The MAGA Supreme Court's Assault on America

[00:00] Aufgepasst! Die weltweiten Ausgaben für Podcast-Werbung haben die Marke von 5 Milliarden Dollar erreicht. Oxford Road arbeitet mit führenden Marken aus sämtlichen Branchen zusammen. Laut Podscribe schalten drei der weltweit fünf größten Podcast-Werbetreibenden ihre Kampagnen über uns. Wir bieten eine kostenlose Beratung zur internationalen Audio-Strategie an, die Ihnen aufzeigt, wo Ihre Zielgruppe weltweit zuhört. Besuchen Sie com, um loszulegen. [00:30] Musik [00:49] Welcome to Pod Save America, I'm Dan Pfeiffer. You're about to hear a great conversation I just had with Leah Lippmann, a law professor, co-host of Crooked Media Strict Scrutiny, [00:56] und author of Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievances, [00:59] Fringe Theories and Bad Vibes.

[01:01] Wir haben uns über die Worte zu verabschieden, die die Trump-Altretienste zu verabschieden sind, was er machte Leahnzinschie über die Zukunft auf birthrighte, und die Geschichte von Roe v. Wade, die in der Räste zu verabschieden, wie es in der Räste zu unseat Susan Collins in Maine ist. Wir haben uns über die andere Entscheidungen, die wir uns zu verabschieden haben, die wir uns über die Wählerne zu verabschieden haben, die wir uns über die Wählerne zu verabschieden haben, die wir uns über die Wählerne zu verabschieden haben. [01:18] Trans Participation in Sports and the Independence of the Federal Reserve.

It was a great conversation and we'll get to it in a minute. But before we do, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to Friends of the Pod. Subscribers get access to ad-free episodes of Pod Save America, subscriber-only shows like Pod Save America Only Friends and my show, Polar Coaster, and discounted tickets to Crooked Media events, including this fall's Crooked Con. Plus, it's the best way to support independent pro-democracy media. Head to com slash friends to subscribe today. Also, check out my Substack newsletter, The Message Box, which is where I share all of

[01:48] Most In-Depth Takes. And I have a special deal for Pod Save America fans. Sign up now at com slash YesWeDan. Get 20% off your subscription for an entire year. That's com slash YesWeDan. All right, here's my conversation with Leah Lippman. [02:02] Leah Littmann, welcome back to Pod Save America. Thanks for having me. Under these great circumstances. So originally when we scheduled this, we thought there was a chance the Supreme Court would have released all of its big monumental decisions at the end of this quarter. Per usual, Sam Alito, John Roberts have screwed up our best laid plans, but they have released a number of very important decisions that I want to talk to you about.

And then I want to talk about the decisions that are looming, that are doomed to possibly ruin many people's 4th of July break. [02:32] I think has the most impact for the most people. Can I just start with the timing point? Please, please do, please. Okay, because it's not just that you thought they would finish by the end of this week. It's that traditionally and historically, the court has finished releasing opinions and argued cases before the holiday week. And these guys have one fucking job. And they're not even doing that, right?

[03:02] Which is important for many reasons, but... [03:12] Primär für Podcast-Recordung. Exactly. Yes. Exactly. Super inconvenient. Okay. So this is an important point to make. I'm glad you made that point. I want to start with a case that I think has the most impact on the most people. This is the 6-3 decision. Everyone listening can guess who the 6 and who the 3 are. That will allow the Trump administration to rescind temporary protective status for 350,000 Haitian immigrants. This case is about a lot of things. It's a big deal. [03:42] what the ruling says.

Oh my gosh, this case is so maddening. I have just become angrier about it with every passing hour. So the case involved actually two different revocations of the Temporary Protected Status Program. And TPS is a method where the executive branch can offer immigration relief to individuals who undergo a rigorous vetting process who are from certain [04:12] be horrific because of conditions in those countries. And so Haiti was one such country after devastating natural disasters coupled with the basic failure of the government. It's super dangerous to be in Haiti. And so temporary protected status was offered, so too, with respect to Syrian nationals.

And so early on in the Trump administration, fall 2025, Kristi Noem says, we are just going to end these TPS programs for individuals from [04:42] in several different countries and those decisions [04:47] Und die Programme war es, und diese Fälle zu den TPS für Haitian Nationals und Syrien Nationals. Bei Statuen, Congress, weil der Importante der TPS Programme zu Menschen, die Struktur der Lebenserraum, um die Arbeit in den USA zu leben und arbeiten, die die Executive Branch zu unternehmen, um die Struktur der TPS-Bahn zu leben. [05:07] A fairly rigorous process before deciding to end TPS.

And specifically, the executive branch had to consult among different agencies to determine that conditions in that country were indeed sufficiently unabhängig. [05:20] dass TBS was justified. Und da ist almost no question dass die Trump-Administration nicht so gemacht. Mit respect zu Haiti in particular, emails suggest that die Department of Homeland Security asked die State Department to weigh in about conditions in Haiti und dann went ahead und canceled TBS bevor State Department even weighed in. Das ist nicht eigentlich consultation. Und ich glaube, dass ich nicht argument auf das Punkt. [05:50] vile, horrible, grotesque things about Haitian nationals.

And it sure looks like they decided to end TPS not because conditions in Haiti had changed, but because the president just wanted to fulfill Stephen Miller's white supremacist immigration dreams. And so those were the challenges that the Trump administration violated statutes by not following the required processes and violated the Constitution by implementing this policy out of racial animus, discriminating on the basis of race. [06:20] Amalito was like, I don't care, do you? On the statutory arguments, he said, who cares whether or not they complied with a statute courts can't review, whether they violated the statute or not.

That's a new finding, right? That is a new finding. [06:36] Entirely new rule. For decades, it has been understood that even though the statutes don't allow courts to second guess the secretary's determination, ultimate determination about whether to end TPS, they do allow courts to ensure that the secretary followed the required process to ensure sound decision making. [07:06] Das ist ja, die Bremseleinheit. [07:13] Mark Wayne Mullen could stand up tomorrow and say, we're not going to follow these statutes. And there's not a thing that courts could do about it in light of that ruling.

I want to get to the comments in a minute and the racial animus points. I think that's very important and really plays a big role in why the decision is so maddening and the opinion by Elita is so maddening. But what is the reason? You know, it seems like a pretty basic thing. Congress writes laws. The executive must follow said laws. If the executive does not follow those laws, someone who is standing sues. [07:43] Sie müssen nicht die Verlangen. [07:45] Ist das etwas, dass sie eine Inherenten Autorität der Präsidenten von Immigration finden?

Was ist die Basis für sagen, die "Lawen nicht apply" auf diese bestimmte Sache? [07:53] Es ist so wild zu hören, dass das, weil das, die sich die Themen, um die Korte des Decenzen von der letzten Woche zu verabschieden, dass die Leute, die die Korte verabschieden, können nicht so etwas tun, können zu schützen in der Korte. So hier, der Rationale war, Congress hat eigentlich decided to impose diese Regeln auf die Executive Branch und zu foreclose die possibility that Korte could review, whether die Executive Branch nicht. [08:21] So they put the decision at Congress's feet rather than saying the Constitution doesn't allow courts to review those determinations.

[08:32] So now let's get to the racial animus point and why that matters here. Because I think for people who have been following this saga for a long time, the Haitian immigrants are the ones that Trump and D. Vance and the entire MAGA media accused during the 2024 campaign of eating the pets in Ohio. Yes. That's what we're talking about here, right? Well, and it wasn't just that. It is the president said people from Haiti have AIDS. He called it a shithole country. He said they were Haitian nationals poisoning the blood of the country.

[09:02] Ja. [09:02] Bunch of racist, vile remarks. And Sam Alito does not even have the backbone to recite those remarks in his opinion. He just declares they're not overtly racial. I have no idea what that means, given that the president also said he wanted to admit more people from Sweden and Norway. [09:32] Opposition to Immigration Policy, which makes no sense. And also, in any case, I don't understand why that would be constitutional. And if he cannot bring himself to recite the remarks of the person who he's saying isn't racist, I think that's a pretty big indication that maybe the person is racist and saying racist things.

But he just kind of said nothing to see here. And... [09:57] was die Präsidenten und gesagt hat. [10:01] Und so, das heißt für [10:04] Die Menschen sind in der Hälfte, aber auch in der Hälfte. [10:34] St. Louis, Los Angeles. But Syria seems like a harder case to make that this is a totally safe and fine place to go back to. I mean, I think Haiti is a really tough place. I mean, I think maybe even tougher than Syria, actually. Yes, exactly. And so this would be the largest de-legalization of, [10:54] in United States history.

So while these cases specifically are about Haitian nationals and Syrian nationals, the Trump administration has attempted to end temporary protected status for individuals from other countries, including Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and more. You know, when Trump took office, there were more than a million people living in the United States with temporary protected status. And suddenly all of those people potentially lose their legal authorization to remain in the United States. And your point about check-ins just drives home [11:24] Die Leute sind diejenigen, die die Menschen, die die Menschen, die die Menschen, die die [11:27] Die Immigration Rules.

Sie unterwenden diese... [11:30] Sie machen die Check-Ins mit dem Immigration-Aufsers. Und so jetzt die Federal-Gövernement weiß, wer sie sind. [11:37] Und er ist, dass sie die Kagan auf den Weg gebracht hat. [11:52] was die Supreme Court ist, [11:57] allowing and inviting the Trump administration to do. So for the non-Syrians, non-Haitians who have protective status, like you mentioned, Venezuelans, we're also talking about people from Afghanistan, many of whom fled after the fall of the Afghani government, people who helped the American military and diplomats there, talking about Ukrainian refugees, all these other groups, can the Trump administration now just sign a piece of paper and remove their TPS or go through the fake process if they don't even have to go

[12:27] 1.2 million or whatever it is, people potentially being deported? Potentially, yes. And there have been cases challenging the rescissions of the other temporary protected status programs as well. But in light of this decision telling courts they can't review any of the statutory claims and excusing the president's gutter racism, it's going to be really hard for any court to pause those rescissions. [12:49] Great. So this is not this is honestly truly terrible. And so then we have in a second we had a second. [12:56] Immigration decision that came down. Now, this one is less immediate in its consequences and it hinges, as I understand it, on the meaning of the word arrive in immigration law.

Can you explain? This is another 6-3 with the typical 6 and the typical 3 decision. Can you explain what's going on in this case? [13:26] Klaim Assessed in [13:29] eine Legitimit-Process- und Procedure. [13:32] Was die Supreme Court gesagt ist, an individual doesn't arrive in the United States und, therefore, they aren't entitled to claim asylum oder have their asylum claim assessed if they are stopped outside of the physical borders of the United States. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent, this creates a giant loophole. It tells the executive branch, so long as you physically block people from asylum,

[13:57] Und dann? [14:06] Das ist ein bisschen. [14:07] Das war völlig unnachrichtig. Part von was so, ich glaube, heinous, both über die Asylum Case und die TPS Case ist, dass die Supreme Court nicht haben, um sie zu erreichen. Die Asylum Case, die als ein Challenge zu einem Polizist ist, um die Ausstellung zu haben. [14:25] Es war ein Herausforderer, der so-called meteringen policy begann almost ein Jahr ago. Und unter dem policy, die Immigration-Officials würden die Leute und sagen, wir können nicht die Asylums-Ausrümmen-Applicationen. Wenn die Quota für die Nummer von Menschen, die die Begründung auf den Bordern hätte, wurde geschlossen.

Das policy war endet. [14:46] There was not in effect any policy that presented this question about whether the Trump administration could refuse to process asylum applications from people who they stopped outside the border. Instead, the Supreme Court went ahead and just told them, well, we've decided you could do this thing that you may want to do and therefore paved the way for them to implement another callous immigration policy. [15:16] Obama Administration, you would show up and they would say, there are too many people today. We're not going to be able to get to your case.

Come back tomorrow and we will look at your case. And so at that point, it wasn't an attempt to deny them. It was essentially recognizing you've shown up at the door. We can't let you in the door. We're acknowledging you have the right to make your asylum case and we are going to allow you to do that on a different day when there is an actual someone who can hear it, basically. Right? Yes. That was the essential. And so now, this seems like such a [15:46] Das ist ein ganzes Problem.

[16:02] Sneaking across the border. Exactly. And getting caught. And then claiming an asylum case. Then showing up at the front door and asking... [16:10] zu presenten. [16:11] This decision is unhinged. As Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, the consequences are predictable. More people will die. And among the reasons is it creates this incentive for people to try to sneak across the border, because only if they manage to get into the United States borders would they be able to claim asylum. [16:41] und versuchen, eine Asylum Claim zu erzeugen. Es ist sozusagen, um sie zu einem in diese Trafficking Organisations zu machen, um sie zu machen, um sie zu machen.

Das ist so, was es so insane ist. Und so die Net Resulte, der den den Konsequenzen der Menschen, die dann jetzt... [16:57] get injured, get hurt, get killed, are trafficked. You know, young women and children who go to these groups end up in very bad places often and then attempt to get the United States. [17:06] Was ist, dass Stephen Miller einfach nur sagen, die CBP, dass sie nicht in den Kampffern kommen. So wir nicht erkennen, dass sie nicht in den Kampffern kommen. [17:17] Das war's. [17:18] Yes, it does not matter if someone could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they would be persecuted, tortured, killed in their home country.

The administration can just refuse to consider that. Now, in this, I learned from the very excellent Emergency Strict Scrutiny podcast you guys did that came out today? Yesterday? What is today? Time has no meaning anymore. It's June. Friday. I listened to it this morning. Okay. [17:48] Aber dass das, während der Erlösung der Erlösung der Decision, etwas sehr dramatisch und vielleicht nicht mehr als Unprecedented in der Geschichte der Supreme Court ist. Could you lay that out for uns? Es ist nicht entweder Unprecedented, obwohl es sehr rare ist. By tradition, was passiert ist, wenn die Supreme Court releases eine Opinion, die Autor der Majority Opinion will, provide some remarks und offer eine Brief Summary der Fall.

Occasionally, aber nur in rare circumstances, will der Autor der Dissent, [18:16] Dann proceed to summarize their dissent. Und reading portions of your dissent from the bench is reserved for very strongly held dissents where you want to signal a very obvious, strong objection to what the majority has done. So in the asylum case, Justice Sotomayor read portions of her dissent. Okay. [18:38] Und dann... [18:39] Sam Alito proceeded to respond. And having the author of the majority opinion respond after the author of the dissent [18:47] Das ist ein bisschen, was er passiert, vielleicht einmal oder zwei.

Und Justice Alito also intimiert, dass er, hätte er known, Justice Sotomayor würde er summarized mehr von ihr dissent. Er hat noch mehr von ihr dissent, er hätte noch mehr von ihr dissent. Er hätte auch noch mehr von ihr gesagt, weil er wirklich von ihr rebutt all ihrer Argumenten. Und es ist so petulant. [19:09] Und [19:11] *hier* [19:11] Ja, unbefitting a justice. Well, I mean, this is a long pattern of behavior for Samuel Alito, going back to the 2010 Supreme State of the Union, where he was so upset that Barack Obama deigned disagree with the decision to allow corporations and billionaires to buy our political system, that he had to react viscerally and loudly during this.

He basically had to heckle the President of the United States. Exactly. Exactly. You think, right, the Tea Party or whoever else invented heckling at the State of the Union? [19:41] in a no sweet summer child. It was Sam Alito. Yes, a man who clearly has impulse control problems. Exactly. Particularly when criticized perhaps by coincidence. Definition of a judicial temperament. Yes, when criticized by people who by coincidence have to be people of color. Right, yes. Particularly. [20:04] This podcast is sponsored by Squarespace. Squarespace is the all-in-one website platform designed to elevate your online presence and drive your success.

Squarespace provides all the tools you need to promote and get paid for your services in one platform. Whether you offer consultations, events, or other experiences, Squarespace can help you grow your business. Squarespace offers a complete library of professionally designed and award-winning website templates with options for every use and category. [20:34] Vielen Dank. [21:04] Ready to launch? Go to com slash Cricut to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. That's com slash Cricut. [21:13] Pod Save America is brought to you by Sleep Me. Quick question, when was the last time you went to bed before midnight without your phone beaming blue light into your weary little eyes?

Last night. Last night? Nothing, you go to sleep early. Nothing pairs worse with trying to fall asleep than having a full breakdown of the latest news cycle running on a loop in your head. Here's what's happening. The stress, the screen time, it all raises your core body temperature, and a body that's too warm cannot get into deep sleep. [21:34] You're not just tired because the news is exhausting. You're tired because your body never actually recovered from the day. The good news is that you can do something about it, and it's simpler than you think.

Lower your bed temperature. Sure, you could develop better habits of mind. [21:46] Enter ChiliPad 2.0, the water-based mattress topper that actively controls your bed temperature from 55 to 115 degrees all night long. [21:54] All night. [22:05] Das war's für heute. [22:28] Ich liebe... [22:29] Ich habe die 1.0, ich habe die 2.0. Und die 2.0 ist. Und die Bede hat eine Air-Conditioner. Du kannst es warm, wenn du cold bist. Du kannst es warm, wenn du warm bist. Du kannst, was ich ich es wirklich cold bevor ich zu Hause bin und ich bin, und ich bin TV und dann, bevor ich bedreste, ich rauf die Temperature.

Interesting. Denn dann, als ich zu Hause bin, es cool ist, aber dann nicht in der Nacht. [22:53] Okay, that's interesting. [23:19] Okay, another big case happened here. And this one caused a different corner of the internet to be aflame. The Maha corner of the internet is very upset about a [23:29] where the Supreme Court tossed out a suit against Monsanto's parent company involving claims that the weed killer Roundup caused cancer. And this one is interesting because this is not our traditional 6-3 group of the three we know and love and the six we have come to detest in many cases.

This is a 7-2 decision where Kagan and Sotomayor actually were with the majority. [23:59] with, were the ones who dissented. Talk to me about this case, and did the majority get it right in this one? So the case is about the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA. [24:13] FIFRA, as we call it, yes. K. Shaw has called this one of her favorite statutes. I don't know why, but it's a federal law that gives the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the authority [24:29] Das ist, dass die Kostenskarte der Proste für ihre Pestikide zu den EPA und dann die EPA auf dem.

Und die Frage in diesem Fall ist, ob ein Individu kann eine Pestikide manufacturer sagen, dass die Pestikide die EPA hat, die nicht unterhalten, enough information to adequately warn them about the danger of the product. And so here the allegation was... [24:56] Monsanto's product Roundup. [24:58] contains an ingredient that causes cancer, and that's not disclosed on the EPA warning label. And so what the Supreme Court said here is this statute gives the EPA and the EPA alone the authority to determine what goes on a label. And the label can only be changed if the EPA orders a change or if the EPA approves a change.

Private parties, states, they can't impose additional [25:28] was the EPA has... [25:30] Decided is warranted. [25:32] Und so, wo du kommst auf das, als ein Profesor und Legal Scholar, du hast du? Ja, so ich denke, die Korte hat es richtig, in der Part, weil die Agency hat [25:45] Ich glaube, es gibt viel Aufmerksamkeit über die Labels sind, und was geht auf dem. Und ich denke, dass sie sich nicht mehr auf die Stärken sind. [25:54] Das war ein Congressional, die zu prioritär uniformität über andere considerations und [26:18] Wir müssen die Wahl der Wahl der Congress hat.

Ich habe andere Probleme mit der Monsanto-Decision. [26:27] Ich glaube, es ist in der Lage, die anderen Kassen der Korte gemacht hat. Aber ich denke, standen allein, die Korte hat es gut. Und jetzt war das eine bestimmte Case in Missouri. Aber da sind andere Sutes gegen Monsanto aus der da werden, weil es das Tossed aus aus. Exactly. Yes. Und wird das eine Rolle auf den Korte, oder die Abilität der Korte zu verabschieden? [26:49] Or is it pretty specific to this one FIFRA, if I'm saying that correctly? Exactly, yes. FIFRA-related ruling. It's pretty specific to the FIFRA statute itself because the court focused on the fact that Congress in that statute has a provision labeled uniformity.

And in the statute gave the EPA a bunch of authority over all stages of the labeling process. And that's not necessarily going to be true in other statutes. And so, yes, it's going to insulate this set of corporations from this particular type of lawsuit. [27:19] But not beyond that. And could these individuals sue the EPA for the label not being fully... [27:27] fulsome enough to give them what they needed to know to make the right decisions here? Or are these people just kind of screwed? Yeah, so they can file Administrative Procedure Act lawsuits against the EPA and challenge the agency's actions with respect to these labels.

That is not going to get them damages for any harm that they might have experienced because of a failure of these warning labels, but they could try to get the EPA to change them going forward. [27:57] Das ist die Frage, dass die Verwaltungen sind, 1,000,000 in den Roberts-Kurten in den letzten 22 Jahren oder was es ist. Das würde die generalen flavor der objection. Und wenn du die Verwaltungen aus den letzten Wochen aussehen, so Monsanto, corporations can't be sued für labels. [28:18] Das ist ein paar Jahre, die Menschen zu bekommen haben, die Menschen zu bekommen haben.

Das war, die Korte gesagt haben, dass sie nicht für die Corporations-Aberte für die Abitur von human rights-abüsten, die foreign governments verletzten. [28:33] They said corporations, however, can sue foreign governments, namely Cuba, for taking their oil. They said individuals who are incarcerated, they cannot sue state officials who violate their religious freedom rights. They said TPS recipients can't sue to challenge the executive branch for violating their rights under the statute. [29:03] zu reenteren den USA auf der Borde. So, wer wird zu schützen, zu verabschieden, ihre Rights? [29:07] Corporations. You can't sue corporations for violating international law, for potentially violating state tort law.

You can't sue state officials for violating federal law. You can't sue federal officials for violating federal law. And so if you just aggregate all of these decisions together, it's like, okay, who has rights, who doesn't? [29:25] Die Unternehmen, die Unternehmen, die sich nicht mehr so verändern. [29:36] AOC, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, whoever else, from just deciding on day one that they wanted to grant TPS to everyone from, say, Mexico. It's so funny you say that, Dan, because that was actually an argument in the case, that the challengers said, look, if you completely insulate these decisions from review, they can be abused in either direction.

So in one of the final passages of the opinion, Sam Alito suggests, well, look, the plaintiffs [30:06] We're not going to necessarily say those would be unreviewable, but maybe Congress could fix them. And so there was this narrow potential caveat that the court reserved for itself because they view themselves as the ultimate decision maker to potentially say maybe some wholesale abdications might be reviewable. [30:36] found inherited Donald Trump's actions, there was a way for them to stop that from happening. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Perfect, perfect, perfect, perfect. Good, let's make sure, you know, I didn't go to law school, but I'm sort of picking up what's happening here.

I mean, from these decisions, it's not clear Sam Alito did either. Fair enough, fair enough. Okay, let's get to the cases that have not yet been released and will maybe release Monday or Tuesday of next week, we think, we hope, who knows. Do we hope? Honestly, like they're bad things. I mean, I hope for you as someone [31:06] Podcast Schedule, you have to get to, that happens earlier in the week. Better, I would say, for everyone Monday and Tuesday than Monday. [31:13] Thursday. [31:14] Vielleicht. Okay. All right. The biggest one that everyone's waiting for is the one on Birthright Citizenship.

[31:22] *Felz* [31:23] Everyone seems to think that since the Constitution is quite explicit on this, that it would be seemingly impossible for the Supreme Court to do this. You had a piece of the contrarian where you raised some real questions. You have some worries about this. I'd like to hear what those worries are. And I think it also raises some measure of concern that they've been sitting on this. Like this is something they could have done in a one-sentence order a year ago. And we've been waiting and waiting and waiting.

And just based on what I've read and reserved, the fact that they're waiting so long on this at least suggests that there's something going on. [31:53] So what is going on here? Tell me about the case. Tell me about why specifically you have worries about what this decision might say. Yeah, so the case is a challenge to the president's executive order that purports to deny birthright citizenship to some people who are born in the United States, even though the first sentence of the 14th Amendment says all persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be citizens.

[32:23] Es ist mehr sicherer als nicht, dass die Supreme Court will sagen, dass das order nicht beendet ist und es unconstitutional ist. [32:29] But, and this is a big but, the recent immigration decisions are really concerning. The fact that the court adopted such broad reasoning in cases where they didn't have to do so at all, I think is causing some people to rethink their confidence in what the court might do on birthright. I think the delay could also signal that the decision isn't going to be unanimous. [32:59] our constitutional multiracial democracy is.

You know, if you have dissents by Justice Thomas and Alito, is birthright citizenship going to become a new litmus test for Republican appointees where the expectation is, you will only be selected for a judicial seat if you would overrule birthright citizenship, just like you could only be selected for a judicial seat if you would overrule Roe versus Wade. It would also invite, you know, future challenges to birthright down the road. So I think, [33:28] Those are some of the things that are on people's mind. But then there's this additional consideration for me, which is even if the court does the right thing, I mean, they just cannot get all of the credit and all of the plaudits that are inevitably going to be heaped on them for standing up to the president when, as we were just talking about, they bent over backwards to greenlight some of the more xenophobic white nationalist elements of his immigration agenda when they didn't have to [33:58] The need for this case on birthright citizenship and indeed demanded that the federal government bring the case to them when last year in the nationwide injunction case, they refused to just come out and say, even if lower courts can't block this policy on a nationwide basis, we Supreme Court can because it's wildly unconstitutional.

And instead, they made the Solicitor General promise that he would appeal any unfavorable ruling back to them to give them the opportunity to be the hero. [34:28] They were the ones that created this potential opportunity for great PR for themselves that will give them cover for who knows what else they might do in addition to all of the terrible things they've already done. [34:40] Ja, es ist interessant, weil John Roberts ist ein sehr politischer, [34:44] Und er ist nicht ein sehr guter Politiker, aber er ist ein. Ich kann sehen, in seine simple-mindeden view, wo er ist, wir werden alle diese terrible Dinge tun, und dann werden wir in den 4th of July mit diesem Decision, dass wir alle die Liberals who wollen, die die Korte und die Korte und die Korte und die Korte und die Korte und die Korte und die Korte und die Korte und die Korte und die Korte und die Korte und die Korte und die Korte und die Korte und die Korte und die Korte und die Korte und die Korte.

[35:07] Legal pundents who will then applaud John Robertson, he will ride off into the sunset as a hero, right? I mean, you say he's simple-minded and not that great, but the end of your sentence I just think is correct. When the court, if and when the court rules against birthright citizenship, there will be all of those takes. And people talking about how the court has stood up to the president and isn't just in the bag for MAGA and isn't on board with all of Trump's agenda. [35:37] What would you do if Donald Trump could reform the court when he disagreed with it?

There's going to be so much of that. But those takes are why America's most popular and influential Supreme Court podcast exists, right? You, Kate Mussel, will be on that wall fighting back against that. I know that, yes. I mean, we have been screaming about this for over a year at this point. And trust in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low. So don't think you have not put your shoulder to the wheel of history. [36:07] Ja. [36:08] Yeah, send strict scrutiny to more friends challenge. But no, I mean, it's not to say it's going to work, but it is going to generate some of the coverage that they want.

And it's just going to be annoying as fuck when it does. [36:38] Es ist schwer zu finden, [36:39] as plain text as this in the... [36:43] mit als einfach und spezifisch application. Obviously, freedom of speech ist in there, aber dann sind alle verschiedene Applikations. Du kannst es auf. Das ist basically, wenn das passiert, du bist ein. Und Trump administration ist argument, wenn das passiert, du bist ein. Was ist die legal argument jemand könnte, als bullshit und fake as es würde, das würde sagen, dass das Rhebster-Reit-Citisch ist nicht allowed? Das könnte beurteilte oder stopt by ein administration.

Ja. [37:13] So having ventured into the dark recesses of right wing legal circles, I can offer you at least two. One would be to say that [37:23] There is a recognized exception for birthright citizenship that birthright citizenship does not extend to the children of invading armies. If, for example, Canada decided to invade the United States and officers who participated in that invasion had children born in the United States while they did so – [37:43] dann würde sie nicht sein. Und einige auf der Seite haben sie gesagt, dass [37:50] unauthorized immigration is the equivalent of an invasion of the United States, borrowing on great replacement theory and other white nationalist tropes.

And so one possible legal theory is the justices could equate unlawful, unauthorized immigration with an invasion and say children who are born to individuals without legal status in the United States are the equivalent of the children of invading armies. That's one possibility. Another possibility is the court, [38:17] Das heißt, es ist die Verwaltung. [38:32] Part of that exception recognizes that children of foreign diplomats, for example, you know, they are not born as United States citizens, just like children of invading armies aren't United States citizens. [39:02] to the United States, their children can't be citizens.

And so those are two possible avenues. Both are ridiculous and I think rests on underlying racist tropes about who is sufficiently American that birthright citizenship was intended to rebut. That's exactly what Dred Scott versus Sanford did when it concluded that individuals who were descendants of enslaved persons couldn't be [39:32] zu den USA, etc. Aber ich denke, dass das zwei der Theoriese sind, die aufhand sind. [39:39] Das ist sehr dark und sehr disturbing. Und danke für die Darkseid zu haben, zu share das mit uns. [39:46] I think it's also notable that maybe this decision will come out right about the time the United States World Cup team is playing in the knockout round, where the leading scorer of the World Cup team is someone who has their citizenship through birthright citizenship.

Just a fact for that. Now, obviously, if they were to rule this, I know we're in a dark hypothetical place here, would they make it retroactive? [40:16] Aber die Verwaltungen blockieren das vor der Order zu tun. [40:32] They are not citizens. We don't know whether the court would say, no, this just applies prospectively now that we have said it can be enforced. It's all TBD, this new lawless, very uncertain era. It's all up for grabs. [40:53] Pod Save America is brought to you by SimpliSafe. No one wants to imagine their home getting broken into, but the scary statistic is that every 26 seconds in the US, a family experiences a break-in.

Scary, yes, but that's why SimpliSafe has worked to make home security accessible to more American families. Here's one American family right here. Yeah. [41:09] The Lovitz. The Lovitz. The Lovitz, I set up a Simply Safe and incredibly easy to do. You can customize it on the website, it arrives, you set it up in a matter of minutes, base station and the number pad and all the little sensors and then the app is great, the customer support really reliable and it gives you peace of mind. [41:26] Mit SimpliSafe, du kannst du dein System zu verändern.

Das ist schnell, direkt zu deinem Door. Der App-Guide ist einfach. Und da ist keine dringung, so du kannst du install und arm dein System in unter einer Stunde. SimpliSafe ist mehr als nur ein Security-Kammer. Es ist ein komprehensiv System, Indoor und Outdoor-Kammeras, und 24-7 Professional-Monitoring. Über 5 Millionen Menschen, die und vertreten SimpliSafe, mit ihrer Home Security, every day. Right now, unsere listeners will get 50% off ein neues System, wenn du ein neues System, wenn du ein neues System für Professional-Monitoring und dein erstes Monit ist free. [41:56] Das ist kein Seif.

[41:59] Like SimpliSafe. [42:00] Pods of America is brought to you by Willy's Remedy. I love Willy's Remedy. [42:04] Willys ist ein premium THC-infused Social Tonic, crafted by the legendary Willie Nelson, und der Mann ist ein Genius. [42:09] Es ist eine low-calorie, low-sugar-alcohol-alternative, das tatsächlich funktioniert, mit dem Fast-Acting-Euphorik-Social-Buzz [42:15] Without the regrets that come from alcohol. Willy's Social Tonics come in 5mg and 10mg doses. With the best in class flavor experience so smooth and balanced. You barely realize you're drinking a THC product at all. We had Willy's drinks at the wedding.

We called it the Grin and Tonic. [42:28] Ich habe endlich versucht Willy's. Es ist toll. Es ist wirklich. [42:32] Es ist ein sehr gut. Es ist mein Lieferstück. Wir haben ein paar Bälle von einem Bälle. Better than an Edible. [42:40] Hits faster. [42:41] but also smoother. [43:11] für 20% off your first order, plus free shipping on orders over $95.00. [43:15] Und live like a legend. [43:17] com, Code Crooked. [43:18] So, looking at the other cases that are out there, and there's still some pretty big ones. So, there is one involving a ban on trans participation in youth sports.

There is one about whether the president was able to fire Lisa Cook from the Fed board. And then there are two election cases. Am I missing any other big ones out there? Are those the ones? Those are the ones that I would say are the big ones. [43:48] Lisa Cook. There's also a case about whether Trump can fire the head of the Federal Trade Commission and all other independent agencies. They're not joint. They're two separate cases. Okay. Can you maybe explain those two cases for us? Sure. Yeah. So one case involves whether Donald Trump can fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission and all other independent agencies that are [44:13] Die Fertig sind die Einwohnern, wie die Securities und Exchange Commission, oder die Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, oder du name es.

National Labor Relations Board, etc. Der Federal Reserve, oder ist das separate? Well, der Federal Reserve ist das separate. Weil was passiert ist, dass in der Trump-Administration Trump fired a bunch of these heads of multi-member commissions, even though the Supreme Court has a case that's nearly a century old, that says... [44:43] So Donald Trump fired people in violation of these laws, and the Supreme Court said... [44:55] Actually, we'll let him do that while the litigation is ongoing because we Supreme Court have decided to adopt this great new rule. It's called the Unitary Executive Theory, and it means the president gets to have near plenary power to fire people who exercise significant executive power.

But then they added a sentence, accept the Federal Reserve Board, because that has a distinct historical tradition in the tradition of the Bank of the United States. [45:25] of course, illustrated that their new unitary executive rule was catastrophic immediately, once it would be unleashed onto the world, because it would give the president the power to effectively blow up the United States and global economy. But that didn't give them pause. Instead, they just created that bespoke exception. And so what did Donald Trump do? He went ahead and tried to fire a governor of the Federal Reserve Board, because when you give a fascist a cookie, what happens, right?

They try to take another cookie. So then the Supreme Court ended up with [45:55] One set of cases asks, is it constitutional for Congress to attempt to limit the president's ability to fire the heads of these multi-member commissions? That's a hugely important case, because if the court hands the president that power, they will be giving him the power to control these agencies that exercise such sweeping powers over our lives, over government contracts, over whether corporations have to comply with the law. [46:25] They police antitrust law. If you tell the president, you can fire people who don't enforce antitrust law the way you want them to, that's allowing him to give murders to his friends and penalize his enemies.

So that case is super consequential. But they also have that case about Lisa Cook. [46:44] Und das Kass asks, well, given that this statute does limit the president's ability to fire Lisa Cook, did the president comply with those limitations? [46:54] So I don't want the Cook case to kind of obscure the significance of the other case, which will affect every other independent agency. Let me ask a question on the independent agency case. Now, the president gets to a point. [47:07] die Heads der all diese Jobs. Und sie [47:11] oder approved by the Senate.

Mm-hmm. [47:33] Und dann die Frage, die Frage ist, ob die Präsidentin der Präsidentin der Präsidenten der Präsidenten überwird, ob die Regierung nicht hat, ob die Constitutional authority zu hem in das entsprechende executive authority. Exactly. Whether die Constitution entitles die Präsidenten zu sagen, du bist du bist, no matter what Congress ist. Okay. Und dann die possible exception of die Fed, weil es der Unik-Tradition ist. Weil die Justices haben Stock Portfolios. [48:03] sehr close friends who need that money to send him on vacation. Exactly. Private jet fuel. Don't pay for itself, Dan.

[48:13] Okay, sorry, let's get to the trans sports case. This one, if I remember correctly, from the oral arguments earlier this year, seemed quite dire in what we thought the court would read. But maybe talk about that case. And if there's any, you see any hope here. [48:43] und also, wenn die Städte Laws verabschieden die Federalen Constitutions zu gewarren, und die Evalufe von Evalufe. [48:50] Die oral argument in den Kasten war awful. Die lawyer für den federalen government, die in der Tatel-Law-Bans war, was arguing in support of diese Tatel-Law-Bans und gegen trans-Athlete, hat eine der größten Dinge gesagt, dass er immer gesagt hat, an der Supreme Court Lectern, wenn er referred to trans-Athlete als males who take performance-enhancing drugs.

[49:13] Und... [49:14] Ich denke, ich denke, dass die sechs Republican-Appointeisten sind, die diese Staten-Laws sind mit Title IX. [49:24] Die nur die Frage ist, ob sie auch die Städte-Lawen sind, oder ob sie will, instead, send die Kase zurück zu den Lower Court zu entscheiden, dass eine Constitutional-Question, vielleicht mit mit einem weiteren Fact-Finding. Ich denke, das ist die beste wir können für an dieser Stelle. Und [49:43] The other thing to watch for is whether you get separate writings that say not only does Title IX permit states to ban trans athletes from participating in sports, potentially it requires states and schools to ban trans athletes from participating in sports.

So that's kind of the spectrum of possibilities. It's very bleak. [50:05] So we have two major things that go beyond sports participation. One is suggesting that Title IX would require some measure of discrimination against trans people, whether that could be in... [50:20] Anything involving education, right? Funding, scholarships, across the board, right? So that's one. That seems quite bad. And then even worse, I would imagine, is making some case that... [50:34] Ich meine, [50:34] Am I over-reading this, that the net result of unequal protection finding here would be that trans people have no...

[50:42] equal protection rights. Being trans would not guarantee equal protection rights in the way that being [50:48] oder eine Frau oder eine bestimmte religiöse Gruppe. Ja, die dinge ist, die Supreme Court sagt, "Lawes das discriminatet gegen trans people nicht trigger ane kind of meaningful judicial scrutiny." So courts should just defer to governments that discriminate on the basis of gender identity und give those laws a pass. Given die extent to which states and the federal government haben versucht, die trans people zu erasen und strip trans people of ihre rights, das würde es...

[51:18] Das ist eine wirkliche Konzernung, weil es sich für die Fragen oder politische Politik ist, dass die Antitrans in der Tat sind. [51:28] Could Congress then, in a different world, with a different Congress and a different president, do something to address that by passing laws that would guarantee – like either amending Title IX or – like what would a Congress do that would – [51:42] Solve that problem. Potentially, yes. So Congress could enact a statute. Maybe the statute itself just prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity, no matter the context, in school and elsewhere.

Maybe Congress creates a spending program that says, look, if you receive any federal funds, you have to promise not to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. Those are two possibilities. And yet I am left with but the Supreme Court. [52:12] The court would invalidate those laws, maybe saying, well, they exceed Congress's powers. Maybe the court would say, well, those laws actually discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of the federal constitution. You know, maybe the court would say they had another spending clause decision. This is one of the other awful decisions from this week where they basically said spending programs can't be enforced against the state officials who are carrying them out.

So maybe they would make decisions. [52:38] Das ist ein bisschen, was das Geld ist. Aber da sind die Dinge, die die Regierung, die gut ist, braucht eine andere Supreme Court. [52:50] Ja, das ist wahr. Das ist wahr. Das ist wahr. All das. All das. Ja, es ist gestipulatet, agreed to. Wir haben zu dealen mit dem. Ja. [53:20] Und so, talk a little bit about this case, und ob es hat sich die Vorbereitung für dieses Grace Period, für mail-in balloting, in dem Trump ist, [53:28] Sie hat einen Gesetzentwurf order to try to stop the Postal Service from delivering mail-in ballots, although that was stopped by a federal court.

Just talk a little bit about what's going on there. Yeah, so the challenge here, the Republican National Committee says this federal law that creates Election Day as this first Tuesday in November, that prohibits states from counting ballots that are received after Election Day, even if they were postmarked on or by Election Day. [53:58] wie Votes sind, und 29, in den letzten Jahren. Und natürlich, wir sind ein paar Monate weg von den midterms. Ich denke, dass es eine reale Frage, dass es die Regeln der Regeln an dieser Zeit wird, die und die Euregeln der Euregeln in einem wirklich schweren, weil sie bereits begonnen haben, zu vorbereiten, zu vorbereiten, in accordance mit der Regeln der Regeln, und die Regeln der Regeln sind, und die Regeln der Regeln, zu all of a sudden, aufzunehmen, weil sie auf eine Dime, weil sie die Supreme Court nicht mehr, [54:24] So I am very concerned about that case just because of its potential destabilizing.

[54:54] sweeping implications and also because of what it might invite next. If the Supreme Court says states can't count ballots that are received after Election Day, why can states count ballots that are received before Election Day? If Election Day is this magical day that everything is supposed to happen by, why can they count ballots after Election Day even if the ballots were received before Election Day? So part of what is so concerning about this case is it could call into question so many [55:24] für granted, in addition to fucking with the midterms.

[55:27] Und die See change hier, potentially, ist, dass die Quartse