Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 28, 2025 - Lionel Nation

15:50

BREAKING! Justice Barrett Nukes Jackson in SCOTUS Showdown: No More Rogue Judges!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You know, lately there have been very few wins anywhere as far as we're concerned.
	The enlightened-minded folks, the Americans, the MAGA group, whatever the hell we're called.
	I call us patriots.
	But this is great news today regarding SCOTUS.
	Let me explain this to you bit by bit.
	Let me take you through this step by step because nobody's going to be taking you through it bit by bit and step by step because they only have 30 seconds to give you a headline.
	And oftentimes the news is being reported by some 12-year-old with a third year or a third grade education, whatever that means.
	So what SCOTUS did today, the case was Trump against CASA, C-A-S-A.
	And it wasn't just some procedural refinement or some tweaking.
	It was a fundamental, fundamental, critical, essential recalibration of how far judicial power extends in this country.
	This was brutally important.
	This was a 6-3 decision.
	It was handed down strictly along ideological party lines, which marked a decisive win for President Trump and MAGA and us.
	And more importantly, for those of us who still believe, who have this disbelief and have long argued, that the judiciary has been playing far too loose with the reach of its equitable authority.
	Because courts and some federal court in Bugtussle, Wyoming, instead of dealing with a particular federal case as to the party litigants, they will invalidate huge swaths of executive orders and the like, and we've had enough of it, and it's critical.
	Now, at the heart of the matter here was this extremely controversial and often misunderstood tool of the nationwide injunction, I'm sure you've heard about this, which allows a single district judge in some single federal district to block the enforcement,
	the entire enforcement of a federal policy, not only as it pertains to the parties in the case, which was always the case, but across the entire country.
	One judge can invalidate an entire action.
	So this case involved such an injunction against Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, which they kind of punted on, but we'll get to that in a moment.
	But the court wisely chose not to rule on the constitutional merits of that executive order, okay?
	But instead, instead, it focused entirely on whether these sweeping injunctions are even within the judiciary's lawful toolkit, if you will.
	Now, in short, the court said, uh-uh, they are not.
	You can't do this.
	Just the justee.
	Justice Amy Coney Barrett, remember how everybody thought she was some kind of a crypto-quizzling?
	No, she came through.
	She authored the majority opinion.
	And it was a judicial, think of it as a scalpel.
	She argued that universal injunctions, those that prevent the federal government from enforcing laws or policy or directives or orders from the president against non-parties, those parties not in the original lawsuit, that this went, she ruled, beyond the Congress ever, ever even authorized or imagined when it empowered federal courts to grant equitable relief.
	Okay?
	What was her logic?
	What does she base this on?
	Federal judges exist to resolve disputes between specific parties.
	If you're not a party to the case, you're not entitled to relief.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	This may seem common sense to you.
	This may be kind of a no-shite kind of obviousness to a first-year law student.
	But in recent years, it has become common and expected and an aberration for district courts to issue rulings that read more like political vetoes rather than legal judgments.
	So what Justice Barrett did was reassert and reestablish the principle that judges aren't national policy makers.
	They are dispute resolvers, you know, balls and strikes umpires, nothing more and nothing less.
	And this is a great day for the Constitution, great day for us.
	So Justice Barrett's opinion was joined by the other five conservative justices, forming a clear block, a block, a block intent on putting the brakes, putting the brakes, putting a halt, putting the kibosh on what they perceived to be a runaway trend of judicial activism.
	And that's exactly what this is.
	And the ruling, in a sense, functionally reined in lower courts once and for all, declaring that they can no longer bar the federal government, your federal government, from implementing these ridiculous policies that are outside the bounds of the particular case before them.
	Now, the impact is significant.
	It means, for example, that a single district judge, let's say in California or Utah, can't halt, let's say, an immigration policy for the entire country based on one litigant's complaint somewhere else.
	At most, the injunction can apply to that litigant, those parties, or similarly situated plaintiffs.
	That's it.
	So what this does is, thankfully, is it refocuses federal litigation on individualized, narrow remedies, not sweeping ideological battlegrounds.
	It makes judges do what they're supposed to do, judge on a particular issue.
	And perhaps the most forceful and the most striking portion of the opinion came when Justice Barrett took direct aim at Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent.
	Oh, this was good.
	And this is where the tone shifted from merely, you know, legal to pointedly and deliberately philosophical.
	Justice Jackson, who relied heavily on the Judiciary Act of 1789, yeah, or rather her clerks did, and other traditional notions of equity, as they say, argued in favor of the status quo.
	And she defended the idea that judges can and should step in, listen to me carefully, listen to me.
	Is this on?
	Step in to correct executive overreach at a national scale.
	Justice Barrett dismissed this argument entirely.
	I mean beautifully.
	And she characterized it and called it as some untethered lunacy from doctrine, precedent, or even basic constitutional principle.
	Basically, she called her a nut.
	She didn't mince her words.
	Her beautiful critique of Justice Jackson's dissent was so biting, so perfect, so piquant, it bordered on historic.
	Nino Scalia must be looking down and smiling.
	She accused Justice Jackson of simultaneously condemning an imperial presidency while championing an imperial judiciary.
	Yes, it was perfect.
	That line is going to be quoted in textbooks for years.
	Next time you go to a tattoo place, instead of let God judge or whatever, put that.
	Let me say this one more time.
	Remember this.
	Remember this.
	It says, an imperial presidency was condemned while championing an imperial judiciary.
	That's exactly what she does.
	And by the way, Justice Barrett wasn't alone in citing her frustration.
	The court's conservatives used this beautiful moment to reaffirm that all branches of government, every single one, every aspect, including the judiciary, are all bound by the rule of law.
	Listen to this.
	Everyone, this is a quote, everyone from the president on down is bound by law, Justice Spirit wrote, borrowing Justice Jackson's own words and flipping them back and sending them back at her.
	It was a judicial mic drop.
	It was a reminder that when judges extend their reach beyond the parties before them, they're not defending the Constitution.
	They're undermining it.
	And this is a return to sanity.
	This is one of the most important messages.
	Oh, and they are hurting today.
	The ruling notably, sadly, but notably, did not take a position on the underlying executive order regarding birthright citizenship.
	Maybe for later.
	Can't have everything.
	Can't always get what you want, but you get what you need.
	That issue, whether children of illegal immigrants, aliens, illegal aliens, are constitutionally entitled to U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment, that remains kind of unresolved at the highest level.
	But Congress can fix that, and I'll tell you later how we can do that.
	But by scaling back the scope of injunctions, the court declared a path, a path for that debate to proceed without being frozen by premature nationwide blocks that stop this.
	And lower courts have been instructed to revisit their injunctions that they've previously issued in light of the ruling and to make sure, listen to this, to make sure that they are properly tailored.
	In other words, keep your ruling to your case, okay?
	Now, outside the courtroom, of course, the reactions were swift and crazy and nuts and divided.
	There was a woman by the name of Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network, hailed the decision as a resounding defense of the separation of powers.
	She highlighted Justice Alito.
	By the way, I had never thought I would like this guy as much as I do.
	But they highlighted his concurrence, which warned against the growing trend of abusing class action certifications and standing doctrines to engineer universal injunctions through the back door.
	Alito's message was clear.
	This court knows what you're up to, and it's not going to let it slide.
	Now, to understand the roots of the case, we have to rewind to President Trump's first day in office, and this is critical when all of this happened, when he signed an executive order, and that particular order was titled, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.
	This is where it started.
	Now, this directive, this order of his, reinterpreted the 14th Amendment and asserted that its promise of citizenship, listen to me carefully, does not extend to the children of illegal aliens.
	Predictably and on command, lawsuits flooded in.
	And just as predictably, a handful of these district judges stepped in to block the order nationwide.
	But the historical context of the 14th Amendment matters here.
	And this is what's critical.
	It was enacted, as you recall, to grant citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War.
	Not, not, repeat, is this on, not to incentivize unlawful border crossings in the 21st century.
	So Trump's order wasn't erasing history.
	It was clarifying it, but also challenging what he and his supporters see as a modern distortion of it.
	This is a tremendous victory.
	Be happy.
	Okay.
	Now, the political reaction was immediate.
	Justice, President Trump on a Truth Social declared a giant win, full caps, full caps, full stop, giant win on Truth Social.
	He asserted incorrectly that even though the ruling didn't directly uphold his order, that's okay, that's okay, it struck a powerful blow against runaway courts and what he called the birthright citizenship hoax.
	And Attorney General Pam Bonnie, this time finally having given up that ridiculous Epstein move, whatever that was, she took a victory lap, emphasizing this time that the Supreme Court had finally told federal judges to stop, stop, stop the endless barrage of Nationwide injunctions.
	And for years, President Trump and his supporters have argued that a cadre, kind of this little coven, if you will, of liberal judges, has undermined the presidency by issuing, sweeping these ideologically motivated rulings that block executive action regardless of legal merit.
	Basically hijacking the rule of law with the rule of law.
	And on immigration, national security, and administrative control, the judiciary has often acted as a roadblock rather than a referee.
	And that has come to an end.
	This is a glorious day.
	This case marked a critical point, a critical development, a juncture, if you will, in that long-standing power struggle.
	It wasn't about, and listen to me carefully, it wasn't about whether Trump's policies are wise or popular or good or nothing to do with MAGA.
	It was about whether one district judge in one particular district, in one particular part of the country, can shut them all down for the entire country with a single ruling that extends beyond the original parties bringing the case.
	And the answer from the Supreme Court was that, nope, an emphatic, nope, you can't do it.
	And the judiciary is not a super legislature, nor is it a substitute for the president.
	Its job is to interpret the law, balls and strikes, my friends, not to impose political will.
	So by reining in the misuse of nationwide injunctions, the court reaffirmed, yet again, reaffirmed the constitutional architecture of checks and balances that prevents any one branch or judge from dominating the rest.
	That is the fundamental basis of our country.
	So in the end, my friend, in Trump Against CASA, it's not just about Trump.
	It's about the power and the limits of constitutional fidelity and the limits of power.
	It's a reminder that the rule of law works both ways.
	Judges, no less than presidents, must operate within the bounds of authority given to them by the Constitution and by Congress.
	And for the first time in, I don't know how long, the Supreme Court has said so loud and clear.
	This is a great day.
	Rejoice, rejoice.
	Go out into the streets and rejoice.
	Finally, some semblance of common sense.
	This is a great day for America, great day for President Trump, and great day for the rule of law.
	So answer, my friends, what do you think?
	What are your thoughts?
	What are your comments?
	Please, I've put some questions down.
	I want to see you're quite right.
	Comment.
	I love your comments.
	People read them.
	Sometimes they're inane.
	Sometimes they're remain.
	Sometimes they're germane.
	Sometimes they're insane.
	It doesn't really matter.
	They're still good.

▲