Legal AF by MeidasTouch - SCOTUS Destruction Gets Exposed

Episode Date: July 7, 2026

Chief Justice Roberts may have just penned the Birthright Citizenship decision with flowery language about the "right to have rights" in America, but at the very same time, he has worked for 30 years to rip up the Voting Rights Act to protect black and brown US citizens.  Join Court Accountability Action's Supreme Court roundtable for more. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Visit BetMGM casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,

free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. This podcast is sponsored by 20,000. Talkspace. Last year, I went through many different life changes. I needed to take a pause and examine how I was feeling in the inside to better show up for the ones who need me to be my best version of myself. When you're navigating life's changes, Talkspace can help. Talkspace is the number one rated online therapy, bringing you professional support from licensed therapists and psychiatry providers that you can access anytime, anywhere. Living a busy life, navigating a long-distance

relationship, becoming a first stepfather, Talkspace made all of those journeys possible. I could speak with my therapist in the office. I could speak of my therapist in the comfort of my home. I was never alone. Talkspace works with most major insurers and most insured members have a $0.00 co-pay. No insurance, no problem. Now get $80 off your first month with promo code space 80 when you go to Talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com. Save $80 with code space 80 at Talkspace.com. Sometimes you've got to take the United States Supreme Court in all of its actions and that of the MAGA 6 and put it through a full body scanner. You know, one of those full body MRIs, an X-ray machine, if you will.

And the only way I know to do that is to put into one place collective brilliance, a murderer's row, if you will, of top constitutional scholars like Professor Leah Littman and people like Ellie Mistal. and Madaboddenny joining court accountability action, just moments after the last decision at this United States Supreme Court term dropped. And we did it. Here, on Legal A.F. And here's a clip of that roundtable you don't want to miss about voting rights, the Voting Rights Act, and how we got here and how we can defeat the Roberts Court. Play the clip. Really glad that you could explain to our listeners. And if you're just tuning in, we're here on Legal A.F with a murderer's of legal analysts to talk about this term Supreme Court and what we can do to fix it. And we're segueing to that, what we can do to fix it.

Leah, I'd love to pull you in on another element of how the court just rewrites things when they want to, which is obviously CalA and the Voting Rights Act. We have this long tortured history of Congress passing the VRA, the Supreme Court making edits to it as it sees fit, Congress addressing those edits, and then the Supreme Court gutting it anyway, and this sort of takes us to the point that when legal scholars who are apologists for the court say, well, Congress can always address it, the VRA stands in stark contrast as an example where Congress did try to fix it, the court gutted anyway. Can you walk us through some of that and explain why it's not so easy to just pass a statute? Yeah, absolutely. So the Voting Rights Act was initially

passed in 1965. It had two main provisions, Section 5, the preclearance process, which of course, court ended in Shelby County versus Holder a decade ago, and also Section 2, a nationwide ban on discrimination in voting. And in a decision, City of Mobile versus Bolden in the 1980s, the Supreme Court interpreted the Voting Rights Act in specifically Section 2 to prohibit only intentional discrimination in voting. And of course, Congress and civil rights activists immediately understood that that would be a recipe to apologize for all kinds of racist voter suppression and voter discrimination. And so Congress amended the statute to explicitly prohibit unintentional discrimination as well. They amended the statute over the objections of the administration of Ronald Reagan,

who did not want to expand the Voting Rights Act. And one of the lawyers who was working in the administration, authoring memo after memo about how the administration shouldn't support an expanded voting rights act was John G. Roberts. So three years ago in Allen v. Milligan, the court heard what was an existential challenge to section two of the Voting Rights Act. In that case, Alabama argued that the Voting Rights Act would effectively be unconstitutional if the statute actually did prohibit unintentional discrimination. The court, by five to four vote, rejected that theory in Milligan in Allen v. Milligan and invalidated a set of Alabama maps that included only one majority black district out of seven.

So now fast forward to two years later because technically this is on the Supreme Court's docket two years or last term. And the court hears a case out of Louisiana, Louisiana versus Calais. And that case involved a challenge to a set of districts that the state had drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act after a court said their initial set of maps violated the Voting Rights Act. And the question in the case was just whether the remedial maps were themselves unconstitutional. The Supreme Court didn't want to resolve the case on that basis and instead rewrote all the questions to invite a reinterpretation of the Voting Rights Act and an assessment about the extent to which the Voting Rights Act was constitutional. And in Louisiana versus Calais, Justice Alito, writing for six justices, says the Voting Rights Act really only prohibits circumstances that give rise to an objective likelihood of intentional discrimination. The court made it virtually impossible to establish violations of Section 2 for the reasons Medeva said. Basically, it is never going to be possible to draw an additional majority black district while retaining the same partisan balance that a Republican-controlled legislature wants to because there's not going to be a majority black district in the South that votes Republicans. So the court made it simultaneously impossible to establish a violation of the Voting Rights Act, effectively gutting the express explicit congressional amendment that Congress made to the Voting Rights

Act to prohibit unintentional discrimination, and then also added a constitutional aspect to the court's ruling, saying that under the Reconstruction amendments, Congress has only a limited authority and can really only prohibit occasions that give rise to intentional discrimination. This is a of course, is a ridiculous interpretation of the Reconstruction Amendments for reasons I won't get into. But the point is, the court read out a congressional amendment to a statute and declared that any congressional amendment that sought to revisit the court's decision in Louisiana versus Calais would be struck down as unconstitutional. So it is impossible for Congress to pass a new voting rights act that would actually reach circumstances like the ones that courts for decades had said violate the

Voting Rights Act. So it's never going to be as simple as Congress can just pass a statute and reverse a decision of the Supreme Court, given that the Roberts Court is just full of judicial supremacists who have imposed themselves as a veto over essentially any law that a democratic progressive Congress would pass or that a Democratic administration would promulgate as a ruler regulation, as Mike was indicating. So the solution cannot just be, have Congress pass a new law. The solution has to be have Congress pass a new law. And also, pass laws that address the threat that the Supreme Court presents to those very laws. We sit at the intersection of law and politics on legal A.F. every day, every hour. If you like

that kind of content, you want to support court accountability action and the contributors like that, then hit the free to subscribe button. Hit the free subscribe button. The democracy demands it. Our long legal A.F, Fourth of July, counter programming demands it. And this is the way for you to vote early and often for legal A.F. I appreciate you. I'm Michael Popock. Until my next report. Can't get your fill of legal A.F. Me neither. That's why we formed the legal AF substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it, morning A.F. What else? All the other

contributors from legal A.F are there as well. We got some new report. We got interviews. We got ad-free versions of the podcast and hot takes where legal a F on substack. Come over now to free subscribe.