the trump administration had been frustrated and felt like they were getting blocked with something nationwide every week and have a presser in 30 minutes. >> dana: got this in from jd vance, the vice president of the united states posting this. a huge ruling by the supreme court smacking down the ridiculous process of nationwide injunctions under our system everyone has to follow the law including judges with an exclamation point. that was a consequential day and good to have you with us all week. much more to come. the president's press conference starting in just half an hour from now. harris faulkner will set you up for that. here she is. >> harris: breaking news, the president is expected to hold a news conference within minutes from now reacting to the u.s. supreme court just handing the trump administration a big victory. the court ruled to limit the use of a nationwide injunction that temporarily had blocked president trump's executive order ending birthright

citizenship. but it is wider in its implications than just that topic. a post from president trump. giant win in the united states supreme court. news conference at the white house 11:30 a.m. eastern. we'll bring you that from the president when it happens. there is big news on this friday that major victory from the u.s. supreme court in favor of president trump for all the lawfare via judges in different states trying to cut the president's power. this is a blow to them. this is that bigger implication of what went before the court. we will get into it moments from now. right now the u.s. senate is under pressure and will workday and night through the weekend to pass president trump's big, beautiful bill. the goal is to get it back to the house by monday and then to get it to him before july 4th. this is a pressure cooker now. what is in the bill is key for

the president delivering his vision to american voters. i'm harris faulkner and you are in "the faulkner focus." the president is quite clear about what is at stake for this bill. >> president trump: this is the ultimate codfication of our agenda to very simply, a phrase used pretty well by me over the last ten years but maybe even before that, make america great again. we'll deliver a record tax cut, a record spending cut, a record investment in border security. the day i sign this bill into law most every major promise made in the 2024 campaign already will have become a promise kept. >> harris: republican senator john kennedy is coming up. let's begin with senior congressional correspondent chad pergram on capitol hill. >> good morning. republicans insist they can wrap this up soon but they don't have a finalized bill. everything is frozen until they update the text. >> i think we'll come out with

something this weekend that we can pass in the senate floor, get to the house, house will pass it and president will be able to sign it on july 4th or before. i believe it will be ceremonial he signs it on july 4th. kind of a neat thing. >> scott bessent meets with gop senators for lunch today. they're reluctant to vote yes on the bill. it is not complete. the house will give members 48 hours to come back to washington once the senate votes. >> we would still like to meet that july 4th self-imposed deadline. the president likes that idea. i certainly like that idea and so does leader thune. we're in a wait and see posture in the house and we'll see what happens. >> house conservatives are jumping mad at the senate. they believe the senate would make the bill better. instead they suspect the bill may be worse. they don't think their senate colleagues held up their end of the bargain. >> we passed the bill that was

big and a little cute. they are passing a bill now big a really ugly. the majority leader in the senate, thune. needs to honor his commitment that he made to us and to the speaker to honor our framework in the house for dollar for dollar spending cuts to go with the tax cuts. we're for tax cuts but need the spending cuts so we can actually deliver. >> house republicans may balk at the senate bill. they don't like getting jammed by the senate with a take it or leave it proposition. the senate could vote by monday morning. harris. >> harris: all right. we have senator john kennedy of the great state of louisiana now. chad, thank you for the report. senator, what does this weekend really entail? maybe one or two sticking points that you think you can iron out. >> well, here is where we i think we are, harris. look, i believe in teamwork.

it gives you somebody to blame. but at some point, you have to make a decision. now, our quarterbacks are john thune and mike -- they are rock stars trying to make everybody happy. it can't be done. we have cussed and discussed and rediscussed. we need to start voting. everybody needs to adult real hard and the jackassry has to stop. i have encouraged john and mike to tell everyone look, we'll start voting tomorrow at noon. if you are not happy, offer an amendment. we'll have a full amendment process. but here is the bottom line. in any legislation of this magnitude, some people are just

going to have to settle for ham and egg sandwich without the ham. that's just the nature of the beast. and i think that if you put everybody to the test and say look, this is why god made votes. it's time, vote, i think the bill will pass. >> harris: you gave us key information about that vote tomorrow and if that doesn't pass in the senate, then you will go back and make some amendments. this is something that i've been talking with republican house members about, particularly mike law lair in new york city who wants a salt deduction cap to be raised. it has become a point of contention getting this bill across the finish line and onto the president's desk. i talked with lawlor last week on the "focus." here is a bit of that. >> the 10,000 cap is not something that i can support. i've been very clear from the moment that i ran for congress that i would never support a tax bill that doesn't adequately

lift the cap on salt. >> harris: senator, where are you on this one? if it goes back to the house, congressman lawlor told me, you need 218. he won't be part of that. they will fall short in the house. >> well, i love congressman lawlor. i respect congressman lawlor, but he and about four of his colleagues are demanding that the american people spend over $300 billion -- not million, $300 billion to make them happy. and that is unacceptable. if the congressman wants to vote against the bill, have at it. but it is time to vote. i think the change -- i wouldn't make any changes to the salt provisions. i wouldn't. if you are unhappy with that, vote against it or fill out a hurt feelings report.

but it is time to vote. >> harris: oh my. state and local taxes that blue states. only five of them, five members who represent those blue states who were pushing for this. >> it's -- they want us to spend over $300 billion to make them happy. and they say they will vote no if we don't. i say let's don't do it and if they want to vote for the largest tax increase in american history, they've got to do what they've got to do but they better be prepared for the consequences. >> harris: you have a long weekend ahead of you. the goal of monday, we'll cover every second of it at noon tomorrow, noon on saturday. >> i'm not saying we will. i've asked john and mike to set a deadline of noon tomorrow. i hope they will take my advice. >> harris: got it. okay. thank you for clearing that.

senator, i want to ask you about the u.s. supreme court decision. it is big and just happened moments ago. the court ruled to limit the use of the nationwide injunction that temporarily blocked president trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. it sets the stage for more action on all of those nationwide injunctions against the president's agenda so far. this is bigger implications than just that one topic of birthright citizenship. your reaction to this. >> the supreme court has turned the universal injunctions into fish food as well it should have. there is no basis in statute, basis in supreme court precedent or in english common law for universal injunctions. judges who just dislike what congress and a president -- any president has done just made

them up. and good rid. it is a very extensive ruling. you can tell it from justice jackson's dissent. she is mad as a bag of cats and that's probably a good thing for the american people. >> harris: we are expecting to hear from the president moments from now at 11:30 a.m. eastern. he has put on truth social it is a victory. he says that the united states supreme court, even the birthright citizenship hoax has been indirectly hit hard. it had to do with the babies of slaves, same year, not the scamming of our immigration process. congratulations to attorney general pam bondi, and the solicitor general and entire doj. news conference at 11:30 eastern at the white house. what are you expecting and what would you like to hear from the president? >> number one, the supreme court

did not rule on birthright citizenship. the supreme court ruled on universal injunctions. they turned universal injunctions into fish food. they should have. we have three equal branches of government. one of those is the judicial system. they are equal, not superior. they don't get to rewrite congressional actions or presidential actions every other thursday because they don't agree with them. that's not the way our founders intended it and i'm proud of the supreme court today. >> harris: let me ask you about those judges across the country and how it would seem -- they would have to defend against this because it certainly appears in many instances that this is continuing to be lawfare against the current president and it is not supposed to be that way. the scales of justice are not supposed to tip politically one

way or the other. why do you think we're saying what we're seeing against trump? >> both sides have abused it. universal injunctions. the democrats more than the republicans. but both sides have abused it. and it is illegal. there is no basis for it-in-law. and i just have been waiting for the supreme court to do this. anybody who knows a law book from an l.l. bean catalog knows that federal judges just made up this concept of universal injunctions. there is no basis in statute. no basis in supreme court precedent. there is no basis in english common law. they just made it up because they don't agree with what a president or congress has done. you know, if they disagree, i'm sorry. fill out a hurt feelings report. buy a comfort rock. they can't just say i disagree

and i'm putting the entire action by another branch of government on hold because i don't like it. that's what they've been doing and they are not the superior branch of government. they are an equal branch of government. >> harris: they are subverting the power and will of the people, which is a complicated matter with a president who won the popular vote and all of the battleground states just last november. america made a decision and i don't believe -- you sit on the judiciary committee -- i don't believe that anyone has the right to take that apart. >> well look, congress makes mistakes, presidents make mistakes. there is nothing wrong with a federal judge saying i think you got this one wrong. but the federal judge can do that and render a judgment on the parties in his or her court. the federal judge can't do it for the entire nation.

that's what they've been doing. they've been acting like politicians in robes, like mini legislators. and the constitution does not give them that power. >> harris: before i let you go, in terms of the president's agenda, his vision, i know we talked already about the big, beautiful bill. there are things that he is trying to do right now that answer the call put out there by all of the illegal immigration that flowed unvetted, those aliens into this country, all during ex-president biden's term. he is trying to do things not only to cull that but also to set into place that you send the worst back first. will this help that course? >> yes, yes. and look, in 100 plus days, president trump has secured the border, now we're trying to figure out what criminals, what drug dealers, what human

traffickers president biden and my democratic friends who believe in open borders let into our country. and we're trying to get them out. that takes more money. that's why we are passing this reconciliation bill. but i consider it one of the president's biggest accomplishments. the other thing that's coming down the pike, the president has sent us what is called a rescission package, harris, 9.7 -- yes, $9.7 billion of spending porn that congress has previously passed that he is asking us to throw out. we need to pass that. that includes money for public television. i don't hate public television. i just don't think the american taxpayer ought to subsidize any form of the media, not fox, not cnn, not "the new york times" and not the corporation for public broadcasting. i don't think that's how taxpayers want their dollars

spent and congress needs to pass that, too. the house already has. now the senate has got to take it up next and shame on us if we don't pass the president's request. >> harris: that's a lot of money, 9.7 billion as you called it spending porn. all those things that you say yeah, we can cut on that and that's also in the pipeline here. i appreciate so much your time. we are leading up with the breaking news, senator and it is also wonderful to have you in "focus" and get your perspective. all right. let's look at the white house live now as we await president trump very soon on this huge u.s. supreme court decision that will have major implications for his agenda moving forward. you just heard this from senator and other significant rulings before the justices wrap up their session. chief legal correspondent shannon bream and constitutional law attorney jonathan turley next.

(fisher investments) at fisher investments, we may look like other money managers, but we're different. (other money manager) how so? (fisher investments) we're a fiduciary, obligated to act in our clients' best interest. so we don't sell any commission-based products. (other money manager) then how do you make money? (fisher investments) we have a simple management fee, structured so we do better when our clients do better. (other money manager) your clients really come first then, huh? (fisher investments) yes. we make them a top priority, by getting to know their finances, family, health, lifestyle and more. (other money manager) wow, maybe we are different. (fisher investments) at fisher investments, we're clearly different.

it's time to feed the dogs real food in the right amount. a healthy weight can help dogs live a longer and happier life. the farmer's dog makes weight management easy with fresh food pre-portioned for your dog's needs. it's an idea whose time has come.

>> harris: we now have more than one major decision from the u.s. supreme court before it ends its term for the summer. the court has ruled 6-three to limit the use of a nationwide injunction that temporarily had blocked president trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. now it goes much far beyond that. we'll get into it. another key decision on this friday, the court has ruled in favor of religious parents having the power to opt their children out of reading storybooks that go against their faith. chief legal correspondent shannon bream. let's start with the big news right now with that nationwide injunction what i'm calling the injunction block. >> yeah. listen, it is one of those

decisions that is 6-three but so many concurrences and nuances to this we're trying to parse out exactly what it means here. a win for the white house in the respect of this case that came here on birthright citizenship. doesn't get to that issue but does say these judges have gone too far. there should be limits on them. that there are other ways if you are seeking broader relief you may have to go the class action route. much more difficult and not always certain a class will get certified. it will be much trickier for a district judge to issue an opinion to shut something down by president trump or anyone else. much tougher to do that. >> harris: this just coming in. let's jump to the next key decision today. education secretary linda mcmahon just posted the supreme court's ruleing is a major win for religious liberty and parental rights. the court rightfully held that schools can't shut parents out or disregard their religious

obligations to their children. a great day for parents and education champions. that's from the secretary of education. shannon. >> harris, another 6-three decision. parents trying to opt out of lessons with books in conflict with their religious faith. different faith backgrounds. said they wanted to opt out. the school district used to let them. so many people opted out the school district said it is too cumbersome. we can't do it. justice alito said these parents get a preliminary injunction. the board has to notify them in advance whenever any of these books if question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their kids be excused if they want. justice jackson said during the arguments why not go to a different school and private school or homeschool? that is not something available

to everyone. in the dissent from justice sotomayor exposure to new ideas has been a vital part of that project until now. she feels like kids should get exposed to things regardless of what their parents think. majority says no these parents have an option and can opt their kids out. i've never seen a supreme court opinion before with color in it. the first one i've ever seen. it has the storybooks and things in here so people can see for themselves what the books were that they were fighting about. >> harris: i was going to say sometimes i wonder, they need the art and all that material to be able to make a decision like this because that's what the children would see. so it is pretty spelled out for them. look you said something critical about this decision. you said that so many people had opted out of use of those books. i'm wondering how they even got to the point where they were ignored in the first place. >> uh-huh. those parents said listen, these are young kids. we aren't talking about high

school. this is elementary and little kids. they said these are conversations we want to have in our own timing and the context of our personal beliefs and religious faith. the school district said we'll let some of you opt out. it became so cumbersome the school said we can't do it. we have to find other things for these kids to do and places to go. the parents said if there are this many parents opting out maybe they aren't the right books for kids this age. >> harris: exactly. jonathan turley is sitting by, too. i will ask you both to stand by for a moment. i want to get to this quickly. immigration and customs enforcement agents in los angeles are still dealing with harassment trying to detain illegal immigrants. it comes after chaos unfolded during an anti-ice riot. all the rioting in l.a. earlier this month. william la jeunesse is in l.a. >> three weeks into this now the clashes in l.a. are continuing

as federal agents fan out across the city they are being followed and confronted and harassed by activists. during this border patrol operation, southeast of downtown, angry residents tried to intervene. agents arrest this guy for obstructing police as he and others yell and allegedly block the officers with their cars. another incident tuesday over reported kidnapping in progress which was actually an immigration operation as people gathered, lapd responds and holds the crowd back. activists accuse police of helping ice, which in a sanctuary city they can't. >> lapd officers, dozens of them there this morning on 9th and spring. they completely protected the ice operation that kidnapped our people. >> so where are we today? for every two immigrants apprehended, police are

arresting one protestor. yet fewer than 10% of them have been charged with a crime. one who was, this man, charged by the feds for aiding protestors by handing out face shields according to the charging documents to protect demonstrators from pepper spray and debris. >> on june 9th he drove his truck downtown with an unidentified woman to hand out large quantities of face shields to individuals who appeared to be engaged in violence and vandalism. >> a quick correction to a report we ran earlier this month about los angeles. we said the "new york post" reported this a group called operation healthy hearts gave face shields and riot gear to demonstrators in l.a. the post was referring to an unidentified organization. what we played was the unidentified group, not operation healthy hearts. >> harris: we are awaiting president trump and he has said

and posted that he will be speaking at 11:30 eastern so that's just in a couple of minutes coming up. it's about that decision from the u.s. supreme court on nationwide injunctions against him. jonathan turley, fox news contributor, george washington university law professor and constitutional law attorney now. tell us about this. i'm most curious, jonathan. it started with birthright citizenship but now we're someplace else. >> right. birthright citizenship will have to wait until a later decision that's going back down. the issue here is whether the court was correct in issuing a universal or national injunction. the court here says that the government is likely to prevail on that issue failing to see where the district courts get this authority at all. that led to a really uncommon exchange between justice barrett

and justice jackson. justice jackson's opinion, she goes into rather hyperbolic language that this is going to result in our collective demise and basically the fall of our institutions. justice barrett would have none of that and went after that dissent. basically suggesting that the danger to democracy is judicial supremacy and really sort of castigates jackson for that language. now many people will read this and think it is pretty timid or somewhat weak in comparison to the fights we have among family members but for a court it is the equivalent to a cage match. this is a very civil and courtly institution and we saw that now in a couple of opinions. there was a similar exchange with justice sotomayor and the majority over some of the language that she used in that

maryland educational case. >> harris: jonathan, how will this potentially curtail the influence, the power of individual district court judges that they seem to rather enjoy right now, so much to the tune it looks like lawfare against this president. >> well, the majority is very clear these district courts are well outside the navigational beacons in terms of their jurisdiction and authority. justice alito included a concurring opinion where he criticized the majority in not being clear enough. he is worried that these are highly motivated judges and they will use any nuance to try to achieve the same result. he said we really should have gone further and been quite clear on things like class action certification. the opinion itself is clear enough. the court here is pushing back on these judges and saying you need to stop this and you need to look at things like national

class actions. if you want to restrict things on a national basis, then make the parties establish that they are representing people nationally. >> harris: like a class action lawsuit is what you are talking about. it would require for them to work together, which would take them more time, i would imagine, and give the president more time for him to work out his agenda. look, there are at least 40 injunctions against president trump right now and his administration's push. what happens to those now with this ruling? >> well, all of those rulings now have to be re-examineed to some extent. it will be more difficult to get new such injunctions. keep in mind when a court issues a shot across the bow like this, which is considerable, it tends to speed up matters on the emergency docket as judges ignore these rather clear directions, not to issue these national injunctions, the trump administration is likely to find a more receptive court and quickly reversing those

decisions. so i think the trump administration has very good reason to celebrate. these district court judges have really tied down the administration. the thing to keep in mind is that this is not the first president to object to this. democratic presidents have objected as well. justice kagan during the obama administration said she was extremely uncomfortable with these injunctions but today she appears to have found her comfort zone in the trump administration. >> harris: interesting. you know, many of these injunctions that have been piling up that i have read at least have had to do with deportation, have had to do specifically with something that was so incredibly important to american voters last november when they elected president trump. a border crisis under former president joe biden. so trump has really stopped the flow and certainly unvetted flow completely to zero of people coming over we don't get our eyes and authorities involved in. as you look at that, that's

happening irrespective of these injunctions which from what you are detailing is rather remarkable we have gotten this far. >> it is. keep in mind when we watch president trump at the upcoming event, what was at stake was still his legacy. he went forward in a number of different ways to achieve the same results. what presidents have said is when individual judges do this, it takes us a couple years often to run the course and reverse these things. then we are in the second half of our term. we don't have time to fulfill our promises to voters. this doesn't make any sense. it is not workable. and here the supreme court is agreeing with the trump administration that these judges are well past their authority given to them and they need to cut back on these injunctions and focus on the parties in their immediate case in their immediate district. >> harris: jonathan, i want to

ask about the books case as i welcome into the conversation phil holloway. i will come to you first on that and phil, thank you for being with me and i'll come to you next. what implications wider than this children's books that could go against a family's faith. i was shocked it got to the supreme court. shannon bream reported how many people were against having those books for their kids. is there a wider look at what that really means across the country? >> this is enormously important. for many of us who have been waiting for an opinion about parental rights this gets us far along that road. the court came in on the side of these parents. these parents did an extraordinary task here in fighting off the school district in this case. but the case is important because the court is saying you can't just make parents and their kids your captive

audience. many of us were shocked when justice jackson in oral argument said just don't -- just take your kids out of school. a lot of parents don't have that option. they don't have the money to send kids to private school or they also don't want to send them to a school the under mines their religious and moral teachings. now they can opt out. it is an extraordinary victory for parental rights. >> harris: in my opinion it would take the entire nation agreeing on something we typically see in republican-led states and municipalities, school choice. they would have to then take and match some of the money which we've seen in a few red states, match that money so parents can use it. not everybody has the money to send their child to a special or private school. phil, i introduceed you and part of the conversation. my question is about the books. what about the topics itself. does it extend out if those

conflict with a parents's faith can they opt out of the conversation and not just the books? >> yeah, i think so. look, parents, harris, are in charge of their kids' education, not the schools. it is the parents that get to make parental decisions, not the government and certainly not the schools. what this does is it squarely reinforces this basic notion that seems like we've always known but in recent past it has become a clouded issue. schools are for the purpose of educating children so they can go out into the world with the skills that they need to be productive members of society. schools do not exist to politically indoctrinate children. schools do not exist to reinforce or to establish anything related to, you know, culture wars or the current culture consensus or views of

the day. it is an important ruling. the supreme court today has done a great service to american democracy, to our american way of life, to all things related to how courts work. on the injunction thing. courts are not supposed to substitute their judgment for that of the chief executive even if they weren'tly disagree with it. that's not their job. that's what these rogue judges have been doing. they have been supplementing or i guess implementing their will versus that of the president of the united states because they think that think they can conduct oversight. a great day. >> harris: it is garnering a pop-up news conference from the president of the united states and we're awaiting him. jonathan turley and phil holloway, thank you for joining the conversation. we keep you along with our white house reporter. we'll take and squeeze in a very short break. stay close.

>> harris: breaking news. we're looking live now at the white house press briefing room and while the secretary -- the press secretary normally would stand at that lectern, it will be the president of the united states moments from now.

he is taking a victory lap as well he should after two main decisions. there were supposed to be six today. there are two in particular, one that stands out that directly potentially affects almost immediately his ability to get the vision done that he promised voters last november when they voted him in for a second term. alexandria hoff is at the white house. >> as we await this press conference, it is interesting. you are looking at that room. this is something we wouldn't have necessarily seen under the biden administration, colleagues and myself we were just talking about. there likely would have been a statement put out something like this under former president biden. president trump will take this head on feeling i think he will express this great victory as he called it today. an end of judicial overreach. he has been rallying against this since the start of his second term. first term he is no stranger to this. he was hit with 64 in his first termination wide injunctions. the message from the white house

is going to be if this wasn't so one-sided towards president trump trying to upend his agenda or at least these rulings from these district courts effectively doing so that this may not have come to this point. what i think is interesting. i hope this question is raised during the briefing. i would be curious what the president has to say about this precedent being set. how will it impact a future where we might see a democrat president with an agenda that republicans don't like. does it set up a scenario they feel in the future the judiciary won't combat something a president would like to do. we get a lot of reaction to what the president says in a short time. not that long ago democrats were speaking on behalf of what trump will be talking about today which they felt back in may of 2023 that these nationwide injunctions by single u.s. district judges should not be having the nationwide impact

that they were. senator ron wyden in 2023 he with some colleagues got together and spoke out about judges having this kind of power. they were speaking in relation to a texas judge that had tried to block the fda in having the abortion drug on shelves. actually wrote down a quote from senator wyden a democrat at that time. no single judge should have this kind of power. i feel like this is a statement we won't hear from democrats today. it will be one that the president is going to speak about at the podium. >> harris: that was an excellent example that abortion pill and the fight over that and how much president trump could be stopped by these district court judges. it is not that they could eventually completely stopped him but they could delay him to the point where it would be the second half of his term. alexandria, they have done that before in the past, different courts and different presidents. one example that jonathan turley and phil holloway was under

president obama. so you do have to wonder if this isn't a type of lawfare. there are 40 of them. you mentioned the 64 first term. the president has learned a few things and has a different u.s. supreme court. >> yeah. when these arguments were being heard earlier this month potentially last month when the supreme court was hearing these arguments justice alito you have 680 judges around the country, noble, good judges but sometimes they might get it wrong. that's a lot of people to be deciding in their own individual districts what millions of americans will then feel. it is not always the judge shopping which, of course, is an issue. democrats called it an issue, republicans have called it an issue. sometimes people just get things wrong. a point on the other side that was made at the time with the oral arguments was that this could create complexities when it comes to birthright

citizenship. does a baby's future then if it all goes back to the district courts and none of these decisions are nationwide. does a baby's future depend on what hospital they're born at? >> harris: that's where we got started. jonathan turley explains this goes much farther than that and a ruling of that specifically may come at a later time. it is all affected no doubt by the decision that came today. alexandria hoff reporting from outside the white house. we'll come back as the news warrants. lara trump host of my view with lara trump. thank you for joining me. we were going to get together today anyway. now this news. i know that you have some -- the president of the united states has begun, lara, i will come to you after. let's watch. >> president trump: amazing decision, one we're very happy about. this morning the supreme court has delivered a monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law in striking down the exsive use of nationwide

injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch. really it's been an amazing period of time this last hour. people elated all over the country. i've seen such happiness in spirit. sometimes you don't see that. but this case is very important. i was elected on a historic mandate. in recent months we've seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president to stop the american people from getting the policies that they've voted for in record numbers. it was a grave threat to democracy. instead of ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation. in practice, this meant that if any one of the nearly 700 federal judges disagreed with a policy of a duly elected

president of the united states, he or she could block that policy from going into effect or at least delay it for many years, tie it up in the court system. this was a colossal abuse of power that never occurred in american history prior to recent decades. and we've been hit with more nationwide injunctions than were issued in the entire 20th century together. think of it. more than the entire 20th century, me. i'm grateful to the supreme court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem and they've made it very simple. i want to thank justice barrett, who wrote the opinion brilliantly as well as chief justice roberts and justices alito, gorsuch, kavanaugh and thomas, great people. thanks for this decision and thanks to this decision we can now promptly file to proceed

with policies wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis. some of the cases we're talking about would be ending birthright citizenship which now comes to the fore. that was meant for the babies of slaves, not meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on vacation. this was the same date, the exact same date the end of the civil war. it was meant for the babies of slaves and so clean and obvious. this lets us go there and finally win that case because hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship and it wasn't meant for that reason. it was meant for the babies of slaves. so thanks to this decision we can now promptly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis including birthright citizenship. ending sanctuary city funding. suspending refugee resettlement. freezing unnecessary funding.

stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the american people. we have so many of them. i have a whole list i won't bore you and i will have pam get up and say a few words. there is really. she can talk as long as she wants. this is a very important decision. a decision that covers a tremendous amount of territory. i want to just thank again the supreme court for this ruling. it is a giant, it is a giant. they should be very proud. our country should be very proud of the supreme court today. with that i would like you to listen to the words of pam bondi. an incredible attorney general. we're very proud of her and as you know todd blanch is with us and we have so many others that worked on this case and other cases. and i think they are doing a great job. pam, please say a few words. >> thank you, president trump.

thank you for fighting for all americans. americans are finally getting what they voted for, no longer will we have rogue judges striking down president trump's policies across the entire nation. no longer. today in the 6-three opinion barrett holds the district court lacks authority to enter nationwide or universal injunctions. these lawless injunctions gave relief to everyone in the world instead of the parties before the court. as the supreme court held today, they turned district courts into the imperial judiciary. activist liberal justices have used these injunctions to block virtually all of president trump's policies. to put this in perspective, there are 94 federal judicial districts. five of those districts

throughout this country held 35 of the nationwide injunctions. think about that. 94 districts and 35 out of the 40 opinions with nationwide injunctions came from five liberal districts in this country. no longer. no longer. these injunctions have blocked our policies from tariffs to military readiness to immigration to foreign affairs, fraud, abuse and many other issues. the judges have tried to seize the executive branch's power and they cannot do that. no longer. no longer. and on immigration on a side note, today marks 2,711 arrests on these terrorists and gangs. total arrests today with hsi investigations and thank you, stephen miller, thank you to homeland security, thank you to everyone working hand in hand with the f.b.i. on all of these

trans national gangs. tda has been a huge terror to our country as well as ms-13 as well as sinaloa cartels. no longer, no longer . these injunctions have allowed district court judges to be emperors. they vetoed all of president trump's power and they cannot do that. this has been a bipartisan problem that has lasted five presidential terms. five different presidents. it has ended today. we will continue to fight for president trump's policies. i want to thank the office of white house counsel, you and your staff have been incredible. solicitor general's office, and todd blanch and others, todd will say a few words because we have had another major ruling today on transgender book and other great wins we've had. no longer will they have this power in our country.

it is the president's authority under his executive branch to do everything to fight for the american people and he will continue to do that. that's why he was overwhelmingly elected. thank you. >> thank you. today is a great day for the rule of law. a great day for the justice department and it is one that has been a long time coming and one that every american should have been waiting for with baited breath. i echo what the president said and attorney general bondi the supreme court did a great thing today not only for this administration but for every american in this country. if not for the injunctions case, we would be here talking about another great decision that came down today. the trans books case which restores parents' right to decide their child's education. seems like a basic idea but it took the supreme court to set the record straight. we thank them for that. that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans

ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct and so we thank the supreme court for that. there has been multiple decisions over the past several weeks that just show why this injunction -- why this nationwide injunction ban had to happen. what i mean by that is local district court judges issuing decisions that are clearly contrary to law just because they don't like the policy of president trump. when it gets to the supreme court the supreme court has to correct it. that takes time. the attorney general thanked our lawyers and i will do it again. our lawyers are working 24 hours a day seven days a week to fight these injunctions and to emergency appeals and emergency stays going back to district court judge asking them to change their view. their hard work is really paying off today but over the past few weeks. we had a stay of an order that prevented dhs from removing aliens to a third country. stopped the department of defense from military readiness.

another stay of an order forcing reinstatement of fired employees. we had a stay of numerous doge cases and again, every one of those stays required a tremendous amount of work and effort by the lawyers and parties involved. they should be doing other work. they should be doing the work that the president and this administration demands and has a right to demand and not fighting these local judges who don't make decisions based on the law. they make decisions because they simply don't agree with the administration's decision about policy and that's wrong, thank you. >> president trump: any questions? for pam, please. >> thank you, madam attorney general. the supreme court did not rule on the underlying constitutionality of the president's birthright

citizenship order. what is the plan now? will you try to implement the e.o. just in states where there isn't a legal challenge? >> birthright citizenship will be decided in october in the next session by the supreme court unless it comes down in the next few minutes. i guess it could come down. i think they are still deliberating on some cases. we just got transgender books, a huge win. most likely that will be decided in october in the next session. indirectly impacts us. as you correctly pointed out if there is a birthright citizenship in oregon it will only affect the plaintiff in oregon. not the entire country. that's pending litigation and we're waiting on that in the next term. >> how concerned are you that the supreme court will come back and determine the executive order is unconstitutional. >> we're very confident in the supreme court. it is pending litigation. it will directly be determined in october but it indirectly

impacts every case in this country and are thrilled with their decision today. peter. >> thank you for being here to take our questions. a couple questions to both of you. the e.o. had a 30 day grace period before it goes into effect. is there any thought about trying to make it effective immediately within that period of time? >> we will follow the law. we'll make those decisions and do what's right in the bounds of the law. >> the d.o.j. didn't ask the justices to rule on the merits of the birthright citizenship ban. just for explanation purposes, why? >> that will come down in october in the -- this was huge because it is indirectly impacted it's case-by-case. of the 35 of the 40 nationwide injunctions filed against this presidents, against his executive authority as president of the united states, 35 of them came from maryland, d.c., massachusetts, california. that's