Following the U.S. Supreme Court issuing its final set of rulings for the session on Friday, MSNBC’s Ana Cabrera took to her eponymous show to lead her left-wing legal panelists as they collectively panicked about the court limiting the ability for lower, regional courts from issuing nation-wide injunctions. Cabrera herself proclaimed: “This sounds like a giant win for the Trump administration and could likely trigger chaos now across the country.”
University of Michigan assistant law professor Leah Litman’s jaw literally dropped when the rulings were released (pictured above, she's wearing the green jacket). To take a break from clutching her pearls, she touted the belligerence and hyperbolic dissent from the liberal activist justices:
I just want to note the Democratic appointees’ strong dissents in this case. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson calls the court's decision, “an existential threat to the rule of law.” Justice Sotomayor's dissent says, “no right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates.” She calls the court, “complicit in a grave attack on our system of law.”
“The reality is the Supreme Court’s Republican justices took away lower courts single powerful tool – the most powerful tool for reining in the Trump administration and holding them accountable to the law,” Litman decried.
What wasn’t shared was this excerpt from Justice Amy Coney Barrett where she dressed down Jackson, saying: “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.”
Further in the show, legal correspondent Lisa Rubin touted how liberal attorneys general had “predicted” how the conservative Supreme Court would supposedly strip away our civil rights, particularly touting New Jersey’s Matt Platkin, who claimed blue states were better places to live:
Attorney General [Matt] Platkin in New Jersey told me, and I'm reading from our transcript, “I think it's fair to say, today, your rights and privileges as an American citizen vary based on what state you live in. So, if you want to be free from gun violence, if you want to make sure you have access to reproductive health care, if you want your kids to get a quality public education, all of those are meaningfully different depending on whether you live in a state, frankly, with attorneys general like us, or if not, so that when they created the Constitution and gave power to the states on law enforcement, on education, and a whole range of areas health care, this is what happens when the federal government gets out of that space, and we are standing up for those rights.”
“In other words, when the federal government stops being the enforcer of civil rights, cedes that ground and no longer wants to grant civil rights as broadly as we have seen in prior decades, we end up with this patchwork effect where who you are in this country even depends on what state you live in,” lamented.
It became clearer that MSNBC was upset that ‘their’ lower court judges were largely defanged when Cabrera invited former Sotomayor clerk Melissa Murry on the program to spout off. “This is a huge win for the Trump administration, because the court has essentially kneecapped lower courts from stopping this administration when it engages in lawless and unconstitutional behavior,” she declared.
So obviously, the liberal play book was to abuse the legal system to stymie Republican policy.
The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read:
MSNBC’s Ana Cabrera Reports
June 27, 2025
10:07:29 a.m. Eastern(…)
LEAH LITMAN (asst. professor of law, University of Michigan): I just want to note the Democratic appointees’ strong dissents in this case. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson calls the court's decision, “an existential threat to the rule of law.” Justice Sotomayor's dissent says, “no right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates.” She calls the court, “complicit in a grave attack on our system of law.”
The reality is the Supreme Court’s Republican justices took away lower courts single powerful tool – the most powerful tool for reining in the Trump administration and holding them accountable to the law.
ANA CABRERA: Chuck. Let me get your reaction. This sounds like a giant win for the Trump administration and could likely trigger chaos now across the country.
(…)
10:16:42 a.m. Eastern
LISA RUBIN: Attorney General [Matt] Platkin in New Jersey told me, and I'm reading from our transcript, “I think it's fair to say, today, your rights and privileges as an American citizen vary based on what state you live in. So, if you want to be free from gun violence, if you want to make sure you have access to reproductive health care, if you want your kids to get a quality public education, all of those are meaningfully different depending on whether you live in a state, frankly, with attorneys general like us, or if not, so that when they created the Constitution and gave power to the states on law enforcement, on education, and a whole range of areas health care, this is what happens when the federal government gets out of that space, and we are standing up for those rights.”
In other words, when the federal government stops being the enforcer of civil rights, cedes that ground and no longer wants to grant civil rights as broadly as we have seen in prior decades, we end up with this patchwork effect where who you are in this country even depends on what state you live in. And increasingly, that may be the case not only in this context, but a variety of different contexts.
(…)
MELISSA MURRY (former Sotomayor clerk): Leah is exactly right. This is a huge win for the Trump administration, because the court has essentially kneecapped lower courts from stopping this administration when it engages in lawless and unconstitutional behavior.
And Lisa makes a really important point. This is all happening in an environment where the Trump administration is not only going after undocumented persons and deporting people without the benefit of due process, they're doing so while they are also upending the legal landscape by making it harder for pro bono outfits to secure the help they need from law firms to bring these suits.
And now, with this decision, they're essentially saying that litigants will have to file in each particular jurisdiction around the United States in order to be clear that they're resolution will have legally binding effect.
(…)
