OR NOT. >> WE WILL CHECK BACK IN WITH YOU LATER TODAY. >>> ALL RIGHT, CAMPAIGN REPORTER KATRINA KAUFMAN IS STILL STANDING OUTSIDE THE SUPREME COURT. JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE OUT, THEY PULL YOU BACK IN BUT I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT NOT JUST THE BIG CASE THAT CAME DOWN TODAY. TELL US ABOUT TOMORROW, THE CASES WE ARE STILL WAITING ON AND I'M STILL REALLY HOPING TO GET SOME INSIGHT INTO JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON'S DISSENT. WHY SHE FELT COMPELLED TO EXPLAIN THAT THE COURT WAS NOT LIVING UP TO ITS RESPONSIBILITY ? >> I THINK THAT HER DISSENT BROUGHT UP SOME REALLY IMPORTANT POINTS. SHE CONCURRED WITH THE DECISION IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS NOW ALLOWING EMTALA, THIS FEDERAL LAW TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE STATE BUT SHE DISSENTED IN THE SENSE THAT SHE THINKS THE COURT REALLY SHOULD HAVE RULED ON THE MERITS IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT IS JUST LEAVING THIS IN LIMBO, AND SHE SAID THE MECHANISM THAT THEY USED TO SEND IT BACK DOWN TO THE LOWER COURTS, IT'S KNOWN AS THE DATE, IT'S A TOOL THAT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE USED IN CASES WHERE THE COURT JUST DOESN'T WANT TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS CASE, ULTIMATELY. AND I THINK THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THIS ARE VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT NOW PUSHES THIS ISSUE TO POTENTIALLY AFTER THE ELECTION WHEN WE COULD HAVE A NEW ADMINISTRATION, POSSIBLY UNDER FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHERE THEY COULD DISMISS THIS LAWSUIT ALTOGETHER AND PERHAPS INTERPRET THIS LAW, EMTALA IN A DIFFERENT WAY. AND THIS STILL LEAVES ABORTION RIGHTS IN IDAHO AND ALL OF THESE OTHER STATES, JUST HANGING IN THE BALANCE. >> KATRINA, THANK YOU SO MUCH. MAYBE WE WILL CHECK BACK IN WITH YOU A LITTLE LATER BEFORE THE HOUR IS UP. AND IF WE DO, WE THANK YOU. LET'S BRING IN A PROFESSOR OF PRACTICE AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW. ALL RIGHT, LET ME GET YOUR REACTION SPECIFICALLY TO THIS IDAHO DECISION. >> I AGREE WITH KATRINA, THIS PUTS THE ISSUE OFF FOR ANOTHER DAY, THE COURT IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE STEPPED IN WHEN WE DID. WE SHOULD HAVE LET THIS PROCEED IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN IDAHO. AND SO, IT'LL GO BACK THERE. THERE'S LIKELY TO BE A TRIAL AGAIN, TO THE EARLIER POINT, IF THERE'S A DIFFERENT PRESIDENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND THEY DECIDE NOT TO CONTINUE TO PUSH THE FEDERAL LAW, ALLOWING EMERGENCY ABORTIONS, THAT ALL OF THIS MIGHT GO AWAY IN IDAHO MIGHT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO ENFORCE ITS LAW PROHIBITING MOST ABORTIONS. >> LET ME ASK YOU, PROFESSOR, ABOUT THIS OTHER RULING THAT HAS TO DEAL WITH THE ENVIRONMENT, SPECIFICALLY THE EPA AND THAT'S A BROADER QUESTION ABOUT THE WEAKENING OF SOME OF THE FEDERAL AGENCIES THAT WERE ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT ORDINARY AMERICANS. I'M SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE SEC. IT FEELS LIKE THOSE INSTITUTIONS HAVE BEEN WEAKENED, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT'S HAPPENING? >> I THINK IT'S BEEN AN AGENDA ITEM FOR CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES AND LAWYERS FOR A LONG TIME, TO TRY AND CURTAIL THE POWER OF FEDERAL AGENCIES BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THEIR VIEW, THEY ARE NOT ELECTED, THEY'RE NOT SUFFICIENTLY ACCOUNTABLE AND EXERCISE TOO MUCH POWER. SO I THINK THAT IS COMING TO A HEAD, WITH TWO DECISIONS TODAY.