Why was it significant?

Well, it was a 7-2 ruling, so it was a big majority with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the only justice who explained for the majority his view on it.

Essentially, just in a big picture standpoint here, the Constitution gives the states the authority to set the time, place, and manner of elections.

Congress can parachute in with statutes and dictate terms for federal elections.

And then the states oftentimes will go along with those terms for their elections just because it's a lot easier.

There's absolutely no part of the Constitution that gives the president of the United States any authority to do anything when it comes to elections.

President Trump issued an executive order that attempted to use the United States Postal Service, which is an arm of the executive branch, to basically kind of audit mail-in ballots.

Were you surprised to see Justice Kavanaugh, who was President Trump's pick in that very infamous hearing nomination, et cetera, join the left-leaning justices in denying the president's order?

And can you just kind of break it down for the layman and tell us what does this most recent ruling mean and what does it not mean?

Yeah, so in 2025, Trump issued an executive order, his first attempt to control federal elections that would basically require proof of U.S. citizenship, voter registration, all this stuff.

Just so the viewers understand, the Constitution gives the nuts and bolts of elections to the states.

The president has zero authority over federal elections.

Congress can enact statutes governing federal elections.

If they do that, the states can follow that law or not.

Most of them do because it's just easier.

And to be clear, there's nothing in the Constitution that supports the presidential immunity that they bestowed on Trump.

And can you just kind of break it down for the layman and tell us what does this most recent ruling mean and what does it not mean?

Yeah, so in 2025, Trump issued an executive order, his first attempt to control federal elections that would basically require proof of U.S. citizenship, voter registration, all this stuff.

Just so the viewers understand, the Constitution gives the nuts and bolts of elections to the states.

The president has zero authority over federal elections.

Congress can enact statutes governing federal elections.

If they do that, the states can follow that law or not.

Most of them do because it's just easier.

And to be clear, there's nothing in the Constitution that supports the presidential immunity that they bestowed on Trump.

Mm-hmm.

He's changed the arguments to support this, or his, the administration has.

They've been all over the place.

It's, this is really clear, Laura.

It's not only in the Constitution, once again, in the Property Clause, that building on federal land belongs to the United States Congress, but there is a statute that directly requires congressional authorization.

This is flat-out illegal, and I really think the, the, the bigger question, um, we know what Trump does, is why is the Supreme Court, again, this Supreme Court, this chief justice, allowing the President of the United States to flout the Constitution, to flout the rule of law, to flout binding federal law dating back to 1912? The co- the Supreme Court is becoming a threat to democracy.

Right.

The president has to prove that they, the president will be irreparably harmed.

It sort of escorted wh- the key c- sort of simple constitutional question, and I was just curious of what, what you make of that.

Yeah, I mean, I think Justice Kavanaugh, it's almost an invitation in his concurrence, um, speaking of him in particular, for Congress to come back and try to tinker with the law that followed up on the 14th Amendment and to create more exceptions.

I think he, that was sort of a, a hint.

"Listen, bring it back to us with different legislation, and we'll see if we can take a second whack at the 14th Amendment." I mean, but what the chief justice did was go back to the common law and said, "You know, this is the, this is what kings did in England, and it was adopted here, and there really wasn't any ambiguity." Uh, again, these are m- m- this majority, uh, relies on text and relies also on history and tradition.

We've seen that with abortion.

We've seen that with gun rights.

And so he kind of takes that safe avenue and says, "Listen, this, this, this is as, as historical as it comes." And Justice Thomas, in his dissent, uh, basically relies on the Dred Scott Case and says, "No, this is really about, um, you know, formerly enslaved people in the 14th Amendment." And I think some, you know, somewhat, um, ironically maybe, uh, Justice Jackson in her concurrence says, "Wait a minute.

term?When it comes to w- w- how it, how this court, um, connected with the president's agenda.

And I'm just curious of what, what you make of that.

Yeah, I mean, I think Justice Kavanaugh, it's almost an invitation in his concurrence, um, speaking of him in particular, for Congress to come back and try to tinker with the law that followed up on the 14th Amendment and to create more exceptions.

I think he, that was sort of a, a hint.

Listen, bring it back to us with different legislation, and we'll see if we can take a second whack at the 14th Amendment.

I mean, but what the chief justice did was go back to the common law and said, you know, "This is the, this is what kings did in England, and it was adopted here, and there really wasn't any ambiguity." Uh, again, these are m- m- this majority, uh, relies on text and relies also on history and tradition.

We've seen that with abortion.

We've seen that with gun rights.

Overall, how would you view this term when it comes to w- w- how it, how this Court, um, connected with the president's agenda?

I- is that a viable path forward to get a timely response in documents a- of any kind? Um, and is it the right tactic?

Well, I think what he's doing strategically is turning this into an offense rather than being on defense.

And he's claiming, and we, there's some history with Donald Trump, um, that this is a vindictive prosecution, or when I say history, we know James Comey, Letitia James.

We also know the-

J. Matthew

... then, yeah, the nominee for attorney general, Todd Blanche, has basically come out and said that's okay to use the Justice Department this way.

Um, under the Freedom of Information Act, this information is supposed to be made public unless an exemption applies.

There is an exemption for criminal investigations.

Do you think it desensitizes people, that they begin to for- forget that people in Iran are human beings who are suffering and who are dying?

Without question.

Even in the United States when there was violence and two murders by- at the hands of ICE agents in Minneapolis, in Minnes- Minnesota, I think the sense in the United States tends to be, well, it's not me.

It's not my family.

It's not my backyard.

It doesn't affect me, number one.

Number two would be, well, uh, what can I do about it? I don't really have a lot of, uh, agency, and there's a lot of kicking the can down until, uh, the elections in November somehow that the midterms if the House goes to the Democrats, it will magically fix everything when it comes to this presidency.

What do you make of that argument?

And we were like, "Wait, what?" So, is this, is this a pipe dream? Is he, "No, this, this can't happen"? Can it happen? Please inform us.

I, I just think it's silly, I'll be honest.

I mean, that's not a technical legal term, but, you know, it just, it's absurd.

There's nothing in Article II that says anything about a pardon even being written.

It just says that the president shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons against, for offenses against the United States, except in the case of impeachment.

Uh, and of, and presidents do all kinds of stuff without their signatures.

Um, e- executive orders down through...

So what did you, what did you think of Re- what Rachel said? B- and because I agree with her and have been similarly, but she articulated obviously much better as a Rhodes Scholar than I, than I could.

Already five justices ruled that the Trump administration must pay $2 billion to USAID contractors for work they've already completed.

So that was not a good decision for the, um, expansion of executive power for Donald Trump, but there were four dissenting justices and Justice Alito wrote a very fiery dissent.

So I think these are going to be close nail-biter decisions.

Whether the Supreme Court will decide that Congress's design of federal agencies is beside the point, that not only can the president just demolish them as he sees fit, but can anoint a private party to do that with no ostensible...... legal or constitutional authority, and I say that because the courts can't really even figure out what Elon Musk's role is.

And in doing so, it's taken power from other branches of government.

Since Donald Trump took office a second time in January 20th, this is just a massive dismantling of a delicately created system of checks and balances where Congress does its job, passes laws that should be enforced and respected by the Executive Branch.

Congress creates agencies, gives them their power, and that power is restrained by the law.

And if you want more power than the President, then you have to go back to Congress.

Already five justices ruled that the Trump Administration must pay $2 billion to USAID contractors for work they've already completed.

So that was not a good decision for the, um, expansion of executive power for Donald Trump, but there were four dissenting justices and Justice Alito wrote a very fiery dissent.

So I think these are going to be close nail-biter decisions.

Whether the Supreme Court will decide that Congress' design of federal agencies is beside the point, that not only can the President just demolish them as he sees fit but can anoint a private party to do that with no ostensible legal or constitutional authority, and I say that because the courts can't really even figure out what Elon Musk's role is.

It's an open question on how the Court will approach these matters, but in the meantime Wehle says the immunity decision has emboldened Trump to push the envelope on what the executive branch can do, and in doing so it's taken power from other branches of government.

Since Donald Trump took office a second time in January 20th, this is just a massive dismantling of a delicately created system of checks and balances where Congress does its job, passes laws that should be enforced and respected by the executive branch.

Congress creates agencies, gives them their power and that power is restrained by the law.

And if you want more power than the President, then you have to go back to Congress.

Where did it all begin?

The pardon goes back to the Code of Hammurabi, this ancient Babylonian text.

And it's, of course, famously in the New Testament of the Bible.

Jesus of Nazareth was crucified because punctious Pilate denied him a pardon.

There was a tradition for the people to decide on Passover.

one person who would get pardoned for some kind of criminal sentence or conviction.

And it was between a murderer by the name of Barabbas and Jesus, and they chose Barabbas.

Why did they give such unlimited power to the president?