>> The U.S.

Supreme Court's annual June boom is about to begin bringing an end to months of speculation.

The justices are poised to hand down decisions and several landmark cases in the weeks ahead.

The rulings could have sweeping implications for birthright citizenship.

Presidential power, transgender athletes and more.

Joining us to break down.

The key cases are Michael Scotto a partner and co-head of the Supreme Court and appellate practice at my or brown.

He was a law clerk to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and also served for 6 years as Illinois Solicitor General David Franklin.

There are various thank David Franklin law professor at DePaul University and a former law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

He also served as Illinois solicitor general.

There he is.

And then Geoffrey Stone, law professor at the University of Chicago and former law clerk to Justice William Brennan Junior.

He previously served as dean of the EU Chicago Law School and Provost of the University.

John.

And thanks to all 3 of you for joining us.

So Michael, one of the most may be the most consequential case watching out for us.

Trump versus Barbara.

This one examines birthright citizenship.

Remind us of the details of this case.

Sure.

So this is a case that many of seen before.

This is a case that came up through the Supreme Court's so-called emergency or shadow docket.

>> Last term where the court dealt with separate offshoot question involving.

>> The so-called nationwide injunctions, whether a single court could issue an order that applies nationwide.

This time it here on the merits for full briefing.

And we've had argument on the case.

This involves the administration's interpretation of a federal statute and clause in the 14th Amendment that it's called the citizenship clause that provides that people who are born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are United States citizens and 4.

Centuries.

Now that has been interpreted to permit almost everyone born in the United States.

Certain very narrow exceptions to be treated as United States citizen with with all the benefits that come with that that current administration believes that the particularly the phrase subject to the jurisdiction of in that clause means that individuals have to be here.

The parents that give birth have to be here lawfully.

And so the president has issued an executive order that has been the subject litigation since January of 2025, he issued executive order saying that individuals who are here whose parents are here temporarily or whose parents are not here lawfully.

Even though they're born here, they're not being there, not considered American citizens.

And that's what's being challenge.

>> So David SCOTUS, they heard these arguments for this in early April.

Justices seemed skeptical of the arguments that are presented by the Trump administration at the time.

Remind us of some of the arguments and and whether or not, you justice is skepticism is at an indicator of which way they might vote rule.

>> So I don't know how to put this any other way.

The legality of the executive order that we're talking about is dubious in the extreme.

I mean, it's it's almost of a frivolous argument in favor of the legality of the order.

Mike said, birthright citizenship has been interpreted very simply to mean.

But if you're in this country, you were born in this country and your subject to the laws of this country, you're a citizen of this country.

That's the whole point.

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment, which is that sort of crown jewel of our constitution.

But everything else that flows from that hold the rights of liberty and equality are founded on this idea of birthright citizenship.

So ask me to talk about the arguments.

I'll just say when I teach constitutional law, my students but their 6 sort building blocks of constitutional law.

Text precedent, structure, history, purpose can consequences and without going into detail on all 6 of those building blocks this birthright citizenship, executive order is a dead bang loser.

And I think even the Supreme Court will see through it.

All right.

Well, to that point Jeffrey, any sense of of >> which way the justices are going to come down on this?

>> I agree with views really expressed that the justices are going to come rejecting the Trump administration's claim, the strongest argument.

I think Trump administration I don't think is a strong one.

But I think the strongest one is text of the 14th Amendment provides that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, our citizens of the United States.

And the argument is that reason for that clause to to make former slaves.

We now citizens of the United States with a warrant in the United States and purposes and nothing to do individuals who came here from other countries and then in this country and children born this country.

But the courts and lawyers objected their argument and then suspect that they will today, by a vote of the re 63 of not more.

>> Ok, so there is a David.

There's another case Trump V Slaughter.

This one examines the president's power to fire heads of multi member independent agencies.

Remind us what's at stake in this 90 years ago, the Supreme Court decided that Congress has the power to create these independent agencies.

Like the Federal Trade Commission, which is at issue in this case, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Reserve and others and to make the heads of those agencies insulated to some degree from at will presidential removal.

So if the president wants to fire a member of the FTC for 90 years, the rule has been he has to have good cause for doing so.

And the idea behind that is that get Congress makes the laws Congress has regulatory authority under Constitution and has the power to make all laws that are necessary and proper.

>> To effectuate that regulatory authority and the president has the duty, not the power, but the duty to take care that laws be faithfully executed.

But in the 1980's, a largely through the efforts of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

We've got this idea of the unitary executive, basically this notion that.

Everybody who exercises any part of the executive power has to work in subordination to the president.

I think that idea has pretty dubious historical and tax bases, but it has very much carried the day with the current court.

They're following in Scalia's footsteps and they're almost certain to declare.

But the president has the power to fire Miss Slaughter and well, any member of any independent agency, except perhaps the Federal Reserve for any reason or for no reason at all.

Well, to that point, as you said, you know, the Supreme Court has not shied away from granting this administration more power.

>> Michael, what are your thoughts on on how the justices might lean for having come down on this one?

based on argument that even our understanding of where the justices are likely to live before argument.

completely agree with David.

I think that the court is very likely to grant the president this authority of removal without cause that will, as as David said, a fact more than a dozen federal agencies I also agree the court has been careful so far they've done so in a separate riding in one of their emergency docket decisions.

But carve out space that that the Federal Reserve Board may be different.

I think there's concern about roiling the markets and other concerns.

There have been efforts on both sides in that case to distinguish it from from the mine run of independent agency.

Cases like this one.

So that's before the court in a case called Cook.

We'll see what they do there.

But I I completely agree with the prediction.

So, Jeffrey, there are 2 cases that could also have significant consequences for transgender athletes.

Talk to us first about.

>> Little versus he.

It's this one concerns the NCAA and college athletics.

>> Well, this is 24 year-old trans woman who is bored from college wounds track and field because trans was a longer that forgiven swoon in great praise you to college if they are friends and the court of Appeals blowhole, the law well, most to shuttle said that the Constitution requires we treated equally individuals regardless of their and section clues, not only be male or female, that also trends.

The West Virginia case, which is also before the court is assuming which involves a 50 year-old trans girl and court of appeals again ongoing through shuttle.

The key question here is whether the court will from its prior decision in the Vostok case does it in 2020?

Alderman Bob was fired from a job Clayton County being friends.

And that was a violation.

from the Civil Rights Act.

And the question is whether or not they want move away from that but in the end, letter context argument that's being made is that this is different from just plain discrimination.

then it's not about saying you can't be and still be and have sorts jobs for that.

In terms of men have capacities and women and for a trans woman view of the play in the women's give her an advantage.

The other women do not have that next incompatible.

And I imagine the court writing that opinion which religion itself only to thunder context because of that taking a factor.

>> So then there's also campaign finance limits.

Michael, the National Republican Senatorial Committee versus Federal Election Commission what's this case about?

>> Sure.

So this case joins a long line of cases.

We've been seeing these for more than a couple of decades now.

And the Supreme Court, this one actually asks the court to go back and look at the decision issued 25 years ago answering the same question.

This has to do with regulations, federal regulations on so-called coordinated political spending.

In this case.

You've got political party committees that are spending on Senate and congressional candidates.

You put your Democratic and Republican committees.

The Republican Committee has challenged federal limits on the degree to which there can be spending and coordination between the candidate and the committee.

And as we've seen a number of cases, the claim is that spending for campaign, the court has how a campaign spending is speech protected by the First Amendment of the theory is that these limits are themselves violations of the First Amendment.

Free speech rights.

The the other side is arguing, look, this court has that side of this issue and wall.

There have been interim decisions of great significance in this area.

Nothing from the Supreme Court has suggested or certainly has openly held that this 2001 decision should be overturned, OK?

So all of this is happening.

You know, the Supreme Court has also made its ruling regarding the Voting Rights Act in the case of Louisiana versus Kelly.

>> David, what is your reaction to that ruling in the impact that it could have?

>> remains to be seen what kind of impact it could have been.

It could mean that throughout the South and perhaps even elsewhere, we might see few or no minority members of Congress.

I think it was wrongly decided.

And here's why it purports to be an interpretation of the Voting Rights Act.

Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act in 1965 and then.

Went back to the drawing board and re in accident in the early 1980's, specifically to say.

The minority communities are entitled to an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

Regardless of whether there's racially discriminatory intent.

What did the Supreme Court decide recently in the Louisiana case, essentially that there has to be racially discriminatory intent.

That's just not a faithful interpretation of what Congress.

>> But overwhelming majorities said in both 1965.

In 1982.

>> Ok, Jeffrey, we've got just a couple seconds left.

Who would you say are some of the justices to watch?

We know the conservatives have the majority, but some have blocked a Trump before.

>> Well, I Justice Barrett can just kind of not going to most likely in regards to lesser extent to, quote, from not clear will do so.

I do think that the justices probably aware of the fact that democracy in our nation is now in greater stress.

he's been a time certainly their lifetimes and want to be on that and that, therefore, you want to try ensure that the traditional values of our society, including the may be somewhat of well-known preserve Reserve.

>> Yeah.

Okay.

It's our