‘Let Me Explain It a Little Bit More Slowly’: Abby Phillip Gets Fed Up With Scott Jennings for Claiming Trump Can Defy Court Orders

Prominent Republicans have soured on the federal judiciary in recent days as several judges have dealt the Trump administration unfavorable rulings.

Since taking office last month, President Donald Trump has signed a rash of executive orders while dispatching billionaire GOP megadonor Elon Musk to rejigger various departments. Most notably, a judge restricted the access that Musk and his “Department of Government Efficiency” gained to the U.S. Treasury’s payments system. In a separate case, another judge halted Musk’s plan to lay off thousands of staffers at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The rulings have been met with derision by Musk and Vice President JD Vance, who have suggested that the administration may be able to ignore the orders.

“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,” Vance tweeted. “If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.”

On Monday’s CNN NewsNight, GOP strategist Scott Jennings and former New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu argued that rulings by federal district court rulings need not be heeded by the president when he disagrees with them. Elie Honig, CNN’s senior legal analyst, and a former federal prosecutor, wanted to make sure he heard his fellow panelists correctly.

“Let me just understand where you stand,” Honig said to Jennings. “If a district court judge rules in a way that the president dislikes, should the president listen, or should the president defy?”

“If a district court judge tries to usurp the authority of the chief executive of this country, he should absolutely defy it,” Jennings stated. “There’s a difference between broad policy decisions and discrete disputes between parties. That’s the difference. If I want a policy decided, I’ll take it to the Supreme Court.”

Host Abby Phillip responded by noting that Congress had already appropriated the money for USAID to spend:

PHILLIP: When the court says Congress appropriated this money, you must unfreeze it while we litigate this, why can’t Trump comply with that?

JENNINGS: So you’re saying that a judge should decide how and when money is spent–

PHILLIP: A judge is saying–

JENNINGS: –for years–

PHILLIP: Scott–

[CROSSTALK]

PHILLIP: Let me explain it a little bit more slowly. A judge is saying–

JENNINGS: You don’t have to talk to me like that.

PHILLIP: Congress–

JENNINGS: I have a position on this. And you have an opinion. We can disagree.

PHILLIP: Yeah, but I’m saying listen to me because you’re not listening, and you’re making claims that are not connected to the facts. The judge is saying–

JENNINGS: Maybe you are.

PHILLIP: –Congress appropriated a certain amount of money. We need to litigate this. While we litigate this, we’re going to put a hold on the actions that you took that might be unconstitutional.

JENNINGS: So while we litigate this, I’m a judge, and I’m in charge of the executive branch, and you’re not? Forget it. I totally disagree.

SUNUNU: You just can’t compel the executive branch to spend the dollars. You can’t do that. They can’t say we’re going to start–

PHILLIP: Ok, have you heard of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974?

SUNUNU: No.

PHILLIP: Ok, well, let me play this.

SUNUNU: And by the way, none of your viewers have, either.

Phillip proceeded to play a clip of Russell Vought, Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, testifying at his Senate confirmation hearing. Vought told senators he believes it is unconstitutional for a president to spend less money than Congress has appropriated.

The clip concluded, and Phillip turned to Honig:

PHILLIP: So, Elie, this is the law of the land. They might be wanting to challenge it, but it is the law.

HONIG: Right. The Impoundment Control Act says, essentially, that the president cannot block money allocated by Congress. To the power of district court judges – and I understand your point, Scott, I understand the frustration people have when a district court judge blocks a broad mandate from the chief executive, the elected chief executive, ultimately, the big issues go up to the Supreme Court. But I guess I would ask both of you, what if a district court judge had blocked Barack Obama’s DACA plan? The Dreamers plan, right? And he said, heck with you. I’m doing it anyway. Would you be ok with that? Or would you have a problem with that?

Watch above via CNN.