The Megyn Kelly Show - Supreme Court BOMBSHELLS: Against Trump on Birthright Citizenship, WIN For Protecting Female Sports, with Mike Davis, Alan Dershowitz, and Kristen Waggoner | Ep. 1350

Episode Date: June 30, 2026

Megyn Kelly begins the show with the breaking news on the Supreme Court striking down President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order, why Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett let down the conservatives again, and more. Then Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, and Alan Dershowitz, author of "Founding Fathers and One Jewish Mother," join to discuss and debate the Supreme Court's massive birthright citizenship ruling, how Justice Antonin Scalia would have ruled on this issue, whether Congress could take action to fix this issue, steps President Trump could take right now to cut down on and stop birthright tourism, whether Justice Kavanaugh could have offered a path to a new ruling, and more. Then Kristen Waggoner, President and CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom, and Madison Kenyon, former female athlete, join to discuss the historic Supreme Court decision allowing states to ban boys from girls' sports, what the ruling means for female athletes nationwide, the vindication female athlete Kenyon feels after being forced to compete against a male, Justice Kavanaugh's powerful opinion explaining why protecting girls' and women's sports matters, the Supreme Court's recognition of biological differences and biological reality, the hysterical reaction from the left to the Supreme Court ruling protecting girls' and women's sports, media efforts to spin the decision, what will happen next with the fight to protect female spaces, and more.   Davis- https://article3project.org/ Dershowitz- https://www.amazon.com/Founding-Fathers-One-Jewish-Mother/dp/1510787682/ Waggoner & Kenyon- https://adflegal.org/   Supersure Insurance: Upgrade your business insurance to a year-round SuperAgency at https://Supersure.com/Megyn Herald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com The Wellness Company: Don’t let a sudden illness derail your summer—secure your peace of mind and save $45 on a Medical Emergency Kit today by visiting https://UrgentCareKit.com/MK and using promo code MK. Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get a free America 250 silver round with qualifying purchase     Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. We have big breaking news out of the U.S. Supreme Court this morning as the High Court issues two major decisions on the last day of its term. I mean, more than two technically, but we're going to focus on two right now. In a victory for team sanity, the justice is ruling that states are permitted to keep boys out of girls' sports. with bans. We have 27 states that have banned boys from participating in girls sports. The question was, is that legal? The answer is yes. That doesn't save the girls in the remaining states,

but it does allow states that are willing to protect young girls and women to do so. It is a watershed moment. It is an epic decision for girls and women's rights, and the High Court came down the right way on it with all six conservatives joining to say, yes, those states and those girls will be protected. We're going to have a breakdown of that decision later in the show, including with someone who was a party to the litigation. First, though, a setback to the president's agenda and a shockingly cowardly decision from the high court on birthright citizenship. Now, we knew it was going to happen, but we didn't know exactly how they'd get there. And there was always at least the hope, you know, the possibility that they would do the right thing. I mean, what's essentially

happened now is that anybody from China can come over here, have a baby, and that baby will be an American no matter what. They can leave the day after the child is born, the minute after the child is born. And honestly, there was a real question. I like many people, when I first saw this, the challenge to this, it was long before President Trump's executive order. It was written by a legal scholar and, you know, saying this is not what the founders intended. I, too, thought, what do you mean? This is sort of how we all grew up, thinking that if you're born here, you're a citizen, and that's kind of the end of it. If you actually look at the history of that practice here in the United States, and then what happened after the 14th Amendment was

passed, you see that's wrong. You find out that that's actually not the way this, the 14th Amendment was treated the way the founders understood this country would operate. And it, there was plenty of basis to strike down birthright tourism based on the particular phrasing of the 14th amendment. Right. You have to be born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And that is why President Trump issued this executive order purporting to end birthright right citizenship in the United States aimed especially at the children of illegal immigrants. Now, he did say that if you're already here and you've been the beneficiary of this, you can stay. He wasn't trying to create chaos for those who had already taken advantage

of what they believed the 14th Amendment provided, but he was saying on a go forward basis, and now that's been overturned. Now his executive order is no good, and he can't write another one. They didn't give him a clear roadmap on how it could be done either. Five justices found that the EO violated the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, and the three libs on the court. The Chief Justice writing in his majority opinion, quote, citizenship then and now was the right to have rights to freely participate in our political community. The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to every freeborn person in this land. We keep that promise today. Of course, they were talking about freed slaves. That's why it sounds so weird, freeborn person in this land. Okay, Justice Kavanaugh got in there as well, for good measure. They didn't need him because they had Barrett and they had Roberts with the three libs, but he decided to join in just just to say that Trump's executive order, he thought had to be struck down because he thought it violated a federal statute, one that he said could be.

amended by Congress. So he's trying to show a roadmap, but it doesn't matter. If you've got Connie Barrett and you've got Roberts and you've got the three libs together, forget Kavanaugh. His, we can do this by congressional amendment idea will not fly. They did not think that it was consistent with the Constitution, with the 14th Amendment for Trump to issue an executive order like this. So as much as I'd love to look at that Kavanaugh line and say, there's a way of doing this. There isn't. Not as far as I read this. A long opinion. We'll have to go through it in more detail later. The three conservatives, of course, the true conservatives on the court are Thomas and Alito. Gorsuch has betrayed us before. I'm not going to lie. I like him, though. But he issued Bostock. He authored Bostock, which is the one that said the trans citizens have rights under Title VII and they can't be not hired or fired. on the basis of their being trans. I mean, I get it.

Like, I can see the argument, but let's face it. It's a mental illness, and you can say you're too unwell to work here. Honestly, like Goldman Sachs now has to hire somebody who looks like Scott Weiner or wants to show up like that with his weird little tie against his naked torso and probably nipple rings. I don't like, why? Why? Okay, anyway, it was Thomas Gorsuch and a little. who dissented on birthright citizenship. They were entirely persuaded by the administration.

And they raised several concerns about the majority opinion with Alito bringing up national security implications. Hello, this is 2026 America. People are misusing this provision and the legal ramifications of reading it the way these majority justices did. The Alito writing quote, suppose that a person's only connection to this country is that he was born here to a mother who was present just long enough to give birth and then quickly returned to her native country. Suppose that country is a strategic adversary or enemy of the United States. Suppose the child never visited the United States while growing up and was inculcated with

hatred of this country. According to the court, that person is a citizen of the United States. Plus, a bizarre circumstance happening right after the rulings came down with NPR via Nina Totenberg, who I'm sorry, but is the most holier than thou stuck up snob at NPR, who covered the high court for them for years, including when I covered it for Fox News. And you would think, you know, I was new, whatever, but unlike Nina Totenberg, I had practiced law for 10 years. So I knew what I was doing around a courthouse and I understood the law. But she treated me and anybody else, or Savannah Guthrie was there when I was there too.

As like we were dirt on the bottom of her shoe because she thought she was all that in a biscuit. She was NPR Supreme Court correspondent. Again, like get back to me when you've actually made an argument on your feet in front of judges, Nina. Because Nina, while she is technically retired from that position, decided to blast out a report, NPR did with her name on it, her byline, that Justice Alito was stepping down, that Justice Alito was retiring. And by the way, the headline was Justice Alito,

the justice who brought us the reversal of Roe versus Wade is stepping down. Of course, NPR had to get its bias in, even on its now erroneous and retracted report. Within 10 minutes, NPR had to take it down. I spoke with my sources immediately upon seeing it, who said they were being told something very different by the justice. And the Supreme Court denied it almost immediately on the record, which is very rare for them. And within 10 minutes, she had to take it down. I mean, this is just completely embarrassing. This is humiliating.

You do not jump the gun on a Supreme Court retirement. Ever. Ever. It's like saying the Pope is dead when he's not. All right. That's happened in the past, too. So it's basically it's chaos this morning as the various news organizations try to digest the import of these opinions and get a hefty dose of fake news from Nina Totenberg and NPR in the process. Joining me now to react to all of this is Mike Davis. He's founder and president of the Article III project.

And also with us is Alan Dershowitz, legal legend and author of the new book, Founding Fathers and One Jewish Mother. Buy gold and put some silver in your pocket. I know what you're thinking. Everything is so expensive right now. How am I going to buy gold? Well, pull your head out of the sand because we've got some good news for you. One thing you can control right now that does not cost you anything out of pocket is diversifying your retirement savings. Birch Gold Group can help you convert an old 401k from a previous employer or an IRA into a physical IRA in gold. Okay? You can actually have an IRA. in gold, in whole or in part, something that can be a hedge against inflation. And listen to this. Right now, Birch Gold is going to give you a special America 250 one ounce silver round for every $10,000 you purchased by July 10th. Think about this. 10 years ago, an ounce of gold was about $1,200. Today, it's around $4,500. Where will it be 10 years from now? Text MK to the number 989-98 to take advantage of free America 250 silver with qualifying purchase before July.

10th. Again, text MK to the number 989898.98 today. Guys, welcome. Alan, great to see you. It's been too long. Hope you're feeling well and doing well and honored to have you back on a historic day. Glad to be back on your show. I always enjoy having conversations with you. One of these days, we have to have a really serious conversation about Israel, the one issue that you and I may disagree on. And my new book is about the founding fathers of Israel in the United States. So let's agree to disagree about Israel and have a good conversation that will inform your viewers. Well, I love to have you on, and I know we have evolving views on at least I do, but we'll

see about a debate in any event. Okay, Mike, your reaction to those two decisions in particular. I guess we should start with birthright citizenship. We're going to get to the girl sports issue with Alliance Defending Freedom and one of the young girls involved in the litigation later. This is the most egregious, lawless decision I've seen out of the Supreme Court in many, many, many years, maybe decades. The Chief Justice, John Roberts, along with Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the three liberals, essentially scratched out half of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provision. the subject to the jurisdiction piece, meaning you have to be born in America, number one, and number two, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,

number two, which means allegiance to the United States. The Chief Justice, Justice Barrett, the three liberals, scratched out that second piece, and essentially held that anyone who comes to America and has a kid gets birthright citizenship, including Chinese birth tourist, terrorist, human traffickers, illegal aliens, people who are here on vacation, you name it. You come to America, you get birth, your child gets birthright citizenship, meaning they get the

golden ticket. They get all the privileges, all the rights of citizenship. They get social security numbers. They get to vote. Maybe from Beijing, they can mail in their votes after they go back to Beijing and never step foot in America again because they're American citizens. They can vote from Beijing. they can get Social Security, they can get the other welfare benefits of being a citizen.

I don't think that the American people, we, the sovereign citizens of America, we never agreed to this. We did not agree to this at our founding. We did not agree to this after the Civil War when we enacted the 14th Amendment to overturn the Dred Scott decision and give birthright citizenship to the children of freed slaves. we didn't agree to this in any subsequent Congress. We never agreed to this. This is the ultimate betrayal by the Supreme Court of the United States. Alan, your take.

Well, I agree with much of what was said, but not all of it. This is a fascinating case because it poses the issue of textualism, which is something that liberals usually hate, following the precise text of the Constitution, no matter how stupid the Constitution might be, and not looking at the original intent or the meaning, et cetera. So this is a very interesting conflict between textualism and common sense. Look, let's start with birthright citizenship.

It's the dumbest idea ever conceived of anybody. No smart person would ever put birthright citizenship in a constitution. Almost no other country in the world has it. All the examples that you've given and the others have given about people just being born in the country and then leaving, of course, you're right. Birthright citizenship is stupid, stupid, stupid. Also, it was never intended to cover people from China who come here, give birth, and then go back and have no allegiance to the United States. That's all clear.

The problem is the wording of the Constitution. The wording of the Constitution is dumb, but it's there. And so you have a textualist, and I could understand a real conservative textualist like, you know, our dear Frances Justice Scalia, who was saying, well, you know, I'm not. I'm not empowered to change the Constitution. The Constitution says born in the United States subject to the jurisdiction era. Yeah, maybe. So I would hope that, A, the Constitution would be amended to make sense, but unlikely. But B, I have more hope, Megan, than you do, in Justice Kavanaugh's dictum, because I think it's dictum on sides.

It's dictum. Explain that. I do think that if Congress would have hearings, were to bring people who would testify about people from China coming over here and giving birth and then leaving, and that they were then passed a statute saying people like that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And therefore, although they qualify if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, that's a legislative matter. And legislatively, we now rule under Article 1 of the Constitution that people who have no allegiance to the country other than the accident of birth,

are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. So I still have hope that that could be done. And I have absolute desire to see Congress try to do that. I'd be happy to testify. I'd be happy to help them on this. I think it's really important for Congress to get into the act because executive orders are generally subject to much, much greater scrutiny by the Supreme Court because they're not part of the Constitution, then are actions by Congress, which are Article 1 actions. I think this is maybe the right textual decision, but the wrong common sense decision. And I think Congress can overrule it in effect. You know, go ahead, Mike. I was just going to say, if you take a step back before, you know, before we get down to the nitty gritty, I was persuaded by Alito's dissent where he wrote, look, you know, the assumption

that citizenship, as used in the 14th Amendment, means what we all think it means today is erroneous. And he went back and he said, if you look at how it was being used, like elsewhere across the pond and Great Britain and so on, it wasn't. You weren't just automatically granted all the rights of citizenship the way the three of us have it here in America.

And, I mean, I guess he wasn't able to persuade Roberts, Barrett, and ultimately kind of also Kavanaugh to this effect. But I do wonder, because there's going to be serious blowback to the conservatives. No one was going to give any blowback to the libs on this. Let me just add one. I think we're used to getting betrayed by Roberts, but I mean, Barrett, she, like, I'm sick of Barrett. I'm sick of this bullshit by Barrett. I got to be honest. And maybe if we get some sort of a constitutional effort at limiting subject to the jurisdiction thereof, as Alan's saying, as Kavanaugh telegraphed, because it'll be immediately challenged and it'll wind up right back in

front of this Supreme Court, we could peel off a Barrett, maybe not the Chief Justice, but we could definitely peel off the cabinet. That's from Mike. Go ahead, Mike. Well, just really fast. I love what the professor is saying about the Kavanaugh approach to maybe try to fix this. I think the problem is that we already have five votes with the cheap justice, Justice Barrett, and the three liberal justices saying that this is now constitutionalized under the 14th Amendment. So you can't change it by statute. That's the problem. So it's going to have to be a constitutional amendment. I would just say this to the cheap justice. Which requires 38 states. Just as a reminder. you're going to have to get 38 states to agree.

We can't agree on anything. Two thirds of both houses of Congress and 38 states. It's just not going to happen. Number two, that what Supreme Court said about legislation is pure dictum, because we don't have such legislation. Let's assume Congress passes the following law, saying, all right, we don't think they're subject to the jurisdiction if they're just born here. But if they are, start paying taxes, register for the Army, do all the things that citizens

have to do. And if you don't do those, then we will make you not subject. We will say we will declare that you're not subject. Look, the reality is they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If a tourist comes to the United States and commits a crime here, of course, he's subject to the jurisdiction to that purpose. But you can't draft him. You can't make him pay taxes. And you can't make him, you can't convict him of treason, which is something only a citizen can be convicted of.

So, you know, we can test this in a lot of ways. Congress hasn't yet done its job. And so I think the dictum, you're right, there was dictum. The Supreme Court says you can't tamper with this is just dictum. And that's why Congress should fly in the face of the dictum, say, no, they are not subject to the jurisdiction. Now let's go to court and maybe we can peel away one or two of the justices. Mike, how do we go so wrong with Amy Coney-Barritt? That's a very good question because she auditioned.

as a constitutionalist, as a textualist, as an originalist, as the next Scalia. She had her former law clerks and friends sell her as the next Scalia. She sold herself as the next Scalia for whom she clerks. And I don't know was she lying through this audition process. Was it fraud by Amy Coney Barrett or did she get rattled when she got on the bench and during the Dobbs decision and the plan-per-group group? for a threat their family. I'm not sure that Scalia would have voted with the dissenters in this case.

Are you so sure of that? I'm not so sure. I don't know what he would have done. He'd love to write an opinion every two or three years saying, look, this violates my core principles. I think it's wrong. I think it's dumb. I think it's stupid.

But we're bound by the text of the Constitution. So I don't know for absolute sure which way Scalia comes down on this. Well, let me tell you why I think Scalia would have ruled the constitutionalist way here. Remember the Supreme Court previously said that American Indians were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the 14th Amendment. So they did not get birthright citizenship. Congress gave them birthright citizenship in 1924 by statutes. Right. Right. Congress could have done the same thing here. If Congress wants to give birthright citizenship to 1.5 million Chinese birth tourists, Congress can do that.

But it hasn't done that here. And that's true in Puerto Rico, by the way. Well, I mean, this is, this is, this has become a vanity project. Look, I would say this, the chief justice and justice Amy Coney-Barrid have put their vanity over our country and it's unacceptable. This is, this is my husband's theory of how to and how not to select a Supreme Court justice. Doug's not a lawyer, but he's got good thoughts on this. And his thought is no more attractive. Supreme Court justice. His belief is that they get pulled into the Georgetown Party circuit

and people appeal to their vanity in making them want to be loved by the, you know, Professor Circuit, not the Allen Dershowitz Professor Circuit. That's a good circuit to be on, but the Georgetown Professor Circuit. And they need that approval. They need those pets on the head. and they turn. And it's always the conservatives who turn. You don't, it doesn't go the other way, Alan. You're a Supreme Court scholar. Why do we have so many suitors and Amy Coney Barrett's?

And even like Kennedy and O'Connor would discuss. They love to be like the swing vote where they would go over, but it so rarely happens the other way. Well, it's happened the other way once or twice. Felix Frankfurter went the other way. He was put on the court as a Roosevelt liberal and became a moderate to conservative. because in those days, the Harvard faculty was very conservative. So your husband is right that justices like to play to the professorate, but it depends. Today, professors are all hard left.

I mean, I think I'm the only Republican, newly found Republican on the faculty, maybe one or two others, but the Harvard Law School faculty is 98% liberal Democrat. And so things have changed. when I first went to the faculty in 1964, I would say it was 60-40 conservative to liberal. Now it's 98 to 2 percent liberal to conservative. My gosh. All right. So here's what Alito writes in his dissent.

This is the losing side, unfortunately. But he says, okay, this is how the majority looks at things. He says that the majority, their account of birthright citizenship is roughly as follows. after American independence, the British rule of birthright subjecthood was modified in just one way to take account of Indians, as you point out, Mike, who lived under tribal governance. But otherwise, the rule was transplanted intact to American soil. As modified, the rule was that a child born in this country is automatically an American citizen unless the child's born to tribal Indians or to a diplomat with immunity from legal process. During the period before the Civil War, the rule's status was firm. after the war, Congress codified the rule in the 14th Amendment.

And it goes on from there. Then Alito writes, every step of this story is incorrect. The Declaration of Independence repudiated the foundation on which the British rule was based. From 1776 until the eve of the Civil War, the status of the rule in this country was unsettled. There's no evidence establishing that the Constitution's references to citizens incorporated the British rule. and until the eve of the Civil War, there was little litigation about the meaning of American citizenship. After the war, Congress finally adopted a constitutional provision, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, making certain persons, citizens at birth. But that provision differed substantially from the British rule.

It specified that a person born here is not a citizen unless his allegiance to the United States is unimpaired by any obligations to a foreign power. And he, I mean, that's exactly right. That's what else does subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean? He's trying to say that there was another provision in there. And I will say one of the scholars on this issue has argued all along that the justices would not come down on the right side of this because they'd be afraid. They'd be afraid of being called racists, right? Because the 14th Amendment is more limited than some of it's. proponents are now arguing and that it would take incredible temerity to come down against it.

And what do we see? We see the squishiest conservatives, Mike, fly the coop, right? It's like, did anybody ever doubt Alito and Thomas? And Gorsuch's showing some spine here too. But let's face it, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts are always the ones we're worried about. Well, I would say this. My old boss, Justice Neil Gorsuch came out very good on all of these cases at the end of the term. So I'm very happy, proud, quietly relieved.

I agree with you. He got boss back wrong. But he has been rock solid on these cases. I would say this. If Clarence Thomas, who grew up in the segregated South and faced unbelievable Jim Crowe, discrimination can write that the 14th Amendment applied to the children of the freed slaves, but the white liberals from Washington like John Roberts can't. That shows you who has maybe a more bold and fearless view of their job as a justice of the Supreme Court. They have lifetime tenure.

They have pay protection for a reason. Their job is to follow the law. It's to make them less popular when they follow the law to, you know, and they follow the law and the majority doesn't like it. It's, it's, I think with the Chief Justice and Justice Barrett, I think they're looking to become more popular. I think it's become a vanity project for them. One of my lawyer friends sent me this and I think she is spot on. The Chief Justice thought he was writing the next row versus, or excuse me, he was writing the next Brown versus Board of Education decision, but he wrote the next row. Because this guy, this Chief Justice got the law completely wrong like they did in Roe and constitutionalized it,

so it's going to take decades to fix. Let me, let me. That is how it feels. Can I dissent from a little bit? I don't think that this, these, the personal fear of being called a racist was a factor here. Why? Because look, a majority of the Supreme Court, including all the conservatives, ruled Harvard's system and North Carolina system,

race specific affirmative action, which I have. opposed as a liberal since 1970, I wrote my first law review article saying that race-specific affirmative action is unconstitutional. It took a lot of courage, not only for me back in 1970, but for these justices to fly in the face of the liberal dogma that, you know, you can't live without race-specific affirmative action. So they have shown courage in the racial context from time to time. Look, you can argue this is the wrong decision, I think, without necessarily important. the independence or integrity of the two swing justices that differ with you on this. So I agree with much of the conclusion, but I would stay away from trying to psychoanalyze or politicize these justices.

I think they did what they thought was right. I'll say this. This is Making the Rounds on X. The author of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment Senator Jacob Howard explained during the debates that it would obviously not apply to illegal aliens or foreigners who are not loyal to the United States. It was for the children of former slaves. And here's the quote from that senator referring to that provision. Every person born within the limits of the United States is subject to their jurisdiction is by virtue of national law, a citizen of the United

States. This will not, of course, this is the senator writing, include persons born in the U.S. who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. But there it is. This will not include persons born in the U.S. who are foreigners or aliens or aliens. I mean, that's, I think Justice Scalia would be very persuaded by something like that. Let me tell you why he wouldn't be. Justice Scalia says he doesn't believe in legislative history.

He believes in the final words of the enactment. But you're trying to figure out what's subject to the jurisdiction thereof means. I know. I know. But he wouldn't be persuaded by legislative history. He never was. He would say, you know, that's like going through the telephone book and picking out only the companies that you want to buy from. He was a big opponent of looking at individual senators and congressmen. He might have agreed. I think maybe he would have agreed that the clause subject to the jurisdiction thereof really does exclude people who are only in passing in the United States. I think he might very well have done that, but he wouldn't have done that by looking at the legislative history necessarily.

Let me jump in there. He looked at textualism and originalism is what does the text say? That's textualism. And originalism is what did that text mean to the public? at the time of its enactment. So he would definitely look at that. Not legislative history, but he would look at, okay, this is the proponents of this constitutional amendments.

This is how he's selling it to the public. Yeah. No, I agree with that. And I think he would have been conflicted. I don't know, because I know him very well. In fact, my newest book that I just wrote starts with a conversation he and I had while sitting together in Jerusalem. And I asked him, you know, you're the smartest guy in the world.

I know, do you really think that a human being was encrypted for three days and then rose up and was alive? And he said, to the core of my being, Alan, I believe that. And you're so unfortunate that you can't believe anything without proof. So he and I had these arguments and these debates about criticism of constitutionalism, about religion. I love, you know. Wait, hold that thought, Alan, because I know we get to have you a little longer than we get to have Mike who's got to go. But can I just ask you, Mike, what can't, what, what, what next? I mean, this is, is, is it just completely futile at this point, given how it is to have a constitutional amendment? So the chief justice constitutionalized birthright citizenship like the liberals did with Roe. It's going to be decades before

we can fix this as a constitutional matter. What it means is Congress needs to pass the Save America Act immediately, cancel August recess, get that to the president's desk, and that the Trump administration, Mark Wayne Mullen, the others, they need to get moving and start deporting people as fast as possible, starting with birthing aged women, the birthing persons, as the Democrats call it. If you're going to give birthright citizenship to illegal aliens, we're going to get these pregnant women and women who could be pregnant the hell out of our country. 100%. I totally agree with you. Shipwreck crew, Bill Jacobson, has been tweeting that all morning. And it's a very interesting argument. He writes, the Trump admin and all future admins

will have full justification to turn around and send back to their home countries any pregnant female who seeks to enter the U.S. at ports of entry. Maybe we should set up medical clinics at U.S. embassies around the world, this is a little tongue in cheek, and make it mandatory for females seeking a visa to undergo a pregnancy test and then only allow a visa to be valid for entry into the U.S. for 72 hours after the day to the test. Why would this not be considered a valid alternative to the EO in order to address the problem of birther tourism. That's that's the where it's going to go because President Trump will play hardball on this. He's shown that in response to the tariff rulings that he doesn't just accept, oh, I lost. Okay, it's over. He's going to find

another way of narrowing this field. Mike Davis, thank you for today and every day that you come on. We appreciate it. Bill Shipley is what I meant. Sorry. So, Alan, what do you make of that? I mean, Like, would there be the possibility of cracking down on pregnant aliens who are coming over here, revoking visas, pregnancy tests even? I mean, how far could we go with that? Well, I don't think it would be very popular to start deporting women in their ninth or eighth month. I do think the legislative solution has to be tried first. I do think Congress should have hearings and pass the statute saying the following people are no longer subject to the jurisdiction. of the United States and throw it back in the Supreme Court. And I think there's a good possibility

you can peel away one or two justices if the legislation was thoughtful, nuanced, carefully done, and supported what the basic underlying purpose of the 14th Amendment was. I'm not in favor of starting to round up pregnant women and deporting them. And I'd rather see legislation that is more general. So I'm hoping to move in that direction. I mean, I like he goes, he's not afraid, though, because, look, President Trump's going to be looking for solutions now. I have every belief that he's going to be looking for solutions. And then there was that one. He had another post online.

Again, I think it's somewhat tongue in cheek, but he's trying to get a conversation started on what we could do here. Stand by. He says, let's see, how about this? A visa granted to an alien to enter and remain in the U.S. automatically terminated if the female alien becomes pregnant. And medical care providers are obligated by law to report positive pregnancy tests under the threat of criminal prosecution for failure to do so. Ain't this fun, he writes? Now, of course, yeah. Too interesting. Would that be enforceable? But could there be some limitation? I mean, are we required to just let anybody who's about to give birth

come into the country, given that we now fully understand if that kid is born here, he's an American? Well, I think we ought to change the law and make sure that a person, born here who is not subject to the jurisdiction in any realistic sense, doesn't become a citizen. And if they are a citizen, let them pay taxes, let them register for the draft, let them be subject to what we citizens are subject to. Citizenship is not free. Citizenship entails not only benefits, but obligations as well. And these people who are born here and leave immediately only get the benefits without the obligations. And that's certainly not what citizenship ever was intended to convey, Great Britain or the United States. I don't think there's any country in the world that says,

other than ours, that if you're born here and owe no allegiance to the United States, you are a citizen. Now, you know, if a person's born here in one day and then play soccer for Nigeria for 25 and 30 years, is that person going to be allowed to play on the American team? No, because I think FIFA has a more common sense definition of who is an American. probably, and the Olympic Committee, a more common sense definition of who is an American than the Supreme Court's interpretation as it stands today of the 14th Amendment. Can I ask you about Justice Jackson and her jurisprudence, Allen, because everything I read from her seems so overly emotional. She seems to be struggling to contain her personal

reaction to these cases. And we saw some of that from Sotomayor yesterday as she chastised Justice Alito from the bench too. Like some of these women are sort of giving womankind a bad name by being overly emotional, which is playing to type. She's taking issue with Justice Thomas in her dissent who, Justice Thomas had, she said, surprisingly suggested that the citizenship clause was a race conscious remedial measure relating only to freed slaves. And she doesn't like that at all. She says that's inconsistent with your endorsement of a colorblind constitution. She goes on to say it's for this reason that Justice Thomas says children who are born in the U.S. but to parents not domiciled here are not entitled to claim birthright citizenship. She writes, but that narrow vision of the 14th

Amendment bears little relationship to the history of its ratification. Even worse, Justice Thomas is telling, it lies the entire point of the same. second founding. The reconstruction amendments were an anti-cast, anti-subordination reset for the nation, not a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery. Again, then yesterday we saw the side eye from Justice Sotomayor, who was very angry that the High Court said the president does have the power to fire the heads of most of these so-called independent agencies saying they have to belong someplace under the Constitution. They belong under the executive branch, and he's the head of it. She openly said that she didn't think President Trump was going to exercise control or self-restraint

in a way that we could approve of. It's like, what do you, why? The opinion, right? And like the personal agenda that's coming out. What do you make of it? Well, when I was a law clerk on the Supreme Court a hundred years ago, it was an all-male court. And there was plenty of emotion, but they hit it. They would go from chamber to chamber, and Justice Douglas would sometimes scream at people, just as Black would scream at people. It was a lot of emotion, but they kept it under wraps, and the public didn't see it. We law clerk saw it. The public didn't see it. You may be right that women on the court are more willing to be honest about showing their emotions when they feel it very strongly. And the question really is, when you put a robe on, are you really essentially

denying your right to show your emotions? You know, the reason that British judges where wigs and look identical, especially they used to look identical, because they were all men and they were all white, was to demonstrate that they are not subject to emotion, that the law is kind of an objective reality that isn't influenced by the personalities. You know, legal realism has shown for years that, of course, judges are human beings, and they're influenced by what they had for breakfast and their arguments with their spouses. and all of those things. The question is how much of that should show in the chambers of the Supreme Court? And that's a fair argument to make. We're going to have on Kristen Wagoner in a minute to talk about the ruling on girls and boys trying to get into girls' sports. But I don't know if you had a chance to look at this campaign finance law ruling. The Supreme Court, reading here from Scotus Blog, issued a major ruling on

money in elections by a vote of six to three. The justices struck down a federal law that limited the amount of money political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate for office. It's that piece of in coordination with. I think this is the piece of where like the presidential campaign would always have to say like, no, I'm not working with the PAC. No, gee, I have no idea what they're doing. And it seems like the Supreme Court has finally put an end to that fiction and said, you can coordinate its free speech.

You're allowed to do it like an extension of Citizens United here. originally before Citizens United, we had labor unions that were spending, you know, all of their coffers on elections, and it was fine. Then Citizens United came along and they said, you know what, corporations can do it to. It's free speech. And now we have this saying, and you actually can coordinate with the politicians as well. That's how I read it. What do you make? Well, I think it's a natural extension of Citizens United. Again, I think dumb, dumb, dumb to allow unlimited expenditures of money. It means that George Soros has a million votes, and you and I have one vote. So it's wrong from a political and from a realistic point of view. But, you know, remember the ACLU, the American

Civil Abuse Union, a leftist, radical now organizations supported Citizens United. I don't know what their view was on this one, but, you know, you can read the First Amendment as saying that, the money is speech. So I do think that it's consistent with Citizens United, but it's a bad decision from the point of view of democracy. It's far, far too much power to too few people who have too much money. It's changed. Citizens United really did wind up changing our body politics in a way that would really matter. I mean, before Citizens United, there was much more reaching across the aisle, bipartisan legislation. on the back of somebody who was an adversary because you had to find a way of getting along with him.

Now, especially in the house, you come from a district that's heavily red or heavily blue. You kind of answer to your donors who are the ones who got you elected, thanks to all that money. It's much worse than that. It's much worse. You also answer to the most radical people in your district because they're the ones who determine the outcome of primaries. That's what we saw in New York the other day. when three anti-American, essentially communists, people who root for Iran, people who hate America, win because only 13% of the people or 7% we don't know how many vote in the election. And the primaries now in all blue states determine the outcome of elections. So we're going to have three members of Congress coming to Washington this year that don't represent

what the Democratic. Party is about, it's the reason I've left the Democratic Party. I can't be in a party with the people who won those elections or with Mamdani or with some of the other people. I can't remain in that party. And I think we're going to see others leave the Democratic Party. And if the Republicans don't do something about Tucker Carlson and that view of the Republican Party, we're going to see people leave the Republican Party. There are so many people today I know who feel themselves politically homeless. They don't know what to do. They don't know where to go. They don't like Trump. They don't like Mom Dani. They don't like the Democrats. They don't like the Republicans. They don't want to

stay home. I think we have a crisis confidence in our system. You're not wrong. Tucker left the Republican Party. I haven't been part of the Republican Party in 17 plus years. I don't know. I remember what year it was I left. But I was mostly a Democrat when I was young. Then I became a Republican when I, you know, sort of got a little older and realized some things about the world. And then as soon as I got in a journalism, I said, you know, a pox on both their houses. I don't want to wear anybody's team jersey and I became registered independent. I want to tell you this, President Trump just truth social doubt, truth out a message on birthright citizenship in the case. And it's, we are right over the target in our discussion, my friend. He writes,

the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, which is too bad for our country. But we can easily make it up in Congress through legislation with the support of the president that has now been determined during this process. No long and unwieldy constitutional amendment is necessary. Congress should start today to work on ending expectations. and unfair to our country, birthright citizenship. They will have my complete and total support. I have the president calls me and asks me for my advice in drafting the legislation. I would be happy to do that.

And I think it's the right approach. I hope maybe he's listening to this show. And maybe that truth social was stimulated by that. But I think it's the right approach. And thank you for pushing it, putting it in the public domain. Oh, I'm sure he's watching right now. But yeah, you never know. I know we're just digesting like the Kavanaugh concurrence where he said, oh, you know, the EO runs a foul of legislation.

So that's why I'm going to join in striking it down. But he didn't sign on to the other logic. But as Mike was saying, and as I was saying, but you do have five justices who just said the 14th Amendment does require birthright citizenship for, you know, anybody who has a baby here. So how can legislation get around? Because it's just dictum. It's dictum until you get legislation. And then if the court strikes down the legislation as being inconsistent with the body of the 14th Amendment, then it's a holding. But right now it's just dictum because that issue is not before the court.

The issue of whether the legislature could change what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction was not before the court. And therefore, anything the court says about them is merely dictum. It's not holding and much more easily revoked. than much easier to peel away a justice or two who could say this was merely dictum, that issue was not briefed, it was not argued, it was not decided. Now we can decide it in the face of real legislation that we can look at. I think that's the way the Supreme Court would deal with that issue. So I think that would be amazing.

Absolutely right. That would be amazing if they close the one door and open that window while the Republicans control both houses of Congress and the presidency would be spectacular. They have to act quickly. Okay, can I ask you before we go about this NPR report on Justice Alito? I mean, you've been covering the Supreme Court. I forgot that. I knew that you had clerks because we've talked about it before.

I love the story about how was it, was it Justice White who you clerk for? No, I clerked for Justice. Are Stevens, I mean? But I did foul Justice White on the basketball court. And we played basketball against each other. And I went up for a reason. He gave me an elbow in the face. And I screamed at him, you said, Mr. Justice.

So, yeah, but I've talked about this story about how he insisted that you give back the banana that you took from like a gift, right, that had been given to you. He came a criminal lawyer was because of me because I argued a case in front of the judge that he was clerking for and I wouldn't give up and we won the case eventually. And he said I inspired him to become a criminal lawyer for my 50th anniversary of being a law clerk. He decided that he wanted me to sit next him in gratitude for, what I had inspired him to do. So I like Justice Alito very much as a person. He's a real mensch, a real, real, real nice, decent human being. I hope he stays on the court forever.

But there have been rumors that he is thinking of retiring before the next election so that if the Democrats win. Well, and that's my information. And I have a very, very solid source that Alito, that he is going to step down. But we don't know when. We don't know what. I mean, And like in the not too distant future, I don't mean, of course, they're all eventually going to step down or, you know, at some point, God will call them home. But I do think it's extraordinary, Alan, to see NPR jump the gun on a Supreme Court retirement. It's just not done. Like I said, it's like announcing the Pope has died before he's died. It's just it's not done.

And if it is done, it's a massive piece of malpractice. Nina Totenberg has very close personal relationships with some of the. justices, and she, I think, exploits those relationships sometimes in ways that are not particularly proper. And sometimes it backfires because people tell you things in their own interests that turn out not to be true. Now, you know, in the end, she'll be vindicated because Justice Alito probably will retire over the summer or maybe at the end of the next term. And then she'll say, I told you so, it was just a little wrong about my timing. But, you know, you have to look at anything that Nina Totenberg says with suspicion. I have been a critic of hers like you have

been since she began at NPR. She is much, much too partisan, much too political and has many two personal relationships with the justices on the court. And unlike you, Alan, has been, has proven incapable of putting her own personal politics to the side in doing analysis of the Supreme Court, which is, you know, what was her job for a long time. It's great to see you, my friend. All the best to you. You're looking well. And once again, what's the name of the book before you go? Founding fathers and one Jewish mother. And it's based on my own documents.

I own early copies of the Declaration of Constitution Federalist Papers, early copies of Ben-Gurian, Golden Mayor letters. And it's amazing how similar the controversies were in the two countries. You know, Jefferson wanted an agrarian country, Ben-Gurion wanted an agrarian Israel, Hamilton wanted a commercial country. Nathaniel wanted a commercial Israel. And so we're very similar, very similar conflicts.

And I think people enjoy the book. Thanks for asking me. Check it out. All the best. If you are heading into summer without a medical emergency kit, you're taking a risk most people don't even think about until it's too late. Summer colds linger and can turn into sinus infections that last for weeks. Getting sick right before vacation can derail everything.

and when you're traveling, finding a doctor and pharmacy can be stressful. But let me tell you about the medical emergency kit from the wellness company. It's like an urgent care and a pharmacy right at home. It includes essential prescriptions like amoxicillin and generic Z-Pack to treat a wide range of common and serious illnesses. No waiting for your doctor, no hours at urgent care, no pharmacy lines, and no copays. Just match your symptoms to the right prescription in your guidebook or call their telemedicine doctor standing by. Start on your meds sooner and feel better faster. Order yours online in minutes and it's shipped right to your door and save 45 bucks with our promo code mk at urgent care kit.com slash mk. Check it out. Something truly historic happened this morning at the U.S. Supreme Court.

We did spend an hour bashing them because we don't like the birthright citizenship opinion, but I have to tell you, I teared up when I saw the opinion on girls sports. So many people have worked so hard to make this happen today. And reason prevailed. The protection of girls and young women is insured now, at least for those 27 states that have passed bans, disallowing biological boys to participate in their sports. The court's decision involves laws in West Virginia and, Idaho, do you remember we all went down to Washington, D.C.? We watched these arguments live.

So important was this case to us, but it has implications for all the other states that have similar restrictions as well and could potentially expand beyond that at some point. We have not yet had the big decision. We have not yet had a case go up where the question is, must they ban boys from girls sports? That was not on the docket. It was may they, may they? And the answer to Maeve was yes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, quote, the Constitution in Title IX do not require an overhaul of women's and girls sports throughout America. Justice Clarence Thomas, not holding back in his concurring opinion, writing, quote, a man does not have a legal right to compete against women just because he believes that he is a woman, because gender dysphoria

is a mutable, that's an important word, mental state, that is the object of psychiatric treatment. It does not resemble the immutable characteristics on the basis of which our precedents have applied heightened scrutiny. In other words, if the court had been using heightened scrutiny to evaluate these bans, it would have been much tougher to uphold them. And he pointed out those protected classes like race, sex, or national origin. Those are very important words.

He's saying, transgenderism is not an immutable characteristic, like your skin color. Okay? And so it's not going to get this heightened scrutiny when it's treated as it has been by these bans. Like it's not the be all end all. The high court's not going to bend over backward to be protective of people who claim to have this status

because it's not immutable. It's mutable. You can mute it. Ask Chloe Cole, right? I mean, it's not, this is something, it's a social contagion and a psychiatric illness. and it is being treated in many, many cases, and actually does get reversed all the time.

Justice Thomas finishing, quote, to use language to obscure reality, to show indifference regarding the truth is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens as equals. That is so beautiful. He is so underrated as an orator, as a great writer, as a great thinker.

He's another one who's unfortunately getting old and we need to protect. joining me now, I mean, truly to say that she's behind this decision would be to understate her the importance of her role in this battle. Her name is Kirsten Wagoner, and she is the president and chief counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom. We love Alliance Defending Freedom. It is the firm that took this all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. They've been in since the beginning on the ground floor of this fight. And joining us as well is Madison Kenyon.

Maddie's a former athlete at Idaho State University. This is one of the two suits involved in this lawsuit, who stepped forward to be a part of this case. In 2019, she competed against a male athlete in track and field during her college years and lost to him. He was claiming to be female five times. The male she competed against broke record after record, girls' records, which had stood prior to a boy coming in and smashing them. and of course he received nothing but adoration in the fawning media. Today is a massive win, massive win for Maddie and little girls and young women, just like her.

I'm just awed by your courage, Maddie. Kristen, I'm so grateful to you. Just feel like it's monumental what happened. I know how much work. And truly on your part, Maddie, courage it took. Let me start with you, Maddie, and your reaction to the ruling. To say I am ecstatic would be an understatement. I've been winning six years for today.

My heart is full of gratitude for ADF for all the work that they've done for the Attorney Generals to know that 27 states as of today protect their women so that they don't have to go through what I went through or witness their teammates pushed off podiums and see roster spots given to men. To know that that is not protected for those women is just a day to celebrate. because of people like you, because of young women like you, who instead of being shamed out of your totally reasonable, fair, and honest opinion said, I'm not accepting that. I'm actually going to continue speaking up. And indeed, I'm actually going to do something about it legally. Can you just

give us a couple lines on how that happened for you, your experience that got you to that point? Yeah, so the Women's and Fairness Sports Act was, it was proposed at a point that I was actually doing a speech class. And so I had read it and I gave a speech that it should be passed by the time the speech was given. It was actually already passed. And so I was like, I'm in Idaho. Yeah. And so I was in super big support of it, found out that it had, that ACLU had sued. And through teammates, that high school teammates my friend had in Utah, they connected us with that. ADF because they were concerned. ACLU had sued to stop the law.

They did not want the law. And then ADF is like what the ACLU used to be. Yeah. It fights for actual rights as opposed to just some woke agenda. So you connected with the good guys. Yeah. And said, sign me up. Yeah, but we connected to them through athletes in Utah that were concerned about this issue as well. So just like to point out that this is, there are so many people not okay with this. And so then we got involved and we signed on. We had to because nobody else was. Our coaches, our athletic directors, and the NCAA were allowing men to compete as women. And they were not protecting us. They're not protecting our opportunities. And we were watching them being stripped from us in present time. And so we had to get involved.

And that's how it started. Kirsten, we saw this. You and I spoke the day of the argument. You came on the show. We both felt confident about it, but you don't want to heave that side of relief until you actually see pen on paper. Your reaction to this huge victory of girls. I mean, even as you were talking, Megan, like just the emotional reaction to it was so significant for me. And there are certain parts of the decision where I was just like, oh, thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

But I think, you know, I do want to recognize the first thank you needs to go out to Attorney General Labrador in Idaho, as well as Attorney General McCuskey from West Virginia, because we elect these officials and they are charged with the, within these laws. And we have seen so many spineless, gutless officials across the United States refused to stand for women. And these men courageously did it. And they allowed and essentially cheered on athletes like Maddie and ADF to come alongside and help as well. But you're right. We started this 10 years ago, more than that. And it has been a long haul. But man, was it worth it after today's decision.

Oh, it's just, it's amazing to actually read the words written, you know, with the Supreme Court pen, like affirming everything that we knew was true, you know, and rejecting their challenges on every front. No, no, the Equal Protection Clause, it's a no, we're not going to apply. That transgenderism is not a protected class. Like, everything we could desire other than mandating that it be banned in all 50 states, we got, Kristen, wouldn't you say? Yes, absolutely. And I am so excited about the applying this decision in the other states.

I mean, the court essentially said biology matters. It's a real thing. The law can reflect it. Sex-based categories are important. In fact, the court said it's vitally important. And so we're coming for the 23 states. I mean, we already have cases in those 23, in several of those states. But, I mean, the court's decision, the logic of it is that women and girls are experiencing the cost of this. and that under Title IX, a federal statute, there is a right of girls to insist that they have equal opportunities on the playing field. And I think that the logic of it is going to extend to our rights in the locker rooms, in the dorm rooms, in the showers. And as you know, Megan, we've talked about a number of our female athletes have actually suffered sexual harassment.

One of our clients, you know, actually it's the male in West Virginia, went up to one of our clients whispered in her ear repeatedly. I'm going to stick my dick and you're you know what. And I can't even say that word. I mean, this has got to come to an end. And I believe that this decision, the logic of it, we are going to continue to press forward. There's so much to talk about. Wait, I love what you're saying there. Yes, can you add, expand on that. I love what you're saying that this will not be limited to just boys and girls sports that we're going to this is, we can use this to get them out of our gyms and our locker rooms, et cetera. Well, I mean, the court says, We're limiting this to whether states may make these distinctions.

But the rationale behind it, the logic that the court is using is saying there are inherent physical differences between men and women, between boys and girls. And where those differences matter, states are right to enforce them. The court also said that under Title IX, there isn't a right of girls to have equal opportunities on the playing field. And those just aren't like, oh, we have to have separate teams, but qualitatively the same opportunities, quantitatively the same opportunities. And so under Title IX, which also is going to apply in the context of the privacy and safety

under these statutes, we are going to drive those decisions home. And I think, again, as you, some of the quotes that you used were exactly what I highlighted in when I was reading this decision and that, you know, Justice Thomas saying like, come on, let's recognize the truth here. That is the trajectory that the court is taking. And as you know, it was reflective of the American public. Now that we have seen what this toxic gender ideology does, eight and ten Americans say, get it out of our sports. And I believe they will also start to say, get it out of our classrooms

and give us our rights back. And it's so huge to like the Thomas's line about it not being an immutable characteristic is huge because after Bostock in which the high court said, under Title VII transgender people have a right not to be hired or fired, or I should say, not to be not hired, to use the double negative, or fired based on their transgenderism. We all worried very much, like, how far is that going to go? If it's getting treated like race or sex or disability or age, that's a whole different kettle of fish, then you can't, you know, quote, discriminate against transgenderism in any way, which would include the sports field, our locker rooms, and so on.

and their movement has been pushing for exactly that using Bostock. And today makes clear, Bostock is extremely limited. I think even Gorsuch is regretting Bostock. That's my own read. And Justice Thomas swoops in to make clear not like not an immutable characteristic. This is not a protected class, period. Well, and, you know, unironically today, Justice Barrett wrote a concurrence in Scermetti, which was the case about whether we trans our children,

with puberty blockers and states can stop that. And Justice Barrett said as well, that gender identity is not a protected class, that it shouldn't be a protected class in her concurrence. So we have a number of justices that have already recognized this in writing, and we need to continue to ensure that we get that final decision by the Supreme Court.

It is year after year rejected these arguments, but these are the arguments that radical activists are pushing forward, including the ACLU, and we have to keep defending them and ensuring that our girls and our boys are not told they're born in the wrong body because there are real world consequences to that. There's no such thing. God doesn't make mistakes. He understands exactly who you are and how you should look and what body you should be in. I wanted to read this to you, Maddie, because Justice Kavanaugh, he was, and maybe even still is.

I don't know, he was for years a coach of his daughter's basketball team and of other young women in high school or middle school basketball. So he gets it. And here's what he wrote in part. And it was in response to the dissent, which was of, I mean, the three women abandon us yet again, Kristen, the three female libs are like they couldn't care less about Maddie. They do not care about her or my daughter or yours. Nobody. All they care about is their woke liberal bona fides. So Kavanaugh steps in in response to their hysterics by saying as follows.

First, the dissent directs various rhetoric against the court's opinion, employing phrases such as contorted logic and misguided approach and diminished view of equal protection and unencumbered by fact or law, he's citing Sotomayor here. With respect that rhetoric is misdirected, the court's holding today is straightforward. The equal protection clause allows schools to maintain separate teams for female and male athletes. Schools may determine eligibility for women's and girls' teams based on biological sex. that policy is constitutionally justified. Then he goes on to say this, Maddie. Some might ask, what is the harm in allowing an additional athlete to compete in women's or girls' sports? That sentiment, though understandable, misunderstands the nature and reality of sports.

Sports are highly competitive and generally zero sum. At almost every turn, someone wins and someone loses. Every athlete who makes a team takes a roster spot from another athlete. every player who earns playing time reduces the playing time of a teammate every player who makes the starting lineup sidelines another who remains on the bench every competitor who wins a race or a competition deprives another athlete of that victory or medal or prize every team that wins because of an added player means that another team has lost because of that added player every player who makes all conference beats another who does not every student who earns an athletic

scholarship takes that opportunity away from another student and so on. Women and girls who play sports care deeply about all of those things. Getting emotional. It's just been such a... Me too. The next paragraph, it just goes on, Megan. I mean, it's like he knows. He knows. He gets it. He writes, they obsess about them. They spend extraordinary time and effort to train in the heat and in the cold, to work out early in the morning and late at night, to get a little faster, to become a little stronger, jump a little higher, shoot a little better, watch a little more video,

to make the lonely journey back from an ACL tear to scrap for playing time, to start, to win the game. They're hugging and crying. To win a championship, to hang a banner, to bring home a medal, to be all tournament, all county, all state, or all American. They put a championship trophy on All League Award

on their bedroom shelf. and it stays there forever. As a reminder of their love of the game and pride in their achievements, they learn to endure losses with grace. To lift up their teammates, respect opponents who have beaten them fairly and squarely, they learn to win with class, to look a defeated opponent in the eyes, shake her hand, and congratulate her in her effort,

whether the star of the team or the last player on the bench, they form lifelong friendships and lifetime memories. They savored their athletic accomplishments and cherished them for years, even decades after their playing days are over. What does it mean to you to have a Supreme Court justice right that actually getting it? Yeah, wow. The tears of joy, that's for sure.

I think the biggest worry was that our stories weren't getting out there and it goes to show that they are. And that when we voice what has happened to us that people were listening and people that were listening used the power that they had to show that they were listening. And it's so true. Like my story, I went to Idaho State University on a full ride. I didn't even think I was going to get a full ride.

And when I got the offer, I remember being speechless and thinking, wow, they think I'm worth this. That scholarship took me to Idaho State, and I wouldn't have gone there without it. At Idaho State, I ended up getting a nursing degree that I wouldn't have gone if I wasn't at Idaho State. I met my husband in that town. My best friends, two of them are here with me. and they were bridesmaids in my wedding last year. But that degree got me a career. That career got me and got me an ability to pave my future.

So it's like these limited roster spots, these tentative scholarships cannot be given to men because it's stripping it from a woman who should have had it. And my entire future has truly been impacted by that scholarship and by athletics. and to have now graduated and be able to look back and see everything that sports has given me my dedication to this issue just increased. And so, yeah, to see this hearing today come out is like a day to celebrate for sure.

I can't express in words how grateful I am and like seeing the hand of God and all of this too. Like he has been there every step of the way. And over the last six years I've grown up and I've changed a lot. but one thing stayed true and it's that, you know, men and women are created different, and that's a beautiful thing and should always be recognized, especially in athletics. Yes, Kristen, that was my first reaction this morning when I saw it. I mean, I expected it. I really did.

I would have been shocked if it had gone the other way. It was praise Jesus. Praise God. That sanity has been restored. And again, the request was may we? May we ban? May we protect girls? Would that be okay? And thank God, this court, this president who placed three of these justices on this court, saw it our way. And like this to me is just so huge. It doesn't quite make me forgive Connie Barrett and Kavanaugh on the other decision. But it certainly makes me applaud their decision here. And there is a reason. You know, there's a reason Kavanaugh got put on that court, the coach, the guy ironically who understands girls sports better than. Brown Jackson, better than Kagan, better than Sotomayor, right? Of course, it took a girls basketball

coach to step in and say, let me explain to you what girls sports mean. I got to tell you, I mean, after 10 years of working on this, it's the first decision that I've read where I was like, he gets it. I mean, that exact part, page 28 of the decision, which is exactly what you read, just tears started flowing. And you could say, oh, why are you girls crying? Because we celebrate the differences because we are made different. And he just gets it. The torn ACL, the trophy, I had a trophy on my bedroom window. And to be told for 10 years and see so many girls said where people will tell them to sit down, to shut up, that it's just about they want trophies and those shouldn't matter. So tired of that silencing and the diminishing of their accomplishments and

what they mean for their future. And I got to tell you, I mean, you know, the decision does say sex means sex. It doesn't mean gender identity. So there are a lot of really good nuggets in here. And something that I remember we talked about Megan Kelly, Megan at the oral argument was remember they were using all these terms of transgender girls and wrong pronouns. And it was like hard to track. Are we talking about a boy here or girl here? You did not see that in this decision. There are no wrong pronouns. There is no term that says transgender girl. That is actually such a good point. Thank God, that really was telegraphing something. I wish I could say the same over on NBC.

You have got to watch, okay, we're going to see this together. My team just told me about it, but listen to this. This is Craig Melvin this morning, stop 50. The terms that we're using here during our reporting, biological male, biological female, the high court put those terms in quotations in their decision and their dissent. But just so you know, we're using those terms from the decision itself, biological male, biological female. Okay, so it's basically a trigger warning for the NBC audience that we're going to stick to reality in this report. Krista, just had to make sure everybody understood they're just doing it because the Supreme Court of the United States does it that way. Well, and as the Supreme Court of the United States said, and Justice Thomas drove home in his concurrence, there's male and there's female.

And yes, we can put the adjective biological, but here at Alliance Defending Freedom, we don't even use the adjective anymore because it is male and it is female. And every child deserves to know that they were created wonderfully, fearfully by God. They have dignity and respect. But over 90% of kids, Megan, who are struggling with who they are and how God made them, if they are allowed to grow through adolescence, they do not become medical experiments. so they grow to live successful, happy lives. And that's what the science says. So again, this decision is one of many that need to come, but we are on our way. And the first place we're stopping is those 23 states that are disregarding the rights

of women and girls. That's the next big ruling we have to get that actually it should be banned everywhere. This should not be allowed. This is not consistent with Title IX at all to allow the girls in those states to go on suffering while we're right over the target again, how did people donate to ADF? I'm not getting rid of you yet, but people are probably feeling inspired

to support you as a national heroine. Oh, well, thank you. I mean, you can go to our website, ADFlegal.org. All of our work is pro bono, meaning for free. And we have been privileged to be able to stand beside women and girls,

including the very first case that was filed and the first situation that we know of that arose, which was 2017, in Connecticut. And I got to tell you, Megan, you were the first interview I did with those three high school athletes. When no one else would stand up for them, they stood up for themselves. And their case is still going on because it's in a blue state in Connecticut. Yep. We're still fighting that battle. I remember it. Well, we did it. It was via audio. We didn't yet have visual on the show. So it was our first, you know, nine, 10 months of existence. And they were

trailblazers too. And yeah, there's been so much procedural maneuvering in that. When you signed your insurance policy. For some brokers, that's the finish line. Handshake, commission, done. Then you may not hear from them again until it's time for renewal, in which case they're your best friend once again. Your business runs all year, however, and so do the gaps and the risk. And that's why I want to tell you about Super Sure. If your company has more than 25 employees, whether you are the owner, the CFO, or an HR manager, it can be too complex to just buy a policy online. Super Sure is the super agency built for you, licensed in every state for your business insurance and employee benefits, with year-round support for you and your team. At super sure.com, you can access tools like

fine print facts, which translates your current policy into plain English, so you see what's covered in what's not, plus a business value calculator so you can estimate what your business is worth and know what actually needs protecting. Go to super sure.com slash Megan, one super agency, one powerful platform, all your policies in one place. Go to supershure.com slash Megan paid for by SuperSure insurance agency, LLC, a licensed insurance agency. Our sponsor, the Electronic Payments Coalition, says Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet and that now they're messing with your credit card.

They say your credit card and the security it offers are under attack and that senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate megastores like Walmart and Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards can keep your payments secure and provide rewards that families use to help make everyday purchases more affordable. The Electronic Payments Coalition says the Durban Marshall mandates would let corporate megastores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks, with weaker security and fewer protections. Find out more at guard your card.com and consider telling Congress to guard your card.

Everyone, it's me, Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on Sirius XM. It's called the Megan Kelly Channel, and it is where you will hear the truth, unfiltered, with no agenda, and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Link Lauren Callahan, Emily Dyshinsky, Jesse Kelly, Real Clear Politics, and many more. It's bold, no BS news, only on Megan Kelly channel, SiriusXM 11, and on the Sirius XM app. I wanted to mention this to you. So, Maddie, over on CNN, I like to, you know, search around when there's breaking news to see how it's being covered. On CNN, there was someone who I didn't know who was lecturing the audience on how this is such a small problem.

You know, there's only, and trotted out the lie that there's only 10 trans students participating in NCAA sports, which is not true. I actually looked into this because my own daughter, who when she was in eighth grade, a year, just a little bit more than a year ago, was told that lie by her teacher. And it's not true. And here's the truth, because I actually looked it up at the time, that I'll stand by. Got all of it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There is a pro-trans outlet called Out Sports, who, by the way, if anything, has reason to underestimate the number of trans athletes playing in college sports because they know how controversial it is. They stated openly on the record that there have been well over four.

40 out, meaning non-closited trans athletes competing in college sports. Quote, out sports knows there are countless other trans athletes who have competed at the collegiate levels who have not been publicly out. And they give examples. Fordham basketball player, Bryson Kavanaugh, decided to forego senior season and the WMBA draft to come out and begin his transition. Duke Rower, Liam Miranda, waited until after competing to come out publicly and so on and so forth. And it goes on to say that three of these trans people have won a national championship.

So, and then for high schoolers, same. They estimated in their piece that we estimate that, I'm quoting here, there are as many as 122,000 transgender youth ages 13 to 17 who could be participating in high school team athletics. 122,000, not 10. So what do you make of already the media's attempt to, you know, this is, it's the opposite of Justice Kavanaugh. You know, like, it's, First of all, it's such a small problem. And second of all, what are you really losing by allowing someone else to compete? I just think about the women. For one of those athletes, I mean, I know Kristen has the stats on some of them,

but one male athlete in a race on the track displaces eight others on a track with nine lines. The athlete runs four events in high school. That's really common. It's exponential. The amount of women displaced from every single. one of those athletes and to know that there's over a hundred thousand of them it's yeah we got to keep fighting it's a great day to celebrate but we still have work to be done because i mean like i said this these opportunities to be in sports and to gain more than just a competition more than just

one race like you gain so much from sports when it comes to scholarships and education and just and the friendships that come from it that if we sideline women, they have nowhere else to go. It just goes to show how important that is. So I flip the issue and say, look at the women. Yeah. Just the underestimation of the glorious feeling of accomplishment is so offensive. Charles Koch actually used that turn of phrase in his book and used it on me when I interviewed him. The glorious feeling of accomplishment.

It's what you want your kids. to feel when they go off into the world, whether it's their high school job or their real job. It's what you want your high school athlete to feel, even if they don't cross first on the finish line, but they do their best and it was a fair playing field, you know, that they can feel that glories. And you just, the other side won't acknowledge that. They won't acknowledge that. That, no, if I was supposed to be first, I deserve to be first. I don't deserve to have my spot taken by somebody who doesn't belong in this company.

I do want to ask you, Maddie, about the boy who you were competing against. His name, he goes by June Eastwood. And via Let's Run in 2019, they reported this. Eastwood's personal best in the 800 meters, 155.23. That's almost four seconds faster than the collegiate record of 159.1, set by Raven Rogers in 2017. Eastwood's personal best in the 1500 is 31519. Jenny Simpson's collegiate record on challenge for a decade was almost 10 seconds slower. Eastwood has run 143880 in the 5,000 far ahead of same girl Jenny Simpson's collegiate record of 1501.

So he was what, some 13 seconds faster than she was there. And yet this is how that June Eastwood. has been treated by the press in the spokesman review. June's run, transgender Montana athlete driven to succeed USA Today. It's a life or death issue. Trans athletes fight for their humanity while battling anti-trans laws. USA Today has been the worst, the worst, wired close second. They're supposed to be a tech magazine.

Why are they weighing in on this? Anyway, I'm just going to keep going. Still on USA Today. In 2019, Eastwood became the first Division I transgender cross-country runner. As a successful trans athlete, her presence on the track is transcendent. Transcendent USA Today, writes. And the spirit she brings to her sport has little to do with a desire to dominate her peers. It's bigger than that.

Eastwood's transigenity saved her own life from suicide and the demons of gender dysphoria. I mean, Kristen, this has got all, all. of the triggers that the left likes to put into this argument. You know, it's going to be suicidal. She's transcendent. We should be celebrating her. She's the one whose happiness and well-being we should be focused on. The rights we should be focused on are the rights of women.

I mean, the fact that for so many years, women and girls have been maligned and vilified for simply saying we don't want to stand at the starting line and know who the winner is before we even get there. We don't want to be sidelined in our own sports. We don't want to undress in front of a male. All of these things, the fact that we've been told, again, to sit down, to shut up, and then to be shamed about it is horrific. And it is high time. And I hope that this entire debacle that we've been through in the last 10 years teaches all of us that we all have a part to play in truth.

Because you can be compassionate, but you can't be compassionate while ignoring truth. Because the two are not in conflict. And in terms of June Eastwood and the transcendent progress that was made in that race, women were not only not. knocked off of podiums. They not only didn't advance to the NCAA tournament, they didn't even make the team as a result. We've seen that time and again. I mean, you remember Leah Thomas, 65th place in men's category to first in the women's? And I've even started on the BPJ case, the West Virginia case itself. One boy, BPJ, that boy who identified as a girl, he displaced 470 girls 1,400 times, took two regional championships and a state championship all through middle school.

What about the girls that didn't get to make it that didn't get to advance? Why don't we start focusing on them? And thankfully, the Supreme Court has. Yes. Oh, my goodness. So here's USA Today. There's this woman, Nancy Armour. I'm telling you, there's something wrong with this person.

She's got some skeleton in the closet. Or maybe one day we're going to find out she used to be Ned. I don't know. But there's an issue with this Nancy Armour who is the worst in the way she writes about this issue. She has no children. She has no daughters. She writes, oh, because she's fearmongering currently in response to this ruling on how schools will make sure a girl is a girl. They always do this.

They always go to the AOC has done this too, that every time a girl's rights are restored, it turns into they're going to want to see your vaj in order for you to make the team. This is bullshit fearmongering, but here's what she's writing. The ban is heinous for what it does to transgender athletes. But if you think cisgender girls, which is girls, never say cisgender. And young women won't be caught up in the fallout too. You are woefully ignorant. She sub-tweated from the New York Times, quote, How will grade schools, middle schools, and high schools conduct verification tests?

And will everyone be tested or just the athletes who draw suspicion? Thoughts on that one, Kristen? These laws have been in place in 27 states, many of them since 2020. We haven't had those problems. And this is about fairness, not surveillance. As any mother knows, who puts their children in athletics, whether it's high school, middle school, whatever, you have to have a physical.

So if there's an issue about whether you're a man or a woman, and that issue continues, you just have to have the physical that you have to have anyway. So there's no looking under the skirt to determine what's there. Again, this is fear mongering. It's something that has been working quite well for the last six years and actually even before then. And again, it's just an attempt by radical individuals

that are trying to impose a gender ideology on all Americans. And in the end, it's going to hurt women and girls the most. Here is, this is ABC's Devin Dwyer. This is where their focus is in the wake of this historic opinion. Stop 53. And Devin, earlier, we watched your story on Becky Pepper Jackson, who was at the center of one of these cases. Any reaction from the family yet?

No reaction just yet, Diane, from the family. But no doubt they're devastated. When I talked to Becky late last year, I asked her if she would continue to play with the boys if this law was allowed to take effect. And she said no, because she is not a boy. She's never identified as a boy. She has identified as a girl since third grade, and she's never gone through male puberty. So this is a big disappointment for her 16 years old. She actually just won the state championship in West Virginia in shot put.

We get this every time. There's just the language. It really is an issue, Kristen. They're trying to confuse their audience. If you say she cannot play in girls sports, people are confused. If you say he cannot, they get it. I want to be careful with my words because in this particular case, BPJ is a child and that child deserves to be treated with dignity and respect and needs to be listened and talked to and cared for in how he is dealing with gender. dysphoria or gender confusion. But we also know this is a social contagion as well. And I want to focus on Adelaia Cross, who we represent, who has been harassed, who has been bullied, who can demonstrate that BPJ is more than aware of his own physical anatomy when he threatened to stick it in our client, in the locker room, and when he displaced her from being able to advance to further competition, and when he has taunted her as a result, because she was the one person in the school that said,

this isn't right. And she came clean on what was actually happening, not only in the losses, but in the locker rooms, in the hallways of the school. And yet the school did absolutely nothing, nothing when she complained. They said they were going to do an investigation, never got back to her with the results, never protected her. So again, this is a win for women's sports in these 27 states, and we need to take it as that, but it's also a win for biological truth because the court recognizes there is such a thing. There is men and there are women and they deserve to be able to be celebrated in their differences. Well, well said. I mean, amazingly, ABC didn't include those details in its report about BPJ. We talked about him when you came on after the Supreme Court argument, just some

more examples of his behavior. He, okay, about two to three times per week, BPJ would look at Adelaia, your client, in this case, and say, quote, suck my dick. There were usually other girls around who heard this. I heard BPJ say the same thing to my other teammates, she testified. BPJ made other more explicit sexual statements that felt threatening to her, writing at times, BPJ told her quietly, forgive me, audience, but this is the quote, I'm going to stick my dick into your P word. And BPJ sometimes added, and in your ass,

as well. Sorry, these are the quotes. These comments were disturbing and caused me deep distress. Of course, they would. BPJ made these vulgar comments toward me in the locker room on the track and in the throwing pit for discus and shot put. I felt confused and disgusted. When I heard these vulgar and aggressive comments, it was especially confusing because I was told that BPJ was on the girl's team because he identifies as a girl, but the girls on the team never talked like that. And that's what we know is that if you actually are, you know, in that teeny tiny percentage of Americans who has true gender dysphoria, and you're a man, you know, pretending to be a woman, the last thing you would ever do is mention the D. You don't want to draw attention to the fact that you are actually a male. You definitely don't want to talk about your anatomy.

me, it just puts the lie to the whole charade. I don't know what BPJ's problem is, but I'm going to guess it originates with the mother because it does nine times out of 10 who's pushing some sort of weird woke agenda on their child. That's just my own speculation. But none of this makes it into the news reports, Kristen, none of it. You're absolutely right. And when it comes to the legal issue of how men and women identify and the inherent physical differences and how they play out on the field, You know, that's not necessarily relevant to the court's decision of what the threats are, but I think it's relevant to the American public. I think it's relevant to recognize these are not isolated cases.

I mean, we represent right now a 16-year-old girl in Washington State who was sexually assaulted while having to wrestle a boy who she understood to be a girl, sexually assaulted, digitally penetrated. Yes, we saw that. This is not that unusual anymore. And it is, it's time for us to say, enough is enough. We're going to protect our kids. You're not going to cancel us. You're not going to shun us from being able to speak the truth.

But we should be protecting our girls and celebrating. There's nothing wrong with being a girl. There's nothing to be embarrassed about. And we should have our rights to be able to play and not be sidelined in our own sports and our activities. And we shouldn't have our kids transitioned at school behind our backs, which there are cases going on right now. and we shouldn't have states essentially pushing our kids down the trans path.

I want to read some of the dissent from the three women. There's four women on the Supreme Court. One is Amy Coney-Barrant who sided with the majority. But the three libs are female and really didn't have a care for you, Maddie. They had not a care for Adelaia. They didn't have a care for any of the girls who are going to be affected by this decision. They write, today the court holds that neither Title IX nor the equal protection clause protects BPJ's ability to participate in sports. I agree that the Title IX claim

fails, they say, although on a narrower basis, as for the equal protection claim, the majority at this stage of litigation gets the answer wrong. This litigation implicates deeply sensitive, contentious, and evolving issues. These circumstances demand exercising judicial restraint, not rushing to answer conclusively difficult questions without sufficient evidentiary development. in opting otherwise, the majority extends great sympathy to those it favors the young, cisgender girls and women who play sports. I share that sympathy. Playing sports can lead to benefits that are immeasurable, and many are understandably invested

in ensuring that competition stays fair and safe. Because the majority, however, inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions. I respectfully dissent and goes on from there. So again, the focus on not the girls, but those pretending to be them, and taking issue with just how much scrutiny these bands would warrant. What would you be your message, Maddie, to those three women who seem to want you to pack up your athletic bag and go away like a good girl who's inclusive and kind? My thoughts would be that when it comes to athletics, it really is more than just competing. It's truly paved my entire life to become what it has become, and it will continue to.

Because of the scholarship that I got when I was 18 years old, I've gained education from that, right? And I'm going to use that every single day. One day I hope to be a mom and I can raise an educated kid. kid because I have an education. And to take that away from women and leave them with nowhere else to go is just so heartbreaking that someone would support that. Because had that been the case, had the decision been the other way, women would be sidelined in their sports. Women would be barred from the experience that I was fortunate enough to have even though I competed against a male. But instead, we protect that. And so I'm just so grateful that we do and that we recognize that and that has

been what has come out because that is, that is truth. And that is what is important is that we do protect these opportunities because women have nowhere else to go if we don't. And to look at the true harm that's there when all, everybody can compete in athletics, we determine that it matters where it is fair. Let me say that. So it matters where we compete to make it fair. And that's what this decision does. It lets everybody compete. Have you been talking to your friends, like your, you know, other girls who are involved in litigation or women who have been supporting you along the way today? Like, what's the reaction been?

Oh, man, we're real excited. Like I said, I can't even express in words. The joy that I have. I just get emotional. Six years of this, like led up to today. And I think that's a big part of it is how long we've been involved. And we got involved when the whole world was against us. We were the first collegiate lawsuit, and there was nobody except the Connecticut girls.

This was taboo. We were silenced in everything. We didn't have as much support as we currently do. And to know that we've made it, we've gone through a lot over the last six years to get here and to know that we were listened to and to end in a victory is just amazing. Yeah, and called all the names, I'm sure. I mean, it was just a couple of years ago, Kristen, that we were looking at the women on the UPenn swim team being told by their Ivy League university,

they needed to go get therapy if they had a problem with Will Thomas, who now goes by Leah, swimming against them in their sport. And you look at this picture, Kristen, you tell me, I really think, I'm grateful to Leah Thomas. because I think Leah Thomas was a game changer in this whole debate. Look at the size of him against the other girls. No normal human could look at this picture

or his performance in the pool where he was a middling male but the top female alleged. So many body lengths ahead of the fellow swimmers who were female and say that's fair and say I support it. I just think he was a complete game changer

And I'm genuinely grateful that those poor women at UPenn had to go through that. I'm sorry for them, but I'm grateful to them because I don't, I'm not sure we'd be where we are today if that hadn't happened. I think you're right. I mean, it brought the issue away from the high school girls onto a national stage that was even bigger. But I also want to recognize that, you know, all of us have played different roles, whether it's the platform that you've used to bring this issue to other people's attention, whether it, you. is, again, the attorneys general. Like you talked about the moment that we were in and Maddie talked about how difficult it was to stand.

Imagine putting your political career on the line in a moment where you didn't really know which way it was gonna go. And that's what Attorney General Labrador and Attorney General McCuskey have been doing along the line as they've been leading it. And also to think about the detransitioners that have come out since Leah Thomas, the story hit. And we're starting to see parents come forward

and say, this is harming our children. children. So I am hopeful we've turned the corner. I'm hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court is helping us to do that in their lane. But man, we all need to man our stations in this point and drive this decision and the implications home. So what can be done on the other states? You know, I mean, what's the litigation route to get help to the girls who are in those remaining states? Well, right now, Alliance to Pending Freedom has two cases that are pending. in blue states. One is in Minnesota.

You may have remembered the headlines of the male, a softball player that competed and they won a state championship. And there's also a case in Connecticut that we talked about, where there's those three, and now it's four track athletes that were beaten by two boys, displacing a number of girls, taking 17 records, displacing our client from four state championships. Those cases are ongoing. And the arguments there are that Title IX,

Again, as the court said today, it's about ensuring equal opportunities and that there are inherent physical advantages that the male body has over women and girls. And so in that instance, we will continue to make the case that Title IX protects all of the women, all of the girls across this nation. And I believe we will win and we will not stop until we do. But when you say, what can we do? These policies come about as through school boards, right? They're through people we elect, through our school boards, through hearings and those kinds of things. So every dad, every mom should be stepping up to the plate and insisting in those states that the policy be changed. We're already seeing the IOC, you know, the Olympic Committee, the NCAA, they're all turning on it.

We need to go forward and insist that our local schools do as well. Yes, I completely agree with that. There needs to be an acknowledgement and ruling from the Supreme Court that Title IX means no boys. in girls sports that it requires, that equal opportunity requires that the girls not be forced to compete against boys, biological boys, whatever. But what are the odds of the high court getting there, which is definitely a step beyond where they are today? I don't think that the odds are insignificant. I mean, these cases have already gone up on appeal in both of these states in the federal court system because they were dismissed. And now the appellate court reinstated them. They're back in the trial

courts going to trial. So they're on their way up through the system. And we will continue to press until the court resolves the issue. And I think there are, there's some good language in this case. Yes, the court said we're not touching that question of whether states must do so. But when we know eight in ten Americans support the right of equal opportunities for women, and we know that the court has said Title IX requires equal opportunities and that there are physical differences between men and women, I think we're well on our way to eventually get that ruling. But the most important thing about this is why should we depend just on the lawyers for it when the American public can stand in their school boards and in the places that they're called to to insist that

these policies change. Amen. Thank you. Thank you so much. Maddie, congratulations and thank you. Kristen, you really are a national heroine. God bless you. Thank you. Everybody should seriously consider donating to adflegal.org. Is that what it is? ADFlegal.org? Yes, thank you. Thanks. Do it. Do it. Do it. support you completely. God bless you both. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. We've had Brandov on this show. She's an Irish, 14-year-old. She was, and we had her on. She's probably 16 or 17 now. And I just want to read the poem that got her booked on the show in part in the time we have. I am not a dress. We are women. We are warriors of steel. Woman is something no man will ever feel. Woman is not a skill that any man can hold. Woman is our word.

and it is ours alone. I am not a dress to be worn on a whim. A man in a dress is nonetheless a him. Women are not simply what we wear. If this offends you, I do not care. I am not an idea in any man's mind, and my purpose in life is not to be kind. So when my rights are trampled every day of the week, I will not stand by being docile and meek. I am not defined by sexist eyes. There is more to a woman than that shallow guise. That guise of dresses, bikinis, and skirts, those clothes are not what a woman is worth. I am not a bitch, a turf, a horror slag, hysterical a witch, a slut, a hag. No, I am a woman. I'm a female who will not let her rights be put up for sale. I am not defined by what men are not, so to hell with cis-misogynistic rot. I'm a woman. I'm not a subset of my

sex. If this makes me a dinosaur, so be it I'm a T-Rex. It goes on from there. It's amazing. We'll post it on Megan Kelly.com. Congratulations to girls and women today. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.