plor: i think the petitioner is asking this court to do more. justice gorsuch: you are, too. i'resisting both. 's asking to reject yours. perhaps that's another day's prlefor us. it's snificant problem. does the court need too there? is there any necessity for us to do that? gen. prelogar: i think if this court made clear the de minimus language should not taken every dollar above a trifle is immunizing the employers from a liability tt'a correct statement of the l. it does not require overruling hardison and wld be happy with that. >> we do have to reach a ition line. how do we reach the disposition line on justice gorsuch's suggestion? gen. prelogar: our view tt the facts here clearly qualify as an undu hardship under hardison and any reasonable undersndg of the facts as issue in that case and it's for all of the reaso i tried to explain. this was not some minor inconvenience to the postal serve. the requested accommodation here had man fold impacts both on co-workers and usps -- >> there would be no basis on vacating and remand in light of this universal agreement that we

that's why petitioner had the conflict. the postal service in trying to put into effect an accommodation. justice alito: but doesn't this most of the time come down to dollar and -- dollars and cents? so if you're -- if the employer is going to pay people to take a shift, then the shift can be covered and everybody will be happy. the employee who wants a religious accommodation gets a religious accommodation, and the other employees who cover the shift, they get more money, and so they're happy. so doesn't it come down to dollars and cents and don't we have to deal with the issue of dollars and cents? isn't that what this mostly will come down to? gen. prelogar: there -- first of all, there is certainly nothing that would prohibit an employer from choosing to pay extra to try to induce others to work those shifts and cover them. so that's one available alternative out there for certain employers that can afford it and think that that would be a way to address this issue. but i guess the question then becomes what about the

justice thomas: but petitioner's arguing, i think, a bit more. petitioner's also arguing that it has the spillover effect of chilling protected speech, not just that this is protected speech. now, how would you respond to that? mr. weiser: since watts, the majority rule in the overwhelming jurisdictions, 50 years, has been an objective standard. and during that time the only prosecutions they point to, the case you mentioned, was actually a case that was under a specific intent standard. we haven't seen in the last 50 years with this objective rule types of harms. and moreover, we point to the time of the founding that threats were prosecuted without regard to intent. justice thomas: but he also argues that you wouldn't see, necessarily, the chilling effect because those cases would not be before you. that's what i'd like you to respond to. mr. weiser: thank you, justice thomas. justice kagan got to a critical point. the type of the speech that remains after the objective, context-driven inquiry, is speech that doesn't come close to contributing

on one hand, get judge kisse merrick leaned into what the petitioner said and wrote an opinion almost verbatim of wha the antiabortion petitioners wanted on the other hand, we have a ruling coming from a different federal district court tha says well, these claim actually makes sense he didn't offer all of what it was that the attorney generals wanted, but certainly it was nowhere near what we see comin out of texas and, in fact, wha is important - being on the marketplace and more accessible. >> michelle, before i leav you. you really need to underscor two things that you said one, this is been on the marke for over 23 years. it went from rigorous fd approval, but mourn fort lee it was also available on the market only in europe. almost a decade before this is not saying no. thank you so much, michell goodwin, for joining me. i'm sure we will have you back >> thank you >> joining me now, the democratic congresswoman barbara lee of california. she served as a co-chair of th pro-choice caucus in the house we should note, th congresswoman is a candidate for u.s. senate in 2024. congress

this may in fact be th intention behind the petitioners who sought out the judge in amarillo, texas, judg kacsmaryk, who in the hearin involving this matter asked th petitioners exactly how they would, in fact, like for him t rule and in reading his order today it seems that he leaned in quite heavily on exactly wha they were expressing, includin achieving what they wanted for him to do, which was to orde the fda to remove this dru from the marketplace now, if it goes up before th united states supreme court, petitioners may in fact find a group of a sufficient number o justices on the supreme cour who may also lean into exactly what they are looking for an in fact it may have been why teasing up this conflict, such that it could get to the unite states supreme court >> and dr. perritt, tell u about this pill, what benefits it has, and what will be los if women in america lose acces to it. >> thank you so much i also want to express gratitude for the opportunit to be here so often, we have conversation about medical care particularly in reproductive health care space and we never tal

. >> this is the first time in which a group of petitioners ask have had for a drug to be removed. by different petitioners and states involving fda decisionmaking. historically the supreme court has been given great deferens to the food & drug administration, but in this case, in a highly politicized court, it's not clear how the supreme court would rule. >> i'm wondering if the supreme court -- i'm get ahead of ourselves here, but if there were a ruling, what kind of precedent would it set if they ultimately removed the approval. what would that mean for drugs moving forward? >> it's an excellent question, which is what makes this a highly unusual case for all of us to watch. that is, that it would mean usurping from the fda in a way its role in deciding what drugs are safe for the u.s. marketplace. it could also mean petitioners, who have some sort of hostility toward a particular drug -- for example, there's a number of people who don't believe that covid is real, people who believe that medications that have been used in vaccinating folks in order to prevent the spread of covi

prelogar: well, ihi petitioner is asking this court to do much more.asking t crt to overrule -- justice gorsuch: and nowoure -- and now you are gen. prelogar: i am asking you to reject -- justice gorsuch: -- and i am resisting both of you. gen. prelogar: -- his arguments. justice gorsuch: ok. and 's asking me to reject yours, and perhaps maybe that's r day's problem for us. and it's a -- it's a -- it'a significant problem, but -- but he court need to go there? i mean, is there any necessity for us to do that? gen. prelogar: i think, if ts court made clear that the “de minimis” language should not be taken literally toeaevery dollar above a trifle is immunizing the elors from liability, that is absolutely a correct statement of the law. it's cont with hardison. it does not require overruling hardison. and i would be very happy with that clarification. justicn: wl, we do have to reach a disposition line. soo weeach the disposition line on justice gorsuch's suggestion? gen. prelogar: so our view is that the facts here clearl qualify as an undue hardship u

sundays shifts each time he was scheduled to work, petitioner ultimately missed 24 shifts that wereilled. the filing continues with shifts swaps. in response, usps took disciplinary measures including imposing paper suspensions that did not result in loss of work or pay. it sort of beg it is larger question, jeremy, why should an employer bear the burden of someone's religious beliefs? >> because that's exactly what congress intended when they amended to title 7 to require employers to accommodate person's religious needs unless doing so would present an undue hardship, over the last 4 years or so, courts have watered down that standard that now they just need to present a de minimis burden. we forget that gerald groff worked every sad and holiday that he could and worked overtime to make sure those who could not work on sundays, well, they were able to spend time with their families. the postal service had no problem accommodating him initially and they decide to make an example out of gerald that they had to punish him abiding by convictions. i want to understand something really

one same sex couples from delhi, who are petitioners and the case. and hud, why marriage is so important to them all day and bart's love story is like any other be made at school, fell in love and build a life together in daily was 17 years. but as a gay couple in india, the relationship was considered a crime until the supreme court. deacon realized homosexuality in 2018. by despite this landmark judgement, the other one dear relationship still has no legal recognition. the right to marriage would significantly improve our lives. it would significantly had power lives as a couple of, but we certainly see that it creates a conversation in the minds of people around us and will create a confidence in the minds of our day young or gay people without legal completion of the relationship. they can on lot in the tasks that most heterosexual couples, big for granted, such as opening a joint bank account or making medical decisions for each other. and despite those practical difficulties that couples face, there are groups vehemently opposed to the passage

the petitioner also has to testify. due process is absolutely a part of this, and something we strongly support. do not want anyone to have their rights unfairly restricted, and that is an important component of these laws. that an individual has a say and is able to represent themselves in a court of law. host: our guest is

present evidence, the petitioner also has to testify. so the process is absolutely a part of this. and something we strongly support that we don't want anyone to have their rights unfairly restricted and that is an important component of these, laws that an individual has their say and is able to represent themselves in a court of law. >> our guest is the chief advocacy officer of the national reliance on mental illness, hannah will, housekeeping so much for being on the washington journal this morning. >> thank you so much for having me. >> we'll get to all of your thoughts in a, minute let's start with the speaker yesterday, after his

present evidence, the petitioner also has to testify. so the process is absolutely a part of this. and something we strongly support that we don't want anyone to have their rights unfairly restricted and that is an important component of these, laws that an individual has their say and is able to represent themselves in a court of law. >> our guest is the chief advocacy officer of the national reliance on mental illness, hannah will, housekeeping so much for being on the washington journal this morning. >> thank you so much for having me. >> we'll get to all of your thoughts in a, minute let's start with the speaker yesterday, after his victory he spoke with reporters, here's what he had to say washing >> the house republicat passed the only bill in washington that lift that limits in wasteful washington spending, that puts america back on the right economic path. we are going to limit the -- for the future. we are going to save by pulling back this unspent covid money. we are going to grow this economy by making it out in their g independent again, getting more people encouraging

this nozzle is already a petitioner oil painting. leave.the rear, the personnel went indoors. we are still far from normal. go straight ahead. look, the transitions look somewhere. wait, there he is. come back , the enemy can observe where our copter takes off from, where they landed, they took the device and you need to go to cover. everything drove a hit. well, yeah, i threw it too. i understand another the group leaves to suppress the firing points of the apu, they are too active on this day on march 16th. sanya is visiting us again about the battalion a little bit. tell me what kind of battalion everyone says, crimea crimea well, there are quite a lot of guys from crimea , a lot. here i am from the crimea from the crimea. well, it will be filmed very much from the crimea. what are the features here features? well, it's constant contact fights constantly visibility, we see each other. uh, well, a small number of shelters, that is, they dig in and dig in, we don’t do a bit. well, in general , we are at war, as i am, the features of the fe

or when the premise providing entertainment petitioner provide a uniformed security guard and maintain order and prevent activity intrefr with the quiet enjoyment of property by residents or community. the license uniform guard must be licensed by the state of california department of consumer affairs. >> mr. clerk, there are represents of the applicant present? >> yes, i believe we have michael oshg connor and bari smith here available for comments. >> hello i'm michael o connor co-owner of brick and mortar music hall. we have been there 12 years and we are except the conscience by the police department. the space was in previous decades several revolving businesses. when i went in in 2011 people were this will never make temperature everyone leaves here. we lasted has not been easy but it is you know we are still there. so. >> okay. do you have -- go ahead. thank you. i wanted this is not in district 6 begin is across the street from district 6 i never want to miss an opportunity to put a plug in for importance of night life. and entertainment venues and brick and mortar is down the

basically siding with the petitioners who claim the drug was rushed to the market and it was unsafe.s worth noting, as you have discussed before, this is a drug that was under review for 54 months what was put on the marketplace in 2000. to put that in comparison with other drugs during that same period, they were reviewed for about 15 months. secondly, the claims it is an unsafe drug really is quite unfounded when the fda did approve mifespristone to be in the marketplace, it had already been used in europe for decades. we know through decades of research since 2020 -- or since 2000, excuse me, that it is a drug that has lower morbidities and tylenol, then viagra, then penicillin. we don't know what the supreme court will do on friday but one more point with this is that there are over 200 drug manufacturers that have signed a letter expressing their deep concern about the ruling that came out of amarillo, texas, because it could affect more than just mifespristone and drugs related to reproductive health. it could be virtually any drug that is petitioned to be removed from the u.s.

as stated by the petitioner. they want to draw the government's attention to how the eu sanctions have affected the income of the inhabitants of the island without direct flights from russian airports, four of the income from tourists was lost. at the same time, as noted, not on the russian economy, not on the political situation, kipersky restrictions. they did not affect in any way, on the contrary, domestic tourism is developing. and there is also a good opportunity to earn money for russia-friendly countries it is interesting that simultaneously with an attempt to return ukrainian tourists in cyprus, measures are being taken against ukrainian refugees. they are said to prevent the island's hotels from earning on the high prices of the summer season. so thousands of independent citizens are being evicted from hotels. the scale of resettlement estimated evgeny nipod evgeny hello, it turns out that places near the sea will be given to more affluent guests. aleksey hello, it’s really possible that tourists from r

the exacsa test we quote in our briefs and the exact same the petitioner did. what that tests doing, if you take the underlying notion that this a bars treatment as a publisher and yoarsaying, can they get around by the way they are pleading it? you cannot say that his -- you cannot just say this is negligence or intentional affliction. e harm is coming from the defamatory content. they are isolating the harm saying third-partynfmation ased on the third parties own speech or its websites conduct flowing from the ird-party information. >> if youtube labeled certain videos as the product of what it labels as responsible news providers, that would be google's own content, right? >> yes. thbnls are not mentioned in the complaint. watrying to figure out what he was talking about when i s up there. is not something in the complaint. thats screenshot of the information being provided. it is the embedded party speech. >>f i do a search for today's news in youtube, in fact i did that yteay, and all the top hits were very well known news sources. the are not recommendati

and i think the court could make that clear in its opinion and the petitioner and the government of a disreent about how best to read the district court's opinion whether they actually made of the legal error thate think the court made that is a questnor the ninth circuit to resolve. >> let me see if i he it. the simiri of the marks was a great emphasis in the district court's opinion and perhaps too much to the point where there are some parodies which the marks are gng to be very sila but everybody or most everybody or a reasonable pson guess the question is which of those, but understand the whole potf the joke is that it isn't the trademark holders try to get somebody else. >> yes, i tnk that's right. >> which of those is it? some percentage or a reasonable person? >> d ordinary consumer exercising ordinary care, that is theong-standing standard that's derived fro t cases that predated the lanha act. >>ha about the fact a lot of peleurveyed may think that as a matter of law, it was cessary to get the approval of the mark holder? >> that's a hard case. there are certainly some resp

victory with you closer, the island has been helping ukrainians for over a year, even though the petitionera rudyk herself, every such support of the taiwanese side is a significant contribution to the victory in this war, it was not only at the level of people but and at the level of the government , at the level of the leadership, which is ready to constantly allocate aid and funds to support ukraine, now we see additional humanitarian aid that various organizations and ivans continue to send us there, you know there are even slogans, if ukraine loses the next half, then ukraine must not lose . comfortable orthopedic mattresses were brought along with the beds, according to anna, a volunteer of the team and ivan in ukraine, medical facilities are constantly in need of such things, so soon they are waiting for a new shipment again

that will be followed up by a second hearing with the court, where the petitioner will have to testify and the individual in question would also have an opportunity to present evidence and have their due process. typically the period is six months to a year that those firearms are removed. and they can be renewed over time. if after a year the individual does not display that they have -- that the situation has changed, the court can renew that court order. host: how do you judge the effectiveness of a red flag law? guest: there is actually some really good data. the biggest thing as a mental health organization, we look at firearms as they relate to suicide. or than half of all gun deaths are suicide. 90% of suicide attempts by firearm are lethal. it is a highly lethal means of suicide. connecticut, for example, has estimated their law has reduced one in 10 suicide deaths as a result of being in place. in indiana over 10 years they have reduced suicide deaths by 7.5 percent because of their extreme risk protection order law. host: is there data on who has asked for those red flags? is

what's e daylight between you and the petitioners? how would you write the boomine of the subpoena? they are not viable because? -- this opinion, they are not liable -- viable because. >> one place where we might have a difference is to use the kaplan example. not necessilsaying it was right or wrong, but the general proposition is that those were nkor companies engaged in terpersonal direct communications with the client. they have knowledge that the client was either a front for four closely aligned with hamas. i think it was in both cases. actively committing terrorist actsncding against americans , in proximate areas. there's culpability there. >> because they were doing something outside the ordinary? >> yes, they bent thrus. there is no alleti here that these defendants treated isys -- isis content any differently than they did anything else in their usual course of business. we think it's a critical fact. >> does that go towards knowledge or substantiality? twitch factored does it go to? -- to which factor does it go to >> i think it goes somewhat to both i think it is really

as stated by the petitioner.draw the attention of the government to how the eu sanctions have affected the income of the inhabitants of the island without direct flights from russian airports , a quarter of the income from tourists is lost. at the same time, as noted, neither on the russian economy nor on cypriot restrictions did not affect the political situation in any way, on the contrary, domestic tourism is developing. and there is also a good opportunity to make money for russia-friendly countries. it is interesting that, simultaneously with an attempt to return russian tourists in cyprus , measures are being taken against ukrainian refugees. they are said to prevent the island's hotel from earning high. summer season, so that thousands of citizens of the independent are being evicted from hotels the scale of this global relocation estimated by eugene thousands of refugees that have arrived to cyprus from ukraine will have to find a new home ahead of the high season and more space needs to be developed to f

until he announced that it is possible for any of the readers the petitioner has to discuss the objection again or need documents before we get here. how long will it take for the verdict to be issued? the first meeting will also include the documents to reach the result and the verdict will be issued. that is, the average number that you say when we have time, now how much is this average now, this average is between 20 and 22 days, between 20 and 22 due to both the number of cases and the fact that there are 650 mike boards in the country and they must be able to process all claims. ok, now the verdict has been issued, why does it take so long since the verdict is issued? until it is executed, does the judgment not have any objections, which goes to the execution of court rulings and is issued for enforcement ? it is done after the issuance of the initial judgment . we will be notified to the judiciary and i want to know exactly that it will not be determined by time . i can say how many now, but well, i depend on the number of local cases. they will file a complaint, and after the issu

both sides have good arguments forward, they have been presenting their views, for the petitioners, they everybody to be able to. whereas the government has reiterated its views, saying that our concept of family is essentially a union of a man and a woman, a heterosexual couple and children. they have also said that these views, these petitions are very... they reflect only the views of the elite of people and that is why it is not given much importance. they also said thejudges is not given much importance. they also said the judges do not have the right to look at this case, they say that this is something that the parliament should be allowed to debate and take a call on. thank you so much, debate and take a call on. thank you so much. we — debate and take a call on. thank you so much, we will— debate and take a call on. thank you so much, we will come _ debate and take a call on. thank you so much, we will come back- debate and take a call on. thank you so much, we will come back to i debate and take a call on. thank you so much, we will come back to delhij so much, we will come bac

that has not been the experience of the petitioners at all. it is worth noting that this was a form of forum shopping, looking for a very specific judge who had already articulated antiabortion views and put placing a petition before that specific judge. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator grassman? >> dr. wubbenhorst, can you explain how women can still receive compassionate and necessary medical treatment from pregnancy complications without performing an abortion? >> yes, sir. thank you for the question. i think that, as i said earlier in my testimony, when women experience complications, in my career of has literally hundreds of women, both here and in other countries, they've had complications requiring delivery. when you're performing a procedure to save the life of the mother, it's not really considered an abortion, therefore, it is ethically permissible. compassionate care means that you consider the circumstances carefully, you act in the best interest for both patients. if the death of the unborn child is a result of your interventio

petitioner assets court tohr all about await and overrule ha or somebody cannot overcome a strong story decisiveeight this court gives us texture holdings with the aument boils down to partisans wrong because insufficient protects religious employees. but that is aoly argument he should direct the congress and reduce acclaim as riley decided to suprt set that over and over again is not enough in the atutory story context for the aboutoners also wrong partisans affect lower courts and eoc have alied to more than de minimis cost language in players are not required to readily pay overtime wages or wrigley operate shorthanded. the eoc guilis recognize employers can be required to bear other costs like inquiry quit wages the burden rts all times on the employer to demonstrate undue hardship with concrete evidence that w speculation. applying those principles lower courts frequeny deny hardship defenses. no justification to dispense partisan the lower courts correcyt undue hardship on these facts. eir cards workk on sundays exempthe from work each and every senate would haveioted his coworke

that has not been the experience of the petitioners at all. it is worth noting that this was a form of forum shopping, looking for a very specific judge who had already articulated antiabortion views and put placing a petition before that specific judge. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator grassman? >> dr. wubbenhorst, can you explain how women can still receive compassionate and necessary medical treatment from pregnancy complications without performing an abortion? >> yes, sir. thank you for the question. i think that, as i said earlier in my testimony, when women experience complications, in my career of has literally hundreds of women, both here and in other countries, they've had complications requiring delivery. when you're performing a procedure to save the life of the mother, it's not really considered an abortion, therefore, it is ethically permissible. compassionate care means that you consider the circumstances carefully, you act in the best interest for both patients. if the death of the unborn child is a result of your interventio

noncounty health petitioners fell members, first, responders. a hospital directored, a behavioral health provider, a person the individual lives with or respondent or self referel. the court will make sure that petitions are present in the intention to anian individual. but we partnered with the superior court. that court will be responsible for ajude indicating all case. d ph our role is investigation and engagement of individuals had are referred to the program. we bank account petitioner witness we investigated a case and foil a report with the court. and we will opinion for prosecute voiding treatment for individuals. the major's office is a proirm stake hole and supporting coordination and implementation planning supportive housing is i per in and housing will be essential for individuals who are in the program who are experiencing homelessness. the city attorney's office will be representing the city including the d ph and hearings related care court and the sudden front public defender's office representing people during proceeding fist n

even in in the recent meeting we had with him, a few months ago, the bank of speakers and women's petitioners raised many issues, but he did not mention this matter. he was concerned that this issue should be addressed in the islamic government, which is a defender of women's rights, and has special mercy towards women. women should be taken into consideration and that is why i am very worried about why the law to protect women in the islamic society and the islamic republic is not being pursued . it is not working. the 12-year-old stranger is doing this according to his command and according to the contents that they had mentioned how it was prepared, but unfortunately, many countries, for different reasons, in fact, this work has happened on the ground, which mr. insists that he is a woman , so don't mention more than 400 cases in mr. gerdoune's speeches and they want this issue in the society, although it is small, although in some the families may have to go, it should be prevented. they look at women in a special way. some friends suggest that the fact that a woman is mentioned and wants

and the arguments that were pu forth by the petitioners wer really quite spacious in tha they argue thaths of review that the fda did to give you some sense of ho that compared to other drugs placed in the market that same year in 2000, they had reviewe for 15 months. and already at that time, they have been decades of researc into mifepristone. they also argued that it was a unsafe drug that was rushed to the market so, we know it wasn't a rush t the market but it turns out, it is a very safe drug. in fact, which has been know stated all across media is tha it is safer than penicillin, viagra, and even tylenol so, those are really empty arguments that were no accurate but we have a texas judge in amarillo, texas, judge kacsmaryk, the only one sittin there, who then issued a rulin that is really quite frightening for our country. and i'll give you one more reason why, which is that an fringe group that decides it does not like a particular dru in the marketplace good then select a particular district where there is a judge tha might in fact lean into thei viewpoint. and in a time of a pa

with them and look at drawing the drought, there was considerable sessions that wer made to the petitionerse >> we are always so good despite the fact that you're a academic by training and tal to me about how all of thi legal mumbo jumbo will affec people we know the chaos is by design, the chilling effect by design, as this ping-pong stir difference coats what is the actual day-to-day effect o providers and on patience? >> i'm so glad you asked that, alicia, what it means in the state like texas is just bee quite -- anti abortion, ant contraception, anti se education kind of rulemaking it means if you're a doctor th tries to help the patient an terminate a pregnancy, while she's managing a miscarriage this could mean 99 years incarceration. this could meet 100,000 dollar fine it could mean losing one license to practice. and doctors are able t intervene. but only when the patient seem absolutely in the air to have. what this means for women an people with the capacity for pregnancy across thecountry is that this is a deadly nation we ranked 55th in the world in terms of maternal mortality

kind of frenzy that we are seeing notice this case that wa before george bush merrick these were petitionersnot get a judge to give a hearin to this. that is, no bush judge which one are bush to. no reagan era judgment eve taken up the challenge such as this there was never a time befor where the fda was pressed with to withdraw a drug from th markets which had undergon such thorough review and now we're in a time in which you are right, it is not just abortion. it is not just contraception it is not just sex ed. it is a time in which we shoul all be alarmed, because this i a flash. point this is a proxy for so much else in our democracy let's remember the very same states that are rolling back reproductive freedoms are th states that map on to a slav map. i'm up on to a jim crow map. and these are the same day that are looking to dismantl voting rights, and also to infuse a religiously of city that is christian based in the classroom. we see that coming out of texa just this last week. and if we don't throw thes things together, it will be ou mistake. >> that is when you make tha clear line