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 constitution . Didnt ask whether samesex marriage was protected. It asked whether marriage was protected. Here, the court did not have to ask whether abortion is constitutional. It could have asked is the right to a top autonomy protected or you to control your own medical treatment for the right to make decisions about procreation or your family for the right to own your own body. The dobbs majority did not. In other words, [indiscernible] third, what is the majorities leitmotif . Is it abortion from other rights because abortion is murder . It did not use that broad language that thats what they implied. The major reason why roe [indiscernible] of course, this idea that a fertilized egg as a person or a moment at the moment of conception and it stands as consideration as an actual person is ultimately a religious one. Its not the universal one. In the u. S. , its the view of [indiscernible] one synagogue is challenging abortion ban on the grounds of abortion is often a religious requirement. The Supreme Court took a religious viewpoint as a ruling or to put it in a way, just as lochner read into the constitution a view of economics, [indiscernible] it was a religious view. There is a lot to be said about quality about equality but im on a strict time limit so i will and. Tom thanks so much, caroline. Very impressed that you are able to stick to the timeline in such a momentous decision. Let me pause and see if anybody else from the panel wants to raise an issue or ask a question. Im particularly interested in whats the next generation of controversies will be, those with respect to reproductive rights and do prices due process and privacy in general. Where did they go next . If there is a fixed justice majority in the chief justice is holding back from timing, not the out come, where does a super majority that really is convinced that prior doctrine was wrongly decided and that the constitution has nothing protective to say that any of this . What comes next. Caroline or anybody. Caroline what comes next is the issue of rights [indiscernible] they determine whether there is a due process right and weather is deeply rooted in our nations history and tradition. I think that leaves many of the rights we now enjoy. Certainly, i think the right to contraception could very well be next because, again, they can look to history and cherry pick what they want to and conclude that this was not a right that was recognized by the men who made the laws and wrote the constitution and decided court cases and therefore, it is not protected by the constitution. Tom what about with respect to reproductive rights specifically . Are we looking at different forms of contraception that conservatives use . Caroline if you are setting aside what else will get restricted heres how we think it will unfold. They have already eliminated abortions. The next thing to go will be abortions even if they are medically necessary because doctors would err on the side of caution. Some judge will secondguess their decision about whether abortion is necessary. The next thing that will be attacked will not be contraception. It will be deemed inaccurately so plan b will no longer be available. Next will be medicines that might cause miscarriages because doctors who dont want to be accused of inducing an abortion themselves, they will er on the side ofr caution and stop prescribing them. Also, does life and that abortion . I might be [indiscernible] [indiscernible] [indiscernible] start incurring criminal penalties on women as well as Health Providers because womens are the only ones they can get their hands on. Then states will try to prevent women from going to other states to get abortions. You already see states drafting laws to do that. Next, miscarriages will be investigated as abortions. They are fairly common and everyone knows one someone who has had an abort who has had a miscarriage. The difference between a miscarriage or an abortion [indiscernible] any time a woman seeks medical care, she may be investigated and possibly violating the law. Again, [indiscernible] theyve already established a precedent that the fetus has more rights than the women. All these things have already happened or are in the works. Its a Dystopian Nightmare come true. It is based on the idea that embryos are people and who knows what may come from that . You asked me what comes next in terms of womens access to control their bodies. There are so many things. Tom what do you think can be done if the constitution does not provide this protection . Do you think there is a realistic aspect of federal legislation, the president saying he would support a filibuster restricting a fellow bayes or restricting a filibuster or statutory rights, state Constitutional Rights . Will or just be battles everywhere . Will it be a ground where the goes on for decades . Caroline yes, it will because there are so many lessons that have been raised by this. Everything from can you stop someone from traveling to another state . You talk about abortion in a state that doesnt allow it and you advertise abortions in another state. Will there be endless litigation . Yes. Even when it comes to whats medically necessary. Whats to be done . Possibly there will be a federal law and the federal government will establish clinics on federal property. Perhaps, it will make medical abortions easier to obtain. I dont know. I dont know what the odds are of that happening. The next focus is what happens with the states as to what they will allow. Half of them want to eliminate the right to abortion. There are some states that have gone out of their way to protect abortions. There are some states like florida for example, that actually has constitutional protection for abortion in their own state constitution. Now the litigation in florida avows what happens there when a Republicancontrolled Legislature tries to take away a right that a more liberal judiciary deemed protected by the florida constitution explicit right to privacy. Tom darrell, do you want to raise this issue of states protection . Darrell this says nothing about the problems about the protection not being nationwide and what the legislative fix is. The parent in me says that what we might see is a whole new round of abortion rights politics playing out in state judicial races. Thats because state judicial races in most states are statewide races. So you cannot gerrymander an outcome with respect to the elected judiciary and some of the states and await the state Legislature Might be gerrymandered to insulate it from unpopular abortion restricting legislation as we have seen already. Im kind of wondering what you think the future is when we talk about state constitution rights to abortion. As people on the panel know, this would not be subject to federal judicial review. The state Supreme Court is the last word on what the state constitution rights guaranty. Tom dawn . Caroline i think it will be the battle to be fought at the state level. We will find out as time goes on. Tom darrell, why dont we stick with you . Among his many specialties is the Second Amendment. Obviously, this term we have an absolutely momentous Second Amendment decision which takes us beyond the threshold question of whether there is an individual right untethered from militia in the Second Amendment in the followon question of whether that is in a braided in the states now or down the road. We have the majority of the Supreme Court willing to take of gun rights cases and could determine what it means. Can you take us through that . Darrell absolutely. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today. The case that i will talk about is called new york state rifle and Pistol Association versus bruin. It was billed as the blockbuster Second Amendment case of the last decade. There is no doubt that it delivered. The gun rights forces put all their ships on this case. They came up with a trifecta. They wanted the Supreme Court to say that the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends beyond the home. They won this says they want the Supreme Court to say the licensing rules that require some showing proper cause, sometimes known as may issue laws reap our offer because are good cause to chain a license to carry a gun in public was unconstitutional. The court said that as well. The big issue that i think most people that were casually watching which i thought was deeply interested in and wrote an amicus on behalf of Neither Party was this methodological issue. Gun rights people wanted the court to say that the method of figuring out whether some thing or regulation violates the Second Amendment is by a text history and tradition only approach. They got that as well. They really did hit the jackpot this majority of this court on these issues that has been close to the heart of gun rights advocates for the past 20 years. Briefly, before a recap the case,