CBS Information chief authorized correspondent Jan Crawford delivered one other stand out section throughout Thursday’s version of CBS Mornings. Whereas highlighting how the U.S. Supreme Court docket was set to listen to uncommon Could oral arguments, in a case that challenged the circuit courts’ potential to concern nationwide injunctions exterior their districts, Crawford appeared to recommend that the argument did have advantage since presidents from throughout the aisle had related gripes in regards to the course of.
Whereas the case that introduced the arguments to SCOTUS have been relating to President Trump’s efforts to finish birthright citizenship, CBS anchor Tony Dokoupil famous that the ruling may have a extra profound influence on the implementation of nationwide coverage:
DUKOUPIL: To different information, the Supreme Court docket hears arguments this morning on a serious nationwide query, the query of whether or not a single decide can decide that applies to the complete nation. The small print of the case contain President Trump’s govt order to limit which kids born within the U.S. will be U.S. Residents. Also called birthright citizenship. Crawford is on the Supreme Court docket for us watching all of it. Jan, good morning. What’s at stake right here?
CRAWFORD: Properly, good morning. So, the Trump administration is saying that one federal decide cannot dictate nationwide coverage for everybody, whereas opponents say the choice can be authorized chaos.
Crawford spoke with Juan Proano, the CEO for LULAC, who feared the tip of nationwide injunctions:
CRAWFORD: What’s your concern if the courtroom says no nationwide injunctions?
PROANO: Properly then, you are going to have lawsuits filed in each single state. It is going to tie up the courts and people might lose their protections underneath the Structure if that occurs.
However not so quick.
She then identified that Democratic presidents hated nationwide injunctions, very similar to Trump. “The Obama and Biden administrations opposed nationwide injunctions arguing judges in conservative states like Texas, the place opponents selected to file lawsuits, have been dictating nationwide coverage,” she mentioned, quipping, “Now, the shoe is on the opposite foot.”
Crawford even appeared to trace that the injunctions in opposition to Trump’s polices have been politically motivated and getting worse.
“A CBS information evaluation of greater than 300 lawsuits filed in opposition to the Trump administration discovered that exterior of Washington, D.C., probably the most are in liberal Massachusetts, adopted by Maryland, California, and New York,” she said. “Now, the usage of these sweeping injunctions has been rising considerably in recent times. There have been 39 of them to date blocking President Trump’s insurance policies in his second time period.”
Truly sitting down with a Republican to get their facet of the argument, Crawford spoke with West Virginia Lawyer Common John McCuskey, who warned that the notion of politically motivated injunctions harmed the American judicial system.
“Individuals start to have a look at circuit judges as an extension of the political course of. And that’s essentially disastrous for the best way that the general public views the impartiality and the facility of our courtroom system,” he asserted. “As a result of the courtroom is nothing if it would not have its integrity.”
The transcript is beneath. Click on “develop” to learn:
CBS Mornings
Could 15, 2025
7:12:42 a.m. JapTONY DUKOUPIL: To different information, the Supreme Court docket hears arguments this morning on a serious nationwide query, the query of whether or not a single decide can decide that applies to the complete nation. The small print of the case contain President Trump’s govt order to limit which kids born within the U.S. will be U.S. Residents. Also called birthright citizenship. Crawford is on the Supreme Court docket for us watching all of it.
Jan, good morning. What’s at stake right here?
JAN CRAWFORD: Properly, good morning.
So, the Trump administration is saying that one federal decide cannot dictate nationwide coverage for everybody, whereas opponents say the choice can be authorized chaos. Now, we talked to an undocumented pregnant lady. She’s in search of asylum. She requested us to not present her face.
[Cuts to video]
This anticipating mom says she goals of her child woman being born an American citizen. She worries with out birthright citizenship her child may very well be deported again to Guatemala together with her if she’s pressured to go away, the place they each can be unsafe.
However judges throughout the nation are rejecting President Trump’s efforts to finish computerized birthright citizenship, three of these judges making use of their rulings nationwide. President Trump has blasted these choices calling on the Supreme Court docket to behave. Juan Proano, head of the nation’s largest Hispanic civil rights group, disagrees.
What’s your concern if the courtroom says no nationwide injunctions?
JUAN PROANO (CEO, LULAC): Properly then, you are going to have lawsuits filed in each single state. It is going to tie up the courts and people might lose their protections underneath the Structure if that occurs.
CRAWFORD: The Obama and Biden administrations opposed nationwide injunctions arguing judges in conservative states like Texas, the place opponents selected to file lawsuits, have been dictating nationwide coverage. Now, the shoe is on the opposite foot.
A CBS information evaluation of greater than 300 lawsuits filed in opposition to the Trump administration discovered that exterior of Washington, D.C., probably the most are in liberal Massachusetts, adopted by Maryland, California, and New York. West Virginia Lawyer Common J.B. McCuskey says that reveals why it is an issue when these rulings apply nationwide.
JOHN MCCUSKEY (West Virginia AG): Individuals start to have a look at circuit judges as an extension of the political course of. And that’s essentially disastrous for the best way that the general public views the impartiality and the facility of our courtroom system.
CRAWFORD: Disastrous. Why?
MCCUSKEY: As a result of the courtroom is nothing if it would not have its integrity.
[Cuts back to live]
CRAWFORD: Now, the usage of these sweeping injunctions has been rising considerably in recent times. There have been 39 of them to date blocking President Trump’s insurance policies in his second time period. Tony.
DOKOUPIL: All proper, Jan. Thanks very a lot, admire it.
