March 3, 2025 • 27 mins
This episode we're diving into a few of the 95 legal challenges to the Trump administrations executive orders and directives to departments. I'll be breaking down the case findings, current status, and of course adding in my own opinion. Follow me on Facebook and Instagram @TheLawAccordingtoAmber
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-law-according-to-amber--4167414/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-law-according-to-amber--4167414/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Hey guys, and welcome to the Law according to Amber.
Every other Monday, we'll discuss controversial topics with the mixture
of opinion and legal facts. Thus the Law according to Amber.
Be sure to give me a follow on Facebook at
the Law according to Amber, as well as Instagram. Same name,
The Law according to Amber. Do y'all remember that song
(00:31):
by Bek the Ruler that is like hols on me
left and right. That's how I think about Trump right now,
because he got lossuits on him left and right. Go
see what that bullshit? And now look at you getting sued.
So you know, let's step into that. What's up, y'all,
(00:52):
It's Amber here with another podcast. Welcome to another episode
of the Law according to Amber.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
How much has been happening?
Speaker 1 (01:01):
And I know I say that all the time, but
a lot has actually been happening.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
So, now that we have a new.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Presidential administration, there's been a lot going on with all
these executive orders, and I know folks have been freaking out.
I've been putting out some content on TikTok and Instagram
about it. But I want to do a more in
depth podcast episode to truly explain where we are with
different lawsuits. Especially for the most like crucial and really
(01:30):
important executive actions, because I also want to remind folks
that all these different executive orders are really just meant
to put you in a frenzy and get you throw
it off your game and just in a state of hysteria.
Most of them are symbolic, unimportant, but there are several
that were really really important that definitely needed some kind
(01:52):
of legal action to stop them, and I'm going to
go through some of those. First, I want to just
give a little bit of context so the president doesn't
necessarily write these executive orders. None of them do to
be real. So the President will say, hey, I have
these ideas, this thing I want to focus on, like
birthright citizenship for example, and then his advisors and different
(02:16):
legal team people will write up the executive order. So
a lot of times when you're reading stuff, it will
sound really weird with a lot of big words, which
is one way to know that Trump didn't write it,
but also you know it has a lot of legal
ease because it's written by lawyers. One key thing I
think that Trump didn't consider is the fact that after
(02:39):
he puts out all these crazy executive orders, you know,
the legal advisors and folks who wrote them do have
to defend them, and it's pretty hard to go up
against the constitution. And I know that a lot of
people on the mega or right side, you know, they
don't really fuck with the constitution like that. You know,
they think they can just do whatever they want. And
so that's the reason why you know, Trump did so
(03:02):
many of these crazy.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Executive orders without.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
You know, really thinking there'd be any real repercussions, because
you know, they just come at things from a very
authoritarian angle, you know, very fascist government rule, and so
they're like, well, it doesn't matter, I can do, don't want.
But as a reminder, the way government works is that
no one has all the supreme power.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Right.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
You have your legislative branch, which is where Congress sits.
You have the judicial branch, which is where the Supreme
Court and the federal courts and the US district courts
which are like the trial courts are. And then you
have the executive branch with the President and his cabinet.
So they only each branch only has so much power.
And as the executive branch is doing things like passing
executive orders, those executive orders can be challenged through the legislator,
(03:48):
through the judicial branch, and then the legislative branch also
controls the money. So for some reason there was an
executive order to involve money, Congress has to approve that,
not the president, and so there's always these different chicks
and balances. And because you know, Trump just thinks he
can do whatever he wants, and you know, mega folks
think the government isn't a real thing, then they just
(04:10):
thought they could just put out all these crazy executive
orders and people just have to follow them. And that's
just not how government works. And so groups have taken
their power of being able to sue very seriously and
been suing left and right. Currently, there are ninety five
(04:30):
lawsuits against different federal like actions like firing people, as
well as the different executive orders.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
So the first one I want to give.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
An update on is the one about birthright citizenship, because
that was one of the main ones that people were
really worried about. And so Trump had an executive order
that was seeking to revoke both birthright citizenship for the
children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in
United States illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof
(05:03):
which is specific language listed in the Constitution.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
About birthright citizenship.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
And just as some background, birthright citizenship came to be
because of slavery.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Actually, so, there are.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Three Reconstruction Amendments, as they're called, that were passed and
the wake of the Civil War, and they serve as
an expansion of the rights that should be given to
all Americans. And the second of these is the thirteenth
Amendment to the US Constitution, which was ratified in eighteen
sixty eight, and it grants citizenship to all persons born
(05:39):
or naturalized in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
And that is the particular part of the executive order
that's challenging birthright citizenship is the language subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, and that amendment is supposed to provide all
citizens with equal protection under the law.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
I'm also going to go through a few other.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
Things that are listed in the fourteenth Amendment, because it's
actually a very long amendment. The other parts of the
fourteenth Amendment say that no State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States, Nor shall any state deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property without due process
of the law, nor deny to any person within this
(06:21):
jurisdiction the equal protection of the law and the Fourteenth
Amendment is commonly referred to as the Equal Protection Amendment
because we tend to use it for folks who are
being held in jail for bail, or before someone is
being tried in a case like to like against a crime.
Before you can decide to take someone's life or liberty,
(06:44):
you do have to provide them with so much due process.
And so that's basically what the fourteenth Amendment is considered
as the equal protection law or equal protection Amendment and
mostly has a lot to do with due process, but
also has a lot to do with birthright citizenship. And
then Section two of the Ament says that representatives shall
be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers,
(07:07):
counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding
Indians not taxed. But when the rights to vote at
any election for the choice of electors for president and
vice president of the United States, representative in Congress, the
executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members
of the legislature they're in thereof is denied to any
of the male inhabitants of such state being twenty one
(07:30):
years of age and citizens of the United States, or
in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or
other crime. The basis of representation therein shall be reduced
in the proportion which the number of such male citizens
shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty
one years of age in such state. All of that
was basically saying who has the right to vote? And
(07:53):
back then we know with some bullshit. So this was
saying that folks can only vote if they're twenty one
years of age, and that the amount of people who
can vote are counted in this very particular way, and
they cannot have participated in a rebellion or other crime
AKA like rebellion AKA like treason, the Civil War, all
(08:13):
that stuff. So that has since been thrown out because
we have other amendments that have overturned that. And then
it also has a lot of information about public debt
in the United States. It also says that Congress should
have power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of
this article, meaning that the different things in the amendment
(08:34):
are enforced by Congress through appropriate legislation, which has already happened.
Of course, because we have this amendment that's been ratified.
I also want to go through some of the other
amendments because I mentioned that this is one of the
three Reconstruction Amendments. So the first one is the thirteenth,
the fourteenth, and the fifteenth, and they're considered the Reconstruction
Era or Civil War amendments. The thirteenth is about slavery,
(08:58):
saying that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States or any place subject
to their jurisdiction.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
So this is really.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Common because folks will talking about how the thirteenth Amendment
allows for slavery and prisons, and so many folks have
done work in their local states to remove that language
from their state constitution, including Tennessee, which I was a
part of some of that organizing, and it was one
of the best things that we had come out of
one of our previous selections when folks voters to remove
(09:33):
that language. And then the fourteenth women we just went
through that and then also the fifteenth Amendment is where
we got the right to vote. So the right of
citizens of the United States to vote should not be
denied or bridged by the United States or by any
state on account of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude.
And that did not include black people. So just want
(09:55):
to add that in there, because although this amendment was passed,
black folks were still discriminated against heavily and not giving
the right to vote through different bullshit discriminatory tactics like
literacy tests or telling folks who gainst how many jella
beans are in the jar, like all these random things
just used to stop black folks from actually registering to vote,
(10:17):
to be able to vote. And we know that was changed,
of course with the Civil Rights Act, but before that,
although we had the Fifteenth Amendment, folks still were not
able to vote, especially in the South. Like we know
that that's really what's set off the Civil Rights movement
and a lot of the organizing was around us getting
the right to vote.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
So back to the lawsuits.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
So the ACOU in New Hampshire actually sued on behalf
of New Hampshire folks who have children that would have
their citizenship revoked according to this executive order, and on
February tenth, Judge Joseph N. LaPlante issued a learnet preliminary
(10:58):
preliminary junction halting that executive order.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
And then there was another.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Lawsuit filed as well, where a group of pregnant women
whose children will not receive citizenships sued and the plaintiff,
identified as O dot Do, lives in Massachusetts and has
temporary protected status in the United States, and the suit
argues of the plain text of the fourteenth Amendment as
confirmed in USD one kim Arc, which is another case
(11:27):
that the Supreme Court confirmed.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
The use of birthright citizenship with.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
It's saying that it explicitly grants birthright citizenship for all
people born in the US. February thirteenth, Judge Leo T.
Storikin issued in opinion granting a preliminary indunction injunction and
joining the government from implementing and enforcing Executive Order Number
for one four one six zero, which is the one
of our birthright citizenship. On February nineteenth, the defendants, which
(11:57):
is the United States, submitted a notice of appeal to
the First Circuit Court and just to explain some of
the legal terms there. The first circuit court is a
federal court, so when someone is assuing the federal government,
it goes to the judicial branch, starting with the circuit court,
and then can sometimes go to the US District Court,
and then might even be.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Challenged at the Supreme Court level.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
But for the most part, a lot of these have
been stopped there and having gone further. And then there's
several more cases in New Jersey and a few other
states that also are talking about birthright citizenship. A lot
of the lawsuits were about the birthright Citizenship Execative Order,
and a lot of those have been held with a
preliminary injunction, and a preliminary injunction means that you know
(12:42):
it cannot be enforced. Is an injunction on it that
does not allow the executive order to be enforced currently,
and then for some of these cases the government is appealing.
I'm not seeing an uppilled for all of them. I
honestly think they're overwhelmed for being real, so they're probably
being strategic about which ones they want to.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Try to appeal to.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
There was a specific case from the state of Washington
where four states sued to protect residents who would lose
their citizenship under the executive order, and Judge Joe Kaufner
of the Weshing District of Washington issued a temporary restraining
order against the executive order. And then there was an
(13:21):
update that another complaint was consolidated with this case, meaning
they enjoined two cases together. It was Franco al Men
versus Trump. And then Judge Connor issued an opinion granting
the plant's motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of
the executive order, meaning that the case they wanted to
join the other one they joined together, they consolidated, and
(13:43):
that judge issued a preliminary injunction based off of them
in joining the cases. They probably joined the cases together
because they were stronger together.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Usually, if there's.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
A large chance of harm in a case and you
enjoined it with another case pretty similar, it just increases
the harm that could be caused and gives you a
better chance of winning. And then on February sixth, defendants
appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court, And like I said before,
the defendants are the United States, so the Department of Justice,
(14:15):
the United States Department of Justice is appealing these cases
and then on February twelfth, the defendants made an emergency
motion to stay the District Court's injunction. That just means
that the federal government wanted the injunction to stop, so
they issued an order to stop the injunction so that
the executive order can be enforced. And then on February nineteenth,
the Ninth Circuit Court issued in order denying the government's
(14:38):
emergency motion to stay the District Court's injunction and leaving
the existing briefing schedule unchanged. Meaning after someone has got
an injunction for something and then a defendant in this case,
the US has appealed, there's then a schedule put in
place for people to put together brief to send in
to argue they're what they're.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Trying to prove.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
The government is trying to say that they want to
upheal this and they're saying that the executive order should
be enforced, and so they're going to be submitting briefs
with that information and all their legal arguments, so they'll
have different cases cited explaining why that case specifically should
be used as a way to enforce that executive order,
(15:20):
and the plaintiffs on the other side will then submit
their own brief as well, saying you know why the
injunction should stay in the executive order should not be
put in place, And they'll also provide legal arguments in
different cases as examples for that, and then the judges
didn't given time to read through all of those, and
then usually will make a decision. And this is just
(15:41):
the beginning of a case, so they usually federal cases
usually take a lot of time. And like I told
other folks, this is why people will seek injunctions for stuff,
because they're trying to stop the enforcement of the executive order.
And while they're stopping the enforcement, they're also going to
be arguing to have it thrown out completely. So a
lot of the other law suits are about immigration policy.
(16:02):
One particular that I want to talk about is punishment
of sanctuary cities and states.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
So there's an executive.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
Order one four, one five nine, and the current acting
Attorney General, Benjamin Huffman, he spells his name weird, don't
the white spelled Benjamin like this? Benjamin Huffman issued policy
guidance that, among other immigration related policies, instructs the Civil
Division of the Department of Justice, which is not the
(16:30):
criminal division. It's just civil, so like arguing different things
in the constitution. Basically, there wouldn't be any criminal charges,
but he's instructing them to identify state and local laws, policies,
and activities that are inconsistent with the executive branches immigration initiatives,
and where appropriate, to take legal action to.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Challenge such laws.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
So or called the Organized Crime against Deportations ensuing him
about this, and the lawsuit seeks an injunction again Department
of Justice guidance to put together that list basically and
then seek.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
Legal action against those folks.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
The plaintiffs are Chicago based immigrant advocacy organization and they
allege with the guidance and subsequent rates specifically for the
purpose of ending the plane of sanctuary city advocacy and
movement building, violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment. Basically,
they're saying that this type of executive order will make
(17:29):
it harder for them to do the advocacy work that
they're doing basically because they're being targeted and they have
a right to do that kind of work because of
the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. There hasn't
been any movement on this just yet. I've looked through
the case and there's been like some motions put in
and withdrawn by different groups, but the judge hasn't actually
put in anything yet, so there aren't any current like
(17:53):
updates on it. Another one that won't talk about is
an immigration policy to about expedite of removal. And I
really want talk about EMMI policy because I'm seeing a
lot of people really talking about like how they don't
you know, they're not really worried about it, Specifically Black
people say they're not really worried about it because you know,
it's gonna affect Mexican folks, because that's all Trump really
talks about. But what most people don't realize is that
(18:15):
Biden deported more people than Trump, and Obama deported more
folks than both of them, and most of those.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
People were Haitian.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
Black immigrants actually are in attention more than Mexican folks,
and they have a harder time actually getting here and
getting asylum. I don't know if y'all have seen like
some of the different tiktoks where folks are saying, like
I'm getting deported, but I'll be back next week. Because
although the journey to you know, like go into a
come into the.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
United States is not easy.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
It is really common, and so it's a little bit
like them making jokes about it because they're saying that
just come back again. And Haitian folks and black immigrants
don't have that same type of experience, to be real, like,
it's just not the same for them. They don't have
the same level access. And so the Expedited Removal Executive
(19:09):
Order that was signed by Trump is directing the Department
of Homeland Security to expand the use of expedited removal
under the Immigration and Nationality Act who include non citizens
located in the US who cannot prove they have been
continuously present for more than two years. And the plaintiff,
(19:30):
which is Make the Road New York, is arguing that
the rual violates the fitth Amendment Do Process Clause, THEA,
which is the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administration
Procedure Act by subjecting individuals to summary deportation without adequate
procedural safeguards. And the suit is claiming that the rules arbitrary,
(19:51):
it exceeds statutory authority and disregards legal and constitutional protections
against wrong for removal, basically saying that if someone is here,
they have a process they have to go to before
being deported, and to use this expedite of removal type
of language will basically try to surpass or bypass those procedures,
(20:12):
which is illegal. There hasn't been any updates on this
complaint either. I actually does some folks from Make the Road,
New York, and they are a really great org.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
So when I was glad to say they sued.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
But two, I want to talk about this because I
need folks to understand that the people who are most affected,
especially up north, are Haitians. Like there's a very large
Haitian community in New Jersey, very large in New York DC,
the DMV area, and those are the people who are affected.
It's not just Mexican or Latino folks. And I really
(20:43):
want people to understand that. Another executive order that I
want to talk about is the proclamation prohibiting non citizens
from invoking asylum provisions. This is particularly about parts of
the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Executive Order. Trump
is saying that immigrants who arrive after the date of
(21:03):
the proclamation, which is this executive order, cannot invoke provisions
of the Immigration and Nationality Act that will permit them
to remain in the United States while pursuing asylum claims.
And the three organizations, which are nonprofits in Texas and Arizona,
provide legal services and assistance to undocumented individuals or asylum seekers,
(21:25):
and they're arguing that the order violates several statutory and
constitutional provisions which are within the Immigration and Nationality Act,
but also.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Just other parts of the constitution.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
The Planos were seeking a declatory judgment that the proclamation
is unlawful in an injunction stopping its implementation. A declatory
judgment means that the judge puts out a declaration within
their findings or within their ruling saying that this is unlawful.
And I think that a lot of times people want
(21:56):
that so that they can use that as proof for
other things as well. If this case ever comes up again,
then they can say, hey, we already have this declaration,
and just to be used in the meantime, they can say, well, hey,
you're protected because we already have this declaration from a
judge saying these particular things. On February nineteenth, the Planers
file that emergency motion to stay their removal and then
(22:17):
on February twentieth, Judge Moss issued an administrative stay in
the case until twelve pm on February twenty fourth to
allow the government time to gather information so they can
respond to the claims. On February twenty second, Judge Mass
denied the emergency motion to stay removal of individual asylumn
(22:37):
sneakers because the government had agreed to not use President
Trump's January twenty twenty five border proclamation to remove them
during the litigation. So basically they're saying that he's saying
that he's not going to put an emergencing motion in
place because the government has already agreed that they will
not be enforcing this. And then the court ordered that
the government must provided least seven days notice before removing
(22:58):
any of the plaintiffs during the case and vacated the
schedule hearing, So basically saying that their ordered to provide
folks seven days notice who were seeking asylum and that
they don't have a schedule hearing anymore because the case
is ended at this point. And the last one I
want to discuss is executive action about the disclosure of
(23:21):
personal and financial records to Dodge.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Doge whateverver you say.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
I don't know, but basically, Dodge is the thing that
Musk is advising. Like the Department. It used to be
the US Digital Service, which is invented under President Obama's
tenure as a way to help digitize a lot of
things and provide better information, specifically around the Affordable Care Act,
because he wanted to make sure there was a really
(23:46):
good online platform people could use so they can get
basic information. So the complaint is alleging that the Treasury
Department granted DOGE affiliated individuals access to sensitive personal and
financial information. A lot of y'all might remember this because
there was like a whole bunch of Congress members trying
to go over to the Treasury Department and get in,
and they wouldn't lift them in. I honestly feel like
that was a big spectacle.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
But whatever.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
So after they filed this case on February six, twenty
twenty five, the parties in the suit mutually proposed an
order that Judge Colleen Caller Coltelli very interesting in the
adopted and it limits the access to Treasury Department payment
records and systems to two special government employees in the Department,
(24:31):
and they have read only access other employees who need
to access the record to perform their duties, or individuals
who are already entitled to access the record under the
statute already have that. So on February twentieth, the Court
issued an order accepting an unopposed motion to modify the
February sixth order, which unopposed means that both parties, the
(24:52):
government and the people who sued, which is the Alliance
who retired Americans, both agreed, and then on February twenty fifth,
following and hearing the previ day, the Court ordered that
defendants shall file the administrative record underline the decisions challenge
in this case, Honor before March tenth, twenty twenty five,
so basically saying that they ordered the US government to
(25:13):
foul an administrative record showing what this decision was so
that people are following it basically. So I hope that
this gave y'all some insight on what's going on. There's
ninety five cases, like I said before, so I only
went through about five or six of them on SECAR.
Remember it was five or six, but I went through
about five or six of them that I felt like
were the most important, especially the ones around immigration and
(25:36):
how that affects black folks, and then also just talking
about the ones with around sensitive information and the different
type of administrative things. I really feel like for folks
who don't pay attention to the federal government, they don't
realize that a lot of this is just like very administrative,
big words, very particular type of things that like you
(25:59):
could go and take a few words out and that
just cause a whole bunch of orkiss and that's basically
what Trump is doing. Trump is saying, I just want
to take out this thing, or I just want to
change just one little thing from this act or this
part of the Constitution, and then of course it's going
to be challenged on it. But I think what's important
people to know is that you do have protections, and
(26:19):
he is going to be challenged.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
On a lot of stuff.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
And like I said before, most of these executive orders
he knows aren't legal.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
He doesn't really care.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
So don't be overwhelmed, you know, just take it all in,
understand what you understand, and if you don't understand something,
you know, you can always hit me up, send me
a message, and not on mind doing an episode or
TikTok or Instagram video to explain, you know, just do
what you can. As I've been saying on my socials,
(26:48):
it's important to be aware but not afraid, informed but
not incapacitated, and educated because this is not the end all,
bey' all. Like this is a a current president, but
like we're gonna move past this. Is it gonna be stressful?
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Yes? Is it a lot? Also? Yes, but it's not
the end all, be all.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
So, like I always say, be sure to follow me
on Facebook and Instagram at the same name.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
The law according to Amber. All right, y'all. Peace,
Hey guys, and welcome to the Law according to Amber.
Every other Monday, we'll discuss controversial topics with the mixture
of opinion and legal facts. Thus the Law according to Amber.
Be sure to give me a follow on Facebook at
the Law according to Amber, as well as Instagram. Same name,
The Law according to Amber. Do y'all remember that song
(00:31):
by Bek the Ruler that is like hols on me
left and right. That's how I think about Trump right now,
because he got lossuits on him left and right. Go
see what that bullshit? And now look at you getting sued.
So you know, let's step into that. What's up, y'all,
(00:52):
It's Amber here with another podcast. Welcome to another episode
of the Law according to Amber.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
How much has been happening?
Speaker 1 (01:01):
And I know I say that all the time, but
a lot has actually been happening.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
So, now that we have a new.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Presidential administration, there's been a lot going on with all
these executive orders, and I know folks have been freaking out.
I've been putting out some content on TikTok and Instagram
about it. But I want to do a more in
depth podcast episode to truly explain where we are with
different lawsuits. Especially for the most like crucial and really
(01:30):
important executive actions, because I also want to remind folks
that all these different executive orders are really just meant
to put you in a frenzy and get you throw
it off your game and just in a state of hysteria.
Most of them are symbolic, unimportant, but there are several
that were really really important that definitely needed some kind
(01:52):
of legal action to stop them, and I'm going to
go through some of those. First, I want to just
give a little bit of context so the president doesn't
necessarily write these executive orders. None of them do to
be real. So the President will say, hey, I have
these ideas, this thing I want to focus on, like
birthright citizenship for example, and then his advisors and different
(02:16):
legal team people will write up the executive order. So
a lot of times when you're reading stuff, it will
sound really weird with a lot of big words, which
is one way to know that Trump didn't write it,
but also you know it has a lot of legal
ease because it's written by lawyers. One key thing I
think that Trump didn't consider is the fact that after
(02:39):
he puts out all these crazy executive orders, you know,
the legal advisors and folks who wrote them do have
to defend them, and it's pretty hard to go up
against the constitution. And I know that a lot of
people on the mega or right side, you know, they
don't really fuck with the constitution like that. You know,
they think they can just do whatever they want. And
so that's the reason why you know, Trump did so
(03:02):
many of these crazy.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Executive orders without.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
You know, really thinking there'd be any real repercussions, because
you know, they just come at things from a very
authoritarian angle, you know, very fascist government rule, and so
they're like, well, it doesn't matter, I can do, don't want.
But as a reminder, the way government works is that
no one has all the supreme power.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Right.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
You have your legislative branch, which is where Congress sits.
You have the judicial branch, which is where the Supreme
Court and the federal courts and the US district courts
which are like the trial courts are. And then you
have the executive branch with the President and his cabinet.
So they only each branch only has so much power.
And as the executive branch is doing things like passing
executive orders, those executive orders can be challenged through the legislator,
(03:48):
through the judicial branch, and then the legislative branch also
controls the money. So for some reason there was an
executive order to involve money, Congress has to approve that,
not the president, and so there's always these different chicks
and balances. And because you know, Trump just thinks he
can do whatever he wants, and you know, mega folks
think the government isn't a real thing, then they just
(04:10):
thought they could just put out all these crazy executive
orders and people just have to follow them. And that's
just not how government works. And so groups have taken
their power of being able to sue very seriously and
been suing left and right. Currently, there are ninety five
(04:30):
lawsuits against different federal like actions like firing people, as
well as the different executive orders.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
So the first one I want to give.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
An update on is the one about birthright citizenship, because
that was one of the main ones that people were
really worried about. And so Trump had an executive order
that was seeking to revoke both birthright citizenship for the
children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in
United States illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof
(05:03):
which is specific language listed in the Constitution.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
About birthright citizenship.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
And just as some background, birthright citizenship came to be
because of slavery.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Actually, so, there are.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Three Reconstruction Amendments, as they're called, that were passed and
the wake of the Civil War, and they serve as
an expansion of the rights that should be given to
all Americans. And the second of these is the thirteenth
Amendment to the US Constitution, which was ratified in eighteen
sixty eight, and it grants citizenship to all persons born
(05:39):
or naturalized in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
And that is the particular part of the executive order
that's challenging birthright citizenship is the language subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, and that amendment is supposed to provide all
citizens with equal protection under the law.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
I'm also going to go through a few other.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
Things that are listed in the fourteenth Amendment, because it's
actually a very long amendment. The other parts of the
fourteenth Amendment say that no State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States, Nor shall any state deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property without due process
of the law, nor deny to any person within this
(06:21):
jurisdiction the equal protection of the law and the Fourteenth
Amendment is commonly referred to as the Equal Protection Amendment
because we tend to use it for folks who are
being held in jail for bail, or before someone is
being tried in a case like to like against a crime.
Before you can decide to take someone's life or liberty,
(06:44):
you do have to provide them with so much due process.
And so that's basically what the fourteenth Amendment is considered
as the equal protection law or equal protection Amendment and
mostly has a lot to do with due process, but
also has a lot to do with birthright citizenship. And
then Section two of the Ament says that representatives shall
be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers,
(07:07):
counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding
Indians not taxed. But when the rights to vote at
any election for the choice of electors for president and
vice president of the United States, representative in Congress, the
executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members
of the legislature they're in thereof is denied to any
of the male inhabitants of such state being twenty one
(07:30):
years of age and citizens of the United States, or
in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or
other crime. The basis of representation therein shall be reduced
in the proportion which the number of such male citizens
shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty
one years of age in such state. All of that
was basically saying who has the right to vote? And
(07:53):
back then we know with some bullshit. So this was
saying that folks can only vote if they're twenty one
years of age, and that the amount of people who
can vote are counted in this very particular way, and
they cannot have participated in a rebellion or other crime
AKA like rebellion AKA like treason, the Civil War, all
(08:13):
that stuff. So that has since been thrown out because
we have other amendments that have overturned that. And then
it also has a lot of information about public debt
in the United States. It also says that Congress should
have power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of
this article, meaning that the different things in the amendment
(08:34):
are enforced by Congress through appropriate legislation, which has already happened.
Of course, because we have this amendment that's been ratified.
I also want to go through some of the other
amendments because I mentioned that this is one of the
three Reconstruction Amendments. So the first one is the thirteenth,
the fourteenth, and the fifteenth, and they're considered the Reconstruction
Era or Civil War amendments. The thirteenth is about slavery,
(08:58):
saying that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States or any place subject
to their jurisdiction.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
So this is really.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Common because folks will talking about how the thirteenth Amendment
allows for slavery and prisons, and so many folks have
done work in their local states to remove that language
from their state constitution, including Tennessee, which I was a
part of some of that organizing, and it was one
of the best things that we had come out of
one of our previous selections when folks voters to remove
(09:33):
that language. And then the fourteenth women we just went
through that and then also the fifteenth Amendment is where
we got the right to vote. So the right of
citizens of the United States to vote should not be
denied or bridged by the United States or by any
state on account of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude.
And that did not include black people. So just want
(09:55):
to add that in there, because although this amendment was passed,
black folks were still discriminated against heavily and not giving
the right to vote through different bullshit discriminatory tactics like
literacy tests or telling folks who gainst how many jella
beans are in the jar, like all these random things
just used to stop black folks from actually registering to vote,
(10:17):
to be able to vote. And we know that was changed,
of course with the Civil Rights Act, but before that,
although we had the Fifteenth Amendment, folks still were not
able to vote, especially in the South. Like we know
that that's really what's set off the Civil Rights movement
and a lot of the organizing was around us getting
the right to vote.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
So back to the lawsuits.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
So the ACOU in New Hampshire actually sued on behalf
of New Hampshire folks who have children that would have
their citizenship revoked according to this executive order, and on
February tenth, Judge Joseph N. LaPlante issued a learnet preliminary
(10:58):
preliminary junction halting that executive order.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
And then there was another.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Lawsuit filed as well, where a group of pregnant women
whose children will not receive citizenships sued and the plaintiff,
identified as O dot Do, lives in Massachusetts and has
temporary protected status in the United States, and the suit
argues of the plain text of the fourteenth Amendment as
confirmed in USD one kim Arc, which is another case
(11:27):
that the Supreme Court confirmed.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
The use of birthright citizenship with.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
It's saying that it explicitly grants birthright citizenship for all
people born in the US. February thirteenth, Judge Leo T.
Storikin issued in opinion granting a preliminary indunction injunction and
joining the government from implementing and enforcing Executive Order Number
for one four one six zero, which is the one
of our birthright citizenship. On February nineteenth, the defendants, which
(11:57):
is the United States, submitted a notice of appeal to
the First Circuit Court and just to explain some of
the legal terms there. The first circuit court is a
federal court, so when someone is assuing the federal government,
it goes to the judicial branch, starting with the circuit court,
and then can sometimes go to the US District Court,
and then might even be.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Challenged at the Supreme Court level.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
But for the most part, a lot of these have
been stopped there and having gone further. And then there's
several more cases in New Jersey and a few other
states that also are talking about birthright citizenship. A lot
of the lawsuits were about the birthright Citizenship Execative Order,
and a lot of those have been held with a
preliminary injunction, and a preliminary injunction means that you know
(12:42):
it cannot be enforced. Is an injunction on it that
does not allow the executive order to be enforced currently,
and then for some of these cases the government is appealing.
I'm not seeing an uppilled for all of them. I
honestly think they're overwhelmed for being real, so they're probably
being strategic about which ones they want to.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Try to appeal to.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
There was a specific case from the state of Washington
where four states sued to protect residents who would lose
their citizenship under the executive order, and Judge Joe Kaufner
of the Weshing District of Washington issued a temporary restraining
order against the executive order. And then there was an
(13:21):
update that another complaint was consolidated with this case, meaning
they enjoined two cases together. It was Franco al Men
versus Trump. And then Judge Connor issued an opinion granting
the plant's motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of
the executive order, meaning that the case they wanted to
join the other one they joined together, they consolidated, and
(13:43):
that judge issued a preliminary injunction based off of them
in joining the cases. They probably joined the cases together
because they were stronger together.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Usually, if there's.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
A large chance of harm in a case and you
enjoined it with another case pretty similar, it just increases
the harm that could be caused and gives you a
better chance of winning. And then on February sixth, defendants
appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court, And like I said before,
the defendants are the United States, so the Department of Justice,
(14:15):
the United States Department of Justice is appealing these cases
and then on February twelfth, the defendants made an emergency
motion to stay the District Court's injunction. That just means
that the federal government wanted the injunction to stop, so
they issued an order to stop the injunction so that
the executive order can be enforced. And then on February nineteenth,
the Ninth Circuit Court issued in order denying the government's
(14:38):
emergency motion to stay the District Court's injunction and leaving
the existing briefing schedule unchanged. Meaning after someone has got
an injunction for something and then a defendant in this case,
the US has appealed, there's then a schedule put in
place for people to put together brief to send in
to argue they're what they're.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Trying to prove.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
The government is trying to say that they want to
upheal this and they're saying that the executive order should
be enforced, and so they're going to be submitting briefs
with that information and all their legal arguments, so they'll
have different cases cited explaining why that case specifically should
be used as a way to enforce that executive order,
(15:20):
and the plaintiffs on the other side will then submit
their own brief as well, saying you know why the
injunction should stay in the executive order should not be
put in place, And they'll also provide legal arguments in
different cases as examples for that, and then the judges
didn't given time to read through all of those, and
then usually will make a decision. And this is just
(15:41):
the beginning of a case, so they usually federal cases
usually take a lot of time. And like I told
other folks, this is why people will seek injunctions for stuff,
because they're trying to stop the enforcement of the executive order.
And while they're stopping the enforcement, they're also going to
be arguing to have it thrown out completely. So a
lot of the other law suits are about immigration policy.
(16:02):
One particular that I want to talk about is punishment
of sanctuary cities and states.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
So there's an executive.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
Order one four, one five nine, and the current acting
Attorney General, Benjamin Huffman, he spells his name weird, don't
the white spelled Benjamin like this? Benjamin Huffman issued policy
guidance that, among other immigration related policies, instructs the Civil
Division of the Department of Justice, which is not the
(16:30):
criminal division. It's just civil, so like arguing different things
in the constitution. Basically, there wouldn't be any criminal charges,
but he's instructing them to identify state and local laws, policies,
and activities that are inconsistent with the executive branches immigration initiatives,
and where appropriate, to take legal action to.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Challenge such laws.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
So or called the Organized Crime against Deportations ensuing him
about this, and the lawsuit seeks an injunction again Department
of Justice guidance to put together that list basically and
then seek.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
Legal action against those folks.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
The plaintiffs are Chicago based immigrant advocacy organization and they
allege with the guidance and subsequent rates specifically for the
purpose of ending the plane of sanctuary city advocacy and
movement building, violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment. Basically,
they're saying that this type of executive order will make
(17:29):
it harder for them to do the advocacy work that
they're doing basically because they're being targeted and they have
a right to do that kind of work because of
the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. There hasn't
been any movement on this just yet. I've looked through
the case and there's been like some motions put in
and withdrawn by different groups, but the judge hasn't actually
put in anything yet, so there aren't any current like
(17:53):
updates on it. Another one that won't talk about is
an immigration policy to about expedite of removal. And I
really want talk about EMMI policy because I'm seeing a
lot of people really talking about like how they don't
you know, they're not really worried about it, Specifically Black
people say they're not really worried about it because you know,
it's gonna affect Mexican folks, because that's all Trump really
talks about. But what most people don't realize is that
(18:15):
Biden deported more people than Trump, and Obama deported more
folks than both of them, and most of those.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
People were Haitian.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
Black immigrants actually are in attention more than Mexican folks,
and they have a harder time actually getting here and
getting asylum. I don't know if y'all have seen like
some of the different tiktoks where folks are saying, like
I'm getting deported, but I'll be back next week. Because
although the journey to you know, like go into a
come into the.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
United States is not easy.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
It is really common, and so it's a little bit
like them making jokes about it because they're saying that
just come back again. And Haitian folks and black immigrants
don't have that same type of experience, to be real, like,
it's just not the same for them. They don't have
the same level access. And so the Expedited Removal Executive
(19:09):
Order that was signed by Trump is directing the Department
of Homeland Security to expand the use of expedited removal
under the Immigration and Nationality Act who include non citizens
located in the US who cannot prove they have been
continuously present for more than two years. And the plaintiff,
(19:30):
which is Make the Road New York, is arguing that
the rual violates the fitth Amendment Do Process Clause, THEA,
which is the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administration
Procedure Act by subjecting individuals to summary deportation without adequate
procedural safeguards. And the suit is claiming that the rules arbitrary,
(19:51):
it exceeds statutory authority and disregards legal and constitutional protections
against wrong for removal, basically saying that if someone is here,
they have a process they have to go to before
being deported, and to use this expedite of removal type
of language will basically try to surpass or bypass those procedures,
(20:12):
which is illegal. There hasn't been any updates on this
complaint either. I actually does some folks from Make the Road,
New York, and they are a really great org.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
So when I was glad to say they sued.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
But two, I want to talk about this because I
need folks to understand that the people who are most affected,
especially up north, are Haitians. Like there's a very large
Haitian community in New Jersey, very large in New York DC,
the DMV area, and those are the people who are affected.
It's not just Mexican or Latino folks. And I really
(20:43):
want people to understand that. Another executive order that I
want to talk about is the proclamation prohibiting non citizens
from invoking asylum provisions. This is particularly about parts of
the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Executive Order. Trump
is saying that immigrants who arrive after the date of
(21:03):
the proclamation, which is this executive order, cannot invoke provisions
of the Immigration and Nationality Act that will permit them
to remain in the United States while pursuing asylum claims.
And the three organizations, which are nonprofits in Texas and Arizona,
provide legal services and assistance to undocumented individuals or asylum seekers,
(21:25):
and they're arguing that the order violates several statutory and
constitutional provisions which are within the Immigration and Nationality Act,
but also.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Just other parts of the constitution.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
The Planos were seeking a declatory judgment that the proclamation
is unlawful in an injunction stopping its implementation. A declatory
judgment means that the judge puts out a declaration within
their findings or within their ruling saying that this is unlawful.
And I think that a lot of times people want
(21:56):
that so that they can use that as proof for
other things as well. If this case ever comes up again,
then they can say, hey, we already have this declaration,
and just to be used in the meantime, they can say, well, hey,
you're protected because we already have this declaration from a
judge saying these particular things. On February nineteenth, the Planers
file that emergency motion to stay their removal and then
(22:17):
on February twentieth, Judge Moss issued an administrative stay in
the case until twelve pm on February twenty fourth to
allow the government time to gather information so they can
respond to the claims. On February twenty second, Judge Mass
denied the emergency motion to stay removal of individual asylumn
(22:37):
sneakers because the government had agreed to not use President
Trump's January twenty twenty five border proclamation to remove them
during the litigation. So basically they're saying that he's saying
that he's not going to put an emergencing motion in
place because the government has already agreed that they will
not be enforcing this. And then the court ordered that
the government must provided least seven days notice before removing
(22:58):
any of the plaintiffs during the case and vacated the
schedule hearing, So basically saying that their ordered to provide
folks seven days notice who were seeking asylum and that
they don't have a schedule hearing anymore because the case
is ended at this point. And the last one I
want to discuss is executive action about the disclosure of
(23:21):
personal and financial records to Dodge.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Doge whateverver you say.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
I don't know, but basically, Dodge is the thing that
Musk is advising. Like the Department. It used to be
the US Digital Service, which is invented under President Obama's
tenure as a way to help digitize a lot of
things and provide better information, specifically around the Affordable Care Act,
because he wanted to make sure there was a really
(23:46):
good online platform people could use so they can get
basic information. So the complaint is alleging that the Treasury
Department granted DOGE affiliated individuals access to sensitive personal and
financial information. A lot of y'all might remember this because
there was like a whole bunch of Congress members trying
to go over to the Treasury Department and get in,
and they wouldn't lift them in. I honestly feel like
that was a big spectacle.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
But whatever.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
So after they filed this case on February six, twenty
twenty five, the parties in the suit mutually proposed an
order that Judge Colleen Caller Coltelli very interesting in the
adopted and it limits the access to Treasury Department payment
records and systems to two special government employees in the Department,
(24:31):
and they have read only access other employees who need
to access the record to perform their duties, or individuals
who are already entitled to access the record under the
statute already have that. So on February twentieth, the Court
issued an order accepting an unopposed motion to modify the
February sixth order, which unopposed means that both parties, the
(24:52):
government and the people who sued, which is the Alliance
who retired Americans, both agreed, and then on February twenty fifth,
following and hearing the previ day, the Court ordered that
defendants shall file the administrative record underline the decisions challenge
in this case, Honor before March tenth, twenty twenty five,
so basically saying that they ordered the US government to
(25:13):
foul an administrative record showing what this decision was so
that people are following it basically. So I hope that
this gave y'all some insight on what's going on. There's
ninety five cases, like I said before, so I only
went through about five or six of them on SECAR.
Remember it was five or six, but I went through
about five or six of them that I felt like
were the most important, especially the ones around immigration and
(25:36):
how that affects black folks, and then also just talking
about the ones with around sensitive information and the different
type of administrative things. I really feel like for folks
who don't pay attention to the federal government, they don't
realize that a lot of this is just like very administrative,
big words, very particular type of things that like you
(25:59):
could go and take a few words out and that
just cause a whole bunch of orkiss and that's basically
what Trump is doing. Trump is saying, I just want
to take out this thing, or I just want to
change just one little thing from this act or this
part of the Constitution, and then of course it's going
to be challenged on it. But I think what's important
people to know is that you do have protections, and
(26:19):
he is going to be challenged.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
On a lot of stuff.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
And like I said before, most of these executive orders
he knows aren't legal.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
He doesn't really care.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
So don't be overwhelmed, you know, just take it all in,
understand what you understand, and if you don't understand something,
you know, you can always hit me up, send me
a message, and not on mind doing an episode or
TikTok or Instagram video to explain, you know, just do
what you can. As I've been saying on my socials,
(26:48):
it's important to be aware but not afraid, informed but
not incapacitated, and educated because this is not the end all,
bey' all. Like this is a a current president, but
like we're gonna move past this. Is it gonna be stressful?
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Yes? Is it a lot? Also? Yes, but it's not
the end all, be all.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
So, like I always say, be sure to follow me
on Facebook and Instagram at the same name.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
The law according to Amber. All right, y'all. Peace,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal: Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a brand new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-4 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.