Speaker 1: Breaking news just coming in to us here at CNN. A judge says he will block President Trump's executive order ending the constitutional right to birthright citizenship. CNN's Joan Biskupic is following these developments for us and joins me now. So, Joan, some pretty clear language from this judge.

Speaker 2: Definitely, Erica, and it was just a few minutes ago I was there with you on set saying the hearing had just started but also saying that this is a really steep hill for the Trump administration to climb to try to enforce this executive order against birthright citizenship. And what the judge just said today from the bench is, I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one. And he said that the birthright citizenship executive order that Donald Trump signed within hours of taking the oath of office for the second time is blatantly unconstitutional and he's going to temporarily block that order. So first of Donald Trump's many missives that he took on Monday and that he took on Tuesday, this is the first one that's been blocked. But it's also the one that is, frankly, at this point, Erica, predictable because this order that would negate more than a century of protection for anyone born in the U.S. to become a citizen, it really does fly in the face of precedent, Erica.

Speaker 1: Joan, really appreciate it. Thank you. Sure. Let's discuss this and much more with Don Bacon of Nebraska, the congressman joining me now from Capitol Hill. Congressman, good to have you with us. So I hope that you could hear Joan in your ear there. The breaking news that we're just getting is that this was a steep hill, as Joan put out, but the judge there saying that it is blatantly unconstitutional and has now blocked President Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. I'm just curious your reaction to that.

Speaker 3: I suspect it is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's ruled on this decades and decades ago. I assume it's probably going back to the Supreme Court. But I think if the president wants to get this resolved the way he wants to, we'll have to require a constitutional amendment, I believe. This has been ruled on many years ago, decades ago, and I think we'll probably go down the same path.

Speaker 1: How much support do you think there would be in Congress to take a look at it?

Speaker 3: Well, I think when the 14th Amendment was done, I don't think people assume that a lot of folks would travel here to have babies, to have citizenship, and I know that's exaggerated, but it does happen. So I think there's probably going to be some support for trying to revise what the 14th Amendment did. As for myself, I'd rather be a good listener for a while, take the pros and cons, but this will probably be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and if we want to fix it, it will have to be a constitutional amendment.

Speaker 4: A federal judge has rejected President Donald Trump's executive order banning birthright citizenship. The judge called the order blatantly unconstitutional and says he's issuing a temporary restraining order to block it. Now, the lawsuit challenging the order was brought by the state of Washington, Oregon, Illinois, and Arizona, and more than a dozen other states have also sued, trying to stop the ban. If Mr. Trump got his way, most children born in the U.S. to foreign parents wouldn't automatically be American citizens. It is part of the new White House immigration crackdown, but birthright citizenship is currently guaranteed by the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, and as of right now, it remains very much the law of the land. I want to bring in Corey Brett Schneider, a professor of political science at Brown University, and author of the book The President and the People, Five Leaders Who Threaten Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It. Brett, you're just the person we need to try and make sense of what is going on here, but let's start with, first of all, Corey, this pushback, this breaking news, right? Breaking news, this judge rejecting Trump's executive order. A sign of things to come, you think, Corey?

Speaker 5: Well, it's hard to predict. It's certainly the right thing to do, and I couldn't agree more with what this judge says. This is a blatantly unconstitutional executive order. The 14th Amendment says very clearly, if you were born in the United States, you are a citizen, and so by executive order, you can't revoke the Constitution, and yet that's what Trump is trying to do here. Now, why would he do such a thing? I think it's part of his authoritarian playbook, his wannabe authoritarian playbook, to say, hey, I'm the president. I don't have to follow the Constitution. I could essentially revoke it with an executive order, and I dare you, the Supreme Court, which ultimately will decide this, to defy me.

Speaker 4: And, Corey, it's not so much why he would do it at this point, but just for our viewers around the world, can he do it? Can he, with a stroke of a pen, basically change the Constitution?

Speaker 5: Absolutely not. The way the system is supposed to work, and the law works, is that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and an executive order can't just say, hey, I don't like this part of the Constitution. For instance, he couldn't have an executive order that just revoked the First Amendment guaranteeing the freedom of speech, and yet he is doing it, and the people who are going to decide whether or not he can, as a matter of course, get away with it are the Supreme Court, and that includes three people who he's nominated, and who he regards as really his judges. Now, what should they do? Absolutely, they should say this is unconstitutional. They should push back as hard as they can, and even if they don't, even if they bow to this wannabe authoritarian, the fact is, legitimately, it should not stand. The Constitution stands above any act of a president.

Speaker 4: So how do you think, then, Corey, is he going to navigate these legal challenges? Because there is an argument playing out, and I'm not sure if there's much truth to this, maybe you can flesh this out for us, that the Trump team may try to argue a new reinterpretation of the clause subject to jurisdiction of the United States, right? Flesh this out for us. What are the chances here? What will the argument be on that part of the statement?

Speaker 5: That's absolutely right. And there's a case, for instance, called Wong Kim Ark, that says, look, there are exceptions to this idea that being born in the United States makes you a citizen, but they're very narrow. They include, for instance, children of ambassadors, or at the time, given the very different set-up that we had in the United States, that was the exception anyway. And there was an exception in some cases, too, for Native Americans. But that case, Wong Kim Ark made it clear at the same time that absent those very narrow exceptions, there's a broad protection for people born in the United States as citizens. And what he's going to try to do is really make it up and say that this language of jurisdiction doesn't apply if there are children of undocumented people in the United States. That is not a good argument. It's not one that serious legal scholars back, but it might be one that the court goes along with, unfortunately.

Speaker 4: Corey, appreciate it. I have a feeling you and I will be talking quite a bit about this in days ahead. And, of course, next time you can just call me Suarez. I was about to call you Brett Schneider as a first name. So feel free to call me Suarez so that we're even. Thanks very much. Appreciate it. Thanks, Corey.