MS NOW host Jen Psaki welcomed NAACP general counsel Kristen Clarke to Tuesday’s edition of The Briefing to help her make sense of the day’s Supreme Court rulings. When it came to the ruling that upheld state laws prohibiting males from competing in women’s sports, Clarke not-so subtly suggested the ruling would contribute to “high rates of suicide and depression.”
Psaki led Clarke by wondering if there was some darker and more sinister plot at work in the Court’s ruling, “Do you—one of the things I've seen out there from some legal experts, but I'm interested in your view, is that this is a—it's not just about this, that this is a slippery slope to potentially go after, you know, something more expansive, the ability, you know, against discrimination of any kind based on gender. What do you think? Is this a slippery slope to a larger objective and goal? What should we be clear-eyed about here?”
Jen Psaki asks NAACP legal counsel Kristen Clarke about the Supreme Court's transgender sports ruling,"What do you think? Is this a slippery slope to a larger objective and goal? What should we be clear-eyed about here?"
— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) July 1, 2026
Clarke claims the ruling was a "awfully, terribly, a… pic.twitter.com/kwsMItnJgZ
Clarke responded by trying to guilt-trip the Court’s conservatives and presumably anyone else who does not want males in female sports, “I mean, what a great ruling on birthright citizenship, but no doubt the transgender sports question that went before the Court came out awfully, terribly, a tremendous setback for the LGTBQ movement in our country, and I think about transgender children who suffer from high rates of suicide and depression and simply want the ability to participate like all other kids.”
Switching topics, Clarke added, “I do think that civil—our civil rights statue and the architecture of our Civil Rights Movement is unraveling quickly. This Trump administration has, you know, turned the clock back when it comes to enforcement of our federal civil rights. I used to lead the Civil Rights Division, which is nothing more than a shadow of its former self. And we have a Court now that is expressing tremendous hostility to civil rights, especially when it comes to voting rights, right?”
She also claimed, “The Calais decision is one of the most consequential and devastating decisions of this Supreme Court term. So, I think it's important that we be vigilant in terms of the work that lies ahead. It's why I think that as we have this conversation, we need to also be talking about the need for Supreme Court reform, the need to figure out how we restore independence and fairness to the Court.”
Despite just praising the birthright citizenship case as a “great ruling,” Clarke claimed “we” need to talk about reforming the Court because it just isn’t neutral, “We need to be talking about term limits, a ban on the shadow docket, and a way to ensure that the Supreme Court is once again a neutral place, so that when these questions about constitutional interpretation and about our civil rights laws and how they should be interpreted and applied go before those nine justices, we can have confidence that we're getting a fair, a fair outcome.”
By "neutral," Clarke really means “a Supreme Court that agrees with me.” Outcomes she agrees with are “great,” but are to be quickly forgotten as outcomes she doesn’t like are supposedly leading to suicide and depression.
Here is a transcript for the June 30 show:
MS NOW The Briefing with Jen Psaki
6/30/2026
9:16 PM ET
JEN PSAKI: Do you—one of the things I've seen out there from some legal experts, but I'm interested in your view, is that this is a—it's not just about this, that this is a slippery slope to potentially go after, you know, something more expansive, the ability, you know, against discrimination of any kind based on gender. What do you think? Is this a slippery slope to a larger objective and goal? What should we be clear-eyed about here?
KRISTEN CLARKE: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, what a great ruling on birthright citizenship, but no doubt the transgender sports question that went before the Court came out awfully, terribly, a tremendous setback for the LGTBQ movement in our country, and I think about transgender children who suffer from high rates of suicide and depression and simply want the ability to participate like all other kids.
I do think that civil—our civil rights statue and the architecture of our Civil Rights Movement is unraveling quickly. This Trump administration has, you know, turned the clock back when it comes to enforcement of our federal civil rights. I used to lead the Civil Rights Division, which is nothing more than a shadow of its former self. And we have a Court now that is expressing tremendous hostility to civil rights, especially when it comes to voting rights, right?
The Calais decision is one of the most consequential and devastating decisions of this Supreme Court term. So, I think it's important that we be vigilant in terms of the work that lies ahead. It's why I think that as we have this conversation, we need to also be talking about the need for Supreme Court reform, the need to figure out how we restore independence and fairness to the Court.
We need to be talking about term limits, a ban on the shadow docket, and a way to ensure that the Supreme Court is once again a neutral place, so that when these questions about constitutional interpretation and about our civil rights laws and how they should be interpreted and applied go before those nine justices, we can have confidence that we're getting a fair, a fair outcome.
