supreme court. it could add some political ammunition for the republican side of things heading into the mid terms this fall if they want to make the case that hey this president, his entire administration is not following the constitution, and this hobby lobby case could fall into their court and be used as sort of a political tool heading into the fall. it is a possibility that could shape the fall campaign and fire up the republican base, carol. >> absolutely. and i'm just hearing that the supreme court has handed down a decision on union fees. this is another very important case that some say could destroy unions in this country. jonathan, explain please. >> i've been asking people to pay attention to harris v. quinn for week because hobby lobby sucks the oxygen out of the room. but this is a very important case. what is involved is a group of home care work sers who -- whork -- workers who essentially been charged union dues, they have been effectively forced to pay the union for representation

thank you for having me great to have you coming up hobby lobby wasn't the only big case of the supreme court ruled on this morning powells to the courts grover the american people today what can we do to fight back the answer right after the break. do you want to be a t.v. star and talk to me face to face and e-mail me your video questions and comments to your take my take edge e-mail about tom will air them live every thursday night it's easy put your phone in video mode hold it sideways and record your selfie video and e-mail us your take my take g.-mail you can also tweet your question or comment to me underscore harben sure to use the hash tag. i marinate in the financial world. to cease to moments cannot stop because it is very only taken from the demand for credit not going to get any economic benefit in life there are obvious and. look. for those with the washington well as a misleading entry as being suggested add to the list of numbers of them the media candidates for the prophecy of covering issues are actually back to and doesn't do too much for ad revenue in biotech agriculture g

paul smith runs the supreme court appellate practice at jenner and black and doing supreme court cases as an acknowledged leading advocate in a number offields, first amendment we'll talk about today, voting rights, also gay rights issues. we're going to as i said there are a couple of important first amendment cases. the mccullen abortion protesters cases where massachusetts passed a law that created a 35-foot buffer zone in front of abortion clinics and there was a constitutional challenge and a real question about the fate of an older precedent which had upheld a floating buffer zone in front of abortion clinics. >> right. this is a really interesting outcome because the court unanimously held that the buffer zone was unconstitutional. going into this case after the argument i think no one would have predicted a unanimous ruling one way or the other. hill versus colorado that allowed a floating buffer so you couldn't approach somebody without their consent more than six feet was extremely controversial on the conservative side of the court and justice scalia continues to find it so.

here's what happened, today the supreme court dealt a crippling blow to unions in the country. the decision is the culmination of decades long attack on working class americans. the court ruled that partial government employees can't be required to contribute to unions. justice alito pointed by bush wrote home care aides who work for a disabled person with medicaid are partial public employees. really? the person at home getting that care, did they think that they are being provided partially? the justices basically said that collecting fees violates workers first amendment rights. no, actually just took them away. the case was brought by a group of illinois health care workers who objected to union membership and didn't want to pay. the financial impact to unions could be devastating down the road. this means middle class americans going to be hurt in the long run. these people need a voice. no doubt about it. we have shown you this. this is about income inequality as well. we've shown you this chart many times here on the ed show. the top 1%, income is through the roof while o

i think that the supreme court itself would read it that way. if a litigant got up in court and said but this is really unreasonable. you can't have a $500 limit. one case out of vermont, just a few hundred dollars which the court struck down. another case which this amendment would overrule, the court struck it down just saying that's just not enough money to run a campaign, i don't think that would be at all the same. i mean, under this amendment, the states and the state legislatures and the congress would have, i believe, all but absolute authority to make these decisions and would be essentially unreviewable and certainly not reviewable on a reasonable basis. >> so you couldn't go to the supreme court and say we think this is an unreasonable limit because the supreme court would say you didn't put that in it. in fact, you explicitly passed this amendment after having rejected that word that was in a previous draft. i just think that's one of the things that we need to recognize. mr. abrams, one more thing, i don't know if you commented on th

that doesn't mean that i think the supreme court is not a great inns thighs, i think it is. also think that every justice on that court is doing what he or she thinks is in the national interest, but i think that there were judges on the court in bush v gore who thought it was in the national interest that bush be president, and i think that was not the way those decisions should be made. >> well, we respectfully disagree and we've talked about this over good wine. (laughter) we supplied the wine on an equal footing -- >> this was a joint operation. (laughter) >> i will just say that seven of the justices felt there were problems under the equal protection clause, including two of the descending justices that would have not stopped the recount and that point and they were sensitive and expressed in their opinion on concerns about the equal protection clause. there were two decisions from the supreme court. the first one the united states supreme court rejected what the florida supreme court did 9-0. the second one, it was 5-4 on whether it was time to stop the recount, which

the supreme court, because we're running out of time, the supreme court is expected to announce tomorrow the decision tomorrow on the hobby lobby case. that's a question as to whether or not under obamacare the president can mandate a private company to provide birth control coverage to its workers if that's in violation of the owner's religious beliefs. let me begin with you, congressman goodlatte, and i'm going to ask you to take 30 seconds to answer this. what do you think is at stake in terms of executive powers and how do you expect the court to rule in hobby lobby? >> well, in that case, i think the statute itself as interpreted by the president violates the first amendment of the constitution. i'm hoping the court will uphold the rights of individuals for their expression of their religious freedoms. now, the end does not justify the means in these cases. and 9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the supreme court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority. >> let me interrupt you and go to congressman becerra briefly, 30 seconds. if i own a comp

supreme court struck down the massachusetts law.ning us now, marty walz, former member of the massachusetts state legislature. she's now head of the planned parenthood league of massachusetts. thanks very much for being with us. >> great to be with you, rachel. >> first, let me ask you your reaction to today's ruling. a lot of people predicted the law might be in trouble. simply because the court took it up. what do you think of their ruling today? >> well, of course, we were disappointed. we think the buffer zone law worked very well to maintain a safe environment for our patients and our staff. obviously the court disagreed but you observed into your piece leading into this, they didn't do anything about their own buffer zone law. so apparently they think they have one set of rules and women seeking health care should be subjected to a different set of rules. >> one thing that has been interesting to me looking at the history of how massachusetts has tried to deal with the issue about danger at clinics and protests at clinics, is

that goes to the supreme court. i was too much, not just for scalia, alito, roberts, thomas, but justice kennedy flipped over and wanted the liberals there and said that does compromise at least the appearance of due process. so we are going to send that one back and say that the judge should not have sat on the case. it was fascinating to me that the next year we have the coal mine collapse from the massey 29 people died, the governor issued a report and said one of the factors and what happened was the failure of politicians to try to sell a sleek and force the laws and regulations against domestic corporation because they were afraid of the political spending and the willingness to engage in independent expenditures of the ceo. >> thank you. i went to look at that case. we have heard about it. it is one example of that story of what has been going on. i think your argument about the corruption and what this is leading to is of great merit. i would also say that i'm glad that you have come out, mr. abrams, saying

well-conceived and good to read. , eyewitnessorites accounts in supreme court history. it is a collection of well-told anecdotes about people and events in the life of the court. of "supreme edition court decisions and women's rights." a book designed for secondary readers. college-age in 2012, the society updated the supreme court justices illustrated biographies, so now that volume includes four new justice, andchief the new justices. last, i cannot resist speaking of a collection of my late created withipes, loving care by martha ann alito. with contributions from other supreme court spouses. tonight lecture, the dred scott family and the civil war, could not be resented by a better-informed electorate. frontier,slavery's published in 2009 by the oxford university press. the joseph r with chair at the university of iowa. chair at the university of iowa. he regularly lectures in the united states and abroad. history, and legal constitutional law. she has served as visiting professor, professor, or scholar at nyu and the university of vienna. her current research center

of course the supreme court said no. it was very frustrating because for the people -- i thought it was a great public education opportunity. dustin lance black who was an academy award-winning screenwriter wrote a play and they put on display and judge walker, the judge in the case told me, it was broadcast on youtube, got like 1.5 million hits. if this had been broadcast, if the trial had been broadcast, nobody -- 1.5 many people would not have -- but since george clooney was playing one of the lawyers and brad pitt plays the judge, i think he was pleased to a lot of people tuned in. and hollywood also has a real role here. i think shows like "glee" and modern family are also really important. it's storytelling. >> host: the trial actually is, as you've probably experienced, at some point all of the points on little boring. it's dramatic retelling is exciting but and i'll just ask you may be what's more, the word i have about this book is not about the dramatic telling of the story, which again i quite enjoyed, it's th

no ruling by the supreme court, no speech that the supreme court has concluded warranted first amendment protection has ever been transformed i a constitutional amendment into becoming unprotected speech, and thus subject to criminal sanctions. think about we protect under the first amendment. chief justice roberts in the mccutcheon opinion reserve -- observed that it may be repugnant to some but so, too, does most of the, much of what the first amendment vigorously protects. at the first amendment protects flagburning, funeral protests and not see parades, despite the profound offense that such spectacles cause, it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition. the proposed amendment before you today deals with nothing except political campaign speech. it does not deal with money that is spent for any other purpose other than persuading people who to vote for or against. and as such it would limit speech that is at the heart of the first amendment. and the fact that the amendment is proposed in the name of equality makes it no less threatening. the supreme court o

and the supreme court ruled 9-0 mr. obama has gone too far in making some of his recess appointmen appointments. fox news chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel has more on what all this means for the balance of power here in washington. >> what we've seen clearly over the last five years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch. >> speaker john boehner announced wednesday the house will sue president obama for exceeding his constitutional authority. >> i believe the president is not faithfully executing the laws of our country, and on behalf of the institution and our constitution, standing up and fighting for this is in the best long-term interest of the congress. >> mr. obama has recently issued executive orders to raise the minimum wage for federal contractors, stopping deportations of children here illegally, and more than two dozen unilateral changes to obamacare. >> i'm not sure which of the things i've done they find most offensive. but they've decided they're going to sue me for doing m

paul smith runs the supreme court appellate practice at jenner and black and doing supreme court cases as an acknowledged leading advocate in a number offields, first amendment we'll talk about today, voting rights, also gay rights issues. we're going to as i said there are a couple of important first amendment cases. the mccullen abortion protesters cases where massachusetts passed a law that created a 35-foot buffer zone in front of abortion clinics and there was a constitutional challenge and a real question about the fate of an older precedent which had upheld a floating buffer zone in front of abortion clinics. >> right. this is a really interesting outcome because the court unanimously held that the buffer zone was unconstitutional. going into this case after the argument i think no one would have predicted a unanimous ruling one way or the other. hill versus colorado that allowed a floating buffer so you couldn't approach somebody without their consent more than six feet was extremely controversial on the conservative side of the court and justice scalia continues to find it so.

by the missouri supreme court, changing the rules. they went to trial in federal court a third time. although the statute entitled them to an attorney, they were passed off between seven attorneys in the course of the litigation. each time of transfer, there was a delay. in the missouri courts, scotts had very bad luck. they could not have foreseen the missouri supreme court would change the rules on them. in 1852, the missouri supreme court reversed freedom by residence. the state supreme court had been relatively stable for years. until that point, a three-judge bench had held for years. but they then underwent a changed electoral process. the new judges seem to be less committed to the 30-year precedent the supreme court followed since statehood. in essence, the missouri supreme court changed the rules on them after their case had been in litigation for six years and they had won a jury verdict. this reversal would apply retroactively to the scotts and their cases. they experienced the years of litigation by time spent in jail, auct

that's a separate question and another one the supreme court may have to deal with. >> all right. justice correspondent pete williams at the high court. the supreme court handing down a decision related to the president's signature health care law. we're going take a quick break. when we come back. we'll get more reaction. once again supreme court ruling that certain family companies are exempt from the so-called contraception mandate. this is msnbc. we're moving our company to new york state. the numbers are impressive. over 400,000 new private sector jobs... making new york state number two in the nation in new private sector job creation... with 10 regional development strategies to fit your business needs. and now it's even better because they've introduced startup new york... with the state creating dozens of tax-free zones where businesses pay no taxes for ten years. become the next business to discover the new new york. [ male announcer ] see if your business qualifies. that's why i always choose the fastest intern.r slow. the fastest printer. the fastest lunch. turkey club.

-- the 2 supreme courtases. the skill that went into it and i watched david and al gore's team and they were fabulous lawyers. we had differences of opinion on whether the court decided correctly or not. i respected the views of the david articulated. a presidential election can turn on the outcome of votes in one state. it has to be determined within a certain timeframe because what the constitutional limits on when the new president must take office. the concern that david was expressing is that they wanted every vote counted and i would say they wanted every vote is counted again and again and again by different standards and do the rules cap to changing after the election with respect to what was a valid vote and what was not. when you put those punch cards through the machines, they change every time. you are never measuring the same thing. we felt that the process require counting votes in a determinate way according to the rules that were in place before the election took place, not rules that were c

popular and it works so sorry why are some people out trying to destroy it by privatizing also the supreme court has finally made its decision on obamacare as a birth control mandate ruling as expected that it's ok for employers like hobby lobby to discriminate against their female employee needs so how is this ruling really as narrow as everyone says it is more on that in just a moment and given all the terrible decisions the supreme court has made in recent years present time we started talking about how to regulate it more on that side still it's. getting to know this as far as the supreme court is concerned we're still in the nineteenth century when it comes to women's rights you know five to four decision the supreme court today ruled that for profit corporations like abhi lobby to discriminate against their female. ploy by denying them birth control coverage as

the question is where do the abortion rights stand within the rights of the supreme court? we can say that from -- the court has not had a straight-on case challenging the basic holding of roe vs. wade in the opinion that recognized women's abortion rights. but there have been cases involving efforts by states and the federal government to restrict abortion rights or regulate abortion rights. and the court has pretty much sent this signal, you might say, through some of the orders and that have come its way. the court has not been willing to consider regulations or to accept regulations that effectively abolish organization rights. they recently when they asked the lower court to explain whether or not an oklahoma law was a regulation or a elimination of abortion rights in some cases. the lower court said the regulation effectively eliminated a non-surgical abortion. and so the supreme court allowed an enjunction against that law to stand. in other cases, the skort -- supreme court has allowed stricter regulations to exist. so basically, the court is saying it is more recept

now, constitutional law attorneys review the supreme court term in an event hosted by the american constitution society for law and policy. they discussed decisions on campaign finance, cell phone searches, and presidential recess power. public employee unions. the court will announce those decisions on monday, the last day of the supreme court term. this is 90 minutes. fights good morning. thank you for coming. i made director of policy development and programming for the constitution society for law and policy. it's my pleasure to welcome me to the supreme court review for term.13 2014 acs was founded in 2001 and is a lawyers,network of policymakers, academics, judges who believe the law should he a force to improve the lives of all people. acs works for positive change are shaping the debate on questions such as those we will be hearing about today. the decisions issued this term, and those they have yet to issue, span a wide variety of areas touching numerous aspects of life from the influence of money in our elections, reproductive rights, executive power, the future of organized labor, di

and on that score, the supreme court looks back at an old case of pen registers in the early days of phones and the court said collecting that information doesn't implicate the fourth amendment and says that precedent really doesn't apply with any substantial force in a digital era when so much information is gathered from things like phone calls but there's an important footnote in which the majority says we don't decide what constitutes a search and if the government is able to just collect information about us that's otherwise available from databases and the like it may not implicate the fourth amendment but actually collecting phone call information without a warrant will raise serious fourth amendment issues. >> i was going to say, it's more by analogy they're related. the issue in the meta data context is validity of the old rule that if you let information be in the hands of other third parties you don't have a fourth amendment claim when the government gets it from the third party and justice sotomayor suggested in the gps case is something we need to rethink in a world where

on the steps of the supreme court, helping us to understand and ultimately impact the supreme court ruling we have to go back to the impact on the markets. alix steel, a huge day for broadcast stocks. winners break down the and losers. by far, the winners of this ruling obviously are the broadcasters. however, a lot of them are off their session highs. take a look at cbs. really spike higher right on the ruling. it has cooled off a little bit since then. the medium term trend line that many watch. group reallying holding onto its gains for the day. this includes a lot of and bc, foxx, cbs affiliates that have the largest number of television stations in the u.s.. comcast holding onto its highs of the session, it is kind of a dual winner here. operator, a pay-tv kind of moving with both. keep in mind that overall, the broadcasting stocks have fallen off a cliff this year due to this potential ruling. paring back a lot of those losses. -- biggest loser will be you saw immediate takedown. we have recovered since then. just a little bit below the flat line. you had barry diller saying that thi

supreme court and that was the case that was heard by the supreme court in 1856 and again in 1857 when they actually rendered their decision. it is interesting that sanford his name is on the case and he doesn't come into it until 1854 when they go to the federal courts. sanford is also a key player in where we know the scotts were returned by the supreme court but they were set free in this room a couple months later. the way that happened was sanford died in new york state and upon his death the ownership reverted to his sister and to her husband. he was an abolitionist and he was a sitting member of congress at this time. suddenly, he finds he's the owner of the most famous slaves in the united states just literally overnight. he wanted to divest himself of these slaves as quickly as he could before the press found out. he sold the scott family for a token dollar to taylor blow, one of the sunday of the original family from the plantation where scott was born back in virginia. taylor blow brought them into this courtroom and set them free in 1857. so the scotts achieved the freedom

good evening. >> reporter: today's supreme court decisions reflect the state of american politics. a narrowly but deeply divide court produced two narrowly tailored rulings that nonetheless provoked extravaganza reactions. hobby lobby supporters cheered loudly. and from justice ginsberg dissent you would have thought they -- she described the ruling as one of startling breadth. the court ruled only closely held companies such as hobby lobby whose owners religion are deeply embed in the culture can't be forced to provide certain forms of birth control. hobby lobby didn't have objection to most only a few that they said amounted to abortion. the obamacare law is at the root of this. it's been the object of intense resistance ever since. small wonder that its individual mandate was barely upheld early by a closely held supreme court and produced narrow rulings by narrow margins. divide court, divided congress, divided country. >> thanks, brit. the dow lost 25, s&p 500 dropped three quarters, nasdaq gained ten. up next what will israel do about the killing of three israeli teenagers aft

robinson covers the supreme court for bloomberg. thank you for being with us. other article taking a look at the issue. newsweek says court watchers are putting their money on a win for hobby lobby. the next caller is grace in ohio on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i think this is a dangerous thing that is going on. doesn't the republican party, haven't they succeeded in over 420 bills? isn't this the only thing they have gotten done in congress. is the supreme court helping them do this? why is there such a war against women? i don't like for republicans to tell us women. you're are just putting us in our place. you don't need to put us in our place. i am 83. how i was born, that was minute treatise. it was terrible. host: what about this decision makes you think there is a war on women? i think it is helping them. women, they can opt out. they can say to the company i don't want this birth control. i think it is dangerous. i really do. i think it is an troll by republicans. int just furthers the thing this war on women that they have. it is a war and

and so the supreme court said they're allowed to make that claim here in terms of the contraception mandate in obamacare for a couple of reasons. one of which the court says is that number one, it's narrow to that issue of contraception. and number two, the court said there are alternatives that would protect the government's interests. the justice department said its important to provide these contraceptives to women because so many pregnancies in america are unwanted and because something like 98% of women use contra septdives in their lives. what the majority said there's a alternative. the government could do the same thing with the for-profit companies that it does with nonprofit religiously affiliated company, which is to say that the government picks up the cost of the contraceptive insurance. so given there is an out there that will accomplish the government's ends, the court said the companies in this case are relieved of their obligation to provide the insurance coverage. now, the dissenters in this case say it opens the door for a company to claim all kinds of exceptions from the

supreme court. i want to start with the ario decision. we note msnbc's parent company, nbc universal was among the broadcasting companies opposing ario. break down this decision for us. what are the implications? i know broadcasters are cheering the ruling. it could mean ario is out of business. >> this is a decision that really is an arrow into the heart of aereo. what aereo is a system that allowed people in certain cities that had the service to pay a fee and be able to watch broadcast tv signals on a mobile device, iphone, ipad, smart phone. you did that by aereo, when you logged in, assigning an individual tiny antenna to you and video recorder to you. aereo said that worked just like you do at home, it was just being done remotely. the supreme court didn't buy that today. they said aereo is violating the copyright laws. when the tv station broadcasts a signal, that's a public lick performance and no one else can transmit it without paying aa fee. aereo designed its whole system around the copy

well they would say they are following it because the supreme court said yes it's a right but there can be limits they didn't really say how many limits there they said they would argue and these are federal courts all over the country that they're they're not does a bang but some of the backers of gun rights some of the n.r.a. people they've likened it if you can believe this to massive resistance was which was you know which was that the south did after brown versus board of education that they say that these judges are are in fact resisting what the supreme court has said and we haven't heard from the supreme court yet michael where do you think it's all go on. i think that. unless and until the public gets angry and stays angry and stays organized that we're going to see chipping away at at these gun. gun laws with these rulings and in particular you have seen a great loosening of the rules about carrying guns everywhere and i at the same time i think that there are ways to fix the gun issue you know this year larry as many people were more people will be killed by guns th

supreme court. that is the case that was heard by the supreme court in 1856 and again in 1857 when they actually rendered their decision. hiss interesting that name is on the case and he does not really come into it until 1854. he is the key player in that we know that they will be returned to slavery by the supreme court, but they were set in this room a couple of months later. state.d died in new york upon his death, the ownership of the scotts reverted to his sister and her husband who was from massachusetts. he was a member of congress at this time. suddenly, he finds he is the owner of the most famous slaves in the united states. to divest himself of these slaves as quickly as he could before the press found out. actually solds he the scott family for a token dollar to one of the sons of the original family from the plantation where scott was born back in virginia. taylor brought them into this courtroom and set them free in 1857. they achieved the freedom they had fought so long to obtain whil

and on that score, the supreme court looks back at an old case of pen registers in the early days of phones and the court said collecting that information doesn't implicate the fourth amendment and says that precedent really doesn't apply with any substantial force in a digital era when so much information is gathered from things like phone calls but there's an important footnote in which the majority says we don't decide what constitutes a search and if the government is able to just collect information about us that's otherwise available from databases and the like it may not implicate the fourth amendment but actually collecting phone call information without a warrant will raise serious fourth amendment issues. >> i was going to say, it's more by analogy they're related. the issue in the meta data context is validity of the old rule that if you let information be in the hands of other third parties you don't have a fourth amendment claim when the government gets it from the third party and justice sotomayor suggested in the gps case is something we need to rethink in a world where

but now think of the supreme court. because gridlock isn't the rule there. er be the rule there. court has nine seats. odd number. every time they vote, one side wins and one side loses. what the court says goes. the exhort is the final arbiter. who is allowed under our constitution and what isn't. this is a conservative group. four of the justices clearly on the right and another one, anthony kennedy, isn't quite as conservative but still pretty conservative. this conservative court is the exception to the rule. not much that comes out of congress for president obama to sign these days but there is a lot that comes out of this court. it's tempting, know, to throw up our hands and tune out the exhausting partisan noise in washington. remember this, four of the nine justices who sit on the supreme court are more than 70 years old. the chances are are very good there will be at least one vacancy in the next few years. when that vacancy comes it's going to matter very much who was sitting in the white house and what the makeup of the senate is. that's the real s

the supreme court decision regarding hobby lobby. this was a big case. >> the ruling came just a short time ago. the arts and crafts retail chain will not be forced to pay to cover certain forms of contraceptives for their employees. pamela brown is outside the supreme court. and jeffrey toobin is also with us. pam, we want to start with you the scene of where this all played out. obviously, this is one of the biggest and most anticipated rulings. it was the one left for last. a little bit of drama before they end their session. >> so much anticipation for this ruling today. it is the final day of the public session. the crowds were out, demonstrators on both sides of this issue, issues combining abortion, religious liberty, obamacare, corporate rights, all into this one ruling, and today we heard the ruling from the majority, the five conservative justices ruling in favor of hobby lobby striking down this key provision in the affordable care act requiring closely held family owned companies to provide comprehensive coverage of contr

wonder about whether we should think about fully human robots like justice robots and whether supreme court justices in the american model are the right vehicle to examine the question. you think about the court's role for itself. it is that the law is not fully -- does not fully determine it. there are questions, circuit splits divisions of authority, inconsistent rules. they have high political judgment that you and jack have been talking about for the last hour. but that is a very different set of questions. many legal questions are much more determinate. even at the micro level, many of us would accept that for like a traffic detection system, you could have an automated system or a robot whatever you want to call it, to resolve those questions. and then at interimmediate level, you can plug in facts into a legal test and outcomes an answer, what about those questions? at what point do get into the sort of doubt of justice robots? how far would you be willing to accept automated decision making with finality in a human system? >> you basically asked my question. i will jump in and say o

and the supreme court unanimous decision, what does it mean? we will have that next. ♪ [ male announcer ] if you can't stand the heat, get off the test track. get the mercedes-benz you've been burning for at the summer event, going on now at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer. hurry, before this opportunity cools off. ♪ are the largest targets in the world, for every hacker, crook and nuisance in the world. but systems policed by hp's cyber security team are constantly monitored for threats. outside and in. that's why hp reports and helps neutralize more intrusions than anyone... in the world. if hp security solutions can help keep the world's largest organizations safe, they can keep yours safe, too. make it matter. lou: coming up in moments, blockbuster revelations from the author of the book "blood feud." we will be joined by the best-selling author had -- ed klein. and this man, president obama talked constitutional law, he might've been listening instead of talking. the supreme court ruling against the expansion of executive power for a

the justices of the supreme court of the united states waited until the last possible day of the 2013-14 term to release their decision in the case originally called sebelius vs hobby lobby. hobby lobby is owned by christians who say that their religion for bid the type of birth control offered in affordable healthcare. rif ra gives employers the legal right to change what is offered in healthcare insurance. president obama changed them and supreme court changed them again. >> advocates on oil sides crowded the steps of the supreme court in anticipation of the final decision of th of the hobby lobby case. the court ruled for hobby lobby saying closely held companies can opt out of the federal mandate to provide birth control to their employees if it goes against the company owner's beliefs. a:he also argued that since non-profit institutions like churches can opt out, for-profit, closely held companies can as well. read from the bench: >> at the heart of the argument is rifra, it is meant to shield from the burden if they practice their faith. >> this is a stand for religious freedom.

supreme court. first in utah. the 10th u.s. circuit court of appeals ruled same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. >> it's a great day for everyone in utah and a great day for the entire nation. i just hope that the stay doesn't last too long and that the marriages can continue. >> now, this ruling applies to six states under the appeals court's jurisdiction but the judges put the ruling on hold pending an appeal. and in indiana, a u.s. district court judge ruled the state's law banning same-sex marriage is not constitutional. so let me bring in senior fellow at the center for american progress action fund, aisha moody mills and democratic strategist and chair of the gay and lesbian victory fund, steven elamendorf. steve, seems like we're getting a decision in favor of same-sex couples, something moving very fast. every few days, seems like we're hearing about this. almost half the country lives in a state where same-sex couples can be married. how close are we to having marriage equality nationwide? >> i think we