Jenna Ellis: U.S. constitution obligates government to protect God's rights

Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio. I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God, our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you, and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the morning. Morning.

Supreme Court issues rulings on presidential authority to fire independent regulators

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, June 30, and big week at the U.S. supreme Court. A, ah, number of decisions were released yesterday at 10am and shortly following that we're going to discuss this morning. And then we are still waiting for a couple of very big decisions, including what is set to be a landmark case on birthright citizenship. So that is expected to today around, ah, 10:00am Eastern time. Meanwhile, President Trump, took to social media yesterday to react to the Supreme Court's decision in several cases, some of which he decried and others he celebrated. this coming from Apple, news. The nation's highest court announced several rulings on Monday, including one regarding late arriving mail in ballots and the other dealing with presidential authority to fire independent regulators. And, so we're talking first about the, presidential authority on independent regulators. So the justices yesterday, issued decisions in two cases related to presidential authority to oust certain federal officials. They ruled that Trump can fire many independent regulators, but at the same time said this decision didn't extend to the Federal Reserve, affirming the agency's independence and stating that its officials couldn't be fired and will. So to discuss, all of this and more, let's welcome in Mike Donnelly, who's an attorney and professor.

Court confirms presidential power to remove executive branch officers and agency appointees

And, Mike, let's talk about these two decisions because Trump kind of largely celebrated this, calling it a big win and saying it confirms that presidential power in our country to remove executive branch officers and agency appointees or representatives. the decision was long sought by, by United States presidents. And so, it's an honor in his term to be the sitting president who won this historic and unprecedented ruling. What, do you think about this outcome?

Mike Donnelly: Well, it's the right outcome, Jenna. the court got this one right. and when you look at Trump, the slaughter, which is the case for independent commissions, okay, so you've got these independent commissions, Federal Trade Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, you got a dozen or more of these quote unquote independent commissions which Congress created for various purposes. and where this case comes from is a It's back in the 30s, I think 20s, 30s where the court said with respect to the Federal Trade Commission, that it only exercises judicial and legislative authority, but not executive authority. And therefore the Court said you can't remove people unless it's for cause. And this was the Humphreys executor case that people have been referring to, and the Court has been circumscribing that case for almost a century and now it's dead. The, court explicitly overruled Humphrey's executor saying look, Congress can delegate a lot of stuff to the President, and when it does so it's the President's call. And Congress cannot put restrictions on who the President gets to work with. And so the President gets to hire and fire those whom he wants to. If it's part of the Executive branch, it's under the President's authority. And that's the way our Constitution is structured. We have separate branches of government Executive, judicial and legislative. And although, I think that Congress has delegated way too much power and the Supreme Court has allowed it to do so, I, completely disagree with that. But if it's going to do that, the President has to be able to run the executive branch because who got 77 million votes in this country? You know, it was the President of the United States. And that means that we the people are putting him in charge and he needs to be able to hold people accountable to pursue his policies and if they don't, then he should be able to fire them at will. And that's what the Court said.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that, that absolutely makes sense for the Executive Branch, particularly when you have so many, presidential appointees, that even, even if these are for, appointments that would extend past the term of a, of a President, he should be able to fire them or another incoming President should be able to fire them. Just like, you know, if a CEO of a corporation, were to hire someone that outlasted his term as CEO, the next CEO that comes in should be able to run the, the corporation as he sees fit because he was hired to do that job. And so, so what, what is the, the competing view? I mean, why it took so long for Humphrey Humphreys executor to even be overturned? I mean, this seems like a very simple proposition when you're talking about the Executive branch.

Mike Donnelly: Well, it is, except the administrative state likes to protect its turf and it's been able to do so politically over the years by having justices on the court who Protected them, you know. You know, it wasn't long ago that a 6, 3 conservative court, so called conservative, you know, was a 5, 4 liberal court with. Even though you had five Republican appointed justices, you know, Justice Kennedy caused us a lot of problems. at any rate, that's, I believe that's what the answer is. And it just, it just took time for the court to get around to doing this. you know, the court moves at a slower pace and sometimes it takes a while for it to correct itself. I mean, it took us, what, 50 years to get rid of Roe v. Wade. And even then, did we solve the problem? No, we just kicked it to the states. But at least, you know, we recognize that the federal government is divesting itself of power, which is a great thing. It has too much power. It needs to divest itself of power. And the Supreme Court seems to be moving in that direction. And I think that's overall a good thing for the country.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And, to, to move it a little bit more, nimble of a pace.

Congress has held that commissioners can only be fired for extraordinary circumstances

But, you also mentioned, you know, this whole problem with the rise of the administrative state, and that's, you know, solely on Congress, I mean, for creating a lot of these agencies that up until now have been very insulated from accountability because Congress isn't really holding them accountable. And then if the executive doesn't have the power to, to fire, you know, some of these individuals, unless it's, you know, really extraordinary circumstances, like for example, when Congress, since its creation of the Federal Trade Commission, Congress has held that commissioners can only be fired for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance. I mean, that's a pretty high standard. And so, to have more accountability in these agencies is a good thing. But I think the more foundational question is why is Congress creating so many agencies delegating its power? And we have this rise of the administrative state that's essentially insulated from, from the electorate and the will of the people, because ultimately the people should be the ones that get to determine, you know, who are in all of these offices, like we can, with our elected representatives, our elected president, but with a lot of these bureaucrats, they're insulated from true accountability to we the people. And that goes back to Congress, ah, delegating a lot of their authority. And the Supreme Court doesn't seem that interested in correcting that issue.

Mike Donnelly: Well, it's true, and I want to point out there's a difference between Federal Reserve and federal commissions. people may be wondering, well, if he can fire commissioners, why can't he fire a Federal Reserve chief? And the court in Trumpet, Cook basically held that, there's a history and tradition of independent banking in the United States of America, and it goes back even to before the Constitution. Congress explicitly put in, in the Reserve clause about pause, firing. And I also want people to realize that, these, both of these cases came up on stays, meaning the district court had stayed, or the appeals court refused to stay a district court's injunction against firing these people. And so they are parallel in a sense. in the case of Slaughter, ah, which overruled Humphrey's executor, the court said, no, we're going to let the President fire these people. And in the case of Cook and the Federal Reserve, they didn't say he can't. The challenge was that she didn't get any due process. Trump just fired her without any reason. And the statute requires some due process, and so is the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. And so the court basically said, look, you can't just fire her for no reason. You've got to go back and she's at least got to have due process. So this is going back. And I think at the end of the day, Cook is going to get fired for cost, potentially because she was, alleged to have committed mortgage fraud. And so your federal bank regulator, and you're committing more mortgage fraud. That's a problem. I think Trump is going to prevail, but he can't just do it for no reason.

Jenna Ellis: Interesting. Yeah, and that's a, That's a really important distinction. and, you know, often when, in some of these cases, when you go back and you have the process, it wasn't, especially when we're talking about Trump's executive actions, a lot of times we've ended up seeing ourselves in the same situation where he ultimately gets the outcome he wants. It's just that the process needed to be followed more precisely or particularly. And so I agree with that assessment.

The Supreme Court has allowed Congress to pass laws outside of constitutional limits

what about, you know, this whole question of congressional non, delegation, because that's been a doctrine in jurisprudence, you know, for a really long time, stemming from the Constitution that, you know, Congress and, the executive, I mean, they. They can't just delegate their authority to other branches because then otherwise the separation of powers collapses on itself. But it seems like this, kind of Fourth Estate, not, just talking about media, but the rise of the administrative state, has gotten so much delegation of congressional authority that is very much outside of constitutional parameters.

Mike Donnelly: Well, that's true, and that's because the Supreme Court allowed Congress to get away with passing laws that have to do with the general welfare of the country under the spending clause, which it should never have done. Congress should only be allowed to spend money on things that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. but the court has allowed it to get away with it and therefore has essentially removed any real constraint on Congress's authority outside of the Constitution. and so what Congress has done is set up all these different agencies, and then the court had to come up with the doctrine you referred to, which is the non delegation doctrine, which means that there are certain things that Congress can't delegate away. And guess who gets to decide what those are? The Supreme Court of the United States. So, you know, the fox is guarding the henhouse, basically. You know, I say that because in my view, the federal government, even though they fight amongst the different branches, the President fights with the Supreme Court and Congress, and they all fight amongst each other. At the end of the day, they're all about protecting their own federal power and at the expense of the state and the people. And so, you know, they, you know, and that's what the Court has said. Okay, Congress, you know, we'll decide what you can delegate away. And it pretty much allows them to delegate anything until there's something that they don't like them delegating. And so it's a confusing doctrine. And what the Court needs to do is just go back to saying, look, if it's not in the Constitution, you don't get to delegate any of it, period, because it's reserved to the people and to the states for these 10th amendment.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I mean, imagine if we actually followed the parameters and the limits in the Constitution. I mean, how much better off we would all be if Congress could only spend on things that are actually enumerated in Article 1. I mean, then there would be no, real reason to, you know, have the, the 16th Amendment and, and have, you know, this outrageous, income tax that's virtually, you know, just limitless. And, having Congress spend all kinds of money on things that Doge uncovered of it. And yet, we saw that even among Republicans in Congress. How, to your point, Mike, they're just protecting their own power. They really didn't want to take away all of their spending. They don't want to balance the budget. And that's the problem with the federal government, is that they won't restrain themselves. Even the people who describe themselves in the Republican Party as fiscal conservatives. When it comes down to it, they really aren't. And at least the majority of, of even Republicans are not truly fiscal conservatives. And you know, that's, that's been going on, for decades. I mean, you know, that was part of Barry Goldwater's argument all the way back in 1984, the year I was born. He was talking about how Republicans are wanting to spend too much of other people's money and that that's something that is, you know, so far outside of the parameters of what conservatives should be advocating for. So in just the last minute, we have, you know, what's, what's the solution then? To say, okay, if the Supreme Court isn't going to rein them in, Congress isn't going to rein themselves in. What's the solution?

Mike Donnelly: You gave me one minute to answer that question. Okay. Repeal this. We, the people of the United States, need to repeal the 16th and 17th amendment. We need to stop giving the federal government tax taxing authority over our pockets, taking money from us whenever they want, however much they want. And we need to put the states back in control of, well, not control, but at least have a seat at the table, where they're represented as states right now. The 17th amendment took that away, took that away in 1913. So get rid of 16 and 17 and I think we'll be on the path to recovery.

Jenna Ellis: All right. See, I knew you could do it. That was even under a minute. So thank you so much. Mike Donnelly, you can find him on X at Donnelly Speaks. That encourage you to follow that, give some great analysis of, the Supreme Court opinions and a lot of other things in politics you should be paying attention to. So we'll be right back with more to talk about the other Supreme Court case. that was very important from yesterday. We'll be right back. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.

The Supreme Court ruled that states may count ballots postmarked after election day

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, Yesterday in a 54 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that first federal law does not require mail in ballots to be received by election day, holding that states may count ballots postmarked by election day, but received afterward if state law allows it. Unfortunately, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote to the majority opinion, there's been a lot of expressed disappointment, for her appointment across social, media and commentary. And Justice Alito responded to the ruling saying, quote, I cannot support this irresponsible escapade. So for more, let's welcome in Hans von Spakovsky, who is a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom And, Hans, break this down, because this just seems so dumb, quite frankly, from the Supreme Court, that now instead of, protecting election day, they have now basically protected election, you know, week, weeks, months, and some of this nonsense that's going on in California.

Hans Von Spakovsky: Well, unfortunately, I agree. It was a 5, 4 decision. And you had the Chief justice, joining Amy Coney Barrett in a very bad opinion, along with the three liberal justices. you know, what's really struck me, Jenna, about reading this opinion, is you go from what Amy Coney Barrett writes, with the other four justices, and then you go to Justice Alito's opinion. Justice Alito wrote the dissent, joined, by, the other conservative justices, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh. And it's so clear that Alito knows so much more about, election laws in this country, our historical practice of how we've been conducting elections. And Amy Coney Barrett comes across as an amateur, frankly, in comparison to him. And the logic in her opinion just, to me, just doesn't make sense. in particular, you know, her whole case is based on the idea that election day only applies to the electorate making their choice. Well, you and I know that's not true. you've been, for example, with an absentee ballot, you can fill it out in your home, but until you actually deliver it to election officials, the ballot is worthless. Right? I mean, the vote's not going to count, and she just seems to completely miss that. Whereas Alito gets that exactly right.

Jenna Ellis: Well, and this is a really frustrating, kind of ideological grouping and lineup, with, as you mentioned, Barrett and Roberts joining the three liberal Justices, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. And we can understand why the three liberals would want to expand election day as long as they can. but, you know, Amy Coney Barrett is not, you know, an idiot by any means. I mean, she's, she's a Justice on the Supreme Court. She used to be a law professor. I mean, all of these things. I don't understand the logic at all in this decision and why it wouldn't have very easily been a 6, 3 opinion here. I mean, and Justice Roberts, the same thing. I mean, especially with all of the issues surrounding election integrity that, that, you know, as you've long said, election integrity has been an issue, in the background for decades. But of course, it reached, a lot of attention, with the 2020 election. And beyond that, this wouldn't have clearly been a 6, 3 opinion.

Hans Von Spakovsky: Look, I completely agree with you, but as you know, particularly when it comes to Chief Justice Roberts, there. Look, most of the time he is a conservative and he can issue great decisions like the one in which students prepare admissions versus Harvard, where they finally got rid of and said you can't discriminate on the basis of race in college admissions. But there are times when, he crosses over to the liberal side and issues just terrible decisions that as a conservative who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law, you just can't understand. And obviously, you know, the worst example of that was when they joined the liberals to say that Obamacare was constitutional. And I can't explain it other than, he just makes bad decisions. And this is a case where, Amy Coney Barrett joined him in making a decision that all the rest of us are sitting there going, how could you decide this? You're clearly wrong, as Alito said, on historical practices, prior precedents and the statutes themselves. About the only saving grace in this, Jenna, is the fact that Barrett did make it clear they were simply interpreting the three federal statutes that set election day. They were not looking at any constitutional issues. What that means is that Congress could change those federal statutes. And in fact, as you and I both know, there's currently a bill stuck in the Senate, the SAVE act, that would in fact change this issue, change federal law. Ah, and say mail in or absentee ballots have to be in the hands of election officials by the end of election day.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and this goes back to a principle that we've talked about ad nauseam on this show, that Congress actually needs to act. I mean, we're going to have that same conversation tomorrow when we talk about the birthright citizenship case. And what we all anticipate is likely to not be a very good decision from the U.S. supreme Court. I mean, we'll see. That's supposed to be out today, but ultimately Congress needs to act. And the same thing here, that Congress needs to act. And instead they're just basically going along with, well, this is what the Supreme Court said, so, you know, we'll go along with it. Why doesn't Congress want to govern?

Hans Von Spakovsky: Well, you know, it part of the reason is because, at the most, you know, members of the US Senate work two days a week and then the rest of the time they're, they're off. And the kind of old fashioned Senate that we all imagine, where people are actually on the floor debating and fighting just isn't the norm anymore. I mean there's a few people there who are willing to fight for Stuff like this, Mike Lee being a prominent example who's been one of the biggest people trying to push through, the SAVE Act. But unfortunately we have a small number of Republican senators who aren't, well, so called Republican senators, who aren't willing to get, the SAVE act approved and through the Senate.

Jenna Ellis: Well, and so Hans, does this decision ultimately, I mean, how, how far back does this set the overall election integrity effort and you know, beyond of course pushing Congress to act, where do kind of writ large go from here?

Hans Von Spakovsky: Well, if the, say that can't get through Congress and fix this bad decision, the only alternative to that is, in the states. And yes, we can't get this fixed in blue states, but red, state legislatures, and remember, most of them will be starting up Jenna, in January. state legislatures ought to pass their own versions of the SAVE Act. Remember, this whole case came out of Mississippi. Mississippi, allows five days for absentee ballots to come in after election day. why does the state, legislature allow that? It's a Republican controlled state. They need to change their law and fix this themselves. And they ought to, pass their own state version of the SAVE act to require, for example, proof of citizenship when people register to vote. Now they can only apply that to state elections. they can't apply to federal elections because some bad prior Supreme Court precedent which the SAVE act is trying to fix. But that would be a partial remedy to the problem.

Jenna Ellis: And how many states currently allow ballots to arrive after election day and so would be affected by this ruling?

Hans Von Spakovsky: Well, the last count that I did, it was 30 states.

Jenna Ellis: Wow. Which is just absurd. I mean, and this just goes back to public confidence because, you know, election day should mean a day. Right. And I think when all of us are looking at the difference, for example, of how Florida has cleaned up elections and especially, you know, under Governor, DeSantis leadership, and we actually, you know, find out who won same day, like shocker. Right?

Jenna Ellis: And then we look at the contrast between other states, including and especially California that just keep receiving ballots. And it seems like to the public, I mean there's a lot of sentiment that it's like, okay, they just keep counting ballots until they decide that, you know, okay, we're going to call it here because we like who wins. I mean that's the public perception. And so public confidence is really low in elections. And that's very unfortunate because not only can it suppress the turnout, it can, reduce confidence and in our leadership and our government. I mean it has a lot of different ramifications. but the Supreme Court unfortunately, didn't really seem too concerned about that. And that's somewhat surprising to me, especially after all the controversy surrounding 2020.

Hans Von Spakovsky: Well, no, you're exactly right. but in fact, it was of concern to Alito and his fellow dissenters. In fact, he, says that in the dissent that this decision, will not increase public confidence in the integrity of the election process. He understands that. It's clear that Amy Coney Barrett and Justice, Chief Justice Roberts don't understand that.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and it's so frustrating, I think, to people who simply want this to be a nonpartisan issue. I mean, election integrity should not be an issue where Democrats are pushing for something and, you know, and Republicans are pushing for something else. I think overall the. Those who are pushing for the SAVE act for some of these other things are just pushing for election integrity across the board because the same rules should apply to everyone. We should make sure that, the people who are actually casting ballots in elections are, are actual qualified voters. I mean, that. That seems to be a very reasonable thing. And yet this has become so partisan and so divis.

Hans von Spakovsky says election integrity should be a top issue

Divisive, really unnecessarily. And it just, just goes to show that, you know, the Democrats are interested in something else besides election integrity. And so as we move forward with, with this issue, I mean, I don't think this issue is going away anytime soon. And hopefully Red, states will cure some of these issues and potentially, Congress might. How big of an issue do you think this is and should be, for the upcoming midterms as well? Because if we can't get things through the Senate, I mean, then it's just stalling. And that's where we're at with the Save America act. And a lot of the Republican base should be concerned about that. Yet, you know, we're hearing that this might be, you know, kind of a neck and neck and whether or not President, Trump and the GOP will prevail after midterms.

Hans Von Spakovsky: I think that in the same way that President Trump, as you know, in his first campaign made a big deal about, who was going to be on the Supreme Court. And the American people really paid attention to that. I think they need to make a big deal about this. Why? Because polls overwhelmingly show that Americans think you should not only have to show an ID to vote, but that, you should provide proof of citizenship, so that you are actually an eligible citizen to vote. And the fact that Democrats are against this. I think, calls into question their basic view of integrity. In fact it makes them look like they want to be able to cheat. And I think Republicans ought to make a big deal about that because that support, that support for ID goes across party lines. The Democratic leadership is not in line with their constituency. The majority of Democrats, support both of those. And I think that is a wedge issue that Republicans can successfully use against Democrats.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and they should. I mean especially as the Democrats are going so much further to the left. I mean you have all of these socialists that are now invading their party. I mean these are people that you know, shouldn't be holding office, anyway. But it goes back to, all of this goes back to election integrity. It goes back to ensuring that only American citizens can vote. And so where then should we focus beyond the, the state legislatures in terms of some of the legal challenges? what are some areas that we can still press on election integrity?

Hans Von Spakovsky: Well, I recently I recently wrote a paper on the fact that there's currently a split in the federal appeals courts. You know this sounds procedural, but it's not. Remember the National Voter Registration act has a very specific provision giving the public access to voter registration records and the efforts or non efforts states make to keep those records, clean. You know, in other words, what do states do to make sure for example that aliens aren't registering to vote? And unfortunately there are a number of federal appeals courts that have said well no, the public really doesn't have access to those records and states don't have to provide those records. And that's an issue that the Supreme Court needs to take up because transparency in that area is very, very important. And there are a number of cases working their way towards the Supreme Court on this issue that access to voter registration records across the country is vital to cleaning up our system.

Jenna Ellis: That is so important and it should be. I mean just like you know, you have to re register, you know, your car every one or two years, you know, you have to re register a lot of different things. Why can't we have across the board, you know, some kind of accountability where maybe every presidential year you have to go back and and even just show that you're, you're still, even if you're an American citize, they have to show that you're still a resident of the same state. I mean, you know, in Colorado, my former home state, I still get a mail in ballot. You know, at my former Address. I mean, it's ridiculous, that the voter rolls haven't been purged and that happens, you know, all the time, with mail in ballot states. I mean there are so many different issues. But, Hans von Spakovsky, I'm really grateful for all of the work that you do and everyone at advancing American freedom to continue to press on election integrity. This issue should not go by the wayside. Yes, Trump won a resounding victory in 2024, but that doesn't mean that we let the issues of election integrity just kind of fall by the wayside. We should still champion this, ensure that only citizens are voting in elections and only people who actually can vote are voting. And also that we, ensure that the process, is ultimately trans. Transparent and, and fair and correct. So, I mean, again, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. But really appreciate it Hans. And we will be right back with more. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Supreme Court ruling clears way for Trump administration to end temporary protected status

Welcome back.

Jenna Ellis: Well, the Supreme Court yesterday also ruled 63 that the Federal Courts cannot review the Department of Homeland Security's decisions to terminate Temporary Protected Status or tps. So the decision clears the way for the Trump administration to end protections for approximately 350,000 Haitian and Syrian nationals. This is a very good thing. this is what DHS Secretary Mark Wayne Mullin, said on TPS ending yesterday. This is cut three.

Mark Wayne Mullin: They don't have an option now. The courts ruled they have to go back. They don't have to go back the country they went to. They can go, they can choose another country and we'll assist you in that. You can self deport or we're going to pick you up. what I was saying on Jake Tapper is like people have been here 15, 20 years. They had time to change their status if they wanted to. Because you didn't change your status. There's nothing I can do at this point. the court has spoken. Full stop. Period.

Mark Wayne Mullin: There's no other place to go to change your status now. You're going to go back to your country you came from, and change your status or, and what I mean by change your status, reapply to build a come into the country legally because as of right now, TPS is ended and you're currently in the country illegally. So I'll give you a two thousand six hundred dollar check and an airline ticket to go back to the country you choose that will accept you or go back to your country.

Jenna Ellis: All right, well, Mark Raymond came under fire a little over some of those comments and suggesting that, you know, he'll give a check to, these TPS recipients to just get on a plane and go back, to their country or be arrested and deported. As he said, these are the two options that you have. But my view is why even give them money? Just tell them, you know, get your own plane ticket and go. Otherwise we'll arrest you and we'll, the federal government will send you, and that's how they should be spending their money.

Rep. Marlin Stutzman supports Supreme Court ruling on TPS

But let's welcome in a Representative Marlin Stutzman from the great state of Indiana. so your thoughts, overall on this Supreme Court decision? I think it's a very good thing. and do you think that, DHS is correct, least in their posture of, of, of at least encouraging these TPS recipients who are, who now don't have protections and are basically holdovers, to, to go back to and basically self deport?

Marlin Stutzman: Yes. Good morning, Jenna. Great to be with you. Yeah, no, I'm, I'm actually very happy with the Supreme Court. And you know, first of all, I'll just say this, that again, this shows why the Biden administration really put a lot of these people in a very vulnerable position by misusing the law. you know, again, it's easy to blame while the Trump administration's being mean here or, you know, that the Trump administration's doing this or that. Well, actually, they shouldn't have been here to begin with in some cases. And if they would have come through the proper process, maybe as refugees or other status, then maybe things would have changed. So I think the Supreme Court, did the right thing. They upheld the law. I think this really points back to, again, the Biden immigration policy being so misused and abused that, a lot of people are the ones that are paying the price for it today.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, this really goes back to, the Trump administration's, priorities that Trump ran on in 2024. And a lot of Republicans saying that we need to not only close the border now, but we need to have mass deportations. And this is part of it. I mean, some of these people who may have come in under, you know, some kind of, protected status, it. Temporary is supposed to mean temporary, and it shouldn't be a loophole toward asylum and toward, permanent status. And so, do you think that we are ultimately going to see, more of more deportations through DHS because of this decision?

Marlin Stutzman: Well, very possibly. And again, you know, that's one thing that the Democrat Party has been doing a very good job is fighting for illegals in this country more than they fight for the American people. And you know, there's roughly 10 million illegals that came over during the Biden administration. I mean, think about that. I mean, you know, 10 million people in four years, that's cities, I mean large, large cities that m immigrated illegally into the United States, over a four year period of time. Before that, at the end of 2020, there's an estimated 10 million illegals in the country, from you know, years gone by. And so I think that that again just shows you the magnitude of the situation and the problem that we have, that there are at least 10 million that came across the border. We have no idea where they're, who they are, where they're from, what they're up to. and I think that that's what the Trump administration has. You know, why he won again in 2024 is because he told the American people, I'm going to put a stop to this. You know, he started building the wall in his first administration. I went down to the border, in 2024 and saw some of the Biden border that was supposed to be put up. It was embarrassing, it was laughable, because people would still be able to run down to the end and come around the corner, jump a couple of concrete barriers and tear up their IDs and come across the border. And so it was, you know, Joe Biden just created a magnet for illegals to come in. But I do think that President, ah, Trump and the administration, ah, are going to keep doing what they told the American people they would do. And I think that also Mark Wayne Mullin is just the right person to handle this job. He is, he's going to follow the law, he's going to enforce the law, he's going to use common sense. And I think he's been doing a fantastic job so far.

The Supreme Court is set to hear the birthright citizenship case later today

Jenna Ellis: And and speaking of Congress, trying to support the Trump administration's priorities and the American people's priorities on mass deportations, closing the border and all of that, we are set to likely receive the birthright citizenship case from the Supreme Court, later today in just a few hours. And most people are anticipating that that's not going to be a good decision, overall for conservatives and overall for America, putting us with the Supreme Court, not putting a stop to some of these citizenship, attempts by, you know, foreign nationals and Basically invaders that are coming here and having children that then become American citizens just through the virtue of simply being present in the United States. And ah, Congressman Brandon Gill, has stated, you know, multiple times, I think is an excellent advocate on this issue, that citizenship shouldn't be given to children of illegals or people that are just, you know, here for the purpose of taking advantage of the system. is Congress going to support the the Trump administration's view on this issue if we do receive the opinion we're anticipating?

Marlin Stutzman: Well that's a great question. I do think that Republicans will. Democrats. Well this has been the issue and I think that's why Democrats are where they're at as a party today, electing Socialists, Marxists, Communists, again they're fighting for the illegal. And I agree with Brandon, that you know the intent of our founding fathers, it was a very different world back then. you know, transportation wasn't quite the way that it is today. And of course leaving an open border allowing for people to come across to have a baby. So that's American citizen. I think that that clause has been so abused and my hope is, is that there's some common sense on the court, looking at intent. But I'm probably more with you where I don't know that it's going to be a decision that we like. But that's why Congress needs to act and we need to clarify that you know, if you are born of two illegals in this country, you're still an illegal, you're not here properly. And the fact is there's proper ways to do it if they would follow the laws, and you know, leave the country and come back through the proper channels. I've always believed in a high wall and a wide gate, but that gate needs to be controlled or the gate needs to be managed and people need to come to the country legally. So the federal government has failed, 20 million people by letting them come in illegally. Now some of them maybe have overstayed visas and other issues. Each case can be different but in mass, you know, the Democrat Party has been wanting mass, you know, illegal immigration into the United States because they think it's going to help them somehow politically. Now so far it is in the sense that they are being counted in our census, and then that we use those census numbers to draw the House of Representative maps across the country. And so I actually just signed on to a bill that Andrew Glide proposed that illegals cannot be counted for apportionment for districts. And so California likely has two, maybe three. If there are 20 million illegals in the country, they may have three, maybe four, districts, that they should not even have compared to other states like Indiana, where we aren't a sanctuary state like California is, or like Minnesota or NewSong York. So that's why this issue really does matter. it's going to be a fight in Congress. I hope Republicans stick together on it and maybe we'll even get a couple of Democrats. We'll see.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I hope it's a fight in Congress and it's not just a fight on, you know, media and having select Republicans, say, you know, like yourself and Brandon Gill and a few others saying, you know, we need to do this. But overall that, that fight doesn't actually happen in Congress and not even just with illegals. I mean, absolutely, I fully applaud everything, that you've said. But also even with birther tourism and you know, people who are coming, I mean, we've seen the numbers from China that you know, they're sending their nationals to, to basically have children here so that then they can, they can control American citizens. I mean, this is a really big issue. So hopefully we'll have that fighting Congress.

Top deputies of President Trump briefed Congress on Iran peace talks yesterday

but I want to turn to another topic. In the last few minutes I have with you, ah, Congressman Stutzman, you, were on a, a, call where, Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff briefed Congress, on the Iran, peace talks. And so top deputies of, ah, President Trump briefed Congress on Iran peace talks in a, in a conference call yesterday. This was the first time administration officials have addressed a broad group of lawmakers since Trump signed that memorandum of understanding. what did you learn on that call?

Marlin Stutzman: Yeah, no, it was a great call. And of course, President, Trump and Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff and the Vice President have all been working so hard, for so many different reasons. And again, I think what this shows is that President Trump is not a forever war President. He is not one to send in a bunch of. I mean, there's no troops, in Iran compared to what happened in, Iraq and Afghanistan. we went in, we bombed from the air, we sent rockets and missiles in from, the ships in the Middle east. And we have set back the irgc, dramatically. Now I like to separate the irgc, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, from the Iranian people because the messages that we're hearing from the Iranian people is that they want freedom they want the IRGC gone. This is a group of thugs and, dictators and religious zealots that took over Iran back in 1979. And we've been dealing with them for over 40 years, right at 50 years. And so they've said, look, we are dealing with people who move the goalposts. They lie, cheat, steal. but we are going to continue to put the pressure on economically, and we're going to put the pressure on militarily to bring these guys to the table. Now, do I think that they will maintain and keep the, promises that they make in the MoU? Likely not. But that's why, you know, our motto should be untrust, but verify. And we can follow through with making sure Iran is weak, that they are not able to get a nuclear weapon, that they can't control and limit the travel through the Strait of Hormuz. So, Marco, Rubio is doing a fantastic job of being sure. The one thing that I want to clarify, I think most people need to understand that this mou, it's like a letter of intent. It sets the parameters. This is not a treaty. And the Democrats in the mainstream media like to say, oh, we're going to give them $300 billion. That's not what the M. Mou says. It mentions 300 million in the context that if you do certain metrics, if you meet certain criteria, then there will be funds. But those funds are not coming from taxpayers here in the United States. They would come from other parts of the Middle east or from sanction relief and other pieces that. That can be spelled out. So this is not taxpayer dollars. This is a much better deal than what Barack Obama made with the Iranians to keep them from having a nuclear weapon? President Trump is a strong negotiator and a strong diplomat, and he's going to use the full strength of the economic power of the military, of the United States and the military.

Jenna Ellis: So it sounds like you were, you know, pretty confident in President Trump even going into the call, and then after, this briefing. And so, you know, we're coming up on, on the November midterms, and there's a lot of, you know, concern around the ongoing conflict, gas prices, you know, that kind of thing. do you think that with this letter of intent and then pushing toward the fuller agreement, even though we don't really think, you know, Iran is going to follow a lot of it, do you think that this conflict will be sufficiently concluded before the November midterms, at least to the extent that the public has confidence in the, economic and perhaps other, effects.

Marlin Stutzman: Well, you know, I think, Jenna, that there's so many good things going on in the economy. I mean, just being home over the weekend, over Father's Day, the restaurants were, the parking lots were packed in northern Indiana. I was talking to, woodworking companies and they're up 30%. The economy is really strong in my neck of the woods. gas prices are an issue. But I also hear from older people that we need to finish the job especially. so I think what President Trump is doing is the right thing. He's giving the IRGC a chance to. I mean, the Ayatollah is dead. They have complete disruption of their leadership apparatus. there might be somebody new there that is going to use a little more of a level head and say, hey, I want to live rather than die. You never know in those groups of, you know, bad people, they, you know, there's no honor amongst thieves. And so there might be somebody there who says, let's try to take the country a direction that is better for themselves. There's always self interest, of course. but I think that President Trump is saying, look, we bombed the tar out of you guys. We can keep doing the or you guys can come to your senses and try to find some sort of pathway towards peace. Do I think it's a long lasting peace? I doubt it. But at the same time, I think it's worth the try to try to be able to define a path forward and let's see what they're where their weak spots are and if they fail, we've, got a strong military in the wings.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, and President Trump isn't afraid to use that, and I think that's ultimately a good thing. Congressman Stutzman, thank you. Thanks so much. You can follow him at repstutsman across social media. I'd encourage you to do that. And, we'll see what the Supreme Court says today in the coming hours on birthright citizenship. Have coverage of all of that tomorrow morning. And as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna, at AFR Net.

Jenna Ellis discusses the recent Supreme Court rulings that have significant implications for presidential authority and election integrity. Joined by legal experts Mike Donnelly and Hans Von Spakovsky, they delve into the court's decision allowing President Trump to fire independent regulators and the controversial ruling regarding mail-in ballots. Jenna and Rep. Marlin Stutzman address the ongoing challenges of the administrative state and the importance of congressional action in maintaining election integrity.