I'm Jason chaf it's feeling it for Sean. Thanks to Sean for letting me sit in his seat. Very very kind of him to do that. I'm an honored to do it. Hey, big rulings in the Supreme Court, we're talking guns and immigration. Doesn't get any better than that, especially when the justices step up and make such decisive rulings, four of them, specifically, two on guns, two in the Second Amendment, and two on immigration. So we better spend some time deciphering this. And who better than Gene Hamilton.
He's the President of America first legal very instrumental in doing a lot of things like executive orders and whatnot. But we're thrilled to have Gene Hamilton to help us break all this down. Gene, welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
Jason, thanks for having me on, sir, Hey.
No, we appreciate it. So I want to kind of go down the list and let's just kind of break this down. Give us your interpretation and what happened here. Let's start with Wolford versus Lopez. This is the Hawaii restriction. Explain to us what happened there and why this is so important.
Well, look, it's a great question in the court. I mean, really and truly, I think that the listeners at home need to think about overwriting theem in all.
Of these decisions that were issued.
Today, is you have a Supreme Court that is there that is still committed to issuing decisions that uphold Americans either their long standing constitutional rights or applying the laws as Congress wrote them. In the case of immigration, and so this Hawaii case, this Wolford versus Lopez case, the Supreme Court rejected the enforcement of a law in Hawaii that prohibited caring concealed carry of handa on private property that is open to the public without getting the property
owners express authorization. So this isn't talking about, you know, bringing a gun into somebody's house without their authorization. Is talking about going into a store and walking into a grocery store, or being able to go into another place
that is generally open to the public. And you know, the Court's essential holding here is that Hawaii's law the prohibited is from happening, did not comport with the Second Amendment, did not comport with historical understanding of the application of the Second Moment and the right to bear arms people. So it was a tremendous win for.
The second moment. So the guy, I have a concealed carry permit, But I've always felt like, hey, I've got a constitutional you know, I got the Second Amendment. Why should they even have to have a concealed carry permit? But I, you know, I carry. I have lots of guns. I have big guns, I have small guns, and it is my right. But I also respect personal privacy or the personal property rights. But I what I was excited I think to see here is that yeah, even though
it may be owned by a private entity. So and tell me if I'm wrong here. If you go into a restaurant, if you go into a grocery store, you can still conceal carry, unlike what Hawaii is trying to do is say nope, can't do that. You can only go in certain areas. And so but how does does your reading of this gene that this? You know, churches, what about churches? Can they still ban or can they do they because they may may say visitors welcome, Can they carry in churches? Now?
You know, look, I think that you know there's what you're going to have to do is we're gonna have to go through each as you know, well, each state has you know, fifty different there's fifty different regimes that
we're going to have to analyze across the country. And you're gonna have to look at the different regimes that would either permit or prohibit the carrying of a firearm into a place like a church, and determine whether or not that particular practice comports with the historical practice, comports with the with the Supreme Courts very kind of repeatedly stated and consistently held a position about the importance of
the right to bear arms and what it actually means. Obviously, we've we've seen some monumental shifts in favor of the American people when it comes to this general area, when it comes to seconmandment rights, and so you know, look, I mean, I guess you will have to look at each case as it comes, but I would like to think that in many, many of these cases it would would apply to churches as well, as long as that's generally open to.
Interesting. Interesting, all right, very quickly, because this is not the most thrilling decision ever. I'm not saying I'm against it. I'm just saying it's about pesticides. So let's talk about Monsanto versus Durnell. It was a seven to two decision, with Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion. Here, federal pesticide law preempts state failure to warn lawsuits. I guess that's uh the the the attorneys plaintiffs, attorneys for trying to, you know,
go out and sue everybody. They can't be too happy about that. Did I read that right?
Yeah?
I mean, like, generally speaking, obviously this is an issue, this is partial case. Isn't obviously that interesting? Factually it's the kind of thing that lawyers get paid to be lawyers for.
Hey Gene, Hey Gene, I'm calling an audible here, because well, I'm filling in for Sean Andy. We've already spent enough time I'm on this seven to two decision. You want to learn more about pesticides, you're going to have to look that one up. All right, Let's move on to the next one. Nothing about you, nothing about me. It's just it's a pesticide ruling. So let's go. Let's get to the nitty gritty of immigration. Because there were two cases here, right, Mullen versus al Otro Latto. I can't
pronounce these names. Are Mullen versus Doe. Alito writing the opinion on both those six y three decisions break this down for US because asylum seekers they wanted to have some rights, and the justices pretty much said.
No, Yeah, Look, there's a couple of different cases. And both of these are really, really really important cases, not only for the propositions that they stand for, but because also they are nearly a decade in the making, both of them. So All Ultra Lato was a case that applied to a practice of the Department of Home in Security that was known as metering. And this is fundamentally
common sense to the American people. So folks at home understand that if you're managing the border and someone is in Mexico, they have not yet entered into the United States. The notion that you can't do anything that you have to allow them to come into the United States. You have to allow yourself to be overwhelmed with people who claim that they have the right to seek asylum, who but again, who have not yet entered the United States.
The Supreme Court has affirmed, based on the way that Congress wrote the statute, that in fact, the United States government does have the sovereign right, the sovereign right based on the statute as well to say no, you don't get there. Just because you're an asylum seeker doesn't mean that you get to demand entry, doesn't mean that you get to demand asylum from Mexico. So it was a
tremendous vindication of a practice that is common sense. It's one of the most common sense things you could ever imagine. It's like going to the deli counter at the grocery store. You don't get to just walk behind the counter and cite your own needs. You got to take a number and wait your turn and wait until they serve you. And the whole notion that our asylum laws would allow for anything else was one that was just wacky. But again has taken a decade.
To be resolved well, and I think that was part of the strategy. Look, when I first got elected to Congress back in two thousand and eight, so the beginning of two thousand and nine, I'm on the Judiciary Committee. I'm not an attorney. I know that sounds like I'm bragging,
but I'm not an attorney. But I was on Judiciary, and I was on the Immigration subcommittee, and it was very clear even back then that one of Obama's because I elected at the same time as Barack Obama, they were going to try all kinds of things because they knew it would take a long time, years if not decades, to sort it out in the courts. And one of the things they did is they changed the definition of credible fear. And then they started doing everything they could
to use asylum. And people would show up at the border with pre written scripts. They'd pull them out of their pockets and then just read it instead of answering the questions. And so we could go deep into this. But nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit yet again has a decision that has been overturned by the Supreme Court in a sixty three ruling.
Absolutely.
All right, let's go to the next one. Let's go to Mullen versus dough. This is about temporary somehow Democrats lose the definition of that temporary protected status TPS as they call it. Explain what this ruling does.
Yeah, so, look, the takeaway point for the folks at home is that when Congress says that something is up to the secretary's discretion, the Secretary of Homeland Security, when Congress writes that in a statute and says no court can review the secretary's discretion. The Supreme Court's decision today means that that word that phrase actually means something. So
let's unpack it a little bit. TPS Temporary Protected status is, of course, it is a status that DHS can grant to nationals of a particular country who are already in the United States in the events that there are some kind of emergency, there's some kind of a hurricane, there's an earth, there's a war, something that creates it makes it renders it unsafe for people to return to the
country because of those conditions. But some of these designations have been made decades ago based on hurricanes that happened in like nineteen ninety eight. And so when the Department of Homeland Security previously has tried to terminate temporary protected status, there have been plaintiffs who have brought lawsuits alleging all kinds of things, saying that all this was in the right decision. We think that this was motivated by this,
that or the other. We disagree with the decision, YadA, YadA, YadA, and courts have tied up the ability of the administration to end these temporary programs when Congress very clearly, very clearly in the statute said this is something that is left to the Secretary's discretion. And so if the Secretary says that we are ending TPS, courts can't interfere, they can't get involved. This is a massive win for the rule of law and for people who want to do the right thing.
We're talking, of course with Gene Hamilton, the President of America first legal and Gene. That brings us to the big one, the big kahuna, if you will, the big daddy of them all wasn't there today. But the biggest one, I believe is birthright citizenship. This is going to be a big, big ruling. They haven't released it yet. What's your prediction based on these two rulings that we see on immigration, Where do you think the Court's going with birthright citizenship?
Yeah, well, I mean there's where I wish they would go and where they end up. Of course, I am very hopeful for the right result, a result that's rooted in a proper understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment and the clause set off by Commas in subject to the jurisdiction thereof and all of the common sense reasons why birthright citizenship makes no sense and has no constitutional underpinnings that
underwrite it. What I you know, I mean, if you're going to put a gun to my head and ask me to make a prediction today, as hopeful as I am for the right decision, my prediction is that the Court will find a way to resolve the case that doesn't end up with a pure majority, but that ends up not upholding the president's executive order in this case at leaves for another day the decision on the constitutional question as to whether or not there's a right to
citizenship for folks who were born here to the parents who are illegal. Now, I hope that's not the case. I honestly hope that is not the case. And you know, there's a there's a sliver of hope that I have that we are going to get a majority of justices who do the right things, who understand the implications, understand what the Constitution says, Understand what the drafters of the fourteenth Amendment meant, and what they were saying at the
time of the adoption of the fourteenth Amendment. But you know, I don't know. It's one of these things. When you get a couple of good wins in the immigration space, when it comes to the Supreme Court, that means sometimes you're going to get a you're going to get a loss kind of down the line.
So that would be the biggest one. That would be the biggest loss of them all. So I know I'm with you because I want the result to be what you want it to be personally. But we'll see what happens. But that is the big ruling. We have no idea when it's going to come out. Good happen tomorrow, could happened, I don't know when, but soon around the later. Jean Hamilton, President of America First Legal, thank you so much for joining us. Stay with us. We got Rob Schneider coming up.
You don't want to miss that. Stay with us.
He gives you the latest breaking news when he hits the air. This is the Sean Hannity Show.
And of course Jason Chief it's still here filling in for Sean. Hoping he's feeling a little bit better. But what a better I can't think of a better way to put a smile on your face than our next guest, Rob Schneider. Rob, thank you so much for making time in your busy day and joining us here on Hannity Radio. Really do appreciate it.
It's always a pleasure to talk to you. Jason. How's your lovely family doing.
They're doing great. You know, we had this wonderful lunch. You were so kind. We sat and broke bread and talked in Arizona. Number that was a while ago now, and just it's been a real pleasure to get to know you and hear what you're doing. And I've been reading your book. It's awesome. I really like you can do it. It's really a good book.
Thank you. Man. I a lot of time on my hands to write some things and get some thoughts out. It's just, you know, the more that you travel around this country, you know, the more you realize it's a culture worth saving, and the idea that all cultures are equal is an illusion. You know. Here's something you never hear. Born again Christian hopped on a train and stabbed seven people. Today you don't hear that. You don't hear a Tibetan monk hijacked a plane and crash it into a high rise.
I want to get your kind of hot take on some of the topics that are out there. Now we've talked about a lot of people saw, well, you really stepped up on Major League Baseball. You know this idiocy that's out there that just says, hey, it can only go one direction, not another, and heaven forbid we you know, put a scripture out there. Tell us how did you see this, how did it come, how did you become aware of it, and why did you do what you did? Explain to people what happened there.
Well, major League Baseball decided to threaten to find three San Francisco Giants pitchers who were you know, and by the way, for putting a Bible verse on top of their hat. You know, while they were also you know, not forced to wear a Pride emblem on their hat. They actually had the choice. But still, I mean, the idea is if you don't wear it, somehow you're a bigot.
And you know you have these you know, Christians have deeply held religious beliefs, and the idea that you can just force them into, you know, doing something that is against their beliefs is you know that the Major League Baseball can make that decision. I'm sorry, there's a higher power than the Commissioner of baseball. That's Jesus Christ. And so the it angered me. And I also thought, you know,
I lived to San Francisco. It's expensive in San Francisco, and these guys are not like you know, the superstar Otani that's making seven hundred million dollars. These guys make the league average, which is still good money. It's like seven hundred grand, but after taxes and San Francisco and expenses. I mean, so I just said, you know what, I'll if they do get fined, I will pay their fine. And that went viral. And you know, I said, like, because I understand how tough it is to live there
and also to support them. I'm tired of Christianity being this dormat religion and has to take a back seat to Pride month. I mean, a month seems crazy. I'm glad to see that there's finally some pushback against this idea of being a month. I mean that the gays we want, you know, you can have your freedom and we can have you. You know, you definitely shouldn't be discriminated on the basis of your sexual orientation, but you won that. Why do you have to shove it in
our face? And and and for these players, I felt that it's important for other Christians to step up and
say you have your rights. And what the Major League Baseball did, and thankfully they did back down because of the pressure that you know, whether it was celebrities, and also Senator Holly Was you know, contacted the Major League Baseball and said, hey, this is against their constitutional rights of free speech, and you know, and the Major League Baseball wants to have it both ways, Like they did have players taking knee and nobody got fined for that
during the national anthem of all things. How disrespectful was that? And they and so they also you know, players do put things on their uniforms in small numbers, whether it's to honor a player who's passed away their number on their hats. So the idea that this is unprecedented is untrue. And also it's like, hey, you know, it's particularly Christianity that's under attack, and we're seeing it worldwide, and you know, it's a national pastime and you know, gay pride is
not a national pastime. Baseball is.
Yeah, you know, I think people go to a ball game, they go to the movies, they go to see a comedy show. You know, you may laugh or you know, get a giggle here and there about some but a lot of people just want an escape. And what's also interesting to me, Rob is that you get these people who, oh, they're so offended by a scripture reference, and first of all, they probably don't even know what that scripture says. Maybe they would take a moment and go see what it
says first and see how offensive that might be. But the other part of it is these people who preach this tolerance, they're like the least tolerant among us, but that their whole matra is We're going to be tolerant of everybody. But heaven forbid this happened.
We have diversity, We want diversity and inclusion. Uh unless unless your ideas are uh are more diverse and actually differ than ours, then we don't want you. We don't want your opinion including so yeah, you do have that, I mean, and it's getting too ridiculous. Where you see, like you know, Jamie from gays, you know, gays against groomors. You see people that snuck inside, you know, under the pride flag to a you know, that are abusive and and truthfully anti gay is what this is. I realized
something was happening a few years back. You know, when I saw it the you know, the publicized gay parade in New York City, there was no there was no gay men there. It was just there was literally all trans people. And you know, there's there really is a push for this, and it's it's an attack, and it's a it's this woke attack on our on Western civilization
and American values. I mean, if we wouldn't have pushed back on this Christianity, attack on Christianity and baseball, I think instead of the seventh inning stretch, who would have had the seventh inning drag queens show?
So well, that has happened, I mean to think that that hasn't already happened. Look, hey, you want to lead your life as an adult certain way. Hey, you know that that's you're right, But you don't need to shove it in our face and and make everybody have to, you know, salute to you the way you want them to salute. And let's move on, Rob, Let's talk about America two fifty because you know, reading your book and just talking to you, are a patriot. You love this country.
What is what is America two fifty in our celebration. What does that mean to you in your heart?
Well, if you really think about the history of humanity and all of the life that human beings have led up till now, and it's it's you know, I guess they the number that they put us about one hundred and seventy billion human beings since the you know, since since Adam and Eve, if you want to go now, well, in that time, the very few people have had the incredible gift of living in a country that was based on the foundation that your rights are not given to
you by some ruler or given to you by the state, but they are they are endowed by our creator. So these are natural laws, and these are laws, and that's why it's not a And this system is based on opportunity, and it's based on freedom of the individual and capitalism, which is you know, there are no perfect systems, but show me one that has allowed people to benefit greatly.
And for all the democrats socialists who say, who are mad about Elon Musk becoming a trillionaire, look at all the jobs and all the incredible things that he has created, and all the wealth that has been created and spread out from that. There has been no greater system ever devised, and no political systems ever to in this incredible constitutional republic what we have and you can just look at the fruits of the benefits of it. It is, it
is and has become. And if we continue to live under these natural laws and live a nation under God for our individual and we will continue to have the greatest nation, most powerful nation in the history of the world. And that is that is no accident, and that it's something that we need to really maintain and fight for because truthfully, this nation is under attack, and it's under
attack from communists China. They have a seventy five point plan to take down America, to take down freedom, because they do not want their people to have a system that they could see that allows them to really benefit from their fruits of their labor, and that actually allows them to express themselves and express grievances against what they consider to be egregious forms of things that the government
is doing against them. And so the United States has it it basically the test is this, as long as you can stand on the street corner and say things about the government that you don't like and nobody arrests you, you live in a free place, and if you can't do that in China. So and that's why the United
States has this incredible thing. And people say, well, what is it that makes us free or what is what is it about the system, And it's simply it isn't that we have a constitution and a Bill of rights. It really I mean even though those are those are you know, incredible pieces of paper, what we really have is the divide between powers so that we can't get one group or one political party that can just usurp powers. Now, for all those people who say no kings, no kings,
I will tell you can. For people who can say whatever they want about Donald Trump, President Trump and his administration any corrupt you know, democratic leaning liberal judge puts an injunction against Trump's usually immigration policies, which were wide open under Biden. What does Trump do? He abides by that law, and then what does he do He has his Justice Department, they will take it to the next level. So you really do have these checks and balances here.
We have the legislative, we have the judicial, and we have our executive. And unfortunately, you know right now we have a problem with the legislative. Is not is no longer making laws, and so you just you know, it was never meant to be this politicized voting block, and that's what we're seeing now. And so I think it is a problem, but I think it's something that we can know it still is workable within the United States. This framework and this freedom that we have for the individual,
there's nothing like it. And so for people come and from a totalitarian country you come from, if you come from the former Soviet Union, if you come from North Korea, you will there is there's no doubt which system will work for you.
Well, look, the United States of America, no doubt, is the greatest country there has ever been. It's the greatest nation on the face of the planet. And we're talking with Rob Schneider here. One of the things that as you were talking about this separation of powers. That's what Justice Alito talked a lot about. And it's really inspiring
that he Justice Scalia should say. I'm sure Alito would concur but Justice Scalia talked about this and how brilliant that that form of government and what makes us so unique and our constitution truly work.
Right. Scalia went into detail about that because Kell talked about the separation of powers. He also talked about the document of the Constitution itself, which is what the that's the facto answer that people ask, but what what makes America free? And he goes, well, it's a constitution bill rights. He actually will tell you. You know, Scillia said that the Soviet Constitution is actually in some ways even surpasses the United States Constitution. And however it doesn't have the
protection of the separation of powers. And so that's really what does it. And so while we may him in haw and what it does, it slows down the process of something from turning into tyranny. And James Madison gave the greatest gift and that was the difference in Jefferson Madison. Jefferson thought that man would always strive for for you know, for justice and in search of this higher truth. And Madison said, yes, maybe, but just in case they don't, let us have some protection.
Just in case, just in case. Hey, Rob, as we wrap up here, people want to see you. You've got a great Instagram, you got great clips there. How do they find out more about where you're going, what you're doing, and where they and come see you live next?
Well, I'm going to be at the Schubert Theater in Boston tomorrow night with Tim Ray of uh you used to play with Tony Bennett's band, and he's a marvelous professor of music and the pianist and he's playing his trio's opening for me tomorrow at the Schubert Theater in Boston. And then I'll also beat the Schubert. That's gonna be Saturday.
And then I'll beat the Schubert in Connecticut, New Aven, Connecticut, I believe, And that's tomorrow night and they can just go around and then I'll look forward to uh you know, coming on your your podcast again soon.
Oh thank you. I'm telling you, when you find a good comedian, you will find somebody who's very, very smart and very articulate. I love Rob, I'd love your passion for this country put people putting smiles on their faces. But you actually you got meat on the bones, brother, You actually know your stuff. And I truly appreciate you joining us here on that as I fill in for Sean Hannity. So thank you having see Strip and me, you and your family enjoyed the fourth of July.
All the best you God bless his country. Let's go for three hundred.
Baby, there we go, There we go. Rob Schneider, stay with us, We'll be right back.
You're on the Sean Hannity Show, a place where free speech and the First Amendment are still alive and well.
Liberalism is a failed ideology.
Get your dose of independence and liberty every weekday, right here with Sean Sean Hannity.
Thank you so much to Sean Hennity for letting me sit in his seat. I gotta tell you, I am more excited about this country and our future. It is the greatest country on the face of the planet. I'm so grateful to men and women who have served here, all the ups and downs of our country. Celebrating July fourth, next weekend, next weekend. But it's in my heart. I believe it. It's the greatest country. Jason in the House, if you can check me out. Jason in the House.
Thanks to Sean, Thanks for joining us.