old law. you're asking us to mix apples and oranges now. >> i don't think so, justice. i think what i'm asking you to do is exactly what this court did in the knox case -- >> what you're asking us to do is to take a case in which the other side has thrown in the towel and completely given you every single thing you demanded in your complaint for relief, and you're asking us to opine on a law that's not on the books anymore. and one that's not on the books, not because of something necessarily the city did, but because the state, a party who's not a party to this litigation, has changed the law and prohibited them from doing. so this is, i think, something quite different. you're asking us to opine on an old law, not a new law. and the new law hasn't been reviewed below yet. >> in knox, the thrust of the underlying complaint was that the supplemental fee assessment that the union imposed on the members was unconstitutional. >> but you got what you want know. in terms of the contiguous, we don't

as nathaniel chipman put it, the laws of nature were the laws of social nature.ied to this was a relational theory of rights. there was a sharp rejection of blackstone's notion of private pre-social absolute rights. individuals had title to property, yes. title to property, but the use of property and rights generally were viewed as social or conventional in nature in the sense that rights were realized in society. asliberty is viewed impossible without society and dependent on society. so in turn, public power, state ance is the predicate of liberty. government was seen as having a duty for the common good and acting for the common good was the way in which liberty was promoted. the essence of law, the judicial role, was to make sure government acted for the general welfare. this protected the rights of the community, which in turn protected liberty. governance was viewed as pragmatic, dynamic. laws change as conditions change and those changing conditions had to do with market expansion, growth in cities, changes in technology and the like. that is the antebell

professor at both chicago law school and harvard law school, eventually serving as dean of harvard law for five years. thatlog oyez comments justice kagan brings a fresh perspective to the supreme court based on her prowess with technology and pop culture. [laughter] mr. anaya: i would add that she also brings to the court a wisdom grounded in a love for the law and a justice that can , and an awareness of the people in the world that it touches. kagan on thece stage this evening is the director of the byron white center, provost professor of civil rights law, suzette malveaux. [applause] mr. anaya: the professor is a nationally recognized expert and frequent commentator on civil rights and class action litigation. she joined the university of colorado law school just over a year ago from catholic university of america, and since then, her commitment to cutting edge scholarship, integrative teaching, and public service has have contributed to the life of the law school. after a discussion with justice kagan, professor malveaux will take a few questions for the justice that have been su

local law. the continuous and uninterrupted language cited friend is not in the state law. the city acknowledged that. in the city's enforcement position is that coffee stops, bathroom breaks, are entirely permissible. >> it's beyond a coffee stop or bathroom break. suppose they had prevailed under and obtained a judgment that the old law was a violation of the second amendment. suppose after that one of the plaintiffs had made a trip to a firing range and let's say new jersey and while they decided to stop to visit his mother for a couple hours to take care of a few things for her. would there be any law that would violate? >> i'm not certain it would. i think that would have to be a question now to be litigated under the state law. no,ch is something that >> no. we are back without the new laws city or state, would that have been legal conduct? >> if that had happened prior to the changes. >> after a judgment that the old law was unconstitutional, prior to the enactment of any new law? >> i do

that goes beyond licensing laws. that involves food truck laws, zoning laws. all kinds of things that go beyond the scope of licensing. is thatill tell you does exist. need a state license to get around that. there are other ways to approach that. that is a broader issue. sadly, that is something we continue to see in municipal codes. i don't think those approaches should be taken. >> i know we have quite a few regulatory boards concerned about sherman antitrust. i think it was the north carolina board of dental examiners. thank you for bringing that up. speech about in my constitutional challenges. specifically challenges to licenses. there are other ways to challenge these provisions in court. goingularly if you are after the makeup of the board. what happened there a few years ago, the supreme court ruled arrectly when you have government licensing board comprised of private actors, and that case dentists, they should of receive the same form challenges. saying, you cannot sue the government for violating antitrust licenses. board whois dental surprise deci

new law . city or state, without have been legal conduct west and mark. >> if that had happened prior to the changes. >> after a judge ruled that thewhole law was unconstitutional prior to the enactment of any new law. >> i don't think it's clear because those kind of questions were never put at issue or litigated in the case . >> you don't know whether there's any law that would violate ? >> if there were a judgment would have said our law had been struck down. i'm not aware of any city law . >> what is this case moot because they didn't get all that they wanted . they wanted a declaration that the old law was unconstitutional, period and what they had obtained as a result of a new city ordinance the new state law is a rule that says yes, you can take the firearm to a firing range outside of new york city but it must be a direct trip. it can include an hour spent with your mother. >> the answer is article reanalysis is always focused on what the plaintiff for, not speculation about what might

law.hey looked around the world in the late 1700s when they were developing the constitution and what they saw was that where a king could make the law and enforce it, tyranny was the result. perspective, the most important thing in the constitution was the structure, the separation of the powers. they wanted to maintain that as often and as long as possible. this is exactly the problem we are having today. the powers are no longer giving,d if congress is delegating, we say, it's legal authority to make laws to the executive branch, particularly to these agencies made up of unelected officials. the problem here is how do we stop this constant delegation of power to unelected officials who all live, basically, around washington dc, reflect the priorities of the people in and around washington dc and not the american people, who would be ordinarily represented by their congresspeople? those votes by congresspeople would be the votes of the american people but when they hand it over to execut

>> gun laws save lives gun laws save lives! gun laws save lives! gun laws save!lives >> that was awesome guys. are right, please give a big round of applause for our next speaker for tatiana washington from milwaukee, wisconsin. hi >> everyone. i hope that every single one of you are proud of yourself. it is so beautiful to look out and to see all of you. what we are doing here today is a +alid and is bigger than ourselves. but today i want to speak specifically to my peers and in doing so i hope that my words will encourage the generations before me to understand that those who look like me who spent hours making videos are vital in this movement. to my fellow youth do, not listen to anyone that tries to dismiss you and your voice, because your voting resilience is urgent. we are here fighting. because nearly 100 people die from guns every day. we are fighting because sandra pranks can't. we are fighting because three foreign martin can't. we are fighting because take jackson count. we are fighting because to me or rice count. we are fighting because china davis

has gone and we have done our work before before the law has been brought in the parliament this lawhas been logically passed by the parliament with majority this is how the laws are made in india there is a fear mongering lot of fear mongering going on among the people that has to be stopped people on the streets don't even know what this law is all 'd about so one has to stop the other mongering lot of quality built parties are. going to put that into tyrant is there an element of fear mongering here as day says this was a law that was passed by the pollen we saw in orinda modi speaking to a large crowd as as well today so there is still strong support for someone who as i've said before was just reelected a matter of months ago. look i think this argument of people who don't know what they're protesting at about is astonishingly patronize ing to the people of india. basically the point of course article 14 permits resemblant classification and the point is whether the classification is reasonable for a classification to be reasonable if your intention is to protect religious lead

and a professor at chicago law school and harvard law school and has been at the harvard law for five years planted comments that kagan brings a fresh perspective to the supreme court. based on her prowess, technology and pop culture. (laughs) i would add, that she also brings to the court a wisdom and i love for the law and the justice it could yield. an awareness of the people and the world that it touches. joining justice kagan onstage is the director of modern white center, provost center subset malveaux. (applause). professor is a nationally recognized expert and commentator an silver class action litigation. she joined the university of colorado just over a year ago from the university and since then, her commitment to cutting edge scholarships, innovating teaching public service contributed to the life of law school. after a discussion with justice kagan, malveaux will take a few questions for the justice that have been submitted by the law students in advance. i've been asked to addressed a view household members before i welcome justice kagan and professor malveaux to the sta

but gun owners went ahead with their legal challenge of the law. attorneys and advocates spoke outside the nation's highest court after arguments were completed. >> i represented the petitioners in the supreme court today. i don't know if there'll be questions from anybody but i wanted to say that we're gratified that the supreme court heard the argument in today's case. this is a very important case. my clients have been litigating this case for over five years. they've been represented by a great team that goes well beyond me. brian stapleton has been representing them if the very beginning of this litigation. and the reason they filed this lawsuit five years ago was to try to vindicate their rights under the second amendment. up until the point that the supreme court granted certiorari in this case, the city of new york resisted their efforts to vindicate their right at every turn and only when the supreme court granted certiorari petition in this case did the city start to take efforts to try to recognize their rights. the court asked a lot of

local law.d uninterrupted language cited friend is not in the state law. the city acknowledged that in the city's enforcement position is that coffee stops, bathroom breaks, are entirely permissible. >> it's beyond a coffee stop or bathroom break. suppose they had prevailed under and obtained a judgment that the old law was a violation of the second amendment. suppose after that one of the plaintiffs had made a trip to a firing range and let's say new jersey and while they are decided to stop to visit his mother for a couple hours to take care of a few things for her. would there be any law that would violate? >> i'm not certain it would. i think that would have to be a question now to be litigated under the state law. >> we are back without the new laws city or state, would that have been legal conduct?>> if that had happened prior to the changes cannot. >> after a judgment that the old law was unconstitutional, prior to the enactment of any new law? >> i don't think it's all clear. those kind

three different states, the same law. this was a law that involved the sale of caskets. it said when you die, you don't have to be buried if you don't want to be. are buried, you do not have to be buried in a casket if you do not want to be. if you want to be buried in a casket made out of wood, you can it from anyone you want as long as the person is from out of state. but if you buy it from someone in your state, they have to be a funeral director. a casket is just a wooden box. the whole reason the laws existed is because field directors -- funeral directors made a tremendous amount of money selling as middlemen, jacking up prices on caskets to grieving families. the first case was in tennessee, challenging the law i just described. about 20 years ago. it was a federal case, federal rational basis case. we negated every possible conceivable rationale that the government came up with, which is the job of the government to come up with stuff even if it was totally unrelated to the law. the case boiled down to -- this is how bad it was. the case boiled down to whether pr

law enforcement mission. i'd like to begin with the review ability question. if the attorney general were to say that he wasn't going to seek death penalty prosecutions because he thought the death penalty was unconstitutional, that would be immune from judicial review and if a new attorney general came in and reversed that policy because he believed that the death penalty was constitutional and that would likewise be immune from review. a strange element to your argument because you're arguing this is a discretionary matter. it's not reviewable because it's committed to agency discretion. on the other hand, you say the agency had no discretion because this program was illegal. in other words, the law requires you to drop daca. so how can it be committed to your discretion when you're saying we have no discretion. this is an illegal program. >> for two reason, your honor. first, we put forward legal and policy reasons for the rescission. so this case is on all fours with cheney where the fda likewise put fort

we don't want people to be caught by surprise by what the law is. i want them to follow the law. that is a much better plan for the agency than having us come back to years later and trying to see if someone deserves a penalty for violating the law. wouldn't it be better to make sure everyone knows upfront where the lines are so that they can comply with the law and everyone is playing by the same set of rules? thosed like to add, to who argue this is political or partisan, you can look at my voting record. i have voted to enforce the law against the highest-ranking officials of both parties over the years. i gave a case where i voted to enforce the law against hillary clinton, against barack obama, against the current president, donald trump, the last republican president, george w. bush -- i don't care who violated the law, it is my obligation to ensure everyone is complying with the law and to enforce it fairly, regardless of rank and party. michelle: speaking of the issues the public cares about, we had indictments relating to influence operations by foreign entities who are

and improving law. and i also feel strongly that the discussion of forgiveness, while we as individuals should be able to decide who and when we want to forget, if the legal system will use these tools bankruptcy or pardon it should do so in a way that reflects the rule of law treating the like and being fair and evenhanded, one of my favorite cartoons from the new yorker shows a judge with a big nose and mustache looking down who is the same nose of the same stash and says i'm not guilty. this is a danger of human beings that we have biases and prejudice and we should be held to account, are we acting on those or are we applying fairly in the sense of letting the swimmer in stanford off lightly as a judge did for sexual assault because he did a brilliant future out of him. what about the others who adjudge does not recognize of having a brilliant future ahead of them. that is bad that is wrong. >> its emotional when we think we think about the law exercising mercy, it can do it in a moving way and it's

how anymy law clerks, federal criminal laws are there. they came back and told me there are about 4000 4500 federal -- federal4500 criminal laws. how many of those criminal laws are there. they came back and they scratch their head, and they went to the library. i had to ask them for a few times for an answer. boss, theyot this, stopped counting. [laughter] justice gorsuch: they stopped counting. i think in the 1990's. even academics cannot keep up. at that time, it was over 300,000 federal criminal laws. created by agencies. some of them are vitally important. -- i give athem couple of examples in the book. ometer, ifck consist you do not label it as substandard, that is a problem. if you sell mattresses and you tear off that tag, oh! you are a federal criminal. [laughter] justice gorsuch: i have la cresta or friend to say literally, they think, probably everybody over the age of 18 has probably committed a federal crime. i worry about access to justice. i worry about overcoming was asian. --orry when the prosecutor over criminalization.

this law would do that so the law would be ineffective against american companies.uld win in a court in china with that case. but whether that's still in the agreement we discussed now, probably not. a lot of the harder issues are being put off to phase two or phase three. the president wants to get the benefit of phase one locked in, the purchases of agricultural product and get this enforcement mechanism going so the first complaints can be tried, assuming there will be and lot of complaints and we'll see if the chinese will abide by the enforcement mechanism. lou: this is a strange architecture you are describing. >> yes, and i'm afraid it's true. >> as i listen to you, it sounds like a wish and a hope that we would have compliance on the part of the chinese. that they will keep their side of the deal. when we have 30 years of history telling us they never do. there is an exception to that that i am aware of. >> there are some exceptions, but when it's in china's interest, they will keep the agreement. one thing the president has spoken about that i strongly favo

these are the laws that are going to save lives. we have a lot of student advocates, in something that one of them said really struck me. kid said i live in a violent neighborhood, there's a lot of gun violence. and for me, school is the safest part of my day. it's the walk to school and the walk home from school where i feel threatened. this isn't a threat that manifest itself exclusively inside schools. it is a broad, social problem. you have one third of all americans according to recent polling, kids and adults who fear going out in public places as of the threat of gun violence. this is a broad problem that we need comprehensive solutions with regard to gun access to address. >> and with what is happening on a state level. >> a lot is happening on a state level. that has been one of our larger and more unheralded areas of success for the past seven years that we have passed roughly 325 bills in 45 states. those have ranged to significant expansions, background check requirements, red flag laws, and others to more minor pieces o

let china have its on the rule of law this is the rule of law all offenses at is as it see fits we are not talking about britain we are not talk here by your united states we are talking about a sovereign government with legal rights to deal with the threats of terrorism and extremism we are talking about lies asia that's the key in china no one in china wants to be a victim of terrorism the guy you're like you know that he was a shirt according to the doctors you're looking at people who harbor vague understandings negative attitudes or even feelings of resistance carry out education transformation to ensure that results achieve that's the instruction that beijing gives you look here people who harbor vague understanding is that all they've ever done wrong and for that you put them in one of these camps and throw away the key so you're wrong and you think that's ok and i think a lot of people including the u.n. and human rights organizations believe that you have forfeited the right country so you are quoting something as if it is from the bible no this is not sacred things this may n

in numerous books and journals, such as the boston college law review, cornell law review, florida law review, harvard civil rights, civil liberties law review and i can't list all of them. while at the harvard law school, where he received his law degree, he was one of the editors of the harvard law review and later a senior fellow at the charles hamilton institute for race and justice. he is also an elected member of the american law institute. we are very pleased to have you and i look forward to this conversation. >> >> your work with the national trust for historic preservation gives history a tangible form. i like to tell my students that you can learn history in books but you can also learn history museums. there is something really special standing in standing in those places where history was made. please talk about why it is so important to preserve sites of slavery and why your action fund is so crucial for capturing 400 years of perseverance. >> >> i want to thank you for having me here today. at the natural national trust for his torque preservation, we preserve places whe

and not the law but it is policy it. allow me allow me just for the sake of time at a strictly be j.p. policy i mean the the union home minister ahmed shah said this in april and i'm quoting 1st we will bring citizenship amendment bill and we will get citizenship to the hindu buddhist a sikh and christian refugees the religious minorities from the neighboring nations then we will implement the n.r.c. to flush out the infiltrators from our country who is he talking about here. you know he's talking of all the very large number more than 20000000 illegal immigrants who have who are not facing any of their life but who are mostly come across the border borrowed from bangladesh in eastern india if you know the india bangladesh border is more than 4100 kilometers long and the kind of carry there is it can't all be policed so there are lots of people have come in for economic opportunities and you know it would be solved in steam to reserve the right to limit immigration i mean india is a poor country under the mill of the cou

because the overarching issue is that laws are created, african americans follow the laws, then the laws are changed. that theme takes place for 400 years. so let us begin with the arrival of the 20 africans. those hostages who had been taken from an goala arrive on the shores in the virginia colony. there are no slave laws. there are no slave laws in the colony. so you have european inden toured servants operating under a contract for a certain number of years of servitude where they have to work for free and they're paying back the cost of travel to this new land, this new world. and their room and board, et cetera, and they're doing that threw their own labor. they're basicallily white slaves. when these africans arrive in the cop colony it's unknown what their status is but because there are no slave laws they were not slaves at the time. they were enslaved. and so the question then becomes, there are, you know, this quasi legal status of an inden toured african servant. and we know they couldn't have automatically have been slaves. this is a controversial point for historians, very

signing gun safety reforms into law. if you think about the decades in our rearview where gun safety was considered a political third rail. even in a situation, 2010, obama and the white house. a vetoproof, filibuster proof majority, where nothing happens and guns. -- nothing happened on guns. fast-forward today, the country is ready for reform. you have one political party running and winning on this issue. we have made tremendous strides. our greatest progress is still to come. in the blink of an eye, we have an opportunity to see significant reforms in the near future. >> let's say that that does happen and there are laws passed. the supreme court is hearing a gun case for the first time in about a decade. the right to have a handgun. it is about transportation. they have passed on different types of gun regulations. what can you and your group do to ensure if laws do get past, they are not overturned by the courts? >> we should be clear about what this case represents. it is a challenge against an arcane policy that

industry could assist law enforcement with that as well, something that might have to change some laws to be able to accomplish. but doing more data analytics, making more use of open-source information, and i think also reinvigorating government's ability to use human sources, informants in organizations, undercover operations. the government has to do a better job of doing that. in my experience, those are the kinds of investigations that are the most effective, when you have good human sources in the places where they need to be. it's harder to do, it's more expensive, but it's more effective. >> we'll go to questions from the audience. >> i take jim's point. investigation in a child exploitation case, there's no substitute for having access to the images of the child who's been exploited. you might have a toddler and the individual who's abusing that toddler, there's no one else involved in that transaction, there's no only way to get that information. if that person is disseminating those images, there's no other way to get that information than to have access to the content of th

sign the 2020 national defense authorization act into law. the sanctions target companies involved in the almost 10000000000 euro project to double the pipeline capacity carrying russian natural gas to europe's leading economy germany most of that pipeline has been completed all seized the company building the unfinished section through danish territorial waters announced it was holding its work in anticipation of the new law washington had made it clear in advance that noncompliance would have consequences you know senator cruz who is the sponsor of the bill wrote a letter to the c.e.o. of aussies today basically saying as soon as this bill is signed into law you're out of compliance and you are subject to sanctions so it's a it's a it's a hot topic. the u.s. move has angered germany a longtime ally. rejects the idea that washington can legally impose sanctions on 3rd parties the. next time we have long been against extraterritorial sanctions we have the same problem with iran. in my opinion the only solution is to hold talks very decisive t

as written the law as purpose and the law and i think frankly i think that setting up the wrong question with all due respect to our host is this isn't about the law this is about policy and this is about individuals that are vested in their agencies vested in their political part of some points of view right that are seeking policy the best example and i want to get into the impeachment is ukraine was about foreign policy the united states the kept repeating the words irregular not a legal irregular irregular irregular president trump can decide whatever policy he wants the chain saw is that the bureaucrats who think they know better and are going to do the right out the administration i found that usa id i founded in the government in 1990 s. frustrate the intended policies of the minnesota shooting i think you're going to let me ask you if i had actually know better because it's not a surprise to you but it was a no no there is a fuzzy line but there is little there is law there is no actual law that has a broken in their case let me ask you what are you hearing about out of the n.r.a

common sense laws save lives. >> you know there are other cases coming even if you stop this.ou know there are other cases coming. what is your objective ultimately? in the next case and the next case. because there are five justices now who have record of being pretty hospitable to claims against gun regulation. >> ultimately we want the court to uphold reasonable interpretations that ensure that things like background checks, extreme risk laws that have now been active in 17 states and the district of columbia and indeed assault weapons ban can be upheld. that is our objective. certainly we are working with congress and in the courts to make that happen. >> thank you.

it is about a new york city gun law about transportation. they have passed on different types of gun regulations. what can you and your group do to ensure if laws do get past, they are not overturned by the courts? peter: let's be very clear about what this case is and what it represents. what it is is a challenge against an arcane policy that existed in new york city. it has never existed anywhere else and does not currently exist anywhere at all. prohibited from existing in new york city and across the state. it is for all functional purposes mooted out. but what this represents is the nra attempting to make an end run around voters. they see the politics of this issue shifting. in 2018, we spent more on politics than the nra did for the first time ever. last year, voters elevated gun safety as their second most important issue. this year, in a virginia off cycle election, it was the number one issue. we see guns commanding a more important place in the political debate going forward. we are fighting hard. we have been involved in supreme

is not a monolithic block it exists in 7000 diocese and the pope is the only one according to canon law who can really sanction a priest a bishop so it is now now it is possible since 1st of june with a new law that has been established that the local metropolitan the archbishop can and needs to oversee what the bishops in his district do or don't and he has to report if there is a failure negligence or cover up ok well let's talk about accountability in more detail below to but in january this year the pope criticized bishops in the u.s. for covering up sexual abuse and indulging in gossip and slander to avoid responsibility was painful he said to watch in a piss kaputt lacking in nudity and concentrate more on pointing fingers than on seeking part of reconciliation if it was so painful to him why not use the remedy that was staring him in the face and remains in his hands today so the bishops sacked as many as you have to in order to restore some public trust in the church. but you know if he doesn't do that you say yes but he didn't do that he did it yesterday one yeah and over the l

give your law clerks. can you share this with us? >> while they go about the judges rule in the constitution. on their very simple. i tell them if you do these two things, we are going to get along just fine this year. i don't care how you come dressed her work, i don't care more or less what hours you work, i would like to see it from time to time. [laughter] but i just have two rules. first, please don't make anything up. just follow the law as faithfully as you can. that's the judges job. so help me with that. that's hard enough. figuring out what the law is. those words on the page mean. with their original meeting was. and applying them to new circumstances, that's hard. that's rule number one. rule number two, when people start yelling, asking you begging you to make stuff up, telling you you're a terrible person if you don't make stuff up. telling you worst of all they might not invite you to their cocktail parties if you don't. just refer back to rule number one. [laughter] [applause] thank you. >>

from jail law school. he also served as a law clerk for justice david suitor of the united states supreme court. pame pamela car len serves as the co-director of the preem sourt litigation clinic at stanford law school. she is the ko author of several case books and dozens of scholarly articles. she deserved as a law clerk to justice harry blackburn of the united states supreme court and is a deputy assistant attorney general of the civil rights decision in the united states department of justice where she was responsible, among other things, for reviewing the work of the department's voting. she earned three degrees from yale university, a b.a. in history, an m.a. in history and a j.d. from jail law school. michael gerhardt is the distinguished professor of jury is prudence on the center of law and government. professor gerhardt is the author of many books, including constitutional and historical analysis, as well as more than 50 law review publications on a diverse range of topics of law, federal jurisdi

not the law. however those legal definitions and standards which i've addressed in my testimony are the very thing that divide rage from reason. this all brings up to me, and i will conclude with this, of a scene from a man for all seasons, by with sir thomas moore when his son-in-law william roper put the law, suggested that moore was putting the law ahead of morality. he said moore would give the devil the benefit of the law. when moore asks roper, would he instead cut a great road through the law to get after the devil, roper proudly declares, yes, i'd cut down every law of england to do that. moore spontds, and when the last law is cut down, and the devil turned around on you, where would you hide, roper? all the laws being flat. he said, this country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws, not god's. and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? and he finished by saying, yes, i'd g