Sarah Isgur is a prominent legal analyst and commentator, known for her frequent appearances on cable news, including as a contributor/analyst for ABC News, focusing on Supreme Court and legal matters, hosting the Advisory Opinions podcast, and previously serving in the Trump DOJ. Isgur is a Senior Editor at The Dispatch, a SCOTUSblog editor, and has a background in Republican politics and law.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is a podcast from wor Now the WR Saturday
Morning Show. Here's Larry Minty. Welcome to Saturday Morning. On
this week's show, there's been over five hundred lawsuits filed
against the Trump administration, which already set a record by
a lot. We're gonna ask Sarah Isker, who covers the
(00:21):
courts for ABC, what is going on. 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 2 (00:38):
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 (01:00):
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 3 (01:13):
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
(01:34):
Democrat 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
(01:55):
enemy that he gets to you know, battle with, and
the opposing side looks it's like they're you know, quote
doing something rather than what we used to do, which
is actually compromised log roll 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 (02:15):
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. Have the
(02:39):
Democrats found a new strategy or they're just using an
old one and making it hyper So under.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
Each president it's basically increased quite a bit. So under
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. The student loan debt, forgiveness, eviction, moratorium,
(03:11):
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 political valve of Congress where people were supposed
(03:34):
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 (03:44):
No, no, I understand that. So, 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 they're so important because it's usually
just some federal court judge, but they become hyper important
(04:07):
now because of.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
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
(04:31):
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
(04:52):
own branches. And so these so called independent agencies that
Congress created where they shield you know, executive branch employees
from presidential direction, that that can't happen either. And so
you make the president that of the executive branch, make
him a better president and a worse legislator, if you will.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Yeah, the Trump is case. You're talking about Trump versus Slaughter.
That's the case you're talking about. Yeah, Yeah, 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 (05:29):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (05:29):
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,
(05:52):
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
and Exchange Commission did, there's nothing for you to do
about that. Voting for a different president doesn't help, Voting
(06:14):
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 (06:26):
Then what do they do. They don't rule on a remedy,
right will did they just say you have to fix this?
Speaker 3 (06:32):
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 that Congress, because they were shielded from removal
from presidents gave these agencies huge amounts of very big
(06:57):
broad power.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Yeah, that's fascinat 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, DC. This has been a
podcast from wor
This is a podcast from wor Now the WR Saturday
Morning Show. Here's Larry Minty. Welcome to Saturday Morning. On
this week's show, there's been over five hundred lawsuits filed
against the Trump administration, which already set a record by
a lot. We're gonna ask Sarah Isker, who covers the
(00:21):
courts for ABC, what is going on. 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 2 (00:38):
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 (01:00):
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 3 (01:13):
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
(01:34):
Democrat 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
(01:55):
enemy that he gets to you know, battle with, and
the opposing side looks it's like they're you know, quote
doing something rather than what we used to do, which
is actually compromised log roll 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 (02:15):
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. Have the
(02:39):
Democrats found a new strategy or they're just using an
old one and making it hyper So under.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
Each president it's basically increased quite a bit. So under
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. The student loan debt, forgiveness, eviction, moratorium,
(03:11):
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 political valve of Congress where people were supposed
(03:34):
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 (03:44):
No, no, I understand that. So, 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 they're so important because it's usually
just some federal court judge, but they become hyper important
(04:07):
now because of.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
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
(04:31):
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
(04:52):
own branches. And so these so called independent agencies that
Congress created where they shield you know, executive branch employees
from presidential direction, that that can't happen either. And so
you make the president that of the executive branch, make
him a better president and a worse legislator, if you will.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Yeah, the Trump is case. You're talking about Trump versus Slaughter.
That's the case you're talking about. Yeah, Yeah, 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 (05:29):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (05:29):
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,
(05:52):
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
and Exchange Commission did, there's nothing for you to do
about that. Voting for a different president doesn't help, Voting
(06:14):
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 (06:26):
Then what do they do. They don't rule on a remedy,
right will did they just say you have to fix this?
Speaker 3 (06:32):
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 that Congress, because they were shielded from removal
from presidents gave these agencies huge amounts of very big
(06:57):
broad power.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Yeah, that's fascinat 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, DC. This has been a
podcast from wor
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
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.