May 14, 2025 • 5 mins
Sarah Isgur speaks with Mendte in the Morning about the many cases that the Supreme Court have to decide on and goes over a few of them in detail.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now, let's talk about the Supreme Court, because it's a
busy place these days. Donald Trump is keeping them busy.
Let's talk to Sarah Esker about that ABC News contributor
who is in Washington. Sarah, there's so many cases you pick,
where do you want to start?
Speaker 2 (00:17):
I mean, it's really dealer's choice at this point. You know,
we've got like fifty out there. It's hard to even know.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
You know.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
The Supreme Court is hearing unusual oral arguments tomorrow. Technically
the term has ended in terms of hearing new cases,
but they've added this case to their schedule, one of
the latest in years that we've seen here from May fifteenth,
and this will be about birthright citizenship, about whether these
lower court judges can stop a president's executive order from
(00:47):
going into effect throughout the entire country. Should be some
fireworks tomorrow at the Court.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Yeah, it's an interesting case because it may affect other
cases ahead. I can see why they want to deal
with this one, and it seems it's very funny when
you hear arguments on both sides of this case. They
both think it's cut and dry, and I don't think
it is. It makes it a fascinating case.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Absolutely right, especially your point about this affecting cases down
the line. So Supreme Court justices famously take the summer off,
but as Justice Kagan has mentioned, less and less because
of these so called emergency cases that reach the court basically,
whether a policy should go into effect while a lawsuit
is pending, what should the status quo be. Well, this
(01:33):
argument tomorrow is all about what that status quo is
going to be. So it looks a little bit to
me like the justices want their summers off again and
fewer of those emergency cases coming to them. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Well, but it's a great point. We just had a
federal judge in New York takeover Rikers Island and everybody's
kind of stunned at that. It seems the power of
some of the federal judges, especially these district court judges,
has risen to a point that it never was before.
And it's and that's something I think Supreme Court needs
(02:06):
to deal with, and if not, the Supreme Court Congress
needs to deal with because we need to we I
hate to say it, but we need to rain them
in a little bit because even as you said, Justice
Kagan talked about this and said this is unsustainable.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Well, you know, it's funny because so many of our
headaches or heartburns about our government aren't new. We have
had this push and pull between the authority and largeness,
if you go, the power of the judiciary since the beginning.
This was actually one of the big arguments between the
(02:44):
federalists who wanted to ratify the Constitution and the anti
federalists who were really squeamish about giving all this power
to judges. So in some ways we're having the debate
that our founders were having, which I always think is
kind of fun. But one thing that has really changed,
as you mentioned, is the role of Congress. When we
had the Constitution. Originally, you know, in seventeen eighty nine,
(03:05):
Congress was the premier branch by a mile. They were
leading everything, doing everything, charging up every hill. Now we
have a Congress that is basically you know, five hundred
and twenty five cable news pundits, and that is putting
a lot of strain on the other two branches. You
have presidents trying to do more to solve problems that
they don't have the power to pass laws, and then
(03:27):
you have the judiciary dealing with the mess so your
solutions exactly right. Congress could step in and fix this,
either by fixing the actual underlying problem that the president's
trying to deal with, or by telling the courts what
their actual powers are. Congress could do any of that,
but they're not.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
No, And I know that there's I thought there's a
bill that's been that's been written but is not introduced,
a bill that's been written that would limit a district
court judge's power in that if he makes a ruling,
it doesn't affect the whole country, it just affects his district.
Am I wrong about that?
Speaker 2 (04:04):
You're exactly right. That bill is introduced by Daryl Isa
of California in the House. It passed the House and
then moved to the Senate, where you know, some people
say dead on arrival. I think more like, you know,
kind of limping, maybe a little sickly on arrival. I
think it's unlikely to pass, but not zero likely to pass,
(04:24):
And especially depending on how the Supreme Court decides this
case they're hearing tomorrow, could really affect that bill's future.
As you say, this would affect when these judges can
put a law on hold throughout the country while a
trial litigation. Lawsuits are pending.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Well, let's talk about this really quick. The Federal Employee
union is challenging doje's access to American's sensitive data at
the Social Security Administration. I know Scott Besson has been
out there saying, wait a second, their Treasury employees, this
should be an interesting case at the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
I also agree with that. You know, the Supreme Court
has so far and you know we're only a little
over one hundred days in largely been siding with the
President when it's a power for him to control his
own branch. So in this case, that would mean that yes,
Treasury employees, whether they're DOGE or otherwise, can get access
to that data that is also housed within the Treasury Department.
(05:22):
Where the Supreme Court has really told President Trump no,
is when he is trying to affect things outside of
his branch powers that would normally be reserved to Congress,
for instance, or need to be done through the legislative process.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Well that's what they're there for, right, Sarah Iskar, thank
you so much, ABC contributor in Washington. That was fascinating,
especially about the Federalist I love that kind of stuff.
Thank you very much,
Now, let's talk about the Supreme Court, because it's a
busy place these days. Donald Trump is keeping them busy.
Let's talk to Sarah Esker about that ABC News contributor
who is in Washington. Sarah, there's so many cases you pick,
where do you want to start?
Speaker 2 (00:17):
I mean, it's really dealer's choice at this point. You know,
we've got like fifty out there. It's hard to even know.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
You know.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
The Supreme Court is hearing unusual oral arguments tomorrow. Technically
the term has ended in terms of hearing new cases,
but they've added this case to their schedule, one of
the latest in years that we've seen here from May fifteenth,
and this will be about birthright citizenship, about whether these
lower court judges can stop a president's executive order from
(00:47):
going into effect throughout the entire country. Should be some
fireworks tomorrow at the Court.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Yeah, it's an interesting case because it may affect other
cases ahead. I can see why they want to deal
with this one, and it seems it's very funny when
you hear arguments on both sides of this case. They
both think it's cut and dry, and I don't think
it is. It makes it a fascinating case.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Absolutely right, especially your point about this affecting cases down
the line. So Supreme Court justices famously take the summer off,
but as Justice Kagan has mentioned, less and less because
of these so called emergency cases that reach the court basically,
whether a policy should go into effect while a lawsuit
is pending, what should the status quo be. Well, this
(01:33):
argument tomorrow is all about what that status quo is
going to be. So it looks a little bit to
me like the justices want their summers off again and
fewer of those emergency cases coming to them. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Well, but it's a great point. We just had a
federal judge in New York takeover Rikers Island and everybody's
kind of stunned at that. It seems the power of
some of the federal judges, especially these district court judges,
has risen to a point that it never was before.
And it's and that's something I think Supreme Court needs
(02:06):
to deal with, and if not, the Supreme Court Congress
needs to deal with because we need to we I
hate to say it, but we need to rain them
in a little bit because even as you said, Justice
Kagan talked about this and said this is unsustainable.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Well, you know, it's funny because so many of our
headaches or heartburns about our government aren't new. We have
had this push and pull between the authority and largeness,
if you go, the power of the judiciary since the beginning.
This was actually one of the big arguments between the
(02:44):
federalists who wanted to ratify the Constitution and the anti
federalists who were really squeamish about giving all this power
to judges. So in some ways we're having the debate
that our founders were having, which I always think is
kind of fun. But one thing that has really changed,
as you mentioned, is the role of Congress. When we
had the Constitution. Originally, you know, in seventeen eighty nine,
(03:05):
Congress was the premier branch by a mile. They were
leading everything, doing everything, charging up every hill. Now we
have a Congress that is basically you know, five hundred
and twenty five cable news pundits, and that is putting
a lot of strain on the other two branches. You
have presidents trying to do more to solve problems that
they don't have the power to pass laws, and then
(03:27):
you have the judiciary dealing with the mess so your
solutions exactly right. Congress could step in and fix this,
either by fixing the actual underlying problem that the president's
trying to deal with, or by telling the courts what
their actual powers are. Congress could do any of that,
but they're not.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
No, And I know that there's I thought there's a
bill that's been that's been written but is not introduced,
a bill that's been written that would limit a district
court judge's power in that if he makes a ruling,
it doesn't affect the whole country, it just affects his district.
Am I wrong about that?
Speaker 2 (04:04):
You're exactly right. That bill is introduced by Daryl Isa
of California in the House. It passed the House and
then moved to the Senate, where you know, some people
say dead on arrival. I think more like, you know,
kind of limping, maybe a little sickly on arrival. I
think it's unlikely to pass, but not zero likely to pass,
(04:24):
And especially depending on how the Supreme Court decides this
case they're hearing tomorrow, could really affect that bill's future.
As you say, this would affect when these judges can
put a law on hold throughout the country while a
trial litigation. Lawsuits are pending.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Well, let's talk about this really quick. The Federal Employee
union is challenging doje's access to American's sensitive data at
the Social Security Administration. I know Scott Besson has been
out there saying, wait a second, their Treasury employees, this
should be an interesting case at the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
I also agree with that. You know, the Supreme Court
has so far and you know we're only a little
over one hundred days in largely been siding with the
President when it's a power for him to control his
own branch. So in this case, that would mean that yes,
Treasury employees, whether they're DOGE or otherwise, can get access
to that data that is also housed within the Treasury Department.
(05:22):
Where the Supreme Court has really told President Trump no,
is when he is trying to affect things outside of
his branch powers that would normally be reserved to Congress,
for instance, or need to be done through the legislative process.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Well that's what they're there for, right, Sarah Iskar, thank
you so much, ABC contributor in Washington. That was fascinating,
especially about the Federalist I love that kind of stuff.
Thank you very much,
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com