May 15th, 2025

On Thursday’s Mark Levin Show, the Supreme Court addressed a case involving President Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship. These national injunctions represent an unconstitutional overreach by federal district courts, lacking a historical or constitutional basis, and justices like Ketanji Brown Jackson are promoting a “deconstitutionalization” of government by justifying such injunctions as a means to force quick Supreme Court review. The judiciary’s actions, particularly from activist judges, are a dangerous expansion of power that undermines the Constitution and executive authority, especially in critical areas like national security. The 14th Amendment was solely intended to grant citizenship to children of former slaves, not to children of foreigners, and that the current practice of birthright citizenship is a constitutional fiction unsupported by historical evidence. This case is fundamentally about power—specifically, who has the authority to make critical decisions. Activist federal district judges, backed by justices like Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett, are wielding negative power to overturn the last election and undermine the Constitution by endorsing these injunctions. Prediction: the Court, lacking courage, will likely uphold the status quo, citing long-standing executive branch practice and the potential burden on future children born in the U.S., thus perpetuating a misinterpretation of the Constitution that threatens American liberty. Later, Iran refuses to halt its centrifuge operations, which, if not destroyed, preserves its nuclear bomb program. Iran must never get a nuclear weapon. Over 200 Republicans agree and have called on President Trump to dismantle Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities.

Photo by Alex Wong

The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.

Rough transcription of Hour 1

Segment 1
Hello America. Mark Levin here. Our number 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811 well. Birthright citizenship case in front of the Supreme Court. Really two issues, the issue of birthright citizenship and these these national injunctions. We pulled some audio here that I think you’re going to find fascinating. This is, of course, in my zone. And so we’re going to spend most, if not all, the first hour on this breaking it down for you so you understand on multiple levels what’s taking place. I’ve talked about birthright citizenship behind this microphone for 20 years. I’ve talked about it on Fox. I think it goes back to like. 2012 was something the first time I talked about. I’ve written about it. It’s all the basic information that has been used in the public square is information that I researched, analyzed, developed and discussed and wrote about. And we’re going to approach this from multiple vantage points. The arguments that are being made, the conduct of the justices, what your Constitution compels. The 14th Amendment, the power of the judiciary. We’re going to take a look at all this because it’s relevant to your life. Now, what’s amazing, even though I don’t address birthright citizenship per se, in my new book on power, this falls right into the category of so many other things. Do what I write about in the book. So let’s take a look at this. Let’s listen to some of this first. You’ll be disappointed, of course, with Amy Coney Barrett. She’s gone to the dark side. That’s just the way it is. She’s kind of the dark side. But let’s start with Brown. Cannot. Kentucky. Brown Jackson. Birthright Citizenship case today. The solicitor general is John Sauer, who was President Trump’s lawyer in the in the Supreme Court in the immunity debate where he did very well. Immunity case, Kate six go. I would think we’d want the system to move as quickly as possible to reach the merits of the issue and maybe have this court decide whether or not the government is entitled to do this under the law. Now, hold on. So what she’s talking about are these nationwide injunctions. So her justification, which is perverse. It’s a perverse logic. Her justification is, well, why wouldn’t you want this? So it gets quickly to the US Supreme Court. Well, why would he get more quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court if you have a district court that makes a decision? That’s where the Supreme Court review, then the court should take that up quickly from the appellate court. But that is not a justification for power. Four power being ceded to hundreds and hundreds of federal district courts. There’s nothing in our history, nothing in our Constitution, nothing in any Judiciary Act that empowers federal trial courts to do any such thing. So Justice Jackson is basically a hack. In a black robe. That’s what she is. You can bet your mortgage, you can bet whatever you want. On where she’s kind of come down on these big constitutional issues. You can bet it. It’s always centralized power. It’s always what I call and I call it in the book, I coin number of phrases, the D constitutional ization, the D constitutional ization of our government. She’s d constitutional izing our government. Go ahead. Do having universal injunctions actually facilitate that? It seems to me that when the government is completely enjoined from doing the thing it wants to do, it moves quickly, too. So this is a speech. The speech. On behalf of hundreds and hundreds of like minded, radical left wing judges. She was one, I believe she moved from the district court to the Supreme Court, the district court in Washington. And so you see what she’s saying? Well, if we can have these national nationwide injunctions, then the Supreme Court essentially will be forced to take it up relatively quickly. That is so perverse. Well, maybe they should seize other powers, forcing the Supreme Court to take the case up relatively quickly. No. Go ahead, peel that to get it to the Supreme Court. And that’s actually what we would want. What I worry about is so similar to what Justice Kagan points out is that if the government is saying no, lower court can completely enjoin it, it actually means that the government just keeps on doing the purportedly unlawful thing and it delays the ability for this court to reach the underlying issue. Now, what did she just say? She just said with a national injunction, we get to the Supreme Court more quickly then she says. The problem with this is if a lower court is restricted to their district, which is what they’re supposed to be, then the government just keeps doing whatever it wants. Maybe it’s an unlawful thing. Well, why is that? The Supreme Court can still take up the appeal from the appellate court, the circuit court, whether it’s in a district court. You don’t need a district court having a national injunction. In fact, I would argue, contrary to her logic, that if you have a district court, a district court where the government is basically continuing to do illegal things, as she puts it, wouldn’t, why wouldn’t you? The Court The case comes up to the appellate court. And then goes to the Supreme Court. So listen to me carefully. I’m trying to explain this in plain English. You have a district court. They put an injunction in the district court. They believe what the government is doing is illegal. But the government continues to do it in all the other districts. So you appeal the district court decision. If you’re an attorney and you take it to the circuit court. There’s not 700 circuit courts. And then from the circuit court, then you can go to the Supreme Court so that the Supreme Court’s worried that in all the other federal districts or all these other circuits the government is violating the law, it still can take up the case. It takes up the case from the district to the circuit to the Supreme Court. None of that changes. None of it. The absurdity of what she’s arguing. KAGAN You know, they got the Three Stooges in on this. They’re trying to get the four stooge know, the four women on the court. They’re trying to get Barrett. Probably will. This really is cut and dry. This isn’t even controversial. Let’s go to Clarence Thomas. Cut seven. Go, General. When were the first universal injunctions used? We believe that the best reading of that is what you said in Trump against Hawaii, which is that words in 1963 was really the first universal injunction. There’s a dispute about Perkins against Lukens oil going back to 1940. And of course, we point to the court’s opinion that reversed that, that that universal injunction issued by the D.C. Circuit and sentence is profoundly wrong. Now, if you look at the cases at the either party site, you see a common theme. The cases that we cite like National Treasury Treasury’s Employment Union and Perkins against Lukens Oil from Bingham in Massachusetts against Mellon. Going back to Scott, against Donald and all of those, those are cases where the court considered and addressed the sort of universal in that case, state wide issue of provision of injunctive relief. So when the court has considered and addressed this, it has consistently said you have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs appearing in court and complaining of that remedy. So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions. That’s exactly correct. And in fact, those are. Stop, stop, stop, stop this. Too important? This guy is a genius. Clarence Thomas. No wonder they try to destroy. His point is all the way up to 1963. We never really had universal injunctions. For almost 200 years, 180 years, give or take. We didn’t have universal injunctions. We didn’t have. And now you have Jackson. And Kagan. Sotomayor. No doubt. Barrett. Making the case. But you can get your case to the Supreme Court more quickly. Why? What does that have to do with anything? Let’s say. Again, as a footnote, you take your case to a judge in Boston. A federal district court in Boston. In Boston, let’s say, is the jurisdiction. And you bring that case and you’re the government and somebody brings the case against you and you’re the government and the case brought against you. The court puts in place a temporary injunction. But the government can continue to do what it’s doing in all these other jurisdictions, and Jackson says. So the government can continue to act illegally in all these other jurisdictions. Well, who says the government is acting illegally in all these other jurisdictions? Maybe that judge in Boston is wrong. Maybe the government’s not acting illegally or unconstitutionally. So she’s making a pretty broad assumption. But putting that aside. The case in Boston. Winds up. I think it’s the second Circuit over there. Not sure. Goes to the appellate court, the Second Circuit. But whatever it’s called, it doesn’t. Appellate court. And after the appellate court, you can appeal to the Supreme Court. So whether it comes out of a single district or it comes out of a national injunction, the Supreme Court still can take a whack at it. So Jackson makes absolutely no sense. She demonstrates she’s an idiot and an idiot lot. In my humble opinion. And then we have Clarence Thomas saying, okay, how did we how do we survive without this? For most of our history. Go ahead. And in the 1960s, it really exploded in 2007 in our interpretation in some ways against Violent Institute, we pointed out that the Ninth Circuit had started doing this in a whole bunch of cases involving environmental claims. Hmm. Ninth Circuit. Remember when the Ninth Circuit was crazy at? That’s why Jackson likes it. Kagan likes it. Sotomayor likes it. Unfortunately, Barrett. Then we get into this issue. Well, let’s let the let’s let it play out. This is the solicitor general, John. So really sharp guy. And Barrett. Correct. Go. General. Sir, I want to ask you about a potential tension. We’ll not without potential tension and actual tension that I see in answers that you gave to Justice Kavanaugh on Justice Kagan. You resisted Justice Kagan when she asked you whether the government would obey within the Second Circuit a precedent distinguishing between opinions and judgments here. Did I understand you correctly to tell Justice Kagan that the government wanted to reserve its right to maybe not follow a Second Circuit precedent, say, in New York, because you might disagree with the opinion. Our general practice is to respect those precedents, but there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice, that is not this administration’s practice or the longstanding practice of the federal government. And I’m not talking about in the Fourth Circuit. Are you going to respect a Second Circuit? I’m talking about within the Second Circuit. And can you say is that this administration’s practice or a long standing one, as I understand it, longstanding policy of the Department of Justice? Yes. That we generally, as it was phrased to me, generally respect circuit president, but not necessarily in every case and certain extent. Some examples might be a situation where we’re litigating to try and get that circuit precedent overruled and so forth. Well, so I’m not I’m not talking about a situation in which, you know, the Second Circuit has a case from 1955 and you think it’s time for it to be challenged. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about in this kind of situation, I’m talking about this week, the Second Circuit holds that the executive order is unconstitutional. And then what do you do the next day or the next week? Generally, we follow. So you’re still saying generally, yes. And you still think, I’ll tell you why he’s saying generally justice because. The extent to which you people in the courts, particularly the activists on the circuit courts and particularly activists on the Supreme Court, have taken the judiciary is way out of bounds from the constitutional construct. That’s what he’s saying or trying to say. The circuit issues are ruling, right? Let’s say the circuit issues a ruling. An emergency hearing, gets to the circuit, goes from the district court to the circuit. And let’s say it involves national security. Let’s say it involves something about a battle, a battlefield decision or a military decision by the president and the surge. And look, this isn’t even beyond imagination. It’s going on in Israel right now with their out of control courts. And we’re getting close we’re getting close with the pullback of the planes from Venezuela filled with or I should say, out El Salvador, filled with Venezuelan criminals. And I’d say the the Second Circuit says, No, Mr. President, this is the way that’s to be handled in the battle. And so. And he’s saying we reserve the right to reject that. There you have literally a conflict of the branches where the commander in chief, the executive branch, has by far the better constitutional argument to say, Are you telling me you wouldn’t comply with the order? Are you telling me you wouldn’t comply with I wouldn’t comply with an order that affected what’s going on on a battlefield or a military decision? Absolutely not. And she’s appalled by that. So she seems to think the power the courts are more powerful than the power of the Constitution. While judicial review we get to make the final decision where the hell that come from? An 1803 decision that’s not in the Constitution either. I’m just making the point that what the Solicitor General Sauer is saying is correct. I’ll be right back.

Segment 2
We only have a minute when we return. Sam Alito, you’ll see his genius at work, and he’s absolutely genius. Shall see. Elena Kagan. You’ll see why. She’s nothing of the sort. And so we will get into this and then he has to deal with Sotomayor. But this shouldn’t be controversial. It shouldn’t be a left right thing. These these national injunctions are they’re a disgrace. There’s no authority for this whatsoever. It creates chaos. You can see the argument that Jackson made its acts of lutely feeble. An embarrassing. Even Barrett, She can’t think of a single case where the executive branch will reject an order from a circuit. How about if the three judge panel or even the full circuit is way out of line? Maybe they they issue some kind of Dred Scott decision. Should the executive branch go along with that? I’ll be right back.

Segment 3
Elena Kagan cut tango. So, General, on this question of expedition. I mean, it sort of depends on the government’s own actions in a case like this one, where one can expect that there is not going to be a great deal of disagreement among the lower courts. I mean, let’s assume that you lose in the lower courts pretty uniformly. Stop right there. What does that have to do with anything? So you lose in the lower courts and you lose in a bunch of lower courts. Didn’t Chuck Schumer say he helped put 235 progressive lawyers on the courts to thwart Trump? So it’s likely you’re going to lose in several of these courts. And so her argument seems to be give them more power. Give them more power. You see that way. The Supreme Court might consider taking up the case. Now, let’s say the Supreme Court’s made up of a bunch of leftists. I don’t think the Supreme Court will take up the case very quickly at all. But again, this has nothing to do with anything. The process is in place, whether it’s one court, 25 courts, whether it’s one court with a national injunction or one court with an injunction that is within the jurisdiction of the court, the district. The process is the same. You appeal to a circuit court, then you you file a writ. The searches are with the Supreme Court. They either take it or they don’t. So what does any of this have to do with anything? And if you’re leftist on the court and you got all this going on with your swell brothers and sisters in black robes, your ideological colleagues and comrades, you’re not going to take it up. If they rule the way you want them to rule. So there’s no quick path to this. There’s no guarantee to that. The whole thing is absurd. Go ahead. Q And that you never take this question to us. I mean, I notice that you didn’t take the substantive question to us. You only took the nationwide injunction question to us. I mean, why would you take the substantive question to us? You’re losing a bunch of cases. This guy over here, this woman over here. You know, they’ll have to be treated as citizens, but nobody else will. Why would you ever take this case to us? Well, in this particular case, we have deliberately not presented the merits to this court on the question of the scope of remedies, because, of course, that makes it a clean vehicle where the court doesn’t have to look at the past here, ignoring the import of mine. But you’re ignoring what he’s saying, which is if they seek the remedy that you’re talking about, listen carefully, American. I’m going to try and put this in non-lawyer easier. Then you. You frog, jump over. The issue of the process. So if he goes in and says, look, we’re and I’m sure they sat down and they figured this out, what are we bringing to the Supreme Court? Exactly? And he’s saying if we go to remedies. Then you’re going to say, What’s the problem with the nationwide injunction? Here you are. Now you’re asking for a remedy. And so what he’s saying now is, no, I’m not asking for a remedy. I’m challenging the process. And she says, you’re not answering my question. No, he isn’t. When they say that, it. It’s so frustrating. Go ahead. Saying that in a case in which the the government is losing constantly, there’s nobody else who’s going to appeal their winning. It’s up to you to decide whether to take this case to us. If I were in your shoes, there is no way I’d approach this. Okay, that’s fine. But you’re the one who’s missing the point. They had to make a decision, challenged the process, or get a remedy. You’re just telling him. If I were you, I’d never seek a remedy. They’re not seeking a remedy. They’re challenging the process. They’re taking on nationwide injunctions. Go ahead. You just keep on losing in the lower courts. And what’s supposed to happen to prevent that? Again, I respectfully disagree with that forecast of the merits. But in response to the question, what I would say is we have an adversarial system. And if the government is not, for example, not respecting circuit precedent on the court’s hypothetical in the Second Circuit, somewhat easier in the Second Circuit could take the case up and they can say, look, the government is violating circuit precedent on a hypothetical multiple circuits. That’s one case. We’re going to take somebody who says, you know, this is so stupid. Just say, you know, non-lawyer, the whole discussion is stupid. It is stupid. Substantive versus process. Why don’t you deal justice with the case that they brought rather than suggesting and you could have brought the substance and sought a remedy. And you did. But we did. And we brought the process because we have a huge problem. And she says, Oh, you’re losing in court after court after court. Why don’t you bring us up on the chair? I’ll tell you why. And he would never say it in front of the court because he’s dealing with a bunch of ambulance chasing. Slip and fall. Radical left wing Democrat lawyers. He’s not bringing it up on the substance, which they may do in another case. He’s bringing up the process that’s being abused. That’s why they keep losing. All right. That’s going to cut 11. I could be wrong. I haven’t heard this. I’m just looking at the the cryptic notes here that maybe she actually asks a good question to the other side, but I’m not sure I’ll know it once we play it. Kind of letting go is what I worry about here, Ms.. Corcoran, is that this case is very different from a lot of our nationwide injunction cases, in which many of us have expressed frustration. Yes, including you, when nothing was on the line when she was doing an interview caught on video. She condemned nationwide injunctions. Now she’s not so sure. Now, in this case, it looks like she’s going to ask a very interesting question or pose a very interesting problem. But you could hear what the solicitor general representing the Trump administration, she was all in. Go ahead. And, you know, the typical way in which that frustration emerges is that questions or legal questions are hard and they’re complicated, and different courts would decide them differently. And instead, because of the forum selection process, a party goes to one place. You know, in the first Trump administration, it was all done in San Francisco, and then in the next administration, it was all done in Texas. And and and there is a big problem that is created by that mechanism. Wow. That leaves question. Good for you. Let’s see where this goes. Go ahead. So the questions to you and to General Feigenbaum, which is like, you know, your third buckets, which are, oh, if it’s like super important or if it’s quintessentially national or whatever, the way you know, is not going to solve our problem for that set of cases, which is not this case, this case. What’s problematic about it is that the courts keep deciding the same way. Hey, I told you already, he’s not raising the substantive remedy issue. So why do you keep bringing it up? He told you he brought this case and I’m going to tell you I brought it. It was the fastest one they could get to the Supreme Court. That’s why they brought it up. He says he wants you to look at the process, the process, the lower courts way out of their lane with these national injunctions. And you keep bringing up the substance, which is not what he’s challenging. Go ahead. Instead, the lower courts are going to do anything different. And, you know, for that reason and so would be anything differently. Just telling the justice. Go ahead. The catch me if you can problem that Justice Jackson said and the problem of how are we ever going to get a case here? But but aren’t you glad? God. You know how you get a case there when it’s appealed to you Justice, you take it. That’s how you get a case there. That is a problem without a remedy because there’s no problem. You decide for you what cases you’re going to take up. This is becoming stupider by the by the audio clip. Go ahead. Exact. And I just want you to sort of comment on. Yeah. I’d say first that the government’s proposal of changing through Rule 23 does nothing to solve anything you just described. I think the limiting principles that I was proposing, which again was just me trying to reflect back to the court and the through lines that it’s been identified. This is why people hate lawyers. You have a black and white issue right and wrong. Whereas the authority for lower courts the issue nationwide injunctions. There is no authority, not in the Constitution or anywhere else but the courts. These lefties on the courts. They don’t even want to start at first principles. They want nothing to do with first principles. So why didn’t you write the substance and seek a remedy? You keep losing these cases when we know. They keep losing these cases, don’t we? That’s part of the process problem, isn’t it? Oh, and then you want to get it to the Supreme Court faster. Wouldn’t you want nationwide injunctions? What does that have to do with anything? It gets to the Supreme Court quickly or not quickly, whether it’s in one jurisdiction with a single injunction for the for the activities between those parties. And in that jurisdiction or whether it’s nationwide, it’s the same process. It can seek emergency appeals. The court can take them or not take them. So that’s kind of stupid. That’s a non argument. Doesn’t make any sense. And then this birdbrain goes on about different buckets, and I’m talking about the the litigant here. Go ahead. This court were to articulate them. It would cut back on the number of universal injunctions. Is it a facial challenge? Does it involve a fundamental constitutional right? Right. Those are those are. So what she’s saying is let’s create a hearing process because the court loves to create law and tearing processes. They like to set policy. A tearing process is a policy process. And so the court she’s saying in the first instance has to decide how important the case is. Is it a constitutional case? It’s a statutory case. Is it an administrative law case? It is this case or that case? Look at this. Look at what a mess the leftists are creating. There should be no nationwide injunctions. The only court that can issue a nationwide decision is the Supreme Court. And the only reason we’re here is because Donald Trump is president. The lower courts, mostly Democrat, 97%, are completely out of control. We don’t need no buckets. This isn’t an issue of process versus substantive remedies. It has nothing to do with any of it. Go ahead. You know that Justice Kavanaugh was pope. I Shut up. Sorry. It’s just painful, especially for me. I hate to say this, Mr. Pitt is. Let’s go to one more before we take a break. So sorry for Solicitor General Sauer. Now it’s Sotomayor, the dumbest of the dumb K-12 go here. There’s a discrete identified group on one issue. The citizenship mean we’re actually getting to birthright citizenship. Citizenship. Now, Go ahead. You born in the territory of the United States? Or does it mean are you loyal to someone else? Which is your claim or not as claim your claim. So now black and white textual. Constitutional law where we have the history. Where we had the speeches. We have the authors. Who make that point. It’s now a claim. You see? See how it works? It’s his claim. You know what? I have to take a break. We’ll start this one from the top. It’s too important. This goes to the issue of birthright citizenship. I’m glad you’re here in exactly the right place. The only place that’s going to break this down for you. We’ll be right back.

Segment 4
Very important to stick with me after the top of the hour, because I’m going to pull it all together from a constitutional perspective and how this affects your liberty. It’s a big deal because these these federal district judges, with the support of some of these Supreme Court justices, now have every intention of overturning the last election. And, of course, that never comes into the questioning, does it? Does it? So it’s very, very important. Stick with me, because the first hour sets the stage, the second hour. Puts the exclamation mark where that where needed to be cut, where you go. There’s a discrete identified group on one issue to citizenship. Mean, are you born in the territory of the United States or does it mean are you loyal to someone else? Let me say what’s going on here, because this is a fan dance of every legal fiction, a constitutional fiction. It doesn’t mean if you’re born in the United States, diplomats have children in the United States. They’re not American citizens. Tourists have children in the United States. They’re not American citizens. At no time at no time in 1866 or 1860, 68 and the 14th Amendment was was drafted. Was there any discussion of people who are born in the United States becoming American citizens except for the children of former slaves? The 14th Amendment was about slavery. It was about the end of slavery. It was about nothing else. It applied the Fifth Amendment, due process and equal protection all throughout the country. In every state, the Fifth Amendment only applied to the federal government. The 14th Amendment applied the Fifth Amendment to every state equal protection and due process for newly free blacks, equal protection and due process for their children, citizenship for their children, and had nothing to do with foreigners stepping into that country, having children, and thereby getting citizenship. Nowhere, nowhere, nowhere is that said, is that written nowhere? So the issue is are we going to live a fiction for the rest of time and pretend that’s what it is or not? We’re not. These justices, as much as I can’t stand some of them, they know the history of this. They know how to read. The question is whether they’re going to once again turn themselves into pretzels in order to rule. And here’s what they’re going to say. And I believe they’ll have a majority, unfortunately, because most of them don’t have any guts. They’re going to say, look, you can interpret it either way you wish. But the fact is that has been the practice. That’s how it’s been instituted by the executive branch. And who are we? Who are we to change the practices of the executive branch over all these decades and to put upon all these children who eventually will be born here? A very ominous and onerous decision. That’s where they’re going to go. I’ll be right back.