BREAKING: Supreme Court issues SHOCKING ruling on emergency docket

Some breaking news right now out of the. emergency docket at the US Supreme. Court. Glenn, can you explain what just. happened today? >> Yeah, Brian, it should come as no. surprise. The Supreme Court, Chief. Justice Roberts, just announced that. they're going to let Donald Trump's. unconstitutional construction of the. ballroom on the White House grounds. continue, at least for the time being. you know, they basically just entirely. disrespected and marginalized the trial. court judge who ruled that this is.

plainly unconstitutional and issued. basically a stop work order. Now, the. trial court said, "I'm going to pause. the stop work order until the Trump. administration can work its way up the. appellet chain." Then the Federal. Circuit Court of Appeals in DC said, "It's plainly unconstitutional and we're. going to issue a stop work order." Um, however, we're going to give the Trump. administration a little bit of time to. appeal it. Of course, they appealed it. up to the Supreme Court and now the. Chief Justice acting by himself in an.

administrative capacity, I'll talk about. what that means in a minute, just said, "You know what? We're going to let. Donald Trump continue to build his. lawless unconstitutional. ballroom. Now, it's an administrative. order by the judge. What does that mean? It means that, you know, this is. supposed to be in place only temporarily. while the Supreme Court assesses the. briefs and the arguments in the lawsuit. that was brought in the first instance.

to stop construction. So, you know, for. all we know, um, they could issue a new. order as early as Monday. I guess in. theory they could do it over the. weekend, saying, "Okay, we took a minute. to look at it and we're going to lift. the administrative order and here's what. we're going to do." Of course, the. here's what we're going to do part is. the $64,000 question. Because let me. make this as clear as I can to our. viewers. Brian, what Donald Trump is.

doing is lawless and unconstitutional. in a very real sense. You know, the. arguments that his solicitor general, John Sauer, also one of Donald Trump's. former criminal defense attorneys, the. the argument that he basically made to. the Supreme Court is, look, we've come. too far to turn back, right? Sure, it. may be unconstitutional. That's the. subtext. He doesn't admit that, but. that's what the lower court judges have. ruled. But you know, national security. The thing is there is no exception in.

the constitution to the requirement that. Congress is the one that authorizes. government buildings to be torn down, government buildings to be built, and. most importantly, our tax dollars to be. allocated for purposes of building those. government buildings. And let me just. sort of highlight what the court of. appeals said. They could not have made. it more clear. They could not have been. more succinct when they said, quote,

"Whether or not a massive ballroom. should be constructed is for Congress to. decide. It is not a matter for executive. presidential selfhelp. Period." It seems to me, Brian, inarguable that what the Trump. administration is doing in building this. ballroom is flatout unconstitutional. I. it is just, you know, it's an affront to. our constitutional construct of.

government, the power of Congress, the. power of the purse versus the power of. the executive branch. But at least for. the moment, Justice Chief Justice John. Roberts just doesn't give a rat's ass. about the Constitution. Let's see where. this goes once that administrative stay. is no longer in effect. >> I want to jump into the next question, but first before I do, just a quick note. for those who are watching right now. If. you'd like to stay on top of our legal. analysis and support our work, which is. 100% free, the best way to do that is to.

subscribe to both of our channels. I'm. going to put those links in the post. description of this video. So, if you're. not yet subscribed and you want to stay. on top of this stuff, the best way to do. that is to subscribe. Glenn, the the. part that I'm having trouble wrapping my. head around here is there is no. rationale given. And so, you know, it it. almost puts us in a situation where it. doesn't matter what the rule of law. says. It doesn't m matter what lower. courts say. It doesn't matter what. appeals courts say because it seems like. we have a Supreme Court that is abiding.

not by any text, any statute, any law, any constitution, but rather just their. blind devotion to their political. ideology. I mean, does that seem does. that seem correct to you right now? Because they're completely disregarding. the lower court rulings. They're. completely disregarding the plain text. of the Constitution. And because it's on. the shadow docket, the emergency docket, they don't even have to offer up any. rationale. So they can just decide that. because they like Donald Trump, that. they want to uh throw themselves in his.

favor, that they can just say, you know. what, forget everything that happened. Forget all of the the law that's. supposed to be binding or constraining. us. We're just going to rule in favor of. him because we can. >> Brian, it is corrosive to the federal. judiciary at large. the many trial court. judges that have been struggling to. constrain an outofcontrol, lawless, unconstitutional. president and his executive branch. It's. an affront to the many judges on the.

circuit courts of appeals, some of whom. are Trump appointees, many of them are. appointed by other Republican presidents. who will literally issue 100page rulings. and orders, 160 page opinions, rulings, and orders setting out the lawlessness. and the unconstitutionality of what. Trump is doing repeatedly, openly, notoriously, even gleefully. He enjoys, you know, just kind of sticking his. thumb in the eye of the rule of law and.

the constitution. And then when the. Supreme Court, as you put it, does. something on the shadow docket and just. says, "Nah, I don't care what y'all. said, all of you learned judges in the. lower courts, we're going to give you no. rationale, and we're just going to. contradict your 160 page, extremely. wellritten, thoroughly researched, imminently supported with case law and. constitutional interpretation. We're. just going to kind of throw it all under. the bus and we're not going to tell you.

why. It's corrosive to the federal. judiciary. It's dangerous to the. American people and it kills, you know, whatever lingering legitimacy the. Supreme Court might have. at least. Brian, the the radical right-wing uh six. justice majority, the ideologues who. have repeatedly now ruled that the. express text of the Constitution just. doesn't matter when it comes to. something Donald Trump really wants to.

do, like build a vanity ballroom. Does. this also create some precedent where. you've got a chief executive who decides. to just break the law because it gives. him the leverage to be able to say, "Well, it's already done and so now. you've got no choice but to let me. continue doing it." Like the fact that. he decided to act first and ask. permission later when it came to to. bulldozing the White House, in effect, it created this situation where, well,

now you've got a hole in the ground. So. he's got leverage because now he can. say, well, if we don't fill that hole, it's, you know, it's a it's a situation. where there are national security. implications. And so he created leverage. for himself. But because the Supreme. Court has opted to um to fall into this. trap and to give him the green light, doesn't it create a perverse instensive. structure where now Trump realizes he. can just do whatever he wants and so. long as it's already done, he then feels. like he has enough leverage to ask the.

Supreme Court to let him continue doing. this thing. Otherwise, the ramifications. of not doing it are just going to be too. great. >> Yeah, it's already halfway done. So, one. of the arguments that his uh solicitor. general, John Sauer, did I mention he is. a Donald Trump former criminal defense. attorney? I think I did. One of the. arguments that he made is, you know, look, the uncon, he didn't use these. terms. I'm going to frame it this way. The unconstitutionality is already. halfway complete. You need to let us. finish it. Brian, I swear this would be.

like a bank robber going to the courts. and arguing, wait, wait, wait a minute. I am halfway done robbing the bank. you. can't stop me dead in my tracks. Well, the answer is yes, we can and we must if. we care about the rule of law and the. constitutional constraints on the. executive branch. But Brian, I'm glad. you used that word leverage because it. does seem to give Donald Trump leverage. over the courts, not in a legal sense. and not in a constitutional sense. But. I'm going to quote something that John.

Sauer, the solicitor general, actually. put in writing. He said against the. backdrop of this unconstitutional. ballroom being halfway built, he said. the courts requiring the president to go. hat in hand, kind of a derogatory term. there, to Congress seeking the money, the authorization, the appropriations to. continue building his ballroom. gives Congress dangerous leverage over.

the president. You know, that is some. 1984 George Orwell double speak because. you just used the term leverage. accurately. It's giving Donald Trump. leverage because now with a big old hole. in a ground on the grounds of the White. House and a halfbuilt ballroom, you. know, he's saying, "Hey, hey, hey, national security requires that you let. me finish my unconstitutional.

project." So it really is giving Donald. Trump leverage to try to use the kind of. de facto blackmail the uh the Supreme. Court into ruling his way. In fact, there is this kind of veiled notion in. John Sour's uh submission to the court. that, you know, if somebody gets hurt. now, if somebody gets hurt while this. ballroom goes, you know, half. finishedish because the courts have. stopped us from completing it, it's. going to be on you members of the court, which it's just such an ass backward.

argument. Specifically, when John Sour. says a president shouldn't have to go. hat in hand to Congress to get the money. that Congress would appropriate for the. the construction of the ballroom to. which I would say uh you know sour look. that is our constitutional construct of. government. Of course, the president. goes hand inhand to Congress, which has. the power of the purse, the power to. authorize the construction of government. buildings and appropriate funds for that.

purpose. So, no, it doesn't give. Congress dangerous leverage over the. president because they have the power of. the purse. That is simply in keeping. with our constitutional construct of. government, >> right? What what he would call dangerous. leverage in the hands of Congress, anybody else would call our system of. checks and balances. It is exactly what. the Constitution lays out for our. republic. >> Brian, let me offer a parallel because. I'm a career criminal law guy. The. Fourth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment.

prohibits the police, the prosecutors, the government from unreasonably. searching or seizing someone without, you know, enough evidence or lawful. authority, like a judicial warrant, for. example. Somebody could say, well, wait, wait, wait a minute. that gives the. criminals dangerous leverage over the. government. It's like no, that is our. constitutional construct. The government. shouldn't be able to seize us, which is. a fancy word for grab us, arrest us,

throw us on the ground, you know, maybe. even hit us with some shock gloves in. the future. You can't do that unless you. have lawful authority under the fourth. amendment to the constitution. But for. John Sauer to recast our constitutional. construct, our checks and balances, Congress having the power of the purse, um, as dangerous leveraged in Congress's. hands is is really just trying to. rewrite the Constitution in dictatorial. ways. So, with all of that said, what. are next steps here? I mean, there was a.

lot make made of the fact that uh, Chief. Justice John Roberts allowed this to. proceed for now. So, does that mean that. they're going to hear this full case? What does it mean given the fact that. the Supreme Court's not even in session? How does this work? >> Yeah, it's a great question and it's in. the hands of the Supreme Court justices. and we all know that they abide by no. rules. They have they have no code of. ethics that they're required to to. follow. Um, so they're going to do. whatever they damn well please. The.

sixth justice majority always seems to. be willing to do whatever it pleases. even contrary to the express language of. the constitution. Now, what I will say. is today was the day that the lower. court rulings, the stop work orders were. supposed to go into effect. So, it looks. like that's why Chief Justice Roberts. jumped out there today and said, "Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. We're going to. leave the stay um in place before, you. know, we just let the time run out." And. the stop work order would have gone into.

effect, I think, close of business. today. So all he is doing is kind of. maintaining that stay for I don't know. Brian for another day, for a weekend, for a week, for a month. We have no idea. what we do know. I saw the reporting and. and you know there apparently they have. like hundreds of people working 20 hours. a day to get this damn ballroom up. because you know what is the Supreme. Court going to do if they agree with the.

with the judges in the lower courts that. of course this is unconstitutional. because Congress neither authorized it. nor appropriated funds for it. What are. they going to do? Order them to tear. down the ballroom? Does that seem. practical? Does it seem likely? particularly from this Supreme Court, you know, I think not. And I don't know. what other remedy, you know, they could. issue uh in an opinion say, well, yes, we deem that it was unconstitutional, but oh well, we all just let it happen.

anyway. Um, you know, we we will know. probably early next week whether we're. going to hear something promptly from. the Supreme Court or whether they're. just going to let this linger until the. ballroom is completed and then it will. be, you know, a done deal. and there's. very little hope that it gets undone. >> Well, we will of course stay on top of. this issue. For those who are watching, if you'd like to follow along and stay. on top of uh our coverage uh along with. any other news that we cover on our. channels, the best way to do that is to. subscribe to both of our channels. Those.

links are right here on the screen and. they're also in the post description of. this video. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen. >> and I'm Glenn Kersner. >> You're watching the Legal Breakdown. [music].