but now that bs is led to samuel alito rewriting the voting rights act. >> that is exactly it. ari berman, thank you so much. >> thank you, chris. >> like i said at the top there was a huge news day on top of the court ruling. there are criminal charges against the trump organization one of trump's longest serving executive, allen weisselberg, we're gonna talk about what's in the 15 felony counts. plus we found out today who will serve on that select committee tasked with investigating january six, former lead impeachment manager jamie raskin is on that list and he joins me now right here, next. don't go anywhere. n't go anywhere. sadly, not anymore. wow. so sudden. um, we're not about to have the "we need life insurance" conversation again, are we? no, we're having the "we're getting coverage so we don't have to worry about it" conversation. so you're calling about the $9.95 a month plan -from colonial penn? -i am. we put it off long enough. we are getting that $9.95 plan, today. (jonathan) is it time for you to call about the $9.95 plan? i'm jonathan from colonial penn life i

and -- justice samuel alito offers the cou

but now that bs is literally led to samuel alito rewriting the voting rights act. >> that's exactly, exactly right. ari berman, a must-read on this topic. thank you so much. >> thanks so much, chris. >>> like i said at the top, today was a huge news day on time of the seismic supreme court ruling, there are criminal charges against the trump organization and one of trump's longest serving executives, allen weisselberg. we'll talk about what is in the 15 felony counts and what isn't. plus, we found out today who will serve on the select committee, former lead impeachment manager jamie raskin is on that list. he joins me right here next. don't go anywhere. i can do that. build an electric car? i can do that. weld the tower of a wind turbine? modernize the grid? install 10,000 solar panels? do what i've been doing my whole life? rebuild the country and protect america against climate change? we can do that. i've got moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer. ♪ ♪ i feel free to bare my skin yeah, that's all me. ♪ ♪ nothing and me go hand in h

vote of 6-3, with the court's liberals dissenting, the court upheld the restrictions justice samuel alito's majority opinion said all voting laws impose some burden, and they don't cross the line even if they create small disparities in voting as long as the state has some justification for them but in a blistering dissent, justice elena kagan said the court ignores that voter discrimination is getting worse. she said the ruling weakens the voting rights act, a law that stands as a monument to america's greatness and protects against its basest impulses. election law experts say the court now all of the major tools have been significantly weakened or eliminated. >> reporter: and no their pla on or before the court's final day. that suggests justice stephen breyer will probably be around next term. lester >> pete williams at the supreme court for us, thank you. >>> speaker nancy pelosi has named some members of a house select committee to investigate the capitol riot among them, a lone republican garrett haake is at the capitol. garrett, this announcement is causing some controversy. >> repo

justice samuel alito writing for the court, brushed that evidence aside, saying the burden on minority voters was minor. mere inconvenience cannot be enough to justify a violation of the voting rights act, alito wrote. in an impassioned dissent, justice elena kagan writing for the court's liberals declared, what is tragic is that the court has damaged a statute designed to bring about the end of discrimination in voting. and in arizona, native american activists said the ruling will make it harder for them to vote. >> only 26% of native americans live on a postal route, meaning you can't get mail at home in most places. and that's why ballot collection matters. >> terry moran joins us now. terry, president biden put out a statement today, saying he was extremely disappointed in the court's decision. terry, the president has made it clear that he and his attorney general merrick garland will be feeling these state measures. what are they learning from this case? >> reporter: they're learning it's going to be harder for tny el t challenge these new m toipi thee discriminato tent. but pre

samuel alito wrote the majority opinion joined by the courts conservatives. justice kagan wrote the dissenting opinion. this morning inside usa today, more from yesterday's news conference with leader kevin mccarthy. he was asked about what happened on january 6. reporter: you just named a number of entities that you think are to blame for -- questions about it. do you believe former president trump is responsible in some way for the events? leader mccarthy: have you read the senate report? did you have questions about the prep that we had for this? we're concerned about when they found i.e.d.'s in the morning and did not call the fbi? were you concerned about the idea that the sergeant and arms had intel provided by the fbi but was not passed forward? were you concerned that if we had that information, why didn't we have a different built here? if you were concerned about riots, why would you put the riot gear in a bus that was locked? at the time the riot took place, why was there not communication that had direction from leadership. leadership -- there wer

. >> i just want to read a portion of samuel alito's majority decision. he write this is.n a system is equally open. >> wow, how callous is that? >> yeah. thank you. >>> the end of u.s. troops in afghanistan after the break, tim coupo with his powerful perspective in serving in that war. we'll be right back. cte in servt war. we'll be right back. [ screaming ] oh my gosh! it's so real! it's so real! yee-haw! go left! go left! i'm gonna go where navigation says. [ screaming ] [ navigation ] turn left. thank you navigation. we did it. - i guess we did. i was talking about me and precious. my noble steed. ♪ ♪ when technology is easier to use... ♪ barriers don't stand a chance. ♪ that's why we'll stop at nothing to deliver our technology as-a-service. ♪ when i get a migraine, i shut out the world. but with nurtec odt that's all behind me now. nurtec is the first and only option proven to treat and prevent migraines with one medication. onederful. one quick dissolve tablet can start fast and last. don't take if allergic to nurtec. the most common side effects were nausea, stoma

but today, justice samuel alito argued that the laws did not place burden on minority voters that would voting. quote, the mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote. in a scathing dissent, justice elena kagan, accused the conservative majority of rewriting the law, beyond what congress had intended. what is tragic here is that the court has, yet again, rewritten, in order to weaken a statute that stands as a monument to america's greatness and protects against its basest impulses. election law expert and professor of law and political science at university of california irvine says the court's decision, today, quote, makes it harder to prove intentional-racial discrimination in passing a voting rule. making it that much harder for doj to win its suit against the new georgia voting law. in a statement today, president biden said how deeply disappointed he was by the ruling. and added, quote, the court's decision, harmful as it is, does not limit congress' abil

. >> justice samuel alito said fractures between the conservatives and liberals. the time, place or manner of how one votes is immune from scrutiny under section two of the voting rights act really just hobbled what was left of that landmark civil rights legislation. the states did not have to go to the department of justice to have laws vetted before they went into effect. this was the last remaining feature with teeth of that part of the voting rights act that would allow them to challenge voting right restrictions. >> pete, can you talk about what this means? there's been a lot of discussion and we covered awe lot on this show state legislatures putting in place laws that would restrict voting rights in states around the country. did you see any of bearing on that outside of arizona? >> sure but there are two ways to attack these voting lieus. one is the statute, which is the voting rights act. the second is the constitutional treatment, equal treatment, equal process, not discriminating. if you look at, for example, the justice department's recent lawsuit in g

in writing for the majority, samuel alito appears to acknowledge that the law targets minorities but writes in part to the extent that minority and non-minority groups differ with respect to employment, wealth and education, even neutral leg regulations my result in some predictable disparities in rates of voting and non-compliance with voting rules. but the mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote. for more on this, i'm joined by judith browne dianis, director of the advancement project national office. judith, good to see you again. thank you for being with us. you know, people remind me all the time that jim crow laws very rarely stated that they were jim crow laws. they very rarely stated we're doing this so the black people can't vote. what alito is saying is that we get it, these laws may have a disproportionate impact on minorities and other groups, but that's not important for us to think about. >> that's right. he's saying it's okay to discrimina

that's basically the same argument that justice samuel alito used to justify the american voter movements? you can use that argument literally for everything. like tucker carlson bemoening diversity. if you grew up in america, suddenly nothing looks the same. your neighbors aren't the same. human beings aren't wired for that. or when rand paul defended restaurant discrimination. >> how about desegregating lunch counters. >> what it gets into is that then if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant or does the government own his restaurant? these are important philosophical debates but not very practical discussion. >> frame up choice, am i right? unless you want your customers to wear a mask and die of covid. the maga right wants to take us backwards. it's just an inconvenience and those demanding inequality are the ones who got the problem. that's tonight's "the reid out." "all in with chris hayes" is up next. >> tonight on "all in." >> that sparked some backlash from our legislature called for a dissoluti

. ♪ ♪ >>> in a 6-3 ruling written by samuel alito, the most reliably conservative justice, the supreme blow upholding two restrictive arizona voting laws. it allowed the tossing of ballots inadvertently cast in the wrong precinct. it's the latest notch in the belt of chief justice john roberts whose life work since an aide in the regan justice department has been to destroy the 1965 voting rights act. today in a decision he previewed by assigning the ruling to arch conservative alito in the first place, he got close to that role. justice elena kagan slammed saying the majority feared the statute congress wrote is too radical so the majority writes its own set of rules limiting section 2 there multiple directions. what is tragic here is the court has yet again rewritten in order to weaken a statute that stands as a monument to america's greatness. since roberts has been on the bench the court has eviscerated federal preclearance and gutted the intent test which prohibited states from voting practices with racist intent. nearly all of the pillars of the voting rights act have been defang

justice samuel alito wrote the decision for the majority basically saying because it may be inconvenientn? >> this is a continuation of the roberts' court devastating the voting rights act. you know, if you can't vote, if you can't fully participate in our democracy, then you don't have your citizenship. i think what we're seeing all across the country is republicans attempt to strip people's citizenship by stripping their right to vote. it really weakens our country and it is an insidious act which democrats have to push back against. >> justice kagan wrote the dissent saying what is tragic here is that the court has yet again rewritten in order to weaken a statute that stands as a monument to america's greatness and protects against its basest impulses referring to the voting rights act. abby, i mean you cover washington. you are there. you saw what happened with infrastructure. it was something that both sides agreed was needed. do you actually see them, for example, doing anything with the john lewis voting rights act? >> if anything passes, that will likely be the one that passes, a

introduced nationwide this 6, 3 ruling followed ideological lines for the conservative majority justice samuel alito mere inconvenience for voters trying to cast a ballot does not mean that access to voting is an equal and for the liberal dissent, justice elena kagan wrote that the majority is weakening a statue designed to bring about the end of discrimination in voting. well, arizona governor doug ducey's tweeted this is a big victory for arizona voters. the navajo nation filed and the case brief concluding how this ruling would despairingly impact native americans ability to exercise their right to vote with one 3rd of the nation living in rural poverty. >> that was allison harris reporting tonight georgia is another state that pass restrictive voting laws the justice department is suing the state of georgia to stop what it calls racially discriminatory provisions attorney general merrick garland has said that he will use every legal tool available to protect the right to vote today. the u.s. supreme court also ordered california to stop collecting the names and addresses of top charity donors. t

all over the country by republican-led states and that is because the 6-3 decision written by samuel alito coming down along doilg lines. but this decision also now constricted how section two of the voting rights act could be used. this is a section that is become one of the only ways that challengers could fight these laws sin the supreme court in 2013 struck down the preclearance provision of the voting rights act, mandated states with a history of discrimination get preapproved for any voting laws. now that is gone and it is just section two and the supreme court is saying that section two just requires equal openness to the opportunity to vote whereas progressive groups wanted the court so say if minorities were impacted by a law they could challenge it. so this is a fight over how congress wrote section two. and in we're seeing in the 6-3 split is the liberals coming out against this. elena kagan let her opinion be known. sme wrote this court has no right to remake section two. some think that vote suppression is a relic of history but congress gets to make that call. because it has

justice samuel alito offered the court's majority opinion, stating the laws do not violate the federal voting rights act. justice kagendy sented, saying the majority changed the law's meaning. we'll show you the oral arguments in the case from last march. >> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states are admonishing to give their attention, the court is now sitting. god save the united states and this honorable court. >> we will hear argument this morning >> may it please the court. i think the key conceptual point here to understand is that arizona is that denied anyone any voting opportunity of any kind. this is not like a literacy test which denies you the right to vote. it's not like vote delusion where white block voting denies minorities an equal opportunity to elect. everyone here is eligible and registered to vote. all they have to do is utilize the myriad opportunities that arizona's offered them over 27 days to vote by mail for free or in person. and since there's no denial of opportunities, this is a disparate impact claim that wo

and -- justice samuel alito offers the courts official opinion. justice elena kagan dissented,. we will hear the oral arguments in the case must march. >> the honorable, the chief justice, and the associate justices of the supreme court of the united states. oy e.a., oy e.a., oyez, >> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states are admonishing to give their attention, the court is now sitting. god save the united states and this honorable court. >> we will hear argument this morning and case number -- berkowitz versus democratic national committee and that consolidated case. >> the chief justice, may it please the court. i think the key conceptual point here to understand is that arizona is not denied anyone a budding opportunity of mankind. this is not like a literacy test which denies you the right to vote. it's not like vote dilution where white block voting denies minorities an equal opportunity to elect. everyone here is eligible and registered to vote. all they have to do is utilize the myriad opportunities that arizona's offered

in this case, justice samuel alito writing, afirms, that republican effort against charges that it willact minorities disappropriately, he said that's not the issue, he said in his opinion, voting takes time, only to a local mailbox, casting a vote whether following directions for using a voting machine or completing a paper ballot requires compliance with certain rules. because these rules on their face neutral, they apply to everyone, and because the system is open to everyone, because it might burden and he acknowledges it does, gnattive americans in places where it's very hard to get to precincts in arizona or african-americans, if they have a harder time, as long as the system is open, it's okay under the voting rights act, that's what he said in this major voting rights act, liberals led by justice kagan take a different vision, they see this law as one of the most important laws on the books, there was an america before voting rights act and after the voting rights act. she said what's tragic here, the court has rewritten in order to weaken a statute that stands to america's grea

the opinion by justice samuel alito for a six justice conservative majority i goers no the relate history of the voting rights act and that warts congress's intent. let me begin with some history. a key component of the act that congress passed in 1965 called section five required states and localities for the history of racial discrimination and voting to ask either the department of justice or a three court panel in washington, d.c. for permission to change a particular voting role. this required districts to show minority voters were not worse off for the change. the idea behind preclearance was to prevent back sliding. a case that became to be none as non-retro greks. section five helped until the 2013 shelby county decision held it was no longer constitutional because it impinged on a state rights of equal sovereignty. it did not deal with discriminatory voting laws already on the books. in the years after passage of the vra some tried to use section two. at first, it was allowed. but then the court ruled that challenges -- this revision rejected the standard and embraced the dispara

the opinion by justice samuel alito for a six justice conservative majority i goers no the relate history of the voting rights act and that warts congress's intent. -- and thwart's congress's intent. let me begin with some history. a key component of the act that congress passed in 1965 called section five required states and localities for the history of racial discrimination and voting to ask either the department of justice or a three court panel in washington, d.c. for permission to change anybody numeral. this preclearance requirement required jurisdictions to show that minority voters were not made worse of the change. congress intended to prevent states from passing discriminatory rules and prevent backsliding for the rest conditions for voting, a concept that came to be known as non-retrogression. section five helped until the 2013 shelby county decision held it was no longer constitutional because it impinged on a state 's right of equal 70. it did not deal with discriminatory voting laws already on the looks. in the years after passing the putting rights act, some tried to use s

samuel alito wrote the majority opinion joined by the courts conservatives.ustice kagan wrote the dissenting opinion. this morning inside usa today, more from yesterday's news conference with leader kevin mccarthy. he was asked about what happened on january 6. reporter: you just named a number of entities that you think are to blame for -- questions about it. do you believe former president trump is responsible in some way for the events? leader mccarthy: have you read the senate report? did you have questions about the prep that we had for this? we're concerned about when they found i.e.d.'s in the morning and did not call the fbi? were you concerned about the idea that the sergeant and arms had intel provided by the fbi but was not passed forward? were you concerned that if we had that information, why didn't we have a different built here? if you were concerned about riots, why would you put the riot gear in a bus that was locked? at the time the riot took place, why was there not communication that had direction from leadership. leadership -- there were

justice samuel alito offered the court's majority opinion, stating the laws do not violate the federal voting rights act. justice kagendy sented, saying the majority changed the law's meaning. we'll show you the oral arguments in the case from last march. >> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states are admonishing to give their attention, the court is now sitting. god save the united states and thisor