Will interest rates change again?

What's new where I live?

Whatever the question, Google helps people in the UK access reliable news on a wide range of stories.

Learn more at g.co-supportingnews-uk

This is CBS, I'm the world, I'm John Bachelor.

The New Year and the Supreme Court, anticipating decisions ahead at the middle of the year or arguments here in winter time.

And we turn our attention with Professor Richard Epstein, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution as well as teaching law at NYU in the University of Chicago.

To one large story that is very much in the news all the time, it turns out that the border is a Supreme Court concern.

I read from the editorial of the Wall Street Journal in these hours.

Title 42 lets the federal government bypass usual procedural requirements during a public health emergency to expel migrants, including many asylum seekers.

The Supreme Court has let Title 42 stay in effect temporarily as litigation plays out, but courts are likely to rule eventually that a president has the authority to terminate the policy as Mr. Biden wants to do.

Richard, a very good evening to Title 42 and the Supreme Court surprised me because here to four, I'd understood that this was a matter for the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

Certainly the executive would suit the executive if the House and the Senate were both in accord with the president's opinion.

That is not now the case.

So why does the Supreme Court step into this? How does this move the start?

Well, it turns out if you read a different sentence, it would say that these are cases having to do with the standing of basically red state, the public and attorney generals to bring the suit to force the president and his government to continue the operation of rule of Title 42.

The grounds where they want this is there completely afraid of inundation by people whom they cannot handle.

And so the question is whether or not they quote unquote have legal standing to do this and then if they do have legal standing, the question is whether or not they have a valid cause of action, which could force the federal government to reverse its policies and so take these two questions in order.

The usual definition of standing is not one that is designed to deal with public entities. It generally states that you're a person that has a particular eyes industry, not one that is shared by ordinary population.

This is an extremely important and thoroughly unacceptable definition because it means when you have statutes, which have serious problems on their face.

In order to challenge it, no citizen or taxpayers able to do so, you have to find somebody who is hurt by the particular statute and question. And usually that's an individual here, the red state attorney generals are going to argue.

We are going to be hurt because we are going to be inundated by all of these people whom we cannot make adequate accommodations for and that there is nothing by way of compensation from the federal government that could or would or does hold this homeless.

...