The Supreme Court just issued major rulings on religious exemptions to LGBTQ school curriculum, birthright citizenship, universal injunctions, and more. Some were big wins for President Trump and the Right. Others were wins for the administrative state. Glenn Beck and his head researcher, Jason Buttrill, explain what the rulings mean for average Americans.
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Okay. So the first story. The first SCOTUS decision that came out, is Trump versus casa.
And, Jason, you've been watching this over the last hour.
So I want to make sure that I have this right. But the first one has come out in favor of Donald Trump.
And this impact on this one is really, really high. This one is so important.
The Supreme Court has decided that they will limit the federal court's ability to limit any kind of sweeping injunction, which now also signals an openness to restricting birthright citizenship.
And reshaping of immigration law. It -- this stops the power of the judges to block executive actions, nationally.
And this is important for structural implications, and for immigration. But also, mainly for separations of power.
Do I have that one right, Jason?
On their ruling?
JASON: That's correct. We still don't have a definitive answer on birthright citizenship.
But the thing that most people are pissed off about right now, is an imperial judiciary, and that's what they're a part of.
GLENN: Correct. Correct.
And that's really important. Struck that down. So that madness is going to end.
Now, the next one is Kennedy versus Braidwood Management.
And this was the case about the structure of a task force with the power under the Affordable Care Act, to determine, which preventive services ensure have to cover it.
The vote now is six to three. And that holds that members of the task force do not need to be appointed by the president, or confirmed by the Senate.
The majority opinion is by justice Kavanaugh, who writes task force members are inferior officers, whose appointment by the secretary of HHS is consistent with the appointments clause.
The task force members can be removed at will by the secretary of HHS.
And the recommendation about preventive services are reviewable by the secretary before they take effect.
Justice Thomas Alito and Gorsuch dissented, which is never -- never really a good thing.
This one is probably the second most impactful ruling.
And what they did is they sided with the government.
Which preserves all of the current health care mandates.
And agency design under HHS.
They will affect millions of people. Your insurance coverage. And executive agency oversight.
Not good!
JASON: No. And can I say, Glenn, how crazy it is that you just had Angelina Ireland on, talking about how nutso the Canadian system is, especially when you get just crazed activists in charge of something this important.
So basically, what this means is, is that unelected bureaucrats can still be calling the shots on things that are as important as the health care and the livelihood of your families.
This is such a huge miss. Oh, my gosh.
GLENN: Okay. So let me give you the next one.
This is the FCC versus consumer research. And we're really going in order of importance.
And so far, we have one, in our favor. One in the favor of the left.
The FCC versus consumer research. Now, this is all about delegation of power.
And the impact on this one is very high for all of us. The consequence of siding with consumer's research. It will limit the federal agency's ability to delegate power to private actors. It could disrupt broadband subsidies and rural internet expansion. The consequence of siding with the FCC, would uphold the long-standing infrastructure funding model, and reaffirm the administrative delegation.
Its massive implications for rural communities and the federal power to administer national programs.
Here's how they came down on it, on decision number three.
The vote is six to three, that's not going to make you happy. With the majority opinion by justice Kagan. And the court holds that the funding structure does not violate the non-delegation doctrine.
Again, Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito, were dissenting. Any comment on that one?
JASON: Yeah, I mean, this one is -- it's cloaked in this broadband service. To rural communities.
But what this is really about is, you know, scaling back or advancing the administrative state. And the way they've ruled on this. It does nothing to scale back, the administrative state.
The administrative state marches forward. With this.
Which is --
GLENN: And kind of with the last one too.
JASON: Yes. The last two. Basically about the same thing.
GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.
So we have four rulings today.
One is in our favor.
Two are not in our favor.
And those are about the power of the federal government.
Just to continue to grow. Now, the next one is Mahmoud versus Taylor.
And this one is all about LGBTQ curriculum in schools.
And do you -- do parents have a right to say no?
If they side with the parents, that could force public schools to allow opt outs from any LGBTQ-related content. And it will reshape the school policy, nationwide.
If they sided with the school district, it expands state authority to teach inclusion topics over all religious objections.
So this one will impact cultural and educational institutions, especially in any kind of diverse or religious community.
So we are hoping that they side with the parents.
And here's what they decided: The vote was six-three.
Majority opinion by Alito.
The court holds that the families are likely to succeed and are entitled to a preliminary injunction, from Alito's opinion. We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.
And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.
Dissenting Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson.
Look at the damage that has been done by appointing Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson.
We -- Donald Trump has got to get another person on the Supreme Court.
We have got to have a young Clarence Thomas.
We have to have somebody who is just dirt strong on the Constitution.
I -- my hope would be -- I mean, there's a couple of people.
I will get into that, maybe -- maybe next week.
There's a couple of people, that I think should be justices.
And I would hope that we could get these names to the president, if it happens.
And he'll move in these directions.
There's a couple of people, that I really feel strongly, would be fantastic.
And one of them, you may not -- you may not be aware of.
So it's a mixed bag today.
Two on the state growing.
And two in the opposite direction. One, the -- the -- the presidency is not king. But neither is the federal court system.
So the federal court can't say, well, he's being fascistic, by saying, you know, he's issuing this executive order. He doesn't have a right to do that. And so a federal judge by themselves can stop and overturn the president. And his executive order. That can't happen.
Whether that's going to stop anything, I don't know. But the Supreme Court, thank God, has come down right on that one.
The other one that is really good is will have to have an opt out.
No matter where your kids go to school. If they're teaching your kids crap, that disagrees with your religion, you can have the opt-out.
Because that was -- that was the real secret here.
They were not allowing parents to opt out.
They were not notifying, or allowing them the chance to opt out.
No matter what they were teaching. Your kid had to go and listen to it.
And that is -- to me, the parental right thing, is probably the biggest one out of all of these.
For me. Because I think if we lose control of our ability to parent and raise our children the way we want, we are living in a fascist society.
And so that's -- I think good news.
Really good news. So there's a couple more, I think that are yet to come out, right?
The free speech coalition, versus Paxton.
Which is the online verification.
Of speech.
And the redistributing. And racial gerrymandering, which is Louisiana versus -- is it Callais? Those two have not come out. They come out maybe tomorrow.
JASON: We just got the free speech coalition versus Paxton.
GLENN: Okay. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Hang on. So Paxton, who was the AG of Texas, he's saying, states can require age verification for adult content.
And that will reshape online privacy and access norms. If you -- if you're selling, you know, pornography or whatever.
States can say, you have to have an access portal, that is real.
For anybody under 18.
States can make those laws.
The other side. The free speech coalition, is siding for the adult industry.
And they say, no!
It should be anonymous online access.
It's a free speech right.
Especially for adults.
But you can't do this.
I mean, this is -- if Paxton doesn't win this one. This is really bad child protection. It's greatly weakened online.
How did they decide?
JASON: You want to take a guess on what the vote was? Based off --
GLENN: Six-three.
JASON: Six-three. This is insane. But the court upholds Texas age verification law.
GLENN: Oh, thank God.
JASON: Yes. I know.
GLENN: This is really a good day for our children. Really, really a good day for our children.
Not necessarily for the size of the government. But really good for children and parents. So thank God, thank God. And also deportation. You know, may be able to see a little speed taken now, because of the Supreme Court rulings today.
