back, we are going to the supreme court, and law school students dream of the day when they might be lucky enough to argue a case before the supreme court of the united states. most lawyers never come close. to the highest court room in the land. we neal katyal has argued 50 cases to the supreme court. today, he won what a distinguished former federal judges now calling, quote, the most important case for american democracy in the almost two and a half centuries since americas founding. tonight's savior of democracy, with neal katyal, who is too modest to take a victory lap, will explain to us what the supreme court's ruling means for the survival of democracy in this country. that is next. still disrupts my skin. despite treatment it disrupts my skin with itch. it disrupts my skin with rash. but now, i can disrupt eczema with rinvoq. rinvoq is not a steroid, topical, or injection. it's one pill, once a day. many taking rinvoq saw clear or almost-clear skin while some saw up to 100% clear skin. and, they felt dramatic and fast itch relief some as early as 2 days. that's rinvoq relief. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious

united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." let's get right to our top story. the united states supreme court ruling that united states supreme court ruling gutting affirmative action in college admissions. the concern with majority upended precedent and prompting a fiery dissent by liberal justices on the court. cnn's senior supreme court analyst is joining us right now. joan, how did the conservative majority reach this decision and what are the real world impacts of it? >> well i'll tell you, wolf, in the courtroom, it was only the dissenters who talked about the real world impact. chief justice john roberts takes the bench. he's been trying to get rid of race conscious admissions for so long. he goes through all the the problems in prior decisions and how the equal protection guarantee had been interpreted saying that the equal protection guarantee in the constitution does not allow classifications based on race for better or worse. obviously these are the kinds of programs that have helped hispanics and blacks get a leg up. and the chief said in the past, maybe this was allowed but there

sorry to keep you waiting. 45 years the united states -- 445 years united states -- four 45 years united states supreme court has figured out how to open doors of opportunity for every single american. in case after case, including recently, just a few years ago in 2016, the court has reaffirmed this view, that colleges could use race, not as a determined effector for admission, but as one of the factors in deciding who to admit from a qualified, already qualified pool of applicants. today, the cool -- the court once cool -- the court once again walked away from years of precedent. the dissent states that today's decision, "roles back decades of precedent and momentous progress." i agree with that statement from the dissent. the court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions. i strongly disagree with the court's decision. affirmative action is so misunderstood, i want to be clear, make sure everybody is clear about what the law has been and what it has not been until today. many people wrongly believe that affirmative action allows unqualified students to be admitted ahead of qualified

supreme court's words. i am quoting new york state rifle and pistol association by the united states supreme u cou. for example in many states you can't own a bazooka. that's a reasonable restriction. you are right to own a gun can also be restricted if you suffer from mental ill miss. that is what we have concluded as a society, as a reasonable restriction. the issue today is very simple. whatever president biden's bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms new rule in effect banning or at minimum severely restricting pistol braces is a reasonable restriction on the constitution. that's what we are discussing today. a trigger warning, this is a pistol brace. i know it's scary. this is a pistol brace. it fits on your forearm like this. here it is, right here. the pistol brace is adding another piece that grips the handgun . that is what we are talking aboutng here. a pistol brace is also known, this scary piece of equipment here is also known as a stabilizing brace or an arm brace. it's a simple device that's mounted to the rear of the pistol and it's designed to anchor the pistol to the shooter's arm

back, we are going to the supreme court, and law school students dream of the day when they might be lucky enough to argue a case before the supreme court of the united states. most lawyers never come close. to the highest court room in the land. we neal katyal has argued 50 cases to the supreme court. today, he won what a distinguished former federal judges now calling, quote, the most important case for american democracy in the almost two and a half centuries since americas founding. tonight's savior of democracy, with neal katyal, who is too modest to take a victory lap, will explain to us what the supreme court's ruling means for the survival of democracy in this country. that is next. at is next with its customizable options chain, easy-to-use tools and paper trading to help sharpen your skills, you can stay on top of the market from wherever you are. e*trade from morgan stanley. power e*trade's easy-to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans help you find new trading opportunities, while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades and stay on top of the market. e*trade from morgan stanley. i'm jayson. i'm living with hiv and i'm

supreme court decision. here are his remarks. >> 45 years -- for 45 years, the united states supreme court has recognized the freedom to decide how to recognize diverse student bodies. in case after case including recently, just as a few years ago in 2016, the court has affirmed or reaffirmed this view that colleges could use race not as is the determining factor for admissions but as one of the factors among mainly -- many in deciding who to admit from all -- already qualified pool of applicants. the court walked away from decades of president --cnas -- precedent in that state was made clear -- and that state was made clear. i agree with the statement from the dissent. the court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions. a friend of action is so misunderstood and i want to be clear about what the law has been -- affirmative action is so misunderstood her i want to make clear what the law has been. this is not how college admissions works. rather, colleges set out standards for admissions and every student has to meet those standards. then and only then, after first meeting the qualifica

about in just a second because as monroe versus pape the monroe versus pape decision, the united states supreme court in 1961 is a crucial turning point in. civil rights enforcement in our country, it's the first time that the supreme court recognized that people could sue government officials for violating their constitutional rights. and so it was an extremely important decision. and and opened the federal courthouse doors to, these kinds of claims before monroe versus pape could only be brought in state court, which state courts were considered far less hospitable to claims against local governments. and as and james monroe's attorney commented after their bringing a claim by an african-american family against a politically powerful white police officer in state court in anywhere in the country was going to be very, very difficult to and so this was the first time that a case like this could be brought in federal court. this why monroe versus is such an important in the history of supreme court decisions about civil rights and that sort of development of this particular ability to sue. but i also

roy: we are waiting on the united states supreme court to decide and save americans from the possibility of being felons because congress refusing to act unless we pass the congressional review act and the president were to sign it. last point i will make is this. we have had hundreds of examples of this administration overstepping its bounds, student loans, which is c.r.a., senate passed it and president vetoed and passed on a bipartisan basis in the senate and the president vetoed it. and we are trying to fix the mess the administration is making and passing rules through executive fiat and doing it notably with respect to the border, making all manners of decisions to the executive branch indirect violation of the law and federal judge just ruled last week in the northern district of texas, saying and i quote, defendants, illegal aliens plead guilty. on behalf of the cartel, defendants participated in alien smuggling. their participation included a stash house in fort worth, texas and transporting those. the organization charged $10,000 and between $12,000. law enforcement discovered

the history of the united states supreme court decided through a peak spl numb bra of rights and echosrivacy that establishes essentially a right to abortion in the united states. pete: even justices like ruth bader ginsburg and supported roe v wade and not constitutional in the way it was decided and controversial from the beginning and conservative republicans pledged after campaign to campaign would like to overturn it through justices that would and donald trump had a chance to appropriate three, all of which voted to overturn it but it was a tough road to get there. if you remember in may of 2022 months before, a draft leaked of the decision to overturn roe v wade. a lot of controversy around that, will. will: yeah, we got the leak and just a little over a month later, we got the official decision in dobbs that the united states supreme court would be overturning roe v wade with the decision of dobbs v jackson. pete: with that came the political association and eruption of protest around the country. it was a leak and leading up to campaign of intimidation against justices that a

the opinion issued today by the united states supreme court marks the beginning of the restoration of the colorblind legal covenant that binds together our multiracial, multiethnic nation. the polarizing, stigmatizing and unfair jurisprudence that allowed colleges and universities to use a student's race and ethnicity as a factor to either admit them or reject them has been overruled these discriminatory admissions the integrity of our civil rights laws, ending racial preferences in college admissions is an outcome, but the vast majority of all americans, of all races, will celebrate. university does not have real diversity when it simply assembles students who look different but come from similar backgrounds and talk and act and think alike. moreover, these opinions reestablish the founding principles of the 1964 civil rights act, which clearly forbids treating americans differently by race. let me quote, at the signing ceremony of the act, on july 2, 1964, president lyndon johnson made these remarks, quoting now, "the purpose of the law is simple. it does not restrict freedom of any

. >> serve as associate justice as the united states supreme court. >> gunk thomas began to use a work situation to discuss that. >> we know exactly what's going on. he has to be destroyed. it really doesn't matter what matters iss what they wanted. >> i'd rather die. being able to say i lived up to my oath and did my best. >> that was thera tailor to our film called created equal. same title as the book. it's a 2 hour film released in january of 2020 in 110 theaters. covid-19 cut it back really short. it was broadcastca nationally on pbs. it was released digitally and stilll available digitally. it'san on amazon and viewers can go tom our website with a full listst of how to watch it. that film was based on a very long interview with clarence thomas. i interviewed with him and his wife. that's was thomas in his own words. it's a 25 minute interview and 2 hour film. my coauthor had the idea we should take some of the material and put it ink a book. the book is 95% new material. follows the same pattern as the film. tells his life story from the beginning and onto today. it's an importa

there are two cases and i think it is pretty clear the united states supreme court will say it is unconstitutionalent and violates civil rights laws. this has been a hot topic for many decades, the supreme court will step up and say mouthing the words diversity does not allow you to discriminate on the basis of race, what has been going on in college admissions. that is a huge decision we will see from the supreme court. >> carley: in the woke world, could you see the decision go beyond colleges and universitieses, where the woke left is trying to infuse equity. >> keep in mind, united states supreme court only handles 70 cases per year. when people enter colleges, discrimination will not be tolerated on race. i think that sends a message for the rest of society. when the supreme court speaks, america does listen. >> todd: student loan debt, i think the court strikes this down if the plaintiffs can establish standing. what say you? >> yeah, this really is a test about whether or not the barack obama statement that i can govern with just a pen and phone because i'm the president, whether or not tha

united states of america. the waters in the same month in which the epa defined in such broad ways in the revelatory power took the united states , supreme courtcongress didn't give you the authority and we are striking it down. as president i will make sure i use executive authority to control the administrative state that doesn't burden our businesses are farmers or ranchers and our way of life. whatever you look at what's coming out of washington we need parents running schools we need parents engaged we need parents making decisions. and we need to make sure we empower our local governments to make decisions so they don't all come out of washington dc. these are unprecedented and unpredictable times that we live today. i look to the future and we got to turn back the tide it's a critical time in our country and we got to make sure that we stand firm that we can win in 2024. ronald reagan was a mentor, i already mentioned him as ÃÃi watched him closely and yes i'm ronald reagan conservative and there's three characteristics with ronald reagan i believe if you. first of all, he was a consistent conservative. win or lose. in 1976 he lost the

i don't ever want to get into the speculation game when it comes to the united states supreme court. we have nine incredibly smart thoughtful justices each you have nuanced principles and positions that they use to interpret statutes in the constitution. you don't want to get in the prediction game. having said that, coming out of oral argument, i felt very good about the questions that were asked. we had fun justices who signed on to the opinion and did not ask any questions. justice barrett did have a few questions during the oral argument. very pleased to see her join the chief's opinion. you just never know until the opinion comes down and we were on pins and needles like everyone else around the country waiting for that decision. >> at the end of the day, we were confident in our legal position. that's why we brought the case. we thought the nebraska general did a fantastic job arguing the case. we were confident in our legal position. >> what is your response to the interest issue? how else can an issue be addressed? >> how do we respond to people who are suffering under heavy

it's a step that is particularly sad that comes from the united states supreme court which for so many, many decades has really been in the vanguard of promoting individual rights. and to take away these rights now is i think sad for the justice system and sad for all of us who care about equality. >> do you see a future, david, in which the u.s. supreme court revisits or even overturns its own 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage? >> you know, i -- i don't believe they will, but i didn't believe they were going to overrule roe v. wade either. so i think once you start down this road of narrowing a minority's rights you can't -- you can't tell where it's going to end. one of the things that is striking is how often this court the majority is substituting its judgment for the judgment of private universities like harvard, the legislature like colorado, the executive branch, president biden, the congress of the united states and overruling the voting rights act and campaign finance reforms. so what you have is a court that is extraordinarily aggressive in substituting its judgment fo

which means ultimately the united states congress must put back in lace what the supreme court took away[applause] -- in place what the supreme court took away. [applause] >> and have the courage to stand for freedom in every way. the united states congress must pass legislation to restore the protections of roe v. wade. [applause] >> and when they do, president joe biden will sign it. [applause] >> so, north carolinians, all of that to say also that elections matter. and organizing works. so, together, let as continue to build this movement. a movement, she said i love you. [laughter] >> let's build our movement to secure the rights of every american. today, 365 days after the dobbs decision, people in states across our nation are making their voices heard. for sample, in florida and ohio full are collecting signatures and registering people to vote to secure reproductive freedom on the ballot across our nation people are speaking out. they are raising money to support reproductive freedom. and just look around, just look around. together, here, people of every background, i wish you co

. >> i will nominateve judge clarence thomas to serve as associate justice of the united states supreme court that's when all heck broke loose. >> judge thomas began to use work situations to discuss sex. >> we know exactly what's going on here. this is the wrong black guy. he has to be destroyed. it really didn't matter.r. what mattered was what they wanted. >> so you select to serve on supreme court? >> i would rather die than withdraw from the process. >> i wouldn't be able to say i lived up to my oath and did my best. >> host: so what we just watching there? >> guest: well, that was a trailer to our film called "created equal: justice thomas in his own words" come same title as a book. if it's a two-hour film, it was released in january of 2020, was in when her ten theaters and then covid cut it short. was in broadcast nationally on pbs in may. did very well in pbs and then it wasai released digitally edit s still available digitally on amazon, viewers can go to our website with the full list of how to watch it. and that film was based on a very long interview with clarence thomas. i thin

secure this right for every american, which means ultimately, the united states congress must put back in place what the supreme court took away. [cheers and applause] [applause] and have the courage to stand for freedom in every way. the united states congress must pass legislation to restore the protections of roe v. wade! [cheers and applause] [applause] and when they do, president joe biden will sign it! [cheers and applause] [applause] so, north carolina, all that to say, also that elections matter. crowd: yes! vp harris: and organizing works. [applause] so together, let us continue to build this movement, a movement -- because i love you! [cheers and applause] [applause] let's build our movement, and movement to secure the rights of every american. today 360 five days after the dobbs decision, people in states across our nation are making their voices heard. for example in florida and ohio, folks are collecting signatures and registering people to secure reproductive freedom on the ballot. across the nation -- [cheers and applause] [applause] -- people are speaking out and raising money to support reproductive

the ability of the supreme court to fairly administer justice and suggest quite clearly to me that there should be a judicial code of conduct to the supreme court of the united states of america. the congress of the united states have to operate under an ethical code of conduct, the house operates under an ethical code of conduct, the senate operates under an ethical code of conduct the executive branch operates under a national code of conduct, the federal reports operates under an ethical code of conduct, the court of appeals operates under an ethical code of conduct and divided states of america at the highest levels of government the only who apparently believe they are above the law are members of the united states supreme court. that is wrong. and i'm thankful on the senate side the chairman of the judiciary committee dick durbin has indicated legislation will be marked up upon the senate's return in july that will do something about the unethical out of control behavior of supreme court justices like clarence thomas and samuel alito. >> thank you. >> last question. [inaudible] snack that's a question that will ultimately be decided by the federal district co

appeal, and sometimes a judge speaking but no decision -- if there were a decision of the united states supreme court that was inconsistent, or of a court of appeals, i believe olc would reevaluate. otherwise there are a lot of judges who have criticized olc opinions. and the justice department. as a former judge, that is appropriate for our judges to do. but we have to allocate our resources to cases where, which are active cases, and that is what olc does. >> i will continue to pursue this. i think it is wrong for olc to insist on developing its own jurisprudence that is separate from independent from what article three judges decide. if the only way you can change in olc opinion, which is controlling on the entire executive branch is to get the supreme court to overturn it, then you have created a really lasting obstacle to the proper separation of powers and our constitution. so to be continued, attorney general. thank you for being here today. >> senator grassley? >> last year's fbi oversight hearing, committed to protecting people who approach my office about wrongdoing at the department, and t

but ultimately, the united states congress can put back in place what the united states supreme court took a constitutional right. the united states congress has the power to put in place a protection of that individual privacy right that all americans should be entitled to. >> that is a perfect place for us to take a quick break because when i come back, i want to ask you all about this national landscape. first what the administration can do, what congress might do, but also what some judges might do. we are awaiting a ruling on mifepristone, on whether or not we can have an effective national abortion ban or maybe even a legislative national abortion ban. senator lindsey graham and others have talked about it. we're going to get into that and talk about what we do next. stay with us as our discussion continues with vice president kamala harris and on our "the reidout" special one year post-roe. love you. have a good day, behave yourself. like she goes to work at three in the afternoon and sometimes gets off at midnight. she works a lot, a whole lot. we don't get to eat in the early

to be of the united states supreme court. preme court nominee, and he was taking a supreme court position that mitch mcconnell has basically held open at the end of the obama administration for the next president. the justices that i'm going to appoint will be pro-life. they will have a conservative bent. donald trump was married three times. linked to porn stars. not the first logical choice for southern evangelicals. so the most important thing trump did to try to cement the allegiance of the cultural conservative vanguard of the republican party was to signal who he would pick for the supreme court. -so help me god. -congratulations. in both cases, they each got what they wanted. the conservative christian groups got the conservative supreme court. and donald trump got their votes to win the election. today, the president began interviewing possible nominees for the supreme court seat that will become open when justice anthony kennedy retires. president trump here nominates brett kavanaugh. [chris] brett kavanaugh was suppo

this is a credibility crisis for the united states supreme court. the ethics situation is a mess, and i did work with justice alito and chief justice roberts and preparing them for confirmation, and looking at their records in the courts of appeals to make sure there were no conflicts of interest. i am very saddened by what is happening with this court, where the chief justice says i'm going to appear before the senate judiciary committee and explain what is going on. we have no accountability for this court, no external investigation of the court. we merely rely on the justices to follow the law on their own accord. it's not working. we have colleagues covering for colleagues, and this court has an accountability crisis, and we need to fix it. >> via. >> that's all i have to say. i mean, we have a court as president joe biden said yesterday that is not normal. it is essentially a way of saying that a normal supreme court, when that is above ideology and the the law, follows its precedent, but not only follows its precedent, but understands its criti

the opinion issued today by the united states supreme court marks the beginning of the restoration of the color blind legal covenant that binds together our multi-racial, multi-ethnic nation. the polarizing stigmatizing and unfair jurisprudence that allowed colleges and universities to use a student's race and ethnicity as a factor to either admit them or reject them has been overruled. these discriminatory admissions practices undermined the integrity of our civil rights laws. ending racial preferences in college admissions is an outcome that the vast majority of all americans, of all races, will celebrate. a university doesn't have real diversity when it simply assembles students who look different but come from similar backgrounds and talk and act and think alike. moreover, these opinions reestablish the founding principles of the 1964 civil rights act, which clearly forbids treating americans differently by race. let me quote. at the signing ceremony of the act on july 2, 1964, president lyndon johnson made these remarks. quoting now. "the purpose of the law is simple. it does not

so to me, it's a really strong signal, being sent by six justices of our united states supreme court at they're going to resist efforts to monkey with or let legislatures monkey with the 2024 election. they're saying uh-uh, we're here. we're going to review that, state courts are going to review that and we're going to have the standard check and balance and protection of american democracy that our court system is all about. to me, it's john roberts' finest moment on the court. i think this decision will live for a long time as a statement about the power of judicial review, about the power of courts to check political abuse. >> that is a resounding statement. that makes me feel good. my team kept trying to explain this to me but i do not understand it. this was the case in counterman v. colorado where the supreme court ruled in favor of somebody who had been accused of online stalking. it was a 7-2 vote, but it was an interesting seven that included the liberals on the court. please explain. >> you know, honestly, i can't because i have been a little busy today. so that's out of my

and the united states of america, at the highest -- the only people that believe they are above the law are members of the united states supreme court. that's wrong. and i'm thankful that on the senate side the chairman of the judiciary committee, dick durbin, indicated that legislation will be marked up upon the senate's return in july that will do something about the unethical, out-of-control behavior of supreme court justices like clarence thomas and samuel alito. reporter: thank you. mr. jeffries: thank you. last question. reporter: you said earlier you don't believe -- mr. jeffries: do you have something? ok. last two questions. reporter: as someone that's big on gun reform, do you think that people -- should have jail time? mr. jeffries: that question will ultimately be decided by the federal district court judge who has been assigned to the case. it's my understanding this is a district court judge in a was appointed by former president donald trump. in the same way that the individual prosecuting the case against hunter biden was a u.s. attorney appointed by donald trump. this was an investigation that was started by the tru

. >> then in 2015, the united states supreme court historically ruled in favor of same marriages and nited states congress voted to codified same marriages. >> it reminds me of the basic fact that pride began as a protest. and protesters always been an important part of pride. it's also very important in this pride season that we celebrate because if we don't take stock of all that, we've accomplished we won't be fortified for all the work we have left to do. >> as pride month kicks off the cup of reflects on the work that remains for equality just recently target found itself facing a controversy and backlash. the ceo announced some stores would pull their prime urge and ice after negative feedback from some customers specifically zeroing in on transgender clothing currently in at least 18 states laws are now in the books. barring gender-affirming medical care for those under 18 and your basic human rights. >> are taken away to medical care. this is this is an abomination. as the president said, cruelty. >> when i spoke to the couple's stewart was in san francisco, john, in japan, bo

the united states supreme court took a constitutional right. to put in place a protection of that individual privacy rights. while many republicans are pushing for a nationwide ban on abortion, however long it takes, we're going to continue to work until we restore the sanctity of life to the center of american law in every state in this country. with the 2024 presidential race underway, the abortion topic is won both sides hope will help drive supporters to the polls in washington, mike emanuel, fox news stay in the fox coming back in. you'll see it tomorrow morning. it was a nice day today. a little bit warmer. that changes cooler tomorrow. i'll see you back here with the five day. all right. now to alex savage in a look at some of the stories we're working on for the 7:00 news on ktvu. plus alex. okay, mike, thank you. coming up tonight at seven, we're learning more about exactly when roughly 40 million americans are going to have to resume paying back their student loans after they were paused during the pandemic. also, we will have new det

g b t q plus rights in the united states. supreme court rules that a website designer can refuse surfaces to a same sex couple based on her religious belief. the hello, i'm clear, richardson, thank you very much for joining us. french president and manuel my call has condemned what he called the unacceptable exploitation of the fatal death of a teenager at the hands of police or his chair to an emergency meeting of his cabinet. after leaving the new summit in brussels early to deal with the process, he said more police would be deployed in the capital, paris, and across the country. damage and destruction on the streets of paris. the results of these ugly clashes with the police of the no soul. the protests have been bought. and yesterday, the mother of the team shot dead by police at point blank range whose death had sparked the protests that a peaceful demonstration. indeed, of the month of the destruction and clashes with the police. though the mood on the streets paints a picture of shock at the level of the abundance, but little surprise caused control. i couldn't understand the ange

the united states supreme court is expected to issue the final rulings of its term this week. the cases are controversial from affirmative action to same weddings to. >> whether or not the white house can wipe out student loan debt. kron four's noelle bellow has a closer look at what's on the docket. >> earlier this year, those who favor student loan forgiveness demonstrated in front of the supreme court. president biden wants to erase up to $20,000 in student loan debt for millions of americans. and the court will decide if you can move forward with that plan about accessibility to education. it's about making sure we have equitable access to education all across the nation. 6 republican states are challenging biden's proposal a few months ago when the court heard oral arguments on the case, the conservative majority question whether the president has the power to cancel the debts. >> we're talking about half a trillion and 43 million americans. it's illegal. it's unconstitutional. it's wrong for working families across the nation. the supreme court also tackling the controve

court of appeals, sometimes a judge speaking in -- but if there were a decision of the united states supreme courtthat was inconsistent or with a court of appeals, i believe olc would reevaluate. otherwise, there are lots of judges who criticize i will see opinions. and the justice department. a former, dried that is perfectly appropriate for judges to do. but we have to allocate our resources to cases which are active cases and that is what olc does. >> i will continue to pursue this because i think it is wrong for olc to insist on a developing its own jurisprudence it is separate from an independent from what article three judges decide. and if the only way you can change in olc opinion is controlling the entire executive branch is to get the supreme court to overturn it, then you have created a really lasting obstacle to the proper separation of powers in our constitution. so, to be continued, attorney general. thanks for being here today. >> thank, you so the white house. senator grassley? >> last year's fbi hearing raided cocaine to protect -- whoever push my office about wrong doing at the d

— the supreme court of the united states at— the supreme court of the united states atoena from the new york state _ states at this subpoena from the new york state prosecutors interfered with his _ york state prosecutors interfered with his presidential duties and nomadic— with his presidential duties and nomadic in 2020 and that was rejected —— in 2020. they sided with the prosecutors. a criminal trial, whether— the prosecutors. a criminal trial, whether it — the prosecutors. a criminal trial, whether it would be allowed with a sitting _ whether it would be allowed with a sitting president, we will see, we will see _ sitting president, we will see, we will see what the courts will do. i want _ will see what the courts will do. i want to— will see what the courts will do. i want to emphasise that there is an ongoing _ want to emphasise that there is an ongoing investigation by the department ofjustice of the whole another— department ofjustice of the whole another set of charges for sedition and insurrection in connection with generate _ and insurrection in connection

president one year ago were the right-wing majority of united states supreme court overturned decades of established precedent and away the right to abortion in the dobbs versus jackson health organization. in this decision the supreme court overturned the right of the american people to make decisions about their own bodies and their own health. that is why one year ago i filed the right to contraception act with my colleagues senators duckworth hirono baldwin and murray a invested here just liki am today to request unanimous consent to pass our legislation. also representative pass the bill by a bipartisan vote of 220-195 at that time. unfortunately republicans inun this chamber chose to block its passage. here's just a short bit of what has befallen us since that time. district court judges have blocked teens from accessing birth control at federally funded clinics and taking aim at health insurance coverage on contraception are the extremists state legislators have restricted criminalized and stigmatized reproductive care including by defending payments for emergency contraception

including almost exactly one year ago when the united states supreme court, the court of thurgood, the court of r.b.g., took a constitutional right that had been recognized from the people of america. from the women of america. took the right of every woman to make decisions about her own body. so tomorrow, many of us will be, and i invite you, i know we'll be spread out all over the country. bill in charlotte, north carolina, where i intend to describe the impact of the past 365 days on the health, the safety, and the well being of the women of our nation. and the impact is clear. a year later, it is also clear that extremists in congress plan to ban abortion nationwide. nationwide. but i have news for these extremists, as i look at all the friends and leaders. the people of america will not accept that. planned parenthood will not accept it. naral pro choice america will not accept that. emily's list will not accept that. and you will -- and you know president biden and i will not accept that. [cheers and applause] and i do believe when you know what you stand for, you know what to f

today, the united states supreme court got it wrong. my organization was founded by president kennedy in 1963, a pivotal summer for this civil-rights unit. it was founded with a racially integrated group of lawyers came together to put skin in the game to advance civil rights. it is not even clear organization could have been founded or floors over the hills -- founded or floors over those years. this court decided not to fully overrule the president. it did not affirm a long-standing president --prece dent. and did something in the middle through eight tortured interpretation. the court has taken the law and put us in a pretzel. one must engage in mental gymnastics to understand the logical purpose of today's decision. to understand what university -- what a university and college is supposed to do with this ruling which puts them into such -- confusion to what they are supposed to do. that is a decision, this is a decision that is not just confounding of the law but it is morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest. let's be clear a

new at 11, the united states supreme court has ruled against the navajo nation in a dispute over the tribe's access to water. the navajo nation's lawsuit argued the federal government has the legal duty signed under treaties back in the 1800s to provide the tribe with adequate water. the ruling was 5 to 4 against the tribe. the navajo nation's president calling the ruling disappointing. lawyers are still reviewing the case. items locked up and more security becoming the norm at many stores. the new numbers that show how retail theft has hit new levels. and find out what some south bay business owners are hoping will give them a boost this summer and the weekend not that far off. there is a lot of cloud cover out there, but it'll change around. it'll be a little different this weekend, a little bit warmer as well. i'll get more specific in the right after the break of the five day forecast ♪ cyberattacks on public infrastructure threaten the institutions we all rely on. major enterprises around the world, healthcare companies, energy companies, small businesses, governments. -when the

supreme court. you know, inherently, our united states supreme court is now attached to our politics and the campaignear. and that is where you have seen these republicans line up in support of the supreme court's decision today. take a look at ron desantis's statement in which he says, quote, college admissions should be based on merit, and applicants should not be judged on their race or ethnicity. the supreme court has correctly up held constitution and ended discrimination by colleges and universities. donald trump, his own statement saying quote, this is a great day for america. people with extraordinary ability and everything else necessary for success, including greatness for our country are finally being rewarded. i want to note that donald trump, the leading candidate on the republican side right now actually back in 2015 in an interview with our own chuck todd on "meet the press," his quote at the time was i'm fine with affirmative action. of course, donald trump 2015, donald trump today, they're in very different places, and donald trump is much more reflective of the rest of the republica

americans used to respect the united states supreme court. now i think the american people can rightfully ask, is it turning into a cesspool of corruption? that's why i ask the spouse to -- speaker of the house to put on the floor the bill offered by democrats to put ethical standards on the united states supreme court. every federal judge has to follow ethical standards except for these nine people. who did they think they are? yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rose: mr. speaker, president biden's and secretary mayorkas' handling of our southern border has made every state, including my home state of tennessee, a border state. now illegal immigrants are being housed in public schools threatening our children's ability to learn. house republicans are denouncing this he

and then surely rubberstamp by the united states supreme court.i find this rhetoric particularly by united states senator to be appalling, and i wonder if you will join me in condemning an attack at the independents of the federal judiciary. >> when i first got on the judiciary, i, as well as my colleagues, pounded our heads against the wall to try to get the reporters to stop. this is more than 25 years ago, to stop reporting what the name of the president who appointed us and where they partied. unfortunately, this is a battle that has not been won. i don't think obviously given the authority of the first amendment, its importance. we're not going to be able to win. i come from a kinder and gentler era and a kinder and gentler court if in the terms of the way that the members of the court treat themselves. >> general garland, you are a lot enforcement officer at the united states, what you condemn it? >> i am against divisive rhetoric of all kinds, but i do not have authority in this matter. as you know, the speech and the cause -- >> you have m