Loading summary
Transcript192 lines
- [00:00]
Minky Couture Advertiser
Summer adventures are better with Minky Couture. From road trips to ball games, beach nights to backyard movies, Minky has you covered. Don't miss the Everywear Blanket. Water resistant, ultra soft and made for life on the go. Wherever summer takes you, bring comfort along. MinkyCouture.com the original best blanket Ever Foreign
- [00:30]
Ryan Seacrest
hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. Earn four times the points on your favorite brands now through July 28th on eligible items like Pantene Moisturizing Shampoo, Gillette Razors and Refills, Secret Clinical Strength Deodorant, Herbal Essences Hair Care, Old Spice Deodorant, Pampers Swaddlers Diapers and Crest Clean Breath Toothpaste. Enjoy savings on top of savings when you shop in store or online for easy pickup or delivery, restrictions apply. See the website for full terms.
- [01:17]
Dan Pfeiffer
Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. You're about to hear a great conversation I just had with Leah Littman, a law professor, co host of Quirky Media Strict Scrutiny and author of Lawless how the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievances, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes. We talked about this week's monumental Supreme Court decisions on the Trump administration's immigration policy, what's making Leah anxious about the upcoming decision on birthright citizenship and the legacy of Roe v. Wade, including how it's playing in the race to unseat Susan Collins in Maine. We also talked about some of the other decisions we're expecting to come out of the court soon, including decisions on mail ballots, trans participation in sports and the independence of the Federal Reserve. It was a great conversation and we'll get to in a minute. But before we do, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to Friends of the Pod. Subscribers get access to ad free episodes of Pod Save America, subscriber only shows like Pod Save America, only Friends and my show Polar Coaster, and discounted tickets to Crooked Media events, including this fall's CrookedCon. Plus, it's the best way to support independent pro democracy media. Head to crooked.com friends to subscribe today. Also, check out my substack newsletter, the Message Box, which is where I share all of my best, most in depth takes. And I have a special deal for Pod Save America fans. Sign up now@crooked.com YesWeDan Get 20% off your subscription for an entire year. That's crooked.com YesWeDan all right, here's my conversation with Leah Lippman. Leah Lipman, welcome back to Pod Save America. Thanks for having me under these great circumstances. So originally, when we scheduled this, we thought there was a chance the Supreme Court would have released all of its big, monumental decisions at the end of this quarter. Per usual, Sam Alito, John Roberts have screwed up our best laid plans, but they have released a number of very important decisions that I want to talk to you about. And then I want to talk about the decisions that are looming, that are doomed to possibly ruin many people's fourth of July break. Let us start with a case that I think has the most impact for the most people.
- [03:03]
Leah Littman
Can I just start with the timing point, please?
- [03:05]
Dan Pfeiffer
Please do. Please.
- [03:06]
Leah Littman
Okay. Because it's not just that you thought they would finish by the end of this week. It's that traditionally and historically, the court has finished policing opinions in argued cases before the holiday week. And these guys have one fucking job, and they're not even doing that right. Like, they cannot bother to do law, and yet they can't finish according to schedule. Despite loving history and tradition, they cannot conform to this most basic tradition about how the Supreme Court works, which is
- [03:39]
Dan Pfeiffer
important for many reasons, but primarily for podcast recording schedule.
- [03:43]
Minky Couture Advertiser
Exactly.
- [03:43]
Leah Littman
Yes, exactly. Super inconvenient.
- [03:46]
Dan Pfeiffer
Okay. So this is an important point to make. I'm glad you made that point. I want to start with the case that I think has the most impact on the most people. This is the 63 decision. Everyone listening can guess who the 6 and who the 3 are that will allow the Trump administration to rescind temporary protective status for 350,000 Haitian immigrants. This case is about a lot of things. It's a big deal. Talk to me about what was at stake in this case and what the ruling says.
- [04:11]
Leah Littman
Oh, my gosh, this case is so maddening. I have just become angrier about it with every passing hour. So the case involved actually two different revocations of the Temporary Protected Status Program. And TPS is a method where the executive branch can offer immigration relief to individuals who undergo a rigorous vetting process who are from certain countries when returning them to those countries would be horrific because of conditions in those countries. And so Haiti was one such country. After devastating natural disasters coupled with the basic failure of the government, it's super dangerous to be in Haiti. And so temporary protected status was offered so too with respect to Syrian nationals. And so early on in the Trump administration, fall 2025, Kristi Noem says, we are just going to end these TPS program for individuals from several different countries. And those decisions to end the program were challenged. And these cases involved challenges to the end of TPS for Haitian nationals and Syrian nationals. By statute, Congress, because of the importance of the TPS program to people's lives, you know, they structured their lives around being able to live and work in the United States, required the Executive Branch to undergo a fairly rigorous process before deciding to end tps. And specifically, the Executive Branch had to consult among different agencies to determine that conditions in that country were indeed sufficiently different that ending TPS was justified. And there's almost no question that the Trump administration didn't do that with respect to Haiti. In particular, emails suggest that the Department of Homeland Security asked the State Department to weigh in about conditions in Haiti and then went ahead and canceled TBS before State Department even weighed in. That's not actually consultation, and I don't think there's any argument on that point. You add to that the fact that the President said vile, horrible, grotesque things about Haitian nationals, and it sure looks like they decided to end tps, not because conditions in Haiti had changed, but because the President just wanted to fulfill Stephen Miller's white supremacist immigration dreams. And so those were the challenges that the Trump administration violated statutes by not following the required processes and violated the Constitution by implementing this policy out of racial animus, discriminating on the basis of race. And in the 6 to 3 opinion, Sam Alito was like, I don't care, do you? You know, on the statutory arguments, he said, who cares whether or not they complied with a statute? Courts can't review whether they violated the statute or not. So that's a new.
- [07:02]
Dan Pfeiffer
That's a new finding, right?
- [07:03]
Leah Littman
That is a new, entirely new rule. For decades, it has been understood that even though the statutes don't allow courts to second guess the Secretary's determination, ultimate determination about whether to end tps, they do allow courts to ensure that the Secretary followed the required process to ensure sound decision making. And Sam Alito and co Wipe away all of those rules and render all of these statutes unenforceable. They're basically guidelines at this point. The Executive Branch faces no consequences for openly flouting them. Donald Trump, Mark Wayne Mullen could stand up tomorrow and say, we're not going to follow these statutes, and there's not a thing that courts could do about it.
- [07:48]
Dan Pfeiffer
In light of, I want to get to the comments in a minute. And the racial animus points. I think that's very important and really plays a big role in why this issue is so maddening in the opinion by elitist amending. But what is, what is the reason? You know, it seems like a pretty basic thing, Congress writes laws. The executive must follow said laws. If the executive does not follow those laws, someone who has standing sues, and the courts come in and say, you did not follow those laws. You must do something different. Is there something that they find an inherent authority of the present? Immigration? What is the basis for saying the laws don't apply on this particular issue?
- [08:21]
Leah Littman
It's so wild to hear you say that, because this, unfortunately, was a theme of almost all of the court's decisions from this last week, saying that people whose rights were violated can't do a thing about it, can't sue to challenge in federal court. So here their rationale was Congress had actually decided to impose these rules on the executive branch and to foreclose the possibility that courts could review whether the executive branch complied with those rules. So they put the decision at Congress's feat, rather than saying the Constitution doesn't allow courts to review those determinations.
- [09:00]
Dan Pfeiffer
All right, so now let's get to the racial animus point and why that matters here. Because I think for people who have been following the saga for a long time, the Haitian immigrants are the ones that Trump and J.D. vance and the entire MAGA media accused during the 2024 campaign of eating the pets in Ohio, right? That's what we're talking about here, right?
- [09:18]
Leah Littman
Well, and it wasn't just that. It is. The President said people from Haiti have aids. He called it a shithole. He said they were Haitian nationals poisoning the blood of the country. Bunch of racist, vile remarks. And Sam Alito does not even have the backbone to recite those remarks in his opinion. He just declares they're not overtly racial. I have no idea what that means, given that the President also said he wanted to admit more people from Sweden and Norway. Like, again, he tried to say, I guess they're xenophobic and really about opposition to immigration policy, which makes no sense. And also, in any case, I don't understand why that would be constitutional. And if he cannot bring himself to recite the remarks of the person who he's saying isn't racist, I think that's a pretty big indication that maybe the person is racist and saying racist things. But he just kind of said nothing to see here and legalized what the President did and said.
- [10:30]
Dan Pfeiffer
And so this means for Haitians, Beth, there are 350,000 of them, I believe many of them, in this country for quite a while now. I think TPS has been around for almost a decade, right?
- [10:39]
Leah Littman
Yeah, more than a decade.
- [10:40]
Dan Pfeiffer
And so these people can all be deported now. Either in their, when they go to the. Because you have to go to a regular check in. Right. And so they go to the next time they encounter a nice officer, a CBP officer, they could be deported. Same is true of Syrians. Now, I know Stephen Miller was on Fox News minimizing the dangers in Haiti and comparing it to Chicago, St. Louis, Los Angeles, but Syria seems like a harder case to make, that this is a totally safe and fine place to go back to.
- [11:10]
Leah Littman
I mean, I think Haiti is a
- [11:11]
Dan Pfeiffer
really tough, maybe even tougher than Syria,
- [11:15]
Leah Littman
actually, at this moment. Exactly. And, and so this would be the largest delegalization in United States history. So while these cases specifically are about Haitian nationals and Syrian nationals, the Trump administration has attempted to end temporary protective status for individuals from other countries, including Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador and more. You know, when Trump took office, there were more than a million people living in the United States with temporary protected status. And suddenly all of those people potentially lose their legal authorization to remain in the United States. And your point about check INS just drives home the people they are penalizing are the people who followed the immigration rules. They underwent this vetting process. They do check ins with immigration officers. And so now the federal government knows who they are, where they are, and could be poised to effectuate these mass deportations. In her dissent, Justice Kagan says as a result of the court's order, they're basically telling the executive Branc, you can put these people on the next plane and send them off. And it's just cruel what the Supreme Court is potentially allowing and inviting the Trump administration to do so for the
- [12:28]
Dan Pfeiffer
non Syrians, non Haitians who have protective status, like you mentioned, Venezuelans. We also talk about people from Afghanistan, many of whom fled after the fall of the Afghani government, people who helped the American military and diplomats there talking about Ukrainian refugees, all these other groups. Can the Trump administration now just sign a piece of paper and remove their tps or go through the fake process? They don't even have to go through it anymore. Like, are we just like one Stephen Miller email away from alt, from 1.2 million or whatever it is, people potentially being deported?
- [12:58]
Leah Littman
Potentially, yes. And there have been cases challenging the rescissions of the other temporary protected status programs as well. But in light of this decision telling courts they can't review any of the statutory claims and excusing the president's gutter racism, it's going to be really hard for any court to pause those rescissions.
- [13:18]
Dan Pfeiffer
Great. So this is not, this is honestly truly terrible. And so Then we have a second. We had a second immigration decision that came down. Now, this one is less immediate in its consequences, and it hinges, as I understand it, on the meaning of the word arrive in immigration law. Can you explain. This is another 6, 3 with the typical 6 and the typical 3 decision. Can you explain what's going on in this case?
- [13:41]
Leah Littman
Yeah. So this case is about the meaning of asylum law. Under international law and statutes that Congress has passed, individuals who arrive in the United States are entitled to claim asylum, and they are entitled to have their asylum claim assessed in a legitimate process and procedure. What the Supreme Court said is an individual doesn't arrive in the United States and therefore they aren't entitled to claim asylum or have their asylum claim assessed if they are stopped outside of the physical borders of the United States. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent, this creates a giant loophole. It tells the executive branch, so long as you physically block people from entering the United States, you do not have to consider their asylum applications. You can just turn them away wholesale. And that decision was entirely unnecessary. Part of what is so, I think, heinous, both about the asylum case and the TPS case, is that the Supreme Court did not have to reach them on this asylum case. The case originated as a challenge to a policy that isn't in existence. It was a challenge to the so called metering policy that began almost a decade ago. And under that policy, immigration officials would turn away people and say, we can't process your asylum applications. If the quota for the number of individuals who could be processed at the border had been met, that policy was ended. There was not, in effect, any policy that presented this question about whether the Trump administration could refuse to process asylum applications from people who they stopped outside the border. Instead, the Supreme Court went ahead and just told them, well, we've decided you could do this thing that you may want to do, and therefore paved the way for them to implement another callous immigration policy.
- [15:42]
Dan Pfeiffer
And so in the original metering policy, which began at the end of the Obama administration. Yep. You would show up and they would say, we just had. There are too many people today. We're not gonna be able to get to your case. Come back tomorrow.
- [15:51]
Leah Littman
Yes.
- [15:52]
Dan Pfeiffer
And we will look at your case. And so at that point, it wasn't an attempt to deny them. It was essentially recognizing you've shown up at the door. We can't let you in the door. We're acknowledging you have the right to make your asylum case. And we are going to, or we are going to allow you to do that on a different day when there is an actual someone who can hear it basically. Right.
- [16:09]
Leah Littman
Yes. That was the.
- [16:11]
Dan Pfeiffer
And so now this seems like such a insanely stupid decision on so many levels, because doesn't it seem to argue that if you are someone who has a. You believe you have a legitimate asylum case, you are coming to the United States to avail yourself of your human right to seek asylum consistent with our laws and traditions, you are better off sneaking across the border.
- [16:32]
Leah Littman
Exactly.
- [16:33]
Dan Pfeiffer
And getting caught. And then claiming an asylum case, then showing up at the front door and asking to present your case.
- [16:40]
Leah Littman
This decision is unhinged. As Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, the consequences are predictable. More people will die. And among the reasons is it creates this incentive for people to try to sneak across the border, because only if they manage to get into the United States borders would they be able to claim asylum. This is another example of the Supreme Court adopting a rule that penalizes people who are trying to comply with immigration law by presenting themselves at the border and trying to assert an asylum claim.
- [17:12]
Dan Pfeiffer
It's basically funneling them into these trafficking organizations that are making money to get them into the country, as opposed to just.
- [17:19]
Sleep Me Advertiser
It's so.
- [17:19]
Dan Pfeiffer
To me, that's what it seems so insane about. And so the net result of this, other than the consequence of the people who then now get injured, get hurt, get killed, are trafficked. You know, young women and children who go to these groups end up in very bad places, often in an attempt to get the United States. What is going to happen is the. Stephen Miller could just tell the cbp, don't let anyone, like, no one gets in. So we will not recognize any legitimate asylum claims that come in through the normal process.
- [17:47]
Leah Littman
Yes, it does not matter. If someone could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they would be persecuted, tortured, killed in their home country, the administration can just refuse to consider that.
- [18:00]
Dan Pfeiffer
Now, in this. I learned from your very. The very excellent Emergency Strict Scrutiny podcast you guys did that came out today. Yesterday.
- [18:09]
Leah Littman
What is today? Time is anymore.
- [18:13]
Dan Pfeiffer
I listened to it this morning. But that during the release of this decision, that something very dramatic and quite and perhaps unprecedented, the history of the Supreme Court happening. Could you lay that out for us?
- [18:26]
Leah Littman
So it's not entirely unprecedented, although it's deeply rare by tradition, what happens is when the Supreme Court releases an opinion, the author of the majority opinion will provide some remarks and offer a brief summary of their case. Occasionally, but only in rare circumstances, will the author of the dissent then proceed to summarize their dissent. And reading portions of your dissent from the bench is reserved for very strongly held dissents where you want to signal a very obvious strong objection to what the majority has done. So in the asylum case, Justice Sotomayor read portions of her dissent and then Sam Alito proceeded to respond. And having the author of the majority opinion respond after the author of the dissent summarizes their dissent has happened maybe once or twice before. And Justice Alito also intimated that, well, had he known Justice Sotomayor would have summarized more of her dissent, he definitely had additional things he would have said because he could totally rebut all of her arguments and it's just so petulant and yeah, unbefitting a justice.
- [19:42]
Dan Pfeiffer
Well, I mean, this is a long pattern of behavior for Samuel Alito, going back to the 2010 Supreme State of the Union, where he was so upset that Barack Obama deigned disagree with the decision to allow corporations billionaires to buy our political system that he had to react viscerally and loudly during the state. He had basically had to heckle the President of the United States during the State of Union.
- [20:03]
Leah Littman
Exactly, exactly. You think right? The Tea Party or whoever else invented heckling at the State of the Union. No, no, no, no, no. Sweet summer child, it was Sam Alito.
- [20:12]
Dan Pfeiffer
Yes, a man who clearly has IMP problems, particularly when criticized, perhaps by coincidence,
- [20:18]
Leah Littman
definition of a judicial temperament.
- [20:20]
Dan Pfeiffer
Yes, when criticized by people who by coincidence have to be people of color in particular.
- [20:33]
Squarespace Advertiser
This podcast is sponsored by Squarespace. Squarespace is the all in one website platform designed to elevate your online presence and drive your success. Squarespace provides all the tools you need to promote and get paid for your services in one platform. Whether you offer consultations, events or other experiences, Squarespace can help you grow your business. Squarespace offers a complete library of professionally designed and award winning website templates with options for every use and category. No matter where you start, your website is flexible to what you need with intuitive drag and drop editing, beautiful styling options, unrivaled visual design effects and more ways to list what you offer. No experience required Squarespace Domains makes it easy to find the best name for your business at one fair, all inclusive price. No hidden fees or add ons required. Make smarter business decisions with Squarespace's intuitive built in analytics tools. Review website traffic, learn where to focus engagement and track revenue from bookings, invoices or product sales. All from one place. Plus, Squarespace provides everything you need to bring more of your dream to life. Whether that means building a website or adding a professional email Service. Head to squarespace.com for a free trial. And when you're ready to Launch, go to squarespace.comcricut to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. That's squarespace.com Crooked Pod Save America is
- [21:42]
Sleep Me Advertiser
brought to you by Sleep Me Quick question. When was the last time you went to bed before midnight without your phone beaming blue light into your weary little eyes?
- [21:49]
Squarespace Advertiser
Last night.
- [21:49]
Sleep Me Advertiser
Last night, nothing. You go to sleep early. Nothing pairs worse with trying to fall asleep than having a full breakdown of the latest news cycle running on a loop in your head. Here's what's happening. The stress, the screen time. It all raises your core body temperature. And a body that's too warm cannot get into deep sleep. You're not just tired because the news is exhausting, you're tired because your body never actually recovered from the day. The good news is that you can do something about it and it's simpler than you think. Lower your bed temperature. Sure, you could develop better habits of mind. Enter Chilipad 2.0, the water based mattress topper that actively controls your bed temperature from 55 to 115 degrees. All night long. All night. No new mattress. No renovation. It fits over what you already have. Chilipad 2.0 actively cools or warms your bed using water, and water is key here. Chili Bed uses actively chilled water to cool your bed, actually pulling heat away from your body. It's like the difference between standing in front of a fan and jumping into a cold pool. The new 2.0 comes with a redesigned dock, quieter than ever with a larger internal tank. The topper itself is now a premium performance grade cover that unzips for easy washing and has built in waterproof protection. And unlike a lot of tech out there, there's no subscription. You buy it, you own it. 2 year warranty designed and assembled in the USA just north of Charlotte. I love the Chilipad. I have the 1.0. I'm gonna upgrade to the 2.0 and basically your bed has an air conditioner on it. You can make it warm when you're cold, you can make it cold when you're warm. You can. You know what I like to do is I set it really cold before I go to sleep and I'm watching tv and then right before bed I raise the temperature. Interesting, because then as I'm falling asleep, it's cool. But then I'm not cold in the night.
- [23:19]
Squarespace Advertiser
Oh, okay, that's interesting.
- [23:22]
Sleep Me Advertiser
Visit www.sleep.mecrooked to get up to $255 off your Chilipad 2.0 with code CROOKED. That's www.sleep S L E E P.ME CROOKED. Free shipping and free returns in a 30 night trial. So you can test it out. Dream big and wake up better. The headlines will still be there in the morning. Boy, will they. You might as well wake up ready for them.
- [23:47]
Dan Pfeiffer
Okay, another big case happened here, and this one caused a different corner of the Internet to be aflame. The Maha corner of the Internet is very upset about a case where the Supreme Court tossed out a suit against Monsanto's parent company involving claims that the weed killer Roundup caused cancer. And this one is interesting because this is not our traditional six three group of the three we know and love and the six we have come to detest in many cases. This is a 7, 2 decision where Kagan and Sotomayor actually were with the majority and Ketanji, Brown, Jackson and Neil Gorsuch, I believe were the ones who dissented. Talk to me about this case. And did the majority get it right in this one?
- [24:33]
Leah Littman
So the case is about the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide act, or fifra.
- [24:42]
Dan Pfeiffer
FIFRA, as we call it, yes.
- [24:44]
Leah Littman
Keshaw has called this one of her favorite statutes. I don't know why, but it's a federal law that gives the epa, the Environmental Protection Agency, the authority to regulate pesticides, et cetera. And what happens is companies submit their proposed label for their pesticide to the epa and then the EPA signs off on them. And the question in this case is whether an individual could sue a pesticide manufacturer saying that the label that the EPA had approved did not contain enough information to adequately warn them about the danger of the product. And so here the allegation was Monsanto's product, Roundup contains an ingredient that causes cancer and that's not disclosed on the EPA warning label. And so what the Supreme Court said here is this statute gives the EPA and the EPA alone the authority to determine what goes on a label. And the label can only be changed if the EPA orders a change or if the EPA approves a change. Private parties states they can't impose additional requirements beyond what the EPA has decided is warranted.
- [26:01]
Dan Pfeiffer
And so where do you come down on this? As a law professor and legal scholar yourself?
- [26:06]
Leah Littman
Yeah, so I think the court probably got it right here in part because the agency has a lot of authority over how these labels are made and what goes on them. And I think there was a congressional choice to prioritize uniformity over other considerations and wanting a single Process a single decision maker to determine what goes on these labels and valuing the EPA's expertise over the expertise of say, state juries or state decision makers. And that's a choice Congress considered the pluses and minuses. And I think the court was probably right to say we need to respect the choice that Congress has made. Now I have other issues with the Monsanto decision. Just consider it in light of some of the other cases that the court made. But I think standing alone, the court probably got it right.
- [27:00]
Dan Pfeiffer
And now this was about one specific case in Missouri, but there are other suits against Monsanto out there that will be tossed out because of this.
- [27:06]
Leah Littman
Exactly. Yes.
- [27:07]
Squarespace Advertiser
Yes.
- [27:07]
Leah Littman
Yep.
- [27:08]
Dan Pfeiffer
And does this have an impact on, broadly on corporate liability or the ability of individuals to sue companies along lines, or is it pretty specific to this one fifra? If I'm saying that?
- [27:21]
Leah Littman
Exactly, yes. FIFRA related ruling, it's pretty specific to the FIFRA statute itself because the court focused on the fact that Congress in that statute has a provision labeled uniformity and in the statute gave the EPA a bunch of authority over all stages of the labeling process. And that's not necessarily necessarily going to be true in other statutes. And so yes, it's going to insulate this set of corporations from this particular type of lawsuit, but not beyond that.
- [27:48]
Dan Pfeiffer
And could these individuals sue the EPA for the, for the label not being, you know, fully fulsome enough to give them what they needed to know to make the right decisions here? Or are these people just kind of screwed?
- [28:01]
Leah Littman
Yeah. So they can file Administrative Procedure act lawsuits against the EPA and challenge the agency's actions with respect to, to these labels. That is not going to get them damages, you know, for any harm that they might have experienced because of a failure of these warning labels. But they could try to get the EPA to change them going forward.
- [28:21]
Dan Pfeiffer
And you said that you, while this in a vacuum maybe was the right decision, you have concerns more broadly, I take it that is the fact that corporations are like 1 million and oh in the Roberts court over the last 22 years or whatever it is.
- [28:34]
Leah Littman
That would be the general flavor of the objection. And even if you just look at the decisions from this past week. So Monsanto corporations can't be sued for labels that allegedly contain insufficient warnings that cause people to get cancer. Earlier this week, the court said you can't sue corporations for abetting human rights abuses that foreign governments commit. They said corporations, however, can sue foreign governments, namely Cuba, for taking their oil. They said individuals who are incarcerated, they cannot sue state officials who violate their religious freedom rights. They said TPS recipients can't sue to challenge the executive branch for violating their rights under the statute. In another immigration case, they said, effectively, lawful permanent residents can't enforce this statute protecting their right to reenter the United States at the border. So who gets to sue to enforce their rights? Corporations. You can't sue corporations for violating international law, for potentially violating state tort law. You can't sue state officials for violating federal law. You can't sue federal officials for violating federal law. And so if you just aggregate all of these decisions together, it's like, okay, who has rights, who doesn't? Corporations.
- [29:55]
Dan Pfeiffer
Everyone else you're bringing up the TPS thing wants me to go back to something I meant to ask you before. Given this decision, what would stop a president aoc, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, whoever else from just deciding on day one that they wanted to grant TPS to everyone from, say, Mexico?
- [30:15]
Leah Littman
It's so funny you say that, Dan, because that was actually an argument in the case that the challengers said, look, if you completely insulate these decisions from review, they can be abused in either direction. So in one of the final passages of the opinion, Sam Alito suggests, well, look, the plaintiffs in these cases, they throw out these hypotheticals. We're not going to necessarily say those would be unreviewable, but maybe Congress could fix them. And so there was this narrow potential caveat that the court reserved for itself because they view themselves as the ultimate decision maker to potentially say, maybe some wholesale abdications might be reviewable, but who knows?
- [30:58]
Dan Pfeiffer
So just if, per chance, say, a Democratic president wanted to unveil themselves of the executive authority that they found inherent in Donald Trump's actions, there was a way for them to stop that from happening.
- [31:09]
Leah Littman
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.
- [31:10]
Dan Pfeiffer
Perfect, perfect, perfect, perfect. Good. Let's make sure. You know, I didn't go to law school, but I'm sort of picking up what's happening here.
- [31:16]
Leah Littman
I mean, from these decisions, it's not clear Sam Alito did either.
- [31:19]
Dan Pfeiffer
Fair enough, fair enough. Okay, let's get to the cases that have not yet been released and will maybe release Monday or Tuesday of next week. We think, we hope. Who knows?
- [31:28]
Leah Littman
Do we hope? Honestly, like, they're bad things happen.
- [31:32]
Dan Pfeiffer
I hope for you, as someone who has a podcast schedule you have to get to, that happens earlier in the week. Better, I would say, for everyone Monday and Tuesday than Thursday, perhaps. Okay, all right. The biggest one that everyone's waiting for is the one on birthright citizenship. Everyone seems to think that since the Constitution is quite explicit on this, that it would be seemingly impossible for the Supreme Court to do this. You had a piece of the contrarian where you raised some real questions. You have some worries about this. I'd like to hear what those worries are. And I think it also raises some measure of concern that they've been sitting on this like this is something they could have done in a one sentence order a year ago. And we've been waiting and waiting and waiting. And just based on what I've read in reserve, the fact that they're waiting so long on this at least suggests that there's something going on. So what is going on here? Tell me about the case. Tell me about why specifically you have worries about what this decision might say.
- [32:27]
Leah Littman
Yeah. So the case is a challenge to the President's executive order that purports to deny birthright citizenship to some people who are born in the United States, even though the first sentence of the 14th Amendment says all persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be citizens. So it's a wildly illegal executive order. And I think most people, even after the oral argument and even now, think it's more likely than not that the Supreme Court will say that order can't be enforced and it's unconstitutional. But, and this is a big but, the recent immigration decisions are really concerning. The fact that the Court adopted such broad reasoning in cases where they didn't have to do so at all, I think is causing some people to rethink their confidence in what the Court might do on birthright. I think the delay could also signal that the decision isn't going to be unanimous. And if it's not unanimous, that's going to meaningfully alter the Overton window. As far as what people's understanding of our constitutional multiracial democracy is, you know, if you have dissents by Justice Thomas and Alito, is birthright citizenship going to become a new litmus test for Republican appointees where the expectation is you will only be selected for a judicial seat if you would overrule birthright citizenship, Just like you could only be selected for a judicial seat if you would overrule Roe versus Wade, it would also invite future challenges to birthright down the road. So I think those are some of the things that are on people's mind. But then there's this additional consideration for me, which is even if the court does the right thing, I mean, they just cannot get all of the credit and all of the plaudits that are inevitably going to be heaped on them for standing up to the President when, as we were just talking about, they bent over backwards to greenlight some of the more xenophobic white nationalist elements of his immigration agenda when they didn't have to do so. They are the ones that created the need for this case on birthright citizenship and indeed demanded that the federal government bring the case to them. When last year in the nationwide injunction case, they refused to just come out and say, even if lower courts can't block this policy on a nationwide basis, we Supreme Court can because it's wildly unconstitutional. And instead they made the Solicitor General promise that he would appeal any unfavorable ruling back to them to give them the opportunity to be the hero. And so they were the ones that created this potential opportunity for great PR for themselves that will give them cover for who knows what else they might do in addition to all of the terrible things they've already done.
- [35:09]
Dan Pfeiffer
Yeah, it's interesting because John Roberts is a very political individual and he is tries, and he's not a very good political individual, but he tries to be one. And so I can see in his simple minded view where he's like, we're going to do all these terrible things, then we're going to head into 4th of July break with this decision that will cause everyone to say, see all those liberals who want to expand the court and do term limits and say we're a bunch of MAGA shills are wrong. And then there will be a series of legal pundits who will then applaud John Roberts and he will ride off into the sunset as a hero. Right.
- [35:40]
Leah Littman
I mean, you say he's simple minded and not that great, but the end of your sentence I just think is correct. When the court, if and when the court rules against birthright citizenship, there will be all of those takes and people talking about how the court has stood up to the President and isn't just in the bag for MAGA and isn't on board with all of Trump's agenda. And therefore, you libs and you progressives who want to reform the court, what would you do if Donald Trump could reform the court when he disagreed with it like that? There's gonna be so much of that.
- [36:13]
Dan Pfeiffer
But those takes are why America's most popular, influential Supreme Court podcast exists. Right. Like you will be you, you, Katie Muscle, will be on that wall fighting back against that. I know that. Yes.
- [36:26]
Leah Littman
I mean, we have been screaming about, about this for over a year at the end.
- [36:29]
Dan Pfeiffer
And trust in the Supreme Court is at an all time low. So don't think you have not put your wheel to the, your shoulder to the wheel of history. Yes.
- [36:36]
Leah Littman
Yeah. Send strict scrutiny to more friends challenge. But no, I mean, it's not to say it's going to work, but it is going to generate some of the coverage that they want and it's just gonna be annoying as fuck when it does.
- [36:53]
Dan Pfeiffer
Yes. So let's say Hypothetically this is a 7:2 decision and Alito and Thomas or whoever El else they are against it. Can you fathom in your brain what that argument would be like? It is hard to find something as plain text as this in the with as, with, as a simple and specific application as this. You know, like obviously freedom of speech is in there, but then there are all kinds, all kinds of different applications you can take on it. This is basically like if this happens, you are a citizen. And Trump administration is arguing if this happens, you are not a citizen. Like what is the legal argument someone could muster, as bullshit and fake as it would be, that would say that birthright citizenship is not a lot. They could be curtailed or stopped by an administration.
- [37:41]
Leah Littman
Yes. So having ventured into the dark recesses of right wing legal circles, I can offer you at least two. One would be to say that but there is a recognized exception for birthright citizenship, that birthright citizenship does not extend to the children of invading armies. If, for example, Canada decided to invade the United States and officers who participated in that invasion had children born in the United States while they did so, then those children would not be citizens of the United States. And some on the right have argued that unauthorized immigration is the equivalent of an invasion of the United States. You know, borrowing on great replacement theory and other white nationalist tropes. And so one possible legal theory is the justices could equate unlawful unauthorized immigration with an invasion and say children who are born to individuals without legal status in the United States are the equivalent of the children of invading armies. That's one possibility. Another possibility is the court, court basically reads the exceptions to be the rule. So the phrase as we were talking about in the 14th Amendment is all persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. And part of that exception recognizes that children of foreign diplomats, for example, you know, they are not born as United States citizens, just like children of invading armies aren't United States citizens. And so part of the federal government's argument is to basically take those quite narrow exceptions and generalize them into a rule that basically swallows the rule of birthright that says, well, individuals whose parents don't have an allegiance to the United States, their children can't be citizens. And so those are two possible avenues. Both are ridiculous and I think rest on underlying racist tropes about who is sufficiently American that birthright citizenship was intended to rebut. That's exactly What Dred Scott vs Sanford did when it concluded that individuals who were descendants of enslaved persons couldn't be citizens because they too weren't American enough. Right. And didn't have allegiance to the United States, et cetera, et cetera. But I think that those are two of the theories that are on hand.
- [40:08]
Dan Pfeiffer
That's very dark and very disturbing. And thank you for visiting the dark side too. Share that with us. I think it's also notable that maybe this decision will come out right about the time the United States World cup team is playing in the knockout round, where the leading score of the World cup team is someone who has their citizenship through birthright citizenship. Just, just, just a fact for that. Now, obviously, if they were to rule this just. I know we're in a dark, hypothetical place here. It wouldn't be. They couldn't. Would they make it retroactive or like.
- [40:36]
Leah Littman
So this is part of the uncertainty. You know, the administration developed guidance about how they would implement the birthright order, but courts blocked that before the order would take effect. So we don't know whether the Supreme Court would say those injunctions vacated. Individuals who were born in the United States after this executive order was promulgated, they are not citizens. We don't know whether the court would say, no, this just applies prospectively. Now that we have said it can be enforced. It's all tbd. This new lawless, very uncertain era, it's all up for grabs.
- [41:21]
Squarespace Advertiser
Pod Save America is brought to you by SimpliSafe. No one wants to imagine their home getting broken into, but the scary statistic is that every 26 seconds in the US a family experiences a break in. Scary, yes, but that's why SimpliSafe has worked to make home security accessible to more American families. But here's one American family right here.
- [41:37]
Sleep Me Advertiser
Yeah, I'm the American family. The Lovetts. The Lovett's. Have I set up assembly Safe and incredibly easy to do. You can customize it on the website. It arrives, you set it up in a matter of minutes. Base station and the number pad and all the little sensors. And then the app is great, the customer support, really reliable and it gives you peace of mind.
- [41:55]
Squarespace Advertiser
With SimpliSafe, you can customize your system to fit your needs then ships fast directly to your door. The app guided setup is simple and there's no drilling required so you can install and arm your system in under an hour. SimpliSafe is more than just a security camera. It's a comprehensive system of sensors, indoor and outdoor cameras and 247 professional monitoring. Over 5 million people value and trust SimpliSafe with their home security every day. Right now our listeners will get 50% off a new system when you sign up for professional monitoring and your first month is free. Just visit simplisafe.com crooked that's half off@simplisafe.com crooked there's no safe like Simplisafe.
- [42:28]
Sleep Me Advertiser
Pod Safe America is brought to you by Willy's Remedy I love Willy's Remedy. Willy's is a premium THC infused social tonic crafted by the legendary Willie Nelson and the man's a genius. It's a low calorie, low sugar alcohol alternative that actually works, delivering fast acting euphoric social buzz without the regrets that come from alcohol. Willy's social tonics come in 5mg and 10mg doses with a best in class flavor experience. So smooth and balanced you barely realize you're drinking a THC product at all. We had Willy's drinks at the wedding. We called it the Grin and Tonic.
- [42:57]
Squarespace Advertiser
I have finally tried Willy's. It's awesome.
- [42:59]
Sleep Me Advertiser
It really is. It's great.
- [43:01]
Squarespace Advertiser
It's really.
- [43:02]
Sleep Me Advertiser
It's a great.
- [43:02]
Dan Pfeiffer
I like.
- [43:03]
Sleep Me Advertiser
It's my favorite thing. I like we just bought a bunch of other bunch of apples.
- [43:06]
Squarespace Advertiser
Better than an edible.
- [43:07]
Sleep Me Advertiser
Better than an edible.
- [43:08]
Squarespace Advertiser
Hits faster but also smoother.
- [43:10]
Sleep Me Advertiser
You can enjoy the tonics as a shot sipped over ice or mix into your favorite mocktail. Each bottle of Willy's is third party lab tested for accurate dosage so you can trust and customize your experience. Willy's unique blend of thc, cbd, CBG and L Theanine delivers a feeling of calm, clarity, euphoria and relaxation. One shot of Willy's helps you relax, unwind and de stress. It's perfect for taking the edge off at the end of a long day or socializing with friends. Willy's ships directly to your door in 40 plus states and has sold out three times in the first six months with over 300,000 plus happy customers. So order now at drinkwillys.com and use code CROOKED for 20% off your first order plus free shipping on orders over $95 and live like a legend. Drinkwillys.com code CROOKED.
- [43:50]
Dan Pfeiffer
So looking at the other cases that are out there, and there's still some pretty big one. So there is one involving a ban on trans participation in youth sports. There is one about whether the President was able to fire Lisa Cook from the, from the Fed board. And then there were two election cases. Am I missing any, any other big ones out there or those, the ones,
- [44:10]
Leah Littman
those are the ones that I would say are the big ones. Well, so when you said Lisa Cook, it's not just a case about Lisa Cook. There's also a case about whether Trump can fire the head of the Federal Trade Commission and all other.
- [44:25]
Dan Pfeiffer
Are these, are those cases joint? Are they two separate cases?
- [44:27]
Leah Littman
They're not joint. They're two separate cases.
- [44:29]
Dan Pfeiffer
Okay, can you maybe, maybe explain those two cases for us?
- [44:31]
Leah Littman
Sure, yeah. So one case involves whether Donald Trump can fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission and all other independent agencies that are led by these independent multi member commissions like the securities and Exchange Commission or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or you name it, National Labor Relations Board, et cetera, the Federal Reserve.
- [44:55]
Dan Pfeiffer
Or is that separate?
- [44:56]
Leah Littman
Well, the Federal Reserve is that separate case. Because what happened is earlier in the Trump administration, Trump fired a bunch of these heads of multi member commissions, even though the Supreme Court has a case that's nearly a centuries old that says Congress can limit the President's ability to fire the heads of these multi member commissions, specifically the Federal Trade Commission. So Donald Trump fired people in violation of these laws and the Supreme Court said, actually we'll let him do that while the litigation is ongoing because we Supreme Court have decided to adopt this great new rule. It's called the Unitary Executive theory. And it means the President gets to have near plenary power to fire people who exercise significant executive power. But then they added a sentence, except the Federal Reserve Board because that has a distinct historical tradition. In the tradition of the bank of the United States. That bespoke Fed exception, of course, illustrated that their new unitary executive rule was catastrophic immediately once it would be unleashed onto the world because it would give the President the power to effectively blow up the United States and global economy. But that didn't give them pause. Instead they just created that bespoke exception. And so what did Donald Trump do? He went ahead and tried to fire a governor of the Federal Reserve Board. Because when you give a fascist a cookie, what happens, right? They, they try to take another cookie. So then the Supreme Court ended up with these pair of cases. And one set of cases asks, is it constitutional for Congress to attempt to limit the President's ability to fire the heads of these multi member commissions. That's a hugely important case because if the court hands the President that power, they will be giving him the power to control these agencies that exercise such sweeping powers over our lives, over government contracts, over whether corporations have to comply with the law. You know, Federal Trade Commission, for example, they police Amazon. You know, they police antitrust law. If you tell the President you can fire people who don't enforce antitrust law the way you want them to, that's allowing him to give murders to his friends and penalize his enemies. So that case is super consequential. But they also have that case about Lisa Cook. Cook. And that case asks, well, given that this statute does limit the President's ability to fire Lisa Cook, did the President comply with those limitations? So I don't want the Cook case to kind of obscure the significance of the other case, which will affect every other independent agency.
- [47:31]
Dan Pfeiffer
Let me ask a question on the independent agency case. Now the President gets to appoint the heads of all of these jobs. Right. And, and they are approved by the Senate. And the reason the President can't just fire them like he could fire his Department of home, his Secretary of Homeland Security or whatever else, is because the way the law was written says they can only fire him for cause.
- [47:53]
Leah Littman
Exactly.
- [47:53]
Dan Pfeiffer
Is that what it is? Yep.
- [47:54]
Leah Littman
Because Congress decided these agencies would just run better if they were somewhat insulated from politics and relied more on expertise.
- [48:02]
Dan Pfeiffer
And then the question before the court is whether the President's inherent executive authority override that. Whether the Congress does not have the constitutional authority to hem in that specific executive authority.
- [48:13]
Leah Littman
Right, exactly. Whether the Constitution entitles the President to say you're fired no matter what Congress says.
- [48:18]
Dan Pfeiffer
Okay. And then the possible exception of the Fed because of its unique tradition, because
- [48:24]
Leah Littman
the Justices have stock portfolios.
- [48:26]
Dan Pfeiffer
Yes, exactly. They're all quite wealthy. And Clarence Thomas has several very close friends who need that money to send him on vacation.
- [48:38]
Leah Littman
Exactly. Private jet fuel don't pay for itself, Dan.
- [48:41]
Dan Pfeiffer
Okay, sorry. Let's get to the Transports case. This one, if I remember correctly from the oral arguments earlier this year, seemed quite dire in what we thought the Court would read, but maybe talk about that case and if there's any. You see any hope here?
- [48:54]
Leah Littman
Yeah. So this case is about whether state laws that effectively ban transgender athletes from participating in sports violate either Title 9, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs or educational institutions, and also whether these state laws violate the federal constitutions guarantee of equal protection. The Oral argument in the cases was awful. The lawyer for the federal government, who of course was arguing in support of these state law bans, and again, trans athletes said one of the more grotesque things I think that has ever been said at the Supreme Court lectern when he referred to trans athletes as males who take performance enhancing drugs. And I just don't think there's any question that the six Republican appointees are going to say these state laws are consistent with Title ix. The only lingering question is whether they're also going to say these state laws are constitutional or whether they will instead send the case back to the lower court to decide that constitutional question, perhaps with some additional fact finding. I honestly think that is the best we can hope for at this point. And the other thing to watch for is whether you get separate writings that say not only does Title IX permit states to ban trans athletes from participating at sports, potentially it requires states and schools to ban trans athletes from participating in sports. So that's kind of the spectrum of possibilities. It's very bleak. Yeah.
- [50:34]
Dan Pfeiffer
So we have two sort of major things that go, I guess, go beyond sports participation.
- [50:40]
Sleep Me Advertiser
Right.
- [50:40]
Dan Pfeiffer
One is suggesting that Title IX would require some measure of discrimination against trans people, whether that could be in anything involving education. Right. Funding scholarships across the board. Right. So that's one that seems quite bad. And then even worse, I would imagine, is making some case that, I mean, am I over reading this? That the net result of inequal protection finding here would be that trans people have no equal protection rights, that being trans would not guarantee equal protection rights in the way that being being black or a woman or of a certain religious group.
- [51:20]
Leah Littman
Yeah. The danger is the Supreme Court says laws that discriminate against trans people do not trigger any kind of meaningful judicial scrutiny. So courts should just defer to governments that discriminate on the basis of gender identity and give those laws a pass. Given the extent to which states and the federal government have been trying to erase trans people and strip trans people of their rights, that would be a really concerning development because it would make challenging all of those laws or policies that are anti trans in court.
- [51:56]
Dan Pfeiffer
Could Congress then, in a different world, with a different Congress and a different president, do something to address that by passing laws that would guarantee, like either amending Title IX or like what. What would a Congress do that would solve that problem?
- [52:12]
Leah Littman
Potentially, yes. So Congress could enact a statute. Maybe the statute itself just prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity, no matter the context, in school and elsewhere. Maybe Congress creates a spending program that says, look, if you receive any federal funds, you have to promise not to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. Those are two possibilities. And yet I am left with but the Supreme Court, I cannot rule out the possibility that this court would invalidate those laws, maybe saying, well, they exceed Congress's powers. Maybe the court would say, well, those laws actually discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of the federal Constitution. You know, maybe the court would say they had another spending clause decision. This is one of the other awful decisions from this week where they basically said spending programs can't be enforced against the state officials who are carrying them out. So maybe they would make those spending conditions effectively toothless. This. But there are things Congress could do. But basically anything Congress could do that is good requires a different Supreme Court.
- [53:19]
Sleep Me Advertiser
Yeah.
- [53:19]
Ryan Seacrest
Which is.
- [53:19]
Dan Pfeiffer
That's true of all.
- [53:20]
Leah Littman
That is true of all things.
- [53:22]
Dan Pfeiffer
All things, yes. Stipulated. Agreed to. We have to deal with that.
- [53:26]
Leah Littman
Yeah.
- [53:26]
Dan Pfeiffer
The Supreme Court is also considering a Mississippi law that allows the five day grace period for mail in ballots received after Election Day to be counted. This law is, of course, being challenged by the rnc. And this has implications both for Mississippi and perhaps more broadly like in California now, where Spencer Pratt, who is a MAGA favorite, his chance spot in the runoff went away as more votes came in. And so talk a little bit about this case and if it has broader implications for this grace period for mail in balloting, which is Trump wrote an executive order to try to stop the Postal Service from delivering mail in ballots, although that was stopped by federal court. Just talk a little bit about what's going on there.
- [54:05]
Leah Littman
Yeah. So the challenge here, the Republican National Committee says this federal law that creates Election Day as this first Tuesday in November that prohibits states from counting ballots that are received after Election Day even if they were postmarked on or by Election Day, if the Supreme Court adopts that theory, that would nullify or change how votes are counted. And 29 some states, and of course, we are a few months away from the midterms. I think there's a real concern that changing the rules of the election at this point would put state and local election officials in a really tough spot because they have already begun to prepare to administer the election in accordance with what their state rules are now and requiring them to all of a sudden change on a dime because the Supreme Court, like, read Election Day to be this magical unicorn of a date on which everything but only some things have to be completed by would be hugely destabilizing. I also think it would create a lot of voter confusion and chaos that could potentially lead to voter suppression and people, you know, not actually returning their ballots and whatnot. So I am very concerned about that case just because of its potential destabilizing and sweeping implications, and also because of what it might invite next. If the Supreme Court says states can't count ballots that are received after election day, why can states count ballots that are received before election day? If election day is this magical day that everything is supposed to happen by, why can they count ballots after election day, even if the ballots were received before election day? So part of what is so concerning about this case is it could call into question so many established voting practices that we have just taken for granted, in addition to fucking with the midterms terms.
- [55:55]
Dan Pfeiffer
And the sea change here potentially, is that the courts to date have given states, because of the Constitution, wide latitude in how they conduct their elections. And many of the cases that were have been thrown out, even some Trump cases in 2020 are based on that principle that the Constitution grants the states to do it. They have to do in accordance with the Constitution. But beyond that, you want to do your election all by mail, you can do that. You want to count them, you want to count ones that arrive after election day but are post market four, you can do that. But that could open the door to other things going forward here, potentially.
- [56:35]
Leah Littman
So even though states, of course, have the general authority to run elections, Congress can establish rules regarding federal elections. Now the President can't. So all of his unhinged theories about what he can and can't do and what he does and doesn't want. Right. I think are still wildly illegal, no matter what the Supreme Court says in this absentee ballot case. But this federal law that just again creates an election day in no way displaces how states have conducted elections for years. And so I think the challenge is what other challenges to other state laws this theory would invite. In addition to the position, it would put state and local election officials in the lead up to the midterm elections.
- [57:20]
Dan Pfeiffer
And it probably is worth noting that the people who will probably be most disenfranchised with this are military members serving overseas, which are where a lot of the ballots come from that show up after election day.
- [57:30]
Leah Littman
That is indeed true. Indeed, the practice of, you know, voting outside of election day partially originated during the Civil War to ensure that union soldiers would not be disenfranchised. There is always a possibility that the Republican appointees announced no ballots can be counted after election day if they they're received after election Day, except for overseas uniformed officers. Now, that might not protect the families of people who are stationed overseas and whatnot, and that would also create its own form of chaos. But who knows?
- [58:10]
Squarespace Advertiser
Pod Save America is brought to you by Armor Colostrum. When you prioritize your body's baseline, you're better equipped to show up with focus and energy no matter what the day holds. Armor Colostrum is a simple, nature inspired addition to your daily wellness routine. While many turn to probiotics for gut support, they often only focus on one part of a complex system. Armor Colostrum works differently by providing comprehensive nourishment for your gut's natural barrier. It's designed to help sustain your microbiome and support your body's natural defenses against the stressors of modern life. Elevate your self care from the inside out. Armor Colostrum provides a blueprint of nutrients that complement your body's natural renewal process processes. From supporting skin and hair vibrancy to assisting with daily recovery, it's the ultimate tool for those looking to optimize their well being at the cellular level. Research has also shown that Colostrum can be a powerful ally for your active life. It supports the body's natural ability to absorb nutrients and maintain lean muscle. We've worked out a special offer for my audience. Receive 30% off your first subscription order. Go to armor.comcrooked or enter Cricut to get 30 off your first subscription order. That's a R M R A dot
- [59:09]
Minky Couture Advertiser
com Crooked Summer Adventures are better with Minky Couture. From road trips to ball games, beach nights to backyard movies, Minky has you covered. Don't miss the Everywear Blanket. Water resistant, ultra soft and made for life on the go. Wherever summer takes you, bring comfort along. MinkyCouture.com the original best blanket Ever.
- [59:42]
Ryan Seacrest
Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. Earn four times the points on your favorite brands now through July 28th on eligible items like Pantene Moisturizing Shampoo, Gillette Razors and Refills. Secret Clinical Strength Deodorant, Herbal Essences Hair Care, Old Spice Deodorant, Pampers, Swaddlers, Diapers and Crest Clean Breath Toothpaste. Enjoy savings on top of savings. When you shop in store or online for easy pickup or delivery, restrictions apply. See the website for full terms.
- [60:13]
Dan Pfeiffer
The other case is actually one that has gotten very little attention, but this actually has potentially dramatic impacts. In fact, some have said that this case, which involves how whether party party Committee parties can coordinate with candidates would be the biggest campaign finance decision since Citizens United, which is saying a lot because we've had cases like McCutcheon and others in the middle here. Also in the oral arguments here did not seem particularly encouraging. So maybe try to explain this case to people why they should care about it.
- [60:45]
Leah Littman
Yeah, so it sounds technical because it's a challenge to what's called a coordination limit, as you were saying, which is a political party's ability to coordinate how they spend their money with a candidate. It effectively amounts to a ban on political parties donating money to a candidate, because if they coordinate, they're effectively giving the money to the candidate to decide how it could be spent. And there's a concern that if you say, well, contribution limits, actually, those might be unconstitutional. That is like the last remaining vestige of campaign finance law, because even as the Supreme Court has opened up these pathways for corporations, super PACs, to spend an unlimited amount of their own money doing their own advertising, they have not yet struck down limitations on billionaires and corporations ability to give money directly to candidates. And once you start saying, actually contribution limits, those are no good either, then that invites individuals giving directly money to candidates. And I think that's one of the big concerns about this case.
- [62:05]
Dan Pfeiffer
Yeah, like in practical consideration. Right. Just so there's two things. There's what this case would mean right now and how elections are conducted today. And then there is the larger question about whether contribution limits at all are now a violation of free speech. Which leads to instead of Elon Musk writing 100 and spending $132 million or whatever it was to, in a series of outside groups to elect Donald Trump, he just gives Donald Trump $132 million.
- [62:28]
Leah Littman
Basically cut out the middlemen.
- [62:29]
Dan Pfeiffer
Yes, that seems bad. But just like as you think about it, now you can give about $7,000 to a candidate, half in the primary, half in the general. As an individual, whether you are you or me or Elon Musk, that's the most we can give directly to Graham Platner, Jon Ossoff, Roy Cooper, whoever else you can give individual can give $132,000, $132,900 to the DNC or the RNC. And so now instead of giving my $7,000, my little over $7,000 to Grant Planner, I just give 132,000 to the DNC. And then they spend that on behalf of. This matters more in presidential campaigns than it does anything else. Because. Because that's where it be spent directly but it does have big implications and just once again gives more power to rich people. This is almost certainly going to. The court will approve this. This is in line with every other decision they've made since John Roberts became the Chief Justice. And the Trump administration isn't even defending the law here. They are on the other side of it because it's the nrsc. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is the plaintiff in the case. So. So this one is. This is a big mess. This is one for election nerds are paying a lot of attention to and people who work on elections. But they get some pretty big implications for what else is to come in our politics.
- [63:52]
Leah Littman
Yeah, completely. Because in the short term, it would just rapidly increase the amount of money that rich individuals can give directly to candidates. But then in the longer term, it potentially opens up a pathway for no limits at all. There is a small outside chance that the court says there's no actual controversy here and the case is moot and they don't decide it. But that is the best scenario.
- [64:13]
Dan Pfeiffer
I mean, look, I mean, this Supreme Court, there's always hope. Right. Like we can't. Yeah. Give them. One thing they've earned is the benefit of the doubt.
- [64:20]
Leah Littman
Benefit of the doubt, yeah.
- [64:21]
Dan Pfeiffer
All right, before we go, I want to hit on Roe v. Wade. This past week was the four year anniversary of the Dobbs decision which overturned the Roe v. Wade decision. The legacy of that decision continues to live in our lives, in our politics. It is coming up in this main Senate race where Susan Collins is running against Grant Plattner and she got asked about it on Fox News. I wanted to play the clip and get your reaction to it.
- [64:48]
Leah Littman
You held up for quite some time on your vote of support for just now, Justice Kavanaugh. Is this an issue that you think is troublesome for you in this race now that Roe v. Wade was overturned in Maine across the country? Well, first of all, let me make clear that I disagreed with The Supreme Court's 6 to 3 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. But the fact is that whether Justice Kavanaugh were confirmed or not, Roe v. Wade would have been overTurned given the 6 to 3 vote. Not true. Sam Alito says.
- [65:30]
Dan Pfeiffer
Could you maybe explain where Susan Collins has her facts wrong on this one?
- [65:35]
Leah Littman
Where to start?
- [65:36]
Minky Couture Advertiser
Yeah.
- [65:37]
Ryan Seacrest
Go, Justice.
- [65:37]
Leah Littman
So much potential.
- [65:39]
Dan Pfeiffer
I am going to step out of the way and let you go.
- [65:41]
Leah Littman
Okay. We'll start with the factual inaccuracies. Had Justice Kavanaugh not been confirmed, there were not five votes to overrule Roe versus Wade. Chief Justice Roberts did not vote to overrule Roe versus Wade. He instead voted to change the legal test in a way that would have expanded states ability to restrict abortion more so than they could have done before the decision, but not to the point of overruling Roe versus Wade. So that's just factually inaccurate. There were just five Justices who voted to overrule Roe.
- [66:11]
Dan Pfeiffer
And just be clear, she confirmed the
- [66:13]
Leah Littman
fifth justice and she confirmed Brett Kavanaugh exactly who was one of those five. So facts not so great. Second, and I absolutely just despise this framing of I disagree with the Court's decision. I don't regret my vote because it just makes me wonder what great things has Brett Kavanaugh done that make the loss of women's lives, their fertility, their health worth it? Like how many women have to lose their lives for you to conclude that actually maybe you do regret your vote? So that is just horrifying. And then there's this sense that maybe she, you know, made this decision, but it didn't really affect Mainers, which is also wrong because you know, people who live in Maine, which still has abortion access might travel and sometimes people experience medical emergencies that might require medical care, including abortion care. And if you are traveling in a state where after Roe abortion is banned, you are potentially in a circumstance where you could not receive medical care. Add to that the fact that the medication abortion rulings potentially jeopardize access to medication abortion even in states like Maine that want to protect abortion. And I just think she is really papering over so many of the horrific consequences that her vote to confirm the fifth vote to overrule Roe have had. And it just one of the more tragic things about the 2024 presidential election is I think people came away from it thinking well actually the Republican Party isn't going to bear any consequences for overruling Roe and the public has just decided not to force them to pay a price for again the loss of lives, health, fertility more that we have seen in the wake of Roe being overruled. And I hope that is not the case. I hope that in 2026, you know, people who enable this post Roe landscape are held accountable. But it is just very depressing. I think anytime I think about the fact that people just decided to give a bunch of politicians a pass for what they have unleashed on people in this country.
- [68:34]
Dan Pfeiffer
So can I give the counterpoint to that? Yeah, let's do it. Because I talked this on polar coaster this past week because of the anniversary of Dobbs. And what is really interesting about the polling on this is abortion was a very divisive issue in this country up until the moment of Dobbs. And the number of Americans who consider themselves pro choice reached an all time high right after Dobbs. And four years later has stayed the same. It has not gone down as, because obviously in that immediate aftermath and in that election in 2022, as these Republic states are rushing to pass their bills, abortion was the number one issue in politics. It was discussed everywhere. People were dealing with. It was just a topic of conversation. As it's dropped in salience. It has not changed the politics of it, which I think is very positive and creates the path for accountability for these people. And there are opportunities in 2026 to hold these people accountable. You have Susan Collins, you have Ken Paxton, you have an array of officials in Ohio. Right. And a whole bunch of other states that passed some of the most, the cruelest and most retrograde reproductive rights laws in this country can all pay the price. Everyone should go to votesafeamerica.com to figure out how to do that. But I really do believe Donald Trump was this unicorn figure because even though he is the person, other than Susan Collins, most responsible for Roe being overturned, no one actually believed that he truly was anti choice. Like I remember in focus groups, people would say if you asked in a focus group if Donald Trump was anti abortion or anti choice, they would laugh and say he, that he, Donald Trump's
- [70:13]
Leah Littman
probably, he believes in nothing.
- [70:15]
Dan Pfeiffer
Yeah, Like, I mean, here's a guy who cheated on all his wives, sleeps around like this. He's a disgusting cat. He's from Manhattan. He probably like, obviously he doesn't care about abortion. That is not true of the rest of these Republicans, certainly not true of Ken Paxton who is a principal architect of that law and the enforcement of that law. And so there are opportunities to hold people accountable here. And I do believe that Dobbs was a. It did not bear fruit in 2024 because of a long list of unique circumstances that bedeviled that election that we don't have to get into. But that was a fundamental signature moment that changed politics in this country in ways that will ensure those people are held accountable and more and more states will elect the right people to put in place laws and maybe one day we'll have a Supreme Court that can undo the damage that was done there.
- [71:04]
Leah Littman
I very much hope you are correct and I just worry that I have rarely gone wrong in estimating the amount of misogyny that Americans will tolerate in their politics. And again, I very much hope you are right. May it be the case.
- [71:26]
Dan Pfeiffer
And we have the ability to impact that ourselves right now.
- [71:30]
Leah Littman
Everyone is ability to impact that in many different ways.
- [71:33]
Dan Pfeiffer
Yes.
- [71:33]
Leah Littman
Whether that is like calling your officials to remind them that actually you do care about abortion access and reproduction, reproductive rights. Are your senators confirming nominees, giving blue slips to nominees. Right. Who you don't think will protect reproductive freedom.
- [71:46]
Dan Pfeiffer
John Ketterman, for instance. Yes.
- [71:48]
Leah Littman
You know, not naming names, but someone
- [71:51]
Dan Pfeiffer
who was on the ballot in 2028 will face a primary challenge. Yes.
- [71:55]
Minky Couture Advertiser
Yes.
- [71:56]
Leah Littman
Or again, electing officials, helping to get out the vote to help elect officials who will protect reproductive freedom and to vote against people who didn't. All of those are ways to make this happen. And and I think we kind of need to make reproductive freedom a salient issue I think is part of protecting democracy. Like you can't really separate these two things. So yeah, fingers crossed.
- [72:19]
Dan Pfeiffer
See that seems what was perhaps not the most optimistic and hopeful pod that we've done at Pot Save America for the last many years. Although quite insightful, interesting and entertaining, I would say maybe we can end on that positive ish note. Leah Lippman, thanks so much for joining us. And everyone check out Strict Scrutiny. You guys can have another podcast out this week. On Monday we'll talk about some decisions and then maybe more depending on what we hear from the rest of the court. Is that right?
- [72:43]
Leah Littman
That is all correct. New episode on Monday and then likely additional episodes whenever the Supreme Court does fuck knows what.
- [72:50]
Sleep Me Advertiser
Yeah.
- [72:51]
Dan Pfeiffer
Leah, thank you so much.
- [72:52]
Leah Littman
Thanks.
- [72:52]
Dan Pfeiffer
Thanks Aaliyah for stopping by. John John and Tommy will be back in your feed with a new episode on Tuesday. Bye everyone.
- [72:58]
Squarespace Advertiser
Positive America is a crooked media production. Our show the show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin, McKenna Roberts and Farah Safari with Reed Churlin, Elijah Cohn and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt De Groat, Ben Hefcote, Jordan Kantor, Charlotte Landis, Kirill Pelavie, David Towles, Mia Kellman, Ryan Young and Naomi Singel. Our staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.
- [73:18]
Minky Couture Advertiser
Summer adventures are better with Minky Couture. From road trips to ball games, beach nights to backyard movies, Minky has you covered. Don't miss the Everywhere blanket. Water resistant, ultra soft and made for life on the go. Wherever summer takes you, bring comfort along. Minkycouture.com the original best blanket ever.
- [73:50]
Leah Littman
You know that song that goes every rose has its thorn that basically describes every June when it comes to the Supreme Court. Summer is just starting. But the Supreme Court term is ending. Which means we're waiting for some massively consequential and possibly devastating Supreme Court decisions on birthright citizenship, trans athletes, and absentee ballots. I'm Leah Littman and along with my co hosts and fellow law professors Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw, we'll break down every opinion and what it means on Strict Scrutiny. New episodes of Strict Scrutiny drop every Monday and keep an eye on your feed. Need for emergency episodes when the big opinions come out, watch on YouTube or listen wherever you get your podcasts.
- [74:30]
Squarespace Advertiser
Did you know not all batteries are the same?
- [74:32]
Leah Littman
For example, only Duracell batteries are built different with Power Boost ingredients.
- [74:37]
Squarespace Advertiser
And Duracell are the only batteries that make this sound every time you say Power Boost ingredients. See Duracell batteries with Power Boost ingredients. You try.
- [74:50]
Ryan Seacrest
Told you.
- [74:51]
Squarespace Advertiser
Duracell batteries are built different with Power Boost ingredients and they're built right here
- [74:56]
Ryan Seacrest
in the USA with US and global parts.