In its current form. Now everyone has been above board that this is a draft, there are changes could be made. At least conservatives, you see all five of them there. First four folks on the screen from the conservative side of the ledger. Theyve said almost to a person that all they want to do is talk about it, make adjustments, and they can still potentially vote for this bill. The fifth one, dean heller, a senator from nevada, he has the toughest reelection of any republican coming up next year and he had some very difficult words for this bill. He says this does not accomplish what it set out to accomplish, it will not lower premiums, and he said in this form this bill is not the answer. Of course we know that a super pack has been affiliated with the president has gone up on the air in nevada with an ad attacking heller. That of course is going to be opposite of how Republican Leaders prefer allies of the white house conduct themselves here as they try to wrangle votes. They actually want to let heller be able to vote no on this bill and simply keep everybody else in line. So this is the challenge we have been talking about, the other piece of new information you mentioned, that cbo score. We are waiting anxiously for that. It has two key pieces in it. How much will it cost, how much will it save. That will let them get more bargaining chips to try to convince rob portman, hey, well give you several billion more for opioid funding. Maybe consider voting for us. The other is coverage. How many people will this bill cover. They hope to show more will be covered under this than the house bill. They estimated 23 million would lose coverage. And let me pick up, kasie hunt on capitol hill. Let me pick up where shes leaving off. Former director of center for medicare and Medicaid Services under president obama. I want your take on what you think we see when they come out with some specifics. As a reminder, pull up what she referenced, what happened in the House Health Care bill. You saw some 23 million more people will be uninsured by 2026. 14 million fewer medicaid enroll ees, and reduces federal deficit by 119 billion in the next ten years. How do you think this will change when we get to cbo later today or tomorrow morning . Well, i think one thing we know is that millions of people are going to be shown to lose coverage. Thats a problem that i think the senate bill didnt try to solve because the senate bill didnt do what they discussed doing, which is starting from a new place. They kept most of the Republican House bill intact and kept the tax structure in and devastating medicaid. The bigger problem is that the bill doesnt do anything about costs. Because of changes they made to the bill, a lot of reasons the conservatives are having trouble is not because of coverage issues but because peoples deductibles are going to double because of the way they changed the benchmark plans. This is a commitment that republicans will not be able to deliver on if they vote for the bill. Let me ask you about two negotiating points. Nbc news learned a couple sources familiar with discussions, the deal making part of it, it is possible to get some skeptical senators on board, could see more for opioid addiction treatment, more money for rural hospitals as well. Do you think thats enough to get it over the goal line . That may appeal to one or two senators who are going to be willing to be sort of exposed and bought off, but i think the analysis of the pending opioid deal shows that it only gets about 20 of the way to Meeting Needs of what else has already been cut. Remember, the Medicaid Program which is being devastated in this bill provides onethird of all opioid treatment funding across the country. You cant cut a third of the funding across the country and then throw a little money into the bill or even meaningful sounding money into the bill and make a dent in money you are taking away. Let me ask you this. What is your prediction. I know you dont have a crystal ball, but does this get done this week, this summer or do you think it is doa . I look at it this way. If you would have said a year ago that we would have a bill that would double peoples deductibles, take people off coverage, cut medicaid, essentially violating President Trumps proposal, we would have thought theres no way this bill would pass. I think we have a lot of concern from a lot of republican senators that could lead that way. Having said that, i think the Majority Party always has the equivalent of what i call home field advantage. They have a lot of tools and levers to play with. Leader mcconnell is not afraid to use them. I would never bet against the home team in a situation like this, even when policies are clearly so bad for the senators. Andy, thank you for joining us. Much appreciated. Health care is a huge priority for the president , one of his biggest promises on the campaign trail, along with something else. His proposed travel ban. Later this hour or later today, we could find out whether the Supreme Court will take that up. No word yet, thats one of a few big headlines we may see in the next few minutes. With me now, ari melber, elizabeth wiser, president of the constitutional accountability center, and the panel, josh does ee from politico, and Congressional Correspondent erica warner. Thank you for being here. Ari, let me start with you in new york. The travel decision. Can you walk us through when we might see something, what could come out of this today . It is not a decision on the ban itself, it is whether or not the court will talk about it basically. Right. Decisions, decisions, always the issue with the court. The big decision that could come out of the travel ban process is as early as tomorrow, the court could theoretically lift blockage of the ban. Thats why everyone is watching. They can do that. Even though 9th and 4th circuit said hold up, block the ban while this proceeds, the Supreme Court can lift that block. Thats why theres so much riding on it. What we didnt know is theyre not dealing with that today. Didnt put travel ban on the calendar one way or the other. Were waiting. We expect, today is the last decision day, tomorrow or in coming days could get that off their calendar. Let me go to you before i get to the politics of this with josh and erica. Theres other big cases we may here whether churches can get taxpayer money, whether parents living in mexico, teenage boy killed on the border can sue u. S. Border patrol. Can you walk us through one at a time what the potential implications of each of those are . It is an important case to think about, particularly Border Patrol shooting case. We are in an era now under the Trump Administration of this very vigorous, aggressive immigration enforcement. This case is tragic. There was a 15yearold mexican boy playing on the mexican side of the border, in a culvert by the border. After the Border Patrol officers tried to get them to leave the area and they were running away, the Border Patrol officer shot the 15yearold mexican child and his family is trying to hold him responsible under the Fourth Amendment guarantee of protection against Excessive Deadly force by the police. What is this hernandez decision going to tell us about how Border Patrol agents do their job. Tells us whether they have to abide by the constitution. Thats something very important. We have seen the Supreme Court struggle with how the constitution applies outside that physical border of the u. S. , we saw it in the guantanamo case where they said it did apply. Here i think there probably should be a strong rule that gives protection to people like this teenager who was killed in excessive use of deadly force. He should be given his Fourth Amendment rights and his family should be able to vindicate those. Theres a lot of politics at play today as well. Ari was talking about whether or not we hear on the travel ban issue. Josh and erica, the political consequences here are significant. We know how the president reacted when the lower courts ruled against his travel ban. Can we surmise if the Supreme Court decides to leave the same in place, the president will have a response obviously . The travel ban has been one of the most frustrating setbacks. Something he promised over and over on the campaign trail, something that you see at rallies, invigorate supporters, and the wall and mexican border. Something that frustrates him. Every time this happened, youve seen tweets, people saying he is frustrated with the attorney general, chief lawyer. This has been a point of contention for his presidency. I imagine we would see another reaction if this happened. Some of the reactions, his own tweets that have been used against him in lower courts. Thats right. Keep in mind when he rolled out the travel ban in january, shortly after taking office, it was basically catastrophic, the way it was rolled out, mishandled. His own party on capitol hill was very frustrated with the circumstances there. So if he were to be vindicated in some way by the Supreme Court, that would be a real victory for him politically. And if the court rules against him in some way as joshua saying, certainly another point where were going to see the president very frustrated and lashing back at the courts, we would imagine. Forgive me for checking my phone. Were expecting news any second here. I think were checking to make sure were not missing updates. Ari, in the next 30 minutes or so, what are you watching for most. Is it that Church Versus state decision we expect to see come down today . Getting early word from Pete Williams the decision is coming down, he is on site at the court. That could be something very interesting on Church Funding issues and religious liberty. The other thing coming out of this today, this bakery case, talked about this a few moments ago. Thats a case that the court had put off a decision on whether to hear it over ten times. I dont know if you ever had a difficult decision to make, a conversation you want to have at the office, you keep delaying it. They delayed this ten times, then in the past hour said they will hear the case. This is whether a cake shop, basically a baker, can refuse to provide service in this case Bakery Services to a same sex couple there for their wedding, it was religious liberty versus human rights case, one they werent eager to take, now theyre going to hear that. Thats going to be like hobby lobby as political folks remember, a big issue. Ari quickly, pull back the curtain what will happen in the next 40 minutes. Pete williams is in the court. We dont have cameras there, were getting reporting out of that. People run from the court to cameras as soon as decisions come down. Thats right. The Supreme Court, theres been debate this week and last week about the white house camera access, an issue you know well. The Supreme Court keeps it old school. We cant see in there, you can only see outside. You look at the live shot. What happens inside the court is when theyre issuing decisions and this is the last decision day of the term, the justices stand up there sometimes and read various parts of the decision. As i say, thats an old school process they have been doing for many decades. Then they hand out printed copies. Thats why sometimes you see running of clerks as it is called or running of the interns as they come out. Then we here through our own reporting, Pete Williams on the phone and other folks make it through. Im told little scraps in the church case, Trinity Lutheran church, theres multiple pieces of that decision will dribble out and we will report. We will do that later this hour. You were kind enough to agree to hang out to talk about this when we get it. When we come back, talking not just about the Supreme Court, and not just about Justice Kennedy which is coming later, up next a new blame game for President Trump. Pointing the finger again at former president obama for not doing enough when learning about russias interference with our election. Now that he is in the oval office, what is the president going to do to punish putin. We talk about that after the break. Welcome to holiday inn whether for big meetings or little getaways, there are always smiles ahead at holiday inn. I just heard today for the first time that obama knew about russia a long time before the election and he did nothing about it, but nobody wants to talk about that. If he had the information, why didnt he do something about it . He should have done something about it. Thats President Trump of course pointing the finger at his predecessor, saying former president obama didnt do enough when shown evidence that russia was trying to interfere with the president ial election. To talk about it, i have Kristin Welker, nbc White House Correspondent at the white house with more. Erica and josh back with us too. Kristin, the president is talking about russian meddling, and not stopping talking about it this morning on twitter. Walk us through what happens been happening. Reporter first, youre right. A tweet storm this morning about all of this. And it reflects the president s new tactic. Remember, he didnt acknowledge that russia meddled in the u. S. Election, despite the fact that the entire Intelligence Community confirmed thats exactly what happened. But finally over the weekend, the president did seem to start acknowledging that it was russia that meddled in the u. S. Election, and he is taking aim at former president obama after a the Washington Post report came out and said the Obama Administration really struggled with how to deal with this, in part because they didnt want to be seen as politicizing this or interfering in the election itself. Lets look at the tweet storm. I will read you some of the tweets. One, the reason that president obama did nothing about russia after being notified by the cia of meddling is that he expected clinton would win. And did not want to rock the boat. He didnt check. The real story is that president obama did nothing after being informed in august about russian meddling with four months looking at russia under a magnifying glass. They have zero tapes of colluding. Theres no collusion and obstruction, i should be given an apology. He is demanding an apology in the wake of this. A little fact check. Obviously president obama did enact a round of sanctions, had stern words for Vladimir Putin when he met with him. The question becomes for President Trump, what is he going to do, hallie. We havent heard any enraged statements from the president , and you have lawmakers, including republicans, who want him to get tougher on russia, to back stiffer sanctions. All eyes are going to be next week when trump has the possibility of meeting with the russian president Vladimir Putin at the International Summit youll be attending. Kristin, thank you for setting us up for this discussion. We have questions coming out of her reporting. First, these tweets from the president. Josh, it is kind of a return to the im rubber, youre glue defense that the president employed again and again as a candidate. Now were seeing against president obama, he himself, President Trump, our reporting says is under investigation for potential obstruction of justice from special counsel. Now he is accusing president obama of that, too. Is there a strategy here . With the same words, too, obstruction and collusion. Putting those on president obama. It is a look over there. The president does best when he has an opponent. When he doesnt, he is shadow boxing. Here he is trying to create this oh, i am republican, he is a democrat, it is all partisan, lets muddy the waters, lets put the attention over there. Weve known for months that president obama knew this. Only recently that post piece came out laying it out. Seems like what the president is talking about. Both president obama and President Trump were briefed in the transition. They should have been forceful. What are the other significant things out of this tweet storm not just today but over the weekend from the president. Again, official statements presented online that he is acknowledging russian meddling, heres what Kellyanne Conway had to say. What the president has done is when he was confronted with this information in january, he said it is a quote disgrace. He thinks russia was involved, others are hacking too. That is not totally accurate. The president didnt call it a disgrace. There have been urgent warnings that the administration is not doing enough. White house pushes back, point to voting fraud commission, point to a couple of other things dhs is doing as well. That seems to be the significant, underlying point. How do you stop it happening again. And Something Interesting that we learned over the course of congressional hearings with james comey and Jeff Sessions over the past couple weeks is that the president showed apparently zero interest in learning more about russian hacking. He was presented with information about it, asked no questions. It was all about him wanting to know whether he was under investigation, did not ask questions about what russia was doing. Is that annoying people on capitol hill, do people want him to make more declarative, fierce statement about this . Yes. We have a piece of legislation on the hill, russia sanctions bill that has been passed by the senate thats the senate saying to President Trump you need to be tougher on this and if you are going to try to pull back on sanctions on russia, Congress Needs a say so. Interesting dynamic is that that bill is stalled in the house, theres some suggestions thats because the president wants to water it down. President trump and president putin leaving for that overseas trip to the g 20. Theres reporting that some of pushing for a big meeting, full on diplomatic meeting between the two leaders. Does that happen . I dont know. I know there has been a lot on how to handle this. It is one of the biggest moments for the president on the International Stage by all accounts. Everything he does is going to be put under the microscope and whether he strikes a forceful tone on election hacking, whether they talk syria, talk about a whole range of issues that could come up. Or not talk. And as youve seen with the president , this can be unpredictable. He can strike a different tone than previous president s have. I think all eyes will be glued to that next week. Thats the one story goes above all others. Not going anywhere. Hang out a minute. I want to get back to breaking news out of the Supreme Court. We have one of its final decisions. Back from new york, chief Legal Correspondent ari melber. This is Trinity Lutheran case we have a decision on. Crucial when it comes to separation between church and state. What is the court saying. This is a big case on church and state and federal funding issues. And it is a big victory for the church. By 72 vote, the Supreme Court holding that a church can receive public money, public benefits, in this case for basically resurfacing the floor of a public playground at the church. And the big issue was wait a minute, government money doesnt usually go directly to churches for anything religious. The court was getting into whether this was an okay use of money. The church had initially been denied funds from a program in missouri that reused scrap tires to redo surfaces of playgrounds. Any other playground could get that money, the church was told they couldnt because they were a church. The court saying no, that was wrong, there is a strict line between church and state. You cant, for example, take government money and give it to church choir, but here basically missouri had overdid it. The idea that they cant get a public benefit, in this case something for kids to play, merely because they happen to be a church, when the underlying activity, a playground is not exclusively religious, that was going too far. I note you think about the debates in public life, how divisive they can be, this is not a narrow decision, doesnt break by party that appointed the various justices. It is 72, Justice Roberts writing the opinion. We have breaking news coming into me. I dont know if you had a chance to look at your email. Im told the Supreme Court granted a stay for the travel ban that we have been talking about and will take up that case. This is coming in now from our team at the Supreme Court in the last 45 seconds. Put it in plain english. What does this mean for the president s travel ban. Im learning news from you just like your viewers, hallie. I have been reading Trinity Lutheran. I will say as a matter of law, as long as the court keeps the stay in place, that means that the blockage of travel ban which was ordered by lower federal courts continues. That would be bad news for the Trump White House which has been seeking to have the travel ban reinstated, but it is not, of course, a final answer to the case. It is a procedural ruling that says the ban remains blocked while the case proceeds ultimately to be heard on merits. Ultimately and effectively, ari, thank you for talking with us as this information is coming in. Ultimately this means the status quo remains in place. The travel ban had not been implemented, based on this Court Decision will not be implemented until the Court Decides on it months from now. Thats correct. And that is to be clear another loss for the Trump Administration. You look at these countries on the screen, these are countries the Trump Administration said through two consecutive executive orders they wanted to block travel for now. They described it as National Security imperative, said the courts okay, even if there needs to be decision on this later, please let us do the travel ban now. So decision by the court to hear the case and leave the stay, the block in place is bad news. In the interim, the ban is not in place. Bad news for the Trump White House. Doesnt tell us how theyll ultimately rule. I know youre not a white house reporter, youre a Legal Correspondent. Walk me through a little of what you think we might expect to see from trump. We are checking in, asking how will we see some response, will we see some response from the president or white house when this news comes out. I expect that something is being formulated now would be my guess. We know were going to hear from sean spicer not on camera, but i imagine this is one of the first questions for him, what is the administration going to do here. What weve seen in the past is that the president frankly takes to twitter, get online and show some frustration that one of his key president ial priorities on the campaign trail is not happening. This, hallie, as you say is going to be the case everyone is watching. Im looking at the notes were getting from Pete Williams and nbc colleagues. Travel ban decision will be argued. The case will be argued in october. Thats the Supreme Court. If you want to be bare bones about it, theyre disagreeing with arguments of the Trump White House that it was so urgent had to be done immediately, had to be reinstated until it is heard or that it should be heard right away on the next briefing schedule. October is a long way from now. Supreme court saying well get to it on the normal review. As to the white house on your question, the president hurt himself repeatedly with extem pran yus comments, thats a legal fact. Some folks feel like maybe nothing matters, a president with a different style, everyone has to live with it, he is the lawfully elected president. As a legal matter, his tweets quoted back to his own lawyers to hurt the case. Very interesting to see how the president and his Administration Responds today. Hallie, i dont have to tell you, this is the big show in town. This decision now to hear the case in october will set up the largest debate of the Trump Administration. I know that many trump allies and supporters feel that he ran on a travel ban, he should have lawful power to execute it, at least try to do it, which he hasnt had the chance legally yet. A lot of critics as you know felt this is one of the largest overreaches of president ial power in this era. So it will be a big fight leading up to october to see what the Supreme Court says about it. Ari, hang tight a second. I want to get back to elizabeth wiser. Two questions for you. Can you say as you look to what ari is talking about, the october supreme showdown what you could call it, who would be arguing that for the administration, how do you think were going to see it play out. Kind of fast forward in time here. I imagine the solicitor general would argue the case himself. If the nominated solicitor general is confirmed at that point. Noel francisco has been named but right now jeffrey wal is second in command is acting solicitor general, he argued the case in the 4th circuit, the one the Court Granted review in. Jeffrey wall has been probably the best lawyer trump could have. The unfortunate part for jeff wall and lawyers for trump is that trump keeps undermining their arguments in court with his tweets. Thats got to be frustrating. He makes their job really hard for them. I think its interesting that the way trump will respond, it looks like, and im still reading this, that there is some part of the travel ban will be allowed to go into effect, but it will be blocked for plaintiffs in the particular cases and those with a bona fide connection to the United States. We have to learn a little more about what the court just said because it is coming out right now. Given that maybe he may try to claim victory on part of it, i still think it is a loss. Im going to let you read. Let us know. Kristin well t Kristin Welker is standing by. I am going to ask you what the white house reaction is, i know we dont have any yet because it is just coming out. Put it in context. You heard elizabeth talk about President Trump perhaps trying to spin it as partial victory. Obviously this is a blow to one of his key priorities. Reporter thats right. In terms of reaction, we dont have reaction yet. We reached out to a number of top officials here. As soon as we get that, well bring it to you. Youre right. If in fact legal analysis is accurate, the president will try to claim victory on part of it. Bottom line, until theres a green light on the travel ban, President Trump is going to effectively be defeated on this issue because this is one of his key campaign promises. He vowed he would put the travel ban in place. Two different versions of it have been held up in various courts. The optics of it hasnt worked well for the president. He continues to argue this is an urgent threat. Throughout the course of the past several months, we pressed the white house on what specifically that means, and if Social Security so urgent, what actions will President Trump take in place of that. Effectively the answer is that there isnt any action. Theyre waiting for this travel ban to be green lighted. Ultimately i think the administration will be frustrated by this decision and hope that ultimately when the court hears the case that theres a green light on this. This is one of the big issues for his supporters. Kristin welker, thank you very much for that perspective. Were obviously talking more about the travel ban case, but ari, i want to go to you. Were also learning about something else. There had been speculation that perhaps maybe Justice Kennedy would announce his retirement. Sounds as though thats not happening, which means he will stay on, it seems, another term, at least no announcement contrary to that yet as we might typically see. Thats significant. No announcement to that effect. There was discussion Justice Kennedy, longest serving member, often a swing vote. Think about decisions today, like theyre going to hear the case regarding same sex couples trying to buy a cake and were denied that based on the Business Owners statement of their own religious freedom, harkens back to kennedy being the key swing vote in establishing samesex marriage in this country, being key on many other cases. We have no indication that he is changing anything. Hired the normal number of clerks, moved forward. He did turn heads when he made reportedly above the law a joke at recent event where he said i have a big announcement for everyone, clerks and Justice Gorsuch were there, and reportedly said the bar will remain open after the nights addresses, that accounts for Supreme Court justice humor, his way of lightly acknowledging intrigue about retirement. Heard nothing that he is going anywhere. Supreme Court Justice humor. I want to go to elizabeth. As im reading it onset with the rest of our friends here, what does this mean the stay is in effect in part . Seems partial. Can you tell us anything concrete . Absolutely. First, there are three justices, the most conservative, gorsuch, alito, thomas who would have let the entire travel ban go into place. But they didnt carry the day. Right now, looks like the court said that the ban can go into effect against Foreign Nationals who have no relationship to the United States. No Family Members, no attempts to attend college here, school here. People have no connection to the United States and live in another country. Other than want to travel here. Exactly. The court says thats where the Administration Security concerns are at their highest. For the vast majority of people who do have a relative here who are seeking entry here as refugees because they have family here or students who want to come to the United States for education, the travel ban will not be able to go into effect for them. Thats a huge win. I dont know the answer to this question. Do we have any idea of the numbers of people were talking about here, the majority of people, elizabeth, ask you as well, majority of people that have connections to the u. S. Or majority do not . Certainly in cases that weve seen, it is people who are trying to reunite with families, coming as refugees, again because their families already fled terrible situations or because they have been torn apart by the strife in their home country. It is an important win for families and plaintiffs fighting since day one, since we got the first terrible travel ban which a lot of people, myself included, think violates the establishment clause barrier against discriminating on the basis of religion. And they carried that through to the Supreme Court. Ari, can we read tea leaves, how significant that the court decided to take it up in the first place. Doesnt tell us much how it might rule next year, but can you walk us through some of that . Often we talk about the court breaking ties. Here this was blocked at this stage by multiple federal courts, and there was one ruling more supportive. But they didnt have to take the case. Them taking it as expected is a huge president ial power issue. Because we have just gotten the opinion, i want to read more because while there is as i was reporting bad news with the Trump Administration, as you were just discussing there are good notes as well. What the Supreme Court has done is for the benefit of viewers, read two krurcrucial p. This is not a final merit decision, this is what happens until october in the ruling. As you were discussing, they basically say what lower courts did in blocking most of the travel ban was too broad. The court saying today, the injunctions, blockage of the ban reach further. They also bar enforcement against Foreign Nationals abroad who have no connection to the u. S. At all. As you were discussing, that key language basically meaning the court is saying part of the ban that extends to people with no link whatsoever can be basically put into effect until the case is argued. Then they also note where this will still be blocked which is important as folks around the country try to figure out what this means. And this i want to read briefly. They say an american individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can claim legitimately hardship if that person is excluded. Translation, the court does care about anyone who can say theyre linked to an american because keeping that person out while this case is up on review they say might be unfair. So with respect to those kind of individuals, the block on the ban continues. Ari melber standing by. I want to go to Pete Williams, our nbc news justice correspondent standing by outside the Supreme Court. Pete, obviously were talking about news that you are helping to break in front of the Supreme Court here. Word on the travel ban case, can you talk about what the practical effect of this decision today is going to be . Reporter sure, the practical effect is as follows. Number one, the government is already doing in essence the homework assignment the president Gave Department of Homeland Security, spend 20 days and see how dependable visa Background Information is from six countries. The government started to do that last monday because of an interim court ruling. That will be done in another 15 days or so. Secondly, this is partial victory for the administration because as a practical matter if you dont know somebody, have a relative, someone that wants you to come to the u. S. Or youre here to get a job or youre here to study in a university, if neither of those categories, then the government will enforce the ban. You wont be able to get a visa for the next 90 days. But already the government has been doing what they call enhanced vetting, extreme vetting for all visa applicants worldwide. So my guess is that most people, certainly ones involved in court cases, did have some kind of connection to the u. S. They knew somebody here, were a relative, wanted to get their motherinlaw here, wanted to enroll at university of hawaii, as some of the people in this case did. So the government wont be able to enforce the travel ban against them. So theres no change there. But it will begin to enforce the 90 day travel ban against everybody else, and my guess is strictly a guess, thats probably less, considerably less than half the people that wanted visas. Thats why we say it is a partial victory for the administration. We dont know hard numbers on that, right, pete . Reporter correct. We have not seen hard numbers. Couple other things about what happened at the Supreme Court, hallie, lets talk about if we may. Number one, no word about retirements. We all wondered if Justice Kennedy may say at the end of hand down session in Court Whether he was retiring. No word. Typically if a justice was going to leave, they would say so either before today or today. Doesnt mean we couldnt hear from him later in a written statement or some other time. The more time goes by, less likely he is going to step down, despite the speculation. Number two, the court agreed to hear a case from colorado. There have been a series of cases about people who provide businesses, photographers, florists, bakers for same sex weddings. They refuse to provide services on religious grounds. Most people suing in lower courts have lost, but today the Supreme Court said it would take the appeal from a baker in california who argued that being required to provide cakes for e samesex marriage violated his religion. He argues he is an artist and cakes are a work of art, he is forced to create a message he doesnt agree with. Secondly, the court once again today said it is not getting into the issue of begun rights. Biggest issue nationwide on gun rights, is there a right to carry a gun outside the home. In 2008, the Supreme Court in a very big decision for the first time in our history said the Second Amendment provides an individual right to have a gun and the court said specifically you have a right to have a gun at home for self defense. The big legal question is what about outside the home. Is there a right to carry a gun outside, what about conceal carry. The court had a big invitation to take that up from today from california and it declined to do so. One other notable case, without hearing any argument simply on the record, the court today overturned a policy in the state of arkansas that said when same sex parents want to list both names on the birth certificate, only the biological mother can be listed. This is in couples that have a child through surrogacy. The state said a birth certificate is a biological record. Today the Supreme Court said thats not entirely true. If a woman has a child and the husband isnt the biological father, in an opposite sex marriage, the husband is still listed on the birth certificate. So it is not fair not to have the same policy with same sex couples and the court overturned that policy in arkansas. Pete williams, to say you have been a busy man would be an understatement. Let me ask you one more question, if you canon th on th travel ban. It was described by ari melber as the blockbuster coming up in october. Is it fair to say when you put it in plain english the court is saying today that essentially lower courts used too broad a brush when it put a stay on the ban, and now is starting to roll it back somewhat . Reporter whenever they grant a stay, its a message, this is the rule in the federal courts. When you grant a stay, it means you think the people who want the stay have the better argument. The court in this brief decision today doesnt delve into it. And lower courts used two sets of reasoning. One said the travel ban is basically religious discrimination in disguise, cited all kinds of statements the president made during the campaign, calling for a muslim ban. They said all these words afterwards are niceties, meant it as a ban on muslims. Another court said the president didnt have right under federal law to do this, that he exceeded the law, the discretion congress has given president s. We dont know whether the court doesnt like both or either one. Theres one other thing to think about, hallie, this case may have run out of a certain amount of steam by the time it reaches the Supreme Court in the fall because the government will have enforced a good deal of it for 90 days, will have done the homework on dependability of visa Background Information. Will there be enough left for the court to engage in in the fall. We have to see what happens over the summer. Pete williams at the Supreme Court. Thank you very much. Go back to ari melber standing by in new york. Ari, pete raises a valid point there, right, that the travel ban may in fact have run out of steam. Remember, this was supposed to be a temporary thing that happened in the beginning of the administration in the late winter, early spring. Were entering summer and fall. What does that mean . One thing it means, it puts some strain on the administrations arguments. On one hand, they said this is temporary. On the other hand it is urgent. Now theyre getting to enforce part of it, which as we say is procedural victory with regard to Foreign Nationals who have no link vus fijustified by family relationship or work relationship with the United States. I think the administration will try to win over the substantive arguments that this was so important but so temporary, and what do they ultimately want to do. The Supreme Court is interested in two core questions as we gear up for the october hearing. Number one, do you have this power under the constitution and federal law, thats always the big key question in a case like this. Number two, when you exercise this power in a reasonable manner. As we reported from the start, immigration is second only to war making as a very strong power for the president. To put it in plain english, hallie, you really have to mess it up to have the court question your power there, but as discussed a lot, there are various ways it seems that the administration has by its own admission had trouble exercising power. Thats why it took a second order which was then an amended second order. You can learn on the job and the presidency like any other job if ultimately you get it right. The Supreme Court cares where it ends, not where it began. If you show it improved or narrowed power. Those are Big Questions going into october. Then, hallie, you and i covered these cases before, like obamacare, theres a legal side and big political side. Ari, i want to go to bill kristol, joining us from aspen, founder, editor of the weekly standard. Bill, you have been listening to the conversation surrounding the Supreme Court decision. I want your overall take away on this. Im not sure, i think you have a center right court which is doing what its supposed to do, curb lower courts when theyre enthusiastic. Checking executive branch, when it goes too far, conservatives for whom Court Appointed justices is so important. Religious freedom is an important issue. Samesex marriage is law of the land. It raises important rereligion is liberty issues. Theyre sensitive to religious liberty, will please conservatives, make them pleased that President Trump was able to appoint gorsuch to replace scalia, if Justice Kennedy steps down later in the week, we dont know if he is, when theres another appointment, it heightens interest in the court. Trump had a lot of failures, problems, some people who were for him, reluctantly for him drifted away. One thing that will pull them back to supporting him and the Republican Senate is if theres another appointment. Bill kristol from aspen. I want to go back to elizabeth wide ra to consider this. We talked about who this might effect. Seems as though ari said, this is splitting the baby almost from the Supreme Court. Definitely. We have a court thats as bill kristol said a center right court. It seems they were very concerned with the way this would effect particular people who as the court said in its decision this morning have a close familiaral relationship with someone in the United States, or documented tie, accepted to university of hawaii or job on the line. There might be some line drawing about what qualifies as being that close a relationship. The motherinlaw is apparently okay. Is a girlfriend okay or just a wife okay. We will see that Going Forward about where the bona fide connection to the United States lies. You know, it was a way for the court to kind of give a little to both sides. Talking about the case running out of steam by the time we get to october, at least with respect to the administrations arguments. This argument is that it is urgent for National Security reasons to have this temporary stop. That will be expired by the time the court hears the case. But the establishment claims raised by these individuals that this is targeted with animus against muslims in particular, those concerns will continue. Thats something weve seen throughout the Trump Administration, not just with this travel ban. Were going to talk more about this after the break with josh and erika, some political fallout as well, including what Homeland Security is doing to move forward and what the department of justice might do as well. By the way, other breaking news on the other big story of the day coming out of health care according to the senate, making whats called a technical tweak to the plan that could get voted on as early as this week. We have a ton to cover, so stick around after the break. woman vo my husband didnt recognize our grandson. woman 2 vo thats when moderate alzheimers made me a caregiver. avo if their alzheimers is getting worse, ask about onceaday namzaric. Namzaric is approved for moderate to severe alzheimers disease in patients taking donepezil. Namzaric may improve cognition and overall function, and may slow the worsening of symptoms for a while. Namzaric does not change the underlying disease progression. Dont take if allergic to memantine, donepezil, piperidine, or any of the ingredients in namzaric. Tell the doctor about any conditions; including heart, lung, bladder, kidney or liver problems, seizures, stomach ulcers, or procedures with anesthesia. Serious side effects may occur, including muscle problems if given anesthesia; slow heartbeat, fainting, more stomach acid which may lead to ulcers and bleeding; nausea, vomiting, difficulty urinating, seizures, and worsening of lung problems. Most common side effects are headache, diarrhea, dizziness, loss of appetite, and bruising. woman 2 vo im caring for someone with moderate alzheimers. If you are too, ask about namzaric today. b by crying minutes old. A babys skin is never more delicate. What do hospitals use to wash and protect it . Johnsons® the number 1 choices in hospitals. When a fire destroyedwith us everything in our living room. We replaced it all without touching our savings. Yeah, our insurance wont do that. No. You can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. Liberty mutual insurance. We are back with that breaking news we are talking about for the last half hour or so here. Supreme court allowing President Trumps travel ban to go into effect. It is keeping a stay on other parts of it. I want to go now to Kristen Welker who i understand has new timing on potential reaction from the president from the white house. Kristen, what have you got . Here is what we have. We know press Secretary Sean Spicer is going to brief today at 1 30. This is going to be one of those off camera briefings. Undoubtedly, though, this is going to dominate that briefing. Then the president is going to hold a joint statement with the Prime Minister of india. Thats going to take place later today, 5 00 p. M. The white house saying there wont be any questions. However, you can bet well be shouting questions to President Trump. He may just bite, hallie, because as weve been talking about, the white house will likely say this is a partial victory, because part of the travel ban is now allowed to move forward. Having said that, this is a fight that they have had really since the first days, since the president took office this travel ban has been held up in courts, the first version of it and then the second version of it, with justices and lawyers going back to that key question, is this, in fact, a ban on muslims. That is undoubtedly going to be a key question when the Supreme Court takes up arguments in okts. Again, well definitely get our first reaction from sean spicer when he briefs later on today and were going to press for the president to respond as well. If not something sooner on twitter. Kristen welker at the white house, see you soon. Ari, youve been pouring over Supreme Court decision. Were all reading on our phones. I think you have a printout there. Theres National Security angles as well. What can you tell us. You know i dont mess with the phones. Youre old school paper man. We talked about this, travel ban back in effect for all Foreign Nationals who dont have a credible claim to a link to a u. S. Person or entity. If you have a Family Member here, you study at the university here, you can still appeal and work around the travel ban. If youre a Foreign National without a claim of Something Like that you are now blocked coming into the country. That is big news here. The other piece i wanted to flag we havent gotten to, theres other encouraging language in the analysis for the Trump Administration. We talk about National Security power. Immigration is not about the movement of people but also risks and threats posed to the United States. Reading from the opinion here, they say, the governments interest in enforcing this ban, and their authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when theres no tie between Foreign National and United States. They go on to say, and this is the key language, the interest in National Security is an urgent objective of the highest order. If there is good news here for President Trump, if there is a guide post here how to argue this case for the white house in october, it is that language. Theres a National Security component here. Josh and erica, i want to get your reaction to that. Youre nodding as ari is talking. I think its going to be welcome news to Congressional Republicans that President Trump is being validated, at least in pa part, on what was one of his key campaign promises, which had been struck down in court after court and that set trump off into some of these kind of selfdestructive and undermining tweets his republican allies do not like to see. So this is going to be good news for trump and for his allies on the hill for that rein. Josh, final thoughts. Thats the argument the president made. I have the authority. I can limit this. I am the president. This is what the president wanted. How many times have we had st statutes read to us. Maybe he looks today and says maybe were getting there. Maybe keep making this argument where i can do this after all. Elizabeth, last final thoughts from you, last word as we look ahead to what happened next. Can you lay out a little bit of the time line. We expect obviously this is happening today. When are we going to see enforcement and when are we going to start gearing up for arguments. The administration has claimed they are ready to ffrs. Tomorrow . Not be the chaos we saw with the first one. Well see what that means for them. Well see the briefing go on in the Supreme Court over the summer with the argument being held in their first session when they come back in october to hear arguments. I think one thing weve seen, theres been a lot of losing for trump in this case in the lower courts. This is a little bit of a win for him. One thing that was a big win for him and conservatives was putting Justice Gorsuch on that seat many people say stole from merrick garland, president obamas nominee. Hes shown himself to be a reliable vote for the Trump Administration. Do you think hes going to be a key factor given the makeup of the court was the same before, its a wash . He certainly would have by joining justice thomass descent in the travel ban state we got this morning. He would have let the entire travel ban go into place. That what hes thinking on the subject. Thank you for what has been a rock and roll show, 60 minutes of breaking news. Im going to turn it over for more breaking news, ali velshi in new york. I always appreciate you got us off to a running start on this story. Ive been listening attentively so i can ask Smart Questions of my own. Good morning, everyone. Well to velshi and ruel. Stephanie is off. Lets get started. The plan we put in place would not allow individuals to fall in the cracks, not have individuals lose coverage. Not cuts to medicaid, slows the rate for the future and allows governors more flexibility with medicaid dollars because they are closest to the people in need. If you are ablebodied and you would like to go and find employment and have employer sponsored benefits, then you should be able to do