and the supreme court. amy is known to a great many of you for her work at scotus blog where she serves as editor and reporter for many years and continues to contribute articles that i read all the time there. she also argues before the supreme court. she has co-taught courses in supreme court litigation at both stanford law school and harvard law school and she holds lodge agrees -- holds a law degree. start us off please. >> great, thank you very much. it is wonderful to be back here. i think this is my first time in the building since i left in january but it will always have a special place in my heart because i actually got married in cato and have the reception right here in this room. trevor, where are you? this trevor not in the room right now? he made a joke in his opening remarks about his four volumes he has now edited which is great. it means he did over one third of what i did. even if his longevity at cato beats mind i hope i can still remain the federal or -- and hopefully put out the record

supreme court. welcome to the program for this tuesday, september 6. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 is the republican line. independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. you can text (202) 748-8003. include your name and where you are texting from. you can also send us a message on facebook or hit us up on twitter or instagram. we are at @cspanwj. do you have confidence in the u.s. supreme court, our opening question on this morning's program. we will look at a number of articles about the court, about the recent term, its upcoming term, and we want to hear from you and know what is behind your opinion on how you feel about the courts. do you have confidence in the u.s. supreme court? (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. all others, (202) 748-8002. we start our question from a survey done regularly by pew research. the headline published less than a week ago, positive views of supreme court klein sharply following -- declined sharply following abortion ruling.

the supreme court sees this issue. i didn't think there was any way in the world we would get a decision better than the third third circuit decision and by no means sure the supreme court will be is terrorized as the third circuit. a distant wished her work brought her hope terrorized as although there are other speakers who could address that point. the way to deal with the problem, i just leaned back in my chair and said i'm here to argue the case with the supreme court, she said oppose search. [applause] >> that was one of the colorful stories judge silverman shared, a constellation of judges and government dignitary. supreme court chief justice earl warren then retired was guest speaker. here's an excerpt of chief justice warren's tribute. >> 33 errors litigation representing tennessee valley authority, labor department, implementing the fair labor standards act, she didn't always have a bed of roses but i'm sure hundreds of briefs, the scores of cases she argued some in every one of the 11th circuit, 27 in the su

douglas, the future supreme court justice. having earned their respect, bessie became the first woman awarded yale's prestigious sterling fellowship for graduate studies. with her yale doctorate, she moved to washington, d.c. for a new opportunity. she applied for a job at the tennessee valley authority, which congress had just created to realize fdr's new deal vision of supplying electricity to the valley's impoverished residents. her yale boss wrote what apparently was needed to hear to hire a woman lawyer, that bessie was intent on a legal career, quote, as a primary objective from which she would not be deflected by consideration of marriage end quote. bessie thus began her government career with a pledge that she would be married to her job instead of a man. hearing tva's competition, private utility companies hurled charges of socialism that quickly turned into lawsuits. to direct the legal defense of this new deal cornerstone, tva hired james lawrence fly, a harvard law graduate and experienced trial lawyer from the jus

that is what the supreme court is now. the steady march toward enlightenment that supreme court was on for most of the 20th century is no more. you have a supreme court that actually looks for guidance, right now, in the 21st century, the english judges in the 17th judges century, who are then putting which is today. a supreme court that was willing to quote matthew hill and edward cook, who believed in witches and believed in putting them to death -- that supreme court is capable of anything, anything. so, tonight, the justice department has to fear what would happen in an appeal of judge cannon's order to help donald trump. the justice department has until friday to decide what to do. you will hear tonight from the very best about the justice departments. first, harvard law professor laurence tribe, who taught constitutional law to attorney general merrick garland. and then, from former federal prosecutor andrew weissmann and former acting solicitor general, neal katyal, who is an expert in the federal appeals process. n

justice on the supreme court. amy howe is known to a great many of you. she served as editor and reporter and continues to contribute articles that i read all the time there. she also argues before the supreme court and other tribunal she serves as consulate over two dozen cases in the supreme court and argued two cases. supreme court litigation at law school and harvard law school. she holds a law degree fromho right here in d.c. so ilya started off please. >> thanks very much wally it's wonderful to be back here. this is my first time in the building since i left in january. it will always have a special place in my heart because i actually got married to cato and had the reception right here in this room. trevor, where are you? is trevor not in the room right now? he made a joke at his opening remarks at the great he's done over a third about what i did. given his longevity at cato beats mine, i hope i can still remain the i federal or having e the most liberal tons andho hopefully put out the record for editin

douglas, the future supreme court justice. having earned their respect, bessie became the first woman awarded yale's prestigious sterling fellowship for graduate studies. with her yale doctorate, she moved to washington, d.c. for a new opportunity. she applied for a job at the tennessee valley authority, which congress had just created to realize fdr's new deal vision of supplying electricity to the valley's impoverished residents. her yale boss wrote what apparently was needed to hear to hire a woman lawyer, that bessie was intent on a legal career, quote, as a primary objective from which she would not be deflected by consideration of marriage end quote. bessie thus began her government career with a pledge that she would be married to her job instead of a man. hearing tva's competition, private utility companies hurled charges of socialism that quickly turned into lawsuits. to direct the legal defense of this new deal cornerstone, tva hired james lawrence fly, a harvard law graduate and experienced trial lawyer from the jus

for the supreme court term it is a quick endeavor. i think i remember some of august but not most of it. i did get through all the star wars movies i put them on the background at three in the morning so i got through them multiple times. the framers and constitution decided to sign the document a constitution at the time and of course until it was ratified by the people and came into place in 1789. the constitution has many detractors with regards to antiquated by some without data concepts and of course at cato with the version of the constitution which is freedom and individual liberty through limited government. now this of course is quite controversial if you look one of the things i was thinking about this year is whether or not in the course of a week when the supreme court decided a case about guns and a case about abortion you might have heard about climate change there were a lot of people who said here we go republican appointed justices. we did do something different and they said no so they enforced that. and we are turni

court it bessie margolin high-quality more burned her recognition and delighted with a supreme court brief, she wrote, the general general thomas she argue nexthe fair label under glimmers act that went to the courts on merchant 9045, before the day and lucy bader reached high school, she became the 25th woman to argue that the supreme court. after what must've been a lively argument, justice robert jackson mark the occasion with aht thoughtfulness, the first of several he wrote to bessie margolin over the years, i hope you are satisfied with the way the court argued your first case and i'm sure there was no dissent from the opinion that you would argue here often it and bessie margolin when that case establishing the long danny estes until recently, that exceptions to the fair label standards act that must be narrowly construed before the year ended, shed, argued it four times of the supremee court and prevailed in three of those cases in these and the rest of her that followed, all advanced humanitarian purposes by protecting the wage earners to the full extent congress intended pr

supreme court. and thankfully, the supreme court concludes that violates the free exercise clause of the united states of the constitution because it singlings out -- singles out and excludes an entity for -- from this public benefit program simply because of its religious status, simply because of its identity as a church. but then the court or more accurately four justices in the majority drop a footnote in the opinion. it's a 27-word footnote and it says this. this case involves expressed discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. we do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination. now, again, this was four justices signing onto this footnote. not a majority of the court. and the footnote doesn't say there is a status use distinction. it just says we're not addressing whether a use-based exclusion. we're simply addressing an exclusion of terms on religious status. but never the choice, school choice opponents seized on that footnot

that is the goal of the supreme court. that role doesn't change because people disagree with this opinion or that opinion or a particular mode of jurisprudence. obviously people can say what they want and they are certainly free to criticize the supreme court if they want to say the legitimacy is in question. they are free to do so. but i don't understand the connection between opinions people disagree with and the legitimacy of the court. if the court doesn't retain its legitimate function, i'm not sure who would take up that mantle. you don't want the political branches telling you what the law is and you don't want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is. all of our opinions are open to criticism and our members do a great job of criticizing some of the others. [laughter] simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court. >> we appreciate that. i travel the world and talk to delegations from other countries. and the esteem through which j

supreme court will do to section two. i what it did to the other components of the voting act which could render the voting rights act of 1965 almost another. now it not happen. and maybe i'm, you know, a doomsayer, but based on the in which this court has dealt with election related issues and we talk about the young chief justice, john roberts, and what he did when. he was an attorney, fdr, at justice department, opposing you know a specific remedial measure there. when the act was threatened a long time ago. but given given his his history, given the other five justices who constitute that conservative portion of the court, section two is at risk as well, you've suggested term limits for supreme court justices in the past. can you explain your thinking there? yeah. i mean, this is, as we know in the book, where chief justice roberts and former attorney general holder are on the same. he said a speech that we quote pretty that supreme court justices should serve 15 years. i say 18 years are we go on to say that presiden

welcome to the heritage foundation's annual supreme court review. we're very glad to have you join us, whether you're here in person or watching online or on television. as was just mentioned my name is zach smith and i serve as a legal fellow and manager of the supreme court and appellate advocacy program here in the center for judicial studies at heritage foundation. the supreme court is set to begin hearing arguments for the cases its new term next week so we thought this would be the perfect time to discussion some of those cases and preview what we can expect. while the court's last term contained a number of blockbuster decisions dealing with abortion rights, gun rights, religious liberty and free speech issues just a name a few, the court this term will also tackle a number of important cases and issues. everything from affirmative action to redistricting, to religious liberty cases, to cases that touch on the abilities of court seekers, challenges, agency actions and structures. to help us break it down. i'm joined by two advocates who need

supreme court will go that far? >> i'm not going to make any predictions here, but i can tell you that justices's alito and thomas at least have signaled that they are very disturbed by -- state of pennsylvania for constitutional rulings for state election law. there is no question that that is a serious issue before the court. there is some indications that at least some justices are prepared to accept such a view. >> thank, you madam chair, you'll. back >> gentlemen yelled back. mr. -- . >> leading up to january 6th, invoked the isl theory and there are other doctors are there, as we have heard, but that was cited as part of the creation of, quote, a fake electors, that would be submitted to congress to get the then vice president is and the results the electoral college back to the states to prevent certification. can you tell us how this theory informed the strategy that ended up being used by these individuals, john eastman, rudy giuliani, others, to undermine legally cast ballots of millions of americans? >> t

supreme court and now the supreme court is going to have to decide whether or not state courts have any authority whatsoever over election laws within the state. so i guess my question is professor, i guess you are still with us online. are we overreacting or is it likelier that the supreme court will decide that state legislatures can enact election laws and denies state courts the authority to make the constitutional ruling? are we overreacting or is this real? >> representative butterfield let me start by saying i've been writing about north carolina redistricting since the early 1990's. and i was part of the legal team representing in the case you described. i think all these questions indicated it's very difficult to say because there are a variety of versions of the doctrine that been hinted at in somewhat have extremely destabilizing consequences to be sure. most of them would have significantly destabilizing consequences and there are lots of legal uncertainties that would be unleashed under any version of this doctrine. so i do think it's a concern about what the doctrine might

supreme court. as u.s. solicitor general. he served as a district judge for the columbia circuit and counselor chief of staff to u.s. attorney general william french smith and his law clerk to both chief justice warren burger and the fifth circuit judge. as most of you know, he was appointed to serve as independent counsel for five investigations including white water from 1994 many of you know ken through his writing. his author first among equals, the supreme court in american life, bear country, the baylor story, contempt memoir of the clinton investigation was a near times bestseller in 2018. and religious liberty in crisis, which was released this past tuesday and which we celebrate this evening. ken and his wife alice, who was here this evening, great to have you here alice. now reside along the peaceful banks in waco, texas. we're going to hear from two devoted joints of faith and freedom strengthen our resolve. to defend americans first freedom. please join me in welcoming doctor tom pharr and doctor ken starr. >> tha

justices on the supreme court. and in that answer, if you can talk about your call for adding more people to the supreme urt. >> let's start with leo. if you're keeping tabs on what the new $1.6 million man is doing, onef the first things he has done with t money is file an amicus bri for the upcoming supreme court case, advancing this bonkers theory of an independent state legislature th is allowed to change election laws without regard to their own state constitution of the biggest upcoming case the supreme court docket this year because esntially it will allow or could allow the legislatures, state legislatures to simply throw away. that is what leonard leo is doing with the money. that is what the federalist society is about. that is thereodus operandi t infect democracy and take it away from the people and put it behind closed or. aileen cannon is part of that. she wouldave been appointed by trump. he kind of outsourced the dicial picks to the federalist society. she would have been -- she would not have been

i should say the supreme court ended up with. a few justices think that justices appointed by the same president. they think that the same president but appointed them, that justice wants to be president himself. he is there for skewing his vote to position himself. i am speaking about robert h. jackson. he was possibly the finest writer ever on the supreme court. that is something to say. he was not corrupted by having to go to law school. he still had his writing ability intact. the justices came to expect that he wanted to be president. they expected that william o. douglas wanted to be president. wait, robert h. jackson just wants to be the chief justice. there were all of these interesting battles happening. they came to suspect each other's votes. that became a very pernicious force on the court. all the time harry truman became president, just weeks into his vice presidency in 1945, the supreme court had already made a mess of itself. >> truman, you know, you mentioned early in the book that it took four and a half years b

supreme court. one of the pieces we touched on was this published this morning, actually, in usatoday.com, and it's about the supreme court, how the supreme court is already influencing the november elections, the headline on the piece. it's from john fritz, who covers the court for "usa today." you can read it on usatoday.com. democrats line from new jersey. it is open forum, at least until the house comes in and finishes up it'll work. norman, how are you? caller: good morning. something to say, i'll try to be fast. i can't understand how the people in this country could -- they can't think. they can't think. they're so influenced by what they hear, and if they like the politicians, they'll repeat it. now, our economy is not controlled by the president. the economy and the whole world is exactly the same. i just heard a program, how bad it is in england. now, biden isn't responsible for the economy in england. the economy and germany, economy in france, is exactly the same as it is in this country

the court with the current supreme court's position. so that was relatively modest holding because the litigants represented by harris had first asked the court to take up the constitutionality of the action and the court was not comfortable with it even the majority on —- in the case the 11 occasions it has been back extensions of the release but the court did not want to fight on that question may be because it didn't think it was necessary in this case are had a sense it would be reversing or overturning precedent didn't want to do too much in one term so it ends up being relatively modest but it's a factual pattern a gentleman has an in near the us canadian border and is known to smuggle drugs. he drives around with the license plates with the word smuggler. so surprisingly he is detained and searched by border agents and he accuses of slamming him against his suv then retaliating when he reports this he tries to get a ministry the relief it does not work but then the case makes its way to the supreme court because the ninth circu

appearance since the supreme court overturned roe v. wade, john roberts dissented the authority of the supreme court -- defended the authority of the supreme court. he spoke at the u.s. court of appeals for the 10th circuit's conference in colorado springs. springs. [applause] >> welcome, everybody, and thank you for joining us at this historical site. it is just an honor to be here tonight with chief justice roberts and my soon-to-be successor. congratulations to the mckay family for the wonderful tribute and the kind words about the circuit. thank you for that wonderful introduction at a tribute to our esteemed colleague, monroe mckee. it has been a fabulous conference so far and a capstone for this event to have chief justice roberts join us. he was slated to be here in 2020 and we had to postpone a lot of things over the last couple of years. it is wonderful that you finally made it out to the broadmoor for my last conference as a chief judge. i'm glad he could be here for my last broadmoor circuit. in my years as chief judge, i hav

court's use supreme court docket. what is the appropriate use of the emergency docket? justice kagan: this is a facet of what i talked about before, of the court not going out of its way to be involved in things that it needn't be involved in. and so the emergency docket, there was a time -- the emergency docket is often used for a court deciding something without full consideration by other courts and particularly by a court of appeals and without full briefing and argument. way back when when i was clerking, the emergency docket was something that you used for capital cases and there was an an emergency and somebody was to be executed the next day and legal claims and you couldn't run it up the flag pole. so that was an emergency. and there are definitely times and certainly there may be times outside that context where there are real emergencies and can't do the step by step judicial decision making that we would like. but that is of crucial importance. is it because people think and they are right to think that th

supreme court enough of enough. you may recall they were convening to overturn the decisions of their state supreme court and send an alternate list of electors to national archives. which the governor would first have to certify, governor jeb bush. the election of his brother george bush, it is important to lay the ground work. when case of brought to supreme court out of pennsylvania. similar, the court would not take it. alito wanted to take it and gorsuch and thomas but that is all they could get it takes 4 justices to take it up. the election in pennsylvania was conducted under processees that had been changed by the democrats on the supreme court of pennsylvania at the behist of the governor and these democrat litigators. so many people in pennsylvania were furious about this, including republicans of the state legislature. including i guess, president president trump and lawyers working for president trump. they decided you know we'll send an alternate group of electors to the national archives, they couldn't

court of appeals who end up on the supreme court unless something catastrophic happens. until the democrats decided we are not voting and chuck schumer at a press conference at what can you do to direct him to get a vote? and the senator said at the microphone, nothing. so to break down the process then, we would just end up in a very bad place. >> what do you think about the composition of the court with these three trumpet appointees? are you fearful of an extreme right shift of the court? or do you think it will be a more reserved and moved the right? >> first, i think president trump did, he actually did his job but if there is a vacancy you nominate someone. it's wrong of a president for not filling a vacancy on the court for any reason. whether it's 8:30 in the morning on january 20 here's my name here is the name and putting forward. my big problem right now if the court is almost with the description of the court. the discussion of the conservative justices and the liberal justices. no. there may be too liberal justices on the court. maybe justice kagan, justice

the very first supreme court case. i talk about this in the book after the passage of the reconstruction amendment, we're called the slaughterhouse cases. it was white people, white people arguing for their rights under the 13th and 14th amendments because they had been they were like literally slaughterhouse workers. and the government granted a monopoly to some rich white guy slaughterhouse. and the poor white guys were like, that seems like indentured servitude. that seems like a lack of equal protection. and look, supreme court was like, shut up. so right there out of the gate for white people, they would not think expansively about what these amendments could do. and that's the that's the constant struggle that we have in this country. the best law the best amendment, the best ideas at every point could be overturn it by five white people on the supreme court. excellent. so here's a question and we'll shift gears. anyone who knows me knows i'm a big fan of profanity, so i really like that. especially when strategi

supreme court. and thankfully, the supreme court concludes that violates the free exercise clause of the united states of the constitution because it singlings out -- singles out and excludes an entity for -- from this public benefit program simply because of its religious status, simply because of its identity as a church. but then the court or more accurately four justices in the majority drop a footnote in the opinion. it's a 27-word footnote and it says this. this case involves expressed discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. we do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination. now, again, this was four justices signing onto this footnote. not a majority of the court. and the footnote doesn't say there is a status use distinction. it just says we're not addressing whether a use-based exclusion. we're simply addressing an exclusion of terms on religious status. but never the choice, school choice opponents seized on that footnot

>> forwards are inscribed in the stone above the united states supreme court. equal justice under law. equal justice under law. in many ways, the story of america has been about making those words true for all americans. sometimes we take boldot steps forward and other times unfortunately we take disturbing costeps backwards. we all know when the constitution was written there wasn't equal justice under the law. that's pretty obvious. so many people were excluded from voting and other rights but we've tried to move forward and that's one of the things about america. we keep moving forward. we push. but unfortunately today, america finds itself in one of those frightening moments of regression. a few months ago tens of millions of women solve their fundamental right to choose taken away before their very eyes. justiceop thomas in a concurring opinion suggested other rights like the freedom to marry protected might come next. the thought should make us sick to our stomachs. the senate has a responsibility now to act. because of this threat, the senate will hold a

supreme court. it is kind of feedback loop where the court is kind of not only giving more power to state legislatures. it would be giving more power to itself. >> yes. we should note here -- often their arguments about states rights or difference of the states and there are conservative attacks on the over use of the commerce clause in the u.s. constitution for the federal government to overly regulated states. here they are doing something very scalpel very fine edge. it's like, well, leads effusions we think here have the power of the state legislatures but not the state supreme court. we like the legislators because they are our people and not the supreme court's. but then also the u.s. supreme court. because we like that one as well. it does look like a theory reverse and neared around the institutional -- of conservatives on the republican party. >> that is absolutely true. and one of the things the elections cause in the constitution -- article one, section four, if you want to look it up --

the supreme court is made with checks and balances and thank god for the supreme court. host: you mentioned the leak investigation. this is from the washington times. justice neil gorsuch said it is important to identify the leaker and said he expects a report on the progress of the leak investigation soon. he condemned the leak, as have other justices, as improper efforts to influence judicial decision-making from whatever side are a threat to the judicial decision-making process, he said at the conference, the one that chief justice john roberts spoke at friday. let's try to get in greg in chicago. thanks for waiting. caller: i have to give credit to the vice president. this is an activist court. i know these conservative heart flakeswhen you hear someone say original list that just means i love the constitution as long as the constitution serves me. we have justices that when they were nominees raised their hands under oath and they lied. they lied in their senate confirmation hearings and that is a dealbreaker. you only trust the court as long as you trust the people

supreme court's decision in new york state rifle and pistol association v. bruin in one sense is very narrow in its effects because it directly affects only three particular states where the right to bear arms was completely negated. new jersey, maryland, and hawaii. and it also effects parts of three other states where the right to arms was respected in some places within the state but not in others. those would be california, massachusetts, and new york. but in addition, bruin announces a new rule for how a new judicial standard that applies to all gun control laws and the standard is? this is based on what the court did in heller and mcdonald. the lower courts weren't exactly going along with it, as we'll discuss. the gun control laws that are constitutional are the ones that are consistent with the american tradition of the right to keep and bear arms and the lawful regulation thereof. and laws that are not consistent with that tradition are not constitutional. one week after bruin was announced, the court vacated three decisions from lower federal court

here in the supreme court. the court at the beginning of the hearing had condensed all of the different complaints from riley were doing and from the other rights groups and plaintiffs into 9 different areas, 9 different points. she's going through them one by one. and they've actually rejected the 1st 6 of them. she's on the 7th, 2 more to go off to that. but the 1st $66.00 of those complaints which included allegations of hacking the electro commissions could be a system of rigging rejected in most cases saying that there wasn't compelling evidence. evidence to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt that these things had in fact taken place. and so in each of those cases, they said didn't constitute grounds for nullifying the results of the election. so we waiting to hear what the supreme court ruling is on those last 3 areas identified. but we'll, we will be, we'll bring it up soon as we get it. indeed. so 4 of the allegations have been rejected so far by the supreme court. we will wait to hear the final deci

that is the supreme court and content -based. and then the ordinance says that that's what refers to something that takes place on the premises that can be built or modified but if it is not refer to something on the premises that cannot. and then if that's part of the sign that some of us know about. so now look at all the times that i click this and panic. so assume that this is an on premises signed no first amendment problem that can be changed or modifie but now as you see on the slide the owner that texas keep your laws off my bod that cannot be modified in any off premises under the statute. the owner of franklins for vickwas a strong believer of the counity of meat smokers they run out of barbecue quickly that says sorry i'm out of barbecue.se that is an off premises sign which does not advertise or service at that location. that sign can go up. and now the anything about texas barbecue now let's say they put up a sign that also says be saved. so that seems to be an off premises sign because they have a gospel brunch on s

advance your agenda, if you are hoping to use the supreme court, you have to back the supreme justice department. this is an appointment that is close to him. i'm talking about tom clark. can you talk a little bit about how he comes to head the justice department? >> yes, yes i can. i don't want to leave you hanging on your previous analogy. it is regarding the past president. i don't want you to get left out there on your own on that comparison. that is something i spent a better part of four years thinking about. there were many americans who simply believe that harry truman was on not up to the job. he simply was not spartan for the job. there's a certain type of person who should be president of the united states. that person, especially after electing franklin roosevelt for terms as president, america had a certain pedigree. you have herbert hoover. they threw him out. nobody doubted the man's intelligence. you have harry truman who is using curse words in press conferences. women were pulling their children away. kids were kicking and screaming we. have to leave now, the preside

the very first supreme court case. i talk about this in the book after the passage of the reconstruction amendment, we're called the slaughterhouse cases. it was white people, white people arguing for their rights under the 13th and 14th amendments because they had been they were like literally slaughterhouse workers. and the government granted a monopoly to some rich white guy slaughterhouse. and the poor white guys were like, that seems like indentured servitude. that seems like a lack of equal protection. and look, supreme court was like, shut up. so right there out of the gate for white people, they would not think expansively about what these amendments could do. and that's the that's the constant struggle that we have in this country. the best law the best amendment, the best ideas at every point could be overturn it by five white people on the supreme court. excellent. so here's a question and we'll shift gears. anyone who knows me knows i'm a big fan of profanity, so i really like that. especially when strategi

and the supreme court. are the judges who are presiding over these cases exhibiting understanding of how immigration works, how border security deterrence work? and if not, what is the legal community doing to educate judges on this? i want to go to the litigators first on this. karen, if you want to start. karen: it's a great question and i will have to say it is a mixed bag. he comes off and on the feet of the litigation. the big change in terms of whether injunctions will be at issue on a temporary restraining order basis. here's a couple of examples of of what we see gets missed in the district court cases. it is hugely important because the district court is the factfinder. if the facts are not laid out then, the conditions are likely to be less valid. first what i see is -- that gets missed, it is horribly complex to understand the just -- statistics in categories of people, the potentially -- in the covid area when we've had this dual policy of remain in mexico, we have seen an incredible number of r

they held at a manner than the supreme court granted. new york city asked for an extension of time which was common supreme court cases and use the extension to modify the law partly given not all of the relief they had sought. and then as the merits briefing was going on five democratic u.s. senators sheldon whitehouse, maisie, richard blumenthal, richard durbin and kiersten jill or brent set the court a threat letter in the form of an amicus brief. they warn unless the supreme court dismissed the case as moot they would restructure the court. and for whatever reason six justices r applied. they complied and dismissed and of course thomas dissented a month later the court dismissed all ten pending second amendment decisions. justice barrett joined the court changed everything. and soon the court grant the petition for the national rifle and pistol association versus bruin bird under new york statutes and applicant for concealedal carry permit, his oy way to lawful to carry new york had to have a proper cause. many jurisdictions in your