the fbi for any wrongdoing in this case. they said it s a completely justifiable shoot. in addition, also today, the fbi has told us that their own shooting incident review group, has met on this matter and found that, yes, the shooting was consistent with the doj deadly force policy. that was all today. bing, bing, bing. one, two, three. and it s all over. as far as law enforcement is concerned. after ten months of there being no official information on this case whatsoever, mr. todashev s family outraged and bereft, holding press conferences to show the photos of their son that his friend took in the morgue showing the seven bullet holes in him. them trying to get some explanation of what happened. with his girlfriend and his friends, at least three of them deported and/or barred from reentering this country during the course of the investigation, all of a sudden today, bing, bing, bing, all in one morning, the u.s. government at both the
jumps in again, interrupts him, asks, blood transfusions, could they refuse their employees getting blood transfusions on religious grounds? the lawyer says at that point each of these would have to be evaluated on its own. then they struggled on through the first half of the argument. this is a case at the supreme court today that has been championed by conservatives and republicans as a test of religious liberty. at its factual core, though, it really is about the question of whether or not your boss gets to decide on the basis of his or her religious beliefs whether or not your health insurance covers your birth control. joining us for the interview tonight, walter dellinger, former acting solicitor general. he was at the supreme court for today s arguments. thank you for being here. i appreciate your time tonight. you re welcome. from what you saw and heard in court today and the way this case was briefed, what is the key legal point that will decide this case? and how broadl
the case that a corporation should be able to deny its employees access to contraception on the basis of their religious beliefs, the lawyer is arguing that case and he gets out 1 1/2 sentences of his argument when he is interrupted by justice sonia sotomayor. she says is your claim limited to contraceptives or include items like blood transfusions, vaccines? for some religions, products made of pork. could an employer preclude the use of those items as well? the lawyer gets out 2 1/2 sentences in response to justice sotomayor, whereupon he gets interrupted again. this time by justice elena kagan who says this. just take one of the things that justice sotomayor asked about which is vaccinations. because there are many people who have religious objections to vaccinations. suppose an employer refused to fund vaccinations for employees. what happens then? the lawyer gets out two more sentences and then justice kagan jumps in again, interrupts him, asks, blood transfusions, could
this case? and how broadly applicable is it beyond the initial facts of this challenge? well, the key legal point that ought to decide the case is whether companies can use their economic leverage to impose their own moral views on their employees. no one doubts that the green family has sincere objections to contraception. they own a company that employs 13,000 people. and they want to impose their religious views on those 13,000 people. and if they succeed, as justice kagan pointed out later in the argument, rachel, if they succeed in this claim of imposing their burden of their religious beliefs on their employees, they will both be denying the essential moral agency of those women as individuals. they will also be setting the stage for endless other claims as justice kagan said to come out of the woodwork.
the fbi s full statement to us today is posted on our website tonight at maddowblog.com. let me say, i would still welcome the opportunity to speak with anyone from the fbi ever if they would ever be willing to talk about this live on television. so far, i don t have hope that they ever will. especially because this has ended exactly the way they needed it to end. in the meantime, joining us now, david boeri, senior reporter for wbur. he s been following this case. thank you very much for being with us. you re welcome, rachel. the florida state attorney s office took a long time. months and months preparing a report on this shooting. it s a long detailed report with some primary documents and photos we never saw before. what did you find most important and interesting about this product? the biggest surprise in this case, and this case is a bizarre case, but the biggest surprise for me today was to learn the focus of this entire investigation which is whether