Today on Sekulow, how the Supreme Court's ruling changes everything. 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.
Met now your host. Welcome to Sekulow. I know many of you are preparing to celebrate the 249th anniversary of American independence, the freedoms that we enjoy here. But a lot is going on in this country. And one of the things that we wanted to showcase today is the impact.
and the reality of what the protections of our freedoms And the ability for America to continue in its prosperity. Uh and how a lot of that has changed rapidly. In light of the Supreme Court deciding last Friday that nationwide injunctions. Aren't a thing. This should not happen.
We saw an incredible opinion written by Justice Barrett that was going through the history, even using phrases that was in the ACLJ's brief as we represented the state of West Virginia at the Supreme Court like. Judicial pedigree, historical pedigree, things that we argued before the court were the basis of their opinion, saying that. District court judges should not have the power. to put the entire country on hold. Because they don't agree with policy.
It was historic. We fought hard to achieve this victory so that we wouldn't see imperial judges, as Justice Barrett pointed out in her opinion. That just because someone else may be acting one way. In this case, what is being argued about the executive branch, that the judges don't have the ability. To then put a hold on the entire policy of the executive branch, of the Congress.
They can't issue these nationwide injunctions anymore. But we are at a time when that is exactly what was going on. We saw judges. all over the country trying to block President Trump's agenda.
So I wanted to get back into that today. I wanted to play segments after that great victory. With Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, with the Attorney General of West Virginia, J.B. McCuskie. About how historic this is, but also what it means practically for you and why this was such a good victory.
And all of this comes as you will be celebrating with your family the independence of the United States. But it's something that we here at the ACLJ. are also celebrating. We're celebrating 35 years of justice. The ACLJ has been fighting.
For 35 years, and we've had a lot of wins. We've argued at the Supreme Court, we've defended pro-life laws. We protected students, pastors, churches. We've exposed corruption in Congress and in the Biden administration and the Obama administration. And we've mobilized hundreds of thousands.
of you. to stand with us. Because at the end of the day, the ACLJ isn't just a law firm. It's a movement with a mission. And we fight for justice in the United States.
So, as we celebrate independence this weekend, We also celebrate here 35 years of justice. But this isn't just a party. For the ACLJ. This isn't, hey, let's all pat ourselves on the back at the incredible work that we've been able to achieve over the past 35 years. No this Is calling all of you to stand with us for the next 35 years because we know the attacks on our liberties have not subsided.
And the fights haven't gotten easier. But we are here, we are capable, and we will continue fighting. For the Constitution. For your liberties. but we can't do it without you.
Stand with us today. And your donations will be doubled during this 35 years of justice campaign. You can go to aclj.org/slash 35. That's just the numbers three and five. A C L J.org slash three five.
And have your gifts doubled during our 35 Years of Justice campaign. We'll be right back with more on 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 to 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 we're 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 what Barrett's opinion held was that some say that 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, the position this is a big win for the administration, it's a big win for us. In fact, the argument that we put forward. uh 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 uh citizens of of various locales. And then they corp, instead of saying, well, we'll imply 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 to. 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% 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 on for the whole country. And the court said that's not the way our system 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 forty-five years. And the truth in 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 stay. 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.
Yeah, 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's currently in office is 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 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 those 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 acts 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 two. The court's Article three 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 was 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. Hilarious. First of all, okay, it's a procedural decision.
Okay. And it's a good procedural decision. It says courts can. 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, Dad, for joining us again. Jay Sekill, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. In the next segment, we're going to hear from J.B. McCuskie, 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 individuals. Individual states were doing in 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 McCuskie in the next segment. 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 lights 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. But we decided we had, when this decision came out at 9:01 this morning, Central Time, 10 Eastern Time, we said, hey, Folks, as we celebrate this 4th of July weekend, and I hope all of you are with family. Enjoying the freedom. Yeah.
that our Constitution protects. We at the ACLJ are also celebrating 35 years of justice. The ACLJ has been around for 35 years fighting for the Constitution. For religious liberty, for freedom of speech, fighting government corruption. Fighting things that threaten.
Your rights as Americans.
So as we celebrate. The freedoms we have. We also celebrate the work of the ACLJ. to fight and protect the those freedoms that the Constitution protects as well. We can't do it without you though.
During our 35 years of justice drive, Have your donation doubled, stand with us. as the ACLJ looks forward to another 35 years. of winning? and of beating back the threats to your liberty. Join us today.
Have your donation doubled at aclj.org. Welcome back to Sekulow. Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. We're joined by Attorney General of West Virginia, JB McCusky, who has obviously been deeply involved in this case through our entire run here at the ACLJ. And of course, he's an ACLJ alum as well.
But, JB, 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, this 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're 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 in their holding it.
So we are really happy about this one. 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 a 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 this 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 pouring 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 a 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. And, you know, honestly, that's a little it feels a little on the nose, if I'm being honest. I mean, that is.
That is a pretty lengthy and weighty thing to say about district courts issuing being able to issue it nationwide injunctions. That is a probably what prompted uh The small response to that language by Amikome 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 is 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, you know, like the time of the founders, like the way they would talk to each other via the news, through the papers, through letters. Like it's just kind of It's humorous, but it's not. But it is humorous to read this like end of the world apocalyptic language, right?
When it comes down to whether judges have the right to make these kinds 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 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 you 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 J.B. McCusky 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 Blanche as well. And so this is a bite from early in the press conference that'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 twentieth century. Yes, again, that was 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, Deion, Martin, Brad, John, we 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 is taking questions about this right now.
So, we're going to go through and make sure that we pull anything that is necessary that you feel like 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's involved in this, JB McCuskey. And now we get to hear from you.
Like I always say, the most important voice in the room. Folks, as we celebrate this 4th of July weekend, and I hope all of you are with family. enjoying the freedom and the liberties that our Constitution protects. We at the ACLJ are also celebrating 35 years of justice. The ACLJ has been around for 35 years fighting for the Constitution.
For religious liberty, for freedom of speech, fighting government corruption. Fighting things that threaten. Your rights as Americans.
So as we celebrate The freedoms we have. We also celebrate the work of the ACLJ. to fight and protect. those freedoms that the Constitution protects as well. We can't do it without you though.
During our 35 years of justice drive, Have your donation doubled, stand with us as the ACLJ looks forward to another 35 years. of winning and of beating back the threats to your liberty. Join us today. Have your donation doubled at aclj.org. 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. Met now your host. Welcome to Sekulow.
I know many of you are preparing to celebrate the 249th anniversary of American independence, the freedoms that we enjoy here. But A lot is going on in this country, and one of the things that we wanted to showcase today is the impact. and the reality of what the protections of our freedoms And the ability for America to continue in its prosperity. And how a lot of that has changed rapidly. In light of the Supreme Court deciding last Friday that nationwide injunctions.
Aren't a thing. This should not happen. We saw an incredible opinion written by Justice Barrett that was going through the history, even using phrases that was in the ACLJ's brief as we represented the state of West Virginia at the Supreme Court like Judicial pedigree, historical pedigree, things that we argued before the court were the basis of their opinion, saying that. District Court judges should not have the power. to put the entire country on hold.
Because they don't agree with policy. It was historic. We fought hard to achieve this victory so that we wouldn't see imperial judges, as Justice Barrett pointed out in her opinion. That just because someone else may be acting one way. In this case, what Is being argued about the executive branch that the Judges don't have the ability.
To then put a hold on the entire policy of the executive branch, of the Congress. They can't issue these nationwide injunctions anymore. But we are at a time when that is exactly what was going on. We saw judges. all over the country trying to block President Trump's agenda.
So I wanted to get back into that today. I wanted to play segments after that great victory. With Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, with the Attorney General of West Virginia, J.B. McCuskie. About how historic this is, but also what it means practically for you and why this was such a good victory.
And all of this comes as you will be celebrating with your family the independence of the United States. But it's something that we here at the ACLJ are also celebrating. We're celebrating 35 years of justice. The ACLJ has been fighting. For 35 years, and we've had a lot of wins.
We've argued at the Supreme Court, we've defended pro-life laws. We protected students, pastors, churches. We've exposed corruption in Congress and in the Biden administration and the Obama administration. And we've mobilized hundreds of thousands. of you.
to stand with us. Because at the end of the day, the ACLJ isn't just a law firm. It's a movement with a mission. And we fight for justice in the United States.
So, as we celebrate independence this weekend, We also celebrate here thirty five years of justice. But this isn't just a party. For the ACLJ. This isn't, hey, let's all pat ourselves on the back at the incredible work that we've been able to achieve over the past 35 years. No, this Is calling all of you to stand with us for the next 35 years because we know the attacks on our liberties have not subsided.
And the fights haven't gotten easier. But we are here, we are capable, and we will continue fighting. For the Constitution. For your liberties? but we can't do it without you.
Stand with us today. And your donations will be doubled. During this 35 years of justice campaign, you can go to aclj.org/slash 35. That's just the numbers three and five. A CLJ.org slash three five.
And have your gifts doubled during our 35 Years of Justice campaign. We'll be right back with more on Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. We do have some phone lines.
Well, not really open right now, but they will open up at 1-800-684-30110. 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 get a round of applause today because of their hard work. And we actually have. Um, 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, with my brother and JB, so you can kind of see what happens.
Remember, our office is our headquarters in Washington, D.C., our legal headquarters, uh, is directly across the street from the Supreme Court of the United States, just on the corner there. Uh, so they're able to go be a part of this. You know, that's a little bit different with our organization as well. We have um 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 DC 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 Uh law. We can't do that without you. We can't have these amazing facilities. We can't do the 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 was 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, Reverend Pat Mahoney, who has been a client of the ACLJ's 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 she, this person, had been assaulted by the pro-life advocate.
The Capitol Hill Police immediately arrested this individual. Reverend Pat Mahoney called us. At the ACLJ. Our offices are right across the street from the Supreme Court. And our attorneys jumped into action.
We're able to review footage from other individuals there that were celebrating this victory. We're able to get on the phone and we're able to get this individual out of jail. rather quickly. For a false arrest charge.
Now, we still have to fight and 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? I mean, this is from Reverend Pat McConnell.
Reverend Mahoney, he sent us a clip to show. Again, this is on the streets.
So, of course, this is like shot with a phone. But I think it's fun to see. We've represented Reverend 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 Reverend Mahoney.
Well, blessings, I'm Reverend 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 freedom. 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 Reverend Patrick Mahoney, who's 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, you know, 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. 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 Reverend 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 out of the Supreme Court of the United States. Let's go, though.
Let's go in maybe order.
Some people that hold for a while. Deion, a little off, but all right, it's Deion 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 won't. I'm praying for your father. I hope he's doing well, really. Yep, 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 we're going to go for here. What's your question? Well Uh I I'm not sure how I I hear the 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 could actually show we're getting stuff done and give them less to to uh 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'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 interest 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 a 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.
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 rush 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 Martin, stay on hold. 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 McCuskie 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 got a lot of calls to get through. Let's go to Martin in North Carolina, line two.
Come on, 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 cents 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. Um Especially with the dissent that Will read earlier, it makes me wonder whether the threes are really being advocates for the far left. Or even more scary, do they even really understand the Constitution?
Which is that's where the constitutional crisis comes in. Martin, it tells me it was ridiculous what she said. It is ridiculous, and it does feel very performative, very showy, and that was 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 justice. 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. I mean, it would still always been one of those courts like this. But the rhetoric of them having to go back and forth through the paper is uh so bizarre. But also because uh Justice Jackson decided to make this an apocalyptic sounding moment. And I I can't help but feel like those are like career moves.
Those are decisions that you're doing if you wanted a good book deal or you wanted a good deal. 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, enable 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. That these federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch. We know that from the Constitution.
This was a very technical. Textualist decision by Justice Barrett. I'm 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 is ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling?
And Basically saying You know. Yeah, exactly. I'm gonna find you in contempt if you 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 uh which said you know that they can be Mm. At least at this point, move forward, they can be taken to third-party countries instead of directly back. You may think, okay, 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 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. Don't know where this one goes, but I know the government 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, I How come? The illegal aliens get kicked out.
But they 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 and all that. 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?
I just saw you talking.
Well, I know that John, or Wes, sorry, not John, specifically that the FBI and the government is doing things. This is just from a while ago that I. 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.
I can't make it 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. 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. What is birthright citizenship? Folks, as we celebrate this 4th of July weekend, and I hope all of you are with family. enjoying the freedom Yeah.
that our Constitution protects. We at the ACLJ are also celebrating 35 years of justice. The ACLJ has been around for 35 years fighting for the Constitution. For religious liberty, for freedom of speech, fighting government corruption. Fighting things that threaten.
Your rights as Americans.
So as we celebrate The freedoms we have. We also celebrate the work of the ACLJ. To fight and protect those freedoms that the Constitution protects as well. We can't do it without you, though. During our 35 years of justice drive, have your donation doubled.
Stand with us as the ACLJ looks forward to another 35 years. of winning and of beating back the threats to your liberty. Join us today. Have your donation doubled at aclj.org.
