kavanaugh mentioned has left millions of women in 14 states with total abortion bans and three states with six-week bans before most women even know they're pregnant. another dozen or so states have laws limiting how mifepristone can be pres

and kavanaugh made it clear. i think and you guys are the legal experts? that while these folks did not have standing, that doesn't mean that somebody else couldn't bring a case that did have standing and that has yet to be decided. >> i think this is gonna be a theme we're going to see you all for over these last three weeks of the current supreme court term, that there are a series of cases where one lower-court, in particular the fifth circuit, the federal appeals court, to to new orleans covers louisiana and mississippi and texas has led unusual plaintiffs plaintiffs who don't usually get into federal court or brynn challenge is to federal policies, whether it's mifepristone, whether it's the biden administration his communications with social media companies about covid, vaccine disinformation. ai. then we're going to see a handful of ruling for the court says, hey, fifth circuit chill out gone way too far. we are not ready for this wolf not be caused. this court has all of a sudden turning toward the middle on the substance of these questions. but be

judge gorsuch, i want to say, though, really wrote -- actually it's judge kavanaugh.today's decision is wrong on the law and devastating for more than 100,000 opioid victims and their families. and what justice kavanaugh is worried about is while this deal is being blown up, he's worried there might not be another deal down the line for families and these opioid victims and families waiting on this settlement, billions of dollars to go to them, that they might not get a second chance. >> dahlia, what do you make of the decision on purdue pharma? >> well, the most interesting thing about it is in a term that's seen pretty consistent ideological breakdowns that we can predict purdue is an amazing case of strange bedfellows. we have justice gorsuch in writing the majority joined by clarence thomas, justice alito, amy coney barrett, and ketanji brown jackson. and in the dissent yamiche just talked about we have justice kavanaugh joining the chief justice, justice sotomayor, and justice kagen. this is clearly an issue that really fractured the court down lines we couldn't

justice brett kavanaugh right in the opinion, "a plaintiff's desire to make a drug class available for others does not establish standing to sue." this is the most significant abortion ruling from the supreme court since it overturned roe v. wade nearly 2 years ago. joining us now, nbc news washington correspondent outside the supreme court. nbc news senior legal correspondent, laura jarrett. what more does this ruling say? >> reporter: is a significant ruling. this willing says the drug, this drug continues to be accessible for women across the country who use medication warming as their form of abortion. we've seen studies that show 63% of women use abortion medication for their means of accessing abortion care. this ruling was unanimous from the 673 conservative majority. the doctors and antiabortion groups here do not have standing. that is important because the same it is a merit to this case, they are saying the people who brought this case to have standing needed. during oral argument, there were hints this was the way the court might rule. you had brett kavanaugh asking at one

again, going back to the constitutional issue which justice kavanaugh wrote about.o move forward to try make case on the merits as you mentioned it wasn't made in terms of the details of the case. just simply on a techality, democrats are not going to let this narrative go and the vice president has been around the country in swing states to gte voters to the polls they have been successful in elections and special elections in the aftermath of dobbs on the decision. >> shannon: pill access was never cut off. the supreme court allowed to remain available on the market. political loss for them. they can't campaign against this supreme court passed another restriction on your abortion. but, in an election year that may be something they would want to be able to take to voters. >> juan: well, i think right now, given that the way the courts and some of the religious groups have been handling ivf, invite throw fertilization the issue is alive for those on the left who say there is still real concern about a woman's trite handle pregnancy even getting pregnant now and th

it was written by justice kavanaugh. there's one concurring opinion, but all nine justices agreed that the plaintiffs, that people who were suing here to try to roll back access to mifepristone, did not have what we call standing and the basic way to explain standing is do you have a dog in this fight? what's it to you? the plane? do you have some actual injury the group that brought this lawsuit was a group of doctors, medical practitioners, who objected to mifepristone. however, they have the right under law, various law who declined to prescribe mifepristone. so they tried to argue well, but we might have to treat women who use mifepristone and then have secondary complications. and the spring of course, that's not enough. that's not a direct enough injury. therefore, you don't have standing, therefore, you lose 90. >> yeah. i mean, i'll just read from what justice kavanaugh wrote as you said, a unanimous opinion. we recognize that many citizens, including the plaintiff, doctors here have sincere concerns about an obj

began to read and the courtrooms packed his wife, ashley kavanaugh, is there in special guest seats. he goes on for ten minutes explaining that there is a very important threshold question here before the justices could even assess where the da was right to find mifepristone safe and effective and to actually enhance access to it. that was key in terms of if they had reached the merits, there would be things about how easy would it be for women to obtain these drugs at, for example, ten months of pregnancy. pardon me, ten weeks of pregnancy rather than seven weeks. and whether so they could get it by mail. but just as kevin all laid out, exactly what the barrier is for people trying to bring cases and he went through the group of anti-abortion doctors who tried bring this, had said, for example, that they have conscience concerns that because of religious and moral reasons, they don't want to be backed into performing abortions, for example, under emergency situations, if the if mifepristone is improperly used. and he said there's no problem with that because there's already a consci

justice brett kavanaugh right

writing for the court, justice kavanaugh said, while plaintiffs have sincere legal, moral, ideological policy objections to the regulation of the drug, that doesn't mean they have a federal case. president biden reacting to supreme court ruling last hour. nbc news washington correspondent yamiche alcindor is joining us from the supreme court and barbara mcquade joining us as well. welcome. yamiche, reading from this ruling, justice kavanaugh writes, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that fda's relaxed regulatory requirements likely would cause them to suffer an injury in fact. for that reason, the federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs' concerns about fda's actions. yamiche, big picture discussion about the major impact this has on women and reproductive rights in this country. >> good afternoon. this is, as you noted, the most significant abortion ruling put out by the supreme court since two years ago when this court overturned roe v. wade, the 6-3 court. they are saying the doctors who oppose abortion and anti-abortion groups didn't have the standin

brett kavanaugh writing in today's opinion.s decision was not based on the substance of a group of antiabortion doctors, cases against the fda, but on procedural grounds. we'll explain why that matters in a moment. while also considering the timing. the democrats say this ruling even though it is technically a win for abortion access, it is still a reminder of what republicans will try to do to women's healthcare if they are re-elected in the fall. and it comes right as the senate takes up likely to fail, which it did fail, by the way, legislation to protect ivf and one of the most powerful conservative voting blocs in america, protestant christians at the southern baptist convention voting to oppose it. joining us now, senior writer who covers the supreme court and that's mark joseph stern, also msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin. lisa, we saw you scribbling all over this decision as i was reading my intro. what were you writing down? >> one of the things that struck me about this decision is what it says for the future of a

why do you think -- and i've been pointing to chief justice roberts and brett kavanaugh, justice kavanaughucked this question? >> i think justice kavanaugh, i suppose the answer would be with that they're trying to show some deference to congress and and congress' intent. and i know that there's lack of clarity on that. but justice, chief justice roberts especially, the course, paul, is under such political pressure right now, and this case was a close call. and i think maybe they were taking an opportunity the here to show some deference to a congress which is democrats were constantly attacking them. i'd hate to suggest they're making a decision like this purely for political reasons, but i think on a close call like this one leaving the questionsal hisia's racing, maybe another case that was where they went. paul: kim, so we leave this case with four justices sayings it is unconstitutional to tax unrazed gains, five -- unrealized gains, one justice said, oh, you can tax pretty much anything you want -- [laughter] and then four others who said, who were quiet on the question. so what do

brett kavanaugh writing for the court said that the plaintiffs in the case couldn't make that showingdifferent arguments for why they had a right to sue and they were complicated arguments. the main was although they were not required as doctors to prescribe it to anyone, some of them worked in the emergency room and they might be required to treat women who had obtained mifepristone from someone else, suffered complications that are extremely rare, and then come into the emergency room seeking treatment and they would have to provide treatment like an abortion to these women, even though it would violate their conscience. justice kavanaugh said, writing for the court, that this was just too attenuated a sequence of events. the defendants had not went into a circumstance in which it had happened and in particular there were federal laws protecting doctors opposed to abortions from having to provide them in situations like this. caitrÍona: this was a unanimous decision, pretty rare in the supreme court, particularly on anything that has to do with abortion or reproductive rights. it's

justice kavanaugh dissented and was joined with the chief justice together with justice sotomayor andtice kagan and said this decision is devastating for the hundreds of families who relied on this settlement in order to get some relief from the opioid crisis and the devastation that it brought. the dissent also notes that all the 50 state attorneys general had signed on to this plan because they thought this was only chance of relief. as lisa noted, part of the impetus for the entire bankruptcy case is that the sacklers allegedly drained money from the company and effectively held a settlement hostage and would only agree to it in the event that claims against them individually were released, and what the dissent says is, look there, isn't going to be any settlement. these victims are not going to get any relief until the sacklers are allowed to negotiate an agreement under which they themselves individually cannot be sued, and so what this does is it blows up a settlement that was going to give some money to the states and individuals who were victimized by the opioid crisis. >> and

justice brett kavanaugh wrote the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to bring this case. abc's perry russom is at the supreme court with details. >> vice president kamala harris after the supreme court's unanimous decision to keep the abortion drug mifepristone available. >> we are looking at the fact that two thirds of women of reproductive age in america live in a state with a trump abortion ban. this ruling is not going to change that. >> the senate majority leader, chuck schumer, tempering expectations for those in favor of abortion rights. >> this decision was based not on the merits, but on a lack of standing. we are not yet out of the woods. >> this morning, the court, rejecting a legal challenge to the fda's regulation around the drug and the court's opinion, justice brett kavanaugh writes the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that fda's relaxed regulatory requirements would likely cause them to suffer an injury. abortion opponents call the high court's decision deeply disappointing. during oral arguments, lawyers for alliance for hippocratic medicine accused

anything judge kavanaugh decision here was very interesting i want to make a few points about it.ted for instance, that if they a lot of principal like this to exist, firefighters could file a lawsuit building code is because it might hurt them police file against something crime laws record them in advance of anything happening just as kavanaugh wrote, that was seemingly not end until virtually every citizen has standing to challenge virtually every government action that they did not like what he's describing this kind of like the world we live in help people do believe that they can sue for anything. this decision is saying no, you cannot the courts pretty reason you juice have to show that you been injured by something. paul: the political intricate and indications of this kyle your the vice president animal sounds like june of impressive talking as if they almost wish they have us this case but that because it better for them politically this that how you read it. kyle: i think that's why this is something that you have seen in recent cases is a recent term where there was a

what justice kavanaugh was referring to. that might not carry the day, but that is a concern. it is totally different when you take it outside the department of justice and its structures and then you throw it out elsewhere. the idea across the states, the idea of an immunity i think has a lot more purchase if you are talking about something that protects the former president from standing trial at a state and local level. >> so, i don't know that you would have to design a system in which the president would have to stand trial at the state and local level. it is certainly within the court's authority as a matter of supremacy clause law to find and immunity. -- find an immunity. but we have been talking here about to some length the distinction between official acts and private acts. >> yeah. >> that will have to be determined by some sort of a process. any immunity defense that the court announces can still be met by a state assertion that we are prosecuting private conduct, you are going to have to have some process. i think having some legal process is not a reason to cast

. >> reporter: the decision written by justice brett kavanaugh unanimously reversed conservative lower judges who okayed the group's lawsuit against the fda, seeking to restrict access to the drug nationwide. the stakes were high. 63% of abortions last year were medication abortions, and the lower court ruling would have required women to see a health care provider instead of telehealth to get the pill. the justices said the lawsuit was flawed from the beginning because the antiabortion doctors weren't harmed by the fda's approval of mifepristone, and so they lacked legal standing to sue. "instead of going to the courts," kavanaugh wrote, "citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the executive and legislative branches." while not a decision on the merits, it sends a message to lower courts, to put some brakes on novel legal efforts both sides abused in the fight over abortion. >> it isn't the end. there are three states that will continue to litigate these issues in the lower courts. >> reporter: those states are idaho, misso

here is how justice brett kavanaugh put it in his opinion. the question in this case is whether the law also makes it a crime or state and local officials to accept gratuities. for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos or the like that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. the answer is no. framed plaques, books, you see, snyder just excepted a gratuity, a little tip as a reward for steering contracts to a trucking company. it was like a nice book or a commemorative plaque or $13,000. here's the thing. this is sort of a narrow statutory interpretation decision about this aspect of the federal code. the decision does not exist in a vacuum. you have to understand this. this comes against the context of a supreme court that has increasingly lost the public trust and not just because samuel alito keeps flying insurrection flags outside his ohms or because clarence thomas's wife was texting the white house chief of staff conspiracy theories about the bidens being sent to guantanamo bay, but because o

it's interesting that brett kavanaugh was the one who wrote this decision.al arguments he hinted at how he saw this case. at one point he was asking the lawyer for the antiabortion groups whether or not doctors could be forced to perform abortions or whether or not they could be forced to prescribe mifepristone. federal law already protects that. this is pretd kavanaugh and conservative justices saying you already have some protections here. more importantly here the doctors don't have the standing. this is not a ruling on merit, which is important to note. they're saying in a separate case possibly down in the future, a separate group of people who do have standing, maybe a patient who feels they were harmed by the bill or a doctor who feels like they were forced to prescribe it, that person could have standing. i want to talk about the politics here, just within the last -- within a few minutes of hearing this ruling we had a group out here chanting abortion pills kill. so it really does tell you that for the antiabortion movement here this is a ruling the

justice kavanaugh? >> if it were just language in c2, whoever cly obstructs, influences or impedes, c2 without the word otherwise, do you acknowledge that the language wouldhebe applied properly to a situation like this? >> unfortunately, no. the reason for that is that again, applying all the other caons and applying the whole te cannon and looking at 1512, we would submit that c2 should still be read in the way we have ggested it be read as something that isevidence impairment statute. also, as i mentioned, the cannons the superfluous p that c2 would create, all of those would retain. thewise is the icing on the cake. finally, justice kavanaugh, -- >> if didn't have c1 just had c2 without the otherwise. i'm not clear on that. >> this that case, it gets even harder. if we look at what 1512 is about, if we look at this court's cases on broad -- plausible badeading of criminal statute, not being what the court adopts when there's a available narrow reading. because congressan fix that. we could still say

when it comes to unrealized gains, i think they would look to roberts and kavanaugh again.ving away from the language of the constitution. larry: i mean, you know, income is, income is different than capital. it's different in economic terms. >> that's right. larry: income is a flow. it's what you earn, okay? it's what the 16th amendment was all about. and i think the it was pretty clear. it has to be proportionate -- wealth is the stock the of your gain. that's a different matter altogether. and the valuation of that stock of your gain, the only way you can value that, jonathan, is a market transaction which means it has to be realized. you can't possibly value something like capital without a market transaction. it can't be done. no one knows the right answer. >> no, i think that's absolutely true. i think that it's logistically a nightmare. i think it's constitutionally flawed. but in part, there's a really insidious game being played here. they're trying to convince taxpayers this is just about a tapping a bunch of billionaires -- larry: yeah. >> hiding the fact that on

and, what this court's cases also say. >> justice kavanaugh, i would like to take all of those intern because i don't think this court's cases speak that broadly and i don't think that the office of legal counsel's opinions stand for this broad proposition that unless the president is specifically named, he is not in the statute and i don't think that is necessary in order to afford adequate protection for the president's article 2 functions. >> you said -- sorry to interrupt. i want to get this out. you said, unless there is a serious constitutional question. >> it is a serious constitutional question whether a statute can be applied to the president's official acts. wouldn't you always interpret the statute not to apply to the president, even under your formulation unless congress has spoken with some clarity? >> i don't think across the board a constitutional question exists, applying any criminal ns statute to the president. >> the problem is the vague exception can be used against a lot of presidential activities, historically with creative prosecutor who wants to go after a pres

and i just want to read one line from justice brett kavanaugh's opinion for a unanimous court.he recognized why this case was brought. justice kavanaugh writing for the court, the plaintiffs have sincere moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to the fda's relaxed regulation of mifepristone. but under the constitution. justice kavanaugh says those kinds of objections do alone do not establish a case or controversy that the judiciary can resolve. and he says that's what really the democratic processes are for . they can go and try and elect a president they want who can change those regulations at the fda, they can try to have congress pass a law, but bringing a suit like this won't work. terri >> thank you. stick with us here. because in this decision, they go on to say the plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the president and to the fda in the regulatory process. again pointing out, essentially the power of the fda in decisions like this one. and of course, this has been standing for, you know, decades essentially here in this cou

>> now understand better your position in your discussions with justice kavanaugh. it became clear yoarsaying that for the private acts of a president, theres immunity but for the official acts of the president there is immunity. is that your position? >> i agree with that. >> one thing that occurs to me is that this sort of difficult line drawing problem war having with these hypotheticals is it a private actor republic -- act or a public act? it is being necessitated by that assumption. oicial acts did not get absolute immunity, it wouldn't matter, we wouldn't have to identify which are private and which are public, correct? >> that is the approach of the d.c. circuit judge there is no deteinion -- >> to the extent we are worried about how do we figure out whether it's private or public on the we have to understande e only doing that because of an underlying assumption that the public acts get muty. let me explore that assumption. why is it as a matter of theory and i am hoping you can zoom way out here,hat the president would not required to follow the law when h

when an assassin showed uped u at kavanaugh's house, they could hardly shrug their shoulders. when chuck schumer went to thend steps of the supreme courtu're t and named justices by name and threatened the wham, not gog to know what's hit you is what he said. and he called out. thank you. on gorsuch. avanaughbe they just shrug their shoulders. but now all this is sacrosanct y . laura, let's not let's not have any confusion here. these people le, , the people, the democrats are trying to tear down the rule of law. theythey're to bulldoze every nm in this country so they can remain in powen remainr. he that's all they care about is power. and which is why the only answe is tor to this i win in november. >> and meanwhile, senator, as everybody was focusedd on,s understandably, we learned yesterday that the had okayed us arms being used inside russia, which of course wasis stunning to all of us who are actually focusing on what's happening in this ukraine war. your thoughts on that tonight? these people seetom want war, wa with russia. >> oh, war, war,r, war. and the reason is, is

he and barrett and kavanaugh will vote to ban emergency abortions with a woman's health in jeopardy,litically toxic issue for republicans. joe biden is out with victims of these bans saying this is what donald trump has wrought and what his supreme court did overturning dobbs. the supreme court doesn't want to confirm it legalized extraordinary human suffering. so it's seizing on an unbelievable technicality to say maybe 2025 will be a better time for us. >> other thing that goes through the cases is the chaos their rulings create. create chaos with dobbs and they have to clean up in other rulings. maybe you can get medicine. then mess up guns. then try to clean it up. make law trying to make american law today fit the 18th century, which you can't do it. chaos ensues and they try to clean it up. >> and doesn't work. >> and defending old decisions. >> all the conservative judges blazing with academic theories to make the law align with 1789. in practice it sows chaos, they're a chaos agent and has the gall to blame the lower courts for being confused about their decisions overturning

justice brett kavanaugh wrote a plaintiff's desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue. >> the ruling is coming two years after roe v. wade was overturned which led to a wave of new restrictions across the country. joining us is yamiche alcindor, and danny cevallos, and what more does this ruling say? >> well, for now, mifepristone, this abortion medication that is used across the country, and going up gains roe v. wade was overturned, the pill is as remains. and if you are a woman watching, it means that the pill mifepristone is obtainable through mail, and you can take it within ten weeks of pregnancy, and other people like a physician can administer this pill. i wanted to read this from brett kavanaugh, the fda has not looked to cause injury, and therefore it is not a correct form of the supreme court to file the action. and so this is a moot case. >> and so, danny, the people who brought the suit did not have legal standing to sue, and there a group of people who could bring it back to the court? >> that is the question that back at or ral

retirees, calling themselves the alliance for hippocratic medicine, kavanaugh said they had no legaltanding to challenge the drug it was fda approval, so this case is dead, but the group of doctors representing this alliance they said they are not done. >> the court said we don't have standing in this case. we're grateful the case will continue with three states hoping to hold them accountable for its actions. >> they're continuing to challenge access to mifepristone using the same legal argument used in the case the court rejected today. this time, though, they're framing access to mifepristone as challenges to state rights. there are still restrictions on this pill at the state level. last month louisiana where abortion is already banned, became the first state to classify both drugs used for medication abortion as controlled, dangerous substances, effectively shutting down access to this pill, both pills through the mail. joining me now is nancy northrop, president and ceo at the center for reproductive rights. nancy, thank you for being here. i'd first sort of like your general r

the most junior justices released in reverse seniority it says that she -- chief justice roberts, kavanaugh and jackson and essentially what they are saying is neither the states or the plaintiffs have the standing to seek the injunction against any defendant so the argument had been whether or not federal agencies and a number of government agencies had been communicating with social media groups to tell them flagging this information or misinformation. the argument is always about the first amendment. if the government can't do it itself, it can't do it through a third party forcing a social media outlet to say we want that language down. it would amount -- the argument is to the government actually taking that same action. what we don't get to is that. what we get here is essentially there is no standing for the plaintiffs who brought the case and that essentially means communications as they were happening between federal government and agencies and the social media companies we don't get to the merits of the case. >> dana: the first amendment obviously. you call yourself a free speech

justice kavanaugh: is there anybody that could do that? let us start with the states that intervened. will you say that in that litigation fine, you can chalngit and let us get the ri of this issue and what the lawfulness of the fda d? ms. prelogar: the states lacked standing, th a asserting indirect injuries and could result in the states aay suing the united states government. justice kavanaugh: how about a doctor who opposes abortion, he is on duty wn woman who comes in with complications from taken mifepristoneanthe doctor is the only one on duty who can attend to the wom's problem and as a result in order to save her life she has to abort the viableet. with that doctor then have standing to seek injunctive relief? or would you say this is too speculative. this is like being struck by lightning and it is not sufficiently likely th ts will happen to this doctor again? ms. prelog: at would represent past harm and we are not sping that conscious violation would be cognizable. we think that situation has vecome to pass and respondents have

this one is cartoonish, i've got to say. >> so according to brett kavanaugh and the conservative. it is only bribery if it comes from the bribery region of france. everything else is just sparkling corruption. according to these people. but when you bring out not just this case but all of the cases the court has done over robert's tenure to weekend public corruption laws, i like to think of it like a gang, like for the initiative, the new initiate, he also has to steal a hearse. if you have corrupt cops they take the money and everybody has to share. so everybody is implicated. so there's no accountability for everybody. so everybody has their hands dirty and that is what the supreme court is trying to do. they are trying to make it seem like everything in politics is dirty. everybody is dirty. >> that is their position. and also, when you add in a, it is a different line of cases. as a constitutional case. which means it is how the u.s. constitution operates as a post like the federal criminal code but if you look at citizens united and all that stuff, the whole idea here is like

justice brett kavanaugh kept the door open and said this decision does not mean that nobody out therene but that these particular doctors and dentists antiabortion doctors and dentists do not have standing because they don't prescribe abortion pills, they don't treat patients who take abortion pills, they just have no skin in the game and i will note that in the lower court you might remember about one year ago it was judge matthew kaczmarek who issued the nationwide ban on mifepristone. he has already allowed three red state to intervene in this case as new plaintiffs so there is a very good chance that we will be doing this all over again and he will say these new play tends -- plaintiffs have standings and we will be dealing with more emergencies at the supreme court where the justices have to decide whether mifepristone can remain legal in blue states where it is already allowed. >> i want to pick up on both those points about the process that involves here. and the utilization of the court. really sort of the first impression on a subject matter in this case abortion pills. the c

retirees calling themselves the alliance for hippocratic medicine, justice kavanaugh said they had nohallenge the drug's approval. this case is dead, but the group of doctors say they are not done. >> the court said the clients don't have standing in this case. we are grateful the case will continue with three states working to hold the fda accountable for its reckless actions. >> today republican attorney generals in missouri, idaho and kansas are continuing to challenge access to mifepristone using the same legal argument in the case the court rejected today. this time they are framing access as an infringement on states rights. even if this challenge fails in federal court, there are still restrictions at the state level. last month in louisiana where abortion is already banned, it became the first state to classify both drugs used for medication abortion as controlled, date -- dangerous substances. effectively shutting down access to these pills through the mail. joining me now is nancy northup, president for the center for reproductive rights. i would first like your general reac

in his dissent on this justice kavanaugh lambents how the court is getting this wrong. opioid victims and future victims of mass torts will suffer greatly in the wake of the destabilizing decision. only congress can fix the chaos that will now ensue. it will lead to too much harm for too many people for congress to sit idly by without studying the issues. they think congress has to fix the problem. they don't agree on the application in this particular case. >> sandra: we continue to read through here. obviously we're at 10:11. it's open to get more rulings down here. we're starting to near the point where maybe this is it for the day? >> we have a couple more. here we go. >> dana: as we look for that just to confirm. with this decision does that mean that any of the families who were expecting to get some of the settlement money, is that on hold now? or will it go forward? >> yeah, i have to drill down further on the decision. i don't want to say with great confidence. i think it is endowed, that this really throws it back into a great deal of uncertainty which is what

held 7-2 that congress did not exceed its authority in crafting that one-time special tax justice kavanaughiding for the majority quote congress has long taxed shareholders of an entity on the entities undistributed income. this court has long upheld taxes of that kind and we do the same today causative was clear what the court did not decide whether today's opinion would apply to any so-called wealth tax. on the richest american. kavanaugh called that a hypothetical the court is avoiding for now justin thomas in a consent 1st amendment allows for federal in connection with tax only applies to income actually realized by the taxpayer, quote: the tax and history of the amendment requires a distinction between income and the source from which that income is derived. and the only way to draw such a distinction is with a realization requirement. >> the court said if it had followed extreme that it could have created such upheaval to the u.s. tax system that it could have cost trillions in incoming tax revenue. ultimately saying this the constitution does not require that fiscal calamity. bret,

they need to go, especially thomas and kavanaugh and alito, and even sotomayor.he travels with a nurse -- host: alright, got your point. we will go to henry on the not sure line. good morning. henry, are you there? we will try one more time for henry, woodruff, south carolina? all right, give us a call that kb will go to kathy on iowa on the agree line. caller: good morning k thank you for taking my call. the poll you have is shocking in a way. 7 out of 10 americans do not believe the supreme court can put their ideology aside for impartiality? and yet we are looking at 50% of our country or more is going to vote for someone who simply is a dictator? that is certainly not impartiality. i feel like we lost something in this country, where we could agree to disagree, and we could respect the supreme court decision, because we did feel like they were impartial. it is just really a sad part of what is happening in our country right now. i feel like the supreme court -- i guess not the supreme court, congress needs to set up some ethics for the supreme court that they

they need to go, especially thomas and kavanaugh and alito, and even sotomayor.he travels with a nurse -- host: alright, got your point. we will go to henry on the not sure line. good morning. henry, are you there? we will try one more time for henry, woodruff, south carolina? all right, give us a call that kb will go to kathy on iowa on the agree line. caller: good morning k thank you for taking my call. the poll you have is shocking in a way. 7 out of 10 americans do not believe the supreme court can put their ideology aside for impartiality? and yet we are looking at 50% of our country or more is going to vote for someone who simply is a dictator? that is certainly not impartiality. i feel like we lost something in this country, where we could agree to disagree, and we could respect the supreme court decision, because we did feel like they were impartial. it is just really a sad part of what is happening in our country right now. i feel like the supreme court -- i guess not the supreme court, congress needs to set up some ethics for the supreme court that they

it is justice kavanaugh for, again, a 6-3 majority but a differently constituted one, narrowing a federal statute. and the three liberals here in dissent, justices sotomayor, kagan and brown jackson. and my understanding on a more importantly perhaps that's it for today. and so we live to see another day on all of the eagerly anticipated decisions whether it's the one concerning idaho's abortion statute or the presidential immunity case and a related case having to do with the obstruction charge in many of the january 6th cases a statute also brought against former president trump, the fischer versus united states case deals with the meaning of that statute and could meaningfully change not only the prosecution against the former president but could change what recommend niece about sought and what charges can be brought, what sentences can be dolled out to a number of january 6 defendants as ryan reilly knows well. >> those, in fact, have been hundreds of january 6 defendants facing similar charges. leah, we know this conservative court was somewhat surprising in decisions when it came t

. >> we've seen the brett kavanaugh kavanaughs of the world.aplan from federal court for e. jean carol's trials. we've seen different judges. and the thing i think is so poor in terms of america not being able to know judge merchan is not being able to see and hear him. he is measured and he is calm. even in the face of all of this scrutiny and these complex legal issues. why? because this man, judge merchan, came to the united states, he immigrated at the age of 6 from colombia. he's one of six children. he was washing dishes. he went to school. you know, he graduated, he's the first member of his family to go to college. he lived in queens. he worked at the manhattan d.a.'s office and the new york state attorney general's office and has been a judge since 2006. if there's anyone who isn't a fellow new yorker, i beg you, find somebody else who's not more new york than judge juan merchan. he is what a lot of new yorkers are. and i think that's an interesting theme when you think about donald trump having a jury of his peers in this trial but ha

kavanaugh essentially laid out a pathway, you know.r other folks to challenge mifepristone but look, ultimately, the preston is a drug that has been authorized by the fda for over 20 years. it's incredibly safe, safer than tylenol. it is the most widely used form of abortion in this country and now with abortion bands in 21 states and restrictions to abortion and 21 states, it's become more vital than ever so we don't expect the opposition to abortion to rest, but i think it would be foolish for them to bring a case right now. >> we saw some gamesmanship in congress this week on different efforts around protecting ivf. both parties seem to agree that ivf seemed to -- should be protected, don't you think this is something that will eventually gardener -- garner some level of bipartisan support or is it just politics of the day? >> it's so interesting to see the number of republicans who come out with ads or statements in support of ivf and it was pretty wild but ted cruz himself was a co-author of the republican bill but here's the trut

. >> el juez brett kavanaugh, quien redactÓ la decisiÓn judicial, dijo que el deseo de un demandante demandar. la decisiÓn fue aplaudida por grupos a favor de los derechos reproductivos. >> importante que se mantenga el acceso porque desde el 20 21 se puede se puede mandar la pÍldora por correo? >> no tiene que ver un doctor, no? entonces hay mÁs acceso para la mujer. >> segÚn la fda, desde el aÑo 2000, mÁs de 6 millones de personas han utilizado mifepristona grupos antiaborto que se oponen a la misma. condenaron el fallo no solamente destruye la vida de un bebÉ por nacer en el primer trimestre. >> ya estÁ formado, completamente formado, tiene su corazÓn, sus manitas, sus piecitos y tambiÉn puede tener consecuencias muy graves para la mujer. >> el presidente joe biden, a travÉs de un comunicado, dijo que la decisiÓn de hoy no cambia el hecho de que la lucha por la libertad reproductiva continÚa. para muchos el tema de los derechos reproductivos podrÍa ser decisivo en las prÓximas elecciones. >> pone de relieve la importancia de estos temas de salud reproductiva y la importancia de qu