Thank you, judge simon. An thank you judge simon, and k good morning everyone, and welcome. Welcome and thank you for being here, Justice Kagan. Its great to be here. It is an honor to have you here. We are really excited and we appreciate you taking time to have a conversation with us. Its good to be here at this whole conference, and thank you to everybody and especially chief judge mortier for making me feel so at home, and for giving me so much work to do. You have cheerfully undertaken musso thank you. The Supreme Court recently issued the andy warhol decision and in that case the court ruled that andy warhol had infringed on photographer Lynn Goldsmiths copyright because he created silkscreen images of prints using her photographs. Now the lineup in that case was somewhat unusual, given what the public perceives to be the recent divide on the court. So im wondering, from your perception, what lessons can we learn from that case and from the lineup . Truth be told, i do think that the lineups were less unusual than they just were lopsided. The unusual lineup is usually like 54 but everybody is all scrambled. This was just a lopsided result. It was a 72 case. Sometimes we have those. We have 72 cases. We have eight1 cases. And in this case the outsiders, if you will, were me and the chief justice. And what can i say . There were seven people who really thought that their view was right and there were two people who really thought that the majoritys view was wrong. It was an important case. It was an incredibly fun case for me to write the dissent. The chief justice assigned me the dissent and both he knew and i knew that he was giving me a gift when he assigned me that dissent. The case, as you can say, if i could just talk about it for a few minutes and ill try to be as fair as i can probably not all that fair. Glad Justice Sotomayor is not sitting here, police and the as i describe this case, but the case is theres a photographer, Lynn Goldsmith, who takes a photograph of prince and some time later, andy warhol uses that photograph of prince and makes a silkscreen out of this. Its one of these, if there were a screen here and i put it on the wall, you would say immediately of course thats an andy warhol, 99 people out of 100 would say that and the 100th is just because they are culturally illiterate. But its Lynn Goldsmith is an excellent photographer who did an excellent photograph, but warhol converted it into a warhol, making it entirely different, making it entirely its very colorful, eye popping. He puts all these different kinds of colors in it. He tilts the face. He makes it entirely visually different. I just think that thats true. Im sorry. And he makes it very different in terms of meaning, as well. Its one of his he has a whole genre of celebrity silk screens which talk about celebrity culture and what it meant to be a celebrity in america, and unlike the photographer, who was really intent on showing princes individual humanity, he was intent on showing the way we dehumanize celebrities, so it was almost in terms of message and content, the mirror image of the photograph, something opposite rather than Something Like. And in copyright law, you copyright a monopoly, youre not allowed to trespass on the creators work except when you are, and when you are is when youre making a fair use of it, and one way you can make a fair use of a copyrighted work is by transforming it. Thats always what the president said and the chief justice and i thought we had the precedent sort of wildly on our side because the president makes the test, is a transformative, and its talked about new meaning, message, or expression, and if this was not new meaning, message or expression, i guess i dont know what is. Like if andy warhol isnt transformed of, whats transformative . He was sort of the avatar of transforming other images and other products, whether it was a campbells soup can or whether it was this photograph. So but the majority said, and i dont think im giving away any secrets, this is like a hardfought 72 majority, like where were those three people going to land . This is just seven people thought we had it all wrong and the opposite. The majority thought that just because those the photographer and warhol had used their images in a similar commercial fashion, that they had essentially licensed the images to magazines, is perceived payment for those images, that that trumped everything that ive been saying about the transformation. That was a central conflict in the case. Now i think what struck people about it is i think the reason why its fair for you to have said, well it was an unusual lineup, what was really unusual was the fact that in peoples minds, what was really unusual and what i saw a lot of press about was the fact that Justice Souter mayor and justice i went at each other, and we were the two authors of the two principal opinions. There was also a concurrence. And we kind of went at each other hammer and tongs. We we had some choice words for each other, in the way that sometimes our defense, when theyre important, when we care about them, sometimes do go at the other opinions. And you know, i guess to the extent that people think, oh my gosh, thats so unusual, because Justice Souter mayor and Justice Kagan are fighting, well they shouldnt think that. If you think that Justice Sotomayor mayor and Justice Kagan are identical judges with identical methodologies, reaching identical outcomes on the basis of identical approaches to law, i have to say you havent been paying careful attention. I mean judges are different and i am a partner and a collaborator with Justice Souter mayor on some occasions, and some occasions i care deeply about. And ive i think justice at the mayor gets stuff wrong on other occasions, and this is one of them. Okay, fair enough. Judges are different. We get it. In your defense, in the andy warhol case you warned the majority opinion hampers creative progress and undermines creative freedom. Will you share some of your personal experiences that have contributed to your strong appreciation for creative freedom in the arts . Personal experiences, i dont want to say that i was on this side and Justice Sotomayor mayor was on the other side because i have a greater love of the arts than she does. I dont want to say that at all and im not sure that personal experiences are whats key here. The question in the case, the question in all of copyright law is how to foster creativity. Thats why we give out copyrights in the first place. They are monopolies. We dont usually love monopolies. We get out monopolies in order to encourage people to create art and music and literature, and everything else. But we also recognize that there ought to be limits on that, and partly in order to promote creativity, that if we allow these copyright holders to lock up what they do and dont allow other people to make use of those works, even for fundamentally different, transformative objects of their own, then weve done something that stifles creativity, and thats what copyright law aims to prevent, is the stifling of creativity. And what was fun about this dissent and the reason why it was such a gift to me is that the dissent has plenty of stuff about interpreting the statute, and what the statutes language is, and why it is that, when you think about the purpose and character in the language of the statute of the new work, you should be thinking about whether the new work is transformative. So theres plenty of stuff about statutory interpretation and theres plenty of stuff about precedent, about all the things that the Supreme Court has said in the past, about when new works are transformative in this way that should allow them to exist, notwithstanding the existence of a copyright, but theres also plenty of stuff thats really not about law, so much as it is about music and art, and literature and other forms of creative expression, and how they develop. Because really the point of our dissent, the chiefs and mine, was new works dont appear just out of a vacuum. They dont appear out of nothing. All original works come from something. Shakespeare took all of his stories from other people, and yet hes the greatest author of all time. And what the back half of the dissent tries to show is how this is true in literature and in art, and in music. I understand that lisa black was here, making fun of my lisa black represented the photographer, so she may have a distinct view on this case. But you know the news, which are, im sure the first time that defining news has appeared in Supreme Court opinions, but theyre supposed to show how these same motifs are used and you can see the one in the other and yet understand that the second artist and the third artist is doing something entirely different, and something you want in the world. And so thats what the dissent is all about, and do i care about art and music and literature . Yes, and im sure every justice on the Supreme Court does. The question was only, how is it that we allow those forms of creativity, and really all new knowledge to flourish, and i think that the opinions did reflect a difference in how much leeway to give to new creators to use old things, on the view that newness just is not complete newness. Everything that we think of his original. In fact, has its roots in something else. And what was really fascinating about this case, and ill stop here, his people said a lot to me, like how did you find all those examples, because there are just a ton of examples in this. And for extra credit, you can tell me afterwards. You can figure out which one the chief asked me to use. So thats extra credit. But all those examples now ive lost my place. Those examples are everywhere, is what i want to say. Once you started for them, i left 1000 on the cutting room floor, just because it looked like enough already, weve made the point. Speaking of dissent, can you tell us how you decide when you are going to dissent or when you decide to go with the flow . Go with the flow, something that we dont do all that often on our court. None of us. You know mostly, if i end up disagreeing with something, i dissent. There are other legal traditions, other Legal Systems in which people always swallow their dissent, and the court presents itself as a united front. And that hasnt been the case in the United States for a long time, although initially it was in the John Marshall years. But it hasnt been that hasnt been true in the United States for a long time. We sort of show our disagreements and allow the world to judge who has the better of the argument, and for the most part, i think that thats the better system, that we dont pretend that theres only one answer in tough cases and that we give the parties and everybody else sort of a chance to see the competing perspectives and to know that some cases do produce different thoughts about which outcome is correct. I mean i do believe very strenuously, very strongly in working strenuously i do think its better when the court can achieve more consensus among mara is. I hope and think that i try hard to participate in the process on our record in a constructive way. I would rather have an opinion in which we decide less and achieve greater consensus. In most cases, an opinion in which we decide more and everybody splits, because the opinion is overly ambitious. I would rather decide to have greater consensus than more with division. I would like to think i participate hard in that process. I like to think i search for what might be thought of as principal compromises. Some that you cannot make but some you can. I like to think i participate very vigorously in that effort. When all of that has been done and you look at something and you really do not agree with it, there are occasional times when one or another of us him of the term we use is swallowing our dissent. There are occasional times when i have done that and some of my colleagues have done that. At the end of the day if i disagree i dissent. Not all are alike. I guess i think of them as your standard runofthemill dissents. Which you say and you mean and you people understand this case is not as easy as the majority might make it appear, might want to suggest that it is. Then you put it in the file drawer and you dont really ink about it again. There were other dissents. Maybe some that you read from the bench. Thats very rare on our court. Maybe there is a spectrum. I dont mean to say that its all irrelevant. But at the other end of the spectrum, thats the dissent that you read from the bench that you hope as a future the way people think about the law. You want to register a profound objection. Not only you that the majority is wrong, but that the error is of fundamental nature and you the dissent well provide a different way of looking at the law. A particular issue in the lot or a particular bastion of methodology which will have a shelf life and people come back to in the years to come. You dont want to make every dissent sounds like every other dissent in the level of rhetoric or how hard you are punching. With all of your years on the court is there if everett at and you have written that you would like to talk to us about . Its like choosing among your children or something. I have three. To are here. Theyre both my favorite. I try not to think of it that way. I try to give every a and you a lot of time and effort and make it as good as i can. But you know, i guess i would separate first dissent from majority. The dissent is very different to write. Warhol was the unusual dissent. It was extremely important on the other hand. Its just a ton of fun. Most are not fun in that way. Most are willing kind of sad about the out come and the important ones, extremely sad about the out come. I guess the dissent that has meant the most to me has been the ones i have written and i sort of count this as a group, democracy issues. Dissent about the Voting Rights act, partisan gerrymandering, aspect of the campaign and in system. The reason those strike me as the ones i feel most deeply about is because i think that, you know, these questions about political rights, making sure people can vote and that their vote each persons vote is worth as much as every other persons vote. That sets up the system so the system can operate and produce whatever results the system produces. But you have to have a fair system in place from the get go in order to be able to say the policy out comes it produces are the outcomes it produces. If that seems to me, the most fundamental responsibility to the court is to ensure that the constitutional and that your tory provisions that operate to ensure a fair democracy are satisfied. Then whatever the democracy produces is none of your business. I would say those are the ones i care about most. On the majority side, as the chief justice gave me a gift and giving me the warhol dissent, i was given a gift earlier in my career by justice scalia, the assigning justice on a case called campbell. It was a case that was a little bit combined fun and meaning. It was fun because it was about a spiderman toy. It was a patent case, but the patent was on the glove that you put on your hand and go like this. Web thread would come out. If i tell you all spring, my clerks were having the fact that it was about this comic book object enabled me to make lots of funds. The end line of the opinion is Something Like with great power comes great responsibility. But it was also very meaningful. The reason i say justice leah gave me a gift, he called me and said would you take this opinion . It was a divided vote grade he was the assigning justice and he said i think this is a good one for you because i think you can Say Something about not just any project or issue. I mean the legal rule in question was a pretty ups your patent rule. Not just about any project or issue but about how you think about the law and in particular, how you think about the doctrine of the story and how important precedent is to a functioning rule of law system. And he was totally right about that. A little bit of a counterintuitive idea, which is even when we think that the rule of law is wrong, we are still going to uphold it. Because we have been upholding it for a lot of years. Some people say im alike, why . This opinion was all about why. Even when most economists and a lot of lawyers thought that this rule of patent law was wrong and the opinion admitted that and just talked about the virtues of the decisive system about the importance of reliability and predictability. In the importance of people, of course, looking like there doing law rather than willy nilly imposing their own preferences is the composition of the court changes. All of that is talked about in this opinion. It has really become something that i go back to a lot in the way that i think about law, and the way that i write opinions. Is for sharing those insights, Justice Kagan. I would like to turn to a different topic now. There has been a lot of expression of concern in the public about waning Public Confidence in the Supreme Court redo talked a little bit about that last year. I would like to ask what are the courts Biggest Challenges in the area and what can you tell us about it . I have talked about this. Some of what i am going to say is probably going to be competitive repetitive. I think it is important that the public has confidence in our legal system and the Supreme Court in particular. Important that they have confidence in all over governmental institutions. Its a problem when the public does not have confidence in those and the tuitions. How does the court create confidence . When does the court lose confidence, conversely . Its just not the case that a court should be looking to Public Opinion to try to reflect Public Opinion. That is quite obviously something, you know, that would be wrong for a court to do that in many instances. So how do you create confidence . Understanding that the court is meant to be. Often a counter majoritarian and to tuition. I think you create confidence by act like a court and doing something that looks recognizably like law, rather than doing something that looks more political or more as the judges are imposing personal preferences. As i said before. What it means for a court to act like a court. I dont mean to say that there is like a checklist. Its those five things and nothing else and everybody has to agree on that. You can have good facetoface about this. For me what it means is a certain kind of restraint in moderation. It means being very careful not to trespass on other institutions or areas of responsibility. It means that the court ought not to become a policymaker. It has a responsibility to police certain boundaries on policymaker activities. The court should be extremely wary of doing things essentially it is the policymaker on important issues. Ive talked about that like last year. The case where i talked about that most was in a case about the clean powerplant. The court is making Climate Change policy. The case that i talked about that most this year was cases involving Water Pollution rules and loan forgiveness policy. In all of those cases i said that the court had overstepped its bounds and trespassed onto areas that were appropriately resolved by the legislative and executive branches. And that this was wrong. Acting as a court, not doing more than it has to here. Not deciding cases that are not real cases. The importance of the controversy requirement. And just various rules that we have. What is the phrase that shes justice often uses . Its not necessary to decide, its necessary not to decide. Something like that. Only deciding the issues that you have two. It means going back to that discussion about kimball. Respecting precedent in all but highly unusual circumstances. Applying your own methodologies consistently. I dont think it means having one methodology and only one. I think different judges have different methodologies and that is appropriate. Applying those methodologies consistently. A person doesnt just abandon principles when its when it suits. It mostly means acting with a certain kind of restraint in the sense that you are not the king of the world and that you do not get to make policy judgments for the american people. You have an Important Role in policing the way policymakers go about their business and separating one from the other is a hard part of law. And a part that is often a good faith disagreement where questions are hard. To have that sort of feeling of courts have an important but appropriately limited role in our system of governance, i think is the weight you could reduce Public Confidence in law and in sure that people look at you as like oh, i might not agree with what the court is doing but i know i dont have a right to agree with the court is doing but i have a right to expect that the court is acting like a court and that is the way you ensure that. Let me pivot to a new topic which is maybe related to that. Congress is currently debating whether to impose a code of ethics on the Supreme Court. Last week, one of your colleagues actually said that congress cannot do that. I am curious, what do you think . Not giving me a pass in this. I like the way, you know, its a little bit stealthy to start off with andy warhol. Okay. I did read that interview. I found it a little bit hard honestly because of the way the interview was written to know what my colleague i dont want to be like he who shall not be named was justice alito. But what questions he was answering exact because of the way that was written. Im not sure what question he was answering exactly. I think i will just put him to the side but i will try to answer the question sort of. So, i mean, you know, can the court, can congress regulate what the Supreme Court does . I think opposite, there are two poles here that seem pretty haircut to me. The first is of Course Congress can regulate various aspects of what the Supreme Court does. Congress funds the Supreme Court. Congress historically has made changes to the Court Structure and composition. Congress historically has made changes to the courts Appellate Jurisdiction. There is a provision in the constitution that says Something Like the Supreme Court shall have Appellate Jurisdiction under regulations that congress provides. I am missing the exact words. Definitely talks about congress having a role in our jurisdiction. Talks about congress regulating the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. And generally, this is not surprising. Our whole cyst them is one of check and balance is. Usually, when the court talks about that, we are talking about other actors, the way they check and balance each other or the way we check and balance them. If you just cant see that the court is the only institution somehow not subject to checks and balances from anybody else he looked at us we are not imperial. We, too, are part of a checking and balancing system in various ways. Can congress do various things to regulate the Supreme Court . I think the answer is yes. Does not say what things. On the other hand, can congress do anything it wants . Im going to say no. It cannot do anything it wants. You know, if congress did something that effectively prevented the court from fulfilling its assigned responsibilities, that would raise some serious constitutional issues in just the way it does of congress does something that effectively prevents the executive from fulfilling its assigned risk wants abilities. There are limits here, no doubt. Then there is this question which is well, in this sphere of ethical obligations, is this just like, you know, yes, congress can do it or is this something where congress has approached the limit of its power to affect what the court does . And i just want to say to that, now that ive gone on and on, going to tell you going to answer that question. But im not because congress is considering these right now. Congress is an independent constitutional lack her. I think with the passed legislation, they hopefully usually consider the const to touche and malady of its own actions. Its entitled to do that, i think. I would not want to job on it while it is doing that. I also have in the back of my mind the feeling of like, who knows . Something might come before us someday. But mostly i think congress is doing this, congress should have the right to consider for itself what it thinks is constitutionally appropriate and otherwise appropriate. You know if it comes out with something, we will have the chance to Say Something about it. I will say this, regardless of what congress does, the court can do stuff, you know. One of the reasons weve never really confronted these, there is not a lot of precedent in this area of what congress can do with risk act to imposing ethical rules on the court. The reason is that the court has acted voluntarily to subject itself to various rules. One of the things that the chief justice sent to congress this past spring was a statement that all nine of us signed that talked about all the rules that we do follow, that we have decided to follow and that essentially emma we say we will follow them just like other judges follow them, even though the court is unlike other judges a distinct constitutionally created entity, but you know, we have undertaken to file Financial Disclosure reports to limit the gifts we receive and limit outside income and a variety of things. We have also made it clear that we are guided by a standard code of conduct that applies to all other federal judges. When we said that, weve noticed there are certain ways in which we are different from other federal judges. I think the usual example is the recusal operates differently when recusal means that you will not be replaced by anybody. And there may be other differences, as well. But you know, we could decide to adopt a code of conduct of our own, that either follows or decides in certain in and says not to follow the standard code of conduct. That will remove the question of what can congress do . It would put it in a different light if Congress Continues to act. Its not a secret for me to say that we have been discussing this issue. And it wont be a surprise to know that the nine of us have a variety of views about this and about most things. We are nine freethinking individuals. So, you know, what the chief justice said most recently and i want to not get out in front of the chief justice on this issue but most recently i was there. He was accepting an award from the a li. A great and deserved award. In his acceptance remarks, he talked about this issue and said he was determined as we all are determined to comply with the highest ethical standards and that we will continue to engage on the issue of what additional measures week could take to ensure that result. So we are. We will. You know, this is a hard thing to figure out exact early how we are different from other judges. Its a hard thing to get us much consensus as you can the way that we like to do. But i hope that we will make some progress in this area of the kind that the chief justice talked about and maybe put the question of what can congress do or not do, you know, maybe take that out of play. Thank you. We have a recusal question. We are short on time. Moral arguments seem to have changed postcovid, seeming to be a lot longer. Why is that . Oral arguments really matter. And on this, too, the court really failed to agree. You know in the sense that we had different views about what we like and in oral arguments and what we think is important. The old oral argument was half an hour each side. You got up to the bench and you would be subject to a barrage of questions. Everybody was coming from all directions and it wasnt structured. Very interactive. One covid happened and we left the courtroom, we could have used the system. We adopted the system where we went down the row and each person had tormented to answer questions. And then when we came back to the courtroom, some people like the first system and some people like the second system. In an additional virtue of the system was that Justice Thomas participated very act ugly and importantly in questioning, which he did not like to do under the first system to, because he found the whole thing interrupting and rude. But with the one by one questioning, Justice Thomas was a very active and excellent questionnaire which was very valuable to the rest of us. What we try to do is create a world in which the people who like the interaction got what they wanted. I like the interaction because to me it allows you to build on other peoples questions and it allows you to develop among a variety of justices. One strand of argument. And it makes it harder on the lawyers, but you get more out of the lawyers. They just dont have the opportunity to filibuster in the same way. Other people like the more orderly system and like the opportunity to ask two or three minutes of their own questions. Everybody likes that Justice Thomas participated in that way. We kind of decided to do both for thats what we will do. We start with the old system, the basic half hour, each side of interactive questioning. Then the chief justice goes down the row and asks each of us if we have any other questions. Some people, because they like that form of questioning better, sort of saves their questions up. And other people, even though they have not saved their questions up emma they have new westerns from something that just happened since the last time they spoke. What ends up happening is the number one round interactive and the number two around. We do sometimes sit there for quite some time. I will not say who did this but one of my colleagues when they came up with a protein bar and put it down very assertively on the bench, you know. And it was like, are you making a statement, or do you intend to eat that . Because you know, arguments started at 10 00. The old arguments would have been done at 12 00. The new arguments, i dont know. Like 1 30 sometimes. You get hungry. I dont know. In the end, you know, it is long. I think we cut a lot out of oral arguments this way. I would think if it didnt matter, it would be really annoying. But i get a lot out of oral arguments area that does not mean that i always or most of the time switch my vote. But i understand cases better after ive heard arguments than before ive heard arguments and sometimes, it makes me rethink the case. I think the same is true of a number of my colleagues. We are just about out of time. Why dont we move to conclude . What book are you reading right now that we should know about . What book am i reading right now . Okay, i just finished i am a Jennifer Egan fan. I just finished the candy house. If you have not read it, do, but first read a visit from the goon squad. I will not try to explain it because they are impossible to explain, but i thought that these were great fiction books. And also i am a spy novel enthusiast. I have been reading my way through this series. Im going to forget the authors name. But they are called the slough house series. There was a tv show made of some of them. It is about a group of spies in britain. The best spy novels come from britain. Its about people who were in like i forget which is mi five and which is mi six. A group of their reject. They are shunted over to this place called slough house and they are called the slow horses. Its sort of like what they get up to as these mi five reject in slough house. Theyre both funny and really good spy novels, too, so thats good. But just to bring it back to the law, im going to say this would be a commitment if any of you decided to accept this. Spent a fair bit of time this spring reading this new biography of frankfurter i a man named brad snyder, a professor at georgetown. Its interesting because i read more slowly during the term because i have less time. It took me a while. We have lunch several times a week when we hear arguments. We would come up to lunch and one of thes people would ask me every week, what new things are there from the frank order book . I would say well, you will never guess. In 1947 this is of course, a group of people who are obligated to fund Supreme Court justices interesting. And so there was a ton of interesting stuff in this book. If you would ask me before, do you think frankfurter was a great justice . I would have said no, not really a frankfurter fan. Dont really much like the way he writes and i still kind of dont think he was a great writer. He was known for being pompous. And i had in the back of my mind some things that i just thought that was like a bad decision. Like the flag salute case. The key very different view now. Not like i am like he is a hero or anything like that, but i think i have a much more positive view of frankfurter, i guess, for two reasons. We were on the bench yesterday talking about mentors. This man was the greatest mentor of all time. This man, the way he mentored his clerks, the way he mentored his law students, he created these networks upon networks upon networks of frankfurter protigis. People who played extremely Important Roles. The other thing he did was really encourage them all to go into public service. If you look at the new deal, the new deal is basically entirely populated by frankfurter students and clerks. He created this entire generation of people that transformed the American Public life. It is really interesting to see. I guess i thought of him as a pompous guy. But it turns out he must have been an extremely mac medic guy. Like people flock to to him and then he really put out for them. And made sure that they advanced. Very loyal, you know, to gazillions of people. That is one thing. The other thing goes back to, you know, what i talked about courts acting like a court and restraint being a fundamental part of that. What he cares most about, he has grown up in a system in which lock there was the evil and those types of decisions were evil. Extremely committed to ensuring that the court did not again go down that road and that the court played. The book is for democratic justice. The idea of the book is that he really believes in democracy. Letting the political branches do the work and having the court operate in a more minimalist fashion. And of course, whenever you say that, the hard questions are yes, but when does the court come forward . When does the enterprise of policing the Boundary Line mean that the court has circumvented the political branches. But he had a way of not doing that and letting the policymaking branches do policy. You know, i found it a very interesting and, you know, its not like we think he got it right on every occasion. But i think you got it right as to the big picture. Like a court has to remember it is a court. And not anything else. Thank you so very much for joining us. It is always a pleasure to have you. Thank you, inc. Year. , browse through our latest collection of cspan products, apparel, the court, home accessories. Something for every fan. Every purchase supports our nonprofit operations. Shop now or anytime leigh spann shop. Org. The student cam documentary competition is back celebrating 20 years with this years looking forward while considering the past. We are asking middle and High School Students to create a 5 to 6 minute video addressing one of these questions. The next 20 years, what is the most important change you would like to see in america . Or over the past 20 years, what has been the most important change in america . As we do each year we are giving away 100,000 in total prizes with a grand prize of 5000. Every teacher who has students participate in this years competition has the opportunity to share a portion of an additiona 50,00. The deadline is friday, january 19th, 2024. For information, visit our website at student cam. Org. Cspan is your unfiltered view of government. Funded by these Television Companies and more. Including cox