pete williams, our chief justice correspondent is in there.may take him a couple of minutes actually to get to the camera and report that decision, but again, i think it's worth noting exactly what we are looking at here. this could get very complicated. so, it may take a while for us to parse this decision. but it could be upheld, struck down, parts of it could be upheld or struck down. the individual mandate, obviously, is the enter piece here. it is the key. let's go to pete williams. not yet? he is not there yet? all right. obviously, there are other parts of this that people are watching very closely. the court could rule and this is something people are watching extremely carefully, separately on whether new medicaid requirements for the states are constitutional and the court could say that the legal battle was frankly waged too early. that is the least likely of what's probably going to happen here, that that's the decision that they will make. we are expecting, again, for it to be voluminous. this is something thatç was a very long a

our justice correspondent pete williams is at the court tonight. pete, you know as much about the court as anyone i know, so here is the question. they can uphold, they can strike it down, and don't they have a number of options in between? >> exactly right. if they say the individual mandate, the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional, then the question is how much of the rest of this 1,000 page long law will stand. the obama administration says if the mandate goes away, that's a big revenue stream for insurance companies, then likely the things that will cost the insurance companies more will have to go, too, such as pre-existing condition coverage for adults and things the insurance companies can't vary rates based on a person's age or sex or medical condition. >> all right. pete williams, we'll be speaking with you on this broadcast tomorrow night as we review what the court has to say. pete williams at the supreme court. >>> also in washington tonight, a long overdue honor, as the government took a step to recifying an injust

>> pete williams starting us off from washington tonight. pete, thanks. let's talk about some of the unavoidable politics of this. with us tonight from our washington bureau the moderator of "meet the press" david gregory. david, how blatantly will the politics of this be viewed or is that an eye of the beholder issue? >> not on this one. this is pretty transparent, brian. this is election year politics. consider the numbers. the president won two-thirds of hispanic voters, more than that, in fact, in 2008. and it is imperative that he mobilize latino voters this year if he can carry the states he carried before and perhaps new ones. so it's a critical part of the coalition he wants to put together. there's another element to this. he is really trying to jam mr. romney up here. marco rubio, the hispanic senator from florida, has come out in favor of a very similar provision to what the president signed into law here today or advocated today. and even despite that, mitt romney has not come out in support of the rubio plan. other republicans have not. there

our justice correspondent pete williams is at the court tonight. pete, good evening. >> reporter: both that and arizona immigration are huge issues. but the stakes are especially high for health care. any way you look at it, in terms of the law or politics or the effect on millions of people, this will be one of the supreme court's most important rulings in decades. it's president obama's most significant accomplishment, one he still champions. >> here in the united states of america, nobody has to go broke because they get sick. >> reporter: it's one that eric cantore, house republican looerd, vows looer leader, vows to wipe off the books if it survives the challenge. >> we're going to take to the floor a bill that calls for the total repeal of obama care. >> reporter: 26 states ask the court to strike down the law that all americans get health insurance. >> the supreme court finds itself in the middle of a storm, a political storm in the presidential election coming up, because it's the president's signature achievement. and this is about health c

our justice correspondent pete williams joins us from the federal courthouse in washington. pete, good evening. >> reporter: brian, after a trial that dragged on for nine weeks, it took the jury just over a day to find roger clemens not guilty of lying about performance-enhancing drugs. this is a huge legal victory for clemens, one of the most successful baseball pitchers of all time. for more than four years these charges have threatened to over shadow his long career. >> i put a lot of hard work into that career. and so again, i appreciate my teammates that came in and all the e-mails and phone calls. thank you all very much. >> reporter: this verdict comes after other high profile steroid cases have fizzled, too. slugger barry bonds was sentenced only to home detention for giving evasive answers about steroids and after spending millions in a worldwide investigation, prosecutors decided not to file criminal charges against cyclist lance armstrong. so another setback for the government tonight, brian. >> pete williams at the courthouse in d.c. tonight. pete, thanks. >>> now

to the law, itself, we begin with our justice correspondent pete williams at the supreme court. pete, good evening. >> reporter: brian, this is a narrow victory for arizona, but enough of one for the governor to declare victory today and to vow to start putting the surviving parts of the law into effect as soon as the legal battles are over. while the court today struck down major parts of arizona's tough immigration law, one that inspired state crackdowns around the nation, it unanimously upheld the most controversial requirement -- that police making arrests or traffic stops check the immigration status of anyone suspected of being here illegally and detain them until their status is verified. >> this is the day that we have been waiting for and, make no mistake, arizona is ready. we know the eyes of the world will be upon us. >> reporter: four justices joined anthony kennedy's overall majority opinion. the court's three liberals and chief justice john roberts. the three other conservatives dissented -- justice elena kagan, who worked on the issue before she came to the court,

pete williams is live for us at the supreme court for us with reaction from there. go over the details and what this law means, the key changes ahead? >> i think this is a victory for arizona, but i think it's the narrowest possible victory for the state because the court struck down three parts of the law. there are four at issue, not the whole law but four that came up here in the supreme court. here are the three that were struck down. an arizona law that made it a crime to fail to have the right immigration papers. court said today that interferes with the federal immigration law, the federal schemes sets out who has to have what papers. the field is preempted by federal law. the court struck down a provision of the tough, new arizona law that would have made it a state crime for someone here illegally to look for work. the supreme court said that's the furthest at odds with the federal law so the state can't make something a crime that the federal law doesn't. it struck down another part of the law that said police in arizona can arrest someone without an arrest

let me bring in pete williams, also white house correspondent mike vique

let me bring in pete williams, also white house correspondent mike viqueira.we talk about the politics, the implications, break down what this change actually is and who it would affect. >> the administration says ted affect about 800,000 people it applies to anyone who was brought here before the age of 16, they have a high school diploma or military service or ged, and those people they say would be eligible every two years to ask the government not to deport them. it doesn't give them anything. it doesn't say they are no longer in the u.s. illegally. they technically would be. what the government would be saying is we won't deport you, and after every two years, you can apply for basically a deferral of removal. that's what the government technically calls it. from the homeland security perspective, they say this is refocusing limited federal resources on deporting the most dangerous people, people who have committed crimes, some sort of threat to national security, or have repeatedly come across the border in violation of the law. for them, they say this i

we have complete coverage of all of it tonight starting with our justice correspondent, pete williams, who broke the news for us on the air this morning. pete, good evening. >> reporter: brian, it was a blockbuster decision, both in terms of what the court said and who said it. in upholding the law it was not the usual partisan split and it was not the usual swing justice, anthony kennedy, who made the difference. as a spirited crowd waited for word of the court's most important ruling in decades, the decision came a few minutes after 10:00 a.m. >> our country is finally on the path of sanity when it comes to health care. >> reporter: but not everyone was elated. >> the government is out of control. >> reporter: the 5-4 decision upheld the law as a use of congress's power to tax. anyone who doesn't buy insurance has to pay a penalty, and the court said that amounts to a valid tax. >> today's decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the supreme court's decision to uphold it. >> reporter: opponents of the law had cha

our report tonight from nbc's pete williams. >> it's a riveting account from an army doctor who was in ford's theater that fateful night in 1865. dr. charles leal, just 23 years old, guessed he was sitting about 40 feet from the president's box when he said a shot rang out about 10:00 p.m. in the flowing penmanship of his clerk with ornate capital letters and straight lines, he describes rushing to lincoln's box after hearing people in the theater cry out at the president had been murdered. mrs. lincoln repeatedly said, oh, doctor, do what you can for him, do what you can, he wrote. the president was seating in a high banked arm chair with his head leaning toward his right side. his breathing was intermittent and the doctor could perceive no pulse, no movement of the artery. discovering president lincoln had been shot, the doctor ordered him moved to a house directly across the street and laid on a bed diagonally, the doctor wrote, because lincoln's 6'4" frame was so tall. at 7:20 a.m., he breathed his last and the spirit fled to god who gave it. >> you feel as you're reading his words

things the insurance companies can't vary rates based on ason's e or sex or medical condition. >> pete williams we'll be speaking with you tomorrow night as we review what the court has tosa pete iamsll >>> a long ovdue other than, as the government took a step to rectify an injustice over african-american marines received when they were first allowed to join the corps in the 1940s. today some 400 survivors received the congressional gold medal, an hor many of them could not have imagined back then but an honor their nion owed them. a report from our pentagon correspondent jim miklaszewski. >> reporter: at 87 george michelle and oscar culp put in a six-day week at their furniture store in oceanside, california. atmarines. s it'sk ethic >> made a man out of me. >> reporter: but it was a painful journey. at the height of world war ii, culp and were the first in the marine corps and immediately segreged. 20,000 went through, built specifically for blacks, little more than a mosquito, nak in st infestedswamp. >> what was that like? >> terrible. smells. >> ate and slept without seeing a white marine

lisa myers is at the courthouse in greensboro and registered voter in north carolina and pete williamsers. lisa, describe the scene yesterday of the elation that john edwards expressed all the way around. >> well, john edwards when he heard hit the verdict leaned back and a sense of relief washed over him and then once he was able to, he gave a long hug to his daughter, kate, who has been a rock and been by his side every moment and hugged his parents and hugged his lawyers and especially his lead counsel who asked him, you know, to take some chances and they clearly paid off. it was a highly emotional day. i mean at one point when we had word that the verdict came in, cate edwards sat there for an hour holding her grandfather's hand. >> you know, pete williams, the justice department has to make a decision now to retry on the other five counts and we have been reporting and it's unlikely that they're going to do that. this morning on "today" show we had three jurors on and all three raised their hand when matt lauer asked them, do you believe that john edwards is guilty of something?

pete williams joins us with the details. it must be big. pete williams is joining us. >> or nobody else is left here. i don't think the white house thought they could stop the vote. i think they thought this will key in down the road. this is the fight over documents from last year that detail how the justice department responded when it discovered initial public statements were wrong about the gun operation called fast and furious. before today's vote the president asserted executive privilege over most of the documents. that didn't stop congress from acting. it could make a difference if it all ends up in court and here's why. if the full house finds him in contempt, and it could vote next week, federal law says the u.s. attorney in washington must convene a grand jury to decide whether to prosecute. but the justice department in the past under republicans and democrats has taken the position that the u.s. attorney cannot prosecute if that happens because it would violate the separation of powers. most recently the george h.w. bush admini

joining us is pete williams. pete, thanks for joining us. >> you bet. a couple things about this ruling. it's 5-3, justice kegan stayed out of this. it's the court's three liberals and the chief justice, john roberts, to make the fifth vote. you mentioned the part of the law the court upheld. the court struck down three others that would make it a crime in arizona for illegal immigrants to look for work or fail to have the right papers and also struck down a provision of arizona's tough sb-1070 law that would have given the police the authority to arrest someone without a warrant if they suspected they had violated immigration laws. a couple things about this. first of all, the court said today that there's no reason now to think that the provision they upheld saying that the police should check the status of anyone they arrest, no reason now to think that presents constitutional challenges but it does leave the door open for someone to come along later and once the law goes into effect and mount a challenge. the second thing that has to be said about i

let's bringç in justice correspondent pete williams and a controversial law professor.east from the right, at this point, they are explaining away the

nbc news justice correspondent pete williams is live at the supreme court. nbc's david gregory, moderator of "meet the press" is here as well as chris cillizza, the msnbc contributor and managing editor of postpolitics.com and of course nbc news chief white house correspondent and political director chuck todd, host of "the daily rundown." pete, first to you. because this was very complicated. you're the one who stood out there and explained it allç to us. take us through the reasoning of the court. as they came up with this unexpectedly complicated decision. >> all right. what chief justice roberts basically does in this opinion says, let's look at first of all what the claim is against the individual mandate. that congress cannot require everybody to go out and buy something because that's beyond the power and the constitution that says congress has the power to, quote, regulate commerce. now, those who had objected to this said if somebody doesn't have insurance, then they're not doing anything you can regulate. and basically justice roberts agrees with

. >> pete williams, thank you. we will certainly be talking to you later in the week. >> you bet. >> our favorite legal eagle, savannah guthrie. obviously this is -- three out of four ain't bad, as they say in baseball or i don't know where they say it. how does the white house look upon this decision? >> we have not yet received a statement from the white house. >> look, the part that was most controversial was upheld. three other portions of the law were struck down so the federal government as you said won three out of four but i think the biggest thing to take away from this is really, i think the litigation that will be most impactful is yet to come. the biggest controversy that was caused by this law was the notion that it would lead to racial profiling. well, the justices allowed that provision of the law to stand and that only invites more lawsuits. once itoes into effect, one imagines there will be plaintiffs who say my equal protection rights were violated here and they will file constitutional lawsuits w

. >> let's go to pete williams at the supreme court. >> blocked its most controversial elements.sue is whether states enforce federal immigration laws. it's a complicated ruling and we have pete williams at the court in washington trying to sort it out all for us. tell us how it came down. >> natalie, i suspect that both sides will have something in here they can claim victory about. what the supreme court said is that most of the law that was challenged here is unconstitutional, but by a 5-3 vote the court has upheld a provision in the law that says police officers in arizona must check the immigration status of anyone they arrest before they person can be released. 5-3. justice kennedy writing the majority opinion. justices thomas, aleetd toe and scalia ascending. this is one that kagan sat out because she worked on this case at the justice department before they came to the supreme court. three other proiss of the law before the court were struck down. two of them made it a state crime to do something in arizona that was not a crime under federal immigration law. to look for w

nbc justice correspond pete williams is live outside the supreme court with the latest. pete, can you break down this ruling for us today? >> sure, the ruling is unanimous on the part they upheld. they upheld the part of the arizona law that says after police arrest someone or detain someone for any reason at all, they must check the immigration status of that person and detain them until they know the answer. it was 5-3 striking down three other provisions of the law that made it a crime in arizona for undocumented immigrants to look for work, to fail to carry the right papers, and that would have allowed police to arrest someone without a warrant if they just suspected they were here illegally, so interesting line up on the court. in terms of striking down those other parts, 5-3 the majority pin written by justice kennedy, joined by three of the court's liberals and chief justice john roberts, the ninth justice kagan sat this one out, because she worked on this issue before she came to the court. >>> can we expect more challenges? >> it's by no means the end of the issu

nbc news justice correspondent pete williams. pete i know you can only stay with us for a brief time. so i will start with you. you were literally out of breath this morning as the decision was issued. run down the highlights for us. >> i want to know which of you thought this would be upheld as a tax decision. this is actually two decisions here, the first one looks at the central claim by opponents of the health care law who said congress can't do this because congress has the power to regulate commerce, but somebody who doesn't have insurance isn't engaged in commerce, and therefore is beyond the reach of this law, the supreme court actually agreeded with that by a vote of 5-4 with chief justice roberts joining the conservatives. but they didn't stop there, they then looked at the fallback argument that the government had, which said the congress can do this under its taxing authority and that's where the supreme court found the majority to uphold the law. chief justice roberts joined by the four liberals on the court said con

>> pete williams in washington. pete, thanks. now here's tamron. >> jeff, thank you. >>> mitt romney has turned his focus to the economy as he visits three communities in pennsylvania today. nbc's peter alexander has more from weatherly, pennsylvania. good morning, peter. >> reporter: tamron, good morning to you. after a detour to respond to president obama's new policy on young illegal immigrants, mitt romney is hoping to steer his bus tour back to his primary message. that's jobs and the economy. he makes three more stops today in small towns here in pennsylvania, places that he says president obama has forgotten about. kicking off day two of his "every town counts" tour, mitt romney's engaging voters in the kind of face-to-face politicking that's become a staple of any presidential campaign. >> in the days ahead, we'll be traveling in what are often called the back roads of america, but i think our tour's going to take us along what i'll call the backbone of america. >> reporter: they are the type of conservative, rural areas

pete williams, and savanna guthrie. thank you for joining me. you're the ones i look to for legal understanding i have my own gut beliefs obviously. here he is after the juror let out. here is some of the first things he said. >> thank you for the jurors and their incredibly hard work and their diligence. they took their job very, very seriously. as we saw both during the trial, the attention they paid to the evidence during the trial, the presentation to the lawyers, and the fact they have now spent nine almost nine full days deliberating trying to reach a fair and just result under the evidence of the law. all i can say is thank goodness this country has the system it has. i think those jurors were an example of what juries are supposed to do. >> there you have a well thought out call of the jurors that just sprung him. >> i must say i seldom heard anybody found not guilty to say thank you for the jury. >> have you heard of hung jury on five of the six counts giving a salute for greatness? they could not reach an agreement that he is applaudin

pete williams continues his speed reading. what else have you learned? >> reporter: so it's a 5-4 decision with chief justice roberts joining the court's liberals in upholding it. the other conservatives voting to strike it down. the chief justice basically says that it is a tax. it does impose a tax, but there's basically no penalty on a taxpayer if you don't pay it. this is unlike any other tax. if you refuse to pay your income tax, for example, you can be prosecuted. that's a crime. there is no penalty associated with the failure to pay the penalty for not buying health insurance. so the supreme court says in essence, there's no real compulsion here. i can tell you that this is one of the scenarios that administration officials had considered, that if the court did this, they would consider it a big victory. their view of this is that a rational person who has a choice between paying a penalty and buying insurance will buy insurance. and that will keep the health care system working. that will provide the insurance industry enough income to support th

joining us is pete williams. pete, thanks for joining us. >> you bet.gs about this ruling. it's 5-3, justice kegan stayed out of this. it's the court's three liberals and the chief justice, john roberts, to make the fifth vote. you mentioned the part of the law the court upheld. the court struck down three others that would make it a crime in arizona for illegal immigrants to look for work or fail to have the right papers and also struck down a provision of arizona's tough

pete williams joins us live with details here and pete at least one headline categorizes a win for fox news and not for the fcc. what happened. >> reporter: not fox news it's fox television. it's a win. the networks claimed the fcc's indecency policies are all over the map and that they violate the broadcasters first amendment rights since there are limitations on what you can say and show on broadcast tv but not on cable or all other sorts of places in the mass media. the supreme court said we agree with you that the fcc's rules are all over the map. they are vague, the fcc said at one point that programs would be deemed indecent and networks could be fined if there were repeated violations. then they shift their policy and levied fines against fox for two award shows for fleeting expletives against nicole ritchey and cher who in 2002 and 2013 uttered words that i can't even say or shouldn't on cable and then against abc for showing a brief glimpse of a nude woman on an episode of nypd blue. today the supreme court said the rules were vague, they kept changing so much but declined to

. >> nbc news justice correspondent pete williams. pete, people like to make comparisons. you heard the congressman there make a football or game analogy. some people have said this is a game of chicken between isa and holder. how can we -- at least how do we categorize what will happen in a few hours, or do we even know? >> we don't. i mean, it will be three hours. they'll meet in the capital. it will be chairman isa, who is the head of this investigating committee in the house, the attorney general, and then the ranking democrat from the house committee as well as charles grassley, the senior republican on the senate judiciary committee, and patrick leahy, the chairman, presumably. all of them will sit down and see whether -- it's all really up to issa at this point whether he is satisfied with what the attorney general is preparing to offer because he is the one who would then ask his full committee to vote on whether to hold the attorney general in contempt. if the committee does, then it goes to the full house, and then, tam ron, i don't know what happens after that b

let's bringç in justice correspondent pete williams and a controversial law professor.as i have pointed out, at least from the right, at this point, they are explaining away the decision from the high court by saying this is just a tax. explain to us what they decideded here. >> i don't think it's just a tax, but it's interesting, the opponents of the law had said that, yes, congress has the power to regulate commerce. but it can't regulate someone who doesn't have insurance because they're not in the stream of commerce. five justices actually greagree with that proposition, and normally that would have ended it. but it also turned out that fife justices said it is a legitimate use of congress's taxing authority. so what happened is chief justice roberts joined the conservatives in saying you can't justify the law under that commerce clause argument, but then he switched and joined the liberals, but you can justify it as a legitimate use of the congressional taxing power and that's what made the difference. so a 5-4 decision upholding the law, saying it's a legitimate u

nbc's pete williams has been polling the developments lou outthe day and joins us now from washington happens next? >> then it goes to the full house. if the full house votes to find him in contempt, then it is sent to the u.s. attorney. the federal prosecutor here in washington who works for the justice department. and the federal law says when the u.s. attorney gets one of these, he's required to convene a grand jury. now that much is certain. what happens next is not. because it is a long standing view of the justice department that congress can't tell the justice department who to prosecute. that's a separation of powers issue. secondly, when the president asserts executive privilege, it is a long stand practicing of both republican and democratic administrations that the justice department will stop and will not seek to prosecute and executive branch official covered by a claim of executive privilege. i can tell what you happens next. goes to the full house. but after that all bets are off. >> i guess that begs the question, pete, what's the point of this you a part from the thea

we will bring in nbc news justice correspondent pete williams. ton and has been listening all morning for us. pete, obviously the president issuing an executive privilege for certain documents was a big stunner, prior to the beginning of this committee hearing. however, it hasn't slowed anything down which will most likely result in this contempt vote moving forward for eric holder, correct? >> yes. i think that seems pretty clear that republicans have the votes. it will pass through the house committee, then it goes to the house floor and if the full house passes it, then we begin a trip through a hall of mirrors here and here's what -- there's a federal law, thomas, that says that if congress passes a contempt citation, the u.s. attorney in washington, d.c. shall, uses the word shall, convene a grand jury and consider criminal prosecution. now, it's a misdemeanor, but what the justice department under both parties, as a matter of fact, most recently the republicans took this position during the george w. bush administration that when a president

pete williams joins me now. pete, these are rare, a contempt vote for an attorney general. as far as i've seen, it's only really happened about two times in the modern era. talk to us about the process here, and what exactly is it, and what will happen? >> well, we expect the house will probably approve the contempt citation, and the committee -- rather, then goes to the full house. you know better than i what will happen there. if the house does pass this contempt citation, guess what? it's referred to the justice department for possible prosecution. actually sent to the u.s. attorney here in washington. these things usually don't go that far, luke. there usually is some kind of agreement, and there is more time built into the system. the full house wouldn't vote immediately, even if the committee approves it. the stand offis this. what the committee is saying or chairman of the committee, darrell issa is saying, we're going to have this vote unless you give us the documents. and the attorney general is saying, i'll give you the documents if it you'll call off the vote. an