Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Just moments ago, the Supreme Court coming down with some decisions,
one of them limiting the Court's ability to issue nationwide injunctions.
It stems from President Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship
and joining us now in the Kawai comment Spirit of
Health Hotline. Do you Constitutional law Professor Ian Ferrell, professor,
good morning. I know you just saw this. You're probably
going through it because there's a lot of voluminous information
(00:21):
in there, but at least your initial reaction to that decision.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Yes, good morning, Thanks for having me on. This is
the only decision that's been handed down so far because
several of the justices have been reading summaries from the bench.
The bottom line is that, in a six' to three
opinion written By Justice Amy Counny, barrett The court has
said that nationwide injunctions are likely beyond the scope of
(00:49):
district court, power and so they haven't said that they
haven't struck these. Down exactly what they've done is they've
sent them back to district courts to issue narrower injunctions if.
Possible And Justice Cony barrett also said that it's likely
that any injunction that goes beyond the individual plaintiffs needs
(01:13):
would be outside the scope of the court's.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Power So Professor, ferrell with that being, said what would
that mean to the birthright citizenship That President trump was
trying to, end BECAUSE i know this was more of
a nationwide injunction that talked about the ability to issue
these but not specifically on birthright.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Citizenship, Correct, yeah that's.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Right this would apply beyond birth right, citizenship but it
does also of course apply to birthright citizenship. Itself and
so what that means is that assuming the district courts
change their indunction injunctions so that they only apply to
the individual plaintiffs or to the districts in which they were,
(01:54):
decided people all around the country will if they are
affected by this birthright citizenship executive, order they will have
to soothe. Themselves and there are a couple of descents to,
them most notably By justice sort Of mayor And Justice,
(02:15):
Sorry i'm just forgetting To the other person was A Justice,
jackson who say that this is a terrible. Decision And
i'll just quote some language From Justice jackson because it's so.
Powerful she says that The court's decision here permits the
executive to violate The constitution with respect to anyone who
(02:35):
has not yet, sued and she describes this as an
existential threat to the rule of.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Law, professor what, courts, then If i'm understanding this, right
what courts can have? Injunctions because it's limiting it at one?
Level but can the next level up do that or
have the freedom to do? That AM i understanding that?
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Right so the opinion here says that it's the district court,
that at least in the first, instance decide on the
scope of the. Injunction and the court is at least
indicating that when they do, that they should be quite
narrow and certainly not. Nationwide and so each district court
(03:15):
is supposed to look at the plaintiffs in their individual
suit and decide what is required to make those plaintiffs.
Whole and anything beyond what is required to make those
plaintiff's whole is beyond the power of the district.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Court more philosophy than the legal. Professor but do you
kind of agree with The Supreme court's ruling on?
Speaker 2 (03:38):
THIS i see their points in. GENERAL i think that
the problem here is that there are some things that
the executive can do that are Or congress could do
that are blatantly, unconstitutional AND i don't think in situations like,
(03:59):
that precluding nationwide injunctions is a good. Idea and so
one Commentator i've seen on The scots blog has already,
said you, know imagine if the If congress said no
one can have any weapons at all, right took away
Everyone's Second amendment. Rights it would seem crazy that every
(04:20):
individual person who owns a, gun or each individual stake
perhaps on the representing those, individuals would have to sue
independently right. There and this is one of the points
that The descent, makes which is when you have something
that is like this almost certainly well in my, view certainly,
unconstitutional we should be allowed to stop that in one fell,
(04:43):
swoop rather than pick it off in one jurisdiction at a.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
Time Professor Ferrel descota's blog has been very very, active
to say the least right, now as it looks like
right now we might be getting something with The kennedy
Versus braid would management that looks like a case that
challenges a key component of The Affordable Here. Act are
there any other opinions that will be handed out today
that are really on your? Radar things that listeners should
be aware of while they're literally being handed down as we.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Speak, YEAH i think there's a handful that are being
handed down later, today and also a couple yesterday that we're.
Reporting so one that caught in my eye yesterday was
that The Supreme court held in favor of A texas
man on death row who wants to challenge the constitutionality
(05:29):
of A texas law that limits his ability to DO
dna testing to prove his innocence and so. Forth so
lots of different things going on today and this. Week
SO i think the court is winding down so ups
trying to get everything it possibly can out as soon as.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Possible, professor you are one of the, best and thank
you for joining us on short. Notice we know we
asked you, to you, know read one hundred nineteen pages
and give us a, Summation so thank. You you've been.
Fantastic we appreciate. It chose all, right do you constitutional law?
Professor It's Ian. Ferrell
Just moments ago, the Supreme Court coming down with some decisions,
one of them limiting the Court's ability to issue nationwide injunctions.
It stems from President Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship
and joining us now in the Kawai comment Spirit of
Health Hotline. Do you Constitutional law Professor Ian Ferrell, professor,
good morning. I know you just saw this. You're probably
going through it because there's a lot of voluminous information
(00:21):
in there, but at least your initial reaction to that decision.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Yes, good morning, Thanks for having me on. This is
the only decision that's been handed down so far because
several of the justices have been reading summaries from the bench.
The bottom line is that, in a six' to three
opinion written By Justice Amy Counny, barrett The court has
said that nationwide injunctions are likely beyond the scope of
(00:49):
district court, power and so they haven't said that they
haven't struck these. Down exactly what they've done is they've
sent them back to district courts to issue narrower injunctions if.
Possible And Justice Cony barrett also said that it's likely
that any injunction that goes beyond the individual plaintiffs needs
(01:13):
would be outside the scope of the court's.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Power So Professor, ferrell with that being, said what would
that mean to the birthright citizenship That President trump was
trying to, end BECAUSE i know this was more of
a nationwide injunction that talked about the ability to issue
these but not specifically on birthright.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Citizenship, Correct, yeah that's.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Right this would apply beyond birth right, citizenship but it
does also of course apply to birthright citizenship. Itself and
so what that means is that assuming the district courts
change their indunction injunctions so that they only apply to
the individual plaintiffs or to the districts in which they were,
(01:54):
decided people all around the country will if they are
affected by this birthright citizenship executive, order they will have
to soothe. Themselves and there are a couple of descents to,
them most notably By justice sort Of mayor And Justice,
(02:15):
Sorry i'm just forgetting To the other person was A Justice,
jackson who say that this is a terrible. Decision And
i'll just quote some language From Justice jackson because it's so.
Powerful she says that The court's decision here permits the
executive to violate The constitution with respect to anyone who
(02:35):
has not yet, sued and she describes this as an
existential threat to the rule of.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Law, professor what, courts, then If i'm understanding this, right
what courts can have? Injunctions because it's limiting it at one?
Level but can the next level up do that or
have the freedom to do? That AM i understanding that?
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Right so the opinion here says that it's the district court,
that at least in the first, instance decide on the
scope of the. Injunction and the court is at least
indicating that when they do, that they should be quite
narrow and certainly not. Nationwide and so each district court
(03:15):
is supposed to look at the plaintiffs in their individual
suit and decide what is required to make those plaintiffs.
Whole and anything beyond what is required to make those
plaintiff's whole is beyond the power of the district.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Court more philosophy than the legal. Professor but do you
kind of agree with The Supreme court's ruling on?
Speaker 2 (03:38):
THIS i see their points in. GENERAL i think that
the problem here is that there are some things that
the executive can do that are Or congress could do
that are blatantly, unconstitutional AND i don't think in situations like,
(03:59):
that precluding nationwide injunctions is a good. Idea and so
one Commentator i've seen on The scots blog has already,
said you, know imagine if the If congress said no
one can have any weapons at all, right took away
Everyone's Second amendment. Rights it would seem crazy that every
(04:20):
individual person who owns a, gun or each individual stake
perhaps on the representing those, individuals would have to sue
independently right. There and this is one of the points
that The descent, makes which is when you have something
that is like this almost certainly well in my, view certainly,
unconstitutional we should be allowed to stop that in one fell,
(04:43):
swoop rather than pick it off in one jurisdiction at a.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
Time Professor Ferrel descota's blog has been very very, active
to say the least right, now as it looks like
right now we might be getting something with The kennedy
Versus braid would management that looks like a case that
challenges a key component of The Affordable Here. Act are
there any other opinions that will be handed out today
that are really on your? Radar things that listeners should
be aware of while they're literally being handed down as we.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Speak, YEAH i think there's a handful that are being
handed down later, today and also a couple yesterday that we're.
Reporting so one that caught in my eye yesterday was
that The Supreme court held in favor of A texas
man on death row who wants to challenge the constitutionality
(05:29):
of A texas law that limits his ability to DO
dna testing to prove his innocence and so. Forth so
lots of different things going on today and this. Week
SO i think the court is winding down so ups
trying to get everything it possibly can out as soon as.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Possible, professor you are one of the, best and thank
you for joining us on short. Notice we know we
asked you, to you, know read one hundred nineteen pages
and give us a, Summation so thank. You you've been.
Fantastic we appreciate. It chose all, right do you constitutional law?
Professor It's Ian. Ferrell
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.