The Supreme Court's biggest tests ahead, with Emily Bazelon

Summary

GZERO World with Ian Bremmer

Episode Summary: "The Supreme Court's Biggest Tests Ahead" with Emily Bazelon

Episode Date: June 6, 2026
Guest: Emily Bazelon, Senior Research Scholar, Yale Law School; Staff Writer, The New York Times Magazine

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, host Ian Bremmer sits down with legal commentator Emily Bazelon to analyze the most significant and consequential U.S. Supreme Court decisions of the year. Together, they assess the Court’s approach to the limits of executive power, its role in key democracy-shaping rulings—especially related to voting rights and administrative agencies—and the mounting doubts about the judiciary’s legitimacy at a time when the Trump administration’s relationship with the courts has grown ever more contentious. Central themes include the mixed record of the Court (particularly on the “shadow docket”), the weakening of institutional congressional power, the future of birthright citizenship, and whether America’s system of checks and balances remains effective.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Judiciary as a Bulwark Against Executive Power

• Emily Bazelon notes the resilience of lower courts as “probably the strongest, maybe the strongest, institution nationally” in countering the Trump administration’s more extreme moves. She highlights that this cross-partisan resistance includes Trump-appointed judges (04:44–05:09).
• Bazelon contrasts this with Supreme Court behavior, critiquing the so-called “shadow docket” where emergency orders have often gone Trump’s way with little explanation.
  • “There are lots of Trump-appointed judges who have ruled against the administration… The record is much more mixed about the United States Supreme Court, mostly because of what we call the shadow docket, the series of emergency orders... most of which have gone in Trump's direction without a lot of explanation at all.” (04:44–05:09)

2. Supreme Court’s Approach to Trump-Era Legal Battles

• On Trump's Tariff Powers: Both agree that the Supreme Court’s rebuke of Trump’s use of national emergency powers for tariffs was important but “obvious”—legally suspect and expected.
  • “I'm hardly scholar of jurisprudence, but anyone looking at IIpa, you know, the idea that you could just use and declare a national emergency to ensure tariffs on any country for any reason, that just never passed the smell test.” — Ian Bremmer (04:00–04:17)
  • “So you don't want to give them too much credit for something that's relatively obvious…” — Emily Bazelon (04:22–04:50)

3. Voting Rights Act & Partisan Gerrymandering

• Bazelon underscores the Supreme Court’s recent dismantling of Voting Rights Act protections—a “long-term project” of Chief Justice Roberts and the conservative majority—and the Court’s refusal to police partisan gerrymandering.
  • “We're seeing redistricting as a result, because now there is no limit at all, really, at least from federal courts, on gerrymandering... This was the latest step in that process, enormously consequential.” (05:09–06:02)
• Impact on Congressional Representation: Bazelon warns of growing polarization, as the House of Representatives becomes less competitive—a blow to the “closest representation to true democracy.”
  • “It is bad for the democracy...to have Congress less competitive, to have Congress more polarized, and to have the kind of regional factionalization we're now going to have.” (06:32–07:35)
• Bremmer and Bazelon discuss whether this shift truly favors Republicans, with Bazelon affirming a slight, structural advantage despite some Democratic gerrymandering efforts (08:50–09:59).

4. The ‘Shadow Docket,’ Administrative Power, and the Court’s Legitimacy

• Shadow Docket Concerns: Bazelon criticizes the lack of transparency and legal reasoning in key Supreme Court decisions on emergency matters (10:17–11:09).
  • “On the shadow docket, we almost always lose all of that aspect of the Court's work.” (10:17–11:09)
• Erosion of Public Confidence: Public belief in the Court has sharply declined, especially since high-profile decisions like Dobbs (end of Roe v. Wade) and rulings perceived as overtly political.
  • “I think the message that the Court was a political institution...really broke through to people.” (11:42–12:57)

5. Judiciary’s Role in Potential Constitutional Crisis

• 2020 Election Case as Precedent: Bazelon credits the judiciary’s decisiveness in rejecting Trump’s challenges to the 2020 election as a sign of resilience, but warns that the Court’s willingness to stand up “depends a lot on the context, the facts of the case” (13:12–14:57).
  • “If Trump does something that's blatantly, transparently illegal, the justices are going to feel... that it's important for them to stop it. But if it's something on the margins … I feel less confident.” (14:10–14:57)

6. Trump Administration’s Approach: Push the Boundaries, Wait to Be Stopped

• Pattern of Overreach: Bazelon observes the administration often acts first, then waits for courts to intervene, due to a lack of internal constraint.
  • “What we are seeing over and over again from the Trump administration is that they just go forward … They wait to be stopped. They do things that are clearly illegal.” (16:02–16:42)
• Justice Department’s Role: Once filled with figures willing to say “no,” the DOJ now acts as a presidential extension.
  • “It's just filled with, at this point, I'll just say yes men, because we have a male attorney general.” (16:56)
  • “But it does feel in this environment that the purpose of the attorney general is to conduct the political bidding and the legal bidding of the president.” — Ian Bremmer (17:13–17:28)
  • “100%. I mean, I think it is very clear Pam Bondi did her best to keep her job by going along with everything she could.” — Emily Bazelon (17:28)

7. Judicial Appointments & the Myth of a ‘MAGA Judicial Movement’

• Conservative Judges Not Always ‘MAGA’: Many Trump appointees, shaped by the Federalist Society, are “super conservative, but they're not hacks.”
  • “They're real lawyers...but they're not hacks. And so, you know, several months ago, Trump started complaining about that breed of judge...‘I want Trump judges, I want people who are going to do what I want all the time.’” (19:30–20:05)
• No Cohesive ‘MAGA’ Judicial Block: Bazelon and Bremmer agree that while a few self-styled “MAGA” judges exist, there’s no established movement—yet. Not even on the Supreme Court.
  • “There are some individual judges who are sort of advertising themselves as Trump's people, as MAGA. And if he does get another Supreme Court appointment...it'll be interesting to see if they're rewarded for very clearly advertising themselves in this way. But you don't have a MAGA Supreme Court Justice.” (20:28–20:52)

8. Upcoming and Pending Supreme Court Cases

• Birthright Citizenship: Both see a Trump executive order to end it as likely to be struck down, given its constitutional basis in the 14th Amendment (22:08–22:22).
• Presidential Power Over Independent Agencies: Bazelon details cases involving Trump attempting to fire high-ranking officials (Lisa Cook at the Fed, Rebecca Slaughter at the FTC) to expand direct presidential control—the outcomes could upend agency independence.
  • “That question of whether Trump can fire Lisa Cook, the court is going to rule on... There’s another related case about Trump’s power to fire commissioners of multi member headed agencies...I think it’s very likely the court will rule in the President’s favor.” (23:19–24:08)

9. The Durability of U.S. Checks and Balances

• Bazelon and Bremmer reflect on whether the U.S. is truly heading for constitutional crisis.
  • “I feel, and tell me if I'm wrong, that you're saying, actually, no, these checks and balances are a little stronger and more durable than a lot of people believe.” — Ian Bremmer (25:00–25:26)
  • “I think that's been true about the judiciary. Another way to think about this is Congress has been so failing on the job that relatively speaking, the courts look good...But I do think these instances in which you see the Supreme Court say no...have been significant and what's really, really mattered have been the lower courts, which have been really just trying to do their job.” — Emily Bazelon (25:26–26:01)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “The lower courts have been a real bulwark...in presenting a counter force to the Trump administration and standing up for the rule of law.”
  — Emily Bazelon (02:44–03:42)

• “This is what Trump decided about the Justice Department when he was president the first time...they reached [the limit]. They were like, we're not going ahead with this. But that we don't have anymore.”
  — Emily Bazelon (16:02–16:56)

• “There really isn't a MAGA judicial movement...There are some individual judges who are sort of advertising themselves as Trump's people, as MAGA.”
  — Emily Bazelon (20:28–20:52)

• “Congress has been so failing on the job that relatively speaking, the courts look good.”
  — Emily Bazelon (25:26–26:01)

---

Key Timestamps

• 02:44–05:09: Lower courts’ strength, mixed Supreme Court record, the “shadow docket”
• 05:09–09:59: Supreme Court and Voting Rights Act, partisan gerrymandering, partisan consequences
• 10:17–11:09: Lack of legal reasoning with shadow docket; transparency concerns
• 11:42–12:57: Declining public confidence in the Supreme Court
• 13:12–14:57: Court’s role in potential constitutional crises/transfer of power
• 16:02–16:56: DOJ as a presidential tool, “yes men,” dynamic of overreach and judicial pushback
• 19:30–20:52: The nature of Trump-appointed judges and the lack of a cohesive “MAGA” judicial movement
• 22:08–24:08: Pending Supreme Court decisions: birthright citizenship, executive control over agencies
• 25:26–26:01: Final thoughts on the resilience of checks and balances

---

Conclusion

Emily Bazelon’s analysis offers a nuanced take on the current state of the American judiciary as it faces historic tests. While the Supreme Court’s decisions—including on the “shadow docket” and voting rights—have accelerated partisanship and fueled public skepticism, the lower federal courts remain a significant check on executive overreach, even from within Trump’s own ranks of appointees. As the nation waits for rulings on birthright citizenship and agency independence, the slow-moving nature of judicial change and the enduring professionalism of many judges provide some reassurance that American checks and balances are bruised, but not yet broken.

Transcript

[A]

Hello, and welcome to the Gzero World Podcast. Here you can find extended versions of my show on public television. I'm Ian Bremmer, and today we are looking at some of the most consequential Supreme Court rulings of the year. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on everything from voting rights to the power of federal agencies. Up next, rulings on birthright citizenship, presidential control of independent agencies, immigrant protections, campaign finance, and other issues that could reshape the balance between executive power and constitutional limits. And of course, there's the tense relationship between the judiciary and President Trump, as courts across the country have tried, with varying success, to check this administration. After a U.S. district Court judge ordered the president's name removed from the Kennedy Center, President Trump called the court system rigged. You've heard that before. But it's not just the president who has problems with the bench. A September 2025 Pew survey found that only 48% of Americans viewed the Supreme Court favorably. That's from 70% just five years earlier. Gallup recorded a 39% approval rating, the lowest since it began tracking the court in 2000. But despite declining confidence, the judiciary does remain one of the few institutions that is willing to confront a president determined to push the boundaries of executive power. So where are those boundaries today? How much power should the courts have to stop a president? And what happens when Americans no longer trust the institutions that are meant to answer those questions? Joining me today, Emily Bazelon. She is senior research scholar at Yale Law School, staff writer for the New York Times Magazine, and one of the country's leading legal commentators. Let's get to it.

[B]

The Gzero World Podcast is brought to you by our lead sponsor, prologis. Prologis helps businesses across the globe scale their supply chains with an expansive portfolio of logistics, real estate, and the only end to end solutions platform addressing the critical initiatives of global logistics today. Learn [e-mail].

[A]

Emily Bazelon, welcome back to the show.

[C]

Thank you so much for having me.

[A]

There's always stuff to talk about with you. Last time, it was concern that you had mounting concern that the judiciary was under siege. Not sure how well it would stand up. We are nearing the halfway mark of the Trump administration. And you would say what?

[C]

I would say that the lower courts have been a real bulwark, probably the strongest maybe institution nationally and certainly the strongest part of our democracy in presenting a counter force to the Trump administration and standing up for the rule of law. And it's been across the board. There are lots of Trump appointed judges who have ruled against the administration when it has taken unreasonable, illegal actions. I think that the record is much more mixed about the United States Supreme Court, mostly because of what we call the shadow docket, the series of emergency orders it has issued, most of which have gone in Trump's direction without a lot of explanation at all. There have obviously been some important moments where the court has pushed back on Trump's tariffs, on his effort to bring the National Guard into Chicago for immigration purposes. But those are really the exceptions, not the rule. We're not finished with this.

[A]

Trade's a really big one, to be fair.

[C]

Totally a really big one. It's a big deal for the Supreme Court to say no to Trump's signature initiative, which Trump made all too clear that he expected them to go along with. Almost like too clear. Right. They had, in some ways less of a choice about.

[A]

I'm hardly scholar of jurisprudence, but anyone looking at iipa, you know, the idea that you could just use and declare a national emergency to ensure tariffs on any country for any reason, that just never passed the smell test.

[C]

Right.

[A]

So I would have been quite surprised if the Supreme Court had not ruled in that direction.

[C]

Totally agree. And so you don't want to give them too much credit for something that's relatively obvious that they kind of had no choice about. Of course, there was a dissent by Justice Kavanaugh, so he made an argument that the president's authority in this context of foreign policy overrode whatever limitations were in ipa. But I think you're right, it was not really a persuasive explanation, and it's very important that the court made that ruling.

[A]

Now, the thing that most surprised me, maybe it shouldn't have, and I'd love to hear from you how important it was and whether it was surprising was the recent decision on the Voter Rights Act. Is that the most consequential sort of surprise from the Supreme Court or not really?

[C]

Well, it's the most consequential decision this year so far. I was not surprised by it because Chief Justice John Roberts has really made a long term project out of weakening and indeed dismantling the Voting Rights Act. And so this was the latest step in that process, enormously consequential. We're seeing redistricting as a result, because now there is no limit at all, really, at least from federal courts, on gerrymandering. And we're seeing the results of that, especially in the south, where longtime seats held by members of the Congressional Black Caucus are now going to turn into Republican Seats mostly held by white people. It's a big shift, but I wasn't surprised by it because I think that there is a strong conservative majority that has been very intent on eliminating protections against race discrimination and saw the Voting Rights act in that context.

[A]

So one interesting point that comes from that. Not really Trump related.

[C]

Not really Trump related. And yet the timing is the Trump administration. So to pick this moment to create no limits at all on partisan gerrymandering means that, again, Congress is being in some ways weakened by the Court. Right. Congress is now in a position where there are going to be fewer and fewer competitive races on both sides because

[A]

the Democrats are going to respond, as we see in New York, for example.

[C]

Exactly. And so even just setting aside, making it easier for Republicans to win Congress, which is where we kind of are in the tallying of the gerrymandering, set that aside. It is bad for the democracy to have Congress less competitive, to have Congress more polarized, and to have the kind of regional factionalization we're now going to have. Right. We are going to have a congressional delegation from the south that is almost entirely Republican. We already have delegations from the Northeast, from the Pacific Northwest that are almost entirely Democrats. And that's not good. That's just not good for knitting the country together. Right.

[A]

I mean, it's not the way the Senate works, not the way governors work, it's not the way state houses work, but it is the House of Representatives. So essentially, you're saying this decision, the most impact, has been weakening the House.

[C]

Yes. Which is called the House of Representatives. It's supposed to be our closest representation to true democracy, and it is now going to be further and further removed from that because of the Supreme Court.

[A]

What's the argument that the majority is using, and how credible is it, in your view, legally, to advance this decision?

[C]

Part of the argument is the idea that things have changed, that the Voting Rights act passed a long time ago, and that because the problems it was initially designed to solve in 1965 have been ameliorated, like black people can now register to vote. You don't have that gap that you had that was, you know, gave rise to the civil rights movement, that those problems have been solved and we can just sort of move on from that. And then a second argument the Court used is this idea that it is not the province of the federal courts to be interfering with how legislatures do their redistricting, that they really should be deciding these things from themselves, and the Court can't figure out how to play a role in that in any kind of fair way. And I think the problem with those arguments are, first of all, Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights act only 20 years ago. So this notion that it's antiquated and that the court should step in to essentially undo the work of Congress, I think is just a really thin argument that seemed politically and ideologically motivated by the conservative majority.

[A]

Now, it is not clear that it's going to actually have an electoral advantage that would accrue to the Republicans. Is that fair to say?

[C]

No, I think actually it will. This particular decision is going to wind up allowing Southern states to district out, to change the maps in a way that, you know, Tennessee has one seat around Memphis, a majority heavily Democratic and heavily black district that's now gonna get broken up. There are gonna be an entirely Republican delegation from Tennessee, and I think we're gonna see that presumably in other states. So this part of the gerrymandering war, the court, I think, put a thumb on the scale for Republicans.

[A]

So. And the Democrats, again, New York was not going to suddenly redistrict immediately. Now that they are, doesn't this just mean that there's just redistricting everywhere at any time by both sides, and so it doesn't really matter, or there is an actual imbalance now in favor of one party?

[C]

I think there is going to be a slight imbalance in favor of Republicans because the Virginia map got struck down. If that map had stayed in place, then I think you would be right, but I think that's how the math ends up working out.

[A]

Interesting. Okay, well, now, you talked about the shadow docket for the Supreme Court. What are the other couple of decisions that have come down that make you more concerned about the Supreme Court as a check on executive power in ways that will get to the lower courts, if nothing?

[C]

So one really important set of decisions has been about the power of Congress to appropriate funds and decide how to spend money, and Trump's effort to undo all of that. So usaid, for example, the court first seemed to check Trump's effort to dismantle that agency and then let it go ahead. Same thing with the Department of Education. I think the court is using kind of excuses to allow the president to do what he wants, but it's really hard to know because it's the shadow docket, and we don't get any reasoning and explanation. And that, I think, is just a problem in itself, because the thing that differentiates the court as a branch of government is that it gives reasons. And you can Decide whether or not you think those reasons hold up, and there's a dissent explaining a different point of view. And on the shadow docket, we almost always lose all of that aspect of the Court's work.

[A]

I've noticed as this is going on, that the level of public support, popular support, belief in the Supreme Court has been going down. Is that a direct response to this? Is it? Everything's getting politicized. The public believed in the Supreme Court even after Bush versus Gore. Right. So, I mean, that was pretty fundamental, right? A partisan decision on the back of an election up for grabs doesn't. Doesn't get any bigger than that. Why is it taking such a toll now?

[C]

So after Citizens United, which made it much harder for Congress to have campaign finance reform, there was a dip, and then the Court largely recovered. Then you get to Dobbs, right? The end of Roe versus Wade. And I think the message that the Court was a political institution, that it had changed its mind about the constitutional right to abortion because there were just more conservative justices and they were going to end Roe, I think that really broke through to people. And I also think you're right that in the last couple of years, decisions that seem like they are against the Voting Rights act on the side of presidential immunity, in the context of a challenge from President Trump, those decisions make the court look nakedly political in a way that people can see and kind of smell. And the justices, on the one hand, they've been trying to defend the court as an institution, right? Chief Justice Roberts, other members of the Court saying, hey, we don't do politics. We get along. But then there are these other signs. They're very sharp and directly confronting each other in opinions. And sometimes that's been true in their public remarks. So I think there's also a way in which, if you're paying attention to the Court, it looks like the institution is fraying on the inside.

[A]

What are the indications that we should be looking for, for that the next time there is a potential constitutional crisis, specifically around transfer of power, that the Supreme Court will or will not be able to stand up as a break?

[C]

The best argument that the Court will do that job is the way it responded to challenges to the 2020 election. Right. TRUMP really tried to get the courts to come in on his side, basically virtually unanimously. Lower courts in this country said no to those election challenges.

[A]

And the Court, they threw a lot of them out.

[C]

They threw them out. It was a really powerful and very important kind of consensus statement of the judiciary. And the Supreme Court stayed out of it that's important. And tariffs are important. Right. For the reasons we were just talking about. An indication that when you present the court with a ludicrous argument or a fairly weak argument, they're not gonna go for it just because Trump is asking, entirely possible that birthright citizenship, I think, likely is gonna have the same kind of outcome. Because the administration's arguments that Trump, with a stroke of his pen, can end a constitutional right that's been in place since the middle of the 19th century.

[A]

Clear from the Constitution.

[C]

Wrong. Exactly. And so I think that that will be also an indication that there are limits. On the other hand, we have these decisions in the political realm, like the one about the Voting Rights act, that suggest that somet times the justices are not really moved by these considerations. And so I think it's going to depend a lot on the context, the facts of the case that come before it. You know, if Trump does something that's blatantly, transparently illegal, the justices are going to feel, I think, institutionally, that it's important for them to stop it. But if it's something on the margins, if it's something that maybe they could get away with justifying, I feel less confident.

[B]

The Gzero World podcast is brought to you by our lead sponsor, prologis. Prologis helps businesses across the globe scale their supply chains with an expansive portfolio of logistics, real estate, and the only end to end solutions platform addressing the critical initiatives of global logistics today. Learn [e-mail].

[A]

Now, we have seen over the course of the past months a lot of fairly obviously illegal things that courts are striking down. Taking Trump's name and putting it on the Kennedy center, which it's just very clear that there's no ability to do that unless it comes from Congress. Like, it couldn't be clearer in the statute. In the statute, Right. And just shot down. And Trump, you know, basically says, I'm taking my toys and I'm running off. Right. You know, shouldn't this have been obvious?

[C]

Yes. And I think what we are seeing over and over again from the Trump administration is that they just go forward, Right. They wait to be stopped. They do things that are clearly illegal. And maybe there are lawyers saying at some point, like, hey, we're not sure about this, but effectively the Trump administration waits for the courts to stop it. And I think this is what Trump decided about the Justice Department when he was president the first time. There were lots more people high up in the Justice Department, including at various points, both of his attorneys general who said no, there was a limit. They reached it. They were like, we're not going ahead with this.

[A]

But that we don't have anymore.

[C]

We don't have that anymore. Completely gone. It's just not there. And so I think that's why you see the administration doing things that are clearly illegal. It is just filled with, at this point, I'll just say yes men, because we have a male attorney general.

[A]

Yeah. Who used to be the personal attorney of the president. Now, I mean, we've had attorneys general who have been very personally linked to presidents before rfk. Right. But Bobby Kennedy, for example. Right.

[C]

Yes.

[A]

But it does feel in this environment that the purpose of the attorney general is to conduct the political bidding and the legal bidding of the president. Am I correct in that assessment?

[C]

100%. I mean, I think it is very clear Pam Bondi did her best to keep her job by going along with everything she could. She didn't get fired because she said no to Trump. He just got tired of her and got mad about the Epstein files.

[A]

So the ag, The Attorney General, is not acting in any way to constrain or mitigate the fact that Trump wants to try all this stuff. But then when it actually hits the lower courts, whether it's Democrat or Republican appointed, we're then seeing this stuff as struck down.

[C]

Yes, exactly. That's the dynamic. It's why the lower courts have been such an important bulwark. You know, there is a way in which politically, Trump still uses it. Right. Then he rails against particular lower court judges and tries to kind of make political hay out of that with no particular impact. No, I don't think it's really working for him. I think that's true. But that is the move that he makes. It's still kind of a threat to the judiciary as a separate branch of power. Right. It's not respectful.

[A]

It's not respectful. But I mean, if the mechanism. Again, he's two years in now, it's his second term, he talks about the judges being horrible and the courts being rigged, but his ability to do anything about it so far, limited. More than zero.

[C]

Well, I mean, he is, over time, going to appoint more and more of those judges. Right. And so this is the most important defense that we've had, and it's a real blessing from the Constitution that we have life tenure, they have long careers and long periods of service. And so each president doesn't just get to come in and appoint lots of judges. Now, I sort of can't believe I'm saying that, because normally I'M a critic of life tenure in the context of the Supreme Court.

[A]

Right.

[C]

But in this case, it's very important, the slow moving nature of changing the

[A]

judiciary, especially because so many of the judges that were initially appointed by Trump feel quite independent once they get into their positions.

[C]

Right. And those judges, a lot of them came up through the Federalist Society, the main organ of the conservative legal movement. They're real lawyers, they're super conservative, but they're not hacks. And so, you know, several months ago, Trump started complaining about that breed of judge and saying, no, no, like, I want Trump judges, I want people who are going to do what I want all the time. And we just don't know enough to know yet how successful he will be. But it is really important that there aren't yet that many vacancies, because this

[A]

is the dynamic is that MAGA is not conservative. MAGA is aligned with Trump. The judiciary has a bunch of people that are liberal, liberal interpretation background training, a bunch that are very conservative background training, but that doesn't make them maga. So what I'm hearing from you is that there really isn't a MAGA judicial movement.

[C]

Not a movement, no. There are some individual judges who are sort of advertising themselves as Trump's people, as maga. And if he does get another Supreme Court appointment, or as we start to see appellate courts have vacancies, it'll be interesting to see if they're rewarded for very clearly advertising themselves in this way. We have a maga, but you don't

[A]

have a MAGA Supreme Court Justice.

[C]

Is that true? I mean, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas are so down for this project. I'm not sure I would say that they haven't been really become loyalists to a maga. But you're right that they were appointed a long time ago. They have other loyalties that they're also bringing to the table in that sense, too. They weren't created by Trump. And it is also, I think, fair to say that Trump's own three appointees to the Supreme Court have not been in that mold.

[A]

That's what's so. I mean, I remember when he was first term and they're putting together a list of like, who the people are that he should be thinking about his Supreme Court nominees. He didn't look at it. He didn't know who they were. He didn't think it was very important. And now the consequences of that are he's got folks that are fairly independent minors. It.

[C]

Yes, I think that's right. You know, again, if he gets another shot. I don't think we will see that in the same way. So, for example, Emil Beauvais, who was the Deputy Attorney General in the beginning of the Trump administration, did a lot of the, you know, frankly, kind of dirty work for the Justice Department in the very beginning. That was a real threat to the rule of law. He is now an appellate court judge on the Third Circuit. Would he be the next Supreme Court appointee? That is completely plausible.

[A]

You mentioned birthright citizenship, which a lot of people have been talking about and which I would also be surprised if it, if it went through. But what are some of the other big cases people should be watching for that the Supreme Court is likely to rule on soon?

[C]

So, you know, just to talk a little bit more about the birthright citizenship case, I mean, this is a case in which Trump issued an executive order to end birthright citizenship despite its enshrinement in the 14th Amendment and also a federal statute. So I think that's why we both agree that it would be implausible for the President to win, though he will shake his fist if and when he loses. A couple of other really significant cases are about the power of the executive branch. So on the one hand, you have Lisa Cook, the Governor of the Board of Federal Reserves, who Trump has tried to fire for cause a really thin kind of protectual basis. But he's saying, I have reason to fire her because according to the administration, she committed mortgage fraud in some way.

[A]

Yes. Driven by the now acting Director of National Intelligence, which is an interesting dynamic.

[C]

Completely. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So that question of whether Trump can fire Lisa Cook, the court is going to rule on, the court seemed skeptical of the administration's arguments. Also seems willing, for reasons is not yet articulated, to think of the Fed as different from all the other administrative agencies. Even though legally, historically speaking, it's really not clear why that would be. There's another related case about Trump's power to fire commissioners of multi member headed agencies. So in this case, the ftc, the Federal Trade Commission, he fired Rebecca Slaughter, one of the commissioners, without cause. He's claiming that the President has the

[A]

right to do that.

[C]

Yes, exactly. And I think it's very likely the court will rule in the President's favor.

[A]

In part because it's not the Fed,

[C]

in part because it's not the Fed. Even though I don't think that really makes any sense, that distinction. And that is gonna be a real shift in how we think about these administrative agencies. Yeah, I mean, Congress set them up starting early in the 20th century with this independence, this separation from direct presidential control because you had to have cause to fire people. And I think we're about to lose

[A]

a big piece of Project 2025. What they wanted to accomplish specifically with the so called deep state, the administrative state that has been a big part of the civil service in the U.S. yes. So maybe close this up. As we think about the judicial system and rule of law in the United States, there are many out there, including people watching this show right now, that think that the US Is heading to a constitutional crisis, that the democracy is really in danger, and that if it's not handled well, we could see no more free and fair elections. All the rest. Certainly that has not been my view. I feel, and tell me if I'm wrong, that you're saying, actually, no, these checks and balances are a little stronger and more durable than a lot of people believe.

[C]

I think that's been true about the judiciary. I mean, another way to think about this is Congress has been so failing on the job that relatively speaking, the courts look good. Even the Supreme Court, because Congress, Republican trolled Congress has stood up to Trump, basically. Not at all. And that is obviously a low bar. But I do think these instances in which you see the Supreme Court say no, which we've talked about, have been significant and what's really, really mattered have been the lower courts, which have been really just trying to do their job.

[A]

Emily Bazelon trying to do her job. Much appreciated.

[C]

Thank you.

[A]

That's it for today's edition of the Gzero World podcast. Why not make it official? Why don't you rate and review GZero World? 5 stars only 5 stars. Otherwise, don't do it on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Tell your friends.

[B]

We have a new podcast we think you'd like. It's called World's Toughest Job from Foreign Policy magazine and the United Nations Foundation. By the end of this year, The United Nations 193 member states will elect the organization's new Secretary General. Whoever wins the job will oversee a staff of tens of thousands of people around the world. They'll be expected to manage global crises, avert climate disaster, and end wars, all while answering to 193 different bosses. On World's Toughest Job, co hosts Jasmine Bayomi and former UN Deputy Secretary General Mark Malik Brown sit down with world leaders, thinkers and diplomats to explore what kind of leader the UN Needs right now. With the selection process for the next Secretary General already underway, the show is particularly timely and we recommend you check it out. You can find world's toughest job on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.