What A Day – "Will SCOTUS Greenlight Trump’s Worst Ideas?"

Host: Jane Coaston (Crooked Media)
Guest: Kate Shaw, co-host of Strict Scrutiny, law professor (UPenn)
Date: October 8, 2025
Duration covered: [00:02]–[13:59]

Episode Overview

This episode delves into the Supreme Court's new term, focusing on its pivotal role in determining the extent of presidential power, especially under President Donald Trump. Host Jane Coaston is joined by legal expert Kate Shaw to break down the political and legal stakes: from challenges to state bans on conversion therapy to cases that could dramatically expand the president’s authority over agencies and policy in America. The episode pulls back the curtain on the Court’s approach, raises alarms about consistency and precedent, and discusses the implications for democracy.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Supreme Court’s New Term – Central Questions

• Main theme: Is there any limit to presidential power?
• Key cases to be decided include:
  • Chiles v. Salazar: Is "conversion talk therapy" for minors protected free speech?
  • Challenges to Trump’s authority to fire members of independent agencies (including the Federal Reserve).
  • Tariff policy and trans athlete bans in schools.

“Can the president of the United States do pretty much whatever he wants?” – Jane Coaston [00:46]

2. Chiles v. Salazar: Conversion Therapy Ban under Scrutiny

• Supreme Court appears poised to strike down Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors.
• Inconsistency highlighted: The Court recently upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth by deferring to the legislature, but seems unlikely to do the same for Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy.
• Sharp questions from conservative justices, notably Justice Samuel Alito, who invokes the infamous Buck v. Bell case to question reliance on medical consensus.

Justice Alito: “I mean, the medical consensus is usually very reasonable and it's very important. But have there been times when the medical consensus has been politicized, has been taken over by ideology?” [01:35]

“That three generations of idiots are enough, quote, is a reference to the 1927 Supreme Court decision Buck v. Bell...” – Jane Coaston [02:07]

• Details of the case:
  • Colorado’s law bans only talk therapy, not coercive methods like electroshock.
  • Plaintiffs argue that regulating this talk-therapy form violates the First Amendment because it restricts speech rather than action.

3. Shadow Docket – The Rise of Instant Presidential Wins

• The Court’s “shadow docket”—emergency rulings without full hearings—has granted dozens of quick wins to the Trump administration, letting the president act even when lower courts have found actions illegal.
• This process bypasses normal judicial review and undermines constraints on executive power.

“So much of the Court's most important work right now happens on the shadow docket.” – Kate Shaw [05:29]

• Examples given:
  • Letting the administration dismantle the Department of Education.
  • Kicking out trans service members from the military.
  • Refusing to spend funds appropriated by Congress.

4. Cases with Major Potential Impact

• Firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook: The Supreme Court has not allowed the president to remove her temporarily, citing concerns about global economic stability—but Kate Shaw notes this is an unconvincing distinction by constitutional standards.

“If the court goes in a different direction here, then it will just be because they're concerned about the kind of instability that it might create…” – Kate Shaw [07:26]

• State bans on trans athletes’ participation and sports also loom.

5. Shadow Docket’s Future—A Lasting Change?

• Kate Shaw predicts future presidents will turn to the Supreme Court for emergency relief.
• Open question: Will the Court extend the same generosity to a future Democratic president?

“What I don't know if we'll see is the Supreme Court responding in a similar way in the event there is a future Democratic president who tries to assert similarly muscular executive authority.” – Kate Shaw [10:47]

6. Marriage Equality: The Kim Davis Case & Precedent

• Despite anxiety over a rollback of marriage equality rights, Shaw does not believe there are currently five justices on the Court willing to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.

“I actually think that the very pragmatism... will be enough to cause enough justices pause about... the chaos and also the backlash it would create to undo a right to marry.” – Kate Shaw [12:23]

7. Looming Theme: Boundaries of Presidential Authority

• The upcoming term will spotlight whether the Supreme Court will uphold any real separation of powers or simply greenlight nearly unchecked executive action.

“Is the separation of powers? Question mark. Does the president have constraints?” – Kate Shaw [12:54]

• Court may still push back in extreme situations (“break glass moment”), but otherwise, trend is towards expanded presidential discretion.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Alito’s “three generations of idiots” reference (Buck v. Bell) stands out for its historical weight and implied critique of deference to medical consensus. [02:00]
• Shadow docket explanation:

  “Letting the administration refuse to spend $4 billion... these are all lawsuits that lower courts found the administration was likely to lose, and the Supreme Court nevertheless stepped in, and sometimes with no explanation, put those lower court rulings on pause...” – Kate Shaw [09:08]

• Pragmatism at the Fed:

  “I think that the people who really know the Fed and the history find those distinctions pretty unconvincing…” – Kate Shaw [07:38]

• Kim Davis marriage challenge concern:

  "It is terrifying that it could be as close as it could be." – Kate Shaw [12:43]

• On the SCOTUS term’s theme:

  “We are heading to a very dangerous place and just kind of how quickly we are headed there and whether there is any sort of spine left in a majority of the Supreme Court…” – Kate Shaw [13:39]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Introduction and Supreme Court’s power focus – [00:02–00:46]
• Conversion therapy case breakdown (Chiles v. Salazar) – [01:35–05:22]
• Shadow docket and Court procedure changes – [05:29–10:34]
• Future of the shadow docket & possible impacts – [10:34–11:45]
• Marriage equality and Kim Davis – [11:45–12:45]
• Critical big-picture theme for the term – [12:45–13:59]

Tone and Style

The conversation maintains a sharp, accessible, and slightly irreverent tone, balancing legal nuance with political urgency and some biting humor. Both Coaston and Shaw express skepticism over the Court’s consistency and concern over intensified executive power—particularly under Trump—emphasizing the high stakes with clear, engaging language.

In Summary

This episode highlights the Supreme Court’s pivotal year, focusing on the erosion of structural checks on executive power and warning that key precedents and rights—especially those affecting vulnerable groups—hang in the balance. Jane Coaston and Kate Shaw offer listeners a roadmap to understand not just the cases themselves, but the broader shift in how American democracy is being shaped behind closed courtroom doors.