Tangle Podcast: Preview Episode with Sarah Isker on Supreme Court Developments

Host: Isaac Saul
Guest: Sarah Isker
Release Date: May 25, 2025

Introduction to the Episode

In this preview episode of Tangle, host Isaac Saul welcomes Sarah Isker, a legal expert and avid follower of Supreme Court developments. The conversation centers around recent and upcoming Supreme Court cases, with a particular focus on the contentious issue of birthright citizenship and the broader implications of nationwide injunctions.

Discussion on SCOTUS Blog Acquisition

Timestamp: 03:27 - 06:26

Isaac Saul introduces the recent acquisition of SCOTUS Blog by The Dispatch, highlighting its significance in legal journalism. Sarah Isker expresses excitement about the collaboration, emphasizing SCOTUS Blog's reputation for independent and balanced coverage.

Sarah Isker [03:54]: "I was really excited to get to sit down with Sarah and talk to her a little bit about what was happening at the Supreme Court in recent weeks and what is going to come to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks."

John Wall discusses the history of SCOTUS Blog and its role in providing comprehensive coverage of Supreme Court activities. He mentions the introduction of "Stat Pack," a detailed compilation of Supreme Court statistics, and ongoing features like "relist watch."

John Wall [03:54]: "SCOTUS Blog has been an institution for 25 years in the legal world... it's the most independent straight news reporting on what the Court is actually doing."

Deep Dive into Birthright Citizenship Case

Timestamp: 07:49 - 20:40

The core of the discussion revolves around the Supreme Court's handling of a birthright citizenship case initiated by the Trump administration's executive order. Sarah Isker provides an overview of the legal battles surrounding the executive order, which aims to restrict automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to certain non-citizens.

Sarah Isker [09:18]: "This birthright citizenship, EO, as I mentioned, and why I brought in the history, is so much of a break with everything that came before it."

John Wall contextualizes the case by tracing its roots back to the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857 and the subsequent ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, which established birthright citizenship unequivocally.

John Wall [10:18]: "The 14th Amendment ratified. And it says, for the explicit purpose of superseding that Dred Scott decision, that anyone born in the United States, quote, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is automatically a citizen of the United States."

They delve into the legal mechanisms of nationwide injunctions, discussing how lower federal courts have used them to maintain the status quo amidst the litigation challenging the executive order. The conversation highlights the challenges of implementing such injunctions and their implications for federal authority.

Sarah Isker [18:01]: "There's so much to be said about the degree to which a single judge shouldn't be able to stop the executive branch from doing this thing."

Judicial Philosophy and Nationwide Injunctions

Timestamp: 16:41 - 20:40

The conversation shifts to the judicial philosophies influencing Supreme Court justices' perspectives on nationwide injunctions. Sarah Isker notes the tension between pragmatic approaches and originalist interpretations among the justices, impacting their decision-making on cases like the birthright citizenship challenge.

John Wall [19:24]: "The justices seem very frustrated with that, that the lower courts aren't taking that responsibility seriously enough."

They explore the bipartisan nature of support for nationwide injunctions, dispelling misconceptions that they are solely a tool for one political side. Sarah emphasizes the importance of viewing these legal instruments beyond current political contexts.

Sarah Isker [24:41]: "It's liberals who like nationwide injunctions during the Biden administration. It's conservatives who like nationwide injunctions. You've got to take this out of the current moment to really understand the issue."

Potential Outcomes and Implications

Timestamp: 20:40 - 24:00

John Wall speculates on possible Supreme Court rulings, suggesting that the justices may establish a new framework for evaluating nationwide injunctions rather than adhering to strict ideological lines. He anticipates a nuanced decision that balances constitutional principles with practical governance needs.

John Wall [20:40]: "I think the Vegas odds are that they're going to split the baby a little bit... probably be some type of, you know, three or four factor test."

Sarah Isker concurs, acknowledging the complexity of the issue and the Supreme Court's cautious approach to overturning long-standing legal precedents without clear constitutional mandates.

Conclusion

The episode offers an insightful exploration of the Supreme Court's recent and upcoming decisions, particularly focusing on the birthright citizenship case and the broader debate over nationwide injunctions. Sarah Isker and John Wall provide a balanced analysis, grounding their discussion in historical context and contemporary legal challenges. Listeners gain a deeper understanding of the intricate relationship between executive actions, judicial oversight, and long-standing constitutional principles.

Key Takeaways

• Historical Context: Understanding the 14th Amendment's role in establishing birthright citizenship post-Dred Scott.
• Nationwide Injunctions: Their increasing use in federal courts and the debates surrounding their appropriateness and impact.
• Judicial Philosophy: The influence of pragmatic versus originalist approaches on Supreme Court decisions.
• Supreme Court's Role: Anticipated developments in how the Court may address and potentially redefine nationwide injunctions.

Notable Quotes

• John Wall [10:18]: "The 14th Amendment... anyone born in the United States, quote, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is automatically a citizen of the United States."
• Sarah Isker [18:01]: "There's so much to be said about the degree to which a single judge shouldn't be able to stop the executive branch from doing this thing."
• John Wall [20:40]: "There is no clean way to resolve it."

This preview episode sets the stage for a comprehensive and thought-provoking discussion on pivotal Supreme Court cases, inviting listeners to engage with the complexities of American jurisprudence and its real-world implications.