BREAKING: Marc Elias CRUSHES Trump in court

This is Democracy Watch. Mark, we have. some major news here at the hands of you. and your law firm against the Trump. administration. A big victory in court. Can you explain what just happened? >> Yeah, this is a blockbuster victory for. anyone who cares about free and fair. elections and keeping Donald Trump from. trying to take control of those. elections in 2026 and 2028. the Trump uh. White House issued an executive order uh. last year signed by Donald Trump in. which he asserted authority over federal.

elections. Now, the specifics in this. case and the ruling that we just got had. to do with proof of citizenship. We all. know that that's been like one of the. big ways that Republicans have been. trying to figure out how to suppress. voting rights because uh it affects. married women who change their last. name. affects people who are younger uh. uh who may not have their original birth. certificate, right? But the implications. of this cannot be overstated. This is a. blockbuster ruling because what the.

federal judge said, and I quote, is put. simply, "Our Constitution does not allow. the president to impose unilateral. changes to federal election procedures.". She also uh said that the constitution. quote assigned no role at all to the. president when it came to election. rules. So if you are worried as I am and. I know Brian is about the president. saying he's going to ban mail and. voting, he's going to, you know, seize.

vote, he's going to seize voting. equipment, he's going to insist that he. can count ballots. This is a federal. judge saying under constitutional. separation of powers principles that the. president has no role at all in federal. elections. >> Can you talk about the appeals process. and whether you think that it's the. Trump administration's ultimate goal to. get this thing up in front of the. Supreme Court? >> Look, Brian, there's no question that. the administration didn't pass this rule. to to have it set aside by a federal.

district court judge. They're going to. run this up through the appellet. process. the next stop will be the DC. circuit where you know that that case. will be heard. But but I have no doubt. that the Supreme Court is their ultimate. goal because they want this to apply. They want this to apply nationwide. They. want to establish a precedent that is. binding on all courts not just in. Washington DC that uh that the president. is virtually a king that he can decide. you know who gets to register who.

doesn't get to register what documents. they have to provide and ultimately. remember and I'm going to put on the. screen right here what Donald Trump. posted on social media a few months ago. that he believes the states act as his. agents his agents in counting and. tabulating ballots and that's what. everything we are seeing right now is. all about. That's what this executive. order you know was only about voter. registration but it's ultimately about. establishing the power. What was the sea.

seizure in Georgia about? Uh it was. about ballots, right? And so uh we need. to take this seriously and for for at. least for today the good guys won and. I'm proud to have been uh been uh lead. counsel in that effort. >> Right. Well, that's the perfect. opportunity right now for folks who are. watching. If you'd like to support. Mark's work, a small step that we can. all take is just subscribing to. Democracy Dockets. That that's the news. outlet he founded to focus on everything. voting and elections. So, that will that. will give you the opportunity to get all. of this news as it breaks from a primary.

source, the person who's actually filing. these lawsuits, and to support his work. in the courts where it matters most. and. he has 80 court cases being litigated. right now, including 24 of them where. the only thing standing between your. voter data being turned over to to the. Trump administration or being left to. the states is Mark and his team. So. again, if you want to show some support. for the work that they're doing and the. cases that they're winning, the best way. to do that is to subscribe to Democracy. Docket. I'm going to put those links. right here on the screen and also in the. post description. Mark, it's worth.

asking here. Is there anything we can. read from the tea leaves that might. suggest how something like this would. perform at the Supreme Court? Like, has. the Supreme Court given any indication. one way or the other how they feel about. this case if and when it's inevitably. appealed up to them? >> So, I think that there are mixed uh. signals here uh you know or or tea. leaves that go in both directions. So, on the one hand, they have. unquestionably taken a position that the. president has a lot of power, right? They have they have they have adopted a.

very strong presidential pre power. model. One that is not frankly supported. by the original understanding of the. founders but nevertheless it's the one. that this Supreme Court has adopted. which is the reason why Donald Trump. keeps winning cases that you would think. he should be losing. Um, on the other. hand, on the other hand, you if you are. a textualist or an originalist, which. most conservative justices say they are. both, it is hard to get around the fact. that the constitution gives the states,

not the president, the power to set the. time, place, and manner of elections and. that it explicitly says that Congress. can overrule the decisions of the. states. So the the plain text of the. constitution says states set the time, place, and manner of elections subject. only to override by congress. Left out. of that entire equation is the. president. Yeah. So I think that the. Supreme Court is going to be between. these two notions. One that the.

president needs to be very powerful and. you know should be able to do a whole. lot of things that the Constitution. doesn't seem to say. And on the other. hand, they have this this textually. committed uh right to the states and to. Congress and also the history and. tradition that no prior president has. done this. I mean, Brian, I think. sometimes we lose sight in when we talk. about these court cases about just how. absolutely extraordinary it is that the. president of the United States would. even assert this authority that the.

president of the United States would. have his Department of Justice, for. example, try to go get voter files from. the states. I mean, this is just like. not something that prior presidents. thought they had the constitutional. authority to do or that they had the. inclination to do because the only. reason why the president would want to. be able to decide that that he can. unilaterally impose additional. restrictions on who can register to vote. or who can get an absentee ballot or. whose ballot counts. The only reason why. he'd want to do that is because he wants.

to affect the outcome of the midterms or. maybe not just the midterms but also in. 2028. And the thing is Donald Trump is. telling us that that's what he wants to. do. You know, he he recently uh he. recently said, and maybe we could put. this up on the screen, he he doesn't. think there should be midterm elections. [snorts] Now, you know, Carolyn Levit. said it was a joke, but does anyone. looking at that text see a joke? It's. not a joke. This is what Donald Trump. wants to do. and the courts dealt him a. huge setback in this case and and this.

is one to watch and it's one that I'm. very proud of. >> in terms of the Supreme Court getting. their hands on this thing and I know. that you you said that they're stuck. between you know their their deference. to Trump and this expansive executive. authority and the plain text of the. Constitution. My concern here is is I. think what a lot of people's concern is, which is Constitution be damned, text be. damned, and the Supreme Court's just. going to say do whatever they want. expressly because they're ideologically. aligned with Trump and because there's. no higher power than them. And so if.

they want to just make something up out. of whole cloth, they can. There's nobody. to tell them no and they've got the. majority. And so can you offer some push. back to that? because, you know, I I. know that your position is that the. arguments that that are made to the. courts still matter and and I'm I'm. wondering if you share my same concern. that a lot of this stuff is is. pre-ordained to just give Trump whatever. he wants anyway. >> Yeah. So, when it comes to the Supreme. Court, I describe myself as a uh as a.

Supreme Court skeptic, but not a. fatalist. So, it's not that I think like. the Supreme Court doesn't have a bias. that towards, you know, uh, Donald Trump. or towards conservatives or towards. Republicans, whatever it is. Like, yeah, I think it has that bias. And I think. that it is that every time that me or. someone in my position, you know, appears before the Supreme Court as I. did in December or, you know, has cases. before the Supreme Court, I have a. voting case, you know, that is actually. just came out. It's going to be heard on. March 23rd. It's the Watson case for.

people following that at home. big. voting case involving mail-in voting. It's not like I think like we're. starting with like a totally neutral. balanced set of uh set of justices. On. the other hand, I'm not a fatalist. I. don't think that the arguments don't. matter. I don't think that we. automatically lose. I mean, the fact is. I can point you to examples where where. we have won where my law firm has won. where where in cases we've not been. involved in the the we've gotten uh good. pro-democracy decisions. So I think that. it is like it is not a great situation.

but it is not a it is not a fixed. situation. I know that there will be. people who disagree with me. There are. lots of people who push back on me and. say you know Mark you know it it is in. the bag and there and and it is all it. is all sort of predetermined. But I I. asked them to then answer the question. of like why is it then that I that we. can point to these cases where in fact. uh the Supreme Court has ruled against. Trump. >> Right. as as and that's the and that's. the perfect point here. Um and I think. that that degree of I don't even want to.

say optimism but but pragmatism I mean. the the the reality of the situation is. going to be important for folks like me. who often would describe themselves as. Supreme Court fatalists. So I think it's. important to have like that you know. that that sense that even in a world. where everything does feel like the the. scales are tipped against us that the. whole thing is not just fixed. Um, >> yeah. And and the other thing is, Brian, I would just say to people who are not. persuaded by my argument and see. themselves more in the same vein that. you that you are. Um, I I make another.

argument though to you not to go down. that road, which is that if you go too. far down that road, you actually give. the Supreme Court a permission structure. to act that way. Like, you know, one of. the things I I felt very strongly about. when in the Supreme Court argument that. I that I made is, look, I I'm not dumb. I I know the Supreme Court took this. case because, you know, they they. probably want to strike down this. campaign finance law that's been on the. books for 60 years. Um, but by showing.

up and making the argument, I, you know, I don't give into the cynicism and the. the permission structure for them to. just say, "Okay, even even even the. proponents of this law, the supporters. of this law, think it's all, you know, it's everything is lost." And so, in a. weird way, Brian, we give power to. Donald Trump that we don't want him to. have by saying that he can't lose. Like, we want him to know that he can lose. And I worry sometimes that by being. fatalistic, we actually encourage in a.

way the Supreme Court or Donald Trump to. feel like there are no there there's no. there's no check on their power. >> Yeah. Well, look, no one can can say. with more authority that they are. serving as a check on Trump's power than. you and your team. Again, this case that. you've just won is a testament to. exactly that. Um, and I know that this. is not the only one. Again, you have 80. cases happening as we speak. Um, so. again, a small step that everybody can. take to support Mark's work uh and. elevate his voice, which could not be.

more important than it is right now, is. to sign up for Democracy Docket. So, I'm. going to put that link right here on the. screen and also in the post description. of this video. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen. >> I'm Mark Elias. >> This is Democracy Watch. >> [music].