Supreme Court Issues Final Rulings of the Term

Your education is more than a path to a degree. At Regent University, it's an important step in God's plan for your career. It's where you'll be equipped to lead and serve with purpose. It's where 40,000 graduates have prepared to fulfill their callings, and so can you. Choose a top-ranked program from over 150 areas of study on campus or online and watch what God will do. Learn more at regent.edu. That's regent.edu. Welcome to today's podcast, sponsored by Hillsdale College, all things Hillsdale at Hillsdale.edu. I encourage you to take advantage of the many free online courses there. And, of course, I'll listen to the Hillsdale dialogues, all of them at Hugh for Hillsdale. Or just Google, Apple, iTunes, and Hillsdale. Grace America, I'm Hugh Hewitt. Big Day at the Supreme Court. Three big decisions. I agree with them all, by the way. I agree with them all. Two authored by Brett Kavanaugh, one authored by Chief John Roberts. I agree with them all. I was on Fox earlier today. Dana Perino asked for the concise view of what was going on at the court, and I answered thus cut number one. And Hugh Hewitt, of course, he has the Hugh Hewitt show and a Fox News contributor with his reaction this morning. Good morning, Hugh. Good morning, Dana. My reaction this morning is I'm not surprised by any of these decisions. I would have agreed with, were I in the court with all three of them? I think the Chief Justice has hit it out of the park on the birthright citizenship issue, and we finally have a decision that lays to rest this endless debate, that text history and tradition, in fact, affirm if you're born in the United States, you're a citizen. I love Brett Kavanaugh's clarity on the... boys and girls sports. He simply says equal protection clause allows states to do what they want to do to protect women. And as to the third case on campaign funding, Carl Rove, the architect, had it exactly right. It strengthens parties. It makes parties much more vibrant. And so I think from my perspective, it's 3-0 for the Constitution today. Now, I know some people, as a matter of policy, as Professor Turley just put out, would like to amend the Constitution to change the citizenship to prevent against. birthright citizenship. We can pass a law to tighten up visa. We can secure the border like President Trump has done. But the Constitution is pretty easy to understand. It was written by farmers, four farmers. I like to tell that to my con law students every single year. There's nothing magic about this if you just simply read the document, text, history, and tradition. So I think it's a 30-day for the Supreme Court, and they can go home and enjoy their summer. Wow. And now I am... Being assailed online because a lot of people feel very passionately about birthright citizenship and alleged anchor babies and all the rest. That's not the issue. The issue is what's the 14th Amendment say? What was the law before the 14th Amendment passed? What was the law is interpreted in Wong Kim Arc? What has been the unbroken precedent of the United States since its founding? It's an easy case. I'm sorry it's always been an easy case. A lot of people are passionate about it because Joe Biden broke the border, and there are birth tourism scandals more than you want to know about. And it's something that we ought to prosecute.

something that we ought to prevent to the extent of the law possible via visa reform and via what the president has done, which has closed the border, and deport, deport, deport, deport people are here illegally. But if you're born in the country, you're a United States citizen. It is that simple. It's always been that simple. And I understand, by the way, Samuel Alito was concerned that... A number of children born to illegal aliens in the United States who become the United States citizen may not grow up loving the United States. They may not even grow up in the United States. That is a problem. It's a real problem. We have to be aware of that. We have to be willing to act against those people. We have to provide for the common defense and conduct ourselves with due concern for national security. But it doesn't change the text of the Constitution. If you want to change the text of the Constitution, amend it. Let's go to Jonathan Turley, Professor Turley on Fox News, cut number eight on the birthright decision. It is a roaring decision in favor of birthright citizenship as contained within the 14th Amendment. That is despite the countervailing evidence of some of the drafters of that amendment, that they did not want this to be something that would cover birthright citizenship. Now, having said that, there are very good arguments on both sides here, good faith arguments. And I'm just reading through the John Roberts decision today. But it is a very comprehensive and good faith argument. What is left here is a decision for the country as to whether it wants to examine a constitutional amendment. Some countries that have had birthright citizenship got rid of it because many of us believe it's an incredibly ill-considered policy. That might be the case. I'm not weighing in on the policy. I'd have to look at the amendment. I think constitutional amendments are very difficult. You need two-thirds of both houses to pass it and three-quarters of the state to ratify it for it to enter into effect. Very, very difficult to do. Is birthright citizenship such a question? People can certainly bring it forward. Speaker Mike Johnson gave a press conference after the decision today. Cut number nine. I think anybody who looks at this, oh dear, well, I need to read the opinion, okay? But obviously that's, I mean, you could say that's a textualist, originalist view. However, I do think that this has been grossly abused in recent years, okay? And that is the case that was being made by the plaintiffs in the case. We're very sympathetic to that because it is a serious problem. We have, you know, it's become a tourism, birthing tourism, they call it, you know, a trend where people will just come, and you just come onto the soil and have your child, and then they're able to avail themselves of the welfare state and everything else. It's been abused. It's one of those things that was intended to serve a noble, important purpose, and has been thwarted.

and overused and abused. And so I'm sure that we'll continue to look at that. I mean, I'm sure the conclusion from this opinion is going to be that you've got to amend the Constitution. As we all know, it's a big challenge to amend the Constitution. It's only happened 27 times in our whole nation's history. And the reason is, because you've got to have two-thirds of the both chambers of Congress and three-fourths of the states to ratify. It's usually at least a many-year-long process and very complicated. We'll see. I'm sure there's going to be lots of discussion about that. I will say I'm very disappointed in that outcome. I think it subjects the country to serious challenges going forward, and we'll have to deal with it as a Congress. Okay, so my question to the speaker and to all the critics of the decision who are worried about birth tourism, how many children a year are born to birth tourist parents? They're not in the United States as citizens. They're here as tourists. They get birth to a baby and that child of the United States citizen. How many of them are there? Do you have any idea? There is an estimate, pretty good estimate made by the United States Census. Do you know what it is? I can tell you that there are 3.5 million children born in the United States every year. So that's your baseline. Of those 3.5 million children, how many are born to parents who are on a tourist visa? 26,000. All right? So we're talking about 26,000 children a year. Not a good thing, by the way. Especially if someone comes here with the intent of... having a baby for the purposes of then assisting in their future immigration. We can pass a law, by the way, that denies any immigration preference to the parents of a citizen in the United States. We can do that. We can pass the statute. Or we can pass an amendment to say they're not, if you're here on a tourist visa, you're not a citizen. We could do that. But it's not a giant problem. It's 26,000 people here. And of those 26,000, how many grow up to be what Samuel Alito talked about, national security threats in his dissent? I don't know. I really don't know. Any? I think the reason people come here, and I know that a lot of mainland Chinese come here and do this. By a lot, I mean less than 26,000, but not more than that. Let's say half. 13,000 a year. What are those 13,000 babies going to do in 18 years? Do you think they're going to come back? Do you know that over the Biden open border, we had 50,000 Chinese national military age come across the border, which is the greater problem? The 50,000 Chinese nationals and military age who came across, it's not that easy to get out of China, by the way, not that easy, who walked up and across the border during the Biden years. Do we worry about the border, which I've been an advocate for what we're doing right now, big, strong, double-sided fence or a wall, since 2004 wrote book after book about it. I'm a border hawk and a regularization dove, and that's what I am, and I've always been. It's just not that significant.

of a problem. What is an important issue is how one interprets the Constitution. I want it interpreted the way that Brett Kavanaugh did in the boys and girls sports. There's this enormous long dissent by Ketanji Brown Jackson. It's incoherent. It really is mishmash. It's just dumb. I would argue unreadable except I read it. It's not coherent. What Brett Kavanaugh did, what six justices agreed is, that the Equal Protection Clause of the United States does not forbid states from legislating that biological boys may not play in girls' sports. That is up to the states. Just like Dobbs said, it's up to the states to decide abortion law. That's our system. The third decision today, by the way, and I'll talk about all three with Matt Continent, an hour three. The third decision today simply reaffirms the First Amendment. Money is speech, speech is money. If you give money to a political party, you want to give that party the best ability to win because you're a Republican or a Democrat or a progressive party or a communist. And the court held, it's up to the party to spend that money, and we can't limit the coordination that they make with a candidate. Good. First Amendment won today. Court has earned its vacation, and there have been no retirements. NPR notwithstanding that announced wrongly that Samuel Alito had announced today. Bad on you, NPR, good thing. You don't have our money anymore. Stay tuned on.

Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. That Music Means I'm joined by David Drucker of the Dispatch. David, I'm glad you're here because we've got to cover the most important story of the day. The one that nobody else is talking about on talk radio and on cable news. That is, LeBron James is not staying with the Lakers. Are you shocked? I'm not shocked, and I'm kind of relieved because, you know, this team, as it was constituted with Lugodontchik. and Austin Reeves and LeBron, as great as he is, was not going to beat San Antonio or Oklahoma City and contend for a title. Maybe for a Western Conference title, it was going to contend, but it wasn't going to get past them. And this opens up a bunch of cap space, a bunch of money, and now let's see if Rob Polinka can find a really good big man to pair with the two other stars that the Lakers have, in particular, Luca, who's the future of the franchise. You see, David is the only Lakers fan I allow on the program because I hate the Lakers. But he's allowed to come on and state matter of factly, C.L. LeBron, nice to have had you around. Next question. Should he go back to Cleveland for the veteran minimum? Well, you know, I always like feel-good stories like that. I mean, he's a homegrown Cleveland kid. He brought them, what, their first title as a franchise. Only title. And I thought he played. By the way, though, I thought his second stint in Cleveland, I thought he played the best basketball of his career. Absolutely. Particularly that year when he won the title, when Cleveland won the title, and it was him and Kyrie Irving. I mean, you know, I know, look, I. Michael Jim Jordan, obviously, and so many great players, Bird and Magic, that particular series, he willed his team to victory. And look, I got no level loss for Cleveland other than the football team, but the way he willed his team to victory against Golden State. Against a Golden State in its prime was just something to behold. That's why I don't want him to go to the Warriors, which is the other team being talked about. Enough of sports. Let me turn to what is on political journalists mind today. I think the Chief Justice wrote exactly the opinion that needed to be written. I know that Amy Coney Barrett agreed with him. Brett Kavanaugh did not. And there are dissents from Brett Kavanaugh, incurred in the result for different reasons, doesn't accept the constitutional argument. And we've got Samuel Alito Thomas and Gorsuch dissenting. Do you know, I'm going to play quiz with you. Do you know how many babies are born to people on tourist visas in the United States every year, David? I don't know. 26,000 out of 3.5 million births in America every year. What do you think the angst about this is really about? Because it's not about 26,000 babies born to tourists.

Well, I think, look, I'm going to do a little hypothesizing here, but I think a lot of this has to do with the angst over illegal immigration and this idea that no matter what we do, we just can't seem to have an immigration system where everybody has to follow the rules. And, you know, I think the angst over... these particular babies that are born every year is misplaced. We also, look, we have a demographic birth rate problem in this country, and the fact that immigrants tend to have more babies than Native-born Americans is something we need if you want your Social Security and Medicare to be paid for in future years. But I think that's where it stems from. I want to regurgitate that in different language. People think they're losing America, and it's not nativist because we've always been a welcoming country, but it's that assimilation is no longer held up, and we feel being taken advantage of by newly arrived, and that birth tourism is just another symptom of the disease of the unassimilated and what will happen to America if we don't. actually grow a new generation of American. And the DSA isn't helping. What do you make of my embroiderment of your... Well, look, I think there's something to what you're saying, Hugh. And again, though, I would say that it's misplaced. If you look at the children born of immigrants, legal or illegal, and then their children and their children, in the era of social welfare programs that didn't exist when my... grandparents came to the United States or were, well, no, that didn't exist yet. These immigrants, and particularly their children, do assimilate. And in successive generations, become more and more American in the way the critics of birthright citizenship and the people who scream about losing our country and all of that. would want them to be. I mean, you look at Hispanic voting patterns, you look at Hispanic language patterns, and it's just plain to see. And even people that come here and take advantage of social welfare programs because they legally can, you know, they, I often say make the best Americans because they realize how good they have it here because of where they came from. They came from socialist countries. They came from tyrannical countries. They came from countries that don't have the same freedoms as the United States, the freedoms for advancement, you know, across classes, socioeconomic classes. And so I just think a lot of this is misplaced. But, you know, part of it is because as a country, we are politically paralyzed when it comes to dealing with our immigration system. It needs to be overhauled and modernized border security. needs to be strengthened, not just at the executive level, but legislatively, so it can't be undone from presidency to presidency. And I think this is, you know, part of the problem.

There is enormous peril, though, in my view, for the Republican Party to become nativist. I don't think it is. I don't think many people actually hold the nativist view of throw them all out and shut the door. I just think birthright citizenship has been a handle onto which a lot of people who are fearful about the future of the country have grabbed onto. It's not even statistically significant. It just isn't. Yeah, no, I think you're correct. And look, Hugh, I would just, I'll just kind of make your point in a different way. One of the reasons President Trump's numbers with Hispanic voters were up across the board in 2024 is because Hispanic voters, particularly those that live near or at the U.S. border with Mexico, were unhappy with the Biden administration's handling of illegal immigration and border security. They didn't like the chaos. They didn't like... you know, how it negatively impacted public safety. They believed as having relatives that had to follow the rules or may have to follow the rules that people should have to follow the rules. And then after what appeared to be a very chaotic and punitive mass deportation project by the Trump administration, we see these numbers start to go back the other way. And so you're correct in that just as these DSA Democratic candidates. Have people looking at the Democratic Party differently, at least in parts of the country where they appear to be ascendant? These sorts of voices on the right could end up causing Republicans a problem long term. Oh, they absolutely could. And my message to them, if they're listening, please don't overreact and put the party in the nativist ditch because that's a sure way to get the 40% from 50%. in a blink of an eye. David Dreyer, David Drucker, follow him at David M. Drucker. I used to be David Dreyer, but he don't like his fan too. David M. Drucker on X. X. Lakers fan, now to LeBron's gone, I'm sure. Stay tuned to America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. Join now by Bethany Mandel, co-founder of the momwors.substack.com, and she must be feeling pretty good today. about the decision by the Supreme Court to allow states to mandate that only boys play boys sports and only girls playing girls sports. What did you think of the decision, Bethany? I mean, I think you win some, you lose some, and we lost another really big one that impacts our kids' future in this country. But the decision, that decision was quite good. I really appreciate it. I think it was Clarence Thomas' sort of declaration that just because you say something is so, does it make it in fact so? The wording on his opinion was fantastic and made complete logical sense, which is something that we haven't heard enough of on this issue for a very long time. So I think it was a huge win for parents, and at least for parents of athletes and for the women who participate and the girls who participate, what troubles you? Oh, the birthright citizenship decision. Oh, we disagree on that. This decision was fantastic. How can you, you know, I'm interested, you're a good faith person. Did no one warn you that that was going to be the result because that's been the law in the United States for 190 years?

I knew it was going to be the decision, but it doesn't stop me from feeling disappointed. I think that, I think it's a shame. I, you know, I've witnessed a lot of birth tourism in my youth, and it's just gotten worse, and there's now nothing preventing, you know. scores and scores of people from all over the world coming over here five months pregnant and staking down a claim the same way that my children and your grandchildren have a claim to citizenship. But there is, and that's the visa system. I've been making this argument for years. If you're worried about birth tourism, which is 26,000 births a year out of 3.5 million, then tell the State Department or President Trump order the State Department not to issue visas to pregnant women. Does that make sense? I think that makes sense to me. If they're five-month pregnant, don't give them a six-month visa. How do we do that in practice? Like, we're not going to give everyone a pregnancy test at the border, and if you're carrying small at five months, you're in good shape. I think you could do it. You can certainly ask embassy officials to deny visas to the visibly pregnant. Can't you do that? You can. I mean, but honestly, the birth score is a huge concern of mine, but as well, the children of people who overstayed their visas and illegal immigrants, once you open that Pandora's box, the numbers become significantly larger. Okay, my next question is, are you sure that the children of the illegals are going to turn out bad for the country? I'm not. I think they're going to turn out good for the country because we need babies. We need a lot of babies in the United States. We just need to educate them correctly. Yeah, but I don't have any hope that we're going to do that. And so I think that the question to us should be, are we confident that this person is going to be a net positive for our country? And if the underlying premise of their being here is that their parents broke our laws, I don't know we can make that assumption. Well, My argument is we've always made that assumption, but that you can try and get the country to change its mind via a constitutional amendment. Do you think that would have a prayer of passing? No. So is it worth any effort? I mean, I think the best thing that we can do is try to enact the immigration laws that we have on the books currently and get the people out that are not supposed to be here and close the borders to pregnant individuals and actually enforce that. I think that that's our best shot at making sure that America doesn't become like Europe, which we do agree. That's why the border wall matters so much. It's why last week's decision on TPS being temporary.

an asylum meaning you can only claim it when you're inside of the country, not at the edge. Those were massive wins for rational immigration policy. I also think, though, if we're a rule of society, we can't just change it because we're worried. And I think the chief and Amy Coney Barrett wrote that. Now, the three liberals were always going to rule that way. But are you surprised by Justice Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh? I'm not surprised by Leo and Thomas. No, I think everyone ruled the way that everyone kind of expected them to. My palette's intrigue is actually what's going on with the Samuel Alito thing. Did you see that AP, was it AP or NPR story that ran 30 seconds that he was retiring? No, I think Nina's never been right about anything, but she's perfectly pleasant, and she wrote a very good book about Ruth Ginsburg, and I think her father was a fabulous violinist. So I've got no personal acts to grind with her. She jumped the gun because she hasn't been right and ahead of his story in 30 years. That's the problem. Yeah. There was some sort of conversations of, oh, did we find the leaker? Was this a test on Samuel Alito's part to see if he could find the leaker? I love all those palace intrigue stories. I'm here for it. Well, he may very well. have baited a trap, but not to find the leaker, the leaker's gone. The leaker's been gone for three years. It's a clerk, and the clerk has gone. It's not someone on the staff. But he might have baited a trap. I don't know, but it might not. And by the way, he might retire tomorrow. There's no rule that you've got to retire on the end of the term. But do you know what got missed today is that the court granted cert in two cases to rule on the legality of banning AR-15s? Now, that's honey for the bear that is Samuel Alito and Thomas, right? They're not going to leave when they're going to finally get to the AR-15 case. I love it. It's funny because I used to live, I still live in a very liberal area, but the other liberal area I used to live in tried to ban ARs based on how scary they look, basically. And they decided not to bring it to the county council because I testified in front of the town council, whatever it was. And I was like, can you give me a definition for what you're trying to ban? And they were unable to do so. And I was like, you can't ban something that you think looks scary. Like you need to actually have some definitions involved here. It's called void for vagueness. It's called void for vagueness. And they couldn't. So I want to give one more story to you. Nadavale reports that. Benjamin Netanyahu was asked today, how did 10-7 change you? And he responded with a joke. He said, I lost some weight. What do you think that? Does that matter as much in Israel as it does here?

I mean, I think so. There's a prevailing feeling in Israel that he did not take it seriously enough on an interpersonal level. He didn't tour the damaged kibbutzs. He didn't meet enough with the families. He didn't sympathize enough with the families. And that just throws fuel on the fire. His wife also made some comments that were... Pretty insensitive. Insensitive has been how he's discussed a lot of these issues related to October 7th. And so I imagine that they landed just as well as many other things that he's done in the last two minutes. So if Benjamin Netanyahu is not the next prime minister, that's a big if because you've got to get the 61 seats. Who is? Who's going to be the next PM? I, that predicting Israeli politics is among the last things I like to do because it is the most unpredictable crazy system in the world that is in deep need of reform. And I wish them the best of luck, but I am going to enjoy my constitution and my steady government over here because it is a mess over there. Okay, I'll rephrase the question. Who would you like it to be if it's not Benjamin Netanyahu? I mean, I don't like any of them. They're all terrible. That's really the way a lot of people think about American politics too. Bethany Mandel, always fun. Read the momwors.substack.com. Come right back, America. Thank you, Bethany. Follow Bethany on Exit, Bethany. Sean Dark, I'll be right back. Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh Gillett, joined now by Byron York of the Washington Examiner, where he puts out a daily newsletter, Fox News contributor extraordinaire. Byron, what's the reaction around town to the three Supreme Court decisions today? I think almost zero surprise. Everybody expected birthright citizenship to go the way that it did. I think most people certainly expected boys and girls sports to go that way. I think maybe there was a little surprise about the campaign finance thing, which actually makes a lot of sense. If you've ever covered... campaigns and weird contortions that campaigns get into to try to consult with their independent expenditure people, but not consult with them. So I think there wasn't a whole lot of surprise today. I agree. And I am happy with each of those decisions because I agree with their reasoning. However, there's a lot of online anger about... the Chief Justice, which I think is residual back to Obamacare to a certain extent. But Brett Kavanaugh did not sign on, which I thought he would, and Justice Gorsuch didn't sign on, which I thought he would. Therefore, there's more anger than I expected. If it had been 7 to 2, there wouldn't be any anger, but there's anger today. Have you seen that?

You know, a little bit, but that is such inside, you know, not super inside baseball, but kind of inside baseball. So I think there was this feeling that the court did exactly what people thought the court would do. You know, I must say, I thought the one that came out yesterday about the independent commissions and agencies was really important. Oh, it's huge. that this second Trump term has just been a huge lesson for Washington in the meaning of Article 2 of the Constitution. And because Trump has said, look, I'm the head of the executive branch. This agency is in the executive branch. I'm going to fire this person. I'm going to put this person on this commission. And we're talking about more than 480 such so-called independent commissions. So I think that it was like a huge step forward in common sense. And I think that you saw the anger about it from the permanent bureaucracy. I thought it was really kind of telling. So, you know, maybe it wasn't the sexiest case that they had. I thought it was really important. You know, I want to quote the Chief Justice who wrote it. What is left of Humphrey's executor, we overrule. And that, I can't tell you how happy that made because it took two days to teach a con law student who's otherwise bright the difference between an independent agency and an other agency. However, Again, overreaction. It applies to Democrats and Republicans. So don't complain Republicans when a Democrat is president, and they fire all the Republicans because that's what they're going to do, and that's what they should do. Exactly. Look, if it's in the executive branch, the president can fire the person. Although they made this carve-out. Now, you're the expert, and I'm not. They made this carve-out about the Fed because it has this unique history, they said, this unique place and everything. I mean, I feel reasonably comfortable with the carve-out, but I'm not sure logically it makes a whole lot of sense. Well, the carve-out, as I understand, is more procedural than it is substantive, but it's actually substance disguised as procedure because they don't want to do anything to the Fed. a new president, a populist president, for example, arriving and sweeping away, what is it, 13 Fed governors or 15 Fed governors? They don't want that. And some of them come from the private sector, and that's the distinguishing characteristic, is that it's a quasi-public private thing. But it's a very unique carve-out. I mean, it's just one agency. It's the Fed. And we'll see how that goes. But I'm very glad to have the FTC and the FCC. and the NTSB, every other agency now is in the executive branch, do with it what you can. It doesn't change rulemaking, though, Byron. They still have to go through rulemaking. And just to say, I mean, the anger at it is just the product of decades of belief in the permanent bureaucracy that these agencies belong to them.

and that a new president couldn't come in and just have his way with them. And he had to go through all these hoops. He had to wait for seats to become open and all that sort of stuff. That he was bound by rules. And think about it. Think about COVID in retrospect. If someone had wanted to fire everyone in leadership having to do with COVID, they ought to be able to do that. If you're making policy on COVID and you got it that wrong, you ought not to have tenure. That's my view. Yes. No, that's absolutely correct. The thing is that you have these 487 agencies. Congress created them. It puts them in the executive branch. And if the president of the United States cannot fire somebody on one of these commissions, who can? So that's where you get to the fourth branch of government problem. Now let's get to the campaign finance. The most opaque and the most important, I followed Roe on Fox today. And Roe's a bullion, even though he started the NRC under a different name. And now the NRC is going to go away because you can give the money to the Republican Party, which is what you should do. And you ought to be able to coordinate with the candidate so that the parties get stronger. Well, you know, if you remember Senator Mitch McConnell, who was the most determined opponent of John McCain and campaign finance reform, Mitch McConnell's argument was always that the campaign finance reform law that McCain pushed and finally got put into law was... taking away the power of the parties. It was taking away the role of the political parties. And it was actually no organization better to do that role than the parties. And McCain-Feingold was kind of pushing them out of the picture. So this brings them back into the picture, which I think is a smart thing. So it really... undoes one of the major tenants of McCain-Feingold. And it brings us back to... I always like to say, Mitch McConnell saved the Constitution by holding open the vacancy that Justice Scalia's untimely death created, but he also saved the First Amendment by litigating forever. He'll never get props because, you know, the unit party babblers will always rag on Mitch McConnell. But he was a principal, and boy, was he... He got a bit in his mouth, and he ran with it. He never gave up. Yeah, absolutely. We should say on the campaign finance, 100% right.

100% right. God bless Mitch McConnell. I'm really making my audience mad today because I just said God bless Mitch McConnell and the citizenship decision was rightly decided. But that's what happens when you have principles, Byron. That's what happens. Thank you, Byron York. Follow him on X at Byron York. Follow me in the next segment. Matt Continent will be along next hour to go through all three of these decisions in depth from the position of like Byron and very well-informed layman. I'm just sort of a boring con law professor who says all of it to be expected. Stay tuned to America. I'll be right back. Morning, glory, Dean, and Grace, America. You already know what I think about today's trio of Supreme Court decisions. Three for three. I'm 100% in agreement with the majorities of the court. But what about Matt Contennetti? I have no idea what Matt Contennetti thinks about them. So we're going to go in reverse order of controversy. Least controversial is that... Political parties can spend as much as they want on candidates, Matt. What do you think about that one? I think it was the right decision by the court, Hugh. I think it's a great victory for First Amendment rights. The continuing undoing of the flawed Buckley decision back in 1974 and a victory for Senator Mitch McConnell as he's recuperating. And I think he'll be cheered by this decision. reasonable people should be. You know, I'm so glad you brought up Leader Mitch McConnell. People forget that through long, long years after the 1974 decision in Buckley v. Vallejo, I think it's 74, Mitch McConnell would hold forth against First Amendment breaking rules and campaign finance reform. He stood up against McCain. Fine Goldie has always been a free speech guy. Not many people remember that. Don't remember him for the... that no nomination, no votes, no justices until after the election. And they'll remember him because Donald Trump hates him. But he's a free speech warrior and always has been. When you've been a senator for 40 years, there's a lot of experiences you gather. And that was really Mitch McConnell's. first claim to fame was standing up for the freedom of political speech and being a burr in the side of his own party with McCain Feingold and kind of forcing the issue. So, yeah, if you think about Mitch McConnell's legacy, I think standing up for the First Amendment is up there, though it doesn't quite match his achievement in keeping the... Scalia C. Open in 2016 and opening up the path for this incredible originalist Supreme Court that has been having such a major effect in reconstitutionalizing American law.

Okay, I'm going to go out of order because you brought it up, Matt. We have an originalist Supreme Court. And I said on Fox News earlier today, if you're a text, history, and tradition originalist like I am, you're very pleased with the decision on birthright citizenship because that's been the rule of the country since the 14th Amendment passed. And before that, the common law of the country has explained by the Chief Justice. Boy, are people mad at me for stating the obvious. Originalists have to go with the Chief Justice here. It's a political problem if you worry about birth tourism, but it's not a constitutional issue. Do you agree or disagree? Well, I'm a little bit of two minds on this, you, and I know people say that's often the case. But I think that in a plain reading of the 14th Amendment, this was the right decision. And it's also the simplest decision. But I'm also, I have to say, having second thoughts after reading the four different dissents by originalists. So this is a question that originalists can disagree on. You know, what's fascinating about this to me is I read the different dissents is all of these originalists are actually arguing different things. Yes. You know, so Brett Kavanaugh says, look, the executive order that Trump issued, that violated an immigration statute. It did actually violate the 14th Amendment, and Congress can come back and rectify this situation. Interestingly enough, that seems to be the approach that President Trump is now recommending based on his recent true social post. There you have Clarence Thomas, who clearly felt passionately about this issue. He's 94-page dissent. talking about how the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to birthright citizenship because it's not a question of where you're born, the juice solely, the soil, the law of the soil. It's where you are domiciled, where your home is. That's a very interesting point. Clarence Thomas makes, Samuel Alito comes in then and goes, well, you know, it's not just domiciled, it's allegiance. Who are you? Who are you aligned with? Who is your primary allegiance to if you're a temporary visitor to the United States? Is it to the United States? Probably not. And so that would mean that the birthright citizenship can be banned. And then Gorsuch comes in kind of as the closer, and he makes a few other points in agreeing with the main with Clarence Thomas' dissent. So my takeaway after reading... This really landmark decision, as Samuel Alito says, is this story is far from over. Did you read the Chief Justice's opinion yet, Matt? Were you impressed by it? Because I thought it was a word of art. I thought what he did. Go ahead. Chief John Roberts is an incredible legal writer.

a brilliant man, an institutionalist, and I think looked at this case, and he said, look, the words of the 14th Amendment are pretty clear. All persons born and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And American law makes very few exceptions to the jurisdiction thereof. And that's, you know, if you work in a foreign embassy, you're not subject to the jurisdiction. of the United States. That's why those UN bureaucrats can collect so many parking tickets. Correct. And so I think the justice took a plain textual reading and said, this makes the executive order unconstitutional. And I think that that was the right decision, certainly politically. But it also leaves these other questions left unaddressed that the dissenting originalist justices raise that I think we're going to have not only action in Congress, probably unsuccessful right now, but I think you might begin to see this question of birthright citizenship play an even greater role in Republican primaries. than it has in the past. You know, it reminds me of the old debate, Matt, before you were born, about how old should you be to vote? And there were attempts to make by statute a change to 18 and eventually you had to amend the Constitution because the Constitution was pretty plain. The answer here is if you're worried about birthright citizenship, craft an amendment, and pass it. However, for those of us humble con law teachers, I always approach this as... What's the rule before? What's the rule today? What's the rule later? And do they make sense? Since Wong Kim Arc in the 19th century, we've treated people as if you're born in the United States, you're a citizen in the United States. And Chief John Roberts depends on that, all the common law. So I always say the Constitution is not the Oracle of Delphi. It's written by farmers for farmers. It's not supposed to require advanced degrees. And by God, if you're going to pass the bar exam, up until this year and now forever thereafter. If you're born in the United States, you're a citizen in the United States, don't you, what I see, and I won't attribute it to you, what I see in people's reaction is great upset with the failure to control our borders and our visas to pregnant people, and we ought to do that, but we can't rewrite the Constitution because of current political difficulties in the administration of the border law. I do think that the way to control immigration is at the border. And President Trump has proven that in his second term. But I think people are also angry, Hugh, because they see the stories about birth terrorism. And they see our system and our generosity being exploited. And that gets people angry. And there's also a lot of anger because this question of birthright citizenship gets to the most important question, really, in American constitutional history. And that is, who counts? Who is part of the national community? Who is a citizen? And what I found fascinating by these opinions is Chief John Roberts says, look, it's simple. It's in the language. If you're born here, you're a citizen, full stop.

But Justice Gorsuch says, actually, America has a different view in our past, and that's a settler's view of citizenship, of making your home here. And I think that actually is a fascinating phrase that captures the views of a great many Americans and explains why there's such anger at the decision and also why this story will go on. You know, Justice Gorsuch, I can hear him say that. Having interviewed him a few times, he's got a particular approach where he makes matter-of-fact arguments sound so absolutely persuasive. and often the most articulate fellow in the room, but he's running up against 238 years of settled law in the United States. If you're born here, you're a citizen here with four exceptions that are well recognized and known in one can mark. Sometimes we overthink this. So, Matt, what other alternative is there besides amending the Constitution? We can't prohibit visas for pregnant people. We can do that. We ought to do that, actually. What other thing beside an amendment is there? There's not a statute. Right. I mean, what we're going to see, I think there might be some legislative action if President Trump is demanding it as he is today. I think ultimately what you're going to see is the fight that works out over time within the courts. Let's not forget that the conservative legal movement, as powerful and influential as it is, is also a coalition. And there are various voices. And we saw that reflected in oral argument in some of the briefs that were submitted. in Trump v. Barbara, which is originalists, as you and I have been discussing, originalists are not of one mind on this question. And so I actually think in future appointments, including future Supreme Court appointments, the question of who is a citizen will weigh heavily as presidents nominate and senators deliberate. Matt's coming back because we've got to talk about the one decision today that opens the door for the state to do whatever they want to do, which is biological boys and girls' sports. Court held today. It's up to the States to decide what to do. Doesn't offend the Equal Protection Clause, whatever they decide, if they want to keep boys apart from girls. Stay tuned. Matt, we'll be right back. Welcome back, America. Matt Contenetti, who is the Wall Street Journal editorial writer and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is back with us. Very well read in the law, though not himself a lawyer. He likes to... fashion, common sense approaches to these issues. So, Matt, when you listened to and heard the court rule on boys and girls' sports, and I'm using that as a rubric that covers West Virginia, all the state laws out there, and I believe there are 24 total. What did you make of the decision? Because to me, it was another unremarkable common sense decision.

I thought it was a great decision in West Virginia, the B-P-J, the student, the transgender student. It was a great decision for a couple of reasons. One is it upholds the state's rights to decide. whether biological boys should play in girls' sports. I'm of the view that they should not. It was the view of the West Virginia legislature and 26 other state legislatures. And what the court says is the states like West Virginia have the right to say that girls' sports are for girls, are for biological girls. And that when you look at Title IX, A law that for many years, conservatives criticize, but now conservatives are defending. When you look at Title IX, it's clear that... The word sex refers to biological sex. And I think that's the plain reading of the law, and that's what makes this decision a very just a decision. I also think it's fascinating to see that in the dissent, Ketanji Brown Jackson is still trying to figure out what a woman is. Oh, my gosh. The dissent. She has the biological. She has the identity. She's still figuring out there in public for all of us to work with her. As we said in the last segment, there are some dissents that are worth reading. Very rarely do I sign dissents in Conlock because we've got enough stuff to go through. But Justice Scalia dissent is always worth reading, a Justice Gorsuch dissent, a Clarence Thomas dissent, and now a Justice Salado dissent. But a Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent is not making it on my reading list. Because for one thing, it's incoherent. Did you understand it? Did you get the point she was making? No. But if you think reading the dissent is hard, try listening to them. I think last week she read whatever dissents from the bench. It went on and on. And I think Samuel Alito kind of said, if I knew it was going to go out so long, I wouldn't have been here. So, Matt, a practical political question of prudence. Does the ending of this court term add rocket fuel or detract rocket fuel from the pact, the court? By the way, I think that's unconstitutional. I don't think it can move the court from nine. I'm a minority view on that, but I believe they moved it down to nine after the 14th Amendment and the due process guarantees fix it there. both in the 5th and the 14th Amendment. We moved it around between the founding of the country and the reconstruction era, but it's been at 9 since 1869. I don't think we should change it. I think it's unconstitutional. But does it add fuel to the fire one way or the other, the decisions last week and this week?

I don't think it will add any more fuel to the fire, Hugh, but I do think that the desire of progressive activists, this new Democratic Socialist Party that's coming into being to radically change our institutions, including the Supreme Court. is not dimmed at all. What the court does is, in fact, in some ways, irrelevant to this desire on the left to pack the court, to admit new states, to override the filibuster, and to basically jam through an agenda most Americans reject through sheer force and institutional capture. And so that is going to have to be fought politically. What the court is doing is what I think the John Roberts Court, and especially in recent years with the 6-3 majority, has been doing, and that is protecting the Constitution according to the text and tradition of the United States. Yeah, text history and tradition. I am curious, though, if Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn't hurt. the pact the court people's argument. It's so incoherent and so absolutely predictable and her reasoning is so absolutely opaque and beyond parsing. We get five more of her, right? We get five more absolute activist, academic, almost inscrutable. Justices, if we expand in the court to 14, do you think that gives anyone pause? Not on the left, you? I mean, I think it gives many Americans pause. I think it will give many independent voters pause when this question really comes to the fore in 2028. And that is, most Americans are fine with the structure of the Supreme Court. As you said, nine justices. That's been set in stone for over 100 years. That's what we're used to. And by the way, a decision like the West Virginia decision is an 80-20 issue. Most Americans don't believe that biological men should play in women's sports. So politically, this is an argument for continuing the structure of government that we have and that has proven so successful. But for the left, they're going to try because they can't get the results they want under the present form of government. And therefore, they're going to do everything they can to change it. even if it means that they have to really steamroll over public opinion and this beautiful system of government that we're celebrating 250 years of on Saturday. So last question, Matt Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. I was on Fox today giving my two cents on these opinions, and as I said, I'm happy with them. But one commentator came on and said, this is just Chief John Roberts.

thinking he can protect the court institutionally and going out of his way. He doesn't really believe it. I don't like it when people read minds. It is, in fact, the practice of justices to write down their arguments. What do you make about arguments that the Chief Justice on Birth Rights Citizenship and Justice Amy Coney Barrett are doing political jurisprudence? I just reject that entirely, but what do you think? I mean, I reject it as well. I mean, I think Chief John Roberts is very much concerned with the independence of the court. But that's not politics. It's a larger kind of institutional concern. Amy Coney Barrett, if anything, is more academic and more theoretical. She's not interested in political consequences. She's interested in working out her ideas. And I think that it's always... wrong to argue for motivation. You want to look at the results. You want to look at what actually happens, the consequences. And I think what we have is a court who, the six Republican appointees all have a fidelity to the Constitution, to all degree, to varying degrees are all originalists. But one argument for originalism. is that it doesn't lead to any prefabricated result. And that's why you have decisions like Trump v. Barbara, where very intelligent, well-intentioned originalists can reach various conclusions. Absolutely. Now, I lied. Very last question. Will the Democrats try and wage a boys and girls' sports campaign? Do you think they'll actually run on that? It's so crazy, but do you think they'll run on it? I don't think they'll run on it, Hugh. But what we've seen in recent weeks is that the radical left is on the march and can't be stopped. And so even if the democratic political leaders and candidates try to avoid the issue of biological men and women's sports, the left is going to demand that they have certain positions on the issue. It's going to demand that they say certain things. They will hound and harass. candidates like we saw recently with Scott Wiener in California. And so the Democrats are going to be tied to this left that they found that they cannot control and that will likely consume them in the coming months. We shall see. Matt Contonetti, thank you for joining me on an important day in the court. Follow him on exit Continenti. Read them in the Wall Street Journal, free expression, vertical, and come right back on the Goods Show. As America approaches its 250th, here's a question. Do we still know the words that build our country? I'd like to recommend a remarkable new book from Mount Titano Media called Finding Our Words, Words That Made America. This collection brings together the leaders who articulated and drove the American mission. Their words shaped our understanding of liberty, self-government, courage, and citizenship. These profound words have been neglected, but no longer. Whether you're a student, parent, teacher, or you just love American history. You'll find wisdom and inspiration in these pages. There's also a new audiobook edition featuring a distinguished cast of voices who bring you these historic species and bring them to life. Listen with the whole family, your friends and family. This July 4th will mean more than ever when you read and listen to the words that made our nation exceptional.

Visit mount titanomedia.com today and get your copy of finding our words, words that made America. That's mount titanomedia.com. My friends, you've probably seen the headlines are worse. Your latest bill. Big wireless is raising rates again. That means you could be paying more for the same service or getting pushed into a price here plan you simply do not need. That's not right. You can switch to consumer cellular right now and save an additional $50 when you go to consumer cellular.com slash hue and use the promo code Hugh 50. And if you happen to be over the age of 50, listen to this. You can get a single line with unlimited talk, text, and data for just $355. Remember, their numbers, $800411414454, 800411 44, 800411 44. Consumer cellular ranks number one for network coverage and for customer satisfaction according to ACSI. And when you switch, you'll talk to an actual human being based right here in the United States. No long-term contracts, no hidden fees. You can keep your phone or choose a new one. Get an additional $50 off when you switch today using promo code Hugh 50. And do not forget, if you are over 50, you get a single line, unlimited, talk, text, and data for $35 a month. Visit consumer cellular.com slash hue and use promo code hue 50 or call 1-800-41144 and use promo code hue 50.

Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. Join now by Lilix. He's our man in the street, as in James Lilacs.com, James lilacs.com. He's our man in the street for Supreme Court reaction. It's Supreme Court Day, James, and we have three big ones. So let's start with the biggest of them, birthright citizenship. So you know, I think it's correctly decided on with the Chief Justice, what say you? As you know, I'm a longstanding Supreme Court observer in the sense that I have walked past the building a few times and looked at it. So I can't tell you whether or not this and that and this person and that person made the right decision going back to 1863. But I can tell you that I agree. I think this is how it was going to go. I didn't really see any other way. And I'm not surprised by it at all. And it seems to me that the remedy for this is just simply one of two things. You can either have tighter border control, which be great. We kind of sort of want that and prevent people from doing the birth. tourism business. Or you can announce perhaps that in the future, anybody who does give birth and they're not a citizen will be immediately airlifted to the by helicopter, to the roof of the Liberian embassy, and then they will be a citizen of that country. Actually, that's not true. It isn't so, you can't be, if you're born in the roof of the Liberian embassy, you're not a Liberian citizen, but being given up people pause so that they consider going elsewhere for their birth tourism. But you know, the internet is on fire. The birthday- No. Yeah, believe it or not, there's a division of opinion on the right, and there's the almost quadrenial exercise in Burn the Effigy of Chief John Roberts underway. I think it's silly. It reads just like I thought it would read, the same way I've been arguing the case for 30 years. Why do people get so exercised about this, James? Well, first of all, it's the Internet and the Internet is on flame every day like a Russian oil refinery. So that's not surprising me. So you have a concentrated group of people who are very, very tuned into this and have to argue the points. But, I mean, it's one of those things that people have been spun up for, and rightly so. It's objectionable ideas to a lot of people that people can just plop in here and plop what out and there go, you're a citizen with all the rights and the rest of it. But it isn't that significant numerically. And it's because... The left and the right are the same way sometimes, is because we want something to happen, and we think it's the right thing to happen. Ergo, that's how they should decide regardless of what the actual law is. And I prefer that they stick precisely to what the law is and don't get outside of that. So when originalists come to the fore on this, sometimes you're going to be disappointed, sometimes you're going to be happy. All right. Now, second big case about which you probably have no opinion is that now... Political parties can give as much money as they raise as they want to the candidates of their party. Are you outraged or indifferent to this?

It depends which side I mean I want to challenge. Do I want to challenge my adolescent liberal socialist side and say this is the way this is absolute nonsense. This is horror. This is how they buy everybody off. Or do I want to channel my sober, middle of the road, sensible, conservative, later life stage and say, of course, money is free speech. Of course you have to be able to give however much they want. And when the people scream that this is their way of buying our democracy, you have to ask them, how many billions of dollars would it have taken for you to vote? for Donald Trump. And they'll say, well, I would ever order for Donald Trump. You know, exactly. The, you know, the usefulness of money and politics. We can debate the usefulness of money in politics all we want. But I grew up constantly with nothing but PSAs about this is your brain on drugs and you should join the army. And, you know, my generation consisted of people who did a lot of dope and didn't go to the army. So those ads didn't do any good. Advertising can only do so much. Money can only do so much. And at the end of the day, I prefer to say, let them spend what they want. Well, that is the constitutional way. Let's get to the last one, boys and girls' sports. I think Minnesota may be one of the 24 states that have not yet outlawed boys playing in girls' sports, like Maine, like California. What do you think about the decision that says, if they want to, they can ban boys from playing in girls' sports? Nothing makes perfect sense. And they would argue with you that you're misphrasing the argument right there, Hugh. You're being transphobic and saying that it's boys in girls' in girls' sports. They're girls and girls' folks, don't you know? They've just entered their gender identity. No, it's a common sense issue, and most people agree with it, and good luck running against it. I mean, there are going to be people on the left who I believe running for office would prefer just not to talk about that anymore because they went all in on it, and then the public shifted on it, and they're finding themselves exposed and the rest of it. left flank, they have the DSA and the rest who are eager for ideological purity on every particular issue. You can be heading off like Scott Wiener to a trans rally, trans Shabbat with a trans rabbi, and you're still not pure enough because you didn't castigate Israel for Gaza at the right time or the right words. So they don't want to run on this, but they're going to have to call, they're going to have to be called to account for it by the people in their own party. It's a popular decision. In August, Minnesota votes. And Peggy Flanagan wants to be your Senate nominee. I suggest that she is Scott Wiener in Minnesota. If I write about her politics. Yeah, pretty much so. As I think I mentioned, the last time she came up, she was famously photographed with a t-shirt that said, protect trans kids with a big knife in it, as if I'm supposed to start stabbing people who are coming after someone who wants to slap the puberty blockers out of the hands of a 12-year-old. So, yeah, she will, but I don't think. Is she anti-Semitic? I don't know. I wouldn't say so. I wouldn't say so. I wouldn't describe Israel. But again, I don't think that she's going to suffer the same hits from the left. I don't think that I think Minneapolis, they're a bit more, Minnesota, they're a bit more canny about that in the cities and would prefer just to usher along as quickly as possible. She ticks all the right boxes. She says all the right things to them, so they're probably going to be happy with her. Because I've been watching tonight, there will be an election in Denver, Diana DeGette.

who's been in Congress since Methuselah, and she's a liberal, very, very safe Democrat vote for whatever they want to pass, and she's running against a 29-year-old radical who makes Zohran Mamdani look like a conservative. Who do you think's going to win tonight? You don't know anything about the right? I think the 29-year-old's going to win. It's entirely possible. They've got all the mojo. They got the stiff breeze behind them. I was in Boston on Sunday, and I came out of the tea and somebody. Nice young lady handed me a flyer and said, would you like, are you thinking about voting democratic socialist this November? And I reacted as though she'd handed me a blotter that had been dipped in Ebola. And I handed it right back to her as quickly as possible. And I said, oh, God, no. And she smiled and said, that's okay, that's fine. And well, she should because she knows that the young folk who have absolutely no experience when it comes to massive radical red-soaked collectivism. I think it's the cool thing to do. And so, yeah, let them steep and marinate in that for a while because it's just something they brought in entirely above themselves. Eventually, prairie fires run out of fuel. That's what I think. James Lilacs, follow him at James lilacs.substack.com or at lilacs.com. Thank you, James. I'll be right back, America. In a world that screams for your attention, there is a place that invites you to peace. You don't need a building. You don't need a choir. You just need to turn your heart to Air One. Air One. Songs that heal. Lyrics that pray for you when you don't have the words. From Lauren Daigle to elevation worship and more. This isn't just radio. It's worship for the everyday. Escape the noise and worship now. Download the Air One app. Ask your smart speaker to play Air One or visit Air One.com. Air One. Worship. Now.