and that's a subsection for people who lose they are not in the class. our classes only those who are found to have a significant possibility of prevailing in their >> . . . >> >> who present themselves at the border the heather of the desert but the statute does not distinguish between the two. >> what happens if they present themselves? i have a right to be the united states in u.s.-made air route mistakes respect to me what happens to that person breaks through and they are crossing the desert you get a bond hearing. >> data want to leave i have a right to be here. >> then if you have incredible fear. >> what happens if you are a supporter? in thank you are subject to the parole process the lead jailer to is the one deciding. >> so what language of the statute does the government pointed at you don't get a bond hearing? >> and you can read it for then you can read and for the heather people saw going back to the constitutional question fitted is critically important whether the enforcement mechanism is available or instead comes from habeas. that is o

general may came. >> may. >> it says except for subsection c and subsection c is one that says unambiguously shall take into custody and release only if. >> c is the criminals, isn't it. >> yes, your honor. >> criminal is a different matter. go ahead. >> thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, counsel. mr. arulanantham. >> may it please the court, i think the dispute between it the parties is narrower than it seems based on what my friend acting solicitor general has said. we agree that length by itself doesn't make detention unconstitutional. there doesn't need to be a hard cap on detention. we're just talking about the need for an inquiry, the need for an hearing that is viltize std rather than a categorical presumption that someone is a danger and flight risk. >> are you making a statute tritt -- it was based on an interpretation of the statute, wasn't it? are you making a statutory argument or a constitutional argument. >> we are making both. i think the dispute is narrower. the primary focus, urn, is whether the mechanism for implementing that whether it's constitutio

clearly authorized at the intervals and as subsection eight authorizes six month intervals in billion and national security case and that provision specifically authorizes but limited to national security. they actually have more authority to detain people. and with those terrorism cases and at they have the patriot act. >> with the patriot act provision and that seems superfluous. >> and they already had the mender more 30. >> with those two provisions . and for what the thing in 1226, they are listed six categories and for of those are not included in the patriot act. angela 26. and ms be admissible. andy attorney-general. and then to have reasonable grounds and then they believe that i don't want to be labor the point there is no question about that. >> with your statutory interpretation on 1225 that is the one where it says that alien should be detained one says for asylum the other says removal proceeding but you say that applies only until the relevant proceedings starts. where would we find that in the statute quick. >> where the attorney general is pending the decision. >> jus

susan: the bigger players have stronger ad models, subsections and it will be able to be more -- subscriptions it will be able to compete for more of the sports rights. emily: the headlines talk about youtube at war with the music industry. everyone from taylor swift, paul mccartney that say they do not like the way you do business. you see a future where there is a middle ground? susan: working with the music industry, i learned there are a lot of constituents in the music industry and they do not all agree with each other, right? there will be labels, artists, publishers, and so i remain very hopeful that as the online models of subscription and advertising become more developed that over time we are able to come to a place where everyone agrees on that future vision. i actually think we are getting there because we are starting to see the online subscription and streaming numbers pick up. we are starting to see more revenue from advertising. we have put up $3 billion for the is again is free, good musicbillion to the industry. good growth numbers of overall i think as more time goes by, it

a lot of these companies will not be able to be funded going forward, but there will be a subsectionhat will create interesting things that change the way we work and operate. companies have delayed going public, valuations have soared, a rise in so-called unicorn's out there. how do you feel about that? there shoulde is be fewer instances of unicorns out there because the majority of the m&a happens under $1 billion and few companies are going public. there better be a high probability they can go public given the business model. moderates when growth and they are not profitable, they won't be able to go public and their valuations will get crushed. as we look at the past few years, there has been more of a focus optimizing valuation, so we hope that changes going forward. in aat said, you guys are number of venture capital funds and they have a lot of unicorns and their vote for leo. -- their portfolio. does that concern you? >> they have had the opportunity to invest in these iconic elite companies. so for those managers and for those companies, and there is a market for those com

these companies will not be able to be funded going forward, but the few that do, there will be a subsectionreate interesting things that change the way we work and operate. emily: a lot of comedies have delayed going public. valuations have soared. there has been a rise of unicorns out there. how do you feel about that? atul: i believe is there should be fewer instances of unicorns out there, primarily because the majority happens under $1 billion and very few companies are going public. if a company expects to be a unicorn, there better be a high possibility they will go public model,heir business otherwise if their growth moderates, which happens to everyone eventually and they are not profitable, they will not be able to go public, their valuations will get crushed. over the past two years, it feels like there's been more of a focus on optimizing valuations. we hope that changes going forward. emily: you guys are investing in a number of venture capital funds. they have a lot of unicorns in their portfolio. does that concern you? atul: dave had a unique ability to invest in these iconic,

c," and then subsection c is the one that 15 says, unambiguously, "shall be taken into custody and 16 released only if." 17 justice breyer: c is the criminals. c is 18 the criminals, isn't it? 19 general gershengorn: yes, your honor. 20 justice breyer: okay. i agree. criminal 21 is a different matter. i'm just talking about -- go 22 ahead. go ahead. 23 general gershengorn: all right. thank you. 24 i'll reserve the balance of my time. 25 chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. mr. arulanantham. 2 oral argument of ahilan t. arulanantham 3 on behalf of the respondents 4 mr. arulanantham: thank you, mr. chief 5 justice, and may it please the court: 6 i actually think the dispute between the 7 parties is narrower than it seems based on what my 8 friend, acting solicitor general, has just said, because 9 we agree that length by itself doesn't make detention 10 unconstitutional. we agree that there doesn't need to 11 be a hard cap on detention. we're just talking about 12 the need for an inquiry, that is, the need for a hearing 13 that is individualized rather than a categorical 14 presum

of these companies will not be able to be funded going do, rd, but the few that there will be a subsection that are going to create interesting things that really way we work and operate. > now, a lot of companies have delayed going public, valuations have soared, there has been a unicorns, so-called unicorns out there. how do you feel about that? belief is there should be fewer instances of unicorns out there, primarily the majority of the m billion, pens under a few are going public. if they plan or expect to be a be a high ere better probability they can go public. otherwise, if they're growth everytes which happens to company eventually and they're not profitable, they won't be able to go public. their valuations will get crushed. there has been a focus on optimizing valuation versus exits. we hope that changes going forward. >> that said, you guys are investors in a number of funds. they have a lot of unicorns in their portfolios. does that concern you? you look at the top have the ms, they unique ability to invest in the elite countries, lyft.ook, pinterest, uber, for those manages a

susan: the bigger players have stronger ad models, subsections, and it will be able to be more -- subscriptionsable to compete for more of the sports rights. emily: the headlines talk about youtube at war with the music industry. everyone from taylor swift to paul mccartney is saying that they do not like the way you do business. you see a future where there is a middle ground? susan: working with the music industry, i learned there are a lot of constituents in the music industry and they do not all agree with each other, right? there will be labels, artists, publishers, and so i remain very hopeful that as the online models of subscription and advertising become more developed that over time we are able to come to a place where everyone agrees on that future vision. i actually think we are getting there, because we are starting to see the online subscription and streaming numbers pick up. we are starting to see more revenue from advertising. we have put up $3 billion for the music industry since exception -- since inception. we have good growth numbers. i think as more time goes by, it will be

notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, a bank holding company shall be deemed to have been the subject of a final determination under paragraph 1 if the bank holding company as of the date of enactment of this subsection. a, has total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion and, b, has disclosed in a filing with the commission that a department or agency of the united states government has a pending lawsuit or enforcement action against the bank holding company related to the origination, securitization or sale of residential ortgage-backed securities. mr. luetkemeyer: i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: a point of order is reserved. pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much. madam chairwoman and members, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. madam speaker, ladies and gentl

notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, a bank holding company shall be deemed to have been the subject of a final determination under paragraph 1 if the bank holding company as of the date of enactment of this subsection. a, has total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion and, b, has disclosed in a filing with the commission that a department or agency of the united states government has a pending lawsuit or enforcement action against the bank holding company related to the origination, securitization or sale of residential ortgage-backed securities. mr. luetkemeyer: i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: a point of order is reserved. pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much. madam chairwoman and members, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. madam speaker, ladies and gentl

. >> except as provided in subsection c and pending such decision the attorney general may-- >> except for subsection c and that's one that says unabbing big usely, shall take into kith and-- you see it's the criminals, it's the-- >> yes, your honor. >> i'm just talking about. go ahead. >> thank you, i reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you. >> chief justice and may it please the court, i think the dispute between the parties is narrower than it seems based on what my friend, the acting solicitor general, we agreed doesn't make it unconstitutional. we agree there doesn't have to be a hard cap on detentions. we're looking at the need for inyearing, hearings that is visualized. rather that categorical assumptions that someone is making a flight risk? >> 9 circumstances that-- >> yes. >> are you making a statutory argument pour a constitutional argument? >> both, section one makes the constitutional argument. i think it's narrow because the primary focus whether the mechanism for implanting that, whether it's the restraint or if it's kagan-- for me it makes a difference if we're int

that exemption only relates to the certain subsections and sentences the overall inspector general has. thus, many of these new rules and requirements would apply to the department of defense. for example, the new -- quote -- timely access to information requirement that is included in the legislation, but there's no exemption from d.o.d. from that requirement and it's unclear the exemptions would apply. the senate armed services committee conducts a regular stringent oversight of the department of defense, including its i.g. the committee and the congress passed defense legislation on an annual basis, and this will be the 55th year we will do so. i do not believe there is any problem at present in the d.o.d. i.g. that requires this legislation to require in the event that the senate armed services committee uncovers problems in the course of our oversight work. we will address those issues in our annual authorization legislation. look, i have great affection for my friend from iowa. it's obvious that he is -- that this issue is important to him. it's obvious that he has been working o

section of the policy and incorporated into the overall principle section of policy and given its own subsectionhere was a - portion added it is the last in the last sentence of the order under vulnerable population the language that was added was when all other reasonable means are exhausted that was added to give officers direction to be thoughtful in the application to consider lesser force options when dealing with the populations tentative agreement number 5 is on page 5 of the draft g o the language was below the discussions excuse me - sections rothman numeral one through 4 for a better understanding to the points their discuss below 0 so move forward from the general order to the top and the language was changed to include each discharge to a discharge again, just a little bit more clarity when discussing the discharge of a firearm and moving to the next slide below the section was removed but the language for reassessment was kept in the order. >> the language in section 2 one through 4 was not changed and remains the same the draft g go dated 2016 with the tentative agreement was poste

we must imagine a number of different jewish congregations and subsections of the city in and through which paul could have moved and still felt very much at home within the jewish community. >> wherever you have a sufficient number of jews, you would have a jewish community. wherever you have a jewish community, you would have a jewish synagogue. >> narrator: by the fourth century, the synagogue had become a formal place of worship. but in paul's day, especially in the diaspora, it was more of a community center. >> another remarkable feature of the synagogues in the diaspora is not only that they attracted large crowds of people, but among these crowds will have been gentiles. there is no barrier between jews and gentiles, and gentiles found the jewish synagogues-- and the jews themselves, apparently-- as open, friendly and why not go to the jewish synagogue? especially because there are no non-jewish analogs. there's nothing equivalent to this communal experience anywhere in pagan or greek and roman religions. >> narrator: gentiles attending synagogues would have been exposed to ju

section of the policy and incorporated into the overall principle section of policy and given its own subsectionhere was a - portion added it is the last in the last sentence of the order under vulnerable population the language that was added was when all other reasonable means are exhausted that was added to give officers direction to be thoughtful in the application to consider lesser force options when dealing with the populations tentative agreement number 5 is on page 5 of the draft g o the language was below the discussions excuse me - sections rothman numeral one through 4 for a better understanding to the points their discuss below 0 so move forward from the general order to the top and the language was changed to include each discharge to a discharge again, just a little bit more clarity when discussing the discharge of a firearm and moving to the next slide below the section was removed but the language for reassessment was kept in the order. >> the language in section 2 one through 4 was not changed and remains the same the draft g go dated 2016 with the tentative agreement was poste

i'm also concerned about subsection c-1-b which gives the department of defense far too much leeway in determining which cases warrant review. secretary carter has pledged to review every case, this gives d.o.d. the option of ignoring about 2,000 cases. that would be a problem. our job isn't yet done. there will be a hearing next week on this issue. will attempt to get further clarification to protect those men and women that accepted a bonus, went to war, performed their duties, and are now subject to a callback. that should not happen. one more thing to bring to the attention of the committee is the strategy arms portion of this -- strategic arms force of this bill which continues a trillion dollar project of recapitalizing our entire nuclear arsenal. we should pay attention to that in the future. it's extraordinarily expensive and dangerous w that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished chair of the subcommittee on