Special: Analysis of Upcoming SCOTUS Decisions with Zack Smith of The Heritage Foundation

Episode Transcript

(00:03):
Yeah, and a good morning andhappy Friday. Emory Songer here with you'all
need to know and it's nineh eight. Thanks so much for being a part
of the show today. We're notgonna waste too much time. I just
you know, one of the thingsabout Fridays, especially as we get toward
the end of the Supreme Court secession, if you will, is we knew
a couple of days ago there weretwenty three decisions that we were looking out

(00:26):
for from the Supreme Court. SoI figured it was a good idea to
talk to somebody who could help usunderstand exactly some of these more important decisions,
especially one specifically with the presidential immunity. And we are joined right now
on the Davidson Family Dentistry newsmaker lineby Zack Smith. He is with the
Heritage Foundation and Zach, first ofall, thanks for being on our show
today. Of course thanks for havingme on. So let's go ahead and

(00:49):
start with kind of the timing ofall this. I'll get specifically to presidential
immunity in a second, but forthose who are kind of unfamiliar how the
Supreme Court operates, when they seethat twenty three opinions could be coming out
by the end of the month.What exactly does that look like and what
does the year look like for theSupreme Court as they come through a lot
of these decisions, especially in thesummer. Well, look, there's no

(01:11):
doubt it's going to be a busyweek and a half or so as the
Court tries to finish its term beforethe end of June, as it historically
does. Overall, this year,the Court heard sixty one cases, and
as you mentioned, some of thebiggest cases the Court heard, they have
yet to decide those, and sothe Trump presidential Community case should be coming

(01:32):
out in the next several next weekor so. We'll also have several important
First Amendment cases related to social mediacompanies what actions they can take, important
cases related to the power of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to set the rules and
regulations we all have to live under, as well as some important cases involving
the ability of towns and localities todeal with the homeless problem that so many

(01:55):
places are encountered today. So certainlya lot of very big, very important
issues that the Court will be addressingin the next week and a half or
so. A lot of people,I think when they think Supreme Court,
we've politicized that group for quite awhile. Now, you know what presidents
can try to push through a youknow, Supreme Court justice and know that

(02:17):
they are conservative based or progressive basedjustices. But how much does that actually
make a difference with a lot ofthese different cases, because you know the
myth of pristone for instance, ahuge case last week that ended up being
a nine to zo decision, AndI feel like that is it always the
case? But I think it happensprobably a little bit more often then we

(02:39):
hear it happening. How much doesthe political background of some of these justices
actually play into some of these decisions. Yeah, not as much as you
would think. And you mentioned thenine to oh decision. There's also been
some interesting splits recently. The mechanismthat the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of the
CFPB gets its funding that was challenged, and even some of the conservative justices

(03:01):
split in that case whether or notthat funding mechanism was constitutional. You had
Justice Clarence Thomas on one side writinga majority opinion. You had Justices Alito
and Gorsage on the other side disagreeingwith Justice Thomas, and so I think
the Supreme Court certainly isn't as politicizedas many, particularly many on the left
would have us believe. And yetin the media today there continues to be

(03:25):
this campaign to essentially undermine the credibilityof the Supreme Court by either attacking the
justices Justice Thomas, Justice Alito ortrying to paint the institution as being an
inherently political one, which it isnot. We're speaking with Zach Smith with
the Heritage Foundation. You can findmore information Heritage dot org. I would

(03:45):
say your entire job titled there,Zach, but I don't know if I'll
get it in enough time on theshow fair enough. But the Presidential Community
case, I think is the onethat's going to be the big one that
we're paying close attention to, andthat certainly is going to be hopefully coming
out as soon is possible, sowe can break it down. But from
your perspective here, what are theimplications of what the Supreme Court is trying

(04:06):
to decide or potentially not decide aspart of this case. Yeah, Look,
the court issue is whether or notpresidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for
official actions they took while in office, and Obviously Donald Trump is the party
raising this claim, but whatever thecourt decide is going to impact presidents of

(04:27):
both parties going forward, and soI suspect this decision will be one that
law students will read about for decadesto come, regardless of what the court
decides. I also think it's importantto keep in mind two other facts.
One is that presidents already enjoy immunityfrom civil suit for actions they take while
in office, and so all DonaldTrump is asking the court to do is

(04:48):
to extend that immunity to criminal prosecutionfor official acts. And second, it's
also important to keep in mind thatif a president breaks the law, that
doesn't mean they can't be held toaccount. It's just a question of how
can they be held accountable. Andif you look at our constitution, it
provides for impeachment of presidents and otherhigh ranking executive branch officials. Congress still

(05:11):
has the power of the purse totry to hold the executive branch accountable,
and so there are other mechanisms thatcould be used other than criminal prosecution.
Of the opinion, specifically, whatare some of the options, Like,
I know what the you have ninejustices here, but what are the options
of what exactly will end up happeningmajority one way, majority another way,

(05:33):
and even I'm hearing a potential thirdoption of no decision whatsoever. Is that
how this is going to work out? And what would those options be for
the Supreme Court on this case?Well, I joke, my crystal ball
is a little broken these days becauseit's hard to predict what the justices are
going to do. But you know, I think one of the flash points

(05:54):
that may come out in this opinionis how to determine whether an action of
president took was part of their officialduties. You know, President Trump is
saying many of the actions he tookwithin the wake of the twenty twenty election
were within quote, the outer perimeterof his official duties, or whether the
actions they took fell within their capacityas a candidate for office or as a

(06:15):
private citizen. And if the actionsfell within their capacity as a candidate or
private citizen, those wouldn't enjoy immunityfrom prosecution. And so I think finding
how to draw that line, maybesending the case back to the lower courts
further factual development surround being Donald Trump'scase in particular, that might be an
option, but at the end ofthe day, we'll just have to wait

(06:39):
and see what the justices do withthis case. We're speaking with Zach Smith.
He is from the Heritage Foundation Heritagedot org. A lot of great
information coming from here. So forthose who, you know, trying to
understand what the lower court would dothat the Supreme Court would require it to
do on this case if they decideto send it down to that lower court,
what can the lower court that theSupreme Court cannot do before they make

(07:01):
a decision on this Well, typicallythe lower federal courts, you know,
the Supreme Court typically is not aquarter of first instance. It means very
few cases are filed directly in theUS Supreme Court, and typically the ones
that are involved disputes between states.And so it's a very rare instance that
the Supreme Court itself would be makingfactual findings. And so anytime there needs

(07:24):
to be more discovery, there needsto be more development of a factual record
to determine what actually happened factually,not legally. That is something that the
lower federal courts are better equipped todo than the US Supreme Court. And
so if the US Supreme Court,if the justices say there needs to be
more facts brought out, particularly asit relates to Donald Trump and his conduct,

(07:46):
that might be an instance where theywould send it back to the lower
federal courts. It makes complete sense. Obviously, the presidential immunity is going
to be the one that we payclosest to closest attention because of its implications
with the election in November. Butfor somebody like you who are following this
very very closely, and you talkabout a lot of the other headline decisions,
what are some of the other decisionsthat you expect in the next week

(08:07):
or so, Zach, that youthink are going to really make a difference.
Well, I think one of thetwo of the cases that everyone should
be following that they've kind of gotlost in the shuffle a little bit.
One is called the over Bright case, the other is the Less case,
and essentially both of those cases arebeing asked about how much difference courts should
give to the interpretations that unelected,unaccountable bureaucrats give to rules and regulations and

(08:33):
statutes that govern their own conduct,and historically, of course, have given
great difference to those interpretations, whichmeans that these unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats can
exercise vast power over our day daylives as Americans, and so if the
courts overturn what's known as Chevron difference, the difference they give to these administrative

(08:54):
agencies, that would be a bigdeal and could fundamentally shift the power of
the administrative state. Is the executivebranch of government as we know it today
certainly going to be something we'll keepan eye on. Our newsroom is going
to be watching very closely for eachand every one of these decisions. Zack
Smith the Heritage Foundation Heritage dot orgfor more information. This is excellent stuff.

(09:18):
We'll have to talk to you againsometime very soon, sir. Excellent
information letting us the normal people understandwhat exactly is going on in the Supreme
Court. We appreciate it, happyto do it. Thanks for having me
on absolutely. How about that greatinformation by somebody who knows what we're talking
about. We're going to be keepinga very close eye on what the Supreme
Court opinions are going to be comingout. We know Friday is a very

(09:39):
popular day for them. If anopinion, especially one involving presidential immunity,
ends up dropping here sometime during theshow. You will hear it first right
here all over the great state ofIowa on Need to Know. Nine seventeen
is the time. My name isEmery Sunger. We appreciate you for listening
to us. Not only is ZackSmith excellent information there. On top of
that, you know what, weofficially know that there will be just two

(10:01):
guys on that debate stage next Thursday. Yeah, we're only six days away
from that big first debate on CNN. I'll give you a few more of
the details that CNN has officially dropped, including why RFK Junior is being shut
out of it. That up next, I need to Know