marcia coyle of the "national law journal" has covered the ichigh court ever since ju kennedy joined the bench, and joins me now. thanks for being here, marcia. >> happy tore here. >> nawaz: just o the bad, your reaction to today's news. >> the retirement of justice kennedy has been rumor year ago, and i think there was a sense that, if he was going to do it, it would be this year. he gave, as a reason, he wants more time with his family. he is a repubcan appointee, and perhaps he wanted it to be under a republican president. so i think many of us -- b not me -- many of us relaxed after the chief justice gaveled in the morning session and there were no announcements from the bench of a justice retiring, but i did arshallr that thurgood m retired from the court about mid afternoon on the last day of the term, so i was not relaxing yet. >> nawaz: and not verys surprised, souke. >> right. >> nawaz: you knew it might come. was known as a centrist conservative. is that a fair assessment? and what does that mean? >> i think so, especially on a court that had conservatives that were very sta

coup marcia coyle of "national law journal" is here to explain the decision. we thought we were going to get a big decision today with broad implications. right? the central question here was, can businey owners actua discriminate? can they refuse services to you customers on the basis of religio did we get that decision? >> no. in fact, it's important to know what the court did not do h it did not gave green light to business owners to discrimina on the basis of religion against members of the gay community or other protected individuals. instead, what the court did was it sort of dug deep into the record in this case, this particular casev inolving mr. phillips, the baker, and found that, when the case went before the colorado civil rights commission on the claim discrimination claim brought against him, that one or two members of the commission made statements that justice kennedy and the other members of the majority felt showed evidence of hostility towards religion and mr. phfslips' religious bel and on that basis, based on those facts, those rcumstances

marcia coyle of "the national law journal" was there to hear the decision.welcome back. >> thanks, jeff. >> brown: it's worth adding one of the ironies of the cases one thing they were stealing were celt'phones. >> tcorrect. >> brown: what kind of data? we're talking about self-site location data. when you lose your cell phone for a call, it pings a cell tower and your cell phone company keeps a record of where the pings landed. eolice want the cell sit location records because, once they know where the cell tower is, ey have a rsonable idea of where the cell phone was used, and it was tht information that led them to timothy carpenter who was convictim iconvictim. t >> brown: a issue is whether it was an unreasonable s arch. >> thaght, did the police need a warrant. they actually had an order under federal law that makes itasier to access certainty kis of information. the chief justice said the fourth amendment requires law ntforcement to get a warf they want to access the records because you and i have a reasonable expectation oprf acy in that information.

for more i'm here with marcia coyle, ccoef washington espondent for the "national law journal," and amy howe. she covers the high court for the websites "howe on the court" and "scotusblog." and we welcome both of you back to the program. so, marcia, let me start with you. everybody agrees consequential term. what made it so? >> certainly the types of cases that the court g.e.d. to hear and decide. as you mentioned, there was a whole range from president trump's travel ban to union fair share fees, pa gerrymandering, the list went on and on. of course, at the end, thehe most consequential event of all was justice kennedy's retirement, announced retirement. >> woodruff: i want t ask you abhat in just a moment. but, amy howe, let's talk about something we haven't had a chance to address in the pogram yet and that is the ruling yesterday that affects labor unions, why is that somethingma that shouler to all of us? >> this is a sleeper case, i think, of the term, and was en t re overshadowed by justice kennedy's retireme same day it was handed down. this was a case by whi te supreme court b

that it not be perceived as a wholly patisan body in our structure of government. >> woodruff: marcia coyle, amy howe, thank you both. so many eyes on the court. >> thank you. >> woodruff: justice kennedy's vacancy on the court means brewing political battle to fill his seat on capitol hill. for more on the fight to come, i spoke this evening with senator kirsten gillibrand, a democrat from n york. i began by asking what it means if the president nominates a strong conservative to the bench. what the president's progosed is he isg to appoint someone who will overturnso tely overturn roe v. wade which means women's reproductivity freedoms are at risk, women's freedom toe dehat they want. they will criminalize women's access to abortion services and reproductive joyces. i think every american shouldou speaand fight against this and i don't think we should allow a vote before theti el. we should apply the same standard mitch mcconnell applied to president obama. ints here,f: two po the person the president appoints will be one of nine members of the court. the chief justice said, when he was f

"the national law journal's" marcia coyle joins me at the table. thanks for being here. >> pleasure. >> let's talk about the case toad, it's about a texasco ressional and legislateddive map, the allegation was it was challenged as racial gerree mandzerring, what did the court said. >> the court dividessed 5-4 along ideaological lines. juice alito joined by four conservative justices lead the court in the majority opinion. and the majority rejected a lower court's findings that texas had engagedin racial discrimination primarily against black and hisvopaniers in its 2013 redistricting map. justice alito said that the evidence of discrimination was insufficient to shoi that texas had-- the texas letuis which drew the map had bad faith or had engaged in intentional discrimination. >> so is that really a decision about whether or not this was racial gerrymandering? >> oh yes, absolutely. justice alito did say that there was ondistrict though that stood out as being racially gerrymt dered. and ths a state house district in which texas had argued we had

here to explain both sides and the possible fut iure effecm joined by marcia coyle of the "national law journal" and ganeh torbati, who covers immigration for the reuters news service. backe welcome both of you to the program. mash alet's start with you on what the justices said upon. ihe chief justices essentially upheld s, writing for the majority, saying the president has broad authority as pesident to determine what our immigration laws are, and he also wrote with discrimination. >> judy, this was a complicated case. >> and really urge people to read the opinions on the court's website. i'm going to boil it down to basically three questions the justices faced. one,a you just said, the majority found that president trump did not exceed his authity under federal immigration law. the key provision gave the president broad discretion, and exuded deference to the president. second issue-- did the tvel ban discriminate on the basis of nationality in the issuance of visas-- again until fedimal gration law. there, the court said there was no limit on the president's discrion. and the majori