Moving Fast and Breaking Things

Summary

MAIN JUSTICE: "Moving Fast and Breaking Things"

MS NOW | Hosts: Andrew Weissmann & Mary McCord | June 8, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Main Justice dives deep into the accelerating pace of legal and constitutional challenges arising from President Trump’s second administration. Weissmann and McCord use their prosecutorial backgrounds to scrutinize recent developments inside Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ), focusing on the nomination of Todd Blanche as Attorney General, ongoing controversies like the $1.776 billion slush fund, a pivotal Supreme Court voting rights decision, and a major ruling on immigration benefits. They also touch on the legal chaos surrounding a planned commercial MMA event on the White House lawn and the steady erosion of rule-of-law norms.

---

KEY DISCUSSION POINTS & INSIGHTS

1. Todd Blanche: Trump's Attorney General Nominee

Discussion Begins: [01:32]

• Background: Todd Blanche has been acting AG and was previously Trump’s personal defense attorney in major criminal cases, including his New York fraud trial.
• Conflict of Interest Concerns:
  • Blanche’s prior representation of Trump “personally, not officially” (McCord, [02:17]) raises doubts about whether he has transitioned from Trump's personal lawyer to serving the United States as AG.
  • The hosts express alarm that Blanche's actions and public statements suggest lingering loyalty to Trump rather than the law.
• Controversies on His Watch:
  • Delays/failures in turning over Epstein-related documents.
  • Softball treatment of Ghislaine Maxwell, e.g., her transfer to a camp with a puppy supposedly for safety reasons—“when somebody is in prison and their threats against their life, they don’t get moved to a camp with a puppy” (Weissmann, [06:37]).
  • The $1.776B slush fund ("on again, off again").
  • Indictments/botched attempts: James Comey (twice), Letitia James, and an unprecedented effort to indict six members of Congress.
  • The firing of DOJ officials who resisted improper orders.
  • Blanche’s public misstatements and reversals, including about the Southern Poverty Law Center indictment.
  • Blanche implicated as principal in Epstein/Maxwell handling by former AG Pam Bondi ([07:37–09:01]).
• Senate Confirmation Prospects: Both hosts expect Blanche’s confirmation hearings to be “a really rough road” ([10:41]) given this baggage and express hope that senators ask disciplined, substantive questions rather than grandstanding.
• Broader Stakes: The hosts argue that Blanche's approach and his “general release” of Trump and associates from ongoing investigations as part of settlement agreements are unprecedented abuses of DOJ authority—“so untethered to the fig leaf of the lawsuit” (Weissmann, [16:51]).

Notable Quote

"The best way to think about this is just imagine the lawsuit didn’t exist at all… and just Todd Blanche, in order to get the brass ring of being Attorney General, signs a piece of paper that says, I’m absolving you of as much as I can possibly absolve you of. And by the way, while we’re at it, your family members and your companies."
— Andrew Weissmann [16:51]

---

2. The $1.776 Billion "Slush Fund" & DOJ Settlements

Discussion Begins: [01:53], Deep Dive: [12:59]

• Claims of Political “Settlements”: Trump’s DOJ orchestrated a settlement in his personal IRS lawsuit—allegedly a sham, as there was “no adversity between the parties, there was nothing to settle” (McCord, [12:59]).
• Ongoing Judicial Review: Federal judge in Florida continues to probe for “collusion in even bringing this lawsuit that amounted to a fraud on the court” (McCord, [13:40]), despite Blanche’s statements that the fund’s dead.
• Unprecedented Immunity: The so-called settlement included a release from civil and criminal liability for Trump, his family, and businesses—well beyond norm or law.
• Inconsistencies & Hypocrisy: The government now argues “there is no case or controversy here” in defending against challenges to the slush fund, even as it previously used the lack of adversity to justify settlements (McCord, [18:08]).

Notable Quote

“Not that we don’t have hypocrisy coming out of this administration. As Nicole Wallace said, hypocrisy is dead.”
— Mary McCord [18:17]

---

3. Supreme Court’s Emergency Ruling on Alabama Redistricting

Discussion Begins: [21:21]

• Context: The Supreme Court (on emergency/“shadow docket”) set aside a district court’s ruling that found Alabama’s redistricting was intentionally racially discriminatory in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution ([23:59]).
• Calais Precedent: The prior Calais decision had already undermined the VRA; this ruling further erodes protections by making it effectively impossible to prove intentional voting discrimination.
• Purcell Principle Undermined: The Purcell doctrine, which called for judicial restraint in last-minute election changes, is now used selectively—allowing Republican-led states to push last-minute, discriminatory maps ([29:42]).
• Sotomayor’s Dissent Highlights: Justice Sotomayor’s dissent is quoted at length, lamenting the “chaotic election” forced upon Alabama voters and the double standard now applied ([27:00], [29:42], [34:28]).

Notable Quotes

“To me, they have said that it is impossible to show intentional racial discrimination… impossible hurdle.”
— Andrew Weissmann [28:06]

“If the government decided very quickly and bulldozed the Statue of Liberty… as long as you act quickly, nothing can be done. That’s the government’s view.”
— Judge Patricia Millett, paraphrased by Weissmann [50:56]

---

4. Landmark Decision Halting Anti-Immigrant Policies

Discussion Begins: [38:20]

• Judge McConnell’s Ruling: The Rhode Island federal court struck down USCIS’s indefinite pause on processing benefits for immigrants from 39 countries—calling it a violation of both immigration statutes and the Administrative Procedure Act ([40:38], [41:09]).
• Plaintiffs as “Model” Immigrants: The judge underscores that these immigrants “have observed the legal processes” and are being penalized solely by their country of birth ([40:38]).
• National Security Pretext: The government argued national security; Judge McConnell called this “pretextual” and motivated by forbidden anti-immigrant sentiment ([43:25]).
• Remedy Uncertainty: The ruling vacated the pause, but there’s uncertainty around real-world compliance and whether the administration will seek a stay ([46:28]-[47:07]).
• Broader Themes: Both hosts emphasize the devastating effects of administrative lawlessness and the message it sends regarding the rule of law.

Notable Quotes

“The agency has violated the very immigration laws that Congress has charged it with administering, as well as the administrative laws that govern the agency’s actions.”
— Judge McConnell, read by Mary McCord [41:09]

“You and I both did criminal law... But when it’s the government itself, it just carries such grave consequences for what it means to be a rule of law country.”
— Andrew Weissmann [41:38]

---

5. White House Birthday MMA Fight Challenge & "Move Fast, Break Things"

Discussion Begins: [05:11], Returns at [49:01]

• MMA Event Lawsuit: New case challenges a planned MMA fight scheduled for the White House South Lawn—coincidentally on Trump’s birthday—alleging it’s “really just a commercial sporting event” with profits routed to Trump-linked sponsors (McCord, [05:11]).
• “Follow the Money” Motif: Hosts see clear financial self-dealing and abuse of executive celebration justifications.
• Ballroom Project Litigation: The government’s posture in tearing down the East Wing and rushing construction of a ballroom is compared to hypothetical demolition of the Statue of Liberty—"better never than late"—epitomizing the administration’s disregard for checks, process, and the law ([49:01–51:47]).
• Episode Title Allusion: “Move fast and break things” is explicitly invoked as the governing philosophy ([51:47]).

---

NOTABLE QUOTES & MEMORABLE MOMENTS

• On Blanche’s Nomination:

  “So much of what Todd Blanch has done and also what he has said about it should be subjected to sustained scrutiny.”
  — Andrew Weissmann [11:00]

• On Settlement Shenanigans:

  “I want to make sure people understand, just because Todd Blanche said publicly ‘we’re not going to do that anymore,’ that does not mean that that judge isn’t going to continue [her inquiry].”
  — Mary McCord [13:40]

• On SCOTUS Voting Rights:

  “This is such an outrageous decision... you’re institutionally really hurting the court in terms of your behavior and not making any attempts.”
  — Andrew Weissmann [33:23]

• On Bureaucratic Lawbreaking:

  “The rule of law has to apply to everyone equally. And as evident here, USCIS… has neither followed the law nor done things the right way.”
  — Mary McCord [41:09]

• “Move Fast and Break Things” Moment:

  “This is move fast and break things, right? Move fast and break things. Somebody else said that once, as I recall.”
  — Mary McCord [51:47]

---

TIMESTAMPS FOR IMPORTANT SEGMENTS

• [01:32] — Start of Blanche nomination and DOJ controversies
• [05:11] — MMA event lawsuit and “Follow the Money”
• [06:00–12:00] — Run-down of scandals, conflicts, and DOJ dysfunction under Blanche
• [12:59] — Deep dive: $1.776B slush fund, IRS settlement controversy, and legal collusion
• [21:21] — Supreme Court emergency docket and Alabama Voting Rights Act ruling
• [27:00–34:28] — Dissent highlights, Purcell Principle, and the court’s shifting standards
• [38:20] — Rhode Island immigration case: summary, legal impact, and looming compliance questions
• [49:01–51:47] — Ballroom litigation, “move fast and break things,” and the rule of law’s precariousness

---

FINAL THOUGHTS & TAKEAWAYS

• The episode’s through-line is the relentless speed, disregard for procedure, and self-dealing animating DOJ and executive actions under Trump’s current administration, with scant regard for past norms or constitutional checks.
• Both hosts underscore the damage done—to law, democracy, minority rights, and public faith—when expedience and loyalty to individuals supersede process and principle.
• Despite bleak news, the Rhode Island ruling is flagged as a rare but significant victory for rule of law and due process—pending real-world compliance.
• Listeners are reminded: vigilance, scrutiny, and systemic reform are more urgent than ever.

---

For listeners who missed the episode, this summary captures its major legal stories, underlying political dynamics, and the tone of urgent, sometimes wry concern shared by Andrew and Mary.

Transcript

[Commercial Announcer]

When you need to send the perfect rose bouquet, only one brand can say they've been the floral authority for 50 years. 1-800-flowers. Why should you trust 1-800-flowers? They hand select every stem to ensure top quality. And with nationwide delivery, smiles and satisfaction are 100% guaranteed. And right now, when you order a dozen multicolored roses, we'll double it at no extra cost. Don't miss out on this limited time offer. Order today at 1-800-flowers.com sxm. That's 1-800-flowers. Com sxm.

[Andrew Weisman]

Avoiding your unfinished home projects just because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download today. Hello and welcome back to Main Justice. It is Monday morning, June 8th, in our new and improved Mondays.

[Mary McCord]

We do seem to be on a temporary Monday schedule.

[Andrew Weisman]

Exactly. My voice is Andrew Weisman. And that voice is Mary McCord. Hi, Mary, how are you?

[Mary McCord]

Good morning. I'm okay. Just like decidedly. Okay. That's how I feel today.

[Andrew Weisman]

Yeah. Well, it's interesting. I feel like normalization has set in because I was about to say there's things to cover, but we're not pressed as we usually are. And then I was like, yes, we are, actually. We are. Exactly.

[Mary McCord]

That's right. So we will start with the president's announcement that he will nominate the acting attorney general, Todd Blanch, for the top job, the Attorney General of the United States. He has, of course, been the deputy attorney general since the beginning of Trump's second administration. And I think we have a lot of feelings about that, a lot of reactions to that.

[Andrew Weisman]

And before he was the nominee and the deputy, he a federal prosecutor in New York. And then after that, he represented the former president at that time in a bunch of criminal matters, including a trial. I watched parts of that trial in New York. And as many people have said, he has shown all the signs that he still represents him.

[Mary McCord]

That's right. And when you say represents him, we're talking about he represented the president as a personal attorney to the president, not in the president's official capacity as president, but as just Donald Trump when he was being criminally prosecuted in New York for fraud. He and his organizations. And so it does seem like we at least I think feel an agreement and many others that Todd Blanche has not fully taken off that hat of representing the president personally, even though he is now actually his client is the United States of America and not Donald Trump. So we'll talk about that and we'll talk about the status of this so called settlement agreement and the 1.776 billion dollar slush fund, as well as the other terms of that agreement and where that stands right now. Because of course, Todd Blanche has now gone in front of Congress and others and said we're walking back from the slush fund. That's not going to be happening. So we'll dig into that. We will also then turn to a Supreme Court ruling on the emergency docket last Tuesday that has once again really thrown voting and these initial primaries and elections into disarray because the court, in just a four page majority ruling, set aside a lower a district court, a three judge district court that had held that Alabama's maps were unlawful, racially discriminatory and could not be used in this election. And the majority set that aside. We'll talk about what that really means for the Voting Rights Act. Calais, of course, did huge damage to the Voting Rights Act. But this feels a little like the nail in the coffin here and also really calls into question the Purcell Principle, this principle that courts shouldn't be doing things too close to an election because it can cause chaos. And that's exactly what I think the dissenters and many other observers think it is causing. And then we will talk about a Rhode Island District court judge's very long decision late last week, but very consequential for many, many thousands of people in the US and that is he held and set aside new dhs, Customs and Immigration Bureau rules that put a pause, an indefinite pause on the processing of asylum applications and other immigration benefit applications. And that has caused people to lose work status and lose status here at all and really thrown things into disarray.

[Andrew Weisman]

That is the decision that falls into the category of things that have gotten not enough attention. That is a decision that has major consequences. It's really nice that that's sort of our good news of the day. I'm so happy that we're spending time talking about that. There are little bits and bobs that we will discuss along the way. There's an executive order about civil service. There's the White House ballroom case that's ongoing and there are all sorts of things. But we're going to stick to those three main things.

[Mary McCord]

And a new case Challenging this big mixed martial arts fight that is supposed to take place on the south lawn of the White House scheduled for this Sunday, June 14th. And a brand new lawsuit filed to try to prevent that from happening on the grounds essentially that it's really just a commercial sporting event that is to make money for people sponsoring it. And it's not any kind of event that is actually part of executive celebration of America's 250th anniversary. And it happens to fall on Donald Trump's birthday.

[Andrew Weisman]

Yeah, it just happens to fall on his birthday. And it just so happens that guess what, Guess who's making money from having invested in the company, according to the complaint that is being given this benefit. So this falls into the Follow the money.

[Mary McCord]

Yes.

[Andrew Weisman]

Right.

[Mary McCord]

A hundred percent. One hundred percent. So, shall we dig in?

[Andrew Weisman]

So Todd Blanche. Todd Blanche. Let's just go through maybe the litany of things that would be on his plate to talk about Epstein documents. There's still 3 million reported documents that have not been turned over as required by the Epstein Transparency Act. There's Ghislaine Maxwell, who's certainly not questioned in any cross examined kind of way. She was softball interviewed. And then right after that, she ended up in a camp with a puppy. There's the $1.776 billion. Oh, wait, let me just go back to the camp and the puppy camp with the puppy. That was excused by Todd Blanche saying, well, threats against her life. But Mary, as you and I know, when somebody is in prison and their threats against their life, they don't get moved to a camp with a puppy. They get moved to solitary.

[Mary McCord]

Exactly. That's right.

[Andrew Weisman]

So then there's the $1.776 billion fund, which falls into the category of it's on again, off again. There's also the broad civil release of the president. There's the SPLC Southern Poverty Law center indictment where Todd Blanche made a statement publicly on Fox News that he then had to walk back is too mild. He then had to say that he didn't mean and didn't say what he had said and what the true facts are, are antithetical to the charges in the indictment. There's the trying to indict six members of Congress in D.C. while under his watch. There's the indictment of Letitia James and James Comey. There's the second indictment of James Comey.

[Mary McCord]

Seashells.

[Andrew Weisman]

Seashells. There's opening a criminal investigation of Jerome Powell and the Federal Reserve, which was quashed by the judge there. And then you have the Sort of mass firing of people for doing nothing else than either following Department of Justice rules or not following illegal rules or unethical rules. Starting with the Eric Adams case. Remember him, the former mayor of the City of New York? That's just a quick list of things that are all happened on his watch, some of which he was principally responsible for, some he oversaw. I found it fascinating that Pam Bondi, in the transcript that was released just this week of her testimony before Congress, this was when she came in and testified as now former Attorney General, and she threw him under the bus, threw him under the bus, that he was the one who was in charge of Epstein. He was the one who did the Ghislaine Maxwell interview. And she, as an aside, said, I think Ghislaine Maxwell should die in jail because she's as bad as Epstein. So she was having none of it.

[Mary McCord]

Although I don't recall her saying that back at the time that Ghislaine Maxwell got moved to the camp with the puppy.

[Andrew Weisman]

But, yes, these people who find religion only after they're no longer in power, which is you manage to be able to speak truth to power after you have no power.

[Mary McCord]

Yeah. And you know, there's one you left out that is the subject of certainly brand new reporting by the New York Times.

[Andrew Weisman]

Just one?

[Mary McCord]

Oh, yeah. Well, actually probably dozens. But if we're really getting particular here, but we've been certainly following along this investigation being run out of the Southern District of Florida by which some sort of like, vast conspiracy is alleged. And this is just based on reporting that would span from the original investigation into whether Russia interfered or attempted to interfere in our elections back all the way in 2016, would continue all the way up through 2020 and all the way up now even into 2024, of a conspiracy to, I guess, deprive Donald Trump of his civil rights by that investigation, and then the Jack Smith investigations and et cetera, et cetera. I don't know exactly the status of this mass conspiracy investigation, but the reporting today, of course, is that many, many prosecutors and FBI agents have really questioned any type of mass conspiracy spanning this time frame.

[Andrew Weisman]

Yeah.

[Mary McCord]

Including Todd Blanche, at least early on.

[Andrew Weisman]

But it then seems to have capitulated.

[Mary McCord]

That's right.

[Andrew Weisman]

Well, what's interesting is the article in the Times pointed out that there are people nominated by Trump himself in the second administration who have pushed back and then lost their jobs. We saw that in the U.S. attorney in Virginia who did not want to go forward with Letitia James, and James Comey was fired. And it's remarkable that I have to say the first James Comey. Yes, I know that's before the 8647 case.

[Mary McCord]

That's right. But what it concludes is that, you know, there is somebody who's the acting right now and this investigation appears to be ongoing and that somebody is Todd Blanch. So I think as we get to the point of potential confirmation hearings, I think it's going to be a really rough road for Todd Blanche and we will see how the Senate approaches that.

[Andrew Weisman]

So this is one where people in Congress are so bad usually at asking questions and using their time well. And I hope they get their act together on this. This is true, by the way, for Democrats and Republicans. And it was in many ways the contrast with the J6 committee hearings where they really figured out how to do it for the public as opposed to everyone wanting their like five minutes of fame. So I'm hoping here they get their act together because so much of what Todd Blanch has done and also what he has said about it really should be subjected to sustained scrutiny. I would think that the effort to indict six members of Congress that the grand jurors did not go forward with, which is just one more reason why it was an inappropriate thing, would be something that Congress would have a huge interest in exploring.

[Mary McCord]

Yes.

[Andrew Weisman]

And that case is over. So Todd Blanche can't sort of duck that. And you would think that would have some salience for members of Congress 100%

[Mary McCord]

because that's their own colleagues. Right. Their own colleagues who were subjected to potential charges based on doing their jobs and speaking out, which they have a right to do and an expectation as members of Congress representing their constituencies that they will speak out.

[Andrew Weisman]

And this is a goose gander issue, which is, you know, you do have to think it's like if you had a Democratic nominee for attorney general and they had done this, wouldn't the Republicans correctly be saying this is outrageous that you don't. I mean, nobody should ever be in this position and should be disqualifying because it's so outrageous.

[Mary McCord]

Yeah.

[Andrew Weisman]

And I would think just their own self interest would be, you're going to put this person who is now going to have incredible power in this position to continue doing things that are anathema to the rule of law as our lead law enforcement person, except for Donald Trump who thinks he's the lead law enforcement person.

[Mary McCord]

Well, that's true. Let's be real here. The other thing I think that Congress and members of the Senate, because that's really who matters when I'm talking about confirmation hearings are concerned about is this, quote, unquote, settlement, right, of Trump's personal lawsuit on behalf of him, his family, his businesses against the IRS that resulted in this, quote. I keep saying, quote, unquote, settlement, because in my view, if there was no case or controversy, because there was no adversity between their parties, there was nothing to settle. And that is exactly what the federal judge in Florida is trying to get to the bottom of. And I want to make sure people understand, just because Todd Blanche said publicly we're not going to do that anymore, that does not mean that that judge isn't going to continue.

[Andrew Weisman]

Exactly.

[Mary McCord]

And she is, in fact, continuing with requiring a filing by this Friday response to her order that, you know, why shouldn't I be looking into the allegations in the amicus brief that we talked about last week filed by 35 judges that there was collusion in even bringing this lawsuit that amounted to a fraud on the court? And why shouldn't I look into whether Rule 11 sanctions shouldn't be imposed? Because Rule 11 is a rule that applies to civil proceedings in court that does say that misconduct is sanctionable. And that deadline remains because whether they go forward or don't go forward with this fund. And I'll come back to that, we also still have that incredible and unethical equivalent of a civil and criminal pardon that was part of the settlement signed by one person, Todd Blanche, that releases and forbears any criminal or civil investigations, examinations, audits, prosecutions against Trump, his family members, their businesses, based on anything that is known or could have been known up until the time of settlement. That is like a complete wash or path. Yeah.

[Andrew Weisman]

And Todd Blanche has justified it. So we have his statement as to why he thinks it's okay, because people have asked him about it and he said, oh, no, this is typical.

[Mary McCord]

It is not typical.

[Andrew Weisman]

It is so not typical.

[Mary McCord]

First of all, it's not Justice Department's policy.

[Andrew Weisman]

It's so not typical to have a general release of people who are not before the court. So, like, this is way beyond the people who were actually in the lawsuit. But there's more than that. The lawsuit was about a leak of information about Donald Trump's tax returns. Even if you thought that was a legitimate lawsuit, even if you thought, let's just take that as a given.

[Mary McCord]

That's right.

[Andrew Weisman]

And let's assume it was filed on time, and let's assume there were no defenses. That's a lot of ifs. That's thing one, that's about how were you harmed by a leak of your tax returns? And there might be some amount there, and that's it. That lawsuit is not about, oh, the IRS has audited Trump and his family and they've worked out an agreement with respect to all past audit liability. Then in that situation, you might say, okay, we're going to work out an agreement with respect to the specific parties as to what they owe and what the amounts are. And that would be one where you'd say, okay, and that ends the audit liability. And so then you would have a

[Mary McCord]

release where it's like, we've resolved that issue.

[Andrew Weisman]

Right, exactly. But it doesn't relate to people who are not there. But just to be clear, that's not what happened here. There was no resolution by the IRS of, oh, let's have a whole resolution of all sorts of audit liability. This was being tacked on to something completely unrelated.

[Mary McCord]

It's also goes way beyond that. Right. Like suppose all the self dealing, all the crypto self dealing, all of the self enrichment, everything that might be investigated in a future administration. What Todd Blanche is saying in this settlement addendum is, nope, that the government gives that all up.

[Andrew Weisman]

The best way to think about this is just imagine the lawsuit didn't exist at all, right. That there was no fig leaf of a lawsuit. And just Todd Blanche, in order to get the brass ring of being Attorney General, signs a piece of paper that says, I'm absolving you of as much as I can possibly absolve you of. And by the way, while we're at it, your family members and your companies, that is the way to think of it, because it's so untethered to the fig leaf of the lawsuit. And the thing I don't like about it is, and the reason I'm so happy the judge has this jurisdiction, is that we're using the language that makes people go, well, there's a court case and there's a settlement and there's a release. So it's got all the language. So when you're quibbling with, well, maybe there's some merit, but maybe there's not, but it's a court case and they've just settled it and they've issued a release, and those kinds of things sound all sort of legal, even if it's maybe a little too much. Yeah, that's just not what's going on. That's why the judge looking at this, saying, this looks like a fraud on the court that I want to investigate. Obviously she's going to make her decision of whether it is or is not after hearing from the parties. But that muddying of the waters is the point of why they went to court.

[Mary McCord]

Yeah. And here is the icing on the cake. Here is the greatest hypocrisy. Not that we don't have hypocrisy coming out of this administration.

[Andrew Weisman]

As Nicole Wallace said, hypocrisy is dead.

[Mary McCord]

Yes, so true. But we have in two cases that were filed challenging this $1.77 billion fund that was set up to pay, quote, unquote, victims of weaponization to potentially include January six defendants. The government has now filed in both of these cases opposing briefs on why there shouldn't be any court case here. And it is saying, get this, because remember the issue that the federal judge in Florida in the IRS case had asked for briefing on is is there an actual case or controversy here because the parties are not adverse. This is how both of the government's responses start. This dispute concerns an anti weaponization fund that had not been set up and is not now going forward. Federal courts may resolve active political debates only if necessary to do so. In the course of deciding an actual case or controversy, as those words are used in the Constitution, it goes on to say, there is no case or controversy here and this case should be gone. And it's like, oh, now you want to argue there's no case or controversy yet you settled a non existent collusive case or controversy in Florida. But I will say of these filings, it is at least finally putting in writing that the fund will not continue. As opposed to Todd Blanche just simply saying it and then saying, why do I need to put anything in writing? I've said it. Well, how about the fact that you actually have an order that you issued to transfer funds to this new slush fund and you haven't rescinded that order. So the idea that this is all dead and gone because Todd Blanche has said we're not going to make the fund, that doesn't mean that there's nothing for the court to adjudicate in either these new cases or certainly in the case in Florida, the original case, because his say so is not enough to end this controversy.

[Andrew Weisman]

Well, this is one where there is a lot more that we are going to follow because this is now somebody who will have a confirmation hearing. So we will continue with this and we will see whether members of Congress and as you said, it's really the Senate follow our advice and they're listening to us, but they have a ton of ammunition I just think it's the way that they go about using it and how much discipline they show in asking questions that are hard and sustained. Mary, let's take a break and come back and talk about breath. Yes, calm the Supreme Court's actions in Alabama.

[Mary McCord]

Let's do that.

[Andrew Weisman]

Close your eyes. Listen to Monday.com feel the sensation of an AI work platform so flexible and intuitive it feels like it was built just for you. Now open your eyes, go to Monday.com,

[Advertisement Voice]

start for free, and finally, breathe.

[Mary McCord]

Tired of the same old game night? Switch things up with Chumba casino.

[Advertisement Voice]

Play over 200 free online social casino games from classic slots in blackjack to exclusive in house favorites you won't find anywhere else. However long you got, you can play

[Mary McCord]

your way anytime, anywhere.

[Advertisement Voice]

Make your next chill night a little

[Mary McCord]

more fun with Chumba Casino.

[Andrew Weisman]

No purchase necessary.

[Advertisement Voice]

VGW group void where prohibited by law.

[Mary McCord]

See Terms and conditions for details.

[Advertisement Voice]

21.

[Mary McCord]

A Better Help ad Summer can feel like a sprint. Kids home trips to plan, routines flipped upside down. It's easy to slip into survival mode just trying to get through it. Then suddenly it's over and you're wishing you enjoyed the days just a little bit. More Therapy can help you slow down and actually be present for the moments that matter. With better help, you can connect with a licensed therapist from anywhere on your schedule. Don't just survive this summer. Thrive. Visit betterhelp.com.

[Andrew Weisman]

Welcome back. So there was a decision, the same 6 to 3 vote by the Supreme Court in the Calais case dealing with the Voting Rights act. And the 6 to 3 decision was dealing with, as Mary said, a consequence of the Kelly decision, which was that the Alabama District Court three judge panel was ordered to reconsider its ruling. And everyone thought that when they reconsidered it that there were sufficiently different issues at stake because there had been findings, direct findings, of intentional discrimination. And the decision not only was under the Voting Rights act, but it was also directly under the Constitution. And because of that, without saying that the Supreme Court would ultimately affirm or not affirm or reverse. There were new issues because of those two things. A specific finding of intentional discrimination and a new legal argument for the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court Calais decision was based on a statute, the Voting Rights act, not the Constitution. So what came up before the Supreme Court was what had happened in the Alabama District Court and whether the Supreme Court was going to quickly overrule it or suggest that there be briefing. But as I said, there were these two differences, factual and legal, that came up so, Mary, what happened?

[Mary McCord]

So what happened is a majority of the court. Well, first of all, I should say the district court in Alabama looked at what Alabama had done, which was decide to Levert to its 2023 map, which had actually been determined previously to have violated the Voting Rights Act. And the three judge district court looked at that map and said this. The purpose of the 2023 plan was to distribute black voters across districts to dilute their votes, at least in part because they are black. We reach this conclusion with great reluctance and dismay and even greater restraint only after another exhaustive analysis of an extensive record. As the Supreme Court's remand order and its precedent instructs us, we reject in the strongest possible terms the state's attempt to finish its intentional decision to dilute minority votes with a veneer of legislative regularity. In other words, what they said is first of all, we relooked at our decision after Calais, a decision, by the way, which had been made after a lengthy evidentiary trial where they had determined there was intentional discrimination and vote delusion, said, okay, now we've re looked at this. And the only reason they were re looking at it now is because in another controversial order, the Supreme Court just a week or two weeks ago had said re look at it now. Notwithstanding that, we are right literally on the eve of elections where the redistricting matters, because if people are going to be redistrict into new districts that they've never voted in before, they don't even necessarily know where they're going to go. The Alabama election officials have to figure out, okay, now who's moving from one district to another. And we've got to give notice to those people that they've now been reassigned to a new district and then they've got to know where to go to vote, right? Like, think about all that entails. So already the fact that the Supreme Court had told the district court to take another look at this right now, this close to election was pretty remarkable. But the district court did and it said, we find that what was done was intentional here. That's what went right back up to the Supreme Court. And that's what the Supreme Court ruled on this week on Tuesday night on the emergency docket and said, whoa, we are staying what this district court did, which was to again say use the other maps. Don't go changing the maps here at the last minute. Use the maps that had been formulated. After this. The majority on the Supreme Court said no, essentially we told you already in Calais that you've got to give deference to the legislature in terms of assume legislative regularity, assume legislative good faith. You didn't do that. We told you that anyone challenging a map has to show that essentially these maps are not the result of partisanship, that they would actually be deliberate. And right here, even like past the 11th hour, has now reverted again.

[Andrew Weisman]

Tell me if you disagree. Okay. I viewed this as Calais did not itself say that you could never prove that there was intentional discrimination that would satisfy the Voting Rights act. And it didn't say anything about the Constitution.

[Mary McCord]

That's right.

[Andrew Weisman]

No, the writing was on the wall. But this constant just comes right out and it makes it absolutely clear you cannot do it. Yep. Because if you put together everything that they're saying about the tests that they will apply. As I said when we first discussed the Calais case, remember, I said, well, I guess if you have a tape recording, right. Of somebody in the legislature saying that I'm doing this for racial reasons, I'm not even sure that would now work because they will say that still doesn't pass all the tests. And unless you have everybody saying it's solely for that reason and we wouldn't do it for other reasons. And there's another map that the challengers have that doesn't.

[Mary McCord]

I mean, it's impossible. It's an impossible hurdle.

[Andrew Weisman]

Yes, exactly. To me, they have said that it is impossible to show intentional racial discrimination. And so they've expanded clay on the so called shadow docket not on after full hearing. And they have made it clear it's going to apply even to the Constitution, which was not an issue in the Calais case. So this is such an outrageous decision. But Mary, I'm sure you want to talk about that, but I also wanted to hear you about this. There's sort of a judicial gloss called the Purcell principles, which is a judicial restraint philosophy, where in Purcell, the court said the federal courts should really resist monkeying with elections too close to an election. And it applies to the judiciary. But I was interested in hearing you say what the court said here about the Purcell principles and what you think of the court's reasoning. Because the court here said green light to Alabama doing this. And it's okay to reverse this three judge panel at the district court level, even though this is all in the midst of primaries in the election season. I mean, this is not like years ahead of time or even months ahead of time. And they're letting all this stuff happen in some cases while primaries are actually ongoing. And so that sense of restraint that you don't want to have elections thrown into this chaos and that the courts also should not be seen as weighing in on one side or the other. To me, that's sort of all gone by the wayside.

[Mary McCord]

Well, it certainly appears that way. And that is one of the things that Justice Sotomayor, who wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson, one of the things she pointed out, in addition to the substance that we've been talking about, about making it almost impossible to bring any sort of section 2 or constitutional claim when it comes to discrimination, and to get to the reasons, let me just read the beginning of her dissent before the Court are two paths. Down one lies an orderly election held under a tried and tested congressional map that protects black Alabamians right to vote and with which all voters, election officials and candidates alike are familiar. Down the other lies a chaotic election held under a never before used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against black Alabamians that Alabama adopted in an unashamed defiance of a prior court order directly affirmed by this court, and that will require officials to change the voter registrations of hundreds of thousands of voters in just days at best, a task that Alabama previously represented would take months. So that's what Purcell was supposed to be about. It was named after a case called Purcell, where the Supreme Court had said courts should not take actions too close to an election, that it would cause chaos. So if you're going to either enjoin something or enjoin a map or not enjoying a map, you shouldn't do things that are changing the status quo too close to an election. But this is crazy. If you look at the history here. This all started in 2022 when the court stayed a unanimous lower court ruling in Alabama that its map likely violated Section 2. Justice Kavanaugh at that time joined by Justice Alito, invoked Purcell to keep an arguably unlawful map in place nine months before the election. Because to change that at that late date, nine months before the election would be too late. That's what happened in Alabama. Fast forward to 2026. The Supreme Court has now used Purcell to permit this 11th hour switch to a map that a court has found intentionally discriminatory, requiring that huge large scale administrative burden that Justice Sotomayor was talking about.

[Andrew Weisman]

Look, Purcell has definitely been narrowed in that what they're saying here is it's totally fine for states to do things even at the very, very last minute and even if it requires the federal courts to permit that. So they're saying with respect to Purcell, this doctrine we talked about of restraint. It's only going to apply to the federal courts in issuing federal rulings, except when the federal ruling is one that deals with what the state is going to do. Now, cynical people, I. E. Me, will say, no, there's one more thing. Purcell will apply. What? It helps the Republicans.

[Mary McCord]

And if you look at the history of this case in Alabama, the Louisiana case, it sure does look like that.

[Andrew Weisman]

Right. It just looks so political. And this is one where I'm so reminded of the Chief justice who was bemoaning that it's not true that the court is political, it's not true that they act that way. Like, he may believe that of himself, but I would say, like, look in a mirror at the facts of this case.

[Mary McCord]

That's right.

[Andrew Weisman]

And ask yourself, do you really think that you are taking actions that don't foster that exact belief? And so you're institutionally really hurting the court in terms of your behavior and not making any attempts. Especially the fact that this case, even if you were ultimately going to come out this way, didn't happen on full briefing. It happened in this short order, which is so peremptory. And that is not how judges are supposed to behave. The judges are supposed to hear from the parties, allow them to be heard, have full briefing and consideration. And as at a sense of maybe you don't know everything and maybe you'll learn something from the parties as well as due process would counsel and in my view require that ability to be heard. They were all for due process when Donald Trump was charged and he should get due process. But here you're just really seeing such a absence of the rule of law, which is treating everyone equally.

[Mary McCord]

I'm sitting here skimming through Justice Sotomayor's dissent and thinking all these are the things that I want to say about that. But let me just give one quote. And this is not about Purcell. Now we're back to the merits, right. How we discussed how, how could you show intentional discrimination and you said maybe if you had a recording. Right. I feel like the facts as found by the three judge district court here get kind of close to that. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out, part of the record evidence was the speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives saying, if you think about where we were, the Supreme Court ruling in Allen, that was the name of the earlier case in this series of Alabama cases, all about the same set of maps. The Supreme Court ruling was five to four. So there's just one judge that needed to see something different. He's basically saying let's just try this again and see if we can pull another judge. Let's just do the same thing, have a discriminatory map and maybe this time will prevail. And they did. So the speaker was not trying to remedy likely vote dilution when the Alabama legislature passed the 2023 redistricting plan.

[Andrew Weisman]

I have a question.

[Mary McCord]

Yes.

[Andrew Weisman]

Should we move on and take a break and come back and talk about some good news, which is the roll line case?

[Mary McCord]

Yes, we should do that.

[Andrew Weisman]

The one thing I will say in the rollout that we are going to keep our eye out for is the president issued this executive order where he has stripped essentially civil service protections from 8,000 federal workers. We're going to talk more about that because there will be litigation over it. But that's a huge deal. People who are loyal listeners know that Mary and I really care about the civil service. And I know that doesn't sound like a great big bumper sticker or exciting, but it could not be more important to the rule of law. So we just wanted to flag that for you but tell you that it is going to be challenged.

[Mary McCord]

Yes.

[Andrew Weisman]

And we will spend time talking about that. But we've had a lot of bad news. Let's take a break and come back and talk about a horrendous set of facts and a really terrific district court decision.

[Commercial Announcer]

Not sure if you have the experience to start your dream job. Good news these days, it's the skills that count. Udemy can help you get those in demand. Skills. Want to be an AI mastermind? Learn with us. Game developer. We've got you covered. AWS certified Cloud practitioner. We can help you prep. You'll learn from real world experts who love what they do so that you can love what you do. Go to udemy.com for the skills to get you started and get set for your dream job.

[Advertisement Voice]

Imagine relying on a dozen different software programs to run your business, none of which are connected. Some say Odoo is like a magic dream. Stock scaling with you while being pretty affordable. And some programs for manufacturing, accounting programs for creating a custom software platform. But I say for business, simple, efficient software that can handle exactly what every fraction of the price. Sign up.com that's o.com Tyler Reddick and Chumba Casino a winning combination. Another checkered flag for Tyler Redick in 23xi racing this time at Cota in the Chumba Casino Toyota Camry. That's three wins this season. Talk about a lucky streak. Chumba Casino, proud partner of Tyler Redick and 23 Xi Racing play for free at chumbacasino.com let's Chumba no purchase necessary VGW Group voidware prohibited by law CTNC's 21 plus sponsored by Chumba Casino.

[Andrew Weisman]

Well, welcome back. As we talked about, we're going to cover a really great decision out of Rhode island, and I think there's no better way than to start the way that Judge McConnell starts. So bear with me. I'm going to do my best. Rachel Maddow impersonation of Reading briefly from how he starts his decision More than six months ago, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services enacted a series of policies that, through the lives of countless immigra living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo, the agency announced that it would be placing an indefinite pause on the adjudication of immigration benefit requests for individuals from 39 African, Asian, Latin American, and Middle Eastern countries. Since then, individuals from these countries have been categorically barred from receiving final decisions on, among other things, their asylum, work permit, green card, and citizenship applications. And this agency's hold on adjudications cannot be attributed to anything that these individuals did wrong. Rather, it arises solely by the happenstance of their birth. In ruling on these motions, the court is reminded of a line often repeated in discussions around immigration policy. If people wish to immigrate to the United States, they ought to follow the law, unquote, and quote, do things the right way. This case serves as a perfect example of immigrants doing just that. Plaintiffs and their members have observed the legal processes that Congress enacted by statute and that the agency promulgated by regulation so that they may one day obtain immigration benefits. So, Mary, that is the judge teeing up for us how important this is and how big this is. And there's a heartfelt quality to this, which is these are people who are not the worst of the worst. These are people who, the judge is pointing out, have followed the congressional mechanisms in place to get all of the various benefits. And so how does he then go about deciding what has happened here, what legally should happen in this case?

[Mary McCord]

Well, he contrasts what the immigrants have done. Follow the law, right? Do what was asked of them, go through the process, file the right paperwork, et cetera, and says, but the rule of law has to apply to everyone equally. And as evident here, uscis, that's the Customs and Immigration Service has neither followed the law nor done things the right way. And then he says, the agency violated the very immigration laws that Congress had charged it with administering as well as administrative laws.

[Andrew Weisman]

Can you just repeat that yes, and

[Mary McCord]

I'll read his words. Indeed, the agency has violated the very immigration laws that Congress has charged it with administering, as well as the administrative laws that govern the agency's actions. Remember how we were talking about hypocrisy earlier in this episode in Florida? We don't need a case or controversy, but when our actions are challenged, we need a case or controversy. But, well, immigrants, you have to follow the law. But us, the agencies, maybe not so much.

[Andrew Weisman]

It's so triggering to me because both of us worked in government for so long and it's still in us in the sense that the reason we were in government that it's still so hard to hear that the government is not following the law. You and I both did criminal law, and we were holding people to account based on a very high burden, appropriately high burden. But when it's the government itself, it just carries such grave consequences for what it means to be a rule of law country.

[Mary McCord]

No question about it. And this takes me back to, you know, my four factors that make the rule of law the sort of four pillars of the rule of law. The first is a system of laws by which both the governed and the government agree to abide. And that's what he's saying here. Government, you just didn't abide by the laws here and you don't have the authority, executive agency, to just ignore what Congress has said, the procedures, including timelines, right deadlines, things like that that Congress has set up and said, you know what, we're just going to put a pause on all this. You just don't have the authority. And this is a really long opinion that goes through things like standing and mootness and ripeness and all these threshold jurisdictional questions and then gets to the merits and goes, we can't do it justice here because it's too detailed and it's too long. It goes through every single argument the government makes and shows why, no, what the government has done here is just not authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act. That's the original big statute that governs all immigration and nationality. I think also important here, because we see this over and over and over again, is this idea. The government asserts that the district court should not even look at this case because of national security. And here's what the judge says again, just in his opening paragraphs about this. He says it justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of national security that mask anti immigrant sentiments, that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision making. In legal terms, that means USCIS's actions are contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. And that's what I mean. It goes through how each one is contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious because it's being motivated by anti immigrant sentiments. And he goes through how the executive action is treating people from these 39 countries differently from people say for example, from white, African, from South Africa. And he goes through and quotes some of the things, the choice words used by both the president and the former secretary of dhs, Kristi Noemi, really viciously disparaging immigrants from some of these countries. And this hearkens back to the first administration, remember the why are we letting in people from blank whole countries?

[Andrew Weisman]

Yes. The so called Muslim ban. It is similar to that, although here this is on much stronger footing than that which ultimately an iteration of the Muslim ban was upheld by the Supreme Court. But it took a while to get there here, although the government is certainly appealing this and the district court clearly knows it's going to go up to the first Circuit, that the court of appeals overseeing the Rhode island district judge, this is one where the judge in large part granted the plaintiff's relief, struck down in large part vacated policies of the immigration services, finding that it over and over and over again was not in compliance with the law and with huge, huge ramifications. And as I understand this, this is now in effect. There is no stay of this. So the government may try to seek a stay, but right now this is in effect, we'll see sort of how it gets operationalized.

[Mary McCord]

Well, that's just it, right? Because what the judge did, he said I'm vacating this executive action meaning, and that's a term that's used under the Administrative Procedure act, when there's an administrative action, it can just be vacated. But vacating a pause on processing asylum applications and other applications by immigrants for various statuses, vacating that pause means the executive branch has to now do a thing to restart those applications and those processes. And people who've lost their work permits. Right. There are examples in this lengthy opinion of people who even like got evicted because when they lost their work permit, they lost their jobs, they got evicted and all the while while they had status here. So how fast will the government actually get those wheels back in motion? That remains to be seen. And I think this is another big question that we see in some of these cases against the federal government is that what does compliance look like? What does compliance with the court's opinion look like? Will they comply?

[Andrew Weisman]

It is something that we have talked about that you usually don't have to think about, which is remedies, and that there's a lot of times where you think, well, the court doesn't have an incredibly good remedy here. And it's a lot of questions that you and I get off podcast like, well, I don't understand why can't the judge do X or Y can? It's all a very good question, but it's one that you didn't used to have to ask. Because under any normal administration, and both of us have worked in Republican and Democratic administrations, unless there's a stay, unless you, the government can get a stay, you just comply that you do it. And that's just the way the system works.

[Mary McCord]

And it might take a little bit of time. Right. But it will be done.

[Andrew Weisman]

It's like you either have a legal option of trying to get a stay and appeal and say the judge is wrong or you go into effect. But you don't just say, okay, we're going to ignore this and slow roll them and be disobedient. And that's just true of Republican and Democratic administrations because it's like everyone's like, well that's the law. And so that's just not a possibility. So here the burden is really now still on the plaintiffs because if the government doesn't take action and does just say, well, we're going to slow walk this, then the plaintiffs are going to have to go back, come back into court on a one off basis until they have enough people and enough instances to say, judge, there's enough of a complete disregard of what you're doing. So this is a great decision in a rule of law country and a rule of law administration. But when you read what the judge said and we gave you a little flavor of it, I don't think he is in any sort of illusion as to what the next steps are going to be. Yeah.

[Mary McCord]

And to be clear, so we don't get to any trouble here, this ruling just came out and we don't yet know whether the government will comply or not comply or seek an emergency stay.

[Andrew Weisman]

We're just speculating.

[Mary McCord]

We're just speculating because if past is prologue, we have seen some other situations and other cases where the government did not comply.

[Andrew Weisman]

Yes, we're speculating based on evidence. That's right.

[Mary McCord]

We call these things like hypotheses, I think.

[Andrew Weisman]

Right.

[Mary McCord]

Something like that. I learned in science.

[Andrew Weisman]

Yes, an evidence based hypothesis.

[Mary McCord]

Exactly. So we will keep following this. Right. There'll be more to come for sure. But right now I Do hope that this will bring some measure of relief to the thousands of people who have suddenly seen their lives really just taken out from underneath them. And there will be a process, but if this is not stayed, hopefully they'll get their applications back on track again. People who've been abiding by the law.

[Andrew Weisman]

So, Mary, I was wondering if taking us back to D.C. there was an oral argument.

[Mary McCord]

Yes, there was.

[Andrew Weisman]

It has to do with the ballroom project. And we're not going to do a lot on. But there was one jaw drop, mic drop moment. It sort of relates to your hometown because it was an argument in D.C. but one of the judges there used something from my hometown.

[Mary McCord]

That's right.

[Andrew Weisman]

Which was a Statue of Liberty. How did this come up? And what did she say? And I hope everybody. I know lots of people listen to this while they're running or while they're walking their dog, but I think it'd be really interesting.

[Mary McCord]

So be careful. Slow down.

[Andrew Weisman]

Exactly. For people in cars, you're sitting for the people who are not. I would say maybe take a seat.

[Mary McCord]

Yes. No, that's a great little preface there. So. And this came up because, remember, the President just tore down the East Wing without telling anybody he was going to do it.

[Andrew Weisman]

Yeah, I noticed that.

[Mary McCord]

Yeah. Do you remember when that happened? We were all, like, dumbfounded as we started seeing videos on television of bulldozers bulldozing the East Wing. And ever since then, with the litigation, it's been a constant push, pull, talk about not obeying orders. Like a judge saying, you need to stop. And then like, well, we're going to keep on going. And a judge, well, you can only do things that have to do with the safety and security of the White House. Well, okay. But then suddenly we now have, like, a first floor coming up of the ballroom. So there's been lots and lots of litigation on it. And now the government is essentially saying kind of like, too late. Right. We have national security interests and the ballroom's already torn down, so we've got to build this thing kind of too late. And so at some point during the argument, D.C. circuit Judge Patricia Millette said, if the government decided very quickly and bulldozed the Statue of Liberty, the people whose ancestors. That was the first thing they saw coming to this country. But the government moved too fast. Nothing can be done. She's asking the Department of Justice attorney. I think that's right, responded the principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice.

[Andrew Weisman]

You've heard of the better late than never? Well, the government's view is better never than late.

[Mary McCord]

Yes.

[Andrew Weisman]

Which is as long as we act quickly, it's fine. Leading to the judge saying, really? So if you bulldoze the Statue of Liberty, there's no recourse. Like, as long as you act quickly, like. And you know what's so crazy about that? Donald Trump is a builder. He was a builder in New York

[Mary McCord]

City, as he lets us know all the time. A very good one. Very good one.

[Andrew Weisman]

Yeah, the best. The best.

[Mary McCord]

Yes, of course.

[Andrew Weisman]

No, better.

[Mary McCord]

Good.

[Andrew Weisman]

So do you know what happens in New York City when you build floors that are outside of the zoning requirement? You're ordered to take them down. This is not a race to as long as I can put them up before I'm told to take them down, or even if I'm told to take them down but I put them up, then it's better never than late. It just doesn't work that way.

[Mary McCord]

This is move fast and break things. Right? Move fast and break things. Somebody else said that once, as I recall.

[Andrew Weisman]

Mary, we are at the end and it is so great to talk to you once again and thanks everybody for listening. Remember, you can subscribe to Ms. Now Premium on Apple Podcasts and you can get this show and other MSNow Originals ad free and you'll also get subscriber only bonus content. And a reminder, we are now available on YouTube so you can head to Ms. Now main justice to listen to us there.

[Mary McCord]

This podcast is produced by Vicki Virgolin, Nicholas Binuela Yodar and Iggy Monda are our associate producers. The audio engineers for this episode are Bob Mallory and Hazik bin Ahmad Fared. Katie Lau is the Senior Manager of Audio Production and Aisha Turner is the executive producer for MSNow Audio.

[Andrew Weisman]

Search for Main justice wherever you get your podcasts and follow the series.

[Advertisement Voice]

Snoring, Gasping during sleep? Feeling fatigued? Ask your doctor about Zepbound Tirzepatide, the first and only FDA approved prescription medicine for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea in adults with obesity. Zepbound is a prescription medicine used with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity to help adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea and obesity to improve their OSA. Zepbound is approved as a 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5 or 15mg injection. Zetbound contains Tirzepatide and should not be used with other Tirzepatide containing products or any GLP1 receptor agonist medicine. It is not known if Zepbound is safe and effective for use in children. Don't share needles or pins or reuse needles. Don't take if allergic to it or if you or someone in your family had medullary thyroid cancer or if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia Syndrome Type 2. Tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. Stop zeb bound and call your doctor if you have severe stomach pain or a serious allergic reaction. Severe side effects may include inflamed pancreas or gallbladder problems. Tell your doctor if you experience vision changes before scheduled procedures with anesthesia. If you're nursing pregnant, plan to be or taking birth control pills. Taking Zepbound with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. Side effects include nausea, diarrhea and vomiting, which can cause dehydration and worsen kidney problems. Talk to your doctor, call 1-800-545-5979 or visit zepbound.lilly.com.