he conceded on the merit, the middle level court, succeeded on the merit, it went up to the nevada supreme court, which we know is 5-2 democrats, who dismissed it. >> sean:n:] indistinct] >> that's right, pennsylvania court, i should say. they did not dismiss it on thebr merits, they said you brought it too late. ted cruz is exactly right, the supreme court should take this up. could be a game changer. one of the best lawsuits outside of nevada and our wisconsin state suit. >> sean: if the court takes it, the constitution is clear. this is ae clear violation. that is what also makes the wisconsin lawsuit yesterday particular -- i have not had time to review today's -- such a strong case, also. >> yeah, that's exactly right. these are clearex violations of law. pennsylvania, you have the pennsylvania constitution which has a sacrosanct rule for absentee balloting in the legislature, and they went around their own constitution without amending it. in wisconsin, very clear, where wisconsin says we have detailed procedures for absentee voting because we know mail-in voting is subject to fraud,

of time here for the court to decide the merits, on the merits. they can't satisfy either half of the test, they're not residents and nothing settled about their residents, and they're not offered any political representation, why all illegal aliens should be included in the apportionment base. for those reasons that the court reaches the merits, we think it should uphold the men rmorandum. >> thank you, general wall. >> the constitution and laws require the -- in each state. the president's new policy of refusing to count people who are not in the lawful immigration status is inconsistent with that command. our la laws reflect -- or any r legal status, but to count the number of people living in the state that. is always included people ineligible to vote, including noncitizens and also included people who were present in violation of the law. the memorandum treats counting people as a reward to be withheld from states that house undocumented immigrants. but our law views counting people for apportionment as finding facts, not giving and withhold

, because there is a fairly small window of time here for the court to decide the merits on the merits. they can't satisfy either half of the test. they're not residents, and there's nothing settled about their residence. and they've not offered any coherent theory of political representation why all illegal aliens should be included in the apportionment base. for those reasons, if the court reaches the merits, we think it should reverse and uphold the memorandum. chief justice roberts: thank you, general wall. general underwood. gen. underwood: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- the constitution and laws require the seats in the house be apportioned according to the number of persons in each state. the president's new policy of refusing to count people who are not in a lawful immigration status is flatly inconsistent with that command. our laws reflect the deliberate choice not to base apportionment on citizenship, voter eligibility, or any other legal status but instead to count the number of people living in a state. that has always included people who are ineligible

there is a fairly small window of time here for the court to decide the merits, on the merits , to satisfy either half of the test. there is nothing settled about their residence. they have not offered any coherent theory of lytic representation why all illegal aliens should be included in the apportionment base for those reasons if the court reaches a merit, it should reverse and uphold the memorandum. chief justice roberts: thank, general wall. general underwood? general underwood: mr. chief justice inmate please the court. the consultation of the log requires the seats in congress be apportioned according to each person in the state. the president's new policy of refusing to count people not in the lawful imitation status is flatly inconsistent with that command. our laws reflect a delivery choice not to base apportionment on citizenship, voter eligibility, or any other legal status but instead to count the number of people living in the state. that has always included people ineligible to vote, including noncitizens, and it has also included people who were present in violation of law.

and constitutional merit behind it.ry interesting to see the courage of the united states supreme court. most americans now see what has gone on can't happen. it can't happen in this great country of ours otherwise we don't have a country. all right, let not your heart be troubled. laura ingraham is next. can i start with a question or is that unfair? >> laura: yes, quickly. >> sean: so, half of my friends think i'm nuts because i get a flu shot. the other half of my friends agree with me. so, half think i'm nuts. have to think i'm right. i'm just curious what you think. >> laura: i don't, no. i think i've gotten it a couple times. it only works like 40% of the time i get it. the only time i ever got it, i actually got the flu. if that's what people want to do, they can do that. >> sean: 95% of effectiveness on the vaccine is really high. >> laura: what's the results of all the

on the merit there is no procural problem with the memorandum and the president may direct the secretary to send in two se of numbers so that he may decide how to exercise whatever discretion he has in the real fight here is substantive. it is over how much t discretion of the president has. text, history and precedenare all clear about the general test whether one is an inhabitant and the question is how do you apply that test to people who are present in the country illegally and treating someone apprehended at the border on march 31pp were scheduled to be removed on april1 two as a usual or settled resident of the united states on april 1nt flies in the face of this course cases, common sense and sound theory of political representation. they had some discretion to determine that at least some illegal aliens lackso ties to the states which means the judgment should be reversed. i welcome the courts questions. >> general, my first question goes to the very first point you raised. we expedited this case in light of the summer 31 deadline for the secretary to transmit the census to the p

and constitutional merit behind it. of the united states supreme court and most americans now see what has gone on here and it can't happen, it can happen in this great country of ours. all right, let not your hearts be troubled, laura ingraham is next. can i start with a question or is that unfair. speed dominic >> laura: quickly. speed to my think that i am nuts because i get a flu shot. i'm just curious where you sta stand. >> laura: i think i have gotten a couple of times. it only works 40% of the time. >> sean: that is the flu shot. >> laura: the only time that i got it, i got the flu. if that is what people want to do they can do it. >> sean: 55% on the vaccine is really high.

>> i'm not sure if i go all the way there but there is a lot of merit to what you are saying. if you look back at justice harlan's opinions giving rise to the article it said something similar. the exception has to be narrow if it is not a crime and the watershed rule has to be something so serious you are not sure crime was committed. so. >> justice kavanaugh. >> good morning. following up on what justice gorsuch was asking the solicitor general of louisiana , which is do you think the number of cases that would be affected has any bearing if something is watershed? >> i think it does. goes to the reason to have a high bar for the new and the watershed inquiries. the court as he consciously talks about the jurisprudence and then to emphasize federalism to adopt the new rule and the reason it did that it was worried about large-scale disruption from the state. >> thank you. >> good morning. i want to talk to about accuracy and the first thing i would like to ask is a follow up with justice thomas and this was a point of vacation for me were distinguishing between factual accur

so i don't believe the merits were fully addressed. ustice alito: another oddity about applying the watershed rule inquiry in this particular case is that the test for a watershed rule depends pretty heavily on justice harlan's decision, his opinion in the mackey case, which -- where he relied on exactly the rationale, he concept of ordered liberty, palko versus connecticut rationale, that the lead opinion in ramos excoriated. so is -- would it be consistent to apply it here? mr. belanger: well, i do think this is a watershed rule. here are so many parallels etween this case and gideon. both recognized fundamental bedrock principles, and both had to deal with cases that were inconsistent with those principles and restore the -- the fundamental rights at issue. for gideon, it was the right to appointed counsel, and, here, it's the unanimous jury requirement. justice alito: well, isn't part of a watershed rule inquiry whether it's consistent with ordered liberty? mr. belanger: well, it is, and i don't know how we can say that a nonunanim

result they were heard again and again and each of the time they were heard their own to be without merit time and again president trumps lawyers present arguments to state officials state legislatures state and federal courts and ultimately to the united states supreme court twice there heard by more than 80 judges across this country and in every case no cause or evidence was found to reverse or question or dispute the results a few states went for recounts all the counts were confirmed results in georgia recount it 3 times didn't change the outcome the recount conducted it was constant actually saw our margin grow the margin we had in michigan was 14 times the margin president won that state by 4 years ago our margin of pennsylvania was nearly twice the size of the trump margin 4 years ago and yet none of this is stop baseless claims about the legitimacy of the results. even more stunning 17 republican attorneys general and 126 republican members of the members of the congress actually the actually signed on to a lawsuit filed by the state of texas that lawsuit asked the united states

it. >> will justice, tickling points about the merits of decision in ras. but i think that as important for example explains the fact that a conitutional rule is compelled by history of the constution itself does not mean this retroactive on collateral review. >> i'm not talking about the igins of the rule whether it goes back to the founding times. it is more than ramos. thers an idea that in those foundi times, the law was thought of as inherent in what it meant to have a fair trial by jury. in an accurate by jury . whatever command of the process wasn't a part of it. >> ramos said, i'm just trying to take when he said seriously here. i think you want to as well. >> absolutely, although i do think with perspective to say the same thing about duncan and in other cases in which the court has found it the determination by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is required on the merits. and yet, is not retroactive on collateral review because are simply different inquiry there. and i guess i would return to the court's holding in johnson versus louisiana than an n

and each of the times they were heard, they were found to be without merit. time and again, president trump's lawyers present arguments to state officials, state legislatures, and ultimately to the united states supreme court, twice. they are heard by more than 80 judges across this country and in every case, no cause or evidence was found to reverse or question or dispute the results. a few states went for recounts. all accounts were confirmed. results in georgia were counted three times. didn't change the outcome. wisconsinnducted in actually saw our margin grow. the margin we had in michigan was 14 times the margin president won that state by four years ago. our margin in pennsylvania was nearly twice the size of the trump margin. and yet none of this has stopped baseless claims about the legitimacy of the results. stunning, 17 republican attorneys general and 126 republican members of the congress actually signed on to the lawsuit filed by the state of texas. that lawsuit asked the united states supreme court to reject the certified vote counts in georgia

as i mentioned earlier, that's when clay really began questioning the merits of our involvement thereand when we came back, clay was one of the first people i called to go to haiti. and he ended up joining us down there on the ground. but about a year after haiti, clay took his own life in houston, where he'd moved back to, and where he'd been struggling to figure out who he was and who he was going to be. and he fell victim to this scourge that is plaguing the veteran population, which is the suicide epidemic, and he became one of those statistics which, as you can imagine, was tragic. susan: i want to unpack that. there's a lot there. let's start with your decision to leave the military after four years. was that an easy decision for you to make at that point? jake: yes and no. yes, because my body was really starting to break down. at the end of my four-year enlistment, i really had, if i was going to stay in, i was going to have to just from how i was thinking about it -- the only way i would stay in is if i moved into a special operations community, which was really just getting

we want them to come in through merit. we want them to come in legally. ♪ sanctuary music (kids laughing) ♪ upbeat tempo ♪ sanctuary music it's the final days of the wish list sales event sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment.

uniform,s officers in created a flag and instituted the military system of appointment by merit. his reforms were formalized by law in 1889 when the commission hospital service was created. as the core was expanding during the closing years of the 19th century, so was biological discovery.

"the supreme court had zero interest in the merits of the greatest voter fraud ever perpetrated on the united states of america. today the president embraced this traditional perk of his office >> mr. president, would you do us the honor? >> reporter: the commander in chief's coin flip at the celebrated army/navy game invited to cheer for athletes of both military branches without favor. while today he tipped the scales against his attorney general william barr, retweeting a call for barr to be fired and asking "why didn't bill barr reveal the truth to the public before the election about hunter biden," referring to barr's

i would have liked the court to have spoken more directly to the merits or the lack of merits of the suit. but i can understand the court is a careful institution. when they don't have standing -- when the plaintiff does not have standing to even bring the claim the justices are generally speaking very reluctant to say anything about the claim. it's as if it's not properly before them. so they really shouldn't speak about whether they have any validity. it's unfortunate, but there you have it. but i think it does close -- i think it was very important that justices thomas and alito, though, they said we would hear the case but we would grant no further relief, quote-unquote. that's very important. that means because the relief that trump really wanted, he wanted an injunction against the governors of wisconsin and georgia and pennsylvania, et cetera to prevent them from doing what they are going to do on monday, which is to call the electors together to make a vote. he wanted an injunction against them. and even thomas and alito were saying we would vote to hear the case, but we woul

we want them to come in through merit. we want them to come in (harold) twelve hundred strings of lights. (betsy) quarter mile of tinsel. (harold) and real snow all the way from switzerland. (betsy) hmmhm... gonna be tough to top. well played. (vo) add some thrill to your wish list. at the season of audi sales event. get exceptional offers now. here's andy listening to my goals and making plans. this is us talking tax-smart investing, managing risk, and all the ways schwab can help me invest. this is andy reminding me how i can keep my investing costs low and that there's no fee to work with him. here's me learning about schwab's

>> in addition to our antecedent arguments about thentft discussn clause which i want to focus on merit. >> i got that but we come to remedies is either the acting director is reportable to the [inaudible] >> justice kavanaugh. >> thank you, chief justice. good morning. you were saying something they are why don't you continue on. >> i would like to talk about then acting director point because i think it is an important point to avoid some of ntjustice gorsuch concerns about the treasury secrery side. the statute does not expressly provide that the acting director is subject to the same clause protections and this court should not read the statute to create constitutional problem but wants to avoid constitutional problems. the easy solution that avoids all the concerns about structuralrrors speculation and all the rest is to simply say that under this statute the acting director versus the official who took this fha is in fact removable at will by the president so there is no probl problem. >> is that true of all acting officis? >> you know, i would have to look at any given statute to

that doesn't address the merits, necessarily.just brought up with shannon about the way in which some of these alterations were mading to the different state elections where and the federal government, the supreme court does have an interest in those cases where states change the rules of the election in a way that will disenfranchises certain voters without disenfranchising other voters and it becomes a matter of fairness. and whether or not the legislature itself made those changes or were those changes made my fiat or other actors in the state government. those are all very important issues. as you point out, i think, you know, it is fertile ground for president trump and republicans to continue this fight no matter what happens in the next couple of weeks. >> bret: jonathan turley, is it, though, is it, you know, when you look at the good of the republic where we are you have republican governors signings certification. doug ducey in arizona. a trump ally, getting a lot of heat, obviously brian kemp in georgia, the republican

subsequently, justice sam alito said the mores were quite likely to prevail on the merits. constitutional question was clear, and he ordered the state of pennsylvania to segregate those late-received votes, to keep them separate so that a court, if it concluded they were illegal are, could exclude them. and i think that really foreshadowed that if the court takes this on the merits, it will likely strike it down. it's not certain the court would agree to take the case on the merits, but if they do, i think the president's likelily to prevail on that -- likely to prevail on that legal question. lou: on that question and also -- will the court take into account that the complaints and charges here of voter, both voter fraud and electoral fraud all fall upon the democrats, not republicans? that looks very bad, i would think, for anyone using common sense. is it relevant in the high court? >> well, in terms of laying out the evidence of voter fraud, that really is a step that has to play out in the trial courts, both the state trial courts and federal trial courts. and, you kno

in the same way ano doubt will not merit in the same way a no deal scenario but a lot of people are saying we are beginning to see what this is a breaking of the relationship with the eu might look like if the government are not able to get a deal which i think really what it can i don't think the bill itself was necessarily going to be good to come and no deal scenario seems like it would be an absolute catastrophe. a sum by now i wish to end on. —— a sombre enough to end down. thank you both forjoining me. i hope we would have more time to talk to ally about his other life as a dj. the daily mail is offering something for you. that is it for the papers this evening. the midnight news is coming up after the weather. thank you for being with us. weather. thank you for being with us. goodbye. hey, welcome to click! hope you're 0k. it is nearly the end of 2020 — insert cheering here — and for the first time since march, you and i are together at the bbc at the same time. hello, mate, how are you? it's great to see you, even though you still feel quite far away, but hey, things here ar

at this his middle level court, succeeded on the merits.went up to the nevada supreme court which we know is 5-2 democrat. because the pennsylvania court. just because that's exactly right. a pennsylvania court i should say. notably, they didn't dismiss it on the merits, they said you brought this too late. they had no arguments on the merits, ted cruz is exactly right. at the supreme court should take this up. it's one of the best lawsuits out there outside of nevada and wisconsin. >> sean: of the court takes it, the constitution is clear. if this is a clear violation. if that's what also makes a wisconsin lawsuit yesterday -- i haven't had time to review today's, such a strong case al also. >> yeah. exactly right. these are clear violations of law. you have a pennsylvania constitution that has sacrosanct grills for absentee balloting. the legislator when it around its own legislature. in wisconsin, we have detailed procedures for absentee voting because we know mail-in voting is subject to fraud. what did they do? indefinite confinement.

lost on the merits. even president trump's own cybersecurity chief overseeing our elections said it was the most secure election in american history and summarily was let go. let me say it again. his own cybersecurity chief overseeing this election said it was the most secure in american histo history. respecting the will of the people is at the heart of our democracy. even if we find those results hard to accept. but that's the obligation of those who have taken on a sworn duty to uphold the constitution. four years ago when i was the sitting vice president of the united states it was my responsibility to announce the tally of the electoral college votes in a joint session of congress that voted to elect donald trump. i did my job. and i'm pleased but not surprised by the number of my former republican colleagues in the senate who have acknowledged already the results of the electoral college. i thank them. and i'm convinced we can work together for the good of the nation on many subjects. that's the du

lost on the merits.ven president trump's own cyber security chief overseeing our election said it was the most secure election in american history and summarily let go. let me say it again. his own cyber security chief overseeing this election said it was the most secure in american history. respecting the will of the people is at the heart of our democracy. even when we find those results hard to accept. but that's the obligation of those that have taken on a sworn duty to uphold the constitution. four years ago when a was a sitting vice president of the united states, it was my responsibility to announce the tally of the electoral college votes in a joint session of congress, voting to elect donald trump. i did my job. and i'm pleased but not surprised for a number of my former republican colleagues in the senate who have acknowledged already the results of the electoral college. i thank them and i'm convinced we can work together for the good of the nation on many subjects. that's the duty owed to the

it clearly was raised and at adjudicated on the merits by the commission and the state district court in the postconviction relief. >> one quick question what is your view of the term accuracy and does it mean scientifically accurate of an acquittal or is it rubbing your thumb on the scale one way or another to prevent that conviction? >> i think the court has treated this question is a question of factual accuracy and the analysis acts even on a harder question. it's not that it's aimed at improving the accuracy or directed towards enhancing the reliability or accuracy in some way. it's whether it was an inaccurate conviction and i don't think you can say that about the super majority verdict. >> justice breyer. >> i have two questions. first, as you know any number required in puerto rico or oregon. the reason that is important is it's always seemed a kind of compromise here because of the 14th amendment applying to the states our court, this court, the supreme court was insisting upon the constitutional procedures but they didn't want to let everyone out of prison so they compromis

and feeling not in the merits. they never wanted to answer this merit.ent over backwards to avoid ever having to decide this issue. they come up with procedural reasons why it is not appropriately presented. it's wrong and they know what's wrong. but it is such a challenging and politically such a politically dangerous thing to do. people are being prosecuted for the september 11 trials. they have never said it doesn't apply. they hope some towel. that the issue would go away. and that remains to be seen. the only thing i would regret. is that we don't have this forum he would have a few things to say. the prosecution of the guantÁnamo cases is not in any way speaking publicly. we have to present the prosecution case. this is my last thing. one of the things that he does. not only articulates his argument. they will explain to you. the prosecution position on why you can have a case that only prosecutes. what is the answer. they avoided answering this squarely also. it has come down to two ideas. and they are pretty thin reads. it's not just my editorial

host: how far did the president get with a merit-based system, what he calls build america?uest: up until the pandemic, not far. the president has extraordinary powers on immigration, but there is not a lot that he can do to radically reshape the legal immigration system, which dictates who is legally coming into the united states, without working with congress. president trump made some odd attempts to try to work with congress during his time in office, both the house and the senate making progress toward bills on daca or dreamers, and the president tried to insert his priorities on a merit basis into those negotiations and really significantly failed. and then in the background his administration was also working on a larger immigration bill that they never ended up putting forward. so those efforts largely failed. but then once the pandemic happened, you have a president who is existing in an extraordinary period of time, and it gives the president more authority. so he issued two proclamations, one on april 22 and one on june 22. neither has gotten a lot of attention, b

in the same way ano doubt will not merit in the same way a no deal scenario but a lot of people areelationship with the eu might look like if the government are not able to get a deal which i

and he lost on the merit. end of quote. lost on the merit.resident trump's own cyber security chief over seeing our elections said it was the most secure election in american history. and he was let go. let me say it again. his own cyber security chief. over seeing this election. said it was the most secure and in american history. and respecting the will of the people is the heart of the democracy. even we find the results hard to accept. that is the obligation of those who taken on a sworn duty to uphold the constitution. four years ago when i was a sitting vice president of the united states, it was my responsibility to announce the tally of the electoral votes of the joint session of congress that elected donald trump. i did my job. i'm pleased but not surprised a number of former republican colleagues in the senate acknowledged already the results of the electoral college. i thank them. and i'm convinced we can work together for the good of the nation. on many subjects. that's the duty owed to the people. to the constitution. to the hist

on its merits.t we are talking about here. and we're not alleging that any fraud took place. what we are saying very factually is that this took place outside of you who the constitution is formed. amendments can be done, it's an own nor rusonerous thing to do. >> martha: i get it. all voters should care about the procedure and how these laws are changed. otherwise, everything is up for grabs and can you have elected court -- an elected court officials making changes that the people in this state don't want. thank you, both. sean parnell good to see you tonight. congressman kelly good to see you as well. there is more breaking news on this front tonight. the state of georgia, where it appears that republicans are still filing lawsuits, despite a set back earlier in the day when a judge dismissed an effort to decertify the november 3rd results within the past few minutes we learned that the rnc has filed a brand new lawsuit challenging georgia's use of ballot drop boxes in the upcoming senate run off

any court to judge this on its merits and i think that's disturbing for many people in america.hannon: we will track those live controversies that are still out there, they are still trickling along. great to have you. have wonderful weekend. peter doocy, the first direct response of any kind from joe biden about the federal investigation into his son hunter's tax and financial affairs. >> did enter biden commit a crime? have you spoken to your son, mister president-elect. >> despite the taxpayer-funded transition team sending out hunter's statement wednesday night none of the reporters called on by the transition team today asked about the news. mike emanuel has the specifics for us tonight. >> i'm sure we will hear more about it. hunter biden will have to stand on the merits of his case. >> a time when many lawmakers are concerned about china's influence on the next administration. >> what are the connections to the heaven to china. we are looking at the tip of the expert. >> reporter: former hunter biden business partner tony bobalinsky after his time as vice president says j

so that's the kind of thing they're up to, and it has no merit.g that our supreme court will see through this nonsense. >> so then what is the cost to wisconsin? and really the country, i should be asking you -- to have to keep dealing with these challenges? >> well, they had the pay $3 million for the recount, and that covered the cost of the recount. this challenge doesn't cost a whole lot because it's just a matter of appearing before the supreme court, and he'll have his lawyers here. i'm not sure our good friend giuliani is coming to wisconsin or not. and of course we'll have our attorney general defending the process. i think the court may refuse to take the case. in other places -- pennsylvania, et cetera -- the court has said there's no merit. we're not even going to take this case. so we'll see. our court is divided. it's 4-3, republican. but there's at least one republican who has shown some common sense in the past, so i'm hoping that our court will just see this for what it is, another way for trump to continue to raise millions of dol

the supreme court yehas not heard any church case on its merits. way right now have assert for just that. eme court asking our full case resides right now at the ninth circuit but they are waiting on the supreme court to decide whllher they take our server or not. it is a game changer. basically it signals the only signifant difference between the merits or the data in car and the case from nevada in july and the case in new york last week and the case this week in pasadena, california, the only significant difference is the reflection of the court. now that justice barrett has replaced justice ginsburg the complexion of e court has changed and it is a signal that the war is now going to come down more on the side of religious libertyin favoring our chargers and allowing worshipers to go back to their house of worship. >> so bishop hodges which you thpe that the supreme court would revisit other conservative causes such as right to life, row versus wade >> certainlat is part of our moral conviction of biblical conviction. noc all of these conjoined

there is no legal merit to it whatsoever. >> let's move up to bill barr.eing off on his attorney general. cnn reporting on friday about dismissing him. he went after sessions. barr has served him faithfully, but there are lines he would not cross. with the relationship described by a source in a cold war. trump raising the prospect of firing barr during a meeting yesterday. what is the status of the relationship and what will play out before inauguration day? >> i think the standard relationship is very poor. having worked at the justice department for an attorney general. you don't have a lot of direct communication between the ag and president. i don't know if they are even talking to each other. barr seems like he is laying low. the idea he is waiting. i think he will slink his way out of the building when the term is up. trump could try to fire him and put in someone else. the clock is just ticking. there is not much time to do anything. even if trump did install a lackey, i think he would have a problem. we have seen career prosecutors resigning and e

and each of the times they were heard, they were found to be without merit.time and again, president trump's lawyers present arguments to state officials, state legislatures, state and federal courts, and ultimately to the united states supreme court, twice. they are heard by more than 80 judges across this country and in every case, no cause or evidence was found to reverse or question or dispute the results. a few states went for recounts. all the counts were confirmed. the results in georgia were counted three times. didn't change the outcome. the recount conducted in wisconsin actually saw our margin grow. the margin we had in michigan was 14 times the margin president won that state by four years ago. our margin in pennsylvania was nearly twice the size of the trump margin four years ago. and yet none of this has stopped baseless claims about the legitimacy of the results. even more stunning, 17 republican attorneys general and 126 republican members of the congress actually signed on to a lawsuit filed by the state of texas. that lawsuit asked the unite