← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The protests were practice: Americans are prepared for Supreme Court's obstacles to opposing Trump
00:41:05
Jen Psaki looks at how we arrived at today's Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions, from Donald Trump's unpopular policies, frequently unlawful executive orders, and Republican lemming Congress, to the state attorneys general defending rights and the rule of law, and the millions of Americans who have been organizing against Trump. That organizing is going to be useful as the Supreme Court has left the door open on using class action lawsuits to oppose Trump's orders.
Loading summary
Transcript51 lines
- [00:00]
Dr. Horton
Your new beginning starts now. Dr. Horton has new construction homes available in Ellensburg and throughout the greater Seattle area. With spacious floor plans, flexible living spaces and home technology packages, you can enjoy more cozy moments and sweet memories in your beautiful new home. With new home communities opening in Ellensburg and throughout the Seattle area, Dr. Horton has the ideal home for you. Learn more@drhorton.com Dr. Horton, America's builder and Equal Housing Opportunity Builder.
- [00:32]
Anonymous Black Woman in Recovery
Substance use disorder and addiction is so isolating. And so as a Black woman in recovery, hope must be loud. It grows louder when you ask for help and you're vulnerable. It is the thread that lets you know that no matter what happens, you will be okay.
- [00:52]
National Council for Mental Wellbeing Representative
When we learn the power of hope recovery is possible, find out how@startwithhope.com brought to you by the National Council for Mental well Being, Shatterproof and the AD.
- [01:02]
Jen Psaki
Council Today, the weak and unpopular conservative Supreme Court surrendered some key powers from the judicial branch over to King Donald and the executive branch. I'm going to get into all of that with a lot of smart people and what it all means in just a moment. But first I want to take a little bit of a step back and look at why the Supreme Court found itself on the road to enabling Trump's MAGA agenda in the first place. I mean, how'd they even get here? And the latest Quinnipiac poll, believe it or not, released just yesterday, is a pretty good starting point because Trump's policies are widely unpopular and I mean across the board. Just take immigration. That was Lynch's strength. Now today, yesterday, the American public disapproves of Trump's actions by a 16 point margin. You can see it on the screen on deportation, specifically, which he's done. A whole lot of the American public disapproves of Trump's actions by a 20 point margin. On his decision to send the National Guard into Los Angeles, he's underwater by 12 points. And on his decision to send the US Marines into LA, it's even worse. The American public disapproves of that by a 23 point margin. And it keeps going on. I'll give you a few more. On the economy, Trump is underwater by 17 points. Goes the same for trade, he's underwater there by 17 points. 2. So my point is this. Every single part of Donald Trump's agenda is deeply unpopular and yet he's barreled ahead with it anyway, thanks in large part to his absolute obsession with executive orders. Now, I'm not suggesting he's the first president to use them. He's not at all. But often the reason a president turns to executive orders, especially once they get past the first couple weeks of their term, is because they've calculated that they can't get Congress to pass their policies into law. And sure, I mean, even with the MAGA lemmings in the Republican House and Senate, maybe that is a factor with some of Trump's agenda. Maybe that is not entirely why Trump uses executive orders. That's not his motivation. He uses them because he has no interest in building consensus, no interest in forming coalitions, no real interest in winning people over beyond the MAGA core base. I mean, he really hasn't even tried to push the bulk of his agenda through Congress at all, aside from the big ugly bill that's not going so well currently. The thing is, he doesn't like the hard work the governing requires because he prefers to rule like a strongman demanding with a version of a magawan that his orders be carried out by the stroke of a pen. And at this point, he knows he can get away with it because the Republican Party surrendered its power to Donald Trump a very long time ago. And the institution of Congress, another branch of government under Republican control, has surrendered much of its power, too. So the only institutional bulwark against Trump's autocratic impulses has been the third branch of government, the courts. And as Trump has pushed the limits of his power, the courts have had to check him over and over and over again, largely the lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions to halt his executive orders as they decide to what authority he actually has under the Constitution. In fact, Trump's actions have been so extreme, the courts have had to use that power to stop him more than any other president in modern history. Any other president. And that's something that even Trump himself admits. We've been hit with more nationwide injunctions than were issued in the entire 20th century together. Think of it. More than the entire 20th century. Me? Yes, you. The courts have had to stop you. Donald Trump, more than any other president. It's not the brag you think it is either, by the way. That all brings us to today, when the conservative majority on the Supreme Court decided that it too would surrender some of its power to Donald Trump. In a 6:3 decision split along ideological lines, the Supreme Court significantly curtailed the power of its own federal courts to stop a lawless president. Now, at the core of the case was one of Trump's most egregious executive orders, his decision to unilaterally end the long standing precedent that Anyone born on U.S. soil is an American citizen. Democratic attorneys general in 22 states, two of whom we're going to talk to shortly, sued the Trump administration, saying that order was blatantly unconstitutional. And several federal judges agreed, issuing nationwide injunctions to put that order on pause while the courts considered the case. But the question before the Supreme Court was not whether Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship was itself constitutional. They may consider that in the future. They sort of indicated they might next term, we'll see. Rather, the question before them was whether those judges should even have the power to pause Trump's order across the entire country. Well, today, the court's conservative majority effectively said that those lower court judges did not have that power, that they could not pause Trump's order nationwide. They ruled that the pause would only apply to the 22 states that actually sued. It's part of creating the two Americas that we've seen repeatedly. But here's the thing. The court's decision went much further than just the issue of birthright citizenship, which is a very important one, but it went farther than that. They essentially made it much harder for courts to put a nationwide pause on any of Trump's policies. They basically said that the people challenging these orders will have to go state by state, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, to stop any of Trump's unlawful agenda. And there are a whole bunch of Trump's policies, from his federal funding freeze to his new voting restrictions to his attacks on diversity, policies that are currently being blocked by nationwide injunctions. Now, in a chilling dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the three liberal justices, wrote, 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. The rule of law is not a given in this nation or any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival in every branch. That's a key part. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort. In a separate concurring dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made it crystal clear what this ruling will mean in the very near term. Here's. Here's what she had to say. What it means to have a system of government that is bounded by law is that everyone is constrained by the law and no exceptions. And for that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone, including the executive, to follow the law full stop. To Conclude otherwise is to endorse the creation of a zone of lawlessness within which the executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law's protection and become subject to the executive's whims instead. As sobering as those dissents are, and they're very sobering. And there's more. The truth is that we have always known how Donald Trump thinks about power and his power. We have long known what the court's conservative majority thinks about their role in constraining him. After all, this court did grant him broad immunity from prosecution just a year ago. The big question, one of them is, what happens next? Well, this decision significantly hamstrings the federal courts. It did not entirely shut the door on their ability to block Trump's agenda. We're going to dig into that. Specifically, plaintiffs can ask a court to award preliminary class wide relief that may, for example, be statewide, region wide, or even nationwide. In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh leaves the door open for people to bring cases as a large graboric class and get courts to issue rulings that apply to every member of that group nationwide. In other words, people can still ask the courts to block Trump's policies across the entire country if they can manage to do the hard organizing work of finding big groups of people who will be negatively impacted by them and getting them to come out. And if there's one thing we've learned in the second Trump administration, the six months of it that we're into here, it's that people standing up to Trump know how to do that kind of dedicated, on the ground organizing all across the country, in every state, nearly. We've seen them do it in protests everywhere. We've seen them do it in courthouses where ICE agents try to round up immigrants who are just showing up for their immigration hearings. We've seen them do it at town halls in deep red Republican districts. It is possible that we will look back on today's ruling as the day when the fight against Trump in the courts and the fight against Trump in the streets became one and the same. And I am not saying it's going to be easy. It's going to be hard. But we always knew this was going to be hard. It just got a little harder. Two of the attorneys general who brought this case and will lead this fight going forward join me here in just 90 seconds.
- [10:17]
Dr. Horton
Your new beginning starts now. Dr. Horton has new construction homes available in Ellensburg and throughout the greater Seattle area with with spacious floor plans, flexible living spaces and home technology packages, you can enjoy more cozy moments and sweet memories in your beautiful new home. With new home communities opening in Ellensburg and throughout the Seattle area, Dr. Horton has the ideal home for you. Learn more@drhorton.com Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal Housing Opportunity Builder Building a business.
- [10:50]
OnDeck Representative
May feel like a big jump, but on deck small business loans can help keep you afloat. With lines of credit up to 100,000 doll term loans up to $250,000, OnDeck lets you choose the loan that's right for your business. As a top rated online small business lender, Ondeck's team of loan advisors can help you find the right business loan to fit your needs. Visit ondeck.com for more information. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtibank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.
- [11:20]
Anonymous Black Woman in Recovery
Substance use disorder and addiction is so isolating. And so as a black woman in recovery, hope must be loud. It grows louder when you ask for help and you're vulnerable. It is the thread that lets you know that no matter what happens, you will be okay.
- [11:40]
National Council for Mental Wellbeing Representative
When we learn the power of hope recovery is possible, find out how@startwithhope.com brought to you by the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, Shatterproof, and the AD Council.
- [12:00]
Jen Psaki
Joining me now are the Attorney General of New Jersey, Matt Platkin, and the Attorney General of Washington, Nick Brown. Their lawsuits against the Trump administration were the subject of today's Supreme Court ruling. Thank you both for joining me. I think I have so many questions and I want to talk a lot about birthright citizenship specifically. But first, I just want to ask you Let me start with you, Attorney General Brown. And the ruling today is about nationwide injunctions. I just talked about this a bit. And while they have been used under both Democratic and Republican presidents, just as executive orders have been used under both Democratic and Republican presidents, they've been especially important, these injunctions during the first six months of the Trump term because of his focus on essentially limiting the rights of people across the country. So let me just start by asking when it comes to specifically to how Trump could use this, how this door could be open for him to have unchecked power in terms of executive orders. How do you how concerned are you about that?
- [12:59]
Nick Brown
Well, first, thank you for having me on, Jen. I think all of us in this country should be very concerned. But what we've seen from the first six months of this Trump administration, time and time again, evading the power of Congress, evading state sovereignty, and using executive orders to make massive, sweeping policies across the country, and often policies that are most damaging some of our most vulnerable people in this country. And the fact that he is doing that without any congressional check, you know, the only stop guard to that has been the courts, has been state attorney generals, has been organizations bringing claims on behalf of their people in their community. And what we saw today really limits the ability of get to get justice and defend the rights of individuals. So I think we should all be concerned. And I do think it represents, as you touched on earlier in your program, a fundamental weakness of this president. You know, if you have convincing policy arguments, then you can convince people to get behind you and you can pass laws or you can go through the normal court process. If you want to rewrite the Constitution, then you need to convince Congress and the states to go along with you. But the president doesn't care about those safeguards, doesn't care about the rule of law. And that's why we've seen so many executive orders.
- [14:13]
Jen Psaki
Let me ask you, Attorney General Plotkin, the ruling has stayed for 30 days. How does this ruling change? We know there have already been efforts to, even in the first couple of hours, for organizations like the ACLU and CASA to put forward cases. But how does this change your approach to the case now? What happens now?
- [14:33]
Matt Platkin
Well, look, again, the opinion reads a bit like a President Trump press release, but I want to be clear about what the Supreme Court did not do today. They did not even try to address whether birthright citizenship is legal, what we call the merits of the case, because there really isn't any good argument to say that the 14th Amendment, which has been in place for 157 years and not challenged by any president, doesn't confer birthright citizenship on babies born here. They also, as you know, said, For 30 days, nothing changes. And as it relates to states, they even said that we can go to court and show that we do need a nationwide injunction. So they didn't actually even take away what we were asking for. And so what I think you're likely to see is, as you've noted, private plaintiffs have gone in and are seeking class certification, meaning they have to do a little more work, but they've already done that. And for states, we're going to show why it is impossible and absurd to think we could administer birthright citizenship based on which state you live in at the time of birth and whether or not your attorney general had the courage to join a lawsuit.
- [15:39]
Jen Psaki
It is like it's creating two societies and two Americas, which we've seen in so many other policies. Let me ask you, Attorney General Brown, because today, Pam Bondi today at a press conference seemed confident that the merits in question here will go before the Supreme Court in October. She can't possibly actually know that. But let me ask you more broadly. Do you think this is a case? I mean, should we expect this to be heard, the merits of it by the Supreme Court next term? Yeah.
- [16:07]
Nick Brown
This is actually one of the few times where I'd actually agree with AG Bondi. I think it is highly likely that the substance, the merits of this case will get to the supreme court. You know, A.G. plackett and I were both at the Supreme Court last month as we were arguing this procedural basis that led to the order today. But it seemed inevitable for all of the judges or justices on the court. This, this would eventually get back to the Supreme Court. Even Justice Alito sort of question, what was the point of this procedural argument that we were hearing last month? Because we all recognize an issue of this importance needs to get back to the court. But as Matt said, every court that has looked at this, not just for the past 150 years, but all the district courts that looked at this in the first instance when we brought challenges starting back in January, they've all reached the same conclusion that is blatantly unconstitutional, that there is no legal basis to do this. And that is because it is, you know, fundamental to our country that if you're born on this soil, with very few exceptions, that you are an American and no one should accept that a president can change that with his short web pen.
- [17:11]
Jen Psaki
Let me ask you, Attorney General Plotkin, I mean, the one issue that the court has not had to deal with is, I mean, they haven't dealt with a lot of things, I should say, but one of them, they haven't dealt with the practicalities of how Trump's birthright citizenship executive order would even be enforced. I mean, it does create these two societies. But have you heard any kind of argument from the administration that this would be anything but a bureaucratic nightmare? It's immoral too, but I mean, how would it even work?
- [17:39]
Matt Platkin
Well, you noted Attorney General Bondi's press conference earlier and her response to that question was a lot like the response My 8 year old just or my 6 year old just had when I found him out of bed. Basically hum and a humming hum and a. She had no answer for why or how the administration would seek to differ birthright citizenship based on which state you live in? And think about it. We've talked about this before, Jen. Think about it from New Jersey's perspective. We live in a very dense and close region. We have states next to us that are not part of the suit. So if a child is born in Philadelphia but lives in New Jersey, are we really going to have to parse through for each child, where they move, when they move? Who was their attorney general at the time of birth? Do they have a birth certificate? Do they not? Are they entitled to health care, education, a whole range of services? The administration at the district court didn't even try to say this was a possibility because I think even they know there's a certain absurdity in that argument. We have not treated people differently as far as their citizenship status based on the state they live in since before the Civil War. And we all know why those people were treated differently by states. I don't think we want to go back to that type of scenario.
- [18:53]
Jen Psaki
Let me end by asking you, Attorney General Brown. I mean, the ruling appears to make your roles, no pressure, a state attorneys general more important than ever before. How do you think about what this means for your roles and the power of, I mean, I'm going to say Democratic attorneys general across the country to really protect and stand up for people's rights?
- [19:15]
Nick Brown
Well, I think so many people in this country right now are feeling powerless. You know, they're seeing rights being stripped away. They're seeing common laws just be violated. We're seeing the rule of law break down and people don't know how to fight back, not only to defend themselves, but to defend their friends and neighbors and people in their community. But it is really fortunate that we have people in positions in the states to stand up and fight back and really force the president to follow the rule of law. And, you know, I'm so humbled to be in this position, to work with my Democratic colleagues across the country, because we have been the safeguard for so many fundamental rights in this moment. And, you know, I think so many people in this country right now should be asking their attorney generals in other states, why didn't you join this case and not only this case, why haven't you defended state funding that's been unconstitutionally cut by this president? You know, there are hundreds of millions of dollars being stripped away or tempted to be stripped away by this president almost every week from states for programs for education, health care, for housing, and only those states with Democratic AGs have seen the fight been brought to the administration to say, no, you can't do that. You have to pass laws. You have to work with Congress, you have to work with your state partners because time and time again, the president's ignoring that and the first line of defense on so many of these fundamental issues, our state's attorney generals. And that was reaffirmed by the court's decision today.
- [20:40]
Jen Psaki
I want to thank both of you so much. I know you have so much work ahead. It's so important for people to understand there are people fighting for them out there. So thank you both again for joining me. Coming up, some Democrats call today's decision a vile betrayal of the Constitution. Jamie Raskin happens to be an expert on that document. And he's here next to. And here's he he's here next with me and he's going to tell me how he sees it.
- [21:08]
OnDeck Representative
Building a business may feel like a big jump, but on deck small business loans can help keep you afloat. With lines of credit up to $100,000 and term loans up to 250,000, OnDeck lets you choose the loan that's right for your business. As a top rated online small business lender, OnDeck's team of loan advisors can help you find the right business loan to fit your needs. Visit ondeck.com for more information. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtibank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.
- [21:40]
Anonymous Black Woman in Recovery
Substance use disorder and addiction is so isolating. And so as a black woman in recovery, hope must be loud. It grows louder. When you ask for help and you're vulnerable, it is the throat that lets you know that no matter what happens, you will be okay.
- [22:00]
National Council for Mental Wellbeing Representative
When we learn the power of hope, recovery is possible. Find out how@startwithhope.com brought to you by the National Council for Mental well Being, Shatterproof and the AD Council. Hey guys, have you heard of Gold Belly? It's this amazing site where they ship the most iconic famous foods from restaurants across the country, anywhere nationwide. I've never found a more perfect gift than food. Gold Belly Ship Chicago deep dish pizza, New York bagels, Maine lobster rolls and even Ina Garden's famous cakes. So if you're looking for a gift for the food lover in your Life, head to Goldbelly.com and get 20% off your first order with promo code GIFT. That's Goldbelly.com promo code GIFT.
- [22:46]
Jen Psaki
Today, in her dissenting opinion of Trump v. Casa, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson wrote, our rights based legal system can only function properly if the executive and everyone else is always bound by law. Today's decision is a seismic shock to that foundational norm. Allowing the executive to violate the law at its prerogative. Prerogative with respect to anyone who has not yet sued carves out a huge exception, a gash on the basic tenets of our founding charter that could turn out to be a mortal wound. Justice Brown's powerful dissent today raised many questions in my mind, in your mind, questions that no doubt many of you are asking yourself about what this all means, questions about the implications of today's Supreme Court decision on our Constitution, on the law, on our rights. Chief among them, what happens when the highest court in the land seemingly allows a carve out for the executive branch to violate the Constitution? Luckily, I have the perfect one of my favorite, probably one of your favorite two constitutional scholars to ask. Joining me now is Democratic Congressman of Maryland Jamie Raskin. He is, as I just mentioned, a constitutional scholar and also the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. One of the things, it's great to see you and I'm so grateful to get to talk to you on a day like this, which is a difficult one. But one of the things I started the show with was talking about how of the three branches of government, two seem to have surrendered at this point in large part. I mean, certainly the legislative branch and large swaths of the court, not the lower courts. But with this ruling today, should I take a breath? Are you alarmed? How do you kind of see this ruling?
- [24:25]
Jamie Raskin
Well, it is an instructive tale about how many conservative Republicans have completely capitulated, but the people have not given in. On the contrary, the people are becoming more engaged and more outraged by every offense against the Constitution. Look, we've beaten Donald Trump seven times in court on birthright citizenship in four district courts, two Republican judges, a Reagan and Bush judge, two Democratic judges, Obama and Biden judge, and three appeals courts. One hundred percent of the cases have said that his birthright citizenship executive order is completely unconstitutional, or as the Reagan judge put it, blatantly unconstitutional. He said in his four decades on the bench, this is by far the easiest case because of what he'd done. So you get a completely Trumpified gerrymandered court stacked and packed by Donald Trump, and they know that they can't rule against the Constitution on this substance. So they pull a rabbit out of a hat and they decide that the Judiciary act of 1789 has been misinterpreted, basically for centuries, and that federal district courts do not have the discretion to impose a nationwide injunction, even if they're looking at something blatantly unconstitutional. Can you imagine this court doing that? If a Democratic jud had, for example, issued an executive order seizing everybody's assault weapons in the country, do you think they would say, well, you've got to go to every single district court in America to 94 district courts? Or do you think they would allow the universal injunctions that were being issued, for example, by Judge Kaczmarek, the right wing theocrat Republican judge, the only judge in Amarillo, Texas? And you know how the GOP was lined up around the block to get into his chamber so he could issue a nationwide injunction on culture war cases like mifepristone, but instead they decide to use this case to completely overturn and revolutionize the doctrine of the equitable jurisdiction of a federal district court. So I'm with Justice Cytomore, I'm with Justice Jackson. I'm outraged by this. But having said all that, the people are tough and the Constitution is tough and the people and the Constitution are going to stick together on this. We've beaten them in four district courts across the land. If we've got to beat them in 94 district courts, we will do that. If we got to beat them in every appeals court in the country, then we will do that. Because people are standing up in every city and town to defend the basic elements of our constitutional system. And one of them is that if you're born in America, you're a citizen.
- [27:04]
Jen Psaki
Here, which it should be, and they will rule. I mean, I think everybody expects they will consider the merits of that in the next term. To your point, I just wanted to read this question, quote, about what sort mayor gave that I think was you were referencing in part, she said in her what she in her dissent. The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet shamefully, this court plays along. Let me ask you, because you've referenced this, about the strength, and I started the show talking about this too. The strength of the country. The strength of the people. You have state attorneys general who were out there, I just talked to two of them who are ready to fight this. You have the potential for class action cases. What happens here next? What would you like to see happen here next? With the resources that are possible? There are limitations in Congress. You're still in the minority.
- [27:55]
Jamie Raskin
Yeah, well, there was a kind of carve out or a limited carve out to this very constricting judgment for state attorneys general. And the majority had to acknowledge that a state attorney general acting in parents, Patriots for the People has got to represent everybody in order to have complete relief, as they put it in that case. So we got to take the state attorney generals seriously. If I were a Republican attorney general, I'd be very nervous right now because everybody in those states is going to be looking to them. And if they don't act, then, you know, every AG position in America should be up for grabs for people who are willing to stand up for the Constitution against a gangster state president who thinks he can do whatever he want, even in direct violation of the text of the Constitution. Where are all the textualists now? Where are all the originalists now? They are making this up. Where did this doctrine come from that you can abolish birthright citizenship? Did the stork bring it? You know, and so Justice Jackson did a magnificent job in her dissenting opinion where she said, let's center what the constitutional violation is. This is not even a close case. So why would we get into all of the procedural games that the majority wants to play? Plunge us into. Why don't we just decide that birthright citizenship is protected as it has been since the Constitution was amended in 1868 when the radical Republicans had Congress overturn the Dred Scott decision. Why don't we just stand by that? And then we don't even need to get into this other question at this point of nationwide injunctions. But they're constantly appeasing Donald Trump and soothing his very easily wounded ego.
- [29:42]
Jen Psaki
No question about that. Let me ask you, in the minute or so we have left here. I mean, you're a close watcher of the court. We all are. There were other rulings today. There have been other rulings. This is the last day. What do you make of the Supreme Court's rulings this term? How do you see it? There were some surprises, but not many.
- [30:02]
Jamie Raskin
Well, I mean, a good example is the one that actually took place in my home county, which I represent in Congress, the Montgomery county school case. You know, there had been a policy in Montgomery county that your family or your kids could opt out of certain kinds of lessons. That policy was changed, whether wisely or not. But in any event, then some parents went to court to say that they had a constitutional right to opt out. And of course, because of the particular political dynamics of the case, the MAGA element on the court rushed to embrace it without considering what the real implications of that are. If you can opt out of teachings that mention gay people, for example, because it offends your sincere religious beliefs. Well, then why can't you opt out of a science class that mentions evolution if that conflicts with your religious beliefs? Why can't you opt out of a class that talks about war if your family embraces pacifism? And so once you go down that road, it unravels the whole idea of having a public school education. Now, nobody should be conscripted to repeat something or participate in a ritual where they have to subscribe to an ideological precept they disagree with. The Supreme Court said that in West Virginia vs. Barnett, saying you don't have to participate in the flag salute that was with Jehovah's Witnesses because that's making you confess a faith or an ideological belief you might not share. But being exposed to books or ideas that might be in conflict with other things you believe is the essence of education. And so you can't base an educational system on the idea that I'm going to pull my kids out of class whenever they're teaching about something I don't want them to learn about. Or in any event, it's going to make schools much more difficult to run. And really, that's the bottom line idea here. It's part of the right wing attack on public school teachers, public school curriculum, and the institutions they want to try to wreck our public schools. So again, we need people across the country to stand up for public education, to get involved in the public schools and make sure that the right wing is not wrecking our ability to actually teach our kids.
- [32:13]
Jen Psaki
What a good note to end on. I always love talking to you. Thank you so much for helping provide some clarity this tough day. Really appreciate it. Coming up, a big question is about the path forward. We talked about that a little bit. And what happens next? We'll talk to someone on the front lines of that fight. But first, first, my thoughts, some of our thoughts on what this is actually all about. I want to warn you that the video I'm about to play is incredibly disturbing. So if you'd like to look away just for a moment, we'll come back, we'll talk all about it afterwards. Now is your time to do so. So it's a video of events that happened on Tuesday when an Iranian woman in Los Angeles experienced a severe panic attack as she and her husband were arrested by federal immigration agents. The panic attack was so severe, it triggered convulsions.
- [33:11]
Jamie Raskin
Stay there.
- [33:12]
Sky Perryman
Stay back. Let him go. She's mad. Let her go. Let her go. You don't stay there, you're going to be arrested for. She's sick. She's sick. You're gonna be arrested for interview. She's sick. I'm here. She's sick. Okay. Stay there. She's mad. Call 91 1. Call 91 1. She's mad. She has a problem.
- [33:37]
Jen Psaki
The woman and her husband are both Iranian asylum seekers. The man recording the video is their pastor. He claims that the couple fled Iran because of religious persecution. They're both Christians. And in the video you can hear the pastor press the federal agents asking why they are arresting these two, what the justification for the arrest is. Take a listen to what they had to say.
- [34:01]
Sky Perryman
I'm his pastor.
- [34:02]
Jen Psaki
He has a warrant, sir. Correct.
- [34:04]
Sky Perryman
For what?
- [34:04]
Jamie Raskin
He's being arrested for immigration.
- [34:07]
Sky Perryman
He's. He's asylum seeker.
- [34:09]
Nick Brown
It doesn't matter, sir. We're just following orders.
- [34:11]
Jamie Raskin
He's got a warrant.
- [34:12]
Sky Perryman
He can be attempted cp. Vaughn, why are you doing this? It's no longer valid anymore.
- [34:18]
Jen Psaki
That's no longer valid anymore. You just heard the last masked agent say CBP1. The thing the pastor was referencing there is an app, the Customs and Border Patrol app. All of that, the armed mask agents pulling this couple off the street, scaring this woman into literal convulsions, and the crime that couple is accused of committing, according to the agent that arrested them, is that they filed for asylum on the CBP1 app. And that is, according to them, no longer valid. Earlier this year, Trump revoked the legal status, the legal right to be in this country for more than 900,000 people, just because they used this app. As the New York Times put it, these were the people that followed the rules. The app was the way that the government told these people to file for asylum when they entered the country. Trump told them all to leave anyway. And the arrests we just showed you where the only crime appears to be the lack of legal immigration status. It's becoming the norm now. Right now, ICE is arresting 500% more non criminal immigrants than it did during the same period in Trump's first term. In Trump's first term, 500%. Despite Trump's claims that he is arresting and deporting the worst of the worst, that is not what is actually happening here. Clearly, more and more of the people Trump is arresting and slating for deportation are people whose only crime is lacking legal immigration status. All while Trump is actively revoking the legal immigration status from huge swaths of formerly legal immigrants. It's not just the 900,000 people who entered the country via the CBP1 app after they were told to do it exactly that way. In February, Trump stripped legal status from 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants. In April, he did the same thing to more than 14,000 Afghans and 7,000 Cameroonians. There's some overlap in all of those numbers, but some of those people use the CBP1 app. But as NBC News reported last week, there are now more than 1 million people who had been granted legal entry to this country in one way or another who Trump has now retroactively stripped of their legal status. And that more than 1 million number was before today's two gigantic pieces of of immigration news, some of which we've been talking about today. I mean, today the Trump administration also ended the temporary protected status for Haitian immigrants, retroactively stripping legal status from another about 500,000 people who are already in the United States. And as we've been discussing this hour, today, the Supreme Court shot down the nationwide injunction that was blocking Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship. While the merits of that case have yet to be decided, probably will be next term. Until they are, we may start seeing children being born in the United States but not given citizenship by the tens of thousands. Today's Supreme Court decision effectively got rid of one of the most effective tools the judicial branch had to push back on Trump's immigration agenda. But there's still another legal mechanism the courts have, and now it is even more important. Sky Perryman, the president and CEO of the legal group Democracy Forward, she's on the front lines of that. She joins us next to discussion. The ruling came down just after 10am this morning, before it was even time for lunch. There was a revised challenge. The immigrant rights group casa, the same group that brought the case that was just ruled on by the Supreme Court in less than two hours today. They completely revamped their case in less than two hours. And their basic goal is still exactly the same, to try and block Trump's birthright citizenship order from going to effect. But there's a big technical difference. This new filing asked the judge to turn the case into a class action lawsuit. And in his concurring opinion today, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that while, yes, the court was blocking the nationwide relief they were seeking to Trump's new birthright citizenship policy, he said there was actually one more legal path that the court was leaving free and clear, and that is to try and challenge the policy using a class action lawsuit. As far as the conservative Supreme Court is concerned, if you want to file a class action lawsuit to try and block Trump's policies. By all means, knock yourself out, I guess. So that is exactly what that immigrant rights group did today, marshaling the resources to bring this updated Supreme Court approved 2.0 of sorts version of the lawsuit in less than two hours. Pretty impressive. They were quickly followed by the ACLU who filed their own brand new class action suit this afternoon. President of the advocacy group Democracy Forward, Sky Perryman saying today, quote, a number of pathways remain for individuals to obtain relief from the courts on the issue of birthright citizenship. Joining us now is Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward. I'm so grateful you're here because so an important part of this is understanding what it is, but also understanding what can be done about it, because we are not powerless. No one is, which we've been trying to talk about this evening. So let me start by asking you practically, I mean, arguing these challenges as class action lawsuits, which seems like it's a big part of the path forward here, what would it mean for the way they're litigated and argued in court? What should we understand about that?
- [39:22]
J
So this is a mechanism that people have in order to get their rights protected in court. You'll see that there will be arguments about how people are similarly situated to each other, those who benefit from birthright citizenship. And so I think that what you've seen today is really what we have known for some time, which is that lawyers in this country are going to do everything they possibly can to protect people's rights, even if that means changing a legal strategy.
- [39:52]
Jen Psaki
We have seen that which has been encouraging in a really dark and difficult day. In some other ways, does this classifying these cases as class actions, could it change the outcome or who the ruling might apply to or impact in the end?
- [40:06]
J
You know, I mean, I think that it will certainly the classes will be defined as the affected individuals. And so the hope, of course, is to be able to reach as many people as possible with, with this mechanism. It is a pathway. It's an important pathway that is left open. It's, of course, very disappointing, as you've noted. It's very disappointing that at this moment in American history, the majority of the court walked away from the relief that the lower courts had already entered. But this is a pathway that you're going to see pursued. And it should be able to, it should be able to provide relief for everyone that's affected.
- [40:45]
Jen Psaki
It seems like it will. But you're so much on the front, closer to the front lines of this than I am. Do you think we're going to see a range of groups adopt the class action strategy in order to fight other Trump administration policies? Because this nationwide injunction impact is, of course, not just about birthright citizenship, as you well know.
- [41:02]
J
Well, yes. I mean, look, we've already been using class actions in many of the cases. Our organization at Democracy Forward, we have had to file a class action on behalf of a number of groups across the country that have grants that are helping survivors of sexual assault, assault and sexual violence. When the doj, you know, determinated grants across the, across the board in the immigration context, the JGG case, which is that case where we and the ACLU have clients that have been removed to El Salvador, that is a class action case. So this is a mechanism that is used. It is commonly used. You're going to see it used more because of the court's decision today. The court also left open a range of other possibilities in other types of cases where injunctions that reach a large number of people across the country may be warranted. And so I think what you're going to see is lawyers every single day doing what we can to protect the American people in court.
- [41:57]
Jen Psaki
We only have about a minute left, but one of the points I've heard you make and others, is that there's just going to be a need for more lawyers who are willing to represent people who need help, help us understand what that means.
- [42:10]
J
Yes. I mean, this is a moment right now for lawyers. It's a moment for the American people and for everybody playing their part. And lawyers certainly have a part in that. At Democracy Forward and at so many other groups, there are hundreds of groups across the country that have come together in order to represent people in communities and courts. We are calling on our colleagues in the private bar, in the law firms to do the same thing. And I think that we are really encouraged by how many lawyers are willing in this time to step up. Some of them may not be from the largest law firms in the country, but there are tremendous, exceptional lawyers every single day doing this work. And this is a call to all of us as lawyers to step in in this time.
- [42:52]
Jen Psaki
Sky Perryman, thank you so much for joining me on a Friday evening and for all of the work you do out there as well. I really appreciate it. Appreciate you joining me. Coming up next, the Trump administration asked some Americans for some honest feedback. I'm not too sure they're going to like what they're getting. I'm going to talk about after a quick break in The Trump administration's never ending war on woke and it's never ending. Trump's Interior secretary is enlisting the public to rat out national parks and historical sites that don't pass the MAGA test. All national parks and the hundreds of other monuments and museums supervised by the Department of Interior were ordered to hang up signage asking visitors to offer feedback and specifically to report, quote, any signs or other information that is negative about either past or living Americans. Importantly, many of these sites tell the history of some of America's darkest moments, like the Japanese American internment during World War II or Civil War history at national park sites like Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. It's hard to imagine how those stories could be told if everything is required to have a big, beautiful, positive spin. But that's the point. It's a blatant attempt to censor and revise this country's complex and at times unfavorable history. Well, the reviews have been trickling in over the past few weeks, and as it turns out, they may not be getting the McCarthy style tips TRUMP was hoping for. That's according to a document first reported by npr. It was leaked by a National Park Service employee to the National Parks Conservation Association, a nonprofit that advocates for national parks, which shared it with us. Here are just a few comments we saw in that leaked document. The park rangers and volunteers go above and beyond to tell the full American story. The national parks belong to Americans, all Americans. This means sharing the history, experiences and stories of all the people who've called the United States home, even if it's perceived as a dark or negative time in our history. Here's another one. History is supposed to be uncomfortable. It is supposed to be difficult and raise conflicting feelings. Hey, they asked for feedback. In ways big and small, Americans are finding ways to use their voices, or in this case, character count, to push back against Trump and his agenda. Even on their visits to national parks. It seems that does it for me tonight.
- [45:17]
Anonymous Black Woman in Recovery
Substance use disorder and addiction is so isolating. And so, as a black woman in recovery, hope must be loud. It grows louder when you ask for help and you're vulnerable. It is the thread that lets you know that no matter what happens, you will be okay.
- [45:37]
National Council for Mental Wellbeing Representative
When we learn the power of hope, recovery is possible. Find out how@startwithhope.com brought to you by the National Council for Mental well Being, Shatterproof and the AD Council.