QUIETER OPEN TO THE LATEST U.S. SUPREME COURT TERM TODAY THAN IN YEARS PAST.

THE ISSUES OF ABORTION, GUNS AND GERRYMANDERING ARE EXPECTED TO POP UP AGAIN DESPITE MAJOR RULINGS ON THESE VERY ISSUES IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.

THIS COMES AS THE COURT FINDS ITSELF UNDER INCREASING SCRUTINY OF HER THICK CONCERNS.

JOINING US ARE CAROLYN SHAPIRO, CODIRECTOR OF THE CHICAGO COLLEGE OF LAW'S INSTITUTE ON THE SUPREME COURT, SHE ALSO QUIRKED FOR STEPHEN BREYER AND DAVID FRANKLIN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT DePAUL UNIVERSITY'S COLLEGE OF LAW.

HE ALSO WORKED FOR JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG.

ALWAYS GREAT TO SEE YOU BOTH HERE IN PERSON.

THINK OF JOINING.

ABORTION ACCESS, DESPITE THE WHIRLING, IT IS ON THE DOCKET AND INVOLVES MIFEPRISTONE AND WHAT IS AT STAKE?

>> EARLIER THIS YEAR DOCTORS IN TEXAS REPRESENTED BY THE ALLIANCE OF FREEDOM FILED A SUIT IN TEXAS IN A PARTICULAR DISTRICT WHERE THEY KNEW THEY WOULD GET ONE JUDGE WHO WAS VERY HOSTILE TO ABORTION.

THIS IS IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.

I ASKED HIM TO SAY THAT MIFEPRISTONE WAS ILLEGAL, THAT THE FDA HAD NOT DONE AN ADEQUATE JOB DETERMINING THAT IT WAS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.

PART OF THEIR PROBLEM WAS THAT THEY WERE AN UNUSUAL GROUP OF PEOPLE TO BRING THIS CLAIM.

THEY ACTUALLY WERE DOCTORS WHO NEVER PRESCRIBED THIS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN ABORTION.

THEY SAY MAYBE SOMEDAY THERE MIGHT BE SOMEBODY WE MIGHT HAVE TO TREAT WHO MIGHT HAVE TAKEN MIFEPRISTONE AND MIGHT SUFFER COMPLICATIONS AND THAT WOULD BE UPSETTING TO US.

UNDER NORMAL DOCTRINE THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BRING THIS LAWSUIT BUT THE JUDGE ALLOWED THEM TO DO THAT.

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT DID AS WELL.

THEY CUT BACK SOMEWHAT ON THE JUDGES WHIRLING.

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT DID ALLOW MIFEPRISTONE TO CONTINUE UNDER ITS RULING, IT WOULD CONTINUE TO BE AVAILABLE, BUT NOT THROUGH TELEMEDICINE.

THE SUPREME COURT STATED THE UPHOLDING.

THEY SAID WE KNOW WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE THIS CASE SO NOTHING CHANGES, THE PRE-EXISTING LAW REMAINS IN EFFECT.

MIFEPRISTONE REMAINS AVAILABLE AND UNDER THE TERMS THE FDA HAS SET UNTIL WE DECIDE THE CASE.

>> WHICH THEY WILL BE DOING SOON.

WOULD YOU ANTICIPATE SOME JUSTICES THAT VOTED ONE WAY AND DOBBS MIGHT SLIP AND VOTE IT DIFFERENTLY IN THIS?

>> IT IS POSSIBLE.

I DO THINK THAT ULTIMATELY THE COURT IS GOING TO FIND THESE DOCTORS DON'T HAVE TO STAND IT FOR THE REASONS THAT CAROLYN GAVE ERIC BUT I HAVE BEEN WRONG BEFORE.

>> ANOTHER IMPORTANT CASE, NOT THE ILLINOIS LAW, WE ASSUME THAT WILL GET THERE, BUT THIS IS CONCERNING RESTRICTIONS AROUND PEOPLE BUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS AND THEIR ABILITY TO OWN GUNS.

WHAT IS AT STAKE IN THIS CASE?

>> THERE IS A LAW THAT SAYS IF YOU ARE UNDER A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER AND THE INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WAS, HE BEAT UP HIS GIRLFRIEND AND THREATENED HER WITH A GUN, FEDERAL LAW SAYS THAT WHILE THAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER IS IN EFFECT YOU CAN'T HAVE FIREARMS ANYMORE.

HE ARGUES THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT, THE CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZES HIM TO KEEP HIS GUN.

THE FEDERAL LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

ALL OF THIS COMES BACK TO A 2020 TO RULING BY THE SUPREME COURT WRITTEN BY JUSTICE THOMAS IN WHICH THE COURT ESSENTIALLY SAID THAT ALL LAWS REGULATED FIREARM OWNERSHIP ARE PRESUMED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT CAN SHOW THAT THERE WAS SOME SIMILAR LAW ON THE BOOKS ARE A SIMILAR HISTORY AND TRADITION OF REGULATING THAT ACTIVITY GOING BACK TO THE 18th CENTURY WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS FIRST ENACTED.

>> WE SHOULD SAY THERE WERE PROBABLY NOT ANY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWS AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM ON THE BOOKS AT THAT POINT.

IS THAT THE STANDARD YOU BELIEVE THE CONSERVATIVES WOULD USE TO MAKE >> THE FIFTH CIRCUIT RULED THAT THIS GUY HAD A SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO HIS GUN BECAUSE BACK IN THE 18th CENTURY WOMEN WERE NOT PROTECTED BY THE LAW IN THE WAY THAT WOMEN ARE TODAY.

I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A HARD ONE FOR A NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT.

I THINK JUSTICE THOMAS WILL PROBABLY STICK TO HIS POSITION THAT IT IS NOT A CLOSE ENOUGH ANALOGY, BUT I THINK A NUMBER OF JUSTICES ARE LIKELY TO SAY WAIT A MINUTE, THERE HAS BEEN A HISTORY OF KEEPING PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSIDERED DANGEROUS FROM HAVING GARDENS, AND THIS IS ANALOGOUS TO THAT REGULATION, BUT WE WILL SEE.

I HAVE BEEN WRONG BEFORE.

>> I HAVE TO SAY THAT THIS ENTIRE APPROACH TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS ABSURD AND DANGEROUS AND IT ALSO REVEALS THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS A SELECTIVE APPROACH TO THIS SO-CALLED ORIGINALIST METHODOLOGY.

LOOKING THROUGH 18th CENTURY STATUTE BOOKS OR ANALOGOUS REGULATIONS WHEN GUNS ARE FAR MORE TECHNOLOGICALLY EFFECTIVE AND THEREFORE FAR MORE DEADLY THAN THEY WERE BACK THEN, LET ALONE THE STATUS HAVING CHANGED SO MUCH, IT IS RIDICULOUS.

WE OUGHT TO CALL IT LIKE WE SEE IT.

THAT IS WHAT IT HAS BECOME IN THIS AREA.

>> DIFFERENT STANDARDS AND DIFFERENT WEAPONS.

ONCE AGAIN, GERRYMANDERING ON THE DOCKET THIS TIME INVOLVING THE MAPS DRAWN IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND AS HAS BEEN THE CASE FOR MANY STATES IN HIS HEART, IT INVOLVES RACE.

TELL US ABOUT THIS.

>> THE CLAIM IS OF RACIAL GERRYMANDERING.

THE PLAINTIFFS ARE AT THE SOUTH CAROLINA NAACP AND THEY SAY WHEN SOUTH CAROLINA REDREW THEIR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT THEY DELIBERATELY MOVED 30,000 BLACK PEOPLE OUT OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 1, THEY WERE THE TARGET OF 17% BLACK PEOPLE IN THE DISTRICT AND THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION, THAT ALLOWS RACE TO PREDOMINATE IN REDISTRICTING AND THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR A LONG LINE OF CASES.

SOUTH CAROLINA WHICH IS A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED STATE IS DEFENDING ITSELF BY SAYING IT IS NOT THAT WE WERE TRYING TO TARGET RACE WE WERE TRYING TO TARGET PARTISANSHIP.

OF COURSE IN THE SOUTH IN PARTICULAR RACE AND PARTISANSHIP ARE DEEPLY CONNECTED.

THE SUPREME COURT DID SAY IN 2019 THAT IT WOULD NOT DECIDE WHEN PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BUT THEY DID NOT SAY IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL, THEY SAID IT IS ANTIDEMOCRATIC AND JUSTICE KENNEDY SAID THE OTHER BRANCHES SHOULD NOT BE DOING THINGS THAT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SO WHETHER THEY WILL ALLOW THIS TO ACTUALLY STAND AT THE DEFENSE TO RACIAL GERRYMANDERING, I THINK IT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION.

>> WE WILL SEE IF IT GOES AWAY.

THEY ROLLED IN THE CASE IN ALABAMA, A SIMILAR ISSUE.

DAVID FRANKLIN, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CASES THAT SORT OF RETAIN TO THE POWER OF FEDERAL AGENCIES TO REGULATE WHAT SORT OF THINGS THEY HAVE.

GIVE US THE UMBRELLA OF WHAT THE SUPREME COURT WILL CONSIDER.

>> THERE IS A LOT TO WATCH THIS TERM.

THERE IS A CASE WHICH THE SUPREME COURT MIGHT OVERRULE.

THE MOST IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT CASE YOU HAVE EVER HEARD OF A CASE CALLED CHEVRON WHICH BASICALLY SAYS THAT WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY IS CHARGED WITH ENFORCING THE LAW, IT GETS TO INTERPRET THE LAW IF THE LAW IS AMBIGUOUS AT LEAST AS LONG AS THE AGENCY AS BEING REASONABLE.

IT IS ONE OF THE MOST OFT CITED CASES, BUT THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF DOES NOT LIKE THE CHEVRON CASE ANYMORE AND WILL PROBABLY OVERRULE IT OR SHARPLY CUT BACK.

THERE IS ALSO CASES INVOLVING WHETHER THE EXCHANGE COMMISSION HAS THE ABILITY TO ADJUDICATE DISPUTES UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND WHETHER THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU'S FUNDING MECHANISM MAKES THAT AND HER AGENCY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

ALL OF THESE CASES COMING OUT, MOST OF THEM OUT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT GET SOME MENTIONING AND ALL OF THEM ARE PUSHING THE ENVELOPE ON THIS SORT OF DEREGULATORY MISSION AMONG CONSERVATIVES TO DISMANTLE THE FENESTRATED STATE AND I THINK SEVERAL OF THE JUSTICES, MAYBE A MAJORITY WILL BE TEMPTED TO GO ALONG WITH SOME OF THOSE THEORIES.

>> IT SEEMS LIKE FROM SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT THAT IS THE DIRECTION THEY WANT TO GO.

WE MENTIONED THEY ARE HEARING THESE CASES AS THE COURT ITSELF IS FACING A CRISIS, AND I GUESS IT'S APPEARANCE OF INDEPENDENCE OR BEING FREED FROM ETHICAL PROBLEMS GIVEN THE REPORTING ON JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS, THE FREE VACATIONS HE TOOK FROM THE BILLIONAIRE WHO IS INVOLVED IN CASES BEFORE THE COURT.

HE DID NOT REPORT MUCH OF HIS STUFF.

THE SUPREME COURT IS SAYING THEY MIGHT START WRITING SOME GUIDELINES.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD COME UP WITH?

>> IF THEY ARE SMART THEY WILL COME UP WITH GUIDELINES THAT BASICALLY MATCH THE ONES THE REST OF THE JUDICIARY HAS TO FOLLOW.

THERE MIGHT BE SOME SLIGHT DIFFERENCES FOR THE SUPREME COURT, BUT THAT IS WHAT I THINK THEY SHOULD DO.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WELCOME I CERTAINLY DON'T KNOW THEY WILL GET UNANIMITY ON THIS.

I THINK JUSTICE THOMAS AND ALITO ARE BOTH VERY DEFENSIVE ABOUT WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING AND JUSTICE THOMAS HAS WRITTEN ABOUT ACCESS IN SOME OF HIS OPINIONS THAT SUGGEST I THINK HE DOES NOT DO ANYTHING HE HAS DONE SHOULD EVEN HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED.

SO I AM NOT SURE THEY WILL GET UNANIMITY AND I AM NOT SURE WHAT THEY WILL DO IF THEY CAN'T GET IT.

>> ONLY A FEW SECONDS, BUT ANOTHER INTERESTING CASE INVOLVING HOW TO REGULATE SOCIAL MEDIA AND THIS IS AGAIN COMING OUT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.

>> TEXAS HAS A LAW THAT BASICALLY SAYS THE LARGEST SOCIAL MEDIA FORMS WE ARE GOING TO REGULATE THE WAY YOU MODERATE YOUR CONTENT SO WE ARE GOING TO STOP YOU FROM REMOVING ACCOUNTS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR VIEWS.

THAT SEEMS TO CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS LONG AS YOU ACCEPT THE IDEA THAT TWITTER AND FACEBOOK HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

THEY ARE LIKE THE NEW YORK TIMES, THEY CAN DECIDE WHAT MATERIAL THEY WANT TO CARRY AND WHICH THEY DON'T.

I THINK THE SUPREME COURT WILL VIEW IT THAT WAY, AND WILL