if you pair that with this law, it looks like this law was designed to avoid the review that that law kind of openly would be available under -- >> no doubt texas, just like every other state when passing its laws, is well aware of the limits of federal jurisdiction and federal courts. no doubt, texas crafted its law, in part, because it wanted to avoid federal challenges, opposed to having the challenges in state court. i agree, this is an obvious way this law functions. that having been said, texas doesn't commit a constitutional wrong by challenging its state court challenges into state court. that is not an independent constitutional obligation that texas is under. it doesn't have to fly blind, as far as the collateral effects of what kinds of challenges received when it decides how to structure a law. >> it does >> but it does have an obligation to follow, to respect people's federal constitutional rights. >> absolutely, your honor. again -- >> so if it's attempting to stifle those rights, chill their exercise and keep plaintiffs away from a 1983 action and ex parte young liabili

to enforce texas law. if there is an agent who can enforce the law in part or in whole and they are sued than everyone else in the enforcement chain is enjoined. so every private citizen here has been deputized by the state to enforce this law for the bounty. then, why would not an injunction against the ag bar those citizens from going into court? the district attorneys or police officers from arresting people once the order has been issued. or district attorneys from prosecuting for violation of the law that a court has found unconstitutional. and so, the attorney general the representative of the state is not legal. >> two points or honor or else a one on the attorney general side one on the private litigants cyber on the private litigant side there is no deputization of individuals. >> assume i disagree. because you did not answer to my satisfaction justice thomases point that i have never seen a tort that does not give you redress for your harm pretty gives you redress for bringing the suit. and wheth

these laws. the district court said that wasn't true. it has direct enforce, with regard to sba's fee shift provision, concerning any legal challenge to any abortion restriction or regulation, and may also have some constitutional authority under texas law to enforce texas law. the ex parte young fiction was that if there is an agent who can enforce the law in part or in whole, and they're ensued, then everyone else in the enforcement chain is in joint. so if every private citizen here has been deputized by the state to enforce this law for the bounty, then why wouldn't an injunction against the ag bar those citizens from going into court. just the way it would bar district attorneys or police officers from arresting people once that order has been issued. or district attorneys from prosecuting those people for a violation of the law that a court has found unconstitutional. until the attorney general, the representative of the state is not legal. >> two points, your honor, i'll say one on the att

that's an obvious purpose of this law and the obvious way law functions. texas doesn't commit a constitutional wrong by challenging state court challenges into state court. that's not an independent constitutional obligation that texas is under. it's not -- it doesn't have to sort of fly blind as far as the collateral effects of what kind of challenges that were received when it decides how to structure a law. >> but it does have an obligation to follow, to respect people's federal constitutional rights. >> absolutely, your honor. again -- >> so if it's attempting to stifle those rights, chill their exercise and keep plaintiffs away from a 1983 action and ex parte young liability, you say there is nothing wrong with that? >> your honor, the limits of section 1983 and ex parte young 'availability, specifically 1983, congress could ex tend ex parte young, are a matter of congress. the idea that texas would design a tort statute or liability that takes that in mind and says these cases have to go through the state tort system. for that matter, appellate judge

law and provides relief based on that state law. but do you think a judge is enforcing a law when the judge merely begins to adjudicate the case? mr. hearron: i think one way of potentially looking at it is that by requiring, so, in a sense, and one way of looking at it is by requiring litigants to be in court and requiring them to make filings and appear in court, it would, because, here, it would be multiplied in courts. justice alito: i mean, really? i mean suppose a legislature enacted a statute that said henceforth people of a certain race may not make any public statement, and someone brings suit under that. the judge begins to enforce that just by entertaining the suit? mr. hearron: i think, in -- justice alito: even if it's certain that at the end of the case the judge is going to say no, this is an invalid -- this is an unconstitutional statute? mr. hearron: i think, in certain circumstances, that even in a situation like s.b. 8, where the point is the filing of the suit and the point is the making you appear in courts all

but the state of texasis block those laws. state of texas is not responsible for enforcing this law. it has passed that task to any ordinary civilian or ordinary citizen and ordinary citizens can be taken to federal court. this is the problem for the abortion providers and the supreme court agreed this was unacceptable they could provide a narrow pathway for the abortion clinics to actually take this to federal court and pursue their case. however, they were very disappointed that the court did not block the law in the meantime. thejustices court did not block the law in the meantime. the justices and conservative justices refused to grant a request that the law be put on hold while this legal action was taken place and they said that was a big disappointment because it's a very extreme and it bans abortions at roughly six weeks and has created great difficulties for women seeking abortions. where can things go from here? you mentioned that abortion rights activists might have a narrow pathway here but what might happen next?

highly visible presence of law enforcement. a very overt and public security presence in and around district of columbia and state capitols around the country. what did we see reflected on social media and extremist platforms, cognizance of those security measures and reluctance to come to washington because those planning acts of violence viewed it as a trap being set for their arrest or viewed it as not the right time to come and engage because of security presence. so our analysis has focused much more on understanding when there may be a potential act of violence and then taking steps, sometimes very visible steps and public steps to create physical security measures that serve as a deterrent. >> chairman schiff. >> ranking member crawford. >> thank you mr. chairman. actually would have some questions about recent open source reporting about an october 29th isis threat and unidentified mall in northern virginia. i'll save those for secure setting. but i would like to ask you director langden which fbi headquarters element h

law. it is always important to remember the fbi cannot open an investigation based solely on first amendment protected activity. as such, the fbi divides the domestic terrorism threat into five broad categories. one, racially or ethnically motivated extremism. to, anti government or anti authority violent extremism. which has three subcategories. militia violent extremism, anarchists violent extremism, and sovereign citizen violated extremism. the three animal rights, environmental extremism, for abortion related violent extremism. a five, all other domestic threats which consist of domestic violent extremism with blended, personalize extremist ideologies, not otherwise defined under one of the previous categories i mentioned. we assess that racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists advocating for the spirit of the white race an anti authority or anti government violent extremist specifically, militia violent extremist, present the most lethal threats. with racially or ethnically

law enforcement likes to say they are only enforcing the laws and don't make laws, but the secret of forfeiture reform is the only entity opposed is law enforcement and it is a powerful lobby. i have personal experience with reform efforts in states like missouri, where there has been widespread bipartisan support for forfeiture reform, eliminating the equitable sharing loophole, and prosecutors and individuals from st. charles county, which profits substantially from civil forfeiture, come in and lobby key legislators and basically say you do not want to look soft on crime. you will be taking money out of law enforcement's pockets and we will make you pay for that politically, and that sort of process repeats itself all around the country when there are forfeiture reform efforts. they are almost always bipartisan, supported nearly unanimously, and yet law enforcement opposes these efforts because they view it as taking money out of their pockets, and that's the primary obstacle that people who want to reform civil forfeiture law face, that law enforcement is a powerful lobby, able t

so the law is still enforced. secondly, it does allow lawsuits to proceed against the state by abortion providers. now, remember, the issue here before the supreme court was not the constitutionality of this law or whether it violated federal statutes. it was simply the structure of the law. the supreme court wasn't being asked to overturn it. the only question before the supreme court is whether two lawsuits, two kinds of lawsuits could proceed in texas to challenge the law. one was one filed by the biden administration. the supreme court says, no, that one can't go ahead. the second one was lawsuits brought by abortion providers in texas. the supreme court says, yes, that can go ahead, but it ties one hand behind the backs of the abortion providers, because it narrows down the universe of people they can sue. ultimately, that may not matter if they can get a decision even with those defendants that the law is unconstitutional. the reason here there's some optimism for abortion providers in texas is that the if t

it is common-law. the idea is that if somebody from massachusetts goes to pennsylvania, pennsylvania has to afford that person all of those same basic privileges and immunities. can't treat them as aliens. that was a basic idea. what's more, states have to treat all of their citizens -- think now of the freed men, which are being denied those rights under the black codes -- they have to treat all of their own citizens in the same way. so you can't treat your black citizens as aliens either. everybody is entitled to that same set of fundamental privileges and immunities on an equal basis. i don't actually think that allows judges to say, here is something i think should be a privilege and immunity. it is, what are those that are long recognized mostly common-law base rates? i was giving a talk on this. the newspaper that morning had headline that said something like, two people have a right to engage in cloning themselves? -- do people have a right to engage in cloning themselves? i began to talk about

under common law means the state of the law made by the courts, not statutes, not constitutional law, just court made law. and that judge-made law was very clear that women were able. it was not criminalized up to a certain point in pregnancy, it was a decision they could make themselves. that is remarkable that women were able to do that. so history and tradition is actually very firmly on our side, whether if one looks on a specific level, or if one looks generally, that the ability to make these kind of critical decisions about family and childbearing. emily: alright. ray from prism, while we wait for a decision, how can people who live out of state to support those seeking abortion care? nancy: a few things on that. you can support them directly by supporting the abortion providers that exist in many states. unfortunately in many states, mississippi being one of them, their medicaid programs don't have abortion care for the health care system. also other groups that provide support and advocacy for abortion rights. it is also critically important that everybody make their senators

i am a law professor at georgetown law school.m former director of the bureau of consumer protection at the federal trade commission. i strongly support legislation before congress today. it will provide funding to the ftc to create a new technology center bureau. to safeguard your constituents privacy and data security. this proposal builds on the chairs 2019 privacy bill, which also calls for a new technology bureau within the ftc. i support the legislation because it will begin to rectify the current underfunding and understaffing of the federal trade commission. it started in the 1980's when the ftc's budget and staff allocations were literally cut in half. since then, as both of you have mentioned, the nation's gross domestic product has grown financially. the ftc now enforces more than 50 additional laws than it did back in 1980. but today, the ftc is significantly smaller. both in terms of staffing and funding than it was in 1980. as best as i can tell, that is not true for any other federal agency. and because federal budg

section ii requires that state voting laws, including laws that drawn electoral maps, provide eligible voters with an equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process and to elect representatives of their choosing. the complaint we have filed alleges that texas has violated section ii by redistricting plans that violate the rights of latino and black voters to vote on account of their lease or -- of their race or membership in a linkage group. in 2015, the supreme court effectively limited the preclearance provisions of the voting rights act. earlier this year, i noted that this redistricting cycle would be the first since 1960 without the protection of preclearance. i also said that the department should use all available authorities and resources to continue protecting the right to vote. in september the department published guidance based on decades of precedent explaining that section two prohibits vote dilution. when we issued that guidance, i noted that discriminatory redistricting schemes are illegal and that the department would assess jurisdiction compliance with tho

can enforce this law. whether it's ordinary citizens, the attorney general, state licensing officials, clerks of court or as shelley recognized the court system that would enforce a restrictive covenant demanding segregation. why aren't we in exactly that same position? >> they would be bound if they could satisfy the test of rule 65 which says they have to be acting in active concert. >> why? each of them is acting under the directives of the state law so why aren't they acting like the state? >> i respectfully disagree with that characterization. >> i know you disagree. >> i'm going to explain why i disagree with it. the state is anyway directing the activity, the state in that directing the activity of these private individuals. this date has passed a law that gives them the option to sue and washed its hands of the matter. there is no joint participation with the state in their decision -- >> how is that any different from there being state action when a prosecutor exercises a discriminatory challenge?

wade does not make any laws. what it does is prohibit --how do i put it --it prohibits you from -- no, it allows for states to pass laws that would allow abortion. it doesn't require that they pass laws to allow abortion. now, i know you don't comment and you're going to push the button on me, i can see your hand down there. host: i'm not doing that. i have to eventually. caller: i'm going to the video, there is a time delay, sorry. one more point and i will get off. why can't mississippi make its own laws? i will tell you why. because we fought a civil war. in the federal government in the north won. and the south is under that defeat and it hasn't changed. i believe mississippi should be able to make its own laws, i mean, i'm not pro-abortion, either, but we need to kind of keep within the boundaries of law, you should maybe recharacterize the argument as not being pro-or roe v. wade should be overturned, because that is not what they're saying. host: midland, texas. good morning. caller: i just wanted to say,

stand your ground laws. stand your ground laws are an extension of the castle doctrine to areas outside of an individual's home such as there is no duty to retreat for self-defense. the name is derived from statutory language. found in several states. this results in the imbalance, if you will, of justice. racial disparities are much larger as white on black homicides have justifiable findings. 33% more often than black on white homicides. as white as the father and son thought that they could kill arbery, they were hoping for the odds that they would be found not guilty because they killed a black man and they claimed self-defense. stand your ground laws appear to extra date those differences as cases overall are more likely to be ruled justified in stand your ground states than nonstand your ground states. we'll talk about one of the most notorious cases. with respect to race controlling for all other attributes, the odds a white on black homicide is found justified in 281% greater than the odds of a white

this law is clearly unconstitutional.'s happened is politics have intervened. we had donald trump, who committed to only put on justices of the supreme court that were prepared to overturn roe v. wade. he got three justices on the court. he shifted the balance, and this is their opportunity, the republican party's opportunity to finally take away a right that women have had in this country for nearly 50 years. this mississippi case, of course, as i think the anti-choice person said, what the mississippi attorney general is saying, you should overturn roe completely. that means, take away this right completely. and it's really important to understand, this is being argued with the backdrop of the texas abortion ban, which has now been in effect for almost three months. especially in the state of texas, roe does not exist. and this supreme court has done nothing, nothing to intervene and to protect that right, so the stakes could not be higher today in this argument before the supreme court. >> cecile richards, thank you ve

we copy the law, there we are. if you're in that situation, which i'm sure you're glad you're not, what? what would you do? if we uphold this are we retro actively upholding that? >> congress specifically provided. >> this is before congress. congress was no help, they did nothing, or if they did something and i'm unaware of it, if any, they did something i'm assuming it was hypothetical. >> fair enough, your honor. the answer is there would have to be recourse. >> this is arkansas in 1957. >> sure, your honor, and that court would be obligated to apply this court's decisions. >> yeah, but they didn't. we have some experience. and most of those cases that came up in that period to this court, the judges were aware of that experience and they tried to shape the law to avoid it. is there anything that you can think of, i'm getting your answer is no, you cannot think of anything. the only thing we would have to say then is that it is up to the state of arkansas's judges. >> the problem, your honor, is the number one t

, then it's not clear who can be sued to try and stop the law.at's going on in texas. really all of the arguments in texas yesterday and the supreme court, excuse me, last week in the supreme court were about who can be sued to stop this law from going into effect or who can be sued to stop this law from continuing in effect. when you have a private individual, not the state, who is enforcing it, then it's not clear that there is any person that you can haul into federal court to say, look, you need to stop enforcement of this law and that's why we say it's insulated from judicial review. it means that we don't know who to sue in federal court. kristen: and the impact in texas has already been that providers who are scared not knowing who can sue them or who they can go challenge, they've kind of stopped doing what they do and so i don't know if governor newsom is trying to achieve that here. what needs to happen, he needs to get a bill written, the legislature has to pass something, of course, there are court challenges. do you think the governo

it's settled law. that all sounds a lot like, to quote the president of the united states, a bunch of malarkey if you have every intention to disrupt what your own precedent already says only because there is new people on this court. nothing else has changed. >> and speaking of that idea of precedent, nia, and what they have said before, this is brett kavanaugh, what he had to say during a senate confirmation hearing. listen to this. >> what would you say your position today is on a woman's right to choose? >> as a judge -- >> as a judge. >> as a judge, it is an important precedent of the supreme court. by it, i mean roe v. wade and planned parenthood versus casey been reaffirmed many times. casey is precedent on precedent. which itself is an important factor. >> okay. now susan collins around that time. >> we talked about whether he considered roe to be settled law. he said that he agreed with what justice roberts said at his nomination hearing in which he said that it was settled law. >> okay, nia.

it does not really maybe on the law and respect the law. so the problem with international law is that there's actually no one to enforce that. when you, when you, when you have nato, is the only power who could basically bomb countries and bade countries or have the us military. and the only military, who can i beg globally. you do not have international law. you have the u. s. big status. international law. so the problem, the problem is that the national law does not work and everybody's trying to actually make it work. russia is trying to make it work chinese trying to make it work. but the u. s. i think it's, they're really interested in making it work because it's because international law may make russia right on some issues may make china right. and somebody here and i don't think the u. s. is likes to be told that it's not right. or some of the issues and a couple of words about democracy. sure, it's not as powerful as it was before, but no actually has any alternative. china, but not constant tucker system in russia does not have

the restrictive law in texas, you support that law? >> caller: i do support it, and i have four girls and i support it. my youngest just turned 11 today and i am a good parent so i know what each one of my kids are doing and i'm very in touch with them and i feel like, you know, we should have restrictions on abortion. >> right, but what happens if, what happens if the worst case scenario, what happens if one of your girls gets pregnant at a young age and isn't ready to take on motherhood what do you think you would do? >> caller: i was actually rped when i was 13 but i didn't do anything about it, i prayed and i had a miscarriage so i feel like we should provide good parenting for our children and if we have good parenting for our children, we won't need to worry about where were they and what happened to them? i mean, i've been a homeschooling mom for years and i feel like knowing where your kids are and having that interpersonal relationship leads them to not have the what-if moment and go behind your back and have an abortion. >> o

courts below struck the law done. it didn't matter that law applies when an unborn child is human, risks to women surge, and when the common abortion procedure is brutal. the lower courts held that because the law prohibits abortions before viability, it is unconstitutional, no matter what. roe and casey's core holding according to those courts is the people can protect an unborn girl's life when she can barely survive outside the womb but not earlier when she needs a little more help. that is the world. that is not the world the constitution promises. the constitution places its trust in the people, on hard issue after hard issue, the people make this country work. abortion is a hard issue. it demands the best from all of us, not a judgment, by just a few of us. when an issue affects everyone and when the constitution does not take sides on it, it belongs to the people. roe and casey have failed, but the people, if given the chance, will succeed. this court should overrule roe and casey and uphold the state's law. i

from this law professor...nt that a woman is carrying a live human being in her womb and states should be allowed to prevent the killing of human beings. ..to this protester in texas... and as we can consider why america has reached this moment and why it matters so much, also let's consider this — polling earlier this year found that overall, 59% of us adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 39% say it should be illegal. and then this is the same poll in 1995. despite the political polarisation, there remains a solid majority in favour of abortion rights. butjudicial and political power don't always match the majority and in 2016, having won fewer votes than hillary clinton and 46% overall, donald trump became president of america and when he was required to, he selected three supreme courtjustices. it was a political triumph for him and for the christian right. the consequences of that election and those appointments now look likely to deliver a culmination ofa 50—year campaign to redu

you were a harvard law professor. curious, when you go to harvard law school and you are at the top of your class, you start harvard law school there is always an intimidation factor. you have 600 people, you have to figure out if you are going to be good or not. when did you realize you were good at law school, taking exams? did you know right away you're going to be a great law school student, and therefore potentially became a professor? or were you nervous the first year or so? justice breyer: [laughs] i was pretty nervous. i remember talking to a friend of mine that i was an undergraduate with, and he was there too. we both said, this is the end of our great careers after our first year. and we both did pretty well in law school. david: you were in the harvard law review and sometimes you get to clerk on the supreme court and you clerked for -- justice breyer: arthur goldberg. -- david: and what was that like? justice breyer: he was great. he had loads of energy. jack kennedy said he was the smartest man he ever

s. dictated international law. so the problem, the problem is that the national law does not work and everybody's trying to actually make it work. russia is trying to make it work chinese trying to make war, but the u. s. i don't think it's, they're really interested in making it work because it, because international law may make russia right on some issues, may china, right. and somebody here. and i don't think the us is likes to be told that it's not right on some of the issues and a couple of words about democracy. sure, it's not as powerful as it was before, but no actually has any alternative. china, but not constant talker system in russia, does not have done traditional value summit. so that's where the us actually seems to have the upper hand. i need to have something to show her for a while while we don't. and i think that international law is something that may help us driving forward, but i don't think until the us is taken off. it's purch asked a so super bowl or, or, or until it realizes it is no long

this law will bar them from doing so. and a reasonable possibility standard would be completely unworkable for the courts. it would be both less principled and less workable than viability. some of the reasons for that are, without viability, there will be no stopping point. states will rush to ban abortion at virtually any point in pregnancy. mississippi itself has a six-week ban, defending with very similar arguments it's using to defend the 15-week ban. the state's -- >> i know, but i would like to focus on the 15-week ban because that's not a dramatic departure from viability. it is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have. when you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the people's republic of china and north korea. and i don't think you have to be in favor of looking to international law to set our constitutional standards to be concerned if those are your -- share that particular time period. >> i think there's two questions there, your honor, if i may. first, that is not cor

a law school professor?were you nervous the first year or so? justice breyer: [laughs] i got pretty nervous. i remember talking to a friend of mine that i was an undergraduate with, and he was there too. we both said, well, this is the end of our great careers after our first year. [laughter] and we both did pretty well in law school. david: you were in the harvard law review, and sometimes you get to clerk on the supreme court for another justice and you clerked for -- justice breyer: arthur goldberg. david: and what was that like? justice breyer: it was terrific. he was great. he was an enthusiast, had loads of energy. jack kennedy said he was the smartest man he ever met. david: so you clerked for him and then you went to teach at harvard law school. justice breyer: that's right. david: when you went to harvard law school, did you say, "this is going to be my life?" "i am going to be a professor, nothing terrible about that, you can teach great law school students." or did you say, "maybe i will be on the

because we're not a law enforcement committee. i do have some questions, but because of the nature of the questions, you won't be able to answer them. so i will hold them and submit them in writing for your response. again, that we could do in a secure environment. one final thought if i could. i want you to know we have no interest at all in curtailing any of the appropriate authorities. we understand that you have a role to play and that it's difficult and you need to use the tools available to you. all we want is transparency and honesty in how those authorities are employed. and to not expand those authorities as i have expressed my concern here today. so again, we do have some comments and some additional questions. i'll submit those in writing and hopefully we can get a response in the appropriate setting. with that, i'll yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. welch. >> thank you very much. thank you very much. mr. cohen, first of all, i want to say that my understanding is that you don't seek to be doing surveillance

law. it is always important to remember the fbi can't open an investigation based solely on fbi protected activity. one, racially or ethically motivated extremism. two, anti-government or anti-authority violence extremism which has three subcategories. militia violence extremism, an arkest violence extremist and sovereign citizen violent extremism. and finally five, all other domestic threats which consistent of blended or personal extremist ideologies not otherwise defined under the previous categories i mentioned. we assess racially or ethically motivated extremists advocating for the superiority of the white race or anti-government violent extremists present the most lethal threats with and militia violent extremists typically targeting law enforcement and government personnel facilities. in 2010 or 2020 racially ethnically motivated extremists for committed 18 lethal attacks in the united states killing 70 people including those in charleston, charlottesville, pittsburgh and el paso. t