Return to Transcripts main page
Smerconish
President Trump's Very Consequential Two Weeks; New Study With Insights Into Trump-Harris Voters. Supreme Court Limits Ability Of Judges To Stop President Trump. Aired 9-10a ET
Aired June 28, 2025 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:00:38]
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: President Trump is having a moment. I'm Michael Smerconish in New York City.
The first five months of Trump 2.0, they're in the books. I'm not shy about voicing my disagreement here with President Trump or doing so on radio, often, whether it's trade, border control, Iran, I find myself agreeing with the goal but not the approach. But viewed objectively, I have to say that Donald Trump has just had the best week or best 10 days of his second term. I'm still not sure bombing Iran was warranted, as I said last week, I'd have liked to have seen the evidence of Iran being on the nuclear doorstep rather than take Prime Minister Netanyahu's word for it, especially in the face of what DNI Tulsi Gabbard had testified in March and what Trump himself was saying right up until Israel launched its strike against Iran.
But the mission was carried out with stealth and with precision. There were no American casualties. And while Congress is divided after receiving briefings on the extent of the damage, I'm sure that we've derailed Iran's nuclear program, at least temporarily and there's some valuable deterrent effect for America's adversaries who witnessed last week's exercise. Then last Tuesday, President Trump left the White House enroute to Europe. At the time, there was a question as to whether Israel and Iran would honor a ceasefire that caused the president to offer the most unfiltered, noncontroversial, direct words that I can recall anybody ever saying about the Middle East.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES: We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the (BLEEP) they're doing. Do you understand that?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Cut to the Hague, where he arrived for NATO meetings and was able to wrangle an agreement from our allies to more than double their defense spending target, from 2 percent of gross domestic product to 5 percent by 2035. Also, while at NATO, in a press availability, he did something rare for Trump and I found rewarding, he showed empathy. It came in an exchange with a Ukrainian journalist who said that her husband was a soldier, she asked whether the U.S. would supply her country with Patriot missiles.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Are you living yourself now in Ukraine?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My husband is there. And --
TRUMP: Wow. And I can see you very, you know, it's amazing.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And me with the kids, I mean, Warsaw, actually, because he wanted me to --
TRUMP: Is your husband a soldier now?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He is.
TRUMP: He's there now? They do want to have the anti-missiles. OK? As they call them the Patriots. And we're going to see if we can make some available.
I wish you a lot of luck. I mean, I can see it's very upsetting to you. So, say hello to your husband. OK?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Also, in that presser, he was more reflective and respectful than usual of our allies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They want to protect their country and they need the United States. And without the United States, it's not going to be the same.
And I left here differently. I left here saying that these people really love their countries. It's not a rip off. And we're here to help them protect their country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Back at home, Trump claimed that he's reached a trade deal with China and soon expects the same with India. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Bloomberg that the deal was signed earlier this week. China's Commerce Ministry said Friday the two sides had further confirmed the details of the framework. Of course, Trump's initial imposition of tariffs wreaked havoc on American markets back in the spring. But now the markets have rebounded and grown.
The S&P 500, Nasdaq hit record highs just yesterday. And it's not just the stock market, inflation, the great economic fear of recent times seems to be tamed. The rate is now reported at 2.4 percent, down from a high of 7 percent just four years ago. Meanwhile, blue collar workers have seen real wage growth of 1.7 percent in Trump's first five months. This is the largest such increase in nearly three generations.
Notwithstanding its impact on our national debt, there's also hope among some that Trump's Big Beautiful Bill will give further financial relief to blue collar workers, as well as create incentives to build more factories in the U.S. Some already see this happening. For instance, General Electric has just announced that it will invest almost half a billion dollars in moving production of washing machines from China to Kentucky.
And then there's the border, crossings have slowed to a trickle. According to CBP's May update, Southwest border encounters have fallen to about 282 a day, a drop of 93 percent from last year and the lowest since the early 1960s. Perhaps the loudest cheering for those border numbers is coming from America's Latino community, which might initially sound counterintuitive.
[09:05:18]
On Thursday, Pew Research released an enormous data analysis of the 2024 election, which contains several surprises. High on that list, President Trump won a bigger percentage of the Latino vote than previously believed. Hillary Clinton had a 38 percent lead over Trump among Hispanics in 2016. Joe Biden beat Trump in this demo by 25 percentage points. Kamala Harris' margin among these same voters over Trump just three points. Even more surprising, perhaps, Pew Research concludes that if everyone had voted in 2024, contrary to the widely held belief that higher turnout helps Democrats, Trump would still have won.
The data show 44 percent of nonvoters said that they would have gone for Trump, compared to 40 percent of nonvoters who would have gone for Harris. So if more had voted, his margin would have grown.
Yesterday came a huge decision from the Supreme Court, the high court declared that federal district judges exceeded their authority when issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. This will, of course, strengthen executive power, both for Trump and for his successors.
And finally, a Democratic socialist just won the nomination for mayor of New York City. And perhaps you're wondering, well, how does that affect Trump? It gives him the perfect foil, someone to play off in future political battles. This morning's New York Post references campaign literature for Zohran Mamdani, which advocates for increased taxation for, quote, "richer and whiter neighborhoods." Just imagine what Trump will do with that.
Winning became a punchline that Trump's opponents used to lampoon him in his first administration. He was a political novice then, surrounded by a team with which he was unfamiliar, and he was probably as surprised as the rest of us were that he won the election. This time is different. This time he came with a plan and a cabinet with senior advisers comprised of loyalists, all well known to the president. And recently, he's exhibited a more layered approach to governing on both the domestic and international front, no longer solely guided by winning each day's news cycle.
By any objective measure, President Trump has his opponents on the run. Of course, that conclusion requires an honest assessment, which leads me today's poll question at smerconish.com, do you have an open mind with regard to President Donald Trump?
Joining us now, CNN Senior Political Commentator and former Trump campaign adviser David Urban and Xochitl Hinojosa, CNN Political Commentator and former DNC Communications Director.
Xochitl, I just did all of David's work for him, so fairness demands that I come to you and ask, where am I wrong?
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, thank you for having me, Michael. I think that there are a few things, when it comes to immigration, and you talked about the Supreme Court decision this last week, we saw, obviously, protests in Los Angeles. We know that the Trump administration is going to target New York and potentially Chicago as well moving forward. But recent polling shows that the vast majority of the American people want a pathway to citizenship for immigrants, and they want to deport violent criminals, not families and children. On the Big Beautiful Bill, 55 percent of Americans oppose the Big Beautiful Bill because it's going to cut -- it's going to cut health care for many and it will only cut taxes for the wealthy.
When it comes to Iran, while I think that the strike was a success and you're right that all of our troops were not put in harm's way and they were safe, there were no casualties at the end, there's still a lot of questions about the actual impact to Iran's nuclear program. And the vast majority of American people oppose the strike.
So I think while yes, there are portions of your opening that are right, there's still some areas where I think the American people have concerns about what Trump promised and what he's actually doing for them. And I want -- the last thing I want to mention is Trump promised to reduce costs, and in some ways there are some areas where he is reducing costs, but the Big Beautiful Bill isn't going to reduce costs for everybody. And so I think that is a big concern for Americans. And if we -- if any previous election is a telling on kind of what -- how Americans vote, taking away health care from millions of people is never a good idea before the midterm elections.
SMERCONISH: David Urban, Xochitl just explained some of my thinking and positions that I've taken both here and on radio, I'm worried about $37 trillion of debt, so I don't know how we can afford the tax cuts that he contemplates. I, too, would like there to be a pathway to citizenship. It seems to me this is the perfect opportunity to do it. But the argument that I'm making is it might not go my way, but he's getting stuff done. And for that, I think, to be fair, you have to give him props.
[09:10:20]
DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, Michael. Nice try, Xochitl. That was -- it was a valiant effort on your behalf. But listen, Michael is right. Since Donald Trump has become president, this the second term, America and Americans are safer and they're more prosperous. As Michael points out. You know, the border has been secured, real wages are going up, inflation is down. Michael, you didn't talk about the U.S. Steel deal in Pittsburgh where Nippon and U.S. Steel came to, you know, an agreement where the U.S. manufacturer, U.S. Steel industry is going to have a huge shot in the arm from Nippon. The headquarters could remain in Pittsburgh, and U.S. Steel manufacturers have become more robust. There are so many -- you didn't talk about the conflict between Pakistan and India, which Trump helped to wind down and mediate to the extent that the Pakistanis nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize. I mean, it goes on and on and on. And the successes so far this president has achieved are incredibly consequential, perhaps the most consequential since FDR a president.
I know Biden talked about how he was doing all these great things, you know, I think they pale in comparison to what Trump has accomplished in the first five months. And I think history recorded such. Even if you don't like the guy, you got to give his props, like you said, Michael.
SMERCONISH: Xochitl, you can respond to anything that David just had to say. But also, tell me, what's the strategy for Democrats to slow down the president?
HINOJOSA: Well, I think that, as you both know, I mean, time will tell whether or not this president is popular. The only way to slow down the president, the only way to stop the president from the great impact that -- the impacts, and I would say some of them are not so great on the American people, and this is why I think you see the polling, so his approval rating so low is the midterm elections. I mean, at the end of the day, the voters will decide whether they agree with Trump and his policies. And I think that if you continue to have -- you continue to strip health care away from people, if you do not have costs going down, if you're not making America safer, they will vote on that and they will vote Republicans out, in particular in the House of Representatives.
One thing I wanted to counter on safety and keeping America safe, I actually don't agree that America is safer. You had DHS and the FBI put out a bulletin earlier this week saying that the threat environment is up because of Iran. They're worried about targeted attacks in the United States and outside of the United States. They had to move on from immigration to national security and counterterrorism.
In addition, we just had the funeral last week for the state legislature that -- the state legislator that died in Minnesota. And we know that rise of political violence is up. And yet you don't have this administration talking about how rhetoric -- and hateful rhetoric leads to political violence. And so -- or you're not -- you don't see them working with state and local law enforcement all around the country to ensure that we are working to keep people safe and our elected leaders safe. That's something that we did in the last administration.
So I do think that there are -- at the end of the day, it's not about Democrats stopping Trump, it's going to be about the American people deciding whether or not they like Trump's policies. SMERCONISH: David Urban, who is happier? Who is -- hold on, who is happier about the nomination of Zohran Mamdani? Is it Donald Trump or is it Eric Adams?
URBAN: That's a coin toss, Michael. I think, look, as you said -- and look, Xochitl just -- she's correct. The midterms are going to be a referendum on Donald Trump. And I think if the midterms occurred today or in a few weeks when Mamdani is the new mayor of New York, it is going to be a walk. The Republicans are going to continue to hold the House.
You're going to have -- you're going to have assault bill, you know, assault exemption passing this great big beautiful bill which is going to do great things for the New York delegation. I don't see -- you know, Xochitl, I know you're very optimistic about the midterms and it's traditionally a place where, you know, Dem -- you know, the party not in power picks up, but in this instance, I think in this past six months, if they are continue for the next year or so, Trump is going to not just do well in the midterms, he's going to pick up seats in the midterms.
You talk about safety in the Iranians. Listen, a nuclear armed Iran is the most dangerous thing in the world. So sure, we struck Iran, we blew up, we severely degraded their ability to produce a nuclear weapon and threaten the rest of the world in America. And so the United States is kind of sweeping up some Iranians who came across the border illegally just to be extra protective of our -- of our great nation. So this country is safer today since Donald Trump is president.
[09:15:02]
By all objective --
SMERCONISH: Hey, can I --
URBAN: -- if you look at the polling -- and if you look at the polling, which real quickly, people feel safer. That's the key -- that's the key. How people feel in their houses, how real world people feel every day, they feel more wealthy, they feel more prosperous, and they feel safer. That's the key.
SMERCONISH: Xochitl, final question to you, and I only have 30 seconds, the nomination of Mamdani in New York City, good or bad news nationally for Democrats?
HINOJOSA: I don't think that -- to be honest with you, any of the candidates are good or bad, I don't think it's good news for either Democrats or Republicans. I think an indicted Eric Adams is bad for Republicans. They want a formerly indicted mayor, then so be it. In terms of Mamdani, I think that you see a lot of anxiety from Democrats. I will not lie about that.
At the same time, I think Mamdani has a lot of work to do in order to widen his base and widen the electorate and go and talk to the American people and New Yorkers about costs and health care and things like that. But he can't just stick to the electorate that want -- that elected him in the primary, he has to broaden his base.
SMERCONISH: My --
HINOJOSA: And we'll see if he does that.
SMERCONISH: My 2 cents, Trump is thrilled. Eric Adams is thrilled, Newsom is disappointed because now Mamdani becomes the foil number one for president.
Thank you both. I really appreciate each of you being here.
URBAN: Thanks, Michael.
SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts at social media? You can hit me up on all the usual platforms and I'll read some throughout the course of the program. From the world of X, what in the hell are you talking about? Damn you've set the bar so low for Trump that ant can't crawl underneath.
I don't understand the second part of it, but OK. What am I talking about? I'm talking about offering an objective analysis in view of what's transpired in the last two weeks that I've laid out substantively and with data. He's been on a roll. It might not be the role that you desire, but I like the word that David used and that Salena Zito used in her column this morning, consequential. Who among us could deny how consequential Trump 2.0 is turning out to be?
But in order for you to recognize that, you need to have an open mind about what's transpiring. And that takes me to today's poll question. That's why this is the poll question today. It'll be a very interesting result, and I'm asking you to be self-reflective. Be honest.
Do you have an open mind on President Donald Trump, or are you locked in and not even willing to say, well, you know, a broken clock is twice a day.
Up ahead, just two days after I just referenced Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani's surprise victory, the Pew Research center released the most exhaustive study yet of the 2024 presidential electorate. If Democrats weren't already confused, they probably will be now. Make sure you vote on the poll question at smerconish.com. You sign up for the newsletter, you'll get the work of great editorial cartoonists, including, come on, I love that, Steve Breen drew that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:22:18]
SMERCONISH: For months we've heard anecdotes, we've seen trends, been bombarded with hot takes on why 2024 unfolded the way that it did. But now comes the hardest data we've got. A just released study from Pew Research built on validated voter files from every state, breaking down who voted, who stayed home, what changed from 2020. No guesses, no exit polls, just verified ballots cross tabbed with demographics and trending over time, this is the definitive look at the 2024 electorate. And if you think you already know what happened, you might be surprised.
Joining me now to dig into the data is Pew Research Associate Andrew Daniller. He studies public opinion on U.S. politics and policy, including political polarization.
Andrew, preliminarily, what is this data and why is it only available now?
ANDREW DANILLER, PEW RESEARCH ASSOCIATE: Yes, that's a great question. It is eight months almost after the election. But what we do with this -- with this report is that we take our panelists who regularly answer survey questions for us and we match them to the state voter files to see whether they actually turned out to vote or not. And it takes a few months for the states to compile their voter records after the election. And then it takes us a little bit of time to process all of that data, clean it up and have it ready for our analysis. So this is actually the fifth time we've done one of these analyses and this has become the regular time of year for us to release it.
SMERCONISH: Something that jumped off the page for me, the Hispanic vote. I'm going to put up on the screen for everybody to take a look from the Pew Research analysis, the 38 represents the margin that Secretary Clinton won over Donald Trump among Latino voters. The 25 is Joe Biden's margin among Latino voters in 2020. And then look what happens, it's only three points for Kamala Harris, Vice President Harris, relative to Donald Trump. Speak to the Hispanic vote and what you saw in those numbers.
DANILLER: Sure. So this was obviously one of the numbers that leapt out to us as were doing the analysis, as were preparing the. And I think I'll borrow a little bit from some of my colleagues who study race and ethnicity specifically here when I say that they've been arguing for years that the Hispanic voters, aren't a monolith and that they shouldn't be expected to vote simply based on immigration issues. And so they've been expecting that something like this might be in the works for a few years where we would see the Latino vote even out a little bit, move closer to the Republicans and further from the Democrats. And they at least weren't terribly surprised by this, although a lot of us who study politics were surprised and do see this as one of the biggest findings in the report.
[09:25:04]
Now, when we talk about why individual voters voted for one candidate or the other, obviously, there's a lot of factors there. But one thing that comes out clearly is that Latino voters were concerned about the same things as all of the other voters that we studied in this election. And the economy rose to the top for a lot of those voters.
SMERCONISH: Andrew, something else that I was shocked at in the Pew Research, if everybody voted, you know, for a long time, the belief has been that the higher the turnout, the better it is for the Democratic candidate. And in fact, people going so far as to look at weather forecasts and say, well, if it rains, it's going to depress some of that Democratic turnout because after all, Republicans would walk through rings of fire to get to the polls. Actually not, not in this race. We'll put that on the screen as well. If, you know, quote, unquote, "everybody" came out to vote, what would have happened?
DANILLER: So our estimate is that Trump's margin actually would have grown a little bit if everybody had voted. And the reason for that is something that you noted at the top of the program, we see that 44 percent of people who did not vote in this election but were eligible to vote, they say they would have voted for Trump if they had voted. Forty percent say they would have voted for Harris. So that's a slight, slight advantage for Trump. They're nearly split evenly but with a slight advantage for Trump.
And so if everybody had voted, Trump's margin might have only grown by a point or so.
SMERCONISH: OK. And finally, settle the age old debate, which matters more, motivation, I'll say turnout, motivation or persuasion? Based on this data, do you have a favorite?
DANILLER: Well, based on this data, I have to say that both matter a lot. That's the very middle of the road answer, I'm afraid. But we do see a slight emphasis on turnout in our report. What we -- what we argue throughout the report is that there is less, there are fewer people who switch their vote from one party to the other than there are people who change whether they turn out or not. And so there's persuasion happening when someone decides they're not going to turn out because they're not enthusiastic about their party's candidate this year.
But it's still ultimately a turnout question, are they going to show up to the polls or not?
SMERCONISH: Can I say we've only scratched the surface? I mean, I found interesting the youth vote and the way they moved and then breaking down all the individual, I mean, Trump did well with younger voters, it remains to be seen if he -- if he can hang onto them. And then when you break down the individual demographic groups, it looks like Vice President Harris had a diminished share in comparison to President Biden with all but white women. And still among white women, Trump won that category. I only have 30 seconds, did I say that accurately?
DANILLER: You did say that accurately. Among the groups we looked at, white women stand out in that regard.
SMERCONISH: OK. Nicely done.
Andrew, thank you for being here.
DANILLER: Thank you.
SMERCONISH: Here's some social media reaction to today's program thus far. You can find me in all the usual places, including X. What you're struggling to understand is that the Democrats are not so trusted by the masses and such an abysmal progressive party that people in turn voted for Trump. That's how bad the Democrats are. It's that -- it's that simple. In other words, Doug C, if I'm understanding your argument, what you're saying is that it was a rejection of Democrats more than it was an embrace of Donald Trump. Do I agree with that? I think it was an embrace of some of the issues on which Trump was running.
And by the way, the Pew data really doesn't get to the why question. It's who came out by demographic example and in what numbers. It's not really an exploration like an exit survey as to why did people vote for whom they voted. But I continue to believe that Donald Trump won the election because of immigration, because of the economy and because of the condescension that was directed toward he and his supporters which boomeranged. So I haven't changed my assessment on that.
I want to remind you, go to my website at smerconish.com, curious, this is an odd question, it's going to yield a very interesting result, do you have an open mind when President Trump?
Still to come, your social media reaction to my opening commentary. And the Supreme Court delivered a major win for President Trump on Friday. What this ruling will mean for the rest of his presidency and future presidents. When you're voting at smerconish.com, sign up for the free and worthy daily newsletter. You'll love it.
And you'll get the work of editorial cartoonists like Scott Stantis. Come on, that's genius.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:34:11]
SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the usual social media platforms. You can follow me on X as Walt apparently does.
Smerconish, as usual you're an idiot. Stock market is not the economy.
OK. Can I stop right there, Walt, and say -- put that camera on me for just a second. If the stock market tanked yesterday -- OK, if the stock market yesterday were where it was in April, Walt, would you then be saying something different? Right?
I mean, you don't want to give Trump credit for the market. And by the way, I think we give presidents too much credit and too much blame for factors that are beyond their control. I just want to call out hypocrisy that I suspect, because if the market were tanking, I'll bet you'd be blaming it on him. OK, put that back up on the screen. I guess there was more to it.
[09:35:00]
Stock market is not the economy. You tout inflation is only 2.5 percent and wages up -- that means the value of workers money --
OK, I know how you're answering the poll question. OK, you're answering -- you're answering the poll question today that you're not open minded with him. Did you not hear the part where I said, I disagree with a lot of the tactics, and I've cited all the examples?
I'd like to see birthright. I'd like to see a pathway to citizenship. I'm worried about the debt. We can't afford the big bill.
I mean, I could go on and on and on, but my role is to call balls and strikes and to be objective and to sit back five months into this administration and say, damn, the guy is getting a lot done. Consequential is the word of the day.
One more. Do I have time for it? I think that I do.
As I said earlier, half the country sees Donald J. Trump as winning. Yet the other half of the country can't see through the fog of hate and divisiveness.
I mean, too many people, Robin, suit up in their -- in their usual jerseys instead of looking objectively at what's transpiring. And that's a shame because objectivity and independent thinking, I think, is in too short of a supply.
One more if I have time, Catherine. Do I? Do you have another one you can put up there? You don't have any more? Or you don't have any more to show? OK. Here's one. OK.
If people's investment accounts are increasing, does anything else matter to them? I think we know the answer.
Well, James Carville has yet to be disproven. It remains the economy stupid. Still to come, President Trump called it a big, amazing decision, and a monumental victory. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, decided with the Trump administration's request to stop lower courts from blocking his executive orders. What this means for the rest of his presidency and presidents who will follow him?
Make sure you're voting on today's poll question. Truth test here. Do you have an open mind relative to President Trump? While you're there, sign up for the newsletter. Rob Rogers just drew this for us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:41:14]
SMERCONISH: The Supreme Court handed down a blockbuster decision on the last day of its term on Friday. In Trump v. CASA, the court limited judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. Earlier this year, President Trump signed an executive order denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to unauthorized immigrants, as well as temporary visa holders. Previously, such children were granted automatic citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
Several district court judges blocked the order through the universal injunctions. The White House claimed that they went beyond their authority. The 6-3 decision by Amy Coney Barrett, she authored the lead opinion, came down firmly on the side of the executive branch, stating federal district court judges were overreaching. They may provide relief to the plaintiffs in their case, but not to all potential plaintiffs across the country.
This had not been the only instance of a Trump White House order experiencing a similar fate. More than two dozen times, judges have put his policies on hold nationwide. Trump supporters have accused his opponents of judge shopping to stymie his administration's policies.
Justice Barrett's opinion noted, quote, "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch." Furthermore, she wrote, "When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power too."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. She called the decision, quote, "Nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution."
It's worth noting that the case did not get to the merits of the argument against birthright citizenship, an issue which can be dealt with at a later date.
Joining me now is Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the U.C. Berkeley Law School. He wrote this op-ed for the "L.A. Times" under the headline "A stunning and tragic Supreme Court decision." Dean, welcome back. Great to have you. What is the immediate impact on birthright citizenship, if any?
ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, DEAN OF THE U.C. BERKELEY LAW SCHOOL: This case did not, as you say, resolve the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. So, this goes back to the lower courts. And I think that the issue will come back to the Supreme court is whether President Trump can do this.
And my guess is on this one, President Trump is going to lose in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court is going to say, the first sentence of section one of the 14th amendment is understood. All born in the United States are United States citizens, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.
SMERCONISH: Give me the lay explanation of what this case is all about.
CHEMERINSKY: What this case is about is can one federal district court, in finding a presidential action or a federal law unconstitutional, resolve the issue for the entire country until the Supreme Court hears it?
And what the Supreme Court said yesterday was, no, a federal district court can decide. It's the plaintiffs before it. It can set law in that district, but it can't issue a ruling binding other courts. So, to challenge birthright citizenship, it would probably take lawsuits in all 94 federal districts or the Supreme Court left open the possibility of a class action suit.
SMERCONISH: OK. In other words, by this ruling, one district court judge remains powerless to impact national policy, and it would require action all over the country. Or, as you say, by a sole class action lawsuit. CHEMERINSKY: That's exactly right. And the Supreme Court left open the possibility that there could be a class action suit filed for the entire country, for all individuals to be covered by this or any other executive order. The court also left open the possibility that a state government might sue on behalf of all of its residents in the state.
So, there's still some techniques available, but there's no doubt that the Supreme Court has taken away from the federal courts an important way of checking the president.
[09:45:07]
SMERCONISH: Dean Chemerinsky, in reading in on this issue, I found a law review article from Harvard from a year ago, and it contained a chart that I'm going to put up on the screen right now. I don't know if you can see it, but what it summarizes are the number of times that an injunction was issued by a judge appointed by the president's opposing party.
And there's a trend that emerges. It's on the rise. For example, there were only six nationwide injunctions on W's watch, President Bush. Three of the six issued by a judge appointed by the president of the opposing party.
The number rises to seven and 12 for Obama. But all of a sudden, now on Trump's watch, it's 59 of 64 of those injunctions come from a judge appointed by an opposing party. For Biden, it's 14 of 14, meaning every time he was stymied, it was by a judge appointed in that case by a Republican.
And overall, the total is, according to Harvard, 83 of 96 times that it happened, 86.5 percent. It looks like a lot of judicial shopping has taken place. That's what I wanted to frame for you.
CHEMERINSKY: Of course, litigants, when they have a choice, will try to go to a court with the best chance of prevailing. During the time of Biden's presidency, conservatives repeatedly went to federal court in Texas. Now, in challenging the Trump presidency, liberals are more likely to go to federal court in Boston or in San Francisco. But ultimately, the issues are still going to be resolved by the United States Supreme Court.
SMERCONISH: OK, so if not by this methodology, what would be a better path? In that same Harvard piece you said, litigants should not be able to handpick a judge when they can issue a nationwide injunction, throwing the entire country into chaos. What then should be the solution?
CHEMERINSKY: And it's important to mention the context of what I was talking about. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, there are divisions with only one judge.
For example, in the Amarillo division, Judge Matthew Kaczmarek is the only judge. So, anything filed in that division goes to him. That puts judge shopping on a whole different level. I think what we should do is have Congress adopt a law authorizing nationwide injunctions, but requiring that it go to a randomly selected three judge court for the entire country.
SMERCONISH: Judge -- dean, I almost said Judge Chemerinsky. I'm not sure if that would have been an elevation or a diminished role for you. Thank you, Dean Chemerinsky. We always appreciate your expertise.
CHEMERINSKY: Always my pleasure. Thank you.
SMERCONISH: Thank you. You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Do you have an open mind about President Trump?
When you're voting, subscribe to the newsletter. You'll get editorial cartoons from the likes of Jack Ohman. Check that out.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:52:20]
SMERCONISH: All right. There it is so far -- wow. A lot of voting, 40,231. You know what? I applaud those of you who are part of the 72 percent who say you do not have an open mind on Donald Trump. And the reason that I'm applauding you is not that I appreciate your closed mindedness. I appreciate your candor. Like you don't want to hear it.
I made the case at the outset of the program today that he's had a good two weeks. You know, he's -- like, no B.S. He's winning. Maybe not in a way you want.
There are many things that he's doing that I disagree with. And I tell you what they are every day on radio and once a week here. But you got to stand back and say, it's consequential. It is consequential. So, interesting.
We'll leave it open. You can continue to vote. Social media reaction to today's program. What do we have?
New York City is not representative of the entire very large United States of America. Thank God. Look to the middle of the country, not the large cities which are very left leaning. Come back to the old school dems left to center.
I mean, I get it on one hand, Kelly Anne, that it's not a snapshot of the country at large in your opinion, but it is a snapshot of the diversity of the country. Hey, I'll tell you something I've been thinking about this New York City election. This is going to sound nutty to some of you, but why should that stop me?
My belief is that if the New York City mayoral election, the Democratic nomination, were this Tuesday instead of last Tuesday, that Mamdani's margin would be significantly larger than what he defeated Cuomo by last week. And now you're saying, well, why Michael? Why do you think? Is it because of all the attention and people love this Democratic socialism? Oh, no. No, it's the Bezos wedding. No, I mean it. I mean, this guy won this election because of concerns about income inequality and the price at a halal stand of chicken over rice. Why is it $10.00 when we all know it ought to be eight? And now to see these images of this wedding.
By the way, don't misunderstand what I'm saying. Like God bless. OK, you build a business and spend the dough however you want to spend the dough. But it just seems tone deaf at this moment in time for that kind of a -- of a show.
Yes. With the attention that this -- I mean, again, I'm all for entrepreneurship. I'm going to go home and buy things on Amazon today because it's what I do every other day.
[09:55:02]
But it just seemed like it was ill suited for the climate, at least for the political climate. Yes, that's what I think. Mamdani, your margin would have been larger if Election Day were next Tuesday. And the chicken over rice is too expensive.
OK. One more. I think I've got time. Sorry, I was off on a tangent there.
I see you are stumping for Trump this morning. How can you support -- I'm not supporting. How can you support the most divisive, hateful human on the --
Gloria, what did I rattle off for you? I rattled off for you NATO and how they're ponying up. I rattled off for you the outcome of the strike in Iran and how there was no loss of life and we did set their program back. How far? I don't know.
I rattled off for you, border crossings being down like 95 percent. I rattled off for you a record in the stock market. I rattled off for you that inflation has been tamed.
It was all substance. I'm not asking you to love the guy. I'm just asking you to acknowledge he's had a good two weeks. That's it. Period. End of story.
If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you for watching. See you in a week.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)