. >> as petitioners, if it is just a center that counsels people on abortion in a general sense, no >> no, it doesn't. it's a center that helps women plan their families. that's what it is. now, it's not -- they don't have doctors who are performing abortions there. i'm just saying it's a family planning center. k? it's an information center. my point is the same. there are millions of people in this country whoever views on this subject that are absolutely opposed one to the other. so that, to me, suggests the law should keep it as simple as possible. and that's why sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. i mean if, if the law is ermissible which says, doctor, you must tell the woman about adoption, then why shouldn't the law say family planning center, you must tell the woman about abortion? sounds evenhanded, sounds if everybody in the same business is under the same rules. you, the government and nifla, are trying to make a distinction there. and i need to know if you're right. the only distinction i hear so far is one has a doctor about to perform, and the other has jt a couns

pr the petitioner. his figures show it's a very trivial thing both for major newspapers such as "wall street journal," and for small newspapers such as the one in the pacific northwest where he operates. we have been seeking from the industry and some of the members of congress have been helpful in going back to their newspaper constituents and asking, please tell us two things. one is, how many -- three things. how much pages do you print a day? how much per page is the extra cost? and how does that compare to the price of the paper? then we can really put in perspective and judge the extent to which it's a compelling argument. we're quite open to receiving that information. i have no idea what it will show, but we're desperately seeking input. any newspapers in any of your areas who would be willing to submit that information would be very, very helpful. senator enzi: that information won't be difficult from the big newspapers. it's the little newspapers that don't have an extra person to calculate wh

tell you when the statue was put there why, what it meant, who jefferson davis was, and do a much petitioner job of presenting -- better job of presenting the history. people save if you take down a statue you are destroying ohio or erasing history. i don't want to race history mitchell business, what i do, is trying teach people history. so we want to keep the history but let's put it in a museum where it's accessible. as we know the history, we have more wisdom to be able to deal with the events of today. the civil war was very rick ennode our history, and the more we study it, the more we're able -- we have the wisdom the understanding to deal with the difficult episode that happened now. i tell my students -- i'm famous around campus for using football analogies to illustrate my opinions, but i like to tell m students that stuff -- for us to study history likes the football team watching game film of their future opponents. it's not -- this is a -- it's a film of a game that was past. what does that isn't that right matters a lot and they have to spend a lot of time to watch the films, h

today almost eb-5 petitioners informs in the 903 approved regional senators. as interest in the eb 5 regional senator has grown, so have cases of fraud, cases of corruption and threats to national security . there are many, many well documented examples of inherent problems in this program. in fact, over the last five years, i along with several of my colleagues have written over 30 oversight letters, highlights the various abilities of this visa program. because i haven't consistently raised awareness - because i have consistently raised awareness of rampart fraud and abus of this program, i don't need to tell you about the ex-wife of china's third most government official who pled guilty to committing eb-5 fraud by submitting false documents as part of a scheme to escape to the u.s. with stolen funds. i don't need to tell you how homeland security investigations discovered a group of iranian operatives attempting to infiltrate the united states and facility trifment through a procurement network back in 2013. i don't need to detail the concerns with exportin

it does not appear the petitioner objects to tailing someone in cars over 127 days. what we are talking about here the government getting information from an individual and the government going to a business and asking the business to serve as a witness. i think your honor's point about how investigations proceed is exactly right, by the government does at the early stages of an investigation is reach out to third parties, because it may not have enough information about whether a crime has been committed or whether a particular individual is couple -- is culpable for that crime. it goes to third-party providers who have information that allows them to narrow the field and find out what is going on. >> if there is a shooting into a house and someone is killed, and witnesses say the person is running away with a cell phone. police ask the company to release all information about cell phones in that area, you order.ave to get an >> we do -- >> even for a blanket search? sotomayortice described earlier, getting tower information. we used exactly that technique when a bu

yet petitioners say they can refuse to sell a cake to any same-sex couple. >> i think there are many different organizations but catholic legal services provide pro bono legal representation to people who are too poor to afford it. they provided to people of all different faiths. let's just say, this person goes into catholic legal services and says we want you to take this case against masterpiece cake shop. and the lawyers say, we are not going to because we do not support same-sex marriage. are they in violation of the colorado law? >> know they are not. refusing to offer a particular service in th case, when they would not provided to any other customer -- >> they would provided for heterosexual couple comes in and says "we need particular services in connection with our marriage." it is one because it is a same-sex marriage that we are not going to provide pro bono legal services to you. >> in the sense of services regarding -- >> something in connection with the marriage. they are having whatever, a contract dispute in connection with their marriage, the lawyer says we're not g

. >> at issue in this case is the government's warrantless collection of 127 days of the petitioner's cell site location information, revealing his locations, movements, and associationsve

case, pages 293 and 294 petitioner appendix, used isof religion rhetoric. piece of did the commission disapprove of that statement? >> there were no further proceedings. disavowed? do you disapprove that statement? >> do i. yes, your honor. to make clear, what tt commissioner was referring to of the previous decision -- it is notic exception to discrimination law. isthe assertiont what engaging is speech is enough to overcome that law, you're going a situation where family portrait artist say i will any family -- >> suppose we thought oneificant part at least member of the commission based the commissioner's decision on hostility toos religion. >> i don't think that one commissioner,he assuming -- wasupposed we thought there a significant aspect of religion in this case. wouljume stand? >> there was evidence that the entire proceeding was done to religioussingle out people. absolutely that would be a problem. center i like to you answer justice kennedy's question. commissioners are aree? there? >> there are seven. >> if there was a belief, not yours, stop f

today, almost all eb-5 petitioners invest in one of the 903 approved centers. as interest in eb-5 has grown, so have cases of fraud, cases of corruption and threat to national security. there are many well-documented examples of inherent problems in this program. in fact, over the last five i, along with several of my colleagues, have written over 30 oversight letters, highlighting the various vulnerabilities of this visa program. because i have not consistently raised awareness, because i have -- because i have consistently raised awareness of rampant fraud and abuse of this program, i don't need to tell you about third-wife of china's most wanted government official who pled guilty to committing eb-5 fraud by submitting false touments as part of a scheme escape to the u.s. was stolen funds. to tell you how homeland security investigations discovered a group of iranian operatives attempting to infiltrate the united states, and facilitate terrorism through an illegal procurement network, back in 2013. i also don't need to detail the concerns with exporting sens

today, almost all petitioners invest in one of 903 approved regional centers. as interest in the program has fraud,so have cases of cases of corruption, and threats to national security. there are many well-documented examples of inherent problems in this program. in fact, over the last five years, i, along with several of my colleagues, have written over 30 oversight letters highlighting the various vulnerabilities of this visa program. consistentlyen't of rampanteness -- fraud and abuse of this program, i don't need to tell you about the ex-wife of china's third most wanted government official eb pled guilty of committing 5 fraud by cementing false documents as part of a scheme to escape to the u.s. with stolen funds. i don't need to tell you how homeland security investigations discovered a group of iranian operatives attempting to infiltrate the united states and facilitate terrorism to a -- there are no legal procurement network back in 2013. i also don't need to detail of the concerns of exporting sensitive technology, investment fraud, and other criminal

petitioners, will they be able to submit to the website? >> i would like to put out a chart which would talk about the statistics for processing. enough that large it can be viewed on the off chance revision is as bad as mine, i will also review the information. we have received explosion requests, and in the case of aluminum -- exclusion requests, and in the case of aluminum, totaling 5006. objections have been filed in 3000 items in steel and 98 items in aluminum for a total of several exclusion objections, in terms of comments, we have received during comments, 383 comments on steel, 51 comments on aluminum, for a total of 434. the total of submissions in the case of steel are 24,325. case of aluminum, 26,652, 9377.grand total of of the exclusion requests, we have posted 8168 in the case of rejectedd we have 2513, in additions to the ones posted. ofhave 9310 for a total 20,003. in the case of aluminum, we have posted 1828, rejected for 20, and have pending two hundred 53. 253, which comes to 23,506 of exclusion requests. 230 in the case

but we are told by the petitioner that you cannot wear a pin saying, me too. you can't wear a pin saying aclu defends free speech. >> your honor, the line that we have drawn his campaign material plus political material, with the definition of political material being a reasonable person would understand that the message being delivered is one regarding electoral choices in the polling place. >> where does that limitation come in? electoral choices in the polling place? >> it comes from the definition of political, which -- nd the definition of political purpose, which uses the word political to mean influencing voting in an election. >> the problem is that so many things have political connotations, and the connotations are in the eye of the beholder. on election day you are going to have hundreds, maybe thousands of officials in innesota, and everyone of them probably thinks he or she is the reasonable observer, and they are making a determination about whether something has political connotations. in one of your elections in 2016, i think the president was

works very slowly they've already decided on twelve thousand cases in three hundred one cases the petitioner was successful in reinstated. that's a very small percentage of. us are the commission has given us much cause for hope. we don't know where the commission is we only know it's somewhere in ankara. he is but we have no way of finding out how they work or what they base their decisions on passes for the shop. this is the government district in the house of the texas capitol ordinary citizens can only enter under exceptional circumstances it's also where the commission meets givenchy on a takes a critical view of their work of course room when bob says. this is not an independent commission that's clear and you can. the government decides who gets on it. it's full of government operatives and officials abuse there's obviously a connection between them and the government i mean for the honestly to this day there is no credible evidence indicating that the commission makes independent fair decisions prateik rudiment. mashallah tone is hearing is in three days she and her lawyer cut a tong

i want to share with you why it's so complicated, so, government has greater access to petitioners and record electronically, and more scrutiny on the clients, on the background, more time for attorneys to potentially address the issues, because of that, we have to do more freedom information act, research and background. there are a lot more increase in refusing or denying disability waiver for our adults, elder, and requires more detail. the failure to do more complex case, with i is much more needed, simple cases are easy, but complex are really hard when you are having seniors afraid, trying to track the record, means a lot more work and if you do it wrong, it means deportation. so, we can't have that here. so i wanted to share with you the breadth and the front line and we also work with all the members of the other naturalized collaborative to better strengthen san francisco's representation to the seniors. thank you. >> president serina: thank you. any other comments or questions from the public? >> i just want to thank you for raising those points because as we approach the cen

recommendation to the board of education regarding the review of the petition, and whereas, the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the programs where the petition and where is the district superintendent and superintendent review of the petition found that it is demonstrably unlikely to implement the program set forth in the petition, it does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of all the charter provisions. therefore, they have resolved the board of education shall deny the petition subject to the requirements set forth by law. you also have before you the board of education report denial of the charter petition for leadership academy, the proposed action is staff recommends denial for the leadership academy if the board does choose to deny the petition, that the board would adopt the findings included in the staff report as the written justification for the denial. >> okay. thank you. okay. so this is what we will do. i have quite a few speakers that want to be speaking on behalf of the chartier. i will give 30 minutes to that. i have quite a few

if this race is a foreshadowing for a 2020 petitioner president, donald trump's going to win 49 states. there's no possible way to nominate people this far left and expect them to beat a national election. she is way out of touch. >> i'm not sure -- >> hang on. that was the reason i asked you a question where i said, does it work on the local and state level and how does it play nationally. go ahead i didn't mean to cut you off. >> there are a couple thing, one thing i think david raised good points about the identity of the democratic party. you just brought up pelosi, i would say what happened today or yesterday. maxine waters who some of us call queen maxine or aunte maxine, a celebrated hero and how she's been treated in the house is demon centra tiff of the value we have going on. you have -- endorse in a primary in new york. we're running into the same mistakes over and over again. i'm not opposed to having a family conversation on the big screen, scott. i'm going to tell the party i traditionally support the truth. i don't believe in lying to make people feel better like some of

as a judge, when a petitioner is in front of you, you're not really thinking of them as a wave, as a wave of invaders, as a member of a force. their case is judged on its merits. >> well, they're not invaders. they're applicants. they're human beings. they have a right to fair treatment. indeed, quite contrary to what the president said, many of these people are applicants for asylum status. they're refugees. they have a legitimate right to enter the united states under both our law and international law. they certainly have a right to be treated fairly and humanely, and given a chance to fully precept thepr present their cases. i wanted to comment on one other -- what i think was an outrageous statement by the president. not only isn't our legal system a laughingstock of the world, for many years of dealing with people fleeing other countries, our legal system is widely admired throughout the world, and really is the difference between our country and the countries that are sending us refugees. i think the president proposes to make our country just like the countries from which the

tom is no stranger to this crowd serving as counsel to the petitioner and roughly 10% of all courts merit cases for the past 15 years more than 100 total and personally arguing 41. that is an outrageous number but in addition tom has taught supreme court litigation at harvard law school since 2004 previously taught at stanford for nearly a decade also the cofounder of the only weblog ever to receive the peabody award and has been named by one of the most 40 influential lawyers of the decade. now we have an expert and wonderful colleague with this discussion so please join me to welcome tom goldstein. [applause] >> thank you on behalf of my colleagues and the panel so as the term wraps up, we actually know almost everyone here is looking to hear one thing that this is a simulation into the real world. [laughter] so that the sixth port appointee will be as follows but in terms of what will be talked about to reorient a little bit with major developments over the past term and talk about the implications of the kennedy environment for each of those areas of the law and in addition to allocat

the petitioner wants to vault over all of the break points in this court's first amendment law with respect to public employees and go straight to strict scrutiny. and the fact is this court has never applied strict scrutiny to a condition of public employment that was backed by a bona fide interest that the state has as an employer. never, not once. and i'm happy to talk about the -- the political affiliation cases, because i don't think they are to the contrary. so, you know, implicit i think in your question, justice alito, was the distinction that my friend tried to draw between compulsion and restriction. but this court has said again and again in wooley, in riley, and elsewhere, that compulsion and restriction of speech are two sides of the same coin. justice alito: then why won't you answer my question about what the assistant district attorney could be required to do? throughout history, many people have drawn a line between a restriction on their speech and compelled speech. i'll give you an example that's only -- that's quite different given the nature of the -- of the subject fro

beginning, the slaves in cents asetts in 1777 petition to the massachusetts legislature, saying we are petitioners believe that we, too are included. that we have these unalienable rights. they took the language of the declaration of independence bar by bar, and said we are astonished -- astonished -- that you have not considered this, regarding your late dispute with england, and we tell you you will be judged as hypocrites. they call them hypocrites for not living up to these ideals. so when people tell you oh, well, you know, we just pay attention to the founders or the framers -- i say let's listen to the founding generation, and those voices were there from the outset. that is our american story. let's start with the great behemoth, the first amendment. of the 12if all amendments had passed, it would firstve been the amendment, it would have been the third amendment. it does not have the same ring to it -- your third amendment right to the freedom of speech. one of the things we are going to cover is that the first word of the first amendment is congress. congress should make no law. that sho

he served as counsel to the petitioner respondent in roughly 10% of all of the court's merit cases for the past 15 years. more than 100 in total. personally arguing 41. that's quite an outrageous number, to but in addition -- in addition -- there's more -- to practicing law, tom has taught supreme court litigation at harvard law school since 2004, previously taught the same subject at stanford law school for nearly a decade. he's also the co-founder and publisher of scotus blog, the only web blog ever to receive the peabody award, and he's been named by the national law journal as one of the most 40 influential lawyers of the decade. so we have an expert and a wonderful colleague to have lead this discussion. so please join me in welcoming tom goldstein. [applause] tom: thank you. on behalf of myself and for everybody on the panel, i want to thank each of you as well as the folks watching at home for contributing your time to this. at the term wrap-up this year, we actually know with all these experts, everyone here is looking -- almost everyone is looking to hear one thing and that th

it's written by chief justice roberts and looks like they're siding with timothy carpenter, the petitionerin this case against the united states government. this was a case where carpenter was involved in analleged robbery. the united states government prosecutors were able to get cell phone records based on going to the cell phone company. and the question is whether that violates the forth amendment to do it without the warrant. it appears in going through this case very quickly that the government here, the supreme court here, is siding with carpenter here they're saying we decline to grant the state unrestricted access in light of the deeply revealing nature of that its depth, breadth and inescapab inescapable. the fact it's gathered by a third party does not make it any less deserving of fourth amendment protection it was a search under that amendment. they're reversing a judgment of the court of appeals here and remanding the case, carl a win here for the fourth amendment. purists who say that cell phone data should be protected by the fourth amendment, even if it's being held by the

every administration of the last 20 years the settlement between united states government and the petitioners resulted in a binding 1997 court order court order to require the children be released from custody without unnecessary delay. the government of united states of america was agrnt pary of that consent order that case recognizes that children should not be treated likeri criminals and prohibit the prolonged detention of children because of harmful effects. the trump executive order seeks to undo the consent decree. florez was a key component of president trump's own legislation that was rejected by the senate in february 309/60. kids in indefinite detention but what we want to do as a nation is illegal when a 5-year-old child cannot be detained more than 20 days x of course not remember the florez settlement does not prohibit detention if necessary to ensure the safety of the child. the settlement simply prohibits indefinite detention of children even with their families in any order to undermine this critical protection will certainly be challenged in court this executive order from p

they lose their own parental rights and they have to petition just like any other petitioner. >> andy of the parents have been deported already. >> i want to go to mariana because some of the parents have already pleaded guilty to unlawful entry meaning now, when they're petitioning to get custody of the child, on their record is pleading guilty to a crime and i know you've talked to a lot of parents that were separated from their children. do you get the sense that the parents believe that the government even knows where their children are? >> it's devastating, joy, and i think the outrage for many of the parents i have spoken to is that they do believe the government has the information. they're just reluctant to give it out. meanwhile, you have these immigrants who have been released from these detention centers who don't speak english, don't have any of their belongings. they're trying to get somewhere and some help to be able to be reunified with their children. i spoke to maria, for example, she's an immigrant from el salvador who came here with the migrant caravan, meaning she

amendment free-speech guarantee by compelling dissenters to advertise abortion, the very practice that petitionersre devoted to opposing. justice thomas rejected the liberal argument. states can impose such requirements because abortion is a medical concede your -- procedure subject to a patient's informed consent. the notice california required is not tied to a procedure at all, he wrote, joined by chief justice jo roberts and anthony kennedy, samuel alito, neil gorsuch. caller: think you for taking my call. i oppose it because when you have these bands of people traveling between countries, you also stop dialogue and conversation and exchange of each other's cultures. so someone who wants to come over here and study or work can no longer do that, so now we are isolated. so that is just going to exacerbate more problems, more ignorance, and we have extremists here in our country, apparently, and do we stop them from traveling as well? that is all. host: rick in idaho, supported the decision. [inaudible] morning america, the picture i'm going to painting or mine is not a pretty one but you have to

the flores settlement between the united states government and the petitioners resulted in a binding 1997 court order that required the children be released from custody without unnecessary delay. the government of the united states of america was a party to that agreement, that consent order. that flores case recognizes that children should not be treated like criminals and it prohibits the prolonged detention of children because of harmful effects. the trump executive order seeks to undo the flores consent decree. repealing flores was actually a key component of president trump's own immigration legislation. that was rejected, if you remember, by the senate 39-60 in february. is throwing kids in indefinite detention what we want to do as a nation? is it a loophole that a 5-year-old child cannot be detained beyond 20 days under flores? of course not. remember, the flores settlement does not prohibit detention if it's necessary to ensure the safety of the child. the flores settlement simply prohibits indefinite detention of children, even with their families, and any order to undermi