THREE Supreme Court Victories against Lawfare Attacking the Trump Administration, plus 4 MILL Illegals w Social Security Numbers
30:13 Share

Welcome, it is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz. Nice to have you with us on this Wednesday morning and we get to start with good news, Senator, and that is there are three different rulings that have come down from the Supreme Court all in favor of the Trump administration. Well that's right and it's very encouraging. You know we've talked about at length on this podcast how the lawfare that is unfolding against the Trump administration, the pattern of nationwide injunctions,

Thank you.

for the Trump Department of Justice against these nationwide injunctions. We're going to break down all three of them and lay out, we've talked about on this podcast, how the principal check on this abuse of power that's going to be effective is

is the appellate process and the Supreme Court. It's encouraging now we have three victories. We're also going to talk about a new report from Doge that over 4 million Social Security numbers were given to illegal aliens, people who are not U.S. citizens. And finally, we've seen the growing pattern of men competing in women's sports. This past week, it went viral. A woman competing in fencing faced a man, a man identifying as a woman,

And she declined to compete. The woman took a knee and ended up being disqualified. Disqualified because she declined to compete against a biological man. That was wrong. That was an abuse of power. And as the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, I am holding USA fencing to account. We're going to explain all of that and what the consequences are. Yeah, that story is truly shocking. The details we're going to have for you. Make sure you take this podcast and you share it.

wherever you are on social media, because these stories are ones that the media is not covering, and we need your help getting it out there. I also want to take a moment and tell you about the IFCJ. Israel is still under attack right now. Missile fire has resumed from the Houthis, from Hezbollah, and from Hamas, and enemies...

that are seeking Israel destruction is unfortunately what Israel's having to deal with every day. Here in America, we cannot imagine living under constant threat of terrorism and rocket attacks. Well, this is the reality in Israel. Parents taking their children to school, falling to the ground to lay on top of their small children, trying to comfort them

As the sirens blare, the next attack against Israel is happening now with little time to prepare. And that's why I'm asking for your help. That is also why it's so important that you know about the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. They provide life-saving aid and security essentials. And your urgently needed gift today will help provide security essentials like bomb shelters, flak jackets, and bulletproof vests for the first responders.

They also provide armored security vehicles, armored ambulances, and so much more. So join me and stand with Israel. You can make a donation by calling 888-488-IFCJ. That's 888-488-4325. Or go online to supportifcj.org. One word, support.

IFCJ.org. Senator, this is a big deal, these rulings that you mentioned in the lead-in there in the show, because it's not just one, not two, but three victories for the Trump administration, and no one's covering this.

Now, that's exactly right. And let's start with the most prominent one, which is the Supreme Court on Monday lifted a judge's order that had blocked the deportation of suspected Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador. And it was the Trump administration was removing these gang members under an 18th century law known as the Alien Enemies Act.

And you'll recall a district judge, James Boasberg, had ordered the halt of the removals under the act. And in fact, President Trump had called for Judge Boasberg's impeachment as a result of that. Well, the court issued a 5-4 decision that blocked impeachment.

And

And a whole lot of attention has been focused on the fact that Amy Coney Barrett voted with the liberals on this. And so it was a 5-4 decision. Nonetheless, it's a victory in that what the court concluded was that if you wanted to challenge the deportation, that you could not do so in D.C., which is where they filed the case. Instead, you had to file it as a habeas corpus case.

What is a habeas corpus petition? Habeas corpus is a Latin term. It means produce the body. And habeas corpus is a civil avenue to justify someone's unlawful detention. But the court said, look, these individuals, these gang members were detained at the time the case was filed.

in South Texas. They said the right place to file the case is in South Texas, not D.C. They weren't being held in D.C. They were being held in South Texas. So the right avenue to challenge this was to file a habeas corpus petition in South Texas. And they said you shouldn't do so as a class action on behalf of everyone, which is what had been done here. Rather, each individual defendant was

If you have a claim, so look, if you've been detained, if you're getting ready to be deported and they say you're a Venezuelan gang member, if you have a claim that I'm not a Venezuelan gang member, the facts are wrong. They said the avenue to do that is go and file a habeas corpus petition in the location where you're being detained. That was 5-4.

I wish it had been 9-0. That was clearly right. Now, the court did say that anyone who is being detained and being deported, they should have reasonable notice under due process to have the challenge, the opportunity to challenge their detention and deportation. But the

But this victory is a big, big victory in what had been, I think, an egregious order from the district court trying to stop the deportation of really, really dangerous criminals.

Let me ask you a question because you mentioned it there, and I think it'd be crazy if I didn't ask it because there's so many people asking. Why was there what many would consider a conservative justice go with the Democrats in this decision? As an aside here, that was obviously part of the headline that we saw on social media. Yeah, look, I don't have a good answer. I think it is unfortunate. I disagree with her decision on that. In this case, look...

The left, both the Democrats and activist judges and left-wing radical legal groups are challenging any deportation. The Trump administration relied on a law called the Alien Enemies Act, which is a law that was signed into law in 1798 by President John Adams.

And what the Trump administration did is it classified a transnational criminal gang, Trender Aragua, as an arm of a hostile government, Venezuela. And based on that law, there are very broad legal authorities to deport criminals.

those who are part of a hostile government waging war on the United States. That was the basis of the deportations. The district judge, Judge Boasberg, had tried to shut down all these deportations, and thankfully...

the Supreme Court, by a vote of five to four, ended that and said, if you got an issue with a particular deportation, bring a case, but bring it in the location where the individual is detained. And they did say, you got to give them a reasonable time to challenge it. And so that...

That presumably will slow down the deportation slightly, but I don't expect it will slow it down much. It may slow it down a matter of days rather than months. And to be clear, this is a victory because it allows the president to continue doing what he wanted to do when it comes to deportations. If this would have gone the other way, this could have been catastrophic. No, that's exactly right. Look, the election in November was a clear mandate.

to secure the border and to end the invasion at our southern border. And the Trump administration has been following through on that mandate and has been deporting vast numbers of criminal illegal aliens.

The left is losing their mind, and that was the basis of this injunction. Thankfully, the Supreme Court reversed that. Now, there's another victory that occurred, which is another 5-4 decision, where the Supreme Court concluded that it was okay to cancel

$600 million in teacher training grants. $65 million of that had yet to be distributed. And there you had a different majority. You had Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. So she was in the 5-4. The Chief Justice joined the Liberals. So in the Venezuelan case, Amy Coney Barrett joined the Liberals. In the case about canceling the teacher training grants...

It was the Chief Justice who joined the liberals. And what the court concluded in this other case is that that should have been brought in the court of federal claims, that if you have a claim against money being given from the federal government, that the proper venue for challenging that is the court of federal claims. Now, look, some might say, gosh, these decisions are narrow and technical, and they are. And

But that being said, they're nonetheless victories against district judges that are engaged in lawfare, that are trying to shut down...

the Trump administration's agenda and the agenda they were elected to implement by the American people. So when you look at this, these really these three big decisions, does this also empower the Trump team and administration to do their job now saying, hey, we now know that when we go to court, we're going to be our side is going to be at least listened to and it's not stacked against us and we're doing the right thing within the law.

So yes and no. No, we've only talked about two of the cases. Let me talk about the third one. The third one was there was an order from a district judge that was ordering the Trump administration to reinstate 16,000 federal employees that it had fired. Yeah.

And that went to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court actually, by a vote of 72, reversed it. And they said that these federal employees did not have to be reinstated. The two liberal justices that dissented were Sonia Sotomayor and Katonji Brown Jackson. But the full court...

What happened in that case, it was an injunction that was issued by Judge William Allsep, who's a district judge in San Francisco, and he required the reinstatement of probationary employments at multiple agencies.

that the Trump administration had sought to dismiss. The judge was appointed by Bill Clinton, and the judge concluded that the administration hadn't followed the proper procedures for the firing. Well, the Supreme Court disagreed, and 7-2, they reversed that, which is yet another victory. So if you look at the combination of these, you have a victory for deporting

violent criminal gang member illegal aliens. You have a victory for canceling grants that were given and grants that were given in the Trump administration's view inappropriately. And you have a victory for dismissing 16,000 primarily probationary employees from federal agencies. In all three of them, you had federal district judges that had stepped in and said, no, we're going to stop you from carrying out this agenda.

And in all three of them, the Supreme Court, albeit on technical grounds, reversed or vacated the district court's orders. This is a very, very good development because it's exactly what we talked about. The remedy for lawless decisions by district courts. The best remedy is the appellate process and the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, we've talked about on this podcast how there are other remedies.

how Congress could pass legislation limiting nationwide injunctions. I support that. In fact, I'm the co-sponsor of legislation to do that. But the problem is the Democrats will filibuster that. It will never get 60 votes. Another possible remedy is impeachment. It is possible the House of Representatives could impeach a district judge who had egregiously abused his power. That takes simply a majority vote in the House of Representatives, 218. The Republicans could vote to do that.

However, to convict a judge under the Constitution takes two-thirds of the Senate, which means we would need a lot of Democrats. We would get zero. So impeachment will not be an effective remedy either.

That means we really are dependent on the appellate process of the Supreme Court. And I'm very encouraged to have three victories within just a couple of days. Yeah, these are big victories. And this is also, like you said, going to encourage, I think, the Trump administration to continue to make bold moves and say, hey, you guys want to sue. Go ahead. We'll see you in court and we'll see what happens there.

Let me tell you about Patriot Mobile real quick. If you've got a cell phone and your cell phone is not with Patriot Mobile, then the question I got to ask you is why? Why have you not made the switch? Well, you should make the switch and the deal is really easy.

You get cutting-edge technology. Switching has never been easier. There's no store visits, no hassles. You get to keep your same phone number you have right now. You get to keep your same phone you've got now or upgrade to a new one. And they have a 100% U.S.-based team that can activate you literally in minutes.

The other thing that I love about Patriot Mobile is this. They have access to all three major networks, meaning you get exceptional nationwide coverage. I used Patriot Mobile and have for years. They can even put a second number on a different network on your phone. It's like carrying two phones in one. You can have a work number.

and a personal number. It's amazing. They have unlimited data plans, mobile hotspots, international roaming, internet on-the-go devices, and home internet backup as well. You can get all of this from Patriot Mobile. So why are you waiting? Make the switch today. And by the way, when you pay your bill, you know that about 5% of that bill every month is going back to support conservative causes.

Calls that stand for our First and Second Amendment rights, the rights of unborn children. And they stand with our veterans, our first responders, our police and firemen, our EMTs, and our wounded warriors. So make a difference with every call you make. Go to patriotmobile.com slash verdict.

Or 972-PATRIOT right now. Use the promo code VERDICT. You'll get a free month of service. So switch to Patriot Mobile and defend freedom with every call and text you make. That's patriotmobile.com slash VERDICT or 972-PATRIOT. Make the switch today. All right, Senator, let's talk also about this other shocking news that's come out.

that's been exposed with Doge, and that is that there were a whole lot of illegal immigrants that were receiving social security numbers right away. It made them eligible for a lot of government program, government aid, and was costing American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. And this was all done on purpose by the prior administration. Yeah, that's exactly right. You know, there's a great story about this in the Daily Wire. It begins with, quote,

According to the latest numbers reported by the Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, nearly 4 million non-citizens were issued Social Security numbers in the United States during former President Joe Biden's time in the White House. Stuart Varney broke down some of the details during Tuesday morning's broadcast of his Fox Business Show, showing how the numbers exploded from 270,425 in Biden's first year in office to

up to 2,095,247 in his last year as president. And in fact, we've got that audio of Stuart. I want to play it for everybody. Take a listen. Doge exposed our immigration asylum disaster. That was the tip of the iceberg. Now, here's the story. Doge has found that immigration gave a work authorization document to illegals just five

five months after they filed for asylum. That document allowed them to work while they waited to hear whether their asylum request had been accepted or denied. So, they could work as an illegal knowing it would take years before their case was heard.

The immigration department mailed them a social security number. No interview, no proof of identity. Just put it in the mail. Here's your number. In 2021, Doge says 270,000 new aliens were issued social security numbers, 590,000 in 2022, 964,000 in 2023, and 2.1 million in 2024, right before Biden left office.

Doge also discovered that 1.3 million aliens are now receiving Medicaid. Millions received driver's licenses. Some registered to vote, and Doge says some actually did vote. Try and square that against Democrat claims that Musk is destroying Social Security and cutting Medicaid. He's not destroying. He's weeding out people who don't qualify. Who is really guilty of misinformation in this case? It is not Elon Musk.

By the way, one of the things that he said there was we were mailing out these Social Security cards to people that had no proof of who they were. No proof of identity. Just here you go. Sign up and bam, we'll give you a bunch of government aid, including, as he mentioned, their Medicaid. Yeah, no, it's an amazing quote. No interview, no proof of identity. Just put it in the mail. And the important thing to understand, this was not by accident.

This is not because the Biden administration was incompetent. It's not because they're lazy. This was their intention. You don't go from 200,000 to 2 million in four years by accident.

They made a conscious decision. Number one, the 12 million illegal immigrants that invaded this country under Joe Biden. They made a conscious decision. Let's open up our borders. We want this to happen. Number two, the four million non-citizens who got Social Security numbers. They made a conscious decision. We want every one of them. Look, the reason why, you know, I've had people ask me, why would the Democrats allow this horrific invasion? It hurt them politically. It hurt them badly politically.

Don't any of them say, gosh, this is egregious? And it's a simple political calculus. I believe the Democrats decided every illegal immigrant in America is a future Democrat voter. And so we'll take 12 million, even if it includes murderers and rapists and child molesters and gang members, because we want power. And so hand in hand with that is.

is giving them social security numbers even if it's fraudulent they don't care and and and this is yet another example of the abuse of power we've seen over the last four years in particular that is being exposed by elon musk and by by president trump so how do we turn this off i mean there's this many that are out there and if you go back over the numbers that you that you mentioned uh

and that Stuart mentioned there, the number of people that got these Social Security cards just in the fiscal year 2024, over 2 million, about 1,023,000, almost 600,022, and 270,000 in 2021. How do we turn those off? How do we say, no, you don't need this, and you were given...

this was abuse of power. No, we're not going to have you getting all this free government aid. Is that where Congress has to step in and say, hey, we got to go back through all these non-citizen social security numbers that have been issued and connect the dots of those that were issued? Are you getting government aid? Yes, Congress should act. But at the same time, I think the Trump administration has ample authority to act. And I think Elon Musk

views that really is a very significant part of his mandate. You know, one of the things Stuart Varney reported on, he said, quote, Doge also discovered that 1.3 million aliens are now receiving Medicaid. Millions receive driver's licenses. Some registered to vote.

And Doge said some actually did vote. Try and square that against Democrat claims that Musk is destroying Social Security and cutting Medicaid. He's not destroying.

He's weeding out people who don't qualify. Who's really guilty of misinformation in this case? It's not Elon Musk. And that point, I think, is exactly right, that I think the Trump administration has a real mandate to go find waste, fraud, and abuse, and go find illegal immigrants that are wrongly receiving government benefits and cut them off. And I think Congress should back them up, but I also think the Trump administration is going to do so on its own, and I think that's fantastic.

Senator, there's also another important story that is one that is, I think, exciting for transparency, but also frustrating at the same time. You have opened an investigation into U.S. fencing over their trans athlete policy. Give us the backstory on this and why you're so involved. So USA Fencing has received widespread criticism for something that happened last week.

Stephanie Turner, who's a female fencer.

She refused to compete against a transgender opponent, a biological male who decided that he was a she. And what happened is Stephanie Turner, rather than compete against this biological male, Stephanie Turner took a knee. And as a result, she was disqualified from the tournament. She was given a black card and disqualified from the tournament. It was treated as forfeiting.

And I saw this. Frankly, I saw this on X. I saw this on Twitter. And I thought this was outrageous because women should not be forced to compete against men in sports. That's not right. Now,

As you know, I am the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The Commerce Committee has massive jurisdiction. It has jurisdiction over roughly 40% of the U.S. economy. One of the things we have jurisdiction over is sports. We have jurisdiction over collegiate sports, Olympic sports, and any kind of sports competition. And USA Fencing is explicitly...

It is the vehicle through which the American fencing team in the Olympics is chosen. And so last week I launched an investigation and I sent an oversight letter to USA Fencing asking for the documents on what their policy is, how many transgender athletes have attempted to compete,

how many women they have disqualified for declining to compete, how many injuries have occurred. Look, there are biological differences. Men are made differently than women, and we've seen in many other sports significant injuries from women being forced to compete against biological men. And at the end of the day, the Congress has a very direct view

remedy, which is we have the ability to cease the designation of USA Fencing as the organization that chooses U.S. Olympic athletes. And so...

What does it look like if they're actually held accountable for this?

What it looks like is they change their policies. That is my objective here, is to change the policy so that you don't end up having women discriminated against and put in a position where they're competing unfairly, where they're put in a position where they're risking real injuries.

It'll be very interesting to see what that injury report looks like. Is there a timeline for them getting back to you with this request?

Sure. So here's what I said in my letter. I wrote it to the chief executive officer of USA Fencing, and I said, Dear Mr. Andrews, it has come to my attention that USA Fencing is still permitting men to compete in women's fencing in violation of federal law. I'm writing to ask why. Your organization is the recognized national governing body for fencing in the United States, but to remain so, it must comply with the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee rules and procedures."

its statutory obligations to protect women, and President Trump's recent executive order on keeping men out of women's sports. If it does not, and instead continues to put women at risk, Congress may be forced to terminate USA Fencing's NGB certification. Last week, Stephanie Turner from the Fencing Academy of Philadelphia

competed at the USA fencing sanctioned Cherry Blossom Open Circuit at the University of Maryland. The young woman was set to face a man who now claims to be a transgender woman in a fencing bout. However, at the start of the match, Ms. Turner bravely took a knee and refused to compete against her male opponent. In response to this young woman's courage, tournament officials presented her with a black card.

and disqualified her from the entire tournament. USA's Fencing's Director of Communications, Brian Wendell, said the young woman's disqualification was, quote, the direct result of her decision to decline to fence an eligible opponent, a supposed violation of the International Fencing Federation rules. He reiterated the USA Fencing's remains committed to inclusivity. USA Fencing's commitment to inclusivity, quote,

is nothing less than a full-throated support for males competing in women's sports in violation of federal law. As the recognized NGB for fencing, USA Fencing is required to provide, quote, support and encouragement for participation by women where separate programs for male and female athletes are conducted on a national basis, as well as, quote, safe environments in sports. Failure to do so is grounds for

for the United States Congress to terminate USA fencing certification as an NGB. And I go on to say that they have to comply with President Trump's executive order. And I point out that male fencers naturally possess inherent advantages over potential female competitors. Men tend to be taller, have greater muscle mass, and more testosterone.

all advantages for fencing movements like lunges, jumping, or leg power measures. And I point out that under the rules of the Senate, the Commerce Committee has a duty and an authority to review and study on a continuing basis both sports and sports agencies such as USA Fencing. And so I ask a whole series of questions, and I want documents and answers by April 21, 2025.

And it's documents about their transgender policy, how many men or transgender women currently compete in the women's division. The last four years, how many bouts have occurred between transgender women and women.

How many times did the female athlete prevail? How many times did the female athlete suffer an injury? Does USA Fencing comply with the president's executive order? And I have a whole series of additional questions. But this is an example of holding to account, and you've got throughout sports, these radical associations, organizations that embrace the woke ideology that there's no difference between men and women.

And that is profoundly unfair to women and girls competing in sports. And I'm going to do everything I can to stop it. In the name of that, we'll keep you updated in the story. Don't forget, we do this show Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. So hit that subscribe or auto download button. Please write us a five-star review if you would, wherever you're listening to this podcast. It helps us tremendously when it comes to reaching new audience. And the most important thing you can do to get in the fight is to share this podcast with your family and your friends. Send it to them in a text message.

And the Senator and I will see you back here on Friday morning.