Jon Decker, WOR White House correspondent Interview

Jon Decker speaks with Mendte in the Morning about the Supreme Court hearings yesterday and the Judges thoughts on Donald Trump trying to end birthright citizenship.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
John Decker, w l r's White House and Washington correspondent
and Constitutional attorney was at the Supreme Court and heard everything. John,
what are your takeaways?

Speaker 2 (00:11):
Yeah, that's right. I was in the Supreme Court for
all two plus hours of oral arguments yesterday, and the
Supreme Court really appeared to be divided on these two issues.
On the one hand, I think that you heard from
some justices that they're troubled, they're frustrated by the idea
that a single federal District court judge can issue a

(00:31):
nationwide injunction that would apply to everybody in the country,
not just the parties that brought the case in the
first place. And then, of course you saw this play
out before the Supreme Court yesterday. Not one of them
defended the president's executive order trying to do away with

(00:52):
birthright citizenship. In fact, Justice Alito essentially said, let's get
past this particular issue. Let's leave that aside, because I
think he even he's uncomfortable with trying to defend an
executive order trying to trump what's enshrined in the fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution.

Speaker 1 (01:10):
So what do you see happening? I mean, I know
it's reading Tea leaves at this point. But when you
say they're split, is it split conservative liberal, or is
it really split five to four or four to five.

Speaker 2 (01:24):
You know, the split is interesting because over the past
decade or so, you've I've heard a Republican appointed justices,
Democratic appointed justices, liberals, conservatives both express frustration as it
relates to a single federal district court judge, a trial
court judge in a particular district issuing these nationwide injunctions. So,

(01:49):
you know, I think that for Chief Justice John Roberts,
he's got a difficult task ahead of him, and that
is essentially coming down with some sort of answer to
that particular problem that both liberal and conservative justices acknowledge
exists at the same time, leaving the crux of the

(02:12):
main issue at hand untouched, and that is the issue
of birthright citizenship. So he's got to navigate that. He's
got some time to do it. Yesterday marked essentially mid May.
He's got until the end of next month to come
out with an opinion the Supreme Court does concerning this
particular case. But to me, it's not, you know, black

(02:35):
and white this particular issue in terms of how you
do it and that's where these bright minds on the
Supreme Court will will need to figure that out. I
expect that as it relates to this case, Larry, there
will be a number of concurring opinions, because not every
justice will agree with the majority opinion that actually ultimately
comes forward.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
It's interesting that, you know, some of the so called
liberal judges, like Alena Kagan has been out publicly saying
that this is unsustainable. We can't have these district court
judges stopping executive power across the entire country, or even
congressional power across the entire country. That that shouldn't be happening.

(03:18):
And so were there enough of the liberal judges that
were arguing and it seemed to be for the idea
of limiting limiting the power of a district court judge.

Speaker 2 (03:30):
Yeah. And you know, there was an idea that was
proposed by the Solicitor General, so he is the person
arguing the case on behalf of the Trump administration. His
name is John Sower, and he suggested, you know, look,
the way to address this particular issue is through class
action status for some of the matters that come before

(03:53):
these district court judges. So the question was asked Larry,
what happens, And this question was posed to both the
Solicitor General for the United States that's the person arguing
on behalf of the Trump administration, and the Solicitor General
for the State of New Jersey. And the question was
what happens if you win this case and what happens

(04:13):
if you lose this case. If the Solicitor General for
the State of New Jersey loses this case, I would
imagine not only the Solicitor General for New Jersey, but
also those that brought the cases in two other jurisdictions
would seek class action status for the actions that they've
initially brought against the federal government concerning birthright citizenship. That

(04:36):
may satisfy all of the concerns expressed by the various
justices yesterday during oral arguments. But I think it's one
of those things, Larry, where I'm really interested to see
what this ultimate majority opinion looks like.

Speaker 1 (04:52):
It's fascinating. There's so many cases involving Donald Trump's actions
going to the Supreme Court, but this one. It's smart
that they went early with this one because this one
might be the foundation for ruling on many more to come.
Isn't it.

Speaker 2 (05:09):
You're absolutely right about that, because it's not just this
particular matter. It's other matters, other policy pronouncements, executive orders
taken by President Trump that have been challenged in the
federal courts, and we've seen a significant number of district
court judges weighing in and putting them on hold through injunctions.

(05:33):
And that is the power that exists right now. It
was interesting also to me to hear what Justice Clarence
Thomas said, and he pointed out that these nationwide injunctions
really did not start until the early nineteen sixties, and
he made a remark saying the country survived before that
period of time. So you know where he stands on

(05:53):
this particular issue.

Speaker 1 (05:54):
I want you to put your other hat on for
one second, because Donald Trump is coming back after what
everybody seems to believe is an extremely successful I believe
it an extremely successful trip to the Middle East where
he may have changed the Middle East with some relationships
with Syria, Lebanon, possibly Iran, and god investments. Democrats are
even praising it. Him coming back, he's gonna have a

(06:17):
pretty big head, which he already had in the first place.
But do you see it as an successful trip.

Speaker 2 (06:24):
Well. On the foreign policy front, absolutely. You know, the
President lifted sanctions on Syria that was unexpected, met with
Siria's new president that was unexpected, made a new offer
as far as an Iran nuclear deal, and that's now
being studied by the government of Iran, that too is unexpected.
I think the one thing that did not happen on

(06:46):
this trip, and it would not have happened I don't
think anyway, was the President calling an audible traveling to Turkey,
meeting with Zelensky and possibly Putin, but as we know,
Putin declined travel to Turkey for peace talks. So that's
the one thing that I think really frustrates the president.
For as much success that he achieved on this trip,

(07:09):
including the economic investments in the United States, that was
one element that eluded him. But you know, that was
I think a real reach to think that the President
would travel to Turkey, or that even Putin would travel
to Turkey, and of course we know he is not.
And I think that that's indicative Larry of the fact

(07:30):
that we've spoken about this before. Vladimir Putin is the
impediment to peace in terms of ending that war.

Speaker 1 (07:36):
Oh absolutely, and Donald Trump acknowledges that now that it
probably wasn't going to happen because he wasn't going to
be there. That's what he says. John Decker, thank you
so much. I know you weren't supposed to be on today,
but I appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (07:48):
Because absolutely anytime, I have a great weekend.

Speaker 1 (07:51):
Thank you you two. Wl r's White House and Washington
Correspondent