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.