BREAKING: Federal judge drops MAJOR Election Day ruling

It is Election Day. We have got a major update as far as the Trump administration's ongoing effort to try and get lists of voters that they deem ineligible transmitted over to the states. We have a ruling here. Glenn, can you explain what that ruling is? Yeah, there was a suit recently brought in federal court in Washington, D.C. Now, these suits are kicking around all across the country. And Judge Tanya Chutkan, who somewhat famously handled the January 6 criminal prosecution of Donald Trump, caught the assignment. She's presiding over the case and she just issued a ruling. Here is in substance what it says. She is prohibiting the Department of Justice and DHS from transmitting these lists. of potentially ineligible voters to the states, deciding that among other things, it likely violates the privacy laws, specifically the Privacy Act of 1974. So she has issued an injunction telling the federal government, DHS, DOJ, they cannot continue to do this. It sure feels in a very real sense like they are threatening and harassing and trying to intimidate State election workers into doing, I don't know what, denying people the right to vote. I mean, there are mechanisms in place where if somebody casts a vote and it turns out they were ineligible to vote, they can be prosecuted. And that is the ordinary course that a case like that would take. But, you know, you've used the word the feds are trying to come in and bigfoot the states and they're trying to do it both legally. But I think more directly, Brian. Brian, they're trying to intimidate and harass and try to, you know, cow the state election officials into maybe paralysis, not knowing what to do. The good news is state leadership, certainly blue state leadership. But Brian, even red state leadership, you know, you think about guys back in the last go round when Donald Trump was attacking election results, guys like Rusty Bowers, I believe out in Arizona. Guys like Brad Raffensperger. These are, you know, dyed-in-the-wool Republicans who stood fast against Donald Trump's attempt to interfere in the election results when he lost the presidential election. So, you know, I think the state leadership, even in the red states, are up to the task of protecting their polls, protecting their voters. And, you know, I think all of these attempts by Todd Blanche and his hapless ethics-free lawyers are To what extent does this ruling by Judge Chutkin relate to the decision handed down at the hands of the Supreme Court just a couple of days ago on this issue? Yeah, it gets very complicated. So let me try to unravel it a little bit. There was a case out in California, actually multiple cases in California, one in Alaska. The Trump administration has lost them all in the trial court. There's a case out in California where, again, the feds tried to bigfoot the California election officials, specifically in the central district of California that includes. Los Angeles, and they said, here is a list of 20,000 names. We don't know if they can vote or they can't vote, but you better look into it. And if you get it wrong and somebody votes who shouldn't be permitted to vote, we're coming after you. We're going to prosecute you. Sounds like a blatant threat to intimidate the California state election workers. Trial court judge issued We issued an injunction saying, no, the feds can't do it. The three judge panel. of the appeals court out in California. The Ninth Circuit said, nope, can't do it. And then they ran up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, Brian, and I'm going to slow down because they issued an opinion of just 19 words. And I think those 19 words are more powerful than if they had issued an opinion containing 19,000 words, because we are in the thick of the midterms At the moment, and here is what the Supreme Court said when. DOJ tried to get the Supreme Court to review this case involving a list of 20,000 people who may or may not be able to vote in California. They said, quote, the application for injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the court is denied. Let's tease out what we just learned in those 19 words. The Supreme Court said we will not weigh in and endorse tacitly or otherwise Donald Trump's attempt to interfere in these elections. Certainly not when we're in the throes of a midterm election. The other thing that's really important is Justice Kagan, who has supervisory authority over the Ninth Circuit, didn't just make this decision on her own. She referred it to the full court, and the full court denied it. And Brian, it was without dissent, unanimously. What does that tell us? Usually, you have the Clarence Thomases and the Sammy the Bull Alitos dissenting because they're forever trying to do favors for dear leader. This apparently was unanimous. No dissenters noted. What that tells me, that's important foreshadowing. I think it's a tell. That the Supreme Court maybe is done with Donald Trump's unconstitutional efforts to kill our democracy, specifically to interfere in our free and fair elections again. Now, I want to add that there has been some additional movement out in California in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with what's called an en banc ruling in that same 20,000 voter list case where I think for procedural reasons. They said, listen, we're not going to say that the states can stop the government from submitting these lists. However, so they reversed, but they said, however, what we are saying is that the states are the ones who run their elections. Inferentially, they can do whatever they want, including, I would assume, ball up that list and throw it in the damn trash. And he went on to say, in the event there is a crime that was committed and somebody is prosecuted, the state officials will have the full panoply of defenses available to them. So in a brand new ruling from the Ninth Circuit en banc full court, Court of Appeals, it kind of looked like it wasn't so great. I think it's largely procedural. And I don't think, most importantly, it will impact voting day. It will impact the counting of votes. So I don't That attempt to Bigfoot California has succeeded. It's also worth asking here, you know, presumably what the Trump administration was trying to do is segment out the voters that they're deeming ineligible. And of course, if you believe these lists that are being sent from the federal government down to the states, then, you know, then you are falling hook, line and sinker for what I would put the full buck on is a voter suppression. technique. There's also been investigations into these lists and lo and behold, it shows that some major swath of these voters are actually eligible voters and shouldn't be on these lists. But surprise, surprise, the Trump administration would send down faulty lists to the states. I wouldn't be surprised. You could knock me over with a gust of wind if the voters that were included in these lists just so happened to be Democratic voters. But all of that notwithstanding. I presume what the Trump administration was seeking here is some ruling where a judge says that they have to segment out those voters and then wait until after the election results come in and then they'll fight as to, you know, fight about whether those ballots should be thrown out or not. But because they weren't granted any temporary restraining orders. Mandating that they have to segment out those votes. I presume that this is all just moot at this point because it's election day today. Voters are going to cast their ballots. The states are going to run these elections and no votes are being set aside per the Trump administration's edicts. So would it be safe to say that this whole play that Trump was kind of banking on here has kind of fallen flat now? It has. And I think what they're setting up, kind of as you suggested, Brian, are future fights that the federal government is going to wage, claiming that, you know, we told you up front that there were a whole bunch of people who were perhaps ineligible. You didn't do anything about it. And they're going to use that to try to throw the process of counting all the votes, tabulating all the votes, declaring a winner, maybe even certifying the results of state elections, throw it into chaos. But I think the courts are done. I mean, by virtue of all of the rulings that we're seeing, I think the courts understand that all this is is more of the same from Donald Trump sowing chaos. And Brian, we've seen the federal government pull this garbage before. Our viewers might remember in Nevada, the Fed sent a list of some 16,000 voters who might be non-citizens. Maybe they're not. eligible to vote. And then DHS itself revised that list down to, I believe, 185 potential non-citizens on the voting rolls. And then ultimately, when the state authorities in Nevada did a deep dive, they drilled down, they investigated those 185. It was zero. Zero of the names provided by the federal government were ineligible to vote. We've seen this dirty movie before. We don't want to see the rerun of it. And I think that I think the federal bench sort of writ large is on to the game and they're not going to buy in to the Trump administration's bullshit. Last question here, Glenn. For posterity, can you talk about the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and the federal government's role in elections amid all of this? Because I feel like sometimes we lose the forest for the trees, and I feel like it's important to note the role that the federal government plays in elections which are conducted by the states. Okay. States administer elections. So the federal government's role is not non-existent. Why? Because Congress can pass some laws in the election arena. Guess what branch of government has zero role in administering our elections? That would be the executive branch. And, you know, You know, Trump blows right through the express language and the express. prohibitions of the Constitution, and often he gets away with it because some of that stuff bubbles up to the Supreme Court, and rather than ruling against Donald Trump, the six-justice, radical, right-wing, compromised majority rule against the Constitution. And rewrite it like in the presidential immunity case, I am beginning to feel I don't want to get ahead of myself here. I'm beginning to feel like even the six justice compromised right wing majority is recognizing that they can only ignore and rewrite the Constitution, but so much to the advantage of Donald Trump. And I'm telling you, I am holding fast, Brian, to that brand new refusal by all nine justices. To breathe any life into what Donald Trump is trying to do to, you know, attack and infect our elections. We will leave it there. Again, it is Election Day in America. Please make sure if you haven't yet voted, get out there and vote. If it's raining, bring an umbrella. Make sure your voice is heard today. And let's put an effective end to Trump's presidency starting today. For those who are watching, if you want to stay on top of all other legal news, and trust me, there will be plenty more legal news to come. Please make sure to subscribe to both of these channels. I'm going to put the links right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen. And I'm Glenn Kirshner. You're watching The Legal Breakdown.