♪♪ >> CATHY: A LOT HAS HAPPENED SINCE MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL KEITH ELLISON LAST SAT ON OUR SET IN MAY.

IN ADDITION TO HIS REGULAR WORK HERE IN THE STATE, ELLISON HAS JOINED MULTI-STATE LEGAL EFFORTS TO PUSH BACK AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FLURRY OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

THE LATEST ANNOUNCEMENT FROM HIS OFFICE THIS MORNING CONCERNS THE CRIMINALIZATION OF GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE.

WELCOME BACK TO THE SHOW.

>> IT'S GOOD TO BE BACK, CATHY, THANK YOU.

>> Cathy: WELL, LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS SUIT THAT HAS BEEN FILED.

STATE OF MINNESOTA AND A COUPLE OTHER DEMOCRATIC STATES HAVE FILED -- >> WASHINGTON, OREGON.

>> Cathy: THANK YOU.

OVER THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER THAT MEDICAID EXCLUDE COVERAGE FOR GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE.

UNDER WHAT GROUNDS?

>> ON THE GROUNDS THAT T'S BEYOND THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY TO DO IT VIA EXECUTIVE ORDER.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, YOU HAVE TO INTRODUCE A ILL IN CONGRESS.

YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH COMMITTEE, IT HAS TO BE VOTED ON.

HE CAN'T JUST O IT BY EXECUTIVE ORDER.

ALSO, YOU KNOW, SO HE'S EXCEEDING HIS AUTHORITY.

HE'S GOING AROUND SOMETHING CALLED THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT.

A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION WHICH HAS -- REQUIRES NOTICE, COMMENT, AND DIALOGUE BEFORE UYOU CAN JUST CHANGE A RULE LIKE THAT.

SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF GROUNDS, AND I FEEL CONFIDENT WE'RE GOING TO WIN.

>> Eric: THE DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SO FAR SEEMS TO ME TO BE, LET'S GO THROUGH ATTORNEYS GENERAL AND THE COURTS INSTEAD OF RELY ON CONGRESS WHERE THERE'S A TRIFECTA OF COURSE IN WASHINGTON WITH THE REPUBLICANS.

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE BEEN ACTIVE AND THEY ARE, NO MATTER WHO'S IN POWER.

WHEN THE DEMOCRATS WERE IN POWER, THE REPUBLICANS, THEY FILED THEIR CASES.

I THINK OUR CASES ARE MORE MERITORIOUS.

BUT, YEAH, .G.s ARE -- THE STATE A.G.s ARE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE CHECKS AND BALANCES OF THIS COUNTRY AND IT'S A GOOD THING.

>> Cathy: DO YOU SEE -- THERE'S GOING TO BE OBVIOUSLY I THINK A FLURRY OF LAWSUITS.

>> ALREADY FOUR.

>> Cathy: RIGHT.

WILL YOU HAVE TO MAYBE ENLIST SOME PRIVATE ATTORNEYS TO HELP ON SOME OF THIS?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT UNUSUAL.

SOMETIMES WE DO.

BUT AT THIS POINT, WE'RE MANAGING THE WORK LOAD.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THAT DEM A.G.s COME TOGETHER AND SOME STATES LEAD ON SOME THINGS -- >> Eric: DO YOU FORMALLY PLAN A STRATEGY?

>> YES.

>> Eric: I MEAN, YOU'RE N THE PHONE WITH EVERYBODY?

>> SURE.

BUT THAT'S COMMON.

WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT WAY BACK SINCE THE TOBACCO CASES.

>> Eric: OH, SURE.

>> A.G.s HAVE BEEN -- MULTI-STATE LITIGATION IS A COMMON THING.

NOWADAYS IT'S SORT OF A NECESSITY BECAUSE THE FLURRY IS SO GREAT.

I MEAN, I PHOTOCOPIED ALL OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND THEY STAND ABOUT THIS FAR OFF HE TABLE.

AND I'VE LOST PERFECT COUNT, BUT THERE'S ABOUT 250 OF THEM, I WOULD GUESS.

AND I TELL YOU, PEOPLE ARE UPSET.

WE'VE HAD OVER 2,000 PEOPLE CALL, ALL BECAUSE THEY'RE UPSET ABOUT ELON MUSK AND HIS ACCESS TO PEOPLE'S TREASURY DATA LIKE SOCIAL SECURITY.

>> Eric: FOLKS WHO SUPPORT PRESIDENT TRUMP BASICALLY SAY, THEY CALL IT A DISMANTLING OF THE DEEP STATE AND SAY IT'S CRUCIAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE COUNTRY.

>> WELL, THE SURVIVAL OF THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN GOING FOR QUITE A LONG TIME WITHOUT THIS.

AND IF YOU WANT TO -- IF YOU WANT TO GET RID OF AN AGENCY, INTRODUCE A BILL, DEBATE IT, PASS A LAW, HAVE THE PRESIDENT SIGN IT.

HAVING AN EXECUTIVE ORDER JUST BE THE MEANS ON HOW OUR COUNTRY IS GOVERNED IS UNDEMOCRATIC.

IT IS -- IT'S OVERREACH ON STEROIDS.

AND QUITE FRANKLY, I'M SHOCKED THAT MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES AGREE WITH THIS.

I MEAN, THEY USED TO ACCUSE OBAMA OF OVERREACH ALL N A REGULAR BASIS.

THIS IS OVER 200 EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF A SPRAWLING NATURE.

EVERYTHING FROM BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN PART OF AMERICAN LAW FOR 160 YEARS.

>> Eric: THEY SAY IF AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT COMES ACROSS THE BORDER AND HAS A -- THEY CALL IT AN ANCHOR BABY, THAT THE CHILD IS OT GUARANTEED PROTECTION, CITIZENSHIP BY THE CONSTITUTION.

>> ONLY THE SUPREME COURT IN 1898 SAID OTHERWISE, UNDER THE WONG KIM ARC CASE.

THIS IS A MAN BORN IN SAN FRANCISCO, WENT BACK TO CHINA, CAME BACK TO THE UNITED STATES AND THEY SAID, NO, YOU'RE CHINESE, YOU CAN'T COME HERE.

AND THE SUPREME COURT TWO YEARS AFTER PLESSY VERSUS FERGUSON, YOU KNOW, SEPARATE BUT EQUAL, SAID, WONG KIM ARC WAS RIGHT, THAT THE 14TH AMENDMENT GIVES HIM BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP.

AND IT'S PART OF OUR AMERICAN LAW.

THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT, UOTE, UNQUOTE, ILLEGAL.

THESE ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS.

AND IT'S -- I THINK IT'S APPALLING.

>> Cathy: WHAT DO YOU THINK THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT'S GOING TO BE IN THIS, ESPECIALLY SINCE THREE OF THE JUSTICES WERE APPOINTED BY TRUMP?

>> YEAH, NO DOUBT IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT.

HERE'S THE THING.

I ... JUST BEING CANDID, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THOMAS AND ALITO WILL DO ANYTHING TRUMP SAYS.

I DON'T THINK ROBERTS AND CONEY BARRETT WILL.

AND YOU JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT GORE SUCH AND KAVANAUGH ARE GOING TO DO.

AND WE KNOW THAT SOCIETY WROA MAYOR, KAGAN, AND BROWN ARE NOT GOING TO GO ALONG WITH THIS.

IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO TURN ON WHAT CONEY BARRETT AND ROBERTS HAVE TO SAY.

>> Eric: THIS IS BASICALLY THE OPENING ROUNDS OF A PRIZE FIGHT.

CONGRESS, HOW MUCH CAN WE AFFORD TO OFFEND THE PRESIDENT?

ATTORNEYS GENERAL DECIDING WHAT THEIR ROLE IS GOING TO BE.

AND DO YOU THINK THEY'LL GET BACK TO SOME EQUILIBRIUM.

>> WE'LL SEE, A PRIZE FIGHT S A FAIR FIGHT.

THIS IS NOT FAIR.

THE RULES ARE, YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE LAW, YOU GO, YOU INTRODUCE A BILL IN CONGRESS AND YOU DEBATE IT, AND IF YOU GOT THE VOTES, YOU CHANGE THAT.

HE'S NOT DOING THAT.

AND THAT IS -- THAT'S DISTURBING.

THIS IS HOW PEOPLE RUN COUNTRIES -- THIS IS HOW SAID YI ARABIA IS RUN, YOU KNOW, SO WE ALL SHOULD BE NERVOUS.

HE SUED NBC.

THEY HAD TO PAY $13 MILLION TO SETTLE WITH HIM.

THERE'S THIS ANTIPRESS THING GOING ON.

IT'S CONCERNING.

>> Cathy: WHAT HAPPENS, DO YOU THINK, IF SOME OF THESE -- IF YOU'RE GOING TO COURT, WHAT IF SOME OF THIS IS IGNORED BY THE ADMINISTRATION?

WHAT THEN?

>> WELL, THIS IS A GOOD QUESTION.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WHAT IF HE OPENLY DEFIES THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT?

WE'LL HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.

AND I THINK THAT AMERICANS NEED TO BE PREPARED FOR THE FACT THAT WE MIGHT FIND OURSELVES RIGHT THERE.

BUT PEOPLE HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT.

THEY SHOULD WRITE LETTERS, SPEAK UP, PEACEFULLY LIFT THEIR VOICES UP, AND AFFIRM THE IDEA THAT WE LOVE OUR DEMOCRACY.

AS IMPERFECT AS IT IS, IT'S OUR DEMOCRACY, AND WE NEED TO STAND UP FOR IT.