Podcast Summary: The Political Scene | The New Yorker Episode Title: Will the Supreme Court Hand Trump Another Slate of Victories?
Date: October 1, 2025
Host: Tyler Foggatt
Guest: Jeannie Suk Gerson (Contributing writer, The New Yorker; Professor, Harvard Law School)

Episode Overview

In this episode, Tyler Foggatt and Jeannie Suk Gerson discuss the Supreme Court's critical upcoming term amid Donald Trump's second presidency. The conversation centers around Chief Justice John Roberts's legacy, the extent and limits of presidential emergency powers, significant cases on transgender rights and racial gerrymandering, the use and risks of the court's "shadow docket," and the broader implications for the Court’s legitimacy. The episode offers a candid, expert-driven look at how the Court may shape pivotal American legal and political landscapes in the year ahead.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. John Roberts’s Legacy as Chief Justice

• Roberts's Background: Product of the conservative legal movement, aiming to roll back Warren and Burger Court decisions at a measured pace.
  • "He is a product of the conservative legal movement... And I think that that is his legacy. It's the overruling of certain of the Warren Court and Burger Court decisions, but also the establishment of a conservative legal movement vision of the expansive executive power." — Jeannie Suk Gerson [01:32]
• Trump’s Impact: The Trump presidency (now in its second term) accelerated conservative changes, complicating Roberts’s goal of a steady, methodical shift.
  • "He's had a really hard job, much harder than what he signed up for, because in 2016, Donald Trump became the president, and then this year he became president again. And that just makes the court's job a lot harder for reasons I hope that we will get into." — Gerson [03:38]

2. The Tariffs Case: Presidential Emergency Powers

• The Case: Challenges Trump’s imposition of tariffs (April 2, “Liberation Day”) under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
  • Core legal questions:
    • Did Trump have legal authority under IEEPA to impose the tariffs?
    • Does Congressional delegation of such power violate separation of powers?
  • "There's a congressional statute... The powers that this statute can be invoked to address includes things like national security, foreign policy, and the economy having to do with matters that originate outside of the United States." — Gerson [06:34]
• Consequences & Judicial Philosophy:
  • Catastrophic claims emphasized in Trump’s briefs—“catastrophic” appears four times early on [10:33].
  • The Court’s broader philosophy: even originalists pay attention to consequences.
    • “I don't think that the consequences of a court decision is ever really totally far from any justice's mind, and I don't think it's supposed to be… — Gerson [12:20]
• Limiting Emergency Powers?
  • Decision could set precedent on deference to presidential declarations of emergency.
  • Gerson predicts the Court will be reluctant to second-guess the President, affecting the use of emergency powers more generally (e.g., National Guard, immigration).
    • “I have a really hard time seeing the Supreme Court actually saying that they're gonna second guess the President's declaration of an emergency here.” — Gerson [15:45]

3. Transgender Athletes & State Laws

• Upcoming Case: Deals with bans on trans girls competing in women's sports (Idaho, West Virginia).
  • Challenges under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.
  • Laws typically frame teams as designated by “biological sex.”
• Broader Legal Context:
  • Supreme Court had recently ruled on pediatric transition treatments—decision there may influence this case.
  • Nuances in reasoning: Will the Court see these as sex-based classifications requiring heightened scrutiny?
  • Gerson foresees the likely outcome favoring states, reasoning such distinctions meet the state’s interest.
    • “I think the Court is probably going to find in favor of the states and say that... the interest that the state has in this is an important one, and that this was a substantially related legislation to accomplish that interest.” — Gerson [23:06]

4. Racial Gerrymandering and Voting Rights

• Louisiana Map Case: Follows 2023’s surprise Alabama decision upholding a lower-court ruling under the Voting Rights Act.
  • A shift towards “colorblindness” in constitutional interpretation could erode protections for majority-Black districts.
  • “After the SFFA vs. Harvard decision, which adopted a colorblindness rationale for admissions, college admissions, that I don't think anybody expected to just remain limited to the college admissions context.” — Gerson [26:02]
• Implications:
  • If the Court limits or overturns the Voting Rights Act, it could drastically reduce remedies for discrimination in electoral maps.
  • “We may see that be a holding pattern, or we may in the future see the court say you just can't take race into account at all.” — Gerson [31:57]

5. Other Notable Upcoming Cases

• Colorado Ban on Conversion Therapy:
  • At issue: Is the state’s regulation of conversion therapy for minors a reasonable professional standard or unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment?
  • “This seems like a viewpoint based regulation of the speech of these therapists… Is this a violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment because it's telling people you can't say certain things?” — Gerson [33:16]

6. The Court’s “Shadow Docket” and Lower vs. Supreme Court Trends

• Pattern: Trump often loses in lower courts but wins on emergency appeal (shadow docket) at the Supreme Court, with a success rate of approximately 85% since taking office.
  • “He hasn't won a lot in the lower courts. He's actually been extraordinarily unsuccessful in the lower courts. But what matters to him and his administration is not the lower courts. What matters is what the Supreme Court's gonna say… he has had about... 85% success rate so far…” — Gerson [41:45]
• Lack of Explanation:
  • Justices are issuing pivotal rulings without written opinions.
  • This undermines the Court's legitimacy and creates friction with lower courts.
  • “It's just not good for the Court's legitimacy to be issuing these rulings on extremely important, divisive, politically charged matters without explaining its reasoning.” — Gerson [47:42]
• Chief Justice’s Dilemma:
  • These trends undermine the traditional image of the Supreme Court as transparent and deliberative.
  • Defensive tone among justices, especially when lower courts are unclear on how to interpret unclear, unexplained rulings.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “I don't think that the consequences of a court decision is ever really totally far from any justice's mind, and I don't think it's supposed to be.” — Jeannie Suk Gerson [12:20]
• “It feels like a different order of magnitude... the Supreme Court has given [Trump] a lot of victories in these emergency docket cases.” — Gerson [41:45]
• “It's just not good for the Court's legitimacy to be issuing these rulings on extremely important, divisive, politically charged matters without explaining its reasoning.” — Gerson [47:42]
• “I thought before this that the lower courts would be correctly doing their job to say, these aren't binding on us. The emergency cases are binding in those cases, but not... as law for the whole system of lower courts. But now we understand that to be different.” — Gerson [46:31]

Important Segment Timestamps

• Chief Justice Roberts’s legacy & the conservative legal movement – [01:15–04:09]
• Introduction to the tariffs case & Trump’s emergency powers – [06:34–16:54]
• Transgender athlete sports bans & legal scrutiny – [17:35–23:35]
• Racial gerrymandering and the potential fate of the Voting Rights Act – [25:31–32:19]
• Conversion therapy ban and First Amendment issues – [32:36–35:37]
• “Shadow docket”/ Supreme Court vs. lower courts, implications for Trump’s power – [36:43–50:01]

Tone & Concluding Thoughts

The conversation is analytical, direct, and occasionally troubled—reflecting anxiety about expanding executive power, the lack of judicial explanation, and the Court’s increasingly central (and unchecked) role. Gerson’s legal insight provides a sobering look at how the Supreme Court may further entrench Trump’s agenda, and what these trends mean for American democracy and judicial legitimacy.

Final Word:
“I still have hope that the Supreme Court can, in a non-emergency context, explain itself in ways that seem like legal and reasonable disagreement rather than exercise of power.” — Jeannie Suk Gerson [49:30]