UNBIASED Politics – January 12, 2026

Host: Jordan Berman

Episode Overview

Jordan Berman delivers impartial legal and political news, focusing on new ICE footage from a fatal shooting in Minneapolis, the standards for use of deadly force, ICE’s jurisdiction over U.S. citizens, President Trump’s revived remarks about Greenland, and the Supreme Court hearing two landmark cases on transgender athletes’ participation in school sports. The episode also includes quick updates on other political developments and a moment of optimism at the episode’s close.

1. ICE Shooting in Minneapolis: New Footage and Legal Standards for Deadly Force

Key Segment: [00:23] – [13:23]

Main Discussion Points

• New cellphone footage surfaced of a fatal shooting involving an ICE agent and Renee Good in Minneapolis.
• Jordan revisits and corrects prior coverage, clarifying the legal criteria for justified use of deadly force by law enforcement.
• The Supreme Court’s decision in Barnes v. Felix (May 2025) updated the legal standard: courts must consider the totality of circumstances—not just the “moment of threat”—when evaluating use of deadly force under the Fourth Amendment.

Notable Legal Insights

• Old Doctrine Rejected: “I said that the question is, at the moment the shots were fired... would a reasonable officer have believed that the driver posed an imminent threat... Now, that sometimes called the moment of threat doctrine—the Supreme Court actually rejected that... in Barnes v. Felix.”
  — Jordan Berman [02:12]
• Current Standard: “Courts must look not just at what was happening... in the millisecond when the trigger was pulled. They have to consider all relevant circumstances the officer knew before that happened.”
  — Jordan Berman [02:35]

Breakdown of New Footage

• The ICE agent, while recording, interacts with Renee Good and another woman on the street; tensions escalate.
• An officer commands Good to exit the vehicle; instead, she reverses, at which point an agent yells and shots are fired within a rapid sequence.
• Ambiguity remains as to whether the impact was car-to-agent, car-to-phone, or otherwise.

Crucial Analysis: The footage gives new perspective for asking whether, considering all prior events, “a reasonable officer on the scene would have believed that Good posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.”
— Jordan Berman [06:32]

2. ICE Jurisdiction Over U.S. Citizens & Legal Rights in Encounters

Key Segment: [07:00] – [13:32]

Rights Explained

• U.S. citizens have the same constitutional rights with ICE as with police:
  • Right to remain silent (no requirement to answer about citizenship, birthplace, or anything else).
  • Right to ask if you are being detained or are free to leave.
  • Right to refuse searches without a judicial warrant or probable cause.
  • Right to speak to a lawyer if detained.
  • Do not have to sign paperwork without legal counsel.
• ICE generally operates in the civil law context, not criminal—so, for example, Miranda warnings are not always required in the same way.
• ICE can detain those they reasonably believe are not U.S. citizens, but cannot keep confirmed citizen detainees without cause.

Warrant Distinctions

• Judicial warrant (signed by a judge): Required for entering a home without consent.
• Administrative warrant (ICE-issued): Not sufficient for forced entry.

Notable Quotes

• “If you are a U.S. citizen and you are confronted by ICE, you do not lose your constitutional rights.”
  — Jordan Berman [12:26]

• “A judicial warrant is signed by a judge... An administrative warrant is an internal ICE document. It is not signed by a judge. It does not give agents the legal authority to enter your home without your consent.”
  — Jordan Berman [12:54]

• Perspective: ProPublica found only 170 U.S. citizens detained by ICE in 2025—a small proportion, but knowing your rights remains important.

3. Trump’s Greenland Comments: History, Legal Barriers, and Geopolitics

Key Segment: [13:33] – [21:36]

Background and Context

• President Trump again floated “doing something on Greenland whether they like it or not,” returning to his past suggestions about U.S. acquisition.
• Greenland is a self-governing territory within Denmark, rich in minerals and rare earth elements, and strategically located between North America and Europe.

Legal Barriers Summarized

• NATO obligations: Denmark’s membership means any forceful U.S. action would trigger an alliance-wide crisis under Article 5.
• International law: The UN Charter prohibits acquisition of territory by force.
• Self-determination: Greenland has its own elected government; both Danish and Greenlandic consent (and probably, constitutional review) are legally required for any transfer.
• U.S. legal process: Presidential action alone is insufficient; Congress and the Senate would have to approve and fund any territorial acquisition.

Notable Quotes

• “A unilateral annexation of Greenland without Denmark’s consent would of course violate these provisions [UN Charter].”
  — Jordan Berman [19:12]
• “Greenland isn’t just land that Denmark can hand over. It’s a self-governing territory with its own elected government.”
  — Jordan Berman [19:39]

Memorable Moment

• Reminder: Despite political statements, there is “no publicly known plan” for acquiring Greenland, but Danish and Greenlandic officials are expected in Washington for talks this week.

[Break: Ads Skipped]

4. Supreme Court Hearings: State Bans on Transgender Athletes

Key Segment: [27:38] – [47:52]

Case 1: Little v. Hecox (Idaho)

• Law in Question: Idaho’s 2020 “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act”—bars transgender women and girls from female sports teams in public schools/colleges.
• Plaintiff: Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman blocked from college athletics.
• Legal Issue: Does this law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
• Lower Rulings: Both district and Ninth Circuit courts blocked the law, applying intermediate scrutiny (used for sex-based discrimination).
• Key Point: Hecox has since dropped her claim, so the Supreme Court must first decide if the case is now “moot.” The “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine could keep the case alive.

Breakdown of Scrutiny Standards:

• Strict scrutiny (highest) — racial, national origin, religion, fundamental rights.
• Intermediate scrutiny (gender/sex discrimination) — law must serve “important government interest, substantially related.”
• Rational basis (lowest) — most laws withstand; rare for discrimination cases.

Crucial Question: Should laws about transgender status be reviewed under sex-based standards, and what evidence is needed to justify blanket bans?

Case 2: West Virginia v. BPJ

• Law in Question: 2021 “Save Women’s Sports Act”—similar to Idaho’s law.
• Plaintiff: BPJ, a transgender girl denied a place on girls’ sports teams.
• Legal Issue: Does the ban violate Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination by recipients of federal funds?
• Lower Rulings: District court and Fourth Circuit both ruled for BPJ, finding Title IX protects transgender athletes and ruling the state’s blanket ban improper. Notably, BPJ had not gone through male puberty and was on medical treatment, undermining arguments of unfair advantage.

Legal and Policy Arguments

• States’ Position: Sports separation by sex is longstanding; policy decisions, not for courts to second-guess; bans are fair.
• Plaintiffs’ Position: Categorical bans ignore individual circumstances and violate rights under Equal Protection or Title IX.
• Broad Legal Importance: Supreme Court may clarify what level of scrutiny applies to transgender status and whether Title IX covers gender identity in sports participation.

Notable Quotes

• “So one of the biggest disputes... is which level of scrutiny should apply when states restrict transgender students' participation in sports.”
  — Jordan Berman [29:12]
• “You might be thinking... well, you just said intermediate scrutiny applies to laws that discriminate based on gender or sex. And while that's true, the Supreme Court has yet to determine which level of scrutiny applies to transgender status specifically.”
  — Jordan Berman [29:36]
• “BPJ, however, argues she's being treated differently from other girls based on sex. She's allowed to attend school as a girl; but when it comes to sports, the state suddenly says that she doesn't count as a girl. And that, she argues, is discrimination under Title IX.”
  — Jordan Berman [39:21]

What Happens Next

• Oral arguments scheduled for tomorrow.
• If Little v. Hecox is considered “moot,” only WV v. BPJ will be argued.
• Rulings may clarify the constitutional standard for transgender status and define Title IX’s application to gender identity and school sports.

5. Quick Hitters

Key Segment: [47:53] – [50:52]

• Fed Chair Jerome Powell Under Investigation: DOJ investigating Powell’s testimony on the Fed’s $2.5 billion headquarters renovation. Source of funding clarified: entirely from Fed system, not taxpayer dollars.
• Venezuelan Opposition Leader Maria Machado: Scheduled to meet President Trump; relations and agenda unclear given Trump’s comments on her viability as a leader.
• Sen. Mark Kelly Sues Pentagon: Suing to halt Defense Department’s attempt to reduce his retirement pay/rank—allegedly as retaliation after Kelly’s public remarks to military to “refuse illegal orders.”
• Gallup Poll: Record 45% of U.S. adults now identify as political independents; Democrats and Republicans both at 27%.

6. Critical Thinking Segment

Key Segment: [50:53] – [52:28]

Reflective Questions for Listeners:

• For supporters of bans: Should laws rely on group averages, or do they need to accommodate individual facts/circumstances?
• For opponents: If individualized assessments are necessary, who makes them—schools, doctors, athletic associations?
• For all: How should Title IX be interpreted—by original legislative intent, evolving meaning, or practical consequences?

Memorable Quote:
“Should courts interpret statutes based on original understanding? Should they interpret based on evolving meaning? Or should they interpret based on practical consequences? And whatever your answer is, why is that your answer?”
— Jordan Berman [51:44]

7. Good News Moment

Key Segment: [52:29] – [53:16]

• Amid Minneapolis ICE protests, a border patrol agent and a protester share a hug after a polite, empathetic discussion, offering a rare but meaningful example of civility.

Quote:
“We have a heart, you know what I mean?” —Border Patrol agent [52:52]

Episode Highlights by Timestamp

• [00:23] ICE shooting update: legal corrections & new footage
• [06:30] Application of legal standards to the new footage
• [07:00 – 13:32] ICE jurisdiction over citizens & individual rights
• [13:33] Trump & Greenland: law and history
• [19:12] Legal obstacles to U.S. acquisition of Greenland
• [27:38] Supreme Court hearings: transgender athlete bans explained
• [39:21] Title IX, equal protection, and sports participation
• [47:53] Fast updates: Powell, Machado, Kelly, Gallup poll
• [50:53] Critical thinking segment: transgender athlete cases
• [52:29] Good news: border patrol agent and protester hug

Summary prepared to reflect the factual, impartial tone of the host and cover the episode’s central topics, discussion points, and legal analysis.