you noted it is very surprising that neil gorsuch joined the majority. it is doubly surprising that he wrote the decision. what he said is, yeah, sure, same-sex discrimination and transgender status were clearly not on the minds of anybody in congress when they passed the civil rights act 56 years ago. he says, that doesn't matter. what matters is the cold words of the law on the page. he says discriminating against someone on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status are both forms of sex discrimination. so that's a very surprising outcome here. i think the reason the chief justice chose justice gorsuch to write this opinion, remember, it's the senior justice who is in the majority that assigns the opinion, so that would clearly be roberts. he could have written it himself, but i think one of the reasons he gave it to gorsuch

were you surprised by the vote of neil gorsuch because the breakdown is 6-3. you had the four liberal judges on the bench plus chief justice john roberts 'opponented by president bush, a socially conservative president and neil gorsuch appointed by president trump. >> it doesn't surprise me that justice gorsuch wrote this opinion. when he was nominated, i testified in favor of him. if i were president he's not the justice i would appoint, but he's a real judge. i think you see a decision like today underscoring it, it's not to say i agree with him on every case, but here you see what the craft of judging is all about, reviewing a statute, some words enacted by congress and interpreting them not with bias toward policy results you want to get at, but just the text of the statute and what those words actually mean to us as living breathi breathing persons today. i'm proud of justice gore sink reaching this decision. if you're an lgbt person, you don't have to rely on the vague law in one of 26 states where you could have been fired for saying i'm gay. not anymor

but, clearly, he decided to give it to neil gorsuch. i think that is a very interesting decision that he made. because it sort of reinforces this, if you will, to use this term used in legal circles, this textual approach to deciding cases. neil gorsuch has a long history here in the federal court of appeals in the tenth circuit out in the west, in colorado where he lived, as one of the sort of chief textualists among the conservative members of the judiciary. that's the basis on which he wrote the decision. he said, it's the text that counts, not what was in congress's mind when they passed the law. >> pete, unfortunately, you just missed our conversation with melissa on textualism. we spent three or four minutes. >> i'm late to the party. >> pete, thank you. melissa, thank you. jonathan capehart, always good to have you, as well. good to have you all. >>> we also want to talk about the huge protests we're seeing now in georgia. the protests come on the heels of the shooting death of rayshard brooks in atlanta. nbc news does not know w

conservative justice neil gorsuch wrote the decision. gorsuch writing, quote, congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee's sex when deciding to fire that employee. we do not hesitate to recognize unnecessary consequence of that choice. an employer who fires an individual merely of being gay or transgender defies the law. richard, let me start with you on the basics. how big a deal is this? >> well, jake, i think it's usually -- it's a usually consequential decision. i would say for 50 years the right not to be fired for being gay has been at the center of the gay rights movement, especially here in the united states. and, yet, this right has proved completely elusive until now. so it's really hard to overstate the importance of the decision today. >> and, jeffrey, was a 6-3 opinion written by neil gorsuch joined by chief justice roberts. roberts voted against the court's gay marriage decision in 2015. how do you make sense of that, and how significant is it, i think, that gorsuch and roberts

gorsuch or kavanaugh to green light it. if we wait on a state or national level, then we'll lose. >> brandon wolf, jennifer levi, thank you for your insights. we'll have more "a.m. joy" right after the break. stay with us. more "a.m. joy" rt after the break. stay with us when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection.

the 6-3 decision was written by justice neil gorsuch. >>> the food drug and administration has pulled its emergency use authorization to use the drug hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus patients. saying the drug carries too many risks. president trump of course promoted the drug as a treatment and says that he took it for two weeks as some sort of preventive measures. new worries about a second wave of coronavirus infections after newly two dozen states reported big spike in their number of cases. governor cuomo warnd that he could shut down new york city again as crowds like this formed in manhattan over the weekend. cities including nashville have temporarily paused their reopening plans. i'm joined by brian williams, in the interest of full disclosure had a few technical difficulties. hello there, friend. >> hello, we had to put the studio up on the lift and take a look at what was wrong with it and we fixed it about 60 seconds before air, so you and i have switched roles, another eventful weekend in our country. most of it bad. as nicolle mentioned, the city of atlanta experie

they lost. 6-3 landmark ruling written by justice neil gorsuch. president trumps first supreme court nominee. who was joined by the chief justice john roberts and the courts four liberal justices. the president calling it a powerful decision. >> they ruled and we live with the decision. that's what it's all about. we live with the decision of the supreme court. >> former president obama tweeting this tonight. today remind us progress might be slow or take decades. no matter what things might look like today, it is always possible. happy pride month, everybody. right on. happy pride month everybody. for years the president has used a tax on his opponents. opponents health, unfounded against them. remember the whole hillary clinton thing. she was on her death bed, not true. now questions are raised about the president's health. so take a look at this. he walks slowly. and cautiously down a ramp at west point on saturday. and needed two hands to steady a glass of water. remember that? president tweeting the ramp that i descended after my west point c

the man appointed by the president neil gorsuch. this was a 6-3 opinion. not only was it written by neil gorsuch, but it was also joined by chief justice john roberts, two conservatives joining with the liberal wing to say that discrimination against transgender and gay individuals is now against the law. believe it or not, before this ruling, it was in fact lawful for employers to fire or discriminate their workers on the basis of their sexual orientation or their transgender status. neil gorsuch setting for the a new rule as it pertains to the civil rights act of 1964 putting it this way, that an employer who fires an individual for being gay or transgender defies the law. neil gorsuch, a staunch conservative appointed by president trump, but it was during oral arguments that neil gorsuch indicated he was leaning this way to rule in favor of the gay and transgender community. he's a texturalists, looks at the actual laws that the congress has written, and in this law congress says you can not discriminate on the basies of sex. neil gores such said that y

neil gorsuch wrote that opinion. he didn't become a liberal overnight. there are five conservatives on the supreme court yet in two major cases within a week they rejected the position of the trump administration which is a pretty extraordinary thing, and it will be interesting to see how the president reacts to this one. >> it certainly will be. given the way that he's tweeted about and spoken about daca recipients and the way that president obama initiated the daca program in the past. >> that's right. the president has continuously put himself opposite of the daca program, whether it was in 2016 or also 2018. immigration was a huge political issue for the president. he really hammered it, the vilification of immigrants around 2016 and also was the separation of the children at the border and when i was in states like texas talking to voters ahead of those mid terms, they were former republicans who were very upset about the inhumane treatment of immigrants at the border so this is an issue, and then we saw a number of those -- those districts flip fro

>> and pete, you mentioned neil gorsuch. you had told us when we were preparing for this possibility today that he argued in the argument, you know, indicating that he might accept this argument, that these rights are covered by that statute. >> yeah, he said that, actually, more in the transgender argument, but he seemed to be among the conservatives the one that was distantly possible to maybe be peeled away to join the majority, and that's what he's done here. we'll have to see what the logic is as this -- this thing is -- i guess there are so many people on the supreme court website that the pages are loading very slowly, but at least we know what the bottom line is, kate. >> well, why don't we let you read that, pete? and i'll jump over to nbc's peter alexander at the white house, who is with us as well. peter, this is a landmark ruling. any reaction yet from the white house? >> reporter: no, kate. actually, we just reached out to the white house moments ago. we haven't heard from them yet. the president's been tweeting

that was very distinct to neil gorsuch and the way he wrote that opinion. now, granted the chief justice signed on, but i think the chief justice realized once there was a majority for this very important decision having to do with a statutory interpretation that he would be with it. he was not with the supreme court when it voted in 2015 to support a fundamental right to gay marriage, so the chief is going to come on when it appear a narrower ruling, something that's within the -- the limits of a statute as we have here, the requirements that the trump administration faced to actually do the daca recision properly. we had that. and i think going forward, john, in the next crucial weeks as the supreme court finishes what's been just a -- a very unparalleled term, unprecedented to time in american history, will probably see other surprises, but we'll have to take them one at a time and dissect them just as you're doing one at a time because the pattern, again, even though it involves smacking down the trump administration from going too far, does not involve

in termsms of e breakdowown come absolutely we b briefed thiss ce for r neil gorsuch. he w was o s swing vote. premised on the idea you look to the worords of the statute, noto the intentions of congress at the time a statute was enacted. we hopope that he would stick to his pririncipleles insteaead of reverse engineer an outcome based on politics, and he did that. ththe chief f joined. i am shocked butt t was ee right and d righteous decision. we were right on the law, and so were they. thehein terms of implications off this decicisio, just last week, the trump administration reversed h health protections for transgender peopople under the affordable ce acact. they announced this ironically in the fourth anniversary of the pulse massacre that claiaimed 49 , i gayn orlando, florida nightclub. your sense of how -- with this decision have any impact on t ts latestst movove of the trump administration? >>>> absolutely y it will have a huge impact. onone of the things to pointt ot is t the trump administrtration isissued a comprprehensive anti-trans regulation at 4:00 p.m.

neil gorsuch appointed by president trump, and the conservative wing. it was a 6-3 opinion which in ringing terms holds that the civil rights act of 1964 which was passed in the wake of john kennedy's assassination meant to address the race problem in this country, that the language, the text of that law encompasses lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in this country, protecting them from discrimination by their employers. it is hard to overstate the significance of this, especially since it is really a broadly based opinion. let me just read one line from justice neil gorsuch. once again appointed by president trump. there's the supreme court there. he says, only the written word is law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit that even though the drafters, the congress that voted on the president that signed that 1964 civil rights act may not have had gay and transgender and lesbian people in their mind. they wrote a law that embraces them, and today all americans are protected from discrimination at work by that law, and i want to go to

justice neil gorsuch, who was appointed by president trump, wrote the opinion for the majority, which ovrns ws in more than half of all states and extends workplace rights to millions of l.g.b.t.q. americans. there's a lot of news to get to tonight and our team of correspondents is standing by to cover it all. cbs's mark strassmann will lead off our coverage tonight from atlanta. mark? >> reporter: norah, what many in this community now want is accountability, justice. will the officer who shot rayshard brooks be charged, and will that charge be murder? i'ms twort confus a call about a man passed out in his car at a wendy's drive-thru. >> i had one drink. >> what kind of drink was it? >> a margarita. >> reporter: but brooks failed a field sobriety test. after roughly 40 minutes, the moment turned deadly. >> put your hands behind your back. hey, stop fighting! stop fighting! >> reporter: in the ground fighting, brooks wrestled away a taser and ran. officer garrett rolfe chased him. brooks running, fired the taser wildly. rolfe responded, three gunshots, killing brooks. the medical exam

one is all the things that neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh were put on the court to do, guns, abortion, immigration. and then there is all the other stuff that has churned up by the trump era. i think in a weird way, and we talked about this before, the fact that every time the justice department has lost on anything that donald trump has done, they run straight to the supreme court. they leapfrog over the intermediate courts. in some ways, i think the court is just exhausted carrying water both for the sort of deregulatory regime that they're all excited to do, all the conservatives, but also this other stuff that came up today. the the court is batting away a bunch of issues, particularly guns. the conservatives are furious they're not getting to. this we saw dissents today from clarence thomas say, my god, we haven't had a gun case since 2010. the court can't get down to dismantle the things they promised to dismantle. >> donald trump always said that his model supreme court justice was antonin scalia. someone must have told him to say that because how would he know. >> his fingerpr

president trump's appointee, justice neil gorsuch wrote the majority decision. i want to bring in fox news contributor, ken starr, former independent councilman white water investigation. sir, niles to see you again. >> thanks, bill. >> bill: you said you were surprised by. this tell us why and what it means. >> well, it's a great victory for the gay community but it was a great loss for the way courts interpret laws that congress passes. let's be clear we are talking about a statute that congress passed in 1964. important law title 7 prohibiting discrimination on employment on various grounds. what the court did yesterday was turn its back on 30 years of interpretation, including by the equal employment opportunity commission until very recent years. so it's a lotter day inspiration and justice alito in dissent used some of the strongest language he has used as a justice leave the result aside it makes a lot of people happy. what happened yesterday as he said preposterous that this was simply not the way the court should go about its business of interpreting la

the majority opinion writer neil gorsuch says here, yeah, i understand. this was not on the minds of congress 56 years ago when they were debating the civil rights act, but he said it doesn't matter what congress was thinking. what matters is what the law says. and he says when you fire someone because they're gay, that's sex discrimination, just as if you fire someone if they're transgender, because if it was -- the sexes reverpr reversed you wouldn't have fired. a victory for jared boss stalk, bosstock after his employer found out he was on a gay baseball team. he sued. sorry, doesn't protect you. today the supreme court said that's not right and reversed that decision. the three descenters wrote a blistering dissent. alito says preposterous not making legal decisions noting congress repeatedly debated whether to add explicit orientation and said it's imporp aimporp -- improper to do it. the other trump appointee joined dissenters. a splis amot among the trump appointees. and replacing anthony kennedy writing up a rulings or rights and neil gorsuch repl

you know, neil gorsuch didn't turn into a liberal overnight. you know, this was what a -- a decision simply about what the statute meant and really what one word in the statute meant. >> sure. >> sex, and i wouldn't extrapolate more from his views about the constitution generally, but this decision is this decision and it's a big one. >> and justice sotomayor asked the then solicitor general during arguments, at what court does the court invidious incorporation? thanks for laying it all out for us. we'll see if we get more key decisions today. >>> 18 states have seen a rise in new coronavirus cases. the country though still pushing forward with reopening. we'll talk about those states ahead and the implications, and the u.s. calling for the immediate release of a former marine being held in moscow. this is after a russian court has sentenced him to 16 years in prison. hey, you! nice smartphone. you should switch it to tracfone wireless to get more control over your wireless plan. they give you unlimited carryover data-- you pay for your data, y

and who knows where neil gorsuch will be on that. we're going to get a big abortion decision here in the next couple of weeks, the one from louisiana that said abortion clinics have to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, so we'll see how he voted on that. justice gorsuch did give a little glimmer this might be the direction he was going when this case was argued a mere eight months ago. >> i'm curious, take us inside the court here because we think of it as a conservative court because of who did the appointing of these justices, but you had gorsuch writing the majority opinion here. you had john roberts siding with the majority as well. you had a dissent from sam alito who was appointed by george w. bush back in 2006. is this a one issue divide or does this speak to a broader divide on the right side of that court? >> remember, this is not unlike the gay marriage decision. this was not a constitutional interpretation question, this was not -- this was a statutory interpretation. what does this law mean. so in a sense it i

your thoughts, and your thoughts on neil gorsuch writing the opinion for the majority. >> it was exciting. it would have been a horrible thing if the court had gone the other way. what would they have said? that the lgbtq, that you could be discriminated against in the workplace? but this is not the whole job. we still need to pass the equality act. we passed it in the house. the grim reaper says it's going nowhere in the senate, but nonetheless, we want the american people to know there is an opportunity to do more. this court decision was about discrimination in the workplace. but there's discrimination in many other areas of our economic and social life in our country that the equality, whether it's credit, whether -- the list is a long one, and we were very proud to introduce it and pass it in the house leadership of john lewis and other members of the congressional black caucus who had fought for the original civil rights act. this expands it to include lgbtq. i was particularly happy about the transgender piece of it because they are so discriminated against and so needed that decis

guest: neil gorsuch comes from my home state of colorado. i was proud of that judicial pic . i supported both of the confirmations of justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh. both of them have had a wide record of a really good opinion rendering. so i think that to say that it was the wrong pic just for 1 -- pick for one or two decisions is unfair. president trump took into has advisement -- his advisement going into 2016, which is the first time a president revealed who he might pick and had put together that list. that was with the input of conservative organizations like the federal society. what the president has committed himself to his creating a new list and issuing that before september 1. he tweeted that out after the title vii decision. i think that he is going to hear from other groups and other interested parties that will get together a really good list. this is why we need a conservative court, so that when one or two justices who are otherwise excellent get a decision wrong and are on the wrong side of the constitution, then they will always be in the minority. ,

you're right, same thing with neil gorsuch. everybody can call themselves textualist when they look at the word sex, in deciding whether sex had to do with gender or with something more. jeffrey if we can just -- i want to give one of my favorite examples of a court doing this. and have you talk about it explain to people who don't read supreme court decisions. i remember back -- i remember everybody being shocked when chief justice roberts made the decision he made on obamacare. at first i was stunned and then i read the decision, i laughed and said this is one of the most conservative decisions i've ever seen. and it is in line with john roberts' judicial philosophy. he basically said it, don't ask me to do from the court, from the bench, what you can do in the voting booth next year. you don't like obamacare, fine. go vote. that's your job. i'm not going to legislate from the bench. i thought it was brilliant. if i'm trying to explain actually conservative judicial philosophy, even if the outcome was not the outcome, i would

much of the media focus on trump appointed neil gorsuch as john roberts wrote the decision the administration didn't take adequate steps to end daca program which protected dreamers from deportation. president ripped the rulings and called them shotgun blasts as for people who call themselves republicans or conservatives. >> the violent rhetoric is the sort of thing that you would expect from authoritarian leader. >> jeff justice john roberts joining liberals taking argument that benefited the obama administration. howie: and the president made personal tweet, do you get the impression that the supreme court doesn't like me, kat timpf, some conservative commentators harshly criticizing neil gorsuch and john roberts. didn't they pledge to review everything on case-by-case basis, roberts call it balls and strikes, should pundits be slamming them as betraying the cause when they're supposed to act as justices? kat: right, the supreme court is not supposed to be political one way or another. they are not supposed to like you or not like you. it's not suppose to be about that but the whole discuss

neil gorsuch who president trump nominated obviously went with the liberal wing on the lgbtq decision of two days back and then there's that man chief justice john roberts who when i was covering you in the bush administration, they seem to think that man right there was considering not. your thoughts on that? >> sandra: i was a spokesperson for john roberts and for justice alito. this is what president said. and they would be a great jurist and they would basically rule as they see fit. that's a long time for suggesting they would have a litmus test. i think that it's wrong for all of us to think that just because you are nominated by a certain person, liberal or conservative, republican or democrat. these are people being chosen, nominated and confirmed and then we go back to executive orders which are a terrible way to do policy that states. the president has an opportunity if he wants to take it. >> sandra: i will never forget sitting down with supreme court justice neil gorsuch last fall answering that question about the politics of the court, and of course his response is there

justice neil gorsuch joined liberals in a decision that expanded federal antidiscrimination law to cover lgbtq employees paid regardless of what you think of that policy outcome, this wasn't the court's decision to make and it once again shows that religious conservatives who stand up for g.o.p. judicial nominees are always left holding the bag. senator cruz joined me now. senator, does this represent the death of the conservative legal movement or is that going too far? there are a lot of people really depressed out there tonight. >> this was a disastrous week at the core. john roberts' decision in both cases, john roberts was on the wrong side. the decision today on obama's executive amnesty as you noted, roberts wrote the opinion and it was john roberts and the four liberals and the opinion is, it's a joke, it is -- he's playing games because as you noted, not a single justice, none of the nine disputed that what obama did was illegal, it was contrary to federal immigration law and they all agreed that trump has t the authority to reverse it and nevertheless what they held today is th

this is six jurists including, as you said, brian, trump's first supreme court nominee, neil gorsuch, the chief justice of the united states, who was appointed by george w. bush. this is law at its best. and at a time when people are disheartened about the supreme court, about what law is, about what politics is, this is a moment for us to come together and celebrate america because this is us at our best. >> well said. a big day in fact. neal katyal, counsel, thank you very much for coming on. always great to talk to you. >>> coming up, the mayor of miami on the tough decisions local governments now face as coronavirus cases and hospitalizations surge now in the sunbelt. >>> we will not be going into phase three at this moment. although we're not going into phase three right now. we're not going to be announcing any sort of rollbacks, nor will we be announcing an implementation or re-implementation of a stay-at-home order. now is not a time to let your guard down. if we continue on this trajectory, we're going to be put in a situation where we're going to have to make tough choices.

neil gorsuch wrote the civil rights ruling and he was appointed to succeed antonin scalia. what does that tell you? >> it tells us justice gorsuch is willing to follow the law even when it doesn't coincide with his policy preferences. it was a principle decision. he was a textualist, and he said that we have to read the law as it applies today even if it's not what people in 1964 intended. but it does not signify in any way that this has become a liberal court, it means that the justices will follow their constitutional methodologies. it means that chief justice roberts in particular is such an institutionalist that he will side with the liberals when he thinks that it will avoid what appears to be a part sal split. we have this trump subpoena case coming up, religious liberty cases coming up. often at the end of a term we see more 5-4 splits. the fact that we see more liberal decisions this week doesn't mean there couldn't be a lot of conservative decisions coming down the line. >> sometimes they will save the high, dramatic opinions to the very, very end of the term and m

this is six jurists, including, as you said, brian, trump's first supreme court nominee, neil gorsuch, the chief justice of the united states, who was appointed by george w. bush. this is law at its best. and at a time when people are disheartened about the supreme court, about what law is, about what politics is, this is a moment for us to come together and celebrate america because this is us at our best. >> well said. a big day in fact. neal katyal, counsel, thank you very much for coming on. always great to talk to you. >>> coming up, the mayor of miami on the tough decisions local governments now face as coronavirus cases and hospitalizations surge now in the sunbelt. so what's going on? i'm a talking dog. the other issue. oh... i'm scratching like crazy. you've got some allergic itch with skin inflammation. apoquel can work on that itch in as little as 4 hours, whether it's a new or chronic problem. and apoquel's treated over 7 million dogs. nice. and... the talking dog thing? is it bothering you? no... itching like a dog is bothering me. until dogs can speak for themselves, you

gorsuch. having formed that unusual 6-3 majority, it was justice gorsuch who wrote today's ruling that makes illegal under federal law to fire someone for being gay or transgender. until today, in most states in this country, it was perfectly legal for your employer to fire you on the basis of your actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. if your boss thought that you were gay or trans and didn't like that, you could be fired. that was legal in most states as of today. while today's surprise supreme court ruling means from here on out, henceforth, if that happens to you in your state and you get fired for that reason, you can now file suit in federal court, and the federal law should protect you because as neil gorsuch wrote in today's ruling, quote, an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law. today's ruling is the most important ruling on lgbt civil rights issues since the supreme court's decision affirming the legal right for same

a super conservative like neil gorsuch is really interested about unmaking judicial law -- generally, a liberal, i am not, but this is a law that should be undone. that is where the intellectual experiment is for qualified immunity. i do not know if these protests make it more likely for the supreme court to take up such a case. they could right now. i do not know if it makes it more likely. i do not know if it makes more likely for the liberals even. will sotomayor reconsider? rbg and rpg and -- others reconsider? we do not know if we have five yet, but it is interesting. host: members of law enforcement can call with questions. jack from new jersey, you are on with our guest. caller: good morning, pedro. it has been a while. just a possible solution, at least an attempt to have been reading everything possible on this tragic subject, and i do not hear any solutions anywhere. fbidon't we have the profile the police departments across the country? i mean, they have all these trained people, personnel. that if we have numerous complaints about a police officer doing wrong things to cer

this is six jurists including, as you said, brian, trump's first supreme court nominee, neil gorsuch, the chief justice of the united states, who was appointed by george w. bush. this is law at its best. and at a time when people are disheartened about the supreme court, about what law is, about what politics is, this is a moment for us to come together and celebrate america because this is us at our best. >> well said. a big day in fact. neal katyal, counsel, thank you very much for coming on. always great to talk to you. >>> coming up, the mayor of miami on the tough decisions local governments now face as coronavirus cases and hospitalizations surge now in the sunbelt. this is the tempur-pedic breeze and its mission is to make sleep... feel cool. so, no more night sweats. no more nocturnal baking. no high-blast ceiling fans. or polar ice cap air-conditioner mode. because the tempur-pedic breeze delivers superior cooling... from cover to core. helping you sleep cool, all night long. during the tempur-pedic summer of sleep, it's the perfect time to experience the mattress ranked numb

today's ruling was written by president trump first nominee to the court, justice neil gorsuch. take a look at the celebration from the ground. the crowd there growing by the minute. there were also celebrations in the south tonight. kpix 5's kevin feely is in san jose tonight. >> reporter: in san jose a sense of elation and accomplishment over the protection and recognition of the supreme court's decision. >> we are human beings that have a right to work. >> gabrielle said the supreme court's decision is a watershed moment in the fight for lgbtq rights. no longer she says will people be forced into a faustian choice between openly expressing their actual orientation or gender identity, and keeping a job. >> i was unable to get a job and what they kept saying is we can't have an open lesbian in the workplace. >> the supreme court ruled the basis of race, religion, national origin, and sex also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity. >> there is still plenty of work for us to do but it does feel like this is, this is one, one pillar that we've kind of put in place now.

gorsuch and secretary of state mike pompeo, fed chair

the president trump got neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh on the court. neil gorsuch authored the opinion on employment discrimination under a contextual reading. of the 1i68 civil rights act of 1964. how much do you suspect the president will want to dip back into that well? >> i think the president is going to talk about judges very frequently and it won't be just supreme court justices but lower court judges. this is one of his proudest accomplishments. the argument he'll make is he need judges that think like him more often. one of the differences this time around is that often conservative republicans look at judges as one of the biggest issues in front of them. you're going to see that more on the democratic side than you do -- more of an emphasis on that as a potential motivator for voters. in particular you heard vice president biden, if i'm not mistaken, talk about possibly appointing a black woman to the supreme court in one of the debates. obviously, that has huge implications if he were to become president in terms of -- we talk so much about

gorsuch as brett kavanaugh. here is the march oral argument at the courts. >> your argument this morning case 181323 juno medical services first russo in the competition 181460 russo versus medical services. >> mr. chief justice and matt please the court that this case is about respect for the courts precedents. four years ago the court held in whole woman's health that the texas admitting privileges law imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortion. the louisiana law at issue here acts 620 is identified to the texas law and was expressly modeled on it. after a trial the district court ruled

. >> reporter: the vote 6-3, with chief justice john roberts and neil gorsuch joining the more court's four more liberal members. gorsuch wrote the ruling congress might not have anticipated this result when it pass it the civil rights act, he said, but, quot the limits of the drafter's imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands, only the written word is the law. >> the lgbtq community was panic stricken that the retirement of their hero kennedy would cause them to suffer a huge setback in the supreme court instead, it's a massive victory. >> reporter: brett kavanaugh was one of the three dissenters, justice samuel alito called the ruling preposterous, quote, legislation in the form of a judicial opinion. he noted congress has repeatedly declined to explicitly add sexual orientation as a category in the civil rights law. the ruling is also a victory for amy stevens, fired when she told her boss she was transgender. she died las month of a kidney disease and did not live to see the victory. many gay rights advocates consider this even more important than the fight for same

supreme court justice neil gorsuch wrote the opinion. he was joined by the chief justice, john roberts, and the courts for liberal justices. >> he did not become a liberal. he did not become moderate. the same is true for chief justice john roberts. this is a fairly narrow case of interpretation. it has huge locations. >> samuel alito wrote that there is one word for the card has done today, legislation. the ruling comes days after the trump administration reversed and obama policy banning discrimination in healthcare for patients who identify as transgender. >>> the time is 4: 25. a vendor no longer plans to do business at the farmers market after the management told him to stop passing out pride flags. dan floyd, the owner of dan good cookies says he distributes the flags at his store. last sunday, he passed them out of the farmers market. on sunday, the management told him that passing out pride flags from his booth violates the vendor agreement. >> we are neutral on everything. there is a place for each activity within the market. i'

in a few days after trump appointee neil gorsuch sided with chief justice john roberts and liberal justices to protect the rights of lgbtq workers. joining me to discuss, michael steele, former rnc chairman, two of my favorite guests. michael, this week's rulings are an indication we need new justices, he said. this week was all about the rule of law. >> yeah, it was. he didn't like the rule, he didn't like the law, and he apparently didn't like the constitutional underpinnings of the decision. particularly with respect to the title 7 case, what you see there was actually the spirit of justice scalia who as everyone know was a textualist on the court, he applies the constitution to it, in this case, he made the argument around the basis of one's sex, as you would with if it was a female complainant or male complainant. he just -- he took it to its logical conclusion and apparently that was way too logical for lindsey graham and way too logical for donald trump and others, other conservatives who are back on their heels. and i said for some time, that, you know, people need to be careful in

it was actually authored by conservative justice, neil gorsuch he was joined by the chief justice john roberts, as well as the liberal justices here. it is a massive victory for transgender and gay individuals. >> seth: what? something good happened? this is incredible break out the champagne. what oh, we don't have any champagne. what about wine? we drank all of the wine is there anything, anything we could -- that's it that's literally the only thing we have? okay break out the canned tuna, everybody, because it's time to celebrate. that's right the supreme court ruled that federal civil rights law forbids discrimination against gay and transgender americans. it's incredible news and it's especially great because the one thing trump could say, he had delivered for his extremist base was the supreme court. and now even the supreme court is bucking them. when trump heard the news, he probably needed a glass of water, if only he could get it up to his mouth. dude, what's up? this is like watching one of those improv games where a performer puts their arms through some else's. this whole

john roberts and neil gorsuch joined the four liberal justices on the ruling. we will begin with your thoughts on that this morning on this tuesday, june 16th. if you live in the eastern central part of the country, (202) 748-8000. mountain pacific area, your line this morning, (202) 748-8001. text us with your first name, city and state, at (202) 748-8003. or you can join us on twitter, @cspanwj, or facebook.com/c-span. we will get your thoughts here in just a minute, but first joining us on the phone here is lawrence hurley, a supreme court correspondent. what was the question put to the courts and what did they decide? guest: thanks. the question is whether sex discrimination within the title vii, which is the federal law that bars employment discrimination, whether sex discrimination applied to sexual orientation and gender identity. the court in the ruling ,esterday said that it does which was surprising to some because you had chief justice roberts and justice and neil gorsuch joining the four liberals, as you mentioned, in that ruling. the court basicall

of them, judge neil gorsuch, and it was he who wrote the majority opinion who set an employee who fires an individmol for being xual or transgender, fires that person for traits or actions they would not have questioned in members of a differe sex. reaction from president on this, and i democratic rival for the presidency, joe biden, has already tweeted, "thisot is r step towards equality. the supreme court has affirmed this simple but profoundly american idea that every human being should be treated with respect." that's bring in anthony, who has beenovering this for us -- let's bring in anthony. the supreme court, so manhave been surprised that this ruling went this way. anthy: well, you have to view this ruling in the context of what the supreme court had been doing over the past decades on gay rights issues. back in the early tous tds, it struck down a texas ban o sodomy. about 15 years later, it legalized gay marriage across the country, so you can see this progression in the supreme court a expanded interpretation of gay rights, but that was aco different, and as you mentioned, th

president trump's own supreme court pick neil gorsuch disagreed, writing in the majority decision "an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law." gerald boszock was a plaintiff in the case. he was fired from a county job in georgia after joining a gay softball team. >> though i didn't ask for this journey, i was willing to do it because no one should go to work fearful of losing their job because of who they are, who they love, or how they identify. >> it's a win. it's a monumental time. >> i think it's only a good thing if the supreme court keeps expanding rights, keeps on extending the protection of the law to everyone who lives in this country. >> reporter: dozens of democrats in congress joined the course of approval, while some of their republican colleagues were mixed. simply writing "historic." amy stephens, a transgender woman was among the three people whose wrongful termination lawsuits were considered by the court. we spoke with her earlier this year. your life is what they are talking about in the supreme court of this country. >>