the legality question. if you go to page 123a, regardless of whether the daca policy is illegal, it was appropriately rescinded by dhs because there are serious doubts about the legality. regardless of whether concerns about the daca policy are questionable, there are sound reasons of enforcement policy to rescind the daca policy. if you move to page 125a, where she is discussing reliance, i do not believe that the asserted reliance interest outweigh the questionable legality of the daca policy. when you get to the conclusion on page 126a, for these reasons, i concur with and declined to do disturb the decision to rescind the daca policy. >> we dealt know how she would respond if there was clear recognition that there was nothing illegal about daca. our whole memo is affected by the idea that this is one illegal and substantial doubt but its legality. if we take that out, then the independent ground you are asserting, then she would be saying we stand up and say this is the policy of our indiscretions. we d

iscretion forth legal and policy reasons. the alternative argument was even if it has the legal authority to do so, it would not have the authority to do so. are likewise making alternative legal and policy arguments. secondly, even if we were making purely a legal argument, even if we were, review would be foreclosed by the court decision . what the ble case held was that anan action is committed to agency's discretion, it does not matter what reason it gives for taking that action, it is still unreviewable. the specific example this court divided was a prosecutor who decided not to indict for a purely legal reason, and the court indicated that that was still unreviewable because the underlying action, the enforcement discretion, was committed to the agency's unreviewable discretion, so we think we went under cheney and we also think we went under ble. >> what if the attorney general said his exercise of prosecutorial discretion was not to enforce any immigration laws? would that still be unreviewable? >> i think you would r

so it's legally amorphous. eventually, and again we'll talk about this in a second, it goes out of the physicians hands. so as professional medicine strictly s strictly circumscribed what was an abortion it was only an exception for a woman's life being in danger. so as this sapretis a pretty hae stance there are people who take advantage of this. you get the emergence of the abortion specialist in the 1930s and it's strictly performing illegal abortions, but they're taking advantage of new technologies perhaps, maybe even antibotics and they're trying to fill this market niche for them. we're going to talk about the aborti abortion specialists. he proposed to him an idea for an organized criminal abortion syndicate that would span the entire west coast from seattle to the u.s.-mexico border. and what he -- he approached watts specifically because watts was an abortion specialist. he had developed this new method for performing an abortion called the vacuum aspiration technique, which sounds incredibly scary, b

so it's legally amorphis. so as they circumscribe what constitutes legal abortions, in the 1920s, it's only an exception for life. it was only an exception for a woman's life being in danger. so as this is a pretty hard line stance, there are other people who take advantage of this. you get the emergence of the abortion specialist in the 1930s. and the abortion specialist is strictly performing illegal abortions. but they're taking advantage of new technologies, perhaps, maybe even antibiotics and they are trying to kind of fill this market niche for them. so we're going to talk about one of these abortion specialists in california. it's not just one. it's like 30 of them. in 1934, reginald renkin approached doctor george watts and proposed to him for an idea of an illegal abortion syndicate that would span the entire west coast from seattle to the u.s.-mexico border. and watts -- he approached watts specifically because watts was an abortion specialist. he had developed this new method for performing an abort

it is kind of like prescriptive language and legal documents. the penitentiary in virginia, purchased jane at the exorbitant sum of $2000, not surprising considering the currency inflation toward the close of the war. by 1864, enslaved women learned how wartime legislation freed thousands of former slaves and how union armies increasingly encroached on southern territories and brought news of mancipation. but for these women who lived within the final stronghold of lee's army and the seat of the confederate government, freedom did not appear in reach. even if it did in view. fanny and jane's experiences illuminate the ways reactions to the war could be circumscribed by varying conditions of war and legal customs of sovereign nations which were complex in and of themselves. for some, reaching union lines could be nearly impossible, or came with its own challenges. refugee women who escaped onfederate territory did not simply do so because the emancipation proclamation gave them an disputable authority to do so. instead, they charted hazardous ter

and 169 unit legalizations have been completed. the average applicants saved about $4500 in building and planning fees combined. and the majority of those were in single family homes. as you mentioned as well, on february 19, the building inspection commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed fee waiver. and with that, we are happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, mr. murray. let's go to the b.l.a.'s office to present the fiscal analysis on this item. ms. campbell? >> good morning, chair mar, members of the committee. if the proposed ordinance would continue an existing fee waiver of permit, building inspection and planing permit fees for the development of accessory dwelling units, based on information provided by the respective departments, we estimate that the reduction in permit fee revenues over the term -- extended term of the waiver would be about $1.8 million. and we consider a approval of the proposed ordinance to be a policy matter for the board. i'm available for any questions you may have. b

do you support restricting legal immigration in this country? >> caller: i support what trump is doing to make it a better america. let's take care of the american people that are here first and then we can take care of anybody else who wants to come into our country for jobs. >> host: brand in new jersey. we will head out to california. jeremy up earlyje on that line r those whose oppose this action t the white house. after listening to all distracting we have gone through so far this morning, tell me why you oppose it. >> caller: first i would like to say thanks for taking my call. .. >> caller: i'm just joking.er i don't think there's a real issue with this because it's taking out the high school, high skilled workers coming in and this is temporary andi think right now we need to be focusing on american citizens getting their jobs .this is a temporary order and i don't see anything wrong with it. >> host: mike in north carolina is next on the line for those who do support it, mike , go ahead. >> caller: having some phone problems this mornin

a legal basis though. i mean i think the best point to recognize. who has already mentioned that there are legal routes that could have been taken to the trump ministration has decided to ignore all despite all the guest in washington said they could and still trash and excise there is legal challenges to the jurisdiction that decided not to simply say that the us is has not sought refuge it respects use it so it doesn't fall within its jurisdiction and unfortunately that's that's a very narrow reading of the statue of course if crimes occur on the state. of a state policy that i.c.c. has jurisdiction that irrespective of whether those crimes are committed by taliban afghani or or u.s. service or senator so the i.c.c. center stage and of course they refuse to cooperate that makes it more difficult for the i.c.c. to do its job but it doesn't change the fact an investigation will go forward but what we heard yesterday i'm we really have to look at this is unprecedented they have tacked on and on an international court in such a way. and that is the re

based you can't that's one of the things that will be mitigated it's it it it defies legal logic but of course that never stopped the trumpet ministration any kind of logic in the the law is something that it's an athame anathema to the trump administration but you're right and that is one of the things that will be litigated so if julian is extradited tried and sentenced. what does that mean for the press what does that mean for a 1st amendment right what are there the legal ramifications of his prosecution and sentencing for the rest of us their best press this is just this goes straight to the heart of what freedom of the press is all about in the 1st amendment and i would hope 1st of all i hope that he doesn't get extradited of course but if he does and he stands trial i would hope that people like charlie savage who during the obama administration wrote about how julian assange should not be prosecuted because it would violate freedom of the press and it would violate it would actually put the new york times and other publications in jeopardy as well for doing just exactly what

what is this and is this legal? >> so, you know, sometimes the president of the united states says things that are nonsensical and don't make any sense and doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. that happened, for example, this past weekend when he said in a tweet he was going to designate antifa as a terrorist organization. anyone who knows anything about the prosecution of terrorism understand there's is no legal mechanism for doing that. doesn't change the way federal prosecutors can do their job or the way the intelligence community can. no legal leg to stand on there, just a stunt and a bit of rhetoric in a tweet. in this, i see a lot of people are getting this wrong on social media and other places. he does have a legal leg to stand on. everyone understands that generally speaking in this country you don't deploy military forces to enforce local laws. we don't like that. that's what they do in some other countries and we're not that kind of a country, but we also provide for flexibility in our system so that in

dollars cannot and while you're forced to segregate the banking relationships into a different legal entity then where it is all assets are held it means that you actually have to several groups of those legs sequentially because you do you know it's a different entities suddenly the traits so it's counter party risk there's a lot less trading bossidy lot less liquidity coming into the equation other digital assets as a result of this problem and that's what we're trying to fix well there's actually 2 parts to the story and one part is oh yeah there's a need for a big coin friendly bank and you've just kind of articulated the case for that very well the other side of the story is that wyoming itself the state of wyoming looked out across the america and saw a little state called delaware and how much they were successful in becoming the go to place in america to incorporate for just about every company in america is incorporated either in delaware or nevada and wyoming could become the go to destination for this new way of this new technology that's new you know a lot of people compa

no legal reason, no legal authority to strike it down, so play a little game. go back and start over. of course now we're doing the census without asking that question. that's the same game here today in daca. they don't like the policy, so they say just go back and do it over. just give a little more explanation. just start over. everyone knows the game they are playing. they are hoping that in november in the election that there's a different result in the election, that there's a new administration that comes in that decides amnesty is a good thing. and so this slight of hand is all about playing policy. five justices today held that it was illegal for the trump administration to stop breaking the law. that's bizarre. and the reasoning is because the obama administration violated federal immigration laws, for now, wink, wink, let's pretend because that's what they are doing is pretending, trump has to continue violating the law of behaving illegally, and mr. president, chief justice roberts knows exactly what he's doing. we saw earlier this week a decision r

we've seen journalists legal observers and medics all targeted by law enforcement people people whose very job at a protest is to both documented and keep people safe are now being beaten arrested and shot by rubber bullets and pepper sprayed in the face why to keep the peace if that is the peace the law enforcement represents then let me ask you is that a piece worth keeping yes windows have been broken yes buildings have been burned innocent people have been hurt but is the destruction of commercial or private property by looters or rioters justification enough for the police or now even possibly the military to wage war on those brave enough in our society to take to the streets and march for equality in criminal justice reform let me tell you something that's only justified when a government is no longer of the people for the people and by the people and has descended into what is a very constitution and bill of rights protects against fascism. and fighting against that descent into fascism is why we are always watching the hawks. you want to go what's going on a cd. you want to s

clarity on digital asset transactions they're legally enforceable in the state of wyoming in fact s. as we talked about and i was asked on your show what he has given the same person who bought treatments for digital converter currencies it wouldn't be quite as money under commercial law does that mean it doesn't mean the big question is legal tender we didn't try to do you got to realize the u.s. constitution we couldn't pull that off all this legal tender miami didn't do that because gold mentioned in article article one section 10 of the constitution that we get it but needless to say we did it when we basically said if you can't be legal tender then it's the same kind of what's called super negotiate melody that means that if you actually get a big claim you take it free of any adverse claims so somebody else has claim to that point if a lender put indeed i'm happy when for example you didn't know. about it you took it free and clear that me and right now you may be wondering well what it means i'm but why would i why would i actually care well there are people now finally starti

observer of the protest the atlanta police department arrested you 1st can you describe what a legal observers job at a protest is and why did the atlanta police attack and arrest you. all and we started in 1068 we have been monitoring protests since 968. for like black panthers and different groups it is our job to ensure that protestors are using their free speech and not be unconstitutionally but police forces or in this case even the national guard. and what happened to you in the seraphs how did this all come about. well. i i was with another legal observer who was also arrested and we were simply documenting people who have been arrested or people who may have been arrested we ask for their names and number they so we can just support later. we knew where target is one of. the girls in green had no they took us away and the people we were monitoring were not even arrested they specifically targeted a stew and then they arrested him only for poor people who were with us and then that night they arrested its holdall more than 50 people in the grandest of the prison bus in the mid

and the president of the mattachine society in new york made legal progress toward legalizing gay bars. the stonewall in club opened during this time of progress for the legalization of day bars. it became popular because it was the only gay club where dancing was allowed regularly, but more particularly where slow dancing was allowed. it was the largest gay club and it was at the intersection of christopher street and, with grenwhich avenue. it became well known among a cross-section of the community. at the same time, it was a mafia bar run only to exploit a community right or exportation and it charged exorbitant prices for drinks. it was also dirty with questionable mafia alcohol. almost customers were willing to put up with this to be able to dance and socialize, some places did worse. one of the managers of the stonewall was a career criminal, ed murphy, a gay man, who was arrested in the mid-1960's for running operation blackmailing homosexuals, murphy found the a prostitution ring. he used an office above the stonewall in the late 1960's to run a prostitution ring. these stonew

carolina: muy feliz por todos los dreamers, hasta conseguir el anhelado estatus legal.n aliviada. creo que ya la noticia finalmente estÁ asentándose en mi cabeza y en mi cuerpo. esta maÑana estaba que temblaba, no paraba de temblar por mÁs de una hora pero me siento extremadamente feliz porque para mÍ esto significa algo que nosotros hemos siempre sentido en nuestro corazÓn, que este es nuestro hogar, que esta es una lucha muy... importante no solamente para nosotros sino para este paÍs, y la corte suprema, con su decisiÓn nos ha dicho esto. jorge: gaby, cuÉntales a los que no conocen esa historia, cuando tÚ y tres de tus compaÑeros deciden caminar hasta washington, cuando muchos de nosotros creÍamos que los iban a deportar y eso cambia todo. ¿quÉ pasÓ? ¿ cÓmo fue el inicio de este movimiento? gaby: nosotros estÁbamos tan decepcionados con el presidente obama. veÍamos cÓmo los dreamers estaban siendo deportados, tenÍamos muchos casos de dreamers que desafortunadamente fueron deportados y estÁbamos bien enojados y quisimos caminar para decirle al presidente obama aquÍ es

in the united states and all around the world welcome we begin the day with a legal victory for equality made possible by a modern read of a 56 year old law today in the united states the supreme court handed down a decision that will allow people to sue if they are fired from their job for being gay lesbian or transgender in a landmark ruling the court pointed to the one $964.00 civil rights act which bars discrimination at work based on race religion national origin and sex a majority of judges liberal and conservative agreed that discrimination based on sex must also include sexual orientation and gender identity lawyers for employers and for the trump administration had argued that the common understanding of sex discrimination back in 1964 had been biased against a man or woman and nothing more what today's court ruling is another major victory for the community in the united states it comes just 5 years after a supreme a ruling by the supreme court that made same sex marriage legal and wall of the land the celebrations of 201516 in sharp contrast to today this lone activists with a

and they want to take this legal action further.his is onene of a number of investitigations currently underway? >>>> yes. it's across thehe gamut and acrs the country. not just in the hardest hit region of one bardi -- liberty -- lombardy. there were investigations in the hospital where those who had the symptoms of covid-19 in the beginning but were not recognized. there were cases of manslaughter being investigated, where people who had covid-19 were brought in and that is what caused the virus to spread. top of that, there are individuals investigating the handling of the pandemic in the early stages, particularly in cities like milan, where in the eaearly stages they y said it wk toto bars and d restaurants. some are wondering if atat could have been criminal negligence that led will dying g as a resu. and on top o of that you have doctors associationon planning o .arry out the legall actioio they say in the earlrly stages, they were not given the proper protective gear necessary as they were dealing g with patieis ofof covid-1

legal limbo. this is something that will have to be sorted out. it is not the high court that will do that. but brad smith welcomes this development, the president of microsoft for what a good man in this country for beyond these individuals affected. very good to have you. why do you welcome this decision today? >> well, microsoft was one of the companies that brought this case to the supreme court. in part, because we have 62 employees ourselves who are registered daca individuals. more than that, it really is based on what you said. these are people who came to this country as kids. they are law-abiding. they came forward and registered with the government. more than that, they are really talented. they are important to our company. if they are important to small and large businesses across the country. they are especially important right now are verging -- working as nurses and respiratory therapists. they are treating people across the country if they come down with covid-19. we need them. >>

gray zone not a legal or illegal immigrant of ours lock down which is the 1st of many obstacles on that path. as nick calio who filed that report joins us now from nick do we have any idea at all how many babies are still in limbo as a result of the law tell good morning terry well we are scratching our heads here trying to work out how big that number is but even though surrogacy is legal in ukraine this is still very much a gray zone lots of clinics preferring to stay out of the headlines and to not get involved with a government we heard yesterday from ukraine's human rights woman she talked of over 100 foreign families that have been in touch asking for special permission to get to ukraine but we believe that really is just the tip of the iceberg and that lots of clinics are advising their clients families waiting to pick up their children to wait for the end of travel restrictions and to do this off the radar as it were. how widely is surrogacy practiced in ukraine nick. well this is the question the ukrainian government didn't even really have clear figures on this until daughter

legalized medical cannabis. and when you take some of the specialized legislation that with extremeildren seizure disorders for whom only extract of cannabis is the only thing that gives these hildren relief from that torture of dozens, sometimes undreds of seizures a day, 47 states have acted. leadership in democratic control, we have taken steps. banking act safe ith overwhelming bipartisan support. 321 members passed the egislation that would extend banking services to this large and growing sector of our economy. one of the other elements that's languishing in the it demonstrates that broad bipartisan support. committee, the more act, under the leadership chairman jerry nadler, working with the cannabis produced legislation the has been approved by judiciary committee with a bipartisan vote. 'm pleased to note it incorporates many of the provisions of barbara lee's justice act, which was c.b.c. with over 60% majority. us to take the next step. needless traffic stops, sometimes with -- you know, broken for th

they made the argument that daca was not legal, rather than just repealing it straight out. now the supreme court is saying that was not the way to go about this but essentially trump wanted this out of his hands. he put it in the hands of jeff sessions and jeff sessions actually put it in the hands of congress, saying that congress would need to act to make daca a law in order for it to stay. congress did not act. the president had other chances where he could have sustain daca as a win for his wall. as we know, there were negotiations back in 2018 where the president sat with republicans and democrats from the senate, but he decided that he would not negotiate with remember that famous word about the s-hole countries, that was another time the president let daca fall so instead we have today, after this has been taken over to the judicial branch, every branch of government has had a chance to address this issue, and now the supreme court has decided that the obama -- that the trump administration did not have the right legal basis for ending daca. >> julia ainsley, stay wi

now president can say 7000 people here legally all of a sudden have legal status no matter how sympathetic the cause may be. assuming daca the memo by nielsen explaining why the administration wanted to rescind the policy was more than adequate, certainly not capricious and arbitrary. i disagree with the court. i like john roberts, he is a smart guy but the politics have changed dramatically. the court was arbitrary and capricious. rob: daca has been in place since 2012. >> two firefighters are hurt badly a massive hotel fire, flames erupting at the porterhouse hotel overnight. suffering smoke inhalation, one in a stairwell and crews used a tower letter to pull the other out through a fifth floor window. both are expected to be okay. everyone got to the hotel safely. no word what caused the fire. rob: a police officer charged with murder in the death of rayshard brooks, turning himself in to authorities overnight. jillian: the second officer charged suffered a concussion during the incident. he spoke out for the first time after being released on bail. >> i'm looking forward to cooperating

has no experience of a legal system that is not interested in a legal system like that it will damage confidence in hong kong well i think we have to see i mean certainly memories depiction of the chinese legal system i think is props a touch dramatic and exaggerated certainly the procedures are different but let's look at this also if the chinese legal system was indeed as for russia as bad for business as she claims. why would. so many for and to still continue to do the rules and even to step up there and. i don't dispute that serious or a lot of. fear in hong kong but i think some of the negative feelings have. manipulated exacerbated by the western media there are guns in the arctic relationship i think to to doing this and again what i say is let's see where we are in a year ok folks a short pause for a moment the united kingdom handed over control of hong kong to china in 1970 the territory was guaranteed a high degree of autonomy for 50 years now britain says it will offer millions of hong kong residents a path to u.k. citizenship mr speaker if china fuller's through with its

host: a legal immigrant. caller: i don't believe she is legal.ost: why don't you believe the first lady is legal? caller: i don't like her, i don't like him, i don't like none of it. but i tell you what, he's going to feel the wrath of every black american, every immigrant in november. we are going to vote him out of that white house. that's michelle in georgia. blake is next, mississippi on the line for those who support the action at the white house yesterday. for this didn't vote president. and i have a disagreement with some of his policies. but come on, america, man. what are you? are you an immigrant? you have to ask yourself, why do you have a problem with this? i don't see why people have a problem with this. caller: why do you think people -- host: why do you think people shouldn't have a problem with this? caller: the american revolution, the civil war, they should have given black people reparations. reason.no come on, america. like they said in north carolina, big companies, especially in urban america, when you tell everyone to come

i'm legal and i'm not comparing the 2nd season only to. the planet on the brink of disaster we did a long interview experts about one question how to change that.

a stunning legal victory for the l.g. community in the united states supreme court rules of the 1964 civil rights act protect gay and transgender people from discrimination at work we'll give reactions we'll speak with an activist who led the way 1st same sex marriage in the u.s. also coming up a report thanks to 86 and i have. so many countries around the world. but never this kind of. going to have to work. on the site. in the philippines she says the ruling is meant to silence critics of president. and funding the vaccine the german government is a 23 percent stake in the german. it's the same company that the u.s. government reportedly tried to acquire when the pandemic began. good to have you with us we start tonight in the u.s. with a big victory for the community the u.s. supreme court has ruled that it's illegal to fire workers for their sexual orientation or. identity the court said that the u.s. is landmark $964.00 civil rights act which bars workplace discrimination based on sex also protects gay and transgende

i am a legal historian. and i do have an argument about the sit in, something that i do not think has been appreciated. we can't understand why the citizens happened and what they achieved without taking a 10 -- without paying attention to the law, including questions of constitutional doctrine. my book tells the story of the citizens with a focus on these legal issues from a different perspective. there are different chapters that tell this from a different perspective, a different group, and the role that they played in this remarkable story. six chapters. i start off with the students. then i turned to the lawyers, the civil rights lawyers that came to help them, the issues they had trying to figure out what their role was going to be. i have a chapter on the sympathizers, those who were not -- i have at chapter on the opponents of the citizens, basically looking at the lunch counter. u.s.i turned to the supreme court. i've a chapter on how they struggled with the issues. and then my last chapter focuses

are there more legal challenges to this program? guest: there are more legal challenges.his whole thing sort of started as a legal challenge led by the state of texas and some other , who said theyes thought this program was illegal. to court to try to get a judge to say it was unconstitutional. before any of that really went very far, attorney general jeff sessions said, these states are going to sue us, i cannot defend this program because i think it is unlawful too, and we should get rid of it. so all of the legal fights up to this point have led from that made, by thech was way, way back in september 2017. a way, that can start over. texas has said, we are going to push this case, we think this program exceeds president obama's authority and things could start over from there. you think the chief justice would response to this argument in the wall street journal? the practical consequence of the ruling is that a president can create an unlawful policy without legislation from congress, but a future president cannot lawfully undo it without jumping through regulatory h

host: jenna ellis, a senior legal advisor from the trump 2020 campaign. her toward her is that >> c-span's washington journal every day. taking your calls live on the air on the news of the day and discussing policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, former homeland security secretary tom ridge on voting security issues in the upcoming november elections and we will talk about the current supreme court term with the constitutional accountability center's elizabeth why trip. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern this morning and be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. ♪ live tuesday on the c-span networks, the house energy and commerce committee here some dr. anthony fauci come director robert redfield and dr. stephen hahn, on the federal response to the pandemic at 11:00 a.m. on c-span. at 2:30, the hearing on the sovereign immunities act and state lawsuit against china seeking damages for the spread of covid-19. en c-span2 at 10:00 a.m., the senate returns to continue work on

but, in both cases i want to emphasize the word legal. illegal immigration undermines of legal immigration that makes our country possible. host: this is bill, independent. good morning. what is your opinion on the case of the court and qualified immunity. guest: i forget that name of the case in 1957. actthis stems from the kkk of 1871. this was a reconstruction act when southern officials were denying free blacks their constitutional rights and not -- that were guaranteed them under the constitution. the kkk act allowed the federal because sue for damages of the deprivation of those rights. that law remained in place and to 1967.om 1871 this lawthe court said is that they are acting in good faith, whatever at it -- that is, then they should not be liable. and then a later case from 1982 further broadened that exclusion to say, you can do anything you not as long as there is case with virtually identical circumstances that says that you cannot. that makes the whole act meaningless. is thatt i would make from 1871 from 1977 we did not fin

. >> the daca prram also doesn't offer a path to citizenship, so are these recipients in legal limbo if they can't become citizens or permanent residents? >> they certainly are, what they have now is to guarantee, o at leasttemporary time, that they will not be removed. and during that time they can work, or get work authorization and go to school. but that is all it provides. until congress steps in and congress is the only body that s can do through legislation, they would have to pass laws that provide some health to regularize status, as congress did in 1986 when it fo allowea mass legalization úpeople. to two or 3 million >> could you zoom out for us and tell us what the next pressing battle immigration will be? le >> well, one slatively, and politically obviously, there is the battle over a more generalized compathensive, reform would increase channels of legal migration and also legal pathways for those here unlawfully. >> if we are looking for just court battle, there is a number, one of them has to do with detention and the use of the detention system, and prolonged tention.