Transcript
A (0:03)
It's Tuesday, May 5th. I'm Jane Coston, and this is what a Day. The show wishing you a happy Mexican victory over the French at the Battle of Puebla de also known as Cinco de Mayo. On today's show, President Donald Trump talks about his Iran mini war during a small business summit. And acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has beef with the meat industry. But let's start with the Supreme Court and the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. The Supreme Court surprised many, okay. It surprised me on Monday by restoring access by mail to a commonly used abortion medication. For at least one more week. I'm going to be real with you. I've been covering politics for a long time, and the Supreme Court is still a mystery to me. For a body that intends to examine the law through the lens of the Constitution, it feels like the court has kind of freestyling a lot of the time. And in the era of Trump, a lot of that freestyling has been in his favor. Were the framers of the Constitution prepared for a moment like this for a president who posts about wanting to blow other countries away, A president who demands Congress bend to his will? To find out, I spoke to Melissa Murray. She's a co host of Crooked Media, Strict Scrutiny and author of the new book the U.S. a comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern Reader. Melissa, welcome back to what a Day.
B (1:28)
Thanks so much for having me, Jane. Great to be here.
A (1:30)
So the Supreme Court is back in the abortion debate. I'm sure they're thrilled about it. On Monday, the justices temporarily restored access to mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions by mail. But I'm curious, should people read anything into this? Does this give any light into how they're going to rule on this issue more permanently? Because it's a temporary block until May 11th. Something that seems like good news, but also, I don't know, how should we be thinking about this?
B (2:02)
It's a great question, Jane. So this case came to the court. The manufacturers have asked the court to basically stay the Fifth Circuit's ruling on mifepriston, which was issued last Friday. Justice Alito, who got this emergency petition, issued a one week stay. So basically the status quo before the Fifth Circuit's decision is now back in place, but only for a week. And there will, of course, be briefing and whatnot on this question as it goes before the court. But Steve Laudick, a friend of Strict Scrutiny who has A terrific substack 1 First street, noted to me that he thought this was unusual, the one week stay, because as a general matter, Justice Alito, who issues a fair number of stays in his capacity as a circuit justice, often issues indefinite stays. The stays that are of finite duration, like this one, which is only for a week, typically tend to be in the cases where he doesn't agree with the underlying claim. So not surprising that he might issue under that logic a very short stay in a case dealing with abortion. Because I think we know where he will be on this question when it does come before the Court. A bigger question will be where are the other justices when it comes before the Court? Justice Kavanaugh is someone who he wrote in his concurrence in Dobbs that states should be free to do as they like with regard to abortion. This whole question of federalism and state sovereignty, that obviously has implications for Louisiana, which says that it cannot enforce its law and protect the unborn as it wishes to do. If mifepristone can be sent into the state by telemedicine or by mail. But that leaves a lot of room for the court to make a decision that some says, okay, Louisiana, you can enforce this and you can't send mifepristone to Louisiana. But what about the other states? Like the fifth Circuit made this a nationwide ban. So even states that have more permissive laws with regard to reproductive rights would not be able to access mifepristone through telemedicine. It would only be available through in person dispensation. And obviously that makes it a lot harder for certain people, people who work, who can't get to a pharmacy, whatever will make it harder for them to get access to this. So I think that'll be a real question, the court who's here truly for federalism.
