No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Supreme Court returns Jim Crow to America

Episode Date: May 3, 2026

Republicans go all out in the aftermath of the Supreme Court gutting what’s left of the Voting Rights Act. Brian interviews Gavin Newsom, Ari Berman, and Adam KlasfeldSupport Adam Klasfeld: www.allrisenews.comPre-order The Day After (and grab tour tickets) here: https://www.harpercollins.com/pages/thedayafter See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Republicans go all out in the aftermath of the Supreme Court gutting what's left of the Voting Rights Act. And I've got three interviews, Gavin Newsom, journalist Ari Berman, and legal reporter Adam Klausfeld. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So it took virtually no time at all for Republican officials to act in response to the Supreme Court gutting what's left of the Voting Rights Act. And unfortunately, albeit predictably, they acted in the worst way possible. So I'm going to go through a little bit of what we've seen thus far. In Louisiana, the governor called a state of emergency and immediately suspended congressional primaries. A state of emergency, not for flood or natural disaster or the sky high poverty rate or the high crime rate,

but rather to make sure that they can eliminate districts with black representation. Like, that's how much weight they wanted to lend to the idea of diluting black voting power in Louisiana. It's apparently an emergency. The state will redraw its maps and could eliminate at least one, if not both black districts. In Alabama, Governor K. Ivy called a special session of the legislature to reinstate a gerrymandered map that had previously been struck down by the Supreme Court. But obviously, with this new decision, that map will likely be able to stand. The state's two Black Opportunity Districts may be eliminated. In Tennessee, Governor Lee has convened a special session that starts on Tuesday, stating that lawmakers,

quote, owe it to Tennesseans to ensure our congressional districts accurately reflect the will of Tennessee voters. They're seeking to eliminate the state's only black officers. Opportunity District. In South Carolina, Republicans are calling on the governor to call a session to redraw the maps and eliminate the one Black Opportunity District currently held by Jim Clyburn. In Florida, the state legislature already passed a jurymander last week. It's waiting Ron DeSantis's signature. He may sign that map, or there exists the possibility they might go back to the drawing board. If that map was in any way constrained by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, he'll seek to eliminate at least four Democratic seats, if not more. And that all took place.

essentially in the course of about a day right after this ruling dropped. So in one fell swoop, these Republicans not only sought to eliminate all black representation from their states, but simultaneously proved why the Voting Rights Act was necessary in the first place. And keep in mind, the VRA was passed

as a response to and an antidote for the Jim Crow laws in the South. And it took not even days, but like hours for the same southern states that had imposed those laws 60 years ago to immediately move to eliminate black representation and black voting power again today in 2026. So here's where we stand on this. 60 years have gone by and conservatives have not moved off this issue,

which is to say they won't. Like we tell ourselves that they'll change at our own peril. If left to their own devices, they will revert right back to who they've always been. They're literally doing it as we speak. It took no time at all. So the answer here is not to compromise. The answer is not to confer goodwill onto the other side in hopes of some elusive reciprocation.

Ain't going to happen. The answer is that we have to fight, and we have to fight at least as hard as the other side that has been fighting the same battle for 60 years and frankly just landed a pretty devastating blow. That's how committed they are. So the question becomes, will we do what's required and fight back harder?

And I've spent a lot of time thinking about this. because the reality is that even in an ideal world where Democrats retake the House, retake the Senate, retake the White House, and actually manage to eliminate the filibuster, and actually managed to pass a new voting rights act, the reality is that this Supreme Court will still be there waiting in the wings to strike that legislation down, just like they did this past week. So it is not enough to play whackamol. It is not enough to do all the work necessary so that we can pass what would amount to a symbolic law that would only remain in attacked as long as it takes to get appealed to the Supreme Court, which will inevitably strike it down.

That's not good enough for me. And it shouldn't be good enough for you or anyone else, which means that we have to go to the root of the issue. So to that end, I'm going to read a passage from my new book the day after. Here's the excerpt. To restore democracy, to restore integrity to the judicial system, we urgently need to reform the Supreme Court. Those reforms need to be based on principle, not politics to have any legitimacy or public support. The first order of a filibuster-free Congress should be reform of the Supreme Court. Not the second or third or fourth. It'll be too late to save the Republic and our independent judiciary. If any subsequent reforms are to stand a chance at surviving, we cannot leave in place a rogue branch of government with the power to strike down

anything that doesn't comport with its far-right ideology. So the first reform should be to expand the court in line with the principles that determine the number of justices in the early years of The first Supreme Court had six justices reflecting the six federal court circuits. The court grew to seven justices in 1807 after a seventh circuit was added. It grew again to nine after two new circuits were added in 1837. Today, there are 13 federal court circuits, but only nine Supreme Court justices. The court should reflect the size of the country and the scope of its legal challenges as it did more than a century ago.

So if the root of the problem is that we have a rogue branch of government that will always strike down any progressive legislation as soon as we prop it up, then we need to stop being so precious about that branch of government. Remember, nine justices is not in the Constitution. And remember, if Republicans needed to increase the number of justices, they would in a heartbeat. We will not win if we are only responding, if we're only reacting. We have to go on offense, because that's what Republicans have done for nearly my entire lifetime, and it's about time we fight back while we still have the chance. Before we jump into interviews, I'm going to ask that if you haven't yet had the chance to pre-order my new book the day after, in which I discuss how Democrats need to wield power in a

post-Trump world, that you please click the link in the post description and pre-order your copy now. And I'll be going on tour this summer as well in July. So if you live in or near D.C., New York, Chicago, San Francisco, or L.A., please grab a ticket at the same link. Okay, next up are my interviews with Gavin Newsom, Ari Berman, and Adam Klassfeld. No Lie is brought to you by Zbiotics pre-alcohol. So I have to tell you about this game-changing product that I use before a night out with drinks. It's called pre-alcohol. Zbiotics pre-alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic.

It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. So here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this. buyproduct down. Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. I literally just used pre-alcohol a week ago. I was in DC for the White House Correspondence weekend, and while I didn't go to the dinner, I did go to some events.

I made pre-alcohol my first drink of the night. I legit felt completely fine the next day, and that is a pretty Herkulean feat as I approach 40. From the crack of the bat at the stadium to the start of wedding season and the roar of the engines in Indy, May is peasant. hacked with back-to-back reasons to be out. Don't let a rough morning after keep you on the sidelines. Drink pre-alcohol to stay ahead of it and make the most of every Saturday this month. Go to Zbiotics.com slash BTC to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use BTC at checkout.

Zbiotics is backed with a 100% money-back guarantee, so if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to Zbiotics.com slash BTC and use code BTC at checkout for 15% off. I'm joined now by Governor Gavin Newsom. Governor, thanks for joining me. Good to be back with you. So obviously, in light of the Supreme Court decision gutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, we've now seen a swift kind of avalanche from these Republican-led states where governors are now calling special legislative sessions to redraw their maps.

Just today, we've heard from the governor of Alabama. We also have heard from, obviously, the Republicans in Louisiana, considering they were one of the parties in this case, all of which are going to redraw their maps. And so what do Democrats need to do right now in light of, you know, this wave of Republican states that are basically going to draw out every Black Opportunity District? All of the, look, Brian, it's so important almost to step back. This is all happening. I mean, the Voting Rights Act just gutted in name only now.

I mean, we saw what happened to Roe. We've seen what's happening. I mean, we talked about it. You and I, how many conversations do we have? And people say, well, they're being a little hyperbolic. that Trump and MAGA movement want to bring us back to a pre-1960s world. That's what's happening. And at the time we were debating the issues around LGBTQ rights and women's rights,

but now we're seeing on voting rights and civil rights. And they're succeeding. And so it's, I hope, a big wake-up call. We can't be rolled into any sort of, you know, none of this is normal, is the long-witted point. And so old adage, for things to change, you have to change. We have to change. So our approach has to be even more aggressive than we even could have imagined,

just days ago, not long weeks ago. So look, going forward, this is going to have profound and consequential impact on the map in this country. And obviously, the impact to the black community is off the charts. The reality is we don't know

yet how consequential will be for the 2020-6 election, but we do know with some certainty there's upwards of 19 or so seats conceivably that they can take back by 2028. But what Landry did, to your point, is jaw-dropping. Talk about not normal. The guy suspended the election. He declared a state of emergency to suspend an election where they had already sent the ballots out. Because God forbid

black people get to vote for their preferred candidate in their district. To take one or two districts to get rid of black majority of the district. Think about that. In the South, in 2025, not in 19 or 20. I mean 19, I mean, this is literally two districts conceivably to eliminate black representation, suspends the election on May 16th, after literally ballots were sent overseas into the military, people were starting to vote. They're starting this weekend, more formally, in early voting,

and we're going on with the rest of our lives. None of this is normal. Again, it's a preview. We keep saying it, of everything to come. And so we have got to redouble our efforts at the state levels. We have upwards of 10 seats looking at 2028. If we can win back state houses, now the whole playing field is about legislative races. We can get up to about 2022 to compete.

But right now, there's an asymmetry. They've got about a two-to-one advantage potentially going into 2028. Is there any excuse for Democrats in New Jersey, in New York, in Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Washington, Oregon, not to move forward in light of what we've seen in Colorado. Let's go. J.B. is saying the right thing in Illinois. Obviously, West in Maryland, we got to go. I appreciate Hokel put out a statement. Let's go. We just got to move. The whole thing's on the line. And we're, yeah, we're redrawing lines. We've got to redrawing lines until we step down and step back and do the right thing, which is independent redistricting.

nationwide, but we cannot have one hand tie behind our back. These guys on the other side are ruthless. You saw exactly what we knew was going to happen, happened literally minutes after this decision in Florida. And again, they didn't go to the voters. It wasn't in a democratic and transparent way. It was done, literally, he released the maps on Fox. That's how the maps, I mean, talk about,

we joke about these maps being colored in in Marlago. I mean, literally, Senator on, Pravda. And that's how they were socialized. And then within minutes later, in a special session, they certified those four seats. By the way, which is unconstitutional on the basis of the state constitution in Florida. And God forbid, that thing actually is upheld. But that one clearly has got some real legal questions. I mean, that's the benefit for Ronda Santis of having six out of seven state Supreme Court justices who he himself appointed. These are the same Supreme Court justices that failed to uphold the Constitution with the existing gerrymander. Like,

Florida's current map is a gerrymander that was even too extreme for Florida's Republican legislature. Ron DeSantis shoehorned it into Curry favor with Trump. Now, obviously, in light of this decision, he's trying to do it even more. But this is a state Supreme Court that clearly is not willing to lift a finger to defy Ron DeSantis. No, and that's, I mean, that's what they're counting on and sort of gaming out. And, of course, the courts move at such a slow speed, and these elections are around the corner. Yeah. And so, again, it has to just be a dominant blue wave.

That's how we get out of this. We buy ourselves a little bit of time, and then those that don't have backbones, develop them, period, full stop. Again, I mean, it's about the fight is how we take back the House of Representatives. The fight is how we repair the breach in 2028, but we have to wake up. That it's not about ideology. It's not about taking one part of our party and clipping their wings because you don't like on purity tests.

It's about us aligning to what we, binds us together and that's what's happening against this authoritarian regime. Okay, so let's say, for example, that Democrats retake the House, retake the Senate, 2029 comes around, we have a Democratic president, we're able to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, we're able to pass a new iteration of the Voting Rights Act. That's all well and good. The fact remains that we still have this six three conservative court in place. And, you know, we can kind of play whack-a-mole and keep passing Voting Rights Act and they keep swatting it down like they've done right now. So that raises the point that so long as this court exists, as it does

right now, they're going to continue to do what they just did this past week. Do you think that the court needs to be expanded so that we have some protection as opposed to having a rogue branch of government that's always there to push back progress? No, I get the instinct on this. My only concern, there'll be probably more members of the Supreme Court in 50 years than there are members of Congress if we continue to do this. Whoever then is in the majority continues to expand on the basis of their ideology. But your point is spot on. I mean, it goes to first question, though, is filibuster in order to get to that threshold

to order to move some of that legislation, even if you have all three branches. But the question you write is the court is self-evident because this was 1995 voters' rights. That was the Congress that adopted it and they threw it out. So the question. A Congress that re-implemented it by 98 to nothing, I believe, in like 2008 to nothing, I believe, and like two dozen things were signed into law by George W. Bush, not exactly some, you know, some crunchy liberal. But the question remains then, what do you do to actually entrench some of these protections so that we're not playing about?

I think we get a larger surreferral reforms as it relates to ethics as it relates more broad, which hardly is the answer, but is one of the strategies for reform. And then obviously issues, I think, that are appropriate to have conversation around term limits in that respect. But my fear, sincerely, is shoes on the other foot. We'll go from, you know, the current status to then doubling it, to doubling it again, to doubling it again. and in a certain point it loses its purpose. And its purpose was to be above politics. Of course, politics was what drove this decision. Every member of this court that voted in the majority to overrule section two,

or at least the Bono Rights Act, or at least gut it, all of them had promoted that point of view. We're vetted for that point of view and were brought through that process with the expectation they do what they were going to do. But I'm a little more cautious, so I'm open to. argument. I admit to be an open argument on this, but right now I'm a little more cautious about continue to expand that. Yeah. I mean, look, the argument, I think, is already beyond clear to you, is that, is that, you know, so that we're not in a situation where if we're able, if all the stars

align and we're able to pass some of this legislation, which again requires winning the House, winning the Senate, winning the presidency, only to see, you know, the Amy Coney Barrett's and Samuel Alito's and Clarence Thomas's of the world do exactly what they've done this week. you know, that would be the argument to at least take it into consideration. Amen. Amen. And we'll see what plays out of the course the next few years if there is some changes, if there's some retirements. And let's see if there's a change in terms of the courage and the backbone of members of our party, the Democratic Party, that have been a little too complicit in supporting some of these Republican nominees, knowing full well. They would not be the person that they were in that interrogation, quote unquote,

during the confirmation hearings. So on a similar point, there is. is the 2030 census that's coming up. In that census, California is expected to lose about four electoral votes, along with a bunch of other traditionally blue states that are going to be giving some of those electoral votes to traditionally red states. States like Texas, states like Idaho are going to gain electoral votes. States like California and New York are going to lose them.

And so, you know, it's only 2026 right now. We have the opportunity to make sure we stave off some of the departures, you know, the population loss from the, this state. And so what have you done? What should the next governor of California do? We have a mayoral election right here in Los Angeles. What should they be doing to make sure that homes could be built here so that people can live here to make it as easy as possible so that we're not kind of ceding all of this ground, surrendering this population to states that are only going to, you know, usher in Republican policies that, that, you know, help dismantle chip away at our

democracy. In some ways, it may be even more challenging because of legal immigration that's been impacted by Trump and Trumpism. And legal immigration has been one of the sources of our population growth for decades and decades in California. So one of the reasons California's economy is so vibrant is we get the best and the brightest first draft choices from around the rest of the world. That said, we had three years of population growth, 308,000 net new people in the state to California between 2022 and 2025. Your broader point though around housing is at the core of the challenge not only California

and Californians are feeling, but people all across this country. It was just looking at some new data about Florida and the fact they're starting to lose folks because of the cost of living and housing affordability or lack thereof, particularly as relates to homeowner insurance as well. That said, we are very, very proud in this state

to have just passed some of the most significant zoning reforms in not only our state's history, but we think are models for the rest of the country. It is all about zoning reform. It's all about build baby bill, not drill, baby drill. It is about addressing those thickets, about time value of these investments and money dealing with nimbism. And let me give you a proof point. When I got here, there were 70,000 housing units constructed. This last year, 111,000 is 59% improvement. We've also reduced the entitlement time. by 56%, which is a big damn deal. And so both counts, we're moving in the right direction. We finally have the right housing policies. Now it's all about application implementation.

And I continue to say it, localism is determinative. Local government at the end of the state vision is realized locally. And the biggest impediment to action, what stands in the way has been local government. And we have a new local housing accountability unit. We're suing cities, Beach infamously. We put 46 others on notice. We have strategies to fast track the litigation in terms of ultimately adjudicating the merits of our assertions around the lack of cooperation on housing. And so it's a much more muscular approach. It's about a liberalism that builds, and that has to be front and center in terms of the Democratic Party's mindset and our policymaking. We have to own this space. We've been so damn consumed by process. It is this paralysis,

has gotten in a way of the kind of progress and a kind of proof point that we need that Democrats can govern in an effective and efficient way to address these tectonic challenges, particularly for young people of affordability. It is a supply-demand problem, and we need to build more dam housing. Is there buy-in from the legislature? Yeah, it was tough. Canada, because everyone's, you know, and it's not an indictment of any individual. It's an indictment of the system, which is just all these interest groups. And so there's paralysis because people want, you know, so often we're accommodating.

We're accommodating cities. We're accommodating counties. We're accommodating particular interest groups across the spectrum of issues, environmental labor, maybe our own instincts around localism and just having neighborhoods decide for themselves. And so again, everybody, we're all complicit. Society becomes how we behave.

This has happened on our watch over the last half century. It's hardly new. What's shifted is we've been more aggressive and every year we keep coming back more aggressively still. But last year was a breakthrough in California. And I got to say, I got to give Ezra Klein a lot of credit. His book on abundance, an abundance, not scarcity mindset. And it allowed me, honestly, that conversation carried with it this kind of way

that I did something I'd never done before and no other governor had. I literally was going to veto the budget. I put the housing bills in the budget. It's not how the sausage is made. Because I said enough. I can't keep dealing with this delay and denial. And we were able to push through. And what's amazing, final point, is the mindset is shifted now.

Once a mind is stretched, never goes back to the roof. Now people are like, what else do we have? Now how to deal with the cost of construction, modular, prefab, deal with productivity gains, address the issue of impact fees, huge issue. That has to be addressed. We have a lot of new ideas on that in a couple weeks. We'll be introducing in the budget. as well. But this is, I just feel more optimism looking out the window, but obviously in the

rear view, my God, this has been the original sin in California. So I want to talk one more, one more topic on California before we move on to national politics again. But as it relates to the entertainment industry, this is something that I, that I'm up your ass about every time, every time we speak. But what would you like to see, given the fact that this budget will pass, There will be a new governor of California. What would you, what would be your parting words in terms of getting more industry jobs back into this state? Because, you know, they haven't just left California. They have largely left the United States, going to places like the United Kingdom, going to places like Canada, to Bulgaria has a thriving film industry.

And then even within the U.S., I mean, Netflix just built a huge soundstage in New Jersey where I had initially come from. And so what needs to be done to lure those jobs back here? Well, number one, the president's talked a good game hasn't delivered. In terms of a federal tax credit. Yeah. Well, you originally talked about tariffs, which is just, you know, dumb as he wants to be. I mean, just stuck on stupid. But he's finally starting to talk, at least privately.

I've had a number of conversations with folks that say he's opening more and more, is more open to the idea of some federal tax credits. So that's foundational in terms of keeping American jobs and allowing this industry to thrive. in the United States. And then from a state-by-state competitiveness frame, we have to deal again with all these thickets as it relates to just the mundane, which is parking and traffic issues, the cost of overtime, and permitting regulatory stuff at the local level. And then, yes, the states have to step up with their tax credit program. We more than doubled it last year. We've seen the fruits of that

and it's literally taking shape. We're announcing almost on a weekly basis, new production, new economic opportunities, new economic development. But for the next governor, the issue of above the line has to come into it as it relates to the opportunity to expand those tax credits to get some of the larger films done. But if we can get a federal tax credit, I think we can start taking, with love and respect to my friends in the UK, we can start taking those jobs back from the United Kingdom, take them back from other parts of the globe that have enjoyed the lack of investment in this space. But look, you can't, we rest it on our laurels. So, typical, right? The world we invented is now competing against us. Yeah. And so if you want to do well in the

future, you've got to invest in it. And we made the mistake over that the last few decades, but we're making up for that now. We have still new ideas that we'll be proposing in the next few weeks and the next governor administration. I think need to continue to double down on this. So I want to switch gears here. About a week ago, there was the White House Correspondence dinner. The shooting took place within, you know, five minutes. Trump took the opportunity to both use it as a justification to build his ballroom and to attack Jimmy Kimmel for somehow inciting violence by making a joke about how Trump is old. Old, yeah. And 25 years older than Melania.

And so somehow that is an incitement to violence. Both of those obviously absurd on their face. Can I have your reaction to him using this kind of as an opportunity to really push forward his pet projects, which are silencing comedians who commit the cardinal sin, the crime of, of crime. criticizing him and also trying to push forward his ballroom so that he can, you know, have his Let Them Eat Cake moment. Well, a hell of a way to bring the country together as this press secretary was condemning Democrats for their rhetoric. Here's the President of the United States who has an asymmetry. It's an asymmetry. It's not a partisan point. It's an institutional point. It's the President of the United States and used it to not only exploit the ballroom and to direct Brendan Carr to do.

try to suppress, continue to suppress free speech more than that in a moment. But also to indict Comey for a beach photo. That was the aftermath of that moment, this evil act at the White House correspondent's dinner that needs to be condemned. And by the way, violence, rhetoric, condemned on all sides. I'm not going to both sides. But you know what? It goes in both directions, which means the solution of this also goes with accountability in both directions. but the asymmetry of the president, his ability to set the tone for the nation, contrast that to what he did shortly after, to your point. But here's the thing that I hope people pay attention to.

What's what Brendan Carr is doing at the FCC? Because the henchman on this is Carr, who was sent out to do what he did prior, which was to celebrate and subtly, indirectly, encourage Next Star and Sinclair to shut down Kimmel for a period of time. Carr publicly celebrated that. Carr then in return for that has just signed off on a waiver for Next Star in a merger, which is the largest broadcast merger in history, that he approved with a waiver that takes a 39% TV household threshold statute.

and allows for upwards now, if this merger goes forward, next start, I have 80% penetration in the market. That was the return on that original investment of suppressing free speech and free expression with Kimmel. They're going after comedians because comedians are trusted. They're shutting down Colbert. They attack Maher. They attack Stewart.

They attack Kimmel. But they're attacking free speech. And it's what's not said. It's production segments that are shut down. That's happening. I don't think it. I know it. When I announced the lawsuit against this merger, one of the major local TV stations in the Sacramento market refused to air the press conference and to show what we were doing. That suppression has already happened in the United States of America. This is a

big damn deal. So we're litigating. We had a good early judicial decision on it. We're not out of the woods. These guys are not screwing around. Brendan Carr is a disgrace. And what's happening the media space in this country is so much bigger than the shiny object of what's going on with Paramount and the Warner Brothers merger. We have to focus what's happening at the local level, Sinclair, and focus on what's happening next star. Do you have confidence that this could be unwound if and when we have a Democratic administration that actually takes antitrust seriously, that's actually willing to push back on the censorship, the consolidation in the media space of these, you know, of right-wing voices, basically? It's difficult. I mean, it's, you know, the damage is done

with Colbert. The damage is being done in real time. Again, there's just segment producers. There's the chill of free speech and free expression. I don't think it. We have to know that comedians aren't going full throttle right now. Are throttling back. Complete weaponization of the FCC. It's total corruption. It's not the corruption in Albania and Serbia. It's not the corruption in Saudi Arabia in Dubai and the UAE and the Vietnam and all the golf courses and the deals that we see. It's not the meme coin, the stable coin. It's not the $400 million dollar Qatar jet. It's not the $100,000 watch or the $60 Bible or the sneakers. It's not all that. It's even somewhat more insidious. That's about personal benefit for Trump. This is about

structurally and institutionally reducing the fabric of truth and trust and transparency in the United States of America. So I just, I hope we put more emphasis and focus on this. I've been a little bit peeved that people are more outraged by what Carr is doing, not just what Trump is doing on a daily basis, but what Carr is implementing and how he's executing. On that point, as we talk about media companies, can you give an update? Because I'm sure that a lot of folks don't know this.

You have a lawsuit against Fox that's actually moving forward right now. Can you explain what that lawsuit is? Well, this was a big deal. Judge said that there's a reasonable chance that Fox, knowingly 43-page ruling just a day ago on a defamation lawsuit that I filed about a year ago last June against Fox for knowingly lying about a phone call I had with Donald Trump and doing multiple segments but knowingly lying about it even by my standards with Fox I was shocked they go after me 24-7 but this even shocked me

that they were knowingly willing to spew these lies and they were heard around the world literally around the world. They picked up hundreds of different other publications. I got phone calls about this. People saying, boy, why are you lying about this? And so I filed this. I didn't do it for petulant reasons. I did it because enough. I mean, these guys are the impact they're having in this country. Just, I mean, I refer to them as Pravda. It is Pravda. But they need to be held to account. They didn't learn their lesson from Dominion. We thought they would learn their lesson from Dominion. So now we're in discovery phase.

They don't want to be in discovery phase. And this judge said there was enough evidence that it's likely that they, knowingly, have defame me. And they need to be held to account. That's not just Trump that can play that game. Again, fight fire with fire. Enough. And so I'm pleased this went forward. And, you know, it's not about the money.

We said it was about the apology. said, just apologize. Own up to your lies. And they refused. And so hopefully now it could be about some accountability and I'm looking forward to discovery and the transparency

to understand how the sausage is made over there. Well, you know, when discovery happened in the January 6th, the Dominion lawsuit, we saw emails from all of these Fox executives, Fox hosts, where it was clear that they knew exactly what they were talking about, but it was more important for them to be able to lie to the rubs who watch them.

to the Marx who watch them than just to tell them the truth. And so these people, I mean, it would be bad enough if they were just spewing dis and misinformation. But what's worse is that they knew the truth. It was just more important for them to manipulate the people who trusted them, who, you know, made the mistake of trusting these people so that they couldn't, you know, benefit their political party, their preferred political party.

This is what should, this should infuriate everyone that watches Fox. How they treat you. This is not about the Fox viewer. they're dismissiveness. To your point, they're just a way of making a quick buck. You know, have another plane, another house in Palm Beach and, you know, a whole thing. Yeah. I mean, this is just, it's, this is bullshit.

And it's got to stop. And again, Brendan Carr, what's happening with that merger, what's happening across the spectrum as it relates to all the things that are happening in the media space, consolidation we discussed and some of it getting more attention than the others. But you got to be accountable. on the air to truth. I understand the subjectivity. I understand their point of view,

but you can't knowingly defame someone. You can't knowingly lie. And if you do and you get caught, you need to be held to account in the most court in McCart. And that's the court of public opinion. Last question here on that point. What would you like to see come out of this Fox lawsuit? Like what does success look like for you?

What would be the biggest benefit of, not just learning what we will learn in discovery, but of winning this lawsuit. Respect your viewers, change, truth, trust, decency, character. Some of the old values that, you know, I thought, you know, but you know, you know full well that none of those things are going to happen. Then it's about stone-called accountability. You pay the price for your lies in defamation. You pay the price for knowingly defaming other people.

And you pay a price, and you should pay a huge price. They paid a big price, $797 million. apparently that was drop in the bucket. Chump change. So they need to keep paying that price until they change the way they do business. So I don't know if it's that complicated.

I just wanted a simple damn apology. Own up. Cheer lies. They refused. They tried to hide them. They thought for sure they'd get this thrown out. And this judge in a 43-page thing said, hold on boys and girls.

Save your emails. Lawyer up and let's get ready for discovery. And we're going to discover a lot more about how Fox is really run and the lies and the mistruths and how it's organized and how it's delivered and weaponized 24-7. And that is a very healthy thing for our democracy. Perfect place to leave off. Governor Newsom, I appreciate the time. Good to be back.

No lie is brought to you by donors choose. Teachers are supporting students in their classrooms every day. But how many schools lack the resources to make. sure our kids reach their full potential. And look, I have many teachers in my family, including my grandma who taught for about 50 years. I myself taught for two years after college. I know how underpaid teachers are, how underfunded education is, and how important it is to funnel dollars into classrooms. Donors Choose is a national nonprofit that makes it easy for anyone to donate directly to a classroom. You can give any amount, and once the teacher's request

meets its fundraising goal, Donors Choose purchases the supplies and sends them direct. directly to that classroom. This model has earned Donors Choose four out of five stars on Charity Navigator and inspired nine out of 10 public schools to create specific requests for their students, ranging from basic supplies to social and emotional learning resources and more. Every day on DonorsChoose.org,

teachers ask for the books, supplies, and learning materials their students need. Because every day, teachers show up for their students, but who's gonna show up for teachers? Because appreciation can't stop it, thank you, it means taking action. That means books for the classroom, supplies for students, and support teachers can count on. For a limited time, your gift will be matched to help students and teachers who need our support.

Go to donorschew.org slash Brian Tyler Cohen, all one word, to find a classroom near you and have your gift that matched today. Donorschews.org slash Brian Tyler Cohen. I'm joined now by National Voting Rights Correspondent at Mother Jones and the author of the book Minority Rule, Ari Berman. Ari, thanks for joining me again. Hey, Brian. Great to talk to you again. So obviously we're talking in the aftermath of the Supreme Court handing down the Calais decision, which guts Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

So I think in large part we anticipated this move. But from your vantage, as somebody who is a longtime expert on voting rights on, well, your aptly titled book Minority Rule, how much of a blinking red light is this for Democrats, recognizing that Republicans now have carte blanche to redraw, redraw any maps that have Black Opportunity Districts? It's a flashing red light for democracy. It's an emergency for democracy because the Supreme Court not only gutted the Voting Rights Act for the third time, I might add, but they also did it in a way that allows some states a very narrow window to redraw their districts for 2026. I thought the justices would at least have the decency to wait until this cycle of redistricting is over. But as always, the Roberts Court showed how nakedly partisan, it is. So they not just completely gutted the Voting Rights Act. They actually gave some states the opportunity to redraw their maps this cycle. And the larger context of this is Democrats had basically

fought Republicans to a draw in the gerrymandering arms race that Trump launched. Now if all of these southern states, or at least some of them are able to redraw and Democrats can't, that's going to put Democrats at a disadvantage heading into 2026. They might be able to overcome it. They might be able to overcome it. Obviously, if there's a wave election, they will be able to overcome it. But this decision just shows how nakedly partisan the Roberts Court has been. They basically say, you shouldn't change election laws in the middle of an election. Then they completely rewrite the Voting Rights Act in the middle of an election season. So what states are you looking at right now? Obviously, in the immediate aftermath of this move, Louisiana has already called to cancel their primaries so that they can

redraw their maps. But what other states are you looking at right now? I'm looking at. I'm looking at states where the primaries haven't happened yet. So Louisiana is one of them. South Carolina's another. Tennessee is another. Obviously, Florida already redrew, but they feel like maybe they're on firmer ground now with this decision. I'm not actually sure it's true. So I think maybe you're talking about four to five seats potentially shifting. We'll see what happens. The Supreme Court's opinion was not a model of clarity. And so it made it clear that drawing new districts to try to advantage my minority voters is unconstitutional. Leave aside the fact they said it was legal in Alabama two years ago, and that's why Louisiana did this. So they're already contradicting their own rulings from two years

ago. But it's also not clear if states can just rush in and dismantled districts that have existed for decades, like in Mississippi, like in South Carolina, like in Tennessee. So this issue is headed before the courts again, certainly the lower court and potentially the Supreme Court before the election. So if you're the Democrats and you're watching this take place right now, what are the first moves that the left makes in response to this? Well, the left is going to have to have a plan to redraw in 2028. It's going to be hard for them to redraw in any more states in 26, but certainly in 2028, you're going to have to have the blue states that didn't do it for one reason or another. There were some states that couldn't do it under their state constitutions like New York and

Colorado that could redraw on 28. There's other states that could have done it, like Illinois, like Maryland that chose not to. I think the pressure is going to be on every single blue state to do this, because if every red state red draws to not just pick up seats for partisan advantage, but to wipe away gains of advances for minority voters in the civil rights movement, then it's really a moral of imperative for blue states to respond to level the playing field. In the immediate, though, I think that Democrats are going to have to organize in some of these states. obviously if you dismantle districts that are held by black members of Congress, black voters still have to go somewhere.

They can't just be completely wiped off the map. And so that means that there has to be efforts to contest these seats in southern states. And there's some evidence already that the gerrymitted maps that were drawn in places like Texas and places like Florida might not be as secure as Republicans thought they would be. And that there's also possibilities for pickup opportunities in some red states, like Tennessee, for example. And so Democrats need a long-term strategy to try to counteract what Republicans are doing. But in the short term, they also just need to take advantage of a political climate in which Trump and Republicans are unpopular to contest every seat possible, including in the South and expand

the map. So on that point of Democrats taking a long-term strategy, I've been thinking about this a lot because, you know, I think from the activist front, we advocate for Democrats to retake control of the House, the Senate, the White House, passed good voting rights legislation, you know, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, the Freedom to Vote Act that was HR1 during the Biden era. Even if these laws get passed, we now see that there is a rogue branch of government that's always going to strike it down. This Supreme Court will not let a voting rights act, whether it comes from 1965 or 2029, stand, at least under the ideological breakdown that they have right now. And so what is the solution longer term than even just retaking full control of government,

recognizing that it's always just going to be a battle back and forth where Democrats can pass voting rights legislation? And then Clarence Thomas, Samuel Lido, and the rest of these right-wingers in the Supreme Court will strike it down. And so nothing is permanent in that sense. Yeah, that's why reforming the Supreme Court has to be the number one priority of the progressive movement. Otherwise, basically every progressive idea is going to die at the court. And the court has elevated itself over the other branches of government. I mean, they just completely, in the Clay decision, they completely overruled the 1982 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act that was passed overwhelmingly by the Congress. And normally the courts were supposed to defer to the Congress. And they have

basically said, when it comes to these kind of issues, we are the final word. In some cases, they say Congress can legislate. It's not even clear in this case Congress can legislate because basically they're saying, we're the only people that can enforce the 15th Amendment. The only people that can understand the 15th Amendment. It goes without saying they completely turn the 15th Amendment on its head by basically saying that a law that was meant to give black men the right to vote and to get rid of the vestiges of slavery is now something where you can find districts that were drawn to help

the descendants of slavery. That's unconstitutional. So they've completely turned the 50th Amendment on its head. They've completely overruled the will of Congress. And that's why I think it's not enough to ban partisan gerrymandering or make it easier to vote. If you don't change the composition of the Supreme Court, which I believe was illegally constructed in terms of how they did it, in terms of stealing seats and other hardball measures they used, then really all of your other priorities are not going to ultimately survive.

Do you have confidence that this Democratic Party or what new iteration comes, you know, in 2026 and 2028, will have the spine to do that, because this is not a Democratic Party that's known for upending norms, for making uncomfortable the institutions of government. I mean, so often we see a blind deference to the institutions as they stand. I mean, the filibuster has this sacrosanctity. The parliamentarian has this sacrosanctity when it comes to, when it comes to Democrats who are largely institutionalists. But the reality is, I mean, you and I.

both just explained it. Like, no voting rights legislation, really no progressive legislation will stand with the Supreme Court as it stands right now. And so everything, as it relates to the court, is foundational. But that's a big swing for a Democratic Party that will often let the smallest roadblock stand in their way when it comes to, you know, either upending some norm versus actually getting legislation through by any means necessary, a la Mitch McConnell. So what do you think about, you know, the stomach of this Democratic Party as we move forward to actually get some of this stuff done? Well, I think they have to have the stomach for it. I think the people that have the stomach for it are going to merge as the leaders of the party, particularly in 2028. There's no way

there's going to be a Democratic nominee for president who doesn't support strongly reforming the Supreme Court. This is not going to be Biden kind of flirting with Supreme Court reform. They're going to have to tackle this issue head on and understand that the Supreme Court is the greatest impediment to progressive politics in America right now. And so I think that the circumstances are changing in the Democratic Party. They understand that the court is going to just keep going further and further and further in terms of what they're going to do on the Voting Rights Act. I mean, just think about this, Brian. The Supreme Court gutted the heart of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 by ruling that states with long history of discrimination no longer had to approve their

voting changes with the federal government. But they said, oh, we're not touching that other part of the Voting Rights Act, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Then, eight years later, they severely weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and made it very hard to strike down discriminatory voting laws. Then, five years after that, they got the Voting Rights Act again and basically say that you can no longer police racial gerrymandering in redistricting, that you can no longer protect decades of advances for minority voters. So they're not stopping. The point is they're not moderating. Yeah, they moderate on some cases where the Federalist society opposes things that Trump does, like on tariffs. They're not even taking an anti-conservative

position. They're just taking a position where there are some factors of the Republican Party that don't like what Trump is doing. But when it comes to things like the advances of the civil rights movement, progressive policy is more broadly, this is a court that is extremely hostile to basically the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. And I don't know how you legislate against that other than changing the composition of the court itself. And it makes sense to do so. I mean, the first Supreme Court had six justices. There were six federal court circuits. After that, the court grew to seven when there was another court circuit that was added. So it has always been in line with the number of federal court circuits, but it stopped at nine. And now we have 13 federal court circuits. And so it

would make sense even unto itself. Like, if you want to defer to norms, this is actually the norm that the number of Supreme Court seats is compliant with a number of federal court circuits. Yeah. And of course, there are certain things that are built into the Constitution in terms of the Supreme Court. But there's lots of things that you could do that are different with the Supreme Court. There's also courts that function in other ways. I think we like to think that the Supreme Court, every court functions like the Supreme Court.

There are lots of state Supreme Courts that, for example, justices are elected. They have term limits. They have strict ethics codes. They're beholden to the public in ways that this current Supreme Court is not. And, I mean, you had a situation where the majority decision in Clay was written by Samuel Lillito. A night before that decision, he was at a Trump state dinner. This is a guy whose wife flew an insurrection flag. Okay?

I mean, there are a lot of red flags here in terms of just the actions of Alito, not to mention how Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett were put on the court in the first place, right? I mean, you have one justice who occupies a stolen seat, another justice who had a FBI investigation swept totally under the rug. Another justice who was confirmed eight days before the election when they blocked someone eight months before the election. I mean, so there's so many irregularities in terms of democratic norms that this court has been constituted. Not to mention then it's a product of a lot of anti-democratic actions. And then through its opinions, it then deepens the crisis and democracy by doing things like gutting the Voting Rights Act. All right. Your book is called

Minority Rule. It was an excellent read. But as we look at the moment that we're in right now, it's hard to feel like that exact phenomenon isn't being entrenched when you have a Republican party that despite its unpopularity, despite the fact that they're actually losing elections, when voters have the ability to vote directly on those representatives or on those candidates, we are seeing a consolidation of power on the right. And frankly, as we move forward, a lot of things have to go perfectly for the left. Like, the left has to get full control of government to be able to push anything forward. The left has to have a big enough margin that the filibuster is a limit.

Then the left has to have the stomach to do something that they've not had the stomach to do, which is to actually expand the court, to get it done, technically speaking, so that they can actually see this thing through. And then they have to pass this legislation, pass these processes to expand the court. So everything has to go perfectly. What level of confidence do you have, you know, as somebody who's been talking about the issue of minority rule for so long that in this subsequent Congress, if Democrats do have full control, they can get it done.

kind of stem this this title wave of anti-democratic authoritarian moves by a Republican Party that relies on entrenching minority rule. Well, there's going to have to be a lot of pressure on them to do so. And I take the example of the gerrymandering arms race. When Texas redrew its districts based on pressure from Trump, there was the expectation that Republicans would just go state by state by state and do this. And Democrats wouldn't be able to fight back because they were too invested in good government or they were too hamstrung by laws in their states and the fact that you had California fight back. You had Virginia fight back. I mean, that gave Democrats a spine. And things that seemed impossible suddenly became possible. And we need that same kind of thing here.

It's not just about winning elections and the Democratic Party is in a much better position to win elections in 2026 than they were before. But then it's following through on winning those elections. and that's why I think we need a popular movement to do this. And Supreme Court reform has to go beyond just the circle of good government types in Washington, D.C. and has to be a mobilizing issue for people, that whatever issue you care about, it is threatened by this current iteration of the Supreme Court. I do think that is happening more and more, though. Dobs really was a breaking point for a lot of people. There have been a series of decisions since Dobbs. I think the VRA decision has really crystallized the threat to democracy that we're facing. And so I think

more and more people care about reforming the Supreme Court, more and more people have a negative opinion of the Supreme Court, more and more people realize how nakedly partisan this court is. And I believe that democratic activists, the Democratic base, people in general just have to keep pushing Democratic leaders on this. Very rarely does change happen from the top in the Democratic Party. It happens with people pushing, and this is an issue that people are going to have to continue to push on. Look, you have been a champion for this issue for years and years and years before it was the thing that we're talking about right now. So highly recommend for everybody who's watching and listening. If you haven't yet had the opportunity to grab a copy of Minority Rule, I'm going to put that link right here on the screen and also in the post description.

If you're listening on the podcast, I'm going to throw it into the show notes. Ari, as always, thanks for the work you're doing. Thanks for taking the time today. Always great to talk to you, Brian. Keep up the great work as well. No Lie is sponsored by Better Help. May is Mental Health Awareness Month, a reminder that whatever you're going through, you don't have to go through it alone.

We're all human. Some days feel good, others feel overwhelming. Whatever's keeping you up at night, it's easy to feel like you have to figure it all out by yourself. But the truth is, no one has all the answers, and no journey should be alone. Having someone with you to listen, to understand, and to support you can make all the difference. That's where BetterHelp comes in. I trust BetterHelp because of their quality therapists.

BetterHelp therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the U.S. BetterHelp also has a therapist match commitment where they do the initial matching work for you so you can focus on your therapy goals. A short questionnaire helps identify your needs and preferences, and their more than 12 years of experience and industry-leading match fulfillment rate means they typically get it right the first time. If you aren't happy with your match, switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored recommendations. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over 6 million people globally.

And it works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. You don't have to be on this journey alone. Find support and have someone with you in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at BetterHelp.com slash no lie. That's BetterHELP.com slash no lie. I'm joined now by All Rise News as Adam Klasfeld. Adam, we have major news that's going to impact the entire country as it relates to Miffa Pristone, which is the abortion drug, which had been available by mail.

Can you explain what this ruling is? The Fifth Circuit, one of the most conservative judicial circuits in the country and all Republican panel, essentially blocked regulations by the Biden administration that made Mitha Pristone available to anyone by mail. through telemedicine. It essentially in pausing a regulation reverts to the old regulation where you had to arrive in person. And to give a little bit of perspective here, Mytha Pristone is used in two thirds of abortions in the United States. So this is a ruling with widespread nationwide ramifications. It's not only a ruling that in a case, this particular case was brought by Louisiana, but it doesn't

affect Louisiana only. It affects the whole country. So is there an impact on states, for example, where abortion is still legal? Does this just impact the states where abortion is illegal? I'm just trying to, like, suss out who's going to be most impacted here? Or is it everybody? And even if you're trying to order Miffa-Pristone via mail in California, you'll be impacted. That's exactly right, Brian. It affects the entire country because it reimposes the restrictions that the medication needs to be picked up in person. So if you're in a rural county in California and it's not so easy to go somewhere in person, or if you're a victim of domestic violence and you, it's not easy to go someplace where you have to go face to face with a doctor, and you don't

have the option as a result of this ruling to go by mail. So can you explain why, if this is a ruling that's contained within the Fifth Circuit, it has nationwide implications. Because this is a ruling that's attacking the underlying regulation, you had essentially the state of Louisiana filing a lawsuit in the wake of the Dobbs ruling, saying that Louisiana, for folks who don't know, has one of the most restrictive abortion bans that have been on the books since Roe v. Wade was overturned. So they sued, the state sued, to block access. to Mitha Pristone by mail, saying that that was being used to circumvent their ban. And this was a three-judge panel.

As I said earlier, it was a three-judge panel of all Republican appointees, two Trump appointees, written by a Trump appointee, and it was a unanimous ruling by that court. Now, how quickly do you anticipate there is going to be an appeal up to the U.S. Supreme Court? And the follow-up to that, is there anything that you can read from the tea leaves that might suggest where the U.S. Supreme Court's position is on this issue, other than the fact that this is a six-three ideologically aligned with the Republican Party bench full of justices who sit on the court? Well, I would expect this is going to be appealed quite quickly just because of the fact that as we went over this as nationwide impact, it's a major ruling that's going to affect the entire country. But as you said, this is a 6-3 ideologically aligned court. We've seen that in very recent rulings. In the Mitha-Pristone case in particular, we do have to remember it wasn't that long ago that there was a 9-0 ruling of the Supreme Court upholding access to Mitha-Pristone. But that particular legal challenge was thrown out on standing grounds. It was a ruling that was authored by Brett Kavanaugh. So it was a recent ruling where we could see, well, the court did preserve in that case access to the drug. But this is a very different set of facts.

This is the state bringing the case. In the other Supreme Court case, you had certain anti-abortion-oriented doctors challenging it, and they didn't have standing to go up against the FDA. It could be a very difficult, you know, I would. wouldn't bet on the courts to protect access to this drug right now, but we'll see what happens. It's hard to predict. Adam, what kind of an impact is this going to have on Americans who are seeking to exercise some autonomy over their reproductive rights? This is going to have a huge effect. This is a major victory for anti-abortion movement in the United States because it is a blow against access

to a drug used in two-thirds of abortions in the United States. And that percentage went up dramatically after the overturning of Roe versus Wade. So the impacts are going to be deep. If you live in a rural area, as I said a little bit earlier, if you're the victim of domestic violence and telemedicine is a way that you can avoid detection and abusive relationship. This is a type of thing where this ruling could have a dramatic impact. Is there any way to circumvent this ruling if, for example, you are a legislator or a governor in a blue state who recognizes the importance of making sure that women have access to this type of medication?

You know, one of the things that's interesting to note here is that I believe the Republicans understand that this is a very unpopular policy to restrict access to this. drug. This was something, and there's signs of it, even in this litigation, right now you have Trump's FDA doing a review of Mitha-Pristone, and undoubtedly this review by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Department of Health and Human Services, and within that, the FDA, is going to come up with some excuse to put some restrictions on this medication. But it is going to come up with some excuse to put some restrictions on this medication. But it's interesting because in this case, the Trump Department of Justice wanted to pause this litigation. We are in a midterm season. And it might be worth noting that

it's that perhaps the administration is slow walking this, trying to kick the can down the road because they understand that this is a political loser. Correct. And I mean, we have seen this on top of other political losers as of late, we have a failure to release the Epstein files, despite repeated calls by virtually everybody who makes up this administration in the campaign. We have seen an engagement in, you know, a degree of foreign adventurism that we haven't seen in quite a long time, including an ongoing war in Iran. And this is at the hands of people who beat their chess about no new foreign wars, no new wars in the Middle East. We also were told that this administration was going to be America first. Meanwhile, we've seen,

Medicaid cut from 17 million Americans. We've seen ACA subsidies cut from 24 million Americans. We've seen food assistance cut to the tune of 186 billion dollars. Thanks to Trump's trade war, the cost of everything has surge. We have gas now at its highest price in years, virtually at its highest price ever. And this administration keeps piling on this stuff onto Americans, which would be bad enough unto itself, but even worse, given the fact that they came into office under this pretext that they would be looking out for Americans. They would promote this America First Agenda. And we've got an administration full of people

who can't stop raising prices, can't stop taking health care away from people, can't stop taking food assistance away from people, can't stop siding with this criminal cabal of pedophiles. And this now would be just the latest iteration, the latest blow on top of all of that, where yet again, they're engaging in this political loser where they attack reproductive rights and abortion rights?

Absolutely. I mean, this could wind up being a dog that caught the car, that after succeeding in overturning Roe v. Wade, you have certain parts of the country that have supported Trump demanding policies that are vastly unpopular. And it seems like this is happening now. And I think that this case and the fact that this has, this ruling has been put out by one of the most conservative,

circuits in the country by a two Trump appointee, all conservative appointee panel. It really ratchets up the stakes. It casts things into stark relief. And people can see that potentially, at least on this issue, yes, this is going to be appealed very likely to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will have to issue a ruling. But the court might not particularly save action. access to this drug that is relied upon by people across the country. And so it shows the limits of

that and the importance of political engagement and engagement writ large. All right. One last question here, Adam. I want to take like a 30,000 foot view of this. Let's say the Democrats are able to retake the White House in the 2020-eat election, take office in 2009. We have a Democratic FDA administrator in place. Is there a world where this could be undone. This action could be rolled back if we have someone in that position who recognizes the importance of mail-in, Mifapristone, or abortion medication. Absolutely, Brian. I mean, if in that world that you're describing, we could have codified protections for abortion access. In that world that you're describing, one could have a different FDA there who are conducting

studies based on sound science that put together regulations that's based on that science rather than this pre-ordained conclusion. So that's a very different world. It's a very different set of facts and it's less dependent on what happens on a certain court on a certain day. All right. Well, we will, of course, stay on top of this issue. For those who are watching right now, if you're looking to support fearless independent media, there is no better outlet than All Rise News. That is Adams outlet. covers all of these legal ins and outs on a daily basis, on his own dime, often flying around the country.

So if you're looking, again, to support an independent media outlet that you can trust 100%. There's, again, no better choice than All Rise News. So I'm going to put that link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. Adam, as always, thanks so much for the time. Thank you so much, Brian. Thanks again to Gavin Newsom, Ari Berman, and Adam Klassfeld. That's it for this episode. Talk to you on Wednesday.

You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie, and interviews edited for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera. If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app and leave a five-star rating in a review. And as always, you can find me at Brian Tyler Cohen on all of my other channels,

or you can go to bryantarcoen.com to learn more.