The legal landscape for Donald Trump has altered significantly over the last few days. One of the federal cases that experts felt had the best shot at success for Special Counsel Jack Smith was tossed out Monday by Judge Eileen Canon. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's immunity ruling has already wreaked havoc on the other pending cases against the former President. That's led many to wonder, is the law fair effort against Trump officially dead? In this episode, we sit down with Sarah Parsh Marshall Perry of the Heritage Foundation to answer that question. I'm Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley. It's July 20th, and this is a Saturday edition of Morning Wire.

Since 1974, Saudi Arabia has sold oil solely in US dollars, which was paramount to the dollar's strength and stability. But not anymore. That's why you got to get in touch with the experts over at Birch Gold today. Right now, with qualifying purchases made by July 31st, you get a one-of-a-kind limited edition Golden Truth Bomb. The only way to claim your eligibility, though, is by texting WIRE to 98998. Text Wired to 98998 for a free no obligation info kit on gold, and to get your hands on that limited edition Golden Truth Bomb today.

The following interview was conducted during the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. Joining us now in our Morning WIRE booth here at the RNC is Sarah Partzel-Perry, a Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and a fan favorite here on the show. Thank you so much for joining us. It's great to have you here in person in the studio.

Well, it is great to be here. Thanks for having me.

Let's start with the biggest legal news of the week that broke on Monday, the classified documents case against Trump was tossed out for now. What does this ruling mean and does it affect other cases against him? Are we seeing a domino effect of sorts?

Yeah, it's definitely going to, I think, ignite a domino effect because what happened in federal district court in Florida was that Judge Eileen Canon said, All of these indictment charges, every one of them, have to be tossed because the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel was unconstitutional in the first place. Now, I've heard a lot of partisan commentary about the fact that Eileen Canon has been overturned on appeal to the 11th Circuit. But this is a very well-reasoned 93-page opinion. She went through the Congressional history of all of the statuts that were actually employed by Jack Smith. She went through the Constitution's history. She actually went back to the Declaration of Independence and said, Listen, this was one of the complaints that the founders had against King George III, that he would appoint certain partisan rule enforcers without the people's way in whatsoever. Biden appointed him through Garland and just said, This is the guy I want. He could have appointed a US attorney to do this. That would have been constitutional. You need the advice and consent of Senate, which means the President appoints and then the Senate weighs in. That was not who Jack Smith was, and so this is going to affect at least three other cases currently pending.

Can you explain that a bit more, the distinction between the person you can appoint versus someone who has to be run through the Senate?

Yeah. So this is an individual that, based on Article 2, Section 2 a section two of the Constitution, it's called the Appointments Clause, that there are certain principal officers and minor officers that have to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of Senate. That means, for example, US attorneys who to go through a Senate confirmation process could have very constitutionally enforced the law, applied the law against President Donald Trump. But again, Judge Garland, Merrick Garland, decided he was just going to tap one of his personal favorites to lead this inquiry without any statutory basis whatsoever. The Senate didn't get a chance to weigh in. That is constitutionally impermissible.

Another major case, obviously from the Supreme Court, the immunity ruling. Also a domino effect here. What are we seeing play out right now to directly impact what happens next with President Trump. First of all, of course, in Trump versus United States, the Supreme Court determined that a president enjoys presumptive immunity for any act at the outer perimeter of his official duties. That one's going to have a significant impact because just about everything that's now been claimed by all of the individual very partisan prosecutors in these cases is something that presumptively was an official act. That's number one. Then the other one was a case called Fischer versus United States. Remember, that was a series of January 6 defendants, and they were all charged with obstruction of justice. But the statute under which they were charged was actually related to obstruction of justice by use of things or documents. And so the Supreme Court said, We're sorry, that's a little too expensive a reading, and it's not supported by the statutory context or history here. So both of those will have an impact. Now, on top of that, you've determined out of the Florida Federal Circuit Court that you've got this unconstitutional appointment of Jack Smith, and it looks like just about everything now is going to fail.So let's put a finer point on that. Do you believe that the lawful effort against Trump at this point, the cases that have been brought, are they all going to collapse?I do. I believe that Absolutely. In fact, the one state case that we saw coming out of New York from district Attorney Alvin Bragg, one of our many favorite rogue prosecutors at the Heritage Foundation, who loves to selectively enforce the law. Those were 34 State Counts and the Unconstitutional Jury Instructions and the Judge malfeasance top to bottom gives his entire defense team a whole host of issues to argue on appeal in New York State. Then on On top of that, you've got these other two federally impacted cases with an unconstitutional special attorney. That one will fail in New York. Then you've got the Georgia case that's also still pending. That one will fail because the claims are the same. Every which way from Sunday, I think this man is going to, and rightly so, I would argue, walk free.Good news for Trump. That ends up being the case. Speaking of the Supreme Court and this seismic role they've already played here, we're also hearing that President Biden has some proposals that would have some massive impacts on the Supreme Court going forward. What are we hearing about what President Biden wants to do?Yeah, this just broke, and it's a shocking but none too surprising development, I think, and it's the last gasp of a desperate political campaign. President Biden has made a comment that he is about to propose term limits on Supreme Court justices and what he calls an enforceable code of ethics. Now, Two things. First of all, term limits would be exactly what I think some would argue based on how old our current president is. Number one, number two, it calls into question the impartiality of the judiciary, the one, the non-political branch our founders established. In addition to that, the justices are already subject to a code of judicial ethics. In fact, they have to report on the workings of the judiciary to Congress at the end of every year. This is much sound and fury signifying nothing, I would say, to quote the poet. I think we're probably going to see a lot of political commentary about this, but it's a sign of desperation. I don't think it's a good look for him.What are the chances of any of these proposals actually going through?It would be very difficult because it would require two-thirds of both chambers. Knowing that the Republicans do have a slim majority in the House right now, it is unlikely that they will get two-thirds of both chambers before Something like this could be ratified. For sure.Final question. Let's go to California for a second. Talk about Gavin Newsom, who just signed a bill into law that will bar schools from telling parents if their child chooses to identify as another gender under Elon Musk announced Tuesday that he's moving two of his companies out of the state. I applaud him. In response in part to that law. Legally speaking here, what options do parents in California have now?That's a great question. I can say on its face, the law is unconstitutional. I've written a lot about these particular policies, and the problem is because they are wiggled in through the back door, many of these have not been successfully challenged because they are established as school administration and not school active orientation. That's a real problem for some of the plaintiffs so far. Now that we have this as Allah, parents can present a facial challenge based on the law's unconstitutionality. But here's the problem. To To do that, you need a plaintiff with standing. That means there's a parent somewhere that is going to have to essentially experience the pain of knowing that their child is being socially transitioned behind their back without their knowledge before they can go Now I have standing. I have an injury sufficient to bring this into court. That's, I think, the saddest part about it.It's a tragedy. It has to proceed the complaint. But maybe this is a bridge too far than the Democrats have just established. Sarah Partzel-Perry, thank you so much for joining us. Great to see you in person. We'll have you on again very soon.Thank you so much.That was Sarah Partzel-Perry, and this has been an extra edition of MorningWire.

to directly impact what happens next with President Trump. First of all, of course, in Trump versus United States, the Supreme Court determined that a president enjoys presumptive immunity for any act at the outer perimeter of his official duties. That one's going to have a significant impact because just about everything that's now been claimed by all of the individual very partisan prosecutors in these cases is something that presumptively was an official act. That's number one. Then the other one was a case called Fischer versus United States. Remember, that was a series of January 6 defendants, and they were all charged with obstruction of justice. But the statute under which they were charged was actually related to obstruction of justice by use of things or documents. And so the Supreme Court said, We're sorry, that's a little too expensive a reading, and it's not supported by the statutory context or history here. So both of those will have an impact. Now, on top of that, you've determined out of the Florida Federal Circuit Court that you've got this unconstitutional appointment of Jack Smith, and it looks like just about everything now is going to fail.

So let's put a finer point on that. Do you believe that the lawful effort against Trump at this point, the cases that have been brought, are they all going to collapse?

I do. I believe that Absolutely. In fact, the one state case that we saw coming out of New York from district Attorney Alvin Bragg, one of our many favorite rogue prosecutors at the Heritage Foundation, who loves to selectively enforce the law. Those were 34 State Counts and the Unconstitutional Jury Instructions and the Judge malfeasance top to bottom gives his entire defense team a whole host of issues to argue on appeal in New York State. Then on On top of that, you've got these other two federally impacted cases with an unconstitutional special attorney. That one will fail in New York. Then you've got the Georgia case that's also still pending. That one will fail because the claims are the same. Every which way from Sunday, I think this man is going to, and rightly so, I would argue, walk free.

Good news for Trump. That ends up being the case. Speaking of the Supreme Court and this seismic role they've already played here, we're also hearing that President Biden has some proposals that would have some massive impacts on the Supreme Court going forward. What are we hearing about what President Biden wants to do?

Yeah, this just broke, and it's a shocking but none too surprising development, I think, and it's the last gasp of a desperate political campaign. President Biden has made a comment that he is about to propose term limits on Supreme Court justices and what he calls an enforceable code of ethics. Now, Two things. First of all, term limits would be exactly what I think some would argue based on how old our current president is. Number one, number two, it calls into question the impartiality of the judiciary, the one, the non-political branch our founders established. In addition to that, the justices are already subject to a code of judicial ethics. In fact, they have to report on the workings of the judiciary to Congress at the end of every year. This is much sound and fury signifying nothing, I would say, to quote the poet. I think we're probably going to see a lot of political commentary about this, but it's a sign of desperation. I don't think it's a good look for him.

What are the chances of any of these proposals actually going through?

It would be very difficult because it would require two-thirds of both chambers. Knowing that the Republicans do have a slim majority in the House right now, it is unlikely that they will get two-thirds of both chambers before Something like this could be ratified. For sure.

Final question. Let's go to California for a second. Talk about Gavin Newsom, who just signed a bill into law that will bar schools from telling parents if their child chooses to identify as another gender under Elon Musk announced Tuesday that he's moving two of his companies out of the state. I applaud him. In response in part to that law. Legally speaking here, what options do parents in California have now?

That's a great question. I can say on its face, the law is unconstitutional. I've written a lot about these particular policies, and the problem is because they are wiggled in through the back door, many of these have not been successfully challenged because they are established as school administration and not school active orientation. That's a real problem for some of the plaintiffs so far. Now that we have this as Allah, parents can present a facial challenge based on the law's unconstitutionality. But here's the problem. To To do that, you need a plaintiff with standing. That means there's a parent somewhere that is going to have to essentially experience the pain of knowing that their child is being socially transitioned behind their back without their knowledge before they can go Now I have standing. I have an injury sufficient to bring this into court. That's, I think, the saddest part about it.

It's a tragedy. It has to proceed the complaint. But maybe this is a bridge too far than the Democrats have just established. Sarah Partzel-Perry, thank you so much for joining us. Great to see you in person. We'll have you on again very soon.

Thank you so much.

That was Sarah Partzel-Perry, and this has been an extra edition of MorningWire.