Trump gets CRUSHING NEWS amid DISASTER Supreme Court hearing

I'm joined now by law professor at. University of Michigan and co-host of. the strict scrutiny podcast, Leah. Litman. Thanks so much for joining me. Thanks for having me. So, we've just. heard arguments in Trump versus Barbara, which is the the birthright citizenship. case of the Supreme Court. So, from what. I had heard so far, it was a pretty. rough go for the Trump team, but I want. to get your opinion as a Supreme Court. expert. How do you think this went for. Trump versus how it went for the other. party? I think it's clear that the court is. going to rule correctly that the. executive order purporting to deny.

people birthright citizenship is. unconstitutional. I don't think it's clear that the ruling. is going to be unanimous, and that. itself is a travesty just because the. text of the 14th Amendment is super. clear, the history is super clear, and. so even though Donald Trump is about to. get this huge loss, he will have. succeeded in polarizing this issue and. unsettling it in some respects. And in. doing so, is about to give the Supreme. Court this huge gift of making them look. independent and credible when they.

reject his unhinged, deranged theory. What did you make of the fact that he. decided to appear at the arguments in. person? You know, I really didn't know what to. make of it. I'm sure the justices were. not amused by it because it probably. made it seem like more of a spectacle, but they deserve him. You know, they. partially created him and they have. given him a lot of what he wants. So, it's hard to know exactly why he picked. this case. He had threatened to attend.

the oral argument in the tariffs case, but then didn't follow through with it. He did follow through with this one. A. part of me wondered if he was setting us. up for an April Fools' joke, but I don't. know why he chose this one in. particular. Do you think there's any. merit to this idea that he went kind of. as this as this foreboding presence? I. mean, you had used the word threatened. to go for his tariff case, but I I. actually did kind of look at this as. through that lens. Like, he was there to. remind the Supreme Court justices who. they owe their jobs to and and, you.

know, him being there might kind of. chill them into into. being more acquiescent to him than they. would otherwise be if he wasn't present. Do you Do you buy that at all? It's possible he deluded himself into. thinking that, but there's just no way. his actual presence was going to be that. level of intimidation to the justices. because, you know, they have a host of. security and protection in a way that. lower federal court judges do not. And.

so, in some ways, you know, the threats. he makes on Truth Social and the. statements he gives in press conferences. riling up his base against him, that's. way more concerning than him just. showing up at an oral argument. Did you. read into the fact that he decided to. leave after the Solicitor General made. his made his arguments and didn't stay. for the other side to to rebut what. what had been said? It certainly made me wonder. I don't. know that I got a read on exactly why.

You know, it's very possible he got. bored. These oral arguments are very dry. and technical. It's also possible that. he picked up on the fact that the. argument wasn't going well for the. lawyer for the federal government. You know, hard to know which of the two. or maybe a third. Well, the the thing. that struck me is like I listen to these. arguments. I do I do a legal series. every day with Mark Elias. I have. another series that I do with Glenn. Kirschner who's a 30-year former federal. prosecutor. So, I I get my fill of of. legalese and jargon. And even despite.

all of that, listening to the these. Supreme Court arguments, it is a whole. different level of of technicality. and jargon. And so, I can imagine for. somebody like Donald Trump who. is is in like year five of bragging. about how he how he aced a dementia test. where the hardest question was to like. identify a farm animal. For him, for somebody like that to be in this. courtroom listening to these arguments. might might not feel like the most. welcoming argument, you know? Okay, so. that's true. On the other hand, Neil.

Gorsuch was able to get the crowd to. laugh at the expense of the federal. government, and I think even Donald. Trump could probably pick up on that, even if he could not follow any of the. actual words that were being said. To. that end, was there any moment in. particular that you thought felt like um. that could serve as, you know, if the. federal government loses, the nail in. the coffin? I'm not sure there was a single moment. that was a nail in the coffin as far as.

this moment exposed the key weakness in. the federal government's theory, just. because there are thousands of key. weaknesses, any of which is sufficient. to reject their argument. >> I have I do feel like the 14th Amendment. to the Constitution existing is is a. pretty big nail in the coffin to this. case. >> the 14th Amendment, right? And so it. seems like, you know, the various. Republican appointees were just trotting. out the different weaknesses. You know, for Justice Gorsuch, he's like, you. know, there was that decision, Wong Kim. Ark, heard about it? You know, so that.

seems bad for you. Um Justice Barrett, by contrast, relied more on the history. behind the 14th Amendment and the fact. that it was designed to overturn Dred. Scott and ensure that the descendants of. enslaved persons would be citizens. Justice Kavanaugh, by contrast, you. know, focused more on the federal. statute codifying birthright. citizenship. So it's just kind of a pick. your poison. If we do see one of the justices or. multiple justices, and I assume this is. going to probably fall in the Alito or. Thomas bucket, um. side with Trump in this case, after.

they've done so, after we've seen this. court kind of bend over backwards in. blind deference to Trump in the past, I. mean, they created out of whole cloth. this provision that a president can't be. held accountable for criminal activity. uh that they commit, they ignored. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that. says that you can't run for federal. office again if you've engaged in or. given aid or comfort to those who have. engaged in insurrection, which of course. Trump was found to have done. So, what. does it say that we will, you know, in. the event that that a Gorsuch that a.

Thomas or Alito decides to side with. Trump on this, what does that say about. the credibility of this court that seems. increasingly. capable or willing to completely discard. the Constitution in blind deference to. their political ideology? It's another pretty damning indictment. of this court and the fact that any. justice would embrace this argument, which is so soundly inconsistent with.

text, history, precedent, every single. possible source of authority and law you. can imagine. It's hard to come up with, you know, yet another example of how the. Supreme Court could prove itself to be. more of a clown show and yet they always. find new ways. How could they hear this. case? Like I'm sitting there listening. to to this and there are there are. thousands of cases that get rejected. every year, valid cases that get. rejected every year because, you know,

you only have you only have so much. time, they only have so much every. everything is limited, right? And and. yet this is such a crazy case where. they're basically just saying the 14th. Amendment to the Constitution. doesn't exist or shouldn't exist, whatever it may be. It's it's, you know, it's become a laughing stock. across the country right now and yet. they got to take the like this case got. to take the spot of some other case that. was probably much more deserving. And. so, like I just don't understand why. this why they would say yes to hearing.

something that is just so juvenile and. elementary. It's really annoying because they could. have disposed of this issue last year. when they heard the case involving. nationwide injunctions. The plaintiffs. in that case said, "Look, if you're. going to say you can't get nationwide. injunctions, you should also consider. whether this underlying executive order. is lawful." The three Democratic. appointees said, "Yeah, it's illegal.". The Republican appointees declined to do. so. The justices also didn't have to. hear oral argument in this case. They. could have issued a six-sentence opinion.

that just said, "Yep, lower court. correct. See the 14th Amendment." And. they chose to do so. And I honestly. think that one key reason is they are. buying themselves more credibility and. more favorable publicity when they draw. this out because everyone is now talking. about the oral argument. We're going to. be talking about it again come opinion. season. And so they're just buying. themselves more opportunities for. favorable publicity. Whereas if they. would have disposed of it simultaneously. with saying no nationwide injunctions or.

with if they would have summarily said. months ago, "Executive order is. illegal." That's not going to give them. cover for the many horrible decisions. they are going to release toward the end. of this term, whether it is a decision. that possibly ends what remains of the. Voting Rights Act, whether it is a. decision giving Donald Trump basically. plenary authority over the federal. government and the power to fire. officials who lead almost every federal. agency, or any of the other cases where. they're, you know, going to do who knows. what. Although would you say that if we.

do see a split decision, if we do see, you know, Clarence Thomas and Samuel. Alito side with Trump, wouldn't that. undermine the the the soft ball like. gimme that this court was seeking by. even hearing this case? It will a little, but it's only going to. drown out a little bit of the light. You. know, all of the headlines are still. going to say, "Supreme Court affirms. birthright citizenship rules against. Trump.". Do you think, um, taking kind of a. 30,000-ft view of this, if Democrats are.

able to re- regain control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, that, you know, anything they put forward in. front of this 6-3 conservative court. where the judges are relatively young. and this is like DC young, right? Where. where like. if you're like 60 years old you're. you're a baby. But relatively yeah, relatively young, do you think that. there that Democrats should try and move. forward with with a plan to expand the. court? Expand the court, impose ethics rules on.

the court, limit the Supreme Court's. authority to strike down laws like the. Voting Rights Act, limit the Supreme. Court's authority to strike down. regulations like the Clean Power Plan. I. mean, you need to do a lot in order to. rein in this blunderbuss of a court. And. what would it take just on court. expansion alone, what would it take. technically speaking to be able to do. that? Majority in the House, majority in the. Senate, and a president who's willing to. sign the legislation. And when you say. majority in the Senate, that is that is. a 60 the 60 votes.

>> to get rid of the filibuster, then you. know, you would just need a majority of. the senators. Otherwise, yes, you would. need a filibuster-proof majority. All. right. Well, look, I mean, you know, from a political perspective, I was. looking at analysis yesterday on what. the Senate map was looking like and you. know, this. because of how unpopular Trump is and. because of the the the swings that we're. seeing in the electorate from 2024 to. 2026, suddenly the Senate is in play in a much. bigger way than we ever thought possible. given especially given how difficult the.

Senate map is, but suddenly seats in in. North Carolina and Maine and Ohio and. Alaska and Texas are in play in a way. that I don't think anybody could have. imagined in the immediate aftermath of. of the November election in 2024. So, we'll see. I mean, there is a world. where the ceiling for Democrats in the. Senate becomes like 50, you know, 53, 54. if they're able to run the table. And. frankly, given the fact that we've seen. 16, 17 point swings to the left in some.

of these races even in deep red. districts, even in you know places like. Tennessee and Florida just recently even. Mar-a-Lago is now represented by a. Democrat in the state legislature. So So. you know, that is not an impossible. task. I think. frankly, I think what's going to be more. difficult is is making sure that. Democrats um. have the stomach to actually wield power. if and when they get it. And that seems. to be our our perpetual uh issue. But. hopefully uh hopefully this is a. Democratic Party uh that we're able to. usher in after midterms that recognizes.

the urgency of this moment. So um with. that said. >> From your lips. Yeah. Um where can where can folks hear and. see more from you? So I have a podcast I co-host Strict. Scrutiny. Our regular episodes drop. every Monday anywhere you get your. podcast as well as on YouTube as well as. bonus episodes whenever the Supreme. Court does something extra crazy. I'm. also on Blue Sky at Leah Litman. And of. course you can check out my book. Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on. Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes at your favorite. independent bookstore. Um or anywhere.

you get your books. Awesome. I'm going. to put the link to Strict Scrutiny right. here on the screen and also in the post. description. For those who are listening. on the podcast, I'm going to throw that. into the show notes. Leah, thank you so. much for taking the time. I appreciate. it. Thanks for having me.