SCOTUS Destruction Gets Exposed

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Episode: "SCOTUS Destruction Gets Exposed"

Date: July 7, 2026
Hosts: Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok, Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Featured Guest Analysts: Professor Leah Litman (Constitutional Scholar), Ellie Mistal, Madiba Dennie

Episode Overview

This episode focuses on the Supreme Court’s latest term, specifically its “destruction” of voting rights and the U.S. Congress’s struggle to protect them from judicial rollback. With a panel of leading constitutional scholars, the hosts dissect recent Court decisions—particularly relating to the Voting Rights Act (VRA)—and explore whether statutory fixes by lawmakers are truly possible in the current judicial climate. The tone is urgent, analytical, and deeply skeptical of the Court’s trajectory.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Putting the Supreme Court ‘Through a Full-Body Scanner’

• [03:33] Michael Popok kicks off with a metaphor for deep scrutiny of the Supreme Court, referencing the term’s “MAGA 6” (conservative majority) and introducing a “murderer’s row” of legal experts.
  • Quote: “Sometimes you gotta take the United States Supreme Court and all of its actions and that of the Maga 6 and put it through a full body scanner… the only way I know to do that is to put into one place collective brilliance, a murderer’s row, if you will, of top constitutional scholars…” (Michael Popok, 03:33)

2. The Ongoing Evisceration of the Voting Rights Act

Historical Context & Section 2

• [05:22] Professor Leah Litman details the long history of the VRA:
  • The original VRA (1965) and its key provisions:
    • Section 5: ‘Preclearance’ process (struck by Shelby County v. Holder, 2013)
    • Section 2: Nationwide ban on voting discrimination
  • Early 1980s: The Supreme Court (City of Mobile v. Bolden) narrows Section 2 to only cover intentional discrimination.
  • Congress responds by amending the VRA to explicitly also ban unintentional discrimination—over the Reagan administration’s opposition, with John Roberts advising against expansion.

Allen v. Milligan and Louisiana v. Calais

• [06:20] In Allen v. Milligan (2023), the Supreme Court unexpectedly upheld Section 2 claims (5-4 vote), invalidating Alabama’s discriminatory district maps.
• [07:00] Fast-forward to the “Calais” case (Louisiana v. Calais, most recent term), where the Court:
  • Avoids a direct decision but rewrites the legal questions to challenge the constitutionality of the VRA.
  • In a decision penned by Justice Alito for the 6 conservatives, the Court “virtually eliminates” modern Section 2 VRA enforcement, restoring an intentionally narrow standard.
  • Quote: “In Louisiana v. Calais, Justice Alito… says the Voting Rights act really only prohibits circumstances that give rise to an objective likelihood of intentional discrimination.” (Leah Litman, 07:32)
• [08:00] The Court asserts that any future Congressional attempt to broaden VRA coverage will be struck down as unconstitutional—“judicial supremacy” overriding legislative power.

‘Congress Can Just Fix It’—A Myth

• [08:30] Professor Litman dismisses the notion, popular among some legal commentators, that Congress can simply “fix” Supreme Court-damaged statutes:
  • Quote: “So it is impossible for Congress to pass a new Voting Rights Act that would actually reach circumstances like the ones that courts for decades had said violate the Voting Rights Act... it’s never going to be as simple as Congress can just pass a statute and reverse a decision of the Supreme Court, given that the Roberts Court is just full of judicial supremacists who have imposed themselves as a veto over essentially any law that a Democratic progressive Congress would pass...” (Leah Litman, 08:37)
  • She argues the solution, if any exists, must address both statute-passing and the threat posed by the current Supreme Court’s power.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Michael Popok [03:33]:
  “Sometimes you gotta take the United States Supreme Court and all of its actions and that of the Maga 6 and put it through a full body scanner… the only way I know to do that is to put into one place collective brilliance…”
• Leah Litman [05:22]:
  “So the Voting Rights act was initially passed in 1965. It had two main provisions... Section 5, the preclearance process… and Section 2, a nationwide ban on discrimination in voting.”
• Leah Litman [07:32]:
  “In Louisiana v. Calais, Justice Alito… says the Voting Rights act really only prohibits circumstances that give rise to an objective likelihood of intentional discrimination.”
• Leah Litman [08:37]:
  “So it is impossible for Congress to pass a new Voting Rights Act that would actually reach circumstances like the ones that courts for decades had said violate the Voting Rights Act... given that the Roberts Court is just full of judicial supremacists…”

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Supreme Court ‘Full-Body Scan’ Intro & Roundtable Setup — [03:33]
• Voting Rights Act: History and Section 2 Explained — [05:22]
• How Congress Tried (and Failed) to Fix It, and John Roberts’s Role — [06:00]
• Allen v. Milligan & Momentarily Upheld Protections — [06:20]
• Louisiana v. Calais – The Newer, More Restrictive Standard — [07:00]
• Supreme Court’s Attack on Legislative Fixes (‘Judicial Supremacy’) — [08:00]-[08:37]
• Refuting ‘Congress Can Just Fix It’ Myth — [08:37]
• Panel’s Closing Calls to Action and Community Invite — [09:36]-[10:08]

---

Panel’s Closing Thoughts and Action Steps

• The hosts invite listeners to support Legal AF through subscribing, emphasizing the need for ongoing vigilance and court accountability.
  • Quote: “If you like that kind of content, you want to support court accountability, action and the contributors like that, then hit the Free subscribe button. The democracy demands it.” (Michael Popok, 09:36)
• The community is encouraged to engage further with exclusive filings, oral arguments, and analysis via their Substack platform.

---

Summary Conclusion

This episode paints a stark picture of a Supreme Court actively rolling back voting rights and Congressional attempts to remedy those rollbacks. Through detailed legal analysis and historical context, the panel highlights how a conservative judicial majority has set new obstacles blocking legislative redress. The conversation underscores a recurring Legal AF theme: the intersection (and current imbalance) of law and politics, and the urgent need for both legal and civic action in response.

---

Transcript

[Shopify Advertiser]

When it's time to scale your business, it's time for Shopify. Get everything you need to grow the way you want. Like all the way. Stack more sales with the best converting checkout on the planet. Track your cha chings from every channel right in one spot and turn real time reporting into big time opportunities. Take your business to a whole new level. Switch to Shopify. Start your free trial today

[Thrive Cosmetics Advertiser]

from Lashes for days with the Viral Liquid Lash Extensions Mascara to lift and color from their brilliant eye brightener. Thrive Cosmetics is the go to for amplifying everyday looks. Plus every product is 100% vegan, cruelty free and made with clean skin loving ingredients that work with your skin. Amplify your everyday. Go to thrivecosmetics.com shine26 for an exclusive offer of 20% off your first order. That's Thrive Cosmetics. Save C-A-U-S-E-M-E-T-I C-S.com shine26 Close your eyes,

[Meditation Guide]

exhale, feel your body relax and let go of whatever you're carrying today.

[1-800-Contacts Customer]

Well, I'm letting go of the worry that I wouldn't get my new contacts in time for this class. I got them delivered free from 1-800-contacts. Oh my gosh, they're so fast.

[Meditation Guide]

And breathe.

[Grow Therapy Advertiser]

Oh sorry.

[1-800-Contacts Customer]

I almost couldn't breathe when I saw the discount they gave me on my first order. Oh sorry. Namaste.

[Jerry Insurance Advertiser]

Visit 1-800-contacts.com today to save on your first order.

[Grow Therapy Advertiser]

1-800-contacts Summer's supposed to be the easy season, so why are so many people quietly googling a therapist between summer Fridays? Because more daylight doesn't fix the hard stuff. Sometimes it just turns the volume up. Grow Does Therapy Differently Therapy is not only for when you're in crisis, but grow Therapy is here for all the moments when you decide you want more. More support, more clarity, more tools. Mental health isn't a destination you reach, it's something you build. And grow makes that easier. Grow connects you with thousands of high quality licensed therapists across the US offering both virtual and in person sessions, nights and weekends. You can search by what matters like insurance, specialty, identity or availability and get started in as little as days. There are no subscriptions, no long term commitments, you just pay per session. Grow helps you find therapy on your time. The therapist you want takes your insurance on Grow. Grow accepts over 125 insurance plans. Sessions average $21 with insurance and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Visit growtherapy.com booknow today to get started that's growththerapy.com booknow growththerapy.com booknow availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.

[Jerry Insurance Advertiser]

Most people overpay for car insurance, not because they're careless, but because switching feels like too much hassle. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side by side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Switch with confidence. Download the Jerry app or visit Jerry AI Libsyn Today that's J E R R Y AI Libsyn.

[Michael Popoff]

Sometimes you gotta take the United States Supreme Court and all of its actions and that of the Maga 6 and put it through a full body scanner, you know, one of Those full body MRIs, an X ray machine, if you will. And the only way I know to do that is to put into one place collective brilliance, a murderer's row, if you will, of top constitutional scholars like Professor Leah Littman and people like Ellie Mistahl and Madhaba Denny joining Court Accountability Action just moments after the last decision at this United States Supreme Court term dropped. And we did it here on Legal af. And here's a clip of that roundtable you don't want to miss about voting rights, the Voting Rights act and how we got here and how we can defeat the Roberts court. Play the clip.

[Legal AF Host]

Really glad that you could explain to our listeners. And if you're just tuning in, we're here on Legal AF with a murderer's row of legal analysts to talk about this, this term Supreme Court and what we can do to fix it. And we're and we're segueing that to that what we can do to fix it. Leah, I would love to pull you in on another element of how the court just rewrites things when they want to, which is obviously Calais and the Voting Rights Act. We have this long, tortured history of Congress passing the vra, the Supreme Court making edits to it as it sees fit, Congress addressing those edits, and then the Supreme Court gutting it anyway. And this sort of takes us to the point that when legal scholars who are apologists for the court say, well, Congress can always address it, the VRA stands in stark contrast as an example where Congress did try to fix it in this court gutted anyway. Can you walk us through some of that and explain why it's not so easy to just Pass a statute?

[Legal Expert/Constitutional Scholar]

Yeah, absolutely. So the Voting Rights act was initially passed in 1965. It had two main provisions. Section 5, the preclearance process, which of course, the court ended in Shelby county versus Holder a decade ago, and also Section two, a nationwide ban on discrimination in voting. And in a decision City of Mobile vs Bolden in the 1980s, the Supreme Court interpreted, interpreted the Voting Rights act and specifically Section 2 to prohibit only intentional discrimination in voting. And of course, Congress and civil rights activists immediately understood that that would be a recipe to apologize for all kinds of racist voter suppression and voter discrimination. And so Congress amended the statute to explicitly prohibit unintentional discrimination as well. They amended the statute over the objections of the administration of Ronald Reagan, who did not want to expand the Voting Rights Act. And one of the lawyers who was working in the administration during memo after memo about how the administration shouldn't support an expanded Voting Rights act was John G. Roberts. So three years ago in Allen v. Milligan, the court heard what was an existential challenge to section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In that case, Alabama argued that the Voting Rights act would effectively be unconstitutional if the statute actually did prohibit unintentional discrimination. The court, by 5 to 4 vote, rejected that theory in Allen v. Milligan and invalidated a set of Alabama maps that included only one majority black district out of seven. So now fast forward to two years later, because technically this is on the Supreme Court's docket two years or last term, and the court hears a case out of Louisiana, Louisiana versus Calais. And that case involved a challenge to a set of districts that the state had draw to comply with the Voting Rights act after a court said their initial set of maps violated the Voting Rights Act. And the question in the case was just whether the remedial maps were themselves unconstitutional. The Supreme Court didn't want to resolve the case on that basis and instead rewrote all the questions to invite a reinterpretation of the Voting Rights act and an assessment about the extent to which the Voting Rights act was constitutional. And in Louisiana v. Calais, Justice Alito, writing for six justices, says the Voting Rights act really only prohibits circumstances that give rise to an objective likelihood of intentional discrimination. The Court made it virtually impossible to establish violations of section 2 for the reasons Medeva said, basically, it is never going to be possible to draw an additional majority black district while retaining the same partisan balance that a Republican controlled legislature wants to, because there's not going to be a majority black district in the south that votes Republican. So the court made it simultaneously impossible to establish a violation of the Voting Rights act, effectively gutting the express explicit congressional amendment that Congress made to the Voting Rights act to prohibit unintentional discrimination, and then also added a constitutional aspect to the Court's ruling, saying that under the Reconstruction Amendments, Congress has only a limited authority and can really only prohibit occasions that give rise to intentional discrimination. This, of course, is a ridiculous interpretation of the Reconstruction Amendments for reasons I won't get into. But the point is, the Court read out a congressional amendment to a statute and declared that any Congressional amendment that sought to revisit the Court's decision in Louisiana versus Calais would be struck down as unconstitutional. So it is impossible for Congress to pass a new Voting Rights act that would actually reach circumstances like the ones that courts for decades had said violate the Voting Rights Act. So it's never going to be as simple as Congress can just pass a statute and reverse a decision of the Supreme Court, given that the Roberts Court is just full of judicial supremacists who have imposed themselves as a veto over essentially any law that a Democratic progressive Congress would pass or that a Democratic administration would promulgate as a rule or regulation, as Mike was indicating. So the solution cannot just be have Congress pass a new law. The solution has to be have Congress pass a new law and also pass laws that address the threat that the Supreme Court presents to those very laws.

[Michael Popoff]

We sit at the intersection of law and politics on Legal AF every day, every hour. If you like that kind of content, you want to support court accountability, action and the contributors like that, then hit the Free subscribe button. Hit the Free subscribe button. The democracy demands it. Our long legal AF4 of July counter programming demands it. And this is the way for you to vote early and often for Legal af. I appreciate you. I'm Michael Popoff. Until my next report, can't get your

[Legal AF Contributor]

fill of Legal af.

[Michael Popoff]

Me neither.

[Legal AF Contributor]

That's why we formed the Legal AF substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called Wait for it Morning af. What else? All the other contributors from Legal A for there as well. We got some new reporting, we got interviews, we got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes where Legal AF on substack come over now to free Subscribe.