campaigns, and more. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information. c-span now is available in the apple store. downloaded for free today. your front roast -- row seat to washington. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. sponsored by these television companies. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers. we are just getting started, building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communication supports c-span alg with these

other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> let's talk about the supreme court ruling on immigration enforcement. it says the supreme court on friday cleared the way for the biting ministration to implement immigration enforcement priorities. the opinion called it a highly unusual lawsuit from two republican led states. the high court ruled 8-1 the texas and louisiana do not have the legal right to challenge the enforcement guidelines, which in prioritized people who had a threat to national security or who recently crossed the border.

guest: there are 11 million undocumented documents. administrations set their own guidelines for how they would

like agents to prioritize. the trump administration included anybody. the by did a ministration wanted to narrow that and one of them to prioritize. it did consider the circumstances when deciding whether to target an individual for arrest.

host: what was the justification. the lower courts's cap this policy from being implemented. why was homeland security adamant that they were justified in this new policy? >> a lot of it rested on interpretation. there was a portion of the law that said the government shall detain certain categories of

undocumented immigrants. they leaned on other areas of the law that said they should have discretion to make decisions. the case did not come down to that interpretation. it was on a standing, on more procedural issues. >> can you explain that? why did the court say these states didn't have standing to challenge these rules? guest: the court noted that the states were not being threatened by prosecution. the court raised concerns with what the lawsuit would mean for executive power. the executive branch has the authority to set its own enforcement priorities.

the executive branch had not been able to do so. host: what happens now? guest: the bite administration can implement the guidelines. they have been blocked in court. this could have led to inconsistent decision-making. now they will be able to create more of an agencywide structure to operate moving forward. host: are there other immigration cases pending for the supreme court you are tracking? guest: quite a few. this is one of a number of court challenges. there are lawsuits filed against the administration policies with

the title 42 policy. we have lawsuits from the aclu challenging the restriction of being in violation. what that could mean for hundreds of thousands of young undocumented animists. -- immigrants. host: what could be the fallout in congress moving forward? >> i think it would've been significant had the justices come the other way and ruled they can bring suits like this. we might have seen more of them. if we had seen them in favor of the states, they can't set their

own enforcement guidelines. that would've been a significant ruling. we didn't see that. the republican led states would like to see some action from congress. the attorney general had a statement about lawsuits like this. at this point, i don't know if we would see significant fallout . host: were you surprised to see an 8-1 ruling. we keep hearing about their only three liberal justices. did the numbers surprise view? guest: a little bit. there was quite a bit of agreement on this issue. it does go to show that it's difficult to see where the supreme court is going to come down.

executive power can be one of those issues where it's not always a policy consideration. there are going to be justices that have a lot of respect for executive power host: thank you so much for joining us this morning. we want to hear your calls. what are your views of the immigration enforcement policy? bidens immigration policy? republicans, call us at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. or, send text message at (202) 748-8003. we want to get to your calls. i want to show a little video.

this video is an oral argument from this case. united states from -- united states versus texas. justice brett kavanaugh and solicitor general elizabeth discussed an idea of standing. here ia portion of the discussion. [video clip] >> on standing, i a new administration comes in and says you are not going to force environmental laws and we e not going to enforce labor laws, preposition is no states, no business and no organization would have standing to challenge this? is that correct? >> that is correct under this precedent but framers intended political checks. if an administration did something extreme and said they would not enforce the law at all, then they would be held accountae. >> are the tools?

you mentioned earlier itould extraordinary. but congress in 1996 and today, thought the immigration problem in the u.s. was extraordinary. the lack of enforcent to this degree that congress as of 1996 110. this is why ey topped laws and constrain discretion. courts are not going to be able to enforce this congressional manage. what are the exact tools congress has to make sure the laws are not enforced in the united states? >> congress has the power of the purse which can make an executives life: respect to decisions that had to appropriate -- an executive's life difficult with respect to decisions that had to appropriate laws.

this identified the fact congress was not powerless to act. host: this was some of the arguments from the supreme court on this issue of standing. i want to show a couple more headlines on the supreme court ruling from friday. this is this morning's washington post under the headlines "biden's border authority affirmed." it says the supreme court boosted bidens authority to enforce the administration's immigration policies on those who are a state or recently entered the country. states generally lack the authority to challenge the administrations authority on holes of arrest -- administration's authority on holding arrest. i want to read from this second paragraph that says the dispute was part of a larger battle

between mr. biden who has struggled to balance control of the southern border with humane treatment of immigrants. in republican-led states, which have repeatedly sought to quash the administration agenda by contesting policy after policy in the court. and allowing the administration leeway in deciding who to arrest, the supreme court acknowledged the difficulty of the problem and the leading role the executive branch was -- must play in solving it. what are your views on bidens immigration enforcement policies ? republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. our first caller is from maine. chris is on the democratic line. what are your thoughts? caller: we are going to hear

nonstop from the republican line that there is no border control whatsoever and immigrants completely come across freely but at the same time, republicans like to say how much they love the border patrol people which is weird. i will read from fox news which says the biden administration had a 70% drop in 2024 predictions. do not trust me, trust fox. joe biden implemented a program in which people have to applied using an app from their country of origin. if they do not, they are sent back. so crossings have massively dropped. i would love for you to ask every republican who says there are no border controls and they are coming across frequently, why are crossings lower by 70% and lower than they were under donald trump? host: jason is calling from st.

louis on the republican line. caller: hello, how are you doing? i have an answer for him. one, we are giving them cell phones when they get over here so how are they supposed apply on an app when they don't have a phone? then you say it is down 70%? speak -- that is because you keep playing with the numbers. it has been proven over and over. host: pat in new jersey, also republican line. caller: hello. how are you doing? i wanted to say, as far as the border, it is open. we need to get back to policies that always worked. there are supposed to be illegal immigration, not illegal immigration. as far as joe biden, we need to remember that he needs to be impeached with high crimes and

misdemeanors. that is what you really should focus on, instead of donald trump all the time. we should be focused on the biden administration. he needs to be impeached. he is the worst president. he is a disgrace. thank you very much. host: let's take another call. barney in florida. democratic line. caller: why don't we talk about the border? all i hear is about impeaching joe biden. they are not worried about the border? they are just trying to protect donald trump. if they are worried about the border -- people on fox news are not talking about the border. what is it? host: we had callers referencing the number of border crossings

since the biden administration implemented new rules after the explanation -- exploration of title 42. here is an article in roll call. headline, "decrease in border crossings has not slowed republican criticism." i will scroll to some numbers. it says border agents encountered 70% fewer crossings in the three weeks following the end of title 42, compared to the weeks before the policy expired, according to the dhs. in may, border agents reported 15% fewer migrants than in the same month a year earlier, with most encounters occurring before the end of the title 42 policy, according to data released by customs and border protection. there were also 25% fewer

encounters with migrants between ports of entry which pose more than enforcement challenged at checkpoint as cbp data shows. that is a roll call article from june 21, earlier this week, about the reductions after the expiration of title 42. what are your thoughts about biden's border policy? betty in florida, democrat line. caller: hello? host: yes, you are on. caller: hello. my name is betty mitchell and i am 91. i would like to speak about the immigrant crossing. this is the main thing i am worried about. it is just like when we were

slaves and could not go this place and that place. i don't know why mexico cannot keep their immigrants over there? we buy a lot of stuff from mexico. they can live over there. i do not want the united states to be like all the people who came to miami and all the cubans who came to tampa. i just don't want the united states to be ran by all these immigrants. one man said on television about a month ago, i think on cnn, we are going to have a third party. the interviewer said, who is going to be the third party? never mind. it is going to be all mexicans.

we are not going to have any american presidents. they are going to loot the united states. plus, the countries need to keep mexicans over in their old -- their own country. host: ok. got your point. let's bring another caller. sandra in alabama, independent line. caller: hello. i would like to say that we are going back and forth, blaming democrats, republicans, and whoever else. the real issue with immigration is congress'not doing their jobs. they should create a program that goes to all states as well as immigrants so they can properly enter into the country and make it more efficient,

instead of going back and forth. it is a waste of time. host: michael in florida. republican line. caller: good morning. the last caller made a lot of sense. we supposedly have a law on the books about immigration and it would seem appropriate that we ought to enforce the law you have and not blame democrats or republicans for failing to do it. i think the supreme court decision you talked about at the beginning of the show that was rendered yesterday -- i guess i agree with the decision. it seems to be saying the government can prioritize how they will go about enforcing the law. you cannot go arrest all illegal people. i think the biden administration, although i don't agree with much of what they do, have the right to say that we

should prioritize this and go after the ones who are a security risk to the country. and the recent people that have come across illegally. let's prioritize and go after those two categories to begin with. i think the supreme court made the right decision in saying the supreme court -- the administration can prioritize things. host: new orleans, mary on the democrat line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. maybe -- i am an american and these tactics of intimidation were held on me. i have always been a never-trumper. i believe it is a whole

racketeering job. when enrico does something, they pin all of it. i was pretty outspoken about what is going on. last august, i went outside my house and there were these two -- this is kind of an ufo story. two rectangular, i think, drones which looked like huge cell phones flying over my house very slowly. they were real. i did not have my phone. i watched them go toward the airport behind me. host: alright, mary. we appreciate your call. our next caller is kim in iowa on the independent line. caller: i agree with the lady

from alabama and the guy from florida about we have laws on books that have to be enforced. but congress is reckless. they are supposed to pass bills. they passed daca in 2008 and 2013 but have not. they are playing with people's lives, people from mexico, and lying to us. they are not doing their job in congress of passing the immigration bill. they are playing with people's lives. they do not want to pass it. they are playing with -- every election, they start talking about immigration and mexicans are coming. every time there is a my grandpam

scandinavia. we needed workers.