The DeVory Darkins Show - Democrats suffer MAJOR LEGAL BLOW after SCOTUS hands Trump MASSIVE WIN

Episode Date: June 27, 2025

BREAKING NEWS In a 6-3 ruling from the Supreme Court President Trump scored a HUGE VICTORY regarding Universal Injunctions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett rips into Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for her dissent. This comes as President Trump has faced a record amount of Nation Wide Injunctions aimed at stopping his Agenda in its tracks.Episode Sponsor:For FREE, unbiased Medicare guidance, Contact our sponsor Chapter https://askchapter.org/devory or call [phone]. FOLLOW ME:https://www.twitter.com/devorydarkinshttps://www.instagram.com/devorydarkinshttps://www.rumble.com/c/devorydarkinshttps://devory.wtf.tvBUY ME A COFFEE:https://buymeacoffee.com/devorydarkinsSHOP OUR MERCH STORE:https://store.devorydarkins.comBUSINESS INQUIRIES:[e-mail]

So two bombshell rulings came out of the Supreme Court early this morning. One handed a massive victory to President Trump in regards to universal injunctions. And secondly, a win for families and parents nationwide. We're going to dive into both of these rulings show you what both sides are saying and give you the bottom line. The major breaking news from the United States Supreme Court justices have ruled to limit the authority of low. courts to block a president's executive order by using a nationwide injunction. It's a major win for President Trump and his administration. The case revolved around whether the president can enforce his ban on birthright citizenship

after lower courts blocked it across the nation. This could shift the balance of power between courts and the executive branch. So clearly this is the definition of a bombshell ruling. This is going to send shock waves to Democrats and particularly every one of these institutions that believes that they have to run to a district court judge to stop the president of the United States. And so what I want to do is go through some statements that was made in this ruling that I believe we should pay attention to starting with Justice Barrett. And she didn't hold back. And so credit is where credit is due. She writes the first one, universal injunctions likely exceed

the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. This speaks to the issue I keep bringing up with people who complain about President Trump, why hasn't Congress passed pieces of legislation to change the law then? And here's the second one. The universal injunction was conspicuously non-existent for most of our nation's history. And then she goes on to say that when a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power to. And I actually take that as a rebuke of Justice Jackson, which we're going to get to here shortly. But before we do, watch this clip from MSDNC. I don't think they're handling. this ruling very well.

You're concerned about the rights of all U.S. citizens based on this. That's exactly right. I mean, everybody's framing it as a win for the executive branch, but in fact, it's a loss for all of us. It's a loss for the Constitution that clearly demarched that we should have three equal branches of government. We see right now that Congress has abdicated their responsibility. Today, the court is abdicating their responsibility

and handing it up to the executive, making our country and our institutions that much we. weaker. Okay, so MSDNC is failing to realize this point that was made by Justice Kavanaugh. Because when you come out and you say, well, they're just handing off their authority to the executive branch. That's clearly misleading because here's what Justice Kavanaugh had to say. This court, not the district courts or courts of appeals, will often still be the ultimate decision maker as to the interim legal status of major new federal statutes and executive actions. And that's what they did here. Not a lower district court judge should be deciding on federal statutes and executive actions. And as a result of this ruling, President Trump hosted a press briefing earlier this morning where he made that very point. Take a listen. I was elected on a historic mandate, but in recent months, we've seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president to stop the American people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers. It was a

grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation. In practice, this meant that if any one of the nearly 700 federal judges disagreed with the policy of a duly elected president of the United States, he or she could block that policy from going into effect or at least delay it for many years, tied up in the court system. This was a couple of colossal abuse of power, which never occurred in American history prior to recent decades, and we've been hit with more nationwide injunctions than were issued in the entire 20th century together. Think of it more than the entire 20th century, me. Okay, let's take a quick moment to hear

from today's sponsor chapter with an urgent message, because if you or someone you know is seeking to get on Medicare, it can be complicated. In fact, in most cases, people are getting screwed. I'm talking about your parents and your grandparents. Understand something. President Trump's Department of Justice is suing three of the biggest brokers in America for allegedly getting kickbacks by steering people into these terrible Medicare programs. And that's why we're encouraging you to contact chapter because their Medicare advisors are independent, they're unbiased, and they have a record for saving people like you up to $1,100. And you deserve it, especially if you've been paying into Medicare over the past few decades.

So call chapter at 323-431-5200 or hit the link in the description below. It could save you thousands of dollars. Now, I believe the story of the day is actually what Justice Jackson had to say and how Amy Coney-Barritt rebuked her statements in the opinion due to some of these comments from Justice Jackson. Here's one of them. The court's decision to permit the executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law. And she also said that the

judiciary's foundational duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States is dangerously absent from today's decision, which led to Justice Barrett saying this, we will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of president, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this. Justice Jackson decrees an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. So needless to say, Justice Jackson, she's way off the mark here. And Amy Coney Barrett, to her credit, called her out on it. Now, let's go to Senator Kennedy and his reaction. Take a listen. This is bigger implications than just that one topic of birthright citizenship. Your reaction to this? The Supreme Court has turned

to universal injunctions into fish food, as well it should have. There's no basis in statute, there's no basis in Supreme Court precedent, there's no basis in English common law for universal injunctions. Judges who just dislike what Congress and a president, any president is done, just made them up. And good. riddance. I'm proud of the Supreme Court. It's a very extensive ruling. You can tell it from Justice Jackson's dissent. She's mad as a bag of cats. And that's probably a good thing for the American people. And just so we understand the bottom line here, it is not good when lower district court judges are issuing rulings that handicaps the executive branch. Because Congress did not give them

that authority to begin with. This goes back to my main point about people who criticize what President Trump is doing. Why hasn't your congressional leaders offered up pieces of legislation to change the laws to address the problems you have with the president? That has not happened. What has happened is them being lazy and exercising some level of corruption by going to these district court judges and getting them to issue these injunctions. And what's even more disturbing about these injunctions. And in most cases, the judge doesn't even rule on the merits of the case. They just, hey, we're going to put a hold on this. Now, of course, MSDNC disagrees with my perspective because they say it's a Supreme Court who's handicapping lower court judges. Leah is exactly right.

This is a huge win for the Trump administration because the court has essentially kneecapped lower courts from stopping this administration when it engages in lawless and unconstitutional behavior. And Lisa makes a really important point. This is all happening in an environment where the Trump administration is not only going after undocumented persons and deporting people without the benefit of due process. They're doing so while they are also upending the legal landscape, but making it harder for pro bono outfits to secure the health they need from law firms to bring these suits. And now with this decision, they're essentially saying that litigants will have to file in each particular jurisdiction around the United States in order. to be clear that their resolution will have legally binding effect. And that means you're just going to need a flood, an army of lawyers, at a time when that

army of lawyers is not going to be forthcoming. So make no mistake about this. The court has given this administration an enormous win. They have put one hand behind the backs of those who are trying to fight against this administration, and they have dealt a death blow to the rule of law. And that pretty much sums up the position from people on the left. But there is one problem with that position. it highlights how disingenuous and how disconnected they are from reality. Meaning what? If this was

happening under President Biden, they wouldn't be saying things like that. In fact, they would be sounding like President Trump. And that's the nature of politics. Listen, when the Supreme Court rules against President Trump, he doesn't like it. He will offer up his criticism. No question. And so do Democrats. So let's just be fair. It happens on both sides. I'm not disputing that. But what I find to be interesting is that when it comes to Democrats, they frame it like it's Armageddon. Now, of course, President Trump will hail this as an enormous victory, but Democrats had trouble with executive orders being blocked, too. For instance, President Obama was widely decrying executive, these types of nationwide injunctions for a period when his immigration initiatives were blocked. President Biden also criticized them when, remember, a single judge in terms.

Texas blocked the abortion pill from distribution. So this has come up in a variety of context. And so my bottom line reaction to all of this is this is the way it's supposed to work. You should not have lower court judges, obviously handicapping the executive branch and its authority because Congress has not given that authority to these lower court judges. But you know who does have the authority? The Supreme Court. Because they decide on what is constitutional and what is not.

so it worked the way that it was supposed to. And in the end, for all the people who are claiming it's Armageddon and now all these people are going to lose their rights, it's more hyperbole that is not rooted in truth. Now, let's go to the other shocking ruling from the Supreme Court. They ruled 6'3 once again in favor of parents being able to opt their children out of LGBTQ books in the classroom. Take a listen. Regarding religious liberty and whether parents, should be informed and be able to opt their children out from reading books in the classroom that go against their faith. Shannon Bream is at the Supreme Court. We were watching for this one.

What's the verdict? We were, Dana. So this brought together a coalition of parents of different religious faiths and backgrounds who said there used to be a rule in this particular school district that would let them know when there were books that dealt with issues that may be in conflict with their religious faith. Well, so many parents were opting out that the school board and the school district quit doing it. Well, six to three today in a justice, a decision by Justice Alito, they said these parents have it earned at least a preliminary injunction. So while this case plays out, they said the board has to notify them about a book that's in question or anything similar so that their kids can be excused if it's in conflict with their faith. He says, as we've

explained, without that, parents are left this choice, either risk their child's exposure to burdensome instruction or pay substantial sums for alternative educational services. Because at one point, Justice Jackson during the arguments had said, why don't they just go to a different school? Why don't you put them in private school or homeschool them, Justice Alito's and others saying that's not practical for a lot of people. Okay, so let's just pause. I, for the life of me, do not understand why teachers and educators believe it is appropriate to allow books that cause confusion for children in the classroom. Children are not confused about geography. Children are not confused about the English language. They are confused when it comes to their

sex and gender because we keep confusing them with this nonsense. So I'm happy that at this current point, they've been given a preliminary injunction that requires the school district to notify the parents, which is what should be happening anyway, because this is a public school. Now, if it was a private school, they wouldn't have to notify. And that would be my pushback to Justice Jackson. Well, instead of telling parents to change schools, why don't you tell people who want nonsense like this in the classroom to go start their own private school? The dissent by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan and Jackson, says, today's ruling threatens the essence of public education. She says, it's not about bringing kids together to learn about a particular

faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society. Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project until now. She didn't think, the dissenters didn't think, Parents should get the opt-out. Justice Alito and the majority say they should. Well, I can tell you what's not destroying public education, and that is notifying parents when they're going to present this nonsense to their children. That does not destroy public education, but you know what does? Allowing this nonsense in the classroom, like I said earlier, that not only causes confusion, but in some cases supersedes the actual education that these children should be getting parents Harris are in charge of their kids education not the schools it's the parents that

get to make parental decision not the government and certainly not the schools what this does is it squarely reinforces this basic notion that seems like we've always known but in recent past it's just become a clouded issue schools are for the purpose of educating children so that they can go out into the world with the skills that they need to be productive members of society. Schools do not exist to politically indoctrinate children. Schools do not exist to reinforce or to establish anything related to, you know, culture wars or the current culture consensus or views of the day. And that brings me to the question that I have for people who disagree with this ruling. What's more important for children that they get the skills,

they need to live a successful life, or that they get confused and caught up in what some people believe should be their gender. I think we know the answer to that question. Now, I show both sides. So, of course, there is an opposing view to this, and it was a parent who advocates on behalf of the LGBTQ community in Maryland. Here's what he said on CNN. It's really heartbreaking for students and parents and teachers to see a student, like, plucked

out of the classroom when there is going to be a novel read with maybe two moms or something. So, you know, I'll just, I'll just add this, this all looks really good on paper and this, but the reality is it's just completely unimplementable and it's unworkable. And I think the opposition knows that. So the true is to really, you know, kind of erase certain identities in this case, you know, LGBT. All right. That is a perfect example of the mistake that I continue to harbored.

on that people like that individual that you saw right now, he looked like he was about to cry on national television, and trans athletes. When it comes to arguing their side of things, they claim that the president wants to erase them from the face of the earth, wants to delete their identities. No one's trying to do that. In fact, it's the opposite. What we're saying is, instead of imposing your ideas, your identity on society, why don't you take what you believe in and go off and live your own life. For example, trans athletes, men playing in women's sports, don't play in women's sports. Go create your own league. Hey, if you want LGBTQ books in the classroom, go create your own classroom, create your own private school. Then no one has anything to say

about it. The reason why people are pushing back, because you guys are trying to impose your way of thinking on what has already existed in the public classroom. And that is a no-go, especially when you're doing it, without the approval of the parents. Sir, on the transgender ruling, the Supreme Court ruling that parents with religious objections can pull their kids out of public school lessons that use LGBTQ materials? Pam brought it up. Your reaction to that ruling today, sir. I think the ruling was a great ruling, and I think it's a great ruling for parents. It's really a ruling for parents.

They lost control of the schools. They lost control of their child, and this is a tremendous victory for parents. And I'm not surprised by it, but I am surprised that it went there. far. It took us to bring life back to normal. So it's wonderful. It's parental. And I kept saying we will give you back your parental rights. They were taken away. And this is a tremendous victory for parents. Yeah, it is a tremendous victory for parents. Because remember, it wasn't just too long ago where the FBI was labeling parents domestic terrorists for questioning the decisions from their local school boards. So yeah, that is a great move from the Supreme Court. And it's accurate to say it's a

huge win for these parents. Now, there is an opposing view, of course, and I showed you a little bit of it, but let's go a little deeper because according to Justice Sotomayor, this ruling is a slippery slope. Take a listen. Now, as the dissent points out from Justice Sotomayor, she says that these books really just taught that gay and lesbian people exist and that their families treat them with love and kindness. And as we learned from our producers in the room, Laura Strickler, she said that Justice Alito looked away from Sotomayor as she read this dissent. And she says that what it really comes down to and what she's worried about is the slippery slope here. Will this turn into a case where parents can object to a number of different kinds of instructions?

Like she cites evolution or divorce or would the schools have their ability limited to avoid all those topics and that will create an administrative nightmare. She's worried that this could really be an end to the very open. of the curriculum taught in public schools. And so I think the question is, will this case then open up to other cases being brought by parents around the country who object to things that their students are learning on a number of religious grounds, Chris? Well, quite frankly, that's exactly what should happen. Parents should be involved. They should be allowed to challenge. And public schools are at the mercy of what parents ultimately want. And that's what's happening here. How many times do we have to say it. If you're a Catholic and you don't want to go to public school, where do you go?

You go to a Catholic school. If you're LGBTQ and you don't want to go to public school, then why don't you go to an LGBTQ school? It's that simple. If you're a genius already at the age of six years old, they don't put you in public school. They probably put you in a special school. So we don't have to delete anybody's identity or what they truly believe in. what we should be encouraging them to do is go create your own thing. I think that is fair because everybody still wins. However, even in that scenario, I'm not convinced that the people that advocate on behalf of this nonsense would see it that way. And I have an example of that.

Pay attention to how triggered this woman gets after she hears people who supported the decision say that this is a victory for families. I want to play for you what some supporters of the decision had to say outside the court today. This is a huge win for families, for children, and for parents. This case is a huge indicator of how we're going to proceed as a nation in regards to protecting the family and cultivating the family and the rights that families have. Children shouldn't be the ones having to make these decisions for themselves and the classroom parents should be involved. We want to be a respectful community.

We want to make sure that there's room for everyone. and that includes being able to opt out. But what is the net effect as you see it of this decision? What does it mean for kids? I have to respond to what I just saw because that totally devalues and disregards my family. My wife and I have two kids. They're 16 years old.

When they were little four, five, their favorite book was Mommy and Mama because it was a picture book and it reflected their family. And they loved it so much that they used to fight over it. So we had to get two to reflect their family. That's all we're talking about. We are families too. And that comment and those comments say that we're not families. And that unravels who we are and devalues and puts us a second class citizens in this country. And to me, that's a direct attack on freedom and equality in this country. Okay. So I don't agree with the idea that they are second class citizens. What I do agree with is that we. We don't have to subscribe to your nonsense. We don't have to subscribe to your confusion or gender dysphoria.

And if you guys want to subscribe to that stuff, then do it on your own time, in your own place, in some other school that subscribes to it. But it shouldn't happen in public school because that's being funded by the taxpayers. And that's why I want to hear from you in the comments section below to both of these rulings. Number one, isn't it interesting that all of the criticism, that Amy Coney Barrett has gotten. Now she delivers when it really mattered. These universal injunctions, of course, has been probably the biggest pain in regards to this administration. Tell me what you guys think about her ruling and how she responded to Justice Jackson. And then let's not forget about the parents and the children who are not old enough to make

these decisions about what their gender should be, about what their sex is, or even in regards to the type of books that they should be reading. Isn't this a good decision for? from SCOTUS. Let me know if you agree with that. And just give me your overall thoughts in the comment section below. And so this takes us to our next video, which clearly is starting to paint this picture of SCOTUS on a role here because they also ruled in favor of South Carolina's ability to defund Planned Parenthood, which we know is supporting majority of abortions in our country. So if you miss out on that story and more from yesterday, all you have to do is click on that video because it's coming up right now.

You know,