before seen. >> reporter: in a matter of seconds a country music festival turned tragic with a storm of gunfire raining down on an innocent crowd. >> he was shooting everybody and there was dead people everywhere and i don't even know what was happening. it was just shooting, randomly. >> reporter: it began a massive loss of life and hundred injured in the worst mass shooting in modern american history. >> the 2017 las vegas shooting was the worst mass shooting in modern american history. 58 people were killed, several hundred were wounded and two victims later died from their injuries. there have been more than 3500 mass shooting since then according to the gun violence archive. the las vegas shooting remains the deadliest and there is a reason for that. the shooter used a bump stock. america is the most unfriendly democracy in the world, yet even here it is illegal to own a fully automatic machine gun. but a bump stock essentially transforms the average semi automatic rifle into a fully automatic machine gun. that is how the shooter in las vegas and that massacre was able to murder and maim so many people in such a short amount of time. the las vegas shooting was such a shock to the nation's conscience that even the president at the time, donald trump, the nra's favorite leader, felt pressured to do something. he issued an executive order essentially banning bump stocks. it was not comprehensive gun- control nor was it banning assault rifles. it was really a simple way of making sure america's existing prohibition on machine guns could stay in place despite the existence of this relatively new technology. even president trump could not ignore the pressure to do something in the face of such absolute carnage. in the end, though, it did not matter. today, seven years later, the conservative majority on the u.s. supreme court struck down president trump span on bump stocks. in a 6-3 decision that split the justices on ideological lines, the court has chosen to book fully automatic machine guns in the hands of any american who wants one. it is somewhat difficult to muster the energy to be shocked by that decision, because it is exactly the kind of ruling we have come to expect from a court that has been radicalized to push a conservative agenda against the public interest and against public support. in 2022 the court made it significantly easier for anyone in this country to carry a concealed weapon. that decision came in the same term that the court conservatives gave the right wing the thing they had been fighting for for 50 years. overturning roe v. wade and ending the federal right to an abortion. in the following year the court handed conservatives a victory they had again sought for decades by ending race-based affirmative action in colleges and universities. it is fairly evident at this point that the roberts court is working almost exclusively to enact a conservative agenda. whether that is catering to the nra and the gun lobby or shrinking the federal government whenever and however possible or by enabling a conservative majority that seeks to hold onto payer power using undemocratic means. there is more of this work ahead. right now we are waiting yet another abortion ruling from the roberts court, one that could significantly hinder doctors ability to provide critical abortion care to people who need it. we are awaiting another firearms decision from the court, one that will determine whether people accused of domestic abuse can purchase a weapon. we are awaiting a set of decisions where the court could decide to significantly curtail the government ability to regulate the safety of the food we eat and safety of the water we drink. we are awaiting a decision in a case that could see charges or convictions tossed out for hundreds of insurrectionists who stormed the u.s. capitol on january 6 and we are very much still awaiting a decision on donald trump's request for absolute presidential immunity. at best the court will have significantly delayed justice for a former president who tried to overturn a legitimate election. at worst the court will sanction a president seeking to assassinate his rivals without consequence. if it feels like this is a mountain of major decisions, that's because it is. the justices are preparing to hand down roughly 14 extraordinarily high-profile opinions, triple or quadruple the number of an ordinary term. now it should be said that even in cases where the court did not immediately hand a victory to conservatives, the justices signaled that they might do so in the near future. yesterday the court unanimously decided not to curtail access to one of the most widely used forms of abortion in the country, but they ruled on purely procedural grounds, not on the merits of the case. that, in turn, allowed justice clarence thomas to offer his right-wing allies a pathway to try again later. to come back next term with changes to their case which might, in turn, make the conservatives more receptive to their fundamental argument. hint hint. in the end a little time as all this quarterly needs to enshrine conservative doctrine into law, despite whatever the american public has to say about it. joining me now is leah littman, professor at the university of michigan law school and cohost of the excellent podcast, strict scrutiny. also with us is michelle goldberg, msnbc political analyst. i know it is a lot to deal with on a friday night, michelle, but i was really struck yesterday by the reaction in and around the mifepristone ruling. on first glance okay, they are not curtailing restriction to the most used abortion medication in the country, but as you read deeper you see thomas is leaving breadcrumbs to come back and dismantle the whole thing. >> i think the fact it was unanimous shows how preposterous the standing argument. a dentist saying they should be able to ban mifepristone for this really convoluted and ridiculous reason. so they ruled purely on the procedural ground, like you said, of standing. but matthew kaczmarek, the trump appointed radical christian nationalist judge who first voted to ban mifepristone and has been extremely receptive to any right-wing argument that comes before him, he has allowed three red states that are angry about people mailing abortion pills into their states, he has allowed them to join the case. they might have a better claim to standing and it basically means this whole thing will wind its way -- >> back to the supreme court. i was struck by some of the tone even in justice kavanaugh's opinion where he writes the plaintiffs are pro-life. they oppose elective abortion and they have sincere legal, moral, ideological and policy objections to mifepristone being prescribed and used by others. it is quite clear that these conservative justices are sympathetic to the fundamental argument. am i misreading that? >> i don't think so and i think part of the concern is dismissing the case on standing grounds and finding these doctors could not bring the lawsuit, they basically didn't have to answer the questions raised in the case about whether, for example, the fda was correct to originally approved mifepristone. whether expanding access to mifepristone, allowing it to be provided via telemedicine are lawful, nor did they address the comstock act being revived in some sort of weird, zombie, nationwide abortion ban that would not have to go through congress but some future president and attorney general could enforce. what they did is said we are not going to resolve any of those issues now, before the presidential election, and that essentially puts the issue in the hands of the voters who will decide whether to elect someone who wants to enforce the comstock act or someone who doesn't. >> not settling it before the election also helps republicans you know this is a losing issue for them. there is not a tremendous amount of smoke and mirrors when it comes to the gun lobby and i wonder what your reaction to the ruling on bump stocks is, especially in light of the ruling they're going to make about whether domestic abusers should have access to firearms. >> i would say not just that ruling, but what i find disturbing is, first of all, on the merits it is a ridiculous, highly technical argument about what a machine gun is and whether the function, the single function of the trigger is about what your finger does or what the internal mechanics of the gun does. i think sotomayor had it right when she said something to the effect of if it looks like a duck day >> of it looks like a machine gun and behaves like a machine gun, it is a machine gun. >> not only that, but machine guns are illegal and a separate law from the 60s makes implements that converts guns into machine guns illegal. so this is, kind of, it shows the radicalism. in this particular case this is not a second amendment decision. >> it is an agency call. >> right. they also have a big ruling coming up where a lot of people expect them to basically got the ability of not just the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms, but all federal agencies to pass regulations. >> to do what they do, which is to regulate. >> right. so i think that this is an auger of a kind of more shocking remaking of basically the federal government. >> i think michelle was talking about the chevron cases. i am not a supreme court reporter, but there are two big cases that michelle is referring to here that would basically undermine the power of federal agencies to do their work. first of all the fact that clarence thomas is weighing in on the machinery of a bump stock clip in relation to machine guns. this is not what supreme court justices typically do. it is the work of the atf, alcohol tobacco and firearms. the court does not want atf regulating bump stocks, so they basically took away their power to do so. do you think we will see a wholesale revisiting of one of the central planks of judicial deference to federal agencies? >> i think we are going to see a massive realignment and reallocation of decision-making authority in the federal government. under the current system, the chevron doctrine you were explaining allows administrative agencies to adopt policies that fill in gaps to legislation. if the court does away with the doctrine it will be assuming that power for itself. that is the people who just used six people pictures and an animation supplied by a gun advocacy group to justify unleashing bump stocks on the american people, those are the people deciding the future of health, safety, medical, food, drug, and environmental regulation if they actually do overrule chevron. there is also the case that could limit the power of agencies. there is also a case about an additional climate regulation. ohio versus epa. this june is a catastrophic storm waiting to happen. >> can i follow up on that because it is just a staggering number of cases to begin with that they took on of huge national import and it is not july yet, it is june 14. i mean they are going to dump these opinions on the american public and the american press in a way that threatens to overwhelm anyone's ability to make sense of them. >> i think that is correct and this is in some ways the new normal. the court is taking on a smaller number of cases, but a larger number of high-profile, ideologically significant cases that could remake the american government and then loading up those decisions at the end of the term so people are, as you suggest, overwhelmed. last term in a single week we were getting affirmative-action decisions. west virginia versus epa. the future of clean power plants. also the question of lgbtq equality and whether laws could deal with personal circumstances. before that it was the future of gun control. the court overruling roe. those decisions came back to back and the court is loading up these decisions. taking on a smaller number of cases, but also bigger, more significant cases and i think attempting to skirt the public radar. >> it also seems pretty clear that even setting aside the specific cases, the court has become the central lever by which republicans or conservatives can consolidate minority rule. this is about a tyranny of the minority and i will call everyone's attention to the writing of your calling in the times today who talks about the comments justice alito is caught on tape making. there are irreconcilable conflicts and as justice alito said there are differences on fundamental things that can't be compromised. the most fundamental thing is the question of american democracy. will the republic stand or will we fall into a future of minority rule? a huge part of that seems to be the court. >> right and alito makes no pretext of being a neutral arbiter. he is someone who, when donald trump failed in trying to overthrow the election, you know, his wife had a flag of distress hanging outside their home. he has made it quite clear that this is a zero sum contest and he will do whatever he can to advance his side. as to the point of how many big, hugely influential cases they are taking, they are moving at a sort of breakneck speed to remake american life and remake american government as fast as they can. they are putting their fingers already, just by taking this case about donald trump's immunity, which i think a lot of people expected to be laughed out of court, it is so preposterous. >> a lot of people did not expect them to take it up. >> right, they did not expect them to take it up, nevermind to take this much time. they have already made a decision that this case is not going to trial before the election. whatever they decide on the merits, they have already put their fingers on the scale when it comes to donald trump's future criminal accountability. and i think there is no reason that anybody should believe this is anything but partisan motives. >> at this point it is hard to believe anything otherwise. leah litman and michelle goldman, thank you for your time tonight. coming up, today donald trump turned 78 and yet all the attention remains on president biden's age. there is an unusual strategy behind that. stay tuned. first, republicans are continuing their pursuit of merrick garland as payback for their frontrunners prosecutions. the top democrat on the intelligence committee joins me to discuss that next. they're quitting the kibble. and kicking the cans. and feeding their dogs dog food that's actually well, food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food. get 50% off your first box at thefarmersdog.com/realfood when i was diagnosed with h-i-v, i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... being me. keep being you... and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there whether you're just starting or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable prevents transmitting h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your healthcare provider. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today. they say we should stop eating so much meat. biktarvy can go with you. so we made meat out of plants. because we aren't quitters. impossible. we're solving the meat problem with more meat. today the department of justice announced it would not be pursuing the contempt of congress charges levied by house republicans against attorney general merrick garland. the doj explained its reasoning today saying the attorney general's actions did not constitute a crime. the republican decision to hold mister garland in contempt, that was an act of political retaliation and one that failed. tonight republicans remain unbowed. speaker johnson is vowing to continue this in court. in a letter he says i will be certifying the contempt reports. we will also move to enforce the subpoena of attorney general garland in federal court. this is precisely the type of cynical gamesmanship the attorney general himself warned about in a rare op-ed. garland cautioned that efforts to bully and intimidate career public servants and spreading damaging conspiracy theories can spark real violence. that is already translating into real threats. yesterday a texas man was charged with threatening an fbi agent involved in the hunter biden investigation. in a menacing voicemail the man called the agent trader sn said trump will win the election or you can steal another election and then the guns will come out. joining me now is congressman jim hines, top democrat on the house intelligence committee. congressman, thanks for joining me tonight. let's start with what the speaker of the house said a few hours ago. he is going to take this fight with the attorney general to federal court. what is your reaction to that? >> first of all let's remember what this is all about. they are angry because the attorney general has not produced the actual recording of the interview with president biden. he has produced the transcript as i think is appropriate and there is a legislative purpose, but we all know that the reason they want the recording is so they can miss around with it or clip it or take it out of context in a way to embarrass the president. that is not a legitimate purpose for a subpoena. let's not forget the peter navarro, lately of the trump administration is in jail over contempt of congress. steve bannon is on his way to jail for contempt of congress and when donald trump was president contempt of congress was a daily thing like breakfast or exercise. what this shows is that even the speaker of the house, even the speaker of the house will do whatever. anything. absolutely anything to please the dear leader, donald trump. look, donald trump came to capitol hill. look at photographs of the senators and members of the house of representatives, looking at donald trump the way a 13-year-old girl looks at taylor swift. you just have to look at those photos to see that our government has been turned into a tool for the whims of donald trump and republicans, this is what they do now. >> the videotape of republicans singing happy birthday and clapping and applauding him are certainly embarrassing, at least on the outside. the central grievance that the republican conference has with merrick garland is, as you point out, a release of the audiotapes of the president sitdown interview with special counsel robert hur, the man tasked with investigating his retention of white house documents. my question is, as absurd and fantastical as these grievances are, they have poisoned some part of the american public against the justice department, against the fbi and certainly against the attorney general. that report out of texas where people are trying to attack or threatening to attack fbi agents, that is not a single incident. there are other ones like that in this climate and i guess do you worry about more of that as republicans continue on this campaign? >> of course i do, alex. it is profoundly dangerous to basically vilify the federal government. i was in the chamber on january 6 wh