Supreme Court Torches Trump in Major Oral Argument

Summary

The MeidasTouch Podcast: "Supreme Court Torches Trump in Major Oral Argument"

Release Date: May 17, 2025

---

Introduction

In this compelling episode of The MeidasTouch Podcast, hosts Ben, Brett, and Jordy Meiselas delve into a landmark Supreme Court case that has significant implications for the Trump administration's policies. Titled "Supreme Court Torches Trump in Major Oral Argument," the episode provides an in-depth analysis of the Supreme Court's scrutiny of the Trump regime's efforts to challenge the judiciary's power, particularly concerning nationwide injunctions related to birthright citizenship.

Overview of the Case

The central focus of the episode is a pivotal Supreme Court hearing addressing the Trump administration's challenge to the authority of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions. Specifically, the Trump regime sought to use an executive order to eliminate the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, a move that prompted multiple legal battles consolidated into the case Trump vs. New Jersey, Trump vs. Washington, and Trump vs. Casa Inc.

Ben Meiselas sets the stage by explaining the essence of the case:

"On the issue of birthright citizenship, a major oral argument was held today before the United States Supreme Court where the Trump regime was challenging the right of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions..." [00:00]

Oral Argument Highlights

The podcast provides a detailed recount of the oral arguments, highlighting the intense exchanges between the Trump administration's Solicitor General, John Sauer, and the Justices.

Justice Elena Kagan's Rebuke

One of the standout moments from the hearing was Justice Elena Kagan's critical questioning of the Trump administration's stance. She expressed skepticism about the government's approach and its consistent losses in lower courts.

Justice Kagan: "If I were in your shoes, there is no way I'd approach the Supreme Court with this case." [02:51]

This pointed remark underscores her frustration with what she perceives as the administration's untenable legal position.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett Aligns with Kagan

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, surprisingly sided with Justice Kagan, further intensifying the administration's challenges. Her questioning probed the sincerity of the government's commitment to respecting circuit court precedents.

Justice Barrett: "Did I understand you correctly to tell Justice Kagan that the government wanted to reserve its right to maybe not follow a 2nd Circuit precedent, say in New York, because you might disagree with the opinion?" [04:33]

This exchange highlighted internal dissent within the administration's legal strategy, particularly regarding adherence to established judicial precedents.

Admission of Enforcement Challenges

In a revealing moment, John Sauer acknowledged the practical difficulties in enforcing the proposed executive order on birthright citizenship, signaling potential flaws in the administration's plan.

John Sauer: "I don't think they do anything different... The federal officials will have to figure that out." [07:06]

This admission, covered by reporter Max Burns, shed light on the ambiguous implementation mechanisms of the proposed policy.

Justices' Unified Skepticism

The episode underscores a broader consensus among the Justices against the Trump administration's position. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Katanji Brown Jackson, Neil Gorsuch, and Alito echoed concerns about the administration's attempts to limit judicial oversight.

Justice Sotomayor posed a critical hypothetical to illustrate the dangers of stripping courts of their broad injunction powers:

Justice Sotomayor: "If the government were to suddenly order the confiscation of all civilian firearms in direct violation of the Second Amendment. Under the Trump view, courts couldn't stop it with a nationwide injunction. We couldn't stop that?" [Summary Context]

Similarly, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson compared the administration's approach to a "catch me if you can" strategy, emphasizing the potential for unchecked executive actions until challenged at the highest judicial level.

Implications of the Ruling

Ben Meiselas elaborates on the far-reaching consequences of the case:

"The ability of courts to issue nationwide injunctions has become one of the most potent checks on presidential power in the modern era. Strip it away, and you open the door to a more aggressive, less accountable executive." [09:19]

If the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, it could significantly weaken the judiciary's role in checking executive overreach, potentially enabling the administration to implement controversial policies without nationwide judicial intervention.

Potential Outcomes and Future Outlook

The episode anticipates a narrow majority against the Trump regime's position, citing at least five Justices—Gorsuch, Jackson, Barrett, Sotomayor, and Kagan—opposing the administration. Chief Justice John Roberts remains the wildcard, with his probing questions indicating a possible inclination towards a compromise rather than a full endorsement of the Trump administration's request.

Ben Meiselas speculates on the decision timeline:

"The court typically hands down decisions in argued cases by the end of June, and there's no reason to believe this case will be an exception." [09:19]

Given the strong opposition from multiple Justices, the podcast suggests that the Supreme Court may deliver a historic rebuke to the Trump administration, thereby reinforcing the judiciary's authority as a check on executive power.

Conclusion

This episode of The MeidasTouch Podcast provides a thorough and insightful analysis of a critical Supreme Court case that stands at the nexus of executive authority and judicial oversight. Through detailed recounting of oral arguments, direct quotes from Justices, and expert commentary, Ben, Brett, and Jordy Meiselas illuminate the profound implications of the Court's impending decision on American democracy and the balance of powers.

As the ruling approaches, the Meiselas brothers emphasize the importance of staying informed:

"The Trump regime walked into the Supreme Court hoping to disarm one of the judiciary's most powerful tools instead and may walk out with a historic rebuke and a precedent that affirms the court's ability to check presidential overreach for years to come." [09:19]

Stay tuned to The MeidasTouch Podcast for continuous updates and in-depth discussions on this and other pivotal issues affecting democracy today.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Ben Meiselas: "If I were in your shoes, there is no way I'd approach the Supreme Court with this case." [02:51]

• Justice Amy Coney Barrett: "Did I understand you correctly to tell Justice Kagan that the government wanted to reserve its right to maybe not follow a 2nd Circuit precedent?" [04:33]

• John Sauer: "The federal officials will have to figure that out." [07:18]

• Justice Elena Kagan: "Nobody else will. Why would you ever take this case to us?" [03:03]

• Ben Meiselas: "This one matters. I'm Ben Meiselis." [09:19]

---

Stay Connected

For more detailed analyses and exclusive content, visit MidasPlus, the MeidasTouch Network's premium platform offering ad-free articles, reports, podcasts, and daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski and the team.

---

Join the MeidasMighty and subscribe to The MeidasTouch Podcast for new episodes every Tuesday and Friday morning, and catch the brothers LIVE on YouTube every Monday and Thursday night at 8 PM ET/5 PM PT.

Transcript

[Ben Meiselis]

It certainly did not seem like a majority of the United States Supreme Court was buying what Donald Trump and the regime were selling. On the issue of birthright citizenship, a major oral argument was held today before the United States Supreme Court where the Trump regime was challenging the right of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions, and specifically in the context of nationwide injunctions, blocking the regime via executive order to eliminate the constitutional right to birthright citizenship. You have Donald Trump believes that he could execute an executive order overruling the Constitution and that federal courts can issue nationwide injunctions to block him. So this case before the Supreme Court was more surgically dealing with the issue of nationwide injunctions. But some of the issues between injunctions, meaning like a single court being able to block an administration or regime's ability to institute something on a nationwide basis, that was what was mostly addressed. But because it does relate to the merits as well and birthright citizenship, you heard a little bit of the merits argument made there. The case was consolidated of multiple cases. Trump vs New Jersey, Trump vs Washington, and Trump vs Casa Inc. The solicitor General for, for New Jersey, the top law enforcement attorney General rather in New Jersey was the person who argued this case for all of the states. And for Trump, you had his Solicitor General of the United States, John Sauer, who was previously Donald Trump's personal attorney. So let me go through some of the highlights of what went down then. Let's talk more comprehensively about what took place today. Here is Justice Kagan, a liberal justice. Here's what she. She had to say. Play this clip.

[Justice Elena Kagan]

It sort of depends on the government's own actions in a case like this one, where one can expect that there is not going to be a great deal of disagreement among the lower courts. I mean, let's assume that you lose in the lower courts pretty uniformly as you have been losing on this issue, and that you never take this question to us. I mean, I noticed that you didn't take the substantive question to us. You only took the nationwide injunction question to us. I mean, why would you take the substantive question to us? You're losing a bunch of cases. This guy over here, this woman over here. You know, they'll have to be treated as citizens, but nobody else will. Why would you ever take this case to us?

[John Sauer]

Well, in this particular case, we have deliberately not presented the merits to this court on the question of the scope of remedies, because, of course, that makes it a clean vehicle where the court doesn't have to look at.

[Justice Elena Kagan]

You're ignoring the import of my question. I'M suggesting that in a case in which the government is losing constantly, there's nobody else who's going to appeal, they're winning. It's up to you to decide whether to take this case to us. If I were in your shoes, there is no way I'd approach the Supreme Court with this case. So you just keep on losing in the lower courts. And what's supposed to happen to prevent that?

[John Sauer]

Again, I respectfully disagree with that forecast of the merits. But in response to the question, what I would say is we have an adversarial system. And if the government is not, for example, not respecting circuit precedent on the courts hypothetical in the Second Circuit, someone injured in the Second Circuit could take the case up and they could say, look, the government is violating circuit precedent on the hypothetical multiple circuits.

[Justice Elena Kagan]

That's the case. We're going to take somebody who says, who says, you know, after we've said that this all has to be done one by one by one, then we're going to take a case from somebody who objects to proceeding one by one by one.

[Ben Meiselis]

Now, I think this is notable here. You had Justice Barrett, Amy Coni Barrett, a Trump appointee, seeming to side with Justin K. Justice Kagan here and really asking the Trump regime, so you think you're not bound to follow circuit court decisions, you're not going to follow it. You just think generally, wow, that surprises me.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Play this clip opinions and judgments here. Did I understand you correctly to tell Justice Kagan that the government wanted to reserve its right to maybe not follow a 2nd Circuit precedent, say in New York, because you might disagree with the opinion?

[John Sauer]

Our general practice is to respect those precedents, but there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice, and that.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Is not this administration's practice or the longstanding practice of the federal government. And I'm not talking about in the Fourth Circuit. Are you going to respect a second Circuit? I'm talking about within the Second Circuit. And can you say, is that this administration's practice or a long standing one.

[John Sauer]

As I understand it, long standing policy of the Department of Justice? Yes, that we generally, as it was phrased to me, generally respect circuit president, but not necessarily in every case and certain exam. Some examples might be a situation where we're litigating to try and get that circuit president overruled and so forth.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Well, okay. So I'm not, I'm not talking about a situation in which, you know, the Second Circuit has a case from 1955 and you think it's time for it to be challenged that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about in this kind of situation. I'm talking about this week, the Second Circuit holds that the executive order is unconstitutional. And then what do you do the next day or the next week?

[John Sauer]

Generally, we follow.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

So you're still saying generally.

[Ben Meiselis]

Yes.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

And you still think that it's generally the policy, long standing policy of the federal government to take that approach.

[John Sauer]

That is my understanding.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Okay, so, but it sounds to me like you accept a Cooper versus Aaron kind of situation for the Supreme Court, but not for, say, the Second Circuit where you would respect the opinions and the judgments of the Supreme Court and you're saying you would respect the judgment, but not necessarily the opinion of a lower court.

[John Sauer]

And again, and I think in the vast majority of instances, our practice has been to respect the opinion as well in the circuits as well. But my understanding is that has not been a categorical practice in the way respect for the precedents and the judgments of the Supreme Court has been.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

So you're not hedging at all with respect to the precedent of this court?

[John Sauer]

That is correct. I believe the quotation from our application directly addresses that and we stand by that completely.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Okay.

[Ben Meiselis]

And here is a moment at the Supreme Court where Trump Solicitor General John Sauer admits to Justice Kavanaugh, another Trump appointee, that Trump has no idea how to actually enforce his birthright citizenship. Author Max Burns was there reporting.

[Max Burns]

Play this clip on the day after it goes into effect. This is just a very practical question. How is it going to work? What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?

[John Sauer]

I don't think they do anything different. What the executive order says in Section two is that federal officials do not accept documents that have the wrong designation of citizenship from people who are subject to the executive order.

[Max Burns]

How are they going to know that.

[John Sauer]

The states can continue to. The federal officials will have to figure that out.

[Max Burns]

How?

[John Sauer]

So you can imagine a number of ways that the federal officials could.

[Max Burns]

Such as?

[John Sauer]

Such as they could require a showing of, you know, documentation showing legal presence in the country for a temporary visitor, for example, they could see whether they're on a B1 visa, which would exclude kind of the birthright citizenship and that.

[Max Burns]

Kind of for all the newborns. Is that how that's going to work?

[John Sauer]

Again, we don't know.

[Ron Filipkowski]

When was the last time that you truly trusted seafood you brought home? Now, I used to question everything from nutrition and taste to sustainability until I discovered the Wild Alaskan Company. Wild Alaskan Company is the best Way to get Wild caught. Perfectly portioned, nutrient dense seafood delivered directly to your door. Trust me, you haven't tasted fish this good. I was so excited the first time I received my shipment from the Wild Alaskan Company. I received my Pacific Halibut and pan seared it that evening. It was delicious. The wild Alaskan company is 100% wild caught, never farmed. This means there are no antibiotics, GMOs or additives, just clean, real fish that support healthy oceans and fishing communities. It's nutrient rich and full of flavor. Wild Alaskan fish is frozen off the boat to lock in taste, texture and nutrients like omega 3s. My favorite. It's also sustainably sourced Wild caught from Alaska. Every otter supports sustainable harvesting practices and your memberships delivers flexible shipments, expert tips and truly feel good seafood. Now if you're not completely satisfied with your first box, Wild Alaskan Company will give you a full refund. No questions asked, no risk, just high quality seafood. Not all fish are the same. Get seafood you can trust. Go to wildalaskan.com midas for $35 off your first box of premium wild caught seafood. That's wildalaskan.com midAS for $35 off your first order. Thanks to Wild Alaskan Company for sponsoring this episode.

[Ben Meiselis]

Right now, let's take a look at what went down inside this hearing as well. We'll give you some of the details directly from Midas. Touch Midas plus right here Supreme Court Torches Trump Administration During Birthright Citizenship Argument In a pivotal moment of Trump's second term, the United States Supreme Court has turned skeptical and at times a blistering eye towards the regime stance on nationwide injunctions. While the central question of the case doesn't address the constitutionality and modifying the 14th Amendment, a long shot goal of Trump, the real issue at stake is just as critical. Can federal judges block executive actions on a national scale? This seemingly procedural question could have massive consequences if the Trump administration gets its way lower. Federal courts would no longer be able to issue rulings that halt policies nationwide. Instead, any injunction would only apply to plaintiffs directly involved in a given case. Now, as you heard heard from some of the portions of the oral argument that I played, as Justice Kagan says, y' all keep on losing over and over again. So what the Trump regime wants to do is because it knows its cases are losers. If you can't enforce a nationwide injunction and it only applies to the plaintiffs, they can push forward their authoritarian policies until the case goes to the United States. So Supreme Court during oral arguments, the Justices across ideological lines showed deep reservations about such sweeping restrictions on judicial power. Justice Sonia Sotomayor cut to the heart of the issue with a dramatic hypothetical if the government were to suddenly order the confiscation of all civilian firearms in direct violation of the Second Amendment. Under the Trump view, courts couldn't stop it with a nationwide injunction. We couldn't stop that? She asked. Justice Kagan was even more blunt. The government keeps losing. This is happening right now. Every court has ruled against you. That's the clip I played. That comment wasn't just rhetorical flourish. It pointed to a pattern of losses the regime has racked up in the lower courts, particularly when rolling out controversial immigration policy. If courts are stripped of the ability to issue broad injunctions, critics argue, the executive branch could continue implementing unlawful policies unchecked, avoiding scrutiny of the Supreme Court altogether until the case goes before the Supreme Court. And is that just going to result in more shadow docket decisions of people trying to rush to the Supreme Court or the Trump regime trying to game the system? Justice Katanji Brown Jackson was especially pointed. She compared the administration's proposal to a catch me if you can approach to governance, one that would allow illegal policies to remain in effect until a perfect plaintiff in a perfect jurisdiction brings a challenge that finally makes its way to the top. Just as Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Neil Gorsuch also appeared critical of the regime's arguments, Barrett echoed Alito, his earlier skepticism, what's the point of this? And Gorsuch notably praised Kagan's line of questioning, often a signal of alignment during oral arguments. Meanwhile, New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum argued for a middle ground. Yes, judges should be able to issue nationwide injunctions, but only under narrow and specific conditions. That prompted a key question from Chief Justice John Roberts, who seemed to be probing whether a narrow, principled limitation could guide the court's ruling without fully endorsing the regime's extreme position. The significance of this case cannot be overstated, though. Frame as a procedural matter, the ability of courts to issue nationwide injunctions has become one of the most potent checks on presidential power in the modern era. Strip it, strip it away, and you open the door to a more aggressive, less accountable executive. As of now, it appears likely that there were at least five votes against the Trump regime position. Gorsuch, Jackson, Barrett, Sotomayor, and Kagan. More may join. Chief Justice Robert remains a wildcard, but his pointed questioning suggests he is weighing a compromise approach rather than a full endorsement of the regime's request. Now anything is possible is here. So we have to wait until the Supreme Court decides. So when will we know the outcome? The court typically hands down decisions in argued cases by the end of June, and there's no reason to believe this case will be an exception. Depending on how sharply the court wants to signal it stands, we may even see a decision sooner. What's clear, however, is this. The Trump regime walked into the Supreme Court hoping to disarm one of the judiciary's most powerful tools instead and may walk out with a historic rebuke and a precedent that affirms the court's ability to check presidential over reach for years to come. Stay tuned folks. This one matters. I'm Ben Meiselis. This is the Midas Touch Network. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 5 million subscribers.

[Ron Filipkowski]

Can't get enough Midas? Check out the Midas plus substack for ad. Free articles, reports, podcasts, daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski and more. Sign up for free [e-mail].