Guided by policy as to who should and who shouldnt access it. Rep. Foster do you have any comments about when you engage with some of your foreign colleagues in this . Do they face a very different set of attitudes as in the United States . Dr. Romime certainly that is true. For example, as you know, the gdpr in europe envisions a different way of approaching protections for privacy than we currently have in the United States. That said, one of the reasons that the privacy framework that we have developed is regulation agnostic and Even Technology agnostic is we want it to be adaptable, usable around the globe and be able to provide assurance that if you follow these guidelines you have evidence to support you are complying with whatever Regulatory Regime you happen to be in at any given time. Rep. Foster thank you. I will recognize representative obernolte for five minutes. Rep. Obernolte a couple of interesting things have come up like how do we safeguard privacy . From a 30,000 foot view level . Some things could work and some things probably wont work. Dr. Ross, you were mentioning disclosure. I used to think that that was a great idea, and then i started looking at enduser license agreements for software. There are pages and pages that people scroll through and click agree at the end. What good would it do to add another paragraph that says heres how we will use the facial data that you give us. There was an episode of south park a few years ago, a parity of one of the characters. I have inadvertently given apple the right to do experimentation on him. His friends were like, you clicked on that and signed it without reading it . Who does that . The answer is everyone does that. I think maybe control over who has access to the data. If i give my data to apple for use for a certain purpose, the fact that apple should not give that dated to someone else to use very different purpose, i think that data to someone else for a different purpose i think is closer to the market. We wont find a real regulatory solution to the problem without looking at the things we are trying to prevent. What attorneys called the parade of horribles. Someone asked about that. We are entering into this era when anonymity is a lot less than it used to be. That will be true regardless of what approach we as a government take to privacy. Can you walk us through the worst things that we have failed that, like the worst things that can happen . Those are the ones we have to try to prevent. Dr. Romime fair enough. I will say figuring out with the worst things are might take some time, but some of the things that ive alluded to is the idea of organizations making decisions based on inferences from biometric data that disadvantaged certain groups over others. Rep. Obernolte let me stop you. We have had that problem. There is ethics around ai algorithms that we are dealing with. I think the solution is you focus on the fact that that behavior is already illegal. So, if im going to kill someone it is equally illegal for me to kill them with a knife and a gun. The tool doesnt matter, the act matters. Why is that different in the case of privacy . Dr. Romime i dont think it is so much different as it is a consequence of the lack of privacy or privacy compromise. Privacy in this case or the compromise of privacy, a privacy event, would lead to that activity. There are other things that i can imagine. There are aggregates, societal decisions that are made that might be predicated on aggregate data that violates privacy consideration. Policies may be instituted and culture certain populations as a result of certain issues related to privacy or biometrics. In all of these cases what we have discerned is that there is no technological solution to solve the privac problem privacy problem and no purely policy that will solve the privacy problem. It is providing and improving privacy protections and massing those matching those with appropriate policy that can prevent some of these tragedies. Rep. Obernolte i agree with you, but i definitely think in crafting policies we need to look at, asking ourselves the question, what problem are we trying to solve, what are we trying to avoid . Merely focusing on anonymity i think is a fulls foo ls errand. We have less anonymity and theres not anything we can do about that. The parade of horribles, the government has the power that other entities dont. If you want the parade of horribles, look at what china does with the personal data that they have for people. That is the top of my list of the parade of horribles, but i dont think that we will get there from a policy framework standpoint without thinking of the problem we are trying to solve. It is a discussion im sure we will continue to have over the next few years. I yield back. Rep. Foster we will now recognize our lawyer in residence for five minutes. I think mr. Obernolte is focusing on the question of the day. I remember serving in the state senate 20 plus years ago. We were just trying to have an internet within the colorado legislature, and something came up and we were talking about Social Security numbers, should we release them, all that stuff, for privacy purposes. I was being cavalier and i said, there is no such thing as privacy. Your point, there is no such thing as anonymity. It has only grown in the last 30 years. The question is, from a policy perspective, technologically we can address things. As ms. Wright says you give up some things to get some things. You can make it tougher for a cyber criminal or someone to use your data, but you are giving up some efficiency or ease of use in the process. The Supreme Court made several decisions, none of which i like. The one that i like the least is the reversal of roe v. Wade, but they basically say under the United States constitution there is no such thing as a right to privacy. And i dont know. I want to feel secure that when i go buy something spontaneously that that doesnt alert everyone under the sun to something. Or when i walk by a Grocery Store or gas station all of a sudden that doesnt send out in the neighborhood lets send him x, lets get him. This is for everyone, including my two colleagues. To jays question, what are we trying to solve . What do we want . Do we want to create a right to privacy that the Supreme Court says there isnt such a thing . We can legislatively Say Something like that. How far do we want to take it . Then for the technologists, help us put that into play knowing that technology will evolve and change, and things that we thought were in place will be replaced. It is Ed Perlmutter thinking based on jay obernoltes line of questioning. Ms. Wright, as the director of the agency that thinks about this stuff, from a technology standpoint we can do some things if you guys give us clear direction. I think that bill is trying to do that on some of his digital legislation and jay has some stuff too. Dr. Foster, i will turn him back to you and you can do with my two minutes whatever you wish. Rep. Foster that is an interesting you know, this is i will ask a question. So much of this will have to do with our cell phones. Dr. Romime, is there good coordination communication with the manufacturers of the cell phones . There is incredible ai built into the next generation of smartphones, but not all of it is in the secure enclave where you have some idea it is trusted computing. Are you having thoughtful interactions, or do you get that they are just trying to set up a Walled Garden and keep everyones privacy information under their control . Dr. Romime we work with a very large crosssection of technology, including cell phone manufacturers and providers. Having further reflection on Ranking Member obernoltes question about significant harms, one of the significant harms i can imagine is through cell phone tracking or face recognition. Cameras, street cameras and so on. Someone trying to access safe and reliable medical services, whether it is psychiatric or something else, suddenly that becomes public record. Someone has now been outed because of biometrics information because it tracks the information trying to obtain services. This is another very serious potential issue. Yes, we are working in discussion with cell phone manufacturers and other advanced Technology Firms all the time. Rep. Foster thank you, again. We could go all afternoon on this. I suppose i have to close the hearing now, but before we bring the hearing to a close i want to thank our witnesses for testifying before the committee. It is really valuable for us in congress as we struggle with all of the policy issues on biometrics of privacy that we have access to real, quality expert so we can understand the technological reality of the feasibility of things and dont generate legislation based on Wishful Thinking than technical reality. The record will remain open for two weeks for additional statements from the records or additional questions that the committee may ask the witnesses. The witnesses are now excused and the hearing is n by the amen Constitution Society we ensure the law is enforced. If you arent already, i would encourage you to become a member of acs and you can join and find more information on our website. Before we get started, a few housekeeping notes. Additional information on cle material can be found on the invents page just on the events page. There will be time at the end of today for audience questions. Two semitic question use the q and a box at the bottom of the zoom screen but do not use the chat to ask your russian as we will not be monitoring it. If you are a member of the press asking a question, please identify the outlet for which you are reporting of the top of your question. Now lets turn to todays discussion. Each year, the Supreme Court term draws to a close and the summer begins. We host a discussion with academics, practitioners and advocates about some of the most controversial consequential topics in the turn. This year is no different step in a minute, you will hear from this years distinguished panel who will provide context for some of the most watched and anticipated decisions of the term. This year is very different in other ways and it was the first full term that just as Amy Coney Barrett served on the board in a first full term for the conservative super majority. It was a term that was conducted across the street from where the confirmation battle took place for Justice Ketanji brown jackson, the first black woman nominated and confirmed to the u. S. Supreme court. It was a term conducted immense calls for court reform that ranged from ethics rules to term limits for justices and adding seats to the court. It was a term in which the full draft opinion of one of the most consequential decisions in the past halfcentury was late to the public, not before the decision was released was leaked to the public before the decision was released in the fight of reproductive rights and offering a glimpse into how this conservative super majority might handle other cases. It was a term in which many Court Watchers have paid close attention to all of the cases the court has heard to get an idea of what these decisions say about the court today and where it might be headed tomorrow. To delve more into these cases and issues, im pleased to introduce our moderator, tom goldstein. Tom is best known as one of the nations most experienced Supreme Court practitioners. He has served as counsel to 150 merrick cases that the court and recently argued another. Tom has taught Supreme Court litigation and art for law school since 2004 at hartford law school. He also runs over website to receive the peabody award for coverage of the supreme port. The Supreme Court. In 2010, the national a journal named in one of the nations 40 most in financial most influential lawyers of the decade and we are delighted to have him as the moderator for this event. Welcome and to the panelists. Tom thank you so much and while. And while. Wow. A lot of peoples worst fears about the Supreme Court term has come to past and at the same time, a celebration because Justice Jackson took her seat on the court today. We have an incredibly accomplished panel, academics and practitioners, who are specialists in the field of the courts major decisions from the term. They are able to talk to us about what it means for later cases, later controversies that are sure to come up as decisions continue to come to the court and to this conservative super majority. We will walk through the major decisions of the term including with respect to abortion and with respect to gun rights, immigration, citizenship, environmental law including major decisions that were just issued a couple of hours ago and we will try to put those in the context of what this court is doing and where it is going, the broader rulings its making its implications for any attempt at progressive legal developments. And related controversies including of course the question of the lead opinion and just the leaked opinion and what it means for the court going forward. We will an incredible specialist in carolyn corbin. She is at Miami Law School and formerly an attorney with the aclu reproductive rights division. Maybe you can start some of those conversations. Caroline the first thing i want to say is it was a devastating decision. I will be conducting constitutional analysis its truly dreadful realworld consequences. First, i will summarize the majority opinion and that i will consider the possible consequences and other fundamental rights and finally , i will offer some advice. Mississippi cut off abortion at 15 weeks. Previous decisions including roe v. Wade only established a right to abortion. Dobbs declares the constitution does not check to the right to abortion. According to the court, the constitution only protects fundamental rights either listed in the constitution or that are deeply rooted in our nations history. The text of the constitution does not mention abortion and according to the court, the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in our nations history or tradition. State statutes and state legislation, the history of the court is different. Court writes that [indiscernible] the 14th amendment was adopted and is the amendment that provided action for fundamental protections. When the 14th amend was ratified, then the right does not exist. What about [indiscernible] the principle that should follow precedent . The Supreme Court gave five reasons went over really roe was just. Normally, these reasons do not match the list of reasons traditionally considered in deciding whether or not to follow precedent. In other words, in overruling a president on portion, the Supreme Court ignored precedent [indiscernible] what are these reasons . Most significantly for the court, roe was egregiously wrong the date was decided. Just as brown versus board of education was right to overrule, dobbsright to overrule roe v. Wade. It was an exercise of raw judicial power and making up a new right. I know i am in the summary phase but i want to pause because i have to underscore the chutzpah of complaining about the exercise white judicial power in roe given that dobbs is the poster child for the exercise of raw judicial power. To compare roe, there was a case the constitutionalist segregation and insured black americans were secondclass. Roe [indiscernible] back to the reasons why it was right for them to overrule it. Another reason was that existing doctrine was unworkable. This is one of the factors thats often considered courts cannot apply things to make sense for it to be revived. How a Court Applies it is just rubbish like so much of the opinions. The rule that all previability bands are unconstitutional, the rule that could easily have divided this case, thats about as simple a rule is you will ever find in constitutional law. To summarize the majority opinion which is the controlling opinion because it has five votes, the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in our nations history were traditions and to conclude otherwise is so egregious, we have to overrule the cases they give the right to abortion. Justice kavanaughs concurrence does not argue neutrality. The majority holds the constitution does not check it but it did not hold the constitution prohibited either. We should be thankful for this neutrality. Chief Justice Roberts, who would prefer to eliminate womens rights incrementally, laments the fact that the work that the court did not eradicate the right to abortion nationwide. Justice thomas would burn it all down and finally as he is concerned, due process is an oxymoron and he would eliminate all fundamental rights including the right to contraception. [indiscernible] notably, the court does not need to adopt thomass approach to other fundamental rights. Majorities new test is enough to put them at risk. Remember, if the right is not deeply rooted in the Supreme Courts history, then it is not protected by the constitution. I think we can all be fairly confident the Supreme Court can readily revise its history were neither contraception or sexual participation [indiscernible] there are obviously wide criticisms that highlight things like rape. It is ludicrous to make 19thcentury history a touchstone for our fundamental rights today. As the defense pointed out, if this means met women in the 21st century should not have a right to a version as men in the 19th century, it does not it did not let women vote or have the right to abortion. That is no way to do fundamental rights. Should not be relying on history so that racism and sexism and homophobia can determine our fundamental rights today. Second, given its history, the courts conclusion that abortion is not constitutional is contestable. Even if the court went by history, it framed the rights and the most narrow way possible. For example, when has the Supreme Court decided that Marriage Equality is protected by the consti