NPR Politics Podcast
Episode: "Supreme Court poised to rule on tariffs, birthright citizenship and more"
Date: January 7, 2026
Hosts: Tamara Keith, Carrie Johnson, Mara Liasson
Overview
This episode examines major Supreme Court cases with sweeping political and constitutional implications, focusing primarily on how upcoming decisions could reshape the powers of the executive branch and influence signature Trump administration policies. The cases discussed involve Trump’s tariffs, the ability to remove Federal Reserve officials, the future of birthright citizenship, the Voting Rights Act, mail-in ballots, and key culture-war legal battles. The hosts analyze the stakes, potential consequences, and the broader context of an increasingly assertive executive branch.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. Trump’s Tariff Policy and Supreme Court Review
- Case Focus: Legality of Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) from the 1970s to unilaterally impose tariffs (01:10–04:58).
- Some conservative justices have expressed unease about the broad grant of power to the president.
- The law does not mention tariffs and has never been used this way.
- Host Analysis:
- Carrie Johnson (01:34): “The big question here is whether that law can carry the weight of all of these tariffs the president has imposed.”
- Mara Liasson (03:08): “The political implications of anything that lessens the effect of tariffs is probably good for Trump's party, even if it would be considered a loss for him.”
- Potential for a narrow ruling: The Court could suggest Trump pursue tariffs under a different statute or get congressional approval.
- Tamara Keith (04:07): “It’s been remarkable to me how existentially he is treating this, even though... there are potentially other options if the Court rules against him.”
- Notable Quote:
- President Trump’s social post: “Tariffs are an overwhelming benefit to our nation… Losing our ability to tariff other countries… would be a terrible blow to the United States of America.” (Read by Tamara Keith at 02:26)
2. Trump v. Cook (Federal Reserve Removal Power)
- Case Summary: Whether the president can fire Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook for “cause,” following unsubstantiated claims of past wrongdoing (05:05–06:41).
- Host Remarks:
- Carrie Johnson (05:05): “Members of the Fed are appointed for 14-year terms… to try to insulate them from political pressure.”
- Mara Liasson (06:03): Points out Trump is working “within the rules on this one,” insisting there is cause, rather than challenging the removal restriction itself.
- Discussion of the political and economic risks: Changing Fed board composition could lower interest rates, possibly causing inflation.
- Mara Liasson (06:26): “Here’s another case of the Supreme Court maybe saving Trump from himself.”
3. Birthright Citizenship
- Case Overview: Legality of Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children of migrants (06:41–08:09).
- Constitutional Context: The 14th Amendment confers citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S.
- Carrie Johnson (06:52): “That would really upend most law professors’ understanding of the 14th Amendment and could be a totally revolutionary view of immigration law…”
- The Trump view is that the Amendment only applies to descendants of formerly enslaved people, not children of migrants.
- Mara Liasson (07:42): “He’s saying, ‘I don’t care what the Constitution says. The president should be able to decide who can be a citizen.’”
4. Voting Rights Act and Congressional Maps
- Case Summary: A Louisiana case challenging Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits race-based voting discrimination (08:34–10:37).
- Concerns:
- Weakening Section 2 could lead to substantial loss of minority congressional representation.
- Carrie Johnson (09:19): “... the Congressional Black Caucus could lose up to 30% of its members and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus could lose up to 11% of its members.”
- Mara Liasson (09:42): “If the Voting Rights Act has changed, Republicans could draw about a dozen more Republican leaning districts…a big structural advantage in races for the House.”
- Political Framing: The current conservative Court majority has previously expressed the view that civil rights protections may have reached their “expiration date.”
- Carrie Johnson (10:17): “Some of the changes… imposed under the Voting Rights Act… have a time limit… that time may be coming due soon.”
- Mara Liasson (10:37): “That squares with the whole MAGA argument… that if there is racial discrimination, it’s against white people.”
5. Mail-in Ballot Laws and Potential Impacts
- Case Focus: Republican National Committee’s challenge to Mississippi’s law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by and received up to five business days after Election Day (11:10–13:37).
- Key Issues:
- Trump and allies claim mail-in voting harms Republicans, despite lack of evidence.
- Carrie Johnson (12:05): Explains postal service changes—delayed postmarks—threaten timely ballot counting.
- Mara Liasson (12:43): “Mail-in balloting… is an important tool for both parties.”
- Election Official Viewpoint: No substantiated evidence of widespread fraud.
6. Culture War Cases: Transgender Sports and Conversion Therapy
- Sports Cases: Constitutional challenges to state bans on transgender women and girls' participation in women's sports (14:21–15:42).
- In Idaho and West Virginia, lower courts found the bans unconstitutional.
- Carrie Johnson (14:21): “The Trump administration here is siding with the states who had enacted these bans.”
- Mara Liasson (15:25): “Polls show… people are not for transgender women playing on girls sports teams. But… is it more important than prices on healthcare and groceries? I don’t think so.”
- Conversion Therapy Case: Christian therapist challenges Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy, claiming it violates her free speech rights (15:45–16:34).
- State defends ban as regulating harmful conduct, not speech.
- About 25 states have similar bans, making the ruling potentially broad in impact.
- Carrie Johnson (15:45): “The Trump administration here is supporting the Christian therapist. And it would matter in part because this kind of ban applies in about 25 states.”
Court’s Role, Executive Power, and Guardrails
The Supreme Court’s Approach to Trump-Era Cases
- Trends: The conservative Court leans toward expanding executive power, a philosophy predating Trump but “he just happens to be the vehicle for that.”
- Mara Liasson (17:01): “If Trump wins the vast majority of these cases, we're going to have a different form of government where we have an all powerful executive and a withered judicial and legislative branch.”
- Presidential Compliance:
- Thus far, the administration has complied with Supreme Court orders, though not always with lower court rulings (18:50–19:52).
- Carrie Johnson (19:23): “The solicitor general... did promise Justice Amy Coney Barrett that the administration would do what the Supreme Court said.”
- Mara Liasson (19:52): “White House… has gone out of its way to say the president would not defy the Supreme Court. That would be a constitutional crisis.”
- The White House frames itself as “unchecked,” yet draws the line at Supreme Court defiance.
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
- Carrie Johnson (01:34): “The big question here is whether that law can carry the weight of all of these tariffs the president has imposed.”
- Mara Liasson (03:08): “But the political implications of anything that lessens the effect of tariffs is probably good for Trump's party, even if it would be considered a loss for him.”
- Carrie Johnson (06:52): “That would really upend most law professors’ understanding of the 14th Amendment and could be a totally revolutionary view of immigration law and the Constitution and presidential power.”
- Carrie Johnson (09:19): “... Congressional Black Caucus could lose up to 30% of its members... Congressional Hispanic Caucus could lose up to 11%...”
- Mara Liasson (17:01): “If Trump wins the vast majority of these cases, we're going to have a different form of government where we have an all powerful executive and a withered judicial and legislative branch.”
- Carrie Johnson (19:23): “Solicitor General John Sauer... did promise Justice Amy Coney Barrett that the administration would do what the Supreme Court said.”
- Mara Liasson (19:52): “White House… has gone out of its way to say the president would not defy the Supreme Court. That would be a constitutional crisis.”
Timestamps for Important Segments
- Tariffs case and Court’s power bounds: 01:10–04:58
- Federal Reserve firing case: 05:05–06:41
- Birthright citizenship: 06:41–08:09
- Voting Rights Act (Louisiana redistricting): 08:34–10:37
- Mail-in ballot case: 11:10–13:37
- Transgender sports/Conversion therapy cases: 14:21–16:34
- Discussion on Supreme Court’s broader role and Trump’s adherence to its rulings: 17:01–20:21
Tone and Takeaway
The discussion is factually rich, nuanced, and at times direct about the stakes: The hosts blend legal details with political analysis, maintaining NPR’s signature serious but accessible tone. The episode underscores that 2026 is a pivotal year for the scope of presidential authority, voting rights, and social policy—potentially redefining the constitutional order depending on how the Supreme Court rules in these high-profile cases.