← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“An existential threat to the rule of law”
01:26:33
Nicolle Wallace on the Supreme Court curbing the injunction that blocked Trump’s birthright citizenship plan, the University of Virginia president resigning under pressure from the Trump administration, and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s defamation lawsuit against Fox News. Joined by: Andrew Weissmann, Melissa Murray, Dahlia Lithwick, Mike Schmidt, Laurel Rosenhall, Harry Litman, Rev. Al Sharpton, Cecelia Wang, and Russ and Kaitlyn Miln, family of Donna Kashanian.
Loading summary
Transcript233 lines
- [00:00]
Nicole Wallace
Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes so you don't have to.
- [00:06]
Andrew Weissman
Don't know the difference between matte, paint.
- [00:08]
Nicole Wallace
Finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is.
- [00:12]
Andrew Weissman
With Thumbtack, you don't have to be.
- [00:13]
Nicole Wallace
A home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app.
- [00:20]
Andrew Weissman
Download today. Not sure if you have the experience to start your dream job. Good news these days it's the skills that count. Udemy can help you get those in demand. Skills. Want to be an A AI mastermind? Learn with us Game developer. We've got you covered. AWS Certified Cloud Practitioner. We can help you prep. You'll learn from real world experts who love what they do so that you can love what you do. Go to udemy.com for the skills to get you started and get set for your dream job.
- [00:55]
Melissa Murray
Hi there everyone. Happy Friday. It's 4 o' clock in the east Quote An Existential Threat to the rule of Law Rarely has the liberal wing of the the United States Supreme Court sounded as alarmed about the direction of the country and the court as it does right now. The justices referring to the decision handed down today by the Supreme Court in the birthright citizenship case. In a 6, 3 ruling, the Supreme Court curbed the ability of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Now those are basically rulings that stop things, illegal things, rulings that block policies from going into place nationwide. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative majority, said that nationwide injunctions are an overreach of judicial power. And she writes this, quote, when a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too. Now, the judges didn't rule on the substance of all this. They didn't render a decision on the merits of Donald Trump's decision to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. Instead, what the court did today was to rule on the process piece of this. They ruled that judges can only issue decisions or rulings that deliver relief for the group of people involved, for the people who sued the plaintiffs, and that they could not block that policy from going into effect nationwide for anyone else who might be affected by the policy. Here's how Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson puts it. Quote, the court's decision to permit the executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law. It is important to recognize that the executive's bid to vanquish so called universal injunctions is, at bottom, a request for this court's permission to engage in unlawful behavior. It is worth noting nationwide injunctions have been imposed to stop policies from pretty much every previous president and administration. Many were issued against the Biden administration for things like COVID 19 vaccine mandates or student debt relief, for instance. But according to Justice Sotomayor, this ruling brings the country now into uncharted territory. She writes this quote, no right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law. I dissent. In light of this ruling, Jackson sharply criticized her own colleagues on the bench, writing this quote, the very institution our founding charter charges with the duty to ensure universal adherence to the law now requires judges to shrug and turn their backs to intermittent lawlessness with deep disillusionment. I dissent. A blistering series of dissents from the liberal justices on the United States Supreme Court as the court deals a devastating blow to a key guardrail in our country against the Trump administration's lawlessness, is where we start today. Our friend and former top official at the Department of Justice, Andrew Weissman is back with us. Also joining us, NYU law professor Melissa Murray is here. She clerked for Justice Sonia Sotomayor while serving at the U.S. court of Appeals. Also joining us, Slate senior editor and legal correspondent, host of the Amicus podcast, Dalia Lithwick is here as well. Lucky for us, all three are MSNBC legal analysts. I don't get to see all three of you very often, and it is in some ways sinking in as I introduce all three of you how seismic this ruling is today. Andrew Weissman, why don't you go first with your thoughts?
- [04:56]
Nicole Wallace
Well, I'm going to play the Pollyanna and sort of focus on the few crumbs of good news because there's a lot of bad news. So as you said, Nicole, number one, it doesn't in any way address, in spite of what Donald Trump has said, it does not address the merits. It doesn't say that his executive order with respect to birthright citizenship, that, by the way, would apply to people who are documented and undocumented, I mean, is really far reaching, but it does not address that at all. Second, the procedural limits that are being placed here do apply also to conservative district court judges and conservative courts of appeal. So, you know, their favorite judges, sort of Judge Marek and Judge Cannon, they're bound by this as well. And finally, there are various ways, I wouldn't say around it, but there are ways to soften the blow. For instance, bringing a class action and seeking relief that way, or bringing actions into the apa, the Administrative Procedures Act. In fact, some of the plaintiffs have already, just today, in light of the decision, gone to court, making it class action and seeking permission to do so and to have an injunction as a class, as a way to get that sort of universal coverage. So those are all sort of possible good news stories before we sort of get to the, you know, the real heart of this as to why it's so such a bad decision.
- [06:36]
Melissa Murray
Well, Andrew Weissman, I'd like you then to square your good crumbs with the emotion and alarm from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sure.
- [06:49]
Nicole Wallace
But that is because the procedural hurdle that's been created is enormous. So basically, here it is, what Donald Trump has done. Nobody has defended it. You know who has not defended it? The government itself, in going to the Supreme Court, remarkably did not say, by the way, we want you to reach the merits. I mean, it's just so outlandish. And yet, and yet by saying that that any one district court can only sort of act in this very incremental way means that plaintiffs have to sue all over the country. And there's no also real clear way for people to get relief nationwide other than if they can make it a sort of a class action. So Ketanji Brown Jackson, I think really hits the nail on the head by saying this is a way of really stripping rights and putting an enormous burden on plaintiffs who may have fundamental constitutional rights at stake being denied with no good way to vindicate that without sort of inordinate burdens being placed on the on them by the court. It's really similar to what we saw happen in the immigration context. When the court said you have to bring this by individual habeas petitions, that meant that everyone had to suddenly that's why you see sort of the whack a mole. You've had the sort of head litigator from the ACLU on the world's busiest litigator precisely because he now has to run around the country trying to make sure that the administration is adhering to the law and they don't pull fast ones. And this is the last administration where you want to give them that power.
- [08:40]
Melissa Murray
Melissa Murray, let me bring you in and let me play some of Justice Jackson, some of her articulation of what would happen if they reached the conclusion they reached today from oral arguments.
- [08:53]
Andrew Weissman
Your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a catch me if you can kind of regime from the standpoint of the executive, where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights. Justice Kagan says, let's assume for the purpose of this that you're wrong about the merits that the government is not allowed to do this under the Constitution. And yet it seems to me that your argument says we get to keep on doing it until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, et cetera. And I don't understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law.
- [09:41]
Melissa Murray
Melissa Murray, do you agree?
- [09:44]
Andrew Weissman
I completely agree with this. I want to go back to what Andrew was saying about the silver linings. I don't think there are silver linings here. And I want to be very clear with the viewers at home. This is a really grave situation. This court has effectively taken the restraints off of this administration. We don't have a Congress that is stepping in to rein in this administration. All we've had are lower court judges who are looking at the lawlessness of this administration saying, not on my watch, imposing these nationwide injunctions to stop the damage in its tracks. And this court has now said that limited tool, that limited judicial remedy goes too far. And instead, what individual litigants are going to have to do is go to every district in this country to litigate, to stop the administration in its track or somehow find, at a time when the administration has made the availability of lawyers scarce, find a lawyer who is willing to take on the challenge of mounting a class action to go and challenge this administration. This court has made it absolutely impossible to try and stop the worst of what the administration is doing. So there really aren't silver linings. Yes, there are some litigants now who have amended their complaints and filed class actions. But the idea that we are going to do this for everything is really just unfathomable. It's not just birthright citizenship that is at stake. These nationwide injunctions have been used across the board to stop this administration from firing federal workers, to stop this administration from rescinding funding from research institutions and universities. All of that ends now. The gloves are off. There are no restraints, no checks on this administration. We are entering A very dangerous moment.
- [11:37]
Melissa Murray
Melissa, Let me read a little bit more from Justice Sotomayor's dissent, which hits a lot of the same themes you're talking about. Quote, the court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution. The executive branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals constitutional rights. And the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully. Until the day that every affected person manages to become party to a lawsuit that secures for himself injunctive relief, the government may act lawlessly indefinitely. Can you explain what she means?
- [12:17]
Andrew Weissman
So what this decision does, it says to the lower federal court judges, these district court judges, you cannot issue these nationwide injunctions in most, if not all cases. These nationwide injunctions are when a judge in the District of Massachusetts, for example, says that the government has done something lawless, and their ruling doesn't just apply to Massachusetts, but applies broadly across the United States. And the birthright citizenship case is the perfect example. Obviously, the question of birthright citizenship has national implications. It doesn't make sense to stop it. Just in one district. You stop it or enjoin it all the way across the nation. The court now says that lower court judges cannot do that. They can't impose and change or stop a policy throughout the country. They can only stop the policy with regard to that particular litigant in their courtroom. In that case, that means the one person or the two people who have filed the lawsuit. The court here said that maybe you could have more people by creating a class action. But class actions already have a number of different procedural rules that have to be satisfied before you can certify a group as a class. And the Supreme Court has over the years, narrowed further the availability of class action relief for litigants. So that's going to be harder. So essentially what Justice Sotomayor is saying is that you can't just stop this administration from doing something lawless. You either have to litigate every single violation of the policy for every single litigant who is affected, or you have to find a way to be able to aggregate the litigants who are affected. And that may be a mass of people that number in the millions in some cases like birthright citizenship, and then you can proceed. And doing something like that is a herculean task, particularly at this moment, when this administration, through its intimidation of law firms, has made the availability of legal resources and legal aid scarcer than it has ever been.
- [14:14]
Melissa Murray
So, Melissa, just one more question. I mean, does that mean that they can proceed and deny birthright citizenship to an individual that isn't? I mean, does it mean they can go play whack a mole now and deprive? Does it mean that your constitutional rights could be different from state to state or jurisdiction to jurisdiction?
- [14:34]
Andrew Weissman
Yes. I mean, it may entirely depend on what ruling someone gets in the District of Massachusetts versus the Western District of Texas. So it is a catch me if you can situation. As Justice Jackson said at the oral argument back in May, we're basically playing whack a mole. We're going to have to fight on multiple fronts when before there had been this very efficient mechanism. And again, the court talks about the objections to the universal injunction, and administrations on both sides of the aisle have raised questions. But I will say this. There was a universal injunction that stopped the Biden student loan plan in its tracks. A Texas judge issued a ruling saying that the Biden student loan plan violated this law and that law, and he stopped it. Across the nation, the Biden administration tried to come to the United States Supreme Court to get a ruling on the question of nationwide injunctions, and this court passed them by. But now, five months into the Trump administration, it's pressing, and we must decide whether or not universal injunctions pose this grave threat to the executive and to the rule of law. Justice Sotomayor is right. This is gamesmanship, plain and simple. And this court has effectively facilitated this administration today.
- [15:46]
Melissa Murray
Dalia, there's the legal language of the dissents, and then there's the despair that you do not have to be a lawyer or a Supreme Court expert to palpably feel and understand. What do you see in the dissents?
- [16:04]
Andrew Weissman
I think that, first of all, I think I want to associate myself with Team Murray in terms of how panicking am right now. I'm all for silver linings, but this one is grim. And I think I would just say that, you know, both Justice Jackson and Justice Sotomayor cannot quite believe that Justice Barrett's majority opinion is a kind of a very pointy headed, very academic foray into, you know, 17th century courts of Chancery and, you know, kind of flimsy originalism. You know, it's all sort of trussed up as a civil procedure exam. Except I think the question is, where does the hardship lie here? And to hear the majority tell it, you know, the real existential suffering is the Donald Trump administration that wants to sign all these completely lawless executive orders. And the hardship is they don't get to do it right. The hardship is, as Justice Sotomayor says in her dissent, they don't get to break the law. You know, something that has been established for over 100 years, that is that birthright citizenship means what it says. That's the hardship. And on the other hand, as Melissa just said, the hardship is if you are in Texas, as opposed to California, and you give birth to a baby in this incredibly fraught moment, you have different rights. And absent the ability to hire a lawyer and pay the filing fee and go to court and prevail, you're just out of luck. And the idea that tens, if not hundreds and thousands of people are going to be subject to that kind of hardship, and it's waved away as though it's trivial by the majority. I think what you're hearing in these dissents is a sort of credit corps of what do courts exist to do if not remedy this kind of injustice? And I think the idea that this majority has utterly blinkered itself to the ways in which the Trump administration wants to keep breaking the law and keep getting a nod from the court, I think is actually making the dissenting judges a little bit crazy.
- [18:24]
Melissa Murray
Yeah, it has an echo of immunity. Do you see that, Dalia?
- [18:30]
Andrew Weissman
I absolutely see it. And I see it insofar as I remember, you know, on this show talking about immunity, you can find a lawyerly path, right, to pick your way through. You know, what are the. The outer bounds and the inner perimeters, and what is an official act and what's an unofficial act? I mean, you can lawyer these questions. It doesn't change the fact that in the immunity decision a year ago, the majority of the Supreme Court blessed the notion of an imperial presidency that is unbounded by law as we understand it. And a year later, having unloosed that upon us and having that decision now is the predicate for claims that the Trump administration uses when they say we're above the law. The same court, having reckoned with, you know, time and time and time again on their emergency docket, these absolutely lawless moves by the administration, and given the ability to check it, given the ability to allow lower courts to check it by a 6 to 3 margin, this court is just like, we're good.
- [19:40]
Melissa Murray
It's insane. It feels like insanity, especially in the climate in which we're all sort of living day to day with both the indifference to heeding court orders and the malevolence toward judges that don't rule in their favor. It is extraordinary. I'm going to ask all of you to stick around. I'm going to go back to Andrew and see if he's going to stand by his silver linings on the other side of the break. Also ahead for us, the president and the Trump administration take another huge step toward controlling all of the levers of higher education in our country. Trump administration has pressured a top university to fire its head and cave to Donald Trump's political agenda. We'll tell you what happened and why it is so dangerous. Plus, going the other direction, is the governor of the state of California standing up to Donald Trump and his enablers in the media? Gavin Newsom is suing Fox News for what he says are lies about him. Later in the broadcast yesterday, we told you about a woman who has lived in New Orleans for nearly 50 years before she was picked up by immigration enforcement while she was picking figs in her own garden. Her husband will be our guest live. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [20:58]
Andrew Weissman
If you're looking for new ways to get ahead, then you're our kind of person. We're Udemy and we help learners like you upskill in AI, productivity, leadership and management and more. Learn at your own pace from real world experts. You can also prep for certifications that show employers what you know upskill for the career you want@udemy.com now back to your regularly scheduled listening. Want to look and feel your best this summer? Don't just think skin deep, think cell deep with Prolon. Prolon is a plant based nutrition program featuring sou snacks and beverages that nourish the body while keeping it in a fasting state, triggering cellular rejuvenation and renewal. With proper diet and exercise, Prolon helps target fat loss, support lean muscle and reset your metabolism. Get up to 30% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe at prolonlife.com PandoraPromo these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. See site for details. Want to pull off the season's freshest trends? You just need the right shoes. That's where designer Shoe Warehouse comes in. Loving wide leg jeans. Pair them with sleek low profile sneakers. Obsessed with the sheer trend. Try it with mesh flats, feeling boho, comfy sandals, nail the whole free spirited thing.
- [22:21]
Nicole Wallace
Find on trend shoes from the brands.
- [22:23]
Andrew Weissman
You love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas and more at DSWell.
- [22:33]
Melissa Murray
We're back with Andrew, Melissa and Dalia. Andrew, I want to just put up for our viewers because this helped me process what this means right now. These are the nationwide injunctions believed to be at risk after today's decision. The requirements for proof of citizenship to vote in our elections. A freeze on $3 trillion in federal funding to the states to ensure it's aligned with Trump's policies. An attempt to force public Schools to eliminate DEI programs or risk their federal funding. A freeze on $2 billion in congressionally appropriated federal aid. The elimination of federal funding for legal representation for more than 25,000 kids in immigration proceedings. Where is your head on what happens to real people now?
- [23:23]
Nicole Wallace
So I want to just make sure people understand while there, you could look for crumbs, which I wanted to start with, so people understood some limits. I just want to make sure people understand. I agree that this is devastating in terms of the process, that one of the very, very few checks we have in government, we obviously have the press, we have people like you, Nicole, but in government, one of the only checks we have is coming from the courts, and this is a decision from the Supreme Court that says we are castrating, we are neutering the lower courts. We are not allowing the district courts, the courts of appeals, to have this sort of, this sort of universal effect. And you have to go individual by individual. But, you know, who gets to do that? The Supreme Court gets to do it. They get. They reserve the right to do it. They don't say, by the way, when we rule, it only binds the people before us. They're saying, when they rule, it binds everyone. But that's not true of any of the lower courts. So if you look at it this just from a sociological point of view, like, like what is really happening here. They are basically saying, we are taking the courts out of the game here, making it really, really hard for them to do anything unless and until we in the Supreme Court decide what can happen. And, of course, they take very few cases, and they can do so in a partisan way. As Melissa said, quite rightly, the fact that they decided to use this case as the vehicle to challenge nationwide injunctions is so telling, because they could have done this, you know, for many, many years. It's clearly very pointed that they did this. It's really a gift to Donald Trump, and it's really taking away one of the few checks that we have remaining in the system. Since we really are counting on the courts right now.
- [25:19]
Melissa Murray
Why do you think they did it? Andrew Weissman, I'm not asking you to play psychologist, but what was there a pressing climate in the country where, I mean, other than the pressure from Donald Trump, what else was in the system?
- [25:36]
Nicole Wallace
You know, that is Such a good question. Because the thing that is so amazing to me is that they took this case, of all cases, birthright citizenship. I mean, if you asked people a year ago, Republicans and Democrats, anybody, like, is this a viable argument? I mean, it's so laughable. The idea that this is the vehicle, to me is such a sign of where we are and that it was treated with a sort of normalcy as an especially, you know, one part of the decision. They're supposed to weigh equities in deciding whether the government is entitled to an injunction. And Dalia was getting at this where it's like, we're going to sort of weigh different equities. You would think that the biggest equity here would be reaching the merits and saying, wait a second, we're talking about millions of people who may be having their constitutional rights violated and you should have to reach that. And the court pointedly did not do that. And Nadalia said the harm here was viewed as, oh, the administration may not be able to carry out something that is unconstitutional. I mean, to me, that's sort of a non answer, Nicole, other than to say it's a real sign that they took this case, of all cases to make this ruling. When would you think this would be the last case where you would do this?
- [27:05]
Melissa Murray
Dalia, I want to ask you about something Pam Bondi said today. She said, I'm not going to play it. But she said, yeah, so birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court, unless it comes down in the next few minutes. I guess it could come down there still. I think they're still deliberating right now. In some cases, we just got transgender books, which is a huge win. But most likely that will be decided in October. However, blah, blah, blah. She goes on and on. What is she talking about? How is the Supreme Court going to decide in October on birthright citizenship?
- [27:39]
Andrew Weissman
I mean, this is actually another sticky wicket in the case that comes up. It came up at oral arguments, and it comes up again in the dissent, which is if the Trump administration loses, there's not real certainty they're going to bring it back up to the court. They were very, very open. The solicitor general was very open at oral argument that they didn't really feel like they were going to be bound by a district court order, and it wasn't completely clear they were going to be bound by an appeals court order.
- [28:12]
Melissa Murray
But.
- [28:12]
Andrew Weissman
But the fact is having this kind of patchwork of in some jurisdictions, there is birthright citizenship. In some there isn't. And Relying on the good faith of the administration to bring a case up to the Supreme Court is part of the fatal flaw here because it's not clear they would appeal it. They benefit from having this unbelievably checkered system in which the law is different all around the country. So one of the things that, you know, Justice Kavanaugh has a concurrence where he's like, oh, not to worry, you know, this is coming to the court, you know, post haste, and we'll resolve this on the merits. It's not clear there's any incentive for the administration to get this back to the court quickly. I think they're perfectly happy to live in a world where people are chilled from asserting rights. They are unable to assert rights. Kids all over the country are going to lose access to educational services and health services and all sorts of other services. And having that kind of of crisis, patchwork on the ground actually serves the administration's interests. So I don't think it's at all an established fact that this is rocketing back to the court anytime soon.
- [29:25]
Melissa Murray
So, Dalia, just to be super clear, is the 14th Amendment in effect today in America for everybody?
- [29:35]
Andrew Weissman
I think that as of this moment in the 20 plus states that it's in effect, it's in effect. And in the states where it's not, it's not. I think, as Andrew said up top, we're seeing immediately groups scrambling to get huge nationwide class action certified. We're going to see efforts in the states, I think, are going to have standing to, you know, continue to bring lawsuits saying that the states are suffering hardship. So I think we will see efforts to sort of of remedy this. But the court has absolutely made it much, much, much harder to have any kind of coherent nationwide relief or coherent nationwide law.
- [30:21]
Melissa Murray
That is insane. If you're giving birth today and you don't know if your child will have a birth certificate that declares their nationality American. That's just insane. That is is this is. Of all the days, this feels like one of the more insane ones. Dalia, thank you for helping us make sense of it all. Andrew and Melissa, stick around for a little bit more insanity Absent silver linings. Switching gears for us. With hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding on the line, the University of Virginia has caved in advance to the Trump administration's demands, letting the President of the United States interfere with the hiring and firing at all levels of its organization. We'll bring you that reporting next. An extraordinary new tactic is being deployed by the Trump administration to aggressively harass universities and interfere with their hiring decisions, including for their president. New York Times is today reporting that the president of the University of Virginia, James Ryan, will resign in the face of extreme pressure from Donald Trump's Justice Department. DOJ insisted on Ryan's ouster in order to resolve an investigation into that university's DEI efforts, according to reporting in the Times. Quote, In a letter to the head of the board overseeing the university sent on Thursday, Mr. Ryan said that he had planned to step down at the end of the next academic year. But given the circumstances and today's conversation, he has decided with deep sadness to tender his resignation. Ryan's resignation comes just days after the Justice Department issued a stern warning to the university, writing this quote, time is running short and the department's patience is wearing thin. New York Times adds that, quote, the letter was signed by Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights division, and Gregory Brown, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Both of them are graduates of the university, and Mr. Brown, as a private lawyer, had previously sued the school. As for the precedent Ryan's resignation sets, the New York Times reports that it, quote, demonstrates President Trump's success in harnessing the investigative powers of the federal government to accomplish his administration's policy goals. Joining our coverage is New York Times investigative reporter Mike Schmidt, who is bylined on all that reporting. Andrew, Melissa are here as well, Mike. It shows their willingness to investigate universities that they don't like or agree with. But is that legal?
- [33:03]
Nicole Wallace
Is that legal? I guess they're the Justice Department, and until a judge tells them that it is illegal, then it is what they are going to do. The University of Virginia could have tried to fight this in court to get a judge or a jury to say that this is illegal legal. But that did not happen in this case. And what happened here was that the Justice Department came to the university and basically said, look, we're not going to talk about resolving this civil rights investigation we have going on into your school's diversity practices. Until you get rid of your president, we are not going to move forward with resolving that until that happens. And under that extraordinary pressure, the board that oversees the school basically went to the president and said, you gotta go, go. And the president resigned. And to us, it shows that Trump's attempts to use the federal government against higher education are just bigger and broader and more extensive than we thought they were. It shows that the. The administration is willing to use its power to achieve goals that organizations like American First Legal, which Stephen Miller worked on before he went into the administration are working. And the issue of higher education is one that means a lot to folks like Stephen Miller. They have done extensive work on this, studying this issue while they were out of office, and are now using the Justice Department's powers to that end. Here in a. In another university, that opens up a new front in the administration's fight with higher ed.
- [34:46]
Melissa Murray
These are two alum of uva. Is it a. It seems like a personal grudge war. Is Donald Trump involved in any of this or aware of it?
- [34:58]
Nicole Wallace
There's no indication that Trump was directly involved in any of the UVA stuff. And we saw a week ago Trump come out and say that he thought that there may be a deal to be had with Harvard and that they were perhaps a week or two away from a deal with Harvard. I'm not sure that Trump appreciates just quite how much leverage his administration has over Harvard and how much they have hit Harvard in so many different pressure points. It seemed just from looking at Trump's tweet and from understanding some of the dynamics in the West Wing around this, that the folks that work for him in Stephen Miller's office are extremely serious about this matter with Harvard, but that Trump himself is looking to announce a deal with Harvard and that the announcement of a deal would be an extremely significant thing to Trump. I'm not sure that he's really getting in the weeds on Article 6, you know, or Title 6 investigations into higher education. That seems a little too in the weeds for Trump. But what these. These university fights do is they create the potential for headlines and stories and such, like, you know, a potential deal with Harvard, Columbia, negotiating with the administration. And today, a huge win for the Trump administration that have knocked out the.
- [36:21]
Melissa Murray
President of uva, Andrew Weissman. I understand that students felt an incredible bond with the head of their school, especially after the tragic shooting at uva. I mean, this feels like a real guardrail isn't the right word, but a real red line that's been crossed. The Trump administration is deciding who can run a private university.
- [36:48]
Nicole Wallace
So I wanted to focus on something which is the idea that you are sitting at the Department of Justice and you take the position as a government employee that you can weigh in on who a private university should have as its president or in any way, employee, the person in any capacity. I served as the head of the fraud section. I dealt with corporate cases all the time, organizations. I remember being asked at one time by an organization under investigation what our view was on the leadership. No administration, not A Republican administration, not Democrat administration, views it as the government's function to tell private universities and private institutions, administrations, who they should hire and who they should not hire. And you know who most of all believe that that was not the role of the government to do that was Republican administrations in which I serve. The idea that this is just being done so cavalier, cavalierly, and it's being done in the context of academic freedom is another red line that we are seeing crossed by this administration. And for those people in business who may have voted for Donald Trump, don't think that you are immune from that. This is something that idea that the administration would not weigh in on. This is now, you know, that is now on the table and it was not in any previous administration which I served.
- [38:30]
Melissa Murray
I want to press you and Melissa on the question I asked Mike whether the this is legally sound. I have to sneak in a quick break before we do that. We'll all be right back on the other side. We're back with Mike, Andrew and Melissa. Melissa, you're a UVA grad. Give me your thoughts legally and personally, and give me the backstory.
- [38:52]
Andrew Weissman
So it's a little hard to separate the legal aspect of this from my own personal feelings about this. Obviously, universities operate with a fair degree of academic freedom to shape their policies within the boundaries of the law. And it's my understanding that a lot of the administration's objections to what is happening at the University of Virginia focused on President Ryan's insistence on expanding the nature of the student body so that it better reflected the diversity of the Commonwealth of Virginia. And I think that's really notable in light of what this administration is doing with regard to DEI practices more generally, but also with regard to the history of the University of Virginia. The University of Virginia was founded by Thomas Jefferson, himself a founding father, but also a slave owner who owned hundreds of people in Virginia and who used slave labor to build the university. That wasn't really discussed and acknowledged until Jim Ryan's presidency, where he memorialized the enslaved people who helped to build the University of Virginia by creating a beautiful memorial on central grounds that is visited by hundreds of visitors every year. Throughout its history, the University of Virginia has not been a bastion of inclusion. It only co educated and formally included women in 1974, around 50 years ago, and for many years, under Virginia's Double act, which was passed in 1936, the University of Virginia and other public institutions that were all white in the Commonwealth of Virginia would actually provide what they called scholarships to qualified black students to attend Universities out of state. So that was the history that Jim Ryan was trying to counteract, was trying to remedy by making the University of Virginia a more inclusive and a more democratic place, one that reflected the population of the state in which it operated. And apparently there was a group of very conservative alumni who objected to that, who apparently wanted to make UVA great again. And they have been objecting to President Ryan and trying to thwart him, and they have found a willing partner in this administration. And it has ended today with President Ryan stepping down a little over a year before he was planning to do so, leaving the university without a president at a critical time for higher education.
- [41:10]
Melissa Murray
Melissa, was there a path that could have represented more of a fight for what you just articulated? I mean, how do you see his resignation today?
- [41:23]
Andrew Weissman
So I would have liked to see President Ryan stay and fight for the work that he has done as president of the University of Virginia and for the students of the university. He sent an email to alumni saying that his principal concern here was not necessarily for his job, which he knew was coming to a conclusion as he'd already announced his stepping away from his position. Within a year, he was planning to step down and a new search would begin for president. But given that he only had a year left in his tenure and the administration's focus on the university and the probable loss of millions in federal funding from the university's World Class Medical center, its other projects, its other kinds of initiatives, was so grave and so likely to impact not only students, but those who are employed by the University of Virginia. And the University of Virginia is a massive employer in the Charlottesville area, major part of the community in Charlottesville. So the loss would have been devastating. And I think he thought, given those broader concerns, he could not stay on in good conscience and fight because to do so would have been a selfish act on his part. So he prioritized the university and the students and the Charlottesville community and the university community ahead of his own desires.
- [42:42]
Melissa Murray
It's just incredible that that's the choice that university presidents are being left with with. Quit, get bullied, get intimidated. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Mike Schmidt, thank you for your reporting and for joining us to talk about it. Andrew Weissman and Melissa Murray, thank you for spending the hour with us. Up next for us, the tariffs are back. Donald Trump saying he's no longer negotiating with Canada and that we should all prepare for more tariffs to come. We'll bring you that reporting next. Donald Trump on social media a few hours ago announced that he is terminating all trade discussions with Canada saying, quote, effective immediately. He cited Canada's tax on large tech companies, which has actually been in place since last year, but first payments are due on Monday. He called the tax a, quote, direct and blatant attack on our country. And then he threatened the United States, second largest trading partner by saying, quote, we will let Canada know the tariff that they will be paying to do business business with the United States of America within the next seven day period. A new trade deal between the two countries have been expected next month, but with that now apparently out the window, those tariff costs will likely fall squarely on the US Consumer. We'll keep an eye on this story up next for us. California's Governor Gavin Newsom is slapping Fox News with a $787 million defamation law lawsuit, a notable amount that might sound familiar to you. We'll bring you that story and much more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [44:23]
Andrew Weissman
If you're looking for new ways to get ahead, then you're our kind of person. We're Udemy and we help learners like you upskill in AI, productivity, leadership and management and more. Learn at your own pace from real world experts. You can also prep for certifications that show employers what you know upskill for the career you want@udemy.com now back to your regularly scheduled listening this season, let.
- [44:55]
Nicole Wallace
Your shoes do the talking.
- [44:57]
Andrew Weissman
Designer Shoe Warehouse is packed with fresh.
- [44:59]
Nicole Wallace
Styles that speak to your whole vibe.
- [45:01]
Andrew Weissman
Without saying a word from cool sneakers.
- [45:04]
Nicole Wallace
That look good with every everything. The easy sandals you'll want to wear on repeat. DSW has you covered.
- [45:10]
Andrew Weissman
Find a shoe for every you from.
- [45:11]
Nicole Wallace
The brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike.
- [45:14]
Andrew Weissman
Adidas, New Balance and more. Head to your DSW store or visit dsw.com today. Want to look and feel your best this summer? Don't just think skin deep, think cell deep with Prolon. Prolon is a plant based nutrition program featuring soups, snacks and beverages that nourish the body while keeping it in a fasting state, triggering cellular reju and renewal. With proper diet and exercise, Prolon helps target fat loss, support lean muscle and reset your metabolism. Get up to 30% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe at prolonlife.com Pandora promo these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. See site for details.
- [46:00]
Melissa Murray
And the extent.
- [46:01]
Nicole Wallace
We we need to two we're also going to call out the and the propaganda and the weaponization of lies and mis and disinformation on networks like Fox. And we'll do it in every capacity on behalf of the people I represent in the state, on an individual capacity. Enough. It's time to assert ourselves much more forcefully with character and conviction and have the backs of people that don't have.
- [46:30]
Andrew Weissman
Have the voice that some of us.
- [46:32]
Nicole Wallace
Have and the ability to do what some of us can do. And that's what this whole case is about.
- [46:38]
Melissa Murray
Hi again, everyone. It's now five o' clock in the East. That was California Governor Gavin Newsom with our friends at Midas Touch. He has not shied away from calling out or taking action against the Trump administration and their enablers, especially when it came to the deployment of US Military troops on on the streets of Los Angeles this month. But today he went further and actually sued Fox News for its coverage, accusing that network of defamation when it claimed that Newsom lied about not having a phone call with Donald Trump. Here's Fox News host Jesse Watters on the night of June 10th.
- [47:15]
Nicole Wallace
Trump's not waiting around this time. He says if it wasn't for him, LA would be up in smoke. Called him up at home. Gotta do a better job. He's doing a bad job, causing a lot of death and a lot people of a lot of potential death. If we didn't send out the National.
- [47:31]
Melissa Murray
Guard and last time we gave them.
- [47:33]
Nicole Wallace
A little additional help, you would have Los Angeles would be burning right now. The radical left, it's usually radical left and it's usually governors that are Democrat and they don't want to call them in, they don't want to save lives, they don't want to save property, they.
- [47:50]
Melissa Murray
Don'T want to call them in.
- [47:51]
Andrew Weissman
I don't know what it is.
- [47:52]
Melissa Murray
Newsom responds.
- [47:53]
Nicole Wallace
And he said there wasn't a phone call. He said Trump never called him, not even a voicemail. He said.
- [47:59]
Melissa Murray
But John Roberts got Trump's call logs.
- [48:01]
Nicole Wallace
And it shows Trump called him late Friday night and they talked for 16 minutes. Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?
- [48:12]
Melissa Murray
So the dates and times and the facts matter. Well, at least on this network. But Newsom's lawsuit calls out. The facts that it presents is that waters clip of Trump was selectively edited, leaving out what Trump said right before that. Listen, Mr. President, when is the last.
- [48:32]
Nicole Wallace
Time you spoke with Governor Newsom? A day ago.
- [48:39]
Melissa Murray
Called him up to tell him, got.
- [48:40]
Nicole Wallace
To do a better job. He's doing a bad job, causing a lot of death and a lot of lot of potential death.
- [48:49]
Melissa Murray
So now here's why that matters. When Governor Newsom went on X and posted that Trump never called and there wasn't even a voicemail, the part that Jesse Waters made issue of Gavin Newsom was responding directly to Donald Trump's claim that they had just spoken, quote, a day ago. That's what we just played you. Which would have been the day before June 10th. June 9th. In fact, Newsom had already spoken publicly on June 8th about a call he had with Donald Trump days prior. The night of June 6th, California time, around 1:30 in the morning on June 7th, Donald Trump's time. Watch.
- [49:26]
Nicole Wallace
You guys go at it pretty hard publicly, but I know you talk privately. Have you spoken in the last couple of days to the president about any of this? Yeah, no, we talked for almost 20 minutes and barely. This issue never came. I mean, I kept trying to talk about la, wanted to talk about all these other issues. We had a very decent conversation.
- [49:43]
Andrew Weissman
When was this?
- [49:44]
Nicole Wallace
This was late Friday night, about 1:30 plus his time after the protests. That started after the protests. And he never once brought up the National Guard. He's a stone cold liar.
- [49:52]
Andrew Weissman
He said he did.
- [49:53]
Nicole Wallace
Stone cold liar. Never did.
- [49:57]
Melissa Murray
So Gavin Newsom's lawyers are now arguing that he, quote, has become the latest target of Fox's continuing efforts to lie and distort on behalf of the president. President and that, quote, Fox advanced this lie about Governor Newsom out of a desire to harm him politically. In a statement, Fox News says, quote, governor Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed. Newsom is suing Fox for $787 million, a very symbolic figure that Governor Newsom was clear to point out in his statement announcing the suit. Quote, if Fox News, if the British news wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences just like it did in the Dominion case. I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet. Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine. That is where we start the hour. Some of our favorite reporters in France, New York Times California politics correspondent Laurel Rosenhal is here. Plus, former U.S. attorney and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Lipman's here. And host of MSNBC's Politics Nation, president of the National Action Network, the Reverend Al Sharpton is here. Laura. We tried to lay it all out and show it, but just Take me through this is a fight about what really feels like Newsom's getting his back up about the timing, that he never said Trump didn't call him, that Fox is making a big deal about when Trump called him. And, and on that, Newsom seems to have the facts on his side. But what is your sense of what propels Newsom to actually file this lawsuit against Fox News?
- [51:43]
Andrew Weissman
We've really seen the governor just escalating his antagonism against the president in the last several weeks. And that's been a huge turn since these immigration raids really cranked up in Southern California this month. And it's notable because at the beginning of the year when the president was first inaugurated, Governor Newsom was very friendly and really kind of holding back some of the normal fire you might expect a Democratic governor to launch at President Trump. He was seeking aid from the president then and was really trying to, to be friendly and cooperative. But in recent weeks, we've just completely seen the tone shift and this lawsuit and the sort of highlighting this, the way that Fox covered these events around this phone call seem to be part of that trend.
- [52:36]
Melissa Murray
Laurel, take us through the fact pattern, if you will. Well.
- [52:45]
Andrew Weissman
The raids and the immigration raids in Los Angeles be, you know, were very intense in that week when they had that phone call, and the protests were beginning then, too. And the question is whether, you know, they both agree that they spoke on that Friday night. But when Trump then spoke the following week was after he had activated the National Guard, which obviously was of huge interest across the world. You know, the president took this very unusual step with the legal mechanism that he used to activate the National Guard. The governor did not support it. It's an unusual, it's an unusual way of activating California's National Guard without the governor's support. And so when the reporters in the White House asked Trump about the last time they spoke, and Trump said a.
- [53:33]
Nicole Wallace
Day ago.
- [53:35]
Andrew Weissman
You know, Newsom was trying to push back and say, we didn't speak a day ago. But he, in his social media posts, he didn't, you know, he didn't say, we spoke on Friday. We didn't speak yesterday. Instead, he just said there was no phone call. And so that sort of like, created the basis for this conflict because Newsom is claiming that Fox News used the evidence of the call that was on that Friday night as a way to, to call Newsom a liar. When in Newsom's view, that call log from that Friday night shows that President Trump was incorrect when he said they spoke a day ago because, in fact, those dates were separated by, I think, three days. So that's kind of the crux of the dispute. Very technical, very kind of tit for tat on these dates. But the underlying issue here is, is that the governor is basically taking a page out of Trump's book in suing a media outlet. Obviously, that's something that Trump has done a few times and it is unusual and there is a very high burden of proof for a public figure. But Newsom is now kind of flipping the script and suing a conservative news outlet for the way that he was portrayed.
- [55:01]
Melissa Murray
Well, and Harry, it can feel on a calendar like a short discrepancy in days, except in LA, those were days that lasted 30 years for the people on the streets, for the people being rounded up, for the state to have the National Guard sent against the command of that state's governor. Those are pretty consequential days. And I wonder what you think will happen next. Legally.
- [55:27]
Nicole Wallace
Okay, they are consequential days. Nevertheless, as Laura says, a fairly picayune suit. But it really does matter. Remember, there was this lurking legal issue that came up in the cases. Did Trump go through the governor, as seemed to be required by the statute that he was using? So first Newsom says on the 6th, when they talk, he tried did Newsom to talk about L. A and Trump would. And it really is a non sequitur for Trump to say on the 10th, we talked a day ago. It's false. But that could have given the false indication that he had complied with the statute. So Newsom has the facts on his side, and then it's true that two people from Fox. The second one just calls him an outright liar. But it's a pretty technical, or you could say small gauge kind of lawsuit. He would have to show that Fox knew that, that it was false when they made it to win defamation. And to me, this really mainly is an effort to push back on Fox. It's very, I think, important that he starts with the Dominion suit. That's how the complaint starts. He's trying to say, we're coming after you and putting pressure on it as well. Withdraw it if you admit you were wrong. I don't think this is going to go to trial or discovery or anything like that. I think it's a political strike in an ongoing fight that he now wants to wage.
- [56:58]
Melissa Murray
In Newsom's telling and Newsom's lawsuit, what would he have to prove to prove that Jesse Watters had malice toward him, Gavin Newsom, that he.
- [57:09]
Nicole Wallace
That Waters knew it was false and he went ahead anyway, or he was reckless about it. So it is true by the time time Waters says it that he's, what he's saying is false. There was no call within a day. And he did do that little elision in editing which has been the basis for defamation liability in the past. So he could try, could noose him to say that's the lie. And obviously Waters knows what he's doing, but the basic idea is, you know you're lying when you call me a liar. You're misrepresenting and you do, and because you know about it, you have liability. Oh, and $787 million by the way, which is the magic number from Dominion.
- [57:52]
Melissa Murray
I guess what we learned from Dominion, Harry, is that the discovery process yielded something we'd never seen before as a public, which is one the absolute fealty to the pro Trump viewers among, among Fox's audience. They have people that watch Fox that aren't quite as maga hyped, but their program and their editorial is all programmed as the Dominion discovery shows us toward Trump's fans amid their viewers. What if it were to proceed to Discovery would be of note.
- [58:31]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah, so it's a really important point and you're right, what we learned in Dominion is that they knew it, they really did, and for commercial reasons, they kept on with the lie. If this were to proceed to discovery, and my best guess is Newsom won't push it to discovery, but if it were, the whole focus would be what was water state of mind and knowledge at the point he calls him a liar? Does he know his basic allegation is false because Trump is talking about a different phone call? Or is he just sort of stumbling and sort of malicious to call him a liar but doesn't really know that would be the focus of discovery. Much less complicated and intricate than Dominion. Really focus on one or two players at a one at a particular pivotal time.
- [59:22]
Melissa Murray
And Laurel, Gavin Newsom, I believe, has said that he would drop his lawsuit, he would dismiss it completely if Jesse Waters issued an on air apology for calling him a liar. Talk about that.
- [59:37]
Andrew Weissman
Yeah, the governor's lawyers sent a letter, a demand letter to Fox News saying that they want a retraction. They want, they want a retraction that spends as much time on air retracting the story as they as they spent covering the initial story. And. And also an on air apology from Jesse Watters. If Fox News does that. The letter says that the governor would drop the lawsuit. So the response from Fox didn't indicate that that was forthcoming. So we'll see. We'll have to see what happens.
- [60:14]
Melissa Murray
Harry, would you just legally, not reputationally or brand wise, would you advise Fox to go ahead and issue that apology since as you said at the beginning, the facts are on Gavin Newsom side.
- [60:26]
Nicole Wallace
You know, if they're, if they were a broadcasting network with credibility, of course you, when you make a mistake, you fess up. We called him a liar. We were wrong. It was a complicated timeline. Now Fox, as we learned in Dominion, retreats to sort of political imperative and will the MAGA crowd be upset? But absolutely, just not legally. But as yes, legally, but also as a matter of straight up integrity as a news organization, you make a mistake, whether you did it on purpose or not, you fess up to the mistake. That doesn't mean that Fox will do it, but of course I would advise that.
- [61:04]
Melissa Murray
Rev. This is interesting to us and we're starting the hour here because this is something that Trump and his allies do all day, every day. And I wonder what you think of the tactic of Gavin Newsom saying if you lie about me, you can either apologize on the air and spend as much time telling the truth about me and the facts or I'm going to sue you. What do you think of that tactic? I think that it is an effective tactic in the sense that whether he gets the apology or whether they go forward, he is now because we are.
- [61:39]
Nicole Wallace
Showing the tapes where obviously President Trump.
- [61:43]
Melissa Murray
Spoke to him a day before during a time we have to remember that the whole city of Los Angeles seemed to be at wits end and there.
- [61:53]
Nicole Wallace
Was an area that was really under siege.
- [61:56]
Melissa Murray
So we have to deal with the environment he was talking about and that you can now question everything you hear.
- [62:02]
Nicole Wallace
From from Fox because they lied about something that the president even said. So I think he has a win.
- [62:09]
Melissa Murray
Either way politically he puts them on the defensive where some people that would listen to Fox would say well wait.
- [62:18]
Nicole Wallace
A minute, is that right or is that going to be another lawsuit?
- [62:21]
Melissa Murray
And I think on the lawsuit side, I think that Trump clearly the evidence is there now. I think the lacking of it is whether he had knowledge, acknowledge he being Jesse Waters when he said it. But clearly what he said was factually wrong. Let me show you just to sort of have this conversation side by side with the Dominion lawsuit. This is the Dominion CEO following their settlement. It was about telling the truth and.
- [62:52]
Nicole Wallace
The media telling the truth.
- [62:54]
Melissa Murray
And I think that that what was.
- [62:56]
Andrew Weissman
Important for us is for people to.
- [62:58]
Melissa Murray
Be held account for when they recklessly.
- [63:01]
Andrew Weissman
And knowingly tell lies that have such devastating consequences.
- [63:04]
Melissa Murray
You think they'll stop doing that?
- [63:06]
Andrew Weissman
I certainly hope so.
- [63:07]
Nicole Wallace
And, you know, I think that it's a big step forward in democracy.
- [63:11]
Melissa Murray
If we canour system can send the.
- [63:15]
Nicole Wallace
Signal that if media companies lie, whoever they are on whatever channel it is, and they do so knowingly, they will.
- [63:23]
Andrew Weissman
Be prepared to pay a very, very high price.
- [63:27]
Melissa Murray
Harry, this seems like an important part of that story, right? Like if you after Dominion, there was a lot of coverage of the impact it had on Fox as a business. But at the editorial, and I'm not a round the clock viewer, I'm sort of a casual drive by, I'll peer in from time to time. It has ballasted itself so closely to Trump and this new cabinet, and they're not particularly hemmed in by truth and facts. But I wonder what you make of this media moment where so much of the coverage and so much of the heat has been on Trump getting media companies to bow and capitulate to him. This lawsuit seems to have maybe more sort of psychological impact in of terms terms of making a statement that everyone should play by the same rules.
- [64:17]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah, I agree. And it's out of the Trump playbook of always being on offense. Look, Fox was wounded by Dominion and all the evidence that came out, and Newsom is looking to press exactly on that scar or weak spot. That's very clear when you read the actual complaint. So I think in an overall circumstance social debate that we're having that proceeds on the accurate premise that Trump lies all the time and that follows up with saying Fox is his mouthpiece. Often it's, as Rev says, an effective step forward. And I do think that's the main point that's involved here rather than some grand legal strategy. As Laurie said, he's really. Has Newsom changed his stance toward Trump and the administration since this whole mess in L. A started? And don't forget when Trump said, oh, Louisiana is burning, we must bring in the federal, we must federalize the troops. That was way overstated as well. And it's along those lines that he wants to fight. And he does have this convenient little, you know, hole into it of a specific little lie that they told. So I think it's the overall focus of their probity, Trump's mendacity more than the great legal theory.
- [65:44]
Melissa Murray
Laurel, thank you for your reporting on this. Super interesting. And Harry Lippman, thank you for breaking it all down for us and starting us off this hour. The Rev sticks around with us when we come back the human toll of Donald Trump's extreme deportation efforts. And New Orleans woman, a wife and a mom in this country for nearly 50 years, was snatched off the streets out of her garden by ICE when she was picking figs. Her husband is our next guest. DEADLINE White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. As recently as today, this afternoon, the Trump administration insisted publicly that violent criminals are their priority in their mass deportation effort, which is losing public support quickly. It's something to keep in mind as we tell you this next story. Remind you of the story about a 64 year old woman originally from Iran, now living in New Orleans. Her name is Donna Kashanian. She came to our country as a student nearly 50 years ago before anybody even knew what Pac man was or the miracle on ICE had happened or the Sony Walkman existed. Sometime after her arrival here in the US her asylum claim was denied, but she was allowed to stay in the United States provided she attend regular immigration appointments. Her family told Nola that she never missed a single one, ever. She got married. She started a family. According to nola, she volunteered after Hurricane Katrina to help her community and neighbors. She joined the pta. She helped the elderly. She cooks for her neighbors. The American dream. Then this past Sunday, witnesses say three unmarked vehicles carrying plain clothes ICE agents pulled up on Koshanian as she gardened. They handcuffed her and they were off in an arrest her next door neighbor describes as lasting less than one minute. Now her family desperately wants answers. Joining us is her husband, Russ Milne. He is the husband of Donna Koshanian. Their daughter Caitlin is with us as well. The Rev is with us as well. Russ, tell us what you know and how she's doing, how your wife is doing.
- [67:57]
Nicole Wallace
Well, she's doing well. She's more worried about us than herself, which is normal for Donna. You know, it was a very difficult Sunday and Monday. We only heard from her via her cell phone which she had on her and she was able to make a call while she was still detained downtown New Orleans before she was transported to Hancock County, Mississippi for holding Monday. They had told her at that time, and she told us this was Sunday, about 11 o' clock, 12 o' clock, that the ICE agents were going to take her from New Orleans to Hancock County, Mississippi, and then at some point she'll be transported to Louisiana to a facility. We did not get back in touch with her until Tuesday. The only way we knew her whereabouts was Caitlin was still tracking her phone through the app and it showed her movements from Hancock to Jenna, Louisiana. Not Jenna. Jenna, Louisiana arrived about 12 o' clock at night, Tuesday and then 4 o' clock in the morning Tuesday she arrived in Basile, Louisiana at the women's detention center there by about Tuesday afternoon. What was it, 2:30 ish or so. We finally heard from her. She was able to call using somebody else's account to let us know where she is, that she's okay and to take care of the bills at the house. Right now that's the most important thing.
- [70:13]
Melissa Murray
How long has she been here?
- [70:16]
Nicole Wallace
She's been here since 1978, mostly in New Orleans. She was briefly a student at University of Kentucky.
- [70:26]
Melissa Murray
And came back to UNO.
- [70:27]
Nicole Wallace
And then came back and studied at UNO as well. University in New Orleans.
- [70:35]
Melissa Murray
How long have you been married?
- [70:37]
Nicole Wallace
We've been married 35 years this May 26. We got married in 1990. We met in the French Quarter. She was a bartender and I was a restaurant manager and we have been together ever since. Caitlin was born in 1993 and is here with me.
- [71:09]
Melissa Murray
And tell me why being married to a U.S. citizen didn't grant her U.S. citizenship.
- [71:18]
Nicole Wallace
She @ a very young age she was married through immigration and the courts, they deemed that marriage fraudulent. And so that had a bearing on everything she did, including our marriage. Petitions to applied for asylum multiple times, appealed multiple times times and denied multiple times.
- [71:49]
Andrew Weissman
So from that point on there was. Everything else was just stop, stop, stop.
- [71:55]
Melissa Murray
And what do attorneys tell you the path forward is to getting her back home with you guys?
- [72:02]
Nicole Wallace
It's difficult there. We've talked to multiple attorneys. Right now we're trying to find, you know, somebody to take the case. We have some that are, you know, have looked at it, have talked to us, discussed it and told us the challenges being that her. The decisions that were laid out in the fifth Circuit Court of Appeal due to her asylum denials, due to her marriage previous to me, are huge factors in why she has never been able to gain any kind of permanent residency.
- [72:54]
Melissa Murray
Or.
- [72:57]
Nicole Wallace
Gain asylum adjustment because of my marriage to her.
- [73:03]
Melissa Murray
So she was so desperate to stay here close to when she first came here, that there was a marriage that wasn't, you know, like what your family is. And that has been held against her for the subsequent five decades, four decades, correct?
- [73:22]
Andrew Weissman
Yeah. We don't know the exact details. We just go with what we've been reading in her files, what we go.
- [73:29]
Nicole Wallace
By in her files.
- [73:30]
Andrew Weissman
But she's tried going through the correct system the rest her most of the time and it's been hard for her.
- [73:45]
Melissa Murray
Has she ever committed I'm sorry. Go ahead.
- [73:48]
Nicole Wallace
No, no, absolutely. Go ahead.
- [73:50]
Melissa Murray
I was gonna say, other than the circumstances around her first marriage in this country, has there ever been anything else that she's. Has she ever committed any infractions or crimes?
- [74:02]
Nicole Wallace
No, no, no. She has no criminal history. She. She is a person that's very community oriented, people oriented. She. She just wants to be in this country with her family. She has other family members here, and she has always wanted to be a part of this country.
- [74:33]
Melissa Murray
Caitlin, you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but do you want to tell us what your mom is like?
- [74:42]
Nicole Wallace
This will be difficult.
- [74:45]
Andrew Weissman
Yeah. She's always caring. She's our support system, so.
- [74:51]
Melissa Murray
So it's obviously been really rough this week.
- [74:57]
Andrew Weissman
She's the person that was always at my school, always taking care of things around my school. She was, you know, always a huge.
- [75:06]
Nicole Wallace
Volunteer, always helping everybody around.
- [75:12]
Melissa Murray
Everybody knew Caitlin's mom.
- [75:19]
Andrew Weissman
We.
- [75:22]
Nicole Wallace
She's. She's done amazing volunteer work with different people. She's helped friends and family, you know, their. Their children or their parents at various points in time. After Katrina, she volunteered with Habitat for Humanity. She's. She's a hard worker. You know, she. She put herself second to everybody else. You know, there was nobody that she wouldn't consider first. Matter of fact, recently. Yeah, Matter of fact, recently, a homeless person came walking down our street. Street. And she went out to make sure he had clothes, and the police were there to help out and, you know, get him his help, the help he needed, you know, so.
- [76:23]
Melissa Murray
She sounds incredible. I have an image that wherever they're holding her, she's trying to be this person that you're describing, helpful and accommodating. I would like to ask you guys, does that sound right? I see you nodding.
- [76:38]
Andrew Weissman
Right?
- [76:40]
Nicole Wallace
Yes.
- [76:40]
Melissa Murray
Can you stay with us? I want to bring in some experts on immigration and see if we can. If we can work anything out or come to any better understanding of what's going on here, what might come next for you guys? I have to sneak in a short break before. Okay. I have to sneak in a short break before we do that. We'll be back in about three minutes. Don't go anywhere. We're back with Russ and Caitlin Milne. Also joining our conversation is the national legal director for the aclu, Cecilia Wong. The Rev is with us as well. Cecilia, can you weigh in on what the best path forward is for the Milnes for getting their mom and wife back?
- [77:24]
Andrew Weissman
Well, Nicole, my heart goes out to my.
- [77:28]
Melissa Murray
The Milne family and what you're going.
- [77:30]
Andrew Weissman
Through like so many thousands of people.
- [77:34]
Melissa Murray
So many thousands of American families who've.
- [77:37]
Andrew Weissman
Had their lives disrupted.
- [77:39]
Melissa Murray
I think the path forward is, as.
- [77:41]
Andrew Weissman
You said, to go into court. All of us have the right to due process.
- [77:48]
Melissa Murray
And as this administration is targeting hardworking.
- [77:53]
Andrew Weissman
Taxpayers, people who've been part of US communities in this case for 47 years.
- [78:00]
Melissa Murray
Snatched from their homes, from their gardens, from their workplaces around the country, I think we need to do two things.
- [78:07]
Andrew Weissman
One is that with the help of.
- [78:10]
Melissa Murray
Lawyers, we go into court to fight back, to get our day in court.
- [78:14]
Andrew Weissman
And to make our case that immigrants.
- [78:17]
Melissa Murray
Who the Trump administration is snatching up from their homes around the country have.
- [78:22]
Andrew Weissman
A right to due process and need to have an ability to make the case to stay in this country. Make no mistake, the Trump administration, though he came into office saying he was going to go after people with criminal convictions, is riding roughshod over everyone's due process rights and is going after people who are legally in the country as well.
- [78:46]
Melissa Murray
And the second thing is, I think, you know, we're doing it right now.
- [78:50]
Andrew Weissman
All of us around the country, Americans.
- [78:52]
Melissa Murray
Who care about due process, about the.
- [78:55]
Andrew Weissman
Rule of law, about fundamental civil rights, who believe that the government shouldn't be doing racial profiling or engaging in goon.
- [79:05]
Melissa Murray
Tactics that violate people's Fourth Amendment rights.
- [79:09]
Andrew Weissman
Against illegal searches and seizures. We all need to stand up and make our views known in peaceful protests and just make a change in what.
- [79:19]
Melissa Murray
The government is doing. The Bush center, the George W. Bush center came out with a statistic today that is shocking. They write that there are 56,397 immigrants in detention as of June 15. That is the highest number on record and nearly one third of all immigrants currently detained. So a third of the 56,397 have no criminal history other than a civil immigration violation. Cecilia? I mean, is this their all discretionary? Is there anything to protect people who have committed no crimes and certainly not the violent crimes that the Trump administration said they were going to prioritize and target, but simply have civil which are not criminal violations, but civil immigration violations. How do you separate them or get them out of detention?
- [80:22]
Andrew Weissman
Well, one thing is clear. Under the US Constitution, the government is not allowed to use detention and cruel.
- [80:30]
Melissa Murray
Detention, deliberately cruel detention, in order to punish people who are simply fighting in.
- [80:36]
Andrew Weissman
In the courts for the right to stay in the United States. Every individual case is different.
- [80:42]
Melissa Murray
And I think what's troubling is that.
- [80:44]
Andrew Weissman
The Trump administration is trying to interfere with immigrants rights and their families.
- [80:49]
Melissa Murray
Rights to go to court and to.
- [80:51]
Andrew Weissman
Say I actually have a lawful pathway.
- [80:55]
Melissa Murray
To stay in this country.
- [80:56]
Andrew Weissman
The Trump administration is not, and I should say this too, because we are talking about people with criminal convictions and people who don't. There are many people who are not citizens of the United States, who are green card holders who have lived here for many, many years, who may have a criminal conviction, but they too deserve.
- [81:16]
Melissa Murray
To have under the due process clause.
- [81:18]
Andrew Weissman
Their day in court as well.
- [81:20]
Melissa Murray
And I think the troubling thing about.
- [81:21]
Andrew Weissman
The Trump administration is that they are.
- [81:24]
Melissa Murray
Going after so many broad categories of.
- [81:27]
Andrew Weissman
People, including people who had the legal.
- [81:30]
Melissa Murray
Right to be in the United States.
- [81:33]
Andrew Weissman
Through decisions by previous administrations, including during.
- [81:36]
Melissa Murray
Trump's first term in office.
- [81:39]
Andrew Weissman
And now the Trump administration is trying to use cruel proceedings, cruel detention measures.
- [81:46]
Melissa Murray
Cruel arrest measures, in order to try to run roughshod over people's due process rights.
- [81:53]
Andrew Weissman
That is troubling. And you'll see civil rights lawyers around the country taking steps to challenge those patterns of unlawful government enforcement tactics.
- [82:05]
Melissa Murray
So, Russ, Donna has a driver's license, a Social Security card. She pays taxes. And I know you pointed out that she's always gone to her immigration check ins, even during Katrina, she called to say, I'm going to be in another state for a little bit, but I'm checking in. And I mean, just tell me if she ever had any indication from being in that process that anything had gone askew or that they were, that any of those check ins were not part of a process she was supposed to be following. Was there any warning before she was in less than one minute taken over the weekend?
- [82:42]
Nicole Wallace
No, no, not at all. There was no indication from, you know, past visits down to immigration office that said, you know, hey, you didn't do this, you know, or you didn't follow that. And most times, you know, it was just a matter of five minutes in and out and somebody signed off on her on her paperwork and, you know, she was on her way. And I could tell you one of the, one of the last times that was the scariest was we were actually on our way down to immigration during the issues with the Twin Towers and we were in and out of immigration and then there closed the offices down. So even during that period of time, you know, she, she also, you know, made her appointments last year. They had closed the office and she was required to just call in and, you know, let them know she's, she's making her appointment and doing what she needed to do do.
- [84:12]
Andrew Weissman
In fact, her next appointment was due.
- [84:14]
Nicole Wallace
For July 21, she had an appointment scheduled, a fax comp, an email confirmation for her next appointment for July 21st.
- [84:30]
Melissa Murray
Russ and Kaylin, your mom's story, your wife's story is something that we care about. And so if you ever want to come back and tell us what's happening or let us help you get answers to what you worry is happening or if you get any updates from her that you want to share with our viewers, we care very much about what happens to your mom and your wife. So please come back. Please come back. Thank you very much for telling your story and talking about her with us. We really appreciate it.
- [85:02]
Nicole Wallace
Okay. Thank you. We appreciate it.
- [85:05]
Andrew Weissman
Bye bye.
- [85:06]
Melissa Murray
Cecilia and the Rev are sticking around. We'll get their reaction to our top story today from the United States Supreme Court. We're going to sneak in a quick break first. We'll all be right back. We're back with Cecilia and the Rev. Rev, I can't get the description of what happened to this one family, this one woman in one garden in America in the year 2025, out of my, out of my head. So she's picking fig. She's in her garden. That was her husband and her daughter that we just got to spend some time with. She goes to her immigration status meetings every time they're scheduled. She's a model citizen by every metric that we apply that definition or that description to anybody. And six masked ICE agents in less than one minute, take her from her life, take her from her family, take her from her.
- [85:57]
Nicole Wallace
No.
- [85:57]
Melissa Murray
This shows how ruthless this whole procedure that Donald Trump's administration has enacted. Here's a woman married 35 years in the country, taxpayer 47 years, no criminal record, no crime. And you're telling Americans we're after the.
- [86:17]
Nicole Wallace
Criminals, we're after the people that have.
- [86:19]
Melissa Murray
Done these dastardly acts. Well, how do you make that out of this woman? And to hear her daughter and her husband talk like that, if you have any morality at all, you'd have to say, wait a minute, there has to be a way we do this that protects people like her. And I think that there's a moral and a legal challenge here that has to be taken up all the way.
- [86:44]
Nicole Wallace
To the full extent that we can.
- [86:47]
Melissa Murray
So sayo, while we have you, your thoughts on the Supreme Court court decision today, not weighing in on birthright citizenship, but giving the Trump administration a lot of running room to do a lot of damage to a lot of people, I think that the decision today on.
- [87:04]
Andrew Weissman
The birthright citizenship cases, as you said.
- [87:07]
Melissa Murray
Didn'T reach the question of whether Donald Trump's order trying to overturn the 14th.
- [87:12]
Andrew Weissman
Amendment by executive fiat didn't reach the.
- [87:15]
Melissa Murray
Question of whether that's constitutional or not. Clearly, the answer is that it is unconstitutional. But I do want to make one.
- [87:23]
Andrew Weissman
Thing really clear to your listeners and.
- [87:26]
Melissa Murray
To the American public and all the.
- [87:27]
Andrew Weissman
People who are waiting in fear to hear what the answer is on birthright citizenship. The decision today leaves the lower court's injunctions blocking Trump's birthright citizenship executive order in place for at least 30 days.
- [87:45]
Melissa Murray
So everyone's birthright citizenship is safe for.
- [87:48]
Andrew Weissman
At least the next 30 days. And it gives the lower courts an opportunity to redecide these injunction orders that block the executive order and asks those.
- [88:00]
Melissa Murray
Courts to justify the scope.
- [88:02]
Andrew Weissman
I also want to say that the bottom line is even though the court has changed the rules of the road for these civil rights cases, there are still many open pathways to block Trump's illegal order and ensure that all babies born in the US Are equal citizens, as the rule has been in our country since the end of the Civil War. In fact, the ACLU and our partner organizations have already filed a new nationwide.
- [88:28]
Melissa Murray
Class action Lawsuit as of 2:00 Eastern.
- [88:31]
Andrew Weissman
Time today to go and pursue protection for everyone who deserves said.
- [88:37]
Melissa Murray
You guys are fast and vitally important. Cecilia, thank you for being part of our coverage today. Rev, thank you for being here. We'll see you this weekend on Politics Nation. When we come back, a sneak peek at the newest episode of our podcast, the Best People. We talk about a lot of these issues. I'll show it to you after a very short break.
- [88:59]
Andrew Weissman
I think that we have to have some bottom lines, right? And like this makes me so emotional.
- [89:03]
Melissa Murray
Because we sat in that room and.
- [89:05]
Nicole Wallace
And there was a 16 year old.
- [89:08]
Andrew Weissman
Little girl who was pleading with the judge, where's my mom? Where is my mother? Take me to my mother.
- [89:16]
Nicole Wallace
They have no idea.
- [89:17]
Andrew Weissman
This is not their fault. And like the bottom line, if the bottom line can't be children for you, I'm not really sure there is one for you.
- [89:27]
Melissa Murray
That's right. It was just a snippet of what was for me an incredible conversation and an incredible chance to talk to two. Two people I have admired from afar for a very long time. That was Abby Wambach and Glennon Doyle. Glennon is a best selling author. Abby is a world class, world famous super athlete. Together they are the force behind the we can do hard things empire. I don't know that they call it an empire, but it is as you'll hear in the next episode of the Best People, Glennon and Abby are bearing witness right now to the plight of family and especially kids caught up in the Trump administration's immigration policies. Scan the QR code on your screen to listen to our conversation now if you want to. If you can't wait until Monday by subscribing to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts, the conversation with Glennon and Abby will be available to download for everybody on Monday. Wherever you get your podcasts, one more break. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes for another week of shows. We are grateful.
- [90:31]
Andrew Weissman
I've never felt like this before. It's like you just get me. I feel like my true self with you. Does that sound crazy? And it doesn't hurt that you're gorgeous. Okay, that's it. I'm taking you home with me. I mean, you can't find shoes this good just anywhere. Find a shoe for every you from brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas and more at your DSW store or dsw dot com.