Analyzing the Court's Decision and Future Legal Challenges

President Trump can't do this through congressional action, And he should take a look around him And he'll soon realize that any effort at a constitutional amendment is a dead end for him because the vast majority Americans cherish birthright citizenship. I'm Jane Koston and this is Way The show wishing forty one year old LeBron James many happy returns as he reportedly plans to leave the Los Angeles Lakers for a new team next season Sure, by basketball standards, he's near in retirement But by political standards, Le Bron James is just a tiny child decades of important contributions to make in the future On today's show, it's the big one We get into birthright citizenship with the woman who argued before the Supreme Court to save it. American Civil Liberties Union National Legal Director, Cecilia Wang. Before we get into all that, here's what we're following today. Tuesday, june thirtieth Let's start with the other decisions the Supreme Court made today The Supreme Court ruled against the rights of trans kids in their ability to play sports with their peers because of course they did in a decision encompassing two cases, one from Idaho and one from West Virginia The court ruled that state laws that barred trans kids from playing sports on girls and women's sports teams did not violate either the Cstitution's guarantee of equal protection, orr title nine which forbids sex based discrimination in education All three liberal justices dissented in the decision In his majority opinion, Justice Pret Kavanaugh argued that the ruling was necessary to quote, Reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition However Trans kids and their families, who are already facing an oppressive federal government and state governments willing to drive them from their homes should take heart. Kavanagh added,Qote, No student athlete on either side of the issue, whether a biological female or transgender deserves to be ostracized or vilified Yeah That'll make it all better. The Supreme Court also erased limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for federal office In doing so, the justices struck down an election law that is more than fifty years old Limits on federal election spending were created after Congress wanted to stop the Uber wealthy from skirting caps on individual contributions to a candidate by just giving the funds to the party itself with the understanding, of course, that the money would be spent on behalf of a candidate Unsurprisingly, the lead plaintiff in this case was the National Republican Senatorial Committee The Supreme Court had previously upheld the spending limits in two thousand one But this is the Republican court. I mean Roberts's Court. now I believe that I owe an explanation to the people of New Jersey's seventh district My colleagues in this chamber and to the American people for my absence Sveral months ago Due to health concerns I entered the hospital for some testing I did not believe that this would result in a long term stay After four months away from Washington, his congressional district, and his duties, New Jersey Republican representative Tom Keeene Jr. revealed on the House floor today that he had spent that time being treated for depression Now when people hear the word depression Many people think simply means feeling sad depression is so much more than that It is physical. It is emotional until you experience it yourself, is difficult to fully understand how powerful This illness can be Keane said he's thankful for the help he received, and he's returning to work healthier and stronger. His reapparance comes weeks after his victory in an uncontested primary and months after he cast his last vote in the House After the speech, King quickly left the Capitol without answering questions from reporters White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vot testified before a House Appropriation sububcommittee about federal spending today and M went As per usual, there were some tense moments, like when Wisconsin Democratic repepresentative Mark Pokan, brought up the Trump administration's dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID Pokan's cited studies, he said, showed people around the globe have died because of budget cuts to the agency vote pushed back on the quote validity of the studies and deny the administration had any part in the deaths. The exchange then devolved into. This Morally, isn't it wrong to facilitate the death of children? Isn't it morally wrong to prod that's a question back with Zbabe? Look, you're not Cfucius or you know, whatever you think you are answering the question with a question. I said, is it morally wrong to facilitate the killing of children your bas simple questioning it on a premise that is okay and I answer that question. My time back Is it morally wrong to facilitate the killing of children? Sounds like a pretty easy question to answer, but hey work for the Trump administration And that's the news Let's talk about birthrights citizenship. The Supreme Court airmed back in eighteen ninety eight that the citizenship cllause of the fourteenth Amendment means that if you're born in the United States, you are a citizen of the United States. And today, some one hundred and twenty plus years later, the Supreme Court ruled again that the citizenship clause of the fourteenth Amendment provides birthright citizenship Most anxiety inducing reboot ever The whole reason this was even up for consideration is President Donald Trump On his first day back in the White House, Trump issued an executive order that would have made the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors, non citizens and rendered them effectively stateless And while six Supreme Court justustices struck that executive order down, three sided with Trump You'll be shocked to know that those justices were Scalia Thomas and Gorsuch What does this ruling mean? and what's next for the actually not controversial issue of birthright citizenship To find out, I talked to Cecilia Wong, national leegal director for the ACLU She argued before the Supreme Court in favor of birthright citizenship. Cecilia, welcome to W Day Thank you so much. Good to be here. What a day What a day, especially for you because today, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's efforts to end birthright citizenship in a six to three ruling, which we'll get into You were part of this. You delivered oral arguments to the Supreme Court in defense of birthright citizenship How do you feel right now Well, I feel relieved and in a mood to celebrate On behalf of our brave clients, our three n plaintiffs and class representatives for the certified class in the Barbara case and for the hundreds of thousands of American families who have been waiting for the decision with baited breath and for the millions of Americans, for all of us, who believe in the promise of equality that is the birthright citizenship clause of the fourteenth Amendment. So You know, it's worth celebrating this moment. even though we never should have been in this position where the President of the United States attacked this cherished pillar of American society But here we are. We got out of it with a defefinitive win by a majority of the Supreme Ct. Yeah. and I mean, again This should have never come up. Birthright citizenship is in the Cstitution. Theupreme Court affirmed that in eighteen ninety eight. I think For most people about according to recent pollings, seven in ten Americans, this was kind of like, yeah, this is it. What was your argument for the Supreme Court? How do you argue something that just seems so obvious Yeah. I mean, here's kindind of the big picture President Trump as with so many of his policies was scapegoating certain non citizens, certain immigrants, people who are lawfully in the United States on temporary visas And I should note, some of those temporary visas leave people in that status for years and years and years, even though they're eligible ultimately to become green card holders and to become U. S. citizens And he's going after undocumented immigrants. and he's using this kind of trope of birth tourism which is actually a minuscule Minuscule problem. About zero point three percent of births That's right and that Congress is already addressed through other laws. So the president is taking aim at certain immigrants who are part of our American communities, our friends and neighbors and relatives U Really he's targeting something far more Fundamental and something that that reaches into every corner of American life The birthright citizenship executive order was part of President Trump's attack on the Reconstruction Constitution. and the second Reonstruction, which was the civil rightights movement's legislative wins And so when the president you know, took aim at the fourteenth Amendment's first sentence He was really fighting uphill againainst the history against the framers, you know, the entire purpose of the framers, as Justice Jackson said in her concurring opinion today The fourteenth Amendment is a repudiation past distinctions in American life. And the president was trying to reinstitute those caste distinctions that it took a civil war to eliminate And luckily, he was unsuccessful with the Supreme Court reaffirming their decision from eighteen ninety eight and saying once again Birthright citizenship belongs to all of us We'll get back to my conversation with Cecilia Wang in a moment, where she'll get into what we actually learned from the court's decision But if you like the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a five star review on Spotify and Apple podcasts, watch us on YouTube, and share with your friends. M to come aftermads This podcast is brought to you by Plned Parenthood Federation of America The Trump administration and its backwarders in Congress are messing around with our health carere They already passed a law defunding Planned parethood that blocks Medicaid patients from getting l saving care. cancer screenings, wellness exams, birth control, SGI treatment, and more And now these lawmakers want to shut down health centers by defunding Plned Parenthood permanently Our communities deserve better. To learn how you can get involved, text or update to two, two, four, two two What today is brought to you by Helen Keller International Here's a little good news. Helen Keller's birthday is coming up, and Helen Keller International is celebrating by helping more children and families around the world live healthier lives Working in twenty countries worldwide, the organization works with local partners to improve nutrition, protect sight, and fight disease with solutions that are proven to work Now through june thirtieth, gifts made in honor of Helen's one hundred and forty sixth birthday will be matched Doubling your impact The gift of one hundred and forty six dollars can help provide essential vitamin A for one hundred and forty six children Visit Helen Keller Nl dot org slash wad and help celebrate Helen's legacy with a gift today Hey, it's Tommy from Pods of America and Podsay the World. Last year, twenty five hundred people joined us at Croked Con for conversations with some of the smartest organizers, least annoying politicians, and most interesting voices in politics talk about how to fix this mess. Even President Obama made a surprise appearance. We're doing it all again november fifth to seventh in Washington DC with even more podcasts, panels and workshops. Plus there'll be drinks, which we'll need after the midterms, no matter which way they go. Get tickets at crookedcon. com. If you're a friend of the pod, you get a discount too. seeee you there Let's get back to my conversation with Cecilia Wong Talking about this decision interested me in reading it, in reading the concurrent opinions and also dissense is that it was sort of a six to three decision Kind of a five to four decision and weirdly kind of a seven to one decision all at the same time. How did you read the judge's opinions We have six out of the nine justices including two Trump appointees, Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Barrett who join the chief Justice along with the liberal justices. in striking down the president's executive order Justice Kavanaugh writes his concurring opinion, concurring in the judgment. which nobody else joins And he says, he doesn't believe that the executive order violates the Constitution because he doesn't believe that he believes that the fourourteenth Amendment citizenship cllause, you know, can change over time which is deeply contrary to what the majority of the court has done recently with respect to other constitutional provisions. Right. I'm like originalism except for right now. Right. So let's put a pin in that. At the end of the day, Justice Kavanaugh says Congress passed a statute at first in nineteen forty and then and again. reaffirming that and re enacting this citizenship law And at the time Congress enacted that statute, everyone agreed. The fourteenth Amendment extxtended to everyone, except for these really narrow English common law exceptions And so Kavanaugh says, look, the executive order needs to be struck down under the statute and he doesn't join the majority on the constitutional holdings. So what that means is that you have five justices of the Supreme Court in a decision by the Chief Justice that is a really powerful repudiation of President Trump's effort to rewrite the text of the fourteenth Amendment This is not about immigration This is about the president's attack on the fundamental principles of reconstruction of equality. as the Chief Justice notes at the end of his majority opinion of emancipation Right. And so You know, at the end of the day, we've got six justices who have definitively said no. to President Trump, and we have a majority of five who decided this on constitutional grounds. which, let's face it, the court already decided Um, you know, over a hundred years ago It seems like Kavanaugh is saying, you know, if you want to change this, you have to pass the law And Trump Already picked up on that. He wrote on True Social in part quote, Congress should start today to work on ending expensive and unfair to our country birthright citizenship. They will have my complete and total support Now to me. It seems kind of dumb to get really all gung ho about dissent and try to pass legislation that's very unpopular, but would it be legal and do you think that would be successful? U You know, I've seen the post that President Trump has has up on truth social already. Let's be really clear so everybody understands who hasn't had a chance to read these opinions The majority of the court says that under the Constitution President Trump's executive order is unlawful and they strike it down on constitutional grounds. What that means is the only way to change The scope of birthright citizenship is to do a constitutional amendment. President Trump can't do this through congressional action And he should take a look around him And he'll soon realize that any effort at a constitutional amendment is a dead end for him because the vast majority of Americans cherish birthright citizenship This is foundational to who we are as a nation And this is goes beyond, as I keep saying, goes beyond immigration It goes beyond racial justice. It's fundamentally an idea that in the United States, and this goes back to our founding The founders of this country wanted to repudiate the historical English tradition of aristocracy They wanted to give every person born on American soil equal rights and opportunities without regard to your parent' status whether your parent is a convicted criminal, or the King They want to treat everyone equally And that of course was imperfect. It was an imperfect promise. It was imperfect Eespoused principal at the founding It took the efforts of free bllack Americans too get birthright citizenship, a universal principle, not just for Black Americans, but for everyone And it took a civil war to get the Reconstruction amendments as a whole That is what President Trump was fundamentally attacking with this executive order, along with so many of his other executive actions. and it's something that the court has now definitively rejected So This ruling is a win, and I want to congratulate you because I know also that you are a recipient of birthright citizenship as are millions of other people in this country Congratulations. You did a great job. The Supreme Court also handed Americans and the rights of many Americans some big losses What are your major takeaways from this term So I think you're absolutely right. We've had some very Major losses, disturbing losses that are deeply harmful to many Americans. in fact, this morning, alongside birthright citizenship The Supreme Court handed us a defeat. in our case the cases that we're trying to champion the rights of transgender girls and women to play sports. in public schools And you know, There there have been so many cases this term Unfortunately, where the Supreme Court returns another provision within the fourourteenth Amendment, the equal Protection Clause on its head We saw in our Louisiana Congressional redistricting case, Louisiana versus Cal A as we saw in the decision that upheld the Trump administration's termination of temporary protected status for Haitians and Syrians contrary to what Congress intended And as we see in our cases on behalf of trans, girls and women this morning, You see a court that's really We got the equal protection fundamentally backwards And in ways that have the additive effect, the cumulative effect of u underndermining the court's fundamental role as a check on the tyranny of the majority. The whole purpose of the equal prrotection Clause was to give marginalized minority groups, politically vulnerable minority groups the ability to go into court to defend their rights There is a serious problem where we see the court Failing. in its fundamental job of standing up for the rights of politically vulnerable minorities against the will of majorities as expressed by these elected officials like President Trump or state officials in West Virginia and Idaho. pass these laws that target, you know, a single teenager, a single child who is affected by the law in their states Cecilia, thank you so much for your work and thank you so much for joining me It's a pleasure. Thanks so much for having me That was my conversation with Cecilia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. Before we go UK politics has had another drama packed week after Prime Minister Kier Starmer announced his resignation Luckily, Nish and Coco, hosts of Podsay of the UK, are here to make sense of it all. Last week, they interviewed the editor of the newew statesman, and Ben Rhodes, co host of Pod Save the World, to understand Starmer's resignation Andy Burnham's p to succession. and what comes next Tune into to Pots of the UK every Thursday for your weekly dose of humor and hope in UK politics That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, ennjoy the broader right wing freaking the hell out over birthright citizenship, and tell your friends to listen And if you're into reading, and not just about how despite the fact that birthright citizenship has been the law of the land since long before every right wing podcaster was born, They're tweeting that the court's ruling means America is over. And Like me, W Day is also a nightly newsletter Check it out and subscribe at crrkut d. com slash subscribe