Where is the judge's anger going to be directed now?

It's still at the government, and this is still ongoing.

There's going to be a part two of this that's probably, it is going to happen next Monday.

She was trying to have it happen today, but this was all an emergency, and this hearing was a wild ride.

First of all, yesterday was a federal holiday.

I thought I was going to have a quiet day.

Right.

fewer trees so even that argument falls for those are we're looking at them those are healthy old trees 430 of them being cut down and it does to david's point get to kind of the way they do business whether it's tearing down the east wing or talking about building this arch which is try to outrace the courts just start just start and get it to a point where it's so far along they go well we're already halfway there you might as well just let us finish

Do we know what that means?

Yeah, Ali, so there is actually now a memorandum opinion accompanying this one-page order.

It's a 26-page opinion, which is really the storytelling document that explains that opinion.

So to answer the first question, we have moved from the temporary restraining order to the preliminary injunction, which means that this block will remain in effect while this case continues to work its way through the court.

And the defendants, except for Donald Trump, has been the case all along.

It's because he's the president.

He's singled out in a different way.

That sort of falls into a different legal area than what we're talking about here.

[upbeat music]

[upbeat music][upbeat music] It's a match made in Washington.

She's a congresswoman.

He's a shadow lobbyist for the insurance industry.

He set up private meetings between insurance executives and his wife, and she wrote a law boosting their profits and giving tax breaks to companies like her husband's.

Ashley Hinson's gotten up to $8 million richer since she went to Washington, and now she's facing an ethics complaint.

Ashley Hinson sold us out.

You might as well just let us finish."

What are we expecting today? Tell us why you're there.

Yeah, Katie, this case that was brought by MSNOW, CNN and Politico jointly on Monday is going before a federal judge for the first time.

And they're asking those three news organizations that were blocked by the president from the White House grounds are asking the federal judge, Judge Timothy Kelly, to grant an order to that reverses the president's ban and reinstates their press access.

They're asking for what's called a temporary restraining order, which is a temporary but emergency order that will immediately restore that access to the grounds.

You have lawyers for the three media organizations who are going to argue before this judge that the president's ban violated the First Amendment, that it was retaliatory and viewpoint discrimination, and that it violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

But you have the government saying that the president's actions were completely lawful because the journalists on the White House grounds, specifically those three organizations and their reporting, present a national security issue, which is an argument that he's been making in a lot of these legal battles.

because instead of having the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, it's now going to be the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts restored and renovated by President Donald J. Trump?

And that's the thing.

And it's not immediately clear what the sign is going to look like.

It's whether it's going to be smaller text below or part of the name.

But the judge was really explicit at the end of May when he said, you cannot name this after anybody other than John F. Kennedy.

And that's because that is in a congressional statute.

That statute says...

does the judge just step in and say, hey, you're violating my order? Or what is the process to getting this resolved?

Um, as you've covered this story so closely, anticipating which way the Court might go, how it might vote, what do you read into it this morning?

Yeah.

I think the biggest surprise here was the way that Kavanaugh came down.

We were saying earlier we thought this would be 7-2, 8-1.

There was never any question about whether or not the Supreme Court would uphold birthright citizenship.

It was just how and along what lines.

And so the fact that you only have five justices who are upholding this on constitutional grounds on the 14th Amendment, and then you have Kavanaugh, w- this is a 6-3 decision, but we're kind of calling it a 5 and a half, 3 and a half decision because of this Kavanaugh split where he disagrees on the 14th Amendment grounds but agrees that it is illegal on the statutory grounds and sort of lays out a roadmap for how they could change this to overcome this and thus struct, uh, strike down birthright citizenship.

Any surprise to you here in this one?