2,422 videos 1,389,747,653 views US Joined Aug 30, 2018
Charlie Kirk is the Founder and President of Turning Point USA, the largest and fastest growing conservative youth activist organization in the country with over 250,000 student members, over 150 full-time staff, and a presence on over 2,000 high school and college campuses nationwide. Charlie is also the Chairman of Students for Trump, which aims to activate one million new college voters on campuses in battleground states in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. His social media reaches over 100 million people per month and according to Axios, he is one of the "top 10 most engaged" Twitter handles in the world. He is also the host of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” which regularly ranks among the top news shows on Apple podcast charts.
May Mailman Breaks Down Supreme Court Victory That Ends Nationwide Injunctions Against Trump Administration
May Mailman, White House deputy assistant to the president and senior policy strategist, joins to discuss a Supreme Court ruling that effectively ends the practice of nationwide injunctions from district court judges. For years, more than half of all nationwide injunctions have targeted President Trump, with unelected judges blocking everything from military policies to immigration enforcement. The Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship establishes that injunctions can only apply within the specific district where they were issued, not across the entire nation. Mailman explains how this decision impacts policies on immigration, border security, and cultural issues, while also detailing the administration's strategy of signing executive orders early in the term to navigate legal challenges upfront. She also celebrates the administration's border security success, noting zero illegal crossings with proper detention and deportation protocols now in place.
Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory on Nationwide Injunctions
May Mailman, White House deputy assistant to the president and senior policy strategist, discussed a Supreme Court decision that marks a turning point in how district court judges can issue injunctions against the Trump administration. The ruling addresses a practice that has disproportionately targeted President Trump, with more than half of all nationwide injunctions ever issued being directed against him.
For years, unelected district court judges have issued sweeping nationwide injunctions telling the president how to run military policy, immigration enforcement, border wall construction, and deportation procedures. Conservative judges, by contrast, often restrained themselves during the Biden administration. When conservative states sued over Biden's Title IX rewrite, they paused it only in those specific states, not nationwide, until the Trump administration reversed the policy entirely.
The Birthright Citizenship Case That Changed Everything
The Supreme Court case centered on birthright citizenship. On day one of his administration, President Trump issued an executive order stating that children of illegal aliens do not automatically become citizens. Multiple lawsuits followed, and three different courts issued injunctions declaring the executive order illegal not just for the parties before them, but everywhere, for everyone, for all time.
The Supreme Court rejected this approach, ruling that district court judges cannot issue such sweeping nationwide injunctions. While some questions remain about how injunctions might apply across multiple states in cases involving ten states as plaintiffs or through class action approaches, the era of single district court judges stopping presidential actions nationwide is over.
Mailman emphasized that the original intent of the Constitution never envisioned a singular district court judge being able to sweep the entire nation with their rulings. The system was designed for parties to sue individually, receive relief specific to their cases, and allow different legal reasoning to percolate up to the Supreme Court, which can then review various interpretations before making thoughtful decisions.
Impact on Key Administration Policies
The ruling opens pathways for numerous Trump administration policies that have been blocked by nationwide injunctions. Mailman highlighted several areas that will see immediate impact:
Policies refusing to fund transgender procedures for minors in hospitals
Restrictions on funding transgender procedures in prisons
Deportation to third countries
Border wall construction funding
Immigration detention authority and funding
Student visa regulations
CBP One app policies from the Biden administration
While the Supreme Court has previously overturned overreaching district court judges on some of these issues, the repeated need to appeal every case to the highest court created an exhausting cycle. This new precedent should reduce that burden significantly.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a remarkably brief but sharp dissent against Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's position. The entire dissent reads: "We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary."
Mailman praised the dissent as judicial savagery, noting that dissents are typically multiple pages long and deeply argued. This one-paragraph response went directly after Justice Jackson's reasoning. According to Mailman, Justice Jackson's written opinion essentially argued that a judge's job is to stop Trump whenever they believe the executive is acting against the law, regardless of constitutional constraints on judicial power.
The Constitution grants judges judicial power to decide cases and controversies between parties that are before them, not policymaking power to declare what they think should happen. The founders deliberately rejected models where laws required judicial approval before taking effect. The American system has three equal branches, not a super branch judiciary that sits over everyone else.
Justice Barrett's dissent highlighted that while the other two liberal justices pointed to laws underpinning their disagreement, Justice Jackson provided no such basis beyond her opposition to the Trump administration's actions.
Immigration Enforcement and Border Security
The Supreme Court ruling has significant implications for immigration policy, which voters overwhelmingly supported during the election. Mailman emphasized that border security requires both preventing illegal border crossings and interior enforcement. If someone crosses the border illegally and faces no consequences once inside the country, true border security doesn't exist.
Cases affected by this ruling include challenges to Biden administration policies that effectively created alternative immigration laws, questions about where individuals can be removed, authorities and funding for detention and wall construction, and even student visa regulations.
The Strategic Brilliance of Early Executive Orders
The Trump administration employed a specific strategy of signing numerous executive orders early in the term, knowing legal challenges would follow. The brilliance of this approach lies in adjudicating these challenges in the first six to nine months rather than in years two, three, or four of the administration.
Mailman shared her personal experience from Trump 1.0, when she requested to see a draft of a regulation and agency officials laughed, saying it would take years. The public charge regulation, which requires immigrants to demonstrate they can financially support themselves without becoming a burden on society, didn't emerge for several years. Even though the administration was successfully litigating the case, it came so late in the term that when it was ready for the Supreme Court, the change in administration allowed Biden to simply take it down.
During Trump 2.0, the administration learned that quick action is absolutely possible. The COVID pandemic demonstrated that the government could work quickly, and the Biden administration also moved rapidly on its priorities. The Trump team decided they wouldn't accept delays this time, and everyone understood the urgency.
In Trump 1.0, remain in Mexico didn't come until approximately year two and a half or three, taking roughly two years to get through the courts. This time, the administration built on the strong legal foundation established during the first term. Because that legal work was completed and Trump ultimately won those cases, day one of the second term allowed reimplementation of everything already accomplished.
President Trump signed documents designating cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, reimplemented remain in Mexico backed by threats and tariffs, and issued military declarations. The result was zero people coming across the southern border.
Border Success and American Power Restored
When asked to elaborate on border achievements, Mailman explained that the lack of news coverage about the border reflects success rather than problems. Zero illegal crossings means there are no gotaways. While the administration tracks some attempted illegal crossers via drones and other surveillance, every single person is detained and then deported.
This success extends beyond just Border Patrol agents. It includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the State Department, because foreign countries now accept their deported citizens back. Under Biden, countries simply refused and faced no consequences. Now those countries know not to challenge the Trump administration.
Mailman emphasized that border security involves much more than infrastructure, walls, or personnel. It represents American power being asserted again on the world stage. The combination of strong border enforcement, diplomatic pressure, and willingness to use economic leverage through tariffs has created a comprehensive approach that delivers results.
Looking Ahead: Three Years of Implementation
With legal challenges being addressed early and Supreme Court cases being teed up for the October term, the administration is positioned to spend the next three years implementing and solidifying its agenda. The Supreme Court doesn't sit every day to answer questions, so building strong cases, picking the right ones, and finding the best arguments takes time.
When the Supreme Court reconvenes in October, cases will be presented in the strongest possible posture with the best arguments. This leaves essentially three years to execute the agenda, secure wins in Congress, and fundamentally change the country's trajectory. According to Mailman, this presidency isn't about racking up minor wins but about changing the trajectory of the nation and saving civilization itself.
