recruitment and retention and other challenges facing tir community sets a recent hearing held by the house homeland security committee. ♪ c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including media come. >> that meeting, we believe that whether you live here, or right here, or way out in the middle of anywhere you should have access to fast reliable internet that is why we are leading the way. ♪ >> media come support c-span has a pubc service among these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> announced texas senator ted cruz slunk the attorneys general of south carolina, alabama and iowa talk about legal action against the biden administration and the legitimacy of the

current supreme court this is part of the republican national lawyers association policy conference in arlington, virginia. >> okay, we are going to get started pretty again good morning, mark ehlinger partner in jefferson city, missouri. it's a pleasure to start the conference off but maybe i am a little biased to say is traditionally the best panel. nothing you have to worry about too much snow high bar to get over. we are not going to lower expectations, or going to raise them. this is the panel that really looks everyone of the room know what's going on in the nation. we'll hear lots of stuff about d.c. what's going on in washington, d.c. it is our capitol and the hub of federal government. but scum is most people know of the united states i don't know that you listed too many ants of the state is a republican the concept is federalism states are

independent laboratories of democracy to come up with their own ways of doing things. we are fortunate in the united states there's 50 estates 50s attorney general all a little different. all with different priorities. that's really where the rubber hits the road. particularly as we all know in the current environment we have a crushing bureaucracy and the overlords in washington continue to impose more and more dictates on the republicans attorney general that are at the forefront and frankly the lead in the vanguard of the war against the overbreadth of federal government and taking away our rights i'm pleased to get to moderate this three-star attorney general's. i did not know what order you were all going to sit in we'll start with the rows between the thorns, no offense intended. she was elected in 20221st

republican to hold that position since 1979. congratulations and overcoming a longtime democrat. [applause] before taking office brenda served as a prussic at the fremont county attorney in guthrie county attorney. she was in private practice works in the iowa governor's office, house of representatives. taught as an adjunct professor at the university of iowa school of law and that this is interesting at the university of chicago school of law she helped entrepreneurs on chicago's south side start their own business but look at that, that is great. so welcome brenna. at the far end attorney general steve marshall he currently serves the 48th attorney general of the state of alabama. david is inherent somewhat weak and cute the song now. he served attorney general since 2017 as attorney general he has committed to make it a safer place to live, to make alabama a

safer place to live in in 2018 at the vanguard start initiative on violent crime. since that launch the initiative has a launched arrest of hundreds of violence of violent offenders across the state of alabama making street's sake. he worked as a district attorney in marshall county he helped draft impasse i think i will get this right the lodi attic of law that makes it a crime to injure or kill an unborn child. so welcome general marshall. [applause] only because it's alphabetical order left but not alan wilson is attorney general south carolina. when you give me a shout out racing to the airport at 4:00 a.m. this morning from indianapolis to be hear from another event last night so we can make it to another event later today. thank you so much for coming attorney general. he is projected south got it

right to work laws he led the cheap 26 state challenge and federal healthcare mandate said. he has successfully defended south carolina voter identification law which is really critical as we know. has fought to protect immigration laws that court also. he is also a colonel in the south carolina national guard. previously served in iraq where he earned a combat action badge. please join me in welcoming attorney general. >> already started here were going to lay the groundwork for how come attorneys in general are on the vanguard here especially in the cooperative actions that we see. attorney general wilson, when we start with you. can you talk a little bit about the cooperative action how we ended up the hub of that? which thank you marta appreciate you you as is my second time speaking to this organization is medical peers i love to this organization which was i did get

up at 4:00 a.m. from a vet i got up in indianapolis to get here for this event. it was well worth it. i start to drool i'm halfway through my first cap book coffee and working on for hours asleep i beg your indulgence. i like to start off with before we get to the meat of what were doing right now it is important for everyone in this room to understand how the republican attorneys general inc. and how we evolved over time to be who we are today. how we work together. back in the old days and but old days 13, 14, 15 years ago and beyond. ag were in our respective states we had our state issues. we would occasionally come together as the national association of attorneys general presents was it for decades we work on tobacco, some cross state issues. but for the most part we were more reserved and on his elevated position has we've all become in the last 20 years.

i want to say this i was elected in 2010. it was formed in the late 19's. i'll talk about that in the second period but before say anything else one is elected i was elected at the age of 37. 2011 took off as of the youngest attorney general in the country. with the election of brenna who is replace the former ag about who's the longest-serving attorney general going back to the late 70s i became the dean n of all ag's in the country is felt wildness of turning general prayer and look at the back of the room my 2010 classes and it really hot you heard of scott pruitt, pam bondi, you have heard of luther's strange former u.s. senator, we had a great class of ages that came in. another what was my very dear friend kansas attorney should bit who's standing in the back of the room. [applause]

soon to be hopefully congressman and derek schmidt. he was inaugurated two days before me. when he rolled out of office last and generally put out a press releasing his longest-serving attorney general in the country which is technically true for two days. then i got re- inaugurated from a fourth term i became the longest serving attorney general. but is formed in late '90s and at that time i think there were a total of 14 republican ag's out of the 56 states and territories should 14 republican at that time if i recall. there are only for ag's insistent on forming the republican attorneys general association. at that time the main caucus was national association of ag's. attorneys in general at that time felt the mission statement had trended a little weight from the priorities that were republicans because they were such a minority there issues and their priorities were not being looked at appropriately. so some staff folks decided to

put together the republican ag association went to the rnc senatorial committee's the governorship all these republican caucuses we would like to create one rnc was like that's great you should do that. we will give you an office but were not going to give you any money. we are not going to give you support other than letting you sit here. a couple years later early 2002 we've got to get you all out of here they reform the campaign-finance law remember it was not even incorporated. it was a title on a letterhead it was a pdf emblem. the staff went out and said ag's do not draw enough attention like governors, senators and congresspeople do we are going to create a thing called rs lc. the republican ag staff republican state leadership committee as an umbrella organization and then it jumped up under think of out a really

big stripmall and it was the corner anchor store. for the republican lieutenant governor's association was out of the republican secretaries of state the republican legislative committee was then added. for approximately the next 10 years those other committees were under it. well, i came into office in 2011 within two -- three years the republican ag's had out grown our stripmall. we wanted to be a standalone organization so we left rs lc base of the sort of $0 and the bank. i actually thought it was my first iteration is chairman basically then executive director jessica it was working at a starbucks on her personal laptop as we are scrambling to raise money we had like eight on the ballot going into 2014 is my first reelection cycle. so since that time it has grown with for ag's as a principal member's a total of 14 in the

country i think we are at 27 republican ag's right now. when you think about the map of states in the country of the 50 plus ag's including states and territories i believe 4446 states are popularly elected bit for five states to governor appoints the attorney general and the state of maine i believe the legislature appoints the attorney general. many people in from tennessee? locate your supreme court appoints the attorney general i do not know how that's not a conflict of interest. they did a great job but there are the one state that does it to the supreme court. so it has become the republican ag association has become the vehicle for which eight geez come together. in 2012 the obama administration passed the affordable care act the first time i recall all the

states outside of tobacco settlements and other bipartisan issues like the republican states coalesced around a single issue challenge the affordable care act also known as obama cap federal cases frustration was overreaching. remind people it's a state that create the federal government of the federal government that carried the state. we think that in mind we started to work together in tandem precious many answers as we could to confine the overreach of the obama administration. president trump was are not going to come took office the democrat said that's a great idea this started doing the same thing. through their vehicle the democratic ag association challenging the trump administration we begin the go works of democracy but we were defending things like remain in mexico. a little policy that really was stopping everything from happening at the border. that was present on the first to the biden administration and now we have the probably have.

were out there defending president trump in his initiatives. now he finds ourselves back on the other side of the wall trying to protect our country through the rule of law as a coalition of ag's. that is how it was formed for the till we all came together and that's the model of a g and how we model together around the country revokes it hurt how we all came together. and how we got involved in these actions to stop so the federal government outreach. it seems like there has to be a strategy on how you pick these actions and put the panels the for lack of a better turn together. general marshall skews me of how you package of lawsuits? work so it start by sharing a story greg abbott was asked when he was a g during the obama ministration was a typical day like for the attorney general question set to come to work as to the federal government, i go home. left. [laughter] not completely accurate but the

reality is that truly has become more and more the daily responsibility of the attorney general across the country. alan talked a little bit historically you see that as a political arm. it's a collective policy work we have done that i am the most proud of it's a testament to who we are and what we are about. so far to date we have found collectively among attorneys attorneygeneral one or 55 separe lawsuits against the biden administration. you can pair that was what her 35 cases filed by democratic ag during the entire trump administration so we have been active. i would tell you the trump administration officials with echo effect it was that litigation that hampered much of their ability to engage in the regulatory reform if i was so important. we have been able to top what they've done interestingly our democratic colleagues became fans of federalism and believed in the rule of law. i laugh at that.

but really proud of the work we have been able to do in the things we have been able to accomplish. but here is also the reality of the situation. it involves resources and assets we have to bring to bear in initiating these respective cases. one thing that gets lost the people do not recognize the absolute quality we have on our solicitors general's office across the country but we have been able to attract really bright, talented lawyers. it's why that group became such fertile ground or the trump administration for the appointment on our district and circuit ventures across the country. for us to build check those good lawyers is the work they can't do anywhere else. that's one thing there's been unique in the development of ag over the last 20 years. one thing we have attempted to do is to align the resources we

have across the country with the respective interests of the attorneys general themselves or it's aligned with the interests of their states the reality is we don't sue every regulation we don't like every law we don't like come from congress. the question for us as impact the states adversely question what does impact our economy and does it violate the rule of law? if it does have the opportunity to engage on issues that will talk a little bit about during this panel. you will also talk about throughout the course of the day. you're going to find for example west virginia and kentucky are going to take the lead on energy issues because of direct attack on fossil fuel around coal. you'll see alabama lead the first amendment liberty issues that's very much in interest that i have. and so what we have tried to do is create specialties within states and allow the unique talents of our lawyers to be able to lead across the country. one thing that has come to bear

think brent is going to talk about in a minute, our position on universal injunctions and what that does on the litigation front. so that we also understand were not going to use the democratic philosophy and finding some small trial judge in the second circuit or in the ninth circuit to dictate that the regulatory policies across the country. that's one thing democrats and very effectively and philosophically i don't think those of us of the table agree with. i think we have a supreme court justice is to feel the. but we have attempted to do is develop a coalition, file and multiple jurisdictions to be able to get the relief we want. one of things that is unique right now is the waters of the u.s. have been a transcendent issue across the country. right now as a result of litigation we have roughly 26 states that are subject to the trump era rule those have not sued or subject to the bite and

rule. all because we been able to develop coalitions that have gotten the appropriate relief but is also did something with self to fight at the regulatory level. so, we've got a really talented team of come together analyzing what is coming from the various agencies with this administration which are on overdrive right now. we attempt to use the resources and expertise we have two attacked the appropriate issues of the date which i look forward to talk about of the course of this panel provokes thing to general marshall come appreciated. before he jumped in the next question their index cards on your table. if you have a question for the attorneys general please write on the index card hold it up seven will come by and pick it up we will catch those at the end of the panel. so we talk about cooperative action the successes and how those are kind of put together. one of the key components of that is the concept of universal injunction or national injunction, we use different terms. so general bird could you talk

about the use of these universal injunctions and the impact of them? what is the future? works thank you mark. first of all, let me piggyback on something steve marshall was talking about. the number of lawsuits we have had to file against this administration for the illegal action. some peat times people ask how many times have you sued the administration or the epa? my answer is this. i wish it was zero we would have to sue them at all if they were just following the law. if they would follow the law rather than engage in lawmaking at the executive branch level we would not need to go to court to stand up for the rule of law. over glad to stand in the gap and hold the federal government accountable all of us wish they would actually follow the law and not engage in things as mass student debt cancellation with no legal basis, which hurt farmers to very important issue

in iowa coming from a farm i was so glad to be part of that. we would like to get to a day were the federal government follows the laws and constitution just like everybody else has to and we will get there. when it got my topic of universal injunctions i thought this is probably because i'm that new kid on the block i get that topic but it is a good one it's one of people in this room i think should be particularly interested in. because you are leaders in your states and on the national level. we need to give some real thought to the impact of universal injunctions and show shewhat the future is. and for anybody interested in some good discussion at the supreme court level labrador versus pro has a good discussion between the justices in that case about the impact and some of the ways they are using to analyze this important issue. we have got to go back to the first step of what is the purpose of an injunction

usually? usually injunctions in litigation typical litigation will be between the parties. but here the stakes are very different the people affected are very different when we are talking unconstitutional action the administration has engaged in or something violating the law they are truly bypassing the legislative branch when they're taking their own executive action that goes outside the law. we have to give some thought to that. we have to give respect to the .8 national injunction is something we have to work through in a way that is consistent. because we all know the principles of our constitutional order of our legal order they do not change based on who is in power or they do not change on the outcome that we seek. now do not get me wrong we will go to court and fight for it national injunction when there are illegal actions undertaken by the administration and those

are the arguments that we make. we need to give some thought to the future of national injunctions and waters of the principles these should be used as we engage in those discussions? there are many times a national injunction makes a lot of sense. you can see i would advocate for them. for example i know we have a lawsuit where biden is requiring developers to get environmental impact which is traditional, that's been around for a long time but now an additional requirement has been added under phase two rather than just looking at the best science really to the environment, they are supposed to take into account things like indigenous and knowledge and other cultural/social issues. that is not defined anywhere. but you can see that's a big overreach of national injunction will be very appropriate they are also things like student debt cancellation. you can see white national

injunction will be so important. we have to enter into the discussion with some care or forwhat will be the enduring principles over time over a national injunction is appropriate and where it is not. in the case i cited, there they decided the parties could go forward the law with respect to them but not for the rest of the state. very interesting discussion that you would see their with regard to how that works. you have to think with those impacts are as fast and furious race to the courthouse. we should never have our law beat decided based on who got to the courthouse faster and who had a judge who issued a ruling faster. those are not principled approaches. but at the same time we have to look at a violation is surely

unconstitutional and illegal for the entire country about the state that happened to sue. i will sorry for that waters of the u.s. lawsuit some states still have the old bad rule going into effect for them. where they stood up for what was right, they don't. we have to weigh those things and think about what's a thoughtful approach of what's appropriate was not appropriate. there are some cases pending right now before the supreme court that present the injunction issue squarely will probably see more opinions addressing that over the next couple of years. in the meantime we will go to court. when is an issue of national importance we will seek those national injunctions for that so we can hold this administration to account. the arguments we are having are not arguments around the edges

anymore. they go fundamentally to the nature of the rule of law. and the types of actions the administration is taking are so far outside the law i think i anational injunction is very appropriate for that. they certainly are not taking account the law allows them or doesn't allow them to do something. fate before their preferred policy outcomes the south with the constitution works. we all know from our childhood watching schoolhouse rock it comes down to the basics. laws passed, they get signed by the president. it's not bad by an unelected bureaucrat trying to achieve policy goals to the executive branch. >> that's a great segue to journal into the whole concept of chevron deference. that's really what we have seen. we have seen unelected bureaucrats coming to new extensions of the law and interpreting their own

regulations or students. globalizing things that legislature the congress is never passed. general wilson can you talk a little bit about chevron's efforts? where we are at and the impact you have seen so far going on the path of chevron deference and may be but that's going to change? >> i'm can do that if i could take on to something brown that was just you are trying but when it's appropriate to have a national injunction. i have seen a number of the states for instance california which is a very significant states a large estate in the. they bring public nuisance cases against companies doing business in certain blue states. because of this size bring in the public nuisance cases they e dictating national environmental policy that should otherwise be determined at the federal level for standard uniform purchases. when you have hawaii, connecticut, california, new

york, and other states bringing lawsuits under consumer deceptive torque theories or public theories and they are putting mandates somebodies at work in all 50 states for those companies have to comply on nuisance outcomes. and so for me, that's the best scenario from going into effect. until mark congress and everything applies uniformly. determining south carolina. that's what the attempt is. moving on, when i give speeches about the role of government i'm going to come to chevron and just a second so be patient with me. i like to use a campy little analysis to help the state has grown. chevron has been a doctrine that is fed that over the last four

decades. the little analogy i like to use for most people in this room and i've seen them gray hair out there. from this is a movie at my dad maybe watch when i was a kid when i was a little boy there's a movie called the blob. [laughter] i cannot do this analogy to high schools anymore because i've never heard of it. there is an accident steve mclean and the blob. the theme of the blob the storyline goes like this. a meteorite plans from outer space into this field outside of little country town. an old man happens upon it a little blobby google pulls out of the meteorite the old man picks it up with a stick it is cheesy claymation is before computer-generated images the blob jumps on the man eats him up something that look like tennis balls the size of a watermelon the blob starts to roll to the town throughout the course of the movie eating everyone in its path consuming,

devouring, eating his iconic scene of everyone running out of that movie theater because the blob port into the theater seating everyone. by the end of the move the blob start off at the beginning of the movie as a little tiny tennis ball sized blob is now the size of a diner, the size that has steve mclean's girlfriend the few remaining survivors in the tara locks in the diner and the armies on its way. they tried to blow up the blob that tried to burn it, they tried to shoot it, cut it up nothing will stop the blob. they learn that doesn't like the gold anytime they're able to shoot extinguisher refrigerant on and backs away. they're able to get the blob away by chilling at they freeze the blob and take it out over the arctic ocean the movie ends of the blob being dropped into the arctic ocean is a blobby thy found the end? you're all probably what it where's he going with this? maybe you've drawn some analogies already in your head.

at the beginning of the movie or republic of this defined thing a little blob called the federal government. their numerator powers as glued to find a still the gap states cannot do for themselves but over time but you learn about the blob about the powers i'm december become. that's happened of the past two to 40 odd years. the federal government is this behemoth, this in blob i know we like to do that. speaking with the parent and congress act like i can make

that joke. elected attorney general the ability to use the rule of law to freeze i like the metaphor don't you? to freeze the growth of the blob and restore or constrain it by the constitutional parameters. i think of the lapsing gospel fed and made it so big is the concept of chevron deference. it's a legal doctrine and 84. management one section of federal law and silent as to a federal power. it might narrowly give a specific power of federal agency will then say i want to take

this thing over here that was given narrowly defined. i want to apply it over here and something congress never gave us the power to do and the court in that case said we are going to defer to the regulatory agency's interpretation because they are the experts. now and they can and basically create law chevron deference and apply it. the example would be i kill my son, son you have the authority to step until 10:00 o'clock on friday night. and then saturday comes and he in hesays dad gave me the powere authority to set until 10:00 p.m. on friday night. i'm going to go ahead and interpret have that same authority on saturday night. but only because i was silent to saturday's going to read into it that's what federal agencies are doing. unelected bureaucrats who rule through administrative fiat are

creating out of whole cloth into lot by the elected representatives they are making it up. murmur of the famous statement about nancy pelosi should look at the pass aca we can see within it. they want to empower these federal agencies chevron deference is the tool the administrative state and the left is using to grow the blob it is a federal government there are two cases right now but are potentially going to go up and raise this issue again before the night state supreme court. i believe congress must get abc agencies of the federal government the authority to do something that needs to be stated in that particular statute. we should not be giving deference to people who are not accountable for the power and her not accountable to the people who put members of congress that wrote the law. that's how i view chevron deference of the role it plays in federalism.

>> the best example of the blob has grown as we had a reception last night at the capitol that when it was open was the federal government. [laughter] i am from missouri will be built our state our third state capitol in 1917 that was the entirety of the state government. every state in every government needs to growth. let's talk about specific radios we overreach we hit the broad headlines now. general marshall, title ix we counsel here about the biden administration before that the obama administration run it warpath taking away due process rights reinterpreting things we never dreamed to be interpreted. talk a little bit about title ix regulations we can just stop them? what is going to spent excited to have that discussion. let me broaden out a little bit. and talk about the whole of government approach. part of why you see gridlock and

congress executive branch is looking to be able to enforce their agenda on the american people if they cannot pass all of congress we see them resorting traditional actions including the fourth branch of government which is otherwise known as federal rogatory agencies. one of the areas this administration has made a priority as an ideology this country is never seen. we did have some experience with this fact during the obama administration to figure out which bathroom you're going to use. when i walked into this job seven cap years ago i was expected certain issues i would let a guy never went litigate who's a boy who's a girl which is where we have become. we won that initial fight we hep lead that fight. everything was relatively calm and the trump administration.

it is not radically different than where we were before. title ix is the most recent of those efforts. you all would have never thought were the greatest victories i had was to push back and see are a becoming part of our constitution. you may not have paid attention to that went virginia and illinois wanted to say there are 37 and 38 of the states. if you can remember that amendment think what that would have done to embolden this administration not become embedded in our constitution what they would try to weaponize are on this idea of a quality of the sex. since title ix was adopted in the early 70s, there's been that definition of sex we vendors are biological as god created us. at these new regulations with title ix would include the definition of sex the term gender identity which would again allow that free-flowing definition of what your gender

is in your elected ability to decide which bathroom you would go into. that's why 18 states and south carolina is with me and alabama and another litigation in another state have attacked those regulations on multiple grounds. not only allen talked about chevron deference, thank goodness for the rise of the major question doctrine obviously chief justice has allowed that to be a vehicle for the court to weigh in to some extent. maybe avoid chevron deference is impediment to deal with with the court sees is appropriate to the rule of law. but not only within title ix do we see this inclusion of gender identity but also it is expanding what is sex based harassment under their definition to include the failure to use the preferred pronouns of an individual. now title ix is litigation that ought to be that reminder which james and buckley told us several years ago. but we accept federal money

allows congress to dabble in areas the constitution otherwise prohibits. this is a perfect example. the only reason this administration is allowed to impose is because we accept federal money for education. do not take that statement as one that we should never accept federal money in the states. it comes with strings attached. but you all this is not their first foray into that effort. alabama is leading the charge around multiple states pushing back against gender affirming care print this could be an entire day to have that discussion about radical procedures advancing europe is now a failed experiment with and what were doing with kids. we see in the states has attempted to protect kids from this experimentation and sterilization. the department of justice has weighed in including in alabama trying to build a pushback on it because again at this agenda focused around gender. school lunch program is an apartment of agriculture

offering regulations that went to redefined sex's if you're going to take money to be able to help children that need appropriate nutrition you are going to have to adopt their philosophy around what that looks like. foster care we have new rules proposed around what is a safe foster home. a safe foster home is only those homes that adopt the pronouns of the child that adopts a langley child to build dress and the gender of their choice and says you have to provide a gender affirming carriers of the child demands it. that's only advancing this agenda but a direct attack. on if you've seen it but even in a workplace setting's going to allow for a litigation to proceed if the employer does not allow the employee to choose the bathroom of their choice or the employer does not acknowledge the preferred pronouns of their employee.

we have seen a variety of areas in which the federal government and multiple agencies have embraced the philosophy of the bite of ministration around gender but title ix is on the most recent probably the one that is most noteworthy for those you have states like alabama have said we have girls against girls what's interesting if you pull it and talk to people that is just common sense for most it's a very small minority of individuals that want to advance that agenda. again uniquely because of the standing doctrine granted to a jesus were given the privilege to fight. there is even a case of the supreme court where we have had a change with regard to how that can be dispensed whether or not a doctor has to be able to supervise the care of the woman who is using the abortion drug.

the significant issue for the court was did the litigant have standing to bring that case? one of the thing is with expanded doctrine granted to a gees to advance issues sometimes we are the only game in town. it is why the fight around many of the gender identity efforts of this administration falls to us to be able to advance these issues. >> think you're general just a reminder if you have questions in a few minutes will take some questions for with him on the index card that is on your table to hold them up in their symbol, and pick them up in a few minutes the bring them forward to me and them will do some questions here. let's change the regulatory overreach area a little bit. general byrd. >> the fcc wants to if there was a bad idea for the epa to do it butnow apparently the fcc does . talk a little bit about those disclosure regulation and the impact they are having?

>> yes. in iowa my talk with sec they think i'm talk about basketball laugh at. >> we focus on football a little more were i met. [laughter] >> many times we see a massive overreach coming from this administration and this is another one that is coming at us. have to say i'm really glad albeit to lead the charge on this one and i guess we got that honored by being the one chosen out of a hat. there were a number of different people, agc file petitions against this role. i what was one chosen to lead this lawsuit we are really glad to get to do it for 25 states are involved. basically the sec stopping fraud, things that are important and a core mission. instead it looks like they are

in charge of energy policy is not found in the law and it's a very bad idea. they are mandating reporting of greenhouse gas emissions by businesses. that mandate is detailed and difficult as the current estimate. in iowa what we look at this issue we rely on getting product from publicly traded companies. to an agriculture would increase the prices for what everybody pays. it would also make the sec have a role in basically deciding energy policy that something they're not equipped to do therecertainly not allowed to do under the law. they don't have the expertise either. with 25 states and it's a good

cause. winning one because before the injunction the argument can even happen voluntarily agreed to stay in their own regulation. they are on shaky ground they should know that because three times in the past congress did not give them that power. most recently in 2021 they did not have that power. when that have a big impact on every state in the country which is why our farm and freedom division is litigating that case and working with our neighbor ag's on that one. when you think about how far things have gone off the rails to have the sec trying to set energy policy, that is just one example that we see.

very dangerous for addressing this administration tried to push more and more roles through. i think they know the end is near an america does not like the direction they've taken our country. and the disrespect for that rule of law and the principles outlined in our constitution. we talk to folks in our states, farmers or businesses or other americans who are concerned about what is going on in washington. people know the constitution is not being filed the administration is not calling inside the lines at all they're going to well outside of the lines to achieve policy goals and complete violation of our constitution. >> used to follow along with my colleagues were saying with chevron deference was a doctor in federal bureaucracy to enlarge the blob of the federal government, right? you're seeing other things they are doing. general marshall was just

saying, they have people in the executive branch of government that are reading the word sex written in the law and 1972 and a reading into what sex means to include gender identity. and then enlarging that to get more power to compel local schools and school districts to adopt pronoun policies if you do not use someone's preferred pronoun the federal government will withhold money from all of the children. a few months ago it was part of an amicus brief i think it was ohio there is a school district saying if you miss it gender summit outside of school like at the mall on saturday or sunday you can be punished. it is seeping into areas and gaps of society some bureaucrat in d.c. is writing a regulation being implemented by the department of education or a bureaucrat and edger crab is writing a regulation that

seeping into your home and compelling or prohibiting speech. these are ways is a growing getting a bigger and bigger and bigger. and to your point the fcc is weighing in the things that showed it. we are seeing the epa weigh in on the civil rights act. you do not to intend to have a disparate impact if you have the effect of it regardless of the intent the civil rights act is applying in the epa policy. this is never how it was intended to work. >> a lot of topics have not gotten to yet with a bunch of questions out it real quick before jumping to some of the questions in the crowd all you all are very involved in environmental litigation. that really does seem to be to a certain extent where the rubber is hitting the road constantly across the country. can you take a couple of minutes and talk about your roles with respect to environmental litigation the cases that you see are at the top and your case or in your state or your coalition you have an interest

in going to work down the road coming this way general marshall wanted to start a. >> one case everyone ought to pay attention to and we led the brief in support of the parties is the hawaii public nuisance petition is pending. very briefly the city of honolulu has asserted an action against the fossil fuel companies claiming they have caused damage as a real result of climate change. what this is really about is creating a carbon tax on the fossil fuel industry as well as within the claim is to injunctive relief in the city of honolulu to dictate energy policy across this country. by the way i found it interesting the city of honolulu did not sue the airline company to bring the tourist to their state for the shipping companies that provide the products individuals that live to conduct

their daily lives. this is environmental groups engaging in the litigation process across this country. the question before the court is whether or not a state trial judge has the ability to do the supreme court has been reluctant to take up that for a variety of questions. very specific issues on removal but yet but we have alleged the states are encouraging the court to weigh in as that's not the appropriate form for these discussions to take place ought to be in federal court with eight separate sovereign should be able to consider what truly is a battle about what's appropriate energy policy does not need to be decided by state trial judge. that is issue worth watching with this court and hopefully they will grant to take that up. >> the types of cases we engage in if there is a common theme is

about control. once you control choices you have. were thinking about the electric vehicle mandates that are out there. whether it is california, we see them as well when they are engaged in overreach or the epa. those mandates take choices away from people by requiring certain benchmarks of how many electric vehicles you have to sell or make about certain years. basically it means when people go to buy a vehicle they will not be able to get a traditional gas powered vehicle or diesel powered vehicle they'll have to choose an electric one whether they want to or not that applies to vehicles like pickup trucks. so in aisle i've never seen a farmer with an electric pickup truck. i saw one so i have seen one. i guess they could drive to

dinner in the farm track clicks or the other farmers pick on the farm with ev? once i haven't seen one so i don't know. do not a work truck a summons when using electric vehicles for certain application. it has to be something you want to have in some ways it's a luxury vehicle because they are so expensive they will not be able to afford to drive it and why that may be the actual end goal of these policies is to make sure people do not have cars and trucks. we have to look at some those mandates we have even california we just sued california they are requiring over the road semi trucks as giant semi trucks of sleeper calves that go across this country and bring you all the things that you buy, very important to our country they are going to require those to be electric fleets california is. if you have over 50 trucks one happens to venture into california your whole fleet has to be electric by 2042.

those of the types of things we have to take the court that we have to talk about energy policy when we talk about ev because at the very same time they are dictating electric vehicles. there make it harder to get electricity. picking it more expensive destabilizing the power grid some awoke ideas about how power should be generated. they are against cold air against not natural gas we note this electric cars driving around the chances are that electricity was generated by fossil fuel. at the very time they are trying to dictate electric vehicles there make it harder and harder for anyone to get electricity. >> people say what roles you have's and ag in alabama, iowa ensuing california impulsive decisions they are making. but this is about issues of our constituent pocketbooks if california can dictate this

converge what we note right now automakers are losing money on electric vehicles they are having to use gas powered cars to offset that loss. it's more expensive for alabama consumer to bite gas powered vehicles in alabama because the efforts of california. that gives us a reason to be engaged. >> general wilson you want to chime in on the environmental side and the mother to some questions? >> people and systems except change at a rate they can absorb it. i feel are trying to force a change faster than the economy. faster than society can absorb it. i'm not appear to have not going to speak for my colleagues but i would imagine they would agree were not new and innovative technologies. the buggy and the horses gave way to the motor vehicle the fax machine gave way to the computer. technology comes but the thing is they're trying to force through administrative fiat

policies the lot is not given the power to you and they're trying to do it faster than can be absorbed by society. people are really trying to survive out there. the cost are crippling and crushing people, people who have never had been to be responsible to employ someone or responsible for the consequences of their own policies are trying to run this country. that is what really upsets me. the announcer elect use i tried this once when i was 15 you cannot take a cake when the directions say bake this cake for 30 minutes at 350. you cannot up the temperature to the oven to 700 bake the cake in half the time you do not get the same type of cake they're trying to do that you're going to get a bad consequence. exhibit a for me into the foray of the environmental regulation they basically try to rewrite the water to the u.s. statute as

brennan mentioned a little while ago there certain areas different jurors addictions and jurisprudence i don't cult waters waters of the u.s. i call it lotus lands of the u.s. across the federal government attempt to try to grab your land. low-lying and femoral ditches on logging roads or forestry roads or agricultural farms that have lands that are adjacent to a water basin several miles away are now going to have to be regulated out of their appropriate use of the local a local levelbecause now you haa federal permit the grabbing land from people just like grabbing power grabbing liberty it's the blob again it's getting bigger and bigger and bigger and it will never stop. this is why the ag us weighing in on federal issues involving the environment is so important because there is a trickle-down effect that affects all of us across the board. quickly cut about seven minutes left and wanted to save time for

questions. we are going so good here. there's something we talked about when we were on our call a couple weeks ago. we talked about d banking. a pretty good question hear from the audience that goes to that area. in addition to your work against the federal government can you speak your work against corporations that are driving certain social policies and discriminate against citizens of your states or other states? i'll throw that out for whoever like to take that one. >> your talk but we are doing? >> yes absolutely. we are very engaged in fighting esg and d banking is one symptom of that problem. we have seen the big banks at the committee banks that are deciding to d bank people or organizations based on their politics it's only conservative people are conservative causes a particularly those with the second amendment. or other conservative colleges

religious groups or faith based group. we investigate that comment when that occurs and hold those people accountable. it is important we shine the light of day on some of this. we certainly do not want to tell a bank how to run a bank and that's not what we're doing pretty dan d bank customers without even saying why did they do not answer the question about why they decided to tell a person or organization you cannot have an account here. just cutting them off completely it is a serious problem. the whole way esg has pervaded corporate culture something all of us should be on the lookout for. it is certainly in violation of our constitutional principles and how we should uphold equality.

the nature of the left to produce the documents talking about the collusion among competitors, that makes it pretty easy to be able to argue. i think they had suddenly seen that, but this is i think an

area that at least seven, eight years ago we were not even discussing. now it is a paramount issue for us. >> i will be very brief, but what motivates the banks for the corporations to adopt the policies? culture is upstream from politics, so the left they gave up political battle and sort of off led to the big education and look at what's going on right now at universities around the country, there's kids out there that want you to pay for their student loans that are out there holding up everyone from getting an education to protest what is going on in israel into gaza. they are going to be mid to high level management, so what kind of policies are they going to be doing. it's bigger than just what's going on in the company. it's more of a cultural battle. >> we are running out of time. we have several questions on the same type of topic that is the federal government and elections

getting involved to state elections and states rights with respect to federal elections. it seems obviously we are in election year that's going to be a hotter topic. address your thoughts on that issue. >> as it relates to elections i thought a number of years ago was a very good at the voting rights act was basically using 1960s formularies to dictate how states pass, first off no one should pass a law that discriminates against anybody and prevents them from voting. we agree on that. but they were using formulas to control how certain states were treated and at one time were discriminated 60, 70 years ago under the same formulas. other states who were not discriminating at the same formulas would be seen as discriminatory but they didn't have to get preclearance from the federal government. the voter id law back in 2012

and then subsequent to that they are trying to go back and rewrite to create the same formulas into receivership with the federal government so that if you want to pass something as simple as a voter id requirement that applies to everybody equally, you would have to get permission from the government. that is the kind of thing that we are going to find. >> i think it speaks to the importance of disorganization particularly around the discussion of training and arming of lawyers to look in the respective states going back to 2020 there was a coalition of states to bring original actions around concerns of how it was conducted including pennsylvania for example, where we argued that as a result of the decisions made by the pennsylvania supreme court, the people of alabama were impacted simply based on what the decision was the end of the court was reluctant to be able

to weigh in. i think our ability to deal with a safe and secure election occurs at the state level. our ability to deal with that on a global federal site i think was robust, and it's why creating an opportunity for lawyers to be directly engaged in the state level are carried out appropriately is so critical for 2024. >> absolutely. we all want the integrity that is so important to all of us in important to the constitutional order that people can trust the outcome of an election and no there isn't fraud and cheating and i think you're right, that was a clear signal. that's why it's everybody in this room we want to state laws that make it easy to vote and inhard to cheat and in iowa we have good and important safeguards that ensure people that their vote is counted and is very hard for folks to

achieve. but we know at the end of the day after states where there may be violations of election integrity or fraud or cheating it is up to the lawyers on the ground to document that and catch that so the action can be taken and people can be held accountable and that the facts are there to prove the fraud and of the cheating. that is the only way we will change what is happening in some states where they don't have the good integrity laws that many of the states have. >> in 2020 if you look at the u.s. constitution and the federally, federal elections to be determined by the state legislatures and during the covid era, certain secretaries of state and election commissioners were writing federal election law to come in at three days after on and postmarked and unassigned end of the legislature never passed that law and is up is the heart of the amicus that we joined in 2020 for the return of those

constitutional principles so that local officials can't dictate national elections. >> we are going to win again. please join me in thanking the attorneys general. [applause] i will turn it over to david. it's my pleasure to introduce charlie and last year's

republican lawyer of the year and a member of the board of governors and member here in dc. he did all the heavy lifting. a big round of applause. [applause] >> thank you. it's an honor to introduce the recipient senator ted cruz. [applause] i will admit that it's mildly

annoying what does work and consistently referred to as the smartest lawyer that she knows and a somewhat irritating but anybody that listens to his podcast and the way he dissects issues will and explains them would probably agree with that assessment. over the past week, it's about leadership under fire and normally we think of nobody more appropriate than the senator but over the last two weeks we started to discuss this and they are talking about the bipartisan problem-solving and getting legislation done working with democrats and praising him, so this seems not quite on brand but it's very impressive how

he's delivering for his constituents and despite that, when you look at the politician that has had the most money spent attacking them, everyone remembers beta o'rourke end of the amount he spent attacking senator cruz and now the democrats in texas are talking about spending a record amount going after him. he's facing an onslaught of funding so i do encourage you to do whatever you can to support him this year and that said, i am here to present the award. the attorney general wrote a letter to the senator that is much more eloquent than anything i could say.

although it prevents me from being with you in person, i wanted to express my congratulations for the outstanding public service. you've distinguished yourself by your patriotism and effective defense for the basic ideals and principles embodied in the constitution and in the traditions of the great country. you've been stalwart to getting out the facts of so many critical issues and bringing transparency to the legislative process. your courage and tenacity have been invaluable in making sure that over citizens know the truth about what is going on in the nation's capital. you're in an important contribution to the nation and began with your service to the state of texas and you've then took on further responsibility by running for the united states senate. in the senate you've been an outstanding example of patriotism and leadership and the protection of the constitutional government and rule of law.

you've persevered despite the unfair attacks by political opponents and your efforts to support legislation and prevent the bills that would harm the foundation of the democratic republic are appreciated by people throughout the country. congratulations on receiving this prestigious award and best wishes for continued success. [applause] thank you very much for your friendship and tremendous leadership and of those kind remarks. i wasn't expecting a letter from general meeks. if it was particularly meaningful. i will say at the outset that

he's been a friend and mentor for me for 30 years now and when i was a brand-new lawyer, my first job was working for chuck cooper and mike harmon in dc. both were two of the general's generalstop lieutenants in the n justice department. so i was trained. they taught me how to be a lawyer. they are both incredible lawyers into the general was an extraordinary attorney general. he was a towering figure in the law but i'm going to tell you my favorite story. and it actually concerns antonin scalia and robert bork. as of this is the mid 80s. mid 80s scalia and bork are both on the circuit and everyone knew the next supreme court vacancy one or the other was going to get it but they didn't know who it was going to be.

and one day, scalia is walking through the parking garage at the dc circuit and comes to the elevator and there are two u.s. marshals standing at the elevator and they stop him and say i'm sorry, sir. we are holding this elevator for the attorney general of the united states. scalia pushes past them. he gets in the elevator and jams the button and as the door is closing, he says you tell him he doesn't wait for anyone. [laughter] [applause] that is actually a true story. and 1986, the next vacancy antonin scalia got the next nomination. and he got confirmed and he had to wait until 87 and we all know that he did not, so maybe that

elevator defined history. when you look back at someone like ed meese, he faced relentless attacks. he was mocked, attacked personally, and we see that constantly right now. when i first ran for the senate, ed meese was the chairman of the national leadership team and he was someone who was willing to stand up to corruption. i look around at the men and women in the room and each of you are doing that. each of you are doing that in your respective states, standing up to the abuse of power and the rule of law.

i want to talk about the assault on the rule of law that we have seen in the last four years. it's easy to get numb to it because it's constant. it is relentless. i believe this is the most lawless administration to ever serve in the history of america. a lot of things have happened in the last decade, but one of the things that has been most consequential is i think donald trump broke the democratic party. he shattered their brains. i look in the senate. when i got to the senate 12 years ago, there was such a thing as moderate democrats. they don't exist anymore. and the democrats have convinced themselves, trump is adolf

hitler. so therefore, anything, anything, anything is justified to stop hitler and the rule of law could be trampled because it's justified they must remain in power. and if you look at what is happening, we all know the invasion that has unfolded over 11 million illegal immigrants since joe biden became president. it's happening for a lot of reasons but the most fundamental is we have a president and administration who defines the law in a way that has never before haven't. joe biden did something i actually would have thought was impossible. he made me miss barack obama. [laughter] i disagreed with obama on a lot of issues but when it came to immigration, by and large, he followed the law.

barack obama deported millions. remember the left got mad at him and called him the deep order in chief. what joe biden is doing is apprehends them and lets them go over and over again in open defiance of the law says they must be detained and deported as this administration simply refuses to follow it. our constitution was not designed to have an executive that it ignores the laws that are written in the books and the democrats feel they are justified. if you spend time in south texas, which i do a lot, nobody that sees this tragedy defends it anymore. there's nobody that says this is a good policy. the democrats nationally justified i think they rationalized it to themselves we

must save democracy. to save democracy, we must stay in power. so the democrats are perfectly happy to let people die. some of you may have seen last year what he was testifying to the judiciary committee. and i took the opportunity to very gently question him. and i asked him i said how many people died last year crossing illegally into the country and he said i have no idea. i said of course you don't. the number is 853 according to your own department, but you don't care enough to know those numbers. it's nearly three a day. down to the south texas with farmers and ranchers they show you photograph after photograph of dead bodies defined on their properties. i asked how many children were

brutalized last year by traffickers i have no idea. of course you don't. how many women were sexually assaulted, i have no idea. the answer is 100,000 of the highest in the nation's history. as each of you knows and any cross-examination, you try never to ask a question that you don't know the answer to. i will say there is one question that completely astonished me. i put up a poster board with a picture of colored wristbands and i asked him i said please tell the committee with these wristbands are. he looked at them and said i have no idea. i've never seen them before. and i said in response you've just told of the american people you are incompetent and you don't even give a damn enough to pretend to try.

just about every illegal immigrant that comes into the country is wearing one of those wristbands and the colors correspond to how many thousands they owe the cartel. the going rate is typically between 3,000 to 12,000. if you're coming from further it's about 50,000. you stand on the banks of the rio grande river and you will see hundreds or thousands of these. so when he was saying he doesn't know what they are it doesn't mean he hasn't spoken on the banks of the river, he hasn't spoken to the border patrol agents. most of the people that come into the country don't have three to $12,000. so they show up. the cartels don't view them as human beings or even as cattle. they view them as cargo. they are like rfid tags of how many thousands of dollars each one of those people is worth. and they come in and by the way

the border patrol doesn't go catch them. they look for agents and turn themselves in. i go out on midnight patrol. at one time i was out on midnight patrol. we go to this big smash house. a border patrol agents kick the doors open and start pulling out traffickers. big news, muscles and the agents are calling over senator, senator. i'm like just call me bob. [laughter] but when you see when you go out on midnight patrol within minutes a group of illegal immigrants will find you and turn themselves into you and they do it because joe biden under his leadership they let him go. they ask where would you like to go. one of the last times i was there they showed me they had a

new app every agent had on their phone to process illegal immigrants. they can now do it in two minutes. almost everyone comes with a baggie and in the baggie they will typically have some form of id, drivers license, passport, by the way, you are not allowed to have id although they all have it. and they have typically a cell phone almost all of them have a cell phone. and they have a name and phone number of somebody in the united states of somebody they will call. now they can scan a path forward and it populates all the fields and takes two minutes and they ask where would you like to go. whatever city in america they say. in the last mile of the human trafficking network and they send teenage boys to every city in america. you might think okay i don't live on a border state. you're wrong. whatever state or city you live

in, this administration is flying illegal immigrants to your city and the teenage boys show up and owe thousands of dollars to the cartel. they have to pay it back. if they don't pay it back, the cartels will murder their families. so they are committing crimes, robbing people, assaulting people, killing people. in order to make money to send back to the cartels and as bad as the teenage boys have it, the girls have it worse. there are thousands upon thousands of girls right now in forced sex slavery. typically it takes five to eight years for a girl to pay off the money she owes the cartel. you think about a 15-year-old girl down in honduras looking north imagine a better life, imagine freedom in america.

she takes a long perilous journey where she is repeatedly and horrifically assaulted, then she gets here and finds herself trapped in sex slavery. this is evil. and i look at those wristbands as modern-day leg irons because this is slavery. it is happening because biden is lawless. it's happening on every policy ground. we were talking about the student loan forgiveness. another example that was utterly lawless. it's been a little while but the last i checked the president doesn't kick to give away a trillion dollars just because he wants to. that actually takes congress to appropriate money.

i'm not sure biden knows what day it is, but everyone around him knows that. why did they do a trillion dollar giveaway, because they were buying votes. and by the way, it worked pretty well. it did get struck down and what has biden done, he's done it again. by the way they think that young people are really stupid because their gamble is the same people they pretended to give a trillion dollars to last time they will pretend again and they are hoping they will vote for democrats and of course strike it down again. it is brazen and flawless. you look at these persecutions of trump. at 200 years we've never invited a former president. the democrats in the last year have done so for times. these cases have nothing to do with the conduct of donald trump

or criminality and they have everything to do number one with of the democrats hatred of trump. but number two, the target of these cases is the american people. i've got to say i think sigmund freud is probably rolling over in his grave right now because the democrats engage in a freudian projection unlike anything i've seen. every democrat in america beats their chest and says we are defending democracy. and this abuse of power is the greatest abuse on democracy that america has ever seen. [applause] the reason it is happening is because they are terrified that the american people will vote to reelect donald trump as president. [applause]

that was then followed in maine and illinois, three states that said we are going to pull trump off the ballot because nothing says defending democracy like preventing the voters for voting for your opponent. now i will say when the colorado decision came down that day, i said this will get reversed by the supreme court, it will get reversed quickly and i predicted that day i said i hope it will get reversed unanimously. i will say as someone who, like each of you, cares about the rule of law and constitution, i am incredibly grateful the court did reverse that unanimously. it would have been a bad outcome if it had been either 6-3 decision on party lines and if

the court stood together with opinions, i would wager money john roberts wrote that opinion, but it was important for the court to stand united every justice puts say it will be -- multi components trying to throw them off the ballot. [applause] in the senate i lead an amicus brief supporting the case we had 179 members of congress joined that a brief both in the senate and the house it was important that the court spoke with one voice. you look across the board every one of these instances or let's take this week what's the latest news this week. the president's executive privilege over the audio of the interview with the special

counsel. i understand that to a layperson that may sound like a bunch of gobbledygook. but to a lawyer that really sounds like gobbledygook. it is a claim that is on its face ludicrous. executive privilege as everyone owes us the privilege that attaches with the president is talking to with senior advisors. we want a president to be able to get candid advice. if they are concerned about being called in front of congress or in front of a courtroom, presidents will not get good and candid advice. when it comes to executive privilege, the democrats essentially stated it does not apply to republicans. >> peter navarro right now is in jail because he did refused to disclose what he talked to the

president about. that is executive privilege into the democrats said we don't care. steve bannon is about to go to jail for the same thing. why is the claim ludicrous? because joe biden wasn't sitting there. if joe biden was sitting there discussing the priorities for the department of justice you would have a credible claim of executive privilege because that actually is running the executive. but when robert hurst sat down with joe biden, he wasn't there and as a biden subordinate. presumably, biden wasn't there directing what he wanted his subordinate to do. he was there is a special prosecutor appointed to investigate whether joe biden had committed multiple felonies. joe biden was sitting in the shoes of a criminal defendant.

the notion that executive privilege attaches when you are a criminal defendant being interviewed by the prosecutor to determine whether to prosecute you is such a ludicrous claim. but i'm an presta they can say it with a straight face. i'm not that good an actor. i think i would start laughing as i was saying it, but they don't care. they know the docile sheep that are the media will delete and move on. they might not even bleep. he concluded that he had committed multiple felonies and willingly and knowingly and brazenly over and over again. but they said we will not prosecute you. remember early on the document

case. and then, you know, god has a sense of humor. the story broke that there were classified documents everywhere. in the garage next to his antique corvette because who doesn't keep us updated documents in their garage. so what did the doj concluded? he's guilty of multiple felonies, but we will not prosecute him. because no jury will convict him because he's not competent to stand trial. he's incapable of performing mens rea. that is the official decision of the department of justice mind you he has the nuclear codes. [laughter] and is the commander-in-chief of the united states of america.

there is a brazenness to this that is just astonishing. and i will say i was doing a tv interview and i referred to joe biden as mr. mcgough. and also john kerry asked thurston howell. [laughter] and then a load of you may have worked on capitol hill. i can tell you one of the things about capitol hill is staffers are all children. the median age is like 12. so i went back to my office and i paused for a second and asked do any of you know who thurston howell is. [laughter] not a single person in my office

had any idea. the millionaire he and his wife, no, nothing. [laughter] so i then went to lunch. the other republican senators, and for some reason i was feeling and he said i'm going to tell the story so i shared it with my colleagues and mitt romney responded and said, it's true, he said i actually found you can't use to thurston howell when you're talking about somebody rich and out of touch. [laughter] you should use mr. burns instead. [laughter] i sat there and he said holy crap i'm taking advice on how to be relatable to people from mitt romney. [laughter] every word of that is true. by the way, the only way you can survive what is going on is

laughter. if you don't laugh, you have to cry. but i want to say this as a word of encouragement. what is going on right now is so bad. i've never been more afraid for the country than i am right now. the good news is sometimes things have to get really bad to wake people up and i hope and pray people are waking up across the country. i think november is going to be a really good election. i think all of us hope the results are that donald trump is elected and we have a senate and republican house. if we do, this country will turn around and turn around fast. we will secure the border and do so within 30 days how can i say

that? because we did it before. when joe biden came into office he inherited of the lowest rate in 45 years. we know how to do it. if that happens, we will come together and pass one if not of the largest tax cut in american history. the tax cut of 2017 many of them are expiring next year. we have a republican house and senate we will do it again. i hope we make it bigger and bolder and unleash growth. [applause] if that happens, we will repeal the job killing regulations we will stop funding our enemies. by the way, explain to me why they keep sending millions of dollars to the hamas to

hezbollah. i've got a really radical concept for you. stop sending money to people who want to kill you. [applause] we will see things turn around dramatically if we win. i will say if and when that happens, i assume i am looking at many of the men and women who will be lawyers in the next administration. i look around this room and let me tell you, the job in january, 2025 is not going to be easy because these agencies have been corrupted. they have been fundamentally weaponize and i will say one challenge the first term of the trump administration i do not think they did a very good job with personnel. they put a lot of people in office who didn't do the job they needed to do.

i hope the second time around they are much more effective at putting people in office who understand the need to go in and clear out the hard-core partisan radicals, the career leadership that is burrowed into the senior leadership at every agency. [applause] and let me be very clear, i don't want a republican department of justice i want a department of justice that follows the law regardless of your party. [applause] but everyone here understands making that happen it's easy to say but it's harder to go in and confront these brazen partisans who believe they are saving democracy while they are

lighting the constitution on fire. so i want to encourage each of you, number one, be vigilant. many of you are fighting voter fraud and for election integrity. thank you for that. that is incredibly important. i want to encourage you to double down your vigilance this year so that we have a fair election in november and then come january, i want to encourage you to roll up your sleeves and go to work. turning around the administration and bringing our federal agencies back to their intended purpose. anyone advising a client on risks of litigation, you will advise of the upside if we win, here's what we get. they've got to have a reason to pay your fees.

but you also advise a client on the downside. so i talked to you a minute ago about how things could go well in november. i would be remiss if i didn't discuss the alternative. what happens if we have a bad election? if trump loses, i think the white house into the house or correlated. i think we will lose the house of representatives. how about the senate? the senate we have a great opportunity to take the senate. it's very favorable. there are multiple democratic seats right now in red states or purple states that we have a good opportunity to win. but every single one of those delegates 16 years ago and a good democratic year they won in the red states and purple states into that could happen as well. so let me tell you what happens if it's a bad election. let's assume every democratic

seat remains democrat and every republican seat remains republican in the senate except one. charlie mentioned my race. chuck schumer has been explicit i'm his number one target in the country. my biggest challenges complacency. people say it's texas, you are republican, this is easy. i think that is objectively false. my last reelection was 2018. you will remember that was at the time the most expensive senate race in u.s. history. i ended up winning by less than three points. 2.6% was the margin. but the democrats did in 2018, they more than doubled democratic turnout. they drove the democratic turnout from 1.8 million all the way up to 4 million. that had never happened.

we saw what was happening and we landed hard on the other side and drove the republican turnout from 2.8 million to 4.2. .2 was it, 200,000 votes out of more than 8 million cast. that is why schumer set a target on this race. the democrats intend to spend between 100 to $150 million this year in texas. and his reasoning is simple. all he needs is three-point and he flips texas. so, what happens if we have a bad election and every seat in the senate stays the same except one. the only thing that changes that is the democrats gain three points in the state of texas. let me tell you what happens in january. in january of 2025 the first thing that happens is chuck schumer comes back and ends the filibuster.

he right now has 49 votes to end the filibuster. he needs one more to lower the threshold from major legislation from 60 votes to 50 votes. if he ends the filibuster he does four things in rapid succession. s1 is the first bill chuck schumer introduces whatever he congress. it's a federal takeover of every election. it strikes down virtually every single election integrity law in the country and every photo id law in the country. it implements universal mail-in ballots at every state in the union. it legalizes the ballot harvesting in every state in the union. it automatically registers to vote millions of felons and automatically registers to vote millions of illegal aliens. it is designed so that democrats never again lose another election and by the way, your election integrity efforts

become impossible after s1. the second thing schumer and the democrats would do is add to states to the union. dc into puerto rico. they want to do that because they believe those two states will elect fordham a critic senator's that means we start january with a 52-4080 democratic majority in the end of the year with a 56-48 democratic majority and they would do that so they never again lose the senate. the third thing they would do is grant amnesty and immediate voting rights to every illegal alien in america. if and when they do that, my home state of texas becomes bright blue we have nine republican elected supreme court justices. if every illegal alien becomes a voter all nine of them become

democrats. texas becomes governed by the way the governor i think would beat beta o'rourke. that happens instantaneously and the fourth thing they do is pack the u.s. supreme court from justices with four left-wing justices on the court. i've got to tell you by nature i am constitutionally an optimist and there are brighter days ahead. i have no answer to that scenario. i view that as a system ending event. throughout history great nations rise and fall and if that occurs i view that is the end of the united states of america as we know it. when i talk about how

radicalized senate democrats are every one of them the nationalization of the rights and imagine the economic policy written by bernie sanders and elizabeth warren. i didn't get into any of that. but the structural changes that lose this country. i don't believe that is going to happen. but the way we make sure it doesn't is we stand up and fight in this election so i want to encourage you but number one hopefully building profusely. you've heard about the lawyer who is porsche crashes into a tree, he dies and goes to heaven. he sees st. peter and the young

lawyer says why, why did you take me so early, i only 29-years-old. st. peter looks at the record and says according to your billable hours, you are 107. [laughter] so hopefully you all are building profusely and if you are, i would encourage you to write me a check. our website is ted cruz.org, and we needed the money. i want to encourage you to roll up your sleeves and go to work because we are blessed. this is a fight with fighting. i'm proud to receive the award and to stand with each of you defending the constitution and the rule of law.

[applause] that was fabulous. thank you so much, senator cruz. that was amazing. i'd like to encourage all of you, anybody standing up now, but we have a lot of people standing in the back that don't need to be standing. if you've got empty seats at your table, raise a hand. all of you standing if you want to take a load off, go to one of the raised hand tables. our executive director has seen this organization grow by leaps

and bounds. >> that was a great speech. i wanted her to get us back on schedule. i want to start by, may be senator cruz mentioned this and everybody across the country thinks it's an election integrity group but we are more than that. we founded one of our first mentors and leaders and he called us the home for lawyers and the republican party and i think it's important we take time to talk about an issue in court that forces judges and the fight for the rule of law and of the rule of the judiciary. we started fighting this effort back in the time of the first filibusters in the circuit court nominees and our first vice president for this effort was very upset about the treatment of the circuit court nominees at the time and he went on to much better things but unfortunately,

it's only become worse because now it's not only fighting against the judicial nominees, it's fighting against the sitting supreme court and legitimacy of the court. dan mentioned i've been doing this since 2000. i think he's been doing it almost as long. mario and i worked together i remember first meeting him and that was the first person of the circuit nominees that have a good filibuster. he got filibustered because he thought they might be on the supreme court and they didn't want the first hispanic to be conservative and that is how ugly this fight has been. it constitutional law expert with more than two decades of experience focused on the litigation dealing with concerned for the sanctity of human life, defense of the family, education, national support for israel as well. next michael berry is the executive director of the center for litigation at the america first policy institute. prior to that a vice president

of external affairs and senior counsel for the first liberty libertyinstitute and ki joined 3 after serving for seven years and active duty with the u.s. marines and father of a marine. i appreciate that he continues to serve as our nation as a member of the marine corps reserve. executive director of the center for litigation, he will help build and lead the efforts to restore and defend america's most fundamental rights. with that, are we almost ready? why don't you start off and then we will get that in a second. >> it's an honor to be here. i consider all of you and this location that unites us is an essential part of the extraordinary effort that will be required to protect our freedoms in the years to come. i want to make the case for why

all of you as republican lawyers engage with unprecedented vigor in the fight to undermine the supreme court's legitimacy and it is because the effort is part of i believe a larger attempt to undermine the constitution. you all can have citizens understand the power of the constitution. so as i discuss the progress of escalation of the judicial nomination, i want to keep focused on the ultimate goal. some believe the goal this power and i can agree with that but i believe we should just push a little further and say power for what. i think they seek power to reshape and undermine.

i think we have it ready the voice of the late great injustice antonin scalia talking about the bill of rights to help us frame the discussions. here we go. it shouldn't be painted as the foundation of the american democracy, this concept. don't forget the bill of rights was an afterthought. [inaudible] he basically says what protects the freedom is in the bill of rights that was an amendment. of those were added later but it's the destruction of government that protects the freedom so he encourages us to keep your eye on the ball. i love it. look it up later.

>> the foundation of the american democracy, this concept. don't forget the bill of rights was an afterthought. it was not what they debated about in philadelphia in 1787. a couple of the states made it clear that they expected them to be added but it was added in 1791 on the proposal of the first congress what they thought would preserve the free society the structure of the government. that's what they debated about in 1787. and if you think that's pulse, just look around the room. every dictator in the world today has a bill of rights. it isn't a bill of rights that produces freedom. it's the structure of government that prevents anybody from seizing all power. once that happens, you go in the

bill of rights. so keep your eye on the ball. structure is destiny. let's keep our eye on the bowl then. and i think it is that structure they seek to destroy. in the area of the judicial nomination -- >> it shouldn't be painted as the foundation. >> we don't expect them to stop. so right at the beginning that it is sort of where it all started. then the lynching of justice thomas was another inflection point but the majority of republican senators kept giving deference to the president undef the judicial nominations. consider that as ruth bader ginsburg was confirmed 96-3, justice breyer, 87-9. about conservatives were making a stronger case that the

judicial philosophy was the proper standard to evaluate nominees regardless of who made the appointment. we were pleading for no more nominees if you will remember this was a principled decision, a principled position and not a partisan one. we approved it to chief justice roberts if you remember many conservatives opposed the nomination of president bush harriet myers to fill justice o'connor's seat. the result was a choice in the judicial philosophy with a confirmation of just samuel alito. the left did not like this at all. they were losing the judicial philosophy fight and so they ramped up the partisan personal attacks with unprecedented force and jackson's appointment of the first african-american woman on

the court. i hope you do not forget they shamelessly filibustered rogers brown to the circuit for two whole years fearing she was grouped with the supreme court. in other stark minority nominee to the dc circuit this time that one was especially egregious when he became public that staffers were objecting to him as especially dangerous because he was latino. again it was a dark irony when they celebrated the confirmation of justice soto. they tried to in 2005 but were frustrated in that effort. when president obama came to power, the frustration led them into unprecedented escalations.

the justices were confirmed with republicans and even though we did gain momentum in making this case that the senators should oppose them based on the judicial philosophies come about in 2013, the event senate majority leader harry reid used the nuclear option to abolish the filibuster to get more judges. he broke the senate rules to do so and another major blow to the structure of the judicial nomination process. he tried to limit to that to the lower courts but no one believed that it would hold political expediency, not a legitimate limiting principle, and it was in that environment that garlands nomination came along and in the last year of president obama if you remember, and you can see why the senate

majority leader mitch mcconnell was ready to invoke that rule that then senator joe biden had about holding off the supreme court nominations so close to an election when the senate was under the leadership of the opposing party. so, he the filibusters of estrada and rogers doing away with the filibuster. the democrats were enraged that they did this but they were going to win if you remember. hillary was going to crush donald trump so they were consulting themselves and that. it was a foregone conclusion until it wasn't. congress tell to them and other hand and that is when they completely lost it. you heard the radical basis. that didn't matter anymore. opposition was the only acceptable position to president trump and so it wasn't his

judicial nominees whose record did not matter at all. the opposition to the justice made it plain he was completely qualified. still they oppose him with as much force as they could muster. with the added of course to justice kavanaugh into the current attacks against justice clarence thomas and his family they are vile and we should stand forcefully against. ..

the destruction of traditional judicialnorms have served them e purpose. have served to feed into the idea that there are no impartial jurors. parties and gaming. this is how we get the political humor in these supreme court and the steps of the court and senator whitehouse read threaten the court all separate help we get calls to expand the court there is ridiculous they will continue to escalate. there are radical bays and demands escalation because they seek to break the structure that cowered guards our freedom. that is why we must resist the temptation to assist them in our frustration for how things are going. we must use our expertise to cultivate a love and

understanding of our constitutional structure among our fellow citizens. but they must see things are hard to change under our constitution by design it. it's a feature that government power is dangerous to live a better vision of beauty and stability, safety and freedom than the fake mushy emotionally charged manipulations they continue to experience from the left. that seeks to divide us and facilitate our self-destruction. we have better arguments looking at all of you here. and i know we had the better lawyers to make it. thank you. hugs well, i'm a big fan of history. although i probably cannot recount stories of thurston howell are watching the blob i'm not quite there yet.

i will at least a quote from a relatively obscure novel called the go-between. the opening line summarizes our thoughts pretty well. the opening line goes like this. the past as a foreign country. they do things differently there. i am old enough true over the good old days when organizations like the aclu would call for judicial independence, protecting the court from outside attacks. why was that? >> that was a time when the courts were delivering victory after victory after victory to the left. they're getting everything we went to the courts for this relatively little being done to stop them. then you began to see most recently especially with many of the appointments that president trump made the left was on red alert.

now all the sudden the courts begin to turn in the good old days was judicial independence but we need to ensure free from outside interference. we are or we are today. i am reminded by one of the comments by the late justice sandra day o'connor who said the courts the power lies completely in its perceived legitimacy in the eyes of the people. another the power of the person with the sword. that is very, very true. it's just as true today. i know we are short on time so truncate my remarks. providing is a fan of history this concept hugo chavez was elected in 1999, five years later in 2004 he had completed

his restructuring and reform of the venezuelan supreme court. doing so but increase the number of justices on the supreme court from 20 -- 34 put every additional 14 handpicked by his regime. this is a study done in 2015 or 2016 that studied 45000 decisions from the venezuelan supreme court from 2014 until about 2015 per 11 year span. 45000 decisions. of those 45000 decisions issued by the venezuelan supreme court that hugo chavez had handpicked and packed the score was a 4500. zero decisions against the regime and now the maduro regime prevents a cautionary tale from history to build off of what senator cruz said, if the left runs the trifecta in november

and senator schumer gets his way and they pack the supreme court, that is what we face. we end up having a court that is simply an extension of the executive branch of government. we lose the structure of our government that is a safeguard put in place as justice scalia talked about. i will stop there. i know we are running short on time hopefully we can at least have maybe one question? >> ls the obvious question. you both kind of touched on and senator cruz talked about it. what habits of the democrats get the trifecta it would have said they take the house the presidency what happens? >> night so if they're going to do, believe them. that means senator schumer and everyone else has been saying everything is on the table that's a direct quote. everything is on the table now this in the quite part out loud. i just saw two or three weeks

ago alicia menendez the daughter of senator menendez who said cohost on an msnbc show or read about it i don't. she is criticizing the biden administration for missing the biggest opportunity of his administration of not enacting what she refers to as structural reform of the courts. that is a euphemism. structural reform means change the competition. change the composition of the court. that's one form of court packing. the good old at the art court packing plan to increase the number of seats and add justices. do not forget you don't step top-down court packing will sample what i referred to as a bottom up court packing another threat we need to keep the ion. fewer than 1% of all cases make it to the supreme court.

i'm not a math major, i am a marine so i may need some crayons and coloring books to figure this out. [laughter] but fewer than 1% make it to the supreme court them is 99% or more of all cases terminates an art circuit court of appeal and below. that's for the vast majority of laws created in this country. if you are paying attention to what democrats are saying, they continue to make calls -- we need to add seats to the circuit courts make add more to the district courts. guess what, that's packing up a different flavor. that is what is on the table if they run the trifecta. there is very, very little, you had heard senator cruz say i don't know what to do to stop it. >> the case remaining engaged because the more desperate they get they see the polls president biden came out and all the sudden he wants to debate

president trump. they are seeing what is happening and desperation is in and the base demands and more and more radicalism in order to get engaged themselves we are going to see even worse things. we cannot ignore the polls on any side just go work as hard as you can, that is my plea. >> thank you mario, mike will wrap it up there. [applause] [background noises] for now from the same conference former u.s. ambassador to russia jon sullivan. text by the