What A Day - What To Know About Today's SCOTUS Birthright Case

Episode Date: May 15, 2025

The Supreme Court hears arguments today in three cases challenging President Donald Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship. Lower courts have blocked the president's order, which he signed on his first day back in office. However, the primary debate in court today will center on something else: the legality of nationwide injunctions, or when a lower-court judge single-handedly puts a government policy on pause nationwide. These rulings have been instrumental in blocking some of the president's most egregious policies. Washington State Democratic Attorney General Nick Brown, leading one of the cases in today's hearing, talks about what's at stake.And in headlines: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy told lawmakers, 'I don't think people should be taking advice, medical advice from me;' the CDC reported drug overdose deaths dropped significantly last year; and Omaha, Neb., elected its first Black mayor.Show Notes:Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

It's Thursday, May 15th. I'm Jane Coaston and this is What A Day, the show that has always been called What A Day and not just like Big Day Show or some other rebrand we need to walk back two years later because no one knew what the hell this podcast was called. Take notes, HBO. On today's show, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continues to show us he's not qualified for the job, and like, he told us this time. And left-wing political commentator and streamer Hassan Piker talks to Crooked about being questioned by border agents at a Chicago airport. But let's start by talking about the Supreme Court.

Again. Today, the court will hear oral arguments regarding the Trump administration's efforts to end birthright citizenship in the United States. But while that's obviously the headline issue that most people are paying attention to, with good reason, that's not actually all that the court is deciding right now. Instead, the court is debating nationwide injunctions, in which a judge blocks a policy from going into effect nationwide. We've seen this happen multiple times this year, 17 times between Inauguration Day and

March 27th, for example. Those temporary restraining orders, or TROs, included issues ranging from the Department of Government Efficiency's efforts to terminate probationary federal employees to, yes, the administration's fight to end birthright citizenship. And Trump administration officials are big mad about nationwide injunctions stopping them from doing whatever it is they want to do. Back in March, President Donald Trump posted a screed on True Social, writing in part, quote, "...unlawful nationwide injunctions by radical left judges could very well lead to the destruction of our country."

That's how it sounded to me, anyway. You may not be all that surprised to learn that President Trump and members of his administration felt very differently about nationwide injunctions when President Joe Biden was in office. For example, when a judge blocked some Biden administration officials from discussing certain types of content with social media companies back in 2023, Trump was pretty jazzed about it. Just last week in a historic ruling, a brilliant federal judge ordered the Biden administration to cease and desist from their illegal and unconstitutional censorship in collusion with social media.

Hypocrisy is, as always, the point. Anyway, Washington State Democratic Attorney General Nick Brown was one of the first to challenge Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship, and is leading one of the cases included in today's hearing. He's in D. in DC for oral arguments. Attorney General Brown, welcome to what a day. Thank you. It's good to be here. The 14th Amendment is fairly clear to me. Quote, all persons born or naturalized in the United States

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. So what do you make of the fact that the Supreme Court is even considering the nationwide freeze on Trump's order ending birthright citizenship? Well, I guess I'm not wholly surprised that they're weighing in on this case. It's obviously a case of national importance It's the president's first or one of his first executive orders But I would agree that not only is it clear to you. It's been clear to the court itself It's been clear to academics and scholars across the country, it's been clear to the various circuit courts that have weighed in on this decision, and it should have been clear to the president.

But ultimately, I think it's not surprising that it needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court. Yeah. And just to be clear, the court today is not weighing the constitutionality of birthright citizenship generally. The case is really about what are called nationwide injunctions or when a judge single-handedly blocks a policy from going into effect across the whole country instead of just for those bringing the case.

Can you explain that a little bit more, what that means? Sure. Well, I think that that is generally true, but I would put a big asterisk on it. The court certainly has the authority to get into the merits the substance of the issue rather than the more narrow issue regarding nationwide injunctions, but the issue that they Asked us to prepare for and that our parties have prepared for for the argument It's principally around whether or not the injunctions that were issued in the state of Washington in Massachusetts and other jurisdictions that have weighed in on this particular dispute,

whether or not those injunctions only apply to the parties in those cases. And so for us, it's whether or not it applies to the state of Washington, but also to some of the individual plaintiffs that are part of our case and part of other cases that were brought. This issue around the scope of nationwide injunctions

is not a new issue. It's something that more and more courts, including the Supreme Court, have indicated some hesitancy around and narrowed the scope of that type of relief. But it is kind of surprising to me that this is the particular issue that the court would decide to try to resolve that dispute because birthright citizenship needs to apply nationally. Obviously, it's not limited to a state's border and it wouldn't make any sense, really, if someone born in Washington state, for example, then traveled to Idaho that is not a part of the litigation.

They lost their citizenship. That would be an absurd result. So I can't imagine that the Supreme Court would try to limit the scope of this injunction, but they've obviously decided to hear that issue and we have to see what happens today. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that being a citizen in one state and not a citizen in another state is kind of how we got to the Civil War. But pretty much there's bipartisan frustration with nationwide injunctions. I think that that's what's so funny about this to me is that you hear the Trump administration complaining about them right now, is that you hear the Trump administration

complaining about them right now, but they loved them under President Joe Biden. And this was an issue under President Barack Obama as well. So is there some need for clarity on nationwide injunctions? Yeah, I don't think there's any particular problem legally or substantively to provide some more clarity, some guardrails about the scope of nationwide injunctions.

And there are certain cases where it makes more sense to limit the scope of relief to just those states or those parties that are participating in the litigation. We have now brought 19 total cases against the Trump administration in the last four months. And some of those cases, Washington has impacted more directly than other states. But for something like birthright citizenship, which is so core to our democracy, so core to our, you know, who gets citizenship rights and all the privileges that come with that, it doesn't make any sense to limit that to a state's border.

Right. You know, so with the technical details aside, what are the stakes in this case? It sounds like what you were saying before. It would create a patchwork of citizenship rights while the case plays out. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we have people born in Washington on a daily basis who are born to undocumented parents just like any other state in this country. And the notion that they might be citizens of Washington and therefore get all the benefits and rights that come with that but if they decided to travel to Idaho

to Texas to some other state that's not a participant in the case the idea that they would lose their citizenship is absurd and not only that it's not very clear about what country they might be a citizen of if they therefore lost their citizenship and so I think the court really does need to ultimately decide the merits of this case and hopefully they do so quickly. But again, my viewpoint is they need to decide that the nationwide injunction applies across the country. You know, there are, I think, a total of 22 states that participated in our litigation.

And if the court limited to just those states or just the individual parties, it would just lead to a really Consequential result not only for those individuals, but all of the states that need to plan for caring for their citizens You know if if people born in Idaho tomorrow were not citizens They would lose all sorts of benefits the state would then be burdened with helping to care for them You know the federal government provides for a host of things That the states only supplement and those burdens would then fall upon those states.

So it does have consequences, not only for the individuals, not only for those states, but I do think it really gets at some of the foundational cores of our country. I mean, the idea of who is an American and who is not, I can't think of things that are much more consequential. Absolutely. And Trump has insisted the 14th Amendment specifically

about citizenship is, quote, all about slavery. And yes, the 14th Amendment was enshrined after the Civil War as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. But why is he wrong? Well, he's wrong because after the 14th Amendment, courts have repeatedly weighed in defining the parameters of the citizenship clause. Congress has also weighed in in the Immigration and

Nationalization Act also providing some clarity about who is a citizen or not. I don't know if the president is simply ignorant to that fact, or if he's lying or being misleading, which is his normal course of business. It could be any of these. It could be anything. It's really unfortunate that time and time again, the president disregards constitutional principles, disregards court rulings and court precedent.

But this is one of the most key areas that he has done so in his second term. And he did so on his very first day in office. What would happen if the justices side with the Trump administration here? Not just with the birthright case, but more broadly, Because as you mentioned, nationwide injunctions have been instrumental in pausing some of the president's most egregious policies. Well, you know, it really would have a profound impact on a host of different issues. You know, a good example for me is we challenged, along with our other democratic states, the president's illegal cuts to NIH grant funding. And, you know, in that case, the states or the courts have limited relief just to the states participating. But there are a number of other cases where they've provided nationwide relief because

there are some things that are so foundational that nationwide relief is some clarity is needed here. But this is not the matter that they should provide it. If the justices do side with Trump and limit these nationwide pauses, even in cases dealing with long-established rights like birthright citizenship, which I can't even believe that we have to talk about right now, you're a Democratic attorney general. What tools will you have to keep fighting Trump's agenda? Well, we'll continue to bring cases on behalf of our states.

When I decide to bring a case or lead a case, I do so only on behalf of Washingtonians, just like my partner AG do across the country. And so we will continue to advocate for the rights and the harms that we're seeing caused by the Trump administration. But there are going to be some states, you know, none of our Republican AG colleagues have joined any of the cases that we've brought against the Trump administration, even though I think many of them recognize the harm and damage that's being done to their citizens and the residents of their states.

But moving forward, it would just mean that the work that we are doing on behalf of our states is even more important because we know that it's not going to provide for nationwide relief. And elections have consequences and people in those states, I think, would need to rightly ask questions of their representatives like, why aren't you defending our rights, our programs, our funding? Because the president is going to continue to undermine those things and cut things and act illegally. Attorney General Brown, thank you so much for taking the time to join me. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

That was my conversation with Washington State Democratic Attorney General Nick Brown. We'll get to more of the news in a moment, but if you like the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube, and share with your friends. More to come by Bookshop.org. Whether you're searching for an incisive history that helps you make sense of this moment, for example, I'm reading a book on the history of Christianity and sex that's super interesting, or maybe you're looking for a novel that sweeps you away from all of this, or you're looking for the perfect gift for a loved one.

Bookshop.org has you covered. When you purchase from Bookshop.org, you're supporting more than 2,000 local, independent bookstores across the country, ensuring they'll continue to foster culture, curiosity, and a love of reading for generations to come. And big news. Bookshop.org has launched an e-book app. You can now support local, independent bookstores even when you read digitally. Use code WAD to get 10% off your next order at Bookshop.org.

That's code WAD at Bookshop.org. Here's what else we're following today. Headlines. I don't think people should be taking advice, medical advice from me. Girl, done and done. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faced off with lawmakers on Capitol Hill Wednesday during hearings in the House and Senate. It was his first time testifying before Congress since being confirmed, and he hasn't gotten

any better at this. Kennedy testified before the House Appropriations Committee in the morning. He defended Trump's health budget proposal. It would massively cut funding to the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, while granting Kennedy $500 million for his Make America Healthy Again initiative that focuses on promoting nutrition and healthy lifestyles. Where can former First Lady Michelle Obama go for her apology? House Democrats grilled Kennedy about his plan to overhaul HHS

by cutting 20,000 jobs and shuttering entire health agencies. They also pressed the secretary about a stance on vaccines amid the measles outbreak in the US. More than 1,000 cases have been confirmed and three people have died, according to the CDC. Here's Kennedy dodging a very simple question from Democratic representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin about the measles vaccine. This isn't a gotcha, I promise.

If you had a child today, would you vaccinate that child for measles? For measles? Probably for measles. What I would say is my opinions about vaccines are irrelevant. I've been saying I couldn't agree more. You are not a public health expert, but you are, unfortunately, the top public health official in the country. So your takes are actually very relevant, Bobby.

Kennedy continued the sidestep questions about the measles vaccine from lawmakers when he sat for the Senate's Health Committee in the afternoon. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut asked Kennedy point blank if he recommends it, to which the secretary said, If I advise you to swim in a lake, I knew there to be alligators. And wouldn't you want me to tell you there were alligators in it? Are measles the alligators in this scenario? Is the vaccine the lake? I don't get it. He later clarified.

Are you recommending the measles vaccine? I am not going to just tell people everything is safe and effective if I know that there's issues. For the record, the measles vaccine is 97% effective. And also, we are doomed. vaccine is 97% effective. And also, we are doomed. But some actually good news in public health. Imagine! Drug overdose deaths in the United States dropped significantly last year. On Wednesday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated 80,000 people died from overdoses in 2024. That's down about 30,000, or nearly 27% from the year before. Every state, except for Nevada and South Dakota,

reported declines from December 2023 to December 2024. Still, drug overdoses remain the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 44. But the CDC says overdose deaths have steadily declined each month since late 2023. While more research needs to be conducted, experts say possible factors that led to the decrease include better access to addiction treatment and the overdose-reversing drug naloxone. Secretary Kennedy, by the way, wants to slash funding for naloxone distribution.

Experts say that this drop is why funding for federal health agencies and grant recipients is so important. Hi, I'm John Ewing. You're new. You're new. You're new. You're new.

You're new. Omaha, Nebraska has elected its first black mayor, John Ewing Jr. Jean Stafford, who served three terms and was the city's first black mayor, John Ewing Jr. Jean Stothert, who served three terms and was the city's first female mayor, conceded Tuesday night to Ewing in a mayoral race of firsts. The Omaha mayor's office is nonpartisan, but their political leanings weren't exactly a secret.

The race focused mainly on local everyday issues. Ewing, longtime county treasurer, zeroed in on things like affordable housing and hiring more police officers. Towards the end of the campaign, though, Ewing's and Stothert's critiques of one another became a little more divisive. Her campaign ran an ad that said, quote, Ewing stands with radicals who want to allow boys

in girls' sports. The Nebraska Democratic Party summed up the rift with a tweet that said, quote, Gene is focused on potties. John is focused on fixing potholes. Ewing said in his victory speech Tuesday night that the city is embarking on a new chapter. Tonight we celebrate, but tomorrow the real work begins. Together, we'll build an Omaha that offers opportunity for the good life to everyone. Ewing is set to be sworn in next month. Left-wing political commentator and streamer Hassan Piker said this week that immigration

authorities questioned him about his political beliefs. Piker, a Turkish-American who was born in the US, said customs and border protection stopped him at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport Sunday upon his return to the country from a trip overseas. He says agents took him to, quote, a detention area and questioned him for two hours about his views on topics including Hamas, the Houthi rebels,

and the Trump administration. Piker is a vocal critic of the president with an audience of about 4.5 million followers on YouTube and Twitch combined. He also often speaks out against Israel's war on Gaza. Piker joined Pod Save America this week to talk about his experience. I instantly knew that, you know, my worst fears were happening. The Department of Homeland Security denies Piker was targeted because of his You know, my worst fears were happening. The Department of Homeland Security denies Piker was targeted because of his political views.

But Piker says the questions he was asked tell a different story. It wasn't just like questioning me about my beliefs about the Houthis, it was very specific questioning in regards to my commentary where they were like, do you believe they're a resistance group? Piker also said an agent provided him with instructions regards to my commentary where they were like, do you believe they're a resistance group?

Piker also said an agent provided him with instructions on how to avoid being detained in the future after questioning him. Considering that the entire interrogation revolved around protected speech and my opinions, I felt a little weird about that. Like, what do you mean? If I don't want to be stopped again,

I just, I guess have to never talk about my opinions on Trump or, or, or any number of different, any number of different militancies in the region from an academic context. Like it's ridiculous, right? You can listen to Piker's full conversation with John Favreau on Pod Save America. And that's the news. Before we go, let's look across the pond. This week on Pod Save the UK, hosts Nish Kumar and Coco Kahn break down the underwhelming

UK-US trade deal, limited in scope and somehow leaving the UK in a worse spot than it was four months ago. Plus, we talk a lot about immigration in the US, but what's going on with the UK's latest immigration clampdowns? Tune into this episode of Pod Save the UK now wherever you get your podcasts or on YouTube. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, relax with the helpful advice of New York City Mayor Eric Adams, and tell your friends to listen. And if you're into reading and not just about how he had a great suggestion as to how New Yorkers could spend their time. What A Day is also a nightly newsletter.

Check it out and subscribe at Crooked.com slash subscribe. I'm Jane Coaston and I have nothing to add to that. What a Day is a production of Crooked Media. It's recorded and mixed by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producers are Raven Yamamoto and Emily Four. Our producer is Michelle Alloy. We had production help today from Johanna Case, Joseph Dutra, Greg Walters, and Julia Clare. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison, and our executive producer is Adrian Hill. Our theme music is by Colin Gileard and Kashaka.

Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.