GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: President Trump's business empire is in question, as he appears in court for a civil fraud trial in New York.

GEOFF BENNETT: House Speaker Kevin McCarthy faces a revolt from far right Republicans after making a deal to avoid a government shutdown.

AMNA NAWAZ: The United Nations Security Council votes to send armed forces to Haiti to combat the violent gangs that have largely overrun the capital city.

GEOFF BENNETT: And the U.S. Supreme Court begins a new term with major cases on the docket and growing concern over court ethics.

(BREAK) AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the "NewsHour."

Former President Donald Trump was in court today in New York for a civil fraud trial over his real estate dealings.

GEOFF BENNETT: The judge already ruled on one of the major arguments from prosecutors last week, saying Mr. Trump and his executives fraudulently inflated the value of real estate holdings.

The judge still has to weigh in on other claims in the suit.

Before heading into the courtroom this morning, the former president accused prosecutors of interfering in the upcoming presidential election.

DONALD TRUMP, Former President of the United States: It's a scam.

It's a sham.

This trial could have been brought years ago, but they waited until I was right in the middle of my campaign.

GEOFF BENNETT: Joining us now is Russ Buettner, who has been covering the former president's business dealings for The New York Times.

Thank you for being with us.

RUSS BUETTNER, The New York Times: Thanks for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, as we mentioned, a judge has already found Donald Trump and his co-defendants liable for business fraud.

This trial is aimed at determining the amount of damages.

What is at stake?

What are prosecutors seeking?

RUSS BUETTNER: Prosecutors are seeking a fine that they estimate to be about $250 million.

That's a massive bite.

They're also seeking essentially to have a receiver, somebody else put in charge, of running his company.

It seems to make sure that enough cash would be available on hand to pay whatever fine is ultimately determined.

As part of his order last week, the judge granted the receivership.

That means somebody else will be in charge.

And then there will be this long process to prove these remaining six counts to see what sort of damages should be assessed in relation to all this.

GEOFF BENNETT: And we should say that Donald Trump didn't have to show up for court today, but he chose to.

And the anger and frustration was fairly palpable.

With a judge finding last week that Donald Trump and the other defendants have committed persistent and repeated fraud -- that's a direct quote -- what at this point is the Trump defense?

RUSS BUETTNER: So far, the Trump defense, in some ways, it revisits some of the prior defenses they have issued that have already been shot down by this judge in the appellate court.

So they're sort of just trying this again.

They're saying that -- one, that reasonable minds can disagree when you're talking about property valuations, two, that some of these were based on professionally done products that should result in something that has a real value attached to it, and also that -- if I can just check my notes quickly -- also that no one really relied on this.

That's sort of not a great defense.

They're saying, yes, we assigned these values to these things, yes, we submitted them to banks and insurance companies to get more favorable rates, but they all do what they're going to do anyway, and so it doesn't really matter what we put on these documents.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, in essence, the Trump team is saying that this is a victimless crime, that no one was really harmed by any of this.

RUSS BUETTNER: That's right, and that these loans were actually repaid.

The judge has made clear that that's not a component of the particular law under which this case was brought.

Whether or not there was a -- whether or not the loans failed, whether or not the fraud resulted in damages to the other party is not important.

However, in this case, there is some element of that still, because the banks and insurance companies gave Mr. Trump much lower rates than they would have if perhaps if he would have submitted truthful documents and records.

GEOFF BENNETT: If the attorney general, if the New York attorney general, gets what she wants in this civil case, what would it mean for the future of the Trump Organization, this $250 million, at least $250 million in damages?

RUSS BUETTNER: That's the big question that's hanging on all this.

I don't want to say at least, because that's what their estimate is.

But they're still calculating how that's going to work out.

It's all going to be appealed.

This will probably take more than a year to get resolve after the case, this case, is brought to a conclusion, I would expect.

And, look, if the final judgment is in the neighborhood of $250 million, and there's a receiver put in charge of this thing to figure out what has to be -- whether something has to be sold to do that, and, at the end of the day, Donald Trump has a much diminished sort of empire and has lost all of his licenses to conduct business in the city of New York, that's an existential threat to the Trump Organization and the Trump family's enterprise over the course of his life.

And really, more importantly, maybe even to him, why you see him looking so angry in court, to his personal identity, to everything he said about himself since he was a young man, that he built a massive empire entirely on his own.

That, in itself, is not true either, but it's really important to him to hang on to that.

And it's the argument that he makes over and over again to his supporters in the political realm as to why he has the sort of expertise and experience to be president.

GEOFF BENNETT: As you have been speaking, we have been looking at court sketches from the hearing today.

This case, as I understand it, is expected to last three months.

There's some 200 names on the witness list.

What comes next?

What are you watching for?

RUSS BUETTNER: Well, right now, starting today, the accountant who filled out all of Donald Trump's tax returns for the last 15 or 20 years -- we obtained a couple of years ago all of his tax returns going back 20 years.

Some years, there are 500 returns filed for each entity, and this accountant's name is on every single one of those.

And he -- it seems he's going to testify: I just put on those returns the information I was given.

They didn't tell me that they had an appraisal saying it was worth something else.

He also will help them sort of backstop whatever things the Trump Organization cites in a part of that.

I think the big thing is going to be the gap between what the Trump Organization knew to be true, because they had an appraisal on a property or a property had a restriction it, and then what they told the bank to try to seek their loans.

When they had an appraisal in some cases of $200 million, they put that the property was worth $600 million.

When they had an appraisal that was worth $30 million, in one case, they put $300 million.

Then there were times that there were properties that they really couldn't build on much, but they created a value for the purpose of getting these loans that suggested that they could actually put whatever they wanted on it.

And that's the gap where the fraud lies and where the damages will rest when they try to compute what were the gains that came out of this for the Trump Organization.

GEOFF BENNETT: Russ Buettner of The New York Times, thank you for sharing your reporting with us this evening.

We appreciate it.

RUSS BUETTNER: Thanks for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: In the day's other headlines: European Union leaders gathered in Ukraine's capital and insisted they're still united over supporting Ukraine's war effort.

The meeting in Kyiv came a day after the U.S. Congress removed aid for Ukraine from a bill to avert a government shutdown.

But, in Washington, the White House said the consensus on Ukraine is still strong.

KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, White House Press Secretary: There's a bipartisan support, as we have seen from day one.

And, look, let's not forget what the purpose of this is for.

This is for the continuation of the brave people of Ukraine to fight for their freedom, right, to fight for their democracy.

AMNA NAWAZ: In the meantime, the Associated Press reported the Pentagon has told Congress that it's already low on money to replace weapons for Ukraine.

Another worry came in Slovakia, which borders Ukraine to the west.

Today, the Slovak president asked the pro-Russian Robert Fico to form a government after winning Sunday's elections.

He has two weeks to fashion a coalition.

The last of some 100,000 people from Nagorno-Karabakh crossed into Armenia today.

That ended a weeklong exodus after Azerbaijan recaptured the region.

Refugees have been waiting on streets in Southern Armenia for buses to bring their belongings.

In all, more than 80 percent of Nagorno-Karabakh's population has fled.

This year's Nobel Prize for medicine goes to two scientists whose discoveries paved the way for vaccines against COVID-19.

The pair are American Drew Weissman and Hungarian-American Katalin Kariko, Both are professors at the University of Pennsylvania.

In Philadelphia today, they recalled their pioneering work with genetic material, known as RNA, to fight infections.

DREW WEISSMAN, Nobel Prize Winner: We would sit together in 1997 and afterwards, and talk about all the things that we thought RNA could do, all of the vaccines and therapeutics and gene therapies, and just realizing how important it had the potential to be.

And that's why we never gave up.

And we just kept persevering.

We kept working at it.

And here we are today.

AMNA NAWAZ: That research led to COVID vaccines based on messenger-RNA that targets proteins in a virus.

The approach may eventually help to immunize people against some cancers.

The CDC is moving to endorse a common antibiotic for preventing sexually transmitted diseases in gay and bisexual men.

The proposal released today involves doxycycline.

Recent studies show it can stop some STDs from developing if taken within 72 hours of exposure.

The guideline is subject to days of public comment before it becomes final.

And on Wall Street, continued worries about interest rates mostly held stocks in check.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 74 points to close at 33433.

The Nasdaq rose 88 points.

But the S&P 500 barely budged.

And a Chicago woman may now be the oldest skydiver ever at 104 years old.

Dorothy Hoffner made a jump from 13,500 feet on Sunday, attached to an instructor.

She called it -- quote -- "wonderful."

And officials asked Guinness World Records to certify her feat.

Hoffman began jumping when she turned 100.

Shell be 105 in December.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": childcare centers scramble to adapt after pandemic era assistance expires; a former Army Reservist exposed to toxic burn pits wins a precedent-setting lawsuit; a novel medical program focuses on keeping singers, dancers, and musicians healthy; plus much more.

The government is open today after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy sidestepped the hard-right flank of his party and pushed through a temporary spending bill with the help of Democrats.

But, this week, he may need to broker another cross-aisle bargain to keep his job.

Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins is on Capitol Hill to help make sense of it all.

Lisa, it is good to see you.

I'm going to ask you two questions I have been asking a lot these past few weeks.

Help us understand, what just happened and what does it mean?

LISA DESJARDINS: Right.

Even by the tornadic standards of this modern Congress, Amna, this was a wild weekend.

Let's explain exactly how we got to this no shutdown result.

First of all, as our viewers may remember from last week, Kevin McCarthy had the major choice to make.

He had to choose between either a shutdown, essentially, or between working with Democrats in order to avoid that shutdown.

And, in the end, he did work with Democrats, and they passed that 45-day funding bill easily after Republicans could not agree on a solution themselves.

That bill would include $16 billion in disaster relief, but, importantly, no money for Ukraine, not at this point.

That would have slowed things down too much, so they dropped it.

In the end, 90 House Republicans, however, did vote against it.

Essentially, those 90 were willing to have a shutdown.

But, in the end, across the country right now, Amna, relief, from farmers whose payments and loans can keep going to some who are using WIC, that Women, Infant and Children program.

Here's an example.

For example, in Ohio, the northwest corner of Ohio in Williams County, they posted this today, a program called Donuts and Diapers.

That's something to get more people enrolled in WIC.

It may not have been able to happen if there had been a shutdown because there may not have been new enrollments in that.

Now, as I say, it was a wild weekend.

Among the oddities of it was a member of Congress, a Democrat, pulling a fire alarm.

Jamaal Bowman of New York says it was an accident, but that will be under investigation.

Meanwhile, the Ukraine money is something we will watch very closely.

Congress just has 45 days.

And Ukraine says it may run out of money in the pipeline in that time.

It is a heavy task to try and figure out from both sides of Congress what to do.

Could we be back here again in 45 days, Amna?

Yes, very much so.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, shutdown averted for now, Lisa, but what about Speaker McCarthy?

This is still a precarious moment for him.

Do we expect someone to try to oust him from his speakership?

LISA DESJARDINS: Yes, Congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida says he will, in fact, try and oust him this week.

We don't know when.

It could be as soon as tonight.

And not only that.

If that fails, Gaetz says, he will try again and again.

The motion to vacate is something that we're going to talk about more in days ahead.

But Speaker Kevin McCarthy, I want to say, is saying, bring it on.

He is daring Congressman Gaetz to have enough votes.

The question will be Democrats.

The margins are so close here, Amna, that, if Democrats want to, they could really cause some problems on the House floor and have no speaker.

Or do they vote present and allow Kevin McCarthy to keep his job?

We will watch.

AMNA NAWAZ: Lisa Desjardins reporting from Capitol Hill.

Lisa, thank you.

Good to see you.

LISA DESJARDINS: You too.

GEOFF BENNETT: And let's dig deeper into the developments on Capitol Hill now with our Politics Monday team.

That's Tamara Keith of NPR and Andrew Desiderio of Punchbowl News.

Amy Walter is away this evening.

So, another Monday, another torrent of news, friends.

It's great to have you both here.

So, Andrew, as we just heard Lisa outline in her reporting, Congressman Matt Gaetz, who is Kevin McCarthy's most outspoken critic, is threatening to use this procedural tool called a motion to vacate to strip Kevin McCarthy of his speakership, a speakership that took 15 ballots on the floor for him to get.

Can he successfully defend against this effort?

ANDREW DESIDERIO, Punchbowl News: He can.

But, ironically, his fate rests with House Democrats.

And House Democrats know that, and they may try to exact some concessions from him.

At this point, we're not quite sure what that would look like, maybe some sort of -- not quite a power-sharing agreement, but the ability to do certain things that the minority usually doesn't get to do.

So that's something that Kevin McCarthy is going to have to weigh this week.

But Matt Gaetz has said that he's going to continue doing this to the -- every time that McCarthy needs Democrats to pass something, right?

Well, he's going to need Democrats to pass Ukraine funding.

He's going to need Democrats to pass the defense bill.

He's going to need Democrats to pass the farm bill, the ag bill, all that stuff later this year.

So the question is, is the House going to be paralyzed by this sort of chaos for months and months to come, when they have actual must-pass work to do?

GEOFF BENNETT: And, Tam, what's the decision matrix for -- decision matrix for Democrats as they determine whether to bail out Kevin McCarthy?

Andrew mentioned concessions.

I mean, could they say, you end this impeachment inquiry, we will give you the votes?

We get a clean vote on Ukraine funding, we will give you the votes that you can keep your job?

TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: They could.

But I'm not sure that that's a deal that Kevin McCarthy would necessarily make.

He is a very weak speaker because of all of the concessions he already made.

He seems to be sort of at a point where he's like, all right, bring it.

And I don't know how much more he's going to be willing to give up.

So, for Democrats, there's also just this calculation of the devil and the devil you don't know.

They know Kevin McCarthy.

They know that, in the end, when pressed, he did actually choose to govern over choosing to shut the government down, choosing to take the far right position.

So that is something that weighs somewhat in his favor with Democrats.

It's not like they like him, to be clear.

And from the White House side of things, oh, my gosh, they do not want to touch this with a 10-foot pole.

GEOFF BENNETT: Why not?

(LAUGHTER) TAMARA KEITH: I mean, this is like one of those things that they are happy to be hands off about.

(LAUGHTER) GEOFF BENNETT: Well, there is this question, Andrew, of who is waiting in the wings.

Congressman Gaetz spoke to reporters in the steps of the Capitol today, and he mentioned the House majority leader, Steve Scalise, who, one imagines, has other considerations, given that he has health issues.

Is there another Republican who people are talking about who could lead this super-fractured conference?

ANDREW DESIDERIO: The short answer is no.

And that's part of the problem here is, there really is no alternative.

You press Gaetz on who he wants to see in that position, it's someone who says publicly that he wants McCarthy to remain in that position.

And so there is no challenger.

There is no one sort of taking up a mantle and saying, I want to be the anti-McCarthy candidate here.

And that's why, when you see Democrats and the White House, you see their posture on this, I think a lot of them think that, if it's not Kevin McCarthy, it could be someone worse, in their eyes.

So, as Tam said, the devil you know versus the devil you don't know.

They would be much more comfortable if McCarthy remained in the speakership.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, let's keep our focus trained on the Hill and talk about another story, with California Governor Gavin Newsom choosing Laphonza Butler.

She's the president of EMILY's List.

And she is named to fill the seat of the late Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who passed recently.

She will be the third Black woman to ever serve in the Senate, as well as the first openly LGBTQ person to represent California.

And, in a statement, she says this: "For women and girls, for workers and unions, for struggling parents waiting for our leaders to bring opportunity back to their homes, for all of California, I'm ready to serve."

Andrew, there's nothing in this statement that suggests she's looking at this as being sort of a caretaker.

ANDREW DESIDERIO: Yes, sounds like she might run for reelection or stand for election to a full term in 2024.

That will throw a major wrench in the ongoing primary in California right now.

You have got Adam Schiff, Barbara Lee, and Katie Porter all running for that seat.

They're all current House Democrats.

Schiff is viewed as sort of the front-runner here.

The Congressional Black Caucus was pushing for Barbara Lee to be named to -- as the replacement to Senator Feinstein.

Obviously, whoever's the incumbent has the advantage of incumbency, which means you have the Democratic Party's campaign apparatus behind you in everything you do.

So, if senator-designate Butler decides to run for reelection, she is automatically the front-runner, and she will most likely have the support of the Senate Democratic campaign arm.

And Schiff, Porter, and Lee are left wondering what their political future is.

GEOFF BENNETT: We have a couple of minutes left.

I want to talk about 2024, because President Biden gave an interview to journalist John Harwood that published yesterday where he was asked about the Democratic hand-wringing about President Biden's age.

Here's how he responded.

JOE BIDEN, President of the United States: I'm not the only Democrat that can protect it.

I just happen to be the Democrat who I think is best positioned to see to it that the guy I always worry about taking on democracy is not president.

GEOFF BENNETT: And so the specific question was, why are you the only Democrat who can protect democracy next year?

That was the president's response.

We can expect to hear more from this, more on this sort of theme from President Biden?

TAMARA KEITH: Oh, in terms of talking about defending democracy against Donald Trump, that is going to be one of the pillars of President Biden's campaign.

The speech that he gave last week in Arizona is just the beginning of what is going to be a lot of that messaging.

In terms of Biden's point there that he is not the only Democrat, but he's the best Democrat, back to the power of incumbency.

He's the incumbent president.

He has all of the power of incumbency.

And, additionally, he has consolidated the Democratic establishment behind him, in part with the idea that, if there were to be a robust primary challenge -- and there isn't one -- but if there were to be, that would put the Democratic Party at a disadvantage heading into 2024 general election.

And you just look back to history and the one-term presidents who had robust primary challenges.

And that is why Joe Biden is the establishment choice.

GEOFF BENNETT: What's the word on the Hill about that?

ANDREW DESIDERIO: Well, look, there isn't a serious challenge to President Biden within the Democratic Party.

But, over the weekend, you did see Congressman Dean Phillips, a Democrat from Minnesota, step down from his elected leadership post in the House Democratic Caucus because he has been openly skeptical about the idea of President Biden being their -- the party standard-bearer in 2024.

He hasn't suggested that he would be the one to challenge him, but suggested that maybe Democrats would be better off with someone else.

To Tam's point, I think if you open up this up to a primary process, and then someone emerges, whether it's Biden or someone else, bruised in the end, that that hurts the party as they try to take on presumably Donald Trump.

GEOFF BENNETT: All about the power of incumbency.

(LAUGHTER) ANDREW DESIDERIO: Yes.

GEOFF BENNETT: Tamara Keith and Andrew Desiderio, thanks so much.

AMNA NAWAZ: Today, the United Nations Security Council approved sending an international police force led by Kenya to Haiti.

The U.S.-drafted resolution was approved with abstentions from China and Russia and aims to combat rising gang violence in the Caribbean nation.

In Haiti's capital of Port-au-Prince, desperation and anger.

As residents take to the streets, the city is held hostage by gangs, controlling about 80 percent of the capital, and, according to U.N. estimates, killing more than 2,000 people since January.

After President Jovenel Moise was assassinated in July of 2021, Haiti's caretaker government, led by Prime Minister Ariel Henry, failed to keep peace, leading him to request the same foreign police force approved today by the U.N.

The new resolution authorizes a yearlong foreign police mission to provide operational support to Haiti's police.

So far, Kenya's government proposed sending 1,000 officers, and the U.S. pledged $100 million in logistical support, including transport and communications.

U.S.

Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield has been a central figure in the push to send an armed multinational force to Haiti, and she joins me now.

Ambassador, welcome back to the "NewsHour."

Thank you for being here.

LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD, U.S.

Ambassador to the United Nations: Good.

Thank you very much.

Delighted to be with you.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, this is a Kenyan-led force.

We should note that the U.S. and Brazil are the two largest nations in the Americas, have previously sent forces to Haiti in years past.

Why aren't either offering up peacekeeping troops right now?

LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Well, this was an initiative that was taken by the Haitian government, with the support of the secretary-general, asking for this multinational mission to step in and help Haiti deal with the gang violence.

And the U.S. has been a strong supporter of this.

Kenya stepped up to the plate and offered to be of assistance, and we are backing them with over $100 million in assistance, as well as additional logistical support.

We think that Kenya, as an African country, doing this sends a very strong message to the world that Kenya is playing on the international stage, that Kenya, an African country, has taken the lead in supporting this effort.

AMNA NAWAZ: We know these international forces are meant to support and empower the Haitian police.

I have to say, Garry Pierre-Pierre, who's an award-winning journalist with The Haitian Times, told us the police force itself is compromised.

Here's what he said.

GARRY PIERRE-PIERRE, Founder, The Haitian Times: About 40 percent of the forces either sympathizer with the gangs or are members of the gang.

So every attempt at eradicating the gang strongholds have been met with failure because the gangs know exactly what's going on.

AMNA NAWAZ: Ambassador, we also know those police forces are severely outgunned.

How can this Kenyan-led force combat that?

LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Look, they're going to work with the Haitian national police.

He said 20 percent, but we have got 80 percent of the police who are committed to addressing this issue.

(CROSSTALK) AMNA NAWAZ: If I may -- I apologize -- he actually said 40 percent.

I just wanted to make sure we have that right.

LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Even with that, 60 percent are committed to working with the force, and that 60 percent will get the support and the backing of the Kenyans, as well as other forces who will participate in this to support not only building the capacity, but also working with the communities to address this issue of violence.

I think the vast majority of Haitians have been clear that they want security, they want stability, they want the ability to be able to carry out their day-to-day lives without the threat of these gangs.

And this will be an opportunity to do that.

AMNA NAWAZ: There have already been some who raised concerns about accusations of abuse by Kenyan forces elsewhere.

As you know, previous international interventions in Haiti have led to both a cholera outbreak and horrific sexual abuse by the peacekeepers sent there to secure the population.

Who's in charge for monitoring that and making sure the Haitian people aren't victimized again?

LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Well, look, this resolution actually builds in very, very strong language on vetting, on accountability, and on monitoring what will be happening on the ground.

The Kenyans have participated in international peacekeeping forces before.

They come with a lot of experience, but they also know that we will take the vetting responsibilities very, very seriously, and that the monitoring and accountability will be seriously looked at as we work to put this force on the ground.

We have learned from the mistakes of the past, and this is an opportunity to address a strong call from the Haitian people this time around for the international community's support.

AMNA NAWAZ: I have less than a minute left, but I have to ask.

We know these gangs on the ground are heavily armed.

What are the rules of engagement for these peacekeeping troops?

Can they use lethal force on the ground?

LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD: The Kenyans have - - after they did their assessment on the ground, they realized that a static force would not be engaged.

And the secretary-general asked for a robust force.

And so the rules of engagement will be developed as the mission gets prepared to get on the ground, but the force will be robust.

They will be backing the Haitian national police as the police work to engage these gangs.

I think the story here is that the international community has responded.

AMNA NAWAZ: Yes.

LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD: And they're ready to bring peace and stability to the people of Haiti.

AMNA NAWAZ: U.S.

Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, thank you so much for joining us.

LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: A new term for the U.S. Supreme Court kicks off this week.

On the docket are consequential cases that could determine the future of key issues like gun ownership and redistricting.

Looming large over this term are also calls for greater ethics guidelines for the justices.

Our Supreme Court analyst, Marcia Coyle, joins us to preview all that's to come.

It's always great to see you.

Thanks for coming in.

MARCIA COYLE, "The National Law Journal": Thank you, Geoff.

Good to see you.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, this new term, only a few cases are scheduled so far.

What are the big ones that you're watching?

MARCIA COYLE: OK, first of all, Geoff, I think this could be a huge term for social media, the owners of social media platforms, as well as the users of social media.

I'm watching four cases under that broad heading.

Two involve laws from Florida and Texas that put restrictions on how social media companies can manage their content.

And that -- and those laws seem to arise from suspicions that social media companies are censoring conservative comments.

And then the two other cases under that umbrella that I'm watching involve public officials who use their personal social media accounts to communicate with their constituents.

Can they block their critics and not violate the First Amendment?

So, it's social media and First Amendment.

Besides that, guns are back, as you mentioned, before the Supreme Court.

This is a really interesting case.

There's a provision in our federal crimes code that prohibits firearm ownership by anyone who's under a domestic violence prevention protection order.

And a lower federal report struck that provision down, said it violated the Second Amendment because it could not pass the test that the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority implemented two terms ago.

And that has caused a lot of frustration among judges, because it's based on history.

They're not historians.

They don't feel they have the tools to try to look up whether these restrictions are restrictions played 100, 200 years ago.

Also, I'm looking at a voting rights challenge.

I think we're going to see a lot of these coming to the court.

This one is from South Carolina.

A three-judge panel said that the South Carolina legislature created a racial gerrymander when it moved roughly 30,000 Black voters out of a district into another district.

South Carolina says, no, race wasn't the motive.

We were trying to shore up a solid Republican district.

And, finally, a long-term goal of conservative businesses and legal organizations has been to rein in what they call the regulatory state or the administrative state, federal agencies that regulate and enforce federal laws.

There are three cases.

Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the three.

It involves the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has been under legal attack since its inception.

This time, the payday lender industry has brought a challenge, claiming that the bureau's unique funding mechanism violates the appropriations clause of the Constitution.

So those are the four that I'm really keeping an eye on.

GEOFF BENNETT: Yes, as we mentioned, hanging over this term are a host of ethical questions.

Justice Elena Kagan was speaking at the Notre Dame Law School last week and had this to say about that.

ELENA KAGAN, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice: What we could do is just adapt the code of conduct that the other court systems have in order to reflect those slight or certain differences.

And I think it would be a good thing for the court to do that.

It would help in our own compliance with the rules and it would, I think, go far in persuading other people that we were adhering to the highest standards of conduct.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, Justice Kagan is making clear where she stands on this issue.

And, just today, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas for the first time recused himself from a case involving the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Why?

Do we know yet whether the court has adopted for itself a code of ethics?

MARCIA COYLE: No, I think, if they had, we would definitely know about it.

And there's really not been a word.

And I think there won't be until there is unanimous agreement on the court about what a code of ethics would entail for the Supreme Court.

Justice Thomas' recusal was without comment.

We don't know why.

It involved John Eastman, who actually was a former clerk of his.

It could be because of that relationship.

It also could be because Justice Thomas' wife was very much involved in the -- trying to undo the results of the presidential election.

But I will note that two justices have started to explain why they recuse from cases.

And that's a huge step, I think, for the court.

Justice Kagan and Jackson today blamed -- Justice Kagan noted she recused from a case because of her prior governmental service.

She was formerly solicitor general of the United States.

Justice Jackson recused, stating it was because of her prior judicial service.

She was many years on the federal district court and then also on the court of appeals.

So I think that was a big step, but it's only two of nine.

So we will have to wait and see what they do.

Adopting an ethics code for the Supreme Court, Justice Kagan made it sound quite easy.

It took a long time for the lower federal courts to adopt their own code of ethics.

But, still, I think she's absolutely right about what impact it could have on the court's image and support within the American public if they got it done.

GEOFF BENNETT: Supreme Court analyst Marcia Coyle, it's always a pleasure to speak with you.

MARCIA COYLE: My pleasure, too, Geoff.

Take care.

AMNA NAWAZ: Some key funding for childcare centers dating back to the pandemic ended on Saturday.

Stephanie Sy has more on what that means for families.

STEPHANIE SY: More than 220,000 childcare centers in the U.S. received these grants to help pay the bills and raise wages for staff during the pandemic.

The temporary aid amounted to $24 billion.

With the loss of funding, one progressive think tank projects that as many as 70,000 facilities could be forced to close in the long run, affecting more than 3.2 million children.

In the near term, parents may see higher childcare costs and fewer classrooms.

To help us understand the ramifications, I'm joined by Julie Kashen, senior fellow and director for women's economic justice at The Century Foundation, which published that estimate.

Julie Kashen, thank you for joining the "NewsHour."

So you put out that survey in June that estimated that tens of thousands of these childcare for facilities might close.

Which operations are the most vulnerable to closure in the face of this funding loss?

JULIE KASHEN, The Century Foundation: The childcare programs that are in states that haven't put additional funding in are definitely at risk.

Family childcare homes, these are home-based childcare that do generally serve fewer kids, but more conveniently in the communities, those are programs that are often more at risk, because what childcare providers who run those end up doing is, their first option is to stop paying themselves a salary to go into personal debt, not great options.

And so they're likely to be more at risk than other programs, although the reality is, childcare providers do this work because they love children, because they want to serve parents in their community, and so most of them are going to do everything they can to keep their doors open.

So, as you said, they will first raise their rates.

They will then serve fewer kids or close a classroom, and then closures will be a last resort.

And this may take some time.

We have already gone over the cliff, right?

The deadline has passed.

But the impacts of that will be felt over a long period of time for months to come.

STEPHANIE SY: Right.

And, apparently, some of the impacts may -- already being felt as far as the rise in tuition.

The Labor Department reported recently that the average national price of day care and preschool services rose 6 percent in July from a year earlier.

How much of that would you attribute to day cares preparing for the loss of these federal grants?

And how will parents manage?

JULIE KASHEN: I think smart childcare providers have really been thinking about what their budget is and have already started to account for that by raising prices.

At the same time, any parent who's paid for childcare knows it's expensive.

Childcare can cost $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 a year, depending on the age of your child and what community you live in, what type of childcare you choose.

So it's already really expensive.

Parents are already paying at the top of their budget for childcare.

So these price increases are really going to be problematic.

STEPHANIE SY: I'm curious how you see these rising costs affecting working parents, especially working mothers, whether we will see, for example, impacts on the labor force, women having to stay at home because they simply can't afford the rising costs of childcare.

JULIE KASHEN: We do expect that parents will be impacted and that the majority of the impact will be on moms.

That means that they're going to shift their hours around, cut their hours, or ultimately have to leave the work force.

And that has impacts on their families.

That has impacts on their own future earnings and on whole communities.

The Century Foundation report found that about $9 billion a year could be lost in parents' earnings as a result of the tough choices that they're going to have to make.

STEPHANIE SY: Some are saying that the notion that this is a childcare cliff is somewhat hyperbole, because, as you point out, a lot of states have put solutions in place to address the loss of this federal assistance.

Can you give us a sense of how many states have that plan and how many states have done nothing?

JULIE KASHEN: About 15 states have put in dollars that will really make a difference in terms of the stabilization.

None of it is enough to kind of really stabilize the sector the same way, but it will help in those states in a significant way.

And a lot of states then haven't also, right?

We have already seen, in Wisconsin, 42 providers have shut down, and others have raised their rates.

So we're seeing it really depends on the state.

One of the things to know, though, is that the sector was precarious before anyone ever occurred of COVID-19.

This is an area that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has called a broken market, a textbook example of a broken market.

It does not work.

Parents are asked to pay at the top of their budget.

Providers are having to pay early educators poverty level wages because there's just not enough money in the system.

We don't ask parents to pay the full freight for a fourth grade class, but we do ask them to do that for infants and toddlers.

This stabilization money showed us what life could be like if we actually partnered with government and families to make it all work.

STEPHANIE SY: Julie Kashen with The Century Foundation, thank you so much for joining the "NewsHour" with your insights.

JULIE KASHEN: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: And our thanks to Stephanie Sy.

A jury has ruled in favor of an Army veteran who has sued Texas over workplace accommodations.

As William Brangham reports, the verdict is a victory for veterans who have long pushed to raise awareness over their exposure to toxic chemicals.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Texas State Trooper Le Roy Torres was also an Army Reservist when he was called to active duty in 2007 and deployed to Iraq.

While there, Torres says he was constantly exposed to the smoke from what are called burn pits, where the Army burns its trash in open fires.

Following that exposure, he was diagnosed with a severe lung disease, and, once back home in Texas, had to live with a steady supply of concentrated oxygen.

LE ROY TORRES, Co-Founder, Burn Pits 360: It's a mental battle.

But, here lately, it's been the best thing that I can do to help me.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Torres asked for an accommodation at his old job to take a different position within the Texas Department of Public Safety, but Torres says they told him to resign instead.

So he tried to sue the state.

But Texas argued it couldn't be sued because of what's known as sovereign immunity.

Torres challenged that position all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he prevailed, granting him permission to sue Texas.

And Torres' suit, which just finished last week, was decided in his favor.

The jury awarded him a financial settlement to cover lost wages, benefits, and retirement.

For more on this landmark case, we turn to Le Roy's wife, Rosie Torres.

Together, they created the organization Burn Pits 360, which advocates on behalf of veterans exposed to toxic environments.

Rosie Torres, so good to have you on the program again.

I wonder.

This remarkable legal victory that you have just achieved, how is that sitting with the two of you on this side of that victory?

ROSIE TORRES, Co-Founder and Executive Director, Burn Pits 360: It just -- it feels surreal.

It's been such a long journey of heartache and injustice, that it's still making its way to settle in our minds and primarily in our hearts, because we have just have suffered, along with so many other families, the injustice of life after war and just all the battles that we have faced.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: When you and your husband spoke with my colleagues a year ago in Texas, you both shared some very difficult times that your husband had been through emotionally.

And I wonder, just how is he doing now?

How's he feeling?

How's everything with him?

ROSIE TORRES: Well, it is very emotional.

I mean, I know we shared very publicly about the night that he had a suicide attempt.

To me, as his wife, what I saw was a man who served his nation and his state honorably, and he was stripped of his integrity and his dignity and his childhood dream from the state.

So, to see him now with this sense of peace and the mending of his heart is just -- it's heart-wrenching, but it's so -- I'm so grateful to God for what he has given Le Roy.

And, as his wife, as his friend, as his advocate, I'm so honored to be standing by him.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That's fantastic to hear.

I know that he -- originally, the whole genesis of this case was his desire to get a different job with the force back in Texas.

I understand that was not part of the legal settlement of this most recent resolution.

Is there anything else you still want from the force, though?

ROSIE TORRES: I have to say that most police officers who serve in a capacity of law enforcement that, usually, when they retire, they're able to sit in their patrol car one last time and properly sign off.

And I would love to see them honor Le Roy in this way, where they would allow him to sit in his patrol car one last time.

He went to war and served his nation, and that's all he did.

And so, if they would just give him that, it would be amazing, because it would be closure.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And do you have any sense as to whether that might happen or not?

ROSIE TORRES: I don't.

I have no idea.

I mean, it's the right thing to do, but has - - have they done the right thing all along?

No.

I mean, it's what he deserved.

He went to serve his nation, and he came back to this.

So, it should have never happened.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Regarding this other ongoing struggle you have with the Department of Veterans Affairs, passage of what was called the PACT Act was supposed to clear the way and really smooth a lot of veterans getting disability benefits through the VA. And I understand that there is still an issue with the VA recognizing the very particular illness that Le Roy has, constrictive bronchiolitis.

Can you tell us what the issue is with that?

Where does that stand?

ROSIE TORRES: So the issue with constrictive bronchiolitis is that the VA hasn't established a code to properly compensate veterans on that disease.

There isn't a process in place to also properly screen the function of the lung.

And so that results in veterans like Le Roy being not only sometimes misdiagnosed, but not compensated properly for the damage that's been done to their lungs.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, it seems like you have this one tremendous legal victory, and yet the ongoing struggle just does not seem to end.

ROSIE TORRES: Yes, correct.

Two decades ago, Dr. Miller presented and advocates presented the issue of constrictive bronchiolitis, which is -- I have to say, over 90 percent of people self-report that they're suffering from the issue of not being able to breathe.

And so the fact that we're still one year post-PACT Act and still having these conversations with leadership is a huge issue.

People are still dying and they're still sick.

So it's unfortunate.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Rosie Torres, wife of Le Roy Torres and co-founder of Burn Pits 360, thank you so much for being here.

ROSIE TORRES: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: It's an unusual partnership, a world-class hospital and world-class performing arts organizations, a model in the growing field that brings together health and the arts.

Jeffrey Brown reports from Houston for our ongoing series, Canvas.

WOMAN: We're just going to get a look at your throat and your vocal cords.

Breathe in.

JEFFREY BROWN: We're up close and personal with 25-year-old opera singer Emily Treigle and her vocal cords.

This is her instrument, requiring constant care and attention.

EMILY TREIGLE, Houston Grand Opera: It's not like I'm playing the Trumpet or piano, like, if something goes wrong, you can see it.

You know, it's all in here.

So, you need the professional to be able to go in and make sure that everything is going well.

JEFFREY BROWN: In July, after multiple tonsil infections, Treigle, a mezzo-soprano, had a tonsillectomy.

All went well, and, this day, she was getting a checkup ahead of the Houston Grand Opera's new season.

For someone in your position, what's the problem?

I mean, what's the thing you have to deal with or worry about most with your voice?

EMILY TREIGLE: The short answer is everything.

The long answer is, it's incredibly challenging to be in a career that there are so many variables attached to it.

And so our task as singers is to have such a good, solid technical foundation that we can defy whatever odds are thrown at us and just continue to be able to produce a really beautiful sound.

And when it's something that's outside of our control, our technical realm, that's when we end up back here and say, something is not working.

Can we do a checkup and make sure that everything is where it's supposed to be?

DR. YIN YIU, Houston Methodist Hospital: We really encourage our singers as vocal athletes.

JEFFREY BROWN: Working with Treigle, Dr. Yin Yiu, a laryngologist at the Texas Voice Center at the Houston Methodist Hospital.

As she puts it, she's the T in the ENT.

She doesn't sing herself, though some of her colleagues do, but she loves the challenge of caring for singers.

DR. YIN YIU: We think about athletes, right, and they have like this whole team of people that take care of them.

And we don't really think about performers.

So, singers, actors, people who do, like, use their voice in that capacity, we don't think about them in that same way.

But they can also have injuries, right?

So, they can be performing and have different things happening.

The vocal cords can get swollen.

They can have vocal cord hemorrhage or bleed whenever.

They're singing.

These are all things that can happen.

And we get to be that team for them.

JEFFREY BROWN: The Texas Voice Center is part of the hospital's highly unusual program, the Center for Performing Arts Medicine.

Founded by Dr. Richard Stasney in 1992, it all began with a focus on singers, but then something unexpected happened.

Todd Frazier has led the center since 2012.

TODD FRAZIER, System Director, Center for Performing Arts Medicine: We started to get preachers, newscasters, classroom teachers, anyone that would associate their voice to what they do professionally.

And that's when the hospital realized that, yes, there really is something special and unique here, and that's unique to Houston as well.

JEFFREY BROWN: The center then grew to support performing artists of all kinds from Houston'S thriving arts community, as well as from all over the country.

Crucially, it also developed official relationships with several of Houston's leading performance art groups.

TODD FRAZIER: There are a lot of unique health issues that show up in the arts community that deserve a home and deserve a place to be cared for.

JEFFREY BROWN: Are you surprised that this is a thing now between the hospital and arts organizations?

TODD FRAZIER: I'm not surprised that its successful, because I am from the arts community, and I really knew that the artists were yearning for a home and a sympathetic place that they would be understood.

But I am -- have to be surprised that a major hospital would sort of take this on in a way that's sort of unprecedented.

They felt it fit with their values to be supporting the arts and culture within the community of Houston, which all the hospitals are in Houston.

And the physicians really enjoyed being able to help these talented people making their lives and homes here in Houston.

JEFFREY BROWN: One major partner, the Houston Ballet, which now has an on-site clinic, giving dancers like Kellen Hornbuckle daily access to athletic trainers and physical therapists.

DR. KEVIN VARNER, Houston Methodist Hospital: The types of injuries that ballet dancers get are very unique.

It's a very unique population.

And while they are performing artists, they are incredible athletes.

JEFFREY BROWN: Kevin Varner is the chairman of orthopedic surgery at Houston Methodist Orthopedic Sports Medicine.

DR. KEVIN VARNER: It's interesting to look at and how things evolved over the last 15 or 20 years in terms of dancer health.

And, remember, it's a big team approach, right?

So, you really need a hospital that wants to be a partner, because you need not just orthopedic surgery.

You need nutrition.

You need cardiology.

You need primary care sports medicine, so people that take care of the dancer as a whole.

And I think when you do that, it really does improve dancer health.

JEFFREY BROWN: In this session, Hornbuckle received dry needling, cupping, massaging, and other treatments to alleviate pain in her legs and prevent serious injury.

The big idea, according to Houston Ballet executive director James Nelson, change from reactive to proactive care.

JAMES NELSON, Executive Director, Houston Ballet: So, when I was dancing, we never had any on-site care.

It was always, wait until you're broken, then go to the doctor, then get it fixed.

At the end of the day, it's a very short career.

And so to be able to give an artist a year, two years, five years more of this precious time is such a gift.

And I attribute a lot of that to this partnership with Methodist.

You won't find this kind of relationship in most ballet companies.

JEFFREY BROWN: Back at the hospital, Frazier sees this kind of focus on the performing arts only growing in the future.

TODD FRAZIER: Many universities are starting arts and health certificates, music therapy degrees.

And even medical schools are looking at internships in artists health or how artists might be cared for to develop those skills.

And it is growing.

JEFFREY BROWN: Meanwhile, singer Emily Treigle is ready to go.

Your throat looks great.

I mean, I saw it.

(LAUGHTER) EMILY TREIGLE: Thank you.

Who knew my tonsils were so big?

I had no idea.

But now that I don't have them, I certainly notice their absence.

I'm very excited about this coming season and seeing how things change now that I don't have this obstacle.

JEFFREY BROWN: Treigle performs with the Houston Grand Opera later this month in Giuseppe Verdi's "Falstaff."

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Jeffrey Brown in Houston, Texas.

GEOFF BENNETT: And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On behalf of the entire "NewsHour" team, thank you for joining us.

END