Im delighted to welcome you to the first discussion this fall in our president ial distinguished event series. We launched this series to provide more ways for you to hear from renowned leaders. The individuals who bring illuminating dialogue, insight and inspiration to our gw community. This year in a virtual environment we have been able to extend the reach of this against even more. We hope to host these opportunities often over the coming months. For many in our community this will be the first of countless only at gw experiences to come. Our gw community is fortunate to her directly from the leaders, doers and thinkers who make many of the decisions that affect us each day. With our students, faculty, staff and alumni are not just passive blisters in these events. You are leaving the discussions and actively creating solutions. And youre leveraging this universities teaching to drive positive change in the world. Today on Constitution Day we are honored to host u. S. Supreme Court JusticeStephen Breyer for conversation with our gw community. Our constitution and its interpretation by our justices has farreaching implications. It affects us in big and small ways, as individuals, as citizens of this nation, and the citizens of the world. Today we will gain new insight into these implications and will get a look inside one of our nations top legal minds. Justice breyer is joint and discussion by our very own gw mujahideen and associate dean alan morrison. I especially want to thank them both for the leadership for gw and for the help in making this event possible. Dean nasr is a a visionary and strategic leader of gw law and she join our community this year. She is a National Recognized lawyer and legal scholar with three decades of industry and academic experience. She has an expert in Health Equity and Public Health policy and she is driven by a passion for Public Service. Associate dean morrison is a learned family associate dean for Public Interest and Public Service at gw law. Law. He is responsible for creating pro bono opportunities for students, bring a wide range of Public Interest programs to gw law and encouraging students to seek positions in the nonprofit and government sectors. I am not pleased to turn our program over to associate dean morrison. Thank you, president leblanc, and its my great privilege and honor to welcome associate Justice Stephen breyer was about to start his 27th term on the Supreme Court. Ill Justice Breyer is often said hes in fact, in the majority in one respect and always, that is the majority of the justices are now former law clerks with Justice Breyer having clerk for justice gober followed by chief Justice Rehnquist and the three most recent appointees of justice kagan, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh all of whom clerked on the Supreme Court. Following his term of the supreme Court Justice breyer work for the antitrust division at theso justice department, was law professor at harvard, assistant Watergate Special prosecutor and chief counsel of the Senate Judiciary committee. From that position heha went on the First Circuit where he served 14 years in addition to a service he was an original member of the trend united stas Sentencing Commission and he became the chief judge of the First Circuit, and that position he was responsible for building the magnificent First Circuit court house boston. That leads me to one of two lesserknown facts about the justice that are not in his biography. The first of these is that he is one of the Seven Members of the jury for the annual architecture prize often referred to as the nobel prize for architecture. Not surprisingly he is the only panel. On that the second unknown fact about it or lesserknown fact is that he is fluent in french. He lectures, speaks and writes in french. In fact, theg summer he was preparing to give a speech in paris all in french which he had written out. But alas as was said in casablanca we always have paris just not this year. I want to talk about now my favorite opinion of the justices. This is not a great constitutional opinion in what normally people think that. It is whole Womans Health against halberstadt. In that case the state of texas impose very stringent requirements on clinics that were used to perform abortion services. Justice concluded that was unconstitutional not to grant constitutionalra doctrine but by methodical dig into the record where he established there were two major flaws. First the series barriers prevented women from actual obtaining their constitutional right to abortion, and second, that the requirement for admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of the clinic were wholly irrelevant to the health of the women. Of us who read the opinion thought, that the only reason that texas imposed these requirements was because it didnt want anybody to get abortions and this was the best way they found to do that. Speaking of health, Justice Breyer, all of us want to know, how are you feeling today . Justice breyer absolutely fine. Thank you. Weve been friends for years and years and years. Hes dug up, dean morrison, all of these facts about me. Dean matthews i am interested in health also. May i ask a question about health as well . Justice breyer please, dean. Dean matthews because of the Justice Breyer thank you for inviting me here. Dean matthew were so glad to have were so glad to have you. But because of the pandemic there p are many constitutional issues being played out in frt of us on the streets, on the Television Come in the news. In many ways constitutionalism is a a part of our debate and conversation every day. I want to ask you your view about the constitution and our democracy. One of my favorite of your books isis about making democracy wor, and in this Public Health crisis manyes are asking does our democracy work . Cant our democracy work . What must we do to make our democracy work . What is your view about what we must do these days to make our democracy work . On the service part, one of the privileges, and it is perhaps the biggest privilege of my own job now, is i see in front of me every single day citizens of this country, and some who are not, every race, every religion, and the point of view imaginable, and believe me my mother used to say theres no view so crazy that there is an somebody who does hold in america but there are all different points of view. Every National Origin and then decided to resolve the differences under law. When i talked to some of the students about decisions they dont like, they say david thats too bad, i say turn on the Television Set. Turn on the Television Set and see how people and a few other countries decide their differences. So that document, the constitution, here im just reaching fort over here on my desk. You see, there it, is. That helps bring these people together in court and get our differences resolved. So of course this is important. The courts by the way just like the document have had their ups and downs. Its not 100 plus. But on balance it is a pretty good way to resolve all the differences we might have. And what can the students do . Same as everybody. I think the most important thing they can do, and its not so easy, participate. You dont like whats going on . It out there and try to change it. How . You think about it. You convince people to you get allies. And by the way, i usually say to the graduatingra classes, i cant see what to do with your life, but i hope, i hope that you will spend some time participating in public life. That can be on a library board. They can be on a jury. It can be on a school board. There are thousands of wasted doing it, but do it. And all i can tell you is after working with the document come is a people who wrote this hot, if you do not participate, this wont work. Add i have really come to believe that that is absolutely true. So stop complaining and start convincing, and that the what are you doing about it . So that would be my thoughts about whats the most important thing they could do. I saw yesterday that the Court Announced that thehe octor cases will be heard only by phone as he did last may. How do you think those oral argumentss went . Did the strict rotation help or hurt the process . Did the time limits prevent the justices from asking followup questions . What you think about the whole thing . I think there ispl a plus ana minus. What we do is we cope in order and each have two minutes to ask questions, and then we go back and, if that time is it used up, we go back a whole time and ask some more. What this machine does that we are working on now, and what the internetet does, what all of the do, is makes you listen. You have to listen more closely. I mean, the technical system is fine, but you still have to listen to what the others are saying. And so i thought that was a plus, because that would here is what everybody else is saying and what the answers are and they pay close attention. Now, there is a minus. A minus, and i sometimes think well, its less fun, but its less fun why . You dont necessarily have as much dialogue. You can get the dialogue. I like it very much to listen to what my colleagues are saying is that sometimes there some backandforth among us, and that makes progress, and it really makes progress, as you know, because youre a good trial lawyer, you very occasionally but sometimes you get a situation where the judge and the lawyer on the same wavelength but dont necessarily agree, but they are having a front to conversation about what actually they believe, not justl client. What do you think this will do if we decide this way to Bankruptcy Law . And that lawyer knows more about it than iu do, Bankruptcy Law, and you will get some backandforth. Thats of all the seats of the judges of the same eye level as a lawyers who are speaking to them. Because he wants to get that contact and he wants to get that conversation going. So like most things that are pluses and minuses. I like it but im not sure id like to do it all the time. All your weekly conferences among the justices entirely you have visual like we have here today . No, they are audio. The reason that there are audio is just technical. I mean, the reason really is because with most of these we are told by the technical people that there could be security problems. It is even so much we say, if somebody b decides to be distracted from outside or the hackers or whatever and you dont know what would happen. I think thats what his latest be pretty cautious. Justice breyer, i i would le to ask you about one of my favorite sessions of the constitution, and i keep my constitution very close by, so heres my little copy. Im going to turn to one of my favorites and if im allowed say that, that i have favored. Its my area of scholarly specialty and it is a 14th amendment. I want to t ask you about that r a number of reasons. Todays Constitution Day but i also recalled constitution and citizens day. And i wonder, because you write so often about different parts of the 14th amendment, the due processes clause, the equal protection clause. You write so often about it that i wonder if you would share with us, thinking back on your time in law school, thinking back on the time that you first encountered the 14th amendment as a constitutional concept. Did it strike is one of the most importantt parts, is that why yu writes often about it . Tell us why this constitutional amendment, the 14th amendment, is so important today. The reason we write about is often is the case is involved very often. When i was in law school come if we go back to that, ernie brown, mark and will and the others, the constitution as it then was probably focus primarily on the commerce clause. It was before, it was just after brown v. Board of education. Its about a decade after not too much had happened yet. The reason i think its so important now, when reason, is it extended the protections of the billl of rights to the states. So the states couldnt take away a free speechke and the states couldnt treat you unfairly and so forth. The other reason, it had a very basic principles. It has basic principles of treating people fairly. It has basic reasons in that due process clause that go all the way back to king john and the magna carta. The great thing about the magna the barons forced on king john, was it said, due process of law, that means king john. You cannot just put people in prison because you would like o it. You have to follow the law, too. And every onene of us has that protection. And its that very basic legal principles that really is the rule of law. Okay . One, you follow the law. Two, you dont dont like the law, he get together with other people and you get it changed through a democratic process. All that is in that document. And right there, and, of course, from a court point of view, you can go back 2000 years and read what some of the thinkers thought. Some of thosee thinkers said hw do we get people to live together in society . How do we get them to follow the leadership ofsh the government . They could make you through force, but they cant, and courts dont have force. Thats what hamilton said. They dont have the perverse pd they dont have the sword. We cant hand out money. Theres a third way. Convince people that your decisions are fair and just, and then they might respect that leadership, and then they will follow it. As i i say there are ups and downs. I think that probably is the best way. And it may be the only way. And the 14th amendment helps get you right there with those words. Justice breyer, i want ask ask you about that third way and the 14th amendment. It is true, is it not, that even after making the decisions that people should be treated equally and fairly come many did not follow the courts decision. I think of brown v. The board of education, many did not follow and the court was unable to enforce immediately brown v. The board of education. How do we get people, what is that third way, howdo to get people to do the things the court says our c constitutional . Or to not do things that it says arel unconstitutional . Especially when those decisions might be unpopular, when brown was decided it was unpopular. How do we make that third way work . Yes, thats a brown. As i say, i finished college about five orn. Six years after brown. I went to law school two years after that, and you know how much integration there wasmu in the south . Not much. Brown w was 1954. You know what happened in 1955 . 1955 . Nothing. I mean next to t nothing. Lucy try to go to university of alabama and sheas was kicked out the 1956, nothing. In 1950s in 1950s have little rock and thats when a judge in little rock said you better integrate the school, central high school, and nine grade students, black, decided they would bebe the ones who would go to little rock high school, white. And the governor sat in front of that door and he said, no. And he had h the police and he said, you have judges order but i have state police here there was a standoff andnd there was a lot of disagreement and finally the president of the United States, Dwight Eisenhower, at a think this was a great thing that he did, Dwight Eisenhower called in the 101st airborne, the heroes of normandy, the heroes of thehe battle of the bulge. And they flew b to little rock d 1000 of them, they took those children by the hand and walked into the school, but they couldnt stay forever. The governor close the school, closed it, and nobody was educated. But the Supreme Court in cooper versus erin, have students read that one, that is one of my favorite opinions because the Court Unanimously said you go in an integrated school, stop stopping integration, dont do it. Thats when he closed the school. He didnt do it. But it couldnt last. It couldnt last. What did it take . Martin luther king, bus boycotts, the freedom writers, that was the time when the nation woke up. So thats why i tell and the president of the courtto of ghaa a woman whoto is trying to bring civil rights taconic and protection come come she said how, why, the same question yet. I said i cant tell you how you build that habit but i do know this. Its not just up to judges and lawyers. Contrary to your popular belief here and everybody, with 330 Million People and 329 million are not lawyers and not judges. Those of the people you have to convince. Go to the villages, go to the town, go to the citys. They are the ones. By the way, it cant just be the lawyers they cant just be the judges who try to convince it. They have self interest. No. It has to be a movement. It has to be history. It has to you to build a custom and we have custom and it has to be a custom of following a lot of decisions you dont like. Really are wrong. Somebody is wrong if it is 54. Big complicated answer. Comes back to my first answer [inaudible] get out there and convince people you are right and then gradually you build aab habit, a custom which lasts a long time we hope. It is that custom that brings us to this day which is called law day, which means a rule of law. Which means well, we have a chance, a chance at having a Fairer Society and when i grew up. Can ask you with some that have been a number of recent request for emergency belief. This is apart. From death penaly cases which have had for years. Has