petitione petitioners's position is very, very far from that balance and therefore the courts should be affirmed. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. i would like to start with the university's justice kennedy. i don't think it's the case that just because congress exempts churches it has to exempt the universities. it needs a rational for drawing the line. my friend said the line doesn't have to be perfect. it has to be pretty good. the line they have drawn is absurd and i would urge you to look at the dominican sisters and authored by a former head of the tax division. it explains the line they picked using 60-33 of the tax code makes mow sense. that's a filing requirement, but there is no difference. if my clients filed before them, they get the same status as the churches. the only difference in that provision whether you filed the form. the treatment is exactly the same. to use that line to draw a distinction or the little sisters of the poor is a terrible line to draw. >> did you say that was wrong. for the line they drew, the organi

the petitioners use the phrase hijacking. that's an accurate description of what the government wants to do. they want to use the mechanism that little sisters, other petitioners have set up to provide services because they want the coverage to be seamless. it's not whether or not women receive contraceptive services. petitioners do not object to the fact that people who work for them will have these services provided. they object to having them provided through the mechanism that they have set up, because they think that that is sinful. >> i understand that's their position. we think it doesn't constitute a substantial burden because the way that this is structured, the way congress designed from the perspective of the employer that this is provided through a separate program. >> but you're saying don't worry. religions, you're not complicit. that's what you're saying. >> nochlt we're saying judgment about complicity is up to you. on the scope of a recognizable burden, that that was true in the presmith case law before rifra

chief justice, and may it please the court, petitioner seeks a categorical carveout from the concept of an "official act" for things like meetings, phone calls, events, that, in his view, do not further or advance or attempt to influence a particular government action, but simply provide somebody with access to the government. justice roberts: well, he's not the only one. one there's an extraordinary document in this case, and that's the amicus brief filed by former white house counsel to president obama, former white house counsel to president george w. bush, former white house counsel to president clinton, former white house counsel to george h.w. bush, former white house counsel to president reagan. and they say, quoting their brief, that "if this decision is upheld, it will cripple the ability of elected officials to fulfill their role in our representative democracy." now, i think it's extraordinary that those people agree on anything. [laughter] justice roberts: but to agree on something as sensitive as this and to be willing to put their names on something that says this canno

chief justice, and may it please the court, petitioner seeks a categorical carveout from the conceptan "official act" for things like meetings, phone calls, events, that, in his view, do not further or advance or attempt to influence a particular government action, but simply provide somebody with access to the government. justice roberts: well, he's not the only one. one there's an extraordinary document in this case, and that's the amicus brief filed by former white house counsel to president obama, former white house counsel to president george w. bush, former white house counsel to president clinton, former white house counsel to george h.w. bush, former white house counsel to president reagan. and they say, quoting their brief, that "if this decision is upheld, it will cripple the ability of elected officials to fulfill their role in our representative democracy." now, i think it's extraordinary that those people agree on anything. [laughter] justice roberts: but to agree on something as sensitive as this and to be willing to put their names on something that says this cannot be

proof of it is that several petitioners are in that group of fewer than 50 employees. and they're asking for the -- and they're asking for -- and they've raised the rfra claim here, they have to meet the contraceptive coverage so the employees get the coverage from their regular doctors as part of their regular health plan. then, also, if your employer is not providing you coverage in that group, then you go on an exchange. and you purchase a policy on the exchange. and that policy provides you with contraceptive coverage as part of your regular health plan from your regular doctor. or if you are eligible you apply for medicaid and medicaid gives you contraceptive coverage as part of your regular health plan for your regular doctor. >> for the briefs who have to buy plans because they work for a small employer and the employer doesn't offer health insurance, does that arrangement frustrate the government's compelling interest? >> no, because in that circumstance, your honor, the only option that that employee has is to buy individual policy on the exchange. and that in

to adopt those petitioners position. and as soon as justice taken did to put in place for a warrant you can do it as you go there. but right now we have dozens of cases where the police tell the homeowner to apply for a warrant so the number of warrants are much less the cause of that so few campus system in place and you tell the person if you don't do the protest you'll be charged with obstruction what are you losing out to? >> the enhanced ability. that is the difference for the dw y. there is an enhanced ability with tw live. in minnesota for example, if i can not charge their refusal left with the obstruction i can no longer use that to enhance in the future the wi of the same person. >> to create an exception to the fourth amendment drastically. into a somewhat to say yes or no without a warrant. if they don't comply that charge of construction. >> but not the same consequences that was the d.a. did you why. >> but that is not to penalize instruction at a higher level. that is your choice. >> added is minnesota's p

petitioners no longer wished to see the resources drained as they put it.or the benefit of the slave states. the slaveocracy which adams used to describe those people had been waiting for sufficient provocation, adams had now and henry wise of virginia to censure the former president, very grave punishment. adams said good and you should think about that. and the possible humiliation of being censured, he was delighted, it was a war he had sought and gained and look forward to in an uproar and the house adjourned. let me back up a little bit and explain how adams had come to this point. like all new englanders adams was opposed to slavery and considered a gross violation of american republican principles and christian principles as well but he also considered slavery to be in effect a settled issue, the constitution had been silent on it, states were free to do as they wish, essentially nothing the federal government could do or from adams's point of view should do about slavery. his views began to change in 1820, the missouri compromise, what happened then

the petitioners no longer wished to see the resources of the free states drained, as they put it, for the benefit of the slave states. well, the slave hocrisy which is a word adams used to describe those people, have been waiting for and sufficient provocation to move against adams. adams has now provided it. henry wise of virginia now rose to propose a resolution to censure the former president. every great punishment. adams replied good, and you should think about that word. he said could, he wasn't thinking about the trial trial s convicted wasn't thinking about the problems of being century. it was a war he thought and he had gained and he looked forward to it. in his uproar the house then adjourned. let me back up a little bit and explain how adams had come to this point it is quite extraordinary career. so like virtually all new englanders, adams was profoundly opposed to slavery and considered it a gross violation both of american republic principles and of christian principles as well. let he also considered slavery to be in effect a settled issue. the constitution had been si

chief justice, and may it please the court, petitioner seeks a categorical carveout from the conceptan "official act" for things like meetings, phone calls, events, that, in his view, do not further or advance or attempt to influence a particular government action, but simply provide somebody with access to the government. justice roberts: well, he's not the only one. one there's an extraordinary document in this case, and that's the amicus brief filed by former white house counsel to president obama, former white house counsel to president george w. bush, former white house counsel to president clinton, former white house counsel to george h.w. bush, former white house counsel to president reagan. and they say, quoting their brief, that "if this decision is upheld, it will cripple the ability of elected officials to fulfill their role in our representative democracy." now, i think it's extraordinary that those people agree on anything. [laughter] justice roberts: but to agree on something as sensitive as this and to be willing to put their names on something that says this cannot be

douglas: to make it clear, the key issue tomorrow is that the petitioners from texas are asking the court to require that states apportion based on the number of voters, not allowing it to be an option, but to require it, which is without precedent. that would be quite staggering. susan: no cameras in the supreme court. but, there is audio recordings. at this point in our series, we have begun to work them in. you will hear some of them and the justices in their own words. tomorrow's case, we'll have the audio available when the court releases it. ted: it was not until relatively recently that the audio became available immediately after the argument. i think that's what it is probably tomorrow. it is not contemporaneously, am i right? i think the bush versus gore cases were the first time that the actual audio became available in instant that the argument was over. that was 15 years ago. susan: we, along with other people in the media petitioned to justice rehnquist to open the case up. we do not want to get too much ahead of ourselves, we want to set the stage in a little more detail ab

in his -- in the petitioner's first conviction on domestic assault. he was given time and it was applied against his sentence. >> you think the courts, the judges are incapable of making determinations of a remedy? >> certainly not. no, i think, and i think under due process, you know, that's the, that's the advantage of due process. if courts can fashion a remedy to target the specific prejudice and i think they are well equipped to do that. >> where did it come from the barker versus wengott, where prejudice is supposed to be assumed. they don't say that, they analyze prejudice. >> that's right, the court only assumed prejudice in one case. >> we held it? >> you did, and it was two things, extraordinary delay, it was an 8-1/2 year period where they were indicted and brought to trial. and there was no justifiable reason for that delay. >> no, no, my question is, your council says that barker versus winggo, if it applied would be presuming prejudice. i have been looking at that, in the casist, it does not presume prejudice. i want to know where it com

>>pam moore: petitioner been sold at a target store with the word san fran on it >>grant lodes: we're having some fun with this you should see the comments we have a website of before that and on our website. >>gary: few receive 64 dungeon of 30 first-place votes in high school coach jerry martin is the nba coach of the year was fiscal to the year award is about this about what we build the have a gold mine the warriors term is the best he brought baltimore he really is a generally a nice person game 5 tomorrow night against houston in oakland never caught this morning and this moment is the biggest news of the biggest in the favor occurred last nine.--night. and thankfully draymond green ended at one because there but a quiet guys without has known as the locker room will be a different place. more likely now has season is over the next the for the warriors was to get rid of houston looks like the trailblazers 43 degree evening's agenda louring and the left fielder batted stores amount to nothing on file as we said for many years he does not understand that most of us could do exactl

and also, to my friend's point that the petitioner made claims of prejudice, be i'd point the court to joint appendix 66 and 68 where he made his claim of prejudice in the space of a couple paragraphs. this sort of ill sfraustrates t problem the state has in rebutting claims of prejudice that aren't substantiated. he didn't file his affidavit, which was still fairly bare, but at least more substantiated, until at least three months after he filed his motion and his motion was denied. it was a motion to reconsider. i think defendants in this context have to come forward with some showing of prejudice. >> well, that might present some challenges. but there are also challenges on the other side. it's often hard to show that people have forgotten things. they've forgotten them. so unless there is something like a witness dying, it is very difficult to make the kind of showing that you're suggesting. and that's why barker left things flexible and said, in midwest cases we really are going to look at prejudice. we're going to see what you have to say for yourself in some extreme cases, we're

on-line petitioners are trying to stop the event but the university says it will go on as planned.p until today the stop trump movement was operating more behind the scenes with them fighting for every single delegate. now that fight has blown up in the open just when you thought the race wouldn't get any crazier. >> it probably will going forward. >> the can cats padidates parti in a town hall. they talked contested convention and taking direct aim at frontrunner done fald -- donald trump before the big announcement to team up. >> we are going to a contested convention. people said i don't know what i am talking about. turns out i am right. the delegates are going to think about who can win in the fall. i have read you these numbers and i can read you more numbers. >> (booing) >> i don't know why they are booing. >> we are likely headed to a contested convention where n nobody gets to # is it 37. i am going to come in with a ton of delegates and donald trump will come in with a ton of delegates and one of us will be the nominee. >> only three times did the person heading into the

the actions of slave rebels and runaways, freedom petitioners and climate did not lie outside of but shaped abolition and its goals. for example, i found the british quick abolitionist call for immediate abolition in 1824 which most historians are aware of, first of all for immediate abolition of slavery. in this pamphlet she called for immediate abolition with a strong defense of the slave rebellion that had taken place the year prior. as most publishers understood the story of abolition must begin with the struggles of the enslaved. this is particularly true of something like the haitian revolution whose impact is on the movement of our slavery has not really been appreciated. we have many histories of the haitian revolution and we are unaware of the tragic history of the islands being made worse by the policies of former colonizers, but we are really not aware of how profound its impact was on the movement to abolish slavery, how, in fact, it was even instead of immediate uncompensated, that is to slaveholders, abolition. so the connection between slave resistance and abolition in

the specific issue of actually providing federal benefits to illegal aliens as is the pirgs' -- petitioner'sy sense to me. >> it would make sense if congress decided it but congress decided the opposite of what the president wants to do. the president says -- here is his argument. i'm big-hearted and these people have american citizen children and illegal alien parents and i'm not going to split them up no matter what the law says i should do. that's his argument. can he do that? >> mara? >> because if he can do that legally, then they are in the united states legally for the duration of the order and they can get certain work paced benefits as long as they are working and paying taxes. the first question is what he did legally constitutional if so these people are in the united states legally. >> this case changes the whole ballgame. it changes the environment in which being dealt with. >> i think it's bigger than that. if the president is allow to do go ahead and to do this and it's decided that it's constitutional, then you can send congress home and can you eliminate article one from the

let's talk is about the breath test and the practicalities of adopting the petitioner's position. >>et's assume, i know my colleagues are, but as part of this, okay, assume as justice kagan did that a system could be put in place for a warrant on a breath test. if you're going to do at the precinct, you can do it as you go there. right now we get dozens of consent cases where the police, where the please tell the homeowner, we are applying for a warrant. the homeowner says, well, then i got to do it. so the number of warrants are much less because of that. because they know they're going to get a warrant. so if you can put a system in place for a warrant and you tell the person, if you don't take the word, if you don't do the blood, the breath test, you're going to be charged with obstruction can what are you losing out? >> what we are really losing out is the enhanced ability your -- enhance ability. that is the difference between -- >> what's that? >> for a dwi. in both minnesota, i'm sure everywhere, there's enhanceability with the data i lost. for example, if i can't charge thdwi

in the first place >> that's right >>> you've been over seeing amicus briefs siding with various petitionersn various cases. the ones that have already been heard by the court, know there is someone who won't be able to vote. do they freeze the game at that point or they just go ahead with the missing man formation? >> there are a few options. they could decide the case notwithstanding and if it's a unanimous decision great r or if it's four and four, the lower decision would be affirmed. there are some other complicated scenarios like in fisher v effects as, the diversity case where the justice is also recused, so you have a decision potentially by only seven justices and it wouldn't be a tie, obviously, couldn't be a tie in that instance. there's also the option of holding over cases for yet another term for reargument which is possible, within the discretion of the court, has a mixed history as to how often it has happened but it is an option >>> we're looking back at the life and times of inside story. a too short life, but really interesting times. after a young killer walked into a chu

let's talk just about the breath tesh and the practicalities of adopting the petitioner's position. >> let's assume, i know my colleagues are, as part of this, okay, assume as justice kagan did, that the system could be put in place for a warrant on a breath test, if you're doing it at the precinct. you can do it as you go there. right now, we get dozens of cases where the police oppose, where the police tell the homeowner, we're applying for a warrant. and the homeowner says, well, then i have to do it. and so the number of warrants are much less because of that. because they know they're going to get a warrant. so if you can put a system in place for a warrant, and you tell the person, if you don't take the warrant, you're going to -- if you don't do the breath test, you're going to be charged with obstruction. what are you losing out? >> what we're really losing out is the enhanced ability. that is the difference between -- >> enhanced ability? >> for a dwi. in both minnesota -- and i'm sure, well, everywhere, enhanced ability with dwi laws. in minnesota, and for example, if i just

the specific issue of actually providing federal benefits to illegal aliens as is the pirgs' -- petitioner's me. >> it would make sense if congress decided it but congress decided the opposite of what the president wants to do. the president says -- here is his argument. i'm big-hearted and these people have american citizen children and illegal alien parents and i'm not going to split them up no matter what the law says i should do. that's his argument. can he do that? >> mara? >> because if he can do that legally, then they are in the united states legally order and they can get certain work paced benefits as long as they are working and paying taxes. the first question is what he did legally constitutional if so these people are in the united states legally. >> this case changes the whole ballgame. it changes the environment being dealt with. >> i think it's bigger than that. if the president is allow to do go ahead and to do this and it's decided that it's constitutional, then you can send congress home and can you eliminate article one from the constitution. then there are no laws. i me

it is as a student speaks, the petitioner responds and then the court needs to decide whether infected should have in fact it should have been protected taking into account the content as we have seen in the context in which the speech took place further within the school or sometimes outside of the school. it was clear to me as i read the account of the view of the student speech right to more expensive to sustaining democratic values, principles and practices in the society cannot easily be realized in today's education policy environment. most centrally concerned by the question can be active speech be protected should do that extend can we defend the students rights to speak independent of the content of their speech and the growing number of contemporary schools for the past two years mostly in the growing number of schools especially the low income and minority students they spent days, weeks and months without ever being allowed to use their voices area they are at the center of the activity and the students expected to follow the lead and respond when spoken to. in the rare cas

. >> dave: a spousal week and with all of that alive luck sfo petitioners spiderweb with all the rawwe carry late tomorrow monday it may be a couple inches up there in the higher elevations temperatures for us 51 san jose closing 1040 954 you can see going on in nevada. it we did speak of those wins you will feel the chill going on because it is an onshore wind cold air sell-off with all this to at the surface they do pop in the midafternoon as you can see in the team's any field is also by game time to market at&t part happenings' say around 6 05. it will still be with us in the teens there and i will provide that extra chill especially as the sun starts at a we lose our daytime heating san jose the south scratching seven years ago by 2:00 member for treating very rapidly through the '60s a vacancy as we approach sunset you break down planning forecast by new we're talking mid-60's upper sixties or seventies by about 4:00. more details of the week and forecast coming up a bit. >> marty:happening right now, a manhunt is underway in ohio for the person or people responsible for shooti

. >> number 759, petitioner versus arizona. >> number 18, roe against wade. >> quite often in many of our famous decisions were quite unpopular. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate are medically -- very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million who helpedeople stick together because they believed in the rule of law. >> welcome to landmark cases. our series of looking at the 12 most important cases in supreme court's history. we will learn more about the people in the issues behind them. tonight, lochner v. new york, 1905. it is one of the controversial cases of the supreme court, and in fact the story of a banker from new york whose case gave rise to an era that defined supreme court cases for the next 30 years. let me introduce you to our two guests who would tell us more about this important case. randy barnett is that georgetown law school and is the author of a book, restoring the lost constitution, the presumption of liberty. think you for being with us. paul kens wrote the book on lochner, he wrote a book called lochner v. new york.

but miranda, i think, haracteristically by the petitioner is brought free in this light in an attempt to make something that isn't there. ost: jeff, what did you hear there? jeffrey: he's not arguing that held by gun n is point. he's not claiming that. we're not talking third degree. squarely, both lawyers are struggling to use the sixth amendment, which the court already says applied during interrogation and the fifth mendment and also trying to come up with an alternative to the standard the court uses totality of ed the the circumstances test. spanno e called from from 1959, don't look at all the characteristics of the defendant, was he foreign born, spoke english , well, understood his rights? it was a mushy open-ended test. that's why the lawyers in other parts of the oral argument were had an g miranda only eighth grade education. he wasn't well educated and didn't understand his rights. at the same time, he used spano, the justices and the society believed this was too unpredictable to be able to coercive pressures. that's why you hear the lawyers sixth the fifth and amendment

. >> good evening commissioners ryan petitioner for a dr requester very happy to report that some events may have own taken things the property has sold and we met the new closings mondays i was told we met the new owner the hallway and been able within the course of 10 minutes to resolve this and i think we have a set of plans that everyone is okay. and ready for the building and moving on so of it's all right. i'll do something slightly unorthodox and give you an overview and if mr. williams is in support they'll take dr and approve the conditions and we'll move on and be happy neighbors is in our 4 minutes remaining we can have the power point this is sheet a .2 we are a backward concerned of the preserving the oscar pistorius ben's you are property from the south we look at the 2.1 a better place it starts looking at the southwest corner and taking taking the notch 3 feet to the north and 6 feet to the east and that's going to maintain the openness for media clients art studio down below and then going back to. >> i think this 2.1. >> 2.1 i'm sorry. >> two other drawings. >> so 2.2 t

[video clip] >> what's the petitioners do not object to the fact that the people who work with them will have the services provided. they object to having them provided through the mechanism that they have set up. they think whether you or i or , anybody else thinks, they think that that complicity is central. >> i understand that, mr. chief justice. i understand that is their position. let me engage with you on the question of whether that constitutes a substantial burden. we think it doesn't constitute a substantial burden because the way that this accommodation is structured, although you're quite right, it seeks from the perspective of the employee to ensure the employee gets the protection that congress designed, that from the perspective of the employer, that this is provided through a separate program. >> you were saying don't worry, religion, you're not complicit. that is what you are saying. >> no we are saying judgment , about complicity is up to you. but that there is an objective limit that we recognize on what is a verdict. smith, what did youah hear in that argument? hannah

four narrow categories that congress has passed statutes allowing deferred action 9 for vawa self-petitioners, t- and u- visa applicants, and widows and widowers that somehow we'd have to also be challenging -- justice kagan: do you think this? suppose that instead of doing dapa, dhs had decided to go one by one by one and it just you know, it sent a notice to each person. do you think at that point that that dhs could also say, and this will include work authorization because of our preexisting regulations? general keller: insofar as they were granting lawful presence, no. work authorization, i think at most, you'd look at, well, has there been congressional acquiescence to this minimal program -- justice kagan: i guess i'm not sure i understood the first part of that because let's just, like, take out the labels. just it notifies a single person, you're low priority. we're not going to deport you unless we change our minds. and by virtue of preexisting regulations, you now can work on the books. is that legal? could dhs do that? general keller: i don't think there's statutory authorization.

the department of building inspection on 26 street appealing the issuance on 2016 to martha of on petitioneremodeling the units modifying walls and adding laundry and relocation of kitchen and electrical and plumbing on separate permits that was heard on march thirty and on for further consideration this continued the matter to determine whether less than 75 percent of the walls are removed and identify significant dividends between the revision permit only march 30th 2016 tsf continued to allow time for the departments we'll have them come up first starting with mr. sanchez anticipate with the president's agreement each party 3 minutes. >> i'd like to thank everyone for their patience this is been a link evening more than we thought that would be thank you. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department some of the staff reviewed the cumulative plans for the project and have determined that the project is not resulting in more than 75 percent of the wall interiors didn't require for this permit or the permit in hold so we have confirmed that it is compliant with planning code paw what perce

four narrow categories that congress has passed statutes allowing deferred action 9 for vawa self-petitioners, t- and u- visa applicants, and widows and widowers that somehow we'd have to also be challenging -- justice kagan: do you think this? suppose that instead of doing dapa, dhs had decided to go one by one by one and it just you know, it sent a notice to each person. do you think at that point that that dhs could also say, and this will include work authorization because of our preexisting regulations? general keller: insofar as they were granting lawful presence, no. work authorization, i think at most, you'd look at, well, has there been congressional acquiescence to this minimal program -- justice kagan: i guess i'm not sure i understood the first part of that because let's just, like, take out the labels. just it notifies a single person, you're low priority. we're not going to deport you unless we change our minds. and by virtue of preexisting regulations, you now can work on the books. is that legal? could dhs do that? general keller: i don't think there's statutory authorization.

the discussion rests on the existence of a student speech or holds a banner, petitioner response and then the court needs to decide whether the speech action have been protected taking into account the content of the speech in the context in which speech took place where was in the school or outside of the school as we heard. it was clear to me the courts view, the more expansive interpretation cannot easily be realized in today's education. most centrally unconcerned by the question to what extent can the speech itself be protected, to what extent can we defend students rights to speech independent of the content? in a growing number of contemporary schools and a growing number of schools, especially those serving low-income and minority students spend days, weeks, and months without ever being allowed to use their voices. expected to follow her lead and respond only when spoken to and only with the responses written in the teacher's guide. and there are cases in which it's focused, usually there is a timer on the teacher's powerpoint that goes up to three minutes and you get a very

. >> the little sisters of the poor and the co-petitioners face a dilemma.tion coverage through their healthcare plans. the government con seeds the sin seert of those religious beliefs b . with all due respect that is not true. >> could you explain to me the analogy with military objectors during the war? many of them felt that genuine belief they were pacifists, that if they registered as pacifists, that that would mean other people would have to serve in their lieu. they were going to jail and many of them did go to jail because of this belief. why is going to jail less burdensome or less important than paying a financial penalty? >> i don't think it is but let me stick with the conscientious objector because i think it's to say that because they face jail time there's clearly a substantial burden. of course, you get to the second part of the analysis and you probably would insist on a continue yeng shus objector actually objecting. i think it's important to distinguish between -- >> let's stop there. to the extent that a conscientious objector's good fai

so, if i could then turn to the which line criminal rule, i understand to be the core petitioner's caset said te required as a condition, that a motorist arrested or detained for drunk driving, agree to a bac testing and the state may impose significant consequences on the subsequent refusal. lesser sanctions are insufficient to overcome the natural incentive that many drivers will have not to abide by that condition. as a matter of common sense, i think that doesn't make sense. the idea that you can only withdraw a government benefit has major problems. for example, if the condition would ask th extend beyond the m of the benefit, it does nothing. if i could your honor, i am ban, when a one year i leave the solicitor general's office, from content think with the office on an official matter. that is punishable by up to one year in jail. the is a condition of my employment. that is not the only condition. 14135, the refusal to give dna. the idea that there is a bright line between administering the sanctions and criminal sanctions that forces the government only withdrawal of the benefi

four narrow categories that congress has passed statutes allowing deferred action 9 for vawa self-petitioners, t- and u- visa applicants, and widows and widowers that somehow we'd have to also be challenging -- justice kagan: do you think this? suppose that instead of doing dapa, dhs had decided to go one by one by one and it just you know, it sent a notice to each person. do you think at that point that that dhs could also say, and this will include work authorization because of our preexisting regulations? general keller: insofar as they were granting lawful presence, no. work authorization, i think at most, you'd look at, well, has there been congressional acquiescence to this minimal program -- justice kagan: i guess i'm not sure i understood the first part of that because let's just, like, take out the labels. just it notifies a single person, you're low priority. we're not going to deport you unless we change our minds. and by virtue of preexisting regulations, you now can work on the books. is that legal? could dhs do that? general keller: i don't think there's statutory authorization.