Loading summary
Transcript31 lines
- [00:00]
Cecilia Wong
President Trump can't do this through congressional action, and he should take a look around him and he'll soon realize that any effort at a constitutional amendment is a dead end for him because the vast majority of Americans cherish birthright citizenship.
- [00:29]
Jane Coaston
I'm Jane Coston, and this is what a day. This is the show wishing 41 year old LeBron James many happy returns as he reportedly plans to leave the Los Angeles Lakers for a new team next season. Sure, by basketball standards, he's nearing retirement, but by political standards, LeBron James is just a tiny child with decades of important contributions to make in the future. On today's show, it's the big one. We get into birthright citizenship with the woman who argued before the Supreme Court to save it. American Civil Liberties Union national legal director Cecilia Wong. Before we get into all that, here's what we're following today. Tuesday, June 30th. Let's start with the other decisions the Supreme Court made today. The Supreme Court ruled against the rights of trans kids and their ability to play sports with their peers because, of course, they did. In a decision encompassing two cases, one from Idaho and one from West Virginia, the court ruled that state laws that barred trans kids from playing sports on girls and women's sports teams did not violate either the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection or Title ix, which forbids sex based discrimination in education. All three liberal justices dissented in the decision. In his majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that the ruling was necessary to, quote, reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition. However, trans kids and their families who are already facing an oppressive federal government and state governments willing to drive them from their homes, should take heart. Kavanaugh added, quote, no student athlete on either side of the issue, whether a biological, female or transgender, deserves to be ostracized or vilified. Yeah, that'll make it all better. The Supreme Court also erased limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for federal office. In doing so, the justices struck down an election law that is more than 50 years old. Limits on federal election spending were created after Congress wanted to stop the uber wealthy from skirting caps on individual contributions to a candidate by just giving the funds to the party itself, with the understanding, of course, that the money would be spent on behalf of the candidate. Unsurprisingly, the lead plaintiff in this case was the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The Supreme Court had previously upheld the spending limits in 2001. But this is the Republican court, I mean, Robert's Court. Now.
- [02:50]
Tom Kean Jr.
I believe that I owe an explanation to the people of New Jersey's 7th district, to my colleagues in this chamber, and to the American people for my absence. Several months ago due to health concerns, I entered the hospital for some testing. I did not believe that this would result in a long term stay.
- [03:09]
Jane Coaston
After four months away from Washington, his congressional district, and his duties, New Jersey Republican Representative Tom Keene Jr. Revealed on the House floor today that he had spent that time being treated for depression.
- [03:20]
Tom Kean Jr.
Now when people hear the word depression, many people think simply feel it means feeling sad. But depression is so much more than that. It is physical, it is emotional, and until you experience it yourself, it is difficult to fully understand how powerful this illness can be.
- [03:41]
Jane Coaston
Keene said he's thankful for the help he received and he's returning to work healthier and stronger. His reappearance comes weeks after his victory in an uncontested primary and months after he cast his last vote in the House. After the speech, Keene quickly left the Capitol without answering questions from reporters. White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vogt testified before a House appropriation subcommittee about federal spending today and Mr. It went as per usual. There were some tense moments, like when Wisconsin Democratic Representative Mark Pocan brought up the Trump administration's dismantling of the U.S. agency for International Development, or USAID. Pocan cited studies he said showed people around the globe have died because of budget cuts to the agency. Vogt pushed back on the, quote, validity of the studies and denied the administration had any part in the deaths. The exchange then devolved into this morally,
- [04:36]
Tom Kean Jr.
isn't it wrong to facilitate the death of children?
- [04:39]
Cecilia Wong
Isn't it morally wrong to produce to.
- [04:41]
Tom Kean Jr.
That's a question coming back within Zimbabwe. Look, you're not Confucius or, you know, whatever you think you are, answering a question with a question. I said, is it morally wrong to facilitate the killing of children? You're basing simple question. You're basing it on a premise that is not the answer. That question take my time back.
- [04:58]
Jane Coaston
Is it morally wrong to facilitate the killing of children? Sounds like a pretty easy question to answer, but hey, I don't work for the Trump administration and that's the news. Let's talk about birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court affirmed back in 1898 that the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment means that if you're born in the United States, you are a citizen of the United States. And today, some 120 plus years later, the Supreme Court ruled again that the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment provides birthright citizenship. Most anxiety inducing reboot ever. The whole reason this was even up for consideration is President Donald Trump. On his first day back in the White House. Trump issued an executive order that would have made the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors non citizens and rendered them effectively stateless. And while six Supreme Court justices struck that executive order down three sided with Trump, you'll be shocked to know that those justices were Scalia, Thomas, and Gorsuch. So what does this ruling mean and what's next for the actually not controversial issue of birthright citizenship? To find out, I talked to Cecilia Wong, national legal director for the aclu. She argued before the Supreme Court in favor of birthright citizenship. Cecilia, welcome to what a Day.
- [06:16]
Cecilia Wong
Thank you so much. Good to be here. What a day.
- [06:20]
Jane Coaston
What a, what a day. Especially for you. Because today the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's efforts to end birthright citizenship. In a 6 to 3 ruling, which we'll get into. You are part of this. You delivered oral arguments to the Supreme Court in defense of birthright citizenship. How do you feel right now?
- [06:38]
Cecilia Wong
Well, I feel relieved and in a mood to celebrate on behalf of our brave clients, our three named plaintiffs and class representatives for the certified class in the Barbara case and for the hundreds of thousands of American families who have been waiting for the decision with bated breath, and for the millions of Americans, for all of us who believe in the promise of equality that is the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. So it's worth celebrating this moment even. Even though we never should have been in this position where the President of the United States attacked this cherished pillar of American society. But here we are. We got out of it with a definitive win by a majority of the Supreme Court.
- [07:30]
Jane Coaston
Yeah. And I mean, again, this should have never come up. Birthright citizenship is in the Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed that in 1898. I think for most people about, according to recent polling, 7 in 10Americans. This is kind of like, yeah, this is it. What was your argument for the Supreme Court? How do you argue something that just seems so obvious?
- [07:53]
Cecilia Wong
Yeah, I mean, here's kind of the big picture. President Trump, as with so many of his policies, was scapegoating certain non citizens, certain immigrants, people who are lawfully in the United States on temporary visas. I should note some of those temporary visas leave people in that status for years and years and years, even though they're eligible ultimately to become green card holders and to become U.S. citizens. And he's going after undocumented immigrants and he's using this kind of trope of birth tourism, which is actually a miniscule,
- [08:35]
Jane Coaston
minuscule problem, about 0.3% of births.
- [08:39]
Cecilia Wong
That's right, and that Congress has already addressed through other laws. So the president is taking aim at certain immigrants who are part of our American communities, our friends and neighbors and relatives. But really he's targeting something far more fundamental and something that reaches into every corner of American life. It's the Birthright citizenship executive order was part of President Trump's attack on the Reconstruction Constitution and the second Reconstruction, which was the civil rights movement's legislative wins. When the president took aim at the 14th Amendment's first sentence, he was really fighting uphill against the history, against the framers, the entire purpose of the framers. As Justice Jackson said in her concurring OPINION Today, the 14th Amendment is a repudiation of caste distinctions in American life. And the president was trying to reinstitute those caste distinctions that it took a civil war to eliminate. And luckily he was unsuccessful, with the Supreme Court reaffirming their decision from 1898 and saying, once again, birthright citizenship belongs to all of us.
- [10:05]
Jane Coaston
We'll get back to my conversation with Cecilia Wong in a moment where she'll get into what we actually learned from the court's decision. But if you like the show, make sure to subscribe. Leave a five star review on Spotify and Apple podcasts, watch us on YouTube and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. This podcast is brought to you by Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The Trump administration and its backers in Congress are messing around with our healthcare. They already passed a law defunding Planned Parenthood that blocks Medicaid patients from getting life saving care like cancer screenings, wellness exams, birth control, STI treatment and more. And now these lawmakers want to shut down health centers by defunding Planned Parenthood permanently. Our communities deserve better. To learn how you can get involved, Text update to 22422 what a day is brought to you by Helen Keller International. Here's a little good news. Helen Keller's birthday is coming up and Helen Keller International is celebrating by helping more children and families around the world live healthier lives. Working in 20 countries worldwide, the organization works with local partners to improve nutrition, protect sight and fight disease with solutions that are proven to work. Now through June 30, gifts made in honor of Helen's 146th birthday will be matched, doubling your impact. A gift of $146 can help provide essential vitamin A for 146 children visit helenkellerintl.org wad and help celebrate Helen's legacy with a gift today.
- [11:32]
Prime Video Narrator
Before Legally Blonde, before law school, Elle woods was in high school. Set in 1995, this Gemini vegetarian knows exactly who she is until her family moves from Bel Air to Seattle and turns her world upside down. Watch Elle navigate a new city, a new school, frenemies and crushes, all while staying true to herself. Packed with iconic fashion, 90s nostalgia and a throwback soundtrack, Elle proves one law school was hard. High school was harder. From the world of Legally Blonde, watch Elle, a new original series only On Prime Video July 1.
- [12:03]
Icebreaker Gum Narrator
Need a boost? Sometimes all it takes is tapping into your inner cool. Icebreaker's gum helps you unleash the confidence within. Each chew releases a rush of icy flavor powered by cooling flavor crystals, sending a wave of refreshment to reinvigorate all your senses. Icebreaker's convenient pack fits everywhere from car cup holders to backpack pockets so you can find your cool wherever you go. Grab Icebreaker's gum online or at a store near you.
- [12:28]
Jane Coaston
Let's get back to my conversation with Cecilia Wong talking about this decision. What interested me in reading it, in reading the concurrent opinions and also the dissents is that it was sort of a 6 to 3 decision, kind of a 5 to 4 decision, and weirdly kind of a 7 to 1 decision all at the same time. How did you read the judges opinions?
- [12:50]
Cecilia Wong
We have six out of the nine justices, including two Trump appointees, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett, who join the Chief justice along with the liberal justices in striking down the President's executive order. Justice Kavanaugh writes his concurring opinion concurring in the judgment, which nobody else joins. And he says he doesn't believe that the executive order violates the Constitution because he doesn't believe that he believes that the 14th Amendment citizenship clause can change over time, which is deeply contrary to what the majority of the Court has done recently with respect to other constitutional provisions.
- [13:32]
Jane Coaston
Right. I'm like originalism except for right now.
- [13:35]
Cecilia Wong
Right? So let's put a pin in that. At the end of the day, Justice Kavanaugh says, look, Congress passed a statute at first in 1940 and then again reaffirming that and reenacting this citizenship law. At the time Congress enacted that statute, everyone agreed that the 14th Amendment extended to everyone except for these really narrow English common law exceptions. And so Kavanaugh says, look, the executive order needs to be struck down under the statute and he doesn't join the majority on the constitutional holding what that means is that you have five justices of the Supreme Court in a decision by the Chief justice, that is a really powerful repudiation of President Trump's effort to rewrite the text of the 14th Amendment. This is not about immigration. This is about the president's attack on the fundamental principles of reconstruction, of equality, as the Chief justice notes at the end of his majority opinion of emancipation. Right. And so at the end of the day, we've got six justices who have definitively said no to President Trump, and we have a majority of five who decided this on constitutional grounds, which, let's face it, the court already decided over 100 years ago.
- [15:07]
Jane Coaston
It seems like Kavanaugh is saying, you know, if you want to change this, you have to pass a law. And Trump already picked up on that. He wrote on Truth Social in part, quote, congress should start today to work on ending expensive and unfair to our country birthright citizenship. They will have my complete and total support. Now, to me, it seems kind of dumb to get really all gung ho about a dissent and try to pass legislation that's very unpopular, but would it be legal? And do you think that would be successful?
- [15:40]
Cecilia Wong
No. I've seen the post that President Trump has up on Truth Social already. Let's be really clear so everybody understands who hasn't had a chance to read these opinions. The majority of the court says that under the Constitution, President Trump's executive order is unlawful and they strike it down on constitutional grounds. What that means is the only way to change the scope of birthright citizenship is to do a constitutional amendment. President Trump can't do this through congressional action. And he should take a look around him and he'll soon realize that any effort at a constitutional amendment is a dead end for him because the vast majority of Americans cherish birthright citizenship. This is foundational to who we are as a nation. And this goes beyond, as I keep saying, goes beyond immigration. It goes beyond racial justice. It's fundamentally an idea that in the United States, and this goes back to our founding, the founders of this country wanted to repudiate the historical English tradition of aristocracy. They wanted to give every person born on American soil equal rights and opportunities without regard to your parents status, whether your parent is a convicted criminal or the king. They want to treat everyone equally. And that, of course, was imperfect. It was an imperfect pro. It was imperfect espoused principle at the founding. It took the efforts of free black Americans to get birthright citizenship, a universal principle, not just for black Americans, but for everyone. And it took a Civil war to get the Reconstruction Amendments as a whole. That is what President Trump was fundamentally attacking with this executive order, along with so many of his other executive actions. And it's something that the court has now definitively rejected.
- [17:51]
Jane Coaston
So this ruling is a win. And I want to congratulate you because I know also that you are a recipient of birthright citizenship, as are millions of other people in this country. And congratulations, you did a great job. The Supreme Court also handed Americans and the rights of many Americans, some big losses. What are your major takeaways from this term?
- [18:15]
Cecilia Wong
So I think you're absolutely right. We've had some very major losses, disturbing losses that are deeply harmful to many Americans. In fact, this morning, alongside birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court handed us a defeat in our case that we're trying to champion the rights of transgender girls and women to play sports in public schools. There have been so many cases this term, unfortunately, where the Supreme Court turns another provision within the 14th amendment, the equal protection clause, on its head, as we saw in our Louisiana congressional redistricting case, Louisiana versus Calais, as we saw in the decision that upheld the Trump administration's termination of temporary protected status for Haitians and Syrians, contrary to what Congress intended. And as we see in our cases on behalf of trans girls and women this morning, you see a court that's really got the equal protection fundamentally backwards and in ways that have the additive effect, the cumulative effect of undermining the court's fundamental role as a check on the tyranny of the majority. The whole purpose of the equal protection clause was to give marginalized minority groups, politically vulnerable minority groups, the ability to go into court and to defend their rights. There is a serious problem where we see the court failing in its fundamental job of standing up for the rights of politically vulnerable minorities against the will of majority as expressed by these elected officials like President Trump, or state officials in West Virginia and Idaho who pass these laws that target a single teenager, a single child who is affected by the law in their states.
- [20:35]
Jane Coaston
Cecilia, thank you so much for your work. And thank you so much for joining me.
- [20:40]
Cecilia Wong
It's a pleasure. Thanks so much for having me.
- [20:42]
Jane Coaston
That was my conversation with Cecilia Wong, National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. Before we go, UK politics has had another drama packed week after Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced his resignation. Luckily, Nish and Coco, hosts of Pod Save the uk, are here to make sense of it all. Last week, they interviewed the editor of the New Statesman and Ben Rhodes, co host of Pod Save the World, to understand Starmer's resignation, Andy Burnham's path to succession, and what comes next. Tune in to Pod Save the UK every Thursday for your weekly dose of humor and hope in UK politics. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, enjoy the broader right wing freaking the hell out over birthright citizenship and tell your friends to listen. And if you're into reading and not just about how, despite the fact that birthright citizenship has been the law of the land since long before every right wing podcaster was born, they're tweeting that the court's ruling means America is over. Like me, what a Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe@crooked.com subscribe I'm Jane Coston and we get so many reminders of this fact. But never ever forget the most emotional feelings based people alive are male right wing podcast hosts. What a Date is a production of Crooked Media. Our show is produced by Caitlin Plummer, Emily Foer, Erica Morrison and Adrienne Hill. Our team includes Haley Jones, Greg Walters, Matt Berg, Joseph Dutra, Johanna Case and Desmond Taylor. Our music is by Kyle Murdoch and Jordan Kanter. We had help today from the Associated Press. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America eas. The what a Day podcast you know and Love is shaking things up. You already know that. Five days a week. I, Jane Coasten, bring you the need to know news and expert analysis on the big stories shaping today and tomorrow. Stories like how social media warps our perception of the world and the strange reality of who is signing up to work for ice. All in less time than it takes to roast a chicken. And now what a Day Episodes will be hitting your YouTube and podcast feeds in the afternoons, you'll get the breaking news even faster. Check out Water Day now dropping in the PM on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.