his decades-long relationship with supreme cot justice, neil gorsuch. rm representing the billionaire's business interests. years later, the 84-year-old magnate and future justice had grown so close that anschutz personally campaigned for gorsuch to be appointed to the tenth circuit court of appeals during the george w. bush adnistration. after taking the bench, gorsuch then became a semi regular speaker at eagles night. a sprawling ranch in colorado where the billionaire often hosted retreats for some of the biggest names in politics, and business. gorsuch was so intertwined in the businessman's inner circle that he even co owned a property in the centennial state with anschutz's chief counsel and an anschutz executive. that is, until he sold it all off after his appointment to the nation's highest court. now what is this decades-long relationship between gorsuch and anschutz matter, and matter right now? well, it just happens to be thatweek, the supreme court heardoral arguments in a case that could significantly ease regulations on anschutz's business

they just want to rollback the 20th century. >> now we have to talk about neil gorsuch's mamas.he epa. but she was one of the people to make the epa succeed? no. she wanted to destroy the epa from the inside. this case we are talking about was actually the government, the judges, the liberal judges, giving her leeway to destroy the epa from the inside. but it didn't work. because back in 1984, conservatives thought they were more likely to hold the presidency than the supreme court. roll forward 40 years, and neil gorsuch, the nepo baby that he is, is continuing the family business of destroying the epa. but he realizes that unlike his mama, he can't be voted out. his people can't be stopped. he has lifetime power, and this is part of the general conservative movement. they understand that judges hold lifetime power and are not subject to the win of the people. and so destroying the regulatory state through judges is now preferable for conservatives as opposed to trying to win their arguments at the ballot box, where they often fail. >> this is where the idea of expanding the co

but i want to ask you, you have this great story about the unique perspective that neil gorsuch has on this specific issue. explain that. >> that's right. well, the chevron case itself arose when ann gorsuch, neil gorsuch's mother, was head of the environmental protection agency. she was part of the reagan revolution anti-deregulatory revolution. she was in office, tangled with congress. in fact, was even held in contempt of congress. and when she was forced out, she wrote in her own memoir, neil, son neil who was only 15 at the time, said, you shouldn't have quit. you taught me not to be a quitter, you shouldn't be a quitter. but neil gorsuch, perhaps inspired by his mother's own emphasis, has really opposed agency latitude here and urging his colleagues to take up a case like it's taking up today has said, rather than say what the law is, we tell those who come before us to go ask a bureaucrat, we place a finger on the scales of justice in favor of the most powerful of litigants, the federal government, and against everyone else. i expect him to be a major player today, poppy and phi

. >>> the fate of federal agencies may be in the hand of supreme court justice neil gorsuch, he has family history, his mom, a former chief of epa, railed against water and air quality regulations in the 1980s, that ardent defiance landed her in contempt of congress, leading to a resignation month later, he built his career on a similar regulatory and antiregulatory three, the environment, student debt forgiveness and covid-19. >> the nation's highest court will hear a pair of cases testing the scope of regulatory power, at the center is a 1984 supreme court decision that al gore such has previously said should be reversed. joining is now with the details, this is pretty interesting, what can you tell us about the cases in the court. >> the 1984 case actually arose from policy that and gore such was implementing, -- and ann gorsuch, who wrote a book said are you tough enough, she talked about how her son was upset about what he what had happened to her, 15 at the time, here we are with a major test decision that became a landmark through epa policy and let's tell you about the 1984 case, c

we don't get to vote for neil gorsuch, we don't get a vote for clarence thomas.t a vote for the epa and congress, and it's those people who are taking the power away from us. >> we also don't get the vote to get them off the bench because they have those coveted lifetime appointments. i mean, elie, i want to put this into your perspective. over 17,000 cases have been decided under the chevron deference doctrine. so, one of the good points that justice alito kagan brought up during his arguments is, we could literally see, re-litigation of those 17,000 cases and what makes matters worse, we could see inconsistent ruling coming from different judges in different jurisdictions on concepts that are applicable for all americans, correct? >> yes, kagan said that, ketanji brown jackson brat of the fact that it would just simply be her words in practical and chaotic to move chevron deference. you know what the conservatives it? they laughed. i am not making -- conservative super lawyer paul clements. so, of course, we weren't going to overturn 17,000 precedents, we're ju

neil gorsuch himself is quoted as saying in an opinion he offered when he was not on the supreme court court judge and said, it's up to states to decide who gets on the ballot. i think that the process is going to be with all of these states, and though be deference to the states, but what the court will be looking i'd be surprised if the court decides to tell the colorado supreme court, the best way to interpret colorado law. that is one of the arguments that donald trump raises, and it's one of the reasons that we are seeing all these different kinds of outcomes all over the country. neil gorsuch himself is quoted as saying in an opinion he offered when he was not on the supreme court but was still a lower court judge and said, it's up to states to decide who gets on the ballot. i think that the process is going to be with all of these states, and though be deference to the states, but what the court will be looking at is the interpretation of the 14th amendment, and that is squarely in the wheelhouse of the u.s. supreme court. >> and, paul, how might this issue affect other question

border patrol agents from reaching migrants crossi roberts and amy coney barrett, samuel alito, neil gorsuchh c-span's campaign 202 liv c the new hampshire presidential primary unfiltered and uninterrupted. we are bringing primary results as they come in, candidate spch and we will take your call and get your reaction on social media. c-span, your unfiltegñ view of politics. >> healthy democracy doesn't just loo like this, like this. where americans can see democracy at work where citizens are truly informed, a get infort from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased word for word from the nation's capitol to wherever you are because the opinion that matter it is most is your own. this is what democracy looks li. powered by cable. >> in his annual state of the

alito, neil gorsuch, fred cavanaugh and clarence thomas voted in favor of texas. >> tonight, candidateat a rally in laconia, new hamhi before the grant stesirst in the nation primary. watch online or -- at c-span.org . >> tuesday night, watch c-span's campaign coverage of the new hampshire presidential primary, unfiltered and uninterrupted. candidate speeches, and we will take your calls to get your watch live coverage of the new hampshire primary, tuesday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org/ . c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these ore, including wow. >> today, fast, reliable internet connection is something no one can live without. so we speed, reliability, value, and choice. now more than ever, it all starts wh wow. >> giving you a>> it has been te a january the u.s. capitol occurred. since that time, close to 300 individuals have been charged with the crime by the u.s. justice department. because of the sixth amendment to the u.s. constitution and su

court's order today did not elaborate on the decision, four justices, clarence thomas, samuel alito, neil gorsuch, and brett kavanaugh, voted to side with texas and deny the biden administration's request. today's ruling is just the start of what's expected to be a major battle at the supreme court over the efforts by texas and other states to take more control over their international borders. and the justices will be deciding all this against the background of a crisis at the border and the presidential election. david? >> david: terry moran from the court tonight. terry, thank you. >>> now, to the israel-hamas war, and tonight, you will see the stunning moment families of hostages storm israel's parliament, demanding lawmakers do more to get the hostages freed. and tonight here, our matt gutman takes us inside a massive hamas tunnel and what they were shown, proof the israelis say that hostages had been held there. >> reporter: as the idf launches its biggest offensive in weeks, tonight, family members of the more than 100 hostages still held in gaza storming a finance committee meeting of the

justices clarence thomas, samuel alito, neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh all dissented from this order. this all started in december and since early january the biden administration had been urging the supreme court to intervene and to block of the order that kept its border patrol agents from getting to stretch of a border along the rio grande and to continue taking down this razor wire. and we know how contentious this has been. but it has also been the situation that has caused a lot of injury and death in the middle of this controversy. a woman and two children drowned in the biden administration said it needed access to this area and to the river for safety reasons. answer frankly to carry out the border patrol's mission.>> and joan you said this is what is going to be in place -- this worked its way out obviously for the decision. how does this go forward? >> reporter: there is an underlying battle in lower federal court. a fight over texas's effort to block the border patrol from doing his job at the border saying it wants texas is obviously trying to discourage migrants from co

neil gorsuch, appointed by donald trump in 2017. first, as a justice, he has called for reconsideration of chevron. he dissented in a 2022 case when fellow justices postponed looking at this chevron dock trip. he wrote, quote, rather than say what the law is, we tell those who come before us to go ask a bureaucrat. we place it on the scales of justice in favor of the most powerful of litigants, the federal government, and against everyone else. unquote. the federal government counters, of course, that those bureaucrats of which gorsuch speaks are experts in their field. now another interesting element of justice gorsuch is that the chevron case dates to the tenure of his mother ann gorsuch over agency. she was the first female chief of the epa, appointed by ronald reagan in 1981. the case began as a dispute over the loosening of an epa permit requirement and ann gorsuch embraced the reagan anti-regulatory agenda and constantly was battling with the democratic run congress. in one fight she was held in contempt of congress and she wa

court and you'll notice the majority of opinion actually cites and quotes lower-court opinion by neil gorsuch saying states have the right as part of running the election and managing the ballot, applying the qualifications clause of the constitution and knocking people off the ballot because that's federalism for you. >> i think that's farfetched. >> that's why the supreme court invalidated -- invalidated obamacare and supreme courts. it's a national policy. it's the a clear federal constitution. it has to do who was elected as president for all of us is not a question of should states have the flexility of implementing policy that has effect on the economy. i agree. i'm happy to prove them wrong. >> actually gets the court out of politics rather than deeper into politics because you don't dhave the judiciary deciding whether donald trump is eligible to run the voters can decide on donald trump, in fact, i think that's what the other republican primary candidates are saying right now. i want the voters not the courts to decide whether donald trump should be president. i think that's chris ch

and when president trump, in his first week or two, nominated neil gorsuch to the court, i looked into my heart and i said, look, you know, he's not the person i would recommend by any stretch. you know, he's not going vote on things that i would. but if i apply the yardstick of is this person qualified, that person was qualified to be on the supreme court much as i disagree. but trump won the election. and so that's why i supported his confirmation again. and that was, i thought, an era in which we still maybe had a hope of bipartisanship in these nominations. i was strive ing and praying that it would be that way. it hasn't obviously turned out that way. and and i think the nomination process is broken. and and it's unfortunately impacting the work of the court. we have a question from our friend lindsay chervinsky of the has to adhere to an ethics code. i wonder if he'd like to see his colleagues on the supreme court adhere to similar standards who've i'm not going to touch that high on. i will say that let me just say let me just tell you what my rule is. well, first of all, it's n

we know for instance neil gorsuch plagiarized portions of his 2006 book. from a 1984 indiana law journal article, and he said it wasn't malicious. he said this was a citation mistake. and i saw people were exploding about this online. shouldn't this be what we are focusing on? there is a key difference if you are leading the top, certainly one of the top, the top academic institution in the world and your background is in that versus having done what justice gorsuch did, and wish that he hadn't but it is the reality of the situation. plagiarism as a weapon, the terminology the ap used, plagiarism or do incredible work is the holy grail of academia. it is the thing you pride yourself on. it is the thing that gets you remembered. nothing that your students love about you. i think that terminology is so strange and off-base. bill ackman, obviously seminal in this happening, published i think 4,000 words about how he ended up becoming part of this and retraced his steps, saying i showed up on october 8th, before there was any organization on any level and what

similar arguments about some of these other justices, the three justices he named to the court, neil gorsuch essentially got a stolen seat on the court because it was barack obama who was supposed to choose. you can talk about samuel alito who got his lifelong dream of overturning roe through donald trump being the president. you could create that atmospheric for a senate -- you could go on and on, the people who want him there, clarence thomas, you could argue his wife has material financial benefits from having a trump presidency. i just wonder what you make of the fact that this court is operating in a world in which some people believe they owe him and that isn't like a krazy thing to think. >> you know, alina habba has a much darker view of our court system that i do. apparently, she believes that justices and judges are transactional, that they respond purely to the people who put them on the bench. and for all federal judges, that's a president from one party or another. the federal judiciary that i know sets aside their origin story, their political origin story, when they take on th

allow the razor wire to be removed, while conservative justices clarence thomas, samuel alito, neil gorsuch, and brett kavanaugh all opposed the decision. texas governor greg abbott reacted to the ruling on x this evening, writing, "this is not over. texas' razor wire is an effective deterrent to the illegal crossings biden encourages. i will continue to defend texas 'its constitutional authority to secure the border and prevent the biden administration from destroying our property." the border patrol union also responding, telling fox in part, "the supreme court decision today is going to undoubtedly encourage more illegal immigration. agents support what texas was trying to accomplish in the absence of true border security policies from this administration." trace, listen to this -- we are also learning that a sanctuary jurisdiction in fairfax county, virginia, recently released from jail, without notice, a honduran illegal immigrant charged with sexual abuse of a child. this was after they ignored i.c.e.'s detainer request. i.c.e. then went out, found him, and rearrested him, and they sa

you know the wife and i love to travel #yachtlife." [ laughter and applause then -- then justice neil gorsuchwe will be fair and just. and finally, justice clarence thomas said, "so if you want a favorable ruling, just call me." [ laughter ] ♪ bitch better have my money ♪ "yello clarence speaking. guys, listen to this, after the colorado ruling was announced, trump's four republican rivals, nikki haley, ron desantis, chris christie and vivek ramaswamy all made statements criticizing the decision yep. all of them were like, "oh, no, we can't believe this happened [ laughter ] what a terrible, terrible, terrible news. oh, my goodness. vivek ramaswamy even pledged to withdraw from the colorado ballot in solidarity [ light laughter ] that's like mitch mcconnell recusing himself from being named "sexiest man alive." [ laughter ] you know what i'm saying that's right, it's possible that trump won't be allowed to have his name on the ballot in colorado, which might explain this ad i just saw last night. >> hey, colorado, donald trump is no longer on the ballot, but you can still vote for a proven wi

neil gorsuch himself is quoted as saying in an opinion he offered when he was not on the supreme courtd, it's up to states to decide who gets on the ballot. i think that the process is going to be with all of these states, and though be deference to the states, but what the court will be looking at is the interpretation of the 14th amendment, and that is squarely in the wheelhouse of the u.s. supreme court. >> and, paul, how might this issue affect other questions that could go before the supreme court, such as presidential immunity and impeachment double jeopardy? >> so, the issue of whether section 3 applies to the president, whether january six was an insurrection, those are hard questions. there's only been one successful removal of an official from office under section three since at the civil war, just one. lots of open questions. the immunity issue before the court now, ultimately before the supreme court now, going to the d.c. circuit, that is an easy case for the courts to decide. this is a more difficult case. in part, because it's the most important election law case since b

. >> at the color of the supreme court, also cheekily including a neil gorsuch ruling from a few years we'll be interested to see what he does with this. in the wake of this lawsuit, you said you've received a lot of death threats, so many that you stopped counting, which is horrible to hear. i hope they are safe and well tonight. it just reminds us all that this is not about a one filed insurrection for a january 6th with trump supporters, it's about a ruling insurrection, ongoing threats against election officials like yourself. >> that is right. i think that there is a tendency to get very focused on the latest events. this lawsuit has caused violent threats against me, the supreme court of colorado, the secretary of state of maine. to share with you, it didn't start with this lawsuit. violent threats and death threats, against secretaries of state and election officials started in 2020. they've not stopped. they are very gendered. the majority of election officials are women. they are looking to destabilize our democracy by intimidating people out of their jobs. i will not be intim

justice amy coney barrett, neil gorsuch, and brett kavanaugh. saying quote this. fought really hard to get through very very good people, and they are great people, they are smart people, and i just hope that they are going to be fair. and we have course heard alina hobbs, the former presidents attorney as well saying essentially, brett kavanaugh owes him. could this be an instance in which, for instance, brett kavanaugh has to recuse himself being named outright by the former presidents attorneys, in the way in which he was? >> i would think it's very unlikely that he would do that, it's not really on him or what trump has said. so it wouldn't really rise to the level of something that he would have to recuse himself from. but of course, we've seen this before from the former presidents. not just in the supreme court cases, but also in these other lawsuits and criminal case that he is currently facing, where he will say things about judges, and unlike a lot of other people who might say some other things about judges, he seems to avoid any punishment for doing th

carrie: we heard keep skepticism from justice neil gorsuch today. of tough questions for the solicitor general. justice kavanaugh was also skeptical. justice alito along the same lines. and clarence thomas asked a few questions too. those are for votes. i did not hear a clear fifth vote. one of the trump appointees, justice amy coney barrett, raised the specter of getting rid of this president might mean inviting floodgates of litigation from thousands of litigants who had their cases decided based on this principle over many years. and that really swamping the courts and potentially the justice department. it is not clear to me. there are five votes to overturn this president altogether. it may be that the court chips away further at the president -- at the precedent. william: thank you as always. carrie: my pleasure. ♪ geoff: american men are stuck in what has been dubbed a friendship recession - with 20% of single men now saying they don't have any close friends. and more than half of all men report feeling unsatisfied with the size of their frie

in the last point i will make about this, a guy like roberts, a guy like neil gorsuch, what they areconcerned about is their own power. and i do think at some level, they have to understand that if they let trump get back in, the supreme court is moot. >> it's an actual threat to the power of the court. and we saw in an oral argument yesterday, as you were talking about with joy last night in online about the sort of imperiousness to their power grab. but that is a direct threat to them. >> why have we not gotten the decision yet? >> you know, -- that's a question >> impossible. but you know first, remember they are going to write something that will have to be bulletproof. they know that this could be, and there's a good chance it gets reviewed by the supreme court. so there is that. to, it is not one, judge it is three judges. and so, to the extent that the oral arguments -- maybe deciding on a different ground, there will be i think a lot of back and forth try to see if they could find some unanimity on a particular theory. that would be my guess, because you are working as a comm

now, neil gorsuch is a very distinct approach.is someone who he succeeded an toe anyone scalia and he has been -- a very distinctive textualist, originalist approach. i am sure he will be very deep into the history of the 14th amendment, as all of them will be, but he is someone who has always taken a little more of a conservative, limited approach to the scope of the provisions of the constitution. and then, finally, justice amy coney barrett, our most recent trump appointee who came on in 2020 succeeding ruth bader ginsberg and so much changing this court, she also has been a little bit tentative on things so that i think -- i actually think the three of them in their own distinct ways will try to continue putting their own signatures on this kind of case. and they will try to separate themselves from the conventional wisdom of who they are because they were donald trump appointees. >> interesting indeed. all right, guys. thanks to all of you for joining us on this important breaking news. >>> still ahead, the political implicat

now the tide has completely turned and conservative judges like clarence thomas, like neil gorsuch, theyng to agencies is terrible because it allows those agencies to implement regulations and according to conservative judges and justices, those regulations are just killing the free market economy and smothering everyday citizens. so what we've seen is a very concerted and well-funded campaign with links to the kochs and other billionaires and republicans to sort of push this idea on the courts that they have to overrule chevron to save democrat see and to save free enterprise in the united states and based on this morning's arguments, it seems that that is going to succeed. it seems five or six justices are ready to kill chevron. >> mark joseph, thank you very much i big consequences on that coming up, what did israel and hamas just agree to? d israel and hamas just agree to? so, here's to now. boost. right now get a free footlong at subway. like the new deli heroes. buy one footlong in the app, get one free. it's a pretty big deal. kinda like me. order in the subway app today. ♪ i've g

just as neil gorsuch riding for a high court majority upheld that outcome on the grounds that the employee had freely contracted to arbitrate. in that ernst & young presented the arbitration clause long after a his employee steven morris had been hired and yet the consent of the condition of preconceived employment in other words he was told if you show up to work the next daygo going forward your disputes for arbitration and according to a certain kind of classical economic theory it's popular among the judiciary's including with real life at that point he had the ability to renegotiate his agreement for press for better terms but in reality as most of us know what you have to do is show up to work the next day because you have to pay a mortgage and pay for all the care and childcare and so on. things don't have to be this way. a better model would admit that coercion is inevitable and all human affairs not just an market activities.at he would recognize the unchecked private coercion makes a mockery of her democratic ideals and it would insist that such coercion be ameliorated by more ro

justice neil gorsuch for a narrow high court majority, upheld that outcome on the grounds that the employee had freely contracted to arbitrate his disputes. in fact, ernst and young presented the arbitration clause in an email long after this employee, stephen morris, as his name, had been hired and he had to consent as a condition of continued employment. in other words, he was told, if you show up to work, the next day going forward, you agree to submit your disputes to arbitration. and according to a certain kind of classical economic theory that's very popular among the judiciary, but completely with real life. at that point, stephen morris had the ability renegotiate his agreement or or press for better. but in reality, as most of you know, what he really had to do was the only choice is to show up to work the next day because he had to pay a mortgage and pay for elder care and child care and so on. so things have to be this way. a better model would admit that coercion is inevitable in all human affairs, least in market activity. it would recognize that unchecked private coercion make

recuse himself from this case over his personal ties to charles koch, and there have been calls for neil gorsuchcial ties to an executive with stakes in this case. let's bring in danielle holly plus vox senior correspondent and author of "the agenda: how a republican supreme court is reshaping america," ian mill miser. danielle, i think we set the stakes here, but what are the implications of what would otherwise seem like a pretty esoteric case? >> i never thought as an administrative law professor i'd be talking to the american public about what is known as the chevron doctrine from 1984. justice kagan really put her finger right on it. the question is who makes complex decisions about regulations that are passed by our administrative agencies? when we think of the equal protection, when we think of the environmental protection agency, when we think of the s.e.c., all these agencies that make regulations that really impact many of our lives, chevron doctrine simply says that the agencies are both politically accountable and the experts. what the conservative majority of the supreme court seem

because neil gorsuch was clear, saying we are not talking about anything but employment discriminationaw, we are not discussing pronouns bathrooms, dress codes, locker rooms, that , unfortunately, was not a messagethe department of education was wanting to listen to so they ignored it. >> i want to make ranking member of the full committee made, our current title ix pool in no way prevents from participating in sports. it simplyd not violate title ix by having them compete based on their body -- biological sex. i wanted to clarify that for because i gave ms, russell a few extra minutes, i will give time to you. >> this study by the british journal of sports medicine showing, after two years of hormone therap mo athletic performance differences between trans women and cisgender women disappear, challenging what we hear , they're not bound to win every match. that is not supported by science. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i want to think about the big picture of what we've been talking about when we talk about trans youth participating in sports. we are here at the seat of governm