>> Hello and thanks for joining us on Chicago tonight.

I'm Brandis Friedman.

Here's what we're looking at.

President Trump's push to end birthright citizenship is headed to the Supreme Court.

>> Rooting out extremism and other agencies across the city is a priority.

>> And update on the city's efforts to remove extremist groups from the Chicago Police Department.

>> It's for the first time in the history of our species.

We may actually be seen signs of life elsewhere.

>> And researchers in England say they may have found evidence of life on a distant planet.

>> And now to some of today's top stories.

Details are being released about Pope Francis's funeral.

The pontiff who died Monday of a stroke and heart failure will lie in state for 3 days.

Beginning Wednesday in Saint Peter's Basilica for the public to pay their respects.

The funeral will be on Saturday in Saint Peter's Square, the conclave to select the next pope is expected to begin between May 5th and 10th.

Outgoing Chicago Public Schools, Leader Pedro Martinez may have his next job all lined up.

He'll be the new commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education board members voted in his favor 9 to 0 with 2 abstentions.

Martinez was chosen from a pool of 3 finalists.

The state's current secretary of education who has final approval says Martinez has the, quote, bold proven leadership the agency needs at this moment he was set to remain on at CPS until June as detailed by his contract after the outgoing Board of Education fired him without cause back in December.

No word yet on when Martinez's last day is expected to be.

Men sentenced to probation through the Cook County Criminal legal system will have a different place to land with the opening of the Lawndale Christian Legal Center's New Deer Center on the West Side.

>> We hope that Cook County judges will see the value of policing a young person on probation here at the Deer Center.

Instead of sending that person to prison.

The goal is to keep them in our community with supports.

So we can break that arrested jail cycle.

>> The center is named for former Cook County Commissioner Dennis Deer, who has served as the group's vice president when it broke ground in 2022, he died last year at the age of 51.

The 22.5 million dollars center will provide studio apartments to 2018 to 25 year-old clients along with workforce development skills, mental health treatment and restorative justice.

Healing circles.

Lcl see also connects clients with services for employment, housing, education and other social needs.

The first client is expected to arrive this month.

Up next, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over the Trump administration's push to end birthright citizenship.

And later in the program, how the Chicago Police Department is weeding out extremist cops.

>> Chicago tonight is made possible in part by the Alexander and John Nichols family.

The gym and K maybe family.

The Pope Brothers Foundation.

And the support of these donors.

>> The U.S. Supreme Court is agreeing to hear arguments next month over President Donald Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship.

Immigrant rights advocates point to the 14th Amendment which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States, even if their parents came here illegally.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration argues children of non-citizens are not quote, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

Joining us our Alina away, a deputy director of the nonprofit Orleans Americus.

That's Chicago based network of American immigrant groups and on Zoom, Richard Porter, former Illinois Republican National committeeman.

And we saw also mention of both of you are attorneys.

So that's good because we have to talk about some legal stuff.

let's start with you.

Please tell us what the Trump administration is trying to change about this longstanding law.

>> Trump administration is trying concede or at 10th and no rain to put a shunt off.

They come amendment of the Constitution that defined 2 the city center and hoist not a single cent minutes trying to exclude everyone whose parents are not here on a percentage basis.

>> Richard, that this is something that Donald Trump campaigned on day one in office for this term.

He signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship.

Your thoughts on whether this longstanding law needs to be evaluated.

>> Well, so it's not a long standing along the I think what I think you're I think you're mischaracterizing that.

But first, I just want to say to Alaina welcomes the United States.

I understand you came to the United States in the Fulbright Scholarship and you're here on a work visa United States is richer for having immigrants of talent skill and ethics.

Joining our citizen created.

So thank you for coming tonight.

States.

So if you look at the 14th Amendment, of course, the 14th Amendment, the section one of the 14, the meme was passed to clarify the slaves.

Former slaves were citizens.

And that was original purpose of this section.

But what it says it is all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, our citizens of the United States.

And the question is, what's subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean and in the case in the Supreme Court in 18, 98, the screams were heard a case involving a legal immigrant.

Somebody that was here on a permanent legal basis.

They have children, one of whom was young man who traveled to China when he was 21.

And they came back and he was told he wasn't a U.S. citizen.

And this case was brought before the Supreme Court Supreme Court held that the child of a legal resident, legal resident of the United States was pursuant to this clause, a citizen of the United States.

The Supreme Court has never reached the question of whether a child of aghast.

You know, some of that.

This was a visitor to the United States or is an illegal immigrant to the United States, whether the subject to the jurisdiction thereof extends to cover the child either illegal immigrants or some is merely a terse so is your day.

a question asked the Supreme Court.

>> Do you believe are you under the impression that that some people come here from other countries to just to give birth to their children simply so that their children will have that that citizenship.

>> Yeah.

The Senate Center for Immigration Studies estimates about 35,000 people a year come in on Mir visitors visas to have children and then go back to their country of origin.

Plus, hundreds of thousands of more people who are illegal immigrants come in pregnant or get great.

It's really out there here.

So there is a relatively large pool of people for whom this is now active question.

And I I think unfortunately, that that because the system has been abused, the U.S. has been relatively flexible about this over the course of many years as a matter of practice, it hasn't scrutinize these issues to carefully.

But because of the wave of emigration was so strong and the and the extent of illegal immigration has got to be so great.

And because now the costs associated with this are also very large.

There's real scrutiny being placed on the meaning of subject to the jurisdiction thereof will in in a reverse is.

>> But will that I want to back to that if we can, just because there's a lot to get to specifically with what the Supreme Court is going to be taking up.

But, Elaine, I wanted to get your thoughts on on some of what we're hearing from your cope analysts, Richard Porter, with regards to on people coming to the country just for the purposes of of having children.

>> Well, I wonder what is the basis for that extremely high number?

I think that but tourism is really an exception rather than a massive practice.

It is true that many people come to United States to study, particularly a new credit students and they may have come with their spouses or they may have a relationship.

A pair had become parents.

Those children would also be scolded under the interpretation of the executive order.

They're also people will import children would excluded.

Richard, go ahead.

>> If you're a child of illegal immigrants, I think that the existing Supreme Court precedent covers that situation.

think the focus of the executive order is children of people who are here merely visiting or that are illegal immigrants that don't have a legal status within the United States.

that the Supreme Court, when it looked at this question in 18, 98 focused on the question of allegiance.

But it looked at the subject to the jurisdiction thereof that if the United States owes no allegiance to the child or the child and the child owes allegiance back to the United States that that is what the meaning of subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

So the question is just illegal allegiance to the United States.

Well, Richard, so it is a little complicated.

What is the Supreme Court is actually considering?

Right?

Because in this instance, they are not necessarily deciding the merits >> of the birthright citizenship law.

It's actually about the enforcement of this.

this executive order because of the states that have sued to stop it and what lower court, what appeals court judges have ruled.

So explain if you what the difference is and what lined the judges are actually walking, where they actually deciding.

>> Well, so I think one of the first questions the court's going to have to decide is whether there's a case or controversy, whether they have jurisdiction over the matter, which is to say there has to be an actual live case in which someone who is a child of someone who is a legal and illegal immigrant.

>> Or you know, a visitor brings the question before the court.

The court doesn't give advisory opinion.

So I'm not really sure.

>> All the court is necessarily a reach.

The ultimate question, one point want to point out, though, in the 14th Amendment, Section 5 says that Congress has the authority to enforce the other provisions of Article 14 by legislation.

And so it says that Congress have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation.

The provisions of this article, which includes Section one and question of birthright citizenship pull punters to be a question of interpretation to of does that.

Does the president have power under the executive just here to executive authority to also create interpretations of that section, right?

Because in this instance the Congress has not created a lot other than obviously what the Constitution currently says.

>> Alana, what are your thoughts on this and what the justices are?

What arguments here expecting to hear before the Supreme Court the discussion of this moment is really going to be this scope of this suspension of the executive order.

And this is something that the Trump administration has been complaining about because there are a number of judiciales orders that have interrupted many of actions and policies.

Of course, this happens in every administration.

>> And now it has been made an issue, but we not going to discuss the merits on this case.

And I think that that's concerning because many children of parents born abroad have being felt have felt that this decision is heading, that you would not an American when they grew up feeling American because they understanding east.

If you're born the United States, you are a U.S. citizen and that really that much just a fabric of society.

And that should be a concern for Nestle.

What if the Supreme Court should side with the Trump administration on this particular issue, which is that his executive order can be enforced in some states but not others.

What if what if that is the case?

We're going to see then a flood of in the courts because of court Spartans have the expectation the children are U.S. citizens and there important support from the Latino community could because this a meant that the score our understanding of what being an American person, are you surprised that the Supreme Court decided to take this up?

It is surprising, but there's been a lot of pressure from the administration.

So ultimately it had to give in.

And I think it decided that this going west discussion.

Richard, I hear you're trying to weigh in.

>> Well, what I was gonna say is I do think that the laws on immigration need to be uniform.

Article one of the Constitution provides the cause has authority statutes for the uniform Application of Naturalization Laws.

So I think whatever interpretation will cover all of the United States and the president does have power that's been delegated to him by Congress in the existing immigration laws.

So it will be a question of the extent of the delegation of authority to the president and his exercise of that of that power that he has inherently under article 2, but also under the immigration statutes that exist when they to put a couple things up.

Well, We're going to have to have that discussion next time we have you apologize because we're actually out of time.

But hearings are in May.

I am sure this is a conversation.

We will come back to Richard Porter and Alana Leah, thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

>> Up next, the city's status on removing extremist groups from the Chicago Police Department.

Mayor Brandon Johnson formed a task force in February to examine how to rid the Chicago Police Department of officers with ties to extremist groups.

2 months later, the effort has yet to show any sign of public progress in his first public remarks about the task force.

Johnson pledged to root out extremism.

>> I'm committed to ensuring that every single city employee represents the values of working people.

you know, whether their police officer or a teacher or anyone works in treating sanitation, they have to uphold those principles.

>> And our Heather Sharon joins us now with more.

Heather, the mayor agreed to form this task force 8 months ago or 8 months after Inspector General Denver, which Berg urged him to take a new approach in his push to terminate police officers who engage in extremists and anti-government activities or associate with groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were.

Does this effort stand?

Well, we learned today that this task force has met twice and we'll meet for a 3rd time, perhaps coincidentally tomorrow, there are 4 additional meetings scheduled with the gold Deputy Mayor Gary and Gatewood told me of having some sort of recommendation that can be released publicly by the end of the summer.

However, both the mayor and the deputy mayor made it clear that this task force isn't just looking at CPD and extremists in CPD, but citywide in any department.

I should be clear.

There have been no allegations against city employees of any other department having ties to the start groups, any other department other than CPD for, of course, has the task force made any progress?

So none that we can tell because these are not meetings that are subject to the open meeting rules.

We can't go to these meetings and they have said anything about what they're looking at doing that flies in the face of a recommendation from Inspector General de Pere Berg who said that it is best to sort to update the public as Mitch is possible to foster trust in whatever this group is going to recommend, because these are very difficult issues.

That, of course, raises First Amendment concerns and there's a lot at stake for the mayor because these are the people who are, of course, trusted to carry out the law in Chicago on the mend.

Matt Martin, the chair of the Ethics Committee is working to pass an ordinance that would allow city officials to fire employees who actively participate in extremist organizations.

That advocate for the overthrow of the government.

Where does that stand?

Well, perhaps also coincidentally Alderman Martin introduced his rent his ordinance just 2 days before the mayor to perform this task force.

The ordinance hasn't yet made it to a hearing.

Alderman Martin told me he still work shopping.

It gathering support.

However, he says that he hasn't been read in on anything that the working group is doing.

So it appears to be 2 separate paths moving through city Hall to sort of address this issue and inspector general, let's Berg says she doesn't know what's going on in task force either updated her either, OK, had a Sharon.

She'll be getting those updates force as they're available.

Thank you, Thanks, pandas.

And you can read Heather's full story on our website.

It is all at W T Tw Dot com slash news.

Scientists at the University of Cambridge using the James Webb Space Telescope say they have detected possible signs of life on a distant exoplanet.

>> The tentative discovery is based on the detection of sulfur based molecules, thankfully abbreviated to DNS in the atmosphere of the planet.

Here's professor Nick.

You do see down from the team explaining what they think they may have found.

>> s stance foot by month that find that this is a very important can because he had on up to Bms has produced uniquely by life, Michael, dozens in the ocean like phytoplankton.

And you because studies have predicted before the last 2 decades, that molecules like Bms would be very robust by a There's exoplanet systems.

>> And joining us now to help us understand the significance of all of this is Michelle Nichols, an astronomer and director of public observing at the Adler Planetarium.

Public observing sounds like a good gig.

Thank you for joining I'm OK, so before we talk about the possible tell us what we know about the Planet.

K 2.18, be.

All right.

So this is a planet that orbits a red dwarf star.

So that means it's a star that cooler smaller than our sun 124 light years away.

So far, but too far.

And it orbits in what's called the star's habitable zone, meaning the stars.

The plan is far enough away from the start that.

>> If there was water on the surface of the planet that it it had, it would have video of a chance to be like when the temperature could be right for that.

>> It's a cute little star, right?

But planet is is huge.

Yeah.

So the plant would be more like closer to Neptune sized in terms of mass so bigger than Earth.

Little bit smaller than Neptune.

So.

>> Ali, we don't have an analog to it in our own solar system.

Okay.

And that starts about half the size of our sun.

Yes, correct.

So as we heard Cambridge researchers, they think they detected potential signs of life in the atmosphere there.

What makes DMs so >> special as a biomarker well on Earth.

It is a material that is produced uniquely by life.

>> However, it's not the only way that you can get this material.

So if there's been a debate in the astrobiology community, is this a unique sign of life if we find someplace else, does that mean there's life there?

And the answer is maybe maybe not.

There could be other ways to make this stuff, especially on a planet that is so different from her own.

There could be some process is there that are completely different.

So it's still a debate as to whether or not it's a unique biomarker, right, just because it creates life on this planet does not mean that those biomarkers also create life for that.

Those what are they ares?

Dms also create life.

>> On that planet to yet be a material that's created by life.

So it would be that's given off potentially.

>> By life at least yes.

Exactly.

Correct.

Okay.

How was this detection made?

How they find So it's made by the James Webb Space Telescope.

So what happens is when the planet passes between the star and Earth it.

The light from the star will pass through the atmosphere of the planet.

Little tiny atmosphere is see because it's really far away.

And the substances in the atmosphere will imprint themselves essentially on the late that we get.

So we have to tease out this information of what's the light from the star.

What's the light that's passing through the atmosphere of the planet itself.

But from that, you can start to determine what this air is actually made of, which in itself is a pretty cool thing to be able to do.

And so they found a faint detection of a couple of guesses that might maybe be a biomarker, How confident do you think we can be in these findings?

if there confirms our know how that would be, how significant that be?

So how confident are we not yet scientifically confident if you were to go to a casino, it would be 99.7% sure that this isn't just a fluke.

It isn't just a random occurrence of of information.

That's good enough for casino.

Not good enough for science.

We need to be 99.

0.9, 9, 9, 9, 9%.

Sure.

And we're not there yet.

So there's still a lot of scientists going.

Hey, Sony, more data.

But even if they do say, yep, it's actually there.

They find enough information to say yes, there it still doesn't satisfy the question of how to get there and there could be some very non-life-threatening processes that could possibly produce this stuff on a world that is very different from our own.

What what level of proof would you need to see?

Yes, like what?

What would make what would make evidence of life >> you would need multiple lines of evidence.

It wouldn't just be finding this material may be finding other materials finding trying to figure out what the surface of this planet is even like.

>> Right now, there are 2 main camps.

It could be ocean world with a hydrogen atmosphere.

Okay.

Not too bad.

It could be a liquid magma covered world.

Definitely not able to host life.

So we need to figure out what the surface of this planet is even like in the first place.

So and then other pile on more information.

And when you start to get multiple lines of evidence that that this place could be hospitable to life.

Then you might be getting closer a mean.

It seems like it would have to take.

It would take a while to gather that evidence that it may be some advances in technology, correct?

Yeah, there may be technology needed that we don't have yet.

So lot more information may be needed in the future.

So it's going to take a while before people are satisfied with What do you think is the most likely way to do that?

Aside from what would the 124 your trip to get there?

Right?

Exactly.

At the speed of light can't I'd say try to look for it in our own solar system were more likely to find it.

He if it's here.

>> We're more likely to find it on a place.

That's a lot easier to get to in terms of time.

Maybe Mars, maybe Jupiter's moon Europa, maybe Saturn's moon.

And so it But all these worlds could have aspects to them.

That might.

No a little bit more easily had come at those multiple lines of evidence, get that direct evidence that maybe we could see this at some point in the future of fighting it here in our own solar system.

The a lot harder finding it so far away.

Why do you think this potential finding garnered so much excitement over the last week?

Everybody loves I think it's intentional.

Fraley got everybody's attention.

So shows the process of science.

I mean, it shows that, yes, we we come up with information, come up with some ideas, get more information about after advisors ideas.

You might have healthy debates about it.

You disagreements about it.

It's a science works.

And so that's that's the fun part about it.

And it's always fun to dream to see there be life out there.

And we do.

You like, I don't hold cities and that the governor only way of communicating the way.

Do we do what else we've got about 30 seconds left.

What else happening at the Adler Planetarium this week?

Well, come on down.

You can come in.

See our other world exhibit.

It's all about a planet.

General solar system and world's in other solar systems.

So come on down and learn about planets around other stars.

See, so if we don't have life out there than you can just come together and learn a little bit more.

And think they're all right.

Michelle Nichols at the Planetary, thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you.

And that is our show for this Tuesday night.

Be sure to sign up for our free email newsletter.

The Daily Chicago in Awt Tw dot com Slash newsletter and join us tomorrow night at 5, 30 10.

The gunman in the Highland Park parade shooting is set to be sentenced week weeks after a surprise guilty plea.

>> Now for all of us here at Chicago Brandis Friedman, thank you for watching.

Stay healthy and safe and have a good night.

>> Closed captioning is made possible.

I Robert a cliff and Clifford a Chicago personal injury and wrongful death.

serves the needs of clients