SEKULOW

Will Hainline: Today on Sekulow, we have breaking news as Iran demands a meeting after intense strikes over the weekend.

Announcer: Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever. This is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Will Hainline.

Will Hainline: Welcome to Sekulow. Will Hainline in studio today as we look at what took place over the weekend. This is where after this agreement, this memorandum of understanding, had been agreed to by both the United States and Iran leading to the 60-day period of further negotiations trying to get to a final deal, Iran seemed to be in breach of this MOU. Surprise, surprise, the Iranians are not holding up their end of the deal.

It all began with a drone attack on a shipping container ship in the Strait of Hormuz. This was a Singapore-flagged ship that had a drone, a one-way drone, that went fly alongside it, turned around, and hit the boat. So, it wasn't as though it were an accident. This led to an escalation of strikes that were traded between the United States and Iran over the weekend.

I want to hear from you. Do you think that this is what we should expect from Iran? I know many of you think that they cannot be trusted. As we see even now, what seemed to be a simple portion of the memorandum of understanding, they were not able to hold up their end of the deal. The United States was able to then go after multiple targets. They were able to take out some of these capabilities that Iran had been able to shift assets from around other parts of the country to build up this air defense and air attack sector of that Strait of Hormuz area. The United States was able to go after them.

United States aircraft just struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations and coastal radar sites for violating the cease-fire agreement again. This also led to President Trump saying on the 27th, just two days ago, "It is very possible they will never learn. There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist."

That is what a lot of us have been hoping for, that the Islamic Republic of Iran would no longer exist and that we could get to that point. What do you think? Do you think the President is trying to exhaust all options before getting to that? Is he trying to show that he can be reasonable? He is also showing that his playbook is completely different than everyone else's in Washington, left or right. He will take a different path. He started strong. He showed the United States is not afraid to attack. Then he went to the diplomatic side and said we are not afraid to negotiate. Now, is he about to show that he is not afraid to finish the job?

What we also know is that the Iranians have requested an emergency meeting between negotiators tomorrow in Doha, Qatar. The President also acknowledged that it will take place tomorrow, and this is at the request of Iran. Obviously, after they violated the cease-fire and then they saw that we would hit back, this is what we are left with. Another meeting, more talks tomorrow. What do you think? Call me at 1-800-684-3110.

Have we shown that the Iranians will not be able to fall in line and to follow an agreement? This was a very simple part of it, folks. This was just letting the ships go through the Strait of Hormuz. This wasn't even the very complicated nuclear material issue that they will be getting to in these talks. Call me at 1-800-684-3110. We are going to talk about this. We are also going to talk about some Supreme Court opinions that came out today. Some you may be happy with, some you may not be, but I will also tell you why that shows that the Supreme Court, as it is, is working. You don't need the leftists to get in there and pack the court as they want to do.

We are also approaching quickly July when we will be celebrating our 250th birthday of this United States of America, and we could use your support here at the ACLJ. Go ahead to ACLJ.org and support the work that we do, whether it be this broadcast or the important legal work, all of the things that we provide free of charge to everyone who wants to partake. ACLJ.org.

Guest (Male): The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, and our constitutional rights are under attack, it is more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedom, defending your rights in court, in Congress, and in the public arena. We have an exceptional track record of success, but here is the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. If you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today at ACLJ.org.

Will Hainline: Welcome to the all-new ACLJ app. Expert analysis and insight Big Tech can't censor. Customize your news and get real-time alerts on the issues you care about. Advocacy is now at your fingertips. Take action, make a difference. Support the causes you care about with just one tap. Be the first to know. Breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox. Everything you need, all in one place. Stay informed, stay empowered. Download today.

We are so excited to announce the ACLJ's brand-new app, completely redesigned to provide you with the best tools available to partner with at the ACLJ. You can watch the daily Sekulow program, sign the petitions, customize your ACLJ membership experience, donate with the click of a button, and receive up-to-the-minute critical updates that the mainstream media can't censor. Just scan the QR code on your screen or go to your phone's app store, search ACLJ, and click install. It's that simple.

Welcome back to Sekulow. We are talking about what has taken place over the weekend where the Iranians decided to strike a shipping vessel that was going through the Strait of Hormuz. There was some discussion where the Iranians said they didn't quite go the path that we agreed to. However, it was the agreed-upon path that is set forth by the United Nations, the maritime organization that oversees that commercial shipping traffic as it goes through places like the Strait of Hormuz.

I think it's important to point this out that as we go along, they are showing what a lot of us were concerned would be the case. I think I said I was skeptically optimistic. That was the way I talked about the memorandum of understanding. I'm a skeptic that Iran can ever hold up their end of the deal, but I'm optimistic in the sense that President Trump is doing something that is completely outside the box. Many times that is what it takes to get to a groundbreaking deal like this.

Something like the Abraham Accords was never thought that that could really be a possibility. The fact that many of those Gulf states and North African states would have this sort of a diplomatic relationship renewed with the State of Israel, and that was accomplished. A lot of that was built on this shared desire for economic prosperity and the concern of the strong Iran. As we look at how successful those have been and really, even throughout this war, how many of the Gulf states that are not a part of the Abraham Accords have operated within that framework, we may see something coming with more nations joining the Abraham Accords in the future.

You also have to think that while there is optimism about doing something different that both politicians and diplomats and career Washington folk have not ever done before, no matter what their foreign policy is, the skepticism remains. It is not about the ability of the negotiators, Witkoff and Kushner, being able to craft and negotiate well. It is not even a criticism of the administration of trying this approach. It is fully that we know how Iran operates. Even with these new people, you can have some optimism that something different can come from this, but you also have to remember if they are still beholden to the theology that creates the Iranian Islamic Republic, then they are going to be very difficult to ever get to fall in line.

The hope is that many of these people, three and four levels down the ladder that are now in charge, maybe they aren't so beholden to the theology that the Ayatollah and the supreme leader have perpetrated on the people that have crafted the Islamic Republic. Is this apocalyptic, genocidal dictatorship something that is different? These people are very much invested in the regime and the way it operates. The IRGC having a stranglehold on not just the theology of the country and the military of the country, but also the economy.

If they are in that apparatus, they're still going to be operating very similarly. Could things change? Maybe one of those prongs, the theology angle, if that isn't as strong, could it give leverage to do something unthinkable, something remarkable? That is what we are watching. As of right now, they keep showing themselves to be the Iran of old, the very same Iran that you can't negotiate with. I want to play this from the Ambassador to the UN. This is Mike Waltz. He had this to say on FOX News Sunday over the weekend, and let's go ahead and queue this up. This is bite three from the United States Ambassador to the UN.

Mike Waltz: The President's patience isn't going to last forever. Discussions are ongoing, particularly at a technical level of how to get inspectors in, the down-blending, and the other pieces that are focused on ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon. But they need to understand their leverage is diminishing by the day. Iran has a choice to make. It's going to be a responsible nation, or it can continue down this path to absolute ruin.

Will Hainline: And once again, there he says their leverage is diminishing day by day. Are they going to be a responsible nation, or are they going to continue down this path to absolute ruin? It appears they're headed towards absolute ruin. I think there are many of us that have been watching this unfold that have given the benefit of the doubt to the administration, not to the Iranians by any means, that maybe something novel could happen. When you start to look at what the President was saying just two days ago, that it is very possible they will never learn.

That is what we have been saying for months now. There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist. At the end of the day, that is what many of us have hoped for, for the people of Iran, for the Persian people, that the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist. You will see people say that's genocidal talk, saying that they will no longer exist.

There has been such buy-in from especially those on the political left that will to some degree support the concept of that leadership remaining in place. An annihilation of the Islamic Republic does not mean an annihilation of the people of Iran. It means getting rid of the horrible leadership that has countless American lives on its hands as well as people in the region, even their own people. The fact that we talk about them slaughtering 30,000 to 50,000 of their own people earlier this year is now almost an afterthought. You have to think of how many of their own people have been slaughtered over the entire reign of this horrible, evil regime.

That 30,000 to 50,000 is a minuscule number compared to how many people have been falsely imprisoned, tortured, and killed for their beliefs, for not wanting to fall in line with their genocidal death cult that leads that country. It should be a shocking number and wake up the entire world. The fact that now it's almost flippantly said 30,000 of their own people were killed just protesting the intensity of which they control the economy and use the money for terror instead of their own people, as well as all of the brutality that is perpetrated on their own people because of their morality police, their strict codes within Iran.

It should be a wake-up call for the entire world. This should be the cause célèbre for every liberal activist on every college campus in the country. When you see how quickly they jump to "free Palestine," why is it not "free Iran"? If you're talking about real authoritarian dictatorships that are perpetrating horrors on their people, it is the Iranian regime. I also think the irony of "free Palestine" that is lost, and we're going to talk some about this with Jeff Ballabon later in the broadcast, but the irony that is lost on the left when they say things like "free Palestine" and they try to say this isn't anti-Semitic.

It is the State of Israel that left Gaza to its own devices. They are the ones that left Gaza, the security agreements that they had there, and said govern yourselves. Govern yourselves, Gaza. We will no longer be in here. We're going to let you hold elections. The Palestinian Authority thought, well, we're the ones who have been doing all the work here and we're clearly going to win the election. No, they elected Hamas.

Freeing Gaza would mean now take away control of Hamas. That is the great irony of their failed slogans of "free Palestine," is that a real freedom would be what Israel was trying to do to free them from the oppression of Hamas, the proxy of Iran. But no, they don't get that. They think that Israel is the great oppressor. Once again, you see how this plays out. This is something that we're going to keep having to deal with even as you talk about these talks. Can Iran be trusted? Well, really, when you look anywhere, no, they can't. They continue to push for Hezbollah. They continue to push for Hamas leadership because that is their control of the region, and they have American leftists bought in. When they say "free Palestine," they mean strengthen Hamas. It is part of the reason why the Iranian regime gets a blind eye turned by the American leftists on the college campuses here.

We're going to talk about that and a lot more coming up next segment. We're going to talk about some of these Supreme Court opinions that came out today. Give me a call at 1-800-684-3110 if you want to hear about that. You want to talk about that, you want to talk about Iran. We've got a lot more coming up. We'll be right back with more on Sekulow.

Welcome back to Sekulow. If you want to talk to me on air, give me a call, 1-800-684-3110. We'll be having Jeff Ballabon from ACLJ Jerusalem joining us live from Israel later in the broadcast. If you want to talk about Iran, you want to talk about some of these Supreme Court cases, give me a call.

Interesting cases came out today. These opinions are from the Supreme Court, and it's a mixed bag. Some are ones that we are glad with the outcome, some of them are not so happy with necessarily, isn't what we were arguing for. Overall, it's moments like these when you do have a mixed bag of opinions that it shows that all of the noise around the Supreme Court is just that. The left wanting to reform the Supreme Court or to pack the court or issue term limits on the Supreme Court is only because they want the court to rule 100 percent their way.

It is not because they don't think it's fair; it's because it's not giving them everything they want. Just remember that. When you hear a Supreme Court decision or opinion that comes down and it's not everything that you thought it should be or you were hoping for, it doesn't necessarily fit with what your political ideology was hoping for. That is proof that the Supreme Court is working, not that it is broken. Keep that in mind. You're never going to get 100 percent opinions in your way because the Supreme Court is independent. It isn't controlled by a political party or by the executive branch. That is a good thing. It is a good thing in general when we see opinions that we may not necessarily agree with because it shows you that they are independent and they are working. It is not something we need to pack. It is not something we need to completely change the makeup of, and I think that is very key.

One of these cases that came out, and I think this is an important one, a lot of these aren't the type of cases that are going to make a ton of headlines. You're going to see some today. Tomorrow there's supposed to be another opinion day. I have a feeling we are going to see the birthright citizenship case be handed down tomorrow, the opinion in that. It is probably the final day of the term based off of how many opinions are remaining. That's going to get a lot of headlines no matter what. Some of these are not as big, even though they are at the end of the term, but they do have real ramifications for things that we fight for here at the ACLJ.

One of those is Trump versus Slaughter. This is a case where President Trump was trying to fire or remove from the Federal Trade Commission one of the members of that. It's supposed to be an independent body, but when you start to get into this, this is how many people on the left have wanted these bureaucracies and these quasi-independent agencies to work. They wanted it to be outside of the power of the President, trying to limit the President's power in many more ways. The opinion for this was delivered by the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and Justice Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, they all agreed. Justice Thomas joined in all except for one part, and Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. This is 6 to 3. You have a dissent from Sotomayor, in which Kagan and Jackson joined.

This held that the President does have the authority to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission. This is something that the ACLJ filed in. We have been very consistent for years about fighting for the unitary executive, saying that the President himself is the executive branch and everything that flows down from that works for him. I think these words by the Chief Justice are very important to read at the end of his opinion, and it says this:

"Our Constitution creates three branches, but only one President. That President is not all-powerful, not by any means, but he is not impotent either. He and he alone is vested with the executive power of the United States, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1. To discharge the duties of his trust, the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. Thirty writings of George Washington at 334, although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to removal by him. Then and only then can they remain accountable to the President and the President to the people. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

The Supreme Court is saying the President has a lot of leeway to fire people. Because of that, he is the only member constitutionally of the executive branch. He is the one President, and in order to work with people, he cannot be saddled by Congress or the courts with those with whom he cannot work. If you come into the job and you are the President of the United States and you are stuck with people who are actively trying to work against you, they don't hold more power than the President. That is an important piece of Supreme Court jurisprudence that we are seeing here. It affirms what we argued here at the American Center for Law and Justice and have for a very long time. You think back to when he fired James Comey, and it was that same argument. This is very clear on the power to fire that the President has.

That is what the left wants. They want a bureaucracy so strong that it doesn't matter who the President is, that this executive branch keeps functioning no matter who gets elected, and they keep their policies and agenda rolling forward because the President has no power to do anything. There was a converse case here that kind of had a little bit of us surprised that they didn't go in lockstep together, but once again, it shows you that the Supreme Court is independent.

That was the case involving the Federal Reserve, the governor of the Federal Reserve who was removed by the President. The Supreme Court held that there's not enough yet that a governor can be removed if there is malfeasance and issues like that, but that has not been proven yet. What they showed is that the way that the Board of Governors was established by Congress, it does hamstring the President to some degree, that he cannot just fire a Federal Reserve Board governor for any reason.

The President is the executive branch. It all shows that there is nuance in the way that things are created by Congress. So, I think that these two cases about executive power and whom the President can and cannot fire is nuanced, and that is the way much of our law is, nuanced. So, if you look at this and you hear from people that they're upset with the Supreme Court, that also is showing you that the Supreme Court is working. It's not going to 100 percent prop up your ideology. We'll be back with more on Sekulow. If you want to support the work of the ACLJ, go to ACLJ.org and donate today.