tv The 11th Hour With Stephanie Ruhle MSNBC June 30, 2022 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
the senate to the supreme court back in april, we were joined by her harvard college roommates who created an enduring sisterhood in college. lisa fairfax, lisa fairfax antoinette coakley and nina simmons, along with ketanji brown jackson. as a roommate group. that sisterhood was back in washington again at the supreme court as judge jackson officially became justice jackson. and they shared some photos with us, including one of justice jackson's official picture, which already hangs on the wall inside the supreme court. to see our full interview with the ketanji brown jackson roommate sisterhood, the harvard roommate sisterhood, go to the last word on twitter, find a link to the video there. that is tonight's last word. the 11th hour with stephanie ruhle starts now. ♪ ♪ ♪ tonight, disturbing new questions about possible
witness pressure in the january 6th investigation. plus, the supreme court closes out its term with more key decisions, and makes history with justice jackson's swearing in. and promises a new legal debate over states'influence over elections. nearly one week since the reversal of roe v. wade, the president endorses and into the filibuster to codify abortion rights, as legal pressure mounts across the country, as the 11th hour gets underway on this thursday night. >> good evening, i am alicia menendez, in for stephanie ruhle. there are new developments tonight, in the ongoing investigation for january 6th. the new york times reports that donald trump's political organization and allies have paid for or promise to cover legal fees for more than a dozen witnesses, raising questions about whether the former president may be trying to influence their testimony. the times points out, there is nothing illegal about a third
party covering the legal fees for a witness. it says, the issue came under increased scrutiny following the testimony of former trump white house aide cassidy hutchinson, she recently fired a lawyer recommended to her by one of trump's former aides. he was paid for by his political action committee. hutchinson hired her new lawyer before her last interview with the committee. at the end of tuesday's hearing, the committee vice chair liz cheney suggested the possibility of witness tampering. >> this is a call received by one of our witnesses. quote, a person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. he wants me to let you know that he is thinking about you. he knows you are loyal, and you are going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition. i think most americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully, presents very serious concerns.
>> and today, she told abc news federal prosecutors may be paying close attention. >> the way that i would put it is, it gives us a real insight into how people around the former president are operating in to the extent to which they believe that they can affect the testimony of witnesses before the committee. it's something we take very seriously. and it's something that people should be aware of. it's a very serious issue, and i wouldn't imagine the department of justice would be very interested in it and we take very seriously as well. >> the jan six committee has laid out, in stunning detail, the brazen steps taken to keep joe biden out of the white house, and stop the peaceful transfer of power. this morning, the supreme court said it had agreed to hear a case based on arguments trump allies tried to use to do just that. the case will decide whether legislatures, and not state courts, have final authority to
decide how elections for federal candidates are conducted. the courts next term begins in october, so the court's decision could have huge implications for the 2024 election. before they dropped that announcement, the justices closed out this term with another controversial ruling, the decision essentially gets the epa's ability to cut greenhouse gas emissions. environmental experts warn it is a significant blow to the battle against climate change. the whiteouse called today's decision, devastating. the courts conservatives are now making a plane they are in the majority. the rulings have expanded gun owners rights, strengthen the role of religion in public life, and overturned roe v. wade, moving federal protection for abortion rights. today, as president biden wrapped up a nato summit in spain, he spoke out in support of a limited change to the filibuster. >> the one thing that has been destabilizing, is the
outrageous behavior of the supreme court of the united states, on overruling not only roe v. wade, but essentially challenging the right to privacy. we have to codify roe v. wade into law, and the way to do that is to make sure the congress was to do that. if the filibuster gets in the way, we should pry provide an exception to this. >> tomorrow, biden will meet virtually with seven democratic governors, to discuss ways to protect abortion access. the president did have two reasons to celebrate today, the supreme court did side with his administration's effort, ike and a controversial trump era emigration program, the biden nominee ketanji brown jackson was sworn in as associate justice today. she is now the first african american woman to sit on the court. we'll have more on that historic moment, later in the hour. with that let's get smarter with the help of our lead off
panel, former u.s. attorney joyce vance, who spent 25 years as a federal prosecutor. she is a professor at the university of alabama school of law, and co-host of the -- neal katyal, department of justice editor, and acting director during the obama administration, has argued dozens of cases before the u. s. supreme court. and politico's white house correspondent eugene daniels. neal, this is what zoe lofgren said on this network about money being used to pay witnesses, take a listen. >> we know that large amounts of money have been spent out of the fund that was amassed by the former president, and is being used to pay for lawyers, to various witnesses. the potential for coercion in that case is very obvious. >> the potential for coercion. what does the committee, neal, need, to prove coercion, and do they already have that? >> i'll be very quick, because
i think joyce will be better on this and me, the one thing i'll say is it's not illegal to pay someone's legal expenses. corporations do it all the time. but, so too does the mob. and, the question is, is this -- is this kind of money being used the way the mob, does in order to induce assortment of story and cooperation between trump and these witnesses? or is it being done for legitimate reasons. if there's someone who was a goody two shoes, will be one thing. it was donald trump, who we all know colors outside of any sort of boundaries of the law. so, it does look very suspicious, and i'm glad to see that liz cheney says she is looking at it, and expects the justice department to be looking at it too. >> joyce, i love whenever a excellent guest suggests that another gas would be even better answering a question then they would. your thoughts. >> well, neal, it was always who i had to take my cases to for approval at the doj, let's see if he improves here. well, i think the right line to
draw is this. the funding issue is interesting. it has a lot to do with the ethical obligations that lawyers have to their clients. but, when we are talking about witness intimidation, any effort, it doesn't have to be successful, it can be an attempt to hinder, or to delay, to prevent a witness from testifying truthfully, that falls within the statute that reaches very broadly, and gives prosecutors the ability to indict folks who engage in witness tampering. and the reason that this law is so important, i think, is pretty self evident. it's because our entire criminal justice system, is based on prosecutors ability to get to the truth, to find out the truth is and prosecute wrongdoers. if you have someone who is engaged in wrongdoing, but who is keeping evidence of it out of the hands of prosecutors, you've got to treat that very significantly, very strenuously. you know, we like to always say, i think, in the wake of watergate, that it is the cover-up.
you know, it's always the cover-up that gets people in trouble. witness tampering is the cover-up. so, if that evidence comes to light, and look for the doj to look and go after it pretty hard. >> let me ask you another question about this choice, we heard from another white house aide who is friends with kathy cassidy hutchinson, let's take a listen. >> trump world was this 90 lawyers to a lot of these staffers, who themselves don't -- >> assigning lawyers? >> i should, say covering the cost of lawyers for people who don't have big legal defense funds to themselves -- >> they were pain cassidy hutchinson's lawyer? >> it's my understanding, but she had someone, stephen ponsetto who had been in the white house counsel's office who is still aligned with trump world. that former aide said that hutchison's lawyer, could be argument be made that the trump lawyer was trying to contain hutchinson's testimony?
>> it depends on what the facts, are here. it is not uncommon to see a third person paying for someone 's criminal defense. we see it all the time, neil points of mob cases. also in drug trafficking cases in the drug cartel trafficking cases, it's not unusual to see that sort of situation come up. it's technically acceptable, so long as the lawyer is representing his client and not the person who is paying him and that is where we have this, i don't think it's a bright-line distinction, but it's possible that you can have a lawyer who can cross over that line so far that he wouldn't just be failing to vigorously represent his client, to zealously represent his client. you might also find himself caught up in some form of a conspiracy to intimidate the witness -- we won't know that until we know more about the facts. >> apologize there, joyce. eugene, i don't need to tell you, president biden has so far been silent on the committee's activities. nbc reports, that he intends to give a speech was the
investigation is over. he will quote, emphasize what biden believes is at stake, should former president donald trump or his allies return to power in washington, drawn revelations from the committee 's investigation, to make a vivid case against voting for republican candidates in november. is the scene, eugene, as a shift in strategy, as to how the current president responds to all of this? >> i think from the very beginning what they wanted to do was that the committee kind of do its work. they didn't want to -- and we reported this at politico. they didn't want president biden to be out front, talking about what was happening every single day. you weren't gonna see tweets from his account, you are not gonna see him on tiktok talking about that, that wasn't going to be their strategy. you weren't going to see aides in the background giving a sense of how the white house is doing that. because one of the reasons that we are in this position having
this committee is because of how donald trump used -- and also the justice department. so, there is an investigation happening right now behind the scenes with biden's justice department. he doesn't want to be in anyway seen as putting his thumb on the scale, this won't be seen as a strict change in strategy, he's gonna be careful, here and i don't think people should expect them to go out, and for every single big moment that we've seen in these committee hearings, going through every single one of those. he has constantly talked about what happened on january 6th as a dark day for democracy, and how he sees donald trump and his allies as dangerous for democracy. that sounds in line with what we are going to see if we see him after the january six committee. you aren't going to see him tell merrick garland in front of the american people to go get them in arrest them, because he doesn't want to be seen -- and doesn't want to tell merrick garland at the
department of justice what to do, no matter how much pressure the left has been putting on merrick garland, where's been putting on joe biden to put on merrick garland. so folks who are getting, i think, kind of excited about seeing donald trump -- seen joe biden really take donald trump to task because of january 6th, and the revelations. on the aspects where there is possible culpability for donald trump, some of his allies, i think this white house is gonna continue to steer clear from there. >> neal, speaking of dangerous to democracy, the court has decided to take up this issue of state legislatures -- hard to overstate when radical step this would be. given the many swing state legislatures are gerrymandered in ways that self perpetuate gop control. would decimate checks and balances. i wonder, neal, when you think about the court's decision to take the case. >> this case is the north carolina redistricting case, it's my case actually, so i'm
going to be pretty silent on this. except to say that i am very worried about the u.s. supreme court at this point. it's my lifeblood, i have argued there are 45, times i love the court and revere the court but this particular composition of the court is the most conservative extreme court in our lifetimes. it's one of the three most records ever, only 1857 and 1935 come close. and you know what's happened after both of those your years. i'm optimistic after this case, because i think the history is so much on our side. i think about what happened today with a greenhouse gas emissions case, what happened last week with abortion and with guns, what has happened for months about the religion cases. this is a case a court that is out of step with the mainstream of american society right now, and intrenching a certain view of the law in politics into our
united states report. it is a worrisome trend. >> joyce, for years a republicans have accused democrats of trying to appoint activist judges, and critics arguing that that is what they are witnessing from these six conservative justices, your thoughts. i got it >> if what we have seen this turn is not judicial activism, i don't know what is. this is a court that has use textualism in so many cases, claiming that they have to find the founding fathers intent and using that to do absolutely insane things, like permit people to have ar-15s in public in this country, in the midst of a wave of gun violence. by the same token, when textualism does not serve this court, they don't feel constrained by princip. so, we see the decision we saw today in the epa case, we where they use something called the major questions doctrine, very
rarely used, to say that congress hadn't given the epa sufficient authority, hadn't been explicit enough in that grant of authority, to permit the epa to take important steps to slow the advance of climate change. and it's amazing when you think that we have seen that same doctrine, very rarely used at our nation's history, used a couple of times by this court, in one case, to end the nationwide ban on evictions during the pandemic. and another to keep joe biden from requiring vaccination at large companies. so this is a court that's been very facile about how it's used doctrine. it's not a good look. it's very disheartening to people like neil and like me, we love the court and love the law, because we understand that at the core of the courts authority is its integrity. it doesn't have an army to go out and enforce its orders. it's orders and the rule of law work in this country because we have confidence in them. the chief justice will have his work cut out over the summer
recess, to try to return the court to some sort of moral center. >> right, and while -- no, please, jump in neal. >> i was going to jump in, because joyce is actually absolutely right. the way this court has acted today, basically ending a lot of greenhouse gas regulation, was to say this major questions doctrine applied. the idea, they said, was that congress had to specifically give the epa authority to regulate in this area. and i guess calling it the environmental protection agency left some ambiguity as to with the agency was designed to protect. and justice kagan, i thought, in her dissent today, was absolutely spot on when she said, well, i've guess i've been a little hasty in concluding we are all textualists now. because when it came to the text, and authorization of the environmental protection agency, the conservatives on the court just blew past it. that's what i think is so worrying here. it looks like an abandonment of
principle for results of [inaudible] jurisprudence and i think joyce's right to call this as activists the court as we've seen in our lifetimes. >> eugene daniels, joyce vance, neal katyal, think you also much for getting us started. coming up, a rare win for the biden administration, from the supreme court. we are going to ask senator alex padilla if the ruling on remain-in-mexico is truly a victory. and later, one week after the historic rollback of roe v. wade, an update on where women health care stands as of tonight. the 11th hour just getting underway on a thursday night. sday night
millions have made the switch from the big three to xfinity mobile. that means millions are saving hundreds a year on their wireless bill. and all of those millions are on the nation's most reliable 5g network, with the carrier rated #1 in customer satisfaction. that's a whole lot of happy campers out there. and it's never too late to join them. get unlimited data with 5g included for just $30 a line per month when you get 4 lines. it does not happen often these
days, but the biden administration today welcomed a small victory from the supreme court. in a 5 to 4 decision, the justices ruled the administration may end the former presidents so called remain-in-mexico policy. the policy, formally known as the migrant protection protocols, mpp, requires asylum seekers to wait in mexico while claims are decided. as the new york times points out, after the policy went into effect in 2019, tens of thousands of people waited in unsanitary tent encampments for immigration hearings. there have been widespread reports of sexual assault, kidnapping and torture. tonight, the department of homeland security issued a statement saying it would terminate the program as soon as legally permissible.
i'm pleased to welcome the junior senator from california, alex padilla. senator, an immigration attorney told the texas tribune the biden administration can immediately stop enforcing the program. but the supreme court's ruling leaves the door open for texas and other states to continue pressing to force the administration to continue the program. senator, do you believe the administration is prepared to stop and rolling new migrants and begin the wind down of those who do still remain stuck in mexico? >> i do believe so. and i think they have said as much. you referenced the department's statement today, that they would end the program, as soon as legally feasible, which should be much sooner rather than later. alicia, it's good to be back with you. and i think the way you described today's ruling is right on. there is that saying hope for the best, prepare for the worst. this may be a small win, but it's a win nonetheless with so much more work to do. let's terminate the
remain-in-mexico program. title 42 should be next. there's many trump era immigration policies that need to be undone. so let's go about this in the executive branch, both under a the biden administration and in congress, to modernize our immigration laws, because it's our broken immigration system that is leading to the tragedies that we see at the border, that we saw in san antonio and so many others. >> let's talk about what we saw in san antonio, senator. more than 50 migrants found dead in a sweltering tractor trailer. today, four migrants were killed in texas as authorities chased alleged human smugglers. the washington post editorial board writes, quote, the absence of any workable legal systems that would admit migrant systematically numbers that would meet the u.s. labor market demand is the original sin of the chaos at the border. that is, congress's bipartisan failure, a symptom of systemic paralysis for many years. senator, what is being done
right now to prevent these deaths and fix the system? >> look, alicia, as you know immigration reform has been one of my top priority since i came into this senate a year and a half ago. i can't tell you how many hours i put into bipartisan negotiations last. year. year one on one republican conversations with my republican colleagues. the time i put with the parliamentarian of the senate, moving the reconciliation progress process that was unsuccessful. we have been pushing the white house to do more. i guess, good news is talks have reopened tween democrats d republican but whether it is the tenth anniversary of daca and the ongoing limbo that dreamers live in, this tragedy in san antonio and others are reminders of how broken the immigration system is and the urgent need for us to finally act. the reason you have these tragedies is because the lawful migration pathways just aren't there. 's not worki
and so for all my republican colleagues who beat their chest and scream from the mountain tops about, quote unquote, illegal immigration or irregular migration -- well, the way to fix it is to fix the legal migration pathways. and don't just take our words for it. we are talking about the economy each and every day. each business leader, every economist, is telling us that the labor shortage in america is leading to higher prices. we need immigrant labor and the jobs that americans just won't do. >> senator, pivoting back to the court, today was a rare victory for the white house when it comes to the supreme court. there are many democrats demanding significant reform to the court. where do you stand on that? >> look, just look at what the supreme court has done this session and in recent years. this supreme court has decimated voting rights. if you look back to 2013, with this session alone, to undo the protections of roe v. wade, which stood for nearly 50 years,
to make it harder for state and local governments to improve gun safety in their communities. and just today -- i represent california, on the front lines of the climate crisis, for this extreme conservative supreme court to tie the hands of agencies that are charged with protecting our environments, i think, sets a bad tone and message for a lot of other policy areas. so, reform is absolutely needed. on the supreme court. it's also a reminder for congress to do its job. when the supreme court starts undoing established policy, then we need to act to embed those rights, starting with roe v. wade, into federal law. and it should be a wake up call and an alarm going off when justices who are coming through for confirmation said one thing, but once you are on the bench are saying and doing another -- america deserves better. >> let me ask you, senator, because i've heard you talk about more accountability,
ethics from supreme court justices. what exactly can congress do about that? how can they achieve that? >> again, those conversations are happening in realtime, in the hopes that in the weeks ahead there may be measures coming through. as a member of the judiciary committee, trust me, people are pretty livid at not just the rulings and policy outcomes but the rationale that these extremist supreme court justices used to justify their decisions. in the prior panel, you had a conversation about the case that came out today. the policy areas -- it's not just environmental protection that is jeopardized and undermined, it's a whole lot of other issues. the rationale the supreme court used to undo roe v. wade, in the near term, if you listen to clarence thomas's opinion, he is calling on other litigation to undo access to contraception, to undo marriage equality and so much more. so yes, we need to buttress the
confirmation process, pass ethics reforms, because there's conflicts of interest at the supreme court today. and again, america deserves better. >> senator alex padilla, thank you so much for being with us. coming, up there are signs the revelations of the january 6th investigation are beginning to leave a mark. the fact checks in some of the political fallout, when the 11th hour continues. m. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month.
i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information. well, the january 6th committee
has unearthed new developments. -- 2024 run by donald trump is dwindling. an attorney and longtime gop fund-raiser said, quote, donors are very concerned that trump is the one republican who can lose in 2024. joining us for more, juanita tolliver, veteran political, strategist of progressive candidates and cause of cases. and david jolly, a former member of the u.s. house of representatives. he's also an msnbc political contributor, how bad is that for donald trump? >> look, the reality is in republican primary politics, the big donors don't decide those elections, the voters do. we know with donald trump, and frankly most republican politicians is, days there is
plenty of money to go around to get donald trump the nomination again. so, is it helpful that the john -- didn't know at the beginning that we know, now is that the j 6th committee really isolated donald trump as the singular actor in this grievance that was cast upon american culture in american history. but, doesn't mean he can't win the gun khamenei should again? no. it absolutely doesn't. >> juanita, your thoughts? >> i couldn't agree with david moore on this point, that it focuses on the voters, who continue to be under trump's sway. rejecting truth, rejecting, logic rejecting all of that, even through these moments that we have here in these hearings, where we know republicans have told poll after poll that they are not paying attention to. i also think about the fact that, even though these gop donors and leaders are looking at this and a less complicated option they to have been with trump, in what we can describe as a prelude of other scandals before this attempted coup.
think about the sexual assault allegations, think about the lies, think about the bribes to zelenskyy. thing with the two impeachment trials. there's still been with trump, and now things change. i'm not biden, and i don't think i'm being cynical. it's just been realistic about the fact that republican voters are still electing trump replicas across the country as we speak, and that is the way to be able to carry forward, especially if he's able to carry through on the big threat that republicans mccarthy took on him in trying to get republicans the house in the senate. porter is by the end of the year, given to the desantis campaign free of charge.
we talk about the mechanics of that, the morality of that. talk to me about what team desantis, desantis world is thinking? what do they think needs to happen between now and 2024 to set them up? >> yes, alicia, arguably, ron desantis has the hottest hand in the country right now politically, among republicans or democrats. certainly, if donald trump does not, run it's almost a coronation for desantis in the republican primary. it's desantis, and everyone is. wake here's what to watch for, he's looking for reelection in november, he can't personally indicate if he's seeking the presidency in 2024. when you are reporting on from axios, is what is out there is a committee to recruit rhonda santos. coming off of the november reelection, should he be elected, you will see the -- begin the trial balloon that ron desantis should run for president. notably, ron desantis has
distanced himself from donald trump, and the dance has officially begun. yesterday, donald trump said maybe desantis would be his running mate. ron desantis in november, definitely wants to win reelection by more than 3. 4 percentage points. the reason why? is because that's how much donald trump won florida by. we understand his was to be able to say that i am the stronger candidate in 24, look at me, but he's going to rely on his proxies to get that message out. >> here's the thing, juanita, you have liz cheney read repeatedly urging republicans to break away from republicans. on stage night in her primary debate, she said that she would never violated her oath of office. if voters want someone who, will they need to vote for someone else on that stage. i want to know both if you think any will follow her lead, and sort of where the line is for desantis on, as i like to put it, having his trump and eating it to. >> look, as far as liz cheney, goes my fear is that a lot of
voters in the audience will take her up on it and vote for somebody else. we know that she's been saying this for a while now. she's been saying, it remember when mccarthy penalized her for saying it by removing her from a public and leadership. i appreciate that she is standing firm on, this and i appreciate that she's working to get to the truth of january 6th. it's just that republican primary voters might not appreciate it as much as me, in terms of desantis, i think we need to remember that he modeled his entire career off of trump. think back to that 2018 campaign ads series where he is playing with the blocks, building the wall, like it's all about how coast to trump can i get but maintain that scandal free zone. and that is what's desantis has been doing. it's something that is going to appeal to republican voters who are sick of trump, because we remember in that 2020 election cycle, it was all about getting rid of trump to the point where we have republican switching
parties. ap reported that 1 million voters have now re-registered with the republican party, and so they're probably looking for that substitute. they're probably looking for that alternative, and it could come in the form of desantis. >> juanita tolliver, david jolly, thank you both so much for staying up late with me. coming up, confusion around the country, nearly a week after the supreme court overturned roe v. wade, we will have the latest on a state-by-state legal battle when the 11th hour continues.
nearly one week since the reversal of roe v. wade, there is confusion across much of the nation. some states have immediately moved to ban or restrict abortion. judges are creating a wall of resistance against these law, in states like florida, kentucky, utah, and texas, bans or restrictions have been temporarily blocked. for some anti-abortion groups abortion bans are only the beginning. the washington post reports several national anti-abortion groups and their allies in republican-led state legislatures are advancing plans to stop people and states where abortion is banned from seeking the procedure elsewhere. we welcome york magazine senior correspondent irin carmon, she is also the coauthor of the book notorious rbg: the life and times of ruth bader ginsburg. irin, there is so much confusion. that confusion is by design. how should ople navigate all of this fa-moving ne?
>> you know, alicia, i can't believe it hasn't even been a week since roe v. wade has been overturned. i also can't believe i still can't believe i am saying those words, even though i've been seeing them for a week. it's surreal. and even though we've had more advanced notice than we have had might normally have, because of the leak, it's absolutely the case there is complete confusion across the country. and that's because, despite the fact the supreme court said, hey guys, we are leaving it to the states, let everyone figure it out for themselves, we don't live in 50 separate countries. people travel routinely between states. and even within states, as you can see from these different injunctions, from state courts, there is a question of, okay, if the federal government opened the door to the state to ban abortion, what about the state constitution? what about how state courts interpret the constitution? in kansas, they are bringing it up to a referendum, whether the state constitution guarantees a right to privacy.
i would say that the most chilling thing which was -- i actually recorded on this before the final opinion came out, is what you alluded to in terms of states trying to prosecute abortion seekers and anyone who helps them across their borders. brett kavanaugh in his concurrence wrote that this shouldn't happen, that there is a right to travel. but all that matters is what actually happens when a court but it's on this, what's actually happens when a prosecutor tries to chase someone down for providing information. we have seen lawmakers in states across the country not satisfied with making abortion illegal, or almost impossible to access within the borders of their state, but also trying to hunt down patients who are seeking abortion outside their state. and as a result, even in states that don't have these kinds of restrictions, there's a lot of fear. i saw a memo today from planned parenthood of montana saying that if folks are coming from
banned states like south dakota, not to give them medication abortions. the multiple pill regimen, but to only schedule them for surgical abortions that can be completed on the day of, because of a fear of what is going to happen to those individuals when they go home. so you are right that it is by design. but the design is leading into a direction that is trying to trap pregnant people within the borders of their state and force them to remain pregnant, shutting off any options to go to states that are more open to them exercising their reproductive freedom. i think the fear here is the point. >> and that fear extends to abortion funds. we have seen a number of abortion funds saying we are going to put a pause on our efforts until we can get clear legal guidance on the risk and jeopardy we are putting ourselves and our employees into. can you give us a sense -- and i understand it is almost on noble, iran, but timeline -- we talk about the state by state legal battles. how long does it take those to play out? >> part of the problem is these
injunctions that are being handed out at the state level -- handed down at the state level -- they are temporary. and there's going to be litigation that follows. and we are talking about, even in the case of texas, where the abortion funds have said that they have to pause, you are talking about a bunch of different laws that are in place, the pre-roe abortion bans that still might be on the books. there are the so-called trigger laws that have been passed already. i reported on litigation that the author of sb8, the six-week ban in texas, brought against abortion funds for helping people during an injection -- the six-week ban there -- so, they already had kind of debuted this playbook of harassing and going after in court abortion funds for just doing their job. and the abortion funds countersued and said we have a first amendment right. donating money has been found to be an exercise of the first amendment by the supreme court. there's a long jurisprudence about it, giving people information about where to go should be protected by the first amendment. but i just sat saw in south
carolina that a bill was introduced to not have information on the website about where to access abortion. the should be open shot first amendment constitutional cases. but you can completely understand how cash strapped grassroots funds that don't want to put their volunteers, their employees or patients at risk are holding off to try and understand. some of this really couldn't have been anticipated before because they are waiting for signals from states attorney general and district attorneys about how they are going to interpret these laws, and which laws they are going to interpret. but i certainly think it's -- when we did our how to get an abortion cover story in new york magazine, i wrote the introduction. and i said, as of now, the first amendment protects sharing information on and abortion. and i put in as of now on purpose. because it really only matters what a court will sign off on. it should be opened and shut, that giving someone safe legal
information about here is where a clinic is open should be protected by the constitution. but we are in a very new territory here and i think that they are showing that this is not enough for them to leave it to the states. if they cannot get a nationwide ban under the current congress, they are certainly going to try to keep their residents from leaving for an abortion procedure. >> as of now, really have those words had such meeting meaning. irin carmon, thank you. coming up, a look at the history making day for the supreme court that has taken 232 years when the 11th hour continues.
united states. [applause] but we've made it. [applause] >> the last thing before we go tonight, a supreme moment. as we mentioned, ketanji brown jackson was sworn in as an associate justice of the supreme court today. the first black woman to serve on the supreme court. despite her extensive experience, this day was never guaranteed for jackson. as the new york times reminds us, justice jackson and counter deep resistance among republicans on capitol hill to her nomination. her confirmation hearings devolved into a bitterly partisan debate, with republicans on the senate judiciary committee -- attacked her as a liberal partisan with a questionable record. in the end, with vice president harris presiding, the senate voted 53 to 47 to confirm her nomination. --
it was an emotional moment she celebrated with president biden, who made it his campaign promise to nominate a black woman to the supreme court, which brings us to today. an 83 year old justice stephen breyer officially retired, after serving 28 years on the court. he had this today of his replacement. quote, i am glad today for ketanji. her hard work, integrity and intelligence have earned her a place on this court. i'm glad for my fellow justices. they gain a colleague who is empathetic, thoughtful and collegial. i'm glad for america. kentucky will interpret the law wisely and fairly, helping that law to work better for the american people whom it serves. congratulations, justice ketanji brown jackson. let's take a moment to watch some of today's historic swearing in ceremony. >> welcome to the supreme court. we are here today to administer the oath of office to judge ketanji brown jackson, to become an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states.
i ketanji brown jackson do solemnly swear -- >> i ketanji brown jackson do solemnly swear -- >> that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. >> that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. >> and that i will faithfully and impartially -- >> and that i will faithfully and impartially -- >> discharge and perform -- >> discharge and perform -- >> all the duties -- >> all the duties -- >> incumbent upon me -- >> incumbent upon -- me >> as an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. -- >> as a supreme associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. >> under the constitution -- >> under the constitution -- >> and laws of the united states -- >> and laws of the united states -- >> so help me god. >> so help me god. >> all of the members of the court, i am pleased to welcome justice jackson to the court and to our common calling.
[applause] >> congratulations justice jackson, children in america have a new justice to look up to. and on that note, i wish you a good night from all our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thank you for staying up late, i will see you at the end of tomorrow. >> tonight on all in -- >> this moment in our history demands more. republicans cannot both be loyal to donald trump and loyal to the constitution. >> a clarion call to confront donald trump's danger to democracy, as the high court issues another set of decisions that tear apart representative governance. tonight, the desperate need for action on both fronts, with congressman jamie raskin. plus, new details of alleged intimidation of witnesses and documentary filmmaker alex holder on what he saw before january 6th, and the threats he faces for cooperating with the committee. all that and stacey abrams on the fight to preserve abortion