CBS and NBC showed welcome restraint their Special Reports Friday morning about the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA concerning universal, nationwide injunctions by individual district court judges, refusing to take the leftist talking points about it being DEFCON-1 for illegal immigrants and birthright citizenship.

In contrast, ABC pointed out the ruling had nothing to do with revoking birthright citizenship, but nonetheless played up alleged confusion and complained the Trump agenda might finally go forward without far-left judges playing president and setting nationwide policy.

Weekend Good Morning America co-host Whit Johnson even admitted the case was “not as straightforward as I think a lot of people were perhaps expecting or hoping to hear,” but Supreme Court reporter Devin Dwyer — who’s set to take on a high-profile role in judiciary matters with Terry Moran’s firing — portrayed doom ahead for illegals:

[T]he President can in the next 30 days begin to develop guidelines for how he would implement [ending birthright citizenship]. It does not mean, however, Whit, that this executive order is free from future legal challenge...It’s going to be messy. It cannot apply to those particular pregnant women that are challenging this. But elsewhere in the country and at the very least in the planning stages, the president can move forward and that is a significant and surprising win for him.

Thankfully, The Dispatch’s Sarah Isgur came on right after and made it clear the ruling had nothing to do with axing birthright citizenship

Johnson went back to Dwyer, who extrapolated this could bode ill for others on the receiving agenda of other Trump initiatives, including federal workers:

Later, Dallas-based correspondent Mireya Villarreal closed out the Special Report with what she’s hearing from what Johnson dubbed “immigration attorneys and advocates.” She admitted that, despite the facts of the ruling, illegal immigrants will be scared:

Dwyer and Villarreal then continued on ABC News Live immediately afterward. The former went full woke on the pronouns front

For Villarreal’s part, she doubled down on the belief that “it does seem like this could be a win for the administration because basically, you know, the justices are saying you can move forward on the injunction part of this, on the planning part of” birthright citizenship and “most people” won’t “understand the process here” and go immediately to the worst-case scenario.

“So, the bigger concern for both immigration attorneys and nonprofit organizations is this could really create chaos in the next 30 days or so and not just for immigrant communities...[W]e’re talking about, you know, the — the people who will be affected by this directly hospitals...[T]his will put a huge burden on those you know, organizations like hospitals that are going to have to directly deal with this exact issue,” she added.

Host Diane Macedo doubled down on Dwyer’s “pregnant person” stupidity:

Trump-hating correspondent Rachel Scott and ABC News legal contributor James Sample further pulled on the fear thread and overturning centuries of precedent from the 14th Amendment (click “expand”):

MACEDO: Rachel, again, this doesn’t now mean that birthright citizenship is over in the U.S., but it does give the administration permission essentially to move forward, so what does that look like? What is it they’re going to be putting into place now?

SCOTT: Well, I can imagine that the administration will feel very emboldened coming out of this. They will definitely feel as if the Supreme Court is on their side at least on this issue of them pursuing and trying to implement birthright citizenship, but also during these oral arguments again, you had the conservative justices on the bench really leave some clues about some questions that they could have if this issue of the merits of birthright citizenship comes before the Supreme Court, as we do expect eventually one day it actually will. And during those oral arguments we heard from Justice Brett Kavanaugh really questioning, okay, well how will this go into effect? What happens in hospitals? How do doctors respond? How do states actually implement this? And so, I can imagine now coming out of this too you’ll have the administration and the Justice Department really going back through a lot of those questions and trying to get their ducks in a row for if this issue comes before the Supreme Court yet again. But, broadly speaking here, the administration right now will also likely be looking at other issues, other cases that were blocked by lower district court judges and really be trying to see how broad this ruling from the Supreme Court is and whether or not it applies to those as well, Diane.

MACEDO: And James, what does that process now look like in terms of — this was a ruling about nationwide injunctions and the constitutionality of those, how do we then get to is the order itself constitutional?

SAMPLE: Well, it’s a good question and as Devin said, that process is going to take some time. It is going to take some — some time to brief the merits, as they say, and really consider you know, when we talk about birthright citizenship, it’s in the 14th Amendment and the controlling judicial precedent from the Supreme Court is a decision wait for it — from 1898. So, we’re talking about uninterrupted in constitutional precedent of the Supreme Court for 127 years and that’s after — that’s from the date from the decision, not from the amendment itself. It’s going to take some time. And you know, Justice Sotomayor — Sonia Sotomayor is still reading her dissent. This is an extraordinary thing in the Supreme Court when it takes this long to take reading aloud. The dissent is a — it’s a sort of tradition and a form of indicating that you’re not just dissenting but you’re angry. And in her written dissent, one of the passages that is pretty profound and speaks to the scale and scope of this decision. She writes: “The rule of law is not a given in this nation nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch” — I think that’s a nod to Congress — “fights for its survival.”

Villarreal also predicted protests (read: riots) in major U.S. cities in support of illegal immigration like we saw last month in Los Angeles (click the tweet to read the full quote):

Just after 11:00 a.m. Eastern and President Trump’s subsequent press briefing, Villarreal weighed in with one more angle, saying “[t]he concern for immigration attorneys more specifically is this is really going to deter people from getting the representation that they need in courts because really that costs money” in addition to “creat[ing] more fear in immigrant communities.”

In contrast to this hubbub, CBS’s Jan Crawford and NBC’s Laura Jarrett took to their network special reports to, in essence, tell everyone to calm down.

Crawford made this clear the moment she was given the floor by CBS Mornings co-host Tony Dokoupil:

She doubled down and even 

Jarrett blatantly told viewers no one was going to suddenly lose their citizenship:

To see the relevant ABC transcript from June 27, click here.