the court's website, but adds the court's final opinion has not been released and will be issued in due course. this case is about whether women, people have the right to receive emergency care, for women specifically, emergency abortion care in a state that bans abortion. the biden administration is arguing, yes, it is federal law that a hospital must provide emergency medical treatment, no matter what. the groups who supported the biden suit offered a number of examples including an example of a woman who was 18 weeks pregnant experiencing a condition that would result in a miscarriage. but instead of treating her, idaho doctors sent her home worried they would be breaking the law by giving her an emergency abortion. her condition was so dire that traveling to another state was out of the question because the risk of miscarrying and bleeding to death was too high. so she waited. eventually, she delivered a stillborn baby and consequentially developed a serious and rapidly developing infection, a hospitalization she could have avoided if the doctors gave her the care she needed in the first place. she is not and will not be alone. multiple other women had to be air lifted out of the state to receive emergency care. in april nbc news spoke with a doctor in boise who said he's seen four women experiencing severe pregnancy complications on to emergency flights calling it the new normal. another doctor said hifz his number was six. between january and april alone, he put six women on to a helicopter or an airplane to go to another state. during oral arguments, the women on the supreme court, including justice amy coney barrett, sounded extremely skeptical of what idaho's hard line stance has resulted in. >> this particular patient, they had to deliver her baby. the baby died. she had a hysterectomy. she can no longer have children. you're telling me the doctor there couldn't have done the abortion earlier? >> again, it goes back to whether a doctor can in good faith medical judgment -- >> that's a lot for the doctor to risk. >> it is very case by case. >> i'm kind of shocked actually. i thought your own expert said below these kinds of cases were covered. you're now saying they are not? >> i'm not saying that. that's just my point. >> you're hedging. justice sotomayor is asking whether this be covered or not. it's my understanding these would be covered. >> those doctors said they were exercising their medical judgment they could in good faith determine that life-saving care was necessary. that's my point. it's -- >> but some doctors couldn't. some might reach a contrary conclusion is what the justice is asking you. if they reach the conclusion that the legislature's doctors did, would they be prosecuted under idaho law? >> no, no. if they reached the conclusion that the doctors did that -- >> what if the prosecutor thought differently? what if they thought i don't think any good faith doctor could draw that conclusion. i'm going to put on my expert. >> that's the nature of prosecutorial discretion. >> you heard them sound skeptical. this document doesn't say that the law should stand hire. what it says is that droo didn't have the standing to appeal to directly to the supreme court, but rather that the case itself needs to be litigated in the lower courts first. so this was a procedural ruling. it's not the ruling on the actual substance of the argument that we heard there and the justice's response to it. joining us now is legal correspondent lisa rubin, senior writer mark joseph stern, and law professor and global health policy and author of "policing the woman" michelle goodwin. we have a copy of the decision ourselves now. and lisa, i want to get some logistics out of the way. this copy, and it looks like this, does not look like a normal copy of a ruling we get from the supreme court. what does that tell us? >> it tells me it's not fully baked. it hasn't been typeset, it hasn't been put into the format we pra traditionally expect from the supreme court. there's some steps that had to be taken before this document could be converted into an official supreme court opinion. that doesn't mean that the document is phoney. in fact, the court itself has released a statement saying its publications unit inadvertently posted this today. they are not saying it came from outside the court or not a court document, but what this shows me is we're a few steps short of an official court document. >> they are saying that the ruling will come in due time. they are going to make the ruling. i don't know what due time means. it could be tomorrow. it's another day to get decisions. it could be friday, it could be next week. next week is july. or is friday the last day that we believe for this term? >> yes and no. traditionally, the court finishes releasing opinions by the end of june. however, we have 12 cases left. we have two decision days left that have been announced. and traditionally as well, the chief justice will take the bench and announce the day before when the last decision day is. so chief justice roberts could tomorrow take the bench and tell us friday is it. on the other hand, it could bleed into next week. >> a lot of people will be off for the holiday. let's talk about the substance of what we're seeing here. in this document, the substance of the case is not at issue. they are not deciding that idaho needs to provide this emergency care. they are deciding that it should still be litigated. >> look, the decision of the court itself, which is for six justices unsigned, is literally one sentence long. it says that the decision to review the case was granted and that the stays of the lower court's injunction of idaho statute that it conflicts is vacated, meaning that those injunctions go back into full force. but as justice jackson notes in her concurrence in part, she's saying, look, the only thing that's happening here is delay. maybe idaho women get a reprieve for a few months or a few years, and i'm reading from the draft or from this document the decision or the opinion that is attributed to her, i want to be careful in how we describe this, she's saying maybe there will be a few months, maybe a few years during which doctors may no longer need to air lift pregnant patients out of idaho, but in the next paragraph, it isn't a victory for pregnant patients in idaho. it is delay. while this court waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires. what she's pointing to is there's six other states that have restrictions like idaho's that theoretically will come to litigation before the court. that might be why some of the justices here or six of them believe that this litigation should have gone to the lower court first, but justice jackson is also pointing out, look, i would hear the case now. >> she's writing the majority opinion? >> the majority opinion if there is one here is a sentence long, as we pointed out. and also she is dissenting from part of it. she's saying i would hear this case now because the collision with state statutes is emergency enough. >> they are talking about emergency care, and she's saying this is an emergency. there's a little bit of this document, we don't know if this is an opinion or final opinion or what, but a little bit of this document that i want to get you on. no surprise that justice alito would dissent. i don't think anybody would be shocked by that, but here's a little graph. justice alito's opinion requires a brief response. his primary argument is that it generally obligates hospitals to provide emergency medical care. it never demands they offer an abortion no matter how much that procedure is need to the prevent grave physical harm or even death. that view has no basis in the statute. mark? >> yeah, and justice jackson later also says that alito's view would nullify federal law. that's exactly right. aito forecast that position in this case. he said that in his view, this law recognizes a kind of fetal personhood because of some language requiring doctors with pregnant women and their fetuses if the ftuses can be saved. he's weaponizing that language, turning it into something congress didn't intend byment claiming that it prevents the government from saying what it is here, which abortion is necessary in certain cases to save the patient, and in those instances, federal law overrides state law. he's claiming that states like idaho and texas and mississippi and several more all have this right to force patients to the brink of death, that they could deny abortions, even when they have accept us is because they would not allow termination of a pregnancy. that's a highly con den shs reading of the statute. i don't think it aligns with the text. much of justice jackson's opinion in this draft that we're attributing to her, goes to pains to explain why he's wrong. i think that his extremism may well have helped to scare away justice barrett and justice kavanaugh and justice roberts. they took a compromised position here to kick the can down the road, in part, perhaps, because the other three conservatives were so eager to transform this case into a rather sweeping landmark decision that would say states can absolutely force patients to the brink of death what they need abortions. the federal government has no business saying those patients deserve care earlier. >> it would be a shocking decision. yet, let's go back to the larger point here. as it stands, and if this document is where we're going, this document is not a decision to make sure that people get emergency medical care. and i wonder if it's a slippery slope. this is not something that's mandating emergency medical. this document is saying it's not ready for the supreme court yet. this is not a win for anyone who supports the right for women to get emergency medical care or emergency abortion care when necessary. >> that's right. so people can be confused by that, in the same way they couldn't be confused by them at the ruling. these are technical rulings. they don't go through the substance of the matter. the fact that we're even here debating whether a woman's life could be saved. even the protections that are designed for labor and people who are pregnant and the fact that the supreme court is debating whether this idaho law that says that the no, women don't deserve these kinds of protections. that we're in federal law. it's stunning in and of itself. there will be those who see this decision today, even though it's technical, they will see it as the ceiling, not as a floor. and what i mean by that, we don't need to do anything more for women whatsoever that this basically that this decision today spares for now these individuals, but that what a state should be able to do at best would be their opinion to stabilize ament wol. woman. we need to normalize that. i think we have to keep in mind that these are decisions that are also not just about health, but they are about democracy. they are about where women stand in our democracy. there are questions about women's citizenship in this democracy. what we see in the post dobbs era is the cutting back on fundamental principles about women's standing in society. it can't be forgotten. the very fact that women have to take helicopters out of idaho to save their lives is something that is extraordinary. this is so draconian. it's cruel and unusual at its very core. this draft opinion is just a victory today, but it is not for the long-term. >> by the way, the costs of those flights can be $10,000. so it's cost prohibitive for a lot of people. there are examples we have of women turning them down on the basis of cost and said risking their lives and waiting it out a little longer in idaho,. we mentioned a few of the examples in the open to the show, including the example that justices sotomayor and amy coney barrett get into with the lawyer for idaho that just shocking examination of a woman who had to be air lifted out there are doctors who say that the new normal now is when a woman is presenting with severe complications is to get them out of the state. that's the new normal in idaho. so does this ruling mean that women are still going to be air lifted out of idaho? does this continue on for as long as it takes to make its way through the courts? >> that's an excellent question. this attack on doctors, there are doctors bho left the state of idaho. there are hospital that have closed their maternity ward. so the few that are still available are threatened and worried about losing their medical licenses to practice. and the question that was asked by justice sotomayor and followed by amy coney barrett about what will prosecutors do. that's a critically important question. because prosecutors who lean into what the investigative cone happens to be means they may continue to threaten doctor or may continue to try to air lift patients and say i'm not sure what could do hear. there are those that say doctors could as act as they did during the civil rights movement and be more bold and contest these matters in the state and advocate for their patients more robustly, but there are doctors who really do worry about losing marry medical license to practice and the potential for criminal punishment and civil litigation. >> so as the justice said, it's a lot to ask of a doctor. the other question i have, this is not a decision or a full-blown opinion. we don't know whether this is a draft. we don't know what this is yet. it was posted mistakenly by the court. the full decision coming in due time. if it does signal something, is there a threat to other emergency care? if the supreme court let's this get litigated s there other emergency care that would no longer be required if this in the future is the rolled back? >> i do think you have a number of justices here saying that state criminal law when it conflicts with a federal statute should be able to take precedent. and the only justice that i can see so far who in their concurrence or opinion raises the supremacy clause issue is justice jackson who says that should be unquestioning. it should -- >> doesn't that open the door for a whole host of things. does it open the door for gay marriage? if you're talking about the local laws taking precedent over the supremacy clause, doesn't that just open the door to all the things people have been worried about. >> it possibly could. it depends on the facts of the case and how the statutory terms conflict. one of the reasons justice bar barrett here, if this is a draft being attributed to her, one of the reasons she sided with the majority is the fact flick is not as wud as was originally presented to the court. you can marm news their positions to great effect. so part of what is involved in deciding whether the court would ever hear one of those fits duets about a collision between federal statute and state law on issues that people really care about is just exactly how this conflict colts to mind. >> we don't know if this is going to be the final decision, but it was an interesting look into the workings of the supreme court today. thank you very much. still ahead, the bloomberg reporter who broke this story is going to join us in a few minutes. don't go anywhere. also there's a big debate tomorrow. don't know if you heard about it. president biden and the former president trump sl are going to be standing in the same room. who knows if they are going to be debating the issue, but they will both be there. we'll be watching. what should we expect? and the debate of homeland security says 400 migrants were smuggled into the u.s. in an association that has ties to isis. what you need to know, in a moment. at you need ktonow, in moment o get some fresh air. fresh air? hi guys! bill, you look great! now that i have inspire, i'm free from struggling with the mask and the hose. inspire? inspire is a sleep apnea treatment that works inside my body with a click of this button. no mask! no hose! just sleep. give me this thing. where are you going? i'm going to get inspire. inspire. sleep apnea innovation. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com. i thought i was sleeping ok... but i was waking up so tired. then i tried new zzzquil sleep nasal strips. their four—point lift design opens my nose for maximum air flow. so, i breathe better. and we both sleep better. and stay married. (aaron) i own a lot of businesses... aso i wear a lot of hats. my restaurants, my tattoo shop... and i also have a non-profit. but no matter what business i'm in... my network and my tech need to keep up. thank you, verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (woman) all with the security features we need. (aaron) because my businesses are my life. (kevin) man, the fish tacos are blowing up! (aaron) so whatever's next we're cooking with fire. let's make it happen! (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on. ♪ i'm gonna hold you forever... ♪ ♪ i'll be there... ♪ ♪ you don't... ♪ ♪ you don't have to worry... ♪ nothing dims my light like a migraine. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer. san francisco's been through tough times. london breed led us through the pandemic, declaring an emergency before anyone else, saving thousands of lives. from growing up in the western addition housing projects to becoming mayor, london has never given up on the city that raised her. london is getting people off the streets and into care. london never gave up on me. i found a home, and my life is on the right track. london made it super easy for me to open my small business, by cutting city fees. and she's reinventing downtown to make our city vibrant again. she's building 82,000 new homes and helping first time homebuyers, just like us. and london's hiring hundreds of police officers, and arresting drug dealers. san francisco has been through difficult times, but our hard work is paying off. working together, we're building a better future for the city we all love. ad paid for by re-elect mayor london breed 2024. financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org. joining us now is the bloomberg news reporter that broke the story. i'm just very curious how did you come across this? how did you find this? >> all i can tell you is it was briefly on the court's website and then disappeared. it was put out there around the time the court released two other opinions this morning. apparently, it wasn't supposed to go out. the court said there was an inad ed a investigator tent posting on the web and then it disappeared. >> is you ever experienced something like this before? >> i have seen a couple of occasions like this, although i wasn't one of the ones lucky enough to have seen it in the previous cases. in those other cases, they posted things early. there was one case where they posted an orders list maybe a half hour before it was supposed to go up. this appears to be something that wasn't supposed to go up today at all. probably designed to come down later early this week. >> it wasn't supposed to go up today at all. is that because the formatting is just not like a normal supreme court decision? >> no, the formatting may have to do with the kind of decision this is. this is a decision where they essentially said, we're backing out of this case. we're lifting the stay we entered earlier. it's more of a question of the fact that this time of year, any time of year, the court announces its opinions from the bench. you so you wait for the chief justice to say justice so and so has our opinion. he didn't say that with regard to this case today. that's why seemingly it should not have been put out there. >> when you first broke this story, this is your first interview since breaking it, thank you for coming on this show. but when it first came out there, i think a lot of people thought about what happened with the decision to overturn roe v. wade, the dobbs decision. a draft of that decision was leaked to a couple reporters at politico early on. this is not the same thing. >> no, this is not the same thing. in terms of how we got it, it was just a matter of we happen to be able to pull it from the website very briefly. in a similar extent, this could still change. this is not a final decision. the court made that clear. an opinion, you like this, when the court maybe pull it is back or what seems to have been what happened, there's a possibility that a justice will say i want to change something in the opinion, maybe even my vote. there's no reason to think the outcome is going to be different, but much like with the dobbs case, there's the possibility that something could change when the court does release its final opinion. >> you followed this case. you follow supreme court decisions. can you tell me what stood out to you reading through this decision regarding idaho? >> i will say i was a bit surprised just because of the way the court handled this case previously. they intervened fairly aggressively to block this lower court order that was designed to ensure that women in idaho could get abortions in hospitals if they had an emergency that threatened a serious health risk. the court intervened and said, no, we're going to let idaho fully enforce its very strict abortion ban, which has only an exception for when the life of the mother is in danger. and basically, the court backed away from all that now. the court is allowing abortions to go forward in idaho on an emergency basis in hospitals. and that was not something -- even though the justices seemed to be struggling with it during the arguments, that was not something i was predicting in terms of the outcome of this case. >> in the arguments, the women in the court seemed hostile to the argument that droo was making, where a woman needs to be put on a plane to get emergency medical treatment. does it signal some sort of internal turmoil within the court? i imagine the women in the court felt the same as they did during the oral arguments, that they would be on pretty clear side on this argument. do you think there's a conflict between them potentially in some of the men on the court? >> i agree about that's how the argument sounded. it was the women. three of them are the liberal justices and the fourth is amy coney barrett, who was appointed by president trump. they were pretty concerned about letting idaho fully enforce the law. they got at least a couple more votes to sort of back away from this case because there were only three justices who dissented from the outcome of this case. there's certainly a lot of turmoil in this court. there's a lot of -- we have seen it in the opinions that have been coming out the last couple weeks. there's a lot of back and forth. i have to imagine that something like justice roberts would recognize an opinion where you have the four women on one side of an abortion case talking about the threat towomen's health would not be a good look for this court. so i wouldn't be surprised if he were listening to them very closely. >> they were talking about the medical procedures and the parts involved. they were very clear about the medical part of this debate while the men were much more fuzzy on those details. thank you so much for joining us. congratulations in refreshing your page at just the right time. appreciate you coming on. >> thank you. tomorrow night could be the preveer mere event of this election cycle. president biden and former president trump are preparing for the first debate. president biden is holding mock debates. it is his sixth day of preparations, as some 16 and current former advisers try to ready him for an unpredictable challenger, while donald trump is at mar-a-lago in so-called informal debate prep. joining us now is mike memoli. and in atlanta, nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard. so mike, the biden team is taking this pretty seriously. what are they expected? do they still feel comfortable with the rules as they outlined them? >> reporter: there's always some concern and some last-minute conversation about what the role the moderatesers there will do. it's interesting. as long as joe biden has been in politics, whether a senator, vice president or certainly now as president, he really cares a lot about what he says and how he says it. speech writers who work for him will tell you how agoniing speech prep can be. a lot of what we have seen from the president or haven't seen is the president really rehearsing and fine tuning some of the ways he might answer particular questions they expect. and then some of the attack lines he might try to land against donald trump. now as we are moving into the phase where we understand there have been some full mock debates, they are preparing for which donald trump will show up. you might do a mock debate where you have what the biden team is referring to as the maga trump, who you see at the rally who can be boisterous and go off the rails with some of the comments he makes. but as some of this is expectation setting, they are predicting we're going to see a disciplined trump in the line that they see doing a lot of local media interviews. he's a bit more reserved in how he answers those questions. what's underlying all the prep here is the biden team thinks there will be a big audience watching this debate tomorrow night. that has been reluctant to or avoiding the campaign for most of the last few years months. we're talking about 80 million viewers who have turned into the past debates. so they want the president to be prepared to talk about what he has done and what is at risk if donald trump is elected, but also more importantly, what he's prepared to do if he's given another four years in office. >> let's talk about the informal debate prep. what does that mean? >> reporter: i think it's a really good question. campaign advisers are not providing insight into what he has planned for the next 24 hours. in the last hour, he dialled in by phone into a black business leaders roundtable event here in atlanta attended by former secretary ben carson and florida congressman byron donald. he spoke on the phone via speak speaker phone for a couple minutes. but what he's doing at mar-a-lago is not clear. he will not be flying into atlanta until tomorrow. he was talking with the former campaign manager in 2015-2016 of donald trump and sinces then adviser, who is hosting a show on a right wing platform. the two were conversing about this debate prep. he has been preparing his whole life for this debate his whole life. but this is donald trump. and you could say everybody has their different approach. for donald trump, he's somebody we're aware of for not only his campaign rallies, but husband conversations on right wing platforms that he's able to riff for long extended periods of times. sometimes even multiple hours. so for donald trump, he suggested that it's all in his head and doing two days away in a room or a week or two only would prepare somebody so much it's either in your head or it's not. this is the third time he's gone through general election debates here. he did it the mr formal way in '16 and '20. this time, at least according to to what we're told, is a little different. >> thank you, jet member. coing up, what happened when conservatives in oklahoma tried to bring religion into a public school. and next with the dhs is warning about links between isis and a group bringing immigrants to the border. don't go anywhere. rants to the rdboer don't go anywhere. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ chewy, a citi client, uses citi's financial expertise to help drive its growth and keep its supply chain moving, so more pet parents can get everything they need... right when they need it. keeping more pets, and families, happy. ♪♪ for the love of moving our clients forward. for the love of progress. smile! you found it. the feeling of finding psoriasis can't filter out the real you. so go ahead, live unfiltered with the one and only sotyktu, a once-daily pill for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding you're so ready for your close-up. or finding you don't have to hide your skin just your background. once-daily sotyktu was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one sotyktu, so ask for it by name. so clearly you. sotyktu. (vo) you were diagnosed with thyroid eye disease a long time ago. so clearly you. and year after year, you weathered the storm and just lived with the damage that was left behind. but even after all this time your thyroid eye disease could still change. restoration is still possible. learn how you could give your eyes a fresh start at tedhelp.com. it's derm's day off, but neutrogena ultra sheer sunscreen is still on the clock. vital sun protection goes six layers deep blocking 97% of burning uv rays. it's light, but it's working hard. unlike me. neutrogena ultra sheer sunscreen. - so this is pickleball? - pickle! ah, these guys are intense. with e*trade from morgan stanley, we're ready for whatever gets served up. i'd rather work on saving for retirement. or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right? we have been watching a concert the effort by christian conservatives to implant their believes into american life and law blurring the separation between church and state. we have been reporting on laws restricting abortion access on the basis of a religious belief of when life begins, along with louisiana's new law to require the ten commandments in every public classroom. and there have been lawsuits at each new law is spurring. we have been covering those as well. one of those lawsuits regarding another attempt in another state was just brushed back. the oklahoma state supreme court ruled that a local school board must rescind its approval for what would have been the nation's first publicly funded religious school. finding it violates the state constitution and, quote, would create a slippery slope. joining us now is david frank. good to have you. the new energy put into these lawsuits and attempts or even just this new legislation to more deeply embed conservative christian believes into american law and american society, why are they happening it seems so much more frequently today? >> there's been a change actually in much of the argument on the right. so for a long time, i was a rlks liberty lawyer before i was a journalist. so my argument was that religious institutions should approach the public square with equal rights to everyone else. in other words, don't treat religious speech as second class speech. don't treat religious institution as second class institutions. i think that's the sound constitutional approach to religious liberty. but over time what's happened is more people on the right have become consumed with the idea of religious authority. not that we should be on an equal basis with everybody else, but we should have greater authority to implement our religious ideals than other members of other religions. and so there's a giant difference between a private christian school that might receive funding just like other private schools do from a voucher program and what we're talking about in oklahoma, which charter schools have been traditionally considered public schools. so the charter school isn't a private school. this would be a public religious school. not a private religion school. and that clearly implicates the establishment clause. so there's this transition from we want religious liberty, which is treat us the same as everyone else, which i completely endorsed, to we want religious authority, which is we will privilege our religious views over everyone else's and that's not constitutionally kosher. >> where does the change come from? why is it happening today? why do people who want to make an authority instead of an equality, why do they feel more emboldened today? >> i think there's been a culture kmang in a lot of the new right. because this is actually new if you're a younger american. this is very old if you're an older american. people remember the religious establishments that were dominant in many southern states and the authorities in the 50s. there's this idea that we need to use the power of the government to turn that clock back to sort of a 1950s style american to permit mandatory school prayer, mandatory scripture reading, things along those lines. so you have begun to see in the right in particular a big move away from a more libertarian idea that says we all get equal rights and we should all be treated equally to the more authoritarian idea that says, hey, christianity built this country. it gets pride of place. christians get pride of place in our local governments and our schools and our policies and that's what's old is new again kind of argument. >> your reading of the constitution, is there an argument for christian authority that this country is based on christian values and in this case, conservative christian values, do actually have more quality than everybody else. they do take precedent over everybody else's belief. whether they are islamic or jewish or nondenominational or someone who doesn't believe in religion at all. >> there's a lot of argument for religious liberty. there's a lot of argument for religious acknowledgment. so beginning a legislative session with prayer so long as the prayer has access to it. praying in turn, having equal access to that form and to that opportunity. there's not an argument for religious establishment. so establishment is different from liberty. it's different from a acknowledgment. establishment is a state school run by the catholic church as in the charter schools, which this was a public school. establishment is when you say, we're going to require every school to have this particular version of the ten commandments. what christians would see that clearly if a different state was saying every school must post the five pillars of islam. they would say i see this clearly as an establishment. but there's a giant blind spot here. >> is it a willful blind spot? >> for some people, it's a willful blind spot. there's no question. there's just no question. but for a lot of average people, they have not thought through the um police indications of the doctrine they are pursuing. they think i like the ten commandments. what's wrong with the ten kmnd commandments. they don't dive deeper into saying the state can require this kind of religious expression in every classroom. >> david french, thank you so much. always good to have you. coing up, what argument president biden made for his presidency in 2020 that might not still be as effective in 2024. we have some interesting analysis about that. plus subjects of concern. what has i.c.e. on the lookout for a number of migrants who have entered the united states in the past three years and what their connection might be to isis. is he wasn't fit for the presidency, his character wasn't right. it clearly did not matter in 2016. donald trump won. but we tend to believe donald trump's character did affect him in 2020. but did it really? and frankly, has character ever really mattered? joining us now is chief political analyst chuck todd. and msnbc contributor jake sherman. this is a controversial take that i'm sure a lot of people will be yelling at their televisions over, but does character when it comes to presidential races, does it matter? has it ever really mattered? >> it's funny you say this. i have been asking that same question. if we want to the go back to the first time we had a former president run for his old job, it was grover cleveland. one of the essential attacks against him was character. he had a child out of wedlock. it didn't matter. fast forward to bill clinton. george h.w bush ran a character campaign and it didn't work. bob dole went back at character. there's a famous line, he just sort of throws up his hands in frustration basically doesn't character count for anything. and the fact of the matter is, no, we're all -- we all have a little narcissism in us. meaning, we all care about what's in front of us. what does it mean for us? and we also, on one hand, we in the press sometimes treat the presidency as a monarchy, but it's a reflection of themgss. so i think what one person sees as a character flaw, another person sees as, hey, thereby the grace of god. we preach all the time that presidents are no different than us. so then we shouldn't be surprised when they behave no differently than someone in society who we say has questionable character. we'll overlook it if we like how they do something else. how they run the country, protect the border, whatever it is. >> but i also can imagine people saying you can't compare donald trump to bill clinton. you can't compare donald trump to grover cleveland. they are just not the same person. and character when we're talking about those men, their character was in a different league from what donald trump's been accused of. and been found guilty of. we have seen a conviction for the hush money case, the election interference case. we heard him talk in a way that no ever president has spoken and been able to get away with. donald trump's character is in a league of its own. >> right, but i might argue that when you have an insurgent that in some ways -- it's almost part of the point. in order to prove you're going to shake things up, you're not going to be polite. i think this is why you have the double standard coverage. why is joe biden held to a different standard than donald trump? joe biden wants to be held to a different standard. jb says i'm a man of better character. so it all depends on who you are. donald trump hasn't pet pretended he's a man of high character. that also matters in whether it becomes an issue for you or not. and let's just remember this. character is a luxury item to vote on for many voters. when you're down to a binary choice. >> jake, character you can also call candidate quality. and famously, mitch mcconnell said candidate quality is what did them in in 2022. does character matter more maybe in these down ballot races? have we seen it matter more in more. >> yeah, we have and i want to make another point. we just saw an add that started running in georgia and pennsylvania and michigan and that tried to make the argument in a different way. it juxtaposes donald trump's words on january 6 with people beating the snot out of cops here on capitol hill during the insurrection. and there is a police officer who appears on the screen saying that i'm not going to be with someone who is sowed division. i want to be with someone who wants to bring people together and that is why i'm with joe biden. and so that is one way you see character play out. and there is a lot of skepticism among democrats and republicans quite frankly that january 6 will play a major role in the upcoming presidential election. but the biden campaign clearly has some data or you hope they have some data because they're leaning into it, that january 6 does matter. that is number one. number two, it matters in a down ballot race where you could win a primary with 50,000 or 60,000 votes and people are voting in part because of character, i would say. because in the down ballot races, people are not as familiar with the candidates, they're not as defined. we saw last night jamal bowman, who was a democrat in new york, lost to george latimer in a race that wasn't about character, but about some of his behavior on capitol hill. he famously pulled a fire alarm during a vote and was caught on camera doing so. so it plays a little bit more of a role in a personal race. >> but lauren boebert won? >> yeah. it is not -- as chuck said. these aren't clean examples. and i think what chuck said made sense. when inflation is high and people feel like the government is out of control, which is a point donald trump is trying to make, people say well i'll take that guy because this guy is not working for me. >> it reminds me, chuck, i'm going to bring this up again. from the argument that joe biden agreeing to a debate with -- with former president trump was a mistake. would have been a mistake in the first place. that it is giving him authority, it is giving him -- it is like abraham lincoln acknowledging jefferson davis. it gives him credence when donald trump tried to overturn an election and how do you have a debate with someone when you say let's put the attempt to overturn democracy and talk about gas prices. >> but you're disrespecting half of the country. this is not about agreeing to debate donald trump, it is accepting the fact that the other party decides to nominate him. he won the votes by a lot. there is a lot of people that support him. if you're joe biden and you promise at your inauguration that you were going to try to knit the country back together then you better respect the voters when they disagree with you. i take david's point on that. but it led to what i call good-hearted bad decisions in our business and in the media. but also in the world of -- of political campaigns, this idea of deplatforming trump or protecting the public from trump's rhetoric don't show rallies or do this, again, i understand the motivation behind it and i hear the arguments for it, and then i'm like, do you not trust the democracy. trust the public. if you protect they're precious ears eventually they don't know what bad sounds like. >> it is -- it is an interesting debate and it is certainly been a really difficult race to cover and donald trump kins to be a difficult person to cover because he's done things that are anti-democratic, you could argue even anti-democratic candidate but there are so many americans who support him. p chuck todd, thank you so much for coming back and having this conversation with me. we've been wanting to have it. jake sherman, appreciate it. coming up next, what isis, isis the terrorism organization, has to do with quite a few migrants that have crossed the border. don't go anywhere. don't go anywhere. (aaron) i own a lot of businesses... so i wear a lot of hats. my restaurants, my tattoo shop... and i also have a non-profit. but no matter what business i'm in... my network and my tech need to keep up. thank you, verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (woman) all with the security features we need. (aaron) because my businesses are my life. (kevin) man, the fish tacos are blowing up! (aaron) so whatever's next we're cooking with fire. let's make it happen! (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on. upset stomach iberogast indigestion iberogast bloating iberogast thanks to a unique combination of herbs, iberogast helps relieve six digestive symptoms to help you feel better. six digestive symptoms. the power of nature. iberogast. nothing dims my light like a migraine. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer. you know what's brilliant? boring. think about it. boring is the unsung catalyst for bold. what straps bold to a rocket and hurtles it into space? boring does. boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible, and startups start up. because it's smart, dependable, and steady. all words you want from your bank. for nearly 160 years, pnc bank has been brilliantly boring so you can be happily fulfilled... which is pretty un-boring if you think about it. centrum! it's scientifically formulated to help you take charge of your health. centrum gives every body a healthy foundation. supporting your - oops - energy, immunity and metabolism. and yours too! you did it! plus try centrum silver, now clinically proven to support memory in older adults. an alternative to pills, voltaren is a clinically proven arthritis pain relief gel, which penetrates deep to target the source of pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine directly at the source. voltaren, the joy of movement. now to an nbc news exclusive, the department of homeland security has identified more than 400 migrants brought to the u.s. by an isis affiliated human smuggling network. through u.s. officials tell nbc news, 150 of them have been arrested. but that they don't know where some 50 others are. joining us now, nbc homeland security security correspondent julia ainsley. what could you tell us about this? >> people should know that they have no evidence that these people have a plot to carry out any attack here in the united states. but they're arrested them on immigration rather than terrorism related charges because it is the easiest way to get them off street because they came here through human smuggling that is affiliated with isis. there are people who with part of the network who move people from countries in central asia to the united states. and then they cross the border. and since they have those links, they want to target this particular group. these are people from uzbekistan and georgia and moldova and you could see there and this is the reason why ice wants to talk to them. so it is a isis linked group but they have no evidence of any plans to carry out any kind of terror attack here in the united states. >> you could amass for us, 150 arrested and 50 missing. what about the others. >> they are living in u.s. states and they may soon be arrested as part of an i.c.e. operation. but for those 50, those are particular concerned because they're whereabouts are unknown. so there are more of a concern to dfs. >> that is a big number. thank you very much. and that is going to do it for me. "deadline: white house" tarts right now. hi there, everyone, it is 4:00 in the east. another day, another issue surrounding the united states supreme