We got breaking news.
The ACLJ team is celebrating a massive win at the Supreme Court. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.
Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Logan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow for this Friday, and we do have some real big breaking news. You've been following this case for a long time. We have had lawyers on, we've had members of our team on, and this is a big win at the Supreme Court of the United States. Of course, you remember the ACLJ was representing West Virginia, the West Virginia Attorney General, J.B. McCuskey. He'll be joining us later on to discuss this win, and my dad, Jay Sekulow, will break down the opinion in the next segment, so you're not going to want to miss today's show. You know, a lot of times they say, we go on here, we want to talk about what's going on, and now, today, we have a big victory.
So it's a good time to celebrate. Will, let's break down this case, because this is the important one. This is one about the judges. People have been concerned about the judges having way too much strength to shut down a President's agenda. And it looks like, and we'll get into the nuance of it, but it looks like we were right in that situation.
That's right. So this case, and you'll see in the headlines if you're reading online and everything, the birthright citizenship case is what all the media is putting the headlines behind. But in reality, this had nothing to do with the merits of that case, with that executive order on birthright citizenship. What the government took to the Supreme Court was the issue of these nationwide injunctions. Basically, a district judge being able to completely halt the executive branch's policy in perpetuity with just the stroke of a pen by issuing an order saying this is a nationwide injunction while it goes through the court system.
Over and over and over again. We saw it unlike any other presidency in history, where all of a sudden, every time President Trump went to go make a move, a random judge, is what it felt like, a random judge in a random district could halt it all. And of course, the American people, eyes were opened, and they said, this can't be how it's supposed to be. And Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision, correct?
That's right, 6-3 decision. This was authored by Amy Coney Barrett, and it's a wonderful opinion, we'll get into it, but it's based off history, the Constitution, the rule of law. And we'll also get into some of the things that the dissenters, that would be Sotomayor, Kagan, and Justice Jackson, had to say about this.
It's kind of shocking, but we'll get into that as well. We have your dad coming up in the next segment to talk about this opinion and the role we played in it as well. As well as the Attorney General of West Virginia, J.B. McCuskey, will be joining us a little bit later on. Yep, that's right. So we're going to have a packed first half hour, and I'm going to want to hear from you as well.
At 1-800-684-3110. President Trump has been speaking right now, we're going to pull some of the bites that he's speaking on right now when it deals with this specifically. I think he just said that this ruling brings back the Constitution.
That's a very President Trump thing to say. But I do think there should be some celebratory moments here when you realize the Supreme Court of the United States isn't just going to take it, and they're not just going to really relieve, only give judges unilateral control over our government. This is a big, big win, and again, even there are some direct things that come from the work of the ACLJ we'll discuss as well. So when you're like, hey, how the ACLJ was involved, we'll talk about that in the next segment, and see how it directly impacts, when you support the work of the ACLJ, how it can directly impact the Supreme Court of the United States. Because we filed a brief, and that brief was pretty much quoted throughout this. So we're going to discuss that coming up.
Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. And look, this should be a bipartisan matter. It has nothing to do with, as Will said, whether you agree with birthright citizenship, don't leave birthright citizenship. It's more, should the President of the United States, Republican or Democrat, have the ability to do what President Trump was attempting to do? And the Supreme Court, from a 6-3 decision, said absolutely.
Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. Again, a huge win. In fact, the entire Supreme Court term has been a huge win for us, undefeated at the ACLJ. And today, like we said, the Supreme Court issued that major decision. It's a big win for the Constitution.
It's a big win for us at the ACLJ. Let's celebrate today. And you can celebrate with us by joining and becoming an ACLJ champion right now, or just becoming a donor at ACLJ.org. I'm going to encourage you to do that. Know that these are big moments, and we can't do it without you. Join today.
Become a champion. We'll be right back with my dad, Jay Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. Of course, we are celebrating a big win. I think we need to restate Will, what's happening. And then my dad, Jay Sekulow, he's on the phone. We're joining him live to really break down the opinion, but let's go over it for those just joining right now.
And if you are just joining right now, I encourage you, share this show with your friends, hit that thumbs up if you're watching on YouTube, comment. We need to make sure people know this and they can see this, because we have been fighting for this for months and months, where President Trump has had all of these rogue judges who were able to somehow dictate the law of the land, the federal government, it feels like, were able to step in in a way that felt unconstitutional because of the way it was being targeted at President Trump. Supreme Court ruled that it seems like they agree with us on that.
That's right. This was a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Barrett. The dissenters were Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson, the three liberal members of the court. And in what Barrett's opinion held was that some say the universal injunction gives the judiciary a powerful tool to check the executive branch, but federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch.
They resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. We're going to go to Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, Jay Sekulow. And what is your first thought on this very important case? Well, first of all, this is a big win for the administration.
It's a big win for us. In fact, the argument that we put forward was used in large part by Justice Barrett in her majority opinion. And here's what the court said. So you've got a situation where the President's executive actions and other actions were being challenged by citizens of various locales.
And then the court, instead of saying, well, we'll apply an injunction as to those people, they were doing it for the entire country. And there's no precedent in our history, and this is what Justice Barrett pointed out, and we pointed out, too. There's no history precedent for this action. Zero.
None. So when you look at it that way and realize what's at play, this was a 100 percent victory. It stops these rogue judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. I mean, a U.S. District Court judge could stop the administration dead in its tracks for the whole country. And the court said that's not the way our system is set up. That's not the way jurisdiction is set up.
That's not the way the Constitution works. And when you look at the ruling, and I think this is important for the audience to hear, because we think of Supreme Court arguments, you hear that the two sides deliver oral argument. But as you say many times that a lot of times the Supreme Court decisions aren't won during the oral argument. And that is why at the ACLJ we engage in these types of filing amicus briefs, putting forward the briefing for the justices, which is a large part of how they write their opinions. And when you see in this one the arguments the ACLJ was making about Rule 26 of the federal judiciary, as well as even some of the phraseology, like the historical pedigree that was used in the opinion was a phrase that we were using in our own brief. You can start to understand why the briefing is so important for these justices as they come to their opinions on the law. Well, that's exactly correct. And look, we've been at this for 45 years. And the truth of the matter is this. Our briefs are frequently cited by the courts, utilized by the courts, and this was a perfect example of it.
It came out exactly as we anticipated and we were hopeful for. And it's the perfect decision in the sense that it curtails the ability of these judges to stop the administration's actions for the entire country. They could do it for their district. They can't do it for the plaintiffs that's in front of them, but not for the whole country. And that makes a big difference in how these things move forward.
I wanted to talk about that, too, because this is something that's going to be setting precedent. A lot of people think about the fact that President Trump is currently in office as President Trump. This isn't just for President Trump. This is for future Republicans and Democrats, because if you could play this game, it will be endless. It would have been an endless battle for every administration, maybe for the history of time at that point where nothing could get done. It's another way that these judges and really, honestly, the activists can figure out how to stop even what the American people are voting for.
That's exactly correct. And here's the reality of what's happened. This put a check on the judiciary, which, again, coincides with the constitutional directives of a unitary executive. The President makes these decisions. A judge could stop it, but only for their district. No more universal jurisdiction. It wasn't good if Republicans did it. It's not good if Democrats do it.
It should not happen. To break it down just a little bit more for those who are just tuning in right now. So, overall, because, of course, if you start reading one of these wins, you start reading one of the opinions from the Supreme Court, if you're not used to reading the opinions, it can get a little murky.
So, I was reading it, starting to read it, and I jumped to the bottom to go, okay, who voted for it? Because I think that can be a pretty good indication of who voted for what and whether they were being a little bit more nuanced in it. But for those who are just reading this, what, I guess, would be the big win takeaways, and is there anything we need to be looking out for in terms of the way these opinions are written? Well, the big win takeaway is that a judge cannot stop the, an individual judge, can't stop the actions of the administration for the entire country. That's over. So, this judge shopping that they're doing is finished.
And that's really important. And what this means is the President can exercise his authority under Article II. The court's Article III authority is checked in the sense that their jurisdiction is limited to what Congress authorized. Congress did not authorize universal jurisdiction.
There was no history or precedent. It's over. Sometimes, as Logan's talking about, you read, and when, especially when the opinions are rooted in the law, and they are going through the history and things, sometimes you do have to parse out, okay, how big of a win is this? You know, is this very limited to this one case, or is it broad? But sometimes you can jump to the dissents and get a real full picture of how big of a win it is based off how upset the more liberal, philosophically-minded justices are. And I wanted to read this from Justice Jackson's dissent, who has actually surprised us many times by voting in the way of the conservatives, especially on the immunity decision where she was joining the conservatives in that. But she had this to say about this opinion. Perhaps the degradation of our rule of law regime would have happened anyway, but this court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law, as they interpret it, will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise. I don't think I've read something so apocalyptic in a dissent before, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is hilarious. First of all, it's a procedural decision. And it's a good procedural decision. It says courts can't exercise universal jurisdiction.
That makes total sense. But to say this is the end of the rule of law, we know it, is nonsense. I mean, totally incorrect. Great decision by Justice Barrett. Good win for the administration, good win for us. We're thrilled.
All right. Thank you, Dan, for joining us again. Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel to the ACLJ. In the next segment, we're going to hear from J.B. McCuskey-Will, Attorney General of West Virginia. And he was directly involved in our suit here.
That's right. We worked with the Attorney General's Office of West Virginia. And in the brief that we filed was on behalf of the state of West Virginia. So both the attorney general and his solicitor general, as well as our team's names, are all on the front of the brief. And the brief of Amicus Curiae State of West Virginia in support of the applicants is the title of our brief. So it's a win for not just the ACLJ and all of our members, but as well as a client in this, the state of West Virginia, that was concerned about the implications of these district judges, not just on the administration, but how people could then go and forum shop to get nationwide injunctions to try and block things that individual states were doing and trying to almost have state warfare, economic warfare or lawfare against other states by the way that injunctions could be placed and handed down. And so we'll get the take of Attorney General McCuskey in the next segment.
A very busy time for the attorney general. He's able to join us. So that's going to be great to have him joining us in the next segment.
That's right. So stay tuned for that. And then we're going to take your calls and comments. If you're on hold already, stay on hold.
We do have a few lines still open for you at 1-800-684-3110. Once again, a huge win, a huge day for the ACLJ. Friday, you never know what you're going to get on Friday. Sometimes we're having more fun on this show. Sometimes, you know, we want to play you some best stops because we had such amazing content this week and last week.
And we did have some amazing content. We decided we had, when this decision came out at 901 this morning, central time, 10 Eastern time, we said, hey, we have to do this. Our ACLJ supporters, ACLJ champions have been waiting for this moment.
All of our listeners have been waiting for this moment. So I hope you join us. And again, these victories only happen because of you. And I know I say that and you may be like, that sounds just like words, but it's not true. It is true. We need your support to bring on the best of the best and the best of the best. We're just able to deliver a big victory, a big victory that's going to set precedent probably for the rest of our life, which is amazing.
And we can't do it without you. And we're going to hear from Attorney General J.B. McCuskey from West Virginia coming up in just a few moments. But again, phone lines are open for you and I'd love to hear from you. So if you want to call in, great time to do it. Get in line 1-800-684-3110. The back half of the show, second half hour, I'm going to take as many of your calls as I can.
I loved doing that yesterday. Let's do it again today. 1-800-684-3110.
Fill up those phone lines and let's answer your questions about this topic, by the way, or any of the topics that we have discussed all week or that are in the news. We'd love to hear from you again at 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back with Attorney General McCuskey. Welcome back to Secular.
Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. We're joined by Attorney General of West Virginia, J.B. McCuskey, who has obviously been deeply involved in this case through our entire run here at the ACLJ. Of course, he's an ACLJ alum as well, but J.B., I want to get your initial feelings coming after this big win. Yeah, this is a really good one. You know, while we didn't get to the merits of the actual underlying question, the Supreme Court held very sternly that these nationwide injunctions need to stop and that they are unconstitutional. They do exceed the scope of what our district courts are allowed to do, and they are politicizing the courts in a way that is very dangerous, whether it's a Republican or a Democrat doing it. And so we are just tickled, and the best part about this is that much of the language used in the amicus that we co-drafted with you guys was relied upon by the court, and they're holding it.
So we're really happy about this one. It's been amazing to read those and always see what the ACLJ can do and what your team has done, because when I look at this, and you're right, this is something bipartisanship should overtake this win, not just a President Trump win, not just an Attorney General of West Virginia win, because this is going to set precedent for the rest of our life, whether you're Republican or Democrat. And look, if you agree like we agree, that shouldn't matter in the sense that it's not a partisan win one way or the other, but Will, I know you got something you want to share.
Right, and JB, you may have not seen this yet. I know that you probably were poring over the dissents just to see what the justices, the three liberal justices had to say on this opinion. But there is a line I want to get your take on, especially as someone who is an Attorney General of the state, who is very much lives by the rule of law in your everyday proceedings as that officer of the state. And Justice Jackson had this to say in her dissent. Perhaps the degradation of our rule of law regime would happen anyway, but this court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings and the law, as they interpret it, will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise. Is that the feeling you get from this ruling, Attorney General? I generally don't feel like our country is spiraling into chaos when we uphold the constitutional framework that was set up by the framers, for sure.
Honestly, it feels a little on the nose, if I'm being honest. That is a pretty lengthy and weighty thing to say about district courts being able to issue nationwide injunctions. That is probably what prompted the small response to that language by Amy Coney Barrett, too, if I had to guess. And normally you don't see within opinions like that, within the body of the opinion, a direct smackdown, so to speak. And that's what the Attorney General's referencing is that this was written by Justice Barrett. We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.
We observe only this. Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. It feels almost like the time of the founders, like the way they would talk to each other via the news, through the papers. It's humorous, but it's not.
But it is humorous to read this end of the world apocalyptic language when it comes down to whether judges have the right to make these kind of decisions. JB, I'm very excited that we were able to wrap this up also so quickly and that the ACLJ team was able to jump in and help you out. Because we're going to show a little bit later, if you've been watching on social, you've seen some of the clips already, but you and Jordan were so actively involved in this. You were there at the court. Really just being, when the ACLJ team can get behind something like this, it really shows how amazing the work can be done.
Yes, and this is sort of the reason why you build coalitions, right, is to make sure that you have all of the skill you need to do big things. And this is a really, really big win, not just for, obviously, West Virginia, but this is a big win for our country. This is, this scourge of nationwide injunctions was only going to get worse, and we had to step in and do something. And I'm just really thankful that we were able to play a part in this and even more thankful for the six majority judges who agreed with us. JB, thank you so much for joining us. I know that you've got a lot going on, a lot on your plate.
It's not like you just sit around and read opinions from the Supreme Court all day. So thank you for joining us, being able to, on quick notice, when we got this out. Your team is wonderful to work with. We appreciate them and appreciate you joining us on the broadcast today. Yeah, I don't have to read those things, Will. I have use for that.
That's right. Just like old times. You guys have a great day, and we are pouring through this decision, and it really is a good one. And we've got a whole bunch more that came out today that we can talk about next week. All right, JB, thank you so much for joining us. Attorney General JB McCuskey from West Virginia, we're able to have such amazing guests like JB, who again, who also are ACLJ alumni, people that have been part of the team throughout the years. And it's really encouraging to go to this next step and be able to see how our team has been able to now influence the Supreme Court of the United States once again for another generation.
And again, that doesn't happen without your support. I do want to take some phone calls also, and I want to hear from President Trump, because I know that he has been speaking about this. Do you want to play something from Trump?
Let's go ahead. This is from the press conference. He announced early, as soon as this came out, this decision by the Supreme Court, that there would be a press conference with him and the Attorney General.
And Todd Blanch as well. And so this is a bite from early in the press conference. It's still ongoing, but let's go ahead and roll bite six. I was elected on a historic mandate. But in recent months, we've seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the President to stop the American people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers. It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation. In practice, this meant that if any one of the nearly 700 federal judges disagreed with the policy of a duly elected President of the United States, he or she could block that policy from going into effect or at least delay it for many years, tie it up in the court system. This was a colossal abuse of power, which never occurred in American history prior to recent decades. And we've been hit with more nationwide injunctions than were issued in the entire 20th century.
Yes, again, that's from President Trump. Look, in the next half hour, I'm going to hear from a lot of you and a lot of you have called in right now. So if you're on hold right now, Dion, Martin, Brad, John, we've got two that are currently being screened right now.
Stay on hold. I'm going to get to you guys as early as I can in this back half because I want to keep hearing from you because these are the moments. President Trump right now, he is taking questions about this right now, so we're going to go through and make sure that we pull anything that is necessary. Do you feel like we feel you need to hear it?
But again, we have a second half hour coming up. And in that second half hour, we've now heard from my dad, Jay Sekulow, our chief counsel. We've now heard from attorney general of West Virginia who is involved in this, J.B. McCuskey.
And now we get to hear from you, like I always say, the most important voice in the room, because you all dictate a lot of what we get to do here. Because without your support, we're not able to get involved in these cases. We're not able to go and get these big wins. What's big difference about the ACLJ and a lot of other organizations? We don't just go and do anything and ask you for money. We make real legal strategy here. If we didn't think there was a chance of winning, we may not have gotten involved. But the ACLJ team is smart and they know what to do and they know how to work things and they know how to get things done. And our record speaks for itself because this entire term, we are undefeated. Undefeated at the Supreme Court of the United States this year.
It's pretty wild, okay? We can't do that without you because without you, we can't bring on the best of the best. So I encourage you, as we head into the second half hour, if you don't get us on your local station, we're broadcasting live on ACLJ.org, the ACLJ app, YouTube, Rumble, however you get your podcasts, we are there. Of course, you can catch us on Later On Archived. But right now, support the work of the ACLJ.
Become a champion. We've got a big few months ahead of us. We could really use your support right now. This is less than a minute break. So do it right now while you can.
Scan that QR code. We'll be right back. And now your host, Logan Sekulow. Welcome to the second half hour of Sekulow.
We should try that again. Second half hour. Yeah, you started a little rough off there. How dare you?
What? It's Friday. Fri-yay!
Is that a thing you do normally? Fri-yay? After the show. I like it.
Not until 1 p.m. Eastern time. And then I take off this jacket. I relax.
It's cool. Because right now, I'm heated up right now, Will, because we've got a big win. A big, beautiful Friday.
Big, beautiful win. And that, of course, is that President Trump and our team, the ACLJ team and our friends in West Virginia, you know, we were involved in that Supreme Court case saying, I don't know, maybe these rogue judges can't just get involved and stop all of what President Trump wants to do because they happen to be a judge in a local district. It was absurd. We all knew it was absurd. Even people, I feel like, on the left knew it was absurd because you start doing this for Republicans, you're going to start doing it for Democrats. So next time there's a Democrat President, guess what's going to happen? They're going to go judge shop some Republican judges, some conservative leading judges, and nothing will ever get done. Which is precisely what Washington wants, by the way. They want nothing to get done so they can fundraise on you and they can say we're going to go do stuff because if you actually get a resolution, what are we going to talk about? What's going to happen? We don't play politics here at the ACLJ.
We actually take care of the American people and that's what we do. I want to take a call real quick off the top because a lot of people are asking this same question. So let's go to Brad. Brad's calling in Fairfax, Virginia on Line 3. Brad, you're on the air. Hi, gentlemen. Can you hear me?
We can hear you. Fantastic. Okay. Actually, fast two questions. Does this particular CASA case only prevent nationwide injunctions going forward or does it also apply to the nationwide injunctions that have already been levied retroactively?
I'll pause you there because I want to answer that one because that one is one and we'll do our best to get back to your second question because this is one that a lot of people are asking. Essentially, does this retroactively go back and nullify those? The answer is yes and no.
No off the top, but it can be done very quickly. Right. So what will need to happen in those individual cases is the government will need to go and file a motion to have the injunction lifted in light of the Supreme Court ruling.
So it's not like they just disappear and vanish. Now, we will see if the plaintiffs or if the judges try to get clever or try to come up with something. But that is what will need to happen is that they will go back to these other injunctions, file a motion based off the Supreme Court decision and go forward from there.
And it should remove the injunction pretty quickly, as we're seeing happened in this one. Yes, hopefully that answers your first question. What's your second question?
We'll do our best to answer it. I read that it was a partial stay. What about this case? What does that mean in this case?
Right. So it's a partial stay because the court affirmed that injunctions in the specific matter are something courts can do. So for the individual plaintiff, they can issue the injunction against the policy being used against that person while the disposition of the case continues, while they get to the merits, while they appeal it out. So why it was only a partial stay is that the universality of the injunction is what was stayed and that individuals can still seek an injunction against the government going forward. But it's not for, oh, because this one person's bringing the claim, we're going to apply it to every single person on the planet going forward until it makes its way through the Supreme Court.
So that's why it's partial stay, not the injunction individually is still there. Hopefully that answers all your questions. Brad, thanks for calling. We will now have two and a half lines open. This one person's being screened. You never know if they're going to make it.
1-800-684-3110. Again, I want to keep hearing from you throughout this half hour. I like to get all of your voices, all of your opinions.
If you agree with us, you disagree with us, I don't care. I want to hear from you. Just be kind to our phone screener.
That's all I ask. You don't even have to be kind to me. Just be kind to them. You're not kind to them.
I don't think you're going to make it to me. That's how it works. Well, hopefully they're doing their job. Well, we'll see. We'll find out, won't we? We'll see. I don't know who's phone screening today. I do. Well, you know what?
They got to be careful. Phone lines are open for you. 1-800-684-3110. We're going to hear from you. Again, check out all the great free content we have at ACLJ.org and that's because there's no paywall on our content. Welcome back to Secula.
We do have some phone lines, well, not really open right now, but they will open up at 1-800-684-3110. Again, I want to hear from you after this big win from the Supreme Court of the United States and our ACLJ team, our ACLJ. And by the way, I mean team, I mean you as well. ACLJ champions and supporters are really getting a round of applause today because of their hard work. And we actually have, I'm going to play for you a little bit later, a bit that happened at the Supreme Court, right outside of the Supreme Court.
My brother and JB, so you can kind of see what happens. Remember our offices, our headquarters in Washington, D.C., our legal headquarters is directly across the street from the Supreme Court of the United States. Just on the corner there. So they're able to go be a part of this. That's a little bit different with our organization as well. We have two big headquarters here in Tennessee and Nashville where there is sort of this media hub that is being built right now for so many people like us and it's been amazing.
I've lived here for a very, very long time. And then also our Washington, D.C. office, which of course is where our legal headquarters is and that's very important as well. To make sure we are in the thick of it for both the equal parts, media and law. We can't do that without you. We can't have these amazing facilities.
We can't do this show and all of that. But I want to make sure you see a little inside look of what happened there. And I also want to bring up when you say we're in the thick of it, how in the thick of it we are. When yesterday we actually mentioned there was a victory at the Supreme Court where states can effectively defund Planned Parenthood. We had filed in that case. It was a big win for protecting taxpayers from having their money spent on Planned Parenthood. And the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services was excluding Medicaid dollars from Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood sued, saying you can't take our money away. And the outcome of that, which is a victory for life and for the taxpayer, of not having their money go to Planned Parenthood.
Like I said, we filed in that case. Well, as happens in front of the Supreme Court, there were protesters. There were people actually that were pro-life advocates that were celebrating the victory and then there were pro-abortion protesters that were there. So this is a case we'd filed in and had just received a victory. And people we know, Rev. Pat Mahoney, who has been a client of the ACLJs for decades since really the founding, was there with a group of pro-life advocates that were excited.
They were celebrating the victory. And an individual, a pro-abortion protester, came up and got in the face of some of the friends and colleagues of Pat Mahoney and began spitting on them, getting in their face, smacked the wife of the client's phone to the ground, and then fell over and started screaming that this person had been assaulted by the pro-life advocate. The Capitol Hill Police immediately arrested this individual.
Rev. Pat Mahoney called us at the ACLJ. Our offices are right across the street from the Supreme Court. And our attorneys jumped into action, were able to review footage from other individuals there that were celebrating this victory, were able to get on the phone, and were able to get this individual out of jail rather quickly for a false arrest charge. Now, we still have to fight the disposition of the case because there was a charge of assault, but it was a false arrest.
And because we are there in that location, we were able to get a phone call and our attorneys immediately jumped into action to get an individual out of jail. Do we have that clip? This is from Rev. Pat Mahoney. Rev.
Pat Mahoney sent us a clip to show, again, this is on the street, so of course this is like shot with a phone, but I think it's fun to see. We've represented Rev. Mahoney my entire life. I've known him our entire life. He's someone who has been a consistent voice for the pro-life movement, someone who has never wavered, I will say that. Someone who may not be your most traditional conservative. He may not be your Republican, but he has been someone who has been the biggest fighter for life, and I really respect everything he has done.
He's been arrested more times than any of us could count in pursuit of keeping babies alive. Let's hear from Rev. Mahoney. Well, blessings. I'm Rev. Patrick Mahoney, and first of all, I want to thank the American Center for Law and Justice.
They're always there when you need them. We had a dear friend at a pro-life demonstration at the Supreme Court, a significant victory as the Supreme Court voted to allow South Carolina to defund Planned Parenthood. And as often is the case, pro-choice demonstrators came out, they were spitting on us, they were pushing on us, they were assaulting us, and they accused one of our pro-life demonstrators of physically attacking them.
Tragically, they were arrested, but guess what? We sent up the bat signal for the ACLJ. We're outside the jail right now, waiting for him to be released, and I just want to tell everyone, we are so thankful for attorneys who are principled and caring, who support free speech, who support constitutional freedoms, and my dear brother would probably still be in jail if they hadn't intervened. So God bless, and we're waiting shortly for him to come out and greet us. Of course, again, that was from Rev.
Patrick Mahoney, who has been a fighter for life, like I said, my entire life, and has been a good friend of the ACLJ, but it's always nice to see him out there when we can get a big win. And those wins, Will, you actually have a bit of an update. That's right, so from our attorneys, I mentioned there may be things that linger after this arrest, no charges filed against the client, so our attorneys boldly were able to go in there, were able to do a quick on-the-ground investigation by looking at video footage and seeing what happened, and able to not only get him released from jail, but have no charges against him. That is a big win, quick win, that we wouldn't have even had time to tell you about on the show. See all the comments saying, throw out the bat signal.
Yeah, that's exactly right. That's what our team's able to do. And again, longtime friends and allies have just been so important to the ACLJ over our 35-plus years of existence.
I can find footage of Rev. Mahoney younger than I am right now as part of this team, and it's always great to hear from him and to see him. I do want to take a couple calls, and then in the next segment, we'll even discuss more of what happened and how our team was involved with this big win of the Supreme Court of the United States. Let's go, though, let's go in maybe order. Some people may hold for a while. Dion, a little off, but all right, Dion, in Seattle, you're on the air.
Or Seattle, Oregon. Well, congrats, guys, on your big win. I was really getting hurt with these courts trying to block everything the President's doing. But I'm praying for your father. I hope he's doing well, really. He's doing well.
You heard him on the show earlier on. Make sure you stay tuned, but thank you. What's your question? May I digress a bit to something else? It's the economy. I mean, we could try. Let's see where you got to go from here.
What's your question? Well, I'm not sure how I hear the big, beautiful bills having trouble in the Senate. That concerns me. The economy concerns me. And I'm wondering when we're going to start getting our oil drilled here in the country so we can get something done before the midterms so we can actually show we're getting stuff done and give them less to, you know, attack. Yeah, Dion, today is a win for that, though, remember, because obviously President Trump can now go ahead and do a lot of the things that he was being stopped from doing. So take that win today.
It's good. A lot of people have issues with the big, beautiful bill. Look, I mean, you saw a big fight that happened between Elon Musk and President Trump and all of that fallout from that. That's not necessarily what's driving the sort of delays. But whenever you're talking about a bill that has to do with spending and cuts, it's never as easy as it seems. That's right, because the big, beautiful bill is budget reconciliation.
So it essentially has to be revenue neutral, like they have to when they cut from something or add a program here, they have to pull from something else. So that that's the only way you can do it by just having the simple majority 50 votes instead of a brand new thing where you'd have to get above the filibuster 60 votes. So to your point, you have people who are representatives. They represent the interests of different states, even though they may be Republicans. There are different things that different people have concerns about in different states. One of the big issues is the salt cap. That's the state and local taxes cap.
And you have to be able to raise or lower that sometimes to be able to pull from other places. And there is a place where there are people that are from states that have higher income taxes, but they're more Republican, they have Republican representatives that want a higher salt deduction. And so it's some things like that that are nuanced that are fighting. But I do feel confident that they will get that passed. And also about the oil leases. Dion, once again, one of the things that this will affect this bill is these nationwide injunctions, things like oil and gas leases that the Department of Interior announced that people rushed to court to try to get blocked.
Things like against Doge, where it was individuals trying to block Doge, making the government more efficient, which in turn helps our economy. This win today actually helps a lot of those things going forward. And if you look at the jobs numbers, you look at the inflation numbers, the economy is singing right now. It's in a really good spot, but we need many things like these injunctions that can stop the progress of rebuilding the economy in the post Biden era to move forward.
And that's one of the things this ruling today helps with. All right, when we get back, we're going to hear from you. We got a full bank of calls right now.
One line open just because we just took one. So if you want to call in, no guarantee you're going to make it, but we'll try 1-800-684-3110. But Martins, Danhold, John, Wes and David, we'll get to you in the next segment. Support the work of the ACLJ, as I said, and we're going to try to spend a little bit of time, if we do have time, to show you this video we have of my brother and Attorney General McCuskey when they were prepping for this case.
But also, it's available on ACLJ.org, so if you don't get to it, that's a great way to find it. All right, let's wrap up this week strong with some of your calls and comments. Let's go ahead and go straight to it. We've got a lot of calls to get through.
Let's go to Martin in North Carolina, line two. Come on and raise up, you're on the air. Yes, sir. Thank you for taking my call. I'm like Deanne, I had the answer. I can't call the answer, but I can swerve as well, too.
I'm the same line. With the descents that we're seeing now, if it's a mainstream thing, we see some 9-0 votes, but most of them are 6-3, 5-4. Especially with the dissent that Will read earlier, it makes me wonder whether the 3s are really being advocates for the far left, or even more scary, do they even really understand the Constitution? That's where the Constitutional crisis comes in.
It was ridiculous what she said. It is ridiculous, and it does feel very performative, very showy, and that's very unlike the Supreme Court of the United States in a broader historical standpoint. I'll say that in a last 50 years, in our lifetime, until this kind of lineup of court, they've been pretty reserved. You didn't know a lot about the justices. There was almost a mystique behind the justices. Sure, they took very strong opinions, whether it was Scalia or whoever.
You knew where they probably stood on a lot of issues. But you are right that there did seem to be a lot more 9-0 decisions, but not always. It would still always have been one of those courts like this. But the rhetoric of them having to go back and forth through the paper is so bizarre, but also because Justice Jackson decided to make this an apocalyptic sounding moment.
And I can't help but feel like those are career moves. Those are decisions that you're doing if you wanted a good book deal or you wanted a good—I don't understand how that applies to being a Supreme Court justice. You can go out and vehemently say you disagree with it and that you hope another case can get filed, things can change. We've seen things overturned over the years. So it's not like this is the end of the road and the end of the world for democracy, though they do make you feel that way each and every time.
That's right. Even Justice Sotomayor's dissent was trying to make it more about the merits of the case and was saying things like, you know, there are times when it's definitely clear that an overbroad injunction is not the way that it should go. She said there may be good reasons not to issue universal injunctions in the typical case, but then she's saying the one before us, the underlying case, isn't a typical case. So even her dissent, while fully a dissent, was making it more about the case, not about the outcome, about what actually was before them. Because remember, this wasn't about the executive order. This case was about the injunctions. So many on the left of the court were trying to mix the two and able to get beyond the injunction issue to get really into the merits of the case. But that's why I think Justice Jackson's felt so out of left field on this is that it was just bizarre that this literally she says it will surely hasten the court's opinion here will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise. She's saying this is the end of the republic.
This will hasten it. And that just is absurd. Like, it couldn't be further from the truth that saying individual district judges can't just continually block, especially when you look at what the opinion says, is that the federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch. We know that from the Constitution. This was a very textualist decision by Justice Barrett of saying, look at what we know. Look at the history.
And what does it tell us? District judges can't be doing this. And that's exactly what they received.
And for some reason, Justice Jackson decided to take it way further. Yeah. All right. Let's continue on. We got John in Boston. John, you're on the air.
Thanks for taking my call, guys. With that being said, what you just explained, what do we do with judges like Judge Murphy up here in Boston who was ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling and basically saying, you know, I'm going to find you in contempt when you come back. So what John's referring to is that there was the judge that issued an injunction about the President deporting migrants that were slated for removal to a third party country. We saw a decision out of the Supreme Court earlier this week, actually, about that very issue, which said, you know, that they can be moving, at least at this point, move forward. They can be taken to third party countries instead of directly back.
You may think, OK, an Iranian may not be received back in Iran right now or a Venezuelan may not be received back in Venezuela because we don't have a good relationship with those countries. But then the Judge Murphy out of Massachusetts, as you mentioned, John, as you are there as well, has said, basically, it seems like he's going to defy the Supreme Court. I don't know where this one goes, but I know the government is is asking the justices at the Supreme Court to address the, quote, unprecedented defiance of the Supreme Court's authority. So that is something we do need to watch, John.
And we'll see how if there's anything the Supreme Court does, because right now they're in recess. All right, John, thank you for calling. We got two more calls. We got two and a half minutes. We're going to try. Let's go to Wes first. Wes, you're on the air.
Yes. How come the illegal aliens get kicked out, but the people that hired them don't have any repercussions? I don't know if that's necessarily true, Wes, that they don't have any repercussions. And look, we obviously have a lot of issues that we have to get through in terms of employment and verification. It seems like every time they put in some sort of new verification system, there's an easy way around it.
But, Will, you got something? That's how you're talking. Well, I know that Wes, specifically that the FBI and the government is doing things.
This is just from a while ago. No, I mean, but Dan Bongino put up an update that there was a big business that was specifically going around that rules and that, one, they had worked with ICE to handle the issue of the migrants as well, but they are looking at what statutes were violated. Yeah, it's just not making as much news, Wes, but it is happening. And look, I think there's a lot of people who have built their businesses on that, unfortunately, and they're now trying to figure out what to do. That's why I even saw some relief happen for the hospitality industry. Okay, they're trying to figure out how they're going to keep functioning. I'm not saying that's right.
I'm just saying that's the facts. Let's go to David very quickly in Tennessee. David, go ahead. Last call of the day.
Thank you for taking my call. Where does birthright citizenship stand? As it is known, Trump says they have to be a citizen under the jurisdiction.
Hey, David, I'm only cutting you off because we got a one minute left. Here's the real quick answer on that. It will have to return to the Supreme Court, that executive order, because the case is still ongoing. So the individual that, or a group of individuals, because there were several different cases that got consolidated, they still have the injunction, so they still have this in place where they can fight. So you got to start over a little bit. They have to go through the court to try and see where the disposition of the merits of that happens.
But as far as generally, the court said that that order can go into place within 30 days for those that aren't a part of the lawsuit. So we'll see what happens there. We'll see what happens. We'll keep monitoring.
David, thank you so much. Thank you to everyone who watched all week and listened. Whether you're on the Salem News Channel, whether you're watching on Facebook, on YouTube, or Rumble, ACLJ.org, the ACLJ app, or you're listening on Terrestrial Radio or Sirius XM, we're available all over the world thanks to you. We're going to put up great content also over the weekend, so make sure you are following on all social media platforms, subscribing. Over $500,000.
We didn't get those big balloons, but maybe we'll do that next week. Go to ACLJ.org.
