justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: there has been a lot of history to this case. the not sure what relationship is of your client to the agency now. are your clients grant recipients who currently receive grants or currently work through foreign affiliates and their foreign affiliates have not taken this pledge? or have they not receive the grants and want to work with their foreign affiliates. i am not sure what the status is of what the government has been doing or not doing. mr. bowker: these organizations are the same organizations that were before the board in 2013. in smaller groups, the rest of the clients are too small to have global networks. we are talking about the entities that were before the court in 2014 that were large international entities like care and save the children and world vision and pathfinder that are the ones with their own clearly identified affiliates overseas and these organizations receive money here in the united states and receive money through their locally incorporated affiliates. is the example we have been using, the u.s. ent

justice roberts: justice sotomayor. justice sotomayor? justice sew to mayor: i'm sorry, chief, did it again. a domestic agency would not want to adopt a policy of being opposed to abortion, but who is willing to not support it is a program, they cannot receive funds unless they affiliate with someone who will make the statement for them, correct? mr. michel: i don't think so, justice. a u.s. entity that opposes prostitution and sex trafficking, which is the only requirement at issue in this case can receive funds and use those funds abroad without contracting or working through affiliates. justice sotomayor: the domestic corporation who does not want to speak the government's message but does want to do the program, cannot, unless it finds an affiliate who will speak a government's messages? mr. michel: with respect i think that was the issue in the case last time. justice sotomayor: exactly. the last time, when you came before us you said it was tantamount or amounting to a facial challenge. if we read our prior decision as basically fac

chief justice roberts: justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: counsel, you compare the electoral college to a jury, arguing they are structurally similar under the constitution. you can't remove a juror because of his or her vote. but if that is true, i don't see how that helps you. a juror makes all sorts of pledges, to be impartial, not to discuss the case, not to research the case with the party, to tell the truth. yet, if a juror is selected, it violates one of those pledges. say the juror talks about the case with the other jury members. the judge is empowered to remove that juror. why isn't a presidential elector subject to being removed in the same way? he has made a particular pledge. different than remaining impartial, but he has told the people who appointed him, i will vote in this particular way. you call it morally, commit thyself. -- myself. so why isn't that any different than a juror who says, i am not going to do this, and then does it, and a judge can remove him? mr. lessig: your honor, you have identified th

justice sotomayor. justice sotomayor: counsel, in your brief, you are encouraging us not just to define who is a minister by appropriate religious function, but you're asking us to defer to religious the religious organizations' determination of what is an important religious function. that is a recipe for saying, the teacher who says a prayer at the beginning of a class, every teacher, whether it is a math teacher, a computer teacher, a gym teacher, they are doing an important religious function, because all the school has to number two, i thought what hosanna-tabor, our prior case, was recognizing is that when you are talking about a leader, a person who stewards a religion, that they are entitled to this absolution. you are now absolution from liability in law. you are now suggesting that we as judges have an obligation to expand the exemption we created in law. i thought that was was congress that would do that and not us. as justice breyer indicated, they have already done it. you are asking us to

justice sotomayor? all, youl, first of keep calling it a small number of women who won't get coverage. but i understand that figure to be between somewhere between 75 -- 750,000 -- 75000 and 125,000 women, correct? close your honor, yes, that is the number that would be affected by the exemption as compared to the original church exemption and affective exemptions that cover -- that affected around 30,000 women. i would note in this particular litigation, the respondents have not yet identified anyone who actually accessed contraception as a result of these rules. i think presumably because contraceptive -- access to contraception is widely available in this country for many other means besides -- >> let's go there. hhs decided that contraceptives were preventive service required under the act. now you say it has to take care to go promulgate the act and accommodate religious injections. but in your calculus, what you have not considered or told me about his the effect on women who now have to go out co

. >> justice sotomayor? your answererstand to justice alito to be you are in agreement with the sg that we should impose a heightened need standard? >> no, your honor. i think we are calling it the heightened showing standard, but is ai'm articulating different standard in terms of the actual language to be looked at and imposed. >> if you can, i want to be very precise. if your standard includes what a heightened needs standard has, why not call it what it is? there has to be a reason you think we should not call it that. understandw that i would different you are proposing. >> i'm sorry, justice sotomayor. the issue i have with the language is: for a stringent showing that a subpoena request is directly related to issues at trial and other concepts. what i am trying to propose is something that is not strict or related to trial concepts but that would be workable in the text of a grand jury. whatever the standard we are articulating i want to stress i believe our office has met the standard even under the

justice sotomayor: we only give -- , if they don't, if judges sexually harass someone, we say that is not within their functions and they can be sued. if congressman do the same thing, they can be sued. comes, you arell asking for a broader immunity immunityne else than anyone else gets. mr. sekulow: i would point out that under new york state law witnesses before a grand jury are not sworn to secrecy. they can state that they testified and i would like to point out that there are hundreds of members of the united states congress and an hundred members of the senate and there is one president. kagan: you've said that a number of times, and he made the point, that the president cannot be treated just like an ordinary citizen. it is also true and indeed a fundamental precept of the constitutional order that a president is not above the law. from our first days, chief justice marshall told thomas jefferson that he could be subpoenaed and required to and required to produce papers, and so i guess going back -- the president is like an ordinary citizen and that he is subject to law is to s

i, sonia sotomayor, do solemnly swear -- >> i, sonia sotomayor, do solemnly swear -- >> when the court gets a new member, it changes everything, everybody. simple changes. we move the seats around in the court room by seniority. there will be a shift there. but more fundamentally, it can cause it to take a fresh look at how things are defined. -- are decided. the new member will have a particular view about how things should be addressed, and it may be very different from what we have been following for some time. it is an exciting part of life at the court. >> the institution does not change at all. i think the relationships change. you lose a friend and hopefully acquire another one. i miss a lot of my former colleagues on the court, from byron white to bill brennan. but that is the process. they go and know people come on. >> it is different. it is different today than when it was when i first got here. i have to admit -- of the court that you spend a long time on. there was a period there when chief justice rehnquist and justice o'connor, we had a long run together. you get comfort

justice sotomayor. justice sotomayor: i am troubled about the monopoly situation. i am also troubled by what is the rule that you want the pto to follow? they cannot trademark under law generic names. are they required now to run their own consumer perception surveys before they determine that a particular name is generic? are you ok with the rule that there is no per se rule, but that, how is it going to change pto practice and won't that lead to the registration of every single common name of every business and then an expensive legal fight on whether it has become a generic or not? >> our view is the status quo, the significance test, with the pto manual says and what it has been applying which is why the appendix and the government appendix are consistent. it shows the pto day in and day out rolling up their sleeves and applying the significance test. you do not who have a survey. the pto looks at evidence and says this is just, consumers would see this as referring to any place on the internet that sells these goods. they are not getting registered. end of sto

justice sotomayor? sotomayor: this is a factual question and not to give the pto deference, then what we will have is every district court replaying all of this evidence that the pto looked at and, frankly, i'm on the margin with respect to your mark. theuld have looked at booking and car booking and hotel looking at all of those -- thisokings and said really, booking standing alone is generic, even with.com. you seem to be saying that they could be ruling wrong as a matter of law, could it be dispositive? clear, i district court, and it sounds like it would have lost, [laughter] -- [laughter] maybe, maybeayor: not. >> no, we could. a lot of people go federal risk,t because you take a and district court when you think you have good evidence. >> thank you, counsel. justice kagan? justice kagan: good morning. what struck me struck others, it seems there's a disconnect between the primary significance test and these kinds of names. the primary significance test is really asking -- does the consumer underst

justice sotomayor? >> going back to the chief justice example for a second, clearly we understand that this has had power to share chores between the two children, correct? >> if the babysitter decides i just disagree with the mom and i'm not going to have either of them do anything. would that be contrary to the instructions? >> that certainly would. i agree. >> let's talk about this situation. in the government exemption isn't nearly saying to the little sister is that we are not a's we are also saying that your insurance policies, independent actors that have the obligation to pay for contraceptives that employees use, that they don't have to do it either. you are objecting to the second part, aren't you? >> i want to make one specific point. their insurance carriers stated it wouldn't provide contraceptive and a a health pln and because it is a church plan the government cannot enforce it. we are not trying to challenge that at all. >> the little sisters claim is actually moved. >> they don't have t

. >> justice sotomayor? >> council, there is a long history of congress seeking records and getting them as justice ginsburg pointed out from presidents. cases, we havese said, especially eastland, that a congressional subpoena is valid so long as there is a conceivable legislative purpose and the records are relevant to that purpose. i see a tremendous separation of powers problem when you are talking about placing a heightened standard or a clear statement, the various formulations of this, on an investigation that a committee is embarking upon. i understand your complaint about the financial services subpoena on the money laundering issue. but are disputing that the stated purpose of the intelligence committee subpoena at issue, investigation efforts by foreign and -- entities to influence the u.s. political process, and related to the financial records of that, that those were irrelevant to that purpose and that's an illegitimate purpose by the investigative committee, the intelligence committee? >> taki

justice sotomayor [justice sotomayor: are you taking the position that all restrictions of robocalls are unconstitutional or that just a like this one on is unconstitutional because there's some types of speech that should not be covered. mr. martinez: well, i think your honor, in this case obviously we're dealing with the statute at hand. i think that there are some restrictions on robocalls that i think -- that probably would satisfy the appropriate level of scrutiny and just to take one example, the way that the ban on calls works to home phones right now, it's ssentially a ban on commercial elemarketing robocalls telemarketing robocalls to the home and that's the kind of -- that's the heart of what the tcpa was getting at and what congress and the f.c.c. said, this is the poor privacy we're trying to correct. justice sotomayor: and i can think of others, any schemes to get money, any -- because there are so many scams from robocalls but putting all of this out of sight, assuming at there is a -- part of the restriction that could survive strict scrutiny under your claim, why shou

justice sotomayor referred the treaties. my understanding was that the 1866 treaty made clear that those treaty rights were, i don't know if the word is superseded, but diminished because the tribes had aligned admitted treaty with the confederate states of america, and the treaty language in 1866 at that had unsettled the treaty relations. anything you want to add on the 1866 treaty, the relevance of it? >> i don't think it adds significantly to the point, except it reflected an assertion of a greater, federal responsibility in the territory, and it was contemplated to congress that they could pass laws governing the territory. i did want to make one point about practical consequences on the criminal side, not only was this jeopardizing the stateside, but it would create burdens on the federal government. it was estimated a 13% increase and criminal state fraud. as for the state, there would be questions of taxation and whatnot, and i don't think -- >> can i ask one more other question? my understanding given the demographi

. >> justice sotomayor your? >> justice? >> i'm sorry chief. picking up on where you are right now, is it your position in the primary significance is never to be used to determine what is generic and what is not? if we don't use that in whole or in part what other things with the pto examiner go to? >> justice it is not our position for the primary significance again the reason the courts don't do that over with common-law. but what they should do in this instance and then to figure out and then to indicate that those are helpful in this regard to be used by other competitors but what they should or shouldn't do to have the survey evidence is that it causes some issues with that functional nature of the internet that then they will misrepresent the number of people who understand that booking.com is a business only because of the way the internet works. >> i look at your definitions of booking in one definition of booking a hotel but this service is much broader than that you can book a hotel, and these are leisure travel and cars maybe with t

i think justice sotomayor may be the law far as enjoying and i'm not going to and join it as anyone else. that's a discretionary question. it can issue an order saying you're not allowed to force the law against these people or can issue an order saying we insist you enforce the law against these other people who are not participating in the process. we will demand you go arrest them and enforce the law against them. congress did not want to enforce against them and that's an astonishing order. that's not usually what the cords do. andou are sitting down thinking about the law from legislative draftsman shift, you probably get rid of the small exemptions. as the that's what i think a sherlock holmes reader would do. calls is outs robo if -- if congress had the authority, they would ban all robo calls but that's congress's job. the court's job is not to sit down and rewrite the loop -- the legislation. it's just an issue an order in the general rule is that the order is in order saying you cannot enforce this law against these guys in this circumstance. the order issued by reviewing court

i think justice sotomayor may be the law far as enjoying and i'm not going to and join it as anyone else. that's a discretionary question. it can issue an order saying you're not allowed to force the law against these people or can issue an order saying we insist you enforce the law against these other people who are not participating in the process. we will demand you go arrest them and enforce the law against them. congress did not want to enforce against them and that's an astonishing order. that's not usually what the cords do. andou are sitting down thinking about the law from legislative draftsman shift, you probably get rid of the small exemptions. as the that's what i think a sherlock holmes reader would do. calls is outs robo if -- if congress had the authority, they would ban all robo calls but that's congress's job. the court's job is not to sit down and rewrite the loop -- the legislation. it's just an issue an order in the general rule is that the order is in order saying you cannot enforce this law against these guys in this circumstance. the order issued by reviewing court

. >> justice sotomayor. more than once earer this week, justice sotomayor had troublenmuting. >> justice sotomayor. i am sorry, chief. did ita agin. um reporter: for lawyer lisa blatt, her argts to the justices were unlike any other. instead of the courtroom, she was at home. among her spectators, two dogs. >> i think i spent about two up to look like as much as i could the courtroom to have a podium and where the briefs would sit and ere my co-council would sit and my time keeper my daughter would sit. my husband also s boncer so he was in charge of making sure everyone in the neighborhood was cleared away. >> reporter: one surprise fromne th format, frequent questions from justice clarence thomas who at time has gone years witht speaking. >> in 40 arguments i've never gotten a question from justice thomas. so to have one from justice thomas to come in 2020 was a so that's the only perk was getting to hear him and he'sly absolun fire in every argument. >> repter: for pennsylvania deputy attorney general mic

then we turn to something that came out in answer to justice sotomayor's question. records here,key some of the key ones we want, are ones that president trump has not even seen. we want records from third-party business entities, their analyses of, for instance, requests for loans. these are documents that there is no privacy interest in, no constitutional liberty >> let's talk about the standard you propose. the quote in your brief is that concern is subject on which legislation could be had. could you give me a plausible example of a subject you think is beyondour honor, the best i o is the court's decision in kilborn where the court there said that congress didn't seem to put forward any possible legislation there that had to do with bankruptcy proceedings that congress was looking into. >> do you think bankruptcy proceedings is a subject on the legislation that cannot be had. >> obviously bankruptcy could be in the kilborn case, this thought that no such reason had been put forward but no, congress is legislative authority is extremely broad especially because

. >> justice sotomayor? >> soim. >> reporte i am sorry, chief. >> the arguments were for those lawyers. they did not get that usual give and take with the justices. i talked to a few of them ahead of time. some were worried they have small children at home and maybe dogs would interrupt and they were worried of technological glitches. they were concerned because of the atmosphere is different. they could not look at the justice's in the eye to see whether or not they were satisfy of the question. we'll have more next week. one of the biggest cases was president trump's bid shielding the financial documents from disclosure. the first day went all right for the supreme court, john. >> thank you. justice sotomayor will figure it out by next week i am sure. thank you. >>> hello, our viewers from around the world. i am john king. the state count you see on your screen there climbing above 1.1 million. the number of americans dead now nearing 70,000. a new projection from inside the trump administration predicts t

. >> justice sotomayor. >> counsel, you compare in your brief electoral college to a jury, arguing that they are structurally similar under the constitution, you cannot remove a juror because of his or her vote. but if that is true, i don't see how that helps you, and your makes all sorts of pledges to be impartial, not to discuss the case with anyone during the trial, not to research the case with the party to tell the tru truth, yet if the jury is selected it violates one of those pledges and see the jury talks about the case with the other jury members, the judge is empowered with others and the other jury members, has the power to remove venture. white isn't a presidential elector subject to being removed in the same way, he has made a particular pledge different than the remaining impartial but he has told the people who have appointed him, i will vote in this particular way, you call it morally commit myself so why isn't that any different than a juror who says i am not going to do this and then does it in a judge can remove it. >> your honor, you identified the unit on community

. >> and one of the things that justice is sotomayor pointed out was these were financial documents being sought that didn't come from the time the president is here in the white house, right? this happened from -- these came from before. she asked why should one not look at trump's long-standing relationships. let's listen. >> i think it's fairly common knowledge that mr. trump, before he was president, was thinking about running for president for a very long period of time. why is it that congress can't believe that looking at long-standing relationships and how those relationships changed or didn't change is important to knowing what undue influence might be occurring. >> i think that makes the problem worse, not better, justice sotomayor, they are targeting the personal life of the president before he was a candidate for office. that raises, granted, somewhat different but deeply troubling and equally problematic constitutional concern. >> what did you think about that exchange, carrie? >> well that is why, brianna, this gets to some of the new york case it pertains to conduct before

. >> justice sotomayor r. justice sotomayor are? >> i'm sorry, chief. >> today's audio stream was streamlined to the public, also breaking the longtime tradition. unlike the usual free-for-all questioning, the justices spoke one at a time in order of seniority. today a rare moment by justice clarence thomas who once went for a decade without asking a single question during an oral argument. >> justice thomas. >> yes, could booking acquire an 800 number? 1-800-booking for example? >> like many entities that i will learn to work remotely, one attorney who has argued in front of the court 21 times can only imagine the challenge. >> it's going to be a bit of a chaotic situation i would think because the justices are extremely active. >> the court occasionally allows same-day audio from oral argument in high-profile cases like bush v gore 20 years ago that was tape delayed, not truly streamed live. >> i always thought the court was doing itself a disservice by not just having live video and i think the court would be pressing to people i

argument and of this case comes down to something justice sotomayor said once she found her unmute button. she had an issue with that for the second day. she said "in a first amendment context, we are less concerned with the corporate formalities." you can look at cases as different as hobby lobby, about the first amendment rights of a closely held public corporation, or the hurley parade case. we do not look to see whether it is a partnership or an s corporation or nonprofit. however you structure your rate galley -- wow -- however you structure your legality is -- this is aint of corporate structure case more than a first amendment. the question is in 2013 the court did rule 6-2, and all of those justices are still on the court except just as gorsuch replaced justice scalia and justice kavanaugh replaced justice kennedy, so i suppose those would be the swing vote, but the point is does that 2013 rolling applied to those foreign entities? i think this is a question of, in the first amendment context, it does because the corporate niceties do not matter so much for the purposes of protect

justice sotomayor is recused from the case. >> we will hear argument next in 18 518.ber nine colorado versus michael baca. i noted -- i note from the outset that justice sotomayor is recused from the case. >> may it please the court. the constitution authorizes the state to choose their plenary authority to remove a broad elector. one who engages in rebellion or one who engages in a bait and switch. contrast, -- rather than as proxy voters, it is free to do so. in short, states determine how to select a electors and ensure they meet the relevant requirements and perform their duties as assigned. this means that states can oversee bribery as an incident, as a power to appoint. tos must include the power remove and elector without a criminal trial. under my friends position, as a practicality, ride electors would cast ballots and even legal votes. the state prevented him from casting a legal ballot. as this court explains in ray, the purpose and history of the 12th amendment reflected the reality that electors acted as pledge agents and the history of such pledges should be given great

we had justice sotomayor and kagan seeming to believe that congressional oversight was important. again, we have this really odd situation where chief justice john roberts, who is the most stalwart observer of the court's institutional legacy is going to be in the hotseat trying to find a third way, carving out here some kind of balance between the two. >> melissa, thank you so much for making time tonight. >> thanks for having me. >>> next, my exclusive interview with former united states attorney general eric holder about the crisis of leadership in the white house and the doj. he joins me, next. the doj he joins me, next. since i don't have time to read, i mean i might as well listen. if i want to catch up on the news, or history, or learn what's going on in the world, i can download a book and listen to it. i listen to spanish lessons sometimes to and from work. yea, it makes me want to be better. audible reintroduced this whole world to me. it changes your perspective. it makes you a different person. see what listening to audible can do for you. trust toyota to be here for y

justice sotomayor. >> i'm not sure what the relationship is of your clients to the agency now. are your clients grant recipients that are currently receiving grants, who currently worked through the affiliate and they have not taken this pledge, or have they not received grants and want to work with the foreign affiliates? i am not sure the status of what the government has been doing or has not been doing. >> these organizations are the same organizations that were before the court but a smaller group because the rest of the clients are too small to have global networks. we are talking about those before the court that of the large international entities like kerry and save the children and world vision and pathfinder that are the ones with their own affiliates overseas. these organizations receive money here in the united states and receive money through the locally incorporated affiliates. care which is the example of what we have been using the u.s. entity receives all of the u.s. grant money under this program and sub grants to the local affiliates so in the case of care,

. >> thank you cancel, justice sotomayor? >> the difficulty in my mind has been touched upon by justice alito. assume that i do think, -- not that i think, but that this will be conscious based. i don't see in the rhetoric any evidence by you of how small this exception is. the other side says that most of the complaints to the ftc are because of debt collection. but there are no statistics about how big or small debt tolection is with respect robo calls generally, or with respect to consumer collection. and even if you could show me that they were a small part of the intrusions on people, they are certainly a big emotional complaint. because they generate the most ire by citizens. putting that aside, you have not government-backed calls are any different than commercial calls. private commercial calls for debt. in both situations, the debtor would expect the call in the interest of the government's claim. but so what? there is a discrimination aspect to this case which raises equal protection grounds. but putting all of that

several of the justices including justice ginsburg and sotomayor so that flies in the face of history. congress has asked for information from the president all the time. there is a long history of congress seeking these records, and we said in the past and the congressional subpoena that there is a legislative purpose relevant tore that purpose. so, that is going to help us understand the difference between the president's standard in the congress is standard. it's the difference between the critical need or the demonstrated need versus legitimate, and how would this play out and practicing in the case?y >> i think that andy said it nicely and that ordinarily, when we are talking about a legislative subpoena, the tests have been pretty deferential in an areaha that congress come a person into an area congress could legislate, for example. that isn't a very high standard at all and of course talking about the presidency. on the other hand, the standards that the department of justice and the president are agreeing for comes from cases in which the president has articulated a claim of

justice sonia sotomayor: >> there is a long, long history of congress seeking records and getting them. >> reporter: the stakes are high: whether democrats investigating president trump and a new york district attorney r ploring whether his campaign toid hush money to adult film star stormy daniels, can subpoena the tax returns and subpoena tncial records he has long sought to keep private. the supreme court has told other presidents to comply with court orders. president nixon in watergate, president clinton in the civil lawsuit brought by paula jones. but some justices, like chief justice john roberts, seemed troubled by the scope of the investigations. even liberals like justice stephen breyer indicated there has to be a stopping point. >> the fact that what i hold today will also apply to a future senator mccarthy asking a future franklin roosevelt or harry truman exactly the same questions. that bothers me. >> reporter: a decision is expected this summer. jan crawford, cbs news, washington. >> o'donnell: and there is still much more news ahead on tonight's "cbs evening news." new

justice alito on the justice sotomayor? >> can you finish your answer to justice breyer, please click >> absolutely. the cases that would have been recognizable in federal court as oklahoma has been the state included. they are arrogating to jurisdiction to themselves and federal government was advocating even in cases where the reservation is clearly intact that happened in south dakota and nebraska and washington state. the court unanimously across different cases paid no heed to the practice. here is all the reason not to pay those people. we know federal officials were subverted in oklahoma and after statehood they wouldn't allow the national to hold elections r the national council even though it clearly preserved those powers. it's something the state has never explained. >> am i to understand existing reservations there are simple positions by non- indians were living and working on the reservations. am i to understand there is conquering federal state and indian jurisdiction over many of the uses involved in those p

. >> justice sotomayor. >> council, there is a difference between a teacher that teaches a religion class and a secular school, and a teacher that teaches religion in a religious school. but i'm not sure what the difference is. meaning can you point me to anything in the evidence that the teachers here were acting any differently working from a workbook for the religious class and a teacher does in a secular school, that is my first question. my i second question you are asking for an exception to all that is broader than the ministerial exception generally and broader than is necessary to protect the church. the two teachers at issue here are not claiming that they were fired because this of the were teaching religion wrong. one said she was fired because she came down with cancer and for reform of medical condition. the other claimed because of age. she'd been there for many years and very acceptable to the school and all of a sudden she reaches a certain age and is fired so you're asking for an exception to the family medicaln leave act to wage an hourly wall and all sorts including br

then justice sotomayor said, hold on a second, that sounds like a more demanding standard. said, whystice kagan did we just ask the usual standard -- why don't we just ask the usual standard? for our friends who are not explain the difference between the government proposed standard and the new york standard, that there is no objective basis for the information. why is this important in practice? imagine the court converging on a multi-partisan standard and what would that look like? >> is very hard to say from these oral arguments. sometimes, you watch cream court argument and everyone is talking about this one narrow issue. these ones really have a lot of moving parts. we will have a 3-2 opinion, a 3-1-1, something like that. but if you put the president in a defensive posture at the outside were to be categorically provide him -- at the outset, or do you provide him with a burden showing him getting the records from somewhere else. these records are from the president relate to something else. therefore, i'm going to burden , and just under new york law itself, there are

justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: counsel, there is a difference between a teacher who teaches a religion in class and a secular school, and and a teacher who teaches religion in a religious school, but i don't know what the differences, meaning can you point me to anything in the evidence that the teacher here was acting any differently, working from a workbook from a religious class, than a teacher does a nice secular school? that is my first question. my second question is, i think what is being confused here is that you are asking for an exception to law that is broader than the ministerial exception generally, and broader that is necessary to protect the church. the two teachers at issue here are not claiming that they were -- once she was because she came down with cancer and was fired before a medical condition. all of a sudden, she reaches a certain age and she is fired. so, you're asking for an exception to the family of medical leave act, to wage and hourly laws, to all sorts of laws, incl

justice jay -- justice ginsburg along with justice sotomayor and justice breyer were troubled that what justice ginsburg called the staggering breadth of what is at stake. already we are going from a spiritual leader to someone who was a religious teacher. that was already an expansion. and it is an expansion in an area where there is immunity. so it is not just even employment discrimination at stake but far beyond that. in a lower court they have seen people pay, and all these employment contract rights, religious institutions are using this to basically avoid a whole host of law protections. humidity is quite broad -- the immunity is quite broad. when you have that blanket immunity you have to carefully cabin gets to be included in that. so that is really the question here. briefs thatf the said don't worry, this will not be all teachers. this is a special teacher because she is a commission minister and a teacher. now we have come all the way down to regular teachers, lay teachers who may teach religion out of a workbook. we also have this very dramatic moment to me where nurses and

justice sotomayor. >> council, it seems that you are asking for a broad immunity justice thomas pointed out that is nowhere in the constitution and in fact the constitution protects against presidential interference with state criminal proceedings it doesn't allow the president to apply them for the state prosecutions or convictions. and yet i find it odd you want us to rule that there is essentially an absolute immunity from investigative powers at the height of the states police power and that we would permit a civil damages case by a private litigant, which we do. prosecutors have ethical obligations with respect to grand jury investigations to keep those investigations secr secret. don't be presumed state courts and prosecutors act as they should and in good faith? >> doesn't the president always havhas the opportunity to show t a particular subpoena in fact was issued? the president was given the opportunity here and an affidavit i understand was filed set forth the grounds for the investigation. im not sure why he is entitled to more immunity for the private actress that he should