SUPREME COURT DECISION GRANTING MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

>> ERIC: AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IS WHERE WE START TONIGHT.

IT'S BEEN ANOTHER BUSY WEEK IN WASHINGTON, BEGINNING WITH LAST SATURDAY'S ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE U.S. MILITARY STRUCK THREE NUCLEAR SITES IN IRAN.

AND THE WEEK ENDED WITH A FLURRY OF U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON FRIDAY.

DAVID SCHULTZ TEACHES POLITICAL SCIENCE AT HAMLINE UNIVERSITY AND IS ALSO AN ADJUNCT LAW PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS.

WELCOME BACK.

6-3 DECISION FROM THE SUPREME COURT.

LIMITING THE ABILITY OF LOWER COURT JUDGES TO ISSUE LIKE A NATIONWIDE PROHIBITION ON WHATEVER THE ISSUE IS.

>> YES.

OKAY, SO THE COURT AVOIDED WHAT MOST PEOPLE THOUGHT WAS GOING TO BE THE MAJOR QUESTION.

THE MAJOR QUESTION WAS, CAN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER BY THE PRESIDENT BASICALLY OVERTURN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP?

THE COURTS SAID, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION.

THE QUESTION THEY ADDRESSED, INSTEAD, WAS WHETHER OR NOT, AS YOU SAID, LOWER COURT JUDGES, FEDERAL JUDGES, COULD BASICALLY ISSUE AN INJUNCTION OR PREVENT THE PRESIDENT FROM GOING FORWARD, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO -- ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AS OPPOSED TO ONE CASE AT A TIME.

AND THE COURT SAID, NEITHER THE CONSTITUTION NOR THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 ALLOWS THAT.

NOW, HOW DO WE ALL INTERPRET THIS?

IT'S A WIN FOR THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

BECAUSE WHAT IT NOW MEANS IS THAT HE CAN PROCEED, OR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CAN PROCEED, TO STILL TRY TO EXPEL OR DEPORT PEOPLE, AND EACH PERSON FACING DEPORTATION IS GOING TO HAVE TO CHALLENGE OR BRING THE CASE THEMSELVES.

SO, IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED CASE, ISSUE OUT THERE, BUT, MOST OF US ARE SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT GETS A WIN BECAUSE THE COURT BASICALLY AVOIDED DIRECTLY CONFRONTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> Cathy: AND, SO, AS YOU SAY, THOSE AFFECTED WOULD HAVE TO DIRECTLY BRING A CASE.

THEY CAN'T DO THAT, I MEAN, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT.

>> IT'S VERY DIFFICULT.

IMMIGRATION COURTS ARE REALLY STACKED AGAINST PEOPLE TO START WITH.

ADDITIONALLY, A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE DIFFICULTY GETTING ATTORNEYS, AND I THINK THE OTHER REPERCUSSION FROM THIS IS GOING TO BE IS THAT IT'S GOING TO ABSOLUTELY CLOG THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION COURTS BECAUSE I'VE SEEN SOME ESTIMATES, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT NUMBER IS, 200 TO TO 300,000 PEOPLE A YEAR ARE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS DECISION.

OUR IMMIGRATION AND OUR FEDERAL COURTS CAN'T HANDLE THAT MANY CASES.

>> Eric: BUT THE RULING MEANS THAT THE PRESIDENT, SOME OF HIS ORDERS ARE BACK IN PLAY, RIGHT?

>> THEY ARE BACK IN PLAY AT THIS POINT ALSO.

AND THAT'S THE OTHER THING, BECAUSE THE COURT WASN'T CLEAR IN TERMS OF HOW BROAD THE RULING OR -- I THINK AT ONE POINT IT SAID INJUNCTIONS CAN ONLY GO, BE AS BROAD AS NECESSARY.

THOSE ARE NOT VERY CLEAR WORDS.

SO ON A WHOLE BUNCH OF ISSUES, NOT JUST IN TERMS OF IMMIGRATION AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE IS PROBABLY A LOT OF LITIGATION GOING ON BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WHERE ALL THE FIGHTS ARE GOING ON IS REGARDING EXECUTIVE ORDERS, THEY'RE REGARDING THE SCOPE OF HOW FAR THE PRESIDENT CAN GO IN TERMS OF FILL IN THE BLANK, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

THIS IS NOW GOING TO BASICALLY MAKE IT CASE-BY-CASE SITUATION HERE.

>> Cathy: EXPLAIN, IF YOU WOULD, THE LGBTQ BOOK DECISION, WHERE PARENTS, IF THEY'RE DISPLEASED, THE BOOKS DEALING WITH LGBTQ INDIVIDUALS OR ISSUES, THEY CAN PULL THEIR KID OUT OF THE SCHOOL, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THEY CAN PULL THEIR KID OUT OF THE SCHOOL OR JUST NOT HAVE THEIR CHILD READ THAT MATERIAL.

>> Cathy: SURE.

>> NOW, THIS IS NOT A CASE ABOUT, LET'S SAY, SCHOOL CENSURESHIP OF BOOKS, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY ENTIRELY.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, HERE, IF I'M A ARENT, I DO NOT LIKE THE IDEA THAT MY SON OR DAUGHTER IS GOING TO HAVE TO READ A PARTICULAR OOK, THE COURT IS SAYING, ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS, FREE EXERCISE GROUNDS, I CAN SAY, MY CHILD DOES NOT HAVE TO READ THAT BOOK, AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, MAYBE EQUALLY AS IMPORTANT THERE, IF THERE'S ANY TESTING MATERIALS OR ANY, LET'S SAY, CURRICULUM OF WHICH MY CHILD'S GOING TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR, Y CHILD CAN'T BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR.

AGAIN, STILL PHRASED ANOTHER WAY, IF MY CHILD DOESN'T READ PARTICULAR BOOK THERE, YOU CAN'T GRADE HIM ON NOT READING THAT BOOK OR PENALIZING.

>> Cathy: IT LOOKS LIKE THE PRESIDENT WON THREE OUT OF FOUR CASES.

THE CASE HE LOST, THOUGH, THAT WAS THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD CASE, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY DID VERY WELL.

I EAN, THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD CASE IS THE ONE REGARDING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND REGARDING PREVENTIVE HEALTHCARE.

>> Cathy: THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SO AT THIS POINT, YOU COULD STILL GET PREVENTIVE HEALTHCARE.

THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD ONE IS A DIFFERENT ONE.

>> Cathy: SORRY.

IT'S VERY CONFUSING.

>> IT IS EVEN FOR PEOPLE WHO TEACH IT.

BASICALLY IN THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD CASE, WHAT THE COURT SAID, PEOPLE ON MEDICAID, YOU CAN NO LONGER BRING WHAT'S CALLED A PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION IF MEDICAID SERVICES ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY PROVIDING THE SERVICES YOU WANT.

THIS POTENTIALLY SETS UP A SITUATION NOW WHERE STATES CAN DEFUND MEDICAID OR NOT ROVIDE PARTICULAR TYPES OF SERVICES, AND YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL CAN'T GO TO COURT TO SUE REGARDING IT.

>> Eric: IF YOU'VE GOT 30 SECONDS ON WHERE WE'RE HEADED IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

>> OULD -- WHERE WE'RE HEADED IN THE MIDDLE EAST AT THIS POINT, THE QUESTION IS, DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY IF HE WANTS TO OMB AGAIN?

IT'S NOT CLEAR HE HAD THAT AUTHORITY ORIGINALLY.

>> Eric: HE SAID TODAY HE'S WILLING TO.

>> HE'S WILLING TO AT THIS POINT.

IT'S NOT CLEAR -- LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY, THE WAR POWERS ACT, WHICH IS ONE WAY OF LIMITING PRESIDENTIAL POWER, REQUIRES HIM TO GET CONGRESSIONAL ASCENT.

CONGRESS HAS TO DECLARE WAR.

HE'S OPERATING IN THE ZONE THAT WE'VE BEEN AT FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS, IT'S OT CLEAR WHAT HE CAN DO.

>> Eric: WE'VE GOT YOU ON SPEED DIAL.

>> A LOT OF STUFF HERE TODAY.