Michael Barbaro

They immediately shut it down.

Well, before we get to the White House's effort to undercut nationwide injunctions, which seems very central to this case, I want to make sure we establish why the Trump White House would make the kind of concession you just described to 22 states where this was blocked and not try to defend banning birthright citizenship on the merits. Why did they so quickly bypass that option, do you think?

Well, before we get to the White House's effort to undercut nationwide injunctions, which seems very central to this case, I want to make sure we establish why the Trump White House would make the kind of concession you just described to 22 states where this was blocked and not try to defend banning birthright citizenship on the merits. Why did they so quickly bypass that option, do you think?

So on to this question of injunctions, nationwide injunctions, why have they, Adam, been so widely criticized?

So on to this question of injunctions, nationwide injunctions, why have they, Adam, been so widely criticized?

Right. OK, so, Adam, take us into the courtroom as the lawyer for the Trump administration makes the argument that these widely criticized injunctions should basically go away and in so doing allow President Trump's efforts to outlaw birthright citizenship to remain largely in place.

Right. OK, so, Adam, take us into the courtroom as the lawyer for the Trump administration makes the argument that these widely criticized injunctions should basically go away and in so doing allow President Trump's efforts to outlaw birthright citizenship to remain largely in place.

And as he's making this legal case against injunctions, what is the lawyer for the White House really asking the justices to do here? I mean, what world does he want to exist if the Supreme Court does away with these injunctions?

And as he's making this legal case against injunctions, what is the lawyer for the White House really asking the justices to do here? I mean, what world does he want to exist if the Supreme Court does away with these injunctions?

Got it. Right. He wants a world where there's greater judicial restraint and deference to the executive when they propose something like this. So what do the justices have to say to that argument?

Got it. Right. He wants a world where there's greater judicial restraint and deference to the executive when they propose something like this. So what do the justices have to say to that argument?

And what does he say to that?

And what does he say to that?

Got it. So the justices start to identify a little bit of a contradiction or I guess a judicial problem here, which is that the White House has shown no desire to take this case all the way up to the Supreme Court while they're asking for the quickest remedy in the lower courts to be invalidated.

Got it. So the justices start to identify a little bit of a contradiction or I guess a judicial problem here, which is that the White House has shown no desire to take this case all the way up to the Supreme Court while they're asking for the quickest remedy in the lower courts to be invalidated.

So why do you think he said it?

So why do you think he said it?

But was it a candid channeling of the president's view of this?

But was it a candid channeling of the president's view of this?

Adam, it's around this time that Justice Kagan weighs in with a very firm theory about why she thinks the president will not ever bring this case based on the merits to the legal system, which is basically she thinks they have no shot of winning.