[MUSIC]
The Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship for Americans. >> A majority rejected a campaign finance restriction. >> And the Court upheld a ban on transgender students in girl's sports.
>> I'm Michelle Martin with Steve Innskipe and this is a special episode of Up First From In Pyrenees.
[MUSIC] >> The court rejected President Trump's bid to deny citizenship to some children born in the U.S. The President had personally attended arguments in trying to overturn the language of the Constitution. >> Republicans won a different case that lets the party spend money and coordination with individual candidates. And the court combined two cases on transgender athletes.
States may require students to play on boys or girls' teams based on biological sex.
“>> What are the decisions revealed about the court and the country?”
Stay with us. We've got analysis of today's rules. [MUSIC] >> This is our class. On this American life, when they mean like, it's a good mystery.
Sometimes about really big things, but most times, the little mysteries are the best. >> Our lost and found is currently filled with pants.
I don't know what I've never seen this happen.
>> This is true. >> This is true. >> Mysteries of every size each week, this American life. Wherever you get your podcasts. [MUSIC]
“>> There have been some fantastic movies released this year, and we know you can't see them all.”
So we're recommending some great films that might have flown under the radar, add to your watch list. Listen to pop culture happy hour by at the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. [MUSIC] >> The Supreme Court has issued the final decisions of this term. The court ruled that President Trump's executive order trying to limit automatic citizenship
to babies born in the U.S. is unconstitutional. The court also struck down limits on how much political parties can raise and spend on candidates. And it lets states ban transgender girls from participating in sports at publicly-funded schools. Joining us to talk about today's decisions are NPR Supreme Court and Justice correspondent Kerry Johnson, legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg, and senior national political correspondent
Maraliason. Nina, I'm going to go to you first. Let's start with a birthright citizenship decision, eagerly awaited decision by all parties. What struck you about the decision? >> It wasn't a surprise that the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's executive order
that would have denied citizenship to babies born in the United States, who are here. Whose parents were here illegally or illegally on visas. Every judge up until today who had ruled
on it had struck down his executive order, and it never as a result went into effect.
But today, by a six to three vote, the court reached the same conclusion that the citizenship clause covers babies born in the United States and guarantees them automatic citizenship. And the author of the opinion, of course, was the Chief Justice John Roberts. And it was very interesting his delivering the summary of his opinion, because he went out of his way trying not to antagonize President Trump by saying that much of what this
administration argued in the court was the same thing. However, at the core at the end, he said dating back to British citizenship, which was guaranteed to American colonists. And that's where they got the idea that everybody born in the US should be American citizens. That from the founding of the 14th Amendment, and dating back even to the ideas of the 1700s, means that anyone born on US soil is guaranteed US citizenship.
“You know, what do you make of the fact that the justices were split on this ruling?”
Given, as you said, that every lower court has ruled in this way, that the fact that the court was split at this level, what does that say to you? It tells you just how conservative this court is. You could even say in some ways that this was a five to four ruling, because Justice Kavanaugh did not sign on to the Chief Justice's opinion.
He said, look, Congress legislated this in the 1950s, so it legislated the same thing. So I agree that children born on US soil are automatic US citizens. But he didn't sign on to his reasoning about what the founders intended in the Constitution. Just briefly though, Nina, you were in court today when the opinions were read. Could you just describe what that was like? You were telling us that in earlier decision day, there were some sort of unusual
tension manifest among the judges. So what was it like today?
You know, there was at least a one descent from the bench, but it was not lik...
It was much more normal, and it is the last day of the term for all practical purposes.
And therefore, everybody is just ready to flee all the justices are ready to flee. They've been working their tails off part of the expression for the last two or three months to get everything done. And it's been a very, very contentious term. And you don't have to be a genius to know that these folks don't particularly get along. But they got along enough to get to the end of the term and get it done by the end of June.
And this was a comery court today, getting ready to leave town, I would say. We're listening to NPR's Nina Tottenberg at the Supreme Court. And Nina, when you say the phrase working their tails off, I immediately think of Nina Tottenberg working all those years at the Supreme Court. NPR's Kerry Johnson is also covering this case.
She is here in studio 31, or I should say, covering this day of rulings, Kerry, because
we have these separate rulings on the issue of transgender kids in sports. What's the decision? This was a decision in a combination of cases, one from West Virginia, another from Idaho, with respected trans students participation in women and girl sports at high school level in the college level, just as Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion in this set of cases.
He said schools that receive federal funding for education programs can determine eligibility for women and girl sports teams based on biological sex.
“That's important because about half the states have enacted bands that would not allow”
trans girls and women to participate in these sports, the Supreme Court majority led by Brett Kavanaugh now says those bands are totally fine. They can stay in effect. At issue two separate laws, Title IX, which is an important law that governs federal funding for education programs and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Can I just add one thing? Go right in. Sitting in the Justice's Box today were Justice Kavanaugh's wife, his mother and his two teenage girls, and he has been their coach in various sports for years, and he's a big sports enthusiast, so it was no accident that he talked so passionately about what sports
do for young women and what Title IX did for young women and stressing his argument that it is only because of concerns about safety and undo influence on competitiveness that he and the court reach this decision. Kerry Johnson, Nina, makes a point there that reminds me that opinions on this are not split on straight partisan lines. There are lots of people who would consider themselves liberals
who had a problem with trans girls and sports. It's a complicated issue in terms of the culture wars and the Trump administration and the Mugh movement have really been on the offense on several of these culture war issues involving trans students and adults for that matter. Kerry, let me ask you about another consequential decision reached this morning that loosened
campaign finance restrictions, so it briefly tells us about this decision and what impact could that have on political campaigns with several primaries left and the midterm elections in November?
“Yeah, this is another important decision considered to be a very big victory for the Republican”
National Committee, which had pushed quite hard to get rid of limitations on coordination with candidates and spending for advertising dollars, something that our colleague Mar-alice and says the RNC could put into effect within the hour important because it continues
this trend of the conservative Supreme Court viewing these issues on the lens of the first
amendment that this is free speech, that this money counts as free speech, dating all the way back to citizen United and in fact former Senator Russ Findhold of Wisconsin, a Democrat who, if you've been around long enough to know, he passed an important campaign finance law which John McCain back in the day said, this is the latest in a series of bad decisions by the Supreme Court that's flooded the political system with unprecedented amounts of
money, leading to potential corruption in the idea that billionaires can buy politicians. I'm glad you mentioned NPR as Mar-alice and because she is on the line with us to analyze the politics of this a little bit. And Mar-alice, let's talk about that birthright decision, huge but not surprising defeat for President Trump.
How is he likely to take this?
“I think we're waiting for an angry truth-social post at the moment, but I think he'll”
say that he's going to continue to fight for this. I think that that's the message he wants to send to his MAGA base.
Remember this was his first executive order, the very first one that he did o...
day in office.
So he'll keep on pushing for this.
“And for the moment, you could argue that it was a political win for him in another way”
because he doesn't have to deal with the chaotic consequences of getting rid of birthright citizenship right before an election. Interesting point, and so there's not the blowback, and he gets the message. He gets the message. He gets the messaging that he wants to the people who support that message.
Let me ask now about the campaign finance case. The president has responded to this one, quote, "Big win for Republicans." And I, and it's been hard to disagree with him on that one. "Big win for Republicans, Republicans have a lot more money. This makes it easier for them to spend it.
They don't have to use the old rules of no coordinating with candidates. They also are going to get lower rates to buy political ads on television." I guess this hurts somebody who owns a local TV station. But yeah, it's very much in concert with other things that this court has done around campaign finance. They believe that money is speech, and so that wasn't much of a surprise.
“I think in all, when you look at the whole term, and I'd be interested to see what Nina thinks”
about this, it was a pretty successful term for him. Executive power got expanded, and that is what he's been pushing for. This is a court that believes in the unitary executive. They got rid of Humphrey's executive, which means that he can fire people without cause who are in heads of federal agencies.
They haven't ruled yet about the Fed. They seem to think that's a kind of special case. But that's the deal. "They held it off for now. Let me just bring in Nina Tottenberg.
Nina, how would you assess this term if it was asking how it looks for President Trump?" I would say that with the exception of birthright and the tariff case, this was a gonzo term for Trump.
He won most of everything he wanted, even on tariffs, as everybody always knew there
are some ways around it, even though some of those may be limited, and when it comes to birthright, Morris Wright, and everything else pretty much that he wanted, he got, and this is a court that by a six to three majority is devoted to the idea of executive power, and it has strengthened it over and over and over again. You're listening to a special bonus episode of Up First From NPR News to make sense of the Supreme
Court's Blackbuster rulings. When we come back, we'll bring someone who's been keeping a close eye on all the Supreme Court cases we've been talking about, that's Kim Waley, Chiefs Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law. You're listening to a special episode of Up First From NPR News to make sense of the Supreme
Court's Blackbuster rulings. We're going to turn now to my conversation with Kim Waley. She is Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law. She teaches constitutional law there. Let's start with that birthright citizenship decision, the Supreme Court ruled it virtually
all children born in this country are entitled to birthright citizenship. How much of a, I don't know what word to use, review 'cause this, to President Trump. Well, you know, in listening to restate the holding, it's ironic because you just restated the text of the 14th Amendment, which says all persons born. So this is the kind of decision that they could have just pointed to the Constitution and
said, there's really not a job for the Supreme Court here. You just read the text where textualists, as the majority likes to say. And here we have a five-four ruling, or if you count Justice Cavana's, concurrent six-four, six-three on a debate around the plain language of the Constitution itself.
“So I think the fact that this has become a challenged issue and a debate in the country”
in a way is a win for people in the Trump camp that want to see this historic constitutional right dismantled. I was going to ask you about that, what you make of the split decision, and also the fact that as you just heard our colleague, Nina Tottenberg say that the court seemed to be going or rather just as Chief Justice Roberts, seemed to be going out of his way to not directly
challenge or abuse or disagree with the president. It's sort of skirted, what is the key sort of simple constitutional question. And I'm just curious what you make of that. Yeah, I mean, I think Justice Cavana is almost an invitation in his concurrence, speaking of him in particular, for Congress to come back and try to tinker with the law that followed
up on the 14th Amendment and to create more exceptions. I think that was sort of a hint. Listen, bring it back to us with different legislation and we'll see if we can take a
second whack at the 14th Amendment.
I mean, but the Chief Justice did was go back to the common law and said, this is what King's did in England, and it was adopted here, and there really wasn't any ambiguity. Again, these are -- this majority relies on text and relies also on history and tradition.
I've seen that with abortion, we've seen that with gun rights, and so he kind...
that safe avenue and says, listen, this is historical as it comes, and Justice Thomas,
and is dissent, basically relies on the dreads Scott case and says, "No, this is really
about, you know, formally enslaved people in the 14th Amendment."
“And I think somewhat -- ironically, maybe Justice Jackson and her concurrence says, "Wait a”
minute, you're the ones that are saying the Constitution's colorblind when it comes to affirmative action and things like that, but not when it comes to the 14th Amendment." So you can see the debate amongst the Justice's or really frustration with each other. But I think, frankly, the majority and Justice Jackson are solidly on firm grounds with reading the languages, the language, the text states.
Any sense of why they waited until the very last day of the term to issue this ruling? Well, I have to think, and I've thought this for a long time, that this Court is worried probably about -- or some of them, the President of the United States saying, "One day,
listen, this is a fake court."
You know, he has violated lots of statutes, he's rebuked or just ignored hundreds of lower court decisions, and that, one day, they're own authority, which they don't have a standing army. They don't have a police force. You know, they have Marbier vs. Madison saying that they have the authority to interpret
the Constitution.
“So I think they have to be very sensitive to the legitimacy of the Court itself with this”
particular president, so maybe waiting to the end where there's not as much court-watching and discussion of the Supreme Court. It's hard to know. But it's almost like, you know, announcing news on a Friday, it's going to die. So, faster.
Let's turn to another case, decided to say the Court ruled it's -- this is actually two cases that were up before the Court, and it's sort of one rolled into sort of one decision. The Court ruled it's state's may-band, transgender girls, and women, from participating in sports at public-funded schools, attended to high schools, and colleges. What's your take on this?
It doesn't seem like it was a surprise to people watching the Court, but I am curious about your take on it. Yeah, this was not that much of a surprise. There was some -- there's been waffling with this court on how to define sex when it comes to transgender people, and under Title VII, which is about discrimination and employment,
Justice Gorsuch, author of an opinion, a while back, saying that sex does include transgender. Here you're talking about money authorized for sports, and Justice Cavanon's majority says, "For purposes of this statute, Title IX, funding, sex being sex, the whole point of this statute dates back to the 1970s, when the disparity in girls and boy sports was major," and this was -- this was designed to equalize that biological sex fairness.
And you know, listen, even the plaintiff didn't dispute that. They wanted a car about for certain kinds of transgender kids, and essentially they're saying, you know, that's just -- that's too granular. This is pretty straight up straightforward. And another decision that was not a surprise was the Court struck down limits on how much
political parties can raise and spend on candidates. So overall, the birthright citizenship decision is just one of a few with a court ruled against Trump. And there was also the decision striking down President Trump's tariff program. Overall, how would you view this term when it comes to how this court connected with
the President's agenda?
“Yeah, I think it's -- because of the birthright citizenship case and even the tariff case,”
which, again, shouldn't have been a really difficult decision. And they ended up, you know, with a split court. I think we have to be careful in suggesting that these are serious strikes against the Trump administration. I mean, basically declaring the Congress having acted unconstitutionally for nearly 100 years
in creating agencies that constrained the President's ability to fire some people. That's a really, really big deal. And also with this campaign finance, which I know listeners are probably, you know, a little glazed over, trying to understand it. I'm going to read from Justice Kagan's dissent.
The majority invalidates Congress's restriction of coordinated expenditures and enables parties to serve as an alternative checking account.
So what she says is, a donor will be able to give now as much as a half a million dollars
to cover a candidate's bill when before that, before that it was only $7,000. So we're going to see, basically, potential according to her quid pro quo. I'll give you money. If you vote my way, that kind of action through parties instead of through candidates. And she says, listen, there's nothing in the first amendment that bans us at all.
This is almost the use of the first amendment to green light this kind of mas...
of money in politics, where, you know, big donors choose their politicians and choose their
policy. It's inherently anti-democratic. That's Kim Waley.
“She's a professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law.”
Professor Waley, thank you so much for joining us once again. Great to be with you.
You've been listening to a special edition of Up First, from NTR News.
This edition of Up First was produced by Ana Perez, Nli Carros, and Milton Gimara. We get engineering support from Zach Coleman and Damien Harring. Our deputy executive producer is Kelly Dickens. Our executive producer is Jay Shaylor.
“Recently, cyber security researchers discovered a striking computer virus.”
We really related to the conflict between the US and Iran over Iran's nuclear program.
Everything about this thing screams special. A cunning cyber weapon meant to gaslight nuclear scientists, listen to plenty of money on the NPR app or wherever to get your podcasts. Hi, it's me Peter Segal, hosted a way away, don't tell me it's summer and if you want to turn your pool party into a nerd fest, check out our news quiz.
“We've got comedians, we've got celebrities, we've got games to help you laugh about the”
week's news. Yeah, that news. It'll be just like we're all hanging out at your backyard barbecue. Listen every week to wait wait don't tell me on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. For three weeks in 2020, part of my Seattle neighborhood was taken over by a protest
occupation. We were here to protest police brutality, but it ended in tragedy. The whole space felt darker and angrier. Join me as I investigate the unsolved killing of 16-year-old Antonio May's junior. Listen to we keep us safe on the embedded podcast from NPR.
This week on sources and methods six prime ministers in 10 years. Since Brexit, the UK has been trapped in a revolving door of political turmoil. We're unpacking with the Exit of Prime Minister Kyrstermer says about the populist movement that pulled Britain away from Europe. Listen now to sources and methods on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.
