Sexual Harassment Coverup in Lancaster. Officials Demand Answers

A law professor flagged a legal theory from a Trump amicus brief that he says would let foreigners bring enslaved people into the U.S.

During an interview on the Legal AF podcast, legal expert Paul Gowder talked about American legal scholar Richard Epstein and an argument he made in an amicus brief filed in Trump's birthright citizenship case. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled against Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, and Epstein filed the brief on Trump's side.

Gowder explained that Epstein argued that the phrases "subject to the jurisdiction" and "within the jurisdiction" have different meanings in the Constitution. Epstein observed that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" is used in the 14th Amendment, which guarantees birthright citizenship, and the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.

Epstein interprets that to mean that those two amendments can only apply to people who are members of society in the United States, or "subject" to the jurisdiction, not simply within it, according to Gowder.

"Richard Epstein wants to read 'subject to the jurisdiction' to mean like in more control of the U.S., basically a member of the U.S. community, not somebody who's just passing through," Gowder explained.

That would allow Epstein to argue, "We can read the 14th Amendment to exclude tourists and to exclude undocumented people," Gowder said. But with slavery and the 13th Amendment, "he just, like, embraces the notion that therefore the 13th Amendment must mean that if somebody from a country that has legal slavery comes to the U.S. as a tourist, they can bring their slaves with them," Gowder explained.

"Like, what?" Gowder said in dismay as he described Epstein's idea as "slave tourism."

Gowder stressed that Epstein isn't a fringe legal scholar and described him as a "very, very famous NYU law professor, worshipped by the [Federalist Society], like basically, for a certain kind of right-wing thinker, people on the right often think he's like the greatest legal mind of his generation."

However, for Gowder, Epstein is "completely nuts."

A MAGA pundit on CNN couldn't finish defending a recent Trump administration controversy before an outraged opponent jumped down her throat.

During a panel hosted by CNN anchor Abby Phillip, New York Post columnist Lydia Moynihan tried to slap down claims that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a "rogue agency" after it was involved in two deadly shootings earlier this week.

"Trump feels very keenly, and folks in his administration, he was elected to do this," Moynihan said. "He was elected because people wanted deportations, and I think it's important when we talk about this issue to provide the context."

She went on to explain the Trump administration's perspective, saying, "They see every day that passes, if we aren't deporting potentially unvetted illegal criminals, that there is an opportunity it will cost them."

However, before Moynihan finished speaking, Ana Navarro, a former Republican strategist and CNN senior political commentator, stopped her and blasted her use of the word "criminals" as they were talking about the two immigrants who were killed by ICE this week, including one who may have been in the United States legally.

"They are not criminals," Navarro said. "And over 70 percent of the people that are getting deported and detained do not have criminal records."

Moynihan tried to defend her point, but she could barely speak over Navarro, who leaned forward and shouted at her.

"Be careful with your words, and be accurate on national TV," Navarro sharply continued as Moynihan kept repeating, "My point is that — " without finishing her sentence.

"You're lying!" Navarro said. "You're lying."

"I'm not lying," Moynihan said before again giving a truncated, "My point is that —"