general verrilli: no. justice roberts: their argument is, we're going to give driver's license to people subject to deferred action. and you're saying, ok, that's your injury? you can take that away. and i just think that's a real catch 22. if you're injured, you have standing. but you're not injured because you can change your policy and not give driver's license to these people. and i suggest that i think you would sue them instantly if they said, people here lawfully present under the federal authority are being discriminated against. it's a preemption argument the government makes on a regular basis. and if you don't, the interveners will sue them. they've already said that they think that's illegal. general verrilli: the fundamental problem, mr. chief justice, is with that theory is that it requires this court essentially to issue an advisory opinion about whether this new law of theirs would, in fact, be preempted. after all, we might think it's preempted, but it's up to the judiciary ultimately to d

general verrilli: well, i i general verrilli: sure. i think that they can and and as happened in grutter, i think they have the the interests that they rely on have to be the interests that they contemporaneously identified when they adopted the program. i don't think there's an issue here on that. but i think the evidence can include evidence of how things are working in practice. for example, if they adopt a system and it does result in improvement, that does seem highly relevant and and consistent with what the court held in grutter was appropriate evidence. chief justice roberts: the reason i think it's a matter of concern is what i heard from mr. garre were a lot of numbers. he said, look, this is why it's needed, and, you know, we will know we're doing better when the numbers look better. and i just wonder whether the idea of surveys -- i looked at one of these surveys. i don't remember this record or the the prior one and i have to say it was kind of sophomoric. i mean, do you feel that you've had enough interactions -- this is

general verrilli. general verrilli: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: the effects of the texas law at issue in this case are much more extreme than those of any abortion law that this court has considered since casey. this law closes most abortion facilities in the state, puts extreme stress on the few facilities that remain open, and exponentially increases the obstacles confronting women who seek abortions in the state. and it does all of that on the basis of a medical justification that cannot withstand any meaningful scrutiny that the american medical association has told you is groundless, and that the district court found will actually operate in practice to increase health risks to women and not decrease. justice alito: is this true of every provision of the of the asc law? general verrilli: no, i i don't think it is true about every provision in the regulations, justice alito. justice alito: not the justice alito: not the regulations -- yes, in the regulations. general verrilli: yes. justice alito: eve

general verrilli: yes. justice breyer: is that affidavit the relevant one? are there others? general verrilli: yeah. i think i believe that's the affidavit from the director of admissions. and it is highly relevant, and there is other information. in the latter part of our brief, we documented it. we think you know, our view, we argued for affirmance. we think it's sufficient. but if there is doubt, i do think the additional kind of information that might be developed in this case would be to look at the kinds of questions that the chief ustice was actually asking about, how did the how has the program worked in practice over the period of time in which it's been implemented. and i think that would be additional relevant information that might help make the judgment. if i could go to the process point, and then i will return to the need point. process what the court said last time around in this case was that the court had to ensure itself without deference that the process provided for individualized consi

here is that exit interview. >> woodruff: donald verrilli, thank you very much for talking with us. >thank you, judy. it's great to be here. >> woodruff: so you have been the solicitor general for the past five years for a democratic administration arguing cases before a majority supreme court. how do you think it's gone on balance? >> on balance pretty well. we've won some, we've lost some, but i think we've won most of the big important case, health care, marriage equality. i think on most of the cases that really matter from an historical perspective, we've done pretty well. >> woodruff: so you would argue the administration has done better than the conservative point of view? >> well, i guess what i would say about that is that we managed to persuade a court, a majority of whose members before justice scalia passed away, you would say are conservative, that we have the right answer on the law on the big cases. >> woodruff: just last week the justices handed down a decision on the president's immigration plan. which you argued is being seen as dealing a pretty significant blow to t

[applause] solicitor general verrilli is here. i can't see you, where are you? there you are.nd up, man. stand up. [cheers and applause] i'm sorry the lights are so bright, i wasn't sure. i want to, i want to thank you, and i mean this sincerely, for your dedication, dedicating your entire career -- that's not hyperbole -- your entire career to the cornerstone of this democracy, and that is the rule of law. there's a reason why so many, you're the longest serving and so many presidents have turned to you. you have unimpeachable integrity, you have a brilliant mind, and you have a, you've demonstrated just an unyielding commitment to the document that you helped interpret or enforce by arguing for the government. and so i want to thank you for your service to the country. but equally as importantly, as ron can tell you and others who have worked with me, i judge the genuineness -- i mean this sincerely -- the genuineness of a man or a woman with whom i've served either in appointed or elective office by how they conduct themselves when they leave that office, to find out whethe

solicitor general don verrilli. he's argued more than three dozen cases before the court. equality and those obamacare cases. he is stepping down next week. we asked which justices ask the hardest questions, his tenure and a lot of questions facing the supreme court, including immigration. take a look. >> and you mentioned immigration. when people look and say, oh, well, you've got a nominee proposing a religious ban for immigration, legally, constitutionally, would that power exist? >> i'd be surprised. i'd be surprised to think that it would. >> you think a supreme court would likely strike down that proposal? >> you don't want to speculate on a case that doesn't exist and probably will never exist, but, you know, i can't imagine that the court would find a religious test like that appropriate. >> and a religious test, you use that word because that itself is banned in the constitution? >> in a different context, but yes. >> that may be some speculation there, obviously donald trump is a long way from the presidency and you have to pass a law to get that ban. but we also

general verrilli? >> mr.any abortion law this court has considered since casey. this law closes most abortion facilities in the state, puts extreme stress on the few facilities that remain open and increases the obstacles confronting women who seek abortions in the state and it does all of that on the basis of a medical justification that cannot withstand any meaningful scrutiny that the american medical association has told you is groundless and that the district court found will actually operate in practice to increase health i have beens to women and not decrease. >> is this true of every provision of the asc law? >> no, i don't think it is true about every provision in the regulations justice, alito. >> not the regulations -- yes, in the regulations. every single provision? then why was the whole thing held to be unconstitutional? >>. >> i agree with the premise of your honor's question. there are some parts of the regulation that i think operating alone wouldn't have the substantial obstacle effect. in f