July 4, 2025 • 39 mins
Seg 1 – The Supreme Court Season Finale Delivers
Seg 2 – Universal Injunctions out of This World
Seg 3 – Dressing Down the Imperial Judiciary
Seg 4 – Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of SCOTUS Ruling
Seg 2 – Universal Injunctions out of This World
Seg 3 – Dressing Down the Imperial Judiciary
Seg 4 – Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of SCOTUS Ruling
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away. No
that it was free freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Hello, Welcome to Liberty Nation radio Head Coast Coast on
the Radio America Network from a flaship station in the
Nation's capital WWRC in Washington, DC. I'm your host, Mark
Angelides on today's special edition. We are talking the big
finale at the Supreme Court. It's going to be quite
the show. Please do remember Liberty Nation Radio sponsored by
liberty Nation dot Com. You can access podcast, breaking news
(00:55):
analysis and a range of biting and britant shows to
wet trap, touch freedom and your fondness for the great
American Constitution. And welcome back to Lutination radio head Coast
to Coast on the Radio American Never Come. Your host,
Mark Angeli's on today's special Supreme Court edition. We are
talking with Liberty Nations Legal Affairs editor mister Scott Deeks
sends a escort. Thanks for being here, Scott, Thank you
(01:17):
Mark So Scott, this was for me. This was one
of the most epic endings to a Supreme Court session
that we've witnessed in recent years. It's almost as though
they knew that pretty much every newsman in the business
was hanging out for the big cases, like half a
dozen really big cases, and they thought let's just drop
(01:38):
them all on the very last day.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
Mark, I have to tell you, it's not all about you.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
It is.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
It is, it is.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
It's a few times a year when you general news
dogs come in ghetto eyes yourself and hang out at
the Court for the latest and greatest updates. Some of
us are there day in and day out looking for
these scraps that they that they throw out. Well, the
thing that you have to realize is so that I'm
trying to remember what the case count was, that they
waited until the friday, at the last Friday in June,
(02:10):
which is when they like to kind of clear their
there were six cakes, yes, okay. And what you have
to remember is for every case where there is something
other than one opinion written. So if there's a concurrence
or a descent or a minority opinion out, you know, dissenting,
that's an extra descent. All those things have to be
(02:33):
buttoned up to the letter before they're published. So if
one person has one paragraph they're working on, or it
could even be as simple as like waiting for a
citation from some clerk, although clerk's probably not going to
hold up the whole court for a couple of days.
But but there can be very very much administrative at
housekeeping things. And by the way, something I noticed when
I circled back from this last batch of cases is
(02:56):
there were two corrections issued, so two things actually went
out prem much truly. Now, the corrections I don't think
had any you know, substantive value of any import. But
the court does like to get things right, and as
you can see, they still didn't even manage to do
that because of I think rushing out the door to
get things ready. And of course i'll just add this
in a rush the protester type stuff if you have,
(03:18):
if you have a contested case, that's going to generate
a lot of public interest right on the way out
of town. You know, you file it and then you
don't have to worry about them trying to shut down
the streets around the well.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
It gets people excited for the next season, right, big
grand finale, as the courts become Kardashianized, Kardashianized courts. I'm
going to use that in an article, the Kardashianized Courts.
But there was some really strong language that I do
want to get into, specifically from Justice Amy Cony Barrett
(03:52):
to her fellow justice in one of the opinions, and
we are going to get into that. But there are
three things Scott that I really want to use your
amazing legal brain to drill down on during this show today.
And the first one is actually a case that wasn't
really a case at all. It was, as I guess,
(04:13):
it was asking for relief from the relief and this
was the universal injunctions.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Now for me, this or titled in many places birthright
citizenship case, which it turned out not to actually be, so.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
We are going to get to the right citizenship. But yes,
that was the one. So it was Trump v. Cast
A c A s A UH and the justices there,
the majority Pinton sixty three, they wrote that it.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Was Amy Coney Barrett wrote.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Wrote, and then the five other side everyone else signed on.
Now not everyone else, no, no, everyone, every.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
One of the well actually, let's so let's fine tune that.
Just quickly say that, and we'll just say that. Trump
signed an executive order mandating that birthright citizenship was extinguished
in this country, which is to say, the notion of
your if you were born here, you are automatically a
citizen in the United States is over because of people
come here illegally or legally, but but also are not
(05:18):
citizens of the United States or not even residents. Like
in other words, you can just be on vacation from
Canada and have a kid and your kid's a Canadian citizen.
Oh yeah, right.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
Nobody want to do that for their child.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
And so Trump signs an executive order. There's a nationwide
injunction issued by I can't remember if it was a
Biden judge. I think it was. Anyway, it doesn't matter
a democratically appointed judge. Sort of a typical thing that
that so many Trump supporters were frustrated with stymied by
one district court judge in one in one of the
(05:55):
places where there is such a thing around the country,
and then the entire country can't be some to the
administration's UH goals because of because of that, well, the
Court took the case not to resolve whether or not
the order about it birth control, birthright citizenship was legal.
You're about whether or not it was the universal injunction
(06:18):
was appropriate, and so Amy Cony Barrett writes the decision,
which all five other justices in the majority sign on to,
and they don't reserve any of their agreement, which justices
often due. So in a longer opinion, you'll often see
it numbered via parts, and then a justice will say,
(06:38):
I concur with parts one through three, skipping part four,
and then concur with five, and then that that might
be how they do it. But in this instance, and
it's going to be important when we lay out the
language that she used, Well, every single judge, including the
Chief Justice of the United States of America, Judge Justice Roberts,
signed on to this part of the opinion. So I
(07:00):
just wanted to make sure people had that background before
they got the meat.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
So let's talk before we move on to what Justice
Barrett wrote. I want to talk more about the how
important this is that universal injunctions are are now effectively blocked. Right,
So this doesn't mean that there isn't any remedy. I
believe it had a car up for if it requires
(07:28):
multiple people to be impacted, or multiple people will be
impacted by it, they can always go with a for example,
a class action.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
Well let me just unpack that for a second. Rather
than you, let's ad the lawyers summarized. So they're not banned.
Universal injunctions are not prohibited. What the Supreme Court has
done is kind of level set the district judges and
said for you to basically enact a nationwide probation, there
(07:56):
has to be kind of an extraordinary series of events,
which is to say that the person in front of you,
the litigant in front of you, who has asked for
relief from some illegal act, which is what a court
case is, they're behaving illegally, your honor, make them stop, right.
That's that's the nuts and bolts of it. Only if
the nationwide injunction was required to give what's called complete
(08:21):
relief to that person, would they be able to issue
the nationwide injunction. It doesn't make it void or never
going to happen, but it dials back by one hundred
to one. Maybe you know what maybe expect to see
and the reason and you're right about that. They didn't
add a new rule or any new there's no new
(08:43):
information about class action lawsuits. So all the justices have
said is go through and get a class action started
if that's what you really want. The problem with that
is that it takes a lot more effort on the
on the the advocate side to establish a class and
to get class actions stats, which is why it's much
(09:03):
easier and they don't want to do it to just
apply for you know, a nationwide injunction. And it's a
lot easier for the judges too. They don't have to
go through the work of sorting through the class application
that in and of itself is a bunch of work
that a judge probably doesn't want to do.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
So well, of course, it's so much easier just to
not do work and then just impact the entire country,
because that's what judges are for. Right. We're going to
be back with Scott continuing this conversation after this short break.
Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
For your freedom and your liberty, liberty nation with Mark
Edge of Ladies.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Andrew back on Liberty Nation Radio Coast Coast and the
Radio America Network. I remain your host, Mark Antealties, and
we continue our conversation on the Supreme Court and universal
injunctions with Liberty Nations Legal affairs to Scott Cassenter. Scott
speaking of these universal injunctions, so are they fairty coming on?
Were they fairly common prior to the Supreme Court ruling?
Speaker 3 (10:09):
Well, I'll tell you what I've got in front of me,
some numbers just to give you a sense of how
this has affected Trump. And you were making the point
of why it's such a big deal. George Bush was
subject to six total injunctions in his four year presidency.
President Obama was subject to twelve in his eight years
(10:30):
of being president. And by the way, the numbers I'm
reading you are published from the Harvard Law Review from
twenty twenty four before Donald Trump resumed his second resumed
the presidency in his second term. So these are first
term only numbers and compiled by an organ that might say,
at best skeptical of Trump rather than if not outright
(10:52):
hostile to him. Right, So, in any case, six for Bush,
twelve for Obama. Donald Trump four year presidency sixty four
nationwide injunctions and Biden had fourteen in his single tournament office.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
So I'm going to play devil's advocate quickly here. Yeah,
some people would argue, not me, But some people would
argue that, well, that's because he broke the law. More
does that argument hold water, Council.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
So the injunction isn't about whether somebody broke the law.
And just to be clear, like I'm approaching it from
the actual literal kind of application of the law. And
what the ruling is is that what those judges were
ruling on was that they were that the Trump administration
was likely to lose and that therefore they were able
(11:43):
to grant those injunctions unguided by this notion that the
Supreme Court just enforced with the cost of ruling that
they shouldn't do that at all. Basically, it just kind
of crept into the law where they were doing it
more and more, and the Supreme Court had kind of
beaten around the bush about it, but they never really
got down to brass tax and addressed the question directly,
(12:05):
which is why this is such a major case and
will change so much. You know, I would say to
you for your devil's advocate question that, Well, read the
Supreme Court opinion and you'll see why I think that's
that's a bad idea.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
No, I think. I mean my thoughts on that specifically
are that when Donald Trump won the election in twenty
twenty four November twenty twenty four, Democrats said that they
were leading Democrat voices were saying that we're going to
take them to court, We're going to sue him, We're
going to hold into account through the law courts, and
(12:43):
they fundraised on it, and there are multiple organizations that
are linked to the Democratic Party whose sole purpose is
to sue Donald Trump and the Trump administration. So I
would imagine it's.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
A great effect. By the way, it's a great effect
on well, with their with their campaign. I mean, you
look at that sixty four universal injunctions. That is quite
a success if you're trying to stemy administrations implementation of
their goals.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
You know how many of these were filed in Alabama,
by the way.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
I don't know, But actually, if you think really, Alabama's
probably is not the kind of place where you get
this kind of treatment. You get it from mostly a
Northeastern or West Coast judge yes, because that's where the
more radical ones seem to be appointed to, and then
to the appellate courts growing from there by the.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
Way, So it really was a case of shopping around
for a judge that's most likely too or it appears
to be a case of shopping around for a judge
that's most likely to be fam.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
I think you file in a district where you get
a you have odds on better chance, but no judge
shopping is a bit too it's a bit too risky.
One thing you could say is so if we think
about how these cases are well previous to the new
landmark ruling that the Supreme Court sent down this past
(14:12):
Friday in June, how it would work is the case
goes before a district court judge. That judge, let's say
they do issue a nationwide injunction. Then it goes to
the appellate courts for them to look at before it
might go to the Supreme Court. Well, you may choose
which circuit you bring the case in just because you
want to get a favorable ruling at the circuit court level,
(14:35):
or excuse me, the Circuit Court of Appeal level. But
even then, if you just get a how this has
been inside baseball. But if we really want to talk
about the mechanics of it, you have to get into it.
Those appellate courts often assign a three judge panel to
look at these different cases, and they don't do it
with It's not like, oh, hey, you like politics, right, Mark,
you can go look at this case. No, it's all
(14:57):
very much randomized, and who gets these cases is not
selected based on the president that nominated the person for
their appointment or anything like that. And so you can
game it a little bit maybe, But boy, of all
the things to try to control outcomes for it, seems
like you're better off spent spending a little more time
on your brief maybe than trying to get a favorable
(15:21):
particular judge.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Okay, so from here on out, judges will be able
to district court. Judge will be able to grant the
relief that they see fit for the individual. The lawyers
in the case will be able to seek to create
a class action with a number of litigants. But what
happens if somebody does order a universal injunction? How does
(15:47):
that get stopped? We can just save there a time.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
We can just say when I think instead of what
happens to you, because at some point it's going to happen,
and it'll go. Well, what happens is when that case
then goes before the Court of Appeals, which it almost
certainly will, the Court of Appeals will now have this
Supreme Court guidance to look at, and it'll be instead
(16:10):
of a of rubber stamp. Is exactly the word I
want to use to describe how the Courts of Appeals
has been handling these things, but without much of a
scrutiny that that really examines, like is this absolutely required
to gain the relief for these parties. So basically what
it does is it creates another stop gap for the
(16:34):
administration to not have to comport with that universal injunction
and have it lifted. And I expect we'll see that
happen with most of any that do get through, which
is that the appeals courts will look at it and say, no,
you didn't do a good enough job tailoring the remedy
to the specific parties in front of you, which doesn't
(16:56):
require that, and either instruct them to work harder to
do it again order to enact their own order to
their mind tailor's in order to the parties in front
of the court without a nationwide injunction. And then it
also Mark will go one more bite at the apple.
Then the Supreme Court has the capability without the full
(17:18):
case briefing, of smiting down that district court judge. So,
for instance, appeals they call it the emergency docket. It's
rarely an emergency, with the exception of some death penalty cases.
But what happens is when there's a case that comes
out of let's call it the the Fourth Circuit Court
(17:40):
of Appeals, which is where I'm talking to you from now,
and it comes out of the Fourth Circuit, Well, if
the litigants don't want to wait for the Supreme Court
to look at their case and rule on it in
a timely fashion, they may apply for urgent review, in
which case one particular justice is assigned to each of
the circuit. I forget who's I should know this coldon
(18:02):
I'm sorry, I don't I should know who the Fourth
Circuit judges. But in any case, they will look at
it and they will say, okay, it's if it's an
easy kind of pitch for them to hit, they'll just say,
this is the rule. Do it this way. If it's
a more contentious issue. They'll sometimes refer to the whole court,
but what I expect to see is more of those
(18:23):
justices than saying no, this is not task muster for
a universal injunction. So basically, at every step now where
there had been maybe a veil to pass through or
some rice paper in terms of legal resistance, once the
district court judge gave that universal junction, now it's the
opposite of that. Now it's a brick wall in front
(18:45):
of them that they're going to have to keep going over.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
We're gonna be talking about that brick wall made by
Justice Amy Cony Barrett after this show break, don't go anywhere. No,
that's what was free.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterplase and
freedom is special and ate. This is Liberty Nation with Markangelites,
a production of Libertynation dot com going after what the
politicians really mean and making it all clear for your
freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio Romania host Mark Antony.
These we're continuing our conversation with Liberty Nations Legal affairs
editor Scott Cassenza, Scott so We've been talking about the
universal injunctions in Trump VI Cassa CISA, and we've discussed
what ramifications it has. We've discussed how court cases will
(19:47):
proceed now from district levels. But what I really want
to get into is the actual opinion that came down
on this and how it was. It was so out
of the ordinary in terms of its language. Carec to enlightenness.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
Well, it's yes, and it's a reaction piece, so you
can't understand the language or really, I think discuss it
meaningfully without discussing what it was reacting to, which is
Justice Katangi Brown Jackson wrote in dissent she didn't write
the Court's descent. How it works is the Chief Justice,
after getting a vote tally on these cases, assigns the
(20:27):
majority opinion to one of the justices in the majority
and for the dissent in the descent, and then all
the justices can write separately if they choose to. But
one of the reasons why that gives him a lot
of power is, for instance, before we just get to
the to answering your question, a justice might give a
(20:51):
chief Justice might give a more moderate voice like Amy
Cony Barrett, a case in this instance because they want
the most maximum level of agreement, and if they gave
it to a firebrand, then maybe they won't get a
sign on to get as many justices as possible for
a majority opinion, which does give that opinion power. That
(21:11):
this is a six to three opinion gives it a
little more power in legal circles than if it was
a five to four. So Justice Katanji Brown Jackson took
her pen out after saying that she agreed with everything.
I think it was Justice Kagan wrote in the majority
proper or excuse me, the dissent proper. But she took
(21:35):
her pen out literally just to say how awful this
reasoning was and how basically it was. And I'm not
being hyperbolic here. It would it would. There's a strong
case to be made that it would lead to the
end of the republic. That's what Katanji Brown Jackson's dissent said,
and it denigrated the majority OPINIONI and the effort to
(21:58):
explain their reasoning and the reasoning itself. It was. It
was really an insult from from her to them, like
just a high level By the way, it didn't get
school yardist. I don't think at least not much, but
it was a very much insulting, denigrating opinion. It didn't
respect their you know, their thoughts of their judgments. It
(22:19):
just hit them kind of below the belt with it.
And so that's what Amy Cony Barrett was reacting to.
And boy, she did react to it.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
When before you come into the reaction here, which really
is quite fiery, I felt that. And I'm just a
layman in this, but I felt that the the language
of Justice Jackson's peace it was a little social mediaish
because she she wrote something something something period, you know,
(22:51):
spelling out the word period like you see on social media.
I thought that must be the first time that any
justice has ever written that.
Speaker 3 (23:01):
I think she's our youngest justice. She's certainly the newest
edition to the court. And unfortunately, I think we're going
to see more stuff like, you know.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
I clap against the majority of opinion.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
Oh, that's so hilarious that you said that. Yeah, exactly,
all right, So let's.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
Get let's get to what Justice Amy Cunny Barrett, Yeah,
actually reacted to how she reacted to Justice Jackson's you.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
Know, one of the funniest kind of and and biggest
deepest cuts I think was when she criticized Jackson for
talking about how something was like legal eese, and it's like,
you know, we're the Supreme Court. You can't say something's
like you're not going to pay attention. Oh, that's just legalese.
(23:51):
Like a politician, a senator maybe could get away with that,
certainly a congress person, but for Supreme Court justice to
kind of dismiss the thing as being, oh, that's inside baseball, like, well,
where is the place for discussion of this inside baseball
if you know?
Speaker 2 (24:07):
If not that that, if not the house that Frederick
Douglas built, right, yeah.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
And I'll tell you this to me is like this
is this is kind of a big deal there. Well,
there's two I'll just say. They say, Justice Jackson, this
is bad writing. Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while
embracing and imperial judiciary. And that's after Justice Jackson had
(24:31):
laid out how basically district court judges have a duty,
under her reading of the law to issue nationwide injunctions.
There should be many more nationwide injunctions if we listen
to Justice Jackson's you know, admonition basically in her opinion,
(24:55):
So it's it's a real fight for not just saying, hey,
what you said is wrong, but it's what you said
is not just what you said is wrong and I'm right,
but what you said is like galactically awful and Wrong's
it's the end of it's the because Justice Jackson is
(25:16):
saying to the majority, what you're doing puts the Republic
in danger because of the lack of oversight, then that
the executive will have that's sort of boiled down her argument,
and then the majority is saying to her, you are
so ignorant to the function of your argument that what
you don't understand is it's the what you were saying
(25:39):
is really what will lead to the end of the republic. Well,
Barrett didn't actually say that, and I'll just say her
sort of final her final line was just as Jackson
would do well to heat her own admonition. Everyone from
the President on down is bound by law that goes
for judges too, So.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
It's spice.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
It's a pretty strong, yeah, pretty strong comeback for let's
be signed by five other members of the Court, including
the Chief Justices of the United States. And I checked
just to be sure she did articulate that section of
her opinion with a different section number, so that again
(26:21):
it would have been so easy for any justice to
say I concur with the majority with the exception of
you know, section four. But none of them did. They
all signed on to the drubbing back of because I
think they were probably all insulted by her insults of them.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
Well, I think the majority probably had had it right
on this di didn't they Because we've just seen in
recent days, we saw the No Kings march claiming that
Trump is acting like a king. Well, it seems to
me that if a single person in a courtroom somewhere
(26:59):
can and the entire process of what's happening in the country,
then it's multiple little kings, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
That's what their argument is. I am my libertarian nature
has me always skeptical of the power to limit the
power of the executive which is at the tip of
the sphere. Whether it's the Trump administration or the Biden administration,
or Obama or Bush or anybody else, they're at the
tip of the sphere of violating the rights of Americans.
(27:32):
And so it's a little trepidations for me anytime I
hear of a restriction in the in the right to
kind of potentially dial back executive action, because you know,
legislative action is sort of more glac glacial, I guess
you'd call it, rather than like out there actively violating
people's rights, which you know, I want the protection from.
(27:54):
But at the same time, you know, it's not like
Congress passed this law that gave them the power. Part
of to lengthy opinion from the majority examined where these
powers come from. It's not just like, well, courts can
check the executives, so they can do whatever they want
to enact that check. And the truth is it has
been abused, So why wouldn't we expect, you know, there
(28:15):
to be pushback. One of the things that that we
talked about that chart that the Harvard Law Review published
about the injunction view reconjunctions, yeah, and recent presidents. One
of the interesting statistics they teased out with that mark
is the percentage of those injunctions that were issued by
a judge who was nominated by a president of the
(28:37):
opposite party. And guess what it's about fifty to fifty
okay until Biden and Trump, and for Biden was one
hundred percent of judges from the other party and for
Trump it was ninety two percent. So I was sixty
four fifty nine of those. And so I think that
plays into the partisanship too, where it's like, well, even
(28:59):
if there were more junct functions, but they were, you know,
fifty to sixty percent. You could even go up to
high sixty percents and say that's within the margin of
like randomized selection from the federal judiciary. But you're getting
over ninety percent from the other party. Well, there's there's
clearly something going on there, right, it's the political nature.
So the combination of kind of runaway political nature of
(29:22):
it and no clear grant of authority for these things.
Then I'm reluctantly agreeing with you. By the way, I
don't know if you remember, but you.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
Still I figure that.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
I figure started this by saying the majority had it, right,
didn't they? And I guess I'm coming around to saying, yes,
I think probably they did, but I'm skeptical about it.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
But yes, Okay, we are going to find out what
this means for Donald Trump and his efforts to limit
birthright citizenship after this short break. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty nation with Mark Edgelities.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
And you're back on Liberty Nation right. We're concluding our
talk on universal injunctions. Now we're with Scott de Cassender,
Liberty Nations Legal Affairs editor, and he's been walking us
around the Guard and showing us the sites of the
well as as just this Catanji Brown Jackson might say,
the legal ease of what has been taking place, that's
(30:21):
a gag that only those of you who have watched
the whole show. Will not all listen to the whole show.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
We'll get.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
But I want to talk about how this lifting of
universe injunctions ultimately affects the presidency right now under Donald
Trump and what that means going forward for the policy
agenda he's put in place. So, with the ruling coming
down in Trump v. Cassa, does that mean that the injunctions,
(30:48):
the universal injunctions, the scores of universal injunctions that had
been put in place were immediately lifted. Does it mean
that they can the Trump administration can carry on doing
what it's doing or does it have to wait for
it to go to see out a process through the
(31:09):
appellate court? How does this work?
Speaker 3 (31:12):
Yes? Or the appellate courts too, a ner country of origin.
So all this ruling did was establish a decision for
this particular nationwide injunction that was challenged and every other
one that is subsequently applied for. If it had already
(31:33):
been applied for and granted, what would what a judge,
a district court judge would have to do is reevaluate
their granting of it. Given this opinion, I imagine the
administration has already filed in those courts where they have
active litigation, and we're anticipating a nationwide injunction or working
(31:54):
under one that those courts do reevaluate it in light
of the court's decision here, and they will be entitled
to that level of review. And then also, just like
we talked about previously, what that means for further review
up the chain in the appellate courts, they'll face that
as well. So it's not exactly like, okay, we're going
(32:14):
to redo all these but practically speaking, they're going to
take another look at all of them, either by themselves
so is Sponte, the judges themselves will do it, or
they'll entertain a review filed from one of the litigants
to do it. In light of this Court's decision, and
that happens somewhat frequently, not with this particular issue, but
(32:34):
just that the Supreme Court makes a ruling during their
term that affects ongoing litigation, and the courts are adopting
then to that new rule or standard that they have applied.
Speaker 2 (32:46):
So they'd beholden to the new standard because at some
point if they go against it, eventually you'll come back
down the.
Speaker 3 (32:52):
Problem ten or eleven am on Monday, June what was
the twenty eighth day that it came down. That's that's when.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
That's the new reality.
Speaker 3 (33:02):
That's the new reality.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
There's a lot of cases that have had these universe injunctions.
One of them was shipping illegal immigrants to third party countries.
So now the Trump administration can continue with that as
a general policy. Although injunctive relief might be granted to
individuals who pursue.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
Any particular person. Any particular person may go and say, hey,
don't let them do this to me, whatever this is,
and then presumably if they have met their burden before
the court for an injunction against action against them, then
the court will grant. They'll say, I n s thej
(33:47):
Department of State, do not molest or go after this
person unless and until they've had a hearing, or you know,
any number of other implements that the court might make.
Speaker 2 (33:57):
So what does it mean for and I think this
is the most important question that people are considering. What
does it mean for Trump's moves against birthright citizenship. Now
we did discuss this very briefly earlier, but so it's
people who it's for people who are either in the
(34:18):
country illegally, or who are in the country legally but
are not resident in the country, or with the proper
right to remain in the country. And so from that,
because the original executive ard are signed on January twenty
of just trying to get this right, it said, within
thirty days after this order, anybody born in the United
(34:44):
States who is not you know, does not have a
legal right to parents, don't have a legal right to
be here, or any of the other will not be
made will not be made a citizens. So, as it
stands today at time of recording, are now people who
were born in America who are not considered citizens of
(35:08):
the United States.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
Well, I got the date wrong. Actually, it wasn't the
twenty eighth that ruling came down. It was the twenty seventh,
and the day of that ruling, the court said they
were going to give thirty days I think for the
lower courts to kind of work through these issues, and
I guess also the administration would then take thirty days
to kind of think about how they're going to implement
(35:31):
it and what that means for you know, all the
people who process births in this country. It's not like
we have a central federal birth registry that like, you.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
Know, that's so strange that you don't have that.
Speaker 3 (35:45):
Yeah, well, it's not because of how we came about
as being these states being co sovereign, and you know
we're now ever since the Civil War, we've been marching
ahead towards a kind of unity government, you know, a
unitary you know, the states are becoming more like counties,
I think, rather than than like independent sovereigns, which is
(36:09):
of course what they were when the when the country started.
And some of us have opinions about that and what
it means for liberty and wanting to get closer to
that and devolve power from the federal government. But we're
getting closer and closer to that, that federal registry every year.
But in any case, it's a disperse you know field,
(36:29):
And how do you get different actors to act and
do what they have to do? Like right now, whatever
has to be done for a person to be a
US citizen when they're born is pretty much nothing. Yes,
they if they ever want to establish that they are
a citizen, they show their state issued birth certificate. So
I was born in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I have
(36:50):
a Pennsylvania birth certificate. If I need to establish that
I'm a US citizen, I can show my birth certificate
and that's all that That's all that's needed. Even at
a federal office, they take the state identity document. Now,
I don't know what they're going to do. If you're
born in twenty twenty five in Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania gives
you a birth certificate. It's not like if you're from
(37:11):
you know, if you're spending the summer in you know,
I don't know why you spend a summer in Pennsylvania
if you were like a jet center. But maybe there's
a nice lake there. There's plenty of nice lakes, all right.
You're spending a summer at lake in Pennsylvania and you're
you're you're from here, from like Turkey or somewhere, you know,
for two months, and you and you're and you're on
vacation for a couple of months, and you and you
you know, you give birth. Well, why is that person,
(37:34):
you know a citizen? Well, if they have a Pennsylvania
birth certificate, they're not going to get a foreign country
ber certificate if that birth can't even be verified because
they're out of the country. These births are verified locally.
What is then how does the administration then present the
federal government how do they deal with whether an this
person's a citizenship a citizen or not because it's not
(37:56):
like hospitals Czech citizen papers. So then we have to
establish are the parent citizens or not? Do they have
permission to be here or not. It's kind of a
you know that it's making making that hash out is
no joke.
Speaker 2 (38:11):
Yeah, it's definitely. It's an administrative challenge that that there
are so many strings to consider that I feel that
each string will have a legal challenge attached to it.
Speaker 3 (38:27):
Oh yeah, your children will be talking about this lead
if they follow the news, you know, the business of
the Supreme Court. Because you're right, every issue and then
every sub issue and they'll all go through up to
the Supreme Court. Like we're going to be hearing about
these cases for years, Mark, at least a decade before
they fine tune because they don't have all these issues
that they lock in like okay, this this, this sub
(38:49):
issue and kind of clean try to clean up all
the issues with one decision. That's not how it works.
It's the broadcase. You know, we're still fighting about how
many years has it been since dcv. Heller with the
gun control We're still cleaning up with what it means
to be able to keep their arms in this country.
Speaker 2 (39:07):
It's going to be a full employment worksheet for lawyers
in the United States.
Speaker 3 (39:12):
Cheer's to that.
Speaker 2 (39:14):
Scott Cascenza, thanks ever so much for joining us to
the park. And that's all we have time for on
this week's edition of Liberty Nation Radio Head Coast to
Coast on the Radio American Network. I've been your host,
Mark Angeladies, special thank you to our guest today, Liberty
Nations Legal Affairs, that does Scott de Cascenza, And of
course thanks to you the listeners at home for taking
the time each and every week to tune in on
the radio.
Speaker 3 (39:34):
And join us.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
You are appreciated. Please do remember everyone Liberty Nation doesn't
endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.
Thanks for being here.
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away. No
that it was free freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Hello, Welcome to Liberty Nation radio Head Coast Coast on
the Radio America Network from a flaship station in the
Nation's capital WWRC in Washington, DC. I'm your host, Mark
Angelides on today's special edition. We are talking the big
finale at the Supreme Court. It's going to be quite
the show. Please do remember Liberty Nation Radio sponsored by
liberty Nation dot Com. You can access podcast, breaking news
(00:55):
analysis and a range of biting and britant shows to
wet trap, touch freedom and your fondness for the great
American Constitution. And welcome back to Lutination radio head Coast
to Coast on the Radio American Never Come. Your host,
Mark Angeli's on today's special Supreme Court edition. We are
talking with Liberty Nations Legal Affairs editor mister Scott Deeks
sends a escort. Thanks for being here, Scott, Thank you
(01:17):
Mark So Scott, this was for me. This was one
of the most epic endings to a Supreme Court session
that we've witnessed in recent years. It's almost as though
they knew that pretty much every newsman in the business
was hanging out for the big cases, like half a
dozen really big cases, and they thought let's just drop
(01:38):
them all on the very last day.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
Mark, I have to tell you, it's not all about you.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
It is.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
It is, it is.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
It's a few times a year when you general news
dogs come in ghetto eyes yourself and hang out at
the Court for the latest and greatest updates. Some of
us are there day in and day out looking for
these scraps that they that they throw out. Well, the
thing that you have to realize is so that I'm
trying to remember what the case count was, that they
waited until the friday, at the last Friday in June,
(02:10):
which is when they like to kind of clear their
there were six cakes, yes, okay. And what you have
to remember is for every case where there is something
other than one opinion written. So if there's a concurrence
or a descent or a minority opinion out, you know, dissenting,
that's an extra descent. All those things have to be
(02:33):
buttoned up to the letter before they're published. So if
one person has one paragraph they're working on, or it
could even be as simple as like waiting for a
citation from some clerk, although clerk's probably not going to
hold up the whole court for a couple of days.
But but there can be very very much administrative at
housekeeping things. And by the way, something I noticed when
I circled back from this last batch of cases is
(02:56):
there were two corrections issued, so two things actually went
out prem much truly. Now, the corrections I don't think
had any you know, substantive value of any import. But
the court does like to get things right, and as
you can see, they still didn't even manage to do
that because of I think rushing out the door to
get things ready. And of course i'll just add this
in a rush the protester type stuff if you have,
(03:18):
if you have a contested case, that's going to generate
a lot of public interest right on the way out
of town. You know, you file it and then you
don't have to worry about them trying to shut down
the streets around the well.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
It gets people excited for the next season, right, big
grand finale, as the courts become Kardashianized, Kardashianized courts. I'm
going to use that in an article, the Kardashianized Courts.
But there was some really strong language that I do
want to get into, specifically from Justice Amy Cony Barrett
(03:52):
to her fellow justice in one of the opinions, and
we are going to get into that. But there are
three things Scott that I really want to use your
amazing legal brain to drill down on during this show today.
And the first one is actually a case that wasn't
really a case at all. It was, as I guess,
(04:13):
it was asking for relief from the relief and this
was the universal injunctions.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Now for me, this or titled in many places birthright
citizenship case, which it turned out not to actually be, so.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
We are going to get to the right citizenship. But yes,
that was the one. So it was Trump v. Cast
A c A s A UH and the justices there,
the majority Pinton sixty three, they wrote that it.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Was Amy Coney Barrett wrote.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Wrote, and then the five other side everyone else signed on.
Now not everyone else, no, no, everyone, every.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
One of the well actually, let's so let's fine tune that.
Just quickly say that, and we'll just say that. Trump
signed an executive order mandating that birthright citizenship was extinguished
in this country, which is to say, the notion of
your if you were born here, you are automatically a
citizen in the United States is over because of people
come here illegally or legally, but but also are not
(05:18):
citizens of the United States or not even residents. Like
in other words, you can just be on vacation from
Canada and have a kid and your kid's a Canadian citizen.
Oh yeah, right.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
Nobody want to do that for their child.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
And so Trump signs an executive order. There's a nationwide
injunction issued by I can't remember if it was a
Biden judge. I think it was. Anyway, it doesn't matter
a democratically appointed judge. Sort of a typical thing that
that so many Trump supporters were frustrated with stymied by
one district court judge in one in one of the
(05:55):
places where there is such a thing around the country,
and then the entire country can't be some to the
administration's UH goals because of because of that, well, the
Court took the case not to resolve whether or not
the order about it birth control, birthright citizenship was legal.
You're about whether or not it was the universal injunction
(06:18):
was appropriate, and so Amy Cony Barrett writes the decision,
which all five other justices in the majority sign on to,
and they don't reserve any of their agreement, which justices
often due. So in a longer opinion, you'll often see
it numbered via parts, and then a justice will say,
(06:38):
I concur with parts one through three, skipping part four,
and then concur with five, and then that that might
be how they do it. But in this instance, and
it's going to be important when we lay out the
language that she used, Well, every single judge, including the
Chief Justice of the United States of America, Judge Justice Roberts,
signed on to this part of the opinion. So I
(07:00):
just wanted to make sure people had that background before
they got the meat.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
So let's talk before we move on to what Justice
Barrett wrote. I want to talk more about the how
important this is that universal injunctions are are now effectively blocked. Right,
So this doesn't mean that there isn't any remedy. I
believe it had a car up for if it requires
(07:28):
multiple people to be impacted, or multiple people will be
impacted by it, they can always go with a for example,
a class action.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
Well let me just unpack that for a second. Rather
than you, let's ad the lawyers summarized. So they're not banned.
Universal injunctions are not prohibited. What the Supreme Court has
done is kind of level set the district judges and
said for you to basically enact a nationwide probation, there
(07:56):
has to be kind of an extraordinary series of events,
which is to say that the person in front of you,
the litigant in front of you, who has asked for
relief from some illegal act, which is what a court
case is, they're behaving illegally, your honor, make them stop, right.
That's that's the nuts and bolts of it. Only if
the nationwide injunction was required to give what's called complete
(08:21):
relief to that person, would they be able to issue
the nationwide injunction. It doesn't make it void or never
going to happen, but it dials back by one hundred
to one. Maybe you know what maybe expect to see
and the reason and you're right about that. They didn't
add a new rule or any new there's no new
(08:43):
information about class action lawsuits. So all the justices have
said is go through and get a class action started
if that's what you really want. The problem with that
is that it takes a lot more effort on the
on the the advocate side to establish a class and
to get class actions stats, which is why it's much
(09:03):
easier and they don't want to do it to just
apply for you know, a nationwide injunction. And it's a
lot easier for the judges too. They don't have to
go through the work of sorting through the class application
that in and of itself is a bunch of work
that a judge probably doesn't want to do.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
So well, of course, it's so much easier just to
not do work and then just impact the entire country,
because that's what judges are for. Right. We're going to
be back with Scott continuing this conversation after this short break.
Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
For your freedom and your liberty, liberty nation with Mark
Edge of Ladies.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Andrew back on Liberty Nation Radio Coast Coast and the
Radio America Network. I remain your host, Mark Antealties, and
we continue our conversation on the Supreme Court and universal
injunctions with Liberty Nations Legal affairs to Scott Cassenter. Scott
speaking of these universal injunctions, so are they fairty coming on?
Were they fairly common prior to the Supreme Court ruling?
Speaker 3 (10:09):
Well, I'll tell you what I've got in front of me,
some numbers just to give you a sense of how
this has affected Trump. And you were making the point
of why it's such a big deal. George Bush was
subject to six total injunctions in his four year presidency.
President Obama was subject to twelve in his eight years
(10:30):
of being president. And by the way, the numbers I'm
reading you are published from the Harvard Law Review from
twenty twenty four before Donald Trump resumed his second resumed
the presidency in his second term. So these are first
term only numbers and compiled by an organ that might say,
at best skeptical of Trump rather than if not outright
(10:52):
hostile to him. Right, So, in any case, six for Bush,
twelve for Obama. Donald Trump four year presidency sixty four
nationwide injunctions and Biden had fourteen in his single tournament office.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
So I'm going to play devil's advocate quickly here. Yeah,
some people would argue, not me, But some people would
argue that, well, that's because he broke the law. More
does that argument hold water, Council.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
So the injunction isn't about whether somebody broke the law.
And just to be clear, like I'm approaching it from
the actual literal kind of application of the law. And
what the ruling is is that what those judges were
ruling on was that they were that the Trump administration
was likely to lose and that therefore they were able
(11:43):
to grant those injunctions unguided by this notion that the
Supreme Court just enforced with the cost of ruling that
they shouldn't do that at all. Basically, it just kind
of crept into the law where they were doing it
more and more, and the Supreme Court had kind of
beaten around the bush about it, but they never really
got down to brass tax and addressed the question directly,
(12:05):
which is why this is such a major case and
will change so much. You know, I would say to
you for your devil's advocate question that, Well, read the
Supreme Court opinion and you'll see why I think that's
that's a bad idea.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
No, I think. I mean my thoughts on that specifically
are that when Donald Trump won the election in twenty
twenty four November twenty twenty four, Democrats said that they
were leading Democrat voices were saying that we're going to
take them to court, We're going to sue him, We're
going to hold into account through the law courts, and
(12:43):
they fundraised on it, and there are multiple organizations that
are linked to the Democratic Party whose sole purpose is
to sue Donald Trump and the Trump administration. So I
would imagine it's.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
A great effect. By the way, it's a great effect
on well, with their with their campaign. I mean, you
look at that sixty four universal injunctions. That is quite
a success if you're trying to stemy administrations implementation of
their goals.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
You know how many of these were filed in Alabama,
by the way.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
I don't know, But actually, if you think really, Alabama's
probably is not the kind of place where you get
this kind of treatment. You get it from mostly a
Northeastern or West Coast judge yes, because that's where the
more radical ones seem to be appointed to, and then
to the appellate courts growing from there by the.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
Way, So it really was a case of shopping around
for a judge that's most likely too or it appears
to be a case of shopping around for a judge
that's most likely to be fam.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
I think you file in a district where you get
a you have odds on better chance, but no judge
shopping is a bit too it's a bit too risky.
One thing you could say is so if we think
about how these cases are well previous to the new
landmark ruling that the Supreme Court sent down this past
(14:12):
Friday in June, how it would work is the case
goes before a district court judge. That judge, let's say
they do issue a nationwide injunction. Then it goes to
the appellate courts for them to look at before it
might go to the Supreme Court. Well, you may choose
which circuit you bring the case in just because you
want to get a favorable ruling at the circuit court level,
(14:35):
or excuse me, the Circuit Court of Appeal level. But
even then, if you just get a how this has
been inside baseball. But if we really want to talk
about the mechanics of it, you have to get into it.
Those appellate courts often assign a three judge panel to
look at these different cases, and they don't do it
with It's not like, oh, hey, you like politics, right, Mark,
you can go look at this case. No, it's all
(14:57):
very much randomized, and who gets these cases is not
selected based on the president that nominated the person for
their appointment or anything like that. And so you can
game it a little bit maybe, But boy, of all
the things to try to control outcomes for it, seems
like you're better off spent spending a little more time
on your brief maybe than trying to get a favorable
(15:21):
particular judge.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Okay, so from here on out, judges will be able
to district court. Judge will be able to grant the
relief that they see fit for the individual. The lawyers
in the case will be able to seek to create
a class action with a number of litigants. But what
happens if somebody does order a universal injunction? How does
(15:47):
that get stopped? We can just save there a time.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
We can just say when I think instead of what
happens to you, because at some point it's going to happen,
and it'll go. Well, what happens is when that case
then goes before the Court of Appeals, which it almost
certainly will, the Court of Appeals will now have this
Supreme Court guidance to look at, and it'll be instead
(16:10):
of a of rubber stamp. Is exactly the word I
want to use to describe how the Courts of Appeals
has been handling these things, but without much of a
scrutiny that that really examines, like is this absolutely required
to gain the relief for these parties. So basically what
it does is it creates another stop gap for the
(16:34):
administration to not have to comport with that universal injunction
and have it lifted. And I expect we'll see that
happen with most of any that do get through, which
is that the appeals courts will look at it and say, no,
you didn't do a good enough job tailoring the remedy
to the specific parties in front of you, which doesn't
(16:56):
require that, and either instruct them to work harder to
do it again order to enact their own order to
their mind tailor's in order to the parties in front
of the court without a nationwide injunction. And then it
also Mark will go one more bite at the apple.
Then the Supreme Court has the capability without the full
(17:18):
case briefing, of smiting down that district court judge. So,
for instance, appeals they call it the emergency docket. It's
rarely an emergency, with the exception of some death penalty cases.
But what happens is when there's a case that comes
out of let's call it the the Fourth Circuit Court
(17:40):
of Appeals, which is where I'm talking to you from now,
and it comes out of the Fourth Circuit, Well, if
the litigants don't want to wait for the Supreme Court
to look at their case and rule on it in
a timely fashion, they may apply for urgent review, in
which case one particular justice is assigned to each of
the circuit. I forget who's I should know this coldon
(18:02):
I'm sorry, I don't I should know who the Fourth
Circuit judges. But in any case, they will look at
it and they will say, okay, it's if it's an
easy kind of pitch for them to hit, they'll just say,
this is the rule. Do it this way. If it's
a more contentious issue. They'll sometimes refer to the whole court,
but what I expect to see is more of those
(18:23):
justices than saying no, this is not task muster for
a universal injunction. So basically, at every step now where
there had been maybe a veil to pass through or
some rice paper in terms of legal resistance, once the
district court judge gave that universal junction, now it's the
opposite of that. Now it's a brick wall in front
(18:45):
of them that they're going to have to keep going over.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
We're gonna be talking about that brick wall made by
Justice Amy Cony Barrett after this show break, don't go anywhere. No,
that's what was free.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterplase and
freedom is special and ate. This is Liberty Nation with Markangelites,
a production of Libertynation dot com going after what the
politicians really mean and making it all clear for your
freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio Romania host Mark Antony.
These we're continuing our conversation with Liberty Nations Legal affairs
editor Scott Cassenza, Scott so We've been talking about the
universal injunctions in Trump VI Cassa CISA, and we've discussed
what ramifications it has. We've discussed how court cases will
(19:47):
proceed now from district levels. But what I really want
to get into is the actual opinion that came down
on this and how it was. It was so out
of the ordinary in terms of its language. Carec to enlightenness.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
Well, it's yes, and it's a reaction piece, so you
can't understand the language or really, I think discuss it
meaningfully without discussing what it was reacting to, which is
Justice Katangi Brown Jackson wrote in dissent she didn't write
the Court's descent. How it works is the Chief Justice,
after getting a vote tally on these cases, assigns the
(20:27):
majority opinion to one of the justices in the majority
and for the dissent in the descent, and then all
the justices can write separately if they choose to. But
one of the reasons why that gives him a lot
of power is, for instance, before we just get to
the to answering your question, a justice might give a
(20:51):
chief Justice might give a more moderate voice like Amy
Cony Barrett, a case in this instance because they want
the most maximum level of agreement, and if they gave
it to a firebrand, then maybe they won't get a
sign on to get as many justices as possible for
a majority opinion, which does give that opinion power. That
(21:11):
this is a six to three opinion gives it a
little more power in legal circles than if it was
a five to four. So Justice Katanji Brown Jackson took
her pen out after saying that she agreed with everything.
I think it was Justice Kagan wrote in the majority
proper or excuse me, the dissent proper. But she took
(21:35):
her pen out literally just to say how awful this
reasoning was and how basically it was. And I'm not
being hyperbolic here. It would it would. There's a strong
case to be made that it would lead to the
end of the republic. That's what Katanji Brown Jackson's dissent said,
and it denigrated the majority OPINIONI and the effort to
(21:58):
explain their reasoning and the reasoning itself. It was. It
was really an insult from from her to them, like
just a high level By the way, it didn't get
school yardist. I don't think at least not much, but
it was a very much insulting, denigrating opinion. It didn't
respect their you know, their thoughts of their judgments. It
(22:19):
just hit them kind of below the belt with it.
And so that's what Amy Cony Barrett was reacting to.
And boy, she did react to it.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
When before you come into the reaction here, which really
is quite fiery, I felt that. And I'm just a
layman in this, but I felt that the the language
of Justice Jackson's peace it was a little social mediaish
because she she wrote something something something period, you know,
(22:51):
spelling out the word period like you see on social media.
I thought that must be the first time that any
justice has ever written that.
Speaker 3 (23:01):
I think she's our youngest justice. She's certainly the newest
edition to the court. And unfortunately, I think we're going
to see more stuff like, you know.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
I clap against the majority of opinion.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
Oh, that's so hilarious that you said that. Yeah, exactly,
all right, So let's.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
Get let's get to what Justice Amy Cunny Barrett, Yeah,
actually reacted to how she reacted to Justice Jackson's you.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
Know, one of the funniest kind of and and biggest
deepest cuts I think was when she criticized Jackson for
talking about how something was like legal eese, and it's like,
you know, we're the Supreme Court. You can't say something's
like you're not going to pay attention. Oh, that's just legalese.
(23:51):
Like a politician, a senator maybe could get away with that,
certainly a congress person, but for Supreme Court justice to
kind of dismiss the thing as being, oh, that's inside baseball, like, well,
where is the place for discussion of this inside baseball
if you know?
Speaker 2 (24:07):
If not that that, if not the house that Frederick
Douglas built, right, yeah.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
And I'll tell you this to me is like this
is this is kind of a big deal there. Well,
there's two I'll just say. They say, Justice Jackson, this
is bad writing. Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while
embracing and imperial judiciary. And that's after Justice Jackson had
(24:31):
laid out how basically district court judges have a duty,
under her reading of the law to issue nationwide injunctions.
There should be many more nationwide injunctions if we listen
to Justice Jackson's you know, admonition basically in her opinion,
(24:55):
So it's it's a real fight for not just saying, hey,
what you said is wrong, but it's what you said
is not just what you said is wrong and I'm right,
but what you said is like galactically awful and Wrong's
it's the end of it's the because Justice Jackson is
(25:16):
saying to the majority, what you're doing puts the Republic
in danger because of the lack of oversight, then that
the executive will have that's sort of boiled down her argument,
and then the majority is saying to her, you are
so ignorant to the function of your argument that what
you don't understand is it's the what you were saying
(25:39):
is really what will lead to the end of the republic. Well,
Barrett didn't actually say that, and I'll just say her
sort of final her final line was just as Jackson
would do well to heat her own admonition. Everyone from
the President on down is bound by law that goes
for judges too, So.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
It's spice.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
It's a pretty strong, yeah, pretty strong comeback for let's
be signed by five other members of the Court, including
the Chief Justices of the United States. And I checked
just to be sure she did articulate that section of
her opinion with a different section number, so that again
(26:21):
it would have been so easy for any justice to
say I concur with the majority with the exception of
you know, section four. But none of them did. They
all signed on to the drubbing back of because I
think they were probably all insulted by her insults of them.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
Well, I think the majority probably had had it right
on this di didn't they Because we've just seen in
recent days, we saw the No Kings march claiming that
Trump is acting like a king. Well, it seems to
me that if a single person in a courtroom somewhere
(26:59):
can and the entire process of what's happening in the country,
then it's multiple little kings, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
That's what their argument is. I am my libertarian nature
has me always skeptical of the power to limit the
power of the executive which is at the tip of
the sphere. Whether it's the Trump administration or the Biden administration,
or Obama or Bush or anybody else, they're at the
tip of the sphere of violating the rights of Americans.
(27:32):
And so it's a little trepidations for me anytime I
hear of a restriction in the in the right to
kind of potentially dial back executive action, because you know,
legislative action is sort of more glac glacial, I guess
you'd call it, rather than like out there actively violating
people's rights, which you know, I want the protection from.
(27:54):
But at the same time, you know, it's not like
Congress passed this law that gave them the power. Part
of to lengthy opinion from the majority examined where these
powers come from. It's not just like, well, courts can
check the executives, so they can do whatever they want
to enact that check. And the truth is it has
been abused, So why wouldn't we expect, you know, there
(28:15):
to be pushback. One of the things that that we
talked about that chart that the Harvard Law Review published
about the injunction view reconjunctions, yeah, and recent presidents. One
of the interesting statistics they teased out with that mark
is the percentage of those injunctions that were issued by
a judge who was nominated by a president of the
(28:37):
opposite party. And guess what it's about fifty to fifty
okay until Biden and Trump, and for Biden was one
hundred percent of judges from the other party and for
Trump it was ninety two percent. So I was sixty
four fifty nine of those. And so I think that
plays into the partisanship too, where it's like, well, even
(28:59):
if there were more junct functions, but they were, you know,
fifty to sixty percent. You could even go up to
high sixty percents and say that's within the margin of
like randomized selection from the federal judiciary. But you're getting
over ninety percent from the other party. Well, there's there's
clearly something going on there, right, it's the political nature.
So the combination of kind of runaway political nature of
(29:22):
it and no clear grant of authority for these things.
Then I'm reluctantly agreeing with you. By the way, I
don't know if you remember, but you.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
Still I figure that.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
I figure started this by saying the majority had it, right,
didn't they? And I guess I'm coming around to saying, yes,
I think probably they did, but I'm skeptical about it.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
But yes, Okay, we are going to find out what
this means for Donald Trump and his efforts to limit
birthright citizenship after this short break. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty nation with Mark Edgelities.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
And you're back on Liberty Nation right. We're concluding our
talk on universal injunctions. Now we're with Scott de Cassender,
Liberty Nations Legal Affairs editor, and he's been walking us
around the Guard and showing us the sites of the
well as as just this Catanji Brown Jackson might say,
the legal ease of what has been taking place, that's
(30:21):
a gag that only those of you who have watched
the whole show. Will not all listen to the whole show.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
We'll get.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
But I want to talk about how this lifting of
universe injunctions ultimately affects the presidency right now under Donald
Trump and what that means going forward for the policy
agenda he's put in place. So, with the ruling coming
down in Trump v. Cassa, does that mean that the injunctions,
(30:48):
the universal injunctions, the scores of universal injunctions that had
been put in place were immediately lifted. Does it mean
that they can the Trump administration can carry on doing
what it's doing or does it have to wait for
it to go to see out a process through the
(31:09):
appellate court? How does this work?
Speaker 3 (31:12):
Yes? Or the appellate courts too, a ner country of origin.
So all this ruling did was establish a decision for
this particular nationwide injunction that was challenged and every other
one that is subsequently applied for. If it had already
(31:33):
been applied for and granted, what would what a judge,
a district court judge would have to do is reevaluate
their granting of it. Given this opinion, I imagine the
administration has already filed in those courts where they have
active litigation, and we're anticipating a nationwide injunction or working
(31:54):
under one that those courts do reevaluate it in light
of the court's decision here, and they will be entitled
to that level of review. And then also, just like
we talked about previously, what that means for further review
up the chain in the appellate courts, they'll face that
as well. So it's not exactly like, okay, we're going
(32:14):
to redo all these but practically speaking, they're going to
take another look at all of them, either by themselves
so is Sponte, the judges themselves will do it, or
they'll entertain a review filed from one of the litigants
to do it. In light of this Court's decision, and
that happens somewhat frequently, not with this particular issue, but
(32:34):
just that the Supreme Court makes a ruling during their
term that affects ongoing litigation, and the courts are adopting
then to that new rule or standard that they have applied.
Speaker 2 (32:46):
So they'd beholden to the new standard because at some
point if they go against it, eventually you'll come back
down the.
Speaker 3 (32:52):
Problem ten or eleven am on Monday, June what was
the twenty eighth day that it came down. That's that's when.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
That's the new reality.
Speaker 3 (33:02):
That's the new reality.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
There's a lot of cases that have had these universe injunctions.
One of them was shipping illegal immigrants to third party countries.
So now the Trump administration can continue with that as
a general policy. Although injunctive relief might be granted to
individuals who pursue.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
Any particular person. Any particular person may go and say, hey,
don't let them do this to me, whatever this is,
and then presumably if they have met their burden before
the court for an injunction against action against them, then
the court will grant. They'll say, I n s thej
(33:47):
Department of State, do not molest or go after this
person unless and until they've had a hearing, or you know,
any number of other implements that the court might make.
Speaker 2 (33:57):
So what does it mean for and I think this
is the most important question that people are considering. What
does it mean for Trump's moves against birthright citizenship. Now
we did discuss this very briefly earlier, but so it's
people who it's for people who are either in the
(34:18):
country illegally, or who are in the country legally but
are not resident in the country, or with the proper
right to remain in the country. And so from that,
because the original executive ard are signed on January twenty
of just trying to get this right, it said, within
thirty days after this order, anybody born in the United
(34:44):
States who is not you know, does not have a
legal right to parents, don't have a legal right to
be here, or any of the other will not be
made will not be made a citizens. So, as it
stands today at time of recording, are now people who
were born in America who are not considered citizens of
(35:08):
the United States.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
Well, I got the date wrong. Actually, it wasn't the
twenty eighth that ruling came down. It was the twenty seventh,
and the day of that ruling, the court said they
were going to give thirty days I think for the
lower courts to kind of work through these issues, and
I guess also the administration would then take thirty days
to kind of think about how they're going to implement
(35:31):
it and what that means for you know, all the
people who process births in this country. It's not like
we have a central federal birth registry that like, you.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
Know, that's so strange that you don't have that.
Speaker 3 (35:45):
Yeah, well, it's not because of how we came about
as being these states being co sovereign, and you know
we're now ever since the Civil War, we've been marching
ahead towards a kind of unity government, you know, a
unitary you know, the states are becoming more like counties,
I think, rather than than like independent sovereigns, which is
(36:09):
of course what they were when the when the country started.
And some of us have opinions about that and what
it means for liberty and wanting to get closer to
that and devolve power from the federal government. But we're
getting closer and closer to that, that federal registry every year.
But in any case, it's a disperse you know field,
(36:29):
And how do you get different actors to act and
do what they have to do? Like right now, whatever
has to be done for a person to be a
US citizen when they're born is pretty much nothing. Yes,
they if they ever want to establish that they are
a citizen, they show their state issued birth certificate. So
I was born in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I have
(36:50):
a Pennsylvania birth certificate. If I need to establish that
I'm a US citizen, I can show my birth certificate
and that's all that That's all that's needed. Even at
a federal office, they take the state identity document. Now,
I don't know what they're going to do. If you're
born in twenty twenty five in Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania gives
you a birth certificate. It's not like if you're from
(37:11):
you know, if you're spending the summer in you know,
I don't know why you spend a summer in Pennsylvania
if you were like a jet center. But maybe there's
a nice lake there. There's plenty of nice lakes, all right.
You're spending a summer at lake in Pennsylvania and you're
you're you're from here, from like Turkey or somewhere, you know,
for two months, and you and you're and you're on
vacation for a couple of months, and you and you
you know, you give birth. Well, why is that person,
(37:34):
you know a citizen? Well, if they have a Pennsylvania
birth certificate, they're not going to get a foreign country
ber certificate if that birth can't even be verified because
they're out of the country. These births are verified locally.
What is then how does the administration then present the
federal government how do they deal with whether an this
person's a citizenship a citizen or not because it's not
(37:56):
like hospitals Czech citizen papers. So then we have to
establish are the parent citizens or not? Do they have
permission to be here or not. It's kind of a
you know that it's making making that hash out is
no joke.
Speaker 2 (38:11):
Yeah, it's definitely. It's an administrative challenge that that there
are so many strings to consider that I feel that
each string will have a legal challenge attached to it.
Speaker 3 (38:27):
Oh yeah, your children will be talking about this lead
if they follow the news, you know, the business of
the Supreme Court. Because you're right, every issue and then
every sub issue and they'll all go through up to
the Supreme Court. Like we're going to be hearing about
these cases for years, Mark, at least a decade before
they fine tune because they don't have all these issues
that they lock in like okay, this this, this sub
(38:49):
issue and kind of clean try to clean up all
the issues with one decision. That's not how it works.
It's the broadcase. You know, we're still fighting about how
many years has it been since dcv. Heller with the
gun control We're still cleaning up with what it means
to be able to keep their arms in this country.
Speaker 2 (39:07):
It's going to be a full employment worksheet for lawyers
in the United States.
Speaker 3 (39:12):
Cheer's to that.
Speaker 2 (39:14):
Scott Cascenza, thanks ever so much for joining us to
the park. And that's all we have time for on
this week's edition of Liberty Nation Radio Head Coast to
Coast on the Radio American Network. I've been your host,
Mark Angeladies, special thank you to our guest today, Liberty
Nations Legal Affairs, that does Scott de Cascenza, And of
course thanks to you the listeners at home for taking
the time each and every week to tune in on
the radio.
Speaker 3 (39:34):
And join us.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
You are appreciated. Please do remember everyone Liberty Nation doesn't
endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.
Thanks for being here.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.