>> It's a wrap on this year's term for the Supreme Court and they just delivered a slew of decisions on cases ranging from birthright citizenship to funding for Planned Parenthood.

But as the justices break for the upcoming holiday, they could be hit with some emergency appeals from a variety of sources.

Joining us to discuss more are Carolyn Shapiro, professor at the Chicago can't College of Law where she is founder and co-director of the Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States.

And David Applegate in attorney at Williams, Barb or and Thanks to both for joining us.

Welcome Carolyn Shapiro, this there's this ruling that says that federal judges cannot make nationwide injunctions or court orders to prevent carrying out decisions like Trump's birthright citizenship order.

What does that mean?

Because a lot of people think that this one is about birthright citizenship, but it's not part of court did not reach the question of whether the birthright citizenship executive order is constitutional or not.

And I'll just bracket that to say it's wildly unconstitutional.

>> And that's part of the problem with what they did say.

What they did say is that judges lower courts kick and probably even the Supreme Court can't issue an injunction that prevents the defendant in the case from acting with respect to people aren't themselves plaintiffs.

It's not actually about nationwide injunctions.

It's actually about being able to restrict a defendant from doing something that everybody agrees is illegal.

With respect to people who aren't actually in front of the court and that the court did allow for some ways in which some relief might be available, whether through a class action mechanism, which is hard to do in which they've made harder or by providing really say to the states who say, well, we can't actually function if birthright citizenship goes into effect anywhere in the country.

So we don't know for sure how what the full implications of this order of this opinion are.

But I can say that I would.

I predict that in the coming weeks there's going to be a cascade of litigation around the country in cases having nothing to do with the Trump administration cases involving injunctions that may have been in place some cases for years where defendants are going to come in and say, well, wait a minute, we should be able to do things with respect.

People were never in front of the court as plaintiffs and it's going to be extraordinarily disruptive.

David Applegate, your thoughts, your reaction to this decision?

I both agree and disagree with Caroline.

>> This case is not about the merits birthright citizenship.

It is a procedural case.

I see it or is a separation of Powers K's Justice Barrett need plane and her 63 maturity opinion and that this is based on the Judiciary Act of 17, 89 in which Congress gave the court's power to do certain kinds of things and not one of is to grant nationwide injunctions at the trial court level or any other level that include parties not before the court.

She traces this back historically, too.

Difference between line equity in the English courts and how these power did not sense where I disagree with currently is that it is not clear.

the Trump executive order is illegal or unconstitutional on the merits because this case has never been decided.

The phrase in the 14th Amendment that relates to birthright citizenship.

It is all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof up subject to the jurisdiction not defined in the 14th Amendment for the 14th Amendment explicitly gives Congress the power to pass enabling legislation so Congress, it seems to me and not the court is the proper forum that we the people who elect to legislators who make the laws and what is supposed to be are self-governing Democratic republic.

But Congress determine what subject to the jurisdiction as far as the court's own jurisprudence, the the case that's most commonly cited.

The Kim one Art King's fund 18.

98 is distinguishable from what the Trump executive order deals with because they're the parents were lawful.

Residents of the United States.

This order deals only with parents who are not lawful, permanent residents.

And that's probably your But that is my view.

That's the way I would argue the case if you when it gets to the merits, which it probably 2 or 3 down the road and just to stop and say they actually the order reaches plenty of people whose parents are here legally.

They're not here permanently.

>> But the order extends to children born to people who are here say on student visas, an H one B visas.

They're here perfectly legally.

And the order says the date don't they are not entitled to birthright citizenship.

And in addition, there is a statute that provides that action that gives more full wait to to the 40 member.

That does exactly what the 14 amendment itself does.

And there is plenty of research and historical and legal commentary across the political spectrum about what the words within the jurisdiction mean, which I think we probably don't have time Indeed much like the previous segment.

We do not have as much time as we would like as I would like to move on to another ruling.

The Supreme Court made that Medicaid patients cannot sue states to enforce their right to pick a medical provider.

The provider in this case being Planned Parenthood.

>> Caroline, start with you again.

What is what is the broader impact of this ruling so that the case involves a statute that Congress passes past and said we're going to give money to the states to run Medicaid.

>> And when states run Medicaid, they have to do certain things.

And and then the question is who gets to enforce when the state says, you know what, we're not going to do that.

There's there's been a fair amount of litigation over many decades about exactly when an individual who's going to be getting something from that statute like a Medicaid recipient has the right to bring a lawsuit just 2 years ago, the court held in a in a case involving a health care providers that they could bring a lawsuit against states that were not that we're not living up to their obligations under the statute.

But in this case just this last week, the court said, well, individual Medicaid recipients, it planned Planned Parenthood itself can't go to court to say that South Carolina and this case is violating its obligation to make sure that everybody can use health care provider of their choice.

same question, what this to me very easy case that the question is not whether South Carolina >> can get Medicaid funds from the federal government and then choose not to allow someone to use them Planned Parenthood any other provider their choice.

The question is what the what is the proper remedy?

There have been is Caroline case.

Carolyn said cases that do find private companies 100 statute.

But the Supreme Court decided 63 that this is not one of those cases.

There is no private right of action in particular because Medicaid was passed pursuant to the spending clause and that under the court's own jurisprudence does not give rise to a private right of action, meaning that you or I are Caroline or anybody else can don't have the right to sue over what what happens is the federal government says you're not meeting one of the 80 some requirements to get this Medicaid money.

We'll cut off federal funding you.

The state will now have to pay for this.

Medicare on your own.

>> In this instance, are there concerns about the ripple effects of Medicaid paying for Planned Parenthood services and access to those services salute Lee.

I mean, I'm already Medicaid is not federal Medicaid dollars cannot be spent on abortion.

>> Some U.S. late here that we know provides many other services.

Exactly.

So it does the impact of this, this decision is that South Carolina can decide not to pay panel Planned Parenthood to provide mammograms to provide Pap smears, to provide treatment sexually transmitted diseases, et cetera.

And that means that for many people who've been going to Planned Parenthood for their health care, they will not have a place to go and they will not have a provider.

We've got one minute left.

David Supreme Court also ruling last week that parents in Maryland can pull their children out of classrooms that discuss BT Q themes.

Your reaction that ruling this case is most interesting to me because >> Sam Alito wrote it and he is probably the number one proponent on the court and has been when it comes to religious rights case.

Religious rights and the chief justice winning votes in jury gets to decide who to assigned to.

So I don't think it's a coincidence that Sam, you know, with opinion, I think it is based on sound president, the like with the Amish, you don't have to send their children to school past the 8th grade.

With respect to Jehovah's Witnesses who do not have to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag because they regard hire and of course, in the dissenting opinion in this case, there concerns about parents insulating their children from different viewpoints, which are which are going to happen in public schools.

That's where we'll have to leave it.

I'm sure we'll have more to