that's our website for the supreme court. everything we've done on this network concerning this top i topic. not only term limits other things related to the court. all of that available at c-span.org. tim from philadelphia, pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning. i think that the supreme court is the way it's set up, it should continue in the tradition. i don't think we should have term limits. i think that the justices do a very good job with their opinions and decisions. i just think that in the confirmation we may need to try harder to do selection there. all in all, i think supreme court should stay the way it is. it's diversified. it speaks to america as america speaks to it. thank you. host: democrats line douglas in beckley, west virginia. hi. caller: hello. it would be more term limits on our senate and majority house. host: stick to the court. what do you think about this idea? is a good idea or bad idea for the court itself? caller: well, it's on good idea and a bad idea. you have to weigh out both opti

the longer you are in the supreme court the more knowledge you gain. i believe the term limits should maybe 40 years or 50 years, but not 10 years or something like that. host: give them enough time to court,p some time on the write a lot of opinions, not a shorter-term like 10 years or so? caller: exactly. host: what you think is the benefit of a certain amount of time? a longer amount of time would give them longer to get accustomed to how the system works. they should know how the system works. , in this day and time, the conforming too be what people want. not what the actual law is. that is just my opinion. here is angel in marysville, washington. republican line. caller: hello. host: hello, how are you? caller: angel here. i'm doing good honey. caller had me cracking up so much. i believe term limits for the supreme court justices -- be the same as for the presidency. eight years maximum. fresh blood. once supreme court justices are baked in they are too partisan. clearlyisans way is given too much power. i truly believe -- i think it would be goo

parts put in place by the supreme court. full formal hearing of it this october by the justices including neil gorsuch, the newest member of the court. getting your thought on the decision and the travel ban itself. for republicans 202-748-8001, for democrats 202-748-8000, for independents 202-748-8002. cornell from waterford, works new jersey democrats line. hello caller: good morning pedro. it's unfortunate how ignorant the majority of americans are when they can accept that seven the nine hijackers came from saudi arabia and then we window attack -- went to attack iraq. most of the terrorists is home grown today. it's internal. they're not coming from those countries. the reason why he's not abandoning saudi arabia because he's in bed with them. the bin laden's came out of saudi arabia. wake up america. this doesn't make sense. for the supreme court to go 9-0 speaks volume of the hypocrisy of the supreme court. the hypocrisy. 9-0? host: when you say hypocrisy of the court, what are referring to? caller: i'm speaking about

this is the recent supreme court ruling on june 19. urt reversed a federeral appealss court that former high-level bush officials may be sued for their roles in the post-9/11 profiling of men. >> the second court of appeals found the former attttorney mueller,and robert could be sued for rounding up hundreds of men in new york after 9/11. there was a citizen tip situation where people were phoning in tips that, this person is an arab and has been working long hours, this is a muslim who has been renting a phone -- a po box. these men were rounded up, put in special detention facilities, and essentially disappeared. they were being held under suspicion of terrorist activities. a lot of them were deported because they were not citizens. at the end of the day, none of them had a connection to terrorism so our lawsuit which has been going on for many years , sought to hold the high level officials accountable for those activities. it is like a reverse muslim band we are seeing so rather than fighting to kekeep people out of the country, we

the supreme court alluded to that. a mixed bag here at the supreme court.poppy, something a lot of court watchers didn't expect. we expected, perhaps a blanket denial or a blanket denial of the stay and wait for arguments. it turns out the trump administration can go forward. >> let me bring in the man patiently standing to your side. steve. what the court heard is they split the baby when it comes to the stay. jeffrey toobin pointed out is rare. the question that is asked, so, who decides what a bonified relationship is? >> justice thomas joined by them how hard it is going to be for the trump administration to implement the ruling between now and october when they hear the case. you are going to have individual government officers deciding which connections are sufficient and which are not that may be a satisfying compromise among the six justices in the majority. it's going to be hard to implement on the ground. >> jeffrey toobin, those government officers making this decision to prepare for more lawsuits about whether this is a bonified relationship and

the supreme court decided to hear the case of carpenter versus the united states. ll us the story behind the case. guest: the court agreed to hear this next term, and the case involves privacy and big data and police collection in the internet age. in this case according to the government, carpenter was the mastermind behind a string of armed robberies in the detroit area and northern ohio, and police arrested one of the suspects who turned over carpenter's phone number. they went to his phone company and subpoenaed about four months of his phone records. it is about 186 pages of his phone records included. numbers of the calls, duration of the calls, and location information. when people use a cell phone they connect typically to the nearest cell phone tower to you cannot pinpoint where someone is but you can get it within a mile or half mile generally. on mr.d a lot of data carpenter and with this evidence he was convicted of taking part in six armed robberies in detroit and northern ohio. he claims that his fourth amendment rights were violated. the fourth amendm

but the bottom line is this is one of the president's signature campaign promises and the supreme court has said that part of it can move forward until they hear the case in august. this is an order that has been held up in a number of different courts, it has been highly controversial. of course a number of people saying it amounts to a ban on muslims, that's something that trump talked about on the campaign trail and it's language he has since backed away from to try to get this travel ban enforced. >> back to pete, there's other decisions and actually decisions to take up cases, take them in the order of importance as far as you're concerned, church-state? >> reporter: remember, the court's not saying that the lower court's got it wrong, that's the issue it's going to hear in the fall. yes, the supreme court today for the first time said that states may not always ban giving taxpayer money to churches. so the court today chipped away at the law of separation between church and state. this is a major decision on religious freedom, this is one of the most important such decisions in de

that's the supreme court.you want to be bare bones about it, they're disagreeing with arguments of the trump white house that it was so urgent had to be done immediately, had to be reinstated until it is heard or that it should be heard right away on the next briefing schedule. october is a long way from now. supreme court saying we'll get to it on the normal review. as to the white house on your question, the president hurt himself repeatedly with ex-tem pran yus comments, that's a legal fact. some folks feel like maybe nothing matters, a president with a different style, everyone has to live with it, he is the lawfully elected president. as a legal matter, his tweets quoted back to his own lawyers to hurt the case. very interesting to see how the president and his administration responds today. hallie, i don't have to tell you, this is the big show in town. this decision now to hear the case in october will set up the largest debate of the trump administration. i know that many trump allies and supporters fe

>> the last day of the supreme court session. not only does that decision wait but also the fate of justice anthony kennedy. many presume could be potentially retiring today. more on that. first the travel ban. the doj petitioned the high court asking the injunction on the travel ban be lifted. that following two lower court decisions the fourth circuit court of appeals in richmond, virginia, which ruled the executive order was unconstitutional on religious grounds. and the ninth circuit court of appeals ruled that the immigration law violated the administration's reasoning and it needed a stronger national security request to make their argument. the court has another important legal decision today. it's expected the rule on a major church/state separation case, missouri state that prohibits the use of taxpayer money for church-affiliated school involving the use of a state funding for a rubberized playground surface which this religious school asked for and was denied by the state. it has potential for 39 states that barred dire

the supreme court will hear that case next term. rders coming down from the court two years to the day after the rule that same-sex marriage was a right across the nation. >> thank you very much. before we go, quickly back to you, jeffrey toobin. having to do with san diego, it was going to be likely the biggest case heard since the heller decision on second amendment rights. they're not going to hear it. >> they are not. they are letting the lower courts address this -- these gun issues. what's particularly interesting about the decision not to hear the second amendment case -- >> conceal and carry case. >> right. is justice thomas, joined by justice -- justice gorsuch is taking his place on the very far right of the court, that he is aligning himself. we've seen it in these decisions coming up. for the last couple of months, that thomas and gorsuch are voting together a lot of the time, which is something that should please conservatives a great deal. >> a very clear signal, indeed. stay with us. you still have nowhere to go. 10:00

supreme court opinion. but that could tell us how the court ultimately is likely to come out in this case. >> brian, matt, laura, thank you so much. >> thank you.

the supreme court has said no. no. no. we're going to follow the constitution. have we let the ninth circuit have its way, then the courts of the united states could block anything. they could block the president from declaring war. the supreme court and the united states said no. back the constitution, gentlemen and ladies. we're not going to play -- liz: so it's not a muslim ban. ben, it's not ate muslim ban. if it was a ban on muslims. >> no, it never was. liz: you would have had saudi arabia, egypt, and indonesia -- >> it never was a -- liz: as a -- who said that guy? sebastion pointed that out. go ahead, ben. >> it never was a muslim ban. it was a perfectly sensible decision and the supreme court today really covered itself in glory. supreme court basically said people of the ninth circuit, get your heads on right, we're going back to the constitution. vital. liz: ben stein, we love you. come back soon. >> god bless you. thank you so much. liz: now, we are awaiting president trump and prime minister modi about to speak in the rose garden after their first fa

>> i think the fact it was nine members of the supreme court is telling. these lower court rulings in throwing up hurdles and obfiscation. >> supreme court doesn't seem to offer what we would offer refugees. not even close to what canada is doing. you do argue refugees ought to be able to come to the united states. >> i think we should have a good policy toward refugees as we've had for centuries in our country. we have to have statue of liberty type compassion for those fleeing war and tyranny. as a warrior all my life i've seen that firsthand. that's how i come to my views. that said, the president in his second iteration of the travel restrictions he did listen to us in a bipartisan fashion. seth and i chair bipartisan group and we asked for two specific exceptions, those that worked with special operations forces and those working with our military. the second category was burned and maimed children that our children's hospital could provide lifesaving care. to the president's credit he did write those in as exceptions which were noted by the supreme c

that's why i have always thought the trump administration has a better chance of winning in the supreme court than in the lower courts. the business of evaluating presidential executive orders based on campaign statements by a nonpresidential, nonpresident candidate for office, i'm certainly unaware if the supreme court has ever done that before. i would be very -- i would be very confident the trump administration will be saying to the court, this is about the executive order itself. it's not about the campaign. it's not about anything outside the record in this case. it is simply about the executive order and certainly, at least three justices, gorsuch, thomas and alito think that's now have uphold it. >> tell me, do we have gloria with us now? thanks for joining on. give us your reaction to this news this morning. >> i think a lot of liberal people who were supportive of immigration rights are disappointed because they thought there would be a full out assault against the trump ban of muslims based on what he said it is. we also, as jeffrey pointed out have three justices who stayed the de

i want to bring in our supreme court reporter. you've had a chance to go through the decision by the ninth circuit court of appeals and the headline is the travel ban remains on hold. >> that's right. it's another loss for the president. the ninth circuit court of appeals upheld this lower court injunction. that means that this travel ban remains blocked. they did so on statutory reasons. here's what the courted. we conclude that the president in issuing the executive order exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by president. -- by congress. he said the president did not meet the essential precondition to exercising his delegated authority. so what remains block is that part of the ban about travel. however, this court did allow one part of the ban to go into effect and that's the provision that allows the president and the administration to sort of review the vetting procedures. that's something that came up in oral argument. they are going to allow that to go forward. but the rest has been blocked. all this comes of

the supreme court historical society along with the supreme court fellows alumni association hosted this event. it is about one hour. jerome libin: good morning everyone. i am the president of the supreme court historical society. i am delighted to welcome all of you here to this very interesting program we are having tonight. i must ask everybody to be sure your cell phones and tablets are totally off because it will interfere with the sound system in the courtroom. we are here tonight with a program we are cosponsoring with the supreme court alumni association. we are delighted to be a cosponsor with them. the program was brought to us by several people from that organization. let me make sure i get them right. stephanie, matthew, elizabeth. who really came up with the idea for the program and we are very happy to be heard to present it to you. we are also particularly happy to have as our host justice breyer who will speak to you in a minute. i will tell you briefly what you don't know already about justice breyer. he is a californian. study that stanford, oxford, then harvard law sch

but the supreme court is not expected to take up this case again until october. this is a temporary lifting of the lower court ban. i mean, by then, we could have brand-new immigration policy set by the white house. >> impact, the justices got at that issue. they said, hey, we almost expect we will not have to hear the case come october if the president follows through on the 90 day period and does the vetting and the new procedure that he talks about. the whole entire reason for the 90 day pause, we need may not be hearing it come october. >> jon: what does it do for all of the advocates of relaxed immigration, open borders, whatever you call it? what do they say now? >> they are upset with the ruling. but most importantly about this, as i said, a unanimous decision by the court. that is a very strong statement that this court, the liberal justices in the conservative justice is see the president, not just president trump, but the president overall having a very strong discretionary powers in terms of evaluating national security and looking at national security

almost 60 years earlier in which the supreme court from almost 60 years earlier in which the supreme court upheld the internment of japanese-americans. he actually wanted to be a party to this, to make his voice heard in this case. i think you have heard of sally yates. sally has served for 27 years in the department of justice first , as united states attorney for the northern district of georgia. in that capacity, she litigated a wide range of cases including issues involving cases of political corruption and terrorism. in 2015, president obama appointed sally to be deputy attorney general of the united states, and during her confirmation hearings -- i love this fact -- then senator jeff sessions asked sally offensive she would refuse to enforce a president's unlawful order, to which she replied that she would have an obligation in all circumstances to follow the law and the constitution. a commitment that she later had an opportunity to fulfill. so, sally, on this initial point, perhaps you can talk about the historic independence of the department of justice. the core for the dep

he said he wants to expand the travel ban even as it was struck down in courts and pending the supreme court. will he take a small victory as a green light? >> after several setbacks, a court allowing him to implement part of the ban and allow them to at least temporarily block people from the six countries, if they can, if those people, individuals can not prove a bona fide, this will become to the hard day-to-day work of the immigration officials, establishing do you or do you not have a bona fide connection? after months of setbacks, exactly right. the president wanted much more. after months of setbacks assume take it least as a down tamt of success? >> absolutely. a president has will take any daylight as a victory. eve an straight loss, try to find a way to spin as a victory and your reporter made a point, pointing out where gores ucgorsh basket. deciding that as the decision comes out it will pay off. >> i'll talk more on that later in the program, preserving to conservatives so far he's one of them. stick to the travel ban a minute. the justices here seem to be siding with the admini

we wouldn't have a supreme court, imagine a supreme court of one. i don't think anyone want that, depending on who it is. that's what humphries thought they were creating but i think the problem is that rationale seems to have submerged. what you're saying is free enterprise read through that line. >> and say two things. one, free enterprise did redraw that line and the second is that free enterprise didn't draw the line it would necessarily lead to the problem of does this mean that companies executor unknown to everyone today means that you can impose for cause restrictions on cabinet officers for executive function. even morrison says even in the context of inferior officers, there are certain officials who can be subject to four cause restrictions and i would've thought it would've been inconceivable so that the treasury secretary could be for cause removal restrictions. it's not only conceited but it's also embraced. >> is in the idea of the cabin officers that the president's control over them is that he needs a cabinet officer so that he can

supreme court. they had never struck down the legislative district, the fact that they are taking a fresh look at the question means that we might get next term a big case that could reshape american politics. betweene difference political and racial gerrymandering. guest: they have fairly struck minoritydisadvantaging voters, racial gerrymandering. that is thought to be a problem under the voting rights act. political will gerrymandering will not. the supreme court has never struck down a district for this. someform may not be -- drawing maps for their local legislatures and also for the house. host: you said that haven't struck down a specific district that have been made their opinions known about political jargon josh gerrymandering in general? guest: conservatives tend to take the view, political gerrymandering is not a good thing but it is not for the courts to supervise. they are not going to get involved. aberal justices say wait second, the constitution has something to say about making sur

supreme court." he said, "the i will keep fighting for the american people and win." >> the department of homeland security hoping e toing to lear its mistakes and learn from the mistakes at the airports in january. for now, the bottom line, if you have a clear connection to the u.s., personal or business, you can come in. if you don't, keep out. >> where and how will that determination be made? cnn justice correspondent jessica snyder with more from the supreme court. >> reporter: an unexpected decision from the supreme court. they will allow parts of president trump's travel ban to go forward, in particular the foreign nationals from the six muslim-majority countries who do not have a clear connection or bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the united states, those people can be banned from the country. however, the court saying that any other foreign national from those six countries who does, in fact, have a connection here, whether a family member, whether it's being admitted to a

donald trump gets this win and the supreme court said we are going to consider the law before we consider donald trump's tweets which the lower courts hadn't done. that's a victory. now they will have 90 days or more to get in line and figure out something they are going to codify more soundly to protect this country with extreme vetting. charles: the lower courts took into account candidate trump's tweets. >> i have not been a big fan of the travel ban. but i think this is still the right decision for democracy. we want branches of government checking each other's power, but we don't want them usurping power which is what we saw the other courts doing. for the bigger democratic principle, this is the right call. charles: you talk about additional steps to keep terrorists out. what do you have in mind here? >> maybe they need more time. maybe they need to add to the list of countries. maybe they need to take more significant action to the -- to the refugee flows. charles: does it always have to be a temporary travel ban as the administration redetermines its policies on a mission or can i

first up, doug mckelway outside the supreme court this evening. >> the supreme court handed the trumpdministration a big victory over the much debated travel ban today, also a bit of a victory of religious freedom. speculation and rumors about the retirement of justice anthony kennedy appeared to be just that: rumors. no breakdown on how the justices voted, it's a stinging blow to lower court rulings. travel from syria, sudan, yemen, libya temporarily goes into effect. >> huge victory from the white house. this case will be argued on the merits the first week of octobe october. decision some time and may be december or january. whatever they say will closely model what they said here. >> the ruling exempt foreign nationals who are college students, workers recruited by u.s. firms or those who have blood relatives here. the administration says it will take effect in 72 hours. the high court's decision was greeted with stark partisanship. senate judiciary chairman charles grassley wrote "it reaffirms congress and the president's constitutional authorities over our nation's lawful immigr

to have any input or decision from the supreme court before the end of the term? guest: i think we will have word from the court. the briefing ends today. justices have a private conference tomorrow. part of the on some travel ban as soon as tomorrow and i would expect no later than monday. two questions they're looking at , one is do they accept the case and do they set it down for argument? the government wants it argued in october. then there is an important question about what happens in the meantime. the government has also asked that the court at least temporarily reinstates the travel ban, that it stayed the injunctions by the lower courts. it may be as soon as tomorrow, we will hear something about the fate of the travel ban in the short term. this will be a busy couple of days in the court. there a chance the hearing will be expedited question mark october seems like a ways away for something with so much in the political atmosphere right now but also something the white house has argued is a safety and 630 issue. i completely agree but the trouble adminis

neil is one of the nation's leading supreme court advocates, he's argued 34 cases before the supreme court of the united states and one of those involved guantanamo detainees, so neil, if you could talk a little bit about that experience and how that lilluminates the rule of law. >> thank you, and thank you, sally for being here. so that was my very first case, and you know i come into the clinton administration, and i was national security advisor to the justice department there and i just loved it and i thought my dream job to be one day to be national security advisor to the president. and i taught constitutional law and my students would always tease me and say you think whatever the president does is constitutional, you're such a hawk on these issues, then on november 13, 2001, i was watching cnn a couple of months after the nation had been horribly attacked and i saw that news ticker at the bottom. and it says president issues military tribunal for prisoners at guantanamo bay. we tried to do that after the embassy bombings and it was declared unconstitutional. and i looked at th

heather: religious freedoms and the rights of same-sex couples is headed to the supreme court, justices agreeing to hear a case involving a colorado baker, remember this, refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple citing religious reasons, the lower court ruled baker was in violation of the state's discrimination laws. the high court is expected to hear this case in october. rob: the white house vowing syria will pay a heavy price if it carries out another chemical attack, warning the assad regime, planning a new mass murder, ones that could kill innocent children among many others saying there is evidence similar to what took place before the massacre earlier this year which he retaliated against. came hours before donald trump meets with the new french president who promised retaliation if the assad regime uses chemical weapons. heather: republicans turning up pressure on colleagues who opposed the gop healthcare package hoping this tweak will get them on board. rob: donald trump slams doomsday predictions thank don't believe them. kelly right joins us with details. >> reporter:

the supreme court ruled that unconstitutional, not because they that are integrationists but the supreme court, those who know some american history -- in that time for the 19 -- beginning of the 20th century through the mid-1930s the supreme court throughout its main role in life was to protect property rights, and the zoning ordinances interfered with the property rights of the home owner to sell to whomever he wanted. that was the basis of the supreme court decision. city leaders who wanted to segue degree gait their communities were panicked by the decision. how were they going to do it without the ordinances? and in 1920, warren harding was elected president. his secretary of commerce was a fellow named herbert hoover. and herbert hoover established the committee on zoning, and it was made up of prominent segregationists, planners, who in other -- who in the cities they came from had designed racially designated zones but understooding the supreme court now prohibited it, came up with the idea of economic zones as a way of keeping out african-americans. and they published a pamphlet

he said "today's unanimous supreme court decision was a clear victory and allows travel ."ension from six countries i want to point out two things he said -- "unanimous up in court decision," it was not in fact unanimous. it was a six-justice majority statement. he also said that it's number one response ability as commander in chief -- his number one responsibly as commander in chief is protecting the homeland, "i am also gratified that the supreme court's "ecision was 9-0. it was not. it was 6-3. alito, and gorsuch. waymo will manage about 600 cars in phoenix. about 9% on this surge. mark barton broke the story, and he joins us from san francisco. of 600 selfeet driving cars in phoenix, it sounds hilarious, but what will be terms of this deal be? mark: it is a pretty small deal. we heard on twitter that avis is extremely loyal to the cars. they are just doing service and storage, but it does show that the rental car company would play a significant role in the fleet management as a service, the words of avis' ceo, the big business in the anna: world autonomous vehicles. a

you had an absolute unanimous decision by the supreme court. on't know because there is a lot unsaid by the court. but the unanimous decision was the president does have the right to determine who comes into this country and who doesn't come into this country, and whatever he says on the campaign trail is not legally binding. that's a pretty stunning rebuke. lou: i candidate randy evans this question, does president trump get the apology from the dems? i think that's a legitimate question. there is -- it's unquestionable he's owed one. but when you start with that one, you realize there are two or three more and then a few more. let's tart with first the nonsense from the dem judiciary in which necessity blocked the travel ban. now we found out president trump refused to react to the russian's intervention against the dnc itself. the apologies are -- that's a huge, huge bank of debt they owe the president. >> they are not going to come, lou. i hate to be the bearier of bad news. this movement to resistance of president trump is very serious. i t

and ultimately to the united states supreme court so it is not until 1888 that the united states supreme court hears the arguments and they don't make their decision until the early months of 1889. at that point, states are fully and constitutionally authorized to begin licensing physician on whatever grounds they once. some of the justices made clear in the state level that they didn't think this was a good law. there is no basis for it but constitutionally at the state legislature, thinks in the interest of the public to do this the state legislature has the constitutional right to do that. the practice of medicine is transformed dramatically from this poor paying, anybody can take a shot at it occupation to an elite, well-educated and well-paid profession recognized by the states. the state patrols the marketplace for them by prosecuting people practicing medicine without a license but it does not regulate the doctors. the doctors are free to charge whatever they want. they are free to narrow the gate of education to what we are accustomed to by blake 20th, early 21st-century

this did not apply to the supreme court ruling s. that good news for president trump? seems like the court sidestepped some of the more challenging constitutional issues, trying to figure out whether the president's own words for the matter of this executive order. something the lower courts really grappled with. the supreme court sort of bypassed that and just concentrated on this narrow piece of who can come in the country now. given the stakes, they're going to have to address those issues and give the lower courts guidance later this fall because that's what the supreme court is there for, guys. >> thanks for navigating all of the new territory for us. appreciate it. >> thanks. >>> tech companies face increasing pressure to fight terrorism on their sites. four of the biggest names are banding together to do just that. cnn "money stream" is next. (dance music) (large boat honking) ♪ i'm living that yacht life life life life ♪ top speed fifty knots life ♪ on the caribbean seas ♪ it's a champagne and models potpourri ♪ on my yacht made of cuban mahogany ♪ gany, gany,

claim is that attorney from what he wrote and not opinion. >> it makes it very clear that the supreme courthat trump has authority over these immigration issues, that the president can pass a travel ban in his executive capacity in the situation i'm like what the lower circuit court had found. that's what it says. some conservative judges would've said what they did here was take a middle road. they've had the executive with this bona fide connection. >> can you explain the bona fide test for viewers out there and how it's anything in your opinion could create many americans on board with the full travel ban, could that create a false sense of security? >> a bit of a hedge because the administration is going to have to look at the connections that these people who want to edge the country to the united states. what does that mean? the court gave a few examples. didn't accept u.s. universities, people accepted job offers in the united states and people that a family in the mid-dates. that is all very broad in its nonexclusive so it could include other scenarios. lauren: i smell litigation go

and then yesterday we had a supreme court decision on this and the details, it's a complicated decision. so we'll argue it in the first or second week of october. but they did cut back on the injunction that the district court issued in our case. the district court said no travel ban, people from the six countries who are blocked from coming in. they said all of them could come in, plus the refugee ban, the block on refugees. that was also something that the president couldn't do because as sally was saying, this is motivated by religion and that's what the president campaigned on. i'm calling for complete and total shutdown of all muslim immigration. even when he signs the first executive order, he reads the title, looks up at the title and says, we all know what that means. and there were a whole bunch of other things the president has done to reinforce the idea that this is truly a muslim ban. what the supreme court said yesterday, that's fine, the challenge will stand for some people who have connection to the united states. university of hawaii students who are coming and we repres

how do you think that will or should play out when those cases reach the supreme court? >> so on the immigration executive order, one of the justifications courts happen relied upon is that this was designed in a way that violated the free exercise clause of the first amendment. that is, it was designed to discriminate against people of a particular faith, and a central part of the evidence supporting that conclusion were statemented made by donald trump, particularly as president-elect, and a question there is to what extent the expressed, clear motivations, stated openly, by the president, for an executive order, can be disregarded in deciding on what are the actual motivations. so, the problem with the typical situation of a legislator is you have 535 legislators who have all different motivations, and they say all different kinds of things, and trying to figure out what this motivation of the entire legislature is a mess but the cop text of the executive branchy you have a president and he tells you what his motivation is, it then becomes difficult to blink that reali

other big news from the supreme court today. we will look at the decision allowing religious charitable groups to receive state funds. and court with religious objections after a baker did not want to bake a cake for a same-sex couple in colorado. and they don't take up a court case on firearms in san francisco. alison: the man who went on two-day shooting rampage across prince george's in montgomery county paralyzing the area pleaded guilty again today. this time to the murder that started it all. the shooting of his estranged wife. maryland bureau chief brad bell has the plea deal. brad: for two days, eulalio tordil was a one-man killing machine on a brutal crime spree. he shot people at montgomery mall and aspen hill sh at high point high school where tordil murdered his exstranged wife gladys and wounded a man who tried to protect her. >> this was a crime against the entire community. brad: tordil was ultimately cornered and captured by montgomery county police the next two after two additional murders. when confronted he gav

it looks like they're in an even worse disbandment on the united states supreme court on this to primm court decision but that was. they said this is not press but don't extrapolate from this anything else this is you know this is not you know an edifice upon which you can build a you know a whole new theocracy this is just about this school one off now you know what they said that about bush v gore everybody was like oh good we're relieved and then the supreme court has i think quoted of three times a voice recorder or cited for sure at least three times. what does what is the why did they say this is only limited to the case at hand and what does that mean legally and what does that mean practically i suspect there's three different answers well it's in a footnote so that ought to tell you something footnotes generally it's a footnote that even the chief justice didn't agree with and in several other and the footnote says this is only about a playground this is only about the resurfacing of a playground now that's ridiculous supreme court decisions are not just about one tiny little

the supreme court will hear arguments on the ban when it reconvenes in october. >>> several lower courts including the ninth circuit in san francisco blocked the ban on travel for six muslim majority countries. the circuit said earlier in month is violated u.s. immigration law discriminating against people based on their nation nality. the judge said the order failed to show how industry from people by those countries how it would hurt our interest. we asked travelers at the airport their opinions. >> that's not what the u.s. stands for. >> i think it's a tragedy for the country and immigrants that come into this country. >> if we can put up security systems and different things in our homes to protect our homes, why can't our president put something up to protect our country? >> today, decisions will allow people on the list of affected countries who have jobs in the united states or foreign students enrolled at colleges and universities to be admitted. joining me now to talk about the decision is professor levine. how are you? let's talk about president trump, how big a win is this for

the supreme court narrowing the actually what it is doing is reviving the travel ban because it had beenly stalled. two challengers had urged the court to reject all appeals. two federal appeals courts have blocks the ban and we were in no man's land. now we are hearing the u.s. supreme court will hear outright, not the rejection challengers were hoping for. the supreme court will hear arguments on the trump of a ban. justices thomas, alito, and gorsuch have issued a partial defense of the travel ban. we will have more on this in a few minutes. first though, let's check in with emma chandra on first word news. >> thank you. let's get you caught up on the headlines. pro minister theresa may is trying to ease concerns how european nationals living in the u.k. will be treated after brexit. prime minister may: i want to completely reassure people that know eu citizen currently living in the u.k. lawfully will be asked to leave. we want you to stay. secondly, any eu citizen in the u.k. with five years continuous residence will bein the u.k. lae given resident status. emma: meanwhile, may has

i'm also glad that the supreme court's decision was 9-0.ey toobin, to be precise, there were six documents who have one opinion, three justices have a different opinion, right? >> that's right, but the three justices wanted to agree with donald trump completely. and it was the nine others who agreed with him somewhat. so i think it is fair for donald trump to take credit for unanimous support, at least, for part of his decision. and i think the fact that three justices wanted to end any sort of stay, who wanted to ratify the executive order completely bodes pretty well for his chances when the case is argued on the merits in the fall. because he's already got three votes in hand, it looks like, the three most conservative justices: justice thomas, justice aledo and justice gorsuch. this is actually good for him. >> let's talk about the report on the republican senate health care proposal that could come up for a vote as early as this week. the cbo score similar to what we saw in the house health care bill, the republican bill, that narrowly

and here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture with neil gorsuch on the supreme court and some more liberal justices looking to retire is america on the verge of sliding into theocracy alas the reverend barry lynn in just a moment and the trumpet ministration has just put the drinking water for one out of three americans at risk we'll talk about how tonight's lone liberal rumble with horace cooper and charles. donald trump i want to build a wall on the mexican border but under his watch the constitutional wall that is supposed to separate church and state is crumbling and crumbling fast this week the u.s. supreme court took action on three very significant cases that have america's commitment to secular government very very worried for more on those three cases of joe. and now by reverend barry w. led executive director of americans united for separation of church and state reverend lynn welcome back nice to be here great to have you with us so on monday the court said that if the government is going to pay to resurface the playground of a public school they have to do it for a

supreme court allows parts of the president's travel ban to go into effect, at least temporarily. it's a partial victory for the president after multiple lower court rulings blocking the ban a center piece of his agenda. the high court agreed to hear oral arguments of the president's executive order coming up this fall. in the meantime, the justices are allowing the travel ban on citizens from muslim majority nations to go into effect with some important exclusions. those who have a, quote, bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the united states still will be allowed to travel to and from this country. the president's supreme court pick justice neil gorsuch, by the way, joined conservatives clarence thomas and samuel alito in saying they would have gone further and allow all of the travel ban to take effect immediately. >>> this hour i'll discuss these breaking stories with senator richard blumenthal. he's a democrat on the senate judiciary committee and correspondents and specialists are also standing by. first our congressional affiliate phil mattingly with a breakdow

larry: that was one of three decisions on the last day of the supreme court session. justices sent back to the lower court a border shooting case about a mexican teenager killed by u.s. patrol agent. they agreed to take on a case whether a bakery could deny a request for a gay couple. and we will have more coming up at 5:30. alison: we are following more developments after a man who went on a two-day shooting spree last summer pleaded guilty for the second time. this time eulalio tordil admitted to killing his wife gladys. he killed her and wounded another man before killing two other people the next day. relief to gladys' family. >> if they did nothing else, the worst nightmare would be to come to court and look at this man to testify further victimize them. alison: he will be sentenced in prince george's county in september. larry: the family of castiles a agreeing to $3 million settlement deal. killed by a minnesota police officer last year in a traffic stop. after he informed the officer he had a legal gun on the car. it was broadcast live on facebook by castile's