December 3, 2025 • 7 mins
Sarah Isgur talks with Mendte in the Morning about the unprecedented number of lawsuits against the Trump administration and a specific case that is set to be heard by the Supreme Court.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
And now let's get to Sarah Isker, ABC News contributor
in Washington with us every Wednesday at this time. Good morning, Sarah,
how are you.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Good morning?
Speaker 3 (00:09):
Hey?
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Listen. I want to start with something that was said
at the cabinet meeting yesterday, the cabinet meetings that are
now open to the press. It came from Pam Bondy,
and I was kind of shocked at it, and I
want to see I want to get your reaction.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
We have been sued five hundred and seventy five times,
five hundred and seventy five times, more than every administration
going back to Reagan combined. Most recently, yesterday, I was
sued by an immigration judge who we fired. One of
the reasons she said she was a woman. Last I checked,
I was a woman as well.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Five hundred and seventy five lawsuits against the Trump administration.
What do we read into that? Is this now a
new political weapon or has the administration just been that egregious?
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Why can't it be both? So we have started to
govern by lawsuit, there's no question about that. You know,
as Congress has done less and less, presidents have started
running the country by executive order. Well, guess what that's
really right for lawsuits among other things. And so you've seen,
you know, red state governors sue when it's a Democrat
(01:23):
in the white House, blue state governors sue when it's
a Republican in the white House. There's been entire cottage
industries pop up. We now have state solicitor generals whose
main job, it seems like, is to sue administrations from
the opposing party. It gets you headlined, it's good for fundraising.
The president wins because now he has an enemy that
(01:44):
he gets to you know, battle with, and the opposing
side looks like they're you know, quote doing something rather
than what we used to do, which is actually compromise,
log role work through Congress, have stable pieces of legislation
that would be the product of you know, that messy
process that was taking place in Congress.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Yeah, and you kept saying that one side it would
do the other. It's pretty common. They have done this,
they've been but you just heard Pambondi. It's five hundred
and seventy five lawsuits now and that's more than the
last three administrations combined. So what you were talking about
is going into hyperdrive under Donald Trump and That's why
the question is that now a new strategy to have
(02:28):
the Democrats found a new strategy or they just using
an old one and making it hyper.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
So under each president it's basically increased quite a bit.
So in a Barack Obama, if you remember, he said,
you know, I have a pen and a phone. I'll
rally the American people if Congress doesn't do what I
want them to do. That was sort of the starting
gun for a lot of this, And so you had
plenty of lawsuits against the Obama administration. In the first
Trump administration. It increased even more in the Biden administration.
(02:58):
The student loan debtor, given us eviction, moratorium, vaccine mandate,
all of those were major lawsuits, but there were plenty,
plenty more than that that the Biden administration for instance.
Once here we have the Trump administration and the dial
gets turned up once again. So yeah, this continues to
increase again, I think because we don't have the normal
(03:21):
political valve of Congress where people were supposed to go.
And you see what's happening is that the courts are
getting pulled into these political fights and so then they
get viewed as more partisan and it's not a sustainable model.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
You know, I understand that, but that portends bad things
for the future. You're saying that this isn't going to
stop anytime soon unless they fix the system. This will continue.
By the way, it is exactly why those confirmation hearings
if people are wondering why they're so important, because it's
usually just some federal court judge, but they become hyper
(03:57):
important now because of.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
This right, that's exactly right. Our confirmation hearing is get
more contentious, by the way, one of the only things
that Congress still does other than put out Instagram reels,
as best I can tell, And again, it's putting stress
on our institutions that they cannot bear because judges are
not politically accountable. They're not supposed to be the one
refereeing our most bitter political disputes. That's supposed to happen
(04:22):
in Congress. Now, what's interesting about this Supreme Court term
is that they have two cases that hopefully are going
to police some of those separation of powers boundaries force
Congress to do its job by saying that presidents can't
rule by executive order, for example the Tariff's case, and
that presidents actually have to be politically accountable for their
(04:44):
own branches. And so these so called independent agencies that
Congress created where they shield executive branch employees from presidential direction,
that that can't happen either. And so you make the
president the head of the executive branch, make him a
better president and a worse legislator, if you will.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Yeah, the Trump is case. You're talking about Trump versus Slaughter.
That's the case you're talking about. Yes, Yes, So we're
going to get oral arguments on that on Monday, and
everybody's going to be listening because we'll figure out exactly
where the Court is leaning on this. Do you have
any guesses or assumptions.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Oh, I think at this point any court watcher will
tell you that it's very likely that the Court will
hold some version that these independent agencies have to be
politically accountable to the president. I think there's a you know,
a wider win and a narrower win for the administration.
But I don't think there's much question that these you know,
alphabet agencies aren't going to exist in their current form,
(05:45):
where you know, we say that these are the most
important elections of our lifetime. Whenever there's a presidential election,
but the president doesn't actually have control over wide swaths
of the American economy. And if you don't like what
the National Labor Relations Board did or what the Securities
in Exchange Commission did, there's nothing for you to do
about that. Voting for a different president doesn't help, Voting
(06:06):
out your member of Congress doesn't help. There's no political
accountability right now. And I think what you'll see a
majority of the court say is that that doesn't work
under our constitution. There is no such thing as an
independent agency.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Then what do they do. They don't rule on a remedy, right,
will they just say you have to fix this.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
What they'll say is the president is allowed to remove
any member of the executive branch at his discretion. If
they won't follow his policy direction, he can fire them,
and that will basically end these independent agencies because they
will be politically accountable to the president. Now, the problem
has been a Congress, because they were shielded from removal
from presidents, gave these agencies huge amounts of very vague
(06:51):
broad power.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Yeah, that's fascinating. Yeah, it's an extremely important case, But
it doesn't sound like that fixes the problem either. Sarah
Isker ABC News contributor in Washington with us every Wednesday
at nine oh five. Thanks for that, Sarah. That was fascinating.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
You bet
And now let's get to Sarah Isker, ABC News contributor
in Washington with us every Wednesday at this time. Good morning, Sarah,
how are you.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Good morning?
Speaker 3 (00:09):
Hey?
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Listen. I want to start with something that was said
at the cabinet meeting yesterday, the cabinet meetings that are
now open to the press. It came from Pam Bondy,
and I was kind of shocked at it, and I
want to see I want to get your reaction.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
We have been sued five hundred and seventy five times,
five hundred and seventy five times, more than every administration
going back to Reagan combined. Most recently, yesterday, I was
sued by an immigration judge who we fired. One of
the reasons she said she was a woman. Last I checked,
I was a woman as well.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Five hundred and seventy five lawsuits against the Trump administration.
What do we read into that? Is this now a
new political weapon or has the administration just been that egregious?
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Why can't it be both? So we have started to
govern by lawsuit, there's no question about that. You know,
as Congress has done less and less, presidents have started
running the country by executive order. Well, guess what that's
really right for lawsuits among other things. And so you've seen,
you know, red state governors sue when it's a Democrat
(01:23):
in the white House, blue state governors sue when it's
a Republican in the white House. There's been entire cottage
industries pop up. We now have state solicitor generals whose
main job, it seems like, is to sue administrations from
the opposing party. It gets you headlined, it's good for fundraising.
The president wins because now he has an enemy that
(01:44):
he gets to you know, battle with, and the opposing
side looks like they're you know, quote doing something rather
than what we used to do, which is actually compromise,
log role work through Congress, have stable pieces of legislation
that would be the product of you know, that messy
process that was taking place in Congress.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Yeah, and you kept saying that one side it would
do the other. It's pretty common. They have done this,
they've been but you just heard Pambondi. It's five hundred
and seventy five lawsuits now and that's more than the
last three administrations combined. So what you were talking about
is going into hyperdrive under Donald Trump and That's why
the question is that now a new strategy to have
(02:28):
the Democrats found a new strategy or they just using
an old one and making it hyper.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
So under each president it's basically increased quite a bit.
So in a Barack Obama, if you remember, he said,
you know, I have a pen and a phone. I'll
rally the American people if Congress doesn't do what I
want them to do. That was sort of the starting
gun for a lot of this, And so you had
plenty of lawsuits against the Obama administration. In the first
Trump administration. It increased even more in the Biden administration.
(02:58):
The student loan debtor, given us eviction, moratorium, vaccine mandate,
all of those were major lawsuits, but there were plenty,
plenty more than that that the Biden administration for instance.
Once here we have the Trump administration and the dial
gets turned up once again. So yeah, this continues to
increase again, I think because we don't have the normal
(03:21):
political valve of Congress where people were supposed to go.
And you see what's happening is that the courts are
getting pulled into these political fights and so then they
get viewed as more partisan and it's not a sustainable model.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
You know, I understand that, but that portends bad things
for the future. You're saying that this isn't going to
stop anytime soon unless they fix the system. This will continue.
By the way, it is exactly why those confirmation hearings
if people are wondering why they're so important, because it's
usually just some federal court judge, but they become hyper
(03:57):
important now because of.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
This right, that's exactly right. Our confirmation hearing is get
more contentious, by the way, one of the only things
that Congress still does other than put out Instagram reels,
as best I can tell, And again, it's putting stress
on our institutions that they cannot bear because judges are
not politically accountable. They're not supposed to be the one
refereeing our most bitter political disputes. That's supposed to happen
(04:22):
in Congress. Now, what's interesting about this Supreme Court term
is that they have two cases that hopefully are going
to police some of those separation of powers boundaries force
Congress to do its job by saying that presidents can't
rule by executive order, for example the Tariff's case, and
that presidents actually have to be politically accountable for their
(04:44):
own branches. And so these so called independent agencies that
Congress created where they shield executive branch employees from presidential direction,
that that can't happen either. And so you make the
president the head of the executive branch, make him a
better president and a worse legislator, if you will.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Yeah, the Trump is case. You're talking about Trump versus Slaughter.
That's the case you're talking about. Yes, Yes, So we're
going to get oral arguments on that on Monday, and
everybody's going to be listening because we'll figure out exactly
where the Court is leaning on this. Do you have
any guesses or assumptions.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Oh, I think at this point any court watcher will
tell you that it's very likely that the Court will
hold some version that these independent agencies have to be
politically accountable to the president. I think there's a you know,
a wider win and a narrower win for the administration.
But I don't think there's much question that these you know,
alphabet agencies aren't going to exist in their current form,
(05:45):
where you know, we say that these are the most
important elections of our lifetime. Whenever there's a presidential election,
but the president doesn't actually have control over wide swaths
of the American economy. And if you don't like what
the National Labor Relations Board did or what the Securities
in Exchange Commission did, there's nothing for you to do
about that. Voting for a different president doesn't help, Voting
(06:06):
out your member of Congress doesn't help. There's no political
accountability right now. And I think what you'll see a
majority of the court say is that that doesn't work
under our constitution. There is no such thing as an
independent agency.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Then what do they do. They don't rule on a remedy, right,
will they just say you have to fix this.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
What they'll say is the president is allowed to remove
any member of the executive branch at his discretion. If
they won't follow his policy direction, he can fire them,
and that will basically end these independent agencies because they
will be politically accountable to the president. Now, the problem
has been a Congress, because they were shielded from removal
from presidents, gave these agencies huge amounts of very vague
(06:51):
broad power.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Yeah, that's fascinating. Yeah, it's an extremely important case, But
it doesn't sound like that fixes the problem either. Sarah
Isker ABC News contributor in Washington with us every Wednesday
at nine oh five. Thanks for that, Sarah. That was fascinating.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
You bet
Popular Podcasts
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
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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.