ON ARIZONA HORIZON: >> IT'S OUR ANNUAL U.S.

SUPREME COURT PREVIEW SHOW.

WE'LL LOOK AT SOME OF THE BIGGER CASES THE HIGH COURT IS EXPECTED TO CONSIDER, INCLUDING QUESTIONS ON PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL RE-DISTRICTING.

A U.S.

SUPREME COURT PREVIEW, NEXT, ON ARIZONA HORIZON.

>> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO ARIZONA HORIZON.

I'M TED SIMONS.

THE US SUPREME COURT BEGINS A NEW SESSION NEXT WEEK WITH A NUMBER OF HIGH-PROFILE CASES ON THE DOCKET.

AMONG THOSE CASES: CHALLENGES TO PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY, ALONG WITH CASES INVOLVING CONVERSION THERAPY AND CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING.

JOINING US NOW IS ASU LAW PROFESSOR PAUL BENDER.

AND ATTORNEY STEPHEN MONTOYA, A PARTNER AT MONTOYA, LUCERO, AND PASTOR.

GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE.

LET'S START WITH THE STATE OF THE SUPREME COURT.

WHAT ARE YOU SEEING RIGHT NOW?

>> VERY LITTLE.

I THINK WE ARE WAITING THEY HAVE NO DIRECTION.

WE ARE WAITING TO SEE WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING.

THEY, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY THIS, THERE IS ALMOST NO LEADERSHIP ON THE COURT.

NOBODY IS GOING ANYWHERE.

THEY ARE ALL DOING THEIR STEVEN, NO DIRECTION ON THE COURT RIGHT NOW.

IT'S THE WRONG DIRECTION.

THEY ARE TAKING THE COUNTRY BACKWARD TO HISTORY THAT NO LONGER EXISTS AND THE PEOPLE NO LONGER WANT.

THE COURT IS GOING AGAINST THE GRAIN.

THEY ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY.

IT WAS AN ORIGINALIST COURT.

KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY IS WRONGED.

IT'S PAPER THIN AND HAS NO BASIS IN HISTORY AND TO THE CONTRARIRY IT'S ANTIHISTORICAL.

THE COURT HAS EMPOWERED THE PRESIDENCY IN A MANNER THAT THE FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE FOUND REPUGNANT.

ONE OF THE PURPOSES WITH THE CONSTITUTION AS ALL CONSERVATIVES KNOW IS TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT AND COURT IS NOT LIMITING GOVERNMENT.

IT'S EMPOWERING THE EXECUTIVE IN A WAY THAT THE CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT.

>> BEFORE WE GET TO CASES, YOU AND STEVEN BOTH SPOKE ABOUT THE DIRECTION.

HOW DID IT GET THIS WAY?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

IT'S BECAUSE OF THE MEMBERSHIP THERE IS NO ONE ON THE COURT, IT OUGHT TO BE THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

THAT'S A BIG DISAPPOINTMENT.

HE COMPLETELY FAILED AS A LEADER ON THE COURT.

HE JOINS MOST CASES AND SAYS THING VERY FEW OTHER PEOPLE AGREE WITH IT.

THE SITUATION OF THE COURT.

NOBODY IS TAKING AUTO LOOK AT IT.

WE HAVE THEM GOING THEIR INDIVIDUAL WAYS.

THEY DO COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER.

>> IS THIS NOT NOW -- HAS IT EVER BEEN A ROBERT'S COURT?

>> UM, I THINK ENTDISCUSS A SMALL AMOUNT OF COURT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS NOMINEES.

ROBERTS WAS LOSING THE LEADERSHIP OF THE COURT.

WHAT HE DECIDED TO DO TO MAINTAIN HIS LEADERSHIP WAS TO SHIFT TO THE RIGHT.

THAT'S WHAT HE HAAS DONE.

WE HAVE A RIGHT LANING COURT IT'S NOTE A CONSERVATIVE COURT.

A CONSERVATIVE COURT WOULD OPPOSE ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT WOULD OPPOSE THE MILITARIZATION OF POLICE FORCES.

THEY WOULD OPPOSE EVERYTHING THE COURT RUBBER STAMPED.

TRUE CONSERVATIVES, FOR EXAMPLE, MITCH McCONNELL BELIEVED IN LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE CONSTITUTION STANDS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT AND O THAT'S NOT WHAT THE SUPREME COURT IS SEVERING IT.

>> STEVEN DOESN'T SEE A PARTISAN DIVIDE.

IN MANY CASES THERE IS A PARTISAN DIVIDE.

WILL THAT'S OR HARDEN.

>> JUST KEEPS HARDENING THEY ARE MAKING EASE AND PEOPLE ON THE COURT.

THEY CAN BE AND THE MOST RECEPT PEOPLE REPLACE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE ALIKE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO, YOU KNOW, ALMOST ALWAYS THERE IS SOMEBODY ON THE COURT WHO OTHER PEOPLE LISTEN TO.

IT'S NOT REALLY LEADERSHIP.

THEY ARE TALKING TO EACH OTHER AND GO IN SOME DIRECTION.

YES, I DON'T SEE ANY OF THAT ON THE COURT.

THE LIBERALS OFTEN DON'T GET IT BUT THEY OFTEN DO.

THEY PRESENT SOMETHING BUT THERE IS ONLY THREE OF THEM IT'S ONLY FAR AS THEY CAN GO.

IN MY GENERAL OPINION.

>> LET'S GET TO THE CASES FOR PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.

HOW DOES IT DEAL WITH PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.

>> IT THREATENS TO GREATLY EXPAND FOR AUTHORITY.

THIS SLAUGHTER WAS A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE EARLY PART OF THE 20th CENTURY TO PROTECT COMPETITION AND CONSUMERS.

IN 1935 THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THE FAMOUS CASE.

HUFF HUMPHREY'S EXECUTIVE.

PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT WAS TRYING TO SWEEP THE GOVERNMENT OF THE OLD CONSERVATIVES.

HUMPHREYS WAS ONE OF THEM.

PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT FIRED HUMPHREYS.

HE FOUGHT IT IN COURT AND DIED DURING THE FIGHT AND THAT'S WHY IT'S HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR.

THEY UNANIMOUSLY RULED IN 1935 THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T HAVE THE POWER TO REMOVE THIS INDIVIDUAL OF THIS INDEPENDENT AGENCY.

THEY COULD ONLY BE REMOVED FOR CAUSE WHICH MEANT MISCONDUCT OR NEGLIGENCE.

NA ESTABLISH THE INDEPENDENCE OF THESE FEDERAL AGENCIES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE NONPOLITICAL.

NOT EVERYTHING IN THE UNITED STATES COULD BE NONPOLITICAL.

SLAUGHTER THREATENS TO OVERRULE THAT REGIME.

>> PAUL, WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE CASE.

>> I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT WAS JUST SAID.

IT'S THE REST OF WHAT'S GOING ON.

ON THE COURT.

THE POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE.

YOU CAN BELIEVE IN A STRONG EXECUTIVE.

GIVE UP ENTIRELY AND FORCE THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST THE EXECUTIVE.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.

THERE IS NO REAL PLAY BETWEEN THEM.

THEY DON'T TALK TO EACH OTHER.

I JUST DECIDE CASES.

THAT'S MORE OR LESS LACK OF DETECTION, LACK OF GOING ANYWHERE.

IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF CASES WHICH DON'T REALLY RELATE TO EACH OTHER.

MAYBE THAT'S A GOODENING.

THEY HAVE A DIRECTION.

IT'S NOT DECIDING CASES.

THE WHOLE JUDICIARY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW.

THEY ARE NOT DOING THAT AT ALL.

HOW WILL IT BE DECIDED?

>> IT'S NOT.

THEY ARE THERE AND THERE FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.

THE SIZE OF THE COURT SHOULD BE LARGE.

I'M AGAINST THAT.

I'M NOT SURE WHY.

MAYBE JUST BECAUSE I'M USED TO IT THE WAY IT IS.

>> YEAH, STEVEN, AS FAR AS THE CASE IS CONCERNED, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE COURT WILL DO?

>> THEY WILL ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO GET RID OF MS.

SLAUGHTER.

IT WON'T EXTEND IT TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.

THIS IS A HISTORICAL, IF YOU LOOK AT IOWA THE FRAMERS WERE.

THEY ARE TWO INDEPENDENT BODIES AND THE COMMISSION AND THE PRESIDENT COULD FIRE EVERYONE.

THE FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

THE PRESIDENT COULD FIRE ANYONE.

GEORGE WASHINGTON AND BEN FRANKLIN.

JOHN ADAMS AND THOMAS JEFFERSON IN THE FRAMERS.

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXECUTIVE THEORY.

>> COMPARE THIS WITH THE FIRED FED GOVERNOR.

IS ITSELF THE SAME BASIC PRINCIPALS?

>> SAY THAT AGAIN.

>> THE FIRED GOVERNOR OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD.

IT'S THE SAME PRINCIPAL HERE?

>> I THINK SO.

THEY HAVE MORE THAN OTHER AGENCY IES.

THE AREA OF LOW.

>> OKAY, ALL RIGHT.

>> STEVEN, THE NEXT ONE IS LEARNING RESOURCES INC AND TRUMP VOS SELECTION.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT R ABOUT TARIFFS HERE.

>> UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION ONLY CONGRESS HAD THE POWER TO TAX.

IN 1977, CONGRESS PASSED AN ACT EMERGENCY ECONOMICS PROTECTION ACT.

THE INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT.

IT ACTUALLY SAYS THE PRESIDENT IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE IMPORTS.

IT'S NEVER IN IT'S 50 YEAR HISTORY HAS BEEN INTERPRETED TO AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT TO IMPOSE TARIFFS UNILATERALLY, EVEN IN CASES OF EMERGENCIES.

IN THIS CASE THE PRESIDENT IS IMPOSING TARIFFS; EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER.

MORE OVER, THERE IS NO EMERGENCY.

WHAT IS THE EMERGENCY.

IT'S SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY.

HE'S IMPOSING TARIFFS ACROSS THE BOARD ON LARGE COUNTRIES LIKE THE SOVIET UNION AND SMALL COUNTRIES LIKE GUARD MAL LA.

ACROSS THE BOARD HE'S TAKING THE POWER TO HIMSELF TO TAX.

I THINK IT'S AGAINST THE LAW.

>> THE PRESIDENT SEES AN ECONOMIC I EMERGENCY.

HE HAS TO MOVE ON THIS.

>> THE COURT JUST SITS THERE.

I'M TRYING TO SAY THEY ARE NOT PLAYING THE PART THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO PLAY.

THE PRESIDENT IS DOING THINGS THAT ARE STRANGE AND IT'S NOT CONTROVERSY.

IT LETS IT HAPPEN.

ONE WATT ANOTHER.

THEY LET THAT KEEP HAPPENING.

CHANGING THE FORM OF THE DEMOCRACY.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN AFTER THAT.

WHERE WILL IT BE IN THE PRESIDENCY.

>> WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAYS, THE TRADE DEFICITS THREATEN THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND THUS THERE IS AN EMERGENCY.

IT'S WITHIN HIS POWER TO GO AHEAD AND ISSUE TARIFFS.

DOES HE HAVE A LEGAL POINT?

>> NO, I DON'T THINK SO.

THE COURT LET HIM DO THAT.

IT'S BEEN WRONG.

HE DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO CUT TARIFFS.

THIS IS THE GENERAL SCHEME OF THE CONSTITUTION.

IT'S LEGISLATURE.

CONGRESS IS NOT STANDING UP FOR ITSELF IT WITHHOLD BE BETTER IF THEY STOOD UP FOR THEMSELVES.

THEY SHOULD PLAY MUCH MORE OF A ROLE.

>> AGAIN, THE INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY POWER, IF IT DOESN'T ALLOW HIM TO MOVE IN WHAT HE CONSIDERS AN ECONOMIC E AMERICANCY WHAT GOOD IS THE ACT?

>> I'LL TELL YOU.

I'LL GIVE YOU TWO EXAMPLES.

THERE WERE EMERGENCIES.

DURING THE I IRANIAN HOSTAGE, THEY OVERRAN THE EMBASSY AND TOOK EVERYONE HAS HOSTAGES.

PRESIDENT CARTER IMPOSED SANCTIONS.

THAT WAS AN EMERGENCY.

THEY SEE ATTACKED THE UNITED STATES ABROAD AND HELD THEIR PEOPLE HOSTAGE HOSTAGES.

WHEN RUSSIA INVADED UKRAINE, THAT WAS AN EMERGENCY.

GUATEMALA IMPOSING TARIFFS, IT'S NOT AN EMERGENCY.

HE'S IMPOSED TARIFFS ON EVERY COUNTRY IN THE UNITED STATES.

A LOT OF THEM DON'T TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES THEY DO IT IN ANY WAY AND TAKING THE POWER TO TAX ON HIMSELF AND IT'S HURTING OUR COUNTRY INTERNALLY.

NOW HE'S COLLECTED BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT IF THE COURT RULES AGAINST HIM YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY BACK.

WHICH IS ALSO GOING TO BE CATASTROPHIC ECONOMICALLY.

THIS PRESIDENT REALLY LEAD US RIGHT OFF THE ECONOMIC CLIFF.

>> PAUL, HOW DO YOU THINK THE COURT WILL RESPOND OR RULE ON THIS?

>> WELL, SO FAR, THEY HAVE DONE VERY LITTLE, REALLY NOTHING.

TO MAINTAIN THAT POWER.

>> I DON'T THINK THAT WILL CHANGE WITH THE CURRENT MEMBERSHIP.

I DON'T KNOW WHO WILL LEAD FIRST.

THAT'S A LONG WAY OFF.

>> YEAH.

>> AS STABLE AS IT'S BEEN OVER THE PAST 20, 30 YEARS.

LEADERSHIP WOULD DEVELOP.

WHEN HE OR SHE WROTE SOMETHING THEY WOULD PAY ATTENTION AND REACT.

SOME INTELLECTUAL ACTIVE ITY.

I JUST FEEL THEY ARE DOING WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

THEY DON'T GET TO GET IT.

IT'S A SEPARATE INDEPENDENT AND VERY POWERFUL BRAWNCH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

>> STEVEN, CHILDS B. CALAZAR.

A CASE OUT OF COLORADO.

>> MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS ARE PROHIBITED UNDER COLORADO STATE STATUTE FROM TRYING TO CONVERT GUY OR TRANSCHILDREN INTO STRAIGHT CHILDREN.

COUNSELOR SAID THAT VIOLATES HER RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND VIOLATES HER RIGHTS UNDER FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

THE TENTH CIRCUIT SAYS, IT DOESN'T BECAUSE WE ARE REGULATING PROFESSIONAL SPEECH.

THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROHIBIT PSYCHIATRIST FROM USING ELECTROSHOCK THERAPY, LIKE THEY USED TO USE IN THE 60s FROM USING LEECHES TO EXERCISE GERMS FROM YOUR BLOOD STREAM.

IN THE MIDDLE AGES EXORCISM WAS USED TO RID YOU OF DISEASE.

IF FEMALE WANT TO PRACTICE THAT OUTSIDE THEY ARE FREE TO.

>> I DON'T THINK SHE HAS A STRONG CASE.

THE SUPREME COURT WOULD SUGGEST THEY DISAGREE.

IT'S A BAD IDEA.

ANOTHER ONE OF THE SUPREME COURT ATTACKS ON MINORITIES.

THAT'S A TREND.

I'LL SHUT UP IN JUST A SECOND.

THE PRIMARY PURPOSE WAS TO PROHIBIT PAST LEGISLATION THE SUPREME COURT IS EMPOWERING CAST AND CREATING LOWER CLASSES OF PEOPLE THAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS.

>> THAT'S AGAINST THE 14th AMENDMENT.

>> PAUL, THE IDEA OF REGULATING PROFESSIONAL SPEECH AND SPEECH RIGHTS IS AT PLAY OR IS IT?

WHAT IS AT PLAY HERE?

>> WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

>> IN WAY, WAY IS THE COURT DOING WHAT YOU JUST SAID IT'S DOING?

>> IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT THIS CASE, THEY LOOK AT A RELIGIOUS THERAPIST THAT SAID HER FREE SPEECH RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BECAUSE SHE'S NOT ALLOWED TO CONDUCT THERAPY.

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT'S FREE SPEECH.

IT'S A RIGHT TO PRACTICE THE PROFESSION THE WAY SHE WANTS TO.

IT'S NOT AS STRONG AS A SPEECH RIGHT.

BECAUSE ONE OF THOSE DIRECTLY TO WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.

REGULATING A PROFESSION.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE SPEECH.

>> IT'S LIKE A LAWYER.

THEY CAN'T COUNCIL CLIENTS, OH, YOU DON'T HAVE TO OBEY THE LAW.

THE PRESIDENT WASN'T DUALLY ELECTED AND DOESN'T NEED RESPECT.

YOU ARE A SOVEREIGN ENTITY.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO OBEY THE LAW.

THEY CAN'T GIVE THAT TYPE OF ADVICE, NONLAWYERS CAN.

LAWYERS CANNOT.

>> THEY TURNED DOWN SIMILAR CASES ALONG THESE LINES.

>> IT HAS, OVER HERE, THEY ACCEPTED THIS CASE IT'S CAUSE TO WORRY.

>> ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A REDISTRICTING HERE.

IT'S LOUISIANA AND NEW CONGRESSIONAL MAP, THEY ARE BASICALLY SAYING IT'S RACIAL GERRYMANDERING HERE.

HOW FAR DOES THE COURT GO INTO THIGHS KINDS OF THINGS.

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE A COHEARANT WAY OF DOING IT.

THEY NEVER FORMULATED THE PRINCIPAL, THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPAL THAT BOUND THE STATES AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

THEY DID IT ON A INDIVIDUALIZED BASES.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

POWER KEEPS GOING BACK AND FORTH I'M JUST REPEATING MYSELF.

I DON'T THINK THE COURT IS DOING IT'S JOB.

IT'S DISAPPOINTING PATH ON PAPER, THEY ARE QUITE A QUALIFIED BUNCH.

YOU EXPECTED THAT WHEN THEY EXPECTED THAT.

THEY DESTREP LOPPED SOME DIRECTION SO, WHAT YOU HAVE IS NINE PEOPLE WHO SEEM TO BE DECIDING EVERYTHING ALL BY THEMSELVES AND NO FEELING ANYTHING IS GOING ON.

YOU DON'T NEED TO GO ANYWHERE NOW.

IT'S A LOT RIGHT.

>> STEVEN THE REDISTRICTING CASE.

I THINK IT'S A REALLY PAD SIGN.

THIS CASE WAS BEFORE THE COURT ONCE BEFORE.

THE LOWER COURT CONCLUDED THERE WAS A RACIAL GERRYMANDER DIMINISHED THE VOTING POWER.

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.

THEY ORBDERRED IT THE DISTRICT LINES HAD TO BE REDRAWN.

WHEN REDRAWN THEY WERE REDRAWN IN A WEIRD WAY IN THE FORM OF CIGAR OVER THE NORTHERN PART OF THE STATE.

THE REASON WHY THEY DRAW THE LINES THAT WAY EVERYBODY TO PROTECT THE VOTING DISTRICT OF TWO VERY SENIOR IMPORTANT REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

NOTHING TO DO THE WEIRD CIGAR SHAPE DISTRICTS.

THEY RAN THROUGH THE STATE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE.

THE NEED TO REDISTRICT HAD TO DO WITH RACE BECAUSE THEY DILUTED AFRICAN-AMERICAN REVOTING.

WHAT DID DISTRICT COURT SAID, AFRICAN-AMERICANS MAKEUP TWO THIRD, ONE-THIRD OF THE STATE.

THEY WILL GIVE THEM TWO DISTRICT OUT OF SIX.

THE COURT DIDN'T LIKE THAT SO THE COURT ALLOWED REARGUMENT.

ALL REDISTRICTING MUST BE COLOR BLIND.

THEY WERE BLIND REGARDLESS OF RACE THE PROBLEM IS.

AFRICAN-AMERICANS HAVE BEEN DISENFRANCHISED.

THERE ARE BIG VOTING BLOCKS OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS.

VOTING KILLS TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT REPRESENT ONE COMMUNITY AND DILUTED IT BY MAKING THE DISTRICT THERE IS NO AFRICAN-AMERICAN MAJORITY.

I BELIEVE IN PAUL WITH THE IN IN INCOHEARIANT MESS.

>> GENTLEMAN, WE HAVE LESS THAN A MINUTE HERE.

CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> FOR A WHILE I COULDN'T.

>> HOW CONSEQUENTIAL WILL THE DETERMINE BE?

>> A LOT OF POTENTIAL IMPORTANT CASES.

THEY ASK DECIDE IT IN A EVERYWHERE NRA ROW WAY.

IT'S NOTHING GOING ON THERE.

IN ANY DIRECTION.

SO, WITH THE LEADER LEADERSHIP IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A COLLABORATIVE BODY AND THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS.

THE COURT JUST IGNORES THEM.

>> POM, WE ARE NOT IGNORING YOU BUT WE HAVE TO STOP BECAUSE WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

I'M TED SIMONS.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

HAVE A GREAT EVENING.