CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford delivered another stand out segment during Thursday’s edition of CBS Mornings. While highlighting how the U.S. Supreme Court was set to hear rare May oral arguments, in a case that challenged the circuit courts’ ability to issue national injunctions outside their districts, Crawford seemed to suggest that the argument did have merit since presidents from across the aisle had similar gripes about the process.
While the case that brought the arguments to SCOTUS were regarding President Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship, CBS anchor Tony Dokoupil noted that the ruling could have a more profound impact on the implementation of national policy:
DUKOUPIL: To other news, the Supreme Court hears arguments this morning on a major national question, the question of whether a single judge can make a decision that applies to the entire country. The details of the case involve President Trump's executive order to restrict which children born in the U.S. can be U.S. Citizens. Also known as birthright citizenship. Crawford is at the Supreme Court for us watching it all. Jan, good morning. What's at stake here?
CRAWFORD: Well, good morning. So, the Trump administration is saying that one federal judge can't dictate national policy for everyone, while opponents say the alternative would be legal chaos.
Crawford spoke with Juan Proano, the CEO for LULAC, who feared the end of national injunctions:
CRAWFORD: What is your concern if the court says no nationwide injunctions?
PROANO: Well then, you're going to have lawsuits filed in every single state. It's going to tie up the courts and individuals may lose their protections under the Constitution if that happens.
But not so fast.
She then pointed out that Democratic presidents hated national injunctions, much like Trump. “The Obama and Biden administrations opposed national injunctions arguing judges in conservative states like Texas, where opponents chose to file lawsuits, were dictating national policy,” she said, quipping, “Now, the shoe is on the other foot.”
Crawford even seemed to hint that the injunctions against Trump’s polices were politically motivated and getting worse.
“A CBS news analysis of more than 300 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration found that outside of Washington, D.C., the most are in liberal Massachusetts, followed by Maryland, California, and New York,” she stated. “Now, the use of these sweeping injunctions has been growing significantly in recent years. There have been 39 of them so far blocking President Trump's policies in his second term.”
Actually sitting down with a Republican to get their side of the argument, Crawford spoke with West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey, who warned that the perception of politically motivated injunctions harmed the American judicial system.
“People begin to look at circuit judges as an extension of the political process. And that is fundamentally disastrous for the way that the public views the impartiality and the power of our court system,” he asserted. “Because the court is nothing if it doesn't have its integrity.”
The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read:
CBS Mornings
May 15, 2025
7:12:42 a.m. EasternTONY DUKOUPIL: To other news, the Supreme Court hears arguments this morning on a major national question, the question of whether a single judge can make a decision that applies to the entire country. The details of the case involve President Trump's executive order to restrict which children born in the U.S. can be U.S. Citizens. Also known as birthright citizenship. Crawford is at the Supreme Court for us watching it all.
Jan, good morning. What's at stake here?
JAN CRAWFORD: Well, good morning.
So, the Trump administration is saying that one federal judge can't dictate national policy for everyone, while opponents say the alternative would be legal chaos. Now, we talked to an undocumented pregnant woman. She's seeking asylum. She asked us not to show her face.
[Cuts to video]
This expecting mother says she dreams of her baby girl being born an American citizen. She worries without birthright citizenship her baby could be deported back to Guatemala with her if she's forced to leave, where they both would be unsafe.
But judges across the country are rejecting President Trump's efforts to end automatic birthright citizenship, three of those judges applying their rulings nationwide. President Trump has blasted those decisions calling on the Supreme Court to act. Juan Proano, head of the nation’s largest Hispanic civil rights organization, disagrees.
What is your concern if the court says no nationwide injunctions?
JUAN PROANO (CEO, LULAC): Well then, you're going to have lawsuits filed in every single state. It's going to tie up the courts and individuals may lose their protections under the Constitution if that happens.
CRAWFORD: The Obama and Biden administrations opposed national injunctions arguing judges in conservative states like Texas, where opponents chose to file lawsuits, were dictating national policy. Now, the shoe is on the other foot.
A CBS news analysis of more than 300 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration found that outside of Washington, D.C., the most are in liberal Massachusetts, followed by Maryland, California, and New York. West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McCuskey says that shows why it's a problem when these rulings apply nationwide.
JOHN MCCUSKEY (West Virginia AG): People begin to look at circuit judges as an extension of the political process. And that is fundamentally disastrous for the way that the public views the impartiality and the power of our court system.
CRAWFORD: Disastrous. Why?
MCCUSKEY: Because the court is nothing if it doesn't have its integrity.
[Cuts back to live]
CRAWFORD: Now, the use of these sweeping injunctions has been growing significantly in recent years. There have been 39 of them so far blocking President Trump's policies in his second term. Tony.
DOKOUPIL: All right, Jan. Thank you very much, appreciate it.
