We have breaking news as the Supreme Court releases historic opinions. We'll break them all down for you today on Sekulow. 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. Welcome to Sekulow. Will Haynes here, Jordan Sekulow, joining me in the studio. Today was the final day of opinions for the Supreme Court's term, as they normally like to get out before the July 4th holiday.
They were able to get the rest in. What we see here are, as per usual, the most contentious issues end up being the ones that they released last. We had decisions in the executive order related to birthright citizenship. That case, Trump versus Barbara, was decided and the opinion written by the Chief Justice. We had a National Republican Senatorial Committee versus the Federal Election Commission.
That is a campaign finance ruling that the ACLJ filed in. We'll break that down for you as well. That opinion was written by Justice Kavanaugh. And then we also had a second one from Justice Kavanaugh, which related to biological males playing in female sports at the state level, where states like West Virginia and Idaho had laws banning that, and the questions around Title IX and equal protection. All of those issues came up.
That was also authored by Brett Kavanaugh. We're going to break it all down. We hope to have the Attorney General of West Virginia, J.B. McCuskey, who obviously was a big case for his state, West Virginia. We will see, obviously, a very busy day.
If we don't get him today, we'll have him on soon. But, Jordan, the most contentious, always the final day, and that's what we got today. And the ramifications of the case. Out of West Virginia, that I believe 25 other states, so 26 states in total, the Red Stain AGs, all joining in very clearly and saying this is not about going at being anti-trans people. This is about protecting women's sports and girls' sports.
And so, while we've had this debate going on in the country, what we're talking about here is state sporting.
So, we're talking about high school. We're talking about younger kids. We're not talking about what happens in college and what happens with the NCAA and these other entities. We're talking about states that have said we're not going to have genetic boys on girls' teams. And we're not going to do that.
We're just not going to allow it. And we have a history of people who have been injured. We're seeing these races being won, you know, by 10 times faster by those who are born as boys and competing as women.
So, all it does. And I think West Virginia and I think those other 25 states that joined with West Virginia and the Supreme Court as a father of two daughters and a son and watching them grow, even though my son is the middle child, you see the strength difference already between him and even his older sister by a few years, older sister. And you can already see some of the strength difference imagined as that plays out.
So it's a huge win for all of us who are parents and especially those of us who have little girls as well as boys.
Well, and once again, that opinion was handed down and was a very conservative opinion in the sense that it said the states can make their laws. This isn't a constitutional issue as of this point. Right. They have not made a universal national ban.
So, this is very much going to be battles that happen in your state.
Now, like we said, many states, more than half, I think. Already have laws doing this. And so they were waiting for the Supreme Court so that they could clarify those laws. The question for you is that if you're a state that is not covered and you're in one of these blue states that wants to push further and further. And you've got a great athlete who happens to be female.
Uh uh a daughter. Do you stay in that state? when you know that it could be tough to ever reach the podium. And we've seen it already happen because they are having to compete against boys. And that's what the Supreme Court said: you do not have to allow in your state.
They didn't say your state can't do it.
So it's a choice: you got the right to travel in the United States and the right to live where you want. People should think about that now when they are deciding on a move. Folks, when we get back, we're going to talk about the other decisions from the Supreme Court and the big one on birthright citizenship, that executive order. We'll let you know how it came down and the analysis when we come back on Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow, and I think we're going to dive right now into Trump versus Barbara.
This is the most contentious issue of the term, obviously. This was the executive order from the President that kind of redefined or defined even in a way because of the way it's written the way that citizenship would be conferred on those that are born in the United States. This was trying to restrict the citizenship granted to those that are born here to parents that are not citizens of the U.S., whether they come here illegally, whether it is through a travel visa, they come here, have their child. They call it birth tourism is a term. Here's what happened.
The majority of the court, which was Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson. Uh they affirmed That's what the Fourteenth Amendment is saying is that if you are born here. You are granted citizenship. There has been some pushback saying that the court didn't have to go that far. They could have just ruled on the executive order.
So that's some of the chatter I'm hearing. But you also see how contentious, even within the court, It was because you're seeing a concurrence by Justice Jackson for different reasons than what the chief wrote. You see Justice Kavanaugh concurring that the executive order must be struck down. That federal law would give them citizenship, but he's not willing to rule that the 14th Amendment's text says that. He's saying if this was done through the legislative process, I may have a different decision here.
Exactly. Then you have a dissent by Justice Thomas, who was joined by Justice Gorsuch, a dissent by Justice Alito, another dissent by Justice Gorsuch.
So you're seeing a lot of different opinions and a lot of different reasons for not agreeing with this. Here's a key takeaway: this is from our attorneys because we have a wonderful team here that as soon as not only are they working on their cases, Jordan, but as soon as these comes down, they're writing memos for us. They're giving us the analysis as well. This is a key takeaway from Nathan, who wrote this for us. It's a 6-3 outcome affirming broad birthright citizenship, but the court is sharply divided on the why.
Five justices read the clause as adopting the traditional soil rule with almost no exception, so being born on American soil, while three insist. On a narrower domicile plus exclusive allegiance test. That would be the minority that dissented in this. This split will shape future fights over immigration enforcement and any congressional attempts to limit birthright citizenship.
So, right there, one, and this is something I said yesterday, Jordan, that when. You see the left try to attack the Supreme Court as being packed by Trump, or they need to expand the court so they can get their way. The fact that we are getting decisions that may not make everyone happy shows that it's working. This is the difference, folks, between Republican and Democrat judicial nominees. And when I say that, I mean it's not the nominees themselves who are placing that partisan rule, but when they are nominated by a Republican or Democrat President, you basically know where the Democrats are going to go 99.9% of the time, they're going to be in agreement.
They're going to be their block. And it's going to have a, you could almost not have any briefing on it. You could almost not have any argument. You could just literally read, what is this case about? What does it entail?
And you'll say, you know what? They're going to figure out a way to rule for this side. Whether they're in the majority or not depends on the politics of the day, but they're going to figure out how to go with the side that they agree with the most on a philosophical matter, not on whether it's legal or not, or what's best interpretation. Of the Constitution and statutes. The difference between the conservative nominees is that on the same day that you can have restrictions, we haven't talked about this yet, totally knocked down between campaign finance, between the actual RNC or DNC and campaigns.
And there were all these limits into how much they could coordinate and whether free speech came into that. And the court, again, equally divided there. Conservatives said, you can do this. This ban is wrong. I mean, you look at that.
You look at, again, the continued cases of you go from birthright citizenship, but then you go into the issue of girls and boys' sports. And again, it aligns very closely with what you think politically. Not necessarily what's rational or legal, but it's like, you know what? Because the politics of those who nominated me support this issue, even though they may not be legal scholars, I'm going to figure out a way to get there for them. And I will be that dissenting voice if I have to.
So the same day, you can have the boys banned from participating in girls' sports, which is a decision I think most Americans agree with, right and left, if you're actually telling the truth. And it's less and less places where people feel comfortable doing that.
So then you get to birthright citizenship, a little bit more complicated.
So, does this line and how it's interpreted, is it going to hold? As of now, it's going to hold. I think if you were at that oral argument, I was. It was extremely complicated, which is why I think, Will, you've got all these opinions and different dissents coming out. Is it over?
Maybe for now, but not necessarily for the future because there were so many different views about why it was right or why it was wrong. And then, of course, you look at these cases. Will, I get you go through every one of them. On the EOs, on the ability to appoint and get rid of these. This was yesterday, of course, the Labor Relations Board versus the Fed, all of that.
I mean, we are. In an interesting point at the U.S. Supreme Court, where, yes, there have been cases that have increased Presidential power. At the same time, the same court. Has issued opinions that actually pull back on some of the power that they just created in a case that was announced, you know, just moments before.
Right. Yeah, exactly. When you looked at there was almost some confusion, and within you had the board member, but not that board member. Yeah, the FTC versus the Fed, right? Yeah, is that really going to stand long term?
That remains to be seen. And they were able to kick the can a little on that case because they said, well, there was no hearing on the misconduct.
So at least have the misconduct hearing and then see what happens. But they also said it wouldn't necessarily be barred by this.
So I think, again, the court is going in a direction that I think most people philosophically understand, but the left is going to make every one of these out of politics. You know, it's a huge loss for President Trump on the executive order. But the interesting thing about the executive order is if you go to that Kavanaugh kind of phrasing there, it's saying this might not have been the best route to do it. I am not holding today that you can't do it. And it doesn't necessarily.
Need a constitutional change.
Now, we have an aging court right now.
So, we believe we will see shifts in the court in the next few years. And that will, of course, depend on how that court shifts, will depend on who is the President of the United States. And again, it is frustrating to be on the side where, unfortunately, we can't just say, well, this case, we're going to, 99% of our people, our justices are going to vote this way and occasionally get thrown off. We are in the intellectually honest party, where people who believe the same basic principles can still get to a different opinion using the same analysis. And I think we respect that in the United States.
It can be frustrating. Sure, I absolutely get that. But that is what you do when you have intellectual honesty. And that's what the left is lacking.
Well, and once again, intellectual honesty, even media honesty. We saw something today that was quite unique. And Rob is in South Carolina. We're going to get to you in the next segment.
So hold. On there, Rob. But if you want to call and have questions about these opinions, call us at 1-800-684-3110. We'll break it down for you and we'll try to answer any question you may have on the way that the court ruled. But when you start to look at also, The media.
Nina Totenberg, who's normally actually very good with her sourcing at the Supreme Court. She's the legal analyst and journalist at NPR, has been there a long time. Normally, if she's printing something, then she's got very good sourcing. NPR ran and published That Justice Alito, was retiring from the Supreme Court. There's the headline if you're watching.
It says: Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the opinion over turning Roe versus Wade, retires. Moments later. NPR had to retract that story. And this is what it looks like if you went to that page.
So people tried to share the link. Editor's note: NPR retracts the story. Jordan. We still may see an Alito retirement because Nina Totenberg normally wouldn't have written that unless she had sourcing that at least led her to believe it was very close to being true. They obviously had a story ready to publish.
Yes. It has not happened yet. But once again, that's the media trying to get out ahead of stuff. And unfortunately, this is because of the media cycle. There's a number of those stories already ready to go.
Even if people passing away sometimes, they have the block print ready to go based off of just so that they can rush to the media and then kind of fill in the parts. Does this mean that it's not going to happen? Absolutely not. Uh What it does mean is that someone made a phone call and said, I did not say to run this. It could have been her.
Or it could have been from the Supreme Court and called and said, there's been no planned announcement yet, and you need to make clear that this is wrong. Does that mean that tomorrow or Monday, Justice Alito may announce something? No, of course not. He can do that whenever he wants. Could be this afternoon.
Uh but It was a very kind of bizarre, again, to a day that was already busy enough. To throw that wrench in was unnecessary, by the way, by the mean. It's not like they needed help getting clicks right now. You've got probably more clicks on SCOTUS because it covers so many different issues today, from birthright citizenship to Presidential power yesterday, all of these issues all together. Again, Will, I think, you know, for those who watch the Supreme Court, it's been a very interesting morning.
That's right, and we're going to take your phone calls on the next segment on this and break down this Federal Election Commission case when we come back on Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. Will Haynes here, joined by Jordan Sekulow in studio, and we're breaking down these opinions from the Supreme Court. I briefly want to go over this before we get to phone calls, because this is something that the ACLJ filed in, and it's an NRSC versus the Federal Election Commission. And what this does is it challenged rulings from the FEC that were put in place to limit how much a political party so if you are a candidate that is running for office under a political party, Republican, Democrat, even Independent, It limited how much that party that you are running for office under.
can coordinate with you on ad spends, on buying advertisements. I know people love a good political ad, so this is going to get people fired up. But when you look at it, it is a First Amendment issue. Is putting guardrails and things on the First Amendment, which are not in the text of the Constitution. And I think a lot of this, when you look at it, it's important, even if you don't love political campaign ads, or you're like, I don't know if I want the parties to be able to spend more.
If the If the FEC, a part of the executive branch, without legislation, can limit your speech. Or a party speech, or any, if they can start limiting First Amendment rights, whether it be for a party or a candidate. then you can start to see other executive branch Entities, bureaucracies, find ways to limit freedom of speech. on their own terms. And I think so when you look at this, it's not just even about spending money in campaign ads.
It is truly a First Amendment issue. And when the ACLJ is able to file in these things, It is to uphold and support the First Amendment first and foremost. Let me just be clear to people. The Supreme Court has had a history going back into the 70s that political speech includes financial moves because that's a way you can speak on behalf in support of a candidate.
So, you taking your own resources or an entity taking its own resources to get behind a candidate is a way for that speech can actually be conducted. That it's not just the symbolism of you've got to be on the street corner or the bumper sticker, but they are saying it's similar to the bumper sticker. It's similar to going door-to-door because you're providing resources of your own to the candidates and political parties that you prefer. I will walk you back to 2004, first time I worked in a Presidential election where a lot of these big restrictions kick in because you're dealing in all 50 states. And so, for the first part of the year, I remember the fundraising team, finance team, as it'll often be called.
This was Bush Cheney re-elect 2004. I was in the same office with us from the political team. Then, about, and it was because of deadlines, there were like those 90-day things, six-month things. That the finance team, for the most part, moved next door. It had a different name.
It was like Bush Cheney 04 Victory Fund. Right. And so you would have these funds set up. They would then be in charge of fundraising. We would still be producing content, but it would be that content that you could pull offline and make into your own videos, make it, and they were unrestricted.
So they did not have to follow the restricted fundraising rules that federal candidates have. What are the $2,600, $2,700 you could do for both one for the primary and again for the general?
So it's closer to almost $6,000 per individual. And you can make that donation at one time. But then they split off. And so it created this whole industry of all of these separate types of groups. To be able to raise money, but then not coordinate.
And what the Supreme Court said today is that if, again, these are all people coming together and again, using their rights, using their financial ability to speak. into the political process. And you can speak to the political process by providing the candidate of your choice. enough resources So there's speech. Is amplified.
That could be through online. That could be through ads. It could be through traditional advertising. It could be through t-shirts and hats and bumper stickers or events. But in a sense, all of that is speech, and speech is so protected in the United States that when you're spending your money, the government shouldn't be able to tell you: well, if you donate to this group, they can only spend it this far.
It's different than voting, you know, than actually supporting for the candidate. It was also a joke.
Okay. I mean, this whole idea is we were playing with smoke and mirrors that I think always made many of us in the political side slightly uncomfortable. Maybe, maybe the election law attorneys liked it more than those because you were constantly having to get approvals over sometimes very mundane spending. Because you were worried about the penalties and even criminal penalties that could arise out of a mistake in whose money was spent to do what activity. I think we should go ahead and take this call.
We've got about three and a half minutes left in this segment. This is Rob calling from South Carolina. Maybe it'll encourage you to call as well if you have questions about some of these opinions that came out of the Supreme Court today. Rob, you're on Sekulow. Go ahead.
Yeah, can you hear me? We got you, Rob. Go ahead. Okay. I'm not.
On the birthright citizenship. What constitutes subject to jurisdiction And then what constitutes allegiance? See the United States.
Okay, so what the big hinge question here in the 14th Amendment is that question you're asking. It says, All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. That is the text of the 14th Amendment. And the what the Supreme Court ruled was that. In this, and it's a lengthy opinion by the Chief Justice, that effectively that phrase, if you are born here, you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
That obviously is what the issue with some of the dissents are still arguing that, saying they disagree with that. But this is the majority held, Rob, that the citizenship clause guarantees birthright citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States, including those whose parents are unlawfully or temporarily present, because it incorporates the common law rule of just solely without a domicile requirement. And the quote, subject to the jurisdiction thereof means full territorial power rather than exclusive allegiance or permanent residence.
So that is what the Supreme Court. Argued in their majority opinion. That's what they held, rather.
So that's the answer to your question. I know you also said. Uh to the screener. How could they rule in favor of birthright citizenship when people that are applying for citizenship have to prove their allegiance to the United States? That's a different test.
That is a naturalization process, which is through a different process that is set up legislatively, that the government can naturalize someone to be a citizen, but completely different argument because even those would be people who would not have birthright citizenship. And if you are born here to American citizens, so take out even the argument of that here. You get citizenship without proving your allegiance to the United States if you are born naturally two citizens of the United States.
So, two different processes. Yeah, and so it's been an expansion of. Uh and really a clarification of what it means. Uh to receive who can receive Birthright citizenship. There are still some exceptions within this, foreign diplomats, children, and things like that.
But the idea, and I knew this all along, too, which was. likely is that it's it's One thing to punish the parents of illegal immigrant children who were born here because they decided to break the law, but the child had no say in that. And then they end up born in America. And so, where should their citizenship fall? When it was really not them that were breaking the law, but their parents.
So, I mean, it was a complicated case. It's one I think we'll keep looking at as well, but for now, that's been settled. As Will said, it is different. It is very different. And we will be back with more on Sekulow.
Support the ACLJ and all the work we do at aclj.org. Consider donating today. Yeah. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow.
Welcome back to Sekulow, second half hour of the broadcast. We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110 as we talk about all of these opinions that came down from the Supreme Court today. And we had a Rumble comment that said, because we were talking with a caller in the previous segment that was asking about the difference in allegiance, the subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And what we are doing, once again, is explaining what the Supreme Court held today. Uh and and that is once again There are probably within this office 100 different opinions on the opinion here.
But one person said my answer was circular logic. It's different because it's different. Because he was asking about the naturalization process as opposed to the birthright citizenship issue. And those are two different processes. Very different.
And that's where you're looking at the 14th Amendment. Uh it talking about the People born on United States soil issue versus someone who. Has citizenship somewhere else, comes to the United States and is trying to gain citizenship post-birth, yes. They are different because those are two different processes. One is born, one is naturalization.
And that's where there is a lot of confusion and why you had to go to the Supreme Court. Naturalization is a much longer process if you're coming in from a different country. That's when you see those ceremonies of people taking their oath, the United States. That is, again, It's not circular reasoning. It's not the same thing.
Those are people who are born outside the United States. There's not even a question about their U.S. citizenship. They have lived in America usually. They've had a green card first, and now they would like to apply for U.S.
citizenship, which can take years and is no guarantee. They go through a rigorous process. It involves testing, background checks, economic checks to make sure that they are not going to be an economic burden necessarily on the United States. But we don't do that for is people who are born here. Those are again, that's birthright citizenship, not naturalization.
We don't have to go through that. You know, if you were born in the United States, you did not have to go take an oath. You did not have to prove to any quasi-judicial system through the immigration services courts that you should be an American. And why? You're just born with it.
And it's a great blessing to be born with it, but it's a too Two totally different tracks, one which is automatic, one which is never guaranteed. And I'd say to underscore that now, there's a little more clarity now, not fully, but a little more clarity now on, okay, who is right in this very fast-paced, easy world where it's so easy to travel and be in different places in just hours. Who should be able to get that birthright citizenship? And the Supreme Court has basically made it about as wide as possible, except for the normal exceptions that have been in place forever, which is foreign diplomats and things like that. Because we also acknowledge that if you are a child to an American military or someone serving in the U.S.
government and you're born overseas, that you are actually a naturalized, you are a birthright citizen, even though you were born outside of the United States because your parent or parents were doing a job for the United States in a foreign country.
So, not to get overly complicated because it doesn't have to be. This case was to kind of clarify when you've had a big illegal immigration surge, what do you do with generations two, three, and four that didn't necessarily make the decision themselves and not as adults to cross the border illegally? They could have been a baby, they could have been three years old, they may not even know. That they were here illegally.
So, what do we do there? And the one thing was: it was that you could deport them and deny citizenship. And these other options were: no, that it says if you're born here and you're subject to this jurisdiction. For you yourself aren't American by birthright. And that is what the court said today, like it or not.
So I'm just trying to explain it to everybody because we're talking about different Supreme Court cases and different kinds of reasoning all throughout the show today. And that's what's great about the ACLJ: it's been spending since about. Six in the morning, trying to go through everything, and they started coming in to get my head around it so I can explain it as best to you today. And I know Will's been doing the same thing. That's right.
And we'll be back. I know, Janice, Rhonda, you're already on the phone. Lines are jammed. We're going to get to calls a little bit later. We got Rick Rennell next, but we're going to keep breaking this down for you here on Sekulow.
We'll be right back with more. Welcome back to Sekulow, Will Haynes in Studio, Jordan Sekulow, as well. And we are joined right now by Rick Rennell on this holiday week as we head towards the 250th birthday of these United States. We also have to start off that week with, you know, some contention around rulings at the Supreme Court. What's more American than disagreeing on policy and things of that nature?
But, Rick, I did want to bring this to you because you're my favorite person to try to make you explain why the media is the way they are. But we had this, this earlier. They are so excited, the NPR. They ran as soon as all these opinions are out with a story from Nina Totenberg, who normally has good sourcing. and published that Justice Alito is retiring.
and they immediately had to retract that story. They published a headline: Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the opinion overturning Roe versus Wade, retires. Byline, Nina Totenberg immediately retracted the story, saying, Editor's note, NPART retracts this story. Why is it so hard to to just do your job these days. Look, someone like Nina Tottenberg, who had really a lock on the Supreme Court reporting for a very long time.
She's very upset that there are new people that are watching. And these are people that are not famous. They're people in and around the Supreme Court on Twitter who have better sources. And so she is rushing to be first on big stories. Because she's trying to maintain her grip.
But I think that she fell behind a long time ago. And this is just the latest in in her Inability to get the truth. Remember, she's been one of the leading journalists that, when we had the leak. From, I think, a year or two ago, that came out of the Supreme Court right before a very hot political ruling. She's the one who immediately went and tried to cover up.
The people who are leaking against Supreme Court justices. And I don't really care what the issue is out of the Supreme Court. We need to have people who work at the Supreme Court who don't have an agenda, who are leaking pieces of information to make themselves look good.
Now, this is clearly somebody that Nina. Relies on inside the Supreme Court that she thinks is in the know. But once again, I think her sources are partisan and not very reliable. And she's listening to them and pretending like they are reliable.
Well, and once again, I go back to what you said about how there are these individuals that are in media that became what they thought were the kings and queens of media, that they owned it all. Nina Totenberg, obviously, for a long time, was probably the most reliable source on Things Supreme Court. She built that legacy media style reporting that is no longer. Where you're going to get the best reporting anymore. And you even see.
Today, as this this uh talk With Skydance potentially merging with Warner Brothers and CNN, which would be absorbed into this organization. Where you've already seen the havoc at CBS because they're so upset about someone like Barry Weiss, who left the New York Times not because she was conservative, but because she was. Audacious enough to allow Conservative voices in the opinion section. You know, kind of her job, having differing opinions. Left there, now the editor-in-chief at CBS News.
Would be over CNN if that deal goes through. You have legacy. But people who think they are the king of all media. Anderson Cooper sang he would not work for someone like that. What are your thoughts on that, Rick?
Look, we have these reporters who have become so ego driven that they think that they're the bosses, right?
So you have Anderson Cooper who says, well, I wouldn't want to work for somebody that the new owner would bring in.
Okay. Well, then don't work for them, but that means you're going to go find a new job because You don't get to decide that. But we have a whole group of media people who think that they get to decide that. They think they're in control of the media. They think that they're in control of the media outlet.
And we've seen that at The Washington Post, where reporters who are let go are furious But then when you peel back the layers, you realize that they were let go because financially the paper is doing very poorly. And so business leaders have to make business choices. But it's running up against the egos of the media, and we see it every single day. There is a new example of the hubris that the media are pushing forward. There is actually an update to the story that I first asked you about, the NPR Nina Totenberg story.
This is from the editor-in-chief, Tommy Evans at NPR. And this is a statement on that retraction. It says, due to a misunderstanding. NPR Supreme Court and legal affairs correspondent Nina Tottenberg incorrectly reported that Justice Samuel Alito had retired. Neither Justice Alito nor the Supreme Court Public Information Office has announced his retirement.
As soon as that error was realized, the story was retracted and removed from NPR's website, and an on-air correction was broadcast. We regret the error and any confusion this may have caused. This afternoon, Ms. Totenberg will appear on All Things Considered to explain what happened. She has reached out to Justice Alito to apologize.
That is telling to me that this wasn't an error like many times news organizations have a retirement story ready to go, an obituary ready to go for celebrities that are out there that are getting up there in age, things of that nature. This wasn't an intern or someone that accidentally hit publish. Nina Totenberg fully believed he was retiring when this story went up. That changes a lot, especially about someone who is so historically trustworthy about the court.
Well, let's be honest. What this really shows is that there is no Editor process checking these egos because Nina Totenberg is allowed to hear from a source or from somebody and immediately report it. And there's no one slowing down the process to say, can we double check this information? It seems like a big story. She is allowed to go public with information without going through an editor.
That's quite shocking. Very telling about the state of NPR news. As you say, that even the editorial process, the basic editorial process is not being followed there. Um Once again, it says due to a misunderstanding. We're going to maybe find out from Nina Totenberg on all things considered explaining this.
But was this misunderstanding just a staffer or a clerk at the court saying, I really wish Alito would retire? I mean, what other kind of misunderstanding could there be? Rick, thank you so much for joining us today. We'll have you on a little bit later in the week as well. And break down whatever else is coming at us this week.
But, folks, it is a holiday week. I know a lot of you are already probably celebrating the 4th of July. It's such a wonderful time of year, every year in the United States, but this year, even more than most, just because we celebrate this 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. As we look forward, I know we have a lot of great content coming out for you in this month of July. You're not going to want to miss.
We appreciate those of you that. Are with us today that are watching, that are getting this breakdown. A lot of people, especially with a short week, like to take off and go ahead and start that celebration. And I applaud that. I love that we can live in a country where we have the freedom to do that.
But if you're watching today, go ahead and subscribe to the channel. If you aren't already, give it a like, comment where you're watching from, or any question in the chat. I appreciate that as well. But we will be back with more of your phone calls. You can join us as well: 1-800-684-3110.
Rhonda, David, and Janice. Don't go anywhere. We're taking you in the next segment. But I do want to encourage you as we wrap up the month here. It's crazy that tomorrow is July 1st, that we are already.
More than halfway through with this year. And we get to start really focusing on that celebration of the 250th. We know, as Benjamin Franklin said, it's a republic if you can keep it. And part of the work of the ACLJ is ensuring that we can keep it. That is why we fight.
uh so vigorously for our clients when their rights are violated. It's also why We will give you a nuanced breakdown of Supreme Court opinions that you may not agree with, we may not agree with, but we're going to talk about it. We're going to talk about the nuance that exists. And we're also going to tell you why this isn't the end of the country if you disagree with a Supreme Court opinion. In fact, it shows you that the Supreme Court is working and doesn't need to be packed, expanded term limits like the left wants if they get their way in the next election cycles.
It's working the way it was designed. You're not going to agree with everything in this country. But that is the beauty of this country is that you have the freedom to not agree. You have the freedom to be upset. You have the freedom to speak your mind.
That's unique about this country. Not even some of our greatest allies can you get away with speaking your mind anymore without being threatened or being put in jail. What a great place it is. Support the work of the ACLJ as we fight. to continue to protect.
This Republic. Go to aclj.org today. Welcome back to Sekulow, final segment of the broadcast. We're gonna go ahead and take your phone calls. Rhonda has been on hold the longest.
Rhonda, you're on Sekulow. Go ahead. Thank you. Thinking about the birthright citizens citizenship. Excuse me.
That is For a child that is born here, correct? Correct. Yes. Okay, so And that being the case, why is it that the parents automatically get to stay? They have a baby.
They should be sent back to wherever they come from. And if they want to take the baby with them, fine. If they want to leave it, him, there's a lot of people that would love to have a newborn baby. Rhonda, so one thing I do want to differentiate: nothing in this opinion speaks to that. Um to their Some of even the concern with the executive order, as it was written, Was that some of the people that are getting citizenship by being born here are not even staying here?
That these are parents that. They call it birth tourism. They come to the United States, they get the citizenship and then go back to their country. That is part of what President Trump was concerned with.
So it wasn't just. People that are here illegally and have a child, and then are using that as an excuse to get to remain here. In reality, There are many different ways that that is handled. And a lot of times it depends on the prosecutorial discretion of the administration that is in office.
So there are those that, yeah, you get the choice. You can be, you're being deported, even though you can take your American citizen child with you, depending on the administration. There are those, obviously, they could opt to try and place that child into foster care or some of that, or if there's family that is here legally. This also could apply to many different scenarios. Yeah, I also would point out green card holders.
You could have long-term hermits here in the United States that are not exactly citizenship, but are as close as possible without becoming citizenship. And that was a question here, too. What about those children who are born here, long-term hermit residents, and even some of the short-term residents, because short-term residents still could reapply and can stay here for most of their life.
So the second part of this question was not just parents who were here. And entered illegally at some point. But what about parents who are here legally? But are not yet U.S. citizens, but have these permanent or semi-permanent or shirt or short-term legal documents that allow them to be in the United States.
And what this case held today is that they also, those children also can take part in a birthright citizenship.
So it's not saying the only people that benefit from this are those who crossed over illegally and their children. It's also those who, if they decide they'd want to, who have either the long-term permanent residency or short-term residency here, and they have to do more reapplications, that their children also can be U.S. citizens by birth. Let's go ahead and go to another call. Janice is calling on line three from Massachusetts.
Janice, you're on Sekulow. Yes, I did a lot of research into what was discussed in Congress at the time that they were discussing it to figure out what they meant by the language. And It was clear to me that they meant allegiance. And in fact, there was a direct quote from Senator Howard when someone was concerned it would apply to Indians, where he said, does not apply to Indians, foreigners, aliens, or foreign ministers. And there's nothing new in the 14th Amendment that was not in the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
And I looked up that. They used the language instead of subject to the jurisdiction. They say not subject to any foreign power. And so I'm just wondering, it didn't seem like the Supreme Court Was interested in what was the original intent, and I'm just wondering why. Janus, here's I would disagree with you a little bit there.
And you don't have to agree with the opinion, but I mean, it's not a short opinion. And it does go through a lot of. There's only one answer to it. And you've got a lot of different answers getting to the same results, but a lot of different reasoning to get there. And I think.
Part of the problem too, and if you're a textualist. you are looking at the text of the amendment. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. A as as Someone who loves conservative jurisprudence. You look at the text in the vein of Justice Scalia.
You deal with the words that you have. And a lot of times, it is a more progressive jurisprudence if you're trying to. Figure out what someone would have meant in the modern day. You're right. And that's where you're starting to get into concerning arguments with the Second Amendment or the First Amendment, where, well, they didn't know.
Back then, that someone could fly and have a baby and go back.
So I think it is, as a conservative, even if you don't agree with it, you do have to sometimes look at it and be like, okay, are they interpreting even the words they have, not just what they think the people would have thought about the current situation? And even contemporaneous things that they're saying, one senator may say the same thing about that language and another one may say the different. That doesn't necessarily mean that you. Can fully rely on what one individual said. Exactly.
But yes, once again, it's a complex issue. And as we said, even the dissenters are dissenting for different reasons. Let's go ahead and go.
Well, and you also said the way to the context of the 14th Amendment. Even the context of saying it was only to protect those that were born in the United States that were former slaves or the children of former slaves. If that was the only meaning. They could have been more precise in their wording, and they weren't. They were not more precise about it only.
Applying to one category.
So it's a difficult issue. And obviously, the court struggled with it to some degree as well. Unlike many parts of the Constitution, which are very clear when it comes to that, we still fight about it. What is free speech? What is too much religion in public life or not enough?
What's discriminatory and religious? What does it mean to have a free press? All of those things, petitioning your government for redress of grievances and also laws on permits to have protests. And there's always these kind of tensions. And I think that when you look back, there are sometimes you can look back at just the text and it's very clear.
And you could say, okay. I knew how they wrote this then, and it still works today. This is one of those provisions that was really easy to understand 200 years plus years ago. It's one now that there's still a lot of gray areas, and that's why, even though the executive order fell today, there wasn't a lot of unity on the Supreme Court about why.
So they all had different reasons, got to the same conclusion. But it just points to the fact that this is one of those few areas in the Constitution that is still very difficult to figure out if there's one. Only one way to read it. And I think it's impossible to say, yes, there is, but we do have now something to kind of build on at least for the future, at least for the next couple of decades, maybe less, maybe more, to understand how that process is going to work. Because states are going to have to put in, the federal government's going to have to put in to figure this out.
And so we will see how all that comes together. That's why these cases are all so big when you're coming into election season. That's right. David, on line two, I'm sorry we didn't get to you, but I will quickly. He said, has anyone defined natural born citizen?
This is obviously talking about who's eligible to run for President. I mean, to an extent. Right. And I'm sure those arguments will continue. We will talk more about it tomorrow on Sekulow.
Don't go away. If you want to call back, David, tomorrow, we'll try to get to you early on. But thank you so much for being engaged today. Folks, we are last day of June. We could use your help to continue the work of the ACLJ.
Go to ACLJ.org and support our work. And we've got a lot of fun stuff ahead in July as we celebrate. the 250th anniversary of these United States. Yeah.
