these are the men who took the cliffs. these are the champions that helped free a continent. these are the heroes that helped and a war. >> sans from 15 countries jumped in to skies in a bloodsoaked surface and met death on an even playing. >> the sons of democracy and provides their own attacks. at that exact moment on these beaches, the forces of freedom turned the tide of the 20th century. >> it was long. history will always record where that road began. it began here. it began with the footprints on the beaches of normandie. >> more than 150,000 souls set

off towards this tiny sliver of sand upon which hung more than the fate of the world. but rather the course of human history. >> today we remember those that fell and we honor all who fought right here in normandie. >> watched c-span slip all day coverage of the anniversary of the day thursday, january 6 featuring a speech by president biden from normandie france. now, texas senator ted cruz along with the attorney general of south carolina, alabama and iowa talking about legal action against the biden administration and the legitimacy of the current supreme court. this is part of the republican national lawyers association conference in arlington virginia r

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 dvd is one symptom of the problem and we have seen the big banks that are deciding team b. bank people or organizations based on their politics and conservativescs and people of conservative causes particular those associated with the 2nd amendment or otherer conservatie causes whether it's groups or faith based groups. it's a real problem so we dig into that and we investigate that when that occurs and hold those people accountable. it's important that we shine the light of day on citizens because

we certainly don't want to tell banks how to run a bank and that's not what we are doing but they have deep thanked customers. they won after they yeshion about why they decided how person or an organization saying you can't 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. it has really come to bear around an issue that you have me seen some proactive steps by the a.g. dealing with practices in

the companies and assertive and how that ought to be addressed but we are also seeing significant progress in when black rock no longer wanted to be ulta reference esg in their letters to shareholders it tells you you are making a difference so we have seen a busting up of netzero and we have seen people retract from climate action 100 because when the aggressive nature of the left is talking about the collusion among competitors it makes it easy to be able to argue antitrust violations. we have seen that this is i thinkk an area that seven or eight years ago we weren't even discussing and now it's a paramount issue for us. >> and i will be briefed brief before question but what motivates these banks?

culture is the strength of politics the left they gave up on t fighting the political bate and they started off with big education you know because look at what's going on at universities around the country. those kids out there that want you to pay for their student loans that are out there protesting what's going on in israel and gaza they are going to be in mid-high-level in mid-high level management in 10, 15 or 20l or so what kind of policies are they going to be doing? it's a bigger fight than just what's going on in the company. it's more of a cultural battle. >> we are running out of time and we have several questions to tap on the same topic which is the federal government and elections and getting involved in state elections and what are the states rights with respect to federal elections. we are in an election year and that will be a hotter topic and your thoughts on that issue?

>> as it relates to elections i felt the supreme court dealt with the supreme court at the voting rights act was using 1960s formularies to dictate first off no one should pass a law that discriminates against anybody and prevents them from voting. we all agree on that at the reusing formulas to control how states, how certain states were treated certain states who at one time or discriminating 60 or 70 y years ago under the same formulas were not discriminating yet. other states who are not discriminating years ago at the same formulas were being discriminatory but they didn't have to give preclearance from the federal government. our voter i.d. laws in 2012 subsequent to that they are trying to go back and rewrite those laws right now to re-create the same formulas in

certain states into receivership of the federal government and its something as simple as the voter i.d. requirement which applies to everybodyid equally. and you have to get permission from the federal government but they want to return to that and that's what we are going to fight. >> mark i think it speaks to the importance of this organization in particular round of discussion of training an army of lawyers to look in your respective states and go back to 2020. there was a coalition of states to private actions in the supreme court around concerns of how the election was conducted including pennsylvania and new york and as a result decisions made by the pennsylvania supreme court people ofme alabama impacd the court was very reluctant to weigh in so i think our ability to effectively deal with these recurs at the state level. our ability to look at the global federal side is robust and his wife creating an

opportunity to be directly engaged ensuring the state-level elections are secure is critical for 2024. >> absolutely. we all want election integrity that's important at all but then our constitutional order that people can trust the outcome of an election can know their isn't fraud and cheating and you are right that was a clear signal and that's why it's up to everybody in this room, we all want state laws that make it easy to vote in hard to in an aisle we have good election integrity with voter i.d. and other important safeguards that safeguard the ballot insures people that their vote is counted and it's hard for folks to. we note the end of the day in states where therere may be violations of election integrity or fraud or cheating it's up to the lawyers on the ground to document that and to catch that and so action can be taken and

people can be held accountable and the facts are there to prove the fraud improve the cheating and that's the only way we are going to change what is happening in some states where they don't have the good election laws that many of our stateses have. >> if you look at the u.s. constitution federal elections and electoral college are determined by the state legislature and during the covid air a judges certain secretaries of state and election commissioners were rewriting federal election lost to allow ballots to come in three days after the election unpostmarked in unsigned and in the state legislature never pass that law. thus when we joined in 2020 to ensure that the constitutional principals a local officials can't dictate national elections by simply rewriting the law. >> we have run out of time. we didn't get to debt cancellation which in missouri is one of my favorite points.

>> we are going to win again. please joinn me in thanking our attorneys general are leading in the fight. [applause] and i will send it over to david. >> i will make this brief. it's my pleasure to introduce charlie who is going toward the ed meese award and charlie was last year's republican lawyer of the year. he'saw a member of the board of governors and a member of dickinson wright back in d.c. and as i think michael and

mark -- breajanika johnson alluded to earlier he did all the heavy lifting of this conference. i just get to come up here and look pretty. he's the one that put it together so big and the plus for charlie. >> thank you. it's an honor to introduce our award recipients senator ted cruz. [applause] i will admit that it's mildly my voice does work for him as he consistently refers to him as the smartest lawyerre she knows and somewhat irritating anybody who listens to his podcast and the way he dissects issues

across the gambit and explains them would probably agree with that assessment. over the past week the meese award is about leadership under fica and normally we of nobody more appropriate for that then the senator over the last two weeks he started to discuss this and whether was appropriate because if you've been reading the "washington post" and the mainstream media they are they are now talking about his bipartisan problem solving and working in getting legislation done and working with democrats and praisingti him. this seems not quite on brand but is very impressive how he is delivering for his constituents and when you look at actions speak louder than words and when you look at the politician the

most money attacking him everyone remembers and i don't know what he's doing now beto o'rourke and thebe outrageous amounts off money is attacking senator cruz and now the senator are talking about spending a record amount going after him. i'm not personally that concern for him because he's so well-liked in texas. he's facing an onslaught of funding so i doo encourage you o do whatever you can to support them this year. that said i'm here to present the i meese award and former attorney general meese wrote a letter to the senator and it's much more eloquent than i can say publicly. >> although my limited mobility prevents me from being with you in person i wanted to express my congratulations to you and my appreciation for outstanding public service. you have distinguish yourself by

your patriotism and your effective defense of the basic ideals and principals embodied in the constitution and in the traditions of our great country but you have been stalwart in 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 our citizens know the truth about what is going on in our nations capitol. you are an important contribution to our nation and it began with their service in the state of texas. he then took on further responsibility by running for united states senate. the senate you even outstanding example of patriotism and leadership particularly important in your protection of the constitutional government and rule of law. you have persevered in his path despite the unfair attacks by political opponents. your valiant efforts to support legislation and prevent bills that would harm the meese foundation of our democratic

republic are appreciated by people throughout the country. congratulations on your prestigious awards award and best wishes for continued success senator. [applause] [applause] >> charlie thank you very much. thank you for your friendship thank you for your tremendous leadership and thank you for this kind remarks. i was not expecting a letter from general meese and that was particularly meaningful. i will say at the outset general meese has been someone who has been a friend and mentor to me for 30 years now and when i was a brand-new baby lawyer my first job was working for chuck cooper

and mike carbonate both were top of general meese's top lieutenants in the reagan justice department so i was trained, chuck and mike taught me how to bee a lawyer. they are both incredible lawyers and general meese was an extraordinary attorney general general. he was a towering figure in the law.n i'm going to tell you my favorite ed meese story and it actually concerns antonin scalia and robert bork. this is the mid-80s. mid-eighties scalia and bork are both on the d.c. circuit and everyone knew the next supreme court vacancy one or the other was going to get it but they know who is going to be but it was clearly going to be bork or scalia but they didn't know which one. one day scalia is walking through the parking garage at the d.c. circuit and comes toag the elevator and error to u.s. marshal standing at the level of

vader vader and they stop him and they say i'm sorry sir we areir holding this elevator for the attorney general of the united states. scalia pushess. past him. he gets in the elevator and it jams the button and as the doors closing he says you tell ed meese bob bork doesn't wait for anyone. [laughter] [applause] that is actually a true story. and in 1986 antonin scalia got the next nomination. and hehe got confirmed and bork had to wait until 87 and we no bork did not so maybe that elevator defined history. you know when you look back at someone like ed meese he faced relentless attacks. he was mocked and attacked

personally and we see that constantly right now. when i first ran for the senate ed meese was the chairman of my national leadership committee. and he was someone who was willing to stand up to corruption. and i look around at the men and women in this room and each of you are doing that. each of you are doing that in your respective states you are sstanding up to the abuse of power and you are standing up for the rule of law. and but i want to talk about this morning is the assault on the rule of law that we have seen in the last four years. it's easy to get non-to it. because it's constant. it is relentless.

i believe this is the most administration to ever serve in america.ry of a lot of things that happen in the last decade but one of the things that has been most consequential is that i think donald trump broke the democratic party. he shattered their brains. [applause] i look in the senate and when i got the senate 12 years ago there were such a thing as moderate democrats. they don't exist anymore. and the democrats have convinced themselves adolf. so therefore anything, anything, anything is justified to stop. and the rule of law can be trampled because it's justified. they must remain in power. and if you look at what's

happening, we all know the invasion that's unfolding at our southern border over 11 million illegal immigrants since joe biden became president. it's happening happening for lot ofas reasons but the most fundamentale reason is at the president and administration who defies administration who defies the law in a way st that's never before happened. joe bidenev did something i actually would have thought was impossible. he made me miss barack obama. obama i disagreed with obama on a lot of issues but when it came toh immigration by and large other than daca by and large he followed the law.aw barack obama deported millions of people. the left got mad at obama and the called him to the porter in chief. what joe biden is doing is simply when he apprehend someone he lets them go over and over over again in open defiance

but the losses they must be detained and they must be deported him this administration simply refuses to follow it. our constitution was not actually designed to have an executive who utterly flouts the law who ignores the laws that are written in theti law books d the democrats feel they are justified. i'll play if you time in south texas, which i do alot, nobody who sees this tragedy defends it anymore. there's nobody there who says this is a good policy. but the democrats nationally justified and i think they rationalize it to themselves we must save democracy and to save democracy mean we must stay in power. the democrats areta perfectly happy to let people die.

some of you all may have seen last year when alejandro mayorkas was in the judiciary opportunity to very gently questioned him. and i asked him i said how many people died last year in the country and he said i have no idea. the number is 853 according to your own department but you don't care enough to even know those numbers. you're down t and in south texas he said the farmers and ranchers and they show you a photograph after photograph afters photographs of dead bodies they find on their property. i asked him how many children were brutalized last year by human traffickers? i have no idea, unfortunately. how many women were sexually assaulted? i have no idea. how many people died of drug overdoses? i don't know.

the over -- the answer to that one is the highest in our nations history. as each of you know in any cross-examination you try never to ask a question you don't know the answer to. i will say there was one question but that he answered and it completely astonished me but i put up a poster board with a picture of wristbands. and i asked him please tell the committee with these wristbands are. he looked at them and he said i have no idea. i've never seen them. and i said in response mr. secretary you told the american people you are utterly incompetent in your job and you don't even give a dam. why is that? just about every illegal immigrantha comes into this country is wearing one of those wristbands and the colors correspond how many thousands of dollars they owe the cartel to the going rate to come to this country illegally is typically

between $3,012,000. you are coming from china to about $50,000. he stand on the banks of the rio grande river in the grass you will see hundreds and thousands of these wristbands so when he saiday he didn't know what they are it means he hasn't stood on the banks of the river and hasn't talked to border patrol agents. in most of the people who come into this country don't have threeou to 12,000. so they show up, the cartels don't view them as human beings then they don't even view them as cattle. they view them as cargo. those wristbands are like rfid tags of how many thousands of dollars to 20 those people is worth. and they come in him by the way the border patrol isn't able to catch them. they go look for border patrol agents with turn themselves in. whenoo i go to the border i go n midnightt patrol. one time i was out on midnight

patrol and porter patrol agents kicked the doors open and they go and start pulling out traffickers, big, scary guys had it up muscles. the agents are calling over saying senator, senator. quiet on, senator. just call me bob. but when you see what is happening now 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 just let them go. they ask where would you like to go? one of the last times i was there they showed me that a new new app in every age and headed on their phone but on their day process illegal immigrants and they can now do it in two minutes. almost everyone comes with a baggie. in a baggie bill typically have some form of i.d., driver's

license or passport and by the way ideas great because because you aren't allowed to have i.d. are they all havee it. and they have typically a cell phone almost all of them have a cell phone and they have damon phone number of somebody in the united states they are going to call. the agents now with this app can scan a passport or birth certificate and a pipe with all the fields and it takes two minutes and i asked where would youe like to go? whatever city in america they say they say great and say great and they sit down and process them in joe biden kamala harris said the last mile of the human trafficking network. they sendnd teenage boys to evey city in america. you might thinkri okay i don't live on a border state. you are wrong. whatever state you live in whatever city you live in this administration is bringing illegal immigrants to your city and the teenage boys show up and they'll thousands of dollars to the cartel. understand they have to pay them back. if they don't pay it back the

cartel will murder their families. so what are they doing it every one of her city's? they are committing crimes. they are breaking into cars and carjacking people and robbing people. they are assaulting people and killing people. in order to make money to send back to the cartel. and as as the teenage boys have at the girls have it worse. there are thousands upon thousands of girls right now and forced. typically takes five to eight per girl to pay off the money she owes the cartel. if you think about a 15-year-old girl in the honduras looking north imagining a better life, mentioning freedom in america. she takeses a long perilous journey where she is repeatedly and assaulted. and then she gets there and find yourself trapped in.

i look at those wristbands in modern-day leg irons because this is modern-day. it isns happening because bidens that is happening on every policy. you were talking a minute ago about the student loaner forgiveness. another example that was utterly it's been a little while since i took law but the last i checked the president doesn't get to give away the trillion dollars if he wants to. that actually take congress to appropriate money. biden knows that. i know biden knows that. i'm sure biden knows what day it is everyone around him knows that. and theyno don't care? why did they do a billion dollar giveaway? they were buying votes and by the way it worked pretty well.

a pretty good political political gambit and they knew a get struck down and it did get struck down. and biden has done it again. by the way they think young people are really. because their gamble is the same and people they pretended to give a trillion dollars to last time they will pretend again. they are hoping those young people will vote for democrats and they will strike it down again. it is and. if you look at these prosecutions of trump 200 years we have we never indicted a present or former president and the democrats in the last years have done so four times. these cases have nothing to do with the conduct of donald trump. they had everything toru do numr one with the democrats hatred of trump. the number two the -year-old target of these cases and i've

got to say thanks sigmund freud is probably rolling over in his grave right now because the democrats engage in freudian projection unlike anything i've ever seen but every democrat in america beats their chest and says we are defending democracy. and this abuse of power is the greatest assault on america in american history. [applause] and the reason it's happening is because theyca are terrified, terrified, terrified that the american people will vote in november to reelect donald trump. [applause] you look at a decision like the colorado supreme court's decision chairman of donald trump on the ballot than bulletin maine in illinois, three states that said we are going to pull trump off the

ballot because nothing says defending democracy like preventing the voters from voting for your opponent. i will say when the colorado decision came down i said this will get reversed by the supreme court 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 rulk of law and the constitution i am incredibly grateful that the court did reverse that unanimous decision.it it would have been a outcome if that would have been a 6-3 decision on party lines and the courts did together with a pop per carry of the opinion that i would wager money john roberts wrote that per carry opinion but is important for the court to stand united every justice and say if you want to decide who's

going to be president will be the voters at the ballot box it decided not partisan officials and states trying to throw their opponent off balance. [applause] in the senate i lead an amicus brief supporting president trump in that case than 179 members of congress join that brief both in the senate and the house but it is important that the court spoke with one voice. you look across the board every one of these instances are. let's take this week. what's the latest news this week? well the president has asserted executive privilege over the audio of his interview with robert hur the special counsel. now look i understand 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 space ludicrous. why is that ludicrous? executive privilege is everyone here knows is a privilege that attaches with the presence talking to the senior pfizer an important privilege. we want a president to be up to get candid advice and if every adviser to the president is concerned about being hauled in front of congress or courtroom president's will not get a it good and candid advice. when comes to executive privilege that democrats have essentially said it doesn't apply to republicans. peter navarro is in jail because you refuse to disclose what he talked to the present about. that is executive privilege and the democratsec that they don't care steve bannon is about to go to jail. for the same thing. why is the claim ludicrous? because joe biden if joe biden

was sitting with merit garland discussing the priorities for the department of justice you would have a criticalor claim of because that's actually running the executive. but when robert hur sat down with joe biden he wasn't there to roll as biden supported it. presumably biden was not there directing what he wanted his subordinates to do. he was there as a special prosecutor appointed to investigate whether joe biden had committed multiple felonies. joe biden was sitting in the shoes effectively the criminal defense. the notion that executive privilege attaches when you were a criminal defendant being interviewed by the prosecutor to determine whether to prosecute you it's such a ludicrous claim.

imax impressed they could say with a straight face. i'm not that good of an actor but i think i'd start laughing as i was saying it but they don't care. they know that docile sheep that are the media will delete and move on. they might not even bleat. and by the way what did robert hur include? he concluded that biden had committed many and done so brazenly and willingly over and over again but they said we will not prosecute remind you for the same thing that biden justice department is prosecuting donald trump four. early on the documents case that was their favorite one. documents at mar-a-lago let's go. and has a sense of humor. the story broke the joe biden at classified documents everywhere.

in that garage next to his antique corvette. because who doesn't keep n' kclassified documents? doj concluded joe biden is guilty of multiple felonies but we will not prosecute him because no jury would convict him because he's not competent to stand trial. he is so old and senile he is incapable of forming -- that's the official position of the biden department of justice. mind you this man has the nuclear codes. and as the commander-in-chief of the united states of america. there is a brazenness to him. it's just astonishing. the end i will say i was doing a

tv interview and they referred to the joe biden is mr. magoo. i referred to john kerry as -- and then not tell tell you allow to view all all may have worked on capitol hill one of the things about capitol hill staffers are all children. the median age is like 12. so i went back to my office and i'm talking to my staff and for some reason i pause for a second might ask to any of you will know who thurston howell was and not a single person in my office, none had any idea. the millionaire and his wife. nope, nothing. so i've been going to lunch the other republicans finished and for some reason i said i'm going

to tell that story so i got a picture i with my calexit mitt romney responded and said it's true. that said-you cannot use thurston howell when you're talking about someone rich and out of touch. you should use mr. burns instead.se and i sat there and said i'm taking advice on how to be relatable to people from mitt romney. every word that is true. by the way the only way you can survive what's going on if you don't laugh you have to cry. but i want to say this was what is going on right now isat so it is so i've never been more

afraid for our country than i am right now. the good news is sometimes things have to get really to win and hope and people are waking up. ii think november will be a really good election. i think all the soap through the result is that donald trump is reelected and we have a republican president. if we do this country will turn around and turn around fast. if that happens we will secure the border and will do so within 30 days. how can i say that? i can say that because we did it when joe biden came to office it was the lowest rate of illegal immigration 45 years. we know how to do it. if that happens we will come

together and pass one is not the largest tax cut in american history. the tax cut of 2017 minutes and marks firing next year. we have republican house and senate that will do it again and hope we make it bigger and bolder and unleash the economy and unleash growth. [applause] if that happens we will repeal job-killing regulations and we will end the administration's assault on energy and oil and gas. we will stop funding our enemies and by the way explain to me why joe biden and the democrats keep sending billions of dollars to the ayatollah khamenei to hamas and hezbollah. i've got a radical concept for you, stop sending money to people who want to kill you. [applause]

wewe will see things turn around dramatically be when i will say if and when that happens i assume i'm looking at many to many women who will go in the lawyers in the next administration but i look around this room and that the pelham pullets going to go and let me tell you the job in january of 2025 is not going to be easy. because these agencies have been they have been fundamentally weaponized and i will say one challenged the first-term of the trump administration i do not think they did a good job. they put a lot of people in office who didn't do the job they need it to do. i hope the second time around they are much more effective putting people in office who understand the need to go in and clear out the hard-core partisans radicals, the career

leadership that is burrowed into senior leadership. [applause] and let me be very very clear i don't want a republican department of justice. i don't want a democratic department of justice but i wanted department of justice that follows the law regardless of your party. everyone here understands making that happen is easy to say but it's hard work to actually go in and confront these partisans who believe they are saving democracy while they are lighting the constitution on fire. so i want to encourage each of you to number one be vigilant. many of you are fighting voter fraud in fighting for election integrity. thank you for that.

that's incredibly incrediblyha 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 risk of litigation you advise a client of the upside if we win here's what you get. oh boy that's good. you also advise a client of the downside. i talked to you a minute ago about how things could go well in november. i'd be remiss if i didn't discuss the b alternative. what happens if we have a one?

if trump loses i think the white house in the house are closely correlated. if we lose the presidency will lose the house of representatives. how about the senate? in the senate we have a great opportunity to win the senate. this map is very favorable. there are multiple democrats that are in red states or purple states and we have a good opportunity to win. every one of those democrats won six years ago and a good democratic year they won in those red states and purple states and that can happen aspl well. so let me tell you what happens if it's a election. let's assume every democrat seat remains democratic or republican receipt remains republican in the senate exceptth for one. charlie mentioned my race. chuck schumer has been very explicit on the number one target in the country. my biggest challenge is

complacency. people say look at texas you are republican it's a re-election and easy. i think that's subjectively false. my last re-election was in 2018. you all remember that wass the time of the senate race in u.s. history but i was out raised and outspent three to one. i ended up winning by less than three points. 2.6% was the margin for the democrats did in 2010 in texas they more than doubled democrat turnout. they drove democrat turnout or 1.8 million all the way up to four. that had never happened. we saw was happening when he landed the it as the other side and we drove republican turnout from 2.8 million active 4.2 million. i won by 200,000 votes with more

than 8 million votes cast. that is why schumer has set a target on thishy race. the democrats intend to spend between $10,150,000,000 this year in texas to try to beat me. his reason is simple. all he needs is 3.70 gets texas. so what happens if we have a election quickly lose the white house and we lose the house and every seat in the senate stays the same except for one. the only thing that changes is the democrats gained 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 he ends the election. he right now has 49 votes. he needs one more. the lower the threshold for major legislation from 60 votes to 50 votes.

at the end the filibuster he does four things in rapid succession. the first thing he does is pass as won. the first build chuck schumer introduces at every conference. the federal takeover of every election. it. strikes down virtually every single election integrityio lawn the country that strike down every photo i.d. law in the country. it implements universal mail-in ballots in every state in the union. it legalizes ballot harvesting harvesting in every state in thl union. it automatically registers to vote millions of balance and registers to vote millions of illegal aliens. it is designed to democrats never again lose another election by the way your election integrity efforts become impossible after that. the second thing schumer and the democrats will do is add to the states -- d.c. and puerto rico. they want to do that because

they believe those two states will electti for democrat senats and that means when we started january the 52-40 democrat majority made in the year with a 50 6-48 democrat majority. they would do that so theyat ner again lose the senate. the third thing they would do is grant amnesty andan immediate voting rights to every illegal alien in america. if and when they do that the instant they do that my home state of texas becomes -- every single statewide election official in texas loses when that happens for the governor loses lieutenant-governor loses the attorney general loses. we have nine supreme court justices and if every illegal alien because of voter all nine of them become democrats. texas becomes becomes california by the way her governor would be beto o'rourke. that doesn't happen gradually. happens instantaneously and the poor thing they do is pack the

u.s. supreme court in growth from nine justices to 13 justices and put for left-wing justices on the court. i've got to tell you by nature i am constitutionally and i believe there are brighter days ahead. i have no answer to that. i view that scenario as a system in need of -- that history great nations rise and fall. and if that occurs iq that is the end of the united states of america as we know it. what is terrifying is where one vote away from that. when i talk about how radicalized senate democrats are every one of them and by the way i didn't evenev get into 70% marginal taxation and wealth tax and banning of fracking

nationalization of u.s. mineral rights. imagine america economic policy written by bernie sanders and elizabeth warren. i didn't get into any of that. but we are one vote away from structural changes and we lose this country. i don't believe that's goingry o happen. but the way we make sure it doesn't is each of us stands up and fights for the selection but i want to encourage you on that, nepalut and you are a lawyer and billing profusely coming heard about the young lawyer driving his portion crashes into a tree and he dies and goes to heaven. he meets st. peter and the long -- young lawyer says why, why did you take me so early? i'm only 29 years old. st. peter looks at his record and he goes really? according to your billable hours you are 107.

[laughter] hopefully you all are billing profusely and if you are a would encourage you to ride me a y check. our web site is ted cruz.org and we need the money. but i want to encourage you to roll up your sleeves and go to work because we are blessed. this is a fight worth fighting. i'm proud to receive the support of general macy is an incredible hero and i'm proud of each of you defending the constitution. god bless you. [applause]

>> wow. that was fabulous nick thank you summered senator cruz. that was amazing i'd like to encourage all of you everybody standingo up now you have a lot of empty seats and they are there are lot of people standing in the back. if you haveyo empty seats at yor table, raise your hand. all of you standing if you want to take a load off go to one of the raised hands table. i encourage everybody. now michael healing too in addition to being our president this year has been her executive director since 2000, like forever. and he'sxe really seen this organization grow by leaps and bounds. michael. >> think you david. that was a great speech by cruz and i'll try to get back on schedule. i want to start off by senator cruz mentioned this and everyone

inou cross the country thinks we arete an election integrity grop we are much more than that. one of our first mentors and leaders with senator hatch and he called this the home for lawyers in the republican party and it's important that the home for for lawyers and the republican party would take the time to talk about issues important to all wet lawyers and judges and fight for the rulecof law and the judiciary. when we started fighting to sever back in the time of the first filibuster will -- our first vice president a guy named neil gorsuch obviously neil was very upset about the treatment of george bush's supreme court inin certain supreme court nominees and justice courses went on to greater things it's not only fighting for judicial nominees it's fighting the city supreme court and legitimacy of the court a itself. we have been doing this since

2000. mario and i worked together in their first meeting and that was the first person the circuit court nominee that was filibustered and they got filibustered because they thought he might be on the supreme court and i did want the first hispanic conservative. he's a constitutional law expert with more than two decades experience in cases of litigation dealing with american court issues the sanctity of human live in defense of family excitation education national support for israel as well. michael barry's big lead executive director of l the america first's institute and prior to that he was the vice president of military affairs. he joined first f liberty and 23 after serving for seven years in active duty as an attorney for the us marines with his fatherti or marine appreciate that mr. berry continues to serve our

nation in the marinka reserve. exec director of api litigation is just berry will help lead the effort to restore and defend americans most fundamental rights and with that are we almost ready? one that you start off. >> it's an honor to be here and i consider all of u.s. lawyers and citizens of the lost whichti unites us on the eve of such a crucial election as we just heard an essential part of fixed or any effort that will be required to protect their freedom in the years to come. i want to lay the case for why all of you as republican lawyers who engage with unprecedented vigor in the fight against liberals efforts to undefined the supreme court legitimacy.

the effort is part of i believe a larger attempt to undermine the constitution. it is why your voices as attorneys are important. the wall can't actually help our citizens understand the power of the constitution. the progressive escalation of the judicial nomination process i want us to keep focused on their ultimate goal. some believe their goal is power and i can agree with that but i believe we should push a little further and say power for what? i think they seek power to reshape the constitution to undermine it. i think if we have a ready to voice of the late great antonin scalia talking about the billa f rights.

the foundation of american democracy but his concept of freedom don't forget the bill of rights was an afterthought. >> maybe you've seen this before but he basically says or protects our freedom is not the bill of rights. that was an amendment at that later but it's the structure of government which protects our freedom. he encourages us to keep your eye on the ball. look it up later. >> don't forget the bill of rights with the law.

in 1787 a couple of the state to ratify the constitution made it clear that they expected there to be a bill of rights but was added in 1791 on the proposal of the firstt congress. what they thought would preserve a free society was the structure of the government. that's what they debated about in 1787 and if you think that is false just look around the world. every tin horn 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 present -- prevents anyone from seizing all the power. once that happens you ignore the bill of rights. so you know keep your eye on the ball. structure is destiny. >> let's keep our eye on the ball and i think it's that structure but they seek to

destroy so in the area of judicial mom nations that have attacked every arm. we don't expect him to stop so i will start at the beginning i think i started with fork. that was sort of where it all started. then the high-tech of justice thomas. you all remember was another inflection point that after that the majority of republicans inin senators kept giving deference to the president under judicial nominations and ruth bader ginsburg was confirmed 90 6-3 justice breyer 80 7-9 conservatives were making a stronger case that judicial philosophy was the proper standard to evaluate nominees. regardless of who made the appointment. we were pleading for no more nominees if you remember. this was a principled decision

of principle position and not a partisan one. we proved it. to achieve justice roberts if you'rere a member many conservative opposed the nomination of president pushes harriet miers and the justice and it was a much more assertive choice in terms of judicial philosophy with the confirmation of justice samuel alito. it was nothing likee this up if they were losing their judicial philosophy so they ramped up this partisan personal attack with unprecedented force for all their celebration of justice ketanji brown jackson the first woman on the court. i hope you do not forget the filibuster damaged robert strand nomination to the d.c. circuit for two whole years. he was being groomed for the

supreme court and before that michael mentioned democrats had success with the filibuster and another nominee to the d.c. circuit this time hispanic miguel estrada. that one was especially and staffers were objecting to him especially dangerous because he was latino. again it was at dark irony of when theyk celebrate the confirmation of justice sotomayor. you also know that they tried to filibuster justicece alito in 2005. they were frustrated in that effort and way of president obama came to power their frustration led them to unprecedented escalations justice sotomayor and kagan were confirmed and even though we did gain momentum in making thisis case the senator should opposed them.al but in 2013 senate majority

leader harry reid used the so-called nuclear option to abolish the judicial filibuster to give more justice. broke the senate rules to do so in another major to the structure of the judicial nomination process. he tried to limit that to lower court no one believed that would hold. political expediency is not a legitimate limiting principle so he didn't. it was in that environment that merrick garland nomination came along and in last year president obama you can see why senate majority leader mitch mcconnell was readyy to invoke that rule when then said xiao biden was upholding supreme

court elections so close to an election and the opposing party. he had the filibusters of estrada and ketanji brown and doing away of with the filibuster. democrats were enraged that they were going to win if you remember. hillary was going to crash donald trump so they were consoling themselves in that. it was a foregone conclusion and tell it wasn't, right? it dealt them another hand and that's when they completely lost it. you heard senator chris: the radical base especially. the facts didn't matter anymore. it was the only decision with president tromso wasn't his judicial nominee whose record didn't matter atr all. neil gorsuch made it plain he was completely qualified and his record unassailable.

still they opposed him with as much force as they could muster. what they did to justice kavanagh was criminal and entirely political and moral. i should interject the current attacks against justice clarence thomas and his family are vile unmerited and we should stand forcefully against it. they did not do much better better in opposition a position to justice amy coney barrett though i believe they were feeling the weight of what they had just done to justice kavanagh and that takes us to justice ketanji brown jackson. there the destruction of judicial norms had o served one purpose and that was to the idea that there are no m. per parse -- i impartial jurist. that's partisan gain. this is how we get the political

supreme court and senator whitehouse threatened the court also and have it calls to expand the court and to reduce the -- ethics drumbeat and theyic would continue to escalate their radical base to demand a escalation because they seek destabilization. to break the structure the guard's freedom. that's why and i'll finish with this 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. they must see that things are hard to change under a constitution by design. if the feature that government

power is dangerous and if we have a better vision of unity and stability safety and freedom than the fake emotionally charged manipulation we continue to experience from the left that seeks to divide us and facilitate our self-destruction. we have better arguments and looking at all of you here i know we have the better lawyers to make the decisions. thank you. [applause] >> i'm a big fan of history and although i probably can't recount the stories of thurston howell are watching the blob, i'm not quite there yet i will quote a relatively obscure novel called the go between in the opening line is summarized well. the opening line was this the

past as a foreign country but they do things differently there. i am old enough to remember the good old days when organizations like the aclu would call for judicial independence protecting the court from outside attacks could why was that? because that was the time when the courts were delivering victory after victory after victory to the left. they were getting everything they wanted to the majority of records and there was little being done to stop it. he began to see most recently especially with many of the appointments of president made the left was on red alert. now all of a sudden the courts began to turn in the good old days of waiting to protect judicial independence and ensure that court is free from outside interference that quickly turned. and we are where we are today.

i'm reminded of one of the comments by the late justice sandra day o'connor he said the court's power lies completely in its perceived legitimacy in the eyes of the people. we must remember that the court holds neither the power of the purse nor the sword and i think that's very true and it's just as true today. i know we are short on time so i will truncate my remarks by providing a of history and this concept the perceived legitimacy but a cautionary tale from venezuela. hugo chavez was elected i suppose you could say elected or whatever in 1999. five years later in 2004 he completed his restructuring and reform of the venezuelan supreme court doing so by increasing the number of justices on the supreme court from 20 to 34. everyone of those additional 14 handpicked by his regime.

there was an. study done of few years ago i think in 2015 and 2016 that studied 45,000 decisions from the venezuelan supreme court from 2014th i think it was 20 fifteenths 111 year 45,000 decisions. of those 45,000 decisions issued by the venezuelan supreme court and hugo chavez had hand picked impact the score was 45000-0, zero decisions against the chavez ravine and now the maduro regime. that is a cautionary tale from history and really 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's what we face. we end up having a court that is simply an extension of the

executive branch of government didn't that includes the structure of our government. that was the safeguards put in place as justice scalia talked about. i will stop there because i know we are running short on time hopefully we can at least have maybe one question. >> i'll ask the obvious question. you both touch on it and senator cruz touched on it so what does happen if the democrats reached a trifecta and they get the senate senate and the house for the presidency? when they tell you what they are going to do believe them. senator schumer and everyone else has been saying everything is on the table. that's a direct quote everything is on the table and now they are saying the quiet part out loud. just saw a think two or three weeks ago alicia menendez the daughter of senator menendez who was the cohost on an nbc show i've read about it because i don't watch and b.c. but 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 court. that's just a euphemism. structure or form means change the composition. change the composition of the court. that's one form of court-packing. the good old fdr court-packing plan to increase the number of seats but don't forget you don't just have top down court-packing there's also bottom-up court-packing hints another threat we need to keep our eye on. fewer than 1% of all cases make it to the supreme court. that means i'm not a math major i may need crayons and coloring books to figure this out fewer than 1% make that the supreme court 99% or more of all cases

terminate in their circuit courts and below. that's where the vast majority of laws created in this country. if you're paying attention to what democrats are saying they continue to make calls that we need to add to our circuit court and add seats to our courts. that court-packing is of a different flavor. that's what's on the table if they run the trifecta and there's very little and you heard senator cruz say i don't know we can do to stop it. >> i'd make the case to remain engaged all throughout because the more desperate they get the see the ball. he wants to debate president their sing what's happening at the desperation demands more and more to get engaged them and we are going to see worse things

and just ignore it the polls from any side. and work as hard as you can. think you marioy and mike and we will wrap it up there and thank you. [applause]